Naked on cross?


#1

I was watching EWTN and there was a break during a show so just switched the channel to random channels and I came across this Protestant minister who said that our Lord “was naked on the cross and that artists put a clothe over…”

I didn’t even think of that. Is that really true?


#2

Who knows and who cares.:yawn:


#3

I can’t say authoritatively that’s true, but that’s how I’ve always interpreted it. I mean, the bible said he was stripped of his garments, not stripped except a loincloth.

Josh


#4

In John 19:23 they divided his garments into 4 parts and cast lots for his tunic. I always though Jesus was naked on the cross.


#5

My mother told me when I was little that they just put that there so us looking on it, with our fallen minds, wouldn’t fall into sin. The bible says that the romans stripped Jesus of his clothes and cast lots for it in fulfilment of prophecy. How degrading and humiliating.


#6

Artistic representations of the crucifixion often depict Christ in a loincloth for similar reasons that pictures of Adam and Eve often have strategically placed shrubbery. It is commonly understood that Christ was cuucifed naked.


#7

in “A Guide to the Passion” it says that the Roman custom was to remove someone’s clothes for crucifixion. I read this somewhere else also but can’t remember where…it was another form of humiliation. Given this, the speculation is that Jesus was naked and that he is depicted in art with a cloth over him out of respect.


#8

I remember reading some place that Mary placed her veil around Jesus while He was on the cross.


#9

[quote=Paris Blues]I was watching EWTN and there was a break during a show so just switched the channel to random channels and I came across this Protestant minister who said that our Lord “was naked on the cross and that artists put a clothe over…”

I didn’t even think of that. Is that really true?
[/quote]

Yes - crucifixion was meant to humiliate; it was not the kind of thing one discussed in polite company; it was unmentionable: the accounts in the Gospels are the longest in Antiquity. No “dignity” was left to those crucified - they were at the mercy of their executioners.

Read this book:

Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly and Message of the Cross - trans. John Bowden, (London: SCM, 1977). Those who are squeamish should avoid it; it is a very good book; for it shows how central to Christianity the message of Cross really is, how vital this message is for Christian preaching to be realistic, instead of trite. ##


#10

[quote=Gottle of Geer]## Yes - crucifixion was meant to humiliate; it was not the kind of thing one discussed in polite company; it was unmentionable: the accounts in the Gospels are the longest in Antiquity. No “dignity” was left to those crucified - they were at the mercy of their executioners.

Read this book:

Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly and Message of the Cross - trans. John Bowden, (London: SCM, 1977). Those who are squeamish should avoid it; it is a very good book; for it shows how central to Christianity the message of Cross really is, how vital this message is for Christian preaching to be realistic, instead of trite. ##
[/quote]

Not only their executioners. But also to the crows that picked at their eyes and the dogs. It was a very slow death from suffocation. When the person couldn’t support the weight of their body any longer, and slumped, the position of the arms collapsed the lungs. I might also add, the upright post was always in position, the crucified only carried the cross member to the spot.
Dan


#11

In one of the books I read about the Shroud of Turin (which I believe is Jesus), they had mentioned, after minute detailing of the shroud, that he was naked…


#12

[quote=Paris Blues]I was watching EWTN and there was a break during a show so just switched the channel to random channels and I came across this Protestant minister who said that our Lord “was naked on the cross and that artists put a clothe over…”

I didn’t even think of that. Is that really true?
[/quote]

When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes "himation", the outer garment] and divided them into four shares, a share for each soldier. They also took his tunic "chiton", the garment worn next to the skin], but the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top down.
So they said to one another, "Let's not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it will be," in order that the passage of scripture might be fulfilled (that says): "They divided my garments among them, and for my vesture they cast lots." This is what the soldiers did. ([John 19:23-4](http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/john19.htm))

After all, those who were executed no longer had any use for their clothes.


#13

Sadly,this seems to be true.Just like everyone of you guys said,that was another humillation for the person condemned to the cross:( .Artists placed a loincloth only for respect.


#14

Peace be with you!

As others have said, crucifixion, besides being extremely agonizing, was also meant to be extremely humiliating. Christopher West, in a talk he gave at Stubenville, talked about that and showed a picture of a small sculpture by Michelangelo (I believe it was Michelangelo) of Jesus naked on the cross.

In Christ,
Rand


#15

[quote=dancus]Not only their executioners. But also to the crows that picked at their eyes and the dogs. It was a very slow death from suffocation. When the person couldn’t support the weight of their body any longer, and slumped, the position of the arms collapsed the lungs. I might also add, the upright post was always in position, the crucified only carried the cross member to the spot.
Dan
[/quote]

I have been given to understand the crosspiece weighed about 50 kgs or 100 lbs and His arms were tied to the cross piece so when He fell he could not break the fall as such and getting up without the use of His arms added to the degradation of the Passion.

The legs of His co crucified were broken to hasten their deaths and they would have died within minutes, hopefully they had sipped the sponges dipped in gall and easal (is that correct spelling) which had some anaesthetic properties although Jesus refused this sop.

I imagine the flies also would have been thick about Our Saviour due to the flogging .


#16

On consideration, I thought that it was possible that he could have had a loincloth. Consider the following:
[list]the Gospels are actually our best historical record of the detail of crucifixion, and so there is not much elsewhere to compare or corroborate[/list]
[list]crucifixion practice varied markedly from one time to the next: only death was essential[/list]
[list]the word ‘loincloth’ (“periskeles”) is not in the text, not in the NT at all, in fact (although it is in the LXX in Ex 28:42; Lev 6:10; 16:4, 23), which means that we do not know whether there was one to remove[/list]
[list]while the soldiers might want to take someone’s cloak and a seamless inner garment, another man’s loincloth is a less attractive item, and so it might escape mention[/list]
[list]a ‘tunic’ (“chiton”) could serve as an outer garment (e.g., Joseph’s multicoloured garment in Gen 37 in the LXX), which may well suggest that you would want something under it[/list]
[list]frankly, the absence of a loincloth would make the seamless inner garment considerably less attractive, and the soldiers were competing for it.[/list]
Having said all of that, there are some good reasons why he could have been naked:
[list]there is a historical reason already mentioned in this thread: the purpose of the act of crucifixion was not just execution (which could be delivered instantly with a gladius), but degradation[/list]
[list]there is a double Scriptural basis:Then Job began to tear his cloak and cut off his hair. He cast himself prostrate upon the ground, and said, “Naked I came forth from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I go back again. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD!” (Job 1:20-1)and Adam and Eve were naked in Eden before the Fall: Christ, as the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45), could have been naked in the world before the Redemption.[/list]
The end result is that the textual sources are insufficient to prove it either way. You will have to decide for yourself.


#17

I have read that Jesus was naked, and I think I remember Mother Angelica saying that she hoped that no one could see his nakedness, which made a lot of sense to me.


#18

[quote=Melanie01]I have been given to understand the crosspiece weighed about 50 kgs or 100 lbs and His arms were tied to the cross piece so when He fell he could not break the fall as such and getting up without the use of His arms added to the degradation of the Passion.

The legs of His co crucified were broken to hasten their deaths and they would have died within minutes, hopefully they had sipped the sponges dipped in gall and easal (is that correct spelling) which had some anaesthetic properties although Jesus refused this sop.

I imagine the flies also would have been thick about Our Saviour due to the flogging .
[/quote]

That is the reason for the wedge shaped footrest, to help support your weight. There are historical accounts of crucifixes with a small seat, you were not meant to die quickly. You were on that cross as an object lesson to others. As to the breaking of the legs remember it was Passover and the Jews wanted the three in the ground. The gall and sour wine, it was a narcotic. Hasn’t anyone ever wondered why a jar of sour wine was at the site? Gall’s another matter, I’ve read a document that claims it was made from boiled Mandrake root. Anyway sour wine and gall were indeed used by the Roman army, as an anaesthetic for battle wounds. Offering it wasn’t an act of cruelty, more an act of mercy. One last thing, Pilate, he was crucifictions #1 fan. He was recalled to Rome twice before when he was Governor of other provences. Many historians think the only thing that saved him on the third recall was Tiberias died before Pilate arrived. Many believe Tibetias had his fill of this clown, Sejanus nonwithstanding, Pilate was gonna’ die. Ban


#19

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.