The Invincible Ignorance of Sin

The Readings: Click Here

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 Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.

 

There are four details that we’re going to focus on in today’s episode for this upcoming Sunday Mass Readings for the 3^rd Sunday of Easter. The first two are brief and come from the first reading, taken from Acts 3:13-15, 17-19. The relevant topics that come to fore are the early Church’s belief about Christ’s divinity and the Church’s teaching on invincible ignorance when it comes to sin. Details three and four are in the Gospel reading, taken from Luke 24:35-48. There are two apologetical topics that come into play: the bodily nature of Jesus’ resurrection and its significance for countering alternative explanations to Christ’s literal resurrection and the Catholic appeal to John 20:23 as biblical support for the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

 

Let’s get started with the first reading. Here’s what Peter proclaims:

 

“The God of Abraham,

the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,

the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus,

whom you handed over and denied in Pilate’s presence

when he had decided to release him.

You denied the Holy and Righteous One

and asked that a murderer be released to you.

The author of life you put to death,

but God raised him from the dead; of this we are witnesses.

Now I know, brothers,

that you acted out of ignorance, just as your leaders did;

but God has thus brought to fulfillment

what he had announced beforehand

through the mouth of all the prophets,

that his Christ would suffer.

Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be wiped away.”

 

The first detail that I want to highlight for our purposes is Peter’s reference to Jesus as “the author of life.” He says, “The author of life you put to death” (v.15).

 

Now, who is the author of life? God. Therefore, for Peter to call Jesus the “author of life” is to say that he believes Jesus to be God.

 

This parallels what John says in John 1:3 in reference to Jesus: “all things were made through him [Jesus], and without him was not anything made that was made.” For John, Jesus is outside the category of “things created.” Therefore, for John, Jesus is uncreated, which means he’s Divine.

 

So, this upcoming Sunday’s first reading gives us an opportunity to reflect on Jesus’ divinity.

 

Related to Peter’s statement, “you put to death the author of life,” Peter  acknowledges that the Jews “acted out of ignorance, just as your leaders did.” This shows that it’s possible to commit a grave serious offense but lack the relevant knowledge needed for that grave offense to incur the guilt of mortal sin. Theologians call this kind of ignorance “invincible ignorance.” The Catechism calls it “unintentional ignorance,” and teaches that such ignorance “can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense” (par. 1860). In other words, if a grave offense is committed with unintentional ignorance, then the resulting guilt of the sin will only be venial and thereby not making the person subject to condemnation.

 

In our first reading for this upcoming Sunday Mass, Peter seems to acknowledge that the Jews who put Jesus to death were operating with unintentional or invincible ignorance. Our first reading, therefore, provides an opportunity to reflect on the Church’s teaching concerning the reality of invincible ignorance.

 

Okay, let’s now turn to the Gospel reading, taken from Luke 24:35-48. Here it is:

 

The two disciples recounted what had taken place on the way,

and how Jesus was made known to them

in the breaking of bread.

 

While they were still speaking about this,

he stood in their midst and said to them,

“Peace be with you.”

But they were startled and terrified

and thought that they were seeing a ghost.

Then he said to them, “Why are you troubled?

And why do questions arise in your hearts?

Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself.

Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones

as you can see I have.”

And as he said this,

he showed them his hands and his feet.

While they were still incredulous for joy and were amazed,

he asked them, “Have you anything here to eat?”

They gave him a piece of baked fish;

he took it and ate it in front of them.

 

He said to them,

“These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you,

that everything written about me in the law of Moses

and in the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.”

Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.

And he said to them,

“Thus it is written that the Christ would suffer

and rise from the dead on the third day

and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins,

would be preached in his name

to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

You are witnesses of these things.”

 

The first detail that I want to highlight is Jesus’ instruction for the disciples, “Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see I have.”

 

What’s so important about this detail?

 

Well, the bodily nature of Jesus’ resurrection refutes several alternative hypotheses about details surrounding Christ’s resurrection. For example, some skeptics assert the early Christians hallucinated to explain their claim that they saw Jesus after his death. Others argue that perhaps they merely saw a vision. Still others argue that Jesus didn’t even rise bodily, but only that he “rose” in the sense that his soul lived on in heaven.

 

But these alternative theories don’t jibe well with the bodily nature of Jesus’ appearance, as reported by Luke. Hallucinations and visions don’t offer themselves to be touched. Jesus explicitly denies that he’s a ghost, thereby refuting the idea that only his soul lived on.

 

Now, a skeptic might counter and say that perhaps Jesus’ soul merely assumed a body in the way that angels do. But this counter doesn’t work for three reasons.

 

First, whenever angels appear in bodily form throughout the Bible, we’re never told they are “flesh and bones.” Jesus, on the other hand, actually tells the disciples, “[A] ghost does not have flesh and bones.” The whole point here is to convince the disciples that he’s a not a ghost. Therefore, the flesh and bones are his. He is bodily risen.

 

Secondly, angels never assume a bodily form to convince people they are not a spirit. Jesus here is trying to convince the disciples that he’s not a spirit. Therefore, he’s not merely assuming a bodily form. It is his body.

 

Thirdly, Jesus could have convinced his disciples that he was a spirit in a different way. If he’s trying to convince the disciples that he’s merely a soul living on in the afterlife, then he’s sure doing a horrible job.

 

Finally, this idea that Jesus didn’t rise bodily doesn’t explain the empty tomb. If Jesus’ body were still there in the tomb, then it could have been produced. The only way a skeptic can harmonize the empty tomb detail with his spiritual resurrection theory is if he brings in some other theory to account for the empty tomb, like the conspiracy theory, grave robbery theory or the wrong tomb theory. The problem with this is that you shouldn’t have to bring other theories to account for details if your initial theory is good enough. That you have to bring in other theories counts against your initial theory, especially when the Christian hypothesis by itself adequately accounts for all the details.

 

The second detail that I want to highlight in this Gospel reading is Jesus’ instruction for his disciples to preach repentance for the forgiveness of sins in his name, there in verse v.47.

 

Some Protestants argue that Jesus’ teaching about preaching the forgiveness of sins clarifies what he meant by his words “forgive and retain” in John 20:23. Recall, in John 20:23, Jesus tells the apostles, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

 

President of B’rit Hadashah Ministries Todd Baker is one such Protestant. His reason for thinking this is that “the commission Jesus gave in John 20:23 is the same event recounted in Luke 24:46-48” (Exodus from Rome, Volume I, Chap. 11). Since Baker thinks John and Luke describe the same event, he concludes that the instruction to forgive and retain sins in John 20:23 has the same meaning as the instruction in Luke 24:47: the disciples are to “go into the world and proclaim that the forgiveness of sins is offered in the name of Jesus Christ . . . whereby the forgiveness of God is offered through faith in Jesus Christ to those who repent and believe, but is withheld to those who do not believe” (ibid.).

 

What should we make of Baker’s argument? I deal with this objection in my book Meeting the Protestant Response: How to Answer Common Comebacks to Catholic Arguments. What I share here is essentially what I wrote in the book.

 

It’s true that Jesus’ instruction in Luke’s Gospel refers only to the preaching of the forgiveness of sins. But the objection assumes that the sequence of events in which this instruction is included (Luke 24:44-52) happened on Easter Sunday, and thus that it’s the same as the instruction in John 20:23. A careful reading, however, indicates otherwise.

 

Several times in the verses preceding the sequence of events in question (Luke 24:44-52), Luke uses time cues to indicate that what he’s recording took place on Easter Sunday: “On the first day of the week, at early dawn” (v. 1), “that very day” (v. 13), “that same hour” (v. 33).

 

But when Luke records the sequence of events that include the instruction to preach the forgiveness of sins, there are indications that he doesn’t tie it to Easter Sunday. One could argue that earlier, in verses 41-42, Luke had already dropped chronological narration of the events that took place on Easter Sunday. Notice how he speaks about Jesus requesting from the disciples something to eat and them giving him “broiled fish.” It’s possible that Luke here is giving his version of the same tradition found in John 21:9-13, which John tells us is an event that occurred after Easter Sunday, sometime later when the disciples had returned to Galilee.

 

Moreover, the event described in Luke 24:39-40, where Jesus invites the apostles to handle him and he convinces them that he is not a ghost, may be Luke’s presentation of the same tradition found in John 20:27, where Jesus allows himself to be handled and calls attention to his (wounded) hands and feet. Again, if this is the same tradition, John informs us that this occurred after Easter Sunday—exactly one week after (John 20:26).

 

Now, someone may counter and say Luke clearly connects Easter Sunday with Jesus’ appearance to the disciples and his invitation for them to handle him in verses 36-43, because Luke says Jesus appears while the disciples on the road to Emmaus are telling other disciples what happened, which for Luke occurred on Easter Sunday (see Luke 24:1,13,33).

 

Even if we grant for argument’s sake that what Luke records in verses 36-43 occurred on Easter Sunday, Luke does seem to move on from this event and summarize a series of events that took place during the period of forty days that Jesus spent with his disciples prior to his ascension (Acts 1:3).

 

Notice that Luke connects Jesus’ instruction to preach the forgiveness of sins with Jesus’ instruction to preach his name “to all nations,” and that they were to begin in Jerusalem (v. 47). He also includes the Father’s promise to “send power from on high” (v. 49).

 

These are all items that Luke includes in his list of things that Jesus taught his disciples during the forty days before and on the day of his ascension (see Acts 1:1-10). Therefore, these instructions, including the instruction to preach the forgiveness of sins, likely were not given in the upper room on the night of Jesus’ resurrection.

 

One could even read these instructions as given on the day of the Ascension, since it has to do with preaching to the nations (see Matt. 28:19-20), and Luke places them right before he records the Ascension.

 

The bottom line is that Luke 24:47 can’t be appealed to as a defeater for the Catholic sacramental interpretation of John 20:23.

 

Conclusion

 

Well, my friends, that does it for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The readings for this upcoming 3^rd Sunday of Easter, Year B doesn’t sell us short when it comes to apologetical details. It gives opportunity to reflect on

 

• Jesus’ divinity
• The reality of invincible ignorance and how it affects someone’s culpability for grave sins,
• The bodily nature of Jesus’ resurrection and how such a detail refutes alternative theories to the Christian claim that Jesus rose from the dead, and
• Jesus’ institution of the Sacrament of Reconciliation in John 20:23.

 

As always, thank you for subscribing to the podcast. And please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well at sundaycatholicword.com. You might also want to check out the other great podcasts in our Catholic Answers podcast network: Cy Kellet’s Catholic Answers Focus, Trent Horn’s The Counsel of Trent, Joe Heschmeyer’s Shameless Popery, and Jimmy Akin’s A Daily Defense, all of which can be found at catholic.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 3^rd Sunday of Easter, Year B. Until next time, God Bless!