ChristiansUnite Forums

I was just thinking the other night; why did the Romans use crucifixion as a method of execution?

I mean, yes, it'll kill people, but so does hanging, hemlock and having your head chopped off. Each of those were used as means of execution elsewhere - and hemlock was known at the time.

So why did they go for crucifixion? As far as a degrading death goes, hanging has much the same purpose. And people die in the same way - asphixiation - then too. I mean, with the amount of wood used to make a cross, you'd think it'd be quite a wasteful way to execute people.

 ???

Any ideas? The only thing I could come up with is that maybe its a bit more dramatic as a public form of execution?

I have wondered this myself,

The crucifixcion of Jesus, is also referred to as: hanging on a tree (Acts 5:30, 10:39) in the NT.

The first mention of a "hanging on a tree" is found in Gen 40:19; so apparently it was,  a custom, in use as early as the times of  Joseph the son of Jacob..

And in the book of Deut. while Moses is recounting the law and its observance in the promise land, states at;

Deut 21
22  And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
23  His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

So, hanging on a tree, is what apparently became, the crucifixcion spoken of in the NT, concerning the manner of death, which Jesus, was to endure;

He even spoke of it;

Jhn 12
30  ...........................  This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.
31 color=Red] Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.  
32  color=Red] And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.  [/color]
33 color=Red] he said, signifying what death he should die. [/color]

This language, causes me to recall, the brazen serpent, which God commanded Moses to make, so that anyone who was bitten by one of the fiery serpents, that was set on a pole in the middle of the camp, could look upon it an live;  (Num 21:8-9)

So this form of torture was in pratice, for thousands of years, before the Romans.

But recently, while reflecting on  a study, I remembered this verse, which I shared elsewhere in another thread herein, while speaking of Gods sovereignty, that God ordained this manner of death, upon His sacrificiasl Lamb;  it was not by chance that Jesus was cricified, note the wording of the following verse;

Acts 2  Peter speaking;
22  Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23  Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24  Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

And the apostle Paul, says;

1 Cor 2
7  But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8  Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

That God preordained it, is very clear by the following verse;

Gal 3
10  For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11  But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12  And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13  Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

And the passage goes on to tell us;

16  Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17  And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18  For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Many so called christian denominations, reject the cross as the instrument used to crucify Jesus, they rather depict the idea it was a stake or a pole;

1st Century depictions of the cross, would agree with the concept, of a cross, the greek word "stauros" pronounced;  stow-ros  is not clear; as it defines the word as a; stake or pole (upright), while  the Latin word  'cru-ci' refers to principly a "cross",   but in the illustrated Dictionary of the Bible, authored by  Herbert Lockyer, Sr - Editor, published by  Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville;  there is reference to the remains of an individual crucified from the first century A.D., discovered in a cave in Jerusalem, both feet were pierced with a spike just below the heels., and in explaining this they depict the position of the remains on a cross.

Either way, the symbol of the cross, symbolizes the glory of the Christian Gosple..

Praise ther Lord..

Blessings

Petro

Excellent answer, Petro. I only wish I would have gotten to it first, lol  ;D

Hey Petro,
Thanks for responding :)

I wasn't so much wondering why Jesus was crucified - I know that the Bible says he had to be hung on a tree (though that tends to make me think of hanging, the gallows tree rather than crucifixion, as it happens), but why the Romans chose to use crucifixion to execute criminals.

It just seems a bit wasteful, I would have thought that hanging was more efficient a means of execution of criminals. Obviously there must have been a reason for them to use crosses, as we know they did use them, what I'm puzzled by is why?

Spectacle.  Crucifixion was used because of the spectacle aspect.  And lasting one--slow, painful death.  

And, spectacle would demonstrate power.

All of the "great" nations up to the British parliamentary government were slave states.   Arguably so was even Britain, but obviously not to such a degree.  But all the great nation up til then were built on the blood and sweat of slaves.

That means authority and raw power were always needed to keep the slaves, and the general populace at a distance, and in fear.  Crucifixion communicates raw, fearful power.  

So crucifixion was used for it's spectacle aspect.  The Romans were intensely "jealous" of any other power, or would-be upstart.

I understand that during the German retreat from the Soviet Union, according to Alexander Solznytzen, I believe, who was an artillery officer in the Soviet army, as the Soviet's advanced, they were particuallary cruel to the German women, in outlying German villages, nailing the women to the sides of barns.

I understand there is some kind of annual event in the Phillipines, members of some sect having themselves literally crucified.

I agree with Symphony's spectacle concept.  Keep in mind also that the reason Christ was crucified as far as Rome was concerned, was for sedition.  Rome had a vast empire to control, and Jerusalem was a proverbial hotbed of insurrection.  Interesting, is it not, that Pilate repeated 5 times that he found no fault in Jesus?

A vulgar display of power is most definately what they were after.  The romans are known for being masters of torture and extremely cruel.  Think about the gladiator matches, lions feeding on Christians.  The biggest deffinition of gluttony was from the Romans and their seven course meals.  They would eat an entire meal as one course.  After they finished they would go to a desiganted "vomit wall" and slaves would help them to vomit so they could go back and eat again.  They were quite warped people.   Being efficient only mattered in war and production.  If they wanted someone to die instead of wait for them to die they broke their legs so they couldn't push up for air.  Notice in the the gospels were it says "break his legs that He might die" because the sabbath was upon them.  They were just plain brutal disgusting people.

Hmmm, I suppose it is a bit more dramatic to have someone asphixiating on a cross rather than on the end of a rope....

Posted by Saved_4Ever:

There is something about that in the Bible too.

If you are overstuffed with food get up and vomit, and you will have relief (Sirach 31:21)

The word "excruciate" (meaning, “to cause great agony, torment”) comes from the Latin for "from, or out of, the cross.”

Please Please PLEASE do not confuse the qu'ran or where ever you got that quote from with the bible.  There is no Sirach 31:21 in the bible.

Its from one of the deuterocanonical books, Saved_4Ever, The Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, aka Ecclesiasticus or Sirach. :) Its like a really long Proverbs.

Please Please PLEASE do not confuse the qu'ran with the Catholic Bible. There is a Sirach 31:21 in the Bible, the Catholic Bible, which, for your information, if believed by millions of people all over the world to be the True Bible. Please Please PLEASE do not insult your fellow brothers in Christ by dismissing what we believe is the true bible as a pagan holy book without reading so much as one chapter from it!

Sorry tibby but the apocrypha is not part of the bible and the cahtolic faith is a pagan faith.  It's got just the slightest bit of truth in it.  That is Jesus Chrsit but most everything else is so unbilical it makes my want to vomit.

Didn’t see that one coming... ;D I’m truly very sorry you feel that way. I hate to inform your that these are lies by the enemy to keep the Church of God separate. I guess there isn’t much I can do to change you opinion, right? Maybe we Catholic on the board here can hopefully change your mind about us, see that we are your brothers, not your enemy.

You can stay ignorant all you want.  There's nothing you can say to make me believe outside of the bible.  That's what your paganism is.  Outside the bible.  Good to know the catholic curch finally decided purgatory doesn't exist.  It's good to know we can chnage and make things up at will so long as the pope says so.

I want the Church of God to resemble a Body, not a battle field. Is that so ignorant? I’m happy to debate Doctrine with my brothers and sisters in Christ, but they have to come to the realization that we are Christians like you. We believe in the same God, and the bible is our Holy Text. Let us both put the insults aside, maybe we can discuses this. You didn’t know that Sirach was book in our bible, maybe there are other thing you don’t know or misunderstand about us. The Catholic Church is very detailed, there are Catholics who don’t even understand it, so it is only natural many Christians do not either.

What is your Denominational Affiliation, my friend?

Oh dear, I didn't mean to start a denominational debate!

Personally I follow the Anglican line on this one :) The deuterocanonical books (its better to call them that than apocrypha, otherwise you get confused with Enoch and the like) are good to read, but not on the same level as the rest :)

I like Sirach, anyway. There is a lot of good stuff in there. As I said, its like a really long Proverbs. Why don't you have a read of it, Saved_4Ever? No harm in reading.

That is ok. It isn’t your fault. We are getting a little off topic here.



As you said, a really long proverb, right? Most of it all are just repeats of previous OT books. Still… lol, I’m fighting THAT battle down in the apologetics front.



Yes, maybe if those who hate the Catholics that will grow to see their Catholic Brothers in a whole different light. If nothing else, the Catholic's "extra" books are a good read.

Sorry fiction isn't currently on my list of reading at the moment.  I looked in a catholic bible and could not find your sirach.  Wonderful you've added even more.  I won't call you brother because you aren't.  If you disagree with the catholic church you need to leave it.  If you do not disagree with it it's painfully obvious you aren't reading your bible or just flat out refuse to believe it.  There is no other name under heaven by which one must saved other than Christ Jesus.  Mary can't help you neither can dead "saints".  The pope is far far FAR away from infallible and your constant worship of idols and such is quite sickening.  These are all facts of the catholic church written in your own "holy" books.  There is no misunderstanding at all.  At least the protestants knew to seperate from that horrid group.

Its sometimes called other things, Saved_4Ever. I've seen Sirach called Ecclesiasticus instead.

1 Corinthians 8
1   Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
2   And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
3   But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
1John 3
10   In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
11   For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
12   Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.
Luke 10
25   And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26   He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27   And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28   And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
29   But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

Good Question.

asaph

Yes, just like Revelations is also called Apocalypse.




I read, in fact I personal bible in NIV. I am your brother, and I recently came to Catholic after spending time Charismatic.



