Matthew 16:24 Take the Cross Deny Self? What does that mean?

[Recovering Saint]

Hi everyone.

I have shown two translations of one of GGs key verses whereby he tried to convince us that we are to work out our salvation by going the way of the cross. It made me feel like anything I wanted was evil and I had to only want what I thought God wanted whatever that was. This left me open to the wolves who ran the Assembly system to tell us what God wanted for our lives was subjection to what they said was important to God.

I hope we can have some discussion to explain how verses like this were misused to control us and how to properly view them now that we are out.

I don't have a clear understanding of what is really meant but I can still remember the Assembly take. It would help me and possibly others to see this verse in its proper application.

Hugh

____________________________________________

Matthew 16:24
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.  

The King James Version (Authorized)
____________________________________________

Then Jesus said to the disciples, "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must put aside your selfish ambition, shoulder your cross, and follow me.  

The New Living Translation

[Oscar]

Hi everyone.

I have shown two translations of one of GGs key verses whereby he tried to convince us that we are to work out our salvation by going the way of the cross. It made me feel like anything I wanted was evil and I had to only want what I thought God wanted whatever that was. This left me open to the wolves who ran the Assembly system to tell us what God wanted for our lives was subjection to what they said was important to God.

I hope we can have some discussion to explain how verses like this were misused to control us and how to properly view them now that we are out.

I don't have a clear understanding of what is really meant but I can still remember the Assembly take. It would help me and possibly others to see this verse in its proper application.

Hugh

____________________________________________

Matthew 16:24
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.  

The King James Version (Authorized)
____________________________________________

Then Jesus said to the disciples, "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must put aside your selfish ambition, shoulder your cross, and follow me.  

The New Living Translation

Hugh,

If you will read the context around this passage it will help to clear up the meaning.

It occurs twice in Matthew, in 10:38.  Jesus has talked about not fearing those who can kill the body but not the soul, confessing him before men, having your own household turn against you...then he says the he who does not take his cross and follow after him is not worthy.  He is obviously telling them that they must decide to follow him even at the risk of their lives!

In 16:21 he tell the disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer and die.  Peter says, "no way", and is rebuked.  Then he says "if any man wishes to come after me let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me."

Where has he just told them he is going?  To Jerusalem to suffer and die.

What follows? Save your life-lose it.  Lose your life for his sake-save it.  What profit if you gain the whole world, and lose your soul.

The meaning here is the same as in Matthew 10.

Remember, the three most important rules in correct understanding of the scriptures are: 1. context 2. context 3. context.

Another important principle of interpretation is that the correct meaning of a passage is what the author intended for the first hearers/readers to understand by it.

Neither the disciples Jesus spoke these words to or the Jewish christians Matthew wrote his gospel for had ever, as far as we know, heard the deeper life interpretation of Jesus' words.  

What I am saying is that they did not think, "Oh, I have to deal with my self centeredness and carnality in order to become what God wants me to be."  They thought, "I have to decide if I want to be a follower of Jesus even if it gets me killed."   That, they knew, was a real possibility.

Also, the New Living Bible "translation" of the passage is actually closer to a paraphrase.  Rather than being a strict translation based on rules of grammar, it attempts to make the passage understandable.  But the weakness of this approach is that you get the translator's understanding of the passage.  

Hope this helps.

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

Hugh,

Basing his question on verses like Matthew 10:38 and 16:24 GG used to confront me with this:

"Brother Tom, are you willing to be nothing?"  

How could I say anything but yes?  "No, I want to be something." violated my whole deeper life/way of the cross  idea of spirituality.  So, I had to "submit" and "follow wise counsel" and so on.

In other words, I had to let GG control me.

Then, finally one day, I figured out the correct answer.  It wasn't, as I had believed, "Yes".

It was, "Are you?"

Thomas Maddux

[Recovering Saint]

Hugh,

If you will read the context around this passage it will help to clear up the meaning.

It occurs twice in Matthew, in 10:38.  Jesus has talked about not fearing those who can kill the body but not the soul, confessing him before men, having your own household turn against you...then he says the he who does not take his cross and follow after him is not worthy.  He is obviously telling them that they must decide to follow him even at the risk of their lives!

In 16:21 he tell the disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer and die.  Peter says, "no way", and is rebuked.  Then he says "if any man wishes to come after me let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me."

Where has he just told them he is going?  To Jerusalem to suffer and die.

What follows? Save your life-lose it.  Lose your life for his sake-save it.  What profit if you gain the whole world, and lose your soul.

The meaning here is the same as in Matthew 10.

