34

CHAPTER 34.

THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION.


THE JEWISH TRIAL.

From Gethsemane the bound and captive Christ was haled before the Jewish
rulers. John alone informs us that the Lord was taken first to Annas,
who sent Him, still bound, to Caiaphas, the high priest;[1249] the
synoptists record the arraignment before Caiaphas only.[1250] No details
of the interview with Annas are of record; and the bringing of Jesus
before him at all was as truly irregular and illegal, according to
Hebrew law, as were all the subsequent proceedings of that night. Annas,
who was father-in-law to Caiaphas, had been deposed from the
high-priestly office over twenty years before; but throughout this
period he had exerted a potent influence in all the affairs of the
hierarchy.[1251] Caiaphas, as John is careful to remind us, "was he,
which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man
should die for the people."[1252]

At the palace of Caiaphas, the chief priests, scribes, and elders of the
people were assembled, in a meeting of the Sanhedrin, informal or
otherwise, all eagerly awaiting the result of the expedition led by
Judas. When Jesus, the object of their bitter hatred and their
predetermined victim, was brought in, a bound Prisoner, He was
immediately put upon trial in contravention of the law, both written and
traditional, of which those congregated rulers of the Jews professed to
be such zealous supporters. No legal hearing on a capital charge could
lawfully be held except in the appointed and official courtroom of the
Sanhedrin. From the account given in the fourth Gospel we infer that the
Prisoner was first subjected to an interrogative examination by the high
priest in person.[1253] That functionary, whether Annas or Caiaphas is a
matter of inference, inquired of Jesus concerning His disciples and His
doctrines. Such a preliminary inquiry was utterly unlawful; for the
Hebrew code provided that the accusing witnesses in any cause before the
court should define their charge against the accused, and that the
latter should be protected from any effort to make him testify against
himself. The Lord's reply should have been a sufficient protest to the
high priest against further illegal procedure. "Jesus answered him, I
spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the
temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said
nothing. Why askest thou me?--ask them which heard me, what I have said
unto them: behold, they know what I said." This was a lawful objection
against denying to a prisoner on trial his right to be confronted by his
accusers. It was received with open disdain; and one of the officers who
stood by, hoping perhaps to curry favor with his superiors, actually
struck Jesus a vicious blow,[1254] accompanied by the question,
"Answerest thou the high priest so?" To this cowardly assault the Lord
replied with almost superhuman gentleness:[1255] "If I have spoken evil,
bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?" Combined
with submissiveness, however, this constituted another appeal to the
principles of justice; if what Jesus had said was evil, why did not the
assailant accuse Him; and if He had spoken well, what right had a police
officer to judge, condemn, and punish, and that too in the presence of
the high priest? Law and justice had been dethroned that night.

"Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false
witness against Jesus, to put him to death."[1256] Whether "all the
council" means a legal quorum, which would be twenty-three or more, or a
full attendance of the seventy-two Sanhedrists, is of small importance.
Any sitting of the Sanhedrin at night, and more particularly for the
consideration of a capital charge, was directly in violation of Jewish
law. Likewise was it unlawful for the council to consider such a charge
on a Sabbath, a feast day, or on the eve of any such day. In the
Sanhedrin, every member was a judge; the judicial body was to hear the
testimony, and, according to that testimony and nought else, render a
decision on every case duly presented. The accusers were required to
appear in person; and they were to receive a preliminary warning against
bearing false witness. Every defendant was to be regarded and treated as
innocent until convicted in due course. But in the so-called trial of
Jesus, the judges not only sought witnesses, but specifically tried to
find false witnesses. Though many false witnesses came, yet there was no
"witness" or testimony against the Prisoner, for the suborned perjurers
failed to agree among themselves; and even the lawless Sanhedrists
hesitated to openly violate the fundamental requirement that at least
two concordant witnesses must testify against an accused person, for,
otherwise, the case had to be dismissed.

That Jesus was to be convicted on some charge or other, and be put to
death, had been already determined by the priestly judges; their failure
to find witnesses against Him threatened to delay the carrying out of
their nefarious scheme. Haste and precipitancy characterized their
procedure throughout; they had unlawfully caused Jesus to be arrested at
night; they were illegally going through the semblance of a trial at
night; their purpose was to convict the Prisoner in time to have Him
brought before the Roman authorities as early as possible in the
morning--as a criminal duly tried and adjudged worthy of death. The lack
of two hostile witnesses who would tell the same falsehoods was a
serious hindrance. But, "at the last came two false witnesses, and said,
This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build
it in three days." Others, however, testified: "We heard him say, I will
destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I
will build another made without hands."[1257] And so, as Mark observes,
even in this particular their "witness" or testimony did not agree.
Surely in a case at bar, such discrepancy as appears between "I am able
to" and "I will," as alleged utterances of the accused, is of vital
importance. Yet this semblance of formal accusation was the sole basis
of a charge against Christ up to this stage of the trial. It will be
remembered that in connection with the first clearing of the temple,
near the commencement of Christ's ministry, He had answered the
clamorous demand of the Jews for a sign of His authority by saying
"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." He spoke
not at all of Himself as the one who would destroy; the Jews were to be
the destroyers, He the restorer. But the inspired writer is particular
to explain that Jesus "spake of the temple of his body," and not at all
of those buildings reared by man.[1258]

One may reasonably inquire as to what serious import could be attached
to even such a declaration as the perjured witnesses claimed to have
heard from the lips of Christ. The veneration with which the Jews
professed to regard the Holy House, however wantonly they profaned its
precincts, offers a partial but insufficient answer. The plan of the
conspiring rulers appears to have been that of convicting Christ on a
charge of sedition, making Him out to be a dangerous disturber of the
nation's peace, an assailant of established institutions, and
consequently an inciter of opposition against the vassal autonomy of the
Jewish nation, and the supreme dominion of Rome.[1259]

The vaguely defined shadow of legal accusation produced by the dark and
inconsistent testimony of the false witnesses, was enough to embolden
the iniquitous court. Caiaphas, rising from his seat to give dramatic
emphasis to his question, demanded of Jesus: "Answerest thou nothing?
what is it which these witness against thee?" There was nothing to
answer. No consistent or valid testimony had been presented against Him;
therefore He stood in dignified silence. Then Caiaphas, in violation of
the legal proscription against requiring any person to testify in his
own case except voluntarily and on his own initiative, not only demanded
an answer from the Prisoner, but exercized the potent prerogative of the
high-priestly office, to put the accused under oath, as a witness before
the sacerdotal court. "And the high priest answered and said unto him, I
adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the
Christ, the Son of God."[1260] The fact of a distinct specification of
"the Christ" and "the Son of God" is significant, in that it implies the
Jewish expectation of a Messiah, but does not acknowledge that He was to
be distinctively of divine origin. Nothing that had gone before can be
construed as a proper foundation for this inquiry. The charge of
sedition was about to be superseded by one of greater enormity--that of
blasphemy.[1261]

To the utterly unjust yet official adjuration of the high priest, Jesus
answered: "Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you: Hereafter shall
ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in
the clouds of heaven." This expression "Thou hast said" was equivalent
to--I am what thou hast said.[1262] It was an unqualified avowal of
divine parentage, and inherent Godship. "Then the high priest rent his
clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of
witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They
answered and said, He is guilty of death."[1263]

Thus the judges in Israel, comprizing the high priest, the chief
priests, the scribes and elders of the people, the Great Sanhedrin,
unlawfully assembled, decreed that the Son of God was deserving of
death, on no evidence save that of His own acknowledgment. By express
provision the Jewish code forbade the conviction, specifically on a
capital charge, of any person on his own confession, unless that was
amply supported by the testimony of trustworthy witnesses. As in the
Garden of Gethsemane Jesus had voluntarily surrendered Himself, so
before the judges did He personally and voluntarily furnish the evidence
upon which they unrighteously declared Him deserving of death. There
could be no crime in the claim of Messiahship or divine Sonship, except
that claim was false. We vainly search the record for even an intimation
that inquiry was made or suggested as to the grounds upon which Jesus
based His exalted claims. The action of the high priest in rending his
garments was a dramatic affectation of pious horror at the blasphemy
with which his ears had been assailed. It was expressly forbidden in the
law that the high priest rend his clothes;[1264] but from
extra-scriptural writings we learn that the rending of garments as an
attestation of most grievous guilt, such as that of blasphemy, was
allowable under traditional rule.[1265] There is no indication that the
vote of the judges was taken and recorded in the precise and orderly
manner required by the law.

Jesus stood convicted of the most heinous offense known in Jewry.
However unjustly, He had been pronounced guilty of blasphemy by the
supreme tribunal of the nation. In strict accuracy we cannot say that
the Sanhedrists sentenced Christ to death, inasmuch as the power to
authoritatively pronounce capital sentences had been taken from the
Jewish council by Roman decree. The high-priestly court, however,
decided that Jesus was worthy of death, and so certified when they
handed Him over to Pilate. In their excess of malignant hate, Israel's
judges abandoned their Lord to the wanton will of the attendant varlets,
who heaped upon Him every indignity their brutish instincts could
suggest. They spurted their foul spittle into His face;[1266] and then,
having blindfolded Him, amused themselves by smiting Him again and
again, saying the while: "Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that
smote thee?" The miscreant crowd mocked Him, and railed upon Him with
jeers and taunts, and branded themselves as blasphemers in fact.[1267]

The law and the practise of the time required that any person found
guilty of a capital offense, after due trial before a Jewish tribunal,
should be given a second trial on the following day; and at this later
hearing any or all of the judges who had before voted for conviction
could reverse themselves; but no one who had once voted for acquittal
could change his ballot. A bare majority was sufficient for acquittal,
but more than a majority was required for conviction. By a provision
that must appear to us most unusual, if all the judges voted for
conviction on a capital charge the verdict was not to stand and the
accused had to be set at liberty; for, it was argued, a unanimous vote
against a prisoner indicated that he had had no friend or defender in
court, and that the judges might have been in conspiracy against Him.
Under this rule in Hebrew jurisprudence the verdict against Jesus,
rendered at the illegal night session of the Sanhedrists, was void, for
we are specifically told that "they all condemned him to be guilty of
death."[1268]

Apparently for the purpose of establishing a shadowy pretext of legality
in their procedure, the Sanhedrists adjourned to meet again in early
daylight. Thus they technically complied with the requirement--that on
every case in which the death sentence had been decreed the court should
hear and judge a second time in a later session--but they completely
ignored the equally mandatory provision that the second trial must be
conducted on the day following that of the first hearing. Between the
two sittings on consecutive days the judges were required to fast and
pray, and to give the case on trial calm and earnest consideration.

Luke, who records no details of the night trial of Jesus, is the only
Gospel-writer to give place to a circumstantial report of the morning
session. He says: "And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people
and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into
their council."[1269] Some Biblical scholars have construed the
expression, "led him into their council," as signifying that Jesus was
condemned by the Sanhedrin in the appointed meeting-place of the court,
viz. Gazith or the Hall of Hewn Stones, as the law of the time required;
but against this we have the statement of John that they led Jesus
directly from Caiaphas to the Roman hall of judgment.[1270]

It is probable, that at this early daylight session, the irregular
proceedings of the dark hours were approved, and the details of further
procedure decided upon. They "took counsel against Jesus to put him to
death"; nevertheless they went through the form of a second trial, the
issue of which was greatly facilitated by the Prisoner's voluntary
affirmations. The judges stand without semblance of justification for
calling upon the Accused to testify; they should have examined anew the
witnesses against Him. The first question put to Him was, "Art thou the
Christ? tell us." The Lord made dignified reply: "If I tell you, ye will
not believe: and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me
go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of
God." Neither did the question imply nor the answer furnish cause for
condemnation. The whole nation was looking for the Messiah; and if Jesus
claimed to be He, the only proper judicial action would be that of
inquiring into the merit of the claim. The crucial question followed
immediately: "Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye
say that I am. And they said, What need we any further witness? for we
ourselves have heard of his own mouth."[1271]

Jehovah was convicted of blasphemy against Jehovah. The only mortal
Being to whom the awful crime of blasphemy, in claiming divine
attributes and powers, was impossible, stood before the judges of Israel
condemned as a blasphemer. The "whole council," by which expression we
may possibly understand a legal quorum, was concerned in the final
action. Thus ended the miscalled "trial" of Jesus before the high-priest
and elders[1272] of His people. "And straightway in the morning the
chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the
whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him
to Pilate."[1273] During the few hours that remained to Him in
mortality, He would be in the hands of the Gentiles, betrayed and
delivered up by His own.[1274]


PETER'S DENIAL OF HIS LORD.[1275]

When Jesus was taken into custody in the Garden of Gethsemane, all the
Eleven forsook Him and fled. This is not to be accounted as certain
evidence of cowardice, for the Lord had indicated that they should
go.[1276] Peter and at least one other disciple followed afar off; and,
after the armed guard had entered the palace of the high priest with
their Prisoner, Peter "went in, and sat with the servants to see the
end." He was assisted in securing admittance by the unnamed disciple,
who was on terms of acquaintanceship with the high priest. That other
disciple was in all probability John, as may be inferred from the fact
that he is mentioned only in the fourth Gospel, the author of which
characteristically refers to himself anonymously.[1277]

While Jesus was before the Sanhedrists, Peter remained below with the
servants. The attendant at the door was a young woman; her feminine
suspicions had been aroused when she admitted Peter, and as he sat with
a crowd in the palace court she came up, and having intently observed
him, said: "Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee." But Peter denied,
averring he did not know Jesus. Peter was restless; his conscience and
the fear of identification as one of the Lord's disciples troubled him.
He left the crowd and sought partial seclusion in the porch; but there
another maid spied him out, and said to those nearby: "This fellow was
also with Jesus of Nazareth"; to which accusation Peter replied with an
oath: "I do not know the man."

The April night was chilly, and an open fire had been made in the hall
or court of the palace. Peter sat with others at the fire, thinking,
perhaps, that brazen openness was better than skulking caution as a
possible safeguard against detection. About an hour after his former
denials, some of the men around the fire charged him with being a
disciple of Jesus, and referred to his Galilean dialect as evidence that
he was at least a fellow countryman with the high priest's Prisoner;
but, most threatening of all, a kinsman of Malchus, whose ear Peter had
slashed with the sword, asked peremptorily: "Did not I see thee in the
garden with him?" Then Peter went so far in the course of falsehood upon
which he had entered as to curse and swear, and to vehemently declare
for the third time, "I know not the man." As the last profane falsehood
left his lips, the clear notes of a crowing cock broke upon his
ears,[1278] and the remembrance of his Lord's prediction welled up in
his mind. Trembling in wretched realization of his perfidious cowardice,
he turned from the crowd and met the gaze of the suffering Christ, who
from the midst of the insolent mob looked into the face of His boastful,
yet loving but weak apostle. Hastening from the palace, Peter went out
into the night, weeping bitterly. As his later life attests, his tears
were those of real contrition and true repentance.


CHRIST'S FIRST APPEARANCE BEFORE PILATE.

As we have already learned, no Jewish tribunal had authority to inflict
the death penalty; imperial Rome had reserved this prerogative as her
own. The united acclaim of the Sanhedrists, that Jesus was deserving of
death, would be ineffective until sanctioned by the emperor's deputy,
who at that time was Pontius Pilate, the governor, or more properly,
procurator, of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. Pilate maintained his
official residence at Caesarea,[1279] on the Mediterranean shore; but it
was his custom to be present in Jerusalem at the times of the great
Hebrew feasts, probably in the interest of preserving order, or of
promptly quelling any disturbance amongst the vast and heterogeneous
multitudes by which the city was thronged on these festive occasions.
The governor with his attendants was in Jerusalem at this momentous
Passover season. Early on Friday morning, the "whole council," that is
to say, the Sanhedrin, led Jesus, bound, to the judgment hall of Pontius
Pilate; but with strict scrupulosity they refrained from entering the
hall lest they become defiled; for the judgment chamber was part of the
house of a Gentile, and somewhere therein might be leavened bread, even
to be near which would render them ceremonially unclean. Let every one
designate for himself the character of men afraid of the mere proximity
of leaven, while thirsting for innocent blood!

In deference to their scruples Pilate came out from the palace; and, as
they delivered up to him their Prisoner, asked: "What accusation bring
ye against this man?" The question, though strictly proper and
judicially necessary, surprized and disappointed the priestly rulers,
who evidently had expected that the governor would simply approve their
verdict as a matter of form and give sentence accordingly; but instead
of doing so, Pilate was apparently about to exercize his authority of
original jurisdiction. With poorly concealed chagrin, their spokesman,
probably Caiaphas, answered: "If he were not a malefactor, we would not
have delivered him up unto thee." It was now Pilate's turn to feel or at
least to feign umbrage, and he replied in effect: Oh, very well; if you
don't care to present the charge in proper order, take ye him, and judge
him according to your law; don't trouble me with the matter. But the
Jews rejoined: "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death."

John the apostle intimates in this last remark a determination on the
part of the Jews to have Jesus put to death not only by Roman sanction
but by Roman executioners;[1280] for, as we readily may see, had Pilate
approved the death sentence and handed the Prisoner over to the Jews for
its infliction, Jesus would have been stoned, in accordance with the
Hebrew penalty for blasphemy; whereas the Lord had plainly foretold that
His death would be by crucifixion, which was a Roman method of
execution, but one never practised by the Jews. Furthermore, if Jesus
had been put to death by the Jewish rulers, even with governmental
sanction, an insurrection among the people might have resulted, for
there were many who believed on Him. The crafty hierarchs were
determined to bring about His death under Roman condemnation.

"And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting
the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he
himself is Christ a King."[1281] It is important to note that no
accusation of blasphemy was made to Pilate; had such been presented, the
governor, thoroughly pagan in heart and mind, would probably have
dismissed the charge as utterly unworthy of a hearing; for Rome with her
many gods, whose number was being steadily increased by current heathen
deification of mortals, knew no such offense as blasphemy in the Jewish
sense. The accusing Sanhedrists hesitated not to substitute for
blasphemy, which was the greatest crime known to the Hebrew code, the
charge of high treason, which was the gravest offense listed in the
Roman category of crimes. To the vociferous accusations of the chief
priests and elders, the calm and dignified Christ deigned no reply. To
them He had spoken for the last time--until the appointed season of
another trial, in which He shall be the Judge, and they the prisoners at
the bar.

Pilate was surprized at the submissive yet majestic demeanor of Jesus;
there was certainly much that was kingly about the Man; never before had
such a One stood before him. The charge, however, was a serious one; men
who claimed title to kingship might prove dangerous to Rome; yet to the
charge the Accused answered nothing. Entering the judgment hall, Pilate
had Jesus called.[1282] That some of the disciples, and among them
almost certainly John, also went in, is apparent from the detailed
accounts of the proceedings preserved in the fourth Gospel. Anyone was
at liberty to enter, for publicity was an actual and a widely proclaimed
feature of Roman trials.

Pilate, plainly without animosity or prejudice against Jesus, asked:
"Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this
thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?" The Lord's
counter-question, as Pilate's rejoinder shows, meant, and was understood
to mean, as we might state it: Do you ask this in the Roman and literal
sense--as to whether I am a king of an earthly kingdom--or with the
Jewish and more spiritual meaning? A direct answer "Yes" would have been
true in the Messianic sense, but untrue in the worldly signification;
and "No" could have been inversely construed as true or untrue. "Pilate
answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have
delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom
is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my
servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is
my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a
king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was
I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear
witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my
voice."

It was clear to the Roman governor that this wonderful Man, with His
exalted views of a kingdom not of this world, and an empire of truth in
which He was to reign, was no political insurrectionist; and that to
consider Him a menace to Roman institutions would be absurd. Those last
words--about truth--were of all the most puzzling; Pilate was restive,
and perhaps a little frightened under their import. "What is truth?" he
rather exclaimed in apprehension than inquired in expectation of an
answer, as he started to leave the hall. To the Jews without he
announced officially the acquittal of the Prisoner. "I find in him no
fault at all" was the verdict.

But the chief priests and scribes and elders of the people were
undeterred. Their thirst for the blood of the Holy One had developed
into mania. Wildly and fiercely they shrieked: "He stirreth up the
people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this
place." The mention of Galilee suggested to Pilate a new course of
procedure. Having confirmed by inquiry that Jesus was a Galilean, he
determined to send the Prisoner to Herod, the vassal ruler of that
province, who was in Jerusalem at the time.[1283] By this action Pilate
hoped to rid himself of further responsibility in the case, and
moreover, Herod, with whom he had been at enmity, might be placated
thereby.


