Jesus Nailed in the Wrist, Not the Hand?

[Michie]

Scholars have suggested that when Jesus was crucified, that more than likely the nails were not placed into the palms of the hands of our Lord as the weight of His Body hanging on the cross would cause our Lord’s Hands to rip and come off the cross.


Thus they propose that the nails were hammered through our Lord’s wrists, providing a stronger support to keep our Lord’s Arms attached to the cross.

This discovery or theory was/is controversial since our Lord’s scars have always located the wounds on His palms not at the wrists. But I think this is a little “t” tradition, not a capital “T”.

At the Easter Vigil at Holy Family Church on Hilton Head Island, I baptized an adult Elect. This is the photo that was taken after the Vigil.

This has to be the largest crucifix I have ever seen inside any church. However, many traditional crucifixes have a stand at our Lord’s feet for them to rest upon. Scholars believe that this is historically accurate as those who crucified our Lord and others wanted to prolong the agony of the crucified person who could lift his sagging body up to help with breathing as the lungs filled with fluid. Without the support of a foot pedestal, the person crucified would die more quickly usually from fluid gathering in the lungs as the person sagged.

I had not paid attention to the “modern” placement of the nails into our Lord’s wrists. While that may be historically accurate, there is no foot stand for our Lord in Hoy Family’s crucifix. What do you think?





Continued below.

I HAD NOT NOTICED THIS UNTIL NOW…

Scholars have suggested that when Jesus was crucified, that more than likely the nails were not placed into the palms of the hands of our Lo...

southernorderspage.blogspot.com

 

[timothyu]

Archeology today through excavations now believe the arms of the crucified were draped over the cross beam and behind, thus making the hand rather than wrist quite plausible AS THE HANDS WERE BEHIND THE BEAM, and the arms and not the hands would be bearing the weight. Also one nail was driven though the heel bones of sideways turned feet as that would support the weight without tearing. Crucifixion killed by asphyxiation by pressure put on the chest, much the way an asthma attack might. This also sheds light on offering vinegar to the victim to speed up the breathlessness.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi @Michie, while this is most likely true (that He was nailed to the Cross through His wrists instead of His hands), one of the problems with our understanding of this has been what the Bible tells us (that the nails went through His hands). For instance,

John 20​

24 Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. ​

25 So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But Thomas said to them, “Unless I see in His hands (χείρ/cheir) the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” ​

26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” ​

27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands (χείρ/cheir); and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” ​

28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” ​

29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” ​

The thing is, Hellenistic/Koine Greek has no word for "wrists" as they were considered to be a part of our hands back then, if memory serves (thus the chains fell off of St. Peter's "hands" (χείρ/cheir) in Acts 12:7, even though the chains were surely fastened to his wrists).

There are several other competing theories about what actually happened, some that come with valid reasons for why they may be true, as @timothyu just posited for us. In the end, the exact position of the wounds on His Body is, of course, far less important than what resulted from His being wounded for us, yes, because "by His wounds/stripes [wherever they are on His body] we are healed" .. e.g. 1 Peter 2:24

God bless you!!

--David
p.s. - edit: I just looked at the article that you posited for us in the OP and the same thing is said by someone in the comments section at the bottom, IOW, that there is no word for "wrists" in Koine Greek/that they were considered to be part of the hand back then.

 

[Michie]

Hi @Michie, while this is most likely true (that He was nailed to the Cross through His wrists instead of His hands), one of the problems with our understanding of this has been what the Bible tells us (that the nails went through His hands). For instance,

John 20​

24 Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. ​

25 So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But Thomas said to them, “Unless I see in His hands (χείρ/cheir) the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” ​

26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” ​

27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands (χείρ/cheir); and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” ​

28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” ​

29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” ​

The thing is, Hellenistic/Koine Greek has no word for "wrists", which I believe were considered to be a part of our hands back then, if memory serves (thus the chains fell off of St. Peter's "hands" (χείρ/cheir) in Acts 12:7, even though the chains were surely fastened to his wrists).

There are several other competing theories about what actually happened, some that come with valid reasons for why they may be true, as @timothyu just posited for us. In the end, the exact position of the wounds on His Body is, of course, far less important than what resulted from His being wounded for us, yes, because "by His wounds/stripes [wherever they were on His body] we are healed" .. e.g. 1 Peter 2:24

God bless you!!

--David
p.s. - edit: I just looked at the article that you posited for us in the OP and the same thing is said by someone in the comments section at the bottom, IOW, that there is no word for "wrists" in Koine Greek/that they were considered to be part of the hand back then.

Yes the wrist was considered part of the hand. To me it only makes sense for it be the wrists.