ARC Wiki

Christians often make the claim that unless one has the helper (the spirit of truth; or the holy spirit) or the gifts of the holy spirit; or is saved; that they are unable to understand Christianity (and/or scripture). This is self evidently false – Christianity is the most variegated religion in the world; While it is difficult to say exactly how many denominartions there are, the NCC (National Council of Churches) is a group of 38 different (actual) denominations. This represents 100 million out of 250 million Christians in the USA.

Take the simple issue of Baptism. At times it can seem like no two denominations agree on what Baptism is, what it is for, how to do it, or anything. This is despite clear and concise verses such as Ephesians 4:5. If the gift of the helper, the spirit of truth, is required to interpret scripture then what do we make of Christians who cannot interpret their own scriptures? And thus we conclude that the notion of a helper which enables Christians to uniquely interpret scripture is self-evidently false.

However this proof (as strong as it is) can be considered trite and therefore plebeian because it is short. I suppose then it is a good thing there is a little bit more to say on the matter.

Christians often make the claim that the proofs and truths of Jesus and Christianity are found in many places throughout the Old Testament – that they can be demonstrated and illustrated from the Hebrew Bible – the Tanakh.

However, when we go to the text we find that the text says (at best) the opposite. For example, we are told by the Christian that God's plan for salvation is Vicarious Attonement (an innocent who dies for the sins of the wicked). As an Example, we could go to Ezekiel 37:10-11 and read,

10 “And you, son of man, say to the house of Israel, Thus have you said: ‘Our transgressions and our sins are upon us, and we waste away because of them; how then can we live?’ 11 Say to them, As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?Ezekiel 33:10-11 (RSV)

Or in Ezekiel 18:21-24,

21 “But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness which he has done he shall live. 23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?Ezekiel 18:21-23 (RSV)

In a similar matter, we go to scripture and we are told Joshua is the one who is raised up a prophet like Moses (See: Deuteronomy 18:15-22, Deuteronomy 31:3-30, Numbers 27:18-23, Joshua 1, etc.) We find in Isaiah 7 that it's not talking about a virgin birth (See Isaiah 8:3-4); and in Chapter 9, it's just talking about King Hezekiah, and Jesus is never called Emmanuel anwyays. Isaiah 53? You will find it is one of the suffering servant songs, and that the suffering servant is named by God as the nation of Israel one dozen times in Isaiah alone, not to mention in proverbs, psalms, and by other prophets such as Jeremiah.

So the response becomes, “We don't have anything against Jesus, it's not about Paul. It's not that we are rejecting a person, or rejecting God, or trying to hold on to unrighteousness.

Rather, what we do is we take the scriptures and we use them as a measuring stick to measure any claim – Christian, Islamic, or Buddhist – and it is on that basis alone that we accept it or reject it.”

In the Christian New Testament we are told, 'you don't need to keep the law anymore, the law has been made a curse for you, it's done with, not just for Gentiles but for Jews too' (ex. Romans 7).

a. The mechanism is thus, all people everywhere are now required the blood of Christ–and therefore, by anyone rejecting or even merely not having such, they are unable to interpret the scriptures on their own.

The book of Romans states in many places that normal people (i.e. secular people; without the Holy Spirit) can't read and fully understand the bible.

9 What then? Are we Jews[a] any better off?[b] No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,Romans 3:9 (ESV)

4 For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.
5 Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on the law shall live by it. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, Do not say in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or “Who will descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart (that is, the word of faith which we preach); 9 because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved. 11 The scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. 13 For, “every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”Romans 10:4-13 (RSV)

25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers:[d] a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.Romans 11:25,28

b. The mechanism is thus, that there is a veil over your heart, and there are scales over your eyes; thus anyone who holds the status of 'non-christian' has been “blinded” from the spiritual truth of Christianity. (As an aside, this is a typology replacement of 'A light to the nations' (see article)).

These types of claims are often used to defend against attacks on Christian theology based on a reading of the New Testament. If someone claims for example that the Old Testament contradicts the New Testament, or if they claim to understand something about the Bible that the Christian does not know (or does not believe), the Christian response is to claim that the other person is not qualified to understand scripture in the first place and can therefore not be correct in their understanding!

Isn't that convenient? We thus relegate this to the position of presuppositionalism (see article) and reject it out of hand; it has no place in rational debate of any kind.

Furthermore, if the Christian persists in the face of his own utter foolishness, it is fair to point out if this claim is true, then there is no longer any need to base the Christian religion on prooftexts from the Old Testament. Thus we see the claim of general spiritual blindness is equivalent to Marcionism, a Christian heresy by which the old testament is not required for Christianity's foundation, but rather solely the revelations of the Holy Spirit.

This claim specifically states that Jewish People have been specially blinded by God so as to not understand their own scriptures. The claim is often made side by side with gen-pop blinbdless, ex. Romans 11 et al.

1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham,[a] a member of the tribe of Benjamin.

2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?

3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.”

4 But what is God's reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”

5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.

6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, Romans 11:1-7

From v.1 we see that God has not rejected the Jews, and by v.11 wee see that the Jews did not even fall so badly as to lose their covenant with God:

11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.Romans 11:11 (ESV)

However even should they understand anything, or use their status to over-rule Christian theology they are considered enemies!

28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now[e] receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.Romans 11:28-32 (ESV)

So while the Jewish people are still under the covenant, Paul's position is that they have been blinded and wrapped up in disobedience. Because by any other interpretation, Christianity has declared war on God. As Satan wanted to replace God, it is Christianity's modus operandi to replace Israel by any means neccessary.

By denying the nation of Israel the authority to interpret their own scripture, it becomes impossible to verify the truth or falsehood of Christianity from a comparison to it's source. This is because the text itself is a form of oral law which was only given meaning by tradition of vowel marks. Therefore given that the Bible itself is a book designed to teach people the truth, to be understood by the people who read it, the meaning of which only came to the Christians after thousands of years of being passed down by the Jews – and the passing down of which is equivalent to full understanding, given the oral nature of the voweles – from the prior utterance of their claim the Christian position holds no truth.

Secondly, if we apply reducto ad absurdium, then what belief can be rejected? Why don't Evangelical Christians accept the teachings of the Church of the Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons)? Because they say the teachings in the book of Mormon are not consistent with the New Testament. This could lead to Mormons making the same claim regarding Christians. i.e. 'Christians are spiritually blind because they do not have the holy spirit; they cannot see the truth of the book of Mormon.'

No evangelical Christian would accept such a claim, but it is based on the same logic as the Christian claim above.

Turning the tables, one might ask why the average Evangelical Christian opposes Gay Marriage. They will say, because it quite openly says in Leviticus that to lie with another man is an abomination. Does this then mean, that because the Christian is using an Old Testament passage, that they have scales over their eyes? Someone who is in support of Gay Marriage could simply say the Christian was blind, and that the Old Testament did not mean what it plainly said, and that therefore it was okay to have Gay Marriage (considering the Old Testament).

This includes any time that Paul uses the OT to prove his doctrine. If we are unable to apply Old Testament passages to Christianity, then why do books like Matthew and Paul's works exclusively rely on old testament prooftexting? If we are unable to understand the old testament then Paul's arguments have no logical foundation. Keep in mind that his arguments are designed to prove things. If you don't already believe them, then how can you understand then verses he uses to prove Christianity? Is it designed to prove something, or is it a circular argument?

This is a kind of contortionist theology. Once the Christian says anything such as there are scales or veils, or something like “I met Jesus”, or that they have some special qualifying religious experience, why then do they categorically reject when people of other faiths – even other Christian denominations – make the same claim?

Roman Catholics in San Paulo, in Manilla, and many other places Holy to the Catholic Church have claimed to meet the Virgin Mary on a regular basis. In Portugal, people meet the virgin Mary all over the place. I personally remember seeing a newspaper article clipping from South America that someone had seen a picture of Jesus on a piece of toast that came out of the toaster. Many Christians would reject these claims out-of-hand, but then expect others to accept their claims based solely on their faith. It is important to point out that the reason these claims are rejected by Christians is not because Christians believe these people are lying and making everything up. The claims are rejected because meeting the virgin Mary and praying to her is not consistent with the New Testament.

So at this point, the facts seem that the claim is not logical – however it is important to understand that simply because something is not logical does not mean it is untrue. For a long time, black swans were considered illogical. Quantum mechanics is also considered illogical by many people. However with the scoreboard even we will need a stronger response to prove or disprove this claim.

