263

CTJ 44 (2009): 263–287

Destined to Disobey? Isaiah 6:10 in John 12:37–41

Donald E. Hartley

The concepts of divine hardening and fattening are difficult doctrines. Wherever Scripture broaches either topic, they may be appropriately classed as “hard sayings.” Two streams exist in both testaments, namely, Pharaonic hardening (Ex. 4–14) and Isaianic fattening (Isa. 6:9–10). The Isaianic motif is expressed in explicit and implicit texts and at crucial junc-tures in the Gospels, Acts, and epistolary literature.1 While it is generally assumed that both the Pharaonic and Isaianic citations and allusions are designed to account for unbelief, there is inconsistency in recognizing that the former connects unbelief to the will and the latter to the cognition.2 Herein lies the essential (but not only) rationale for distinguishing the two streams.3

This article will examine one such use of the Isaianic motif as recorded

1 F. F. Bruce, Hard Sayings of Jesus, ed. Michael Green, The Jesus Library (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1983), 99–103. Texts include Matt. 13:13, 14–15; Mark 4:10–12; 6:52; 8:17–18; Luke 8:9–10; John 9:39; 12:37–40; Acts 28:23–28; Rom. 11:7–8; 15:21 (cf. 3:11); 2 Cor. 3:14–4:4; Eph. 4:18.

2 Webster defines fat as “exhibiting the qualities of a fat animal; coarse; heavy; gross; dull; stupid.” Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, s.v. “fat.”

3 The lexical difference also signifies different streams: Isaianic fattening (cognitive) uses the terms Nm# “to make fat” (Isa. 6:10), paxu &nw “to make thick, dull” (Isa. 6:10 LXX; Matt. 13:15; Acts 28:27), Symmachus reads e0lipa&nqh from lipai /nw, “to anoint, make fat,” #p+ “to make stupid” (Tg. Isa. 6:10), yBi(at) “to make thick” (Isa. 6:10 Peshitta), pw &rwsij “hard-ness” (Mark 3:5; Rom. 11:25; Eph. 4:18), and pwro &w “to harden” (Mark 6:52; 8:17; John 12:40; Rom. 11:7; 2 Cor. 3:14 [4:4]). Pharaonic hardening (volition) uses terms such as qzx “to be strong” (Ex. 4:21; 7:13, 22; 8:19; 9:12, 35; 10:20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8, 17), h#q “to be hard” (Ex. 7:3; 13:15) usually rendered in the LXX by the sklhr stem, and dbk “to be heavy” (Ex. 7:14; 8:15, 32; 9:7, 34; 10:1). For examples of the sklhr stem in the NT bearing out the volitional sense in terms of rebellion see Matt. 19:8; 25:24; Mark 10:5; 16:14; John 6:60; Acts 7:51; 19:9; 26:14; Rom. 2:5; 9:18; Heb. 3:8, 13, 15; 4:7; James 3:4; Jude 1:15. It is important to distinguish which background (hardening or fattening) lies behind any given NT passage under consideration. The lexical clue is one significant indicator of this. For the sake of con-sistency, all terms related to Pharaonic hardening will be labeled hardening while those whose background is Isaianic fattening will be labeled fattening.

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

264

in John 12:37–41. A detailed examination of Isaiah 6:9–10 will not be undertaken.4 The purpose of the inquiry here is threefold: First, on what basis is Isaianic fattening in John performed? Is it judicial or nonjudicial? If judicial, is it punitive or nonpunitive? Second, what is the nature (in terms of mode) of this divine act? Is fattening something done to the person or is it an act of God that perpetuates a human state? Is the divine act one of depletion (taking away an ability), deposition (adding something that offsets understanding), or deprivation (an act that perpetuates a condition)?5 I will refer to the first two views as transformative and the latter view as nontransfor-mative. Third, what are the theological ramifications when it comes to the demand for obedience to the gospel?6

Competing Positions on Divine Hardening and Fattening

John 12:37–41 is strategically located at the end of Jesus’ public ministry and the beginning of his final discourse to his disciples.7 After the prologue, John 12:37–50 “forms the close of the second part of the Gospel.”8 It falls into two segments where verses 37–43 represent the evangelists speaking while verses 44–50 give the salient points of Jesus’ preaching.9 The function of the former is to account for unbelief despite

4 For an in-depth examination, see Donald E. Hartley, The Wisdom Background and Parabolic Implications of Isaiah 6:9–10 in the Synoptics, ed. Hemchand Gossai, Studies in Biblical Literature (New York: Lang, 2006). This book is based on “The Congenitally Hard-Hearted: Key to Understanding the Assertion and Use of Isaiah 6:9–10 in the Synoptic Gospels” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2005).

5 Because I have not found anyone holding to the deposition view, I will limit myself to either the depletion (transformative) view or the deprivation (nontransformative) view.

6 The demand for obedience occurs throughout John (8:51–52, 55; 12:47; 14:15, 21, 23–24; 15:10, 20; 17:6).

7 Rodney A. Whitacre, John, IVP New Testament Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 320; George R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC (Waco: Word, 1987), 215. For an excellent summary of John 1–12 and chart see Gary M. Burge, Interpreting the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 76–79.

8 Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on John’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1978), 791; Herman N. Ridderbos, The Gospel according to John: A Theological Commentary, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 442–43. For alternative divisions and genre see R. Alan Culpepper, “The Plot of John’s Story of Jesus,” Interpretation 49 (1995): 347–58. This passage (12:37–50) contains two conclusions (vv. 37–43, 44–50) to John 2:13–11:54 (Charles H. Talbert, Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles, Reading the New Testament Series [New York: Crossroad, 1992], 179–80). “Zusammen mit den Versen 44–50 bildet der Abschnitt 12,37–43 den Abschluß der öffentlichen Wirksamkeit Jesu” (Wolfgang Kraus, “Johannes und das Alte Testament: Überlegungen zum Umgang mit der Schrift im Johannesevangelium im Horizont Biblischer Theologie,” Zeitschrift für die neutes-tamentliche Wissenschaft 88 [1997]: 8).

9 C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 379.

265

DESTINED TO DISOBEY

the signs. References to Isaiah (53:1, 6:10) within these verses are “a theological analysis which tries to understand Jewish unbelief in scriptural terms.”10 Some scholars find the key to its function linked to other texts both inside (1:11–12; 3:16–21, 31–36; 20:30–31; 21:23–2511 and outside of John, especially Romans 9–11.12 Others are unhesitant to evoke predestinarian elements.13 Under this rubric, one may argue that Isaianic fattening addresses the dark side of predestination, namely, the predetermination of God to pass over the nonelect (doctrine of preterition) and thereby perpetuate their inability to salvifically understand the gospel.14 This would involve God in an indirect or non-act upon man. This view goes as far back as Augustine who said, “For God thus blinds and hardens, simply by letting alone and withdrawing His aid: and God can do this by a judgment that is hidden, although not by one that is unrighteous” (Tractates on John 52.6).15 This will be labeled the deprivation view and involves simply a divine perpetuation of unbelief (thus nontransformational). God indeed does

10 Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to John, vol. 2. Commentary on Chapters 5–12, ed. Sarafin de Ausejo, et al., trans. Cecily Hastings, et al., HNT (New York: Crossroad, 1982) 411; Colin G. Kruse, The Gospel according to John: An Introduction and Commentary, ed. Leon Morris, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 274; Craig A. Evans, “Obduracy and the Lord’s Servant: Some Observations on the Use of the Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel,” in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee, ed. Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 223.

11 Brook Foss Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 132; Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 452; Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to John, 412; Kraus, “Johannes und das Alte Testament,” 8, 11n64.

12 Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 132; Godet, Commentary on John’s Gospel, 791; Craig A. Evans, “The Function of Isaiah 6:9–10 in Mark and John,” Novum Testamentum 24 (1982): 132; Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 602; D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 447; C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 430; Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, vol. 2, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1966), 484.

13 Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 429; Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 8: Modern Christianity: The Swiss Reformation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952–53), §114; J. Ramsey Michaels, John, NIBCNT (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1989), 232; Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 391, says it is “unambiguously predestinarian yet compatibilist, including elements of human responsibility as well.”; Gordon J. Keddie, A Study Commentary on John, vol. 1, John 1–12 (Auburn, Mass.: Evangelical, 2001), 482–83; Kraus, “Johannes und das Alte Testament,” 11.

14 Dunn refers to it as “the dark side of election” (James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 522). Preterition refers to “the passing over of those not chosen to salvation” (Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology [Wheaton: Victor, 1986], 537).

