By Johann Peter Lange
Edited by Rev. Marcus Dods
THE HISTORICAL DELINEATION OF THE LIFE OF JESUS.
THE TIME OF JESUS APPEARING AND DISAPPEARING AMID THE PERSECUTIONS OF HIS MORTAL ENEMIES.
SECTION XXXVII
the definite resolution of the
Sanhedrim to put Jesus to death.
the abode of Jesus in retirement
at the town of Ephraim, until
his going up to celebrate the
last Passover
(Joh 11:47-57)
The impression which the raising
of Lazarus made at Bethany upon
the Jews of Jerusalem who were
present was great, and
productive of decided results.
Many were unable to resist this
testimony to the divinity of
Jesus’ mission: they became
believers in Jesus, and went
back to Jerusalem testifying on
His behalf. But not even was
this miracle able to break the
obstinacy of Judicial feeling in
the minds of all. It is true, no
one could deny the fact of the
miracle; nevertheless, the
manner in which many conveyed
the tidings to the Pharisees
indicated a hostile tone of
mind. The Evangelist
distinguishes these in a marked
manner from those who had become
believers.
The tidings occasioned forthwith
a meeting of the Sanhedrim. The
Evangelist gives us a glimpse
into the council-chamber. The
discussion commences with
expressions of utter
helplessness. ‘What are we to
do?’ they ask one another. That
something must be done, seems to
them clear; ‘for this man (they
say) doeth many signs.’ It does
not occur to them that these
many signs infer on their part
the obligation to believe. In
spite of those many signs, nay,
precisely on account of them,
they consider it to be necessary
now to put Him out of the way.
And, in truth, for political
considerations, for ‘reasons of
state.’ ‘If we let Him alone’
(they say), ‘then all will
believe in Him; and thus the
Romans will come and take from
us our seat of empire and our
imperial people.’1 Every one of
these positions was a piece of
gross inconsideration working in
the service of a sham policy.
But now there raised his voice
in the college a man who with
great haughtiness expressed his
opinion as to how the matter was
to be dealt with,-the high
priest Caiaphas, the
father-in-law of Annas. He was
‘the high priest of that year,’
says John, probably with a
similar allusion to expressions
current with the people to that
which repeatedly occurs in his
Gospel.2 The orthodox public
probably held in secret by the
legitimate high priest Annas,
who had been deposed, while it
chose to designate his
successors, named by the caprice
of Rome, with bitter irony as
‘the high priest of this or that
year,’ because they followed so
quickly one upon another.3
Caiaphas reprimanded his
helpless colleagues in no mild
terms. ‘Ye know nothing at all.
Ye do not consider that it is
advisable for us that one man
should die for the laity, in
order that the whole people of
God’ (including the priests)4
‘perish not.’
The opinion thus, expressed was
in its meaning and purpose a
nefarious proposal founded on
the principle that the end
sanctifies the means. Under the
plea that the welfare of the
nation imperatively required it,
Jesus was to be sacrificed to
their vindictive hatred. This
same sentence, however, admitted
of being viewed in a higher
sense, as an expression of that
doctrine of salvation which
teaches that the death of One is
deliverance for all.
To the Evangelist, therefore,
this opinion which Caiaphas
expressed, seemed in the highest
degree noteworthy. It had a
singular double aspect, of
individual private malignity
aiming to seduce into crime on
the one side, and of the
consecration of an office both
priestly and prophetic on the
other. Therefore John makes the
observation, ‘This he said not
of himself; but because he was
the high priest of that year, he
prophesied, for Jesus was to die
for the people; but not for the
people’ (of Israel) ‘alone, but
also that He might gather
together into one the children
of God who’ (as Gentiles in the
Gentile world) ‘formed a vast
dispersion.’
The high priests carried in
their breastplate Urim and
Thummim, Lights and Rights;
i.e., their breastplate was the
highest symbol of the scope of
their office, and consequently
also of its dignity, and in
especial of their call, in the
ordinary contingencies of the
theocracy, to announce God’s
light and right; in doctrine and
discipline to utter, as occasion
required, the word of decision.
In this particular of their
function they were identical
with the prophets. Consciously
or unconsciously, they declared
the right (jus) of God.5 Even if
their judgments did not in the
sense of human duty hit the
right, yet they behoved still in
the sense of Divine Providence,
to bring forth the right, the
predestined. From the better of
them it might be expected, that
on the solemn occasion of their
pronouncing a sentence of
decision, they would with the
deepest feeling of earnestness
recollect themselves, and that
thus, with the help of the
prayers offered by the truly
devout among the people, they
would reach the elevation of
prophets, and become sacred and
self-conscious organs to which
the Spirit of God might entrust
a genuine utterance of God. But
even the worst of them in such
cases could not help, though
unconsciously, uttering some
oracle in which a secret of
Divine Providence betrayed
itself. For if in their own
personal volition they at this
time were minded to yield
themselves organs of the spirit
of malignity, yet it was at that
precise crisis in the affairs of
the theocracy when the counsel
of God was on the point of
condemning the sins of men by
means of their last, most
decisive sin; of bringing to
nought the purposes of malignity
by means of a masterstroke of
malignity; of bringing forth out
of their seeming triumph their
overthrow, out of the seeming
downfall of what was good
educing a salvation beyond all
anticipation. And this twofold
aspect of their high-priestly
action could not fail then also,
unconsciously to themselves, to
come forth into view in the form
of their solemn judgments. The
double-aspect of their life and
the double-aspect of their doing
could not but show its impress
in the double-aspect of their
word. An irony of the divine
justice mocking at the
unprincipled contradiction in
their life lay couched in the
fact, that they nevertheless
were compelled to express a
sentence out of the secrets of
God, whilst in their own moral
consciousness they were making
themselves prophets of Satan.6
This phenomenon might very well
occur in Israel more frequently
about this time, when the ‘high
priests of the year’ made their
appearance, mere creatures of
the Romans, who often owed their
elevation to the high priest’s
chair to motives of a very
worldly character. In them the
symbolical high-priesthood
appeared in its deepest
deterioration, in its lowest
features; while the essential
high-priesthood, the eternal in
contrast with the
high-priesthood of the year, had
already begun to develop its
spirit and its life. Now
Caiaphas was just the man in
whom the self-dissolution of the
symbolical high-priesthood might
be expected to perfect itself.
And the very sentence which he
now uttered in the Sanhedrim we
may regard as the word decisive
of this self-dissolution.7 As
the high priest of that decisive
year, he prophesied as was
suitable to such a position of
anti-high-priest as he held.
According to his subjective
consciousness, he prophesied as
an organ of Satan—as a Moloch’s
priest, who advised to offer a
violent sacrifice of a man for
the deliverance of the people.
Thereby he had, according to the
legislation of Israel, not only
distinctly and absolutely
forfeited his office and life,
but also desecrated and
disgraced the symbolical
high-priesthood itself. But as
the officially constituted high
priest of Israel, he
unconsciously prophesied out of
the spirit of his office, which
for the last time was now
hovering around him in its most
exalted character with a
distinct influence over the
framing of his expressions; so
that, viewed in the luminous
aspect which was given to it by
the course of Divine Providence,
it became an expression of the
New Testament doctrine of
atonement—an unconscious
announcement of the atonement.
He pointed to a new, real
sacrifice, the sacrifice of a
human life, which alone could
bring deliverance to the people.
Thereby before God, according to
the theocratic law, the
symbolical high-priesthood was
extinguished, and the priestly
dignity transferred from the
high priest of the year to the
eternal High Priest, who was now
prepared to give up His own life
as a sacrifice for the people.
In this double shape, his
sentence became an ironical
utterance, in which the
sovereignty of Divine Providence
over the miserable obduracy
under which he laboured, might
be seen to mirror itself. ‘For
the true purpose of annihilating
Jesus was through His
death—which was here resolved
upon, and which in another sense
than Caiaphas meant proved a
death of One for the
people—utterly frustrated;
inasmuch as Jesus by His death
overcame death, and established
His kingdom. And the coming of
the Romans, which was pleaded as
a pretext, was not averted, but,
on the contrary, according to
the divine judgment (Deu 28:49
ff.), was brought about simply
through the rejection of the
Anointed One.’8
The sentence of Caiaphas found
concurrence with most of the
members of the Sanhedrim. There
were, it is true, individual
adherents of Jesus in the
college who kept from joining,
in this decision.9 But after the
first utterances to this effect,
they would hardly dare to suffer
themselves to be seen in the
assembly under its present
fanatical excitement. From this
time there took place repeated
deliberations, which tended to
the conclusion of bringing the
Lord to trial upon some capital
charge.
