IF THE LAW OF MOSES WAS SET ASIDE , WHY ROM 13:9?

[daq]

I didn't open the links so I don't know what they are.

It falls to you to bring that material forward as your response to the point you are addressing.

I will not be reading the tea leaves to determine how in your mind what applied elsewhere in a link now applies here.

That's not how staying on the point works.

You asked, you received, you plugged your ears and covered your eyes: end of story, and fine with me.

 

[Clare73]

You asked, you received, you plugged your ears and covered your eyes: end of story, and fine with me.

I asked for a fish, and I received a stick. . .to which I plugged my ears and covered my eyes when told it was really a fish. . .end of story until a real fish is presented as I requested, which leaves me to conclude you do not really have one. . .which conclusion is fine with me.

 

[daq]

I asked for a fish, and I received a stick. . .to which I plugged my ears and covered my eyes when told it was really a fish. . .end of story until a real fish is presented as I requested, which leaves me to conclude you do not really have one. . .which conclusion is fine with me.

No, the Father "winked" at the ignorance of idolatry and did not judge them for it in the past, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent because he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice (giving everyone their due, what they have earned). (Acts 17:30-31)

The Father judges no one but has committed all judgement to the Son.

The Torah was brought into existence at Sinai to show
1) the meaning of sin (Romans 3:20),
2) its remedy in substitutionary atonement of the animal sacrifices and ceremonial cleansings
(Leviticus 1-16),

Only according to the old man way of interpretation according to the Pharisees. Messiah teaches otherwise in the Gospel accounts and his Testimony has the support of the testimony of even king David in the Psalms and much more testimony in the Prophets. Your doctrine concerning such things is proven to be in error by the Torah itself, and the Prophets, and the Writings, and the Messiah, and Paul.

3) the impossibility of righteousness by law-keeping (Romans 3:20),

Incorrect assumption.

Romans 3:20 ASV
20 because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin.

There is a reason Paul uses the idiom "the works of the law" here and a reason why he says "no flesh". Learn the meaning and why he says what he says: for it isn't what you assume and imagine. The flesh profits nothing: the Testimony of the Messiah is Spirit and Life.

4) thereby leading to Christ for all righteousness (justification) by faith (Galatians 3:24),
5) rendering us no longer under the supervision of the law (Galatians 3:25; Romans 7:3-4),

Incorrect assumptions already proven to be incorrect by the scripture as detailed in the links you refuse to look at. Sorry for your luck.

6) but under the supervision of our own hearts on which the Holy Spirit has written the law. ..

"and whatever other commandment there may be," and which law is fulfilled by loving (Romans 13:8-10).

If transgression of one commandment makes one guilty of the whole, and you imagine that Paul has replaced all the commandments with "love", and then you do not love: are you not therefore guilty of transgressing the whole?

Is it loving to refuse to look at scripture posted by another poster with whom you disagree theologically? even though the first three links were to a previous conversation with you?

Is it loving to label SDA's as Judaizers as you did on the previous page?

Yes, it is being stood on its head for the sake of Judaizing.

"Love fulfills the commandments. . .and whatever other commandment there may be" (Romans 13:8-10) becomes "love does the commandments," instead of "loving is the fulfillment of the commandments."

You even qutoed the passage about love while labeling someone a Judaizer. And is that even a true accusation? From what I have seen here in this board most SDA's have a strong focus on the Ten Commandments in discussions such as this, with an emphasis on the Shabbat, (or Sabbath). How does that make SDA's Judaizers when we know that the Torah was given through Mosheh to all Yisrael?

The law prevented no spiritual death, we are born in spiritual death, and have to be born again into eternal life (John 3:3-7) to even see the kingdom of God.

The scripture strictly and forbids your understanding. Despite what people like to believe, proverbs, parables, allegories, idioms, and sayings contain doctrine: whether it is a doctrine being taught or whether it is a doctrine being condemned. Therefore if one does not understand the proverb, parable, etc., then the same is blind to the doctrine that is being expounded or forbidden. And in this case it is a doctrine forbidden and refuted in not only one but two places in the Prophets, and one of those places specifically refers to the renewed covenant.

The proverb is preempted and refuted in the Torah.

Deuteronomy 24:16 KJV
16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

And here we find the proverb which came about later through an incorrect understanding of the Torah:

Ezekiel 18:1-4 KJV
1 The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying,
2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Please be sure to review the entire context of the passage. And here below we find the same doctrine forbidden yet again in the specific context of the renewed covenant:

Jeremiah 31:29-31 KJV
29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.
30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Every one shall die for his own iniquity, and you therefore do not understand the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts: for unless you utterly deny yourself, and take up your own stake, and follow him, you cannot even be his disciple, (Luke 14:26, Luke 14:27, Luke 14:33), and therefore even the Prophets quoted herein are not speaking of physical death.

Moreover, regarding your comment about being born from above, again, see the links provided: one does not receive the promise until the same has done the will of Elohim, and the time appointed of the Father when a babe or child becomes a tried, true, tested son, as already proven with the plain statements of both Paul and the author of Hebrews which you have refused to look at. Sorry for your luck.

Contraire. . .not only is it not the only one, it is the wrong one.

He says it because it is the only time when man died without being guilty of sinning against covenantal law with its death penalty and, thereby, raising the question, "Then why did they die?"
His answer being that man was made guilty by the imputed guilt of the first Adam,
just as by faith he is made righteous by the imputed righteousness of the second Adam.

Ah, c'mon . . .is that really what the NT teaches?

Is that really right handling of the word of God, or is it distortion of the word of God (2 Peter 3:16)?

After stating that "the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith,"
the very next verse states: now that faith has come, the law is no longer our paidagogos. (Galatians 3:24-25)

I need an explanation of why you present just the opposite of what the NT teaches.
You're gonna' have to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.

All addressed in the links you refuse to look at.

 

[Clare73]

The Father judges no one but has committed all judgement to the Son.

You are the one who presented the Father "winking" at sin before Christ.

Only according to the old man way of interpretation according to the Pharisees. Messiah teaches otherwise in the Gospel accounts and his Testimony has the support of the testimony of even king David in the Psalms and much more testimony in the Prophets. Your doctrine concerning such things is proven to be in error by the Torah itself, and the Prophets, and the Writings, and the Messiah, and Paul.

Assertion without demonstration is assertion without merit.

Incorrect assumption. Romans 3:20 ASV: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin.
There is a reason Paul uses the idiom "the works of the law" here and a reason why he says "no flesh". Learn the meaning and why he says what he says: for it isn't what you assume and imagine. The flesh profits nothing: the Testimony of the Messiah is Spirit and Life.

Non-responsive. . .

Incorrect assumptions already proven to be incorrect by the scripture as detailed in the links you refuse to look at. Sorry for your luck.

Assertion without demonstration.

Non-responsive.

If transgression of one commandment makes one guilty of the whole, and you imagine that Paul has replaced all the commandments with "love", and then you do not love: are you not therefore guilty of transgressing the whole?
Is it loving to refuse to look at scripture posted by another poster with whom you disagree theologically? even though the first three links were to a previous conversation with you?
Is it loving to label SDA's as Judaizers as you did on the previous page?
You even qutoed the passage about love while labeling someone a Judaizer. And is that even a true accusation? From what I have seen here in this board most SDA's have a strong focus on the Ten Commandments in discussions such as this, with an emphasis on the Shabbat, (or Sabbath).

Love rejoices in the truth. (1 Corinthians 13:6)

How does that make SDA's Judaizers when we know that the Torah was given through Mosheh to all Yisrael?

Judaizers make themselves Judaizers by insisting on the Mosaic law instead of the law of Christ (Matthew 22:37-40) which is the fulfilling of the law.

The scripture strictly and forbids your understanding. Despite what people like to believe, proverbs, parables, allegories, idioms, and sayings contain doctrine: whether it is a doctrine being taught or whether it is a doctrine being condemned. Therefore if one does not understand the proverb, parable, etc., then the same is blind to the doctrine that is being expounded or forbidden. And in this case it is a doctrine forbidden and refuted in not only one but two places in the Prophets, and one of those places specifically refers to the renewed covenant.

The proverb is preempted and refuted in the Torah.

Deuteronomy 24:16 KJV
16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

And here we find the proverb which came about later through an incorrect understanding of the Torah:

Ezekiel 18:1-4 KJV
1 The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying,
2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Please be sure to review the entire context of the passage. And here below we find the same doctrine forbidden yet again in the specific context of the renewed covenant:

Jeremiah 31:29-31 KJV
29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.
30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Every one shall die for his own iniquity, and you therefore do not understand the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts: for unless you utterly deny yourself, and take up your own stake, and follow him, you cannot even be his disciple, (Luke 14:26, Luke 14:27, Luke 14:33), and therefore even the Prophets quoted herein are not speaking of physical death.

