Deny Yourself: More Than Giving Things Up

1. What did Jesus command?

Jesus says:

“If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.”

— Matthew 16:24, NASB95

Notice the object of the command.

Jesus does not say, “Deny yourself certain things.”

He says, “deny himself.”

The Greek expression is:

ἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτόν (aparnēsasthō heauton)

The verb aparneomai carries the idea of denying or disowning.

The Greek aparnēsasthō heauton conveys, in this context, a decisive repudiation of self as the controlling center of one's allegiance. Surrendering self-lordship is a contextual and theological explanation of the command, not a technical definition of the verb itself.

Jesus is demanding something deeper than abstaining from particular pleasures or possessions.

He calls the disciple to renounce the claim to live independently of His authority.

And the immediate context makes that especially clear.

Peter has just confessed Jesus as the Christ.

But when Jesus announces His coming suffering and death, Peter objects.

Peter wants Jesus to be the Messiah, but he resists the Messiah's chosen road.

Jesus rebukes Peter:

“Get behind Me, Satan!” — Matthew 16:23, NASB95 (excerpt)

Then He turns to His disciples and explains what following Him requires.

Peter must stop attempting to direct Jesus and return to his proper place behind Him.

This is the immediate setting of Jesus' command to deny oneself.

The issue is not merely what Peter is willing to give up.

The issue is who determines the direction of Peter's life.

The command to take up one's cross makes clear that Jesus demands more than changed priorities. He demands allegiance that may cost the disciple his life.

2. Denying yourself good things is not necessarily denying yourself

A common misunderstanding of self-denial deserves careful examination.

Many Christians associate self-denial primarily with giving up things they enjoy.

They may think of:

– Celibacy.

– Poverty.

– Fasting.

– Abstaining from particular foods.

– Rejecting material comforts.

– Withholding legitimate pleasures.

Some of these practices can be expressions of genuine Christian devotion.

But none automatically constitutes the self-denial Jesus commands.

A person can deprive himself of many good things while remaining entirely committed to his own will.

He may surrender possessions while retaining pride.

He may abstain from pleasures while seeking spiritual superiority.

He may practice rigorous self-discipline while resisting Christ's authority.

External deprivation does not necessarily reveal inward surrender.

And Scripture warns against confusing the two.

3. Scripture does not teach that rejecting God's good gifts makes us inherently holy

Paul addresses this problem directly.

Colossians 2:20–23

Paul warns against religious regulations built around prohibitions such as:

“Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!”

— Colossians 2:21, NASB95

He describes practices involving self-made religion, self-abasement, and severe treatment of the body.

Paul describes these practices as having an “appearance of wisdom” while being “of no value against fleshly indulgence” (Colossians 2:23, NASB95).

This is an important distinction.

Self-imposed austerity can look spiritual without producing genuine holiness.

Paul's objection is not that every act of abstinence is wrong. His objection is to a religious system that treats humanly imposed restrictions and severe bodily discipline as though they possess spiritual authority or power to overcome sin.

The appearance of devotion is not the same as genuine transformation. A person may exercise extraordinary control over outward behavior while remaining governed inwardly by pride, self-righteousness, or sinful desire.

The flesh cannot be conquered merely by depriving the flesh.

Here, flesh refers to sinful desire and self-directed living, not to the physical body as inherently evil. External deprivation does not necessarily produce inward holiness.

Paul makes a related argument in 1 Timothy 4:1–5.

He warns against those who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods God created to be gratefully shared by believers.

He explains that God's creation is good and should be received with thanksgiving.

The problem is not simply that these teachers practiced restraint.

It is that they treated God's good gifts as though refusing them were inherently more spiritual.

That is not biblical holiness.

Paul does not condemn singleness or voluntary restraint. He condemns the teaching that makes abstinence from God's good gifts a requirement of spiritual faithfulness.

There is a profound difference between freely surrendering a legitimate good for the sake of serving Christ and declaring that Christians become holier simply by refusing what God has permitted them to enjoy.

God's good gifts are to be received with thanksgiving, not rejected as though their enjoyment were inherently sinful.

But no gift may become more important than obedience to the Giver.

4. Does that mean Christians should never voluntarily give up good things?

Absolutely not.

This is an important theological guardrail.

Scripture recognizes legitimate reasons to forego good things for the sake of Christ.

Paul discusses voluntary singleness in 1 Corinthians 7.

Paul recognizes differing gifts and circumstances and commends the advantages of undistracted devotion to the Lord without making singleness a universal obligation (1 Corinthians 7:7, 32–35).

A good gift may be received gratefully or voluntarily forgone faithfully. Neither action is inherently superior apart from the person's calling, motives, and obedience to Christ.

The question is not whether a Christian possesses every good gift God offers. No Christian does.

