Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 8:20 - 8:20
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_8:20. Κατασκηνώσεις ] 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.
ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρ .[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 (Weizsäcker), 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, ëÌÀáÇø àÁðÈùÑ , Ὡς ΥἹῸς ἈΝΘΡΏΠΟΥ , 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 δόξα of which He had left behind, in order, as the heavenly personage in Daniel’s vision, Ὡς ΥἹῸς ἈΝΘΡΏΠΟΥ , 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 ΚΈΝΩΣΙς 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 ἈΠῸ Τῆς ἘΛΆΤΤΟΝΟς ΟὐΣΊΑς ; 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 Daniel 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, Böhme, 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 ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου 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 υἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων , 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 Weizsäcker, 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 ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρ . 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 αἰὼν οὗτος , Jesus is Daniel’s ΥἹῸς ΤΟῦ ἈΝΘΡΏΠΟΥ , and that as Messiah of the future αἰών He passes over into the form of existence belonging to the ΥἹῸς ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ , 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, τοῦ ἀνθρώπου 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 ἀνθρώπου in Daniel.
ΠΟῦ ΤῊΝ ΚΕΦ . ΚΛΊΝῌ ] 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. τοῦ υἱοῦ τ . ἀνθρωπ . 1809; Böhme, Geheimniss d. Menschensohnes, 1839; Gass, de utroque J. Chr. nomine, 1840; Nebe, üb. d. Begr. des Namens ὁ υἱὸς τ . ἀνθρ . 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., ed. 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., ed. 2; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 53 ff., ed. 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; Weizsäcker, 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 ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου is evidently identical with ὁ Χριστός , 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 υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου . 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.