Quoted is Luke 14:33 --

<blockquote>In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.</blockquote>

Some argue that this indicates that one should be poor and give away all of their possessions. But the context indicates no such thing; this verse is the close of a parable with a point:

<blockquote>"Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.' "Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.</blockquote>

Clearly, this parable demands not the giving up of wealth or possessions necessarily, but total submission to the authority of God. That MAY require giving up possessions (as with the rich young ruler) but it does not in and of itself require it of everyone. The actual meaning of this command is revealed also in that:

1. The phrase "gives up" is the same as in Luke 9:61, where a man says he will "say goodbye" to his family. Obviously, the man's family would not cease to be his family when he left them.
2. Scholars call attention to the total context of the parable:

<blockquote>It is possible to understand the parables in a new way by stressing their linguistic connection to the conclusion rather than the phrase "count the cost". The key is the idea of ability. In vv 26, 27, and 33, one is or is not able to be a disciple. In v 31, the king must be able to meet the opposing army. The implication in both parables is that the subjects do not have sufficient resources and that they will be mocked if they begin the task. In v 8, the one who acts on the assumption of the adequacy of his resources (takes the place of honor) will be mocked (told to sit in a lower place). If, however, he begins by renouncing his resources (taking the lower place), he will be a disciple (moved to a place of honor).</blockquote>

The theme is thus not absolute renunciation of wealth, but renouncing self-reliance on one's own resources -- and the added concept that by surrendering what you call your own, you will receive abundantly from God's grace: "Humble yourself and you will be exalted: renounce tower and war making and you will escape ridicule; renounce family and possessions and you will be rewarded."

Of course, this is a concept that has occasionally been misappropriated by prosperity preachers, but that extreme does not necessitate positing the opposite absolute. Neither Jesus nor his disciples (not even Paul, Phil. 3:8) threw away all of their clothes and ran around destitute because of this command; Paul said he gave up "all things" in spite of the fact that he still was gainfully employed as a tentmaker.

The essence of the teaching is not that you possess nothing at all, but that you recognize everything you "have" is not your own. You have what you have by the grace of God, to be used for His Kingdom. This is the interpretation which honors the full context of the command.

Luke 14:33 says:

> "In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple."

Some interpret this with wooden literalism, arguing that true Christians must live in absolute poverty. However, this verse serves as the concluding application of two parables regarding a builder assessing costs and a king preparing for war. The core theme is not absolute financial destitution, but the concept of unreserved surrender and reliance. The parables stress that one must not rely on their own inadequate resources. To 'give up' everything means to renounce ultimate ownership and submit entirely to the authority of God. While this may require literal divestment for some (like the rich young ruler), the overarching mandate is a reorientation of the heart, recognizing that all possessions belong to God.