| |
have been far better; father, mother, son -- it would have looked more logical. This holy ghost, is he man or woman? But no, even though millions of Christians worship Mary, she is not accepted in the ultimate hierarchy. A woman is, after all, a woman.
Jesus had not a single woman among his twelve apostles. And you will be shocked to know that when he was crucified, all those apostles escaped. Only three women did not escape: one was his mother Mary; another was Mary Magdalene, a prostitute, but she had fallen in tremendous love with this man Jesus; and the third was also named Mary, sister of Martha. These three women proved far more courageous, not afraid; thousands of enemies all around, everyone against Jesus; they were shouting, rejoicing in his crucifixion.... All the apostles had escaped, afraid that if they were caught perhaps they would be crucified too. They may have said sometime to the master, "We will live with you and we will die with you." Saying is one thing, doing is totally another.
Only these three women were ready to dare, to be crucified -- if that is what is going to happen, then it is okay. It is worth dying with the master rather than to live without him. But this loving heart is very rare to find in a man. When it happens in a man then there is no difference. Still they were not apostles -- they should have been the only apostles. Those cowards who had escaped should have been rejected.
But just the other day the lord chancellor in England, who has thrown one bishop out of the church, said, "I would believe more in Matthew, Luke, Mark -- the apostles whose words are in the New Testament -- because they were eyewitnesses." He's absolutely wrong, they were not eyewitnesses; they had escaped. The eyewitnesses were three women, but he does not mention them. Those three men have written the story, but they were not eyewitnesses. Those three women have not written; they must have thought: Who would bother about their writing? Who would listen to them? But the lord chancellor is absolutely wrong in making those three fellows eyewitnesses; they were not. And what they have written is different from each other. If they were eyewitnesses
|
|
|