The seventh passage of the Sefer Yeshua is based on Matthew 8:21-22, and Luke 9:59-60 (which is the main saying of, ‘Let the Dead bury their own dead’). The midrash on people trying to entrap Yeshua is based on Mk 12:13, Mt 22:15-16, Lk 11:53-54. The midrash on various groups conspiring to kill Yeshua is based on Mk 3:6, 11:18, 14:1, Mt 26:4, Lk 19:47, Jn 11:53. The midrash on Yeshua not walking about openly in large crowds for fear of those who wished to kill him is based on Jn 11:54a.
7. 1There was a young man whose father was a Zealot. He had been part of a feared band around the Galilee, which fought to speed the coming of the kingdom of the son of David everywhere they went. 2But his father had been killed that very morning while leading an attack upon the Romans. 3While still in his grief and anger, his father’s companions tried to persuade him to take his father’s place among them, threatening to end his life if he did not. 4His family feared for him, so this young man came to Yeshua` for counsel.
5After learning of his situation, Yeshua` advised the young man to abandon his father’s violent quest to bring about the kingdom of David, and said, 6‘Follow me, and proclaim the kingdom of God everywhere you go.’
7After some thought, the young man said, ‘Master, I’ll follow you, but first let me go and bury my father.’
8Yeshua` was sorrowful that the young man had lost his father, but also feared that the man’s life was in danger. So he spoke firmly of the Zealots and said, 9‘Leave the Dead to bury their own dead!’ Then he consoled the man over the memory of his father.
10However, when the Zealots came to hear of what Yeshua` had done to save the young man from them, 11they began to despise him, and plotted against him, so that they might seize him by stealth and kill him.
12But in the Galilee the people revered him as a prophet. 13The Zealots tried to have one of their daggermen secretly assassinate him, 14but Yeshua` had already been staying away from large cities and big crowds, for fear of Antipas’s men and the Herodians. 15So therefore in the Galilee, there was nothing they could do to make him suffer the same fate as the Immerser. 16However, whenever Yeshua` travelled to Jerusalem for the appointed Festivals, the Zealots spread false stories that he was the Son of David, so that the Romans might hear of it, and thereby arrest him and crucify him.
A note on the Sources
Before I go into the commentary, I want to show you how truly sparse the source material is, and how no context is given to the saying which might help us interpret it. It is not found in Mark, so scholars have deduced that it comes from the Q-source. It is one of the most enigmatic sayings of Yeshua:
Another of his disciples said to him, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” But Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.” (Mt 8:21-22; the only setting given is that Yeshua is trying to get away from the crowds, and is stopped by two followers as he makes his way to the shore of the Sea of Galilee).
To another he said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” And Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” (Lk 9:59-60; Yeshua is walking along a road on his way to Jerusalem, and is stopped by three followers – this is the only setting that Luke gives us).
Given that the settings in Mt and Lk are different, we can surmise that the original Q-Source had no setting for the saying, and that the authors of Mt and Lk both made up their settings.
The saying that precedes this one in both Matthew and Luke (on the son of man having nowhere to lay his head) does not really help us. Luke alone places a saying after this one which suggests that the author of Luke thought that they are all responses to people who are not worthy of being followers of Yeshua.
The reason for the longer midrash in the Sefer Yeshua
In case you don’t already know, midrash is explanatory text added by an editor of a translated text, which helps us to understand the context or meaning of biblical text. In the ancient Aramaic targums (‘translations’) of the Hebrew Bible, it was very common to add midrashic text, supplying details which helped a non-Hebrew speaker understand the meaning of a biblical verse. This was considered an acceptable practice in ancient times – the purpose of a translation for the ancients was not necessarily to provide a literal translation (although some, like the Targum Onkelos, do give us a word for word rendering in most cases). The Targum Yonatan is the most midrash-rich targum of all the ancient translations.
The expansion of this mysterious saying of Yeshua in the Sefer Yeshua, was therefore written in the spirit of this ancient practice of including midrash – to help the reader of a translated text understand the meaning of it.
