The Trial of Christ

Ernest L. Wilkinson

Thirty Pieces of Silver

On a Thursday afternoon over 1900 years ago Judas Iscariot sought an audience with members of the Great Sanhedrin. "What will ye give me for delivering to you Jesus?" Judas demanded. And for thirty pieces of silver—the price then fixed by the law as the purchase price of a slave—the equivalent in our own money of not more than $30—they covenanted with him for the Lord's betrayal.

This Great Sanhedrin was the supreme tribunal of the Jews. It was composed of 71 members, of whom 23 were high priests, 23 scribes, and 23 elders. In the earlier days of Hebrew history, to become a member of the Great Sanhedrin was the highest honor known to men. It exercised all the functions of education, all the functions of government, including those which were legislative, executive, and judicial in nature, and all the functions of religion. Its interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures had the force of law. In the centuries preceding Christ and before the conquest of Judea by the Romans, it exercised supreme authority in all matters.

By the year 33 A.D., however, as generally results when there is an unbridled merger of authority, the Great Sanhedrin had become degenerate and corrupt. Judea had been taken over by Rome . The members of the Sanhedrin were appointed to and removed from office by the Roman governor. According to the late Rabbi Wise, they purchased their commissions for high prices and, like almost all Roman appointees, used them for mercenary purposes. These were the men with whom Judas had covenanted for the betrayal of the Master.

The Last Supper

That same Thursday, Jesus and his twelve apostles, including Judas, sat down to the Last Supper. After partaking thereof, the Lord remarked:

Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me .... Good were it for that man if he had never been born. (Mark 14:18, 21.)

One by one the disciples asked the Master: "Lord, is it I?" As Judas asked the question the Master replied, "Thou hast said." (Matthew 26:25.) Some of the disciples, however, still failed to understand this identification. To John's second inquiry, the Lord replied: "He it is to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it." Thereupon the Master dipped a piece of bread into some savory mixture and handed it to Judas Iscariot, with the words: "That thou doest, do quickly." Judas thereupon departed from the house, abandoning forever the company of his Master. (John 13:24-30.)

Departure from the Last Supper

About midnight of that same Thursday, Jesus and the eleven remaining apostles departed from the house of the Last Supper and entered an olive orchard called Gethsemane . At the entrance, the Master instructed eight of his disciples, "Sit ye here while I go and pray yonder. Pray that ye enter not into temptation." (Matthew 26:36, 41.) He took with him Peter, James, and John, but before long denied himself even the companionship of these three and asked them to tarry and watch with Him. (Matthew 26:37-38.)

After praying alone, the Master returned and found His three disciples asleep. Arousing them from their slumbers, he again admonished them to watch and pray that they enter not into temptation. But with understanding he added, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." He again departed and returned the second time, only to find them again asleep. The third time He left them and on returning said:

Sleep on now and take your rest: behold the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. (Matthew 26:39-45.)

(In view of what thereafter transpired, I hope you will note the word "sinners.")

Already the torches of the approaching soldiers, guided by Judas, could be seen in the distance, and Jesus exclaimed,

Rise, let us be going: behold he is at hand that doth betray me. (Matthew 26:46.)

The Betrayal and Arrest

While Jesus was yet speaking to the eleven, Judas rushed forward and profaned the Lord's face with a kiss. Full of understanding, the Master exclaimed, "Judas, betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss? (Luke 22:48.) Friend, do that for which thou art come." (Matthew 26:50.) But the Roman soldiers who had accompanied Judas hesitated. Whereupon the Master walked toward the officers and asked, "Whom seek ye?" They replied, "Jesus of Nazareth." To which the Lord rejoined, "I am He."

But again they hesitated. Instead of pressing forward to take him, many of the soldiers dropped to the ground. His simple dignity had proved more potent than the arms which they possessed. Again He put the question, "Whom seek ye?" And again they answered, "Jesus of Nazareth." Whereupon the Master replied, "I have told you that I am He. If, therefore, ye seek me, let these go their way." (John 18:48.) Some of the Roman officers thereupon approached, and as they were about to take the Savior; some of the apostles exclaimed, "Lord, shall we smite with the sword?" (Luke 22:49.) The impetuous Peter, without waiting for reply, unsheathed his sword, and delivering a poorly aimed stroke at the head of one, severed the ear of Malchus, a servant of the high priest. Stepping forward, the Master with a touch healed the injured servant, rebuked Peter, commanded him to return the sword to its scabbard, and proclaimed the eternal truth that: "They that live by the sword shall perish by the sword." He then surrendered Himself to the centurion and his soldiers. (John 18:10-12; Matthew 26:52.)

Hearing or Conference Before Annas

According to the Gospel of St. John, Jesus was then taken before Annas, who had been the high priest, and who still was one of the most influential men in the political life of the time. He was also the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was the reigning high priest at that time, the President of the Great Sanhedrin.

He was there interrogated as to his doctrine. He replied:

I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret I have said nothing.

Why asketh thou me? Ask them which heard me. Behold they know what I have said. (John 18:20-21.)

This was an appeal to the Jewish law, which required that for any conviction there be two witnesses to the same overt act and forbade a person testifying against himself. As such appeal it was unanswerable.

Nevertheless, one of the officers, perhaps hoping to carry favor with the high priests, struck Jesus a vicious blow and demanded, "Answereth thou the high priest so?" Again the Savior invoked the doctrine of the Jewish law that he could be tried only by accusing witnesses. Said he, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smiteth thou me?" (John 18: 22-23.)

Hearing Before Caiaphas

Nevertheless, Jesus was led immediately to the house of Caiaphas, who was then the reigning high priest. Caiaphas was one of a group of the Great Sanhedrin who on three prior occasions had met to discuss the miracles and discourses of Jesus and to devise ways and means to entrap and put him to death. It was of this same group of partisan and corrupt judges that the Master had said that "publicans and harlots would go into the Kingdom of God before" them. Caiaphas and his friends controlled the booths and concessions in the temple, from which flowed a most lucrative trade. They were still smarting from Jesus' having driven the money changers from the temple.

There is some doubt at this time as to whether Jesus yet knew the crime with which he was to be charged. Possibly the high priest and his cohorts were still trying to concoct a charge that would be a pretext for public approval of condemning the Savior. When Caiaphas and his colleagues had convened (we do not know how many there were), there came two witnesses who testified that Jesus had said he was "able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days..." (Matthew 26:60-61.) Others testified that Jesus said he would "... destroy this temple that is made with hands and within three days... build another made without hands," (Mark 14:56-59.)

Although the testimonies of these witnesses were at variance with each other, Caiaphas, the Chief High Priest of the Great Sanhedrin, in violation of the judicial principles governing the conduct of that body, which forbade any members from preferring any charge, and which required all members of the court to defend and not prosecute the prisoner, used these variable stories to prefer against Jesus the charge of blasphemy: namely, that of being a false prophet and turning the people away from the Lord which had brought them out of the land of Egypt and redeemed them from the house of bondage.* (Deuteronomy 13:1-6.)

To the Master, therefore, Caiaphas put the question, "Tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." To this question the Master replied in substance, "I am." Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying:

He has spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold now ye have heard His blasphemy. What think ye?

They answered and said, "He is guilty of death." (Matthew 26:65-66.)

It should here be noted that those who were here pre-judging Christ, even to the point of urging death, were members of the Great Sanhedrin; the very body which would have to try him. Having arrived at this conclusion—that He was guilty—it was elemental under Jewish as well as all civilized codes of laws that they were not eligible or qualified to sit in judgment upon Him.

But so intent were they upon their evil ends that they abandoned the prisoner to the impassioned attendant soldiers, who spat upon His face, and having blindfolded him, amused themselves by smiting Him again and again and demanding, "Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, who is he that smote Thee?" (Matt, 26:67-68; Luke 22:63-64.)

