February 19, 2009

• Question 122 - Does Acts 3:17 Mean the Jews are Guiltless for Killing Christ?

  Question 122 - Does Acts 3:17 Mean the Jews are Guiltless for Killing Christ?

  
  Robert,

  What does Acts 3:17 mean when Peter says that the Jews were “ignorant” of killing Christ? Does this mean that they are guiltless for doing so?

  Thank you for your answer.

  Michael

  R. Sungenis: Michael, here is what we have. First, Acts 3:17: “Now I know, brothers, that you acted out of ignorance, just as your leaders did” (New American Bible)

  The phrase “acted out of ignorance” (kata agnoian) does not mean that the people are guiltless for putting Christ to death. Although most translations are faithful to the Greek, there is an attempt in at least one to make it seem more innocent. Look at this other Catholic translation from the New Jerusalem Bible (which is a later translation that the NAB):

  “Now I know, brothers, that neither you nor your leaders had any idea what you were really doing.”

  The Greek does not mean “you had no idea what you were doing.” It only means that you did it, and are guilty of it, but you did not do it with full knowledge or full force of will.

  We know from the context that “ignorance” does not mean guiltless because:

  1)      Verses 13-14 make clear:

   

  a)      “Jesus, the one whom you delivered up and disowned in the presence of Pilate when he had decided to release him,” which shows that the people, not Pilate, were the main culprits for the decision.

  b)      “But you disowned the holy and righteous one, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you,” which shows that they were guilty of condemning an innocent man and releasing a guilty man.

  c)      “But put to death the Prince of Life,” which shows that they again were responsible for sending him to the cross

   

  2)      Verse 17 also includes the “leaders” or “rulers” (Greek: archontes). Well, the leaders were people like Caiaphas and Annas, or the Pharisees and Saduccees. It is obvious from the Gospel accounts that these leaders wanted Jesus dead.

  Hence, “ignorance” cannot mean “they didn’t know what they were doing,” at least not the way we use that phrase in English.

  The distinction between “acting in ignorance” and “acting in full knowledge” comes from the Mosaic Law (which all the Jews gathered at Pentecost would be familiar with).

  1)      Num 15:27-29 shows that there are sins for which sacrifices can be made.

   

  2)      But Num 15:30-31 shows that there are other sins for which the sinner is simply cut off without any forgiveness. They are executed and damned.

  Lev 4:27 shows that after the person who acted in ignorance finds out about his sin, he must offer a sacrifice for a “sin offering.”

  Now notice this. Hebrews 9:7 shows how important this distinction is. It shows that “acting in ignorance” was THE COMMON sin in Israel, so much so that, on the Day of Atonement, it was only the sins of ignorance that were atoned.

  “but the second tent is entered only once a year, and then only by the high priest who takes in the blood to make an offering for his own and the people's faults of inadvertence.” (Heb 9:7 NJB)

  The phrase “faults of inadvertence” is the Greek agnoematon, which is literally “ignorances,” and comes from the same Greek word agnoian used in Acts 3:17.

  Now the corollary would also be true, that is, if the people who sinned in “ignorance” were then made to realize that what they did was sinful (as Peter did to the Jews in Acts 3:13-15), and if these same people chose not to repent of their sin (as Peter commanded them to do in Acts 3:19: “Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away…”), then they would move out of the “ignorance” category and be “cut off,” as the person in Num 15:30-31 was “cut off” if they had sinned intentionally.

  All this relates directly to Paul and his assessment of the Jews.

  In 1 Tim 1:13, Paul says that he “received mercy because he acted ignorantly in unbelief” when he was a blasphemer and persecutor of Christians. In other words, he had not been enlightened to the truth of the Christian faith and thus acted on his own convictions. This did not make Paul guiltless, or mean that he wasn’t a sinner, for in verses 15-16 he calls himself “chief among sinners.” He says it was because of the “patience of Christ” that he was shown mercy. In other words, if Paul had done these sins with the full knowledge that Christianity was true, he would not have received mercy. He would have been damned.

  In Catholic theology, the sin of rejecting Christianity, with full knowledge that it is true, is the Unforgiveable Sin, as the catechism stipulates: “…anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit” (CCC 1864).

