OPPOSITION TO JESUS.
During the first period of his career, it does not appear that Jesus
met with any serious opposition. His preaching, thanks to the extreme
liberty which was enjoyed in Galilee, and to the number of teachers
who arose on all hands, made no noise beyond a restricted circle. But
when Jesus entered upon a path brilliant with wonders and public
successes, the storm began to gather. More than once he was obliged to
conceal himself and fly.[1] Antipas, however, did not interfere with
him, although Jesus expressed himself sometimes very severely
respecting him.[2] At Tiberias, his usual residence, the Tetrarch was
only one or two leagues distant from the district chosen by Jesus for
the centre of his activity; he heard speak of his miracles, which he
doubtless took to be clever tricks, and desired to see them.[3] The
incredulous were at that time very curious about this class of
illusions.[4] With his ordinary tact, Jesus refused to gratify him. He
took care not to prejudice his position by mingling with an
irreligious world, which wished to draw from him an idle amusement; he
aspired only to gain the people; he reserved for the simple, means
suitable to them alone.
[Footnote 1: Matt. xii. 14-16; Mark iii. 7, ix. 29, 30.]
[Footnote 2: Mark viii. 15; Luke xiii. 32.]
[Footnote 3: Luke ix. 9, xxiii. 8.]
[Footnote 4: _Lucius_; attributed to Lucian, 4.]
On one occasion the report was spread that Jesus was no other than
John the Baptist risen from the dead. Antipas became anxious and
uneasy;[1] and employed artifice to rid his dominions of the new
prophet. Certain Pharisees, under the pretence of regard for Jesus,
came to tell him that Antipas was seeking to kill him. Jesus,
notwithstanding his great simplicity, saw the snare, and did not
depart.[2] His peaceful manners, and his remoteness from popular
agitation, ultimately reassured the Tetrarch and dissipated the
danger.
[Footnote 1: Matt. xiv. 1, and following; Mark vi. 14, and following;
Luke ix. 7, and following.]
[Footnote 2: Luke xiii. 31, and following.]
The new doctrine was by no means received with equal favor in all the
towns of Galilee. Not only did incredulous Nazareth continue to reject
him who was to become her glory; not only did his brothers persist in
not believing in him,[1] but the cities of the lake themselves, in
general well-disposed, were not all converted. Jesus often complained
of the incredulity and hardness of heart which he encountered, and
although it is natural that in such reproaches we make allowance for
the exaggeration of the preacher, although we are sensible of that
kind of _convicium seculi_ which Jesus affected in imitation of John
the Baptist,[2] it is clear that the country was far from yielding
itself entirely a second time to the kingdom of God. "Woe unto thee,
Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida!" cried he; "for if the mighty
works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they
would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto
you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of
judgment than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto
heaven, shalt be brought down to hell; for if the mighty works which
have been done in thee had been done in Sodom, it would have remained
until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable
for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for thee."[3] "The
queen of the south," added he, "shall rise up in the judgment of this
generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost
parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, a
greater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineveh shall rise in
judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they
repented at the preaching of Jonas; and behold, a greater than Jonas
is here."[4] His wandering life, at first so full of charm, now began
to weigh upon him. "The foxes," said he, "have holes, and the birds of
the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his
head."[5] Bitterness and reproach took more and more hold upon him. He
accused unbelievers of not yielding to evidence, and said that, even
at the moment in which the Son of man should appear in his celestial
glory, there would still be men who would not believe in him.[6]
[Footnote 1: John vii. 5.]
[Footnote 2: Matt. xii. 39, 45, xiii. 15, xvi. 4; Luke xi. 29.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. xi. 21-24; Luke x. 12-15.]
[Footnote 4: Matt. xii. 41, 42; Luke xi. 31, 32.]
[Footnote 5: Matt. viii. 20; Luke ix. 58.]
[Footnote 6: Luke xviii. 8.]
Jesus, in fact, was not able to receive opposition with the coolness
of the philosopher, who, understanding the reason of the various
opinions which divide the world, finds it quite natural that all
should not agree with him. One of the principal defects of the Jewish
race is its harshness in controversy, and the abusive tone which it
almost always infuses into it. There never were in the world such
bitter quarrels as those of the Jews among themselves. It is the
faculty of nice discernment which makes the polished and moderate man.
Now, the lack of this faculty is one of the most constant features of
the Semitic mind. Subtle and refined works, the dialogues of Plato,
for example, are altogether unknown to these nations. Jesus, who was
exempt from almost all the defects of his race, and whose leading
quality was precisely an infinite delicacy, was led in spite of
himself to make use of the general style in polemics.[1] Like John the
Baptist,[2] he employed very harsh terms against his adversaries. Of
an exquisite gentleness with the simple, he was irritated at
incredulity, however little aggressive.[3] He was no longer the mild
teacher who delivered the "Sermon on the Mount," who had met with
neither resistance nor difficulty. The passion that underlay his
character led him to make use of the keenest invectives. This singular
mixture ought not to surprise us. M. de Lamennais, a man of our own
times, has strikingly presented the same contrast. In his beautiful
book, the "Words of a Believer," the most immoderate anger and the
sweetest relentings alternate, as in a mirage. This man, who was
extremely kind in the intercourse of life, became madly intractable
toward those who did not agree with him. Jesus, in like manner,
applied to himself, not without reason, the passage from Isaiah:[4]
"He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in
the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall
he not quench."[5] And yet many of the recommendations which he
addressed to his disciples contain the germs of a true fanaticism,[6]
germs which the Middle Ages were to develop in a cruel manner. Must we
reproach him for this? No revolution is effected without some
harshness. If Luther, or the actors in the French Revolution, had been
compelled to observe the rules of politeness, neither the Reformation
nor the Revolution would have taken place. Let us congratulate
ourselves in like manner that Jesus encountered no law which punished
the invectives he uttered against one class of citizens. Had such a
law existed, the Pharisees would have been inviolate. All the great
things of humanity have been accomplished in the name of absolute
principles. A critical philosopher would have said to his disciples:
Respect the opinion of others; and believe that no one is so
completely right that his adversary is completely wrong. But the
action of Jesus has nothing in common with the disinterested
speculation of the philosopher. To know that we have touched the ideal
for a moment, and have been deterred by the wickedness of a few, is a
thought insupportable to an ardent soul. What must it have been for
the founder of a new world?
[Footnote 1: Matt. xii. 34, xv. 14, xxiii. 33.]
[Footnote 2: Matt. iii. 7.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. xii. 30; Luke xxi. 23.]
[Footnote 4: Isa. xlii. 2, 3.]
[Footnote 5: Matt. xii. 19-20.]
[Footnote 6: Matt. x. 14, 15, 21, and following, 34, and following;
Luke xix. 27.]
The invincible obstacle to the ideas of Jesus came especially from
orthodox Judaism, represented by the Pharisees. Jesus became more and
more alienated from the ancient Law. Now, the Pharisees were the true
Jews; the nerve and sinew of Judaism. Although this party had its
centre at Jerusalem, it had adherents either established in Galilee,
or who often came there.[1] They were, in general, men of a narrow
mind, caring much for externals; their devoutness was haughty, formal,
and self-satisfied.[2] Their manners were ridiculous, and excited the
smiles of even those who respected them. The epithets which the people
gave them, and which savor of caricature, prove this. There was the
"bandy-legged Pharisee" (_Nikfi_), who walked in the streets dragging
his feet and knocking them against the stones; the "bloody-browed
Pharisee" (_Kizai_), who went with his eyes shut in order not to see
the women, and dashed his head so much against the walls that it was
always bloody; the "pestle Pharisee" (_Medinkia_), who kept himself
bent double like the handle of a pestle; the "Pharisee of strong
shoulders" (_Shikmi_), who walked with his back bent as if he carried
on his shoulders the whole burden of the Law; the
"_What-is-there-to-do?-I-do-it Pharisee_," always on the search for a
precept to fulfil; and, lastly, the "dyed Pharisee," whose externals
of devotion were but a varnish of hypocrisy.[3] This strictness was,
in fact, often only apparent, and concealed in reality great moral
laxity.[4] The people, nevertheless, were duped by it. The people,
whose instinct is always right, even when it is most astray respecting
individuals, is very easily deceived by false devotees. That which it
loves in them is good and worthy of being loved; but it has not
sufficient penetration to distinguish the appearance from the reality.
[Footnote 1: Mark vii. 1; Luke v. 17, and following, vii. 36.]
[Footnote 2: Matt. vi. 2, 5, 16, ix. 11, 14, xii. 2, xxiii. 5, 15, 23;
Luke v. 30, vi. 2, 7, xi. 39, and following, xviii. 12; John ix. 16;
_Pirké Aboth_, i. 16; Jos., _Ant._, XVII. ii. 4, XVIII. i. 3; _Vita_,
38; Talm. of Bab., _Sota_, 22 _b_.]
[Footnote 3: Talmud of Jerusalem, _Berakoth_, ix., sub fin.; _Sota_,
v. 7; Talmud of Babylon, _Sota_, 22 _b_. The two compilations of this
curious passage present considerable differences. We have, in general,
followed the Babylonian compilation, which seems most natural. Cf.
Epiph., _Adv. Hær._, xvi. 1. The passages in Epiphanes, and several of
those of the Talmud, may, besides, relate to an epoch posterior to
Jesus, an epoch in which "Pharisee" had become synonymous with
"devotee."]
[Footnote 4: Matt. v. 20, xv. 4, xxiii. 3, 16, and following; John
viii. 7; Jos., _Ant._, XII. ix. 1; XIII. x. 5.]
It is easy to understand the antipathy which, in such an impassioned
state of society, must necessarily break out between Jesus and persons
of this character. Jesus recognized only the religion of the heart,
whilst that of the Pharisees consisted almost exclusively in
observances. Jesus sought the humble and outcasts of all kinds, and
the Pharisees saw in this an insult to their religion of
respectability. The Pharisee was an infallible and faultless man, a
pedant always right in his own conceit, taking the first place in the
synagogue, praying in the street, giving alms to the sound of a
trumpet, and caring greatly for salutations. Jesus maintained that
each one ought to await the kingdom of God with fear and trembling.
The bad religious tendency represented by Pharisaism did not reign
without opposition. Many men before or during the time of Jesus, such
as Jesus, son of Sirach (one of the true ancestors of Jesus of
Nazareth), Gamaliel, Antigonus of Soco, and especially the gentle and
noble Hillel, had taught much more elevated, and almost Gospel
doctrines. But these good seeds had been choked. The beautiful maxims
of Hillel, summing up the whole law as equity,[1] those of Jesus, son
of Sirach, making worship consist in doing good,[2] were forgotten or
anathematized.[3] Shammai, with his narrow and exclusive spirit, had
prevailed. An enormous mass of "traditions" had stifled the Law,[4]
under pretext of protecting and interpreting it. Doubtless these
conservative measures had their share of usefulness; it is well that
the Jewish people loved its Law even to excess, since it is this
frantic love which, in saving Mosaism under Antiochus Epiphanes and
under Herod, has preserved the leaven from which Christianity was to
emanate. But taken in themselves, all these old precautions were only
puerile. The synagogue, which was the depository of them, was no more
than a parent of error. Its reign was ended; and yet to require its
abdication was to require the impossible, that which an established
power has never done or been able to do.
[Footnote 1: Talm. of Bab., _Shabbath_, 31 _a_; _Joma_, 35 _b_.]
[Footnote 2: _Eccles._ xvii. 21, and following, xxxv. 1, and
following.]
[Footnote 3: Talm. of Jerus., _Sanhedrim_, xi. 1; Talm. of Bab.,
_Sanhedrim_, 100 _b_.]
[Footnote 4: Matt. xv. 2.]
