Episode 63: Year B – 5th Sunday of Ordinary Time
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we focus on two apologetical details found in the second reading and Gospel reading for this upcoming 5th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B. The first detail is found in the second reading, which is taken from 1 Corinthians 9:16-19, 22-23. The relevant apologetical topic that we discuss is the idea of our participation in the saving work of Christ, which can be used to illuminate two apologetical topics: a) a proper understanding of the relation between the saints’ intercession and b) the unique mediation of Christ and a proper understanding of Mary as “co-redemptrix.” There are two topics of focus for the detail in the Gospel reading, taken from Mark 1:29-39, both of which are related—a) the historicity of the early church’s portrait of Jesus as an exorcist and b) Jesus’ divinity.
Readings: Click Here
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! 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.
In this episode, we’re going to focus on two apologetical details found in the second reading and Gospel reading for this upcoming 5th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B. The second reading is taken from 1 Corinthians 9:16-19, 22-23 and the relevant apologetical topic that we’re going to discuss is the idea of our participation in the saving work of Christ, which can be used to illuminate two things: a proper understanding of the relation between the saints’ intercession and the unique mediation of Christ and a proper understanding of Mary as “co-redemptrix.” There are two topics of focus for the Gospel reading, taken from Mark 1:29-39, both of which are related—a) the historicity of the early church’s portrait of Jesus as an exorcist and b) Jesus’ divinity.
Let’s start with the detail from the second reading. I’m not going to going to read the whole passage. The verse I want to focus on is verse 22: “To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”
The key theme here is Paul’s theology of participation in Christ’s saving work. Notice he views himself as “saving” those to whom he ministers. Surely, he doesn’t mean he saves in the sense that he’s the source of that salvation. Rather, he views himself to be an instrument, or a secondary cause, of that salvation, Christ and his cross being the primary cause of salvation.
Now, this has several implications for apologetics.
First, it illustrates how some activities can be ascribed to Christians without taking away from the glory that Jesus has in being the primary source of those activities. This has relevance when we’re talking about invoking the saints’ intercession.
Often, Protestants argue that we shouldn’t ask the saints to intercede for us because, according to 1 Timothy 2:5, Jesus is our one mediator. Well, just as Paul can say that he saves without taking away from the glory of Jesus being our one savior because Paul participates in the saving work of Christ and is a secondary cause of salvation, so too we can speak of the saints as interceding for us without taking away from the glory of Jesus being our one mediator because they participate in Christ’s unique mediation and are secondary causes of the graces that Christ brings about through that unique mediation.
This idea of participating in Christ’s saving work also relates to viewing Mary as co-redemptrix. Often, Protestants reject the idea of Mary as “co-redemptrix” based on the principle that only Christ redeems. But if that’s the reason a Christian rejects Mary as “co-redemptrix,” then they would have to reject Paul’s claim to “save some.”
However, if we view Mary as “co-redemptrix” through the same lens that we view Paul’s saving work, then we can see that a Christin shouldn’t reject Mary as “co-redemptrix” on the grounds that it takes away from Christ as Redeemer. The reason is that the Catholics view Mary as “co-redeemer” in the sense that she participates in Christ’s redeeming work, like Paul participates in Christ’s saving work. We just believe Mary does it in a far superior way than any other Christian.
Okay, that does it for the second reading. Let’s now turn to the Gospel reading, which is taken from Mark 1:29-39. The detail that I want to focus on is Mark’s thrice-fold affirmation of Jesus being an exorcist. Here’s the Gospel in full:
On leaving the synagogue
Jesus entered the house of Simon and Andrew with James and John.
Simon’s mother-in-law lay sick with a fever.
They immediately told him about her.
He approached, grasped her hand, and helped her up.
Then the fever left her and she waited on them.
When it was evening, after sunset,
they brought to him all who were ill or possessed by demons.
The whole town was gathered at the door.
He cured many who were sick with various diseases,
and he drove out many demons,
not permitting them to speak because they knew him.
Rising very early before dawn, he left
and went off to a deserted place, where he prayed.
Simon and those who were with him pursued him
and on finding him said, “Everyone is looking for you.”
He told them, “Let us go on to the nearby villages
that I may preach there also.
For this purpose have I come.”
So he went into their synagogues,
preaching and driving out demons throughout the whole of Galilee.
Mark’s record of Jesus performing exorcisms provides us an opportunity to reflect on the historicity of this claim. Among the many things the Gospels report about Jesus, his exorcisms are probably the most widely accepted among scholars as historically reliable.
There are several different lines of evidence. One is multiple attestation. As John P. Meier notes in Volume 2 of his A Marginal Jew, there are seven non-overlapping accounts of exorcisms within the Synoptics (John doesn’t record any).
1) The Possessed Boy (Mark 9:14-29),
2) A passing reference to the exorcism of Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:2),
3) The Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5:1-20),
4) The Demoniac in the Capernaum Synagogue (Mark 1:23-28),
5) The Mute and Blind demoniac in the Q tradition (Q – Matt 12:24/Luke 11:14-15),
6) The Mute Demoniac (Matt 9:32-33), and
7) The Syrophoenician Woman (Mark 7:24-30/Matt 15:21-28).
