John Gill Commentary Matthew 23:37

"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!" — Matthew 23:37 (ASV)

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem

The metropolis of Judea, the seat of the kings of Judah, yes, the city of the great king; the place of divine worship, once the holy and faithful city, the joy of the whole earth; which is why 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 Sanhedrin, which were held in it, to whom the descriptive characters of killing the prophets and stoning them that were sent by God to you best belong; 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^F8; hence that saying of Christ, (Luke 13:33) which precedes the same words here, "it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem": and who are clearly distinguished from their "children": it being usual to call those who 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 special regard.

You that kill the prophets; that is, with the sword, with which the prophets in Elijah's time were slain by the children of Israel, (1 Kings 19:10) and which was one of the capital punishments inflicted by the Jewish Sanhedrin^F9; and also that which follows was another.

And stone them which were sent to you; as particularly Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, before mentioned. The Jews themselves are compelled to own that this character belongs to them. They say^F11, ``when the word of God shall come, who is his messenger, we will honour him. Says R. Saul, did not the prophets come, (Mwngrhw), "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 theirs, on these words<sup>F12</sup>, "but now murderers", has this note; ``they have killed Uriah, they have killed Zechariah.''

How often would I have gathered your children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and you would not!

Christ speaks here as a man, and the minister of the circumcision, and expresses a human affection for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and a 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 endeavors to screen from danger by covering with its wings. So the "Shekinah" with the Jews is called, (avydq arpu), "the holy bird"^F13; and that phrase, (xnykvh ypnk txt twoxl), "to betake one's self, or to come to trust under the wings of the Shekinah", is often used^F14 for to become a proselyte to the true religion and worship of God, as Jethro and Ruth the Moabitess did. An expression much like 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 to you? I will cast you out from my face.'' It seems to be a simile much in use among that people.

Our Lord is to be understood not as referring to 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. But as referring to 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 that they might be brought to a conviction of, and an assent to him as the Messiah; which, though it might fall short of faith in him, would have been sufficient to preserve 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 (Mark 10:21) (Luke 19:41) (22:42); which will of his, though not contrary to the divine will but subordinate to it, yet is not always the same with it, nor always fulfilled; whereas his divine will, or his will as God, is always fulfilled: "who has resisted his will?" this cannot be hindered or made void; he does whatever he pleases.

Furthermore, that this will of Christ to gather the Jews to himself is to be understood as referring to his human, and not divine will, is manifest from this: that this will was in him and expressed by him at certain 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, 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 its distinguishing acts, 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, or 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 your children, and they would not"; but, "how often would I have gathered your children, and you would not!" Which observation alone is sufficient to destroy the argument founded on this passage in favor of free will.

Had Christ expressed his desire to have gathered the heads of the people to him, the members of the Jewish Sanhedrin, the civil and ecclesiastical rulers of the Jews; or had he signified how much he wished, earnestly sought after, and attempted to gather Jerusalem, the children, the inhabitants of it in common, and neither of them would; it would have carried some appearance of the doctrine of free will, seemed to have countenanced it, and imputed the non-gathering of them to their own will; though had it been said, "they would not," instead of, "you would not," it would only have furnished 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 their collection 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 (Matthew 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, particular redemption, and effectual calling, it should be proved that Christ, as God, would have gathered, not Jerusalem and its inhabitants 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 that 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 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 favor of free will.

---

FOOTNOTES:

• F8: Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 1. sect. 5.
• F9: lb. c. 7. sect. 1.
• F11: R. Isaac Arama in Gen. xlvii. apud Galatin. Arcan. Cath. ver. l. 3. c. 5.
• F12: Jarchi in Isa. i. 21.
• F13: Zohar in Numb. fol. 106. 3. & Imre binah in ib.
• F14: Tzeror Hammor, fol. 77. 4. &. 115. 2. Vid. Targum in Ruth ii. 12. Zohar in Exod. fol. 28. 3. & 29. 2.