Ignorance
Ignorance
As the apostolic writers dealt mostly with moral and spiritual matters, they usually spoke of ignorance in a sense that was not merely intellectual. Thus (Eph 4:18) the ignorance of the Gentiles was associated with vanity of mind, darkening of understanding, alienation from God, and hardening of heart, in a way that linked it to the deeper faculties of the soul. Even is the faculty for recognizing moral good as well as intellectual truth, and includes feeling and desiring as well as understanding. Ignorance arose, according to the apostles, as much from the condition of the conscience and the spirit as from the state of the mind (cf. 2Ti 3:7). Holding this conception, the apostles taught that ignorance sprang either from the state of the heart or from lack of the Christian revelation. The latter condition was much dwelt upon, for to all the apostles the Coming of Jesus Christ was the shedding forth of so great a light that all who had not seen that light dwelt in darkness, while they insisted also that light sufficient was given in the world to learn about God, if only men had not been led away by evil desires (Rom 1:20). Thus arose the ignorance of God (Act 17:23), the yielding to lusts (1Pe 1:14), the rejection of Jesus of Nazareth (Act 3:17), and, in St. Pauls own experience, the persecution of the followers of Jesus Christ (Act 26:9).
The double source of these sins of ignorance led to Gods method of dealing with them. As they arose from evil in men, they were not left unpunished by God (Rom 1:28); but, as they were done in ignorance of the full revelation, they were winked at or overlooked by God (Act 17:30), or in the forbearance of God were passed over (Rom 3:25). This passing over () did not exclude punishment, and was not equivalent to forgiveness (); but it prepared the way for repentance (Act 3:19) and for the receiving of the mercy of God in Christ Jesus (1Ti 1:13).
The densest ignorance came to those who had heard the gospel of Christ and had persisted in rejecting it, for on them the curse foretold by Isaiah was abiding (Act 28:26). Such people, whatever their superficial knowledge might be, were walking in such darkness that they were content to live in sin and to be guilty of hatred of their brothers (1Jn 3:6; 1Jn 2:11).
Even in the experience of those who had come to a knowledge of Christ as Saviour and Lord there existed much ignorance.
(1) If Christ Himself knew not the day of the Great Appearing, it was not to be wondered at that the times and the seasons for the coming of Gods Kingdom in glory were hid from His disciples (Act 1:7). It is evident from some of the apostolic writings (cf. 1 Thess.) that many believed that the Great Day was to come almost immediately, and were totally ignorant of the delay that was to ensue.
(2) Another subject of which there was much ignorance was the state of the dead. The apostles in their eschatology did little to dispel the darkness connected with the present condition of the dead. Sometimes they referred to the blessedness of those with Christ (Php 1:23), sometimes to their quiescence in a state of sleep (1Co 15:20), and sometimes to the activities carried on (1Pe 4:6), but the intermediate state was comparatively uninteresting to the Apostolic Age, as their main thought centred in the Resurrection and the Parousia. Even with regard to these great events of the future there was not always assured knowledge; disciples of Christ were not only doubtful of the Resurrection, but even opposed to its teaching, and St. Paul laboured to dispel their ignorance; while many sorrowed about their brethren who had passed away as if they had lost the opportunity of being present at the Parousia of Christ, not knowing that both those asleep and those alive would then together meet the Lord in the air (1Th 4:15).
