Episode 16: Year A–Third Sunday of Lent
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we’re going to focus on five details present in the Liturgy of the Word for the 3rd Sunday of Lent that are relevant for doing apologetics. Four of the five come from the Gospel reading, which is taken from John 4:5-42. These four details are connected to several different apologetical themes: Catholic rituals in worship, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the incorporeality of God, the male only priesthood, and the Eucharist. The fifth detail comes from the second reading, which is taken from Romans 5:1-2, 5-8. The apologetical topic that’s relevant here is the nature of justification.
The Readings: https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/031223.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’re going to focus on five details that are relevant for doing apologetics. Four of the five come from the Gospel reading, which is taken from John 4:5-42. These four details are connected to several different apologetical themes: Catholic rituals in worship, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the incorporeality of God, the male only priesthood, and the Eucharist. The fifth detail comes from the second reading, which is taken from Romans 5:1-2, 5-8. The apologetical topic that’s relevant here is the nature of justification.
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 that are relevant for doing apologetics. Four of the five come from the Gospel reading, which is taken from John 4:5-42. These four details are connected to several different apologetical themes: Catholic rituals in worship, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the incorporeality of God, the male only priesthood, and the Eucharist. The fifth detail comes from the second reading, which is taken from Romans 5:1-2, 5-8. The apologetical topic that’s relevant here is the nature of justification.
We’re going to start with the four details that are taken from the Gospel. However, I’m not going to read the whole passage. It’s simply too long to read given the limited time that we have for this podcast. So, I’m only going to read the verses that are relevant for our apologetical discussions.
Again, the Gospel reading is taken from John 4:5-42. It’s the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well.
“In Spirit”
The first detail, and the one that demands most our attention, is Jesus’ teaching on true worship, which he identifies as worshiping in “spirit and truth.” Here’s the relevant text:
19 The woman said to him, “Sir, I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain; but you people say that the place to worship is in Jerusalem.” 21 Jesus said to her, “Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You people worship what you do not understand; we worship what we understand, because salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth; and indeed the Father seeks such people to worship him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth.”
The identification of true worship with worshiping in spirit and truth is often taken by some Protestants to mean that true worship is something that is only internal and invisible, the implication being that Jesus is rejecting the use of anything visible or physical in worship, like the rituals used in many forms of Christian worship (e.g., Catholic, orthodox, Anglican, etc.). The idea here is that such ritualistic worship was something only for the Old Covenant and that Jesus changed the nature of worship for the New. This denial varies among Protestants, ranging from the view that such rituals are simply irrelevant to the view that such rituals are wicked and an abomination. For a brief survey of these different views, see Joe Heschmeyer’s article, “Does the Mass Contradict or Fulfill Worshiping God ‘in Spirit and Truth’?” at catholic.com.
There are a few things to say in response.
First, as Joe Heschemeyer argues in his article, the objection assumes that “spirit” is mutually exclusive from “visible.” But this is not necessarily true.
To use a few examples from Heschemeyer, consider St. Paul’s teaching on the bodily resurrection: “it is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body” (1 Cor. 15:44). Surely, Paul is not denying the physical nature and bodiliness of our resurrection. We know this because Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:49 that our bodies will be imaged after Jesus’ resurrected body, which the Gospel writers tell us was bodily in nature. Recall, Jesus invites the Twelve, “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you use that I have” (Luke 24:39).
The spiritual nature of the resurrected body doesn’t exclude the bodily nature of the resurrected body. What Paul means is that the resurrected body will be perfectly and entirely subject to the soul, where the soul has total domination over the body. Also, the body takes on spiritual characteristics, such as incorruptibility. In this sense it is “spiritual.”
Another example is Galatians 6:1, where Paul tells the Galatians, “If a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.” Must we conclude that Paul means for us to think that the Galatians are invisible and not physical in nature? Of course not! What Paul means is that the Galatians are dominated by the Holy Spirit and focus on the things that matter most: the salvation of the soul.
Considering these two examples from Paul, we can conclude that we shouldn’t read “spirit” in John 4:? as mutually exclusive from that which is “visible” or “physical.”
Second, even if we grant that “spirit” here should be taken as exclusive from that which is “physical,” it still wouldn’t follow that Jesus is saying no to the use of rituals in worship. Why? “Physical” here could refer to a variety of things. It could refer to rituals. But it could also simply refer to a physical place, the implication being that worship, or sacrifice, will no longer be confined to a single location. And it’s the latter interpretation that the context reveals to be true.
