LlTBHATmB.— The OT idolatry is naturally one of the capital topics in the histories o( Israel and in the monographs on the Biblical Theology ot the OT. For the presentation of the subject from the purely evolutionist point of view, see Well- haiisen, Itr. u. jud. GemMchte ; Stade. Gelchichte des Volkea Israel : for a more conservative treatment. Kittel, Hist, of Hebrewl. In addition to the works on Biblical Theoloey above mentioned, among which gmend'a AT Briigvmtaetchviiite is f<iU
IDUEL
IGXOEANCES
449
ftnd suggestive, may be mentioned Duhm, Theologie der ProphfUn. See also art. ' Baal,' by Ed. Meyer, in Roscher's Lexicon. For the Image Controversy in the Greek Church, see in Manbi's Council the decrees of the Seventh (l-Icuroenical Council ; and for a reWew of the arguments, Harnack's Dogimn- gegchichte, ii. p. leOfl. W. P. PaTKRSON.
IDUEL ('lioi^TjXos), 1 E8 8«.— In Ezr 8" Aeiel. The form is due to confusion of 1 and \
IDUM;EA, IDUMa:ANS.— See Edom.
lEDDIAS (A 'USoiat, B 'lefetai, AV Eddias), 1 Es 9™. — One of those who agreed to put a\v;iy their 'strangle' wives. Called IzziAH (n'j: : li 'Affio, A 'A^d, N 'Abetd) Ezr 10*.
lEZER, lEZERITES (n^'K Nu26» P), contracted
from AiiIEZEli, wli. see.
IGAL (Sx::' [God] redeems').-!. (B 'IXadX, A F 'l7ii\ ; Iffal) One of the twelve spies sent byMoses from the wilderness of Paran : ne is described as the son of Joseph of the tribe of Issachar (Nu 13').
2. (I'adX ; Luc. 'Iw)j\) One of David's heroes, the son of Nathan of Zobali (2 S 23'*). In tlie parallel list (1 Ch 11**) the name is given as 'Joel {hxV 'Ion)X), the brother (A ; ' the son ' B) of Nathan.'
3. ('lu^X ; Jcgaul ; AV Igeal) Son of Shemaiah of the royal house of Da\-id (1 Ch 3--).
J. F. Stennino. IGDALIAH (i.tS:: 'J' is great').— A 'man of God,' father of Hanan, whose name is mentioned in connexion with Jeremiah's interview with the Bechabites ( Jer 35*).
IGNORANCE is spoken of in Scripture mainly in connexion with sin ; it modifies to some extent the sinner's responsibility. Thus even of a sin in which the chief actors knew well that they were doint; wrong — the crucifixion — St. Peter says, ' Ye did it in ignorance' (itari 47x0^^, Ac 3"); St. Paul, 'if they h,ad known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory' (1 Co 2'); and the Lord Him- self, ' Father, forgive them : for they know not what they do' (Lk 23"). They all "knew some- thing, but not everything; not, for instance, what the apostles only grasped through the resurrection and the teaching of the Kisen One, that He was the Son of God, and His death a propitiation for the whole world ; hence, according to NT, though their guilt was deep, in some cases awful, it was not unpardonable. The choice of evil, by one who knows clearly and fully what it is, removes the possibility of pardon : such a choice would be the oi'iii'ioi' hixiprrtiia of which Jesus speaks in Mk 3^ — sin, final and irretrievable.
On a broad view, the pre-Christian ages of human history, or the pre-Christian part of any one's life, may be characterized as ' times of ignor- ance' (Ac 17 , IP 1"). The meaning is not that the heathen know nothing ; there is a light which lightens every man, a law written on tlio heart, however blurred or even misleading the writing may have become. But they do not know every- tliiiig, and therefore, according to NT teaching, their sin is pardonalile, and repentance and for- giveness are to be preached to them. Igimrancc, such as it is, does not entirely exculpate; but it precludes final condemnation out of hand. When those who have lived in heathen ignorance are converted, their past life will not appear L'uilt- less ; on the contrary, thev will be aslwinied and confounded when they loo\ back on it ; when it stands out before them in the light of God':- eternal law, and of the life of Jesus, they will be unable to umlerstand how they lived a-t they did ; they will condemn themselves, and liumhlj acknowledge their guilt. They were ignorant
VOL. II. — 2i(
but not innocent ; yet, because of their ignorance, not without hope. Sucli guilt as theirs leaves the possibility of feeling in the moral nature ; they may yet be pricked in their hearts, and repent and be saved. It is thus St. Paul interprets hia own experience: 'I was a blasphemer, etc.; but I obtained mercy, because I did it 6.yvoCiy tr iiruTTiif' (ITi 1").
The gradual enlightenment of the Christian conscience, its entrance under the teafhing of experience into fuller possession of the mind of Christ, has to be considered, in applying the plea of ignorance in extenuation of guilt. Thus to keep slaves might once have been done ignorantly — itar' dYxoiox, like the crutitixion — by a Christian; now it would be a sin against the light. Each generation is amazed at what its fathers per- petrated or tolerated or did not see; to say they knew no better is to utter at once their excuse and theii condenmation, for such is the connexion between moral integrity and moral enlightenment that we feel sure tliey mij:ht have, and ought to have, known better. St. Paul not only mentions 'the times of ignorance,' which God 'winked at' (Ac 17*), but indicates the genesis of that ij;nor- ance in a way which makes it itself an ominous feature of noil-Christian life (Ko l'^'^, Eph 4"-"'). In the last resort it is due to an immoral sup- pression, and even extinction, of divine light. It Keeps p<ace with, as it is due to, a ircipucris of the heart ; though the two things, once initiated, are mutually cause and efl'ect. Men act in the hard- ness of their hearts, and the light is dimmed ; they act in the darkening light, and the capacity for feeling is deadened. If this process had its perfect work in any one, so that he had lost utterly the power of distinguishing good and evil, the result would not be the 07^010 which mitigates guOt ; it would be that ignorance of the 'moral universal' which is itself a final con- demnation.