I Was Wrong About the Cross
I Was Wrong
About the Cross
[Author’s Note: This article remains in-progress. Additional sources will be cited as I have time. — John Diff]
I was raised in a very conservative religious environment. It was a blessing, but it was also crafted by humans. And for that latter reason, it was filled with all the normal limitations of individual capacity for information and understanding. As life has progressed, I’ve reexamined just about every aspect of my religious upbringing. To the credit of my forebears, I’ve found incredible truth and consistency in most of the doctrines I was taught. I’ve also found some misinformation.
What I’m about to outline may be surprising to some people. Some may be surprised to learn that some Christians are opposed to crosses, both in form and language. Others may be surprised to find that the information they have been taught might not have been accurate. Many never look into the doctrines and traditions of others. In most circles, people never seriously reconsider “facts” that fall outside their already held beliefs. On this subject, that is where I was for a long time; not willfully ignorant — just naively holding to ideas that I had never truly researched. For a long time, I simply hadn’t considered questioning what seemed informed and of relatively minor importance. But when I finally investigated it, I quickly found that I was wrong — relative to both the information and the importance.
In my religious background, we took the Living God seriously, considered His active emotions, and adjusted our lives accordingly. To that end, it was a great foundation. In our zeal to please God, we sought to refrain from things that could be disrespectful to Him. (That ideal still permeates my thoughts.) In practical terms, we refrained from a handful of normative Christian practices and a lot of secular ones. We were eager to identify and abstain from things that were unbiblical or derived from religions outside the Judeo-Christian faith. In so doing, we came to an errant conclusion: Crosses were pagan.
That’s not to say that Yeshua’s (Jesus’) crucifixion was fake. We absolutely believed that. Rather, it was that the traditional shape of the cross was pagan. Specifically, the common, t-shaped “Latin cross” was of foremost concern. The idea was that non-Christian symbols had seeped into Christianity and that incorporating them into religious practice was a mournful demonstration of syncretism. (We weren’t Jehovah’s Witnesses, but they’ve long championed this opinion too.) While it’s true that non-Christian elements have been widespread in Christianity, as evident in everything from Vatican artwork to Easter bunnies, we overshot the runway on the cross.
Here, I’ll address the common arguments against the cross symbol and its history. A couple of these were what I had once been told and believed. Others are more dubious at face value but often repeated in some circles. I’ll try to answer the common questions as simply as possible. Hopefully, this will also help resolve concerns for those who hold the belief I once did.
Did Crosses Pre-Date Christianity?
This is a common argument. It’s held by both anti-cross Believers and some secular experts. The Wikipedia definition (at the time of this writing) includes the following non-cited statement: “However, the use of the cross as a religious symbol predates Christianity; in the ancient times it was a pagan religious symbol throughout Europe and western Asia.” This sentiment seems like a concrete smoking gun, but it’s deceptive.
If one takes the time to actually look at what historians categorize as ancient religious “crosses,” it quickly becomes apparent that they are overgeneralizing. Such academic literature categorizes everything from the swastikas of India to Bronze Age Nordic wheel symbols as “crosses.” But perpendicular, intersecting lines aren’t what we’re talking about here. The Latin cross is uniquely shaped and quite unlike its oft-cited religious predecessors.
Furthermore, shapes are fairly simple things. In the Bible, God never forbid any of them. When it comes to making a symmetrical mark with two lines, crossing them is a natural option. When you cross two straight lines, there are only 90 angles to choose from and most are largely indiscernible to the naked eye. It shouldn’t be surprising then when we find some crossing, T-shaped lines among the full range of human markings. Nevertheless, the Latin cross stands alone.
As a designer, a pastor, and a Christian, I’ve been searching for years to find evidence of a true Latin cross symbol being used in pre-Christian worship. I’ve come up with nothing. And while absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, there’s simply no historic evidence to suggest that the Latin cross was borrowed from pagan religions. The simple Latin cross was not in widespread use by any known religious groups prior to the crucifixion of Christ.
Let’s look at a few more commonly cited arguments and questions…
Is the Cross an Egyptian Ankh?
Among “cross” symbols, the Egyptian Ankh is considered to be the oldest and most historically prevalent. It does, after all, have a cross bar set perpendicular to a vertical shape. However, it doesn’t look like a Latin cross; the Ankh’s crossbar is as close as it gets to actual similarity.
The Egyptian Ankh doesn’t have a vertical upper post. Instead, it has a loop. More importantly, it was not considered to be a human-sized nor human-bearing apparatus, like a crucifix. Rather, it was meant to be a knot and a handle. When depicting their gods, the Egyptians often showed the Ankh as a small tool, being held by its looped handle or held inversely toward the mouth of another. Despite countless depictions, it’s never free-standing, never human-sized, never holds a person, and never used as an execution device. The Ankh wasn’t a cross, and the Latin cross wasn’t derived from it.
Is the Cross a Symbol for Tammuz?
It’s often stated that the t-shaped Latin cross is a symbol for Tammuz, the Sumerian god of shepherding and fertility. It’s theorized by some that the t-shaped cross symbol may have been used as an initial to signify Tammuz’s supremacy. Some even point to a supposed carving of Tammuz to associate the cross with his cult. But there are several flaws in those arguments.
The first flaw is the most obvious: The Sumerian Akkadian alphabet (native to the region of the Tammuz cults) didn’t have any shapes that look like a cross. Moreover, Tammuz’s name wasn’t Tammuz. It was Dumuzid. A quick look at the Sumerian’s symbols for both the “Ta” and “Du” sounds show that they were nothing like a cross.
Another alleged smoking gun that’s often used to defend the Tammuz/cross link is a singular sculpture:
People often point to this lone sculpture as proof that the Tammuz cult incorporated cross iconography into their worship. And, admittedly, that photo does appear surprisingly Papist. In the above photo, there does seem to be a bulbous cross-like structure in the figure’s hand (not to mention two coming out of his hips and another worn one above his opposite shoulder). But a 2D image of a 3D sculpture can be deceptively absent of significant details. Take a look at the same object from the side:
From an angle, one can clearly see that the “cross” the figure is said to be holding actually isn’t being held. It’s behind him. It’s not clear what he’s holding, but it appears all three figures are in the same pose, grasping some sort of straps or ropes that go over their shoulders. Moreover, the “cross” behind the figure isn’t a cross at all — it’s some sort of seedpod or pinecone, just like the others beside him.
It’s also worth noting that there is no archeological evidence to suggest that this even a sculpture of Tammuz. It was found in among Sumerian ruins, but it isn’t inscribed and didn’t accompany any identifying markers. At best, it can only be said definitively that it’s just a statue of some being — either man or a god. The rest is pure speculation.
Was Jesus Actually Crucified on a Stake?
Among the word-study scholars, many like to point out that the Greek word for “cross” is “staros,” which is a general term for an execution stake or post. As such, some assert that Christ wasn’t crucified to a cross but was actually nailed to a vertical, upright pole (known as a “crux simplex” to denote the absent crossbar). While that is technically plausible from the text alone, it’s an idea that’s contradicted by historical accounts of Roman crucifixions.
While the I-shaped execution stake did exist in the Roman era, it was reserved exclusively for impalement. Impalement is the act of having a pole hammered through the torso of the body, usually through the rectum and out the neck or head — not that of being nailed to a structure. The earliest existent document of the crux simplex as a crucifixion option was a theoretical option written by Roman Catholic theologian Justus Lipsius in the 16th Century AD, roughly 16 centuries after the crucifixion of Christ and 1,200 years after the collapse of the Roman Empire. (Justus’ theoretical depiction of the crux simplex from his work De Cruce is shown here.)
The process for Roman crucifixion was fairly standard. It’s described by Josephus, Cicero, Plutarch, Tertullian, and more. The Jewish Encyclopedia summarizes the historical evidence well. All known descriptions of crucifixion from the Roman era bear a few similarities: The victims were flogged, and, if they had the strength, they were forced to carry their crossbeam (patibulum) to the site of their crucifixion. During the actual crucifixion, they were nailed to the crossbeam and then hoisted onto a fixed, upright support. At that point, their feet would be nailed. A plaque (called a titulus) listing their crime was affixed to their cross, usually above the victim, as a public reminder of the severity of their crimes. The similarities to the crucifixion of Christ are abundantly apparent. As such, the Gospels’ accounts of Christ’s crucifixion describe a routine that was common for the Romans performing it. (Source)
Was the Cross Imposed by Constantine?
Some theorize Emperor Constantine pioneered the imagery of the cross in an attempt to blend pagan symbolism with Christian religion. The cross was cited in Constantine’s vision before his victory over his rival, Maxentius. While the cross is a central aspect of that legend, it’s not true that the cross symbol was invented by Constantine.
Crosses begin appearing in pre-Constantinian Christian imagery almost from the beginning. The earliest extant depictions of Christian association with the cross are dated to more than a century before Constantine’s legendary vision. One is the Alexamenos Graffito, a Roman graffiti that mocked Christian worship. Another extant example is the “Crucifixion Gem.” Both are dated to the second century AD. We don’t have many artistic examples from the pre-Constantine era, as Christianity was still a criminal and largely underground religion in most parts of the Roman Empire, but there is ample archeological evidence of the cross’ usage among early Christians.
Many of the earliest New Testament manuscripts used the Staurogram, ⳨, as a stand-in for the words “crucified” and “cross.” The Staurogram was a ligature of a cross symbol made by combining two of Greek letters T (tau) and P (rho) from staruos (cross) to form a ligature image of a cross with a man upon it. Notably for this discussion, many of the manuscripts pre-date Constantine and the Staurogram clearly has a crossbar like the Latin cross. Relevant manuscripts include Papyrus 45, Papyrus 66, and Papyrus 75. (Source and example)
The cross was a symbol of Christ and Christianity long before Constantine’s conversion. (Meanwhile, the cross was not widely used in any other religions of the time, as previously noted.) Its crossbeam structure was clearly understood by the early Church and others. They understood it to be a t-shaped or T-shaped structure upon which a victim’s arms were outstretched. None wrote of it being solely a vertical beam. Here are a few examples of pre-Constantine writings (emphasis added):
"For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb." Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 40 (circa 155-160 AD)
"The Lord answers: When the tree that is fallen shall rise, and when blood shall drop down from the tree. Here you have again mention made, both of the cross, and of him that was to be crucified upon it. And yet farther he saith by Moses; (when Israel was fighting with, and beaten by, a strange people; to the end that God might put them in mind how that for their sins they were delivered unto death) yea, the Holy Spirit put it into the heart of Moses, to represent both the sign of the cross, and of him that was to suffer: that so they might know that if they did not believe in him, they should be overcome for ever. Moses therefore I piled up armour upon armour in the middle of a rising ground, and standing up high above all of them, stretched forth his arms, and so Israel again conquered.” Epistle of Barnabas 11:2-4 (circa 70-132 AD)
“Now the Greek letter Tau and our own letter T is the very form of the cross, which He predicted would be the sign on our foreheads" Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book III, Chapter 22 (circa 207 AD)
The history and usage of the cross as a symbol of Christianity, Christ, and crucifixion long predated Constantine. Constantine and his empire’s Roman Catholic Church didn’t invent the Latin cross. The cross can be found referenced throughout the earliest Christian sources — long before Christianity became the state religion of the Romans. It wasn’t the byproduct of Constantinian syncretism. The idea that Constantine merely adopted an extant pagan symbol is simply untrue.
Are Crosses Idolatry?
It’s often suggested by some Protestants that crosses are idolatrous symbols. They point to the reverence and superstition surrounding some Catholic iconography as violations of the second of the Ten Commandments. Idolatry is a serious sin, and it’s worthwhile to consider if any inanimate object crosses the line into idolatry. If crosses are inherently idolatrous, they should be avoided. So are crosses idols?
The second of the Ten Commandments prohibits making “graven images.” Read in isolation, this leads some to feel that all sculptures and three-dimensional depictions are idols. Some take it even further and assert that all visual depictions, including paintings and photographs, also meet the criteria for idolatry.
There are some problems with that theory. As with all of Scripture, context matters. The commandments of God are not isolated statements. Rather, they are portions of a much longer conversation. The second commandment was one part of a full statement about Yahweh being their only God. Immediately after giving the Ten Commandments, Yahweh Himself instructs the Israelites to craft all sorts of sculptural and embroidered designs, including those of heavenly beings. He tells them to sculpt golden cherubim to top the ark of the covenant. He tells them to sculpt pomegranates and almond buds to decorate the priestly wares and Tabernacle furnishings. He requires them to embroider cherubim on the Tabernacle. Shortly thereafter, Yahweh also tells Moses to sculpt a bronze serpent to help save those suffering from poisonous snakebites. If mere sculptures or images were idolatry, God would be guilty of contradicting Himself and forcing the Israelites to sin. And later in Biblical history, the iconography gets even more extreme when bronze bulls and giant angelic statues become cornerstone features of the Israelite Temple wherein the presence of God dwelled.
Idols are best demonstrated by their first Israelite instance: The Golden Calf. In its construction, the Golden Calf was overtly crafted and regarded as a representation of Yahweh. It was worshipped as a surrogate for Yahweh. In that, we see the nature of idols. As it pertains to the second commandment, let’s be clear: For something to be an idol, it has to be crafted or worshipped as such. Depictions alone aren’t idolatrous. Crafting something to be worshipped or worshipping something crafted is absolutely idolatrous.
Superstition runs deep, but it shouldn’t supersede Christian discernment. In contrast to some theories, the Bible never forbids any particular shapes. Circles, cubes, stars, squares, and other shapes and markings are found throughout Biblical worship and imagery. Moreover, God often overtly honored those who crafted and displayed these symbols by blessing them with manifestations of His presence, as was the case in the dedications of the Tabernacle and Temple.
If a cross or crucifix is made to be worshipped, it can become idolatrous. Nevertheless, a cross is no more inherently idolatrous than the Temple’s cherubim were.
Conclusion
There’s no evidence that the cross symbol has pagan religious origins. There are also no Scriptural prohibitions against using the cross as a symbol, and there’s no scriptural evidence to suggest that God is dishonored by crosses. Rather, we read in Scripture that the torturous cross is to be representative of our victory over our flesh and the triumph of Christ:
“But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (Galatians 6:14).
“For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2).
Paul was not ashamed of the cross. He saw it as being the method through which his freedom was bought. He saw it as the ultimate triumph of Christ. And Paul was also not afraid to symbolically identify with it, seeing the cross and crucifixion of Christ as the ideal pattern for a Christian’s surrendered, sacrificial life. If Paul wasn’t ashamed of the cross literally or figuratively, how much less should we be ashamed of its depiction? Moreover, those taught by Paul and the other Apostles, the Christians of the first and second centuries, incorporated the Latin cross symbol and the Staurogram in their writings and artwork.
For me, seeing a cross is a beautifully disruptive reminder of the reality of Christ’s crucifixion and the strength of our faith. It showcases not only what Christ endured, but also the very real risk of torturous death that faced all of His first century followers and many others throughout history. For them, crucifixion was a strong potential destiny, but they chose to follow Yeshua anyway. That is true devotion.
A cross pulls the stories of Scripture into stark reality. Seeing a cross makes me think of what it would be like to actually have nails driven through my body and to hang, exposed, suffering in absolute agony. In so doing, I’m overcome by the inescapable realization of what Yeshua endured for me and because of me. Crosses remind me of His love for me. And for that reason, I’m unable to see a cross without responding with ever-deeper love for Him. For the cross, I’m forever grateful.