Reconciling "times of ignorance" with what is "clearly seen"

[cyberjosh]

How do we reconcile the two strains of thought presented to us in the NT about God's actions during the dispensation of the Old Covenant? On the one hand we are told, "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent" (Acts 17:30), showing a toleration for past ignorance, which now men can no longer ignore because of the living testimony of Jesus risen from the dead, and Paul tells us those without law will be judged without law -- while on the other hand we are told the wicked have never had any excuse since the things "which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:19-20). How can God overlook yet hold accountable at the same time? Was it rather a time of partial ignorance and partial knowledge?

And perhaps this is an answer to my own question but it seems that Acts 14:16-17 presents a synthesis of toleration yet clear signs which they were responsible for recognizing: "[God] Who in times past suffered (tolerated) all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness."

What are your thoughts on this?

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[mondar]

cybershark, sounds like an interesting question. I am not sure I am seeing the tension you are talking about. Certainly Act 17 speaks of God's forbearance. He did not immediately judge gentiles with destruction.

Also, Romans 1 tells us that men are "without excuse" because they suppressed knowledge of God and that God judged them by three stages of "gave them over." The end result of Romans is also that God will forbear Gentile sin, but only for so long. His judgment on Gentile nations is not immediate in Romans either.

During this time of forbearance, Acts 14 speaks of God's common grace to all nations. They still have rain from heaven, etc.

cyber, I think we are saying the same thing using different language? God in his forbearance shows common grace and does not immediately judge gentile nations with destruction but "gives them over" until their sin and rebellion matures?

 

[cyberjosh]

cybershark, sounds like an interesting question. I am not sure I am seeing the tension you are talking about. Certainly Act 17 speaks of God's forbearance. He did not immediately judge gentiles with destruction.

Also, Romans 1 tells us that men are "without excuse" because they suppressed knowledge of God and that God judged them by three stages of "gave them over." The end result of Romans is also that God will forbear Gentile sin, but only for so long. His judgment on Gentile nations is not immediate in Romans either.

During this time of forbearance, Acts 14 speaks of God's common grace to all nations. They still have rain from heaven, etc.

cyber, I think we are saying the same thing using different language? God in his forbearance shows common grace and does not immediately judge gentile nations with destruction but "gives them over" until their sin and rebellion matures?

Ok, I see what you are saying. However what are we to say of those Gentiles, speaking in respect to their personal salvation, who lived and died in/during the times of forbearance? They most certainly have to have a final judgment of their lives from what they knew while alive, but perhaps that is where romans 2 comes in where it says such will be judged according to their conscience. The destruction, on a macroscopic scale (non-individual), of a whole "nation" however certainly could be an eschatological theme (as well as extending the covenant to Gentiles as a whole to be God's people), but I was primarily looking at individual responsibility for noticing the common grace (as you say) of the things "clearly seen", although some things might have been "permissible" during the times of ignorance beyond the scope of what could be observed by them from the obvious testimonies of common grace.

I suppose the question is "Where is the line of responsibility drawn for people who lived and died in the period of 'ignorance' and 'forbearance' on an individual level?". What do you think about that?

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Ret]

I suppose the question is "Where is the line of responsibility drawn for people who lived and died in the period of 'ignorance' and 'forbearance' on an individual level?". What do you think about that? ...~Josh

Where is 'individual' responsibility, with regard to ignorance? Isaiah 53:1 a Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed. NASU
Each person is only responsible for what the arm of the LORD has revealed to them!

What is '"clearly seen" has been revealed, Romans 1:20 God as creator 'His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature' leaves us without excuse regarding our creator.

Also, "clearly seen" - John 15:22 Jesus came to demonstrate LOVE, the Love of God the father; in this there is no excuse for hatred. There is no excuse to judge, and condemn others. Romans 2:1 when we condemn others we judge ourselves.

How then is 'ignorance' or 'times of ignorance' taken care of? Jesus prayed, Luke 23:34, " Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." In this prayer Jesus asked the Father to forgive all - all creation of ignorance - to/of/for both Jew and Gentile, bond or free, rich or poor.

Thank God, in Jesus Christ, for forgiveness.....Ret

 

[cyberjosh]

Where is 'individual' responsibility, with regard to ignorance? Isaiah 53:1 a Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed. NASU
Each person is only responsible for what the arm of the LORD has revealed to them!

I agree. I was just wanting to perhaps get a defintion or speculation about what the contents of the ignorance were during the "times of ignorance" before Christ. For example, a hot button issue would be if reacting to the things "clearly seen" resulted in them worshiping "a god" but not God (Yahweh) himself (as a result of their ignorance). Was that part of the 'ignorance' overlooked by God? I was looking at "where do we draw the line between how much they know (thus are responsible) and what was 'understandable' because of ignorance?". Was ignorance in worshiping God in an incorrect way 'tolerated' for those who lived and died pagan before Christ?

What is '"clearly seen" has been revealed, Romans 1:20 God as creator 'His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature' leaves us without excuse regarding our creator.

Also, "clearly seen" - John 15:22 Jesus came to demonstrate LOVE, the Love of God the father; in this there is no excuse for hatred. There is no excuse to judge, and condemn others. Romans 2:1 when we condemn others we judge ourselves.

This is true, and this is among the common things made manifest to every conscience regardless of whether they were pagan gentiles or believing jews.

How then is 'ignorance' or 'times of ignorance' taken care of? Jesus prayed, Luke 23:34, " Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." In this prayer Jesus asked the Father to forgive all - all creation of ignorance - to/of/for both Jew and Gentile, bond or free, rich or poor.

This is true but this did not unilatterally absolve all the sins of the past when he said that, also it is obvious that that comment had its own immediate context and import. What of those before Jesus who served their 'gods' in ignorance?

Thank God, in Jesus Christ, for forgiveness.....Ret

Amen. And now, because of Christ, there is certainly no excuse for ignorance any more in light of His sacrifice. But I primarily posed this question to ask about the period and state of things before Christ when ignorance among the pagans reigned.

Thanks for you thoughts,

~Josh

 

[Ret]

... because of Christ, there is certainly no excuse for ignorance any more in light of His sacrifice. But I primarily posed this question to ask about the period and state of things before Christ when ignorance among the pagans reigned.~Josh

Josh, appreciate your comments. My position is that we are just as ignorant today as they were back before the time of Jesus Christ, only in opposite areas of understanding.

In Abraham, Isaac and Jacob God revealed His election. Then God built a nation, and preserved this most important message in a stiffnecked and rebellious people till the time of Jesus Christ.

In Jesus Christ the gospel message is given to both Jew and Gentile. However, there is a partial hardening [ignorance] to the Jews in regard to the gospel. As the Gentiles run with the gospel message, election is lost sight of, leaving the Gentile world basically ignorant of election, the truth given to Israel - 'the fathers' - the Jews. [see Ro 11:25-32]

Luke 21:24 ...Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles,
until the times of the Gentiles [times of ignorance] be fulfilled. KJV

As the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled, ignorance of both Jew and Gentile is reconcilled unto Jesus Christ, I/we too will say, "father forgive them [pagans], for they know not what they do".

Peace.....Ret

 

[mondar]

A FEW RAMBLINGS ON ACTS 17:30
30 The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent:

What in the context could the "times of ignorance" refer to but the idolatry of the Gentiles? I think idolatry is the target of what Paul says early in the context when he ways...
24 The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

So then Gentiles ignorantly worshiped idols in their polytheistic religions. God did not neccessarily judge them as nations for their idolatry and polytheistic religions. Possibly he judged the Ninevites, Sodom and Gomorah, but was that for idolatry and polytheism?

Cyber raised the question of individual repentance. I have spoken to national repentance, but what about individual repentance. Does it really work different? As Paul stood there speaking to these Epicurean and Stoic Philosophers in the Aerogopus, were they idolaters in the past? Most likely. Did God judge them on an individual basis for their sin? Or did he over look it until after their death and a day of judgment comes? If God judged us the moment we sin, we would be extinct as a race. Is not God tolerant, and longsuffering, a God who is merciful and waits for repentance? God having preknowledge of events (I am not referring to the biblical concept of foreknowledge here), does he not know who will repent? He could judge them at their first sin and still be just. But he overlooks sin. He overlooked the idolatry of the philosophers. Yet he calls all men everywhere to repent.

Does God act different toward individuals as compared to nations? The very next verse in the chapter makes it clear that while God overlooks sin for a time, the day of judgment will come.
31 inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

God is longsuffering, but God is also the just judge who will finally bang his gavel, pronounce the guilt, and then execute the sentence.

