Matthew 23:37, a proof text for Free Will?
Published by Andrew Esping under on Wednesday, January 19, 2011
One of the most popular proof texts for the Arminian doctrine of "Free Will" is Matt 23:37
Matt 23:37
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!
ESV
Arminians love to point out Jesus' words when He says "How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under wings, and you would not!" that Jesus deeply desired to bring the Jews to Himself, but they were not willing to come to Him. Therefore rendering the concept of God's Sovereign power in election un Scriptural.
I will admit that for a time I was puzzled by this passage, wondering why Jesus seems to advocate man's Free Will. But thanks to a very well written explanation of the passage by Dr. James White in his book "The Potter's Freedom" I have come to understand exactly what the passage means. After carefully performing exegesis, and placing the passage in context, we find that Matt 23:37 does not advocate Free Will, what a shocker huh?
Arminians would almost always rather take a passage at its "face value" than perform exegesis (which is very wise of them). After all, attempting to understand passages in their correct context and actually making an effort to explain what the passage is says would be very counter effective to the Arminian cause (Arminians who are in the habit of performing exegesis, often times end up abandoning their Theological traditions for a Theology that is based on the word of God....quite interesting).
After due consideration, I have decided to simply type out what Dr. White has to say on the issue instead of attempting to explain it on my own. Dr. White's words are far more clear and concise than anything I could write. I'm also confident that what Dr. White has to say will be MUCH shorter than what would punch out.
So without further adieu, I present James White's explanation of Matt 23:37, taken from his book "The Potter's Freedom" Chapter 6, pg. 136-139: One more quick note, in this book, Dr. White is responding to Norman Geisler's book "Chosen but Free," That is why this section starts off with a quote from CBF (which is how Dr. White refers to Chosen but Free). The reasoning for Dr. White writing a detailed exegesis of Matt 23 is due to the continued use of the passage by Dr. Geisler, although Dr. Geisler refuses to perform any exegesis or even an explanation of the passage. He, like many other Arminians, choose to explain the passage away with simply a "face value" exegesis (which is no exegesis at all).
"CBF offers no in depth exegesis of this passage (Matt 23). Instead, we are given two sentences that summarize Geisler's interpretation of it:
Also, Matthew 23:37 affirms emphatically that Jesus desired to bring the Jews who rejected Him into the fold but could not because they would not. He cried, "Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." God's grace is not irresistible on those who are unwilling.
We first note that "irresistible grace" is a reference to God's sovereign regeneration of his elect: any other use of the phrase is in error. Hence, it would seem to be that Dr. Geisler is promoting the following ideas regarding this text: 1) that Jesus wanted to save the Jews to whom (or about whom) He was speaking in this passage; 2) That though this was Christ's desire he could not fulfill His desire; 3) Christ could not bring these Jews into the fold because they "would not." The conclusion then is, God's race is dependent upon the will of man. If a man is willing, God's grace will prevail. But grace cannot change the will of man.
Of course, these are assertions that are not given with any interpretational foundations. No exegsis is offered, just conclusions. How Dr. Geisler arrived at these conclusions, we are not told. Later we are informed that it is the "plain meaning" of the text, and are asked rhetorically "What could be more clear: God wanted all of them, even the unrepentant, to be saved."
This verse is then used in conjunction with 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 as evidence that it is God's desire to save every single man, woman and child on the earth. But is that what this passage is teaching? Let's provide an exegetical interpretation of the passage and compare it with the presentation in CBF.
The first fact to ascertain in examining any passage of Scripture is its context. This passage comes in the midst of the proclamation of judgment upon the leaders of the Jews. Matthew 23 contains the strongest of denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees in all of the Gospels.
Who, then, is "Jerusalem?" It is assumed by Arminian writers that "Jerusalem" represents individual Jews who are, therefore, capable of resisting the work and will of Christ. But upon what warrant do we leap from "Jerusalem" to "individual Jews"? The context would not lead us to conclude that this is to be taken in a universal sense. Jesus is condemning the Jewish leaders, and it is to them that He refers here. This is clearly seen in that:
1: It is to the leaders that God sent the 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 fromt hose that the Lord described to gather together.
