By Angus Harley
39 For this reason they could not believe, because again Isaiah said,
40 “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
so that they would not see with their eyes
and understand with their heart,
and turn to me, and I would heal them.” (NET)
The doctrine that God hardens hearts has been disputed for centuries and continues today in its predictable form of Arminianism vs Calvinism. With that said, it is not well known that both Arminians and certain Calvinists hold common ground concerning this doctrine. Certain modern Calvinists follow R. C. Sproul’s view that the hardening of sinners, although God’s act as such, is performed by him in a passive manner: he gives the sinner over to his wickedness. In this viewpoint, Sproul agrees with Arminianism, as we will see. In this article, I provide a different reading of John 12:39-40 that stresses God’s act of hardening hearts to be direct and ‘hands on’, and not the model of ‘giving over’ as described by Sproul and Arminianism.
Now we will describe the similarities between Sproul and John Wesley (an Arminian) concerning the act of divine hardening.
Where the Arminian and Calvinist agree
Wesley
John Wesley does not explain John 12:40 in his “Notes on the Bible”, citing only verses (Isa.6:10; Matt.13:14; Acts 28:26), but he does interpret John 12:39 as follows:
“Therefore now they could not believe – That is, by the just judgment of God, for their obstinacy and wilful resistance of the truth, they were at length so left to the hardness of their hearts, that neither the miracles nor doctrines of our Lord could make any impression upon them.”[1]
Wesley does say this of John 12:40 when commenting on Isaiah 6:10:
“This making of their hearts fat, is here ascribed to the prophet, as it is ascribed to God in the repetition of this prophecy, John 12:40, because God inflicted this judgment upon them by the ministry of the prophet, partly by way of prediction, foretelling that this would be the effect of his preaching; and partly by withdrawing the light and help of his Spirit.”[2]
Sproul
R. C. Sproul describes how God hardens sinners:
“All that God has to do to harden people’s hearts is to remove the restraints. He gives them a longer leash. Rather than restricting their human freedom, he increases it. He lets them have their own way. In a sense he gives them enough rope to hang themselves. It is not that God puts his hand on them to create fresh evil in their hearts; he merely removes his holy hand of restraint from them and lets them do their own will.”[3]
Passive hardening
Although both scholars attribute to God the judicial act of hardening the hearts of wicked men, in doing so they describe God after a passive manner. In the case of Wesley, he says these stubborn Jews “were at length so left to the hardness of their hearts”, and that God hardened them “partly by withdrawing the light and help of his Spirit”. In identical fashion, Sproul describes God’s act of hardening as him letting “them have their own way….enough rope to hang themselves”, thereby removing “this holy hand of restraint from them”.
Doing their own will
If one side of the interpretation by Wesley and Sproul is to describe God’s judicial act after a passive manner, the other aspect is to refer to wicked men as that which “lets them do their own will”.
Wesley’s nuance
Wesley’s view is nuanced in that it does recognize that God’s judicial act of hardening included Isaiah’s own preaching ministry through way of prophetically foretelling the “effect of his preaching”, that is, the hardening effect. As far as I can tell, Wesley is not directly attributing hardening to the preaching itself, its act, but refers to it as prophetically anticipating God’s future hardening of Israel.
Sproul’s nuance
In the case of Sproul, his version of passivity works on the basis of a radical contrast: God directly creating evil (hardening) in the hearts of men vs God giving sinners over to their sin. To Sproul, God is not directly hardening the heart, but hardens hearts only through removing the restraints on evil, thereby giving over men to their sin.
John 12:39-40 and its content
We’re going to do something different and start with John 12:39-40 itself and its language. The purist will be disappointed with this, as it does not set the discussion in the wider context of John 12 or his Gospel. However, there is good reason for opting for this approach because exegeses of John 12:39-40 are so theologically loaded (see the above two views) that the actual wording of these verses ends up being, to some degree, cancelled out. We must let these verses speak for themselves.
According to plan
“For this reason they could not believe, because again Isaiah said,”
It follows from Isaiah’s prophecy that is fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry (see also 12:38) that God’s act of hardening was planned and calculated from centuries before to prevent Israel from turning to the Lord and being healed. Consequently, Israel’s hardening in Jesus’ day did not happen merely as a result of their own action in his time, as a mere reaction to the Light, for God had from long ago set this day of judgment of Israel in stone.
Direct, not passive
A look at John 12:40 itself does not refer to divine passivity. On the contrary, the distinct impression of the language used is of direct and active divine hardening:
“He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart” (NET)
Disabled, not left to their devices
Again in contrast to Wesley and Sproul, the Israelites are not described in v40 as left to their own wicked devices but as disabled by God himself:
“He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart
so that they would not see with their eyes
and understand with their heart” (NET)
God disabled the Israelites by making them blind and hardening their hearts. The result was that they could not understand or see.
