'Cross' vs. 'Stake'? Not Entirely

  • Thread starter Thread starter patrick457
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesus’ Cross was shaped like a t for for many reasons some of which I’ll list here.
The blood of the passover was to be put on 2 door posts and the lintel. Jesus was our passover lamb so His blood was put on two doorposts and a lintel, His cross came from a doorway that was being upgraded in the Temple beautification that had been going on for decades. Also He was changing the Temple sacrifice so Ezra 6:11 required a beam to be pulled from His house and that He be lifted up and nailed to it. It was three branched because like the cup bearer in Gen 40 He was to be lifted up and restored in 3 days. (He also had one basket on His head so He died on the first day). The basket held His body, the bread of Life and the Cross was the Tree of Life in the garden of Golgotha. Because the cross was a doorway it had a mezuzah with the Shema the first part of the two most important commandments. The three pieces of the Cross were held together with the threshold board so it made a complete doorway with Jesus as the door. There could not be an upright that Jesus was attached to because it would be unclean and Jesus was never unclean but rather always holy.
Thoughts?
Grace and peace
Bruce
 
Bruce_Killian said:
Jesus’ Cross was shaped like a t for for many reasons some of which I’ll list here.
The blood of the passover was to be put on 2 door posts and the lintel. Jesus was our passover lamb so His blood was put on two doorposts and a lintel, His cross came from a doorway that was being upgraded in the Temple beautification that had been going on for decades. Also He was changing the Temple sacrifice so Ezra 6:11 required a beam to be pulled from His house and that He be lifted up and nailed to it. It was three branched because like the cup bearer in Gen 40 He was to be lifted up and restored in 3 days. (He also had one basket on His head so He died on the first day). The basket held His body, the bread of Life and the Cross was the Tree of Life in the garden of Golgotha. Because the cross was a doorway it had a mezuzah with the Shema the first part of the two most important commandments. The three pieces of the Cross were held together with the threshold board so it made a complete doorway with Jesus as the door. There could not be an upright that Jesus was attached to because it would be unclean and Jesus was never unclean but rather always holy.
Thoughts?
Grace and peace
Bruce
Click to expand...
No offense, but I personally think your interpretation takes the OT texts too literally.

Also, you said that you believe Jesus’ cross was t-shaped, but then you mention that “the three pieces of the Cross were held together with the threshold board so it made a complete doorway with Jesus as the door. There could not be an upright that Jesus was attached to because it would be unclean and Jesus was never unclean but rather always holy.” This is where I’m a bit confused. Is this the shape you were envisioning?

http://sschotsprings.com/2008ssc/images/stories/imagesSSC/ex11sideposts_lintel.png

Herod the Great did not tear down the sanctuary itself: the sanctuary was renovated bit-by-bit without destroying the old and without the daily sacrifices stopping. The sanctuary was said to have been renovated in 20 BC and completed a short time thereafter. It was the surrounding complex that was built from scratch and took long in construction. So in your scenario, this supposed wooden beam - let’s say that it dated from time of Zerubbabel 500 years ago - would have been would have been lying somewhere for around fifty years as junk lumber until somehow some soul had the idea to make a cross out of them and hang Jesus on it.

Also, Ezra 6. The punishment of hanging is directed to people who would dare change the words of the edict published by Darius, not the sacrifices (which admittedly was mentioned in the verses preceding it). As for the mezuzah, it was only required for proper dwellings. In fact, the Talmud, if we’ll take its words, explicitly says that most of the doorways in the Temple did not have a mezuzah, except for the Parhedrin chamber - which supposedly served as a temporary residence of the High Priest for the seven days of the Day of Atonement, and only because the high priest temporarily lived there for those seven days; the Rabbis claimed a mezuzah was said to have been fixed on the entrance to that chamber to mark it as a ‘dwelling’, so that the people would not think the high priest is being imprisoned.

P.S. I think you’re confusing/conflating the cupbearer in Genesis 40 - the one freed - with the baker - the one beheaded and hanged.
 
