What the Bible Says About the Future of Your Body (1)

The notion that human beings are really just souls who temporarily have bodies is something I sometimes hear. But it flies in the face of the Gospel's promise of resurrection.

According to the Bible, you and I do not have bodies. We are bodies, among other things. I certainly believe that human life transcends, or is more than, bodily existence. Christians after all are not materialists.

At the same time, the assertion or suggestion that your body is nothing more than your "earth suit" (something I once heard at a funeral) or that life following our current mortal existence is immaterial life (a notion that seems to be in the ether of many Christian groups) is much more Greek philosophy than it is biblical, Christian doctrine.

More about this another time.

Mary the Mother of Jesus (2)

The last post introduced the subject of this occasional series. From this point on, then, when I speak of Mary, I mean the mother of Jesus. As you might know, there are several other Marys in the New Testament: Mary Magdalene, Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus, and the list goes on. In fact, at least eight and perhaps as many as nine different women in the New Testament are named Mary.

So, we're talking about Mary the mother of Jesus, and the question is: What does the Bible say about her? What can we know about her? A few statistics. She is mentioned by name:

5 times in the Gospel of Matthew

1 time in Mark

12 times in Luke

never in the Gospel of John (we'll come back to that)

and 1 time in the Book of Acts

In addition to those 19 places where Mary is mentioned by name, there are a few passages where she is simply referred to as the mother of Jesus. For example, although the Gospel of John never names Mary, in fact this gospel tells us some things about her we would not know otherwise. Without calling her by name, the Gospel of John provides us unique information about her in two passages.

In John chapter 2, when Jesus performs his first miracle, turning water into wine, she's there. Here's how the chapter begins: On the third day a wedding took place at Cana of Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. . . .

In addition, John is the only gospel account that clearly tells us that Mary was present at the crucifixion: 19:25 says that his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene were present.

So, again, there are points in the New Testament where, although Mary is not named, the writer clearly refers to her.

There is still another type of nameless reference to Mary. Here I'm thinking of passages that do not speak of "the mother of Jesus" but nonetheless identify her. A good example of this is found in Galatians 4:4, where Paul says, But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, . . . And, of course, we know who that woman was.

So, then, what do we have? The New Testament mentions Mary by name 19 times. In addition, the New Testament includes a handful of references to her that do not use her name. More later.

Mary the Mother of Jesus (1)

Many years ago I was struggling to learn how to preach. It was around then that the elders of my home church in Altus, Oklahoma, invited me to deliver the Sunday-evening sermon.

I have no memory of what that sermon was about. That's probably good. The more I remember about my sermons back then, the more I feel a little embarrassed. There is a true sense in which ignorance is bliss.

What I do remember about that evening is not what I said, but what someone else said afterwards. After the final "Amen," after many of the people had left, I was talking with a woman who said something I haven't forgotten.

Before I tell you what she said, let me describe her to you. She was a widow, about seventy years old, in good health, very active for someone her age. She always looked nice, was soft-spoken, unassuming, kind-hearted, and just a fine person.

We were standing near the back of the auditorium, when she said to me, "I was so glad to hear you mention Mary tonight in your sermon. I don't think you know this about me, but before I became a member of the Church of Christ, I belonged to the Roman Catholic Church."

"No, I didn't know that."

She said, "After I became a member of the Church of Christ, one of the first things I noticed was, it was as if Mary had never lived. The preachers and teachers didn't talk about Mary, which was a shock because, in the Catholic Church, I heard about Mary all the time." 

Then she said, "I understand: the Catholic Church has made her out to be something she isn't. But, you know, there's quite a bit in the New Testament about her. And she was a great person. I sort of miss Mary, and wish I heard more about her."

As you would guess, the lady who said that to me isn't with us anymore. But I like to think of my posts about Mary as being partly for that good Christian woman. More later.

The New Testament Letters of Peter and the Challenge of Biblical Interpretation

Ancient manuscript
containing parts of 1 Peter 2

This morning, a bit of musing. This post takes up the question of the relationship between the letters known as First and Second Peter. From there, it highlights a few aspects of biblical interpretation.

So, what is the connection between First and Second Peter? It might not be as strong as we might imagine.

2 Peter 3:1 begins with these words: "Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you." From there, it's a short step to the following conclusion: The Apostle Peter wrote two letters. First, he wrote First Peter. Later, he wrote Second Peter. Not only that, in this verse, he refers to the first letter when writing the second letter. But is it that simple? A few points to consider:

1. In 1 Peter 1:1, the author identifies himself as "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ." In 2 Peter 1:1, the signature is slightly different, "Simon [actually, Simeon] Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ." This is a very rare occurrence of Simeon as a reference to the man we sometimes call Simon Peter. Only one other time is he called Simeon, and that's in Acts 15:14, when James, the brother of the Lord, calls him that. If Peter called himself that, then this is the only example we have.

2. The recipients of these two letters are addressed differently:

To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1b)

To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours (2 Peter 1:1b).

The first verses of each letter suggest something different. Whereas the beginning of First Peter is quite specific, the beginning of Second Peter is general. So there is a bit of tension with the view that 2 Peter 3:1 points to the recipients of the first letter.

3. When the author of Second Peter announces the purpose of both letters he has written, the themes do not match up very well with the ones we find in 1 Peter. Here is what the author says in 2 Peter 3:1-4:

I have written both [letters] as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles. Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”

These verses do not raise anything like an absolute inconsistency. But they do seem a bit skewed. The two letter we have in the New Testament bearing the name of Peter are not that much alike.

So here I want to ask: When the author of Second Peter says this is his second letter (2 Peter 3:1), was the previous letter the one we call First Peter? If the answer we gave was "No," would the situation be unprecedented? 

You might remember that in 1 Corinthians 5:9, Paul refers to an earlier piece of correspondence that is not longer available to us. It appears, then, that what we call First Corinthians is, at best, Second Corinthians. So, is it possible that the first letter referred to in 2 Peter 3:1 is not First Peter? It is certainly possible. Is it probable? That question is difficult to answer.

Now, what is the upshot of all of this probing and questioning?

1. At the very least, we should say that First and Second Peter must be read and understood on their own terms. In other words, First Peter should not be read as the first half of The Letters of Peter. And, Second Peter should not be approached as a continuation of First Peter, a sort of First Peter, Part II.

2. We also conclude that there are some things we just don't understand. Or, if we really do understand them, our conclusion will not necessarily command the assent or agreement of everyone else. There is a real distance between us and the texts we find in the Bible, and treating that distance as though it isn't there is not wise.

3. Wrestling with such questions reminds us that although the books of the Bible were written for us, they were not written to us. If they were written to us, they would not be in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. They would be in English. (See the photo above. The fragment was part of an ancient copy of First Peter). We are not in the same position as those who wrote and first read the books of the Bible. This is true not only of the broad, general context of the Bible, it is also true of the specific context of the Bible. For example, consider the challenge of interpreting a letter. Imagine that you went for a walk and found a letter that read as follows:

Dear Jim,

We are hoping Joe will be released by the weekend. Mollie can hardly wait. The old gang is planning the usual party at Charlie's place. Please bring Tracy. See you there, Peggy.

The reader of this letter will likely have many, many questions:

• Who is Jim?
• Joe has been scheduled to be released. Is he in the county jail, a maximum security prison, the hospital, a psychiatric ward, the military?
• Who is Molly? Why is it that she can hardly wait for Joe to be released? 
• Who is Peggy?
• Who is the "the old gang"?
• Who is Charlie? What and where is his place? Is the reference to Charlie's house? His tavern?
• What's going to happen when "the old gang" meets once again at Charlie's place?

The list of questions goes on and on. And it's very short letter. Of course, Peggy and Jim know all the answers to all of these questions. They don't need a commentary on the text of the letter. To them, writing a set of comments on this letter would not only be unnecessary, it would be weird.

Yet, even when we do our best to retrieve all of the information we'd like to have in order to understand the books of the New Testament, including the letters, we sometimes come to a point where we have to say "I don't know."

At the very same time, we enter the study of Scripture with the expectation that God can and will speak to us, that the Lord will reveal to us his will for our lives so that our faith will be informed and rekindled, so that we will be encouraged and filled with hope. It's a bit of a paradox isn't it? There is so much we do not know. There are only a few things we absolutely must know.

Note: I first wrote this post while reading several works on the Letters of Peter written by a variety of New Testament scholars. I do not now remember who all I was reading then. So I am unable to cite my sources here.

A Few Notes on Federalist 21 by A. Hamilton

The theme of Federalist 21 is reasons why the Articles of Confederation should be replaced as the written constitution for the new United States of America.

Alexander Hamilton, writing as "Publius" in December 1787, complains that the Articles of Confederation do not provide for "sanction to its laws." That is, the United States does not have "powers to exact obedience, or punish disobedience" to its "resolutions." The U.S. has therefore a government "destitute even of the shadow of constitutional power to enforce the execution of its own laws."

The United States has no power to repel "those domestic dangers which may sometimes threaten the existence of the State constitutions." Hamilton then offers a specific example, Shays' Rebellion:

The tempestuous situation from which Massachusetts has scarcely emerged, evinces that dangers of this kind are not merely speculative. Who can determine what might have been the issue of her late convulsions, if the malcontents had been headed by a Caesar or by a Cromwell? Who can predict what effect a despotism, established in Massachusetts, would have upon the liberties of New Hampshire or Rhode Island, of Connecticut or New York?

Beyond that, the way in which the Articles of Confederation provide for any sort of revenue for the national treasury is also defective. A quota system, according to which a state pays according to its
relative size in land or population, is not a fair system. A state's ability to pay is not based on the relative value of its land or the number of people who live there. A comparison among European nations illustrates this. The same principle would apply to the various counties in a state.

The only solution is to grant to the federal government the right "to raise its own revenues in its own ways." Hamilton suggests an array of consumption and excise taxes. That way, "the rich may be extravagant" and "the poor can be frugal."

A Few Notes:

In the State of Texas today, consumers pay taxes on items like candy, snacks, and soda. They also pay tax on restaurant meals. But they do not pay tax on unprepared foods from a grocery store. Things like fresh fruit and raw vegetables may be purchased from a supermarket tax free. This approach seems to match quite well with what Hamilton is suggesting in this piece.

Every semester, I have my History of Early America students read one of the Federalist Papers. These essays are not easy to read for at least two reasons. First, they are written in a version of English that is now close to two hundred and fifty years old. Second, the authors, all highly intelligent, are trying to sound like the brainiacs they are. That is, they want their essays to be impressive. So the language is mannered. I emphasize to the students that the essays are worth struggling though because they are the best commentaries on what James Madison's plan did and did not mean.

John H. Walton at Lubbock Christian University

Back on September 23rd of this year, I traveled down to Lubbock with my good friend and my preacher, Bret McCasland. We enjoyed a nice dinner at Lubbock Christian University. But we didn't go for the dinner. We went to hear the presentation afterwards.

John H. Walton, a renowned and prolific Old Testament scholar, was there to present a lecture titled, "Genesis One in the Context of the Ancient Near East." This is one of several topics for which Walton has become well-known. During the lecture, I took a few notes. Walton said things like,

"Scripture was written for us. But it was not written to us."

He explained. The most obvious evidence of this relates to the fact that virtually all of the of the Old Testament was written in ancient Hebrew, and all of the New Testament was written in Koine Greek. Therefore, even if we assume that the Almighty intends the Bible as a revelation to humanity, people like us are not the original audience of the Bible. It was initially written to other people. 

"Culture is the silent partner in every conversation."

In other words, nothing is ever said or written that does not have a cultural background. In human experience, culture is pervasive. It's always present.

"To read the text of Scripture literally means to read it as it was intended."

Here, Walton was referring to factors like literary form. For example, a parable of Jesus should be read as a parable. A psalm should be read as a psalm. An allegory should be read as an allegory. Etc.

Walton made these points in order to raise the following questions: What cultural assumptions stand behind Genesis Chapter One? For that matter, what sort of text is Genesis One? What kinds of questions does it answer? How does the chapter address those questions. Etc.

I made notes like this hoping I'd be able to put together a summary of Walton's excellent presentation. Then, I discovered that the lecture had been taped and uploaded. So, here's the video if you're interested. It's very much worth a look and listen.

The Book of Isaiah: A Working Outline

These days I'm thinking about the Book of Isaiah. Most of this relates to a series of lessons I'm preparing to teach at church.

It's been a long time since I engaged this behemoth of a book. Isaiah is vast. Vast in its time scale, its place in Judaism and in the life of Jesus, and its influence in the New Testament and in the history of the Christianity. It would be hard to find another piece of literature comparable in size that has made such an impact.

Trying to get some idea of the broad contours of Isaiah, I recently consulted my own notes and then took a look at the outlines found in various commentaries. Here's what I've settled on, for now, as a good working outline of the entire book.

The most basic way to think about the outline of Isaiah is to divide the 66 chapters of the book like this:

1-39

40-66

Anyone who reads Isaiah all the way through will notice the difference in tone from one section to the next, a shift often described as a change from judgment and condemnation to hope and comfort. Beyond that, Isaiah can be further divided into the following seven sections:

1-12
13-23

24-27

28-35

36-39

40-55

56-66

For what it's worth, the foregoing corresponds to the outline found in Isaiah: A Commentary, written by Brevard S. Childs, and first published in 2000. Most of today's scholars divide it similarly with only a few variations.

Popular Sports in America during the 1920s

I put this post together for my HIST 1302 course. It explains how in the 1920s the United States started becoming more and more the sports-crazy nation it is today.

The 1920s, often referred to as the Roaring Twenties, was a decade marked by significant economic growth, cultural change, and the rise of mass entertainment. Sports became a major part of American popular culture during this period. In fact, the current sports craziness of American society really began in the 1920s, with several sports gaining widespread popularity.

1. Baseball

Baseball was undoubtedly the most popular sport of the decade, often called “America’s Pastime.” The 1920s is considered the Golden Age of Baseball, with legendary players like Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig making headlines. Babe Ruth’s power-hitting prowess changed the game forever, especially after joining the New York Yankees in 1920. Yankee Stadium, dubbed "The House That Ruth Built," opened in 1923, further cementing baseball’s dominance in American sports culture.

Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig at West Point, NY, 1927 (Click on photo for a better view)

2. Boxing

Boxing, sometimes called prize fighting, was immensely popular throughout the 1920s, particularly due to the charismatic Jack Dempsey, who held the heavyweight championship from 1919 to 1926. His fights attracted enormous audiences both in person and via radio broadcasts. The match between Dempsey and Gene Tunney in 1927, remains one of the most famous boxing events in history.

Jack Dempsey, c. 1921

3. College Football

College football was more popular than professional football during this era. Teams like Notre Dame, led by the iconic coach Knute Rockne and star player George Gipp, captured the nation’s attention. The use of radio broadcasts to cover games significantly increased the sport’s popularity, making it accessible to a nationwide audience.

4. Horse Racing

Horse racing continued to draw large crowds throughout the decade. The Kentucky Derby, in particular, was a highlight of the sporting calendar, with fans flocking to the tracks and placing bets. The excitement of betting on races contributed to the sport’s immense popularity.

Helen Wills, 1926

5. Tennis

Tennis saw considerable growth during the 1920s, especially thanks to players like Bill Tilden, who dominated the sport throughout the decade. Women’s tennis also gained attention, with stars like Helen Wills Moody emerging as champions.

6. Golf

Golf’s popularity soared, largely due to the success of outstanding players like Bobby Jones. Jones became the first golfer to win all four major championships in a single year (1930), an achievement known as the Grand Slam. The sport became more accessible to the general public during this time.

7. Basketball

Though not as popular as baseball or football, basketball was growing in popularity, particularly at the college level and within industrial leagues. The sport was still developing but laid the groundwork for its eventual rise to prominence.

8. Ice Hockey

Ice hockey began to gain traction, particularly in northern cities. The National Hockey League (NHL), founded in 1917, expanded its reach in the U.S. during the 1920s.

Conclusion

The 1920s saw sports become a central aspect of American culture, with advancements in radio broadcasting and media coverage helping to spread their appeal. Figures like Babe Ruth, Jack Dempsey, and Bobby Jones became national heroes, showcasing how sports could captivate the public’s imagination.

Some Sources:

Davies, Richard O. Sports in American Life: A History. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017.

Guttmann, Allen. Sports: The First Five Millennia. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2005.

Good Quotes for Introducing the Parables of Jesus

Several months ago, I was asked to teach a Bible class at the Polk Street United Methodist Church here in Amarillo. The class wanted me to introduce the parables of Jesus. As I prepared for the class, I happened upon a couple of good statements. Here's how the class began:

One of the best-known Bible scholars of the twentieth century was a man named William Barclay. In one of his many books, Barclay wrote:

There are certain stories which are not so much the heritage of the scholar, or the material of the theologian as [they are] the possession of every person: and such are the parables of Jesus. Even in an age when people know less and less of the Bible, and care less [about] it, it remains true that the stories Jesus told are the best known stories in the world. (Barclay, And Jesus Said, p. 9).

More recently, Neil Lightfoot, a New Testament scholar who taught for many years at Abilene Christian University, said this:

The parables of Jesus will always remain the very center and heart of the teachings of Christ. They summarize what Jesus thought and taught and lived. They tell us what the good life is, and what the real values of life are. They speak to people and bind principles upon them, in terms they can understand. They are plain, practical lessons for all ages, [depicting an approach to life that is universal]. (Lightfoot, The Parables of Jesus, Vol. 1, Preface)

It's no wonder we keep coming back to the parables of Jesus.

Peggy Noonan's Takedown of Kamala's New Book

Last weekend's Wall Street Journal contains the regular column by Peggy Noonan, one of my favorite opinion writers. Her most recent is titled "What Do Mainstream Democrats Stand For?"

The piece includes Noonan's comments on Kamala Harris's recent book. Here are some of the more trenchant ones:

"In Ms. Harris's memoir any guiding political philosophy is absent, which is odd in someone who wished to occupy the nation's highest office. You should at least go through the motions."

"Ms. Harris's book is insistently shallow, almost as if that were a virtue, a sign of authenticity."

Referring to the light tone of Harris's book: "I think she was trying to signal there will be no intellectual heavy lifting, but do readers need that warning?"

"The closest she comes to a political philosophy, a driving force that explains her career, is 'I want to keep people safe and help them thrive.' But few enter politics to see constituents endangered and withering. She sees herself as generous in her concern for others--'I've always been a protector'--and loyal. But these are personal qualities, not beliefs."

Is anyone really buying the idea that Harris lost the 2024 presidential election due to misogyny and racism? The political left in America has to figure out, if nothing else, that drivel doesn't energize anyone.

