Which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, “This man began to build and was not able to finish.”
What king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not first sit down and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand men to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And of not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.
The parables in Luke 14:28-32 seem more like tales told to make a moral (like Aesop) than sayings of Jesus. They appear to be interpolations in the text of Matthew, interrupting the flow, and meaning the final saying of Jesus at the end has no connection with them,
In Luke 14:28–32 there are two short illustrative tales - the unfinished tower and the king weighing war. Both end with mockery or prudence as the moral. By contrast in Matthew’s parallel (Matt 10:37–38; 16:24–25), Jesus’ sayings about discipleship flow directly into the demand to “take up the cross.” There is no tower or king inserted.
In Luke’s version, the parables interrupt the flow between Jesus’ demand for radical discipleship and the climactic saying in 14:33: “So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.”. This makes no sense against the import of the parables, which are all about how it is good to prioritise prudence over commitment. The parables interrupt the flow between Jesus’ demand for radical discipleship and the climactic saying in 14:33: “So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.”.
Most of Jesus’ parables in the Synoptic tradition begin with a formulaic introduction: “The kingdom of God is like…” or “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to…”. This signals that the story is not just practical wisdom but a metaphor for God’s reign. But in Luke 14:28–32 with "the tower builder" and "the two kings", there is no kingdom formula at all.
Instead, they read like secular prudential tales. The style is different. Moreover, both end with a practical moral: count the cost before committing. They are closer in form to Aesop’s fables or Greco‑Roman anecdotes than to Jesus’ typical parables.
If we look at the fable tradition outside of the gospels, there are definite parallels. The Tower parable is similar to Aesop’s “The Builder and the Stones” (prudence before undertaking). The Two kings parable is similar to Herodotus’ Croesus story or Livy’s speeches (weigh strength before war). Both are prudential tales which were a kind of short moral narrative common in Greco‑Roman culture.
This can be see most clearly if we recast the stories in the style of a fable story. This shows the import of the story, and how far it is from the says of Jesus about total commitment.
A man desired to build a tower so that all might see his strength. He laid a foundation and set the first stones, but he had not counted how many more he would need, nor how much silver it would cost. Soon his money was gone, and the walls rose only halfway. The neighbours laughed, saying, “This man began to build but was not able to finish.” And travellers mocked, “Better never to begin than to leave a ruin.”
Moral: He who does not reckon the cost before he builds will earn only ridicule for his folly.
Two kings prepared for war. One had ten thousand soldiers, the other twenty thousand. The lesser king sat down and said, “If I march, I will be crushed. Better to send envoys while he is far off, and seek peace.”
Moral: He who weighs his strength before the battle will save his people from ruin.
These would fit more with a conclusion like “So therefore, whoever would follow me must first reckon whether he can endure to the end.”. This would keeps the prudential rhythm: discipleship requires foresight, not rash enthusiasm. Luke has interpolated two sayings but kept Matthew's conclusion, forgetting that this no longer makes sense.
This could be seen as an instance of fatigue (a well know issue with Luke). Editorial fatigue (most notably illustrated by Mark Goodacre) is when an evangelist begins adapting a source but lapses back into its original wording or logic, leaving behind small inconsistencies that betray dependence on that source.
I began this exploration after reading Luke's gospel and being struck by the way in which these texts jar with the surrounding verses. The harmonising technique tends to explain them in various ways but actually remove their import and disjunction in doing so. A number of commentators do that and I am not convinced.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment