“They Crucified Him”
Introduction.
Matthew
27:35 records the simple words: “Then they crucified Him, and divided His
garments, casting lots” (NKJV). These few words record what was in the same
moment…
·
The
most horrific and yet
·
The
most wondrous event this world has ever known.
Yet
what do we know about this? Do we really understand the scope of what Christ
endured for us?
The
apostle Paul spoke of “the offense of the cross” (Gal. 5:11). The Roman
statesman Cicero called crucifixion, “the most miserable and most painful
punishment appropriate to slaves alone” (Against Verres, 2.5.169). Crucifixion
was not considered an honorable way to die, and yet the Lord of all the
universe poured out His life on a cross.
My
brother, Curtis Pope has suggested, “Knowledge of the process of crucifixion
certainly adds profound meaning to Matthew 27:35 which in understated fashion
simply mentions ‘when they had crucified Him’ to record the horrors” of
the cross (“Taking Up the Cross,” 152). In this lesson I would like for us to
explore what it really means when the Holy Spirit records for us the simple
words “they crucified Him.”
I.
Roman Crucifixion. It is often suggested
that crucifixion was a Roman innovation. That is not strictly correct.
A.
In the period between the Old and New Testament…
1.The
Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes practiced crucifixion (Josephus, Antiquities
12.5.4).
2.
The Hasmonean ruler Alexander Jannaeus crucified 800 men (Ibid. 13.14.2).
B.
The Qumran text known as the Temple Scroll commands “hanging on wood”
(thought to be an allusion to crucifixion) as the punishment for treason
(11QTemple 64.6-13).
C.
The procedure of Roman crucifixion. It usually involved three phases. Dr.
Anthony Sava lists these as: 1) Flagellation (a severe scourging
intended to weaken the victim). 2. Crucifixion (the actual binding of
the victim to a cross); and finally. 3. Crurifragium (breaking the legs
of the victim to hasten death) (Sava, “The Wound in the Side of Christ,” 343).
1.
Flagellation (or scourging) could be administered alone, but it was
often the first stage of crucifixion. The severity of the scourging determined
the time the victim spent on the cross.
a.
Eusebius records accounts of witnesses to the scourging of Christians in the
second century seeing their bodies torn to such a degree that their “entrails,
and organs were exposed to sight” (Ecclesiastical History 4.15.4).
b.
Jesus experienced this (Mark 15:15).
2.
Crucifixion. When a victim was finally put on the cross, crucifixion was
usually a slow and lingering death. Horace described ravens feeding on the
bodies that hung on a cross (Epistles. 1.16.48).
a.
Seneca wrote: “Can anyone be found who would prefer wasting away in pain dying
limb by limb, or letting out his life drop by drop, rather than expiring once
for all? Can any man be found willing to be fastened to the accursed tree, long
sickly, already deformed, swelling with ugly wounds on shoulders and chest, and
drawing the breath of life amid long drawn-out agony? He would have many
excuses for dying even before mounting the cross” (Moral Epistles to
Lucilius 101.14).
3.
Breaking Legs. We will talk about this a little latter.
II.
The Instruments of Crucifixion.
A.
Types of Crosses. There were
different forms of crosses that were used.
1. The
most basic was the crux simplex (or stipes) - I.
This was a simple vertical stake to which a victim was nailed, tied or even
impaled (Seneca, Moral Epistles to Lucilius 14.5).
a.
It is believed that the Romans first adopted the use of this form of punishment
from the Phoenicians after the Punic wars.
b.
The Romans had long practiced the custom of parading condemned men to their
death bound to a wooden yoke called a patibulum (or furca).
·
The
Roman historian Livy describes a slaveholder punishing a condemned slave by
driving him through the forum bearing a “yoke (furca)” and scourging him
while he went (History of Rome 2.36.1).
·
Plutarch
describes the same custom, using the Greek word xulon used in Acts 5:30
of the “cross” (or “tree”) on which Jesus was hung (Coriolanus 24.5).
2.
The Romans combined the simple stake with the yoke or cross-beam to form the crux
compacta, which could take several forms:
·
The
crux immissa (or capita) - †.
·
The
crux commissa (or tau) – T.
·
The
crux decussata - X.
a. The
Roman poet Plautus described the combination of these two elements, describing
a condemned man “with hands spread out and nailed to the patibulum” (Miles
Gloriosus 2.4)
b. And
declaring of another, “let him bear the yoke (patibulum) through the
city; then let him be nailed to the cross (crux)” (Fragments, Carbonaria
fr. 2). The picture here is that of carrying the cross-beam, which would be
attached to the upright when actually crucified.
3. Jesus
probably carried His own patibulum (John 19:17-18a) until they compelled
Simon of Cyrene to carry it for Him (Matt. 27:32), and at Golgotha they likely
joined the patibulum to the crux simplex and “crucified Him.”
III.
The Form of Jesus’ Cross The New Testament does not specify
the form of cross on which Jesus was crucified, but it is likely that it was a
crossbeam form of some type. Four second century writers support this
conclusion.
A.
Ignatius
speaks of the “rope” that draws one up to be “raised up” on a cross (Second
Epistle to the Ephesians 14), possibly referring to raising a patibulum into
place.
B.
Justin
described Jesus’ cross as a beam set upright with a beam raised up to it (Dialogue
91).
C.
Tertulluan
described Jesus’ cross as consisting of a “cross-beam (antenna)” and a
“projecting seat (sedile)” (Ad Nationes 1.12; cf. Contra
Marcian 3.18).
1. The
sedile was a short post that went between the victim’s legs in order to
bear some of the weight of the body.
2. Justin
Martyr described the sedile of Christ’s cross projecting “out like a
horn” (Dialogue 91).
D.
Irenaeus
claimed the cross of Christ had five extremities, describing the height and
length but also the seat, “on which the person rests who is fixed by the nails”
(Against Heresies 2.24.4).
E.
In
spite of the numerous depictions of Christ on a crucifix with a foot-rest, John
Wilkinson explains, that this, “was an invention of medieval Christian art, and
is not mentioned by any ancient author as part of the cross used for
crucifixion” (“The Physical Cause of Jesus’ Death,” 106).
IV.
Cross or “Torture Stake” The Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, the publishing control of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, is adamant in their
claim that “Jesus died on an upright stake, and not on the traditional cross”
(“Cross,” 90).
A.
They
argue, “It was not until about 300 years after Jesus’ death that some professed
Christians promoted the idea that Jesus was put to death on a two-beamed cross”
(“Did Jesus Really Die on a Cross?”).
B.
Their
motivation for this position is likely opposition to the idolatrous worship of
religious images of Christ on a two-beam cross.
1. We
agree that symbols of a crucifix should never be treated as objects of
veneration.
2. However,
the clear claims of early church writers, and the evidence from pagan Greek and
Roman authors force us to acknowledge that two-beamed crosses were in common
use in the first century.
3. One
of the earliest evidences of this in connection with Christ, is found in the
so-called Alexamenos Graffito discovered etched into a plaster wall on
the Palatine Hill in Rome. This mocking, anti- Christian graffiti depicts
Christ on a two-beamed cross with the head of a donkey. Beneath, is a
worshipper with the words “Alexamenos worships his God.” This etching is
believed to date between the first and third centuries, and is now kept in the
Palatine Antiquarian Museum in Rome.
C.
While
such mocking is distasteful to us, it reminds us of Paul’s words to the
Corinthians—the cross is foolishness to the perishing, but the power of God to
those being saved (1 Cor. 1:18).
V.
“My Hands and My Feet.” Apparently
crucifixion did not always involve nailing the feet. This has led some scholars
to question whether Jesus’ feet would have been nailed.
A.
It is clear that in the case of Jesus His hands and feet were nailed.
1.
After His resurrection He told His disciples, “behold my hands and my feet” (Luke
24:39).
2.
Psalm 22:16 had prophesied, “The congregation of the wicked has enclosed me.
They pierced my hands and my feet” (Ps. 22:16).
a.
In the second century Justin and Tertullian both applied this prophecy to Jesus
(Justin, First Apology 35; Dialogue 97; Tertullian, Against
Marcian 3.19).
B.
What we don’t know is whether Jesus’ feet would have been crossed with a single
nail or with two nails.
1.
Plautus spoke of one put on a cross being fastened “twice in his feet and twice
in his arms” (Mostellaria 2.1).
a.
Were Jesus’ feet nailed with soles against the wood, or to the sides of the
cross?
C.
In 1968, north of Mount Scopus in an area of Jerusalem known as Giv‘at
ha-Mivtar, an ossuary (or bone box) was found containing the bones of an adult
male, dated to the first century. The man was clearly the victim of crucifixion
as revealed by the fact that a large nail was still driven through the right
heel bone.
