Within The Same Book Of The Bible

Statements and the ideas behind them are not incompatible just because they are found in different books of the Bible.  Neither are they consistent by default just because they are each found in the Bible.  Instead, objective consistency and inconsistency is dictated by pure reason.  Some people assume, idiotically as with all assumptions, that the Bible must be entirely accurate, so it could not possibly promote any contradictions (even if the Bible itself is, this would not mean false texts were never added); others assume, idiotically as witth all assumptions, that anything short of identical proclamations every time a subject arises in the Bible entails contradictory doctrines.

Sometimes a Biblical statement and the doctrine behind the words really is clarified by another statement from a separate chapter or even book.  At least, the concepts articulated are entirely logically consistent.  Sometimes, though, what could appear puzzling or contradictory cannot just be dismissed in light of a verse from a different book because it is then unclear if the authors of each book hold to logically incompatible philosophies.  Evangelical pseudo-Christians might rush to overemphasize a verse from a different book and simply assume that the verse they prefer more illuminates the other one even if it there at a minimum appears to be a contradiction between them.  At the same time, anti-Christians might think that the slightest seeming disparity means there must be a legitimate contradiction.  Neither sort of person is anywhere close to properly aligning with the truths of rationalism!

It does not logically follow from something seeming contradictory that it really is, though any actual contradiction must be false because it contradicts logical axioms, the falsity of which would still require their veracity.  And, yes, it is possible for two books of a large volume like the Bible to contradict each other.  Yet in some cases a bizzarre or seemingly contradictory (towards other parts of the Bible) verse is clarified elsewhere within the same book of the Bible.  Take Luke 14:26, where Jesus does say anyone who does not hate their parents, spouse, children, and siblings is not rightly committed to Christ.  The language of Jesus is very blunt, and most explanations by people identifying as Christians are woefully fallacious—not that one should not first look to reason and then to the Bible before seeing what other people claim about the Bible.

Luke 14:25-26—"Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 'If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.'"

Surely, many might assume, Jesus could not have actually meant what he says so straightforwardly here because he is "loving."  Aside from the genuine possibility of both loving and hating someone at the same time, which refutes the idea that one can only harbor one attitude or the other towards another person at once, there is nothing about this statement that means Jesus cannot have made it.  Jesus is the person who utters this statement according to the passage.  Does he say afterward that he did not really mean that someone has to hate their family to fully commit to him?  He does not.  There is no purely logical reason and no reason provided in the immediate context that clarifies that hatred is not morally or otherwise necessary to follow Christ.  Luke 14:26 gives no indication that Jesus really means we should just esteem/love our family members less than we do Jesus as so many insist.

However, four chapters later, Jesus says something relevant to whether or not he meant the most forceful aspects of Luke 14:26 literally.  When asked what must be done to receive eternal life, Jesus gives a handful of examples of the commands in the Torah detailing human obligations, obviously (in context) implying that one must adhere to them in order to live forever.  There is a sense in which the Jesus of the gospels definitely speaks as if someone secures eternal life by righteous actions, also conveyed in Matthew 19's parallel narrative.  But as for how this relates to the manner one should regard family, Jesus lists among these examples the command of Exodus 20:12 (repeated and slightly rephrased by Moses in Deuteronomy 5:16) to honor one's father and mother, two of the figures Jesus said someone must hate in order to be his disciple.

His answer to the question gives no hint that he thinks one should automatically hate someone just for being family:

Luke 18:18-19—"A certain ruler asked him, 'Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?'

'Why do you call me good?' Jesus answered.  'No one is good—except God alone.  You know the commandments . . . "honor your father and mother."'"

While it is logically possible to hate someone and honor them in some way, hating one's parents (or other biological family members) just for being family is of course baseless.  This is not about their worldview, intentions, or behaviors, but about the happenstance biological connection people cannot change.  One could not in a broad sense honor one's father and mother mentally as well as through actions because they are one's parents while hating them precisely for being one's parents.  Luke 18 sees Jesus affirm wholehearted honor of parents as mandatory just as revealed by God in the narratives of the Torah.

Matthew 15 and 19 and Mark 7 and 10 all independently portray Jesus as quoting one of Yahweh's commands about how children (in the sense of biological children of any age rather than strictly young boys and girls) should honor their father and mother.  Yes, these two books are not Luke's gospel account.  It is indeed true that Matthew and Mark claiming Jesus affirmed the obligation of children to honor their parents would not in itself require that Luke believed something compatible with this, but Luke 18 is, of course, within the book of Luke.

There, in the very same book as Luke 14:26, Jesus quotes the very commandment to honor one's father and mother that he cites in Matthew 19 and Mark 10.  This is direct, enormous evidence within Luke that verse 26 of chapter 14 is probably not meant as anything more than very hyperbolic emphasis on how no one should ever allow devotion to their family to compel them to disregard Christ.  Is this clear from Luke 14:26 alone?  No!  What is explicit in this isolated verse is that family is not to be regarded anywhere near as highly as Christ, not that one is not supposed to literally hate all family members to follow Christ as the exact words do state.

For a passage in Luke that less directly deals with this issue on one level but is still of logically necessary significance, see Luke 16:16-17.

Luke 16:16-17—"'The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John.  Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it.  It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.'"

Of course, the Law is in no way subtle about prescribing that one honor one's parents in the following verses and more:

Exodus 20:12—"'Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.'"

Leviticus 19:3—"'"Each of you must respect your mother and father, and you must observe my Sabbaths.  I am the Lord your God."'"

The book of Luke itself directly and less blatantly points to Jesus not meaning everything in Luke 14:26 literally.  You would not even need to look to another gospel account to find Biblical evidence that Jesus did not really mean that someone has to hate their family by default in order to follow him (although Luke 16:16-17 affirming the Law does not change the fact that the exhaustive details of Law are found in the Torah, not the gospels).  And, yes, different sections of Luke having distinct authors with conflicting intended meanings would not contradict the inherent truth of logical axioms, so it is possible for there to be multiple authors with conflicting philosophies, or for a singular author to be inconsistent, but this seems very unlikely from the text itself.  Sometimes what seems so contrary to other books of the Bible is clarified within the same book.