 

[Ret]

In this fleshly life, 'times of ignorance' are present continually for each and every individual, till judgment day. This is why David in psalms 19:12 says Who can discern his errors? Acquit me of hidden faults. Also, Ps 39:4 "LORD, make me to know my end And what is the extent of my days; Let me know how transient I am. NASU

Isaiah 66:2 ..."But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word. God never turns this one away, regardless of one's ignorance, regardless of whatever he knows or doesn't know...Ret

 

[Veritas]

However what are we to say of those Gentiles, speaking in respect to their personal salvation, who lived and died in/during the times of forbearance?

Have you thought about those who were Gentiles, that encountered the Truth?

Ruth was a Moabite
Rahab was a Caananite
Melchizedek was, as far as we know, a king of Salem
Job was considered gentile
Naaman was Syrian
Balaam was a non-Isralite prophet
Jethro was a Midianite
Abimelech was a gentile-king
By the way, I find Balaam's, Jethro's, and Abimelech's stories very interesting. The story of Abimelech seems to foreshadow what happens when Israel loses its way. Like what happened at the time of Jesus. It was wisemen (gentiles) from the east that knew the Truth, not the religious Jewish peoples.

What do you think?

 

[Paidion]

And now, because of Christ, there is certainly no excuse for ignorance any more in light of His sacrifice.

I'm not so sure. Isn't it the case that the vast majority of persons on the earth have not even heard the name of Jesus Christ? ---- let alone being knowledgable about His sacrifice and the way of salvation from sin.

 

[cyberjosh]

Well let me be clear on something that may clear up any misunderstanding. I believe that "the times of ignorance" was a specific period/dispensation in the past, although yes one could argue that there are groups today ignorant of Christ to which Romans 2 no doubt applies for being judged according to conscience. However I believe that to be in the context of the verse, which also used past tense "overlooked" those times of ignorance. There is a difference now in that Christ has been revealed in the flesh to men, and men can no longer question about the proper way to get to God: Christ is the only way. Now of course this requires knowledge of Christ, but the "time of ignorance" I believe primarily refers to the period of time before Christ before the way to God was shown plainly.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

What in the context could the "times of ignorance" refer to but the idolatry of the Gentiles? I think idolatry is the target of what Paul says early in the context when he ways...
24 The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

So then Gentiles ignorantly worshiped idols in their polytheistic religions. God did not neccessarily judge them as nations for their idolatry and polytheistic religions. Possibly he judged the Ninevites, Sodom and Gomorah, but was that for idolatry and polytheism?

Well God called Abraham out of a polytheistic and idolatrous background and after Jacob married Rachel God commanded that they put away all idols from their household ("Put away the foreign gods which are among you, and purify yourselves and change your garments" Genesis 35:2). God overlooked their beginnings but demanded change once he had called them and revealed Himself to them. For Sodom and Gommorah they commited great moral wrong - which is why they were judged, and God often judged other nations based on their cruelty and mistreatment of others as well as their pride (basically their moral behavior), but not often do we see a direct reprimanding of their polytheism (unless directly confronted by God or with a prophetic revelation - which I'll talk about below). Although I do find it interesting that in the story of Jonah we see explicitly better behavior and reactions from the pagan Gentiles toward God than God's own prophet! If you'll notice, during the storm those Gentiles on the ship specifically prayed to Yahweh once they found out who Jonah was (a prophet of Yahweh), while Jonah himself would not even pray to his own God. Here we see much more moral responsibility and fear of God among the Gentiles in the face of being confronted with the God of Israel and/or His prophets. So it comes down I think to those who have come into contact with the God of Israel and whether they responded properly or not. If they have not been confronted or given revelation or a message from God they cannot be held directly responsible because of ignorance, but when they have they most certainly had no excuse for ignorance or reacting incorrectly in light of the revelation (take Sennacherib's mocking of Yahweh - saying he was unable to save Jerusalem - for example).

Remember when the Philistines captured the Ark of the Covenant in battle, and God placed a plague on them and made their own idol of Dagon fall on its face? This was a clear condemnation of their false gods, and eventually the Phillistines couldn't stand before God's judgement and payed "reparations" in the form of golden tumors to placate the God of Israel (an incorrect method of doing so obviously - clearly from their own beliefs about how to placate their own gods, but nonetheless they realized that Israel's God was real and that His presence was real and powerful, especially in connection with the Ark of the Covenant, and reacted the best they knew how in light of that.)

At any rate all this is to say that there was largely a questionable situtation among the Gentiles of how to respond to Israel's God which largely was due to their ignorance, which God no doubt overlooked, while God nonetheless primarily held them morally responsible for their actions. Since Jesus, however, the clear way to God has been revealed. And the Gentiles no longer have an excuse to react ambiguously toward God.

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

However what are we to say of those Gentiles, speaking in respect to their personal salvation, who lived and died in/during the times of forbearance?

Have you thought about those who were Gentiles, that encountered the Truth?

Ruth was a Moabite
Rahab was a Caananite
Melchizedek was, as far as we know, a king of Salem
Job was considered gentile
Naaman was Syrian
Balaam was a non-Isralite prophet
Jethro was a Midianite
Abimelech was a gentile-king
By the way, I find Balaam's, Jethro's, and Abimelech's stories very interesting. The story of Abimelech seems to foreshadow what happens when Israel loses its way. Like what happened at the time of Jesus. It was wisemen (gentiles) from the east that knew the Truth, not the religious Jewish peoples.

What do you think?

I like your wording on that: "encountered the Truth"; rather than saying outright "accepted the Truth" because certainly Balaam encountered it but ultimately rejected it. But yes there were many Gentiles in former times that believed and which foreshadowed God's grace being extended to the Gentiles through Christ, and I think that perhaps after all Acts 14:16-17 does strike at the heart of the matter: "[God] Who in times past suffered (tolerated) all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness." There was always a witness, and the Philistines and the Pagans on the Boat with Jonah, and the Assyrians Jonah preached to all realized Yahweh's existence, and the Assyrians even repented. For that same reason, and common witness, it makes Balaam's sin all the worse. And God clearly overlooked the sins of and showed grace to Ruth since she by law was to be excluded from the Israel commonwealth otherwise, and even used her in the blood line of King David.

I was just wanting to see if any one had some more well-developed and fleshed out theological considerations that acknowledged both concepts of overlooking ignorance yet still holding people accountable into a systematic theological synthesis. I study theology in my spare time and I'm always interested in listening to others perspective from a Biblical basis if they can support it Scripturally. So if you have any more thoughts, please speak up.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Robin]

On the surface, the two Testaments seem so completely different from each other. In the Old Testament God seems harsh and judgmental - even capricious. But in the New Testament we find Jesus apparently abrogating the death penalty for adultery, forgiving theft, etc, and being a friend to sinners. From Old Testament to New, it looks like God radically changed and decided to "lighten up." Or that He decided that His old plan wasn't working and decided to come up with an entirely new plan. This new plan appears to be far less burdensome than the old one, allowing for far more leniency and liberty.

That's the way it looks to those who have been taught that only the New Testament really matters and the Old is "irrelevant." But in fact, the Bible is ONE BOOK from Genesis to Revelation, written over thousands of years on three different continents and (mostly) in two languages. The plan of God to redeem a people for Himself remains unchanged from Eden. It reached its consummation in Christ's life of perfect obedience, His atonement, resurrection, and ascension to the right hand of God the Father. But God has always had only ONE plan of salvation.

How then can we explain the apparently huge differences between God's seeming Old Testament harshness and His New Testament mercy? As a new Christian I was often quite frankly offended by some of the stories I found in the Old Testament, where it seemed to me that God was being unduly harsh and judgmental. I thought, "He wouldn't have done that in the New Testament!"

On the advice of a mentor of mine, as I read through the whole Bible, I was to put a red "X" in the margin of the page next to any text which offended my sensibilities. I found quite a few in the Old Testament, where it seemed to me that God was "too quick to judge" and acted with "undue" harshness. There were passages where it also seemed, to be brutally honest, that God was being completely arbitrary and unfair! Three in particular bothered me:



The story of Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1-3),

The killing of Uzzah (1 Chronicles 13:1-11), and

The extermination of the people of Canaan

Each of those red "X"s in the margins represented a place where I disagreed with God. These were points at which God and I had very different ideas of what is right and what is fair. If I could not resolve these differences, I knew that I would simply have to accept God's definition of what is good and bad, fair and unfair. When I disagree with God, He is right and I'm wrong! But I put the "X"s in the margins anyway, if only to discover where God and I differed and also to see if those differences are truly negated in the New Testament.

Nadab and Abihu were just "innocently" playing games with the firepans and holy objects in the tabernacle (they were probably teenagers, according to some Bible scholars) when God suddenly burned them alive with fire from the altar. Their father (and Moses' brother) Aaron was offended by the deaths of his sons and appealed to Moses. But God said, "I will be treated as holy by those who come near Me (Lev 10:3)." Was God really being unfair? Were Nadab and Abihu just innocently fooling around and then suddenly killed in an arbitrary act of a harsh God acting impulsively? Actually no. They knew what they were doing, and they knew that they were in the very presence of God. The text even suggests that they were drunk as they goofed off in the presence of the LORD. They had been trained in minute detail how to properly minister in the tabernacle, yet they behaved as if God didn't even really exist. They showed no fear of Him even as they stood before His altar. No, God was not unfair after all.

But what about Uzzah? Uzzah only tried to save the Ark of the LORD from falling into the mud from the ox-drawn cart. And what did Uzzah get for his trouble? ZAP! God kills Uzzah right on the spot. Uzzah was only trying to help, and there wasn't exactly time to think before acting - the Ark was toppling! Surely God was unfair in this instance, right? I just had to look a little deeper to find the answer to that question. Uzzah was a Kohathite. The sole responsibility of the Kohathites was to cover and transport the holy objects and utensils of the tabernacle (see Numbers 4:15 and 19-20). No one but the priests were allowed to even look upon the holy objects, let alone actually touch and handle them. The Kohathites were trained to approach two at a time walking backward and carrying a cover between them so that the cloth would cover the Ark. It was to be carried by men using staves inserted through rings (so placing the Ark on an oxcart was definitely a violation). The Kohathites were trained from childhood to no other vocation but the moving of the tabernacle. Every Kohathite knew better than to use an oxcart to carry the Ark - and they certainly knew better than to reach out and actually touch the Ark of God. In fact, mud would not have desecrated the Ark had it fallen - mud is not guilty of sin as men are. Uzzah treated the Ark like museum piece instead of the altar of the living God, arrogantly daring to touch it. Was God unfair and arbitrary in His response to Uzzah's betrayal of his lifetime of training? Not at all. Uzzah actually deserved what he got.

But surely the genocide of the Canaanites by the Hebrews was unfair though, right? God ordered the Hebrews to conquer the land and kill everything that breathed Canaanite air - men, women, children, livestock, pets! That definitely seems absolutely cruel and arbitrary! Why would God order the complete destruction of an entire race of people He created, and why put women and children to death?

"Do not say in your heart when the LORD your God had driven them out before you, 'Because of my righteousness the LORD has brought me in to possess this land,' but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is dispossessing them before you. It is not for your righteousness nor for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Know then, it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stubborn people (Deuteronomy 9:6, NASB)."

So, were the Hebrews unfairly favored over the Canaanites? They weren't given the land because they deserved it. They were given the land because God was driving out a hideously wicked people. The Canaanites received justice for their wickedness. The Hebrews, no doubt better in our estimation than the Canaanites were, nevertheless were not blessed because of their own righteousness "for you are a stubborn people," the LORD had said. The Hebrews received MERCY. The Canaanites received JUSTICE.

When we are offended by stories in the Bible, it is often because we presume upon God's mercy. We think that God is somehow obligated to show mercy to everyone, just because He has shown mercy to some. But if God is obligated to forgo justice and show mercy, then how can we still call it mercy? Mercy means we DON'T get what we deserve. Justice means we GET what we deserve. If mercy is mandatory, it can no longer be called mercy at all!

Jesus Christ was asked this same kind of question about the seeming unfairness of providence (see Luke 13:1-5). Where was God when the tower of Siloam fell on innocent passers-by? What about the innocent Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices? Christ's answer was a terse as the Deuteronomy passage above:

"Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse debtors than the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish (Luke 13:2-5, NASB)."

The Galileans and victims of the Siloam tower collapse were NOT INNOCENT victims who deserved better than they got, according to Jesus. We ALL deserve what they received. NO ONE IS INNOCENT, and God is under no obligation to show mercy to anyone. The wonder is not that God shows mercy to some and justice to the rest. The wonder is that God shows mercy to anyone at all!

Only once in history has an innocent suffered.

If any act of God should truly offend us; if there is any Bible story where God can truly be said to have been unduly harsh and unfair, you won't find it in the Old Testament. It's in the New. A completely innocent, totally pure, sinless and perfect Man suffered and died for the wrongdoing of others - you and me.

Was that unfair? Absolutely yes. Yet was God unjust? Absolutely not.

Posted with ForumPilot Freeware v1.1