O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them
which are sent unto thee, how often
would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her
chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (Matt. 23:37).
FREE OFFER ARGUMENT:
This is one of the most popular texts appealed to by proponents of the
“well-meant offer” or “free offer,” namely, an earnest desire of God to save
all men head for head, including the reprobate. Christ is said to be expressing a desire for
the salvation of individuals that never came about. His desire was frustrated
by the wills of men. He was disappointed. He was saddened and sorrowful.
One “free offer” advocate puts it this way:
“Jesus expresses with great pathos his longing to gather Jerusalem’s
children under his wings. Jesus longs to—but they have been unwilling! The
unwillingness is not on Jesus’s part but on the part of the inhabitants of
Jerusalem. This unwillingness speaks of the depth of sin, the obstinacy of
rebels against God and his gospel. The text, however, confirms the desire of
Jesus that sinners respond to his invitation.”
(I)
Rev. Angus Stewart
[Source: “Does Matthew 23:37 Teach the Well-Meant
Offer?”—originally published in the Covenant Reformed News, vol. 10, nos. 3-5 (July-Sept 2004)]
This text has been
abused by Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, Arminians and “Well-Meant Offer” men to
teach that God desires to save all the people of Jerusalem (and, by extension,
everybody in the world) but many of them perish. “See,” the “Well-Meant Offer”
men say, “Christ wished to save Jerusalem, but they would not let Him. Here is
a universal desire of God for the salvation of everybody.” The Arminians go a
step further: “Thus there is no reprobation of some and no election of others.
Also God’s grace must be resistible, for, though God wanted to save everybody,
man’s will stopped Him.”
However, Christ does not
say that He willed to gather Jerusalem but Jerusalem resisted. Nor does He say
that He willed to gather Jerusalem’s children but Jerusalem’s children
resisted. Christ says that He willed to gather Jerusalem’s children but Jerusalem resisted.
Christ speaks here of two different groups: Jerusalem and Jerusalem’s children. He says different things about
these two groups: Jerusalem killed and stoned God’s prophets and messengers;
Christ willed to gather Jerusalem’s children; Jerusalem did not will that
Christ gather Jerusalem’s children.
What is meant by “Jerusalem”
here? Jerusalem refers to the religious leaders of Israel, the scribes and
Pharisees. Read Matthew 23: Christ denounces the “scribes and Pharisees [as]
hypocrites” (cf. esp. vv. 13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29). They are Jerusalem, as
the religious representatives of the
people. This form of speech is used frequently, for example, “Washington” is
often used for the political leaders of the US. Jerusalem’s “children” are not the leaders,
but those led—the common people. Like children, the common people
were not learned and needed religious guidance. They are the ones Christ willed
to gather under His wings of salvation (cf. Ps. 17:8; 91:4). To speak even more
precisely, they are the true children of the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:26),
the ones whom the Son of man “came to seek and to save” (Luke 19:10), the ones
given to Christ by His Father (John 6:37, 39).
Christ willed to save
Jerusalem’s children, but Jerusalem (the religious leaders) did not will it.
This does not mean that they thwarted Christ’s will. After Christ says that He
willed to gather Jerusalem’s children, He does not say that they thwarted Him.
Instead, He says, “ye would not!” These words alone do not say whether or not
the scribes and Pharisees managed to stop Christ gathering His children. Instead,
they expose the wickedness of the
religious leaders. Their whole calling, as teachers in God’s church, was to work for the gathering of God’s children.
But when the Messiah came to gather His children, they opposed His work: “ye
would not!” No wonder Christ cursed them: “Behold, your house is left unto you
desolate” (Matt. 23:38).
The scribes and
Pharisees did all they could to stop the Messiah from gathering His elect
chickens. They asked Him questions trying to trip Him up (Matt. 22). They said
that His teaching contradicted Moses and that His miracles were done by the
power of the devil. They agreed to excommunicate those who confessed Him as Christ
(John 9:22). Jesus cried: “But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in
yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in” (Matt. 23:13).
Yet their calling was to point the people to Christ!
Some claim that though
Christ willed to gather Jerusalem’s children (true), Jerusalem stopped Him (false). The text itself
does not say whether or not Christ was successful in gathering Jerusalem’s
children. It merely teaches that Christ desired to gather His people and that
the scribes and Pharisees did not will it. Whether He did gather Jerusalem’s
children or whether He failed must be ascertained from elsewhere.
