Episode 150: 27th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C
In today’s episode, our main focus will be on the second reading for this upcoming 27th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C, taken from 2 Timothy 1:6-8, 13-14. There are couple of details that we will focus one. One relates to the topic of Apostolic Succession. The other relates to Sacred Tradition. The Gospel reading, taken from Luke 17:5-10, does provide us a detail worthy reflecting on, but it is not apologetical in nature even though it can help us in our apologetics ministry.
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 Dr. Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.
In today’s episode, our main focus will be on the second reading for this upcoming 27th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C, taken from 2 Timothy 1:6-8, 13-14. There are couple of details that we will focus one. One relates to the topic of Apostolic Succession. The other relates to Sacred Tradition. The Gospel reading, taken from Luke 17:5-10, does provide us a detail worthy reflecting on, but it is not apologetical in nature even though it can help us in our apologetics ministry.
Here’s the second reading, 2 Timothy 1:6-8, 13-14. Paul writes,
Beloved:
I remind you, to stir into flame
the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands.
For God did not give us a spirit of cowardice
but rather of power and love and self-control.
So do not be ashamed of your testimony to our Lord,
nor of me, a prisoner for his sake;
but bear your share of hardship for the gospel
with the strength that comes from God.
Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me,
in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
Guard this rich trust with the help of the Holy Spirit
that dwells within us.
The first detail that I want to highlight is Paul’s statement, “the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands.” There’s a considerable amount of debate surrounding this passage as it relates to Apostolic Succession. And that’s what I’d like to focus on.
For some Catholics, this passage is clear-cut evidence for Apostolic Succession—the idea that the apostles ordained others to succeed them in the apostolic ministry. Paul speaks of a “gift” given to Timothy, which would seem to be a reference to the indelible mark that’s given in priestly ordination. Paul also says that this gift was given through “the imposition of hands,” which would also fit with the Catholic understanding of priestly ordination.
So what should we make of this interpretation?
Well, let’s first take the appeal to the “gift.” I don’t think this refers specifically to the character or mark that’s given in priestly ordination. The reason is that such a character, in the words of R. J. Foster in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, “would have no need of being revived and is incapable of diminution or decline” (pg. 1148). Rather, it seems to be a reference to what theologians call “the grace of a calling,” actual graces that a minister has access to for the sake of fulfilling the duties that the office requires. Foster argues this is evidenced by Paul adding, “For God did not give us a spirit of cowardice but rather of power and love and self-control.”
Now, this doesn’t mean this is not a reference to priestly ordination, since “the grace of a calling” comes with the priestly ordination. And that it is a reference to Timothy’s priestly ordination is strongly supported by this “gift” being given through the “imposition of hands.”
We have to be careful, however, with our appeal to the imposition of hands. The “laying on of hands” has multiple meanings in the Bible. Curtis Mitch and Scott Hahn give a nice list in their Ignatius Catholic Study Bible:
- It’s a gesture used to perform healings (Mark 16:18),
- confer blessings (Matt. 19:13),
- appoint missionaries (Acts 13:1-3),
- Bestow the Spirit on believers (Acts 8:17; 19:6),
- Unload the sins of Israel onto sacrificial beasts (Lev. 16:21),
- Transfer religious authority from one leader to another (Num. 27:18-23), and
- Appoint Levites for sacred ministry (Num. 8:10-11).
The question becomes, “Which kind of laying on of hands is Paul referring to?” Well, when we read this passage in light of the entire context of Paul’s epistles to Timothy, I argue that “the imposition of hands” is most likely a transfer of religious authority from Paul to Timothy and the appointment for a sacred ministry.
I don’t have to time here to go through the evidence within the entire context. But suffice to say Timothy exercises oversight of presbyters. He oversees their teaching ministry (1 Timothy 1:2-3), their financial status (1 Tim. 5:17-18), adjudicates charges against presbyters (1 Tim. 5:19), and ordains presbyters (1 Tim. 5:22). He also receives unique instructions to publicly rebuke sinners (1 Tim. 5:20) and publicly defend the faith (2 Tim. 4:1-5). For more details on this evidence, check out the episode of my local radio show The Catholic Reason entitled “Did the New Testament Church Have Bishops? Gavin Ortlund’s Controversial Argument,” which you can access at my website karlobroussard.com.
Given this contextual evidence, I submit that the “imposition of hands” that Paul speaks of in our second reading is more likely a reference to a transfer of teaching and governing authority, like Paul had as an apostle.
Now, some Protestants will counter here and argue that although this may show an appointment to some office, it doesn’t prove that Timothy continues the office or position held by Paul.
Jason Engwer from triablogue.com puts the argument this way:
Timothy can be appointed to an office by an apostle, and he and successors to that office and similar offices can be expected to maintain apostolic teaching in that capacity, without an implication that Timothy is taking on Paul’s office.
For Engwer, therefore, 2 Timothy 1:6 doesn’t prove what the Catholic seeks to prove. How can we respond?
Well, I’d like to give this counter more thought in the future, but for now here’s a couple of thoughts.
First, Engwer’s counter seems to make two assumptions that we’d disagree with: 1) that Paul has his own unique apostolic office and 2) that Timothy succeeds that Pauline office.
For us Catholics, we don’t believe that each of the apostles had their own unique office that was succeeded by other men. Rather, we believe there is an apostolic office that all the apostles possessed in full and that other men succeeded them in that single institutional office that Christ established.
This is evidenced by the fact that the Greek word episkope is used to describe the apostolic office that Matthias succeeds Judas in and the office that Paul gives Timothy instructions about in 1 Timothy 3:1 concerning other men outside the twelve coming to possess. It’s a single institutional office that the apostles and those they appoint (through ordination) come to possess.
Now, even though Engwer seems to make some faulty assumptions concerning what the Catholic is trying to prove with this verse, I do think his counter raises an interesting question, “How do we know this is not just Paul appointing Timothy to an office that is not necessarily the apostolic office?”
I’ll admit that this text in and of itself doesn’t get us all the way to apostolic succession in the Catholic sense—namely, a man succeeding an apostle in the apostolic office. The mere laying on of hands doesn’t require this, since even we Catholics allow for a bishop to lay hands on a man and it not be an ordination to the apostolic office, although it is an ordination to a sacerdotal ministry.
However, I do think there are a few things that tips the scale in favor of the Catholic interpretation.
First, we have the oversight instructions that Paul gives to Timothy within the wider context of both epistles, some of which I outlined previously. Such oversight is an authority that was unique to the apostles.
Secondly, Paul speaks in ways that seems to suggest he has the apostolic office in mind. He includes himself as one receiving the of power, love, and self-control, for he says, “God did not give us a spirit of cowardice but rather of power.”
He then tells Timothy to guard “the rich trust,” which is the “sound words,” that Paul says, “dwells within us.” Who is the “us”? All Christians? That doesn’t seem right, since if all Christians have this “rich trust” within them, then there’s be no need for someone like Timothy to have a unique role of guarding it. In whom does the rich trust of sound teaching reside? The apostles! Thus, Paul is appointing Timothy to engage in work that’s specific to the apostles.
With these details on the table, I think the Catholic interpretation of 2 Timothy 1:6 is the better interpretation: Paul is referring to Timothy’s ordination to possess the apostolic office as a successor to Paul.
The next detail is Paul’s statement, “Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me.” Some Catholics appeal to this passage evidence for Sacred Tradition. “You see,” so the Catholic says, “Paul speaks of teaching that Timothy heard, not read. Thus, Paul reveals that there’s apostolic teaching that goes beyond the boundaries of their inspired writings, thereby revealing a Sacred Tradition.”
Now, if this argument is directed at a Protestant who says that everything the apostles taught is identical to their writings, I think this argument works. Why? Well, it’s very unlikely that everything Paul taught Timothy by word of mouth is contained within the two letters that he wrote to Timothy.
However, if this argument is directed simply at the notion of Sola Scriptura, then it won’t work. The reason is that many Protestants will counter and simply say that they affirm there were apostolic teachings that aren’t contained within the boundaries of their inspired writings, it’s just that God didn’t will for us to know those teachings for if he did will us to know them, the apostles would have recorded them.
Now, even though this counter-argument dodges the common argument from 2 Timothy 1:13, it raises an important question that is pertinent to the discussion about Sola Scriptura: How does a Protestant know that whatever is not found within the scriptures wasn’t willed by God for us to be known? To state if differently, how does a Protestant know that God willed for us to know only that which is recorded in the inspired writings?
This is a belief that would need to be accounted for by the New Testament if Protestants are going to be consistent with their principle of Sola Scriptura. I submit that’s something that can’t be achieved.
Moreover, insofar as the Protestant assumes that God didn’t will any non-written apostolic teachings to be preserved and transmitted, he’s just saying there’s no such thing as Sacred Tradition in the Catholic sense, which, of course, begs the question against the Catholic since the debate is about whether God did will such non-written apostolic teachings to be preserved and transmitted.
Okay, let’s now turn to the Gospel reading, which is taken from Luke 17:5-10. Jesus says,
The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith.”
The Lord replied,
“If you have faith the size of a mustard seed,
you would say to this mulberry tree,
‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you.
“Who among you would say to your servant
who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field,
‘Come here immediately and take your place at table’?
Would he not rather say to him,
‘Prepare something for me to eat.
Put on your apron and wait on me while I eat and drink.
You may eat and drink when I am finished’?
Is he grateful to that servant because he did what was commanded?
So should it be with you.
When you have done all you have been commanded,
say, ‘We are unprofitable servants;
we have done what we were obliged to do.'”
Like I said in the introduction, I don’t think this provides us with any apologetical details per se. However, I do think Jesus gives us something to guids us in doing apologetics. The point of the parable is that Christ’s disciples shouldn’t expect people to congratulate them for their service because it’s simply their duty.
I think this is a great lesson for us doing apologetics. No matter how successful we might be in defeating objections or providing a positive case for the Faith, whatever success we achieve is a gift from God and whatever we do is simply our duty. Thus, we have no reason to expect congratulatory remarks. We do what Christ calls us to do and then we move on the next task at hand.
Now, there’s nothing wrong with having an innate desire to what to know how you did and how your message was received. The key is that we must govern this desire and order it to the right purposes—namely, so that we can do better next time and be more effective, not so we can feel good about ourselves. Doing the Lord’s work because he called us should suffice for that!
Conclusion
Well, my friends, that’s all I have for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The second reading for this upcoming 27th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C gives us some good material for doing apologetics:
- We have a detail that prompts discussions about apostolic succession, along with the degree to which the detail helps the Catholic position, and
- We have a detail that prompts discussions about Sacred Tradition.
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 through any podcast platform that they use. You can also access the archived episodes of the Sunday Catholic Word at sundaycatholicword.com.
You might also want to check out the other great podcasts in our Catholic Answers podcast network: Trent Horn’s The Counsel of Trent, Joe Heschmeyer’s Shameless Popery, and Jimmy Akin’s The Jimmy Akin podcast,” all of which can be found at catholic.com. And if you want to follow more of my own work, check out my website at karlobroussard.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 27th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C. Until next time, God Bless.