the Second Week of Lent
Click to donate today!
Hawker's Poor Man's Concordance And Dictionary
The holy city: and so generally known was Jerusalem by this name, that the eastern part of the world never called it by any other name than the Elkuds, the holy. Not that this would have made it so, but it proves the general consent of nations to the title: no doubt, the thing was from the Lord. That the Lord Jesus distinguished it in a very peculiar manner with his love, his lamentation over it proves. (Matthew 23:37) And Matthew twice calls it by this name. (Matthew 4:5; Mat 27:53.)
Jerusalem was anciently Jehus. Some called it Solyma, or Jerosolyma; but the general name by the Hebrews was Jeruschalem, meaning, the vision of peace; from Rahe, to see; and Shalom, peace. Joshua first conquered it, (see Joshua 18:28) but the Jebusites were not totally drawn out of it until the days of David, (See 2 Samuel 5:5) The history of Jerusalem is truly interesting; but it would form more the subject of a volume than a short notice in a work of this kind, to enter into particulars. If we were to go back to the first account of it in Scripture, we must being with Genesis 14where we find Melchisedeck king of it, and then called Salem. The church, perhaps on this account, speaks of it as the Lord's tabernacle, (Psalms 76:2) and when we consider, that all the great events of the church were carried on here, no doubt, it riseth in importance to every believer's view. Here it was the Lord Jesus made his public appearance, when he came into our world for the salvation of his people; here he finished redemption-work; here he made that one offering of himself once offered, by which he perfected for ever them that are sanctified; and here all the great events of salvation were wrought. No wonder, therefore, that Jerusalem hath been called the holy city, and is rendered so dear to all his redeemed. Hence Jerusalem, now in the present moment, means the church on earth, and is prayed for under that name. (Isaiah 62:1; Psalms 137:5-6) And hence the church in heaven is called the New Jerusalem. (Revelation 3:12; Rev 21:2.) Jerusalem is said to be the centre of the earth; and the prophet Ezekiel, (Ezekiel 38:11-12) describing the insolent threats of Gog concerning his proposed destruction of Jerusalem, calls the people of it, those who dwell in the midst of the land, or as the margin of the Bible renders it, in the navel of the earth.
The tears of Jesus over Jerusalem having been misconstrued, and as such made use of to support an opinion foreign to the general scope of the gospel, I cannot dismiss the article without offering a short observation upon it.
We are told by the Evangelists, that "when Jesus was come near to Jerusalem, he beheld the city, and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace: but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another, because thou knowest not the time of thy visitation." Whoever attends with any degree of diligence to those several expressions of our Lord, will plainly discover that all that is here spoken refers to the destruction of Jerusalem as a city and nation, and wholly in temporal things. It hath nothing to do with grace, as some have improperly concluded, as if Jerusalem had outlived her day of grace, and, therefore, could find no mercy from the Lord; and all sinners, in like manner, might outlive their day also. There is not a word of the kind in it. Jesus, in that tenderness of heart which distinguished his character, wept over the beautiful and beloved city, in contemplating the overthrow of it by the Roman power, that he knew would sack and destroy it. And knowing that their rejection of him as the Lord of life and glory was the cause; he expresseth himself in tears with this compassionate apostrophe. But what have those expressions to do with the doctrine that some men raise out of it, as if Jesus had limited a day of grace to individuals, and that men might outlive that day, and then the saving means of grace would be hidden from their eyes! Surely, there is not a syllable in the whole passage to justify or give countenance to such a doctrine. The Lord is speaking wholly of Jerusalem in temporal things. Hadst thou known (said Jesus), in this thy day the things which belong to thy peace. It is Jerusalem's day, not the Lord's day of grace. It is thy peace, not God's peace. The promise to all the Lord's people is absoluteâ€”"Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power." (Psalms 110:3) And this secures the day of grace to all whom the Father hath given to the Son; for Jesus saith, "of all thou hast given me I have lost none." (John 17:12) So that this holds good respecting the gift of grace to all generations of the church; but in temporals, like Jerusalem, the Lord's judgments may, and the Lord's judgments will follow and overthrow nations, where the gospel is preached and rejected. And while the Lord knoweth them that are his, and will save them by his grace, the nations who reject Christ, nationally considered, must perish.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Hawker, Robert D.D. Entry for 'Jerusalem'. Hawker's Poor Man's Concordance and Dictionary. https://www.studylight.org/​dictionaries/​eng/​pmd/​j/jerusalem.html. London. 1828.