doubtless considered beforehand what position to take up. He was not at a loss for a moment, and answered with quiet dignity, "Let me also ask a question; and if you answer it then I will tell you on what authority I rely. Tell me, Whence was the baptism of John, from heaven or of men?" Now this was far from a mere evasion. On the contrary, it was little short of a defiance. Jesus implied that, since He who had shortly before sent John to baptize the people had now commissioned him, Jesus, to found the kingdom of God, there was an immediate connection between his own work and that of the preacher of the wilderness. Those who had recognized John as a messenger of God must and would recognize him also; whereas those who had utterly despised the Baptist had thereby given palpable proof of their tota incapacity to appreciate a divine commission, and had there fore completely forfeited their right to demand his creden tials from him. Did they understand his meaning? On of them, who served as the mouthpiece of the rest, answerec briefly and contemptuously, "We do not know;" as much. as to say "and we do not care." Our Gospels represent this answer as the result of the reflection: “If we say, From heaven,' he will answer, Then why did you not believe him?' and if we say, 'Of men,' then we shall have the people upon us, for they all hold John to have been a prophet." Luke even makes them fear that "the whole people will stone them" if they give the latter answer. But all this deliberation is out of place. The distinguished men of Jerusalem had simply paid no attention whatever to the Baptist; and Jesus therefore utterly denied their right to question him. His answer was as brief and as haughty as theirs : "Neither shall I tell you by what authority I have come forward here."

6

His refusal to answer was a bold stroke; but, as if to show that he knew exactly what he was doing, he continued after a moment's silence, "What think you? There was a man who had two sons, and one morning he went to the elder and said: My son, you must go and attend to the vineyard to-day.' But he answered without even a show of respect, I shall not.' And yet, after a time, he was sorry, and went and set to work. Meanwhile the father had gone to the other and found him all obedience. 'I will go this

very instant, father,' he replied, but did not. Which of these two obeyed his father?" We need not suppose, with the Evangelist, that the members of the deputation actually said

"the first," for without waiting for an answer Jesus might well go on with his indignant application of the parable: "I tell you, the publicans and harlots shall go into the kingdom of God before you! For John came to lead you to the way of life; and you did not believe in him, though the very publicans and harlots listened to his preaching; for not even such a sight as that could make you repent and believe in him."

This was an open declaration of war upon the priesthood, the nobility, and the Scribes. Compare this parable with that of the prodigal son, with which it has an unmistakable affinity. How changed is the conception of the second son, who is really obedient in the one case, and is a mere hypocrite in the other! It is true that in this parable Jesus had not the Pharisees exclusively in view, but this merely serves to make his judgment all the more emphatic. He embraces all the leaders of the people, the whole heterogeneous class of devout and high-born citizens who had thought it beneath their dignity to be moved by the preacher of the kingdom of God, he embraces them all under that sentence which put "the first" after "the last." When Jesus had once told them they came after the very offscourings of society, it was impossible that any friendly relations should subsist between him and them, unless they were to throw themselves in humble penitence at his feet, and there was small chance

of that!

And yet he had done well in taking up his true position at the very outset. He had not come to Jerusalem to win over the champions of Jewish orthodoxy or the guardians of the temple worship, but the people. He must let the nation know what it had to expect from him. This he had done by opening the battle at once without any preliminary skirmishing.

It is deeply to be regretted that our authorities tell us little or nothing of the course of the struggle, and especially of the relations of Jesus and the people. Under the first head we only hear of a few argumentative encounters between Jesus and his opponents, preserved as specimens, and of certain violent denunciations uttered by Jesus in public. With these exceptions we have not a single address delivered by the Master in Jerusalem, or any thing beyond the repeated statement that he taught the people day by day. It is possible

1 Compare pp. 248, 251.

enough that some of the specimens of his preaching we have already met with in considering his Galilæan ministry or his journey to the capital properly belong to this period; but it is probable that as a rule his preaching in Jerusalem was to some extent different in tone. The Gospels, however, leave us in uncertainty as to how he instructed the multitudes in the City of the Temple, what he taught them about the kingdom of God, its approach, the blessings it would bring, the qualifications for entering it, and the last judgment and repentance. But in that saying of his about breaking down and building up the temple, which we have mentioned already, and to which the Evangelists refer in their account of the trial of Jesus, we are justified in finding the substance of a whole discourse, or perhaps even of several discourses, delivered to the people.

Again, we have only scattered hints as to the reception Jesus found at the people's hands. The statement that they took him for a prophet' seems very probable intrinsically. At any rate they could not see or even suspect the Messiah in him; while the high prophetic reputation he enjoyed is evident from the fact that the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were usually very hostile to each other, combined against him. This indicates clearly enough that they were seriously alarmed by his popularity; but the strongest proof of all is the dread with which they were inspired by his followers; for at first they dared not touch him, and only ventured to seize him at last under cover of night, with the aid of treachery; and even then they were in great trepidation, as we shall presently see.

But, on the other hand, the result showed that his party was far less numerous and zealous than had been supposed; and the final issue proves that his efforts had failed. Indeed, we have already explained how the enthusiasm kindled by his first appearance must inevitably cool when he refused to follow up the stirring deed with which he had begun, and confined himself to simple preaching. Even zealous followers were bewildered when they saw that he did not take a single step towards founding or even preparing the kingdom of God, but, on the contrary, seemed to be retreating day by day further from the goal they longed so impatiently to reach. The attitude assumed by the Scribes did Jesus incalculable harm; for of course there would be vast numbers of the Jews, both

1 See, for instance, pp 218, 165 ff, et seq.

2 Matthew xxi. 46.

at Jerusalem and elsewhere, who looked for guidance to these venerated leaders, so specially qualified by their studies, they thought, to form a judgment in such matters. Now these were the very men who opposed Jesus with all their might, and their warnings held great numbers back. Perhaps he himself alludes to this in his bitter reproach: "Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites that you are! for you shut men out of the kingdom of heaven. You will not enter yourselves, and prevent and forbid those that would!"

Let us now consider the records we still possess of the encounters between Jesus and his various opponents.

It was towards the beginning of his stay in Jerusalem that certain men came to him and, in a tone at once confidential and respectful, asked his opinion upon a very important point. Some of them were disciples of the Pharisaic school, and therefore bitterly opposed to the Roman supremacy over Judæa; others were Herodians, that is to say enthusiasts for the Idumæan dynasty, who longed to restore the kingdom of Herod the Great: but all alike had been deputed to catch Jesus in his words. "Rabbi," they said, "we know that you always say exactly what you think, without considering any one; for you care not how great or powerful any one may be, but simply preach the will of God in truth. Tell us, then, what you think. May we pay tribute to the Emperor or not?"

It was a cunning plot. The strain of flattery in which they began shows their drift. They hoped he would declare that any one who paid the poll-tax, and so recognized the Roman emperor as his monarch, was infringing on the rights of the Lord, the king of Israel, and that God was jealous of his honor and would hold the deed apostasy. The way in which Jesus had entered the city, together with his nationality and that of his followers, gave reason to hope that he shared the opinions of Judas, the Galilæan, on the point at issue.1 Now a popular leader who taught such seditious doctrines as this would be sure to be seized by the governor and put to death without loss of time. If, on the other hand, he declared that the tribute must be paid, that would do nearly as well, for he would at once fall in the opinion of the people.

He saw through their project. "O hypocrites!" he answered, with undisguised aversion, "why do you try to catch me thus? Let me see the tribute money!" Now cer

1 Compare pp. 89, 348.

tain coins had been struck for use in Judæa, without the Emperor's head and with a simple inscription, on purpose to meet the Jewish objection to images; but the coin his questioners now showed to Jesus was not one of these. It was a genuine Roman denarius, representing the amount of the poll-tax. This was probably no accident. Jesus then pointed to the head and name of Tiberius on the coin, and said, "Whose image and superscription is this?" "The Emperor's," they answered. "Then give the Emperor what is the Emperor's, and God what is God's," said Jesus, as he returned the coin. He meant to say: "Since this coin shows that you are subject to the Emperor of Rome, accept the position and give him what is due; and then take care that you give to God what he has a right to expect and demand of you. It is because you have failed in your duty as God's subjects that you are now Cæsar's slaves; and as long as you fall short of your duty to God you must be content to bear the burdens laid on you by Cæsar. It is repentance, faithful self-consecration to God, and not disputes as to the permissibility of tribute, still less resistance to a well-inerited chastisement, that must bring the great deliverance. will not be your murmuring, but the coming of the kingdom of God, that will put an end to the supremacy of the heathen."

It

The design was utterly wrecked, and the questioners retired in amazement at such presence of mind.

Another day Jesus came early in the morning from the Mount of Olives to the temple, where the people whom he had dismissed the evening before drew together again in great numbers; and he sat down as usual to teach them. Then there came a company of Scribes and others, well known for the strictness of their piety and their religious zeal. It was evidently an important matter that had brought them there, and their gestures and expressions indicated no small indignation and aversion, the object of which was a certain woman whom they were dragging with them in mute despair to the temple-court. The multitude made way for them respectfully. In gloomy silence they placed the unhappy woman right opposite Jesus and formed a semi-circle in front of him. Then one of them came forward and explained their object: "Rabbi, this woman is an adulteress, taken in the very act. Now Moses commands in the Law that such must be stoned; and we wish to know from you what we ought to do.”

1 See John viii. 1, and compare p. 370.