Crucifixion -- torture stake or cross?

Denial of the cross goes hand in hand with the denial of Christ. There is one very important factor that is missing when trying to understand why it's so very important to reason about the cross vs a stake. Satan himself was defeated at Calvary by Jesus' crucifixion.

Does it matter if it is a stake or cross? Most definitely! Satan is called many things. Deceiver being one. Liar another. A wolf in sheeps clothing. To focus so dramatically on a symbol of the very defeat of the devil and to diminish its significance can only come from the Devil himself. To claim the cross is a pagan symbol to explain why it shouldn't be called a cross, rather a stake only proves the Devil's intent to minimize his defeat.

There isn't one single Christian who wears a cross that declares allegiance to paganism. There isn't one single Christian church that has a cross inside or outside their place of worship that does so to worship paganism. It is an outward declaration of the defeat of satan at Calvary. It is the very death of Jesus on this cross that sets every human being on earth free from SATAN'S trap!!!

To say a Christian who calls it a cross is paganistic is calling God a liar. And we all know God is not the Liar. Satan is. You can reason it away as much as you want to, but the truth is, only the devil hates the cross more than Jehovah's Witnesses. If you can't see the correlation here, then you have already been deceived.

I am a first generation American Greek and I can tell you without any doubt that direct translation of the Greek words "σταυρός" and "ξύλον" are "cross" and "wooden". There is no ambiguity here it it very plain and to the exact point.

John 20:25 Settled this for me. "The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." Nails (plural) in His hands, would have to go at least one to each hand.

The word stauros in classical Greek simply means an upright stake or post, not a cross. So keeping to the literal meaning of the word in the Greek scriptures we translate it as such.

COMMENT: The problem that the JWs have with it is that they think that the cross is a pagan symbol.

ME: It’s not the fact that we think that the cross is a pagan symbol (which it was going back to Nimrod and Ancient Babylon) it’s the glorying and turning the instrument of Capital punishment that Jesus innocently suffered upon into a symbol for people to Venerate. Wether a stake or a cross neither should be venerated and the fact that it was a symbol that goes back to Babylon just shows how wrong it is. Nowhere do the Scriptures suggest that a Christian’s worship should include the use of a likeness of the instrument used to kill our Lord Jesus. Could you imagine any of Jesus apostles or disciples after seeing Jesus horrific death carving up the instrument there Lord was just killed on, venerating it and using it as part of their Worship to God.

We also know how God Views things.

Hebrews 6:6 but have fallen away, it is impossible to revive them again to repentance, because they nail the Son of God to the stake again for themselves and expose him to public shame.

Exodus 20:4 You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth.5 You must not bow down to them nor be enticed to serve them, for I, Jehovah your God, am a God who requires exclusive devotion.

Jeremiah 10:3 For the customs of the peoples are a delusion. It is just a tree of the forest that is cut down, Worked by the hands of the craftsman with his tool. 4 They adorn it with silver and gold And fasten it with hammer and nails so that it will not fall over.5 Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field, they cannot speak; They have to be carried, for they cannot walk. Do not fear them, for they can do no harm, Nor can they do any good.

Also check out Isaiah 44:14-20 and Isaiah 46:5-7. Who says God doesn’t have a sense of humor.

COMMENT: Insistence on the 'torture stake' is not particularly important in itself.

ME: Very true, as Jehovah’s Witnesses it is of no importance, what’s important to us is that Jesus gave his perfect life so that we may have our sins blotted out and gain life by exercising faith in the ransom sacrifice he provided.

COMMENT: but it is a prominent reminder of their distinctiveness, and of the error into which they think others have fallen.

ME: no we just for-go tradition and translate the word stauros to its real meaning which is an upright stake not a cross.

COMMENT: A very good answer, especially for that last section pointing out that the Witnesses apply no particular theological meaning to the "torture stake" (an awkward translation, I think everyone agrees).

ME: OK lets trust other people and not think for ourselves. Majority Rules :P.

COMMENT: I'd like to remark that the linguistic arguments of Jehovah's witnesses are based on the fact that is not certain if Jesus died either on a (single) torture stake or a (tradinally shaped) cross. Rather they feel the language used in the NT is not sufficiently clear on this point. Therefore they stick with the basic meaning of the NT word (stauros) as a 'torture stake'. By translating it with a 'cross', they feel they risk adding something to the word which might not be intended by the original authors in the first century.

ME: Totally agree.

COMMENT: Denial of the cross goes hand in hand with the denial of Christ.

ME: Yikes.

The First-century Christian, Justin Martyr is frequently quoted in the Watchtower Society books and is considered by them to be a reliable source of information about Christ. However, in his book "Dialogue With Trypho" Justin Martyr describes the crucifixion in CHAPTER XCI -- THE CROSS WAS FORETOLD IN THE BLESSINGS OF JOSEPH, AND IN THE SERPENT THAT WAS LIFTED UP.., saying that the horns of the bullock portray the cross beam "and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn [upright beam]". Then he says "...the same figure..." is revealed "...by means of the type of the stretching out of Moses' hands...".

Also in CHAPTER XL -- HE RETURNS TO THE MOSAIC LAWS, AND PROVES THAT THEY WERE FIGURES OF THE THINGS WHICH PERTAIN TO CHRIST, he describes in the preparation of the sacrificial lamp, the application of two beams, as "... a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb."

So it is clear how this reliable source of information, accepted by Jehovah's Witnesses understood the meaning of the cross and the crucifixion.

Interestiung reading, so I did some research and found that JW's are not the only ones who ever believed that.

Here is one example.

Anglican theologian E. W. Bullinger, in The Companion Bible (which was completed and published in 1922,[3] nine years after his 1913 death), was emphatic in his belief that stauros never meant two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle,

"but always of one piece alone ... There is nothing [of the word stauros] in the Greek of the N.T. even to imply two pieces of timber."

Bullinger wrote that in the catacombs of Rome Christ was never represented there as "hanging on a cross" and that the cross was a pagan symbol of life (the ankh) in Egyptian churches that was borrowed by the Christians. He cited a letter from English Dean John William Burgon, who questioned whether a cross occurred on any Christian monument of the first four centuries and wrote:

"The 'invention' of it in pre-Christian times, and the 'invention' of its use in later times, are truths of which we need to be reminded in the present day. The evidence is thus complete, that the Lord was put to death upon an upright stake, and not on two pieces of timber placed in any manner."[4]

Of course anytime an article is obviously targeting someone because of their bias of prejudice of someone or a group is never a good thing.

There were many forms of crucifixion that the Romans employed - from the simple upright pole, actual trees, varying positions of the crossbars, or even multiple poles.

However, information found in scripture and history narrow the possibilities and predominantly give evidence towards Christ's cross being one with both a vertical pole (stipes) and crossbeam (patibulum) in the form of a low tau/lowercase t.

First, Jesus was ordered to 'carry his own cross. (John 19:17, Matt 27:32). This would not have been the entire cross that he carried, as is often portrayed in film and media, but rather the crossbeam of his own cross (the patibulum). A full cross would have weighed over 300lbs. The vertical portion of the cross, the stipes, was permanently fixed in the ground. History never records a case of a prisoner carrying the stipes. The Romans often had someone condemned carry the crossbeam, the patibulim, to add to their humiliation and punishment. Once the entire cross was set up, the condemned being lifted up in to position, they would leave the cross with it's new crossbeam up for future crucifixions.

See the Structure of the Cross for more details.

As the Romans did not have this practice of making the prisoner carry the patibulum for crucifixions on simple upright poles, nor had a known practice of making prisoners ever carry the vertical stipes, then the idea Christ might have been crucified on a simple pole goes against scripture and custom in this instance.

Scripture also gives the clue that Jesus was 'lifted up' (John 3:14) Jesus would have literally been "lifted up" in the method of crucifixion where a prisoner carried the crossbeam, as he would have either been attached to the patibulum and lifted to the stipes, or attached to the cross entire and lifted up.

Another clue scripture gives is the description of "nails", in the plural, through his wrists. (John 20:25) This would not have been the practice of crucifixion involving a single upright pole, as with a single pole the practice was to only use one nail.

One piece of scripture, that Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross declaring Christ the King of the Jews, does not give a direct clue about the shape of the cross. The 'titulus', a plaque written with gypsum letters on a board bearing notice of the condemned's name and crimes, was carried by a soldier during the processional where the condemned carried the patibulum and later fastened to the cross. This titulus crucis could have been placed on almost any shape of cross besides an X: a 'high tau' or 'low tau' cross - that is a cross like a capital case T or a cross like a lower case t, or a single pole could have all carried this sign equally well.

Moving on from scripture to history, Iraneus mentions the five extremities of the cross:

"The very form of the cross, too, has five extremities, two in length, two in breadth, and one in the middle, on which [last] the person rests who is fixed by the nails." Iraeneus, 'Against Heresies', Book II, Chapter 24 (175-185 AD)

On their own, a low tau cross has four extremities, a high tau cross only three, and a pole only two.

Yet this is easily explained by another piece found frequently in Roman crucifixions, the sedile. The sedile was a small seat or protrusion about halfway down the cross. It was not there for comfort, but to prolong agony by preventing early asphyxiation.

With the addition of a sedile, the low tau cross has five extremities.

Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) gave a vivid idea of the form of the cross in his comparison of the cross to a spitted, roast lamb,

"That lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb."

Considering these clues in history and scripture, Jesus very likely died on a cross with a proper crossbeam. From scripture alone it cannot be divined the exact form of the cross, but Roman customs regarding crucifixion narrow the possibilities down. From at least the second century church tradition was already holding to the little t cross, which doesn't make it automatically a true reflection of history, but is another point in favor of the little tau, 't' cross.

I'd like to remark that the linguistic arguments of Jehovah's witnesses are based on the fact that is not certain if Jesus died either on a (single) torture stake or a (tradinally shaped) cross. Rather they feel the language used in the NT is not sufficiently clear on this point. Therefore they stick with the basic meaning of the NT word (stauros) as a 'torture stake'. By translating it with a 'cross', they feel they risk adding something to the word which might not be intended by the original authors in the first century.

Recently, there has been a Ph.D. study published about this very subject. The author basically agrees with this linguistic argument of Jehovah's witnesses.

Gunnar Samuelsson, Crucifixion in Antiquity. An Inquiry into the Background of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion, 2010, 413 p. (published in 2011).

• A short outline of the book's content

The author investigates the philological aspects of how ancient Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts, including the New Testament, depict the practice of punishment by crucifixion. A survey of the ancient text material shows that there has been a too narrow a view of the “crucifixion” terminology. The various terms are not simply used in the sense of “crucify” and “cross,” if by “crucifixion” one means the punishment that Jesus was subjected to according to the main Christian traditions. The terminology is used much more diversely. Almost none of it can be elucidated beyond verbs referring vaguely to some form(s) of suspension, and nouns referring to tools used in such suspension. As a result, most of the crucifixion accounts that scholars cite in the ancient literature have to be rejected, leaving only a few.

The New Testament is not spared from this terminological ambiguity. The accounts of the death of Jesus are strikingly sparse. Their chief contribution is usage of the unclear terminology in question. Over-interpretation, and probably even pure imagination, have afflicted nearly every dictionary that deals with the terms related to crucifixion as well as scholarly depictions of what happened on Calvary. The immense knowledge of the punishment of crucifixion in general, and the execution of Jesus in particular, cannot be supported by the studied texts.”

• Own website

Since the author was frequently quoted in the media as a person who doubted the crucifiction of Jesus, the author, who is not a Jehovah's witness but a protestant pastor, has his own website in which he tries to take away some misconceptions.

See: Crucifixion in Antiquity

See also for general information: Wikipedia.