Why We Should Honour Reconciliation Sunday

 2023 9 26

Introduction

In June of 2023 a recent teacher from Columbia Bible College asked if I would be willing to speak on the given topic on Truth and Reconciliation Sunday in his home congregation in Abbotsford, B.C. He stated that he had come across some of my writing on my background. He also knew I have been on the Mennonite Church of British Columbia [Canada] Indigenous Relations Task Force (since its formation in 2019) and had been on a previous committee dealing with indigenous relations (for eight years prior to that). He thought it would be helpful for me to tell of my childhood experiences and how my views have evolved over the years. He saw one of the objectives of such a presentation to be why Christians (Mennonites in particular) should recognize this day as part of worship on the newly declared Truth and Reconciliation Sunday. This Sunday designation was the result of a call to action from the truth and reconciliation commission (TRC) that crossed our country between 2011 and 2015. Some of the material included below comes from material prepared for some presentations to the congregation of which I am a member prior to the TRC’s being held in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 2013. What follows is an adaptation of the text of that message, originally intended for a congregational audience, to the wider audience of this blog.

 

My story part 1

The reason that these affairs are close to my heart is that I grew up in Northern Manitoba as the eldest missionary child of Edwin and Margie (nee Enns) Brandt, who worked among our indigenous people. Father taught from 1943 - 1945 in in United Church run Indian day school at Garden Hill, Manitoba, to fulfil his alternative service requirements as a Conscientious Objector to taking part in World War II military service. After his marrying Margaret Enns in 1945, the newlyweds returned to the north, Oxford House, Manitoba, to serve for two years as a minister to a United Church congregation there.

I was born in the middle of my parents' service at Oxford house.  After two years there, my parents moved via a short spell at Buffalo Narrows, Saskatchewan, covering for one of the founding couples of Northern Canada Evangelical Mission (NCEM), to Grand Rapids, Manitoba. Here we spent the next nine years under NCEM. Given their Mennonite background, in 1957 my parents accepted a call to serve a congregation at Loon Straits, Manitoba, that had looked to what was then known as Mennonite Pioneer Mission, for pastoral help. We lived there for five years before we moved to Winnipeg. 

Thus, I spent the first sixteen years of my life with indigenous children as my playmates, school mates and fellow members of Sunday School classes, boys and youth clubs, and even summer camps; they and their parents were my “neighbours”. I have remained friends with them. Many are my Facebook friends. We even invited them to come to our family reunion in Winnipeg in 2018. We were also a part of a Loon Straits reunion weekend that took place in 2000.

During this time, I have to give my parents great credit, for I never heard them say anything negative about our indigenous neighbours and friends. Indeed, I only heard about their positive traits, for example, how they shared, for example fresh moose meat, newly caught fish and more when they went out to hunt and gather. They were very generous to us.

Having grown up in such circumstances, my siblings and I have felt that we were so immersed in this environment that we really were not aware that, as whites, we might have been part of of the discriminations faced by our indigenous friends and neighbours. Indeed, some of our friends from that period of time, now getting on in years like ourselves, have affirmed that they neither saw us as different nor that our family made any differences between themselves and us.

The Topic

The topic given me is one which I know some readers struggle with: Why should we care to commemorate Truth and Reconciliation Sunday. A short and perhaps slightly cynical response to that might be because the TRC asked us to do this. Even in that answer you can see two components. A request was made, and a response is expected. 

Truth

We need to start with the Truth part of Truth and Reconciliation. It has been said there can be no true reconciliation apart from the truth being made known. Sometimes the truth is hard to face and accept. That element can be an initial obstacle that needs to be dealt with before we can proceed to reconciliation.

Some of us might think we had nothing to do with the negative things, like abuse in residential schools, that the TRC further exposed. Therefore, we have nothing to contribute here. For Christian readers, let me bring in a little biblical language and the gospel here in response to that. When the Bible says ‘you’, in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, that was often understood as a plural. In the Old Testament then, that meant the whole people of God, the children of Israel. In the New Testament, it meant the whole of the new community of God, the capital ‘C' Church, as we sometimes say.

1. We Are The Church

If we are Christians then, we are a part of the whole church, which, in Canada, includes everything from Roman Catholic to Anglican, to United and Presbyterian Churches, all of which we tend to point fingers at when it comes to running residential schools and what happened there. To non-Christians, which would include many indigenous people, these differences between us as denominations are our own internal matter. They see all of us lumped together as Christianity, the Church. In their minds, we are all guilty. Indeed, as I just alluded to, if we accept the biblical language, we are all part of the offending party. Therefore, we also have a responsibility to look at what has happened with our relationship to indigenous people and what we might need to be doing about it now.

As some of you who are Mennonites probably know though, this story does come closer to us than we might care to admit. Mennonite missions ran residential and day schools in Canada as well, in Ontario. The Mennonite Central Committee also played a part, placing volunteers in some of these institutions that were involved in the care of indigenous children, including the Montreal Lake Children's Home in Saskatchewan and tuberculosis sanatoriums.

2. We are Canada

There is another way in which we might not be able to excuse ourselves in this way. Most of you who read this are likely Canadians, citizens of Canada, descendants of people who settled here from other lands. Therefore, in the same way that indigenous people might see Christians all as guilty as part of the larger church, they see Canadians all as guilty as citizens of the country whose government has caused them so much grief.

My story part 2

Those two items are large-scale truths. Are their truths closer to home for us as Mennonites (the denominational audience to whom this was originally presented) that we need to deal with? Personally, my Mennonite ancestors came to Manitoba in the 1870s. They had been farmers in what was then known as South Russia, now Ukraine. The government at the time was clearly interested in having the land settled by farmers who would boost the economy of the country by their output. They really did not care much about the indigenous people who were getting pushed off their land into smaller and smaller reserves. These were too often on the most undesirable land, but many of them have had to live there subsequently, where we would not wish for ourselves to reside. I don't believe that my ancestors were given much information on what was going on in this area, nor, I must admit, does it appear that they looked into the matter to any extent. They were simply happy to settle on the land that the Canadian government was making available for them by, in reality, pushing the indigenous occupants further out of the way of colonization.

Meanwhile, the land that my ancestors were practically given, was some of the most productive farmland on the prairies and my ancestors did very well. They never even suffered that much in the 1930s, compared to those living in Saskatchewan and Alberta. The gains they made, from living in sod houses to now having descendants like myself, who have moved beyond farming to being professionals and running businesses and factories etc., bear no comparison to the lack of similar progress experienced by our indigenous neighbours over the same period of time. We have prospered greatly, but we know the same is not true for too many of our indigenous neighbours.  If we look at what our indigenous neighbours have, we would have to admit that, in many respects, it is a lot less than what we are privileged to enjoy.

My story part 3 - my people

Some of our Mennonite ancestors came to Canada in the 1920s or even after World War II. What about their truths? We know how traumatized some of them and their families were by the losses experienced in the Ukraine. The turmoil experienced in the Ukraine did not even last a century though. The troubles indigenous neighbours have experienced since our arrivals as white Europeans have been going on for over 500 years!

Thinking about that should give us more understanding and compassion towards the losses our indigenous neighbours have suffered ever since we white people arrived on these shores. Our peoples’ grandparents, great uncles and aunts, perhaps parents, didn’t even want to talk about it - in an environment that was not opposed to them doing so. No one was telling them not to share their stories. Again, how different is that from the trauma experienced by our indigenous neighbours? No one around them wanted to hear about it. With the government lead loss of their language and culture, they were even less equipped to remember and tell their stories.  Is it any wonder we really did not begin to hear their stories until less than 40 years ago?

Our leaders were able to negotiate conditions with the government when they came to Canada, such as the freedom to practice our religion, to not have to send our young men to war, and have our own schools in what was then our language, German. How different that is from what was happening to the indigenous people at the same time. Things were going in very much the opposite direction for them. Why?

The doctrine of discovery

Some of you have heard about something called the doctrine of discovery. This was an understanding that arose out of the time in Europe when the church and state were united as The Holy Roman empire. These ideas were written down in decrees from the Vatican that formed the basis of European explorations, settlements, policies and even laws that are still used today in legal judgements when it comes to indigenous affairs. The underlying principle was that non-Christian occupants of any land did not count, that lands that were not organized into cities and productive estates, farmlands, by European standards, were considered ‘empty’ - the infamous Latin phrase, terrus nullius. The Europeans saw themselves as entitled to, go in to whatever lands they encountered and help themselves. For example, referring to the Spanish royalty in one off these so-called ‘papal bulls’ we read:

“Among other works well pleasing to the Divine Majesty (referring here to the King of Castile, in Spain)…

We, of our own accord… by tenor of these presents, should any of said islands have been found by your envoys and captains, give, grant, and assign to you and your heirs and successors, kings of Castile and Leon, forever, together with all their dominions, cities, camps, places, and villages, and all rights, jurisdictions, and appurtenances, all islands and mainlands found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered towards the west and south…”

Or Pope Nicholas in 1455, granting Portugal the power:

“…to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens [Muslims] and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit.” 

France and England were only to happy to adopt these sentiments as their own when they too began exploring and settling North America.

That was five hundred years ago. When our country's and our churches' mistreatment of our indigenous neighbours has continued that long, are you surprised that they gave up trying to talk about or do anything about it? The situation seemed hopeless and many simply withdrew; some turned to alcohol to drown their pain and sorrow. Then we judged and criticize them for that. It wasn't until our government began to change its attitude somewhat after World War II, and our indigenous neighbours, gradually, by 1969, all getting the ability to vote in our elections, felt empowered enough to begin to organize and share their stories in the 1980s. At that point, it was still another decade before the residential schools, which we have now heard so much about, were closed, in 1996.

For most Mennonites, the trauma I wrote of is past, it’s history. Not so for our indigenous neighbours - just think of the phenomenon of Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women, Girls and Two Spirited. The trauma of those losses, possibly as high as 4,000 since 1980, is still very much present for thousands.

3. We are Christians

We have talked about the inclusive biblical language of our being a people, the Church, and where that places us in the eyes of our indigenous neighbours. Let me come then to the real reason why we those to whom this message was originally addressed should respect this Sunday for what it has been named, consider where that comes from, and how we should conduct ourselves in response to that. This is where Truth meets Reconciliation. 

We are Christians, so this is where we bring in the gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ.  Let me read the words of the Apostle Paul from scripture on this:

“I Corinthians 5:18 …all these things are from God who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and who has given us the ministry of reconciliation. 5:19 In other words, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting people’s trespasses against them, and he has given us the message of reconciliation. 5:20 Therefore we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making His plea through us.” 

Christ has given us Christians the ministry of reconciliation. That ministry extends to everyone and everything. When the writer of the Gospel of John wrote that "God so loved the world” (ch. 3, vs. 16), he meant that. He did not just mean individual souls being called to be ‘born again’ in response to that love. God created the whole world good. He wanted to share his abundance and love with as many people as he could. He wanted to show his beauty in his creation. His calling creation good meant he appreciated and enjoyed it, including us.

The apostle Paul wrote about this wider view of reconciliation and redemption in Romans 8: 

“8:19 For the creation  waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God. 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will willingly but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 8:21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labour pains until now.”

We who are Mennonites, Anabaptists, have had our attention re-focussed on the ministry of reconciliation in recent decades. Therefore, we have all the more reason to take the above seriously. Some of us might be familiar with Palmer Becker, whose 2017 book, Anabaptist Essentials, was published. It has since become somewhat of a staple for study by Mennonite congregational groups as well as being translated into a number of languages for use in congregations in the global Anabaptist church. He identified three core values of Anabaptism:

1. Jesus being the centre of our faith, 
2. Community being the centre of our life, and 
3. Reconciliation being the centre of our work…

devoting three chapters to each of those. If you have not read or studied this book I would encourage you to do so.

4. Indigenous people are our neighbours

If we who claim to be Christians truly want to live out our Christian faith, there are a couple of basic things we need to recognize and accept before we can even delve into this ministry of reconciliation. We know Jesus came to bring us new life. We know the Gospel of Matthew (ch. 23 vss. 34-40) story of the lawyer who came to Jesus and asked him what the greatest commandment was. We know what Jesus’ two-part answer was: 

1. love the Lord your God with all you heart and soul and mind and

2. love your neighbour as yourself. 

We also know from Jesus' parable in the Gospel of Luke (ch. 10 vss. 25-40), which we refer to as "The Good Samaritan”, a little more about being a neighbour. Thieves had set upon a traveler and left him for dead on the roadside. Those whom we would expect to have known and followed this two-part law - it was already there in the Old Testament for them -  the priest and Levite, Jews, who  ‘passed by on the other side (of the road)’ were not good neighbours. Then a Samaritan traveller came upon the man and took good care of him. 

Since their early prophet and lawgiver Moses’ time the Jews had come up with many more rules including some about what was ‘unclean’, which could well have included a bloody and possibly dead stranger on the road.  Samaritans as a group, almost a nation at the time, were considered unclean. But Jesus was holding them up to the Jews as those who really knew what being a neighbour meant.

Some of us may have sometimes regarded some of our indigenous neighbours as unclean. We here in the Lower Mainland of BC are familiar with stories about Vancouver's Down Town East Side. We likely think there are many poor, homeless indigenous people here, addicted to alcohol and drugs. There are some, but not as many as we imagine. We see whites, blacks and Asians too. Are they our neighbours? Too often we think they are unclean.

WHAT CAN WE DO?

1. The first thing we need to do is grasp what we as a nation and church have done to  our neighbours and lament that. We need to ask God and them for forgiveness, apologizing for what we have done. We need to repent. We know that is the first step on this path from our understanding of Christian reconciliation, our reconciliation to God. It is the same with our relationship with our indigenous neighbours.

2. We must acknowledge that we live on lands that first belonged to people now   identifying themselves in that regard as the first nations of those lands. You might think, oh, but I paid for my property with money I earned. Indeed, but where did that property come from? We have to be honest and acknowledge that much of the land that we live on and make use of was stolen. To be sure, some of the land was dealt with, as far as the government and settlers were concerned, by treaties arranged with the first nations. Then we have to remember how many of those treaties were broken. Even with that, what gave us the right as a nation to force people who had lived freely across the wide expenses of our country into tiny and, again because of our national injustice, ever shrinking reserves?

3.  We can acknowledge that first nations world views and traditions have something to 

teach us when it comes to looking after the world that God, our Creator, made. It’s like the situation between God and the children of Israel when they moved into their 

Promised Land. It was understood that God owned the land. That is the biblical view. Our indigenous neighbours understand that they do not own the land either. It is a gift from Creator to use well. How differently  we have, at least historically, treated this land.

Along with this, our indigenous neighbours have a deep knowledge of plants and the environment that we could learn from. Sure, some of that has been lost over time, largely because of what we settlers have done. Subsequently, the changes brought on by our collective actions have too often negatively affected their culture, language and family relationships too.

4.  Many of us are very keen to read stories about our histories. They help us 

     understand where we come from and who we are. To the contrary, the policies of our 

    governments robbed first nations of their abilities to remember their stories as we 

    have been free to. In our school systems we have all been taught to hear only settler 

    versions of the stories of this country. The First Nations’ stories have been ignored. if

we want to respect our neighbours, understand what they have experienced, we need to listen to their stories. Nowadays, there is no shortage of them on the Internet and in many published books. We can seek out opportunities to meet with our indigenous neighbours and give them an opportunity to share their stories.

5. Yes, according to the gospel as we heard, what is the second commandment according to Jesus? Love your neighbour as yourself. 

 

Lorne Brandt

The original delivery of this message September 24, 2023, in Emmanuel Mennonite Church, Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada, can be viewed here: 

https://www.youtube.com/@emmanuelmennonite/videos

The actual message delivery is from minutes 24 to 55, but there are some good introductory remarks in the first couple of minutes, an indigenous-written song at 18, followed by the worship leader’s introduction of me at minute 23. The music team leader also has a good reflection right after the message.

The Elblag Canal - One of the Seven Wonders of Poland*

In August 2022 we visited Poland for the first time. On our last day, a beautiful sunny Sunday afternoon, we were treated to a boat ride on the Elblag Canal. Not only was it a pleasant and relaxing excursion, it opened my eyes to an engineering

invention I had not seen before. I had to learn more about this; what I learned follows.

History

The Elblag Canal was commissioned by the King of Prussia and then designed between 1825 and 1844 by Georg Steenke. Construction began in 1844 and was completed in 1860 (Wikipedia) or 1872 (Brittanica). As it was built during a time of Prussian control, it was referred to as the Elbing or Oberleandischer (Upland) Canal.  As of 1945 it came under Poland. After damage from World War II was repaired, it was restored to operation in 1948 and is now used for tourism. The canal underwent further renovation between 2011 and 2015 and is now again open to navigation.

Location 

The Canal was built to run southward from Lake Drużno (top blue marker in map at left), connected by the river Elbląg to the Vistula Lagoon (large body of water at top of map) off the Baltic Sea in the north, to the river Drwęca, Lake Jeziorak and the inland port of Ostroda in the southeast (starred marker at bottom right hand corner of map). The four central starred markers indicate the region of the inclined planes (see explanation below).

According to Wikipedia it is 80.5 km or 50 miles long. The article on Elblag City in Encyclopedia Brittanica lists it as 159 km or 99 miles, that on Elblag Province as 56 km or 35 miles.

Engineering

The difference in water levels approaches 100 metres (330 ft), and is overcome using locks and a system of inclined planes between lakes. The latter were were deemed necessary as it was assessed that the difference in height over a 9.5-kilometre (5.9-mile) section of the route between the lakes was too great for building traditional locks. These were based on those used on the Morris Canal, built in the US between 1829 and 1924, linking Easton, Pennsylvania and Newark, New Jersey. Big Chute Marine Railway, at lock 44 of the Trent-Severn Waterway in Ontario, Canada,  also carries boats in an open carriage instead of a water filled caisson. There were originally four inclined planes, with a fifth added later, replacing five wooden locks. The canal does include a few locks as well. 

The Inclined Planes

The four original inclined planes are, in order from the summit level downwards, Buczyniec (Buchwalde) with a rise of 20.4 metres (67 ft) and a length of 224.8 metres (738 ft), Kąty (Kanthen) with a rise of 18.83 metres (61.8 ft) and a length of 225.97 metres (741.4 ft), Oleśnica (Schönfeld) with a rise of 21.97 metres (72.1 ft) and a length of 262.63 metres (861.6 ft), and Jelenie (Hirschfeld) with a rise of 21.97 metres (72.1 ft) and a length of 263.63 metres (864.9 ft).^[3] The fifth incline is Całuny Nowe (Neu-Kussfeld) with a rise of 13.72 metres (45.0 ft). It was built to replace five wooden locks close to Elbląg. They were constructed from 1860 to 1880. The inclines all consist of two parallel rail tracks with a gauge of 3.27 metres (10 ft 8+³⁄₄ in). Boats are carried on carriages that run on these rails. The inclines each rise from the lower level of the canal to a summit and then down a second shorter incline to the upper canal level. The first part of the main incline and the short upper incline were both built at a gradient of 1:24 (4.2%). A carriage is lowered down the incline between the sections of canal to counterbalance an upward moving carriage. Once the downward moving carriage has reached the summit, pulled up by a system of cables, and started down the main incline its weight helps pull up the upward moving carriage. This allowed the slope of the incline for this section to be built at a steeper gradient of 1:12 (8.3%).

The whole system is ingeniously based on energy conserving water power. It seems that when they need to move the carriages, a signal goes to a control room. There, they let water from the canal out a sluice, which turns a large wheel which in turn through a system of gears pulls the cables which pull the carriages up and down the inclined planes. The weight of a boat on a carriage going down acts as a counter via the single cable system for each inclined plane to pull another wagon up. The water from the water wheel runs down side channels and back into the canal at a lower level.

The canal was built to accommodate small vessels up to 50 tonnes (49 long tons; 55 short tons) displacement. The boats had a maximum length of 24.48 metres (80 ft 4 in), a maximum width of 2.98 metres (9 ft 9 in) and a maximum draught of 1.1 metres (3 ft 7 in).

Significance

Today the canal is used mainly for recreational purposes. It is considered one of the most significant monuments related to the history of technology and was named one of the Seven Wonders of Poland*. The canal was also named one of Poland's official national Historic Monuments in 2011. Its listing is maintained by the National Heritage Board of Poland. It is believed to be one of the most important monuments related to the history of engineering.

* (in Polish) As per results of a plebiscite for the 'Seven Wonders of Poland' conducted by Rzeczpospolita (newspaper), cited at www.budowle.pl.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbląg_Canal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Chute_Marine_Railway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbląg

The Role of Women in the Church as Seen in Scripture

 The first sermon delivered in my then home church - on women in the church. Still as relevant as ever. What does that say how far we've come in 65 years!!!

NOTE: The blue italicized sections were trimmed before this message was delivered. 

TIE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH AS SEEN IN SCRIPTURE

March 24, 1968 Bergthaler Mennonite Church, Winnipeg, MB

This, as most of you know by now is the topic which we are pursuing in our meeting today and last Sunday …and today again. We are not dealing with this topic in order to raise an issue nor simply as a matter of course. The issue is there and we want to make a careful consideration of its aspects in these meetings in order to make a decision. I think this is a wonderful way in which to solve a problem, in fact I think it is the only way in which the church should face its problems. All of the church's members should be able to have a say in the direction our church progresses, provided we have prayed much about it because the church is in the first instance our Lord's.

Last Sunday morning then, Reverend Epp began the examination of the passages in the Bible which apply to this problem. This study was continued in the evening at which time there was also an open discussion. Too bad more of you were not able to make it.

This morning I will speak on the roles specific women… are seen filling in scripture in an attempt to relate this to the wider topic which is also concerned with the present time and see what these examples have to say to us. It was not my intention to speak on such a topic or a be that involved in the series when I was first asked to speak. However, this topic did pass through my mind and I considered it seriously because, for one thing I knew it was an issue amongst us and for another, I had been asked about this – whether I had ever studied it or not. Then, lo and behold I come to church and pick up a bulletin and see these meetings announced! I wondered to myself if there wasn't more than coincidence involved – if perhaps this with the leading of the Holy Spirit.

I trust it is, because I am here this morning and hope that these words will help us on the road too the right decision on this matter of the role of women in the church.

The women whom I wish to direct our attention to this morning include such as Mary the Mother of Jesus, Mary and Martha of Bethany and Mary of Magdala, as well as Dorcas, Lydia and Priscilla.

Perhaps you wonder what part some of the first-mentioned women had in the church. Well, they played a very Important part in the formation of the church, or should we say in the steps of history which led to its formation. The part Mary of Nazareth played then becomes quite obvious and for this reason I will spend the least time discussing her role. 

Mary was the mother of Jesus, who is founder and head of the church. She, as an agent of the Holy Spirit, brought him into the world and no doubt played a very Important part in bringing him up to complete the task he was sent to accomplish. One can speculate too as to how great a part she played in preparing his way, especially when we notice that some of his closest followers, some who were with him almost from the beginning of his ministry were close relatives. If we compare Matthew 27:56 and John 19:25 we find that his disciple James The Less was in fact his cousin. There also are statements to the idea that James and John the sons of Zebedee were also Jesus' cousins, which although it might explain the readiness to drop all and follow Jesus when he called them from their nets, is only based on legend and thus cannot be taken as fact. It could well be though that Mary told her friends and relatives what task her son was called to, because we see that not only these young men followed Jesus but also their mothers.

I think we can stop to learn something from these women of Galilee right here. Their sons were pioneers of a radical new religious movement. We could have expected these women to oppose their sons for setting themselves over against the system of their day, but we know that they supported them. We are not told in the gospels that they supported them in prayer or anything Iike that. No, we are told that these women 

themselves followed Jesus and their sons about, ministering to them and supporting them of their means (Lake 8:2). These particular women are not mentioned by name here but I think we can assume they included Mary Magdalene, Salome the mother of James and John and the other Mary, the mother of the second James, the lesser, because they appear in similar capacities later where they are named. 

How many of you mothers would support your sons to this extent, especially those of you whose sons are engaged in active service In the church? Perhaps for most of you this is a situation you will not have to face for some time yet because most of your sons are sill growing up/will be at home for sometime yet. But it is not too early to start thinking about it. By all means support your sons and your young men in prayer and in admonition and perhaps financially if they are missionaries or VS workers or the like. They should not become dependent on you but if they need support, why not get it from home if it is the Lord's work they are engaged in?

If your sons, and here I mean daughters as well, enter upon such service ,would you consider leaving the home you had built up to go with them and help them physically and in person? These mothers did. After all, once the children are brought up the home has fulfilled Its major function, has It not?

Now, I am not suggesting that all of you mothers leave your homes once your children are grown up and go out and help them, but I do know of couples that are doing this and I think something like this could well increase. People live longer now and retire sooner, often when there are still many years of good life left. We should prepare to make the most of it, at home or elsewhere. No one ever retires from the church.

Thus  we  see  these  women  and  others  like  them in the New Testamen\t involved in a role of active service. We often see only the disciples and apostles and never stop to think how they managed to stay alive, in food and in clothing. But we have a clue now as to how they were supported. This is the role we most often see women in and it is an important role. We cannot get along without the supper-makers and th\e coffer-pourers but is this all that women are to do?

If we feel that this is a secondary rule, and I think we must all admit that we do feel that way, is this the wrong attitude or is it not? This is one of the questions we face, whether our views are right and whether the air condition by tradition, present-day society or scripture and which or how much of each influence most affect our decision?

We have already touched on another role that women played in the New Testament in our references to Mary of Nazareth. This is the role of teaching. No doubt the mothers of the apostles, as we are told Mary did, brought their children up in the fear of God. This probably was what prepared them for their ability to see Jesus as the Messiah and be chosen as his closest followers. And of course we can think of Timothy's mother Eunice and his grandmother Lois (II Timothy 1 : 5 ). Paul commends them highly for their work in bringing up such a fine young Jew and now a Christian. The normal task of education in Judaism was properly that of th\e father but in this case the father was a Greek and as a sailor he was probably seldom at home. So the task fell to the mother. I think this indicates that the Jewish women knew their faith and history well too. I wonder though, the position of women in Jewish society being what it was, how much time the men spent teaching the women of their faith. Is it not possible that the education of the little Jewish girls was largely left to their mothers while the boys accompanied their fathers to the synagogues? If we look at the mothers of the apostles we can see that if this was so the mothers likely did a good job of teaching their daughters by their total lives. T h e mothers’ role in teaching their children is one which I think everyone would wholeheartedly endorse. Indeed, it is a great and rewarding responsibility and not a little taxing and frustrating, what with all the questions children always come up with.

But the women of the New Testament were not only teachers of their children. They taught publicly inasmuch as the church was a public institution in that day. Well, we say, so do our women teach publicly. Look at our Sunday Schools, our midweek activities, “Daily Vacation Bible School” and camp programs and even our female missionaries. But do our women teach in the church side by side with the men. Paul makes numerous references in his letters to women like Mary & Persis of Rome, Euodias and Syntyche of Ephesus and others whom he calls beloved co-workers in Christ. Some think these were evangelists or prophets as they were often then called. Recall also Acts 21:9 where the writer of the book mentions four virgin prophets. These were all more than teachers at home, although what position they had in the church we cannot say with certainty. 

Only once does Paul mention a woman with any office and that is Phoebe of Rome whom he calls a deaconness. But we have one Instance In Acts of a women even teaching an evangelist, a great orator. Can any of you picture a woman teaching a Leighton Ford or a Barry Moore? That's what Priscilla did when she moved to Ephesus and met the Jewish Christian Apollos. We have the account in Acts chapter eighteen. He was teaching an incomplete Christianity and she set him straight, helped by her husband Aquila. Thus we see that already in the New Testament women were teachers of some repute. If you want to think of a modern counterpart of such women I don't think you need to Iook beyond the Mennonite church but indeed to a more conservative branch where you find Ella May Miller. She certainly occupies a high position in the church whether in an official position or not.

No doubt you can remember reading in the New Testament the phrase “and the church In her house". We read of several such “churches" in the New Testament. In Colossae there was a certain Nymphas who had a congregation meeting in her house. No doubt the church at Phillppi first met a t the house of Lydia. And we know for certain that the very firs\t congregational meeting place of all was in th\e house of Mary of Jerusalem, she who was the mother of John Mark. That Is certainly quite an honour to have in the history of the church. But what were all these women doing with houses? Were they theirs or why are their husbands not mentioned?

And these women were not poor either. Remember Rhoda, she who answered Peter’s knock at the gate of Mary's house after his deliverance from prison. She was a servant of Mary's. Some have even guessed with some evidence that the house where Jesus celebrated the lest Passover with his disciples was the house of Mary mentioned here. And certainly a merchant woman like Lydia would have had quite a place I think. 

There is one thing this shows us and that is that the place of women in that society can hardly have been as low as some would have us believe. These women were property-holders and as such must have held some influence, not the least in churches meeting in their houses. But I think Abraham Kuyper in his book WOMEN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT finds an even better practical interpretation for us of the role these women played. Perhaps it could be associated with the first part of my message but I have placed it separately because of the magnitude of this contribution. These women gave their houses, their homes for the cause of Christ. Mr. Kuyper wonders how many rooms and houses of today are  no t serving the function they might If their Christian owners made them available to the church for meetings and o ffi c e s and so forth. This is certainly a role of great stewardship and women of the Early Church were blessed in being able to fulfil it.

One woman whom we certainly cannot overlook is Dorcas, also called Tabitha. She is probably one of the best known of the women of the Early Church. Her work is a l s o most imitated among women of the church everywhere. It was the work of helping the poor; her role was that of the Christian philanthropist, the performer of good deeds. Like most of the women of the church in all ages her work was practical. She saw the need about her and went to work for those people in the name of Christ. She spent her time sewing clothes for the children of seamen's widows in the port town of Joppa.

But Dorcas died. And these women whom Dorcas loved sent for the Apostle Peter. The account in Acts nine does not tell us why nor does it even say that they requested him to do what he proceeded to do. You know what happened. After a time of prayer he, as an Instrument of our Lord, brought her back to life. We see this as a sign of power but do we see it as a divine sign of approval for her work? Kuyper again makes this point. The Lord resurrected he\r to continue her role in the church. By means of her physical ministry she showed the love of Christ and the women of Joppa offered their love In return. Because of the faith she had helped to plant in their hearts she had been restored to life. It is in her that our women's missionary sewing circles find a pioneer and in her resurrection the approval of their work if it is done in the spirit hers was done in and if it achieve the same results.

For  the  last  section  of my message  I want  you  to  turn  back to the gospels again and take a look at the role played in their story by the two sisters Mary and Martha and Mary of Magdala. As I said in the beginning of my message, these women played roles

in the formation of the Church. I never saw their part in the gospel stories as being so terribly important myself until I started studying for this morning. I hope I haven't exaggerated their roles my mind either.

We only know about Mary and Martha from three stories in the gospels. The first is that where Martha and Mary are playing hostesses to Jesus, and whereas Martha Is busying herself serving, Mary is sitting at Jesus’ feet and listening to his teachings. This is recorded in Luke chapter ten. The second Is the story of the resurrection of Lazarus in John chapter eleven. The third is in John chapter twelve and here we find that intriguing story of Mary's anointing Jesus with that expensive perfume. I want to take the time to read all these passages because I'm sure you were quite familiar with the stories and the important details for our discussion will come out anyway. 

Mary Magdalene really only comes into any prominence in the Easter story and especially in John’s gospel. There is a little bit of a difference in the account you and John record things in such a way that Mary Magdalene seems to figure alone in some aspects of the story, while the other gospel speak of the whole group of women together. John also says some things that aren't recorded in the other gospels. I am not going to go into a discussion of these differences though. What… I do want you to notice is that the latter events in which these women are involved are related to one another and are of special significance for the Easter story.

The first story then does not really fit into this sequence but it gives us background information as to character. Then too, it has its own lessons, which we will discuss and then pass on to discuss the Easter story and the part played in it by women. 

In the first event then we have Mary sitting at the feet of Jesus and listening to his teachings while her sister hustles about getting the meal ready and so forth. Thus we have Mary thinking, meditating, learning while Martha is doing, serving. Finally, Mary's behaviour provokes Martha to complain to the Master that she is working and Mary is doing nothing. Jesus rebukes her, although gently, by telling her Mary is doing the better thing. Thus he passes a judgement on these two sisters which I think we have been too quick to take as a judgement on Martha alone. True, he does say Mary has chosen the better but he does not say that she has chosen the only, nor does he call Martha to forsake her task and do as Mary did. He would likely have had to go without dinner then! As I pointed out earlier in our discussion of the women that followed and ministered to Jesus and the disciples, we need those who serve as well as those who teach and preach. So, In reality then Jesus approved of both of these women and what they did, even though he did put one before the other. As Kuyper, who puts forward these ideas says, this shows that there is a place for mysticism too in the church and we with our concern for doing must not criticize those who study and meditate and think more than perhaps they serve. “Some provide the oil for the lamps in God’s church and others light those lamps” unquôte Abraham Kuyper. Thus we have here two sisters playing two different roles and showing that both are necessary in the church.

Now let us go on to the discussion of the other events in which these women figure in and which I said played an important part in the formation of the church and the Easter story. I could have spoken on an Easter or Lenten topic this morning because it is getting close to Easter but I think the following will help quite a bit for our thinking on Easter this year. I hope perhaps we can gain some new insights of the Easter story and the new appreciation for the part played in it by women.

First of all then let us consider the story of the resurrection of Lazarus. This great story is found in John chapter eleven end only there. It is a truly magnificent story and in its place in John here it brings a climax to his record of the miracles Jesus did as well as pre-figure Christ’s own death and resurrection. I don't know if any of you ever saw the film the greatest story ever told or read the book, by Charles Sheldon I believe it is, but in my opinion it did a moving job of showing how this miracle led to the Easter event and also how it hastened Christ's death by the reaction it caused among his enemies. But enough of that.

Here is \where Martha comes into her own. Has it ever occurred to you what an important role she fills here? Through his conversation with her Jesus is able to tell again who he is and what he can do. We also find out how much faith Martha herself has in spite of whet we might think of her from the story above. She says to Jesus that if he had come her brother would not have died. If you a r e following in your Bibles you will notice that she calls him Lord. When they sent for Jesus they also called him this. Commentator Garrison suggests this shows their faith and the beginnings of their recognition of who he was. This was the name for God but since we know that it was also the title of respect for a man or one’s husband I don’t know how much weight we can put on this. Then again, when we look at the rest of the Gospel of John we notice that only Peter elsewhere refers to Jesus as Lord, so in the context there probably Is something to Garrison's Interpretation. That single other reference was Peter's confession that Christ was Lord in response to Christ's asking the disciples who they thought he was. Thus, in the gospel stories, only Peter and Martha make this all Important confession, for in the course of this discussion Martha is also led to say to Christ: “Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world.”

With these words certainly Martha vindicates herself for her attitude in the other incident. What a confession to make! She uses all the common names we give to Christ and closes with an allusion to his Messiahship. And this, as we said, makes two such confessions In the gospel, one by a women and the other by a man. Is this to point that Christ intended man and woman to be equal? It was probably radical enough for a woman to take part in such a discussion but to come up with such a statement is noteworthy. I don't think she realized yet the full import of what she said because Jesus had not yet demonstrated his power nor yet himself died and risen. At any rate, Christ used her to help show who he was and so drew her into what we could almost call a prophetic role and certainly a role of witnessIng. Furthermore, John sensed the importance of this confession coming at such an important moment and saw fit to put it into his gospel for all time to be seen and be blessed by.

But Mary is still not to be outdone by her sister. She too did something soon after this which can be classed as a confession of sorts. This is in the anointing of Jesus' head and washing of his feet at the banquet they had for him later. But whatever we can learn from this action we note that it Is not learned from what she said but rather from what she did. It’s almost a reversal of roles. In their first appearance together Mary was the one associated with words and Martha with action. Now Martha had shown her self to have a just as great a faith as Mary and quite able to express it too. And here Mary shows that she too can fill in action role.

She took a large bottle full of perfume imported from India and broke it over Jesus' head, According to Barclay this was to prevent that bottle from ever being used for a lesser task, after Eastern custom. Then she anointed Jesus. This was something which only happened to kings and priests and men of such stature. Thus, for those who could understand in faith, she was telling the world that Christ was a man of this class. Christ, as we know also said this was In preparation for his burial. Thus Mary was playing the role of a prophet too.

She was preparing him for what he must face. Of course, at the time only he could see the significance of what she was doing. This anointing or at least giving oil to one’s guest was also a sign of hospitality. In these hot lands oil was used liberally to condition the skin and even as an ointment for wounds. Thus, here again we have prophecy, at least looking at it from now. Here is the element of preparation perhaps for the cross and the wounds he would receive there, also conditioning or preparation In a spiritual sense for this great task he yet had to do.

Then Mary took the remainder of the perfume, and apparently there was a year's wages worth here, and let down her hair to wash Jesus' feet with it. This was also a sign of hospitality and no doubt prefigures Christ’s own washing of his disciples f e e t at the Last Supper. We know that such an act has since been regarded by the church as a sign of humility and service. Thus, Mary is here presented in a powerfully prophetic role.

In this whole discussion of Mary and Martha we have not mentioned something which we must in the light of our larger discussion. That Is to ask, how did all these things fit into the position of women In that day? if we look at what these sisters did, we see that they did some quite shocking things, things that certainly didn't fit in with the religious society of their day, but which Christ approved and which we have never found fault with, or have we? First of all, for Mary, to sit at Jesus' feet and listen to his teaching was not what a woman in those days did. For one thing it was rather improper for a woman to sit like that like that before a relatively strange man and for another thing, women just weren't that studious. It could certainly have caused some talk that would have done neither her nor Christ good in that society.

Garrison suggests that on the other hand, Martha may have been the unconventional one to go and meet Christ as she did when she was in mourning and he had not even yet come to the house of morning. There were elaborate rituals in mourning in those deys. In this case, he thinks perhaps Mary was the one who was following the dictates of her society in staying in the house when Jesus came. 

Going on to Mary’s anointing of Jesus at the banquet, we find that this was likely a most rash act on Mary's part. Apparently, in those days the men ate first alone while the women served. Mary came in but not to serve in the accustomed sense. She came in and did something most women would not do, indeed should not do, and that was to anoint Jesus in this sacred fashion. Furthermore she let her hair down and washed has feet. This was most disgraceful. Long hair was a symbol of purity and only the women of the street let it down. Perhaps Mary only meant to show by this how utterly unworthy she was and how impure in the presence of the Lord she loved.

You know, I think we would be just as shocked today if women did some of these things or similar things to God's messengers and servants. And yet, here we see that these things seem to have been acceptable to Christ then. Have we not learned then yet that in the freedom of Christ we must not judge others or be a law to them but let it be between them and Christ. Later we may see good in it just as we can now see the Importance of these then shocking and sacrilegious acts. Nonconformists Is what these women were at times, but not for the sake of nonconformity itself, nor just to be rebellious. They did these things honestly and in good faith I'm sure, knowing what needed to be done when and for what purpose and so God was able too use them for his purposes. 

And now we come at last to the Easter story.  Events themselves where Mary of Magdala appears most prominently. Indeed, in these events the only followers Christ seems to have are women. The disciples are conspicuous only by their absence. But the women were there right through It all and for their great love and devotion they were rewarded splendidly, as we shall soon see.

At the cross, the only apostle we know was there is John. With him were Jesus’ mother, the mother of James and Mary Magdalene, as well as John's own mother Salome. These were not afraid to stay with him in his hour of greatest need in spite of the fact that they were almost certainly endangering their own lives in doing so. Then, when Jesus died and the day was drawing to a close, these women were also involved in seeing to it, together with Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, that the body was taken down and given a proper burial. According to Jewish custom a dead body had to be buried before sundown. They got some spices to embalm his body with but they must have felt that they did not have the time to do a proper job because as soon as the Sabbath was past we find that they returned to the tomb with more spices and ointments.

What faith these women must have had because they were coming to a tomb that they knew was sealed with a rock much too big for them to move. Mark tells us that they wondered as they drew near the place who would roll away the stone for them. Then they made the great discovery! The stone was gone! According to John, Mary Magdalene ran immediately to Peter and told him that the stone was gone and so was the body. But in the other gospels we are told that the women stood about wondering about this when angels appeared and told them that the tomb was empty and Christ had risen as he had said he would. They went off to tell this to the apostles and en route they met Jesus, Matthew tells us. He told him as had the angels that the disciples were to meet him in Galilee.

John tells us then that Mary came back with Peter and John who saw the empty tomb and believed and returned to tell the others. Mary Magdalen stayed behind weeping and then she too saw the angels who asked why she wept. After answering them she turned from them to face another person who asked the same question. Thinking it was the gardener, she asked where he had taken the body if he had removed it, to which he simply said, “Mary.”

No one can say the same word in the exact way in which someone else can, and when she heard that familiar sound she knew at once who It was and said, “Teacher!“ She would have worshipped him but he prevented It and told her what the angels had also told her, that that she should go and tell the disciples what she had seen and tell them also that he would meet them in Galilee.

Both John and Mark tell us that Mary Magdalene was the first one to see the resurrected Lord. But the other gospels tell us the angels head also appeared to the other women and they also met Jesus on their way back that Easter morning. The first words spoken in the garden that Easter morning then were to women and the fi r s t people the resurrection was disclosed to were women. The first persons to see the Risen Lord were also women. What a wonderful way for God to reward those who had been most faithful! What a glorious role for Mary of Magdala and the other women! And the other disciples, those men who first gave up wouldn't even believe them. We need not debate who had the greater gift of faith here. Neither need we speculate on why women were chosen in God's Infinite wisdom to carry such earthshakingly glad tidings. We know that is how it was, that God chose women whom men had relegated to second place in society to fill the greatest role he could give humanity to fill. To that we can only saw Amen.

I trust that these words on the roles God gave various women to fill will help us to make the right decision in the matter at hand. Perhaps all that I have said this morning could have been said much better by a woman and perhaps some day we will hear what they have to say on these things because I am sure that a woman can understand women better than men can. Again I say, may the Holy Spirit use these words to work within our hearts.

A Woman Anoints the King of Kings

 I was recently discussing with our provincial contributor to the Canadian Mennonite, my first novel, a biblical-historical fiction of the journey Mary, the mother of Jesus made with your very special son, called a sword, shall pierce your soul. She saw that I had an interest in the role of women in God's plans for the world.

She was right, but I really could not answer her as to how this came about. I would like to say it was at least in large part due to the strength and respect my mother had as the wife of a missionary and pastor. She had also trained as a teacher. This was still not a common thing in the early 1940s among rural Manitoba Mennonites.

I suspect it also had a lot to do with the climate of the times, when I attended Canadian Mennonite Bible College (CMBC) immediately on graduation from high school. I was a voracious reader of news and feminism in the 1960s was a relatively new societal phenomenon. It probably played into the fact that my first sermon, preached in our home church in the spring of my graduation from CMBC, was on the role of women in the Easter story. I know I chose that topic in part to help sway a vote that was happening in our congregation at the time as to whether women should be given the privilege of being full fledged members of what was still called the brotherhood, including their enfranchise meant in that institution.

In the decades since then, I have read and heard much about the place of women in the church. It really dawned on me after really reading Alan Kreider's The patient ferment of the early church, how the elevated status Jesus had given women during his ministry, death and resurrection, was held through New Testament times. We have significant references to members of the church, such as Sapphira, who, unfortunately died for her deception in the community, but more positively, the apostle Paul writes of people like Priscilla, who even taught the missionary Apollos when he came to Ephesus, and Phoebe, who is listed as a deacon at Cenchreae, a believers’ community near Corinth. However, it appears that by the early 4th century, when Constantine made Christianity the official state religion, those gains in the status of women had been long forgotten. Indeed, by and large, the place of women in the church remained static, and certainly outside the realm of leadership, until the 20th century.

One new aspect of the place of the women in the unfolding story of the life of Jesus was just made clear to me today. I'm reading Timothy Geddert's Believers Church Bible Commentary on Mark, and today I was at chapter 14. We know this is the story of an unnamed woman in Bethany, who comes to a banquet hosted by Simon, the leper, for Jesus. She causes quite a stir at the meal by breaking open a bottle of expensive perfume and anointing Jesus with it. At least, that is what Jesus said she was doing, for his burial.

Geddert makes the point that Jesus burial would follow the crucifixion, which, together with the resurrection, would be the two stage event that was Jesus/God's victory over Satan, and the powers of evil, and the dawning of the new Kingdom of God, with Jesus as the king. In that context then, we have an unnamed woman who could be said to be anointing the King of Kings. It is then perhaps fitting that she is unnamed, and so can represent more easily the whole body of believers - and especially women? - in anointing Christ as King.

In the face of all this, it is truly disconcerting to see how women in our society, but especially in the church, are still not treated as equals. I find it even more sad that in our Anabaptist and Mennonite tradition, a couple of our major denominations have backtracked on women in leadership. They now apparently no longer accept women as pastors, even though they had been filling that role for more than 25 years. We still have a lot to learn from our Lord.

Jesus the Imposter?

Do you know, or have you ever wondered what Jews think of Jesus? I got one answer to that question recently when I read a contribution to an online post where a Jew referred to Jesus as an imposter. Some readers might be surprised at that, but if you are familiar with the Easter story, as we refer to it, this is what the Jewish leaders referred to Jesus as when they asked the Roman governor at the time, Pontius Pilate, to seal the tomb of Jesus after his crucifixion so no one could steal his body and claim he had been resurrected. This is just one of a number of inadvertent admissions by the Jewish leaders that they were hearing what Jesus was saying, in some instances quite clearly. He had, indeed been predicting his resurrection. At the same time, it is ironic that the Jewish leaders had this concern, when it had not even really sunk into Jesus' followers, the disciples' minds, that Jesus was going to be resurrected, even though he had clearly told them that a number of times.

I would put it to you that the Jewish leaders stated this to Pilate, because, in their own minds, they had made up who Jesus was, and who he was not. To them, Jesus was something who was threatening their popularity, and therefore their power and privilege.. They did not believe his ultimate claims or admissions that he was the Messiah, the Son of God, and so, of course, he had to be an imposter. They could not see that he might be the actual promised Messiah.

Let me take this in a little different direction. In the days preceding Jesus’ crucifixion, he told his disciples that the temple in Jerusalem, at which they were marvelling, would be torn down, so that one stone was not left upon another. Indeed, this is precisely what the Roman armies under general Titus did in CE/AD 70. To this day, I am not sure how the Jews fit this event into their understanding of God's plan. They simply totally discounted it. When they had been exiled in 722 BCE, from the northern kingdom, and then finally in BCE 587 from the southern kingdom, a number of them had returned after 70 years as God indeed had promised they would. They established themselves in the land and were still living there as a nation of sorts, when Jesus came on to the scene. I said, ‘of sorts’, because they had never been free from the yoke of the Persians, then the Greeks, and finally the Romans.

Now, we know that many Jews, as well as many Christians, view the return of Jews to Israel in the 20th century, culminating in the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, as part of God's plan preceding the appearance of their long – awaited Messiah. However, and I think there are some Jews who will agree with me, as they do not view the events just described as fitting God's plan, because there were no newly recognized prophets to predict this as there were a number of prophets to predict the return from exile in the fifth century BC. Furthermore, they look for a specific prophet, sometimes referred to as Elijah, to prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah, and no one has been excepted as fitting that description prior to 1948.

Now, if Jesus was an imposter, how could he have been such a clearly lone predictor of the fall of Jerusalem around CE/AD 30 when it happened for forty years later.

Jesus explanation of why this happened is at this time for Jews, as well as many Christians, unacceptable. Jesus indicated to those, as he often said, that had eyes to see and ears to hear, that this was going to be a punishment of the Jewish leaders for the rejection of the Messiah, himself. This parallels the prophetic railings of the Old Testament against the Jewish leaders, mostly political and religious, pronouncing judgment and predicting their downfall and punishment for repeatedly leading God's people of the Old Testament era astray. Neither the prophets nor Jesus indicated that these punishments were really deserved or would fall on every Jew. We know that it was largely the more able and wealthy, the leading Jews that were taken into exile in the eighth and sixth century BC/BCE. Likewise, it was mainly these classes of people that were driven out of Israel during the first century CE Diaspora caused by the Romans.

Putting this into context adds even more to the veracity of what Jesus said about the temple, and what was going to happen to the religious leaders. Just prior to making this prediction about the destruction of the temple, he had told one of his most cutting parables in the presence of some of these leaders. This is the story, which Jesus borrowed and adapted from Isaiah, where vineyard owner plants a  new vineyard, doing everything to make it successful. In Isaiah's story that does not happen, and the vineyard is a failure. Jesus' expansion of the story reports how the owner of the vineyard, after planting it in the same way, as described in Isaiah, went away, leaving it to tenants. When he sent agents to collect the rent, the tenants mistreated them, beat them up, and eventually killed some of them. As a last resort, the vineyard owner sent his beloved son thinking, surely the tenants of the vineyard would respect him and give him the owners’ due. But that didn't happen? They also killed the son. We know from the recorded reaction of the Jewish leaders who heard this parable that they knew it was directed at them, even though they may not have fully understood it. In a way, it was the last straw that sealed Jesus’ fate, the reason they, once again, retreated to plan Jesus demise, determined to succeed this time.

Now, it is important to note in this parable that it is the tenants whom the owner, obviously God, then comes and expels. He does not destroy the vineyard. In other words, it is those to whom he has rented the vineyard, those who were to look after it, who are punished, the religious leaders. The vineyard corresponds to all of God's people. There are not scattered, but the new arrangements are made for the vineyard, the care of the vineyard, of God's people. That was what Jesus and his followers were beginning, and have been about ever since.

The fall of Jerusalem was clearly not the fault of all the Jews, or the Jews who had become Christians would also have fallen under this punishment, but they did not. They continued to spread the good news, the gospel of the true Messiah, Jesus Christ, and that branch of Judaism, if you will, continued to grow after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension back to heaven. In spite of all odds, it has never died out, and remains the faith in the world with the most adherents, and its scripture, the Bible, has continued to be, a world bestseller as well.

Again, in spite of their regarding Jesus as an imposter, the Jewish leaders of his day had heard Jesus talk of demolishing the temple and rebuilding it in three days, as  their witnesses stated against him in the courts prior to his crucifixion. However, they have not credited him with the prediction he made as we know it above, let alone that it was a punishment against their religious establishment with their temple and its rituals,a punishment of those who were to lead the Jews in true faith.

Many, or possibly most Jews, know very little of Jesus and the story we have recorded in the New Testament. This is in part because of a concerted effort by their religious leaders to totally disregard this in their own internal teaching of their people. I have read of Jewish Christians who have talked to Jews and they don't even know how the prophecies of the Old Testament are so amazingly and completely fulfilled in all that happened up to the time of Jesus and thereafter. Yet, Christians have been given the eyes and ears to understand this and have benefitted from that for the last 2000 years and see no end to that. So, I ask you, who is the imposter? The Jewish leaders, who heard enough to use it successfully, to their way of thinking, against Jesus, when they tried him, and had him crucified, yet never acknowledged how Jesus appearance, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension are all there in advance in the scripture? Or Jesus, who faithfully fulfilled all that was called for. Jesus did not make anything up.

2023 4 14