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.