1.
Wood fragments were still present under the head and tip of the nail,
indicating that it had first been driven into a wooden plate before it was
nailed through the man’s heal and into the cross. This likely was intended to
prevent the heel from slipping off the nail.
2.
Dr. N. Haas, of Hebrew University, who wrote the initial report about the
remains, claimed that the size of the nail indicated that, “the feet had not
been securely fastened to the cross” leading him to conclude that a seat such
as those mentioned by Irenaeus and Tertullian must have been used to support
the body (58).
3.
The man’s legs were broken, similar to what is described of the thieves
crucified with Jesus (John 19:32).
VI.
The Cause of Jesus’ Death.
A.
Asphyxiation Theories. Since the
mid-twentieth century, with the publication of A Doctor at Calvary by
French surgeon Pierre Barbet, many commentators have explained Jesus’ death as
the result of asphyxia.
1.
According to Barbet’s theory, built upon the earlier work of his predecessor
Dr. A. LaBec, a victim suspended on a cross suffered intense constriction of
the rib cage compressing the lungs.
2.
Barbet argued that when exhaustion (or the breaking of legs) took place, the
victim could no longer push himself up allowing the lungs to expand, resulting
in a sustained inhalation ultimately depriving the victim of oxygen (74- 80).
3.
Barbet cited eyewitness accounts of European prisoners of war suspended by
their wrists with their feet weighted dying within six to ten minutes from
asphyxia, due to the inability to exhale (76, 174).
4.
Barbet also challenged the view that a victim of crucifixion would be nailed
through the palm of the hands.
a.
He argued that the weight of a suspended body would tear through the palms
where the nail had been driven into the cross (92-105).
b.
This led to numerous theories that argued that the arms would have been nailed
through the wrist or even the forearm in crucifixion.
B.
Modern Re-evaluation. Within recent years Barbet’s theory has
been seriously challenged by Dr. Fredrick Zugibe.
1.
In his book, The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Study, Zugibe tested
the effects of suspension on a cross within a laboratory and found that with
arms extended the effects on respiration were not as pronounced as Barbet
theorized (101-122).
2.
Zugibe argued instead, that the effects of severe scourging, followed by
crucifixion would produce two conditions known as hypovolemic and traumatic
shock, ultimately resulting in cardiac arrest.
a.
Zugibe explains hypovolemic shock as resulting from “a significant fall
in the blood volume due to hemorrhage or a loss of body fluids” and traumatic
shock as “resulting from a serious injury” sometimes associated with
“severe pain” (130-131).
b.
This is not necessarily external blood loss, but internal hemorrhaging.
VII.
The Breaking of Legs. One of the
strengths of Barbet’s theory was that it appeared to explain the practice of crurifragium
(breaking the legs of the victim).
A.
We noted at the beginning of the lesson that this was generally considered the
third and final stage of Roman crucifixion.
1.
The gospel of John clearly records the breaking of a victim’s legs as a means
of hastening death (John 19:31-32).
2.
Barbet argued that the reason the legs were broken was to hasten asphyxiation
(Barbet, 78).
B.
His theory, however, failed to acknowledge the use of the sedile (or
seat) commonly used on some crosses, and said to have been present on the cross
of Christ according to church writers in the second century (Irenaeus, Against
Heresies 2.24.4; Tertullian, Ad Nationes 1.12; Contra Marcian 3.18).
1.
Barbet cited the testimony of early church writers and even Seneca regarding
the use of the sedile (45), and even acknowledged the problems that its
use would pose to his theory (78), but even so he did not believe that it was
used in the case of Christ’s crucifixion (100-101).
2.
Wilkinson explains, “If this were present then the arms would not pull on the
ribs to the same degree as if it were absent, and the chest would not be kept
in a position” that impaired breathing in the same way (106).
C.
The question is, if a sedile was used, why would a victim’s legs be
broken?
1.
Zugibe argues that the fracture of a single thigh bone results in internal
blood loss of two liters.
a.
This would not only accelerate hypovolemic and traumatic shock, but would be a
final “coup de grace blow to hasten death” (106).
2.
If the sedile was used, it would also take some of the weight off of the
hands.
a.
Zugibe, argues from studies he has done on the hands of wound victims, that the
upper palm, just under the thumb is “very strong and anatomically sound” and
would be capable of supporting the body (78).
b.
