This case is one of the opposite description. Judging from the way in
which the scribe had been dealt with, it might have been expected that
when this disciple asked to be excused for a time, in order to
discharge a duty which seemed so urgent, the answer would have been
one not only allowing but even enforcing the delay. But no. Why the
difference? Again, because the Master saw "what was in man." This was
no impulsive, impetuous nature which needed a word of caution; but
one of those hesitating natures which need to be summoned to immediate
decision. It would seem also, from the peculiar expression, "Leave
_the dead_ to bury their own dead" (R.V.), that he belonged to an
ungodly family, to associate again with whom at such a critical time
in his history would be most prejudicial; and it must be remembered
that it would not have been the mere attending of the funeral; there
were the laws of uncleanness, which would oblige him, if he went, to
stay many days; and meantime the golden opportunity might be gone.
Thus are we guarded against the two opposite dangers--the one
besetting the eager and impulsive, the other the halting and
irresolute. In neither case are we told what the result was. We may
surmise that the scribe disappeared from view, and that the other
joined the party in the boat; but "something sealed the lips of that
Evangelist"; from which we may perhaps infer that his main object in
relating the two incidents was, not to give information of them, but
to show forth the glory of the Master as the Searcher of hearts, to
signalise the fact that He was no less Master of the minds than of the
bodies of men.