What does Luke 14 28 30 mean

The cost of the succession (the double parable of the building of the tower and the war) Lk 14.28-32


1 Gt / p. 618 / The cost of the succession (the double parable of the building of the tower and the war) Lk 14: 28-32 (28) For who of you who wants to build a tower does not sit down first and calculate the financial outlay, whether he (enough ) has for completion, (29) not when he has laid the foundation, but (the building) is unable to complete (the building) all who see it begin to mock him, (30) by saying: “This person has begun to build, but cannot finish it. ”(31) Or which king who marches off to wage war against another king will not first sit down and discuss whether he is capable of facing with ten thousand the one who is with Draw twenty thousand against him? (32) But if he is not able to do so, then while the latter is still far away he sends an embassy and asks for terms of peace. Linguistic-narrative analysis (imagery) The double parable belongs to the group of “who among you” similes (Greeven 1952,), which appeal to usual, normal behavior (“who wouldn't act like that?” Answer: “Everyone would do ";" who would act like that? "answer:" nobody would do that "). This form of parable only occurs in Matthew and Luke and is represented four times in the material of the source of the Logia Q (Matt 6.27; 7.9 f .; 12.11; 18.12-14 / Luke 12.25; 11.11; 14, 5; 15.5-7). In addition, there are four cases of Luke special goods (including the double parable): Luke 11.5-8: "Who of you?" (Positive answer: he will get up and give) 15.8-10: "or which woman?" (Answer positive: she will search until she finds the coin) 14.28-30: "because who of you will not calculate?" (Answer: everyone will calculate) 14.31-32: "or which king will not be advise? «(answer: every king will consult); 17: 7-10: "Who of you who has a slave becomes?" (Answer: nobody) The double parable does not stand in isolation. It has its function in the context that ranges from 14.25 to 14.35. The text unit begins with a radical apophthegma: (25) But it attracted many people. Then he turned and said to them: (26) If someone comes to me and does not hate his father and his mother and his wife and his children and his brothers and his sisters, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple be. (27) He who does not bear his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. 604

2 Gt / p. 619 / The Costs of the Succession Luke 14: 28-32 This is followed by the double parable, with a connecting and substantiating g r (even then, namely). Likewise, the following v. 33 is connected with the double parable by the phrase o oªn (houtōs oun so also): (33) So each of you who does not renounce all of your possessions cannot be my disciple. This verse goes back to section V. Our double parable is thus syntactically connected with an apophhegma (saying) from the wandering radicalism of the early "jesus movement". This v. 33 is followed by a short parable (V), which is obviously also intended to relate to the renunciation of ownership and the following: (34) So the salt is good. But if even the salt becomes stale, what can (then) be used to sharpen it? (35) It is no good either for the ground or for the dung heap; it is thrown away. The salt spell closes the whole text unit Luke 14: 25-35. It can be assumed that we are dealing here with an editorial (Lukan) composition of various individual elements (apophthegma, double parable, exclusion word [v. 33] and salt saying [V]). Some of these elements come from Q: Lk 14:26 ("who does not hate his family"); V. 27 (Carrying the word from the cross); (Proverb of the salt). This editorial composition, however, contains a fundamental tension: The double parable (14.28-32) at the center of the composition rubs against the other elements (V: apophthegma of radical succession; v. 33: demand for renunciation of possession; V: salt word). These latter elements consistently propagate the rigor of the discipleship. The double parable, however, pleads for prudence and prudence: "If it is first about self-denial, the emphasis in the double parable is on self-examination" (Hunzinger 1960, 213; Heininger 1991, 132). The two parables themselves are not mere narratives. They represent possible and typical actions with a "seat in life" in terms of content. The double parable fluctuates between narrative ("narrated world") and description ("discussed world", Weinrich 1964). Both parts of the double parable also each have an "eighth weight": The tower parable ends (literally) with possible ridicule for the would-be tower builder told. The parable of war echoes the catastrophe of defeat. There are two typical entrepreneurial processes that are described: a construction project and a campaign. Both ventures are risky. As both images complement each other and thus create a stereoscopic effect, so to speak, the statement is metaphorically replaced by the concrete case: It is not about a specific building project or a specific campaign. By projecting the two images (construction on the one hand, campaign on the other hand) on a common level, the meaning is not only generalized, but also transcended or metaphorized at the same time. The first part (V) deals with the concepts of building a tower, calculating money, not completing, mocking. One cannot, however, speak of building metaphors right away, because this narrated process only becomes metaphorical at the end, namely after the second process, the campaign, has also been introduced. The same applies to this 605

3 Gt / p. 620 / Parables in the Gospel of Luke, the second narrated case: This is about the terms war (campaign) King advise embassy peace. Both of the narrated events meet at a common point: each of them is about avoiding a catastrophe. In the first case, the end result would not only be bankruptcy, but also the devastating ridicule of fellow human beings. In the second case, the end result would be submission or even annihilation by the more powerful, victorious king. Both cases can then be transposed to a more general and abstract level, which in turn can generate many analogous possibilities (pictures or picture stories). The doubling of the statement with two different images leads to the punch line becoming multi-dimensional. The story of building a tower and that of waging war differ in the details and thus bring different aspects into play. The first partial parable ends with the possibility that the builder miscalculates and then becomes a mockery. But the second, the campaign, means the risk that the king will lose the war. The arrangement of both parts corresponds to the principle of increasing: a lost battle means more than a financial miscalculation. Social-historical analysis (image donor area) The parable is androcentrically laid out on the whole; the male world dominates. However, this also applies to the context (Luke 14,), although Luke in particular presupposes women disciples for the Jesus movement (Luke 8: 1-3; 10: 38-42). The fact that the first of the two parables in the image donor area has a financial aspect (calculating the cost of building the tower) has no relation to frame verse 33, which deals with renouncing ownership. The metaphorical reference is on another level: it is about the risk of making a decision on something that one may not be able to cope with. That's what Epict is about. diss. III 15.1 (literally the same: Epict. Ench. 29): »In everything you do, consider the requirements and consequences and only then start working. Otherwise you will approach the matter with enthusiasm at the beginning, because you have not considered any of the possible developments, but later, if any difficulties arise, you will shamefully give up «(translation from Steinmann 1992, 39); similar diss. III 15.9: "Man, first check what it is about, then your own strength, what you can carry". Luke 14: 29-30 comes very close to this with regard to his intention to make a statement. Philo of Alexandria also argues similarly in Abr. 105: "Virtue makes it a matter of concern if it is strong enough to win, to enter the fight, but in the other case not to venture into the battlefield at all." This also includes the parable of the assassin to be discussed ( EvThom 98), to which Hunzinger (1960,) refers. We learn little from the double parable, but we learn something typical about the world of the first century AD. The meaning of (pyrgos) is not certain. The basic meaning is "tower", whereby either watchtowers for the keepers of the vineyard were thought of (Isa 5,2; Mk 12,1; Mt 21,33; in Lk 20,9-18, however, the "tower" is missing), or the word generally means a tower-like farm building for storing equipment and for storing crops. Such a smaller private building could be planned and executed by the owner himself, in contrast to public buildings that required an architect (Lichtenber-606

4 Gt / p. 621 / The Costs of the Succession Lk 14.28-32 ger 2005, 203). It makes sense to assume that a private building project to be carried out by a simple person is being thought of, the failure of which exposed someone in front of neighbors and fellow villagers, while the second parable, which derives its metaphor from ancient warfare, relates to the world of the upper class, of warlords and their counselors, leads. The term (basileus king) referred to any kind of ruler, leader and nobleman. Armed conflicts were correspondingly frequent. The figures given by the two armies (10,000 and 20,000) do not suggest a skirmish, but a larger battle. The narrative perspective is directed from the “smaller” to the “larger” king: the “smaller” has to decide whether to take the risk of attacking the enemy’s twice as large army in order to overcome it. But if he does not take the risk, he has also lost: he is at least liable to pay tribute to the stronger and suffers a serious loss of face in the world of ruling dynasties that are closely linked internationally through trade cooperations, military alliances and, not least, dynastic marriages. Analysis of the background of meaning (image field tradition) Also in Spr 24,3-6, house building and warfare appear one after the other as topics of wisdom instruction. The combination of the two parables could therefore have a basis in the wisdom tradition of Israel. Both parts of the double equation aim to weigh up the risks. The risk, however, lies in the succession (V) including the rigorous renunciation of possession (v. 33). The double parable lives (in accordance with its duplicity) from two image fields: the tree metaphor and the war metaphor. These two picture fields appear more frequently in the Bible and have their origin predominantly in the Old Testament (Examples: Isa 5,2; 28,16; 49,17; 54,11 f .; Jer 24,6; 31,28; Ez 40, 2; Zech. 6:15; Ps 102.17; 147.2). Paul also uses metaphors of trees and wars to illustrate the "costs" and efforts of church planting. The same terms appear in 1 Cor. 3,5-17: qemfflion (themelion foundation), o kodome n (oikodomein to build), o kodomffisai (oikodomēsai to be built) (Vielhauer 1979, 74-81; Shanor 1988). In addition to the correspondence of the Pauline metaphors to the double parable in Luke 14: 28-32, another common feature is noteworthy: Here, too, the possible failure of the completion of the building is reflected on. Paul turns the inner-worldly mockery of the parable into purification in the fire of judgment. War metaphors can also be found in Paul (Rom 6,; 1 Cor 9.7; 2 Cor 10.3-5; 1 Thess 5.8; Phil 1.27-30; 2.25; cf. Gerber 2001; Krentz 1995). The metaphor of construction and war in the Deuteropaulin Ephesians (Eph 2: 19-22; 6: 11-17) is somewhat changed. Compared to Paul (1Cor 3,5-17) and especially to Eph 2,19-22 and 6,11-17, the metaphor in the Lukan double parable is more gentle. The "who among you" parables want to win the approval of the listeners and readers in relation to a truth that lies on another level, but which can be brought out through the parable and then understood, yes, more still: has the maeutic effect. 607

