Loving Jesus means “hating family?”

I have often heard it said that Luke 14:26-27, about needing to “hate” your family if you are truly to love Jesus, is tough but clear. And by this they mean: it is clear in that it means what it says. This post argues against that notion, both on the basis of reading the passage more broadly and of relying on some of the major, scholarly commentaries on Luke—by Joel B. Green and Darrell Bock.1

I believe that their presentation / exegesis disproves the common perspective of “clarity” and defeats the common interpretation of this passage. By reading Luke 13 – 15 as a unit and focusing our reading on the principal themes the fullest, the fullest / best meaning of Luke 14:26-27 becomes clear.

Let’s begin with Chapter 13.

Lk 13:1-5 is the reformulation of right and wrong in terms of certain recent events and the overarching need to repent, 13:6-9 addresses the “second chance” that is now being offered to the Judean people via Jesus (and the consequence of not repenting), 13:10-17 has Jesus revolutionizing the Sabbath (and, by extension, all that is most holy and most “God’s”), 13:18-33 portrays Jesus reconfiguring the current notion of what is “most God’s” according to the notion of the kingdom of God, with accompanying indications of the difficulty (particularly for those listening!) to access it, and the likelihood that listeners will mistake themselves for insiders when they are not. 13:34-35 contains Jesus’ recapitulation of his sadness and frustration that Jerusalem (i.e., Israel) continues to reject God.2

Then, in Lk 14:1, note how we begin with a meal and how in Lk 15:2 we have another meal reference. These two references “book end” the content of Lk 14. Note also how, in Lk 14:2-6 Jesus again heals on the sabbath, again a reference to the re-ordering or revolutionizing of what is “God’s” that he is effecting. The parable of Lk 14:7-11 both stands on its own and acts to prepare for the parable of verses 12-24.

In effect, the first parable’s emphasis on humility in order to avoid disgrace (or better, dishonor, in the sense that 1st century Palestine is an “honour & shame” society) is exploded by the second parable’s indication that those who were invited (v. 17) refused to come for various, flimsy reasons (vv. 18-20). Then the poor and lame of the town are invited (v. 21), and finally those from farther off are brought in (v. 23).

Following Joel B. Green, these three groups represent, in order, 1) the majority of Israel, including the religious elite and those acting in accordance with the law, 2) those failing to uphold the law (sinners) or marginalized by the law (those who are poor, crippled, blind, and lame), and finally 3) those who are foreign to Israel (an oblique reference to Gentiles).

It is only after understanding the above trajectory that I believe that we are in a position to interpret Lk 14:25-27 properly.

Specifically, the crowds represent mostly those in group #1 (or if present, they would be shunning any group #2’s among them). Yet in the context of Jesus’ work to revolutionize and re-order the things of God (as demonstrated by the sabbath healings), being part of the banquet in the second parable means rejecting that which is seemingly most Israelite (i.e., to reject “rejecting”—or to stop ignoring—the prophets and particularly Jesus for the sake of the Judean traditions, as Lk 13:34-35).

In other words, you must even act as to “hate” that which is most yours: rejecting your culture, traditions, and self-identification via such (which is transmitted through and embodied most deeply in one’s family) and to accept the shame / dishonour that will result in order that you may not act as those in group #1 did in the second parable!

Thus in 14:28-32 there is a call to understanding (and so counting) the cost of acting in this way, with the call to “give up all that you possess” in v. 33. Finally, the meal table analogy (where sharing a meal in 1st century Palestine symbolizes “being family” together) is completed with the reference to salt (vv. 34-5): the savoryness of the meal is dependent on the salt being as it should be.

In my view, the implication is that those coming to feast are both invitees and, through the distinctiveness of their commitment and engagement with God, contributors to that meal.3

Finally, I think that the typical misreading of Luke 14:26-27 is at the heart of many situations where people are disregarded, marginalized, and sorely mistreated for the sake of preserving a particular understanding of who God is / what it means to be Christian.

