I believe that the lack of an explicit subject should be understood as indicating that God is the subject because of a well known feature of the scriptures that is usually referred to as the "divine passive":

A salient stylistic feature of the Sermon on the Mount is Jesus’ use of a verbal construction known as the “divine passive” or “theological passive.” In these cases no subject is identified in the sentence. For example, in Matthew 5:4, Jesus declares, “Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.” In this statement we learn that the mourners will be comforted, but we are not told who will do the comforting. Use of the divine passive makes the declaration ambiguous...

The article cited above and Mounce's comments here have some thoughts on a more nuanced understanding of the divine passive indicating that while God is the main player suggested it may also include involvement by Christ or plain human involvement as well.

So in summary, the passive is used as a "divine passive" aka "theological passive" to indicate that God was either completely or primarily responsible for the failure to recognize. Given the wider context where the disciples are "chewed out" for being "slow on the uptake" it appears that they were also responsible.

The word in question is a passive form of κρατέω which does not suggest "inability" but rather relates to being "controlled". There is such a thing as self-control but in this case it is God that is doing the controlling, preventing them from recognizing him. The relevant entry from BDAG is this:

⑤ to control in such a way that someth. does not happen, hold back or restrain from, hinder in an action: w. acc. (so TestJob 35:1), foll. by ἵνα μή Rv 7:1. Pass. be prevented foll. by τοῦ μή and inf. (TestSol 10:43 C; B-D-F §400, 4; Rob. 1061; 1425) their eyes ἐκρατοῦντο τοῦ μὴ ἐπιγνῶναι Lk 24:16, prob. w. a suggestion of both physical and inward sight (cp. 4 Km 6:15–23; s. διανοίγω 1b).—Hold in one’s power (PTebt 61b, 229; POxy 237 VIII, 34; TestSol 6:3; Jos., C. Ap. 1, 84; Mel., P. 100, 769) pass. οὐκ ἦν δυνατὸν κρατεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ it was impossible for him (Christ) to be held in its (death’s) power Ac 2:24.

I believe that the lack of an explicit subject should be understood as indicating that God is the subject because of a well known feature of the scriptures that is usually referred to as the "divine passive":

A salient stylistic feature of the Sermon on the Mount is Jesus’ use of a verbal construction known as the “divine passive” or “theological passive.” In these cases no subject is identified in the sentence. For example, in Matthew 5:4, Jesus declares, “Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.” In this statement we learn that the mourners will be comforted, but we are not told who will do the comforting. Use of the divine passive makes the declaration ambiguous...

The article cited above and Mounce's comments here have some thoughts on a more nuanced understanding of the divine passive indicating that while God is the main player suggested it may also include involvement by Christ or plain human involvement as well.

So in summary, the passive is used as a "divine passive" aka "theological passive" to indicate that God was either completely or primarily responsible for the failure to recognize. Given the wider context where the disciples are "chewed out" for being "slow on the uptake" it appears that they were also responsible.

I believe that the lack of an explicit subject should be understood as indicating that God is the subject because of a well known feature of the scriptures that is usually referred to as the "divine passive":

A salient stylistic feature of the Sermon on the Mount is Jesus’ use of a verbal construction known as the “divine passive” or “theological passive.” In these cases no subject is identified in the sentence. For example, in Matthew 5:4, Jesus declares, “Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.” In this statement we learn that the mourners will be comforted, but we are not told who will do the comforting. Use of the divine passive makes the declaration ambiguous...

The article cited above and Mounce's comments here have some thoughts on a more nuanced understanding of the divine passive indicating that while God is the main player suggested it may also include involvement by Chris or plain human involvement as well.

So in summary, the passive is used as a "divine passive" aka "theological passive" to indicate that God was either completely or primarily responsible for the failure to recognize. Given the wider context where the disciples are "chewed out" for being "slow on the uptake" it appears that they were also responsible.

I believe that the lack of an explicit subject should be understood as indicating that God is the subject because of a well known feature of the scriptures that is usually referred to as the "divine passive":

A salient stylistic feature of the Sermon on the Mount is Jesus’ use of a verbal construction known as the “divine passive” or “theological passive.” In these cases no subject is identified in the sentence. For example, in Matthew 5:4, Jesus declares, “Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.” In this statement we learn that the mourners will be comforted, but we are not told who will do the comforting. Use of the divine passive makes the declaration ambiguous...

The article cited above and Mounce's comments here have some thoughts on a more nuanced understanding of the divine passive indicating that while God is the main player suggested it may also include involvement by Christ or plain human involvement as well.

So in summary, the passive is used as a "divine passive" aka "theological passive" to indicate that God was either completely or primarily responsible for the failure to recognize. Given the wider context where the disciples are "chewed out" for being "slow on the uptake" it appears that they were also responsible.