Good question...if Christianity is true, why does it need so much defending? And why
doesn't God make it clearer?
Draft: Sept
24/2000
Section 1: If Christianity is true, why does it need so much 'defense' and 'apologetics'?
Section 3: Interacting with the "possibly revelatory" data: Lessons from the Text on Encounter, Response, Results
Section 4: Two Pushbacks, on "would more hurt"? and "why seek a hidden God anyway?"
Section 5: Practice and Problems in "Seeking"
This is Section Three.
...............................................................................................................................................................................
Interacting with the Data: Encounter,
Response, Results
In trying to understand some of the dynamics
of how this 'seeking' works, we need to see some in action. For this we can
look at some of the interactions between the Jewish people of the 1st century
and Jesus, in his public proclamation.
These are cases of interacting with 'high-level'
phenomena (e.g., explicit claims to Otherness, extraordinary evidence), all of which presume a very theistic and
supernaturalistic worldview to begin with. But what is instructive here, is that the
types of responses
(i.e., acceptance, confusion, resistance, rejection) and the results of those responses
(i.e., personal transformation and further insights, hardening of heart and
further rejection/error) will be operative (and paralleled) at whatever level of explicitness the
seeker/recipient is working on.
In other words, the dynamics of encounter/response/results (see, learn or
reject, grow more open or grow more closed) will
be the same whether one is encountering high-subjectivity elements of
possible divine disclosure/data (e.g., odd configurations of experience,
mystical 'feelings', the beauty of a sunset) or
high-objectivity elements of possible divine disclosure/data (e.g.,
Jesus speaking face to face with you(!), didactic passages in the biblical
record) or elements in between
(e.g., a friend sharing his/her story with us about the events leading up to
their acceptance of Jesus and the subsequent 25 years of confirmation of this
decision; strong moral convictions not derivable from one's subculture;
positive intuitions and 'feelings' attached to a limited range of religious
images, ideas, ethical goals, etc.).
The mission of Jesus to the Jew had very many
specialized elements, which would not be as relevant to gentiles in later NT
settings, but certain aspects of His teaching and actions may give us insight
into how people
responded to various levels of truth. We need first to surface
some of the basic forces and movements in these interactions, and then we can
try to synthesize these into a working model.
1. Background--the Jew had the explicit,
linguistic revelation of God. They were supposed to have already responded to it, and were supposed
to be ready for the appearance of the Son of Man/Son of God. This nation was
supposed to already have a full-blown, vibrant, and working relationship with
the Father, so that when the Son--His exact image-duplicate,
character-wise--appeared, the recognition
would be instantaneous. This would have been the ultimate goal of a
process of seeking: the creation of character, openness, cognitive content of
the expectation, and joyous anticipation of the very Presence of the Gracious
King and Lord.
This is emphasized consistently by Jesus, in
his confrontation over his heavenly identity:
In other words, the real seekers (not the side-show curious--like Herod, nor the arrogant know-it-all-already types) would have recognized Jesus.
2. The miracles of Jesus and the Father (and also of the apostolic age) are often responded to in confusion or in outright hostility by those either at a different place in their journey, or governed by their presuppositions/positions...
As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” 7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. (Acts 9)
I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why are you persecuting me?’ 8I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ He said to me, ‘I am Jesus from Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’ 9The men who were with me saw the light but didn’t understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me. (Acts 22)
Then Zechariah said to the angel, “How can I know this is so? For I am an old man, and my wife is getting on in years.”, 19The angel answered him, “I am Gabriel! I stand in the very presence of God. I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. But because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled at the proper time, you will become silent and unable to speak until the day this happens.” (Luk 1.18ff)
Mary asked the angel, “How can this be, since I have not had relations with a man?” 35The angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come over you, and the power of the Most High will cover you. Therefore, the child will be holy and will be called the Son of God. 36And listen! Elizabeth, your relative, has herself conceived a son in her old age. This is the sixth month for the woman who was said to be barren. 37For nothing is impossible for God.” (Luk 1.34ff)
Notice that Mary's question was a question of method (e.g., "I believe you, but how is the difficulty going to be overcome?"), while Z's was a question of acceptance of the extraordinary evidence (e.g.. "why should I believe you, in spite of your supernatural appearance, in light of my conceptions of what is possible or not?"). Zech--even though a devout Jew and blameless priest, would have likely been skeptical even if God had written it in the sky every morning for all people to see...(still the "why should I believe even EXTRAORDINARY evidence?" possibility). A personal, linguistic communication, in a terror-creating appearance of Gabriel is about as 'extraordinary' as you can get.