The Formal Trial Before the Great Sanhedrin

Since, however, it was unlawful under Jewish law for the Great Sanhedrin, as such, to convene between sundown and sunrise, these leading members of the Sanhedrin, who had now preferred against Him the charge of blasphemy, arranged for the formal trial to be held before the entire body at daybreak.

Immediately, therefore, at dawn, Christ was brought before the Sanhedrin. There is some doubt as to whether all members, such as Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, were present, but certainly most of the members were there. On Jesus' being arraigned the High Priest, the President of the tribunal, the very one who during the night had preferred the charge of blasphemy, demanded, "Art thou the Christ? Tell us."

The Lord replied, "If I tell you, ye will not believe; and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go."

He was then asked, "Art thou then the Son of God?" And he said unto them: "Ye say that I am."

And then, even though he had merely repeated their charge, they cried: "What need we any further witness for we ourselves have heard his own mouth?" (Luke 22:66-72.)

Here, in what should have been the greatest trial in all history, no evidence was presented. Jesus was not even permitted to plead truth as a defense. Instead of locking into the truthfulness of His claim that He was the Son of God, which was the charge of blasphemy put into issue, it was assumed that He was not the Son of God. Jesus, therefore, stood convicted of the most heinous offense known in Jewry, all within the space of a few moments. If, in fact, Jesus were not the Son of God, He would have been guilty of blasphemy. If, in fact, Jesus was the Son of God, He was not guilty of blasphemy. If the learned priests who comprised the Sanhedrin had compared the teachings and prophecies of the Old Testament with the events in the life of Jesus, they would have found in fact that He was the Son of God. They would have known that in fulfillment of ancient prophecy He was the Messiah born in Bethlehem of a virgin; that He sprang from the House of David; that He began to preach in Galilee; that He performed many miracles; that He made His public entry into Jerusalem riding upon an ass, and that He should be betrayed by one of his followers for thirty pieces of silver, which would finally be thrown into the potter's field. These, and many other prophecies of the Old Testament, they would have realized had been fulfilled in the life of the Savior.

But no such evidence was examined. On the contrary, in defiance of the most rigid principles of Jewish Law, that no witness could testify against himself, and that no one could be convicted except upon the sworn, agreed testimony of at least two witnesses, the Council resolved that He was a blasphemer. Whether the Sanhedrin actually entered a decree of death is doubtful, for at that time in Roman history the right of the Sanhedrin to inflict a death penalty had been removed. The jurisdiction of that body was confined either to that of preferring a charge to the Roman governor, in this case Pontius Pilate, or to recommending confirmation of their verdict. There is authority for both of these alternative jurisdictions.

Trial Before Pilate

Immediately, therefore, the Great Sanhedrin led Jesus, bound, to the judgment hall of Pontius Pilate. This was early Friday morning. But since the judgment chamber was in the house of a Gentile, the Jews dared not enter, for to do so would make them unclean on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath.

In deference, therefore, to their Jewish scruples, Pilate came out from the palace and inquired as to the accusation brought against Jesus. This inquiry, though the one to be most expected, surprised the chief priests. They may have thought that the Governor, without any study, would convict the accused of whatever charge they made. Noting his contrary attitude, they replied with embarrassment, "If He were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered Him up unto thee."

Pilate, however, weak as he was, sensed that Jesus was not a criminal, but that any charge the Jews had against Jesus involved infringement of the Jewish religious code. Hence he declared, "Take ye him and judge him according to your law." (John 18:30-31.)

But since they could not enforce the death penalty for a violation of the Hebraic code, the chief priests were required to make a specific charge which would have the support of Roman, not Jewish law. Consequently, despite the fact that he had been found guilty of the Jewish crime of blasphemy, they preferred the charge of sedition against him, saying:

"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.)

Stated differently the charge of sedition meant that He was in open rebellion against the constituted authority of Rome . This charge Pilate could not ignore. He took Jesus inside the palace, where he examined Him on the various charges of sedition.

The first charge, that He was perverting the nation, was vague and indefinite and seems to have been brushed aside quickly by Pilate.

