|
disciples are mentioned also in 13:52; 23:34, but these are notable
exceptions to the strongly negative tone of all Matthew’s other references to
scribes. But even this scribe, despite his expressed enthusiasm, does not
speak as a true disciple. He addresses Jesus as “Teacher,” a form of address
which in Matthew (unlike Mark) is used only by people outside Jesus’
group, never by the disciples (with the significant exception of Judas
Iscariot, who twice uses the Hebrew equivalent, “Rabbi”).¹¹ His scribal
training leads him to take it for granted that it is for him to choose to follow
Jesus, as did the disciples of rabbis, rather than for Jesus to call him as he
has done in 4:19, 22; cf. 9:9. Jesus’ response assumes that the scribe has not
yet thought out the commitment involved in discipleship, and probably
suggests that he is unlikely to be willing to face it. The wording of the
scribe’s declaration (which I have translated literally above—he does not
simply say “wherever you go”) perhaps indicates that his interest is only in
the proposed journey across the lake, whose destination he does not yet
know, rather than in a long-term commitment.
Jesus’ reply, however, focuses not on the immediate boat trip, but on the itinerant
lifestyle to which his disciples were to be committed. As “the carpenter’s son” in
Nazareth (13:55) Jesus presumably had a reasonably secure place in society, but
he had left that behind (4:13). Even in Capernaum it seems that Jesus did have “a
place where he could lay his head” (whether his own house or that of Peter, see
on vv. 14–15), and sometimes on his travels he seems to have been able to find
hospitality (e.g. in Bethany: 21:16; 26:6), as indeed he expected his disciples to
do (10:11). But the itinerant ministry (4:23) which now required their crossing of
the lake would allow no certainty of lodging, and many nights must have been
spent in more exposed locations even than the foxes and the birds;¹² the coming
night will find Jesus sleeping in a boat (v. 24). The first use of the phrase “the
Son of Man” in Matthew thus gives unusual weight to the literal meaning of the
Aramiac phrase, “a human being,” by contrasting this human being’s material
insecurity poignantly with the relatively better provision available to the non-
human creation.¹³
This is not the place for a full study of Matthew’s use of the title “the Son of
Man,” still less for entering the continuing and complex debate as to the origin
and significance of that term in the light of its wider context. I have sketched out
my understanding of these matters elsewhere,¹⁴ and here offer only a brief,
unadorned summary, well aware that virtually every clause of it is open to
dispute. Matthew’s use of the term is not markedly different from that in the
other gospels. It is always used by Jesus himself, not by others about him, and it
functions as a self-reference—note for instance how in 16:13 it corresponds to
“I” in Mark, while in 16:21 the process is reversed. It is the only title by which
Jesus refers to himself when speaking with people outside the disciple group.¹⁵
Its primary OT source is the vision of Dan 7:13–14, where the “one like a son of
man” (who represents Israel) is a victorious figure enthroned by God in heaven
to rule over all nations, and in several of its occurrences in the gospel the
language and imagery of that passage is present. But it is clear that Jesus, having
coined¹ his chosen title from this biblical source, then used it much more
widely, with reference to aspects of his ministry far removed from his future
heavenly glory. In Matthew, as in the other Synoptic Gospels, it is customary to
speak of three main areas of reference for the title “the Son of Man,” to his
future heavenly glory, to the earthly suffering which must precede it, and, less
frequently, to his current earthly status and authority. It seems that the reason
why Jesus found this title convenient is that, having no ready-made titular
connotations in current usage, it could be applied across the whole range of his
uniquely paradoxical mission of humiliation and vindication, of death and glory,
which could not be fitted into any pre-existing model. Like his parables, the title
“the Son of Man” came with an air of enigma,¹⁷ challenging the hearer to think
new thoughts rather than to slot Jesus into a ready-made pigeon-hole.
Here in 8:20 the reference is to Jesus’ current status, but whereas in 9:6 and 12:8
the title will denote a figure of unique authority, here it speaks paradoxically of a
state of earthly deprivation which is sharply contrasted with the heavenly glory
of Dan 7:13–14. As Matthew’s gospel progresses it will be the future, heavenly
authority of the Son of Man which will be increasingly in focus, but this first use
of the title brings out the contrast between its literal meaning and its specifically
Danielic connotations: the one who is to rule over all first shares with his
disciples in all the insecurity of their human condition.¹⁸
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