CHRIST BEFORE HEROD.[1284]

Herod Antipas, the degenerate son of his infamous sire, Herod the
Great,[1285] was at this time tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and by
popular usage, though without imperial sanction, was flatteringly called
king. He it was who, in fulfilment of an unholy vow inspired by a
woman's voluptuous blandishments, had ordered the murder of John the
Baptist. He ruled as a Roman vassal, and professed to be orthodox in the
observances of Judaism. He had come up to Jerusalem, in state, to keep
the feast of the Passover. Herod was pleased to have Jesus sent to him
by Pilate; for, not only was the action a gracious one on the part of
the procurator, constituting as after events proved a preliminary to
reconciliation between the two rulers,[1286] but it was a means of
gratifying Herod's curiosity to see Jesus, of whom he had heard so much,
whose fame had terrified him, and by whom he now hoped to see some
interesting miracle wrought.[1287]

Whatever fear Herod had once felt regarding Jesus, whom he had
superstitiously thought to be the reincarnation of his murdered victim,
John the Baptist, was replaced by amused interest when he saw the
far-famed Prophet of Galilee in bonds before him, attended by a Roman
guard, and accompanied by ecclesiastical officials. Herod began to
question the Prisoner; but Jesus remained silent. The chief priests and
scribes vehemently voiced their accusations; but not a word was uttered
by the Lord. Herod is the only character in history to whom Jesus is
known to have applied a personal epithet of contempt. "Go ye and tell
that fox" He once said to certain Pharisees who had come to Him with the
story that Herod intended to kill Him.[1288] As far as we know, Herod is
further distinguished as the only being who saw Christ face to face and
spoke to Him, yet never heard His voice. For penitent sinners, weeping
women, prattling children, for the scribes, the Pharisees, the
Sadducees, the rabbis, for the perjured high priest and his obsequious
and insolent underling, and for Pilate the pagan, Christ had words--of
comfort or instruction, of warning or rebuke, of protest or
denunciation--yet for Herod the fox He had but disdainful and kingly
silence. Thoroughly piqued, Herod turned from insulting questions to
acts of malignant derision. He and his men-at-arms made sport of the
suffering Christ, "set him at nought and mocked him"; then in travesty
they "arrayed him in a gorgeous robe and sent him again to
Pilate."[1289] Herod had found nothing in Jesus to warrant condemnation.


CHRIST AGAIN BEFORE PILATE.[1290]

The Roman procurator, finding that he could not evade further
consideration of the case, "called together the chief priests and the
rulers and the people," and "said unto them, Ye have brought this man
unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having
examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those
things whereof ye accuse him; No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him;
and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore
chastise him, and release him." Pilate's desire to save Jesus from death
was just and genuine; his intention of scourging the Prisoner, whose
innocence he had affirmed and reaffirmed, was an infamous concession to
Jewish prejudice. He knew that the charge of sedition and treason was
without foundation; and that even the framing of such an accusation by
the Jewish hierarchy, whose simulated loyalty to Caesar was but a cloak
for inherent and undying hatred, was ridiculous in the extreme; and he
fully realized that the priestly rulers had delivered Jesus into his
hands because of envy and malice.[1291]

It was the custom for the governor at the Passover season to pardon and
release any one condemned prisoner whom the people might name. On that
day there lay in durance, awaiting execution, "a notable prisoner,
called Barabbas," who had been found guilty of sedition, in that he had
incited the people to insurrection, and had committed murder. This man
stood convicted of the very charge on which Pilate specifically and
Herod by implication had pronounced Jesus innocent, and Barabbas was a
murderer in addition. Pilate thought to pacify the priests and people by
releasing Jesus as the subject of Passover leniency; this would be a
tacit recognition of Christ's conviction before the ecclesiastical
court, and practically an endorsement of the death sentence, superseded
by official pardon. Therefore he asked of them: "Whom will ye that I
release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?" There
appears to have been a brief interval between Pilate's question and the
people's answer, during which the chief priests and elders busied
themselves amongst the multitude, urging them to demand the release of
the insurrectionist and murderer. So, when Pilate reiterated the
question: "Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you?"
assembled Israel cried "Barabbas." Pilate, surprized, disappointed, and
angered, then asked: "What shall I do then with Jesus which is called
Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the governor
said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying,
Let him be crucified."

The Roman governor was sorely troubled and inwardly afraid. To add to
his perplexity he received a warning message from his wife, even as he
sat on the judgment seat: "Have thou nothing to do with that just man:
for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him."
Those who know not God are characteristically superstitious. Pilate
feared to think what dread portent his wife's dream might presage. But,
finding that he could not prevail, and foreseeing a tumult among the
people if he persisted in the defense of Christ, he called for water and
washed his hands before the multitude--a symbolic act of disclaiming
responsibility, which they all understood--proclaiming the while: "I am
innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it." Then rose that
awful self-condemnatory cry of the covenant people: "His blood be on us
and on our children." History bears an appalling testimony to the
literal fulfilment of that dread invocation.[1292] Pilate released
Barabbas, and gave Jesus into the custody of the soldiers to be
scourged.

Scourging was a frightful preliminary to death on the cross. The
instrument of punishment was a whip of many thongs, loaded with metal
and edged with jagged pieces of bone. Instances are of record in which
the condemned died under the lash and so escaped the horrors of living
crucifixion. In accordance with the brutal customs of the time, Jesus,
weak and bleeding from the fearful scourging He had undergone, was given
over to the half-savage soldiers for their amusement. He was no ordinary
victim, so the whole band came together in the Pretorium, or great hall
of the palace, to take part in the diabolical sport. They stripped Jesus
of His outer raiment, and placed upon Him a purple robe.[1293] Then with
a sense of fiendish realism they platted a crown of thorns, and placed
it about the Sufferer's brows; a reed was put into His right hand as a
royal scepter; and, as they bowed in a mockery of homage, they saluted
Him with: "Hail, King of the Jews!" Snatching away the reed or rod, they
brutally smote Him with it upon the head, driving the cruel thorns into
His quivering flesh; they slapped Him with their hands, and spat upon
Him in vile and vicious abandonment.[1294]

Pilate had probably been a silent observer of this barbarous scene. He
stopped it, and determined to make another attempt to touch the springs
of Jewish pity, if such existed. He went outside, and to the multitude
said: "Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no
fault in him." This was the governor's third definite proclamation of
the Prisoner's innocence. "Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of
thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the
man!"[1295] Pilate seems to have counted on the pitiful sight of the
scourged and bleeding Christ to soften the hearts of the maddened Jews.
But the effect failed. Think of the awful fact--a heathen, a pagan, who
knew not God, pleading with the priests and people of Israel for the
life of their Lord and King! When, unmoved by the sight, the chief
priests and officers cried with increasing vindictiveness, "crucify him,
crucify him," Pilate pronounced the fatal sentence, "Take ye him and
crucify him," but added with bitter emphasis: "I find no fault in him."

It will be remembered that the only charge preferred against Christ
before the Roman governor was that of sedition; the Jewish persecutors
had carefully avoided even the mention of blasphemy, which was the
offense for which they had adjudged Jesus worthy of death. Now that
sentence of crucifixion had been extorted from Pilate, they brazenly
attempted to make it appear that the governor's mandate was but a
ratification of their own decree of death; therefore they said: "We have
a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son
of God." What did it mean? That awe-inspiring title, Son of God, struck
yet deeper into Pilate's troubled conscience. Once more he took Jesus
into the judgment hall, and in trepidation asked, "Whence art thou?" The
inquiry was as to whether Jesus was human or superhuman. A direct avowal
of the Lord's divinity would have frightened but could not have
enlightened the heathen ruler; therefore Jesus gave no answer. Pilate
was further surprized, and perhaps somewhat offended at this seeming
disregard of his authority. He demanded an explanation, saying:
"Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to
crucify thee, and have power to release thee?" Then Jesus replied: "Thou
couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from
above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."
The positions were reversed; Christ was the Judge, and Pilate the
subject of His decision. Though not found guiltless, the Roman was
pronounced less culpable than he or those who had forced Jesus into his
power, and who had demanded of him an unrighteous committal.

The governor, though having pronounced sentence, yet sought means of
releasing the submissive Sufferer. His first evidence of wavering was
greeted by the Jews with the cry, "If thou let this man go, thou art not
Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar."
Pilate took his place in the judgment seat, which was set up in the
place of the Pavement, or Gabbatha, outside the hall. He was resentful
against those Jews who had dared to intimate that he was no friend of
Caesar, and whose intimation might lead to an embassy of complaint being
sent to Rome to misrepresent him in exaggerated accusation. Pointing to
Jesus, he exclaimed with unveiled sarcasm: "Behold your King!" But the
Jews answered in threatening and ominous shouts: "Away with him, away
with him, crucify him." In stinging reminder of their national
subjugation, Pilate asked with yet more cutting irony, "Shall I crucify
your King?" And the chief priests cried aloud: "We have no king but
Caesar."

Even so was it and was to be. The people who had by covenant accepted
Jehovah as their King, now rejected Him in Person, and acknowledged no
sovereign but Caesar. Caesar's subjects and serfs have they been through
all the centuries since. Pitiable is the state of man or nation who in
heart and spirit will have no king but Caesar![1296]

Wherein lay the cause of Pilate's weakness? He was the emperor's
representative, the imperial procurator with power to crucify or to
save; officially he was an autocrat. His conviction of Christ's
blamelessness and his desire to save Him from the cross are beyond
question. Why did Pilate waver, hesitate, vacillate, and at length yield
contrary to his conscience and his will? Because, after all, he was more
slave than freeman. He was in servitude to his past. He knew that should
complaint be made of him at Rome, his corruption and cruelties, his
extortions and the unjustifiable slaughter he had caused would all be
brought against him. He was the Roman ruler, but the people over whom he
exercized official dominion delighted in seeing him cringe, when they
cracked, with vicious snap above his head, the whip of a threatened
report about him to his imperial master, Tiberius.[1297]


JUDAS ISCARIOT.[1298]

When Judas Iscariot saw how terribly effective had been the outcome of
his treachery, he became wildly remorseful. During Christ's trial before
the Jewish authorities, with its associated humiliation and cruelty, the
traitor had seen the seriousness of his action; and when the unresisting
Sufferer had been delivered up to the Romans, and the fatal consummation
had become a certainty, the enormity of his crime filled Judas with
nameless horror. Rushing into the presence of the chief priests and
elders, while the final preparations for the crucifixion of the Lord
were in progress, he implored the priestly rulers to take back the
accursed wage they had paid him, crying in an agony of despair: "I have
sinned, in that I have betrayed the innocent blood." He may have vaguely
expected a word of sympathy from the conspirators in whose wickedly
skilful hands he had been so ready and serviceable a tool; possibly he
hoped that his avowal might stem the current of their malignancy, and
that they would ask for a reversal of the sentence. But the rulers in
Israel repulsed him with disgust. "What is that to us?" they sneered,
"see thou to that." He had served their purpose; they had paid him his
price; they wished never to look upon his face again; and pitilessly
they flung him back into the haunted blackness of his maddened
conscience. Still clutching the bag of silver, the all too real
remembrancer of his frightful sin, he rushed into the temple,
penetrating even to the precincts of priestly reservation, and dashed
the silver pieces upon the floor of the sanctuary.[1299] Then, under the
goading impulse of his master, the devil, to whom he had become a
bond-slave, body and soul, he went out and hanged himself.

The chief priests gathered up the pieces of silver, and in sacrilegious
scrupulosity, held a solemn council to determine what they should do
with the "price of blood." As they deemed it unlawful to add the
attainted coin to the sacred treasury, they bought with it a certain
clay-yard, once the property of a potter, and the very place in which
Judas had made of himself a suicide; this tract of ground they set apart
as a burial place for aliens, strangers, and pagans. The body of Judas,
the betrayer of the Christ, was probably the first to be there interred.
And that field was called "Aceldama, that is to say, The field of
blood."[1300]


NOTES TO CHAPTER 34.

1. Annas, and His Interview with Jesus.--"No figure is better known in
contemporary Jewish history than that of Annas; no person deemed more
fortunate or successful, but also none more generally execrated than the
late high priest. He had held the pontificate for only six or seven
years; but it was filled by not fewer than five of his sons, by his
son-in-law Caiaphas, and by a grandson. And in those days it was, at
least for one of Annas' disposition, much better to have been than to be
high priest. He enjoyed all the dignity of the office, and all its
influence also, since he was able to promote to it those most closely
connected with him. And while they acted publicly, he really directed
affairs, without either the responsibility or the restraints which the
office imposed. His influence with the Romans he owed to the religious
views which he professed, to his open partisanship of the foreigner, and
to his enormous wealth.... We have seen what immense revenues the family
of Annas must have derived from the Temple booths, and how nefarious and
unpopular was the traffic. The names of those bold, licentious,
unscrupulous, degenerate sons of Aaron were spoken with whispered
curses. Without referring to Christ's interference with that
Temple-traffic, which, if His authority had prevailed, would of course
have been fatal to it, we can understand how antithetic in every respect
a Messiah, and such a Messiah as Jesus, must have been to Annas.... No
account is given of what passed before Annas. Even the fact of Christ's
being first brought to him is only mentioned in the fourth Gospel. As
the disciples had all forsaken Him and fled, we can understand that they
were in ignorance of what actually passed, till they had again rallied,
at least so far, that Peter and 'another disciple', evidently John,
'followed Him into the palace of the high priest'--that is, into the
palace of Caiaphas, not of Annas. For as, according to the three
synoptic Gospels, the palace of the high priest Caiaphas was the scene
of Peter's denial, the account of it in the fourth Gospel must refer to
the same locality, and not to the palace of Annas."--Edersheim, _Life
and Times of Jesus the Messiah_; vol. 2, pp. 547-8.

2. Christ's Forbearance when Smitten.--That Jesus maintained His
equanimity and submissiveness even under the provocation of a blow dealt
by a brutish underling in the presence of the high priest, is
confirmatory of our Lord's affirmation that He had "overcome the world"
(John 16:33). One cannot read the passage without comparing, perhaps
involuntarily, the divine submissiveness of Jesus on this occasion, with
the wholly natural and human indignation of Paul under somewhat similar
conditions at a later time (Acts 23:1-5). The high priest Ananias,
displeased at Paul's remarks, ordered someone who stood by to smite him
on the mouth. Paul broke forth in angry protest: "God shall smite thee,
thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and
commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?" Afterward he
apologized, saying that he knew not that it was the high priest who had
given the command that he be smitten. See _Articles of Faith_, xxiii,
II, and Note 1 following the same lecture; and Farrar's _Life and Works
of St. Paul_, pp. 539-540.

3. High Priests and Elders.--These titles as held by officials of the
Jewish hierarchy in the time of Christ must not be confused with the
same designations as applied to holders of the Higher or Melchizedek
Priesthood. The high priest of the Jews was the presiding priest; he had
to be of Aaronic descent to be a priest at all; he became high priest by
Roman appointment. The elders, as the name indicates, were men of mature
years and experience, who were appointed to act as magistrates in the
towns, and as judges in the ecclesiastical tribunals, either in the
Lesser Sanhedrins of the provinces, or in the Great Sanhedrin at
Jerusalem. The term "elder" as commonly used among the Jews in the days
of Jesus had no closer relation to eldership in the Melchizedek
Priesthood than had the title "scribe". The duties of Jewish high
priests and elders combined both ecclesiastical and secular functions;
indeed both offices had come to be in large measure political
perquisites. See "Elder" in Smith's _Bible Dictionary_. From the
departure of Moses to the coming of Christ, the organized theocracy of
Israel was that of the Lesser or Aaronic Priesthood, comprizing the
office of priest, which was confined to the lineage of Aaron, and the
lesser offices of teacher and deacon, which were combined in the
Levitical order. See "Orders and Offices in the Priesthood" by the
author in _The Articles of Faith_, xi:13-24.

4. Illegalities of the Jewish Trial of Jesus.--Many volumes have been
written on the so-called trial of Jesus. Only a brief summary of the
principal items of fact and law can be incorporated here. For further
consideration reference may be made to the following treatments:
Edersheim, _Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah_; Andrews, _Life of Our
Lord_; Dupin, _Jesus before Caiaphas and Pilate_; Mendelsohn, _Criminal
Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews_; Salvador, _Institutions of
Moses_; Innes, _The Trial of Jesus Christ_; Maimonides, _Sanhedrin_; MM.
Lemann, _Jesus before the Sanhedrin_; Benny, _Criminal Code of the
Jews_; and Walter M. Chandler, of the New York Bar, _The Trial of Jesus
from a Lawyer's Standpoint_. The last named is a two volume work
treating respectively, "The Hebrew Trial" and "The Roman Trial", and
contains citations from the foregoing and other works.

Edersheim (vol. 2, pp. 556-8) contends that the night arraignment of
Jesus in the house of Caiaphas was not a trial before the Sanhedrin, and
notes the irregularities and illegalities of the procedure as proof that
the Sanhedrin could not have done what was done that night. With ample
citations in corroboration of the legal requirements specified, the
author says: "But besides, the trial and sentence of Jesus in the palace
of Caiaphas would have outraged every principle of Jewish criminal law
and procedure. Such causes could only be tried, and capital sentence
pronounced, in the regular meeting-place of the Sanhedrin, not, as here,
in the high priest's palace; no process, least of all such an one, might
be begun in the night, nor even in the afternoon, although if the
discussion had gone on all day, sentence might be pronounced at night.
Again, no process could take place on Sabbaths or feast-days, or even on
the eves of them, although this would not have nullified proceedings;
and it might be argued on the other side, that a process against one who
had seduced the people should preferably be carried on, and sentence
executed, on public feast-days, for the warning of all. Lastly, in
capital causes there was a very elaborate system of warning, and
cautioning witnesses; while it may safely be affirmed that at a regular
trial Jewish judges, however prejudiced, would not have acted as the
Sanhedrists and Caiaphas did on this occasion.... But although Christ
was not tried and sentenced in a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin, there
can, alas! be no question that His condemnation and death were the work,
if not of the Sanhedrin, yet of the Sanhedrists--of the whole body of
them ('all the council') in the sense of expressing what was the
judgment and purpose of all the supreme council and leaders of Israel,
with only very few exceptions. We bear in mind that the resolution to
sacrifice Christ had for some time been taken."

The purpose in quoting the foregoing is to show on acknowledged and
eminent authority, some of the illegalities of the night trial of Jesus,
which, as shown by the above, and by the scriptural record, was
conducted by the high priest and "the council" or Sanhedrin, in
admittedly irregular and unlawful manner. If the Sanhedrists tried and
condemned, yet were not in session as the Sanhedrin, the enormity of the
proceeding is, if possible, deeper and blacker than ever.

In Chandler's excellent work (vol. I, "The Hebrew Trial"), the record of
fact in the case, and the Hebrew criminal law bearing thereon are
exhaustively considered. Then follows an elaborate "Brief", in which the
following points are set forth in order.

"_Point 1: The Arrest of Jesus was illegal_", since it was effected by
night, and through the treachery of Judas, an accomplice, both of which
features were expressly forbidden in the Jewish law of that day.

"_Point 2: The private examination of Jesus before Annas or Caiaphas was
illegal_"; for (1) it was made by night; (2) the hearing of any cause by
a 'sole judge' was expressly forbidden; (3) as quoted from Salvador, 'A
principle perpetually reproduced in the Hebrew scriptures relates to the
two conditions of publicity and liberty.'

"_Point 3: The indictment against Jesus was, in form, illegal._ 'The
entire criminal procedure of the Mosaic code rests upon four rules:
certainty in the indictment; publicity in the discussion; full freedom
granted to the accused; and assurance against all dangers or errors of
testimony'--Salvador, p. 365. 'The Sanhedrin did not and could not
originate charges; it only investigated those brought before
it'--Edersheim, vol. I, p. 309. 'The evidence of the leading witnesses
constituted the charge. There was no other charge; no more formal
indictment. Until they spoke and spoke in the public assembly, the
prisoner was scarcely an accused man,'--Innes, p. 41. 'The only
prosecutors known to Talmudic criminal jurisprudence are the witnesses
to the crime. Their duty is to bring the matter to the cognizance of the
court, and to bear witness against the criminal. In capital cases they
are the legal executioners also. Of an official accuser or prosecutor
there is nowhere any trace in the laws of the ancient Hebrews.'--
Mendelsohn, p. 110.

"_Point 4: The proceedings of the Sanhedrin against Jesus were illegal
because they were conducted at night._ 'Let a capital offense be tried
during the day, but suspend it at night,'--Mishna, Sanhedrin 4:1.
'Criminal cases can be acted upon by the various courts during daytime
only, by the Lesser Sanhedrions from the close of the morning service
till noon, and by the Great Sanhedrion till evening.'--Mendelsohn, p.
112.

