Cross or Stake?

Discussion in 'Theology and Doctrine' started by Joshua119, Sep 22, 2015.

  1. Joshua119

    Joshua119 Member

    Posts:
    38
    Likes Received:
    65
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglo-Catholic
    Preemptive note: My question here is in regard to a possibly heretical subject. I am in no way advocating any kind of heresy, I'm just looking for insight.

    So, I've been interested in the NKJV for a while. I've never used it and don't have any real reason why I find it intriguing, I just do. I was doing some research to try to determine whether or not the NKJV is appropriate for Anglican use when I stumbled upon a serious allegation.

    One website I found, which is pro NKJV but very openly anti Catholic and anti Anglican made the following statement: but we know Jesus was crucified on a stake according to the Aramaic. The Greek word used in all New Testament text is stauros (stow-ros'); and means a stake or post (as set upright), specifically a pole without a cross piece. Our research has revealed that the true word for cross is "crux" and came from Latin. This word "Crux" cannot be found in the New Testament Greek translations. The question again is why would the KJV of 1611 use the wrong interpretation?
    http://www.masters-table.org/studies/biblecompairsons_KJV_NKJV.htm

    Now, I found this to be quite surprising and did some additional research on the topic. I couldn't find much, but I did find some stuff about Anglican Theologian E.W. Bullinger, who made the same claim in The Companion Bible.

    Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses have been very active proponents of the stake theory, and have often been declared heretics for it, but E.W. Bullinger seems to be widely respected, or was during his time at least.

    So, not being a Greek scholar, I am left to wonder, is the cross wrong? Was Jesus actually killed on a stake? If the text is true does this mean that tradition is wrong? Does this matter in terms of salvation, or is His death what matters and not the instrument?

    Any insight here would be greatly appreciated.
     
    Thomas Didymus likes this.
  2. Mark

    Mark Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    225
    Likes Received:
    408
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Happy Anglican
    Joshua,

    Stauros is a Greek work with multiple meanings. Strong's Greek Concordance has the word listed as 4716. The multiple meanings are: a post or stake,a cross used in capital punishment, figuratively, exposure to death.

    So, depending how the word is used dictates the meaning. Now since we know the Romans did use crucifixion as the form of punishment for agitators against the government, when the Greek says stauros it would mean crucifixion. Remember one of the charges against Christ was He claimed to be King thus denying Caesar.

    Look at the word Baptso. #911. verb to moisten or dip. A version is Baptizo, #907, to immerse, make fully wet, ceremonial ablution, to wash. Again from Strong's Greek. Baptist use the definition that matches their beliefs for full immersion. While it can also have differing meanings.

    So this group is taking one meaning and using it exclusively for the word each time it appears in scripture regardless of how the word is being used.

    In English what does read mean. Or lead. Multiple meanings, the meaning depends on the use and intent. Lead can be an action..He lead the men. Or
    a noun, the lead in the pencil. To take a word with multiple meanings and limit it to only one meaning is a poor use of the word.

    So our belief in the Cross is correct via history, scripture and tradition. Now His Resurrection matters. If Jesus just died our salvation would not be complete.

    St Paul in his letter to the Corinthians...1 Cor 15 tells us the necessity of the resurrection. Without the resurrection our faith is futile. The cross was the instrument God used. The grave was the instrument that God used.

    I would suggest reading 1 Corinthians and when you get to Chapter 15, slowly study what Paul wrote.

    Blessings

    Fr. Mark
     
    Thomas Didymus and Stalwart like this.
  3. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Anything dealing with Jehova's Witnesses can be generally assumed to be laced with heresy, and that includes their exegesis and faux-interpretations. The word Cross had its origins in the latin Crux which came from St. Jerome's translation from Greek into Latin. Whatever the meaning Crux had in the 300s AD, that was the equivalent to the greek Stauros. Jerome did not translate with view to the future KJV, but to the past meaning of the Greek, so he could not be accused of infusing the word with a meaning which the KJV later translated it for. Either it conveyed the meaning for cross in the 300s AD, or it did not. That is the same as for the greek Stauros, which was the word describing the execution posts of the Roman Empire, which we know were established in the cross pattern, to support the arms.
     
    Thomas Didymus and zimkhitha like this.
  4. Toma

    Toma Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    1,128
    Country:
    Canada
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I've always believed that our redemption hinges not just on the atonement of Calvary, but on Christ's incarnation, teaching, ministry, suffering, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and mission of the Holy Spirit; in short, His whole life. The instrument by which this was accomplished - whether T-shaped, Y-shaped, X-shaped, or pole-shaped - seems to matter exceedingly little. What matters was the intention, the blood, and the Love which bade Him spill it.
     
    Thomas Didymus likes this.