© 2018 by William H Schnakenberg IV

Proudly created by BCBPA.com

(audio)9of11 - Crucified(1of3)
00:00 / 00:00
(audio)10of11 - Crucified(2of3)
00:00 / 00:00

VIII. Crucifixion of Jesus

We have all, without a doubt, heard the idiom, "dig your own grave." This has become to be known as an expression as, "to do something that has or will have negative consequences that are easily able to be foreseen." The fact of the matter is that many people throughout history were made to dig their own graves. 


For example, during the Holocaust, many Jews were forced to dig their own graves by using shovels or sometimes with their own bare hands, which was an insane act of torture, all while the Nazis had the sadistic pleasure of watching them do this and they did not have to get their own hands dirty.

This is a good introduction for what is about to come, for Jesus, in the next step on His journey to Calvary, for being made to carry your own cross by Roman soldiers in ancient times can surly be compared to carrying your own shovel and digging your own grave. 

The severely and brutally beaten Jesus, was now ready to embark on over a .5 mile trip, some of the way assumed to be an uphill climb, to be crucified.  As all criminals who were sentenced to be crucified by Rome, Jesus was made to carry His own cross, as John points out here:

John 19:17 - "and He went out, bearing His own cross, to the place called the Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha"

But Matthew, Mark, and Luke give another detail that John "seems" to fail to mention..

Matthew 27:32 - "As they were going out, they found a man from Cyrene named Simon, whom they forced to carry his cross."

Mark 15:21 - "The soldiers forced a passerby to carry his cross, Simon of Cyrene,"

Luke 23:26 - "As they led him away, they seized Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country. They placed the cross on his back and made him carry it behind Jesus."


Keep in mind, John does not say that Jesus carried the cross alone.  He says that Jesus bore His own cross. He more than likely carried the cross until He couldn't carry it any more.


Jesus was led by the "crucifixion team."  This was an appointed squad that consisted of four Roman soldiers known as the quaternio, led by the exactor mortis, a centurion who was in charge.  It was his duty to make sure that Jesus did not die on His way to crucifixion.  Along the way, more than likely very early on in the trek, he certainly noticed the severity of Jesus' condition and was fearful that he would not be able to fulfill his orders of crucifixion.  He must have seen Jesus stumble and fall down, more than likely furthering His injuries, and made Simon help or carry the cross by himself the rest of the way. 


Under the extreme amount of torture that Jesus had endured, it is any wonder that He was even able to carry it at all.  There is no contradiction as many unbelievers would like to try to point out. A contradiction occurs when one statement makes another statement impossible but both are supposed to be true.  It is an inconsistency between statements and there is no contradiction here.

The only thing worth arguing about is what type of cross was used for Jesus' crucifixion. It would be good to note though, it is not a matter of a contradiction, because no matter which one was used, Jesus was certainly crucified. 

The Greek word translated “cross” is stauros, which means:

“a pole or a cross used as an instrument of capital punishment.”

The Greek word stauroo, which is translated “crucify,” means:

“to be attached to a pole or cross.”

Historically, it is documented, that the Romans used various ways of crucifixion methods.

A crux simplex (simple stake) I

A crux immissa or crux capitata (conventional) t

A crux decussata (known as St. Andrew's cross) X

A crux commissa (T or tau cross) T

(audio)11of11 - Crucified/Final Thoughts(3of3)
00:00 / 00:00

It is possible that Jesus "could" have been crucified on any of these, but I think it is important to note why I personally feel the crux commissa (T or tau cross), was used.  It may just in fact give you a different perspective because you may be under the impression of a traditional crux immissa or crux capitata (conventional) t.

Jehovah's Witnesses are relentless in their New World Translation stating that Jesus died on a “torture stake,” or a crux simplex (simple stake) I, because anything else would seem to have a "pagan" influence.

As cited on their website and publications:

Torture stake - The rendering of the Greek word stau·rosʹ, meaning an upright stake or pole, such as the one on which Jesus was executed. There is no evidence that the Greek word meant a cross, such as the pagans used as a religious symbol for many centuries before Christ. “Torture stake” conveys the full intent of the original word, since the word stau·rosʹ is also used to indicate the torture, suffering, and shame that Jesus’ followers would face. (Mt 16:24; Heb 12:2)​

- https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-glossary/torture-stake/

New World Translation

Matthew 16:24 - "Then Jesus said to his disciples: “If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his torture stake and keep following me."

