Truth Magazine

By Roy E. Cogdill (1907-1985)

From a legal point of view this trial represented the greatest miscarriage of justice and the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetrated against any person in all history. It was fraudulent from start to finish, illegal at almost every point and on every possible count. It was anything but a trial in which justice was in view in the desire of those conducting it.

Jewish Government

Annas was the High Priest of the Jews at the time Jesus was tried; but he had been deposed from his office for the very reason that he had tried to impose the death penalty on another occasion, and the Romans had appointed his son-in-law, Caiaphas, to be High Priest in his stead. From this incident it seems clear that the Romans had pretty well deprived the Jews of any real authority or power. They had a form of legally constituted authority, but it was a form with little power.

In the Jewish system of courts which remained, however, there were three kinds of tribunals. There was a three-judge court, which was the lowest and most elementary form of government; this corresponded roughly to our local Justice of the Peace courts, or to our municipal courts today. Next above this lowest court, there existed in many of the cities, and wherever the people desired and approved it, a Junior Sanhedrin Council which consisted of twenty-three judges. Then over and above these courts was the senior or major Sanhedrin Council, consisting of 71 judges. Qualifications for men of the senior Sanhedrin were exactly prescribed by law. Jewish law provided for these three separate kinds of courts, and they existed and commonly tried cases within their respective jurisdictions.

In any study of the trial of Jesus it must be remembered that it had two parts or two phases – a Jewish part and a Roman part. In the Jewish phase of his trial, Jesus was first arrested and taken to Annas; then he was tried before Caiaphas, and then by the Sanhedrin Council of the Jews in two sessions, a night session and a morning session. This consummated the trial of the Son of God at the hands of the Jews. Being sentenced to death, he then began the Roman phase of his trial. He was taken first to Pilate. Pilate examined him, and sent him to Herod. He was tried by Herod, and returned to Pilate. Again Pilate examined him, and then turned him over to the mob, weakly trying to exonerate himself of blame by the symbolic act of washing his hands. So, while there were two phases or parts to the trial, there were in reality six separate trials: before Annas, Caiaphas, the Sanhedrin; and before Pilate, Herod, and Pilate again.

The Arrest

To begin with, his arrest was in violation of Jewish law. Their law : prohibited all proceedings at night. On a religious charge, especially, their law provided that a man could not be deprived of his liberty, and could not be taken from his home and loved ones, at any hour between sunset and sunrise. But Jesus was arrested, as best we can determine, sometime after midnight; and was actually put on trial between two and three o’clock in the morning.

A second provision of Jewish law so clearly violated in these proceedings was their specific prohibition of a man’s turning “state’s evidence.” No accused man could have any accomplice or co-worker appear against him either in the charge in the court as witness, nor yet for the purpose of identifying him at the arrest. Neither by word nor by deed or act was such a man permitted to accuse his former associate. Any man who had taken part in a crime was barred from the Jewish courts as a witness against anybody else involved in the same crime.

Yet the Jewish court itself, the Sanhedrin, made arrangements with Judas, who had been a partaker in all that Jesus and his disciples had done for the last three and a half years, to betray Jesus into their hands, and to identify him by a kiss on the cheek. They wanted to make no mistake as to the identity of the prisoner.

A third violation of their own law in the arrest of Jesus was in the fact that they arrested him without a proper warrant. Their law provided, as does ours, that no arrest can be made without proper court authorization. Yet in this case there was no warrant no authorization issued by any court at all.

A fourth violation was the fact that no duly authorized officer of the court was present to effect the arrest. Christ was not arrested by a soldier or any officer sent out by the court; rather, he was seized by a mob, a motley gang who came out with sticks and stones and clubs for the purpose of taking him in charge and bringing him to trial.

The Indictment

The very lowest court among the Jews was a three judge court. They did not, in those days, have a jury system such as we have today; and in order to insure that justice would be administered, they provided that no man should be tried before less than three judges. Instead of twelve jurors, as is our custom, they had three judges. Even the smallest crime or misdemeanor must be tried not before one judge, but before three. They made no exceptions to this.

Yet, looking at the record of Jesus’ trial, we see that he was actually examined privately. In fact, Jesus appeared in five different stages of his trial before a court of a single judge; before Annas he appeared privately. Before Caiaphas he was privately examined. Before Pilate there was a private hearing. Before Herod he was tried by a single judge; and finally before Pilate again he appeared before one judge. Five of the six states of his trial, therefore, were in violation of this fundamental provision of Jewish law.

Not only was the court procedure illegal, but the indictment itself was illegal. The Sanhedrin did not, and, by Jewish law, could not, originate charges. This Council existed only for the purpose of investigating charges made by others -not for the purpose of making charges itself. Yet the very charges on which Jesus was tried, both in his Jewish trial and in his Roman trial, were charges that originated with the judges of the Jewish court.

There is further violation of legal procedure in that the accusation brought against Jesus was vague, duplicitous, and uncertain. One of the requirements of Jewish law was that a charge must be certain, specific, particular. Nothing uncertain, vague, or indefinite would be considered, Yet when they brought Jesus before the Sanhedrin, they had the most uncertain, indefinite, and generalized charges that could be imagined.

