# Jesus laments over Jerusalem



## Pergamum

Hello,

I am looking into Puritan sermon links and quotes regarding Jesus' lament over Jerusalem, especially when he said, _"how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"_

Wondering how this passage is treated theologically and pastorally from the pulpit.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Have you read Calvin on the topic?

Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 3 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library


----------



## Pergamum

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Have you read Calvin on the topic?
> 
> Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 3 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library



Yes, I don't know if I agree with this or not and am looking for a second opinion:



> _How often would I have gathered together thy children._ This is expressive of indignation rather than of compassion.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Context, context, context... 

And the context to be noted is,

*Matthew 23:1-3, 13, 16, 23, 25, 27, 29, 33-37*

1 ″Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you- but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice…

*13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.
*
16 “Woe to you, blind guides…

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!…

25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!…

27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!…

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!…

33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. 37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, *and you would not!
*
As you can see, this passage comes in the context of a fierce rebuke of the religious leaders of the Jews. Note who the pronoun “you” refers to in verses 33-35 where the killers of the prophets are described. We see the killers of the prophets (Jerusalem) being lamented over. One would be hard pressed to make “Jerusalem, the city … your … you” be anyone other than the scribes and Pharisees that Jesus has been rebuking.

Now let’s look more closely at who was resisting and who was to be gathered. Do you see it? Here Jesus laments that the religious leaders were resisting him in his drawing of their children.

To sum up, we have a verse where the religious leaders are being lamented (after the sharpest rebuke Jesus gave anywhere) over their resistance to God’s drawing of the children of Israel.


----------



## KeithW

It is not only context, as Samuel points out, but it is also paying attention to the pronouns. I would have gathered *your children* but *you *would not allow it.

This was first pointed out to me by a friend who is also a pastor. He mentioned that John Gill points this out in *The Cause Of God And Truth, part 1, section 25* (Matt. 23:37).


----------



## Pergamum

Here is Spurgeon's sermon linked. He speaks of this as a true "lament" (meaning that Jesus is sad rather than indignant):

http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols43-45/chs2630.pdf

and here:

Calvin and Calvinism » Blog Archive Â» Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) on Matthew 23:37

Do you have any doctrinal problems with how Spurgeon treats this text?



> . First, WHAT Jesus WOULD DO. “How often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers
> her chickens under her wings!”
> What does this mean? It is a very simple, homely, beautiful, touching simile—the hen gathering her chickens under
> her wings. And it means, first, that Jesus would make you feel quite safe. Look, there is the shadow of a hawk! The bird
> of prey is poised up yonder and the shadow is seen upon the ground. Or the mother hen, looking up, notices the destroyer
> and, in a moment, she gives a cluck of alarm and so calls together her little family. And in a few seconds they are all safe
> beneath her sheltering feathers—her wings become their efficient shield. Now, our Lord Jesus Christ would do just that
> with us. He would make us quite safe—take us out of the broad road of danger and then compass us about with the
> wings of His power so that we might not only be safe, but also feel quite safe.



Spurgeon treats this text as an invitation; not merely an expression of "indignation." Pastorally he treats this text evangelistically to comfort and call people to come to Christ. 

The phrasing does exist, however, in this text that Jesus would have something done, but that man would not have it done. Such that some might say that his desires here are thwarted by the will of man (Christ WOULD but ye WOULD NOT...). God would have them saved, but man would not do so.


----------



## Peairtach

Christ had, and has, a human nature - including a reasonable human soul - and a divine nature. It's a deep mystery how the two natures in one person "relate" and "interact", such that, for example, Christ who was omniscient in His divine nature can express lack of knowledge of something.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## earl40

Peairtach said:


> Christ had, and has, a human nature - including a reasonable human soul - and a divine nature. It's a deep mystery how the two natures in one person "relate" and "interact", such that, for example, Christ who was omniscient in His divine nature can express lack of knowledge of something.




Richard, just curious to what you think Jesus lacked in this discussion?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

I don't see lamentation and indignation as mutually exclusive. There was a sense of sadness over the miserable state of the leaders (since our high priest is a symphatic one), but there was also a righteous anger toward their destructive conduct/behaviour that kept others from receiving the Gospel. Jesus never limited his pity and compassion to the elect, he really felt the pain of all the sinners he encountered on his ministry and was symphatetic about their state, human that he was, and it was precisely because of this sympathy that he would abhor any obstacles set in the way of the Gospel.


----------



## KeithW

You provided a link to Spurgeon's sermon no. 2381. In the first paragraph Spurgeon starts making the mistake John Gill points out with respect to pronouns. Once Spurgeon makes that mistake he pulls the verse out of context and uses this verse to support doctrine found elsewhere in Scripture, but misses the point of this verse and this chapter. Once he misses the meaning of the pronouns he is no longer following his advice and warning of the second paragraph of his sermon that he will follow wherever Scripture leads.

I am going to repeat what Samuel already quoted, and add some more from the same chapter/context, and add another verse which Spurgeon quoted but misapplied. These will be paraphrases for the purpose of not getting lost in the wording of who Jesus is speaking to and what He was trying to say.