And also notice, though, that even though Mary did NOT ask for evidence, she was given some anyway! The angel pointed out that a miraculous situation had occurred 'close to home' with Elizabeth, and this would encourage Mary in her confidence (plus it was a tender gift to her from God, since she needed to go 'think through this' with someone close and dear--the gift of a sweet and understanding friend).
3. And in some cases, without the proper background of experience and pre-conditioning by faith, Jesus was not allowed (by the Father? By the circumstances/possible consequences? By His conscience?) to even do many miracles. When we compare these two accounts of one of His trips, we can see that the lack of preparedness of the people (via 'faith'--learning of the reality of God and His promised Plan) created a condition in which a large-scale manifestation of Jesus' 'Otherness' [which was a promise of the Kingdom, had the people been ready/receptive] would have been inappropriate:
4. Although signs were given by Jesus often, requests for signs and the need for signs were the subject of His disapproval.
·
When
this man heard that Jesus had come from Judea to Galilee, he went to him and
asked him repeatedly to come down and heal his son, for he was about to die.
48Jesus told him, “Unless you
people see signs and wonders, you will never believe.” (John 4.47; notice that this remark is
cast as a remark of disapproval, BKC: "A faith built only on
miraculous signs is not a complete faith".)
·
When
the Pharisees and Sadducees arrived, as a test they asked Jesus to show them a
sign from heaven. 2He replied to them, “You say,
‘Red sky at night, what a delight. Red sky in the morning, cloudy and
storming.’
You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, yet you can’t
interpret the signs of the times? 4An evil and adulterous generation craves a
sign, but no sign
will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” (Matt 16.1ff; notice the sharpness of
this rebuke, and that He pointed them to the
historical context for information. They were expected to be
sensitive enough to what God was doing in Jewish/messianic history at the time)
·
Thomas,
one of the twelve, who was called the Twin, wasn’t with them when Jesus came.
25So the other disciples kept telling him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he told
them, “Unless I see the nail marks
in his hands, put my finger into them, and put my hand into his side, I will
never believe!” 26A week later his disciples were again inside, and Thomas
was with them. Even though the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them
and said, “Peace be with you.”
27Then he said to Thomas, “Put your
finger here, and look at my hands. Take your hand, and put it into my side.
Stop doubting, but believe.” 28Thomas answered him, saying “My
Lord and my God!” 29Jesus said to him, “Is it because you have seen me that you have believed? How blessed are those who have never seen me and yet
have believed! (John 20.24; note that believing without 'seeing' is better than 'with seeing'...perhaps the
former adds to the spiritual development process, and the later doesn't)
Or think about how open-minded the "request for evidence" was at the Cross:
In the same way the high priests, along with the scribes and
elders, were also making fun of him.
They kept saying, 42“He saved others but can’t save himself! He is the king of
Israel. Let him come down from the cross now,
and we will believe in him. 43He trusts in God. Let God rescue him
now if he cares for him. After all, he said, ‘I am the Son of God,’ ” 44Even the bandits
who were crucified with him kept insulting
him in the same way.
(Mt 27.41)
In the same way the high priests, along with the scribes,
were also making fun of him among themselves. They kept saying, “He saved
others but can’t save himself! 32Let the
Christ, the king of Israel, come down from the cross now so that we may see it
and believe.” Even the men who were crucified with him kept
insulting him. (Mr
15.31ff)
Does anyone really believe that these officials (who condemned Jesus to 'preserve their temple and nation'--cf. John 11.45ff, and were also motivated by envy) would have all of a sudden reversed that position, and instantaneously become non-envious?! Extraordinary evidence from Jesus--without a commitment from Him to establish Jewish supremacy over Rome at the same time(!)--would have been 'inadequate' or 'inconclusive' data for them...'Their "offer" was a taunt, not a request for additional revelation.
