Did Jesus die on a Cross?

The author if this well researched monograph is unknown to us. If you are the author, please contact us so we can add your name.

As is widely known, the Watchtower Society insists that Jesus did not die on a two-beamed cross but on a single-timber “torture stake“. I agree with most people that this issue is pretty pointless and amounts only to a historical curiosity. As most Christians of faith would say, “It doesn’t matter what he died on; it matters that he died for us”. The purpose of this discussion is not to detract from that theological issue but instead to show that this subject is yet another instance of the Society’s intellectual dishonesty and failure to represent the sources they quote. It will also provide a fairly interesting survey of what is historically known about the most heinous form of capital punishment in the Roman world.

The principal argument the Society furnishes is a linguistic one: that the Greek terms stauros and xulon and the Latin term crux (which translates stauros in the Latin Vulgate) did not mean “cross” in the first century. If the words used by the Bible writers referred only to a simple single-timber stake, then Jesus would not have died on a stake that had a crossbeam. So where Christendom get the idea that Jesus was put to death on a cross? The Society claims that the early Catholic church imported the cross symbol from neighboring pagan religions as part of its apostasy from original apostolic Christianity and their use of the cross in worship led them to claim that Jesus had in fact died on one. Of course, if Jesus did die on a cross (or was believed to have done so by the earliest Christians), then the use of the cross symbol by later Christians is certainly intelligible. The following quotation from the Society’s literature is quite typical:

***w92 11/15 p. 7 The Cross-Symbol of Christianity? ***

FOR centuries multitudes have accepted the cross as a symbol of Christianity. But is it really? Many who have sincerely believed so are quite surprised to learn that the cross is not at all unique to Christendom. On the contrary, it has been widely used in non-Christian religions all over the world….

The Bible shows that Jesus was not executed on a conventional cross at all but, rather, on a simple stake, or stau·ros´. This Greek word, appearing at Matthew 27:40‚ basically means a simple upright beam or pole, such as those used in building foundations.

Regarding the first point, it should not be surprising at all that the cross symbol is ubiquitous around the word, for it is geometrically nothing more than an intersection of two lines at right angles — a basic shape that can easily be invested with meaning independently by many different cultures. Pyramids are similarly found in cultures around the world but this is not due necessarily to contact or common origin; because of gravity, the only way to build very large buildings in the ancient world without steel reinforcement is to use a pyramid shape. Of course, the theological conception of Jesus’ crucifixion may indeed have been influenced by neighboring pagan religions (which depicted certain gods like Prometheus as having been crucified), but fact that the cross symbol had a use outside of Christianity is not by itself evidence that the Christian cross was imported entirely from paganism.

As for what the word stauros meant in the NT, note that the Society provides no evidence but simply makes a blanket claim. The claim is that the use of this word in the Bible “shows that Jesus was not executed on the conventional cross”. Now, if the “conventional cross” did not exist in the first century AD as a device for execution, it would be quite obvious that the word stauros could not have meant “cross” at the time. But without knowing anything about the history of Roman crucifixion, it is not self-evident that stauros did not mean “cross”. If the Romans did use two-beamed crosses at the time to execute prisoners, there would have been a word for it in Greek! So if the word was not stauros, what was it? These are questions the Society does not pursue.

First I will survey the historical evidence for crucifixion and identify the time when the Romans began using crucifixion as a form of crucifixion. Then I will show what Latin words were used to refer to the two-beamed cross and the crossbeam in particular. Once I have established these basic facts, I will examine the Greek literature and show whether stauros referred to two-beamed crosses or not. Finally, I will look at biblical and patristic evidence bearing on the crucifixion of Jesus in particular.

I. THE ORIGINS OF ROMAN CRUCIFIXION

Historians generally believe that the crux compacta, consisting of a vertical stake and a transverse beam onto which the arms are tied or nailed, is a Roman invention combining native execution practices with those acquired from contact with neighboring peoples. There were several predecessors to crucifixion in the ancient Near East: impalement and postmorten hanging. The former involved forcing living prisoners or slaves down through pointed stakes and is illustrated in Assyrian reliefs; the oldest known reference to it is in the Code of Hammurabi, dating to 1700 BC. The latter was practiced by the ancient Israelites; after being stoned to death, idolators and blasphemers were hung on trees to show that they were accursed by God (cf. Deuteronomy 21:23), tho the Law forbid such corpses to remain on the tree overnight.

The ancient Persians however executed their criminals and prisoners by nailing them while still alive to trees and poles. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament notes that “the Persians invented or first used this mode of execution. They probably did so in order not to defile the earth, which was consecrated to Ormuzd, by the body of the person executed” (p. 16). What distinguished this practice from postmortem hanging was that the victim was still alive when the nails were driven into him. It is thought that the references to “hanging” in Ezra 6:11 and Esther 7:9-10 are of Persian crucifixion, though the texts themselves are not specific. The Greco-Persian Wars (499-479 BC) introduced the Greeks to this form of execution and Herodotus (Historiarum, 1.128.2,3.125.3, 3.132.2, 3.159.1, 4.43.2-7, 6.30.1, 7.194) makes frequent reference to its use by the Persians (cf. also Thucydides, Historia 1.110.3, on its use in Egypt at the time). For instance, Herodotus mentions a viceroy named Sandoces, son of Thamasius, who was “taken and crucified (anestauróse) by Darius” but then Darius had a change of heart and released Sandoces so that “he thus escaped with his life from being put to death by Darius” (7.194). This passage clearly indicates that Sandoces was still alive when he was “crucified” (the verb, an inflected form of anastauroó, is obviously a form of stauros). The shape of the instrument used in Persian crucifixion also varied considerably. Herodotus said that it was comprised of “boards” (9.120), whereas Plutarch shows that even four vertical stakes were used for a single victim (Artaxerxes, 17.5). Apparently, the appearance of the apparatus did not matter to the Persians, as long as it performed its function.

From their interaction with the Persians, the Greeks adopted crucifixion as a military strategy. It was practiced especially by Alexander the Great in his wars against the Persians (336-323 BC). Thus, after the siege of Tyre came to an end in 332 BC, about “two thousand … hung fixed to stakes over a huge stretch of the shore” (Curtius Rufus, Historia Alexandri 4.4.17; cf. also Plutarch, Alexander 7.2 on Alexander’s crucifixion of his Persian physician). After Alexander’s death, his successors (the Diadochi) continued to use Persian-style crucifixion against their enemies (cf. Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica 16.61.2), but the Greeks never fully integrated it into their legal system as a civil penalty. The Greeks were generally repelled by such a brutal display (cf. Herodotus, Historiarum 7.138, 9.78). Likely as a result of the Greek siege of Tyre, the Phoenicians and Carthaginians adopted the mass-crucifixion tactic for use in war (cf. Valerius Maximus, Memorabilium 2.7; Silius Italicus, Punica 2.344). During thePunic Wars (264-146 B.C.), the Romans encountered the Phoenician version of crucifixion and swiftly appropriated it as a means of capital punishment for slaves. Straying away from the purpose the Persians intended it for, the Romans converted it into a brutal torture machine. This was accomplished by adding a second piece of wood called the patibulum to the execution stake, as well as a thorn-shaped sedile upon which the victim rested his weight. Prior to the invention of crucifixion, the Romans used the patibulum to humiliate condemned slaves marching to their execution. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (first century B.C.) described this ancient practice:

“A Roman citizen of no obscure station, having ordered one of his slaves to be put to death, delivered him to his fellow-slaves to be led away, and in order that his punishment might be witnessed by all, directed them to drag him through the Forum and every other conspicuous part of the city as they whipped him, and that he should go ahead of the procession which the Romans were at the time conducting in honour of the god. The men ordered to lead the slave to his punishment, having stretched out both hands and fastened them to a piece of wood (tas kheiras apoteinantes amphoteras kai xuló prosdésantes) which extended across his chest and shoulders as far as his wrists, followed him,tearing his naked body with whips” (Roman Antiquities, 7.69.1-2).

This patibulum-bearing punishment, during which a slave is whipped and lead through the city, was practiced in pre-Republican times and was the direct ancestor of the portion of the crucifixion ritual in which the victim carries his own cross. It did not always precede execution; it was often used for humiliation. Other descriptions of this early form of punishment can be found in Livy and Plutarch, who both describe its use in pre-Republican times and reveal that the wood carried by the victim was also called a furca “fork”.

“At an early hour of the day appointed for the games, before the show had begun, a certain householder had driven his slave, bearing a yoke (furca), through the midst of the circus, scouraging the culprit as he went” (Livy, Roman History 2.36.1).

“A certain man had handed over one of his slaves, with orders to scourge him through the forum, and then put him to death. While they were executing this commission and tormenting the poor wretch, whose pain and suffering made him writhe and twist himself horribly, the sacred procession in honor of Jupiter chanced to come up behind….And it was a severe punishment for a slave who had committed a fault, if he was obliged to take the piece of wood (xulon) with which they prop up the pole of a wagon, andcarry it around through the neighborhood. For he who had been seen undergoing this punishment no longer had any credit in his own or neighboring households. And he was called a ‘furcifer’ (phourkipher), for what the Greeks call a prop, or support,is called ‘furca’ (phourkan) by the Romans” (Plutarch, Coriolanus 24.4-5).

It is this piece of wood that centuries later became the crossbeam in the Roman cross. The crux compacta came into existence when Phoenician crucifixion was fused with the pre-existing Roman patibulum-bearing punishment. Not only was the errant slave punished by being paraded throughout the city yoked to a patibulum, but he now died suspended from it. But when did this happen? We need to examine the earliest known descriptions of the kind of crucifixion adopted by the Romans and the specific terms they used to refer to it.

II. THE LATIN CRUXIN EARLY SOURCES

As mentioned in the introduction, if the Roman two-timbered cross (crux compacta) arose after the first century AD, then it would be obvious that Jesus could not have died upon one. The Society admits that the Latin word for the device was crux, but points out that it did not necessarily refer to a double-beamed cross:

“True, the Romans did use an instrument of execution known in Latin as the crux. And in translating the Bible into Latin, this word crux was used as a rendering of stauros. Because the Latin word crux and the English word cross are similar, many mistakenly assume that crux was necessarily a stake with a crossbeam” (15 August 1987 Watchtower, p. 23).

But even if it did not necessarily refer to a “stake with a crossbeam”, was such a meaning possible? It all depends on when the Romans invented the double-beamed cross and when the word crux began to refer to it. It is theoretically possible that for the first few centuries after the Punic Wars, the Romans continued to use the crux simplex of the Carthaginians and did not combine it with the patibulum until the second century; in such a circumstance, the word crux would have definitely still referred to a simple stake. But if the Romans had invented the crux compacta early on, and if crux was the only word used to refer to crucifixion, then by default crux would have referred to double-beamed crosses since no other word did.

When does the Society believe the meaning of crux shifted to “cross?” Although it has never published (as with stauros) any official statements on the matter, it has twice indicated that the semantic change occurred after the first century A.D. The 1963 publication All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial quoted Tacitus (c. A.D. 56-c. 120) as saying that Roman Christians were martyred on flaming “crosses” during the A.D. 64 persecution (p. 235; cf. Tacitus, Annals 15.44). Twenty-five years later, the Society cited the same passage in Revelation – Its Grand Climax at Hand. But this time it replaced the reference to Christians being “crucified” with “[impaled]” and referred the reader in a footnote to a discussion of the “torture stake” doctrine in the 1984 New World Translation appendix (p. 101). Apparently the Society believes that crux still meant “stake” in the second century A.D., when Tacitus composed his Annals.

The Society also falsely claims that crux meant only “stake” in the days of the Roman historian Livy (59 B.C.-A.D. 17). We read in the 1950 New World Translation appendix:

“The fact that stauros is translated crux in the Latin versions furnishes no argument against [the "torture stake" doctrine]. . . .A cross is only a later meaning of crux. Even in the writings of Livy, a Roman historian of the first century B.C.E., crux means a mere stake” (p. 770).

The 22 June 1984 Awake! likewise remarked: “The Latin word used for the instrument on which Christ died was crux which, according to Livy, a famous Roman historian of the first century C.E., means a mere stake” (p. 17). Finally, the version of the New World Translation published in the same year stated: “In the writings of Livy, a Roman historian of the first century B.C.E., crux means a mere stake. ‘Cross’ is only a later meaning of crux” (p. 1577).

But this claim does not stand up to critical scrutiny. Notice that the Society never backs up its claim with references to Livy’s writings. A careful examination of Livy’s writings shows the historian never used crux the way the Society says he did, i.e. with specific reference to a crux simplex. According to Packard’s Concordance to Livy, the word crux in its various inflected forms appeared six times in Livy’s writings (p. 1011). These are quoted below with their contexts:

“Whereupon he scouraged the guide, and, to terrify others, crucified (crucem sublato) him, and going into the camp behind the entrenchments, dispatched Maharbal with the cavalry” (22.13.9).

“Five and twenty slaves were crucified (crucem acti), on the charge of having conspired in the Campus Martius” (22.33.2).

“He thereupon . . . ordered them [high-ranking officials] to be scourged and crucified (cruci adfigi). Then he crossed over to his ships to the island of Pityusa” (28.37.3).

(4) “The deserters were severely treated than the runaway slaves, Latin citizens being beheaded, Romans crucified (crucem sublati)” (30.43.13).

“Some, who had been the instigators of the revolt, he scouraged and crucified (crucibus adfixit), others he turned over to their masters” (33.36.3).

“In this I for my part should trust my own cause even if I were pleading, not before the Roman, but before the Carthaginian senate, where commanders are said to be crucified (crucem tolli) if they have conducted a campaign with successful but defective policy” (38.48.13).

Each and every one of these references to crucifixion are laconic and devoid of detail as to the manner of the execution; none of the six excerpts reveal any information indicating what the nature of the crux was like. When Livy did refer to the crux simplex, he used the word palus: “Bound to a stake (deligati ad palum) they were scouraged and beheaded” (28.29.11; cf. also 26.13.15). The Society’s claim must therefore be dismissed as false.

In contrast to the Society’s attempts to suggest that the word crux did not refer to “crosses” until after the time of Jesus (and by implication, the existence of two-beamed crosses), there is direct evidence to the contrary dating back to the third century BC — from the time of the Punic Wars themselves. The following citations from Plautus, Seneca, and Tacitus, who wrote from the third century BC to the second century AD, show unambiguously that (1) the crux could include a patibulum or furca (both meaning “crossbeam”), (2) the patibulum was nailed to the stipes (the upright stake), (3) the victims carried the patibulum prior to their crucifixion, and (4) the victims “stretched out” their arms on the crux or patibulum.

Plautus (254-184 B.C.)

(1) Frateor, manus vobis do. Et post dabis sub furcis. Abi intro–in crucem. ” ‘I admit it, I hold up my hands!’ ‘And later you will hold them up on a furca. Do go along to the crux‘ ” (Persa, 295).
(2) Credo ego istoc extemplo tibi esse eundum actutum extra portam, dispessis manibus, patibulum quom habebis. “I suspect you’re doomed to die outside the gate, in that position: Hands spread out and nailed to the patibulum” (Miles Gloriosus, 359-360).
(3) O carnuficium cribum, quod credo fore, ita te forabunt patibulatum per vias stimulis carnufices, si huc reveniat senex. “Oh, I bet the hangmen will have you looking like a human sieve, the way they’ll prod you full of holes as they run you down the streets with your arms on a patibulum, once the old man gets back” (Mostellaria, 55-57).
(4) Ego dabo ei talentum, primus qui in crucem excucurrerit; sed ea lege, ut offigantur bis pedes, bis brachia. “I’ll give two hundred pounds to the first man to charge my crux and take it — on condition his legs and arms are double-nailed, that is” (Mostellaria, 359-360).
(5) Patibulum ferat per urbem, deinde adfigatur cruci. “Let him bear the patibulum through the city; then let him be nailed to the crux” (Carbonaria, fr. 2).

These texts establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Roman crux compacta had come into existence by the late third century BC and early second century BC. The crossbeam is called furca in (1) and patibulum in (2), (3), and (5), and the furca is mentioned with the crux in (1) and the patibulum is mentioned with the crux in (5). In both these passages, the patibulum is carried by the victim prior to execution, and (3) similarly refers to the victim being “run down the streets with your arms on a crossbeam“, and later in the same play someone else is described as having their legs and arms being double-nailed to the crux. In all their discussions on the cross, the Society has never discussed this evidence.

Seneca (c. 4 B.C.-A.D. 65)

(6) Cum refigere se crucibus conentur, in quas unusquisque vestrum clavos suos ipse adigit, ad supplicium tamen acti stipitibus singulis pendent; hi, qui in se ipsi animum advertunt, quot cupiditatibus tot crucibus distrahuntur. At maledici et in alienam contumeliam venusti sunt. Crederem illis hoc vacare, nisi quidam ex patibulo suo spectatores conspuerent! “Though they strive to release themselves from their crosses—those crosses to which each one of you nails himself with his own hand–yet they, when brought to punishment hang each one on a single stipes; but these others who bring upon themselves their own punishment are stretched upon as many crosses as they had desires. Yet they are slanderous and witty in heaping insult on others. I might believe that they were free to do so, did not some of them spit upon spectators from their own patibulum!” (De Vita Beata, 19.3).

(7) ….alium in cruce membra distendere…. “another to have his limbs stretched upon the crux” (De Ira, 1.2.2).

(8) Video istic cruces non unius quidem generis sed aliter ab aliis fabricatas: capite quidam conversos in terram suspendere, alii per obscena stipitem egerunt, alii brachia patibulo explicuerunt. “Yonder I see crosses, not indeed of a single kind, but differently contrived by different peoples; some hang their victims with head toward the ground, some impale their private parts, others stretch out their arms on a patibulum” (De Consolatione, 20.3).

(9) Contempissimum putarem, si vivere vellet usque ad crucem….Est tanti vulnus suum premere et patibulo pendere districtum…. Invenitur, qui velit adactus ad illud infelix lignum, iam debilis, iam pravus et in foedum scapularum ac pectoris tuber elisus, cui multae moriendi causae etiam citra crucem fuerant, trahere animam tot tormenta tracturam? “I should deem him most despicable had he wished to live up to the very time of crucifixion….Is it worth while to weigh down upon one’s own wound, and hang impaled upon a patibulum?….Can any man be found willing to be fastened to the accursed tree, long sickly, already deformed, swelling with ugly tumours on chest and shoulders, and draw the breath of life amid long drawn-out agony? I think he would have many excuses for dying even before mounting the crux!” (Epistle, 101.10-14).

(10) Cogita hoc loco carcerem et cruces et eculeos et uncum et adactum per medium hominem, qui per os emergeret, stipitem. “Picture to yourself under this head the prison, the crux, the rack, the hook, and the stake which they drive straight through a man until it protrudes from his throat” (Epistle, 14.5).

(11) ….sive extendendae per patibulum manus “….or his hands to be extended on a patibulum” (Fragmenta, 124; cf. Lactantius, Divinis Institutionibus,6.17).

These passages also establish in no uncertain terms that the two-beamed cross was in existence in the time of Jesus and that the word crux was used to refer to it. The quote in (6) explicitly describes the crux as composed of two main pieces: the stipes, or upright pole, and the patibulum attached to it. Also, interestingly, the arms are described as outstretched on a crux in (7) and on a patibulum in (11), indicating that both words refer to similar things. Example (8) is important for showing that crux had a wide range in meaning. It could refer to crosses which hang people upside down, it could refer to stakes which impale people through their private parts, and it can refer to the crux on which the victim stretches their arms onto a patibulum. The second kind of crux is the method of impalement mentioned earlier in which the victim is driven through a stake (skolops, in Greek). This same method of execution is mentioned in (10), but interestingly it is here distinguished from the crux. Finally, (9) is yet another reference to the crux containing a patibulum. The evidence of Plautus and Seneca is thus overwhelming that Roman crosses by the time of Jesus included crossbeams, and again the Society is silent on the testimony of Seneca.

Tacitus (c. A.D. 56-c. 120)

(12) Solacio fuit servus Verginii Capitonis, quem proditorem Tarracinensium diximus, patibulo adfixus in isdem anulis quos acceptos a Vitellio gestabat. “The Tarracines, however, found comfort in the fact that the slave of Verginius Capito, who had betrayed them, was crucified (patibulo adfixus) wearing the very rings that he had received from Vitellius” (Historia,4.3).

(13) Rapti qui tributo aderant milites et patibulo adfixi. “The soldiers stationed to supervise the tribute were seized and nailed to the patibulum” (Annals, 4.72).