Here are just a few examples of this misunderstanding (and its implications):

http://www.planetwisdom.com/discipleship-relative-hate-on-the-trail/
http://www.meetingwithchrist.com/If%20anyone%20comes%20to%20Me%20and%20does%20not%20hate%20-%20Lk%2014(26).htm
https://immortalityroad.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/christ-you-must-hate-your-family-to-be-my-disciple-counting-the-cost-of-discipleship/

More personally, the claims of Christians who have been rejected, stigmatized, and labelled as “subverter” by people who claim to love them, are staggering. And yet almost always those who reject, stigmatize, and label are characterized by a perfect precis of Luke 14:26-27. As one person mentioned, “It’s not that my parents don’t love me, it’s that they love church more.”

Once this attitude can be debunked as anti-Christian so too can the characterization of churches that accept or promote this attitude be re-characterized as “broken churches,” such that any conclusions (about churches being inherently problematic and thus church attendance being ultimately harmful) can be recast as mischaracterizations / misformulations, based on misinformation.

Show 3 footnotes

  1. Green’s The Gospel of Luke, Bock’s Luke.
  2. Interestingly, this has a powerful tie-in with Jesus’ compassionate response to the poor and down-trodden (versus the religious elite) in Matt 9:36-38, which takes the role of catalyst for Jesus actions of sending the twelve (and is the parallel passage of not “loving father or mother more than me” in Matt 10:37-39).
  3.  And having seen Luke 14:26-27 in this way, the tie-ins to Matthew 10:37-38 are even more robust and helpful, as well as finding better integration and synergy with passages to love God (Mt 22:34-40) and each other (1 John 4:20).

5 thoughts on “Loving Jesus means “hating family?”

  1. Hi Gregg,

    I found you searching Regent College’s library for material on Paul Ricoeur. I was at Regent College from 2010-2013. I am now pursuing a doctorate at Cambridge with Ricoeur as the central interlocutor. I was wondering if there was any chance you could give me access to your thesis? I am now thousands of miles away from the Regent Library and so unfortunately cannot presently access it. It sounds very interesting and I would love to interact with it in regard to my own research.

    I hope this will be possible!

    Many thanks,

    Barney

    • Hi Barney,
      Congratulations on completing your work at Regent and moving on to Cambridge: I hope that the doctoral work goes well and gives you what you’re looking for, particularly with regard to Ricoeur! I’m interested to know: What is your focus now / what work have you already done on Ricoeur? I’m glad to send you a pdf of the final copy of my thesis and would be equally pleased to receive any feedback on it. How is it best to reach you?
      Thanks,
      Gregg

      • Hi Gregg,

        Thanks for getting back to me! I had to enter my email address when I posted a comment – are you able to see it there? I’m reluctant to put it in the body of the comment for privacy reasons.

  2. Doesn’t the old testament, or torah, say one should love one’s neighbor like oneself? So one should love a friend, and all the more so should one love one’s relative. If what you say is true, Jesus would be saying to love God so much that by comparison we hate our relatives, and yet we should still love another jew. Could this possibly make any sense?

    • Hi RMAU,

      Thanks for your comment. Did you access the links that I put in the post (and which I argued were misreadings of this passage)? Also, did you read to the end of my post? I’m not sure how you’re arriving at your question based on the contents of this post (here are my last two paragraphs):

      “More personally, the claims of Christians who have been rejected, stigmatized, and labelled as “subverter” by people who claim to love them, are staggering. And yet almost always those who reject, stigmatize, and label are characterized by a perfect precis of Luke 14:26-27. As one person mentioned, “It’s not that my parents don’t love me, it’s that they love church more.”

      Once this attitude can be debunked as anti-Christian so too can the characterization of churches that accept or promote this attitude be re-characterized as “broken churches,” such that any conclusions (about churches being inherently problematic and thus church attendance being ultimately harmful) can be recast as mischaracterizations / misformulations, based on misinformation.”

      Also, here’s a link to my podcast where my podcast partner and I refute this very idea: http://untanglingchristianity.com/009-hate-and-love-chap-4-not-a-fan-kyle-idleman/

      Thanks,
      Gregg

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *