to bleed or not to bleed

Forbidding blood transfusion is arguably the most controversial belief of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, being questioned not only by other religions but by secularists as well. The Witnesses would allow organ transplants, but would rather die than accept blood transfusion—in whole or with any of its four primary components (red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma)—even for critical medical emergencies they or their loves ones are in. Those who permit blood transfusion are disassociated and shunned by members of the organization. Note that transfusion of minor parts like albumin, immunoglobulins and hemophiliac preparations are not prohibited.

Interestingly, their position was quite different when they first adopted the name “Jehovah’s Witnesses” back in 1931. Then president and founder, Charles Taze Russel, as well as his successor, Joseph Franklin Rutherford, held that blood transfusions are acceptable and even commendable practice!

This started to change under their third president, Nathan Homer Knorr, who asserted that the Bible forbade eating or drinking of blood whether by transfusion or by the mouth. Ironically, the Watch Tower Society in Netherlands commented that refusing blood transfusion is an invention of people who are like the Pharisees who leave mercy and love aside.

In 1945, it was further made clear that blood transfusion, whether between different people or with stored own blood, was prohibited. However, no sanction was provided. In 1961, they made it clear this is a serious violation when they specified that anyone who will do so will be disfellowed and could potentially lose hope of eternal life.

In 1982, their Awake! magazine stated that minor blood components are allowed. It was further expanded to include hemodilution, that is, diluting a patient’s extracted blood with glucose and heparin solution prior to transfusion. In 2000, fractions of any of the primary components are allowed after carful and prayerful meditation of the patient.

It makes one think that if the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses are directed by God, He must be changing His mind frequently. Also, why did He have to wait so many decades for such a critical doctrine to be revealed as such? What does God really say to us in Scripture?


Covenant with Noah

Genesis 9:3-4 states, “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” (New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses).

This is one of the core passages the Witnesses use to support their belief. However, this command is about respect for animal life during the ritual of slaughter, and does not state blood could not be eaten. In its strict Hebrew wording, it means an animal should not have flesh torn off it for food while the animal is still alive. It was understood back then that it should be bled when killed for food, or what’s called the command against eating strangled animals.

It is no surprise then that even the Watchtower originally recognised it as not applying to eating blood: "All reasonable minds must conclude that it was not the eating of the blood that God objected to, but it was bringing the blood of the beast in contact with the blood of man." (Golden Age 1931 Feb 4 p.294)

Thus, Deuteronomy 14:21 allowed Israelites to sell unbled animals found dead to non-Israelites. As the animal was already dead, due respect for its life was sensibly given to it unlike if it is eaten while still alive. David’s action in 2 Samuel 23:13-16 exemplifies this when he refused to drink water given to him by men who didn’t show sanctity for their lives – i.e. it is not literal blood but respect for life that matters to God.


The Mosaic Law

Another core verse the Witnesses use is Leviticus 17:10-12 which states, “As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall indeed cut him off from among his people.”

Yet this too was related to the ritual of bleeding, not the blood itself. This is seen just a few verses after with Leviticus 17:15, “As for any soul that eats a body already dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean.”

Note that eating unbled animal already found dead did not merit death penalty, but rather required people to bathe due to being unclean from handling a dead body. But even if that was not the case, remember that any divine command that comes after modifies divine commands that came earlier. This is because God’s commands mature as His people mature. The command changes, but not its essence or rationale.

That said, it is worth noting that Jesus eradicated all dietary laws by declaring all food clean (Mark 7:18-19). Thus, it was no longer problematic for Him to ask His disciples to drink His blood during the Last Supper, regardless if it was symbolic or not. Put simply, the command against drinking blood has passed away, for “these are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Therefore, let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink” (Colossians 2:17-16).


Acts 15:20-21

This verse is perhaps the key verse the Witnesses use to support their belief on blood transfusion since it is in the New Testament. It asks Christians “to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For from ancient times Moses has had in city after city those who preach him, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

We need to take into consideration the historical and religious setting at this time to fully understand what this passage really means. To begin, the situation here was very specific–the Jewish Christians were having difficulty accepting Gentile Christians, particularly regarding circumcision. The Apostles and seniors of the Early Church convened and decided that observation of the Mosaic Law was unnecessary.

However, a “discipline” was felt needed to ease acceptance of the Gentile Christians by the Jewish Christians. The Church Fathers were avoiding the Jewish Christians being scandalized by the Gentile Christians who are not bound by these practices, or more importantly, that they will not stumble in their faith by seeing their new Gentile brothers and sisters not giving their beliefs any importance.

In other words, this was not a doctrine but a “practice” decided to ensure unity of the Church. In fact, St. Paul reminds the Christians at Rome and Corinth that they should stop judging food restrictions, and that they should be careful with their “etiquette” when around people who still abide by the old practices (see Romans 14:1-14 and 1 Corinthians).

It wouldn’t make sense for Jesus and the Apostles to preach that we need not abide by old Jewish practices and declare the dietary laws are lifted, if they would still hold people accountable with what they eat. So why have a special list of “practices” in Acts 15:20-21? Because these are based on the laws given to Noah and of utmost importance to the Christian Jews. As both the Jewish and Gentile Christians grew more into the Apostle’s teaching, this became less of an issue.

It makes sense that in the New Testament, eating blood is never mentioned in any other context. It was never mentioned as a reason to shun a brother or sister by any of the Apostles, including John. If avoiding blood was a key requirement by God, it would’ve been mentioned excessively alongside sins such as fornication, murder and idolatry which are repeatedly condemned in the New Testament. But that is not the case since it is respect for life in its essence that is really important to God, and not that which merely symbolizes it.


The Last Supper and Pikuach Nefesh

Jesus commanded His Apostles to eat His flesh and drink His blood, and even asked them to do this in remembrance of Him. Non-Catholics will say that Jesus was just speaking symbolically, or some will say that it is okay since it is His flesh and blood He was talking about and not an animal. But even if He was speaking symbolically, it would be a great contradiction for Him to ask us to act out symbolically what is intrinsically evil, right? And even if He is speaking of His flesh and blood, remember that the major rationale for the dietary law was respect for life. While it may sound good that Jesus is asking us to partake of His life, it still means we are “intentionally” killing Him, or basically disrespecting His life.

But perhaps Jesus following the principle of pikuach nefesh is the greatest argument from Him. Jews would go at great lengths to soak meat in water, salt it and drain to draw out all blood as part of their kosher dietary laws based on the Old Testament, but none of them would forbid blood transfusions. This is because life-saving acts hold importance over them. This is what the rabbinic principle of pikuach nefesh states. Consider what Jesus did when challenged by the Pharisees regarding not working on a Sabbath, a practice very strict during that time (see Matthew 12:11, Mark 3:4-5 or Luke 6:7-10). Dietary laws are not part of the Ten Commandments but the Sabbath is. Yet Jesus tells us that life is important, and God will be happier if we choose to save it. Why place more importance on the symbol than the reality it symbolizes?


Final Thoughts

If it is wrong for a Witness to donate blood, it is worth asking where the blood fractions come from? While it is okay to receive blood fractions according to them, you’d still need to “bleed” wholly to get it, right? Isn’t that forbidden according to their belief?

Moreover, why allow a fraction or only specific components, when some of these comprise even a bigger percentage of blood? For example, white blood cells (1 per cent of blood volume) and platelets (0.17 per cent) are forbidden, yet albumin (2.2 per cent of blood volume) is permitted.

If God forbids blood eating (and assuming it includes transfusion) out of respect for life, why would it be an issue if no one needs to die, and in fact would even save life?

Watchtower said on November 1, 1961 that, “The important thing is that respect has been shown for the sanctity of blood, regard has been shown for the principle of the sacredness of life. What God's law requires is that the blood be drained from the animal when it is killed, not that the meat be soaked in some special preparation to draw out every trace of it."

If we’ll follow that logic, eating blood shouldn’t be a problem if it was bled properly, right? And if the important thing is to show God respect for life, doesn’t giving priority to the symbol over the life it actually symbolize disrespects God who gave life? How can we say we respect life when we easily throw it away merely for the blood that symbolizes it?

We should all respect people’s religious belief, but people shouldn’t needlessly die over a belief that is found on wrong foundations.

better than french bread

Ever wondered how things would be if we lived in the time when Jesus walked the world? I mean, how would it be talking to Him, touching Him, and listening to Him right then and there, face-to-face? Even a song that's not really religious asks, "What if God was one of us?"

What if He's within one-meter radius? Would you ask Him who His favorite actor is, or what his favorite show on TV is? Would you ask Him to heal you, or fill you with water that will never make you thirsty again? Or how about asking Him to feed you a million breads from one loaf? Whew! Now that would definitely be something.

But wait a minute! Hasn't your neighborhood priest or anyone told you that Jesus is still hanging around? I know you'll probably think he's speaking of God's spiritual presence in every place you go to, but have you ever considered that what he/she is speaking of is God's physical presence? I mean not just Jesus looking over you, but Jesus truly beside you? - Jesus "with" you?

Well, if no one has told you that, let me be the first one to tell you - God is still here on earth, available for all of us to look at, listen to, and touch more than we can imagine!

Now some may say, "Hey, I never see Him on TV. All I see are actors who portray Him. I'm sure CNN, ABC or even Fox News would be talking about Him if He were here. Where the heck is the presence you're speaking of?"

Well, the presence that I am speaking of is talked about daily, at almost all points in the globe and at any time in your watches. If you really haven't heard a lot about it, "You're missing a lot!"

As Saint John Chrysostom said, a lot of people are asking about where Jesus is, or what does He sound like, but He is here, for you to touch, to listen to, as a source of nourishment and healing.

So how's that? During the Last Supper, Jesus uttered the words that made all who believe in Him receive Him more fully. "This is my body...This is my blood," He said. No mere symbols there. It's really Him! He didn't say "This bread is my body, or this wine is my blood." They were no longer bread and wine, but body and blood! Now if you know who Jesus is, you know He can't possibly lie about that.

And you know what, He asked His Apostles to do what they have done, which is receive God's body and blood, in remembrance of Him until the end of time. After all, Jesus said, "I will be with you always." And so through Apostolic succession, or through handing down the authority God bestowed to His Apostles, we are able to see, hear and touch God's Real Presence here on earth. We can be sure that until He "returns", He is still with us in a very real sense.

Want to see Him, tell Him something, or touch Him right there and then, face-to-face? Chances are, you do! You even place Him inside of you each time you go to communion.

Now if you know that what you receive during the Holy Mass is Jesus Christ Himself, not any mumbo-jumbo symbols, would you not do everything to prepare and receive it? I mean, if that would mean the greatest ever you can have, would you still take a billion dollars in exchange for it? After all, Jesus said that unless we eat His body and blood we could never be saved.

Or would you not treat it with greatest respect and reverence? If you've been wishing all your life to show and tell Jesus everything you've ever wanted, what you know He is worthy of, isn't this your chance? No sense asking those silly questions again now that you know God is still physically present to you.

Now how about the way you treat your closest friends? Ever noticed how easier it is to get along or be closer to those people you don't just talk to through phone or letters, but be with physically? Or ever noticed how much easier it is to get to know or understand those which are with you in the physical sense?

While it is true that God is everywhere, God is not physically present everywhere. God understands how much this presence is important that He gave us the Holy Sacrament, the Holy Eucharist. Knowing this, would you say you'd just talk to Him anywhere although you have the opportunity to do so? Would you tell your neighbor that you'd always just talk to each other on the phone though you're free to visit him?

While prayer outside the real presence is great, praying to God face-to-face is far-out! Just as the saints say, the more you expose yourself to the Eucharist the more graces you receive. And I don't find that hard to believe since almost all, if not all, of the saints and holy men place special reverence and devotion to the Eucharist.

I can't possibly over emphasize how great this gift is. I'm even sure I didn't say enough about it. I just hope that each day you're made to choose between God and the world, between the Eucharist and any bread, you'll choose God, you'll choose the Holy Eucharist. After all, it's far better than French bread, even if you put some cheese on it! So don't just stand there. Go to Jesus already. Tell Him or ask Him something. Better yet, listen to Him.

these beads with my contemplation

The rosary has got to be one of the items most characteristic of Catholics--almost everybody knows it. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Mother Teresa, Archbishop Fulton Sheen and many other holy men have embraced it throughout the ages because they find in it a deep encounter with the God they love.

Unfortunately, despite its beauty, it is also one of the items most misunderstood or most controversial to most non-Catholics. What is the rosary and why has it become as such?

Let’s try to see.

digging the roots

Although one of the most prominent methods of prayer, the rosary’s history is quite vague. Tradition usually points to Mary handing it to St. Dominic. History, however, shows that people were reciting the rosary even before he was born. It can’t be denied though that he and his order had a big part in spreading the devotion.

The rosary probably developed through centuries. Early monks in the East had the habit of counting beads for all of the 150 psalms they recite. However, simple, somewhat illiterate, Christians made use of uncomplicated prayers in adapting the practice. This was commonly called the poor man’s Psalter.

Initially, these men prayed Paternosters (Our Fathers), and eventually made Hail Mary--recited in fifteen rounds of ten--as their usual choice sometime 12th century. They then resolved to have standard meditations for this practice. In the 16th century, Pope St. Pius V established the form we commonly use in our time. In 2002, Blessed John Paul the Great added the five mysteries of light which focused on Jesus public ministry.

essentially bookish

Archbishop Fulton Sheen said, “The rosary is the book of the blind, where souls see and there enact the greatest drama of love the world has ever known; it is the book of the simple, which initiates them into mysteries and knowledge more satisfying than the education of other men.” This is because the rosary is truly a biblical form of prayer. After all, its prayers come mainly from Scripture. Below are the prayers that comprise the rosary.

The original form of the Apostle’s creed dates back as early as 125 AD. It was not exactly composed by the Apostles themselves, but it expresses fully their teachings.

The Our Father came from the mouth of Jesus Himself. It appears both in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

The rst part of the Hail Mary entirely comes from the Gospel of Luke, during the Annunciation and Mary’s visit to Elizabeth. The second part is not straight from Scripture, but its thoughts are entirely biblical.

The Bible describes Christians as holy, and Mary was denitely a Christian. She was the first to receive the Word of the Lord. She is the Mother of Jesus, which makes her the mother of God. (This doesn’t mean she’s older than God, okay?) Moreover, asking her to pray for us is also biblical. In 1 Tim 1:1f, St. Paul instructs all of us to pray for each other.

The next prayers are the Glory Be, which simply gives all the glory back to God, and the Hail Holy Queen, which simply recognizes how Mary points all of us to her Son, Jesus Christ.

giving it all you’ve got

The rosary has endured the test of time because it raises our minds and bodies beyond the humdrums of our lives. Its actions frees us from distractions by capturing our wholeness--body and spirit--into deep meditation.

When we pray the rosary, our minds are not merely on the words of the prayer but on the mysteries. The mantra--or prayers that are said in a single or double breath of air--together with our hands on the beads help focus our attention to prayer.

This is the key to the rosary’s value. Our prayers, are not focused on the words we utter, but rather they are the tools that engage us to a new encounter with God. This is also the reason why most people who often pray the rosary don’t say it with a somewhat "slow" approach.

a different result every time

Vain repetition is bad, but not all repetitions are vain. As we have seen, the rosary is by all means not vain repetition. Each time we pray the rosary, we are given a fresh opportunity of experiencing our God.

there’s a revolution!

In the 1500s, the Moslem Turks were wreaking havoc on Eastern Europe. With the coasts of Italy under attack, control of the Mediterranean was now at stake.

By 1571, Pope St. Pius V organized a fleet under the half-brother of Spain’s king at that time. According to Fr. William Saunders, “while preparations were underway, the Holy Father asked all of the faithful to say the rosary and implore our Blessed Mother’s prayers, under the title Our Lady of Victory, that our Lord would grant victory to the Christians.

“Although outnumbered, on October 7, 1571, the Moslems were defeated at the Battle of Lepanto. The following year, Pope St. Pius V established the Feast of the Holy Rosary on October 7, where the faithful would not only remember this victory, but also give thanks to the Lord for all of His benefits and remember the powerful intercession of our Blessed Mother.”

In our time, we, too, are in a battle where the rosary continues to play a vital role. In abortion clinics, peaceful rallies, it is the rosary in our hands that helped us endure in faith. But more than that, our heavenly mother calls us to arm ourselves with the rosary to pray for peace and forgiveness of sins.

So go on... pray the rosary!

the cross... making things whole

For many people, the sign of the cross has been one of the major signs of Christianity. Catholics and Protestants alike place it in their Bibles and their churches, and immediately remember Jesus upon seeing it. Yet when it comes to placing it on their selves, most non-Catholics reject it. Worse, other religions supposedly of Christian faith even reject it completely!


a sign of life

The sign of the Cross reflects biblical reality and thus reminds us of Jesus’ love for us and His sacrifice for our sake. With His crucifixion, Jesus elevates the cross into a sign of redemption. Just as the fiery serpent set by Moses on a pole became a sign of life and healing for the Israelites (Num 21:9), the Cross becomes a positive sign of life for us whenever we look at it and enter the mystery that it signifies. If we see sin as death and Jesus’ cross as our redemption, than the cross is a reminder of that amazing reality.


body and soul

C.S. Lewis reminds us in his book, Screwtape Letters, about the importance of recognizing the relationship between body and soul. In one of the counsels being provided by the senior devil to a junior tempter on how to successfully tempt people into their side, the senior devil comments that humans can be persuaded that kneeling or any body position makes no difference to their prayers, since they constantly forget that whatever their bodies do affects their souls. As theologians would say, the body is not just a tool, but a part of our humanity.

What we then need to remember when we make the sign of the cross with our bodies is that we are making our bodies a part of our prayer, thus making the prayer a lifting not only of our thoughts but of our complete humanity. And since our bodies affect our souls, the sign of the Cross marks us with the imprint of Christ and signifies the grace of the Redemption He won for us by His sacrifice on the Cross. In other words, each time we make the sign of the cross we declare that we belong to Christ, and the external act becomes an evident sign of what we hope is true of our souls. Now, if you can pray in full, would you still pray partially?


from the very beginning

Most people who reject making the sign of the cross believe it to be an invention of the Catholic Church around 300AD, allegedly to allow pagans to keep their pagan ways despite converting into Christianity. The assertion is that when Constantine became a Christian and wanted his kingdom to be Christian as well, the Church lost its way and turned into a pagan church, thus being Christian by name alone.

The problem with that belief is that the practice was being followed by early Christians way before Constantine became one. The theologian Tertullian, writing in 211AD, said that "In all our travels and movements in all our coming in and going out, in putting of our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupieth us, we [Christians] mark our foreheads with the sign [of the cross]" (The Chaplet [Crown] 3). It was an old custom when he wrote this, and may well have been common even while the apostles were alive.

But the mistake about its history is not even important. The practice is in line with what the Bible teaches. If we are people of faith, then our faith should show in our actions (Jas 2:18), and making the sign of the cross gives witness to what we believe in.


a hypocrite is not a witness

How about making the sign of the cross in public places, like in a restaurant before we eat? Making the sign of the Cross does make things a little obvious.

The Bible cautions us not to be like hypocrites who do things simply to be popular (Mt 6:5). We should all heed this warning, and always be mindful of the things we let others see. But we should also not forget what Jesus is trying to teach us here – i.e. that we should do things out of love and because it is right to do so; not because we want the glory for ourselves versus for God. Going to Church every Sunday to pray as a community, if done for the wrong reasons, can easily fall under hypocrisy too, but that doesn’t mean that we all shouldn’t go to Church.

St. Augustine reminds us sixteen centuries ago that "abuse does not negate use." Improper use of an object does not mean we abandon its proper use. If you are making the sign of the Cross or praying in front of people just to “look good”, please don’t even think about trying. But if you are doing so as a selfless expression of what’s inside you, then let your actions speak and invite others to meet God as well. If you are doing so to be a witness to God’s love and glory, then by all means, let the light of your faith shine and be a guide to others who need to see God (Mt 5:15).

As Cyril of Jerusalem encouraged the Church during the fourth century: "Let us not be ashamed to confess the Crucified. Let the cross, as our seal, be boldly made with our fingers upon our brow and on all occasions over the bread we eat, over the cups we drink, in our comings and in our goings, before sleep, on lying down and rising up, when we are on the way and when we are still."


so why the right hand?

That most people are right handed would’ve been a sufficient reason for most people, especially since it is traditionally the hand of blessing and greeting in many cultural settings found even in Scripture. For example, Jesus places the sheep on his right hand but the goats on his left. He Himself is “seated at the right hand of the Father”. And even today, we use our right hand for handshakes and salutes. On the other hand, the left hand is traditionally associated differently. For example, the word “sinister” is derived from the Latin for left-handed. It is thus natural that the sign of the cross be traditionally made with the right hand.


is it even supposed to be a cross?

All this is good, but people would ask, “did Jesus even die on a cross?”

The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Christianity became apostate back in the fourth century, and that the true Church founded by Jesus Christ was corrupted with pagan practices and beliefs. One alleged example of this is Jesus’ death on a cross – i.e. they believe that Jesus died on an upright stake without a cross beam, and with both his hands nailed with one nail above his head.

History proves this belief wrong. As early as 80AD, the Letter of Barnabas mentions how the cross is related to Jesus and our salvation. The same is true when St. Justin Martyr mentions it in his First Apology and Dialogue with Trypho in 150-155AD. We hear the same message from Minicius Felix (185-190AD), Hippolytus (170-235AD), Tertullian (197AD) and many more. The list goes on.

So why do they reject the cross? Their assertion is that in classical Greek the word stauros primarily denotes an upright stake or pole, and they believe there is no evidence that the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures used it to designate a stake with a crossbeam. It is not detailed to the letter in Scriptures, so they believe that there is no other meaning other than it being just an upright stake without a cross beam.

First of all, the New Testament was not written in classical Greek, but in Koine Greek, which has a sense or logic of its own (just as American English is different with British English – but the difference between the two Greeks is greater). In Koine Greek, stauros can mean (1) upright stake with a cross-beam above it, (2) two intersecting beams of equal length, or (3) vertical, pointed stake. All historical records and archaeological findings show that the stauros in the Bible refer to a cross.

We need to remember that the audience of the New Testament were early Christians who already knew that stauros meant a T shaped cross. While Scripture doesn’t provide the details, it is clear that they followed the Roman practice which uses a cross. The evidence for this is abundant.

In 1968, one of the greatest archaeological finds in burial caves at Giv’at ha-Mivtar in Jerusalem involved remains of a man aged 24-28 crucified around 70AD. This is the first time actual physical remains of a victim was discovered, and a notable description of the findings say, "The whole of our interpretation concerning the position of the body on the cross may be described briefly as follows: The feet were joined almost parallel, both transfixed by the same nail at the heels, with the legs adjacent; the knees were doubled, the right one overlapping the left; the trunk was contorted; the upper limbs were stretched out, each stabbed by a nail in the forearm."

We also have archaeological findings more than a century ago of the Palatine crucifix. It is second century graffiti scratched into a wall that includes a caption--not by a Christian, but by someone taunting and deriding Christians and the crucifixions they underwent. It shows crude stick-figures of a boy reverencing his "God," who has the head of a jackass and is up on a cross with arms spread wide and with hands nailed to the crossbeam. Here we have a Roman sketch of a Roman crucifixion, and it is in the traditional cross shape.

There are also literature of antiquity that describes the crucifixion, like a poem written around 3rd century BC mocking crucified criminals, “Punished with limbs outstretched, they see the stake as their fate; they are fastened [and] nailed to it in the most bitter torment." We also have a Lucian who wrote in 2nd century, “" . . . and he will be in full sight of everyone as he hangs there. . . . We must not crucify him low and close to the ground . . . crucify him above the ravine with his hands outstretched."

We also have the French scholar Jean de Savignac’s study of the New Testament papyri in the Bodmer Collection. These papyri rank among the oldest extant texts of the New Testament. They include substantial pieces of the Gospels of Luke and John dating from around 250AD. In these de Savignac found that when the word stauros was written it was written in a contracted form. In this contracted form the au is omitted and the tau and the rho are superimposed. Professor Kurt Aland broadened de Savignac’s research to include other collections of papyri and found the same.

The early Christian writings mentioned earlier in this article also support this. But we don’t even have to go far, as the Scripture itself alludes to a crossbeam. In John 20:25, doubting Thomas speaks where the New World Translation translates as, “Unless I see in his hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." We see here that John refers to hands (plural) and nails (plural) – i.e. as there were two hands, there were also two nails.

Being more specific, we see that God Himself ordered to put a Tau on the foreheads of righteous people (Ezekiel 9:4,6). Note that the original Hebrew of Ezekiel shows that God ordered to specifically put a Tau sign, versus the usual English translation of "a mark". If the cross is a purely pagan practice, this would mean God wants the righteous to be pagans. But it is not, which is why it is prefigured even in the Old Testament.


a great inheritance

The cross is one of the greatest inheritances we have as Christians. It is a great reminder of our salvation that springs from God’s infinite love for us, and a seal that serves as a declaration of our Christian identity – i.e. we are God’s! Let us embrace this inheritance and allow it to direct us to God.


***consolidated/edited from various sources