Matthew 23:37-39

TEXT: 23:37-39

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

a.

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?

b.

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?

c.

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 Jerusalem's populace to faith in Him? Or had He? On what basis would you answer this?

d.

Why was it that Jerusalem was so notorious for killing God's 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?

e.

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

f.

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?

g.

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?

h.

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

i.

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.

j.

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?

k.

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

PARAPHRASE

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! the city that has continued to murder God's 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 Jerusalem's extraordinary opportunity to welcome God's last, greatest Prophet rendered more unmistakable the inveterate character of her rebelliousness, because she refused her only Savior. Now He must abandon her people's 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

Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! This is Matthew's last reference to Jerusalem by name. Even though after this Matthew will refer to the holy city (Matthew 27:53) or speak simply of the city (Matthew 26:18; Matthew 28:11), Matthew's 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:

1.

Jerusalem, as theocratic center of the nation, was the supreme goal of ideal Israel. Any plan of God without sacred Zion was unthinkable. (Psalms 146:10; Psalms 147:2; Psalms 147:12 ff.; and all of Zechariah's Jerusalem prophecies.) But the conspicuous historical reality was a stony-hearted city that concretely shared the Pharisees-' hypocrisy and their readiness to silence God's 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.

2.

But to switch from the Pharisee, the religio-political party whose philosophy infected wide segments of Israel, to Jerusalem, Israel's 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, 29-38; Josephus, Wars, I, 5, 1-3.) 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!

3.

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 Jerusalem's unpromising precedents, He offers one more, longing invitation couched in the form of a warning that holds out a glimmer of hope.

4.

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. 2 Samuel 18:33; 2 Samuel 19:4; Luke 10:41; Luke 22:31; Jeremiah 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 (Luke 13:33)! Stoning was the capital punishment intended for false prophets (Deuteronomy 13:5; Deuteronomy 13:10). Diabolically, Jerusalem turned the weaponry intended to protect God's 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 Luke 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 John's account: great, gracious appeals addressed to Jerusalem to believe Him and be saved. (Cf. John 2:13 to John 3:21; John 5:1-47; John 7:10 to John 10:39; John 11:1-45.) So, there is no contradiction between the Synoptics and John's 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 Jerusalem's 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: Deuteronomy 32:11; Psalms 17:8; Psalms 36:7; Psalms 57:1; Psalms 61:4; Psalms 63:7; Psalms 91:4; Isaiah 31:5; Ruth 2:12.) Thy children refers to the people of Zion, hence, Israel in general. (Cf. Psalms 149:2; Joel 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 God's Kingdom as He presented it. But He is not merely Israel's 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 nation's true Owner, the Messiah of God!

Feel the conflict of two determined wills: I would. but you would not (çthélçsa. ouk çthelésate). Jesus willed to save them, but their stubborn will shut out His influence. (Contrast John 5:40 and 2 Peter 3:9. See also Luke 19:14; Luke 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. Romans 9:1 to Romans 10:3; 1 Corinthians 9:22, some, not all; Romans 11:14.) Grace, in practice, refers to one person's 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 God's just sentence against this unbelieving, contemptuous, unrepentant people. The anguished cry with which He closes (Matthew 23:37) is of a piece with His bone-deep sadness when He wept over Jerusalem during the Messianic Entry (Luke 19:41-44). It is the Lord's 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 Jerusalem's 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

Matthew 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?

1.

The house of Israel is a common Old Testament synonym for the entire NATION. (Cf. Jeremiah 12:7; Hosea 8:1; Ezekiel 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 (Matthew 21:43; Matthew 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 God's abandoning a mutinous, unbelieving nation, leaving it to its own devices to save itself from that desolation that must result from their deserting God's 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. 1 Peter 2:9 f.; contrast Exodus 19:5 f.)

2.

The house par excellence is the TEMPLE, the house in which dwelt the glory of Israel, the presence of God. (Cf. 2 Chronicles 6; Isaiah 66:1 f.; notes on Matthew 23:21; see also 2 Baruch 8:2; Testament of Leviticus 15:1; Leviticus 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 Ezekiel 10:1 to Ezekiel 11:23; cf. Jeremiah 7:2-14; Jeremiah 26:6; see Judges 18:31; 1 Kings 9:6-9; 1 Samuel 4:22; Psalms 78:59-62.) Now, however, contrary to past hopes, according to which God would return to dwell in a purified sanctuary (Ezekiel 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 (Ephesians 2:19-22; 1 Corinthians 3:16 f; 1 Corinthians 6:19; John 14:23). Then, when the great temple veil parted from top to bottom when Jesus died (Matthew 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 (Matthew 12:4) nor My house (Matthew 21:13), but your house.

3.

Early Jewish thought pictured the CITY OF JERUSALEM as the house of God. (Cf. Enoch 89:50-72; 90:29-36; Testament of Leviticus 10:5.) If it is Jesus-' thought, He addresses the city as He had earlier (Matthew 23:37), now prophesying its ruin. (Cf. Luke 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.

4.

In the spirit of the great imprecatory Psalms 69:25, Israel's house could mean THEIR DWELLING place on earth, especially in Palestine. The Psalm's context pictures the treachery, the atrocious crimes and the wilful cruelty of those who persecute God's 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 army's encampment or an empty Bedouin tent.

5.

Does Jesus mean the royal palace as symbolic of the earthly Davidic lineage? (Cf. the similarity between Matthew 23:38 and Jeremiah 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 Israel's 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 (Matthew 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 66-70 A.D., with only an ill-fated politico-military resurgence under Bar-Cochba (131-135 A.D.). Chapter 24 will furnish the details. Now, Jesus formally severs Himself from Israel's 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

Matthew 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 Israel's house would be left desolate: You will never ever (Greek: ou mé) see me from now on until you say, Blessed is he. So, whatever ramifications this verse has, they must explain the desolation of Israel's famous house. No view of this text can be correct that ignores Matthew's 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. Matthew 3:7-12; Matthew 8:11 f.; Matthew 10:6; Matthew 10:14 f.; Matthew 11:20 ff.; Matthew 12:41 f.; Matthew 21:38 to Matthew 22:14.) Even so, questions arise:

1.

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 (John 19:20; Luke 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 (John 7:33-36; John 8:21-27; John 13:33; John 14:16 f.). On the latter occasion He explained clearly to believers: I shall go to Him who sent me (John 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 (Acts 10:40 ff.). From that moment, therefore, anyone who desired to see Jesus must do so by faith.

2.

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.

3.

In what sense would Jerusalem's 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 God's 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 God's 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 God's anointed Judge. (Cf. Acts 17:30 f.; 2 Corinthians 5:10; John 5:27.)

If it be thought that the Psalm quoted, Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord (Psalms 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. Isaiah 45:23-25 as Paul uses it in Romans 14:11 f. and Philippians 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 (Luke 13:34 f.), His words found fulfillment in the Messianic Entry, as thousands welcomed Him with precisely this blessing (Matthew 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:

1.

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 Jerusalem's rejection of God's Messenger (Matthew 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.

2.

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 Matthew 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 person's 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 Matthew 24:30; Matthew 26:64.)

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

3.

THIS THEORY IGNORES THE NATURE OF BIBLICAL CONVERSION. Any theory of a latter-day blanket transformation of Israel misunderstands God's 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.

a.

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 man's free will, then the present Gospel offers all Jews the only true, valid alternatives (Romans 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. Isaiah 1:9; Isaiah 4:2 f.; Isaiah 6:13; Isaiah 10:20 ff.; Isaiah 11:11; Isaiah 11:16; Isaiah 29:19 f; Isaiah 37:31 f.; Isaiah 65:9-17, etc.)

b.

Human free will not only guarantees man's 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?

c.

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. Acts 17:31.) However, His winsomeness appears only to the eye of faith (Isaiah 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 (Romans 9:1-3; Romans 10:1; 1 Corinthians 1:18-24).

4.

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 Christ's 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.

5.

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 (Romans 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 (Romans 9:24; 2 Thessalonians 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 Zechariah 12:10 a prediction of Israel's 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 Revelation 1:7, the assumption is that Zechariah refers to a returned Christ. But no interpretation of Zechariah can be valid that ignores the Apostle's affirmation that Zechariah 12:10 was fulfilled at the cross when all-sufficient grace was made possible by Jesus-' death (John 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 (Acts 2:37). In this light, then, Revelation 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 Matthew 24:30.) In fact, Zechariah predicts (1) individual, tribal mourning (Zechariah 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. 2 Chronicles 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 (Revelation 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.

6.

THIS THEORY IGNORES THE CHRISTIAN REDEFINITION OF ISRAEL. Any discussion of Israel in eschatology must take into account God's 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 (Romans 11:26). However, Romans 11:26 is the conclusion of Paul's 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 (Romans 9:6-8; Romans 9:22-27). Accordingly, there is now no distinction between Jew and Gentile (Romans 10:12; Galatians 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 (Romans 11:32). Ungodly, unrepentant, unbelieving Israelites are not of Israel, no matter what their pretensions (Romans 9:6). Conversely, believing Gentiles are true sons of Abraham, notwithstanding their former lack of qualification. (Cf. Galatians 3:6-9; Galatians 3:14; Galatians 3:27-29.) Neither previous Jewishness nor former paganism count for anything now (Galatians 6:15). What counts with God is that new creation in Christ Jesus that constitutes the genuine Israel of God (Galatians 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 Paul's inspired redefinition of Israel, we who have submitted to Jesus as Lord constitute that chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people. (Cf. 1 Peter 2:5; 1 Peter 2:9 f.) This is the Israel to be saved.

7.

THIS THEORY FAILS TO APPRECIATE THE CONDITIONALITY OF GOD'S 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 (Romans 10:21). Because Paul understood that God's call is conditioned by their believing response expressed through obedient service (Romans 11:29 f; cf. Romans 16:26), his realism admitted only the possibility to save SOME of them (Romans 11:14; cf. 1 Corinthians 9:19-22). Can there be any hope for those who refuse to submit to His conditions?

8.

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 (Revelation 2:9; Revelation 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 (Romans 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 erchòmenos) is often a Messianic title (cf. Matthew 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 (Jerusalem'S) eyes (Luke 19:41 f.). Had they known Who He really was, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory (1 Corinthians 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 God's 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

1.

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

2.

Jerusalem's stoning of the prophets meant that the authorities had pronounced what judgment against them?

3.

On what basis can we know that Jesus had really sought to persuade Jerusalem to accept Him as God's 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..

4.

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

5.

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.

6.

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

7.

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

8.

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?

9.

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. John 7:33 f; John 8:21.)

13.

Explain the relationship that Jesus sees between seeing Him and Jerusalem's 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?