Who is "the one who did not know"

[Verisimilitude]

Luke: 12:36-48

"But if that slave says in his heart, `My master will be a long time in coming,’ and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; 46 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. 47 "And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, 48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

In the context of the verse, does this indicate the one who did not know is an unbeliever?

If so, doesn’t it suggest after some retribution, forgiveness is extended to both?

 

[mommyof4]

Luke: 12:36-48

In the context of the verse, does this indicate the one who did not know is an unbeliever?

That’s always how I interpreted it.

If so, doesn’t it suggest after some retribution, forgiveness is extended to both?

Well, I think it would apply to the invincibly ignorant ones.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Well, I think it would apply to the invincibly ignorant ones.

What makes you draw that conclusion? Why wouldn’t that extend to everyone to include Atheists who heard but rejected the Word, or the Communist who was told the Good News was just some myth, or the Austrealian aboriginal who was oblivious to the outside world?

Matthew 21:28-32 “Amen I say to you that the publicans and the harlots shall go into the kingdom of God before you.”

Here He is speaking to the Jewish leaders who eventually handed Him over to be killed. It seems to suggest that both will achieve the Kingdom.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The one who did not know is simply an imature, under age slave who has not been taught all the rules, laws of their master. His stripes are for discipline, so the young slave ( who is a christian ) will not forget the law or rule broken.

 

[Nita]

What makes you draw that conclusion? Why wouldn’t that extend to everyone to include Atheists who heard but rejected the Word, or the Communist who was told the Good News was just some myth, or the Austrealian aboriginal who was oblivious to the outside world?

.

The last two of your examples are probably cases of invincible ignorance. Even the first one, the atheist, may be. Hope these paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church help.

*1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience*

Nita

 

[Nita]

Matthew 21:28-32 “Amen I say to you that the publicans and the harlots shall go into the kingdom of God before you.”

Here He is speaking to the Jewish leaders who eventually handed Him over to be killed. It seems to suggest that both will achieve the Kingdom.

You are correct in understanding that Jesus is suggesting that they (publicans and harlots) will achieve the kingdom - before the leaders He was speaking to.
However, don’t take that to mean that becoming a harlot will mean entry into heaven!
Rather, it because the publicans and harlots were more willing to recognize their sinfulness and repent than were the Jewish leaders.

Nita

 

[Verisimilitude]

You are correct in understanding that Jesus is suggesting that they (publicans and harlots) will achieve the kingdom - before the leaders He was speaking to.
However, don’t take that to mean that becoming a harlot will mean entry into heaven!
Rather, it because the publicans and harlots were more willing to recognize their sinfulness and repent than were the Jewish leaders.

Nita

Ok, thanks for the references, but I’d like to take it a little further.

I agree that the sinners (publicans and harlots) were more willing to receive the Word and repent than the Jewish leaders, but I also think Christ often spoke in a larger sense and for not just the immediate time. He would certainly know that there would be more sinners and more obstinate leaders throughout the ages until His return that would die in disbelief.

I am trying to reconcile whether or not unrepentant sin in any age, by anybody, is eventually forgiven. Scripture leads me to think it is, but doctrine seems to suggest otherwise.

I believe the Holy Spirit protects the Catholic message, but must acknowledge the human failures of past injunctions. Luther had a valid point. I think we can become like the old Jewish leaders, thinking we KNOW more than we actually do.

My heart tells me that something is not quite right in emphatic human judgments of who is going to suffer eternal damnation and why.

I asked another question in Apologetics, about whether or not everyone eventually gets into heaven, and if Purgatory is a last opportunity for all souls to repent, not limited to just venial sins of Catholics.

To me, Christs sacrifice has no limits because God has no limits. He established no religion, but a faith. By having heard the Good News, accepting it, and abiding by it only helps those who do so to live a more Christ like life; benefiting themself both spiritually and physically subsequently affecting those around us similarly.

The parable of the landowner who hires workers throughout the day and pays each the same wage. The first hired grumble at his generosity, but the landowner (God) says, “can’t he do what he likes with his own?”

If Catholics, and other Christians did not limit salvation to the strict limits as it seems to, and what does not appear to be supported by the Gospels; we might be better received, or rather not spurned by others and bring more into accepting the Word, and thus making this world a better one by removing much of the division it has brought.

By not insisting non-believers or unrepentant sin dooms the individual takes nothing away from the Word and those who do accept it. It also does not take away the idea of punishment for anyone. All it does is calrify that by accepting the Good News is the Way to Life.

Yes, Christ brought division in families and such, but that was a result of acceptance of the Word, not the intent of His mission. Knowing that some would believe Him, and some would not brought the division. He was speaking a fact. Why would anyone think His intent was to purposely break apart families and societies? It goes against His nature.

I think when we die, we stand before God and realize the Truth of Christ, whomever we are; the Atheist, the aboriginee, the believer. That knowledge and our conciousness of how we lived our life is our judgment as Christ said it would be. (I do not have my reference, but it is in the Gospels.) All of the things the Catholic Church beleives with respect to confession and forgiving our sins I accept, as it quickens or reunion with God as promised.

How long the weeping and gnashing of teeth (concious knowledge of our human failure- hell- that separates us from God by our own actions- not God’s judgement) lasts for the others I suppose is dependant upon the amount of transgression and the heart that holds it.

I am just not convinced that state lasts forever, or for everybody. I do not know. But holding this thought lets me talk to “sinners” and unbelievers in a different and less hubric way. I can think in my heart that they too will one day join the feast, but they might join it sooner if they just believe now.

 

[TOME]

I may be repeating some of the points that were already made, and made far better than I can express, but here are my thoughts.

In reading the gospels I find one thing that is very clear, Jesus demands a choice be made to every individual to respond to the presence of the Kingdom of God once they have come into contact with the presence of the Kingdom. There is no middle ground to this response as his saying of letting the dead bury the dead shows.

However, I think the important word is “experienced”. In some of the passages cited, if you read the passages as I do we find Jesus very demanding of those who have had every opportunity to know and experience the Kingdom in their presence. This is why he spoke so strongly against the Jewish leaders because of all people they had the learning in their studies of the Law and Prophets which should have allowed them to realized that God was acting in their presence and the Kingdom of God had become incarnate in His own person. But too many did not and incurred Jesus’ strongest condemnation.

This brings me to think about today. Jesus’ demand of a personal responce of each person to the presence of God’s Kingdom, that is a personal response to Christ Himself, is as relavent today as it was 2000 years ago. However, I take a more personal approach in a way. Invincible Ignorance was mentioned and I am sure, like myself, many when they hear this think of someone living far away in some remote and uncivilized area. But how about those around us in our own society? Can there be invincible ignorance on their part?

I believe there can be and there is. And here is my great concern especially given the Catholic principle of Sacramentality. Namely, am I the the stumbling block through my actions, my lifestyle, that is what I do as opposed to what I may say, to others. Is my faith in action so weak so as to be the barrier that even one person cannot seem to overcome and accept the gospel message?

I think, when Jesus talks about punishment for those who “Know” and those who don’t, Jesus touches on an important point about human nature. The more we are either ignorant of the Will of God for Man the more we suffer, when we go against of basic human nature the more we hurt ourselves and ultimately others. St Paul, in his letter to the Romans touches on the fact that on a strictly human level and experience we should know at least the basics of our Nature but this knowledge is in the end is limited without Divine Revelation. However, to those who have received the gospel message and supposely have accepted it then there is no excuse for any behavior contrary to the precepts of the Kingdom of God ( but I should add, no excuse but forgiveness when and where forgiveness is sought). And this is what I believe Jesus is talking about in his parable. (I also cannot help but think about Jesus’ words about those who give scandle).

But to go back to a point I made above, I think the thing that should be reflected on is not so much whether or not there is invincible ignorance or not when it comes to our neighbor but whether or not I, myself, could be the cause of another not only hearing the gospel message but more importantly experiencing God’s loving presence through me.

 

[Verisimilitude]

TOME
This is why he spoke so strongly against the Jewish leaders because of all people they had the learning in their studies of the Law and Prophets which should have allowed them to realized that God was acting in their presence and the Kingdom of God had become incarnate in His own person. But too many did not and incurred Jesus’ strongest condemnation.

I appreciate your thoughts. But that condemnation still is relavent to the publicans and harlots achieving the kingdom before “them” as noted before.

It seems that if those who condemned Christ, who have the greater guilt than the Romans who actually killed Him. I do not mean to be obstinate on this point, but it still seems to suggest that they will still get in as it were, just that those who seem more guilty according to the Jewish authorities who think they are first shall in fact be last. But does last mean left out?

Again, it takes nothing away from a punishment for them just as it takes nothing away from those who abide by the new covenant.

 

[Nita]

Luke: 12:36-48

**Originally posted by Versimilitude **
Quote:
"But if that slave says in his heart, `My master will be a long time in coming,’ and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; 46 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. 47 "And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, 48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

In the context of the verse, does this indicate the one who did not know is an unbeliever?

If so, doesn’t it suggest after some retribution, forgiveness is extended to both?

Decided to go back to your first post because I don’t think it was ever really answered.

There are three groups of people in the Scripture passage:

1. (verses 45 & 46) Those that know and believe the truth about Master but not only fail to grow in their faith, but deliberately go out and sin in defiance of the Master’s will. They are believers who die in the state of unrepented mortal sin.
   According to the parable, these people will go to hell.
2. (verse 47) Those who know and believe but do not do all that the Master desires of them. Note, they do not actively do things contrary to the Master’s will, they fail to do all they should. These are believers who die in the state of venial sin and/or perhaps have temporal punishment due to repented mortal and/or venial sin.
   According to the parable these people will be saved but will spend time in purgatory.
3. (verse 48) Those, who through no fault of their own, do not know about God as revealed in Scripture (OT and/or NT) and unknowingly committed acts that were offensive to God. They will be saved but will have to spend some time in Purgatory. Their ignorance mitigates their punishment. It will be less than the punishment given to a believer who committed the same act/s.
   According to the parable these people will be saved but will also spend time in purgatory.

Forgiveness is extended to the last two, but not the first one.

Nita

 

[Verisimilitude]

Forgiveness is extended to the last two, but not the first one.

Nita

Thanks for your insight. But if I may ask for a clarification then.

The slave in verses 45 & 46; is that not the same slave as in verse 47?

To be assigned the same fate as the unbelievers; IS the one who did not know mentioned in verse 48, which you have just acknowledged as being extended forgivness by serving time in purgatory.

That is my point of all this. Please do not get me wrong. I am not trying to “trap” anyone in scripture. I am trying to discover the truth of it, even if it goes agaisnt conventional doctrine.

We could both be wrong in our understanding, but you have gone a long way in validating my original thought.

 

[Nita]

Verisimilitude,

The slave in verses 45 & 46; is that not the same slave as in verse 47?

No, they’re not the same slave. The punishments are very different. The first one, besides being suprised by death and therefore unable to repent, is “cut into pieces”, a far greater punishment than the flogging received by the 2nd and 3rd slaves. Also, the first slave is put with unbelievers. In terms of the hereafter, those who refuse to believe will not enter heaven. We never know who those are who refuse to believe because we cannot read the minds and hearts of others. That is for God to do. Also, much can happen in the last few seconds of life. But in the parable that Jesus gives, He (God) definitely says this slave will go with the unbelievers. It is of course only a parable, but He is certainly teaching us that such a thing is possible.

Hell is real and it is eternal according to Our Lord’s teaching - and He taught about it a lot. You can read the gospels and verify for yourself just how much. I’ll just give a few quotes that express its eternal nature.

Mt. 18:8 …better for you to enter life maimed orlame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire.

Mt. 25:46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, …

2 Thess 1:9 They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lore and from the glory of His might,

One of my prayer intentions at Mass is for the grace of final repentance and conversion for all who will die that day. The thought of someone enduring eternal punishment seems to be weighing very heavy on your mind. Perhaps it is God’s way of calling you to pray for endangered souls also.

Nita

 

[Verisimilitude]

Nita,
I am still not convinced of the eternal punishment for a very large percent of the world population. I certainly will think and pray on it. Thank you for the dialog.

 

[Nita]

Nita,
I am still not convinced of the eternal punishment for a very large percent of the world population. I certainly will think and pray on it. Thank you for the dialog.

Your welcome.

I wouldn’t be convinced about the “very large percent” either. Sorry if I gave the impression that I thought it was. We have no idea how many, or what percentage. Only God knows that.

 

[TOME]

Verisimilitude,

First, I apologize for not responding sooner to your post.

Having re-read your post a few thoughts came to my mind. I may be off on this but it seems to me at the root of your questions is something Luther also struggled with, namely the power of Christ’s paschal sacrifice and free will.

As you might know, Luther’s conclusion was, basically, that the graces of Christ death and resurrection and God’s over-whelming love are so great that enyone who accepts Christ as their savior will be saved. Along with the theologies of Calvin and Zwinlgi and other reform theologians there developed the understanding that redemption is almost, if not all together universal.