Preventing, not giving opportunity
The purpose of God’s direct act of blinding the Jews, and of the Jews subsequently being blinded, was to prevent the Israelites from turning to him and being healed by him:
“and turn to me, and I would heal them.” (NET)
This statement is reinforced by v39 which says:
“For this reason they could not believe….” (NET)
Some bible versions and commentators interpret v39 as “could not believe”, and others “not able to believe”. Either is suitable, for in giving Light to the Israelites, Jesus was blinding them and hardening them (see 2 Cor.3:7; Exo.2:23-25; 3:9-10) (see ahead).
Four-step process
Therefore, God’s judicial act of hardening in John 12:39-40 was a four-step process:
- the divine act of hardening in Jesus’ day was according to God’s predetermined will and plan from centuries before;
- God actively and directly blinded and hardened the Israelites;
- consequently, the Israelites couldn’t see or understand;
- the purpose of this was to prevent the Israelites from turning to God and being healed.
This four-step order we will take with us into the rest of the article as a touchstone for measuring other positions.
Some implications of this teaching
There are a few implications coming out of the above brief commentary on vv39-40.
Mercy prevented vs withdrawn mercy
The central concept of hardening is not that of grace going out to the Israelites and then subsequently being held back, according to vv39-40. Instead, these verses are about the divine judicial sentence and its enactment that categorically prevents the mercy of healing by bringing down on Israel’s heads its opposite: blinding and hardening.
Judicial vs creative
Sproul equates direct and divine judicial hardening with the notion of God creating rebellious actions within the hearts of sinners. This is a false comparison, however. The divine act of judicial hardening is direct as a form of punishment, thus its blinding and hardening effects. It’s as if God himself is gouging out their eyes. God is not placing rebellion in the hearts of men; he is punishing them. Man himself is the source of evil in his own heart, according to the ways of Satan, the ruler of this world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11).
Let the text speak
I wish to reinforce the point made earlier: the text of John 12:39-40 must be allowed to speak for itself, for theology takes too great a hold of these verses. How can one prize out of v40, for example, the idea of withdrawn grace when it refers clearly to divine punishment and its stated purpose of the divine prevention of the mercy of healing? To withdraw grace is an entirely different notion to God directly preventing mercy from getting to the Israelites, for the former implies that God is responding to the Israelites, whereas the latter is attributing to God the first blow, as it were. Thus, John 12:40 does not say something like this: ‘God hardened Israel’s hearts because they had already hardened their hearts.’ God is not responding or reacting; he is causing according to a plan, according to 12:39-40. Is that one reason why Wesley’s “Notes” do not make an exegetical comment on John 12:40 itself?
Jesus himself directly hardens
The key to the language of John 12:39-40 is that it is focused upon the work of Christ and what it achieves.
The Light that hardens
It is rather boggling that Arminians and Calvinists who argue for the theme of divine passivity do not see what is throughout John 12: Jesus’ miracles and preaching have the direct effect of hardening the hearts of the Israelites. Jesus is called “Light”, for he comes into the darkness of the world, of Israel, to bring the Light of his salvation, of eternal life. His person, miracles, and words were his Light shining forth, and in so doing they had a dual effect: they hardened the hearts of the majority of the Israelites who saw them; and they set free others to believe in the Light and be saved. We know in natural life the sun can blind and it can bake hard. So, the Light of Jesus and his salvation, in all its divine power, blinded the eyes of the wicked Jews and ‘baked’ hard their hearts.
Jesus’ miracles and preaching in the midst of, and before, the Israelites resulted in two hardening effects, that is, two sides to hardening: the first is the direct divine act of hardening itself by Jesus; the second is Israel’s subsequent act of hardening.
First up: Jesus directly hardened the Israelites hearts. His salvific Light by itself exposed the darkness of Israel. John 15:22 is a key text in regard to this first act of hardness in the form of divine exposure, “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.” If Jesus had not come to the Israelites as Light, their sin would have continued in the darkness unnoticed and unaccounted for. By using his Light to expose their sin and darkness, Jesus confirmed, ‘set in stone’, Israel in those wicked conditions, thereby directly hardening the Israelites.
Second: Israel reacted by scurrying after the darkness it loved. The Israelites, now exposed in darkness and hardened by the Light, flee into the darkness, and thereby compound their hardness by their own hands, for they flee after evil deeds. The most evil deeds of all were to reject the Christ and to put him to death, themes abundantly in evidence in John 12.
Coordinates with vv39-40
The great advantage of the above model is that it coordinates with vv39-40. For, according to v39, the plan of God from of old was put into action by Jesus. He came to expose Israel’s darkness and to punish them for it. Secondly, vv39-40 say God hardened Israel, and subsequent to that, as its consequence, the Israelites could not turn and be healed; they could not believe. The flipside of their spiritual inability and disability to receive Light was that they pursued darkness. By hardening the hearts of the Israelites by his Light, Jesus locked the Jews into a willful path of disobedience and unbelief. This interpretation is a million miles from that presented by Wesley and Sproul, both of whom wish to distance God from being the direct cause of the hardening.
John 12 and the duality of the Light’s purpose
In John 12 itself, Jesus’ person and work as the Light have a dual purpose: it both hardens, and it saves; it confirms in unbelief, and it draws out belief. John weaves both themes, aspects, together, for the two of them taken together, even though creating deeply contrasting results, were crucial for the fulfillment of God’s purpose in Christ.
Let us walk through John 12 itself.
• It begins by contrasting Judas with Mary, the former being a thief and fraud, the latter a believing lover of Jesus (1-8; see 13:27). Judas the betrayer-to-come is marked out by John (v4), for the plan of God must unfold from of old (see Matt.27:3-5; Zech.11:12-13). We know from John 13:27 that Judas went on to pursue the great darkness of betraying Jesus, and was to that end inhabited by Satan.
• In 12:9-11, many gather to see both Jesus and Lazarus, whom Jesus had previously raised from the dead (John 11). This is an outstanding example of the Light that overcomes sin and death. The result was many followed Jesus.
• Vv12-18 describe how many Israelites welcomed Jesus as the King of Israel. John describes this event as forecasted by the OT, and, therefore, as part of God’s divine plan for the Christ (Psa.118:25-26; Zech.9:9). Jesus’ followers continued to swell in numbers, particularly in response to the news about Lazarus’ resurrection.
• Even so, the sons of darkness, the Pharisees, bemoaned all these things, complaining that “the whole world” had gone after Jesus (v19).
• John’s narrative then takes this theme of the world and develops it: the Greeks had come to see Jesus (vv20-21). By implication, the world is both being pushed away (the Pharisees); and it is being saved (the Greeks and those who accept Jesus’ miracles).
• The coming of the Greeks triggered Jesus’ announcement that his time to die had come, his “hour” (vv23-29). Why such terminology? Because it was pre-planned, so that the time had come: Jesus as the Son of Man had to go to the cross to die, to then be raised from the dead to give to many eternal life.
Jesus was not speaking as if he were merely hoping, or issuing a call of mercy, as it were; for he declared that it was necessary for him to go to be with the Father, so that his “servant” might be with him. Jesus’ death was going to draw his servants to him, to be with him in heaven. Thus, the analogy of the seeds: one seed has to die to produce many seeds. This is not a universal image, but one of cause-and-effect. The many seeds, in context, are those only who are his servants and who go to be with him. They are believers from both Jews and Greeks.
• In radical contrast to this, Jesus announces the judgement of the world in the present, “Now is the time for judgment on this world” (v31a). Not the judgment merely of the Jews, but of the world. Let us not forget that this judgment involves, first and foremost, the Jews themselves. They had tried to kill him before (John 8:59; 10:31-39), and would eventually succeed in doing so, as initiated by Judas’ betrayal (John 18: 1-40; 19:1-22). Notice the timetable effect again, “Now is the time”.
At the heart of this pre-planned judgment of the world was the driving out of Satan, “the ruler of this world” (v31b). One king opposed the other, one ruler the other. But there is a forecasted winner: Jesus the King (John 14:30; 16:11)! As a result of kicking Satan out of the world as its ruler, Jesus will draw all men (v32) to himself. This is set in contrast to the world in darkness.
• The crowd of Jews did not understand Jesus’ words (v34). He then re-addresses them by his language of Light, which we will quote in full:
“35 So Jesus said to them, “For a little while longer the Light is among you. Walk while you have the Light, so that darkness will not overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. 36 While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light.” ” (NASB95)
Jesus is appealing to the Jews, even warning them, to make sure that they take advantage of the Light (himself) in their midst. For he was not much longer for this world. One again can see the timetable effect of Jesus’ words, for they anticipate his soon-to-be demise and return to the Father.
• V37 is a general summary of Jesus’ ministry at that time: he did many signs before the Israelites, but they would not believe. Even though there was a growing group of followers who believed on him because of raising Lazarus from the dead, many Jews did not believe in Jesus, and could not perceive the power of God in his signs. This group was not just the Pharisees, as all kinds of Jews rejected him.
• V38 then quotes Isaiah 53:1 to once again assert that Jesus’ ministry was pre-planned, and that it was foretold from of old that the King (Suffering Servant) would shine his Light in the midst of Israel, reveal his divine power, but Israel would reject it. Look, again, at John’s order: pre-planned events; revelation of the Light; rejection of the Light.
• In vv39-41, the phrase “For this reason” is deliberately calculated to draw upon both the preceding and succeeding contexts. In other words, that the Jews could not believe was due to God hardening them, an identical theme as to that found in vv1-38. In that light, see how, again, John draws upon the plan of God described in Isaiah 6, for Isaiah saw the future glory of Jesus.
• John then comments in vv42-43 that some of the Pharisees did actually believe in Jesus. Yet, even they were bound by fear and would not openly confess Christ, for they sought the approval of men rather than of God. Their ‘faith’ was, in other words, a superficial belief in Jesus, much the same as the Israelites of Isaiah’s day who ‘believed’ in Yahweh but did not give their hearts to him and spiritually follow him- just as Judas (see also 2:23-24; 6:66).
• Vv44-50 are Jesus’ closing declaration, appeal, and warning to Israel. He underscores that he came to save some from the darkness by his Light (vv44-46), but does so with qualifying language, “He who sees me” (v45), entailing that some do not see him. Jesus declares that those who do not receive his sayings and keep them reject Jesus himself and his Father whom he reveals (vv44-46). Even so, Jesus himself will not judge them, for he did not come to judge the world (v47). This means that he did not come to bring final judgment down upon the world, for it was not the hour, the time. Now was the day of salvation. Even so, it is evident that the Son did come to bring an initial form of judgment, in that he came to judicially harden the hearts of the Israelites who rejected his salvific Light. Vv44-45 and vv40-50 are bookends conveying that to see the Son is to see the Father; to see Jesus’ Light is to see the Father’s Light; to believe in the Son is to believe in the Father; to receive the Son’s commandment unto eternal life is to receive the Father’s.
The next part of the article responds to objections to my argument. I will endeavor to keep these objections within the bounds of John 12 itself. We are going to begin with a less predictable objection, one mainly based on exegesis and hermeneutics.
‘You do not understand John’s use of Isaiah’
There are those who will accuse my reading of not appreciating either John’s use of Isaiah, nor do I do justice to Isaiah’s own context. I do not appreciate that Jesus is a mere prophetic servant (‘the son of man’ and ‘suffering servant’) who is used by Yahweh to harden the Israelites. In that regard, Jesus is the NT version of Isaiah, who was Yahweh’s OT instrument of bringing hardness.
Yahweh’s glory
To begin with, John is not generically or generally referencing Isaiah, and is quite specifically using Isaiah 6 and 53. In understanding John’s claim that Isaiah saw “his” glory (12:41),[4] it is referring to the glory of Yahweh that Isaiah himself saw, as recorded in Isaiah 6:1-4. How do we know this? Because v41 follows on from v40 that cites John’s interpretation of Isaiah 6:10. Whatever the connection of the Suffering Servant motif to John’s thinking, he is very clear on one thing: the glory spoken of is Yahweh’s.
Jesus’ glory
We can say definitively, too, that this glory is Jesus’ glory. Contextually, John 12:37 refers to the miraculous signs of Jesus. We already know from John 2:11 that Jesus’ miraculous signs revealed his glory, and from John 1:1-14 that Jesus is God in the flesh, Yahweh, the Light and glory of God in the midst of Israel. Thus, John was already keyed into the theme of Jesus’ glory being revealed on earth via miracles. This glory is, by implication, described in John 12:12-15 as a regal glory, one of a king. Yet, not a completed glory, for as John 12:16 says Jesus had not yet been glorified. He had not yet formally been enthroned and raised on high.
Suffering Servant’s glory
The presence of the Suffering Servant motif distracts some scholars, and they go down winding paths that, essentially, find it difficult to reconcile Isaiah’s Suffering Servant with John’s description of Jesus, or with identifying whose glory is spoken of in John’s Gospel, so that the glory of Yahweh in Christ tends to get obscured.
In some ways we can sympathize with the above predicament, for exegetes are meant to understand verses in their original context. Even so, Isaiah is not John, and John is a New Testament, New Covenant, apostle and prophet, who writes on the basis that the OT revelation is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. John is interpreting Isaiah 53:1 and Isaiah 6 in a purely Christological fashion; he is not reciting the exact wording of either the Masoretic text or the Septuagint. He has his own, unique, reading of Isaiah 6 (a point I will come back to).
Returning to the Suffering Servant motif itself, it is true that he is described in a majestic manner, for he will “be elevated, lifted high, and greatly exalted” (Isa.52:13) (NET). Yet, from Isaiah 53, it is equally patent that this will take place only after he is put to the sword, as it were, for, “He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him” (NIV) (Isa.53:2).
It is apparent, then, that John interprets Isaiah 6 and 53:1 to refer to the same person and the same glory. Jesus is both the Suffering Servant and the King of glory. Both of those themes fit very nicely with John’s understanding of Jesus as the rejected One who reveals his glory through his miracles, yet awaits his glorification and enthronement. It is not without significance that, John’s Gospel is ‘the’ Gospel that combines the death of Christ with his exaltation and glorification as the Son of Man (3:14-15; 8:28; 12:32-33), for the former is the pathway to the latter.
This is to say that, John is implying that Yahweh’s glory on earth, ‘on the ground’, as it were, as found in his temple (Isa.6:1-4), is reflected in the Suffering Servant who came to earth. He is the ‘glory in the temple’ (John 2:12-21; 5:14; 7:14, etc.), Yahweh who came from above into the midst of Israel (John 1:1-14; 8:23, etc.). It is through his ministry of miracles, his teaching, and person that he reveals his glory, according to John 12.
Fulfilling the prophetic role
John is also happy to load onto Jesus yet another level of OT imagery, that of the one greater than the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah is described as being in the temple (Isa.6). Jesus is the glory of Yahweh in the temple, the prophet of the Lord, the arm of the Lord, and the Suffering Servant rolled into one! We should be by this time super-careful to uphold the interpretive priority of the NT, Christological, revelation over the OT in its original form.
What’s the relevance?
Why strain to parse these things? What relevance do they have to the topic at hand about God’s hardening process? There are three outstanding reasons that I can see.
First and foremost, they confirm that it is Yahweh, in the form of the Suffering Servant, who, ‘on the ground’, in the midst of Israel, brought direct judgment upon them. Any attempt to deflect away from this divine directness by reference to Yahweh being on his throne, or to the Suffering Servant not being Yahweh, or to the Servant not having glory, is thereby stopped dead in its tracks. Nor is Jesus seen solely as a prophet, one greater than Isaiah, who is operating in his time merely as a prophet. For Jesus is Yahweh bringing his Light of judgment into Israel, into his temple. It is utterly impossible, in that light, that Yahweh could be any more direct!
Following from this, it is not a matter of agency. Yahweh (Jesus) is directly, without agency, bringing this hardening down upon the heads of the Israelites. In the Masoretic text and the Septuagint, the prophet Isaiah is the instrument of Yahweh’s hardening act. Not so in John’s Gospel. He interprets Isaiah in an exclusive manner by pinning the act on Jesus alone.
Thirdly, if one goes back to the Isaianic passages, there is a deliberate path to glory that is followed. See how in Isaiah 6, Isaiah himself is marked out as unclean, yet is subsequently cleansed. In Isaiah 53, the Servant is despised and rejected, considered unclean, but then is raised to glory. Similarly, In Isaiah 6, Israel must first be punished and purged, judged by God and hardened, so that a remnant might arise. Also, observe how in Isaiah 53 that only after being persecuted by the Israelites and rejected by them will there be justification for some. In this we see that, the respective services of the prophet Isaiah and the Suffering Servant were deliberately calculated by God to split apart Israel into two groups: those to be purged, and those consequently to be justified as a remnant. Isaiah’s divine sword that divides is understood by John as a prophetic signpost to Jesus himself and his ministry. For Yahweh in the flesh, as the Suffering Servant, brought salvation by purging out the sons of darkness, and thereby drawing to himself sons of Light. For, the Light had to shine in the darkness to disperse its sons, so as to, more importantly, draw the sons of Light.
‘Jesus did not come to judge’
An objection against my view argues that John 12 says Jesus did not come to judge. John 3:16-17 is cited in corroboration. Others will allow a form of judgment, but only as a reaction to Israel’s sin (ex accidenti): Jesus judges Israel due to their sin not because he came to judge them, for he came to save them. This view entails that Jesus was not sent with a dual purpose, nor did his ministry have a dual purpose.
As to these views, they are exploded by Jesus himself, who declares, “ “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind” ” (John 9:39) (NIV). He did not say he came only to give sight. Nor did Jesus intimate that his act of blinding was an unfortunate, yet necessary, reaction. Lastly, he came into the world with the direct purpose of both saving and judging. In that light, John 3:19 might as easily be translated to say, “Now, this is the judgement: the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.” The act of the Light coming into the world was deliberately calculated to bring judgment. Specifically, this judgment was that the Light exposed the darkness, showing the Jews to be evil and to hate the Christ. His Light blinded them, hardened them against him and his Father, so that they ran off into deeper recesses of rebellion because their deeds were evil. Jesus was indeed, in his day, the judge of the world (John 5:22, 27).
Why, then, are there times when Jesus says he did not come to judge? This is because of at least four reasons. (1) The first is that he is referring to the final judgment, the Day of Judgment of the entire world. He did not come in that role as the Son of Man. Yet, that Day was coming, as surely as a shadow intimates the object; for the Son of Man’s act of hardening on earth was a necessary precursor of his role on the Last Day as the final judge of all things. (2) In coming into the world, his stated role was to ‘save’ it, not to execute its final demise. (3) The time had come for Israel’s punishment, which was the precursor to the world’s judgment on the Last Day. (4) John’s Gospel is replete with the language of duality, allowing contrasting actions to sit alongside one another without a whiff of explanation for this. Take for example John 3:13-21:
13 No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. 14 As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. 16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His [e]only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”
Look how it all ‘kicks off’ by the Son of Man descending from heaven with a purpose. What is it? It is to be lifted up in order to save the world. Yet, notice, too, how the same Son came into the world to judge it, to drive away the sons of darkness and to draw the sons of Light. On that score, observe John’s very unusual and special language; he writes, “ “But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” ” See how the Light is acting ‘magnetically’ to draw those already considered sons of Light, and who are not measured as sons of darkness. Thus, the most controverted verse in the bible, John 3:16, is set in the heart of a context that in detail describes the duality of the divine purpose in the Son of Man’s ministry.
‘Grace rejected led to divine hardening’
An obvious Arminian objection is that which says Israel were hardened because they had constantly rejected Jesus’ Light. The ancient Israelites had done the same thing, thus John’s use of Isaiah. The Israelites had hardened themselves to grace, and as a result God hardened them into a state of utter repudiation of the Gospel and of Christ.
Part of this complaint, on the face of it, suits the passage, for Jesus came into the midst of Israel to perform miracles and to preach, yet they rejected him.
However, when considering John 12:40’s order, it does not start with the Israelites, for hardening starts with God in his Son. As a result, Israel is blinded and could not believe. The Arminian order reverses John’s actual language and order, a point we deliberately focused on at the beginning of this article. If you wish- to use the language of the Exodus hardening narratives- God hardens the Israelites, and they consequently harden their hearts.[5]
Arminianism has not properly taken into account a purpose of Jesus’ coming: in judgment to separate the sons of Light from the sons of darkness. It was part of the divine dual purpose, the double-edged sword of his ministry, that was foretold from of old. In other words, Isaiah 6 and 53 are not used to recite the mere fact that the Jews would reject the mercy of God in Christ; for these passages reveal that God himself is doing the separating; he is the ‘firestarter’, the One kicking it all off! In Isaiah’s day, God’s patience had run out, and the Israelites were about to face God’s scourge. Isaiah’s job was to convey that they would be carried into exile and reduced to a stump and remnant. This was a prophetic signpost to Christ and his ministry within Israel, according to John. By Jesus’ time, the forecasted day had come; Israel’s judgment was upon its head. It was God’s time to judge! Also in faithfulness to Isaiah’s text, John writes that running concurrently was the theme of Israel’s salvation via the Son. Judgment and salvation. Thus, John 12 is set within the framework of the divine timetable and the execution of the divine, dualistic, plan.
Nor does Arminianism sufficiently account for the presence of Jesus as the direct cause of hardening. The instrument for executing both judgment and salvation was the Light himself, the One who was the manifestation of divine mercy and grace. He was the divine weapon of choice. He exposed Israel’s sin and darkness, which was ‘hidden’ from of old, and confirmed Israel in those evil works. He hardened them, in other words. Only as a consequence, they could not see the Light, nor believe, and wickedly turned to the deeds of darkness in opposition to God’s Light.
So, yes, the Light of God’s grace and mercy were revealed in Christ, but not merely to save, but also to directly judge. The Israelites in Jesus’ day did not ‘see’ these acts spiritually, for as darkness the sons of Satan hated the Light and its salvation (John 8:37-47; 1 Jh.3:10). Grace was the Light in the midst of the darkness of Israel, but only the sons of Light responded positively to it. This was because the Light came to both hardened and have mercy, judge and save, refuse healing and to give healing.
‘You ignore free will’
Arminians will argue that Jesus’ ministry presented a choice to Israel, and most of Israel rejected Jesus’ Light. Free will is on every word and phrase of John 12, therefore.
Free will?
I am not aware of any theologian who denies the capacity of the will to make a choice. The question is whether that capacity is controlled by darkness or not. John 12 describes Israel as being in darkness, a darkness that is characterized by an unbelieving unwillingness to submit to God. It was that very unbelieving unwillingness that Jesus himself shone his light on, exposing it through his miracles. The Jews reacted by running from the Light. This was an act of judicial hardening, as we saw; yet, as far as the Israelites were concerned, their running from the Light was the result of their stubborn unbelief in action. There is, in other words, no running narrative of the neutral capacity of the human will to act freely (Pelagianism), or the innate ability of all fallen men to exercise the will toward salvation (semi-Pelagianism/Provisionism). Such things have to be read into the text.
Power of contrary choice?
What, then, about those in the darkness who chose to follow Jesus? Do they not demonstrate the power of contrary choice in all men aided by prevenient grace, as Arminianism thinks?
No, they don’t. These believers demonstrate merely that some Israelites willingly turned to the Lord by faith. The Arminian mechanism of a ‘freed will’ present in all those who heard the Gospel/saw his miracles has to be read into the text, for in John 12 those Israelites in darkness were, by the nature of the case, unwilling to follow Yahweh before the Light of Jesus entered among them, so that they were subsequently hardened into even greater unwillingness by that Messianic Light.
The Johannine resolution is that darkness is not capable of being ‘willing’, for it is not light. Is that not the point that was underscored in John 3:21, which spoke of the magnetic quality of Jesus the Light who drew sons of Light to himself? This has to be the case, for Jesus himself is Light, as is Yahweh, and in them is no darkness. The sons of Light, the bearers of the new divine image in man, as recorded in John’s epistle, are not sons of darkness, nor are they a hybrid or half-breed (1 John 1:5-6). There is no ‘grey’ area, a mixture of light and darkness, or a bleed of the darkness into the light, in John 12 (or throughout John’s Gospel). Those of darkness do not have the will to believe; indeed, they demonstrate clearly a rebellious will. Conversely, the sons of Light do reveal a will to believe, and in that abundantly show a will humbled before God.
What about those who were converted and fell away?