View attachment 21055
His cross was from a doorway of the rooms surrounding the Temple but still considered part of the Temple. The beams were cedar of Lebanon which does not rot or get eaten so it lasts. The refurbishment of the Temple underway for 46 years at the start of His ministry continued until 70AD. Pilate did not want to crucify Jesus so he gave that task to the chief priest a group not normally in that business so that asked a temple carpenter to make them a cross immediately so he used the material he had available an old temple door frame. Most of the wood would be cut up for firewood for the altar. The cup bearer lived like Jesus because of the three branched vine (a tree in Hebrew thought). The baker like Jesus died because he had baskets on his head, he died in three days because of three baskets. Jesus died in one day because He had only one basket on His head (his crown of thorns). The mezuzah as a necessary part of nearly every outside doorway, and it was necessary for Jesus’ hands to be bound to a phylactery as required in prayer.
Hopefully this answers at least some of your questions. I know a great deal more about this subject.
Grace and peace,
Bruce
 
Bruce_Killian said:
View attachment 21055
His cross was from a doorway of the rooms surrounding the Temple but still considered part of the Temple. The beams were cedar of Lebanon which does not rot or get eaten so it lasts. The refurbishment of the Temple underway for 46 years at the start of His ministry continued until 70AD. Pilate did not want to crucify Jesus so he gave that task to the chief priest a group not normally in that business so that asked a temple carpenter to make them a cross immediately so he used the material he had available an old temple door frame. Most of the wood would be cut up for firewood for the altar. The cup bearer lived like Jesus because of the three branched vine (a tree in Hebrew thought). The baker like Jesus died because he had baskets on his head, he died in three days because of three baskets. Jesus died in one day because He had only one basket on His head (his crown of thorns). The mezuzah as a necessary part of nearly every outside doorway, and it was necessary for Jesus’ hands to be bound to a phylactery as required in prayer.
Hopefully this answers at least some of your questions. I know a great deal more about this subject.
Grace and peace,
Bruce
Click to expand...
To be honest, I’m still not convinced. No offense, but I still think you’re reading into the texts a tad too much. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. Thanks for posting anyway.
 
It is not at all certain that I will be able to convince, but I can try.
The better you know the Scriptures the easier my task.
1Co 15:3-4 RSV - 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
How do the scriptures (that is the Old Testament) demonstrate that he died for our sins and that He was raised on the third day? Why is this also included in the creed? What did Jesus say to the disciples on the way to Emmaus? No ones else’s death was a sacrifice how could Jesus death and resurrection be a sacrifice? Hint Jesus dying on the cross does NOT make His death a sacrifice. Why was the blood of the passover put on the doorposts and lintel? Why not put the blood on the roof or the side of the house? Why did the ark have only one door and why was it is the side rather than the deck? Why are we told of the confrontation at the door to Lot’s house? Why was a seal put on the rock on the entrance to Daniel in the Lion’s den? Why the third day? Why the upper room? Why is the word in Hebrew for chalice and threshold the same word SAF? Why was Moses’ and Aaron’s sacrifice, Solomon’s sacrifice and Elijah’s sacrifice consumed with holy fire? THE answer to all of these questions it the Old Testament tell what will happen to Jesus.
grace and peace,
Bruce
 
Guys, I’ve just encountered another (more recent) crucifixion book: Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World by a guy named John Granger Cook. He also has a shorter paper on the same subject: Crucifixion in the Ancient Mediterranean World. And here’s his review of Gunnar Samuelsson’s book.

Cook partly directs his work into addressing Samuelsson’s thesis. For him, defining ‘crucifixion’ as “‘execution by suspension’ is acceptable as long as one excludes impalement or hanging,” though at the same time notes that “it is impossible, of course, to completely exclude impalement in all cases that use crux, σταυρός (stauros) and the associated verbs, but explicit impalement is (textually) rare as a Roman punishment.” So there’s the process of elimination: we have no literary evidence that the Romans - in any period - practiced hanging by a noose (though they did make use of garroting), and impalement (as per Cook) - i.e. skewering someone on a sharpened stake - was rare; at least there are only two literary instances of Roman impalement. That leaves only ‘extended death by suspension’ the only candidate.

Greek terminology for ‘cross’, ‘stake’, and ‘crucify,’ ‘impale,’ or ‘suspend’ is ambiguous at times. One must pay special attention to the context. The context is a reliable guide for determining if an act of suspension is a penal execution. During the Roman era there does not exist much doubt that suspension (i.e., crucifixion) was a frequent form of execution.

But ‘suspension’ on what? Samuelsson claims that stauros in the basic sense means a pole placed in the ground but not necessarily a cross. But Cook argues that Samuelsson had ignored two literary works which describe stauros as being T-shaped:
Men weep, and bewail their lot, and curse Cadmus with many curses for introducing Tau (Τ) into the family of letters; they say it was his body that tyrants took for a model, his shape that they imitated, when they set up the erections on which men are crucified. Σταυρός (stauros) the vile engine is called, and it derives its vile name from him. Now, with all these crimes upon him, does he not deserve death, nay, many deaths? For my part I know none bad enough but that supplied by his own shape–that shape which he gave to the gibbet named stauros after him by men.

-Pseudo-Lucian (ca. 125-after 180), Trial in the Court of Vowels

Learn fully then, children of love, concerning all things, for Abraham, who first circumcised, did so looking forward in the spirit to Jesus, and had received the doctrines of three letters. For it says, “And Abraham circumcised from his household eighteen men and three hundred (TIH).” What then was the knowledge that was given to him? Notice that he first mentions the eighteen, and after a pause the three hundred. The eighteen is I (=ten) and H (=8) - you have Jesus - and because the cross was destined to have grace in the T he says “and three hundred.” So he indicates Jesus in the two letters and the cross in the other.

-Epistle of Barnabas (late 1st-early 2nd century), 9:7-8

So for Cook, stauros was not simply a pole (though it could mean that), but a gibbet made out of several pieces of wood. Also, while Samuelsson argued that the patibulum does not necessarily have to mean ‘the horizontal beam of the crux’ and that the carrying of said patibulum does not necessarily have to have been part of the punishment of hanging someone on a crux, Cook argues the opposite. In fact, Cook points out that in classical Latin texts, the individual never carried a crux, but a patibulum. Since crux and patibulum are often mentioned in connection with each other Cook thinks apparently that the current understanding - which posits a connection between the two - could very well be correct: the crux in this case referred to the vertical post already erected in place, while the patibulum (which means a ‘horizontal bar’) referred to the crossbeam that will be joined to the crux to form a complete cross, which was sometimes carried by the person to be hanged. He invokes a later text (Firmicus Maternus, Mathesis 6.31.58, 4th century AD), which explicitly says: patibulo subfixus in crucem tollitur “fastened to the patibulum, he/she is raised onto the crux.”
 
(Continued)

Cook also invokes artistic depictions of crucifixion to support his idea that cruces specifically had a T-shape. Our oldest possible depiction of a crucifixion comes from the Arieti tomb at the Esquiline Hill in Rome, from the 3rd century BC. You would notice that the man is naked, and that his arm seems to be attached - some would say nailed - to a horizontal bar.



He also claims that Samuelsson’s hesitance to accept Jehohanan’s heelbone as “proof of crucifixion” is unwarranted, and invokes another graffiti depicting a crucifixion, this time from Pozzuoli (Puteoli). He believes the sketch shows the crucified woman, Alcimilla, with her two ankles attached on either side of the vertical pole - just as the reconstruction of Jehohanan’s posture shows him.

http://dbcfaa79b34c8f5dfffa-7d3a62c...n.com/wp-content/uploads/puteoli-graffito.png

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

And then there’s also the earliest depictions of the crucifixion of Jesus (2nd-3rd century) which show a t- or T-shaped cross.





All in all, Cook argues that Samuelsson’s interpretation of the data is too minimalistic. In his review of Samuelsson’s book he says:

If an author indicates in a context of execution that a living individual was suspended by a Roman authority, then crucifixion is a justified inference(impalement is extremely rare textually). Samuelsson’s neglect of the graffiti (and the gem) is a crucial shortcoming that could be fairly easily rectified, but use of the images would substantially alter his conclusions.
 
(Continued)

The good thing about life is, you learn something new everyday. And I certainly learned something from Samuelsson and Cook.

All in all, I think Cook’s approach does have one advantage. While Samuelsson (by his own admission) just limits himself to Greek and Roman texts, Cook also takes the time to inspect the surviving artworks. I personally think he could very well be right in his assertion that Samuelsson’s approach is in a number of ways, too minimalistic and too broad; that verbs like anastauroun or cruci figere do not refer so much to skewering people or hanging them (from a noose) but from suspending them from a gibbet, specifically one that is composed of multiple pieces of wood; and that patibulum could very well be a part of the crux, the horizontal crossbeam that is joined to the vertical pole to form a T or t.