There are two main Jewish responses. The first one is to understand that the claim of Spiritual Blindness is not raised in a vacuum; there are many passages in the Old Testament which deal directly with this claim. The Torah says in Deuteronomy 4:2, 'that you cannot add to the law or take away, and if any one takes away, if any prophet says you don't have to keep the torah anymore, that individual is speaking presumptuously in my name, I didn't send them, declareth the Lord, if someone declares to you about a God your fathers did not know, i did not send him.“ and 'He might even do miracles,' Deu 13 tells us, 'but despite that I am only testing you to see if you love me.' Although such a verse does not directly relate to the claim of Spiritual blindness, it does distinctly place the powers of evaluation in the hands of the individual 'as is'. There are other such passages not covered here which I may add later.

However, the stronger response is to go to the original text and read the parts Paul cut out. If you look in your Bible if it has a cross-reference you will see Romans 10:4 cross-references Deuteronomy 30:11-14:

11 “For this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 14 But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.Deuteronomy 30:11-14 (RSV)

In this instance we see that Romans 10:4 is actually a corruption of Deuteronomy 30:11. The words have been changed to alter the meaning of the text. This is a very serious charge, and I would have to say that the claim of Spiritual blindness does not look correct at this point.

However, there still may be some truth to what Paul says. He may be just addressing it in a problematic, difficult (and possibly antagonistic) sort of way. Let's give Paul the benefit of the doubt and fully examine the sources.

In Romans 11:8, Paul issues a stunning indictment of the Jews, and states that God himself has stated openly in the bible that the Jews would be made spiritually blind. If this is true, it would absolve the poor phrasing Paul used above – we would have ironclad proof of this claim.

However, using the same method as before (cross-referencing) we come to Deuteronomy 29:4:

This is disappointing because it seems as if once again Paul has changed the words of the text to alter it's meaning and support a claim which appears not to exist in the Old Testament. The Artscroll Stone Chumash gives commentary 'Until this day' ref. v.9 (v.8 in the English bibles). The meaning of the passage n is that on this day Israel is finally standing before God in order to enter the covenant and on this day God will fulfill his promise to the patriarchs Abraham et al. Commentaries here emphasize that the people were standing before God in his very presence; God cannot be deceived. The Israelites were meant to hear His word on this day.

Where I am “getting this”? The word in question is Strong's 05704 (aḏ, “עַ֖ד”) meaning to or until. “Until this day” brings the verse into context with v. 8, 9 and onward. It doesn’t mean anything else.

There is no reason to believe the Jews, who stood in God's very presence in order to enter the covenant and fulfil God's promise, to serve as witnesses of God to the entire world – also did not understand this word. Given that the very survival of an Israelite at Mt. Sinai would depend on a true and accurate knowledge of God’s word — as spoken — means to suggest that the Jews are spiritually blind is a nonsensical argument. It goes against the plain and clear narrative of the Bible.

So the monumental question is, if it is so patently obvious that Jesus is the Messiah, why did the Jews reject him?

Now that we have established the right to understand words, it is clear that the reason why the Jews rejected Jesus is not because they knew he was the messiah; it's because they knew he wasn't. And their sole source of information was the holy scriptures.

Why is it that the only people who can read the bible in it's original language, the very people who encountered the prophets – it's their bible – why is it the very people to whom God promised, foretold and prophesied the Messiah, whose job it was to recognize the Messiah, who had been expecting, and waiting for the Messiah, the only people on earth who are uniquely qualified to recognize the messiah, and to whom the messiah was sent – have said that Jesus is not the Messiah, that the Messiah has not yet come, and that the notion of worshiping a man is not only foolish but also blasphemy?

I mean this could be just me but.. Maybe… Could it be… Because they're right?

A lot of people, even ministers and pastors ask this question. They see the Jewish people around them in daily life and they see these people are pretty normal, possibly a doctor, how is it that this person doesn't get it?

The answer you will never get is,

The reason why the Jews don't believe in Jesus is, they read their bible and they draw a different conclusion.

That can't be. You will never get this answer in any Church, in any commentary, or in any Seminary or bible college, never at Fulton, not at Moody's.

It is as if someone said, “Smoking cigarettes is not harmful”. What would you ask? “Why is it that every doctor, everyone who has gone through Medical school, every scientist who has studied this, has said that cigarettes contain some 250 carcinogens, it's responsible for all the major killers: heart disease, cancer, stroke, and so on. Why is it that everyone who should know has said that smoking is very bad for you and has no benefits at all”.

So you have to then say that all these doctors are blinded. This should always concern you; it is an extremely self-serving theology.

I don't think any Christian really believes you don't understand things simply because they are written down. That is almost never what is meant by this; if you are talking to someone who honestly believes you can't understand your native language in print, they are the ones with a problem not you! Scripture is normal, logical communication. It is abnormal only in its revelatory nature, not in the manner it uses human language to communicate actual thoughts. Therefore, it is possible for the man without God’s Spirit (the unbeliever) to mentally grasp the meaning of Scripture, at least in terms of its logical content.

This explains why an unbeliever can write a perceptive biblical commentary. Mark Twain, an avid unbeliever, said, “It is not those passages of Scripture I do not understand that bother me, but those that I do understand.”

It is however the Christian position that man without God’s Spirit cannot understand God’s Word in the fullest sense, for he does not and cannot have a real appreciation of the spiritual implications of biblical truth, especially in relation to himself. He may grasp the thoughts, but he misses the spirit, the life-changing purpose behind the thoughts. In that sense he comprehends the raw concepts, but he does not truly “see.” Hence, the man without the Spirit of God cannot truly understand (fully grasp or appreciate) the things of God.

Christianity and Judaism are not on an even playing field. The Jews were the chosen people, chosen by God to be a light to the nations. All Christians must concede that one minute before Jesus was born, Pharisaic (traditional orthodox) Judaism – the same Judaism of Jesus and Paul – was the one true world religion.

This means Christianity has to prove itself. Christianity is saying something changed, and it changed at the Cross. That is a fantastic claim – and fantastic claims require fantastic, graphic evidence. And what the Christian Church is coming up with is in fact horrible evidence – none of it works.

So what happens when you remove the Pauline claim? The default fall-back is Judaism. For example, in one of the early epistles (2 Timothy) which has been speculated written between AD61 and AD65 (5 to 10 years before Mark), 2 Timothy 3:16-17 states, “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.” – this is not a statement regarding the New Testament, any of the Gospels or the works of Paul or any apostle. There was no New Testament until well after 2 Timothy was written, so we know for a fact 2 Timothy is referring to the Jewish scriptures.

Even Marcion who was the first to publish a proto-New Testament (consisting of ten excerpts from Luke, and ten Pauline epistles) did not begin his work until at least AD140 or AD144. Therefore the epistle of 2 Timothy could not have referred to any collection of New Testament scriptures but only to have Jewish scriptures.

The spiritual blindness ascribed to gentiles or other non-believers is a little different but can often be confused with the spiritual blindness with which the Christians claim God cursed the Jews.

Let's go through this and try and see where the Christian Doctrine of spiritual blindness might come from.

In 1st Corinthians 2, Paul makes argument based on the idea that humans are separate from God spiritually, that they therefore do not understand spiritual things, and that through Jesus they can rejoin God and be spiritually connected to God (in their doctrine they mean, to Jesus).

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.1 Corinthians 2:6-16 (KJV)

Yet looking at 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, one may find Paul's errors multiple and difficult. One, in 2:9 Paul simply presupposes he is right because he believes in Jesus. This is a sentiment – not a proof: “8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (KJV). You can see this in how verses 8, 9 and 10 do not really make sense as a string of related thoughts in that no proof or justification or methodology is given other than a contrast. I.E. other people are blind therefore we must be spiritually awake.

With respect to 2 Corinthians 2:10-15, Paul's claim is that non-Christians are spiritually disconnected from God; that we have only the spirit of a Man (2:11-12,14). Yet it is a foundational principle stated in Genesis 1 that we have been created in the image of God. Psalm 46:7, Jeremiah 42:11 and many others.

The bible is very clear Man has God's spirit in him already. Psalms 104:29-30 and Job 34:12-15 and more. What the holy scriptures actually teach is not that we have a spirit of man, or that we need God's holy spirit to allow us to understand truth in scripture – but rather it teaches us this has already happened and all human beings are capable of understanding; ex. Deuteronomy 30:14, Joshua 1:8, and others. Deu 6:6 states, “And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.”

In fact, we are alive in the first place specifically because God has already filled us with his ‘holy spirit’ (ruach ha-kodesh; see Genesis 1:27, Genesis 2:7, Genesis 6:3 and others). The notion that Paul supposes, that our spirit is not of God, but separate and corrupt, is contradicted by these passages in the Bible.

This verse is occasionally used, it is a sort of 'warning shot' some Christians use because it is light, friendly and bypasses the issue usually being raised in favor of a different issue. It's about as non-confrontational as possible but unfortunately due to that it is also not a very strong attempt in and of itself.

33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well.Matthew 6:33 (RSV)

The meaning is, whatever the answer to your question is, it probably isn't very important. The Christian may use this passage to try and prevent a long discussion, especially with someone they recognize won't be convinced by an answer no matter how well-delivered (they may feel it is not an important issue). They will then try to deflect away into a sort of soft-sell by stating 6:33 or it's paraphrase, 'If you just pray to Jesus, he will answer you' or 'Why don't you just try believing in Jesus/Praying to Jesus/Having faith in Jesus, and he will reveal himself to you'. It is essentially the statement that you must believe via faith before the truth can be revealed to you.

Yet being asked to assume a belief is true without any proof or in the face of conflicting evince is not in and of itself a statement or a proof. It is problematic; asking someone to worship (pray to) Jesus first before believing in him is a very soft-sell approach; “believe in Jesus first, then make a decision later on if you really believe in him” but it isn't logical nor does it really speak to the underlying issue.

Another issue we can raise is that this verse is being taken out of context. What “all these things” are, does not mean the answer to your question. It means what's written just before in Matthew 6:31-32. Seeing the passage in it's proper context instantly reveals what is really being said here:

31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.Matthew 6:31-33 (KJV)

The verse is specifically referencing the fact that God knows what material things you need to survive: Food, Drink, Clothing, i.e. material possessions, money, and even a modicum of success to let you feel proud to be you, to feel happy.

As such we can’t accept this verse as bearing on spiritual blindness, because in and of itself it does not address an issue. We seek proof via Sola Scriptura instead.

13 This is why I speak to them in parables:

“Though seeing, they do not see;

  though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;

  you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;

  they hardly hear with their ears,
  and they have closed their eyes.

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,

  hear with their ears,
  understand with their hearts

and turn, and I would heal them.’[a]

a. Matthew 13:15 Isaiah 6:9,10 (see Septuagint)Matthew 13:13-15 (NIV)

The first problem with this verse is that it is only referring to Jesus' sermon on that day. In Matthew 3:13, it is stated that Jesus is specifically speaking to this crowd in parables. It does not mean that the entire Bible is written in parables. So to use this part of the verse to explain that people can't understand the bible because it is written in a kind of spiritual code is incorrect. Jesus merely says he is explaining things in such a way so that crowd will not understand but his disciples will understand.

The second issue we take up with this verse is that we are not even member of the crowd; we are not hearing these words as if we were a member of that crowd. We are hearing the words as readers of the Apostles who wrote down what Jesus said, and we also have the inside track here: in Matthew 13:10-11, Jesus via the Apostles states,

10 Then the disciples came to Him and asked, “Why do You speak to the crowds in parables?” 11 Jesus replied to them, “To you it has been granted to know the [b]mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. 12 For whoever has [spiritual wisdom because he is receptive to God’s word], to him more will be given, and he will be richly and abundantly supplied; but whoever does not have [spiritual wisdom because he has devalued God’s word], even what he has will be taken away from him.Matthew 13:10-12 (AMP)

Given that the New Testament was written expressly to shed light on Christian doctrine, and given that Jesus explains the parables (ex. Matthew 13:18-23), it is inconceivable that the reason a non-Christian cannot understand Christian doctrine is because it is left unstated or the key to the parables was not given to them.

No Christian could make the claim credibly that he was taught some kind of secret meaning of the New Testament in Sunday school that a non-Christian wouldn't have learned; or that he has a special power to understand the truth because he has 'the holy spirit'. Truth is truth, plain meaning is plain meaning. It should be clear that the New Testament is not interested in hiding the message and teachings of Jesus from anyone. Instead, the New Testament goes out of it's way to explain everything you would need to know to believe and practice as a Christian – even to the point of explaining things twice or three times, even from the standpoint of an unbeliever.

So to state that someone can somehow not understand the message of the New Testament because they are not a Christian does not make any sense. This is explained beautifully in passages like Mark 8:26 and 8:30 where we are told things only the Apostles could know and even things which were explicitly forbidden to be revealed to outsiders by Jesus himself.

Of course at this point one must question why a passage used to support Jewish spiritual blindness is now being used to support Gentile spiritual blindness.

If what the Christian does in fact mean is Jewish spiritual blindness, then this form of blindness does not actually apply to Gentiles, and this passage in Matthew 13 should not be used (as it cannot apply to gentiles).

Please see the section above in Jewish Spiritual Blindless over Isaiah 6.

You can check this in any English Bible. Here are three examples.

We see here that Matthew has subtly changed the meaning of the verse into a general statement of spiritual blindness that can never be lifted. But this isn't what the passage in Isaiah 6 means at all. The passage in Isaiah 6 is a prophecy, and to understand that prophecy you need to understand something else special about Isaiah 6: It's not talking about the Jews.

Yes, the big deal here is that Isaiah 6 isn't even talking about the Jews in the first place!

Isaiah 6 says “this people” out of context. The reason for this is that Isaiah is quoting 1st Kings 22 and 2nd Chronicles 21. In other words, everyone who reads Isaiah 6 won't know who 'this people' means unless they know the context of Kings and Chronicles.

21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ 22 And the Lord said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go forth and do so.’ 23 Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has spoken evil concerning you.”1 Kings 22:21-23 (RSV)

19 and the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab the king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another. 20 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ And the Lord said to him, ‘By what means?’ 21 And he said, ‘I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go forth and do so.’ 22 Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these your prophets; the Lord has spoken evil concerning you.”2 Chronicles 18:19-22

These passages are significant not because they cross-reference to Isaiah 6 but because 'these people' is thus put into context; it refers to Northern Israel! In these passages Micah is summoned to the court of the King of Israel (not Judah) to inquire of the Lord.

The Christian will claim Matthew was quoting from the Septuagint; however this is a spurious and frivolous claim as Isaiah was never a part of the Septuagint; the Septuagint was only the five books of Moses, and the other books were translated anonymously or by the Church and appended later. The introduction to the Septuagint clearly states this; it states that the Septuagint was only the first five books of Moses; All other books were translated either anonymously or by the Church. It will also note that Isaiah in particular is a translation of incredibly poor quality. You can read this for yourself in the introduction to the Septuagint, it's true. So there is a major issue here in that Jesus and Matthew are quoting the Septuagint and not the Hebrew because Jesus certainly would have known that the context of Isaiah 6 would have prevented him from using this passage to imply spiritual blindness.

The passage is, in short, a warning. It is a message sent to the Israelites who had fallen into Idolatry. This passage is self-aware of this precisely because it mentions King Uzziah who is remembered for his failure to put an end to Idolatry, and famously committed ma'al (like the Maccabees–a kind of ritual impurity–unfaithful encroachment upon priestly duties) by burning incense in the temple.

Even if one disregards this context, God states in Isaiah 6:13 (AMP), ““And though a tenth [of the people] remain in the land, …the holy seed…” (AMP). This is universally understood to refer to the righteous remnant of Israel that God always preserves (by whatever means). The tenth refers to tithing, that which belongs to God. Therefore it is very difficult to use this passage to show that the Jews in particular are spiritually blind, but by it's very nature it does not apply to non-Jews at all.

Finally, the demarcation line is actually spoken by Jesus in Matthew 13:12; “12 For whoever has [spiritual wisdom because he is receptive to God’s word], to him more will be given, and he will be richly and abundantly supplied; but whoever does not have [spiritual wisdom because he has devalued God’s word], even what he has will be taken away from him.” This makes it very clear that what is meant here by being unable to hear or understand his parables is being unfamiliar with scripture. Therefore, this passage could never apply in the sense of meaning that someone can not underastand scripture itself simply because he is a non-Christian.

Therefore what Jesus really meant by “Let those who have ears to hear, hear…” is, he was calling out to those pious and religious Jews who were otherwise 'Orthodox Jews', i.e. the Pharisees as described in Luke 3; the common Jewish people in the kingdom of Judah. Those who set themselves apart from the idolatrous Kingdom of Northern Israel and from the Romans and their Sadducean supporters. He was merely making an appeal to populist culture.

Conclusion: This passage does not apply to non-Jews at all, nor does it apply to Jews in general, esp. any Jew who has ever performed teshuvah (repented of his sins) via Isaiah 6:10 (AMP) “And return and be healed.”

The time limit in the Isaiah 6 prophecy is therefore seen to be the scattering of the ten tribes.

15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper,[f] to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be[g] in you.John 14:15-17 (ESV)

22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?” 23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.John 14:22-24 (ESV)

Christians will use this passage to state that someone who does (did) not love Jesus would not have kept his commandments, and then would not receive the helper (the spirit of truth), and would therefore be unable to understand the truth (in general) which would include spiritual truths, and an understanding of scripture. Only people who “love him” will receive the truth and will receive their presence.

This seems a little tenuous. We just heard Jesus say in Matthew 13 that people would need a basic understanding of scripture before they were able to hear and understand his parables. To deny them the possibility to understand truth as a whole doesn't really make sense. So this would be considered a spiritual truth.

