We say things not only to deliver content but to affect our listeners. Sometimes we are being very good about it…other times unfortunately not.
As I reflected on Jesus’ encounter with two would-be disciples I came to think that Jesus’ replies were very much intended for their effect.
Here is the narrative,
18 Now when Jesus saw a great crowd around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 And a scribe came up and said to him, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” 20 And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” 21 Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” 22 And Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.” (Mt 8:18-22 ESV)
Of these two encounters it is the second one that I find most perplexing. Jesus response seems callous. The man wanted to tend to the burial of his father, an important duty in those days. So why is Jesus not more sympathetic?
I have concluded because his response is intended to affect the would-be follower, to shake him up and get him to think beyond the surface content of the dialogue. Who is this Jesus that invites him to follow and suggests that the dead can tend to the burial of the dead? That is impossible! It would be scandalous for a devout son not to honour his father in caring for his burial. How can Jesus suggest such a thing!?
The would-be disciple is forced to probe deeper. What is truly happening in this encounter?
When the would-be disciple addresses Jesus as ‘Lord’ what is he meaning? Is it just a polite salutation? Is it no more than “Please Mister Jesus…?” That degree of commitment is not enough for an apprentice of the Son of Man. It is not Mister Jesus but Master Jesus.
Moreover, when this would-be disciple said ‘first’ let me go and bury my father what was he meaning by first? Is it just an indication of temporal sequence? Or implicit in the sequence is the governing hierarchy of his values. Of first importance is his duty, or maybe of first importance is what he considers to be first. Ah that won’t do for a follower of Jesus. What is first is God’s kingdom and his righteousness (see Mt 6:33), what is first is loving God with all that you are (see Mt 22:37-38). There is no room for self determination or even co-regency. All that is important in life, like the honouring of family, is carried out not independent of our allegiance to God through Jesus but in concurrence with it.
Deep issues about lordship and allegiance and priorities and commitment needed to be raised. Jesus’ perplexing response affected their emergence into the would-be follower’s consciousness.
Are the complexities of our life and God’s apparent callousness to our plight and our pressures designed to affect us, to push us to think beyond ourselves, our family, our culture and traditions. Is Jesus once again prompting us to make clear who is Master and what is ultimately important?
