|
THE CROSS AND CRUCIFIXION
Poteau, Oklahoma
We do not doubt that the Lord Jesus Christ,
God's Lamb, was nailed to a wooden instrument of death which was set upright in
a hole in the ground. He was left there to die. Neither do we doubt His burial
and resurrection. What we do doubt are the baseless Catholic-pagan traditions -
false ideas - that have grown up around this event. While we expect to be
opposed by some because of this article we feel compelled to tell what we have
learned on this subject. My Bible says: “And
they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them,
and upon my vesture did they cast lots,”
(Matthew 27:45). Are you willing to take an honest and deeper look at what the
Bible actually says here? If not, cease reading now as you will likely only
become angry at both the message and the messenger. If you are thus willing,
read on as this preacher has tried to share what he sees to be the truth on this
matter.
First of all,
notice the word “crucified” in the above verse. It comes from Latin. This
Anglicized word was first used sometime in the 14th
century according to the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary. If that is true,
then all earlier translations of the Bible into English must have used a
different word. “Crucify” and its kindred words did not exist then. This Latin
word brought over into English means to fasten to a cross. But does the Bible
teach that a cross was involved in the death of Christ? What does the Bible
teach? Did the Romans ever use or always use two-beamed crosses? Are the
Catholics right? Were the old painters who have portrayed a two-beamed cross
right? Or did the Romans use a simple upright stake? Why does it really matter
how Christ was killed? And why do some Baptists oppose the use of cross symbols
in their homes and meeting houses today? Why do some Baptists make it a point to
have nothing to do with crosses?
Coming
into use relatively late – in the 14th
century – obviously means that these
Latin-based words were not used by earlier
English speakers and writers. How did they come to be in English, having a Latin
origin? Many words from different languages have been brought into English. This
was done through usage. For example our word “booze” comes from the Dutch no
doubt through contact with that nationality and language. Who, we ask, would
have used these Latin-based words back in that time in jolly old England? The
answer seems obvious. Latin has been the language of the Catholic Church since
it's development sometime after A.D. 300. We know how they came to be used in
Catholic England. Here is how. King Henry VIII (28 January 1457 – 21 April 1509)
pulled the English Catholic churches out from under the control of Rome. After
proclaiming himself the head over the English churches, the English clergy
continued using the same old (Catholic) church words. The words cross and
crucify are two of
those old church words that the King James
Translators kept. They wrote about their continued use of old church words in
their introductory material. This introductory explanation of how and what the
translators did in their translation work formerly appeared in the front of all
King James Bibles. In that important part of the King James Bible, the
translators told how they were not so scrupulous as other translators and kept
the old Catholic words such as church (instead of congregation) and baptism
(instead of washing – more accurately rendered dipping). While they only gave
two examples, they kept other old church words also, cross and crucify being two
of them. They were Anglicans (also known as Episcopalians or Church of England)
and their mother was Roman Catholicism. When they came out of Romanism, they
brought a considerable amount of Romish baggage with them – crosses included!
Was Christ's cross a simple upright pale or
pole or was it made of two or even three pieces of wood somehow fastened
together as most people think? And does it matter? If so why? These are all
important questions, we believe. They are important if we would worship God in
an acceptable way. We say this because the Lord Jesus said,
“But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true
worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father
seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must
worship him in spirit and in truth,” (John
4:23-24). We want our worship to be acceptable to God. We want to be
“true worshippers”
and not false ones. Therefore the truth is important. Pagan lies are not
acceptable to God! Remember Cain's sin! Cain was not punished by God for
worshiping a false god. Cain's sin was the false worship of the true and living
God. Shall we follow Cain and do as we please and call it worship or shall we
worship God “in spirit and in truth”?
The last quoted verse above says we “must”
worship in spirit and in truth if we would worship God. Worship is a purely
spiritual matter and must be according to truth to be acceptable to God. After
all, God is not “worshipped with men’s hands,”
(Acts 17:25).
