They Took Him Down from the Tree – Acts 13:29

“And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.”

Let’s say that the Lord has given you the opportunity to talk to a good friend about salvation.

This is someone with whom you are very close, so your conversations are completely cordial and candid.

Neither of you is afraid of hurting each other’s feelings, and you can say anything.

But this person starts out by saying that all the stories about Jesus Christ are all myths.

How do you respond?

You should probably say something like:

“The history about Jesus is recorded in the Bible, and the Bible is totally trustworthy.”.

And if you have the opportunity, you could use prophesies about Christ to substantiate your point.

But then he says, “But the Bible is full of contradictions and Christians make assumptions which the Bible doesn’t actually teach.”

It might be good to have him point out one or two of those contradictions.

Generally speaking, most of that kind of talk are just smoke-screen or diversions.

Usually lost people don’t want to face the real facts of their sinfulness and their need of a Saviour.

But what if he says that the original Greek never says anything about Jesus dying on a cross.

What if he says that the word which is translated “cross” doesn’t mean the t-shaped cross that most people picture?

What if he says that neither Peter nor Paul ever said that Jesus died on a cross?

What would you say to the fact that when Paul described Jesus’ death here in Acts 13 he said that Jesus died on a tree?

What would you say to the statement that Peter said the same sort of thing?

What if your friend says that crosses are a product of Christian imaginations or Catholic lies?

And what if he points to history books which talk about crosses in shapes other than the traditional shape?

This is what I’d like us to briefly think about this evening.

Your friend is both half right and half wrong.

And we need to remember that half-truths are the Devil’s favorite kind of truth.

Let’s start with the word “CROSS.”

We find it 28 times in our King James New Testament.

It is the translation of the Greek word “stauros” ( stow-ros’ ).

And of course it’s the root of “crucify” which is the translation of “stauroo” ( stow-ro’-o ).

The word “crucify” is used 46 times in the New Testament.

And by the way those two words are never translated any other way in the Bible.

If your friend tells you that “stauros” means “a stake,” “pole” or “spike” he would not be incorrect.

Our English word “cross” is derived from the Latin word “crux,” not from the Greek word.

So there are people who insist that whenever you find “cross” in your Bible you should read it as a “spike.”

Okay, let’s say that these people are correct.

Who is to say that a stake or a spike has to be one straight piece of wood?

Why can’t a stake have a cross beam?

My wife has a stake in our garden to hold up some of the vegetables that we have growing there.

Without trying to create an illustration for me to use in a lesson some day,

That stake has several cross-members holding up the vegetable vines.

If your friend should say that stakes are always straight, you can say that Judy Oldfield disagrees.

So that argument should reach a standstill.

But … not only was the Greek Bible translated into Latin, and “crux” was used to translate “stauros,”

There have been lots of Roman documents translated back into Greek.

When Rome superceded Greece, the Greeks lost their political control of hundreds of vassal countries,

But the Greek culture was a lot more difficult to dismantle than a bunch of governors and legislatures.

The Koine Greek language was the primary trading language for centuries after Athens lost political control of the world.

And as a result thousands of books and manuscripts were translated back and forth between Latin, Greek, Aramaic, and dozens of other languages.

Would anyone like to venture a guess what the Greek documents used when they described the Roman method of executing criminals?

That Greek word was “stauros.”

It is an historical fact that Romans crucified those whom they considered worthy criminals.

And when the Romans tied or nailed people to crosses – because that is what the word “crux” means –

When the Romans nailed people to crosses, the Greeks said that they “stauroo” ( stow-ro’-o ) them.

There is no reason to say that the Lord Jesus didn’t die on a cross.

But what about the fact that history displays crosses in shapes other than the traditional “T”?

The cross has been depicted in at least four different shapes in religious art down through history.

There is the St. Anthony’s cross which has the shape of a capital “T” in our English alphabet.

I mean that the St. Anthony’s cross doesn’t have the top part of the cross, just a “T”.

There is a later Greek cross where each part of the cross was of equal length, like a “plus” sign.

There is the St. Andrew’s cross which is in the shape of a capital “X”.

And then there is the traditional cross.

