confessed over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat; and sent him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness; and the goat bore upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited. Similarly, the high priests concerned in this trial were, in the exercise of an analogous function, pronouncing sin to be upon the head of the Victim before he was led forth to crucifixion. 2. The second stage of the Jewish trial. The second stage of the Jewish trial consisted of an informal investigation before Caiaphas and a committee or commission of the Sanhedrim. In order that a conviction might be obtained, it was necessary to secure two witnesses at least to depose to some definite charge. But while the testimony of some was irrelevant, that of others was self-contradic- tory. At length two volunteered to testify in the case. For this testimony, such as it was they were obliged to travel back over a period of some three years. Then, fixing on certain words of our Lord at the first Passover after entering on his public ministry, in reference to the temple, they either misunderstood them, or misinterpreted and conse- quently misrepresented them. The words in question were constructed into contempt of the temple ; this contempt, if fully proved, would have constituted a capital charge, just as, in the case of the protomartyr Stephen, the charge was that he ceased not to speak “ blasphemous words against this holy place and the Law.” But this charge was not sub- stantiated ; the evidence broke down in consequence of the disagreement of the witnesses. Our Lord had said, “ Destroy (Adeare) this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (yep) a word quite suitable to resurrection, but no way appropriate to rebuilding); “ but he spake of the temple of his body.” One of the witnesses perverted this into, “I will destroy (kaTaavcw) this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build (oixedoujow) another made without hands ” (ch. xiv. 58); the other testified, “T can destroy (Sdvaucs karadtoa) the temple of God, and build (eixodoufjoa:) it in three days” (Matt. xxvi. 61). Accordingly, St. Mark adds, “ Neither so did their witness agree.” What our Lord had spoken in a figurative sense they applied literally; for wpraising they substituted building ; what was really a promise they twisted into a threat; if they themselves destroyed their temple, he promised replacement. The temple had long been distinguished by the Shechinah glory or visible presence of Jehovah, yet was doomed to destruction; the human body of Jesus, in which dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily, when raised up would supersede the inhabitation of God in the literal temple. 8. Pretence of legality. What now can the members of the Sanhedrim present on this occasion do? They wish to keep up the semblance of law and justice, but the evidence has signally failed. The condemnation of Jesus is a foregone conclusion, in whatever way it is to be effected, and still the appearance of legality must be main- tained. A clever thought occurs to the mind of the high priest, and in default of evidence he resorts to the desperate expedient of causing Jesus to criminate himself, Accordingly, standing up into the midst (es uécov), and thus passing from his seat to some conspicuous position, as St. Mark graphically describes it, he adjured Jesus most solemnly to declare if he were indeed the Messiah, that is, “ the Christ, the son of the Blessed,” viz. if he claimed to be not only the expected Messiah, but also to be a Divine person—theSonandequalof God. Whereupon followed the avowal by which hecriminated himself, and gave ground of condemnation. Though he had acknowledged the confession of Peter to the same effect, and even commended it ; though he had accepted the same or an equivalent title on the occasion of his public entry into Jerusalem, he had not as yet publicly claimed it. Now, however, he avowed it in the most public manner, in the presence of the high priest and members of council. According to St. Mark, this avowal was expressed by “I am;” according to St. Matthew by “Thou hast said;” while in St. Luke’s report of the third Jewish trial, the two are combined with a triflin variation, namely, “ Ye say that lam.” 4. Hypocrisy in high places. If our Lord h remained silent, they would have probably charged him with imposture; now that he confessed his Messiahship and future exaltation, they proceeded to condemn him for blas- phemy. The council sought nothing further; they wanted only evidence against him —something to inculpate, not to exculpate, him. They did not wish to hear the grounds of his claim ; they wanted no explanation. With the Jews the setting up of a claim to any Divine attribute was regarded as blasphemy; the claim of Christ, according to their opinion of him, came under the Mosaic law of blasphemy. And now the hypocrisy of the high priest is something shocking. As the highest ecclesiastical functionary of the
} \
oH. xv. I—47.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. 333