Jesus Had His Hands Tied

An interesting interpretation. I say that because by what you are saying sounds like even though the there was the immediate possibility he could to the miracles and He wanted to He was kept from doing them because those there did not believe.

If that is what you are suggesting I don't agree. Here is the reason. Jesus most times did things in the mist of unbelief. Unbelief does not stop the power of God from working if He desires to do so. Just look at the time that the Lord raised the dead son of the widow. There is no evidence that anyone believed or even sought Him out for the miracle.

What was happening in this event that is mentioned in scripture is that because of unbelief not many came to Him seeking for a miracle or not so because of that he could not do many things. There was no people coming to Him for anything not even curiosity. Unbelief keeps people away and that was the problem, not that there was crowds attending and He was not able to do miracles because of their unbelief.

 

My family is to refer to me as "ArchCardinal Sensei Brian the First" since I'm a humble man.

But seriously, I wonder what a "great work" is? I mean, if I were one of the few that DID get healed, I know I'd consider it "great".

Can we get a Greek reading person to tell us what "could" and "great works" mean?

 

In this case the Greek it is not going to give you any profound answers. The Greek word is "dynamis" and can mean just miricles. In other words He could do nothing that would be considered supernatural.

 

They did not bring the sick to Him. They ignored the carpenter. How much belief did the dead have that He raised? Jesus was surrounded by unbelief constantly and it never effected His power to heal.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

Noncalvinists see a bound and weak christ. Calvinists see an almighty God, a Liberator, One who breaks bonds, not one who is subject to them.

Knowing God precludes the interpretation of the OP.

 

Thank you very much....

 

In His kenosis (Philippians 2) Jesus (the Logos) willingly lowered Himself to servanthood and as such did only what the Father allowed:

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.​

Philippians 2
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.​

If His hands were tied then the Father tied them.

HankD

 

What good is an Almighty Christ, when man wishes to be the center of attention and his own ruler?

What good, indeed... Lord, King, Redeemer, Savior, Sovereign Ruler of all Creation, Author and Finisher of Faith, the Bridegroom, Firstborn of all Creation, Alpha, Omega, All in All, the Great Shepherd, God's Son. Bow down and worship Him!

 

The sick person's healing did not depend on their own belief. Sometimes their faith helped but it was not the sticking point. It was the faith of Jesus. How much belief did Lazarus have before being raised from the dead? The blind man at the pool did not even know who healed him til after so his belief did not matter. Saying that an unbelievers unbelief stopped Jesus' healing power put's Jesus in a strange position. Do you think that He told the crowds He was going to make 5000 loaves of bread to feed them if they would only believe? His hands were not tied, they did not bring Him the sick so He could do nothing yet the power was there.

 

Well said!

I would argue that most, if not virtually all, of those Jesus healed had no concept whatsoever that he was The Christ of God. They just thought He was a miracle-working rabbi who was particularly effective.

A better argument is that God did not ordain for Jesus' powers to be effective in that area because of the sin of the people. Note the subject of my sentence is God, not "the people." That is the way it is always expressed in the Scriptures as well (at least in the original languages).

 

You are surely well educated and probably even have a decent knowledge of the Greek language, but I am sorry, I will take the Word of God over even your translation.

I believe our unbelief prevents our receiving from God all He has for us.

 

Nah. It can't be that simple. I mean just because the bible says so, doesn't mean it's really so. You need some notable theologians (from the long ago past only) to confirm that.

 

I will wait for Luke2427 to let us know exactly what God is saying. Perhaps he is digging through mounds of theological texts and checking the original meaning of the Greek. I'm sure he will set us all straight soon enough. :laugh:

 

Okay Robert... Playing by your rules, which comes first, the inability of Jesus to do great works or the mention of the unbelief of the people?

Are you completely sure that there is an exegetical cause and effect clause happening between those two verses?

Please do take the Word of God, but stop rearranging it to suit your own purpose.

The reason I mentioned the original language is that, in part, the sentence structure is very unlike the English. What may be multiple sentences in English may be all one sentence in the original language. Some of Paul's sentences run to multiple pages, and as such sorting out subject, verb, etc., is often difficult without a proper diagram where each word in the entire sentence is studied grammatically and placed in absolutely proper order and importance. There is a reason in the Scriptures that something precedes something else. It is that way because that is what God intended for us to know, and He inspired writers to write sentences in a hierarchy whereby the subject may be other than an English proof-text.

 

You are probably correct, but I only know English. If indeed the KJV is incorrect, then it has been incorrect for hundreds of years and God evidently saw no reason to change it.

Here it is in the ESV, a favorite among Calvinists (I am also fond of this version).

BTW, I am not saying that God could not work if He desired, just that He has chosen not to work in these instances.

Let me add: Thank you for your input. I know you are trying to be helpful.