The question is whether the believer receives God's gifts with gratitude, uses them faithfully, and remains willing to surrender them when obedience to Christ requires it.

The married believer may honor Christ through faithful marriage. The unmarried believer may honor Christ through devoted singleness.

Neither marital status, by itself, establishes greater holiness.

Fasting can be a legitimate expression of prayerful dependence upon God.

Generosity may require surrendering possessions or financial security.

Faithfulness to Christ may require relinquishing opportunities, relationships, comfort, reputation, or even life itself.

The issue is not whether we surrender something good.

The issue is why we surrender it and whom we are seeking to obey.

A person who voluntarily remains unmarried to serve Christ more freely may be exercising faithful discipleship.

But celibacy does not automatically make someone more holy than a married believer.

A person who gives generously to the poor may be demonstrating Christlike love.

But poverty itself does not automatically establish righteousness.

A person who fasts may be expressing genuine devotion.

But abstaining from food does not automatically produce spiritual maturity.

The value of the sacrifice cannot be separated from the allegiance that motivates it.

5. Self-denial is not self-hatred or the destruction of personhood

Jesus is not commanding His followers to despise themselves as human beings.

Human beings are created in God's image (Genesis 1:26–27).

Believers are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works (Ephesians 2:10).

Redemption does not destroy human personhood.

It transforms the person in relationship to Christ.

This distinction matters because the language of self-denial can be misunderstood as requiring the suppression of personality, thought, or legitimate desire.

But Jesus is not commanding the destruction of the self.

He is commanding the renunciation of the self as the ultimate governing authority.

Self-denial is not the denial of personhood. It is the denial of self-lordship.

That is a useful summary of the command in its immediate context.

But we must also recognize that Jesus' demand extends beyond decision-making authority.

The disciple must be prepared to surrender his very life for Christ's sake.

That is why Jesus immediately speaks about taking up the cross.

6. The cross reveals the seriousness of the command

Matthew 16:24 does not stop with self-denial.

Jesus continues:

“take up his cross and follow Me.”

— Matthew 16:24, NASB95 (excerpt)

In the first-century Roman world, the cross was not a symbol of minor inconvenience.

It represented public shame, suffering, and execution.

Jesus is describing a willingness to follow Him even when doing so involves the loss of everything.

But we must preserve a crucial distinction.

Christ's cross accomplishes redemption. Our cross-bearing describes the costly path of following the Redeemer.

Christ's suffering is uniquely substitutionary and redemptive.

Our suffering does not contribute to His finished work.

We do not carry our crosses to accomplish what Christ accomplished on His.

We carry our crosses because we belong to the One who accomplished our redemption.

The disciple's sacrifice is not the purchase price of salvation.

It is an expression of allegiance to the Savior.

7. What does denying yourself look like in ordinary life?

Consider several examples.

A Christian may enjoy professional success, but refuse advancement that requires dishonesty.

A husband may desire to win an argument, but surrender his pride and seek reconciliation.

A believer may enjoy financial security, yet give generously when obedience and love require sacrifice.

A person may have legitimate desires for comfort or recognition, but refuse to make those desires the governing authority of life.

In each case, the central issue is not the mere possession or enjoyment of something.

It is whether that thing has become more important than faithfulness to Christ.

This leads us to the question we emphasized in Message 7:

When what I want collides with what Jesus wants, who moves?

That question is not intended to suggest every personal preference is sinful.

It exposes the moment when our preferences claim authority that belongs to Christ.

8. Why surrender is ultimately gain

Jesus immediately explains:

“For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.”

— Matthew 16:25, NASB95

Notice the qualifying phrase:

“for My sake” (Matthew 16:25, NASB95, excerpt).

Christian self-denial is not deprivation for deprivation's sake.

It is allegiance to Christ.

And Jesus promises that surrendering one's life for His sake is not ultimately loss.

The person who insists on preserving life independently of Christ cannot secure it.

The person who entrusts life to Christ finds it.

This is the paradox at the heart of discipleship.

The disciple does not surrender life because life is worthless. He surrenders life because Christ is worthy.

And Christ is the One who promises life to those who follow Him.

Jesus does not promise that giving something up now guarantees something better in this earthly life. He promises life to those who lose their lives for His sake.

Entrust your life to Christ, even at the cost of everything, because He alone secures the life that cannot ultimately be lost.

Matthew 16:26 presses the issue further: gaining the whole world cannot compensate for forfeiting one's soul. The promise of life rests in Christ Himself, not in the earthly benefits of sacrifice. The following verses direct our attention to the Son of Man's coming glory and kingdom (Matthew 16:27–28).

A disciple can surrender everything to Jesus because nothing surrendered to Jesus is ultimately lost.

This does not mean every earthly sacrifice will be restored in this life. It means that no sacrifice made for Christ's sake can overturn His promise of eternal life and coming glory.