We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
How do you respond to Isaiah 6:10?
The Lord tells Isaiah,
“Make the mind of this people dull,
and stop their ears,
and shut their eyes,
so that they may not look with their eyes,
and listen with their ears,
and comprehend with their minds,
and turn and be healed.” (cf. Matt. 13:14–15)
If taken out of context this passage may sound like the Lord wants certain minds to be spiritually dull, certain ears to be spiritually deaf and certain eyes to be spiritually blind. Hence this passage is sometimes cited as evidence that it is by sovereign design that some people are hardened to the message of the Lord. How can this passage be reconciled with the universality of God’s love and desire for salvation expressed elsewhere in Scripture?
The answer is to be found in the observation that the Lord is not commissioning Isaiah to preach to people who would otherwise be receptive to his message. God never hardens anyone arbitrarily. Rather, in this passage God is responding to the persistent obstinancy of the Israelites. (Hence, God no longer refers to them as “my people” [cf. 1:3] but as “this people” [cf. 8:6, 12; 9:16).* God sends Isaiah out as an act of judgment, anticipating that the preaching of his word will only serve to further solidify the Israelites in their self-chosen obstinancy. This increased solidification will make them “ripe for judgment.” It always grieves the Lord that he has to treat people in this fashion: it is not his perfect will (e.g. Hos. 11:5–9). And even in judgment the Lord holds out hope for the future (cf. Jer. 29:9–14).
Note
*C. W. Carter, ed. The Wesleyan Bible Commentary, Vol. III (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969), 35.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Q&A, Responding to Calvinism
Topics: Providence, Predestination and Free Will
Verse: Isaiah 6
Related Reading
How do you respond to Bart Ehrman’s book, “Misquoting Jesus”?
Question: I just read Bart Ehrman’s book Misquoting Jesus and it’s sort of rocked my world. How can we believe the Bible is God’s inerrant Word when we don’t even know what the original Bible said? Answer: I actually went to graduate school with Bart Ehrman (at Princeton). We used to smoke pipes together up…
How do you respond to Genesis 16:12?
The Lord describes Ishmael as “…a wild ass of a man, with his hand against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him.” According to most Old Testament scholars the Lord is describing Ishmael’s descendants as much as he is describing Ishmael himself. The Lord foresaw that the nation which would descend from Ishmael (cf. 21:18) would…
How do you respond to Jeremiah 25:8–12?
The Lord says to the nations: “Because you have not obeyed my words” (vs. 8), “this whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of…
A Cross-Centered Evaluation of Responses to Tragedy
I’d like to pick up where I left off on my previous post about Draper’s article entitled “Aurora shooting inspires various perspectives on God and belief.” Toward the end of his article, Draper reports on an informal survey conducted by Stephen Prothero on his CNN Blog. Prothero simply asks people to respond to the question: “Where…
How do you respond to Job 1:21?
“…the Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.” This passage is often quoted as the proper attitude pious people should assume in the face of tragedy, with the implication that all tragedy is the Lord’s doing. This teaching lands hard on the ears of parents who have…
Do you believe God is pure actuality?
The basis of the classical view of God as pure actuality (actus purus) is the Aristotelian notion that potentiality is always potential for change and that something changes only because is lacks something else. So, a perfect being who lacks nothing must be devoid of potentiality, which means it must be pure actuality. I think…