Positive Outlook on Life: Develop a Positive Attitude, Increase Your Optimism and Elevate to a Higher Vibration with Affirmations and Hypnosis

by Anita Arya Narrated by Jason Kappus

Overview

Pessimism robs you of possibilities by limiting your imagination to the worst outcomes. By ditching a negative attitude about the present and the future, you can open your eyes to a new world of opportunities. With the right guidance, you can adopt a new way of thinking and ultimately, a new way of living.

This program has been designed to renew your outlook on life.

This program can help you:

• Develop a positive attitude
• Increase your optimism
• Elevate to a higher vibration

The audiobook includes affirmations to help you develop a positive outlook and attitude. Listen during any part of the day or evening.

Stop giving in to negative thoughts and doubting yourself. Start believing and hoping for the best today instead.

Product Details

BN ID:	2940169794939
Publisher:	Anita Arya
Publication date:	10/31/2018
Edition description:	Unabridged

Related Subjects

• Self-Help & Relationships
• Self-Improvement
• Inspiration
• Affirmations & Inspiration

Read an Excerpt

Why the Cross?

---

By Donald Senior, Joel B. Green

Abingdon Press

Copyright © 2014 Abingdon Press
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-4267-5935-2

---

CHAPTER 1

The Cross and Crucifixion in the First-Century Greco-Roman and Jewish World

The historical background of crucifixion as an extreme and horrifying form of capital punishment provides an essential context for understanding the meaning of the cross in the New Testament. Before the cross took on the powerful symbolic meaning it has for Christian faith, it was already a historical reality known and dreaded by the ancient Mediterranean world.

The origin of crucifixion as a form of capital punishment for criminals or extreme retribution toward an enemy may be traced back to the Persians. The fifth-century BCE historian Herodotus reported that Darius, the emperor of Persia, crucified three thousand inhabitants of Babylon. But references to various forms of crucifixion are found early on in various sectors of the ancient world, and its precise origin is impossible to determine. The Romans may have become aware of crucifixion from their long interaction with Carthage, where this form of punishment was also used. As we will note, it became a more formal mode of capital punishment under Roman law. Crucifixion took a variety of forms, from a crude impaling of a victim on a wooden plank or platform to the more ritualized public act of crucifixion described in the Gospels. In some instances the victims were already dead and their bodies were publicly displayed as a further humiliation or degradation. At other times, crucifixion was the means of death itself, an exceptionally cruel, often slow, and always agonizingly painful process.

Under Roman practice, crucifixion was reserved almost exclusively for noncitizens, particularly slaves and members of the lower classes. In a famous quotation, Cicero in 63 BCE defended his client Rabirius, a Roman senator accused of a grievous crime and threatened with crucifixion, by stating that a Roman citizen, however guilty, should never be subject to such a punishment:

How grievous a thing it is to be disgraced by a public court; how grievous to suffer a fine, how grievous to suffer banishment; and yet in the midst of any such disaster we retain some degree of liberty. Even if we are threatened with death, we may die free men. But the executioner, the veiling of the head and the very word "cross" should be far removed not only from the person of a Roman citizen but his thoughts, his eyes and his ears. For it is not only the actual occurrence of these things, but the very mention of them, that is unworthy of a Roman citizen and a free man.

As suggested in Cicero's rhetoric, while crucifixion was not infrequent in the Roman world, there are relatively few references to it in ancient texts and even less detailed descriptions of it because it was an odious subject not to be dwelt on. Even the restrained descriptions of Jesus' crucifixion in the gospel accounts are more detailed than most ancient references to this practice. Crucifixion was known according to Cicero as the summum supplicium (the "ultimate punishment") or in the Roman historian Tacitus's famous phrase, the mors turpissima crucis ("the most terrible death of the cross"), and by the first century Jewish historian Josephus as "the most pitiable of human deaths," ranked first above burning and beheading in the hierarchy of terrible forms of punishment.

While the process of crucifixion took various forms, the general features are consistent. In many cases the victim, whether a condemned criminal or a captive, was first tortured, often in the form of flogging, as in the case of Jesus in the gospel accounts. Seneca, for example, makes the case that it is better to commit suicide than to submit to death by crucifixion and, in describing the agony of such a death, refers to "ugly welts" on the shoulders and chest of the victims—wounds most likely inflicted by flogging. In some instances, the severity of such torture had the effect of hastening death—as may be the case with the crucifixion of Jesus. Crosses themselves had different shapes, either a single stake to which the victim was fastened or equipped with a cross beam as in the classical depiction of the cross. Depending on circumstances, the condemned person was made to carry the crossbeam to the site of the execution.

The place of execution was normally in public view. Roman rhetorician Quintilian (35–95 CE) emphasized the deterrent effect of having crucifixions in public places: "Whenever we crucify the guilty, the most crowded roads are chosen, where the most people can see and be moved by this fear. For penalties relate not so much to retribution as to their exemplary effect." One of the major rationales for crucifixion was to discredit the cause and example of the one crucified. This is why it was applied especially to crimes of treason, sedition, robbery, and other actions that disturbed the public order—particularly on the part of slaves. On the way to execution, condemned criminals might also carry a sign or titulus that indicated the nature of their crime; in some instances—as in the case of Jesus—the titulus would be fastened to the cross to inform the public about the nature of the condemned person's crime.

Once at the execution site, the victims were fastened to the cross, either by tying them with ropes or, as was often the case, by nailing their hands and feet to the beam. To keep the body from sagging too much, the victim was often supported by a wooden peg or small seat. A rare find of the remains of a crucified man buried near Jerusalem at Giv'at ha-Mivtar demonstrated that at least the feet of this victim were nailed to the cross. Death could come slowly, with the victim eventually expiring through a combination of asphyxiation, dehydration, or brutal trauma caused by attacks of animals or birds while the victim was pinned helpless to the cross. Exposed in a public setting, the victims would also be the object of taunts and derision from passing crowds, as also reflected in the gospel accounts. Josephus reports that during the siege of Jerusalem, the Romans, in public view of the city, crucified large numbers of Jews who were trying to escape the siege, pinning their bodies to crosses in grotesque postures to add to their ridicule and also to put fear into the Jews who were defending the walls.

As part of the intended humiliation and dishonoring of the victims, corpses could be left on the cross for days after the death of the crucified, with their bodies exposed to visible decomposition and the attacks of animals and birds. Roman records indicate that the remains of those crucified would ultimately be thrown into public common graves set aside for this purpose. But there is also evidence, as in the case of the gospel accounts of Joseph of Arimathea, who sought permission from Pilate to have the body of Jesus buried, that relatives or friends could request permission to bury victims of crucifixion, even if they were notorious criminals or rebels. Permission for this was usually given, although in certain cases, depending on the notoriety of the victim and the whims of the authorities, it could be refused.

As noted, this terrible form of death was rarely inflicted on Roman citizens but was reserved for all practical purposes for slaves, members of the lower classes, and foreigners. While robbers and bandits were fair game for this punishment because they were a threat and disturbed the good order of the Roman world, crucifixion of slaves was not uncommon. Roman society had a great fear of slave revolt, and slaves who joined in any form of sedition or who appeared in any way to plot against their masters were subject to crucifixion. The famous morbid prediction of the slave Sceledrus about his own fate reflects this: "I know the cross will be my grave: that is where my ancestors are, my father, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, great-great-grandfathers." Horace refers to a notorious example of a slave threatened with crucifixion because he dared to sample his master's fish soup while bringing it to the table. Under Nero, slaves who were members of a household in which the master had been murdered could also be crucified as a deterrent for any who might have been accessory to such a crime. Likewise, even to consult an astrologer about the fate of one's master could make one liable to this capital punishment.

While crucifixion was frequently used as the supreme capital punishment in the Roman Empire, the infliction of this torment on Jews by Jews was far more rare. Josephus reports that under the Hasmonean dynasty, the high priest Alexander Janneus (103–76 BCE) had eight hundred Pharisees crucified and the members of their families executed as well. Such atrocities, it should be noted, came during a time when Greco-Roman influence was making inroads into Jewish life. Josephus reports that under the Seleucid dynasty of Antiochus IV in the third century BCE numerous Jews were crucified for resistance based on fidelity to the Jewish law. One important religious note specific to the Jewish context that we will turn to later is the tradition founded on Deuteronomy 21:22-25 in a section dealing with violent crime: "If someone is guilty of a capital crime, and they are executed, and you then hang them on a tree, you must not leave the body hanging on the tree but must bury it the same day because God's curse is on those who are hanged. Furthermore, you must not pollute the ground that the LORD your God is giving to you as an inheritance." Although its meaning is somewhat obscure, this text probably refers to the public display of a body of someone who suffered capital punishment by some other means and then hung in public display. This display is tempered by the injunction that the body must be buried by sundown. The fact that such a fate is seen as a sign that the condemned person is also cursed by God adds to the sense of horror and perhaps acted as a constraint on any Jewish adaptation of this form of capital punishment. In texts from Qumran, the curse of Deuteronomy 21:22-23 was applied to those who were crucified. Paul will refer to the Deuteronomy text in Galatians 3:13 in connection with the crucifixion of Jesus. On the other hand, during Roman governance of Judea and Samaria and later of the entire region, crucifixion of Jews by Romans was well known. This was particularly true during the periods of the Jewish revolt (66–73 CE; 132 CE); crimes of sedition by slaves, noncitizens, and "foreigners" were considered particularly heinous and deserving of the supreme punishment from the Roman point of view.

This brief review of the historical practice of crucifixion, particularly under the Roman imperium, reveals certain constant traits:

1. Crucifixion was primarily a military and political punishment, used as triumphant retribution and an instrument of fear for defeated en-emy combatants or as a deterrent for those who would dare to attempt treason or acts of sedition against civil authority. A particular fear in this instance was the possibility of violence or uprisings on the part of slaves. Robbery, banditry, and other forms of serious disturbance of the public order also fell under the threat of crucifixion, because they were seen ultimately as a threat to civil authority.

2. Crucifixion had a public character, carried out near busy thoroughfares or in full view of the enemy. The drawn-out character of this form of execution, with either the victim dying a slow death or the displaying of an already dead corpse for several days, compounded the intended humiliation and discrediting of the victim. Thus crucifixion was intended not only to punish the perpetrator but also to thor-oughly discredit and delegitimize the cause for which the perpetrator stood and to reaffirm the political and military might of the one authorizing the crucifixion.

3. Crucifixion was reserved almost exclusively for slaves and lower classes or aliens who had no claim to civic rights. Roman citizens were usually exempt and, if they were also members of the elite, crucifixion was not to be applied even if their crime was judged deserving of death.

4. Although limited to negative connotations, the cross did take on some nonreligious metaphorical meaning in Greco-Roman culture. Gallows humor on the part of slaves saw their fate as death on the cross. A more pertinent example is the romanticized story of M. Atilius Regulus, a Roman general captured by the Carthaginians and sent back to Rome to negotiate peace with Rome. Instead of carrying out the Carthaginians' instructions, Regulus urged the Roman Senate to stiffen their resistance to Carthage. Because he had taken an oath to return to Carthage after his mission, Regulus did so and the furious Carthaginians executed him by crucifixion. This heroic deed was celebrated in later Roman tradition, including the works of Cicero. The second-century CE writer Silius Italicus speaks poetically of Regulus "being hung high upon the tree and (seeing) Italy from his lofty cross." Even more pertinent is the metaphorical use of the cross in some Latin literature as an extreme form of suffering now applied to the pain caused by "desire" or other forms of psychological suffering or difficulties, such as the legal attacks of an opponent or the suffering of those who have yielded to the unbridled desires of their bodies. Hengel speculates that much of this type of metaphorical use was triggered "by Plato's remark in the Phaedo (83cd) that every soul is fastened to the body by desire as though by a nail." It is noteworthy that all of these metaphorical uses of the cross are in negative contexts, speaking of various forms of human suffering.

