The Narrow Path Ministries

Mark 8:34 says, "And He summoned the crowd with His disciples,and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.""

Why does Jesus say, "take up his cross" here when he has not yet been crucified and the disciples probably did not think he was going to be crucified? How would the people around Jesus have understood this?

Hi wwalkeriv,

It is worth noting that a person literally bearing a cross was not dead, but was on his way to execution. It is my understanding that at the time Jesus spoke the law considered a condemned person to be a dead man from the time the sentence was pronounced. Thus, a person carrying their cross to the place of execution could be abused by the crowd with impunity; the law would do nothing to prevent their abuse. Jesus was telling His followers that they must endure abuse when persecuted because of Him, and not fight back.

I would be interested in hearing any other ideas on this.

God bless, Homer

Examining the context:

And he called to him the crowd with his disciples and said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? For what can a man give in return for his life? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

A person who carried a physical cross did so for one reason --- to die on it. I suggest that Jesus used this as a figure to speech to emphasize the necessity of dying to the self-life. (Or should I call it "self-death"?

Luke records it this way:

"And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it –– "lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple."

Jesus didn't say that he would be an inadequate disciple or an ineffective disciple. Rather he seemed to say that whoever does not forsake all cannot be his disciple at all. The cost of discipleship is great! Whoever would be His disciple should sit down and count the cost. Jesus seems to suggest that it's better not to be His disciple at all than to begin in discipleship and be unable to continue. He once said. "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back back is fit for the Kingdom of God." (Luke 9:62) He also said, "He who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."(Matthew 10:38)

A wise man who perceived the gravity of Christ's teaching about discipleship, once said, "Unless you make Him Lord of all, He cannot be your Lord at all."

Two quick notes to this -
I am reading Helen Prejean's book, "Dead Man Walking" (I highly recommend it), and she says that when the condemned man is walking to the execution chamber to be put to death by the people of the State, the guards call out, "Dead man walking".

When I was a new believer, some friends told me of the importance of baptism, and I remember considering what may lie ahead, and asking myself if I am going to take this being a Christian business seriously. If I wasn't, I would not be getting baptized. I said nothing to anyone, and at the cold mountain stream in May, after baptising all that had signed up for it, the man looked around the crowd and said, "Will there be anyone else?" I walked in.

Hi Paidion,

You wrote:

A person who carried a physical cross did so for one reason --- to die on it. I suggest that Jesus used this as a figure to speech to emphasize the necessity of dying to the self-life. (Or should I call it "self-death"?

I think you have missed Jesus' point regarding bearing the cross. After considering your view I have not found where Jesus indicated they were to "die to self" in the four places I found Jesus speaking of the necessity of bearing a cross. I considered Matthew 10:38, Mark 8:34, and Luke 9:23 and 14:27 in their contexts. In each case Jesus was speaking of either His impending death and/or the persecution His disciples would face because of Him. For example, in Matthew 10 Jesus informed them that they would be hated, persecuted, and killed, and even their own families would be involved in it. Then He went on to encourage them to not be afraid, for God cared for them, and they should not fear those who can only take their life, but fear God who can destroy both body and soul. He warned them of the peril of denying Him in order to save their life and then spoke of taking up their cross and following Him. I maintain that this is the cross of persecution: can they persevere in walking the Via Dolorosa, or will they deny Him when their life is in peril?

It must be taken into consideration that cross bearing is not dying. Only the person who is alive can bear that cross day by day. I believe that the death we die is an event, as Paul says in Romans 6. The old man dies with Christ and we rise to a new life wherupon we proceed to put to death the deeds of the body.

Thanks for your consideration of this matter.

God bless, Homer

I quote once again:

Luke records it this way:

"And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it –– "lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple."

Homer, please read again, especially the first sentence and the last. The last sentence is the conclusion of the matter. To become a disciple of Christ, one is to bear his cross. Doing this entails counting the cost. What is the cost? Forsaking all that one has. Is not forsaking all that one has in order to be Christ's disciple tantamount to dying to self?

Hi Paidion,

Thanks for your reply, perhaps we can make some progress.

You asked:

Is not forsaking all that one has in order to be Christ's disciple tantamount to dying to self?

Let's consider the text:

Luke 14:25-35 (New King James Version)

25. Now great multitudes went with Him. And He turned and said to them, 26. “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27. And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28. For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it— 29. lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30. saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish’? 31. Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32. Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. 33. So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.

First of all you continue to use non-biblical language. I do not find "die to self" anywhere in scripture, and having no help from context one can only guess what the phrase might mean. For sure it is a figure of speech. Why not speak as Jesus spoke? He frequently said we must deny ourselves, an unmistakeable term. But then it must be asked if it is a total denial of self? And what would that entail? Can a Christian own a home and automobile? If it is necessary to forsake (say goodby to; leave behind) those items we must not have them. And what of the context? As Jesus says, must we hate our family? Could Jesus' instruction have been tailored to the urgency of the situation and the persecution He repeatedly warned them of, in particular by their family members?

Consider how the apostles understood Jesus. Peter certainly left behind his boat and nets to follow Jesus, but after the crucifixion we find he headed back to his fishing business. And archeologists with great confidence say they have identified the remains of Peter's home that he had after the resurrection, and by the standards of the day it was the home of someone who was definately not poor. It was quite large, in fact. So had Peter fallen away, in spite of his martyrdom?

We must ask if Jesus' instructions in this place primarily referred to the urgency of the situation at the time? How could anyone be Jesus' disciple during His earthly ministry, as he continually travelled about, without leaving (forsaking) possessions behind?

I still believe we must understand cross-bearing in the context of persecution.

I think if we understand Jesus to be demanding self denial (His words used repeatedly) we are on the right track. And as Dallas Willard says regarding the Sermon on the Mount, we can understand self denial in the context of "as appropriate". I do not find Jesus teaching or demanding an ascetic lifestyle as a requirement to being His disciple. We have a sex drive. God provided for this desire in marriage. We desire food, but gluttony is forbidden, and sharing with the poor is required. Other examples can be given whereby we can satisfy our desires within the parameters of the Law of Christ. Total self denial would seem to require that we deny ourselves when we have the impulse to do good, and this would be absurd.

Looking forward to your comments on this most important subject.

God bless, Homer

Homer wrote:First of all you continue to use non-biblical language. I do not find "die to self" anywhere in scripture, and having no help from context one can only guess what the phrase might mean. For sure it is a figure of speech. Why not speak as Jesus spoke?

Because we live in the third millenium. Language changes over the centuries, even within the last decade.

Anyway, does "dying to self" differ from "forsaking all that one has"? Since you state, "Total self denial would seem to require that we deny ourselves when we have the impulse to do good..." you must be using "self" in a wider sense than the scriptural use of "self" or "soul" (as it is translated. I take "dying to self" as "dying to soulishness". This narrower understanding of "self" is the self-serving nature, often called "the flesh" in the NT.

Now a soulish (ψυχικος) man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is unable to understand them because they are spiritually assessed. I Corinthians 2:14

It is this "soulishness" that has to go in the disciple. This is "dying to self".

You also wrote:

He frequently said we must deny ourselves, an unmistakeable term. But then it must be asked if it is a total denial of self? And what would that entail? Can a Christian own a home and automobile? If it is necessary to forsake (say goodby to; leave behind) those items we must not have them.

You may be right. Perhaps we are not to have them. For what was the thing the rich young ruler lacked in order to be Jesus's disciple?

Mark 10:21 Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, "One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." NASB

Now I suppose one could argue that this was a specific case and is not to be generalized. For the only way a person could be a disciple in Jesus day was to leave everything behind and follow Him, even as Peter simply dropped his fishing gear where it was, and followed Him.

But Jesus said some things in the "sermon on the plain" which suggest problems with riches and comfort which work against discipleship:

Luke 6:24 "But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full.
Luke 6:25 "Woe to you who are well-fed now, for you shall be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.

James also warns the rich:

James 5:1 Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you.

But even more significantly, Jesus seemed to say that it is the poor who would inherit the kingdom of God:

Luke 6:20 And turning His gaze toward His disciples, He began to say, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God."

Finally, in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, no reason is given for the rich man ending up in a place of suffering after he died, except that he was rich. Likewise, no reason was given for Lazarus ending up in "Abraham's bosom", a place of comfort, except that he was poor.

Hi Paidion,

You wrote:

Because we live in the third millenium. Language changes over the centuries, even within the last decade.

Anyway, does "dying to self" differ from "forsaking all that one has"?

You are correct that language changes, but then, in your mind, "dying to self" and "forsaking all that one has" are equivalent. So why do you change it? But they are not equivalent to me. If dying to self means "do not be selfish", that is not the same thing as forsaking (or leaving) all that one has to follow Jesus. Judas apparently left behind all he had to follow Jesus but I suspect he was still selfish.

And you wrote:

Now a soulish (ψυχικος) man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is unable to understand them because they are spiritually assessed. I Corinthians 2:14

It is this "soulishness" that has to go in the disciple. This is "dying to self".

And here I assume you mean "natural" man. Is "soulish" your own translation? That is a rather strange one. The word is psuchikos referring to the natural man, not psuche, although it is derived from it. And another question might clarify your view. Due you see the dying you speak of as a one time act, as Paul references to in baptism, or do you see it as an on-going process? If the latter, again why not speak as the bible speaks and say "putting to death the deeds of the body"? That is simple enough to understand. And if the former (one time act), do you know of anyone who has accomplished this?

And you wrote:

You may be right. Perhaps we are not to have them. For what was the thing the rich young ruler lacked in order to be Jesus's disciple?

Jesus response to the rich young ruler seems to have been tailored to that man in particular. His money was more important to him than God. On the other hand, Zaccheus was no doubt very wealthy. He voluntarily pledged half of his wealth to the poor and Jesus pronounced him saved, and made no demands about the remainder of Zaccheus' wealth.

And you wrote:

But even more significantly, Jesus seemed to say that it is the poor who would inherit the kingdom of God:

Luke 6:20 And turning His gaze toward His disciples, He began to say, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God."

The kingdom is theirs because Jesus made it available to them and welcomed them. The Jews of the time thought the opposite: they were poor because the were out of God's favor. And it may be as Matthew has it: poor in spirit; i. e. spiritually impoverished.

And you wrote:

But even more significantly, Jesus seemed to say that it is the poor who would inherit the kingdom of God:{/quote]

They will inherit it by faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior, the same as anyone. There are many poor people who are wicked, and no one loves money more than poor people. They often think if they have money all will be wonderful. Many poor who win the lottery soon learn this is not so.

And finally you wrote:

in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, no reason is given for the rich man ending up in a place of suffering after he died, except that he was rich. Likewise, no reason was given for Lazarus ending up in "Abraham's bosom", a place of comfort, except that he was poor.

No reason given? Isn't it strongly implied that the rich man had no mercy? The poor Lazarus laid at his gate longing for the bread the rich man used to wipe his hands on.

God bless, Homer

And here I assume you mean "natural" man. Is "soulish" your own translation? That is a rather strange one. The word is psuchikos referring to the natural man, not psuche, although it is derived from it.

Why do you think "soulish" is a "rather strange" translation of "ψυχικος"? Is it not simply the adjectival form of "ψυχη"? On what basis do you state so confidently that the word is "referring to the natural man"? Is it simply because a number of translations do so, perhaps because they are slavishly following the precedent set by the King James translation? Even the King James translators do not translate the word as "natural" in James 3:15 and Jude 1:19. They translate it as "sensual" in these two verses.

The Greek word for "natural" is "φυσικος"; it is used in Rom 1:26,27 where it refers to women and men abandoning the natural sexual function for that which is unnatural.

It is my understanding that Greek words in their adjectival form usually mean the same as they do in their nounal form. If they have a markedly different meaning, why do you supposed they were "derived" from that noun? So although I did translate the verse I Corinthians 2:14 which I quoted in my previous post, this doesn't make "soulish" to be "my own translation". It is the natural translation.

Let's look at all 6 verses which contain the adjective "ψυχικος" and ask ourselves whether all 6 makes sense using the word "natural" and whether all six make sense using the word "soulish".
If you think "natural" makes the most sense, then please explain each verse, and I, in response will attempt to explain each using "soulish".

By the way, there is a translation which consistently translates the word as "soulish" in all 6 verses ---- The Concordant Translation.

The following is the RSV's translation with the English word or words they used to translate "ψυχικος" back-translated to "ψυχικος".


1 Corinthians 2:14 The "ψυχικος" man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a "ψυχικος" body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a "ψυχικος" body, there is also a spiritual body.

1 Corinthians 15:46 But it is not the spiritual which is first but the "ψυχικος", and then the spiritual.

James 3:15 This wisdom is not such as comes down from above, but is earthly, "ψυχικος", devilish.

Jude 1:19 It is these who set up divisions, "ψυχικος" people, devoid of the Spirit.

It seems especially difficult to make sense of Jude 1:19 if the word is translated "natural". Surely all people are natural, not just those who set up divisions.

Of the 20 English translations I have on my computer Bible, only one, the NIV, uses the word "natural" in Jude 1:19, and it forces it to make sense by adding other words which are not in the Greek. It uses the words "men ... who follow mere natural instincts"