Broken For You?

 A friend recently raised a question about why, on serving communion, it is said on sharing the bread, “This is my body broken for you.” Is that a correct expression? Is it even something to be concerned about?

Ostensibly, this is what our Lord Jesus Christ said on the last Passover he shared with his disciples before his crucifixion. But is it? Where would one find the answer to that? Understandably, one could check the Gospels that provide a record of the event - as remembered by the time they wrote it down, don’t forget. But even there, at the most, perhaps two - Matthew and John - were present. When it comes to John though, Bible scholars have proposed three possible authors? The Apostle, another disciple named John (whether in fact or to provide authority for his writing, a not uncommon practice at the time), and an apparent John the Elder of Ephesus (The Apostle John was himself believed to have spent time in Ephesus). Of course, many Bible scholars will argue that none of the Gospels were written by those whose names are attached but that’s another discussion. There is some question as to whether (John) Mark was present but Luke certainly was not. 

All such discussions aside, what do the Gospels say? A quick look reveals this:

Matthew 26: 26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

Mark 14: While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body." 

Luke 22: And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." 

Then, surprise, John, who, if the Apostle or another disciple named John was present (as per authorship discussions mentioned above)’ does not even record this so-called institution of the Lord’s Supper. Might we at this point ask why? We know it was written much later than the other Gospels. Perhaps he thought, given  that the Church had been carrying on the practice of sharing The Lord’s Supper for years already, that it was no longer necessary to bring this up. Instead, he records an event not found in the other gospels, namely, what some regard as the institution of the practice of footwashing. Why would he do this and the other gospel writers not? I am not suggesting an answer to the second part of this question at present. However, although we digress somewhat here, there is a possible answer as to why he would have recorded the footwashing incident. 

If this Gospel was written in Ephesus by either the Apostle or the Elder, some believe, knowing from the writings what was developing in the region at the time, and adding to this clues from the contents of the gospel itself, that it was written, at least in part, to combat Gnosticism. Practitioners of Gnosticism, it might be fair to say, given that part of the teaching was about esoteric, knowledge and practice open only to a select few, were prone to pride. Another element of this thinking was that Jesus was, but only at some level (not fully God), divine, and that physical things were less important (reflecting long-held Greek philosophy), negative, if not downright evil. Perhaps John, whoever he was, thought that he needed to bring forward footwashing to help reestablish human contact, touch, that Jesus did practice such with his followers, (there is no other reference in the gospels to Jesus to touching his followers, although there are many of him touching those to whom he ministered) but even more importantly, to remind Jesus’ followers of his teachings on servanthood and humility.  

We still have not answered the question, where does "broken for you" come in then? Bible students will quickly point out that it comes from the writings of the Apostle Paul. Now, he was not one of the original disciples, and would not have been present at the time Jesus celebrated this last Passover. Therefore, one would expect that whatever he wrote was based on what he heard from people who were present during Jesus' life. However, we find that on the one occasion where he does go into some length talking about The Lords Supper, he states that what he is passing on, is what he "received from the Lord” (see below). This sounds like he received it directly. The only explanation for that would be that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or some unrecorded, direct revelation to Paul, was responsible for his writing in this way. This is what he then wrote:

Corinthians 12: For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of me." 

Or is that what he wrote? Neither the new international version, or the new revised standard version translations include that phrase, "broken for you." Instead, one can find footnotes, saying that “some ancient manuscripts add this phrase.” Evidently, the consensus of those who carried out these translations were that older manuscripts did not have the phrase, and we generally regard older writings as more valid. 

So, where does the phrase come from? The phrase has been familiarized through the Authorized (King James) Version translation. However, that work was accomplished in 1611, at which time those working on the project did not have many of the manuscripts we now have. It would appear that, based on the manuscripts modern scholars have access to, that the majority do not have that phrase, or, I expect, it would still be in our Bibles.

So, in the end, we are probably raising, in some ways, an unimportant question.  Particularly if we except that supposedly more authoritative manuscripts did not have this phrase. Why other manuscripts do, is not something I have a proposed answer for either.

However, there is one other important point that could be relevant here. The Gospel according to John, and it is the only one that does so, records that Jesus' legs were not broken on the occasion, whereas those of the two men crucified on either side of him were. This was to hasten their death, as Passover was coming and the Jews would not allow bodies to hang on the cross during that time. Crucified persons could hang on the cross for long periods of time otherwise. It is immediately after recording that Jesus bones were not broken, but that his side was pierced, that the writer of John's Gospel states that "these things occurred so that the scripture might be fulfilled, "none of his bones shall be broken.” This can be traced back to Exodus 12:46, where, on the institution of the Passover, it is recorded that "the Lord said to Moses… You shall not break any of (the lamb's) bones." This particular detail of the password instructions is reiterated in Numbers 9:12 "they shall leave none of it until the morning, nor break a bone of it; according to all the statutes for the Passover, they shall keep it." However, the passage that is perhaps most often quoted in relation to this whole issue is Psalm 34:19–20 "many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord rescues them all. He keeps all their bones; not one of them will be broken.”

Jesus was regarded as a perfect Passover lamb, whose sacrificial death totally accomplished what all previous sacrifices were unable to do. I stress perfect, because even reading those Old Testament instructions for Passover indicate that the lamb was to be without blemish and intact. Therefore, it follows that Jesus body, if anything, should be more perfect and whole. Of course, we do have the nails that pierced his body and the sword that pierced his side, but these were more measures that separated, skin, and other tissue, more than break anything, particularly bones, which is what the Passover instructions explicitly prohibit.

Including this in his story, the writer of John could be trying to emphasize how Jesus was a completely adequate and perfect sacrifice. Yet, it took a body to be sacrificed, which give the physical body high value. Again, such thinking would counter that of the Gnostics who sometimes gave the body little value.

In conclusion, given that modern translations no longer use the phrase "broken for you" and that, according to scripture, the Passover lamb's bones were not to be broken, perhaps it is time that we abandon the phrase "broken for you” when we serve communion. Is "given" not enough?

A Primer on the Relationship Between Canada and the First Nations

 The history of this land prior to the arrival of the European whites has been described as the pre-contact era.

1. The first inhabitants of any land are described as indigenous people, meaning native to the land. Within the last 50 years or so, the indigenous people of the land we now call Canada understood themselves as nations, hence First Nations, as they were here first. They are believed to have been here from as little as 10,000 to as much as 40,000 years ago.
2. The indigenous nations had their own languages and cultures, although they shared some concepts and understanding of life and and the universe. They were well adapted to the lands that they inhabited as they were at the time. They were able to live self – sufficiently off fishing, hunting, gathering, and in some places, even the result of agriculture. They had their own political systems with leaders and councils, their own laws and their own beliefs, systems, or religion. They had their own economic frameworks with trading networks and even treaties amongst themselves. 
3. The indigenous nations believed that they had been given this land to look after, and that if they did so properly, it would continue to provide for them, which it did. They believe that the land belonged to the supreme deity as they understood him, and not to any individual or group.

Then began the era of initial contact.

4. Around AD 1000, the Vikings established a settlement(s) in far northern (what is now) Newfoundland. There may have been some conflict with local indigenous people, but in any case the attempted settlement was a failure.
5. European fisherman, who fished the Grand Banks off the Maritimes, may have made contact with indigenous inhabitants of the land when they would go ashore with their fish processing before returning to Europe, but they were not interested in settling at the time.
6. In the 16th century/1500s, the French began to arrive in the Maritimes and Quebec. Like all European nations at the time, they were trying to reach the Orient for trade by sailing west, instead of going east over land or around Africa.

The subsequent period of time was that of the fur trade

7. The Europeans discovered that Canada was rich in furs, which were in demand in Europe. For the next 200 years both the French coming from the East Coast and then, especially after the formation of the Hudsons Bay Company in 1670, the English from Hudson Bay, carried on a lucrative fur trade with the first nations. This was a generally peaceful enterprise which benefitted both the Europeans and the First Nations, although there was exploitation of the last too.

8. The British defeated the French and took control of what is now Canada in 1763. Immigration from the United Kingdom then really began.

Then began the period of immigration from Europe

9. Immigration was fuelled not so much anymore by the fur trade, and so First Nations began to be ignored. The Europeans were more interested simply in land and its resources, including lumber and agriculture products.

10. The First Nations, beginning to be alarmed at their being essentially abandoned by their former partners, and their land being taken over by immigrants, began to make treaties with the governing bodies to govern these new relationships and particularly to help protect their lands and resources.

Then Canada was formed.

11. With the formation of Canada in 1867, the First Nations lost their connection with the UK and royalty with whom they had previous dealings.

12. The Canadian government continued for some time to make treaties and also embark on setting aside plots of land strictly for the first nations to live on, called reserves.

13. Believing in their superiority in terms of legal system, politics, religion and economics, the Canadian government began to attempt to educate the indigenous people in these ways, so they could be part of the overall fabric of Canada as the settlers saw it. This was supposed to be accomplished through the Indian Act of 1876.

14. The government took the view that the only way to accomplish their means was to educate the children, and the only successful way to do this was to remove them as far as possible from their families and place them in residential schools.

15. The effect of this on the First Nations was severe. The social fabric was destroyed with families losing their children and grandchildren. They were unable to continue to teach them in the traditional ways that had served them well for thousands of years.

16. The effect on the children was also devastating. Everything that was theirs was removed when they entered the schools and they were not allowed to speak their own languages or even communicate with others from their community, including their siblings. Discipline was harsh, nutrition was often poor, and there was widespread, physical, and sexual abuse. With all of this, and dormitory housing, the children were particularly vulnerable to disease, and its spread and thousands died. Many were buried in unmarked graves with their families, often not even being notified.

17. The result of this separation of families from children was that children were not reared in normal circumstances, and when they left the residential schools as young adults, they did not know how to function in their society anymore, nor were they really welcome or equipped to function in the settlers’ society. Furthermore, not having been raised in homes, they did not know how to function as parents. Much of the anger that has built up inside them from the way they were treated by removing them from their families, and then experiencing abuse in the schools was on the one hand taken out on their own children. On the other hand, to deal with the psychological pain, many took to alcohol.

18. The reserve system was not working either. In the first place, most reserves were set aside without significant indigenous consultation, and were often on some of the poorest land. This left it indigenous people really unable to support themselves in their traditional ways on these small areas of land. Those that tried to be successful at agriculture were often not even allowed to sell their products outside the reserve. Many starved.

19. Indigenous people were not allowed to leave the reserves without the consent of so-called government Indian Agents.

20. The government time and again kept taking away previously given reserve land, and in some cases reserves were lost entirely, severing what little ties to the land the indigenous people had left.

21. Indigenous people were not considered citizens, and had no rights of representation or voting. They were not even allowed to hire lawyers to help them fight for their rights. The only way they could become citizens and vote was by abandoning their reserves which meant leaving their people and their culture, which, understandably, no one wanted to do after all they had already been through at the hands of the settlers.

The modern era

22. Since the last residential school only closed in 1996, there are still thousands of indigenous people who experienced firsthand what we have described happened in the residential schools, let alone the continued impact of this on their residential school survivor parents and grandparents.

23. Only in the last 60 years or so have indigenous people been given the right to vote. Because the reserves could really no longer support them, many have moved to the cities to look for better education and work opportunities. However, because of the persistent systemic racism of the settlers, they often face resistance at every turn, when they seek employment, housing, or even wish to start their own enterprises.

21 Things You Might Not Know About Canada’s Indian Act of 1876

1. The traditional indigenous systems of government were replaced by an imposed system of chiefs and councils elected democratically.
2. Women were denied status, losing the valuable traditional matriarchal role they had played.
3. The indigenous people were forced to relocate to reserve lands set aside for only them, and which were often located on the poor parts of their traditional territory, often as far away from colonial settlements as possible.
4. Individuals who left the reserve were forced to be enfranchise and thus lose all the rights they had related to any existing treaties and their place on reserve lands.
5. The government could expropriate portions of reserves at their discretion, which often happened, and sometimes to the point of loss of the entire reserve, particularly if it ended up being too close to colonial settlement.
6. Indigenous people were forced to adopt European names in place of their traditional names.
7. A permit system was created by which one needed the permission of the local Indian agents to leave the reserve to transact any business.
8. Fearing possible indigenous uprising, the sale of guns and ammunition was prohibited on reserves. Needless to say, this had a negative effect on their traditional way of life involving hunting, often necessary for the subsistence living they were being forced into.
9. Observing the negative effects of alcohol, rather than work with the indigenous people to help them adapt to this new beverage, its sale was simply prohibited on reserves.
10. All manner of cultural ceremonies, such as Sundances and powwows on the prayers and potlatches on the West Coast were declared illegal.
11. Further restrictions were put in place to limit indigenous peoples' ability to leave their reserves.
12. The infamous residential school system was established.
13. Students in residential schools were forbidden the use of their native language ,which considerably hampered their ability to communicate, not only with their peers, but with their families, as they were not keeping up with the language.
14. The wearing of regalia and cultural clothing was prohibited.
15. Non-indigenous people were given the privilege of leasing uncultivated reserve land, but there was no such reciprocation for off reserve land for indigenous people.
16. Indigenous people were prohibited from forming political organizations.
17. The first nations were not allowed to solicit funds for legal claims such as for a land entitlement or against broken treaties.
18. Indigenous people were prohibited from access to pool halls.
19. The practice of traditional religions was for bidden.
20. 20. Voting rights were denied.
21. The whole purpose of the act was clearly stated, as having its goal of the subjugation of indigenous people under Canadian rule.

- based on Bobby Joseph's book, 21 Things You May Not Know About the Indian Act

A First Nations Version of the Bible - Why Should We Not Read It?

 Why read the First Nations Version of the Bible?

This is a question that each of us as individuals, or in some cases, each congregation, will have to provide their own answer for. However, before we even get to answer that question, there is important ground to cover.

The First Nations Version (New Testament only), released in 2021, is also subtitled an Indigenous Translation of the New Testament. It came about as the result of a collaboration of many parties, including the well-known Christian Bible translating organization, Wycliffe, and a council of 12 indigenous Christian scholars representing over 25 tribes from Canada and the United States. 

It is called the First Nations Version because it was written for the benefit of the people who first lived on this continent, hence first nations. Some first nations have had all or portions of the Bible translated into their individual language. However, these translations tended to use words that reflected more the meanings given to them in the language from which the translation was made, which was usually English. Indigenous Christians in North America, having had contact with Christianity for over 400 years, and therefore, in some cases, have been Christian for almost as long, have developed an appreciation and understanding of how their own culture and language can be used to convey the message of the Bible just as well as the languages that came from Europe, for example, English, French, and Greek, or the Near East: Hebrew and Aramaic.

The Bible we know was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, languages that most of us are unable to read or understand. Therefore, when Christianity was spread into areas of the world where other languages were spoken, to bring the gospel to those people, which would include ourselves, the Bible was translated into many languages. Thus, we in North America, where English is the dominant language, are now able to read the Bible in that language.

Therefore, when this group of translators began to work together, they used the English language, as that is now also the common language used and understood by the many first nations of North America. However, to make it more relevant and meaningful to the indigenous people of North America, who share many cultural concepts and teachings, in spite of having many different languages, the translators used the English equivalent of many first nations words and names. In other words, one could say, they translated their concepts and names into English.

When the Bible is translated from one language to another, translators struggle to find words that can, as closely as possible, bear the same meaning in the new language as in the one it is being translated from. Likewise, names in one language version of the Bible may change to different words in another translation to suit that language and the culture and context it came from.

When one is not familiar with First Nations' descriptiveness, concepts and names, even though they are here presented in English, they can seem quite different and strange. They might even be hard for us to accept. However, we should be reassured that this translation is not attempting to change the truths of the Bible we know. It is definitely not trying to change Christianity (which is just a name given to those who follow Christ by people in Syria almost 2000 years ago, and not even a name that Jesus or the apostles used) into some indigenous religion. It is only attempting to make the Bible more understandable and acceptable to the First Nations of North America, who have had no choice but to use European terminology and understanding until now.

Indigenous people in North America have always referred to the ultimate being the English-speaking world calls God by the name the Great Spirit. In many languages of central and eastern North America, the indigenous word was Gitsche Manitou, the Great Spirit. The Bible has always taught that God is Spirit, so this is really nothing new. 

Likewise, indigenous people have also often used descriptive phrases and titles as names. This is not that dissimilar to how those of us who have German ancestors often used such phrases as nicknames for individuals, especially in the Low German. Indeed, many biblical names, as we know, have meanings that require a word or phrase to indicate what the meaning is. We have just come to use the original language word instead of the phrase that it denotes, or a derivative of that name in another language. For example, John, in classic Hebrew is Yohanan, which became Johannes in German, and shortened to John in English. Like most names, John has a meaning. In Hebrew, translated into English, it is "God is gracious.” What the first nation version is doing is using their equivalent of such name definition phrases instead of the shortened word we have become familiar with.

Why then, should we, as Canadians or Americans pay any attention to the first nations version? One could say it is simply a matter of respect. The indigenous people of this continent have had to use the Bible in our languages for centuries. What is wrong with us now looking at the Bible how they translated it? Indeed, as many of us are finding when we read it, the message is often given a simple, beautiful expression that is enriching and different than what we have been used to. We have put so much English-defined theology behind many of the words we are familiar with in the Bible, that we often don't even really know, understand, or appreciate the meaning of these words, especially in their language of origin, be that Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew. We are the ones who lose. God, the Great Spirit, can speak to everyone in their language, using their culture, context, and understanding. When we insist that only the language we grew up with is the one in which the Bible can be read, we are guilty of putting limits on God and his message to us. We are the ones who lose. 

Mercy at the Cross? Nothing seemed to change on earth the day Jesus was crucified. Or did it? For whom?

 Mercy at the Cross? Nothing seemed to change on earth the day Jesus was crucified. Or did it? For whom?

I am referring of course to the crucifixion of Jesus from Nazareth by the occupying Romans  in Jerusalem around CE 30. I have been studying the Gospel of Mark for a couple of months and some of what follows really became apparent to me today.

For the twelve men who had spent the greater part of the previous three years with Jesus it seemed that the proverbial “bottom had fallen out of their world.” What happened that day certainly did not seem to have any redeeming qualities as far as they could see - at the time. For one of them, Judas, unfortunately, the bottom did fall out of his world. He had betrayed Jesus to the authorities who had been crowding around all week hoping to catch a moment when they could arrest Jesus. If you are familiar with the story, you know he had a change of heart when he saw what happened to his former Master and when he saw no way out, committed suicide.

It was really no different for the women who had also been traveling with Jesus and, according to the records, supporting him financially and otherwise from their means. They appear to have been braver than their male counterparts of whom we hear nothing once the process that culminated in the crucifixion began, except for John, who often seems to identify himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Perhaps that expressed his sense of deeper personal devotion to Jesus than he perhaps saw in his peers. It might also have reflected the apparent fact that he outlived his eleven friends and might have been the only one not to die a martyr’s death. In any case, he was at the cross, as witness the report that Jesus saw him and asked him to take care of his mother, Mary. 

Otherwise, there certainly did not seem to be anything of mercy in what happened that day. At least not for Jesus’ followers. However, there were two other men crucified with Jesus. Now, the normal Roman custom was to leave their victims hanging until they died of a cumulation of dehydration, fatigue, pain, lung congestion and heart failure. That could apparently involve 2-3 days of unimaginable suffering. However, this crucifixion event happened during a day on which the holiest of Jewish Sabbaths began at 6 PM, that of their most important and longest running ‘feast’, Passover. 

Now, the Romans weren’t generally inclined to make accommodations for the people they conquered. But perhaps because the Jews were such endless trouble, forever rebelling, they had granted them that no bodies would remain on crosses over the Sabbath day. So, in keeping with that, if those being crucified had not died in time to take their bodies down by the beginning of Sabbath, they had a way to hasten their death. 

One of the reasons victims could live so long was that they could push themselves up against the spikes driven through their ankles and feet, the better to inhale, to breathe. It would have been too humane for the cruel Romans, or maybe not quick enough, to simply remove the spikes from the ankles and let the bodies hang, in which case suffocation would have happened soon enough. They had a method that added more pain and suffering for as long as the victims remained alive to experience it. They broke their legs! The same goal was accomplished but far less pleasantly. 

The soldiers ere probably happy to be performing these crucifixions on this day. It meant they got to go home sooner. The record states that Jesus died around 3 PM. That was about the time when the soldiers decided to hasten their charges’ demise. They broke the legs of the other two men first and when they came to Jesus, they realized he already seemed to be dead. He was spared one more indignity. A little mercy?

When you think about it, the circumstances just described actually also meant a little mercy in a way for the other two victims. They got to die that day instead of having their dying dragged out over days. One of them, as we also know from the story, got a lot more mercy than that. In fact, he was the first to really experience the mercy that Jesus’ death actualized, but which was not realized by anyone else until he came back to life and had to teach his disciples all about the cosmic and eternal significance of what had just happened. 

At first both criminals taunted Jesus, just like most of the others watching or even passing by. However, one, knowing Jesus was innocent and evidently coming to believe that there must be something to these accusations of his being the Messiah that were being hurled at Jesus, eventually felt moved to call out to him, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Perhaps he knew more of Jesus’ good life and that it had led to many really wanting him to be their Messiah, the promised one who would set all things right for them and restore their kingdom. Jesus, knowing what was in the man’s heart, saw what he needed to see and promised the man, “Most assuredly, today you will be with me in paradise.” There is no greater mercy than that. 

Was there not also mercy for Jesus’ mother and his beloved John? Whether Jesus was the eldest or only child of Mary’s, either way he was, as a son, responsible for her future into old age. He discharged that duty on the cross by asking John to take over for him. Mercy for Mary! And perhaps John’s long life was also a mercy. Mercy at the cross indeed!

Leadership and Abuse

Lately, a couple of stories have again troubled at least the part of the Christian Church I am more connected with - the Anabaptist/Mennonite and Be in Christ (BIC, formerly Brethren in Christ) churches. One story was about the popular leader, preacher and writer Bruxey Cavey resigning from office in the BIC denomination in the Toronto area because of allegations of sexual abuses, followed by his being charged by Hamilton police with sexual assault. This was followed by the removal of his books from print and sales by Mennonite media, who at the same time did the same with the writings of the already deceased but influential Anabaptist thinker and writer John Howard Yoder. This was because of sexual abuse scandals surrounding him. If I need to add more, the reputation of another well-known and respected radio preacher and writer Frank Epp was also posthumously recently tainted with the spectre of his having sexually abused.

These are stories the Church, the community of the faithful, struggles mightily with. It grieves us to see this happen. The responses have not always been encouraging either. Organizations, such as denominations and centres of education tend to regroup around their own for damage control. As is so often the case in so many spheres, the victims lack support and a voice, a hearing. 

This is not new. The Bible contains stories of such behaviour. Even so-called heroes of the Bible such as King David fell prey to sexual misbehaviour. Incidentally, it does not appear that the Psalms ceased being printed, ceased being distributed. Then, just today, a file came across my screen documenting five stories of sexual abuse by clergy among our Mennonite forefathers in Russia.

Sexual misbehaviour by anyone is wrong. Perpetrated by church leaders makes it even more egregious. They are to be our shepherds, our teachers, helping guard our souls, not wreaking havoc with them. 

Understandably, unless it occurs in one’s own congregation or school, or one you are close to, one doesn’t her about it. Often, one only becomes aware of such when the offender is prominent enough for it to make a media splash. One could almost be forgiven for believing it doesn’t happen at lower levels. I wonder if it might not be the case that it happens less at lower levels.

We have had cases in fast-growing and mega churches. These churches are often begun and led by gifted and dynamic individuals who become powerful heads of  large organizations. As such, they are prey to overwork and the stress that comes with that. This can cloud judgment. The hard work and positions reached can sometimes lead to entitlement. The structures are sometimes such that the individual at the top becomes somewhat isolated from others and thus less accountable. These leaders are then placed on such pedestals that leaves them no room to err. All of this creates gaps through which these leaders can fall mightily is something like them being caught in sexual abuse happens.

Are these reasons to go back to small, local churches? There, where everyone knows everyone else, or at least quite a few know quite a few others, the leaders are not so distant as to be unapproachable. They are also likely to be under much closer scrutiny.

But what is our role in all of this - us as members of churches, fellow staff of schools? How much do we pray for our leaders not to fall into these temptations?

Just some of my response to these recent stories. What think ye?

God Bless' the Child, That's Got His Own

“Them that's got, shall get, Them that's not, shall lose, So the Bible said, and it still is news… Yes the strong seem to get more, While the weak ones fade… God bless' the child, That's got his own…”

Some of you will remember these lyrics from Blood, Sweat & Tears in the late ‘60s. Others might know that they actually go back to American Blues Singer Billie Holliday. Are the ideas expressed fatalistic? Reflecting the reality of too many? Are they what some aspire too - get your own, and that means God blessed you?

All these viewpoints reflect situations for many in our world. The last one is troubling though. This was an understanding in Judaism, held by Jesus’ followers 2000 years ago. He tried to correct it then. Seems too many Christians have skipped over that part. Too many preachers still preach this ‘prosperity gospel, ’ often preying most on those who can least afford to give. The preachers ‘get’ all right, their listeners not so much.

So what do we understand when we read of Jesus saying, “Pay attention to what you hear; the measure you give will be the measure you get, and more will be given to you. For to those who have, more will be given; and from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away (Mark’s version of the Gospel, chapter 4 verses 24b - 25).” I dare say the ideas I have been describing are so ingrained in us that when we read that, we say, as the song does, ‘Yeah, that’s life, we see it happen. The Bible even confirms that’s reality.’ 

