Luke 9:18–27: “Daily” cross-bearing for Jesus’ sake

The literary context

The structure of the Third Gospel is usually understood as falling into four sections, though scholars may not agree on the precise divisions: ¹

The passage under consideration, Luke 9:18–27, occurs near the end of the Galilean ministry and introduces ideas that will be developed more fully later in Luke’s story.

In the first scene of our passage, Jesus is seen praying “by himself with the disciples” (9:18). The mention of Jesus’ praying alerts the audience to the importance of what comes next. Luke has portrayed Jesus praying after his baptism (3:21–22, at which point the voice from heaven informs him and the Gospel audience of his identity as the beloved Son of God), at 5:16 (an aside to the audience about Jesus’ regular habit of prayer), and before the selection of twelve disciples (6:12). ² The pattern will continue.

Jesus’ prayer is followed by a discussion of his identity. The disciples report that “the crowds” are echoing the rumors going around Herod’s court: Jesus is the reincarnation of John the baptizer, the reappearance of Elijah, or a revivified prophet (Luke 9:7–8). When Jesus puts the question to his disciples (“Who do you (pl.) say that I am?”), Peter speaks for the group: “The Messiah of God (9:20).” This is the first time that “Messiah/Christ” has been used as a designation for Jesus by another human being in the Lukan narrative. ³ Without any praise for Peter (as in Matthew), the Lukan Jesus demands that the disciples not reveal his Messiahship. Luke connects the command to silence more closely to the first passion prediction than the other synoptic writers by using a participle rather than a conjunction: “He sternly ordered and commanded them not to tell anyone, saying, ‘The Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised’” (Luke 9:22). This gives the impression that they are not to identify Jesus as Messiah to others because his Messiahship will be radically redefined by his rejection, suffering, death, and resurrection. ⁴

In Luke’s Gospel, Peter does not object to this redefinition and thus does not earn a rebuke from Jesus. Some modern readers might see this as part of a Lukan pattern of improving the image of the disciples (they are not reported as fleeing the scene of the arrest, for example). But Luke does not hesitate to narrate the full story of Peter’s denial, even adding that, “the Lord turned and looked at Peter” after the predicted crow of the rooster. ⁵ Luke’s original audience, then, may have concluded that Peter did not react to the passion prediction because he did not understand that what was going to happen to Jesus would have implications for his own life. The Lukan Jesus is quick to clarify.

The focal passage: Luke 9:23–25

In Luke 9:23–25 Jesus applies the function of suffering, rejection, and death in his own life to the life of anyone who wants to keep on coming (present infinitive) behind him. The grammar (“if” with the indicative “wants”) indicates that because the disciples have come this far, they will in fact want to continue to follow Jesus. They responded to Jesus’ initial call to follow. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, Jesus informs them about what will be required of followers from this point on. There are three conditions: (1) deny oneself; (2) take up one’s cross daily; and (3) follow Jesus. The addition of “daily” in 9:23 abruptly jerks the saying from the world of the story to the realm of metaphor and requires its treatment as a component of an understanding of discipleship for all subsequent readers of the Third Gospel. The conjunctive “for” in 9:24 suggests that what follows provides a rationale or explanation for the necessity of self-denial and daily cross-bearing.

Notably, Luke uses the reflexive pronoun “oneself” in 9:23 (deny oneself) and again in 9:25 (loses or forfeits oneself). Even if the saying in 9:24 about losing and saving one’s life originally circulated alone (as John 12:25 suggests), its placement between the cross-bearing saying and the gaining/forfeiting saying in Luke (and the other Synoptics) indicates that the audience is to understand “oneself” and “one’s life” as synonyms. The addition of “daily” in 9:23 pulls the sense of “life” away from either physical existence (which a martyr loses only once for Jesus’ sake) or “eternal life” (which the martyr gains, as in John 12:25). Rather than stages of commitment or sequential acts, self-denial, daily cross-bearing, and losing one’s life/self for the sake of Jesus should be understood as mutually defining synonyms. To deny oneself is to undergo the daily execution of oneself for the sake of Jesus. What is to be gained/saved by self-crucifixion is one’s truest self (as contrasted with gaining “the whole world”). Life/self is saved by losing (by crucifixion) the self that prefers the whole world to the company of Jesus. ⁶

There is more evidence in the narrative of Luke–Acts about the specifics of living as a Jesus-follower. In Luke 14:25–33, in the middle of the journey narrative, the Lukan Jesus follows up the parable of the great banquet, served finally only to those who have nothing to distract them (14:15–24), with the announcement that no one is able to be a disciple of Jesus who does not hate his kinship group and “his own life” (14:26). Again, cross-bearing is a continual practice: “Whoever is not carrying his own cross and coming behind me is not able to be my disciple” (my translation). This is followed by material unique to Luke about counting the cost of an endeavor, using examples from construction (14:28–30) and warfare (14:31–32). Then, amazingly, Luke writes, “So therefore, each one of you who does not renounce his interest in everything at his own disposal is not able to be my disciple” (my translation). ⁷

One more passage illuminates the Lukan concept of self-denial: Luke 9:57–62. Although neither cross-bearing nor self-denial is mentioned in this passage, the actions that represent “losing self” and “denying self” are clearly present. To the person who offers to follow Jesus wherever he may go, Jesus responds that, unlike foxes and birds, he has no specific home (9:58). In two subsequent sayings, Jesus tells would-be followers that allegiance to him must take precedence over even the most basic obligations to one’s family, namely burying parents and saying a proper farewell when departing to follow Jesus. ⁸

In Acts 2:42–47 and Acts 4:32–35, Luke’s idealized portrayal of the Jerusalem community as sharing possessions and hospitality suggests that the family that is repudiated in Luke 9 and 14 is replaced by a new kinship group. The story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5: 1–11 further specifies that life in the new reference group is found in transparency, not in self-aggrandizement. The call of the Lukan Jesus is not to a pious individualism but to a community of self-denying cross-bearers who hold each other accountable. These passages enable us to return to Luke 9:23–26 with a better sense of what the audience of this Gospel may have thought it meant to deny self and take up one’s own cross daily as a follower of Jesus.

To deny oneself, then, would be to repudiate any identity except that of a follower of Jesus. According to Luke 9:57–62 and 14:25–33, the Jesus-follower does not ground his or her identity in the family of origin (“father, mother, brothers, sisters”), in the family created by marriage (“spouse, children”), or in any other competing reference group. Longenecker puts it this way: a follower is “unencumbered by other allegiances.” ⁹ Charles Kraft points out the power of the reference group, even over “individualistic Westerners,” who, when “considering a change of behavior will ask, ‘What will people think?’” ¹⁰

Secondly, the Lukan Jesus says that those who accompany him will have no claim to a permanent home (“no place to lay [one’s] head”). Finally, they must renounce all interest in their possessions—everything at their own disposal—or they will not be able to be disciples (Luke 14:33). And why? Luke says only that this discipleship is the way to avoid losing one’s self (that wishes to gain the whole world) and to save one’s other (more valuable) self. By this time, the audience is surely finding the advice to count the cost very appropriate.

Applications in the literature

The Norwegian scholar Sverre Bøe has written an entire monograph on the passage under consideration and has carefully considered and evaluated the various possibilities for meaning in Luke’s cultural context and in the twenty-first century. ¹¹ He provides a convenient summary: ¹²

To be clear, then, Luke is not calling his audience merely to be willing to die a physical death for the sake of Jesus. We are not here dealing with hyperbole, or with a situation that comfortable Western Christians can be fairly certain that they will not encounter. Rather, “To deny oneself … expressed in modern terms, [means] to deny one’s inauthentic manner of existence, to deconstruct the proud facade of one’s identity, and to bring to view one’s genuine, plain, fragile ‘I’ in relationship to Christ.” ¹³

The legitimate critique by feminist theologians of the use of “pride” as the primary way of characterizing human sin calls for the insights of Luke Johnson on the two sides of idolatry: willfulness and will-lessness. ¹⁴ If a would-be Jesus-follower tends to be willful, to assume that he can order and conduct his own Christian life on the basis of his own knowledge and values, then he must die to that willful, prideful, controlling self and seek his self-definition in relationship with Jesus and in submitting to a Christian community. If, on the other hand, the one who wants to follow Jesus tends to be will-less, to refuse to be a self and to prefer to take her self-definition from spouse, family, or society, then she must die to self-deprecation, fear, and self-protection and seek her self-definition in relationship with Jesus and in community with Christians who can reflect to her her true, worthy, self.

