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,
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. His peaceful manners,
and his remoteness from popular agitation, ultimately reassured the
Tetrarch and dissipated the danger.
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, 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, 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." "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." His
wandering life, at first so full of charm, now began to weigh upon
him. " The foxes," he said, " have holes, and the birds of the air
have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." 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.
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. Like John
the Baptist, he employed very harsh terms against his adversaries.
Of an exquisite gentleness with the simple, he was irritated at
incredulity, however little aggressive. 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
towards those who did not agree with him. Jesus, in like manner,
applied to himself, not without reason, the passage from Isaiah: "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 be not quench." And yet many of the recommendations which
he addressed to his disciples contain the germs of a true fanaticism
-- 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?
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 center at Jerusalem, it had adherents either established
in Galilee or who often came there. They were, in general, men of
a narrow mind, caring much for externals; their devoutness was haughty,
formal, and self- satisfied. Their manners were ridiculous, and
excited the smiles of even those who respected them. The epithets
which the people gave them, and which savoir 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 Pharisce," whose externals of devotion were but a varnish
of hypocrisy. This strictness was, in fact, often only apparent,
and concealed in reality great moral laxity. 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.
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,
while 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, those of Jesus, son of Sirach, making worship
consist in doing good, were forgotten or anathematized, Shammai,
with his narrow and exclusive spirit, had prevailed. An enormous
mass of "traditions" had stifled the Law, 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.
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." Religions
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 criticizing 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. 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.
Disputes broke out especially respecting a number of external
practices introduced by tradition, which neither Jesus nor his disciples
observed. 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." 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."
A hate which death alone could satisfy was the consequence of
these struggles. John the Baptist had already provoked enmities
of the same kind. But the aristocrats of Jerusalem, who despised
him, had allowed simple men to take him for a prophet. 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. 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 Moliere only touched the skin. He carried fire and
rage to the very marrow.
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. 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 fulfil the proverb -- that a prophet must not die outside Jerusalem.
next chapter original version (in French)
& notes
index life of Jesus
Bible in Hebrew, Greek,
Latin and English translation