Self-Denial

A term that denotes our relinquishing every thing that stands in opposition to the divine command, and our own spiritual welfare, Mat 16:24. It does not consist in denying what a man is, or what he has: in refusing favours converred on us in the course of providence; in rejecting the use of God’s creatures; in being careless of life, health, and family; in macerating the body, or abusing it in any respect; but in renouncing al those pleasures, profets, views, connections, or practices, that are prejudicial to the true interests of the soul. The understanding must be so far denied as not to lean upon it, independent of divine instruction, Pro 3:5-6. The will must be denied, so far as it opposes the will of God, Eph 5:1-33. The affections, when they become inordinate, Col 3:5. The gratification of the members of the body must be denied when out of their due course, Rom 6:12-13. The honours of the world, and praise of men, when they become a snare, Heb 11:24-26. Worldly emoluments, when to be obtained in an unlawful way, or when standing in opposition to religion and usefulness, Mat 4:20-22. Friends and relatives, so far as they oppose the truth, and would influence us to oppose it too, Gen 12:1. Our own righteousness, so as to depend upon it, Php 3:8-9. Life itself must be laid down, if called for, in the cause of Christ, Mat 16:24-25. In fine, every thing that is sinful must be denied, however pleasant, and apparently advantageous, since, without holiness, no man shall see the Lord, Heb 12:14. To enable us to practise this duty, let us consider the injunction of Christ, Mat 16:24; his eminent example, Php 2:5; Php 2:8; the encouragement he gives, Mat 16:25; the example of his saints in all ages; Heb 11:1-40:; the advantages that attend it, and, above all, learn to implore the agency of that Divine Spirit, without whom we can do nothing.

SELF-DENIAL.—Self-denial is undoubtedly an essential part of the religious life as set before men by Jesus Christ. ‘If any man will come after me, let him deny himself’ (Mat 16:24). The word used (ἀπαρνέομαι) occurs elsewhere only in the parallel passages (Mar 8:34, Luk 9:23); in the accounts given by the four Evangelists of St. Peter’s denial (Mat 26:34-35; Mat 26:75, Mar 14:30-31; Mar 14:72, Luk 22:61, Joh 13:38); and in our Lord’s denunciation of apostasy (Luk 12:9). It is used in the LXX Septuagint to translation מָאַם. It is a strong word, and its meaning is best understood perhaps by comparing it with the corresponding expression of St. Paul, ‘I count as loss’ (ἡγοῦνγε ζημίαν, Php 3:7-8). It must be understood to include a conquest of the insistent and unruly demands of the body, denial of the lower self; and a bringing into subjection of the ambitions and emotions of the intellect and spirit, denial of the higher self.

1. The denial of the carnal self.—The practices by which men have sought to accomplish this kind of self-denial pass generally under the name of asceticism. There are five such kinds of discipline recommended or countenanced by our Lord’s teaching and example: (1) fasting, (2) celibacy and sexual restraint, (3) almsgiving, (4) vigils, (5) the refusal of luxury in the surroundings of life.

(1) Fasting was practised by our Lord Himself (Mat 4:1 ff. ||). It was presupposed as likely to form part of the religious life by His disciples (Mat 6:16 ff., Mar 2:20). It was practised by the Apostles and the Church in their time (Act 10:9; Act 10:30; Act 13:3; Act 14:23, 1Co 7:5), and traditions of the severity of their fasting survived into the 2nd cent. (Clem. Recog. vii. 6; Clem. Alex. [Note: Alexandrian.] Paedag. ii. 1; Can. [Note: Canaanite.] Murat. i. 11). In the sub-Apostolic age, probably as a result of the example of the Pharisees, fasting on stated days became a common form of self-denial (Did. viii.; Hermas, Sim. v. 1; Clem. Alex. [Note: Alexandrian.] Strom. vii. 12). The Lenten fast grew from an original 14 days (Tertull. de Jejun. 15) to 40 days, in imitation of our Lord’s fast in the wilderness. The Friday fast, the Lenten fast, and the custom of fasting before receiving the Communion, were very general, if not universal, in the early Catholic and the mediaeval Church. See art. Fasting.

(2) Celibacy is countenanced by our Lord, but not generally recommended (Mat 19:12, Luk 14:26). It and temporary sexual restraint are recommended and even deemed specially honourable by the Apostles (1Co 7:29; 1Co 7:35, Rev 14:3-4). In the sub-Apostolic age the idea of the superior sanctity of the virgin state grew rapidly (Did. xi. 11; Ignat. Ep. ad Polyc. v.; Just. Mart. Apol. i. 15; Athenag. 33, etc.). See art. Celibacy.

(3) Almsgiving, as a form of self-denial, is distinctly recommended by our Lord (Mat 6:1 ff., Luk 11:41; Luk 12:33, Mar 12:43; cf. Luk 6:38, Mat 5:42, Act 20:35), and He Himself, though poor, practised it (Joh 13:29). The Apostles insisted on the duty of almsgiving, at first apparently indiscriminately (Act 2:44-45), afterwards with more caution (Rom 12:8, 2Co 8:3, Jas 2:14 f., 1Jn 3:17, Heb 13:16, Jas 1:27, 2Co 9:6-7, Gal 6:9, 1Co 16:1, 2Co 9:1, Rom 15:26, Act 11:27-30; cf. 2Th 3:10). In the early Church, almsgiving, either weekly or monthly, was a recognized duty (Tertull. Apol. 39; Cypr. de Oper. et Elecm.). See Almsgiving.

(4) Vigils.—Watching and wakefulness as a form of self-denying service to God were no doubt suggested by our Lord’s commands (Mat 24:42; Mat 26:41, Luk 12:37) as well as by His own practice (Mat 14:23; Mat 26:38), and in this sense were understood many of the Apostolic exhortations (1Co 16:13, 1Th 5:6, Eph 6:18). Examples of vigil services are to be found in the records of the Apostolic Church (Act 12:12; Act 20:7) and in the practice of St. Paul (2Co 6:5; 2Co 11:27). The heathen Pliny’s description (Ep. x. 97) of the Christians as ‘meeting before daybreak’ probably points to nothing but a desire for privacy and a feeling of the necessity for avoiding public notice, but we have certainly allusions to vigils in the strict sense of the word in the writings of several of the early Fathers (Clem. Alex. [Note: Alexandrian.] Paedag. ii. 9; Tertull. ad Ux. ii. 5; Cypr. de Laps. 34 ff.; Lactant. vii. 19; August. Ep. ad Januar. 119; Socr. i. 37, v, 21; Sozom. ii. 29, iii. 6).

(5) Refusal of luxury.—Another region in which self-denial might be exercised was found in the surroundings of life, clothes, household arrangements, etc. Our Lord’s own example (Mat 8:20) was appealed to, and certain hints in His teaching were felt to have a bearing on the subject (Mat 10:10; Mat 11:8, Luk 16:19). The teaching of the Apostles was more detailed and definite (1Ti 2:9, 1Pe 3:3 f.). The question of the amount of luxury permissible to Christians came up in the Montanist controversy (Euseb. v. 18. 4; Tertull. de Coron. Mil. 5, 10, 11). It occupies a considerable part of the Paedag. of Clem, of Alex. [Note: Alexandrian.] (see especially ii. 11, ii. 8–12, iii. 2, etc.), and is discussed by Cyprian (de Virg. vel. and de Cult. fem.).

2. The denial of the higher intellectual and psychical self.—When we consider the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, we are at once struck by His definite and marked departure from the ethics of classical antiquity. For Him there is no such word as ἀρετή (cf. Ἄρης, and the Lat. vir-tus) with the sense of elevated manliness. Nor has He anything to correspond with the classical tetrad φρόνησις (or σοφία), ἀνδρεία, σωφροσύνη, δικαιοσύνη. These express the completest development of the higher, better self in man, and proclaim as the ideal the attainment of the truest ‘manliness’ in the face of an appreciative and admiring world. For our Lord the ideal is a different one. His life fulfils the conception of the prophet. He has no beauty that men should desire Him. He is despised, rejected, a Man of sorrows, acquainted with grief. He is ‘meek and lowly of heart’ (cf. Zec 9:9, 2Co 10:1, Php 2:7). He is ‘one that serveth’ (Mat 20:28, Joh 13:13-17). It is ‘the poor in spirit,’ ‘they that mourn,’ ‘the meek,’ and those that ‘are reviled’ whom He calls blessed (cf. Mat 18:3-4; Mat 19:30; Mat 20:14, Mar 10:27 ff., Luk 1:48). It is quite evident that the ideal here set up is wholly difterent from that of the classical philosophers. The two are, in fact, in fundamental opposition. The one is the ideal of the development, the other the ideal of the denial of the higher self. The Apostles understood the Master very well and taught as He did (but see the use of ἀρετή in what may be its classical sense in Php 4:8 and in 2Pe 1:5). Indeed, they insisted with even more than His iteration on the denial of self (1Co 1:28-29, 2Co 1:5; 2Co 6:10, Php 2:6-8, 2Co 10:1, 1Pe 2:21, Gal 5:23; Gal 6:1, Eph 4:2, Col 3:12, Jas 1:21; Jas 3:13, 1Pe 5:5, 2Co 12:21).

Literature.—1. Historical: Zöckler, Askese und Mönchtum (1894), Die Tugendlehre des Christentums (1904); Mayer, Die Christl. Askese, ihre Wesen und ihre histor. Entfaltung (1894); A. Ritschl, Gesch. des Pietismus (1880–86); W. Bright, Some Aspects of Primitive Church Life (1898); J. O. Hannay, The Spirit and Origin of Christian Monasticism (1902); Migne, Dictionnaire d’Ascétisme, Encycl. Théol. vols. 45, 46; Bingham, Antiquities of the Christian Church.

Theological and Devotional:—Rothe, Theol. Ethik, iii. (1848); Dorner, Syst. d. chr. Sittenlehre; Newman Smyth, Christian Ethics (1894); Jeremy Taylor, Holy Living and Holy Dying; J. Keble, Letters of Spiritual Counsel; J. H. Newman, Historical Sketches; Bp. Paget, The Spirit of Discipline; J. O. Hannay, The Wisdom of the Desert (1904); Thomas à Kempis, The Imitation of Christ; Baxter, Self-Denial.

J. O. Hannay.

Jesus emphasized the necessity of self-denial (ἑáõôὸí ἀðáñíåῖóèáé, Mar_8:34 ff.) and the taking up of the cross if outward following was to become real discipleship. Self-denial looks primarily to the initial struggle by which the disciple cuts himself adrift from his former way of living, renouncing parents, wife, possessions, hating life itself when these stand in the way (Mat_10:37 f., Luk_14:26 f.). Taking up the cross looks rather to the acceptance of the stern conditions and dread possibilities of the new life itself. By the former the individual tears himself out of the old conditions, by the latter he shoulders the burdens of the new and as yet untried service. The difference between the two may be illustrated from the experience of the man who volunteers to serve his country in war. He has first to wrench himself from the glad associations of home, and then to take his post of hardship, danger, and perhaps death in the ranks and on the field of battle. Both are acts of will characterized by immediacy and decisiveness (aor. Mar_8:34, Luk_9:23, Mat_16:24); but Luke’s addition of ‘daily’ is psychologically true. The original choice has to be constantly re-affirmed if the acolyte is not to become an apostate.

The best commentary on these two ideas is found in Php_3:4-14, where St. Paul describes both his own self-denial and his taking up of the cross. What things were gain to him these he counted loss for Christ, i.e. he gave up friends, privileges, earthly prospects-in reality his old self-and he accepted to the full the conditions of the new service (cf. Act_9:16), the fellowship of Christ’s sufferings and conformity to His death. Similar is the thought in Gal_2:19 f. The Apostle speaks of what he calls his own death, his own crucifixion, and Christ now living in him.

Thus, although the evangelic phrase ἑáõôὸí ἀðáñíåῖóèáé is not found in the apostolic literature, the idea underlies the whole apostolic view of the Christian life.