4: The context refers to the Jewish leaders, scribes and Pharisees.
A vitally important point to make here is that the ones the Lord desired to gather are not the ones who "were not willing"! Jesus speaks to the leaders about their children that they, the leaders, would not allow Him to "gather." Jesus was not seeking to gather the leaders, but their children. This one consideration alone renders the passage useless for the Arminian seeking to establish freewillism. The "children" of the leaders would be Jews who were hindered by the Jewish leaders from hearing Christ. The "you would not" then is referring to the same men indicated by the context: the Jewish leaders who "were unwilling" to allow those under their authority to hear the proclamation of the Christ. This verse, then, is speaking to the same issues raised earlier in Matthew 23:13:
But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.
John Gill added this insight:
That the persons whom Christ would have gathered are not represented as being unwilling to be gathered; but their rulers were not willing that they should. The opposition and resistance of the will of Christ, were not made by the people, but by their governors. The common people seemed inclined to attend the ministry of Christ, 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 passing an act that whosoever confessed him should be put out of the snyagogue; so that the obvious meaning of the text is the same with that of verse 13...and consequently is no proof of men's resisting God, but of obstructions and discouragements thrown in the way of attendance on the external ministry of the word.
So we can now plainly see that CBF has absolutely no basis for its assertion that it is the "plain meaning" of the text that God wanted "all of them, even the unrepentant, to be saved." One of the three primary passages used in CBF is seen, then, to have no connection with the application made of it over and over again in the text." - James White, from his book "The Potter's Freedom" pg, 136-139
Praise be to God for great defenders of the faith like James White and John Gill who valiantly have stood up the erroneous teachings that have been presented regarding God's Word.
Once again we see that the Arminian's doctrine of Free Will has no ground to stand on and is nothing more than a man made concoction that desires to de-throne God and place Him at the feet of man. Which of course is the ultimate goal of the flesh. It's a shame to see the desires of the flesh made manifest in the Theology of so many Christians. Let us all search out and find the areas in our Theology where the desires of our flesh are evident.
God Bless!
S.D.G
C.D
S.R
Matt 23:37
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!
ESV
Arminians love to point out Jesus' words when He says "How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under wings, and you would not!" that Jesus deeply desired to bring the Jews to Himself, but they were not willing to come to Him. Therefore rendering the concept of God's Sovereign power in election un Scriptural.
I will admit that for a time I was puzzled by this passage, wondering why Jesus seems to advocate man's Free Will. But thanks to a very well written explanation of the passage by Dr. James White in his book "The Potter's Freedom" I have come to understand exactly what the passage means. After carefully performing exegesis, and placing the passage in context, we find that Matt 23:37 does not advocate Free Will, what a shocker huh?
Arminians would almost always rather take a passage at its "face value" than perform exegesis (which is very wise of them). After all, attempting to understand passages in their correct context and actually making an effort to explain what the passage is says would be very counter effective to the Arminian cause (Arminians who are in the habit of performing exegesis, often times end up abandoning their Theological traditions for a Theology that is based on the word of God....quite interesting).
After due consideration, I have decided to simply type out what Dr. White has to say on the issue instead of attempting to explain it on my own. Dr. White's words are far more clear and concise than anything I could write. I'm also confident that what Dr. White has to say will be MUCH shorter than what would punch out.
So without further adieu, I present James White's explanation of Matt 23:37, taken from his book "The Potter's Freedom" Chapter 6, pg. 136-139: One more quick note, in this book, Dr. White is responding to Norman Geisler's book "Chosen but Free," That is why this section starts off with a quote from CBF (which is how Dr. White refers to Chosen but Free). The reasoning for Dr. White writing a detailed exegesis of Matt 23 is due to the continued use of the passage by Dr. Geisler, although Dr. Geisler refuses to perform any exegesis or even an explanation of the passage. He, like many other Arminians, choose to explain the passage away with simply a "face value" exegesis (which is no exegesis at all).
"CBF offers no in depth exegesis of this passage (Matt 23). Instead, we are given two sentences that summarize Geisler's interpretation of it:
Also, Matthew 23:37 affirms emphatically that Jesus desired to bring the Jews who rejected Him into the fold but could not because they would not. He cried, "Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." God's grace is not irresistible on those who are unwilling.
We first note that "irresistible grace" is a reference to God's sovereign regeneration of his elect: any other use of the phrase is in error. Hence, it would seem to be that Dr. Geisler is promoting the following ideas regarding this text: 1) that Jesus wanted to save the Jews to whom (or about whom) He was speaking in this passage; 2) That though this was Christ's desire he could not fulfill His desire; 3) Christ could not bring these Jews into the fold because they "would not." The conclusion then is, God's race is dependent upon the will of man. If a man is willing, God's grace will prevail. But grace cannot change the will of man.
Of course, these are assertions that are not given with any interpretational foundations. No exegsis is offered, just conclusions. How Dr. Geisler arrived at these conclusions, we are not told. Later we are informed that it is the "plain meaning" of the text, and are asked rhetorically "What could be more clear: God wanted all of them, even the unrepentant, to be saved."
This verse is then used in conjunction with 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 as evidence that it is God's desire to save every single man, woman and child on the earth. But is that what this passage is teaching? Let's provide an exegetical interpretation of the passage and compare it with the presentation in CBF.
The first fact to ascertain in examining any passage of Scripture is its context. This passage comes in the midst of the proclamation of judgment upon the leaders of the Jews. Matthew 23 contains the strongest of denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees in all of the Gospels.
Who, then, is "Jerusalem?" It is assumed by Arminian writers that "Jerusalem" represents individual Jews who are, therefore, capable of resisting the work and will of Christ. But upon what warrant do we leap from "Jerusalem" to "individual Jews"? The context would not lead us to conclude that this is to be taken in a universal sense. Jesus is condemning the Jewish leaders, and it is to them that He refers here. This is clearly seen in that:
1: It is to the leaders that God sent the 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 fromt hose that the Lord described to gather together.
4: The context refers to the Jewish leaders, scribes and Pharisees.
A vitally important point to make here is that the ones the Lord desired to gather are not the ones who "were not willing"! Jesus speaks to the leaders about their children that they, the leaders, would not allow Him to "gather." Jesus was not seeking to gather the leaders, but their children. This one consideration alone renders the passage useless for the Arminian seeking to establish freewillism. The "children" of the leaders would be Jews who were hindered by the Jewish leaders from hearing Christ. The "you would not" then is referring to the same men indicated by the context: the Jewish leaders who "were unwilling" to allow those under their authority to hear the proclamation of the Christ. This verse, then, is speaking to the same issues raised earlier in Matthew 23:13:
But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.
John Gill added this insight:
That the persons whom Christ would have gathered are not represented as being unwilling to be gathered; but their rulers were not willing that they should. The opposition and resistance of the will of Christ, were not made by the people, but by their governors. The common people seemed inclined to attend the ministry of Christ, 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 passing an act that whosoever confessed him should be put out of the snyagogue; so that the obvious meaning of the text is the same with that of verse 13...and consequently is no proof of men's resisting God, but of obstructions and discouragements thrown in the way of attendance on the external ministry of the word.
So we can now plainly see that CBF has absolutely no basis for its assertion that it is the "plain meaning" of the text that God wanted "all of them, even the unrepentant, to be saved." One of the three primary passages used in CBF is seen, then, to have no connection with the application made of it over and over again in the text." - James White, from his book "The Potter's Freedom" pg, 136-139
Praise be to God for great defenders of the faith like James White and John Gill who valiantly have stood up the erroneous teachings that have been presented regarding God's Word.
Once again we see that the Arminian's doctrine of Free Will has no ground to stand on and is nothing more than a man made concoction that desires to de-throne God and place Him at the feet of man. Which of course is the ultimate goal of the flesh. It's a shame to see the desires of the flesh made manifest in the Theology of so many Christians. Let us all search out and find the areas in our Theology where the desires of our flesh are evident.
God Bless!
S.D.G
C.D
S.R
6 Comments:
Coram you said
1: It is to the leaders that God sent the 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 fromt hose that the Lord described to gather together.
4: The context refers to the Jewish leaders, scribes and Pharisees.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT JEWISH LEADERS WERE NON-ELECT?
Given the first 36 verses of Matthew 23, I would say no. Check it out, there is some definite dis-approval in the words of Jesus.
Oh ok, so it wasn't all Jewish leaders that were non-elect, just the ones that killed Jesus? For we know that many were saved.Jn 12:42.
Are you then saying that the bad leaders children "would have" been an answer to Jesus prayer and will, (to be gathered-SAVED) BUT BECAUSE the killers stood in the way of their children, Jesus' will was overpowered, thus the children could not be saved? I WOULD- YE WOULD NOT
1. Doesn't that make Jesus out to be praying for the non-elect to be saved?
2. OR Doesn't that diminish his sovereignty for man to be able to stand in the way of his will?
"Oh ok, so it wasn't all Jewish leaders that were non-elect, just the ones that killed Jesus?"
I don't know where the leaders who put Christ to death come in. The leaders that Jesus is referring to are the ones who he was speaking of in the first 36 verses of Matt 23. Which were the ones who would not allow the Jewish people to be gathered to Christ or listen to His public ministry. They (the leaders) strictly punished those who did by barring them from the Synagogue.
"Are you then saying that the bad leaders children "would have" been an answer to Jesus prayer and will, (to be gathered-SAVED) BUT BECAUSE the killers stood in the way of their children, Jesus' will was overpowered, thus the children could not be saved? I WOULD- YE WOULD NOT"
Absolutely not, if some of the "children" were part of the elect, nothing could of stood in the way of Christ saving them (John 6:37). All I'm saying is that Jesus desired to minister to them while He was among them "physically" but the Pharisees would not allow them to listen to Him.
"1. Doesn't that make Jesus out to be praying for the non-elect to be saved?"
No, Jesus is desiring to minister to them publicly. There is no mention of salvation within the context of the passage or the words themselves.
"2. OR Doesn't that diminish his sovereignty for man to be able to stand in the way of his will?"
Of course not, nothing can defy the Will of God, least of all His own creation.
Where is there any mention of God Sovereignly willing that the children should be gathered to Him? Can God not desire things that He doesn't Sovereignly ordain to happen?
1. Can you define what you mean by "gather to minister," When Jesus gathered children to minister did that include offering salvation (Jn 11:26) or just healing and feeding? You seem to differentiate.
2. Are you then saying that a man can resist the "desire" of almighty God, but not resist something he has Sovereignly ordained? Like say irresistible grace?
3. Is God's desire his "divine will?"
I guess I am looking for an answer to your own last question on this one.
I am just trying to figure how you see the difference between God's will or desire, and something he has "Sovereignly ordained." It is difficult seeing the phrase is extra biblical. Not even in the spell checker :)
Don't want to fight, just enjoying the discourse
"1. Can you define what you mean by "gather to minister," When Jesus gathered children to minister did that include offering salvation (Jn 11:26) or just healing and feeding? You seem to differentiate. "
Jesus wished the preach to the people, but the Pharisees would not allow it.
As far as offering Salvation, Jesus Himself said that only those of His flock would believe (John 10:26).
"2. Are you then saying that a man can resist the "desire" of almighty God, but not resist something he has Sovereignly ordained? Like say irresistible grace?"
Man can resist the desires of God. God desires (also demands) that all men should keep His statues and law perfectly, they do not possess the ability to do so and therefore fall short of doing what God desires.
"3. Is God's desire his "divine will?""
Absolutely not. The best example of this would be in Gen 6. God said that He was sorry that He had created man. Was God really regretting His actions, or was He just using anthropomorphic language to help us understand the situation and His actions?
"I am just trying to figure how you see the difference between God's will or desire, and something he has "Sovereignly ordained." It is difficult seeing the phrase is extra biblical. Not even in the spell checker :)"
Just as extra Biblical as terms like "Free Will" ;-). The only difference is, The Sovereignty of God has Biblical support from the Scriptures in passages like Eph 1 and Is 46.
Btw, I'm terribly sorry for getting back to this so late. Life has been busy the last few months, so I apologize for my slothfulness. I look forward to future discussions.
God Bless!
In Christ,
Andrew
Post a Comment