On True and False Disciples in Matthew 8.18–22

Abstract

In a recent issue of this journal, J. Kiilunen successfully refuted several key arguments in J. D. Kingsbury's discussion, also in this journal, of Matt 8.18-22. 1 In particular, Kiilunen showed that the use of EKEXEUOEV instead of EK&X.eaev (v. 18) does not rule out a following reference to discipleship in (XTIEXBEVV Eiq to jcEpocv, that the use of 8i8aaicaXE instead of KupiE (v. 19; contrast v. 21) does not rule out discipleship on the part of the speaker, that the expressed eagerness to follow Jesus wherever he goes (v. 19) does not betray an unacceptable arrogation of authority belonging only to Jesus, and that 'the Son of man' (v. 20) does not imply Jesus' rejection of the would-be follower. On the other hand, Kiilunen's opinion that ETEpoq 8E tcov ua9r|T6}v outou (v. 21) most probably does not imply discipleship on the part of fitq ypa\i\La%eo$ (v. 19) agrees with Kingsbury's opinion and needs refutation. The present article aims to supply both that refutation and the refinement that Matt 8.18-22 presents not one scribe but two, both of them professing disciples, the first one true, the second false. Both Kingsbury and Kiilunen set great store by Matthean usage and context; so it is surprising that they neglect Matthean usage and context when coming to the central question, Does EtEpoq. .. TCOV n.a9r| Tcov amox> imply that Eiq Ypa|inai£-6<; was a disciple? If so, the scribe was expressing a determination to follow Jesus because of an already existing discipleship, not a determination to follow Jesus by way of becoming a disciple. But Kingsbury will not have it so. 2 He correctly points out that often in Matthew 'scribes' stands for non-disciples without the modifier 'their', so that other things being equal the absence of 'their' (contrast its insertion at Matt 7.29 into material borrowed from Mark 1.22) need not imply discipleship on the part of the present scribe. 3 Kingsbury's further contention that EII; may be taken as indefinite is very doubtful for Matthew (more on this question later) but somewhat irrelevant, since 'another of his disciples' might imply the discipleship of 'a scribe' just as easily as it might imply the discipleship of 'one scribe'.

Apostolicity II: How does divine apostolicity affect God’s interaction with the world and humanity?

“…Cultic symbols mutated from immanent experience of divine presence in space and time to transcendent, spiritual-mystical and universal conceptions. Secondly, post-exilic hopes renewed and heightened through eschatological and futurist expectations of unfulfilled prophecies 29 produced a new literary genre, 'apocalypticism' (Emmet, 1918;Edersheim, 1993;Gundry, 1994). Multiple futuristic fulfilment interpretations raised the issue of God's providential control of history.…”

“…The Hellenist period presented the uncomfortable meeting of Greek philosophy and Judaic religion (Edersheim, 1993) 32 in a struggle for primacy in which Judaic isolationism (Redford, 1885;Edersheim, 1993) 33 and Hellenist ascendant universalism (Edersheim, 1993;Gundry, 1994) were mutually antagonistic. Cicero argues, "… a race distinguished for its contempt of the gods … without any visible symbol, conjoined with an utter rejection of every other form of 29 A hermeneutic concerning both Jewish and Christian interpreters.…”

"Egalitarian" Ideology, Leadership, and Factional Conflict within the Matthean Group

“…Matthew polemicizes against the &dquo;scribes and Pharisees&dquo; (23) and omits Mark's &dquo;good scribe&dquo; ). Yet, in 8:19 a scribe desires to follow Jesus, apparently sincerely (Saldarini 1988: 159;Gundry;Duling 1995a: 172-75). In 13:52 a scribe is said to be &dquo;'discipled' for the kingdom,&dquo; which might imply scribes who have joined the community, and probably the evangelist himself.…”