(a) The idea was primarily used in the martyr sense of willingness to suffer death or persecution for Jesus’ sake. Death and persecution in themselves have no spiritual value (1Co_13:3, 1Pe_4:15), but to deny the ‘name’ or the ‘faith’ (Rev_2:13; Rev_3:8) in order to escape them is to renounce Christ. ‘Whoever denies himself to be a Christian and makes that plain by his actions, i.e. by worshipping our gods, … shall gain forgiveness’ (Trajan’s letter to Pliny, Ep. xcviii. [xcviii.], in E. G. Hardy’s ed. of Pliny, Epp. ad Traianum, London, 1889, p. 217). To do that is the very opposite of Christian self-denial in this martyr sense. The Apocalypse is a warning against ‘cowardice’ (Rev_21:8), and an encouragement to be faithful unto death (Rev_2:10). The Christian was in constant danger of a violent death for Christ’s sake (Rom_8:36, 2Co_4:10, Php_3:10, Col_1:24, 1Co_15:31, 2Ti_2:11-13). This íÝêñùóéò, or dying to the world, was, however, the sure foretaste of eternal life. ‘God cannot deny himself,’ and this Divine moral consistency ensures future glory to those who deny Him not, as it ensures shame to those who do (2Ti_2:11-13). Some explain 2Ti_2:11 of the Christian’s death with Christ in conversion (J. Moffatt, in Expositor’s Greek Testament , London, 1910), and 1Co_15:31 of ‘the utter self-denial with which he [St. Paul] devoted himself to the work of preaching Christ’ (T. C. Edwards, 1 Corinthians2, London, 1885, p. 425); but both passages can be as well explained as referring to the danger of violent death and persecution for Christ’s sake. Christian self-denial in this sense is tile assertion of Christ’s unconditional Lordship and the repudiation of all other claims (like the Êýñéïò êáῖóáñ claim) to determine Christian conduct.

(b) Self-denial describes also the initial stage of the Christian life when by faith the individual wholly yields himself to Christ. When St. Paul said: ‘Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?’ (Act_9:6), that is self-denial. Man apart from God is selfish, controlled from below. ‘Homo extra Deum quaerit pabulum in creatura materials vel per voluptatem vel per avaritiam’ (Bengel, on Rom_1:29). While the ὁ ἔóù ἄíèñùðïò (Rom_7:22; 1Pe_3:4) or the íïῦò acknowledges the higher law of God, in actual experience the self is enslaved. To obtain freedom total self-denial is required. This is done by an act of faith in Christ. The old sinful self dies with Christ (Gal_2:20 f., Rom_6:6, Col_2:20). This self-denial is typified by baptism. It is ‘the crucifixion of personal desire and pretension in order to the reception of communicated life’ (T. H. Green, Works5, London, 1906, iii. 194). The death of Christ is the objective condition of this initial act of self-denial. The identification of the personality with Christ is possible because Christ first identified Himself with us. This is the Divine moment in Christian self-denial, and this is what distinguishes it from the Platonic or Hegelian. Plato speaks of the ‘inner man’ (Rep. ix. 589 A.; cf. Plotinus, Enn. i. 1, 10), or the ‘god within.’ This was also a favourite Stoic conception. To the Stoics self-denial was due to the inherent native energy of this Divine element, just as to the Hegelian it is a process immanent in humanity as such. Such a view takes no account of guilt as an infringement of the Divine law, and as something which man per se cannot remove. It is superficial also in its analysis of the actual moral weakness of man. By faith the Christian is united with Christ in His death and so guilt is removed. Death cancels all claims (Rom_6:7-14), and the result is a new man (íÝïò, êáéíὸò ἄíèñùðïò, Col_3:10, Eph_4:24, Gal_6:15). Christian self-denial is not thus simply a bare moral act-it is redemptively conditioned-nor is it an end in itself, nor self-destruction as it seems to be in Buddhism. Its object is self-renewal, self-re-creation in Christ.

