Bible Study Understanding this verse

[PaulChristensen]

Because God is just to full of love to hate. Right?

Jesus said hate, because He meant hate. My how Christians love to recreate Jesus.

My how Christians love to make Christ more palatable to their understanding. Jesus can't hate. He just doesn't love as much.

That's a lot more easy to preach on a Sunday morning with a bunch of old women looking at you...isn't it?

(Rev. 3:20) We are there.

Quantrill

One of the Ten Commandments says "Honor your father and mother", how is this consistent with hating one's parents in favour of being faithful to Christ?

Even though we put family second place to Christ, we are still obligated to honour them. Hating them is not honoring them.

 

[Quantrill]

Wise decision.

Deep. Just that other day someone insisted that the definition of ALL is ALL. Using this methodology one could define any word in any language. ...

Of course it is. No benefit in playing games.

And using your methodology one could make a word mean whatever they wanted.

Hate means hate. That is why the word is used.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

One of the Ten Commandments says "Honor your father and mother", how is this consistent with hating one's parents in favour of being faithful to Christ?

Even though we put family second place to Christ, we are still obligated to honour them. Hating them is not honoring them.

Yes it is one of the commandments. Was Christ honoring his family when He refused to see them, and acknowledged them no more as His family? (Matt. 12:48)

That is like saying, one of the commandments says thou shalt not kill. But God then ordered the killing of animals and humans for various reasons.

And, I don't think 'honoring' is an antonym for 'hate'. If loved ones become an enemy of your faith in Christ, you can still hate them yet honor their position in that family. But you will at times also have extreme situations where even that honor is not to be given.

Quantrill

 

[for_his_glory]

When you read Luke 14:25-33 it's all about the cost of discipleship. Vs. 26 doesn't mean hate in the sense of being the opposite of love, but that one needs to put Christ above all giving Him first place in order to become a faithful servant. It's all summed up in vs. 33.

 

[PaulChristensen]

Yes it is one of the commandments. Was Christ honoring his family when He refused to see them, and acknowledged them no more as His family? (Matt. 12:48)

That is like saying, one of the commandments says thou shalt not kill. But God then ordered the killing of animals and humans for various reasons.

And, I don't think 'honoring' is an antonym for 'hate'. If loved ones become an enemy of your faith in Christ, you can still hate them yet honor their position in that family. But you will at times also have extreme situations where even that honor is not to be given.

Quantrill

I don't think He was dishonouring them. We don't know what He did after saying what He said. He didn't say it to his family, because they were not present. Someone had told Him they were outside. He did honour His mother while dying on the Cross. He got John to take her into his home so she would be cared for.

 

[Fastfredy0]

It's all summed up in vs. 33.

Luke 14:33 In the same way, therefore, every one of you who does not say good-bye to all his possessions cannot be My disciple.

Hmmm, I don't like the potential interpretation of this verse more the verse to "hate your parents".

Commentators like to add stuff like: Therefore we should probably understand Jesus’ command as requiring a willingness to part with possessions as necessary to follow Jesus faithfully.

Maybe we should study verses where I don't fall so short of the mark!!

 

[Quantrill]

I don't think He was dishonouring them. We don't know what He did after saying what He said. He didn't say it to his family, because they were not present. Someone had told Him they were outside. He did honour His mother while dying on the Cross. He got John to take her into his home so she would be cared for.

I didn't say He was dishonoring them. But you see his attitude toward them once the rejection was complete. He disowned them. They in that rejection were no longer important to Him. They came between Him and the Father. How could He not hate any who would do that?

Thus you understand His statement that if you do not hate your mother and father you cannot be My disciple.

When dying on the Cross He didn't say "mom". He said "woman". The break was already made.

Quantrill

 

[PaulChristensen]

Luke 14:33 In the same way, therefore, every one of you who does not say good-bye to all his possessions cannot be My disciple.

Hmmm, I don't like the potential interpretation of this verse more the verse to "hate your parents".

Commentators like to add stuff like: Therefore we should probably understand Jesus’ command as requiring a willingness to part with possessions as necessary to follow Jesus faithfully.

Maybe we should study verses where I don't fall so short of the mark!!

Paul told Ananias, along with saying that he lied to the Holy Spirit over the amount of money he said he sold his property for, that the money was his and he had the freedom to do with it as he chose.

The reason why Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all his property and to come follow Him, that that He saw that the young man had made his wealth and assets his god and He was testing him to show that what is in a man's heart, that's where his treasure is.

That's the problem with the health and wealth gospel.

 

[PaulChristensen]

I didn't say He was dishonoring them. But you see his attitude toward them once the rejection was complete. He disowned them. They in that rejection were no longer important to Him. They came between Him and the Father. How could He not hate any who would do that?

Thus you understand His statement that if you do not hate your mother and father you cannot be My disciple.

When dying on the Cross He didn't say "mom". He said "woman". The break was already made.

Quantrill

Let me get this straight in practical terms. Are you saying that you have deserted your family and no longer have contact with them in order to serve Christ?

What about the Scripture which says that if a person doesn't provide for his family, he is worse than an infidel?

 

[Fastfredy0]

Paul told Ananias, along with saying that he lied to the Holy Spirit over the amount of money he said he sold his property for, that the money was his and he had the freedom to do with it as he chose.

I didn't think of that story. Good, relevant point. Thx

 

[Fastfredy0]

Let me get this straight in practical terms. Are you saying that you have deserted your family and no longer have contact with them in order to serve Christ?

LOL ... good one

 

[for_his_glory]

Luke 14:33 In the same way, therefore, every one of you who does not say good-bye to all his possessions cannot be My disciple.

Hmmm, I don't like the potential interpretation of this verse more the verse to "hate your parents".

Commentators like to add stuff like: Therefore we should probably understand Jesus’ command as requiring a willingness to part with possessions as necessary to follow Jesus faithfully.

Maybe we should study verses where I don't fall so short of the mark!!

KJV - Luke 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

I believe this verse to mean that anything you hold higher than Christ, or give first place to giving Christ second place in your life, you can not be His disciple as anything we put above Christ becomes our idol we worship whether it is family or material possessions.

 

[Fastfredy0]

I believe this verse to mean that anything you hold higher than Christ, or give first place to giving Christ second place in your life, you can not be His disciple as anything we put above Christ becomes our idol we worship whether it is family or material possessions.

Sounds about right to me (not that my agreement makes it correct). Peter put his safety (3 denials) above Christ, every time I disobey God I put ME above Christ. Hopefully, there's some 'wiggle' room. I liked PaulChristensen answer in post #28 (not that that makes it correct).
Aside: Heard that 90% of Swedes has microchips inserted into their hands to identify th em. Made me think of Revelation and the mark of beast and was this a line that I would not go over. Became academic when I researched the claim and found out only 6,000 Swedes had the chip as of a year ago. Was an interesting contemplation for a while though.

 

[for_his_glory]

I didn't say He was dishonoring them. But you see his attitude toward them once the rejection was complete. He disowned them. They in that rejection were no longer important to Him. They came between Him and the Father. How could He not hate any who would do that?

Thus you understand His statement that if you do not hate your mother and father you cannot be My disciple.

When dying on the Cross He didn't say "mom". He said "woman". The break was already made.

Quantrill

This is only your POV as nowhere in scripture does Jesus say He disowned His own mother, father, sisters or brothers, but told His parents when they found Him in the Temple at the age of 12 that day that they should have known He had to be about His Fathers business, Luke 2:49-52 .

John 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
John 19:27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

If Jesus hated His mother then He would have not cared what happened to her giving no thought to her welfare, so here we see Jesus in a sense asking John to take care of her.

 

[for_his_glory]

Sounds about right to me (not that my agreement makes it correct). Peter put his safety (3 denials) above Christ, every time I disobey God I put ME above Christ. Hopefully, there's some 'wiggle' room. I liked PaulChristensen answer in post #28 (not that that makes it correct).
Aside: Heard that 90% of Swedes has microchips inserted into their hands to identify th em. Made me think of Revelation and the mark of beast and was this a line that I would not go over. Became academic when I researched the claim and found out only 6,000 Swedes had the chip as of a year ago. Was an interesting contemplation for a while though.

How many in the end of days that claim they follow Christ forsaking everything will only end up taking the mark of the beast when the persecutions become to great as they put themselves above the Lord as scripture says there will be a great falling away from truth.

 

[Quantrill]

This is only your POV as nowhere in scripture does Jesus say He disowned His own mother, father, sisters or brothers, but told His parents when they found Him in the Temple at the age of 12 that day that they should have known He had to be about His Fathers business, Luke 2:49-52 .

John 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
John 19:27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

If Jesus hated His mother then He would have not cared what happened to her giving no thought to her welfare, so here we see Jesus in a sense asking John to take care of her.

Yes, it is my view as supported with the Scripture.

At the Temple Jesus reply that He must be about His Father's business was a rebuke to Mary when she said "thy father and I have sought thee".

And at the Cross, as I said, Jesus called Mary, woman. Not mom. That doesn't mean He ceased to care for her. But, if she had the power at that moment would she have stopped the Crucifixion? You bet she would.

This is why Christ would and could hate any who came between Him and the Father, even family. This is why Christ could require our hatred against any family, once they come between us and Christ.

The motherly love of Mary toward Christ was a hindrance to Christ.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Let me get this straight in practical terms. Are you saying that you have deserted your family and no longer have contact with them in order to serve Christ?

What about the Scripture which says that if a person doesn't provide for his family, he is worse than an infidel?

I believe I have explained myself in post #(7), practically.

Quantrill

 

[for_his_glory]

Yes, it is my view as supported with the Scripture.

At the Temple Jesus reply that He must be about His Father's business was a rebuke to Mary when she said "thy father and I have sought thee".

And at the Cross, as I said, Jesus called Mary, woman. Not mom. That doesn't mean He ceased to care for her. But, if she had the power at that moment would she have stopped the Crucifixion? You bet she would.

This is why Christ would and could hate any who came between Him and the Father, even family. This is why Christ could require our hatred against any family, once they come between us and Christ.

The motherly love of Mary toward Christ was a hindrance to Christ.

Quantrill

All being just your opinion and your interpretation on the English word hate.

The word hate in Luke 14:26 does not carry the same definition of the English word hate as it does in the Greek using the word Miseo meaning to regard with less affection than, love less. That's the problem relying solely on a translation and ignoring the context when compared to other verses like Jesus telling us to honor your father and mother for example. Those who tried to hinder Jesus were the ones that were closer to Him in whom He loved as they had no Spiritual understanding yet of Christ ministry here on earth.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Let me get this straight in practical terms. Are you saying that you have deserted your family and no longer have contact with them in order to serve Christ?

B E A U T I F U L .... lmao

This question made my day.

 

[Fastfredy0]

The word hate in Luke 14:26 does not carry the same definition of the English word hate as it does in the Greek using the word Miseo meaning to regard with less affection than, love less.

You can take a horse to water but you can make him drink. I asked Quantrill what his definition of HATE was. His answer was "hate means hate". This suggest he may not want to go to the Greek.

Aside: I got the same result as you did for the definition of HATE ...
Definition:
to hate, regard with ill-will, Mt. 5:43, 44; 10:22; to detest, abhor, Jn. 3:20; Rom. 7:15; in NT to regard with less affection, love less, esteem less, Mt. 6:24; Lk. 14:26 https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/miseo

Aside: I have to admit that the word HATE in Luke 14:26 could mean 'detest' or 'love less'. How the site determined 'hate' in Luke 14:26 is 'love less' and not 'detest' is a mystery to me. I assume they used other scripture and came to the conclusion the 'love less' was consistent with other texts.
(now one just needs to define 'love' .. :yes )