(14) …sed caedes patibula ignes cruces, tamquam redddituri. “He was hasty with slaughter and the patibulum, with arson and the crux” (Annals, 14.33).

Tacitus has two references to patibulo adfixus in (12) and (13), which are clear references to crucifixion on a crux compacta. In (14), references to the patibulum and crux are paralleled with references to carnage and arson. One further reference to the patibulum occurs in Annals 1.61, pertaining to the army erecting patibula for the prisoners of war.

A number of other references to the two-timbered cross (or at least, hanging from a patibulum) can be found in the literature. Clodius Licinus (first century BC) refers to the executioner who would “bind [the victims] to the patibulum (ad patibulos); thus bound they are carried around and then nailed to the cross (cruci defiguntur)” (Roman History, 3; cited in TLL, p. 707 for “patibulum”). Pliny the Elder (AD 23-79) referred to the yearly crucifixion of dogs near the temple of Juventas, making them “affixed to a furca” (furca fixi) (Historia Naturalis,29.14.57). Another Roman writer who somewhat later alluded to the patibulum to which prisoners are nailed was Lucius Apuleius (AD 123-170), who made four references to the patibulum in his Asinus Aureus: (1) The captain Lamachus stuck his hand through a large keyhole to jimmy the door open, but Chryseros grabbed a big nail and hammered it through Lamachus’ hand, pinning him to the door, and left him “nailed there like poor wretch on a crossbeam (patibulatum)” (4.10); (2) In pondering over the kind of execution to give their prisoner, a group of thieves discussed whether to burn her, throw her to beasts, or “hang her from a crossbeam (patibulo suffigi)” (4.31), so that (3) “she shall remain on the crossbeam (patibuli), while dogs and vultures drag out her innermost bowels” (4.32), but it was decided that she “should not be crucified (cruces), nor burned nor thrown to beasts” (6.31). This last text uses crux “crucifixion” interchangeably with patibulum suffigere “to hang from a crossbeam”. Still later, the third-century Historia Augusta relates that when Emperor Celsus was killed by a woman named Galliena, “his image was set up on a cross (in crucem),” so that the spectators looked at as if Celsus himself was “affixed to a patibulum (patibulo adfixus)” (29.4). Finally, the Latin Vulgate translates the Hebrew terms for “gallows” and “hanging” with patibulum in Esther 2:23,6:4 (affigi patibulo),7:10, 9:13 (patibulis suspendantur), and 16:18.

In summary, the Latin literary evidence is quite conclusive that (1) The Roman crux compacta emerged by the late third century BC, combining the pre-existing patibulum-bearing punishment with crucifixion borrowed from the Carthaginians, and (2) the Latin word crux was used from the third century BC onward to refer to an execution stake (stipes, palus) that included a patibulum to which the victim’s arms were nailed. That crossbeams were common is indicated by the use of the expression “bind/nail to a patibulum” by Tacitus, Apuleius, and the late Historia Augusta to refer to crucifixion. Any suggestion the Society may have made that crux did not mean “cross” in the first century BC or AD can easily be dismissed as without any support.

III. WHAT DID THE GREEK WORD STAUROSMEAN?

Now that we know when the two-beamed cross was invented and how it was constructed (particularly by including a beam of wood called the patibulum which the victim carries prior to execution), we can consider the Greek evidence and what words Greek writers used to refer to the Roman execution instrument.

The Society insists that the word stauros did not refer to crosses in the first century AD and merely referred to single-beamed stakes. Here are some typical statements to this effect in the literature:

“Stauros in both classical and koine Greek carries no thought of a “cross” made from two timbers. It means only an upright stake, pale, pile, or pole” (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1, 1988, p. 1191).

“The inspired writers of the Christian Greek scriptures wrote in the common (koine) Greek and used the word stauros to mean the same as in the classical Greek, namely, a stake or a pole, a single one without a crossbeam of any kind or at any angle. There is no proof to the contrary” (New World Translation, 1950 edition, p. 769).

“In classical Greek, this word [stauros] meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece” (Reasoning From the Scriptures, 1987, p. 89).

Now, it is true that the etymological meaning is something like “an object which stands firm” (< Proto-Indo-European *sta-, whence our English words via Germanic, “stand”, “stern”, “stem”), and stauros was originally denoted a type of pointed stake used to build fences. Homer’s Oddysey provides the earliest attestation of this word: “He had driven stakes (staurous) the whole length this way and that, huge stakes, set close together, which he had made by splitting an oak to the black core” (14.11). Thucydides (Historia, 4.90.2) similarly describes the building of a fence by “fixing stakes (staurous)” along a ditch, and stauros was also used with the sense of “palisade” or “piles” serving as a foundation (e.g. Herodotus, Historiarum 5.16; Thucydides, Historia 7.25.6-8). It was also used to refer to the pointed stake used in impalement (compare Seneca’s description above of “the stake which they drive straight through a man until it protrudes from his throat“), though a more common term for this was skolops: e.g. “…hurl their bodies from rugged rocks or impale them with a stake (skolopsi)” (Euripides, Iphigenia Taurica,1430).

So it is certainly true that stauros meant only “stake” originally. But it would be a mistake to think that the original or most basic sense of the word is the only one that matters. A little reflection on the history of the word “car” will show why this is the case. Etymologically, “car” comes from the Latin carrus and meant “chariot“. Thus in Middle English (which was when the word was borrowed into the language), we find it used to mean chariots; the 1382 Wyclif translation ofIsaiah 66:16 referred to “his foure horsid carres” and the original 1611 King James Version translated 1 Esdras 5:55 as: “They gause carres that they should bring Cedar trees from Libanus”. But by this time, the word was being used in a modern sense to refer to the horse-drawn “carriage“; in 1576, an Act of Queen Elizabeth referred to “Cars or Drags furnished for Repairing Highways”, and a 1716 issue of the London Gazaette referred to “Carts, Drays, Carrs, and Waggons”. Then it was used to refer to the part of a hot-air balloon in which aeronauts sit; in 1794, G. Adams wrote concerning “Air Balloons”: “To this a sort of carr, or rather boat, was suspended from ropes”, and another source from 1825 refers to an aeronaut “seated in the car of his vehicle”. Finally, the term began to be used to refer to “motor cars” when they were invented, and has become almost exclusively restricted to this meaning; in 1896 L. Serraillier refered to “Farman’s Auto-Cars” and in 1900, W. W. Beaumont noted: “Hill-climbing trials along would not of course be sufficient as a test of the wearing power or durability of a car”.

So if a historian from the future discovered an advertisement to the latest Lexis cars, would she be justified in looking up what this word originally meant in Middle English or Latin, and conclude that Americans were still driving chariots in the 21st century? This is analogous to what the Society is claiming regarding stauros. As technology evolves, so do the meanings of the words used to refer to technological artifacts. So it is important to note what words Greek writers employed to refer to the crucifixion practices of the Persians, Greeks, and Phoenicians, and especially of the later Romans. Since we know that the Roman cross was in existence and was widely used by the late third century BC, the Greeks must have had a word for it. If stauros was the principal word used to refer to Roman crucifixion, and if no other word was commonly used to refer to the crux compacta, then we may be assured even without direct evidence that stauros began to refer to two-beamed crosses by the second century BC. Indeed, as we saw above in our historical survey, the Persian instrument of crucifixion varied considerably in shape tho the word stauros was used to refer to it (e.g. Herodotus, Historiarum 9.120; Plutarch, Artaxerxes 17.5). The actual shape of the object denoted by stauros probably did not figure very much in the word’s meaning; as long as it had the function of executing people while alive on a wooden post, it was irrelevant how many beams or pieces of wood the stauros included — it still was a stauros.

The quotes from the Society posted above only vaguely indicate that “later” the meaning of stauros changed. Thus we find ambiguous statements like: “Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece” (Reasoning From the Scriptures, 1987, p. 89). “…the original meanings of these words [stauros and crux] were later expanded to include the cross” (Watchtower, 15 February 1960, p. 127). But when was this “later”? Many Watchtower publications cite W. E. Vine’s lexicon as stating that this occurred “by the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D.” (cf. Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, 1968, pp. 142-143; Awake!, 8 May 1969, p. 4; Reasoning, pp. 90-91; Watchtower, 15 August 1987, p. 22; Insight, Vol. 1, pp. 1191; Watchtower, 1 May 1989, pp. 23-24; see Vine’s An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, 1948, Vol. 1, p. 256). Additionally, the 22 March 1987 Awake! (p. 11) published an article by Nicholas Kip which implied that the meaning-shift took place in the days of Emperor Constantine (A.D. 312-337). The impression the Society gives is that stauros referred only to a crux simplex until between AD 250 and 315.

But this cannot be the case, because the word stauros referred regularly to the Roman method of crucifixion from the second century BC onward, and since the Roman cross increasingly included the patibulum, it is inconceivable that a word referring to the Roman crux would not also refer to the crux compacta that was in common use as Plautus and Seneca attest. Here are references to crucifixion in Greek writings from the second century BC to the second century AD which use the word stauros to refer to the execution instrument:

“All the baggage fell into the hands of the enemy, and Hannibal himself was made a prisoner. They [the Roman soldiers] at once took him up on the cross (stauron) on which Spendius was hanging, and after the infliction of exquisite tortures, took down the latter’s body andfastened Hannibal, still living, to his cross (stauron), and then slaughtered thirty Carthaginians of high rank round the corpse of Spendius”. (Polybius, Historiae 1.86.6; the author lived between 200-118 BC, this event occurred in 183 BC)

“They found the others already hanging on their crosses (staurous), and he was just mounting his cross (epi bainonta tou staurou). From far off they each shouted appeals: ‘Spare him!’ ‘Come down!’ ‘Do not hurt him!’ ‘Let him go!’ So the executioner stopped his work, and Chaereas descended from the cross (katebaine tou staurou), regretfully, for he had been glad to be leaving his miserable life and unhappy love” (Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe, 4.3.5-6; written in the first century BC or early first century AD).

“Many men too, who were alive, they bound by one foot, fastening them round the ankle, and thus they dragged them along and bruised them, leaping on them, designing to inflict the most barbarous of deaths upon them … dragging themthough all the alleys and lanes of the city…. The relations and friends of those who were the real victims were led away to prison, were scourged, were tortured, and after all the ill treatment which their living bodies could endure, found the cross (stauros) the end of all, and the punishment from which they could not escape” (Philo of Alexandria, In Flaccum 70-72; author lived between c. 20 BC – AD 50).

“But will you nail him to a cross (eis stauron kathélóseis) or impale him to a stake (skolopi péxeis)? What does Theodorus care whether he rots above ground or beneath?” (Plutarch, Moralia, Ad Vitiositas 499D; author lived between AD 45-125).

“While the [Roman] soldiers were cutting off his head, his tutor [the tutor of Antyllus, son of Mark Antony] contrived to steal a precious jewel which he wore about his neck, and put it in his pocket, and afterwards denied the fact, but was convicted and crucified (anestauróthé)” (Plutarch, Antonius 81.3).

“They were whipped with rods, and their bodies were torn to pieces, and were crucified (anestaurounto), while they were still alive, and breathed. They also strangled those women and their sons whom they had circumcised, as the king had appointed, hanging their sons about their necks as they were upon the crosses (anestaurómenón). And if there were any sacred book of the law found, it was destroyed, and those with whom they were found miserably perished also” (Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae 12.256-257; author lived between c. AD 37-100, wrote c. AD 95; the narrated event took place 168 BC).

“Now it happened at this fight that a certain Jew was taken alive, who, by Titus’s order, was crucified (anastaurósai) before the wall, to see whether the rest of them would be affrighted, and abate of their obstinacy” (Josephus, De Bello Judaico 5.289; the narrated event took place AD 66-70).

“Nor did he fail of his hope; for he commanded them to set up a cross (stauron), as if he were just going to hang Eleazar upon it immediately; the sight of this occasioned a sore grief among those that were in the citadel, and they groaned vehemently, and cried out that they could not bear to see him thus destroyed” (Josephus, De Bello Judaico 7.202).

“Why do you obey the order to submit to trial? For if you wish to be crucified (stauróthénai), wait and the cross (ho stauros) will come” (Epictetus, Dissertationes 2.2.20; author lived between AD 55-135)

“He was being escorted by crowds and getting his fill of glory as he gazed at the number of his admirers, not knowing, poor wretch, that men on the way to the cross (stauron) or in the grip of the executioner have many more at their heels…It is as if a man about to go up to the cross (epi stauron anabésesthai) should nurse the bruise on his finger” (Lucian, De Morte Peregrini 34.7, 45.5; author lived between AD 117-180).

“The Jews, indeed, had done much injury to the Romans, but they suffered far more themselves….These people Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross (stauroi) and flogged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and afterwards slew him” (Cassius Dio, Historae Romanae 49.22.4-6; the author lived between AD 165-235).

“Capio’s father led the second slave through the midst of the Forum with an inscription making known the reason why he was to be put to death, and afterwards crucified (anastaurosantos) him” (Cassius Dio, Historae Romanae 54.3.7-8).

None of these references give specific information on the shape of the cross but they together demonstrate that stauros was the most common word for the instrument. Since the Roman two-beamed cross (crux compacta) had come into existence by this time, and since it was not uncommon as Seneca and others show, the fact that stauros was general term referring to Roman crucifixion is strong evidence that it meant more than “stake” by the first century AD. The quotation above from Plutarch’s Moralia is also interesting because it distinguishes crucifixion with the stauros from impalement with the skolops. However, stauros was not the only word that came to refer to crucifixion. The literary evidence shows that skolops, and its verbal form in particular, became roughly synonymous with stauros for some writers:

“Many of the crowd went with Theron as he was taken away; he was crucified (aneskolopisthe) in front of Callirhoe’s tomb and from the cross (staurou) gazed out upon the sea” (Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe, 3.4.18).

“But this man did not order men who had already perished on the cross (stauron) to be taken down, but he commanded living men to be crucified (anaskolopizesthai), men to whom the very time itself gave, if not entire forgiveness, at least a brief and temporary respite from punishment” (Philo of Alexandria, In Flaccum 84).

“Now bring in the output of the courts, I mean those who died by the scourge and the cross (aneskolopismenous)” (Lucian, Cataplus 6.18-20).

“Only the ghosts of those who died by violence walk, for example, if a man hanged himself, or had his head cut off, or was crucified (aneskolopisthé)” (Lucian,Philopseudes 29).

“Temple-robbers are not punished but escape, while men who are guiltless of all wrongdoing sometimes die by crucifixion (anaskolopizomenous) or the scourge” (Lucian, Juppiter Tragoedus, 19).

Note how the first two texts use stauros to refer to the device involved in the crucifixion (anaskolopizoó). As we shall see later, Lucian elsewhere indicates that this verb can refer to crucifixion with double-beamed crosses and he indicates the same with respect to anastauroó. Since skolops also originally meant “stake”, it is tempting to see only references to impalement here, but this is not necessarily so.

Literary sources from the period, in fact, do show that stauros and the verb anastauroó did indeed refer to crucifixion involving a crux compacta. Although explicit descriptions of the cross are relatively rare, references to the practice of cross-bearing in advance of execution are common in ancient sources. As we saw in the discussion above, this practice derives from the traditional Roman use of the patibulum to humiliate slaves by parading them throughout the city while carrying the wooden timber, sometimes yoked to their neck. This practice was appended to the act of crucifixion as a prelude, so that the prisoner carries his own crossbeam from which he will later be suspended from. What is interesting is that the word stauros is used in Greek sources to refer to the patibulum carried by the victim:

“Without even seeing them or listening to their defense he immediately ordered the sixteen cell-mates to be crucified (anastaurósai). They were duly brought out, chained together at foot and neck, each carrying his own cross (ton stauron ephere). The executioners added this grim spectacle to the requisite penalty as a deterrant to others so minded. Now Chaereas said nothing as he was led off with the others, but upon taking up his cross (ton stauron bastazón), Polycharmus exclaimed, ‘It is your fault, Callirhoe, that we are in this mess!’ ” (Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe, 4.2.6-7; written in the first century BC to early first century AD).

“Every criminal who goes to execution must carry his own cross (ekpherei ton hautou stauron) on his back” (Plutarch, Moralia, De Sera Numinus Vindicta 554 A).

“For the cross (ho stauros) is like death and the man who is to be nailed carries it beforehand (proteron bastazei)” (Artemidorus Daldianus, Oneirocritica 2.56; written in the second century AD.

It is possible that the entire crux compacta is meant here (the upright pole plus the patibulum), but this is unlikely. Various sources indicate that the upright stake was either a stationary fixture at the site of execution or inserted into the ground in advance of the arrival of the victim (e.g. Cicero, Verrines 5.66; compare possibly Josephus, Bello Judaico 7.202). Moreover, the combined weight of both the stake and the patibulum was likely too much to bear. Finally, no Latin writer ever mentioned prisoners bearing the entire crux compacta, which suggests that we are dealing with a Greek expression, in which stauros could refer to either the patibulum or the stationary cross. In any case, it is clear that carrying a mere pole is not what is meant here (which has no precedent in Roman execution practices). For example Artemidorus, as we shall soon see, was quite explicit about the stauros being double-beamed. Note also the similarity between the quote from Chariton and the metaphorical expression in Matthew 10:38, 16:24 (of “taking” the stauros, “lifting” it, and “following” Jesus).

A few descriptions of crucifixion by Greek-speaking authors are ambiguous but likely assume a crux compacta. Epictetus (a first-century AD Stoic philosopher) described those being massaged as “stretched out (ekteinas) like men who have been crucified (estauromenoi)” (Dissertationes, 3.26.22). The phrasing here is reminiscent of the “spread-out hands” (dispessis manibus) of Plautus and the “stretched-out limbs” (membra distendere) and “outstretched hands” (extendere manus) of Seneca; in later Christian writings (see below), the expression used by Epictetus became a cliche for crucifixion on a crux compacta. Josephus also gives a detailed account of the Roman siege and attack on Jerusalem in AD 70 and mentions that the soldiers “out of rage and hatred amused themselves by nailing their prisoners in different postures (allon allói skhémati, or “from one style to another”), and so great was their number that space could not be found for the crosses (staurois) nor crosses (stauroi) for the bodies” (De Bello Judaico 5.451-452). Since only a limited number of postures (or crucifixion styles) is possible with a crux simplex, whereas the addition of a crossbeam adds another degree of freedom in positioning the victim, the wording in this passage best reflects a situation in which the soldiers were creatively displaying their victims in many different ways (to suit their amusement), and in such a situation it would be unusual for them to restrict themselves to a plain pole without a crossbeam to help them position the bodies.

Other writers were much more explicit on the shape of the stauros. Take, for example, Artemidorus Daldianus, a pagan soothsayer who flourished in the second century AD. Sometime around AD 160, he wrote a dream interpretation manual named Oneirocritica, which as we saw above claimed that people punished with crucifixion must carry their own stauros (e.g. patibulum, as the Romans called it) prior to execution. Artemidorus also referred to the stauros as double-beamed:

“Being crucified (staurousthai) is auspicious for all seafarers. For the cross (ho stauros), like a ship, is made of wood and nails, and the ship’s mast resembles a cross (hé katartios autou homoia esti stauró)” (Artemidorus Daldianus, Oneirocritica 2.53).

Just as it is today, a ship’s mast consisted of a tall pole rising upward from the deck or keel intersected at right angles by the yard-arm. In fact, the Latin word for “yard-arm,” namely antenna, was also used to denote the patibulum (cf. Insight, Vol. 1, p. 1191). Rock carvings from that period show that a ship’s mast did indeed resemble the traditional cross (cf. the relief of a Roman ship from Sidon in Philip Carrington’s The Early Christian Church, 1957, Vol. 1, p. 129). Elsewhere, Artemidorus (Oneirocritica, 1.76) mentioned that those who are “crucified” (staurothesetai) “stretch out their hands” (tón cheirón ektasin), an expression reminiscent of Epictetus, Seneca, Plautus, and other writers who make explicit reference to the patibulum.

Another writer who was explicit on the shape of the Roman cross was the satirist Lucian of Samosata who was a contemporary of Artemidorus. Strangely, the Society thinks that he supports their belief that stauros only meant “stake.” The 1950 New World Translation states:

“To such a stake or pale the person to be punished was fastened, just as when the popular Greek hero Prometheus was represented as tied to a stake or stauros. The Greek word which the dramatist Aeschylus used to describe this means to fasten or fix on a pole or stake, to impale, and the Greek author Lucian used anastauroo as a synonym for that word” (p. 769).

The 1984 revision even gave a specific citation:

“It was to such a stake, or pale, that the person to be punished was fastened, just as the popular Greek hero Prometheus was represented as tied to rocks. Whereas the Greek word that the dramatist Aeschylus used to describe this simply means to tie or to fasten, the Greek author Lucian (Prometheus, I) used anastauroo as a synonym for that word” (p. 1577).

Lucian did use anastauroó to refer to the fastening of Prometheus to the rocks of the Caucasus: “Let him be crucified (anestaurosthai) half way up this precipice” (Prometheus, 1.12). But the next phrase indicates what type of cross Lucian had in mind: “…with his hands outstretched (ekpetastheis tó kheire) from crag to crag“. This implies a horizontal stretching of the arms from one rock to another, a posture which “will make a very handy cross (ho stauros genoito)” (1.19). Lest there be any doubt about the matter, Lucian next describes the hands as being nailed separately with separate nails: “Come, your right hand! Clamp it down, Hephaestus, and in with the nails; bring down the hammer with a will. Now the left; make sure work of that too” (2.3-8). Clearly, then, Lucian pictured the mythological Prometheus as stretching out his hands horizontally, as if on a patibulum, with each hand nailed individually, and he uses the word stauros to refer to this configuration. One wonders how the Society could cite this text without knowing it actually disproves their claim that stauros meant only “stake”.

Moreover, Lucian elsewhere explicitly described the stauros as shaped like the letter T. In his humorous essay “Trial in the Court of Vowels,” the Greek letter Tau (who otherwise had an awful reputation) was found guilty of murder:

“Men weep and bewail their lot, and curse Cadmus with many curses for putting Tau into the alphabet; for they say that their tyrants, taking his body as a model (somati phasi akolouthésantas) and imitating his shape (mimésamenous autou to plasma), have fashioned similar-looking timbers (skhémati toioutói xula) to crucify (anaskolopizein) men upon them, and the vile device is even named (eponumian) after him (i.e. sTAUros). Now, with all these crimes upon him, does not Tau deserve to die many times over? As for me, I think the only just thing to do would be to punish Tau on what has been made in his own shape (tó skhemati tó hautou), for the cross (ho stauros) owes its existence to Tau, but its name to man (hupo de anthrópón onomazetai)” (Lis Consonantium, 12).

Note the use of anaskolopizoó to refer to crucifixion on a crux compacta. Some scholars, such as Sommerbrodt, excise the last sentence referring to the stauros explicitly as an explanatory gloss. But even without it, the obvious pun between “Tau” and stauros and the several references to the T-like shape of the cross prove beyond doubt that Lucian regarded the stauros as double-beamed. The Society’s attempt to cite Lucian in support of their “torture stake” theory is thus exceedingly uninformed at best, or intellectually dishonest at worst.

In summary, the Society’s claim that the word stauros could not refer to the crux compacta by the first (or even the second) century AD is without support. By the first century BC, stauros had become the most common word referring to Roman crucifixion, which by that time increasingly included the addition of a crossbeam (patibulum). As direct evidence of the change of meaning of stauros, we have seen that by the first century AD (if not earlier) the crossbeam itself was called a stauros in references to the patibulum-bearing punishment practiced by the Romans. Other first-century references to the stauros by Epictetus and Josephus appear to assume a shape other than a simple stake. Finally, explicit references to the shape of the stauros by Lucian and Artemidorus demonstrate without doubt that stauros was already being used to refer to the crux compacta. We have also seen that the Society even misrepresents Lucian on the matter, making him appear to support their position when in fact he demolishes it. Just as the word “car” came to refer to motorized carriages when they first came into existence, so the word stauros was most likely applied to the crux compacta when it first came into existence (which had the same purpose and function as the older crux simplex). Hence, I conclude that stauros would have naturally had the meaning of “cross” by the first century BC.

But even if the word stauros did mean “cross” in the first and second centuries AD (when the gospels were written), this does not mean that Jesus’ cross was necessarily a crux compacta. This is because stauros was still being used to refer to a simple stake; it referred to crucifixion in all its forms. So whether Jesus died on a cross (or was believed by the early Christians as having died on one) is a separate issue and must be answered with biblical and patristic evidence.

IV. BIBLICAL EVIDENCE OF JESUS’ CRUCIFIXION

The NT is not very explicit on the shape of Jesus’ cross. Most references to it are theological in nature, and the more historically-oriented gospel accounts of Jesus crucifixion are terse and brief. Nevertheless, there are several details that taken together indicate that Jesus was indeed put to death on a crux compacta (or at least that is the kind of stauros the gospel writers had in mind). I will examine each text in turn.

(a) John 19:17

“Jesus was led away, and carrying the cross by himself (bastazón hautó ton stauron), went out to what is called the Place of the Skull”.

This is the decisive text, and it is one that is almost never mentioned in discussions on the cross in Watchtower literature. But it is very important because it is an explicit reference to the Roman practice of patibulum-bearing. Note that the verb bastazón “carrying” is the same verb used by Chariton (i.e. “taking up [bastazón] his cross”) and Artemidorus to refer to the same thing (i.e. “the man who is to be nailed carries [bastazei] it beforehand”), and Artemidorus was quite explicit that the same victim who carries the stauros would hang from a two-beamed stauros. The Latin sources mentioned earlier, which more clearly distinguish the patibulum from the cross by having a distinct term for each, are quite explicit that it is the crossbeam that is carried and not the stipes (upright pole). In fact, nowhere in ancient sources is a prisoner ever described as dragging a pole without a crosspiece, and such a practice would have nothing to do with the well-attested ancient Roman practice of forcing prisoners or slaves to bear a patibulum while walking through the city or a public area. The synoptic gospels also refer to cross-bearing but claim that Simon of Cyrene carried Jesus’ cross. The original version in Mark 15:31 (cf. also Matthew 27:32) says that Simon lifted Jesus’ cross (aré ton staurou autou), but the Lukan version has a more elaborate depiction of the event: “And as they led him away, they seized one Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and laid on him the cross (epethékan autó ton stauron), to carry it (pherein) behind Jesus” (Luke 23:26). The verb pherein “to be bearing” was also used by Chariton and Plutarch to refer to cross-bearing, and the verb epethékan “placed upon” is especially suggestive of a patibulum placed squarely upon the victim’s back (as Plutarch described it) or across his chest and shoulders (as Dionysius of Halicarnassus put it). Compare with the use of the same verb in Luke 15:5, describing a shepherd placing his lost sheep on his shoulders (epitithésin epi tous ómous)”, or its use elsewhere to refer to the soldiers placing the crown of thorns on Jesus’ head (Matthew 27:29, John 19:2) or the people putting their garments on a donkey so Jesus could sit on it (Matthew 21:7).

Since the Watchtower writers believe that Jesus’s cross was a crux simplex, they have no choice but to surmise that it lacked the transverse beam that would have made it more carryable. The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived book (chapter 124, p. 3) in fact illustrates Simon pulling Jesus’ stake by holding onto one end with both hands and dragging the pole over his right shoulder, lumberjack-style. This scenario is nothing like the stauros-bearing described by Plutarch (who described it as placed over the victim’s back), and of course nothing like it can be found in ancient literature or art; no classical or ecclesiastical writer of antiquity ever described the condemned man as carrying a stipes without a crossbeam. Even the popular Christian conception of Jesus bearing the entire crux compacta over one of his shoulders appears rather late in Christian art (cf. Yves Christe’s Art of the Christian World, pp. 51, 482; the earliest known representation is from c. AD 430), and is probably unhistorical. The practice that is instead attested is the carrying of the patibulum across one’s shoulders or back, but the Watchtower rules out this scenario a priori by their denial that stauros could refer to a cross with a crossbeam. One of their only statements on the matter is found in the Insight book:

“Tradition, not the Scriptures, also says that the condemned man carried only the crossbeam of the cross, called the patibulum or antenna, instead of both parts. In this way some avoid the predicament of having too much weight for one man to drag or carry to Golgotha” (Insight on the Scriptures, 1988, Vol. 1, p. 1191).

Such a statement is prejudical and inaccurate. It is prejudical because religious “tradition” is elsewhere claimed to be the source of Christendom’s “false doctrines”; the same publication elsewhere mentioned that tradition can often be “in error” and “harmful and objectionable” (Vol. 2, p. 1118). It is also inaccurate because religious tradition has nothing to do with what we know about patibulum-bearing. This knowledge comes from pagan Classical writings. In fact, by preferring the representation of Jesus carrying the entire cross, the traditional portrait of Jesus carrying the cross posits even more weight for Jesus or Simon to carry than the Society does. In light of the copious reference to patibulum-bearing in Plautus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Plutarch, Clodius Licinus, and others, it misrepresents the facts to claim that the belief that Jesus carried just the patibulum rests on the grounds that the pole was too heavy to bear.

The allusions to cross-bearing in the gospels thus furnish the strongest biblical evidence that the stauros had a crossbeam. To claim otherwise would require postulating a practice otherwise unattested in the ancient world. Of course, our knowledge of antiquity is limited, so it is always possible that somewhere Roman soldiers tried something different, but this of course is exceedingly unlikely.

(b) Matthew 27:37

This text is widely recognized as suggestive of a crux compacta. The other three gospels mention the titilus (a piece of wood nailed to the stauros stating the victim’s crime, cf. Cassius Dio, Historae Romanae 54.3.7-8 quoted above), but do not precisely describe where it was placed on Jesus’ cross. John 19:19 remarks that the titilus was nailed “on the stauros,” Luke 23:38 says that it hung “over him [Jesus].” Mark did not even mention that it was put on the stauros. But Matthew reported the italicized detail quoted below:

“Above his head (epanó tés kephalés autou) they had put the charge against him in writing: ‘THIS IS JESUS, KING OF THE JEWS’ “.

If Jesus were impaled on a simple stake, the titilus would have been placed above his hands. J. H. Bernard observes that this statement in Matthew “suggests that the cross was of the shape called crux immissa, with a cross-bar for the arms, as painters have generally represented it to be” (A Critical & Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, 1929, Vol. 2, p. 628). Similarly, William R. Wilson’s The Execution of Jesus commented: “There is no definite evidence about the shape of Jesus’ cross, but it was probably a vertical stake and a crossbeam. This is indicated by the placing of the titilus over the head of Jesus, evidently along the crosspiece” (p. 167). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia makes the same observation: “The form usually seen in pictures, thecrux immissa (Latin cross †), is that in which the upright beam projects above the shorter crosspiece. From the mention of an inscription nailed above the head of Jesus, it may safely be inferred that this was the form of cross on which He died” (Vol. 1, p. 826). This evidence is not as conclusive as the references to cross-bearing, but it does support the overall picture.

(c)John 20:25

Another relevant text is the famous remark attributed to Thomas to his fellow apostles:

“Unless I see in his hands (en tais khersin) the print of the nails (hélón), and place my finger in the mark of the nails (hélón), and place my hand in his side, I will not believe”.

Watchtower art usually depicts a single nail piercing through Jesus’ hands, whereas the plural “nails” suggests that two nails were used to affix the “hands” (plural) to the stauros; the use of a patibulum would require each hand to be nailed separately. Compare Lucian (Prometheus, 2), who describes the crucifixion of Prometheus in terms of nails being driven through each hand. The Gospel of Peter also refers to a plurality of nails piercing Jesus’ hands: “And then the Jews drew the nails from the hands (apespasan tous hélous apo tón kheirón) of the Lord and laid him on the earth” (6:21). The best explanation for the wording in both texts is that the authors regarded each hand as nailed separately. Other interpretations are possible tho. It is possible that two nails pierced through each hand or through both hands together. It may be recalled that Plautus, who earlier in the same play described the patibulum-bearing punishment (Mostellaria, 55-57), described an especially severe crucifixion as one in which “are nailed twice the feet, twice the arms” (offigantur bis pedes, bis brachia). Two interpretations are possible: (1) the usual crucifixion method was to drive one nail through each hand and feet, and the unusually severe method was to drive two nails through each limb, or (2) the usual crucifixion method was to one nail through each of the hands, and the unusually severe method was to drive nails through the feet as well. The text is ambiguous, but interpreters favor the first possibility, and such a reading would attest the use of multiple nails through the hands. However, the use of two nails through Jesus’ hands on a crux simplex is unlikely considering the use of the singular tupon “print, mark” in John 20:25 which presumes that only one mark would be present on each hand. Thus, the combination of the singular tupon and the plural hélón is best accounted for by presuming crucifixion on a crux compacta, so that two nails were used to pierce each hand, leaving a single mark on each hand. Moreover, we know from other sources that if additional support were required to restrain the prisoner, a combination of rope and nails was often used (cf. Pliny, Historia Naturalis 28.46).

The Society dismisses this text as “an insignificant detail” in a 1984 Watchtower “Questions From Readers” article:

“Some have concluded from John 20:25 that two nails were used, one through each hand. But does Thomas’ use of the plural (nails) have to be understood as a precise description indicating that each of Jesus’ hands was pierced by a separate nail? In Luke 24:39 the resurrected Jesus said: ‘See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself.’ This suggests that Christ’s feet also were nailed. Since Thomas made no mention of nailprints in Jesus’ feet, his use of the plural ‘nails’ could have been a general reference to multiple nails used in impaling Jesus. Thus, it is just not possible at this point to state with certainty how many nails were used” (p. 31).

It is true that the description is not precise (e.g. using the plural is not as specific as explicitly stating that two nails were used for the hands) and for that reason not too much weight should be placed on this text. Yet the attempt to explain the plural in John 20:25 by appealing to Luke is unconvincing. Luke is an entirely independent gospel from John and would not necessarily assume the same common knowledge; in fact, the Lukan and Johannine post-resurrection stories diverge a great deal. Thus, there is nothing in the immediate context of John 20:25 to support the Society’s interpretation. This scripture does not mention the feet, nor are they even implied. Thomas was only talking about nails used to pierce the hands. Similarly, John 20:20 says that Jesus showed his disciples “his hands and his side,” but not his feet; J. H. Bernard thus notes that both “Lk. and Jn. agree that His hands were marked, and Jn. speaks of “the print of the nails” in them (v. 25); but Jn. says nothing of the feet having been nailed…no mention is made of any nailing of the feet” (pp. 674, 682). So without reading anything foreign into the text, we would naturally conclude that the nails mentioned in 20:25 are those that pierced the hands. Moreover, the Society has subsequently admitted that Thomas “could have meant a nail through each hand” (15 August 1987 Watchtower, p. 29), tho they still maintain that Jesus died on a crux simplex.

(d) John 21:18-19

The last text under consideration is the most ambiguous and does not even refer to Jesus’ crucifixion but it is important because it a kind of death or execution involving a “stretching of the hands”:

” ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands (ekteneis tas kheiras sou), and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.’ This he said to show by what kind of death (poió thanató) he was to glorify God. And after this he said to him, ‘Follow me’ “.

As we saw above, the word ekteneis “you will stretch out” here is the same verb that Epictetus used to refer to refer to men who have been crucified (estauromenoi) (Dissertationes, 3.26.22), and Artemidorus (Oneirocritica, 1.76) mentioned that those who will be “crucified” (staurothesetai) have “outstretched hands” (tón kheirón ektasin). We have also seen similar phrases used by Lucian, Plautus, and Seneca. Since the death being described in John 21:18-19 is that of Apostle Peter, and since Christian tradition otherwise claims that Peter was crucified upside down (Acts of Peter 36-37; Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haericorum 36.12, Scorpiace 20, Adversus Marcion 4.5; Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum,2; Origen, Commentary on Genesis, 3; Eusebius,De Theophania,5.31, Ecclesiastical History, 2.25.5; compare Seneca, De Consolatione 20.3, which refers to upside-down crucifixions), the understated text in John 21:18-19 would appear to refer to crucifixion as involving a “stretching of the hands”.

The literary form of the text however precludes such a simple explanation. There are three main interpretations of these verses.(1) Some feel that v. 19 is a gloss added by a anonymous redactor. In its original form, the saying in v. 18 “merely fortells in figurative language the helplessness of old age,” but the redactor “in the glowing tradition of Peter’s martyrdom” adapted the words to refer to crucifixion (Bernard, p. 709). Even if this theory turns out to be correct, the interpolation would had to have been made sometime in the second century (as v. 19 appears in all extant manuscripts), and thus it would itself constitute evidence that the phrase “stretch out the hands” was applicable to crucifixion at the time. (2) A second interpretation, favored by those who view v. 19 as original, treats the verse as a reference to Peter’s crucifixion and nothing else. But this view is also inadequate. Bernard points out that the word meaning “girding” (zónumi) from v. 18 was generally used in the LXX and classical Greek to refer to the girding of clothes or armor; this word was never used “in the sense of binding a criminal, which must be supposed to be the meaning of allos zósei se if the Lord’s words are taken as predicative of Peter’s martyrdom” (p. 708). Another difficulty is the use of ekteneis instead of ektasis in this scripture. Whereas the latter word clearly denoted “an extension to the side,” the former usually indicated “a forward extension of the arms,” as inLuke 5:13: “And he stretched out his hand, and touched him“. The occurrence of zónumi and ekteneis in John 21:18 conjures up the image of a helpless old man needing the assistance of an attendant to gird (zónumi) him with clothes as he stretches (ekteneis) his hands forward. The most convincing evidence that this text refers to something other than crucifixion is the order of events. As D. W. O’Connor puts it: “If there were a reference here to crucifixion, would one not expect that the ‘girding’ would be mentioned first, followed by the ‘carrying,’ and lastly by the extension of the arms?” (Peter in Rome: The Literary, Liturgical, and Archaeological Evidence, 1969, p. 62). (3) A third interpretation combines the best elements of the previous two. As suggested by Bultmann and other scholars, the text of John 21:18 may reflect an ancient proverb: “In youth man goes free where he wishes, in old age he must allow himself to be led even when he does not wish” (O’Connor, p. 62). This proverb was adapted by the author to refer to Peter’s crucifixion, as Barnabas Lindars explains:

“He has put it into the second person and altered the tenses of the verbs from timeless present to past and future. He has also expanded it with symbolic detail. . . .The language is carefully chosen to preserve the picture of the helplessness of an old man” (Lindars, The Gospel of John, 1980, pp. 636-637).

This explains why zónumi and ekteneis were used instead of more appropriate words and why the order of events appears jumbled. As for the use of ekteneis, it should not be forgotten that Epictetus used it as well to refer to crucifixion, so it does not necessarily need to imply a forward extension of the hands (which would be inappropriate for execution on either a crux simplex or crux compacta). Lindars also advances an ingenious explanation of the ordering of events: “The sequence intended may be (a) stretching out the arms along the crossbeam, (b) having the arms tied to it with ropes, and (c) being hauled up on to the stake” (Lindars, p. 637). A slightly different view is expressed by G. H. C. MacGregor: “The language suggests the feebleness of an old man who must be tended by another and have the whole of life ordered for him irrespective of his own desires. But in the words ‘stretch out your hands’ there is a deeper reference to the stretching out of the victim’s arms as the executioner straps him to the cross” (The Gospel of John, 1929, p. 375).

Since the epilogue to the Fourth Gospel was written in the early second century AD at the earliest, its anonymous author probably was in contact with the traditions circulating about the death of the apostles. Sources contemporary with it, such as1 Clement (c. AD 98) and Ascension of Isaiah (late first century to early second century AD) rather vaguely suggest that Peter was martyred during the Neronian persecution of AD 64 (1 Clement 5:3-4; Ascension of Isaiah 4:2-3). Tacitus explained how numerous Christians were executed at that time: “They were fastened on crosses (crucibus adfixi), and, when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night” (Annals, 15.44). It is of course impossible to know whether Peter was executed on one of those crosses, or even whether he was in Rome; many scholars remain divided on this latter issue (cf. F. Lapham, Peter: The Man, The Myth, The Writings, 2003 for a discussion of the problem). What does matter however is that a tradition did exist in the second century that Peter was crucified, and since the second-century author of the epilogue connected Peter’s death with a stretching-out of the hands, the most elegant explanation is that the author is making a veiled reference to this tradition here.

The Society has actually commented on this passage. In the 15 December 1971 Watchtower, the following discussion was published in the “Questions From Readers” section:

“The ancient religious historian Eusebius reports that Peter ‘was crucified with his head downward, having requested of himself to suffer in this way.’ However, Jesus’ prophecy was not that specific. Acknowledges A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture: ‘As the extension of hands is set before girding and being led away, it is difficult to discern how it must be conceived. If the order is part of the prophecy, we must suppose the prisoner lashed to the patibulum before being girded and led out to execution.’

