Truth Magazine

By James R. Cope

When I survey the wondrous Cross

On which the Prince of glory died,

My richest gain I count but loss,

And pour contempt on all my pride.

Where the whole realm of nature mine,

That were a present far too small;

Love so amazing, so divine,

Demands my soul, my life, my all.

These are the familiar words of Isaac Watts (1674-1748), the most eminent English hymn writer in history. They well serve as the introduction to the remarks to follow.

When I survey the history of the physical cross I see two pieces of wood so attached to each other as to support the full weight of a living human body with outstretched arms attached by iron spikes driven through the hands and feet of that body. I see an instrument of death much more cruel to its victims than sword or burning-at-the-stake because its pain continued so much longer. Historians tell us that the cross was used by the Phoenicians, Cartheginians and Egyptians, especially in times of war, prior to its usage by the Romans. Probably even before the time of Christ the dread of this instrument of death symbolized the cares and burdens of life. Matthew, Mark and Luke reveal that Jesus said he would be scourged and all four gospels indicate that scourging occurred prior to his bearing his own cross to the death site. The victims of scourging sometimes died before crucifixion. Crucifixion’s victims often lingered two or three days. Breaking of the victim’s legs hastened death but “when they came to Jesus and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs” (Jn. 19:33).

The Jewish Leaders’ Hatred

When Pilot asked, “What shall I do with Jesus?” the Jewish answer bespoke their deep hatred for Jesus. Their response, “Crucify him, crucify him! ” reveals the malice which the Scribes and Pharisees, who sought to control Jewish thought, had for Jesus. When I survey the wondrous cross I see the symbol of his love for his enemies which contradicted the Jewish politicians’ hatred of him. Jesus disappointed their hopes for worldly power and prominence which they mistakenly attached to the Messiah’s reign. Just as increasingly, “the common people heard him gladly” (Mk. 12:37), so the chief priests and Scribes and Pharisee leaders saw their control of the masses slipping from themselves. The Jewish leaders were not political dumb heads. They knew Roman procedure and that they were those with whom Pilate knew he had to deal directly and officially. After all, was not “the Governor” the political appointee of Caesar? Were not they the official Jewish spokesmen for the Jewish nation? I have no reason to think that the same “multitudes” that so often heard the teaching of Jesus in rural Judea and Galilee constituted the “multitudes” controlled by the chief priests, scribes and Pharisees in the early morning hours of the crucifixion day. The longer Jesus was free to teach the masses of Israel in Galilee and Judea the less credence the officials of Judaism retained with the Jewish nation overall. These politicians were experts who hated the popularity of Jesus with the “common people” who “heard him gladly.”

When, therefore, I survey the wondrous cross I can somewhat understand the appeal of the gospel story to the masses of Jews who saw and heard the basic facts and truths preached by the apostles on and after the Pentecost of Acts 2. Increasingly God’s scheme to redeem sinners from sin became clear to those who heard the gospel.

The Cross and Paul

When I survey the wondrous cross I discover the secret of the brilliant and honest young Saul of Tarsus and his commitment to the person and work of Jesus Christ. This zealous youth had been so glued to the Pharisaic concept of Judaism that he believed the Jewish disciples of Jesus should be imprisoned or killed. Gladly he gave his vote to this end. He punished them in the synagogue and strove to make them blaspheme, persecuting them even to foreign cities until he met the resurrected Jesus on his Damascus journey of madness (Acts 26:9-20). Thereafter he gave his whole life to knowing nothing “save Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). The cross of Jesus became his everything and is reflected in his words, “Far be it from me to glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the world” (Gal. 6:14). (I pray that this may be my commitment.)

The Cross And Worldly Wisdom

When I survey the wondrous cross I see the inability of worldly wisdom to bring sinful souls to God. Nothing identifiable with the wisdom and philosophy of men apart from God’s revelation had or can ever have anything to do with man’s salvation from sins. The very thought of a Messiah who suffered at all, much less for others, was repugnant to Jewish thought. That crucifixion would be the means of such suffering was, if possible, more ridiculous because, to most Jews, crucifixion argued the justice of the guilt charged upon the one crucified. Such an attitude then as now completely ignores such a prophecy as Isaiah 53. The idea of a crucified hero was a sign of weakness to the Gentile mind. To the Gentile such a person needed to be defended rather than worshiped. No wonder that “God chose the foolish things of the world that he might put to shame them that are wise,” that he chose “weak things” as opposed to the “strong”; that he chose “base” and “despised” things, as appraised by human wisdom, that “no flesh should glory before God.” All this helps the believer understand why “not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble” were or are receptive to the simple story of infinite love and wisdom reflected in the gospel. All should consider carefully 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 for Paul’s point of view on God’s plan for conquest of honest hearts.

The Cross And God’s Grace

When I behold the wondrous cross I see the symbol of God’s grace extended to all sinners willing to accept salvation on gospel terms, not on the merits of their own good works, fleshly origin, material worth or religious inheritance. “Far be it from me to glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the world” (Gal. 6:14).

The Cross And Caesar

When I behold the wondrous cross, I see the same principle of the rule of civil government in punishing evil doers which Paul declares when he says, “But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid: for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13:4). Pilate, as a civil governor, was God’s agent to use either sword or cross to punish those whose just punishment deserved either weapon for the execution purpose. Jesus deserved not to die by means of either weapon but this does not change the principle that the cross was a means of punishing evil doers, e.g., the two robbers crucified beside Jesus. The cross for Jesus was unjust but for those deserving death the cross was optional with Pilate in punishing evil men which, for all I know, deserved death (Rom. 13:2-5). In yielding to the demands of Jesus’ critics, however, the civil power which said, “I find in him no fault” (Jn. 18:38) became a party to the very cry of those Jews who demanded the Savior’s death.

The Cross And Divine Providence

When I behold the wondrous cross of Jesus I see something about God’s over-ruling the evil purposes of men to praise him. Enemies of our Lord then and now, saw Jesus as an obstacle in their way of controlling the religious population. The elders, chief priests and scribes had long managed Jewish thought by their traditions and self-made decrees. Like a spring thunderstorm, Jesus simultaneously set afire their unauthorized religious hypocrisy and immoral lifestyle. Like a refreshing breeze there was his simple teaching in parables and word pictures of the nonmilitary nature of the kingdom of God. Then came his preachments to be the Messiah of Old Testament prophets reinforced by his sinless life and confirmation of his claims to be the Son of God. These constituted the moral and spiritual revolutionary doctrine which, in time, was to dethrone the Jewish hierarchy from its self-appointed dictatorship of self-will and self-service and replace it with the person of God’s only Son whose refreshing appeal was that of the truth which alone can release religious captives from Satan’s prison.

The Cross And The Crown

When I survey the wondrous cross upon which my Savior died, I see beyond this instrument of death a living hope for myself and all of Adam’s other children who have fallen by Satan’s deception. I say this because of what Jesus promised to do with his own life and, by my own faith, for my personal life! Yes, for me! Yes, for you – my brother, my sister! You see, my friend, Jesus came to this world of sin, sickness, sorrow, death, dying, and disappointment to “make all things new”! As the darkness of night precedes the dawn of day, so the gloom of the garden grave gives way to the glory of God. “He is not here, but is risen!” This is the song that angels sing – the song of redeeming love, the song of life eternal!

‘Tis true! ‘Tis true! “The way of the cross leads home” because the way of the cross is the way to glory, the way to God! Without the cross there is no crown; without the grave there is no glory. By his death on the wondrous cross he paid the price for my redemption. By his resurrection he validated the fact of life beyond death. That he showed himself alive is confirmed by the living witnesses who willingly gave their lives to verify their personal testimony regarding what their eyes saw and their ears heard. Because of his death I reached his blood shed in his death in my burial in baptism described in Romans 6:1-4 and from that grave of water I came forth to walk in a newness of life. Thank God for the cross of wood by which he enables sinners to become saints, to be wearers of the crown of life!

The Cross and Commitment

Finally, when I survey that wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died I see an abiding symbol of my personal responsibility as a disciple of Jesus. Many months before he was nailed to the cross of wood our Lord said, “He that doth not take his cross and follow after me, is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10:38). In similar vein when Jesus had told his apostles about his impending death and resurrection at Jerusalem and was rebuked by Peter for talking about such, he called Peter “Satan” and a “stumbling block” to the fulfilling of his earthly mission. Then, turning to his disciples, he said, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Matt. 10:24). This is duty! This is our Lord’s challenge to be heeded now. Truly, “The way of the cross leads home”!

The greatest barrier between me and complete submission to the Christ of the cross is myself – my own self-centered desires which Satan always uses to draw me away from the control of Christ. Yes, always and everywhere! Jesus said of his Father, “I do always the things that are pleasing to him” (John 8:29) and this is the challenge of the wondrous cross in every facet of my life. There is no crown of glory apart from the cross of duty – everywhere and every moment of this life! This is complete commitment!