Today if a man should be charged with half a dozen different crimes, he would be indicted upon only one count at a time. Each separate violation must be considered independently of all others. But in the case of Jesus they did not so separate the matter. They just lumped it all together in every vague accusation they could think about – that he claimed to be the Christ; that he was the bread come down from heaven; that he claimed existence before Abraham; that he said he was divine, was God; that if they should destroy the temple, in three days he would raise it up; and that all these things are to be destroyed, meaning Jerusalem and the whole Jewish nation. They did not specify; they gave no clear and definite accusation.

No court today would accept such an indictment. It was so clearly in violation of all accepted principles of legal procedure that a motion to quash would be immediately granted; Jewish law clearly provided that no such vague, uncertain accusation could be the basis for any kind of trial. And even in this instance, the major charge was dropped right in the middle of the trial and another was substituted in its place.

The Procedure

Consider now the illegal aspects of the procedure of Jesus’ trial. First, it was contrary to law because it took place at night. A capital offense, even after the arrest of the party, could be tried only by the light of the sun.

In the second place, the procedure was illegal because the court convened before the offering of morning sacrifices. Here, again, the Jewish law was extremely detailed and specific: no court could convene to hear any kind of case before the offering of the morning sacrifice.

A third illegal procedure was in the fact that the entire trial was conducted within a single day, with sentence passed, and execution completed. In less than twenty-four. hours Jesus was arrested, tried, condemned, and actually executed. Yet the Jewish law provided that no case involving a capital offense could be concluded in a single day.

A fourth illegality in the procedure of this trial is found in that it was conducted on a day preceding a Jewish Sabbath, also on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread and on the eve of the Passover. This was prohibited and forbidden; yet the provision was ignored.

The Conviction

We have considered illegalities in the arrest of Jesus, in the indictment, and in the procedures of his trial. Let us look now at the verdict.

One of the strangest and most peculiar provisions of any criminal law known in history was the provision of Jewish law that in case of a unanimous verdict of guilty – the prisoner must go free! There were seventy-one judges in the senior Sanhedrin council. The Jewish philosophy was on this wise: In case all seventy-one of those men agreed as to the guilt of a prisoner, this was prima facie evidence that no one had taken the prisoner’s part, and no defense had been made in his behalf. Human nature was such that regardless of how strong a case might be presented, there would be at least one in any group of seventy-one men who would differ from the rest. If no such divergence appeared in the verdict, then the prisoner had not been given a fair trial, and must be released. The gospel writers have recorded for us the fact that all the judges did agree; two of them say the high priest “with the whole council” concurred in the verdict. It was unanimous. Thus, legally, Christ was free, and should have been released immediately. But this safeguard for a condemned man was ignored. in the second place, the verdict was rendered without any defense having been made by, or for, the accused.

A third illegality in the verdict was that it was based upon an uncorroborated confession. When Caiaphas saw that the trial was about to collapse into a farce, and that the hired witnesses were hopelessly contradicting each other, he took charge himself and demanded of the prisoner, “I adjure thee by the living God, art thou the Christ?” Jesus could have held his peace; there wasn’t any law that could have forced him to testify. A man cannot be forced to testify at his own trial. The reason for that provision is that a man on trial will have conflicting demands upon him. He is being required to tell the truth on the one hand, and has taken an oath to that effect; but on the other hand, the truth might be damaging to him. Hence he has conflicting emotions and conflicting obligations. So the law excuses a man and does not require him to testify in his own trial.

But Jesus was not excused. All the testimony they could find was not sufficient to convict him or to establish their charges. So as a final desperate measure Caiaphas tries to force him to testify against himself.

Roman Trial

But look at the Roman trial in comparison with this. In the Roman trial the charge was not blasphemy, but treason against Rome. The Jewish leaders, having now decided in their own courts that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy and worthy of death, next took him before the Roman governor, and with consummate hypocrisy and insincerity, informed the Roman official that Jesus was trying to foment a rebellion against Rome, claiming that he was a king! They accused him of doing the very thing they had tried to persuade him to do, and which he had refused (John 6:15).

It would be difficult to imagine an act of more blatant hypocrisy and cynical dishonesty than this. They had tried to persuade Jesus to become their king; indeed, had tried to force him into such a role. He refused. Then in anger they had turned against him because of his refusal, had condemned him to death; and are now trying to persuade the Roman governor to confirm their death sentence by charging Jesus with doing that which they knew he had not done, but which they themselves had tried to get him to do.

But Pilate, much to their chagrin and discomfort, acquitted the prisoner. He declared, “I find no crime in him.” Thus, legally, Jesus should have gone free. The Sanhedrin, by its unanimous verdict of guilty, had legally freed him; now the Roman governor has likewise acquitted him. When the Jewish judges of the Sanhedrin came into the quarters of the Roman governor, bringing Jesus as a prisoner from the Jewish court, they made their charges against him before Pilate. Then, according to the record, Pilate took him apart from them and tried him. The result of that examination is seen when Pilate came back to the Jewish leaders and said, “I rind no fault in him.”

That is the verdict. That is the decree and judgment of the court, the Roman court this time. Had Jesus received his legal rights, he would have walked forth from Pilate’s judgment hall a free man.

But the howling mob put up such a furious clamor that Pilate weakened, and yielded his consent to a further trial of Jesus. He sent the prisoner to Herod, hoping to shift responsibility to that source. Herod was unable to do anything about the case, however, and sent the prisoner back to Pilate. Then Pilate, to his everlasting shame, sold his birthright for the sake of popularity as the governor of the Jews, and actually delivered over to the hands of a mob a prisoner whom he, as judge, had pronounced innocent of any crime.

