The meaning of Matt. 23:37

[Guest]

Matthew 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling."

Matt 23:37 is a verse often cited by Arminians to support their view of how human will interacts with God's will when it comes to salvation. Specifically, it's seen to contradict irresistible grace. The idea is pretty straightforward, and goes like this: God wanted to save people, but they weren't willing to be saved. However it is that God works in sinners' hearts, however it is that he tries to save them, they can resist effectively. If they're not willing, God won't be able to save them—God can woo strongly, but that is all. (If you think I'm wording this incorrectly, please say so.)

When I read the verse (and its context), I see some questions that seem rather important to its exegesis.

1.) Who was Jesus literally speaking to when he spoke this verse, and what was the conversation about?
2.) Who is "you"--who is Jerusalem?--and who is "your children"? Is there a difference? Are they supposed to be distinct groups, or is it all just the same group?
3.) In what way was God's desire to gather "your children" resisted? What was done, by whom?

So, for anyone who uses this verse to argue against Calvinism: Could you summarize what the verse says, with those questions in mind? (I'm not asking you to specifically address each question, I'm just asking you to think about the passage with those questions in mind, and then summarize what it says.)

[Guest]

James White, aping john Owen, says the Christ was speaking to the leaders, and makes a big deal about all that.

It is irrelevant and a smokescreen. Christ said "I would...and ye would not". But moreso, he also said "HOW OFTEN I WOULD...and ye would not". But that is not all, Christ also lamented " O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, HOW OFTEN I would have gathered thee, as a hen gathers HER chicks, and YE WOULD NOT."

All five points of Calvinism sink like the Titanic at this passage, and no amount of verbalsmog and irrelevant detours via skillful sophistry can change what is plain for all to see.

There are no "eternal Decrees". The Westminster confession of faith is riddled with error.

[Guest]

" O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, HOW OFTEN I would have gathered thee, as a hen gathers HER chicks, and YE WOULD NOT."

As per usual, the verse is misscited as James White says it so often is.

The real verse says,

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not!

SSS is the A-TYPICAL example that James White speaks of!!

It proves he does not even listen to James White!, for if he did, why would he do the very thing James says these people do! Miss citing the passage.

Simply incredible.

The passage is all about Judgement and has nothing whatsoever to do with soteriology.

The only Titanic sinking here is the SSS supa sola me and ma bible and no one else!

Mark

[Guest]

Whoops! Thank you, Mark, I didn't even notice that SSS had done it. That's the fourth time in the last few months that someone has made that mistake, in as many times as I've heard/seen it discussed. Someone White was talking about did it, then my friend Rachel did it, then Steve Gregg did it in his lecture series, and now SSS. Odd that I didn't catch SSS's...

Anyway, SSS, Mark, I really do not want this thread to become a slugging match between the two of you. Nor do I want it to go off into an argument about James White--or even about White's argument on Matt 23:37, at least for now. I made this thread to ask non-Calvinists who use this verse to summarize what the passage says, in light of the exegetical questions I pointed out. If you don't want to do that, please, I ask you to take it somewhere else.

[Guest]

There is nothing to "slugfest" about Jug. I miscited nothing. The fact that Christ said "your children" does not help the Calvbinist's case, nor does it CHANGE ANYTHING. It is a pointless, irrelevant diversion to hide the fact that here we have a LAMENT of how strongly Christ wanted to gather the Jews to Himself--that was His WILL--His monthetic Will, and apparently, that deep desire can be thwarted because of the WAY God made man, and his real purposes, which the Calvinists are wrong about.

HOW OFTEN I WOULD...AND YE WOULD NOT.

TULIP is false. When one simple Bible verse can shipwreck a complex doctrinal system, then we know all we need to know.

Luke:

7:29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God,
being baptized with the baptism of John.
7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against
themselves, being not baptized of him.

Again, the Lord God WANTED the Pharisees and lawyers to accept John and his baptism, but they rejected the will of God, and when you do that, it surely is "against" yourself when one refuses God.

Hebrews:

12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living
God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of
angels,
12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are
written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of
just men made perfect,
12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of
sprinkling, that speaketh better things that that of Abel.
12:25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we
escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:

A warning to believers to "refuse not" God's command to CONTINUE in His grace and covenant. Grace was never, nor will it ever be irresistable. Warning those who are saved of the dire consequences of refusing God NOW while saved of course undermines OSAS, and shows that NO WRITER of Scripture ever had any other presuppositions, other than the Arminian one. Why warn Christians of damnation if they refuse to heed a letter of correction if such is not possible? The Calvinist anwer is of course a non answer. When someone is wrong, they really don't have an answer, though they may fill pages with excuses and rationalizations.