Matt. 23:2,3 You common people, do what your religious leaders _say _but not what they _do_.
Matt. 23:4 You common people, your religious leaders lay heavy burdens on you but your leaders will not lift a finger to help you with those burdens.
Matt. 23:13 Woe to you, you religious leaders. You shut up the kingdom of God preventing the common man from entering. You won't go in yourselves nor let the common man go in either.
Matt. 23:15 Woe to you, you religious leaders. You travel land and sea to make one convert, but then you make them twice the child of hell that you already are.
Matt. 23:27,28 Woe to you, you religious leaders. Within, you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Matt. 23:33 You religious leaders, how can _you_ escape the damnation of hell.
Matt. 23:34,35 Jesus will send prophets and wise men, but you religious leaders will kill them, crucify them, scourge them, and persecute them.
Matt. 23:37 You religious leaders, you kill and stone the prophets whom God sends to you.
Matt. 23:37 Jesus said, I would have gathered the common people, your children, but you religious leaders would not have me do it. You religious leaders prevented me.
John 5:39,40 Jesus was saying to the religious leaders, you search the Scriptures thinking that the rules in them will give you life, but those Scriptures testify of Me. But you religious leaders will not come to Me for eternal life.
There is a pattern going on here. All of this is context for Matt 23:37. Focusing on only part of the passage, "how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not", and ignoring the pronouns and context is to miss the main point. Matthew 23 is not about an invitation or an offer.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Yes, the key is the "five woes" of Christ.

Jesus Laments Over Jerusalem | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org


----------



## Wayne

Matt. 23:37
Palmer, B.M., "Christ's Pity for the Sinner," Sermons, pp. 37-47. Jan. 28, 1883.

Spurgeon, C.H., "I Would; But Yet Would Not," #2381, MTP 40.469-477.


----------



## earl40

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Yes, the key is the "five woes" of Christ.
> 
> Jesus Laments Over Jerusalem | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org



"By this hidden will God may ordain events that *by themselves* do not please Him but nonetheless contribute to His glory, which is supremely pleasing to Him "

Of course Our Lord "loves" even the unelect, as His creation, and to totally separate the unelect from the deeds they perform is something we all can and should struggle with as evidenced by the OP.


----------



## Pergamum

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Yes, the key is the "five woes" of Christ.
> 
> Jesus Laments Over Jerusalem | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org



How does Ligonier differ from Spurgeon in his treatment of verse 37? I see no difference in what they seem to say about the attitude of Jesus towards sinners.


----------



## Pilgrim

Matthew 23 Sermons | SermonAudio.com

This may be helpful. But note that not every ministry on SermonAudio is Calvinistic.


----------



## TheOldCourse

Pergamum said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read Calvin on the topic?
> 
> Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 3 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I don't know if I agree with this or not and am looking for a second opinion:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _How often would I have gathered together thy children._ This is expressive of indignation rather than of compassion.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Calvin is not differing from Spurgeon in respect of what that phrase says regarding Jesus' care for the covenant people. If you keep reading on to his comments on the "as a hen collecteth.." phrase that is clear. What he does appear to be differing in, and rightly so, is the general thrust of the whole passage. When Spurgeon takes that one verse out of the passage and makes an evangelistic sermon out of it, he is missing the fact that Jesus himself is not using the statement in that manner. As others have pointed out, it's part of a judgment on the Scribes and Pharisees where Jesus is using his own benevolent attitude towards Jerusalem as a contrast to heighten to guilt of the Scribes and Pharisees. When Calvin says "This is expressive of indignation rather than of compassion." he is not speaking of the gathering together _per se_ as indignant (as if unto judgment), but that the thrust and tenor of the passage in context as a whole--the manner in which he is addressing is audience--is not one of compassion towards Jerusalem but of indignation towards the Scribes and Pharisees.


----------



## Pergamum

Is it appropriate then to follow Spurgeon and focus on verse 37 for a sermon with only passing comments on the general "woes" recorded to Israel? 

I would think so, since each an every sermon is limited, and his aims were not to summarize the whole chapter but to communicate a single main thrust or idea within his pulpit time (the main idea that God is willing to save sinners and not being saved is not due to God's lack but man's lack of willingness). 

Spurgeon's main points seem to be: God was willing, but man was not. Here we see a strange example of God's stated desires being over-turned by man, but yet shows the willingness of Jesus to have saved all, if they only would have come. The reason for salvation is all with God's grace, but the reason for any man's damnation is all his own fault. In 40-45 minutes, just covering the implications of verse 37 is a hefty task.

If the passage as a whole has major notes of indignation, yet minor notes of compassion (to be found in verse 37), it would seem appropriate that any sermon focused on verse 37 specifically would major on the compassion within this larger context of indignation.


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Context, context, context...
> 
> And the context to be noted is,
> 
> *Matthew 23:1-3, 13, 16, 23, 25, 27, 29, 33-37*
> 
> 1 ″Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you- but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice…
> 
> *13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.
> *
> 16 “Woe to you, blind guides…
> 
> 23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!…
> 
> 25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!…
> 
> 27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!…
> 
> 29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!…
> 
> 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. 37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, *and you would not!
> *
> As you can see, this passage comes in the context of a fierce rebuke of the religious leaders of the Jews. Note who the pronoun “you” refers to in verses 33-35 where the killers of the prophets are described. We see the killers of the prophets (Jerusalem) being lamented over. One would be hard pressed to make “Jerusalem, the city … your … you” be anyone other than the scribes and Pharisees that Jesus has been rebuking.
> 
> Now let’s look more closely at who was resisting and who was to be gathered. Do you see it? Here Jesus laments that the religious leaders were resisting him in his drawing of their children.
> 
> To sum up, we have a verse where the religious leaders are being lamented (after the sharpest rebuke Jesus gave anywhere) over their resistance to God’s drawing of the children of Israel.



