God does not love everyone and the Bible says so (Change My Mind)

[Grip Docility]

Not really. But if your only really argument is “Calvinism is bad” then I guess maybe it is.

Any ism that causes people to take man’s word into scripture, is terrible.

 

[Hammster]

Any ism that causes people to take man’s word into scripture, is terrible.

Everyone has an “ism”.

 

[Neogaia777]

You need to reduce this down a bit. That’s way too many questions to address in one post.

Yet they all apply...

I don't know if I can...

God Bless!

 

[Anand Prabhu Antony]

Expanding from this very popular thread, I'd like to provide contrary evidence to the majority vote with the following scripture that we all seem to hold as a universal truth that is contextual accurate when talking about what love is and isn't:

1 Cor. 13:

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

So if this is our understood standard where God is Love, then how can we reject Universalism in that people go to hell, but are still loved by God.

I think we all can agree on the following:

>People go to hell because of their sin
>People are not forgiven of their sin due to disbelief and lack of real saving faith

If the above is universally true, then it stands to reason that God is keeping a record of their wrongdoing, but we see from the above accepted definition of love, that real love keeps no record of wrongs, therefore if Love = no record of wrongs, then all sin is forgiven if God loves you. If your sin is not forgiven, then it is still apparent, damning, and recorded. Therefore God, in keeping a record of your sin and withholding forgiveness, cannot love you as love is defined above.

I welcome you to change my mind on this. I've prayed over it and have yet to have a change in my own understanding.

GOD loves everyone, and that's why it is written that GOD so loved the world(all the people)- Ref John 3:16

Look in the old testament (1 Kings 21:17-29) for the king Ahab, husband of Jebel, He did all evils in the eyes of GOD, and he became an idolator. So, GOD said through the prophet Eliyah that He will bring disaster to King Ahab, but after hearing this news King Ahab tored his clothes and put sackcloth over his flesh, fasted, layed in the sackcloth, and went softly. And, So GOD changed His mind from punishing that King as he repented and humbled himself towards GOD. So, In GOD's love what wrong doings are recorded when that person repents and humbles himself? Nothing is recorded.

GOD first loves everyone, but do everyone remain in His love? No. Today we Christans loves GOD, because He first loved us while we are still sinners by sending His Son to die for our sins.(Ref: 1 John 4:19; Romans 5:8).

So, In responding to GOD's love one must repent for sins and humbles himself to have faith in His Son Jesus Christ, so they will receive Holy Spirit and have to abide His decrees -this is the one who remains in the Love of GOD.

The Truth is GOD loves everyone, but not everyone remain in His love even after the gospel is preached. Because everybody not seeks the truth and listens to it. Then how GOD's love can remain in the non-seekers of the truth??. John 15:22, Jesus said, "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.

A good example for the one who did not remain in the love of GOD is Demas.
2 Timothy 4:10, Paul said: "For Demas deserted me, because he loved the present age..."

Whoever does not remains in GOD's love, which He first showed on all the people, then GOD's love will be ceased from them. Yet, His patience remains for them to change.

Ezekiel 18:23
Do I take any pleasure at all in having the wicked person die?” asks Adonai YaH. “Wouldn’t I prefer that he turn from his ways and live?.

GOD is love, the One who remains in Son's Love will remain in Father's love.

John 15:4-10
Lord Jesus said,
4 Remain in me, and I in you. Just as the branch is not able to bear fruit from itself unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you, unless you remain in me. 5 "I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in me and I in him--this one bears much fruit, for apart from me you are not able to do anything. 6 If anyone does not remain in me, he is thrown out as a branch, and dries up, and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you want and it will be done for you. 8 My Father is glorified by this: that you bear much fruit, and prove to be my disciples. 9 "Just as the Father has loved me, I also have loved you. Remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and remain in his love.

GOD is Love......

 

[Neogaia777]

Does God have wrath?

God's love runs as deep as his hate or wrath, or perhaps even more so, in his "passion" for, and toward us...

(Luke 14:26)...

Ever hated someone so much, that it drew you to love them even more so...? And step up you efforts in loving them, or trying to show them how very much you love them, despite the things about them, that you are also honest with them about hating, and that you hate...?

Some would consider this an unhealthy relationship, but, if you only have unhealthy options to choose from, (us) what do you do...? Not love or choose to love any of them...?