Some Arminians will respond that John 12 teaches that the ‘freed will’ in action is doubly highlighted in those who abandoned their faith, for they exercised their freed will to cast off the Christ that they had previously believed in (12:42-43).
This view does not properly account for John’s theology (or the Gospels’) that there were salvific blessings that touched many Jews on a superficial, or fleshly, level, but which did not penetrate the heart to transform it. Not all in darkness were outwardly antagonistic to Jesus, and some even temporarily followed him. There’s no greater example than Judas, who was touched and blessed with numerous graces flowing from Christ, his Gospel, and his miraculous power. Yet, none of those graces penetrated his soul, for he was at heart a thief (12:4-6). Of those Pharisees who temporarily believed in Jesus, it is explained of them that they loved human praise more (12:43). Satan was the master of the fake, the faux. Chapter 12 weaves together all those themes of fake faith within a framework that deliberately contrasts and divides between the unwilling and the willing. This division is always maintained in John 12 so that it is never compromised, nor is there spiritual ‘cross-pollination’ between the light and darkness.
It is fascinating that Matthew 13 also cites Isaiah 6 in the context of Jesus’ parables deliberately sealing the Jews in their blindness and deafness. And in further explanation of this teaching, Matthew adds another parable, about Satan sowing weeds at the same time Gospel preachers sow the true seed.
‘You overegg the pudding’
Certain Calvinists will maintain that I overstate my case. Yes, God is doing the hardening act, but he does so both passively and actively: he withdraws, and he uses means. The means he uses are miracles and the truth of God’s word (see 2 Cor.2:14-18), as well as providences.
I must come back again to the main point of this article: it is to focus upon John’s language in 12:39-40. In these verses, there is no divine passivity. Secondly, I do not see any form of divine passivity, a withdrawal, going on in the wider context of John 12. Rather, what unfolds is direct, judicial hardening. In the OT, Yahweh left the temple; here, Yahweh comes into it to purify it, which is prophetically signified by Jesus’ physical act in John 2 of entering into the temple to purge it. The entirety of John’s Gospel stresses the same divine energy. He is the firestarter of judgment!
Why does this have to be so? Because ‘now’ was the time for the judgment of Israel, not the entire world as such, and, by extension, it was the time of the salvation of the world itself and of the remnant in Israel. This is why there are a number of phrases in John 12 that refer to timing. To enact this planned divine judgment on Israel, Jesus had to come into their midst to punish them.
I understand why some Calvinists refer to ‘the truth’ as a means, an instrument, as it is through such that God hardens. But, this legitimate concept is too often employed by these Calvinist to convey a sense of distance: God hardens through his truth, through miracles, etc.. This position is not John’s way of looking at things, or at least, not his primary understanding of the divine hardening act. For, the entire context of John 12 is concerned about the revelation of Jesus, the person, and his glory (John 1:14-18; 12:41)! He is on the ground. He is the way, the truth, and the life in the flesh (John 14:6). He is hardening. Read again 2 Corinthians 2:15-18. What does it say?
14 But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and manifests through us the sweet aroma of the knowledge of Him in every place. 15 For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; 16 to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate for these things? 17 For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God.
‘Your view degrades and weaponizes grace’
Some will critique my view for not putting enough attention on the positive nature of the mercy and grace of Christ in his miracles and teaching, and will criticize me for turning grace into a weapon of destruction.
I think this view is correct, in that I do not aim in this article to focus upon the positive side of Jesus’ revelation of grace. In fact, a major part of my article is to argue against views of the divine hardening that are unduly influenced by ‘grace interpretations.’
For we must acknowledge that, in John 12, Jesus is both the embodiment of grace and mercy, and he enacts them he does not do so without prejudice. Let us remind ourselves of Jesus’ twofold purpose in ministering: to judge and to save. There is not an instance of time, a second of his ministry, where that dual purpose is switched off or held in abeyance. He most certainly does do many miracles before all the Israelites, in their sight; yet, only some receive these miracles and believe. He does preach about salvific grace before and to all Israel; yet, only some believe and others are repelled. Mercy and grace are there before Israel, embodied in the person of the Son, spoken of in his ministry, revealed in his miracles, and by saving souls. But it is that very mercy and grace that deliberately acts to judge those who are in darkness, for they naturally hate the Light and are now exposed to it, and by it confirmed and hardened in their sin and darkness. Therefore, although the Gospel and the miracles ‘went out’ to all who could see and hear them, they were deliberately separating the chaff from the wheat, and were an aroma of Christ and life to some, and an aroma of death to others. The difficulty I have, therefore, with the ‘free offer of the Gospel’ teaching is not on the level of the going forth of the Gospel to and before all, but that it focuses solely on the ‘salvific’ side of the divine purpose, and does not pay attention to the divine purpose of judgment. The external form of this judgment, most ironically, comes in the form of grace itself! But is that not the heart of the true Gospel? Is not the cross salvation at its peak but also an act of judgment on the wicked, separating the darkness from the light? And is it not innate to the divine person of the Son, who is the Light, that his Light naturally pushes away the darkness? How else could it be? Are we suggesting that this Light is unduly and wrongly ‘weaponized’ against darkness? Or should we not bow humbly before him and thank him that his Light, his salvific glory, does repel evil?
‘You are forgetting about the eternal decree’
My reading will be considered weak by some Calvinists because it does not go the whole way to refer to the eternal decree as the ultimate cause of Israel’s hardening.
It is not without validity that Calvinists claim that God eternally planned all things, and this included the going forth of the Gospel and the responses to it. God’s plan, as far as the text of John 12 is concerned, is explicitly tied to at least the time of Isaiah. Now, unless we wish to promote the God of Process Theology or Open Theism, we must assume that the prophecy written into Isaiah 6 and revealed to Isaiah was planned out long before its revelation. But then this ‘plan’ itself must be part of a larger plan for that former, ‘smaller’, plan to be executed![6] And on and on we go back into the recesses of eternity, for there we will find that God planned it all. To conclude, even if God is acting in time to ‘plan’ certain events, this has to be the expression of a greater and eternal plan.
We can then take this info on to say that all the things that come to pass according to God’s plan in Isaiah were therefore ‘caused’ by him, in that, he planned them to be so and brought them to pass.
However theologically helpful the concept of an eternal decree or plan is as the cause of all things, it does not suit John’s meaning in John 12, nor Isaiah’s, for that matter. For, we are speaking, to remind ourselves, of God’s act of hardening. To be pointed, in John 12, the ‘cause’ of Israel’s hardening is solely Jesus’ Light. It is not ‘the plan’ that causes the hardening, ‘the prophecy’. It is Jesus’ ministry, his presence, his salvific Light that is ‘on the ground’ and live that is the source of divine hardening. The prophecy or plan merely speaks to the certainty of the future hardening act in and by the Son.
This will be considered by some to be a difference without a meaning, a splitting of hairs. I beg to differ! If one reads the Exodus hardening-events, it is evident that the ‘eternal decree’ or ‘eternal plan’ of God is not on display as such. What is featured is that the hardening acts of God take place solely in live time. They have not already occurred. How could they if they are following a plan to punish Egypt? Similarly, how could Israel’s hardening have been partially ‘caused’ before Jesus arrived on the scene to enact a divinely prophesied and timed judicial plan? If the act of divine hardening requires Jesus to be present in the midst of Israel as salvific Light that exposes Israel’s darkness, how can Israel’s hardening be in play before his coming? This is why we do not read in Isaiah 6 or John 12 that God’s plan or decree will itself perform the act of hardening.
Concluding comments
In the above views that we assessed, there was a common characteristic: an attempt to distance God from a direct act of hardening. Arminians boldly reverse the order of John 12:39, turning it into a model of Israel hardening first and then God responding to them. In the same vein, Arminianism seeks to inject a model of free will that reverses the text’s order. Sproul’s Calvinism, like Arminianism, put its eggs in the basket of God’s passive act of giving men over: God does harden, but not ‘hands on’. Wider Calvinism’s view of divine mercy and of the free offer of grace overwhelms the dual purpose of the revelation of Jesus Christ, his Gospel, and his miracles to both save and judge. And even Calvinism’s belief in an eternal decree is enlisted as a direct cause of hardening, when, in actual fact, hardening can only happen in time, by the presence of Christ, according to John 12.
The proper view is to see Jesus himself as the Light in the world, who came with the dual purpose to save the world and to bring judgment to it. And it is by his Light or glory (his person as the Christ, his salvific work, his Gospel, and his miracles) that he both hardens and saves. Indeed, if we read John and Isaiah properly, there is an order to this: the Light must come into the darkness to first clear away the sons of darkness, in order to draw the sons of Light.
It was for the above reasons that this article started in reverse, with John 12:39-40 itself, so as not to be influenced by the above models and their views that widened the gap between Jesus, the Son of Man, and his act of hardening in and by his Light or glory.
[1] John Wesley, “Notes on the Bible”, Wesley Center Online, https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/john-wesleys-notes-on-the-bible/notes-on-the-gospel-according-to-st-john/#Chapter+XII.
[2] “Notes on the Bible”, https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/john-wesleys-notes-on-the-bible/notes-on-the-book-of-isaiah/#Chapter%2BVI.
[3] R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1986), 145.
[4] Doxan autou (“his glory”) (NASB), not “Jesus’ glory” (NIV, NET), although it is most certainly his glory that is referred to (see ahead).
[5] See Angus Harley, “The hardening verses of Exodus: a discussion”, All Things New Covenant, November 4, 2024, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2024/11/04/the-hardening-verses-of-exodus-a-discussion/.
[6] I am speaking with license here, with ‘small’ indicating an act of God that is patently planned but tied to and expressed in an historical event. With ‘larger’ being the full plan of God of all his work, the plan that incorporates all the smaller ‘plans’ (historically planned out/prophesied events).
All Things New Covenant 