26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.John 15:26 (ESV)

12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.John 16:12-14 (ESV)

Much clarity comes from John 15:26 and 16:12-14 (above). Here the helper (the spirit of truth) is explained as something or someone that will manifest by proclaiming Jesus. Therefore, this passage may appear relevant to a Christian who is facing someone on certain topics, such as Is Jesus God, or Is Jesus the Promised Messiah. Non-believers who deny Jesus in various ways and attempt to use scripture to justify their claims would be seen as not being able to recognize the truth, which is a convenient way to undermine or demonize their entire argument without having to respond to the verse. In short, they're wrong, because they can't see the spiritual truth in the passages they are reading.

Fortunately this tactic can be countered swiftly and cleanly in a couple of ways. First the spirit of truth would only apply to seeing the truth (the proclamation) of Jesus in a passage that affirms Jesus as such – should such a passage exist – and would not apply to any other kind of passage. This is just a passage about being able to recognize the proclamation of Jesus and not necessarily about understanding scripture in general.

Secondly, note that you are not trying to explain anything to them, you are not trying to convince them of anything. You are merely pointing out God's word in the bible i.e. you are pointing out that God has issued a certain understanding in his own words (in the 'Old Testament') and that therefore such a verse should be considered relevant if it applies to the topic of discussion. The secondary fact of whether or not you happen to understand the verse is not relevant.

As an aside, doing so would obviously verify you understood the verse because you would understand how it was different from the Christian position and would be capable of making a then-informed choice between the two – the rationale for your choice being what the Christian would have to counter and not your understanding of the verse.

In short, a simple acceptance by Faith is no longer possible when God has already spoken on the matter. If you are asked to accept something new, that is possibly okay, but if you are asked to accept something new via rejecting something God has said (which can never be undone) it is not okay – even if you do not understand the thing you are being asked to accept.

The notion that Jewish people in particular are spiritually blinded is also based on a claim by Paul that Moses wore a veil. This is found to be an argument out of typology, and a false reading of scripture, so it will be rejected. Here is the analysis.

The idea comes from Paul, not from Jesus or the Gospels, and is not corroborated by any other source (although a possible reference to this idea is made in Acts 9:17-19). In 2nd Corinthians 3:13-16 Paul writes,

13 not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end.

14 But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away.

15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. 16 But when one[a] turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 2 Corinthians 3:13-16 (ESV)

The statement here is that in the same way Moses covered his face “so that the Jews could not understand God's word” (could not understand the end of the Law), in that same way (i.e. 'the same vail') was used by God to blind the Jews (those under the covenant of Sinai). In that manner, even though (apparently) Jesus is “on every page” of the Torah, the Jews will deny Christ because they cannot see (that truth). However, should a Jew turn to God (here understood “to Jesus”), then Jesus will take that veil away and allow 'the Jew' to know the truth.

Unfortunately Paul has misrepresented the story of Moses, as can be seen in Exodus 34 29-35:

29 When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand as he came down from the mountain, Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God.[d] 30 Aaron and all the people of Israel saw Moses, and behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him. 31 But Moses called to them, and Aaron and all the leaders of the congregation returned to him, and Moses talked with them. 32 Afterward all the people of Israel came near, and he commanded them all that the Lord had spoken with him in Mount Sinai. 33 And when Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil over his face.

34 Whenever Moses went in before the Lord to speak with him, he would remove the veil, until he came out. And when he came out and told the people of Israel what he was commanded, 35 the people of Israel would see the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face was shining. And Moses would put the veil over his face again, until he went in to speak with him.Exodus 34:29-35 (ESV)

It has thus been made exceedingly clear that Veil was only worn during the times that Moses was not giving testimony or instruction to the Jews, or in the presence of God.

This presents an incredible problem. The idea that a Pharisee of Pharisees who studied under Gamliel could be capable of such a crude mistake in understanding the scriptures is inconceivable, especially since Paul claims to have been a divinely inspired apostle of Jesus. Of course the Jews notice errors like this in Paul's theology immediately and they knew he had not studied under Gamliel, nor was he Jewish, therefore they rejected him as well. This is why the Jews were given such a bad rap by Paul; they were the only ones with more credibility than him; by demonizing the Jews and taking them out of the picture he was free to take over the religion in the eyes of men.

Whatever the reason for this, whether the ends justify the means or not, the end here serves a very simple purpose: An explanation of why the Jews reject Christ. After all, no one should know the bible as well as a Jew – they memorize it as Children. Why then don't they see the divinity of Christ expressed in the Bible? The thought that it's precisely the error of Paul – a complete lack of understanding of the Bible – and that the problem rests primarily on Christian shoulders, never occurs to the Christian.

There is more!

The Light of the Gospel
4 Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God,[a] we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice[b] cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants[c] for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.2 Corinthians 4:1-6(ESV)

This is a secondary (and considered weak) proof: “5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants[c] for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” The problem here is really that this isn't a proof of anything at all; when God said “Let there be light” he was not casting spiritual blindness on the Jews. How was this conclusion reached?

Some Christians will double down and claim the above references were misunderstood(!!) and bring the following argument:

Second Corinthians 3:12–13 gives another contrast. Ministers of the New Covenant are unlike Moses. New Covenant ministers proclaim the unfading glory in a bold manner, while Moses wore a veil to shield Israel from a fading glory. Paul is not giving us new insight into what Moses was doing. There is no new information in 2 Corinthians 3 concerning the events in Exodus 34. The main point is that the Old Covenant glory was temporary; the shining of Moses’ face was destined to fade, just as the Law he proclaimed. The emphasis is that the veil prevented the Israelites from seeing a temporary glory, not that they were prevented from noticing that the glory was gradually fading, much less that Moses had some personal (perhaps prideful) reason for hiding the fact that it was fading. This paraphrase may help: Unlike Moses, who wore a veil to conceal the temporary glory of the Old Covenant, we boldly proclaim the permanent glory of the New Covenant.https://www.gotquestions.org/Moses-veil.html

This an interesting problem but it opens a can of worms. First by making this claim the real comparison here is not the veil or what it may mean but Moses' fading glory vs. Jesus' eternal glory – the passage is no longer about spiritual blindness but about the comparative value of God's covenant at Sinai and the 'new covenant' of Jesus. It insinuates the reason why the Jews don't accept the gospel is not because they are blind–but because they do in fact see and understand scripture and they know it is different from the testament of Jesus. We have from simple exegesis the idea that the covenant is a 'salt covenant' (see sermon notes on NSV Deuteronomy 4, 5, S-tier in 'Christian Steamroller', etc.) so we know this idea is false. If the Christian maintains that God has divorced the Jews, just read the passage with them, Jeremiah 4:1 and on, and multiple layers of cognitive dissonance will be revealed.

In short, the concept that the glory was fading therefore has no basis in scripture and in fact seems a little forced. In fact I would say that Exodus 34:35 basically contradicts Paul on this matter by noting that Moses' face continued to shine even after he had spoken to the Jews.

This is not a passage you will often hear because of how self-deprecating it is to the Christian position. It will be quoted as Isaiah 42:7 and quickly presented to show that spiritual blindness can exist. However anything more than a casual glance will actually provide a complete indictment of the Christian position:

5 Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
6 I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.
8 I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
9 Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.Isaiah 42:5-9 (KJV)

Obviously this passage is about how the Jews, and not the Christians, are God's tool to bring light to the world. Isaiah 42:16 is no greater help;

16 And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them.
17 They shall be turned back, they shall be greatly ashamed, that trust in graven images, that say to the molten images, Ye are our gods.
18 Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see.
19 Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the Lord's servant?
20 Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not.
21 The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.
22 But this is a people robbed and spoiled; they are all of them snared in holes, and they are hid in prison houses: they are for a prey, and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore.
23 Who among you will give ear to this? who will hearken and hear for the time to come?Isaiah 42:16-23

• Are the Jews blind? Is there a veil over our hearts? – Rabbi Tovia Singer responds
• Veils and Scales – Our blog post announcing this article.

I asked several Christians I've spoken to if they really believe non-believers and/or Jews are completely spiritually blind, and could not understand the bible. Here are the results:

• bb – main issue

• A - I do have a personal belief that Jews are under a different covenant.
• CN-MT - no i dont believe God blinds anyone. no further comment
• M5 - AS to your question it is quite the opposite, God doesn't blind anyone spiritually, he gives us spiritual eyesight.

• CD-MN - i'm not sure god is capable of spiritually blinding anyone, merely people are blinded by their own societies (mis)perceptions of the god they are taught to believe in
• RO – I think non-believers can gain some sort of understanding (but maybe not the full picture).
• Re – I thought they were called the chosen people?