I will only add that this is the only Gospel that contains this passage; every translation has it as “hate” or footnotes it as such; and Luke was a disciple of Paul.
Hi TPT,
I think it is unfair to look at this out of context, but I will try my best to provide context and address what is truly meant. First, it is clear throughout the Bible that Jesus used numerous symbolic parables and hyperbole to further his points. In the verses that follow this one, Luke describes how Jesus expects His disciples to “carry His cross” above all else. He goes on to say that a person must be willing to give up all possessions to be His disciple. Thus, this verse is essentially a metaphor that says “put Jesus before your family” or, moreover, “put Jesus before all else if you wish to be His disciple.”
Hope this helps.
-pg.99
I’ll agree that’s what was probably meant. But you can’t get around the use of the word “hate”, and that the subject of that hate is your family and yourself.
Talking about context, this makes it that he said to love your enemies and hate yourself and your family. I think that this is only in Luke shows this to be more likely from an extraneous source.
TPT,
Hyperbole was a rather common first century rabbinical teaching method and Jesus used it more than once. Just a couple of other examples:
Mark (9:43)
If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell.
Mark (3:31-35)
Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”
“Who are my mother and my brothers?”, he asked.
Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”
Do you have any historical evidence that this is an extraneous source or is this based purely on some theory you have about Luke?
Are you suggesting that every time we find something that is in only in one gospel that we should assume that it is extraneous? I would suggest that in the absense of historical evidence otherwise, a more historically probable explanation is that when only one gospel includes an event it is due to two things. One, the gospels were never meant to be a complete account of the life of Jesus and that each author chose to include different things and two, they were created from multiple independant eyewitness sources that simply remembered different things.
There are differences in the Gospels that are strictly minor differences of no theological import. But this isn’t one of them. “Hate” is the word used.
[/quote]
TPT,
You see no possibility that this isn’t anything more than hyperbole to make a point?
If we are to interpret this literally and not as hyperbole, then you don’t see self-mutilation as being of theological import?
No I don’t. Hyperbole uses figures of speech. “Hate” is not a figure of speech, in addition to being a word with no room for interpretation or the irony that would have been necessary here.
What?
TPT,
Sorry, I should have included the quote I was referring to.
Mark (9:43)
If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell.
Should we also take this literally?
Sin is an immoral act against another, so if you can’t change your heart yes, I guess it could be taken literally. But it’s a bad comparison. The Luke passage is saying the only way to be a disciple of Jesus is to hate yourself and your family because you are sinners. I suppose if, say, your father was a pedophile, yes, hate would be in order, but not to move toward Jesus, rather to separate yourself from the sin of the father. It’s a replay of the opposing paths to salvation given by Jesus/John the Baptizer and Paul: repentence vs. faith alone in Jesus as savior. And again, Luke was a disciple of Paul which would explain why this was only in Luke.
Jesus also said, "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. [Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:12-14] Taking that as principle, and applying it to the verse under consideration, if a person is ruled by concerns of family and self, she cannot be ruled by Jesus the Christ of God. What’s the problem?
The problem is “HATE”. But even if that weren’t a consideration, telling someone that the only way to heaven is to turn your back on your family and follow the latest prophet who claims to speak for God and that he is fulfilling ancient prophesy, is illogical and foolish. It’s the same absurd problem as believing that all of those who haven’t professed their faith in Jesus Christ as savior and lord are going to spend eternity in Hell.
TPT,
How exactly would cutting off your hand change your heart, or in any way keep you from sinning. This is clearly hyperbole. Where do you ever read that any disciple of Christ ever cut off his hand in following this command, especially the Apostles. They all should have been cripples if this is meant to be taken literally. He is using hyperbole to highlight that sin is a serious problem that requires a serious remedy.
felix dakat is exactly right, “What’s the problem?” There is no problem in these verses you have brought up. You’re taking these verses completely out of context. Jesus is not claiming that the only way to heaven is to turn your back on your family. If your family rejects you because you accept Jesus, then you have no control over that, but no one is going to get into heaven solely because they reject their family.
TPT, you obviously have some theory about the Gospels and early Christianity. Why don’t you just come right out and say what it is. You keep picking individual verses as problem verses, and it may be that I am just stupid, but I don’t see what the overall theory is that you’re trying to get across.
Jesus was different than you. He didn’t think like you. Being his disciple is apparently not for everyone. What’s illogical about it? Foolish…yes to the conventionally minded because Jesus defied conventional wisdom. It’s not the same as the hell issue. What’s the same about it? All I’m getting from your words is that you are having an emotional reaction. That doesn’t invalidate Jesus’ call. It just means you’re not ready to follow him.
I said, “if you can’t change your heart”.
You can’t have lite fingers if you don’t have a hand. The point is to do what it takes physically if you can’t change your heart. Commit suicide if you have to rather than molest another child.
He’s saying do whatever it takes. Certainly in most cases, people are going to say that they can change their hearts–and 25% do.
No, he’s saying that you must turn your back on them and follow him. Read it a again, it isn’t out of context.
Good point. I have given my overall viewpoint earlier, in my first post here actually, but many/most probably haven’t read it and I obviously couldn’t touch on everything.
First it helps to know that I’m a deist, that God follows His own Prime Directive by not interfering supernaturally in this natural, ergo rational, universe He created to spawn such self-aware creatures as us–not interfering in order to protect our free will to make our own choices between good and evil.
I don’t agree with some of what Jesus said, particularly his attitude toward poverty and wealth, but there is evidence even in the Bible that Paul hijacked the Jewish movement started by Jesus and continued by his brother James. I believe it was Paul who added most of the fantastic elements such as Jesus’ resurrection, dying for our sins, the Eucharist etc. The most important theological departure was from Jesus & John the Baptizers preaching of repentance for sins, to Paul’s position that salvation can only be through belief in Jesus as savior, and nothing more is required.
No one can die for your sins, not even God. You are responsible. You must fix you. Salvation is not a gift.
Because all those who don’t follow Jesus as lord and savior are going to hell according to Paulists–including God’s “chosen” people (the Jews), everyone who was born before Jesus, everyone who never had the opportunity to hear the “gospel”, and even those who are saintly in every other aspect but in this one absurd, exclusive requirement. That’s what’s illogical about it.
He did more than that. He was a courageous rebel who led a band of men that cleansed the Temple of its corruption fostered by the priests (not the Pharisees). I believe this is the most historical likely of Jesus’ actions in the NT, and the seminal act that got him arrested by the priests, and turned over to the Romans to be crucified for rebellion and leading his followers to believe that he was the Messiah/King.
But it is. And even if it weren’t, it is still an issue.
Is rejecting blind faith emotional, or accepting it? You believe what you do simply because Paul, or Jesus if you must, said you should 2000 years ago. And I’m the emotional one?
One of the things I have learned here at ILP is how often we stereotype each other’s positions. I think that is what you have done to mine above. It means that we are not understanding what the other person is saying. We are putting their viewpoints, positions, and arguments into boxes that are convenient for understanding based on our own previous experience. I try to avoid doing that to other people here. But it happens to me enough that, I fear I have probably done the same to others unintentionally and am not even aware of it.
Anyway, I was already aware that you call yourself a deist, are an Ayn Rand fan, and an anti-Paulist (please correct me if these labels are wrong). Based on my comments here and elsewhere, I don’t think it is accurate to characterize my position as “blind faith.”
While I do not deny my faith in Jesus as the Christ of God, Jesus to me is also one of the most fascinating individuals in history. He is a character quite alien to 21st century thinking. The causes of this alienation are multiple: 1) He comes from a foreign social, cultural, historical, religious environment. We can study it, but there many unanswered questions about even for the most erudite historians. 2) He spoke in figurative, often cryptic, ironic language 3) The oral tradtioning process of the early writers 4) The layers of editing 5) The overlay doctrinal and creedal interpretation 6) Our own ignorance of what can be known 7) The probability that Jesus’ spiritual experience was unlike our own, etc. And yet, his life and wisdom speaks profoundly to me.
So, what I am suggesting is that thoughts we have about Luke 14:26, should be offered with humility conditioned by recognition of the limitations of our knowledge.
First, I don’t use the phrase “blind faith” lightly. I know what it means because I was once subject to it very heavily myself. I agree with all of your points, and there is great wisdom in the Bible, but it is wisdom from human experience and thought. But…you, correct me if I’ve been wrong, are a big “C” Christian and believe in the miracles and divine revelation concerning Jesus and his purpose here, and the only evidence for any of the supernatural events or revelations is the Bible. Much of the Bible has been substantiated historically, but none of its supernaturalism. Many/most Christians admit that theirs is a religion of faith. With only a 2000 year old account that you yourself have listed it as being subject to, I can only call it blind faith.
But it isn’t just the faith issue, I am vehemently opposed to several Christian issues beyond the supernatural one, such as the “non-saved” going to Hell or that Jesus’ death can correct my or anybody’s sins, or that God would reveal his Word to corruptible individuals instead of everyone at once–which He wouldn’t for reasons I’ve explained.
As for humility conditioned by recognition of limitations of our knowledge, what Christians ask is that we put the limitations of Luke and others from 2000+ years ago ahead of our own. I’ll listen to any reasonable statement(s), but they must make a reasonable connection. This is my soul and the Truth that I must be convinced of that I’m dealing with here.
I am a Rand fan, but only of her libertarianism and her novels, not her atheism. I am agnostic above all, so my belief in deism over atheism, which are both reasonable, is based solely on hope, the only real difference between the two from our perspective at this point.
This is why I referred to stereotypy above. What have I actually stated that leads you to think that that is my opinion?
I don’t like the idea of people going to hell either. I suppose I could say that I am apposed to God doing things that way, if that’s the way he does it. I am far more of a universalist mind-set when it comes to heaven and hell. My thinking over all is more theocentric. So to me the reality of heaven and hell is God. One’s relationship determines whether we perceive God’s presence as one or the other. The idea that beings would be eternally damned seems incompatible with a God who is love.
Yes, I see, you take these matters seriously. Good for you.
So you are a self-proclaimed hopeful agnostic deist libertarian.
If you make an extensive defense of Christian positions without being a Christian and saying so or at least offering some other disclaimer, you’re just setting people up. If you’re not a Christian, what are you doing and what you believe? If you’re going to play devil’s advocate without announcing it, you can’t then complain when you’re treated like the Devil.
You set yourself up by presuming to know what all Christians think based on your own limited experience. You seem to associate being a Christian with belief in supernaturalism, Biblical inerrancy, and unmediated revelation. Your version of Christianity is too small. Maybe that’s why you felt compelled to leave it.
Whether you consider me a Christian or not isn’t important to me. Better that we evaluate the ideas presented here on their own merits than to make assumptions about the people who present them. Anyway, like God and Popeye, “I am what I am.”
98% of Christains would be a good guess. In any case a large proportion, so much so that…I won’t repeat myself
It wasn’t just the supernatural aspects, I explained the other reasons. And I’ve said that I recognize that there is wisdom in the Bible. There are certain tenets that are common to both big C and little c Christianity. I was the latter for a while as well.
What do you think I was I doing and where did I deviate from that? If I did, I’ll apologize immediately…IF I happened to inadvertently make such an error.