A False Interpretation of Matthew 23:37

(v.37) 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! Matthew 23:37

Many Arminiansitic interpreters have sought to refute God's unconditional election and sovereign irresistible grace upon his elect, by citing this passage of Scripture. The undemonstrated assumption is that the Jesus is saying that "Jerusalem" resisted his will to come to salvation, even though God wanted this to come to pass. Jesus tried to gather the Jews to himself that he wanted to save, but they "would not". Thus it is supposed to prove that God's will can be resisted by the independent free volition of sinners.

What is often assumed, but often missed is that the words of the text, when allowed to speak for themselves, in no way support this Arminian/synergystic view of God's grace. Look carefully at who Jesus says he wanted to gather. It is "THY CHILDREN" who are the objects of Jesus' gathering effort. Most people read the verse with their own ideas imposed on the text, so they think it means that Jesus wished to gather those he calls Jerusalem, but he does not say that.

The context of Matthew 23 is the judgment of the Jewish leaders who so often opposed Jesus during his ministry. Jesus came to save his people from their sins. He came to gather all that the Father had given him. There is no way that Jesus would or could fail in this effort. After noting the distinction between "Jerusalem" i.e. the Jewish leaders, and "thy children" i.e. the people whom they were to lead, we can see that Jesus was simply rehearsing the wicked leaders' legacy of apostasy and persecution of God's prophets to the nation of Israel.
Earlier in his denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, he says :v. 31"Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets".

So Jesus was condemning the leaders, and stating that they resisted him when he would have gathered his people.

There is a further idea that has to be seen for what it is here. Lawrence Vance, in his anti-Calvinist book The Other Side of Calvinism, on p. 483 says of this verse "And though he(John Gill) correctly points out that the ones that Christ would have gathered are not the ones who resisted as it is sometimes interpreted by non-Calvinists, the fact remains that someone was able to thwart what Christ desired to accomplish. thus it is evident that men can and do resist the grace of God in various ways." (emphasis mine).

Nobody denies that sinful people are enemies of God, and do not seek God. But this is what Calvinists already believe because of total depravity. Calvinists do not deny that sinners can and do resist God. In fact, that is what we emphatically believe that sinners are expected to do until God regenerates them. But further to this verse, the scribes and Pharisees did resist God as Jesus gathered his elect. Their resistance did not prevent Jesus from saving anyone. All the verse says is that "ye would not". It does not say that Jesus was frustrated in his ministry, that he failed to gather his elect because of his enemies.

What the verse means is that as Jesus wanted to gather his people to Himself, the leaders of the nation opposed him, and thus merited the coming judgment of God on themselves.

As Jesus said in John 6 :37 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day".

Thank God that our salvation is so sure and secure in God's decree that no man can thwart the gathering of ALL of God's people to Christ.

Amen

Phil Johnson's Excellent Perspective on Fundamentalism

This mp3 by Phil Johnson, of Grace To You, has some substantive and lucid insights into the American Fundamentalist Movement, and he puts words to why I feel hesitant about some of the more "fringe" elements in an otherwise legitimate position. His criticisms are right on. Historic and biblical fundamentalism and evangelicalism are true positions, while some have gone too far and too shallow.

Proving Jesus From the Quran

Sura 4:171 The Women
O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.

(Transliteration):
Ya ahla alkitabi lataghloo fee deenikum wala taqooloo AAala Allahiilla alhaqqa innama almaseehu AAeesaibnu maryama rasoolu Allahi wakalimatuhu alqahaila maryama waroohun minhu faaminoo biAllahiwarusulihi wala taqooloo thalathatun intahookhayran lakum innama Allahu ilahun wahidunsubhanahu an yakoona lahu waladun lahu ma fee alssamawatiwama fee al-ardi wakafa biAllahiwakeelan
The Quran refers to Jesus as Surah 4:171 says: "... His word which He gave unto Mary".

It is common for Christians to use this title to attempt to "prove"the Deity of Christ in this verse of the Muslim text. Of course, this should not be done for the following reasons:

• Christian integrity demands we deal with context and what the Quran is actually saying.


• Muslim creed denies the Deity of Jesus as taught in the Bible


• Muslims consider it idolatry to ascribe a divine partner to God


• The Deity of Jesus is best exegeted from the Biblical text, not the Quran because the Quran does not reveal this truth in it's pages.

فِي الْبَدْءِ كَانَ الْكَلِمَةُ، وَالْكَلِمَةُ كَانَ عِنْدَ اللهِ. وَكَانَ الْكَلِمَةُ هُوَ اللهُ . John 1:1 in the Arabic bible also calls Jesus the Word. However, what the Word is in the Apostle John's mind is not the "Word" of Muhammed's claim. For the Muslim this "word" is a promise or prophecy from Allah to Mary, as seen in Surah 3:45

"...O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from Him ". Jesus here, is simply a man, born by Allah's divine fiat, his "BE" resulting in his existence.

The Quranic Jesus is best understood in the context of medival Syriac Christianity, and the apocryphal gospels of that region of Arabia.

This article :http://vintage.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html from James White on the biblical exegesis of John 1 is quite helpful. Christians should develop a solid theology based on the text of the Word of God, the Bible, and then proceed to explain the person of Jesus to their Muslim friends.

This may still cause opposition and questions, but our responsibility as believers is to give an accurate defense (apologia-απολογία 1 Peter 3:15) of the truth of our hope and faith.

May God give us the wisdom to do this and to give an answer to our opponents for God's Honour and Glory in the Gospel.

Amen

Dual Authorship & The Nature of Jesus Christ

Dual Authorship refers to the fact that the divinely given Scriptures are a product of both God & men. God's Word is both eternal & temporal. That is God spoke in the ultimate and final sense through secondary means of prophets & apostles. So, for example, in Matthew 1:22 : "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet..." Also, when Jesus denounced the Pharisees about their traditions, He said:"Full well, ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother....making the word of God of none effect through your tradition". (Matthew 7:9-13). In both places, the Word of God is said to be what a human author spoke or wrote.

Of course, there is a mystery in just how men could write Scripture, and yet it is the God breathed words of the Lord. In 2 Peter 1:21"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." And when speaking of the prophets who foretold the Gospel, Peter wrote:"...the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of the Christ and the glory that should follow." (1 Peter 1:11-12) Both verses describe that it was a dual authorship that came as the Word of God.

I have been wondering whether we can look to the nature of Christ Himself & His "hypostatic union" to give us a parallel to help us understand dual authorship. Christ is the Word of God who became flesh. He has both the divine nature as the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, who took upon himself human nature, and a body. He became human with no loss of his eternal essence. In fact, Christ had to limit or set aside his "divine prerogatives" and take the form of a servant and human with all human limitations. Yet Christ is the Revealer of the Father, and sinless Son of God.( See Philippians 2:5-11)

Since there is both a divine and human element in the Person of Jesus, and there are both divine and human elements in Scripture, we should not be surprised to see parallels, and perhaps get insight into the inspiration of Scripture. Then again, there are limits here.

For one thing, the "Hypostatic Union", a concept which explains the dual nature/one person of Christ is itself a truth which we apprehend, but do not fully comprehend. It is paradoxical to speak of the two natures being one Person, without confusion of each entity. Just as the threes of the Persons in the Trinity are paradoxical, yet true.

In Dual Authorship, we are trying to understand a process. Whereas in the hypostatic union, we have to deal with essence. We know the Scriptures are divine, but how did they get that way given the human involvement?

Matt Weymeyer gives an exegetical understanding of the problem. This is not exhaustive, but it gives us a good idea of what the words of Scripture mean when speaking of the God/man process of authorship.

"In Matthew 1:22 and 2:15, the preposition hupo is used to express ultimate (or primary) agency, whereas the preposition dia is used to express intermediate (or secondary) agency. The distinction is this: the ultimate agent is the person who is ultimately responsible for the action of the verb, and the intermediate agent is the person who is used by the ultimate agent to carry out that action. In simpler terms, if A is the ultimate agent, B is the intermediate agent, and C is the action of the verb, the idea is that A uses B to perform C.

The implications of this are profound. According to Matthew 1:22 and 2:15, the person who is ultimately responsible for the action of speaking forth the Old Testament prophecies is the Lord Himself, for Matthew refers to the words of prophecy as “what was spoken by [hupo—ultimate agency] the Lord.” In addition, however, these verses also indicate that the Lord used intermediate agents to speak forth these words of prophecy, for Matthew refers to “what was spoken…through [dia—intermediate agency] the prophet.” Put very simply, A (God) used B (the prophets) to perform C (write Scripture)." Matt Weymeyer

http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/dual-authorship-in-matthew-122-and-215/

I would be very much interested in reader comments and input to these ideas. Let me know what you think!

The Colosseum

The is the Colosseum in Rome, Italy. I made it to Rome, and managed to get a few shots of the awesome Colosseum. Once again, I was impressed with the ancient building. Yet, as a believer in Jesus Christ, my thoughts kept going back to the days of the severe Imperial persecutions of Rome against the Christians.

There I was walking around in the arena where Roman citizens came to watch the bloodbath as ferocious animals ravaged the innocent martyrs of Christ. It is said that Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch was martyred in the amphitheater. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colosseum#Ancient The facts about the Colosseum can be found at the link.

My concern is how to look at this thing through the lens of faith. Knowing that it was used for gladiator fights, animal fights, and other pagan entertainments, points to the depravity of Roman civilaization. Further, knowing that Christians were killed there for their faith tells me that that generation of pagans were laying up wrath for the day of wrath. (Romans 2:5)

Messianic Errors of John Hagee

John Hagee is the charismatic preacher, and Christian Zionist, who wrote, In Defense Of Israel (Publisher:Front Line, 2007). Hagee is a Premillenial Dispensationalist, which is the theological underpinning for the modern prophecy movement. However, Hagee goes far beyond what most PDs believe concerning Israel and the Messiah.

In his book, like most DPs,he attempts to build a case for why Christians need to support Israel. Also, like most DPs he claims that God blesses those who bless the Jewish people. However, he goes much further and tries to convince us that the Jewish people cannot be blamed for the death of Jesus, because they never rejected him as The Messiah. IOW, Jesus never came to be the Messiah.

In Chapter 10 of In Defense of Israel, "Answering Christian Critics", he states:"Most evangelicals believe that the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah and therefore qualify for God's eternal judgment. Replacement theologians have said that "the covenant with Israel was broken because she would not accept Jesus Christ whom God sent.""
Hagee then goes on to ask several questions to refute this statement about the Jewish rejection of Jesus. The main one I want to pick up on is on page 132 of the same chapter: "Did the words of Jesus or his actions convey the message that he wanted to be Messiah?"
After stating that God had a sovereign will for the life of Jesus which included being a "light to the Gentiles", Luke 2:27-32, and dying for sinners, he writes that the Jewish leaders plotted his death, and Jesus refused to be the Messiah, and be Israel's political Saviour. On page 135, he states five major points that he claims need to be understood to see that the Jews did not reject Jesus as Messiah:

1. Jesus had to live to be the Messiah
2. If it was God's will for Jesus to die from the beginning...
3If it was Jesus (sic) intention to be obedient unto death...
4. If there is not one verse of Scripture in the New Testament that says Jesus came to be the Messiah...
5. And if Jesus refused by his words or actions to claim to be the Messiah to the Jews, then how can the Jews be blamed for rejecting what was never offered?
Amazingly, before stating that "there is not one verse of Scripture in the New Testament that says Jesus came to be the Messiah", and " ...Jesus refused by his words or actions to claim to be the Messiah to the Jews", he quotes from the Gospel of Luke, Luke 24:45-46 "Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them,"Thus it is written, THAT THE CHRIST SHOULD SUFFER AND ON THE THIRD DAY RISE FROM THE DEAD....".
This verse, quoted in his own book, on page 135, utterly refutes his claims about the Messianic claims of Jesus. Jesus did not have to only live to BE the Messiah. Jesus himself states that the CHRIST, the Greek rendering of the Hebrew term, had to DIE to fulfil the Scriptures.

When Andrew, one of John the Baptist's disciples who had heard John call Jesus "The Lamb of God" a sacrificial title, and one which even Hagee admits "Every Jewish person who heard John's words knew there was only one thing you could do with a young male lamb:kill it!" p. 134., he recognized Jesus as "The Messiah(which is translated, the Christ). John 1:41.
Is it true that only the Jewish leaders determined to kill Jesus? They did plot and conspire to put him to death. However, the unbelief of the Jewish nation was part of the sovereign plan of God in accomplishing the Crucifixion. John 12:37-40 explains the mass rejection of Christ by the unbelieving Jewish people. This was prophesied centuries before, especially in Isaiah. In John 6:66 we see that the people could not accept the hard truths of Christ. They sought a King who would cause an insurrection against the Roman occupation. Jesus did not commit himself to the people, NOT because he did not intend to be their Messiah, but because AS MESSIAH he demanded a commitment to Himself, by faith.

Hagee's claims are simply biblically false. In so many words, John Hagee is actually denying Jesus as the Christ, or Messiah to Israel. If Jesus did not come to Israel as their Messiah, then the Messiah did not die for anyone. He may not believe that, but that is the logical implication of his bad theology.

Bibliography

John Hagee, In Defense of Israel: The Bible's Mandate For Supporting the Jewish State (Front Line, 2007)

How Did God Work Around Paul's "Free-Will"?

It occurred to me,as I have been reading the Letter of Paul to the Galatians, that God would indeed be doing some interesting things if He had to juggle his sovereign plans with the sovereign will of the Apostle Paul.

Galatians 1:11-17 11For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

So God set apart, or consecrated Paul even before he was born. Paul had a divine mission to preach the Gospel even before his DNA existed! His life had already been mapped out. Look at the personal history of the apostle: he had a glowing career in Judaism, as a Pharisee's Pharisee. Yet even while he was studying Rabbinic theology, God planned to make him a gospel witness.

So, did Paul have a choice here? Is that really fair of God anyway? Can God just take people and predetermine their lives like that? What if Paul had tried to excercise his "free-will" in this matter?

Either God waited to see what Paul would do, then determine to make him an apostle.The problem is, the text says that it was IN ORDER that Paul might preach the Gospel to the Gentiles that God set him apart from before his birth. It doesn't suggest that God had this plan before he was born,and hoped that Paul might respond and be what God wanted him to be.

Paul was already appointed to the task. God revealed Christ to him. It was a supernatural revelation. Apart from that intervention on the Damascus Road in Acts 9, he would have continued to persecute the Church. Of course, Saul's conversion is anything but an invitation by decision evangelistic effort! Christ appeared in blazing, holy light and blinded Saul, and immediately Saul called him LORD. From there on we read that the Lord gave him instructions to do what was already planned.

Nothing in all this about a God who "looks down the corridor of time" to see what men might respond. The response is willed in God's will. Paul's life was as intricately designed as the DNA that God gave him. God purposefully created both.