BOOK V a St. John xviii. 29, 30 b St. Luke xxiii. 2 CHAPTER XIV. THE MORNING OF GOOD FRIDAY. (St. Matt. xxvii. 1, 2, 11-14; St. Mark xv. 1-5; St. Luke xxiii. 1-5; St. John xviii. 2838; St. Luke xxiii. 6-12; St. Matt. xxvii. 3-10; St. Matt. xxvii. 15-18; St. Mark xv. 6-10; St. Luke xxiii. 13-17; St. John xviii. 39, 40; St. Matt. xxvii. 19; St. Matt. xxvii. 20-31; St. Mark xv. 11-20; St. Luke xxiii. 18-25; St. John xix. 1-16.) THE pale grey light had passed into that of early morning, when the Sanhedrists once more assembled in the Palace of Caiaphas.' A comparison with the terms in which they who had formed the gathering of the previous night are described will convey the impression, that the number of those present was now increased, and that they who now came belonged to the wisest and most influential of the Council. It is not unreasonable to suppose, that some who would not take part in deliberations which were virtually a judicial murder might, once the resolution was taken, feel in Jewish casuistry absolved from guilt in advising how the informal sentence might best be carried into effect. It was this, and not the question of Christ's guilt, which formed the subject of deliberation on that early morning. The result of it was to 'bind' Jesus and hand Him over as a malefactor to Pilate, with the resolve, if possible, not to frame any definite charge; but, if this became necessary, to lay all the emphasis on the purely political, not the religious aspect of the claims of Jesus.b2 a To us it may seem strange, that they who, in the lowest view of it, had committed so grossly unrighteous, and were now coming on so cruel and bloody a deed, should have been prevented by religious scruples from entering the 'Prætorium.' And yet the student of Jewish casuistry will understand it; nay, alas, history and even common observation furnish only too many parallel instances of unscrupulous scrupulosity and unrighteous conscientiousness. Alike This is so expressly stated in St. John xviii. 28, that it is difficult to understand whence the notion has been derived that the Council assembled in their ordinary council-chamber. 2 Comp. St. Matt. xxvii. 1 with xxvi. 59, where the words' and elders' must be struck out; and St. Mark xv. 1 with xiv. 55. THE SANHEDRISTS' FEAR OF DEFILEMENT. 565 CHAP. XIV conscience and religiousness are only moral tendencies natural to man; whither they tend, must be decided by considerations outside of them by enlightenment and truth.' The Prætorium,' to which the Jewish leaders, or at least those of them who represented the leaders for neither Annas nor Caiaphas seem to have been personally present-brought the bound Christ, was (as always in the provinces) the quarters occupied by the Roman Governor. In Cæsarea this was the Palace of Herod, and there St. Paul was afterwards a prisoner. But in Jerusalem there were two such quarters: the fortress Antonia, and the magnificent Palace of Herod at the north-western angle of the Upper City. Although it is impossible to speak with certainty, the balance of probability is entirely in favour of the view that, when Pilate was in Jerusalem with his wife, he occupied the truly royal abode of Herod, and not the fortified barracks of Antonia. From the slope at the eastern angle, opposite the Temple-Mount, where the Palace of Caiaphas stood, up the narrow streets of the Upper City, the melancholy procession wound to the portals of the grand Palace of Herod. It is recorded, that they who brought Him would not themselves enter the portals of the Palace, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.' Few expressions have given rise to more earnest controversy than this. On two things at least we can speak with certainty. Entrance into a heathen house did Levitically render impure for that day—that is, till the evening.3 This is clearly attested both in the New Testament a and in the Mishnah. A person who had so become Levitically unclean was technically called Tebhul Yom (bathed of the day'). The other point is, that, to have so become 'impure for the day, would not have disqualified for eating the Paschal Lamb, since that meal was partaken of after the evening, and when a new day had begun. In fact, it is distinctly laid down that the © Pes. 92 b 'bathed of the day,' that is, he who had been impure for the day and had bathed in the evening, did partake of the Paschal Supper, and an instance is related,d when some soldiers who had guarded the gates of Jerusalem immersed,' and ate the Paschal Lamb. 6 These are the Urim and Thummim of the 'anima naturaliter Christiana.' 2 This is, of course, not the traditional site, nor yet that which was formerly in favour. But as the Palace of Herod undoubtedly became (as all royal residences) the property of the State, and as we have distinct evidence that Roman Procurators resided there, and took their a b Acts x. 28 hal. xviii. 7; Tohor. vii. 3 с d Jer. Pes. It and 15 from seat in front of that Palace on a raised 3 The reasons given for this need not 36 b, lines 14 bottom BOOK V a Deut. xvi. 1-3; 2 Chron. XXXV. 1, 2, 6-18 follows, that these Sanhedrists could not have abstained from entering the Palace of Pilate because by so doing they would have been disqualified for the Paschal Supper. The point is of importance, because many writers have interpreted the expression 'the Passover' as referring to the Paschal Supper, and have argued that, according to the Fourth Gospel, our Lord did not on the previous evening partake of the Paschal Lamb, or else that in this respect the account of the Fourth Gospel does not accord with that of the Synoptists. But as, for the reason just stated, it is impossible to refer the expression Passover' to the Paschal Supper, we have only to inquire whether the term is not also applied to other offerings. And here both the Old Testament a and Jewish writings show, that the term Pesach, or 'Passover,' was applied not only to the Paschal Lamb, but to all the Passover sacrifices, especially to what was called the Chagigah (from Chag, 'the feast'), or festive offering, which was brought on the first Paschal Day. It was offered immediately after the morning-service, and eaten on that day-probably some time before the evening, when, as we shall by-and-by see, another ceremony claimed public attention. We can therefore quite understand that, not on the eve of the Passover, but on the first Paschal day, the Sanhedrists would avoid incurring a defilement which, lasting till the evening, would have prevented, not indeed their offering, but their partaking of the 'Passover' festive offering, or Chagigah. It may have been about seven in the morning, probably even earlier, when Pilate went out to those who summoned him to dispense justice. The question which he addressed to them seems to have startled and disconcerted them. Their procedure had been private; it was of the very essence of proceedings at Roman Law that they were in public. Again, the procedure before the Sanhedrists had been in the form of a criminal investigation, while it was of the essence of Roman procedure to enter only on definite accusations. Accordingly, the first question of Pilate was, what The subject has been so fully discussed in Wieseler, Beitr., and in Kirchner, Jüd. Passahfeier, not to speak of many others, that it seems needless to enter further on the question. No competent Jewish archeologist would care to deny that 'Pesach' may refer to the 'Chagigah,' while the motive assigned to the Sanhedrists by St. John implies, that in this instance it must refer to this, and not to the Paschal Lamb. 2 Most commentators suppose it to have been much earlier. I have followed the view of Keim. Nocens, nisi accusatus fuerit, condemnari non potest. In regard to the publicity of Roman procedure, comp. Acts xvi. 19; xvii. 6; xviii. 12; xxv. 6; Jos. War ii. 9. 3; 14. 8; maxima frequentia amplissimorum ac sapientissimorum civium adstante' (Cicero). THE DREAM OF PILATE'S WIFE. a a 567 CHAP. XIV xxvii. 18 accusation they brought against Jesus. The question would come upon them the more unexpectedly, that Pilate must, on the previous evening, have given his consent to the employment of the Roman guard which effected the arrest of Jesus. Their answer displays humiliation, ill-humour, and an attempt at evasion. If He had not been a malefactor,' they would not have delivered' Him up! On this vague charge Pilate, in whom we mark throughout a strange reluctance to proceed-perhaps from unwillingness to please the Jews, perhaps from a desire to wound their feelings on the tenderest point, perhaps because restrained by a Higher Hand-refused to proceed. He proposed that the Sanhedrists should try Jesus according to Jewish Law. This is another important trait, as apparently implying that Pilate had been previously aware both of the