Conclusion

The very decision that men make now concerning Jesus will itself determine the decision that Jesus then, as judge, will make concerning men. Annas, Caiaphas, Pilate, Herod, and all others who had a part in the great fraudulent trial, the illegal and unjust verdict and execution, will stand in the final great day, that day toward which all other days are pointing, and will themselves be judged on the very conduct of the trial in which they took part. But as this fact holds true for all those men who had part in that illegal procedure so many centuries ago, it is equally true for all men today. The judgment that men today render concerning Christ, and the verdict which they reach, will become the basis for the judgment Christ renders, and the verdict he reaches, concerning these men. The eternal destiny of our souls will depend upon our attitude toward Christ, and the judgment we now render about him.

(This article consists of excerpts from a series of articles by brother Cogdill that appeared in the Gospel Guardian several years ago. Brother Cogdill, a gospel preacher of many years, was also a lawyer, although he never practiced law.)

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 20, pp. 615-617
October 15, 1987

By Guy N. Woods

Human nature remains much the same through the years. It is significant that one may find, among the characters of the Bible, representatives of all the various types of people among us today. Such is true of those whose lives in some fashion touched the life of our Blessed Lord. One may indeed discover among those who participated in the crucifixion individuals possessing the same attributes and characteristics, and reacting in the same manner we react today. Humanity in outline, gathered at the foot of the cross! “And they sat and watched him there” (Matt. 27:36).

It was an amazingly strange and heterogenous group that surrounded our Lord during his last earthly hours. A variety of motives prompted their presence. Some were there by command, duty demanding their participation. Of this number was the Centurion, the Roman officer officially in charge, empowered with the responsibility of executing the infamous decree of the court that condemned Him (Matt. 27:54). Others were there by chance, devout pilgrims from distant places, en route to Jerusalem to keep the Passover Feast, and through a chain of fortuitous circumstances, were made unwilling participants. Simon of Cyrene, whom “they compelled to bear his cross” (Matt. 27:32), was of this number. Some were there through curiosity, influenced by that morbidity which draws an idle crowd to the scene of disaster (Luke 23:48). There were those present, as always, to criticize, to find fault, to ridicule, to vent their spleen against One whom they despised: “And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, and saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, he saved others; himself he cannot save” (Matt. 27:39-41). Others were there, God be thanked, in genuine sympathy, full of compassion, ready to render any possible aid (Matt. 27:55-56).

What would have been our attitude had we been there? We boil with righteous indignation as we contemplate the shameful indignities they heaped upon our Lord in those bleak hours immediately preceding His death. It is possible that we may have sometimes felt as did the Prussian General who, on hearing for the first time the story of the Crucifixion, his eyes flashing fire, drew his sword, stood at attention, and said, “If I had been there with my army they would not have crucified my Lord!”

As a matter of fact, we were there ‘ representatively! Somebody represented you; somebody represented me on that fateful occasion. For this reason it is possible to see ourselves mirrored in the conducts of those participating. We shall see that there are modern pictures that fit well into that ancient setting – among them our very own!

Representatives Of Organized Religion

Present were the Pharisees and Scribes, Priests and Levites, acknowledged representatives of the organized religion of the day. Was their attitude one of genuine sympathy, tender compassion and sincere grief? On the contrary. There were, in fact, the chief instigators of His death. Why? Had they discovered that our Lord was an imposter and deceiver, and they thus felt it their solemn duty to protect the people of whom they were the acknowledged leaders and representatives? No such motives influenced them. Had they been deprived by him of something rightfully theirs, or made to suffer unjustly at his hands? Indeed not. Why then, was he so odious to them, and why did they regard him with such unmingled feelings of malice and hate? He had uncovered their hypocrisy, laid bare the corruptions of their worship, and exposed them to the world as rapacious wolves, feeding on the poverty of widows and orphans. They entertained no illusions whatsoever. They were well aware of the fact that if his influence were not speedily checked and effectively destroyed, they would eventually lose their control over the people and be deprived of their positions of preference. Thus with gratified malice and lively hatred they watched him die, rejoicing that no longer would they be exposed to his penetrating and illuminating analysis, or made to squirm under his biting rebukes.

All about us there are those who affect to believe and who do preach that honesty and sincerity of purpose are the only conditions of salvation. Those who thus preach concede our honesty and sincerity; hence, give us as good chance for heaven as they claim for themselves. But, are they present in our meetings, and do they cooperate with us in our efforts to spread the primitively pure gospel among the people of the earth9 On the contrary, they are conspicuously absent, and their influence is uniformly against us. Why? Is it that they are convinced that ours is a position that deceives and destroys? They are quick to deny this. Do they believe that our position is untenable? Except in isolated instances, they have abandoned all efforts along this line. Why then, is their influence against us? They have learned long since that Primitive Christianity and Denominationalism are inveterate enemies, unable to be at peace in the same community. From bitter experience they have found that when one waxes, the other wanes, and in exactly the same ratio! The Religionists of our Savior’s day the Pharisees and Scribes, Priests and Levites -because they loved tradition better than the truth, did not scorn to condemn an innocent man. They have a modern counterpart in the religious leaders of the present age, who with jealous vigilance guard their unauthorized systems lest the people learn the truth and forevermore abandon them. Every community in the land has in it men who have dedicated their lives to the infamous purpose of keeping people out of the kingdom of God, by leading them to believe that one does not have to do what our Lord made essential to salvation (Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3,4; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21). The portraiture of the denominational preacher of the present day fits well into the ancient setting of the Pharisee and Scribe, the Priest and Levite!

