Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 23:37

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 23:37” utilice nuestra app.

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!

33 39. The Fate of Jerusalem

37. Jerusalem, Jerusalem ] From Luk 13:34, it appears that our Lord spoke these words in a different connection at an earlier period of His ministry. For the pathetic reiteration of the name, cp. ch. Mat 27:46. The Aramaic form for Jerusalem in the text appears here only in Matthew; it is the usual form in Luke. Probably the very form Aramaic, not Greek employed by our Lord is retained.

killest stonest ] Recalling the precise expressions of ch. Mat 21:35.

as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings ] Schttgen ad loc. observes that converts to Judaism were said to come “under the wings of the Shechinah.” That thought may be contained in the words of Christ. Many times by His prophets He called the children of Jerusalem to Himself the true Shechinah through whom the glory of the latter house was greater than that of the former.

ye would not ] Note the change to the plural.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

O Jerusalem … – See the notes at Luk 19:41-42.

Would I have gathered – Would have protected and saved.

Thy children – Thy people.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Mat 23:37-39

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets.

The invitation refused

Consider some of the different modes in which the rejection of Gods call has been made. Far, all do not reject Him alike.

I. Some will even rise up and say, I Do not consider that i have ever yet been called.

1. Those who wish they could believe they had been called, but cannot think such good news true.

2. Those who are waiting for a louder, more irresistible call, saying, Why does not God, if He would indeed save me, make some great interposition on my behalf? Alas for the guilty unbelief of the one, and the awful, blasphemous presumption of the other!

II. Those who, although conscious of having been called, yet treat the matter with indifference. These are men at ease in Zion; familiarized with stifled convictions; of secular habit of mind; to whom invisible things carry no reality in daily life. Three classes of them depicted in Luk 14:18-20.

III. Those who recognize the importance of the Divine call, but who put off the acceptance of it. Satan decoys them by enticing pictures of their own future. They live in fancies of their own coming holiness, thinking that to-morrows goodness will make up for to-days worldliness. Oh the sin l As if they could command the sovereign working of the Holy Ghost! As if-having refused Him their attention now-they may recall Him when they please.

IV. Those who, at the time, receive, welcome, reciprocate the love of God; and then, when the excitement of the moment is past, their feelings evaporate, and nothing remains. Their religion never becomes a principle.

V. Those who listen to the heavenly call, draw nigh, taste the heavenly gift; and then the old, carnal nature asserts its sway, and they draw back again. (J. Vaughan, M. A.)

Gods continual calls

Oh that how often! Do not let it be a mere impassioned exclamation. Make it what it is, a distinct, definite question put to you this day-how often? And what arithmetic can write the answer? I never yet visited a man upon a sick-bed-I never talked with a single person in any of those moments which unlock the breast, and set it free to speak its secrets-that I did not receive this confession: I have been greatly conscious all my life of the inward striving, and the oft-repeated calls of God in my soul. Sometimes, doubtless, those calls fall louder and deeper upon the spiritual ear than they fall at other times. They lie thickest, I believe, in early life. There are states of mind we can scarcely say how, and there are providential scenes we can scarcely say why, which give an intensity to those many voices, when a verse of Scripture will sometimes roll its meaning like thunder, or when a whisper of the soul will carry an accent tenfold with it. But the call is not confined to those specialities. There is a finger of a mans hand which is always waking the strings of thought. It is when we lie down; it is when we rise up; it is when we sit in the house; it is when we are walking by the way. We can see it on the little face of early childhood, before the date when our utmost memories reach; we can trace it in ourselves back to the utmost dawn of rising reason. Perhaps not a room in which we have ever laid down to sleep; perhaps not a church into which we have ever entered, even with careless foot; perhaps not a sin which we ever deliberately went and did; perhaps not an incident for weal or woe that lies on the chequered path of life, but there was something there which swelled that how often? (J. Vaughan, M. A.)

Why the Divine invitation is refused

Of all the refusals of Gods grace, the real secret is the same. They may cover themselves with various pretexts-just as persons, having made up their mind to decline an invitation, begin to look out for some convenient excuse-but the cause is one. It is not in any outward circumstances; it is not in any particular temperament; it is not in the want of power; it is not in the straitenings of Divine grace: but the Saviour points to it at once with His omniscient mind-ye would not. It is the absence of the will; it is the want of that setting of the mind to Gods mind; that conformity of the affections to Gods promises; that appreciation of unseen things; that spiritual sense, which is the essence and the beginning of a new life. Therefore they cannot come. (J. Vaughan, M. A.)

Compassion of Jesus towards the guilty

Scripture is full of the sublime and pathetic. It opens to us the very heart of the Redeemer. Observe here-

I. The cruelty and wickedness of the Jews. They paid no regard to the character and Divine commission of God s prophets.

1. An act of great injustice and ingratitude.

2. An act of rebellion against God.

II. Christs tenderness and care. The hen an affectionate creature to her young. When justice pursues, Satan assaults, and hosts of enemies compass us round about; if we can but get under the shadow of Christs wings we are safe, and, being safe, may be content. The wings of Christ are so large, they are sufficient to cover the whole Church. They are also strong and impenetrable, and ever stretched out to screen us from danger.

III. Christs earnestness and importunity. Jerusalem, Jerusalem. How often.

IV. Stubbornness and perverseness of those so tenderly regarded. Ye would not. Not a want of power, but of will.

1. None continue the slaves of Satan and sin but with their own consent.

2. Every man may be saved if he wilt.

3. Divine influence necessary to overcome the sinners enmity. (B. Beddome, M. A.)

Relationship between the Lord and His people

I have been raising chickens this year, and have devoted a part of my pear-orchard to the chicken-coops; and I have been accustomed to go out mornings and evenings to see that the boy took care of the chickens. I think I have now about ten or fiften broods. The old hen, when watching them, would cluck; and it was to them a warning of danger, I suppose. They understand it to mean that they are to come in. I could not understand that language; but these little things that had never been to school understood instantly just what she said. She gave her whole self to them; and their instinct was to run under her; and when there to lift themselves close up to her body, and get their warmth from her. I have watched them as they did this again and again. What an idea of the intimate and endearing relationship between the soul and the Lord Jesus Christ is conveyed in that figure. (H. W. Beecher.)

Christ the refuge for the destitute

I remember some few years ago meeting a young woman at a mission, who said that for two years she had been trying to make herself feel her sins, and could not. This was to her a great grief. I had been preaching on the words of Christ in this verse; so I said to her, Suppose a little chick were half frozen in a barn-yard, and could scarcely feel itself alive from numbness, what would be the best thing for it to do? Would it not be to flee at once to the warmth of the hens wing? I think she saw her mistake. I think she learnt that those who would learn more of their sin, and who desire a more contrite spirit, can find it nowhere so surely and fully as in nearness to Jesus, trusting only in His grace, and finding their shelter beneath His merciful wings. (G. Everard, M. A.)

Willingness to save

I. The manifestation of God to Israel which this verse brings before us.

1. Gods sovereignty of Israel. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem. Why should Jerusalem be singled out from all other nations. He had a right to select the depositaries of His truth.

2. Gods grace in the messages which He sent to this people. Them which are sent unto thee.

3. Gods mercy manifested in His dealings towards them.

4. Gods love.

5. Gods unchangeableness-How often.

6. Gods justice Behold your house is left unto you desolate.

7. Gods faithulness in the final issue of His dealings with Israel.

II. The special instruction to ourselves. Learn what we have to do with the purposes, messages, salvation of God. Like Christ, Christians should desire and seek the salvation of men. (W. Cadman, M. A.)

Of Gods free grace and mans free will

In this invective two things are to be considered, the rebellion of Jerusalem, in verse 37; the punishment of this sin, verse 38. Touching the rebellion itself, three things are set down-

(1) the place and persons;

(2) the degree and practice of rebellion;

(3) the manner and form of their rebellion. In this example of Jerusalems rebellion we learn many things.

(a) The vileness of mans nature, and our violent proneness to sin.

(b) To exercise ourselves in the duties of goodness, meekness, peace to all men.

(c) Not to oppose ourselves against the ministers of God. (W. Perkins.)

Gods gracious dealings with sinners

I. God has desired to gather you to Himself. Have you not had gathering mercies, invitations, appeals, providences, seasons?

II. But you have often rejected the overtures of Divine mercy. Your unwillingness is the result of your ignorance of your real state, unbelief, love of the world, dislike to Christs terms.

III. The obstinate rejection of the Divine mercy must involve the sinner in irreparable ruin. Application: In order to salvation your will must harmonize with the will of God. The entire responsibility is with you. (J. Burns, LL. D.)

Privilege and duty

I. Jerusalems privileges. The natural advantages of Jerusalem were very great. Typical of higher spiritual privileges-the goodly fellowship of the prophets; the extraordinary ministrations of special men, raised up and qualified by God, and sent to warn people from their sins, and to bid them repent and live; the personal ministry of the Son of God. The mind involuntarily turns to the privileges of England, and of London.

II. Jerusalems sins. Ingratitude and cruelty. Illustrates the lengths which those will go in sin who cherish affection for forbidden sins, and who harden their hearts against Divine things.

III. Jerusalems doom. Warn against hardness of heart and contempt of the word and doctrine. (J. J. Sargent.)

I. Men, while they are in a state of nature, are exposed to imminent danger. As transgressors of the law of God they are liable to its penalty. They overlook this danger, but it is real, and it is terrific.

II. Our Lord Jesus Christ offers Himself as a shelter against this danger. If He had been a mere man He could not have been the Saviour.

III. He fulfils this function with condescending tenderness.

IV. He delivers His people by the substitution of His own life for theirs.

V. The immediate result of application to Him is safety.

VI. Men are responsible in the matter of their own salvation. (President Davies.)

Judgment in tears

Such is the affecting apostrophe in which our Lords faithful denunciations of Woe, woe! terminate. Like the thunder-cloud, which, having discharged its bolt at the earth, weeps itself away-exhausts itself in a healing shower, which closes the rent it had made-so His pity commiserates, and pours itself forth over those whom, in the same breath, He had felt Himself called to rebuke. (Dr. J. Harris)

Christs protection rejected

As much as to say, as the parent bird, when she sees some bird of prey hovering over her helpless young, gives them the signal, which nature teaches them to understand, and spreads her wings to protect them, resolved to become a prey herself rather than her tender brood; or, as she shelters them from the rain and cold, and cherishes them under her friendly feathers,-so, says the compassionate Redeemer, so, O Jerusalem! I see thy children, like heedless chickens, in the most imminent danger; I see the judgments of God hovering over them; I see the Roman eagle ready to seize them as its prey; I see storms of vengeance ready to fall upon them; and how often have I invited them to fly to me for shelter, and gave them the signal of their danger I how often have I spread the wings of My protection to cover them, and keep them warm and safe as in My bosom! but, O lamentable I O astonishing I ye would not! I was willing, but ye would not! The silly chickens, taught by nature, understand the signal of approaching danger, and immediately fly for shelter; but ye, more silly and presumptuous, would not regard My warnings; would not believe your danger, nor fly to Me for protection, though often-oh, how often-warned and invited! (President Davies.)

O Jerusalem

I. What it is Christ proposed to confer upon his people. Christ not only willing but tenderly anxious to confer the various privileges of light and grace.

1. When our Saviour declares He would have collected them, He means He would bless them with all the privileges common to that Church, of which He was the head, and which He came to construct.

2. The moral state of the people when our Saviour stated His willingness to receive them to Himself. The readiness of Christ to receive any class of sinners. The haughty Pharisee. The infidel Sadducee. They had rejected the ministry of Christ. Divine love goes out towards these.

3. Their danger.

II. The declaration of Christ respecting the means employed for our salvation-I would have gathered you.

1. Tenderness.

2. Long-suffering.

3. A time will come when He will leave us to our sins if we continue to spurn Him from us. (J. Dixon, D. D.)

Christs pity for the sinner

The reasons of this special sympathy.

I. Christ as our Redeemer knows the dreadfulness of sin, and therefore pities those to whom it clings.

II. He pities the sinner, knowing all that is involved in his final doom.

III. Christ is the exponent of Gods infinite love to man.

IV. There is a ground for this compassion of Christ, growing out of His knowledge of the completeness of His salvation and the security of those who accept it.

V. The Saviours compassion is founded upon His knowledge of what the gospel cost Him to achieve. But if Christs power is boundless and His pity so great, why does He not interfere to save us anyhow? God deals with man as a free agent.

1. The loss of the soul is self-caused.

2. How great the sin of refusing the gospel. (B. F. Palmer, D. D,)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 37. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem]

1. It is evident that our blessed Lord seriously and earnestly wished the salvation of the Jews.

2. That he did every thing that could be done, consistently with his own perfections, and the liberty of his creatures, to effect this.

3. That his tears over the city, Lu 19:41, sufficiently evince his sincerity.

4. That these persons nevertheless perished. And

5. That the reason was, they would not be gathered together under his protection: therefore wrath, i.e. punishment, came upon them to the uttermost.

From this it is evident that there have been persons whom Christ wished to save, and bled to save, who notwithstanding perished, because they would not come unto him, Joh 5:40. The metaphor which our Lord uses here is a very beautiful one. When the hen sees a beast of prey coming, she makes a noise to assemble her chickens, that she may cover them with her wings from the danger. The Roman eagle is about to fall upon the Jewish state – nothing can prevent this but their conversion to God through Christ-Jesus cries throughout the land, publishing the Gospel of reconciliation – they would not assemble, and the Roman eagle came and destroyed them. The hen’s affection to her brood is so very strong as to become proverbial. The following beautiful Greek epigram, taken from the Anthologia, affords a very fine illustration of this text.

, ‘ ,

Anthol. lib. i. Tit. 87: edit. Bosch. p. 344.

Beneath her fostering wing the HEN defends

Her darling offspring, while the snow descends;

Throughout the winter’s day unmoved defies

The chilling fleeces and inclement skies;

Till, vanquish’d by the cold and piercing blast,

True to her charge, she perishes at last!

O Fame! to hell this fowl’s affection bear;

Tell it to Progne and Medea there: –

To mothers such as those the tale unfold,

And let them blush to hear the story told! – T. G.

This epigram contains a happy illustration, not only of our Lord’s simile, but also of his own conduct. How long had these thankless and unholy people been the objects of his tenderest cares! For more than 2000 years, they engrossed the most peculiar regards of the most beneficent Providence; and during the three years of our Lord’s public ministry, his preaching and miracles had but one object and aim, the instruction and salvation of this thoughtless and disobedient people. For their sakes, he who was rich became poor, that they through his poverty might be rich: – for their sakes, he made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross! HE died, that THEY might not perish, but have everlasting life. Thus, to save their life, he freely abandoned his own.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

We have the same Luk 13:34,35. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! The doubling of the word showeth the vehemency of our Saviours affection.

Thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee; that hast killed, and abused, and art yet going on to do the like, not taking notice of the vengeance of God upon thee before for this very sin, 2Ch 36:16,17; Ne 9:26,27. How often would I have gathered thee, giving thee all external means proper to have reformed thee and reconciled thee to God, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings! Which if thou hadst accepted and embraced, the chickens are not safer under the wings of the hen from the danger of a kite than thou wouldst have been from enemies. But thou wouldst not; instead of hearkening to my prophets, thou killedst them, and didst stone those sent unto thee, and so didst voluntarily reject me, and all my offers and tenders of grace, mercy, and protection, through the mere obstinacy of thy perverse will.

Behold, your house is left unto you desolate; both the temple, in which you place such a confidence, and your own dwelling houses, shall be destroyed, burnt, and razed down, or at least left without you as inhabitants.

For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: I will appear no more to you as a public preacher, after two or three days, for ever; and you, that the other day so envied the peoples acclamations to me,

Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord, shall be glad yourselves to see one of the days of the Son of man, and shall say the same thing, Blessed is he, & c. For whereas some interpret the term till, & c. of the day of judgment, or the time when the Jews shall be converted, I take them to be strained interpretations.

Till here certainly is to be interpreted, as Psa 110:1; Mat 1:25; and this comports with the history, for after this time our Saviour appeared in the temple publicly no more. For the disputes raised from Mat 23:37, about Gods secret will, whether he seriously willed the salvation of the Jews, &c., I take the affirmative part to have no foundation in this text, for would I is plainly enough here interpreted by the foregoing word, sending them prophets, and other ministers, to persuade them to repentance and reconciliation with God; as the use of means proper to an end appear to us indications of the will of him that useth them.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

37. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thouthat killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee,c.How ineffably grand and melting is this apostrophe! It is thevery heart of God pouring itself forth through human flesh andspeech. It is this incarnation of the innermost life and love ofDeity, pleading with men, bleeding for them, and ascending only toopen His arms to them and win them back by the power of this story ofmatchless love, that has conquered the world, that will yet “drawall men unto Him,” and beautify and ennoble Humanity itself!”Jerusalem” here does not mean the mere city or itsinhabitants nor is it to be viewed merely as the metropolis of thenation, but as the center of their religious life“thecity of their solemnities, whither the tribes went up, to give thanksunto the name of the Lord”; and at this moment it was full ofthem. It is the whole family of God, then, which is hereapostrophized by a name dear to every Jew, recalling to him all thatwas distinctive and precious in his religion. The intense feelingthat sought vent in this utterance comes out first in the redoublingof the opening word”Jerusalem, Jerusalem!” but, next, inthe picture of it which He draws”that killest the prophets,and stonest them which are sent unto thee!”not content withspurning God’s messages of mercy, that canst not suffer even themessengers to live! When He adds, “How often would I havegathered thee!” He refers surely to something beyond the six orseven times that He visited and taught in Jerusalem while on earth.No doubt it points to “the prophets,” whom they “killed,”to “them that were sent unto her,” whom they “stoned.”But whom would He have gathered so often? “Thee,”truth-hating, mercy-spurning, prophet-killing Jerusalemhow oftenwould I have gathered thee! Compare with this that affectingclause in the great ministerial commission, “that repentance andremission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations,beginning at Jerusalem!” (Lu24:47). What encouragement to the heartbroken at their ownlong-continued and obstinate rebellion! But we have not yet got atthe whole heart of this outburst. I would have gathered thee, Hesays, “even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings.”Was ever imagery so homely invested with such grace and suchsublimity as this, at our Lord’s touch? And yet how exquisite thefigure itselfof protection, rest, warmth, and all manner ofconscious well-being in those poor, defenseless, dependent littlecreatures, as they creep under and feel themselves overshadowed bythe capacious and kindly wing of the mother bird! If, wanderingbeyond hearing of her peculiar call, they are overtaken by a storm orattacked by an enemy, what can they do but in the one case droop anddie, and in the other submit to be torn in pieces? But if they canreach in time their place of safety, under the mother’s wing, in vainwill any enemy try to drag them thence. For rising into strength,kindling into fury, and forgetting herself entirely in her young, shewill let the last drop of her blood be shed out and perish in defenseof her precious charge, rather than yield them to an enemy’s talons.How significant all this of what Jesus is and does for men! Under Hisgreat Mediatorial wing would He have “gathered” Israel. Forthe figure, see Deu 32:10-12;Rth 2:12; Psa 17:8;Psa 36:7; Psa 61:4;Psa 63:7; Psa 91:4;Isa 31:5; Mal 4:2.The ancient rabbins had a beautiful expression for proselytes fromthe heathenthat they had “come under the wings of theShekinah.” For this last word, see on Mt23:38. But what was the result of all this tender and mightylove? The answer is, “And ye would not.” O mysterious word!mysterious the resistance of such patient Lovemysterious theliberty of self-undoing! The awful dignity of the will, ashere expressed, might make the ears to tingle.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,…. The metropolis of Judea, the seat of the kings of Judah, yea, the city of the great king; the place of divine worship, once the holy and faithful city, the joy of the whole earth; wherefore it was strange that the following things should be said of it. The word is repeated to show our Lord’s affection and concern for that city, as well as to upbraid it with its name, dignity, and privileges; and designs not the building of the city, but the inhabitants of it; and these not all, but the rulers and governors of it, civil and ecclesiastical; especially the great sanhedrim, which were held in it, to whom best belong the descriptive characters of killing the prophets, and stoning them that were sent by God unto them; since it belonged to them to take cognizance of such who called themselves prophets, and to examine, and judge them, and, if false, to condemn them h; hence that saying of Christ, Lu 13:33 which goes before the same words, as here, “it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem”: and who are manifestly distinguished from their “children”: it being usual to call such as were the heads of the people, either in a civil or ecclesiastic sense, “fathers”, and their subjects and disciples, “children”: besides, our Lord’s discourse throughout the whole context is directed to the Scribes and Pharisees, the ecclesiastic guides of the people, and to whom the civil governors paid a special regard.

Thou that killest the prophets; that is, with the sword, with which the prophets in Elijah’s time were slain by the children of Israel,

1Ki 19:10 and which was one of the capital punishments inflicted by the Jewish sanhedrim i; and also that which follows was another of them.

And stonest them which were sent unto thee; as particularly Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, before mentioned. The Jews themselves are obliged to own, that this character belongs to them: say k they,

“when the word of God shall come, who is his messenger, we will honour him. Says R. Saul, did not the prophets come,

, “and we killed them”, and shed their blood, and how shall we receive his word? or how shall we believe?”

And a celebrated writer of their’s, on those words l, “but now murderers”, has this note;

“they have killed Uriah, they have killed Zechariah.”

How often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Christ here speaks as a man, and the minister of the circumcision, and expresses an human affection for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and an human wish, and will for their temporal good; which he very aptly signifies by the hen, which is a very affectionate creature to its young, and which it endeavours to screen from danger, by covering with its wings. So the “Shekinah” with the Jews is called, , “the holy bird” m; and that phrase, , “to betake one’s self, or to come to trust under the wings of the Shekinah”, is often used n for to become a proselyte to the true religion, and worship of God, as Jethro, and Ruth the Moabitess did. An expression much like to this here is used by an apocryphal writer of 2 Esdras:

“I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face.” (2 Esdras 1:30)

It seems to be a simile much in use with that people. Our Lord is to be understood not of his divine will, as God, to gather the people of the Jews internally, by his Spirit and grace, to himself; for all those whom Christ would gather, in this sense, were gathered, notwithstanding all the opposition made by the rulers of the people; but of his human affection and will, as a man, and a minister, to gather them to him externally, by, and under the ministry of his word, to hear him preach; so as that they might be brought to a conviction of, and an assent unto him as the Messiah; which, though it might fall short of faith in him, would have been sufficient to have preserved them from temporal ruin, threatened to their city and temple, in the following verse. Instances of the human affection, and will of Christ, may be observed in Mr 10:21 which will of his, though not contrary to the divine will, but subordinate to it, yet not always the same with it, nor always fulfilled: whereas his divine will, or his will as God, is, always fulfilled: “who hath resisted his will?” this cannot be hindered, and made void; he does whatsoever he pleases: and further, that this will of Christ to gather the Jews to himself, is to be understood of his human, and not divine will, is manifest from hence, that this will was in him, and expressed by him at certain several times, by intervals; and therefore he says, “how often would I have gathered”, c. whereas the divine will is one continued, invariable, and unchangeable will, is always the same, and never begins or ceases to be, and to which such an expression is inapplicable and therefore these words do not contradict the absolute and sovereign will of God, in the distinguishing acts of it, respecting the choice of some persons, and the leaving of others. And it is to be observed, 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, and be made proselytes to him, and come under his wings. It is not said, “how often would I have gathered you, and you would not!” nor, “I would have gathered Jerusalem, and she would not”; nor, “I would have gathered thy children, and they would not”; but, “how often would I have gathered thy children, and ye would not!” Which observation alone is sufficient to destroy the argument founded on this passage in favour of free will. Had Christ expressed his desire to have gathered the heads of the people to him, the members of the Jewish sanhedrim, the civil and ecclesiastical rulers of the Jews: or had he signified how much he wished, and earnestly sought after, and attempted to gather Jerusalem, the children, the inhabitants of it in common, and neither of them would not; it would have carried some appearance of the doctrine of free will, and have seemed to have countenanced it, and have imputed the non-gathering of them to their own will: though had it been said, “they would not”, instead of, “ye would not”, it would only have furnished out a most sad instance of the perverseness of the will of man, which often opposes his temporal, as well as his spiritual good; and would rather show it to be a slave to that which is evil, than free to that which is good; and would be a proof of this, not in a single person only, but in a body of men. The opposition and resistance to the will of Christ were not made by the people, but by their governors. The common people seemed inclined to attend his ministry, as appears from the vast crowds, which, at different times and places, followed him; but the chief priests, and rulers, did all they could to hinder the collection of them to him, and their belief in him as the Messiah; by traducing his character, miracles, and doctrines, and by menacing the people with curses, and excommunications, making a law, that whoever confessed him should be turned out of the synagogue. So that the plain meaning of the text is the same with that of Mt 23:13 and consequently is no proof of men’s resisting the operations of the Spirit and grace of God; but only shows what obstructions and discouragements were thrown in the way of attendance on the external ministry of the word. In order to set aside, and overthrow the doctrine of grace, in election, and particular redemption, and effectual calling, it should be proved that Christ, as God, would have gathered, not Jerusalem, and the inhabitants of it only, but all mankind, even such as are not eventually saved, and that in a spiritual, saving way and manner, to himself; of which there is not the least intimation in this text: and in order to establish the resistibility of the grace of God, by the perverse will of man, so as to become of no effect; it should be shown that Christ would have savingly converted persons, and they would not be converted; and that he bestowed the same grace upon them, he does bestow on others, who are converted: whereas the sum of this passage lies in these few words, that Christ, as man, out of a compassionate regard for the people of the Jews, to whom, he was sent as the minister of the circumcision, would have gathered them together under his ministry, and have instructed them in the knowledge of himself, as the Messiah; which if they had only notionally received, would have secured them, as chickens under the hen, from impending judgments, which afterwards fell upon them; but their governors, and not they, would not; that is, would not suffer them to receive him, and embrace him as the Messiah. So that from the whole it appears, that this passage of Scripture, so much talked of by the Arminians, and so often cited by them, has nothing to do with the controversy about the doctrines of election and reprobation, particular redemption, efficacious grace in conversion, and the power of man’s free will. This observation alone is sufficient to destroy the argument founded on this passage, in favour of free will.

h Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 1. sect. 5. i lb. c. 7. sect. 1. k R. Isaac Arama in Gen. xlvii. apud Galatin. Arcan. Cath. ver. l. 3. c. 5. l Jarchi in Isa. i. 21. m Zohar in Numb. fol. 106. 3. & Imre binah in ib. n Tzeror Hammor, fol. 77. 4. &. 115. 2. Vid. Targum in Ruth ii. 12. Zohar in Exod. fol. 28. 3. & 29. 2.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

How often would I have gathered ( ). More exactly, how often did I long to gather to myself (double compound infinitive). The same verb () is used of the hen with the compound preposition . Everyone has seen the hen quickly get together the chicks under her wings in the time of danger. These words naturally suggest previous visits to Jerusalem made plain by John’s Gospel.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Hen [] . Generic : bird or fowl; but hen is used generically of the mother – bird of all species.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

37. Jerusalem, Jerusalem. By these words, Christ shows more clearly what good reason he had for indignation, that Jerusalem, which God had chosen to be his sacred, and — as we might say — heavenly abode, not only had shown itself to be unworthy of so great an honor, but, as if it had been a den of robbers, (Jer 7:11,) had been long accustomed to suck the blood of the prophets. Christ therefore utters a pathetic exclamation at a sight so monstrous, as that the holy city of God should have arrived at such a pitch of madness, that it had long endeavored to extinguish the saving doctrine of God by shedding the blood of the prophets. This is also implied in the repetition of the name, because impiety so monstrous and incredible deserves no ordinary detestation.

Thou who killest the prophets. Christ does not reproach them with merely one or another murder, but says that this custom was so deeply rooted, that the city did not care to slay every one of the prophets that were sent to it. For the participle, ( ἀποκτείνουσα τοὺς προφήτας), ( killing the prophets,) is put for an epithet; as if Christ had said, “Thou who oughtest to have been a faithful guardian of the word of God, a teacher of heavenly wisdom, the light of the world, the fountain of sound doctrine, the seat of divine worship, a pattern of faith and obedience, art a murderer of the prophets, so that thou hast acquired a certain habit of sucking their blood.” (113) Hence it is evident, that they who had so basely profaned the sanctuary of God deserved every kind of reproaches. Yet Christ had likewise the intention to obviate the scandal which soon after arose, that believers, when they saw him basely put to death at Jerusalem, might not be confounded by the novelty of such an exhibition. For by these words they were already warned that it was not wonderful if a city, which had been accustomed to strangle or stone the prophets, should cruelly put to death its own Redeemer. This shows us what value we should attach to places. There never certainly was a city in the world on which God bestowed such magnificent titles, or such distinguished honor; and yet we see how deeply it was sunk by its ingratitude.

Let the Pope now compare the abode of his robbery with that holy city; what will he find worthy of equal honor? His hired flatterers boast to us that the faith flourished there in ancient times. But admitting this to be true, if it is evident that it has now, by wicked rebellion, revolted from Christ, and is full of innumerable deeds of sacrilege, what folly is it in them to maintain that the honor of primacy belongs to it? Let us, on the contrary, learn from this memorable example, that when any place has been exalted by uncommon instances of the favor of God, and thus has been removed from the ordinary rank, if it degenerate, it will not only be stripped of its ornaments, but will become so much the more hateful and detestable, because it has basely profaned the glow of God by staining the beauty of his favors.

How often would I have gathered together thy children. This is expressive of indignation rather than of compassion. The city itself, indeed, over which he had lately wept, (Luk 19:41,) is still an object of his compassion; but towards the scribes, who were the authors of its destruction, he uses harshness and severity, as they deserved. And yet he does not spare the rest, who were all guilty of approving and partaking of the same crime, but, including all in the same condemnation, he inveighs chiefly against the leaders themselves, who were the cause of all the evils. We must now observe the vehemence of the discourse. If in Jerusalem the grace of God had been merely rejected, there would have been inexcusable ingratitude; but since God attempted to draw the Jews to himself by mild and gentle methods, and gained nothing by such kindness, the criminality of such haughty disdain was far more aggravated. There was likewise added unconquerable obstinacy; for not once and again did God wish to gather them together, but, by constant and uninterrupted advances, he sent to them the prophets, one after another, almost all of whom were rejected by the great body of the people.

As a hen collecteth her brood under her wings. We now perceive the reason why Christ, speaking in the person of God, compares himself to a hen. It is to inflict deeper disgrace on this wicked nation, which had treated with disdain invitations so gentle, and proceeding from more than maternal kindness. It is an amazing and unparalleled instance of love, that he did not disdain to stoop to those blandishments, by which he might tame rebels into subjection. A reproof nearly similar is employed by Moses, that God, like

an eagle with outspread wings, (Deu 32:11,)

embraced that people. And though in more than one way God spread out his wings to cherish that people, yet this form of expression is applied by Christ, in a peculiar manner, to one class, namely, that prophets were sent to gather together the wandering and dispersed into the bosom of God. By this he means that, whenever the word of God is exhibited to us, he opens his bosom to us with maternal kindness, and, not satisfied with this, condescends to the humble affection of a hen watching over her chickens. Hence it follows, that our obstinacy is truly monstrous, if we do not permit him to gather us together. And, indeed, if we consider, on the one hand, the dreadful majesty of God, and, on the other, our mean and low condition, we cannot but be ashamed and astonished at such amazing goodness. For what object can God have in view in abasing himself so low on our account? When he compares himself to a mother, he descends very far below his glory; how much more when he takes the form of a hen, and deigns to treat us as his chickens?

Besides, if this charge was justly brought against the ancient people, who lived under the Law, it is far more applicable to us. For though the statement—which I quoted a little ago from Moses—was always true, and though the complaints which we find in Isaiah are just, that

in vain did God spread out his hands every day to embrace a hard-hearted and rebellious people, (Isa 65:2)

that, though he rose up early, (Jer 7:13) he gained nothing by his incessant care of them; yet now, with far greater familiarity and kindness, he invites us to himself by his Son. And, therefore, whenever he exhibits to us the doctrine of the Gospel, dreadful vengeance awaits us, if we do not quietly hide ourselves under his wings, by which he is ready to receive and shelter us. Christ teaches us, at the same time, that all enjoy safety and rest who, by the obedience of faith, are gathered together to God; because under his wings they have an impregnable refuge. (114)

We must attend likewise to the other part of this accusation, that God, notwithstanding the obstinate rebellion of his ancient people, was not all at once so much offended by it, as to lay aside a father’s love and a mother’s anxiety, since he did not cease to send prophets after prophets in uninterrupted succession; as in our own day, though he has experienced a marvelous depravity in the world, he still continues to dispense his grace. But these words contain still deeper instruction, namely, that the Jews, as soon as the Lord gathered them together, immediately left him. Hence came dispersions so frequent, that they scarcely remained at rest for a single moment under the wings of God, as we see in the present day a certain wildness in the world, which has indeed existed in all ages; and, therefore, it is necessary that God should recall to himself those who are wandering and going astray. But this is the crowning point of desperate and final depravity, when men obstinately reject the goodness of God, and refuse to come under his wings.

I said formerly that Christ speaks here in the person of God, and my meaning is, that this discourse belongs properly to his eternal Godhead; for he does not now speak of what he began to do since he was manifested in the flesh, (1Ti 3:16,) but of the care which he exercised about the salvation of his people from the beginning. Now we know that the Church was governed by God in such a manner that Christ, as the Eternal Wisdom of God, presided over it. In this sense Paul says, not that God the Father was tempted in the wilderness, but that Christ himself was tempted, (115) (1Co 10:9.)

Again, when the sophists seize on this passage, to prove free will, and to set aside the secret predestination of God, the answer is easy. “God wills to gather all men,” say they; “and therefore all are at liberty to come, and their will does not depend on the election of God.” I reply: The will of God, which is here mentioned, must be judged from the result. For since by his word he calls all men indiscriminately to salvation, and since the end of preaching is, that all should betake themselves to his guardianship and protection, it may justly be said that he wills to gather all to himself. It is not, therefore, the secret purpose of God, but his will, which is manifested by the nature of the word, that is here described; for, undoubtedly, whomsoever he efficaciously wills to gather, he inwardly draws by his Spirit, and does not merely invite by the outward voice of man.

If it be objected, that it is absurd to suppose the existence of two wills in God, I reply, we fully believe that his will is simple and one; but as our minds do not fathom the deep abyss of secret election, in accommodation to the capacity of our weakness, the will of God is exhibited to us in two ways. And I am astonished at the obstinacy of some people, who, when in many passages of Scripture they meet with that figure of speech (116) ( ἀνθρωποπάθεια) which attributes to God human feelings, take no offense, but in this case alone refuse to admit it. But as I have elsewhere treated this subject fully, that I may not be unnecessarily tedious, I only state briefly that, whenever the doctrine, which is the standard of union, (117) is brought forward, God wills to gather all, that all who do not come may be inexcusable.

And you would not. This may be supposed to refer to the whole nation, as well as to the scribes; but I rather interpret it in reference to the latter, by whom the gathering together, (118) was chiefly prevented. For it was against them that Christ inveighed throughout the whole of the passage; and now, after having addressed Jerusalem in the singular number, it appears not without reason that he immediately used the plural number. There is an emphatic contrast between God’s willing and their not willing; (119) for it expresses the diabolical rage of men, who do not hesitate to contradict God.

(113) ” En sorte que tu est toute accoustoumee a humer leur sang, sans en faire conscience;” — “so that thou art quite accustomed to suck their blood, without any scruple of conscience.”

(114) “ Un refuge quine peut faillir, et contre lequel il n’y a point de puissance qui ait lieu;” — “a refuge which cannot fail, and against which no power can succeed.”

(115) “ Mais que Christ luy-mesme a esté tenté au desert par le peuple deliveré d’Egypte;” — “but that Christ himself was tempted in the wildrness by the people that had been delivered from Egypt.”

(116) “ Anthropopathie; c’est, quand Dieu s’attribue des affections semblables à celles des hommes, comme quand il dit (Gen 6:6) qu’il s’est repenti d’avoir fait l’homme; et semblables passages.” — “ Anthropopathy; that is, when God ascribes to himself feelings similar to those of men, as when he says (Gen 6:6) that he repented of having made man; and similar passages.”

(117) “ De vraye union;” — “of true union.”

(118) “ Ce rassemblement et ceste reunion;” — “this gathering together and this union.”

(119) “ Quand ildit, Dieu a voulu, vous ne l’avez point voulu ; ” — “when he says, God would, you would not. ”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

TEXT: 23:3739

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

If the message of this chapter was addressed fundamentally to the Pharisees, how do you explain the shift in persons addressed, i.e. from the Pharisees to Jerusalem? What connection is there between the two concepts (Pharisees and Jerusalem) that would justify Jesus concluding His piercing analysis of the former with a heart-broken warning to the latter?

How does this closing section of Jesus indignant indictment of the Pharisees show His basic, underlying attitude toward the wicked who rejected Him? How should it modify the opinion of those who assail Jesus for what they consider a bitterness incompatible with love?

Jesus affirms, How often would I have gathered your children together . . . , and yet the Synoptic Gospels record no significant time spent by Jesus in Jerusalem. How could Jesus make a statement like this, if He had not diligently labored at winning Jerusalems populace to faith in Him? Or had He? On what basis would you answer this?

Why was it that Jerusalem was so notorious for killing Gods prophets? What was there about this city that made it so perilous for His prophets and a relatively rare thing for them to be murdered elsewhere?

Can you list some possible reasons why Jerusalem refused to respond to the appeal of Jesus? (Cf. Mar. 3:15-19; Luk. 8:14; Joh. 12:37, Joh. 12:42 f.; Joh. 5:40-47.)

Since the cry, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, had already been raised during the Triumphal Entry, is not this an argument that the present text is out of place and refers to a situation that occurred before Palm Sunday? If so, prove that it does. If not, what does Jesus mean by these words spoken in the context of the Last Week already in progress? Can He use the same words twice in differing situations, to communicate two slightly differing meanings?

Do you think Jesus implies that the city would someday embrace a totally believing population that would welcome Him, acclaiming Him as Messiah as the multitudes had done during the Triumphal Entry? Or would it be a purely individual reaction on the part of some and not others?

In what sense would Jerusalem not see Jesus until she made the required confession?

Do you think that this section is intended to furnish an appropriate conclusion to Jesus address on Pharisaism? If so, why? If not, why not.

What does this section have to say to the question whether Jesus can ever abandon those whom He loves and for whom He died, if these will not accept Him?

What does this section reveal about the high dignity of Jesus?

PARAPHRASE

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! the city that has continued to murder Gods prophets and stone His messengers sent to you! How many times I have yearned to gather your inhabitants together under my leadership and protection, in the same way a hen gathers her little chicks under her wings. But you all refused! Notice, however, your House is left to youdesolate. I can assure you that you will never see me again until you can say, May God bless His Messiah!

SUMMARY

Earthly Jerusalems extraordinary opportunity to welcome Gods last, greatest Prophet rendered more unmistakable the inveterate character of her rebelliousness, because she refused her only Savior. Now He must abandon her peoples great House, leaving them to protect it as best they could against utter ruin. Their only, final hope of salvation lay in their raising the welcoming cry that recognized Him as their Messiah.

NOTES
Contempt for His Marvelously Patient Compassion

Mat. 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! This is Matthews last reference to Jerusalem by name. Even though after this Matthew will refer to the holy city (Mat. 27:53) or speak simply of the city (Mat. 26:18; Mat. 28:11), Matthews choice not to name this city any more hereafter may have ominous significance. The earthly Jerusalem will be discarded by God after its having had such a dominant place in the history of His dealings with Israel.

Jesus rightly concluded His penetrating analysis of Pharisean hypocrisy with a heartbroken warning to Jerusalem, for various reasons:

Jerusalem, as theocratic center of the nation, was the supreme goal of ideal Israel. Any plan of God without sacred Zion was unthinkable. (Psa. 146:10; Psa. 147:2; Psa. 147:12 ff.; and all of Zechariahs Jerusalem prophecies.) But the conspicuous historical reality was a stony-hearted city that concretely shared the Pharisees hypocrisy and their readiness to silence Gods messengers: Jerusalem that killeth the prophets and stoneth them that are sent unto her. Such a Jerusalem embodied both the Pharisees ideals and their sins. At best and at worst, all that the Pharisees were morally, Jerusalem was. So, to condemn the one, in essence, is to address the other also.

But to switch from the Pharisee, the religio-political party whose philosophy infected wide segments of Israel, to Jerusalem, Israels philosophical and ideological summit, gives Jesus a superb oratorical advantage. Many in Israel probably shared Jesus condemnation of the Pharisees. (Cf. Fragment of a Zadokite Work in Pseudepigrapha, edited by Charles, 785ff.; Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees, 2938; Josephus, Wars, I, 5, 13.) Yet those who criticized the Pharisees could smirk complacently that THEY were not members of that hypocritical brotherhood, and that THEIR holiest joy lay in the exaltation of Zion, Jerusalem, the City of the Great King. Now Jesus must bluntly lay bare the unholiness and barbarous heart of Jerusalem, a city that, for all its past sacred associations, blatantly butchered the ambassadors of the Almighty! Concretely, Jerusalem is no better than the best of her people, but its strictest sect is notoriously hypocritical!

However, by switching from speaking to the Pharisees party to addressing Jerusalem, Jesus flashes before His hearers one poignant personification: Jerusalem, mother beloved of all her children, all Israel collectively. Jesus own love for the high ideals associated with Jerusalem led Him to seek and to save her children. Now, despite Jerusalems unpromising precedents, He offers one more, longing invitation couched in the form of a warning that holds out a glimmer of hope.

To separate Jerusalem for separate censure is to focus attention on the stronghold of all those religious sects in Israel that had so bitterly opposed Jesus. So, He has not changed the subject. Rather, He has simply adjusted His aim and focused the scope of His warnings.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! This repeated address indicates anguished love. (Cf. 2Sa. 18:33; 2Sa. 19:4; Luk. 10:41; Luk. 22:31; Jer. 22:29.) His address here cannot mean Jesus had felt no sympathy for the rest of the nation. His active ministries on Galilean soil and in Perea, even in Samaria, forever established His love for those districts too. The point here is that, through no fault of His own, He had been unable to convert those who would not be convinced in Jerusalem. All her sacred associations notwithstanding, her true, typical character must be exposed: she is Jerusalem that kills the prophets and stones them that are sent to her! (The present participles in Greek point to her continuing practice and resulting reputation.) Remember Jesus severely ironical comment: It cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem (Luk. 13:33)! Stoning was the capital punishment intended for false prophets (Deu. 13:5; Deu. 13:10). Diabolically, Jerusalem turned the weaponry intended to protect Gods people against the true messengers of God!

How often would I have gathered thy children together! The underlying assumption is that Christ had expended frequent, however unsuccessful, efforts to win Jerusalem to discipleship, and yet the Synoptic Gospels record no trips to Jerusalem or its suburbs. On the other hand, John registers five such visits between Jesus baptism and this final visit to the city. Note, therefore, how incidentally Matthew here and Luk. 13:34 imply that Jesus appearances in Jerusalem recorded by John really had occurred, and that the purpose at which He aimed is precisely what we see reflected in Johns account: great, gracious appeals addressed to Jerusalem to believe Him and be saved. (Cf. Joh. 2:13 to Joh. 3:21; Joh. 5:1-47; Joh. 7:10 to Joh. 10:39; Joh. 11:1-45.) So, there is no contradiction between the Synoptics and Johns Gospel. Rather than misrepresent the facts, the latter simply documents how often Jesus had made ill-received attempts to save Jerusalem.

I would have gathered thy children together. This is Jesus estimate of Himself as He stands before Israel. He considers Himself Jerusalems only Savior. Even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: in this heart-warming image Jesus compares Himself to a hen aware of grave danger to her little brood, by which He means Israel the nation. (Cf. Old Testament use of a similar figure: Deu. 32:11; Psa. 17:8; Psa. 36:7; Psa. 57:1; Psa. 61:4; Psa. 63:7; Psa. 91:4; Isa. 31:5; Rth. 2:12.) Thy children refers to the people of Zion, hence, Israel in general. (Cf. Psa. 149:2; Joe. 2:23 in the more literal translations.) But this nation belonged to Jesus as truly as the chickens to the hen. Clearly, Jesus had long foreseen the disasterboth spiritual and nationalthat lay ahead for His people. This is why He expended every effort to convince them to believe in Him and to find true safety in Gods Kingdom as He presented it. But He is not merely Israels benefactor and guide. His symbol of the hen pictures Himself as a Savior who throws His own life between His people and the menacing danger! But who is this who claims to be able to rescue them from imminent peril? Is it merely the 33-year-old Galilean rabbi, the former carpenter of Nazareth? Standing there offering Himself as Savior of Israel is the nations true Owner, the Messiah of God!

Feel the conflict of two determined wills: I would . . . but you would not (thlsa . . . ouk thelsate). Jesus willed to save them, but their stubborn will shut out His influence. (Contrast Joh. 5:40 and 2Pe. 3:9. See also Luk. 19:14; Luk. 19:27.) His indefatigable efforts to convince the nation met with open-eyed, deliberate resistance, but He, the Son of God, weeping over their perverseness, had to admit defeat. Here is written the awesome freedom of the human will that can defiantly swagger in the presence of the gracious appeals of Almighty God and actually defeat His intention to save men! Even the Omnipotent God has chosen not to force the will of any man or nation He cannot persuade to repent. Individually, however, those converted will comprise the remnant of the saved, wooed and won by His merciful love. Paul, for example, knew he could not win them all, but this did not stop him at once nor make his efforts a mere pretense. (Cf. Rom. 9:1 to Rom. 10:3; 1Co. 9:22, some, not all; Rom. 11:14.) Grace, in practice, refers to one persons free determination to save another, if the other is willing. But there is no way that he who makes the effort can save the other if the latter obstinately resists and finally rejects his gracious efforts. Therefore, grace can be resisted and rejected.

This final paragraph in Jesus last public address before the cross forever proves that He was not just hurling vengeful diatribes at people who offended Him personally. Rather, His severe denunciation of Pharisean religion was but the deeply regretful reading of Gods just sentence against this unbelieving, contemptuous, unrepentant people. The anguished cry with which He closes (Mat. 23:37) is of a piece with His bone-deep sadness when He wept over Jerusalem during the Messianic Entry (Luk. 19:41-44). It is the Lords mercy, passionately pleading with dying sinners. It is a spurned love astonishingly undiminished by their malice, incredibly uncooled by their stubbornness and divinely patient no matter how long it was taking.

But the outcome of Jerusalems judgment of Jesus is not without consequence to its people. If they spurn the self-giving protection of the hen, they damn themselves to exposure to the talons of the eagle!

The Consequence of Refusing Jesus Christ

Mat. 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. This ominous sentence declares as a settled matter the future desolation of what was dearest to every Hebrew. But what is meant by your house?

The house of Israel is a common Old Testament synonym for the entire NATION. (Cf. Jer. 12:7; Hos. 8:1; Eze. 18:30 f.) Israel had been the privileged people of God up to the age about to be inaugurated by Jesus through the Gospel. But, as He had taught earlier (Mat. 21:43; Mat. 22:7), God would take these Kingdom privileges away from those whose hold on them was never more than a TENANCY. Further, God would send His armies to destroy those murderers of His servants, the prophets, and burn their city. Jesus depicts Gods abandoning a mutinous, unbelieving nation, leaving it to its own devices to save itself from that desolation that must result from their deserting Gods Anointed who could have saved them. To Israel had been granted exceptional opportunities to be the people of God, but these were despised by the majority. Only the remnant in Israel accepted Jesus and, with the Gentiles, became the new, true Israel of God. (Cf. 1Pe. 2:9 f.; contrast Exo. 19:5 f.)

The house par excellence is the TEMPLE, the house in which dwelt the glory of Israel, the presence of God. (Cf. 2 Chronicles 6; Isa. 66:1 f.; notes on Mat. 23:21; see also 2 Baruch 8:2; Testament of Levi 15:1; 16:4 where house equals temple.) Jesus affirms that, even as God had formerly abandoned His earthly dwelling to chastise His people, He would do it again. (Study Eze. 10:1 to Eze. 11:23; cf. Jer. 7:2-14; Jer. 26:6; see Jdg. 18:31; 1Ki. 9:6-9; 1Sa. 4:22; Psa. 78:59-62.) Now, however, contrary to past hopes, according to which God would return to dwell in a purified sanctuary (Eze. 43:4), Jesus holds out no such hope, except through submission to Himself as Messiah sent by God. This time, however, the glory of God would dwell in a new, far truer Temple, the people of God, the Church of Christ (Eph. 2:19-22; 1Co. 3:16 f; 1Co. 6:19; Joh. 14:23). Then, when the great temple veil parted from top to bottom when Jesus died (Mat. 27:51), the Holy of Holies were exposed to common view, as if God deliberately declassed that building to indicate its profanation as a temple and His indifference toward it as a peculiarly holy place. It was not longer to be the house of God (Mat. 12:4) nor My house (Mat. 21:13), but your house.

Early Jewish thought pictured the CITY OF JERUSALEM as the house of God. (Cf. Enoch 89:5072; 90:2936; Testament of Levi 10:5.) If it is Jesus thought, He addresses the city as He had earlier (Mat. 23:37), now prophesying its ruin. (Cf. Luk. 19:41 ff.) But even though Jerusalem has once again become a Jewish city, it has no temple, no priesthood, no sacrifices and its people must defend it as best they can.

In the spirit of the great imprecatory Psa. 69:25, Israels house could mean THEIR DWELLING place on earth, especially in Palestine. The Psalms context pictures the treachery, the atrocious crimes and the wilful cruelty of those who persecute Gods righteous servants, and cries out for vengeance to the holy Judge. Accordingly, Jesus answers, this anguished prayer for justice is heard and judgment is about to fall, hurling the unbelieving nation from its dwelling place, leaving it like a decimated armys encampment or an empty Bedouin tent.

Does Jesus mean the royal palace as symbolic of the earthly Davidic lineage? (Cf. the similarity between Mat. 23:38 and Jer. 22:5 in context.) Although there was no Davidic palace standing in Jesus day and the Herod, whose palace stood within the city, was no scion of David, could not Jesus intimate that the royal, Davidic house upon which Israels materialistic, Messianic hopes depended would disappear for lack of legitimate aspirants to the throne? Objectively, without Jesus the true Son of David, the throne of Israel is left desolate, hence the greater urgency that Israel confess Him to be the Messiah (Mat. 23:39). Regardless of which view is taken, the result is the same, because Jerusalem, the temple, the materialistic Davidic hopes and national Israel all went down together during the Jewish war in 6670 A.D., with only an ill-fated politico-military resurgence under Bar-Cochba (131135 A.D.). Chapter 24 will furnish the details. Now, Jesus formally severs Himself from Israels house. What should have been a dwelling-place for God had become the center of spiritual revolt against Him and the market-place of vested interests in Judaism. The unique purpose for the continued existence of the house of Israel had ceased, so when Jesus walked out, with Him went the glory and protecting presence of God. When Jesus abandoned the Temple and Jerusalem, a deplorable epoch came to an end, leaving only an unhappy present and an ominous future. And yet even here our Savior cannot even threaten without showing. . . .

A Glimmer of Hope in the Encircling Gloom

Mat. 23:39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. Since the Lord begins by saying, For I say . . . , His declaration explains why Israels house would be left desolate: You will never ever (Greek: ou m) see me from now on until you say, Blessed is he. So, whatever ramifications this verse has, they must explain the desolation of Israels famous house. No view of this text can be correct that ignores Matthews book-length context in which he established that God rejects the exclusive claims of a purely fleshly Israel and welcomes the Gentiles to become His people too. (Cf. Mat. 3:7-12; Mat. 8:11 f.; Mat. 10:6; Mat. 10:14 f.; Mat. 11:20 ff.; Mat. 12:41 f.; Mat. 21:38 to Mat. 22:14.) Even so, questions arise:

In what sense must Jerusalem see Jesus: literally or with the eye of faith? After this moment Jerusalem saw Him literally, stretched out on a cross near the city (Joh. 19:20; Luk. 23:48). Earlier, Jesus had spoken cryptically about going where unbelievers could not come. Although they sought Him, they would be unable to find Him (Joh. 7:33-36; Joh. 8:21-27; Joh. 13:33; Joh. 14:16 f.). On the latter occasion He explained clearly to believers: I shall go to Him who sent me (Joh. 14:19 f.). Consistent with His promise, therefore, upon arising from the dead, He showed Himself alive, not to all men, but to pre-selected witnesses (Act. 10:40 ff.). From that moment, therefore, anyone who desired to see Jesus must do so by faith.

Why henceforth, and not before? How does this limitation, from this time forward, sharpen His intended meaning? Jerusalem had only seen Jesus physically and would only see Him thus again on the cross. But had Jerusalem ever really seen this young Galilean for what He really is, or would she ever? Having declared His love and longing to save His people, Jesus formally concludes His ministry as servant to the Jews. No longer will His voice be heard exhorting the nation to follow Him back to God. No longer would Israel marvel at His miracles that blessed the land. His time of public manifestation of Himself is over.

In what sense would Jerusalems saying, Bless be he . . . , help her to see Jesus in the sense intended? Are His words intended as a gracious, even if veiled, offer of hope, or as a threat? Or both? The meaning is simple: unbelieving Judaism would never fathom the true significance of Jesus of Nazareth, never again see Him for what He presented Himself to be during the Messianic Entry into Jerusalem, until its people cried the believers confession that Jesus is Christ. While this announcement threatens the majority who rejected Jesus claims as untenable, it holds out hope for those individual members of Gods people who would surrender the throne of their heart to the Galilean Carpenter lately acclaimed as Messiah by His enthusiastic disciples. So, to be brought to acknowledge His Lordship as Christ and true King of Israel is to see His true character. Henceforth, then, means that up to that moment Jesus had revealed His glory to Jerusalem and to Israel by a ministry replete with evidences of His true identity. From the moment of His departure from the Temple, this would no longer be true. He would go to the cross, through the empty tomb and on to glory, without ever turning back to plead with Israel, as He had in the past. With these words the Lord officially withdrew from the nation as such, concluding His public ministry, because His mandate to seek the lost sheep of the house of Israel has now concluded in their refusal to be saved. Any initiative to revive the relationship must be theirs. Everything He could do to save them has not been done.

In these words, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say . . . , is couched an ominous threat: If you will not accept me according to my true identity as Gods Anointed during this day of grace, you shall not be permitted to see me as your long-awaited Messiah. This state of affairs shall continue until that day when I appear a second time and then, to your eternal shame and regret, you will be forced to acknowledge me as Lord. Then it will be too late, since I will have become Gods anointed Judge. (Cf. Act. 17:30 f.; 2Co. 5:10; Joh. 5:27.)

If it be thought that the Psalm quoted, Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord (Psa. 118:26), is too positive in tone to bear the double sense of free confession and unwilling admission, the double sense is not unexampled. (Cf. Isa. 45:23-25 as Paul uses it in Rom. 14:11 f. and Php. 2:9-11.) It is not clear whether Jesus expects any of His enemies to surrender to His Lordship prior to that fatal day. However, His expression leaves open the possibility that some could.

A PROMISE OF THE FINAL CONVERSION OF ISRAEL?

When Jesus uttered this warning earlier (Luk. 13:34 f.), His words found fulfillment in the Messianic Entry, as thousands welcomed Him with precisely this blessing (Mat. 21:9). Now, however, that event is history and yet He repeats His warning. Consequently, some suppose that He now reveals that God would depart from the house of Israel to remain until that nation should see Jesus as the Christ in His true glory at His Second Coming and re-enter the Temple to usher in the Millennium. Some infer that all Israel on earth just prior to Jesus return are the people to whom Jesus makes reference. In fact, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say . . . , implies: You shall see me when you say. . . . Therefore, it is concluded that all Jews on earth at the Second Coming will somehow be instantly and miraculously converted by the returning Christ and will joyously receive Him whom their fathers rejected. This view, however, is unsupported for the following reasons:

THIS THEORY IGNORES CONTEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS. Jesus addressed Jerusalem by name in the context and, by implication, all of Israel living in His day that shared Jerusalems rejection of Gods Messenger (Mat. 23:29-37). If this text is correctly understood as holding out hope for, or threatening, anyone, it speaks primarily to Jesus contemporaries, and secondarily to any of their descendants who share the spirit of these their fathers. Jesus does not say, THEY shall not see me, till THEY say, as if referring to some long-distant future generation of Israel living on earth at His return, but, YE shall not see me, till YE shall say. . . . No interpretation of this text can be valid that is true of an Israel of the future that is not also true of Jesus contemporaries in the same way.

THIS THEORY IGNORES THE INDIVIDUALITY OF HUMAN NATURE. Although the Jews addressed by Jesus here are uniformly disbelievers, not all would remain so. There would be diverse reactions to Jesus words. While His address, ye, does speak of the whole class of unbelievers, this class consists of individuals, each of whom must decide personally to recognize Jesus as Messiah and submit to Him or not. (See notes on Mat. 3:11.) Jesus was not universally applauded by ALL ISRAEL. The nation was already being broken down into its individual components on the basis of each persons decision about Jesus. So, why should it be supposed that anyone but INDIVIDUALS would so acclaim Him from that moment forward, either at Pentecost or upon their later personal conversion, or even at the Second Coming when it will be too late? (See on Mat. 24:30; Mat. 26:64.)

In answer, some cite 2Co. 3:15 f., but this text assumes an individual turning to the Lord, not necessarily a wholesale, national transformation.

THIS THEORY IGNORES THE NATURE OF BIBLICAL CONVERSION. Any theory of a latter-day blanket transformation of Israel misunderstands Gods respect for the freedom of the human will and wipes out differences in people, as if such a conversion would occur automatically upon Jesus return, notwithstanding all individual attempts to resist conversion prior to that moment.

Wholesale conversion, without the participation of the free will of each single Hebrew, is not conversion in any true, Biblical sense. So, unless God chooses to work a psychological miracle that instantly and irresistibly overpowers those unconvinced minds, then the present, ordinary rules for turning to God must suffice for their salvation. Hence, if God intends to respect mans free will, then the present Gospel offers all Jews the only true, valid alternatives (Rom. 1:16). So, if Jewish free will is left intact until final judgment, then the psychological probabilities involved (based on their millennial history from Moses to Christ) push us back to recall the general trend of Old Testament prophecies, namely, that only a remnant of the Hebrew people would seek the Lord and turn in obedient faith to recognize Jesus as the Christ, not the whole nation. (Cf. Isa. 1:9; Isa. 4:2 f.; Isa. 6:13; Isa. 10:20 ff.; Isa. 11:11; Isa. 11:16; Isa. 29:19 f; Isa. 37:31 f.; Isa. 65:9-17, etc.)

Human free will not only guarantees mans freedom to differ with God, but also his freedom to differ with and from his fellows. What makes one Jew different from another includes the various attitudes of each separate Hebrew, specifically their submission to, or prejudice against, the Nazarene. Must it be thought that the returning Messiah shall miraculously evaporate all previous bias against the despised Nazarene Carpenter who must be the object of faith of all previous generations of both Jews and Gentiles down to that final day of His return? This is not a question of possibilities, since Jesus could do it with Saul of Tarsus on the Damascus Road, but, rather, a question of moral probabilities, because He has now included Jews and Gentiles alike under sin that He may have mercy on all and be the Lord of both, extending His sway over both by Gospel proclamation to both. Considering the kind of non-nationalistic, non-materialistic Kingdom Jesus has to offer and how radically it differs from Jewish nationalistic ideals, is it conceivable that the returning Messiah could eradicate all previous closed mindedness toward His universal, spiritual Kingdom of God, any better than the inglorious, humble Jesus of the first coming did?

All texts on Biblical conversion claim that it is the formerly lowly Jesus of Nazareth and His Gospel for all men, with whom all of us have to do. (Cf. Act. 17:31.) However, His winsomeness appears only to the eye of faith (Isa. 53:2 b). The scandal of the cross, however, will not hold back those believing Hebrews who will be saved, however fatally blinded their fleshly kinsmen (Rom. 9:1-3; Rom. 10:1; 1Co. 1:18-24).

THIS THEORY DOES INJUSTICE TO A MAJORITY OF THE HEBREW PEOPLE. According to this view, in connection with His Second Coming, Jesus will make a special, private(?) appearance to Israel, in such a winsome form that Jews living on earth at His return will universally flock to confess His Lordship. But this means that, if Jesus words refer exclusively to the few fortunate Hebrews living on earth at that far-off, yet-future date, then all those Jews, unlucky enough to die in unbelief before that magic date, will perish without having seen the all-persuasive Christ and without His all-essential salvation. But, if physical descent from Abraham has any importance at all, are not these unfortunate losers sons of Abraham in this sense too? Conversely, if only those fortunate few living at that glorious future day are to be saved by a psychological miracle, are these the only Israel worth saving? From all that God has taught us about Himself, we must ask: is it just, or like God, to offer psychologically overwhelming proof to convince some Jews that is not also available to all other Jews? But is God so partial as to close His heart to every precious Jew whose only misfortune is to die before the deadline for Christs return? But, if it be answered that these latter have the presently available Christian Gospel to save them, then the whole theory is compromised, because this admission offers hope to all Jews in any age on the same terms as the Gentiles.

THIS THEORY, THEREFORE, DOES INJUSTICE TO THE UNIVERSALITY AND FINALITY OF THE GOSPEL. To suppose that Christ intends to offer psychologically overwhelming evidence of His glory to convince Jews at His return, i.e. evidence that is not available to Gentiles, is to rewrite major sections of Christian theology as this is expressed in Romans, Galatians and Hebrews. True, God is sovereign and can freely show mercy on whomever He will (Rom. 9:14 ff.). But those whom He has prepared beforehand for glory are those whom He has called by the Gospel, even us, not from the Gentiles only, but also from the JEWS (Rom. 9:24; 2Th. 2:14). Jews are already being offered the winsome, persuasive Christ through the Gospel. Must we degrade our definitive message by attributing superior convincing power to an uncertain, supposedly future personal appearance of Christ to Jews who have consistently turned down His own universal Gospel?

Some see in Zec. 12:10 a prediction of Israels marvelous change of heart when God would pour out upon the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication whereby they would look upon me, the one they have pierced and mourn. . . . In light of Rev. 1:7, the assumption is that Zechariah refers to a returned Christ. But no interpretation of Zechariah can be valid that ignores the Apostles affirmation that Zec. 12:10 was fulfilled at the cross when all-sufficient grace was made possible by Jesus death (Joh. 19:37). Jews hearts began to be broken at Pentecost when they finally grasped the true significance and identity of Him Whom they had pierced, were convinced by the gracious supplications of the Spirit speaking through Peter and cried out in true repentance (Act. 2:37). In this light, then, Rev. 1:7 does not necessarily predict a future conversion of those who crucified Jesus, but, rather, a future vindication of His claims against those who refused Him. (See notes on Mat. 24:30.) In fact, Zechariah predicts (1) individual, tribal mourning (Zec. 12:14): can modern Israel or any in Judaism establish its clan-lines to fulfill this? (2) He also predicts mourning for Him whom they have pierced as one mourns for an only child i.e. a bitter grief as one grieves for a firstborn son. This speaks of weeping over an unalterable loss, not the weeping of penitence and change. This sense of finality and loss is reinforced by the comparative illustration: the weeping of Jerusalem will be great, like the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo where Israel bitterly mourned the loss of that other son of David, the good king Josiah. (Cf. 2Ch. 35:20-25.) So we must see the spirit of grace and supplication poured out by God on Jerusalem as His merciful offer of grace whereby God Himself pleaded with Israel to repent and accept the offer of His firstborn Son on the cross. But, says John (Rev. 1:7), the day will come when they shall see that same Crucified One in His true glory and the impenitent Jews will have more reason that ever to grieve their eternal loss.

THIS THEORY IGNORES THE CHRISTIAN REDEFINITION OF ISRAEL. Any discussion of Israel in eschatology must take into account Gods redefinition of the term Israel. The expression, . . . and so all Israel shall be saved, is often cited to sustain the continuing, privileged place of fleshly Israel in the eschatological planning of God (Rom. 11:26). However, Rom. 11:26 is the conclusion of Pauls major section, Romans 9-11, where he carefully redefined what God means by the term Israel and distinguished the true sons of Abraham from those who are merely his physical descendants (Rom. 9:6-8; Rom. 9:22-27). Accordingly, there is now no distinction between Jew and Gentile (Rom. 10:12; Gal. 3:28). Jews, if they are to be saved, must submit to the same terms offered Gentiles, i.e. through the undeserved mercy of God (Rom. 11:32). Ungodly, unrepentant, unbelieving Israelites are not of Israel, no matter what their pretensions (Rom. 9:6). Conversely, believing Gentiles are true sons of Abraham, notwithstanding their former lack of qualification. (Cf. Gal. 3:6-9; Gal. 3:14; Gal. 3:27-29.) Neither previous Jewishness nor former paganism count for anything now (Gal. 6:15). What counts with God is that new creation in Christ Jesus that constitutes the genuine Israel of God (Gal. 6:16). This explains how Paul can affirm so confidently: And SO (in the manner described in Romans 9-11) ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED. So, by Pauls inspired redefinition of Israel, we who have submitted to Jesus as Lord constitute that chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, Gods own people. (Cf. 1Pe. 2:5; 1Pe. 2:9 f.) This is the Israel to be saved.

THIS THEORY FAILS TO APPRECIATE THE CONDITIONALITY OF GODS PROMISES. Although all Israel is potentially capable of being saved, and although God has never withdrawn His gracious gifts to Israel nor regretted calling them, in practice, however, the nation as such has remained a disobedient and contrary people (Rom. 10:21). Because Paul understood that Gods call is conditioned by their believing response expressed through obedient service (Rom. 11:29 f; cf. Rom. 16:26), his realism admitted only the possibility to save SOME of them (Rom. 11:14; cf. 1Co. 9:19-22). Can there be any hope for those who refuse to submit to His conditions?

THIS THEORY IS CONTROVERTED BY JESUS PREFERENCE FOR HIS MULTINATIONAL CHURCH AS OPPOSED TO UNBELIEVING JEWS. To suppose that Judaism in the Last Day shall enjoy superior privilege or special opportunities to be saved is to forget Jesus declared predilection for His Church, in contrast to those who are of the synagogue of Satan, WHO CLAIM TO BE JEWS THOUGH THEY ARE NOT, but are liars. These latter, rather, He will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved YOU (Rev. 2:9; Rev. 3:9).

So, to see promised in Jesus words a final, miraculous conversion of Israel is to miss the fact that hundreds, even thousands, of Jews had already that week and in the weeks shortly thereafter, willingly confessed Jesus as Christ and became Christians. These Hebrew Christians, for whom large portions of the great New Testament Epistles were specially penned, are the first fruits of the savable Remnant chosen by grace (Rom. 11:5). But, if by grace, then not because they were Jews, but because believers won like anyone else.

WHAT DOES THIS SECTION REVEAL ABOUT JESUS?

He who comes (ho erchmenos) is often a Messianic title (cf. Mat. 11:3 notes). To recognize in the lowly Galilean the true Anointed of God is to see His true position and relationship to the Father and the Spirit, Now, however, these things are hid from (Jerusalems) eyes (Luk. 19:41 f.). Had they known Who He really was, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory (1Co. 2:8).

With only the Sermon on the Mount, especially the Beatitudes, in mind, many would falsely assume that gentle Jesus, meek and mild, could never raise His voice against anything. This full-blown warning against the spirit of hypocrisy and false teaching lays before our eyes a fuller, clearer picture of our righteous Lord.
Our magnanimous Lord holds out undeserved hope to a people that, on the basis of His exact, unflinching censure of their sham holiness and obstinate resistance to Gods messengers, should have abandoned all hope of spiritual survival. But His terms of repentance are unmistakable: despairing Israelites must say, Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord! with all the meaning this concept of the Messiah conveys. They must turn to Him on His conditions, not theirs. So, the last word does not belong to Jesus antagonists and critics, but rather to the living Christ who will gather for Himself out of these and all peoples a congregation of worshippers. Even today He is working on this project and will keep at it until that Day when we all, either with black despair or irrepressible joy, cry, Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord!

FACT QUESTIONS

Name some prophets sent by God, who were killed at Jerusalem.

Jerusalems stoning of the prophets meant that the authorities had pronounced what judgment against them?

On what basis can we know that Jesus had really sought to persuade Jerusalem to accept Him as Gods Messenger? List the Bible texts that prove the reality of Jesus ministry in Jerusalem (or in its vicinity), and which illustrate the truth of Jesus affirmation: How often would I have gathered your children. . . .

Who are the children of Jerusalem? What is meant by this expression?

Explain the illustration of the hen and her chicks, showing how Jesus meant it. Show (1) who is the hen, (2) who are the chicks, and (3) why she tried to gather them under her wings.

According to Jesus, what is the basic reason He could not save Jerusalem?

In what other historic moment had Jesus been acclaimed with the words: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord?

What is the house that was about to be left . . . desolate? In what sense was it left unto you? Who intended to abandon this house in this way?

On what other occasions had Jesus pronounced a prophecy quite similar to this one?

10.

To what future moment did Jesus point when He said, You will not see me again unto you say, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord? Prove your answer.

11.

In what sense was it true that, from the moment of Jesus pronouncement, Jerusalem would not see Him any more? How long would He be thus invisible to Jerusalem? Did Jesus make any public appearances after the resurrection? If so, when and to whom?

12.

Had Jesus ever before prophesied this disappearance? If so, when and what did He mean? (Cf. Joh. 7:33 f; Joh. 8:21.)

13.

Explain the relationship that Jesus sees between seeing Him and Jerusalems crying, Blessed be he. . . . (You will not see me again, until you say. . . .) In what sense would saying Blessed be he . . . help Jerusalem see Jesus in the sense He intends?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(37) Jerusalem, Jerusalem.The lamentation had been uttered once before (Luk. 13:34-35), and must, we may believe, have been present to our Lords mind when He beheld the city and wept over it (Luk. 19:41), as He halted on the brow of Olivet.

It should be noted that the Hebrew form of Jerusalem ( instead of ) occurs here only in St. Matthew, as though the very syllables had impressed themselves on the minds of men.

Thou that killest the prophets.The words are in the present tense, as embracing the past and even the future. As with a sad prescience our Lord speaks of the sufferings which were in store for His messengers, and of which the deaths of Stephen (Act. 7:60) and of James (Act. 12:2) were representative instances. That the persecution in each case took a wider range, was in the nature of the case inevitable. It is distinctly stated, indeed, that it did so in both instances (Act. 8:1; Act. 12:1), and is implied in 1Th. 2:14-15, where the prophets who suffered are clearly Christian prophets, and probably in Jas. 5:10.

Even as a hen gathereth her chickens.The words reproduce (if we follow the English version), under an image of singular tenderness, the similitude of Deu. 32:11, the care of the hen for her chickens taking the place of that of the eagle for her nestlings. Possibly, however, the contrast between the two images lies in the English rather than the Greek, where we have the generic term, as a bird gathereth her brood. The words how often may be noted as implying (though they occur in the Gospels that confine themselves to our Lords Galilean ministry) a yearning pity for Jerusalem, such as we naturally associate with the thought of His ministry in that city.

Ye would not.No words could more emphatically state mans fatal gift of freedom, as shown in the power of his will to frustrate the love and pity, and therefore the will, even of the Almighty.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

37. Thou that killest the prophets Identifying the Jerusalem of the then present day with the Jerusalem of past ages. How often would I The beautiful tenderness of this verse shows that the warnings of the previous verses are the language, not of human anger, but of terrible divine justice. Love, deep love, may dwell in the breast of the judge who pronounces the sentence of death. As a hen A simple and beautiful image of tender protection. His wing would have protected them when the storm hovered or the enemy approached.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which kills the prophets, and stones those who are sent to her! How often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and you would not!”

In these moving words Jesus sums up the people of Jerusalem the very heart of the Hebrew nation, and to a certain extent representative of the whole. It was a city whose economy was built around the Temple, and very religiously intense. Everything in it was bound up in religion, and it was because of their intensity of feeling that many came to live there as they grew older. But that was the problem. It was so intense that it was not open to the truth. Like the Scribes and Pharisees, who were typical of it, it was so bound up in ritual that it could not see beyond it. It had killed (Mat 23:34) and stoned (2Ch 24:21) the prophets (compare Mat 21:35), and now it had rejected the One Who had finally come to take them under His wing. This last picture is a beautiful one. In time of danger the mother hen would call her chicks to hide under her wings, and this was what Jesus had offered Jerusalem (compare Deu 32:11; Psa 17:8; Psa 36:7; Psa 91:4; Isa 31:5; etc). The message is that there was total security in Him. It was another subtle claim to be the Beloved Son. He is acting in the place of God. But they refused to find their shelter in Him (compare Isa 30:15).

It is noteworthy that Jesus could never look on Jerusalem without similar words coming to His lips. Compare Luk 13:34. It may well be that He had composed a dirge over Jerusalem which He repeated whenever He saw it.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Judgment Is To Come On That Generation Who Will Slay Jesus and His Followers In The Form Of The Destruction Of Jerusalem (23:37-39).

Jesus finishes with a lament over Jerusalem. It is not just the Scribes and Pharisees who have rejected Him, it is Jerusalem. They had been singled out because of their claim to religious significance, but in the end it was the whole of Jerusalem which had turned its back on Him. Time and again He had made His plea to them (note how His words assume a number of visits as portrayed in John’s Gospel) but they had refused Him. Now only desolation could await them in the very house of God which would be left barren, for God was again departing from them as He had before (see Eze 10:18-19; Eze 11:22-23). But nevertheless He would return again, but only to those who welcomed Him in the Name of the Lord (as the pilgrims had welcomed Him into Jerusalem – Mat 21:9). The idea is twofold. He would return in power after His resurrection through His disciples to all who would receive Him (Mat 28:19-20; Acts 1-11), and He would return for His own at the last day (Mat 24:31).

Analysis.

a “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which kills the prophets, and stones those who are sent to her! How often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and you would not!” (Mat 23:37).

b “Behold, your house is left to you desolate” (Mat 23:38).

a “For I say to you, You shall not see me henceforth, until you shall say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord’ ” (Mat 23:39).

Note how in ‘a’ He would have gathered them under His protection, and in the parallel they will one day say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord’. Central in ‘b’ is the certainty of the desolation of the Temple.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Judgment Predicted upon Jerusalem ( Luk 13:34-35 ) In Mat 23:37-39 Jesus concludes His rebuke to the Jewish leaders by predicting divine judgment upon the city of Jerusalem. This judgment is based upon the supporting evidence in the preceding passage (Mat 23:13-36).

The Eschatological Theme in Jesus’ Lament The closing verses in the narrative section that precedes the Eschatological Discourse carries its theme when Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerusalem and His Second Coming, which is the very topic of the discourse that follows.

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 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem” – Comments – In many languages in the world, such as Luganda of East Africa, a word is repeated for emphasis. We see this repeated emphasis in other Scriptures also. Note:

2Sa 18:33, “And the king was much moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept: and as he went, thus he said, O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son! ”

Mat 23:37 Comments – Jesus laments over the holy city Jerusalem. Luke records a similar lamentation over the city by Jesus.

Luk 19:41-42, “And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.”

Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Mat 23:38 Comments The desolation of Israel took place in A.D. 70 when the Romans destroyed the city of Jerusalem, its people, and the Temple, scattering Israel among the nations until the last days when Israel has been reestablished as a nation in 1948 before the Second Coming of their Messiah.

Mat 23:39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Mat 23:39 Comments While the multitudes had initially received Jesus as their Messiah and declared in Mat 21:9, “Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest” in fulfillment of Psa 118:26, the Jewish leaders had rejected Him and turned the people against Him. Now that Jesus has been rejected by Israel at His first coming, they will no longer be able to see Him until His second coming, at which time prophecy will be fulfilled and Israel will finally receive Jesus as their Messiah and obtain their redemption (Rom 11:25-27).

Mat 21:9, “And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.”

Psa 118:26, “Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the LORD: we have blessed you out of the house of the LORD.”

Rom 11:25-27, “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.”

After the Resurrection, the people of Israel will hear Him in a new way, through the preaching of the disciples. Jesus will send His Holy Spirit and anoint His disciples to boldly speak the words that God gives them. Israel will then be seeing Jesus in the words that His disciples are preaching. Those who receive His disciples and their words will again say, “Blessed is this disciple who comes in the name of the Lord.” Jesus will now speak through men, as living epistles, with His words written upon the tablets of men’s hearts. We must begin to learn how to see Jesus in others.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The lament:

v. 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!

v. 38. Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

v. 39. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see Me henceforth till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord!

A most touching cry of merciful solicitude, wrung from a heart full of the Savior’s sincere love. “It is evident that our blessed Lord seriously and earnestly wished the salvation of the Jews; that He did everything that could be done, consistently with His own perfections and the liberty of His creatures, to perfect this; that His tears over the city, Luk 19:41, sufficiently evince His sincerity; that these persons nevertheless perished; and that the reason was, that they would not be gathered together under His protection; they would not accept His salvation. It is a beautiful picture which the Lord here uses; See Psa 91:1-7. “Now behold how the hen acts; there is hardly an animal that takes such an interest in its young ones; she changes her natural voice and assumes a sorrowful and lamenting call; she seeks, she scratches in the ground, she coaxes the chicks; whenever she finds anything, she does not eat it, but leaves it for the chicks; with all seriousness she fights and calls against the hawk, and extends her wings so willingly, and permits the chicks to crawl under her and upon her; it is a fine, pleasing picture. Thus also Christ assumed a sorrowful voice, has lamented for us and preached repentance, has shown to everyone his sin and woe with all His heart. He opens up the beauties of Scripture, coaxes us in and permits us to eat, and spreads His wings with all His righteousness, merit, and mercy over us, and takes us under Him in such a friendly manner, warms us with His heat, that is, with the Holy Ghost who comes only through Him, and fights for us against the devil in the air. ” But they would not, the Lord tells the Jews; that accusation stands. And therefore their house would become desert, desolate, their country be given into the hands of the enemies. For He would now remove His Messianic presence from them. Their day of grace is at an end. They will not see Him again until He comes in His glory, when even His enemies will have to confess that He is the Lord over all, when the great Hallel will be sung, world without end.

Summary. Jesus exposes the inordinate ambition of the Pharisees, rebukes their hypocrisy in a series of eight woes, predicts the coming of the punishment, and laments the stubbornness of the Jewish nation.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Mat 23:37-38. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! Our Lord having laid before the Pharisees andthenationtheirheinousguiltandgrievouspunishment,thethought of the calamities which were comingupon them moved him exceedingly: his bowels were turned within him, and his breast was filled with the gracious meltings of pity to such a degree, that, unable to contain himself, he broke forth into tears; bewailing Jerusalem particularly, on account of the peculiar severity of its lot. For, as its inhabitants had their hands more deeply imbrued in the blood of the prophets, they were to drink more deeply of the punishment due to such crimes. His lamentation for the city was most moving, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! &c. These tender exclamations, which can hardly be read without tears, convey a strong idea of Christ’s love to that ungrateful nation. The words, how often, mark his unwearied endeavours to cherish and protect them from the time they were first called to be his people; and the opposition which is stated between his will and theirs, How often would Ibut ye would not, very emphaticallyshews their unconquerable obstinacy in resisting the most winning and most substantial expressions of the divine love. The clause, Behold, &c. is a prediction of the punishment which was to be inflicted upon them for their sin in rejecting Christ. Their house, (the temple of God, see 2Ki 23:27.) was from that time to be desolate. The glory of the Lord, which Haggai had foretold should fill the second house, was departing. Our Lord spoke this as he was going out of his house for the last time. See Howe’s Tears of the Redeemer.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 23:37 ff. After denouncing all those woes against the scribes and Pharisees, the departing Redeemer, looking with sad eye into the future, sets the holy city also which He sees hastening to its destruction under the false guidance of those leaders in a living connection with the tragic contents of Mat 23:34 ff., but in such a way that his parting words are no longer denunciations of woe , but the deep wail of a heart wounded, because its love has been despised . Thus Mat 23:37 ff. forms an appropriate conclusion to the whole drama of the discourse. Luk 13:34 introduces the words in a historical connection entirely different.

The repetition of the name of Jerusalem is here , Euthymius Zigabenus.

, . . .] The present participles denote the usual conduct: the murderess, the killer with stones .

] to her ; because the attributive participial clause from being in the nominative places the subject addressed under the point of view of the third person, and only then proceeds ( ) with the vocative of address in . Comp. Luk 1:45 ; Job 18:4 ; Isa 22:16 . With Beza and Fritzsche, might be read and taken as equivalent to ; but is to be preferred, for this reason, that there is here no such special emphasis as to call for the use of the reflective pronoun (we should expect simply in that case).

, . . .] The literal meaning of which is: “How often I have wished to take thy citizens under my loving protection as Messiah!” For the metaphor, comp. Eurip. Herc. Fur . 70 f., and the passages in Wetstein, Schoettgen, p. 208 (Rabbinical writers speak of the Shechinah as gathering the proselytes under its wings). Observe : her own chickens. Such was the love that I felt toward you. On the form . for ., see Lobeck, ad Phryn . p. 206. ] sc . ; they refused (Ngelsbach on Il . iii. 289; Baeumlein, Partik . p. 278), namely, to have faith in him as the Messiah, and consequently the blame rested with themselves . This refusal was their actual , Joh 9:39 .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

DISCOURSE: 1394
CHRISTS COMPASSION AND MANS OBSTINACY CONTRASTED

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!

THE enmity of the human heart against God, visible as it is in all our conduct, is discoverable in nothing more than in the treatment which has been shewn in all ages to his faithful servants. One might well expect, that persons commissioned by the Governor of the Universe to instruct and reform mankind, should be welcomed with every expression of love and gratitude. But historic fact precluded a possibility of reply to that pungent question of our Lord, Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? Nevertheless, God in infinite mercy, after a host of messengers had in succession been cruelly put to death, vouchsafed to send his only dear Son, with credentials indisputable, with authority unparalleled, with compassion infinite. Yet was not even his ministry successful. The obduracy of man withstood all his kind solicitations; and constrained him, with his dying breath, to testify against his devoted country as self-ruined and self-condemned.
The words before us will naturally lead us to consider,

The tender compassion of Christ

The simile by which our Lord illustrates his own tenderness, is admirably calculated to impress and edify our minds. It is familiar to all, and therefore intelligible to the meanest capacity: at the same time it gives us as just an idea of parental anxiety as any image can convey. A hen, observing a bird of prey hovering over her young, instantly sounds an alarm, and calls them to her for protection. Thus our blessed Lord warned sinners in the days of his flesh: and thus he still warns them,

By his providence

[All the dispensations of Providence, whether relating to the world at large, or to ourselves in particular, have a voice which may be heard with ease, and interpreted with certainty. Whether they be of a more painful or pleasing nature, they may alike be regarded as calls to turn from sin, and to seek our happiness in God. And if we had been as attentive to the dictates of reason as the chickens are to the impulse of their natural instinct, we should long since have turned at Gods reproofs, and been led by his goodness to repentance.]

By his word

[What are all the warnings, the invitations, the promises of the Gospel but so many expressions of that tender regard which Christ bears to his people [Note: Pro 1:22-23. Isa 55:1-3. Joh 7:37-39.]? Surely, if we be not more deaf than the adder, we cannot but acknowledge, that in all these Christ is speaking to us, and entreating us to flee from the wrath to come. Moreover, whenever the ministers of the Gospel have spoken to us in the name of Christ, our adorable Saviour has addressed us by their mouth.]

By his Spirit

[There is no man so obdurate, but he has felt, and perhaps still occasionally feels, some convictions and remonstrances within his own bosom, some secret admonitions to repent and turn to God. We call these properly the voice of conscience; but they are also the voice of Christ, that small still voice whereby he invites us to seek his face. And in them, no less than in the written word, we have a demonstration of the concern which Christ has for the welfare of our souls, and of his solicitude to gather us under the shadow of his wings.]
But these efforts, instead of being requited as they ought, afford us only an occasion of contemplating,

II.

The unrelenting obstinacy of man

In the midst of all these overtures of mercy, man continues insensible, and,

Denies that any danger exists

[The Saviour beholds the law denouncing its curse against us, and justice unsheathing its sword to enforce its awful sanctions, and hell opening to swallow us up quick, and the fallen angels, as ministers of Gods vengeance, ready to concur in executing upon us the punishment we deserve. Of these things he warns us: but we, like the inhabitants of Sodom, laugh at the impending judgments, and, because we do not see them with our eyes, deny their existence. How lamentable is it, that we should be more stupid and incredulous than the brute creation; and that our conduct, instead of being suited to the nobler faculties we enjoy, should be in perfect contrast with theirs!]

Contents himself with false refuges

[When we can no longer deny the existence of danger, we then look out for such refuges as will be most congenial with our natural feelings, and will leave us most at liberty to follow our own ways. Many speedily present themselves to our view. Some repentance, some reformation, some alms-deeds, some religious observances, afford, as we imagine, ample security for our souls, while yet they require no great exercise of self-denial in fleeing to them. But in choosing these refuges of lies, we renounce the Saviour: we turn from that adorable Shiloh, to whom the gathering of the people must be; and expose ourselves to inevitable, everlasting destruction.]

Prefers temporal and carnal pleasures to those which are spiritual and eternal

[When the necessity of fleeing to Christ for refuge is not acknowledged, the vanities of the world are suffered to stand in competition with our duty to him, and are preferred before the security which he offers. Thus the Saviours calls are disregarded. The chickens, however occupied in picking up their food, will not disregard their parents call: but sinful man is obstinately bent on the prosecution of some favourite pursuit; and the complaint in the text is fully verified, How often would I, but ye would not!]

Let us improve this subject in a way of,
1.

Inquiry

[Have we ever felt our danger of perishing, and taken shelter under our Redeemers wings? We can be at no loss to answer this question, if only we will consult the records of our own conscience. The necessity of fleeing thus to Christ is plainly intimated in the image before us, and attested by innumerable other passages of Holy Writ. Know then, that if your own hearts condemn you, you have an evidence within yourselves that you are yet exposed to the wrath of God. O tremble at the thought, and flee without delay to the refuge set before you!]

Admonition

[It is to little purpose to deny our danger. If the helpless chickens should disregard their parents call, under the idea that the warning given them was the result of ungrounded fear, would their denial of the danger free them from it? Would not their presumption bring upon them the very destruction which they refused to shun? Thus it will be with those who despise the Saviours voice. Their security will be their ruin. Nor will they be at all more safe, if they content themselves with coming nearer to him in the ordinances, while they defer hiding themselves altogether under the shadow of his wings. It is there alone that they can find protection: and if they be not found in him, the wrath of God will surely come upon them to the uttermost. Be thankful then, that, after so many calls have been despised, the voice of mercy is yet sounding in your ears.]

Encouragement

[Whom is it that the Saviour calls? The innocent, the good, the virtuous? No; but those who had embrued their hands in the blood of all his martyred servants: and these he calls with tenderest compassion, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem: to these he appeals, that he had renewed his invitations to them times without number, and that, if they perish, they will be the sole authors of their own destruction: How often would I have gathered you, but ye would not! Know then, beloved, that your former sins, however numerous or heinous, shall be no bar to your acceptance, if only you will flee to Christ. Over you he weeps, as he once did over the murderous Jerusalem; and he declares unto you, that Whosoever cometh to him, he will in no wise cast out. Remember that, if you perish, it will not be through any want of willingness in Christ to save you: and that that very consideration, which is now so encouraging, will one day fill you with inconceivable anguish; Christ would, but I would not. O let not that reflection be suffered to embitter your eternal state; but now let your reluctance be overcome; and obey the voice that warns you only for your good.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

“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! (38) Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.”

Having much exceeded the limits to be observed in a work of this kind, in this Chapter, I reserve the comment on those verses to Luk 13:34 . Where we meet with the same pathetic lamentation of Christ.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

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!

Ver. 37. How often would I, &c. ] How then could they perish whom God would have saved? It is answered, Voluntas Dei alia est praecepti, revelata antecedents, alia beneplaciti, arcana consequens. By the former God willed their conversion, but not by the latter. A king wills the welfare of all his subjects; yet he will not acquit those that are laid up for treason, murder, and the like foul crimes. A father is willing to give his son the inheritance; yet if he prove an unthrift, he will put him beside it, and take another. “How oft would I have gathered?” that is (say some), by the external ministry of the prophets, sent unto thee,Mat 23:34-35Mat 23:34-35 . Not by internal regenerating operation of the Spirit.

Even as a hen gathereth her chickens ] Columbarum masculus ipse ovis incubat, sicut Christus ipse ecclesiam suam fovet. (Chytraeus in Lev 12:1-8 ) Of unreasonable creatures, birds, and of birds, the hen excels in kindness to her young; so that she doubts not, in their clarence, to encounter a kite, a dog, &c., Iniquo et impari proelio, though with greatest disadvantage.

And ye would not ] Men may nill their conversion, then, though called by God, Quo nihil est verius, sed et nihil turpius, saith one. Men are not damned, because they cannot do better, but because they will do no better. Cesset voluntas propria et non erit infernus, If there were no will, there would be no hell, Joh 12:39 . Therefore they could not believe; they could not, that is, they would not, saith Theophylact out of Chrysostom, who yet usually extolleth man’s freewill more than is fit.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

37. ] These words were before spoken by our Lord, Luk 13:34 ; see notes there. On the construction of , see reff.

, which is Luke’s more usual form, does not occur elsewhere in Matt. This is to be accounted for by these verses being a solemn utterance of our Lord, and the sound yet dwelling on the mind of the narrator; and not by supposing the verses to be spurious and inserted out of Luke, as Wieseler has done, Chronolog. Synops. p. 322. His assertion that Mat 23:39 has no sense here, is implicitly refuted below.

. must be understood of all the messages of repentance and mercy sent by the prophets, for our Lord’s words embrace the whole time comprised in the historic survey of Mat 23:35 , as well as His own ministry. On the similitude, see Deu 32:11 ; Psa 17:8 ; Psa 36:7 ; Psa 57:1 ; Psa 61:4 ; Isa 31:5 ; Mal 4:2 , and compare ch. Mat 24:28 .

. ] see Isa 28:12 ; Isa 30:15 . The tears of our Lord over the perverseness of Jerusalem are witnesses of the freedom of man’s will to resist the grace of God .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 23:37-39 . Apostrophe to the Holy City (Luk 13:34 ). . Chrys., H. lxxiv.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Mat 23:37 . , the Hebrew form of the name, exceptional in Mt., very appropriate to the solemn situation. Twice spoken; why? “It is the fashion of one pitying, bewailing, and greatly loving,” Chrys. , : present participles, denoting habit and repute, now and always behaving so killing, stoning. , to her , not to thee , because the participles are in the nominative, while is vocative: “exemplum compellationis per vocativum ad quam deinceps non amplius spectatur” (Fritzsche). Grotius regards the transition from second to third person as an Orientalism. , how often; on this word has been based the inference of frequent visits to Jerusalem not mentioned in the Synoptics. But the allusion may be to the whole history of Israel (so Orig., Hil., Jer.,) and to the whole people, as the children of the metropolis, the Speaker still continuing to speak in the name of God, as in Mat 23:34 , and including Himself among God’s agents. , a bird or fowl; after Plato, a hen; so here, the emblem of anxious love. , Chrys. She gathers her chickens under her wings for protection against impending danger. This Jesus and all the prophets desired to do; a truth to be set over against the statement in Mat 23:34-35 , which seems to suggest that God’s aim was Israel’s damnation. (Attic, : form disapproved by Phryn., p. 206), her brood of young birds. Cf. Psa 84:4 , where, as here, a pathetic use is made of the emblem. , ye would not, though I would ( ). Man’s consent necessary.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 23:37-39

37″Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! 39For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!'”

Mat 23:37-39 Jesus is obviously filled with emotion (cf. Luk 13:34-35). He and the Father both love the covenant people. He longed to restore them to fellowship, but they clung to their legalism (Isa 29:13). Only judgment could restart the need for covenant intimacy!

The question remains, when did Jesus speak these words? Was it just before His Triumphal Entry or does it refer to an eschatological entry? One thing is sure, the prophecy of Zec 12:10 will come to pass one day! The unification of God’s people spoken of in Romans 9-11 will restore the fellowship of the Garden of Eden (cf. Gen 3:15).

Mat 23:37 “gather” This verb is also used of an end-time gathering of the elect in Mat 3:12; Mat 13:20; Mat 13:47; Mat 24:31.

“the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings” YHWH and Jesus often used feminine metaphors to describe their work and attitudes (cf. Gen 1:2; Exo 19:5; Deu 32:11; Isa 49:15; Isa 66:9-13). Deity is neither male nor female, but spirit. He created the sexes and has the best qualities of both in Himself.

SPECIAL TOPIC: SHADOW AS METAPHOR FOR PROTECTION AND CARE

Mat 23:38 “your house is being left to you desolate” This appears to be an allusion to Jer 22:5. It could refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 or to other future events. God’s unique covenant with Israel has been altered by their unbelief! There is a New Covenant (cf. Jer 31:31-34), which is not based on racial descent, but on faith and faithfulness in God and His Messiah.

Mat 23:39 “until you say” This is a reference to Psa 118:26-27, which was used in the Triumphal Entry (cf. Mat 21:9). This is similar to the wonderful Messianic prediction of Zec 12:10 that the Jews will one day turn to the one whom they pierced (cf. Romans 9-11)! All believers pray for this Jewish revival!

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

chickens = brood. Greek. nossia. Occurs only here.

would not = were not willing. App-102.

not. Greek. ou (App-105), denying as a matter of fact.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

37.] These words were before spoken by our Lord, Luk 13:34; see notes there. On the construction of , see reff.

, which is Lukes more usual form, does not occur elsewhere in Matt. This is to be accounted for by these verses being a solemn utterance of our Lord, and the sound yet dwelling on the mind of the narrator; and not by supposing the verses to be spurious and inserted out of Luke, as Wieseler has done, Chronolog. Synops. p. 322. His assertion that Mat 23:39 has no sense here, is implicitly refuted below.

. must be understood of all the messages of repentance and mercy sent by the prophets, for our Lords words embrace the whole time comprised in the historic survey of Mat 23:35, as well as His own ministry. On the similitude, see Deu 32:11; Psa 17:8; Psa 36:7; Psa 57:1; Psa 61:4; Isa 31:5; Mal 4:2, and compare ch. Mat 24:28.

.] see Isa 28:12; Isa 30:15. The tears of our Lord over the perverseness of Jerusalem are witnesses of the freedom of mans will to resist the grace of God.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Mat 23:37. , , Jerusalem, Jerusalem!) A most solemn repetition.[1018]- , thou that killest) The participle has the force of a noun.[1019]-, that stonest) Such was the fate of Christs protomartyr, Stephen, recorded in Act 7:58-59.- , them that are sent) Although ambassadors are considered inviolable by the law of nations.- , to her) i.e. , to thee. Cf. Luk 1:45; Isa 47:10.-, …, how often, etc.) As often especially as Jesus entered Judea, Jerusalem, or the Temple. See my Harmony of the Four Evangelists, and Gnomon on ch. Mat 21:1.- , and ye would not) although I was willing. Cf. Isa 30:15.

[1018] Epizeuxis. See Appendix.-ED.

[1019] i.e. Thou that art the Murderess of.-(I. B.)

Full of compassion and horror alike.-V. g.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Jerusalem: Jer 4:14, Jer 6:8, Luk 13:34, Rev 11:8

thou: Mat 23:30, Mat 5:12, Mat 21:35, Mat 21:36, Mat 22:6, 2Ch 24:21, 2Ch 24:22, Neh 9:26, Jer 2:30, Jer 26:23, Mar 12:3-6, Luk 20:11-14, Act 7:51, Act 7:52, 1Th 2:15, Rev 11:7, Rev 17:6

how: 2Ch 36:15, 2Ch 36:16, Psa 81:8-11, Jer 6:16, Jer 6:17, Jer 11:7, Jer 11:8, Jer 25:3-7, Jer 35:15, Jer 42:9-13, Jer 44:4, Zec 1:4

even: Deu 32:11, Deu 32:12, Rth 2:12, Psa 17:8, Psa 36:7, Psa 57:1, Psa 63:7, Psa 91:4

and ye: Mat 22:3, Pro 1:24-31, Isa 50:2, Hos 11:2, Hos 11:7, Luk 14:17-20, Luk 15:28, Luk 19:14-44

Reciprocal: Lev 26:5 – dwell Num 12:6 – a prophet Num 14:10 – But all Deu 5:29 – O that there Deu 33:12 – cover him 1Ch 21:15 – unto Jerusalem Job 27:19 – gathered Psa 27:5 – hide Psa 55:9 – I have Psa 61:4 – trust Psa 81:13 – Oh that Psa 84:3 – sparrow Psa 121:5 – thy shade Pro 1:22 – ye simple Isa 4:4 – have purged Isa 5:4 – General Isa 18:1 – shadowing Isa 26:20 – enter Isa 30:15 – and ye Isa 48:18 – that thou Isa 49:4 – I have laboured Isa 49:5 – Israel Isa 54:7 – with Isa 65:2 – spread Jer 5:7 – How shall Jer 7:13 – and I called Jer 32:31 – this city Jer 36:31 – but Eze 10:18 – the glory Eze 11:23 – the glory Eze 24:13 – because Dan 9:6 – have we Hos 2:2 – Plead with Hos 7:1 – I would Hos 11:8 – How shall I give Zec 11:4 – Feed Zec 14:2 – the city Mal 4:2 – wings Mat 2:3 – he Mat 20:1 – early Mar 12:5 – and him Luk 19:43 – the days Luk 19:44 – thy children Joh 3:11 – ye Joh 5:40 – ye will not Act 4:27 – the people 2Co 6:1 – beseech Gal 4:25 – her Eph 5:29 – nourisheth Heb 11:37 – stoned

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THE CALL REJECTED

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 23:37

How often! Do not let that how often be a mere impassioned exclamation. Make it what it isa distinct definite question put to you this dayHow often? And what arithmetic can write the answer? Let us see some of the different modes in which the rejection of God has been made.

I. Have I been called?Some there are who will rise up and say, I do not consider that I have ever yet been called. And these divide themselves into two classes(a) those who wish that they could believe that they had been called; and (b) those who virtually complain that they have not received any call. Alas for the unbelief of the one, and the presumption of the other!

II. Indifference to the call.There are those who, conscious that they have been called, nevertheless treat the matter with indifference. These are your men of ease in Zion; men (a) of business, men (b) engrossed in a round of money-making toil, and (c) the humble, domestic man, living in his own little circle.

III. Acceptance delayed.There are more, again, who recognise the importance of a call, but who put off the acceptance of it. These are minds which Satan decoys by beautiful pictures of their own future. These men think that they can command the sovereign working of the Holy Ghost. When I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.

IV. Preparing to accept.There are others, a large class, quick, impressive, sensitive characters, who, at the time, receive, and welcome, and reciprocate the love of God, but it all dies away like water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again. It is always I go, sir; I go: yet they go not.

V. Those who draw back.There is a fifth classthe saddest, the guiltiest, the most awful of all. They listenthey draw nighthey taste the heavenly giftbut the old, carnal nature comes back again, and it prevails. They draw back, and they go out into the distance, and have crucified to themselves the Son of man afresh, and put Him to an open shame: and they judge themselves unworthy of eternal life.

VI. Ye would not.Now, of all these refusals of Gods grace, the real secret is the same. They may cover themselves with various pretextsbut the cause is one. How often would I have gathered theeand ye would not. It is the absence of the will. And what will be the end of it? Ask Jerusalem. The end will bethe most accurate retribution that the world ever saw.

The Rev. James Vaughan.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

3:37

The storm that Jesus just predicted was to have its climax upon the capital city of Jerusalem. Seeing that calamity so near, he uttered the lamentable words of this verse. The many attempts to awaken the city to a sense of its evils and the results to follow are compared to the care that a hen manifests in offering her wings for the protection of her brood. And the refusal of the citizens to accept that warning is compared to a flock of chickens that would not come under the wings spread out for them.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

[Jerusalem, that killest the prophets.] R. Solomon on those words, “But now murderers”: “They have killed (saith he) Uriah, they have killed Zechariah.” Also on these words, “Your sword hath devoured your prophets”; “Ye have slain (saith he) Zechariah and Isaiah.” “Simeon Ben Azzai said, ‘I have found a book of genealogies at Jerusalem, in which it was written, Manasseh slew Isaiah,’ ” etc.

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Mat 23:37. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem. A mighty emotion of compassion follows the stem language of denunciation; both are aroused by guilt: in the one case, that of the blind misleaders; in the other, that of the misled people.

That killeth the prophets. Habitually does so. The crimes against Gods messengers in every age are included.

How often would I have gathered. Our Lord speaks of His own merciful desires in the past, in the Old Testament times and in His ministry on earth. A hint that He had often visited Jerusalem, as we learn from the Gospel of John.

Thy children, thy inhabitants, and in a certain sense all the Jewish people.

As a hen. To protect from impending destruction. The impending destruction was from the eagle, the standard of the Roman armies. Comp. Deu 32:11 (where the Lord compares His own dealings to that of an eagle); Psa 17:8; Psa 36:7; Psa 57:1; Psa 61:4; Isa 31:5. Mal 4:2; and chap. Mat 24:28. The figure of a hen was applied by the Rabbins to the Shekinah, gathering the proselytes under the shadow of its wings.

But ye would not. The matter was decided, and that by the free-will of the people themselves. As a whole the city had rejected, and would yet more cruelly reject Him; though many individuals might be saved. Here, as throughout the Scriptures, mans freedom and responsibility are assumed, and directly combined with the fact of Gods sovereignty manifesting itself in purposes which He predicts and which must be fulfilled. To deny the former would be to despise our Lords tears over Jerusalem; to forget the latter would be to doubt His power to save unto the uttermost.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Our Lord concludes this chapter with a pathetical lamentation over Jerusalem. His ingemination or doubling of the word, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, shews the vehemency of Christ’s affection towards them, and the sincerity of his desires for their salvation.

Observe, 1. The great kindness and compassion of Christ to the Jews in general, and Jerusalem in particular, set forth by a lively metaphor and similitude; that of a hen gathering her chickens under her wings. As the hen doth tenderly cherish, and carefully hide and cover her young from the eye of the destroyer; so would Christ have shrouded and sheltered his people from all those birds of prey, and particularly from the Roman eagle, by which they were last devoured.

Again, As the hen continueth her call to her young-ones from morning to night, and holds out here wings for shelter to them all the day long; so did Christ wait for his people’s repentance and conversion for more than forty years after they had killed his prophets, and murdered himself, before they met with a final overthrow.

Observe, 2. The amazing obstinacy and wilfulness of this people, in rejecting this grace and favour, this kindness and condescension of the Lord Jesus Christ; I would have gathered you, but ye would not.

Observe, 3. The fatal issue of this obstinacy, Behold your house is left unto you desolate.

Is left; that is, certainly and suddenly will be so. The present tense put for the paulo post futurum, it denotes both the certainty and nearness of this people’s ruin.

Learn, 1. That the ruin and destruction of sinners is wholly chargeable upon themselves; that is, on their own wilfulness and obstinacy: I would have gathered you, says Christ, but ye would not.

Learn, 2. How deplorably and inexcusably they will perish, who perish by their own wilfulness under the gospel.

3. That there is no desire like unto God’s desire of a people’s repentance; no longing like unto God’s longing for a people’s salvation: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thee? When shall it once be? Christ did very seriously desire the conversion of the Jews, who continued still in their impenitency and unbelief. And consequently they whom he so seriously desired to convert, might have been converted, but they would not be so: I would have gathered you, but ye would not.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Mat 23:37. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem The Lord Jesus having thus laid before the Pharisees and the Jewish nation their heinous guilt and impending ruin, was exceedingly moved at the thought of the calamities coming upon them. A day or two before he had wept over Jerusalem; now he bewails it in the most mournful accents of pity and commisseration. Jerusalem, the vision of peace, as the word signifies, must now be made the seat of war and confusion: Jerusalem, that had been the joy of the whole earth, must now be a hissing, and an astonishment, and a by-word among all nations: Jerusalem, that had been a city compact together, was now to be shattered and ruined by its own intestine broils: Jerusalem, the place that God had chosen to put his name there, must now be abandoned to spoilers and robbers. For, 1st, As its inhabitants had their hands more deeply imbrued in the blood of the prophets than those of other places, they were to drink more deeply than others in the punishment of such crimes: Thou that killest the prophets, &c. And, 2d, Jerusalem especially had rejected, and would persist in rejecting the Lords Christ, and the offers of salvation made through him, and would persecute his servants divinely commissioned to make them these offers. The former was a sin without remedy; this a sin against the remedy. How often would I have gathered thy children, &c. See the wonderful grace, condescension, and kindness of the Lord Jesus toward those who he foresaw would in two or three days maliciously and cruelly imbrue their hands in his blood! What a strong idea do these tender exclamations of our Lord, which can hardly be read without tears, give us of his unparalleled love to that ungrateful and impenitent nation! He would have taken the whole body of them, if they would have consented to be so taken, into his church, and have gathered them all, (as the Jews used to speak of proselytes,) under the wings of the divine majesty. The words, how often would I have gathered, &c.,mark his unwearied endeavours to protect and cherish them from the time they were first called to be his people, and the following words, declarative of the opposition between his will and theirs, but ye would not, very emphatically show their unconquerable obstinacy in resisting the most winning and most substantial expressions of the divine goodness. Thus does the Lord Jesus still call and invite perishing sinners. But alas! the obstinacy of their own perverse and rebellious wills too generally withstands all the overtures of his grace: so that eternal desolation becomes their portion, and they in vain wish for a repetition of those calls when it is for ever too late.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

APOSTROPHE TO JERUSALEM

Mat 23:37-39. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how frequently did I wish to gather thy children, in the manner in which a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye were not willing! What a glorious, sweeping revival would have inundated Jerusalem with the very presence, power, and glory of God under the wonderful ministry of Jesus, if she had only opened wide the door, and bade her own long-expected and prayed-for Messiah a hearty welcome! This was the grand opportunity for which she had waited two thousand years, the glorious Antitype to which all her symbolisms, sacrifices, and oblations conspired. If she had received Him with an appreciative and enthusiastic welcome, she might have enjoyed the most exalted honors beneath the skies, in carrying the glad tidings to the ends of the earth. Then all the world would have hailed Jerusalem as the luminary of the nations, the beauty of the ages, and the glory of the whole earth fable emblem of heaven.

Behold, your house is left unto you desolate! We can not stand still. Those who will not have Gods blessings, must abide in the retributions of the enemy. That whole country, with all of its cities, soon went into utter desolation, falling into the hands of the vilest enemies to Christianity. After Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, a heathen temple to Jupiter was built on the very site of Solomons Temple, where Jesus was then preaching. The desolation is still on that land, and will remain till the Lord returns. The cheering omens of revival at the present day are auspicious forebodings of our Lords near coming.

For I say unto you, that you can not see Me any more, until you can say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord. What a wonderful leap this utterance gives us into the unseen future! At that time the city was full of Jews, whose awful doom Jesus saw in rivers of blood and mountains of the dead, and actually a million sold into slavery and carried captives into all nations, and the little surviving remnant driven to the ends of the earth, under penalty of death in case of an attempted return. So rigidly was this death penalty enforced against all Jews who attempted to come back, that if a Jew was found in some other country, traveling with his face toward the Holy Land, he was taken up and killed. Yet the omniscient eye of Jesus, looking over seas of blood and fields of desolation, saw the elect remnant

(Romans 11), salamander-like, surviving the fires of persecutionary centuries, and finally, in the good providence of God, coming back to repopulate the desolate fields of Zion, and again clothe the fertile mountains and alluvial plains with vineyards and orchards, and rebuild Jerusalem with unprecedented grandeur; saw this remnant wake up to the awful mistake of their ancestors in rejecting their own Christ, and ultimately find in Jesus, whom their ancestors had crucified, the blessed Shiloh of prophecy and the glorious Redeemer of Israel. Thus the bona fide children of Abraham, happily converted to their own loving Brother Jesus, and gloriously sanctified, filled with the Holy Ghost, cultured, posted and delighted with the glorious prophecies confirmatory of His second coming, and consequently ready to receive Him with open arms, will send forth the joyous shout, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord!

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Mat 23:37-39. Lament over Jerusalem (Luk 13:34 f.*).

Mat 23:37 may be part of the utterance ascribed by Jesus to the Wisdom of God. If not, Jesus is referring not so much to His earlier visits to Jerusalem as to His desire (when in Galilee) to come to the mother city and fold its people into discipleship and protection in the coming judgment.

Mat 23:38. your house: i.e. the Temple, symbolising the city and the nation. The Divine Presence, rejected in Jesus, is deserting Israel. They will see Jesus next when He returns as the heavenly Messiah.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

23:37 {12} O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have {z} gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!

(12) Where the mercy of God was greatest, it was there that there was the greatest wickedness and rebellion, and at length the sharpest judgments of God. {z} He speaks of the outward ministry, and as he was promised for the saving of this people, he was making sure that it would happen, even from the time that the promise was made to Abraham.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

3. Jesus’ lamentation over Jerusalem 23:37-39 (cf. Luk 13:34-35)

This lamentation should help us realize that the judgment Jesus just announced in such strong language was not something that delighted Him. It broke His heart. This is also clear in that He personalized the people in Jerusalem in these verses; Jesus spoke of the city as many people, not as an impersonal thing. He also spoke here as Israel’s Savior, not just a prophet but God Himself. These three verses are Jesus’ last public words to the Israelite multitudes that the evangelists recorded.

"Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem revealed that He made a legitimate offer of the kingdom to Israel and that it was His desired will that they would respond. As a result of their having rejected such a contingent offer, their house was destroyed. . . . The time from His rejection to His return is the ’mystery’ phase of the kingdom, as described in Matthew 13. The final phase of that period is outlined in chapters 24-25." [Note: Bailey, in The New . . ., p. 49.]

Most dispensationalists view the "kingdom" as having two phases. Normative (traditional) dispensationalists often refer to the present inter-advent age as the mystery phase of the kingdom and the future millennial age as the messianic kingdom. Progressive dispensationalists refer to the present inter-advent age as the "already" phase of the messianic kingdom and the future millennial age as the "not yet" phase of the messianic kingdom. A few dispensationalists deny any present phase of the kingdom. [Note: E.g., Toussaint, Behold the . . ., pp. 175-80.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Jerusalem was the city of David and the city of peace. It was the city God had chosen to reveal Himself to Israel through the temple and as the capital of His kingdom on earth. However it (personified) had killed the prophets God had sent to His people with His messages. Stoning was the penalty for the worst crimes in Israel, including false prophecy. The people had used this form of execution on those who faithfully brought God’s Word to them. Jesus’ words recall His ancestor David’s sorrow over the death of his son Absalom (2Sa 18:33; 2Sa 19:4). The repetition of "Jerusalem" reveals the strong emotion that Jesus felt (cf. Luk 10:41; Act 9:4).

Many times during His ministry Jesus had sought to gather and shelter Jerusalem, used here by synecdoche to represent the whole nation. Synecdoche is a figure of speech in which one part stands for the whole or the whole stands for one of its parts. He wanted the people to take refuge in Him as chicks do under their mother hen physically and as God’s people had done under God’s care spiritually (cf. Deu 32:11; Psa 17:8; Psa 36:7; Psa 91:4; Jer 48:40). In spite of God’s loving initiatives Israel had willfully rejected Him repeatedly. Jesus’ identification with God is very clear in this verse (cf. Eze 18:32). Jeremiah prefigured Jesus as he sadly described Jerusalem’s destruction by the Babylonians in the Book of Lamentations.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles