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
What happens to babies who die?
The Bible does not directly address the issue of what happens to babies who die before being able to make a decision for or against Christ. People have thus had to arrive at conclusions about this matter on the basis of other beliefs they hold to be true. The majority of evangelicals today assume that…
How do you respond to Acts 2:23 and 4:28?
Question: Acts 2:23 and 4:28 tell us that wicked people crucified Jesus just as God predestined them to do. If this wicked act could be predestined, why couldn’t every other wicked act be predestined? Doesn’t this refute your theory that human acts can’t be free if they are either predestined or foreknown? Answer: In Acts…
Does your “dispositional” ontology avoid substantival categories?
Question: In Trinity and Process you argue against a “substantival” ontology and instead advocate a “relational,” “process” and/or “dispositional” ontology in which being, being-in-relation and being-in-process are one and the same. In your view, entity x is its relation to entity y (and all other relations) and is the disposition to interact with y (and…
What do you think of “confrontational evangelism”?
Question: In The Myth of a Christian Nation, you emphasize our need to sacrificially serve others. But you didn’t emphasize our need to “preach the Gospel to every living creature.” I’ve been intrigued by the movement known as “confrontational evangelism,” associated with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. They stress the need to get people to…
What makes the claim that Jesus rose from the dead unique?
Question: What makes the story of Jesus’ resurrection different from other pagan resurrection stories, such as those surrounding the Egyptian god Osiris? Answer: In Lord or Legend? (and more academically, The Jesus Legend), Paul Eddy and I address this, and many other, objections to faith in Jesus. I encourage you to check either of these…
What is the significance of Hosea 8:5?
The Lord asks, “How long will they [Israel] be incapable of innocence?” The Lord’s continual striving with Israel regarding their lack of innocence suggests that this question was not merely rhetorical. If God knows the future to be eternally settled, however, he could not in earnest ask this (or any other) question about the future.…