Was Jesus Crucified on a Cross or a Stake?

Was Jesus Crucified on a Cross or a Stake? A careful look at Scripture, language, history, and why this debate persists

From time to time, Christians encounter the claim that Jesus was not crucified on a cross, but on a simple upright stake or pole. This idea is often presented as a correction — sometimes even as a test of faithfulness — implying that much of Christianity has been mistaken or even deceived for centuries.

Every decade or so, I’ll hear someone bring this up again. Recently, I saw it resurface in the comments of a social media post; delivered with a very confident, know-it-all tone. Not curious, not charitable, just certain that everyone else was wrong.

That kind of claim can be unsettling, especially when it’s framed in a way that suggests your faith rests on shaky ground unless you accept this “new” insight. So I wanted to break this down carefully, for people who maybe haven’t ever heard this claim. Not to stir up arguments, but to give people solid information, historical context, and clarity. No one should be left doubting the foundations of their faith because someone else wants to feel superior, provocative, or divisive rather than truthful and helpful.

What does the evidence actually say?

This post takes a careful, grounded look at Scripture, Greek language, Roman history, and early Christian testimony, while also addressing why some believers feel so strongly about rejecting the cross — all while keeping the focus where it belongs, on Christ Himself.

Where the “stake” idea comes from…

The argument usually begins with language. Some groups argue that the Greek word stauros, translated “cross” in the New Testament, originally meant a stake or upright pole. That claim is partly true — in very early Greek usage.

However, language evolves...by the first century, stauros had broadened in meaning and was used to refer to Roman crucifixion structures in general, which commonly included a crossbeam. In other words, by the time the Gospels were written, stauros did not describe a specific shape — it described a method of execution.

The New Testament writers were using the common, contemporary term for Roman crucifixion as it was practiced in their time. This same principle applies to the word xylon (“tree” or “wood”), which refers to the material, not the design.

What did a Roman crucifixion actually look like???

Jesus was not executed under Jewish law. He was executed by Roman authorities, using Roman methods, at a Roman execution site.

Romans had standardized and efficient practices for crucifixion:

• The upright post (stipes) was often fixed permanently in the ground

• The condemned typically carried the crossbeam (patibulum) to the site

• The crossbeam was then attached to the upright post, forming either a † shape (crux immissa) or a T shape (crux commissa)

This system fits:

• Roman efficiency

• Archaeological evidence

• Descriptions by Roman historians

• Gospel accounts of Jesus carrying the cross

What Romans did not typically use for crucifixion was a single upright stake with no crossbeam. That method aligns more with impalement, not Roman crucifixion.

So the real historical discussion is T-shape vs. †-shape, not “cross vs. stake.”

What do the Gospels themselves indicate???

Several biblical details strongly support a cross with a crossbeam:

1. “The nails in His hands” (plural)

“Unless I see the mark of the nails in His hands…” - John 20:25

A single stake would normally place the hands together. A crossbeam naturally accounts for separate hands.

2. The inscription above His head

“They put above His head the charge against Him…” - Matthew 27:37

A T-shaped cross can accommodate this, but a †-shaped cross does so more naturally, with space above the crossbeam.

3. Jesus carried the cross

The Gospels describe Jesus carrying the “cross,” which aligns with the Roman practice of carrying the patibulum, not the entire structure.

What about the “tree” language in Scripture?

Several New Testament passages say Jesus was hung on a “tree” (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Galatians 3:13).

This language is not describing shape. It is theological language, intentionally echoing Deuteronomy 21:22–23: “Cursed is anyone who is hanged on a tree.”

In the Old Testament:

• Hanging on a tree was not the method of execution

• It was a post-execution display

• It signified curse, shame, and covenant judgment

The Hebrew ʿēṣ and Greek xylon both broadly mean wood or wooden structure. A wooden cross is still, quite literally, a “tree.”

When the apostles use this language, they are explaining the meaning of Jesus’ death — not redefining Roman execution practices.

Why this became a stumbling block for Jews?

From a Second Temple Jewish perspective:

• Messiah was expected to be vindicated, not cursed

• Deuteronomy said one hung on a tree was under God’s curse

• Crucifixion looked like divine rejection, not divine mission

The New Testament acknowledges this directly:

“We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews…” - 1 Corinthians 1:23

Paul does not deny the curse — he reinterprets it: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.” - Galatians 3:13

What about the argument that “the cross is pagan”?

This is a common claim, but like the stake, it doesn’t hold up historically.

• Romans used crosses long before Christianity

• The cross was not adopted as a Christian symbol until after persecution eased

• Early Christians did not venerate the object — they proclaimed Christ crucified

The cross did not begin as a religious symbol. It was an instrument of Roman terror. Christians did not give it meaning because it was pagan, they gave it meaning because that is where their Lord was killed.

The power was never in the wood. It was in what happened there.

What did early Christians believe???

Writers within one or two generations of the apostles consistently describe the cross as having a crossbeam:

• Justin Martyr compared it to a ship’s mast with a yardarm

• Irenaeus described its vertical and horizontal dimensions

• Tertullian referenced the shape when discussing Christian practice

  
  

They show no awareness of a stake-only tradition.

Why do some people insist on the stake today?

This insistence is often less about history and more about identity, authority, and certainty.

Common motivations include:

• Rejecting later Christian symbolism

• Distancing from Catholic or Orthodox tradition

• Wanting a “purer” or more original Christianity

• Defining faithfulness by being more correct than others

In some cases, it also involves:

• Claiming that most Christians have been “deceived”

• Positioning oneself as having special insight others lack

• Drawing sharp boundaries between “true believers” and everyone else

This approach quietly shifts holiness away from faith, humility, and trust, and toward being right. Scripture never treats the shape of the wood as a measure of spiritual fidelity. If you hear someone arguing this “stake theory”, just keep this in the back of your mind and move on.

What Scripture actually emphasizes…

The New Testament consistently centers on one proclamation: “Christ crucified.”

Not the dimensions, not the geometry, and not the symbolism of the object itself. The power is not in the wood — it is in what Christ accomplished on it.

So, what shape was it?

Here is the most responsible summary:

• Jesus was not crucified on a simple stake

• Roman crucifixion almost certainly included a crossbeam

• A T-shape or †-shape are both historically plausible

• Gospel details slightly favor a †-shape

• Scripture does not demand certainty on the exact form

That restraint is intentional.

A gentle way to explain this to others…

If you ever absolutely need to respond without arguing:

“The New Testament uses ‘tree’ language to explain the meaning of Jesus’ death, not the shape. Roman crucifixion used a crossbeam, and both Scripture and early Christian witnesses point to a cross. The focus of the gospel isn’t the geometry — it’s Christ crucified.”

Or more simply:

“Tree explains the theology. Cross explains the history.”

The cross was never meant to be an object of obsession, either for veneration or rejection. It is a signpost, and it points here — God entered human suffering, bore shame and curse, and redeemed what looked like defeat into salvation.

Whether T-shaped or †-shaped, the message remains unchanged:

1) Christ died.

2) Christ was buried.

3) Christ rose again.

That is the heart of the gospel.

————————————————

Footnotes & Sources

1. Greek usage of stauros: BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich), A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed → Notes that by the Roman period, stauros refers broadly to instruments of crucifixion, not merely a simple stake.

2. Language development and crucifixion terminology: Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (Fortress Press, 1977) → A foundational scholarly work on Roman crucifixion practices, language, and cultural meaning.

3. Roman crucifixion structure (stipes & patibulum): John Granger Cook, Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World (Mohr Siebeck, 2014) → Details Roman execution methods, including the use of fixed upright posts and carried crossbeams.

4. Archaeological evidence for Roman crucifixion: Vassilios Tzaferis, “Crucifixion — The Archaeological Evidence,” Biblical Archaeology Review 11.1 (1985) → Discusses skeletal remains from first-century crucifixions, confirming Roman methods.

5. Gospel details: nails, inscription, carrying the cross:

   Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Vols. 1–2 (Yale University Press, 1994) → Comprehensive analysis of crucifixion narratives in the Gospels, including historical plausibility.

6. Use of “tree” (xylon) language: Deuteronomy 21:22–23; Acts 5:30; Galatians 3:13 → Biblical basis for understanding “tree” as covenantal and theological language, not architectural description.

7. Second Temple Jewish understanding of curse: N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Fortress Press, 1996) → Explains why crucifixion functioned as a theological stumbling block for Jewish messianic expectations.

8. Early Christian testimony on the shape of the cross:

   • Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 91

   • Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.24.4

   • Tertullian, Apology 16

     
     

     → Early Christian writers describing the cross as having both vertical and horizontal elements.

   
   

9. Timing of the cross as a Christian symbol:

   Robin M. Jensen, Understanding Early Christian Art (Routledge, 2000) → Shows that early Christians proclaimed Christ crucified long before adopting the cross as a visual symbol.

10. Response to “the cross is pagan” claims:

    Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Eerdmans, 2003) → Demonstrates that early Christian devotion centered on Jesus Himself, not ritual objects.

11. Roman historical references to crucifixion:

    Seneca the Younger, De Consolatione ad Marciam 20

    Josephus, Jewish War 5.451 → Non-Christian sources confirming Roman crucifixion practices and brutality.