Episode 9: Year A–Third Sunday of Ordinary Time
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we look at five details that have some connection to doing apologetics. Four of the five come from the Gospel, which is Matthew 4:12-23, and one from the second reading, which is 1 Corinthians 1:10-13. The five details are: 1) Jesus and the fulfillment of the Isaian prophecy from 8:23-9:3, 2) the non-narrative attestation to the healing ministry of Jesus, 3) the residence of Peter and Andrew, 4) Jesus’ meeting with Peter and Andrew, and 5) the factions within the Corinthian Church.
The Readings: https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/012223.cfm
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday
The Sunday Catholic Word
Episode 9
3rd Sunday of Ordinary Time—Year A
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 look at five details that have some connection to doing apologetics. Four of the five come from the Gospel and one from the second reading.
Let’s start with the details from the Gospel reading, which is taken from Matthew 4:12-23. Here’s what we read,
12 When he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew to Galilee. 13 He left Nazareth and went to live in Capernaum by the sea, in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali, 14 that what had been said through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled:
15 “Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,
the way to the sea, beyond the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles,
16 the people who sit in darkness
have seen a great light,
on those dwelling in a land overshadowed by death
light has arisen.”
17 From that time on, Jesus began to preach and say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
18 As he was walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter, and his brother Andrew, casting a net into the sea; they were fishermen. 19 He said to them, “Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men.” 20 At once they left their nets and followed him. 21 He walked along from there and saw two other brothers, James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John. They were in a boat, with their father Zebedee, mending their nets. He called them, 22 and immediately they left their boat and their father and followed him.
23 He went around all of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and curing every disease and illness among the people.
The first detail from the Gospel that has some apologetical value is Matthew’s quotation of Isaiah’s prophecy taken from Isaiah 8:23-9:3, which is the first reading for this Sunday’s Liturgy of the Word.
Zebulun and Naphtali are two Israelite tribes that were ransacked by the Assyrian invasion from 733 to 732 B.C (2 Kings 15:29). Isaiah prophesies of a time when God will restore hope to this region and restore Israel. Isaiah goes on just a few verses later, verse 7, to describe this restoration as the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom, with a son of David sitting on an everlasting throne. Isaiah prophesies, “Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore” (Isa. 9:7).
Matthew links Jesus’s residence in Capernaum and ministry in Galilee as part of the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy for two reasons. First, Capernaum is a town that is north of the Sea of Galilee where the land of Zebulun and Naphtali intersect. So, it’s the right location for the prophecy.
Second, Matthew reports that Jesus went about Galilee preaching about the kingdom. For example, immediately after quoting Isaiah’s prophecy, Matthew records that Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17). He re-emphasizes the kingdom motif in verse 23, writing, “And [Jesus] went around all Galilee . . . proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom.”
So, Jesus is preaching about His kingdom in a land where the prophet Isaiah foretold that God would restore the Davidic Kingdom, a time when all of Israel was united. This is Matthew’s apology for Jesus’ Messiahship. He is the great light restoring the Davidic Kingdom and reuniting the lost tribes of Israel.
The second detail from the Gospel reading that’s used sometimes in apologetical discussions is Matthew’s reference to Jesus “healing every disease and every infirmity among the people” (Matt. 4:23). It serves as one among several non-narrative attestations to Jesus’ healing ministry.
Historians use various criteria for assessing the historicity of a saying or event in ancient literature. One of them is what’s called multiple attestation. This refers to the principle that the more often an event or saying appears in independent sources, the more probable its historicity.
When it comes to the historical evidence for Jesus’ healing ministry, this criterion is met. Not only is Jesus’ miracles multiply attested to by specific narratives, but there are also many non-narrative references, or passing references, to Jesus’ healings. This line from Matthew would count of one of those non-narrative references.
Whether it would be counted as independent of Luke or not is something that is subject to debate. For those scholars who believe that Matthew and Luke shared a common source that Mark did not use—called “Q,” which refers to Quelle, the German word for “source,” then they will not see this as independent of Luke’s account of these deeds in Galilee (Luke 4:40-44), although it would be independent of Mark (Mark 1:32-39). But if the “Q” theory is not true, then this would count as an independent non-narrative reference to Jesus the healer.
So, Matthew’s reference to Jesus’ healing ministry has apologetical relevance concerning the reliability of the historical record that Jesus was a healer.
There are two more details that are relevant for doing apologetics. They both have to do with Peter and Andrew. The first of the two has to do with Peter and Andrew’s residence.
Notice that Matthew records Peter and Andrew mending their nets at the Sea of Galilee, seemingly the implication being that they work in Galilee and thereby must live somewhere nearby. Mark confirms this suspicion in Mark 1:21 and 29 where he tells us that Jesus entered Peter and Andrew’s house in Capernaum, a town near the Sea of Galilee, to heal Simon’s mother-in-law.
But this would seem to contradict John 1:44, where we read that Bethsaida was “the city of Andrew and Peter.” How can John say that Andrew and Peter are from Bethsaida yet Matthew and Mark record them as being from Capernaum?
Here’s are a few things that we can say in response.
First, Matthew and Mark don’t record Peter and Andrew as being from Capernaum, only that they were living in Capernaum at the time when Jesus called them to leave their job and follow him. This being the case, there’s no necessary contradiction.
