–for his defiance was he crucified

MANY people, we all know, if confronted based on the unscrupulous acts that they have practised, the deceptions and betrayals that accompany what is normal in the management of their pursuit towards success will respond to any such confrontation most likely with a popular question: “Who yuh think I is, Christ? Whuh yuh want me fuh do?” They would likely do so while launching a debate in defence of self; of comparisons with others we know.

Whether this mystical revolutionary lived is still debated, but what is true is the existence of profound acts and logic attributed to the character of the man, Jesus, who attained the level of ‘The Christ’ (‘Khrist’ in some cultures). That challenges the mass reaction to things that, if given thought to, would insert principal thinkers where principles and ideals are restricted; where such cultural and mental formations are hardly relevant or encouraged as an active norm.

For example, let’s look at the stoning of the prostitute. Jesus halted and told the crowd of stone throwers, “Let who among you that is without sin cast the first stone.” The Christ had to be a powerful man, physically, to halt such a confident crowd, causing them to rethink their perceived righteous cause to self-explore for a moment, and be influenced not to follow an age-old custom. This could not have gone well for him among the priestly hierarchy, especially when he allowed this very lady to be among his followers.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the main scribes of the New Testament, may not have witnessed all the events that they scripted. But it is the strength of the content that requires the exploration of the era of this character that summons ‘our’ attention. We also do recognise, as it is with most, that religions have also been idolised, redefined and abused, and paganised into a symbol of oppression. However, we explore the narrative and confront logic that cannot be easily cast away.

Of the most revolutionary narrative allotted to ‘The Christ’ is when he was aggressively asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God would come. And his reply was, “The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, ‘Lo here! Or lo there’. For, behold the Kingdom of Heaven is within you.” If the Kingdom of God is proposed to be governed by an institution of principles, values and moral dictates, then the Pharisees and their brethren and sisterhood today were advised to pursue the Kingdom of God through their moral and active principles, rather than Manmade social connections with deceptive private rules. Likewise, the blatant definitions attributed to the Scribes and Pharisees with their double standards.

Then he defined the Scribes more directly in Mark 13 38-40: “Beware of the Scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the market places. And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: Which devour widows houses, (had to be through legal means) and for a pretence make long prayers: These shall receive greater damnation.” The Christ was an activist for social change, and so finds relevance in the daily references of all who seek to understand the symbolic and the corporeal, also reading the script of our times.

But ‘The Christ’ summoned a duel response. The religious officialdom more linked to his Hebrew heritage feared his exposure of their comfort with the Roman colonisers and Herod the puppet king to shift blame. Meanwhile, they remained the central controllers of most of the populace, except for extreme groups like the Zealots. This particular Jesus, who was winning the ears of the common people with his parables and subliminal messages, had defied all religious traps set for him.

Including the simple test of his ego, when a ruler asked The Christ, “Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” The Christ is written to have responded, “Why callest thou me good? None is good, save one, that is God.” He proceeded to guide the man to obey the commandments, and abandon his pursuits of excessive wealth at all costs indirectly, to achieve salvation.
The Christ was betrayed through bribes and mass hecklers. My take on Judas is that he wanted a real human revolution, and he thought that if Jesus was compromised, then he would use the divine to possibly liberate himself and the land from both the Romans and the corrupt priesthood class.

Judas demonstrated no joy when Jesus was crucified, and he committed what was described as a dishonourable death, after the crucifixion of The Christ: He hung himself. Both Jesus and Judas, according to the narrative, were directed at the upliftment of the condition of the human masses, but interpretations of methods towards achieving that truly differed.