"_Point 5: The proceedings of the Sanhedrin against Jesus were illegal
because the court convened before the offering of the morning
sacrifice._ 'The Sanhedrin sat from the close of the morning sacrifice
to the time of the evening sacrifice,'--Talmud, Jer. San. 1:19. 'No
session of the court could take place before the offering of the morning
sacrifice'.--MM. Lemann, p. 109. 'Since the morning sacrifice was
offered at the dawn of day, it was hardly possible for the Sanhedrin to
assemble until the hour after that time,'--Mishna, Tamid, ch. 3.

"_Point 6: The proceedings against Jesus were illegal because they were
conducted on the day preceding a Jewish Sabbath; also on the first day
of unleavened bread and the eve of the Passover._ 'They shall not judge
on the eve of the Sabbath nor on that of any festival.'--Mishna, San.
4:1. 'No court of justice in Israel was permitted to hold sessions on
the Sabbath or any of the seven Biblical holidays. In cases of capital
crime, no trial could be commenced on Friday or the day previous to any
holiday, because it was not lawful either to adjourn such cases longer
than over night, or to continue them on the Sabbath or holiday.'--Rabbi
Wise, 'Martyrdom of Jesus', p. 67.

"_Point 7: The trial of Jesus was illegal because it was concluded
within one day._ 'A criminal case resulting in the acquittal of the
accused may terminate the same day on which the trial began. But if a
sentence of death is to be pronounced, it cannot be concluded before the
following day.'--Mishna, San. 4:1.

"_Point 8: The sentence of condemnation pronounced against Jesus by the
Sanhedrin was illegal because it was founded upon His uncorroborated
confession._ 'We have it as a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence
that no one can bring an accusation against himself. Should a man make
confession of guilt before a legally constituted tribunal, such
confession is not to be used against him unless properly attested by two
other witnesses,'--Maimonides, 4:2. 'Not only is self-condemnation never
extorted from the defendant by means of torture, but no attempt is ever
made to lead him on to self-incrimination. Moreover, a voluntary
confession on his part is not admitted in evidence, and therefore not
competent to convict him, unless a legal number of witnesses minutely
corroborate his self-accusation.'--Mendelsohn, p. 133.

"_Point 9: The condemnation of Jesus was illegal because the verdict of
the Sanhedrin was unanimous._ 'A simultaneous and unanimous verdict of
guilt rendered on the day of the trial has the effect of an
acquittal.'--Mendelsohn, p. 141. 'If none of the judges defend the
culprit, i.e., all pronounce him guilty, having no defender in the
court, the verdict of guilty was invalid and the sentence of death could
not be executed.'--Rabbi Wise, 'Martyrdom of Jesus', p. 74.

"_Point 10: The proceedings against Jesus were illegal in that: (1) The
sentence of condemnation was pronounced in a place forbidden by law; (2)
The high priest rent his clothes; (3) The balloting was irregular._
'After leaving the hall Gazith no sentence of death can be passed upon
any one soever,'--Talmud, Bab. 'Of Idolatry' 1:8. 'A sentence of death
can be pronounced only so long as the Sanhedrin holds its sessions in
the appointed place.'--Maimonides, 14. See further Levit. 21:10; compare
10:6. 'Let the judges each in his turn absolve or condemn.'--Mishna,
San. 15:5. 'The members of the Sanhedrin were seated in the form of a
semicircle, at the extremity of which a secretary was placed, whose
business it was to record the votes. One of these secretaries recorded
the votes in favor of the accused, the other those against
him.'--Mishna, San. 4:3. 'In ordinary cases the judges voted according
to seniority, the oldest commencing; in a capital case the reverse order
was followed.'--Benny, p. 73.

"_Point 11: The members of the Great Sanhedrin were legally disqualified
to try Jesus._ 'Nor must there be on the judicial bench either a
relation or a particular friend, or an enemy of either the accused or of
the accuser.'--Mendelsohn, p. 108. 'Nor under any circumstances was a
man known to be at enmity with the accused person permitted to occupy a
position among the judges.'--Benny, p. 37.

"_Point 12: The condemnation of Jesus was illegal because the merits of
the defense were not considered._ 'Then shalt thou enquire, and make
search, and ask diligently.'--Deut. 13:14. 'The judges shall weigh the
matter in the sincerity of their conscience.'--Mishna, San. 4:5. 'The
primary object of the Hebrew judicial system was to render the
conviction of an innocent person impossible. All the ingenuity of the
Jewish legists was directed to the attainment of this end.'--Benny, p.
56."

Chandler's masterly statements of fact and his arguments on each of the
foregoing points are commended to the investigator. The author tersely
avers: "The pages of human history present no stronger case of judicial
murder than the trial and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, for the
simple reason that all forms of law were outraged and trampled under
foot in the proceedings instituted against Him." (p. 216.)

5. "His Blood be on us, and on Our Children."--Edersheim (vol. 2, p.
578) thus forcefully comments on the acknowledgment of responsibility
for the death of Christ: "The Mishna tells us that, after the solemn
washing of hands of the elders and their disclaimer of guilt, priests
responded with this prayer: 'Forgive it to thy people Israel, whom thou
hast redeemed, O Lord, and lay not innocent blood upon thy people
Israel.' But here, in answer to Pilate's words, came back that deep,
hoarse cry: 'His blood be upon us,' and--God help us!--'on our
children.' Some thirty years later, and on that very spot, was judgment
pronounced against some of the best in Jerusalem; and among the 3,600
victims of the governor's fury, of whom not a few were scourged and
crucified right over against the Pretorium, were many of the noblest of
the citizens of Jerusalem. (Josephus, Wars, xiv, chap. 8:9). A few years
more, and hundreds of crosses bore Jewish mangled bodies within sight of
Jerusalem. And still have these wanderers seemed to bear, from century
to century, and from land to land, that burden of blood; and still does
it seem to weigh 'on us and on our children'."

6. "We Have no King but Caesar."--"With this cry Judaism was, in the
person of its representatives, guilty of denial of God, of blasphemy, of
apostasy. It committed suicide; and ever since has its dead body been
carried in show from land to land, and from century to century,--to be
dead and to remain dead, till He come a second time, who is the
resurrection and the life."--Edersheim, vol. 2, p. 581.

7. The Underlying Cause of Pilate's Surrender to the Jewish
Demands.--Pilate knew what was right but lacked the moral courage to do
it. He was afraid of the Jews, and more afraid of hostile influence at
Rome. He was afraid of his conscience, but more afraid of losing his
official position. It was the policy of Rome to be gracious and
conciliatory in dealing with the religions and social customs of
conquered nations. Pontius Pilate had violated this liberal policy from
the early days of his procuratorship. In utter disregard of the Hebrew
antipathy against images and heathen insignia, he had the legionaries
enter Jerusalem at night, carrying their eagles and standards decorated
with the effigy of the emperor. To the Jews this act was a defilement of
the Holy City. In vast multitudes they gathered at Caesarea, and
petitioned the procurator that the standards and other images be removed
from Jerusalem. For five days the people demanded and Pilate refused. He
threatened a general slaughter, and was amazed to see the people offer
themselves as victims of the sword rather than relinquish their demands.
Pilate had to yield (Josephus, Ant. xviii, chap. 3:1; also Wars, ii,
chap. 9:2, 3). Again he gave offense in forcibly appropriating the
Corban, or sacred funds of the temple, to the construction of an
aqueduct for supplying Jerusalem with water from the pools of Solomon.
Anticipating the public protest of the people, he had caused Roman
soldiers to disguise themselves as Jews; and with weapons concealed to
mingle with the crowds. At a given signal these assassins plied their
weapons and great numbers of defenceless Jews were killed or wounded
(Josephus, Ant. xviii, chap. 3:2; and Wars, ii, chap. 9:3, 4). On
another occasion, Pilate had grossly offended the people by setting up
in his official residence at Jerusalem, shields that had been dedicated
to Tiberius, and this "less for the honor of Tiberius than for the
annoyance of the Jewish people." A petition signed by the ecclesiastical
officials of the nation, and by others of influence, including four
Herodian princes, was sent to the emperor, who reprimanded Pilate and
directed that the shields be removed from Jerusalem to Caesarea (Philo.
De Legatione ad Caium; sec. 38).

These outrages on national feeling, and many minor acts of violence,
extortion and cruelty, the Jews held against the procurator. He realized
that his tenure was insecure, and he dreaded exposure. Such wrongs had
he wrought that when he would have done good, he was deterred through
cowardly fear of the accusing past.

8. Judas Iscariot.--Today we speak of a traitor as a "Judas" or an
"Iscariot". The man who made the combined name infamous has been for
ages a subject of discussion among theologians and philosophers, and in
later times the light of psychological analysis has been turned upon
him. German philosophers were among the earliest to assert that the man
had been judged in unrighteousness, and that his real character was of
brighter tint than that in which it had been painted. Indeed some
critics hold that of all the Twelve Judas was the one most thoroughly
convinced of our Lord's divinity in the flesh; and these apologists
attempt to explain the betrayal as a deliberate and well-intended move
to force Jesus into a position of difficulty from which He could escape
only by the exercize of His powers of Godship, which, up to that time,
He had never used in His own behalf.

We are not the invested judges of Judas nor of any other; but we are
competent to frame and hold opinions as to the actions of any. In the
light of the revealed word it appears that Judas Iscariot had given
himself up to the cause of Satan while ostensibly serving the Christ in
an exalted capacity. Such a surrender to evil powers could be
accomplished only through sin. The nature and extent of the man's
transgressions through the years are not told us. He had received the
testimony that Jesus was the Son of God; and in the full light of that
conviction he turned against his Lord, and betrayed Him to death. Modern
revelation is no less explicit than ancient in declaring that the path
of sin is that of spiritual darkness leading to certain destruction. If
the man who is guilty of adultery, even in his heart only, shall, unless
he repents, surely forfeit the companionship of the Spirit of God, and
"shall deny the faith", and so the voice of God hath affirmed (see Doc.
and Cov. 63:16), we cannot doubt that any and all forms of deadly sin
shall poison the soul and, if not forsaken through true repentance,
shall bring that soul to condemnation. For his trained and skilful
servants, Satan will provide opportunities of service commensurate with
their evil ability. Whatever the opinion of modern critics as to the
good character of Judas, we have the testimony of John, who for nearly
three years had been in close companionship with him, that the man was a
thief (12:6); and Jesus referred to him as a devil (6:70), and as "the
son of perdition" (17:12). See in this connection Doc. and Cov.
76:41-48.

That the evil proclivities of Judas Iscariot were known to Christ is
evidenced by the Lord's direct statement that among the Twelve was one
who was a devil; (John 6:70; compare 13:27; Luke 22:3); and furthermore
that this knowledge was His when the Twelve were selected is suggested
by the words of Jesus: "I know whom I have chosen", coupled with the
explanation that in the choice He had made would the scriptures be
fulfilled. As the sacrificial death of the Lamb of God was foreknown and
foretold so the circumstances of the betrayal were foreseen. It would be
contrary to both the letter and spirit of the revealed word to say that
the wretched Iscariot was in the least degree deprived of freedom or
agency in the course he followed to so execrable an end. His was the
opportunity and privilege common to the Twelve, to live in the light of
the Lord's immediate presence, and to receive from the source divine the
revelation of God's purposes. Judas Iscariot was no victim of
circumstances, no insensate tool guided by a superhuman power, except as
he by personal volition gave himself up to Satan, and accepted a wage in
the devil's employ. Had Judas been true to the right, other means than
his perfidy would have operated to bring the Lamb to the slaughter. His
ordination to the apostleship placed him in possession of opportunity
and privilege above that of the uncalled and unordained; and with such
blessed possibility of achievement in the service of God came
corresponding capability to fall. A trusted and exalted officer of the
government can commit acts of treachery and treason such as are
impossible to the citizen who has never learned the secrets of State.
Advancement implies increased accountability, even more literally so in
the affairs of God's kingdom than in the institutions of men.

There is an apparent discrepancy between the account of Judas Iscariot's
death given by Matthew (27:3-10) and that in Acts (1:16-20). According
to the first, Judas hanged himself; the second states that he fell
headlong, "and all his bowels gushed out." If both records be accurate,
the wretched man probably hanged himself, and afterward fell, possibly
through the breaking of the cord or the branch to which it was attached.
Matthew says the Jewish rulers purchased the "field of blood"; the
writer of the Acts quotes Peter as saying that Judas bought the field
with the money he had received from the priests. As the ground was
bought with the money that had belonged to Iscariot, and as this money
had never been formally taken back by the temple officials, the field
bought therewith belonged technically to the estate of Judas. The
variations are of importance mainly as showing independence of
authorship. The accounts agree in the essential feature, that Judas died
a miserable suicide.

Concerning the fate of the "sons of perdition," the Lord has given a
partial but awful account through a revelation dated February 16, 1832:
"Thus saith the Lord, concerning all those who know my power, and have
been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves, through the power
of the devil, to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my
power--They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that
it had been better for them never to have been born, For they are
vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and
his angels in eternity; Concerning whom I have said there is no
forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come, Having denied the
Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only
Begotten Son of the Father--having crucified him unto themselves and put
him to an open shame. These are they who shall go away into the lake of
fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels, And the only ones on
whom the second death shall have any power.... Wherefore, he saves all
except them: they shall go away into everlasting punishment, which is
endless punishment, which is eternal punishment, to reign with the devil
and his angels in eternity, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is
not quenched, which is their torment; And the end thereof, neither the
place thereof, nor their torment, no man knows. Neither was it revealed,
neither is, neither will be revealed unto man, except to them who are
made partakers thereof: Nevertheless I, the Lord, show it by vision unto
many, but straightway shut it up again: Wherefore the end, the width,
the height, the depth, and the misery thereof, they understand not,
neither any man except them who are ordained unto this condemnation."--
Doc. and Cov. 76:31-37, 44-48.