Matthew 8: Let the dead bury the dead

[Christian2]

Matthew 8:

18When Jesus saw the crowd around him, he gave orders to cross to the other side of the lake. 19Then a teacher of the law came to him and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go."

20Jesus replied, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."

21Another disciple said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."

22But Jesus told him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."

I understand that this man's father is not really dead yet. If he were, he wouldn't be standing in front of Jesus; instead, he would tending to burial arrangements. The man was clearly putting off following Jesus.

But, what does Jesus' comment mean? "let the dead bury their own dead."

The dead can't bury anyone.

I've read a lot of commentaries on this one, but have yet to find one that makes sense.

Any one have any ideas as to what Jesus was trying to say?

Thank you.

[Cross.eyed]

Hi C2,

jesus was referring to the spiritually dead burying their own.
Follow me could be saying in a sense, We can't do anything for the spiritually dead so lets get on to more important matters.

[Christian2]

Hi C2,

jesus was referring to the spiritually dead burying their own.
Follow me could be saying in a sense, We can't do anything for the spiritually dead so lets get on to more important matters.

Is Jesus saying this man's father was spiritually dead?

Was he calling the man who asked to bury his father spiritually dead?

Let's say the man's father wasn't dead yet and the man wanted to put off following Jesus. Let's say the man wanted to wait until his father was really dead (perhaps years later) so he could come into his inheritance. If so, this would mean the man was more interested in material things than the things of God, and; therefore, he could be called spiritually dead.

What do you think?

Thanks.

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
*I Think* that a person wouldn't ask for permission to go and bury their father unless their father was already physically dead or on death's bed. I don't think the disciple had the understanding of spiritual and physical death at this point.

Commentary I have, reads:

8:22 let the dead bury their own dead. Let the spiritually dead bury the physically dead. The time of Jesus' ministry was short and demanded full attention and commitment. This statement stresses the radical demands of Jesus' discipleship, since Jews placed great importance on the duty of children to bury their parents.

.
.

[Christian2]

.
.
*I Think* that a person wouldn't ask for permission to go and bury their father unless their father was already physically dead or on death's bed. I don't think the disciple had the understanding of spiritual and physical death at this point.

Commentary I have, reads:

8:22 let the dead bury their own dead. Let the spiritually dead bury the physically dead. The time of Jesus' ministry was short and demanded full attention and commitment. This statement stresses the radical demands of Jesus' discipleship, since Jews placed great importance on the duty of children to bury their parents.

.
.

Thanks, but why would a Jew need to ask another Jew for permission to bury his father, since one the commandments is to honor thy father and mother?

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
*I Think* that a person wouldn't ask for permission to go and bury their father unless their father was already physically dead or on death's bed. I don't think the disciple had the understanding of spiritual and physical death at this point.

Commentary I have, reads:

8:22 let the dead bury their own dead. Let the spiritually dead bury the physically dead. The time of Jesus' ministry was short and demanded full attention and commitment. This statement stresses the radical demands of Jesus' discipleship, since Jews placed great importance on the duty of children to bury their parents.

.
.

Thanks, but why would a Jew need to ask another Jew for permission to bury his father, since one the commandments is to honor thy father and mother?

If the father was dead physically and also dead spiritually...there is no point in "honoring" the father in burial. He is dead for all eternity with no chance otherwise...not to mention who was telling the disciple to forget going to bury his father!
.
.

[Jac3510]

Personally, I think it's just hyperbole. I really don't think Jesus was making some deeper spiritual point about unbelievers burying their own, nor do I think the man was putting off following Jesus until his father died. I think we have a case here of a man whom Jesus called to follow him, and he said, "Ok, will do. But my dad just died. We're having the funeral tomorrow. I'll be right back!" And Jesus basically says, "Nope. Now or never, bud."

I take Jesus here to be emphasizing the urgency of following Him, that following Him preempts ALL other obligations. That goes along with Him saying that the one who puts his hands to the plow and looks back isn't worthy, that the one who doesn't hate his father and mother isn't worthy of Him, that the one who denies Him He will deny before the Father, etc.

So yeah . . . hyperbole: Jesus is just saying that He comes first, even before family obligations.

So says I.

[zoegirl]

Have heard of this too and seems to be in line with the rest of Christ's message.

That the man was focused less on Christ and more on earthly things is another application.
I seem to recall another appliaction but cannot remember the details.....shall try to, it's friday after all, not sure my brain os still all there after all of those teenagers!!

[Christian2]

Personally, I think it's just hyperbole. I really don't think Jesus was making some deeper spiritual point about unbelievers burying their own, nor do I think the man was putting off following Jesus until his father died. I think we have a case here of a man whom Jesus called to follow him, and he said, "Ok, will do. But my dad just died. We're having the funeral tomorrow. I'll be right back!" And Jesus basically says, "Nope. Now or never, bud."

I take Jesus here to be emphasizing the urgency of following Him, that following Him preempts ALL other obligations. That goes along with Him saying that the one who puts his hands to the plow and looks back isn't worthy, that the one who doesn't hate his father and mother isn't worthy of Him, that the one who denies Him He will deny before the Father, etc.

So yeah . . . hyperbole: Jesus is just saying that He comes first, even before family obligations.

So says I.

Thank you.

OK, I understand Jesus comes first. That point was brought out when He said,

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters- yes, even his own life — he cannot be my disciple."

Jesus used hyperbole in the verse above, which is a very Jewish thing to do.

But if I understand you correctly, the story cannot be authentic, meaning there was no man who said, "let me bury my father first."

Because,

Jesus is a Jew and Jews honor their parents and part of honoring their parents would be to bury them properly. After all, Jews buried their dead right away. Spending a day or two taking care of the burial of his father and then following Jesus would be about the same as doing it right then.

This is a hard saying.

I've been talking with some Jews and this is one subject that was brought up to prove that Jesus was not fit to be the Messiah because He broke the law of honoring father and mother.

[cslewislover]

Jesus is a Jew and Jews honor their parents and part of honoring their parents would be to bury them properly. After all, Jews buried their dead right away. Spending a day or two taking care of the burial of his father and then following Jesus would be about the same as doing it right then.

This is a hard saying.

I've been talking with some Jews and this is one subject that was brought up to prove that Jesus was not fit to be the Messiah because He broke the law of honoring father and mother.

But Jesus did this kind-of thing constantly - making the Jews think about where their priorities are - and plenty of them came to Him anyway. These understood it properly: God and His Kingdom come first. (Besides that, I have heard a number of times that it shows that Jesus knows what's in each person's heart and He responds accordingly; He knew where this individual's heart really was.) Plenty of Jews have come to Christ since then, too. Maybe you should talk with some Messianic Jews about this (and not all of them like to be categorized that way, that is, Messianic Jew), since they obviously didn't think this saying was insurmountably hard.

[FFC]

Jac, who is playing in the hyperbole anyway? Is that the Georgia state Panthers?

[Cross.eyed]

Personally, I think it's just hyperbole. I really don't think Jesus was making some deeper spiritual point about unbelievers burying their own, nor do I think the man was putting off following Jesus until his father died. I think we have a case here of a man whom Jesus called to follow him, and he said, "Ok, will do. But my dad just died. We're having the funeral tomorrow. I'll be right back!" And Jesus basically says, "Nope. Now or never, bud."

I take Jesus here to be emphasizing the urgency of following Him, that following Him preempts ALL other obligations. That goes along with Him saying that the one who puts his hands to the plow and looks back isn't worthy, that the one who doesn't hate his father and mother isn't worthy of Him, that the one who denies Him He will deny before the Father, etc.

So yeah . . . hyperbole: Jesus is just saying that He comes first, even before family obligations.

So says I.

This sounds reasonable Jac, but why did He say; Let the dead bury their own dead?

What I don't understand is how dead people can bury either physically or spiritually dead people.

[Christian2]

But Jesus did this kind-of thing constantly - making the Jews think about where their priorities are - and plenty of them came to Him anyway. These understood it properly: God and His Kingdom come first. (Besides that, I have heard a number of times that it shows that Jesus knows what's in each person's heart and He responds accordingly; He knew where this individual's heart really was.) Plenty of Jews have come to Christ since then, too. Maybe you should talk with some Messianic Jews about this (and not all of them like to be categorized that way, that it, Messianic Jew), since they obviously didn't think this saying was insurmountably hard.

I have a lot of books and sometimes I forget what I have. Anyway I have a New Testament commentary by a Messianic Jew by the name of David H. Stern.

Paraphrasing...

The father is not dead yet, otherwise the son would be home sitting shiv'ah. The son wants to go home and live with his father in comfort until his father dies and it could take years. He perhaps is interested in collecting his inheritance before he becomes a disciple at his leisure.

"Let the dead bury their dead" means those concerned with the benefits of this world -- like inheritances and living in comfort -- will remain with each other and when the time comes the spiritually dead will eventually bury the physically dead.

The son does not have his priorities straight.

Does this make sense?

[cslewislover]

But Jesus did this kind-of thing constantly - making the Jews think about where their priorities are - and plenty of them came to Him anyway. These understood it properly: God and His Kingdom come first. (Besides that, I have heard a number of times that it shows that Jesus knows what's in each person's heart and He responds accordingly; He knew where this individual's heart really was.) Plenty of Jews have come to Christ since then, too. Maybe you should talk with some Messianic Jews about this (and not all of them like to be categorized that way, that is, Messianic Jew), since they obviously didn't think this saying was insurmountably hard.

I have a lot of books and sometimes I forget what I have. Anyway I have a New Testament commentary by a Messianic Jew by the name of David H. Stern.

Paraphrasing...

The father is not dead yet, otherwise the son would be home sitting shiv'ah. The son wants to go home and live with his father in comfort until his father dies and it could take years. He perhaps is interested in collecting his inheritance before he becomes a disciple at his leisure.

"Let the dead bury their dead" means those concerned with the benefits of this world -- like inheritances and living in comfort -- will remain with each other and when the time comes the spiritually dead will eventually bury the physically dead.

The son does not have his priorities straight.

Does this make sense?

Yes, that makes total sense. Stern's comments could be correct about the son in particular, and he's saying the same thing as what others say about the son's priorities and what Jesus meant. That's neat you have that reference!

[Jac3510]

Thank you.

OK, I understand Jesus comes first. That point was brought out when He said,

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters- yes, even his own life — he cannot be my disciple."

Jesus used hyperbole in the verse above, which is a very Jewish thing to do.

But if I understand you correctly, the story cannot be authentic, meaning there was no man who said, "let me bury my father first."

Because,

Jesus is a Jew and Jews honor their parents and part of honoring their parents would be to bury them properly. After all, Jews buried their dead right away. Spending a day or two taking care of the burial of his father and then following Jesus would be about the same as doing it right then.

This is a hard saying.

I've been talking with some Jews and this is one subject that was brought up to prove that Jesus was not fit to be the Messiah because He broke the law of honoring father and mother.

Jesus also let His disciples gather food on the Sabbath, which was also a "violation" of the Law. Jesus' response? He is Lord of the Sabbath. If He is Lord of the Sabbath, is He not also Lord over the Law? Still further, to whom are we first responsible: God or our parents? Yes, we should honor our parents (i.e., give them a proper burial), but if to honor our parents requires us to dishonor God (i.e., tell Him that His commands take a backseat), then our priorities are mixed up. The Law is not to be understood as an arbitrary set of rules that God laid down because He happened to like the way they sounded and therefore must be blindly followed. The Law is a detailed exposition of "Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself."

In other words, is it possible to break the letter of the Law and still keep the Law by following its spirit? Put in reverse, is it possible to break the spirit of the Law by keeping its letter? Clearly, the answer to both of these is 'yes.' Therefore, I think the story can, and should, be taken as perfectly authentic. If Jesus was making a broader theological point, it had nothing to do with the spiritual deadness of anyone; it had to do with the true intent of the Law (another common theme in Jesus' ministry).

Jac, who is playing in the hyperbole anyway? Is that the Georgia state Panthers?

I wish I had a witty joke to respond. You have outfunnied me, sir!

This sounds reasonable Jac, but why did He say; Let the dead bury their own dead?

What I don't understand is how dead people can bury either physically or spiritually dead people.

I think that's the point. The dead can't bury their dead. Taken to its utter extremes, it would mean that the dead man would rot! And Jesus' point. "Fine. Compared to the necessity of following Me, a rotting corpse is meaningless."

The command here is very similar to Jesus' command on the Rich Young Ruler: what is most important, following God or following your own desires? Certainly, desiring to give your parents an honorable burial is a commendable and even righteous desire. But if a righeous desire gets in the way of following Christ, is it still righteous? And, as Christian2 has well pointed out, this forces the man to choose between his understanding of the Law (which, given his situation, was likely very legalistic) or following Jesus. He should have chosen the latter.

Paraphrasing...

The father is not dead yet, otherwise the son would be home sitting shiv'ah. The son wants to go home and live with his father in comfort until his father dies and it could take years. He perhaps is interested in collecting his inheritance before he becomes a disciple at his leisure.

"Let the dead bury their dead" means those concerned with the benefits of this world -- like inheritances and living in comfort -- will remain with each other and when the time comes the spiritually dead will eventually bury the physically dead.

The son does not have his priorities straight.

Does this make sense?

As I said in my first post: "I really don't think Jesus was making some deeper spiritual point about unbelievers burying their own, nor do I think the man was putting off following Jesus until his father died." Now, my thoughts, of course, come nowhere close to settling the matter (indeed, I may be only offering more confusion to a passage than can legitmately be taken several ways!), but my main problem with this interpretation is simply that it isn't found in the text itself. It requires constructing an entirely theoretical context in which we are to understand the text.

Now, hermeneutically, I don't like that. I don't like creating a context that we then use to interpret the text. More clearly, we aren't just finding out what the historical situation is. We are actually supplying a background situation, and then, in light of that situation, we are suggesting a meaning. The implication is that, without said background, the passage is unintelligible. While it may be true that the immediate hearers may have been aware of such a situation, is it all obvious that Matthew's readers would have been aware of it? And if not, then does it not follow that, if Matthew wanted to be sure that his readers understood Jesus' point, then he would have recorded that fact? As it stands, this interpretation asks me to believe that the passage cannot be understood in its own context by its own readers.

Is it a possible interpretation? Of course. Grammatically, there is nothing wrong with it (although there is nothing in the grammar to commend it, either). I just see no reason to invent a situation when none is needed. Matthew presents us with a Jesus who is King over all, who requires first allegience. In that very Matthean view, the passage fits perfectly.