Was Jesus killed before he was nailed to the cross?
Posted By: revdanbaxter on 11/1/09
Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
The KJV states in acts 5:30 "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree"
The problem is, which the newer translations have fixed, is that Jesus was slew ON the cross NOT killed then put on the cross.
Posted By: BroChris on 11/5/09
According to Revelation 5:6, The Scriptures state "And I beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth". The Bible also records the statement of John the Baptist, when he declared, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world". The Scriptures are not in error. In the mind of God, the Lord Jesus Christ was the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world. Before the Incarnation of Christ, Christ was still the Lamb slain. The Jews and Gentiles were the human agents to facilitate the crucifixion of Christ but the plan was God's. God is not limited by time as His throne sits upon eternity so yes in the mind of God Jesus Christ had already been crucified as He is not bound by the restrictions of time.. Psalms 22 God's Word describes Crucifixion before in was invented by the Phonecians and perfected by the Romans as the most cruel and painful way to execute anyone. Our sins were placed upon Him as He died for the sins of the whole world. Please respond when you get a chance,
Bro. Chris Davidson
Posted By: brandplucked on 11/10/09
Acts 5:30 "whom ye slew and hanged on a tree"
King James Holy Bible 1611
"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew AND hanged on a TREE."
Mr. James White says on page 225 of his book The KJV Controversy: "The NKJV corrects the problem seen in the KJV rendering. Peter did not say that the Jews HAD SLAIN Jesus AND THEN HUNG (caps mine) him on a tree. Instead they put the Lord to death BY hanging Him upon the tree. It is difficult to see exactly where the KJV derived its translation, as there is no "and" in the text to separate "slew" and "hanged on a tree."
James White objects to the AV's "and" but has no problem with the insertion of "by" in the modern versions. As a matter of fact the NIV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, all insert the little word "by". There is nothing incorrect about "adding" the word "and" when used before a participle, as is the case here. In fact, ALL bible versions do this scores of times. To see just a few of the numerous examples of this, look at the NASB adding the word "and" in Acts 2:23; 5:40; 9:37,39; Matthew 2:21; 4:9,13; 26:56 and John 19:2.
In Acts 5:30 the word "and" does not refer to a sequence of events, but to an additional description of what took place. James White reads into the passage something that is NOT there, and then criticises the KJB for something it does not do. He said: "Peter did not say that the Jews HAD SLAIN Jesus AND THEN HUNG him on a tree." He is right; but neither does the King James Bible say this.
The use of "and" in this manner is common English grammar describing events which take place simultaneously. "We watched the college football game, and had a great time, and we ate hotdogs and drank Cokes, and clapped and yelled till we were hoarse."
It is also of interest that Mr. White chose not to use the NASB, for whom he now works, in his faulty illustration. The NASB says: "whom you had put to death BY hanging Him ON A CROSS."
The NASB not only adds the word "by" which also is not in any Greek text, but more importantly it translates the word xulon, which means "tree" or "wood", as "cross". The word for cross is staupos, not xulon, and by translating it as cross instead of the proper "tree", the NASB misses the whole point of what the Holy Ghost is saying through Peter.
Deuteronomy 21:22-23 says: "And if any man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a TREE: His body shall not remain all night upon the TREE, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (FOR HE THAT IS HANGED IS ACCURSED OF GOD;)" (caps mine)
We can then see the significance of the "tree" when we cross reference these verses with Galatians 3:13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a TREE."
For the Jews to hang another man on a tree was a special mark of the curse of God upon such an individual and was an additional insult heaped upon the person who committed the crime. (Notice the use of "and" in this last sentence).
Peter is saying in effect, Not only did you kill the Messiah, but you also hung Him on a TREE - you marked Him out as an object of the special curse of God. You humiliated and debased Him to the lowest degree allowed under the law. Peter is drawing the sharp contrast between this Jesus "whom God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour", and the shame, degradation and calumny to which the unbelieving Jews subjected Him.
John Calvin remarks in his commentary: "Neither was your cruelty satisfied with a plain and common death; for he was hanged upon a tree."
The King James reading is by no means in error here. Mr. White, with all his professed scholarship, is simply reading something into the passage that is not there, and he misses the whole point of the significance of Christ's being hung ON A TREE.
Not only does the KJB render this verse as "whom ye slew AND hanged on a tree", but so also do Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Cranmer, Daniel Mace New Testament 1729, Luther's German translation (welchen ihr erwürget habt UND an das Holz gehänget), John Wesley Etheridge's translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1846 "The God of our fathers hath raised up Jeshu whom you killed and hanged on the tree", Webster's 1833 translation, Green's Modern KJV, the New Life Version 1997, the KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible.
Another excellent article dealing with this verse and James White's unjust criticism see Marty Shue's comments at: http://www.avdefense.webs.com/acts5-30.html
Posted By: Jehu on 11/27/09
Oh, that one is easy! I’ll get to that in a sec…
There are a lot of “apparent” contradictions that advocates of newer translations seem to be able to come up with. These “apparent” contradictions were fed to seminary students via apostate professors (who ignored the warning of Rev. 3:14-22) first in Europe, then this country and then throughout the world using once reputable Baptist, Evangelical and Para-Church organizations. It the same old lie of Genesis 3:1 repackage for the intellectual of today. In summary, apostate translations cannot fix that which is not broken!
If I said “I went to the store and bought some milk.” You would not freak out and argue with me over whether or not I went to the store or bought milk. That’s because “…bought some milk.” Is additional detail to the fact that “I went to the store…” The same applies to this passage in Acts. You have to keep in mind that this sentence first is about God having resurrected Jesus and the detail of his death is secondary while additional detail was tertiary and therefore added at the end.
Look at it this way… What God did, + what they did + the detail of how they did it. If that doesn’t cover it let me know. I can crack open my dusty grammar books and go into more detail.
Posted By: gwho on 12/29/09
"And" in English doesn't always necessarily imply chronological order. The same is true in many other languages also.