Blog

I have spent the last couple of weeks reading the late R.C Sproul’s commentary on Matthew. This was obtained freely from Ligonier Ministries because they had a deal going on in December and January where you could pick anyone of RC Sproul’s commentaries of your choosing and download it as an EPUB free of charge. I downloaded the one on Matthew and had it sent to my Kindle library. I’ve been reading it for the past two weeks. It is a pretty decent commentary, and I have thoroughly enjoyed it. But, obviously as an Arminian-Molinist I disagree with him on various points. And so often I find myself baffled at the non-answers he gives in response to objections to deformed theology. In this blog post, I will look at how he handles the Arminian interpretation of Matthew 23:37-38 and how he tries to make this compatible with Calvinism.

R.C Sproul’s Commentary On Matthew 23:37-38

On pages 631-632, he writes “As an aside, I should note that this lament has been used by many to argue against the biblical doctrine of election. The argument goes like this: Jesus wanted to gather the people together as a hen gathers her chicks, they were not willing to come to Him, and He did not force them. However, this verse teaches us nothing about election, only about the natural state of all people, which is unwillingness. Yes, we have wills that are free to do what we want to do. But our wills cannot will obedience to God. We cannot will to come to Christ. Jesus explained this truth when He said, ‘No one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father’ (John 6:65). The people of Jerusalem. refused to come to Jesus because they simply did not want to come. No one comes to Christ unless God in His mercy changes the hardness of that person’s heart so as to make him willing and even eager to come. He redeems us from our own corrupt freedom, which is really bondage, because we do what we want to do rather than what God wants us to do. Christ Himself, knowing all of that, nevertheless wept for those who were unwilling. We should, too.” ^[1]R.C. Sproul, Matthew: An Expositional Commentary (Sanford, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2013), 675.

My Critique Of Sproul’s Comments

This totally misses the point of the passage. The point is that Jesus really wanted the people of Jerusalem to repent and accept him as their Savior and Messiah. They refused to do so, no matter how many miracles he performed, and no matter how many prophecies he fulfilled. Their hearts were hardened, and they refused to believe. The religious leaders even went so far as to say that his exorcisms were done in the power of Satan (Matthew 12:33-34). They knew that Jesus’ miracles were supernatural, but if they admitted that they came from God, then they would have to believe in him. So they said that the miracles were done by demonic powers, and Jesus points out that that is absurd because Satan would be fighting against his own kingdom and it wouldn’t stand. And he also said, basically, that that would impugn the integrity of exorcists in their own ranks. “Let’s assume for a moment that I am casting out demons by Beelzebub’s power. Are your exorcists doing it by Beelzebub’s power too?” (Matthew 12:25-27). Jesus brilliantly refuted their illogical claim. But, the point from Matthew 23:37-38 against Calvinism is that Jesus really wanted the people of Jerusalem to repent, but they refused and he was lamenting over that fact. If EDD Calvinism were true, ^[2]EDD is shot for “Exhaustive Divine Determinism”, which was a term coined by Dr. Tim Stratton of FreeThinking Ministries. And is used in places like his book “Human Freedom, Divine … Continue reading then this would be senseless theatrics. Jesus would be lamenting over the result of what he and the Father decreed from eternity past. God causally determined these people to sin. God chose not to zap these people with irresistible grace, so as to give them the so-called “inward call” so they could and irresistibly would repent. God chose not to give these people the grace needed to come to them. Jesus puts the blame of unbelief on the people of Jerusalem themselves. 

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you desolate.” – Matthew 23:37–38 (ESV)

Arminians wholeheartedly agree that people cannot come to God on their own initiative. Arminians agree when Calvinists like Sproul quote John 6:44 and John 6:65 and which say that no one can come to Jesus unless the Father who sent Jesus draws them. But we would also keep in mind John 12:32 where Jesus says “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (ESV). Not some people, not most people, all people! We also keep in mind Acts 17:30 in which Paul says “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.” (ESV). God calls who? Some people? Most people? No. All people! And not just all people, but all people everywhere! As if Paul’s universal language of “all people” didn’t get the point across (and for Calvinists, it obviously doesn’t), Paul makes it even clearer by saying “everywhere.” Paul’s words to his Athenian audience could be paraphrased as saying “God calls every person in every place to repentance.” If it is true that God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all..” (1 Timothy 2:4-6, NKJV) If it is true that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16, NKJV), if it is true that God is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9b), ^[3]Emphasis mine in bold in all scripture quotations. then we would expect that God would send prevenient grace to all people to enable and persuade them to come to repentance, and to give him allegiance. But we know from passages like Matthew 7:13-14 and Revelation 20:11-15 that universalism is not true. Despite the fact that God wants all people to be saved, not all people will be saved. Some people will be lost. Some people will go through the wide gate that leads to destruction rather than the narrow gate that leads to eternal life. (cf. also Matthew 25:45). Therefore, the grace that God sends people must be resistible. And it is to this that Stephen alludes to when he is brought to trial in front of the Sanhedrin. In Acts 7:51, he says “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.” (ESV)

If all of this is true, then Matthew 23:37-38 makes sense. Jesus loved the people of Jerusalem. Even the people who refused to repent and believe in him. He lamented over their poor choice to come to him and live. They were not willing. He explicitly lays the blame on them. But if T.U.L.I.P were true, again, these would just be crocodile tears. Jesus would know that he reprobated these people from eternity past. Jesus would know that the reason they didn’t come to him to have eternal life is because he did not give them irresistible grace. If he had just given them irresistible grace, they both could and would come to him to have life. According to the Calvinist, God doesn’t care about whether or not we come to him freely. And so it wouldn’t matter if God zapped them with irresistible grace and drew them to repentance. If Calvinism were true, the real reason the people of Jerusalem didn’t come to Jesus to be saved wasn’t because they were not willing, but because He was not willing.

Sproul doesn’t address what the actual Arminian criticism of Calvinism from this verse really is. All he does is just reiterate the point that human beings don’t have the innate ability to come to God on their own, which is not something that the Arminian would dispute. The Arminian would agree that without the prevenient grace given by The Holy Spirit, no one would ever seek for God.

The empty theatrics of God concerning the behavior of the lost is something John Wesley picked up on in his scathing indictment of Calvinism. While Wesley’s most famous “worse than the devil” line comes from his sermon Free Grace, he applies the logic of Matthew 23:37 (Jesus’ lament) most explicitly in his treatise “Predestination Calmly Considered” (1752). In this work, he argues that if God has already decreed someone’s damnation, his public invitations to them are a “mockery.” Wesley said “”How would it sound in the ears of the world, if a king should say, ‘Not one of these my subjects shall ever come to me: I have unalterably decreed they shall not!’ and should yet loudly proclaim, ‘I would have all these my subjects to come to me; I am not willing that any of them should perish!’… Would you not say, ‘This is a mockery of all the people’? … It represents the most holy God as worse than the devil; as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust. More false; because the devil, liar as he is, hath never said, ‘He willeth all men to be saved!’ … It represents the high God as more cruel, false, and unjust than the devil!” ^[4]John Wesley, “Predestination Calmly Considered,” in The Works of John Wesley, vol. 10 (London: Wesleyan Conference Office, 1872), 221–225.

In the same treatise, Wesley specifically uses the “hen and chicks” imagery from Matthew 23 to prove that the “unwillingness” was human, not a result of a divine decree:

“Does he [God] say to those who are ‘reprobated,’ ‘How often would I have gathered you, and ye would not?’… If you say he would not, you represent him as a hypocrite, as a deceiver of the people, as a man void of common sincerity. … You make him say one thing and mean another; you make him to have ‘two wills,’ which is to say he has no will at all; for a man that has two wills, in this sense, has no will but to deceive.” ^[5]See ibid.

Since I am critiquing Sproul, I want to point out that while Sproul claims this verse teaches nothing about election but only about “unwillingness,” Wesley counters that the “unwillingness” of the people is only a moral failure if the invitation from Jesus was sincere. If the grace was never available to them, their “unwillingness” was a physical and spiritual necessity fixed by God—making Jesus’ tears, in Wesley’s view, the ultimate empty theatrics.

My Thoughts On Sproul’s Matthew Commentary Overall

There have been several times throughout reading this commentary that I have stopped and just argued with the book. I sometimes do that and I wonder if people passing by my door or not confused at the sound of me arguing with someone who isn’t there. But in this case, I finally had enough, and I decided that I would put my thoughts into writing. I want to say that I have enjoyed R.C Sproul’s commentary on Matthew. I really have! I’ve loved going through the gospel of Matthew and hearing Sproul’s thoughts on it chapter and verse. Sproul’s commentary is a blend of biblical scholarship and pastoral application. They read much like expository sermons, and I like that. There is a place for commentaries that just get into the heavy meat and potatoes of exegesis, original language studies, cultural context, apologetics issues, you know, Bible nerd stuff. And I’m not saying that Sproul’s commentary is devoid of any of this, but it isn’t really heavy on it either. But some commentaries are more heavy on exegesis while others are more heavy on application and I think Sproul’s strikes a nice balance. They are meaty sermons in written form. Indeed, The Story of God Bible Commentary series is quickly becoming one of my favorite commentary series precisely for this reason. Of the commentaries in this series, so far, I have read Tremper Longmann III’s “Genesis” and Ryan P’Odowd’s “Proverbs”. They’re very meaty exegetical commentary, but also are just as meaty in the application. And they are very engaging reads. You can read them from cover to cover and not get bored. I do read some commentaries from cover to cover, and other commentaries I use more for reference works (like Derek Kidner’s which are heavy on translation philosophy and are rather dry reads). All of this to say that, in spite of my scathing critique of Sproul, both in private soliloquy, as well as in writing here, I do like this commentary overall. I like R.C Sproul overall. Of all Calvinist teachers, he is probably my favorite. I just wish he wasn’t a Calvinist. There were parts of his commentary that I think could have been strengthened if he wasn’t hindered by his Calvinistic presuppositions. But if you get the chance, you should read his commentary.

How Could I Be So Harsh Towards Sproul and Still Endorse Him?

You might wonder how I could be so harsh towards Sproul and Calvinism in general and yet still praise the work. The truth is that I don’t think Calvinists are non-Christians. I consider them to be my brothers and sisters in Christ. I do think of all secondary in-house theological debates, this is one where the most is at stake. Although it isn’t an essential issue, I think it gets extremely close to being one. And the reason I don’t consider Calvinist to be heretics is because they don’t follow their theology to its logical conclusions. Calvinism makes God into an omnipotent demon, but Calvinists believe that God is holy. They believe he is righteous and good, in spite of their theological system. Thus, I consider them orthodox by logical inconsistency. I get into this more in my blog post “Does Thinking Calvinism Impugns God’s Goodness Preclude Fellowship With Calvinists?“See also my blog post “The Importance Of Distinguishing A View From It’s Entailments“.

Summary and Conclusion

In his commentary on Matthew 23:37, R.C. Sproul dismisses the Arminian appeal to this passage by claiming it “teaches us nothing about election,” but merely illustrates the “natural state” of human unwillingness. To Sproul, Jesus’ lament is a mourning over a corruption that only God can sovereignly heal—and has chosen not to in the case of the non-elect. However, this interpretation transforms the Savior’s tears into what John Wesley aptly decried as “empty theatrics.” In his treatise “Predestination Calmly Considered”, Wesley argues that if God has unalterably decreed that a person cannot come to Him, then a public lament over their refusal is a “mockery.” By asserting that Christ “would” gather those whom the Father has ensured “could not” be gathered, the Calvinist position, in Wesley’s view, represents God as “more false, more cruel, and more unjust than the devil.” It reduces the sincere, tear-filled invitation of the Incarnate God to a scripted performance where the outcome was never actually in doubt. In spite of this, I do think that R.C Sproul’s commentary on the gospel of Matthew is a great work and can be a valuable part of someone’s theological library. I consider myself blessed to have been able to get this commentary for free (and legally!) through Ligonier Ministries. But should you choose to read it yourself, remember to practice what Hillary Morgan Ferrer calls the “chew and spit” method. ^[6]Hillary Morgan Ferrer introduces this concept in Chapter 3 of her book, Mama Bear Apologetics. She uses the analogy of eating a piece of steak to describe how to approach cultural or theological … Continue reading