Mark 10:21 Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.” so I was watching "God or the Girl" last night on A&E (which I think is an interesting thread in an of itself) and one of the undecided semenary guys decided to make a cross and carry it 22 miles (I think he was walking to a church or revival or something of the such). Yes, the preist did suggest it, so it wasn't entirely his idea. But it got me thinking, what did Jesus mean when he said to "take up the cross"? I am sure he wasn't literally telling folks to go out and make crosses and carry them around (I still don't understand why this guy, Dan, HAD to do this). I don't know, this verse has always been sort of mysterious to me. I see the first part is about almsgiving and just humbling yourself, but any clear menaing from the last part has eluded me. Thoughts?
I think "the cross" symbolizes Christianity. So by "taking up the cross," one would mean "taking up Christianity".
It means rob my problems from me, then kill everyone, and look down on anyone that doesn't go to church. I see alot of connection between the modern view of Jesus Christ and M Bison. Thats a big J slash K Def means take up Christianity. Since the sacrifice is all that makes you a Christian. Whatever your problems are, is your inherit sacrifice, if you do not have any upright problems then you should seek out a sacrifice to make. Plus minor things like handouts to the poor, and all that "being nice" crap.
hmm, there might be one other interpretation, although it's a slim one..... The Egyptians used the cross as a symbol for Life....... and the connotations of this v's the suffering of christ on the cross were very important to the early Christians ..... i s'pose you could interpret it as "embrace Life and follow me" .... depends how long after they nailed him up that was written I s'pose The symbolism of the cross, as we know it today didn't really become widespread until the 3rd century AD ...........
Well it did not mean take up Christianity since Christianity as such didn't come on the scene until several generations after the death of Christ on the cross. His followers of the day considered themselves to be Jews; and Jesus, they thought, was the Jewish messiah. The term "take up the cross" means continuing the work Jesus began on earth. Feeding the hungry, helping needy folks, getting nasty evil people (such as murders, theives, the corrupt tax collectors of the day) to make ammends for the harm they had caused people.
Yeah, it doesn't make any sense anyways. Christ hadn't picked up his own cross yet when he said that; he had yet to be executed. So it is quite possible he meant the Egyptian thing. Then again, that's a pagan symbol; I don't know how widespread it was, or if a Jew would be comfortable using it. Post-crucifixion, I can understand it to mean "continue His work, which will be hard, but rewarding in the end." But pre-crucifixion? I guess crucifixions were common then, but before Jesus own crucifixion and resurrection, this would have been a very negetive image. It's like telling people today, "go sit in an electric chair." Professor Jumbo, that's not entirely true. The apostles preached to gentiles shortly after Jesus died/ascended and did not require them to become Jews (circumcision, obedience to the Law, etc). The question, anyways, should have nothing to do with Christianity, as Jesus considered himself a Jew. I'd rephrase the question as "what could this passage mean to Jesus, or, more generally, to a first century Jew?
Thank you for the responses everyone. I do agree that although the phrasing "take up Christianity" is technically not correct but I do understand what Hikaru was saying and I beleive it was along the same lines of Professor Jumbo's post. In response to Trippin's comment that Jesus had not been crucified yet, so it seems odd considering Jesus hadn't picked up his own cross, could it not be that Jesus forsaw his own death by crucifixion? I acctually found that from a site I located with a quick google search (I really should do that before posing questions here I think, because I tend to answer my own question shortly after posting). Mt own investigations howed that in Mark right after the Transfiguration (chapter 9) Jesus tells the three with him not to speak of it until he had risen from the dead, so again it seems Jesus knew what was going to happen. And, aha, re-reading your post Trippin, I see another thing you bring up, about how the image could possibly be a very negative one pre-crucifixion. Something I just thought of now, as a more liberal/historical approach to the passage is that viewing Jesus as a social/political revolutionary against the Romans. In this respect, it could be suggesting that a person should go out and work to build up the Jewish kingdom free from Roamn occupation, even at the expense of your own life. Again, thank you for the responses everyone. This has surely aided me in coming to an interpretation of the scripture...
Jesus might have known he was going to be crucified, but no one else did. And they certainly didn't know he'd rise again. So it's just like telling someone "sell all your things, give the money to the poor, and go kill yourself." Taking up the cross would not mean anything to anyone but painful death. (unless it's the Egyptian ankh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankh#The_ankh_and_the_cross)
Actually, that's a good point I hadn't considered -- how those words were written after the Crucifiction. Interesting.