Or how that hate eventually turned in to great pity and sorrow, and then mercy, as your heart began to soften and change, but the measure of your love, when and after that happened, was only measured by your previous hatred or anger or wrath towards them...?

God Bless!

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

So I guess one could say whosoever thats hearts have not been hardened can come to Him...Which still doesn't define how the elect totally are elected fully

Anyone can come to Christ, in the sense that salvation is literally available for them. Even the hardened can come, in that sense.

However, the unsaved are dead in their sins. What we do is always what we want to do, under the circumstances. Even with dire threats, we still do what we want to do, but we don't like the options. Those who are dead in their sins continue in their sins, because sin is what they want to do. It's hard to claim that a person can want to change what he wants, because the reasoning is circular. If he cannot willfully change his will (because it's impossible), then how does he change his basic nature enough to want to accept Christ? Some people actually claim that people have a god-like ability to master themselves and arbitrarily change what they want, but then it still runs into the circular argument, because now they have no explanation for what motivated a person to want to change what they want.

Sinners are dead in their sins. It's not necessary for God to harden their hearts. They are sinners because they want to sin. They don't want Christ. They don't want God, because they are sinners. They cannot change themselves. If they had the power to soften their own hearts, then they would choose not to, because their hearts are too hard to want to soften their hearts. Therefore, the change must come only from God. A sinner, while he is still a sinner, must be loved by God, because God transforms him even before he is capable of loving God in return.

That is predestination in a nutshell.

Sorry if I skipped some important posts in the meantime. This thread grows faster than I can read it, and I have to just give up and post something without reading everything.

 

[Grip Docility]

Everyone has an “ism”.

Not all change the Bible through man, though.

This is my original quote with one word edited in.

Any ism that causes people to take man’s word into (over, edited in) scripture, is terrible.

 

[Grip Docility]

Seldom, A man may lay down His life for a Righteous man, but never does a man lay down His life for an unrighteous man. Yet, Christ demonstrated His great Love by laying His life down for His friends, while we were yet enemies.

If I say, I Love so and so because they Love me back, that is normal. If I say I Love So and So because they will Love me back, that is hopeful.

If I say, I will Love them though they despise me to their grave, that is Divine.

Human Love is conditional.

God’s Love is not conditional. (He desires to meet the conditions for ALL)

Love, constrains us.

All matter to Him, though they might hate, mock and even desire to kill Him.

That Sweet Glass Of Water is like hot coals to an enemy of God and it isn’t that God wants them to be miserable, but that God Only Loves and Loves some more!

God’s wrath is born out of indignation towards violations of Love. His Love is so Supreme that He bore the transgressions that infuriated Him, and took the place of those committing them.

He justifies the “Godless”.

He Loves the unLoveable!

He saves Sinners!

He’s Hope to the Hopeless!

Jesus Wept!

God is Love!

These three remain, faith, Hope and LOVE!

Though He slay me, and I am hopeless, I will hope in Him and maintain my ways before Him. (Inspired by remembrance of words in Job 13:15)

ThE BIBLE SAYS:

And, that’s my King.

 

[Neostarwcc]

GOD loves everyone, and that's why it is written that GOD so loved the world(all the people)- Ref John 3:16

Look in the old testament (1 Kings 21:17-29) for the king Ahab, husband of Jebel, He did all evils in the eyes of GOD, and he became an idolator. So, GOD said through the prophet Eliyah that He will bring disaster to King Ahab, but after hearing this news King Ahab tored his clothes and put sackcloth over his flesh, fasted, layed in the sackcloth, and went softly. And, So GOD changed His mind from punishing that King as he repented and humbled himself towards GOD. So, In GOD's love what wrong doings are recorded when that person repents and humbles himself? Nothing is recorded.

GOD first loves everyone, but do everyone remain in His love? No. Today we Christans loves GOD, because He first loved us while we are still sinners by sending His Son to die for our sins.(Ref: 1 John 4:19; Romans 5:8).

So, In responding to GOD's love one must repent for sins and humbles himself to have faith in His Son Jesus Christ, so they will receive Holy Spirit and have to abide His decrees -this is the one who remains in the Love of GOD.

