A Study of Luke 14:26: Jesus Calls His Disciples to A Life of Supreme Commitment

by Louis F. Gough

“If any one comes to me 
and does not hate his own father and mother and wife
and children and brothers and sisters
and even his own life.
He is not able to be my disciple.”
—(Luke 14:26)

Just what is Jesus saying here? On the surface he seems to be requiring men who would be disciples to despise relatives closest to them as a price to be paid for the privilege of discipleship. But the injunction, understood in this way, is out of character with Jesus and all that he taught as recorded in the gospels and with other sacred literature of both the Old and New Testaments.

Could he who took children in his arms and blessed them command fathers to hate their own sons and daughters? He also had shown tenderness and respect for children in saying that for one to enter the kingdom of God, he must be “converted and become as little children” (Matt. 18:3). On another occasion Jesus had said: “Suffer little children to come to me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16).

It is also difficult to understand how Jesus could ask men to hate their wives and at the same time inspire Paul to write in the Ephesian Letter: “Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it” (5:25). In fact if Christ demanded of his followers that they hate, or detest, their wives, would he not be contradicting the basic principle of marital relations as divinely ordained in the beginning of the human race and as upheld by himself in his public ministry? “Male and female made he them. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh… What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mark 10:6–9).

If we are to connote detestation and feelings of extreme enmity towards others with the word “hate” as used by Jesus, do we not face extreme difficulty with his teachings as recorded in Matthew’s Gospel? “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, ‘Love you your enemies and pray for those who persecute you’ “ (Matt. 5:42–43). And how shall we harmonize the injunction “to hate” with a statement which is representative of the ethic of love as taught in the whole Bible and as given by an inspired disciple of Jesus? “Every one who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” (I John 3:15).

Two final questions which might be raised at the surface of our text: Is it not true that to hate one’s father and mother is to break the Fifth Commandment? And to “hate” one’s “own life,” is that not transgressing the second Great Commandment “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mat. 22:39)?

In light of the whole body of Jesus’ teachings the contradictions implied by these questions are not in keeping with his unity of thought and action displayed throughout the New Testament. An absolute absence of disunity is evident in all of his actions and words when correctly interpreted and understood. A key to understanding Jesus’ words may be here: As true of all great teachers, particularly of the Orient, Jesus did not intend that all of his teachings should be taken literally. One of the methods which he used was of the sort that his words would tend to seize the attention of his hearers and lead them into a search for the deep and rich meaning which was to be found below the surface-meaning.

Jesus often stated a principle in a startling way in the use of a paradox or other figures of speech, leaving it up to his hearers to learn just what he was actually meaning to say. In commenting upon the words of our text, Alfred Plummer and Norval Geldenhuys speak of the startling effect that Jesus’ use of the word “hate” had upon his audience, and the effective learning process that was initiated. Geldenhuys in The New International Commentary on the New Testament observes: “Here Jesus, as he often did, utters the principle in a startling, categorical manner that leaves it to his hearers to find out in the light of His other pronouncements what the qualifications are to which His utterance is subordinated.”[1] Perhaps Jesus utilized such a method as reported in our text. George Buttrick believes that Jesus executed the method excellently: “And hate not: the word repels. It is a staggering word. But then it was intended to be.”[2] To be sure Jesus’ words stagger us. But did he intend for his healers to take them literally? Or did he allow for a figurative or idiomatic interpretation of his word in this text? Just what did he mean? And if the word “hate” should be qualified in the light of all his teachings and in other divine pronouncements found in Holy Scripture, what are those qualifications, and how should the whole text be interpreted?

First, let us look at the word “to hate” as it is used in the Biblical Literature. The Greek verb misein is used by Luke in our text. In most contexts it is translated accurately by the English verb “to hate” with the connotation “to detest,” “to feel extreme enmity toward.” The Hebrew word sane’ and the Aramaic sena’, the equivalents of misein are usually accurately translated by the English verb “to hate:” However, there are contexts in which the Hebrew verb is more accurately translated “to love a person less in comparison to another person.” In Genesis 29:30–31 we read: “And he (Jacob) went in also unto Rachel, and he loved (wayye’ ehabd) also Rachel more than Leah …. And Yahweh saw that Leah was hated, (senu’ah) and he opened her womb.” It is evident here in light of the larger context covering the whole story of the lives of Jacob and his wives that he did not detest or feel strong enmity toward Leah; but more correctly, in comparison his love for Rachel was greater than it was for Leah. Rachel was his favorite wife. The implication that Leah was loved less in verse 30 is translated “hated” (senu’ah) in our English Bibles at verse 31. It is evident the verb in this latter instance should be translated idiomatically “loved less than.” A similar use of the idiom is used in Deuteronomy 21:15, where two wives are referred to as one loved and the other hated, which might be translated: “one favorite,” and the other “second fiddle.” The context goes on to relate that if the second-rate life bears the first child, he should have first-born inheritance rights in spite of the father’s attitude towards his wives.

In Malachi 1:2, 3 we have another instance of this idiom : “I loved (wa’ohabd) Jacob; but Esau I hated (sane’thi). It is not that God detested Esau and felt extreme enmity towards him. Rather, because Esau “despised, (felt contempt, or disregarded) (bazah) for his birthright” (Gen. 25:34), God turned to Jacob, who responded to the call of God to be a channel through whom God’s holy purpose for his people could be realized.

Furthermore, whenever the Greek verb misein in the LXX is used to translate the Hebrew verb sane’ in a context which calls for the idiom, misein should not be translated in the English “to hate” with the connotation to detest or to feel extreme enmity toward. For this reason Abbot-Smith in A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd edition, gives the definitions for misein: “to hate, (sometimes with modified sense of indifference or relative disregard for one thing in comparison to another—cf. Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26; 16:13; John 12:25; Romans 9:13 (LXX).” Frederic Godet also accepts the latter, idiomatic definition: “The word hate in this passage (Luke 14:26) is often interpreted in the sense of loving less.”[3]

J. A. Findlay in his commentary on Luke (The Abingdon Bible Commentary) is of the opinion that “the hate of verse 26 (Lk. 14) goes back to an Aramaic word which means ‘love less’ so that Matthew 10:37, 38 is an accurate rendering of the meaning, if not of the actual words of Jesus” (ad loc).

That Aramaic word, as referred to earlier in this study very possibly is sena’. Let us now look at this parallel passage in Matthew to observe how the First Evangelist reports the words of Jesus.

Matthew in his gospel at 10:37 reports the words of Jesus in parallel with those given in Luke’s gospel as follows: “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me” (N.A.S.B.: N.T.) The Greek text reads : “Ho philon patera e metera huper eme ouk estin mou axios; kai ho philon huion e thugatera huper eme ouk estin mou axios.” It is possible that the producer of the First Gospel translated the idiomatic Aramaic word which Jesus might have used into clear and simple Greek. Luke also could have executed his translation as validly but in a different manner, retaining the literary style very similar to the original. Since the Greek verb misein is capable of a double meaning (with the more harsh and quite obscure connotations as is the case with the Hebrew verb sane’ and the Aramaic verb sena’, Luke could have correctly employed misein and thereby preserved the paradox, which no doubt attended Jesus original speech. Thereby the striking force of the Master Teacher’s style would be transmitted through the translation. H. K. Luce in his commentary on the Gospel of Luke characterized the rendering in the Third Gospel as “Luke’s harsher version.[4] Luce is probably correct in observing that it is “no doubt more original” than the rendering in the First Gospel. A. R. C. Leaney is of the opinion that Luke has preserved in 14:26 “what seems to be the more original form of a saying which Matthew has adapted to a later time at 10:37.”[5]

Since, however, a double meaning for the word “hate” in the English language is not used as it is in the case of the Biblical languages, the not-so-rich but more-easily-understood rendering of the original word of Jesus might best be given in a clear, and if necessary diffuse translation, in the English versions. A loss in richness and forcefulness of style is thereby sustained, but that is often the price that is paid for the otherwise convenience of a translation out of the original literature. Kenneth N. Taylor in The Living Gospels has followed this method with the translation: “… must love Me far more than he does his own father…” (Luke 14:26b). The Berkeley Version of the New Testament has it: “… without prizing far less dearly.” Olaf M. Norlie in his The New Testament: A New Translation had done well in rendering the text in understandable English and at the same time preserving something of the paradox: “… and does not, in comparison, hate ….” In other words, the love which a person has for Jesus, if he wishes to be his disciple, must be so much greater than his love for the ones dearest to him, that by comparison the difference in intensity of love would be as great as that which exists between opposites—between love and hate.

Finally, now that we have arrived at an understanding of the word “hate,” what was Jesus saying as he is reported in Luke 14:26? Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. He had “set his face stedfastly” in that direction, knowing full well what would befall him there. Crucifixion awaited him. In his spirit he had already assumed the cross upon which he would be hung by “his own” whom he loved and whom he had come into the world to save. There were others of “his own” who would follow him to Jerusalem. They had left all to follow him. Jesus loved them; and knowing that he would have to depart from them “he loved them to the fullest measure.” Jesus also knew that his disciples would go through an ordeal in Jerusalem that would try their very souls. It would be a cross for them—not to be equated with his cross, because the sins and burdens of the whole world would be put upon him. But the cross which the disciples would have to bear in Jerusalem while their beloved Master would be rejected and killed ignominiously would be next to more than they could bear. And this would only be the beginning of the crosses which they would be called on to bear down through life as they ventured to follow the Son of God, who was also “the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world.” Being aware of the extreme demands which following him would place upon his disciples, and knowing that only total commitment in a life of full and complete submission to his will would enable his disciples to persevere faithfully, Jesus called for undivided allegiance on their part.

This meant that all other allegiances and affections must be subordinated to the allegiance and devotion that the disciples would give their one supreme Master and Lord. His will would dominate their wills, even to the extent that should the solicitations of the dearest and closest relative come into conflict with loyalty to his Master, the disciple must take the latter course at the cost of separation from the loved one if needs be. He might be called upon to give up his very life in the pursuance of the Master’s will for him.

John C. Ryle explains the words of Jesus similarly: “He meant that those who follow Him must love Him with a deeper love even than their nearest and dearest connections, or their own lives …. If the claims of our relatives and the claims of Christ come into collision, the claims of relatives must give way. We must choose rather to displease those we love most upon earth, than to displease Him who died for us on the cross.”[6] Erich Klostermann in his Das Lukasevangelium sees in this requirement for supreme allegiance a willingness on the part of the disciple to accept martyrdom.[7] George Buttrick recognized in this “instant and unqualified loyalty,” demanded by Jesus “proof of his divine claim.”[8]

For the extreme sacrifice which he called upon his followers to make, Jesus compensated with infinitely greater rewards. “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who shall not receive many times as much at this time, and in the age to come, eternal life” (Luke 18:29f, N.A.S.B.).

A final note in our exploration into the meaning of Luke 14:26: Still another paradox is implicit in Jesus’ demand that a disciple hate father, mother and other kinfolk. Even if we accept “to hate” (misein) in its obscure connotation, “to love less,” we find that when Christ becomes the supreme object of our love, our capacity for love of relatives is increased in direct proportion to the enlargement of our love for Christ. The more we love him, the greater the capacity and the better the quality of our love for others; and at the same time the difference between our “first love” for Christ and that for all others which is subordinate to it, is best likened to the magnitude of difference which obtains between two opposites, such as love and hate. In fact a man who does not first love God “with his whole heart” is very limited in his capacity to love others with a quality which is free from self-interestedness and possessiveness.

George Buttrick gives expression to this paradoxical phenomenon: “Our human loyalties clash, and they become debased unless they are unified and purified by a supreme devotion …. That strange word hate (as it was used by Jesus) is the one road to abiding love.”[9] An eighteenth-century prayer of Bishop Joseph Butler quoted by Buttrick certainly is to the point: “Help us, by the due exercise of them (our affections), to improve to Perfection; till all partial affection be lost in that entire universal one, and Thou, O God, shalt be all in all.”[10]

Notes

1. Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1954), ad loc.
2. George Arthur Buttrick, The Gospel According to St. Luke; Exposition Chapters 13–18, Vol. 8 of The Interpreter’s Bible (12 Vol.: New York: Abingdon Press, 1952), ad loc.
3. Frederick Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, trans, by M. D. Cusin (Clark’s Foreign Theological Library, 4th Series, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1875), ad loc.
4. H. K. Luce, The Gospel According to St. Luke (Cambridge Greek Testament, Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1933), ad loc.
5. A. R. C. Leaney, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke (London: Adam and Clarles Black, (c. 1958). ad loc.
6. John Charles Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels far Family and Private Use; St. Luke, ninth ed. (London: William Hunt & Co., 1890), ad loc.
7. Erich Klostermann, Das Lukasevangelium, Band II.l of Handbuch zum Neuen Testament (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1919), ad loc.
8. Buttrick, Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.