substantiate or invent a charge against him, than this attempt to put a forced construction on his words; upon words, too, which had been uttered at least three years before. Perhaps, also, the evangelists may have been directed, to record this portion of the evidence against the Holy One and Just, for the purpose of reminding us, at this, the season of his greatest depression, that his prescience was divine. Indeed, at this period of the proceedings, we can almost imagine our persecuted Saviour to have looked round, with a benignly expressive countenance, upon the disciple whom he loved, and who, with wavering faith, but undiminished affection, was standing near, that he might, at once, impress these words more deeply on his mind, and might cheer his heart by the reflection, that, if, according to the declaration of one of the prophets, the Messiah was now about to be cut off*, yet, according to the prediction of another, God would not leave his soul in hell, nor suffer his Holy One to see corruption. + (3) .. Hitherto, it had been the object of the leading members of the Sanhedrim, by the misrepresentation of some fact, or the misinterpretation of some expression, to establish an accusation against * Dan. ix. 26. + Psalm xvi. 10. our Lord, which might, at the same time, excite the jealousy of the Romans, and exasperate the prejudices of the Jews. Gladly would they have seduced the blessed Jesus into a personal altercation, or a polemical discussion. It was with feelings of angry disappointment that Caiaphas stood up in the midst, and asked him, saying, Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee? * But the Lord Jesus, undoubtedly, was well aware of their purpose; and, therefore, with that dignity of demeanour, and propriety of conduct, which never, for a moment, deserted him, he held his peace, and answered nothing. Upon this, the high priest, assuming the authority of his sacred office, had recourse to a measure, by which his prisoner would be compelled to answer. Art thou, said he, the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? I adjure thee, by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.† (4) The answer to such an adjuration, was considered to be on oath; and silence on the part of the person adjured, was regarded as a mark of contumacious disrespect to the awful name of Jehovah. Our Lord, therefore, no longer persevered in his silence, but answered at once, and unequivocally, in the affirmative: Thou hast said. I am. I am.* Nay, as if to prevent the possibility of mistake, he immediately applied to himself a well known prophecy of Danielt, and added: "Nevertheless, I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. You now see the Messiah, as the Son of man; the time is nigh at hand, when he shall be manifested as the Son of God: you now behold him in weakness; you shall soon be made to experience his strength: you are now bearing part in his predicted humiliation; you shall soon witness his predicted glory." Then, the high priest, transgressing the law for which he was counterfeiting a zeal, did what the high priest was forbidden to do, he rent his clothes (5): 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.+ By comparing the evangelical narratives, it would appear, that the Sanhedrim (all the chief * Matt. xxvi. 64. Mark, xiv. 62. Matt. xxvi. 65. priests and elders of the people) now held a consultation, as to the best method for carrying their sentence of condemnation into effect. A difficulty would naturally present itself. If, acting on the Jewish law, they sentenced him for blasphemy, his death would be that of stoning, but then, it would be unlawful to execute it, during the paschal week. If, on the other hand, they were merely to accuse him of blasphemy to the Roman governor, he would refuse to take cognizance of the affair. It was possible, however, in another way, to avail themselves of our Lord's confession. He had professed himself to be the Messiah. Now, if the Messiah, he must be, not only the Son of God, but, also, the King of the Jews; and if the King of the Jews, then a rebel to Cesar. Thus, acting upon their own construction of his words, we shall presently see, that, while they sought to agitate the Jewish rabble, by charging him with blasphemy, the accusation which they actually preferred against him, before Pontius Pilate, was that of treason. But, whatever were the inferences which they thought proper to deduce, the fact simply was, that they had nothing to allege against him; and that, in either case, he was condemned for bearing witness to the truth, namely, that he was the long-expected Messiah. Meantime, the blessed Jesus was removed from their presence, and carried to a lower part of the hall. And here, while the rulers were fulfilling the Scriptures*, by taking counsel against the Lord, and against his anointed,.. the very abjects were, unconsciously, doing the same, by gathering themselves together, and rejoicing in his adversity.† While the former were, without a cause, digging a pit for his soul, and speaking against him with a lying tongue‡, the latter were compassing him about, with words of hatred. § And He, too, while he admitted to the Sanhedrim that he was no less a person that IMMANUEL, God with us, now, according to the words of prophecy, gave his back to the smiters, and his cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; he did not hide his face from shame and spitting. ¶ (6) Then, the betrayers and persecutors held Jesus, bound as he was, and mocked him, and smote him. And some began to spit on his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy**; and the servants did strike him *Psalm ii. 2. Psalm xxxv. 7. + Psalm xxxv. 15. Mark, xiv. 65. Matt. xxvi. 68. Isaiah, vii. 14. ** Luke, xxii. 63-65. |