The second charge, that he had forbidden to give tribute to Caesar, was of a more serious nature. Christ's exposition of His doctrine, however, to "render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's," (Matthew 22:21.) seemed to satisfy Pilate.

This left for consideration the charge that He claimed to be Christ, a King. Addressing the prisoner, Pilate said, "Art thou the King of the Jews?" Jesus answered, "Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?"

The question of Jesus was pertinent, for if the inquiry had been prompted by the Jews, it was then pregnant with religious meaning, and he should answer that He was King of the Jews; but if the inquiry were prompted by a Roman background, then the inquiry would be pregnant with political meaning, and the answer should be that He was not King of the Jews. In response to the inquiry as to the source of the charge, Pilate answered, "Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me. What hast thou done?"

Knowing then that the source of the charge was from the Jews, Jesus replied:

My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered unto the Jews. (John 18:33-36.)

His reply that His kingdom was not of the world meant, of course, that there was no possible rivalry between Him and Caesar. It was clear to the Roman governor that he was no political insurrectionist; He was no threat to Roman political institutions. Pilate, therefore, marched out of the judicial chambers and announced to the Jews, "I find in him no fault at all."* (John 18:36-38.)

But despite this acquittal, the Jews still would not be satisfied. Their thirst for the blood of the Holy One had developed into a mania. Wildly, they shrieked, "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend; Whosoever maketh himself a King, speaketh against Caesar." (John 19:12.) Also; "He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place." (Luke 23:5.)

Trial Before Herod

At the mention of Galilee, the weak Pontius Pilate, convinced though he was of the innocence of Jesus, conceived the idea of sending Him to Herod, the Tetrarch of Galilee, who likewise was in Jerusalem at the time. By this action he hoped to rid himself of responsibility in the case; moreover, he could thus probably flatter Herod, who had been his enemy.

Reflect on the feelings which must have permeated the Savior when He was led away to appear before Herod, the only character in history to whom Jesus is known to have applied a personal epithet of contempt. The justification of this personal epithet can be appreciated when it is recalled that Herod was himself the son of a father who was ten times married and had murdered many of his wives. Herod himself, inspired by a woman's voluptuous blandishments, had ordered the murder of John the Baptist. He was a typical Oriental potentate whose chief aim was the gratification of his passions.

When Herod saw Jesus he was exceedingly glad, for he had wanted for a long season to see Him because he hoped to have some miracles performed for him. The appearance of Jesus was to be to him a rare Roman holiday. Herod, thereupon, in the language of the scriptures, questioned Jesus in many words, but disappointingly Jesus answered him nothing.

He maintained a kingly silence, which may be explained in many ways. In the first place, Herod had no jurisdiction over the offense of which He was accused, either that of the Jewish crime of blasphemy or that of the Roman charge of sedition. Jesus did not have to stand trial before him, for he was without authority.

Thoroughly piqued, Herod and his soldiers made sport of the suffering Christ. They mocked Him; then in travesty they arrayed Him in gorgeous robes and sent Him to convey the impression that Jesus was challenging the political authority of Caesar. But he had found nothing in Jesus to warrant any condemnation.

In any event, the Master's silence seems to have been in fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah: "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth... ". (Isaiah 53:7.)

Second Appearance Before Pilate

When Jesus was returned to Pilate, the latter found himself unable to escape responsibility for finally deciding the case. He therefore called the chief priests and the rulers of the people before him and said:

Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people; and, behold, I having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him;

No, nor yet Herod; for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.

I will therefore chastise him and release him. (Luke 23:14-16.)

The high priests and their mob, however, still refused to sanction the release of the prisoner. The weak Pontius Pilate knew the Savior was innocent, but yet he feared to offend the multitude. He searched about for some compromise. He knew that at that time the crowd was expecting the usual Passover deliverance of one prisoner. There was one prisoner, named Barabbas, who had been convicted under Roman law of both murder and sedition, and Pilate thought that if he should offer the crowd the choice between the release of Jesus and Barabbas they would surely choose Jesus. He offered the multitude its choice. But the high priests incited the crowd, and in the course of a short interval they demanded the release of Barabbas. Pilate, surprised, disappointed and angered, asked, "What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?"

They answered, "Let him be crucified."

But Pilate demanded, "Why, what evil hath he done?"

But they cried out the more, saying, "Let him be crucified." (Matthew 27:22-23.)

To add to the perplexity of his weak soul, Pilate at that moment received a message from his wife, which read, "Have thou nothing to do with that just man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him."

Pilate feared to think what dread portent his wife's dream might presage. But finding that the chief priests did not agree with his judgment, and foreseeing a tumult among the people if he persisted in the defense of Jesus, he called for water and washed his hands before the multitude, proclaiming, "I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye to it."

Then rose that awful self-condemnatory cry of the covenant people, "His blood be on us, and on our children." (Matthew 27:17-25.)

Scourging of Jesus

Jesus was then delivered into the custody of the soldiers to be scourged. This was a frightful preliminary to death on the cross. The instrument of punishment was a whip of many thongs, loaded with metal and edged with jagged pieces of bone. The whole band of soldiers came together in the great hall of the palace, to whip Him with these instruments. Then with a sense of fiendish realism they plaited a crown of thorns and placed it about the sufferer's brows. A reed was placed in his right hand, and in mockery they saluted him, "Hail, King of the Jews." Pilate had probably witnessed this severe scourging, because for the third time he interceded. He went outside into the multitude and cried, "Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him." He thought that the awful sight of the bleeding Master would soften the hearts of the Jews. But the rabble increased their cries, "Crucify him." Whereupon the weak pilate pronounced the fatal sentence, "Take ye and crucify him." But he added: "I find no fault in him." (John 19:1-6.)

Death of Judas Iscariot

When Judas Iscariot became aware that the outcome of his treachery would be the crucifixion of Christ, he became wildly remorseful. When the Savior was delivered up to the Romans, the enormity of the crime filled him with horror. While the final preparation for the crucifixion was in progress he rushed into the presence of the Chief Priests and Elders, implored the priestly rulers to take back the 30 pieces of silver they had paid him, crying in agony and despair, "I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood." This last minute repentance of Judas was of no avail. The rulers repulsed him with disgust. He had served their purpose; they had paid him his price; they had no more use for him. Still clutching the bag of silver, he rushed into the temple, penetrating even the precincts of priestly reservations, and dashed the thirty pieces of silver upon the floor of the sanctuary. Completely condemned by his own conscience, he rushed outside and hanged himself. He had set in motion the mob which would eventually take the life of the Master. But before the Master died he took his own life. Later the chief priests gathered up the pieces of silver and held a solemn council to determine what they should do with the "price of blood." They could not add the tainted coin to the sacred treasury, because it was blood money. They finally purchased a certain clay yard—the very piece of ground on which Judas had committed suicide. This tract they set aside for the burial place for aliens, strangers and pagans, and probably the first body to be there interred was that of Judas, the betrayer of Christ. And the field was called "The Field of Blood." (Matthew 27:3-10.)

Death and Burial of the Master

Time will not permit me to give in detail the events attending the death and burial of the Master. Suffice it that you recall that, along with two criminals convicted of robbery, he was required to carry his own cross to Calvary, where he was nailed on the central of the three crosses. There he prayed for forgiveness of his crucifiers. There, also, with tragic irony, Pilate, over the protest of the Jews, caused to be inscribed on the cross a sign reading, "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews." (Matthew 27:35; John 19: 21-22.)

There also, in response to the taunts of the Roman soldiers, chief priests and scribes, Jesus refused to save Himself. He promised one of the thieves He would meet him on the morrow in Paradise. (Luke 23:35-43.) He entrusted His mother, Mary, to the care of His beloved disciple, John. (John 19:25-27.)

All the events which we have enumerated had probably occurred by ten o'clock on Friday morning. Thus, in about eleven hours of the time Judas Iscariot, with the knowledge of the Master, had left the Last Supper to betray Him; the Master with His eleven disciples had wandered forth in the Garden of Gethsemane, where He prayed that He might be able to endure what was to come; the soldiers had been led to Gethsemane by Judas; the Master had been betrayed into their custody by the hypocritical kiss; He had been taken for a preliminary hearing before Annas who, without acquainting him with any accusation, sent Him to Caiaphas, the high priest; He had had a hearing before Caiaphas, who in violation of all elementary rules of law had preferred against Him the charge of blasphemy and expressed in advance of any trial His conviction of guilt; as soon as daylight appeared, He had been arraigned before the Great Sanhedrin, which, without any witnesses or any evidence, declared Him guilty of the Jewish crime of blasphemy—that of being a false prophet and of turning the people away from the Lord, the most heinous crime known to Jewry—and urged His death; He had been taken before Pontius Pilate to demand His death upon the new charge of sedition—a charge of political insurrection—of which He was found not guilty; He had then been taken before Herod, the Tetrarch of Galilee, one of the most evil of men, who, despite the Savior's refusal to speak, found nothing in Him to warrant condemnation; He was then returned to Pontius Pilate, who again found "in him no fault at all" but yet was so weak he succumbed to the tyranny of the mob and ordered Him crucified.

By noon, within two hours after the Savior had been nailed to the cross, the sun withdrew its light, darkness penetrated the whole land, violent earthquakes disrupted both hemispheres, and by 3:00 p.m. the Savior uttered those memorable words—"It is finished." "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." (John 19:30; Luke 23:46.)

I wish time would permit me to relate how Joseph of Arimathe and Nicodemus—themselves members of the Great Sanhedrin, but who were probably absent from His trial—took the Savior off the cross and laid his body in a huge sepulcher and rolled a large rock against the door; how on the following Sunday morning an angel of the Lord, much to the consternation of the Roman guards, rolled the stone away, and revealed the empty sepulcher; how the Great Sanhedrin conspired to discredit the story of Christ's resurrection by bribing the soldiers, who had guarded the sepulcher, to lie; and finally how the Master appeared to Mary, to a group of other women, to two of his disciples and to His remaining eleven apostles. This is really the greatest story of all Christendom—the story of the glorious resurrection.

But since time will not permit all of that, let me today enumerate a few lessons from the trial of Jesus which we ordinarily do not connect with that series of events, but which ought to be apparent to us, in these days.

Whenever the legislative, executive and judicial powers of government become concentrated in one unit, the rights of the individual can be easily lost. From that calamity we must be saved. The Founding Fathers of our country who, under divine inspiration, wrote the American constitution, set up a system of government under which, if not departed therefrom, there can be no merger of the powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches in any Great Sanhedrin. Under our system there can be no body which can prefer a charge, try the person whom it has charged, accuse, and then pass sentence on him. All of these three functions are entrusted to different departments of government so as to protect the innocent and prevent miscarriages of justice. For this reason alone Lord Bryce was correct in saying that the American Constitution was the greatest instrument ever struck off by the hand and brain of man—actually under our beliefs it was the product of men motivated by the spirit of the Lord—and for this form of government we should be everlastingly grateful.

We must be eternally vigilant to see that our form of government is preserved in essentially the form our forefathers intended. Some of our political thinkers, parading under the false cloak of so-called modern liberalism, by continually enlarging the power of the executive branch of our government, at the expense of our judiciary and by the sacrifice of individual rights, would take this nation down the alien and treacherous road of concentration of power in the direction of a Great Sanhedrin. We have already gone so far in this direction that hundreds of matters are decided by the administrative tribunals and never reach courts for decision. These bodies very often act as prosecutor, judge, and jury in defiance of the spirit of our Constitution. According to Arnold Toynbee, the world historian, nineteen of some twenty-one recorded civilizations have perished because of concentration of power in a paternalistic government which had no proper judicial restraints.

It was only about 23 years ago that the President of our country tried further to subordinate the judiciary to the executive branch by asking Congressional permission to enlarge the Supreme Court so that he could pack it exclusively with men of his own political thinking. This was the very power the Roman governors had—it was under this power they had appointed the members of the Great Sanhedrin. Fortunately for our country, the Honorable William H. King, an alumnus of this school, then Senior Senator of this State and a member of the President's own party, placed his country above and assisted in writing a Majority Report for the Senate Judiciary Committee in which he said that the grant of such a power to the President:

would be to make this government one of men rather than one of law, and its practical operation would be to make the Constitution what the executive or legislative branches of the government choose to say it is—an interpretation to be changed with each change of administration.

It is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.

On the strength of that courageous report, President Roosevelt was rebuked by the Congress. The Supreme Court, on that occasion, was not packed by puppets of the President.

I am aware, of course, that other presidents have also appointed members of the Supreme Court because of their political or economic views, but I mention this one instance because it was the most flagrant attempt ever made by a president to subordinate and subjugate the Supreme Court to his will.

Many people, both in public and private, in educational and non-educational matters, believe that they can avoid making decisions by passing the responsibility to others, or by riding the fence and trying to placate both those who are for or against a certain question. Thus Pontius Pilate tried to avoid responsibility by sending Jesus to Herod. When this escape failed, he again called Jesus before him and after the second time finding no fault in him informed the Jewish multitude that he would chastise Him and release Him.

When this did not satisfy the mob, he then further sought to escape responsibility by giving them the choice of releasing either a murderer or Jesus. This also backfired for they chose to release Barrabus. To keep the peace he condemned Jesus Christ and let the murderer and thief go free.

When he appears before the judgment seat, I am sure his public washing of his hands before the multitude will never be a defense for a crime which he could have prevented.

To a lesser degree we have men in private and public office who try in the same way to satisfy the crowd and avoid responsibility. But just as Pontius Pilate will be judged for what he permitted to be done, just as those in the council of heaven who refused to take the side of right are now paying the price of their refusing to take a stand, so each of us will be judged for not having the courage to make a decision or for having succumbed to the plaudits of the multitude and making the wrong decision. In my judgment it is just as wrong to refuse to stand up and be counted as it is to be counted in the wrong camp.

Only righteousness can finally protect either individuals or nations from decay. Governments built on men who would rather eat than die for a principle, are governments which derive their support from the rabble and never endure. Once a judiciary becomes corrupt, as did the Great Sanhedrin, rules of law devised for the protection of the individual, and even constitution, are of little avail. Under either the rules of Jewish or Roman Law, Jesus should have been given protection, but he was not. The most dangerous servant of society is a judge who is capricious, arbitrary, partisan or corrupt.

God grant that the time may soon come that the leaders of the world will have sufficient vision and the peoples of the world will live such lives of righteousness that the nations of the world, instead of living and perishing by the sword, shall live by the precepts and practices of peace.

The greatest lesson to be drawn from the crucifixion is that principles are more to be valued than life itself. Our Savior was willing to suffer physical pain and indignity and give his life for a principle. Peter was willing to fight for his Master's life, but he had a hard time comprehending the purpose of the Master in going to the cross without a fight. The Master's willingness to die for us is more important than anything else in life—this lesson is more important than any respecting governments or political institutions.

The abject failure of the Jews to recognize the mission of the Master; their conviction of Him as a false impostor, when in fact He was the Christ; their complete failure to interpret the scriptures as they foretold of their own times, should lead us ever to attempt to understand the historical prophecies and signs pertaining to our own times. Examples are: (1) the gathering of the Jews to a country of their own, after centuries of wandering and persecution during which they tragically have been a hiss and a byword among the children of men—(2) the great struggle between Communism and those who believe in the brotherhood of man which could well culminate in the greatest of all wars that will precede the millennium. A knowledge of these revelations should lead us every day to so live that we will be ready to meet our Master.

May we in our day be students enough and have faith enough to understand and be guided by the historical prophecies and signs pertaining to our times I humbly pray in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.