September 14 is the Feast of the Cross. Celebrated by Catholics (Latin and Eastern Rites), Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Church of the East, Anglicans, Lutherans, and some other Protestant traditions, the feast commemorates the finding of the True Cross by St. Helena, the dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 335, and the transformation of the Cross from a means of execution to the Tree of Life, bringing victory over death.

I know, you’re skeptical about whether it was the True Cross or not. Martin Luther commented, “There are so many fragments of the true cross that if they were all gathered together, there would be enough to build a ship.” Still, whether what was found is the True Cross or even whether the story is true, it’s an interesting tale that is worth telling.

History and Legend

Helena was the mother of Constantine I, the Roman Emperor who converted to Christianity. Constantine may have converted Helena, or it might have been the other way around, but one way or another, Helena became a Christian at some point in her life as well.

She went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land to walk the places where Jesus walked. Eusebius of Caesarea told of this trip and may have actually been her guide since he was a bishop in the area. She distributed alms and built churches in Bethlehem where Jesus was born (the Church of the Nativity) and on the Mount of Olives where Jesus ascended into Heaven (the Church of Eleona). She also built a church at the reported site of the Burning Bush, a chapel still existing in St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai Peninsula.

In Jerusalem, the emperor Hadrian (he of the wall) had built a temple to Venus in AD 130 on the site of Jesus’ crucifixion. In 226, Helena had it destroyed and chose a site under it to excavate. They found a cistern and in it three crosses—the crosses of Jesus and the two thieves who were executed with Him.

To determine which was the True Cross, Helena found a sick woman who was near death. She brought her to the site and had her touch the first and second crosses. Nothing happened. When she touched the third, however, she was miraculously healed, and thus the True Cross was revealed.

Helena also discovered the nails used on the Cross (commemorated with the finding of the Cross on March 6 in the Orthodox Church) and had one placed in Constantine’s helmet and another in his horse’s bridle to protect and help him with their miraculous powers. She also found parts of one of Jesus’ tunics and rope that was used to tie Him to the cross. These she brought to Cyprus along with 1/3 of the True Cross. She sent another third to Constantinople and brought the rest to Rome where she kept it in the chapel of her palace. This is now the Basilica of the Holy Cross, where it is still on display.

Meanwhile, Constantine had the Church of the Holy Sepulcher built on the site of Jesus’ tomb. It was dedicated on September 13, 335, and the next day the True Cross was first shown (“exalted”) for public veneration for the first time. This gives us the date of the feast as well as one of its alternate names as the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. It’s also known as Holy Cross Day by Lutherans and some Anglicans, among other names.

In Catholicism, Evangelical Lutheranism, and Anglicanism, the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday of the week following the Feast of the Holy Cross are Ember Days, though in the Catholic Church these were abolished in reforms instituted in 1966 and they are optional observances in Anglicanism and Evangelical Lutheranism. Ember Days are (or were) days devoted to fasting and prayer and, in the case of the Lutherans, catechesis.

Evaluating the Story

So that’s the story and the feast. How should we think about it?

The story of Helena’s discovery of the crosses is probably a pious legend. Eusebius doesn’t mention it, and it first appears in the late fourth century. A more likely story is that Bishop Macarius of Jerusalem found the crosses in 327 while trying to find the site of Calvary after Helena found the site of the Holy Sepulcher. Pieces were then distributed across the Empire.

Of course, it is very possible that both stories about finding the Cross are pious legends, that none of the crosses are genuine, and all the fragments are fakes. As Luther pointed out, there were and are a lot of them. And if they had miraculous powers, why do we not see that today? Or were the miracles only to authenticate the relic? But if so, don’t the true fragments need authentication today?

Thinking about Relics

Does it matter if the relics are real?

Luther said that if he had a piece of the True Cross in his hand, he would put it “where the sun doesn’t shine.” (Yes, those were his words.) Like other Protestants, he rejected the Cult of Relics and everything associated with it. Catholics and Orthodox have a different view, seeing in relics (and icons in the Orthodox world) a point of connection between heaven and earth and, in this case, tangible evidence of Christ’s crucifixion.

As a Protestant, I am skeptical of relics. I don’t think, for example, that the bodies or body parts of saints provide a link to the saints in heaven, even though I recognize that in life and death we belong body and soul to the Lord and thus that our bodies matter even after death.

Relics and History

The authenticity of the Cross is a whole different issue from saints’ bodies, however. In this case, it’s a question of whether it is an artifact that survived from biblical history. If we believe that the events in Scripture actually happened, then we have to allow that there could be physical evidence of them. Personally, for example, I think the Shroud of Turin is genuine. It is thus not impossible that we have remains of the True Cross, the Crown of Thorns, and the Holy Nails—though in all cases, it is impossible to prove, and even if we did have the genuine articles somewhere, we would need to sift through a multitude of false relics to find the true ones.

I think that’s the reason God doesn’t want our faith to rest on relics but on His word which is certain and stands firm forever. That is part of what Protestants mean by sola scriptura—that all that we are required to believe is found in Scripture properly interpreted.

Even with sola scriptura, however, we should not write off tangible evidence of biblical history. After all, we find archeological evidence regularly for biblical people and events. We need to be open to the possibility that things like the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarion of Oviedo are in fact genuine. Too many reject them without giving the arguments a fair hearing. If we accept the resurrection as historical, isn’t it possible that it left physical evidence behind? Our faith shouldn’t depend on it, but neither should we reject possible evidence out of hand.