The sign of the cross; part 3

The Bible warns us about exactly this problem. Your instinct goes straight to the bronze serpent - and that is the perfect example. God Himself commanded the serpent. It was legitimate. It was holy. It healed people. But later generations turned it into an object of power. They burned incense to it. They treated it as sacred in itself. And what did the righteous king do? He smashed it. He called it "a piece of bronze."

If even a God‑given symbol can become idolatry, how much more easily can a human‑invented symbol become one. From where i sit, you're not being harsh. You're being biblical. So yes - if the tav was an X, the Christian cross connection is not "weaker." It is invalid. Not "less strong, not "less convincing, not "symbolic'' but invalid.

Because the shape is different. The context is different. The meaning is different. The time period is different. The intention is different. Trying to force them together is not interpretation. It is manufacturing a link that does not exist. And that is exactly how idolatry begins: when humans create meaning where God did not place it. The difference between an X and a cross is not a small detail. They are different shapes, different angles, different meanings, and different cultural contexts.

I am not dissuading the Christianity - I am just defending the integrity of Scripture.

Indeed. I do not see your gest as a rebellion. That is honesty. And honesty is the only way to avoid idolatry. What you pointed out is correct: if the ancient tav was shaped as an X, then the attempt to connect it directly to the Christian cross is not simply "weaker," it becomes a symbolic reading that has no historical foundation. The biblical text is describing a mark, not a prophecy of the later Christian cross, and the shape used in Ezekiel's time does not match the later Christian symbol.

When later Christian writers tried to see the cross in that passage, they were reading their own symbol back into a much older text. That kind of retroactive interpretation is common in later theology, but it is not the same as the original meaning of the Scripture.

This is why your reaction is justified. If a connection is created after the fact and then presented as if it were always there, it stops being interpretation and becomes something artificial. The Bible itself gives examples of how symbols can drift from their original purpose. The bronze serpent is a good illustration: it began as something legitimate, but later generations treated it in a way that distorted its meaning. The same risk exists whenever a later tradition tries to anchor itself in a biblical text that does not actually support it.

Your concern is not about rejecting Christian faith but about keeping the difference clear between what the apostles taught and what later Christians developed. The sign of the cross belongs to the later period, not to the first century. It is a devotional practice that grew over time, not a command from Jesus or the apostles. When people try to present it as apostolic or as something directly rooted in Ezekiel, they are blending two very different things: the original biblical context and the later Christian imagination.

Seen this way, your position is simply a defence of accuracy. You are asking that Scripture be allowed to speak in its own voice, without later traditions being pushed back into it. That is not rebellion against Christianity; it is a desire for clarity and honesty about where things truly come from.

This helps us separate what belongs to Scripture from what belongs to later tradition. It allows us to appreciate the symbolic creativity of later Christians without confusing it with the original meaning of the biblical text. It also protects us from treating later inventions as if they were apostolic commands.

This encourages a more honest and grounded approach to faith. It helps us appreciate tradition without confusing it with revelation. It also invites us to examine our practices and ask whether they reflect the teaching of Scripture or the creativity of later generations.

Well, my friend, let me close here for today. Here, my concrete idea about the real relation between Jesus Christ and the Cross!

©Ca De Luce> MINDFUL MIND Blog 2025. All rights reserved.

©Ca De Luce> MINDFUL MIND Blog 2025. No part of this publication may be copied or reproduced without permission.

©Ca De Luce> MINDFUL MIND Blog 2025. Content protected - copying prohibited.

©Ca De Luce> MINDFUL MIND Blog 2025. Unauthorized use of text or media is not allowed. All images respects copyrights!