I have kept the words that have been attributed to Yeshua just as they are in the gospel sources, unchanged. I tried to put myself in the mind of an ancient writer – a generic Jewish follower of Yeshua who might have wanted to record Yeshua’s words – but a writer who might have actually known first-hand the full context of Yeshua’s words.
Lastly, the midrash is my attempt, as early on in the Sefer Yeshua as possible, to firmly place Yeshua into some kind of real-world, historical context – something that the gospels deliberately fail to do. In order to push their non-Jewish vision of who and what Yeshua was (a messianic god-man), they had to completely divorce him from the real-life historical world that he actually lived in as a human being. The Sefer Yeshua is an attempt to give Talmidis a real-world insight into the historical Sitz im Leben that Yeshua existed in.
A possible context: Ongoing friction with the Zealots and their followers
One of the most curious omissions in the gospels that Christian commentators seldom address, is the existence of the Zealots, and what possible part they could have played in Yeshua’s ministry – did they help Yeshua, were they supportive of him, or were they a hindrance, or maybe actively hostile? We don’t know, because there is no mention of them in the gospels (apart from the epithet of ’Simon the Zealot’, [Lk 6:15], alternatively ’Simon the Canaean’ [Mt 10:4], one of the 12 apostles; qanaya is Aramaic for ’Zealot’).
By analogy, this is like writing a story set in 1970s Belfast, and never bringing up the IRA or the UDA. Or writing a story set in late 1930s Germany, and never mentioning the Nazis at any point.
Most scholars think that the omission of any mention of Zealots in the gospels is deliberate; they think that any mention of them, as a resistance movement of anti-Roman terrorists, would have painted the Romans in a bad light – Gentiles around the Roman Empire would have started asking uncomfortable questions, such as why Jews felt it necessary to oppose the Roman authorities, or what were the Romans doing in Judea in the first place that made the Jews feel that they needed to oppose them?
The omission has led some scholars to speculate that Yeshua was a messianic Zealot, and that he wanted to overthrow the Romans. However, his peaceful sayings do not mark him out as a Zealot, and he never even tried to do anything that would brand him as a Zealot or a messianic claimant.
If Yeshua genuinely proclaimed, “Blessed are the peacemakers, because they shall be called, ‘the Children of God’!” then not only is he unlikely to have been a revolutionary Zealot, on the contrary, it suggests the great importance he placed on peace in his ministry. If he indignantly told Peter, “Those who live by the sword will die by the sword’!” then by thus re-evaluating Yeshua’s sayings as those of someone opposed to the Zealots, then his peaceful sayings take on a whole new dimension.
Yeshua’s opponents in the gospels are always either the Pharisees or the Sadducees, or both together (which would have been an unnatural alliance, given their respective religious views). The gospel writers even have Yeshua arguing with the Pharisees over matters which, in reality, they would have agreed with Yeshua on (such as applying Torah in a less harsh manner, especially the Pharisees who belonged to the moderate school of Hillel). There are also arguments about things which would not have been points of contention for the Pharisees (such as paying taxes to Caesar, but which would have been hot issues for the anti-Roman Zealots).
I propose that the gospel writers felt they could not mention who these arguments were really with – the Zealots – so they substituted ‘Zealots’ with ‘Pharisees’; Gentile Christians, knowing little of politics in the Holy Land, would not have been able to tell the difference, or that they were not being told the whole truth.
I also think that the Zealots were the main group who actively sought Yeshua’s death, rather than the Pharisees. On the whole, the stance of the Pharisees towards men who arose claiming to be messiahs was a ‘wait and see’ one; they would have been highly unlikely to have wanted to seek anyone’s death, let alone actively work for it. If Yeshua really did oppose the Zealots and their methods, then the Zealots would have actively sought to bring about Yeshua’s death.
Why would Yeshua oppose the Zealots?
It was well known throughout the Roman world what Romans would do to provinces that rebelled against Roman authority. The Romans were not known for their tolerance of criticism – on the contrary, they were brutal oppressors, and they were well known for looking down their noses at the Jewish religion; they were not the benign rulers portrayed in the Christian gospels. In Judea itself, they were known for crucifying their political opponents – a large number of anti-Roman Jewish militants were crucified early on during Roman rule.
With this knowledge of how Romans dealt with opposition, it should come as no surprise that sensible people in the Galilee and Judea might have been afraid of disturbances stirred up by the Zealots against the Romans. If there was anyone who truly wanted to protect the Jewish people and ensure their survival – anyone who wanted to guarantee that the Romans did not exact the widespread, genocidal punishment that the Romans normally inflicted on rebellious peoples – such a person would do all in their power to ensure that the Zealots did not radicalise their fellow Jews into joining their ranks – much as decent Catholics would not have wanted their youth to join the IRA, or how decent Protestants would not have wanted their youngsters to join the UDA or the UVF.
I therefore believe that it would have been natural for a prophet of God to want to oppose the Zealots – a prophet who was aware of what God had shown him of the future, of the Holy Land torn apart by a horrific Roman war against the Jews. It would have been natural for a prophet to oppose the very people who, as history records, goaded the Romans to war in the late 60s and early 70s of the 1st century.
Yeshua’s Kingdom of God in ideological opposition to the Messianic kingdom of David
In the late Second Temple period, they would not have used the phrase, ‘the Messianic kingdom’. They are more likely to have used phrases like, ‘the kingdom of the son of David’, or, ‘the coming kingdom of our father David’.
So tell me, how often did Yeshua speak of such a kingdom? Yeshua himself never spoke of such a kingdom. Just let that sink in: NEVER. NEVER. And just in case anyone missed that the first, second or third time, I’ll say it again: NEVER. Even though there are 12 instances where other people call him, ’son of David’, there is only one occasion, in the Gospel of John (Jn 18:36), where Jesus, in an anti-Jewish speech, calls this kingdom, ‘my kingdom’.
In all the gospels, the phrase, ‘the kingdom of our father David’ is only spoken once – by crowds as Yeshua enters Jerusalem for the last time (Mk 11:10). Yet others were saying that he was a prophet from Nazareth (Mt 21:11), which I believe is closer to historical reality.
In complete contrast, Yeshua spoke of ‘the Kingdom of God’ 68 times in the gospels (and the alternative ‘Kingdom of heaven’, which means the same thing, appears 31 times). It is obvious to anyone who has any logical sense, that Yeshua’s teachings were not about the messianic kingdom, but about the Kingdom of God.
Furthermore, I strongly believe that the reason why Yeshua spoke so very often about the Kingdom of God, was in order to place it in direct ideological opposition to the messianic kingdom preached by the Zealots.
Who were ‘the Dead’?
So, how can the dead bury their dead?
In the Hebrew Bible, those who reject God’s ways are often compared to the dead, and those who repent and choose God’s ways are compared to the living (e.g. Ezek 18:20-28). In Deuteronomy 30:19-20 it says, “I therefore call heaven and earth as witnesses against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, so that both you and your descendants may live, by loving Yahveh your God, heeding [God’s] pronouncements, and remaining loyal to [God].” Even in the New Testament, the rich young ruler essentially asks Yeshua what teachings he must follow to live (Mk 10:17).
The prophet Jeremiah also says the same thing. Remember that he was the main prophet of the Babylonian exile. He warned the people of Judea that they could either obey God’s message not to fight against the Babylonians and so survive, or they could reject God’s message and die at the hands of the Babylonian invaders: “Furthermore, tell the people, ‘This is what YHVH says: See, I am setting before you the way of life and the way of death.’” (Jer 21:8)
In the ancient Israelite worldview, ‘the dead’ were those who choose to turn against God, and the living were those who returned to God and followed God’s ways. I therefore would like to propose that ‘the Dead’ was Yeshua’s personal nickname for the Zealots.
A new interpretation of this enigmatic saying
Having read everything I’ve written to this point, when you then go back and read the saying, you should now be able to understand what it means: “let the Dead bury their own dead” means, “Let the Zealots bury their own dead’. Then he turns to the young man who asked him the question and tells him, instead of burying his father, who was a Zealot, reject the ways of the Zealots and follow him. Instead of proclaiming the messianic kingdom of David, follow Yeshua and ‘go and proclaim the Kingdom of God!’
I would like to theorise that the true context of this saying was that of a son whose father was a Zealot. His father was now dead, possibly killed in a failed attack on the Romans. If he still has not buried his father, he must have died within the last 24 hours, because Jewish custom is such that a person should be buried within a day of their death.
My further supposition is that his father’s comrades were now trying to radicalise him, to persuade him to take his father’s place among them. I suspect that Yeshua was therefore trying to stop him from joining the Zealots – attending his father’s funeral would have given the Zealots the ideal opportunity to further influence and perhaps coerce the young man into joining them on missions of violence. Not going to the funeral, and letting ‘the Dead’ (the Zealots) bury their own dead would save the young man. Proclaiming the Kingdom of God instead of the messianic kingdom would ensure his continued salvation.
The possible role the Zealots played in Yeshua’s death
From the works of Josephus, we know that the Zealots assassinated anyone who opposed them, even their fellow Jews. If Yeshua opposed them, then it would have been a foregone conclusion that they would want him dead. However, many ordinary people believed Yeshua to be a prophet; killing Yeshua might therefore turn people against the Zealots.
So they had to find another way. Either discredit him, and dissuade people from following him (this is why I think the episodes of Pharisees trying to discredit Yeshua were likely to have been Zealots instead); or they could get their mortal enemies, the Romans, to kill him.
There is the common argument that, if the Romans crucified Yeshua, Yeshua must have believed himself to have been the messiah. Why else would they kill him as the Jewish messiah?
I now heavily suspect that the Zealots spread rumours around the Galilee and Judea that Yeshua was a messianic claimant. If this rumour was being spread around, it could be the true origin of Mark’s plotline of ‘the messianic secret’. In the Gospel of Mark, whenever anyone says that Yeshua is the messiah, he tells them to keep quiet about it and tell no one. Most people today are unaware how dangerous it would have been to proclaim Yeshua as the messiah – publicly saying that Yeshua was the messiah would have put his life in danger.
Knowing this fact, the Zealots might have eagerly desired to spread rumours that Yeshua was the messiah, for the specific reason of setting up the Romans to crucify him. I believe that the charge of claiming to be ‘king of the Jews’ (i.e. a messianic rebel against the Romans) was an unjust charge, because Yeshua did not claim to be the messiah; if you look at the occasions when the title ‘son of David’ is used, it is always used by other people, not by Yeshua himself. I am convinced that, while he was alive, it was Yeshua’s enemies – not his followers – who claimed that Yeshua was the messiah; and they did so because they wanted him dead.
Pastoral application
Massorite Talmidis and the Tennessee Ebionites do not believe that Yeshua saw himself as the messiah. By rejecting any notion that Yeshua was the messiah, I firmly believe we are returning right back to the origin point of our common faith – to the days of Yeshua’s ministry while he was alive; we are following Yeshua the prophet, rather than ‘Jesus the Christ’. Later sects did indeed turn him into a messiah, but while he was alive, he himself had no wish to be proclaimed as a messiah. He did nothing that a messiah was expected to do, and he did not even try to fulfil any part of the messianic ‘job description’.
Who do we wish to align ourselves with therefore? Do we wish to associate with those during his lifetime who spread the rumour that he was the messiah, so that the Romans would execute him? Or are we courageous enough to align ourselves with those faithful Jews, his earliest, genuine disciples, those first Followers of the Way, who heeded and lived by his actual words, and saw him as a human prophet of God?
If you don’t see Yeshua as a god, then it is entirely unnecessary to claim that he was the messiah; claiming that he was the messiah serves no divine purpose. It is enough to accept him as a prophet of God, because the words he taught were God’s words.
We must always remember, and never forget that the Pharisees rejected all prophets after Malachi, and would therefore only heed the words of a messiah; that was the impetus behind Yeshua’s later followers turning him into a messiah – because it was the only way to get their fellow Jews to heed Yeshua’s warnings about the terrible future soon to come. In the evolution of the figure of ‘Jesus Christ’, as soon as his followers started claiming that he was the messiah after his death, thus began the inevitable process of transforming him into a god. If we ourselves start saying he was the messiah, all we are doing is starting off the same process of turning him into a god all over again. I personally would not want to leave such a legacy!