Was Jesus Crucified Naked? (Updated 4/13/17)

by Steve Ray on April 12, 2017

A gentleman heard me on Relevant Radio earlier. I had mentioned on the air that one of the great humiliations of a crucifixion was that a man was crucified naked. This thoughtful gentleman wrote to challenge my comments. Below is his e-mail and my response.

Dear Mr. Ray,

Please correct your description of the Passion. You have said that Christ was crucified naked on the cross because it was the Roman way of executing condemned prisoners.

Realize that in Christ’s case the Romans were following instructions of the Jews—Pilate did not want to crucify Jesus, thus he finally gave orders that the soldiers do as the Jews requested. Thus the gospel explicitly describes how the Jews requested the legs of the condemned be broken so that their dead bodies would be removed before the Passover, and this was done per their request.

Nudity in 1st century Jewish culture brought shame to the beholder, and it was the Jews that had Jesus crucified—thus Jesus would have had a cloth to cever his loins, which is consistent with the visions of various mystics of the Church. Otherwise, the gospels would have mentioned the Jewish displeasure, much like it does with their demand to remove the sign above Christ’s head, had Pilate ordered Jesus to be stripped completely naked against the wishes of the Temple leaders.

God bless, A Friend

Dear Friend:

Thanks for writing– and for your thoughtful comments. I always appreciate feedback especially from studious listeners. Please take my comments below in the same irenic tone in which you kindly wrote to me.

However, I disagree with your assessment. There is no reason to believe that Jesus was crucified according to Jewish “specifications.” The Romans had little regard for the Jews, their laws and their sensibilities (e.g., Acts 18:12-17).

The Jews were very scandalized by the sign put on the Cross “Jesus, King of the Jews.” Yet when the Jews specifically went back to Pilate with the demand it be reworded, the Romans refused to change it or take it down even though that was probably more offensive to the Jews than the nakedness of a convicted criminal. Jews were also limited in the number of lashes one could receive, but they certainly paid no heed to that Jewish concern either. They were there to uphold Roman law, not cater to Jewish religious sentiments.

You say the Romans were instructed to do what the Jews requested, but that had only to do with Pilate’s willingness to grant the Jews request to have Jesus crucified instead of just flogged. It did not mean that the Romans wrote down a list of the Jewish sensibilities to insure that none of them were upset. The Romans were to do what the Jews requested only, presumably, in terms of their willingness to allow Jesus to be crucified even though Pilate found him innocent.

Even among the Jewish rabbis there was allowance for nakedness during execution. The Mishnah (Jewish tradition from earlier centuries compiled around 200 AD) records three opinions held among the Jews, saying,

A [When] he was four cubits from the place of stoning, they remove his clothes.
B “In the case of a man, they cover him up in front, and in the case of a woman, they cover her up in front and behind,” the words of R. Judah.
C And sages say, “A man is stoned naked, but a woman is not stoned naked.”

Here we have the recording of three Jewish traditions. Two out of three claim that a man was executed naked even among his own Jewish countrymen. If even the Jews stripped their own naked according to two out of three of their traditions, why would we think the Romans would practice more scruples than the Jews?

I would agree he was robed on the Via Cruses, but even Scripture says they divided his garments but for the outer garments they cast lots. Soldiers by law were given the right to confiscate the clothing of the convicted felon. They took Jesus’ presumably like they did all the others. There is NO indication that he retained covering, rather the soldiers divided them – outer and under clothes. The Scriptures tell us this.

One good historical commentary says, “The replacement of Jesus’ own clothes for the walk to Golgotha was probably a concession to Jewish scruples about public nakedness (Jub. 3:30–31; cf. Gen 9:20–27). Crucifixion was normally naked, and in v. 35 Jesus’ clothes will again have been removed; m. Sanh. 6:3 specifies that the clothes should be removed only at the place of execution, not on the way there.”

An excellent commentary on the details of the life of Christ relays, “Even though Jesus has been flogged, Mark/Matt have Jesus dressed again before he sets out to the place of crucifixion. Normally the criminal, carrying the lateral beam of the cross behind his neck with his arms fastened to it, would go naked to the place of crucifixion, being scourged as he went. We know this from passing references in Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Roman Antiquities 7.69.2) and Valerius Maximus (Facta 1.7.4). Indeed, Josephus (Ant. 19.4.5; #270) reports that even Roman nobles involved in the assassination of Gaius Caligula had their clothes removed before being taken to the place of execution.

“In having the final disrobing of Jesus only at the place of execution (Mark 15:24 and par.), the evangelist may reflect a local concession that the Romans made to the Jewish abhorrence of public nudity. Josephus reports that the Roman tribune Celer, who was executed in Jerusalem by imperial order, was dragged across the whole city as a public spectacle before being beheaded; but there is no mention of his being disrobed (War 2.12.7; #246; Ant. 20.6.3; #136).”

Another commentator says, “To distribute the garments of Christ among the soldiers, the clothes had to be removed from Christ. Thus, Christ was crucified naked. The suffering was great at the crucifixion but so was the shame. No artist dares to picture Christ as naked—they put a loin cloth around Him for modesty. But Scripture indicates He was naked.”

Another says, “[T]he normal undergarment was either a tunic or a loincloth, and Jesus’ tunic was taken from him (v. 23; Brown 1970:902), it is perhaps more likely he was naked. Early Christian tradition is divided on the subject (cf. Brown 1994:2:953).”

Catholic Monk and prolific writer Thomas A Kempis wrote a meditative prayer on the death of Christ including the words, “Of the Crucifixion, naked, of the Lord Jesus; and of His hanging for many long hours aloft upon the Cross.”

Typical Crucifixion scene

“[Bishop St.] Melito, the second century AD bishop of Sardis, wrote in his sermon on the passion of Christ: ‘The Sovereign has been made unrecognizable by his naked body, and is not even allowed a garment to keep him from view.’  Because people of his day had witnessed crucifixions, Melito knew that the victims were executed without clothing” (Lexham Bible Dictionary).

In my opinion and others, there is NO reason to believe that the Romans covered Jesus’ privates with a loin cloth. In fact, it would be unreasonable to think they would do this since crucifixion was to be the final humiliation and degradation. They had very little respect for Jewish sensibilities in general. Even if they made a concession to the Jews by covering him as he processed through the streets, they would have removed his clothes at the site of the execution, even as the Jews did with their own executions. Roman custom gave the soldiers the right to appropriate for themselves all the clothes of the convict – kind of as a bonus.

And if you suggest they crucified Jesus with his loins covered, do you suggest that ALL executions were done with private parts covered? Were the thieves on his right and left also covered? I don’t think they treated Jesus differently than any other criminals crucified.

You mention various Mystics who have “revealed” that Jesus was covered on the cross. I suspect this has to do with pious puritanism more than historical reality. I often enjoy the writings of mystics and are benefited from them, but I don’t have a lot of confidence in their often contradicting visions, especially when it contradicts historical realities and Scripture.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to these revelations of Mystics in a category called “private revelation.” Commenting on private revelation the Church teaches, “Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. (no. 67)

Rembrandt’s self-portrait in Dutch painters beret. HE raised Christ on the cross and we did too!

Just an interesting parallel to ponder: The first Adam was naked and due to sin had to be clothed; the last Adam was clothed but to redeem was stripped naked. The first brought death at the tree of life, the last brought life at the tree of death.

In this regard The Fathers of the Church loved to play with the concept of the naked Christ. In that regard I suggest, Jesus born naked in a cave provided by a man named Joseph and he was then wrapped in swaddling clothes. In his death he was stripped of his clothes and later covered by a shroud and placed in a cave provided by another man named Joseph.

Lastly, I agree that this goes contrary to all our Catholic sentiments of decency and modesty which is why artists always portray, and properly so, Jesus in a loin covering. But real life is not controlled by polite conventions especially in pagan Rome.

My friend, may you and those you love have a wonderful Easter and may the joy of our risen Lord Jesus shine in your heart for all of eternity. Thanks for your thoughtful e-mail.

  1. A related interesting article: Nudus Nudum Christum Sequi: On Christ’s Genitalia
  2. Naked Crucifix attributed to Michelangelo in Florence from 1492

{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }

Sandra Malkovsky April 6, 2020 at 7:41 AM

Two things still bother me. I can’t find the quote but I have read in more than one place that the Romans did not crucify victims naked in the Jewish territories because for the Jews it was a serious sin to look upon a naked person. If the people would not look at the victims, at least part of the purpose of the public crucifixion was defeated. The Romans wanted all to see the horror.
In addition, there were close to Jesus His Mother and the other women and St. John. They were close enough to Jesus to hear His words from the cross. Were they just staring at the ground? Were they incurring sin by being there?

STEVE RAY HERE: First, thanks for writing and for sharing. Much appreciated. I understand your thoughts and hesitation about this topic. A lot of people are uncomfortable and upset at this. Their whole lives they have been taught to be modest. Their whole lives they have seen Jesus covered on crucifixes in churches. It just seems improper and goes against our sentimentalities.

BUT the Romans did not care about our sentimentalities or the Jews modesty. They were all about the most gruesome and painful punishments, the most degrading and humiliation executions. They impressed everyone with the open show of this utter dehumanization to scare the others into complete compliance and obedience.

You will have to show me where a Jew could not look on an executed victim. Even if a few of the most “proper and conscientious” Jews would not look, the vast majority would look. The holy women stood at a distance and were looking or very aware of what was happening. the Romans did not care about the Jews and the minutia of their laws. Scripture makes that clear. Plus, even Jews stoned men naked as I explained in my article.

Demonstrate for me where it is forbidden and a person to look at a naked man on a cross? I am sorry, but you will have to produce credible historical evidence of the suggestion Jesus was clothed, that it was forbidden by Romans to crucify men naked, that it was a sin and forbidden to look upon a naked man on the cross or that Jews did not look at him due to his nakedness.

I researched this and though I understand your reticence about the nakedness of Jesus on the cross, unhappily, that was the way it is done.

You will have to produce evidence that the Romans covered the Jews before crucifixion because I have not seen that. It says they

Sandra Malkovsky April 7, 2020 at 8:46 AM

It was my understanding that since the days of Noah the Jews considered it an offense to look upon the nakedness of another, on or off a cross. I admit freely that this is topic I have not spent much time researching. It does make me uncomfortable to think of the the Blessed Virgin and the women surrounded by naked men. Yes, I am a prude.
Perhaps ironically, I keep this quote on my desk – “He wanted every square inch of His body to witness to His love and Sufferings.”
Thank you for your time in this busiest week of the Liturgical Year. Blessings.

Thanks again Sandra for visiting my site and sharing your thoughts. You are very kind and have a very good heart. I am sure Our Lord looks down on you with great love and compassion.

One thing I have learned from my 180+ times in Israel and my studies, is that we think of the Holy Family living like us. The lived in a very rustic, cruel and difficult time in history. For example, when I give me talk “ A Day in the Life of the Holy Family” at the cave where they lived in Nazareth I always ask, “What did the Mary do first thing every morning?”

Everyone instantly says, “Pray!” I ask, “Is that the first thing you do every morning?” They all have a sheepish look on their face and say, “No, we go to the bathroom.” Ah, say I, “That is what Mary did first thing too!” Then I ask the second question, “Where did she go to the bathroom?” They all have a blank look on their face. I say, “If you live in a small village about 2 acres in size with a population of about 250 and you all live in caves with no plumbing or electricity or modern conveniences, where did Mary, Joseph, Jesus and the other 247 people go to the bathroom?

