LUKE 14:28-32

Tower Builder (Luke 14:28-30)

“For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not first sit down and estimate the cost, to see whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation is not able to finish, all who see it will begin to ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.'”

Warring King (Luke 14:31-32)

“Or what king, going out to wage war against another king, will not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to oppose the one who comes against him with twenty thousand? If he cannot, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for the terms of peace.”

In reading the first parable, we should probably not think of a king building a large castle, but a rich farmer building a substantial watchtower in his vineyard, just as in Isaiah 5. There are several examples in the OT of kings seeking wisdom (from God or elsewhere) as to whether they should go to war.

Next, consider the historical setting behind these sayings. Jesus delivered these words to a group of enthusiastic would-be followers while he was on the way to Jerusalem and death on the cross. So he needed to warn them of the serious consequence of their decision to follow him. There is something else that may form the historical background to Jesus' words. Tom Wright suggests that these two parables reflect the fact that Israel was engaged in a huge building program which would end up being destroyed by the Romans, and Israel would soon be involved in a war that they could not win. Possible evidence for this connection is found in the identical phrase “the things leading to peace” which occurs in 14:32 and reappears in Luke 19:42 in the context of Jesus mourning over Jerusalem in light of her coming destruction. (Snodgrass)

The Gospel of Thomas (Saying 98) has a closely parallel thought to these two stories even if the comparison appears to be a little strange and is unlikely to echo Jesus' actual words. This later Gnostic parable reads: “The kingdom is like an assassin who before killing a man tests his strength by driving a sword into a wall.”

The structure of Luke 14:25-35 can be pictured as this:

    crowd follows Jesus (v. 25)

        requirements of discipleship (vv. 26-27)

            parable of the tower builder (vv. 28-30)

            parable of the warring king (vv. 31-32)

        further requirements of discipleship (v. 33)

    Jesus entreats the crowd to listen and act (vv. 34-35)

The phrase “is not able to be my disciple” at the end of vv. 26, 27, and 33 points to the prominent theme of these parables. Similarly, these bracketing passages concern self-denial while the two parables themselves stress self-examination. (Snodgrass) That same theme also appears in Luke 9 when Jesus says to his followers, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Since the moral of two parables is stated by Jesus at both the start and finish, it is almost impossible to miss, but it has been expressed in different ways:

Geldenhuys summarizes it this way: “The important thing is that whosoever desires to follow Him must be inwardly free from worldly-mindedness, covetousness and selfishness and wholly devoted to Him.”

T. W. Manson: “Salvation may be free, but it is not cheap.”

Snodgrass says, “These parables differ greatly from the easy believism that marks so much of American Christianity...The fear we have of focus on human effort must be jettisoned, for no discipleship occurs without human effort or merely because of human effort.”

Of course, even these short parables have not been immune from attempts to allegorize them. The problem with allegorizing is illustrated by the fact that Pope Gregory felt the stronger king was God or Christ while the weaker king represented Christians. On the other hand, St. Augustine felt that the weaker king represented Satan.

As a final note, these two parables differ from many of Jesus' other parables in that he is not dealing with good vs. evil actions, but of wise vs. foolish ones. And so the consequences of making a mistake are probably less drastic than actually losing one's life or salvation. The main consequence in both stories is being publicly shamed. Interestingly, many sociologists have noted that America is rapidly turning from being an historically ethically-oriented culture (i.e., one's actions are driven by one's own conscience in light of God's and man's laws) to a shame-oriented culture as in the Far East where one is much more worried about social pressure, what people will think about you. The most often identified cause for this shift is the rise of social media. I may be judging too harshly, but I really doubt that the celebrities who were discovered to have bribed college officials to get their children admitted are as much truly convicted of their guilt as they are concerned about the effect of being found out will have on their future reputations and careers. In the case of openly enthusiastic Christians who later fall away, the problem is that often it is the reputation of God's kingdom that suffers as well.