Blood-Thirsty Mob

Next, there was the blood-thirsty mob that milled and surged at his feet. Have you ever pondered the sudden and abrupt change which characterized the people during the last days of our Lord’s earthly life? Four days – four days, mind you – before his condemnation and death, these people, on the occasion of his Triumphant Entry into Jerusalem, ranged themselves as interested and adoring spectators along the way, spread branches in his path, and shouted, “Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest” (Matt. 21:1-10). Within the week, these same people were turned into a milling and surging mob, every semblance of sanity gone, shouting madly, “Let him be crucified . . . his blood be upon us, and on our children” (Matt. 27:20-25). How shall we account for this abrupt and sudden change in attitude? Had the people discovered matters not hitherto known to them prompting them to revise their estimate of Jesus? No. What is the explanation? Their designing leaders, by a shrewd application of mob psychology, to accomplish their evil end, by untruths and deception, turned the people against him.

There are multiplied by thousands all about us who will never be saved; indeed, will never hear a gospel sermon, because their religious guides by misrepresentation and deliberate falsehood have instilled prejudice in their hearts against the truth. The mob therefore, is representative of the masses today who are ever ready to follow in blindness the leadership and direction of others; and who will not think nor investigate for themselves, but who allow others to establish their opinions and form their prejudices!

Roman Soldiers

Present also were the four Roman soldiers who actually nailed him to the cross: “then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part. . . ” (John 19:23). Were they men, currently stationed in Palestine, Jewish sympathizers, desirous of aiding the Priests and rulers in protecting their cherished traditions? Far from it. They were not more favorably disposed toward the Jewish leaders who, through force of circumstances, they happened to be assisting, than they were toward Jesus. As a matter of fact, the Romans were coldly contemptuous of the whole of the Jewish religion; and they doubtless regarded Jesus with the same cynicism and contempt they felt for all others of his race. Disgusted with the superciliousness and hypocrisy of the heads of the Jewish party, they made little effort to distinguish between them, feeling that all were of the same nature. These men were the cynics and agnostics of our Savior’s day. As such, they are representative of a constantly growing class of individuals among us today who have become disgusted with the religion to which they have formerly adhered, or with which they are most familiar and having repudiated it, fancy themselves as opposed to all religion, unaware of the fact that that which they have repudiated is a false religion, and that they have never known the true.

A major reason for the godlessness and atheism of modern Russia is the fact that the people of the nation were for centuries impoverished and enslaved by the greed and tyranny of Greek Catholicism. At length able to repudiate it, and to throw off its yoke, they regard themselves as anti-Christian; when, in reality, they are simply anti-Catholic, not knowing that there is the difference of the poles between Catholicism and Christianity. Led to believe that Christianity and Catholicism are synonymous, with the memory of their former state fresh in their minds, when they think of Christianity, they recall the suffering and deprivation they underwent, and they want no more of it. Not infrequently we contact those in this country who, having become disgusted with the emptiness and worthlessness of decadent denominationalism, fancy themselves to be anti-religious, not knowing that that which they have rejected is nothing more than a pitiable substitute and counterfeit of genuine Christianity. These need to be informed of what the True Religion is, unmixed and unadulterated with the doctrines and commandments of men. Thus, the Roman soldiers, coldly cynical and bitterly contemptuous toward all religion, are typical of an ever-increasing class of cynical, misanthropic and pessimistic individuals among us today.

Roman Centurion

There, too was the Centurion, officially in charge of the Crucifixion, the one responsible for the execution of the court’s decree. As the title suggests, he was an officer of a group of men, originally comprising one hundred, though the number was often actually less, subject to his command. The events of that fateful day on which Jesus died exercised a tremendous influence upon him. When our Lord died, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom (Matt. 27:5 1). This was the great curtain which hung suspended before the entrance of the Most Holy Place, separating it from the first compartment. It was an exceedingly sumptuous affair, made of fine linen, embroidered in purple, and blue and scarlet, with a covering of goat’s hair, four inches thick and seventy feet high. Suddenly, before the eyes of the amazed spectators, it began ripping downward – not from the bottom to the top, as if some man might have done it .- but from the top to the bottom, indicative of divine intervention. The earth violently quivered from an earthquake, the rocks were rent, and graves of the dead burst open (Matt. 27:51,52). “Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, ‘Truly this was the Son of God’ (Matt. 27:54). That it was the centurion who actually uttered these words, will be seen from the parallel passages of Mark and Luke (Mk. 15:39; Lk. 23:47). More dispassionate than the others, calmer, more capable of reasoning than those whose minds were inflamed by the vicious and lying propaganda of the designing Jewish leaders, the incidents of the cross brought conviction to the heart of the Roman Officer. As he pondered the strange course of events attending the death of Jesus, belief surged through him, possessed him, led him to confess, “Truly this man was the Son of God” (Mk. 15:39). But, despite the fact that he confessed the truth, he did not do anything about it!

There are those who say to every gospel preacher, “I believe that if anybody is right, the church of Christ is right; and, if I am ever anything, that is what I expect to be.” But, like the centurion, notwithstanding the fact that they accede to the correctness of our position, they do nothing about it! If it is possible to do so, those of this type sin more grievously than those who, because of biased and prejudiced minds reject the truth: theirs is an attitude of rebellion; in addition, they pursue a course contrary to their own conception of what is proper and right. They have not only the condemnation of the Lord upon them; they are condemned by their own consciences as well! Thus, the Roman Centurion is representative of those who acknowledge the truth but will not obey it.

Simon of Cyrene

Present was Simon, a man of Cyrene, forced from circumstances over which he had no control, to be an unwilling participant in the death of Jesus: “And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear this cross” (Matt. 27:32). En route to Golgotha, the place of crucifixion, Jesus was made to carry the cross on which he was to die. Exhausted by scourging, there is evidence that he sank under its weight; and Simon of Cyrene, who chanced to be passing, was forced to seize the “after” portion, the lighter end which had been dragging on the ground (Lk. 23:26). Simon was “compelled” to bear the cross. In the light of the subsequent events, it is difficult for us to appreciate the feeling of bitterness and utter frustration that must have possessed this man. From far-off Africa he had come, a pilgrim to the Great Passover Feast, in all probability, the most eventful and important journey in his life. The savings of a life-time may have gone into the trip; at any rate, he had looked forward to it for years with fond anticipation; and now, on the threshold of his cherished desire to worship once during his life in the sacred precincts of the Temple, suddenly and forevermore for him, his hopes are blasted: to touch the accursed tree of the cross was to render himself ceremonially unclean, and hence, unfitted for worship in the Temple.

How bitterness must have surged through his heart as he saw himself robbed of the dearest wish of his life. But would we have borne the cross of Jesus with any less resentment? With our present perspective, we may perhaps think so; but, do we bear it willingly today? Do we chafe under the burdens it imposes, complain at the restraint it demands? The “offense of the cross” has not ceased (Gal. 5:11). Because Paul dared to present plainly, clearly and uncompromisingly the testimony of the cross, he suffered greatly. This testimony is as offensive today. If you are disposed to disagree; if you are one of those who allege that the world is becoming more tolerant of the testimony of Christ than formerly, try presenting the Plan of Salvation at your next social gathering, before your neighborhood club, at your next luncheon, or in the homes of the elite. Do you answer that such is not considered socially correct? Indeed so; and this establishes our contention that the testimony of the cross has been quietly legislated out of polite society.

When his enemies blaspheme his cause, and ridicule his followers do you remain silent, or perhaps join the fun? Do you allow his name to be profaned without protest in your presence? When men assail his word and corrupt his teachings, do you spring to his defense? Or, do you permit the Son of God to be crucified afresh, and before you put to open shame?

Simeon of Cyrene was not the last to offer an unwilling type of service to the Lord. His imitators are legion. All however, do not experience the change characteristics of Simon. Forced from circumstances over which he had no control to turn away from God’s Temple, unfitted to enter, he lived to boast with brimming eyes of the glorious deed done on that day! To the cause he at first served so unwillingly, he gave two useful and faithful sons (Mk. 15:21), and if we may rely on tradition, himself became a power in the early church, serving His Lord henceforth with great honor and fidelity.

“Simon of Cyrene bore

The cross of Jesus – nothing more.

His name is never heard again,

Nor honored by historic pen;

Nor on the pedestal of fame

His image courts the loud acclaim:

Simon of Cyrene bore

The cross of Jesus, nothing more.

“And yet, when all our work is done,

And golden beams the western sun

Upon a life of wealth and fame:

A thousand echoes ring our name;

Perhaps our hearts will humbly pray

“Good Master, let my record say

Upon the page divine: ‘he bore

The Cross of Jesus,’ nothing more.”

Jesus’ Disciples

We may see our own selves ofttimes mirrored in the conduct of his disciples, during the last hours of the earthly life of our Lord. As long as all was well, while the sea was glassy smooth, and no storm threatened, the disciples were much in evidence. During the years of his popularity, when the multitudes flocked out to hear him, and the interest was exceedingly great, they were ever on hand, basking in reflected glory. But as his popularity waned, as opposition grew and sinister forces marshaled for the final battle, the disciples, with the exception of John, forsook him in his hour of greatest need, and fled. Every cause has its hangers-on, superficial sycophants, interested only in furthering their own well-being. When clouds, ominous and heavy, appear on their horizon, and obstacles seemingly insurmountable block their way such individuals quickly fall away.

Peter, particularly, is representative of a large class among us today. He followed “afar off” (Matt. 26:56-75). This was by no means undesigned on the part of the disciple Peter. He purposed to be far enough back so as not to be held responsible for the cause from which he had fled, but nevertheless close enough up, that if anything happened, he would be on hand to enjoy it! Many among us are unwilling to bear the burdens incident to the maintenance of the cause, and did it depend on such for its existence, it would speedily fail. Those of this type, like Peter, follow “afar off.” They have only enough religion to be evermore miserable. They do not enjoy themselves in the church, because their hearts yearn for the world; but neither can they enjoy themselves fully in the world because of the goading of a slightly awakened conscience. Like the Laodiceans, they are neither hot nor cold; hence, lukewarm, and therefore nauseating and disgusting to the Lord!

Godly Women

Finally, there were the godly women who had followed him from Galilee, to minister and who, oblivious of personal danger, remained near by to do what they could (John 19:25).

Not she with traitorous kiss her Savior stung

Not she denied him with unholy tongue

But she, while apostles shrank did dangers brave,

Last at the cross, and first at the grave!

These women represent those in the church today – and may their tribe increase! – who put the kingdom of God first in their hearts and lives and make all else subservient thereto!

Yes, you and I were there, “when they crucified my Lord.”

Somebody represented you; somebody represented me. Who, friends, represented you?

(Used by permission from brother Woods. Due to the length of the article and the limitation of space, some of the introduction has been omitted. Sub-headings have been added.)

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 20, pp. 620-623
October 15, 1987

By Grover Stevens

The twenty-four hours between Thursday afternoon and Friday afternoon of “Passion Week” were the most momentous in history — together with those pertaining to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (Rom. 4:24-25).

At the Passover supper, Jesus points out Judas as the betrayer and he leaves, the Lord then tells them of his approaching death, and warns the disciples of the extreme danger and temptation they are about to face. After supper the Lord then institutes the Lord’s Supper (Lk. 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25), gives his farewell discourse (Jn. 14), they sing a hymn and depart.

It was about midnight when Jesus and the disciples left the upper room. As they walked along the slopes of Mt. Zion on the crisp, moonlit night, looking down on the Garden of Gethsemane just across the brook Kedron, Jesus spoke the parable of the Vine and the Husbandman, taught them to abide in his love by keeping his commandments, to love one another, and promised them another Comforter (Jn. 15). In the 14th,15th and 16th chapters of John, Christ presents the fullest treatise on the work of the Holy Spirit that is found in the Bible.

Christ’s Intercessory Prayer (John 17)

Since the Temple was located on their way to Gethsemane it is altogether probable that this majestic, high-priestly prayer of Jesus was spoken in the great court of the temple, now flooded with moonlight and deserted at this time of night except for these twelve. It manifests an air of triumph and glory. In widening circles, Jesus prays first for himself that the divine glory may now be consummated; then for his disciples, that they may remain one in the faith through their faithfulness to the truth – his Word; then for all those who will become disciples in all future generations “through their word” “that they all may be one” as “Thou, Father, art in Me and I in Thee”; and last of all, for all the world, that it may believe in him because of the oneness and faithfulness of all who believe in him by adhering to the divine revelation – the New Covenant – which was delivered to the world through the apostles by the Holy Spirit.

After this prayer, they cross the brook Kedron and enter the Garden of Gethsemane at the foot of mount of Olives. Here Jesus tells the disciples to watch and pray that they enter not into temptation, while he goes aside to pray. Then ensued the awful and memorable agony.

His Arrest And Trial

Judas comes with the mob, which included the chief priests, captains of the temple and elders; Jesus is arrested and bound, and the disciples flee.

In the early morning hours, perhaps 3 a.m., Jesus is taken to the palace of Annas, the Ex-High-Priest, for trial (John 18:13-23). Annas was an old man of seventy, who had been high priest a score of years before, and still retained the title, though his son-in-law, Caiaphas, was actual high priest at this time. He had five of his sons to serve as high priest in the interim. He was extremely wealthy and influential. It was here that one of the officers slapped Jesus in the face. Jesus did not “turn the other cheek,” but exercised his “constitutional right” by mildly but firmly remarking, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why do you smite me?”

From Annas Jesus was taken before Caiaphas, who was the, ruling High Priest, and president of the Sanhedrin Council, the highest Jewish assembly for government. The palace of Caiaphas was either very near or probably a part of the same large complex with Annas with one living in one wing and the other in another. There would be a large hall for meetings and gatherings and a court yard. It was not legal for this court to meet before sunrise, but they were eager to get to work, both to gratify their own resentment of Jesus and to work out their proceedings so that when the legal hour for the court to convene arrives, they will only have to repeat the necessary formalities, and thus minimize the chances of the people interfering with their proceedings, and also will be ready the sooner to get the approval of the Roman governor. So, while Jerusalem slept, these eager judges hurried along with their evil plans.

Jesus looked on in silence while the contradictory testimonies of the witnesses demolished each other. He thus, quietly took his natural position far above his judges, and they felt it. At last the president asked Jesus under oath if “Thou art the Christ, the Son of God.” To refuse to answer would have been taken as a virtual denial of his Messiahship, so he answers calmly and clearly, “I am,” and continued, “Moreover the day will come when this court will stand before (me) at the right hand of Power (God) and be judged.” With a great show of horror, the high priest “rent his garments, saying, he hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we to witnesses?” The court then condemned him to death. All they need do now is wait for the formal Council after sunrise and they will be ready to take him to the Roman governor to obtain the death sentence and get the execution on the road.

Peter’s Denial of the Lord (Mk. 14:54,66-72)

It was during this trial that Peter, who had followed afar off and was in the court yard, denied the Lord three times. After his first denial the cock crew once (a reminder), and after his third denial the cock crew the second time. Peter then remembered that the Lord had told him during supper that he would do this. He went out and wept bitterly. The cock crowing tells us that daybreak is nearing.

Trial Before Pilate

When it was daylight Friday morning, the Sanhedrin officially convened and confirmed their previous verdict of his being guilty of blasphemy and worthy of death. They led him bound with chains to Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor over Judea, because only the Roman authorities had the power to put a person to death.

At the “praetorium,” the magnificent palace of Herod the Great, Pilate’s residence and judgment hall when in Jerusalem, Jesus was turned over to soldiers to take to Pilate, but the chief priests refused to go in lest they defile themselves because they had not yet eaten the passover. (Evidently these had been so busy planning, preparing for the arrest and trial of Jesus that they didn’t have time to eat the Passover Supper Thursday evening at the proper time.) So, Pilate came out to them (Jn. 18:29).

After examination Pilate found Jesus innocent of the charge of being a king in sedition to Caesar. The Jews cried out in disappointed rage, loudly shouting the charges over and over. When Pilate heard the mention that Jesus was from Galilee, he sought to escape the responsibility of executing an innocent man by sending him to Herod Antipas, who also was in Jerusalem at this time, and who was the governor of the territory of Galilee. Herod also found him innocent (Lk. 23:15), mocked him, and sent him back to Pilate. After two feeble attempts to set Jesus free, by their custom of releasing a prisoner at this feast, and by scourging him, both of which failed, and after announcing again that both he and Herod had found “nothing worthy of death in him,” and washing his hands before them to demonstrate his verdict, Pilate yielded to the growing tumultuous demands of the Jews and sentenced him to be crucified. John tells us that the time was “about the sixth hour,” that is, within that hour between 6 and 7 o’clock (Roman time).

Judas, when he saw that Jesus was condemned to death, was filled with remorse, went back to the chief priests in the temple, expressed his regrets, threw the money at their feet, and went out and hanged himself.

Jesus’ Crucifixion

The soldiers and mob then take Jesus and mock and abuse him. Finally, his journey to a hill outside the city, called “Golgotha,” bearing his cross, along with two criminals begins. Shortly a man named Simon of Cyrene is compelled to bear the cross for him the rest of the way. No reason is given for this in the Scriptures; probably because the fatigue of Christ, exhausted by the distressful night, the trials and the scourging and abuse. Mark tells us the crucifixion took place at the “third hour,” 9 a.m. (Jewish time), on Friday (the day of “Preparation, that is the day before the sabbath,” Mk. 15:25,42). From the “sixth hour” to the “ninth hour” (noon to 3 p.m.) there was darkness over all the land. At the “ninth hour” there was an earthquake, the veil of the temple was rent in twain, and tombs were opened, as Jesus “gave up the ghost” and died (Mk. 15:33-37).

Shortly after this the legs of the robbers were broken in order to hurry their death, but the legs of Jesus were not broken since he was already dead, but they thrust a spear into his side, probably his heart. This was done so “that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day” which would begin at 6:00 p.m. And too, this particular sabbath was a “high day,” that is it had double significance because it was the sabbath of the passover week.

Immediately after it was determined that Jesus was dead, Joseph of Arimathea goes to Pilate and asks for the body of Jesus. After verifying this fact with the Centurion, Pilate grants his request. The body of Jesus was taken down from the cross, partially anointed, wrapped and laid in Joseph’s own new tomb in a garden nearby. The women “beheld the tomb and how his body was laid,” when a great stone had been rolled over the entrance, they returned to their homes, and prepared some spices before 6 o’clock when the sabbath began (see Lk. 23:53-56).

The next day, “the day after the Preparation” (after 6 p.m. Friday), the Jews ask Pilate for a guard, and the guard was placed and the tomb was sealed.

When He was buried their hopes were all dashed to pieces for there was not a single human being that believed he would ever rise again before the end of the world. Even Peter and John, as John himself informs us, “knew not the Scripture, that He must rise from the dead.”

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 20, pp. 611-612, 617
October 15, 1987

By Frank Ritter

Reprinted from The Tennessean [8 June 1987], pp. 1-2 A

Whether waking or sleeping, Deborah Garton cannot forget the nightmare that plays over and over in her mind.

Lying on the surgical table, she had turned her eyes to the counter top where her doctor was piecing together tiny, torn bits of flesh.

“Oh Jesus!” she screamed. “You told me it was still a fetus! It’s a baby! It’s a baby! “

Today, she says, “I freaked out. I watched the doctor go to the sink with it, wash it off and then count every little finger, every little toe, I watched her reassemble my baby. I could see it was a little girl – all torn, mangled, bruised.

“And then I just laid there with hate going through my mind. Hate for the doctor, for myself – mostly hate for myself because I could have stopped and didn’t.”

Nearly six years have passed since the day when Garton, now 28, underwent what was supposed to be a routine abortion in her Nashville doctor’s office. But she did not know then that instead of being only three months pregnant – a time length considered safe for abortion – her pregnancy had actually progressed to about five months. And to day it is that unplanned, unforeseen set of circumstances, along with her vivid recollections, that Garton cannot escape.

As a mother of two, she knows she should be content and thankful for her healthy children, her husband and her life. She has a 21-acre farm in Cheatham County, a nice house, Arabian horses and pedigreed dogs.

