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.