Family Relationships




“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”  (Holy Bible, Luke 14:26)

NOTE: “does not” here in this verse of Luke 14:26, has an ‘Ambiguity’ in the language as: [1] its a statement which has two or more possible meanings; [2] its a statement whose meaning is unclear. For depending on the circumstances, ambiguity can be negative, leading to confusion or even disaster.

In this case “does not” can be read as: a person must hate all those stated in the verse as a order of command depending on the intonation. Or it can be read as: a person must not hate all those stated in the verse as a statement of a general criteria depending upon the intonation by instruction. Or in this case, it can be read as both, which leads those words to be that of ‘no truth, no reconciliation’ because they render it void of clear insights, and leaving it with mischief at the root of the meaning.  For this verse of Luke 14:26 within the Gospels now entails having to exam that of the emotional mechanisms underlying moral conduct.

For example, if one member of the family reads its meaning to hate his family, as so commanded, he would carry out this purpose literally to be a follower of Jesus. And within that same family another member reads it differently, as meaning not hate his family, so as instructed, he would carry this out metaphorically to be a follower of Jesus. However, the more members of the family unit that have a diversion of thought on this verse Luke 14:26, then figuratively as a hyperbole in the familial terms of its construction it gathers a mass of destructive elements.

It comes with the effect that it’s pulled apart over a period of time, as written with these prophetic words: “They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.” (Holy Bible, Luke 12:53) because they knew in human nature there is a taken for granted approach to living, so no communication would arise from ensuring that all family members are clear on what the moral code is within their unit base; as they clearly would not be singing from the same Hymn sheet in this matter by way of course. Another matter would be the serious consequences of hating ones own life; mental ill-health and/or suicide could be the result to persons’ reading the “does not” in the negative, to be a  follower of Jesus as a devout disciple.

Therefore, was the testimony of a witting intention (of Luke’s entry) or that being of unwittingly said (Jesus’ words) or vice versa on their part.  Especially when Jesus stated: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” (Holy Bible, Matthew 10:34). And also in the Scripture, Jesus states outright: “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.” (Holy Bible, Matthew 10:35) doesn’t help his case of being unwitting in the intention of language  in this testimony of his words spoken.

As there wasn’t much of an ‘Aesthetic Distance‘ in the text, that is, to that of the degree of emotional involvement in a work as its written was very close to their hearts, then thereafter, as it involves the reader emotionally to different degrees, thus it becomes real for them, as they come to a presupposition of intent, that being, to believe or suppose in advance, followed by a projection of those feelings towards others wittingly or unwittingly too during their everyday lives.

For both Jesus and Luke, had in mind that of the same aim of gaining dedicated followers; thereby setting up a negative situation for the Holy Spirit to deal with rather than having a positive effect, for the Holy Spirit would remain on earth forever, whilst they’d, Jesus (gains a throne to rule others) and Luke (gains prophetic status) would be gone to the Glory of God, whilst such a devastating land-mine awaited the Holy Ghost’s arrival on Earth, and for many years to come, until detected by those of a mind to study the Socio-Historical approach. As we need to distinguish correlation from that of causation.

For at whatever the cost in societal terms, it has severe repercussions, for both Jesus and Luke did so without regarding that of a socio-historical perspective that would be realised by others who study in this field, that is, when they would be evaluating the content and context, that is, as well as the works’ authenticity and provenance of the texts, in knowing about the mechanism of the emotional underlying moral conduct in society.

Weblink related to the terms of  Witting/Unwitting in evaluating language intentions.

As this too was picked up on in ‘The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ’ written by Philip Pullman, for in his work its mentioned on page 62: “Jesus replied: “My mother and my brothers and sisters are right here in front of me.  I have no family except those who do the will of God, and whoever does the will of God is my mother and my brother and my sister.”  Word of that got back to his [Jesus’] family and they were dismayed.  That only added to the scandal that was beginning to surround his name, of course, and gave the people something else to spread stories about.”

And on also page 79 it reads: “And if you care only for your brothers and sisters, you’re doing no more than the Gentiles. Be perfect.”

Once more its mentioned on page 111 as it reads: “On one occasion he said to a crowd of people who wanted to follow him “if you don’t hate your father and your mother, your brothers and sisters, your wife, your children, you’ll never become my disciple.”  And Christ remembered Jesus’ words when he’d been told that his mother and brothers and sisters had come to see him; he had rejected them, and claimed that he had no family except those who did the will of God.  To hear his brother speak of hating one’s family worried Christ; he would not have chosen to write those words, but too many people had heard Jesus say them.”

The author, Philip Pullman gives this remedial action in the text of the book on page 74: “Sometimes there is a danger that people might misinterpret the words of a popular speaker.  The statements need to be edited, the meanings clarified, the complexities unravelled for the simple-of-understanding.”

Weblink for details: The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ by Philip Pullman.

“You do see, for you note mischief and vexation, that you may take it into your hands; to you the helpless commits themselves; you have been the helper of the fatherless.” (Holy Bible, Psalm 10:14)


Subscribe To My Podcast

Subscribe to this podcast feed
December 2012
« Aug   Jan »

My Image

My Photos


RSS Financial Times newspaper: Management

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Times newspaper: Law

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS The Art Newspaper

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Evening Standard newspaper: Polite society

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Times Literary Supplement

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS History & The Arts Blog

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.


To Bookmark: