Could not believe

[AndOne]

Can anyone explain the text as John wrote it? Pretend you are a first century Gentile. How would you understand it?

I would be glad that to see that God's calling/election really wasn't limited to a specific race or people group - that it boiled down to verses 44-45 in regards to who can be saved.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Can anyone explain the text as John wrote it? Pretend you are a first century Gentile. How would you understand it?

Sure.

Jn 12:37-43
37But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him.
38This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” 39For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again,
40“He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.”
41These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. 42Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue;
43for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.

Anyone from the 1st Century would understand v.37 as saying that in spite of how many miracles Jesus performed in front of them, they were not believing in Him.
v.38 says that their failure to believe was the fulfillment of what Isaiah had said.
v.39 says they could not believe. Which is explained in the following verses.
v.40 says that Isaiah had blinded their eyes and hardened their heart so that they would not be converted, and the Lord would heal them.
v.41 says that Isaiah said these things because He had seen the glory of God.
v.42 says that in spite of most of the Jews not believing in Him, manh of the rulers did believe in Him, but weren't confessing Him because of their fear that they would be put out of the synagogue.
v.43 says they loved men's approval rather than God's approval.

 

[Hammster]

Sure.

Jn 12:37-43
37But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him.
38This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” 39For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again,
40“He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.”
41These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. 42Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue;
43for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.

Anyone from the 1st Century would understand v.37 as saying that in spite of how many miracles Jesus performed in front of them, they were not believing in Him.
v.38 says that their failure to believe was the fulfillment of what Isaiah had said.
v.39 says they could not believe. Which is explained in the following verses.
v.40 says that Isaiah had blinded their eyes and hardened their heart so that they would not be converted, and the Lord would heal them.
v.41 says that Isaiah said these things because He had seen the glory of God.
v.42 says that in spite of most of the Jews not believing in Him, manh of the rulers did believe in Him, but weren't confessing Him because of their fear that they would be put out of the synagogue.
v.43 says they loved men's approval rather than God's approval.

Wow. Isaiah, who is dead and was just a man, blinded their eyes. That's funny.

No, seriously. Anyone?

 

[ForceofTime]

It is way more than likely that John was describing what Isaiah did: making their hearts insensitive.

Regardless of being in the minority, doesn't matter. Only truth matters, not what the masses think.

When ever has God been quoted as referring to either Himself or any of the other members of the Trinity in the 3rd person? That doesn't even make sense.

Matthew 17:5 KJV While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him."

Isaiah wrote about what he was told to do and what he did do: take God's message to the people. God told Isaiah in 6:10 to "render the hearts of the people insensitive". That's what he did, by preaching a message they refused to listen to.

John was accurate in what he wrote, punctuation marks notwithstanding.

I'm really surprised that anyone would read Jn 6:40 and think both the "he" and the "I" are referring to God.

If Isaiah not only had the power to render hearts insensitive but also to do it, yet, God does not...well, I must just be misunderstanding you.

Sure.

Jn 12:37-43
37But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him.
38This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” 39For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again,
40“He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.”
41These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. 42Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue;
43for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.

Anyone from the 1st Century would understand v.37 as saying that in spite of how many miracles Jesus performed in front of them, they were not believing in Him.
v.38 says that their failure to believe was the fulfillment of what Isaiah had said.
v.39 says they could not believe. Which is explained in the following verses.
v.40 says that Isaiah had blinded their eyes and hardened their heart so that they would not be converted, and the Lord would heal them.
v.41 says that Isaiah said these things because He had seen the glory of God.
v.42 says that in spite of most of the Jews not believing in Him, manh of the rulers did believe in Him, but weren't confessing Him because of their fear that they would be put out of the synagogue.
v.43 says they loved men's approval rather than God's approval.

Who is the "arm of the Lord"? If you are going to be consistent, you will have to say Isaiah. But, I'm sure (hoping) you won't.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Wow. Isaiah, who is dead and was just a man, blinded their eyes. That's funny.

No, not funny. Sad…that you so completely misunderstand Scripture.

Acts 28:25
And when they did not agree with one another, they began leaving after Paul had spoken one parting word, “The Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers,
Acts 28:26
saying,
‘Go to this people and say,
“You will keep on hearing, but will not understand;
And you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;
Acts 28:27
For the heart of this people has become dull,
And with their ears they scarcely hear,
And they have closed their eyes;
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart and return,
And I would heal them.”’

Paul perfectly understood what Isaiah wrote. The people "closed their eyes" when Isaiah brought the message from God.

Paul even understood that IF (otherwise) they had seen and heard, and understood, God WOULD HAVE HEALED THEM.

No, seriously. Anyone?

Yes, seriously, please explain from your view WHY God would refer to any of the other members of Trinity in the 3rd person (he).

If John's statement is a direct quote by God, why did He use "he" and "I" in the same sentence if referring to Himself?

There is nothing funny about those who don't rightly divide the Word of Truth.

 

[Hammster]

No, not funny. Sad…that you so completely misunderstand Scripture.

Acts 28:25
And when they did not agree with one another, they began leaving after Paul had spoken one parting word, “The Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers,
Acts 28:26
saying,
‘Go to this people and say,
“You will keep on hearing, but will not understand;
And you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;
Acts 28:27
For the heart of this people has become dull,
And with their ears they scarcely hear,
And they have closed their eyes;
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart and return,
And I would heal them.”’

Paul perfectly understood what Isaiah wrote. The people "closed their eyes" when Isaiah brought the message from God.

Paul even understood that IF (otherwise) they had seen and heard, and understood, God WOULD HAVE HEALED THEM.


Yes, seriously, please explain from your view WHY God would refer to any of the other members of Trinity in the 3rd person (he).

If John's statement is a direct quote by God, why did He use "he" and "I" in the same sentence if referring to Himself?

There is nothing funny about those who don't rightly divide the Word of Truth.

There's nothing in there about Isaiah blinding their eyes. And as to your question, it makes no sense. What other words would be used? If it's Jesus speaking, then He would refer to His a Father as "He" and to Himself as "I".

 

[FreeGrace2]

Matthew 17:5 KJV While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him."

Thanks for an example. And the context is clear about the Father speaking about the Son. Not so in Isaiah 6:10.

If Isaiah not only had the power to render hearts insensitive but also to do it, yet, God does not...well, I must just be misunderstanding you.

I never said Isaiah had any power. The point is that God sent Isaiah with a message that the people rejected, as noted in Acts 28:27 by the phrase "they closed their eyes". That's the mechanism by which Isaiah was told by God to "render the people's heart insensitive", noted in Isa 6:10.

Who is the "arm of the Lord"? If you are going to be consistent, you will have to say Isaiah. But, I'm sure (hoping) you won't.

Of course it is a reference to the Messiah.

 

[FreeGrace2]

There's nothing in there about Isaiah blinding their eyes. And as to your question, it makes no sense. What other words would be used? If it's Jesus speaking, then He would refer to His a Father as "He" and to Himself as "I".

OK, now explain Paul's quote that the people "closed their eyes".

 

[Hammster]

I never said Isaiah had any power.

FG. "v.40 says that Isaiah had blinded their eyes and hardened their heart so that they would not be converted, and the Lord would heal them"

 

[Hammster]

OK, now explain Paul's quote that the people "closed their eyes".

That group of people he was talking about closed their eyes. Not the same group John was referring to.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FG. "v.40 says that Isaiah had blinded their eyes and hardened their heart so that they would not be converted, and the Lord would heal them"

And I explained what I meant by that. Which you have chosen to ignore.

 

[FreeGrace2]

That group of people he was talking about closed their eyes. Not the same group John was referring to.

Seriously? Both were citing what Isaiah wrote.

 

[Hammster]

And I explained what I meant by that. Which you have chosen to ignore.

I didn't take it out of context.

 

[Hammster]

Seriously? Both were citing what Isaiah wrote.

And both were referring to different groups. Did they quote Isaiah exactly the same? No.

 

[ForceofTime]

I never said Isaiah had any power. The point is that God sent Isaiah with a message that the people rejected, as noted in Acts 28:27 by the phrase "they closed their eyes". That's the mechanism by which Isaiah was told by God to "render the people's heart insensitive", noted in Isa 6:10.

So, it was neither Isaiah nor God who rendered the hearts of the people insensitive, rather, it was the people who rendered their own heart insensitive and blinded their own eyes? How is this achieved? By an inert "mechanism".

Well, I don't know what else to say. Thanks for the reply and clarification, FreeGrace2.

 

[FreeGrace2]

And both were referring to different groups.

I wish you were kidding. Can you back up this claim?

Did they quote Isaiah exactly the same? No.

In fact, both explained what Isaiah had SAID, with a different emphasis.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So, it was neither Isaiah nor God who rendered the hearts of the people insensitive, rather, it was the people who rendered their own heart insensitive and blinded their own eyes? How is this achieved? By an inert "mechanism".

Thank you for the good question. From Paul's quote, we know that the people themselves "closed their eyes". They did it themselves. How was God involved? By telling Isaiah to take a message to the people that they would reject. In fact, Isaiah 6 records God's command as "Go to the people and render their hearts insensitive". It is obvious that Isaiah has no power to desensitize anyone's heart. The people did that themselves by "closing their eyes" to the message of Isiah.

Well, I don't know what else to say. Thanks for the reply and clarification, FreeGrace2.

Thanks for a great question. I recommend comparing Isa 6 with John 12 and Acts 28 for the full story.

The problem is that those who think that God directly turns hearts against Him will simply not accept what really occurred, as Paul clearly noted.

 

[Hammster]

I wish you were kidding. Can you back up this claim?

The group John was referring to was one who saw Jesus' miracles.

In fact, both explained what Isaiah had SAID, with a different emphasis.

So, no. I'll stick with each of their explanations to the groups they were talking to it about. It's just makes more sense to do that as opposed to the gymnastics you need to go through to protect your version of free will.

 

[ForceofTime]

Thank you for the good question. From Paul's quote, we know that the people themselves "closed their eyes". They did it themselves. How was God involved? By telling Isaiah to take a message to the people that they would reject. In fact, Isaiah 6 records God's command as "Go to the people and render their hearts insensitive". It is obvious that Isaiah has no power to desensitize anyone's heart. The people did that themselves by "closing their eyes" to the message of Isiah.

Thanks for a great question. I recommend comparing Isa 6 with John 12 and Acts 28 for the full story.

The problem is that those who think that God directly turns hearts against Him will simply not accept what really occurred, as Paul clearly noted.

As pertaining to God's involvement, you mention three things:

1. By telling Isaiah to take a message to the people that they would reject.
2. God's command as "Go to the people and render their hearts insensitive".
3. The problem is that those who think that God directly turns hearts against Him will simply not accept what really occurred

What do we have here but a 'maybe,' 'yes' and 'no' respectively? How is it somehow naive to believe that God did it and, therefore, not accept what really occurred? Is not the Living God the I AM?

The only reason I can conclude for position is that you are equating "render their hearts insensitive" with active promotion of sin, but this idea should completely disappear when it is preceded by "the voice of the LORD". My only conclusion is as follows:

• You may either say God divided darkness from light or you may say that darkness and not God divided itself from light.

• You may either say Christ sets man at variance with his brother or you may say that brother and not Christ sets himself at variance.

• You may either say that the Gospel is the power of God or you may say that the Gospel is the power of man and not God.

I do hope you will at least reevaluate your position on this matter, FreeGrace2. Thank you for the discussion and have a good weekend.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The group John was referring to was one who saw Jesus' miracles.

He was comparing them to what Isaiah described. Of course they were not the same people. But they all had the same problem.

So, no. I'll stick with each of their explanations to the groups they were talking to it about. It's just makes more sense to do that as opposed to the gymnastics you need to go through to protect your version of free will.

Hardly what I would call gymnastics. Unlike the gymnastics RT goes through trying to defend limited atonement with Heb 2:9, 1 Tim 2:4,6, 2 Cor 5:14,15 and other verses.

btw, my "version" of free will is one that most of the reformed actually agree with, so I wonder what "version" you think I believe.

Remember, I reject the so-called autonomous free will. For me, free will nothing more or less than the freedom to choose between options, such as accepting what God promises or rejecting what He promises. There is no power in free will. Only choices.