But there are some indirect clues in the New Testament that argue against this teaching.  I will provide three examples.

1.  The following is a prophecy into which Jesus gives Peter a glimpse of the manner of what His death will be like:

John 21:18-19 - "I tell you the solemn truth, when you were young, you tied your clothes around you and went wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and others will tie you up and bring you where you do not want to go.” (Now Jesus said this to indicate clearly by what kind of death Peter was going to glorify God.) After he said this, Jesus told Peter, “Follow me.”

I have carefully looked at the evidence of the early traditions that say Peter was martyred and crucified during the reign of Nero in AD 64-67.  Most of the early evidence was focused on the period of "living memory" which makes the case very strong with a category of "the highest possible probability."  Even Tertullian clearly understood John 21:18 to be referring to the crucifixion of Peter:

"And if a heretic wishes his confidence to rest upon a public record, the archives of the empire will speak, as would the stones of Jerusalem.  We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith.  Then is Peter girt by another, when he is made fast to the cross."         -Tertullian

John clearly writes that Jesus said that Peter would “stretch out” his hands.  This indicates that this particular Roman crucifixion involved outspread arms such as would be positioned on a crosspiece (patibulum), into which compared to a torture stake it simply cannot be done.

2.  Another example that supports a crosspiece (patibulum) is Thomas. Take a moment to reflect on his famous moment of doubt:

John 20:25 - "The other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he replied, “Unless I see the wounds from the nails in his hands, and put my finger into the wounds from the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will never believe it!”

Did you notice Thomas’s mention of the wounds from the nails on his hands which is plural and not singular?  If Jesus had been crucified on a stake or a pole, only one nail would have been used. The fact of two nails in the hands highly suggests a crosspiece (patibulum).

3.  The last example is the title or better known as the Titulus Crucis. This was the piece of tablet depicting the nature of the crime, which was carried by the condemned individual around the neck, made to wear parading in the streets for all to see, from the place of sentencing to the crucifixion point.  Luke, John, and Mark mention it here:  

Luke 23:38 - "There was also an inscription over him, “This is the king of the Jews.”

John 19:19 - " Pilate also had a notice written and fastened to the cross, which read: “Jesus the Nazarene, the king of the Jews.”

Mark 15:25-26 - " It was nine o’clock in the morning when they crucified him. The inscription of the charge against him read, “The king of the Jews.”

But it is Matthew's critical detail of the placement of it that affirms the usual manner of where it was placed on the cross:

Matthew 27:37 - "Above his head they put the charge against him, which read: “This is Jesus, the king of the Jews.”

If Jesus were to be crucified on a "torture stake" or a crux simplex (simple stake)  as Jehovah's Witnesses like to argue, this verse should have been written as follows,


"Above his hands they put the charge.." 


The fact of the matter is that there was no room for a Titulus Crucis to be placed on a torture stake above the head, it would have to have been placed above the hands.  There was only adequate room for it on a crux immissa or crux capitata (conventional) t, a crux decussata (known as St. Andrew's cross) X, or a crux commissa (T or tau cross) T.

So, is it possible that Jesus was crucified on a "torture stake" or a crux simplex (simple stake) as Jehovah's Witnesses like to argue? 


Sure, but only if you choose to ignore these details...

What was the manner of Jesus' crucifixion then you may ask, if we can rule out the "torture stake" or crux simplex (simple stake)? 

I think we can rule out a crux decussata (known as St. Andrew's cross) X, only because it appears in documents beginning in the tenth century, and some historians sincerely doubt that it was even used to crucify Andrew anyway. 


Even though Josephus mentions in the "Jewish Wars" during the siege of Jerusalem, Roman soldiers being annoyed by useless resistance crucifying many Jews using a multiplicity of positions for sport, this does not seem to be the case in Jesus' crucifixion.  As barbaric as crucifixion certainly was, Jesus' seemed to be in a bit more controlled setting.

As for the crux immissa or crux capitata (conventional) t and the "traditional" impressions that you may be under, due to the vast part of artists inventions throughout the centuries, I think we can rule this out too...


Don't be sad, I fell victim to this understanding for many years, until I discovered how complicated, heavy, and what was needed for the carpentry skill level for this highly complex death device.

In his book, "The Crucifixion of Jesus A Forensic Inquiry", by Frederick T. Zugibe, M.D. , Ph.D., on page 40-41, he carefully explains:

"...because not only was it a complex cross requiring carpentry skills, where the patibulum had to be affixed strongly to the stipes by cutting a groove into the stipes and nailing or binding the two together, but it would be difficult and in some cases impossible for the crucarius to carry in view of its weight of 175 to 200 lbs, particularly if he were scourged prior to crucifixion.  In addition, this cross seems impractical in view of the number that would be needed, since hundreds and even thousands of crucifixions were performed at one time by the Persians and Romans.  These mass crucifixions would require that numerous crosses be constructed in advance, that each crucarius be nailed to the cross while the cross is flat on the ground, and the entire cross be raised up and firmly fixed into the ground with the crucarius nailed to it-a massive and complicated undertaking.  Moreover, many of the historic references relate that the stipes were already in the ground outside of the city gates.  This would indicate that the crucarius was nailed to the patibulum, which would be inserted into a rectangular cavity already present at the top of the stipes."

It was very rare that criminals were made to carry an entire crux immissa or crux capitata (conventional) t, not only due to just this information, but because the total weight of it would have been between 175 - 200 lbs.  A person could not have been expected to carry something such as this, especially after being severely scourged.

I am persuaded to believe that the best possible explanation as to which cross was used in the crucifixion of Jesus is the crux commissa (T or tau cross) T, because of these facts.

The soldiers would have placed the 75 - 125lb patibulum on both of Jesus' shoulders, either tying it to both of his arms across his back, or placed it only on one shoulder, and made to balance it. This seems to be a bit more practical, I have personally carried and I am sure you have or have seen people carry many large, long, and heavier objects weighing over 75 - 125 lbs on one shoulder from one location to another.  Somewhere and some time along the .5 mile trip to the crucifixion point, most likely very early on in the journey, as Jesus carried it with every step, the crown of thorns digging deeper into His skull from the patibulum rubbing up against it, as well as rubbing against the previous injuries from the flogging on his back and shoulders, also wearing the Titulus Crucis around His neck, the exactor mortis noticed the severity of Jesus' condition. He more than likely noticed Jesus stumble and fall down, being in tremendous pain, furthering His injuries, highly possible fainting from the loss of blood and heat from the climate, made Simon carry the cross the rest of the way.

When they finally got to the crucifixion point, the place called the Skull or in Aramaic called Golgotha, as many of the historic references relate, the stipes were already in the ground as previously discussed.  Simon's job was done, as he was ordered to drop the patibulum onto the ground, and it was now time for the exhausted and nearly dead Jesus to finally experience the worst and most painful part of His journey - crucifixion


Keep in mind that I am not being overly dramatic; remember that the word "excruciating" was invented because there were no words in antiquity to describe the type and amount of pain a person experienced when they were crucified.  The definition of excruciating is, "causing excessive mental/or physical pain or anguish, very intense".  The origin and etymology is Latin excruciatus, past participle of excruciare, from ex- + cruciare to crucify, from cruc-, crux cross, excruciatus, or "out of the cross."

All four Gospels confirm that Jesus was stripped of His clothing:

Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23

Although John, in some translations, state:

"the tunic remained..."

Which leads readers to speculate and wonder whether Jesus was crucified naked or not?  Honestly, it is a matter and question of biblical hermeneutics that professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts often discuss. 

There are no significant textual variants in the early Greek manuscripts, but there are some accidental misspellings in some manuscripts, but from the point of view in Greek grammar, it is perfectly transparent. The verb ἔλαβον (they took) is followed by two direct objects in the accusative case: τὰ ἱμάτια (the outer garments) and           τὸν χιτῶνα (the undergarment). Some say that there is no way that καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα could mean “with the undergarment remaining”, and that this is not a translation, but a paraphrase of what the authors of some of the translations render the verse ought to mean.

The Syriac translation (Pshitta) omits the words “and the undergarment”. The verse reads (with Western Syriac vocalization):

ܐܶܣܛܪܰܛܺܝܽܘܛܶܐ ܕ݁ܶܝܢ ܟ݁ܰܕ݂ ܙܰܩܦ݁ܽܘܗ݈ܝ ܠܝܶܫܽܘܥ ܫܩܰܠܘ ܢܰܚܬ݁ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܘܰܥܒ݂ܰܕ݂ܘ ܠܰܐܪܒ݁ܰܥ ܡܢܰܘܳܢ ܡܢܳܬ݂ܳܐ ܠܚܰܕ݂ ܡܶܢ ܐܶܣܛܪܰܛܺܝܽܘܛܶܐ ܟ݁ܽܘܬ݁ܺܝܢܶܗ ܕ݁ܶܝܢ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܶܝܗ ܗ݈ܘܳܬ݂ ܕ݁ܠܳܐ ܚܺܝܛܳܐ ܡܶܢ ܠܥܶܠ ܙܩܺܝܪܬ݁ܳܐ ܟ݁ܽܠܳܗ ܀


"But the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments and made four parcels of them, a parcel for each of the soldiers. But his tunic was without seam from the top, woven throughout."

This is highly probable and the result of a haplography (the archetype had the word kuttīneh ‘his undergarment’ twice and a scribe inadvertently jumped from the first to the second). Even with this reading, the continuation of the text states that the soldiers did remove the undergarment and cast lots for it, but the text says nothing about a loin cloth.

Whether Jesus was stripped entirely or not, this early stage of humiliation in crucifixion was considered to some to be worse than the torturous death. Criminals surely dreaded this part of the crucifixion, with the death it pictures, and this fact of humiliation reminds us again that the crucifixion was the goriest, lowest, most painful, and hideous type of death.

What people fail to realize is that when Jesus was "stripped" His body was already covered with deep tears, welts, bruises, puncture marks, cuts, scratches, and lacerations, along with other possible critical injuries, all from the level 2 scourging that was inflicted.  As His body tried to heal itself, the blood began to dry up, and there is no doubt that the clothes He was wearing were sticking to all of His wounds.

The exactor mortis did not order one or all of the quaternio to be extra gentle "stripping" Jesus, knowing that these facts would make the process extremely painful, nor did he call Jesus' mother Mary who witnessed the crucifixion over to carefully tend to her son.  They also did not first consult with His medical care provider on the best way to remove His garments that were sticking to His wounds.  We can also be assured that they did not go slowly and gently to minimize the pain.  They were not worried about infections that may have already started or proceeding with caution to avoid re-opening scabs that may have started causing additional pain. They were not sensitive moving in the direction of hair growth if the garments were stuck to His arms, legs or any other hairy area of His body. They did not stop immediately when they met resistance due to a scab being stuck.  There was no salt water solution applied or a previous soaking to carefully pull what was stuck to Jesus' wounds.  We can be assured that they were not instructed to use a gentle fragrance-free bar soap to wash the wound areas, patting them dry with a clean towel, when they were done washing them off, because they certainly were not worried about residue that would cause skin irritation.  Basically what I am trying to say is that when Jesus was "stripped", He experienced traumatic pain only to add to what He had previously experienced and the worst was yet to come.

The quaternio, led by the exactor mortis, then laid Jesus on His back with out-stretched arms onto the patibulum, which was laying on the ground.  The squad then used a 6-7 inch long nail made of iron with a gradually tapering square shaft from the head which resembled a bell down to the point. 

There is much controversy on to the exact whereabouts on exactly where the nail was driven, either the wrist or palm of the hand.  Theories that support the wrist would show that ropes were not needed to tie Jesus' hands and arms around the patibulum.  Ropes would not be needed because the nails driven through both wrists would be strong enough to hold the body weight right side up; on the other hand, if the nails were driven directly through the middle of both palms, ropes would be needed.  This is because when the body weight was right side up, the middle of the palm of the hands are not strong enough to support full body weight, and would cause the flesh to easily tear.

There are scriptural references that refer to possibly either locations, but the Greek word for hand, can be used for the wrist too.  There is a strong possibility that the highly trained and appointed quaternio, led by the exactor mortis, knew of a location to drive the nail in the palm and it would come out through the back of the wrist, that would be a strong enough location, if done correctly, where no ropes would be needed, and strong enough to support body weight right side up. 

After some tests I had seen and read about, this would seem to support this theory.  If you touch your thumb to the tip of your little finger, you will notice a deep furrow that can be seen at the bulky part of the base of your thumb.  If a nail were to be driven roughly in that spot, with the nail angled at 10-15 degrees toward the wrist, on both hands, this location has been proven that it would work. The nail would in effect go through the palm and come out the back side of the wrist. It also would not break any bones in the process.

Wherever the location was used to drive the nails, really isn't the point.  The point is what kind of pain it would produce.  Due to the nerves in both the hands and wrist, driving a 6-7 inch long nail made of iron through them, the effect would have caused a medical condition called Causalgia (Latin for burning pain).  The medical definition is,


"a constant burning pain that results from injury to a peripheral nerve." 


