Luke 14:25-33 (II); Renouncing all you Have

Jesus' first words to winnow the crowd relate to family connections and the life of discipleship. The words of 14:26 are similar to those in Mt. 10:37, but the words here are more severe in two ways. On the one had we have the Greek word "hate" here (misein) while Mt. 10:37 only has a comparative ("whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy..."); on the other we have a more complete list of those you are supposed to hate than the comparable list in Mt. 10. Like a lawyer who wants to make sure s/he doesn't miss any possible group, Jesus runs through the gamut of intimate relationships with startling precision. His words remind me of intestate succession statutes (which I pored over in law school), which tell you who inherits if a person dies without a will.

But now we have a context in which to understand Jesus' word "hate." I see him as a person who utters provocative words not because that word is the precise word he wants you to observe (just as Jimmy Carter repeatedly said that the word "apartheid" was not supposed to be read "racially" in Palestine--when, in deed, about 90% of the original meaning of the term was racial--relating to the Afrikaaner racial classification system in South Africa), but because he wants to focus on what discipleship entails. It entails, first of all, renunciation of family.

The concept of renouncing family is difficult enough to stomach without bringing in the word "hate" to the equation, but now I have explained (at least to my satisfaction) the function of that word here. We need to ask the further question, however, whether the renunciation of family which Jesus teaches is meant to be something "bound" to the first century or has resonance today. There are good reasons for seeing it as primarily directed to Jesus' immediate hearers. After all, the life of a disciple with Jesus was the life of itinerant discipleship. Foxes may have holes and the birds of the air had nests, but the Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head. If you wanted to follow Jesus intensely during his lifetime you had to accompany him, which meant that you needed, at least, a "leave of absence" from the family. Jesus assumed that those he sent out to minister would do so with minimal possessions and would themselves be itinerants (Luke 10:1-12).

In addition, by telling us in our day to renounce family to follow Jesus, he simply may be placing on us a psychological burden that is too great to bear. Here is what I mean. In American society (and I have no reason to believe ours is unique), the family is not only important but is, in fact, the basic buidling unit of society. When kids are mistreated, when families are neglected, when people dishonor this "institution of nature," nature strikes back. You can have problems of unimaginable proportions. I am discovering that the best way to enjoy my freedom in my "post-kid" world (my children are now 25 and 20 and, to a large extent, live independently), is to have taken a lot of time to cultivate family intimacy earlier in life. In other words, had I "hated family" in order to take up discipleship in 1982 or 1991, I am afraid to see what the shape of my family would be now.

Thus, I am coming to the conclusion that Jesus' word must remain out there for me as a word of challenge and enticement, though I am not really "there." One can easily spout words about "priorities" in life--that Jesus should be the highest priority in life, but quickly saying that is like a woman saying (and I have had several Christian women say this to me) that they are looking for a man who loves Jesus more than them. I really don't think so. Women, in general, couldn't be more delighted than if they had a man who made them the queen of their lives.

With these unsettling conclusions (for me), I move on. How do you deal with 14:26?

III. Bearing the Cross (14:27)

The second demand that Jesus puts upon would-be followers is that we need to "carry the cross." The image is very clear and really needs little comment. But what I do want to comment on is the little word "carry" (bastazein in Greek). Normally, when the Jesus talks about the cross and discipleship, he uses the word to "take up" the cross. What might Luke mean by using the word bastazein here? My contention is that the word is used in the NT primarily for burdens that, as it were, are "attached" to you. Sometimes they may be heavy burdens indeed; other times they are rather light. A few illustrations will make my point.

In Acts 15, the disciples are meeting at an apostolic council, and they decide that they will not place burdens on Gentiles coming into the churches that their (i.e., Jewish) ancestors found impossible to bear (bastazein--15:10). Here, something "heavy" is in mind. In Gal.6:2 Paul urges his hearers to "bear one another's burdens" (same word) and so fulfill the law of Christ. Again, Luke (in Acts) talks about Paul's mission to bear the message of Christ (bastazein) to the Gentiles, and we get the impression that this task will involve a lot of pain, since the text goes on to say: "I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name" (Acts 9:15-16).

But the passage which means the most to me is Paul's use of the word in Gal. 6:17. He says to his readers: "From now on, let no one make trouble for me; for I carry the marks of Jesus branded on my body." If indeed Luke accompanied Paul on some of his missionary journeys, he would be familiar with the Pauline vocabulary. Paul no doubt thought deeply about the way that his discipleship to Christ was like marks on his body--indeed, he says that his imprisonments and punishments were for Christ. No doubt Luke, through long acquaintance with Paul, began to "hear" Jesus through Paul, using one of Paul's favorite words to stress the nature of discipleship from Jesus' mouth.

IV. Two Parables--and Renouncing Everything

Well, by the time you get to the rest of the passage, what more is there to give up? One has renounced family and one bears the cross. What is left? Jesus' words in 14:33 tell us: "So, therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions." This may be the hardest of all for us to hear today. In the context of Jesus' ministry the words are pretty clear. He sent out disciples, urging them not to take more than they absolutely needed on their journey (Luke 9:1-6). In fact, he said, "Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money--not even an extra tunic" (9:3). Simplicity was the order of the day. Why? Because the disciples were to be on the move. They were to ring the good news everywhere (9:6).

Does Jesus' exhortation only "work" in a such a situation, where you have itinerant disciples? Well, I think that is its primarly application, but if we just confine it to "long ago," we have really emptied it of its meaning. The best I can do at this point is to recommend people who really "hear" this text to study and put into practice the discipline of simplicity. Many modern authors, beginning with Richard Foster's now-classic Celebration of Discipline, speak of the value and virtue of simplicity. Possibly that is the way we can "hear" Jesus' word today.

Conclusion

The subject is much more complex than this, but in the space of the time I have, this is what I can offer. We really do have an "extreme" Jesus speaking to us in this passage. And, Luke is aware of this "extreme" Jesus, as he has Jesus then give us two little parables about "counting the costs" before engaging in a venture. The stories go from smaller to larger, from building a tower to fighting a war. Advanced planning and deep consideration are needed before engaging on such a hard journey on discipleship. The only thing that Jesus doesn't say in this passage is how long we have to make up our mind about discipleship. I, for one, am still contemplating his demands--with some amazement, a little fear, and some longing. How about you?

2860