# Does the Father grant every single petition of His son Jesus?



## Pergamum (Mar 23, 2011)

It would appear that the Father grants every single petition of His Son Jesus. This means that if Jesus ever prayed for anything without qualification, it was answered. This means that if Jesus intercedes for His People, then those People are safe.

This brings us to the following two scenarios: (1) Jesus, on the cross, asked the Father "Forgive them...." (2) Jesus in Golgotha asked for this cup to pass him by (if possible).

---I would assert that, at the Cross, all for whom Christ prayed for were, in fact, saved at some point. 

---I would also point out that Christ's prayers in Golgotha contained the "if this were possible" statement. 

so, I believe that every single request by the Son is granted by the Father. And this gives believers comfort since He intercedes for us. 



Thoughts?


----------



## Whitefield (Mar 23, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> ---I would assert that, at the Cross, all for whom Christ prayed for were, in fact, saved at some point.



This may be forgiveness for this particular crime (sin), and not a blanket forgiveness for all sins unto salvation. Just a thought.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 23, 2011)

Or it could be forgiveness for His Elect that were part of the soldiers who were killing him. 

This seems more likely, since forgiveness for one sin, yet damnation for the rest of one's sins, seems a bit useless.


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 24, 2011)

As long as he closed by saying, "in my name I pray, Amen," I could go with this.  Would this mean that since certain people did not repent and believe (think certain Pharisees), Jesus did not pray for their salvation?


----------



## Whitefield (Mar 24, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Or it could be forgiveness for His Elect that were part of the soldiers who were killing him.



Yes, it could be, but one would have to read this into the passage. I don't think there are any textual indicators to believe He is absolving the elect.



Pergamum said:


> This seems more likely, since forgiveness for one sin, yet damnation for the rest of one's sins, seems a bit useless.


 
Unless one considers the temporal punishments which might come from this crime. If viewed from the perspective of eternal punishment, then yes, it would seem useless.


----------



## MW (Mar 24, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Thoughts?


 
The old divines distinguished between His actions as Mediator of His people and His actions as Minister to the circumcision. The prayer of John 17 is of the former class and hence excluded the world. Actions of the latter class are seen in the many petitions for and pleadings to the covenanted nation of Israel. Understood in the prayer of Jesus on the cross are the covenant stipulations of prayer which are to be found at the dedication of the temple. This prayer demands repentance as a necessary prerequisite for forgiveness. Another indicator that it is not a Mediatorial action is seen in Stephen's imitation of it in Acts 7.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 24, 2011)

So there are some prayers of even Jesus that are not answered?


----------



## MW (Mar 24, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> So there are some prayers of even Jesus that are not answered?


 
How often would He have gathered the children of Jerusalem but they would not!


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 24, 2011)

But He does not pray for them with His perfect intercession and they are not included among those given to Him out of the world, those for whom Christ prays in John 17. We have a record of Jesus grieving for them, and yet we have no record of Him praying for them.

Though we may assert a general love of all mankind and many even assert a general desire by God for all men to be saved, but God does not take saving action towards them.


----------



## MW (Mar 24, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> But He does not pray for them with His perfect intercession and they are not included among those given to Him out of the world, those for whom Christ prays in John 17. We have a record of Jesus grieving for them, and yet we have no record of Him praying for them.



I don't think one can theoretically separate the lamentation over Jerusalem and the prayer from the cross seeing as they are part of one great rejection event. As noted previously, this ministerial prayer is of a different nature from the mediatorial prayer of John 17, if we follow that old distinction.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 24, 2011)

Doesn't it say how he would have gathered the children? But basically they were hindered. In the long run he does gather His Children. That lament is over the Hindering of the children. It isn't necessarily over the fact that he didn't gather them, is it? Isn't he also proclaiming something concerning their sin? 



> (Mat 23:37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
> 
> (Mat 23:38) Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.



It also seems like a declarative statement as "Ye Blind guides who strain at a gnat!"

And He does gather his children from Jerusalem. That is what happened at Pentecost.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 24, 2011)

How can we be sure that the Father listened to Christ in John 17 if His intercession is not always effective?


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 24, 2011)

> How often would He have gathered the children of Jerusalem but they would not!



When I saw this post, I wasn't sure if Johnny Hunt, Adrian Rogers, or Norman Geisler had joined the PB. 

Who did He want to gather? "Your children"
Who "would not"? "You."

Two different groups of people. The Pharisees and teachers of the Law are rebuked for an entire chapter up to this point in Matthew 23. Christ condemns them for leading/keeping their people in disobedience.

The group who "would not" is not the same group that Christ wants to gather.


----------



## jogri17 (Mar 24, 2011)

reference?


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 24, 2011)

Matthew 23:37

NIV


> 37 “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, and *you were not willing*.



KJV


> 37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often *would I have gathered thy children *together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and *ye would not!*



etc...

all the versions have it the same. Christ is addressing the teachers of the Law, and wants to gather "your children" (the people of Israel), but 'you' (teachers of the law) are not willing for that to happen.


----------



## MW (Mar 24, 2011)

smhbbag said:


> When I saw this post, I wasn't sure if Johnny Hunt, Adrian Rogers, or Norman Geisler had joined the PB.


 
Within a confessional context, how about we ask David Dickson or James Durham to join the conversation?

David Dickson: “In this lamentation our Lord is not to show what power is in men’s wicked nature to convert themselves, or to make use of the means of conversion, nor what power there is in corrupt nature to oppose that power which God putteth forth in conversion of souls; neither is he lamenting their case as one unable to obtain his own desired end in the salvation of such as he intended to save: for no reason can extract these conclusions necessarily from these speeches. The true sense of them is obtained without any such inferences; for our Lord, *as man*, and a kindly minister of the circumcision moved with humane compassion for the miseries of his native countrymen, lets forth his love in this lamentation and weeping, while he beholds the desperate obstinacy of the multitude running to perdition, thereby intending to make the reprobate who should hear of his tender bowels inexcusable, and to move the elect to repentance by this means.” (A Brief Exposition of the Evangel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew, p. 317.)

James Durham: “So when he preached *as man*, and a minister of the circumcision, he says [Matt. 23:37], O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thee, and thou wouldst not! Whereas, if we consider him as Mediator, he does what he will, and calls none but they come, and wills none to be gathered, but such as are gathered.” (Sermons on Isaiah 53, pp. 622-623.)


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 25, 2011)

> Within a confessional context, how about we ask David Dickson or James Durham to join the conversation?
> 
> David Dickson: “In this lamentation our Lord is not to show what power is in men’s wicked nature to convert themselves, or to make use of the means of conversion, nor what power there is in corrupt nature to oppose that power which God putteth forth in conversion of souls; neither is he lamenting their case as one unable to obtain his own desired end in the salvation of such as he intended to save: for no reason can extract these conclusions necessarily from these speeches. The true sense of them is obtained without any such inferences; for our Lord, as man, and a kindly minister of the circumcision moved with humane compassion for the miseries of his native countrymen, lets forth his love in this lamentation and weeping, while he beholds the desperate obstinacy of the multitude running to perdition, thereby intending to make the reprobate who should hear of his tender bowels inexcusable, and to move the elect to repentance by this means.” (A Brief Exposition of the Evangel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew, p. 317.)
> 
> James Durham: “So when he preached as man, and a minister of the circumcision, he says [Matt. 23:37], O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thee, and thou wouldst not! Whereas, if we consider him as Mediator, he does what he will, and calls none but they come, and wills none to be gathered, but such as are gathered.” (Sermons on Isaiah 53, pp. 622-623.)



My response was addressed to this:



> How often would He have gathered the children of Jerusalem but they would not!



which mixes those He would have gathered and those who 'would not.' The text differentiates them, and neither Dickson nor Durham make them the same group.

My point has no relevance to the issue of Christ's ministry as a man to the circumsion vs. His role as mediator. It is common for that text to be read as if the two groups ('your children' and 'you') are the same, most notably by Arminian apologists, and that is all I am addressing. That distinction alone doesn't resolve the issue entirely, but it is in the text, so I mentioned it.

I'll also add that, strictly speaking, I don't believe there is any evidence that this is an unfulfilled prayer of Christ.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Mar 25, 2011)

smhbbag said:


> > Within a confessional context, how about we ask David Dickson or James Durham to join the conversation?
> >
> > David Dickson: “In this lamentation our Lord is not to show what power is in men’s wicked nature to convert themselves, or to make use of the means of conversion, nor what power there is in corrupt nature to oppose that power which God putteth forth in conversion of souls; neither is he lamenting their case as one unable to obtain his own desired end in the salvation of such as he intended to save: for no reason can extract these conclusions necessarily from these speeches. The true sense of them is obtained without any such inferences; for our Lord, as man, and a kindly minister of the circumcision moved with humane compassion for the miseries of his native countrymen, lets forth his love in this lamentation and weeping, while he beholds the desperate obstinacy of the multitude running to perdition, thereby intending to make the reprobate who should hear of his tender bowels inexcusable, and to move the elect to repentance by this means.” (A Brief Exposition of the Evangel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew, p. 317.)
> >
> ...



It actually seems that neither Dickson nor Durham make a distinction between the groups. It was Durham's words that were quoted by Rev. Winzer that you claimed sounded Arminian. I also just looked up Matthew Henry on this passage and he makes no movement towards a distinction between Jerusalem and its children. He instead ties the reference to "thy children" to the hen and her chickens analogy made later in the same verse, which showcases Jesus' willingness to receive the lost.



> My point has no relevance to the issue of Christ's ministry as a man to the circumsion vs. His role as mediator. It is common for that text to be read as if the two groups ('your children' and 'you') are the same, most notably by Arminian apologists, and that is all I am addressing. That distinction alone doesn't resolve the issue entirely, but it is in the text, so I mentioned it.
> 
> I'll also add that, strictly speaking, I don't believe there is any evidence that this is an unfulfilled prayer of Christ.


 
It would be interesting to know whom of the reformation era saw two groups while whom saw only one group.


----------



## MarieP (Mar 25, 2011)

smhbbag said:


> Matthew 23:37
> 
> NIV
> 
> ...


 
I used to hold to the same position, but it was pointed out to me that there's little warrant to say that the two yous are separate groups. Where is "Jerusalem" ever considered to mean just her rulers? It also seems to me that most who argue that they are two separate groups are doing so because they don't believe the offer of the Gospel is well-meant. I find it interesting that the text is so misquoted too, but I don't think it's because of any intentional or unintentional desire to change its meaning.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 25, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> The old divines distinguished between His actions as Mediator of His people and His actions as Minister to the circumcision. The prayer of John 17 is of the former class and hence excluded the world. Actions of the latter class are seen in the many petitions for and pleadings to the covenanted nation of Israel. Understood in the prayer of Jesus on the cross are the covenant stipulations of prayer which are to be found at the dedication of the temple. This prayer demands repentance as a necessary prerequisite for forgiveness. Another indicator that it is not a Mediatorial action is seen in Stephen's imitation of it in Acts 7.



Mr. Winzer do the old divines also give criteria by which one may know where the lines of distinction are drawn? At first sight it commends itself as a fruitful and suggestive distinction, but it would be very interesting to know how to tell what actions fit in on either side.


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 25, 2011)

> It actually seems that neither Dickson nor Durham make a distinction between the groups. It was Durham's words that were quoted by Rev. Winzer that you claimed sounded Arminian. I also just looked up Matthew Henry on this passage and he makes no movement towards a distinction between Jerusalem and its children. He instead ties the reference to "thy children" to the hen and her chickens analogy made later in the same verse, which showcases Jesus' willingness to receive the lost.



On a second look, you're right - Durham does misquote it. And, there is more than one reason that such a distinction could be blurred - Arminian apologetics being only one. Bringing them together doesn't inherently do any violence to Calvinism, although those apologists think it does.



> I used to hold to the same position, but it was pointed out to me that there's little warrant to say that the two yous are separate groups. Where is "Jerusalem" ever considered to mean just her rulers? It also seems to me that most who argue that they are two separate groups are doing so because they don't believe the offer of the Gospel is well-meant. I find it interesting that the text is so misquoted too, but I don't think it's because of any intentional or unintentional desire to change its meaning.



The primary justification for the distinction, for me anyway, is that Christ has just spent 24 verses directly addressing the scribes and Pharisees and nobody else (23:13-36). "You" has meant the teachers of the Law for the entire time. And then for Christ to change and say 'your children' all of a sudden has to have meaning. To still use 'you' in that same sentence, while meaning the same group of people, just doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not sure if any of this is helpful for Pergamum's question


----------



## MW (Mar 25, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Mr. Winzer do the old divines also give criteria by which one may know where the lines of distinction are drawn? At first sight it commends itself as a fruitful and suggestive distinction, but it would be very interesting to know how to tell what actions fit in on either side.


 
Ruben, there seems to be at least two criteria. The first is the catholic doctrine of human-divine union. The emphasis on the quotations points to Jesus acting according to the properties and limitations of His human nature. The second is the reformed doctrine of the particular and the universal. What is particular in scope is mediatorial and what is universal is ministerial.


----------



## MW (Mar 25, 2011)

smhbbag said:


> My response was addressed to this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am the person to whom you were responding. The text does not differentiate them, and Dickson and Durham make them the same group.

The argument about the series of woes being directed at the religious leaders is true enough but it ignores the intervening verses 34-36, which are not just directed at the leaders but at the "generation." Within a redemptive-historical context, the rejection of Jerusalem "below" is critical to the eschatological transfer of its covenantal prerogatives to the person of Jesus and ultimately to the Jerusalem which is "above."


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 25, 2011)

> I am the person to whom you were responding. The text does not differentiate them, and Dickson and Durham make them the same group.
> 
> The argument about the series of woes being directed at the religious leaders is true enough but it ignores the intervening verses 34-36, which are not just directed at the leaders but at the "generation." Within a redemptive-historical context, the rejection of Jerusalem "below" is critical to the eschatological transfer of its covenantal prerogatives to the person of Jesus and ultimately to the Jerusalem which is "above."



Verses 34-35 are still clearly addressed to the teachers of the law. What does it mean to flog prophets in "your" synagogues, and pursue them from town to town? Who killed Zechariah (son of Berekiah, not Jehoiada) between the temple and the altar? These are not acts of the common Israelite. Those are the acts of evil authorities, and the rebuke is still pointed at them.

Nothing is addressed to the generation. It is only mentioned in the third person in v. 36, and is not directly addressed there. 

Yet, "you" must come to mean the generation in v. 37? How can vs. 34 and 35 be addressed at the generation, when it's not even mentioned (and then, in the third person) until v. 36?

I'd be more than willing to drop the entire subject if it could simply be admitted that the text does not say "_How often would He have gathered the children of Jerusalem but they would not!"_ 

I don't have a big problem with a Reformed person arguing that statement is faithful to the meaning of 23:37. I think that is wrong and have argued why. But what I've italicized is not in the scripture, and a simple recognition of that would go a long way.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 25, 2011)

Jeremy,

I am not sure, either, whether your thoughts on Christ approaching Jerusalem are helpful to my position. 

I believe that Christ could have desired that all the Jews be gathered, and yet, because he was not so moved to pray for them, they were not saved. I believe that God has a general love for all mankind and even a desire for their welfare and salvation (I think Augustine said, "God loves all with some love, but He loves some with all-love"). 

However, praying is an act of the will and I don't believe any of Christ's prayer were mere expressions of His human desire, but that in His position as our perfect Mediator, the Father heard every prayer of Christ that was not conditional. Thus, Gethsemene explicitly contains the "if" but the expression of Jesus on the cross to forgive sins was a wilful intercession for His Elect that were there taking part in His crucifixion. Perhaps that is why the Gospels record the expression of the roman soldier, "Surely this is the Son of God."

Otherwise, I don't know how to distinguish those prayers that we can trust of Christ to be answered and those prayers that won't be answered. I suppose we could invent another theological category such as "mediatorial prayers" and "non-mediatorial prayers" but I am not (YET) convinced by the Dickson and Durham quote and would love to hear more what the divines said.

So, here is where I am at in my belief right now:


Jesus' words approaching Jerusalem expresssed a desire, but were not accompanied by a mediatorial prayer, 
Jesuss prayer in the garden were conditional and might have been said to show that there was no other way for Jesus to save His people,
In John 17 when Jesus prayed, he explicitly stated that He prayed only for His Elect,
In heaven now, Jesus always makes intercesssion for His Elect, 
Jesus' words on the Cross, "Forgive them' was an actual petition to the Father, which was granted for all those for whom Christ prayed.
We can trust Jesus' intercession as perfect
We can trust that His prayers are to be counted as intercessory if He requests something good on behalf of people, and "forgive them" is of that nature.


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 25, 2011)

> Jeremy,
> 
> I am not sure, either, whether your thoughts on Christ approaching Jerusalem are helpful to my position.
> 
> ...



I am right with you on every point, with absolutely nothing to change in it. Well said.

I don't think it is a coincidence that Baptists would have the tendency to view it this way. For a Baptist, Christ's New Covenant people, 'the circumcision,' and the elect are one and the same. Thus, His position as Mediator, High Priest, and covenant head have all actions equally done on behalf of all NC members. His effectiveness on their behalf is total in all respects, and He never has a role for one NC member that He does not have for all others - the sacrifice is for them all, effective for them all, His prayers are for them all, and prayers are effective for them all, etc. 

It would seem that for a paedo, since there are non-elect in the NC, that means Christ's work and prayers as covenant head do not have the same effect or purpose for all members of the NC equally. Thus, further distinctions need to be made. Paedo input on that would be great.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 25, 2011)

Jeremy, I had never thought of the paedo-credo implications. I hope this OP doesn't devote the next 500 posts to addressing this, though. ha ha. I do think it might be relevant, though.... I don't know.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 28, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Ruben, there seems to be at least two criteria. The first is the catholic doctrine of human-divine union. The emphasis on the quotations points to Jesus acting according to the properties and limitations of His human nature. The second is the reformed doctrine of the particular and the universal. What is particular in scope is mediatorial and what is universal is ministerial.



Thanks, Mr. Winzer! I will be looking out for these criteria next time I read the Gospels.


----------



## earl40 (Mar 28, 2011)

Now if Jesus really wished or desired to gather all of Jerusalem how can we reconcile that His will was not the same as His Father or that His human will differed than His divine will?


----------



## seajayrice (Mar 28, 2011)

Would the Chalcedonian doctrine answer the OP?


----------



## MW (Mar 28, 2011)

earl40 said:


> Now if Jesus really wished or desired to gather all of Jerusalem how can we reconcile that His will was not the same as His Father or that His human will differed than His divine will?


 
We do not need to reconcile it. Gethsemane!


----------



## earl40 (Mar 29, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Now if Jesus really wished or desired to gather all of Jerusalem how can we reconcile that His will was not the same as His Father or that His human will differed than His divine will?
> ...


 
Does not "if it were possible" not show us Jesus was asking something, in His humanity, that there may have been another way, and if so would The Father grant such a wish? The way I look at it was that Jesus asked The Father to allow Him to atone for sin "any other way" if at all possible. Of course the will to do it any other way was a Human asking, out of His limitations of His humanity.

Now in stating such I do realize this is a very difficult section and only wish to make sure Our Lord does not have a volitional will that is divided and in doing so I believe any apparent difference is only seen from a will that is not omniscient. For to have a contradiction of wills between The Father and His sinless Son is something that I believe one should attempt to reconcile.

Rev. Wintzer please read what I have wrote with the knowledge that I have the up most respect for you as a brother and great teacher in Jesus.


----------



## MW (Mar 29, 2011)

earl40 said:


> Does not "if it were possible" not show us Jesus was asking something, in His humanity, that there may have been another way, and if so would The Father grant such a wish? The way I look at it was that Jesus asked The Father to allow Him to atone for sin "any other way" if at all possible. Of course the will to do it any other way was a Human asking, out of His limitations of His humanity.



Once we allow the "limitations of His humanity" we are acknowledging that the "will" which belongs to the nature of humanity cannot be identified with the "will" which belongs to the nature of divinity. To begin with, the human is subordinate whereas the divine is supreme. Further, Jesus wills as a man, discursively. God wills as God, intuitively. There are numerous aspects in which the differences are clearly seen. The two I have mentioned suffice to show that Christ, as man, submitting His will to the will of the Father, might undertake a process of the kind we see in Gethsemane. The very mood of Gethsemane is one of submission and resignation befitting man's service to God.



earl40 said:


> Now in stating such I do realize this is a very difficult section and only wish to make sure Our Lord does not have a volitional will that is divided and in doing so I believe any apparent difference is only seen from a will that is not omniscient. For to have a contradiction of wills between The Father and His sinless Son is something that I believe one should attempt to reconcile.



Jesus, as man, possessed a sense of self-preservation. His Father, as God, required Him to undergo the painful, shameful, and cursed death of the cross in the place of His people. As Jesus resigned Himself to the Father's purpose He underwent a self-denying and self-sacrificing process. The contradiction was "natural," not "moral," and therefore perfectly consistent with the sinless and mysterious union which is called hypostatic.


----------

