Episode 95: Year B – 24th Sunday of Ordinary Time
In this episode, there are four apologetical details that we focus on that come from the readings for this upcoming 24th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B. The first two are found in the first reading, which is taken from Isaiah 50:5-9a, and it has to do with Jesus being the fulfillment of prophecy concerning the suffering servant. The third detail comes from the second reading, which is taken from James 2:14-18, and the relevant apologetical topic is the role works play in our salvation. Finally, the detail that we will focus on in the Gospel reading, taken from Mark 8:27-35, is Jesus’ rebuke of Peter. Some Protestants appeal to this verse as a counter-response to the Catholic argument that Peter alone receives the keys of the kingdom.
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, there are four apologetical details that we’re going to focus on that come from the readings for this upcoming 24th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B. The first two are found in the first reading, which is taken from Isaiah 50:5-9a, and it has to do with Jesus being the fulfillment of prophecy concerning the suffering servant. The third detail comes from the second reading, which is taken from James 2:14-18, and the relevant apologetical topic is the role works play in our salvation. Finally, the detail that we will focus on in the Gospel reading, taken from Mark 8:27-35, is Jesus’ rebuke of Peter. Some Protestants appeal to this verse as a counter-response to the Catholic argument that Peter alone receives the keys of the kingdom.
Let’s get started with the first reading. Here’s Isaiah’s prophecy:
The Lord GOD opens my ear that I may hear;
and I have not rebelled,
have not turned back.
I gave my back to those who beat me,
my cheeks to those who plucked my beard;
my face I did not shield
from buffets and spitting.
The Lord GOD is my help,
therefore I am not disgraced;
I have set my face like flint,
knowing that I shall not be put to shame.
He is near who upholds my right;
if anyone wishes to oppose me,
let us appear together.
Who disputes my right?
Let that man confront me.
See, the Lord GOD is my help;
who will prove me wrong?
As I mentioned in the introduction, there are two details here that I want to highlight. The first is Isaiah’s statement about the servant having his “back to those who beat [him],” his “cheeks to those who plucked [his] beard,” and his face to “buffets and spit.”
The story of Jesus’ passion has striking parallels to the prophecy:
- Jesus gives his back to be beaten in his scourging (John 19:1)
- Jesus’ face was struck and spit upon (Matt. 26:67), and
- We can assume that Jesus had a beard, and likely that his beard would have been plucked.
Such parallels with Isaiah’s prophecy has given Christians within the Christian tradition good reason to conclude that this is a prophecy of Jesus’s passion.
The other relevant detail is the second half of the servant says:
The Lord GOD is my help,
therefore I am not disgraced;
I have set my face like flint,
knowing that I shall not be put to shame.
He is near who upholds my right;
if anyone wishes to oppose me,
let us appear together.
Who disputes my right?
Let that man confront me.
See, the Lord GOD is my help;
who will prove me wrong?
The matches what Jesus says to one of the officers at his trial: “If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?” (John 18:23). Isaiah prophesies that the suffering servant would not be able to be proven wrong. Jesus explicitly challenges his critics to prove him wrong, which they can’t. Therefore, Jesus is the suffering servant.
Let’s now turn to the second reading, which, again, is taken from James 2:14-18. Here’s what we read:
What good is it, my brothers and sisters,
if someone says he has faith but does not have works?
Can that faith save him?
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear
and has no food for the day,
and one of you says to them,
“Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well, ”
but you do not give them the necessities of the body,
what good is it?
So also faith of itself,
if it does not have works, is dead.
Indeed someone might say,
“You have faith and I have works.”
Demonstrate your faith to me without works,
and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
For those of you listening who swim in the waters of apologetics, you know this is a key passage when it comes to the role that works play in our salvation. And it’s often appealed to in relation to James 2:24, where James says, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Christians appeal to these verses to provide biblical justification that works do in fact play a role in our salvation, at least when it comes to the present and final stages of our salvation.
But some Protestants challenge this interpretation. And they do so by challenging the meaning of justification. Catholics assume that justification means justification in sight of God.
But Protestants who counter a Catholic’s appeal to this passage argue that James is speaking of justification not in the sight of God, but rather in the sight of men.[i] In other words, it’s argued that our works prove to men that our claim to faith is genuine. The late American Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul, in his book Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification, writes, “Our works ‘justify’ our claim to faith in the eyes of human beholders. Such ‘justification’ or vindication is not necessary for God” (pgs. 199-200).
One way in which Sproul tries to justify this claim is appealing to one of the verses in our second reading: “Indeed someone might say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works” (v.18). Given this context of manifesting faith to others through good works, Sproul infers that James must be speaking about justification in the sight of men.