Excellent! Gordon Clark pointed that out as well.


----------



## Cymro

Gordon Clarke draws upon Dr Gill in his interpretation, which to my
mind is the only sensible treatment.


----------



## Pergamum

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2009/06/matthew_2337_and_the_role_of_t.php


Pilgrim said:


> Matthew 23 Sermons | SermonAudio.com
> 
> This may be helpful. But note that not every ministry on SermonAudio is Calvinistic.



Thanks, that is helpful. A question: on the sermon audio site (to the left of the sermon title) there is a symbol of a pencil. Does this mean that there exists a written transcript of the text. I'd much rather see/read a written transcript than listen to mp3 sermons, if that option is available. 

Here is a discussion on James White's view of Matthew 23:37. White agrees with Gill's exegesis: Society of Evangelical Arminians | James White on Matthew 23:37

Here is another good link that was helpful to me: 

Does Spurgeon essentially take an Arminian reading of this text?


----------



## Jonny.

Pergamum said:


> Thanks, that is helpful. A question: on the sermon audio site (to the left of the sermon title) there is a symbol of a pencil. Does this mean that there exists a written transcript of the text. I'd much rather see/read a written transcript than listen to mp3 sermons, if that option is available.



No, I'm not sure what the pencil means, but it's only available to paying members. Something to do with comments maybe?

There's a dropdown menu just below the selected Scripture portion. It allows you to filter sermons. You can select "Transcript" or "PDF text" to only show sermons that have these.


----------



## Pergamum

I think I am now coming to an understanding of the reformed understanding of this verse. How often would Christ have gathered the "children" of those Jewish religious leaders, but those leaders would not have it thusly. They (the Jewish leaders) stood against God's purposes in gathering others. 

However, this doesn't eliminate the problem; Jesus desired something which did not happen. He desired to gather those taught by the Jewish authorities, those inhabitants of Jerusalem (those children). Yet the bulk of those in Jerusalem were not gathered but remained as unbelievers. He saved some from Jerusalem, but not even a majority it seems (40 years later the city was destroyed for her unbelief and the number of Jesus-followers seemed low...not much of a gathering). Also, among those religious leaders (whom Jesus does not say that he desires to save), some of those pharisees were, in fact, saved. 

So, if it is a misrepresentation of the text to interpret this text (like Spurgeon does) to mean, "God has said, how often would I have gathered you...but ye would not..." there is, nonetheless, a portion of folks in Jerusalem that Jesus seems to say that he desired to gather but they were not gathered. It doesn't matter that the "ye would not" refers to the leaders rather than the "children"...Jesus desired that the children be gathered, yet many if not most of those children were not gathered. It seems that there was something that Jesus desired that did not fully happen.


----------



## earl40

I think we can look at this in respect to Our Lord's humanity in that He desired what is good and natural to humans. For instance in the wilderness while being tempted by satan Jesus no doubt wanted to eat which is of itself is good but The Fathers will was followed in that He did not eat. The same could be the case with the people of Jerusalem in that as humans (which includes Jesus in His humanity) we should weep for those who do not know The Lord which include those we know not if they are elect or not.


----------



## Abeard

Have you checked out John Brown of Haddington's Discourses and sayings of our Lord?


----------



## Pergamum

Abeard said:


> Have you checked out John Brown of Haddington's Discourses and sayings of our Lord?



No. Do you have a link?


----------



## KeithW

The essence of your question seems to be, can God's will be thwarted? Here are some things from Arthur W. Pink.

*Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty Of God, Chapter 11. Difficulties and Objections*

In the first 10 chapters, Pink first establishes that God is Sovereign and that His Will is not thwarted. Then Pink considers objections to this idea in chapter 11 and in his appendices. In chapter 11 he specifically considers Matt. 23:37.

*Arthur W. Pink, The Doctrine Of Election, Chapter 11. Its Opposition*

Pink considers Matt. 23:37 and other Scriptures which say the same thing.



Chapter 11. Its Opposition said:


> "Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; but ye have set at naught all my counsel, and would none of my reproof" (Prov. 1:24, 25). "I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts" (Isa. 65:2). "How often would I have gathered thy children together . . . and ye would not" (Matt. 23:37).


----------



## whirlingmerc

Al Mohler on Matt 23:37-39 Matt 24:1-13 http://www.sbts.edu/media/audio/MohlerSS/20091025.mp3


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> I think I am now coming to an understanding of the reformed understanding of this verse. How often would Christ have gathered the "children" of those Jewish religious leaders, but those leaders would not have it thusly. They (the Jewish leaders) stood against God's purposes in gathering others.
> 
> However, this doesn't eliminate the problem; Jesus desired something which did not happen. He desired to gather those taught by the Jewish authorities, those inhabitants of Jerusalem (those children). Yet the bulk of those in Jerusalem were not gathered but remained as unbelievers. He saved some from Jerusalem, but not even a majority it seems (40 years later the city was destroyed for her unbelief and the number of Jesus-followers seemed low...not much of a gathering). Also, among those religious leaders (whom Jesus does not say that he desires to save), some of those pharisees were, in fact, saved.
> 
> So, if it is a misrepresentation of the text to interpret this text (like Spurgeon does) to mean, "God has said, how often would I have gathered you...but ye would not..." there is, nonetheless, a portion of folks in Jerusalem that Jesus seems to say that he desired to gather but they were not gathered. It doesn't matter that the "ye would not" refers to the leaders rather than the "children"...Jesus desired that the children be gathered, yet many if not most of those children were not gathered. It seems that there was something that Jesus desired that did not fully happen.



I'm perfectly content with the idea that Jesus desired something that did not happen. He was a man after all.

I don't mean to diminish the fact that the Person has two natures but merely to note that Jesus the man could have (and did have) desires that were not necessarily fulfilled. He asked the Father if there was a way for the cup to pass by in the Garden.

One of the things I've grown to appreciate is the Reformed contribution to Christology that stressed that Jesus the man was dependent upon the Spirit for His work. There is still great mystery but we sometimes think of Christ in Appollinarian terms as if He walked the earth with a Divine mind in a human body.

I was actually meditating on Lazarus' death yesterday and that Christ shed real tears. We sometimes think that Jesus was just operating with Divine understanding and so He sort of puts on some sort of show for the crowd. We have to give some explanatory reason as to why Jesus would weep over the death of a friend because, after all, He's omniscient. No He was not - in His humanity.

Thus, as far as a desire for the inhabitants of Jerusalem to be saved, I don't think it's any more unusual for Jesus to desire (as a man) the salvation of those He came into contact with and still testify to Nicodemus that the "Spirit blows where it will...." If it's inappropriate for Jesus to desire the salvation of men then it is also for us.

That said, I agree with the interpretation that this is a rebuke. It's a "subjunctive" that, if it was not for the blinding influence of these leaders, there would be more fruit and they'll pay for it. It's precisely what we think about those who have led others astray with false teaching. Obviously it is God's eternal decree that some men are blinded by the Scribes and Pharisees but it's still true (as far as theology at the level of the creature) that men are responsible for causing little ones to stumble and that it's better for them that they were never born.


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I am now coming to an understanding of the reformed understanding of this verse. How often would Christ have gathered the "children" of those Jewish religious leaders, but those leaders would not have it thusly. They (the Jewish leaders) stood against God's purposes in gathering others.
> 
> However, this doesn't eliminate the problem; Jesus desired something which did not happen. He desired to gather those taught by the Jewish authorities, those inhabitants of Jerusalem (those children). Yet the bulk of those in Jerusalem were not gathered but remained as unbelievers. He saved some from Jerusalem, but not even a majority it seems (40 years later the city was destroyed for her unbelief and the number of Jesus-followers seemed low...not much of a gathering). Also, among those religious leaders (whom Jesus does not say that he desires to save), some of those pharisees were, in fact, saved.
> 
> So, if it is a misrepresentation of the text to interpret this text (like Spurgeon does) to mean, "God has said, how often would I have gathered you...but ye would not..." there is, nonetheless, a portion of folks in Jerusalem that Jesus seems to say that he desired to gather but they were not gathered. It doesn't matter that the "ye would not" refers to the leaders rather than the "children"...Jesus desired that the children be gathered, yet many if not most of those children were not gathered. It seems that there was something that Jesus desired that did not fully happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly content with the idea that Jesus desired something that did not happen. He was a man after all.
> 
> I don't mean to diminish the fact that the Person has two natures but merely to note that Jesus the man could have (and did have) desires that were not necessarily fulfilled. He asked the Father if there was a way for the cup to pass by in the Garden.
> 
> One of the things I've grown to appreciate is the Reformed contribution to Christology that stressed that Jesus the man was dependent upon the Spirit for His work. There is still great mystery but we sometimes think of Christ in Appollinarian terms as if He walked the earth with a Divine mind in a human body.
> 
> I was actually meditating on Lazarus' death yesterday and that Christ shed real tears. We sometimes think that Jesus was just operating with Divine understanding and so He sort of puts on some sort of show for the crowd. We have to give some explanatory reason as to why Jesus would weep over the death of a friend because, after all, He's omniscient. No He was not - in His humanity.
> 
> Thus, as far as a desire for the inhabitants of Jerusalem to be saved, I don't think it's any more unusual for Jesus to desire (as a man) the salvation of those He came into contact with and still testify to Nicodemus that the "Spirit blows where it will...." If it's inappropriate for Jesus to desire the salvation of men then it is also for us.
> 
> That said, I agree with the interpretation that this is a rebuke. It's a "subjunctive" that, if it was not for the blinding influence of these leaders, there would be more fruit and they'll pay for it. It's precisely what we think about those who have led others astray with false teaching. Obviously it is God's eternal decree that some men are blinded by the Scribes and Pharisees but it's still true (as far as theology at the level of the creature) that men are responsible for causing little ones to stumble and that it's better for them that they were never born.
Click to expand...


Yes, thanks. I was also thinking of Jesus asking the cup to pass from him. John Frame stated, ""God does not intend to bring about everything he values, but he never fails to bring about what he intends" in the context of distinguishing between God's moral will and his hidden will or decree. As strange as it sounds, it seems that God wills things in his hidden will that He does not "desire' in his moral will, such that Reformed theologians have spoken of the "two wills" of God (not that there are two wills, for God only has one will, but that we see this will through these two lenses).


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks Rich, you also wrote:



> If it's inappropriate for Jesus to desire the salvation of men then it is also for us.



Yes. This seems to be one of the main preaching implications of this verse. 

Here is one of the reasons for the OP: I am encountering some Primitive Baptists that seem to restrict God's desire to see men saved and deny that there is a sense in which Jesus desired all to be saved. 

Would you agree that God "desires" to see all men saved? Or that Jesus in his humanity desired to see all men saved (even though God did not will such a thing)? God is willing for all to come; but man's will is what prevents him from being saved such that salvationis 100% grace and of GOd, yet man's damnation is totally his own fault (Spurgeon's main point in the linked sermon).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> Would you agree that God "desires" to see all men saved? Or that Jesus in his humanity desired to see all men saved (even though God did not will such a thing)? God is willing for all to come; but man's will is what prevents him from being saved such that salvationis 100% grace and of GOd, yet man's damnation is totally his own fault (Spurgeon's main point in the linked sermon).


I do not think we can draw, from Christ's humanity, a straight line to unfulfilled desire in God. To use this passage to develop an idea of "desire" in the Godhead blurs the Creator/creature distinction. I think those that jump here as "proof" that God desires certain things are ignoring the dual nature of Christ.

I also think that it is appropriate that we desire all men that we meet to be saved. We plead with men to know Christ and don't make judgments concerning whether God has elected them. I think the "desire" is God's glory and the command to all men to repent. I don't think it's necessary to think of "all humanity" in the abstract and think: "I wish that God would save all men but that's not the way it's going to be." It is enough that, where God puts us, we strive with the men and women we encounter and plead with them to repent and believe. 2 Tim 2:24-25 is a useful passage that indicates compassion, concern, and patience toward men we meet. We don't exercise these things toward mankind in general but toward the men we meet.

I think the mistake that some primitive Baptists make is blurring the Creator/creature distinction and seeking to live as if they know God's secret counsel concerning certain men simply because they know God's revealed will concerning election. It proves the point that the Confessions make that such things need to be handled with great care - something some fail to do.


----------



## Pergamum

ok thanks. I am re-reading through this thread and thinking about it all. 

Right now I am also reading this book by John Piper: Does God Desire All to Be Saved? - Kindle edition by John Piper. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.



> In this short, theological essay, John Piper builds a scriptural case that God’s unconditional election unto salvation is compatible with God’s genuine desire and offer for all to be saved. Helping us to make sense of this seemingly paradoxical relationship, Piper wisely holds both truths in tension as he explores the Bible’s teaching on this challenging topic, graciously responds to those who disagree, and motivates us to passionately proclaim the free offer of the gospel to all people.


I am struggling to see how appealing to Christ's human nature can be an aid here. It is not as if Christ's human nature is going to will things contrary to His divine nature. Though Jesus did tire and hunger and weep.

To help me understand this better, I am reading these two books:
http://www.amazon.com/Glimpses-Inner-Life-Our-Lord/dp/1230228144/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1418077009&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=glimpses+of+the+inner+life+of+our+lord++william+blaikie

Glimpses of the Inner Life of our Lord by William Blaikie.

And also this: http://www.amazon.com/emotions-Jesus-Robert-Law/dp/117727440X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418077028&sr=1-1&keywords=robert+law++the+emotions+of+Jesus
The Emotions of Jesus, by Robert Law.

This has been a topic which I have wanted to study more deeply for some time.


----------



## earl40

Pergamum said:


> ok thanks. I am re-reading through this thread and thinking about it all.
> 
> Right now I am also reading this book by John Piper: Does God Desire All to Be Saved? - Kindle edition by John Piper. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this short, theological essay, John Piper builds a scriptural case that God’s unconditional election unto salvation is compatible with God’s genuine desire and offer for all to be saved. Helping us to make sense of this seemingly paradoxical relationship, Piper wisely holds both truths in tension as he explores the Bible’s teaching on this challenging topic, graciously responds to those who disagree, and motivates us to passionately proclaim the free offer of the gospel to all people.
Click to expand...


This was a very good discussion that I would suggest you to read when you read Pastor Piper's book. Especially post #33. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/john-piper-sovereign-moral-will-god-28537/


----------



## MW

WCF 3.7, "The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath, for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice."

God desires the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, and He will do what He desires.


