The Crucified Jesus- Did He Receive A Fair Trial? -A Pre-Good Friday Meditation.

Up on the cross that stood in the hot sizzling heat of the Golgotta hill at the eastern outskirts of Jerusalem, the weak, feeble Jesus hung, and drooped his bleeding head sideways, dying … dying … dying in excruciating pains!

Drops of blood dripped from his forehead down the battered, bloody, hideously swollen face to fulfil Isaiah's prophecy of 680BC - 'As many were astonished at him, his face was so disfigured, marred beyond that of any human being' ….Gee! (Isaiah 52:14)

And his palms and legs and almost naked body oozed blood here and there, blood which struggled downward in trickles and fizzles … Ouch! It is this sad event ending in the death of Christ which the world's Christendom are going to commemorate right from 2 nd April, 2015 to 3 rd April (next week), which is Good Friday -'good' because its spiritual significance has been to redeem mankind from the perpetual stains of Adamic or original sin, and to open the floodgates of heaven for us.

The crucifixion of Christ had not come out of the blue. It was a well-calculated plot that had finally fructified in Christ being apprehended in the garden of Gethsemane by some soldiers and whisked thenceforward to face six court trials, each one of which literally pronounced him guilty.

Note: It was not one single court trial but six, each of which might surreally be identified as a hurried Inquisition or mere Commission of Enquiry.

Interestingly, modern day critical minds have gone to question the validity of the death sentence imposed upon Christ. And only a few years ago, a prominent US lawyer was prompted to condemn it as 'a most unfair trial'. So he rather quixotically called for a posthumous re-trial of Jesus in Jerusalem at which he was prepared to act as a defence counsel. But a Jewish lawyer in the US also opposed this plea, maintaining that the trials, under the circumstances of the time, were very fair according to Jewish jurisprudence. But were they?

Now let's examine them in the light of only five essentials which were supposed to have informed a fair trial, namely, the constitution of the jury, prosecution witnesses, defence witnesses, defence lawyers and cross examinations. The absence of any of these vitiated the genuineness of each trial. There could be no excuse for it.

Come to the first trial. That was conducted by Annas who, twenty years before, was the high priest. He was deposed by the Roman authority and had become the unofficial political boss in the city, wielding considerable influence like a District Chief Executive or Mayor. Most state matters were to be cleared with him first.

Thus, St John writes: 'Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus and bound him. And led him away to Annas first; for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas who was the high priest that same year.' (John 18:12-14)

Here Jesus was questioned about his disciples and teachings, the implication being that these were inimical to Jewish doctrines and traditions. In trying to debunk this suggestion, he was slapped in the face for answering saucily.

Annas however established a prima facie case against Jesus; and thus, to the higher 'court' of Caiaphas, the high priest, Jesus was dragged.

The second trial was before Caiaphas' court 'where the scribes and elders (the Sanhedrin) were assembled' (Matthew 26:59). His charges were that he claimed to be able to 'destroy the temple of God and build it in three days' (Matthew 26:60 and 61; John 2:31); and that he was Christ, the son of God.

When Jesus emphatically reaffirmed these claims, high priest Caiaphas, who had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies once a year, 'tore his clothes, saying, 'he has spoken blasphemy, what further need have we of witnesses?… What do you think?' They answered and said: 'he is guilty of death.'' (Matthew 26:63-66)

Blasphemy is speaking impiously or disrespectfully about God; and in Jewish jurisprudence, it carried the penalty of death.

The third trial was also before Caiaphas' 23-member Sanhedrin. This very court was held in the morning just to make it assume the air of legality to cover up the previous night's verdict; it was merely to ratify the sentence of the previous night. It is to be remembered that Jewish laws did not permit 'night trials', except those held during the day time.

From here it was a matter of course that the fourth trial was before Pilate, the Roman governor. The fourth trial now changed gear from the ecclesiastical (religious) type to a civil or criminal one. Cleverly, the religious indictment of blasphemy (Christ's son of God claims) became the civil charge: 'we found this fellow perverting the nation and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ, a King.' (Luke 23:2)

Treasonable charges these were - the first, being sedition (provoking rebellion); the second, economic sabotage of the nation; and the third, a coup plot to overthrow the governor of Israel, whereupon Jesus was to seize the Israeli throne to be regarded as King. But except for the 'King of Israel' charge which was true and verifiable because Jesus claimed it (not in material but spiritual sense), the first two—the seditious and economic charges—were falsely contrived to incriminate Jesus; but on the contrary, he had preached peace and tax payment.

Take for example his famous 'render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar' (Matthew 22:21), meaning, pay your taxes to the state! Was he as they accused him, 'forbidding to give tribute to Caesar'? Why the blasphemy or religious charge was dropped for these false civil charges was that the irreligious, worldly-minded Pilate would have dismissed it as no case, and would have freed Jesus.

Ironically, after cross examining Jesus in private, he decided to dismiss those economic and political charges put on Jesus: 'I find in him no fault at all.' (John 18:38) But the mob and the Sanhedrin did not accept Pilate's verdict, and to avoid the tumultuous riot that was brewing there and then, he railroaded Jesus to Herod who was governor of Galilee province, from where Christ hailed. Herod had come to Jerusalem for the Passover feast.

The fifth trial was before Herod, a secret admirer of Jesus, who however became incensed by Christ's silent reaction to his 'cross examination', and thus subjected him to mockery and ill-treatment and sent him back to Pontius Pilate, as he felt he was unable to sit on the case. (Luke 2:8-12)

Back to Pilate for the sixth trial, Jesus was still non co-operative. Again Pilate saw nothing against him and preferred to release him in exchange of Barnabas who was a criminal. The mob rejected the suggestion and said: 'Crucify him, crucify him'. And thinking that instant punishment would appease or satisfy the mob, he caned Jesus, 'planted a crown of thorns on his head' and instructed the soldiers to subject him to beating. (John 19:1-3) But this tactic got bust in its objective of releasing Jesus. Another fiasco! So Jesus was given back to the Jews who dragged him to the Golgotta hill (Calvary) and crucified him on that fateful Friday.

To sum up, the exquisitely farcical tenor which those pretentious six court trials of Jesus assumed has been analysed by several theologians and found to be extremely ridiculous, awful and contemptible. In particular, was the hypocritical stance of the members of the Sanhedrin who long before the trial of the case, had secretly conspired with Judas against Jesus. Could such people be impartial judges?

Secondly, all the witnesses had different stories to tell on every one issue: no corroborative evidence, which meant they were telling lies and deserved to be charged with perjury (false witnessing). But no such charge.

Thirdly, in Jewish jurisprudence, there was the law that a death sentence could be valid only when it was passed 24 hours after the trial; but in this case, there was an instant pronouncement of death sentence. Moreover, there was a law that any case that warranted death sentence should not be heard the day before the Saturday Sabbath. But the case of Jesus was heard on Friday, a day before the Sabbath. Was this a genuine administration of the law?

In the light of all these, one is bound to say that Jesus was crucified out of sheer hatred; but his unique resurrection on the third day, Sunday, proved without reasonable doubt that his divine redemptive work cannot be submerged or thrown into oblivion.

To top it all, his death and resurrection have established one incontrovertible fact—that anyone who believes in him shall rise when he falls in life, and shall later resurrect when he dies. In this connection, the death of Christ can be called the Death of Good Hope.

By Apostle Kwamena Ahinful