Denies the NT teaching in Romans 5:18:
"The result of one trespass was condemnation for all men."

Moreover, regarding your comment about being born from above, again, see the links provided: one does not receive the promise until the same has done the will of Elohim,

Denies the NT teaching in:
Ephesians 2:8-9: - "For it is. . .through faith you have been saved. . .not by works."

Romans 3:21-22 - "A righteousness from God apart from the law has been made known. . .which comes through faith in Jesus Christ.

Romans 3:28 - "A man is justified (declared righteous) by faith apart from observing the law.

The above thereby making "the will of God" done to receive the promise "is to believe on his One and Only Son."
(John 6:29, John 6:40)

and the time appointed of the Father when a babe or child becomes a tried, true, tested son, as already proven with the plain statements of both Paul and the author of Hebrews which you have refused to look at. Sorry for your luck.

Only your misunderstanding of Galatians 4:1-2 has been proven.

"But when the fullness of the time came, God sent His Son...."

This is not about us developing as individuals - it is about God working through the long sweep of history.

 

[daq]

You are the one who presented the Father "winking" at sin before Christ.

Assertion without demonstration is assertion without merit.

Non-responsive. . .

Assertion without demonstration.

Non-responsive.

Love rejoices in the truth. (1 Corinthians 13:6)

Judaizers make themselves Judaizers by insisting on the Mosaic law instead of the law of Christ (Matthew 22:37-40) which is the fulfilling of the law.

Denies the NT teaching of Paul in Romans 5:18:
"The result of one trespass was condemnation for all men."

Denies the NT teaching of Paul in:
Ephesians 2:8-9: - "For it is by grace you have been saved. . .not by works."

Romans 3:21-22 - "A righteousness from God apart from the law has been made known. . .which comes through faith in Jesus Christ.

Romans 3:28 - "A man is justified (declared righteous) by faith apart from observing the law.

The will of God is to believe on his One and Only Son

Only your misunderstanding of Galatians 4:1-2 has been proven.

"But when the fullness of the time came, God sent His Son...."

This is not about us developing as individuals - it is about God working through the long sweep of history.

Basically your entire response is a non-responsive repetition of dogma based on misunderstandings of scripture without any exegesis.

 

[Clare73]

Basically your entire response is a non-responsive repetition of dogma based on misunderstandings of scripture without any exegesis.

Assertion without demonstration is assertion without merit.

 

[daq]

Assertion without demonstration is assertion without merit.

Refusal to look at the evidence disqualifies the judge.
Have a nice day.

 

[Clare73]

Refusal to look at the evidence disqualifies the judge.
Have a nice day.

Assertion is not evidence.

There is no evidence without demonstration, which you fail to provide.

So there is no evidence for anyone to look at.

 

[Hawkins]

Commandments made up part of a covenant. Commandments are thus in both the Mosaic covenant and the New Covenant. Commandments in the Mosaic covenant, to a certain extent, are enforced as Law, in terms of the Final Judgment. When it is said that the OT commandments are set aside, it means they are no longer enforced as Law in the New Covenant. These commandments appear as Christ's teaching in NT.

Law is observed in a manner that,

James 2:
10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

which means you are pretty much dead. Teaching on the other hand doesn't behave so. You need to try your best to follow Christ's teaching till you are holy like Jesus.

 

[Clare73]

Commandments made up part of a covenant.
Commandments are thus in both the Mosaic covenant and the New Covenant.

Keeping in mind that not all covenants have commandments, as in the
Noahic covenant (Genesis 9:8-17),
Abrahamic covenant of the land grant (Genesis 15:9-21),
Phinehas' covenant (Numbers 25:10-31),
Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7:5-16),
New covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

So the New covenant is not conditioned on any commandments.

Commandments in the Mosaic covenant, to a certain extent, are enforced as Law, in terms of the Final Judgment. When it is said that the OT commandments are set aside, it means they are no longer enforced as Law in the New Covenant.

Actually, it means they are not the basis of, nor the conditions of the New Covenant, that the basis or condition now is faith in and trust on the person and atoning sacrifice (blood, Romans 3:25) of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty," declared righteous (justified) with the imputed (reckoned) righteousness of Jesus Christ (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:20-21). . .just as by faith the righteousness of God was imputed (reckoned) to Abraham (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3).

These commandments appear as Christ's teaching in NT.

However, the NT presents these commandments. . ."and whatever other commandment there may be" as fulfilled in the loving of the NT law of Christ (Romans 13:8-10).

Law is observed in a manner that,
James 2:
10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
which means you are pretty much dead. Teaching on the other hand doesn't behave so. You need to try your best to follow Christ's teaching till you are holy like Jesus.

Indeed, the status of the commandments has changed, but not from law-keeping to teaching-keeping,
rather from law with a death penalty attached, to law written on the heart and being fulfilled in loving instead of law-keeping.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Adam was not physically killed, obviously, for he lived 930 years.

He only lived 930 years, and died. Dead of old age. God kills most of us that same way.

 

[sparow]

We know that Paul wrote the book of ROMANS ,and in Rom 13:9 he writes , For this , thou shall not commit Adultery .

#2 Thou shall not kill .

#3 thou shall not bear false witness ,

#4 Thou shall not Covet .

Notice what Paul let OUT ?

I believe the Law , what bis called the OLD COVENANT was set aside as Paul wrote in 2 Cor 3:13 .

And nowhere does Paul say we are in the NEW COVENANT !!

dan p

IF THE LAW OF MOSES WAS SET ASIDE , WHY ROM 13:9?
I am addressing the title of the thread, This is a wrong question.

The "Law of Moses" is a NT term and in Luke 2;22 that Law was still in force, not set a side; Everything Jesus did was the fulfilling of or the confirming of the OLD COVENANT, including the making of the New covenant with the lost sheep if Israel and their descendants.

I see it this way; there is the Law or covenant of God, written with God's own finger and imparted to Moses.

Then there is the Law or covenant of God, according to Moses (administrator).

Later came the Law or covenant (new) of God, according to Jesus (differing only in administration); the only time Jesus questioned Moses was where Moses was lax, such as allowing divorce.

Paul may not have used the phrase, "new covenant", but he has redefined the covenant.

 

[Clare73]

IF THE LAW OF MOSES WAS SET ASIDE , WHY ROM 13:9?
I am addressing the title of the thread, This is a wrong question.
The "Law of Moses" is a NT term and in Luke 2;22 that Law was still in force, not set a side; Everything Jesus did was the fulfilling of or the confirming of the OLD COVENANT, including the making of the New covenant with the lost sheep if Israel and their descendants.

Well, not quite.
Israel was hardened and cut off the one olive tree of God's people, and Gentiles were grafted in that New covenant (Romans 11:17-25), only a remnant of Israel now enters that New covenant.

I see it this way; there is the Law or covenant of God, written with God's own finger and imparted to Moses.

Then there is the Law or covenant of God, according to Moses (administrator).

Almost. . .Moses was Mediator.
The Levitical priesthood of Aaron was administrator of the law.

Later came the Law or covenant (new) of God, according to Jesus (differing only in administration);

Well, Hebrews 7:11-19 reports it a little differently.
The new priesthood of Melchizedek, of which Jesus is the eternal High Priest, means a change to a new law, the former Mosaic law being set aside because it was weak and useless to make righteous (Hebrews 7:18), and a better hope (Jesus) and better covenant and law is introduced where, by faith (rather than by law-keeping) we do draw near to God (Hebrews 7:19) in righteousness (imputed; i.e., accounted to us, from Christ, as by faith righteousness was imputed/accounted to Abraham--Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3).

the only time Jesus questioned Moses was where Moses was lax, such as allowing divorce.
Paul may not have used the phrase, "new covenant", but he has redefined the covenant.

See 1 Corinthians 11:25, 2 Corinthians 3:6.

 

[daq]

Dead of old age. God kills most of us that same way.

You see death, and believe what you will, but I have admonishments, instructions, and teachings: Deuteronomy 30:15-20, John 8:51.

 

[Clare73]

You see death, and believe what you will, but I have admonishments, instructions, and teachings: Deuteronomy 30:15-20, John 8:51.

John 8:51 - "If anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."

And that word is, "Everyone who believes in the Son has eternal life." (John 3:15)
"Whoever believes in the Son is not condemned." (John 3:18)

And the penalty of physical death for sin is not by execution, it is by nature, just as it was with Adam's penalty of death for sin. . .he died 930 years later.

 

[daq]

John 8:51 - "If anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."

And that word is, "Everyone who believes in the Son has eternal life." (John 3:15)
"Whoever believes in the Son is not condemned." (John 3:18)

And the penalty of physical death for sin is not by execution, it is by nature, just as it was with Adam's penalty of death for sin.

John 8:51-52 KJV
51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.

John 8:51-52 YLT
51 verily, verily, I say to you, If any one may keep my word, death he may not see--to the age.'
52 The Jews, therefore, said to him, 'Now we have known that thou hast a demon; Abraham did die, and the prophets, and thou dost say, If any one may keep my word, he shall not taste of death--to the age!

John 8:51-52 ASV
51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my word, he shall never see death.
52 The Jews said unto him, Now we know that thou hast a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my word, he shall never taste of death.

John 8:51 T/R-BYZ
51 αμην αμην λεγω υμιν εαν τις τον λογον τον εμον τηρηση θανατον ου μη θεωρηση εις τον αιωνα

John 8:51 N/A-W/H
51 αμην αμην λεγω υμιν εαν τις τον εμον λογον τηρηση θανατον ου μη θεωρηση εις τον αιωνα

Amen amen, I say to you, If anyone guards my Logos he will surely not see death, into the age.

And they, like you, did not hear what he said, for they repeat his statement and they repeat it incorrectly, saying that he said, "If anyone guards my Logos he will surely not taste of death, into the age."

 

[Clare73]

John 8:51 - "If anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."

And that word is, "Everyone who believes in the Son has eternal life." (John 3:15)
"Whoever believes in the Son is not condemned." (John 3:18)

And the penalty of physical death for sin is not by execution, it is by nature, just as it was with Adam's penalty of death for sin.

John 8:51-52 KJV
51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.

John 8:51-52 YLT
51 verily, verily, I say to you, If any one may keep my word, death he may not see--to the age.'
52 The Jews, therefore, said to him, 'Now we have known that thou hast a demon; Abraham did die, and the prophets, and thou dost say, If any one may keep my word, he shall not taste of death--to the age!

John 8:51-52 ASV
51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my word, he shall never see death.
52 The Jews said unto him, Now we know that thou hast a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my word, he shall never taste of death.

John 8:51 T/R-BYZ
51 αμην αμην λεγω υμιν εαν τις τον λογον τον εμον τηρηση θανατον ου μη θεωρηση εις τον αιωνα

John 8:51 N/A-W/H
51 αμην αμην λεγω υμιν εαν τις τον εμον λογον τηρηση θανατον ου μη θεωρηση εις τον αιωνα

Amen amen, I say to you, If anyone guards my Logos he will surely not see death, into the age.

And they, like you, did not hear what he said, for they repeat his statement and they repeat it incorrectly, saying that he said, "If anyone guards my Logos he will surely not taste of death, into the age."

Don't know what you are talking about. . .nor what your point is.

Neither "guard" nor "taste of" are in my Greek text.

My text is "keep" (tereo) my word;" i.e., "watch over, preserve, keep, watch,"
it is not "guard" (phulax).
And my text is "behold/see" (theoreo) death;" i.e., "experience, partake of,"
it is not "taste of."

John 8:51 - "If anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."

 

[daq]

That's not in my Bible.

So what? and who translated your Bible for you?

 

[Clare73]

Don't know what you are talking about. . .nor what your point is.

Neither "guard" nor "taste of" are in my Greek text.

My text is "keep" (tereo) my word;" i.e., "watch over, preserve, keep, watch,"
it is not "guard" (phulax).
And my text is "behold/see" (theoreo) death;" i.e., "experience, partake of,"
it is not "taste of."

John 8:51 - "If anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."

So what? and who translated your Bible for you?

All that matters here are the words "tereo" (keep) and "theoreo" (behold/see).

 

[daq]

All that matters here are the words "tereo" (keep) and "theoreo" (behold/see).

No, that isn't all that matters. Howbeit tereo specifically means to guard, (properly), by keeping the eye upon, to watch over something, and thus to maintain and-or keep, so I don't see why you would have a problem with the way I rendered it.

Theoreo however is interpreted by the Master himself in the same Gospel account and therefore even this passage by itself is not the only thing that matters because the words therein are expounded elsewhere in the scripture. In the following passage theoreo is employed for two ways of seeing.

John 14:19 KJV
19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

The world sees him not, (theoreo), but his disciples see him, (theoreo). Beware therefore, that the saying not become true of yourself, that seeing you see not, and hearing you hear not.

Matthew 13:13-15 KJV
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

True hearing is not only to hear but to understand. True seeing is not only to see but to perceive with understanding. Therefore, when I said that they did not hear what he said, in John 8:51-52, I meant that they neither understood nor perceived what he meant: and therefore they did not even quote his statement correctly.