Has anyone any suggestions for how “So likewise every one of you that doth not renounce all that he possesseth cannot be my disciple” is an explanation of the making-sure-one-has-enough-to-build-a-tower or practical-approaches-to-war parables in the preceding verses? I’ve been chewing on this vaguely since yesterday, and some of the patristic interpretations in the Catena Aurea arenae bad (sez she graciously), but I’m looking for the killer explanation that makes it all obvious and makes me holy just from knowing it 
November 4, 2009 at 10:41 pm
I don’t know but here is a new blog you might like.
http://thesundaymorningsoapbox.blogspot.com/2009/11/ahem-ladies-and-gentlemen.html
November 4, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Interesting. Don’t know what your chappies are saying but the tower building and war mongering are themselves exemplification of ‘if any man hate not … his own life … doth not take up his cross…’ General point being counting the cost, or no? v33 finishing what was started in v25. The great multitudes followed him, but he was forcing them to consider whether they were his disciples indeed?
November 4, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Paper on the passage in question by JC Ryle (anglican, but old-school) – http://www.gracegems.org/Ryle/h05.htm
November 5, 2009 at 12:27 am
Is it just about the idea that discipleship requires preparation?
The two parables seem to me to be about making adequate preparation for a specific project (building a tower, fighting a war).
In the case of the verse quoted, being a true disciple (i.e. belonging to Jesus) is the project; giving up worldly stuff (in a pretty big way) is the preparation.
It’s the same idea, really, as the house built on rock and the house built on sand parable, and even the parable of the Sower (possibly).
I can imagine Catherine of Siena, John of the Cross, etc, seeing this passage in terms of the idea that renunciation is the pre-requisite for the successive stages of spiritual growth…
November 5, 2009 at 10:30 am
Does it mean renouncing stuff while holding on to it. Like, I have this living room but it really belongs to children’s toys…
November 5, 2009 at 4:31 pm
The Anglican paper quoted by cath seems like a fair interpretation. Our very own Cornelius a Lapide put in more succinctly with his charachteristic cheariness:
Ver. 33.—So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, &c. This is the post-parable, and sums up the teaching of the parable itself. “He who refuseth to give up all, in order that he may live a life of evangelical perfection, cannot be My disciple as the Apostles were.” And again, It would he better for him who is unwilling to give up all, when persecution or necessity demand it and will not submit to the loss of possessions, family, and even life itself for the gospel’s sake, not to take My yoke upon him, rather than having begun to lead a Christian life, to fall away and apostatise from the faith. For such an one adds the sin of apostasy to that of unbelief, according to the Scripture: “For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.” 2 S. Pet. ii. 21. (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/newtestament/1314luke.htm)
I don’t know, though whether that’s “the killer explanation that makes it all obvious “; but it seems plausible to me. If you want to follow Christ make sure you know that it is going to cost everything, or you will end up an apostate!
A Lapide continues: Christ here teaches us that to become a disciple is no child’s play, but a work for men, needing great gifts of grace, and much strength of purpose and much vigour of mind.
November 5, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Yerrsss, yerrsss, all plosibl, but – I’m not feeling that holy glow yet …
November 7, 2009 at 3:44 pm
The explanations given above seem fine to me. IMHO, the parable of the sower (mentioned in passing by markarmitage) is certainly relevant: the seed sown on rock which springs up quickly but has no roots points towards the same risk – what Father Marius described as ‘attempting fuga mundi without even a few goodbyes’. Of course, nothing makes you ‘holy just from knowing it’, except God himself; knowing here is not to be confused with knowing about. ‘What doth it profit thee to enter into deep discussion concerning the Holy Trinity, if thou lack humility, and be thus
displeasing to the Trinity? For verily it is not deep words that make a man holy and upright; it is a good life which maketh a man dear to God. I had rather feel contrition than be skilful in the definition thereof. If thou knewest the whole Bible, and the sayings of all the philosophers, what should all this profit thee without the love and grace of God?’ (Imitation of Christ I, 1).
-How’s the glow now?
November 7, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Erm, it was just a joke, and half an in-joke aimed at Tepidus, the thing about The Interpretation That Will Make Me Holy (referring to the monk who said something along those lines about a book).
Oh dear.
November 8, 2009 at 1:24 am
And do you think I missed the joke, knowing you (and Tepidus) as I do?
November 8, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Sorry, I forgot to remove my paranoia spectacles
November 7, 2009 at 3:47 pm
p.s. from PF
You’ll be pleased to know that in looking for the precise text of the above quotation, I discovered that Imitation of Christ is also a designer fashion label:
November 7, 2009 at 10:37 pm
I say, What if we are supposed to read 26-35 as having a parallel structure: as in A-B-A-B?
On that hypothesis the translation for Masses with young adults might read something like this:
A: (26-27) Listen, you can’t be my disciple if you don’t hate your Mum and Dad and wife and kids etc.
B. (28-32) So make sure you are willing to pay the price or you’ll end up looking silly, like the chap who couldn’t finish the tower and the king who lost in war.
A. (33) Listen, you can’t be my disciple unless you give all your stuff away.
B. (34-35) So take care or you will end up like salt that has lost its flavour
Conclusion: put off your Baptism till your death bed like Constantine… Oh wait, that’s heresy. Maybe we should stick with the Catena aurea after all…
November 8, 2009 at 1:41 pm
A very enlightening and edifying thread of comments! Especially since I often have wondered about this passage myself. Though I like these interpretations very much (still have to read the Catena aurea, though…) the problem remaining for me is this:
That, if we see our army is too small, making peace with the approaching enemy is no real option for us in this case. So if we are NOT willing to pay the price, the alternatives seem to me: start following Christ, fail, look silly and run immense risk of being lost OR not follow Christ, and run an even greater risk of being lost.
So no “well, then I’ll just leave that tower unbuilt” for us.
November 19, 2009 at 3:17 am
I think what it’s saying is that no part of our life is off limits for God. Everything we have, everything we are, belongs to Him if we follow Him. We can choose to follow or not, but the worst state to be in is to be neither one thing nor another; neither completely Christian or completely worldly and lacking conviction. It’s the saddest of all existences, what they used to refer to as acedia.. is that holy enough for you?