Subscription Lists

Who Would YOU Want as the Judge?

In one of the most controversial elections ever, the brother of George Bush recused himself from serving in any way connected with the vote recounts in Florida. He did this to avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest. This was certainly advisable since it is highly unlikely that he could render impartial judgments in such a case. I’m sure of one thing. If I were ever before the bar of human justice, I would not want any biases against my case; neither would I want biases on the side of those opposing me! However, consider the following scenario.

They killed the Prince of Life (Acts 3:15). He was buried and then raised on the third day. After this, He ascended into heaven to occupy the throne room beside His Father. Now His gospel, His Good News, was being published to the nations. And they (His murderers) were being called to account. Peter clearly blamed them for the great miscarriage of justice involved in the death of Jesus. They were clearly guilty.

Now the bizarre twist to the story. The “judge” (God, the Father) in the case was the father of the “victim” (Jesus)! And, as if that were not enough, there was a court appointed attorney, an advocate, who would plead their case before the great judge of the universe. Who was this advocate? None other than the victim (1 John 2:1)! Under ordinary human circumstances, I wouldn’t want the father of the victim to sit on the bench during my trial. Neither would I want the victim upon which I perpetrated a crime to be my defense attorney. Yet, that is the scenario that prevailed in the heavenlies regarding mankind and His pursuit of a declaration of righteousness.

However, after considering man’s plight, who else could serve in the matter? Indeed, there was no one qualified to sit in the seat of judgment. All men had biases which would have certainly swayed the rule of law toward humanity’s side and away from the demands of absolute right. Furthermore, who upon this earth would have been qualified to defend humanity in that great courtroom? Weren’t we all biased beyond self-correction? Did we not all have a vested interest in the outcome of the “trial”? We are all guilty.

Who is better equipped to speak of life, defend life, and grant life, than the one who gave it? Who could better represent the frailty of mankind than one who existed from eternity having all the attributes of Deity, yet who willingly chose to live and die as a man? Who could address man’s crying need for forgiveness better than the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world? Who is better prepared to discuss the value of life after death than the only One who has ever experienced it firsthand?

The answers to these questions are obvious. When it was all said and done, there was no one in the courts of justice who could better serve as judge and defender of man! Aren’t you thankful that the Prince of Life did not recuse Himself when it came to YOUR case!!

"'Winging It" from Stan Smith

Moralism