“So, were it not for the tradition recorded by Eusebius, Jesus’ statement in itself would not point to death by crucifixion or impalement. Viewing the words of John 21:18, 19 apart from tradition, we would come to the following conclusion: In his younger years Peter was able to gird himself at will for whatever duty he wanted to perform. He had the liberty to go where he wanted to go. But in later life this would change. He would have to stretch out his hands, perhaps in submission to someone else. Another man would take control of him, girding Peter (either binding him or preparing him for what was to come) and bearing him to a place where he did not want to go, evidently the place of execution. Thus Jesus’ prophecy regarding Peter indeed indicated that the apostle would die a martyr’s death; butthe manner is not necessarily implied” (p. 768).

Unfortunately, the Society has made a rather selective use of the Catholic Commentary in this discussion (which incidentally is one of only two times the Society has made a reference to the patibulum in their literature since 1950). The author concluded from it that “Jesus’ statement in itself would not point to death by crucifixion or impalement”, but that is not what is implied in the book. Examine the entire context of the article’s quotation from the Catholic Commentary:

“The words have some of the mysterious obscurity of prophecy. Against the liberty of Peter’s younger days (girding himself and walking where he pleased) is set this mysterious future event of his old age. If the counterpart contains only two terms, namely, girding by another, as an old man is helped to dress himself, and being led to a place not naturally desired (a place of execution), the prophecy envisages a violent death only, not the mode of death by crucifixion. The extension of the hands must therefore be the term specifically corresponding to crucifixion, but as the extension of the hands is set before girding and being led away, it is difficult to discern how it must be conceived. If the order is part of the prophecy, we must suppose the prisoner lashed to the patibulum before being girded and led out to execution. J[oh]n writing after Peter’s death notes that Jesus said this ‘signifying by what death he should glorify God’ “.

Clearly, the editors of the Catholic Commentary believed that the phrase “stretch out the hands” in this instance referred to crucifixion. The portion quoted by the Watchtower writer was taken out of context since the issue being addressed was that of the sequence of events, not whether crucifixion was meant by the prophecy. Thus the bit about the the prisoner being lashed to the patibulum before being girded was mentioned not as a problem indicating whether crucifixion was meant or not (which is how the Society quotes it to be), but rather as a vague feature of the prophecy that can be explained in the indicated manner. The Society concludes from this passage in the Catholic Commentary that “the manner is not necessarily implied” and this echoes the statement in the Commentary that if the prophecy “contains only two terms … the prophecy envisages a violent death only, not the mode of death by crucifixion”. But the Commentary is quite clear that the addition of the third term (the extension of the hands) is what makes the manner of execution quite specific. Indeed, John 21:19 itself states that the references to girding, stretching out the hands, and being led were intended to show “what kind of death (poió thanató)” Peter was to experience. Compare John 12:32-33: ” ‘When I am lifted up from the earth, I shall draw all men to myself’. By these words he indicated the kind of death (poió thanató) he would die”. Here, being “lifted” is the term that suggests crucifixion (i.e. being lifted up on the stauros), just as “spreading the hands” is the term in John 21 that suggests crucifixion. The literary dependance of John 21:19 on this passage, and the fact that John 12:32-33 referred to crucifixion as well, strengthens the likelihood that John 21:18-19 uses “stretch out the hands” to refer to crucifixion, and if this is the case — crucifixion with a patibulum would be what is alluded to here.

The Society also falsely implies (in the phrase “…were it not for the tradition recorded by Eusebius…”) that only Eubesius reported the tradition of Peter’s crucifixion, and that this tradition is the sole basis for considering the possibility that crucifixion is meant here. Such an implication ignores (1) the copious references in Greek and Latin sources to “stretching the hands” at crucifixion and patibulum-bearing, and (2) the literary parallel to John 12:32-33, in which poió thanató also has reference to crucifixion.

The gospels thus paint a clear picture of Jesus’ crucifixion, one of Jesus stretching out his arms onto a patibulum (as later imitated by Peter), having each hand nailed to it with a separate nail, then carrying it up to Golgotha, and finally being lifted up onto the stake with the titilus placed directly over his head. John 19:17 alone demonstrates that the stauros contained a crosspiece.

EXCURSUS: THE USE OF XULON TO REFER TO JESUS’ STAUROS

However, the Society does point to one piece of biblical evidence in support of their belief that Jesus’ cross was a crux simplex: the use of the Greek word xulon “wood, tree” to refer to the stauros (Acts 5:30,10:39, 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24). The Society argues that since the basic meaning of this word is “piece of wood” or “tree,” Jesus must have died on a mere stake. This view is nowhere more confusedly stated than in an article published in the 8 April 1963 Awake! The anonymous writer remarked:

“Arguing in favor of this having been a simple stake or pole is the fact that both the apostle Paul and the apostle Peter speak of Jesus’ having been put on a xylon, which simply means a piece of wood….If Jesus had been fastened to a cross made up of two pieces of wood and so constructed into a form, would it be described as merely a piece of wood?” (p. 28).

This argument is faulty for the same reason as the Watchtower’s reasoning regarding stauros: they restrict a word’s meaning to its most basic, or etymological sense, and then deny that it could have more specific meanings which vary from this “basic” sense. As we shall soon see, the word xulon most definitely referred to wooden artifacts made out of more than one piece of wood. Instead of focusing on “wood” as the critical part of the word’s meaning, the author appears to have focused on “a piece of”, e.g. assuming that reference to a singular piece of wood is a central part of the word’s meaning. Such restriction of the word’s meaning is next carried to its logical conclusion:

“But a club is merely a piece of wood and so we find the Gospel writers repeatedly using xylon when referring to clubs or pieces of wood that the mob carried that came to take Jesus….Certainly the mob that came to take Jesus did not come with crosses but with pieces of wood, clubs or staves, as xylon is variously translated in these instances” (Ibid.).

This line of reasoning again rests on the erroneous assumption that xulon was capable of only one meaning: If xulon referred to a “cross” in the case of Jesus’ execution instrument, then the xulons used by the mob would have also been “crosses.” Since this was not the case, xulon does not mean “cross”. Another example of bad logic can be found in the same article:

“While the word xylon generally means a piece of wood, no longer living, it is at times used in the Scriptures to refer to figurative living trees…. There is a distinct word in Greek for tree, namely, dendron. From it comes the English word dendrology, the science or study of trees. Dendron occurs some twenty-five times in the Christian Greek Scriptures….This word dendron, meaning a living tree, however, is never used in Scriptures to refer to the instrument of torture to which Jesus was fastened” (Ibid.).

The reference to dendron is a conspicuous straw man. No one has ever claimed that this term meant either “cross” or “stake.” The whole discussion on dendron adds nothing to our understanding of xulon, other than the fact that it was more often used to refer to living trees (which has no relevance on the issue at hand). Interestingly, the portions quoted above indicate that the Society is aware that xulon did in fact mean much more than “piece of wood” — it had specific reference to “clubs” and “trees”. Furthermore, the 1950 New World Translation appendix claimed (without citing any evidence) that a “special sense” of xulon is “an upright stake without a crossbeam” (p. 769). Despite all of this, the same 1963 article stated in its concluding paragraph (p. 28) that xulon “simply means a piece of wood and allows for no such twofold meaning“! Contradictory statements such as these demonstrate that the Society has not really done any clear thinking on the matter.

Xulon was capable of many specified meanings. In classical and koine Greek, it was used to refer to “logs” or “timbers” (Iliad, 8.507; Thucydides, Historia 7.25.2; Herodotus,Historiarum 1.186), “trees” (Xenophon, Anabasis 6.4-5), “benches” (Demosthenes, 1111.22; Aristophanes, Vespae, 90; Acharnenses, 25), “wood market” (Aristophanes,Fragmenta 402-403), and even a measurement of length (Hero, Geometrica 23.4.11). But that was not all. This word eventually “took on the sense of something disgraceful or shameful” (Kittel and Friedrich, Vol. 3, p. 37). It came to denote a wide variety of instruments of punishment, including “pillory” (Aristophanes, Nubes 592; Lysistrata, 680), “stocks” (Herodotus, Historiarum 9.37), a combination of both (Aristophanes,Equites 367, 1049), and “club” (Herodotus, Historiarum 2.63, 4.180; Plutarch, Lycurgus 30.2). Clearly the word meant more than just “a piece of wood”! Moreover, the author of the Awake! article claimed, as quoted above, that the meaning of xulon does not allow it to refer to objects “made up of two pieces of wood and so constructed into a form”, yet the word clearly does refer to “benches” and other wooden artifacts that certainly were nailed together from separate pieces of wood.

The semantic range of xulon in the NT varies little from classical Greek. It was used to denote “wood materials” (1 Corinthians 3:12), “trees” (Revelation 22:19), “stocks” (Acts 16:24), and “clubs” (Matthew 26:47). But several NT writers also employed it to refer to the apparatus used in Roman crucifixions. There were apparently two reasons for this.

In pre-Republican times, the Romans sometimes punished disobedient slaves by fastening them to barren trees and scourging them to death (cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, CBQ 40: 509, 1978). Occasionally the victims were forced to bear the patibulum as well. This form of punishment was called arbor infelix or infelix lignum, and several later Latin writers used this old expression to refer to crucifixion (cf. Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 1.26.10-11; Cicero, Pro Rabirio 4.13; Seneca, Epistle 101.14). As a result, the crux compacta became known as an arbor or lignum (both Latin words mean “tree”). This may have influenced the New Testament writers to use the Greek xulon to mean the same thing as stauros.

But there is a more likely explanation. Most scholars believe that the characteristic use of xulon in the NT (and in several contemporaneous Jewish writings) arose from a midrashic interpretation of Deuteronomy 21:22-23:

“If a man guilty of a capital offence is put to death and you must hang him on a tree, his body must not remain on the tree overnight; you must bury him the same day, for the one who has been hanged is accursed of God, and you must not defile the land that Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance”.

This text of course does not actually refer to crucifixion. But many Jewish writers found it relevant when the Romans introduced that form of execution into Judaea, especially since it was typical Roman custom to let the body rot on the cross for several days (cf. Horace, Epistle 1.16.48; Lucan, Pharsalia 6.543). It was thus used as a guide to decide how Roman crucifixion should be understood legally. Significantly, Dead Sea Scrolls dating to the first century BC twice cited Deuteronomy 21:22-23 with reference to crucifixion practiced by the Romans or Hellenized Jews (11QT, 64:6-13; 4QpNah,3-4:1:1-11; the latter text refers to the crucifixions by Alexander Janneus in 88 BC, compare Josephus, Antiquitae 13.14.2, Bello Judaico 1.4.5-6). Similarly, Paul applied that scripture (derived from the LXX, which uses xulon to render the Hebrew word for “tree”) to the crucifixion of Jesus:

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by being cursed for our sake, since the scripture says: ‘Cursed be everyone who is hanged on a tree (xulon)’. This was done so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might include the pagans, and so that through faith we might receive the promised Spirit” (Galatians 3:13-14).

According to Max Wilcox, influence from Deuteronomy can be detected in each instance xulon is used to denote Jesus’ execution instrument in the NT. Paul’s discourse in Acts 13:28-30 has the appearance of being a midrash on Deuteronomy 21:22- 23 (cf. JBL, 96: 92, 1977). Moreover in the gospels, the Jews demanded Pilate to remove Jesus and the thieves from their crosses “to prevent the bodies remaining on the cross during the sabbath” (John 19:31; cf. Luke 23:50-54). All of this indicates that the Jewish perception of Roman crucifixion revolved around Deuteronomy 21:22-23. As a result, we find that xulon was used almost exclusively by Jewish writers as a synonym for stauros (cf. Josephus, Antiquitae 11.246-261; Philo, De Somniis 2.213). When we consider the broader context of xulon, it becomes clear that the expression definitely does not just mean “a piece of wood.” It often denoted exactly the same thing stauros denoted: the instrument used in Roman crucifixion, composed of either one or two beams.

V. PATRISTIC EVIDENCE OF JESUS’ CRUCIFIXION

The NT however is only a small sampling of the literature of the first two centuries of Christianity; writings from other early Christians claimed that Jesus’ cross was a crux compacta. It should be stressed that the early church fathers and authors, like many of the writers of the OT, were strongly influenced by OT exegetical traditions. The midrashic aspect of the Passion narratives in the gospels exhibit this tendency most especially (see JD Crossan’s The Cross That Spoke for a thorough examination of the literary evidence). Thus, what we have in these sources is not a self-conscious reporting of a historical event, but the interpretation of OT scripture in light of what those events were believed to have been like. This is not to deny any possibility that historical memory is involved in the selection of OT texts for consideration; it is just not knowable what extent any historical memory may be involved, and in many cases in both the gospels and in the apologists, entire events seem to have been inspired by OT statements. Nevertheless, it is instructive to see what kind of stauros the early Christians believed Jesus died upon. Did they compare his stauros to the letter Tau (= crux compacta) or the letter Iota (= crux simplex)? If the former, then they would confirm that (1) stauros did refer to double-beamed crosses at the time the NT was being written, and show that (2) the early Christians believed that Jesus’ cross was a crux compacta and were highly motivated to find references to it in the OT. Listed below is a partial sampling of the relevant texts from apologists and chuch fathers up until the fifth century:

Pseudo-Barnabas (wrote in A.D. 70-79 or c. 130-135)

(1) “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 (i.e. Genesis 14:14; 17:23) says, ‘And Abraham circumcised from his house-hold eighteen men and three hundred’ [in Greek, 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 (=10) and H (=8), you have Jesus (IH are the first two letters of Iésous, “Jesus”), and because the cross (ho stauros) was destined to have grace in the T (=300) he says ‘and three hundred.’ So he indicates Jesus in the two letters and the cross (ton stauron) in the other” (Barnabas 9:7-8).

(2) “Similarly, again, [the Spirit] describes the cross (tou staurou) in … Moses (i.e. Exodus 17:8-12), when Israel was warred upon by strangers, and in order to remind those who were warred upon that they were delivered to death by reason of their sins, the Spirit speaks to the heart of Moses to make a representation of the cross (tupon stauron), and of him who should suffer, because, he says, unless they put their trust in him, they shall suffer war for ever. Moses therefore placed one shield upon another in the midst of the fight, and standing there raised above them all kept stretching out his hands (exeteinen tas kheiras), and so Israel began to be victorious: then, whenever he let them drop they began to perish” (Barnabas 12:1-2).

(3) “And again he [the Spirit] says in another Prophet (i.e. Isaiah 65:2), ‘I stretched out my hands (exepetasa tas kheiras) the whole day to a disobedient people and one that refuses my righteous way’. Again Moses makes a symbol of Jesus (tupon tou Iésou)” (Barnabas 12:4-5).

Justin Martyr (wrote in A.D. 148-161)

(4) “How the Christ after his birth was to live hidden from other men until he grew to manhood, as also happened, hear the predictions that refer to this. There is this: ‘A child is born to us, and a young man is given to us, and the government will be upon his shoulders’ testifying the power of the stauros, which when crucifiedhe took upon his shoulders, as will be shown more clearly as the argument proceeds. Again the same prophet Isaiah, inspired by the prophetic Spirit, said: ‘I have stretched out my hands over a disobedient and contradicting people’… But Jesus Christ stretched out his hands when he was crucified by the Jews, who contradicted him and denied that he was Christ” (1 Apology, 35).

(5) “But never was the crucifixion imitated in the case of any of the so-called sons of Zeus; for they did not understand it since, as has been explained, everything said about it was expressed symbolically. Yet, as the prophet predicted, the stauros is the greatest symbol of his power and authority, as [can be] shown from things you can see. Reflect on all things in the universe [and consider] whether they could be governed or held together without this figure. For the sea cannot be traversed unless the sign of victory, which is called a sail, remain fast in the ship; the land is not plowed without it; similarly, diggers and mechanics do not do their work except with tools of this form. The human figure differs from the irrational animals precisely in this, that man stands erect and can stretch out his hands, and has on his face, stretched out from the forehead, what is called the nose, through which goes breath for the living creature, and this exhibits precisely the figure of a stauros” (1 Apology, 55).

(6) “In the discussion of the nature of the Son of God in Plato’s Timaeus, when he says, “He placed him like an X in the universe,” this was similarly borrowed from Moses. For it is recorded in the writings of Moses that . . . Moses took brass and made the form of the stauros ….Plato, reading this and not clearly understanding, not realizing that it was the form of the stauros, but thinking it was [the letter] Chi, said that the Power next to God was placed X-wise in the universe” (1 Apology, 60).

(7) “Moses himself, stretching out both hands, prayed to God for help. Now, Hur and Aaron help up his hands all day long, lest he should become tired and let them drop to his sides. For, if Moses relaxed from that figure, which was a figure of the stauros, the people were defeated (as Moses himself testifies), but as long as he remained in that position Amalek was defeated, and the strong derived their strength from the stauros. . . .while the name of Jesus was at the battle front [in Joshua], Moses formed the sign of the stauros” (Dialogue With Trypho, 90).

(8) “Furthermore, God indicated in yet another way the power of the mystery of the stauros when He said through Moses, in the blessing pronounced over Joseph (i.e. Deuteronomy 33:13, 17): ‘…His beauty is as of a firstling of a bullock, and his horns are the horns of a rhinoceros; with them shall he push the nations even to the ends of the earth’. Now, no one can assert or prove that the horns of a rhinoceros represent any other matter or figure than that of the cross. The one beam of the stauros stands upright, from which the upper part if lifted up like a horn when a crossbeam is fitted on, and the ends of the crosspiece resemble horns joined to that one horn. And the part which is fixed in the middle of the cross, on which the bodies of the crucified are supported, also projects like a horn, and it, too, looks like a horn when it is shaped and joined to the other horns. (Dialogue, 91)

Irenaeus (wrote in A.D. 177-200)

(9) “So by the obedience, whereby He obeyed unto death, hanging on the tree, He undid the old disobedience wrought in the tree. And because He is Himself the Word of God Almighty, who in invisible form pervades us universally in the whole world, and encompasses both its length and breadth and height and depth (i.e.Ephesians 3:17, 18), for by God’s Word everything is administered, the Son of God was also crucified in these, imprinted in the form of a cross on the universe” (Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 34).

(10) “…and He too frees us from Amalek by stretching forth of is hands” (Ibid., 36).

(11) “But the words whose government is set upon his shoulders mean allegorically the cross, on which he held his back when he was crucified” (Ibid., 56).

(12) “And again, concerning his cross, Isaiah says as follows: I have stretched forth my hands all the day to a stubborn and contrary people; for this is a figure of the cross” (Ibid., 79).

Tertullian (wrote between A.D. 190-220)

(13) “You hang Christians on crosses (crucibus) and stakes (stipitibus); what idol is there but is first moulded in clay, hung on a cross and stake (cruci et stipiti)? It is on a patibulum that the body of your god is first dedicated” (Apologeticus, 12.3).

(14) “It was certainly not intended to be a rhinoceros with one horn or a minotaur with two horns: rather in him Christ was indicated, a bullock according to both accounts, to some people stern as a judge, to others kind as a saviour, whose horns were to be extremities of the cross. For in a yardarm (antenna), which is part of a cross (quae crucis pars est), the extreme ends are called horns, while the unicorn is the upright middle post (medius stipitis palus)” (Adversus Marcionum,3.18.3-4).

(15) “And again, why did Moses on that occasion only when Joshua was warring against Amalek, pray sitting and with outstretched hands (expansis manibus)? …Evidently because on that occasion, …the form of the cross (crucis) was essential” (Ibid., 3.18.6).

(16) “For this same letter TAU of the Greeks, which is our T, has the appearance of the cross (crucis)” (Ibid., 3.23.6)

(17) “If you want to be the Lord’s disciple, you must take up your cross and follow the Lord, that is, you must take up your straits and your tortures or at least your body, which is like a cross” (De Idolatria, 12).

Minucius Felix (wrote around A.D. 200)

(18) “Crosses again we neither worship nor set our hopes on. You who consecrate gods of wood very possibly adore wooden crosses as being portions of your gods. For what are your standards, and banners, and ensigns but gilded and decorated crosses? Your trophies of victory show not only the figure of a simple cross (simplicis crucis), but also of one crucified. Quite true we see the sign of the cross naturally figured in a ship riding the swelling seas, or impelled by outspread oars; a crossbeam (iugum) set up forms the sign of the cross; and so too does a man with outstretched hands (homo porrectis manibus) devoutly offering worship to God. In this way the system of nature leans on the sign of the cross or your religion is shaped thereby” (Octavius, 29.6).

Clement of Alexandria (lived in c. A.D. 150-215)

(19) “The very man who … was bound by corruption, was shown to be free again, through his outstretched hands” (Exhortation to the Greeks, 11).

Firmicus (wrote in A.D. 346)

(20) “What are those horns which he boasts he possesses? ….The horns signify nothing else but the worshipful sign of the cross. By one “horn” of this sign, the one which is elongated and vertical, the universe is held up and the earth held fast; and by the juncture of the two horns which go off sidewise the East is touched and the West supported….You, O Christ, with you outstretched arms support the universe and the earth and the kingdom of heaven….To conquer Amalek, Moses stretched out his arms and imitated these horns” (Error of the Pagan Religions,21.3-6).

Rufinus (wrote in c. A.D. 404)

(21) “These words, the height and breadth and depth, are a description of the cross. The portion of it which is fixed in the earth he called depth. By height he meant the part which stretches above the earth and towers upwards, by breadth the parts which extend outwards to the right hand and the left….His [Christ’s] outstretched hands, moreover, according to the inspired prophet, he held out all day long to the people who were on the earth, testifying to the unbelievers and welcoming believers” (Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, 14).

Jerome (lived in A.D. 347-420)

(22) ” ‘All the day I stretched out my hand to a people unbelieving and contradicting.’ The hands of the Lord lifted up to heaven were not begging for help, but were sheltering us, his miserable creatures” (Homily, 68).

(23) “What do the indignant say? ‘It might have been sold for three hundred denarii’, for he who was to be anointed with this perfume was crucified. We read in Genesis that the ark that Noah built was three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide, and thirty cubits high. Notice the mystical significance of the numbers. . . .Three hundred contains the symbol of the crucifixion. The letter T is the sign for three hundred” (Homily, 84).

Augustine (wrote in A.D. 412-414)

(24) “So, ‘being rooted and grounded in love,’ we may be able ‘to comprehend with all the saints what is the breath and length and height and depth,’ that is, the cross of the Lord. Its breadth is signified by the transverse beam on which the hands are extended; the length from the ground of that cross-bar is where the whole body from the hands down is fastened; the height, from the cross-bar up to the top which is near the head; the depth is that part which is concealed, driven into the earth. (De Doctrina Christiana, 2.41).

(25) “The figure of the cross appears in this mystery. For, he who died because he willed, died as he willed. Not without reason, therefore, did he choose this kind of death, nor would he have chosen it, except that in it He stood out as the master of this breadth and length and height and depth. For, there is breadth in that crossbeam which is fastened above; this refers to the good works because the hands are stretched there. There is length in the visible part of the beam which stretches from that one down to the earth….The height is in that part of the cross which extends above the traverse beam, and is left to point upward, that is, at the head of the crucified….And now, indeed, that part of the beam which does not appear, which is buried and hidden, from which the whole rises upward, signifies the depth of that freely given grace” (Epistle, 26).

Examples such as these show that the tradition of the cross was not an invention from the time of Constantine, as suggested by the Society. Christians as early as the author of Barnabas, drawing on a reservoir of OT interpretation and typology, described Jesus’ stauros as two-beamed. The fact that the cross is a basic shape of nature and human technology faciliated the mystical use of the cruciform symbology and the discovery of this shape throughout the everyday world. It is important to recall that these traditions did not start out seeking significance for the shape of a crux simplex; from the beginning, it was the crux compacta (later, the crux immissa in particular with the emphasis on four parts) that corresponded to OT motifs linked to Jesus’ cross via midrashic exegesis.

We may supplement these references from “orthodox” sources with the following statements drawn from pseudepigraphal and apocryphal writings from the period:

Odes of Solomon(late first century-early second century A.D.)

(29) “I extended my hands and hallowed my Lord. For the expansion of my hands is his sign. And my extension is the upright cross” (Ode 27:1-3).

(30) “I stretched out my hands towards the Lord, and towards the Most High I raised my voice” (Ode 37:1).

(31) “I extended my hands and approached my Lord, for my extension is the common cross, that was lifted up on the way of the Righteous One” (Ode 42:1-2).

Sibylline Oracles(second century A.D.)

(32) “O wood, O most blessed, on which God was stretched out; earth will not contain you, but you will see heaven as home when your fiery eye, O God, flashes like lightning” (SibOr 6.26-28).

(33) “Moses prefigured him (i.e. Jesus), stretching out his holy arms, conquering Amalek by faith so that people might know that he is elect and precious with God his father” (SibOr 8.251-253).

(34) “He will stretch out his hands and measure the entire world. . . .First, then, the Lord was clearly seem by his own, incarnate as he was before, and he will show in hands in feet four marks fixed in his limbs, east and west and south and north” (SibOr 8.302, 318-321)

Acts of Peter(late second century A.D.)

(35) “For you should come up to the cross of Christ, who is the Word stretched out….So that the Word is this upright tree on which I am crucified; but the sound is the cross-piece, the nature of man; and thenail that holds the cross-piece to the upright in the middle is the conversion (or turning point) and repentance of man” (38).

Acts of Andrew(third century A.D.)

(36) “Hail, o cross (ho staure), be glad indeed!…And one part of you stretches up to heaven so that you may point out the heavenly logos, the head of all things. Another part of you is stretched out to right and left (to de sou héplótai dexiai kai aristerai) that you may put to flight the fearful and inimical power and draw the cosmos into unity. And and another part of you is set on the earth, rooted in the depths” (14:3-11).

It is striking that not once did a Christian writer seek OT parallels or real-life symbolism for the figure of the crux simplex, or find mystical meaning in the letter Iota rather than Tau as a sign of the stauros. Since this practice goes back to the early second century AD at the very latest, it is clearly not due to influence by Constantine centuries later (who, incidentally promoted a Chi cross, derived from the first letter in Khristos). The evidence from Barnabas also suggests that speculation on the cross goes back to the time of the composition of the gospel Passion narratives themselves, for as JD Crossan and Helmut Koester show, Barnabas often preserves a use of OT exegetical traditions in a more primative form than in the polished gospels. If nothing else, the early evidence from Barnabas and Justin Martyr prove yet again that stauros did indeed refer to the double-beamed crux compacta. As far as I can tell, the Society has only once ever discussed the value of the patristic evidence. The 22 November 1976 Awake! states:

But do not writers early in the Common Era claim that Jesus died on a cross? For example, Justin Martyr (114-167 C.E.) described in this way what he believed to be the type of stake upon which Jesus died: “For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn.” This indicates that Justin himself believed that Jesus died on a cross.

However, Justin was not inspired by God, as were the Bible writers. He was born more than eighty years after Jesus’ death, and was not an eyewitness of that event. It is believed that in describing the “cross” Justin followed an earlier writing known as the “Letter of Barnabas.” This non-Biblical letter claims that the Bible describes Abraham as having circumcised three hundred and eighteen men of his household. Then it derives special significance from a Greek-letter cipher for 318, namely, IHT. The writer of this apocryphal work claims that IH represents the first two letters of “Jesus” in Greek. The T is viewed as the shape of Jesus’ death stake.

Concerning this passage, M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia states: “The writer evidently was unacquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures, and has [also] committed the blunder of supposing that Abraham was familiar with the Greek alphabet some centuries before it existed.” A translator into English of this “Letter of Barnabas” points out that it contains “numerous inaccuracies,” “absurd and trifling interpretations of Scripture,” and “many silly vaunts of superior knowledge in which its writer indulges.” Would you depend on such a writer, or persons who followed him, to provide accurate information about the stake on which Jesus died? (p. 27).

The main objection here is that Justin Martyr and the author of Barnabas were not “inspired by God”, and a good deal of space is devoted to attacking the credibility of Barnabas. Since inspiration is not an objective criterion that can be critically assessed, it really has no place in evaluating the historical accuracy and linguistic merit of certain writings. Perhaps it might have subjective weight for a believer in Bible inerrency, but again since the claim that Jesus died on a crux compacta contradicts nothing in Scripture (and indeed, is most consistent with it), it is difficult to see how even this argument has any subjective value. Indeed, the Society has no problem in citing “uninspired” historians such as Tacitus and Josephus to prove biblical accuracy (cf. Is the Bible Really the Word of God, 1969, p. 63; Reasoning, pp. 209-210; Greatest Man, introduction, pp. 2-3). The article “Benefiting From History” published in the 8 April 1974 Awake!, in fact, admitted that it was fallacious to reject pertinent evidence merely “because of the uncertainties regarding some of the material presented by the ancient writers.” In fact, the author went on to say that “even when the ancient writings are obviously pocked with bias and personal loyalties, certain descriptive material and circumstantial evidence may be correct and quite valuable. Rather than giving up on history and pitching it all aside as useless, one needs to develop that important quality — discernment” (pp. 24-25).

Furthermore, there is hardly any evidence suggesting a literary dependence between Barnabas and Justin’s apologetical works. Although some of the types mentioned by the author of Barnabas and Justin are the same, the two discussed by the Society (the “horn” and “circumcision” types) are unique to their respective authors. When compared with the narrative gospels, it is clear that these writers were working with a reservoir of exegetical traditions and independently used them in similar, and sometimes in different, ways. Also, the Society dismisses the merit of patristic evidence because it indulges in “silly” typological interpretation. But this is an unfair criticism. Typology was a vital element of the Zeitgeist of early Christianity and was freely used by first-century Christian writers (see Galatians 4:21-26; 1 Peter 3:20-21; 1 Clement 12:7-8), and it is not unusual at all that Christians examined the OT for prophetic references to the cross just as they did for almost every other aspect of Jesus’ life. It is also rather odd that the Society would criticize Barnabas for interpreting the Scriptures in this manner since it has historically made excessive use of typology in its most arbitrary form. What the Society does not provide is an explanation why Christians as early as the 130s were fully convinced that Jesus died on a crux compacta. If this is a false tradition, how did come into existence so soon after the composition of the gospels. If the gospel of John was written in the 90s, as the Society believes, how is it that less than 40 years later the word stauros was used with clear reference to a cross with a crossbeam? Did the meaning suddenly change right after the gospels were written, or did the word have that meaning all along (i.e. since the first century BC)? These are questions the Society would prefer to avoid.

VI. ARTISTIC EVIDENCE OF JESUS’ CRUCIFIXION

One last piece of evidence needs to be considered. The only unambiguous representation of the Crucifixion from before the time of Constantine was found inside the Paedagogium, on the slopes of Palatine Hill in Rome. In 1856 R. Garrucci examined the walls of this building (thought to be a prison for slaves), and discovered a caricature of the crucified Jesus. According to Jack Finegan, “this crude graffito shows a man’s body with an ass’s head, on a cross. The feet are supported on a platform and the outstretched arms fastened to the transverse bar of the cross. To the left is a smaller figure of a boy or young man in an attitude of adoration” (Light From the Ancient Past, 1959, p. 373). The graffito is depicted below:

The artist wrote the following inscription below the drawings: “ALEXAMENOS SEBETE THEON,” which can be translated as either “Alexamenos worships his god” or the vocative “Alexamenos, worship god.”

There can be little doubt that this blasphemous graffito was scrawled on the wall to poke fun at early Christianity. Tertullian wrote of a similar cartoon in his Apologeticus:

“A new representation of our god has quite recently been publicized in this city, started by a certain criminal hired to dodge wild beasts in the arena. He displayed a picture with this inscription: ‘Onokoites, the god of the Christians’. The figure had the ears of an ass, one foot was cloven, and it was dressed in a toga and carrying a book. We laughed at both the caption and the cartoon” (Apologeticus, 16.12-14).

The Palatine graffito is thought to date back to the reign of Emperor Marcus between AD 161-180, but some have dated it as late as Alexander Severus, A.D. 222-235. It could be argued on the basis of these dates that the caricature is too late to really prove anything, and indeed it is unlikely that such a depiction goes back to any genuine historical memory, but it does reflect what the pagan cariacturist would have learned from the Christians he was in contact with, and it attests the tradition that Jesus was crucified on a two-beamed cross.

VII. CONCLUSION

Again, as I mentioned at the outset, the issue of what device Jesus was crucified on is only a big deal because the Society has made it a big deal; for most Christians, the only important thing is the fact that Jesus gave his life, and for historians, the issue is only a passing curiosity. Since the Society has made it a big deal and over the years published a great deal on the matter, it is a concern worthy of investigation (and a matter like this can only be investigated in the thorough manner pursued here) — if only to see whether the Society has approached the issue with intellectual integrity and competence.

Unfortunately for the Society, they have performed very poorly in representing the evidence and supporting their claims. When they do discuss the relevant evidence, the articles are always much too brief and generally oversimplify the issue. Often they are little more than collections of quotes from other sources, such as W. E. Vine’s lexicon (which is used simply as a proof-text, despite its obvious inaccuracy). The eyeopening statements found in Classical and patristic literature are consistently ignored, as well as the clues provided by the Bible itself. There is no reason for the Society to be unacquainted with this evidence; it is discussed in most major lexicons, biblical and classical encyclopedias, and commentaries…. works that are most definitely included in the vast Bethel library. If ever such evidence is mentioned, the Society always finds a reason to minimize or explain away facts inconvenient to its theory. But most serious of all is the dishonest or thoroughly inept manner in which the Society has cited the ancient writers Lucian and Livy.

The real reason why the Society holds such an implausible theory is because it justifies their opinion that the cross symbol has no place in Christianity. It is no secret that Watchtower founder Charles T. Russell and his followers esteemed the cross as a symbol of Christ’s redemption of mankind from sin, publishing the cross-and-crown image (a symbol of the Millennial Kingdom) on Watchtower covers and wearing it as a clothing pin. Carey W. Barber, later a member of the Governing Body, described the pin: “It was a badge really, with a wreath of laurel leaves as the border and within the wreath was a crown with a cross running through it on an angle. It looked quite attractive and was our idea of what it meant to take up our ‘cross’ and follow Christ Jesus in order to be able to wear the crown of victory in due time” (1975 Yearbook, p. 148).

However, the Society’s next president JF Rutherford did not think it was so “attractive”. He perceived the cross as nothing more than a pagan symbol, as a long-time Witness recalled: “This to Brother Rutherford’s mind was Babylonish and should be discontinued. He told us that when we went to the people’s homes and began to talk, that was the witness in itself” (Ibid.). It took Rutherford eight years to purge the Bible Students of the cross. His first move against it occurred in 1928, when he instructed his followers at a Detroit convention to discard the “objectionable” and “unnecessary” jewelry. Then in 1931 the emblem was removed from the Watchtower covers. At that point the cross symbol became non-biblical, non-Christian, and ungodly — and was relegated to the forbidden trappings of Satan’s organization.

The Witnesses however still believed that Jesus was executed on a traditional cross. No doubt Rutherford was uncomfortable about this, because this fact seemed to still legitimize the cross as a Christian symbol, and thus he saw the need to revise his assumptions about the Passion. Therefore, without much fanfare, he presented his new view in the book Riches. On page 27, he wrote: “Jesus was crucified, not on a cross of wood, such as exhibited in many images and pictures, and which images are made and exhibited by men; Jesus was crucified by nailing his body to a tree”. It seems that Rutherford saw nothing wrong (as does the Society today) with using the word “crucify” to denote impalement. Therefore, according to the Society’s own account, scholarship really had nothing to do with its adoption of the “torture stake” theory. It was entirely motivated by theological reasons long ago, yet it remains in vogue today because it offers a means of setting the JWs apart from other Christians as different and because the image of Jesus “impaled” on a single timber, expressed frequently through the Art Department, is so ingrained in the minds of most JWs. It is also possible that the Society has not a clue how weak and unsupported their position is on the matter.

What is a Church?

Where the Word of God is preached and believed, where two or three meet in the name of Christ, there is the Church. Whatever else may be said about the Church, this is fundamental.

This statement has never-not even at the present day-been understood in all its revolutionary power. The meeting of two or three must be recognized to be the Church in however imperfect a form. When a father gathers his household round him to expound the Gospel to them in his humble simple way, or where a layman, out of a full heart, proclaims the word of God to a group of young people, there is the Church.

Whoever departs from this rule, whoever thinks that something else has to be added to make this a real Church, has misunderstood the meaning of the very heart of the evangelical Faith.

[The Divine Imperative, Emil Brünner (The Westminster Press, Philadelphia), 1937, page 529

“WHO ARE THE TRUE CHRISTIANS?”

- by Carl Olof Jonsson, 1998

Which of the many thousands of Christian groups is authentically Christian?

This question is based on the misconception that there must be one group of true Christians separated from all other false groups. Is this what the Bible says?

The answer is given by Jesus himself in his parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43). As this parable shows, Jesus Christ sowed the “fine seed”–the sons of the kingdom (verse 38). He knew, however, that “the enemy” (the devil) would oversow “weeds”–the sons of the wicked one–in among the “wheat” in the “field”, (= the world, verse 38). But He would not allow his servants to collect the weeds, because “while collecting the weeds, you uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest.” (Verses 29, 30)

So what does this parable tell us about which group is the “one authentically Christian group”? It shows that there would be no such thing as one group of true Christians separated from all other groups of false Christians. There would only be true and false individual Christians. True and false Christians would all exist together in the same world of Christians, mixed like wheat and weeds in the same field.

Notice that it was at the “harvest” (= at the “conclusion of a system of things”, verse 39) that the angels–not Christ’s servants or followers–would remove the “weeds” from “the kingdom” (= the world of Christians) and gather “the wheat” into Christ’s “storehouse.” (Verses 40-43, 30)

For over seventy years the Watch Tower Society has taught that since 1919 the Jehovah’s Witnesses, under the supervision of angels, by their witnessing work have been separating the “wheat” from the “weeds”, or the “sheep” from the “goats”, to use the language of another, related parable. (Matt. 25:31-46) But in 1995, in the Watchtower of October 15, 1995, pages 22 and 23, the Society finally admitted that this application was wrong, explaining that the separating of the “sheep” from the “goats” will not take place until the judgement at Christ’s future coming! Actually, this is how most Christians have understood these parables throughout the centuries. (Cf. Jonsson/Herbst, The Sign of the Last Days – When?, Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1987, p. 228, note 35.)

This doctrinal change is yet another illustration of how transient the so-called “truth” of the Watch Tower Society often is! Few Jehovah’s Witnesses seem to have grasped the far-reaching consequences of this reinterpretation. If Jehovah’s Witnesses have not been “separating the sheep from the goats” during the past seventy years, their witnessing
activity has not been as crucial for mankind as they have taught to believe. Like other Christian groups, they have been attracting “all kinds” of people to their organization, both righteous and wicked. (Cf. the parable of the dragnet, Matt. 13:47-51.)

Not only has the Watchtower organization been collecting all kinds of people into its organization, both righteous and wiched. It has also been ousting out all kinds of people, both righteous and wicked, contrary to the warning of the Master in the parable (verse 29). It has done this, not just by disfellowshiping people for reasons that often have been very arbitrary, but also by rejecting all the other Christians outside of their organization and claiming to be the only true Christian group on earth. In this way they have ignored the command of the Master: “Let both grow together until the harvest.” For this reason alone the Watchtower organization cannot claim to be the one true and authentically Christian
group on earth today. THERE IS NO SUCH GROUP.

To “prove” that the Watchtower organization is the only true Christian organization on earth today, it claims that, “Of all those who claim to be Christian, only Jehovah’s Witnesses take the preaching of the good news seriously.” (The Watchtower, January 1, 1988, page 20) This statement primarily refers to their door-to-door activity. But does the use of this specific preaching method prove that this is the only true Christian organization, while other groups who use other methods to reach people with their message are not Christians?

The fact is that quite a number of Christian groups are growing in number, many of them even much faster than Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Watchtower publications have given its readers the impression that other Christian denominations and sects are declining in numbers, that the “waters” of “Babylon the Great” is “drying up.” (Rev. 16:12 and 17:15) But this
impression is false. Although it is true that the majority of the Christian denominations have been declining in the Western countries (and this also holds true of Jehovah’s Witnesses today in many Western countries), there has been a tremendous increase of Christians in the world as a whole in this century.

This increase has mainly occured in the third world. As explained by David D. Barrett, editor of the World Christian Encyclopedia (1982), Christianity has become the most extensive and universal religion on earth in this century. About 25,000 Christian missionaries are being sent out to various countries every year. (Only 0.4 percent of these are Jehovah’s Witnesses!) The above-mentioned encyclopedia shows that at the beginning of our century there were only 50,000 Protestants in Latin America. In 1980 there were 20 million, and that number was estimated to grow to 100 million by the year 2000. In Africa there were about 10 million Christians in 1900. In 1980’s the number had increased to over 200 million–40 percent of the population of the continent! There have been similar increases in many parts of Asia. In South Korea, for example, there were hardly any Christians at all hundred years ago. Today about 35 percent of its population are Christians.

One of the fastest growing Christian groups is the Pentecostal movement (Assemblies of God). In about the same period as the Witnesses have increased from 0 to 5 millions, the Pentecostals have grown from 0 to 420 millions! This increase has occurred in all parts of the world, also in many parts of the Western world. Of the nearly six billion people on earth
today, about one third are Christians.

Of course, as is quite obvious to every observer, not all these people can be true Christians. In fulfillment of Jesus’ parable, there is much weeds among the wheat. Jehovah’s Witnesses are no exception to this.

Practically all this increase has been accomplished, not through the door-to-door method used by Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Mormons, and some other groups, but through other methods. But is it the preaching method that makes a certain group Christian? The fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever – Biblical or otherwise–to show that the first Christians were involved in some sort of door-to-door activity. That even the members of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses are more or less aware of this is demonstrated by Raymond Franz, a former Governing Body member, in his
well-documented work, In Search of Christian Freedom (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1991), pages 207-236.

Another argument used by the Watchtower organization to “prove” that it is the only true Christian organization is that Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to kill people in war. This is commendable, of course. But their standpoint is in no way unique, and this is particularly true since 1996, when the Watchtower organization decided that alternative service is acceptable.
(The Watchtower, May 1, 1996.) A number of sects and denominations are opposed to war, for example, the SDA Church, the Mennonites, the Quakers, the Christadelphians, and various Church of God groups. But more importantly, there are millions of INDIVIDUAL Christians around the world who are opposed to war and who would refuse to kill other people in war. They have taken this position, not because they have been told so by a religous authority, but because of their own decision.

Another feature often pointed to in the Watchtower publications is that Jehovah’s Witnesses have been persecuted and sometimes even been killed in some countries. This is true, of course. Perhaps the most extensive persecution of the Witnesses in the 20th century was that of the Nazi regime in Germany a generation ago, when 2,000 Witnesses were sent to concentration camps, 203 of which were executed and over 600 others died in prison due to diseases, undernourishment, and other causes. (The 1974 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, page 212.)

But Jehovah’s Witnesses are not the only group that has been persecuted in this century. Totalitarian countries have often persecuted various groups of Christians. In the former Sovjet Union most and sometimes all Christian groups were forbidden and persecuted, and periodically thousands of Christians were killed in campaigns aimed at rooting out religion. On January 27, 1996, Vladimir Naumov, chief of the Russian commission for the restoration of victims of political oppression, revealed that half a million priests had been persecuted by the Sovjet State, over 200,000 of which were killed during the Stalin epoch! That is thousand times the number of Witnesses that were executed during the Nazi regim!

Not only totalitarian Communist countries, but also totalitarian Muslim countries have persecuted Christians and forbidden their activity. Where the activity of the Witnesses is forbidden or restricted by totalitarian governments, the activity of other Christian groups are usually also forbidden or restricted, although we don’t read much about this in the Watchtower publications. In fact, more Christians have died for their faith in the 20th century than in the previous 19 centuries combined! This fact is documented in the book, In the Lion’s Den (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), written by Nina Shea, director of the Puebla Program division of Freedom House. The persecution of Jehovah’s
Witnesses in the 20th century, therefore, is far from unique or exceptional. Today, cases of persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses are rare and exceptional, as was actually admitted in The Watchtower of December 1, 1998, page 8.

So who and where, then, are the true Christians today? Obviously the same as in every century from the time of Christ, namely, people who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord, Redeemer, and Teacher, and who may be found in any kind of Christian fellowship that proves to be of help in their endevour to lead a Christian life.

AN ENCOURAGING THOUGHT ABOUT DEATH

L.Ray. Smith

www.bible-truths.com 

Death has two different meanings that are essential for us to differentiate:

1. The ACT OF DYING or termination of life.

2. The STATE OF BEING DEAD.

All humanity will experience “the act of dying,” but absolutely no one will ever experience the “state of being dead.” And this is because:

“For the living know that they shall die but the dead know not anything…” (Ecclesiastes 9:5).

This may be comforting to some, but scary to others. It all depends on your point of view; your perspective; your emotional stability; your up-bringing; your understanding. What I want to do in this little article is give you an encouraging perspective of death. “How can anything be encouraging when it comes to death?” you are probably asking. Well, let me try and answer that for you.

Virtually every time that I have read that verse (dozens of times), it was to prove to someone that we do not have an immortal soul that lives on after death of the body, nor do we have consciousness as is taught in Christendom. But this past year I took another look at this verse and saw something else that I had never contemplated before.

Not only is there no consciousness in death, but there is no consciousness OF death either. This is the encouraging part.

“The living KNOW that they shall die, but the dead KNOW NOT ANYTHING.”

Let’s think about that for a few moments and see if this is not quite encouraging.

“The living KNOW… the dead know NOTHING.” The dead don’t know that they are dead. When you die, you will NOT KNOW THAT YOU ARE DEAD! But it gets better. Not only will you never know that you are dead at some point in the future, but from your perspective YOU NEVER EVEN LOST CONSCIOUSNESS. This to me was a marvelous revelation.

Once God creates consciousness in a human they will NEVER EVER know anything BUT CONSCIOUSNESS. From my perspective and from your perspective we will never “know” ANYTHING but life and feelings and emotions and consciousness. From our perspective we will never “know” what it is like to be dead. Oh we will probably die some day (assuming that the Lord doesn’t come first), but we will never know that we were dead; we will never know what it is to BE dead, or to BE unconscious. Others will know and sorrow (maybe?) that we are dead and gone, but from OUR perspective we will never lose conscious reality, and we will never “experience” being dead.

Now I didn’t say we would not experience “dying.” Most (albeit not all) people who die, experience dying, but they do NOT experience death itself, nor will they ever. It is impossible for someone to experience the death state, seeing that where there is no consciousness, there is no experience, and therefore there is no memory of it. I will carry this one step further. Even if there was no such thing as a resurrection from the dead, the dead would never know that they died and would never know that they are dead.

This to me is an amazing thing. Once God created consciousness, cognizance, awareness, perception, sensation, emotions, and the like; we never ever loose it from OUR PERSPECTIVE, and after all, whose perspective counts the most when it comes to death—ours or someone else’s?

We may all go through the fear of dying or even the pain of dying, but there is no pain and no fear IN DEATH ITSELF. No one who is presently dead is aware of it, or experiencing it, or being frightened by it, or anything else.

DEATH IS SLEEP

I was tempted to make that caption: DEATH IS LIKE SLEEP, but that would be Scripturally inaccurate, as nowhere do the Scriptures state that death is “like” sleep, but rather that death IS SLEEP. God prepared Moses for death with the following:

“And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, you shall sleep [Heb: shakab—to lie down, to rest, to sleep, to decease] with your fathers…” (Deut. 31:16).

David said:

“Consider and hear me, O Lord my God: lighten my eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death” (Psalm 13:3).

When Lazarus was dead (John 11:14), Jesus said:

“Our friend Lazarus sleeps: but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep” (John 11:11).

Do you fear when your children “sleep” at night? You know that they are safe in sleep. Even in sleep we have a slight awareness of life, especially when we are dreaming or falling in and out of sleep, but in death there is no consciousness nor sub-consciousness, and so you will never know that you are sleeping. You know that your children will awake in the morning. We all who died IN CHRIST, shall awake in the morning of resurrection. And when we do, we might remember dying, but we will not remember ever being dead.

On five different occasions I came very near to death. Three of the five times I was unconscious. For all practicality, I was dead. I remember what happened before and after being unconscious, but I remember nothing of BEING unconscious. Yet I knew that I was, but only after the fact by the evidence, not from my actual experience of having been under. The actual fact of death is no different from what I already experienced several times. And you have all experienced it already as well. We all sleep, and unless we have bad dreams, the experience of sleep itself is nothing fearful or painful.

Sleep is a way that God can set people aside for a little while as He works with our children and our children’s children. Centuries and millennia will pass for some, yet they will know no death, only consciousness. From our perspective we will never know anything but life and consciousness. Death won’t even be an illusion: it won’t be AT ALL. And that is because “The living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything.”

The Apostle Paul was familiar with this verse, seeing that he earnestly studied the Hebrew Scriptures. With relation to this concept that “…the dead know not anything,” Paul made the following statements:

“For we know, That if the tent of our earthy dwelling be taken down, we have a building from God, a house not made by hands, aionian, in the heavens. For indeed to this we are groaning, earnestly desiring to be invested with that habitation of our which is from [not ‘in’] heaven: surely, having been invested, we shall not be found destitute.

For, indeed, those being in the tent are groaning, being oppressed; in which we desire not to be divested [naked], but invested [clothed], that the mortal may be absorbed by LIFE. Now He Who has produced this for this same thing is that God Who has given to us the pledge of the Spirit.

Therefore, being always confident, and knowing that being at home in the body [our body, in the flesh] we are from home [our real home, our immortal home], away from the Lord; for we are walking by Faith, not by sight [‘Blessed are they that have NOT seen, and yet have believed’ John 20:29] But we are confident, and well-pleased rather to be separated from the body, and TO BE [not instantly, but at a future time] at home [with our new spiritual bodies like Christ’s] with the Lord” (II Cor. 5:1-8, Emphatic Diaglott).

Yes, Paul knew that once he died the next waking moment would be in resurrection with a new body (I Cor. 15:49), and although it would happen in an instant (from this life to the next life without missing a heart beat), in the twinkling of an eye (less than a second), nonetheless, it would have to wait until “the LAST TRUMP’ (I Cor. 15:51). But to Paul from his perspective, it would only be but a moment in time, seeing that, “the living KNOW that they shall die, but the dead KNOW NOT ANYTHING.”

“But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that SLEPT” (I Cor. 15:20).

Soon we too shall be like Him and see our Creator as He is:

“Beloved now are we the sons of God, but it does not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when He shall appear, we shall BE LIKE HIM; for we shall see Him as He is. And every man that has this hope in him purifies himself, even as HE is pure” (I John 3:2-3)

Make no mistake: death is an enemy, but it is “being ABOLISHED” (I Cor. 15:26) by the One who has already had victory over it. And although we will never experience being dead, we certainly experience the loss of our loved ones who have died, and they will experience loss when we die.

“THE KISS OF DEATH”

L. Ray Smith

www.bibletruths.com 

“THE KISS OF DEATH”

[Is your love pure or fake?]

I hear a lot of “huggie huggie kissie kissie” pious platitudes from the mouths of today’s religious hobbyists. Personally, it makes me a little ill in my midsection. Most of it is as phony as a three-dollar bill. Could you be guilty of using this emotional charade to deceive those you wish to impress?

There is nothing wrong with hugs, as I am quite fond of them myself. And there is nothing wrong with proper kissing. Paul instructs the assemblies to greet each with “an holy kiss” four times, and Peter instructs its use once, as a “kiss of charity.”

The Greek word used is “philema.” A “holy” kiss is merely a pure, sacred, ceremonial kiss—a simple kiss. Men no longer kiss men as a form of greeting non-family members in most western cultures—I’m personally kinda glad of that!

People also engage in “hugs and kisses” in their speech and writing. And this too can be fine and acceptable depending upon how it is done.

However, there is another way that hugs and kisses are used and overdone in which it is a camouflaged front to mask the real person that is no more holy than was Judas.

Had the twelve other Apostles already received the Holy Spirit of God, they would not have had to ask Jesus “who” is was that was about to betray Him—they would have known. Thank God that it is not possible to “deceive the very elect” (Matt. 24:24).

Like Satan’s ministers of righteousness (II Cor. 11:15), these deceivers are wolves, but they don’t come as wolves. These false teachers and deceivers:

“…come to you in SHEEP’S clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matt. 7:15).

But you could spot one of these “wolves” a mile off, couldn’t you? Just look for the GIANT TEETH that Little Red Riding Hood encountered, right?

“O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched [Gk: ‘to fascinate by false representations] you…” (Gal. 3:1).

The “wolves” COME IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING! You don’t see their teeth. They don’t show their teeth. They only show you a huggie huggie kissie kissie pious religious smile. THAT my friends, that pious front, IS the “sheep’s clothing.” Wolves BITE, and their bite can be deadly:

“But if you bit and devour one another, take heed that you be not consumed one of another” (Gal. 5:15).

Now then, where are we to find these “wolves and sheep’s clothing” coming with hugs and kisses to deceive and devour? Well, wherever the SHEEP are found.

“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous [savage] wolves enter in among YOU, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men [and women] arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30).

Didn’t we all witness this ourselves in recent months? Are all the wolves gone now? Of course not—there will always be wolves wherever there are sheep.

I’m warning you: Wolves come in “sheep’s clothing,” full of smiles, and hugs, and kisses. You will not see their teeth until it is too lake.

Judas was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The apostles saw a sheep—Jesus saw a wolf. What was Judas’ ultimate sheep’s camouflage? Why, wasn’t it a simple, sincere, pure, godly “kiss?” Think again.

“Now he that betrayed Him give them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, the same is He: hold Him fast. And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed Him” (Matt. 26:48-49).

You have all seen this drama acted out many times in films—a simple little peck on Jesus’ cheek. Oh really?

The five Scriptures using the word “kiss” from Paul and Peter, always used the Greek word “philema” which means “kiss” and nothing else. In Luke 22:48 we read this:

“But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betray you the Son of man with a kiss [Gk: a simple ‘philema’ kiss]?”

But in Matt. 26:48, we find something totally different. Judas told the elders and chief priest:

“…whomsoever I shall [PHILEO—passionate fondness] kiss, that same is He…”

Judas did not have a “philema” kiss in mind at all. The “kiss” in Matt. 26:48 is a “phileo” kiss, and it means a fond, affectionate, passionate kiss, not a simple “philemo kiss.” And the elders and high priest knew the different in these two words. One was a peck on the cheek, but Judas determined to use a more a passionate, huggie huggie kissie kissie display in his attempt to betray Jesus to the devouring and ravaging wolves.

This is really intriguing stuff. Now after Judas tells the priest and elders what kind of a kiss he will give Jesus [a phileo kiss] to betray Jesus, He actually delivers this kiss. And how does he do that? He does it with yet another Greek word for kiss, which is, “kataphileo” mean “to kiss EARNESTLY.”

This “kataphileo kiss” is used three other times in Scriptures:

Luke 7:45—“You gave me no kiss [no affectionate ‘phileo’ kiss, Jesus admonishes His disciples] but this woman since the time I came in has not ceased to kiss [‘kataphileo kisses’—earnestly] My feet.”

Luke 15:20—“And he [the prodigal son] arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him [earnestly and passionately with a ‘kataphileo kisses’].”

Acts 20:37—“And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul’s neck, and kissed him [with ‘cataphileo kisses’ of great passion and earnest].”

Is it not abundantly clear that this super emotional use of hugs and kisses was used only on the most RARE occasions of deep and profound emotional circumstances? But this is not proper conduct for everyday behavior. See these over-pious charlatans for what they are. Be suspect of those who use super-pious and sanctimonious hugs and kisses every day of the week.

Now to the Judas Kiss of Death:

“And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, Master; and KISSED HIM.”

The Greek is “kisses”—multiple kisses, with ‘kataphilio kisses, just as we find in every single use of this word in Scriptures I showed above.

No, Judas did not betray Jesus with a peck on the cheek; he deceitfully delivered a “huggie huggie kissie kissie, fraudulent hugs and KISSES OF DEATH!

What must we learn from all this? Whenever we pretend to be Christ-like but it’s all a charade, we too are guilty of giving Christ a Judas kiss of death. What a disgusting display of the carnal mind and flesh, Judas has left us. Some have vengeance in their heart, others vanity, others bitterness and hatred, and yet others uncontrollable sins of the flesh, but they try to camouflage their evils with a plethora of hugs and kisses to all.

Don’t be afraid to hug; don’t be afraid to kiss, but beware of such phony displays of pious emotions, as they could be your “KISS OF DEATH.”

More “trinity proof” verses discussed

The next 2 verses together are often used to promote the Trinity Doctrine:

The one true God YWHW has a son. He is called Yahshua (Jesus in Greek). The only way that we can fellowship with God is through Jesus Christ his Son. He died for our sins and rose from the dead victorious. He is now seated at the right hand of the one true God and interceeds for us. We need to believe that Jesus is God’s son and that he is the only way that we will be brought into God’s presence. This is the true gospel. If you believe that then you should be baptized in the name of Jesus as your part in accepting God’s free gift of salvation.

Blatant insertions of the Trinity proved by History

The verse we will look at is a blatant attempt by man to give the doctrine of the Trinity credibility. That verse is 1 John 5:7 (English-KJV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

All other translations do not have the words ” the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” ; Apart from the King James translation. Translators agree that the last part of this verse was added in later and is actually a footnote in the Textus Receptus, the Greek text that the King James Bible was translated from. Now this same verse in the NIV for example simply says the following:

1 John 5:7 (English-NIV)
For there are three that testify:

How did the disputed words find there way into the New testament?

The first published Greek NT was edited in 1516 by Catholic priest, scholar, and humanist Erasmus in 1516. This edition did not include the disputed words. A revised edition in 1519 also did not include these words. Erasmus was severely criticised by other Catholic priests for not including in Greek these words which were well-known to them from the Latin. Erasmus said that the words were left out simply because he did not find them in any of the Greek manuscripts he had examined, and promised to insert them if they were found in even one Greek manuscript.

An Irish monk deliberately fabricated such a manuscript to meet Erasmus’ requirement. This manuscript (no. 61) was copied from an early manuscript which did not contain the words. The page in this manuscript containing the disputed words is on a special paper and has a glossy finish, unlike any other page in the manuscript. On the basis of this one 16th century deliberately falsified manuscript, Erasmus inserted the disputed words in his 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions of the Greek NT, though he protested that he did not believe the words were genuine.

Nearly all printed Greek NTs from Erasmus until the 19th century were simply reprints of Erasmus’ 4th or 5th edition, and so the words continued to be printed in Greek as part of I John even though there is no sufficient evidence for their inclusion. Recent editions of the Greek NT follow the manuscript evidence and therefore do not insert the words.

The earliest English New Testament, the translation of Wycliffe in the 1380s, was made from medieval Latin manuscripts, and so it includes the disputed words, though it reads “son” instead of “word.” Tyndale’s translation of 1525 was based on Erasmus’ 3rd edition and so it included the words. In the 2nd and 3rd editions of his translation, Tyndale placed the disputed words in parentheses to show that their genuineness was doubtful. Several editions of the NT edited by Tyndale’s assistant Miles Coverdale also placed the disputed words in parentheses or smaller type or both to show that they were disputed. Jugge’s 1552 edition of Tyndale’s NT omitted the parentheses and printed the words in standard type, a practice followed in later English Bibles, including the KJV (based on Beza’s 1598 Greek NT, a virtual reprint of Erasmus’ 4th edition). Recent conservative translations of the NT (ASV, NASB, NIV) delete the disputed words entirely or put them in a footnote because the evidence is conclusive that they were not an original part of John’s letter. [Verse numbers were not added until 1551 in a Greek NT based on Erasmus' 4th edition]

Now 1 John 5:7 is about the closest verse in the Bible that hints at a Trinity and yet that verse is not actually scripture, rather a footnote that was inserted into some texts fraudently. In scripture we find that Jesus himself never taught the Trinity, on the contrary he taught us that his Father is his God and our God see John 20:17 (English-NIV)

Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, `I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

John 10:29
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.

If we try to push a doctrine that is not biblical then the scriptures are there to correct us according to 2 Timothy 3:16 (English-NIV)

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

If we continue to push a false doctrine contrary to the scriptures then God hands us over to that way of thinking and we will reap the fruit of that doctrine. I have no problem understanding how some Christians got involved in worshipping Mary and the Saints. If we see men pushing to have the doctrine of the Trinity accepted then that pushing will complete its path and manifest to its extreme, so that not only is Jesus exalted to be equal with the Father but then we probably should exalt Mary as well, after all she is Jesus Mother and if Jesus is God then Mary must be the Mother of God and being the Mother of God means that she must also be sinless. And why not worship the saints after all if we can exalt Mary, then we should exalt the saints as they are legends and are worthy of special recognition?

I think history demonstrates to us that the wisdom of this doctrine is a false wisdom because the fruit of that doctrine is bad. God allows such things to mature so he can judge it and also to allow such thinking to be exposed in the light in order for creation to witness the result of such deception. In fact God does the same thing with the Devil and his children. Remember that Jesus wants the tares (children of the devil) and wheat (children of God) to mature so all can be understood so that all things can be judged. This is the harvest and the harvest is the end of the world.

TRUTH IN WORSHIP

This article is also on the Discussion forum here 

Jehovah, the God of the Bible is called the God of truth. (Psa. 31:5) Jesus said anyone who would worship Him, Jehovah, in an approved manner, would worship with spirit and truth. (John 4:23,24) God values truth; it would follow that anyone who would worship Him, would also hold truth as something to be highly esteemed. We find ourselves in a world that doesn’t value truth to the extent that meets God’s requirements. Most often it is held as a relative value; relative to comfort, relative to gain, relative to loss, relative to the acquisition or loss of power, relative to inconvenience, in fact this particular family has a lot of relatives. There are white lies, black lies, little lies, big lies, fibs, once again a large gathering of relatives.

It would be hoped that in the one professing to be a Christian, worshiping the True God, truth would be held in the highest esteem possible, especially regarding their worship. Unfortunately that isn’t so. There are many religions claiming to worship the True God today. All of them explain Him and worship Him differently, and so all of them can’t possibly have the truth about God, or at the very least, can’t be promoting the truth about God. If they haven’t taken the time to find out just what that truth is, and combine the wisdom that would have had to be acquired over the years, then the conclusion has to be drawn that they must value their own ideas more than they do Gods. Otherwise they would have waited for Him to prove to them what His ideas were.

(Proverbs 13:10) ¹⁰ By presumptuousness one only causes a struggle, but with those consulting together there is wisdom. . .

(Romans 10:1-3) 10 Brothers, the goodwill of my heart and my supplication to God for them are, indeed, for their salvation. ² For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God; but not according to accurate knowledge; ³ for, because of not knowing the righteousness of God but seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.

When someone takes something, and promotes it as God’s truth, without first making absolutely sure that God has actually taken that position, that is called presumptuousness. When someone explains God in a way that doesn’t take into account all of his attributes; in a way that actually doesn’t present Him as He wishes to be seen, that is a misrepresentation; a lie. That individual, or those individuals have placed themselves in a position contrary to Gods stated interests. Often people are more concerned with how a certain belief about God makes them feel, than they are about whether it is actually the truth.

One such belief is the trinity doctrine. For one thing it is extra-Biblical, it doesn’t have a place in the Bible. While many try to use certain verses to support their belief, the Bible itself doesn’t teach it. Someone might ask how this teaching makes certain ones comfortable, since it is so convoluted, so un-understandable in it’s description. (Athenasian Creed) For one thing, the very fact that it isn’t understandable, gives people the comfort that they can’t possibly understand God, and so how could they be expected to have a personal relationship, and be personally accountable to Him. They seek the comfort of ignorance and letting someone else have the authority to set the limits of their conscience. They don’t seem to understand that ignorance is a choice, not a condition. If they choose to not find out the truth, it is the same as deliberate disobedience.

Another belief that is common is the teaching that God will torment humans in a burning hell forever. Jehovah has presented Himself as a God of love, a God of Justice, a God of mercy. In their zeal to control the behavior of their followers, they have misrepresented Jehovah in this regard, painting Him as unjust, unmerciful, unbalanced, in His God-ship. The very thing Satan intimated to Eve in his temptation of her. NO not that God would torment her in a fiery hell, but that He was being unfair in His dealings with her. That He was withholding something from her unjustly, that would improve her life, her existence; same principal, different circumstance. In both cases God’s qualities of justice, fairness, balanced treatment of His creation is being called into question.

(Genesis 3:4-5) ⁴ At this the serpent said to the woman: “YOU positively will not die. ⁵ For God knows that in the very day of YOUR eating from it YOUR eyes are bound to be opened and YOU are bound to be like God, KNOWING good and bad.”

Is it important to make sure you represent God in a way that is both clear and can be supported by His teachings in the Bible, and His dealings with mankind?

(Matthew 7:21-23) ²¹ “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. ²² Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ ²³ And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness.

Or perhaps it is the subtle attraction of mysticism, that feeling of special privilege that only they, and those that they associate with, can have this special knowledge and, because of that, they too are something special, and all they had to do was “give themselves to the Lord” and bingo their future was assured.

(2 Thessalonians 2:8-12) . . .. ⁹ But the lawless one’s presence is according to the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and portents ¹⁰ and with every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth that they might be saved. ¹¹ So that is why God lets an operation of error go to them, that they may get to believing the lie, ¹² in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.

Whatever the reason, it isn’t truth as revealed by God’s word. Paul made this statement to the Corinthians…

(1 Corinthians 4:6) . . .”Do not go beyond the things that are written,” in order that YOU may not be puffed up individually in favor of the one against the other. . .

There was a situation that had developed in Corinth that required him to write those words. It was a specific circumstance dealing with things that were not compatible with the humility required to serve God properly. The principal of not going beyond the things written, though, goes beyond that specific application.

(Jeremiah 10:23) . . .I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.

(Ecclesiastes 5:1-2) 5 Guard your feet whenever you go to the house of the [true] God; and let there be a drawing near to hear, rather than to give a sacrifice as the stupid ones do, for they are not aware of doing what is bad. ² Do not hurry yourself as regards your mouth; and as for your heart, let it not be hasty to bring forth a word before the [true] God. For the [true] God is in the heavens but you are on the earth. That is why your words should prove to be few.

(2 Peter 3:15-16) ¹⁵ Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU, ¹⁶ speaking about these things as he does also in all [his] letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

It takes a certain humility; to let things, and people, and Jesus, and God, be what they are. No more; and certainly no less, in the case of Jesus and God. Wanting to appear to have special knowledge about something is always a temptation. Wanting to be considered wise and understanding can also be a pitfall. Seeming to have a special relationship with God, Jesus, important or well-known people, certain knowledge, even in subtle, underlying ways, is an impediment to knowledge of the truth, because your understanding of things will always be filtered through your view of things. A person’s priority about how things are understood, is the measure of their modesty and humility. Everyone strives to be at his or her best, but not everyone is satisfied with being just that, in others eyes. It is a symptom of imperfection. It can also be a character flaw; depending on how much influence it has in someone’s understanding of things, and behavior.

(John 5:39-40) ³⁹ “YOU are searching the Scriptures, because YOU think that by means of them YOU will have everlasting life; and these are the very ones that bear witness about me. ⁴⁰ And yet YOU do not want to come to me that YOU may have life.

Unfortunately most won’t take advantage of the opportunity to know truth. It isn’t that they don’t have the opportunity, just that they undervalue it.

(Proverbs 17:16) ¹⁶ Why is it that there is in the hand of a stupid one the price to acquire wisdom, when he has no heart?

(Proverbs 16:1) 16 To earthling man belong the arrangings of the heart, but from Jehovah is the answer of the tongue.

In the end no one can claim that they were misled. As Prov. 17:16 says that even someone stupid has the capability to acquire true wisdom, it’s just that his or her heart isn’t in it. If they are misled, it is because they don’t value truth enough to search for it, they don’t value it enough, to not settle for less. Prov. 16:1 shows that God has given man free will, but in the end, Jehovah will hold him accountable.

Does everyone have the opportunity to please god? The answer has to be yes; otherwise God is not just. Do we know the limits of God’s mercy? In some cases yes; in most cases no. What God will, in the end, decide to forgive is not known, all we can know is that it will take the form of perfect, Godly, love, justice, and mercy.

Pointers to prayer

THE RIGHT WAY TO PRAY

In Philippians 4:6 it says, Do not be anxious over anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication along with thanksgiving let your petitions be made known to God. Basically prayer is simply talking to God just like you would talk to your very best friend. God cares deeply about each and every one of our problems and is just waiting for us to come to him with those problems. The Bible tells us over and over to constantly bring our problems to our Heavenly Father. Prayer is not to inform God of something which He may not be aware of or to try to convince Him to love us more. He already knows our needs and He has certainly shown his love. Prayer’s purpose is to assist us in building our relationship with God.

Why should we pray?
Prayer unleashes Gods’s power so that he is able to work in our behalf. Prayer opens the channels of God’s blessing. Prayer is how God accomplishes the things that he wants to see happen in our lives. Prayer opens new doors of opportunity for God to move. In fact you can view prayer like a door. You are on one side of a closed door and on the other side is God. But standing with God is all this incredible and unimaginable power. When you pray, it is you turning that doorknob and swinging that door wide open. For it is at that moment when all that power can step through that doorway and work for God’s good, and for your good.

Since he respects our freedom of choice and free will, prayer enables him to step into our lives. God has limited his powers in our lives to the importance that we place on prayer. Prayer gives God the permission to do what he has been longing to do all the time. Even when we do not see anything significant occurring, God is still at work solving the problem. When there are apparently no answers, God is still is waiting for the proper time to give us the solution.

Psalm 55:22 Throw every burden upon God.
Psalm 68:19 Blessed be Our God who daily carries the load for us.
Psalm 56:9 This I well know, that God is for me.

There are four basic steps involved in the proper way to pray.

1–Bring the problem to God’s attention immediately. But always keep the problem God centered and not problem centered.
2–Supplication. The definition of supplication is—a very honest and clear confession that tells God that you need his help.
3–Then focus on God and not on the problem. Keep in mind that our prayers are always to be God centered.
4–Thanksgiving. You are thankful because you know the following about our great and mighty and glorious God.

• That you can come to the Father with your problems anytime
• That he is concerned about you
• That he loves you
• That he said that he would help you
• That he will see you through this problem
• That he has the power to solve this problem
• That you trust him 100%

God is just waiting for you to talk to him, waiting just for those few brief moments when you acknowledge him, think about him, and show him some love and respect. Yes, your God is just waiting for you to talk to him and he desperately wants to talk to you, not in words, but through your mind and your heart. God is going to bypass the vocal cords and the ear and instead your heart will feel that gentle tugging, that urging, that pulling. Your heart and mind will know exactly what God is trying to tell you.

Most people expect God to answer them in some divine way or somehow speak to them verbally out of the heavens, but that isn’t the way God operates. God speaks to a persons heart. To their mind. To their sense of moral righteousness and fairness. To their sense of what is right and Godly. And those methods of communication that God uses are extremely loud and clear. The person that has found Jesus and who has Jesus Christ dwelling within them, is listening to Our Lord talk constantly to their heart, conscience, soul, and spirit. The true child of God can hear God speak just as clearly as if God was standing right along side of them verbally talking to them. But before God can begin to talk to you, something must happen. You have to be receptive to God’s words. You have to begin to communicate with God and listen for God to speak. You have to get your heart in the right condition.

Many people ask the question, why bother to listen to God, because God always seems to work in such mysterious ways. They say that they have absolutely no idea how or why God does what he does. But for the true believer, God’s ways are not mysterious. His ways are not concealed behind smoke and mirrors. It is just the opposite. Because once you begin to understand Jesus Christ, once you begin to learn what he is all about, once you begin to understand what he is trying to do in this world and in your life, once you begin to understand the tremendous importance that he holds for all of mankind, then his actions will not be mysterious. In fact that’s when his ways become crystal clear. For that is when the veil over your eyes has been lifted. Now the true believer will actually be able to predict what God is going to do in a great many situations.

God wants each believer to know what he expects from them, and what each believer can expect from God. That is why Jesus was speaking to all believers down through all the ages when he said the following. Mark 4:11 “And He said to them, To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God.”

But to get to this point there must be tremendous desire within the heart of the believer. A desire to put in the time and make the effort in a lifetime search for Godly truth. Few mysteries will be able to stand up against an onslaught of this magnitude. So be prepared for God to speak to you, and when he speaks to you he wants you to listen. There are always two people involved in prayer. You and God. So prayer should never be a monologue, but rather prayer should always be a dialogue.

You may wonder just how he will speak to you, just why he would speak to you, and just what methods he uses to do his speaking. Generally there are four reasons why he speaks to you and there are four basic methods that he uses.

REASONS HE SPEAKS TO YOU

• God desires to have fellowship with us. We are his most precious creation and he loves us dearly. Each and every one of us is a child of God.
• God knows that we constantly need direction in our travels through life.
• God realizes we need comfort and assurance in order to get through all the trials and tribulations of this mean and cruel world.
• God wants us to get to know him.

METHODS HE USES TO SPEAK TO YOU

• God speaks to us through his Word. He uses the Bible as his foremost tool to impart truth.
• God speaks through the Holy Spirit who is with us every second of the day.
• God speaks to us through other believers.
• God speaks to us through divine circumstances. We are all living under heavenly guidance, and if you look closely you will see the hand of God written upon many of the wonderful things that come into your life.

SEVEN THINGS TO ASK YOURSELF EACH TIME YOU PRAY.
Each and every time that you pray, you should ask yourself how the things that you are praying for fit in and affect the following seven conditions.

1) Will the thing that I am praying for meet my Godly personal needs and will it fit in with a just and righteous life style, or is it superfluous and just born of the flesh?
2) Am I being submissive to God’s will, and will I gladly accept what ever God is willing to give me, if anything. Is your spirit one of absolute submission to his will? Can you say, not my will Father, but let your will be done?
3) If my prayer is answered will the result honor God?
4) Will it harm or hurt someone else or will it interfere in another person’s life.
5) Will it please God. Will what you pray for delight God?
6) Does my request contradict or conflict with the Word of God in anyway.
7) Will it further my spiritual growth. Will what I pray for bring me closer to God?

YOU MUST ALSO REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THREE THINGS WHEN IT COMES TO PRAYER.
FAITH—You must have complete faith in God.
OBEDIENCE—You must obey God fully and completely.
PATIENCE—You must wait patiently on God, for we are all on his schedule.

WHY IS SO MUCH PRAYER NEVER ANSWERED?
Because we center on the problem and not on God. We tell God what to do. We talk about only the problem and not about the greatness of God. We tend to talk in terms of “me” and “I“. We don’t talk or think about God, just ourselves and our troubles. We begin our prayers with both hands out, and we still have them out when we finish our prayers. Unfortunately when most people pray there is no praise being spoken. No thankfulness being given. No glory being expressed. No honor or adoration being shown.

James understood this pitfall of incorrect praying when he wrote James 4:3. “You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly“. So tell God the problem and then focus on God. God can’t wait to solve your problems. God loves to work out difficulties in our lives and if you keep your focus on God, then one way or another he will solve that problem. This is what the Lord meant when he proclaimed in Matthew 11:28, “Come to me, all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give your rest.”

Also, we tend to burn out when our prayers are aimed at negative things that we are trying to avoid. If all we do is talk to God about how horrible and terrible our problem is, then all we do is become more depressed, and get more discouraged. We become more agitated and we have more anxiety. Then the problem becomes bigger and bigger and as it grows it takes on a life of its own. What God wants us to do most is focus on positive aspects and powers of God. Think about how God is all powerful and all knowing. Focus on his amazing attributes and qualities. Describe his wonderful characteristics. Read passages from the Bible which describe the greatness of God and his ability to do absolutely incredible things. Think about our God who is able to do everything from walk on water to raise the dead, and then ask yourself if he is not able to solve your problem?

Also read a few Bible passages that describe God helping people out of extremely difficult situations. Tell God how loving and wonderful he is and that he has only your best interests at heart and that his solution to the problem may be so much better than the solution you would like to see happen. In other words don’t pray to the problem, pray to the solution of that problem. Because when you focus on God, God will focus on your problem. Remember God is a solution centered being and he can solve any problem – just put your complete faith and trust in him. For when you pray to God, he hears much more than your words. He is also listening to your heart.

No one likes the trials and tribulations that suddenly show up in our lives. But if we keep our eyes focused upon Jesus Christ, then we can know without a doubt that there is a wonderful solution available for each and every problem that enters into our lives. That even though it looks like there is no possible way out of this difficulty, our all powerful loving Heavenly Father can solve that problem with absolutely no trouble at all. And he will do just that if we just stay focused on him.

The Word of God describes the many hundreds of times when God came to those that needed his help. He came to their aid because they kept their focus on God. When Jehoshaphat, the King of Israel realized suddenly that three huge separate armies were coming against him to destroy him and his people, the very first thing he did was turn his full attention to God, and he told God that his country was completely defenseless and that they desperately needed his help. He also told God about another thing that the nation of Israel was doing.
2 Chronicles 20:12 “O our God, we are powerless against this great multitude that is coming against us. We do not know what to do, but our eyes are on you.”

God gave Jehoshaphat this answer.
2 Chronicles 20:17 “You will not need to fight in this battle. Position yourselves, stand still and see the salvation of the Lord who is with you. Do not fear or be dismayed; tomorrow go out, for the Lord is with you.”

The result? Without a single sword being drawn, without a single spear being thrust, without a single arrow being fired, Almighty God in his incredible way, allowed the three armies to begin to squabble among themselves. This led to skirmishes breaking out throughout all three armies, with the result being that the three armies wound up completely destroying each other. These pagan and wicked armies, sent by evil people, completely destroyed each other. Every single enemy soldier, from all three of those armies, laid dead on the battlefield. And this all happened because Israel had kept their focus and attention on God.

Another thing you might do if you have a specific problem is to do a Bible word search, or get a concordance and do a search for every verse in the Bible that relates to that specific problem. Then meditate and examine each of those verses. Read and discuss each verse with God and ask him to do for you, what he has done for others having similar problems. As an example suppose you have a health problem. Then look up all the verses that relate to sickness, health, illness, affliction, disease, affirmity, disorder, malady, sickness, ailment, condition, ailing, unhealthy, ill, infirmity, and anything else that you think deals with illness. If you search hard enough you will be amazed at the verses that you will find. If the problem is one of health you will find verses like the following.

Exodus 23:25 “So you shall serve the Lord your God, and I will bless your bread and your water. And I will take sickness away from the midst of you.”

Jeremiah 33:6 Behold, I will bring health and healing; I will heal them and reveal to them the abundance of peace and truth.”

Matthew 9:35 “Then Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.”

Matthew 10:1 “And when He had called His twelve disciples to Him, He gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease.”

Jeremiah 30:17 For I will restore health to you, and heal you of your wounds, says the Lord.”

Deuteronomy 7:15 “And the Lord will take away from you all sickness, and will afflict you with none of the terrible diseases of Egypt.”

To do the above is going to take some effort on your part, but think of how much joy God is going to have when he sees one of his children working hard in this effort. And then think of the blessings that he just may reward you with.”

The Bible is jammed full of examples of the power of prayer. The power that comes when a person just simply opens up their heart and talks to God. A typical example is King Hezekiah, one of many Kings of Judah. He reigned over the Jews in Jerusalem for 29 years. He was a God fearing and a God loving King who really tried very hard to do all that was Godly. In fact in 2 Kings 18:3, it says this of King Hezekiah. “And he did what was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father David had done.”

But then one day King Hezekiah fell sick and was on his death bed, so he called the mighty prophet Isaiah to find out if indeed he was going to die. And here is what Isaiah told the king.
2 Kings 20:1 “In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him, Thus says the Lord: Set your house in order, for you shall die, and not live.”

King Hezekiah had no where to turn. It was completely hopeless. He was going to die. But look at what he did. He opened up his heart, fully and completely, and he reached down into the deepest regions of his heart, and began to carry on a prayerful conversation with God.
2 Kings 20:2-3 “Then he turned his face toward the wall, and prayed to the Lord, saying, Remember now, O Lord, I pray, how I have walked before You in truth and with a loyal heart, and have done what was good in Your sight.” And Hezekiah wept profusely.”

And what was the result of this prayerful conversation with God?
2 Kings 20:4-6 “And it happened, before Isaiah had gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, Return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: “I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord. And I will add to your days fifteen years. I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for My own sake, and for the sake of My servant David.”

Fifteen years may not seem like a great deal, but to one who is on their death bed, 15 years of additional life is truly a miraculous gift from God himself.

When trials and tribulations come into our lives there is a tremendous temptation to immediately begin to worry and become fearful. However worry and anxiety do not bring clarity. Instead, they simply cloud our minds and prevent us from seeing God’s solution. All fear and worry do, is paralyze us. But you can prevent mental distress from ever coming into your life, if you look to Jesus Christ the very moment a difficult time enters your life. If you can immediately concentrate on the Son Of God and not on the problem, then worry and fear will never be able to gain a foothold. If we are able to do that then verses like the following will become very, very evident. Psalm 34:19 “Many are the afflictions of the righteous, But the Lord delivers them out of them all”.

Prayer changes us, not God. Prayer opens our hearts and minds to the greater and wiser will of God. Through prayer, God gives us strength to better reflect his character of love when we are tested. Through prayer God gives us courage and peace to trust in his control over matters that are beyond our control. One of the hardest things to believe is that God is intimately involved in our lives when everything is going wrong in our life. But what prayer does is transform doubt into trust.

WHY WE SHOULD TRUST GOD

• My God is right here all the time.
• My God loves me unconditionally.
• My God will listen to me.
• He will help me.
• He will hear me.
• He will give me peace.
• He will solve my problems.
• He keeps his promises.

