Why the Blindness?

The contrary, I agree with you. They were not saved. I am pointing out that many are confusing what John said. Here is the quote from Isaiah;

Isaiah 6:9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

Now compare it to John;

John 12:39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

Personally, I feel the blinding came after the refusal to believe and repent.

 

The case can be made that the blinding resulted in unbelief, not from unbelief.

God did not tell Isaiah, "they don't believe, so you preach to them and I'll blind them so they can't believe." It was, "Isaiah, you preach, I'll blind them."

John 12 37-41 is described by John as a fulfilment of the Isaiah prophecy. They didn't believe because they couldn't believe.

Now, we'll continue to see these passages differently, but I think we can both agree on this: God sovereignly blinded, hardened, clouded their minds. From that point on their fate was sealed. No more chances to repent. Their wills were now incapable of choosing to follow God (OT) or Christ (in John).

So the principle is established. God may sovereignly prevent some people from exercising repentance and faith. What we disagree on is why it happens, and when.

 

Yes Tom, your right and I can see than now. The were following God and obeying Him. They were were His people who loved and honored Him. And at that point God told Isaiah to go preach and He will blind them. Yes I see that now.

Come on! Israel was ALREADY IN unbelief when God sent blindness to secure them in their own decision. It is the very reason it paralelles 2 Thes were it speaks of them choosing to reject the truth God REVEALED to them that He seals them in their decision to choose unbelief so that they would not come back to Him.

This is the epitome of the FACT that they CAN/COULD come to the Lord otherwise He would not have blinded them. Unless you believe in a double blinding. First they can not see to begin with and then just incase someone slips through the cracks He blinded them a second time.

ONE more thing however: You stated they didn't believe because they couldn't believe. The scripture tell us why they could not but I did notice you said nothing about why they couldn't. Why is that? Will you not acknowledge that they were in Unbelief ALREADY in EVERY instance this blinding occurs??

 

I am out of time yet but I will address those points posed to me by others ealier.

So don't go away. - I'll be back! :laugh:

 

The sequence has everything to do with it and can't be overlooked. It is because they would not believe, they eventually could not believe. This is the sequence in the scripture and makes a big, big difference. In reverse would mean God made it so they could not believe even before he gave them a chance to believe.

What kind of God would we serve if he took away our arms then said you stand at the door and if you knock I will let you in. No, these men stood at the door with arms, with hands and knuckles and some believed salvation was on the other side yet still refused to knock. Could have been peer pressure or pride, who knows. THEY WOULD NOT KNOCK.

It is then (sequence), from the result of unbelief, these Jews remained unenlightened and eventually their hearts were hardened. This says God did not harden their hearts so they would not believe, they would not believe prior to their hearts being hardened. The sequence makes all the difference in the world. In this case, they didn't and wouldn't long before they couldn't.

I'm not so sure God sovereignly hardened or will sovereignly hardened anyones heart. I think you have the wrong means to a tragic end. 1 Timothy 2:3-4 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. The Bible has no conflicts.

I believe the hardening of their hearts, was a product or result of being so set in their ways that they wouldn't even try to understand Jesus' message. Just like the two of us in this discussion, once one has gone so far down a defended path or have devended the trail for so long, it is virtually impossible to get them to change. You said it yourself, "Now, we'll continue to see these passages differently."

These men were committed to not changing. When they studied, they studied with a view to remain the same. When they thought about it, they thought about it with a view to remain to the same. God didn't sovereignly make their desicion, he simply comfirmed a decision they chose to make on their own.

Now don't leave out the remnant who also help's to confirm this, there were some Chief rulers who did believe but were afraid to speak up becuse of what the pharisee's might do. We know of two from scripture, Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea. This confirms God had not hardened their hearts prior to them having a chance to believe and receive, some did believe. If their hearts were previously hardened by God, no one would have believed...

 

Re: your last paragraph. Acknowledged.

I believe you're assuming that the blinding, etc., did not occur until after God commissioned Isaiah. A good paraphrase of the Isaiah 6 passage could be "You preach, they won't believe because I have already blinded them, etc."

One could easily read that passage to mean that mean that they were already blinded and hardened. I suspect you'll go back to my earlier post where I used a quote suggesting the blinding follows Isaiah's preaching. After a closer reading, I think that was not a good paraphrase, and you were right to jump on it with both feet.

LeBuick said:

I agree that the sequence is important, I just don't see it the way you do. John 12:41 ascribes their inability to believe to something other than their present unbelief. The verse ascribeds their inability to God's blinding and hardening--the purpose of which was to prevent their belief.

LeBuick further said:

I can see how this might cause you problems. A good hermeneutic principle is, when two verses seem to conflict, to interpret the less clear verse in light of the clearer verse or passage. So, in my view, I Tim 2:3-4 has to be interpreted in the light of the very clear John 12:41. What you appear to have done is conclude that "all" means "all without exception," while "He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts," doesn't mean what it says.

LeBuick, you also said:

I take this to mean you believe everyone deserves a chance to believe. Yet we have untold millions in the OT who never heard of Jehovah God, and millions today who have never had a chance to believe on the Lord Jesus.

The people Isaiah will preach to, and those in the NT to whom Jesus spoke were steeped in the Law and well exposed to Messianic prophecies. The people in John 12 had heard John the Baptist, and had been listening to the Messiah himself. Looks like they had a chance to me.

I do recognize that in the next verse or two, John said some believed. Wonder what the differenced was between those who were blinded and hardened and those who believed?

 

I see one place we differ, Isaiah is a prephesy. It is not sying Isaiah will preach to them, he was prophesying regarding the rejection of Jesus and his ministry.

I do, I believe God wants all men to be saved. I believe all means all. Because some people were not Jews or descendants of Abrham, there was and still is the priesthood of Melchesidec which existed before the levitical priesthood and is the priesthood by which Jesus established his NT. We may not see God's plan that "all" will be offered salvation, but I believe Jn 3:16 where it says God sent his son to save the world. I believe the Bible does not contain everything there is to know about God or his plan of salvation for the world, it is just the portion he revealed to us.

 

Ok, even so - I'll that far as well. Now did God blind them when they were in fellowship and walking the light of His word??

Or was it after they were in disobedience.
We find they were in rebellous disobedience, then God warned them. They persisted, and God sent judgment in destruction of their cities and slavery. God again reached out to them to repent, they again chose to remain in disobedience and rebellion. Then comes Isaiah.... When did God blind them?

Was it while they were in fellowship with Him or after they choose to deny the Truth?

 

It was before they were in fellowship with Him... in eternity past.

 

...and eternity present, and eternity future...

 

But from eternity past He chose them to be in fellowship with Him. Remember they were His chosen People? So which is it? Did He choose them only for a time and then unchoose them. Did He make them His only for a time and then make them NOT His?

 

LeBuick said:

Actually, we don't disagree that much. John 12 clearly states that Isaiah prophesied the rejection of Jeus because he had actually seen the Lord Jesus, high and lifted up.

Like many prophecies, Isaiah 6 can have dual application. I think this is the case here.

 

reformedbeliever can answer this for himself, but here's my take on it. Whom God chooses he does not unchoose. When we were saved, thus realizing that we were elect, we recognize that before salvation, we, too were in rebellion against him. And some of us played that role to the hilt. Yet God did not unchoose us. In fact, while we were yet sinners, he died for us.

In the same way, God does not unchoose the Jews, his chosen people, despite their rebellion. They are still his chosen today, and I believe the scripture teaches that ultimately they embrace Jesus as the Messiah.

I suppose I should also distinguish between elect Jews chosen for salvation through Jesus, and the Jews as a nation (or race). Although they are blinded as a nation, individual Jews have been saved.

 

Let me add a couple of thoughts about blinding.

I hold that when we were lost, we were in a state of blindness of sorts. It was a natural state. When the Holy Spirit began his work on us, it was to open our spiritual eyes, enlighten our spiritual understanding, and convict us of our sin, as well as draw us to repentance and faith. He also gave us the gifts of repentance and faith (you know I'd throw that in there, didn't you).

I suspect that we're probably trying to argue over semantics. However hardening and blinding takes place, it is part of God's sovereign plan and design.

 

What Tom said......lol
No, really, it is that He has chosen as a nation, but that is not chosen for salvation. I think both choices were made in eternity past, or before the foundation of the world. (webdog and skypair have a problem with the words eternity past) I suppose when they can't win a debate, they will try to change the subject by saying certain words are oxymorons...lol

 

Now you've simply into silliness. :laugh:

We KNOW what eternity past is and it ain't a point in time like "before the foundation [creation] of the world" is. To make them equal is to base your theology on a faulty premise. Eternity is timeLESS. "The foundation of the world" is a POINT in TIME which establishes a reference for when God created, "elected," etc.

skypair

 

Again, you are full of error. Before the foundation of the world is before God created the world. He created the world before He created time for us..... read Genesis 1. His decision was in eternity past. Before time.

 

With the world came time. Before time is outside of time, as something cannot be "before" (time phrase) time. His decision was outside of time, not before anything.

 

Webdog and others have issues with Scripture .
Does anyone object to the "befores" in Romans 9:11 ?

I'll quote verses 11-13 for a fuller conext in the NLT2 .

But before they were born , before they had done anything good or bad , she received a message from God . ( This message shows that God chooses people according to his own purposes ; he calls people , but not according to their good or bad works .) She was told , " Your older son will serve your younger son." In the words of the Scriptures , " I loved Jacob , but I rejected Esau. "

 

I have no problem with Scripture. Your example only shows that God is omniscient along with being omnipresent, and choosed people sovereignly for His purpose...not salvation.

Did Christ die around 2000 years ago, or did He die at some point prior to earth ever being created (lamb slain "before" the foundation of the world)?