Hendriksen:

Christ’s final public address fittingly closes with a moving lament, in which are revealed both his solemn tenderness and the severity of divine judgment on all who have answered such marvelous compassion with contempt. The lamentation begins as follows: 37. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those that are sent to her! how often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you would not!⁷⁸⁴

This outpouring of grief is addressed to “Jerusalem” because this city, being the capital, Israel’s very heart and center, symbolizes the spirit or attitude of the nation as a whole intense emotion, unfathomable pathos, finds its expression in the repetition of the word Jerusalem. Cf. “altar, altar” (I Kings 13:2), “Martha, Martha” (Luke 10:41), “Simon, Simon” (Luke 22:31), and such multiple repetitions as “O my son Absolom, my son, my son Absolom! if only I had died for you, O Absolom, my son, my son!” (II Sam. 18:33); and “Land, land, land, hear the word of the Lord” Jer. 22:29; cf. 7:4). That the nation was indeed guilty of killing and stoning God’s official ambassadors has already been established; see on 5:12. Proof for “How often would I have gathered your children to myself” is found first of all in the Gospel according to John (2: 14; 5: 14; 7: 14, 28; [8 :2] ; 10: 22, 23). Incidentally, this statement of Jesus also shows that even the Synoptics, though stressing Christ’s work in and around Galilee, do bear testimony to

the extensive labor which Jesus had performed in Jerusalem and vicinity. Bearing in mind, however, that Jerusalem represented the nation, it should be pointed out that Christ’s sympathy and yearning love had by no means been confined to the inhabitants of this city or even of Judea. It had been abundantly evident also in the northern regions. See Matt. 9:36; 11:25-30; 15:32; Luke 15; etc.

The simile Jesus uses is unforgettable. A chicken hawk suddenly appears, its wings folded, its eyes concentrated on the farmyard, its ominous claws ready to grasp a chick. Or, to change the figure, a storm is approaching. Lightning flashes become more frequent, the rumbling of the thunder grows louder and follows the electrical discharges more and more closely. Raindrops develop into a shower, the shower into a cloudburst. In either case what happens is that with an anxious and commanding “cluck, cluck, cluck!” the hen calls her chicks, conceals them under her protecting wings, and rushes off to a place of shelter. “How frequently,” says Jesus, “I have similarly yearned to gather you. But you refused to come.” Did they really think that his threats were empty, his predictions of approaching woe ridiculous?

The simile Jesus uses is unforgettable. A chicken hawk suddenly appears, its wings folded, its eyes concentrated on the farmyard, its ominous claws ready to grasp a chick. Or, to change the figure, a storm is approaching. Lightning flashes become more frequent, the rumbling of the thunder grows louder and follows the electrical discharges more and more closely. Raindrops develop into a shower, the shower into a cloudburst. In either case what happens is that with an anxious and commanding “cluck, cluck, cluck!” the hen calls her chicks, conceals them under her protecting wings, and rushes off to a place of shelter. “How frequently,” says Jesus, “I have similarly yearned to gather you. But you refused to come.” Did they really think that his threats were empty, his predictions of approaching woe ridiculous?

William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids MI.: 1973), 839-840. [Footnote value and content original; Bold original; and underlining mine.]

______________________

⁷⁸⁴In this passage apokteinousa and lithobolousa are fem. sing. present active participles; hence (the one or she) killing and stoning; apestalmenous is acc. pl. masc. perf. passive participle of apostello: those having been sent or commissioned, with the implication “by God”; ethelesa is first per. sing. aor. indic. of ethelo: (how often) did I yearn, followed by the double compound infinitive episunalaleo to gather to myself. Later in this passage the same verb occurs in connection with a bird; hence (as a hen) gathers to herself. The noun ornis (cf. “ornithology”) basically means bird, and as such can refer to either a cock or a hen. By reason of the action ascribed to it, the reference here seems to be to a hen. The noun nossia is related to neos; hence, new ones, young ones, brood. With pterux, wing, (here acc. plural pterugas) compare petomai to fly. English pinion, pen, feather, etc., are related to it. Note also how the singular “Jerusalem” finally expands into the plural ouk ethelesata.

Smith:

1) The Priestly Office of Christ is that office in both natures whereby He makes an atonement. In the same priestly office and in virtue of his atoning work his Intercession is maintained. Intercession belongs to Christ as priest: it includes his constant application of his sacrifice; or, generally, all his agency in redeeming mankind, in his glorified state. Of the two parts of Christ’s work as Priest Atonement and Intercession we speak here only of The Atonement.

I. Usage of the word, and of certain terms which cluster about it.

1. Of the terms Redemption and Atonement. Redemption implies the complete deliverance from the penalty, power, and all the consequences of sin: Atonement is used in the sense of the sacrificial work, whereby the redemption from the condemning power of the law was insured.

2. Of the terms Reconciliation and Atonement. Reconciliation sets forth what is to be done: Atonement, in its current theological sense, likewise involves the idea of the way, the mode, in which the reconciliation is effected that is, by a sacrifice for sin. Henry B. Smith, System of Christian Theology, 2^nd ed., (New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1884), 437. [Some reformatting; italics original; footnotes not included and underlining mine.]

2) [T]he truth of General Atonement says: The Atonement made by Christ is made for all mankind, is such in nature and design, that God can save all men, consistently with the demands of holiness, on condition of faith and repentance.

1. The distinction is to be made between Atonement and Redemption. Atonement is the provision.  Henry B. Smith, System of Christian Theology, 2^nd ed., (New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1884), 478. [Some reformatting and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Lamb:

And in the eleventh section it is affirmed, “That all the assurance that any man has is grounded mainly and principally upon the uniform, regular, constant tenor of his life and conversation in the ways of holiness.”

To this I answer, first, every true believer that is the child of God knows it, for “he that believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself.” [1 John 5:10.].

And secondly, this witness is not principally from the ways of holiness, but from the Spirit of God which bears witness to the soul of every true believer that he is the child of God; “Yea, and because they are sons, God has sent forth [the Spirit of]¹ his Son into your hearts crying Abba Father, and witnesses such heirs of God through Christ” [Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:6-7.]; yea, the Office of the Spirit, which every faithful soul receives is that “they may know the things that are freely given them of God,” [1 Cor. 2:12.].

Thirdly, as Christians witness of his good estate with God does not arise from his holiness so much as holiness arises from the witness as from its proper cause; “for it is the grace of God that brings salvation unto all men,” [Tit. 2:11.], and so particularly, to each man’s heart and soul, that is in any way effectual to teach him to “deny ungodliness,” &c., and all the works that have never so great a show of piety and holiness in them as are dead, hypocrites, and merely carnal, and fleshly, that sprung not from the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us [Rom. 5:5.]: and so it is true, that “he that does righteousness is righteous,” [1 John 4:18, 19.], which none does but he that works from love and life, not for love and life, for righteous works do not make a righteous man, but a righteous man does make or work righteous works, for the tree is before the fruit, and as is the tree such is the fruit; and therefore as it is true, and the Scriptures quoted do prove that righteousness is the constant trade of a righteous man; so it is as true, that the assurance that believers have is not grounded mainly and principally upon the uniform and regular constant tenor of his life and conversation in the ways of holiness; neither do any of the Scriptures quoted it so; and therefore the alleging of them for this purpose is but a perverting and endeavoring to make them speak that which is not in them and the Doctrine not true, nor has it foundation to bear it up, but is uncomfortable.

Thomas Lamb, Absolute Freedom from sin by Christs Death for the World, as the object of faith in opposition to the conditional set forth by Mr John Goodwin in his Book (hereby appearing falsly) entituled [Redemption Redeemed], (London: Printed by H.H. for the Authour, and are to be sold by him, and also by William Larnar in Fleet-street at the Sign of the Black Moor, 1656), 10-11. [Some spelling modernized; marginal citations cited inline; and underlining mine.]

[Note: the context of this work is Lamb’s polemic against the Arminian John Goodwin. In it, Lamb affirms both sovereign election and unlimited expiation against Goodwin’s denials of perseverance of the saints and support for “free will.”]

_________________________

¹Square bracketed insert mine.

Weeks:

SERMON V.

EPHESIANS 1. 11

Who works all things after the counsel of his own will

We proceed in the discussion of objections.

Objection 4. It is said, that if this doctrine is true, and God decrees and causes whatever takes place, then men Cannot possibly help ‘doing as they do, in all cases. And so, if they are finally damned, they are damned for doing, what they cannot, help. And when God requires them to do otherwise than they do, he requires an impossibility which is manifestly unjust and cruel.

Answer. It is granted that to punish men for doing what they cannot help, or to require of them an impossibility, would be manifestly unjust and cruel. But this God does not, do. He requires no more of men than, they are able to perform; and he punishes them only for doing those things which they could and ought to have abstained from doing. When we speak, in common language, of ability and inability, can and cannot, possible and impossible, we always have reference to men’s power and faculties of body or mind, and not at all to their inclinations. If a man has all the power. and faculties of body and mind which are necessary to do a thing, we say he is able to do it, whether he is willing or not. His  ability and his willingness are different things, perfectly distinct. A man may be able to perform a piece of work, which he has no heart to perform, and which he is totally unwilling to engage in. And again, a man may be perfectly wiling to do that which is not in his power, that which is entirely beyond his strength. One man may be able to march to the field of battle, but totally unwilling. And another may be perfectly willing to march to the field of blood, but through bodily infirmity may be unable. Ability and willingness must both unite in the same person, before he will perform any thing, but they are perfectly distinct, and our willingness constitutes no part of our ability. It is true that willingness is sometimes styled moral ability; but it is evidently in a figurative and improper sense. According to the usual and proper meaning of the term, men are able to do every thing which they have bodily and mental strength sufficient to do, whether they are willing to exert that strength, and do the thing or not. Now, although God cannot justly require of men more than they are able to do, that is, more than they have bodily and mental strength sufficient to do, if they were so disposed; yet he may, and does, justly require of them many things which they have no disposition to do, many things which they are totally unwilling to perform. And though men cannot be justly punished for not doing those things which they are unable to do, yet they may be justly punished for not doing those things which they are able, but are unwilling to do. Men are able to comply with the invitations of the gospel, that is, they have all the bodily and mental powers that are necessary to do it, and God may justly require them to do it, whether they are willing or not; and if they do not comply, he may justly punish them for their disobedience. And his making some willing and others unwilling, does not interfere with the ability of any. Those who are unwilling are just as able as those who are willing, and are as justly required to comply. To substantiate the objection, it must be made to appear, that God imposes some constraint upon men, so that they cannot do the things he requires, even though they are willing, and desirous of doing them. This is taken for granted in the objection. This is the real meaning of the phrase, doing what they cannot help. The meaning is, that they desire and endeavor to do otherwise, but have not the necessary bodily and mental strength. If they had, they should do, otherwise. They would, but cannot. But the fact is directly the reverse. They can, but will not. They have the necessary bodily and mental strength, but have no willingness. And this, God is not bound to give them. Should any say, that God cannot justly require of men any more than he gives them a willingness to do, as well as bodily and mental strength, this would abolish all law, and destroy the distinction between right and wrong. For if God cannot require of men any more than he makes them willing, as well as able, to do, then, since they always do what they have both strength and will to accomplish, he cannot justly require of them any more than they actually perform. And if they always do all that he requires, there is no such thing as sin in the world. It is right, therefore, for God to require of them all that they have powers and faculties sufficient to perform, all that they are able to do; and if they fail of complying through unwillingness, it is right that they should be punished. But men have all the powers and faculties necessary to comply with the invitations of the gospel, and all the commands of God, and want nothing but a willingness. They can comply, but will not. When, therefore, God punishes them for not complying, he punishes them, NOT for what they could not help, but solely for refusing to do what they could but would not.

Williams Weeks, Nine Sermons on the Decrees and Agency of God, 3^rd ed., (Newark, N.J.: Published by the Ecclesiastical Board of Trustees for the Propagation of the Gospel. John R. Weeks, Printer), 77-80. [Some spelling modernized and underlining mine.]