https://headhearthand.org/blog/2011/08/11/a-good-question-from-justin-taylor/  Informing Minds. Moving Hearts. Directing Hands. Mon, 23 Feb 2026 18:08:00 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.41 https://headhearthand.org/blog/2011/08/11/a-good-question-from-justin-taylor/#comment-2058 Sun, 14 Aug 2011 08:32:56 +0000 http://headhearthand.org/blog/2011/08/11/a-good-question-from-justin-taylor/#comment-2058 I think that we first have to remember here that it was the risen Christ that they “see” here… He appeared with them on the way. Thus we remember that it was a glorified body.. though similar to before but different… Now the text says that their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him. I don’t believe it speaks of the “spiritual eyes” as we Reformed want to do most of the time. When the text says their eyes were restrained, they just did not recognize Jesus physically. And it says that their “eyes were opened” as Jesus was serving them bread. Could it be that it was then that the “restraint” was removed from their physical sight by seeing the marks of the Cross in His hands?As to verse 25 when they received the rebuke, the disciples should have known the Scriptures better…”slow of heart to believe”… but remember it says after this: “slow of heart to believe in ALL (emphasis mine) that the prophets have spoken”. Thus, it is like with us until this day, they understood much of the prophets, yet did not grasp it all. Yes, there is reason for rebuke, and we should take it to heart as often we too are slow to understand all that is available to us in knowing and understanding Jesus and His teachings. That is not to say that we don’t need the Holy Spirit to understand the Scriptures, but understanding does not come without studying also.I agree with the comment from Nick… Let’s be careful that our Reformed theology does not interpret the text but that the text formulates our theology. I believe this was the principle behind Reformed theology (which I love) but often after knowing Reformed theology so well, it often unconsciously formulates our interpretation of the text.

]]> https://headhearthand.org/blog/2011/08/11/a-good-question-from-justin-taylor/#comment-2057 Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:16:19 +0000 http://headhearthand.org/blog/2011/08/11/a-good-question-from-justin-taylor/#comment-2057 I guess I fail to understand why a “reformed” reading is even possible with this set of verses. The “divine veiling” wasn’t so they couldn’t believe all that the prophets have spoken. It’s simply that they didn’t “recognize” him. It wasn’t because of the divine veiling that they couldn’t believe all that the prophets had spoken. It just kept them from realizing it was Jesus. Perhaps He looked different or something. Whatever it was, God kept them from “recognizing him.” It has nothing to do with God keeping them from “believing.” The human culpability comes because they had read the prophets and seen what Jesus had been doing and they hadn’t believed. They were responsible because they should have believed but didn’t. They could have and should have believed, but didn’t. But it wasn’t because of the veiling. The veiling was so they didn’t recognize Jesus physically. It had nothing to do with keeping them from faith. Whether there can be true human responsibility without an actual ability to do otherwise is a question perhaps answered by other passages, but not this one. And again, the divine revealing wasn’t anything other than God removing the veil he had put on them to keep these men from recognizing Jesus. As soon as that was taken away, they knew who it was. The “recognition” and divine unveiling had nothing to do with them at that moment putting faith in Jesus. Help me if I’m not seeing something here.

]]>