The first avenue of research that we will
pursue is archaeology. The Romans hung multiplied thousands of people on pieces
of wood, leaving them to die. This mode of execution was followed throughout the
Roman Empire over hundreds of years. Sometimes they impaled their victims. This
would necessitate the use of a simple upright piece of timber. Other times they
fastened them to wooden uprights. In both instances they were left hanging to
die a slow and painful death. But here is an amazing fact! Get this! There is
not a single ancient Roman “cross” ever found by archaeologists anywhere in the
world! Think of that! You would think there would be a multitude of crosses,
skeletons and other evidence as to how crucifixions were carried out. The
following is an amazing quote from a Jerusalem-based online newspaper, The Times
of Israel: “It is therefore an odd fact that archaeological evidence of this
punishment — crosses, for example, or perforated skeletons — has never been
found anywhere in the world, with one exception: the stone box containing
Yehohanan’s remains.” (Source:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-a-stone-box-a-rare-trace-of-crucifixion/)
That article goes on to point out that the
young Jewish man, Yehohanan, who was crucified likely had his hands tied to the
cross as there is no evidence of his hands having been nailed. What is even more
interesting is that his feet were not nailed one atop the other as portrayed in
religious paintings. Rather his heels were placed one on each side of the
upright pole and a huge nail
or spike driven through each heel from the
side. Thus his feet were fastened one to each side of the “cross.” So
archaeology is not of much help to us since it provides only one example of a
crucified body. However, it does show that in at least one instance the mode of
crucifixion differed from that portrayed by Catholic-tradition-influenced
painters. We know from the Bible that the “hands” of the Lord Jesus were nailed
to the cross in some fashion, but whether to the sides or front of the upright
is unknown. One thing for sure: we ought not to accept carte blanche the claims
of Rome and the paintings of men influenced by her!
In this study we would do well to learn the
meaning of the Greek words translated as “crucify” and “cross.” After all, the
Greek words are the inspired Words God moved upon holy men to write. The two
Greek words translated “cross” and “crucify” are related. First let us look at
the word “Crucify” which comes from “stauroo.” That word, according to the
universally accepted Methodist scholar James Strong, gives the primary meaning
as “to stake, drive down stakes.” The secondary meaning is “to fortify with
driven stakes, to palisade.” Most Americans are familiar with early day
palisades or forts built by placing tree trunks upright in the ground. That is
the idea here except it would refer to single upright posts. Only after giving
these meanings does Mr. Strong introduce the word “crucify” into his definition
based upon the old church word usage. However, Mr. Strong is well known to
follow tradition in some instances rather than staying strictly with original
meanings. Our point being: we must always be careful not to take the words of
men, but to do our own research. By the way, the King James translators
consistently translated “stauroo” as “crucify.”
Next let us look at the word for “cross.” The
word for “cross” is “stauros” - just one letter short of the word for “crucify”
as shown above. This word denotes an upright pale: nothing more. Church of
England Greek scholar W.E. Vine has done admirably well in pointing out that
there is no etymological reason – no reason in the words used – to think that
the Christ's “cross” was anything other than a rough upright pale or post. In
his dictionary he devotes considerable space to proving this. His action puts
Mr. Vine quite at odds with his church since Anglicanism is replete with
crosses! The evidence must have been compelling to cause such a scholar to go
against his own church in this matter.
Whether or not Christ's cross was square hewn
or not is unclear. Personally I doubt that the Romans expended much labor or
much expense on preparing “crosses.” History tells us that Crassus crucified
6,000 of Spartacus' followers. It is doubtful if his soldiers took time for the
manufacture of “T” shaped crosses in that event. Very probably in some cases
conveniently located living or dead trees were used. Roadside trees or trees
located in other public places served their purpose well. After all, their
purpose was to make a public display of their brand of violent justice. They
wanted to instill fear of their authority in the peoples they subjugated. They
were not seeking to make a beautiful monument or an attractive public edifice
when they executed people in this way.
What does the Bible specifically say about the
thing on which Jesus died? Five times the Bible says the thing upon which Christ
was crucified was a tree. Those five places are as follows. “The God of our
fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree,” (Acts 5:30).
“And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews,
and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree,”
Ac 10:39). “And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him,
they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre,” (Acts
13:29). “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a
curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,”
(Galatians 3:13; see also Deuteronomy 21:22, 23). “Who his own self bare our
sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto
righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed,” (1Peter 2:24). Now a
two-beamed cross and a tree are not the same thing. Who will dare say they are?
