Episode 149: 26th Sunday of Ordinary Time Year C
In today’s episode, we look at the readings for this upcoming 26th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C, which provide us with a treasure chest of apologetical details. The detail from the first reading, which is taken from Amos 6:1a,4-7 relates to the question of whether the Bible forbids drinking alcoholic beverages, like wine. The detail from the second reading, which is taken from 1 Timothy 6:11-16, relates to discussions with Seventh Day Adventists about the immortality of the soul. Finally, the Gospel reading from Luke 16:19-31—the Parable of the rich man and Lazarus, provides us with details that relate to the topic of Hell.
Hey everyone,
Welcome to The Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith.
I’m Dr. Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.
In today’s episode, we’re going to look at the readings for this upcoming 26th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C, which provide us with a treasure chest of apologetical details. The detail from the first reading, which is taken from Amos 6:1a,4-7 relates to the question of whether the Bible forbids drinking alcoholic beverages, like wine. The detail from the second reading, which is taken from 1 Timothy 6:11-16, relates to discussions with Seventh Day Adventists about the immortality of the soul. Finally, the Gospel reading from Luke 16:19-31—the Parable of the rich man and Lazarus, provides us with details that relate to the topic of Hell.
Let’s start with the first reading, again, taken from Amos 6:1a, 4-7. We read,
Thus says the LORD the God of hosts:
Woe to the complacent in Zion!
Lying upon beds of ivory,
stretched comfortably on their couches,
they eat lambs taken from the flock,
and calves from the stall!
Improvising to the music of the harp,
like David, they devise their own accompaniment.
They drink wine from bowls
and anoint themselves with the best oils;
yet they are not made ill by the collapse of Joseph!
Therefore, now they shall be the first to go into exile,
and their wanton revelry shall be done away with.
The detail that I want to highlight is when Amos says, “They drink wine from bowls,” which is listed with other things for which God, through Amos, pronounces a “Woe.”
Now, some Christians appeal to this passage as evidence that wine is a forbidden drink, thereby concluding that the permission of drinking alcoholic beverages is a tradition of men that nullifies the Word of God.
What can we say in response?
Note that everything I say here is in written form in my book Meeting the Protestant Challenge: How to Answer 50 Biblical Objections to Catholic Beliefs.
The first thing we can say in response is that this interpretation of this text from Amos doesn’t fit with what we read elsewhere in scripture, because other verses affirm the consumption of wine.
One example is found in Deuteronomy 14. In verses 22-24, Moses instructs the Israelites about their obligation to tithe, and informs them that if they are too far away from where they are to bring their crop, they are to “turn it into money” and “spend the money for whatever [they] desire, oxen, or sheep, or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves; and you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household” (26).
The Hebrew word used here for “strong drink” is shekar, and is used for beverages that contain alcohol, having the potential to intoxicate. If alcoholic beverages were forbidden absolutely, as the challenge asserts, then Moses would be giving the Israelites permission to do something that’s immoral.
Here are some other pro-wine passages:
Now, some Protestants try to get around passages like these by arguing that the wine spoken of was diluted enough with water to exclude fear of excess and intoxication. It’s true that wine was often mixed with water. But if it were diluted to the point where intoxication wasn’t possible, then no sense could be made of the many warnings about drunkenness (see 1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:18; Prov. 20:1; 23:21; Hab. 2:15). There would be no need for such warnings if the Jews and the early Christians only partook of non-intoxicating wine.
Our second response is that Jesus was favorable to wine in his ministry.
We know that Jesus drank wine; in fact, he drank it enough that some people accused him of drunkenness: “The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, ‘Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’” (Luke 7:34). For him to be charged with being a drunk, he must have drunk the kind of wine that has the potential to intoxicate.
One of Jesus’ first miracles involved changing about 150 gallons of water into alcoholic wine (John 2:6) in response to the wedding party’s dilemma of exhausting the original supply of wine (John 2:3). And we know that the wine Jesus produced was the alcoholic kind because the steward complimented the groom, saying, “Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now” (John 2:10). The “good wine” refers to high-quality wine that has the potential to impair man’s ability to discern between good and inferior grades of wine. That’s the kind of wine that Jesus changed water into.
Our third response is that Amos doesn’t actually say what the challenge seeks to prove. It doesn’t condemn the mere partaking of “wine in bowls.” We know that it doesn’t right off the bat because of its immediate context, which involves the “woe” being directed also at those who “anoint themselves with the finest oils.” Must we conclude that God, through Amos, is forbidding the anointing of oil too? We know the answer is “no” because anointing was an accepted practice in the Old Testament, such as when the prophet Samuel anointed David with a horn of oil (1 Sam. 16:13).
So what did Amos mean? The woe that Amos pronounces is actually intended for those who engage in celebratory behavior (drinking wine and anointing self with oil) “but are not grieved over the ruin of Joseph.” (The “ruin of Joseph” may refer to the corruption of the Northern Kingdom of Israel). For Amos, the Israelites should be doing penance to mourn Israel’s sins, not celebrating and being “at ease in Zion” (Amos 6:1).
Thus, we can conclude that Catholics are not subject to the Woe from the prophet Amos when we partake of alcoholic beverages.
Let’s now turn to the second reading, which is taken from 1 Timothy 6:11-16. I’m not going to read the whole thing, but rather just highlight the one verse that serves our purposes here. Paul talks about Christ’s second coming and how at that coming Jesus will manifest God the Father as “the King of kings and Lord of Lords.” It’s the next description that Paul makes of God that’s relevant: “Who alone has immortality.”
Seventh Day Adventists appeal to this passage as evidence that human souls don’t continue to “live” in the afterlife but rather are in an unconscious state, commonly referred to as “soul sleep.” And only the righteous at the end of time will receive “eternal life” given to them as a gift, while the unrighteous will be annihilated. You can read about this in the article “What Happens After Death According the Bible” at Adventist.org.
Now, it’s a bit unclear as to what Seventh Day Adventist mean by “immortal” in their argument. They appeal to God alone being “immortal” to prove that humans aren’t immortal. From this line of reasoning, you’d think they’re trying to say that the soul is not the kind of thing that is immortal, contrary to Catholic teaching. As the Catechism states in paragraph 366, “every spiritual soul is…immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final resurrection.”
You’d also think they’re saying this about the soul because in the aforementioned article the Adventist website states, “the soul cannot exist without the body or the breath.” Notice it uses the word “exist.” A reasonable inference from this statement would be that the soul ceases to exist with the death of the body.
But elsewhere in the same article they affirm that souls, at least the righteous souls, do continue to exist, saying things like, “There is no need to worry about a loved one who passed away. They are resting peacefully in the grave. They are not in pain . . . They are simply waiting in the grave until Jesus comes back.” Why make such claims unless you thought your loved ones existed in the afterlife? These statements would unintelligible if there were no loved one existing. There can be no waiting unless there is someone to be waiting.
Thus, it seems that by humans lacking the immortality that God has they’re thinking humans aren’t immortal with their life on earth—that’s to say, the conscious life within the body. But what’s interesting is that this doesn’t fit with their appeal to God who alone is immortal. Why juxtapose a limited physical life on earth—the life of humans—with the unlimited existence of immaterial life—God? In other words, what is about the immortality of God that proves humans don’t physically live forever?
Maybe by “God alone is immortal” they mean God alone is forever conscious. But that would be a bit muddle headed because then they’d be defining “immortality” with consciousness, which doesn’t work with God because he is not only forever conscious but he forever exists.
So, as you can see, it’s a bit difficulty to discern with clarity what exactly Seventh Day Adventist are trying to argue by their appeal to 1 Timothy 6:11-16.
However, it does raise an interesting question: “How can we say that souls are immortal when Paul says God alone is immortal?”
Paul is saying God’s immortality is absolute, whereas a creature’s immortality is participatory.
We can grant that Paul is saying God alone is immortal. But he might be saying that in the same way that the Bible says God alone is good (Luke 18:19) and holy (Rev. 15:4). It’s not that goodness and holiness can’t be found elsewhere, just that God doesn’t have goodness; he is goodness. God alone is good in the sense that he is good in a non-derived way. His goodness is absolute.
By contrast, creatures are good inasmuch as they live in harmony with the order of goodness inscribed within their natures, which are designed and sustained in existence by God. Whatever goodness a creature achieves is derived or caused, and thus is not goodness in an absolute sense but is a participation in goodness.
The same line of reasoning is applied to God’s immortality. He alone has immortality in an absolute sense because he alone is pure being itself. If he doesn’t receive his existence from any cause outside himself because his nature is existence itself, then he necessarily is immortal.
Human souls (and angels), on the other hand, do not exist by nature. They are immortal only inasmuch as God has made them to be that way. Their immortality belongs to their nature, but only because their natures are designed and made to be so by God.
God alone has immortality in an absolute sense because he doesn’t derive it from any cause outside himself. But that doesn’t mean God can’t create a creature, and in particular a human soul, that has an immortal nature.
Okay, let’s now turn to the Gospel reading, taken from Luke 16:19-31. I’m not going to read the whole parable. Rather, I’ll highlight the relevant details to our question: Is the rich man in Hell or purgatory?
The reason why I pose this question is because some theologians have suggested the rich man is in purgatory. And the reason they give for this is that he seems to manifest charity, requesting that Abraham send Lazarus to warn his five brothers lest they come to his place of torment.
So, is this purgatory? I don’t think so. I think it’s a reference to Hell. And here are some reasons why.
Reason #1: The Catechism implies that it’s Hell. Here’s what we read in paragraph 633:
“Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, ‘hell’ – Sheolin Hebrew or Hades in Greek – because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the poor man Lazarus who was received into ‘Abraham’s bosom.’ (Lk16:22-26). ‘It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.’ Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.”
Notice how the Catechism draws the distinction between the two groups in “Hades,” the righteous and the damned. The distinction between the two is the fact that their “lot” is not the same. In referencing this passage of Luke 16, it is evident that Lazarus was in the group of the righteous necessarily implying that the rich man would be numbered among the eternally damned. The Catechism says that the “holy souls” were in Abraham’s Bosom and it’s these souls that Christ delivered when He descended into hell, not the damned. There is a distinction here between Lazarus and the rich man. Lazarus would have been one to be delivered by Christ and not the rich man. Therefore, the rich man is in Hell!
The Catechism again brings up the rich man and Lazarus in paragraph 1021 when it talks about the eternal destinies that are different for some. It states,
Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ. The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul—a destiny which can be different for some and for others. (679)
Notice the Catechism speaks of the “final” destinies of Lazarus and the rich man. This excludes the rich man being in purgatory because purgatory is not a final destiny.
Reason #2: Abraham says the chasm between him and the rich man is fixed. Recall, Abraham says in verse 26, “between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours.”
Reason #3: The rich man’s request for his brothers not to come to his place of torment is selfishly motivated. This detail meets the challenge that this is purgatory.
Notice that the rich man, before asking to send Lazarus from the dead to his brothers, request for Lazarus to come and cool his tongue, that is console him in the flames that he is suffering torment in. This request was to relieve his sufferings. After Abraham denied him this request in vs.25-26, the Scripture says, “And he [the rich man] said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father’s house, for I have five brethren.” This so say act of charity was only after his first request of consolation was denied. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that this second request is one of selfishness.
But why would he make the request for other than love? As the Ignatius Catholic Bible Commentary suggest, “He realizes that the damnation of his entire family would only increase his misery.”
This is the view of St. Thomas Aquinas. In the Supplement to his Summa Theologiae, 98:4, ad 1, he writes,
So great will be the envy of the damned that they will envy the glory even of their kindred, since they themselves are supremely unhappy, for this happens even in this life, when envy increases. Nevertheless they will envy their kindred less than others, and their punishment would be greater if all their kindred were damned, and others saved, than if some of their kindred were saved. For this reason the rich man prayed that his brethren might be warded from damnation: for he knew that some are guarded therefrom. Yet he would rather that his brethren were damned as well as all the rest.
Just because an individual does an outward action that is objectively an act of charity, does not mean that the action is meritorious of grace or good rewards. Why? Because the motive for the good action could be one contrary to Divine Charity. For example, St. Paul says in 1Corinthians 13:3: “And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.” Charitable acts objectively do not necessarily mean that the individual soul possesses Divine Charity. Therefore, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the second request of the rich man is objectively a charitable act, however his motive is one of selfishness, therefore he does not have Divine Charity in his soul, hence he is not in Purgatory but in Hell!
So, for these reasons I conclude that the rich man is in hell and not purgatory. And this in turn provides us evidence from Jesus himself that he at least for him there is no incompatibility between his all-loving divine nature and hell.
Conclusion
Well, my friends, that’s all I have for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. As I mentioned in the introduction, readings for this upcoming 26th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C is a treasure chest for apologetics:
As always, I want to thank you for subscribing to the podcast. And please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well through any podcast platform that they use. You can also access the archived episodes of the Sunday Catholic Word at sundaycatholicword.com.
You might also want to check out the other great podcasts in our Catholic Answers podcast network: Trent Horn’s The Counsel of Trent, Joe Heschmeyer’s Shameless Popery, and Jimmy Akin’s The Jimmy Akin podcast,” all of which can be found at catholic.com. And if you want to follow more of my own work, check out my website at karlobroussard.com
One last thing: if you’re interested in getting some cool mugs and stickers with my logo, “Mr. Sunday podcast,” go to shop.catholic.com.
I hope you have a blessed 26th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C. Until next time, God Bless.