It has been argued that the Aramaic word for “hand” could refer to the wrist as
well as the hand properly (Sava, “The Wounds of Christ,” 441). It is true that
even in modern Hebrew the wrist is called “the joint of the hand.”
c.
Since, however, the crucified remains from Giv‘at ha-Mivtar are no longer
believed to support the idea of a nail through the forearm (Zias and
Charlesworth, 280)…
d.
…And one of the earliest depictions of Christ on the cross, from a fifth
century ivory casket now housed in the British Museum show nails through the
palms, there seems little reason to even consider a broader definition of “hands”
(cf. Luke 24:39; John 20:27).
VIII.
Piercing Jesus’ Side.
A.
Jesus’
legs were not broken, as Scripture had prophesied (cf. Num. 9:12; John
19:33-36).
1.
When His side was pierced and it was determined that He was already dead.
B.
Why did “blood and water” flow from His side? Why did this indicate that He was
dead?
1.
A common explanation is that the spear pierced Jesus’ heart and the pericardial
sac surrounding the heart.
a.
Medical doctor Anthony Sava, rejects this conclusion as a result of his own
experiments on cadavers within six hours after death. He found that no such clear
separation of blood and water resulted from this type of wound (“The Wound in
the Side of Christ,” 344).
b.
He argues instead, that trauma caused by scourging could have led to conditions
which have been observed. He explains: ...Non-penetrating injuries of the chest
are capable of producing an accumulation of hemorrhagic fluid in the space
between the ribs and the lung....Such collections of blood in closed cavities
do not clot. The red blood cells tend by their weight to gravitate toward the
bottom of the containing cavity, thus dividing it into a dark red cellular
component below, while the lighter clear serum accumulates in the upper half of
the collection as a separate although contiguous layer...the settling by this
fluid into layers and its ultimate evacuation by opening the chest below the
level of separation must inevitably result in the “immediate” flow of blood
followed by the water (Ibid., 345).
IX.
“Sent Away the Spirit.”
A.
Scripture
records that when Jesus died, He “cried out again with a loud voice, and
yielded up His spirit” (Matt. 27:50, NKJV).
1.
John and Luke seem to record what He “cried out.”
a.
John
records that He said the simple words, “It is finished” (John 19:30).
b.
Luke records His cry, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Luke 23:46,
KJV).
2.
After these words Jesus “yielded up His spirit” or literally from the Greek
“sent away the spirit.”
a.
The other gospels record, “he breathed out His life” (Mark 15:37) and “He gave
up the spirit” (John 19:30), which Vincent suggests, “seems to imply a voluntary
yielding up of his life” (145).
B.
In some of the earliest texts that addressed the cause of Jesus’ death, the
voluntary choice on the part of Christ to release His spirit at His will was
the accepted explanation.
1.
Tertullian wrote, “At his own free-will, he with a word dismissed from him his
spirit” (Apology 21).
2.
We can certainly appreciate some of the medical theories above that offer
explanations for the physical and biological factors involved in crucifixion.
a.
Perhaps some or all of these factors played a role.
b.
Even so, we must not discount the fact that in Jesus we are not talking about
One who could simply be overtaken by death.
C.
Jesus declared: “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that
I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I
have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I
have received from My Father” (John 10:17-18, NKJV).
1.
Wilkinson writes, “We believe... that the view which most satisfactorily
explains our Lord’s death is that he voluntarily surrendered his life on the
cross before the usual physical causes of death in crucifixion could operate.
He did not die from some inevitable physical necessity or pathological process”
(“The Physical Cause of Jesus’ Death” 107).
2.
We must not allow the consideration of science and medicine to blind us to who
Jesus truly was. He was God in the flesh, laying down his life for man by His
own choice!
3.
Augustine, commenting on Jesus’ declaration, “It is finished,” wrote that Jesus
said this “as if he had been waiting for this, like one, indeed, who dies when
he willed it to be so” (Harmony of the Gospels 3.18).
4.
He wrote further, “He came to the death of the flesh, because he did not leave
it against his will, but because he willed, when he willed, as he willed” (On
the Trinity 4.13 {16}). Amen!
Conclusion.
Why
did Jesus do this? Out of love for a lost and dying world
(John 3:16). Brother Sewell Hall is correct, “Above all other things, the cross
provides the strongest evidence of God’s love. The man on the cross is
the very Son whom God loved so much that He desired other sons ‘conformed to
His image, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren’ (Rom. 8:29)”
(“The Cross,” 23).