Q: In Matthew 8:21-22 (and in Luke 9:59-60), a would-be follower of Jesus explains that he will not follow Him right away. When he tells Jesus, Lord, let me first go and bury my father, Jesus replies, Let the dead bury their own dead. Doesnt this seem sort of over-demanding?
A: Not necessarily. At first glance, modern readers tend to interpret the mans words to mean that his father had just died, and he wished to attend the funeral and perform grieving-rites. But if the mans father had just died, he would probably not have come to Jesus; instead he would be busy making funeral preparations. Chances seem good that the man was speaking idiomatically, in which case the words Allow me to first go and bury my father meant, I will follow you after my father has died and is buried. Which could be weeks, months, years -- by which time Jesus preaching-tours would have been wrapped up. (The implied scenario, in this case, may be that the man currently had no financial means of providing for himself, so he thought that he could not afford to follow Jesus, but after his father died, he would receive an inheritance. If so then Jesus response was an invitation to to follow Him while the opportunity existed, trusting God to provide for his needs, instead of waiting until it was more convenient and devoid of risks.)
But suppose that the mans statement was not idiomatic, and he meant that his father had recently died and that the funeral was about to take place. In that case, Jesus statement may have been made with unknown factors in view -- perhaps the man had siblings who could attend to the funeral-preparations sufficiently. Or perhaps the man was an orphan and was making a noble-sounding excuse. Those are interesting guesses, but they are not as popular among commentators as the following idea: Jesus knew the man better than the man knew himself, and Jesus knew that if this one delay was permitted, another noble reason to delay would also occur to the man, and then another, until the opportunity to follow the Son of God in His earthly ministry was gone.
Now lets set aside any consideration of possible special circumstances (positive or negative) and take the passage head-on. Is this a very demanding statement of Jesus? Yes, definitely. Is it /over/-demanding? No. One does not stop to attend funerals on the way to the maternity-ward where one's child is about to be born. Jesus was inviting this man to preach the kingdom of God and become a midwife of spiritual rebirth, so to speak. If a midwife has the choice of attending her fathers funeral, or of helping a baby enter the world at a particular place and time, and there are many who can bury her father but there is a shortage of midwives, and she must choose one or the other, which should she choose? Where does the greater need reside, and where is the opportunity to do the most good? This seems to be the message here -- not that attending the funeral of ones father is bad (since it's good), but that being instrumental in the new life of others through the preaching of Gods kingdom is better and is a more urgent task.
A couple of things are in the background here. The scene is reminiscent of the one in First Kings 19:19-21. There, Elijah called Elisha into prophetic service, and Elisha said, Please let me kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow you. And Elijahs reply was, Go back again, for what have I done to you? -- so Elisha goes to his home (near the field where he had been plowing, kills a yoke of oxen which had been pulling the plow, and has a little farewell-feast for himself with some guests, and then he leaves. Perhaps the difference-making difference in the two scenarios is that Elishas parents were living; in the case of the would-be disciple, his father was dead (if he was not speaking idiomatically).
Also, Jesus may here be applying, or enforcing, a special requirement of discipleship that was incumbent upon His disciples during His ministry. Under the Law of Moses, it was customary that when someone took a Nazirite vow, All the days that he separates himself to the LORD he shall not go near a dead body. He shall not make himself unclean even for his father or his mother, for his brother or his sister, when they die, because his separation to God is on his head (Numbers 6:6-7). Nothing in the Gospels explicitly says that the disciples took Nazirite vows during the periods in which they accompanied Jesus (though there is an instance in the book of Acts which suggests that Paul may have taken a Nazirite vow at least once), but something similar seems to be in operation here. The time which one spent as a disciple of Jesus (during His earthly ministry, at least) was sacred time, devoted to a singular mission which, like the Nazirite vows, superceded the otherwise normal responsibility of attending the funeral of ones father.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
A: Not necessarily. At first glance, modern readers tend to interpret the mans words to mean that his father had just died, and he wished to attend the funeral and perform grieving-rites. But if the mans father had just died, he would probably not have come to Jesus; instead he would be busy making funeral preparations. Chances seem good that the man was speaking idiomatically, in which case the words Allow me to first go and bury my father meant, I will follow you after my father has died and is buried. Which could be weeks, months, years -- by which time Jesus preaching-tours would have been wrapped up. (The implied scenario, in this case, may be that the man currently had no financial means of providing for himself, so he thought that he could not afford to follow Jesus, but after his father died, he would receive an inheritance. If so then Jesus response was an invitation to to follow Him while the opportunity existed, trusting God to provide for his needs, instead of waiting until it was more convenient and devoid of risks.)
But suppose that the mans statement was not idiomatic, and he meant that his father had recently died and that the funeral was about to take place. In that case, Jesus statement may have been made with unknown factors in view -- perhaps the man had siblings who could attend to the funeral-preparations sufficiently. Or perhaps the man was an orphan and was making a noble-sounding excuse. Those are interesting guesses, but they are not as popular among commentators as the following idea: Jesus knew the man better than the man knew himself, and Jesus knew that if this one delay was permitted, another noble reason to delay would also occur to the man, and then another, until the opportunity to follow the Son of God in His earthly ministry was gone.
Now lets set aside any consideration of possible special circumstances (positive or negative) and take the passage head-on. Is this a very demanding statement of Jesus? Yes, definitely. Is it /over/-demanding? No. One does not stop to attend funerals on the way to the maternity-ward where one's child is about to be born. Jesus was inviting this man to preach the kingdom of God and become a midwife of spiritual rebirth, so to speak. If a midwife has the choice of attending her fathers funeral, or of helping a baby enter the world at a particular place and time, and there are many who can bury her father but there is a shortage of midwives, and she must choose one or the other, which should she choose? Where does the greater need reside, and where is the opportunity to do the most good? This seems to be the message here -- not that attending the funeral of ones father is bad (since it's good), but that being instrumental in the new life of others through the preaching of Gods kingdom is better and is a more urgent task.
A couple of things are in the background here. The scene is reminiscent of the one in First Kings 19:19-21. There, Elijah called Elisha into prophetic service, and Elisha said, Please let me kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow you. And Elijahs reply was, Go back again, for what have I done to you? -- so Elisha goes to his home (near the field where he had been plowing, kills a yoke of oxen which had been pulling the plow, and has a little farewell-feast for himself with some guests, and then he leaves. Perhaps the difference-making difference in the two scenarios is that Elishas parents were living; in the case of the would-be disciple, his father was dead (if he was not speaking idiomatically).
Also, Jesus may here be applying, or enforcing, a special requirement of discipleship that was incumbent upon His disciples during His ministry. Under the Law of Moses, it was customary that when someone took a Nazirite vow, All the days that he separates himself to the LORD he shall not go near a dead body. He shall not make himself unclean even for his father or his mother, for his brother or his sister, when they die, because his separation to God is on his head (Numbers 6:6-7). Nothing in the Gospels explicitly says that the disciples took Nazirite vows during the periods in which they accompanied Jesus (though there is an instance in the book of Acts which suggests that Paul may have taken a Nazirite vow at least once), but something similar seems to be in operation here. The time which one spent as a disciple of Jesus (during His earthly ministry, at least) was sacred time, devoted to a singular mission which, like the Nazirite vows, superceded the otherwise normal responsibility of attending the funeral of ones father.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
