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.
In this episode, we’re going to focus on a total of five details that come from all three readings. They relate to several different apologetical topics: the spiritual efficacy of the Sacrament of baptism, the nature of justification, the intercession of the saints, and the Eucharist.
THE FIRST READING
Let’s get started with the first reading, which comes from Acts 2:14a, 36-41. The verse that’s relevant for our purposes is verse 38-39. Peter exclaims to the crowd present there on the Day of Pentecost,
“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”
Detail: “For the Forgiveness of sins”
There are two details that we’re going to focus on here. The first is Peter’s instruction in verse 38: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Many argue that this verse proves the spiritual efficacy of baptism: it brings about the forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit. And if that’s the case, then baptism isn’t just a symbol. It’s a perceptible sign that effects that which it signifies—namely, salvation.
It seems like slam dunk, right? Well, as I point out in my book Meeting the Protestant Response: How to Answer Common Comebacks to Catholic Arguments, for some Christians it’s not.
Protestant apologist Ron Rhodes, for example, has a comeback that’s based on a particular reading of the Greek preposition eis, translated as “for.”[i] Rhodes rightly points out that eis “can indicate causality (‘in order to attain’) or a result (‘because of’).” An example of the causal sense is, “I’m going to the office for (in order to get) my paycheck.” An example of the resultant sense is, “I’m taking an aspirin for (because of) my headache.”
Rhodes asserts that in Acts 2:38 eis is used in the resultant sense: Peter is not saying, “Repent, and be baptized in order to attain the forgiveness of sins” but rather, “Repent, and be baptized because you’ve been forgiven.” Rather than baptism being a cause of salvation, it’s something we do once we’re saved.
Our first response is that there’s no argument here from the verse itself or the immediate context as to why eis should be interpreted in the resultant sense in this passage. It’s simply asserted. Therefore, anyone who interprets it in the causal sense would likewise be entitled simply to assert his own position without argumentation.
A second response to the “baptism follows salvation” counter-argument is that Acts 2:38 is not the only information we have concerning the relationship between baptism and the forgiveness of sins. In the same book of Acts, baptism precedes the removal of sins. Consider Acts 22:16, where Ananias tells Paul, “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” Notice what Ananias doesn’t say: “Rise and be baptized, because you’ve been forgiven your sins.” Moreover, and more importantly, the verb in the above passage, “wash away,” clearly connects baptism with sins. This reveals that baptism is a washing. The statement “be baptized and wash away your sins” depicts the washing of baptism as what removes the sins.
The early Christians also viewed baptism as bringing about the forgiveness of sins. For example, the Letter of Barnabas, not written by the apostle Barnabas although it does date to around A.D. 75, reads, “We descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear of God and trust in Jesus in our spirit” (11).
The Shepherd of Hermas, also known as The Shepherd, which dates to around A.D. 80, says it’s “sound doctrine” to say a person receives the remission of his former sins in baptism. It then alludes to Paul’s teaching in Romans 6:3-4, writing, “they go down into the water dead, and they come up alive.”[ii]
If baptism is seen as an instrumental cause of the forgiveness of sins elsewhere in the Bible, as well as in early Christian testimony, then we have good reason to interpret “for” in Acts 2:38 in the causal sense.
Here’s a third response: the data in the verse itself, along with its immediate context, gives credence to a causal interpretation of “for.” In the subsequent verses, you’ll notice that nowhere does it say those listening to Peter were forgiven their sins before they received baptism. That’s only an assumption.
Verse 37 merely tells us the crowd mourns Peter’s indictment of their sin of crucifying their Messiah and asks what must be done. Peter responds by instructing the people to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins, speaks of the promise to them and their children, and further exhorts them to save themselves from their crooked generation. Verse 41 then tells us 3,000 people received Peter’s word and were baptized. Nowhere does it say they were forgiven for their sins before they were baptized.
Since there’s no evidence that their sins were forgiven before they received baptism, and we know that Peter links baptism with the forgiveness of sins (1 Pet. 3:21), the natural reading of the text is that the forgiveness of sins occurs with the reception of baptism.
Also, consider that Peter links the reception of the Holy Spirit with baptism as an effect to a cause. He says, “Repent, and be baptized . . . and you shall receive [Greek, lēmpsesthe—future tense] the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). For Peter, the reception of the Holy Spirit is an effect of baptism.
Our final response, which I got from Jimmy Akin, is that the “resultant” interpretation entails unnecessary mental gymnastics when reading the flow of Peter’s instructions.[iii] We would need to envision repentance, then move forward in time to baptism, then conceptually move back in time to repentance again when we come to the forgiveness of sins, and then move forward again to the future with regard to the reception of the Holy Spirit. That’s a strained reading to say the least. The more natural reading of the text is simply to take all the parts as referring to the future: repentance, baptism, and with it the forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit.
Detail: “The Promise is to your children”
A second detail in this first reading that’s a nugget is Peter’s mention of the promise of the Holy Spirit being for children. Notice how after saying that we’re forgiven of our sins and receive the Holy Spirit through baptism, Peter says in verse 39, “For the promise is to you and to your children.” What promise is he speaking about? The promise of the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit that’s given through baptism. Therefore, Peter views baptism as something for children as well adults.