The Catch-22 of Calvinism

Episcopal scholar Gardiner H. Shattuck, Jr., has done a good job expressing the historic catch-22 of the Calvinist understanding of salvation. Describing Puritans in early America, Shattuck writes:

Calvinists believed that God would inevitably awaken faith within the hearts of the predestined elect, while those predestined to damnation would simply never experience a conversion. Yet if conversion were solely a divine action, indeed an event foreordained by God before creation itself, there would seem to be little justification for pressing a sinner to repent. To stress the importance of the human will in conversion was not only inappropriate, but might even signal a lack of faith in divine grace.

In other words, if the Calvinist understanding of grace and salvation is true, then what could be the need or justification for calling sinners to repent? Why tell people to do something you're convinced they're going to do anyway--and that by divine decree? This inconsistency, and the attempts by Calvinists to remedy the problem or to explain it away, is a major theme of Reformed history. Those who take a higher, dare I say biblical, view of the love of God for all humanity still wait for, but do not expect, a convincing answer to such questions.

Source: Gardiner H. Shattuck, Jr., "conversion," in The Encyclopedia of American Religious History, eds. Edward L. Queen II, Stephen R. Prothero, and Gardiner H. Shattuck, Jr., (New York: Facts on File, 1996), 1:161-62.

One Fine, Lazy Summer Nearly Gone

It's August 10, 2025. Public schools and Amarillo College will begin a new year within days. Educators are reporting earlier than students. That means our lives are starting to get very busy again.

Nearing the end of our summer, I have to say it's been pretty nice for us the last several weeks. This year, it didn't come close to 100 degrees until a few days ago. (The last time Amarillo went a calendar year without reaching 100 was in 2015). Also, for this part of the country we've received a good bit of rain this year. I don't know the current statistics, but it's certain that we are way ahead for the amount of rainfall we usually see by early August. With the exception of Spring it hasn't been very windy this year, and the rain has come fairly consistently. All that to say, weatherwise it's been mild and pleasant in Amarillo. We really haven't seen many "dog days of Summer" like we sometimes do.

Back in June, we traveled up to Springfield, Illinois, where I conducted the wedding of the couple who live two doors down from us. We had never spent much time in "the Land of Lincoln." I got to see the

Lincoln Presidential Library. I also got to tour the Lincoln Home. It was the only house Abraham Lincoln ever owned.

More recently, we've spent some time eating out at local restaurants. A place called Hoffbrau Steak and Grill House has become a favorite of ours. We also watched a crime drama series on Netflix called Seven Seconds. It's dark, not exactly edifying, and not for the faint of heart. It kept us entertained over the course of several nights. Earlier in the summer, we went to see the latest Mission Impossible movie, The Final Reckoning, which was well worth it. I know, Tom Cruise seems awfully weird and even creepy to some people. But the guy is a bona fide movie star who goes all out when it comes to entertaining audiences. This latest of his is pure movie escapism at its best.

Starting back in late June, I began teaching a summer course in post-1877 American History. I met with students 9:30 to 11:20, Monday through Thursday. It was a relatively small class, about sixteen of them. 

Ever since I was in college, I've always enjoyed summer sessions. Not many people are on campus. The common extra-curricular activities aren't happening. So the whole thing feels both more relaxed and more focused on what we're presumably there to do. I like it. Last week was the sixth and final week. Nowadays, I'm getting a ten-day break before returning faculty have to report.

Back on the Fourth of July, the two of us went to a home game of the Sod Poodles, our very own Double-A baseball team. The Soddies won, and the concert and fireworks afterward were great. As it turned out, we had the chance to go to another game with a group from church on Sunday, July 13. A member of the congregation who's part of a law firm here in Amarillo managed to get us the firm's sky box, a great venue for the twenty or so people who went.

Oh, and back on August 3, we got to see Bachman-Turner Overdrive with opening act the Marshall Tucker Band. A friend was able to get tickets at his workplace. We got to share a nice dinner just before the show, which was really great. Randy Bachman is 81-years old these days and still touring. What a treat to see him perform.

It's been one fine, lazy summer.