----------



## Pergamum

earl40 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok thanks. I am re-reading through this thread and thinking about it all.
> 
> Right now I am also reading this book by John Piper: Does God Desire All to Be Saved? - Kindle edition by John Piper. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this short, theological essay, John Piper builds a scriptural case that God’s unconditional election unto salvation is compatible with God’s genuine desire and offer for all to be saved. Helping us to make sense of this seemingly paradoxical relationship, Piper wisely holds both truths in tension as he explores the Bible’s teaching on this challenging topic, graciously responds to those who disagree, and motivates us to passionately proclaim the free offer of the gospel to all people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This was a very good discussion that I would suggest you to read when you read Pastor Piper's book. Especially post #33.
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/john-piper-sovereign-moral-will-god-28537/
Click to expand...


Thanks. Will do.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> It is not as if Christ's human nature is going to will things contrary to His divine nature.


What do you mean by "will things" contrary to His divine nature?

What is contrary to the nature of God that a man, living by faith, has compassion and concern for his fellow man? Why must our concern for a fellow man mean that, the only way we can really have it as creatures, is for God to regard that man as beloved in the sense of being Elect?


----------



## Peairtach

earl40 said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ had, and has, a human nature - including a reasonable human soul - and a divine nature. It's a deep mystery how the two natures in one person "relate" and "interact", such that, for example, Christ who was omniscient in His divine nature can express lack of knowledge of something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, just curious to what you think Jesus lacked in this discussion?
Click to expand...


I don't think He lacked anything in His humanity which He was intended to have, to carry out the task of being a prophet, priest and king for His people. But He was a man and had to live as a man with human finitude. 

He still has a human nature of course, but it is now glorified and exalted.

The two natures of Christ are always part of the context in any part of the Gospels.


----------



## Peairtach

earl40 said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ had, and has, a human nature - including a reasonable human soul - and a divine nature. It's a deep mystery how the two natures in one person "relate" and "interact", such that, for example, Christ who was omniscient in His divine nature can express lack of knowledge of something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, just curious to what you think Jesus lacked in this discussion?
Click to expand...


I don't think He lacked anything in His humanity which He was intended to have, to carry out the task of being a prophet, priest and king for His people. But He was a man and had to live as a man with human finitude. 

He still has a human nature of course, but it is now glorified and exalted.

The two natures of Christ are always part of the context in any part of the Gospels.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

By the way, as an "error check", make sure you ask yourself: "Does my objection require that Jesus' human nature have divine knowledge for this objection to be valid?"

Would this objection be true if I was the subject? 

Jesus accomplished His work by the power of the Holy Spirit. He was not a mixed nature where He freely tapped into a divine mind whenever He thought it convenient.


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not as if Christ's human nature is going to will things contrary to His divine nature.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "will things" contrary to His divine nature?
> 
> What is contrary to the nature of God that a man, living by faith, has compassion and concern for his fellow man? Why must our concern for a fellow man mean that, the only way we can really have it as creatures, is for God to regard that man as beloved in the sense of being Elect?
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree that God has a general love towards humanity that isn't saving.

But in Matthew 23:37 it is not clear that a general beneficence is sufficient. Jesus' desire to "gather" these people would be a gathering that was to their eternal good. It appears that Jesus desires to save in Matthew 23:37, not merely show them some general kindness. And yet some are not saved.


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> By the way, as an "error check", make sure you ask yourself: "Does my objection require that Jesus' human nature have divine knowledge for this objection to be valid?"
> 
> Would this objection be true if I was the subject?
> 
> Jesus accomplished His work by the power of the Holy Spirit. He was not a mixed nature where He freely tapped into a divine mind whenever He thought it convenient.



Yes, thanks.

I am struggling over this issue as well. for instance, just today I read Piper regarding Matthew 24:36 today here: How can Jesus be God and man? | Desiring God



> Have you ever wondered how Jesus could say that He did not know the day or hour of His return (Matthew 24:36) even though He is omniscient (John 21:17). If Jesus is God, why didn't He know the day of His return? This is solved by our understanding that Christ is one Person with two natures. The answer is that in regards to His human nature, Jesus does not have all knowledge. Thus, in His human nature He really did not know the day or hour of His return. But in His divine nature, He does have all knowledge and thus in His divine nature He did know when He would return.
> 
> Here comes the most fascinating part. Since the two natures are united in one Person, the fact that Christ's human nature didn't know when He would return means that the Person of Christ did not know when He would return. Thus, Jesus the Person could truly say, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone" (Matthew 24:36). At the same time, by virtue of His divine nature, we can also say that the Person of Christ did know when He would return. Knowledge and ignorance of the time of His return are both true of the Christ, but in different ways. In His human nature, the Person of Christ was ignorant of when He would return. In His divine nature, the Person of Christ did know when He would return. Thus, Christ Himself both knew and did not know when He would return.



Next week I hope to study Matthew 24:36 more deeply, since this is also a challenging area of theology. "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone" (Matthew 24:36). Jesus as man is ignorant of some things. 

I am trying to flesh out the implications of this if you or anyone else has sermons, links, books, to help me through this area as well.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> Yes, I agree that God has a general love towards humanity that isn't saving.
> 
> But in Matthew 23:37 it is not clear that a general beneficence is sufficient. Jesus' desire to "gather" these people would be a gathering that was to their eternal good. It appears that Jesus desires to save in Matthew 23:37, not merely show them some general kindness. And yet some are not saved.



