Saturday, April 11, 2009

Standing Against the Law(Giver)

Imagine a court of law; where the Lawgiver Himself is brought to trial - a proceeding that precedes in pretense of adhering to the principles and statutes of the Law; a court where perjury is accepted, yea, fervently sought after from its ‘witnesses.’ The hand is not placed upon the scroll containing the scriptures; neither is there a ‘promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.’

“The concept of kangaroo court dates to the early nineteenth century. [However, we know, though it be not named as such, that the practice has been going on perhaps since the fall of man.] Scholars trace its origin to the historical practice of itinerant judges on the U.S. frontier. These roving judges were paid on the basis of how many trials they conducted, and in some instances their salary depended on the fines from the defendants they convicted. The term kangaroo court comes from these judges hopping from place to place, guided less by concern for justice than by the desire to wrap up as many trials as the day allowed.” American Heritage Dictionaries.

This expression is thought to liken the jumping ability of kangaroos to a court that jumps to conclusions on an invalid basis. [mid 1800’s] A self-appointed tribunal that violates established legal procedure; also a dishonest or incompetent court of law. Webster.

An unfair, biased, or hasty judicial proceeding that ends in a harsh punishment; an unauthorized trial conducted by individuals who have taken the law into their own hands” Wikipedia.

An interesting phrase, individuals who have ‘taken the law into their own hands.’ Those Jews, priests of the Sanhedrin, were duty bound to ‘uphold the Law,’ yet they would take Him into their own hands, falsely accuse and convict Him; He in whom the Law had it’s beginning and who is the foundation and sustainer: “by Him all things consist” Col. 1:17b.

“This great council was formed of high priests (i.e., the acting high priest, those who had been high priests, and members of the privileged families from which the high priest were taken), elders, scribes (legal assessors), Pharisees and Sadducees alike. Unger

The following order was [supposed to be] observed in capital cases: Arguments first in favor of acquittal, then those in favor of conviction. . .sentence of acquittal might be pronounced on the day of the trial, but one of condemnation not until the day following. The voting, each member standing, began with the youngest members of the court, although on some occasions it began with the most distinguished member. For acquittal a simple majority was sufficient; for condemnation a majority of two-thirds was required.” Unger’s Bible Dictionary [brackets mine]

The ‘trial.’

“The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world. . .in secret have I said nothing. Why asketh thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said” John 18:19-21.

The Sanhedrin would neither call for nor hear testimony from the disciples and followers of Christ, but their witness is given now for all to hear: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life. (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) John 1: 1,2.

“Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I AM” Mark 14:61,62a. “Then the high priest rent his clothes, [a gross insult to his office; some say it was even to the renouncing or rending of his priesthood] saying, He hath 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” Matt. 26:65,66. “He lieth in wait secretly as a lion in his den. . .he croucheth” Psalm 10:9a,10a. “They gaped upon me their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion” Psalm 22:13.

Would this qualify as a ‘kangaroo court?’ “Arguments first in favor of acquittal; then those in favor of conviction? It’s not there. For that matter, where is the Defense Attorney? None needed: no witnesses for the defense were allowed. “Sentence of acquittal might be pronounced on the day of the trail, but one of condemnation not until the day following? Instant condemnation was pronounced, and without a proper vote: “a two-thirds majority was required,” but in this case it was unanimous.

“Condemnation was to be pronounced the following day; but “straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation [Matthew says they took council against Jesus to put him to death] with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate” Mark 14:1.

Standing against the Lawgiver. It was not a court of law but a court of lawlessness; not a court of justice but a court of injustice. Yet Christ became the Just for the unjust. . .

No comments: