Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 8:20
And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his] head.
20. the Son of man ] The origin of this expression as a Messianic title is found in Dan 7:13: “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with (in) the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him before him.” Hence to the Jews it would be a familiar designation of the Messiah the King whose “everlasting dominion” is described in the next verse (Dan 7:14). (See Dr Pusey, On Daniel, Lecture ii.)
The Hebraism may be considered in the light of similar expressions, “sons of light,” “son of perdition,” “son of peace,” &c., in all of which the genitive denotes a quality inherent in the subject. Sons of light=the spiritually enlightened, sons of wisdom=the wise. By the Son of man then is meant He who is essentially man, who took man’s nature upon Him, who is man’s representative before God, shewing the possibilities of purified human nature, and so making atonement practicable.
The title “Son of man,” so frequently used by our Lord of Himself, is not applied to Him except by Stephen (Act 7:56), “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” It occurs also in the Vision of St John with a direct reference to the words of Daniel (Rev 1:13; Rev 14:14).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 20. The foxes have holes, c.] Reader! art thou a poor man? and dost thou fear God? Then, what comfort must thou derive from the thought, that thou so nearly resemblest the Lord Jesus! But how unlike is the rich man, who is the votary of pleasure and slave of sin, to this heavenly pattern!
Son of man] A Hebrew phrase, expressive of humiliation and debasement and, on that account, applied emphatically to himself, by the meek and lowly Jesus. Besides, it seems here to be used to point out the incarnation of the Son of God, according to the predictions of the prophets, Ps 8:5; Da 7:13. And as our Lord was now showing forth his eternal Divinity in the miracles he wrought, he seems studious to prove to them the certainty of his incarnation, because on this depended the atonement for sin. Indeed our Lord seems more intent on giving the proofs of his humanity, than of his divinity, the latter being necessarily manifested by the miracles which he was continually working.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
20. And Jesus saith unto him, Thefoxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son ofman hath not where to lay his headFew as there were of thescribes who attached themselves to Jesus, it would appear, from hiscalling Him Teacher, that this one was a “disciple” in thatlooser sense of the word in which it is applied to the crowds whoflocked after Him, with more or less conviction that His claims werewell founded. But from the answer which he received we are led toinfer that there was more of transient emotionof temporaryimpulsethan of intelligent principle in the speech. The preachingof Christ had riveted and charmed him; his heart had swelled; hisenthusiasm had been kindled; and in this state of mind he will goanywhere with Him, and feels impelled to tell Him so. “Wiltthou?” replies the Lord Jesus. “Knowest thou whom thou artpledging thyself to follow, and whither haply He may lead thee? Nowarm home, no downy pillow has He for thee: He has them not forHimself. The foxes are not without their holes, nor do the birds ofthe air lack their nests; but the Son of man has to depend on thehospitality of others, and borrow the pillow whereon He lays Hishead.” How affecting is this reply! And yet He rejects not thisman’s offer, nor refuses him the liberty to follow Him. Only He willhave him know what he is doing, and “count the cost.” Hewill have him weigh well the real nature and the strength of hisattachment, whether it be such as will abide in the day of trial. Ifso, he will be right welcome, for Christ puts none away. But it seemstoo plain that in this case that had not been done. And so we havecalled this the Rash or Precipitate Disciple.
II. The Procrastinating orEntangled Disciple (Mat 8:21;Mat 8:22).
As this is more fully given inLuke (Lu 9:59), we must takeboth together. “And He said unto another of His disciples,Follow Me. But he said,”
Lord, suffer me first to goand bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let thedead bury their deador, as more definitely in Luke, “Letthe dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God”(Lu 9:60). This disciple didnot, like the former, volunteer his services, but is called by theLord Jesus, not only to follow, but to preach Him. And he is quitewilling; only he is not ready just yet. “Lord, I will;but””There is a difficulty in the way just now; but thatonce removed, I am Thine.” What now is this difficulty? Was hisfather actually deadlying a corpsehaving only to be buried?Impossible. As it was the practice, as noticed on Lu7:12, to bury on the day of death, it is not very likely thatthis disciple would have been here at all if his father had justbreathed his last; nor would the Lord, if He was there, have hinderedhim discharging the last duties of a son to a father. No doubt it wasthe common case of a son having a frail or aged father, not likely tolive long, whose head he thinks it his duty to see under the groundere he goes abroad. “This aged father of mine will soon beremoved; and if I might but delay till I see him decently interred, Ishould then be free to preach the kingdom of God wherever duty mightcall me.” This view of the case will explain the curt reply,”Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach thekingdom of God.” Like all the other paradoxical sayings of ourLord, the key to it is the different sensesa higher and a lowerinwhich the same word “dead” is used: There are two kingdomsof God in existence upon earth; the kingdom of nature, and thekingdom of grace: To the one kingdom all the children of this world,even the most ungodly, are fully alive; to the other, only thechildren of light: The reigning irreligion consists not inindifference to the common humanities of social life, but to thingsspiritual and eternal: Fear not, therefore, that your father will inyour absence be neglected, and that when he breathes his last therewill not be relatives and friends ready enough to do to him the lastoffices of kindness. Your wish to discharge these yourself isnatural, and to be allowed to do it a privilege not lightly to beforegone. But the kingdom of God lies now all neglected and needy:Its more exalted character few discern; to its paramount claims feware alive: and to “preach” it fewer still are qualified andcalled: But thou art: The Lord therefore hath need of thee: Leave,then, those claims of nature, high though they be, to those who aredead to the still higher claims of the kingdom of grace, which God isnow erecting upon earthLet the dead bury their dead; but go thouand preach the kingdom of God. And so have we here the genuine, butProcrastinating or Entangled Disciple.
The next case is recorded only byLuke:
III. TheIrresolute or Wavering Disciple (Luk 9:61;Luk 9:62).
Lu9:61:
Andanother also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bidthem farewell which are at home at my house.
Lu9:62:
AndJesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, andlooking back, is fit for the kingdom of God. But for the very different repliesgiven, we should hardly have discerned the difference between thisand the second case: the one man called, indeed, and the othervolunteering, as did the first; but both seemingly alike willing, andonly having a difficulty in their way just at that moment. But, byhelp of what is said respectively to each, we perceive the greatdifference between the two cases. From the warning given against”looking back,” it is evident that this man’s discipleshipwas not yet thorough,his separation from the world not entire. It is not a case of goingback, but of lookingback; and as there is here a manifest reference to the case of “Lot’swife” (Ge 19:26; and seeon Lu 17:32), we see that it is notactual returnto the world that we have here to deal with, but a reluctanceto break with it. The figure of puttingone’s hand to the plough and looking back is an exceedingly vividone, and to an agricultural people most impressive. As ploughingrequires an eye intent on the furrow to be made, and is marred theinstant one turns about, so will they come short of salvation whoprosecute the work of God with a distracted attention, a dividedheart. The reference may be chiefly to ministers; but the applicationat least is general. As the image seems plainly to have beensuggested by the case of Elijah and Elisha, a difficulty may beraised, requiring a moment’s attention. When Elijah cast his mantleabout Elisha, which the youth quite understood to mean appointing himhis successor, he was ploughing with twelve yoke of oxen, the lastpair held by himself. Leaving his oxen, he ran after the prophet, andsaid, “Let me, I pray thee, kiss my father and my mother, and[then] I will follow thee.” Was this said inthe same spirit with the same speechuttered by our disciple? Let us see. “And Elijah said unto him,Go back again: for what have I done to thee.” Commentators takethis to mean that Elijah had really done nothing to hinder him fromgoing on with all his ordinary duties. But to us it seems clear thatElijah’s intention was to try what manner of spirit the youth wasof:”Kiss thy father and mother? And why not? By all means, gohome and stay with them; for what have I done to thee? I did butthrow a mantle about thee; but what of that?” If this was hismeaning, Elisha thoroughly apprehended and nobly met it. “Hereturned back from him, and took a yoke of oxen, and slew them, andboiled their flesh with the instruments of the oxen (the wood of hisploughing implements), and gave unto the people, and they did eat:then he arose, and went after Elijah, and ministered unto him”(1Ki 19:19-21). Weknow not if even his father and mother had time to be called to thishasty feast. But this much is plain, that, though in affluentcircumstances, he gave up his lower calling, with all its prospects,for the higher and at that time perilous, office to which he wascalled. What now is the bearing of these two cases? Did Elisha dowrong in bidding them farewell with whom he was associated in hisearly calling? Or, if not, would this disciple have done wrong if hehad done the same thing, and in the same spirit, with Elisha? Clearlynot. Elisha’s doing it proved that he could withsafety do it; and our Lord’s warning isnot against bidding them farewell which were at home at his house,but against the probable fatalconsequences of that step; lest theembraces of earthly relationship should prove too strong for him, andhe should never return to follow Christ. Accordingly, we have calledthis the Irresolute or Wavering Disciple.
Mt8:23-27. JESUSCROSSING THE SEAOF GALILEE,MIRACULOUSLY STILLSA TEMPEST. ( =Mar 4:35-41; Luk 8:22-25).
For the exposition, see on Mr4:35-41.
Mt8:28-34. JESUS HEALSTHE GERGESENEDEMONIACS. ( = Mar 5:1-20;Luk 8:26-39).
For the exposition, see on Mr5:1-20.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Jesus saith unto him,…. Knowing his heart, and the carnal and worldly views with which he acted;
the foxes have holes in the earth, where they hide themselves from danger, take their rest, and secure their whelps;
and the birds of the air have nests, where they sit, lay, and hatch their eggs, and bring up their young;
but the son of man has not where to lay his head, when he is weary, and wants rest and sleep, as he did at this time. So that though he was Lord of all, as being the mighty God; yet as “the son of man”, a phrase, expressive both of the truth and meanness of his human nature, the most despicable of creatures in the earth and air, were richer than he. This he said, to convince the Scribe of his mistake; who expected much worldly grandeur and wealth, by becoming his disciple. When Christ styles himself “the son of man”, it is no contradiction to his being God; nor any objection to trust and confidence in him, as the Jew z suggests; for he is truly and properly God, as well as really man, having two natures, human and divine, united in his person; so that he is, as was prophesied of him, Emmanuel, God with us, in our nature, God manifested in the flesh: and since he is so, it cannot be unlawful to trust in him; which it would be indeed, was he a mere man. The Jews ought not to object to this name and title of the “Messiah, the son of man”: since he is so called, as their own writers and commentators acknowledge, in a Ps 80:17 and b Da 7:13. And whereas it is further urged against these words of Christ, that if he was God, why does he complain of want of place? Is not the whole world his, according to Ps 24:1? It may be replied, that it is very true, that the whole world is his, nor could he be in want of anything, as God; but yet, as man, for our sakes he became “poor”, that we “might be rich”: nor should this be any difficulty with a Jew, when they themselves say, as some have thought, if he (the Messiah) should come, , “there’s no place in which he can sit down” c. Unless it be understood of Nebuchadnezzar, as the gloss explains it; let the learned inspect the place, and judge: the coming of the Messiah is immediately spoken of.
z R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 12. p. 403. a Targum & Aben Ezra in loc, Abarbinel Mashmia Jeshua, fol. 81. 2. b R. Jeshua in Aben Ezra in loc. & Saadiah Gaon & Jarchi in loc. Zohar in Gen. fol. 85. 4. c T. Bab. Sanhedrim, fol. 96. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Holes (). A lurking hole, burrow.
Nests (). “Roosts, i.e. leafy, for settling at night (tabernacula, habitacula), not nests” (McNeile). In the Septuagint it is used of God tabernacling in the Sanctuary. The verb () is there used of birds (Ps 103:12).
The Son of man ( ). This remarkable expression, applied to himself by Jesus so often, appears here for the first time. There is a considerable modern literature devoted to it. “It means much for the Speaker, who has chosen it deliberately, in connection with private reflections, at whose nature we can only guess, by study of the many occasions on which the name is used” (Bruce). Often it means the Representative Man. It may sometimes stand for the Aramaic barnasha, the man, but in most instances that idea will not suit. Jesus uses it as a concealed Messianic title. It is possible that this scribe would not understand the phrase at all. Bruce thinks that here Jesus means “the unprivileged Man,” worse off than the foxes and the birds. Jesus spoke Greek as well as Aramaic. It is inconceivable that the Gospels should never call Jesus “the Son of man” and always credit it to him as his own words if he did not so term himself, about eighty times in all, thirty-three in Matthew. Jesus in his early ministry, except at the very start in Joh 4, abstains from calling himself Messiah. This term suited his purpose exactly to get the people used to his special claim as Messiah when he is ready to make it openly.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Holes [] . Wyc. has ditches, with burrows in explanation.
Nests [] . Only here and in the parallel, Luk 9:58. Nests is too limited. The word, derived from skhnh, a tent, has the more general meaning of shelter or habitation. In classical Greek it is used of an encampment. The nest is not to the bird what the hole is to the fox, a permanent dwelling – place, since the bird frequents the nest only during incubation. The Rev. retains nests, but puts lodging – places in the margin.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And Jesus saith unto him,” (kai legei auto ho lesous) “And Jesus said to him directly,” in an above board straightforward, factual manner or disclosure, the cost of discipleship, which the erudite, philosophical Jewish record keeping scholar had not considered.
2) “The foxes have holes,” (hai alopekes pholeous echousin) “The foxes have, hold, or possess holes,” as their homes, their refuge, their hiding place from storm, weather, and enemies, a place for their own for rest, sleep, and protection.
3) “And the birds of the air have nests;” (kai ta peteina tou ouranou kataskenoseis) “And the birds of the heaven have (their own) roosts,” for rest and protection, appropriate to their nature, for their comfort and protection, in times of danger and storm, in crevices of the rocks, in holes in trees, or hidden away from predators.
4) “But the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” (ho de huios tou anthropou ouk echei pou ten kephalen kline) “But the Son (heir) of humanity possesses not even a place where he may lay his head,” either physically or religiously, among His own people, Joh 1:11-12; Mat 23:37-39. About eighty times our Lord referred to himself as the Son of man, indicating His humanity, that He wanted men always to remember. See also Dan 7:13; Php_2:6-8; Heb 2:9-14; Mat 10:36.
Our Lord had no earthly resting-place He could humanly call His own, 2Co 8:9; Luk 9:58; Php 6:7.
WHAT I WOULD HAVE GIVEN HIM
A little boy, between four and five years old, was one day reading to his mother in the New Testament, and when he came to these words, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head,” his eyes filled with tears, his tender breast heaved, and at last he sobbed aloud. His mother inquired what was the matter; but, for some time, he could not answer her. At length, as well as his sobs would let him, he said, I am sure, mamma, if I had been there, I would have given Him my pillow.”
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
20. Foxes have holes. The Son of God describes by these words what was his condition while he lived on the earth, but, at the same time, informs his disciples what sort of life they must be prepared to expect. And yet it is strange that Christ should say, that he had not a foot of earth on which he could lay his head, while there were many godly and benevolent persons, who would willingly receive him into their houses. But this was spoken, it ought to be observed, as a warning to the scribe, not to expect an abundant and rich hire, as if he had a wealthy master, while the master himself receives a precarious subsistence in borrowed houses.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(20) The foxes have holes.Our Lords answer seems to indicate that it was hardly more than the show. The scribe had not counted the cost, and, like the young ruler that had great possessions, needed to be taught. To follow the Son of Man was not to be the adherent of a new sect or party, or the servant of a king marching onward to an earthly throne, but to share in poverty, privation, homelessness.
Nests.The word is sufficient for popular use, but, strictly speaking, the nest belongs only to the brooding season of a birds life, and the Greek word has the wider meaning of shelter.
The Son of man.The passage is remarkable as the first in this Gospel in which the name occurs which was afterwards so prominent in our Lords teaching, and this is accordingly the right place for tracing the history and significance of that title.
As found in the Old Testament, the term is the literal translation of the Hebrew ben-adam, the latter word expressing the generic weakness and frailty of mans nature, as the Hebrew ish expresses its greatness and its strength. It stands therefore as representing man idealised under that one aspect of his being. What is man that Thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that Thou visitest him? (Psa. 8:4); Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man in whom is no help (Psa. 146:3), are instances of its use in this meaning. In some passages our version expresses the same thought by rendering the sons of Adam and the sons of Ish as low and high (Psa. 49:2), or the former word alone as men of low degree (Psa. 62:9). The title received a new prominence about the time of the Captivity from its use in Ezekiels prophecies. There it appears frequently (not fewer than eighty-seven times in all) as the title with which the prophet is addressed by the voice of Jehovah. We can scarcely doubt that it was used there in all the fulness of its earlier meaning, and was designed to teach the prophet that, amid all the greatness of his work, he was still subject to all the weakness and temptations of mans nature, and ought therefore to have compassion on their infirmities. Yet a fresh aspect of the name was presented in the mysterious vision of Dan. 7:13, in which One like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and was brought to the Ancient of Days, . . . and there was given unto Him dominion and glory and a kingdom. The word used is not, it is true, benadam, but bar-enosh, but there is no traceable distinction of meaning between the two. Here, then, the thought manifestly was this, that One who shared mans weakness, should also be a sharer of Gods glory, and be the Head of the divine kingdom. The prominence which the Maccabean struggles gave to the predictions of Daniel drew attention to the name as it had thus been used. The Son of Man became one of the titles of the expected Christ. The Targum or Paraphrase of the Psalms (probably earlier than our Lords ministry) explains even such a passage as Psa. 80:17 (the son of man whom thou madest so strong for thine own self) as referring to the Christ. So when the crowd at Jerusalem are questioning in their hearts whether Jesus was the Christ, they are not startled at this application of the name, and their question, Who is this Son of Man? is the utterance of their wonder that things so unlike what they expected of the Christ should be predicted of One who claimed the title (Joh. 12:34). It was accordingly, with these ideas attached to itinvolving at once fellowship with the lowest of the heirs of our humanity, and yet also participation in the eternal glory of the Highestthat our Lord claimed the title, and used it with such marvellous frequency. We might almost say that it serves as the chief connecting-link between the teaching of the first three Gospels and the fourth. It appears thirty-two times in St. Matthew, fourteen in St. Mark, twenty-six in St. Luke, and twelve times in St. John. It is remarkable that it never passed into the current language of the Apostolic Church, nor into the theological or liturgical phraseology of Christendom. It is not used in any one of the Epistles. Outside the Gospels it is found only in the exclamation of Stephen (Act. 7:56), with a manifest reference to Dan. 7:13, and possibly in the visions of the Apocalypse (Rev. 1:13; Rev. 14:14). The minds of believers loved to dwell on the glory of the risen Christ, and apparently looked on this as belonging rather to the time of His humiliation. Its absence from the other books of the New Testament, and its presence in the Gospels is, at all events, an indication that the latter were not the after-growth of a later age.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
20. Son of man This title designates our Lord as truly man, in distinction from his being also Son of God. This humbler title is used seventy-one times in the New Testament, and in every case, with a single exception, by our Lord himself. The martyr Stephen, (Act 7:56,) beholding his glorified humanity at the right hand of God, uses this epithet. Foxes have holes Wild animals have their regular habitations and their homes, but the divine One is homeless on earth.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And Jesus says to him, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the heaven have nesting places, but the Son of man has not where to lay his head.” ’
Jesus’ reply is to point out that while even the lowest of God’s creatures have their own homes and places of security, He Himself has no home, and nowhere to lay His head. To follow Him will involve putting aside all luxury, and even losing an average level of prosperity and security. It will involve facing roughness and hardship. It will be to sacrifice prestige. While such a life might not have caused a fisherman, who was used to hardship, to quail, it might well have made a scholar think twice. If the Scribe was hesitant about entering Gentile territory this would also confirm to him that to follow Jesus meant being willing to go anywhere, for he was being informed that those who followed Jesus had nowhere to call home, and therefore had no ties.
There is probably also behind the idea a recognition that to follow Him will soon result in even greater lack of security, and rejection from many places. He had Himself already experienced rejection by His own home town of Nazareth (Luk 4:29-30), which may well have been why His family later moved to Capernaum (Mat 4:13). And He will later make clear that in serving Him people may lose both family and friends (Mat 10:21-22; Mat 10:35-36). Thus the warning of coming hardship was necessary.
‘Nesting places.’ The word signifies a dwellingplace. Jesus might well have had in mind the holes in the mountains where the birds made their nests (Jer 48:28; Son 2:14), which would parallel the holes of the foxes, the idea including the fact that Jesus and His disciples had no hole to crawl into, and no place of security to hide in. They were therefore totally vulnerable.
‘The Son of Man.’ This is the first instance of the use of this term in Matthew. Shortly Jesus will point out that as the Son of Man He has the authority on earth to forgive sins (Mat 9:6). There He clearly sees the term as giving Him special status. It is a term which in the Gospels is only found on the lips of Jesus, apart from two examples where His use of the term is being cited by others. Thus it was not a term taken up by the early church, the only exception being Act 7:56 where it was used by Stephen of the glorious and enthroned Son of Man whom he saw during his martyrdom, and this exception is strong evidence that it was a term that otherwise only Jesus applied to Himself. The Son of Man Whom Stephen saw was the enthroned and glorified Christ.
In the Old Testament the term is used in order to indicate man in his lordship over creation (Psa 8:4), and man in his uniqueness as a law keeping being over against the wild beasts which represented ‘lawless’ man (Dan 7:13). Both result in the exaltation of the son of man over creation (Psa 8:5; Dan 7:14, compare Psa 80:17). It is used of Ezekiel as the chosen of YHWH, while emphasising his human weakness (e.g. Eze 2:1; and often, compare Psa 144:3; Psa 146:3; Isa 51:12). None of these references, however, in LXX exactly parallel Jesus’ use as depicted in the Gospels where it is with the definite article. This last fact should warn us against too glibly stating what the Aramaic was that lay behind it (in Revelation also it is used without the article).
Certainly one central aspect of its use by Jesus was as the son of man who came out from among the suffering of his people to the throne of God to receive glory and kingship (Mat 26:64; Dan 7:14), having come out of suffering (Dan 7:25; Dan 7:27). In this passage the son of man represents both the King and God’s righteous people, who because they are righteous thus behave like human beings should in obeying God’s Instruction, rather than behaving like wild beasts (who also represent both kings and nations).
The title thus includes both the thought of Jesus’ suffering and humiliation as man, and His final exaltation and enthronement as God’s chosen King. It will later be used of Jesus as the final great Judge of all (Mat 24:30-31).
(The only way in which all these aspects of the Son of Man can be avoided is either by altering the texts in a way which satisfies few, or by claiming that some of them were invented by the early church. But I have never yet come across a satisfactory explanation as to why, if the early church played with the text in this way and thought it useful to introduce such sayings, they showed the term as unused apart from on the lips of Jesus. If it was so useful we would have expected other references to abound. The truth is that the early church did not appreciate the term Son of Man and preferred rather to think of Jesus as the Christ. But that is fatal to any arguments that suggest that they introduced it into the text).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 8:20 . ] Places of abode , where, as in their quarters, so to speak (Polybius, xi. 26. 5), they used to dwell. Comp. Mat 13:32 ; Wis 9:8 ; Tob 1:4 ; 2Ma 14:35 . Not nests specially.
. [431] Jesus, who thus designates Himself by this title (in Act 7:56 Stephen does so likewise), means nothing else by it than “ the Messiah ,” according to its significant prophetic characteristic , which, assuming it to be known to those whom He addressed, the Lord claims for Himself. But this self-chosen title, the expression of His full Messianic consciousness, is not founded (Delitzsch, Kahnis, Dogm . I. p. 446), not even in the first place, at least (Keim), upon Psa 8:5 , seeing that evidence of a Messianic interpretation of this psalm is nowhere to be found in the New Testament (not even in Mat 21:16 ). Still less again must we start with the well-known usage in Eze 2:1 ; Eze 3:1 (Weizscker), which has nothing to do with the Messianic idea. Much rather is it to be traced, and, as specially appears from Mat 24:30 , Mat 26:64 , to be solely traced, to the impressive account of that prophetic vision, Dan 7:13 , so familiar to the Jews (Joh 12:34 ), and vividly reflected in the pre-Christian Book of Enoch, a vision in which the Messiah appears in the clouds, , , surrounded by the angels that stand beside the throne of the divine Judge, i.e. in a form which, notwithstanding His superhuman heavenly nature, is not different from that of an ordinary man. [432] Comp. Rev 1:13 ; Rev 14:14 ; Hengstenberg, Christol . III. 1, p. 10 f.; Schulze, alttest. Theol. II. p. 330 f.; Ewald, Gesch. Chr . p. 146 ff.; Schulze, p. 26 ff.; Weissenbach, p. 14 ff. The whole depended, then, on whether those who were present when Jesus named Himself the Son of man would understand this predicate in Daniel’s sense or not. In himself, however, this Son of man , whose form had been delineated in Daniel’s vision, was Jesus Himself, as the historical reality , in so far as in His person He who there appeared in heavenly form had come down to earth. As often, therefore, as Jesus, in speaking of Himself, uses the words, “the Son of man,” He means nothing else than “the Son of man in that prophecy of Daniel,” i.e. the Messiah. [433] But, behind the consciousness which led Him to appropriate to Himself this designation from Daniel, there was, at the same time, the correlative element of His divine Sonship, the necessary (in answer to Schleiermacher) conviction, more decidedly brought out in John, of His divine pre-existence (as Logos), the of which He had left behind, in order, as the heavenly personage in Daniel’s vision, , to appear in a form of existence not originally belonging to Him. And so far those are right, who, following the Fathers, have recognised (Grotius contradicted by Calovius) the Pauline in this self-designation, based as it is upon the consciousness of His pre-existent divinity. Comp. Chrysostom on Joh 3:13 , where he says: Jesus has so named Himself ; and Augustine, de consens. ev . ii. 1, who observes: in this we are taught “quid misericorditer dignatus sit esse pro nobis.” It is to import ideas historically inconsistent with Dan 7 , when, in spite of the definite nature of the expression in Dan 7:13 , it has been so understood as if Christ meant thereby to describe Himself as the man in the highest sense of the word, as the second Adam, as the ideal of humanity (Herder, Bhme, Neander, Ebrard, Olshausen, Kahnis, Gess, Lange, Weisse, Beyschlag, Wittichen), or as the man toward whom, as its aim , the whole history of humanity since Adam has been tending (Hofmann, Schriftbew . II. 1, p. 81; Thomasius, Chr. Per. u. Werk , II. p. 15), or as the true man renewed after the image of God (Schenkel), as He who is filled with the whole fulness of God (Colani), and such like. Fritzsche supposes Jesus to have meant, filius ille parentum humanorum, qui nunc loquitur, homo ille, quem bene nostis , i.e. ego , and that, on the strength of Dan 7:13 , the Christians were the first to ascribe to the words the signification of Messiah . This would only be conceivable if had happened to be a current self-designation in general , in which case it would not be necessary to presuppose a special historical reason why Jesus should so frequently have used the title in reference to Himself. Consequently Baur is likewise in error in thinking that the expression denotes the man as such who stands aloof from nothing human, and esteems nothing human foreign to himself . In like manner Holtzmann’s view, viz. that Jesus intends to describe His central place in the circle of the , is at variance with the original meaning of the phrase as used in Daniel, and rests upon inferences from expressions which Jesus, while designated as above, has used in reference to Himself, which predicates , however, cannot determine the meaning of the subject . This, at the same time, in answer to Weizscker, p. 428 ff., who thinks that by that expression Jesus had endeavoured to bring His followers to a higher spiritual conception of the Messiah , for whom it was possible to appear without royal splendour . In . He describes Himself as the great Messiah, and that in the form of a human life, but not specially as the lowly , self-humbling servant of humanity (Keim), or he who is intimately bound up with humanity (Gess, I. p. 186). According to the corresponding passages elsewhere, ideas of this sort are found first to emerge in predicates, and, as a rule, in the course of the context; which, however, is not the case here, where the main point is the contrast , as seen in the fact that He who is that son of man of the prophet’s vision has not where to lay His weary head. Finally, Holsten asserts what is contrary to the whole Christology of the New Testament, as well as irreconcilable with Rom 1:3 f., when he says that as Messiah of the , Jesus is Daniel’s , and that as Messiah of the future He passes over into the form of existence belonging to the , which latter He is in this present era of time, as being the Son of man, destined to become the Son of God. In the analysis of the phrase, is to be understood neither of Adam (Gregory Nazienzen, Erasmus) nor of the Virgin Mary (Euth. Zigabenus), but, according to Dan. l.c. , to be taken generically; so that, as far as the essential meaning goes, it is in no way different from the anarthrous in Daniel.
. ] i.e. a resting-place , a sleeping-place which He can call His own. Of course an evidence of poverty (in contrast to the earthly aims of the scribe, which the eye of Jesus had fully penetrated), but of that which is connected with an unsettled life, which is not necessarily to be identified with want (Joh 13:29 ; Joh 12:5 ; Joh 19:23 ).
[431] For the idea of the Son of man, see Scholten, de appell . . . 1809; Bhme, Geheimniss d. Menschensohnes , 1839; Gass, de utroque J. Chr. nomine , 1840; Nebe, b. d. Begr. des Namens . . 1860; Baur in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr . 1860, p. 274 ff.; Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr . 1863, p. 330 ff.; Holtzmann in the same Zeitschr . 1865, p. 213 ff.; Schulze, vom Menschensohn u. v. Logos , 1867; Weissenbach, Jesu in regno coel. dignitas , 1868; Gess, Christi Person u. Werk , I. 1870, pp. 185 ff., 208 ff.; Keim, Gesch. Jesu , II. p. 65 ff.; Beyschlag, Christol. d. N. T. p. 9 ff.; Ewald, Gesch. Chr . p. 304 f., Exo 3 ; Wittichen, Idee des Menschen , 1868; Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr . 1868, p. 179 ff.; Colani, J. Chr. et les croyances messian . p. 112 ff., Exo 2 ; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 53 ff., Exo 2 ; Volkmar, d. Evangelien , 1870, p. 197 ff.
[432] Hitzig, Schenkel, Keim understand by “the son of man” in Daniel, not the Messiah, but the people of Israel . This, however, is unquestionably wrong. See, on the other hand, Ewald, Jahrb . III. p. 231 f. On the son of man in the Book of Enoch, see Dillmann, d. B. Henoch , p. xx. ff.; Ewald, Gesch. Chr . p. 147; Weizscker, p. 428; Weissenbach, p. 16 ff.; Wittichen, Idee des Menschen , p. 66 ff. On insufficient grounds, Hilgenfeld is disposed to delete ch. 37 71 of the Book of Enoch as a Christian interpolation.
[433] Mar 8:27 ff., where the settled faith of the disciples is contrasted with the views of the people, is plainly a very decisive passage (in answer to Weisse, Evangelienfrage , p. 212 f.) in favour of the Messianic nature of the expression; for in ver. 31 of that chapter is evidently identical with , ver. 30. On Joh 12:34 , see the notes on that passage. Comp. also on Mat 16:13 , which passage, according to Hofmann, Weiss. u. Erf . II. p. 19, Schriftbew . II. 1, p. 79, and Kahnis, is also supposed to contradict our explanation of the . Only let it be carefully observed that the expression, “the son of man,” is not directly synonymous with “the Messiah,” but acquired this definite meaning for others only when first they came to refer it, in Daniel’s sense, to Jesus, so that it did not immediately involve the idea of “the Messiah,” but came to do so through the application, on the part of believers, of Daniel’s prophetic vision. But we must avoid ascribing to this self-designation any purpose of concealment (Ritschl in d. theolog. Jahrb . 1851, p. 514; Weisse, Wittichen, Holtzmann, Colani, Hilgenfeld), all the more that Jesus so styles Himself in the hearing of His disciples (already in Joh 1:51 ). Comp. with Mar 2:8 . And He so names Himself in the consciousness that in Him the above prediction has been fulfilled . For those, indeed, who did not share this belief, this designation of Himself continued, as well it might, to be mysterious and unintelligible, as Mat 16:13 . But to suppose that Jesus has chosen it “to avoid the consequences of a haphazard Messianic title” (Holtzmann), would be to impute a calculating reserve which would scarcely be consistent with His character.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
Ver. 20. The foxes have holes, &c. ] q.d. Exigua mihi sunt subsidia aut praesidia. Nudus opum, sed cui coelum terraque paterent, as Ennius said of Archimedes. The great Architect of the world had not a house to put his head in; but emptied himself of all, and became poor to make us rich, not in goods, but in grace, not in worldly wealth, but in the true treasure, , Phi 2:7 ; 2Co 8:9 . Say we with that Father, Christi paupertas meum est patrimonium: prefer the reproach of Christ before the treasures of Egypt, Heb 11:26 ; and if, besides and with Christ, we have food and raiment, let us therewith rest content, 1Ti 6:8 . Say we have no house on earth, we have one in heaven not made with hands. Those good souls dwelt in “dens and caves of the earth,” yea, “wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins,” Heb 11:37-38 , that might have rustled in their silks and velvets, that might (Nebuchadnezzar-like) have vaunted themselves on their stately turrets and palaces, if they would have let go Christ. But that, they knew well, had been to make a fool’s bargain.
But the Son of man, &c. ] So he styles himself either to note the truth of his humanity or the depth of his abasement; the Son of God became the son of man, which was, as one said in a like case, to fall from the court to the cart, from a palace to a gallows. Among all the prophets, Ezekiel is most frequently styled the son of man, and that purposely; to keep him low amidst his many rare raptures and revelations. The heathen, when they would set forth a man miserable indeed, they called him , thrice a man.
Hath not whereon to lay his head ] That the Messiah when he cometh shall not have whereon to sit, where to rest his body, is affirmed by the Jewish Gemarists. Our Saviour may seem here to allude to such a tradition.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
20. ] “It is thought that this phrase was taken from Dan 7:13 , to which passage our Saviour seems to allude in ch. Mat 26:64 , and probably Stephen in Act 7:56 . It appears from Joh 12:34 , that the Jews understood it to mean the Messiah: and from Luk 22:69-70 , that they considered the Son of Man to mean the same as the Son of God .” Dr. Burton. It is the name by which the Lord ordinarily in one pregnant word designates Himself as the Messiah the Son of God manifested in the flesh of man the second Adam . And to it belong all those conditions, of humiliation, suffering, and exaltation, which it behoved the Son of Man to go through.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 8:20 , . Jesus distrusted the class , and the man , who might be better than the average, still he was a scribe. Christ’s feeling was not an unreasoning or invincible prejudice, but a strong suspicion and aversion justified by insight and experience. Therefore He purposely paints the prospect in sombre colours to prevent a connection which could come to no good. , etc.: a notable saying; one of the outstanding logia of Jesus, in style and spirit characteristic; not querulous, as if lamenting His lot, but highly coloured to repel an undesirable follower. Foxes have holes, and birds resting places, roosts (not nests, which are used only for breeding), but : a remarkable designation occurring here for the first time. It means much for the Speaker, who has chosen it deliberately, in connection with private reflections, at whose nature we can only guess by study of the many occasions on which the name is used. Here it seems to mean the man simpliciter (son of man = man in Hebrew or Syriac), the unprivileged Man : not only no exception to the rule of ordinary human experience in the way of being better off, but rather an exception in the way of being worse off; for the rule is, that all living creatures, even beasts, and still more men, have their abodes, however humble. If it be Messianic, it is in a hidden enigmatical way. The whole speech is studiously enigmatical, and calculated to chill the scribe’s enthusiasm. Was Jesus speaking in parables here, and hinting at something beyond the literal privations of His life as a wanderer with no fixed home? The scribe had his spiritual home in Rabbinical traditions, and would not be at ease in the company of One who had broken with them. Jesus had no place where He could lay His head in the religion of His time ( vide my With Open Face , chap. 9).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
unto him. No Preposition.
air = heaven.
nests = roosts.
the Son of Man. He Who has dominion in the earth. The first of eighty-seven occurrences. See App-98. to lay = He may lay. Compare Rev 14:14. Rev 14:21
another = a different one: Greek. heteros. i.e. a disciple, not a “scribe” (Mat 8:19). App-124.
suffer me, &c. = allow me, &c. This was, and is to-day, a polite way of excusing one’s self, it being well understood as such, because all knew that the dead are buried on the day of the death, and no one leaves the house.
first. No! See Mat 6:33.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
20. ] It is thought that this phrase was taken from Dan 7:13, to which passage our Saviour seems to allude in ch. Mat 26:64, and probably Stephen in Act 7:56. It appears from Joh 12:34, that the Jews understood it to mean the Messiah: and from Luk 22:69-70, that they considered the Son of Man to mean the same as the Son of God. Dr. Burton. It is the name by which the Lord ordinarily in one pregnant word designates Himself as the Messiah-the Son of God manifested in the flesh of man-the second Adam. And to it belong all those conditions, of humiliation, suffering, and exaltation, which it behoved the Son of Man to go through.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 8:20. , …, and Jesus saith unto him, etc.) Our Lord does not repulse this man, but he proposes a condition by which to correct the view with which he made the offer respecting comfort or wealth, or even the power of working miracles.- , the Son of man) See Gnomon on ch. Mat 16:13.- , …, hath not, etc.) O admirable poverty and endurance, combined with perpetual pilgrimage.[378]
[378] Neither had He a house of His own, nor a fixed dwelling anywhere, Mar 1:45. The Scribe regarded it as an easier matter than it really was, to follow Him whithersoever He was going.-Harm., p. 269.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Son of man
(See Scofield “Eze 2:1”). Our Lord thus designates Himself about eighty times. It is His racial name as the representative Man, in the sense of 1Co 15:45-47 as Son of David is distinctly his Jewish name, and Son of God His divine name. Our Lord constantly uses this term as implying that his mission (e.g.); Mat 11:19; Luk 19:10. His death and resurrection (e.g.); Mat 12:40; Mat 20:18; Mat 26:2 and His second coming (e.g.); Mat 24:37-44; Luk 12:40 transcended in scope and result all merely Jewish imitations. When Nathanael confesses him as “King of Israel,” our Lord’s answer is, “Thou shalt see greater things.. . the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” When His messengers are cast out by the Jews, His thought leaps forward to the time when the Son of man shall come, not then to Israel only but to the race; Mat 10:5; Mat 10:6; Mat 8:23. It is in this name, also, that universal judgment is committed to Him Joh 5:22; Joh 5:27. It is also a name indicating that in Him is fulfilled the O.T. foreview of blessing through a coming man. See Scofield “Gen 1:26”; Gen 3:15; Gen 12:3; Psa 8:4; Psa 80:17; Isa 7:14; Isa 9:6; Isa 9:7; Isa 32:2; Zec 13:7; Isa 32:2; Zec 13:7.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
and: Psa 84:3, Psa 104:17
the Son: Psa 40:17, Psa 69:29, Psa 109:22, Isa 53:2, Isa 53:3, Luk 2:7, Luk 2:12, Luk 2:16, Luk 8:3, 2Co 8:9
Reciprocal: Gen 28:11 – took 2Sa 15:21 – surely Psa 8:4 – son Mat 8:14 – into Mat 16:13 – I the Mar 4:16 – which Luk 9:57 – a certain Luk 14:28 – counteth 1Co 4:11 – and have Heb 11:37 – being destitute
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
8:20
To follow Jesus at that time meant to go bodily over the country with him and with no certain arrangement for personal comfort. The foxes and birds had fixed places of abode and always knew where they would lodge. However, we should not take the saying of Jesus to mean that he would be like a friendless wayfarer with no chance of accommodations at night. We are sure that he had friends (such as the family of Lazarus) who gladly opened their homes for him. But he did not hold possession of any such a place so that he could provide the comforts of temporal life for his followers, hence there was no object in following him with such luxuries in view. There is no ground for saying this verse is a statement to show how “poor” Jesus became as a popular notion claims for it.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 8:20. And Jesus saith unto him. The answer alone reveals an improper motive in the proposal.
Foxes have holes, etc., caves, dens.
Birds of the heaven have nests, more literally, lodging places. The two represent the lower order of animals.
The Son of Man. A term applied to no one else, and often applied by our Lord to himself; used in Dan 7:13, in reference to the Messiah seen in a vision. The prominent idea is that of the second Adam, but it also implies that Jesus was the Messiah. The thought here is of His real humanity, His capability of suffering and privation, in opposition to the carnal expectation of the Jews, shared no doubt by this scribe. The prophecy of Isaiah (Mat 8:17) seems to have led Matthew to introduce this similar thought in the midst of a series of miracles.
Hath not where to lay his head. He did not own a dwelling, as even the foxes and birds do; but we have no reason to believe that He ever suffered from want of a lodging. Immediately after we are told how He slept in the cabinless boat on the lake. Overdrawn portrayals of our Lords poverty are always out of place, yet He who as Son of man was the crown of creation, did not possess what the humbler animals claim, a home.
Mat 8:21. And another of the disciples. Certainly one who had already attended our Lords teachings. The conversation, according to Luke (Luk 9:59), began with the formal request of our Lord: Follow me. This verse sounds like a response to such a command. Tradition says it was Philip; but our Lord had said, Follow me to him first of all Apostles (Joh 1:43). As wavering is implied, it may have been Thomas (Lange).
Suffer me first to go away and bury my father. The father was already dead, and the disciple wanted to go home and attend to all the funeral ceremonies, intending to return and follow Christ.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 20
The Son of man. The Savior very generally spoke of himself in this way; but commentators have found great difficulty in determining the import of the expression. The phrase is used in four different modes in the Scriptures. 1. It is often employed in the Psalms and other similar writings, meaning man generally, as in the passage, “Put not your trust in the son of man,”–and in many others. 2. It occurs frequently in the book of Ezekiel, as the mode by which the Divine Spirit addressed the prophet, when directing him in regard to his prophetic communications; as, “Thou, also, son of man, take thee a tile,” &c. It is remarkable that this use of the expression is confined to the prophet Ezekiel. 3. It is used three times in prophetic writings as a mode of designating the Messiah. (Daniel 7:13; Revelation 1:13,14:14.) 4. It was the common expression used by our Savior when speaking of himself; but it is noticeable that no instance in which he was addressed or personally designated in this way, by any other individual, is on record. It is, on the whole, most probable that Jesus adopted the expression from its use in Daniel 7:13, as a mode of distinctly designating himself as the Messiah, and yet as one less likely than others to excite suddenly the public attention.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
8:20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air [have] {e} nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his] head.
(e) Literally, “shades made with boughs”.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Jesus’ reply did not encourage or discourage the scribe. It simply helped him count the cost of following Him as a disciple. Jesus was very busy traveling from one place to another as an itinerant preacher and teacher. His healing ministry complicated His life because it attracted crowds that placed additional demands on Him. He had no regular home, as most people did, but traveled all over the region. The scribe needed to understand this if he wanted to keep up with Jesus. We should not interpret Jesus’ statement to mean that He was penniless and could not afford shelter at night (cf. Luk 8:1-3). His ministry simply kept Him on the move.
Jesus called Himself "the Son of Man." This expression occurs 81 times in the Gospels, 69 times in the Synoptics, and 30 times in Matthew. [Note: For a good introduction to the meaning of this term, see Hagner’s excursus, pp. 214-15, or Carson’s excursus in "Matthew," pp. 209-13.] In every instance except two it was a term Jesus used of Himself. In those two instances it is a term others who were quoting Jesus used (Luk 24:7; Joh 12:34). Though it occurs in several Old Testament passages, as well as in apocryphal Jewish literature, its use in Dan 7:13-14 is messianic. There "one like a son of man" approaches the Ancient of Days and receives "authority, glory, and sovereign power." He also receives "an everlasting dominion that will not pass away" in which "all peoples, nations, and men of every language" worship Him. By using this title Jesus was claiming to be the divine Messiah.
"It is His name as the representative Man, in the sense of 1Co 15:45-47, as Son of David is distinctively His Jewish name, and Son of God His divine name. Our Lord constantly uses this term as implying that His mission (e.g. Mat 11:19; Luk 19:10), His death and resurrection (e.g. Mat 12:40; Mat 20:18; Mat 26:2), and His second coming (e.g. Mat 24:37-44; Luk 12:40) transcend in scope and result all merely Jewish limitations." [Note: The New Scofield . . ., p. 1004.]
However most of Jesus’ hearers probably did not associate this title with a messianic claim when they first heard it. Many of them were probably not well enough acquainted with Dan 7:13-14 to understand its meaning. Many who did understand its significance held a concept of Messiah that the rabbis had distorted. Furthermore other Old Testament references to the son of man were not messianic. For example, David used the term to refer to man generically (Psa 8:4). Asaph used it to describe Israel (Psa 80:17). In the Book of Ezekiel it is a favorite term God used when He addressed Ezekiel to stress the prophet’s humanity.
God used this term many times in the Old Testament to stress the difference between frail mortal man and God Himself. [Note: John Bowker, "The Son of Man," Journal of Theological Studies 28 (1977):19-48.] Jesus’ use of the title combined both the messianic and mortal ideas. He was both the Messiah King and the Suffering Servant of the Lord. Some who heard Him use this title probably did not know what it meant. Others understood Jesus’ claim to messiahship, and others thought He was simply referring to Himself in a humble way.
". . . ’the Son of man’ is not of the nature of a Christological title the purpose of which is to inform the reader of ’who Jesus is.’ Instead, it is a self-designation that is also a technical term, and it describes Jesus as ’the man,’ or ’the human being’ (’this man,’ or ’this human being’) (earthly, suffering, vindicated). It is ’in public’ or with a view to the ’public,’ or ’world’ (Jews and Gentiles but especially opponents), that Jesus refers to himself as ’the Son of man’ (’this man’). Through his use of this self-reference, Jesus calls attention, for one thing, to the divine authority that he (’this man’) exercises now and will also exercise in the future and, for another thing, to the opposition that he (’this man’) must face. And should the question be raised as to who ’this man’ Jesus is, the answer is, as Peter correctly confesses, that he is the Son of God (Mat 16:13; Mat 16:16)." [Note: Kingsbury, Matthew as . . ., p. 103. This author wrote a lucid chapter on "Jesus’ Use of ’the Son of Man,’" pp. 95-103.]
"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 preexisting model. Like his parables, the title ’the Son of Man’ came with an air of enigma, challenging the hearer to think new thoughts rather than to slot Jesus into a ready-made pigeonhole." [Note: France, The Gospel . . ., p. 327.]
In Mat 8:20 "the Son of Man" occurs in a context that stresses Jesus’ humanity. The scribe would have understood Jesus to mean that if he followed Jesus he could anticipate a humble, even uncomfortable, existence. He should also have understood, since he was a teacher of the Old Testament, that Jesus was claiming to be Israel’s Messiah.
Anyone who wants to follow Jesus closely as a disciple must be willing to give up many of the normal comforts of life. Following Him involves embarking on a God-given mission in life. Going where He directs and doing what he commands must take precedence over enjoying the normal comforts of life when these conflict. Discipleship is difficult.