Episode 39: Year A – 20th Sunday of Ordinary Time
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we going to focus on five details found in all the Mass readings for this upcoming 20th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year A. One detail comes from the first reading, taken from Isaiah 56:1, 6-7. Three come from the second reading, which is taken from Romans 11:13-15, 29-32. The fifth detail comes from the Gospel reading, which is Matthew’s record of Jesus’ exchange with the Canaanite woman who requests that He exorcize her demonically possessed daughter, found in Matthew 15:21-28. There is a host of apologetical topics that relate to these details: penitential deeds, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, God’s goodness, the problem of evil, secondary causality in saving others, and Jesus’ good character.
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday
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 ? details found in all the Mass readings for this upcoming 20th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year A. One detail comes from the first reading, taken from Isaiah 56:1, 6-7. Three come from the second reading, which is taken from Romans 11:13-15, 29-32. The fifth detail comes from the Gospel reading, which is Matthew’s record of Jesus’ exchange with the Canaanite woman who requests that He exorcize her demonically possessed daughter, found in Matthew 15:21-28. There is a host of apologetical topics that relate to these details: penitential deeds, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, God’s goodness, the problem of evil, secondary causality in saving others, and Jesus’ good character.
Let’s start with the first reading. Again, it comes from Isaiah 56:1, 6-7:
1 Thus says the LORD:
Observe what is right, do what is just,
for my salvation is about to come,
my justice, about to be revealed.
6 And foreigners who join themselves to the LORD,
to minister to him,
To love the name of the LORD,
to become his servants—
All who keep the sabbath without profaning it
and hold fast to my covenant,
7 Them I will bring to my holy mountain
and make them joyful in my house of prayer;
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices
will be acceptable on my altar,
For my house shall be called
a house of prayer for all peoples
The detail that I’d like to highlight is the revelation that “foreigners,” or Gentiles, would “join themselves to the Lord” and that “their burnt offerings and their sacrifices” will accepted on God’s altar.
There are a couple of things to note here for apologetical purposes.
First, assuming that this is a prophecy of the Christian era, which it is, it states that Gentiles joined to the Lord, i.e., Christians, offer sacrifices. Why is this significant? Often, Protestants reject the idea of Catholics making sacrifices to contribute to their salvation because they think it takes away from the sufficiency of Christ’s death on the cross. But Isaiah reveals at least that in principle making such sacrifices doesn’t undermine Christ’s work on the cross.
Could a Catholic be guilty of undermining the sufficiency of Christ’s work on the cross in their sacrifices? Sure, if the sacrifices are performed with the intention to make up for what Christ wasn’t powerful enough to do. But that would conflict with Catholic Teaching. The Catholic Church teaches that our sacrifices contribute to our ongoing and final salvation only when they are offered in, with, and through Christ’s unique sacrifice on the cross.
Given that such sacrifices are done in Christ, they don’t take away from Christ’s sacrifice. Rather, Christ’s sacrifice is glorified because it’s only in virtue of His sacrifice that our sacrifices can have any salvific value.
The second way in which this detail has apologetical significance is that it points to a similar prophecy from Malachi 1:11 “For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.”
A noteworthy difference between Malachi and Isaiah is the singular “pure offering” that Gentiles throughout the world will offer. Isaiah spoke of “sacrifices” plural, and that’s accounted for individual things that we Christians offer up in Christ.
Malachi, in contrast, speaks of a singular offering. So, the question becomes: Which offering could this possibly be a reference to?
The early Christians identified it as a reference to the Eucharistic offering in Mass. For example, the Didache, which is a first century Christian manual for the Christian life, identifies this prophetical offering as the Eucharistic “sacrifice” that the manual instructs Christians to assemble and “offer” on the Lord’s Day.
So, the Isaian prophecy of Gentiles offering sacrifices in the New Covenant gives us opportunity to reflect on the harmony between Christian penance and Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
We can now turn to the second reading, which, again, is Romans 11:13-15, 29-32. Paul writes,
13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I glory in my ministry 14 in order to make my race jealous and thus save some of them. 15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?…29 For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.
Triumph of God’s Mercy. 30 Just as you once disobeyed God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they have now disobeyed in order that, by virtue of the mercy shown to you, they too may [now] receive mercy. 32 For God delivered all to disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all.
There are several details that I want to highlight here.
Consider first the purpose for which Paul glories in his ministry: to make his race jealous and to save some of them. Surely, Paul doesn’t view himself as saving some of his fellow Jews in a way that would undermine the sufficiency of Jesus’ saving work. So, what does he mean? He must view himself as playing the role of a secondary cause, which doesn’t take away from the primary cause because a secondary cause acts as a cause only inasmuch as the primary cause causes it to act so.
Why is this important? Well, some Protestants get hung up on the idea that our works can contribute to our final salvation, thinking that it undermines Christ as the one who saves. But this is foreign to the mind of Paul. If Paul thinks that his works (his ministry) can contribute to the salvation of others, then, surely, he thinks that his works (his ministry) can contribute to his own salvation. Again, his works are not viewed as a primary cause of his or others salvation. Rather, they are viewed as secondary causes.
The next detail, or should I say cluster of details, is Paul’s teaching on the purpose for which God permitted the Jews’ disobedience. He lists two things:
- The reconciliation of the world (“their rejection is the reconciliation of the world”—v.15)
- The manifestation of God’s mercy shown to both the Gentiles and Jews (“they have now disobeyed in order that, by virtue of the mercy shown to you, they too may [now] receive mercy. For God delivered all to disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all”—31-32).
Paul provides here a Christian response to the problem of moral evil. There’s the general idea that God permits evil only to order/direct it to a greater good. But Paul goes even further and specifies a specific good: the manifestation of God’s mercy.
The last detail in this reading is verse 32, “For God delivered all to disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all.” This might give rise to the question: Does this mean that God positively leads people to sin? It would seem God is not a benevolent but rather malevolent.
In response, this doesn’t mean that God positively moves people to disobedience. Rather, it’s meant to be read as God permitting people to fall into disobedience and that permission moral evil is ordered to the greater good of manifesting His mercy.
More can be said about these teachings of St. Paul and the Christian response to the problem of evil, but that will have to suffice for our purposes here.
Let’s now turn to the Gospel reading, which, again, is taken from Matthew 15:21-28:
21 Then Jesus went from that place and withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out, “Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is tormented by a demon.” 23 But he did not say a word in answer to her. His disciples came and asked him, “Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us.” 24 He said in reply, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But the woman came and did him homage, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 He said in reply, “It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters.” 28 Then Jesus said to her in reply, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed from that hour.
The detail that I want to focus on here is Jesus’ statement, “It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.” How could Jesus say such a rude thing? Isn’t He supposed to be perfect and sinless?
Well, he is perfect and sinless. But this statement doesn’t involve imperfection. Let’s talk about it.
The first thing to note is that “dogs” was a pejorative term that the Jews used to refer to Gentiles. The intention behind it was to illustrate two things: 1) the fact that Gentiles were not children within the covenant like the Jews and thus didn’t have the rights or privileges of the children; 2) the Gentiles were ritually unclean like dogs, which were considered unclean animals.
With this in mind, we can develop two possible lines of thought that can shed light on what Jesus was intending with his use of the word.
The first line is that Jesus meant the term to express the reality of the Canaanite woman within the Jewish cultural context: she was not a child of the covenant and was ritually unclean. There’s nothing contrary to charity about these two facts, lest we want to say that the very covenantal system itself that God set up in the Old Covenant was uncharitable.
Now, Jesus’ purpose for expressing the status of the Canaanite woman was to highlight the fact that the healing He would give reveals that covenantal membership in God’s family within the New Covenant is extending to the Gentiles. They are now invited to be children and no longer ritually unclean. It makes sense that Jesus would state her status within the Old Covenant to juxtapose her new status within the New Covenant.
A second line of thought is that Jesus didn’t apply the term “dog” to the woman. Notice Jesus simply states a principle that we can affirm: “It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.” Whether the term “dog” applies to the woman or not is ambiguous.
Those listening might have thought, “The woman is the dog because she’s a Gentile and therefore she shouldn’t receive the food of the children.” But it could also be that Jesus didn’t intend the woman to be the dog but rather a child. This makes sense given that Jesus gives her the children’s food: he delivers her daughter from the demon. Also, Jesus reveals that the woman had faith, which is necessary to a child of the Father within the New Covenant. So, within the New Covenant logic the woman is not a dog but is a child. According to this line of thought, therefore, there is not conflict between what Jesus says and His good character.
Conclusion
Well, that does it for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The readings for this upcoming 20th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year A gives us plenty of apologetical details to prepare us for conversations about:
- The salvific value of penitential action,
- The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,
- God’s goodness,
- The problem of evil,
- Secondary causality in saving others, and
- Jesus’ good character.
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. 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 20th Sunday of Ordinary Time.