In Calvin’s Little Book he treats the subject of self-denial in two chapters, 2 and 3 (which in his Institutes are Chapters 7 and 8 in Book 3). In his first chapter on self-denial he broadly addresses the central necessity of self-denial in following God’s model / plan of the mature Christian life (covered by Calvin in his Chapter 1). In the subsequent chapter on self-denial he focuses on the phrase “take up you Cross” (Matt. 16:24) and its particular implications with respect to self-denial.
Because the subject of the cross in the Christian life is widespread and significant in the New Testament (NT), this webpage examines the matter more fully than in the Calvin webpages.
The Occurrences of the “Cross” in the NT
Let’s begin by collecting all the NT uses of the “cross.” The Koine original word is stauros (Strongs G4716). These verses are collected in the pdf below:
In the above I have highlighted with three colors to distinguish the contexts of the passages we want to examine here. The yellow highlighted texts are the call given to us by the Lord to take up our cross. These occur in each of the synoptic Gospels (Matt., Mark, and Luke).
The green highlight texts are from the Epistles relating to what Christ accomplished on/by the cross. Those highlighted in blue, also from the Epistles, are concerning what we are to think or do in the context of the cross.
The Meaning of the Cross
Considering now the yellow highlighted texts in the above pdf, note that Lord’s call to The Cross was prior to the demand of the Pharisees and Sadducees, or the Roman Government, to the use of the cross as a means of putting Christ to death. Because we know ‘the rest of the story,’ we can easily miss this point of order.
The cross was a horrific form of execution. Though it was used widely by the Roman Government it was not the normal means of capital punishment. It was complex to perform, and took substantial time and resources. The Romans were big on efficiency and saw no point in complicating the task of putting people to death for their various reasons and purposes for doing so.
The use of the cross was an act of public terrorism, more particularly public ‘terrify-ism.’ It was the Roman Government’s ultimate weapon of showing what happens to the worst of the worst, both as a matter of justice (in their minds) but also to intimidate by example the population under its control. The process was brutal beyond imagination, beginning with scourging, itself a horrible punishment with whips having pieces of metal that stripes and rips out flesh. Then there was the ‘parade’ of the condemned in public carrying his own cross-piece of the cross, subject to all manner of verbal abuse and humiliation, almost certainly while completed naked. Then there was the attaching of the condemned to the cross by spikes or ropes. Finally there was the lifting up of the entire assembly, with the condemned, and dropping it with force into a prepared hole in the ground. Then there was the waiting, sometimes for days and days, all while exposed to the sun in the day and cold at night, to birds of prey, to abuse both verbal and violent by the crowds. Followed by the slow death of suffocation, or utter heart and organ failure. This was followed by discarding the dead into a valley of burning garbage, a place of utter contempt. Crucifixion was certain death, but exceedingly worse.
How Did the Cross Become Part of the Narrative of the Gospels?
Early in the Gospel narratives the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Lawyers, etc., all part of the religious system of the time, investigated both John the Baptist and then, later Jesus Himself. These groups, all part of The Religion Industry (TRI) of the time, were keenly aware of any teaching or practices going on in Judea and Galilee. Ostensibly, some who were within TRI were looking for Messiah, or possibly another prophet after the final one of the Bible text at the time (Malachi). Many were looking for another king after the manner of David who could lead the Jewish people to military / political freedom from the political industry (TPI) that was the Roman Empire whose outpost in Israel held the people in bondage, both economic and political. Still others were looking not for any deliverer but for any threat to TRI by which such TRI might lose what favor it had under TPI of the hated Romans.
Investigation of John the Baptist, Jesus, and their disciples, by TRI, by whatever motive(s) it began, quickly transformed to suspicion and fear and ultimately to opposition. Then, further, this response of the TRI turned to judgment against Jesus, leading to hatred to the point of wanting to impose a penalty of death, which was prohibited for the Jews to do independently of the authority of the TPI of Rome, even the death of the cross.
However, well before these last steps of TRI’s plotting the execution of Jesus, or any reference to crucifixion, Jesus Himself announced the cross as the pathway to discipleship. This is quite remarkable. The cross was so repugnant an idea that it was not to be spoken in normal conversation. And at the time Jesus does use the word, there was no thought among even His disciples that Jesus was be put to death, let alone this most-awful form of execution.
So, there is something surprising about the Lord’s use of the cross in any context, and especially with His followers. Jesus was not preaching anything like “your best life now.” What then should we understand from this?
The Cross as Only a Picture of Self-Denial?
A common interpretation of Jesus’s use of the cross is that it portrays self-denial in an ultimate and irreversible form. In accordance with the practice of crucifixion, once the cross bar was affixed to the condemned, his life’s options were over: his only actions was the trudge to the place of his final suffering and awful death. So, perhaps, Jesus only meant that to follow Him as a disciple was something like joining the military in that (as an approximate parallel) one didn’t get to leave of one’s own accord. (Organized crime rings enact a similar commitment: once “in,” there’s no way “out.”)
