 | |
| Ecce Homo by Antonio José Vieira - photographic collection of Chico Lima, copy authorized by the author. |
If we take a wide-angle look at the scene of the choice
between Jesus and Barabbas, under Pontius Pilate, in an analysis beyond the
religious and geographical scope, we can draw fascinating conclusions. I
realized it recently, when I had an insight about the actions of the
progressive wing of the Catholic Church in Brazil, based on the famous
Liberation Theology, which led me to wider considerations regarding humanity. In a text I wrote last July 22, I clearly stated that I have the feeling that this wing
of the church, like the crowd in front of Pilate, chose Barabbas (what he
represented); not Jesus. Not all of them, of course. (In Portuguese: http://maviemontfils.blogspot.ca/2016/07/caos-civilizatorio.html).
Who was Barabbas? I found very interesting data in my
research; I have to say that my research was only on the Internet, and yet I
found a considerable amount of information and assumptions about this personage
and circumstances recorded in the Bible, the only document where he is mentioned.
According to Mark 15: 7 "And among the rebels in prison, who had committed
murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas." And that's all we can find in more detail, as a
document.
There are many varied hypotheses, but what I find the most plausible is that
Pilate would have really "washed his hands". Since the Roman Law was
very dear to lawmen, proud of their advanced legislation, it is reasonable that
Pilate did not want to commit a gaffe by condemning an innocent man, because he
found no crime, as said the Gospel. And he ordered to scourge Jesus and presented
him disfigured, in suffering, to make the crowd feel sorry, hoping that Jesus
would be released that way. But people continued to express the wish to crucify
Jesus; so Pilate, in a last attempt to get rid of the crime of condemning an
innocent man, decided to propose the release of a prisoner of people's choice, according to a custom of Passover at that time. Barabbas had committed
murder during an insurrection, and then Pilate thought the crowd would choose
to release Jesus from condemnation. But again, this did not happen. And Jesus
was crucified.
What is fascinating in this entire event, whatever the
truth about Barabbas, what remains written, regardless of the reason, is the
antagonism between the two personages, between what they mean to the humanity.
It is stunning, because what was recorded for posterity is what matters as
message, the Word that remains is what defines the innovative path for
man: Ecce Homo.
Jesus is the one who invited us to love God above everything
else and the neighbour as ourselves[1].
Jesus is the one who preached nonviolence, radically ("offer the other
cheek") and total detachment from all that is material[2].
Jesus is the one who showed to the rich, and also to the poor[3],
the possibility of sharing, to give everything we have and to follow him as the
only means of salvation[4].
It must be a personal choice. He did not preach
revolutions to take from Caesar what belongs to Caesar.
And Barabbas? Barabbas was a rebel against the oppressor, the Roman
Empire. He participated in riots, in acts of violence, contrary to what
Jesus preached. No need to analyze this passage with the eyes "looking at
the feet." Obviously, both of them in front of the crowd, being object of
a choice, despite not meaning an ideological character at that time, this is an
event that remains as a lesson of Life, at least a civilizing lesson.
Ideologies
based on what happened in human history - "violence, the midwife of
history" - choose Barabbas, they follow the standard that has always
existed, i.e., violence, hatred between human groups, which culminates in the
passage from a civilizing state to another. Is it necessary to be always this
way? Is humanity condemned to the primitivism of hatred and sacrifices, killing
each other, to go up the steps of development? This is a question I
consider relevant, in which philosophers should dedicate more time[5].
Without sentimentalities, true Christian doctrine
preaches something new for humanity evolution: love. No, love is not obsolete;
we have never practiced the way it was taught. Neither the church itself, supposed
to make this message viable, never did it. What saves - and the pun is valid -
is that the Church is repeating the word of Christ for centuries... like a
robot, let's face it. But in truth, the message is passing through the time
exactly as it was written. One day, will we understand and choose Christ
instead of Barabbas?
[1] “Love the Lord your God with all your
heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The
second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment
greater than these.” Mark 12:30,31
[2] To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other
also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Luke 6:29
[3] Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than
all the others. 44 They
all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in
everything—all she had to live on.” Mark 12:43,44
[4] “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions
and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow
me.” Matthew 19 :21
[5] Inspiring interview with the
philosopher Luiz Felipe Pondé: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA04340FqZA
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário