|
where it will conclude a parable and a parable-explanation (cf. similar uses
in Luke 14:35; Rev 2:7). In relation to parables it constitutes a challenge to
discern the meaning of a cryptic utterance, and its wording echoes the
theology of revelation which will be spelled out in 13:10–17: not everyone
does have “ears to hear” and it is only to those who do and who exercise
them that revelation will be successful. Here, while the preceding sayings
are not strictly parabolic, they contain deep matters which challenge the
spiritual insight of those who hear, and their openness to receive new and
surprising truth.
c. The People’s Estimate of Both John and Jesus (11:16–19)
Verses 2–6 have explored John’s estimate of Jesus, and vv. 7–15 have set out
Jesus’ estimate of John. Now the close link between the two is underlined by
comparing the way in which they have been perceived by their contemporaries.
Here is the first of several references in Matthew to “this generation.” The term
will recur in 12:41, 42; 23:36, and with the addition of various uncomplimentary
adjectives (“wicked,” “perverse,” “unbelieving,” “adulterous”) also in 12:39, 45;
16:4; 17:17.⁴ These passages focus on the failure of Jesus’ contemporaries to
respond to his message, and so the term carries a strong tone of disapproval and
warning, culminating in the climactic judgment on “this generation” in 23:36. At
this earlier stage in the narrative the condemnation is less strong, but already the
complaint is that “this generation” have failed to respond and have misconstrued
the nature of Jesus’ ministry, as they had already done that of John.⁴⁷
The charge is launched in the form of a little parable from village life; the
children are probably⁴⁸ playing at weddings (at which men traditionally danced)
and funerals (at which women were the professional mourners).⁴ Several
commentators, following J. Jeremias,⁵ therefore suppose the two groups of
children to be the boys and the girls criticizing each other.
The verb homoioō, “to compare” (cf. 7:24, 26; 13:24; 18:23; 22:2; 25:1), and the
adjective homoios, “like” (cf. 13:31, 33, 44, 45, 47, 52; 20:1), are Matthew’s
standard vocabulary for introducing parables. The comparison is perhaps not
exactly drawn, in that “this generation” is apparently likened to the complainants
rather than to those about whose lack of response they complain, but it is the
scene as a whole rather than the specific equivalence which conveys the
message.⁵¹ It would be possible to understand the complaining children as “this
generation,” who piped to John but he refused to dance and who sang a dirge to
Jesus but he refused to mourn⁵²—the question and answer in 9:14–15 perhaps
gets close to the latter scenario. But the explanatory comments that follow the
parable fit better with the traditional interpretation⁵³ that it is Jesus who pipes
and John who sings the dirge, and rather than join in the festivity or the
lamentation “this generation” dismisses the one for his excessive exuberance and
the other for his unnatural asceticism.⁵⁴ see on 9:23 for a more specialized use of
“pipers” in connection with mourning rather than festivity; outside that specific
context pipes more naturally call to jollity.
John’s trademark asceticism (3:4; cf. Luke 1:15 for his abstinence from alcohol)
had clearly appealed to some of the people, but the “disciples of John” remained
a minority known for their régime of fasting which most people did not wish to
follow (9:14). Jesus, though in many ways John’s successor, did not follow him
in this, and indeed made a point of the inappropriateness of fasting for his
disciples (9:15). In Matthew’s narrative sequence that dispute follows from
Jesus’ presence at a celebration meal in Matthew’s house (9:10–13; Luke 5:29
calls it a “great banquet”), an incident which certainly justified his being labeled
a “friend of tax-collectors and sinners,” and one which also illustrates his
willingness to enjoy good fare when it was available, even though his normal
lifestyle seems in fact to have allowed little such luxury (8:20). References to
feasting in Jesus’ teaching do not suggest a doctrinaire opponent of good food
and drink (8:11–12; 22:1–14; 25:1–12; 26:29), though the common translation
“drunkard” here goes further than the Greek term warrants (see p. 420, n. 12).⁵⁵
In the Cana miracle (John 2:1–11) Jesus provided a large amount of good wine,
but we are not told how much of it he drank!
The reference to “wisdom’s deeds” (see p. 420, n. 13) is unexpected. Following
the “deeds of the Messiah” in v. 2 the “deeds” here are naturally understood as
those of Jesus, i.e. his criticized lifestyle, but in the light of the equal treatment
of John and Jesus in the explanation of the parable it may also be understood to
apply equally to the very different “deeds” of John. Each is equally justified in
the context of their different roles, each offering a different application of the
divine wisdom. When “wisdom” is used as the subject of a verb with a personal
sense (to be “justified”) we should probably take it in the sense widely
developed in the post-biblical Wisdom Literature on the basis of the
personification of the divine wisdom in Proverbs (notably but not only in Prov
8:22–31). That wisdom is essentially practical, guiding her followers in living
the good life and avoiding the traps laid by folly and wickedness. Both John and
Jesus in their different ways have displayed that practical wisdom, which is thus
“justified” over against the criticism of those who represent a more conventional
lifestyle.⁵
It has been argued, however, that Matthew sees more in the term “wisdom” in
this saying. If the “deeds of wisdom” may be read as an echo of “the deeds of the
Messiah” in v. 2, it is suggested that this is tantamount to identifying Jesus as
Wisdom incarnate.⁵⁷ It is true that at the end of this chapter Jesus will speak
words which closely echo the utterance of personified Wisdom in Sir 51:23–27
(see on 11:28–30), and a few other possible allusions to the tradition of
personified Wisdom have been traced with less plausibility in other parts of
Matthew. But in the present context, where John’s actions are as much in focus
as those of Jesus, a christological identification of Jesus as Wisdom is perhaps
too extravagant a conclusion to draw from a term which in the OT Wisdom
tradition refers primarily to practical guidance for living the good life rather than
to a metaphysical personification of a divine attribute. Not that Matthew would
have found the identification of Jesus with Wisdom unacceptable: it is clear in
other parts of the NT which explain the cosmic significance of Christ in terms of
the creative role of Wisdom in Prov 8 and the derivative traditions, and it is
probably implied as we shall see in Matt 11:28–30. But the present context does
not require it and indeed, if the parallelism between John and Jesus be given due
weight, even militates against it.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