How do we know that the Lord wasn’t crucified on the St. Andrews or the St. Anthony’s cross?

Because the Bible clearly says that there was an inscription which was nailed above the head of the Lord.

In an “X” or a “T” there isn’t a place for that inscription.

What about a cross which had a cross beam as long as the center beam, like a “plus” sign?

That would be unlikely, simply for the sake of economy.

The upright beam would need to be taller, because rarely are people’s outstretched arms longer than the length of their bodies.

However in the same vane, the Lord’s cross was probably not as tall as most people think of it.

It only needed to be tall enough to crucify someone.

It didn’t have to stick high into the air.

But getting back to the various styles …

It doesn’t matter how artists have rendered the crucifixion or, subsequently, the empty cross.

Most of the ancient artists never read the Bible, and most were not men of Biblical faith.

But what if your friend brings up the fact that in ancient religions, the sign of the “tau” had great significance.

In the temples of the ancient Egyptians, among the Incas and Aztecs, and others, are found crosses.

Some people say this is another case where Roman Catholicism incorporated heathen signs and practices into their religion in order to make it more palatable to the wicked.

One answer to this is that as archeologists study ancient religions, they are finding just about every kind of symbol and practice imaginable.

Just because there sometimes appear to be the overlapping of heathenism and truth, this doesn’t in any way alter what is really the truth.

Well, what about the fact that in 325 AD some people found the original cross?

There are some minor historians who say that the cross was discovered underneath the traditional site of the Lord’s burial.

There it was along with the other two crosses that where used that day.

And everyone knew that it was the true cross,

Because people were instantly healed the moment that they touched it.

The woman responsible for this fantastic discovery was none other than Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great, the first “Christian” Emperor of Rome.

This sounds wonderful, but there are lots and lots of problems with the idea.

First, even though there are historians who say that the tradition is true, it’s significant that the more renowned historians like Eusebius fail to mention it.

This is Roman Catholic tradition, not genuine history.

It is also said that Helena built a church over the place of the discovery: the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Unfortunately, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is undoubtedly not the place where Jesus was buried.

And then even if it was, why were the other crosses moved and buried beneath the church?

There would have been no point whatever.

This is all fable.

It is said that Helena put the main beam of the cross inside her new church,

And another large piece was put inside a statue that she had built of her son.

And the rest of the cross was broken up, covered with gold and gems and either sold or given away.

The fact that there are enough pieces of the cross to build a small cathedral is due to the Roman Catholic miracle of the multiplication of the cross.

Like the bread and fish in Jesus’ miracle, Catholics say that the cross just keeps going, and going, and going, like the Ever-ready Bunny.

What if your friend should bring this subject up as an argument against the Truth?

The answer is that the foolish traditions of Catholicism do not in any way change what the Bible says.

Christ died on the cross as God’s answer to our sins.

Christ died on the cross just as it was prophesied and depicted in several Old Testament types.

But then what if your friend takes your Bible and turns to Acts 13:29 and points to the word “tree.”

What if he takes you to Acts 5:30 – “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.”

Acts 10:39 – “And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree.”

Galatians 3:13 – “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.”

I Peter 2:24 – “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.”

How do you answer the fact that Paul and Peter used the word “tree” in place of “cross”?

The answer is that the Greek word “xolon” ( zoo lon ) is different from the word “dendron.”

“Dendron” is the word which describes a living, growing, fruit-bearing tree.

“Xolon” ( zoo lon ) speaks of the wood, which comes from a tree.

I Corinthians 3:12 and other verses use this same word “xolon”

“Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble

Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.”

Don’t be disturbed by the term “tree” in passages like this, because Peter and Paul still spoke of Jesus’ crucifixion.

Acts 2:23 – “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”

Acts 2:36 – “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Acts 4:10 – “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.”

I Corinthians 1:23 – “But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness.”

I Corinthians 2:2 – “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”

Galatians 6:14 – “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.”

Was Jesus crucified on a cross as we usually picture it? Absolutely.

He was executed in the most ignominious, awful, shameful way that man had yet devised.

He died as a fulfilment of the covenant the Lord had made to save a few wretched sinners like us.

“God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

“God forbid that I should not glory in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”