Luke 14:31-35

14:31 Or what king, going out to confront another king in battle, will not sit down ¹  first and determine whether he is able with ten thousand to oppose ²  the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 14:32 If he cannot succeed, ³  he will send a representative ⁴  while the other is still a long way off and ask for terms of peace. ⁵  14:33 In the same way therefore not one of you can be my disciple if he does not renounce all his own possessions. ⁶ 

14:34 “Salt ⁷  is good, but if salt loses its flavor, ⁸  how can its flavor be restored? 14:35 It is of no value ⁹  for the soil or for the manure pile; it is to be thrown out. ¹⁰  The one who has ears to hear had better listen!” ¹¹ 

¹ tn The participle καθίσας (kaqisa") has been translated as a finite verb due to requirements of contemporary English style.

² tn On the meaning of this verb see also L&N 55.3, “to meet in battle, to face in battle.”

³ tn Grk “And if not.” Here δέ (de) has not been translated; “succeed” is implied and has been supplied in the translation for clarity.

⁴ tn Grk “a messenger.”

⁵ sn This image is slightly different from the former one about the tower (vv. 28-30). The first part of the illustration (sit down first and determine) deals with preparation. The second part of the illustration (ask for terms of peace) has to do with recognizing who is stronger. This could well suggest thinking about what refusing the “stronger one” (God) might mean, and thus constitutes a warning. Achieving peace with God, the more powerful king, is the point of the illustration.

⁶ tn Grk “Likewise therefore every one of you who does not renounce all his own possessions cannot be my disciple.” The complex double negation is potentially confusing to the modern reader and has been simplified in the translation. See L&N 57.70.

⁷ tn Grk “Now salt…”; here οὖν has not been translated.

⁸ sn The difficulty of this saying is understanding how salt could lose its flavor since its chemical properties cannot change. It is thus often assumed that Jesus was referring to chemically impure salt, perhaps a natural salt which, when exposed to the elements, had all the genuine salt leached out, leaving only the sediment or impurities behind. Others have suggested the background of the saying is the use of salt blocks by Arab bakers to line the floor of their ovens: Under the intense heat these blocks would eventually crystallize and undergo a change in chemical composition, finally being thrown out as unserviceable. A saying in the Talmud (b. Bekhorot 8b) attributed to R. Joshua ben Chananja (ca. a.d. 90), when asked the question “When salt loses its flavor, how can it be made salty again?” is said to have replied, “By salting it with the afterbirth of a mule.” He was then asked, “Then does the mule (being sterile) bear young?” to which he replied: “Can salt lose its flavor?” The point appears to be, both are impossible. The saying, while admittedly late, suggests that culturally the loss of flavor by salt was regarded as an impossibility. Genuine salt can never lose its flavor. In this case the saying by Jesus here may be similar to Matt 19:24, where it is likewise impossible for the camel to go through the eye of a sewing needle.

⁹ tn Or “It is not useful” (L&N 65.32).

¹⁰ tn Grk “they throw it out.” The third person plural with unspecified subject is a circumlocution for the passive here.

¹¹ tn The translation “had better listen!” captures the force of the third person imperative more effectively than the traditional “let him hear,” which sounds more like a permissive than an imperative to the modern English reader. This was Jesus’ common expression to listen and heed carefully (cf. Matt 11:15; 13:9, 43; Mark 4:9, 23; Luke 8:8).