What many people don't realize is that this is one of the worst pains that can ever be experienced known to man, even more severe than natural child birth which reaches a 36-38 on the McGill Pain Scale.  This is what medical doctors refer to for pain level and is categorized between a 1-50. Causalgia or also known as CRPS; the pain experienced reaches a level of 45/50, or in some documented cases it has hit levels of a 47/50.   Below, are two McGill Pain scales, and I have included two.  This is just to give you an idea of how medical professionals measure pain: 

Twice, this would have happened to Jesus, as the exactor mortis gave the orders to the highly trained quaternio to nail Jesus hands or wrists to the patibulum, causing Jesus to scream out in severe agony while He experienced hot poker and lightning bolt like burning sensations, that have driven some people to the point of suicide, because the pain is just too incredible to bear from Causalgia.

The orders then by the exactor mortis would more than likely have been to hoist Jesus up, all the while affixed to the patibulum, and insert the cross piece into a mortice on the top of the upright.  Then using 1 or 2 more of the 6-7 inch long nail(s) made of iron, (depending on whether or not one foot was placed on top of the other, or both feet were made to be flush), Jesus' both feet were then nailed to the upright, making Him experience two more times, in each foot, yet again and again the agonizing effects of Causalgia.

Jesus was now officially crucified. 

It was roughly 9AM when this happened and He hung there for about 6 hours until 3PM.  We can know this by the Gospels, because Matthew, Mark, and Luke use the Jewish system of marking time and John uses the Roman system.

Mark 15:25  states, "..it was the third hour when they crucified him”

“the third hour” = 9:00 A.M. The crucifixion begins.

Matthew 27:45 states, “Now from noon until three, darkness came over all the land..”

“the sixth hour” = 12:00 P.M. (noon). Darkness begins.

“the ninth hour” = 3:00 P.M. Jesus dies.

In Chapter IV of this presentation entitled, "Time on the Cross," I mentioned that some unbelievers like to point out that many people in antiquity who were crucified spent many hours and even days hanging on a cross.  Because of this, some find it hard to believe that Jesus' crucifixion lasted "only" about six hours, and given comparison to "some" other crucifixions, He had died rather quickly.  

I do believe that I have successfully presented reasons why the crucifixion of Jesus was a special case do to the extreme mental and physical tortures that He endured even before He was crucified.  It may make one wonder even how He made it to or even lasted 5 minutes on the Cross. 

Regardless of the tolerance in one's pain threshold, it can actually get so intolerable that it can kill.  Pain ultimately can kill, but it wouldn’t be because of the pain itself. Excruciating pain sends people into shock and knocks them unconscious, and there is no doubt that the types of pain Jesus experienced made Him faint over and over again, but there’s a specific kind of shock that can result in death — circulatory shock.


 Circulatory shock is caused by an intense, acute level of pain. If it’s not treated quickly, it can cause fatal damage to the organs and brain.  Just imagine ALL of the pains that Jesus endured that I have shared in this presentation!

Medical experts, historians, and archaeologists, throughout the centuries, have examined in detail the execution of Jesus. All agree that he suffered one of the most grueling and painful forms of torture ever devised by man.

Throughout Jesus' road to the Cross, all beginning in the Garden of Gethsemane, He was physically exhausted and in danger of going into shock many times unless he received fluids.  We know that no one was handing Him expensive bottles of purified water or giving Him energy bars to help His body with supplements and nutrition along the way.  Having had no nourishment for many hours, and having lost fluids through profuse sweating and much blood loss, Jesus would have been severely dehydrated. This was yet another form of brutal torture that many people do not think about and would have certainly sent Him into shock, which more than likely was a contributing factor ultimately leading to His death.

There is much speculation onto what was the actual cause to Jesus' death.  It could have been a multitude of reasons combined or one in particular, but we will never know for certain what actually was the final blow that actually killed Him. 

According to the "modern theory," the position of the body on a cross, when positioned at a certain degree, was designed to make it extremely difficult to breathe.  Because of this, Jesus had to push up with His legs to hold himself in a free-breathing position, and He would slowly suffocate when He became too exhausted to continue holding Himself up. This theory is supported by the fact that Roman soldiers sometimes hastened death by breaking the victim's legs, and is also supported by the fact that the two other criminals who were crucified with Jesus, had their legs broke.