We know that Christ
gathered Lazarus, Mary and Martha, blind Bartimaeus, Zacchaeus, Nicodemus,
Joseph of Arimathea, etc. As Jesus said,
“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto
them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck
them out of my hand” (John 10:27-28). Also, “the sheep follow [Christ]: for
they know his voice. And a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from
him: for they know not the voice of strangers” (John 10:4-5). Christ came to do
God’s will (John 4:34; 6:38) and God’s will is always done: “But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased” (Ps. 115:3). “Whatsoever
the Lord pleased, that did he in
heaven and in earth” (Ps. 135:6).
As Augustine put it:
Our Lord says plainly, however, in the Gospel, when upbraiding the
impious city: “How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a
hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” as if the will
of God had been overcome by the will of men, and when the weakest stood in the
way with their want of will, the will of the strongest could not be carried
out. And where is that omnipotence which hath done all that it pleased on earth
and in heaven, if God willed to gather together the children of Jerusalem, and
did not accomplish it? Or rather, Jerusalem was not willing that her children
should be gathered together, but even though she was unwilling, He gathered
together as many of her children as He wished: for He does not will some things
and do them, and will others and do them not; but “He hath done all that He pleased
in heaven and in earth” (The Enchiridion, xcvii).
* * *
* * *
*
Many reckon that Christ
uttered these words with love and tender pity, but the context reveals that He
is denouncing the scribes and
Pharisees. Seven times He curses
them, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” (vv. 13, 14, 15, 23,
25, 27, 29). He calls them “blind” “fools” (vv. 16, 17, 19, 24, 26). He asks, “Ye
serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”
(v. 33). He designates them murderers
(vv. 34, 35, 37). Our text is a “warning” (Thomas Manton) and an “upbraiding”
(Augustine) uttered in “indignation” (Calvin) against the wicked religious
guides. The emphatic repetition, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem” (v.37), was uttered
in righteous displeasure against the corrupt leaders who had perverted the law
(vv. 2-30) and were ripe for judgment (vv. 31-39). Thus He adds, immediately
after our text, “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate” (v. 38).
Some teach that Christ’s
words, “how often would I have gathered thy children ... and ye
would not,” imply that Christ’s will to gather Jerusalem’s children was “frustrated.”
However, “how often” simply tells us that the religious leaders (“Jerusalem”) opposed Christ’s gathering His elect
(“Jerusalem’s children”) many times. They did this for several years, right
through His public ministry. They opposed Him in His miracles (attributing them
to Beelzebub); they opposed Him in His teaching. They opposed Him with the
tradition of the elders; they opposed Him with their erroneous interpretation
of Moses. They opposed Him in the countryside; they opposed Him in Jerusalem;
they opposed Him in the temple precincts; they opposed Him at His trial. They
opposed Him by hiring Judas to betray Him; by whipping up the crowd to cry out,
“Crucify him!” and by putting pressure on Pilate to have Him executed. How
often they opposed Him, and yet He gathered blind Bartimaeus,
Zacchaeus and all the rest!
The wicked leaders so
strongly opposed Christ’s gathering His people that they had Him executed on
trumped-up charges as a criminal. Yet the cross was the very means God ordained
to save His elect! O Jehovah, even the wrath of man shall praise thee! Psalm 2
is similar: “The kings and rulers take counsel together against the Lord and
against His Christ” (vv. 1-3). They nail Him to the tree. But God laughs at
them (v. 4), for this is the very way in which He brings His Son to His
universal dominion: “Yet have I set my king upon my holy mount of Zion” (v. 6).
Thus Matthew 23:37,
instead of teaching the “well-meant offer” (a frustrated desire of God to save
the reprobate), is Christ’s indignant upbraiding of wicked religious leaders
who tried to stop Him from saving His
people. How this Word needs to be heard! Liberal ministers and Roman
priests try to prevent their church members from hearing the true gospel. They
slander the Reformed faith. Many unbelieving husbands, wives and family members
oppose believers attending church services. Yet Christ the king gathers all Jerusalem’s
children by His irresistible grace!
-----------------------------------------------------
[The following
list of historical quotes is the fine work of Rev. Angus Stewart, minister of
the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church in Northern Ireland (www.cprf.co.uk).]
-----------------------------------------------------
(II)
Augustine
(354-430)
[Source: The Enchiridion, xcvii]
Our Lord says plainly, however, in the
Gospel, when upbraiding the impious city: “How often would I have gathered thy
children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye
would not!” as if the will of God had been overcome by the will of men, and
when the weakest stood in the way with their want of will, the will of the
strongest could not be carried out. And where is that omnipotence which hath
done all that it pleased on earth and in heaven, if God willed to gather
together the children of Jerusalem, and did not accomplish it? Or rather,
Jerusalem was not willing that her children should be gathered together, but
even though she was unwilling, He gathered together as many of her children as
He wished: for He does not will some things and do them, and will others and do
them not; but “He hath done all that He pleased in heaven and in earth”
-----------------------------------------------------
(III)
Fulgentius
of Ruspe (468-533)
[Source: De remissione peccatorum 2.2, 3; quoted
in Francis X. Gumerlock,Fulgentius of Ruspe on the Saving Will of God: The
Development of a Sixth-Century African Bishop’s Interpretation of I Timothy 2:4
During the Semi-Pelagian Controversy (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen
Press, 2009), p. 64]
Whence our Savior reproves the
malevolence of the unbelieving city with these words: Jerusalem, Jerusalem,
you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned
to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings,
but you were unwilling (Matt. 23:37). Christ said this to show its
evil will by which it tried in vain to resist the invincible divine will, when
God’s good will neither could be conquered by those whom it deserts nor could
not be able to accomplish anything which it wanted. That Jerusalem, insofar as
it attained to its will, did not wish its children to be gathered to the Savior,
but still he gathered all whom he willed. In this it wanted to resist the
omnipotent but was unable to because God, who, as it is written, Whatever
the Lord pleases, he does (Ps. 135:6), converts to himself whomever he
wills by a free justification, coming beforehand with his gift of
superabounding grace on those whom he could justly damn if he wished.
-----------------------------------------------------
(IV)
Peter Martyr
Vermigli (1499-1562)
[Source: Predestination and Justification (Kirksville, MO: Truman
State University Press, 2003), pp. 64-65]
They [i.e., our Roman Catholic
adversaries] bring up a saying of Christ’s: “How often would I have gathered
your children together as a hen gathers her chicks, and you would not?” Here
also it is the antecedent will of the sign that is meant. God through his
prophets, preachers, apostles, and Scriptures invited the Jews to fly to him by
repentance time after time, but they refused, but by his effective will, which
is called consequent, he always drew to himself those who were his. Nor was
there any age when he did not gather as many of the Hebrews as he had
predestined. Therefore, as Augustine said, those that I would, I have gathered
together, although you would not.
-----------------------------------------------------
(V)
John Calvin
(1509-1564)
(a)
Now let Pighius boast, if he can, that
God wills all men to be saved ... I will only cite one passage, which clearly
and briefly proves how Augustine despised, without reservation, their objection
now in question. “When our Lord complains that though he wished to gather the
children of Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, but she
would not [Matt. 23:37], are we to consider that the will of God was
overpowered by a number of weak men, so that he who was Almighty God could not
do what he wished or willed to do? If so, what is to become of that omnipotence
by which he did ‘whatsoever pleased him in heaven and in earth’ [Ps. 135:6]?
Moreover, who will be found so profanely mad as to say that God cannot convert
the evil wills of men which he pleases, when he pleases, and as he pleases, to
good? When he does this, he does it in mercy; and when he does it not, in
judgment he does it not.”
(b)
[Source: Richard A. Muller, “A Tale of Two Wills? Calvin, Amyraut, and
Du Moulin on Ezekiel 18:23,” in Calvin and the Reformed Tradition on
the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker, 2012), p. 115]
In all three places [including his
commentary on Matthew 23:37], Calvin denies that God has two wills—and,
significantly, even when he comments on the double (duplex)
manifestation of God’s willing, he refers to the will in the singular. Amyraut’s
language, by contrast, consistently identifies two wills corresponding to two
divine mercies.
-----------------------------------------------------
(VI)
John Knox
(c. 1514-1572)
[Source: On Predestination, in Answer to the Cavillations by an
Anabaptist (1560), pp. 320, 327-328; cf. 164-165; spelling and
punctuation modernized]
[According to Knox’s Anabaptist
adversary] Christ, as he witnesseth himself, would have gathered the
Jerusalemites together, as the hen her chickens, yet would they not [misquoting
Matthew 23:37]. God would that the Israelites should enter into the land of
Canaan, and they would not ... [According to Knox] Because the Scriptures,
which you heap together, be either plainly repugnant to your error, or else
make nothing for probation of the same, I will so shortly as I can go through
them, only noting wherein you abuse the words and mind of the Holy Ghost. The
words of our Master, spoken in the 23rd chapter of Matthew’s Gospel, serve nothing
for your purposes ... If you dare say, that Christ in that place meaneth, in
that he would have gathered those murderers, and sons of murderers, as he doth
witness he doth gather his chosen flock, himself will convict you of a lie. For
he affirmeth the same to the Scribes and Pharisees, to whom principally he
spake in that place, that they were not of his sheep [John 10:26], and that
therefore they could not be gathered to his fold; that they were not of God,
and therefore that they could not hear his voice [John 8:47]; that he did not
pray for the world [John 17:9], and therefore they could never be united to
God. You must declare how that God would that those Israelites, whose carcasses
fell in the wilderness, should enter into the land promised. If you say, by any
other will than by his general principle given, that they should go and possess
it, you shall lack the testimony of the Holy Ghost. I have declared causes most
just and most sufficient, why God shall command that which is just, right, and
laudable, albeit that man neither can perform his commandments, neither yet
that it was God’s eternal will and counsel that all men should so do. And
further, I have declared just causes why God doth call many to repentance and
felicity, and yet that he chooseth a certain to attain thereto, and enter the
same. And so, I say, you must prove that God did otherwise will them to enter
into the land than by his general commandment, before you be able to prove that
any thing is done against the eternal and immutable will of God.
-----------------------------------------------------
(VII)
Pierre du
Moulin (1568–1658)
[Source: Anatomie of Arminianism (London: T. S. for
Nathaniel Newbery, 1620), pp. 36-37; cf. p. 479]
[Matthew 23:37] signifieth quite
another thing [than Arminius supposes]. Christ speaks to Jerusalem, and saith,
that he would have gathered his children together; but Jerusalem herself
resisted, with all her power. Jerusalem is one thing, and her children another,
who here are expressly distinguished from the city: By Jerusalem understand the
priests, the Levites, the scribes, and the prince of the people, for these did
most of all withstand Christ: By the children of Jerusalem, understand the
people. Christ saith, that he would have gathered together these children;
neither is it to be doubted, but that he gathered together many of them,
although the rulers were unwilling ... Saint [Augustine] thinks [Enchiridion,
chapter 97] ... she indeed would not have her children to be gathered together
by him: but even [though] she [was] unwilling, he gathered those of her children
whom he himself would.
-----------------------------------------------------
(VIII)
John Owen
(1616-1683)
[Source: The Works of John Owen (Great Britain: Banner,
1967), vol. 10, pp. 400-401]
[The Arminians argue thus] “God’s
earnest expostulations, contendings, charges, and protestations, even to such
as whereof many perished, Romans 9:27; Isaiah 10:22. As, to instance:—“O that
there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me,” etc., “that it
might be well with them!” Deuteronomy 5:29. “What could have been done more to
my vineyard, that I have not done in it?” etc., Isaiah 5:4, 5. “What iniquity
have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me?” Jeremiah 2:5. “Have
I been a wilderness unto Israel? a land of darkness? wherefore say my people,
We are lords; we will come no more unto thee?” verse 31. “O my people, what
have I done unto thee? wherein have I wearied thee? testify against me,” Micah
6:3. “How often would I have gathered,” etc., “and ye would not!” Matthew
23:37. “O that my people had hearkened unto me!” etc., “I should soon have
subdued their enemies,” etc., Psalm 81:13, 14. “Because I have called, and ye
refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded,” etc., Proverbs
1:24-31. “Because, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,” etc.,
Romans 1:21, 28. “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man,” etc., “Thou, after
thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath,” etc.,
Romans 2:1, 5. The Christian, I hope, will
reply against God, and say, “Thou never meantest us good; there was no ransom
given for us, no atonement made for us, no good done us, no mercy shown us,—nothing,
in truth, whereby we might have been saved, nothing but an empty show, a bare
pretense.” But if any should reason so evilly, yet shall not such answers
stand.
Ans. To this
collection of expostulations I shall very briefly answer with some few
observations, manifesting of how little use it is to the business in hand ...
Not that I deny that there is sufficient matter of expostulation with sinners
about the blood of Christ and the ransom paid thereby, that so the elect may be
drawn and wrought upon to faith and repentance, and believers more and more
endeared to forsake all ungodliness and worldly lusts, to live unto him who
died for them, and that others may be left more inexcusable; only for the
present there are no such expostulations here expressed, nor can any be found
holding out the purpose and intention of God in Christ towards them that perish
... Fourthly, it is confessed, I hope by all, that there are none of those
things for the want whereof God expostulateth with the sons of men, but that he
could, if it so seemed good before him, effectually work them in their hearts,
at least, by the exceeding greatness of his power: so that these things cannot
be declarative of his purpose, which he might, if he pleased, fulfill; “for who
hath resisted his will,” Romans 9:19. Fifthly, that desires and wishings should
properly be ascribed unto God is exceedingly opposite to his all-sufficiency
and the perfection of his nature; they are no more in him than he hath eyes,
ears, and hands. These things are to be understood [in a way befitting to God].
Sixthly, it is evident that all these are nothing but pathetical declarations
of our duty in the enjoyment of the means of grace, strong convictions of the
stubborn and disobedient, with a full justification of the excellency of God’s
ways to draw us to the performance of our duties.
-----------------------------------------------------
(IX)
Francis
Turretin (1623-1687)
(a)
[Source: Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1 (Phillipsburg,
NJ; P&R, 1992), p. 228]
This twofold will cannot be proved from
Matthew 23:37: (1) because it is not said that God willed to scatter those whom
he willed to gather together, but only that Christ willed to gather together
those whom Jerusalem (i.e., the chiefs of the people) nilled to be gathered
together, but notwithstanding their opposition Christ did not fail in gathering
together those whom he willed. Hence Augustine says, “She indeed was unwilling
that her sons should be gathered together by him, but notwithstanding her
unwillingness he gathered together his sons whom he willed” (Enchiridion 24
[97] [FC 2:450; PL 40.277]). Therefore, Jerusalem is here to be distinguished
from her sons as the words themselves prove (and the design of the chapter, in
which from v. 13 to v. 37, he addresses the scribes and Pharisees and rebukes
them because “they neither went into the kingdom of heaven themselves, nor
suffered those that were entering, to go in”); (2) the will here alluded to is
not the decretive, which is one only and simple, but the preceptive, which is
referred to calling and is often repeated by the preaching of the word—“How
often would I?”; (and so Christ here speaks as the minister of circumcision).
(b)
[Source: Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 2 (Phillipsburg,
NJ; P&R, 1994), p. 556]
Although Christ professes that “he had
wished to gather together the children of Jerusalem, and they would not” (Matt.
23:37), it does not follow that grace is resistible. (1) Jerusalem is here
openly distinguished from her children and by it are denoted the elders,
scribes, priests and other leaders of the city (who are gifted with the better
name of city [as Matt. 2:1, 3] and who wished to be considered the fathers of
the people). Nor does Christ say that those whom he wished to gather together
were unwilling to be gathered together. But only that Jerusalem was unwilling
that her children should be gathered and “thou wouldst not” (to wit, ye
leaders). And thus Christ does not so much complain of those who being called
had not come, as of those who resisted the calling of others as much as they
could (the key of knowledge being taken away); not entering as to themselves
and prohibiting others who entered (i.e., who desired to enter) as much as in
them lay, as we read in Luke 11:52. But still Christ did not cease,
notwithstanding the resistance of the leaders of the city, to gather whom he
wished, as Augustine has it.
(c)
[Source: Robert Lewis Dabney, Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney (Edinburgh:
Banner, 1982), vol. 1, pp. 283-284]
The attempt of the “Hypothetic
Universalists” was to reconcile all the scriptures by ascribing to God two acts
of will concerning human salvation—one general and conditional volition to send
Christ to provide expiation for all men, and to receive them all to heaven,
provided they would believe on him; the other, a special and unconditioned
volition to call the elect effectually, and thus insure that they should
believe and be saved. Then they supposed that all the texts in question could
be explained as expressions of the general and conditioned volition. But
Turretin’s refutation (for instance, Loc. IV., Qu. 17) is fatal. He urges that
the only merciful volition of God in Scripture is that towards the elect; and
“the rest he hardeneth” [cf. Rom. 9:18; 11:7]; that it is inevitably delusive
to represent an omniscient and omnipotent Agent as having any kind of volition
towards a result, when, foreseeing that the sinner will certainly not present
the essential condition thereof—faith—he himself distinctly purposes not to
bestow it; that the hearing of the gospel (Rom. x. 14) is as means equally
essential, and God providentially leaves all the heathen without this; and that
it is derogatory to God’s power and sovereignty to represent any volition of
his, that is a volition, as failing in a multitude of cases. It is significant
that the Reformed divines of Turretin’s school seem usually to conduct this
debate on the assumption, sometimes tacit, sometimes expressed, that as God had
no volition towards the salvation of the non-elect, so he could not have any
propension or affection at all towards it ... [Turretin] urges the inconsistency
of “an ineffectual and imperfect will” (in the Almighty) “which doth not bring
to pass the thing willed”
-----------------------------------------------------
(X)
Wilhelmus à
Brakel (1635-1711)
[Source: The Christian’s Reasonable Service, trans. Bartel
Elshout, vol. 1 (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1992), pp. 116-117]
He is the only wise God (I Tim. 1:17)
and the omnipotent One. “The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have
thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand
... For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and His
hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?” (Isa. 14:24, 27). He is
also the immutable One in whom there is no change nor shadow of turning (James
1:17). He says concerning Himself, “I am the LORD, I change not” (Mal. 3:6); “My
counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure” (Isa. 46:10). God is truth,
and all that He wills He wills truly, earnestly, and sincerely. He is perfect.
