The title of this week’s article is an idiomatic phrase used to describe well-known court cases, especially of the 19th and 20th centuries. It is sometimes used to attach a certain degree of importance to a particular trial. I suppose to some degree the importance of any trial depends upon the perspective of the one who might view the trial itself. The person who is on trial would most certainly view the trial as important more so than the person prosecuting the case. Baby Boomers have experienced the trial of the century more than one time over the past six or seven decades. I surmise that if we are blessed to live another couple of decades that we will hear of more such trials. F. Lee Bailey is credited with having said, “Every time I turn around, there’s a new trial of the century. It’s a kind of hype. It’s a way of saying, ‘This is really fabulous. It’s really sensational.’ But it doesn’t really mean anything.”
There are countless trials that have been designated as the trial of the century. In 1893 it was the trial of Lizzie Borden for the double homicide of her father and stepmother. The trial of Leon Czolgosz for the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901 was also considered the trial of the century. No doubt the Scopes Monkey trial in 1926 was very significant. More recently there are the trials of Ted Bundy (1979), Rodney King (1992-1993), O. J. Simpson (1995), the impeachment of Bill Clinton (1999), and the impeachment trial and on-going indictments of Donald Trump. As you can see, there is no such thing as the trial of the century, for there are no doubt many well-known and significant trials in every century.
Of all the trials that have ever been convened, however, there is one that stands out far and above all the others. This trial was conducted long before someone had coined the phrase trial of the century. I speak, of course, of the trial of our Lord. The trial of Jesus was unique in many ways, not the least of which was its aberrant illegality. No legitimate charge was ever brought against our Lord. He never committed a civil crime, nor did He break a single Jewish law. Witnesses? There were none, at least truthful ones. No conviction was possible without evidence on which two witnesses must agree. But then, how is it possible to present evidence of a crime when there was no crime? In violation of Jewish law, His trial was held at night and not available to the public. When the case was brought before Pilate, that weak governor tried in vain to release Jesus and eventually bowed to the pressure of the mob rather than exercise proper juris prudence. Yes, our Lord’s trial was the trial of the century – any century and every century. Consider the following.
First, Jesus was wrongfully arrested. The proper time to seize an offender is when the offence is committed, or as soon afterwards as possible. Jesus taught daily in the Temple. He was always open, engaging scholars and sinners alike. Yet His enemies never arrested Him. They had no legal right to arrest Him in the Garden. When the soldiers came toward Him, He surrendered Himself willingly; and it was wrong, therefore, to bind Him as if He were a thief. By binding Him the Jewish authorities immediately introduced prejudice into the case, suggesting that He must be guilty merely because He was in custody.
Second, there were the suborned witnesses. Was there evidence of any wrongdoing? No one ever suggested that Jesus or His disciples had injured someone. Eager as His accusers were to make a case, not one witness could be found that could confidently affirm any wrongdoing on the part of Jesus with regard to the Law of Moses or the Law of Rome. For months, spies had attempted to entangle Jesus in His speech. The Jewish authorities presumed guilt rather than innocence and were determined to do what they could to prove Jesus to be a fraud. At the trial witnesses were sought, but none found. Truth suffered and lies were accepted as evidence for guilt.
Third, there were the warders; those whose responsibility it was to guard the accused from injury and mistreatment during the judicial proceedings. But these so-called guardians of justice sinned against our Lord, shamed themselves, and made a mockery of the entire proceedings. Though Jesus never once committed contempt of court or showed disrespect to those in position of authority, one of them struck Jesus on the mouth. Another blindfolded Him and mocked Him, calling Him a prophet and demanding that He tell those taunting Him who it was that struck Him. Throughout the long night and into the early morning hours, our Lord demonstrated love and patience far beyond that of ordinary men. He did not curse them. He did not smite them. He did not call for the legion of angels that were there at His beckon call had He so desired their assistance.
There was as well the illegality of conducting and completing the trial in one day, of the failure to consider any merits of defense, of the very indictment brought against our Savior, and that of the private examination before Annas prior to the trial itself. In every respect, the trial of Jesus ignored every aspect of proper juris prudence.
There remains yet one more trial that will be convened at some point in time unknown to mortal men. “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that which he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10). On that occasion there will be no need for witnesses for your life will bear testimony to where you stand before the Judge of all mankind. There will be no appeal and no second chance. All things will be “naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb. 4:13). The verdict will be handed down from the righteous Judge. Those not washed in the blood of Jesus will stand condemned. Those washed in the precious blood of the Lamb will be declared “innocent,” and allowed entrance into that everlasting kingdom. Because Jesus endured the unjust trial of the century, God’s elect will enjoy the blessings of that final trial that all men will face.
By Tom Wacaster
