By Bruce Longenecker
The cross as a symbol of the Christian faith has fallen out
of favor over the last decades, and is seen as offensive even among many
so-called Christian circles. It is often noted upon visiting a non-denominational
church that there is no cross in the sanctuary or elsewhere to be found on the”
campus.” There are some who argue the cross wasn’t used by the Early Church,
and only became a symbol of the faith after the conversion of Constantine, and
so perhaps should not be used today. This idea even became dogma amongst
archeologists, despite the peculiarity of the claim. It would be odd that an
event so central to the faith according to Paul, who tells the Corinthians that
the word of the cross is the power of salvation to those who believe, and that
he knew nothing among them but Christ and him crucified, would fail depiction
among the many early Christian symbols. Indeed, one wonders how a symbol,
supposedly absent among Christians, would then communicate the Lord of that
faith To Constantine on the eve of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge? The Chi
Rho, an early superimposition of Greek letters meant to depict Christ on the
cross must have had some popularity amongst Christians if it brought to mind the
Christian faith for Constantine. However, the archeological evidence was
sparse, and until recently the Alexemenos Graffito (c. 200 A.D) was thought to
be the earliest depiction of the crucifixion, or even the cross.
Bruce Longenecker devastates this long held belief with
incredible evidence and argumentation, along the way exploring the history of
the cross as a symbol of the Christian faith, and looking at pre-Christian
symbols that influenced the cross as a Christian symbol, such as the Egyptian
Ankh. However most fascinating here is his argumentation of the cross in
equilateral form as a Jewish mark for eschatological protection based on the
text of Ezekiel and later picked up and reworked in the Book of
Revelation. A mark found on Jewish
ossuaries. This shows that the cross as a Christian symbol was not necessarily
as conspicuous a sign as one might think, and marking the bearer as bait for
persecution. Christians might see in this pre-Christian use of the symbol by
Jews, yet another instance of typological interpretation of Christ being
foreshadowed in the Old Testament.
The real meat of the book is found in the last few chapters,
where Bruce shines the light on a treasure horde of archeological evidence in
the form of, not only literary renditions of the cross in early Christian
literature, but material crosses found in rings, burial chambers and places of
worship dating anywhere from mid second century to late third century. Some of
these crosses and depictions of the crucifixion were earlier discarded because
of their syncretistic use as amulets and so forth. However, Bruce is right to
point out that in the age of Antiquity, perhaps not all were as scrupulous
about their incorporation of Christian beliefs into their own religion. Whether
one wants to consider these people as Christians or not, it seems they were at
least borrowing the cross from Christians and using it to their own purposes. This
would explain the cross being found in a Pompeiian Bakery dating to the first
century when it was covered in ash by Mount Vesuvius.
The evidence then clearly shows that though the cross may
not have been the most popular of Christian symbols before Constantine, it was
certainly a well-known symbol of the Christian faith before him. It also shows
that in antiquity it was rightly seen as a symbol of God’s power, and not a
symbol of weakness, in that there it was known God overcame death. The cross as
a symbol of God’s power over death was then even attributed by non-Christians
with magical abilities to ward off evil. It certainly would not have been a
symbol that brought shame for those otherwise willing to die for the
faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment