Matthew 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!”

Wilhelmus a Brakel (1635-1711)

When the Lord Jesus says, “...how often would I have gathered thy children together...and ye would not!” (Mat. 23:37), it is neither suggested that there are two wills in God nor that He has an impotent will. Rather, Christ is here referring to His work which He executed according to His will, and to the opposition of the chief rulers of Jerusalem who were not desirous to enter in, and prevented the people from entering in as well.

(From: “The Christian’s Reasonable Service”)

John Calvin (1509-1564)

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 honour, but, as if it had been a den of robbers, (Jer. vii. 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 endeavoured 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, (apokteinousa tous prophetas), (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.” 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 honour; 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 honour? 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 honour 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 favour 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 favours.

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, (Luke 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, (Deut. xxxii. 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. lxv. 2,) that, though he rose up early, (Jer. vii. 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.

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, (1 Tim. iii. 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, (1 Cor. x. 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 (anthropopatheia) 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, 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 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; for it expresses the diabolical rage of men, who do not hesitate to contradict God.

(From: “Commentary”)

Christ’s lament which they quote–“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,...how often would I have gathered your...chicks, and you would not!” [Matt. 23:37 p.]–gives them no support. I admit that Christ not only speaks in his character as man but also reproaches them with having refused his grace in every age.

But we must define the will of God, now under discussion. It is perfectly clear how carefully God took pains to hold that people, and how stubbornly, from the highest to the lowest, given over to wayward desires, they refused to be gathered together. But it does not follow from this that God’s plan was made void by men’s evil intent. They object that nothing agrees less with God’s nature than that he should be of double will. This I grant them, provided they explain it correctly. But why do they not consider the numerous passages in which God, taking on human emotions, descends to what is beneath his own majesty? He says that he has stretched out his arms...to call a rebellious people [Isa. 65:2]; early and late he has taken care to lead them back to him. If they want to apply all this to God, disregarding the figure of speech, many superfluous contentions will arise, which this one solution can dispose of: what is human is transferred to God. Albeit the solution we have elsewhere advanced is quite sufficient: although to our perception God’s will is manifold, he does not will this and that in himself, but according to his diversely manifold wisdom, as Paul calls it [Eph. 3:10], he strikes dumb our senses until it is given to us to recognize how wonderfully he wills what at the moment seems to be against his will.

(From: “Institutes of the Christian Religion”)

I freely acknowledge that Christ is speaking of the revealed will of God, when He says, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together,...and ye would not.” For He is upbraiding the Jews with the same ingratitude and hardness of heart as He had before done in the song of Moses (Exod. xv. 17, etc.). And we know full well that God did in reality bestow on the Jewish nation all the blessings which the words of that song expresses, seeing that, by giving them His law, by the ordinances of His worship, and by the many benefits which He conferred on that people, and by which He bound them to Himself, He protected them, as it were, by the overshadowing of His wings; and He would still have done so, had not their indomitable obstinacy and obduracy carried them away from Him. After, therefore, Christ had testified His will so often and in so many different ways, spoken in order to win a perverse nation to their obedience, but all in vain; it is with the utmost justice that He complains of their ingratitude. For, as to your restricting all these things to the lifetime of Christ, this you do with your usual ignorance of these divine things. Just as if Christ were not the true God, who, from the beginning, had not ceased to spread the wings of grace over His own elect people! But here you, in a moment, conclude that, if there were another and secret will in Christ, while He thus addressed Jerusalem, the whole life of Christ must have been an inconsistency. Just as if, to allure by the voice and by kindnesses, and yet to leave the heart untouched by the inspiration of His secret Spirit, were in Christ diverse and contrary acts!

(From: “The Secret Providence of God”)

David Dickson (1583-1662)

In this lamentation our Lord is not to show what power is in men’s wicked nature to convert themselves, or to make use of the means of conversion, nor what power there is in corrupt nature to oppose that power which God puts forth in conversion of souls; neither is he lamenting their case as one unable to obtain his own desired end in the salvation of such as he intended to save: for no reason can extract these conclusions necessarily from these speeches. The true sense of them is obtained without any such inferences; for our Lord as man, and kindly minister of the circumcision moved with humane compassion for the miseries of his native countrymen, lets forth his love in this lamentation and weeping, while he beholds the desperate obstinacy of the multitude running to perdition, thereby intending to make the reprobate who should hear his tender bowels inexcusable, and to move the elect to repentance by this means. DOCTRINE: [1.] Our Lord, as a man, in the bowels of compassion was moved in the days of his flesh with the misery of the most wicked, as this lamentation shows. [2.] When Christ was most moved with the provocations of the wicked, there was no sinful perturbation in him, to make him forget to fulfil the law of love to his most desperate enemies; therefore he laments thus, Jerusalem, Jerusalem! [3.] So oft as the Lord sends forth his ministers with offers of mercy to sinful people, so oft is he lovingly calling them to come unto him; so says he, As a hen gathereth her chickens, how oft would I have gathered thee? [4.] When the Lord is about to save his elect children in the visible church, the body or the greatest part of the people may oppose his work and nill the work which he wills, and although they be not able to impede his effectual gathering of so many as he intends to save, yet may they make themselves guilty of impeding and resisting the will of God, which they cannot overcome; therefore, says he in this sense, O Jerusalem, how oft was I about to convert thy children, so many as I had elected, by the offers of mercy which my servants made unto you, the visible church their mother? And you would not, but opposed my work so far as you could, in slaying the prophets and stoning them who were sent unto thee for the elect’s cause who were in the midst of you. [5.] The Lord will pursue his purpose, and renew messages till he both gain his own and also make the reprobate inexcusable to the full; for how often, says he, would I have gathered thy children, and ye would not.

(From: “A Brief Exposition of the Evangel of Jesus Christ According to Matthew”)

Christopher Ness (1621-1705)

This scripture, so common in the mouths, and so frequently found in the writings of Arminians, so readily produced by them on almost every occasion against the doctrines of grace – this scripture, taken in its context, will advantage them nothing. “How often would I have gathered,” etc., “but ye would not”. This gathering does not design a gathering of Jews to Christ internally, by the Spirit and grace of God; but a gathering of them externally, to hear Him preach, so that they might be brought to an assent unto Him as the Messiah.

This reception of Christ would not have been saving faith, but it would have preserved them from that temporal ruin threatened in the following verse. This scripture therefore (as Acts 7:51) only respects a resistance to Christ’s outward ministry. Jerusalem, i.e. her rulers, received Him not (John 7:48), therefore their house is to be desolated (verse 38); the city is one thing and her children another. Here is temporal destruction threatened for neglecting temporal visitations (Luke 19:44). Nationally considered, Jerusalem would have been preserved in its peace, had the people, upon the rational opportunity afforded them for receiving the Messiah, accepted Christ under that character.

(From: “An Antidote against Arminianism”)

Arthur W. Pink (1886-1952)

One scripture which we often find cited in order to overthrow the teaching advanced in this book is our Lord’s lament over Jerusalem: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that 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!” (Matt. 23:37). The question is asked, Do not these words show that the Saviour acknowledged the defeat of His mission, that as a people the Jews resisted all His gracious overtures toward them? In replying to this question, it should first be pointed out that our Lord is here referring not so much to His own mission, as He is upbraiding the Jews for having in all ages rejected His grace–this is clear from His reference to the “prophets.” The Old Testament bears full witness of how graciously and patiently Jehovah dealt with His people, and with what extreme obstinacy, from first to last, they refused to be “gathered” unto Him, and how in the end He (temporarily) abandoned them to follow their own devices, yet, as the same Scriptures declare, the counsel of God was not frustrated by their wickedness, for it had been foretold (and therefore, decreed) by Him–see, for example, 1 Kings 8:33.

Matthew 23:37 may well be compared with Isaiah 65:2 where the Lord says, “I have spread out My hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts.” But, it may be asked, Did God seek to do that which was in opposition to His own eternal purpose? In words borrowed from Calvin we reply, “Though to our apprehension the will of God is manifold and various, yet He does not in Himself will things at variance with each other, but astonished our faculties with His various and ‘manifold’ wisdom, according to the expression of Paul, till we shall be enabled to understand that He mysteriously wills what now seems contrary to His will.” As a further illustration of the same principle we should refer the reader to Isa. 5:1-4: “Now will I sing to my well Beloved a song of my Beloved touching His vineyard. My well Beloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill: And He fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and He looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt Me and My vineyard. What could have been done more to My vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?” Is it not plain from this language that God reckoned Himself to have done enough for Israel to warrant an expectation–speaking after the manner of men–of better returns? Yet, is it not equally evident when Jehovah says here “He looked that it should bring forth grapes” that He is accommodating Himself to a form of finite expression? And, so also when He says “What could have been done more to My vineyard, that I have not done in it?” we need to take note that in the previous enumeration of what He had done–the “fencing” etc.–He refers only to external privileges, means, and opportunities, which had been bestowed upon Israel, for, of course, He could even then have taken away from them their stony heart and given them a new heart, even a heart of flesh, as He will yet do, had He so pleased.

Perhaps we should link up with Christ’s lament over Jerusalem in Matt. 23:37, His tears over the City, recorded in Luke 19:41: “He beheld the city, and wept over it.” In the verses which immediately follow, we learn what it was that occasioned His tears: “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. For the days shall come upon thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side.” It was the prospect of the fearful judgment which Christ knew was impending. But did those tears make manifest a disappointed God? Nay, verily. Instead, they displayed a perfect Man. The Man Christ Jesus was no emotionless stoic, but One “filled with compassion.” Those tears expressed the sinless sympathies of His real and pure humanity. Had he not “wept”, He had been less than human. Those “tears” were one of many proofs that “in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren” (Heb. 2:17).

(From: “The Sovereignty of God”)

Francis Turretin (1623-1687)

This twofold will cannot be proved from Mt. 23:37: (1) because it is not said that God willed to scatter those whom he willed to gather together, but only that Christ willed to gather together those whom Jerusalem (i.e., the chiefs of the people) nilled to be gathered together, but notwithstanding their opposition Christ did not fail in gathering together those whom he willed. Hence Augustine says, “She indeed was unwilling that her sons should be gathered together by him, but notwithstanding her unwillingness he gathered together his sons whom he willed” (Enchiridion 24 [97] [FC 2:450; PL 40.227]). Therefore, Jerusalem is here to be distinguished from her sons as the words themselves prove (and the design of the chapter, in which from v.13 to v.37, he addresses the scribes and Pharisees and rebukes them because “they neither went into the kingdom of heaven themselves, nor suffered those that were entering, to go in”); (2) the will alluded to is not the decretive, which is one only and simple, but the preceptive, which is referred to calling and is often repeated by the preaching of the word–“How often would I?” (and so Christ here speaks as the minister of circumcision).

(From: “Institutes of Elenctic Theology”)