Category: Christology

Must I “Hate” my Family for Jesus (Luke 14:26)?

On By Jovan PayesIn Christology, Essays, Gospel Studies, Jesus Studies, Luke, New Testament, Popular Essays, Theology

There are always those who jump at any opportunity to disparage the character of the Son of God. They pursue any apparent inconsistency and press it beyond anything resembling its biblical and original intent.

Such is the case with Jesus’s words in Luke 14:26. The passage reads:

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26 ESV; emph. added)

An antagonistic critic of Jesus declared that these words makes Jesus a “cult leader” bent of intimidating his followers.

At first glance, the words are troublesome and it would be disingenuous to deny that the passage is disturbing. Nevertheless, the problem is skin deep, and is part of a larger flow of thought in which the Lord emphasizes the principle of focused commitment (Luke 14:28–32).

I will unpack this in two basic steps. First, I look at the context of the passage in the Gospel of Luke to see its big picture theme. Second, I show the term translated “hate” (miséō) has a broad spectrum of meaning and reflects a cultural hyperbolic expression of preference.

A Look at Context

In order to appreciate any passage of Scripture its context must be understood. No single verse reveals everything the Bible has to say on a given subject. It is easy to misunderstand a verse when read without getting a handle of the big picture of the passage.

The “big picture” gives us a proper perspective. This saying is found in the context of a dinner party that Jesus attended at the house of “a ruler of the Pharisees” (Luke 14:1). It is part of Jesus’ pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51) where he anticipates his rejection and crucifixion (Luke 9:21–22, 43b–45; 18:31–34).

It would be expected for the traveling rabbi to offer wisdom and instruction. The teaching done at dinner takes up a major part of this journey narrative (14:1–17:10) and provides some of Jesus’ strongest teaching on proper use of one’s life and material blessings for the good of others as members of God’s kingdom (search for the lost sheep, the lost coin; receive the wasteful son; live prudently; live generously, etc.).

Earlier in the dinner scene, inspired by a man with dropsy, Jesus initiated a discussion about the legality of healing on the Sabbath (14:2). Since the Bible experts (i.e., lawyers) and Pharisees “remained silent” Jesus went forward and healed the man (14:4). Jesus then pressed them with a question on compassion:

Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well on a Sabbath day, will not immediately pull him out? (Luke 14:5)

Since there was continued silence (“they could not reply to these things”, 14:6), Jesus posed a series of parables to them.

The Parables. Jesus told the parable of honorable seats to the guests that searched for prominent seats at the dinner party to rebuke their sense of self-importance (Luke 14:7–11). He then pressed his host to welcome those who could not repay him, trusting in repayment “at the resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:12–14). This led to the parable of “a great banquet” to which many were “invited,” but these made excuses for why they could not attend. So, “the poor and crippled and blind and lame” were invited to enjoy this banquet instead (Luke 14:15–24).

Clearly, Jesus challenged the hypocrisy of his host and fellow guests as they “dined” while surrounded by the crippled and the poor without so much of a concern for their needs. The rhetorical tool of the parable provided an image-rich narrative designed to teach a spiritual truth in an understandable and comparative way. In this way, he shows that grace of the kingdom of God is not for some future age (Luke 14:15) but an ethic to be practiced in the now.

The host’s table was supposed to be the theater of God’s kingdom. In the end, all they could do was grumble because Jesus ate with sinners (Luke 15:1–2).

The Kingdom of Commitment. The themes of the parables Jesus teaches are initially focused on a disparity between the high society of the Pharisees and scribes with those disenfranchised Jews seeking and needing the grace found in the kingdom of God. The main problem was misplaced loyalties manifested in a dereliction of responsibility.

God seeks those who will hear his invitation to relationship. This parable anticipates the rejection of God on the part of the Jews who delivered Jesus to Pilate, and the global outreach to the gentile world with the Gospel invitation. In connection with this parable, Jesus lays out four “loyalty arguments” (14:26–32):

  1. One must “bear his own cross” and follow him. This phrase foreshadows Jesus’ commitment to God’s redemptive plan to the point of his own execution on a cross. His followers are called to the same level of commitment in the choices they make (14:27).
  2. To build a structure one must first “count the cost” to complete the construction. This statement is parabolic, if not proverbial, illustrating thoughtfulness in commitment. What will following Jesus demand of me? What will be the tradeoffs to commit to the kingdom of God (14:28–30)?
  3. Before entering war one must “sit down first and deliberate.” What are my strength or weakness? Should I act towards war or peace? Jesus illustrates that decisive decisions are based on the awareness of things as they are (14:31–32).
  4. Jesus bookends his sayings with strong words of full total commitment. Jesus speaks of “hating” the closest of human connections (14:26), and “renouncing all” for him (14:33).

Jesus was rebuking the conduct of the Pharisees and scribes at the dinner. They showed no loyalty, commitment, or deliberate reflection to follow through in their service to God, only excuses and self-righteous pretensions. Jesus calls this failure out through hyperbole, an obvious and intentional exaggeration.

Hyperbolic Exaggeration

Jesus, in this setting, is speaking hyperbolically. He was using a common feature that overlaps with our own: exaggeration. Today might say to a long lost friend, “I haven’t seen you in a thousand years!” Or, we may even claim, “I’m so hungry I can eat a horse.” They are not literal statements. Hyperbole is, according to Elena Pasarello, a “grasping beyond what is necessary in order to describe a certain feeling, an experience, or response.”[1] We often forget Jesus speaks with similar conventions and this failure affects how we read Jesus’ words.

Clearly “to hate” is a verb with strong overtones. But whose overtones should we be concerned about? Ours, or that of the ancient setting in which Jesus spoke?

First, the hostile environment provides the right background for the use of hyperbole. Our expectations of hate includes with it ideas of “intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury” or “to feel extreme enmity toward: to regard with active hostility” affect our reading of this text (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). This is not what Jesus had in mind.

In Luke 14:26, the verb miséō is translated “hate” in nearly every major English Bible translation. Greek dictionaries also agree that it corresponds to a spectrum of meaning such as hate, despise, disregard and “be indifferent to” (Matt 6:24; Luke 16:13).[2] Context, however, determines how the term should be translated. In the hostile dinner setting Jesus seeking to awaken the dinner party to their hypocrisy, their indifference to the poor and the outsider. God’s people must be woken up.

Second, Jesus is on record elsewhere in Luke that God’s people should treat their enemies with love. Earlier in Luke 6 Jesus teaches the following:

I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you... 32 If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them... 35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. 36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. (Luke 6:27–28, 32, 35–36)

Jesus teaches that God’s people should show a love that is kind toward those who hate them. Whatever miséō means in Luke 14:26 it must be read consistently with Jesus’ other teachings.

Third, Jesus knew, observed and defended the command to “honor your mother and father.” In one of his final encounters on his journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51–19:44), Jesus reminds the rich young ruler of this command (Luke 18:20; cf. Matt 19:19: Mark 7:10, 10:19). In Matthew 15:1–20, Jesus defends this command against the subversive traditions and tactics of the Pharisees and scribes:

“And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” 6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. (Matt 15:3–6)

Jesus is calling out the hypocrisy of the traditions of Pharisees and scribes, the very same guild of biblical scholars he is addressing in Luke 14. The non-exaggerated teaching of Jesus legitimately forces us to read Luke 14:26 in a different way. Jesus honored the commandments.

Fourth, parallel sayings of Jesus provide additional clarification evidence. In Matthew 10:37 Jesus provides another lens to understand “hate” in terms of “preference” or deep loyalty:

Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:37)

To the Jew this was a very common way to express that one’s loyalty to God was to surpass any human bonds of loyalty.

Another example is found in Matthew 6:24, which highlights a cultural way of expressing ideas of “preference” or “indifference”:

No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despite the other. You cannot serve God and money. (Matthew 6:24 ESV)

This probably explains why the Good News Translation (1992) renders Luke 14:26:

Those who come to me cannot be my disciples unless they love me more than they love father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and themselves as well. (emph. added)

While this is certainly the meaning of Jesus words, the softening of the language robs us of a significant fact. Jesus found value in targeted exaggerations to make a point.

Fifth, the ides of love and preference, or hatred and indifference are also seen in the Old Testament. For example, Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah (Gen 29:30), yet this preference is also stated as “Leah was hated” (Gen. 29.31).

Paul illustrates his affirmation of the justness of God to elect whom he wishes by his election of Jacob over Esau. Jacob elected/preferred over Esau based upon God’s sovereignty (Mal 1:2–3; Rom 9:10–13).

10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 

Finally, in the culture of Jesus notions such as interest, disregard, and indifference are often expressed in terms of “love” and “hate” which do have very limited translations.[3]

On this point, consider the following observation:

[T]he Orientals [Eastern culture], in accordance with their greater excitability, are wont both to feel and to profess love and hate where we Occidentals [Westerners], with our cooler temperament, feel and express nothing more than interest in, or disregard and indifference to a thing.

Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1896)[4]

Scholar G. B. Caird observed similarly:

To hate father and mother did not mean on the lips of Jesus what it conveys to the Western reader (cf. Mark 7:9–13). The semitic mind is comfortable only with extremes –light and darkness, truth and falsehood, love and hate– primary colours [sic] with no half-shades of compromise in between.

G. B. Caird, The Gospel of Saint Luke (1963)[5]

Jesus is speaking in an exaggerated hyperbolic fashion to give some shock value to illustrate the kind of deep preferential conviction God’s people must have.

Conclusion

The big picture context of Luke 14:26 demonstrates that Jesus is in the middle of a series of instructive parables focused on proper discipleship in the kingdom of God. They are directed to the host, the guests, and the crowds that joined them. When Jesus speaks to the crowds he outlines the deliberative nature of would-be disciples and should be disciples. These are non-negotiable matters.

The idea of “hate” (miséō) as a cultural hyperbolic expression provides a proper understanding to Jesus’ meaning. Jesus did not violate the mosaic law to honor one’s parents, but he lived it and defended against any corruption by false piety. Instead, Jesus spoke in his own cultural semitic vernacular.

In the final analysis, misguided assaults on the character of Jesus backfire. This should also remind God’s people to take the time to examine the passage adequately.

Endnotes

  1. Elena Pasarello, “What is Hyperbole?” Oregon State University.
  2. Barclay M. Newman, A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, rev. ed. (2010; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014), 119.
  3. BDAG 652.
  4. Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1896; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 415.
  5. G. B. Caird, The Gospel of Saint Luke, Pelican New Testament Commentaries, ed. D. E. Nineham (1963; repr., Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1974),178.

Jesus: Only a Moral Teacher?

On By Jovan PayesIn Apologetics, C.S. Lewis, Christian Evidences, Christology, Christology, Essays, Gospel Studies, Jesus Studies, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Miracles, New Testament, Popular Essays, Theology

A few years ago the Barna Group published the results of 2014 survey of “2005 web-based and phone surveys conducted among a representative sample of adults over the age of 18 in each of the 50 United States.”[1] The results showed that while a strong 93% believed Jesus was a historical figure, they held various views of his nature:

  • 43% believed he was “God living among us”
  • 31% believed he was “uniquely called to reveal God’s purpose in the world”
  • 9% he “embodied the best that is possible in each person”
  • 8% he was “a great man and a great teacher, but not divine”

These are the signs of the time. Across generational lines people accept the historicity of Jesus rather than believe he never existed (See my research paper: “Regarding the Divide between the Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History“). The perception that Jesus is God, however, is questioned more by Millennials than their predecessors.

We have to come to grips with the reality that even some “Christians” believe Jesus as only a great teacher, one that should stand at the top of the world’s “Top 10” of most influential religious leaders in human existence. They praise his ethical and moral teachings (e.g. the golden rule) recorded in the Gospels. The New Testament, however, adds a unique dimension to his nature that make it impossible to accept his teachings while at the same time ignore the deity of Jesus Christ affirmed in its pages.

I will look at one historic figure who felt he could separate the ethical teacher, Jesus, from an enfabled supernatural Christ, and then demonstrate that Jesus’ teaching ministry was tightly interwoven with the miraculous.