I deal with this counterargument in my book Meeting the Protestant Response: How to Answer Common Comebacks to Catholic Arguments. However, I’ll share one line of response here.
The first problem with this argument is that it fails to consider the salvific context in which James places his teaching about works. James 2:14 sets it up: “What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?”
The context doesn’t suggest that James is speaking of salvation in a temporal sense. He doesn’t mention being saved from physical enemies, or of our salvation being confirmed in the sight of men. He is speaking of the actual gift of salvation that God grants us. And there are a few reasons to believe this.
First, James tells us that “faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” Notice that James doesn’t say, “dead in the sight of men.” He says faith itself is dead. In fact, he makes the point vividly by comparing it to a corpse: “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead” (v. 26).
If James meant that our works justify us merely in the sight of men, then our lack of works would have no negative effect on our faith itself. It would only be seen as dead. But that would run contrary to what James actually tells us. Moreover, it would make the parallel to a body without the spirit unintelligible. In what sense can the absence of the spirit have no negative effect on the body?
Also, the three other times when James uses the word “save” (Greek, sōzō) in his epistle, he uses it in reference to the salvation that God grants our souls (1:21, 4:12, 5:20). In light of such context, it’s reasonable to conclude that James is using the word in the same way in James 2:14.
Finally, it’s interesting to note that the works James lists as necessary for having a saving faith (clothing the naked and feeding the hungry) are of the same type that Jesus says will merit eternal life: “inherit the kingdom prepared for you . . . for I was hungry and you gave me food . . . I was naked and you clothed me” (Matt. 25:35-36).
It’s not unreasonable to conclude that James had this teaching in mind when he spoke of the corporal works of mercy. And if so, then the justification he has in mind is not one that is relative to the sight of men, but one that is wrought by God.
Given the context of salvation, we can conclude that this counterargument lacks persuasive force. There’s no need for a Catholic to stop using James 2:24 to justify his belief that works play a role in our justification.
For other lines of response to this counterargument, again, see my book Meeting the Protestant Response.
We now turn to the Gospel reading, which is taken from Mark 8:27-35. I’m not going to read the whole passage, so I will focus only on the portion of the passage that I want to comment on.
After Peter professes Jesus as the Christ, Mark tells us that Jesus taught them, “[T]he Son of Man must suffer greatly and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and rise after three days.” Mark then reports that Peter “took him aside and began to rebuke him.”
Jesus then rebuked Peter and had some harsh words, so we’re told: “At this he turned around and, looking at his disciples, rebuked Peter and said, ‘Get behind me, Satan. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.’”
It’s this detail that I want to focus on, given its apologetical value. Some Protestants appeal to it as a counterargument to the Catholic’s line of argumentation that Peter is the leader of the early Church because he alone receives the keys of the kingdom.
The late Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie, in their book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, respond:
No Catholic commentator gives Peter primacy in evil simply because he was singled out in Jesus’ rebuke a few verses later: “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do” (v.23). Why then should Peter be given primacy in authority because of Jesus’ affirmation? (pg. 207).
Peter is revealed to have a unique role in Christ’s kingdom analogous to the chief steward in David’s kingdom, described in Isaiah 22:15-22. That gives Peter primacy in authority.
With regard to Jesus’ rebuke: Peter was the only one present who made remarks questioning Jesus’ mission to redeem the world. Since he was the only one, Jesus rebukes him alone. Had the other apostles said similar things, surely Jesus would have corrected them, too. There is no “primacy in evil” that Jesus’ rebuke confers by necessity.
Conversely, had the other apostles replied with Peter, “You are the Christ” (v.16), Jesus would not have given them all the keys. Why? Because by definition there only can be one chief steward of the household. The interpretative context of Isaiah 22:15-22 excludes the idea of Jesus giving the other apostles the keys of his kingdom in the way that he gave them to Peter. Other apostles could have said something requiring a rebuke from Jesus, but only one person can wield the keys.
Conclusion
Well, my friends, that brings us to the end of this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The readings for this upcoming 24th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B, doesn’t sell us short when it comes to apologetical material. We have details that relate to,
- Jesus’ passion as the fulfillment of prophecy,
- The role works play in our salvation, and
- The uniqueness of Peter receiving the keys of the kingdom.
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, and Tim Staples’ 1-on-1 with Tim, 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 24th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B. Until next time, God Bless!
[i] See R.C. Sproul, Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), 199-200; Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics, 147-149; James White, The God Who Justifies (Minneapolis, MI: Bethany House, 2001), 351-352; John MacArthur, James, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1998), 137-139;