The cross’s meaning in Christ’s time and our time.

[Blik]

When we think of the cross today, we think of how Christ died on the cross for our sins. Before Christ did this for us the cross meant punishment, torture and death.

We are told to take up our cross and follow Christ. What does Christ mean by that?

God did not want us to live in a world with crosses for us to bear. God asked Adam and Eve to not eat of the tree of knowledge. When they disobeyed and ate of that tree, God immediately made a plan to save us from the death it brought on, God had his son pay for our lives. Blood was shed for our souls. For over 4,000 years we were saved only in sleep, but then Christ came and completed the salvation.

Now, we must live in a world that has crosses for us to bear. Some are profound the heart rendering, some are light, but we all have crosses to bear. When we can’t fix them, God asks us to accept them without bitterness, but also to live our lives with Christ, not with our crosses. Following Christ’s way to live is not easy but for this, Christ promises us peace of mind, joy, and blessings.

Paul summed it up well when he wrote: “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me” (Galatians 2:20).

 

[Magenta]

Galatians 2:20-21

 

[Amanuensis]

When he said take up your cross and follow me, he was telling them to be ready to die for the cause of Christ and His mission.

It meant the same as saying take up your electric chair, or take up the gallows, or take up the firing squad and follow me. Get ready to be killed for preaching the Gospel. This is what it means to be a true disciple. The Lord says follow me, and you give up all this world offers and follow Him to preach the kingdom of God and the Gospel of Repentance even though you might be put to death for it by evil men.

Take up your cross does not mean random difficult situations in life. Those are just difficult situations in life. If a person goes through a divorce, loses a loved one, or has serious illness, these are things that are part of the fallen world and we suffer through them but they aren't the cross we are supposed to pick up.

When someone is sentenced to death for preaching Jesus, they can say I'm ok with that, Jesus told me expect it when I decided to Follow Him when he said take up the cross and follow me.

That is what it has always meant in context and that is how I have always understood it. When I hear people talk about a hard time in life as a cross, I just don't even try to correct it. It's just not worth it. That interpretation has been used in too many sermons to bother trying to correct it and it is too dear to many to expect it to be given up easily.

 

[Blik]

When he said take up your cross and follow me, he was telling them to be ready to die for the cause of Christ and His mission.

It meant the same as saying take up your electric chair, or take up the gallows, or take up the firing squad and follow me. Get ready to be killed for preaching the Gospel. This is what it means to be a true disciple. The Lord says follow me, and you give up all this world offers and follow Him to preach the kingdom of God and the Gospel of Repentance even though you might be put to death for it by evil men.

Take up your cross does not mean random difficult situations in life. Those are just difficult situations in life. If a person goes through a divorce, loses a loved one, or has serious illness, these are things that are part of the fallen world and we suffer through them but they aren't the cross we are supposed to pick up.

When someone is sentenced to death for preaching Jesus, they can say I'm ok with that, Jesus told me expect it when I decided to Follow Him when he said take up the cross and follow me.

That is what it has always meant in context and that is how I have always understood it. When I hear people talk about a hard time in life as a cross, I just don't even try to correct it. It's just not worth it. That interpretation has been used in too many sermons to bother trying to correct it and it is too dear to many to expect it to be given up easily.

I don't think it is correct to limit the Lord to have only one meaning to the crosses we bear. I appreciate hearing of the understanding you have, but I think limiting the Lord is always wrong.

 

[pottersclay]

1Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off every encumbrance and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with endurance the race set out for us. 2Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3Consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

 

[Amanuensis]

I don't think it is correct to limit the Lord to have only one meaning to the crosses we bear. I appreciate hearing of the understanding you have, but I think limiting the Lord is always wrong.

I am not sure how "limiting the Lord" can be applied to this interpretation. It would be "limiting the interpretation to the most likely intended meaning of the original speak in it's original context" It might be true that there is a priniciple that can be applied in another context.
In order to apply the correct principle one would first have to grasp the initial application. If the cross was a form of public execution at the time this was spoken and had never been applied to such things as difficult circumstances it is impossible that any of his original audience would have thought of it in that way. They would have thought he meant take up the cross as in what the romans made a condemned prisoner do when they made them carry it to the place where they were nailed to it.
If the principle was "be prepared to be executed by the the governent, or be killed by wicked men for choosing to follow Jesus" then the principle that could be applied to other scenarios would be prepared to suffer all manner of persecution for living for Jesus from the world and the devils.

You might loose a job because the boss does not like Christians even though they don't tell you that. That would be a cross you must be prepared to carry. You might loose a husband or wife because they want to go live in wickedness and you don't and so they leave you for a sinner they can get drunk with. I suppose one could say that was a cross they are prepared to carry, but there are better scriptures such as the warning that loved ones will betray you. Being arrested and having their property taken from them. Even if they are not killed they are suffering and these might be called all part of "taking up the cross."

If we were to blame all the bad things that happen to us that are not a result of persecution for being a Christian a "cross" we are not really applying the principle correctly. I think one MUST limit their interpretations of scripture to only what the author meant in it's original context or by using that immediate application we can then apply the same principle in another context.

We don't really have the authority to apply a scripture to a different context and principle than the author intended conveying a meaning that they did not intend to communicate.

If we are teachers I think intelligent people stop listening to us when they see that we are doing this with the scriptures.

I stop listening to teachers when they teach that the loss of a loved one is a cross that someone must bear. I loose respect for their ability to exegete properly and I expect more problems to be revealed when they attempt to teach. I don't dismiss them as to fellowship, I just don't listen to them teach. It becomes way to irritating, as you are constantly wanting to correct their bad interpretations.

 

[Nehemiah6]

When he said take up your cross and follow me, he was telling them to be ready to die for the cause of Christ and His mission.

That could be also included, but not necessarily the only meaning. In Luke 9:23 we read "take up his cross DAILY..." Which means more than to be ready to be martyred. It could mean anything which is a constant daily burden, just like Paul's "thorn in the flesh".

 

[Pilgrimshope]

1Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off every encumbrance and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with endurance the race set out for us. 2Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3Consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

“And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭5:24‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭3:5‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8:13‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

[Amanuensis]

That could be also included, but not necessarily the only meaning. In Luke 9:23 we read "take up his cross DAILY..." Which means more than to be ready to be martyred. It could mean anything which is a constant daily burden, just like Paul's "thorn in the flesh".

Could it mean anything which is a constant daily burden? When Jesus said it, would it have been possible for people to have thought that? If there was evidence in either scripture or 1st century period writings that anyone had ever used this phrase "cross" to apply to daily burdens then one would have evidence that this was an acceptable interpretation.

If however all evidence points to Roman Execution as what they would have thought when Jesus said 'cross' then more likely the intended message would be that they were to be prepared for persecution even unto death. 'Daily' meaning that they are to face each day with such a mindset.

There are other scriptures that teach that we should be patient under trials and these scriptures are perfect for teaching us how to endure the burdens of life.

The problem with applying the wrong passage "take up your cross daily and follow me" to teach people to endure hardships in life, is that it robs them of the intended message which is to be willing to die for your faith and expect that as part of true discipleship. And this message was in the context of Following Jesus in the ministry of preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom. The taking up your cross daily and following him in His cause and mission, makes no sense when it is applied to simply enduring diabetes or something like that. It is a message that connotates going forth in a missionary effort to spread the Gospel and expecting to die for it. It is a message that if properly applied inspires a person to GET UP AND GO into all the world and preach the Gospel, not just Endure stuff. You see the difference?

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

One possible "cross to bear" is physical death itself. This could include the sufferings that come with cancer, leukemia, simple things like daily and constant tinnitus, physical aches and pains, blindness, being an amputee . . . or even a parent who has lost their child. Another "cross to bear" could be the fact that the followers of Christ will be hated, that we will suffer senseless sufferings caused by the spiritual blindness of those near and close. Another possible "cross to bear" might be the willingness to give up our free right to sin. When we [could] sin . . . instead of choosing the pleasures of this world, we choose the Obedience that comes from Christ.

 

[Amanuensis]

One possible "cross to bear" is physical death itself. This could include the sufferings that come with cancer, leukemia, simple things like daily and constant tinnitus, physical aches and pains, blindness, being an amputee . . . or even a parent who has lost their child. Another "cross to bear" could be the fact that the followers of Christ will be hated, that we will suffer senseless sufferings caused by the spiritual blindness of those near and close. Another possible "cross to bear" might be the willingness to give up our free right to sin. When we [could] sin . . . instead of choosing the pleasures of this world, we choose the Obedience that comes from Christ.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I give up.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I wonder if I should continue wearing my cross necklace. That's my only piece of jewelry.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I give up.

Why? I'm only offering ideas . . . not facts.

 

[Ogom]

Could it mean anything which is a constant daily burden? When Jesus said it, would it have been possible for people to have thought that? If there was evidence in either scripture or 1st century period writings that anyone had ever used this phrase "cross" to apply to daily burdens then one would have evidence that this was an acceptable interpretation.

the people writing the Scriptures were hopefully? inspired by the Holy Spirit of what to say (though we are not reading the Originals here), and the Spirit gives life.... while the Letter can lead the other way.

....is that it robs them of the intended message....

but how do we know the intended message unless we have talked to the original authors of the the Scriptures or unless the Spirit has revealed it to us? - though the answer we receive might only be part of the picture... there could be ways of taking passages that were never intended by God/ Spirit (but perhaps by man - errors over time in copying and recopying the Scriptures by often imperfect people - with very imperfect ideas of what the Scriptures should say/ mean/ include and not include - books left out to begin with, versions chosen over others that were dismissed - due to the current level of spirituality and lack thereof of the people who did the choosing, copying, changing, at times even correcting back to more Spirit- filled/ correct meaning maybe - all taking place over many many years and through many different people and under the influence of many people in great Power or lesser power - not all as much very Spiritual people who did much of the choosing and deciding of many things and with their own ideas guiding them in many areas of Thought).

stay with, seek the Spirit and truth from God - not from much studying of words and Letters (over-much) that might not be 100% what the originals even said - and the Spirit can maybe lead us into all truth - if we Seek first or also the right things. and the right things are not of the Letter really always or in all ways, the Letter - which might lead to the opposite of where/how the Spirit would lead.

 

[Blik]

the people writing the Scriptures were hopefully? inspired by the Holy Spirit of what to say (though we are not reading the Originals here), and the Spirit gives life.... while the Letter can lead the other way.



but how do we know the intended message unless we have talked to the original authors of the the Scriptures or unless the Spirit has revealed it to us? - though the answer we receive might only be part of the picture... there could be ways of taking passages that were never intended by God/ Spirit (but perhaps by man - errors over time in copying and recopying the Scriptures by often imperfect people - with very imperfect ideas of what the Scriptures should say/ mean/ include and not include - books left out to begin with, versions chosen over others that were dismissed - due to the current level of spirituality and lack thereof of the people who did the choosing, copying, changing, at times even correcting back to more Spirit- filled/ correct meaning maybe - all taking place over many many years and through many different people and under the influence of many people in great Power or lesser power - not all as much very Spiritual people who did much of the choosing and deciding of many things and with their own ideas guiding them in many areas of Thought).

stay with, seek the Spirit and truth from God - not from much studying of words and Letters (over-much) that might not be 100% what the originals even said - and the Spirit can maybe lead us into all truth - if we Seek first or also the right things. and the right things are not of the Letter really always or in all ways, the Letter - which might lead to the opposite of where/how the Spirit would lead.

we are protected from interpreting scripture wrong by using the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law by applying the basic rule of the law to what we read. The basic rule is love.

In the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10, the Pharisee obeyed the law of the Sabbath by the letter, but disobeyed the law of love.

 

[Amanuensis]

I wonder if I should continue wearing my cross necklace. That's my only piece of jewelry.

the people writing the Scriptures were hopefully? inspired by the Holy Spirit of what to say (though we are not reading the Originals here), and the Spirit gives life.... while the Letter can lead the other way.



but how do we know the intended message unless we have talked to the original authors of the the Scriptures or unless the Spirit has revealed it to us? - though the answer we receive might only be part of the picture... there could be ways of taking passages that were never intended by God/ Spirit (but perhaps by man - errors over time in copying and recopying the Scriptures by often imperfect people - with very imperfect ideas of what the Scriptures should say/ mean/ include and not include - books left out to begin with, versions chosen over others that were dismissed - due to the current level of spirituality and lack thereof of the people who did the choosing, copying, changing, at times even correcting back to more Spirit- filled/ correct meaning maybe - all taking place over many many years and through many different people and under the influence of many people in great Power or lesser power - not all as much very Spiritual people who did much of the choosing and deciding of many things and with their own ideas guiding them in many areas of Thought).

stay with, seek the Spirit and truth from God - not from much studying of words and Letters (over-much) that might not be 100% what the originals even said - and the Spirit can maybe lead us into all truth - if we Seek first or also the right things. and the right things are not of the Letter really always or in all ways, the Letter - which might lead to the opposite of where/how the Spirit would lead.

By researching the question..."How we got our Bible" and by reading excellent award winning books like "The Canon of Scripture" by F.F. Bruce, one may learn the facts behind this history and how it proves that the copies we have can be trusted and the variants don't change anything significantly.

By the time the first list appears in writing it is in context of stating how the church already received these books as canon and not because any council or committee had yet been formed to discuss it.

As to the Spirit leading us to ascertain the correct interpretation, He does so by leading us into all truth. The Spirit helps us to find truth by asking common sense questions like "what would 'cross' have meant to the hearers?"

Truth is not subjective. If Jesus had an intended meaning when he said "Take up the cross and follow me" we can figure that out by taking notice of the context in which this was said. The Spirit leads us to such common sense methods for finding the TRUTH.

At no time will the Spirit teach us something that is not truth. If we adopt an interpretation of a passage that is not the truth, the Spirit did not lead us to that. If we do this and we are intellectually honest, and sincere before the Lord, we will sense a red flag when we voice out interpretation that is not the truth. In these case it is wise to reexamine our ideas, using rules of hermeneutics. The Spirit is leading us by the check in our spirit that something is off. Rules of hermeneutics such as "context" who was speaking, who was hearing, what would it mean to them at the time, based on their culture 2000 years ago, and all the other common sense rules of interpretation will help us see where we made our mistake and why we came to the wrong conclusion and why we are getting a warning in our spirit by the Spirit when we say the wrong things about a passage.

There is no contradiction between following a careful analysis of the text and being lead by the Spirit.

There is a HUGE problem with ignoring the analysis of the text and claiming that the Spirit lead you to your conclusion if it is not TRUTH.

But I am stating the obvious and we should all be agreeing on this.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

I wonder if I should continue wearing my cross necklace. That's my only piece of jewelry.

probably can’t tell but this is my only piece also it has the Lord’s Prayer on it gonna keep wearing mine lol

 

[tstumf]

Something I learned recently that for the first 400 years after Christ’s death the Cross was not a symbol of the faith. From what I’m understanding is the early Church’s focus was on the resurrection rather than the crucifixion . The theory I heard was that the early Church had seen many people hung on a cross as common criminals but only one came back from the dead and that was Jesus. I sometimes wonder if our modern Church focus is too much on the cross and forgiveness of sin and it seems to really minimize the resurrection.