Notice though, that when John the Baptist asked an honest question of His identity, he was referred to the same phenomena that was available to the elite, to the crowds, and to the disciples:
John’s disciples told him about all these things. So John called
two of his disciples 19and sent them to the Lord to ask, “Are you the Coming
One, or should we wait for someone else?” 20When the men had come to him, they
said, “John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the Coming One, or
should we wait for someone else?’ ” 21At that time Jesus had healed many people
of diseases, plagues, and evil spirits and had given sight to many who were
blind. 22So he answered them, “Go and tell John what you have observed and heard:
the blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear again, the
dead are raised, and the destitute hear the good news. (luke 7.18ff:
notice how J-the-B already had a relationship with Jesus, and what is at issue
here is only a 'precision' issue)
5. But the responses to the public signs were all over the map--just
like it had been in Israel's history up to that time. The Jewish leadership in
the OT (mostly during the Prophets' ministry) was most-of-the-time corrupt,
spiritually insensitive, and constantly 'closing their minds' to Yahweh's
appeals and warnings. And, in that great 'tradition', their responses to the
Son was little different (John 12.37ff):
Although he had performed numerous signs in their presence, they did
not believe in him, so that the word that the prophet Isaiah spoke
might be fulfilled when he said:
“Lord, who
has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
For this reason they could not believe, for
Isaiah also said,
“He has
blinded their eyes and
hardened their heart, so that they might not perceive with their eyes, and
understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.”
Isaiah said this
when he saw his glory and spoke about him. Yet
many people, even some of the authorities, believed in him, but
because of the Pharisees they did not admit it for fear that they would be
thrown out of the synagogue.
Note that in this passage, the Jewish elite is not 'hardened' as a group, nor as a nation, since the text explicitly refers to believers in that group (one easily recalls Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea).
6. The 'seeking'
model--in conjunction with the 'reversal of
fortune' motif of the New Future--explains the puzzling 'hardening motifs' that occur
in some miracle/parable contexts.
The John 12.37 passage cited above shows that (many/some of) the
leaders were somehow 'not able to believe' in Jesus--in spite of the presence
of extraordinary evidence (the signs), and that it was somehow a prophesied act
of judgment on God's part. How are we to understand this?
The main clue to understanding this judgment can be found in the
words of Jesus:
Then Jesus said, “I have come into this world for judgment, so that those who are blind may see, and those who see may become blind. (John 9.39)
Notice that this is clearly a reversal of fortune motif, and that the negative side of the saying is aimed at those who 'see'. That these are only people who 'profess' (or 'brag/boast'--see the discussion about the problem of arrogance in seeking above) can be seen from a related passage on the parables (which we will discuss below):
For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and there is nothing secret that will not become known and come to light. 18So pay attention to how you listen. For to the one who has something, more will be given. However, from the one who doesn’t have, even what he thinks he has will be taken away from him (Luke 8.17ff)
The parallel passage in Matthew is explained well in WBC:
"The problem of the apparent injustice of God giving to those who have and taking away from those who have not is alleviated when it is realized that Jesus refers simply to receptivity and unreceptivity. The one who “has” (e[cei) is the one who has welcomed the message of the kingdom and who has responded in the appropriate commitment, i.e., who has become a disciple of Jesus. It is this person who has the key to further understanding of the purpose and plan of God in the presently dawning kingdom. This one will thus be given more understanding, and that understanding will abound (perisseuqhvsetai) in fruitfulness. The one who “does not have” (oujk e[cei) is the person who has not received or responded in commitment to the proclamation of Jesus and the disciples. Of that person it is said that kai; o} e[cei ajrqhvsetai ajpĆ aujtou`, “even what that person has will be taken away.” Having rejected the message of the kingdom from the start, that person is unable to penetrate to the truth of the parables of Jesus. But even what such a person is inclined to fall back on—say, trust in Jewishness and Judaism—that too will be taken away (cf. 8:12; 21:43).
The religious elite of the day looked down on others, believing (and boasting, as we have noted before) that only THEY had knowledge of God. John records a comment of the Pharisees about the common folks in 7.47:
Then the Pharisees replied to them, “You haven’t been
deceived, too, have you? None of the authorities or Pharisees has believed in
him, has he? But this mob that does not know
the law—they are accursed!”
BBC points out this disdain in more general terms:
"Trained rabbis often looked down on the >amme ha<aretz, “the people of the land,” common people who did not even try to follow rabbinic interpretations of the law. Many texts indicate the animosity between Pharisaic rabbis and >amme ha<aretz (e.g., Akiba contended that before becoming a rabbi he was an ‘am ha’aretz and wanted to beat up rabbis).
And WBC gives a bit more detail:
"The dictum of v 49 has
become a celebrated utterance, as perfectly expressing the attitude of the
Pharisees to the common people. Str-B pointed out that the phrase “this crowd
that doesn’t know the Law” paraphrases the rabbinic expression Ĺrah µ[ (>am h÷<aµres˜) “the people of the land.” It has an ancient
history, denoting first the whole nation of Israel (e.g., Ezek 22:29), then the
people in distinction from the rulers (Jer 1:18), and after the exile the mixed
population that settled in the land as distinct from the returned Jewish exiles
(Ezra 10:2, 11). Among the rabbis the expression signifies those who do not
know the Law and therefore do not live according to it; since for them the Law
signifies the Mosaic Law as interpreted in the developed oral tradition, this included the mass of ordinary people,
who could not attain to it. Even the liberal-minded Hillel could say, “An uneducated man is not slow to sin, and no people of
the land (>am h÷<aµres˜) is righteous” (<Abot 2.5). This classic saying was paraphrased by
G. F. Moore as, “It takes education to make a saint,” which was true to Jewish
thought when “education” was precisely instruction in the right understanding
of the Law. Where compassion ruled the Pharisees, this could inspire a desire
to instruct all and sundry, but unfortunately
it led to an attitude of despising the ignorant, so that “the people of the land” became virtually a
term of abuse, as in v 49, and as Billerbeck’s lengthy assembling of
material from rabbinic literature illustrates (Str-B 2:494–519). Since those
who did not know the Law were assumed not to fulfill the Law, the Pharisees
doubtless classed them among the breakers of the Law on whom the curses of Deut
27:15–26 should fall. Hence the statement in v 49, and the attitude expressed
in MidrSam 5.9: “It is forbidden to have
mercy on one who has no knowledge.”...
This attitude finds expression also in John 9.30ff:
The man answered them, “This is an amazing thing! You don’t
know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. 31We know that God doesn’t listen
to sinners, but he does listen to anyone who worships him and does his will.
32Never since creation has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man
who was born blind. 33If this man were not from God, he couldn’t do anything
like that.” 34They said to him, “You were
born entirely in sins, and you are trying to instruct us?” And they
threw him out.
The healed man gives a
perfectly good Jewish argument, but the force of the argument is rejected by
the know-better elite: "Later rabbis emphasized being humble and
teachable; but despite the proper Jewish argument he gave in 9:31–33, the
authorities expel this man on the premise that he was born in sin—which the
reader knows to be false (9:2–3)" (BBC)
What this means for us is that the religious elite, which looked down on everyone else, and claimed to do so on the basis of their superior knowledge of the Law, was being judged (and the sentence was that their 'understanding would be darkened')...And what they thought was correct would be proven to have been wrong ("taken away from them"), and what little the common folk had would be supplemented with more and more...the haughty would be humbled, and the humble honored...
In the words of Mary (Luke 1.52f):
He has
brought down rulers from their thrones, And has exalted those who were
humble. 53 “He has filled the hungry
with good things; And sent away the rich
empty-handed.
