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.

Shedd:

* It is needless to remark, that Edwards does not concede that the mere atonement itself gives any and every man a claim upon God for the benefits of the atonement,–as is sometimes argued by the advocates of universal salvation. God is under no obligation to make an atonement for the sin of the world; and, after he has made one, he is at perfect liberty to apply it to whom he pleases, or not to apply it at all. The atonement is his, and not man’s, and he may do what he will with his own. Hence, according to Edwards, two distinct acts of sovereignty on the part of God are necessary in order to a soul’s salvation. The providing of an atonement in the first place, is a sovereign act; and then the application, or giving over, of the atonement, when provided, to any particular elected sinner, is a second act of sovereignty. The sufferings and death of Christ constitute the atonement; and even if not a single soul should appropriate it by the act of faith, it would be the same expiatory oblation still, though unapplied. Hence, the second of these sovereign acts is as necessary as the first, in order to salvation. But when both of these acts of sovereignty have taken place,–when the atonement has been made, and has actually been given over to and accepted by an individual,–then, says Edwards, it is a matter of strict justice that the penal claims of the law be not exacted from the believer, because this would be to exact them twice; once from Christ, and once from one to whom, by the supposition, Christ’s satisfaction has actually been made over by a sovereign act of God. For God to do this, would be to pour contempt upon his own atonement. It would be a confession that his own provision is insufficient to satisfy the claims of law, and needs to be supplemented by an additional infliction upon the believer. It would be an acknowledgment that the atonement, when it comes to be actually tested in an individual instance, fails to satisfy the claims of justice, and therefore is an entire failure. The sum of money which was given to the poor debtor, with the expectation that it was large enough completely to liquidate his debt, is found to fall short, and leaves him still in the debtor’s prison, from which he cannot come out  “until he has paid the uttermost farthing.”

That this is a correct representation of the views of Edwards is evident from the following answer which he gives to the question: What does God’s sovereignty in the salvation of man imply?–”God’s sovereignty in the salvation of men implies that God can either bestow salvation on any of the children of men, or refuse it, without any prejudice to the glory of any of his attributes, except where he has been pleased to declare that he will or will not bestow it. It cannot be said absolutely, as the case now stands, that God can, without any prejudice to the honor of any of his attributes, bestow salvation on any of the children of men, or refuse it, because concerning some, God has been pleased to declare either that he will or that he will not bestow salvation on them; and thus to bind himself by his own promise. And concerning some he has been pleased to declare that he never will bestow salvation upon them; viz., those who have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost. Hence, as the case now stands, he is obliged; he cannot bestow salvation in one case, or refuse it in the other, without prejudice to the honor of his truth. But God exercised his sovereignty in making these declarations. God was not obliged to promise that he would save all who believe in Christ; nor was he obliged to declare that he who committed the gin against the Holy Ghost should never be forgiven. But it pleased him so to declare.” Edwards’s Works, IV. 530. N. Y. Ed.

William G.T. Shedd,  “The Atonement, A Satisfaction for the Ethical Nature of Both God and Man,” in Discourses and Essays, (Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1862), 321 and 322. [Italics original and underlining mine.]  [This essay was originally published in Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct. 1859.]

Weeks:

SERMON VI.

EPHESIANS 1:11

Who works all things after the counsel of his own will.

We proceed in the discussion of objections.

Objection 7. It is said, that God, in scripture, represents sin as contrary to his will, and. forbids it under the penalty of his severest indignation but this doctrine represents sin as taking place agreeably to his will; and if God represents sin as contrary, to his will, and at the same time teaches this doctrine he contradicts himself. It is said, that God, in scripture, expresses the greatest abhorrence of sin, but that if he has decreed the existence of sin, and employs his own agency in causing it to take place, then he must be well-pleased with sin; and therefore, he expresses an abhorrence which he does not feel, and acts a deceitful part. It is said, that God, in scripture says, that he wills not the death of the sinner; but that if this doctrine is true, he does will his death. And if he punishes his creatures for doing what he caused them to do, then he must delight in their misery: which represents God as a most wicked, false, cruel, and unfeeling tyrant.

Answer. Before we proceed directly to the consideration of this objection, let a few things be premised. First, let it be observed, that in order to make out a contradictions in the declarations of anyone, we must be certain than the words, which are supposed to contradict each other, are used, in both instances, in the same sense. For example, the scripture says, in one place, “Answer a fool according to his folly,” and in another place, “Answer not a fool according” to his folly.” Now, to make out a contradiction here,” we must be certain that the words are used in both places in the same sense for if they are used in different senses, the two passages may be perfectly consistent. Again, let it be observed, that an event may, at one time, be considered by itself alone, and spoken of in that point of view, without taking into consideration any of its connections and consequences; and it may, at another time, be considered, and spoken of with all its connections, consequences, relations, and dependencies. When spoken of in the former point of view, it is said to be spoken of a it is in itself considered j and when spoken of in tile latter point of view, it is said to be spoken of as it is upon the whole, all things considered. Once more, let it be observed, that a thing may sometimes be chosen for its own sake, without any reference to any other thing; and this is what is called being desirable in itself. As, for example, we choose happiness for its own sake, because it is desirable in itself. And again, a thing which is not desirable in itself; and which never could be chosen for its own sake, may be chosen for the sake of some other thing with which it is connected, and which may thereby be attained; and this is called being desirable on the whole. For instance, we may choose to suffer a small temporary evil, for the sake of some great and lasting good, which may thereby be attained. We may choose to suffer the pain of cutting off one of our limbs, which is very undesirable in itself; for the take of preserving our whole body from destruction. A wise and good parent may choose to inflict pain upon his undutiful child, not for its own sake, not because he delights in seeing his child suffer, for that is very undesirable in itself, but he chooses it for the sake of the child’s good, or for the good of the rest of his family, to deter them from the like disobedience. God chose that his Son should die, not for its own sake, be had no pleasure in the sufferings of his Son, in themselves considered, but he chose it for the sake of the salvation of sinners; he chose it, because, upon the whole considering the amazing worth of souls, and the great glory that will redound to his name from saving sinners, considering how much his law would be honored, and how clearly his hatred of sin would appear in the cross or Christ, all things being considered, he chose the death of his Son, as upon the whole a desirable event, though in itself considered nothing could be more undesirable. He chooses often to afflict his children in this world, not for its own sake, he does not delight in their sufferings, in themselves considered; but he does it for their good, he does it because all things considered it is desirable, and will prepare them. for a higher degree of happiness in heaven that they could otherwise enjoy. It must be evident that this distinction is well founded. For if it is riot, if God gave up his Son to die, and “put him to grief,” because he took pleasure in his sufferings, considered in themselves, if he afflicts his children in this world because he delights in their pain, he must be a malevolent being. But this is the character of Satan. Satan torments others because he delights in their misery in itself considered. This is pure malice, and cannot be ascribed to God. But if this distinction is well founded, as it certainly is, the way is prepared to remove the objection under consideration.

Read the rest of this entry »

A bullet-proof refutation of limited sin-bearing on the terms and grounds of High Calvinist assumptions.¹

Part 1:

Assumptions:

a) Let forgivable mean something like “able to have forgiveness conferred,” which I think is basic and sound.

b) Without a legal basis, no sin can be forgiven.

The Following syllogism can be constructed:

1) Only those sins imputed to Christ are forgivable.

2) Only the sins of the elect are imputed to Christ.

3) Therefore only the sins of the elect are forgivable.

1) has to follow unless one wants to deny substitutionary atonement and claim that God can forgive sins for which Christ did not bear and suffer.

2) has to follow for the limited expiation/imputation of sin proponent.²

And so 3) is undeniable.

However, God offers forgiveness of sins to all mankind, or at least, to all whom the Gospel comes.³

Assumptions:

c) To offer forgiveness of sins, necessarily implies or presupposes that sins of the offeree are forgivable.

d) One must be able to confer what one offers.

The following syllogism can be constructed:

4) All offers of forgiveness of sins necessarily entails that sins are forgivable.

5) God offers forgiveness of sins to all.⁴

6) Therefore the sins of all are forgivable.

4) has to be true because, one must have the ability to confer what one offers. One cannot offer what one does not have the ability to confer.

5) has to be true for any free-offer Calvinist.

6) therefore has to follow as High and Moderate Calvinists rightly maintain.

Read the rest of this entry »