Episode 17: Year A – Fourth Sunday of Lent
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we focus on five details in the Liturgy of the Word for the 4th Sunday of Lent, Year A. Four of the five come from the Gospel reading, which, for the long version, is taken from John 9:1-41 (the short version is verses 1, 6-9, 13-17, 34-38). It’s the story of the blind man whom Jesus healed by applying mud mixed with His spit and telling him to wash in the pool of Siloam. The fifth apologetical detail is taken from the second reading, which is Ephesians 5:8-14. The apologetical themes covered in this episode include the sacraments, the divinity of Jesus, the problem of suffering (and the broader problem of evil more generally), and the possibility for a Christian to lose his salvation through mortal sin.
The Readings: https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/031923.cfm
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday
DESCRIPTION
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we focus on five details in the Liturgy of the Word for the 4th Sunday of Lent, Year A. Four of the five come from the Gospel reading, which, for the long version, is taken from John 9:1-41 (the short version is verses 1, 6-9, 13-17, 34-38). It’s the story of the blind man whom Jesus healed by applying mud mixed with His spit and telling him to wash in the pool of Siloam. The fifth apologetical detail is taken from the second reading, which is Ephesians 5:8-14. The apologetical themes covered in this episode include the sacraments, the divinity of Jesus, the problem of suffering (and the broader problem of evil more generally), and the possibility for a Christian to lose his salvation through mortal sin.
INTRODUCTION
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 five details found in the Liturgy of the Word for the 4th Sunday of Lent, Year A. Four of the five come from the Gospel reading, which, for the long version, is taken from John 9:1-41. The short version is verses 1, 6-9, 13-17, 34-38. It’s the story of the blind man whom Jesus healed by applying mud mixed with His spit and telling him to wash in the pool of Siloam. I’m going to highlight the details that come from the long version, since they are important to even understanding what’s going on in the short version. The fifth apologetical detail is taken from the second reading, which is Ephesians 5:8-14.
The apologetical themes that these details relate to are as follows:
- The sacraments,
- The divinity of Jesus,
- the problem of evil, and
- the possibility for a Christian to lose his salvation through mortal sin.
Let’s start with the Gospel. I’m not going to read all forty-one verses for the long version of the Gospel reading. You can do that on your own. I’m just going to highlight the verses that are relevant for the detail under consideration.
Jesus’ Use of Mud, Spit, and Water to Heal
The first detail is Jesus’ use of mud, spit, and water to heal the blind man. Here’s what we read:
- 1: As he passed by he saw a man blind from birth. . . v6: When he had said this, he spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva, and smeared the clay on his eyes, 7 and said to him, “Go wash in the Pool of Siloam” (which means Sent).
The key take-away here is that what Jesus does anticipates Jesus’ institution of the seven sacraments: He uses material things to communicate His healing power. In this case, He used material stuff to bring about physical healing. In the Sacraments, He uses material stuff to bring about spiritual healing and interior transformation—that’s to say, justification or salvation. This at least establishes biblical grounds for a sacramental principle: Jesus communicating grace to us through material things. The sacraments aren’t that foreign to the Bible after all.
Miracle as Confirmation of Jesus Being from God
The second detail in this Sunday’s Gospel reading that’s worthy of focus for apologetical purposes is the recognition of the miracle being a confirmation that Jesus is from God. John tells us that after Jesus performed the miracle, the healed man was brought before the Pharisees for questioning. In that exchange, some of the Pharisees claimed, “This man is not from God, because he does not keep the sabbath,” to which the healed man responded,
This is what is so amazing, that you do not know where he is from, yet he opened my eyes. 31 We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if one is devout and does his will, he listens to him. 32 It is unheard of that anyone ever opened the eyes of a person born blind. 33 If this man were not from God, he would not be able to do anything.
Even some of the other Pharisees marveled in a manner like the healed man: “How can a sinful man do such signs?” (v.16). The significance of this sort of response is that it proves Jesus was not a liar, nor a lunatic, concerning the claims that He makes, especially the claims about His divinity throughout the Gospels.
Many of you listening probably have heard of the trilemma argument:
P1: Jesus is either Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.
P2: Jesus is not a liar.
P3: Jesus is not a lunatic
C: Therefore, Jesus is Lord.
Premise 2 and 3 is where this Sunday’s Gospel reading comes into play. As the healed man said, “If this man were not from God [for the purposes of the trilemma argument, a liar or a lunatic], he would not be able to do anything [like this miracle].” But, as evidenced by the blind man who now sees, Jesus did do something: Jesus healed the blind man. Therefore, we can conclude, Jesus is from God. And if Jesus is from God, then He is who He says He is: Lord. The miracle confirms Jesus’ claims to be God. (For references to Jesus’ claims to be God, check out Mark 2:5-10; Mark 14:63; John 8:58; John 10:30-33, just to name a few).
The Son of Man
Now, there’s another detail in this narrative about the healing of the blind man that’s relevant to Jesus’ divinity: His exchange with the healed blind man about His identity as “the Son of Man.”
After Jesus heard that the Pharisees had cast the healed man out, Jesus found him and said:
36 He answered and said, “Who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” 37 Jesus said to him, “You have seen him and the one speaking with you is he.” 38 He said, “I do believe, Lord,” and he worshiped him
The “Son of Man” is an allusion to the figure in Daniel 7 that is described as “one like a son of man” who comes “with the clouds of heaven” (v. 13). This figure is commonly seen as the Messianic King, but, as New Testament scholar Brant Pitre argues in his book The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ, this king is not just a human king—he’s a divine one (143-145).
Pitre highlights two details that suggest the figure’s divinity. First, Daniel describes him as “coming on the clouds.” According to the Old Testament, this is something only God does (see Jeremiah 4:13). Second, Daniel doesn’t say, “He is a son of man,” but he is “like a son of man.” Dr. Pitre writes, “He appears to be a merely human figure but is in fact a heavenly being” (The Case for Jesus, 144; emphasis in original).
The contemporary Jewish scholar Daniel Boyarin describes this figure as a “second divine figure” (the first being the ancient of days) and “a God who looks like a human being” (The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ, 32-33).
So, Jesus’ affirmation that He is “the Son of Man” is not just an affirmation of his self-understanding as the Messiah. Rather, it’s an affirmation of his self-understanding as a Divine Messiah. And the miracle that He performed proves that self-understanding to be correct. Jesus is not a lunatic.
Now, some Christians might argue that Jesus’ identification of Himself as the “the Son of Man” provides an explanation as to why the healed man “worshiped” Him. The Greek word for “worship” here is proskuneo, which can mean “worship.” And perhaps the healed man is worshipping Jesus in the sense that he believes Jesus is divine. But proskuneo can also mean simply “to bow before someone” without any connotations of worship. I say this simply to caution you as to whether you want to use this detail in discussions with others about Jesus’ divinity. It does seem to fit with the context, but it’s not a slam dunk.
Denial of Sickness Being Punishment for Sin
The fourth detail from the Gospel reading that we’re going to focus on here is Jesus’ denial of the man’s blindness being a punishment for sin, whether his or his parents. The narrative starts off as follows:
1 As he passed by he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, “Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him
The backdrop here is the first-century Jewish belief that sickness was a direct consequence of sin (Job 31:3; Ps. 107:17). Sometimes the responsibility for the sickness was imputed to one’s parents (Tobit 3:3). Other times the physical ailments were attributed to a person’s sins committed during earlier periods of his life, even to the moment of his birth. Note verse 34, where some of the Pharisees say to the healed man, “You were born totally in sin.”
(9:34).
Jesus clearly rejects these beliefs. Not every sickness is a direct punishment for sin. Can sickness be a punishment for sin? Sure! Jesus is not denying that. He’s simply saying that such a link cannot be established in every case.
Now, there’s another relevant apologetical point here. Jesus’ response preempts a legitimate question that would have been circling around in the heads of his audience: “If the sickness is not a result of the man’s sins or his parent’s sins, then why is he sick?” Jesus answers, “it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him.”
Jesus here gives us His own response, or at least a response, to the mystery of God’s permission of suffering, and even more broadly the mystery of God’s permission of evil. Notice He doesn’t say that God is not powerful enough to rid the man of his ailment. Nor does Jesus think that God’s permission of the ailment is unjust. Rather, He reveals that God permitted the ailment so that He would work a miracle and thereby manifest His power.
This fits with the classical Christian response to evil in general: God permits it only insofar as He will order it to a greater good. In this case, the greater good is revealed: it’s a physical healing that manifests God’s power.
Now, this doesn’t solve the mystery of suffering completely, nor does it solve the broader mystery of evil in general. But it does give us as Christians hope that whatever evil we’re experiencing in our lives at this moment, we can know that God will order it to a greater good. And even though we might not see the good now, we may see it later. Or we may never see it in this life and will have to wait until the next. But we know that there is a greater good.
Possibility for a Christian to Lose Salvation
The fifth and last detail for this episode comes from the second reading, which, again, is taken from Ephesians 5:8-14. St. Paul writes,
8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light, 9 for light produces every kind of goodness and righteousness and truth. 10 Try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no part in the fruitless works of darkness; rather expose them, 12 for it is shameful even to mention the things done by them in secret; 13 but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, 14 for everything that becomes visible is light. Therefore, it says:
“Awake, O sleeper,
and arise from the dead,
and Christ will give you light.”
The key detail here is Paul’s exhortation to “take no part in the fruitless works of darkness.” There’s a context to this statement not given in this Sundays’ second reading that reveals what these “fruitless works of darkness” are. In verses 3-5, Paul writes,
3 Immorality [sexual immorality] or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones, 4 no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place, but instead, thanksgiving. 5 Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
The thing to note is that such sins impede a person from inheriting “the kingdom of Christ and God.” In our Catholic tradition, we call this kind of sin “mortal sin” (CCC 1857-159). And by “person” Paul doesn’t just mean an unbeliever—that’s to say, someone who has never become a Christian yet. This warning applies to Christians as well, given that Paul is directing this warning directly to the Ephesians, who are born again/saved Christians. This being the case, we have evidence from Paul that born again/justified Christians can forfeit their inheritance of eternal life. In other words, Christians can lose their salvation.
As many of you know, this is important for doing apologetics because there are some Christians who believe that once we’re saved, we’re always saved—a doctrine often referred to as “the doctrine of eternal security.” But, in light of Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 5:3-8, we know that Paul doesn’t believe this doctrine.
Conclusion
Well, that does it for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. This Sunday’s Mass readings is yet again an apologist’s treasure chest. It provides details that are helpful for talking about the sacraments, the divinity of Jesus, the problem of suffering (and the broader problem of evil in general), and the possibility for a Christian to lose his salvation through mortal sin.
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 that you have a great 4th Sunday of Lent.