The Universe God made is based on the prinicple of Synergism. Monogerism is a recent invention of men.

[Guest]

SSS, Mark quoted the text that you miscited.

[Guest]

SSS, I'm saying this to you for the second time: I made this thread to discuss very specific exegetical issues related to this verse. I did not make any claims about what we can conclude from it, I did not endorse James White's argument, I did not ask for disproof of anyone's arguments about this verse. I did not ask for proof of synergism, and I didn't claim monergism is true, so it's hard to see what you're responding to. (If you're responding to Mark, please, the two of you, take it somewhere else.) Nor I did not make this thread for you to raise arguments against OSAS.

I raised specific questions related to this verse, and asked non-Calvinists who use this verse simply to summarize what the verse says, with those questions in mind.


I'm going to revise my first post. I said before, "I'm not asking you to specifically address each question, I'm just asking you to think about the passage with those questions in mind, and then summarize what it says." I'm going to make a new request. If your response does not address the three questions I raised, please do not post.

If you want to discuss mongergism & syngergism in general, if you want to talk about White's arguments, please go somewhere else. At least for the moment--I'd like to get some discussion of the introductory questions I raised before we move into figuring out what we can conclude from the verse.

[Guest]

I am happy to bow out....Look forward to reading the thread at least.

Mark

[Guest]

Maybe this answers your questions, from Malcolm Lavender's book Greek Grammar and Syntax Versus Calvinism, p. 272-274:


Matthew 23:37
Jesus says in the Matthew passage:
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets
and stoning the ones sent to her, how often I willed (ēthelēsa)
to gather your children as a hen gathers her young chicks under
her wings, and you willed (ēthelēsate) not…

We note the following claims about Jesus’ statement:
• John Gill on rulers unwilling
• James R. White on Jewish leaders
• Barclay M. Newman and Philip C. Stine on Jerusalem
• Passage exegeted
John Gill states that:

“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 his ministry, 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 menacing the people with curses, and excommunications,
making a law, that whoever confessed him
should be turned out of the synagogue.”436


It is true that the rulers resisted the will of Christ, but the
issue is that the Divine can be resisted, and IS resisted. Accordingly,
God’s will is not such that it cannot be resisted by
man, ruler or people.
James R. White says:

“1 It is to the leaders that God sent prophets;
“2 It was the Jewish leaders who killed the prophets and
those sent to them;
“3 Jesus speaks of ‘your children,’ differentiating those to
whom He is speaking from those that the Lord desired to
gather together.
“4 The context refers to the Jewish leaders, scribes and
Pharisees.”437

Barclay M. Newman and Philip C. Stine say:

“It must be made clear in translation that Jerusalem is
here used of the people of Jerusalem.”438
The Passage Exegeted
Evidently Newman and Stine are correct in their observation
that Jerusalem is a reference to the people of Jerusalem.
But the real issue is not whether Jerusalem is the Jews in general
or the Jewish leaders as claimed by Gill and White. The
issue is that men can and do exercise their will and resist the
will of God, discussed further below.
It is true that Jesus was discussing the Jewish leaders and
their evils, but at verse 36 there is a shift from them to the
Jews in general and He says, this generation: Lexicons define
generation (genea,, genea) as race, kind; generation, contemporaries;
then in verse 37 Jesus says, O Jerusalem, O Jerusalem. The vocative case addresses Jerusalem in general,
whether including the nation or not. But Mat 24 immediately
follows in which the destruction of Jerusalem and the general
judgment of the Jewish nation is referenced. So it would appear
that from verse 36 on, Jesus has the Jewish nation in
mind: this generation, O Jerusalem … and Mat 24, their judgment
spelled out.

But in the final analysis, it is of no crucial essence as to
whom Jesus had in mind when He said:
“I willed (ēthelēsa) to … you willed(ēthelēsate) not.”
The facts are Jesus willed, but the people, whoever they
were, willed the opposite of what He willed. Accordingly, it is
not so that the will of God, in matters of personal compliance,
cannot be resisted. The will of Christ was resisted here and
will be resisted in some sense as long as time lasts.


436
The Collected writings of: John Gill, The Baptist Standard Bearer CD-Rom
series, Mat 23:37, page 737.
437
James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom, page 138.
438
Barclay M. Newman and Philip C. Stine, A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel
of Matthew, United Bible Societies, London, New York, Stuttgart; on Mat
23:37.

[Guest]

How does your post discuss either (1) who "your children" are and their relationship to "Jerusalem", or (2) in what way was God's will resisted? What was done, by whom?