The Truth is GOD loves everyone, but not everyone remain in His love even after the gospel is preached. Because everybody not seeks the truth and listens to it. Then how GOD's love can remain in the non-seekers of the truth??. John 15:22, Jesus said, "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.

A good example for the one who did not remain in the love of GOD is Demas.
2 Timothy 4:10, Paul said: "For Demas deserted me, because he loved the present age..."

Whoever does not remains in GOD's love, which He first showed on all the people, then GOD's love will be ceased from them. Yet, His patience remains for them to change.

Ezekiel 18:23
Do I take any pleasure at all in having the wicked person die?” asks Adonai YaH. “Wouldn’t I prefer that he turn from his ways and live?.

GOD is love, the One who remains in Son's Love will remain in Father's love.

John 15:4-10
Lord Jesus said,
4 Remain in me, and I in you. Just as the branch is not able to bear fruit from itself unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you, unless you remain in me. 5 "I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in me and I in him--this one bears much fruit, for apart from me you are not able to do anything. 6 If anyone does not remain in me, he is thrown out as a branch, and dries up, and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you want and it will be done for you. 8 My Father is glorified by this: that you bear much fruit, and prove to be my disciples. 9 "Just as the Father has loved me, I also have loved you. Remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and remain in his love.

GOD is Love......

I couldn't have said it better myself, I 100% agree with you. Well done.

 

[Grip Docility]

Anyone can come to Christ, in the sense that salvation is literally available for them. Even the hardened can come, in that sense.

However, the unsaved are dead in their sins. What we do is always what we want to do, under the circumstances. Even with dire threats, we still do what we want to do, but we don't like the options. Those who are dead in their sins continue in their sins, because sin is what they want to do. It's hard to claim that a person can want to change what he wants, because the reasoning is circular. If he cannot willfully change his will (because it's impossible), then how does he change his basic nature enough to want to accept Christ? Some people actually claim that people have a god-like ability to master themselves and arbitrarily change what they want, but then it still runs into the circular argument, because now they have no explanation for what motivated a person to want to change what they want.

Sinners are dead in their sins. It's not necessary for God to harden their hearts. They are sinners because they want to sin. They don't want Christ. They don't want God, because they are sinners. They cannot change themselves. If they had the power to soften their own hearts, then they would choose not to, because their hearts are too hard to want to soften their hearts. Therefore, the change must come only from God. A sinner, while he is still a sinner, must be loved by God, because God transforms him even before he is capable of loving God in return.

That is predestination in a nutshell.

Sorry if I skipped some important posts in the meantime. This thread grows faster than I can read it, and I have to just give up and post something without reading everything.

The issue is one simple issue. The lack of a sinners response does not denote the lack of God’s Love.

To ensure Salvational assurance, one group doesn’t have to condemn another group.

To blame the lack of response to God’s Love from a person on “God’s Lack Of Love” is like blaming a spoon for a person starving to death!

God lacks no Love for no one.

 

[HypnoToad]

no, according to the strong's Lexicon (Thayers') it's all one phrase...I was disappointed that it was, but it was.

Wrong.

I have a Hebrew Old Testament, looking right at it. "For the sake of my name" is TWO words. "For the sake of" is âsâh. "My name" is shem.

Here is an online interlinear of Isaiah:
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa48.pdf

Look at verse 9 - clearly showing "on account of" is one word, and "name of me" is another word.

We don't need to read further context - the phrase itself tells us the motive: "my name" - God is doing it for His own sake. That it also benefits Israel doesn't change that fact.

 

[razzelflabben]

Wrong.

I have a Hebrew Old Testament, looking right at it. "For the sake of my name" is TWO words. "For the sake of" is âsâh. "My name" is shem.

Here is an online interlinear of Isaiah:
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa48.pdf

Look at verse 9 - clearly showing "on account of" is one word, and "name of me" is another word.

We don't need to read further context - the phrase itself tells us the motive: "my name" - God is doing it for His own sake. That it also benefits Israel doesn't change that fact.

WEll, I didn't take Hebrew or Greek which is why I rely on Thayer's Lexicon which is the primary accepted lay persons dictionary of sorts for how the ancient greek and hebrew should be translated...but here is the problem...according to you which I can have my husband check, he studied both ancient hebrew and greek...it says on account of my name...which is exactly what I told you it means...those in this case the children of Israel that are called by God's name...which is what is consistent with the context.

So...here is what it boils down to...the context of the passage as well as Thayer's Lexicon says that it means that God is doing this for the behalf of the children of Israel...on the other hand we have a hand picked teacher you like and the dismissal of context and a text that shows that either is possible as your evidence that it means God is doing for Himself....which is curious why you would want me to believe your version since you bring no authority with you.

Now that being said, I already pointed out that God is benefiting but the context and the translation both agree that the motive of God is Israel not Himself....but hey, I am not scared to be wrong as you seemed to be when you refused to look at the context with me, so let's see if you can find another scripture that would back up your claim that is unfounded by reason of evidence....what other scripture do you want us to look at that will support your unfounded claim as to what the intent of the passage here is? If we can find a single passage that supports your opinion without question you win...so far you haven't so far all you offer is "it might say X so believe me over everything else."

btw, you can see from the commentaries here that I am right according to most of the scholars...but as I said, we can call it 1 - 1 and look at the next verse if you want....I have no fear that real evidence is much greater than "because you say so".Isaiah 48:11 Commentaries: "For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another.

 

[HypnoToad]

WEll, I didn't take Hebrew or Greek which is why I rely on Thayer's Lexicon which is the primary accepted lay persons dictionary of sorts for how the ancient greek and hebrew should be translated...but here is the problem...according to you which I can have my husband check, he studied both ancient hebrew and greek...it says on account of my name...which is exactly what I told you it means...those in this case the children of Israel that are called by God's name...which is what is consistent with the context.

So...here is what it boils down to...the context of the passage as well as Thayer's Lexicon says that it means that God is doing this for the behalf of the children of Israel...on the other hand we have a hand picked teacher you like and the dismissal of context and a text that shows that either is possible as your evidence that it means God is doing for Himself....which is curious why you would want me to believe your version since you bring no authority with you.

Now that being said, I already pointed out that God is benefiting but the context and the translation both agree that the motive of God is Israel not Himself....but hey, I am not scared to be wrong as you seemed to be when you refused to look at the context with me, so let's see if you can find another scripture that would back up your claim that is unfounded by reason of evidence....what other scripture do you want us to look at that will support your unfounded claim as to what the intent of the passage here is? If we can find a single passage that supports your opinion without question you win...so far you haven't so far all you offer is "it might say X so believe me over everything else."

btw, you can see from the commentaries here that I am right according to most of the scholars...but as I said, we can call it 1 - 1 and look at the next verse if you want....I have no fear that real evidence is much greater than "because you say so".Isaiah 48:11 Commentaries: "For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another.

Here are the commentaries on Isaiah 48:9 (the actual verse in question, the ones you posted are commentaries on verse 11).

1. Matthew Henry - “for his own sake”
2. Ellicot’s - “taking “name” as the symbol of character, that He might assert His own everlasting righteousness and love”
3. Benson Commentary - “I will spare thee, and deliver thee out of captivity, not for thy sake, but merely for my own sake, and for the vindication of my name, that I may be praised for my power”
4. Pulpit Commentary - “defend Israel "for his Name's sake," lest his Name should be blasphemed among the Gentiles”
5. Barnes’ Notes - “it was not on their account. It was not because they were deserving of his favor, nor was it primarily and mainly in order that they might be happy. It was on his own account - in order to show his covenant faithfulness; his fidelity to the promises made to their fathers, his mercy, his compassion, his readiness to pardon, and his unchanging love”
6. Matthew Poole’s Commentary - “I will spare thee, and deliver thee out of captivity, not for thy sake, be it known to thee, but merely for my own sake, and for the vindication of my name and glory, as it follows”
7. Gill’s Exposition - “it was not for any merits of theirs, or any works of righteousness done by them, that he showed favour to them, as afterwards expressed; but for his own name's sake, and because of his glory; because these people were called by his name, and said to be his people, lest therefore his name should be reproached among the Heathen, or he should suffer any diminution of his glory”

Isaiah 48:9 Commentaries: "For the sake of My name I delay My wrath, And for My praise I restrain it for you, In order not to cut you off.

Note how not a single one of them says that "for my name's sake" means He's doing it for Israel. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Every single one clearly states God is doing it FOR HIMSELF.

The link you gave, commentaries on verse 11, not a single one states "my name's sake" means Israel. Not a single one of them.

Is that the "real evidence" you were referring to? Still think it's just "my say so"?

 

[Strong in Him]

How about we stick with what He actually said instead of “reading between the lines”?

It's not reading between the lines, it's what he said elsewhere in Scripture; "whoever comes", "whoever believes", "whoever eats" and so on. John said "to those who received him, he gave the right to become children of God", John 1:12. Paul says that if we have the Spirit he confirms that we are children of God; Luke says that God is eager to give the Holy Spirit to anyone who asks him.
The whole Gospel is that we are sinners, we hear and accept that we cannot save ourselves and that Jesus died for our sins, we turn to/cry out to him, repent and ask forgiveness, THEN we are born again and receive eternal life.
The NT uses different analogies to show that he belong to God; his children, his sheep, branches on the vine etc. Jesus never said that God had pre appointed that people would be his sheep, and that because of that, they would automatically believe, while anyone who had not been selected as his sheep would not be able to believe.
He urged the pharisees to believe - believe what I say, if not, believe because of the miracles that I do. Some did; most didn't.

 

[Strong in Him]

Do you know that scripture describes us as having the same nature?

Do you know that Scripture says that Jesus died for sinners?
God hates sin, but if he hated, and was wrathful, towards us, he wouldn't have sent his spotless and beloved son to die for us.

 

[HypnoToad]

Just FYI to all - I've started a thread specifically to ask some question to those who believe God does not love all people. I'd like to get as many of you to participate if you don't mind.
Do you believe God does NOT love everyone?

 

[razzelflabben]

Here are the commentaries on Isaiah 48:9 (the actual verse in question, the ones you posted are commentaries on verse 11).

1. Matthew Henry - “for his own sake”
2. Ellicot’s - “taking “name” as the symbol of character, that He might assert His own everlasting righteousness and love”
3. Benson Commentary - “I will spare thee, and deliver thee out of captivity, not for thy sake, but merely for my own sake, and for the vindication of my name, that I may be praised for my power”
4. Pulpit Commentary - “defend Israel "for his Name's sake," lest his Name should be blasphemed among the Gentiles”
5. Barnes’ Notes - “it was not on their account. It was not because they were deserving of his favor, nor was it primarily and mainly in order that they might be happy. It was on his own account - in order to show his covenant faithfulness; his fidelity to the promises made to their fathers, his mercy, his compassion, his readiness to pardon, and his unchanging love”
6. Matthew Poole’s Commentary - “I will spare thee, and deliver thee out of captivity, not for thy sake, be it known to thee, but merely for my own sake, and for the vindication of my name and glory, as it follows”
7. Gill’s Exposition - “it was not for any merits of theirs, or any works of righteousness done by them, that he showed favour to them, as afterwards expressed; but for his own name's sake, and because of his glory; because these people were called by his name, and said to be his people, lest therefore his name should be reproached among the Heathen, or he should suffer any diminution of his glory”

Isaiah 48:9 Commentaries: "For the sake of My name I delay My wrath, And for My praise I restrain it for you, In order not to cut you off.

Note how not a single one of them says that "for my name's sake" means He's doing it for Israel. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Every single one clearly states God is doing it FOR HIMSELF.

The link you gave, commentaries on verse 11, not a single one states "my name's sake" means Israel. Not a single one of them.

Is that the "real evidence" you were referring to? Still think it's just "my say so"?

lol oh my you are trying way too hard...lets go back and review the entire thing as I pointed out through the use of the reading for comprehension rule of context.

According to the context, Israel is being a defiant child to the point of inciting God to anger. God thus decides to correct Israel so that her relationship with Him is restored. Remember the example I gave you of a parent and a child who is being defiant...the parent corrects the child not because the parent wants "glorified" in some way but because for the good of the child, the father wants the child to understand why and where they are wrong. Now...does the parent benefit from the correction...yes if the child listens...does the parent do it with the glory of the parent in mind...no.

Now, further, God says, I want you to understand that I am correcting you because I don't want you to look to someone else as if they were your parent....now your claim is that this is God/the father of the wayward child doing the correcting for his own glory rather than for the good of the child. I disagree, I believe that a child needs to understand that the parent is the authority of such matters and that is for the good of the child. A child that thinks that his drug dealer is the authority over his wayward behavior is not going to grow to be the child he should be.

Now that is what it says in context, the thayer's Lexicon backs it up...the commentaries back this up...the only thing that does not back it up is your word and the teachers you hand picked to say what you want them to say....as I said, we can look into the next passage anytime you are ready.

 

[HypnoToad]

.the only thing that does not back it up is your word and the teachers you hand picked to say what you want them to say....

First it was "just my say so". Now, when I back it up with respectable, reliable commentaries, then you move the goalposts to "oh, they're just hand-picked to agree with you".

I hand picked??? Are you serious??

YOU'RE the one who linked to the Bible Hub page first. How did I hand pick them when I quoted every single one from the page YOU provided? Show me a quote from ONE of them on the Bible Hub page that backs up your claim that "for my name's sake" = Israel. Not a single one of the commentaries there says any such thing. Your claim here that I hand picked them is utterly ridiculous. And you are just demonstrating that you're willing to make up fanciful claims out of thin air in a desperate attempt to hold your view.

Further, if Thayer's claims the phrase is one single word when it has been clearly shown to be two separate words, then how can we possibly see Thayer's (your only source backing you up so far) as reliable in the first place?

 

[razzelflabben]

First it was "just my say so". Now, when I back it up with respectable, reliable commentaries, then you move the goalposts to "oh, they're just hand-picked to agree with you".

honey..your commentaries said exactly what I told you you just don't want to see it the way it is stated...in your mind by God saying I will benefit from this you think He is doing it for His glory which I disagree with for the very reasons I have shown and you did not respond to with anything but this feigned offense you show here.

I hand picked??? Are you serious??

YOU'RE the one who linked to the Bible Hub page first. How did I hand pick them when I quoted every single one from the page YOU provided? Show me a quote from ONE of them on the Bible Hub page that backs up your claim that "for my name's sake" = Israel. Not a single one of the commentaries there says any such thing. Your claim here that I hand picked them is utterly ridiculous. And you are just demonstrating that you're willing to make up fanciful claims out of thin air in a desperate attempt to hold your view.

See above and all the previous posts where I show you context and why just because God will benefit does NOT mean that He is doing it for HIS glory but the good of Israel....it appears from this comment you are starting to confuse yourself.

Further, if Thayer's claims the phrase is one single word when it has been clearly shown to be two separate words, then how can we possibly see Thayer's (your only source backing you up so far) as reliable in the first place?

Look there were two verses with similar wording I picked one you picked the other...no problem it still goes back to context which you refuse to even address much less accept. On top of that you refuse to address the real problem which is whether or not a parent benefiting from the relationship of a wayward child being healed is the parent being self centered or if the parent is being outward centered which is the point you and I are discussing and you refuse to address.

 

[HypnoToad]

honey..your commentaries said exactly what I told you you just don't want to see it the way it is stated...in your mind by God saying I will benefit from this you think He is doing it for His glory which I disagree with for the very reasons I have shown and you did not respond to with anything but this feigned offense you show here. See above and all the previous posts where I show you context and why just because God will benefit does NOT mean that He is doing it for HIS glory but the good of Israel....it appears from this comment you are starting to confuse yourself. Look there were two verses with similar wording I picked one you picked the other...no problem it still goes back to context which you refuse to even address much less accept. On top of that you refuse to address the real problem which is whether or not a parent benefiting from the relationship of a wayward child being healed is the parent being self centered or if the parent is being outward centered which is the point you and I are discussing and you refuse to address.

I'm not refusing any such thing. You seem to think that doing it to benefit Israel somehow precludes God doing it to His own glory - a position you have yet to show is reasonable in any way.

Look again that the commentaries you YOU LINKED TO:
Ellicot - "assert His own righteousness"
Benson - "that I may be praised"
Poole's - "vindication of my name AND GLORY"
Gill's - "because of His GLORY"

It's right there in black & white from reputable commentaries. You have no basis whatsoever to deny that God is doing it for His glory.

Show me ONE source that states what God did in Isaiah 48:9 means God did NOT do it for His own glory. I don't mean a commentary that doesn't mention it either way - I want a source that EXPLICITLY PRECLUDES God having done it for His own Glory. Just one.