From this brief review of the historical context of cross and crucifixion in the ancient Greco-Roman and Jewish contexts, we can already note some connections to the Christian use of these same terms in the New Testament. Ultimately the answer to the question "Why the cross?" must take into account both its historical reality and the range of its symbolic meaning. The connections noted here will be taken up in more detail in the pages that follow:

1. The terrible form of human suffering involved in crucifixion and the revulsion with which first-century peoples viewed this form of capital punishment help explain why Paul, for example, would refer to the "scandal" or "offense" of the cross (1 Cor 1:23; Gal 5:11). The bold Christian message that proclaimed that a Jew who was crucified by the Romans was in fact the Son of God and the awaited deliverer of Israel could only be viewed as "foolishness" to Gentiles and a "scandal" to Jews (1 Cor 1:23). Paul is expressing what must have been the initial reaction to the Christian message on the part of many first-century listeners.

2. The fact that crucifixion was a punishment reserved primarily for slaves, lower classes, and foreigners without rights—what the majority might view as the dregs of society—brings a startling depth of meaning to the association of Jesus with the poor and the outcasts in the gospel literature and underscores the radical nature of the incarnation. Paul's assertions that Christ became sin for us (2 Cor 5:21) and "[became] a curse for us" (Gal 3:13) are surely connected with the ultimate degradation implied in the fate of one who was crucified. So, too, is the phrase that may have been added by Paul to the early Christian hymn in Philippians that expresses the ultimate humiliation of the Christ who put aside his equality with God to become a "slave" and to experience, as a slave would, "death on the cross" (Phil 2:7-8). The fact that Jesus was crucified by Roman authority in Jerusalem in the early decades of the first century also affirms in a radical way the reality of the incarnation. Jesus lived and died in a particular time and place; his life was not an abstraction but genuine. The person and message of Jesus are grounded in history.

3. An important function of crucifixion as a public and horrendous form of capital punishment was its deterrent power. The slow and ignominious death of the crucified was an emphatic no to the cause or stance of the one so put to death. If an enemy challenged the might of Rome, crucifixion definitively rejected that challenge. If slaves dared to contemplate revolt against their masters, punishment by crucifixion reaffirmed the authority of the master and crushed the illicit aspiration of the slave. If a violent criminal disregarded public order and the authority of the empire that stood behind it, death by crucifixion reestablished both public order and the absolute power of civil authority. Seen in this light, the crucifixion of Jesus by his opponents was intended as a thundering no to him, to his claims of religious authority, and to his vision of the reign of God embodied in the commitments of his entire ministry. The crucifixion of Jesus, in effect, becomes the "no" side of one of the earliest interpretations of the salvific meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Where crucifixion and death place a no on Jesus, through resurrection God transforms that no into a resounding yes!

4. Finally, the entire public character of crucifixion provides a connection to Christian proclamation. Jesus did not die in the privacy of his home or hidden from public view. The whole ritual of crucifixion, from official condemnation and torture through to the impalement on the cross in full view of passing crowds, makes the death of Jesus a public act. The gospel accounts accentuate this by drawing attention to the title fixed to the cross of Jesus: Jesus the Nazarene, the king of the Jews (John 19:19). Thus the death of Jesus as a public act was, in effect, the "word of the cross," conveying a message that would be complemented and transformed by the resurrection but with the cross remaining an essential component for Christian understanding of the person and mission of Jesus and its impact on the world. In the resurrection appearances found in both Luke and John, the risen Christ still bears the wounds of crucifixion (Luke 24:39-40; John 20:20, 24-29). A word of death intended by crucifixion on the part of his opponents is transformed into a word of life by the one who hangs on the cross and whose death gives way to resurrection.

(Continues...)

---

Excerpted from Why the Cross? by Donald Senior, Joel B. Green. Copyright © 2014 Abingdon Press. Excerpted by permission of Abingdon Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---

Videos