But her ability to live a happy, normal life has been hampered by tangled emotions that keep escaping from the past. There is shame, hate, sadness, anger and sorrow. There is guilt that she didn’t somehow keep it from happening. There is fear that the laws of fate one day will retaliate by hurting people she loves.

And, most of all, there is a hunger to warn other women – not as a stand for or against abortion, but as an encouragement that they search out all options beforehand so they do not follow the path she took.

“I always wanted a family. I wanted a house with a white picket fence and a place where I could raise horses and dogs.”

But no picket fence came with her wedding at age 15 after she became pregnant, dropped out of high school and married her classmate sweetheart. The Gartons soon had their first child, Stonie, now 12; and then a daughter, Felisa, now 8.

In 1980, Garton underwent a gallbladder operation and an appendectomy. Her physician warned that future pregnancies were unadvisable for medical reasons. But the following year Garton became pregnant.

“My husband didn’t want the baby. He was afraid because of surgeries I had. And I didn’t want to be big and fat and unattractive. I called up this doctor and told her I needed an abortion. She said, ‘We call it a termination,’ and asked when I wanted it. I said ‘as soon as possible.”‘

“It was Dec. 3, 1981,” she recalls, mechanically reciting details of the nightmare. “J walked to the front desk, paid $350 and got a receipt. My husband sat down in a chair and said, ‘It’ll be all right; it’s nothing.’. No hug. I looked back and he had his head buried in a book.”

When Garton stepped into the examination room, she explained that both she and her husband had felt the baby move inside her, but the doctor replied, “You’re not that far along” and instructed Garton to undress.

“The doctor never asked me anything. She never said, ‘Deborah, do you want to go though with this?’ There was no counseling. The right counselor could have found out in five minutes that this was a mistake for me. And a caring doctor could have determined I was too far along in my pregnancy.”

The doctor performed a pelvic exam, gave Garton sedatives and then began the procedure by using a suction device that is effective in pregnancies of three months or less.

“The suction wouldn’t work. The doctor finally quit and threw the device in the sink. Then she got out a long sharp instrument. When I asked her what she was doing, she said, ‘The only thing I can do.’

“I didn’t realize what she was doing until I saw an arm and a hand. And that’s when I felt my baby move up inside me as far as she could, away from the sharp instrument. It was like she was trying to grab my heart, saying, ‘Stop this! Stop it now!'”

That is when Garton began to scream – and hate.

“I knew my baby was dying – dying very slowly. The doctor was cutting little by little, pulling her out, and all I could say was ‘Oh, Jesus! It was a baby! And then the doctor stood there and counted every little finger, every little toe.”

Each May, Garton leaves her husband and children and goes either to her mother’s home in Nashville or to a motel. May is difficult because she has given her baby a birthday.

“My birthday and anniversary are in April. I couldn’t give her a birthday in April, even though that’s probably when she would have been born. If she had lived, she would be five years old.”

For the rest of the year Garton tends to her family. She is a good mother. She takes her children horseback riding, boating, roller skating and to movies. She loves them very much. But on Dec. 3 – “the date of my second daughter’s death” – she again retreats from husband and children.

She sits and thinks, “I have nightmares. In my mind, I see my little girl in the woods, cut up, whacked up, or my little boy bashed in the head.”

She gave her aborted baby a name, Misty Angel “Angel” because she believes the child is with God.

“I know I sound crazy,” she says, telling of how she had an angel tattooed on her right thigh. And how, when she gives blood at the Red Cross, she has them mark it with Angel’s name.

She had a good business in Ashland City – Fashions for Less – but she gave it up. She couldn’t bear to tell her partner the truth about why she didn’t want to continue.

She sought professional counseling but withheld her last name from the counselor until only a short while ago.

She went to her longtime family doctor for treatment of ulcerative colitis. When he asked if she had any clue as to why she had this ailment caused by nerves and anxiety, she replied that she didn’t.

She was ashamed to tell her children why she cried the day she encountered an anti-abortion display at a carnival and stood, stunned, looking at the photos of aborted fetuses.

And she was afraid to tell her priest, “I was Catholic. But you don’t have an abortion and be a Catholic. To me, there’s no forgiveness for what I did. Not when the pregnancy is that far along. Not when it had moved inside me. And not when, after the doctor pinched it the first time, the baby tried to get up in me as far as she could, as if to hold onto my heart.”

The people to whom she told the truth urged her to put the pain behind her. “It’s over and done with and there is nothing you can do about it now. ” She tried, but she couldn’t.

Then one day recently she called the doctor who performed the abortion. “I need to come in now. This is an emergency.” What was the emergency? “Because of a termination.”

She went to the doctor’s office and confronted her with angry questions. The doctor said, “You wanted an abortion. I gave you one. It was your doing, not mine.”

A few days ago she went back to the Catholic church she used to attend. She walked around it and came at last to a statue of Mary holding the Christ child. She stood there for the longest time, praying. When she had worked up her courage, she knocked on the priest’s door.

As soon as he saw her, he knew something was terribly wrong. In tears, she told him the truth. She told him she didn’t think she could ever be forgiven.

“You should have come sooner,” he replied. “God has forgiven you – don’t you know that? But you need to forgive yourself. You’ve got two great children and the third one is now with God. She is growing and she knows you. She knows your pain.

“Some day, you will see her again and hold her and love her.”

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 19, pp. 592-593
October 1, 1987