We always think that the Holy Family floated 3 feet off the ground but they really lived a very crude and rustic life. It was cruel and the Romans hated the Jews and their way of life. They did everything they could to control and enforce their cruel rule. The Romans treated Roman citizens well (example St. Paul, Acts 22:28 beheaded instead of crucified). But the Jews were not citizens. They were rowdy and always resisting and fighting the Romans.

This is why Paul was beheaded (capital punishment for a Roman citizen) and Peter was crucified (capital punishment for a non-citizen). Anyway, it is good sometimes to forget we are Americans living in a modern world with compassion, etc. and imagine what REAL life was like. In Judea in the 1st century it was quite different. The brutal Romans has no compassion for the Jews and couldn’t care less what Mary and the other non-citizen, despised Jews thought.

Understanding the REAL Mary and Joseph helps us love them even more!

Just a thought. Sorry I went on so long, but it is something that helps us understand the Bible and the Faith a lot better if we understand the actual historical cultural situation at the time.

God bless and thanks again! Happy Easter!

If you send my your mailing address I will send you my talk on “Mary, Real Girl & Woman of Mystery.” It is a gift for Easter :-)

Jacob April 8, 2020 at 2:23 AM

I wanted to pick up on your comment about private revelations. The future Pope Benedict did an official theological commentary on the famous third secret of Fatima. There he stated that private revelations are included in the famous quote of Jesus: "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of Truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming … he will take from what is mine and declare it to you" (Jn 16:12-14). This is a noteworthy contribution to the theology of revelation. He solves the problem of how God can continue to speak although public revelation is seen as something static. It ties in with the ideas found in Dei Verbum 8 as the Pope understood them, In a number of Sunday discourses he emphasized that the Apostolic Tradition is not something static — the Holy Spirit conveys a dynamic aspect that remains rooted in the revelation of Jesus the unchanging Word of God who came once and for as the Incarnate Word. I am quite amazed that Pope Benedict's teaching remains very widely unknown.

STEVE RAY HERE: Thanks Jacob. Good stuff and I appreciate it. I understand the value of private revelation (as opposed to public revelation which all must believe) but it is not encumbant on everyone to believe. Also private revelation has to be confirmed in accuracy since not all public revelation is reliable. Many saints and holy people have given private revelation but not all of it agrees or is correct. However, as the Church approves different apparitions and revelations we would be wise to listen and heed.

J. Bob April 8, 2020 at 11:34 AM

One might say the picture of a naked Jesus confirms what is depicted on the Shroud of Turin.

Stephen McIsaac April 10, 2020 at 1:50 PM

I like the reference to Adam. Also, given our "progressed" culture and abuse of sex it would seem relevant for Jesus to demystify the cult of sexualizing the body. On the other hand, the Romans did accommodate the Jews by agreeing to remove the bodies from the crosses at the request of the Jews.
In additon, Pilate had ambivilant feelings about Jesus. First, he believed Jesus to be innocent, therefore he may not have wanted to humilate Jesus to the fullest extent of Roman law. Indeed, it seemed that Pilate had Jesus scourged only because he thought the Jews would be satisfied with that torture and he could subsequently let him go. In this way it was not a typical Roman crucifiction. Second, he was afraid of Jesus as per the gospel account and his wife's dream. Romans were very superstitious and Pilate would have not wanted to tempt fate or take any unnecessary chances just in case Jesus was some sort of king. Remember t Third, it is very possible that Pilate may have liked Jesus and did not want to humiliate him any more than necessary. Remember, Jesus had told Pilate that he was not as guilty as the Jews. He had nothing personally against Jesus and may have also wanted to spite the Jews, who may have wanted Jesus, whom they hated so much, to be naked. Considering these things Pilate may have ordered his soldiers to leave Jesus with a small undergarment while he was crucified.

STEVE RAY HERE: Good thoughts all. Some have merit, however, Pilate had NO hesitation in humiliating Jesus through the horrible whipping, mocking with a crown of thorns and purple robe (unique to Jesus’s crucifixion), and crucifying him. He gave Jesus over and the soldiers implemented the execution. They would certainly have not concern whether he had a loin cloth or not. The soldiers were always brutal and made it as degradating as possible. It says they stripped Jesus of his garments.

Thanks for your thoughts. I love it when people really put themselves in the story and think so well about it. God bless!

Evelyn Astegno April 13, 2020 at 10:00 PM

Hello. I’m an artist from Italy. I don’t have the knowledge and sources to support either theory. I suppose that the discussion couldn’t find a final solution without real proofs. I personally tend to think that Jesus was naked on the cross, as He had to go through all types of sufferings to the extreme, including the dark night of the Spirit, as He approached death. So humiliation was one of them. However, in His holiness, as He turned the cross from instrument of suffering and sacrifice into an instrument of love and victory, so He bore his nakedness in a pure way, turning it from a sign of humiliation into a sign of humanity and control over temptations.
Actually there were artists who depicted Jesus naked on the cross. Painted and sculpted. The master Michelangelo was one of them; he sculpted two versions of a risen (naked) Christ. From Wikipedia ( there are other sources, of course ):” Christ is shown by Michelangelo unclothed in a standing pose. Christ's sexual organs are exposed in order to show that his sexuality is uncorrupted by lust and completely controlled by his will, so that in his resurrected body he shows his triumph over both sin and death.[6] During the Baroque period a bronze floating loincloth was added.”

STEVE RAY HERE: Buongiorno! Thanks for your astute and enlightening comment. Much appreciated. You have added important thoughts to the discussion!

Donald Link April 14, 2020 at 11:37 AM

I will leave the question to those better able in ancient history than myself but will note that the whole matter of punishment and execution has had a changed image over the centuries. Literature from the period as well as scientific studies on the few remains of executed criminals reveal an extraordinary level of brutality among the “civilized” Romans. The exact nature of their brutality was rarely if ever depicted in all its cruelty, likely because it would detract from the intended message. The execution of St. Lawrence on a grill comes to mind. The executions of Catholic priests in Elizabethan are equally brief in their descriptions as to avoid offending delicate sensibilities and to mask as much as possible how to hate in the name of religion. Bringing it forward to the present day we can note that mass media never goes into detail the process of abortion. Seems humanity has not advanced as much as it thinks it has.

James Patrick Reid April 14, 2020 at 5:37 PM

In ancient times, and in fact up until rather recent times, to be "naked" did not mean to be completely unclothed, but only relatively so. See John 21:7, and James 2:15.

STEVE RAY HERE: Thanks for your comments and for visiting my blog. Much appreciated and happy Easter!

However, neither one of those verses uses the word naked in the original language. It just says in James that they are without clothing which does not mean utterly naked. In the RSVP version, the Catholic addition, it just says they are “poorly closed.“

When Jesus was crucified he was naked naked, not naked in a general sense with still a vestige of clothing. It is quite obvious that the Romans crucified people completely naked for the other humiliation and degradation of the punishment and to cause fear and trepidation and anyone else who would dare defy the laws of Rome.

Fr. Joseph April 15, 2020 at 12:29 PM

My question is posed to the Feast of Passover and all the Jews coming in would they have allowed a modest execution? Pilates respect for Jesus (knowing the Jewish elders were jealous of Christ as well as a message from his wife of having nothing to do with this man – though Pilate was known even in Rome to being overly cruel – however we do see that Pilate is intrigued at the Christ figure). The fact that the Jewish elders asked for the three to be taken down also makes me question the validity of if he actually had a loincloth on or not. Just sharing some thoughts.

STEVE RAY HERE: Thanks for sharing Fr. Joseph and THANKS FOR BEING A PRIEST!!

Mike April 15, 2020 at 8:49 PM

What would you say to the following?

Acts 7:57–58 (RSVCE): But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together upon him. Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him [Stephen].

Would you say that the council stripped Stephen before stoning him?

STEVE RAY HERE: Mike good question and observation. We are not told in Scripture whether Stephen was stoned or naked but we are certainly influenced by all the artwork which shows him completely clothed.

First, we must recall that execution by Jews and Romans were two completely different things. Jewish stoning was carried out by the Jews without Roman involvement. In this case, they would follow their own Law and tradition. For example, Rome could lash with the whip as many lashes as they wanted by the Jews were restricted to 40 lashes (actually to be safe "forty minus one" Deut 25:3, 2 Cor 11:24). So what the Jews did when executing has no relation to the practices of the Romans who followed their own Law and customs.

Second, if we research the practice of stoning from the documents of the 1st century Jews themselves we find this in the collection of traditions and practices as recorded in the Mishna which I have copied from my article on Jesus's nakedness during the crucifixion.

"Even among the Jewish rabbis there was allowance for nakedness during execution. The Mishnah (Jewish tradition from earlier centuries compiled around 200 AD) records three opinions held among the Jews, saying,

'A [When] he was four cubits from the place of stoning, they remove his clothes.
B “In the case of a man, they cover him up in front, and in the case of a woman, they cover her up in front and behind,” the words of R. Judah.
C And sages say, “A man is stoned naked, but a woman is not stoned naked.”

Here we have the recording of the Jewish traditions. They claim that a man was executed naked even among his own Jewish countrymen though sometimes they covered his genitals. If even the Jews stripped their own naked according to their traditions, why would we think the Romans would practice more scruples than the Jews?

Richard Riley April 21, 2020 at 12:43 AM

Shame on you prideful people…Mary, in her request to God, no one was allowed to remove his undergarments. Go to confession and confess your pride

First, did you actually read the article?

Second, where do you find in scripture that Mary was in charge of Roman crucifixions?

Third, where do you come out of the blue with your arrogance and discourteous words?

Brent July 9, 2020 at 1:49 PM

Does God's creation of human genitalia offend you so much? God's creation is beautiful. And of course Jesus was crucified fully naked before a cheering mob. To suggest otherwise is blasphemy. As a devout believer, I do not understand why it's necessary to contrive a way in which Jesus would have been allowed some kind of creepy sumo wrap (or diaper) to cover his genitalia. What else did the Roman's do? Ask Jesus, 'Savior, may we get you a cold beverage?' while they were torturing him to death? Really? And if anyone truly believes that the Romans and the Jews had some sort of deal worked out so that an exception to being nailed naked to the cross was made in Jesus case, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Please don't try to cheapen His death and sacrifice by making ridiculous conjectures about how he didn't really suffer the full torture and humiliation of crucifixion. He did! And God help you if you won't accept it!

STEVE RAY HERE: As you know, I Agee.

Tom Trunick August 13, 2020 at 9:05 AM

I think scripture demands Christ's nakedness on the cross. Adam and Eve were naked and without shame. They were innocent. Christ's ultimate redemption of the believer allows the redeemed believer to be naked and then covered with our heavenly robes of righteousness.

STEVE RAY HERE: Agreed! Thanks for your comment Tom.

Luangisa September 14, 2020 at 6:56 AM

Thank you for the elaborative discussion. I would like to know a few issues regarding Jesus Christ
1-Where do we find the CROSS upon which Jesus was nailed?
2-Where do we find the nails used to fasten Jesus on the cross?

STEVE RAY HERE: You Can find pieces of the cross and at least one of the nails at the Basilica di Santa Croce in Gerusalemme in Rome.