15 See also Augustine Praed. 35; Cons. 1.31. This withdrawing is best understood as “with-holding.” Thus, it is not a subtraction (depletion) but a nonaddition (deprivation).

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

266

something but not to the object.

Others prefer to think of Pharaonic hardening or Isaianic fattening both here and elsewhere as either the direct act of God or the result of a natural digression from an unwillingness to believe to the inability of faith altogether. These second (direct act of God) and third (a natural digression) views are found in Origen who said, “For God gave to no one a stony heart by a creative act; but each individual’s heart is said to become stony through his own wickedness and disobedience” (Princ. 3.1.14; cf. 3.1.11).16 While Origen adopts the final position, here labeled the psycho-logical view—designated by his words becomes stony through his own wickedness and disobedience, he rejects the direct transformational view—signaled by his words creative act. Thus, three perspectives of divine hardening and fat-tening appear under two general headings: the nontransformational (and nonpunitive) view of (1) deprivation versus the transformational (and puni-tive) view by depletion either (2) directly or (3) psychologically. Most scholars today hold to direct hardening and fattening, many to the psychological perspective, and fewer still to the deprivation view.

A modern example of the transformative viewpoint and one that seems to combine views two and three is Günter Röhser’s argument. He suggests a two-phased pattern for unbelief in John 1–12, namely, a simple (“ein-fachen”) unbelief occurring prior to or in the midst of signs and a more qualified (“qualifizierten”) type subsequent to signs and accompanied by a divinely imposed inability to believe.17 He also suggests that unbelief is a form of self-hardening (“selbst verstockt”) and leads to the more nuanced or qualified unbelief accompanied by a divine imposed inability (“von Gott verhangte Unfähigkeit zu glauben”).18 An underlying presupposition is that while exhibiting the simple stage of unbelief, agents maintain the ability to believe but—depending on their irresponsible use of free will—may be dispossessed of this asset.19 This also requires that the divine acts of blinding and fattening (12:40) be construed as transformative, involving

16 Origen rejects one transformative (and punitive) view (direct) for another (psychologi-cal). For a modern articulation of the psychological view, see Frank E. Eakin, “Spiritual Obduracy and Parable Purpose,” in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring, ed. James M. Efird (Durham: Duke University Press, 1972), 87–107; Morris, The Gospel according to John, 604n101 records Plummer as holding this view.

17 Günter Röhser, Prädestination und Verstockung: Untersuchungen zur frühjüdischen, pau-linischen und johanneischen Theologie, ed. Klaus Berger, et al., Texte und Arbeiten zum neutesta-mentlichen Zeitlalter (Tübingen: Francke, 1994), 238–39.

18 “Die von Gott verhangte Unfähigkeit zu glauben (Joh 12,39) folgt im JohEv dem fak-tischen Unglauben … als die ihm gebührende Antwort” (Röhser, Prädestination und Verstockung, 238).

19 “Trotz so großer Zeichen ‘glaubten sie nicht,’ weil sie sich selbst so sehr verstockt hatten und dann auch von Gott verstockt worden waren (und nicht mehr glauben konnten)” (Röhser, Prädestination und Verstockung, 239).

267

DESTINED TO DISOBEY

the alteration of man from the state of being able but unwilling to believe to the state of being unable to believe altogether. Stage-two unbelief, therefore, is the punitive effect of a stubborn unbelief.

A second modern example is that proposed by Bruce Hollenbach.20 He advocates the irony view.21 Under this scheme, “the notion that God pur-poses that they not see, hear, understand, turn, and be healed approaches absurdity…. Such absurdity is the only clue to the presence of the figure of speech called irony.”22 Certain usages of Isaiah 6:9–10, he argues, are nonironic (the LXX, Matt. 13:15; Acts 28:27) while the more difficult texts are deemed ironic (Mark 4:12; John 12:40). This view is hampered by the subjectivity of determining irony and begs the question on several levels.23 He further concedes that no commentary he is aware of has detected the irony in John 12 that he regards as self-evident.24 In the end, he opts for a retribu-tive and transformative understanding of Isaianic fattening as a depletion of comprehension.25

A third modern example may be labeled the effect-purpose idiom view set forth by Edmund F. Sutcliffe and C. F. D. Moule.26 The crux of this view is that purposive speech is actually preceded by its effect that is created by human agents. Applied to Isaiah 6:9–10, Sutcliffe argues that it means, “the failure of the mission was foreseen, and the outcome to which it would lead is spoken of as purpose.”27 Although Moule applies this to Mark 4:12 in

20 Bruce Hollenbach, “Lest They Should Turn and Be Forgiven: Irony,” The Bible Translator 34 (1983): 312–21.

21 The irony view is not limited to John. See Robert B. Chisholm, “Divine Hardening in The Old Testament,” Biblioteca Sacra 153 (1996): 410–32; Joseph A. Alexander, The Gospel according to Matthew Explained (Lynchburg, Va.: James, 1979), 358; Ezra P. Gould, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Mark (New York: Scribner’s, 1913), 73. For an appraisal of this view see Hartley, Isaiah 6:9–10 in the Synoptics, 38–44.

22 Hollenbach, “Lest They Should Turn and Be Forgiven: Irony,” 313, emphasis added.

23 Here are some questions: Why is the passage absurd and what are the criteria for deter-mining absurdity? If absurdity is the only clue to irony, then how can one develop conditions for determining irony without begging the question? Why are certain usages of Isaiah 6:9–10 ironic and others are not?

24 Hollenbach, “Lest They Should Turn and Be Forgiven: Irony,” 319n8.

25 Ibid. 318.

26 Edmund F. Sutcliffe, “Effect as Purpose: A Study in Hebrew Thought Patterns,” Biblica 35 (1954): 320–27; C. F. D. Moule, “Mark v, 1–20 Yet Once More,” in Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black, ed. E. Earl Ellis and Max Wilcox (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1969) 95–113. See also Larry W. Hurtado, Mark, ed. W. Ward Gasque, NIBCNT (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989), 73–74, who combines prophetic irony, purpose-effect idiom, and the psychological views and Bruce, Hard Sayings of Jesus, 99, who combines effect-purpose idiom with the psychological view.

27 Sutcliffe, “Effect as Purpose,” 322.

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

268

particular, the same principle may apply to John 12:40. Interestingly, like Origen, Moule rejects a direct transformational view in favor of an indirect (or psychological) perspective.28 Thus, like the irony view of Hollenbach, the combination of the psychological and direct fattening view of Günter, the effect-purpose idiom also opts for an indirect (or psychological) view of divine fattening. In each case, transformation is assumed rather than proved.29

At the risk of oversimplification, these positions attempt to answer a key question: Is inability to believe punitive (via God or nature) for refusal to believe, or is disbelief due to a congenital inability to believe? One’s view of hardening in general or Isaianic fattening specifically, particularly in terms of the divine role, is determined in large part by the answer to this question.

Deposition

Transformative(punitive)

Non-Transformative(non-punitive)

Isaianic Fattening Paradigms

Psychological(view 3)

Direct(view 2)

Deprivation(view 1)

Depletion

A Key Relationship: Unbelief and Inability to Believe

Unbelief: The Ministerial Summation (John 12:37)

Because Isaiah 6:9–10 contrasts outer optic and acoustic phenomena with inner perception, the emphasis in John on “signs” or what is seen is significant.30 Indeed, the term for “so many” signs may indicate more than

28 He says the parables in Mark do not “positively harden” i.e., directly transform and that to read it as such “[is] a pitifully literal reading of Isaiah 6” (Moule, “Mark v, 1–20 Yet Once More,” 105). Earlier he calls this direct transformational view “pitiful literalism” (ibid., 99).

29 For the most recent example of a transformative view see Edward P. Meadors, Idolatry and the Hardening of the Heart: A Study in Biblical Theology (New York: T & T Clark, 2006).

30 That the ocular issue is highlighted is evidenced by the use of signs (shmei =a), the

269

DESTINED TO DISOBEY

the seven explicitly mentioned.31 The contrast is thus between undeni-able outward confirmation versus inward or noetic opacity. Verse 37 reads, “Although he had done so many signs before them, they were not believing in him.”32 The question is; Why not? Did the Jews not promise to believe if they saw signs (John 4:48; 6:30)?33 The expected answer to the ques-tion: Why not? should fall within either the volitional or cognitive cate-gory—either because they were unwilling to believe what the signs pointed toward, did not understand what the signs signified, or both. Underlying either element may, without violence to either one, be an inability. In favor of the cognitive over the volitional element is that the contrast is between visible signs that validate Jesus’ message and noetic darkness evidenced in unbelief.34 Thus, even before the Isaianic text is summoned, the idea that

prepositional phrase before them (e 1mprosqen au )tw ~n) (v. 37), the fronting of tetu &flwken, and the mention of not see with their eyes (mh_ i1dwsin toi=j o)fqalmoi=j) (v. 40). On signs, see George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 309; Timothy J. Scannell, “Fulfillment of Johannine Signs: A Study of John 12:37–50” (Ph.D. diss., Fordham University, 1998), 67–72; Morris, The Gospel according to John, 603–4; Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1972), 437. On the prepositional phrase, see BDAG, 325; Wesley J. Perschbacher, New Testament Greek Syntax: An Illustrated Manual (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 230; Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 133; Godet, Commentary on John’s Gospel, 792. On the fronting of tetu&flwken see the discussion below.

31 Robert T. Fortna, The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel, SNTSMS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 199. The adjective may mean (1) “so many” (Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 133; J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, vol. 2 [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963], 449; Godet, Commentary on John’s Gospel, 791–92) or (2) “so great” (Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to John, 413; Morris, The Gospel according to John, 603). Usage slightly favors the former.

32 The verb e 0pi /steuon is probably an iterative (durative) imperfect suggesting a “lasting negative attitude of the people to Jesus” (Ridderbos, The Gospel according to John, 443). On a list of various groups in John in terms of status see Jerome H. Neyrey, The Gospel of John, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 220–21. Verse 37 may typify John 1:10–11 (Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 380), and, clearly, John 2:23–25 anticipates it (Evans, “Obduracy and the Lord’s Servant,” 227). Obviously the unbe-lieving they includes primarily Pharisees and those under their influence (12:42). Despite the influence of the Pharisees, many rulers believed (12:43).

33 On a link to signs and genuine faith, see John 1:50; 2:11, 22; 10:42; 11:15, 45. On the link of signs to inauthentic faith, see John 2:23–24; 4:48; 6:30, 36, 64; 7:31; 8:30–31. Then, there are those who just refuse to believe (John 3:12, 18, 36; 5:38, 44, 46–47; 6:36, 64; 7:5, 48; 8:45–46; 9:18; 10:25–26; 12:37). On the identity and meaning of the Jews, see Gérald Caron, “Exploring a Religious Dimension: The Johannine Jesus” Studies in Religion 24 (1995): 159–71.

34 This is noted by the concessive idea in the participle pepoihko &toj acting as a genitive absolute (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed. [Nashville: Broadman, 1934], 1129; Perschbacher, Greek Syntax, 402; Whitacre, John, 320; Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood, Studies in Biblical Greek [New York: Lang, 2003], 395; Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to John, 412).

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

270

they see and do not perceive is already implied. The question of why this is so continues.

One of the answers to this question lies in the text’s connection to Deuteronomy 29:3[4]. Not a few commentators recognize the conceptual links, namely, the presence of signs followed by the lack of perception.35 The deuteronomic text asserts that unless God gives eyes to see and ears to hear, then acoustic (as primarily in the synoptics) or optic phenomena (as primarily in John) will remain meaningless.36 In synoptic (or Markan) terms, John’s signs come in parables to those who are on the outside (Mark 4:12).37 Like Deuteronomy, the signs in John are followed by the inabil-ity to properly recognize or see through them to their salvific purpose or consummation. More than this, Deuteronomy 29:3[4] lying behind Isaiah 6:9–10, highlights wisdom elements and confirms the cognitive compo-nent of the heart. Thus, the inability to believe in the face of signs is not rooted in unwillingness—else Pharaonic hardening would be more appro-priate—but rather to the absence of salvific wisdom. If we may borrow from Edwards—the will is the mind choosing—then the will (volition) always follows the mind (cognition) and what seems best to it at the moment of choice.38 If the mind lacks understanding and perception that leads to sal-vation, then it will always choose to believe what seems best to it. Absence of this wisdom may be deemed an inability whereas the perpetuation of its absence may be regarded as part of the divine act. Finally, the conceptual link to Deuteronomy 29:3[4] and its restatement in Isaiah 6:9–10 (and pars.) help to establish that the divine act throughout is nontransforma-tive in nature. That text explicitly affirms, “the Lord has not given to you a heart to know or eyes to see or ears to hear”—a deprivational view. It does not say, “The Lord has taken away from you a heart to know or eyes to see or ears to hear.” The restatement of the divine act in Isaiah 6:10, “Fatten the heart,” may be understood in this light as deprivational as well, or in grammatical categories, the Hiphil Nm#h may be construed as constative as opposed to ingressive, that is, “cause the heart to be or remain fat” rather

35 Craig A. Evans, To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6:9–10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation, JSOTSup (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989), 134–35; Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 430; Brown, The Gospel according to John, 485; Talbert, Reading John, 180.

36 It is simplistic to say that the synoptics are strictly concerned with acoustic issues. It can be demonstrated that they are equally focused on the misperception of both Jesus’ teachings (parables and otherwise) and deeds.

37 Hartley, Isaiah 6:9–10 in the Synoptics, 258, 262–66. Here, it is argued that the phrase in parables is less a linguistic statement than it is a noetic assessment.

38 Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will. The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957), 144, 217, 222, 241, 328. For a summary, see Hartley, Isaiah 6:9–10 in the Synoptics, 85–89.

271

DESTINED TO DISOBEY

than “cause the heart to become fat.”39 This construal is in concert with later translational traditions of Isaiah 6:9–10 that assert that the heart is pres-ently fat.40

In summary, a partial answer for the cause of unbelief in John finds its roots in Deuteronomy 29:3[4], its restatement in Isaiah 6:9–10 (and pars.), and the nature of the divine action that underlies the fattening motif. It seems best to view the divine action of not giving as signifying a depriva-tional, nontransformational, or Augustinian understanding of the event. The question is whether John posits this same modus operandi.

Unbelief: The Theological Explanation (John 12: 38–40)

John 12:38–40 gives evidence of a general concern over unbelief and its specific cause or causes. The text establishes the purpose for unbelief (v. 38), issues a restatement of the inability to believe (v. 39), and then points to the cause of this inability (v. 40). Beyond these formal indicators lies ambiguity in terms of how to causally construe them in terms of unbelief and inability. Initially it may be stated that the logical structure of the pas-sage is far more significant for establishing the cause of unbelief rather than noting that the chronology of unbelief precedes the statement of the inability to believe. The key question is this: Does unbelief lead to inability to believe as a divine punishment (viewed psychologically or otherwise), or does inabil-ity to believe—perpetuated by a divine act but not precipitated by human actions—account for unbelief?

John preempts Isaiah 6:9–10 by citing Isaiah 53:1, but why this passage and what is the connection between it and Isaiah 6:9–10? Three prelimi-nary reasons for citing Isaiah 53:1 may be posited. First, and most obvious, is that it states the case for unbelief.41 Second, it reveals somewhat the nature of the divine act not in terms of the signs themselves but rather the activity or lack thereof in the heart. It is not just the work of the servant for them but the act of God in them that is relevant to the saving act. Third, it represents a (and perhaps the) reversal text of Isaiah 6:9–10 by way of the work of the suffering servant. If the construal above concerning the divine action involved in fattening is correct, then Isaiah 53:1 represents not only how Isaianic fattening is done away with but also the means by which it is

39 Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 690. See also Allen P. Ross, Introducing Biblical Hebrew (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), §30.3, who questions the ingressive sense here. In a personal correspondence, Waltke says, “I do not think the grammar can decide the issue of whether it is ingressive or constative. Stative verbs tend to go either way” (Bruce K. Waltke, Re: “Fatten” in Isaiah 6:10: A Question on the Hiphil [AOL Correspondence] (America Online, 2004 [cited June 29, 2004]).

40 Hartley, Isaiah 6:9–10 in the Synoptics, 200–233.

41 Evans, “Obduracy and the Lord’s Servant,” 230–31, where he includes other reasons as well; Kraus, “Johannes und das Alte Testament,” 9.