7. But even the nature of this type of hardening (not all biblical cases are necessarily of this type--Pharaoh may be a different kind) shows some of the 'seeking' model dynamics.
Then he got into the boat with them, and the wind stopped
blowing. The disciples were
utterly astounded, 52for they didn’t understand the significance of the loaves.
Instead, their hearts were hardened. (Mark 6.51f)
Notice how the disciples' hearts
were 'hardened' in the face of extraordinary evidence (i.e., walking on
water!), but it was due to a failure to understand a previous experience! They had
participated (as insiders) in a Multitude-Feeding miracle, but somehow 'missed
the point of it'. So, when confronted with the "next batch" of
revelatory data, they 'go dull'...
WBC points out this
mixed-character of the disciples' experiences (which is true for ALL of us,
IMO):
"This explanation accents
the disciples’ failure to understand, a motif which first appeared in 4:13 and comes to a head in 8:17–21. At the same
time, the disciples are depicted as “insiders” in 6:7–13, 30, who actively
participate in Jesus’ ministry, and they play a key role in the very incident
they fail to understand (6:32–44). This tension in the portrait corresponds
with 4:11, 13 where as “insiders” to whom the “mystery of the Kingdom” has been
given (4:11, 34) they fail to understand the “parable”
Notice that 'hardening' is
NOT related to 'being chosen' or 'being rebellious' or the such like; but
rather to a failure to
assimilate (for whatever reason: intellectual, moral,
theological, etc.) or
respond properly to "previous data". And will they
'get over it'? Absolutely...'hardness' is
something 'addressable'...
In fact, it is the subject
of Jesus' rebuke to them in Mark 8:
So they were discussing with one another the fact that they
didn’t have any bread. 17Knowing this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you discussing
the fact that you don’t have any bread? Don’t you understand or perceive yet?
Are your hearts hardened? 18Do you have eyes but fail
to see? Do you have ears but fail to hear? Don’t you remember? 19When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how
many baskets did you fill with leftover pieces?” They told him,
“Twelve.” 20“When I broke the seven loaves for the
four thousand, how many large baskets did you fill with the leftover pieces?”
They told him, “Seven.” 21Then he said to them, “Don’t you perceive yet?” (Mark 8.16ff)
Notice how Jesus tries to 'un-harden' them, by challenging them to think through it. He confronts them with the data and logic about the bread. The answer to hardening is to "re-evaluate" or look at the issue afresh. Hardening is the opposite of this--to judge a matter on one's preconceptions without evaluating the data openly, carefully, and from a wide perspective, and then to 'lock that decision in' and surround it with volitional stances, emotional defense mechanisms, intellectual rationalizations and nit-picking, and analyses of potential 'political and status loss' consequences...and if you do this long enough--and do enough damage in the world through this--God may (judicially) let this become part of your deepest character.
In the passage itself, Isaiah is commissioned to confront the people overtly:
He said, “Go and tell this people:
“‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever
seeing, but never perceiving.’
Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and
close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their
ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”
What is important to note here is that this message is spoken to the 'dull', similar to the rebukes of Jesus to the disciples (above). It is not an "insider's" theological reflection on their nature/situation, nor is it some kind of curse/magic formula, uttered to 'sprinkling hardening powder on them'... Like the case of Jesus with the disciples, it was meant to provoke/incite to re-assessment (un-hardening), similar to the later passage in Jeremiah 5.20ff:
Declare this in the house of Jacob And proclaim it
in Judah, saying,
‘Hear this, O foolish and senseless people, Who have eyes, but see not; Who have ears, but hear not. 22 ‘Do you not fear Me?’ declares the Lord. ‘Do you not tremble in My presence?
Or Ezekiel 12, where God still creates an object lesson--just in case Israel will 'break tradition' and listen!
Then the word of the Lord came to me saying, 2 “Son
of man, you live in the midst of the rebellious house, who have eyes to see but do not see, ears to hear but
do not hear; for they are a rebellious house. 3 “Therefore, son of
man, prepare for yourself baggage for exile and go into exile by day in their
sight; even go into exile from your place to another place in their sight. Perhaps they will understand though they are a rebellious
house.
