Episode 156: Year C
In today’s episode, we look at the second reading and the Gospel reading, both of which provide us with material that’s relevant for apologetical discussions. The second reading as a whole relates to the topic of Sacred Tradition and tips for discussing Sola Scriptura. The Gospel relates to Jesus’ divinity and the skeptic’s challenge that Jesus was a failed prophet.
The Sunday Catholic Word
Episode 155
33rd Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C
November 16, 2025
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, we’re going to look at the second reading and the Gospel reading, both of which provide us with material that’s relevant for apologetical discussions. The second reading as a whole relates to the topic of Sacred Tradition and tips for discussing Sola Scriptura. The Gospel relates to Jesus’ divinity and the skeptic’s challenge that Jesus was a failed prophet.
Let’s start with the second reading, taken from 2 Thessalonians 3:7-12. St. Paul writes,
You know how one must imitate us.
For we did not act in a disorderly way among you,
nor did we eat food received free from anyone.
On the contrary, in toil and drudgery, night and day
we worked, so as not to burden any of you.
Not that we do not have the right.
Rather, we wanted to present ourselves as a model for you,
so that you might imitate us.
In fact, when we were with you,
we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work,
neither should that one eat.
We hear that some are conducting themselves among you in a
disorderly way,
by not keeping busy but minding the business of others.
Such people we instruct and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to work quietly
and to eat their own food.
The detail that I want to focus on is verse 6, which is not part of the Gospel, but is necessary for our purposes because it tees up what St. Paul says here in the reading. Here’s what he writes in verse 6: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.”
Now, I bet most of you listening know why this verse is important in apologetical discussions: it speaks to the Catholic notion of Sacred Tradition. The standard line of exegesis goes as follows: Here we have St. Paul speaking of a moral teaching that constitutes part of the Christian Tradition and is binding for Christians, since Paul commands them to follow the tradition “in the name of Jesus.” Thus, so the Catholic argues, sola scriptura is refuted because we have biblical evidence for the paradigm of both Scripture AND Sacred Tradition as binding rules of faith for Christians.
It is true that this provides us a first century Scripture and Tradition paradigm. However, we must be careful how we play this card. It is not the trump card against sola scriptura in the way that some Catholics think it is—and admittedly, as I used to think.
Here’s the reason: a Protestant will simply counter that this “tradition” doesn’t map on to the Catholic notion of Sacred Tradition because this “tradition” takes written form in verses 7-12, which is our second reading for this upcoming Sunday. For such a tradition to count against Sola Scriptura and prove the Catholic view of Sacred Tradition, so the Protestant will argue, it would have to be an unwritten tradition—a tradition never recorded in the New Testament, AND we would have to have good grounds to conclude that such a tradition has been faithfully transmitted in unwritten ways.
Now, I do think a Catholic response can be made to this counter argument. However, it would entail quite a bit of work, an amount of work that goes beyond what we can do here in this episode. The task would involve coming up with at least one Christian belief (or a list) that both Catholics and Protestants agree is binding for Christians, proving that such a belief cannot be accounted for Scripture whether explicitly or by good and necessary consequence, AND that it has early and consistent attestation in the early Christian record. For more on this, I would recommend Cameron Bertuzzi’s video “Gavin’s Accidental Case Against Sola Scriptura.”
What about 2 Thessalonians 3:6? Must we toss it out of the apologist’s quiver? I don’t think so. It does have some value.
First, it provides evidence for the two-infallible rule paradigm—Scripture and Tradition. This was the paradigm for the first century Christians. And this is agreed upon by both Protestants and Catholics alike.
But its apologetical value comes into play by providing us a ground or backdrop against which we can counter Protestant arguments for sola scriptura.
For example, no matter which Pauline passage a Protestant might appeal to for support of Sola Scriptura—say, 1 Corinthians 4:6 or 2 Timothy 3:16-17, unless it can be proven that Paul has in mind the future of the Christian Church after the time of the apostles we have reason to exclude the idea that Paul is intending to teach the Sola Scriptura model because we have evidence from this second reading that Paul affirms the two-infallible rule of Scripture and Tradition for first-century Christians. Since, Paul never speaks of the future of the Christian Church in any of the Pauline passages that Protestants appeal to, we can conclude that in the so-called “sola scriptura” Pauline passages Paul does not intend the sola scriptura paradigm for Christian life.
Another way Paul’s affirmation of the two-fold infallible rule of faith in our second reading helps apologetically is that it provides evidentiary weight to the Catholic position, even if it doesn’t prove it. And it does so in this way: if the two-fold infallible rule for Christian belief and practice was Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition for Christians of the first-century, then it’s at least reasonable to think that they would have intended such a paradigm to continue. This then raises the question, “Is there evidence to tip the scale beyond what is merely reasonable to the likelihood of something that is factual?” I think there is. But that goes beyond the scope of this episode.
So, even though our second reading, when combined with verse 6, doesn’t prove a knock-out blow to sola scriptura as some Catholics think, I do think it works in favor of the Catholic view and it at least helps us see the parameters of the debate with Protestants.
Okay, let’s now turn to the Gospel reading. Again, it’s taken from Luke 21:5-19. Luke records,
While some people were speaking about
how the temple was adorned with costly stones and votive offerings,
Jesus said, “All that you see here–
the days will come when there will not be left
a stone upon another stone that will not be thrown down.”
Then they asked him,
“Teacher, when will this happen?
And what sign will there be when all these things are about to happen?”
He answered,
“See that you not be deceived,
for many will come in my name, saying,
‘I am he,’ and ‘The time has come.’
Do not follow them!
When you hear of wars and insurrections,
do not be terrified; for such things must happen first,
but it will not immediately be the end.”
Then he said to them,
“Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.
There will be powerful earthquakes, famines, and plagues
from place to place;
and awesome sights and mighty signs will come from the sky.
“Before all this happens, however,
they will seize and persecute you,
they will hand you over to the synagogues and to prisons,
and they will have you led before kings and governors
because of my name.
It will lead to your giving testimony.
Remember, you are not to prepare your defense beforehand,
for I myself shall give you a wisdom in speaking
that all your adversaries will be powerless to resist or refute.
You will even be handed over by parents, brothers, relatives, and friends,
and they will put some of you to death.
You will be hated by all because of my name,
but not a hair on your head will be destroyed.
By your perseverance you will secure your lives.”
Okay, there’s a lot here. So, let’s see if we can unpack it. The one detail that I want to focus on is found later in verse 32, where Jesus answers the initial question as to WHEN these things would happen. Jesus says, “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all has taken place.“
Now, certain skeptics claim this passage, and the surrounding context, as evidence Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet—that is to say, his prophecy about the end of the world didn’t come true. Many interpret Jesus to be predicting his return in glory, since he speaks of the coming of the Son of Man later in verse 27 of the same chapter. And in verse 32 he says it will happen within a generation—prior to the death of the disciples. Since this obviously didn’t happen, skeptics conclude, Jesus is proven to be a false prophet. Even C.S. Lewis, in his essay “The World’s Last Night,” says of Matthew’s version of this teaching in 24:34, “[it] is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.”
In response, the key is to give skeptics good reasons to think that Jesus’ prediction doesn’t primarily refer to his second coming at the end of time, but to the Roman siege of Jerusalem that resulted in the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. In other words, he’s not predicting the end of the world, but a world—the world of temple Judaism.
There are several ways to do this. But my purposes here, I’ll just focus on a couple. For more details on this issue, check out my book Prepare the Way: Overcoming Obstacles to God, the Gospel, and the Church. I have a chapter in which I deal with this issue.
One strategy is to point to what Jesus says at the beginning, which is clearly a reference to the destruction of the Temple. He states in verses 5-6: “5 And as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, 6 “As for these things which you see, the days will come when there shall not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” You don’t have to be a bible scholar to know that Jesus is referring to the Temple and is saying it will be destroyed.
A second strategy is show how the various signs preceding Jesus’ coming match up with Josephus’s records of the historical events that led up to the Roman siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
First, Jesus speaks of “wars” (v.9). Josephus recounts how civil war raged in the Roman Empire right at the time before the siege of Jerusalem (around A.D. 69; see Josephus, War of the Jews 4.8.1).
Second, Jesus speaks of “famine” and “earthquakes” (v.11). Josephus records both catastrophic events in his Wars of the Jews. With regard to earthquakes, he writes:
[F]or there broke out a prodigious storm in the night, with the utmost violence, and very strong winds, with the largest showers of rain, with continual lightnings, terrible thunderings, and amazing concussions and bellowings of the earth, that was in an earthquake . . . any- one would guess that these wonders foreshadowed some grand calamities that were coming (ibid., 4.4.5).
Josephus talks about famine elsewhere in Book Six:
[T]here perished, for want of food, eleven thousand . . . they were in want even of corn for their sustenance . . . there came a pestilential destruction upon them, and soon afterward such a famine, as destroyed them more suddenly . . . there were also found slain . . . but chiefly destroyed by the famine (ibid., 6.9.2).
A third detail in Jesus’ prophecy that is directly corroborated by Josephus, and the final one for our consideration in this episode, is the advent of false propehts. Jesus says in verse 8, “Take heed that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them.”
In his Antiquities, Josephus describes an Egyptian who declared himself a prophet and developed a group of followers that was later brought to ruins by Marcus Felix, the Roman procurator of the Judean Province from A.D. 52–58 (Antiquities of the Jews, 20.8.6). The Egyptian disappeared, never to be heard from again.
Josephus also records the advent, around the time of A.D. 44–46, of a man named Theudas who persuaded many people that he was a prophet leading them to the Jordan River—promising to divide it like Joshua. Theudas and his followers were slaughtered by the Romans under the direction of the then reigning procurator of Judea, Cuspius Fadus.
So, given the context evidence of Jesus’ teaching, and the historical knowledge from Josephus, we have good reason that Jesus wasn’t prophesying the end of the world within a generation but rather the end of a world, the world of the Old Covenant system, which was symbolic for the reality of the New system, worship that centers around the true temple, Jesus.
Conclusion
Well, my friends, that’s all I have for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The secondreading and the Gospel reading don’t sell us short when it comes to material for apologetics:
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 33rd Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C. Until next time, God Bless.