Archive for the ‘Matthew 23:37’ Category

29
Apr

D. A. Carson on Matthew 23:37

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism

Carson:

37“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you. were not willing. 38Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes In the name of the Lord.’”

Almost exact verbal equivalence between these verses and Luke 13:34–35 makes it nearly certain that both Matthew and Luke are following the same written source (Q?) and therefore that at least one of the two evangelists displaced this prayer from its setting in the life of Jesus. Certainly the lament is more integral to the setting in Matthew than in Luke (cf. Suggs, pp. 64–66; Garland, pp. 187–97). Jesus undoubtedly lamented over the city on other occasions (Luke 19:41–44), and the broad compassion of his words is characteristic (Matt 9:35–38).

The effect of the lament is twofold. First, it tinges all the preceding woes with compassion (note the doubling of “Jerusalem” [cf. 2 Sam 18:33; 1 Kings 13:2; Jer 22:29; Luke 10:41; 22:31]). There is also a change of number from Jerusalem to people of Jerusalem: “you [sing.] who kill . . . sent to you [sing.] . . . your [sing.] children . . . your [pl.] house . . . you [pl.] will not see.” The effect is to move from the abstraction of the city to the concrete reality of people. Jesus’ woes in Matthew 23 therefore go far beyond personal frustrations: they are divine judgments that, though wrathful, never call in question the reality of divine love (see discussion on 5:44–45).

Second, the Christological implications are unavoidable, for Jesus, whether identifying himself with God or with wisdom, claims to be the one who has longed to gather and protect this rebellious nation. Phrased in such terms, Jesus’ longing can only belong to Israel’s Savior, not to one of her prophets. The authenticity of the lament is frequently denied on the ground that the historical Jesus could not possibly have said it (e.g., Suggs, p. 66). But it is a strange criticism that a priori obliterates any possibility of listening to the text in such a way as to hear a historical Jesus who was not only conscious of his transcendent origins but who in many ways laid claims to his origins as part of his compassionate and redemptive self-disclosure.

37 Verses 37–39 preserve Jesus’ last recorded public words to Israel. Jerusalem, the city of David, the city where God revealed himself in his temple, had become known as the city that killed the prophets and stoned those sent to her. Stoning to death, prescribed in the law of Moses for idolatry (Deut 175, 7), sorcery (Lev 20:27), and several other crimes, is also laid down in the Mishnah (M Sanhedrin 7:4) for false prophets. It could also be the outcome of mob violence (21:35; Acts 7:57–58) or conspiracy, which apparently is how Zechariah died (2 Chron 24:21). “How often” may look back over Israel’s history—viz., Jesus’ identifying himself with God’s transcendent, historical perspective (John 8:58); but more probably “how often” refers to the duration of Jesus’ ministry. During it he “often” longed to gather and shelter Jerusalem (by metonymy including all Jews) as a hen her chicks (cf. Deut 32:11; Pss 17:8; 36:7; 91:4; Jer 48:40); for despite the woes, Jesus, like the “Sovereign Lord” in Ezekiel 18:32, took “no pleasure in the death of anyone.

D. A. Carson, “Matthew” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gæbelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan [Regency Reference Library], 1984), 8:486–487. [Some reformatting; bracketed material original; and underlining mine.]

Ripped from Tony.

23
Apr

Edward Leigh (1602-1671) on Matthew 23:37

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism

Leigh:

Vers. 37. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you kill the Prophets, and stones them which are sent unto you]

As if Christ should have said, you which should have been a faithful keeper of the word of God, the Mysteries of heavenly wisdom, the light of the world, the fountain of true doctrine, the seat of the worship of God, an example of faith and obedience, are become a murderer of the Prophets, so that now you have gotten a certain habit in sucking their blood. Christ’s purpose was for to meet with the offence which was at hand, lest the faithful when they should see him slain at Jerusalem without a cause, should be troubled at the strangeness of such a sight.

How oft would I]

It is rather a word of disdain than of compassion. Calvin. See Deut. 32:11. Isa. 65.2. He describes not here the secret counsel of God, but that which is learned by the word.1

Christ speaks not of the will of his good pleasure, for that cannot be resisted, but of his signified will in the Ministry of the Prophets, and of himself as he was a Prophet and Minister of the Circumcision unto the Jews, for so he might will their conversion and yet they will it not.  Perkins.