Jesus soon learnt how matters
stood. He knew that now He could
not any more make His appearance
in public without drawing upon
Him His execution. No doubt, at
this time His enemies would have
been very glad to get rid of Him
as quickly and as secretly as
possible. But to Jesus Himself
it was a clear point, that He
should die in the midst of His
people, and, in fact, at the
rapidly approaching Passover. He
knew what the slaughtering of
the Passover-lamb signified for
Him. He therefore considered it
necessary to withdraw Himself
for the present from the
treacherous designs of His
enemies, and to wait for the
pilgrim-train going up to the
Passover, in order then to
attach Himself thereto. With
this view He betook Himself with
His disciples to the town of
Ephraim, which lay several hours
north of Jerusalem by Bethel, in
the vicinity of the desert of
Judea. He here lived in
retirement, in the midst of an
agreeable and fruitful district,
which, by lonely and deserted
valleys, and by bare stony
heights, offering lofty views of
far-distant scenery, was
connected with the neighbouring
rocky range called the
Quarantana. Here He might pass
the days undisturbed amongst a
small circle of intimate
disciples and friends, or else
as a lonely anchorite in the
wilderness. He was able thus
both to withdraw Himself from
the reach of His enemies, and at
the same time, through the great
road to Galilee which passed
near, to remain in connection
with His larger community of
disciples and with the people.
In addition to this, He had here
a quiet watch-tower, on which He
could wait for the Passover
pilgrim-train from Galilee, and
it may be also from Perea, which
came above Jericho, to go out to
meet it when the proper time
should arrive.
But He had not many more days
left for this retirement. That
the feast of the Passover was
near, might be seen in the
advanced detachments preceding
the proper pilgrim-trains which
already were beginning to flock
onward in considerable numbers.
These ordinarily consisted of
persons who had to attend to a
sacrifice of purification in the
temple: they had already at
their own homes obtained from
the priests a preliminary
absolution from some form of
Levitical defilement which they
had incurred; but they needed,
according to the prescription of
the law, to have such absolution
solemnly sealed in the temple.
In this way they would qualify
themselves to take part in the
general celebration of the
Passover by the whole people.
These pilgrims of the Passover,
however, seemed to busy
themselves more with Jesus and
the issue of His cause than with
the rites of their purification.
Knots of them would stand
together in the temple,
expressing their anxious
expectation whether He would
come to the feast or not; and
the apprehension that He would
not come was also expressed, as
it should seem, in a very lively
manner. It is very conceivable,
that among these purified
persons there were some who had
been relieved of leprosy by the
miraculous help of Jesus. At all
events, their tone of feeling
seems to have been friendly to
the Lord. But, however, His
enemies likewise were looking
out for Him with the utmost
excitement of feeling. They had,
therefore, already issued an
order, that any one who knew
where He was staying should
report it, in order that He
might be apprehended. Amidst
this excitement of men’s minds
it was that the decisive feast
of the Passover drew on.
───♦───
Notes
The differences in the
determination of the position of
Ephraim, which we find between
Jerome and Eusebius in ancient
times, and again recently
between (e.g.) K. von Raumer and
Ebrard (see Ebrard, p. 360,
note), evidently, at least in
the case of the moderns, who do
not hold by the simple
statements of geographers,
proceed from a presumption of
mistaken exegesis; namely, the
following, that Jesus in going
from Ephraim must have proceeded
to Jerusalem in a direct
continuous route through
Jericho. But there is no
sufficient ground for
maintaining this. On the
contrary, it plainly appears
from the course of the Gospel
narrative, that Jesus, from His
asylum near the wilderness,
i.e., from Ephraim, went as far
as the city of Jericho to meet
the pilgrim-train, and that
after joining it He then
journeyed to Jerusalem. Ephraim
surely lay not far from Bethel,
since it is more than once in
the statement of historical
occurrences mentioned in
connection with Bethel. (See K.