Really? You think Jesus is talking about things material and money? He has been teaching this disciples about how to listen, to evaluate, to be open to new understandings. Jesus has resorted to telling the truths he wishes them to hear in parables, so only those who really want to understand will. He is talking about his teachings, about the wisdom contained in them, about the understanding of the Kingdom of Heaven he is introducing on earth. He is talking about ideas that come form God. 

What Jesus is really saying here is that if you pay more attention, dig deeper, you will learn more. You will be given more wisdom and understanding.  If you have gained some of what he’s saying, you will be prepared to gain more. You will grow spiritually, in faith. That will be a blessing.

On the other hand, as with the seed, in the parable just told before these sayings, that fell on rocky ground and quickly sprang up from the heat, but died just as rapidly because there was no depth of soil, if you have not really grasped what Jesus teaches, If you didn’t put effort into studying the Word to grow, you will lose what you have. In effect, it will be taken away, not by God, but by the spiritual powers that rule the world. There is both encouragement, comfort, blessing and warning in these words, depending on what you have done with what you received to being with. God does his part but you have to do yours.

Do You Love Me?

Have you ever asked this question? Some might quickly reply, “Of course, don’t most people ask that question at some point or another in their lives?” Others might recall asking the question in all serious innocence of someone in their circle as a child. How many of us have that purposefully asked that question of another a an adult? Do we even ask those dearest and nearest to us? Did we ask, if we are married, our partner before marrying? Or after?

Some might say, we don’t need to ask that question in some of these circumstances. We know the answer. Indeed? How so? I think some might answer, “I can see it in [the other.]” Other would say, “They show it in their words and actions.” Exactly - without the proof of what is said and done, how do we know love exists? 

This brings me to the famous account of Jesus’ intimate moments with his follower Peter after Jesus’ resurrection (It is recorded in the last chapter of John’s version of The Gospel).  They were back home, in familiar territory, where they had met three short years earlier. Peter and his companions had once again gone fishing. It was what they did. When they turned shoreward at dawn, having caught nothing all night, they saw a man on the beach. The man asked them if they had caught anything. When he heard the negative answer he told them to cast their net on the right side of the boat.  It might have seemed an odd request but there was something that compelled them to do so. When they did so, they caught so many fish they could not pull the net full into the boat and simply dragged it along. A miracle?

It seems the men thought so, as, they then recognized this was Jesus, having seen him at least twice already since his resurrection, and whom they knew was entirely capable of performing miracles. Of course, they also knew his voice, one they had often obeyed, as they had felt they should now. And look what happened!

When they reached shore and disembarked, they saw a charcoal fire with fish on it, and some bread. Perhaps seeing that there was not enough fish to go around, Jesus asked them to bring some of what they had just caught. No miracle this time?

Peter obeys and then Jesus asks them to join him for breakfast. He took the bread and  fish, blessing it in the recognizable way they had become so accustomed to, gave it to them.

After breakfast the men likely got busy taking care of their catch. We don’t know for sure what happened next, but reading what followed, I doubt Jesus would have been so insensitive as to initiate the conversation he did in front of the whole group.

Jesus wanted Peter’s attention. At one level, I suspect Peter was dreading this moment. So far, Jesus had said nothing to him about Peter’s denials while Jesus was on trial and Peter was outside, although Peter probably feared that was coming. At one level he probably just wanted to get it over with too, to clear the air between him and his Master.

Jesus asked Peter, “Simon, do you love me?” Note, Jesus did not call him Peter, ‘the rock,’ He went back to the beginning, to Simon, ‘a reed,’ instead of using the name he had given him when he called him to be his follower. Peter replied, “Yes, Lord, you know that I like you (according to the original language).” Notice the difference between the question and the answer. Jesus responded with, “Feed my lambs.” 

Jesus asked again, “Simon, do you love me?” Peter gave the same answer. This time, Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.” What’s the difference? Perhaps Jesus was thinking after the first answer, ‘If you cannot commit to more than simply liking me after all we’ve been through, maybe you are only qualified to minister to beginners, lambs.’ However, when Peter gives the answer the second time, perhaps Jesus thinks, ‘All right, you’re at least sticking with that answer. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you can also feed my sheep.’ Teach the deeper stuff to adults, the more mature believers.

Jesus asks once more, “Simon, Do you like me?” Notice the difference. Jesus, ever sensitive to where a person is as at, perceives that Simon is not ready to commit to anything more than ‘like.’ So, he’ll go with that. Jesus can use us where we are at, sometimes in spite of ourselves. 

Notice that Peter’s cousin, John, who was nearby, (which we know because right after this exchange Peter turns around and sees John and changes the subject to ask Jesus about him) and wrote this, writes that Peter was upset because Jesus asked him this question three times.  Why would he not be upset? He knew exactly what Jesus was getting at. He knew he had it coming to him. Peter had denied even knowing Jesus three times when Jesus was at his most needy. Now, Jesus was giving him three chances to say something different. He was giving hm three chances to make good.

However, Peter cannot bring himself to say, “I love you.” Was that some ‘macho’ fisherman thing? No, Peter, ever honest, knew that at that moment, knowing what he had done a couple of weeks earlier, could not commit to that higher level of affection, to love.

Jesus knows Peter has a way to go. He also knows Peter is the best he’s got to begin to carry on his mission on earth. He tells him again, “Feed my sheep,” but he goes on to tell Peter that he, Peter, will some day pay a high price for his being willing to keep liking Jesus. Then he gives him a chance to grow, but at the same time makes a request, which, if Peter complies, will give Peter the opportunity to gain what he is yet lacking,”Follow me.” It’s the same call he had given him when he called him from his fishing by the Sea of Galilee three years earlier. Then he had told him he would make him a  ‘fisher of men.’ Now it is a shepherd he is calling Peter to be. We could write another whole essay, nay, a book, on what it means to be a shepherd. Peter had some idea though. He had heard Jesus speak of this, of himself being The Good Shepherd, giving some characteristics of such, and what the relationship of a good shepherd with his sheep entails. 

As we know, once Peter was baptized with the Holy Spirit some two months later, he became an emboldened and powerful shepherd indeed. We can read all about it in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, which, in our Bibles, follows the Gospel of John, the last chapter of which gives us this story.

As if there is not enough in this for us to stop here and mull over, there is one more point of utmost significance that needs to be made about this conversation. When things were on the line between Jesus and Peter, Jesus got right to the heart of everything. He asked Peter, ‘Do you love me?’ Not, ‘Okay Peter, you have been with me three years, what do you really know about who I am?’ Peter had answered that one before when he said Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the living God. Nor did he ask him, knowing he was soon to leave Peter, at least from an earthly point of view, ‘What do you believe, about me, about what I have taught you? What do you remember that you are to feed my lambs and my sheep with?’ 

God, including Jesus in the flesh, is all about relationships.  That’s why God created us, to be in relationship with God. God is love, and at its best, a relationship is based on love, grows on love, matures in love. Jesus did not ask Peter about all those things we as Christians disagree on, get into squabbles, divide and yes, even kill each other over - the identity of Christ, beliefs, doctrine, matters of ethics and practice etc. No, none of that. Jesus got right to the core. As the Apostle Paul wrote, “Put on the clothes of love, which is the bond of perfection, of harmony (his letter to the church at Colossae, chapter 3, verse 14).” Love never divides.    

What did I write at the beginning? We know love from action. There is no love without action. What action(s)? For us, simple, in the words of Jesus himself, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and love your neighbour as yourself.” And in case you forgot, the Parable of the Good Samaritan makes it clear that everyone is our neighbour.

The Mind of Jesus

 Having finished what he wanted to say, concluding with what he knew would be his final prayer with his disciples before his own death, Jesus looked around at the eleven men still around the Passover table with him. He felt an overpowering fatigue and would have liked nothing better than to find somewhere to lay his head and just sleep. The events of the last week had taken him to new highs, but there were also lows.  But he knew he had to press on. However, at this moment he was more concerned for his friends - he had just told them he no longer called them servants, which a Rabbi was entitled to do, but friends.

He had tried to tell them, give them some idea of what lay ahead. But they just did not seem to be getting it. He had not wanted to spell it out so graphically that he would scare them all off. Then what would have to show for his three years with them, his three years of toiling at his mission?

Now, he knew the end  - or was it the beginning - of something new, something even greater than what had been happening these last three years - was only hours away. He had already dispatched Judas, setting him free to do what Jesus knew was inches heart. Jesus’ heart ached for Judas. He had been a loyal supporter these last years. Why, at this time, had he chosen to betray Jesus? Some things Jesus could not explain now, but he trusted his Father was still in control and things were unfolding according to his grand plan, a plan set in place before the beginning of time.

Jesus felt John at his left, with his brother James next to him. Simon Peter sat at his right. Oh Peter, he thought, you too are going to disappoint me, but perhaps not as much as yourself. I need to warn you, all of you, but especially you, Peter.

Addressing all of those with him, Jesus said with a heavy heart, remembering his three years with these faithful followers “You will all become deserters of me tonight; for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ But after I ma raised up, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.”

Peter, ever the quick to speak, blurted out, “Though all become deserters because of you, I will never desert you.”

Turning to him, Jesus replied, “Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you-“ he gazed directly into Simon Peter’s eyes, “-when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

Peter wanted to ask, ‘Turn back from what?’ But sensing some of Jesus’ present anguish, said instead, trying to sound as reassuring as possible, “Lord, even though I must die with you, I will never deny you. I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” The other disciples began to make similar protestations when Jesus broke in, still directing his words at Peter. 

“I tell you Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you have denied three times that you know me.” Peter was stunned. He? Deny Jesus? Had he not just said that was something he would never do? He wanted to protest, to ask what that was supposed to mean, but Jesus had turned away and, lifting his arms, was leading them all in the final hymn of Passover:

“Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever.

Let all Israel say: "His love endures forever.

Let the house of Aaron say: "His love endures forever.

Let those who fear the LORD say: "His love endures forever."

In my anguish I cried to the LORD, and he answered by setting me free.

The LORD is with me; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?

The LORD is with me; he is my helper. I will look in triumph on my enemies.

It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man.

It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in princes.

All the nations surrounded me, but in the name of the LORD I cut them off.

They surrounded me on every side, but in the name of the LORD I cut them off.

They swarmed around me like bees, but they died out as quickly as burning thorns; in 

the name of the LORD I cut them off.

I was pushed back and about to fall, but the LORD helped me.

The LORD is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation.

Shouts of joy and victory resound in the tents of the righteous: "The LORD's right hand 

has done mighty things!

The LORD's right hand is lifted high; the LORD's right hand has done mighty things!"

I will not die but live, and will proclaim what the LORD has done.

The LORD has chastened me severely, but he has not given me over to death.

Open for me the gates of righteousness; I will enter and give thanks to the LORD.

This is the gate of the LORD through which the righteous may enter.

I will give you thanks, for you answered me; you have become my salvation.

The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone;

the LORD has done this, and it is marvellous in our eyes.

This is the day the LORD has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.

O LORD, save us; O LORD, grant us success.

Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD. From the house of the LORD we 

bless you. ^[1]

The LORD is God, and he has made his light shine upon us. With boughs in hand, join

in the festal procession up ^[2] to the horns of the altar.

You are my God, and I will give you thanks; you are my God, and I will exalt you.

Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever.”

Jesus paused for moment, letting the words they were so familiar with sink in. As he looked again upon his followers he wondered, Did they know the full meaning of what they has just sung. Of course not, he knew. However, they would learn it yet. First, they had to experience it, and that was beginning now.

He looked again at his followers, knowing he would never see them in the same way again. John, John, the young man he felt closest to. Jesus knew he would not be far away. This was reassuring because Jesus needed him. His mother, long widowed, needed a caregiver and John was the most suitable inches group. Jesus took another look at James. If you only knew, but it’s a good thing you don’t - you will be the first in our circle to be put to death by our adversaries - after myself.

Jesus shook his head, as if to get away from those thoughts and clear his mind for what lay ahead. He asked:

“When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”

“Not a thing,” the men answered.

“But now,” Jesus continued, “the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted among the lawlesss’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.” He could say that because he knew, with all the warnings he had given his men, that some had gone and purchased swords, Peter being one of them. So far, they had been keeping them concealed.  However, now they admitted, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” The second one was Thomas’s. Jesus was not surprised. Thomas had grasped enough of what Jesus had been saying about his pending death to say, when they had set out to come to Bethany to see their friend Lazarus, that he was ready to go and die with him.

“It is enough,” Jesus finished as he rose and began to walk in silence towards the door. It was dark when they stepped out, and the chill of an early spring evening was settling in. The eleven knew where they were going. Jesus had seemed to want to stay near the city at night these days, not even going to their friends over the hill at Bethany. They just been bedding down in an olive grove at the base of the hill known as Gethsemane. They had become used to carrying extra cloaks to help ward off the cold at night as they huddled together in the garden. 

Jesus looked up to his left as they set out into the Kidron Valley. The walls of the city were silhouetted against the darkening sky above them. As they followed the curve of the valley eastward and then north, the upper portion of the temple also came into view over the tops of the city wall. 

The house of Israel, the priests, they could sing “The Lord is good, his love endures forever” in their homes and in the temple. Jesus knew that, under current circumstances in their land though, these were more words of hope that Israel clung to than conviction. The way they had suffered under the Greeks and now the Romans, it was not easy to really believe their God was good and still loved them. 

So what entered their minds when they sang the second stanza Jesus wondered. How much of this was hope? How much of it was memory, the stories of the first Passover and the deliverance from slavery and oppression in Egypt led by Moses, the entry to the promised land under Joshua, the return centuries later from the exile to Babylonia. That was the last time they had felt somewhat free, although even then, they had been under the Persians. And their neighbours hd not been welcoming either, those whom he Babylonians had left behind, indeed, even transported here from other parts of their empire. Of course, no one else could know how much Jesus himself now clung to these assurances for himself as he trudged wearily along the valley with is followers in silence behind him.

The end of the fourth stanza was what really hit home to him. He would live - again. Yes, death waited, but there was also a resurrection. As the psalmist had written, “He will not give me over to death.” I will not stay dead Jesus told himself.

“…The gates of righteousness…” To his fellow countrymen, these were the gates of Jerusalem, through which they came time and again on their pilgrimages, to worship in the temple, where they believed their God was with them. But Jesus was thinking of another set of gates. Going through with what lay before him would give him the right to enter the gates of heaven itself.

“…the stone the builders rejected…” Oh my people, Jesus thought again. You are rejecting me, but I am the answer you are looking for and I will, ultimately, be the head of the kingdom you long for. I am your Messiah. You treated me as if I was, a mere week ago. You even sang and shouted these words, with boughs in hand as it is written, ”Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” We were indeed a procession entering Jerusalem, as the prophet Zechariah predicted. But all the religious leaders could think of was what a commotion you were making. They did not share your beliefs, your passion. They were only concerned that, especially at Passover when there were more Roman soldiers in Jerusalem than usual because of previous revolts during this season, that the soldiers would think this was the beginning of another revolt  and there would be another bloodbath. Indeed, there was reason to fear. The Romans were cruel when it came to suppressing opposition. And there was going to a lot of that for his followers in the years to come too, Jesus knew. How would he ever prepare his followers for that?

“Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good, his love endures forever.” Jesus lifted his head and began humming the tune. He needed to do something to stay focused. One by one his followers joined in as they neared the garden.