Consider that Jesus’ teaching about worshiping in spirit and truth comes as a response to the Samaritan woman’s statement about Samaritans worshipping on Mount Gerizim and Jews worshiping in Jerusalem: “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain; and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship” (John 4:20). Worship in “spirit” is meant to be contrasted with worship being confined to a single Israelite sanctuary where the ritual sacrifice of animals is offered.
Saying that worship will not be restricted to a single location, and even a single set of rituals, doesn’t mean that worship cannot involve any rituals. Suppose, for example, my family says that we’re no longer going to celebrate Christmas at Grandma’s house, and that we’re no longer going to follow her Christmas party traditions. Would it follow from this that we’re no longer going to celebrate Christmas at anybody’s house and that we’re no longer going to have any Christmas party traditions? Of course not! Such an inference would be fallacious because Christmas could be celebrated at my house with new Christmas traditions. Similarly, Jesus’ affirmation that God’s people will no longer worship at single Jewish temple with a single set of rituals doesn’t entail that there will no physical building to worship in or no rituals to worship with.
Now, someone may still have a problem with the “in spirit” part of the teaching. How is worshipping in spirit compatible with the use of rituals? The answer lies in our nature as human beings. We are not pure spirits. We are embodied spirits. This being the case, it is natural to us as human beings that our worship in spirit be expressed bodily. Hence, the need for rituals.
“God is spirit”
So much for the worshipping “in spirit” detail. Let’s turn to our next detail: “God is spirit,” which Jesus tells us elsewhere, “a spirit has not flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39).
This detail serves two apologetical purposes.
First, it disproves the common notion among some who call themselves Christian that God the Father has a body. This belief is not only found among Mormons, but even among certain segments of American Evangelicalism, most notably in the Pentecostal Word Faith movement.
Second, it serves as a refutation of a common line of reasoning found among quasi-Christian sects, such as Iglesia Ni Cristo and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Many within these groups will argue that the Holy Spirit is not a person, and consequently not divine, because the Greek word for “spirit” in the Bible (pneuma) is neuter. John 14:26 is one passage that’s often appealed to, where John refers to the Spirit as pneuma to hagion, which translates as “the Holy Spirit.” It’s argued that because the term “spirit” is neuter and not a personal, masculine term like “Father” and “Son,” the Holy Spirit must be merely a “force” or a “power” that emanates from God but not God himself.
Here’s where Jesus’ statement that “God is spirit” comes into play. The Greek word for “spirit” is the neuter word pneuma. But here it’s a reference to God the Father. Must we conclude that God the Father is not personal and merely a force or power? If we were to follow the logic of those who deny the personhood of the Holy Spirit, we’d have to say yes. But that’s absurd! Therefore, we shouldn’t reject the personhood of the Holy Spirit simply because the Greek word that “spirit” translates is neuter.
“Jesus speaking with Samaritan woman”
The next detail is the fact of Jesus talking to and having a drink with a Samaritan woman, both of which was discouraged by Jewish tradition. John tells us in 4:27 that when the disciples returned from getting some food they were “amazed that he was talking with a woman.” When Jesus asks the Samaritan woman for a drink (v.7), she responds, “How can you, a Jew, ask me, a Samaritan woman, for a drink?” John then comments, “For Jews use nothing in common with Samaritans.”
Notice that Jesus oversteps the boundaries of Jewish tradition for the sake of evangelization. He shows that He’s not confined to the customs of his day.
What sort of apologetical import might this have? It relates to the Church’s teaching on a male only priesthood.
In its 1976 document On the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith presenting the Attitude of Christ as a reason for the Church’s teaching on a male only priesthood. And in response to the counter that Jesus chose only men because He was “giving in” to the custom of the day, the Congregation appeals to Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman as evidence that Jesus was not one to cave to the customs of His time. Here’s the Congregation’s argument,
If [Jesus] acted in this way [ordaining only to the priesthood], it was not in order to conform to the customs of his time, for his attitude towards women was quite different from that of his milieu, and he deliberately and courageously broke with it.
The Congregation appeals to Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman as evidence that He deliberately and courageously broke with the customs of his time. Given this, the caving to custom objection against to the male only priesthood fails.
Jesus’ clarification of the disciples’ misunderstanding
There’s one last detail from this Gospel reading that we’re going to focus on here: Jesus’ clarification of the disciples’ misunderstanding as to what Jesus meant by the food that He must eat. Here’s the text:
32 But [Jesus] said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” 33 So the disciples said to one another, “Could someone have brought him something to eat?” 34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work.”
Notice that the disciples took Jesus’ reference to food literally but yet He meant it metaphorically. And Jesus clarified their misunderstanding.
This comes into play when we’re talking with Protestants about Jesus’ instruction to eat His flesh and drink His blood in John 6:53-58. Both the Jews and Jesus’ disciples understood Jesus to be speaking literally. Many Christians, however, say that Jesus was speaking metaphorically—that’s to say, all Jesus meant by the language of eating his flesh and drinking his blood was that we must come to Him and believe in Him.
Given Jesus’ clarification in this Sunday’s Gospel reading, which was common for Jesus when his disciples misunderstood him (see Matt. 16:12), it’s reasonable to expect that Jesus would have clarified His disciples’ misunderstanding if He were in fact speaking only metaphorically. But Jesus doesn’t clarify. He intensifies the difficulty that the disciples were having with His teaching by appealing to His ascension, which is something even more difficult to believe given its miraculous nature. Why appeal to something more difficult to believe to ease the difficulty with his teaching to eat His flesh and drink His blood? That doesn’t make sense! Therefore, we can conclude that Jesus wasn’t speaking metaphorically. Rather, he was speaking literally, and his disciples left Him for it.
Justification
Okay, there’s one last detail for us to focus on in this episode, and it comes from the second reading, which, as I mentioned earlier, comes from Romans 5:1-2, 5-8. Here’s the passage:
1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access [by faith] to this grace in which we stand, and we boast in hope of the glory of God . . . 5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit that has been given to us. 6 For Christ, while we were still helpless, yet died at the appointed time for the ungodly. 7 Indeed, only with difficulty does one die for a just person, though perhaps for a good person one might even find courage to die. 8 But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.
The central topic here is justification, which is a topic that many Christians are divided on. Some Christians believe that the ground of our justification in no way involves an interior state of righteousness that God brings about in us. Rather, so it’s argued, the ground of our justification is solely the imputed righteousness of Christ, which refers to God considering as our own Christ’s personal righteousness.
For us as Catholics, along with other Christian groups, the ground of our justification does involve an interior state of righteousness that God brings about within us. In fact, the Council of Trent declared this interior state of righteousness to be the sole “formal cause” of our justification.
Now, the second reading for this Sunday’s Mass doesn’t provide us a full-blown defense for Trent’s teaching on justification. However, it does show that at least our interior state of righteousness, or holiness, serves as a ground for our justification. More work would have to be done to show that it is the sole ground.
Consider that Paul clearly has justification in mind, writing, “[S]ince we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God.” Our question is how does Paul conceive of “justification” within his mind?
Well, let’s start with Paul’s juxtaposition of what he calls the “ungodly” state (v.6), or being “sinners” (v.8), and the state of having God’s love poured into our hearts (v.5). Paul describes the former state of both he and the Christians in Rome as being in an “ungodly” state, which, according to verse 7, involved a state of sin whereby they were interiorly defiled. But the good news is that both Paul and the Roman Christians were taken out of that state of defilement due to, as Paul writes, “[T] the love of God [that] has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit that has been given to us” (v.5).
Now, the “heart” in the Bible signifies the interior core of the person. So for Paul the state opposite of being in an “ungodly” state is one of interiority—it’s something within us. And that interior state is having the love of God within us, which makes us interiorly holy.
What’s interesting is that Paul also identifies the state of being justified as that which is opposite of an “ungodly state.” Again, he acknowledges that he and the Christians in Rome have been justified. But he juxtaposes that state of justification with their former state of being “ungodly” (v.6).
Paul further juxtaposes the ungodly state with the state of being justified in verses 7-8, writing,
“7 Indeed, only with difficulty does one die for a just person, though perhaps for a good person one might even find courage to die. 8 But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us” (vv.7-8).
Notice the juxtaposition between being “sinners” and the “just person.” Paul is saying that when they were in the ungodly state, which is a sinful state, they were not just. The implication here is that since they’re no longer in an ungodly state, they are now just.
So, for Paul the state opposite of being in a state of ungodliness is a state of being justified. But he describes that same single state as having the love of God within our hearts, thereby indicating that he conceives our state of justification as being constituted by having God’s love within our hearts. Since having God’s love in our hearts constitutes an interior holiness, it follows that Paul conceives of justification as involving a state of interior holiness.
This at least proves false the idea that justification does not involve an interior state of holiness. And concerning the Church’s teaching on this, it at least shows that our interior state of holiness is a ground for our justification, even if not the only ground.
Conclusion
Well, that does it for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. This Sunday’s Mass readings is a sort of apologist’s treasure chest. It provides details that are helpful for conversations about Catholic rituals in worship, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the incorporeality of God, the male only priesthood, the Eucharist, and the nature of justification.
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 3rd Sunday of Lent.