5 Gt / p. 622 / Parables in the Gospel of Luke Summarizing interpretation (interpretation horizons) The double parable calls for different interpretations. CH Hunzinger points it to God: "Even God will not tackle a matter if he is not sure that he will lead it to the goal." Hunzinger was prompted to this thesis by the "parable of the assassin" (EvThom 98 ): »Jesus says: The Kingdom of the Father is like a person who wanted to kill a mighty person. He drew the sword in his house (and) stuck it into the wall so that he could find out whether his hand was strong (enough). Then he killed the mighty one. "J. Jeremias rightly contradicted this thesis:" The parable is not about the unwavering implementation of a plan, but about the assassin making sure that his hand will be strong enough. That doesn't suit God ”(Jeremias, 195 f. Note 7). The double parable certainly does not relate directly to God: God neither has to calculate the costs nor take the risk of defeat. The parable could rather go back to the situation of the historical Jesus. For Jesuan origin speaks z. B. H. Klein from (2006, 514 with note 16). On the other hand, of course, there is the double allegory position as a special property. The section Luke 14.25-35 consists of several units that are held together by an overarching tenor. 14.25-27 and form a thematic context of radical demands for succession. The double parable in between also creates a coherent connection (despite the double), but it has the function of a commentary. Although this does not remove the radicalism, at first glance the double parable gives the impression that the rigorism of the Jesus movement (Lk 14) is softened by it in the sense that warnings are given rather than advertised before the step into following Jesus. Initially, this is also the case. But this warning is ambivalent. It is both an invitation and an invitation, indeed an incentive to follow. The proximity to Epict. ench. 29, is probably no coincidence, because the Stoic's warning against philosophy also includes the invitation to philosophy. The double warning in Lk 14: 28-32 calls for the undertaking of following Jesus. In this context, the salt word V has a prominent meaning: Anyone who is put off by the double warning ends up as bland salt on the dung heap. And finally, in this context, the harsh word of Jesus appears: "He who does not bear his cross and walk with me cannot be my disciple" (v. 27). This saying stands above the parable and makes it clear that following is not a game. The double allegory is Lukan special property, possibly formed by Luke himself. The distance to the Jesuan time would then be considerable. Luke himself already pursues a program of following Jesus in his Gospel and Acts of the Apostles, which can fall back on the earlier Q-materials and especially takes into account the social issues that played a role in the Jesus movement from the beginning (Lk 6: 20-26; 16.9-13; 21.1-4; Acts 2.42-47; 4.32-37). 608

6 Gt / p. 623 / Aspects of the parallel tradition and history of effects The costs of the succession Luke 14: 28-32 Both parts of the double parable belong together and come from the same pen. It is not certain that they went directly back to Jesus' oral preaching. Apart from belonging to the "who-among-you-parables", there is only one other parable that has a tendency similar to that of the double parable: that of the assassin (EvThom), which due to its subject matter ("self-examination") has a certain resemblance. Adolf Jülicher (Jülicher II,) reports in detail from the history of the impact of the double parable: "These parable words, no matter how transparent in Lc, have experienced the greatest abuse on the part of church exegesis." The tower was interpreted as the "perfection of virtue"; the scoffers (v. 30) are declared demons. Tower building and war are interpreted as “spiritual tower building” and “spiritual war.” “This comparison ends in the same tastelessness as open allegory.” The king with the 20,000 “is interpreted by the ancients with preference to the devil”. Above all, however, Jülicher calls back the interpreters, who want to find a deterrent warning in the double parable: "Can we trust Jesus that he was warned about converting to him, that where bliss is at stake, he prefers a cool" do not begin when afterwards "would have dropped over", instead of an urgent "ask, seek, knock"? "(ii, 211). The parable testifies to the severity of Jesus, which is just as characteristic of him as his devotion to the laborious and burdened: “that the way to life is narrow and few walk on it is a truth that he never lost sight of.The double parable Lc 14: 28-32 is of such eminent value for us because, left in its right place, it inevitably testifies to us how strongly Jesus' ideals were morally determined ”(ii, 214). Jülicher's idealistic image of Jesus is better than his reputation in comparison with others from that time. Gerhard Sellin Literature for reading on J. D. M. Derrett, Nisi dominus aedificaverit domum: Towers and Wars (Lk 14.28-32), NT 19 (1977), G. Eichholz, Parables of the Gospels. Form, tradition, interpretation, Neukirchen-Vluyn, B. Heininger, metaphors, narrative structure and scenic-dramatic design in the parables of special goods in Lukas, NTA.NF 24, Münster 1991,