Again, in Isaiah 29, God confronts Jerusalem with similar (if not stronger) "in your face" speech(!):
Be delayed and wait. Blind yourselves and be blind. They become drunk, but
not with wine; They stagger, but not with strong drink. For the Lord has poured
over you a spirit of deep sleep, He has shut your eyes, the prophets; And He
has covered your heads, the seers. And the entire vision shall be to you like
the words of a sealed book, which when they give it to the one who is literate,
saying, “Please read this,” he will say, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” Then the
book will be given to the one who is illiterate, saying, “Please read this.”
And he will say, “I cannot read.”
Notice that the imperative form is used here ("blind YOURSELVES"), and that the result is attributed to YHWH's judgment. This was directed at the people, intending to provoke awakening and alertness and responsiveness.
When confronted with God's assessment of their dangerous insensitivity and culpable/deliberate ignorance of righteousness, the people were supposed to re-evaluate "how well they are doing"(!) and respond like the disciples did, or David did when confronted by Nathan, or even Nicodemus when confronted by Jesus in John 3.9-12. These are rhetorical devices--not abstract theological statements--designed to provoke some kind of response. If the response is negative, then the situation gets worse (i.e., they get further entrenched in their positions); if the response is positive, then God is warranted (under covenant stipulations) to 'soften' their hearts even further--all the way to deliverance.
[This is something like the argument between friends, where one confronts the other with "You're not listening to me--your mind is made up and you haven't heard a word I have said"--the goal is to provoke the 'un-listening one' to START listening.]
This is almost a standard 'provocation' technique--it occurs often in biblical and extra-biblical lit. In addition to the examples above, we might note a couple of other "shaming" passages:
1. Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. (Heb 5.11)
2.
Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.” “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked
them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters
the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of the mouth
come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’ 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery,
sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed
hands does not make him ‘unclean.’” (Matt 15.15; note--the Disciples again!)
3.
The countless "you blind guides!"
passages
4.
The Hebrews 3.12 passage (relating to OT usage) is very explicit, in
warning (implying some control by the recipients!) them to deal with the
hardness issue:
See to it, my brothers, that no evil,
unbelieving heart is found in any of you, as shown by your turning
away from the living God. 13Instead, continue to encourage one another every
day, as long as it is called “Today,” so that
none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. 14For we
are Christ’s partners only if we hold on to our original confidence to the
end., 15As it is said,
“Today,
if you hear his voice, do not harden your
hearts as they did when they provoked me.”
5.
Paul uses the Isaiah passage in Acts 28.25 at a meeting with the Jewish
leadership in Rome!
They disagreed with one another as they were leaving, and
Paul added a statement: “How well did the Holy Spirit speak to your ancestors
through the prophet Isaiah! He said,
‘Go to this people and say,
“You will listen and
listen but never understand, and you will look and look but never
see!
For this people’s heart has become dull, and their ears are hard
of hearing, and they have shut their eyes so that they may never see with their
eyes, and listen with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn and
let me heal them.” ’
You must understand
that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen.”,
"The points at which many of the Jewish leaders disagreed with Paul and left the session, Luke says, were two: (1) Paul's attempt to prove the obduracy of Israel from Scripture on the ground that Isaiah had foretold the Jews' rejection of Jesus as Messiah, and (2) his insistence that because of Israel's hardened attitude the message of "God's salvation" has been sent directly to Gentiles where it would find a positive response. He documented the first point by quoting Isaiah 6:9-10. The LXX had already turned the imperatives of vv. 9b-10a into finite verbs, with the result that the entire blame for Israel's estrangement from God is placed on the stubbornness of the people themselves. That is how Jesus also is reported as having used the passage in the "Logia" collection (cf. Matt 13:13-15; Luke 8:10; see also the use of the passage in Mark 4:12 and John 12:40, though not with quite the same thrust) and how Paul explained Israel's predicament in Romans 9-11. But Paul quotes prophecy here not just to explain Israel's stubbornness but to set the stage for his second point: In the providence of God, redemption was now being offered directly to Gentiles [tn: instead of through the mediation of the Jews] and they were responding. [EBCNT]
As the commentary points out (above), Paul quotes from the LXX version of Is 6.9-10 in the situation of Acts 25. But some commentators will contrast the MT use of the imperative form ("make their hearts dull") with the 'softer' LXX ("they made their own hearts dull"). Some will actually accuse Matthew of avoiding the implication of the passage--that God hardened the Jewish rulers--and instead used the LXX to lay all the blame at the feet of the rulers themselves. Pointing out that Mark's usage of the Isaiah passage preserves the MT imperatival force (i.e., Mark uses a hina clause ("in order that/to") to reflect the MT force), and that Matthew allegedly changes this (via the LXX exemplar) to a hoti clause ("because they..."), some argue either that (a) there's a major theological disagreement between the two; or (b) they are taking complementary views of some kind of sovereignty/responsibility 'paradox'.
But I personally cannot see the force of the problem here--both Matthew and Mark 'map' into Matthews/Paul-Luke/LXX understanding very easily. Consider:
Now, since "prophets are often said to do what they announce as about to happen" (KD), their 'imperative' in verse 10 could easily be taken as an 'announcement' of what is "about to happen"--the self-deadening practices of the Israelites will continue and continue, until they are no longer candidates for God's positive intervention. [Notice that this is some of the force of Rashi's comments--that the continuous action will continue.]
An example of this type of expression (in which the
prophet is "said to do what is announced as about to happen") would
be Jeremiah 1.9-10: Then the LORD reached out his hand and touched my mouth and
said to me, “Now, I have put my words in your mouth. 10 See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot
and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant.” [We might also note Jeremiah
25.15ff--Jeremiah did not ruin Jerusalem himself...]
Where this nets out at is
this: the divine message (e.g., in Isaiah and in the life/words of Jesus)
encounters rejection by the hard-of-heart, and this rejection of God's
overtures of goodness results in even further hardness-of-heart, as God
judicially allows the natural consequences of destructive choices to negatively
affect their decision making process itself.
What this means for the Isaiah passage (and its application in the NT) is that the role of the prophet--in confronting them with God's message--is one of causing provocation, and not of causing hardening per se. Isaiah, 'ordered' to 'make their hearts fat/heavy' only does so obliquely, tangentially, incidentally. The people are already 'heavy/fat' and their rejection of the message will only add more lethargy to their moral/religious life.
There is no question but that God does 'facilitate incremental obduracy' in people(smile), because it is obvious that His messages of warning, rebuke for treachery, and confrontation with the demands for authenticity/spirituality had such an effect on the ancient Israelites. His messages were supposed to be provocative, to cause change (for good or ill), and to be 'in their face':.
·
For the house of Israel and the house of Judah Have dealt
very treacherously with Me,” declares the Lord. 12 They have lied about the Lord
And said, “Not He; Misfortune will not
come on us; And we will not see sword or famine. 13 “And the prophets are as wind, And the word is not in them.
Thus it will be done to them!” 14 Therefore,
thus says the Lord, the God of hosts, “Because
you have spoken this word, Behold, I am making My words in your mouth fire And
this people wood, and it will consume them. (Jer 5.11ff)
·
“What can I do with you, Ephraim? What can I do with you,
Judah? Your love is like the morning mist, like the early dew that disappears.
5 Therefore I cut you in pieces with my
prophets, I killed you with the words of my mouth; my judgments flashed like
lightning upon you. 6 For I desire
mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.
7 Like Adam, they have broken the covenant— they were unfaithful to me there. 8
Gilead is a city of wicked men, stained with
footprints of blood. 9 As marauders lie in ambush for a man, so do
bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem, committing shameful crimes. (Hos
6.4ff;
8. What must be remembered about 'hardening' language, though, is that it is intended to provoke to renewal and to get the people to "un-harden" their hearts. This is clearly seen in the contexts in which the language occurs.
And Moses summoned <