(3) According to the apostles, ignorance could never be wholly eliminated from Christian life, while the circle of knowledge must be constantly enlarged. The apostles were never content to leave even the humblest Christians in a state of ignorance, and one indication of this desire may be found in the phrase that recurs so often in the Epistles of St. Paul: I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren (Rom 1:13; Rom 11:25, 1Co 10:1; 1Co 12:1, 2Co 1:8, 1Th 4:13). But the apostles acknowledged that ignorance was found even in the most mature Christian experience. Thus they taught that there had been revealed to all Christians the great end of their life, viz. the perfecting of salvation, but they indicated that there was constantly shown a real ignorance of what was needed at any particular crisis in life. Hence Christians knew not what to pray for as they should at particular moments (Rom 8:26), but in this ignorance the Holy Spirit helped within the heart by unutterable groanings. Still further, Christian experience was limited by its own capacity in face of the boundlessness of the Divine attributes. The apostles proclaimed that the love of God was made known pre-eminently in the life and death of Christ, but there were depths in Gods love that could never be fathomed by human knowledge. Christians knew that love, but even at the end they had to confess their ignorance, for it passed knowledge (Eph 3:19). The apostles had no hesitancy in believing in a real knowledge of God, but they declared that a complete or exhaustive knowledge lay beyond even the most mature Christian experience. The only thorough Agnosticism spoken of by the apostles was such as certain Corinthians were in danger of, according to St. Paul, and was associated with their low ethics, their heathen intimacies, and their disbelief in the Resurrection. These characteristics were liable to produce a persistent ignorance of God ( , 1Co 15:34) which was shared with the worst of the heathen and from which they could be saved only by being aroused from the stupor of pride and sensualism.
D. Macrae Tod.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
IGNORANCE
The want of knowledge or instruction. It is often used to denote illiteracy. Mr. Locke observes, that the causes of ignorance are chiefly three.
1. Want of ideas.
2. Want of a discoverable connection between the ideas we have.
3. Want of tracing and examining our ideas.
As it respects religion, ignorance has been distinguished into three sorts:
1. An invincible ignorance, in which the will has no part. It is an insult upon justice to suppose it will punish men because they were ignorant of things which they were physically incapable of knowing.
2. There is a wilful and obstinate ignorance; such as ignorance, far from exculpating, aggravates a man’s crimes.
3. A sort of ignorance which is neither entirely wilful, nor entirely invincible; as when a man has the means of knowledge, and does not use them.
See KNOWLEDGE; and Locke on the Und. vol. 2: p. 178; Grove’s Mor. Phil. vol. 2: p. 26, 29, 64; Watts on the Mind.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
ignorance
(Latin: ignorore, to have no knowledge of)
The state of being without knowledge; more precisely, the want of knowledge in a subject capable of possessing this knowledge. Taking account of the person in whom ignorance exists, it is either privative or negative. The former is ignorance properly so-called, the absence of that knowledge which one can and should have, as the lack of medical knowledge in a physician. Negative ignorance, or nescience, is the absence of knowledge not required by one’s position in life. Ignorance is deemed invincible when it persists in spite of ordinary diligence to dispel it; it is reckoned morally vincible and culpable when it is due to the failure to utilize one’s natural resources. Ignorance which is purposely fostered is termed affected; if it is a product of sheer negligence, it is called crass or supine. No ignorance of nullifying laws, e.g., of irregularities or impediments, excuses from their observance; if not affected, ignorance excuses from incurring penalties.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Ignorance
(Lat. in, not, and gnarus, knowing)
Ignorance is lack of knowledge about a thing in a being capable of knowing. Fundamentally speaking and with regard to a given object ignorance is the outcome of the limitations of our intellect or of the obscurity of the matter itself. In this article it is the ethical aspect and consequences of ignorance that are directly under consideration. From this point of view, since only voluntary and free acts are imputable, ignorance which either destroys or lessens the first-named characteristic is a factor to be reckoned with. It is customary then to narrow somewhat the definition already given of it. It will, therefore, be taken to mean the absence of information which one is required to have. The mere want of knowledge without connoting any requirement on the part of a person to possess it may be called nescience.
