We remember that, during the whole previous history, Christ had only on one occasion
come into public conflict with the Sadducees, when, characteri stically, they had asked of
Him 'a sign from heaven.'1 Their Rationalism would lead them to treat the whole
movement as beneath serious notice, the outcome of ignorant fanaticism. Nevertheless,
when Jesus assumed such a position in the Temple, and was evidently to such extent
swaying the people, it behoved them, if only to guard their position, no longer to stand
by. Possibly, the discomfiture and powerlessness of the Pharisees may also have had
their influence. At any rate, the impression left is, that tho se of them who now went to
Christ were delegates, and that the question which they put had been well planned.2
1. St. Matt. xvi. 1.
2. There seems some reference to this question put to Christ in what we regard as covert
references to Christianity in that mysterious passage in the Talmud (Yoma 66 b)
previously referred to (see pp. 193, 194). Comp. the interesting dissertation of
Töttermann on R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanos (pp. 16-18).
Their object was certainly not serious argument, but to use the much more dangerous
weapon of ridicule. Persecution the populace might have resented; for open opposition
all would have been prepared; but to come with icy politeness and philosophic calm,
and by a well -turned question to reduce the renowned Galilean Teacher to silenc e, and
show the absurdity of His teaching, would have been to inflict on His cause the most
damaging blow. To this day such appeals to rough and ready common-sense are the
main stock-in-trade of that coarse infidelity, which, ignoring alike the demands of higher
thinking and the facts of history, appeals - so often, alas! effectually - to the untrained
intellect of the multitude, and - shall we not say it? - to the coarse and lower in us all.
Besides, had the Sadducees succeeded, they would at the same time have gained a
signal triumph for their tenets, and defeated, together with the Galilean Teacher, their
own Pharisaic opponents. The subject of attack was to be the Resurrection3 - the same
which is still the favourite topic for the appeals of the coarser forms of infidelity to 'the
common sense' of the masses. Making allowance for difference of circumstances, we
might almost imagine we were listening to one of our modern orators of materialism.
And in those days the defence of belief in the Resurrection la boured under twofold
difficulty. It was as yet a matter of hope, not of faith: something to look forward to, not to
look back upon. The isolated events recorded in the Old Testament, and the miracles of
Christ - granting that they were admitted - were rather instances of resuscitation than of
Resurrection. The grand fact of history, than which none is better attested - the
Resurrection of Christ - had not yet taken place, and was not even clearly in view of any
one. Besides, the utterances of the Old Testament on the subject of the 'hereafter' were,
as became alike that stage of revelation and the understanding of those to whom it was
addressed, far from clear. In the light of the New Testament it stands out in the sharpest
proportions, although as an Alpine height afar off; but then that Light had not yet risen
upon it.
3. In regard to the denial of the Resurrection by the Sadducees, and to their views
generally, we refer to the sketch of the three sects in Book III. ch. ii.