There are two Greek words that are translated
“tree” in our King James New Testaments. One word, “dendrun,” is found 19 times
in the Greek New Testament and always means a tree whether living or dead. It is
always translated that way in our King James Bibles. It is thought to have come
from the Greek word for oak. But the word that is used in the above five quoted
verses speaking of the tree upon which Christ was nailed is a completely
different word. It is “xulon” and is found 19 times.
It is translated ten times as tree, five times as staff, three times as
wood and one time as stocks. We know what a tree is – generally thought of as
tall and straight. A staff of course is a long more or less straight heavy
walking stick used also as a weapon. The word wood refers to expensive wood such
as boards and containers made from such things. Stocks were notched straight
wooden beams fixed to come together as one so as to hold the feet of prisoners
secure as in Acts 16:24. So we have it then: the word “xulon” means a straight
piece of wood. The word “stauros” (translated cross) means an upright pole or
paling. What does all this prove? It means there is no reason in the words used
in the Bible to cause us to think Christ was nailed to a two or three beamed
cross. None whatsoever!
If you and I had never been told about such a
two-beamed device or seen a picture painted by some man who lived hundreds of
years after Christ's death, the idea of a two-beamed cross would never enter our
minds just from reading the Bible. There is just no Bible evidence at all for
that Catholic idea which was later popularized by Renaissance painters. (These
Renaissance painters, coming as they did out of the Dark Ages, also painted a
long haired, fair complexioned, blue eyed Jesus, female angels and portrayed
Daniel's three friends dressed in long tight hose and other garments such
western European men of their times wore. The facts are these: in spite of the
paintings, Jesus was a Sephardic Jew and they are of dark complexion, dark hair
and eyes. Angels are always spoken of in the Bible as masculine. And Daniel and
his friends did not dress like King Henry VIII of England!)
So someone asks, where did the two or three
beamed cross idea originate? While a great host of authorities could be cited,
we furnish just one paragraph from The Encyclopedia Britannica: “From its
simplicity of form, the cross has been used both as a religious symbol and as an
ornament, from the dawn of man's civilization. Various objects, dating from
periods long anterior to the Christian era, have been found, marked with crosses
of different designs, in almost every part of the old world. India, Syria,
Persia and Egypt have all yielded numberless examples, while numerous instances,
dating from the later Stone Age to Christian times, have been found in nearly
every part of Europe. The use of the cross as a religious symbol in
pre-Christian times, and among non-Christian peoples, may probably be regarded
as almost universal, and in very many cases it was connected with some form of
nature worship. (The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., 1910, Vol. 7, pg.
506). Since the cross as a symbol predates both Christianity and the Roman
Empire, it cannot be of Christian origin. That is certain! It does indeed
symbolize something, but not the death of Christ!
There is no doubt that the cross is an
idolatrous or pagan symbol, found universally around the world. It is even found
in the pagan symbolism of Native American “Indians” before contact with
Europeans. So how did this pagan symbol become associated with the death of
Christ? In about the third century, practicing pagans, having been sprinkled,
were accepted into Catholic churches. They brought with them many idolatrous
ideas. In order to make these pagan converts and keep them happy in their newly
found “Christianity” the Catholics borrowed all sorts of their pagan customs and
practices. They brought these things into their “worship.” Later, many of these
pagan things, such as the cross, were brought over into Protestantism by the
so-called Reformers. Unhappily, a great many Baptists have succumbed to this
deception from their Catholic and Protestant neighbors. Does it matter whether
or not Baptists understand that the liturgical “cross” is God-dishonoring
paganism? Does it matter whether Baptists understand that there is no biblical
evidence for the liturgical cross of
the Catholics? We think it does. More
importantly we believe God thinks it matters for He warned us about the very
real danger of idols of all sorts. And to give the unscriptural cross a
prominent and honored (venerated) place in our meeting houses and in what is
supposed to be the purely spiritual matter of worship we think is nothing less
than evil. Surely the children of God who know the Word of God – God's
“precepts” - will say with the Psalmist,
“Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way,”
(Psalm 119:104). We can only wonder at professing Christians who love false
ways, especially when the truth and worship of
God is concerned.
“Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen,”
(1 John 5:21).
|