For the Roman world, the cross was a humiliating death. More than just embarrassment, a crucifixion was a status degredation ritual. From being hoisted into the air to having the arms pinioned apart (symbolizing utter powerlessness), the entire procedure of crucifixion was designed to heap dishonor on the crucified. Keep in mind that ANE cultures were honor-shame cultures. Honor was *extremely* important in the Roman world. Honor was as important to the Romans (and the Jews of the time) as it was to members of feudal Japanese cultures. It was better to die with honor than to live without it. To add to it, to die suspended off the ground, as a Jew, meant that one would be accursed and forsaken. So what you have here in the concept of crucifixion and "taking up your cross" means, to a Jew, to live a life of humiliation and to give up your status. To receive scorn and mockery even until you die. To have your good name besmirched for Christ's sake. In effect, to give up everything that would matter to a 1st century Jew. It was far more significant than "sell all your things, give the money to the poor, and go kill yourself." I do not think that there is an accurate analogy that we can draw in our 20th western mindset because shame to us is less than health, wealth, etc. However, I think we can come close to a modern idea that would have the same kind of impact. Imagine being asked to *voluntarily* go to a brutal prison for a horrible crime that you didn't commit while the entire country (including your own family) thinks that you are guilty and they treat you like it. That would be tough to ask anyone. Yet, in terms of the 1st century ANE culture, that is very similar to what Christ was asking the man.
i've been watching this show and i raelly like it. its pretty interesting. i have a few problems with it, but thats for another time. i was really suprised that Dan agreed to do it. i think maybe carrying a
i've been watching this show and i really like it. its pretty interesting. i have a few problems with it, but thats for another time. i was really suprised that dan agreed to do it. i think maybe carrying a crossbeam that distance would have been one thing, but an 80 lb cross? what's that supposed to show? i understood the intent of the assignment to be something along the lines of: Jesus did all this humiliating suffering for you, so how bout you try and recreate some of that pain so you'll understand and love him the more for it. but jesus only walked a few miles. and he didn't carry a cross, just the crossbeam. i think dan's intent was a little out there, but he definatly got too carried away.
Thanks, Alsharad, that's interesting and hadn't looked at it that way, even though I knew it was a dishonorable death (reserved for only the lowest criminals), I hadn't seen it from that perspective. Probably because as you say, honor is not a huge deal these days. So Jesus is telling them to give up literally everything, even their good name, if need be. One must wonder, though, if he meant to give it up, or just to get your priorities in order. Loving God with ALL your heart, ALL your soul...well, clearly that doesn't mean you can't love other people/things, right?
I think that is what he was asking, yes. This point would have echoed in the minds of his disciples, though, as Christ literally did what he had asked the man to do. It is no wonder that it was called to mind as they wrote about him. I think that it could mean to give it all up. Then again, it could have been an illustration that there wasn't anything that this man could *do.* It might have been impossible for this man to do this. Christ might have been illustrating that there is nothing we can *do* to be saved. This idea is consistent with scripture elsewhere but seems a little too esoteric for the style and general context of this passage. Most likely, given the context, Christ was describing to the man what following Him entailed (far more literally it would seem than anyone recognized). Regarding your question at the end, we must keep in mind that Christ sometimes teaches using hyperbole. "ALL" in the above indicates a kind of complete surrender and love. "Don't be half-hearted about it". "Love God with every fiber of your being". These two sentences are similar expressions that cannot be taken literally, but convey a the same sense of complete, but not exclusive, love.
I believe it means to graciously allow the meaning of your life to be more real than your fear of death. In other words, no matter what happens, accept reality, trust the universe and above all, accept every experience of everyone and everything that exists as an essential, vital element of your relationship with the ultimate reality. Peace and Love
I can see that too. Of course, to get that you have to completely rip it out of any sort of cultural and historical context. And ignore the linguistic and stylistic context of the text as well. Oh yeah, you would have to forget that the concepts of "ultimate reality" as you seem to mean it would make no sense to the monotheistic collectivist Jews of the 1st century. In fact, to the people of the time, that understanding would be absolute balderdash. But, once you get past all that, yeah, I can totally see how that is what He meant. I sure am glad that I live in an enlightened age so that we can finally correctly interpret the sayings of a Jew from the Ancient Near East who obviously made no sense to the people of His time. Sorry... occassionally, my sarcastic side comes out.