So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible. Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable. On the other hand, ignorance is termed vincible if it can be dispelled by the use of “moral diligence”. This certainly does not mean all possible effort; otherwise, as Ballerini naively says, we should have to have recourse to the pope in every instance. We may say, however, that the diligence requisite must be commensurate with the importance of the affair in hand, and with the capacity of the agent, in a word such as a really sensible and prudent person would use under the circumstances. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the obligation mentioned above is to be interpreted strictly and exclusively as the duty incumbent on a man to do something, the precise object of which is the acquisition of the needed knowledge. In other words the mere fact that one is bound by some extrinsic title to do something the performance of which would have actually, though not necessarily, given the required information, is negligible. When ignorance is deliberately aimed at and fostered, it is said to be affected, not because it is pretended, but rather because it is sought for by the agent so that he may not have to relinquish his purpose. Ignorance which practically no effort is made to dispel is termed crass or supine.
The area covered by human ignorance is clearly a vast one. For our purposes, however, three divisions may be noted. Ignorance of law, when one is unaware of the existence of the law itself, or at least that a particular case is comprised under its provisions. Ignorance of the fact, when not the relation of something to the law but the thing itself or some circumstance is unknown. Ignorance of penalty, when a person is not cognizant that a sanction has been attached to a particular crime. This is especially to be considered when there is question of more serious punishment. We must also note that ignorance may precede, accompany, or follow an act of our will. It is therefore said to be antecedent, concomitant, or consequent. Antecedent ignorance is in no sense voluntary, neither is the act resulting from it; it precedes any voluntary failure to inquire. Consequent ignorance, on the other hand, is so called because it is the result of a perverse frame of mind choosing, either directly or indirectly, to be ignorant. Concomitant ignorance is concerned with the will to act in a given contingency; it implies that the real character of what is done is unknown to the agent, but his attitude is such that, were he acquainted with the actual state of things, he would go on just the same. Keeping these distinctions in mind we are in a position to lay down certain statements of doctrine.
Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or of the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludes sin. The evident reason is that neither this state nor the act resulting therefrom is voluntary. It is undeniable that a man cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law, so far as its first principles are concerned, and the inferences easily drawn therefrom. This, however, according to the teaching of St. Thomas, is not true of those remoter conclusions, which are deducible only by a process of laborious and sometimes intricate reasoning. Of these a person may be invincibly ignorant. Even when the invincible ignorance is concomitant, it prevents the act which it accompanies from being regarded as sinful. The perverse temper of soul, which in this case is supposed, retains, of course, such malice as it had. Vincible ignorance, being in some way voluntary, does not permit a man to escape responsibility for the moral deformity of his deeds; he is held to be guilty and in general the more guilty in proportion as his ignorance is more voluntary. Hence, the essential thing to remember is that the guilt of an act performed or omitted in vincible ignorance is not to be measured by the intrinsic malice of the thing done or omitted so much as by the degree of negligence discernible in the act.
It must not be forgotten that, although vincible ignorance leaves the culpability of a person intact, still it does make the act less voluntary than if it were done with full knowledge. This holds good except perhaps with regard to the sort of ignorance termed affected. Here theologians are not agreed as to whether it increases or diminishes a man’s moral liability. The solution is possibly to be had from a consideration of the motive which influences one in choosing purposely to be ignorant. For instance, a man who would refuse to learn the doctrines of the Church from a fear that he would thus find himself compelled to embrace them would certainly be in a bad plight. Still he would be less guilty than the man whose neglect to know the teachings of the Church was inspired by sheer scorn of her authority. Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or fact, exempts one from the penalty which may have been provided by positive legislation. Even vincible ignorance, either of the law or fact, which is not crass, excuses one from the punishment. Mere lack of knowledge of the sanction does not free one from the penalty except in cases of censures. It is true then that any sort of ignorance which is not itself grievously sinful excuses, because for the incurring of censures contumacy is required. Vincible and consequent ignorance about the duties of our state of life or the truths of faith necessary for salvation is, of course, sinful. Ignorance of the nature or effects of an act does not make it invalid if everything else requisite for its validity be present. For instance, one who knows nothing of the efficacy of baptism validly baptizes, provided that he employs the matter and form and has the intention of doing what the Church does.
———————————–
TAUNTON. The Law of the Church (London, 1906); JOSEPH RICKABY, Ethics and Natural Law (London, 1908); SLATER, Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908); BALLERINI, Opus Theologicum Morale (Prato, 1898); TAPPARELLI, Dritto naturale (Rome, 1900); ZIGLIARA, Summa Philosophica (Paris, 1891).
JOSEPH F. DELANY Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter Dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIICopyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Ignorance
the want of knowledge or instruction. It is often used to denote illiteracy. Mr. Locke observes that the causes of ignorance are chiefly three:
1, want of ideas;
2, want of a discoverable connection between the ideas we have;
3, want of tracing and examining our ideas.
As respects religion, ignorance has been distinguished into three sorts:
1. An invincible ignorance, in which the will has no part. It is an insult upon justice to suppose it will punish men because they were ignorant of things which they were physically incapable of knowing.
2. There is a willful and obstinate ignorance; such an ignorance, far from exculpating, aggravates a man’s crimes.
3. A sort of voluntary ignorance, which is neither entirely willful nor entirely invincible, as when a man has the means of knowledge, and does not use them. Locke, On the Understanding. 2, 178; Grove, Moral Philosophy, 2, 26, 29, 64; Watts, On the Mind; Henderson’s Buck, Theolog. Dict. s.v. SEE KNOWLEDGE.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Ignorance
IGNORANCE
1. Religious ignorance is uniformly regarded in the Bible as a moral and spiritual, and not merely as an intellectual, defect. Religious ignorance is always culpable, because the true light lighteth every man (Joh 1:9). The light of reason and of conscience shines even in the darkness of heathenism, and the heathen are plainly in fault if they apprehend it not (Joh 1:5). To put the matter in another way, the truths of Natural Religion carry their own evidence with them, and those who worship the creature instead of the Creator, or who deny that there is a God, or who think that there is no essential difference between virtue and vice, wilfully blind themselves to the truth (cf. Rom 1:19-20, Act 14:17). Yet the culpability of the heathen, great as it is, is less than that of those who have received the light of revelation (Mat 10:15; Mat 12:41). Our Lord specially blames the Samaritans because, having received the Law, they nevertheless remained in ignorance of its Author (Joh 4:22 Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ), and neglected to worship Him in the place which He had chosen. But far more culpable than the half-heathen Samaritans were the Jews, who had behind them a long religious ancestry of patriarchs and prophets (Rom 9:5), who inherited the promises, and to whom were committed the oracles of God (Rom 3:2, Rom 9:4). The chosen race, wilfully blinding themselves to the true meaning of the Scriptures (Joh 5:45) and to the signs of the times (Mat 16:3), especially the testimony of the Baptist (Joh 3:26; Joh 3:32) and the words and works of Jesus (Mat 11:20, Joh 10:38; Joh 14:11; Joh 15:24), were punished by having the truth hidden from them in parables (Mat 13:13), and by having their spiritual understanding darkened (Mat 13:15, 2Co 3:14). Of the Jews the most culpable were the leadersthe Sadducees, because they were ignorant of the resurrection and the future life, truths inculcated by Moses himself (Mat 22:29); and the Pharisees and scribes, those blind leaders of the blind, who led their unwary followers into a pit (Mat 15:14). The case of the Pharisees was particularly hopeless, because, being ignorant, they thought themselves wise: If ye were blind [and acknowledged it], ye would have no sin; but now ye say, We see: your sin remaineth (Joh 9:41).
Ignorance of Jesus is treated in the Gospels as equivalent to ignorance of God: Ye know neither me nor my Father; if ye knew me, ye would know my Father also (Joh 8:19); No man cometh to the Father but by me. If ye had known me, ye would have known my Father also (Joh 14:7). If men do not come to a knowledge of Christ in this world, Christ will profess Himself ignorant of them in the next, and this will exclude them from the joys of heaven (Mat 25:12; Mat 7:23). Yet the obligation to know Christ in this world applies only to those to whom the gospel has been actually preached (Mar 16:15-16).
