Is Isaiah 6 about hardening?


Isaiah 6:9-10 says: And He said, "Go, and tell this people: 'Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.'  "Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed."

Many people, including Steve Hays (link) have taken this passage to be about divine hardening.  If it is, it's certainly no problem for Armininan theology, especially since hardening is typically the exception rather than the rule.  Further hardening is a punishment for past sins.  Also the passage does not say they cannot see or hear.  However, is this passage about hardening?

Isaiah never actually commands the people  “don’t understand”.  He never delivered this message as such.  So more than likely this is a case where a prophet is said to do what he foretells, like Jeremiah 1:10:

See, I have this day set you over the nations and over the kingdoms, To root out and to pull down, To destroy and to throw down, To build and to plant (Jeremiah 1:10).  Just as Jeremiah didn't destroy nations and kingdoms, so also, Isaiah did not tell the people not to understand.  Rather, Isaiah preached a message of repentance, warning the people of coming judgement.  But the foreseeable result of this message was that it would be rejected and Israel would not be healed.

Also, note the LXX and Acts 28 & Matthew 13 transform the command (keep on hearing, but do not understand) into a prediction (ye shall hear indeed, but ye shall not understand):

English translation of LXX of Isaiah 6: And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go to this people? And I said, behold, I am here, send me. And he said, Go, and say to this people,

Ye shall hear indeed, but ye shall not understand; and ye shall see indeed, but ye shall not perceive.

For the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Matthew 13:14 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; For the hearts of this people have grown dull.  Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hears and turn, so that I should heal them.

Acts 28:26-27 Go to this people and say: hearing you will hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you will see and not perceive.  For the hearts of this people have grown dull.  Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hears and turn, so that I should heal them.

Similarly, the LXX, Mt 13 & Acts 28 have “so that I should heal them” or “let me heal them” instead of “least I should heal them”. So the passage is talking about the Jews lack of desire to be healed through repentance not God’s desire to not heal them.  

Differences between the Old Testament Hebrew and the New Testament quotations of the same passage can be tricky.  If one insists on a literal reading of the Old Testament, then the best way to square it with the New Testament quotations (without saying they are misquotes) is to say the Old Testament was using irony, like saying “the last thing they want is to see with their eyes and hear with their ears and for me to heal them.”  Job 12:2 is an example of irony in the bible.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more