Just imagine that you had an extremely difficult and serious problem and there didn’t seem to be any possible solution, when suddenly our loving Heavenly Father walks up to you and says, “Can I help you in any way? I would just love to be of assistance to you“. What a glorious moment. Now you realize that this problem is history. What seemed so unsolvable a minute ago, will now be solved by the Creator himself. Would you not instantly forget about the problem and do nothing but think about God’s greatness? Would you not immediately begin to praise and thank him. Instead of worrying any longer about the problem, would you not take tremendous joy and pleasure in his great power, love, and glory? So please remember that this loving God is standing beside you every second of the day and night. For God, there are solutions to all problems, and he is the one that has those solutions. And he cannot wait to solve every one of your problems. All you need to do is to ask him and trust him and focus on him.

HOW TO TALK TO GOD
In Matthew 6:7, the Lord tells us something very interesting concerning the times when we pray. “When praying, do not say the same thing over and over again, just as the heathens do, for they think that they shall be heard for their use of many words.”

Just imagine for a moment if your spouse, or one of your children, or your best friend came to you and told you that they wanted to tell you something. But after they told you what they wanted to tell you, they then repeated the same thing over and over. And to make matters worse they did this every single time that they spoke to you. After an hour, or a few days, or a month, wouldn’t you get turned off and just ignore this ridiculous type of conversation? Wouldn’t you want to just get away from this boring and bothersome experience?

When you talk to God he doesn’t want the same prayer over and over. When you repeat something like that, the prayer has lost its meaning and borders on being just worthless conversation. You could get a tape recorder and just record your message over and over and then leave it running. That way you could save yourself alot of time and do other things all the while your supposedly praying. Plus, when you repeat the same prayer over and over you will usually find that your mind wanders to many other things the whole time that you are saying the prayer.

God doesn’t want to hear memorized prayers that someone else wrote. He wants to hear your prayers coming in your own words and coming straight from your very own heart. You need to talk to God as if he were your very best friend, because he is. Your prayers should come from your heart and should be a conversation between you and God. It should be as if your prayers are getting ready to burst out of you and you can hardly wait to talk to God.

The Our Father prayer that Jesus taught his disciples in Matthew Chapter 6 was simply an example or an outline on how to pray. If you examine this prayer while you read it, you will observe an incredible relationship that has been built up between the Son and his Father. You will also see not only communication and conversation between the two, but also much honor and praise that is being given, forgiveness that is being requested, complete trust being placed in the Father’s hands, the recognition of incredible power, the awareness of great glory, and the proclaiming of supreme authority.

Matthew 6:9-13
Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.

Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen

If you are going to take the time to say a prayer, then the prayer that you say better come from the deepest part of your heart. If you really think about it, anything else is completely meaningless. So talk to him in detail about your needs, hopes, dreams, joys, and everything else that is having any kind of importance or effect on your life.

Prayer is our lifeline to God.
We should tell him our thoughts, desires, hurts, and problems, as well as giving him our thanks and praises. He wants to hear them all from us. He already knows what they are but he wants us to tell them to him. Also remember that God’s help may come about in steps or stages. Your request to the Father may involve and have impact on the lives of many, many others, both now and in the future. Therefore you may not receive immediately all that you request from him, but the tide has turned the very moment that you turned to him. Whenever you cast all of your care and concern upon him and rely upon him totally to supply your needs and to show you how you are to live, he is quick to respond.

Giving God our thanks is part of praying
Imagine for a moment that you do something really nice for a person you care about. However that person doesn’t give you the slightest recognition or acknowledgment. That person simply accepts what ever you did for them, and without a word, simply walks away. Would you be eager to do the next nice thing for that person? And if you did another nice thing, and there was again not the vaguest hint of acknowledgment or thankfulness, would you continue to do nice things for that unthankful and rather selfish person?

God is just like us. We were made in his image and his likeness and the Bible tells us repeatedly that he is very active in our lives. We are his children, and because of his love for us, he allows many wonderful things to come into our lives each and every day. God loves to bless his children, and if you consider that God is almighty and that nothing in this world happens without his permission, then those wonderful things that happen to you in the course of a day, has to be allowed by God. How do you know that God didn’t engineer a simple thing like finding a parking space that is up real close to the store you want to go in? Or on a busy day at the supermarket when you are in a real big hurry, could God have created that one and only empty line at the check out? If someone fixes you an absolutely wonderful meal, how can you tell that God wasn’t behind it? Could God have been responsible for giving you that extra second that you needed which prevented a terrible car crash? Could God have planned the way for that promotion, that excellent news from the doctor, or that wonderful friend that you met?

Could God be behind that warm and loving memory that gives you such incredible peace and joy? Was God the guiding force that assembled your family? Does God make sure your health, and the health of your love ones, stays excellent? Was it God that got you through school and guided the way to your employment? Was God the one responsible for softening your harden heart so that you became aware of his glorious presence? Is God the one giving you that extra strength that enables you to endure that trial or tribulation? Is God the one behind the effort to get you to lead a Godly life which will guide you up to, and through the gates of his paradise?

Many people would simply pass all of the above off as pure luck or fate, and that God is not involved in any of it. But, if they are wrong and they refuse to thank God when good things happen to them, then I think that they may be doing themselves a great disservice, and you have to wonder if the blessings will continue. Much of the Bible talks about thanking and praising God as the following verses indicate.

Psalms 95:2 “Let us come into his presence with thanksgiving; let us make a joyful noise to him with praise.”

Ephesians 5:20 giving thanks always, for all things, to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”.

1 Thessalonians 5:18 “In everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus”.

Psalms 100:4 “Enter into His gates with thanksgiving, And into His courts with praise. Be thankful to Him, and bless His name“.

Hebrews 13:15 “Therefore, let us continually offer to God the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.”

Psalms 97:12 “Rejoice in the Lord, And give thanks“.

Praying for others.
When we pray for others, we become partners with God in his work of salvation, healing, comfort, and justice. God can certainly accomplish those things without us, but he gives us the privilege of being involved with him through prayer. When we intercede for a friend in trouble, a mother having surgery, a neighbor who needs Christ, a family in financial trouble, even a country lost in sin, we are asking God to please use his awesome powers to provide, to help, to fix. We are acting as a go between, asking God to direct his power in a specific direction.

The Word of God is just loaded with a great many instances where a single person, through Godly prayerful communication with God, touched the heart of God, and in turn brought about incredible changes in the lives of others. My favorite example is when God wanted to destroy every single Jew in Israel except for Moses, and then build a brand new nation of Israel. We can find this story in the Book of Exodus.

Exodus 32:1-6 “Now when the people saw that Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, the people gathered together to Aaron, and said to him, Come, make us gods that shall go before us; for as Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him. And Aaron said to them, Break off the golden earrings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me. So all the people broke off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them to Aaron. And he received the gold from their hand, and he fashioned it with an engraving tool, and made a molded calf. Then they said, This is our god, O Israel, that has brought us out of the land of Egypt! Then they rose early on the next day, offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.”

So while Moses was up getting the 10 commandments, the people of Israel turned their backs on God and were off making and worshipping false gods. Not only that, but the Israelites were giving complete credit to a false idol for bringing them out of Egyptian slavery. What was God’s response? Needless to say God was angry and he tells Moses what he is going to do in the next few verses.

Exodus 32:7-10 “And the Lord said to Moses, Go, get down! For your people whom you brought out of the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves. They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them. They have made themselves a molded calf, and worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said, ‘This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt! And the Lord said to Moses, I have seen this people, and indeed they are a stubborn people! Now then, let me alone, that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation.”

God was about to destroy the entire nation of Israel. He was going to destroy every man, woman, and child. The only one not destroyed was going to be Moses. But through Godly prayerful conversation, look what Moses tells God.

Exodus 32:11-14 “Then Moses pleaded with the Lord his God, and said: Lord, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and relent from this harm to Your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever. So the Lord relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.”

As you can see, prayer is communicating with God. Prayer is a “one on one” conversation with the only person who many times is the only one who can help. Prayer is conversation from the deepest part of your heart to the Almighty Creator. Prayer is telling God what is on your mind and what is in your heart.

And because of that one single prayer that Moses said to God, look what happened. Exodus 12:37 tells us that there was well over 600,000 able bodied men so it is estimated that there were approximately one and half million people if you consider the wives and all the children. And Moses, through a single intercessory prayer, saved the lives of every single one of them. That’s the power of prayer.

In fact, if you want to experience an instantaneous jolt of God’s great love, then the next time that you pray for someone, or do any charitable act, thank and praise God. Tell him that you are so very grateful to him for giving YOU this oportunity to help one of his children in need. Tell him that you are so very thankful to him for allowing YOU to help another human being. Get down on your knees and thank him for this extraordinary opportunity that he has given you, to help alleviate the pain and suffering of a fellow man. Then get ready, because God in his incredible power, will fill your spirit, soul, and heart, with utter joy, love, and peace.

Proper and effective prayer is not only praying and talking to God but it is also focusing on him. If I focus solely on the problem then my prayers stand a good chance of not being answered. Calling on God in prayer tells God that I have knowledge of him, that I have faith in him, that I have desire toward him, that I am dependent on him, and that I want to be obedient to him.

Also think about teaching yourself to do certain things each and every time you pray. As an example, each time you pray ask God for forgiveness for recent sins. Each time you pray pledge a renewed effort towards repentance of those sins. Each time you pray ask him to bring new Godly knowledge into your mind so that you can grow in spiritual maturity. If you examine your heart a little, you can probably find a great many things that you need to talk to God about each and every time you pray.

Why don’t we pray more?
I think that probably the four biggest reasons why we don’t spend very much time in prayer are:

• We are too busy to spend time in prayer.
  We have too much taking place in our hectic lives so we put prayer completely out of our minds. We tell ourselves that we will pray after doing the shopping, and after we do the shopping then we tell ourselves that the praying is going to have to wait till after we watch that important program on tv. Then we put prayer off till after dinner and then we tell ourselves that we will pray at bedtime. And of course when bedtime rolls around we are much to tired to concentrate so we better put prayer off till tomorrow. Soon we train our minds to avoid even thinking about prayer. We can now go months without the slightest thought about prayer. And when the thought of prayer happens to slip into our consciousness, then we simply fall back on the old, “I’ll pray right after I do………… That is simply ignoring and disrespecting God.
• The second reason why many of us seldom if ever pray is that we look upon prayer as inactivity.
  We need to do something that we can see right now. We want immediate solutions to immediate problems, so we don’t want to wait around for God to do something because we never know how long he may take. We want instant results and we think that we can usually obtain them by our own efforts. We’ll try everything that we can think of and if nothing that we try works, then we will pray and ask God.
• The third reason why many of us seldom pray is that we don’t feel it’s effective.
  We prayed many times in the past and we feel that God never answered any of our prayers. We prayed that loved ones would not die and sure enough they died. We prayed that we would get this grade on a test, or that we would accomplish that goal, or that we would get that job, or that we would meet that perfect someone, and none of them ever happened. We reason that God either doesn’t like us or he is far to busy with other matters. We fail to realize that God has very specific plans for each and every one of us, that he is attempting to mold us into something that he wants us to be. We forget that we are on his time schedule and that his goals may be completely different than our goals. We don’t think about the fact that only God can see our entire future nor do we stop and think that what we see as good, may in fact be disastrous to us and to others. We may many times be just like that small infant wanting desperately to put that glittering and colorful piece of broken glass in its mouth. And the infant cannot for the world understand why the mother quickly removes the piece of glass, thus preventing the little child from enjoying it.The real irony is that most believers trust God for their eternal salvation, but they don’t trust him for their day-to-day needs. And so, unless it is a catastrophic problem, they will abandon God when it comes to most daily matters.
• And the fourth reason is that talking to God makes us uncomfortable.
  We may find ourselves uncomfortable talking to or even thinking about God for a great many reasons. It may be that in the back of our minds we know that we are unrepentant sinners, and that we just don’t want to give up those sins, at least not yet. And if we start to talk to God he may just change our attitude toward those sins and get us to change our ways and our life style, and if that happens then we will miss out on all the pleasures those sins bring us. Others may feel uncomfortable because of the shame and guilt that they will feel once they open their hearts up to God. Those hurtful and embarrassing memories of all those many sins that they have spent years mentally burying, may once again rise to the surface and cause a great deal of emotional pain. What they fail to realize however is that their prayers will be directed straight to the great healer. To the healer who promises to bring us great peace.

So prayer is hard work, but our communication with God is as essential to our spiritual well being, as breathing is to our physical life.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful to be able to peer into heaven and see God listening to all the prayers coming into heaven and then watch as he assigns heavenly angels to each and every one of these prayers. Millions and millions of prayers being assigned every second to groups of angels all simultaneously. And among this tremendous work load, everything is orderly and flowing so very, very smoothly.

Think of sitting in on a meeting of a large group of angels who are assigned to only one prayer, maybe one of your prayers. Think of the joy you would have listening to the solutions that are brought up and of the repercussions and consequences being discussed for each of the possible solutions. Watch as non vocal advice is constantly flowing out from God to all the angels at that meeting. You notice how each piece of advice and every single solution is done with only Godly well being in mind. You beam with joy as you see so much heavenly effort and care going into just one of your prayers.

And then you suddenly begin to see and understand that what you were praying for was going to be completely wrong for you and your life out in the future. In fact it would have been disastrous to many others had you gotten what you wanted. You watch as the angels arrive at a completely different but a fantastic solution, a solution that won’t take place right now but will in the near future, and this solution is just absolutely great.

All this has taken place in less time than it takes for an eye to blink. But you notice that as the angels arrived at their solution, God has received the solution simultaneously from the angels and has said, “What a terrific solution. That’s exactly what I was thinking”. And then you watch as the solution is gathered up by a group of angels and brought down from heaven and is safely held by the angels to await that moment in time when that solution can be implemented into your life.

How to be happy

1. Keep your thought process and think positive. If you catch yourself thinking that things aren’t going to work out, then think again. Remember that most things work out better than you fear – so imagine that your fears are ungrounded and that success is ahead. Rather than thinking of the problems and getting desperate, imagine the best outcome and then work out what you need to do to make that happen. Follow your “inner guidance system.” If the thoughts you are thinking are not giving you a good feeling, then think about something else that will make you feel good in that moment. Monitor your thoughts consistently throughout the day. Sometimes this may not be as easy as you think if you are stuck in a “negative” train of thought and your brain chemicals are getting fired up and forming an “anxiety or anger” pathway. Anxiety, fear and anger patterns can be interrupted by focusing on doing a math problem, counting backwards, counting in odd numbers, doing a sudoku puzzle, etc. – this will dissipate the rush of chemicals that are making you feel bad. Immediately then go back to picturing scenes/remembering things/imagining, planning stuff that makes you feel good.
2. Volunteer and learn to be a giver. It is possible giving time and resources to others who need them will contribute more to your happiness and positive outlook on life than most anything else. The key to successful family relationships is sacrificing time for others. Give of your time to your spouse and give yourself up for him/her. Devote time and resources to your children and recognize they are your most valuable worldly asset. The happiest days of our lives, when we really dig down deep, is when we see the smile on the face of a child who has nothing and you have given them something of immense value to them such as reading them a book, it means you love them enough to give of your time. Serve at a rescue mission and you will learn the meaning of “I cried because I had no shoes and then I saw a man who had no legs.” Give and it will be given unto you. Isn’t it true the happiest people we know are typically the ones who for some foolish reason are always ready to give you the clothes off of their back? And frequently it is true that the most discontented people are the ones who are selfish, demanding, and inconsiderate of others. So form the habit of being a Big Giver and you will know one of the secrets to successful happy living.
3. See the world for what it really is. You have friends and family that love you. Learn How to be thankful. Think of all the things you have to be happy about. Relax, calm down, take things slower. No one has everything, and everyone has something of sorrow intermingled with gladness of life. The trick is to make the laughter outweigh the tears. We cannot change the past, but we can enjoy today, and look to the future. But if we are prepared to take credit for the past and accept that everything that happened in our life, good and bad, has made us the person we are – the battle is half won.
4. Lighten up. Don’t take yourself too seriously. Stress can cause many mental, physical, and spiritual problems in your life. One of the major causes of stress is worrying about things that are out of your control. Learn to recognize these things and if you can truly do nothing about them, then just let them go. Take time to laugh at yourself and the situations you find yourself in. Laughter is a powerful, positive medicine and the calmer and more peaceful you can take things, the happier your life will be.
5. Be yourself. You can’t please everybody. Don’t let criticism worry you. Don’t compare yourself to other people – at work or in your personal life. In the first place, no one knows what other people are going through. More importantly, when you compare yourself to other people, you always tend to see yourself on the “short end”. So this is never a good or helpful thing for you to do. One way to get in touch with yourself is through journaling. The goal is to open up completely to yourself and learn to be your best friend by knowing that the truth (to yourself) will set you free from fear! Practice self-acceptance no matter what. Never do something you’re not comfortable with. You’ll respect yourself for sticking to your guns, and that self-respect will make you happy.
6. Make a scheduled time every day for relaxation. This is a good time to go over any therapy that you’re working on. Having a “relaxation” time or a “quiet time” every day strengthens you, allows the stress and tension in your life to evaporate, and keeps you more on a positive, even keel.
7. Get a job you love. If you have a job you hate or dislike, seriously consider changing your job, or even changing careers. Having a job that makes you look forward to your day when you wake up in the morning is critical to a happy, fulfilled life. Making special time to enjoy interests, hobbies, and family, not only makes life happier, but helps us be more productive on the job.
8. Develop a strong relationship with your family. That includes trust. If you are in an abusive family, you must find a way to stop the abuse that may include separation. If you want a stronger relationship with your family, you’re going to need to be honest with them. Tell your family about your life and don’t insult them – it hurts them just as much as it hurts you to be insulted.
9. Choose the right companion. Get involved with activities that reflect who you are, and get to know people who like the things you do. Don’t rule out the Internet as a place to find a significant other, just get to know them over the phone or through a few months of emails before agreeing to a meeting in person.
10. Choose your friends carefully. Nearly everyone needs someone who cares for them and treats them well. If you have friends who are treating you badly, then ditch them and find friends that do care about you. If you can’t find any friends like that in your current circumstances, then look elsewhere. If you’re feeling sad, there’s nothing like going out with your friends to make you feel better. Surround yourself with friends who are positive, encouraging, and helpful. We all need this continuing, positive encouragement to make solid positive progress in life.
11. Do what you can for those less fortunate than yourself. Volunteer at a hospital or be a part of a program, which take care of patients in some way. When you leave the hospital, you will be so much happier knowing that you’ve done something meaningful, something someone else can appreciate.
12. Wish the best for others and mean it. It is so easy to be jealous and petty and forget to celebrate the good fortune of your coworkers, friends and family.
13. Keep learning. Whether it is a new hobby or a new dance, just keep learning something that interests you. Just find a new interest and go for it!! It will give you something to keep you occupied, and a new outlook on life.
14. Set goals. Live up to them. When you accomplish a goal, it’s a great feeling. If you put all your failures down to other people, you put yourself in their power. Take responsibility for when things go wrong in your life.
15. Be healthy. Give your body and mind what it most needs in order to function in an “optimal” way. “Optimal” in this case means being the healthiest you can be, and the most psychologically balanced you can be. Eat a healthy, balanced diet and ensure that you get all the vital vitamins and minerals that your body requires for its optimal biochemical functioning. Supplement your diet with the appropriate vitamins and minerals if necessary. Get plenty of exercise. This will prompt the production of the “feel good” hormones that make you feel happy (endorphins). Plus, there are all the other obvious fitness and disease fighting benefits, too numerous to mention here.
16. Strive for long term goals vs. short term satisfaction. It is very easy to gain short term satisfaction, a quick high, a fast relief from your current problems. But it is what it is , a “short term” satisfaction, its effects die out very soon, leaving you again with this empty feeling. Set long term goals, set a goal which takes some time, some thought, some effort to achieve. This will make you continually work towards improving yourself bit by bit and will give you the satisfaction of bringing a permanent change in your life. A permanent revolution.
17. Understand that life can really be a joke and you just have to laugh with it.
18. Sometimes the best way to feel happy is to feel despair and the only way out is to laugh at the shambles of a predicament you’re in.
19. Cut out beautiful pictures and paste them into a scrapbook.
20. Create something, be it some artwork (no matter how bad or good), sing your heart out, dance manically until your feet and body give way or perhaps cook a delicious meal for people you love.
21. Deeply breathe in fresh air.
22. Learn how to feel and experience all your different senses in the best possible way: sight, sound, taste, touch, smell.
23. Walk down the street and greet your neighbours with a smile, a nod and a greeting.
24. Enjoy the sunshine, enjoy the air.
25. Say hello to every one with a smile.