|
By J. Salvador.
Translated
by Henry Goldsmith.
After
the above exposition of the administration of justice,* I shall follow the
application of it in the most memorable trial in history, namely, that of
Jesus of Nazareth. I have already stated the motives which prompt me, and
the object I have in view in treating this subject; I have already shown
that amongst the Jews no title or rank could protect any one from a decree
of accusation. Whether this law was a good one or not, whether the forms
were good or bad, I do not now wish to examine. Whether the Jews ought to
be pitied for their blindness in not recognising a god in Jesus, or that
it is astonishing that a god in person, who wished to be understood as
such, was not understood, are questions which I do not wish to inquire
into. But since they did not look upon him as any more than a plain
citizen, did they try and condemn him according to law and existing forms?
This is my question, unequivocally. It is from the evangelists themselves
that I shall draw all the facts, without even questioning whether the
whole of this history has not been developed afterwards, for the purpose
of serving as a form to a new doctrine, or rather to an old one which
received a new extension.
Jesus descended from rather an unfortunate family;
his reputed father perceived that his wife was likely to become a mother,
without his being able to account for it. If he had called her legally to
an account, she, in the ordinary course of proceedings, would have been
condemned (see Deut. 22:23, 24), and Jesus, after being declared
illegitimate, would never have been allowed a seat in the high-council
(see Deut. 23:2). Joseph, however, who, in order not to dishonour his
wife, took the resolution to send her away secretly, soon had a dream
which consoled him.
Jesus, after having been circumcised, drew up like
the generality of men; he was present at the solemnization of the feasts,
and displayed at an early age surprising wisdom and sagacity. In the
sabbatical assemblies, the Hebrews, who were fond of polemical discussions
arising from the interpretation of the law, liked to hear him. But he soon
elevated himself to more important pursuits: he rebuked and censured whole
cities, particularly Capernaum, Chorazin, and Bethsaida (see Matthew
11:21, 22, 23). Calling back the times of Isaiah and Jeremiah, he
thundered against the chiefs of the people with a vehemence which would
intimidate us in our own days (see Matthew 23.) The people were then
pleased to consider him a prophet (Matthew 21:11, 46); he was heard to
preach in the villages and in the cities, without encountering any
difficulties or obstacles, and he was seen surrounded by disciples,
according to the custom of the learned in those days. However displeased
the leaders of the people may have been, they kept silent while he
remained within proper bounds.
But Jesus, in presenting new ideas, and in giving new
forms to ideas already promulgated, speaks of himself as if he were a god,
his disciples repeat it, and the sequel of events proves incontestably
that they understood him thus.* This was horrible blasphemy in the eyes of
the citizens: the law commands them not to attach themselves except to the
Eternal, the Sole, the only one; never to believe in gods of flesh and
bone resembling man or woman, neither to listen to, nor spare the prophet
who should announce a new god, a god whom neither they nor their fathers
had any knowledge of, notwithstanding his performing miracles (see Deut.
4:15, 13:1,2,3). Jesus in fact having said one day, “For I came from
heaven not to do mine own will but the will of him that sent me,” the
Jews, who until then paid attention to him, murmured and said: “Is not
this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it
then that he says ‘I came down from heaven ?’” (John 6:38, 42.) On
another occasion the Jews, irritated for the same reason, took stones and
threatened him, Jesus then said to them, “Many good works have I showed
you from my father, for which of those works do you stone me?” The Jews
then answered, “For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy,
and because that thou being a man, makest thyself God.” (John 10:31, 32,
33.)
His language was not always clear. It often occurred
that his disciples did not understand him. Among his maxims, some of which
breathed a spirit of great meekness, there were others which the Hebrews,
struck only by their natural signification, considered criminal. “Think
not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a
sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-inlaw.
And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth
father and mother more than me, is not worthy of me.” (Matthew 10:34,
35, 36.) Moreover, if indeed he performed miracles in the presence of some
of the people, his answers to questions propounded to him by the learned,
were generally of an evasive character. (See Matthew 16:1,2,3,4.)*
In
a political point of view, he created dissension. A great number of
persons of bad repute, whom he intended to reform, but who inspired the
national council with fear, ranged themselves about him (see Luke 15:1,2).
His discourses flattered them, inasmuch as he pronounced anathemas against
the rich: “Know,” he said unto them, “that it is easier for a camel
to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the
kingdom of heaven.” In this state of things, the council deliberates.
Some are of opinion to regard him only as a maniac (see John 10:20);
others say that he seeks to deceive the people (John 12:12). Caiphas,
whose dignity imposes on him the obligation of defending the letter of the
law, observes that those dissensions were likely to become a pretext for
the Romans to oppress Judea, and that the interest of the nation ought to
preponderate that of an individual. The order is then given to have him
arrested. But here let us reflect on a fact of the greatest importance.
The senate does mot commence (as is usual in our days in similar cases) by
arresting Jesus. No! it commences by giving an order for his arrest after
due deliberation. This proceeding is conducted publicly; it is known by
all, and by Jesus in particular. No obstacle prevents him from passing the
frontiers; his liberty entirely depends upon himself.*
One
of my Christian friends attempted to answer this difficulty very
ingeniously. He said, “True! the death of Jesus had been foretold, but
nevertheless the Jews were free agents, the action was not forced upon
them.” To strengthen his argument, he quoted the case of Pharaoh, (whose
heart God hardened and still punished him,) as offering, if not a
parallel, at least something analogous to the case of Jesus. But however
plausible this argument may appear at first sight, it will not stand the
test of a careful examination. It is a great error to suppose that God
punished Pharaoh for actions over which he had no control, Such mode of
judging would be inconsistent with divine justice, nor can we deny that
Pharaoh’s obstinacy in refusing the Israelites to leave Egypt, was
involuntary on his part, for we see it repeated several times, “God
hardened his heart,” “God strengthened his heart.” The punishment
which befell him and the Egyptians, was owing to their unlawfully
enslaving and afflicting the Israelites. Had Pharaoh consented to let them
go at the first summons of Moses, it would not have exempted him from the
fate which awaited him. But God, in order to multiply his wonders and
miracles, hardened [Pharoah’s] heart. Now, although God foresaw and
foretold to Abraham that his seed shall be enslaved in a land not their
own, the crime on the part of the Egyptians and Pharaoh, was not the
consequence of God’s foresight, but His foresight was the consequence of
their crime, and did therefore not interfere with their free agency;
forasmuch as God is unlimited by space as much is He is unlimited by time;
with him there is no past or future. He sees that which is done, doing,
and to be done. But according to the Christian system, not only was the
death of Jesus foretold, which alone would not have militated against
their free agency, but it was absolutely necessary for the purpose of
making an atonement prospectively and retrospectively for mankind; whereas
the Israelites could have fulfilled their destiny, without having been
enslaved in Egypt four hundred years.—Note by
the Translator.
(To
be continued.)
|