peculiar claims of Jesus, and that the action of the Jewish authorities had been determined by envy.' But, under ordinary circumstances, St. Ma Pilate would not have wished to hand over a person accused of so grave a charge as that of setting up Messianic claims to the Jewish authorities, to try the case as a merely religious question. Taking this in connection with the other fact, apparently inconsistent with it, that on the previous evening the Governor had given a Roman guard for the arrest of the prisoner, and with this other fact of the dream and warning of Pilate's wife, a peculiar impression is conveyed We can understand it all, if, on the previous evening, after the Roman guard had been granted, Pilate had spoken of it to his wife, whether because he knew her to be, or because she might be interested in the matter. Tradition has given her the name Procula; Nicephorus an Apocryphal Gospel describes her as a convert to Judaism; while the Greek Church has actually placed her in the Catalogue of Saints. Noing to What if the truth lay between these statements, and Procula had not only been a proselyte, like the wife of a previous Roman Governor,2 but known about Jesus and spoken of Him to Pilate on that evening? This would best explain his reluctance to condemn Jesus, as well as her dream of Him. to us. As the Jewish authorities had to decline the Governor's offer to proceed against Jesus before their own tribunal, on the avowed ground that they had not power to pronounce capital sentence,3 it Significantly the word is the same as that in reference to the betrayal of Judas. 2 Saturninus (Jos. Ant. xviii. 3, 5). The apparently strange statement, St. John xviii. 32, affords another un designed confirmation of the Jewish с d b Acts xxii. 30; xxiii. 28, 29; xxiv. 9, 18-20 H. E. i. 30 Gospel Nicod. ch. ii. BOOK a St. Luke xxiii. 2, 3 now behoved them to formulate a capital charge. This is recorded by St. Luke alone. It was, that Jesus had said, He Himself was Christ, a King. It will be noted, that in so saying they falsely imputed to Jesus their own political expectancies concerning the Messiah. But even this is not all. They prefaced it by this, that He perverted the nation and forbade to give tribute to Cæsar. The latter charge was so grossly unfounded, that we can only regard it as in their mind a necessary inference from the premiss that He claimed to be King. And, as telling most against Him, they put this first and foremost, treating the inference as if it were a fact—a practice this, only too common in controversies, political, religious, or private. This charge of the Sanhedrists explains what, according to all the Evangelists, passed within the Prætorium. We presume that Christ was within, probably in charge of some guards. The words of the Sanhedrists brought peculiar thoughts to Pilate. He now called Jesus and asked Him: Thou art the King of the Jews?' There is that mixture of contempt, cynicism, and awe in this question which we mark throughout in the bearing and words of Pilate. It was, as if two powers were contending for the mastery in his heart. By the side of uniform contempt for all that was Jewish, and of that general cynicism which could not believe in the existence of anything higher, we mark a feeling of awe in regard to Christ, even though the feeling may partly have been of superstition. Out of all that the Sanhedrists had said, Pilate took only this, that Jesus claimed to be a King. Christ, Who had not heard the charge of His accusers, now ignored it, in His desire to stretch out salvation even to a Pilate. Not heeding the implied irony, He first put it to Pilate, whether the question—be it criminal charge or inquiry—was his own, or merely the repetition of what His Jewish accusers had told Pilate of Him. The Governor quickly disowned any personal inquiry. How could he raise any such question; he was not a Jew, and the subject had no general interest. Jesus' own nation and its leaders had handed Him over as a criminal; what had He done? The answer of Pilate left nothing else for Him Who, even in that supreme hour, thought only of others, not of Himself, but to bring before the Roman directly that truth for which his words had given the opening. It was not, as Pilate had implied, a Jewish question: it was one of absolute truth; it concerned all men. destroy Paul. The Jewish law recognised flagrante delicto of blasphemy m The |