The conflicts of Jesus with official hypocrisy were continual. The
ordinary tactics of the reformers who appeared in the religious state
which we have just described, and which might be called "traditional
formalism," were to oppose the "text" of the sacred books to
"traditions." Religious zeal is always an innovator, even when it
pretends to be in the highest degree conservative. Just as the
neo-Catholics of our days become more and more remote from the Gospel,
so the Pharisees left the Bible at each step more and more. This is
why the Puritan reformer is generally essentially "Biblical," taking
the unchangeable text for his basis in criticising the current
theology, which has changed with each generation. Thus acted later the
Karaites and the Protestants. Jesus applied the axe to the root of the
tree much more energetically. We see him sometimes, it is true, invoke
the text against the false _Masores_ or traditions of the
Pharisees.[1] But in general he dwelt little on exegesis--it was the
conscience to which he appealed. With one stroke he cut through both
text and commentaries. He showed, indeed, to the Pharisees that they
seriously perverted Mosaism by their traditions, but he by no means
pretended himself to return to Mosaism. His mission was concerned with
the future, not with the past. Jesus was more than the reformer of an
obsolete religion; he was the creator of the eternal religion of
humanity.
[Footnote 1: Matt. xv. 2, and following; Mark vii. 2, and following.]
Disputes broke out especially respecting a number of external
practices introduced by tradition, which neither Jesus nor his
disciples observed.[1] The Pharisees reproached him sharply for this.
When he dined with them, he scandalized them much by not observing the
customary ablutions. "Give alms," said he, "of such things as ye have;
and behold, all things are clean unto you."[2] That which in the
highest degree hurt his refined feeling was the air of assurance which
the Pharisees carried into religious matters; their paltry worship,
which ended in a vain seeking after precedents and titles, to the
utter neglect of the improvement of their hearts. An admirable parable
rendered this thought with infinite charm and justice. "Two men," said
he, "went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee and the other
a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I
thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust,
adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give
tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off,
would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his
breast, saying, God, be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man
went down to his house justified rather than the other."[3]
[Footnote 1: Matt. xv. 2, and following; Mark vii. 4, 8; Luke v. sub
fin. and vi. init., xi. 38, and following.]
[Footnote 2: Luke xi. 41.]
[Footnote 3: Luke xviii. 9-14; comp. _ibid._, xiv. 7-11.]
A hate, which death alone could satisfy, was the consequence of these
struggles. John the Baptist had already provoked enmities of the same
kind.[1] But the aristocrats of Jerusalem, who despised him, had
allowed simple men to take him for a prophet.[2] In the case of Jesus,
however, the war was to the death. A new spirit had appeared in the
world, causing all that preceded to pale before it. John the Baptist
was completely a Jew; Jesus was scarcely one at all. Jesus always
appealed to the delicacy of the moral sentiment. He was only a
disputant when he argued against the Pharisees, his opponents forcing
him, as generally happens, to adopt their tone.[3] His exquisite
irony, his arch and provoking remarks, always struck home. They were
everlasting stigmas, and have remained festering in the wound. This
Nessus-shirt of ridicule which the Jew, son of the Pharisees, has
dragged in tatters after him during eighteen centuries, was woven by
Jesus with a divine skill. Masterpieces of fine raillery, their
features are written in lines of fire upon the flesh of the hypocrite
and the false devotee. Incomparable traits, worthy of a son of God! A
god alone knows how to kill after this fashion. Socrates and Molière
only touched the skin. He carried fire and rage to the very marrow.
[Footnote 1: Matt. iii. 7, and following, xvii. 12, 13.]
[Footnote 2: Matt. xiv. 5, xxi. 26; Mark xi. 32; Luke xx. 6.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. xii. 3-8, xxiii. 16, and following.]
But it was also just that this great master of irony should pay for
his triumph with his life. Even in Galilee, the Pharisees sought to
ruin him, and employed against him the manoeuvre which ultimately
succeeded at Jerusalem. They endeavored to interest in their quarrel
the partisans of the new political faction which was established.[1]
The facilities Jesus found for escape in Galilee, and the weakness of
the government of Antipas, baffled these attempts. He ran into danger
of his own free will. He saw clearly that his action, if he remained
confined to Galilee, was necessarily limited. Judea drew him as by a
charm; he wished to try a last effort to gain the rebellious city; and
seemed anxious to fulfill the proverb--that a prophet must not die
outside Jerusalem.[2]
[Footnote 1: Mark iii. 6.]
[Footnote 2: Luke xiii. 33.]