In other words, to be a disciple, one must repent and turn from self-definition to God-given definition. Both willful and will-less people must surrender to Christ as Lord, die to inauthentic self-hood, and live each day as people who are already dead. A dead person owns nothing and is tied to no particular place (eventually even one’s own grave will be empty of all traces of the self). A dead person has no reputation or persona to protect. Family, peers, and social groups no longer have influence over the self-presentation of dead people.

The call to “die to self” does not have much currency in white mainline Protestantism in the US (the Christian subculture about which the author has the most first-hand knowledge). ¹⁵ It is taught in some evangelical circles. ¹⁶ A history of interpretation of Luke 9:23–26 is beyond the scope of this study, but it is known that the so-called “higher life” or “exchanged life” teaching has been a major theme at the Keswick Conventions in the English village of that name, beginning in 1875 and continuing to the present. ¹⁷ The Keswick movement emphasized “personal holiness,” but apparently without the legalism usually associated with that phrase. The relevance to the present study is the Keswick emphasis on death to self, or the surrender of the self to Christ, with a particular emphasis on the crucifixion of “self-trust, self-help, self-pleasing, self-seeking, self-will, self-defence, and self-glory.” ¹⁸ The writings of Andrew Murray may represent the emphases of the early Keswick movement most readily found in print at this point in the twenty-first century. ¹⁹

Some reflections on pastoral ministry

Because the readership of Review & Expositor includes many pastors and lay leaders, this final section will address some practical applications of Luke 9:23–26.

With pastoral burnout and ministerial misconduct at epidemic levels, it may be that it is time for Christian leaders to revisit Luke’s call to die daily to self-concern.

It is likely that the aspects of self that God thinks need to be denied are not necessarily the ones the individual Christian readily identifies as problematic. For that reason, the Keswick writers call Christians to surrender all aspects of their lives and ministries to Christ and to allow the Holy Spirit to remove the desire for whatever the Spirit sees as a distraction from wholehearted devotion to Christ. What follows is equally important: to allow the surrendered practices and desires to be replaced by the life of Christ, into whose death and resurrection life we were baptized (Rom 6:3–4). To decide for ourselves which attitudes and practices need to be abandoned is to defeat the purpose of surrender to Christ’s Lordship. Because most teaching on this topic is rather general, in what follows I will risk being specific.

Although the Keswick writers emphasize correctly that the life in Christ is not a human achievement, but the work of the Holy Spirit, there are some “triggers” of self-centeredness that it is helpful to be aware of. Jan Johnson gives one example:

My friend had just bought a new specialty Bible (one with notes) and was showing me what she liked about it. But I couldn’t hear her because I was mentally debating whether I would tell her that I had written many of that Bible’s notes and introductory articles. When she asked me a question, I realized I was too busy listening to the argument in my mind to hear my friend. Convicted, I looked directly into her eyes, knowing that she wanted my attention. Loving her meant letting go of my self-congratulatory thoughts and listening carefully as she repeated her question. ²⁰

My own favorite self-pleasing behaviors are impatience and sarcasm. I snap at staff members whose carelessness has caused either extra work for me or merely inconvenience that hampers the effective flow of task-completion. I make sarcastic comments about people who are not present. Such behaviors do not glorify God, or enhance Christian community. Both behaviors function to feed my egocentric need to be perceived as better than others. Some may not consider such behavior “sinful,” but it is certainly unnecessary and often harmful. Those aspects of myself need to die. I have found it helpful to have an accountability partner who reminds me with a word or a glance that those particular aspects of my self-centered self have managed to sneak down from the cross and are running amok.

When clergy gather, we engage in self-aggrandizing conversation, give advice instead of listening to each other, gossip, pass along rumor, practice one-upmanship, exaggerate our influence and success, and complain about the congregations we serve, and thus make it impossible to build genuine relationships with one another that are based on devotion to Christ. Our ministries and our lives could be set free and empowered by the Spirit if we found a way to take Luke 9:23–26 seriously as a spiritual practice.