THE SECOND READING
The next two details come from the second reading, which is taken from 1 Peter 2:20b-25. I’m only going to focus on verses 24-25. Peter writes,
24 He himself bore our sins in his body upon the cross, so that, free from sin, we might live for righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you had gone astray like sheep, but you have now returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls
Detail: “Free from sin . . . live for righteousness”
The first detail that I want to highlight here is Peter’s description of our new state in Christ caused by Christ’s death on the cross: “24 He himself bore our sins in his body upon the cross, so that, free from sin, we might live for righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.”
Notice that Peter equates our state of being “free from sin” with “living for [or to] righteousness.” The freedom from sin is not merely a state where we are no longer held accountable for our sin. Rather, Peter’s describing an interior state. There are two reasons to think this.
First, the Greek verb for “free,” agoginomai, means “to die.” So, what Peter is getting at here is that we as Christians have died to sin. This implies that something has happened to us that would ground a change in our status relative to God.
Second, Peter equates this “death to [or freedom from] sin” as “being healed.” To speak of healing, again, is to speak of something that happens to us; not simply a change in our relation to God.
Now, what’s important apologetically is that Peter connects this interior state of healing and death to sin with a state of “living to [for] righteousness.” The Greek word for “righteousness” is dikaiosune, the very word that Paul uses throughout his letter to the Romans when he talks about Abraham’s righteousness through faith, a righteousness that Paul equates with being “justified by faith” and thereby having “peace with God” (Rom. 5:1).
So, for Peter, our state of justification or righteousness is identified as one of being interiorly dead to sin and healed. This contradicts the common claim by some Protestants that our justification doesn’t involve an interior state of righteousness but is merely rooted in the extrinsic declaration by God that we are righteousness/justified.
Detail: “The Shepherd and Guardian”
The second detail that’s worth highlighting for apologetical purposes is Peter’s reference to Jesus as the “shepherd and guardian of our souls.”
In conversations about the intercession of the saints, some Christians object that we shouldn’t ask the saints to pray for us because the 1 Timothy 2:5 says that Jesus is our “one mediator.” The assumed premise in this objection is that whatever role Jesus has no one else can participate in it.
Here is where the detail from our reading comes into play. Peter calls Jesus the “shepherd” [Greek, poimen] and “guardian” [Greek, episkopos] of our souls. Yet, the Bible is very clear that others are called “shepherd” [poimen] and “guardian” [Greek, episkopos].
For example, in Ephesians 4:11, when listing the different ministries in the Church, Paul lists “pastors” as one of them. The Greek word that he uses here is poimen, which means “shepherd.”
In 1 Timothy 3:2, Paul gives Timothy the criteria for a “bishop.” The Greek worded used is episkoposm, the same word used for Jesus in 1 Peter 2:25.
Given that others can participate in a role that Jesus has in a unique way, like the role being a shepherd or guardian, the assumed premise in the objection from 1 Timothy 2:5 is false. This being the case, Jesus’ role as the one mediator doesn’t pose a threat to the practice of invoking the saints to pray for us.
THE GOSPEL READING
Detail: “The Gate/Door of the sheep”
The last detail to consider for this episode comes from the Gospel reading, which comes from John 10:1-10. This is where Jesus speaks of himself as “the gate” of the sheep.
Now, this is significant for apologetical discussions because some Christians appeal to this passage in response to a realistic interpretation of Jesus’ words to “eat his flesh” and “drink his blood” in John 6:53-58. “If you’re going to interpret Jesus literally in John 6,” so the argument goes, “then you should interpret Jesus literally here in John 10:9.” The implication is that it’s absurd to interpret Jesus literally here. Therefore, we shouldn’t interpret Jesus literally in John 6.
How should we respond?
Well, as I point out in my book Meeting the Protestant Response, this comeback fails because the gate passage is disanalogous to the bread of life passage. The people in the audience in the gate passage don’t interpret Jesus literally, as they do in John 6. No one listening to the gate teaching said, “How can this man be a gate made out of wood?” Jesus’ audience recognized he was speaking metaphorically. So no further inquiry is needed.
This stands in stark contrast to the audience in John 6. Both the Jews and Jesus’ disciples understand Jesus to be speaking literally. This gives us reason to think something different is going on in John 6 from what’s happening in the gate passage. And the contextual evidence confirms this initial hunch.
As many of you listening know, Jesus affirms the literal thoughts of both the Jews and his disciples. He even lets the latter walk away in verse 66, and then turns to the apostles and says, “Do you also wish to go away?” This stands out as remarkably different from how Jesus handles teachings with hidden meanings elsewhere. For example, in Mark 4:33-34, we’re told, “With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.”
Given the presence of the literal thoughts among Jesus’ audience in John 6 compared to the lack of such thoughts in the gate passage, and Jesus’ engagement with those literal thoughts by way of affirming them, we can conclude that the gate passage is meant to be read differently from how we should read Jesus’ teaching about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
Conclusion
Well, my friends, that does it for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word.
The relevant details of the Fourth Sunday of Easter give us opportunity to reflect on four different apologetical topics:
- the spiritual efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism,
- the nature of justification,
- the intercession of the saints, and
- the Eucharist.
Thank you for subscribing to the podcast. Please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well. Also, 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 Fourth Sunday of Easter.
[i] See Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics, 163-164.
[ii] The Shepherd of Hermas 2:4:3.
[iii] I am grateful to Jimmy Akin for this line of reasoning.