Given these non-overlapping accounts, Meier concludes, “That there should be seven individual ‘specimens’ of a very specific type of miracle, namely, exorcism, supports the view that exorcisms loomed large in Jesus’ ministry.” (pg. 648).
These accounts are complemented by brief independent references to exorcisms. Here is where the Gospel reading comes into play. Mark tells us in verse 34, “[Jesus] healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons.” A similar passing reference is also found in both Luke 4:40-41 and Matthew 8:16, which many scholars say comes from an independent unnamed source that Luke and Matthew apparently drew some of their material from. This being the case, we have two independent brief references to Jesus’ exorcisms.
There is also Mark’s account in 9:38 of someone not within the fold of the 12 casting out demons in Jesus’ name. Moreover, there is the multiple attestation of the Gerasene Demoniac. Mark records it in Mark 5:1-20 and both Matthew (8:32) and Luke (8:33) record in their respective Gospels, which, again, many scholars say comes from an unnamed source that both Matthew and Luke used independent of Mark.
Another line of evidence for the historicity of the claim that Jesus was an exorcist is the criterion of embarrassment. In short, this criterion states that details embarrassing to a figure written about are presumed true because the author would have no reason to make them up.
The classical example is Mark’s account of the Pharisees’ accusation that Jesus performed miracles by the power of the devil: “He is possessed by Be-elzebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons” (Mark 3:22).
Now, ask yourself the question: Why would Mark make up this story when it has the potential to undermine Jesus’ reputation?
If the embarrassment criterion suggests that the Pharisees’ accusation is historical, wouldn’t it be reasonable to conclude that Jesus’ contemporaries really did see him as a man with remarkable powers who performed remarkable deeds? Why else would they make such a charge?
It’s not likely that Jesus’ toughest critics would acknowledge that he had supernatural powers unless it was common knowledge that he was exercising them. They couldn’t deny the supernatural effects. They could only try to offer an alternative explanation as to the cause of the effect.
One last line of evidence: The reports of Jesus’ exorcisms meet the criterion of coherence—that’s to say, they fit with the unique style of Jesus and are dissimilar with other alleged wonder workers.
For example, Jesus associated his exorcisms with the established of the long-awaited everlasting kingdom of God on earth and the vanquishing of evil. Scholars note that this association of exorcisms with a particular teaching is unique to Jesus.
Another example is the way Jesus healed. For starters, He never invoked some other power, like God, to perform his exorcisms. Here are a few verses that illustrate this:
- “You deaf and mute spirit,” he said, “I command you, come out of him and never enter him again” (Mk 9:25).
- The demons begged Jesus, “Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them.” He gave them permission (Mk 5: 12-13).
- “Be quiet!” said Jesus sternly. “Come out of him!” The impure spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek (Mk 1: 25).
This contrasts with a first-century Jew named Eleazar, whom Josephus reports casting out demons with an appeal to Solomon’s authority (Antiquities, 8.45-48).
It’s ironic that Jesus’ enemies charge him with casting demons out by the power of Be-elzebul when he never invoked any such power. And, as Jesus argues in Mark 3:24-26, how could Satan rise up against himself and cast himself out Satan? If it ain’t by the power of Satan that Jesus is doing this, then it’s by his own power.
There are a few other unique things about the way Jesus performed exorcisms. Consider, for example, as Craig Blomberg points out in his book The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, “Jesus uses none of the elaborate spells or incantations, often involving the careful repetition of nonsense syllables, so prevalent in his day [nor does he] alter the tone of his voice.” This contrasts with Eleazar mentioned above, whom Josephus says cast out demons by repeating incantations.
Also, Jesus doesn’t exercise with material devices. Eleazar, mentioned above, is reported to have cast out demons by holding a root up to the person’s nose and drew the demon out through the nostrils. Graham Twelftree, in his contributory article in Gospel Perspectives, lists other paraphernalia used by Jewish and Greek exorcists: incense, rings, a bowl of water, amulets, palm tree-prickles, wood chips, ashes, pitch, cumin, dog’s hair, thread, trumpets, olive branches, and marjoram (pg. 383).
So, we have three lines of evidence for the historicity of the early Christian portrait of Jesus as an exorcist: multiple attestations, embarrassing details, and uniqueness or dissimilarity. For these reasons, we can confidently conclude that Jesus performed exorcisms. And he did so by his on power, which in turn strongly suggests his divinity, since only God has such power of himself.
Well, my friends, that does it for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. This upcoming Sunday Mass readings for the 5th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B, in particular the second reading and the Gospel reading, gives us some material that’s useful for apologetical discussions.
Paul gives a hint at the theology of participating in the saving work of Christ, which is helpful for understanding the relationship between the saints’ intercession and Christ’s unique mediation.
And Mark’s attestation of Jesus’ exorcisms fits within the historical argument for the reliability of the early Christian claim that Jesus was an exorcist, and one who exorcized demons by his own power.
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 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 4th Sunday of Ordinary Time. Peace!