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

272

perpetuated. Hence, by withholding the “arm of the Lord” in Isaiah 53:1, it makes the ability to salvifically perceive impossible or the assertions of Isaiah 6:10 the result. If, however, the arm of the Lord is restricted to those who have seen the signs, then the answer to its question is obvious but relatively meaningless.42

Verse 38 sets forth the purpose of the unbelief of verse 37 as “in order that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled.”43 Borchert points out that non-Calvinist interpreters, like Brown and Beasley-Murray, also hold to the purposive sense to the i3na clause.44 Barrett notes that the nonpurposive sense is elsewhere attested in John (1:27; 17:3) but that it is impossible here as shown by verse 39. “It can hardly be questioned that John meant that the hardening of Israel was intended by God,”45 but it is critical to point out that the basis of this act is not mentioned. Thus, it would be hasty to con-clude that if God’s fattening (Barrett’s “hardening”) is purposive that it must therefore be punitive, that is, based on human acts. The purpose is linked to Isaiah 53:1, but it does not directly address its cause until 12:39–40. These verses and the syntactical relationships indicate that the cause is linked to the divine action unsolicited by human activity. To infer from the order of John that unbelief (v. 37) led to inability to believe (v. 39) is to misconstrue both the causal indicators in the text as well as to beg the question with regard to the basis of the divine act. At the least, and in some way, the quota-tion of Isaiah 53:1 partly accounts for the unbelief of Israel and fulfills the divine purpose.

Both here (v. 38; Isa. 53:1) and subsequent verses (vv. 39–40; Isa. 6:10) explain in multiple ways the cause or causes accounting for unbelief rather than the inability to believe. Unbelief appears to have two causes: God’s deprivation of his arm in drawing (or failing to draw) some to himself (v. 38) and the innate inability of humanity to exercise saving faith (v. 39). This failing to exercise the arm in combination with man’s inability to believe is how God blinds and fattens (v. 40). Thus, God’s blinding and fatten-ing include the withholding of his arm and thereby the perpetuation of the human

42 “It is those who do ‘see signs’ and yet do not believe who are reproached, xii. 37” (C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963], 192).

43 Those favoring a purpose i3na clause include Bernard, Gospel according to John, 449; Morris, The Gospel according to John, 603n100; Godet, Commentary on John’s Gospel, 792; Carson, The Gospel according to John, 447; Gerald L. Borchert, John 12–21, NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002), 64; Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 430–31. Or, this may represent a blending or indistinguishing of final and consequent nuances or purpose-result (Lindars, The Gospel of John, 437).

44 Borchert, John 12–21, 64–65; Brown, The Gospel according to John, 483 notes.

45 Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 430–31. Like many commentators, Barret uses hardening for Isaianic fattening.

273

DESTINED TO DISOBEY

condition. Contrary to Lindars, Isaiah 53:1 may explain more than just the fact of unbelief and Isaiah 6:10 the reason for unbelief.46 The nature of the quotation may suggest some sort of typological or analogical fulfillment.47 That John uses a fulfillment clause and adds a redundant statement “that which he said” (o$n ei]pen) adds to the performative posture of the utter-ance or utterances.48 This may indicate that whenever and wherever unbe-lief occurs, the same human components and divine modus operandi are in operation and that unbelief is rooted in inability not vice versa.49

The rhetorical question offered by Isaiah 53:1 expresses a lament con-cerning the unbelief of verse 37 as well as hints at the divine act that deter-mines that condition. “The word of Isaiah” also serves to link Isaiah 53:1 and 6:10 together as one statement.50 If this phrase joins the two passages, then both purpose (v. 38) and cause (v. 40) are not only connected syntac-tically in John, where cause is subordinate to the purpose, but also unites them as a single prophetic utterance. Thus, although the root of unbelief is an inability, this inability is perpetuated because divine enablement is withheld.

46 Lindars, The Gospel of John, 437; Morris, The Gospel according to John, 603.

47 John Perumbalath, “Biblical Hermeneutics: Some Insights from the Use of Scripture in the Fourth Gospel,” IJT 36 (1994): 47, 49. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 133; Whitacre, John, 320; Ridderbos, The Gospel according to John, 444. Carson says, “It may sim-ply be listed as supporting evidence of the kind of judicial hardening that makes the proph-ecy of Isaiah 53:1 (John 12:38) understandable” (Carson, The Gospel according to John, 449). Kraus says, “Atl. Schriftworte werden erst jetzt in ihrem Sinn verstehbar und erreichen erst durch das Christusgeschehen ihr eigentliches Sinnpotential” (Kraus, “Johannes und das Alte Testament,” 10).

48 Its superfluity is recognized by p75. It omits or simply lacks the phrase. If this statement is performative and in collocation with a fulfillment formula, then it may argue for a causative connection where fulfillment is logically dependent on “that which is said.” Fulfillment, then, occurs because of that which is said not vice versa. Support can be found in John (1:15; 2:22; 4:29, 53; 7:36; 12:38; 14:26; 18:9, 21, 32) where in every case the phrase refers to an anaphoric oracular utterance that is prophetically fulfilled. The phrase refers, then, to an anaphoric oracu-lar utterance with causative force. It is not fait accompli; thus, not a commissive performative statement but rather a causative performative tantamount to an irrevocable verbum. See G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 7–36; J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, 2d ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975).

49 Likewise Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 380.

50 This phrase (i3na o( lo&goj) is used only thrice in the NT to refer to specific predictions or previous statements (John 12:38; 18:32; 2 Thess. 3:1). See Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to John, 413. A similar expression in John is i3na o( grafh& plhro&w (13:18; 17:12; 19:24, 36) and is semantically similar but may suggest a different kind of fulfillment being employed.

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

274

Isaiah 53:1 (John 12:38)51

The first Isaianic quotation is a two-part question dealing with the mes-sage (th|~ a)koh|~ h(mw~n)52 and the power of God (o( braxi/wn kuri/ou)53 on one end and implying the ears and the eyes (or heart) of man on the other. Most prefer to identify the reference to the arm of the Lord with the signs and hence the eyes.54 Others see signs as referring to Jesus’ actions (Barrett), his preaching as a divine act (Bultmann), how faith and the divine activity are connected (Morris), the divine power especially as dem-onstrated in the resurrection (Godet), or God’s powerful action through signs (Beasley-Murray, Carson).55 If the divine activity is heard and seen in its effects, then it may not be excluded from the internal work of the heart that bears its own signs (cf. John 3:8). Thus, the arm of the Lord is responsible for not only producing the outward signs but also the inward cognitive and volitional signs of faith.

The difference of interpretation concerning the referen the arm of the Lord is between hearing (ears) and seeing (eyes) versus hearing (ears) and not perceiving (heart). The former view may summarize Isaiah 6:9—listening without understanding and looking without perceving—before moving directly to Isaiah 6:10.56 In either case, the power of God would include more than simply the external signs but also address the heart matter. The answer to the two-part question suggests few if any either believed the

51 It is generally assumed that John’s quotation follows the LXX. See Bernard, Gospel accord-ing to John, 450; Godet, Commentary on John’s Gospel, 793; Kruse, The Gospel according to John 274; Kraus, “Johannes und das Alte Testament,” 9. Other than the addition of ku&rie, the Greek follows the Hebrew text with accuracy as well (Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 431; Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to John, 413).

52 The message deals with the discourse of Jesus (Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 431; Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 453n1; Beasley-Murray, John, 216; Carson, The Gospel according to John, 448). The our in our report “may mean either ‘the message which came from us, which we delivered,’ or ‘the message which came to us which we received’ ” (Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 134). It is most likely the former view where the genitive is construed as subjective (as opposed to objective).

53 The phrase is a military metaphor and used to symbolically describe God’s power. See J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 14; Peter D. Quinn-Miscall, Reading Isaiah: Poetry and Vision (Louisville: Westminster, 2001), 137n13; Whitacre, John, 321. Cf. Luke 1:51; Acts 13:17.

54 Bernard, Gospel according to John, 450; Brown, The Gospel according to John, 485; Köstenberger, John, 391; Keddie, A Study Commentary on John, 482. Westcott refers to the message as appeal-ing inwardly while the signs appeal outwardly (Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 133).

55 Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 431; Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 453n1; Morris, The Gospel according to John, 603; Godet, Commentary on John’s Gospel, 792; Beasley-Murray, John, 216; Carson, The Gospel according to John, 447.

56 A similar view is held by Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 431.

275

DESTINED TO DISOBEY

message or experienced the power of God as demonstrated by the signs.57 The few who did believe, did so at the discretion of God.58 This discretion is the subject of the next Isaianic quotation.

Inability Theme (John 12:39)

Most commentators will acknowledge an inability in the phrase ou)k h)du&nanto pisteu&ein.59 The verse reads, “For this reason they were unable to believe because Isaiah again said” (Isa. 6:10; John 12:40). The question is whether this inability is an explanation of an already existing phenom-enon or something de novo, precipitated in some way by human action or inaction. In the latter view, inability may be either a natural effect of unbelief, or it may involve God more directly in applying retribution. This retributive idea is what many refer to as judicial hardening and fat-tening and is normally equated with a punitive notion. A possible solu-tion lies in a phrase analysis, a causal analysis, and a survey of inability in John up to this point.

The first reply lies within the precise causative relationship between the two phrases dia_ tou~to (“for this reason”) and o#ti (“because” or “namely”) in terms of unbelief. Is the antecedent of dia_ tou~to anaphoric (refer-ring back to unbelief), kataphoric (pointing forward to hardening), or in some way both? Second, should o#ti be construed as appositional, modify-ing the previous tou~to or causal, modifying h)du&nanto pisteu&ein? Either explanation for o#ti is sufficient and results in the same sense, but the causal use appears more likely. dia_ tou~to is universally regarded as causal, “for this reason.”60 At stake is whether this reason has already occurred

57 Godet, Commentary on John’s Gospel, 792.

58 “Let it be held as a fixed principle, that God enlightens to salvation, and that by a pecu-liar gift, those whom He has freely chosen; and that all the reprobate are deprived of the light of life, whether God withholds his word from them, or keeps their eyes and ears closed, that they do not hear or see” (John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, trans. William Pringle, vol. 2 [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999], 107; William Bruce, Commentary on the Gospel according to John [London: James Speirs, 1891], 302).

59 For a brief summary of Jewish views on free will, see Talbert, Reading John, 181–82. For a detailed analysis, see D. A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension, 2d ed. (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2002), 41–121. In short, the Sadducees dis-believe fate or divine causation altogether (Josephus B.J. 2:164–65; A.J. 13:173; Sir. 15:12–17; Pss. Sol. 9:4). The Pharisees believe in the “power to the contrary” although fate cooperates in every action (Josephus B.J. 2:163; A.J. 13:172; m. Pirke Aboth 3.15). The Essenes believe in divine determinism in all human actions (Josephus A.J. 13:172) but alongside human responsibility (CD 2.7–8, 11, 13; 1QS 1.11; 5.1, 6, 8, 10, 21–22; 6.13–14; 9.17). Philo discusses the Essenes but not either the Pharisees or Sadducees (Philo Prob. 75, 91; Contempl. 1; Hypoth. 11:1–18). John is closest to the Essenes (or the DSS community).

60 C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2d ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 58; Max Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples, trans. Joseph Smith, Scripta Pontificii (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1963), §112; H. E. Dana

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

276

(unbelief leads to inability to believe) or is about to be explained (unbe-lief is caused by inability). In favor of the former, Westcott says the phrase “appears all but uniformly to a preceding fact or thought…. In many cases the reason indicated is developed in the clause which follows…. So it is here.”61 Other commentators favor the latter and focus exclusively on its kataphoric reference or deny its anaphoric reference altogether. Barrett says, “dia_ tou~to, as elsewhere in John, is taken up and explained by the o#ti clause.”62 Bernard says that this phrase “refers to what follows, not what precedes.”63 Lindars chides the RSV for punctuating it “as if this sen-tence refers back to the preceding quotation. In fact it refers forward.”64 Godet also criticizes Weiss saying, “It is in vain that Weiss tries to make the dia_ tou~to for this cause, also refer to the preceding idea, namely, that of the fact; it refers to the following o#ti and consequently to the cause of the fact.”65 An analysis of Johannine usage substantiates these latter commentators.

Based on the use of the phrase in John, it is evident that whenever the causal o#ti is in the context, it follows dia_ tou~to, and dia_ tou~to points solely to it. Six of the fifteen cases are in this category (5:16, 18; 8:47; 10:17; 12:18, 39). Of the remaining kataphoric references, two point to o#ti of indirect discourse (6:65; 16:15), two to o#ti recitative (9:23; 13:11), and one to an elliptical context (7:72). Of the anaphoric instances, one points to a i3na purpose clause (1:31) and three to a previous context (12:27; 15:19; 19:11). Thus, the pattern for the kataphoric reference is dia_ tou~to “for this reason” pointing to o#ti “because” or semantically reason-cause. In summary, dia_ tou~to is never used in John to refer back to either a context or any other clause whenever a causal o#ti is in the near vicinity. Thus, it is unlikely that the phrase in 12:39 is anaphoric in any sense. This observation supports the contention that the cause of unbe-lief is an inability, rather than the cause of the inability to believe being

and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1955), §215.

61 Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 134. The phrase normally refers back to the previ-ous argument (conceptual antecedent), but this is not always the case (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 333).

62 Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 431. Röhser summarizes, “wo aber überall ein Folgeverhältnis bezeichnet wird und der nachfolgende o#ti Satz inhaltlich den jeweils vor-deren Kontext wiederholt, wohingegen 12,39b.40 inhaltlich über das Vorhergehende hinaus-führen (Verstockungsgedanke!)” (Röhser, Prädestination und Verstockung, 238n181). He lists identical examples as given above.

63 Bernard, Gospel according to John, 450.

64 Lindars, The Gospel of John, 438.

65 Godet, Commentary on John’s Gospel, 793; Ridderbos, The Gospel according to John, 444n214.

277

DESTINED TO DISOBEY

persistent unbelief.66 Because dia_ tou~to points to the following o#ti clause and because the latter modifies h)du&nanto pisteu&ein, both clauses lend support to the notion that unbelief arises from an inability that is caused by the divine acts of blinding and fattening (12:40).

A second reply that argues against unbelief as the cause of inability is based on the cause-and-effect pattern of the phrases and clauses as they appear in verses 37–40. As a general rule, John moves from effect to cause not cause to effect. He does this on both a micro and a macro level. On a micro level, verse 37 begins with an effect (unbelief) and then a concession (in spite of signs). Verse 38 begins likewise with an effect (fulfilled Scripture) followed by its cause (“that which he said”) and an effect (not believing the report) followed by its cause (arm of the Lord). Verse 39 starts with an effect (inability to believe) followed by its cause (“because Isaiah again said”). Verse 40 undergoes this very Johannine tendency as seen in the alteration of the first couplet in the Isaianic quotation. It begins with the effect (blinding) followed by its cause (fattening). The rest of the Isaianic quotation is retained, which follows the opposite pattern of cause and effect.67 On a macro level, this effect to cause pattern continues. Verse 37 is the effect (unbelief in spite of signs) whereas verse 38 is the cause (fulfillment of Scripture). The same pattern is evident in verses 39–40. Finally, verses 37–38 may be viewed as the effect and verses 39–40 the cause. Thus, the Johannine pattern is effect to cause not cause to effect, and this argues against viewing unbelief as the cause of the inability to believe.

If both the phrase and causal analysis tend to rule out unbelief as the cause for the inability to believe, then it may still be argued that something earlier has rendered them unable to believe (e.g., Röhser). The third reply to this question is to show that inability in 12:39 is not de novo. If unbelief is a persistent problem as well as an inability in John and if true faith is shown to require divine enablement, then the divine acts of blinding and fatten-ing may be conclusively shown to be nonpunitive and nontransformative in nature. Of interest are the places where the inability of man is stressed in terms related to faith and/or themes germane to Isaiah 6:9–10.68

66 Even if it were granted that the reference is anaphoric, there is no reason to assume that it points to unbelief necessarily. It may well be argued that it points back to the withholding of God’s arm. Given the usage of the phrase, however, none of this speculation is warranted.

67 This cause-and-effect pattern is evident on a small scale where not seeing with the eyes is the cause and not perceiving is the effect (v. 40b) and turning is the cause while healing is the effect (v. 40c). Slightly expanded, the first couplet (v. 40b) is the cause while the second couplet (v. 40c) is the effect. Taking all of v. 40, the first part dealing with blinding and hardening is the cause (v. 40a) while the second (i3na clause) dealing with noetic opacity and volitional obduracy is the effect (v. 40bc).

68 There are approximately thirty verses in John that address the issues of inability. See John 3:3–5, 11, 27; 5:19, 30, 41, 43; 6:44, 65; 7:7, 34, 36; 8:21–22, 43; 9:4, 33; 10:29, 35; 11:37; 12:39; 13:33, 36–37; 14:17; 15:4–5; 16:12.

