Luke 14:26

[barney]

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

This is often softened to "Who loves his family more than me", but the Greek word is indeed hate.

Now, we all have our off days, such as Matthew 10:34
'Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth.
'I have not come to bring peace but a sword.' or slip ups like
Luke 12:49 'I have come to bring fire to the earth And how I wish it were blazing already!'

but I'm interested in Christians interpretations of these.
Was Jesus simply showing the facet of the rightious justice-giver as in his God -the -father aspect he had done throughout the O.T?
Was he simply being misinterpreted and the vreses mean something much more fluffy.
Or had he just had a day of utter frustration and was venting off, unaware that it was going to be written down and studied for the next two Thousand years?

[Muezzin]

'If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.'

Doesn't that just mean hating your old ways? Your old (way of) life?

Same goes with the 'fire' thing, which I guess is describing metaphorical purifying fire of some sort. Destruction is a form of creation. Destroying the old and replacing it with something new.

'I have not come to bring peace but a sword'

Any time someone comes along to make a big change, there will indeed be conflict, even if the change is peaceful.

Or I could just be misinterpreting these verses with faux-literary eyes rather than scholarly ones.

[Keltoi]

Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father.
33
But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.
34
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword.
35
For I have come to set a man 'against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
36
and one's enemies will be those of his household.'
37
"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;


This is a larger portion of the verses in Matthew referred to here. As Muezzin said, it is a warning about allowing attachment to family to hinder one's attachment to God. Simple as that.

[Keltoi]

As for the fire analogy, Muezzin is also correct, it is a metaphorical allusion to change and purification.

Here is another example of Christ using fire as an analogy from the Gospel of Thomas:

Jesus said: "He who is near me is near the fire, and he who is far from me is far from the kingdom." [82]

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Grace Seeker]

I take it as hyperbole.

The key, as you recognized, is at least in part in properly understanding the meaning of the word that Jesus actually used, and then second in understanding the way he applied it.

The word is miseo, which can be translated to mean several different things. Among the possible translations is to hate, but also to abhor or to reject. It is not a "fluffy" word. In classical usage it implies not only antipathy, but outright hostility. It is used in making Greek translations of the OT to describe the "hate" of Joseph's brothers toward him because Joseph was the favorite son of their father Jacob (see Genesis 37:2 ff).

Rabbinic Judaism saw hatred as a destructive force, more serious than immorality, idolatry, and the shedding of blood put together, for baseless hatred had been at the root of the destruction of the second temple. At the same time, there was a hatred that was commanded: "Hate the Epicureans [free-thinkers], those who seduce and mislead, and likewise those who betray." (Aboth de Rabbi Nathan)

You might note how this is close in concept to what Jesus was saying, that those who might sidetrack a follower from completely giving allegiance (those who seduce and mislead) to Jesus were to be hated. However, it was "forbidden to harbor feelings of anger and revenge against the sons of the people, but not against others." (Sipra commenting on Lev. 19:18)

This strong meaning appears to be still present in Jesus' use of the word, but I will argue that Jesus uses it for shock value in order to make a point and not to be applied literally. One of the reasons I make this assertion, is that if it is to be taken literally then it is inconsistent with the rest of Jesus' teachings on this matter. For Jesus told his followers "You have heard it said that you should love your neighbor and hate your enemies [see above comment by Sipra]. But I say to you love your enemies" (Matthew 5:43 f). "Do good to those who hate you" (Luke 6:27). Jesus' disciple John would later write that they were taught "Anyone who hates his brother is a murder" (1 John 3:15), probably a reference to Matthew 5:22.

So, what then might be the context in which this radical and ultra-strong statement of Jesus is to be understood? Well, as I already said, as hyperbole. The rabbis of Jesus' day taught that one who was a disciple should give preferential treatment to their teacher over the Father. Now I think even that must be understood as an exaggerated teaching, or the rabbis were teaching that they were to be listened to before God. But, if one realizes that a student might "think" they were listening to God and if they were to simply go on their way assuming that they were in the right without checking with their teacher to see if they understood correctly, they might actually go and do something which was generally understood by everyone else to be contrary to the ways of God. So, listening to one's teacher was a form of correction or checking the student's work and understanding for mistakes. (This of course assumes that the teacher isn't making mistakes, which I guess if you were a teacher you were willing to do.) Given this, certainly one should listen to Jesus as one's teacher before listening to one's family, for these people will make demands on you, and you must determine whether you are going to be the student of your teacher or your family.

Anyway, Jesus' comment fits very well in this regard. Further, as Walter Liefeld writes in commenting on this verse, "Hate is not an abosulte, but a relative term. To neglect social customs pertaining to family loyalties would probably have been interpreted in that culture as hate." Jesus is not contravening the commandment to honor one's father and mother. Morever, here he says that a disciple should hate "even his own life", whereas elsewhere Jesus speaks of us loving ourselves. But we should not blunt the language too much. While I think the language of "hate" is hyperbole, it is used to drive home a point, as in Matthew 10, which you called an "off day", Jesus makes another strong statement:

34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

There is a very real sense in which Jesus calls those who are going to be his disciples to choose. They cannot try to live in two worlds, his and some other. We each have to ultimately choose who it is that we will follow, be it Jesus or someone else. If it is someone else, then we can have no part of Jesus. He just doesn't work like that.