Second, there are plausible explanations for the difference. One is that Peter and Andrew could have had dual residence. Another is that they could have moved to Capernaum, possibly to care for Peter’s mother-in-law. This option would make sense given that the Gospels record Peter’s house in Capernaum as being where Peter’s mother-in-law was healed by Jesus. Peter was living with his mother-in-law in Capernaum. This strongly suggest that he moved there to care for her.
So, just because Peter and Andrew were from Bethsaida, it doesn’t mean that Matthew and Mark’s record of them both living in Capernaum with Peter’s mother-in-law is a contradiction.
The other detail that has to do with Peter and Andrew, and the fourth detail in this episode, is Jesus’s meeting with them. Notice that Jesus meets them while they are mending their nets and then calls them to follow Him. Yet, John’s record of Jesus meeting Andrew and Peter in John 1:40-42 includes details that seems to contradict Matthew’s account. The first detail is that Andrew meets Jesus first and then goes and gets Peter. Matthew has Jesus meeting them both at the same time. The other detail is that John tells us that Andrew was already following Jesus and then went and got Peter. Matthew here seems to imply that Andrew was not already following Jesus.
There are two things that we can say in response.
First, the objection assumes that Matthew is recording the first time that Jesus met Peter and Andrew. But that’s not necessarily the case. John could have been recording the first time that Jesus met with Peter and Andrew, a time when they didn’t yet definitively leave their jobs and begin following Jesus, and Matthew is recording the later time when they did leave their jobs and start to follow Jesus in a definitive way.
Now, someone might counter, “Well, the way that Matthew describes the meeting indicates that this is the first time. Notice that Matthew introduces Andrew and Peter as ‘brothers,’ the implication being that his readers didn’t already know that fact. Also, Matthew introduces them as ‘fishermen.’
In response, Matthew has these introductory details because he left out of his narrative the first meeting that Jesus had with them, a meeting that John does record. Hence, the need for Matthew to introduce these guys to his readers.
Second, John doesn’t say that Andrew followed Jesus in a definitive way. All John tells us is that Andrew “stayed with [Jesus] that day” (John 1:39). Moreover, when John reports that Andrew got Peter and brought him to Jesus, John never mentions that Peter started following Jesus. He only records Jesus telling Simon, “[Y]ou are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).”
So, we have plausible reasons as to why John’s record and Matthew’s record of Jesus meeting Peter and Andrew are two different events, John’s record being their first meeting when they don’t yet follow Jesus in a definitive way, and the Matthew’s record being their second meeting when they begin to follow Jesus in a definitive way. No contradiction here.
The fifth apologetical detail that we’re going to look at in this episode comes from the second reading, which is taken from 1 Corinthians 1:10-13. Paul writes,
10 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. 11 For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you. 12 I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
This has relevance to doing apologetics because it serves as an interpretative context for meeting a challenge that arises from four verses later, 1 Corinthians 1:17. There Paul writes, “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.”
Some Christians argue that Paul here is dissociating baptism from the gospel.[i] This being the case, so it’s argued, baptism can’t be “necessary for salvation,” which is contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches in paragraph 1257 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I deal with this challenge in my book Meeting the Protestant Challenge: How to Answers 50 Biblical Objections to Catholic Beliefs. I’ll share a bit here of what I talk about in the book.
The key response is that the challenge confuses the duty to administer the rite of baptism with baptism being essential to the gospel.
Paul doesn’t say that baptism is not essential to the gospel. What does and doesn’t constitute the gospel is not Paul’s concern here. Rather, he is concerned with the administration of baptism.
And here is where what Paul says in the second reading comes into play. Paul is addressing a problem that arose in the Corinthian church, where some were identifying themselves with particular ministers and causing division within the community. Paul writes,
For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ” (1 Cor. 1:11).
In subsequent verses, Paul gives a hint as to why the Corinthians were identifying themselves with different ministers:
[W]ere you baptized in the name of Paul? I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius; lest anyone should say that you were baptized in my name (vv.13-14).
Apparently, the Corinthians were adopting religious affiliations based on the minister who baptized them. Consequently, Paul expresses gratitude that he hadn’t baptized more people than he did among the Corinthians lest they affiliate themselves with him. He writes in verses 14-15, “I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius; 15 lest anyone should say that you were baptized in my name.”
It is within this context that Paul says in the next verse, “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 1:17). His intent is not to separate the sacrament of baptism from the gospel, but rather to clarify his own part in the administration of the actual rite of baptism among the Corinthians.
So, Paul’s teaching in the second reading has relevance for conversations about baptism.
Well, that does it for this episode of The Sunday Catholic Word.
We talked about five things today:
1) We had an opportunity to talk about Jesus’ Messiahship,
2) the historicity of Jesus’ healing ministry,
3) an alleged contradiction concerning Andrew and Peter’s residence,
4) an alleged contradiction as to nature of Jesus’ meeting with Andrew and Peter, and
4) the necessity of baptism for salvation.
Thank you for subscribing to the podcast. Please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well. I hope that you have a great 3rd Sunday of Ordinary Time.
[i] See Geisler and MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, 481-482.