54. § 6. The Jews under the Supremacy of the Romans

§ 6. The Jews under the Supremacy of the Romans

Antipater now made himself of more and more consequence, which was not difficult, owing to the indolence of Hyrcanus. He made his elder son Phasael governor of Jerusalem, and his second son Herod governor of Galilee. Later, at the recommendation of Hyrcanus, they were both appointed tetrarchs of Palestine by Antonius. Soon afterwards the Parthians, under the leadership of Pacorus, took possession of Syria, and were induced by a large sum of money to raise Antigonus, the youngest son of the former king Aristobulus, who had previously come to Judea, but had been defeated by Herod, to the supreme power in Judea. After both parties, Antigonus and his Parthian auxiliaries on the one side, and on the other side Herod and Phasael, who supported the cause of the indolent Hyrcanus,—Antipater had already been slain,—had fought for some time with changing fortune, without any great advantage having been gained on either side, Phasael and Hyrcanus were taken prisoners by the Parthians by means of a stratagem. Herod escaped while there was yet time with his family and his treasures to the mountain fortress of Masada on the western side of the Dead Sea, where he left a garrison of 800 men under the command of his brother Joseph. He himself went to Alexandria, and there embarked for Rome. Jerusalem and the surrounding district was now plundered by the Parthians, and Antigonus established as king. Phasael committed suicide in the prison; and Hyrcanus, with his ears cut off, was led away by the Parthians to Seleucia on the Tigris. In the meantime, Herod, favoured by Antonius and Octavianus at Rome, was appointed by the senate to be king of Judea, an honour which he had never sought. On his return to Palestine, the Parthians had already been driven back by the Romans beyond the Euphrates. Nevertheless he found it no easy task to occupy the country. It was not until the year thirty-four, after having obtained a large force of Romish troops through Antonius, that he conquered Jerusalem, where the Romans, exasperated by the obstinate resistance with which they had met, instituted a great massacre against his wish. The king Antigonus surrendered, and was executed at the command of Antonius. With him the Hasmonaean or Maccabee dynasty came to an end; and Herod, who was descended from an Idumean family, though allied to a wife of the Hasmonaean house, a granddaughter of Hyrcanus, obtained the crown. We must content ourselves with a few general remarks respecting his character and position. The position of the Hasmonaean rulers had already been one of great difficulty. Every attempt on their part to exercise the kingly power in its full extent was anxiously and jealously watched by the nation, or rather by the pharisaic party, who had the nation in their power. But the position of Herod was one of far greater difficulty. The Maccabee rulers had been of ancient Jewish blood, and the nation could never quite forget their obligations to their family. Herod, on the other hand, was of Idumean extraction, and the Idumeans, though received into Israel by circumcision, were yet by no means regarded as brethren. It was looked upon as a disgrace to have such a king, more especially since he did not hold his kingdom, like the Maccabees, in fee from the nation, but from the heathen, the Romans. And the position, in itself so difficult, was made still more so by the personal disposition of Herod. He was born a despot, and submitted willingly and gladly to be dependent on the Romans, only because he well knew that without their assistance he was lost; the idea of rights pertaining to the nation apart from his interest he found insufferable, and could scarcely prevail upon himself to leave even a shadow of importance to the Sanhedrim and the high-priesthood. Moreover, Herod was not only heathen by descent, but also in feeling; and he had a twofold reason for giving prominence to this heathen disposition, partly because he thought he could in this way make himself popular with the Romans, partly because, like the apostate high priest in the time of the Maccabees, he hoped by encouraging heathenism in the nation to break the power of the orthodox principle that was hostile to his supremacy. His predilection for heathenism went so far that he erected heathen temples in the land of Jehovah. The animosity to which this gave rise on the part of the nation, and especially among the Pharisees, had no bounds; and it availed him little that he proved his love of splendid buildings by embellishing also the temple at Jerusalem. There arose a violent and long-protracted struggle, which served to reveal more and more fully the badness of both parties, and at last made Herod an object of horror, of whose like history affords but few examples. In recent times many attempts have been made to justify him. His whole position, it is alleged, necessarily made him a tyrant. The despotic power which he exercised only appears as a consequence of the continual mortifications offered to him by the Pharisees. It was only through the instrumentality of this hostile pharisaic party that he was led to execute one member of his family after another—for the Pharisees eagerly supported all that were dissatisfied—Aristobulus, Mariamne, Alexandra, and Hyrcanus, and finally his own sons. This fact alone made them dangerous, and gave them the boldness and proud confidence with which they opposed Herod until he put them to death. In all his severity, his cruelties and persecutions, Herod fought only against this one party. It is no wonder if, under such circumstances, the noblest man were to become a hyena. But if this mode of justification be universally admissible, it may be applied also in favour of the Pharisees. The cause for which they fought was after all a better cause than that of Herod, who had no higher object in view than his own personal interests. And if they contended for their partially good cause in a bad disposition and with bad means, if their baseness developed his and brought it to maturity, his baseness had just as much to do with the development of theirs. This mode of looking at history leads to the abrogation of all human responsibility. On the contrary, we must firmly maintain that although circumstances may tend to the development and maturity of evil, they can never create it; that all things must work for good to them that love God; and that faith is the victory that overcometh the world. Whoever fails to recognise this, has a very low conception of man as well as of God. The more completely the earthly prosperity of the people of God decreased, and the deeper those sank who had staked their existence on its restoration, until every truly pious mind shrank with horror from the deeds which they performed for the alleged glory of God, the more earnest did the longing in such minds become for a spiritual salvation, the more completely in their case did that mist disappear which concealed the true form of the promised future Redeemer from the mass of the people, and the more joyfully did they welcome Him. Shortly before the end of the reign of Herod the Saviour was born. This ending was a fearful one. It is impossible to read it in Josephus without horror. In the very face of death he altered his will, and appointed his son Archelaus to be his successor in the kingdom, Herod Antipas to be tetrarch of Perea and Galilee, Philip to be tetrarch of Batania, Gaulonitis, Trachonitis, and Paneas.

Archelaus hesitated to assume the title of king until he would have received confirmation of it from Rome. Immediately after his accession to the throne, the long-suppressed dissatisfaction of the nation broke forth. A formal rebellion arose, in which three thousand men perished, and the insurrection became still more fearful when Archelaus had set out for Rome. Sabinus, procurator of Syria, had during the time taken forcible possession of the treasures, strong-holds, and royal palaces, and had even plundered the temple of its treasures. The nation, who were assembled in Jerusalem in great numbers at the feast of Pentecost, attacked Sabinus, and kept him closely surrounded, with his troops. At the same time all Judea became agitated; the land was filled with bands of rebels, each having their own king. This state of things continued until the Roman general Varus marched into the country and restored peace by the most severe measures. He left a legion as a garrison in Jerusalem. Notwithstanding the objections and complaints of the Jews, who demanded that Palestine, as a Roman province, should be annexed to Syria, Augustus persevered in carrying out the will of Herod, though refusing to give Archelaus the title of king, instead of which he gave him that of ethnarch. Archelaus now took possession of his ethnarchy. But his hard rule caused the Jews and Samaritans to make new complaints to Augustus, in consequence of which he was deposed in the twelfth year of Christ, and banished to Vienne in Gaul. Judea and Samaria were now annexed to Syria, while the two brothers of Archelaus, Herod Antipas and Philip, remained still in possession of their tetrarchies. The census, which was taken in the very beginning by Quirinus for the purpose of regulating the taxation, led to an insurrection, headed by Judas the Gaulanite or Galilean, for the nation regarded it as a violation of their dignity as the people of God: Acts 5:37. Although this insurrection was put down at the time, yet the seed then sown continued to grow until the final rebellion.

It is no longer a part of our task to describe in detail how this rebellion continued to spread more and more widely; how, after a series of separate revolts, it burst forth fully, and led to the destruction of the city and the temple. We have already given the leading outlines, and there can be no charm in the details unless given with that fulness with which they are described by the eye-witness Josephus in his books De Bello Judaico.THE END MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBURGH, PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE