Traditions can be very strong. This truth is perhaps never more reflected than in how this particular verse is usually interpreted.

I recently asked an adult group to turn to Matthew 23:37 in their own Bibles and follow along with me. I told them to listen to my words while reading the text in front of them. I asked them to pay close attention to my words because I alerted them ahead of time that I would be omitting two important words from the text while I read it out loud. I told them that I wished to see if they could identify which two words I was omitting.

I read the verse out loud as follows:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, and you would not!”

There was silence from the group.

Then I repeated the process. As I completed the second reading I looked and saw heads buried in their Bibles, but no one spoke up. No one said a word.

I waited another 20 seconds and then said “alright, let me read it again” and repeated the process.

What happened next?

Well, even when telling them to watch out for my intentional omission, it was only after my fourth reading through of the verse that one individual raised their hand to indicate they had the correct answer. Fourth time through one of the adults spotted the fact that I had omitted the words “your children” from the reading.

I acknowledged the correct answer and then the fifth time through, I read the text the way it actually reads in the Bible, this time emphasizing the words I had previously failed to include.

Matthew 23:37 actually reads:

“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 would not!”

What difference does this all make? Everything in the world, as I will seek to explain.

Why did I do this exercise?

The answer is quite simple. I wanted them to become aware of the power of tradition. It is so powerful that even with warning ahead of time, we often read the text the way we have always interpreted the text rather than by allowing the words to speak for themselves. In this short but powerful exercise, I read the text the way people have understood the text by tradition, not the way the text actually reads, and the omission of the two words changes the interpretation entirely.

Most people assume four things about the text:

(1) that Jesus here wanted to save the Jews He was speaking to here
(2) that though He desired to do this He could not do this
(3) because of their stubborn refusal to allow themselves to be gathered. (Christ “would,” but they “would not.”)
(4) The conclusion drawn from this being that the grace of God is dependent upon the will of man and in spite of all the wooing and drawing desires and actions of God, God’s grace can never overcome the stubborn will of man unless man chooses to cooperate. God is often times left frustrated. He sure tried His best to gather these people, but in the end, His will was thwarted by man’s resistance.

What I say now may shock you, but none of those four assumptions are true.

When we look at the text we find that the context of the passage is that Jesus is proclaiming judgment upon the Jewish leaders. It would be fair to say that here in this chapter Jesus gives His strongest words of condemnation of the Pharisees and scribes found anywhere in the four Gospels.

The question we should be asking concerns the identity of “Jerusalem” here in the text. Many assume that the term refers to all the individual Jews in the city but is that a valid interpretation?

The context shows Jesus aiming His speech at the Jewish leaders. God had sent His prophets to them and they (the leaders) had killed them. Jesus in this text then makes a differentiation between the people He is addressing and “your children” whom He sought to gather. “Jerusalem” then refers to the religious leaders of the city.

I hope you can see this. The people the Lord wished to gather are not the same people who were “not willing.” No, Jesus is condemning the religious leaders and saying that He desired to gather their children (those under their spiritual care) but they (the leaders) were not willing. The leaders did all in their power to stand in the way of Jesus gathering those He wished to gather. They had cast doubt on Jesus’ character and said that His miracles were performed by means of demonic power, and they threatened anyone who confessed Jesus as the Messiah with expulsion from the synagogue!

This is the exact same issue that He raised just a few verses earlier (v. 13) where He said, “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.”

In all the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) Christ’s words of condemnation are faithfully reported. In Matt 18:6, Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2 we see Christ’s words of censure where He says (almost word for word) “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.” These leaders were the very ones who should have helped those under their spiritual care to recognize Messiah when He came. They should have led the parade in terms of announcing the joyous news that the long awaited One had come. Instead, they stood opposed to Him and sought even to kill Him. Therefore their guilt was immense in the sight of God.

Matthew 23:37 does not speak to the issue of election or whether or not God’s grace is irresistible to the elect. That is a total misreading of the text. Instead it is Christ’s word of condemnation to the scribes and Pharisees in Jerusalem: “I sought to gather your children but you were not willing.” Therefore woe to you!

One final word before we move on. Someone might read all this and reluctantly agree with what is being said in this chapter but then raise an objection by saying, “So, its agreed that Jesus sought to gather the children and the spiritual fathers in the city would have none of it. Therefore isn’t it plain that God’s will was dashed, not by the children’s will, but by the leader’s will, and does it not follow that God’s will to save can indeed be thwarted?

All I can say to that is “no, it does not mean that at all.” That argument can in no way be substantiated by the text. That’s because the issue of whether or not Jesus failed to gather is simply not addressed. You have to be engaged in total eisegesis (reading something into the text) to come up with this idea. This concept is not only NOT explicitly stated, I would go further and say that it is NOT implicitly stated either.

What the text teaches us is that Christ desired to gather the leader’s children and the leaders were not willing for this to happen, which is why they were under the just condemnation of God. The text says absolutely nothing concerning whether or not Jesus failed to gather the children He desired. Nothing at all!

We should base our thinking on the clear explicit statements in Scripture – things that are derived exegetically (out from the text of Scripture). Concerning this question, Jesus spoke in very clear terms when He said explicitly, “All that the Father gives me will come to me…” (John 6:37). What a comfort that is. He said “all” – not “some,” and not “most,” but ALL that the Father gives me will come to me.