Remember, the three most important rules in correct understanding of the scriptures are: 1. context 2. context 3. context.

Another important principle of interpretation is that the correct meaning of a passage is what the author intended for the first hearers/readers to understand by it.

Neither the disciples Jesus spoke these words to or the Jewish christians Matthew wrote his gospel for had ever, as far as we know, heard the deeper life interpretation of Jesus' words.  

What I am saying is that they did not think, "Oh, I have to deal with my self centeredness and carnality in order to become what God wants me to be."  They thought, "I have to decide if I want to be a follower of Jesus even if it gets me killed."   That, they knew, was a real possibility.

Also, the New Living Bible "translation" of the passage is actually closer to a paraphrase.  Rather than being a strict translation based on rules of grammar, it attempts to make the passage understandable.  But the weakness of this approach is that you get the translator's understanding of the passage.  

Hope this helps.

Thomas Maddux

Thanks Tom

That is great to hear your clear explanation. We had this verse held over us whenever we wanted to do something and make something for our life. It always had to involve the Testimony and we would only go where the leaders said a "Work was or needed to be raised up" or we married only someone who was "approved by the leaders" because we needed to always take up the cross and deny self.

So what you have shown is it is taken out of context to make it say that. If you simply look at what Jesus was telling them in context of the their fears in following Him that is the real meaning and anything that adds to that is speculation or worse manipulation and twisting of scripture.

Thanks again you have helped me more than you will know.

Hugh

[Recovering Saint]

Also, the New Living Bible "translation" of the passage is actually closer to a paraphrase.  Rather than being a strict translation based on rules of grammar, it attempts to make the passage understandable.  But the weakness of this approach is that you get the translator's understanding of the passage.  

Hope this helps.

Thomas Maddux

Tom

Again you are right, the New Living Bible "translation" of the passage is closer to a paraphrase. Unfortunately some will read this VERSION and use it as their only Bible. I included it because of the wording that so lends itself to the Assembly way of thinking.

It has happened in Ottawa that a brother would preach on a word that they saw in numerous verses. Their whole message hinged on the meaning they put on this word. Unfortunately sometimes that particular use of that word was only present in that translation and may not even be correctly translated from the original language in the first place.

We were so much into Chapter Summary and Devotional Style preaching that we ran the risk of not using the Word in context so often. Just an open bible on your knees is all you need brothers. God will reveal it to you. Well now I see my need to do more to "Study to show myself approved".

Hugh

[Jerre]

Interesting thread! After looking at Hugh's verse in question, and looking at II Timothy 3:12, it's easy to see how the verse(s) could easily be taken massively out of context.

Contest, historical, grammatical, hermeneutical ... it blows my mind that we have a wealth of study tools that we can use to grow deeper in our understanding of God's Word. I agree also, the New Living Translation is not an accurate version to study from; you're better off using another version such as KJV, NKJV, or NASB, and investing in a solid commentary and Hebrew-Greek lexicon. Better yet, some Bibles even have Hebrew and Greek cross references in them; check out your local Bible bookstore.

How did the Assembly-ites do Chapter Summaries? Was there a specific method or set of directions? Also for devotional time? And were brothers allowed to use other Bible study tools to help them in their word studies? (I think not, but am curious).

Jerre

[al Hartman]

  ...he tried to convince us that we are to work out our salvation by going the way of the cross. It made me feel like anything I wanted was evil and I had to only want what I thought God wanted whatever that was. This left me open to the wolves who ran the Assembly system to tell us what God wanted for our lives...

Hugh, you have here, in a few words encapsulated what was wrong with assembly teaching:  It laid a foundation of the appearance of sound truth, then built upon it subtle error (doctrine that could pass as true, yet lead to enslavement).

For example, to "only want what God wants" is an admirable desire.  This was hammered at the saints, and it sounded right-- who could fault it?  But then, when a saint would ask "What exactly does God want?" the reply was subtly worded, but boiled down to, "Oh, we'll explain that for you."

The bottom line was that we were told what to study and how to study it, and if we learned things that were not approved of by the leadership, we were publicly castigated for our errors.

How did the Assembly-ites do Chapter Summaries? Was there a specific method or set of directions? Also for devotional time? And were brothers allowed to use other Bible study tools to help them in their word studies? (I think not, but am curious).

Jerre

Here, again, the basics seemed solid:  We all had a week to study the same chapter.  The goal was to determine the passage's "spiritual teaching" (an outline of what the chapter says, the "spiritual meaning" (a recognition of how the "teaching" relates to practical living for me today), and the "spiritual application" (how I intend to henceforth employ what I have learned here in my everyday life).

I have been able to utilize this technique, in a general way, in practical situations throughout my adult life.  It can be a useful way to break things down to understandability.  But under Geftakysism, "spiritual" translated to "assembly-leadership-approved."

As for devotions (personal morning and evening "times with the Lord"), we were instructed to get on our knees, open the Bible, and expect God to speak to us.  That's what George did, and God always spoke to him!  But for us to tell what God had "shown" us was to walk on eggshells, because if George didn't approve what we had "learned," we were deceived, carnal-minded, had allowed sin to reign in us...  It was almost as bad as to admit that we had heard nothing at all from the Lord.

There were certain aids to study allowed (to some), but they were only those that George approved, e.g. Darby, or Coneybeare and Howson.  But even then, it was unsafe to glean something from these sources that didn't fit the assembly mold.


The wonderful thing about this bulletin board is the very nature of the give-and-take discussions here, the like of which could never take place under assembly rule.  The assembly pattern is a theocracy, in which a designated "priesthood" speaks on behalf of God to the people, telling them what God wants them to do, and if the individual wants to act upon his own, he must subject his will to the approval of the priesthood.  Verses such as 2Peter1:20 were wielded like clubs to beat down any notion that a saint might act, or even think, independently of the leadership.

The great challenge today to those who were (or are) in the assemblies is to filter out the heavy-handed assembly teachings that ride like leeches upon the words of scripture and, as barnacles defile a ship, make the Bible appear ugly and undesirable to those who have been denied its true nurture for so long.

Thank God that He is able to deliver us from such bondage, having made to us exceeding great and precious promises to continue in us the great work of redemption that He has begun, until the day of His triumphant eternal reign.  Hallelujah, what a Savior!

In Christ,
al

[Recovering Saint]

Interesting thread! After looking at Hugh's verse in question, and looking at II Timothy 3:12, it's easy to see how the verse(s) could easily be taken massively out of context.

Contest, historical, grammatical, hermeneutical ... it blows my mind that we have a wealth of study tools that we can use to grow deeper in our understanding of God's Word. I agree also, the New Living Translation is not an accurate version to study from; you're better off using another version such as KJV, NKJV, or NASB, and investing in a solid commentary and Hebrew-Greek lexicon. Better yet, some Bibles even have Hebrew and Greek cross references in them; check out your local Bible bookstore.

How did the Assembly-ites do Chapter Summaries? Was there a specific method or set of directions? Also for devotional time? And were brothers allowed to use other Bible study tools to help them in their word studies? (I think not, but am curious).

Jerre

Jerre

Here is what we mean by Chapter Summary and the technique to FIND GOD'S WILL for your life daily in the Morning Times.

This is Chapter Summary

1. What does it say
2. What does it mean
3. What am I going to do about it.

Give the chapter a title from the breakdown. The breakdown is done by grouping paragraphs with similar thoughts together and giving a brief explanation of each. Then write a paragraph or two with one meaning and one application you took from the breakdown and end with a sentence to explain your specific application for this verse that you planned to do.

It was a subjective way to study the bible. It was mostly based on our feelings, impressions and our experience which for most was molded by the Assembly teachings. We lived together, ate together, travelled together and were encouraged not to spend too much time with family or get involved with other Church people except to draw them "into our perfect fellowship". We were strongly encouraged NOT to use bibles with footnotes or margin notes because they were "the interpretation of just one prerson but rather with an open bible pray on your knees and God will show you what the passage means.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Because we were kept busy all the time (a common cult technique) we did not have enough time to do in depth study and with only approved study tools like the Strongs Concordance and Vine's Dictionary and a few other books by Stott we had little to let us go astray from GGs theological trap. On the book table were books that supported GGs way of thinking. The Pilgrim Church (they met like us see we are just following traditional patterns) ya really.

With GG being on most of the tape ministry we had him as (our footnotes and commentary) so guess what the Lord showed us on our knees it was planted by GG in the endless Sunday tapes or Video Tape Seminar or Weekend Seminar in Fullerton CA or Champaigne IL.

We were in a box set by GG and all the theology and ideas were controlled by him and his Leading Brothers and Elders. We had "Free Will" inside that box so it looked like we made the choices but they were all controlled to keep us from straying from the "true sheepfold".

Hugh

[Recovering Saint]

  ...he tried to convince us that we are to work out our salvation by going the way of the cross. It made me feel like anything I wanted was evil and I had to only want what I thought God wanted whatever that was. This left me open to the wolves who ran the Assembly system to tell us what God wanted for our lives...

