|
The Strange
Moral of Jesus
We
know that Jesus
has not left
anything written
down and because
of this many
words attributed
to him do not
sit well with
his loving way
of teaching.
But, those who
combat
Christianity in
general and
Spiritism, in
particular, use
this argument to
contest him.
We shall go back
to the times
before the
coming of Jesus.
The ethical
concepts were
still not yet
defined, not
structured, and
grew in a
perverse
context.
- predominance
of the right of
force over the
force of right;
- political
slavery, social
slavery,
economic
slavery, slavery
of race and
religious
belief;
- the family
submitted to
sovereign
patriarchy and
times cruel;
- interests
rotating around
the possession,
either of
material goods
or of people.
On the other
hand,
accentuated
transformations
occurred in
religion:
- paganism, a
cult of several
Gods, started to
decline;
- human
sacrifice in
order to appease
the divine fury
was substituted,
in Israel, by
the sacrifice of
animals,
transformed into
valuable
resources for
the acquittal of
sins and
offerings of
gratitude to
God.
The discernment
and the giving
of value to the
creature had
already began,
coming to be
seen as an image
of and
similarity to
God.
This process,
which still
continues today,
would have to
surpass every
aggressive
impulse which
constitutes
human nature,
victimised by
the animal
inheritance,
itself the
result of the
evolutionary
process as a
biological,
social and
psychological
being, and to
which we are
still submitted.
It is in this
moment, in which
the first
signals for the
acquisition of
the individual
and collective
consciousness
appear, is that
Jesus appears to
aid and
facilitate the
transition of
barbarity to
civilisation.
To face the
collective
shadow into
which society
was plunged, and
also to break
with the roots
which still tie
man to his most
aggressive
feelings, Jesus
needed to bring
a doctrine of
comprehension
and kindness,
tenderness and
compassion,
which could not
be compared to
any internal or
external
aggressive
attitude, be it
ostensive or
disguised.
It was needed to
use moral values
and energy to
face up the
challenges which
arose with the
intention of
impeding the
march for the
spiritual
evolution that
He brought. And
He did not give
in any of the
directives that
he traced to
carry out his
task: to break
with the
structures of
the past where
He should have:
supremacy of
humility over
pride; supremacy
of altruism over
selfishness;
supremacy of
understanding
and kindness
over
intolerance.
This was, at the
very least, a
new and strange
moral, for being
different from
everything which
existed and for
opposing all the
prevailing
convictions.
In order for us
to use Jesus’
teaching as
resources in the
surpassing of
our
difficulties, we
need to study
them
Unfortunately,
for the vast
majority, this
doctrine
continues to be
strange because
it goes against
our personal
interests, our
selfish desires
and
capriciousness.
“It is not my
cup of tea”,
some say. “ I
have not got
patience to read
or listen”,
others say,
justifying the
total incapacity
for
understanding
and even less
accepting the
invitations
which Jesus
makes to us for
transforming our
feelings, for
the liberation
of sick and
maladjusted
behaviour.
Even amongst the
spiritists, this
inability
exists. Many
times we
understand the
need to change,
but still we do
not have the
inner
instruments to
face up our
reality. It is
for this reason
that we still
need the
teachings of
Jesus.
In truth He
invites us to
the therapy of
spiritual
renovation.
When we
understand this
invitation, we
ask: Will Jesus
keep our crosses
away? Certainly
not, but the
feelings
transform
themselves into
powerful
instruments to
make the crosses
lighter.
However, in
order to use the
teachings as
resources in the
surpassing of
our
difficulties, we
need to study
them in order to
understand them
and,
understanding
them, reflect
upon them so
afterwards, we
can live them in
full.
We know that
Jesus did not
himself leave
anything written
down and for
this reason many
words which have
been attributed
to Him do not go
along well with
his loving
manner of
teaching. Those
who combat
Christianity in
general and
Spiritism in
particular, use
these arguments
for their
contestations.
It is possible
to clarify some
of these
contradictions,
clarifying some
questions. In
the first place,
we need to know
if Jesus
effectively said
them, keeping in
mind that he
left nothing
written down.
And if so, we
need to know
what the meaning
of these words
were in the
language in
which he
expressed
himself, as when
we read or study
an old text (it
does not matter
which one it is)
we cannot apply
the same
meanings today.
In the specific
case of Jesus,
Hebrew was not
such a rich
language and one
word could have
more than one
meaning. We have
two examples
which can help:
·
In Genesis,
a book of the
Old Testament,
the phrases that
indicate the
creation of the
world could mean
any period and
the day period.
As time passed
by, tradition
took care of
placing the
physical world
in six days.
·
Another example
can be found in
the Old
Testament, when
Jesus taught
that it is
easier for a
“camel” to go
through the eye
of a needle than
a rich person to
reach heaven. In
this case the
word signifying
“camel” can also
mean “rope”.
So, a
mistake made
only once has
remained until
today. This
shows that the
translation of
one language
into another can
bring mistakes
that alter the
whole meaning
which one
intends to give
when writing.
The idea of
abandonment of
the family does
not go well with
the philosophy
of Jesus; it is,
on the
contrary,
its denial
We still must
observe that the
particular
nature of each
language, the
change of
meaning with
time, the
mistakes of the
re-writers of
that time
(illiterates,
who only drew
that which was
in front of
their eyes; any
observation
which had been
written at the
margin of the
document would
be copied by
them as if it
was part of the
text body), the
literal
translation
which many times
alters the real
meaning.
Chapter 23rd
of The Gospel
according to
Spiritism
brings
four of those
examples and
that must be
understood in a
figurative form
and not be taken
literally:
1)
If anyone
comes to me and
does not hate
his father and
mother... follow
me cannot be my
disciple.(Luke,
14:25-27, 33)
If we think
about the word
hate within the
modern meaning
of the term, the
phrase would not
make sense, as
there we do not
find the kind
manner with
which Jesus
taught. However,
if we consider
the possibility
that it means
to love less or
to annoy, we
can understand
that there have
been mistakes in
the
interpretation,
because in the
loving
philosophy of
Christ there was
not room for the
word hate as we
conceive it
today
2)
To abandon
father, wife,
children,
farms...to
follow Him.
The idea of
abandonment of
the family does
not go well with
Jesus’ doctrine.
It is, before,
its negation.
But, if we think
that the
teaching
contained in
this passage is
for us to
learn to place
the interest of
the future life
above that of
the material
life, that
way, there is
concordance with
the essence of
the teaching.
It becomes clear
that Jesus
intended to
makes us
conscious that
the future life,
that is, the
life of the
Spirit is more
important that
the life of
matter. It is
interesting to
note that there
is the need of
separation for
progress. Who
could condemn
the son or
daughter who
separates from
their parents
when they get
married? And
what to say
about sons who
leave their
families to
defend their
countries?
Emmanuel, in
chapter 58th
of the book
Fonte Viva (Living
Source),
says, referring
to this passage
that to abandon
is to renounce.
It is a personal
renouncement. He
exemplifies
saying that “if
your parents do
not search for
intimacy of
Christ, you must
renounce
happiness to see
them receive
communion of the
divine banquet
of the Good News
with you, and
help your
parents”. He
reminds that
renouncement
with Jesus does
not mean
abandonment, but
express
devotion, as
himself,
forgotten by
many, relegated
to the anguish
of negation,
feeling the
anguishes of
the
not-loved-Love,
did not remove
himself from the
conviviality
with his
disciples. He
returned and
said
self-assuredly:
“I will be
with you until
the end of the
centuries”.
The respect for
the dead must
not be attached
to matter, but
it is
accomplished by
the remembrance
of
the absent
Spirit.
3) "Let the dead
bury their own
dead, but you go
and proclaim the
kingdom of God."
(Luke, 9:59-60)
It is difficult
to imagine Jesus
would censor the
son who wanted
to carry out his
obligation of
filial piety.
What is the
meaning of this
teaching?
That respect for
the dead cannot
be circumscribed
to matter. The
true life is the
life of the
Spirit liberated
from the
physical body.
Suffering due to
loss does not
allow us to
perceive that
the time for the
incarnation has
finished: the
prisoner who
fulfils the
penalty is not
allowed free;
the prisoner who
does not fulfil
the penalty is
free.
It is clear that
in this passage
the respect for
the dead must
not be attached
to matter, but
is accomplished
by the
remembrance of
the absent
Spirit.
4)
“Do not
suppose that I
have come to
bring peace to
the Earth. I did
not come to
bring
peace, but a
sword.” (Luke,
12:49:53 and
Matthew,
10:35-36)
Teaching: He
refers here to
the result which
comes from the
establishment of
this philosophy.
Joanna de
Ângelis has told
us that Jesus’
strange moral
came as a sword,
to separate the
lie from the
truth; the
violent
possession from
the honoured
conquest; in the
homes, came to
bring down the
rigid
constructions of
selfishness, of
the darkened
patriarchy, of
the pride in
clan and race;
that the sword
came to hurt
strongly
ignorance,
pride,
prejudices of
each new adept,
with inner
struggles, by
the non
acceptance on
the part of the
dear relatives,
of the new
choice taken.
An example of
this is Paul of
Tarsus, rejected
by his family
and seen as mad
by his old
companions of
the tribune.
Jesus’ doctrine
did not really
bring peace, as
hard opposition
arose, both
yesterday and
today, such as
the detainers of
power, the
exploiter of
general
credulity, the
usurpers of
goods and
resources, the
persecutors of
ideals of human
ascension
(within their
own homes).
However, the
greatest
oppositions are
within each one
of us. They are
the most
difficult, as
the sword of
decision is
necessary to
surpass them and
from them to
liberate
ourselves.
It is true that
Jesus separated
parents and
children,
spouses,
brothers, for
making
opposition to
the decision of
those who
surrender
themselves to
the moral
transformations,
but also
transformed them
in a bridge to
touch other
hearts, by the
examples that
they still give
today.
Conclusion -
The new and
strange moral
mined the basis
of the status
quo of the
powerful – as it
still does
today. Dead
Jesus, the idea
is dead. But
Jesus knows that
peace will come,
that fraternity
will consolidate
itself through
the elucidated
faith. For this
reason he
promised and
carried out by
sending us The
Consoler,
Spiritism, to
teach us that
which He could
not have done
before, because
of our small
knowledge, and
to remind us of
that which he
has been
teaching us and
that, because in
our selfishness
and pride we
forget.
|
