Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 3
Clement says it would be “blasphemous” to think the Lord caused Israel’s ignorance, and Origen asks whether the “eyes that they should not see” language is “retribution”; how does the group understand divine judgment here—what exactly is God doing, and what is the sinner doing—and what would early Christians assume about the moral logic of God “giving people over”?
Another way to ask: In this view, what is God doing in judgment and what is the sinner doing? Why would early Christians see God “giving people over” as morally right?

Direct Answer The group understands judgment as God “giving up” or “turning His face away,” not forcing ignorance into people; the sinner is already hard-hearted and chooses darkness, and God’s act is to leave them to what they have chosen. Early Christians in the transcript assume it would violate God’s goodness to make someone disbelieve and then punish them, so “giving over” functions as retribution for self-chosen unbelief.

Support from Transcript:

  • Clement: “It is not as if the Lord caused their ignorance… it would be blasphemous to think so.”
  • Clement: Jesus “prophetically exposed the ignorance that already existed in them.”
  • “God did not cause this blindness. Rather, it was brought about by Israel’s own hard-heartedness.”
  • Origen: the text “raises a question…[is it] perhaps retribution and recompense for their unbelief?”
  • “God has given them up or abandoned…He permitted them to fall into disbelief. For God certainly did not cause them to disbelieve.”
  • Moral logic stated: “How could he…inflicted unbelief… and then afterwards demanded punishment for their unbelief?”
Discussion Follow-ups What practical difference does it make to see judgment as exposure and abandonment rather than coercion? How might this shape confession and repentance?

Jumpstarter 3 of 10
Back Questions Next