Hugh, you have here, in a few words encapsulated what was wrong with assembly teaching:  It laid a foundation of the appearance of sound truth, then built upon it subtle error (doctrine that could pass as true, yet lead to enslavement).

For example, to "only want what God wants" is an admirable desire.  This was hammered at the saints, and it sounded right-- who could fault it?  But then, when a saint would ask "What exactly does God want?" the reply was subtly worded, but boiled down to, "Oh, we'll explain that for you."

The bottom line was that we were told what to study and how to study it, and if we learned things that were not approved of by the leadership, we were publicly castigated for our errors.

How did the Assembly-ites do Chapter Summaries? Was there a specific method or set of directions? Also for devotional time? And were brothers allowed to use other Bible study tools to help them in their word studies? (I think not, but am curious).

Jerre

Here, again, the basics seemed solid:  We all had a week to study the same chapter.  The goal was to determine the passage's "spiritual teaching" (an outline of what the chapter says, the "spiritual meaning" (a recognition of how the "teaching" relates to practical living for me today), and the "spiritual application" (how I intend to henceforth employ what I have learned here in my everyday life).

I have been able to utilize this technique, in a general way, in practical situations throughout my adult life.  It can be a useful way to break things down to understandability.  But under Geftakysism, "spiritual" translated to "assembly-leadership-approved."

As for devotions (personal morning and evening "times with the Lord"), we were instructed to get on our knees, open the Bible, and expect God to speak to us.  That's what George did, and God always spoke to him!  But for us to tell what God had "shown" us was to walk on eggshells, because if George didn't approve what we had "learned," we were deceived, carnal-minded, had allowed sin to reign in us...  It was almost as bad as to admit that we had heard nothing at all from the Lord.

There were certain aids to study allowed (to some), but they were only those that George approved, e.g. Darby, or Coneybeare and Howson.  But even then, it was unsafe to glean something from these sources that didn't fit the assembly mold.


The wonderful thing about this bulletin board is the very nature of the give-and-take discussions here, the like of which could never take place under assembly rule.  The assembly pattern is a theocracy, in which a designated "priesthood" speaks on behalf of God to the people, telling them what God wants them to do, and if the individual wants to act upon his own, he must subject his will to the approval of the priesthood.  Verses such as 2Peter1:20 were wielded like clubs to beat down any notion that a saint might act, or even think, independently of the leadership.

The great challenge today to those who were (or are) in the assemblies is to filter out the heavy-handed assembly teachings that ride like leeches upon the words of scripture and, as barnacles defile a ship, make the Bible appear ugly and undesirable to those who have been denied its true nurture for so long.

Thank God that He is able to deliver us from such bondage, having made to us exceeding great and precious promises to continue in us the great work of redemption that He has begun, until the day of His triumphant eternal reign.  Hallelujah, what a Savior!

In Christ,
al

Al

It's what you learn after you know it all that really counts eh! We were taught what they wanted us to learn and discouraged from "healthy critical thinking like Paul said was good of the Bereans".

Merry Christmas to everyone.

Hugh

[Jerre]

Al,

You mentioned the word "theocracy" in your post. That's a key word for the Jehovah's Witnesses.  (See http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/language.html?FACTNet for info.) So everyone was to have gleaned spiritually divine meanings without footnotes or commentary to guide them? I must have been thought of as a really dumb sheep for reading books like "A Woman After God's Own Heart", "Trusting God", and "The Master's Plan for the Church" during my Bible study time.

The bottom portion of our Sunday service bulletin, where we are given space to take notes, says this:

"Your responsibility, by God's enabling, is to consistently apply the divine principles and truths you have heard (Phil. 2:1-13; I Tim. 4:7-9; James 1:22-27). As you meditate on this message, ask yourself these questions:

     *How does God want my beliefs/actions to change?
     *How can I accomplish this change?
     *What is the first step toward bringing about this change?"

Would to have been a fly on the wall at some of those weekend seminars. I always refused to go when I was invited because of work, but frankly there was something creepy about the whole setup of those things. My "BS" detector is always on! But perhaps attending a session might have given me the boldness to approach my friend with the truth of the Assembly.

Thank you both, Hugh and Al, for answering my questions. The BB is a great place for dialoguing about those issues that need to be discussed. Indeed, Al - "Hallelujah, what a Savior!"

Jerre

[vernecarty]

[
This is Chapter Summary

1. What does it say
2. What does it mean
3. What am I going to do about it.


It was a subjective way to study the bible. It was mostly based on our feelings, impressions and our experience which for most was molded by the Assembly teachings.
Hugh

This is commonly known as the inductive method of Bible study and need not be overly subjective. What the passage says and means has nothig to do with feelings per se. It naturally follows that once one understands what the passage is saying as well as its meaning, one should then consider how it may be personally applied. Like so many other things, this also became perverted in the assembly environment.

Also, the New Living Bible "translation" of the passage is actually closer to a paraphrase.  Rather than being a strict translation based on rules of grammar, it attempts to make the passage understandable.  But the weakness of this approach is that you get the translator's understanding of the passage.  

Hope this helps.

Thomas Maddux

Tom

Again you are right, the New Living Bible "translation" of the passage is closer to a paraphrase. Unfortunately some will read this VERSION and use it as their only Bible. I included it because of the wording that so lends itself to the Assembly way of thinking.

It has happened in Ottawa that a brother would preach on a word that they saw in numerous verses. Their whole message hinged on the meaning they put on this word. Unfortunately sometimes that particular use of that word was only present in that translation and may not even be correctly translated from the original language in the first place.

We were so much into Chapter Summary and Devotional Style preaching that we ran the risk of not using the Word in context so often. Just an open bible on your knees is all you need brothers. God will reveal it to you. Well now I see my need to do more to "Study to show myself approved".

Hugh

That the cross is an instrument for dealing with the self-life of the Chrisitian
is I believe entirely  Scriptural. In the assemblies the teaching was used strictly as a means of manipulation.
The believer is nonetheless expected to deny in himself, every sinful tendency to which he is naturally subject, and this is in fact a very personal, conscious, and daily excercise in the pursuit of holiness.

And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.   Luke 9:23
   

And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple
Luke 14:27


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

This work can be accomplished only through the agency of the indwelling Holy Spirit and is not a matter of excersice of will only.  Its application under assembly style teaching was a recipe for complete disaster and doomed to failure...the evidence speaks for itself.

Verne

[al Hartman]

[
This is Chapter Summary

1. What does it say
2. What does it mean
3. What am I going to do about it.


It was a subjective way to study the bible. It was mostly based on our feelings, impressions and our experience which for most was molded by the Assembly teachings.
Hugh

This is commonly knwon as the inductive method of Bible study and need not be overly subjective. What the passage says and means has nothig to do with feelings per se. It naturally follows that once one understands what the passage is saying as well as its meaning, one should then consider how it may be personally applied.

Right.  This is what I meant when I said that I have used these principles many times in my life.  They are fundamentally sound.

Like so many other things, this also became perverted in the assembly environment.
Verne

Also right.  The assembly version of these principles was to figure out what you "felt" the passage said and meant (always in light of assembly doctrine), along the lines of Tom's illustration of George's teaching on Jesus' saying "I thirst":

A glaring example is George Geftakys' claim that Jesus' words "I thirst", which he uttered on the cross, have two meanings.  One, the literal, is that Jesus was thirsty.  The other, which is the "spiritual" meaning is that in worship we "have the privelege of meeting God's need."

So everyone was to have gleaned spiritually divine meanings without footnotes or commentary to guide them? I must have been thought of as a really dumb sheep for reading books like "A Woman After God's Own Heart", "Trusting God", and "The Master's Plan for the Church" during my Bible study time.

Well, yeah-- on your first visit...  We would have "lovingly" surrounded you, making you feel very welcome and seeking to see you awed by the spiritual depth you found in our presence.

Later, if you were less-than-awed by us and persisted in your pursuit of "unapproved" ministry and commentary, you would have been labeled a spiritual predator, a wolf in sheep's clothing, and driven from the flock by the "shepherds."

al

[outdeep]

This is Chapter Summary

1. What does it say
2. What does it mean
3. What am I going to do about it.

What made it subjective is that we did not always ask "What does it mean?"  Rather, we asked "What does it mean to me?"

[vernecarty]

This is Chapter Summary

1. What does it say
2. What does it mean
3. What am I going to do about it.

What made it subjective is that we did not always ask "What does it mean?"  Rather, we asked "What does it mean to me?"

BINGO!
Probably one of the most scintillating statements ever made about assembly life and teaching. Right on the money!
Verne

p.s. I dare say that in the minds of many, consciously or otherwise, the question answered was:  What does it mean to George?

[Joe Sperling]

That's so true: "What does it mean to ME?" And with all of the stuff we were already DOING to try to please God and be overcomers, the "What am I going to DO about it" portion of the Chapter summary was the coup  de etat--add a few more "works" onto the already burgeoning schedule. "I'm going to pray more" or "I'm going to spend more time in the Word" or "I'm going to preach more", etc. etc. It makes me tired just thinking about it

--Joe