However, Catholic theology stresses the reality of free will (a theology both Luther and Calvin rejected). To keep this brief, then,
if you study the parable being referred to here, it must be understood in other parables and teachings of Christ. In these I think it is pretty clear that Jesus stresses each individual’s personal responsibility of either accepting or rejecting Christ’s gift of salvation. Because of God’s infinate love for us, we have the freedom to accept Christ or reject him and as much as God desires and wills for us to be saved, it is still our choice.

But now come the question about forgiveness. I think if we use the parable of the pradical son/Loving Father we find Chist’s teachngs on who is forgiven and thus saved is pretty clear, but at times a little difficult to accept. Simply, anyone who seeks forgiveness is forgiven. However, and again this comes from Christ teachings - consider the start of Jesus ministry as related in Mark - it is up to each individual to have the change of heart and mind and seek forgiveness that Jesus was dieing to give us.

To finish up these thoughts, many struggle with the thought of how could a Loving God, as revealed by Christ Jesus, not over look all sins and bring all people into His Kingdom. But my thoughton this is that God’s shows, in His gift of Free Will an equal or greater Love to us.

 

[Verisimilitude]

To everyone who responded, thanks.

If I may explain the root of my question. My mother! Like most sons I would think, they think (I do) their moms are the greatest person on the planet. (By proxy I include my dad, but truth be told it is my mother whom I think of most because we talk more about such things, and well…it is my mom).

Anyway, my parents brought my two brothers and two sisters up in the Catholic Church through CCD & Confirmation for all of us. Only myself and my one brother seemed to have held onto some faith, and after a detour of about 20 years…long story in itself, I have returned to the CC in practice though I never really left in spirit.

I will set aside all other elements of my dad and siblings and concentrate on my mom, though by proxy as well, it also concerns them.

Now my mom…basically calls herself Agnostic. From discussions I know she has an issue with St. Paul, and to a degree her thoughts have colored mine, and was in large part responsible for my departure from the faith mentioned above in my early 20’s.

As many tales have twists and turns, subtle inuendo, and little events that fill the gaps, impossible to do here for such clarity; suffice it to say I KNOW that through my mom, her praryers to God have kept me more blessed and safe than I deserve. All credit for my life goes to God, but I cannot dismiss the intentions of my mother, because through Christ’s Mother, I know she asks intercession on my behalf.

To say my mom is pure of heart, a kind and moral, funny, and charitable person is not an exageration. She (and my dad) have so many good attributes that they have passed on to all of us- my siblings reflect our faiths upbringing though not with the same acknowledgement.

Addmittedly I am concentrating on my own souls dispensation, and doing my best to do my best. The symbolisim of these many passages, and the characters they describe, reflect the different levels of faith, belief, and potential judgements to all of humanity.

I do not want to read into these passages a conclusion to satisfy me in as much I want to determine a conclusion supported by my faith. As much as I accept the CC, I recognize the potential for wrong conclusions. A longer diatribe would be required to explain that in sufficient detail, but some may know of justified skepticism.

As TOME just pointed out with respect to Calvin and Zwinlgi, maybe I too accept a more universal redemption; maybe because I want to, but Scripture has some suggestion of it. However, I accept Free Will and the consequences of it. I also believe that no one is capable on their own to approach God, and only through His Son is anybody able to. If He can forgive those who nailed Him to the corss, I have hope HE can forgive others guilty of less.

As I said in the begining, thank you all for commenting.

I will continue to research and pray for understanding and wisdom, and continue to ask questions. Many questions.

 

[lak611]

From the Haydock Commentary: “Ver. 48. Shall be beaten with few stripes. Ignorance, when it proceeds from a person’s own fault, doth not excuse, but only diminisheth the fault. (Witham)”

From Adam Clarke’s Commentary: “Luk 12:48 -
Shall be beaten with few - For petty offenses the Jews in many cases inflicted so few as four, five, and six stripes. See examples in Lightfoot.
From this and the preceding verse we find that it is a crime to be ignorant of God’s will; because to every one God has given less or more of the means of instruction. Those who have had much light, or the opportunity of receiving much, and have not improved it to their own salvation, and the good of others, shall have punishment proportioned to the light they have abused. On the other hand, those who have had little light, and few means of improvement, shall have few stripes, shall be punished only for the abuse of the knowledge they possessed.”

 

[Nita]

Verisimilitude,

I take it your main torment is the thought your mother could spend eternity in hell. The one blessed thing, is that we are not the judge - God is. He sees the heart. God loves your mother (your whole family) beyond human comprehension and will be working in her life right up to the moment of her last breath to save her soul. Your role is to pray for your family’s salvation and then trust God.

I don’t think there are very many Catholics around that aren’t going through similar agonies - and the agony we suffer is part of what can be offered up for their souls. For me it’s two of my sons (and I won’t go into it), and two brothers. Sometimes as I look at families, I think it’s all arranged by God. It’s as though He puts at least one “pray-er” in the family! Alleluia.

Nita

 

[Oliviad]

It is talking about the various kinds of Popes. Those like Peter are those that are rewarded with more than they had. Others are inferior Popes, and if they have caused harm to the Clergy under them, they will pay for it, either according to their knowledge or their ignorance. Peter asked if this applied to all, and the LORD made it evident that it was a special position that he himself was going to fill (verse 41-44). Here it says there would be more than one such leader, yet only describes one ever at any one time, and differentiates between stewards of differing quality. The decisions Popes make for the Servants of the House, the Clergy, such as whether or not they can fulfill both Marriage and Holy Orders as the earliest Clergy could, if called to both, etc., does not effect the Laity, but can be to the Clergy like being struck in the soul.

It says that there is always one at a time that is over the whole House of GOD. But it says Servants first, showing that there is a series of these stewards of GOD’s House, which makes sense of varying desserts desribed for one position’s steward in light of a Petrine succession, rather than only a first generation Papacy.

It says this man administers the right dishes in the appointed times, and to Peter later JESUS said, “Feed MY sheep”, and, “Shepherd MY Sheep”, etc. Antways, the warnings have to do with the principle in the Epistle of James that says that not many should want to be Teachers, as there will be a greater reckoning demanded from those in higher positions.

 

[Oliviad]

It is talking about the various kinds of Popes. Those like Peter are those that are rewarded with more than they had. Others are inferior Popes, and if they have caused harm to the Clergy under them, they will pay for it, either according to their knowledge or their ignorance. Peter asked if this applied to all, and the LORD made it evident that it was a special position that he himself was going to fill (verse 41-44). Here it says there would be more than one such leader, yet only describes one ever at any one time, and differentiates between stewards of differing quality. The decisions Popes make for the Servants of the House, the Clergy, such as whether or nIt is talking about the various kinds of Popes. Those like Peter are those that are rewarded with more than they had. Others are inferior Popes, and if they have caused harm to the Clergy under them, they will pay for it, either according to their knowledge or their ignorance. Peter asked if this applied to all, and the LORD made it evident that it was a special position that he himself was going to fill (verse 41-44). Here it says there would be more than one such leader, yet only describes one ever at any one time, and differentiates between stewards of differing quality. The decisions Popes make for the Servants of the House, the Clergy, such as whether or not they can fulfill both Marriage and Holy Orders as the earliest Clergy could, if called to both, etc., does not effect the Laity, but can be to the Clergy like being struck in the soul.

It says that there is always one at a time that is over the whole House of GOD. But it says Servants first, showing that there is a series of these stewards of GOD’s House, which makes sense of varying desserts desribed for one position’s steward in light of an ongoing succession of Popes, as opposed to only a first generation Pope.

It says this man administers the right dishes in the appointed times, and to Peter later JESUS said, “Feed MY sheep”, and, “Shepherd MY Sheep”, etc. Antways, the warnings have to do with the principle in the Epistle of James that says that not many should want to be Teachers, as there will be a greater reckoning demanded from those in higher positions.ot they can fulfill both Marriage and Holy Orders as the earliest Clergy could, if called to both, etc., does not effect the Laity, but can be to the Clergy like being struck in the soul.

It says that there is always one at a time that is over the whole House of GOD. But it says Servants first, showing that there is a series of these stewards of GOD’s House, which makes sense of varying desserts desribed for one position’s steward in light of an ongoing succession of Popes as opposed to one Apostle ever of this kind.

It says this man administers the right dishes in the appointed times, and to Peter later JESUS said, “Feed MY sheep”, and, “Shepherd MY Sheep”, etc. Antways, the warnings have to do with the principle in the Epistle of James that says that not many should want to be Teachers, as there will be a greater reckoning demanded from those in higher positions.