Réssuscités, Recherchons les réalités d’en haut

Pour la Pâque de cette année, j’ai été amené à regarder la résurrection non pas comme un évènement ponctuel, mais plus tôt comme un cheminement quotidien. En effet, en écoutant l’auteur de la lettre aux Colossiens parler de notre résurrection en lien avec celle du Christ, « si vous êtes ressuscités avec le Christ, recherchez les réalités d’en haut », je me suis demandé ce qu’il entend par « les réalités d’en haut ». Évidemment, nous sommes souvent portés à voir la spiritualité en terme cosmique alors que le monde entier est aussi l’ouvrage de ses mains. Et si la spiritualité englobe aussi notre monde matériel, pourquoi les réalités d’en haut ne -seraient-elles pas aussi tout ce qui peuvent nous relèver?

D’ailleurs, si la résurrection veut dire se relever, pourquoi les réalités d’en haut ne seraient-elles pas tout ce qu’il nous relève — ce qui nous ressuscite ? J’appelle cette forme de résurrection une résurrection quotidienne. Évidemment, cette vision de la résurrection s’oppose à celle dont parle très souvent Saint Paul. Pour lui, la résurrection du Christ c’est la preuve que nous aussi, nous ressusciterons au dernier jour.

« Car, si nous avons été unis à lui par une mort qui ressemble à la sienne, nous le serons aussi par une résurrection qui ressemblera à la sienne. » Rom 6, 5

Contrairement à cette théologie paulienne, la résurrection quotidienne se base sur la lettre aux Colossiens. Cette résurrection n’est pas eschatologique, mais immédiate, « ici et maintenant ».

Ce n’est pas une nouveauté car si nous regardons bien ce qui s’est passé après la résurrection du Christ, nous comprendrons que la communauté chrétienne s’est relevée après l’impasse qui a précédé la mort de Jésus. D’abord les femmes se sont rendues au tombeau ne sachant pas ce qu’elles allaient voir. Les évangiles nous disent que tôt le matin, elles se sont (re)levées pour se rendre au tombeau. C’était leur résurrection du jour de Pâques. La survie du christianisme doit énormément à la bravoure de ces femmes. C’est suite à la visite de ces femmes que les années qui ont suivi ont vu cette jeune et peureuse communauté de Nazareth se disperser dans le monde entier. Elle s’est relevée pour aller dans le monde entier pour parler de son expériences, surtout celle de la nouveauté que le Christ leur a apportée.

Malheureusement, beaucoup d’entre nous sont figés sur cette idée eschatologique de la résurrection. Ces derniers se sont assis sur la résurrection quotidienne des autres. Ils créent des lois qui empêchent les marginalisés à se relever — à ressusciter. Ils forment les théologies ghettoïsantes qui ostracisent des personnes ayant d’autres visions différentes des leurs et les empêchent de participer dans la vie de l’Église. Pourtant, la résurrection de Christ devrait être la source de notre vie. Elle devrait battre les murs qui nous séparent les uns aux autres.

Le Vendredi Saint de cette année, des femmes se sont relevées pour proclamer la Pâque dans nos villes. Elles se sont mises devant comme les femmes de Nazareth pour réclamer leur résurrection quotidienne. Elles se sont relevées pour crier haut et fort que la Pâque de Jésus devrait briser les chaînes qui nous retiennent. Leurs marches comme celle qui a conduit les femmes de Jérusalem au tombeau du Christ sont un appel au secours. Elles nous demandent comme Marie :

« On a enlevé le Seigneur de son tombeau,

et nous ne savons pas où on l’a déposé. »

Qu’avons-nous donc fait de notre humanité ? Qu’avons-nous fait pour nos sœurs assassinées ? Que faisons-nous pour nos frères et sœurs ayant d’autres orientations sexuelles ? Pourquoi assoyons-nous sur la résurrection quotidienne de nos frères et sœurs.

Et comme diras l’Ange aux disciples, il n’est pas ici, il est ressuscité. Sortons de nos sentiers battus pour aller à la rencontre de ce ressuscité qui nous fait signes sur le visage des opprimés, sur la honte de nos frères et sœurs ostracisés, etc.

Jesus, the Jews, Pilate and the Passion Narratives

Every Holy Friday, we gather to religiously hear a very long touching narrative of Christ being sacrificed by his own people at the altar of the Roman Empire. No other reading sends both believers and non-believers to tears like these passion narratives. No wonder the Passion of Christ of Mel Gibson appeals to our religious sentiment. But how do we endure such long recounting of hateful utterances: “away with him”, “crucify him, crucify him”, away with him, “We have no king but Caesar”? The length of the passion narrative is already enough to awaken our curiosity. Then when it goes on to present those purported cries of the crowd against Christ, one may ask, what on earth did Christ do to his people.

Even Pontius Pilate was negotiating to let him loose only to be reminded of the enmity that such outrageous act could engender between him and Caesar, “Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, ‘If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.’ (John 7:12 pm).

But what on earth did Jesus do to his people that they preferred the friendship of their colonial masters to his life? Were they all hypnotized to forget all his great teachings and wonderful actions? Where were the 500 people he fed? What about those he healed? Have they no families, friends or well-wishers? What about the multitude that sang, ‘Hosanna Son of David’? I prefer the passion narrative presented by Mark Dornford-May in the Son of God. Dornford-May knows that the public more often loves a revolutionary leader. No wonder Jesus was judged and killed secretly in Son of Man.

As we know, revolutionary leaders are not always hated like this Jesus the passion narratives presented to us. And if no pacific nor tyrannical leader has ever been flatly rejected by his entire people, why was Christ’s own an exception? You might tell me that Jesus is the Son of God, or that it was thus written that he will be rejected and denied. What a wonderful Heavenly Father who loves us so much that he had to hate his only begotten son beyond comprehension to save us. Such a price paid on our behalf is quasi-surrealist.

But let’s look at it differently. How did the evangelists get the incident with such details that even all the insults Christ received were recorded? Who chronicled the private conversation he had with Pilate even the time he kept quiet? Those who reported that incident must have had omniscient points of view.

Let’s push it a little bit further. If the evangelists were absent, and this, many solid sources agree on, how did they get the detailed facts they put on their respective narratives? How did they know that the Romans have the custom of setting free a convict every year? It seems no other historical record can attest to that. Let us consider one of the most beautiful coincidences in those dramatic narratives. Why in that particular year when Jesus the Son of God was being judged, Barabbas – Bar-Abbas (the son of the father [or God – Abba father]) was also in prison?

‘So, when the people gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you? Barabbas (the son of the Father), or Jesus who is called Christ?” (Matthew 27:7)

Is it a simple coincidence that Jesus of Nazareth was being judged while (Jesus) Barabbas (son of the father) was being detained too? Was it a coincidence that Jesus was being judged for planning to cause insurrection while (Jesus) Barabbas was being released even though he was incarcerated for murdering a Roman soldier during another insurrection? Who believes that Pilate would propose to release someone that the Jews could consider a national hero? It is either he didn’t do it, or he wanted them to choose him over Jesus. But all your guesses are as good as mine too!

And above that, how could the evangelists who were all absent during this event have noted with an assurance that Pilate wanted at all costs to let go, Jesus? How could they exonerate him totally like he had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus? You might tell me that Jesus was bound to die, and I agree with you, but why then did the evangelists make us believe that it was the fault of his people? Is that a kind of self-hatred from their part or self-justification of the evangelists’ communities?

Does this sound any bell of similarity with the disparities we observe in the Meccan and Medinan Suras? Those who know the context of these two revelations will not ignore the reason behind the change of tone in the revelations. Should we also imagine that the communities of the evangelists were faced with difficulties that made them see the death of Christ from different points of view?

Maybe yes, maybe no, but the truth is that there is no way the evangelists could have got that detailed information. There is also no way Pilate would have been so bent on releasing Jesus, and the Jews so loathing of him that they all ganged up against him.

However, the fact is not whether they were right or wrong. They had in mind the communities that needed to position themselves as they wrote, and what we make of it today, is either for our good or our utmost downfall.

Did Jesus Wash the Feet of His Disciples?

The Washing of the Feet - Jésus Mafa

And if Jesus didn’t wash the feet of his disciples, would it have made his Holy Thursday message on service and humility invalid for you as a Christian? Have you ever asked yourself if every story you have heard from the Bible did take place, or better said, happened as they were reported? Let’s take the washing of the feet, for example.

· Why on earth no other evangelist talked about it except the author of John’s Gospel?

· Should we think that it was not very important in the eyes of Matthew, Mark, and Luke?

· Why did they ignore such a beautiful part of Christ’s teaching entirely?

· Could it be that the three evangelists did not see it happen, or could it also be that it took place in another circumstance different from the last supper reported in the synoptic gospels?

· Did the author of John’s gospel make it up or he simply remembered Christ’s last supper in a (distorted form) different light? Compare John 13:1–20 to Matthew. 26:17–30, Mark 14:12–26, and Luke 22:7–38.

These and many other questions are those we dare not engage in for the fear of doubting our own beliefs. But should we keep on closing our eyes to such disturbing questions? I think not. We should not be afraid to accept that there are many things we cannot fully grasp in the scriptures. Maybe because we do not really need to understand them literally.

The author of the fourth Gospel, many scholars agree today, was not an immediate follower of Christ. He was, unfortunately, not John the Apostle, they say. For these scholars, his writing is not an ocular account, but a retelling of Christ’s life and history in line with the reality of the author’s Christian community. However, the real question is: does it mean that he invented his stories? Maybe not, but he might not have recorded them as he would have done it if he took note of the events as they occurred. And no one believes anymore that John the Apostle was knowledgeable enough to have recorded the events the fourth Gospel recounts.

And this could be said of the other Gospels and many (other parts) of our sacred books Brief, though the form might not be exact, the teachings are valid and unquestionable. Difficulties only arise once we begin to analyze or (re) interpret the texts.