When breaking of the legs were ordered, the idea behind it was always to speed up the process and make the one being crucified die quicker.  The reason being in the case of the criminals who were at both sides of Jesus, the order was given, because on the weekend of this particular crucifixion, there was an unusual event going on.  It fell on a double religious holiday


the Passover and the Sabbath. 


Jewish Law prohibited leaving someone "hanging on a tree overnight" (Deuteronomy 22:22-23). 


This is another reason why the Jews did not encourage the Romans to prolong the crucifixion of Jesus; but He did not need to have His legs broke, because according to John, when the soldier pierced His side, He was already dead:

John 19:34 - "But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and blood and water flowed out immediately."

Since the spear released a sudden flow of blood and water, some medical doctors believe that this is evidence of a cardiac rupture.  Other theories include the cause of death as dehydration, starvation, traumatic fever, mortification of unattended wounds, traumatic shock due to loss of blood and fluid, cardiogenic shock causing the heart to fail, death from exhaustion, agony of mind producing rupture of the heart, excessive loss of blood, heart attack, heart rupture, stroke, blood clot(s), hypovolemic shock, exhaustion asphyxia, cardiac arrhythmia, and or, congestive heart failure with rapid accumulation of pericardial and pleural effusions.  There is even a theory of Jesus dying of a "broken heart."  Medically this actually has been the cause of death of some people.  Research it; because if anyone and everone who has ever died, "Jesus" should be given the name of this type of death, because He would be the founder and only Person worthy of giving a name to this type of death.

After the Roman guard had pierced Jesus' side, this was the final blow that made certain Jesus was dead.  Then after the crucifixion of Jesus, and He was not doubt dead, in each of the four Gospels: 

Matthew 27:57–60Mark 15:42–46Luke 23:50–53; and John 19:38–42, all confirm that Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy, good, and upright man, who was a member of the Sanhedrin, opposed to the Council’s decision to crucify Jesus, and was in fact a secret follower of Him, went to the Pilate to request Jesus’ body.

Joseph, along with Nicodemus, were granted custody of Jesus’ body, and they immediately began to prepare His body for burial. Following Jewish custom, they wrapped His body in strips of linen and mixed in myrrh and aloe. It was the Day of Preparation—the sixth day of the week, just before the Jewish Sabbath—and it was late in the day, so they placed Jesus in Joseph’s own tomb, located in a garden near the place of Jesus’ crucifixion.

Because of this investigation, I now have trouble singing hymns about the Cross or even looking at one without shedding a tear.  In all honesty, this is the way it should have been all along.  It has made me appreciate Jesus' sacrifice even more and I fell deeper in love with Him in the process.  I pray that the same has happened for you.

Whether it is an empty cross representing that Jesus has indeed risen or a crucifix that has an image of Jesus only to remember Him crucified, I also pray that this presentation has helped you better understand the agonizing physical, emotional, and spiritual pain that Jesus endured for you. 


At the initial moment of conviction that I had, I truly believe that this is one of things that Paul meant when he said:


"For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." 


May every time you look at a Cross, going forward, have you appreciate His selfless and brutal sacrifice even more. 


And this is the defining moment of "buts;" maybe even the biggest "but" you have ever laid your eyes on...

The story does not end there...

I failed to include in the beginning of this chapter a little story about Stanisław Jerzy Lec (6 March 1909 – 7 May 1966) the Polish aphorist and poet.  He took the expression or idiom, "dig your own grave",  to a new level in one of his most famous poems:

"He who had dug his own grave" (from the cycle "To Abel and Cain.") 

It became the subject of his true story after Nazi Germany's attack on the Soviet Union. He was imprisoned in a German work camp, from which he made several attempts to escape. He received a death sentence for his second attempt to escape, but managed to successfully escape in 1943 after killing his guard with his own shovel when taken to dig his own grave:

"He who had dug his own grave
looks attentively
at the gravedigger's work,
but not pedantically:
for this one
digs a grave
not for himself."

This is a good introduction for what is about to come for Jesus on the next step on His journey. 


As being made to carry your own cross by Roman soldiers in ancient times can surly be compared to carrying your own shovel to dig your own grave, though it appears that His story should end here, because there seemed to be no way out and that death was the end for Jesus, the truth is that the grave could not hold Him, and  He was raised from the dead:

Luke 18:33 - "And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise.”

Join me, as we can discover the truth of the Resurrection together, in the tabs in Resurrection Apologetics.

You can see, with your own eyes, each and every fanciful theory properly debunked and the truth of the Resurrection prevail.