I know. We all know. That is the core Doctrine of the Catholic belief, as we put in the Apostles Creed. Mary cannot save us, and same with the Saints. This is a common mistake about our beliefs. We do not pray to the Saints, we ask them to pray for us. Just because people don’t live on this Earth doesn’t mean they are not longer part of they Church, does it? Death has no power of us, death isn’t the end. It is no different then going into the Prayer board and asking you to pray for me.



Infalliblity as defined by the Catholic Church is so much different from the lies people say it is. When was say the “pope in infallible” we mean more than exemption from actual error. Think of it this way, let us say, hypothetical, the Pope IS infallible and is taking a Trig Test with 100 questions We he

A. get divine answers from god
B. Answer them wrong
C. Turn the paper in blank

The Anser is C. Infallible doesn’t mean God gives him the answer all the time. All infallibility means is he cannot give the wrong answers in Ex Cathedra. He is, in his daily like far, far, FAR from being infallible.




Not worship and not Idols. Reverence to icons.  Showing respect to the thing that represent the Might men of God. It is no different then when Believing not to allow the American flag to touch the ground. It is out of Respect for what the Flag represents. The stautes and pictures are no different from the Pictures of your relatives and loved ones you keep around the home and office to remind you of them.

 
Please understand, we are Christians. We read the same New Testament you do, and we believe in the Apostles Creed just like you. We wrote the Apostles Creed, and we hold to it today.

At least the protestants knew to seperate from that horrid group.
At first, the Martin Luther and his group wanted to only change the Church, correct a few problems it had in the Middle ages. After Problems and mistakes and misunderstandings on both sides, they left as a last resort. They NEVER wanted to separate from us.

Now, what Denomination are you affiliated with? What makes your beliefs so much more “infallible” then that of the Catholics?

Hey Early57,

The passage isn't advocating bulimia. Its actually talking about how you shouldn't eat too much - which is precisely what bulimics do when they binge.

It says that if you have eaten too much, so that you're in pain or discomfort, vomiting will help that. If you eat way too much food, I don't know about you but sometimes I know I find that my body simply rejects it and makes me throw up.

Thats all its saying, not that you should always binge and then vomit.


There is nothing wrong with people writing books of wisdom to their kids. Which is all Sirach is.

And Sirach was in the Greek OT the apostles used. Hardly rejected.

I think that if I had a good friend that wrote some scriptures and I was writing some scriptures like Peter and Paul did,  and they Mentioned each other and Paul mentioned Tim, and Luke mentioned them all and all of them Forgot to mention their good friend Sirach.  I wonder why?

Gee, I wonder why as well. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the author of this book predates them all by 200 year… He is as much their “buddy” as you are to George Washington! I see what you were trying to imply. But where, in the bible or anywhere else, does it say being alluding to in the New Testament is a requirement for being in the Old Testament? If this is your only reasoning for why the “extra” books should not be in the bible, then maybe you are not as Sola Scriptura as you thought.

Then again, even if, contrary to the bible saying nothing about it, everything in the Old Testament HAS to be counted in the New Testament, then the deuterocanonical book are mentioned. Many times, as a matter of fact. Would you like a list? Taking only Sirach in to account, the very first reference would be Matthew 5:28, which is a reference to Sirach 9:8. Look it up. There are well over 100 references to Sirach. I can list them all if you would like me to.

I've heard of that principle before, Early57, but I'm not sure about it.

I mean, you could say that the Gospel of Thomas both quotes from the gospels, and they from it.....but you still wouldn't want it in the canon, would you?

And doesn't Jude quote from Enoch, of all things? But Enoch isn't in the canon either.

Isn't George Washington the guy on the ONE Dollar bill?  

So yes, he is "ONE" of my buddies and sometimes I even mention his name sake the President dude from 200 or 300 years ago.

The Apostiles did not even find it remotely in the question to mention his name or even make a little quote that he had made.   I wonder why?

And Jude mentioned that other guy who is still alive.  Thats a good reason to mention Enoch.  Sirach must have lived around the rebellion time for Israel after the Prophets had went silent and God had finished the Old Covenant.

Right on! Like I said, since we are talking about using the bible as the sole word of God, show me in the bible where is says what the requirements for being an Old Testament book are! I for one don’t want the Gospel of Thomas in my bible! And I think I speak for all of his in this case.



You again ask “I wonder why.”  The New Testament doesn’t mention all of the Old Testament books! Some are just mentioned in passing, and they resemble quotes from the Old Testament Books. Same with Sirach. As I said before, many parts of the New Testament are clear quotes from Sirach. Sirach 29:11, and Matt. 6:19-20, for example. Or, Sirach 27:6 expanded upon in Matthew 7:16-20.

But that means, according to what you've been saying, Early57, that Enoch should be in the Bible.

Do you want Enoch in your Bible? Have you read it?