And you would not]

This may be referred to the whole Nation as well as to the Scribes, yet rather to them by whom that gathering together was most hindered, for Christ inveighs against them in the whole course of his speech, as though he spoke to Jerusalem in the singular number as he alters it now.

Edward Leigh, Annotations Upon All the New Testament, (London: Printed by W.W. and EG. for William Lee, and are to be sold at his shop at the Turks-head in Fleet Street next to the Miter and Phœnix, 1650), 63. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; Latin marginal reference cited as a footnote; and underlining mine.]

___________________

1Gallina) Vox græca communis est ad avein & galinam, & miris quidem inest avibus omnibus amor sovendi tuendique pullos, sed galline præsertim. Brugensis.

20
Apr

Juan de Valdés (1509-1541) on Matthew 23:37

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism

Valdés:

And Christ, by adding, “Verily I say unto you” &c., showed clearly that He meant the destruction of Jerusalem, which it is said happened seventy-five years after the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: and this is the more confirmed by the exclamation against Jerusalem, which He adds, saying, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem,” &c. Where two things are to be understood; the one, that under the name of Jerusalem, Christ meant the whole Hebrew nation; and the other, that He spoke of what had happened, and of what was about to happen.

By that: “How often would I have gathered,” &c., it appears that men can resist the will of God, so that God cannot do with men what He would, where combining this with what Christ says in John vi. 44, “No man can come to Me, unless the Father, who hath sent Me, draw him,” I think that it might be said, that we men are so far from willing what God wills, viz., that we submit ourselves to His will; that He cannot bring us to it whilst He exerts ordinary power, which He appears to have exercised towards Jerusalem, since He could not succeed in His design; whilst He reduces us by the exercise of absolute power, which, as Holy Scripture frequently states, no one can resist; and this is what God exerts upon all those whom He brings to Christ; bringing them to Christ by force, not rigorous, but loving, sweet, and grateful.

I, however, can well affirm this concerning myself, that I was so compelled to come to Christ, that I am certain that I could not have resisted it had I wished; and thinking this to be the same with every one of those, who are incorporated into Christ, I think that God exerts absolute power with them, forcing them and compelling them to leave the kingdom of the world and to enter into the kingdom of God; to leave the image of Adam and to assume the image of Christ, by acceptance of the grace of the gospel. As to the manner in which I understand that God forces us and compels us, I remit myself to what I have stated in a consideration (xxiii.)

It may likewise be said here that some persons assign two wills to God, and that they call one, voluntas signi the will of intimation, and the other voluntas beneplaciti the will of complacency. So that Christ’s meaning may be, that God had made many demonstrations to Jerusalem, of His desire to bring her back and to unite her to Himself, but that she would not; for men can resist this will of God, manifested by signs and external admonitions, such as were those made to Jerusalem; to which prophets, wise men and scribes were sent; whilst it is impossible to resist the will of God, that is deliberate and determined, because such is His will and pleasure. According to this distinction, it is to be understood that whenever Holy Scripture states that men resist the will of God, it means the one that is called “the will of intimation;” and that whenever it states that men cannot resist the will of God, because it carries out all He wills, it means, that which is called “the will of complacency”

This apprehension is good, but the former pleases me more and edifies me more; and I hold it to be more certain, as well from my personal experience of it, as also because the depravity of our depraved nature is more discovered by it; whilst the glory of God in His goodness and in His liberality is more illustrated by it; since it is so, that God seeing that men resist His ordinary power, exerts His absolute power when He wills, and upon whom He wills; giving them to recognize His goodness and mercy, putting Christ before their eyes, and showing to them the happiness of the life eternal, and thus with a loving and gracious violence. He makes them do His will.

Juan de Valdés Commentary Upon the Gospel of Matthew, (London: Trüber & Co, 1882) 413-415. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]

6
Apr

John Trapp (1601-1669) on Matthew 23:37

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism

Trapp:

Verse 37. How often would I, &c.] How then could they perish, whom God would have saved? It is answered, Voluntas Dei Alia est præcepti, revelata Antecedens, alia beneplaciti, arcana consequens. By the former God willed their conversion, but not by the later. A King wills the welfare of all his Subjects; yet he will not acquit those that are laid for treason, murder, and like foul crimes. A father is willing to give his son the inheritance; yet if he prove an unthrift, he’ll put him beside it, and take another. How oft would I have gathered? that is (say some) by the external Ministry of the Prophets, sent unto thee, verse 34, 35. Not by internal regenerating operation of the Spirit.

Chytræus
in Levit. 12.

Even as a hen gathers her chickens] Columbarum Masculus ispe ovis  incubat, sicut Christus ipse ecclesiam, suam sovet. Of unreasonable creatures, birds, and of birds, the hen excels in kindness to her young; so that she doubts not, in their defence, to encounter a Kite, a Dog, &c. Iniquo & impari prælio, though with greatest disadvantage.

Paraeus.

And you would not] Men may nill their conversion then, though called by God.  Quo nihil est verius, sed & nihil turpius, says one.

Cesset voluntas
propia & non
orit infernus

If there were no will, there would be no hell, John 12:39. Therefore they could not believe: they could not, that is, they would not, says Theophylact out of Chrysostom, who yet usually extolls man’s free-will more than is meet.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition Upon All the Books of the New Testament, (London: Printed by R.W. and to be sold by Nath. Ekins, at the Gun in Pauls Church-yard, 1656), 292. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; marginal side references cited inline; and italics original.]

18
Dec

Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) on Matthew 23:37

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism

[comments below]

Spurgeon:

Commentary:

1)

37. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that kills the prophets, and stones them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

What a picture of pity and disappointed love the King’s face must have presented when, with flowing tears, he uttered these words! What an exquisite emblem he gave of the way in which he had sought to woo the Jews to himself: “How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings “What familiar tenderness! What a warm Elysium of rest! What nourishment for the feeble! What protection for the weak! Yet it was all provided in vain: “How often would I have gathered thy children together…. and ye would not!” Oh, the awful perversity of man’s rebellious will! Let all the readers of these lines beware lest the King should ever have to utter such a lament as this over them. Charles H. Spurgeon, The Gospel of the Kingdom: a popular exposition of the Gospel according to Matthew, in loco. [Some spelling modernized and underlining mine.]

Complete Sermons:

2)

NO. 2381
A SERMON INTENDED FOR READING ON LORD’S DAY,
OCTOBER 7TH, 1894,
DELIVERED BY C. H. SPURGEON,
AT THE METROPOLITAN TABERNACLE, NEWINGTON.
ON LORD’S-DAY EVENING, JULY 22ND, 1888.

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent onto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” — Matthew 23:37.

THIS is not and could not be the language of a mere man. It would be utterly absurd for any man to say that he would have gathered the inhabitants of a city together, “even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings.” Besides, the language implies that, for many centuries, by the sending of the prophets, and by many other warnings, God would often have gathered the children of Jerusalem together as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings. Now, Christ could not have said that, throughout those ages, he would have gathered those people, if he had been only a man. If his life began at Bethlehem, this would be an absurd statement; but, as the Son of God, ever loving the sons of men, ever desirous of the good of Israel, he could say that, in sending the prophets, even though they were stoned and killed, he had again and again shown his desire to bless his people till he could truly say, “How often would I have gathered thy children together!” Some who have found difficulties in this lament, have said that it was the language of Christ as man. I beg to put in a very decided negative to that; it is, and it must be, the utterance of the Son of man, the Son of God, the Christ in his complex person as human and divine. I am not going into any of the difficulties just now; but you could not fully understand this passage, from any point of view, unless you believed it to be the language of one who was both God and man. This verse shows also that the ruin of men lies with themselves. Christ puts it very plainly, “I would; but ye would not.” “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and ye would not!” That is a truth, about which, I hope, we have never had any question; we hold tenaciously that salvation is all of grace, but we also believe with equal firmness that the ruin of man is entirely the result of his own sin. It is the will of God that saves; it is the will of man that damns. Jerusalem stands and is preserved by the grace and favor of the Most High; but Jerusalem is burnt, and her stones are cast down, through the transgression and iniquity of men, which provoked the justice of God.

Read the rest of this entry »