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 20, pp. 609, 642-643
October 15, 1987

By Vestal Chaffin

Let us suppose that it is possible to turn back the pages of time for about thirty-five years. You and I are living in the year 1950; perhaps you are 20, 25, 30, or 40 years old. Both of us are members of the church of Christ. We are old enough to know what the Bible teaches about what the church should be in organization, work and worship. In all the Scriptures we find no authority for the church to build and support such institutions as the so-called orphan homes, the unwed mothers homes, homes for the aged, or fellowship halls for the young people, etc. We have been brought up by parents who are members of the church, and have heard many of the best gospel preachers in the brotherhood, such as N.B. Hardeman, H. Leo Boles, S.H. Hall, C.R. Nichol, R.L. Whiteside, and many others. Not only so, but we have carefully read the Bible ourselves, and we have learned that God’s word authorizes the church to engage in a threefold work: (1) evangelism (1 Tim. 3:15; Acts 11:22-26; 1 Thess. 1:6-8); (2) edification (Eph. 4:16); (3) helping the needy saints (Acts 11:27-30; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Rom. 15:26). We have been taught by both the Bible and faithful brethren that we must respect the authority of God’s word, and where it speaks we must speak and where it is silent, we must be silent (1 Pet. 4:14).

In the year of 1950, you and I meet a man whom we shall call, “Mr. Stranger” who likes to talk about religion. In the course of our conversation, “Mr. Stranger” tells us that he knows of a religious body of people who are rather peculiar in some ways. He says that they claim to be following the Bible, and they teach that there is only one true church. They have the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week, etc. What would you and I say in reference to that bit of information? Would we not immediately conclude that he is talking about the church of Christ?

Our friend, “Mr. Stranger” continues and says this church has on, or about its buildings the name “Church of Christ” and its members just call themselves “Christians.” We might interrupt our friend, and say, “Oh that is the church that we are members of, the true church of Christ.” But says “Mr. Stranger,” let me tell you something else about this religious body. They include in their work that of building “Fellowship Halls,” for the entertainment of their members and their friends. They have in these fellowship halls, TV sets, ping pong tables and shuffleboards, snack bars, coke machines, and other such things. (Now remember, we are living in 1950.) So after hearing these things, we are in doubt about this being the true church of Christ. No doubt we would say, that sounds like some denomination to us.

“Mr. Stranger” continues and tells us that this church that he is speaking of, makes contributions to colleges from its treasury; has built a few hospitals in some of the foreign countries where they have missionaries, and they have medical missionaries. Some of the congregations rent their parking lots for extra income purposes, and some have invested some of their money in low rent housing projects; and he tells us that this church has a few unwed mothers homes supported directly from their church treasuries; that they have women lecturers in almost every college lectureship that they have; and that they have “Christian Student Centers” in many of the state colleges; and have women employed by the local churches as “Campus Missionaries” in some of the state colleges.

Now, in this year of 1950 in which you and I are living, what is our conclusion as to what this religious body is? Would we proudly say, “Well, that is the church of Christ, and it is really on the march”? Or would we say, “Well, even though it is wearing the right name, it just can’t be the true church of Christ, for the Bible does not authorize the church to engage in such things as you have described.” We would conclude, “This definitely is not the true church of Christ, but it is a denomination that has taken the right name but has the wrong practice.”

Why would we reach such a conclusion? First, because we know that the Bible does not authorize the church to engage in any of the works mentioned by “Mr. Stranger.” Second, in the year 1950 and prior to that time, no church of Christ was ever known to engage in such works. And very likely many gospel preachers (in 1950) would have hastened to write an article exposing such erroneous practices by a religious body wearing the name church of Christ. They would have sent a copy of their article to the Gospel Advocate, and the Firm Foundation, and both papers would gladly have printed it.

But now, in 1987, just thirty-seven years later the works mentioned by our “Mr. Stranger,” are freely engaged in by the “liberal” Churches of Christ, and your name is “Mud” if you oppose the things they are doing. Why this big difference in just thirty-seven short years? Has the Bible changed? No, but many have changed their attitude toward the Bible and its teaching. I dare say that in 1950, you could not have found a member of the church of Christ that would have said that it is right for the church to engage in such works. If we would have correctly judged a church engaged in such works in 1950 to be a denomination, then what does that make the “liberal” church of Christ engaged in such works today?

Many brethren living in 1950 who would have strongly opposed the church engaging in such works then, are still living today, and are going along with all these things, and will not raise their voice in protest. Brethren, just remember that 2 John 9-11, is still in the Bible. “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (emphasis mine, VC). Some of these liberal churches have joined hands already with the denominational churches, by calling on their preachers to lead prayers and speak on some occasions. About the only thing they see that separates them is the mechanical instrument of music, and some liberal churches of Christ have accepted the mechanical instruments. What would you call a religious body that did such things, “The Church” or “A Denomination”?

Many good brethren have not thought this thing through as they should. The change has been so gradual that they have accepted it without question. Brethren, we need to give heed to the warning of the apostle Paul when he said, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:8-9). “Take heed brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God” (Heb. 3:12). The conservative churches need to heed these warnings, lest they too drift away from the truth.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 19, pp. 596-597
October 1, 1987

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