The Cross Of Christ

[CV75]

"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." Galatians 6:14

To me, the use of the word “cross” is symbolic of all the burdens He bore all along the spectrum of our salvation: His heroism in the pre-mortal existence, His work of Creation, His patience with the Fall, His responsibility as Jehovah in the Old Testament, His entire earthly ministry and all he did, “, His suffering the Garden, His Passion, His suffering and death upon the cross, His work among the dead, His leading the Church today, His readying the world for His Second coming, His Second Coming, His Millennial reign, His Judgment, His role in the Church of the Firstborn, etc., “and also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” All heavy work and a load we could never hope to bear in His place. The world and the “old man” being crucified are similarly symbolic, as is baptism.

The material cross that killed Him is nothing in comparison.

[teddyaware]

To me, the use of the word “cross” is symbolic of all the burdens He bore all along the spectrum of our salvation: His heroism in the pre-mortal existence, His work of Creation, His patience with the Fall, His responsibility as Jehovah in the Old Testament, His entire earthly ministry and all he did, “, His suffering the Garden, His Passion, His suffering and death upon the cross, His work among the dead, His leading the Church today, His readying the world for His Second coming, His Second Coming, His Millennial reign, His Judgment, His role in the Church of the Firstborn, etc., “and also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” All heavy work and a load we could never hope to bear in His place. The world and the “old man” being crucified are similarly symbolic, as is baptism.

The material cross that killed Him is nothing in comparison.

Excellent analysis! But I would say the sufferings Christ endured while on the cross were the greatest of all these works and trials. As Jesus said:

"Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you--that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil--

And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works." 3 Nephi 27

Edited October 1, 2012 by teddyaware

[CV75]

“It seems, that in addition to the fearful suffering incident to crucifixion, the agony of Gethsemane had recurred, intensified beyond human power to endure. In that bitterest hour the dying Christ was alone, alone in most terrible reality. That the supreme sacrifice of the Son might be consummated in all its fulness, the Father seems to have withdrawn the support of His immediate Presence, leaving to the Savior of men the glory of complete victory over the forces of sin and death."

I think the point here is that the spiritual suffering and its attendant physical effects in Gethsemane were far greater than the physical suffering caused by the cross alone, as horrible as that physical suffering was. His atoning suffering certainly began in its most noticeable form in the Garden, where He bled from every pore (which did not ocurr again on the cross). By the time He hung on the cross, He had already overcome all our sins and so was able to continue carrying this burden through the events of His passion and crucifixion. Once proving that He could endure utter separation from the Father while on the cross, He truly overcame all things, announced "It is finished" and then voluntarily gave up the ghost. These last three acts were completed after His atonement for our sins and gave Him the power of the Father to complete the plan of salvation in the physical world.

[CV75]

But I would say the sufferings Christ endured while on the cross were the greatest of all these works and trials. As Jesus said:

3 Nephi 27: 13-15 also uses the cross symbolically (“as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father”). After He atoned for our sins, He gained all power by proving Himself on the cross in the absence of the Father, and this is how He has power to “draw all men unto [Him]… that they may be judged according to their works.”

But D&C 1916-19 gives us a literal understanding of what He did for us and when and where. What He did at the end of His life on the cross was between Him and the Father; we benefit from His resulting power by being drawn after Him in a resurrection and into judgement, in which we only truly benefit by virtue of His atonement and to the degree we receive it.

[MormonMason]

I should have pointed out the non-lds view of the scripture in Luke 22:39. It mentions "became like drops of blood" not "became drops of blood".

The Greek uses words meaning "as clots of blood" or "large drops of clotted blood." The regular Greek words for "drops" are terms like bolous (large drops or lumps or masses), stagones (as in drops of rain), or psekadon (as in the sense of dew that condenses at night). That is a pretty good indicator that there was at least some blood in the sweat, enough to make the sweat look like blood clots falling on the ground.

In fact, the Greek word in the passage is a medical term (that is why many think the good doctor, Luke, wrote this passage) from which we obtain our medical terms referring to blood clots. Think Thrombosis. The Greek is thromboi. So, in other words, Jesus had a bloody sweat. I hate it when translators don't bring out the full meanings of passages.

Edited October 1, 2012 by MormonMason

[mfbukowski]

I would say the Evangelical Christian is only hearing the part of the song he wants to hear.