The reason why ignorance of Christ is regarded as a sin is that the truth as it is in Jesus is spiritually discerned (1Co 2:14). Lovers of truth, whose lives are virtuous and holy, perceive intuitively that the teaching of Jesus comes from God: Every one that doeth ill hateth the light, and cometh not to the light. But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, etc. (Joh 3:20).
Among the Seven Words spoken by Jesus from the Cross there is one which bears upon this sin of ignorance: Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do (Luk 23:34). In saying this He renewed that condemnation which He had often passed upon religious ignorance, for He implied that those who slew Him had need of the Fathers forgivenessHis own forgiveness the words themselves express. But what the saying immediately proclaims is that the sin of ignorance is not beyond forgiveness, even when it has led to the darkest of crimes; nay, that ignorance itself may be pleaded in extenuation () before Him who knoweth all. (On the genuineness of the saying see Meyer, Alford, WH [Note: H Westcott and Horts text.] [Appendix]).
2. Christs ignorance, or limitation of knowledgeSee Consciousness, Kenosis.
Literature.Mller, Chr. Doct. of Sin, i. 209; Paget, Stud. in Chr. Character, p. 154.
C. Harris.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Ignorance
IGNORANCE.It appears to be in accordance with natural justice that ignorance should be regarded as modifying moral responsibility, and this is fully recognized in the Scriptures. In the OT, indeed, the knowledge of God is often spoken of as equivalent to true religion (see Knowledge), and therefore ignorance is regarded as its opposite (1Sa 2:12, Hos 4:1; Hos 6:6). But the Levitical law recognizes sins of ignorance as needing some expiation, but with a minor degree of guilt (Lev 4:1-35, Num 15:22-32). So ignorances are spoken of in 1Es 8:75 (RV [Note: Revised Version.] errors), Tob 3:3, Sir 23:2 f. as partly involuntary (cf. Heb 5:2; Heb 9:7). The whole of the OT, however, is the history of a process of gradual moral and spiritual enlightenment, so that actions which are regarded as pardonable, or even praiseworthy, at one period, become inexcusable in a more advanced state of knowledge. In the NT the difference between the times of ignorance and the light of Christianity is recognized in Act 17:30 (cf. 1Ti 1:13, 1Pe 1:14), and ignorance is spoken of as modifying responsibility in Act 3:17, 1Co 2:8, Luk 23:34. This last passage, especially, suggests that sin is pardonable because it contains an element of ignorance, while Mar 3:29 appears to contemplate the possibility of an absolutely wilful choice of evil with full knowledge of what it is, which will be unpardonable (cf. 1Jn 5:16). Immoral and guilty ignorance is also spoken of in Rom 1:18 ff., Eph 4:18. For the question whether Christ in His human nature could be ignorant, see Kenosis, Knowledge.
J. H. Maude.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Ignorance
igno-rans (, sheghaghah; , agnoia): Ignorance is the translation of sheghaghah, wandering, going astray (Lev 4:2, etc., if a soul sin through ignorance, the Revised Version (British and American) unwittingly, margin through error; Lev 5:15; Num 15:24; compare Num 35:11; Jos 20:3; Ecc 5:6; Ecc 10:5, an error). In the Law sheghaghah means innocent error, such as had to be taken with consideration in judgment (see passages referred to). Ignorance is also expressed by the negative lo’ with yadha, to know (Isa 56:10; Isa 63:16; Psa 73:22); also by bi-bhel daath, literally, in want of knowledge (Deu 19:4; compare Deu 4:12; Jos 20:5, translated unawares, unwittingly).
In the New Testament the words are agnoia, absence of knowledge (Act 3:17; Act 17:30; Eph 4:18; 1Pe 1:14); agnoema, error (Heb 9:7, the Revised Version margin Greek: ignorances); agnosa, ignorance (1Pe 2:15), no knowledge (1Co 15:34 the Revised Version (British and American)); agnoeo, to be without knowledge, ignorant (Rom 1:13; Rom 10:3; Rom 11:25, etc.), not knowing (Rom 2:4, etc.), understood not (Mar 9:32, etc.), ignorantly (Act 17:23, the Revised Version (British and American) in ignorance; 1Ti 1:13); idiotes, translated ignorant (Act 4:13), unlearned (1Co 14:16, the Revised Version margin him that is without gifts, and so in 1Co 14:23, 1Co 14:14), rude (2Co 11:6); agrammatos, once only in connection with idiotes (Act 4:13, unlearned and ignorant men); agrammatos corresponds to modern illiterate (compare Joh 7:15; Act 26:24); idiotes originally denoted the private man as distinguished from those with a knowledge of affairs, and took on the idea of contempt and scorn. In Philo it denoted the whole congregation of Israel as distinguished from the priests (De Vita Mosis, III 29). With Paul (1Co 14:16, 1Co 14:23, 1Co 14:24) it seems to denote plain believers as distinguished from those with special spiritual gifts. In Act 4:13 it may refer to the want of Jewish learning; certainly it does not mean ignorant in the modern sense.
Paul in Rom 1:18, Rom 1:32 attributes the pre-Christian ignorance of God to the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness (but the margin has, with the King James Version, hold the truth, compare 1Co 7:30, Gr); many, however (Alford, De Wette, Meyer and others), translation hold back the truth. A willful ignorance is also referred to in Eph 4:17 f; 2Pe 3:5. But there is also a less blameworthy ignorance. Paul at Athens spoke of times of ignorance which God had overlooked (Act 17:30); Paul says of himself that he obtained mercy, because (he) did it (against Christ) ignorantly in unbelief (1Ti 1:13); Peter said to the Jews (Act 3:17) that they and their rulers rejected Christ in ignorance (compare 1Co 2:8); and Jesus Himself prayed for those who crucified Him: Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do; (Luk 23:34); in Heb 5:2 the necessary qualification of a high priest is that he can bear gently with the ignorant and erring – those who sin in ignorance or go astray (compare Heb 9:7, blood, which he offereth for himself, and for the errors of the people, margin (Greek: ignorances). Growing light, however, brings with it increasing responsibility, and the ignorance that may be overlooked at one stage of the history of men and nations may be blameworthy and even criminal at another.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Ignorance
General references
Job 8:9; Job 11:7-8; Job 11:12; Job 28:12-13; Job 28:20-21; Job 36:26; Job 36:29; Job 37:5; Job 37:15-16; Job 37:19; Job 37:23; Job 38; Psa 139:6; Pro 7:6-23; Pro 8:5; Pro 9:14-18; Pro 19:2; Pro 20:24; Pro 22:3; Pro 27:12; Pro 27:1; Pro 30:4; Ecc 3:11; Ecc 6:11-12; Ecc 7:23-24; Ecc 8:6-7; Ecc 8:17; Ecc 9:12; Ecc 11:5; Jer 10:23; Joh 13:7; Act 1:7; Act 17:23; Act 17:30; Rom 8:24-26; 1Co 2:7-10; 1Co 3:19; 1Co 13:9; 1Co 13:12; Jas 1:5-6 Knowledge; Wisdom
Sins of
Gen 20:1-7; Lev 4:1-35; Lev 5:4-19; Lev 22:14; Num 15:22-29; Eze 33:6; Eze 33:8; Eze 3:18; Eze 45:20; Hos 4:6; Luk 12:48; Luk 23:34; Joh 16:2; Act 3:14-15; Act 3:17; 1Co 2:8; Gal 1:13-16; Eph 4:18-19; 1Ti 1:12-13
Instances of punishment of sins of:
– Pharaoh
Gen 12:11-17
– Abimelech
Gen 20:1-18
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Ignorance
(Lat. in, not + noscere, to become acquainted with) Partial or complete absence of knowledge. — A.C.B.