V. Raumer’s Palestine, p. 187.)
In respect to the site of
Bethel, Robinson (i. 449)
believes that he recognized it
in the ruins of Beitīn. ‘Bethel
(he says) was a border city
between Benjamin and Ephraim; at
first assigned to Benjamin, but
conquered and afterwards
retained by Ephraim. According
to Eusebius and Jerome it lay
twelve Roman miles from
Jerusalem, on the right or east
of the road leading to Sichem or
Neapolis (Nābulus). From Beitīn
to el-Bireh we found the
distance to be forty-five
minutes, and from Bireh to
Jerusalem three hours, with
horses. The correspondence
therefore in the situation is
very exact; and the name affords
decisive confirmation. The
Arabic termination īn for the
Hebrew el is not an unusual
change.’ In this neighbourhood
Robinson finds the proper
hill-country of Ephraim, ‘about
el-Bireh, and farther north.’
Not far from Bethel, eastward,
Robinson passed a night in the
village of Taiyibeh. Here the
vicinity of the desert was
plainly marked. ‘Two or three
nights before, robbers had
entered the village and stolen
several sheep. The desert
towards the Dead Sea was said to
be full of them’ (i. 446). Sepp
(iii. 153) is disposed to
discover in this el-Taiyibeh the
site of the ancient Ephraim. And
yet, according to the passages
which he has himself quoted,
Ephraim lay in the valley, while
Taiyibeh ‘crowns a conical hill’
(Robinson, p. 444). What Sepp
adduces from Jewish writings
respecting the extraordinary
fertility of Ephraim certainly
suits the neighbourhood of
Bethel (comp. Robinson, i.
444-447). If we look for Ephraim
eastward of Bethel (as we are
induced to do by the notice of
Josephus (De Bello Jud., iv. 9,
9), according to which Vespasian,
marching from Cesarea into the
hill-country, first took
possession of the toparchies of
Gophna and Acrabatene, then of
the little towns of Bethel and
Ephraim, and then betook himself
towards Jerusalem), we approach
the foot of the rocky hills
which run out from the rocky
mountain-range of Quarantana by
Jericho in a north-eastwardly
direction (see Robinson, i.
555). As far back as in the
neighbourhood of Taiyibeh we
find beginnings of the desert;
e.g., a ravine ‘overgrown with
heath-like plants and with sage,
intermingled with the fragrant
Za’ter’ (see Robinson, i. 444).
A description of the desert
itself as seen between Jericho
and Taiyibeh, see in i. 572.
|
|
1) Comp. 2 Mace. v. 19, and Lücke, ii. p. 481. Even if ὁ τόπος is to be understood of the temple, yet in this connection it appears as the type of the city and country of the holy people, the locality of God s heritage. Comp. Heb. xi. 8. There is an intimate mutual relation between τὸ ἔθνος and ὁ τόπος. The first denotes the people, the second the district merely, in the highest sense, i.e., the imperial people, and the seat of empire. 2) See John iv. 5; John iv. 43; John y, 2, with the author's remarks upon these passages, These and similar indications, showing the intimate conversancy of the fourth Evangelist with the popular life of the Jews at the time of Christ, throw ridicule upon the pitiable enterprise of the sham ‘criticism’? which will fain make the Gospel come into being in the post-apostolic period. On the expression now Lefore us, ef. Schweizer’s Das Evany. Joh. p. 178. 3) Josephus relates (Antiq. xviii. 2, 2) that Valerfus Gratus, the fifth governor of Judea, took the high-priesthood from Ananus (Annas) and transferred it to Isumael; that soon after he set Ismael aside and made Eleazar, Ananus’ son, his successor; that a year after he made another change, and now Simon became high priest; that when Simon had been a year in office, he compelled him to resign it in favour of Josephins surnamed Caiaphas. It is manifest how easily such desecrations of the pontificate might give rise among the Jews to the derisive appellation, The High Priest of the year. And although Caiaphas served the office for a longer time, in fact during the whole period of our Lord’s ministry (see Wieseler, p. 184), yet St John might very well have continued to give him the designation, originating at first in the popular indignation, on account of its inward significancy, 4) The first is λαός, the second ἔθνος. 5) Compare Lücke, ii, p. 486. 6) It is a general truth, that the highest schemes of the satin ic spirit upon earth are, under God s permission and guidance, ever overruled to bring on a decisive overthrow of evil, an especial furtherance of the kingdom of God. But most especially is this the case when the highest officials in the external institutions of that kingdom convert themselves into servants of the kingdom of darkness. And this cannot fail, in that case, to be marked also in sentences which they formally and officially pronounce. 7) See Ebrard, 359. 8) So Ebrard, ut supra. 9) See Luke xxiii. 50, 51
|