Far be it from the Lord to will something and yet be insincere; to will
something and then to change it; to decree something and subsequently to be in
error in this area, being neither desirous nor able to execute the said decree;
and to be desirous while simultaneously not being desirous ... When the Lord
Jesus says, “... how often would I have gathered thy children together ... and
ye would not!” (Mat. 23:37), it is neither suggested that there are two wills
in God nor that He has an impotent will. Rather, Christ is here referring to
His work which He executed according to His will, and to the opposition of the
chief rulers of Jerusalem who were not desirous to enter in, and prevented the
people from entering in as well.
-----------------------------------------------------
(XI)
Peter Nahuys
(1692-1766)
[Source: Op het Kort Begrip der Christelijke Leer; Verdedigd tegen Dwaalgeesten
en Dwalingen (1739), translated and quoted by Herman Hanko, A
History of the Free-Offer of the Gospel (Grandville,
MI: Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches, 1989), p. 154]
It is up to those parties still to
prove that an efficacious and internal calling is spoken of in this passage
[i.e., Matt. 23:37]; and even though we grant this, this passage still does not
favour the wrong idea of these parties; for the Saviour very clearly refers to
Jerusalem and her children; and they tried, were this possible, to prevent Him
from gathering the children. But in no way does He complain about the children
as if they have resisted that calling, which these parties try to prove from
this passage. The opposite is true, for many did believe in Him, regardless of
the fact that this displeased and was contrary to the wishes of the rulers.
-----------------------------------------------------
(XII)
John Gill
(1697-1771)
[Source: The Cause of God and Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Sovereign
Grace Publishers, 1971), p. 29; italics Gill’s]
... the persons whom Christ would have
gathered are not represented as being unwilling to be
gathered; but their rulers were not willing that they should. The opposition
and resistance to the will of Christ, were not made by the people, but by their
governors. The common people seemed inclined to attend the ministry of Christ,
as appears from the vast crowds which, at different times and places, followed
him; but the chief priests and rulers did all they could to hinder the
collection of them to him; and their belief in him as the Messiah, by traducing
his character, miracles, and doctrines, and by passing an act that whosoever
confessed him should be put out of the synagogue [John 9:22; 12:42] so that the
obvious meaning of the text is the same with that of ver. 13, where our Lord
says, Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; for ye shut up
the kingdom of heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither
suffer ye them that are entering to go in; and consequently is no proof of
men’s resisting the operations of the Spirit and grace of God, but of
obstructions and discouragements thrown in the way of attendance on the
external ministry of the word.
-----------------------------------------------------
(XIII)
Lorraine
Boettner (1901-1990)
[Source: The Reformed Doctrine of
Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R,
1932), pp. 294-295]
The reply of Augustine to those who
advanced this objection in his day is worth quoting: “When our Lord complains
that though he wished to gather the children of Jerusalem as a hen gathereth
her chickens under her wings, but she would not [Matt. 23:37], are we to
consider that the will of God was overpowered by a number of weak men, so that
He who was Almighty God could not do what He wished or willed to do? If so,
what is to become of that omnipotence by which He did whatsoever pleased Him in
Heaven and in earth? Moreover, who will be found so unreasonable as to say that
God cannot convert the evil wills of men, which He pleases, when He pleases,
and as He pleases, to good? Now, when He does this, He does it in mercy; and
when He doeth it not, in judgment He doeth it not.”
-----------------------------------------------------
(XIV)
John H.