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

278

The inability of faith that appears in John 12:39 is not new. Jesus indi-cated that without the new birth (regeneration) a man could neither “see” nor “enter” the kingdom of God (3:3–5). This inability to see leads to will-ful rejection of the divine testimony (3:11).69 Further, anything that one has is a result of divine gifting, for without this giving no one can receive anything (3:27; 6:65). Those who receive Jesus (1:12) do so because of this new birth (1:13). This inability of faith along with divine enablement or absence thereof is nowhere brought out more clearly and definitively than in John 6:44. This passage, like John 12, explains the underlying cause of unbelief (6:41–71). “No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.”70 Coming to Jesus in this gospel means exercising genuine faith (6:35). Thus, this text teaches three things: (1) human inability, namely, that no man can come (believe) apart from divine enablement; (2) divine necessity, that this divine enable-ment is an essential condition for faith; and (3) divine sufficiency, noted by the double use of au)to&n strongly implying that the “him” drawn (e9lku&sh|) is the same “him” raised (a)nasth&sw) without equivocation. Therefore, the drawing is best viewed as both a necessary and sufficient condition for faith.71 This would substantiate what is positively stated in John 6:37 where it is “everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me” and negatively in 6:65 where Jesus accounts again for unbelief by saying, “Because of this I told you that no one can come to me unless it has been given to him by the Father.” The it given is presumably the divine enablement.72 The lack of enablement (not drawing, not giving) as well as the act of enablement (drawing, giving) is entirely within the divine prerogative, and the effect of either divine act leaves man with the impossibility to the contrary. That man cannot believe apart from this enablement is every bit as true as the

69 The Nicodemus scene is designated a “failed anagnorisis” or a failure to rightly “perceive” (Culpepper, “The Plot of John’s Story of Jesus,” 354). Culpepper argues convincingly that this failure to rightly perceive operates throughout John.

70 The verb e3lkw occurs eight times in the NT (John 6:44; 12:32; 18:10; 21:6, 11; Acts 16:19; 21:30; James 2:6). The sense to the “drawing” or “dragging” is more accurately depicted as inevitable and effectual than irresistible. It can signify, “to drag or pull by physical force, often implying resistance” (L & N, §15.178). Here used with the sense of, “to draw a pers. in the direction of values for inner life, draw, attract” (BDAG, 318).

71 Painter’s statement that this text teaches “that the Father gives Jesus those who believe in him” goes counter to the explicit statement of this text (John Painter, “Eschatological Faith in the Gospel of John,” in Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to Leon Morris on His 60th Birthday, ed. Robert Banks [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974], 45). John 6:44 teaches that “drawing” to the Son precedes “coming” to (believing in) him.

72 There is a distinction in the “giving” of enablement to sinners (John 3:27; 6:65) and the “giving” of sinners to the Son (John 6:37, 39; 10:29; 17:6, 9, 11, 12, 24; 18:9). All those given to the Son are enabled to come.

279

DESTINED TO DISOBEY

notion that man cannot fail to believe with it.73

It is the contention here that not only is inability to believe in 12:37 not new but also that the perpetuation of this inability, specifically in terms of cognition, is what is meant by Isaianic fattening. Divine withholding of regeneration, or not drawing or not giving that thereby perpetuates blindness and lack of salvific wisdom, aptly describes how God blinds and fattens. This depriving of his salvific arm and his refusal to draw or give to them seems an eminently more textually justifiable modus operandi than the notion that God punitively takes away (depletes) the ability to see and believe. Ultimately, the divine basis for withholding the light of regeneration may be judicial (just), as Augustine asserts, but not puni-tive (based on human contingencies). In sum, the precise function of the causal phrases, the Johannine pattern of effect to cause, and the inability theme prevalent throughout John show that the inability of faith in 12:37 is not likely due to the unwillingness to believe or to human behavior. Rather, man is unable to believe by nature, and God is the ultimate cause of either overcoming or perpetuating this condition. These lines of evi-dence argue against a punitive and thus transformational scheme to fat-tening and blinding.

Isaiah 6:10 (John 12:40)

The divine role in this act leads John to cite from Isaiah again in a way that supports his argument thus far.74 “He has blinded their eyes and fattened their heart in order that they should not see with their eyes and understand with their heart and turn and I should heal them.” Beyond the difficulties of determining which underlying text of Isaiah 6:10 John has in mind or the exact subjects of the verbs, the two rather obvious observations are the fronting of the phrase “he has blinded their eyes” (tetu&flwken au)tw~n tou_j o)fqalmou_j) and the omission of reference to

73 In his interview with C. S. Lewis on May 7, 1963, Mr. Sherwood E. Wirt of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association commented that it sounded as if Lewis “came to a very definite point of decision.” Lewis answered, “Well, I would say that the most deeply compelled action is also the freest action. By that I mean, no part of you is outside the action. It is a paradox. I expressed it in Surprised by Joy by saying that I chose, yet it really did not seem possible to do the opposite” (C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970], 261). What sparked this was Lewis’ statement, “I was the object rather than the subject in this affair. I was decided upon” (ibid.).

74 John says “again” (pa&lin). Here it signifies that “there is a second idea, serving to explain the fact by completing the first” (Godet, Commentary on John’s Gospel, 793; BDAG, 752). Evans adds that these texts are connected through the exegetical principle of G#z#r~ v~w~ (“equiva-lence of expression”), united under one quotation formula, and linked by the themes of obdu-racy and exaltation/glorification (Evans, “Obduracy and the Lord’s Servant,” 230–31; idem, To See and Not Perceive, 133; Richard J. Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999], 47–51). Evans also contends that John 12:1–43 is a midrash on Isa. 52:7–53:12 (Evans, “Obduracy and the Lord’s Servant,” 232).

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

280

the ears.75 The emphases on signs and sight best account for both the omission of the ears or hearing and the fronting of blinding. Although Isaiah 6:9 is omitted, commentators point to John 9:39 as alluding to it.76 In that story, Jesus cures a man with congenital blindness (9:1, 20).77 Even when the disciples attempt to blame blindness on the man’s or his parents’ sin (9:2), Jesus avoids any punitive notion and points to the final cause being that “the acts of God may be revealed” (9:3; cf. 12:38).78 According to Westermann, the disciples were apparently still “locked into the doctrine of recompense.”79 These “acts” of God probably refer to both perpetuating blindness (as with the Pharisees) as well as reversing it (with the man).80 The lesson is that “all are born blind and need to see the light.”81 The man comes to believe only after he receives his sight.

75 The wording does not agree with the Masoretic text, the LXX, or the Targum Jonathan (Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to John, 414; Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 135; Whitacre, John, 321; MHT 4:68; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, vol. 2 [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003], 883). John probably had a variety of texts before him besides these (or those behind these) three texts including testimonia as the combination of kardi/a and pwro&w/pw&rwsij seem to suggest (Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 380; Evans, “The Function of Isaiah 6:9–10 in Mark and John,” 133–34; Perumbalath, “Biblical Hermeneutics,” 48, 51; Glenn Balfour, “The Jewishness of John’s Use of the Scriptures in John 6:31 and 7:37–38,” Tyndale Bulletin 46 [1995]: 357–80; Evans, To See and Not Perceive, 131). Barrett says John is nearest to the Hebrew but quoting loosely and adapting the material to suit his own purpose (Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 431). Omission of the ears is despite the mention of hearing in v. 38 (Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to John, 415; Carson, The Gospel according to John, 449). See Brown, The Gospel according to John, 486.

76 Lindars, The Gospel of John, 438; Evans, “The Function of Isaiah 6:9–10 in Mark and John,” 136–37; Beasley-Murray, John, 216; Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to John, 414; Carson, The Gospel according to John, 449; Gary M. Burge, John, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 348; Keener, The Gospel of John, 883. Evans says not only is Isaiah 6:10 paraphrased in John 12:40, but also that John 9:39b represents an allusion to Isaiah 6:9 (Evans, To See and Not Perceive, 129). John 12:39b also omits the hearing clause.

77 Interesting also is that Isaiah 6:9 in the Hebrew is ironic whereas Isaiah 6:10 is not. It is no surprise, then, that the story in John 9 that points to Isaiah 6:9 is also somewhat ironic. See J. E. Botha, “The Case of Johannine Irony Reopened I: The Problematic Current Situation,” Neotestamentica 25 (1991): 209–20; idem, “The Case of Johannine Irony Reopened II: Suggestions, Alternative Approaches,” Neotestamentica 25 (1991): 221–32.

78 See Frederic Louis Godet, “The Man Born Blind,” Searching Together 23 (1995): 12.

79 Claus Westermann, The Gospel of John: In the Light of the Old Testament, trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1998), 11.