I think such interpretation cannot be the whole picture. The cross represents something much more than a life-commitment, or an irreversible death sentence.
The Cross as Only a Picture of a Life-Long Disability?
Another common interpretation is that Jesus used the term to indicate that some foibles, limitations, impediments, disabilities, and such would be a disciple’s lifelong experience. Any prayer seeking deliverance of such “cross” would not be answered because whatever was so dispensed by God would be the Believer’s lifelong mark of God’s ownership. In this sense, the cross would be another way of expressing the Apostle Paul’s later use of his “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor 12).
So with Jacob in the Old Testament (OT) he would walk with a limp all the rest of his life after the all night wrestling match with the angel of God (Gen 32). Likewise, Paul in the NT appears to have suffered vision limitations, perhaps because of the great illumination on the Damascus Road, or the subsequent inner illumination, to keep him humble (2 Cor 12). In this way some believers today speak of their “cross” as some inescapable family member, or a birth defect, or some loss of limb or sensory functionality by virtue of an accident or disease, and so forth.
I think such views are wildly beyond what any of the relevant Scriptures can be reasonably interpreted, though of course we each experience in some form enduring faults and flaws that we are called to accept as part of our life’s calling.
The Cross as Identification
Let us think about how we conclude and say something is “like” something else, A is “like” B but not “like” C. A form of this question leading to a thought process is used on aptitude tests whereby a test-taker is asked to which of several possible category does some particular object “belongs,” namely is “like.”
There are any number of criteria that could be used to make such determination such as: size, shape, color, origin, function. Today with DNA testing widely available coupled with service providers that “match” (i.e., establish “likeness”) of one’s results with that of others who have taken the same diagnostic. On this matching (“likeness”) basis crimes get solved and individuals discover “kin” (another expression for “kind” or likeness). We can do this because of how conception occurs with the DNA of a father and mother pairing in the offspring, and from each generation onto the next. So we say we have “blood relatives,” meaning that there is something intrinsic to our biological being, the DNA contained in each of the trillions of cells that comprise ‘us’ (so it’s much more than a match of “blood”) that reveals our ancestral / familial linkage to someone(s) else.
The Union of God and Man in The Lord Jesus
Now turning to the Being whose full Biblical identity is The Lord Jesus Christ, we see the first of two great, actually the greatest, identifications. “The Lord” component of His identity is a direct link to the Old Testament word of “Lord” as usually translated by this word using a font style of lower case capital letters. This word comes from the Hebrew word known as the Tetragrammaton, meaning four consonants, specifically YHWH in our Latin script, which is sometimes translated “Jehovah” and sometimes “Yahweh.” In the Koine Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint, LXX) this same Hebrew word is translated as “Kurios,” which from either the Hebrew of Koine is further translated into English in most translations as “Lord.” The NT references to Jesus by the title “Lord” links back to all the OT references to the personal name of God (YHWH, Jehovah / Yahweh in Hebrew, or Kurios in Koine). Such occurrences of God’s name occurs more than six thousand times in the OT.
There is a false teaching that claims that because “Lord” was sometimes used in the NT period as a respectful address–something like “Sir” or “Professor”–that its use of Jesus gives no great significance to the term. Although such limited use of the term to reflect general respect did occur, it is clear from the many references to Jesus including worship of Him, that this does not, and cannot, undercut the claim that it references Him to be God of the Covenant relationship known in the OT.
Further the word “Christ” is the Koine translation of the Hebrew word “Messiah.” This again identifies Jesus with Him who was promised in the OT Who would redeem His people (John 1:41). Further, the references of “messiah” in the OT include all three of what we call “the offices” of The Lord Jesus:
MESSIAH (מָשִׁיַח, mashiyach; “anointed” or “an anointed one”; “messiah”). Rendered into Greek as Χριστός (Christos), cognate to the verb χρίω (chriō, “to anoint”). In this sense, it is essentially the same to say that Jesus is the “Messiah,” or the “Christ.” In contemporary Bible translations, the former is sometimes used when the term is functioning as a title (the Messiah) and the latter when the term is functioning as a name (i.e. Jesus Christ).
Strauss, M. L. (2016). Messiah. In J. D. Barry, D. Bomar, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, D. Mangum, C. Sinclair Wolcott, … W. Widder (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
The substantival adjective mashiach (“anointed [one])” appears in the Old Testament primarily with reference to the ruling king—Saul, David, or a later Davidic king. As Yahweh’s representative before the people, the king is “the Lord’s anointed” (never in the absolute: “the anointed one”). Originally referring to physical anointing, the term took on metaphorical significance as one chosen and appointed by God to be His instrument. The patriarchs are referred to in this way (Psa 105:15; compare 1 Chr 16:22), and even Cyrus the Persian king could be called “Yahweh’s anointed” (Isa 45:1), since he is God’s agent to deliver Israel from her Babylonian captivity. In Leviticus, the term is used four times in reference to the “anointed [high] priest” (Lev 4:3, 5, 16; 6:22). The anointing of a prophet occurs in Elijah’s commissioning of Elisha in 1 Kgs 19:16, and in the “Spirit-anointing” of a prophetic figure in Isa 61:1, a passage Jesus applies to himself in the Nazareth Sermon of Luke 4:16–30.
Finally, we have in the His full name “Jesus.” The English word “Jesus” is a transliteration of the Greek, and Hebrew, word “Joshua.”
In Hebrew, the name “Joshua” is yehoshua and can be spelled as יְהוֹשׁוּעַ (yehoshua‘) or יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (yehoshua‘). The biblical text uses both spellings interchangeably, sometimes even within the same verse (as in Judg 2:7). The shortened form of the name is spelled as “Jeshua” or yeshua (יֵשׁוּעַ, yeshua’), but this spelling is only found in the postexilic historical books, most notably used for the high priest who returned from exile with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:2). This later spelling is likely the basis for the Greek form of the name as “Jesus” (Ἰησοῦς, Iēsous). The name means “Yahweh saves” or “Yahweh is salvation”.
The American Commentary, Vol. 5, Joshua, by David M. Howard, Jr.
So in the OT we have the significant moment when Moses passes to new leader named Joshua the responsibility of leading the people of Israel out of their 40-year wilderness bondage into the Promised Land. That Joshua was a king-like figure, leading the armies of Israel in a war of conquest over the nations occupying God’s Promised Land. Jesus (Joshua, Yahweh Saves) similarly did lead the elect out of the captivity of the judgment under the Mosaic Law, particularly as held by TRI of that time.
Summarizing the above discussion, we have in His Name the revelation of His identification, one who is truly human, Jesus / Joshua, but for a sin nature derived from Adam, with One who is God with us, the NT Person foretold by name and offices throughout the OT. So when Jesus was asked by His disciples toward the end of His pre-crucifixion days “show us The Father,” He replied that he who sees Me sees the Father, there is an absolute union in that one Being (John 14:9).
The Union of Jesus as The Word and The Lamb of God
But, still further, we see, for example, in the Gospel of John that He is “The Logos (translated “Word,” John 1:1ff) and “The Lamb of God” (John 1:29, 36). So, in addition to all of the above unified identification we note that He is the Revelation (Logos, Word) of God and the very substitute Lamb to be used in the ultimate and final Passover sacrifice. This is a far bigger subject that we can address here.
The Union of Jesus with Us, The Imputation Event of the Cross
Now, finally, let us return to The Cross. All of the above discussion of identification is united at The Cross and the crucifixion event. It is essential for us to grasp fully that what happened on The Cross was not an example to us of self-sacrifice, or of undying love, or obedience to the Father, or as some ‘way-shower,’ though in some sense it is elements of all of this. But, what happened there and then was an actual event, a great transformation, if one could use the term, whereby all the sins of the world became identified with Jesus Christ and received the full, final judgment of God the Father upon us in Him. Such was Christ’s great identification with us, that transferred our sins onto Him and His righteousness onto us. And so we received the full, final forgiveness of God whose justice and love is fully reconciled by such imputation (Romans 5:1).
How did this event of the utmost and eternal significance take place? At a certain level there’s an easy answer: instead of us paying the righteous judgement of an absolutely Holy God for our sins and those we inherited from Adam, Christ did. But the deeper question, is how was such a thing even possible? The only answer we can give is by the words “identification” accomplishing “imputation,” namely: that just as Jesus Christ became uniquely truly human (but for sin) and truly God (which He always was, John 1:1-5) in a like manner He became Sin, and was judged under it, before the very eyes of TRI, TPI, and us (by means of the witness of the Apostles) insofar as we are capable of “seeing” such event of an eternal consequence. (Heb. 1:3; 10:12, 14).
We have a further indication of this great identification / imputation event, namely: baptism.
49 “I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! 50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! 51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.
Luke 12:49-51 (ESV, highlights mine)
35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” 36 And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” 37 And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” 38 Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”
Mark 10:35-38 (ESV, highlight mine)
Our English word “baptism” in all its forms is no translation of any Koine word. Rather it is a direct transliteration, meaning the word as we see is comprised of Latin letters that approximate the sound expressing the Koine original word. The unfortunate consequence for an English reader is that one pours into “baptism” all manner of ideas about water, immersion, sprinkling, babies, believers, and so forth. Clearly in the above two passages Jesus is referring to some key moment that has nothing to do with water. He had previously been subjected to an identification rite with water under John the Forerunner (who we know as “John the Baptist”), so Jesus is not making reference to another rite involving yet more water. He is proclaiming a specific identification then yet to occur, which was the imputation described above upon His Crucifixion. It is no “mystery” that such occurred; the NT makes this plain. What is, and will likely eternally be, is the “mystery” of such identification / imputation accomplished what it has within the exchange occurring solely within the Godhead. Any attempt to insert our works, ‘righteousness,’ or even ‘our’ faith into that transaction is at the same time an grave act of self-exaltation and abolition of Work of the Cross.