Gerstner (1914-1996)
[Source: Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of
Dispensationalism (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2000),
pp. 143-144, 145; italics Gerstner’s]
Murray and Stonehouse insist that,
though God truly desires the salvation of the reprobate, He does not decree
that. Rather, He decrees the opposite. They recognize theirs as a very dangerous position
and appeal to great mystery: “We have found [e.g., in Matthew 23:37 and Luke
13:34] that God himself expresses an ardent desire for the fulfillment of
certain things which he has not decreed in his inscrutable counsel to come to
pass. This means that there is a will to the realization of what he has not
decretively willed, a pleasure towards that which he has not been
pleased to decree. This is indeed mysterious, and why he has not brought to
pass in the exercise of his omnipotent power and grace, what is his ardent
pleasure lies hidden in the sovereign counsel of his will.” However this is not
“mystery” but bald contradiction ... The question facing us here is whether God
could “desire” that which He does not bring to pass. There is no question at
all that He can desire certain things, and these things which He desires He
possesses and enjoys in Himself eternally. Otherwise, He would not be the ever-blessed
God. The Godhead desires each Person in the Godhead and enjoys each eternally.
The Godhead also desires to create, and He (though He creates in time) by
creating enjoys so doing eternally. Otherwise, He would be eternally bereft of
a joy He presently possesses and would have increased in joy if He later
possessed it—both of which notions are impossible. He would thereby have
changed (which is also impossible) and would have grown in the wisdom of a new
experience (which is blasphemous to imagine). If God’s very blessedness means
the oneness of His desire and His experience, is not our question (whether He
could desire what He does not desire) rhetorical? Not only would He otherwise
be bereft of some blessedness which would reduce Him to finitude, but He would
be possessed of some frustration which would not only bereave Him of some
blessedness, but would manifestly destroy all blessedness. This is
clearly the case because His blessedness would be mixed with infinite regret.
Our God would be the ever-miserable, ever-blessed God. His torment in the
eternal damnation of sinners would be as exquisite as it is everlasting. He
would actually suffer infinitely more than the wicked. Indeed, He would Himself
be wicked because He would have sinfully desired what His omniscience would
have told Him He could never have. But why continue to torture ourselves? God,
if He could be frustrated in His desires, simply would not be God.
-----------------------------------------------------
(XV)
William
Young (1918-)
It is worthy of note that Matthew 23:37
is commonly misquoted as if it read, “how often would I have gathered you ...
and ye would not.” The text does not make a contrast between the Lord’s will
and the wills of those whom he would gather, but between his compassion for
Jerusalem’s children and the opposition of their leaders who have been denounced
in the preceding passage.
-----------------------------------------------------
(XVI)
James R.
White
[Source: The Potter’s Freedom (Amityville, NY: Calvary
Press, 2000), pp. 137-138; italics White’s]
It is assumed by Arminian writers that “Jerusalem”
represents individual Jews who are, therefore, capable of resisting the work
and will of Christ. But upon what warrant do we leap from “Jerusalem” to
“individual Jews”? The context would not lead us to conclude that this is to be
taken in a universal sense. Jesus is condemning the Jewish leaders, and it is
to them that He refers here. This is clearly seen in that:
It is to the leaders that God sent
prophets;
It was the Jewish leaders who killed
the prophets and those sent to them;
Jesus speaks of “your children,”
differentiating those to whom He is speaking from those that the Lord desired
to gather together.
The context refers to the Jewish
leaders, scribes and Pharisees.
A vitally important point to make here
is that the ones the Lord desired to gather are not the ones
who “were not willing”! Jesus speaks to the leaders about their
children that they, the leaders, would not allow Him to “gather.” Jesus was not
seeking to gather the leaders, but their children ... The “children” of the leaders
would be Jews who were hindered by the Jewish leaders from
hearing Christ. The “you would not” then is referring to the same men indicated
by the context: the Jewish leaders who “were unwilling” to allow those under
their authority to hear the proclamation of the Christ. This verse, then, is
speaking to the same issues raised earlier in Matthew 23:13.
-----------------------------------------------------
(XVII)
James Gracie
[Source: “God’s Thwarted Desire?” The Presbyterian Standard,
Issue 29 (January-March 2003)]
But does the Lord Jesus Christ in our
nature sincerely and passionately will something for the reprobate that God the
Father does not? Christ says, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem ... how often would I
have gathered thy children together ... and ye would not!” (Matt. 23:37). Is
Christ lamenting His inability to fulfil what He sincerely desires, or is He
desiring something His Father does not? Is He frustrated by the opposition of
the Pharisees? Turretin deals with this text: “It is not said that God willed
to scatter those whom he willed to gather together, but only that Christ willed
to gather together those whom Jerusalem (i.e. the chiefs of the people) nilled
to be gathered together, but notwithstanding their opposition Christ did not
fail in gathering together those whom he willed.” Augustine similarly states: “She
indeed was unwilling that her sons should be gathered together by him, but
notwithstanding her unwillingness he gathered together his sons whom he willed”
(Enchiridion 24 [97] FC 2:450; PL 40:277). Christ does not say that He
would gather “Jerusalem” but rather “the children of Jerusalem.” This
distinction is often simply ignored to facilitate a false interpretation of the
passage. However, while Jerusalem represents the scribes and Pharisees, her
children are those whom Christ gathers into the Kingdom. This is obvious from
verse 13 of the same chapter, where Christ states: “... for ye neither go in
yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.” Scripture does
not say that God loves, but that God is Love. Such an attribute of love is not
determined by feelings. It is perfect love, fully exercised one hundred percent
of the time toward His people. Contrary to what is asserted by some, the
so-called “well-meant” offer is not reformed theology; reformed theology
recognises no thwarted desire in God. God is perfectly blessed in himself: His
will is one.
-----------------------------------------------------
(XVIII)
Martyn
McGeown
[Source: Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, vol. 51, no. 2
(April 2018), p. 70]
First,
there is no pathos in Matthew 23—there is anger. Verse 37 comes at the end of a long
denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy. Second, Jesus makes a distinction between
Jerusalem’s children whom He would gather and Jerusalem who did not desire—and
who therefore sought to hinder—that gathering. Jerusalem is a reference to the
leaders of Jerusalem, while Jerusalem’s children are the elect within the
nation. Third, Jerusalem’s sin was her
deliberate opposition to Jesus’ ministry, which opposition culminated in Christ’s
crucifixion, but despite (and even through) that opposition Jesus gathered the
church: “he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered
abroad” (John 11:52). There is no free offer or ineffectual desire of Christ in
Matthew 23:37.
-----------------------------------------------------
(XIX)
David J.
Engelsma
[Source: The Rock Whence We Are Hewn (ed. David Engelsma; Jenison,
MI: RFPA, 2015), p. 332]
[The]
genuine children of Jerusalem were the elect among the inhabitants of the city.
These Jesus desired to gather. These he did gather, despite Jerusalem’s
opposition. Jesus spoke in the text as the Messiah, whose will, or desire, is
the will of God who sent him. The will of God was the gathering not of all the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, but only of Jerusalem’s genuine children, that is,
the elect.
-----------------------------------------------------
(XX)
Others:
The
following also do not agree with and/or oppose that exegesis of Matthew 23:37
or Luke 13:34 that proposes the notion of an unrealized or unfulfilled desire
in God to save the reprobate:
Theodore
Beza (1519-1605),
Jacobus
Kimedoncius (c.1550-1596) (Of the Redemption of Mankind,
trans. Hugh Ince [London: Felix Kingston, 1598], pp. 54, 261, 263),
William
Perkins (1558-1602) (e.g., The Workes of that
famous and worthy Minister of Christ in the Universitie of Cambridge [London:
John Legatt and Cantrell Legge, 1616-18], II:638),
John Dove
(1561-1618) (cf. Jonathan Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism: John
Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
2007], pp. 63-67);
Christopher
Ness (1621-1705) (An Antidote Against Arminianism [USA: Still Waters Revival
Books, 1988], pp. 98-99);
Herman
Hoeksema (1886-1965),
Gordon H.
Clark (1902-1985) (Herman Hoeksema,The Clark-Van
Til Controversy [Unicoi, TN: The Trinity Foundation, 1995, 2005],
pp. 49, 70);
the Evangelical
Presbyterian Church of Australia (“Universalism and the Reformed
Churches: A Defense of Calvin's Calvinism” [Youngtown, Tasmania: The Magazine
and Literature Committee of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia,
1997], pp. 14-16);
Matthew Winzer (“Murray on the Free
Offer: A Review,” The Blue Banner [October/December, 2000], vol. 9,
issue 10-12, pp. 14-16); and
Richard
Bacon (“In this Issue,” The
Blue Banner, vol. 9, issue 10-12 [October/December, 2000], pp. 1-2, cf.
14-16)
QUESTION BOX:
Q. 1. “Does not the fact that Christ was
‘angry’ with Jerusalem (Matt. 23:37; Luke 19:41-44) imply that that He wanted
to save them?”
To
conclude from God’s anger with sinners and His abhorrence of sin that He
desires to save all men is a monstrous corruption of simple logic. The truth of
Scripture is that God loves His elect with a love revealed in the cross of
Christ and God so greatly abhors the sinner that He punishes the sinner with
eternity in hell. (Prof. Herman Hanko)
############################
ADDITIONAL
NOTE:
For a response to David Silverside’s objection to the view of Matthew 23:37 that distinguishes between “Jerusalem” and Jerusalem’s “children,” see the following:
No comments:
Post a Comment