80 “The allusion appears to mean that Jesus will give the truth (‘sight’) to the innocent (‘the blind’), but will withhold it (‘become blind’) from the guilty (‘those who see’)…. In this epi-sode, it is the man born blind who gains true (in)sight, while the Pharisees who have eyesight, but lack insight, are those who are truly blind” (Evans, To See and Not Perceive, 132).

81 Culpepper, “The Plot of John’s Story of Jesus,” 355. “The story of the blind man and the Pharisees, therefore, interprets what is involved in an anagnorisis and why some fail to

281

DESTINED TO DISOBEY

If John 12:40 is mindful of this story, then this would lend support to the notion of congenital spiritual blindness apart from either a punitive basis or transformational act here,82 and, if congenital, then the act of “blinding” in 12:40 (and fattening) is best understood as a form of divine deprivation.

The subject of the first two verbs “he has blinded,” “he has fattened,” and the last “I should heal,” must be briefly examined. The first two are third person while the final is first person. Besides this, the first two differ in tenses wherein the former is perfect and the latter aorist. Westcott’s observation that the change in tenses is remarkable is perhaps an overstatement.83 In any case, tense difference aids little in determin-ing subjects. Taking person as the key factor, most commentators posit identical subjects for the first two verbs but switch for the last. Three views have emerged in this regard. First, some argue that the order of subjects is Satan, Satan, and God.84 According to Carson, this interpre-tation wrongly equates the Johannine “Prince of this world” with the Pauline “God of this age” and is theologically driven to circumvent the doctrine of compatibilism.85 Schnackenburg adds, “Of the reference to the devil as an agent there is no sign at all.”86 Burge says, “Most scholars reject this view vigorously.”87 Second, others argue for Jesus, Jesus, and God.88 This interpretation would be unique in attributing to Jesus either blinding or fattening. Third, most commentators view the subjects as

recognize Jesus” (ibid.). On light-darkness in John see Étienne Trocmé, “Light and Darkness in the Fourth Gospel,” Didaskalia 6 (1995): 3–13.

82 See Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, 127–28, 161–62, who comes to similar conclusions. That John 9:39 is meant to be linked with John 12:40, see Evans, To See and Not Perceive, 129–31.

83 Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 135. Tetu&flwken may be an aorist perfect (Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2d ed., Biblical Languages [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994], 40), but Fanning disputes this in favor of an intensive (resul-tative) nuance (Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, ed. J. Barton, et al., Oxford Theological Monographs [Oxford: Clarendon, 1990], 300; cf. MHT 3:69–70). Textual variants involving pwro&w evidence an attempt to resolve the problem. See Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 238; Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “Die Verstockung des Menschen durch Gott,” Theologische Zeitschrift 1 (1945): 13–14.

84 Scannell, “Fulfillment of Johannine Signs,” 55–56, 94–108; Painter, “Eschatological Faith in the Gospel of John,” 46–47.

85 So says Carson, The Gospel according to John, 448n1.

86 Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to John. 416.

87 Burge, John, 348n28.

88 Hollenbach, “Lest They Should Turn and Be Forgiven: Irony,” 317–18; Carson, The Gospel according to John, 450.

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

282

God, God, and Jesus (or God).89 Although this is stronger in terms of consistent usage, either of the final two views would be similar in not requiring a distinction in the divine modus operandi.

The subject matter of the first two verbs is noetic incapacity. On blind-ing (tuflo&w) Porter states, “Though God is not mentioned by name the emphasis appears to be upon him as agent in such a stark act.”90 Godet, although a bit too broad in his application, adds that the blinding here “designates the depriving of intellectual light, in the sense of the true and even of the useful, of simple good sense.”91 The term used for “fat-tening,” pwro&w (as well as its nominal pw&rwsij), is more specific and always refers to an absence of wisdom.92 Although second in order (due to emphasis on sight), it is the logical cause of blindness. It refers directly to a lack of wisdom that prevents the eyes from seeing aright. It pertains to the cognitive element of the heart (understanding) that informs and determines its volitional aspect (repentance). The i3na clause indicates that the divine purpose of this cognitive privation (perpetuated by way of divine deprivation) is that it manifests itself in a volitional refusal to turn and be healed.93 Divine blinding and fattening guarantee that these indi-viduals will “not begin to see with their eyes” (i1dwsin toi=j o)fqalmoi=j)94 and therefore “begin to understand with their heart” (noh&swsin th|~

89 Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 453n2; Evans, “The Function of Isaiah 6:9–10 in Mark and John,” 136; Godet, Commentary on John’s Gospel, 793; Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to John, 415–16; Kruse, The Gospel according to John, 275; Kraus, “Johannes und das Alte Testament,” 10.

90 Porter, Verbal Aspect 280, The verb occurs thrice in the NT (John 12:40; 2 Cor. 4:4; 1 John 2:11), and this, combined with a similar idea in Rom. 11:8, argues conclusively for God (Yahweh) as the agent of blinding.

91 Godet, Commentary on John’s Gospel, 793. Others say it refers to numbness rather than hardness (Bernard, Gospel according to John, 451), “obtuse insensibility” (Lindars, The Gospel of John, 438–39), or obduracy (Evans, “The Function of Isaiah 6:9–10 in Mark and John,” 136). To import obduracy (rebellion) into this discussion or to the terms pwro&w/pw&rwsij is to confuse cognition (wisdom) with volition (rebellion). For examples of this blurring, see L & N §27.51; John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 176. Keener gives examples in the pseudepigrapha where sin causes spiritual blindness (Keener, The Gospel of John, 883n149). These are functional not ontological examples.

92 See Job 17:7; Mark 3:5; 6:52; 8:17; John 12:40; Rom. 11:7, 25; 2 Cor. 3:14; Eph. 4:18; Herm. Mand. 4.2 [30:1]; 12.4 [47:4].

93 The i3na clause is most likely a purpose or purpose-result. See Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 474; MHT 2:470; Bernard, Gospel according to John, 450. John avoids the LXX mh&pote. His fre-quent i3na mh_ may instead represent the Aramaic particle.

94 That this “seeing” refers to an inward apprehension see J. Duncan. M. Darrett, “Not Seeing and Later Seeing (John 16:16),” Expository Times 109 (1998): 208–9.

283

DESTINED TO DISOBEY

kardi/a|)95 and “turn” (strafw~sin).96 These conditions then preclude Jesus (or God) from “healing” (i0a&somai) them.97

Basis of Divine Act

An important issue concerns the basis of fattening or why God fattens some and not others. It has been argued above that neither the lack of faith nor any other human behavior provides this basis in John. Still, Bernard, as well as others, argues that this blindness is penal and “a Divine punishment for sin…. That sin causes a blindness of the soul, a moral insensibility to spiritual truths, is a law of the natural, that is of the divine order.”98 Ridderbos describes fattening as “a punishment from God,” “on account of unbelief,” and a “divinely ordained judgment.”99 Keener cites Isaiah 29:9–10 and 44:18 (both reuses of Isa. 6:9–10) as examples of where God blinds people “to punish their willful transgression.”100 These com-ments, while reflecting a punitive notion and a transformative perspective, find little textual support. For example, where in John does inability of faith suggest a retributive or penal view or the idea that man becomes mor-ally insensitive? How did the individuals of verse 39—putatively prior to being fattened—not turn (repent) and find healing? On the contrary, the Johannine use of the Isaianic texts seems to suggest not that irresponsible volitional acts lead to mental blindness but the reverse, including unbe-lief and failure to turn. It is the mind that informs the volition not the reverse.101 On the other hand, Carson mentions Deuteronomy 29:3–4 with-out evoking penal blindness, and Bultmann recognizes that even though this behavior is “determined by the deepest ground of being” that this “does not destroy responsibility, but for the first time awakens it.”102

95 It may be that the mh& is meant to govern both verbs (i1dwsin, noh&swsin) as the addition of it preceding the latter in p66* seems to confirm, but it is not necessary to make the point. Both verbs are probably ingressive as translated here (MHT, 1:117).

96 This final verb is either a constative or consummative aorist and tantamount to “be con-verted” (BDF, §308; MHT, 3:51–52). Unlike the LXX and other uses of this text in the NT, it is not compounded, and it is passive not active. Textual variants account for both of these points. On the avoidance of the compound, see Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to John, 415.

97 The I may refer to Jesus (Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 453n4; Morris, The Gospel according to John, 604n106; Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to John, 415; Beasley-Murray, John, 217).

98 Bernard, Gospel according to John, 451. See also Godet, Commentary on John’s Gospel, 795 who appeals to a Boethian view of the passive decree of God.

99 Ridderbos, The Gospel according to John, 444–45.

100 Keener, The Gospel of John, 883–84.

101 Similarly, Painter says believing in John involves “1. perception, recognition, under-standing; 2. decision; 3. dependence and obedience” (Painter, “Eschatological Faith in the Gospel of John,” 41).

102 Carson, The Gospel according to John, 447; Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 453.

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

284

On the one hand, many draw the conclusion that God not only does not secure repentance for everyone but also decrees unbelief. “That the evangelist seems to be saying that it was God’s will that few believe in Jesus because of hardened hearts seems to be unavoidable.”103 That is, unbelief was not only predicted in John12:38 (Isa. 53:1) but “produced by God” in verses 39–40 (Isa. 6:10).104 On the other hand, “they habitually misunder-stood (12:29, 34) because they were blind by nature (12:38–40).”105 Both aspects are true, namely, God blinds and fattens, and man is by nature blind and fat-hearted. The solution offered here is that blinding and fat-tening were produced on those who were by nature blind and fat-hearted by way of divine deprivation that perpetuates these natural conditions but reaching this conclusion is where many exegetes struggle: There is an aversion in appearing to attribute to God an act that in any way seems arbitrary.106 Moreover, the divine act unsolicited by human causes (related to behavior) raises the issue that there may be injustice on God’s part.107 Furthermore, that individuals may suffer from an inability to believe (due to the Fall) seems to threaten the very concept of responsibility. Together these concerns fuel and motivate the search for a human basis for God’s actions. In light of the preceding argument, the Johannine evi-dence locates this basis within the will of God either in immediate terms of Heilsgeschichte or the more remote notion of divine predestination or both. That this basis is not rooted in human contingencies does not make God’s actions arbitrary. It is not unjust to withhold the understanding heart, but it is the essence of justice (judicial) precisely because God is not obligated to show mercy and grace to sinners. Finally, the divine act does not threaten human responsibility, for the call to repent is still valid, permissible, and apart from coercion. The advantage of this construal is that God is not tinkering with the human heart to either counter belief or disable these folks from believing, but he is simply withholding his divine aid and letting man go his own way.

The Glory: The Prophetic Appraisal (v. 41).

Finally, the evangelist ties the two Isaianic passages together under a christological framework associated with God’s glory in verse 41. “These

103 Evans, “Obduracy and the Lord’s Servant,” 228.

104 Evans, To See and Not Perceive, 132. I would replace his produced with perpetuated to avoid a transformative nuance.

105 Keener, The Gospel of John, 883. This statement contradicts his earlier punitive and trans-formational assertion.

106 Burge, John, 348 doubts that either “Isaiah or John were thinking about a philosophical causality as some would call it today.” The assumption is that determinism implicit in causality obliterates human responsibility.

107 Rom. 9:14–18 is written to answer this very question.

285

DESTINED TO DISOBEY

things Isaiah said because he saw his glory.” The things Isaiah has said refers back, most likely, to both of the Isaianic quotations (Isa. 53:1 and Isa. 6:1).108 Here John establishes a causal connection between what he has said and the seeing of his glory.109 As was true about Isaiah in his own day, he is again contrasted with Jesus’ contemporaries who are fat-hearted and do not see God’s glory. In Jesus’ case, they fail to see through the signs to their true significance in terms of the humiliation and exaltation of the suffering servant. The signs were designed to point to Jesus’ glory but like Isaiah’s contemporaries who lacked access to the divine assembly, these also lacked the faculties to see the glory of Jesus.

John’s phrasing also emphasizes Christ as the referent behind Isaiah’s epiphany and thus elevates the degree of glory attributed to Jesus.110 When John indicates that Isaiah said these things because “he saw his glory,” the verbal parallel is drawn not to the Hebrew text but rather to the Targum Jonathan. While the Hebrew and the LXX of Isaiah 6:1 read, “I saw the Lord,” the Targum states, “I saw the glory of the Lord.” The Targum in Isaiah 6:5 reads not, “my eyes have seen the King” (as the Hebrew text) but “my eyes have seen the glory of the shekinah of the king of eternity, the Lord of Hosts.”111 Thus, the object of the divine vision in the Targum and John is identified with the glory of the Lord. The referent of his in the phrase, he saw his glory, seems to refer more to the glory of Christ (not Jesus) rather than that of God (the Father).112 Schnackenburg writes, “Even if it were possible to regard the seeing of the glory as still a reference to God (as some manuscripts wrongly do), the second part makes it certain that John means Jesus; this is the evangelist’s unique, Christological view.”113

The continuity between Isaiah’s and Jesus’ day is that the majority of Jews failed to understand God’s glory as it was revealed in the explanation of the

108 Whitacre, John, 322.

109 Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 135; Morris, The Gospel according to John, 605; Lindars, The Gospel of John, 439; Carson, The Gospel according to John, 450; Ridderbos, The Gospel according to John, 445. There are two variants that render this with a more temporal nuance o/#te or temporal/causal sense e0pei/.

110 Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 135; Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 453n4.

111 Carson, The Gospel according to John, 449; Brown, The Gospel according to John, 486.

112 On this issue see Morris, The Gospel according to John, 605; Lindars, The Gospel of John, 439; Godet, Commentary on John’s Gospel, 795; Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to John, 416; Beasley-Murray, John, 217; Michaels, John, 232; Carson, The Gospel according to John, 449; Borchert, John 12–21, 66; Ridderbos, The Gospel according to John, 445; Kruse, The Gospel accord-ing to John, 275.

113 Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to John, 416. Because it refers to “glory and not Jesus” directly, it is not necessary to see this as direct preincarnate vision of Jesus (Köstenberger, John, 391–92).

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

286

Lord’s glory in terms of the suffering servant. This lack of apprehension and thus failure to rightly appreciate is accounted for early on by Isaiah (6:9–10) and subsequent to the signs in John (12:37–41) in the language of divine fattening. They could not believe (a volitional act) because they could not perceive (a cognitive act), and they could not perceive because they were fat-hearted and remained fat-hearted because God perpetuated this condition (by way of divine fattening).

Conclusion

There is a need to qualify the term judicial when defining what judi-cial entails either in terms of Pharaonic hardening or Isaianic fattening. Exegetes may wish to nuance this by pointing to either a punitive or nonpu-nitive basis. If a punitive idea is advanced, then scholars should provide the human conditions without evoking merely the universal quality of human sinfulness. That explanation does not answer why all are not fattened—assuming for the sake of argument (with transformational proponents) that all are not fat-hearted prior to the act of fattening. Furthermore, it would help if commentators were prepared to detail what mode of divine fattening is being advanced. If either a psychological or a more direct divine avenue, then the introduction of a transformative idea should be accompanied by clear examples of this sort of phenomenon. The notion that a transitive idea (“God hardens/fattens X”) necessitates a transformative notion (“God transformatively [by way of depletion or deposition] hardens/fattens X”) needs validation. Irrespective of the view one proposes to advance, most would welcome greater specificity and clarity on these issues.

It has been argued here that the divine basis of fattening lies within the purposes of God (judicial) and not human actions or inaction (nonpuni-tive). Instead, all men lack the ability to salvifically believe and are in need of the divine initiative. What underlies genuine faith is salvifically perceiv-ing, knowing, and understanding. The failure to rightly exercise this salvific wisdom is the twofold effect of congenital inability and divine perpetua-tion, but it is not simply a matter of possessing and then failing to exercise this wisdom. Because this effect is congenital (as John 9 seems to confirm), John 12:37–41 serves to explain its perpetuation rather than commencing in terms of divine causality. It is this congenital lack or privation of salvific wisdom that constitutes the very definition of the fat-heart. The act of fat-tening in terms of divine causality, therefore, is best represented by the words of Deuteronomy 29:3[4] as not giving noetic enablement rather than subtracting (or offsetting) it. Thus, the divine mode should be construed as nontransformative or more specifically as deprivation. As to the purpose (or final cause) of this act, it is likely two-pronged. First, it has implications in terms of the plan of salvation. It was necessary to ensure the rejection and crucifixion of Christ. Second, it serves ultimately to guarantee the final judgment of those who are not the sheep. This dual purpose of Isaianic

287

DESTINED TO DISOBEY

fattening has both a near and a remote eventuality in terms of Heilsgeschichte and eschatological judgment. It is in this sense that the fattened would not see and thus be destined to not turn and be healed.