Chapter # 11 Paragraph # 1 Study # 6
December 2, 2018
Humble, Texas
(092)
1769 Translation:
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
1901 ASV Translation:
8 according as it is written,
God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, unto this very day.
9 And David saith,
Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, And a stumblingblock, and a recompense unto them:
10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, And bow thou down their back always.
- I. Regarding the "Just as it stands written..." of 11:8.
- A. This is not a "hidden" thing (it stands written).
- B. This is not a "new" thing (that writing was contained in the Old Testament).
- 1. The first "quote" is not, technically, a "quote", but an amalgamation of texts like Deuteronomy 29:3 (Septuagint) and Isaiah 29:10 (Septuagint). In Isaiah 29:10 (Septuagint), the "stupor" (or, inability to think) is caused by God having removed their ability to "see" (He has shut their eyes) by removing the ability of the prophets to legitimately prophesy [multiple translations indicate that the "eyes" have an appositive, "the prophets", and the "heads" have also an appositive, "the seers"...meaning that the "spirit of slumber" is directly connected to the absence of a prophetic ministry]. The issue of Deuteronomy 29:3 is that "The Lord has not given ... eyes to see and ears to hear...". The point is that it is the natural condition to be sightless and deaf and that natural condition can only be rectified by special action by the Lord. The point is that it is not a "special" act of God to make people incapable of seeing and hearing; it is a special act of God to enable sight and hearing.
- 2. The second "quote", likewise, is a reference to this truth without being a "direct quote". It is found in Psalm 69:23-24 (Septuagint).
- C. This is not an "unjust" thing (note carefully Romans 3:5-6 and 9:14). The question of "injustice" is a question of whether, or not, the Law would condemn the actors to the consequences imposed upon them. "Grace" is not about "imposing justice upon valid objects of condemnation".
- D. This is a thing that "stands written" and "will be enforced".
- II. Regarding "Issues" Involved.
- A. The primary contextual issue is "the elect obtained and the rest were hardened". A key issue is the matter of the "timing" of the "hardening". Mark 6:52 and 8:17 indicate that "hardened" is the natural condition. Also 2 Corinthians 3:14 declares that "hardness" is a natural condition that can be reversed "if" the heart turns to the Lord. The point: "hardness" settled upon humanity at the point of Adam's sin and all men "were hardened" then. It was not a special act of God to "harden" the rest; He simply did not interfere with that hardness. We could say, "...the Elect obtained, and the rest were left in their hardness..." and this is what the quotes from Deuteronomy and Isaiah both say. Even Isaiah 6:10 strongly indicates that having eyes that cannot see and ears that cannot hear is the natural condition of man. And Jesus, in Matthew 13:10, says that the ability to see and hear is "given" to reverse the natural condition. Even John 12:40 quotes Jesus as saying "He had blinded ... He had hardened ..." and using the perfect tense of both verbs to point backwards in time to the "event" with results that continue to this day.
- B. The primary "T"heological issue is "the absolute separation between the methodologies of Grace and Works" because of the natures of "Justice" and "Grace".
- 1. "Justice", by its very definition, demands that actions taken be "accountable".
- 2. "Grace", by its very definition, cannot be coerced and does not have to be "just" (as long as it does not leave "Justice" unfulfilled). Grace does not "have" to be exercised, nor does Grace "have" to restrict itself to giving only what "Law" says is due. Grace's "fetters" only exist in the love of its possessor.
- C. The primary problem issue for men is the appearance of "arbitrary favoritism" that provides "some" men with eternal glory and consigns "most" men to eternal destruction.
- 1. Be aware: "some" men are going to inherit eternal life and "most" men are going into eternal judgment. This is immutable fact, declared throughout the Scriptures without apology (but this is not to say without explanation). At issue is not whether this is true, but whether those who "fit" into this fact can come up with an explanation that "allows" God to be the Author of this immutable fact while yet maintaining the legitimacy of the worship of Him by His creation.
- 2. Notably, the "most" group rebel in hot anger at such a scenario and even those within the "some" group follow in their hostility toward God
- 3. Also, notably, all who react in hostility appear to take some solace from the notion that if the playing ground were level and all were universally given the same opportunity to determine their own eternal destiny, they could "agree" with the immutable fact with "worship". In other words, if the destinies of men were determined by their own "free will", those who properly "chose" would be "legitimately" given eternal life and those who "chose against" would be "legitimately" given eternal condemnation. Thus, the "hot anger", say they, would be "cooled" if God were to set things up so that men could make the decisions that result in blessedness. Thus, if the "hot anger" continued, it wouldn't be "God's fault" because He gave all men their "choice" in equal manner.
- 4. However, also note that this would not actually do anything about getting rid of "man's hot anger against his God" (a totally untenable condition wherein "creature" has justifiable reason for "hot anger" against "Creator"). It would simply give "some" a reason to "justify God" for what they consider to be "just". After all, if a man chooses eternal death, whose "fault" is it if that is what he obtains? Those whose "hot anger" remained would "justify themselves" for being the creatures of a Creator who rested their destinies on their own shoulders. In other words, there is no getting rid of the "hot anger" of fallen creatures.
- 5. Thus, the "bottom line" is this question: on what basis is it ever legitimate for a creature to be hostile toward his Creator? Or, is "hot anger against God" by creatures ever legitimate? Is the "love" that produces "hot anger" within the hearts of creatures really "love" at all?
- a. Any attempt to "justify" a "creature" in his/her "hostility" toward The Creator is a fool's errand.
- 1) How can a creature of finite knowledge "judge" The Creator Who is omniscient?
- 2) How can a creature of indisputable "self-interest" bring a condemnation against The Creator for His "morality"?
- a) How can a creature who refuses to be a "total sacrifice" for the best interests of another, claim to be "more loving" than The Creator Who not only provided such a sacrifice, but validated it by resurrection from the dead?
- b) How can an impatient, victim-creature render judgment against The Creator Who has indisputably exercised enormous restraint in His dealings with His enemies? Would a creature of great hostility toward his/her enemy restrain himself or herself if he/she had the ability to put those enemies under his/her scathing wrath? The sole example in the history of man of such "restraint" is found in The Creator Who daily endures the hostility of His enemies, not because He cannot bring them to account, but because He is allowing them to receive "good things in their lifetime on this earth" (Luke 16:25).
- 3) Any attempt by a creature to bring The Creator into the dock of human judgment is declaring by that attempt that he/she demands that "Law" (which is the only basis for judgment) govern this universe which he/she did not create. By this demand, he/she puts his/her relationship with God under "Law" and is, by that, condemned because, as all creatures admit in their fleeting, sane, moments that "nobody is perfect".
- b. Thus, for "imperfection" to set itself up as "judge" over The Creator is a fool's errand. On what basis does anyone who has to admit to having done imperfect things set himself, or herself, as "judge" over God?