Why can't Christ, the man, genuinely care that men's souls are lost because of false teaching? Could He not have had sorrow over the people He might have hoped would have been saved? His knowledge is creaturely and so is prone to such loss and suffering. It's prone to regret that some might have been otherwise saved but it is not, ultimately, in competition with Divine knowledge of such things nor does it imply that the Godhead "suffers" by being surprised or disappointed by what might have been if false teaching was not in the way. Why can't Jeremiah weep over Jerusalem and still accept God's judgment as just?

Is not God's perspective of things altogether different than the creature's or must we insist that God must have sorrow, regret, surprise, etc for Christ the man to experience these things? This is the mystery of the incarnation that a Person can have these two natures in hypostatic union.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Saved round...

I just completed a study of Revelation.

Will Christ, in His humanity or divinity, have any regrets when the bowls of wrath are poured out on the earth?

The way I read Scripture, there's a certain creaturely perspective toward our fellow man while we're living in this present world but we will be one day in a chorus praising the Lamb for judging His enemies.

It is not "proper" in this present age to act as if the judgment has come when God has not yet filled up His wrath and the time to repent is at hand. Now is the time to repent and we genuinely care that men do so knowing that, one Day, the time will be over and we will be praising the Lamb for the destruction of His enemies.

The Lamb slain before the foundation of the world is worthy to open the seals because He was the sacrificial victim. Christ's death and resurrection is that which constitutes the very means that a Bride be gathered and the season before His second advent is the season of proclaiming Christ as saving all those who would place their trust in Him. Yet the time will come where that Lamb will become a military champion. The two aspects don't represent Christ or us both loving and hating our fellow man. The point is that, for now, we genuinely call men and women to repentance and faith but we will not eternally mourn over their destruction when the time to repent has ceased.


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks Rich. I think I agree all in the past several posts. Will be reading more on Christ's humanity this week as it is sometimes difficult to understand how the divine and human natures interact in the one Person of Jesus. The books on "the emotional life of Jesus" have been challenging to me.


----------



## JimmyH

Maybe this is way off base, and maybe not. I was reading a review on Amazon here , of N.T. Wright's, "Paul and the Faithfulness of God." I haven't read the book. The reviewer says ;



> Therefore, God has set out to redeem fallen humanity, which subsequently redeems fallen creation. I wish I could give more time to this topic here, but alas, space fails me. In short, Wright vigorously attacks the Gnostic style narrative that has been allowed to drive Western Christianity. *The narrative that is all about "me and my relationship with God", with nothing of the Cosmos or man's stewardship. *There is so much more going on!


 (bold text emphasis mine) 

The bold text part really struck me. How many of us look at "me" rather than God's larger purpose. Not sure this applies at all, but I thought to mention it. If I'm interpreting him correctly I think Reverend Winzer's post is making that very point ?



MW said:


> WCF 3.7, "The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath, for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice."
> 
> God desires the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, and He will do what He desires.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jimmy,

I think there are aspects that are true but N.T.Wright makes the "it's not this but this..." error. It is both true that God has redeemed a corporate people (and it's not *all* about me) but His election is not *merely* corporate. There is a "me* in God's purposes. He didn't redeem a nameless people but died for each by name. To be in the Body of Christ is more than simply defining boundary markers. Christ not only addresses His Churches but also individuals.

That said, I think there is an aspect to a lot of the reason that people want to insist "desires" in God has much to do with the idea that the salvation story is about a God _longing_ for communion with people. He wants them to choose Him because, after all, love is worth the risk. We want a God _obsessed_ with individuals, in need of them or we won't consider such a God loving. God is doing His best and so there is no offense to such an offer of the Gospel because God's doing His part in fully craving us and, if we neglect the gift, then it's really our fault that both God and the damned will be eternally miserable. Well, at least God will because such a God will just annihilate because a man's failure to self-actuate can't really warrant eternal condemnation.


----------



## Mushroom

If we are to weep over the rejection of the Gospel on the part of unbelievers, why does the Lord instruct the disciples to shake the dust off their sandals at those who would not hear them proclaim it? That doesn't sound like an act of mourning.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Mushroom said:


> If we are to weep over the rejection of the Gospel on the part of unbelievers, why does the Lord instruct the disciples to shake the dust off their sandals at those who would not hear them proclaim it? That doesn't sound like an act of mourning.



Does the shaking of dust imply that one may not mourn over the rejection of the Gospel? 

Acts 13:50–51 (ESV)

50*But the Jews incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city, stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district. 51*But they shook off the dust from their feet against them and went to Iconium.


Romans 9:1–3 (ESV)

1*I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2*that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3*For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.


2 Timothy 2:24–26 (ESV)
24*And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25*correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26*and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.


----------



## Pergamum

Mushroom said:


> If we are to weep over the rejection of the Gospel on the part of unbelievers, why does the Lord instruct the disciples to shake the dust off their sandals at those who would not hear them proclaim it? That doesn't sound like an act of mourning.



A major evangelical missiological trend in our own day (as promoted by Fuller and Donald McGavrin, et al) was the practice of trying to gauge "receptivity" to the Gospel among unreached people-groups and diverting workers due to this "metric." This means that "resistant" groups often get little attention because "the harvest is not yet ripe there." 

Maybe we could start another OP about "shaking off the dust" in today's missionary efforts and whether this is a lasting missiological principle for us today, especially among resistant groups. Should we allocate missionary workers based on receptivity? If yes, to what degree?

There might be wisdom in going to where people want to hear you? Yet, God told us to go to "all" nations (Matthew 28), not just the receptive ones. Who is going to go to the resistant peoples?


----------



## JimmyH

Our Lord also said ; Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

I've heard that exposited to say that proclaiming the Gospel in some circles is inviting mockers and scoffers, or worse. 

Here is a page of commentaries expositing the verse ; Matthew 7:6 Commentaries: "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.


----------



## Mushroom

I don't see the instruction to shake off the dust of sandals to imply that the Church is not called to proclaim the Gospel to resistant people, just not to get our knickers in a knot, or be emotionally dejected, over the fact that some/many reject it. Paul's sorrow seemed to be over the rejection by his kinsmen collectively, like as one might sorrow over the rejection of Christ by one's own nation, but when faced with it particularly he on a few occasions left them in a manner that did not appear mournful.

Patiently enduring doesn't necessarily imply sorrow, and lack of sorrow doesn't necessarily imply lack of gentleness, does it?

Maybe it's just me, but it seems rather strange to say we should sorrow over something we know that 1. God does not sorrow over, and that 2. we will one day _not _sorrow over. Knowing those things to be true, doesn't that make our present temporary sorrowing a tad contrived? I mean, I have hope that all my family, all my friends, all my coworkers, even all the world will believe unto salvation, and as I am able I support and even participate in the effort to make Christ known to them, but I find it logically inconsistent to grieve over the fact that many won't, considering that to be the will of God. 

I have wept at the thought of unregenerate family and friends dying in unbelief, knowing they have entered an eternity of sorrows, but the reality is that that sorrow has not lessened since the day they died. If it is appropriate to grieve then, why not now? Grief would never end if it were ever proper. The way I deal with it is to repent of my dissatisfaction and disagreement with what God righteously ordains, and move on. Is there some error in that?

And further, is Paul's grief over the loss to unbelief of God's enemies, or over the fact that a people known for the benefits bestowed upon them by God have so sullied His name by their rejection of Him? Immediately after describing those benefits he goes on to state that they are not all Israel who are of Israel and then enters a discourse on the sovereign electing love of God. He seems to be refuting his own grief, which to me would imply it to be descriptive rather than prescriptive in nature, and a thing to be repented of. But I could be reading it all wrong, so I'm open to correction.


----------



## MW

Verse 38, "Behold your house is left unto you desolate."

It was the purpose of God that Israel should be hardened and blinded in order that the Gentiles might come in. Suppose for a moment that "Jerusalem below" had been willing to have her children gathered by Christ. What then? Must the Gentiles be suffered to continue in ignorance? What of God's desire for their salvation? But, as James said in defence of the Gentile mission, "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world," Acts 15:18. We can be sure that the desires of God for the salvation of men are in perfect accord with His knowledge and counsel.


----------



## Pergamum

Mushroom said:


> I don't see the instruction to shake off the dust of sandals to imply that the Church is not called to proclaim the Gospel to resistant people, just not to get our knickers in a knot, or be emotionally dejected, over the fact that some/many reject it. Paul's sorrow seemed to be over the rejection by his kinsmen collectively, like as one might sorrow over the rejection of Christ by one's own nation, but when faced with it particularly he on a few occasions left them in a manner that did not appear mournful.
> 
> Patiently enduring doesn't necessarily imply sorrow, and lack of sorrow doesn't necessarily imply lack of gentleness, does it?
> 
> Maybe it's just me, but it seems rather strange to say we should sorrow over something we know that 1. God does not sorrow over, and that 2. we will one day _not _sorrow over. Knowing those things to be true, doesn't that make our present temporary sorrowing a tad contrived? I mean, I have hope that all my family, all my friends, all my coworkers, even all the world will believe unto salvation, and as I am able I support and even participate in the effort to make Christ known to them, but I find it logically inconsistent to grieve over the fact that many won't, considering that to be the will of God.
> 
> I have wept at the thought of unregenerate family and friends dying in unbelief, knowing they have entered an eternity of sorrows, but the reality is that that sorrow has not lessened since the day they died. If it is appropriate to grieve then, why not now? Grief would never end if it were ever proper. The way I deal with it is to repent of my dissatisfaction and disagreement with what God righteously ordains, and move on. Is there some error in that?
> 
> And further, is Paul's grief over the loss to unbelief of God's enemies, or over the fact that a people known for the benefits bestowed upon them by God have so sullied His name by their rejection of Him? Immediately after describing those benefits he goes on to state that they are not all Israel who are of Israel and then enters a discourse on the sovereign electing love of God. He seems to be refuting his own grief, which to me would imply it to be descriptive rather than prescriptive in nature, and a thing to be repented of. But I could be reading it all wrong, so I'm open to correction.



Yes, I agree. We will rejoice and say AMEN to all of God's AMENs in heaven. It is just sad now (during this time) to see people rejecting the Lord). 

I believe Jesus' grief was a true lament and not merely indignation. I believe it broke His heart and made him sad. But some deny this. Hence the OP.


----------