The Case of Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), a “Founding Father” of the United States of America, is an interesting case study. He profoundly shaped the United States as drafter of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the third President of the United States (1801–1809). And while he was a self-proclaimed “Christian” and even promoted Bible literacy, Jefferson regarded all the miraculous elements in the Gospels as supernatural “rubbish” which must be removed from Jesus’ teaching, as one does “a diamond from the dung heap.”[2]

Jefferson was a theist and often used the language of Natural Theology/Philosophy (i.e., evidence in nature of a Creator-God) when speaking of his belief in God. For example, in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence Jefferson appeals to “Nature’s God,” other times, “Infinite Power, which rules the destinies of the universe,” “overruling providence,” and a “benevolent governor.”

Jefferson did believe that God actively engaged in time, sustaining creation on an ongoing basis; yet, in his rejection of Biblical miracles and belief that natural laws were the language of God, he certainly is deistic.[3]

“Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia: Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs,” Monticello.org

As a product of these tensions, Jefferson was a hybrid rationalistic-deist with a Jesus twist. There is God (without miracles), there is providence (without intervention), and there is the mind God gave humanity to bring about good into the world.

To Jefferson, then, one of the greatest harms that ever happened to Jesus was the corruption of his teaching with the additions of “fabrications… of their own [i.e., disciples’] inventions [of miracles].”[4] This conviction led Jefferson to “edit” the Gospels by cutting out–literally–the teachings, sayings, and discourses of Jesus and then pasting them into his “wee little book.”[5] This project finalized in The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (1820), today known as, The Jefferson Bible.

Jefferson affirmed that his work was “proof,” as he wrote to Charles Thomson, “that I am a real Christian… a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”[6] However,

In neither the eighteenth century nor today would most people consider a person with [his] views a “Christian.”[7]

“Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs,” Monticello.org

Certainly not an orthodox Christian. The problem with Jefferson’s estimation of Jesus as a moral reformer is its inconsistent denial of all the accompanying miraculous elements the Gospels often safeguard interwoven with his mission, nature, and instruction. As I shall illustrate below.

The Authority of the Son of Man

The Gospels reveal that the teaching ministry of Jesus cannot be divorced from their miraculous components without doing damage to our understanding of the nature and mission of Jesus.

The story of the healed paralytic is one of the most touching miracle stories in the Gospels. This miracle in Galilee event is recorded in Matthew (9:1–8), Mark (2:1-12), and Luke (Luke 5:17–26). Jesus had returned to his home in Capernaum, Galilee (Matt 4:13, 9:1; Mark 2:1) where crowds found him once again and flooded the domicile as he was preaching (Mark 2:2). As there was no room, the friends of a certain paralyzed man creatively removed the tiles of the roof so they could drop the man down for healing (Matt 9:2; Mark 2:3–4; Luke 5:18–19). What happened next was a game changer: Jesus doesn’t heal the man, he forgives him (Matt 9:2; Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20).

This episode instructs on the authority and divinity of Jesus. The narrative provides an unexpected conclusion in the first act (forgiveness): forgiveness of the invisible ailments of paralyzed man; after all, they came for healing. This declaration, however, raised the ire of the “scribes and the Pharisees” who were offended at the very idea. This was a blasphemous scandal: 

“Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Luke 5:21 ESV; Mark 2:6–7; Matt 9:3)

Jesus had committed a spiritual offense of highest magnitude in the eyes of the “scribes and Pharisees.” By declaring forgiveness he claimed a Divine prerogative to forgive sins (Exod 10:17, 32:31-33, Jer 31:34). Remember, for the scribes and the Pharisees Jesus was just a freelancing rabbi, nothing more than a Jewish man.

In the second act (miracle), Jesus called out their inner monologue regarding his sacrilege (Matt 9:4; Mark 2:8; Luke 5:22), and then raised the stakes. Jesus has entered into the spiritual “kill box” of Jewish orthodoxy: a human cannot forgive sins, only God does that; a human cannot claim deity or Divine prerogative, to make the claim is to blaspheme. Jesus then utters an “either…or” challenge like the prophet Elijah against the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:20–40).

“Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’?” (Luke 5:23)

The rhetorical question answers itself. If he can do the “harder” thing that requires an empirical/visible demonstration (“rise and walk”), then he can do the “invisible thing” which is to forgive sins. The entire ethical validity of Jesus’ teaching depends on this challenge. In a public demonstration Jesus tells the paralyzed man: 

“I say to you, rise, pick up your bed and go home.” (Luke 5:24)

The miracle was immediate (Luke 5:25), the crowd was amazed (Luke 5:26), and the scribes and the Pharisees received an answer they would never forget – Jesus of Nazareth possesses both the ability and right to forgive sins!

Therefore, in this instance, Jesus exercises his privileges showcasing his God-nature. In the third act (reaction), the people respond with:

“We have seen extraordinary things today.” (Luke 5:26; Mark 2:10; Matt 9:8)

This miracle shows just how impossible it is to sever the miraculous from Jesus’ teaching ministry. Jesus taught and preached on moral excellence, this much is true, but he acted clearly as one who is more than human. As John says it, Jesus is “the word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). The New Testament documents, if they are going to be read properly, must be read on their terms not what we think has happened to the text.

Lunatic, Liar, Lord… Legend?

We conclude this piece with a challenge from C. S. Lewis (1898–1963) in his work, Mere Christianity. Lewis goes into considerable length in calling attention to a problem of viewing Jesus as “a great moral teacher” and rejecting “His claim to be God.” As Lewis sees it:

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said [in his teaching and about himself] would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising [sic] nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that [option] open to us. He did not intend to.[8]

C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Macmillan)

Lewis offers three basic options when it comes to Jesus: He is either (1) a lunatic, (2) a liar, or (3) the very Lord and God revealed in the documents of the New Testament. In Jesus’ words, he affirms his own claim: “unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins” (John 8:24).

Jefferson, and many who follow in his footsteps, however, would suggest at least a fourth option about the Jesus of the New Testament: (4) legend. If the disciples embellished his divine nature, then, why not embellish his teaching ministry, his compassion, or for that matter his ethics? I wish to press this clearly, one must receive Jesus en toto–that is, completely (miracles and all)–for to accept him partially (only a moral teacher) is to have no Jesus at all.

The strong reliability of the transmission of the New Testament demonstrates that the miraculous elements of the Gospels are original to their presentation of Jesus, which strengthens the internal eyewitness testimony of the New Testament’s message about the Deity of Jesus. Furthermore, the small interval between the events of Jesus life to written accounts is too brief for legend to so transform the “truth” of the historical Jesus. The legend claim is simply not enough.[9]

A Concluding Plea

The biblical accounts leave the issue clear that Jesus pre-existed before coming to minister on this soil. From the outside, he looked and lived as a human; but, inwardly and also through demonstrations showed himself to be the Divine Word (John 1:1–3).

So what will you do with Jesus? How will you view his teaching? His claims to Divinity? His claim to be your Redeemer? You will make a decision either way and that decision will ripple its effects in the deepest crevices of your life. Give Him one real, genuine inquiry. He will not disappoint you.

As for me, I will serve Jesus, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). May the Lord bless you in your quest to learn about Jesus and his message, and the salvation that he alone can offer.

Endnotes

  1. “Jesus: Man, Myth or God?,” Barna.com, accessed: 26 January 2021.
  2. “Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia: Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs,” Monticello.org (Charlottesville, VA: Monticello and the University of Virginia), accessed: 25 January 2021; “From Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 31 October 1819,” Founders Online, National Archives, accessed: 25 January 2021.
  3. “Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs.”
  4. “From Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 31 October 1819.”
  5. “Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thomson, 9 January 1816,” Founders Online, National Archives.
  6. “Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thomson, 9 January 1816.”
  7. “Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs.”
  8. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (repr., New York: Macmillan, 2001), 53.
  9. To read a succinct argument in support of these statements, read John Warwick Montgomery, History, Law, and Christianity (1964; repr., Irvine, CA: NRP Books, 2014), 3–44.