Steve Dunham September 14, 2020 at 6:24 PM

Hi, Steve. I'm late to this party. I'm glad I discovered your blog, though. I was wondering why some crucifixes show Jesus wearing a golden loincloth. It strikes me as weird. Is it supposed to be a miraculous loincloth? That's how I found your blog post. Also, today is the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, and the priest during Mass on Catholic TV told a story about Saint Helena. He said that the crosses of Christ and the two criminals were buried for hundreds of years. It sounded improbable to me. Would the Romans have buried the crosses? You seem to know a lot about life in Christ's time, so maybe you can answer (I searched your blog for "Helena" and "cross" and didn't find the answer). Thank you.

STEVE RAY HERE: Steve, welcome. Glad you found my blog and website. There is a lot to say but I will keep it simple. Crosses seemed to be used and then after a time discarded. They even found a “tossed away cross” with an ankle bone still nailed to the cross since they soldiers were seemingly unable to remove the nail from a knot in the wood so they just took a sword and cut the man’s foot off at the ankle and tossed the cross with his ankle still attached.

The Romans tossed used and abandoned crossbeams down the hill from Golgotha into a trash heap. Queen Helena came around 312 AD and found the trash dump filled with old crosses. One of the crosses had tremendous healing powers and when sick or disabled people were brought to that specific cross they were healed. Since she was the mother of the Emperor Constantine she had the power to bring that cross to Rome. Hope that helps.

Charles Raj September 16, 2020 at 6:17 PM

Jesus was not crucified naked . It’s a sin to be naked in front of your own mother etc and many people who has seen vision of the cross did not see him naked . So you correct your version because you have not seen his death .

STEVE RAY HERE: You obviously didn’t read my paper on this and you certainly didn’t give any evidence to prove me wrong. There’s a lot of mystics that I’ve seen and a lot of other things but none of that denies the historical fact that Jesus like any other crucified non-Roman would have been naked on the cross. You may change your own blog anytime you want, but don’t tell me what to do with my blog please. Thank you!!

Ana Santa Ana January 26, 2021 at 7:20 PM

Thank you for your detailed explanation. I always wondered about the phrase “they dressed him in his own clothes.” Without the in depth knowledge that you have, my assumption was that “his own clothes” was His skin, in effect His nakedness.
I have a question on Barabbas…his name was also Jesus? It is in brackets in my Bible. The irony of it.

STEVE RAY HERE: thanks for your compliments about my article. It has been helpful for a lot of people I think, so I’ve also gotten a lot of criticism for it.

The interesting thing about Bar-abbas is that Bar means “son of”, and Abba means “father”. Jesus is also the “son of the Father”. So if there are two sons of the father being judged the crowd picked the wrong son of the father and sent the correct Son of God the Father to his death.

Joe (Lazarus) Peters April 2, 2021 at 2:27 PM

Hi Steve,

I went on your tour, with wife, Nancy, and it was awesome. I'm the guy who got sick on the plane and was resurrected to re-join the tour. Therefore, named Lazarus :)

I am reading "The Hours of the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ" by Luisa Piccarreta. This was a private revelation over her lifetime. Just wondering if you think her account is accurate? – Thanks, Joe

Regards – Joe

STEVE RAY HERE: Joe, God bless you and thanks for trusting us to travel and show you our favorite places in the world. We hope you have a wonderful Easter!

About the books that you mentioned they fall in the category of private Revelation. That means that they are not required and if someone enjoys reading them that’s good and if they gleans spiritual blessings from them that’s good. I have not read them and have someone avoided them because I know for a while they were banned by the church and there’s mixed reviews on them. I know some people who swear by them and some people who take the opposite position.

As long as you were reading them as a woman’s opinion, so to speak, and as private revelation just read them discerningly. Not much more I can say about them at this point.

But thanks for reminding us and I’m glad that you were well that day and resurrected to go on the rest of the trip. I remember feeling so bad for you at the time but so happy when you were better. God bless you both!

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: