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

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.