We naturally ask ourselves why Caiaphas should have taken this tone in speaking to his colleagues in the Sanhedrim? What did he wish them to do which they had not shown themselves ready to do? Had they not sent officers to take Jesus? Had they not encouraged the impulse of some amongst His hearers to stone him, if they had not issued a formal decree that He should be stoned? The explanation lies, I think, in the fact that Caiaphas was a Sadducee. It might be straining the words, '_Then gathered the chief priests_ AND _the Pharisees a council_,' to conclude from them that the priests in general were not Pharisees. But there are other good reasons for thinking that the accession of Caiaphas to the office of High Priest marks the commencement of a Sadducean ascendency. Now, the views of these schools respecting Jesus, however they might ultimately coincide, must have been determined by their other opinions. The Sadducees will have been much more disposed to regard Him as a fanatic than as a blasphemer; they will have dreaded His doctrine much less than the belief of His kingship among the multitude; consequently, they may have thought the experiment of putting Him to death by stoning very unwise. It was making a trial of their native jurisdiction which was, at least, hazardous; it might lead both to a tumult among their countrymen, and to interference from their masters. In the council which was held after the raising of Lazarus, it is evident that the indignation against Jesus for '_making Himself equal with God_,'--even the indignation at a Galilæan for pretending to be a prophet--has been merged in the fear, lest if '_they let Him alone, the Romans should destroy both their place and nation_.' Caiaphas takes advantage of the feeling, by whomsoever it may have been expressed, to state and defend his own policy. '_Ye know nothing at all_'--'you who are trying to punish Him by your own laws. You do not consider that if we are in the danger you apprehend, "_it is expedient that one man should die for the people_:" that we should give Him up to the Romans, as a rebel against them; gulping down our scruples about our dignity and our reluctance to ask aid from the Cæsar for crushing an enemy, rather than that "_the whole nation_" should "_perish_," through our obstinacy in maintaining an ancient and doubtful privilege.'