However, I still have this gut feeling that some of Samuelsson’s ideas are still applicable in a number of points: for instance, his insistence that there is no standard ‘form’ of this suspensionary execution and that the specific details could vary. Also re. the bones of Jehohanan: this could be just me, but I think Cook is reading too much into the Alcimilla graffiti and the heelbone - or specifically, the reconstruction of Jehohanan’s position. As I noted a while back, there’s really nothing in Jehohanan’s bones which suggest the form of the gibbet he was nailed to or, even if we suppose that it was T-shaped, his exact posture. We know that one of his heels had a nail driven on it; it could have very well straddled the upright post. But his exact posture on the crux, we don’t know. (And of course that’s assuming that the reconstruction of the heelbone by Dr. Nicu Haas was correct.)
 
Bruce_Killian said:
Why is the word in Hebrew for chalice and threshold the same word SAF?
Click to expand...
Okay, I just have something for this one. For ‘threshold’ there’s miftan and saf. Yes, it could mean ‘basin’, ‘bowl’ or ‘goblet’ (AFAIK a different word is often used for a drinking cup - kos; other words for ‘cup’ I’ve found are gebiya’ - related to the word for ‘hill’, menaqqith - ‘offering bowls’, or qas(v)ah - more like ‘pitcher’ or ‘jar’) and it could mean ‘threshold’ or ‘boundary’, because the original connotation of the word is ‘to contain’ or ‘to limit’.

But I think maybe we need another thread for this?
 
patrick457 said:
Okay, I just have something for this one. For ‘threshold’ there’s miftan and saf. Yes, it could mean ‘basin’, ‘bowl’ or ‘goblet’ (AFAIK a different word is often used for a drinking cup - kos; other words for ‘cup’ I’ve found are gebiya’ - related to the word for ‘hill’, menaqqith - ‘offering bowls’, or qas(v)ah - more like ‘pitcher’ or ‘jar’) and it could mean ‘threshold’ or ‘boundary’, because the original connotation of the word is ‘to contain’ or ‘to limit’.

But I think maybe we need another thread for this?
Click to expand...
Beside His cross being a doorway, it was also an altar and the wood of His sacrifice all to fulfill the scriptures. You say I take the Scriptures too literally, I say they need to be taken literally to demonstrate His fulfillment of the sacrificial requirements.

His Cross was also the Tree of Life, a torture and execution device, and it was a marriage bed.

Because Jesus’ resurrection was the end of the first sacrifice of the Mass:
  1. Jesus was buried according to the Jewish practice (John 19:40). Blood was unclean and considered part of the body, therefore tradition required it to be buried with the body. So Jesus’ cross, crown, and the bloody dirt and rocks from its base were buried with Him.
  2. The shroud of Turin shows His Body was washed because only fresh blood would transfer to the cloth. So that His Blood be buried, He was washed the tomb.
  3. The dirt in the tomb formed an altar (Ex 20:24-26), His cross the arranged wood, His bound Body on top, the sacrifice, and His Blood sprinkled on and poured out at its base. His crown of thorns was the crown and horns of that altar.
  4. All that remained of the passover sacrifice must be burned up in the morning (Ex 12:10). Jesus was a passover sacrifice (1Co 5:7), so His remains were burned up.
  5. As Elijah’s sacrifice on Mt. Carmel (1Ki 18:38) was consumed so Jesus’ sacrifice was consumed by holy fire from heaven on Mt. Moriah as a holocaust.
  6. At Jesus’ resurrection, everything in His tomb, except the linen (and maybe the nails), was consumed by holy fire. Linen not consumed see (Lev 10:2, 5).
  7. Jesus was consumed by fire from God and the smoke of His sacrifice rose (עֹלָה Holah or ἀνάστασις anastasis) so Jesus’ rising included the smoke of His sacrifice. The fire and smoke were a pillar of fire and a pillar of cloud.
  8. The end of that first Mass, the sacrifice, priest, altar, (and congregation) were consumed, what remained were the tomb=chalice (סָּף SAF (cup (Jer 52:19), basin (Ex 12:22), and threshold (Jud 19:27; Ez:40:7)), the altar cloth/seamless vestments, the corporal, and the paten (rolled stone).
  9. All sacrifices ended not in death but by being consumed, by eating, burning or both. We were justified by His resurrection not by His death (Rom 4:25).
May our Lord multiple love, grace and peace to you,
Bruce
 
JOHN 21:18-19 18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go." 19 (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, “Follow me.”

There are frequently multiple layers of meaning to what Jesus states.

“Follow me” here may have been referring to (among other things) . . . . follow me over here Peter. I want to talk more to you in detail. After all, the next verse tells us “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was following Jesus and St. Peter.

“Follow me” here was certainly a doctrinal following of Jesus too.

There are likely other layers of meaning.

But IF one of those layers was a mystical sense about what Jesus had just told St. Peter (presumably about how St. Peter himself would die), . . . . then one layer of meaning may be St. Peter “stretching OUT” of his hands (not “stretching UP” or in St. Peter’s case who was reportedly crucified upside down, not “stretching DOWN”).

If this sense is there, it may mystically suggest what type of “stauros” or Cross, Jesus had been subjected to on Calvary.

JOHN 21:18-19 18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go." 19 (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, “Follow me.”
 
Our LORD didn’t burn in the tomb, I don’t know where you got that.

HIS original body was part of the Resurrection.

Not to mention, if there had been any burning in the tomb, there would be no Shroud.

ICXC NIKA
 
Cathoholic said:
JOHN 21:18-19 18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go." 19 (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, “Follow me.”

There are frequently multiple layers of meaning to what Jesus states.

“Follow me” here may have been referring to (among other things) . . . . follow me over here Peter. I want to talk more to you in detail. After all, the next verse tells us “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was following Jesus and St. Peter.

“Follow me” here was certainly a doctrinal following of Jesus too.

There are likely other layers of meaning.

But IF one of those layers was a mystical sense about what Jesus had just told St. Peter (presumably about how St. Peter himself would die), . . . . then one layer of meaning may be St. Peter “stretching OUT” of his hands (not “stretching UP” or in St. Peter’s case who was reportedly crucified upside down, not “stretching DOWN”).

If this sense is there, it may mystically suggest what type of “stauros” or Cross, Jesus had been subjected to on Calvary.

JOHN 21:18-19 18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go." 19 (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, “Follow me.”
Click to expand...
I always understood stretching out of the hands to mean, not how the hands would be arranged on a cross, but stretching them out to be tied, for leading to death.

That would fit best with “gird you fast” (the bound hands) and lead where one does not want to go (ie, led to death, where nobody wants to go, by one’s bound hands).

ICXC NIKA.
 
Geddie:
I always understood stretching out of the hands to mean, not how the hands would be arranged on a cross, but stretching them out to be tied, for leading to death.
Click to expand...
Yes. You certainly may be correct.

The whole St. Peter warning from Jesus in John 21:18-19 makes for
an interesting meditation doesn’t it?

Thank you for your insightful (name removed by moderator)ut Geddie.
 
Cathoholic said:
JOHN 21:18-19 18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go." 19 (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, “Follow me.”
Click to expand...
Interesting.
 
There is a lot more to the out stretched hand than being bound. E.g. Moses stretched out his hands over the Red Sea with rod in hand before it parted. Moses prayed with his hands outstretched on the mountain while Joshua fought the Amalekites below and when his arms grew weary Aaron and Hur held up his arms (Jesus had nails to help him). Joshua holding out his spear until the conquest of Ai was completed. So the outstretched arm is a sign of power much as the priest has out stretched arms holding the Eucharist.
Grace and peace,
Bruce
 
Bruce_Killian said:
There is a lot more to the out stretched hand than being bound. E.g. Moses stretched out his hands over the Red Sea with rod in hand before it parted. Moses prayed with his hands outstretched on the mountain while Joshua fought the Amalekites below and when his arms grew weary Aaron and Hur held up his arms (Jesus had nails to help him). Joshua holding out his spear until the conquest of Ai was completed. So the outstretched arm is a sign of power much as the priest has out stretched arms holding the Eucharist.
Grace and peace,
Bruce
Click to expand...
True, but in the instance of Saint Peter, it was specifically about being led to death .

ICXC NIKA.
 
JOHN 21:18-19 18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go." 19 (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, “Follow me.”

I think there is a lot to meditate upon here.

I wouldn’t put John 21:18-19 forth as a strict “catechesis” about Jesus’ crucifixion (it may merely be referring to by “how St. Peter would be led away”).

On the other hand, even if John 21:18-19 is referring to “how St. Peter would be led away”, it may also mean more.

I wouldn’t rule these verses out as somehow being reflective of Jesus’/St. Peter’s Crucifixion either.

John 21:18-19 could mean how St. Peter was led to his away death, AND it could ALSO mean “to show by what death he was to glorify God”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top