  The same principle is used by Jesus in Luke 23:34 (“forgive them for they know not what they do”) or perhaps 1 Cor 2:8 (“None of the rulers of the age recognised it; for if they had recognised it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” NJB) or 1 Pet 1:14: (“Do not allow yourselves to be shaped by the passions of your old ignorance” NJB).

  (This is why the rebellious angels will never be forgiven, because they rejected God with full knowledge that he was God and that Satan was evil).

  The same principle applies to Romans 11:1-5 when the question arises as to whether Israel is accursed, which, according to the distinction between Num 15:27-29 of acting ignorantly and Num 15:30-31 of acting with full force of will, is asking whether all of Israel, because they killed Christ, are accursed. The answer is no, they are not accursed. They can still be saved.

  Now, here is where the distinction I made between the “Minority” and “Majority” comes to play.

  Paul says in Romans 11:1-10 that, in his day, the number of Jews who are converting to Christianity is the same as the number of Jews who accepted God and rejected Baal in the time of Elijah (Rom 11:5: “In the same way, then, in our own time, there is a remnant, set aside by grace” NJB).

  In Elijah’s day there were only 7000 who had remained faithful out of a nation of millions of people. He says that the reason the rest do not convert is because they were “hardened,” and Paul quotes from Isaiah 29:10 and Psalm 69:22-23 to prove his point.

  Now, as I said earlier, although there were quite a number of Jews who converted in the early days of Pentecost (3000 in Acts 2:39 and 5000 total in Acts 4:4), these numbers began to dwindle, until a few years later in Paul’s missionary journey the Jews, as a whole, become so intolerant of the Gospel that Paul decides to go to the Gentiles instead. He makes this very clear in Acts 13:44-48.

  Then Paul and Barnabas spoke out fearlessly. 'We had to proclaim the word of God to you first, but since you have rejected it, since you do not think yourselves worthy of eternal life, here and now we turn to the gentiles. (Act 13:46 NJB)

  It is right after this time that Paul writes his letter to the Thessalonians around 57 AD, which contains his final assessment of the Jews as “always resisting the Gospel” and who are “the enemies of the world.”

  Hence, it can be concluded that, although Peter in Acts 3:17, with the distinction of “ignorant” and “intentional” from Numbers 15:27-31/Hebrew 9:7 in mind, tells the Jews they did not act with full knowledge of who Christ was, the reality is that only a minority of them, when compared to the rest of the millions of Jews in Israel, accepted what he said and converted to Christianity. The majority of the Jews rejected what Peter and Paul said, and this is why the whole book of Acts, beginning from Acts 7 with Stephen’s speech which resulted in the Jews stoning him, describes an ongoing and endless confrontation between Paul and the Jews. In almost every chapter Paul is confronted with mass numbers of unbelieving Jews who refuse to accept his message.

  So if the majority of Jews rejected the message of Christianity after they were told that they acted in “ignorance” in Acts 3:17, then we can conclude that this majority is now beyond “ignorance” and have come much closer to the “intentional” desire to reject Christ and applaud his death.  This is why Paul, who shows that he understood the argument from “ignorance” when he applied it to himself in 1 Tim 1:13, has a change of heart, as it were, and now, in addition to blaming the Jews for killing Christ, does not speak of them doing so in “ignorance,” but because they have not repented when shown their “ignorance,” can no longer lean on the excuse of ignorance. Time has shown that, for the majority of the Jews, the excuse of “ignorance” can no longer apply:

  …who put the Lord Jesus to death, and the prophets too, and persecuted us also. Their conduct does not please God, and makes them the enemies of the whole human race, ¹⁶ because they are hindering us from preaching to gentiles to save them. Thus all the time they are reaching the full extent of their iniquity, but retribution has finally overtaken them” (1Th 2:15-16 NJB).

   

  Since the majority of Jews, over the 40 years of testing from 30-70 AD, rejected the Gospel and moved way beyond the “ignorance” level, God finally judged them in 70 AD. He still leaves the possibility that the Jews can be saved, however, as Paul says in Romans 1:1-5, but he does not expect that the majority will do so. It is only the minority, “the remnant,” who will receive grace to cure their blindness.

   

   

  • 2:23 am
  • 1 Comment