Excellent point

Not to mention crosses displayed among other symbols on temples etc. We incorporate them into other designs in many cases as well. We just don't flaunt them.

[mfbukowski]

Hymn 185

Reverently and Meekly Now

Etc.

What are you trying to do- confuse us with the facts?

[Buckeye]

teddyaware,

I began a discussion about the cross earlier this year when the church's Friend Magazine chose to prominently placed a cross on its cover:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56818-return-of-the-cross/page__hl__%2Breturn+%2Bof+%2Bthe+%2Bcross Maybe I'm overreacting, but I take that as a good sign that acceptance of the cross is slowly coming back. This discussion is also a good reference for a forthcoming book by Mike Reed explaining the history the church's use, and later rejection, of the symbol.

For me personally, an empty cross is a strong symbol of the Savior's resurrection. I love it. I wear it to church functions from time to time. I also think our adversity to the symbol is an unnecessary thorn preventing more acceptance of the LDS by the wider christianity. You are welcome to wear the symbol to any church function, including temple worship. However, note that because of historical teachings, you may cause dischord or at least questions, so be prepared to answer why you wear the symbol. As President Monson teaches, a kind word turneth away wrath.

[mfbukowski]

Hi Teddyaware,

I hope you'll forgive some of the others who have been rude in response to your question. I am active LDS and sometimes wear a Celtic cross. Although I accept that the Resurrection is very important, I also think Gethsemane and the Cross are important. They're all part of the Atonement, and I have no problem with people using the Cross as a symbol. That Jesus was willing to suffer and die like that was an amazing display of his incredible love for us, and worthy of our honor.

Mormons were not always against use of the Cross as a symbol. Check out this article: http://www.sltrib.co...ith/ci_12256269

Peace,

DH

Mike Reed used to post here regularly- now not so much but he might join in this discussion if he sees it.

[mfbukowski]

I think a few LDS are under the impression that Jesus suffered more in the garden than on the cross because they've been given a false impression that he sweat drops of blood. I know I believed this until I heard different.

And of course whatever story you hear must be right.

[volgadon]

For me personally, an empty cross is a strong symbol of the Savior's resurrection.

IIRC, that is a fairly recent interpretation (ironically) of an old symbol. Besides, I don't see how the empty cross functions that well as a symbol of the resurrection. The Saviour wasn't left on it, he was taken down and placed in the tomb.

[Buckeye]

IIRC, that is a fairly recent interpretation (ironically) of an old symbol. Besides, I don't see how the empty cross functions that well as a symbol of the resurrection. The Saviour wasn't left on it, he was taken down and placed in the tomb.

The Savior's body wasn't left in the tomb for very long either. That's why the empty tomb is a powerful symbol. Why can't the empty cross serve a similar role?

[Darren10]

I was hoping to get a direct response to the quote from Paul in Galatians 6:14. Was wondering how a Latter Day Saint might respond to this specific scripture in which a prophet, seer and revelator from Apostolic times said (I paraphrase) "God forbid that I should glory in anything other than the cross of Christ and the crucifixion that took place thereupon.' With scriptures such as this one (there are others), it's not difficult to imagine why the cross and crucifix became the primary sacred symbols of historical Christianity.

So to recapitulate: How might an LDS member respond to this specific quote from Paul, when an Evangelical employs it while asking why we Latter Day Saints don't similarly revere the symbolism of Christ's cross and crucifiction?

First and foremost I'd remind people that Paul was NOt a "prophet, seer, and revelator". Paul was an "apostle" insofar as the parts of speech of that word "stepping forward" to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. But regardless of Paul being an apostle, he wasn't even part of the 12 Apostles chosen by Jesus Christ (plus one replacing Judas).

As far as the passage of scripture you cited, Galatians 6:14, Mormons do "glorify" the cross insofar as the sacrament goes. Mormon Mason wrote, "it is the Sacrament that the Lord instituted to remember his death", and I find that 100% correct but will also add that part ofthe sacrament is to reflect in *keeping* the Lord's commandments. It is also worth noting that the LDS Church does not officially condemn using the cross as far as I know. It is a cultural dictate wich forbids wearing it. Granted, as you pointed out, the LDS do demphasize it but in the end if one feels clean before God by wearing a cross, than why forbid it?

As for the theology behind representing Jesus Christ, I'd point out to an Evangelical that while Paul did say in Galatians to glorify the cross there is also the words of the Apostle Peter:

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Here Peter emphasized Christ being the Son of the *living* God. And Peter was blessed and praised by Jesus Himself for declaring this eternal truth. In my view, anyone can die. Yesm Jesus tok upon Himself our sins, shortcoming, trasgressions and pains and doing such was miraculous and godly. But the the fact that Jesus died in and of itself is not miraculous. What's miraculous and godly here was His overcoming death and living forever. As Ezra Taft Benson once taught, the resurrection is the single greatest event in history if measured by how many people it will affect. The atonment will affect far less people than the resurrection since the atonement is for those who repent of their sins while the resurrection is for everyone unconditionally.

[volgadon]

The Savior's body wasn't left in the tomb for very long either. That's why the empty tomb is a powerful symbol. Why can't the empty cross serve a similar role?

Because he wouldn't have been left on the cross at any rate, and he was taken off of it by people and laid in a tomb. From the tomb he arose by his own power. I'm just not seeing this reimagination of the cross and the artificial differentiation between it and the crucifix. By the same logic, one should argue that an empty garden and empty Via Dolorosa are also powerful symbols of the resurrection.

[Buckeye]

Because he wouldn't have been left on the cross at any rate, and he was taken off of it by people and laid in a tomb. From the tomb he arose by his own power. I'm just not seeing this reimagination of the cross and the artificial differentiation between it and the crucifix. By the same logic, one should argue that an empty garden and empty Via Dolorosa are also powerful symbols of the resurrection.

The scriptural record says Christ's body was removed from the cross, but we do not know the reason for this. Quite possibly because there was tomb paid for him. I would note that the Roman's were known for leaving body's on crosses for vultures to consume (a final insult) (see http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/crucifixion). Could it not be that the empty cross is also a symbol of his friend's actions to save his body from this fate?

As to the crucifix, I have not drawn any distinction. For me, the crucifix is also a strong and good symbol. It reminds me of the faith in Christ held by the catholic people I taught on my mission and by my catholic neighbors. It's a good symbol for me too.

Regardless of how you or I see these symbols, we must admit that they are a primary, if not the primary, symbol of Christ for most of the xtian world. There must be something good there if so many people these symbols point them to Christ.

[Darren10]

In spite of the fact that crucifiction was a commonly employed form of execution in the ancient world, Paul is most certainly testifying in this verse that something of overriding cosmic importance happened during the time Christ was being crucified on that cross; an experience of sacrificial suffering much more all-encompassing than the mere horrifying physical agonies consequent to this form of death.

Than keep the emphasis on the cosmic meaning behind the crucifiction, not the cruxifiction itself. You can do this by *acting* like a Christian as opposed to considering it sufficient to pronounce your christianity. Paul epitomized this for he spread the gospel through his actions, not by wearing a cross.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Darren10

[CV75]

Regardless of how you or I see these symbols, we must admit that they are a primary, if not the primary, symbol of Christ for most of the xtian world. There must be something good there if so many people these symbols point them to Christ.

I think the cross is a good symbol for Christianity only becaue the world recognizes it as such. But I do not think it universally teaches anything about His Person, the culmination of all that He did, or His greatest work, especially in light of what we know from the restored gospel. I do not think it correctly conveys a full understanding and appreciation of His atoning sacrifice and death. This only comes from the Spirit, and then we are free to attach any meaning we want to place upon any symbol of our choosing.

[Buckeye]

I think the cross is a good symbol for Christianity only becaue the world recognizes it as such. But I do not think it universally teaches anything about His Person, the culmination of all that He did, or His greatest work, especially in light of what we know from the restored gospel. I do not think it correctly conveys a full understanding and appreciation of His atoning sacrifice and death. This only comes from the Spirit, and then we are free to attach any meaning we want to place upon any symbol of our choosing.

I fully agree; thanks. By their very nature, symbols alone do not teach profound truths. They serve to identify and remind of us of truths already known. This is true of whatever symbol one wants to choose for a church - a cross, a fish, a beehive, the angel moroni, a lamp, a snake around a pole, a wheel, etc. But if we are going to choose a symbol, I don't see why the cross should not be high up on the list.

[zerinus]

I think the point here is that the spiritual suffering and its attendant physical effects in Gethsemane were far greater than the physical suffering caused by the cross alone, as horrible as that physical suffering was. His atoning suffering certainly began in its most noticeable form in the Garden, where He bled from every pore (which did not ocurr again on the cross). By the time He hung on the cross, He had already overcome all our sins and so was able to continue carrying this burden through the events of His passion and crucifixion. Once proving that He could endure utter separation from the Father while on the cross, He truly overcame all things, announced "It is finished" and then voluntarily gave up the ghost. These last three acts were completed after His atonement for our sins and gave Him the power of the Father to complete the plan of salvation in the physical world.

I don't see that as a correct reading of the scripture. My understanding is that Jesus experienced spiritual suffering as well as physical suffering on the cross; and that His spiritual sufferings on the cross were as great, if not greater than those He experienced in Gethsemane.

[MiserereNobis]

That's a lovely Catholic picture of the resurrection. See, us Catholics do have more than just crucifixes

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

That's a lovely Catholic picture of the resurrection. See, us Catholics do have more than just crucifixes

Crosses meant little until made legend by Constitine,s vision of it.

[CV75]

I fully agree; thanks. By their very nature, symbols alone do not teach profound truths. They serve to identify and remind of us of truths already known. This is true of whatever symbol one wants to choose for a church - a cross, a fish, a beehive, the angel moroni, a lamp, a snake around a pole, a wheel, etc. But if we are going to choose a symbol, I don't see why the cross should not be high up on the list.

I'm not sure exactly how the cross became a symbol for Christianity (the OP was about its propriety as a representation of the Atonement and attendant victory over death and hell), but I suppose that if we as LDS are going to choose a symbol/logo it would have to begin and take off at a grassroots level. The beehive for example, could have been such a symbol but hasn't taken off for some reason. The "composite angel" with the horn/everlasting gospel could have been another. Presdient Hinckley suggested our very lives, the temple covenants, etc. Perhaps the very personal nature of the sacrament and garments have taken the place removed the necessity of such symbols.

Personally, I find the whole matter of marking ourselves with symbols a bit cultish, in my opinion... or a least an invitation to miss the mark by focusing too much on an object.

[MiserereNobis]

Teddy, we don't de-emphasize the cross, rather we emphasize the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is true that we do not wear crosses as a people, but this has more to do with being focused more on acting as a disciple rather than simply wearing the signs of a disciple.

This is a false dichotomy. One does not have to choose between the two. One of the purposes of the signs/symbols of a disciple is to help us be a disciple.

We are told in the scriptures to go into our closets and pray in secret rather than on the street before men.

And this has to do mainly with attitude. Surely you think public prayer has its place, yes?

Does wearing a symbol for all to see beneift Jesus Christ or the individual?

If done with the proper attitude, it will be benefit all.

[CV75]

My understanding is that Jesus experienced spiritual suffering as well as physical suffering on the cross; and that His spiritual sufferings on the cross were as great, if not greater than those He experienced in Gethsemane.

Jesus experieinced both types of suffering in the Garden for the atoning sacrifice for all. Then He presumably experienced residual spiritual suffering (but not the extent as in the garden) with new, cross-inflicted physical suffering while on the cross, a labor preparatory to overcoming death. Then He passed into another, seemingly more excrutiating form of spiritual suffering in the form of actual separation from the Father, necessary and preparatory for all things (death and hell; life and exaltation) to be given into His hands. His atonement, His victory over death, and His victory over physical and spiritual separation from the Father (even after He atoned for the sins of all mankind), represented in the three stages of His suffering, enabled Him to receive all things of the Father and apply His grace in the form of our forgiveness, resurrection and final judgment.

I don't think the symbol of the cross, as generally accepted in teh world, adequately captures these principles.

Edited October 1, 2012 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

This is a false dichotomy. One does not have to choose between the two. One of the purposes of the signs/symbols of a disciple is to help us be a disciple.

This is a false dichotomy.

No one said we had to choose between the two. We just do. We deemphasized the cross for a while and now things seem to be swinging the other way. Nothing is as constant as change- so what?

So should I post pictures of bloody Gothic period crucifixes to counter your nice resurrection picture?

Not a great argument either way.