(c) This leads to another self-denial, which is the gradual life-long process of sanctification negatively viewed, just as the former self-denial ‘which is its root’ is ‘the one decisive ideal act’ taking place at conversion (Sanday-Headlam, International Critical Commentary , ‘Romans’5, Edinburgh, 1902, p. 158). We must not separate the two and make the one forensic and the other ethical. ‘Paul never presents Christ’s death as a substitution for ours in the sense that we need not die as well’ (Green, iii. 194). It is equally true-and this is what Green does not sufficiently emphasize-that he never thinks of our dying as possible apart from the prior substitutionary death of Christ for us. The modern tendency is to over-emphasize in St. Paul’s teaching what Green neglects. J. Weiss (Paul and Jesus, Eng. translation , London, 1909), e.g., makes it a radical distinction between St. Paul and Jesus that for St. Paul the ethical content of the new life is an effect of Divine acts, while for Jesus it is an effect of man’s own ethical endeavour. But to St. Paul it is an act both of will and of Divine working at one and the same time (Php_2:12-13).

The self to be denied is the sinful self and its works. The phrases used for this self-denial are to ‘put off’ (ἀðïôßèåóèáé), ‘to cleanse’ (êáèáñßæåéí), ‘to slay’ (èáíáôïῦí) the flesh and its works. The new life of the Christian in virtue of his faith and of the presence of the Holy Spirit is hid with Christ in God, it is a walk in the Spirit, it is Christ in us and we in Him. Hence, it is inconsistent that the fruits of this new life should spring from the flesh. The Christian life is not a life of moral indifferentism, ôὸ ἀäéáöüñùò æῆí (Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 5. 40), as some of the early sects held. It is because this moral indifferentism was associated with intellectual error concerning Christ that John, Jude, Peter, and Paul (Col. and Pastorals) oppose Christian self-denial to intellectual error and to moral delinquency. Self-denial in this sense is the personal regaining, through conflict, of all the personality and of society for God. It is the gradual realization of all that is involved in our dying with Christ in conversion and our rising with Him to newness of life.

(d) But Christian self-denial rises to even higher heights. The Christian life is one of self-denial in the sense that the life of Jesus was also one of supreme self-denial. His life was one of complete obedience to His Father’s will (Heb_5:8; cf. Mar_14:36). It was a life of self-emptying for the sake of redemption (Php_2:7), and the Christian is under law to Christ (ἔííïìïò ×ñéóôïῦ, 1Co_9:21). The law of Christ is that each one must bear the burdens of others (Gal_6:2). The Christian law of self-denial is thus that we serve one another through love (Gal_5:13). The example of Christ constrains us to renounce privileges, liberties, ease, even life itself, for the sake of bringing blessing to others-‘we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren’ (1Jn_3:16). How far this may go we can judge from Rom_9:3 f., a ‘spark from the fire of Christ’s substitutionary love’ (Dorner, quoted in Expositor’s Greek Testament , London, 1900, in loc.). It is in this light that we must view the giving up of property by Barnabas and others. This self-denial is not consciously directed against sin as described above (c), but is rather the out-flowings of Christ’s love in the heart. St. Paul connects the example of Jesus often with this self-denial, and this example is not simply a human example but that of One who, though He was rich, for our sakes became poor; of One who, though He was Divine, yet became obedient unto death, the death of the Cross. The Christian life of self-denial is motived by love. This is the immanent principle which is present all along and which unifies in one Christian experience all these forms of self-denial. Without this all is worthless (1Co_13:3). It was in Christ that this love dawned on men. It is the love of Christ shed abroad in our hearts.

Literature.-W. F. Adeney, article ‘Self-Surrender’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) iv.; W. L. Walker, The Spirit and the Incarnation., Edinburgh, 1899, Index, s.v. ‘Self-Renunciation’; J. Köstlin, Christliche Ethik, Berlin, 1888-89, p. 119; A. Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, Eng. translation , London, 1904, vol. i. bk. i. ch. iii.; T. H. Green, Prolegomena to Ethics4, Oxford, 1899, bk. iii. ch. 5.; see also various Commentaries on passages quoted.

Donald Mackenzie.