Reading
Politics and Religion can be viewed as an ever blurred distinction
because both are in the game of protecting people. And in this game, it is no
surprise that political leaders are divinized as ‘gods’. This practice of divination could not
be of very recent origin, we can see in and through the history that it had
been there, and wherever “King” culture had existed. And within these cultures eventually
these “kings” were proclaimed as “Gods”. From “Augustus” of Caesar (Octavius) to
“Apotheosis” of George Washington it had been there and still exists in various
forms. Even in Indian context there had been a wide witness of various cults
which have blurred the distinction between humans and gods. Particularly in
this context divinization of humans is not much of taboo when observed closely.
For instance “paalaythu amman” and “aiyanar” could be seen as cults based on
benevolent leadership and these cults eventually became full-fledged indigenous
religions. This leadership-cult based religious practice in the popular culture
has become a norm for defining political leadership and is on the meteoric
rise. This could be demonstrated by Narendra Modi’s temple in Bhagwanpur, Uttar
Pradesh and Sonia Gandhi’s depiction as ‘goddess of Telangana’ (Telangana Talli)
and many more leaders like Jayalalitha and Mayawati have notorious reputation
of cults based on their persona.
These projections of leader-cum-god tell us something of
what the world needs in a leader, that is humanity and divinity together. This
kind of cultic-leadership is not strange in the Judean context of “Messianic”
expectations. For Jews, ‘Messiah’ is a King as well as ‘anointed of God’, who
is a benevolent leader of divine anointing. And these messianic-cults were only
fermented and brought to the fore through colonial oppression of Jews, through
Greeks and Roman incursions. And this messianic expectation and upheaval finds
place in the Biblical narrative of Jesus the Messiah. This upheaval and
escalation of conflicts between Roman power and Jewish Messianic cult could be
seen more clearly during the trial of Jesus, where Jesus the ‘king of the Jews’
is coupled with another Messianic figure Barabbas (also in some manuscripts of
Matthew names him Jesus Barabbas see NRSV).
Barabbas in the Gospel accounts name him “robber” (Jn
18:40); “murderer” (Lk 23:19,25); “notorious prisoner”(Mt 27:16). John’s gospel
mentions Barabbas as “robber” in Greek lestes
which could mean “freedom fighter” or “member of resistance” (Ratzinger 2005).
Ratzinger writes of Barabbas as “he was one of the prominent members of the
resistance movement, the one who actually instigated that uprising”. Many have
written much about Barabbas as some who is in direct conflict with Jesus as an
anti-thesis of whatever Jesus stood for. Many commentaries talk about Barabbas
as common criminal who is unfit for his own people, and the others in a more
spiritualizing way talk about Barabbas building his own kingdom while Jesus
trying to build the ‘kingdom of God’ (Barclay 2001, 290). Usually this episode
of Barabbas and Jesus goes down into sermons as the forgiving power of Jesus,
where Barabbas is likened to all humanity who are spiritual dissidents before
God (Spurgeon 1994, 220), one other commentator finds Barabbas ‘unpatriotic’ (MacArthur
1989). However, within some many negative voices about Barabbas two distinct
voices have given a proper credit for him saying that “possibly Barabbas was
the son of a prominent rabbi” (Hovestol 2010). In all this it is Ratzinger who
sees “Barabbas was a messianic figure”.
Gospels gives us revolutionary picture of Barabbas and we
need to pay more serious attention to that personality instead of brushing him
aside as ‘criminal’ or ‘sinner’. Barabbas could have had his own messianic
intentions and would have been captured and imprisoned, however he should be
credit as one who had a messianic vision of delivering his people. His imprisonment
tells us that he was not just a mere visionary but also an insurrectionist (who
had violently fought) against the Roman rule. This messianic vision is what brings
him to the parallel to Jesus of Nazareth. And it is no surprise that during the
trial of Jesus, when the choice is given to people (ochlos), they choose Barabbas. Jesus lost the contest for Messianic
candidacy against Barabbas. While people wanted Barabbas, Pilate wants Jesus of
Nazareth to be released. Each of them had their own advantage in their choice.
For the people it was the return of a national hero who would again put his
army back to reckon with the Romans and for Pilate, it would be easy for him to
release Jesus instead of Barabbas given, Jesus views on Tax and Kingdom are definitely
not in direct conflict with the Roman interest. Hence, Pilate’s urge to release
him.
On the other side here emerges an important model in
leadership a double movement in the narration. For Barabbas, Jesus could mean
an imprisonment of another messianic visionary leader who had been captured.
This would mean that he could continue with his messianic engagement. And the
other movement could be, people were not left without any Messiah even in
during the crucifixion of Jesus, Barabbas a Messianic visionary is released to
them. And it is evident in the history that Messianic-visionaries existed even
long after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Here Jesus points out to us
that leadership is always a shared vision. Messianic vision should be continued
in and through the community; Messiah’s should rise, live and die for their
people as long as there is oppression. Being the Messiah for Jesus is not a
prized possession or a title that is to be protected, which is the situation in
present day politics, where titles are of interest rather than the
responsibilities that accompany them, rather it is a relay effort, a joint and
shared vision that is to be enacted through the community themselves. Maybe it
could be hardly argued by the orthodox interpreters that Jesus’ messianic
vision is entirely different and for Jesus it is the Kingdom of God or Reign of
God (basileia tou theo), yes it is
totally agreed, but however, that will not stop Barabbas to be released and
have his own share at establishing ‘reign of God’ in his own terms. Even here Jesus
had no monopoly over what Messianic protocols are. Thus here emerges a good
leadership ideology of continuity of leadership in and through the community
itself, because Messiah belongs to the people (ochlos).
Another important figure in the Matthew’s narration
following the Barabbas is Simon of Cyrene. This commoner suddenly enters this
high tension drama and steals the show by carrying the cross of Jesus. If
‘cross’ is seen as sacrosanct of Christian symbol it is alarming to note that
the very own cross of Jesus was shared by another commoner. Even the cross of Jesus
is not his own to carry to the fullest, he needs help. If cross is seen in
terms of salvation, then salvation comes only in and through sharing each
other’s cross. And it could be imagined when Jesus gives the call for his
disciples to carry his own cross and follow him (Mt 16:24), there is expected
to be a Simon in every one’s journey of carrying the cross. This could be
another important lesson in leadership saying that even the Cross of Jesus is
the cross and burden of another man and therefore everyone should be willing to
shoulder the cross for one another.
Given the situation in Indian politics where all sort of
divinization or apotheosis of politicians is in the rage. It is essential for
us to sound out the idols who propose to be Gods and Messiahs. A real messiah is
one who is willing to keep the vision of ‘Messiah’ alive within the community
even if it costs his own life and letting a Barabbas (another Messianic
candidate) go free, while he himself is imprisoned. It is good to know that the
name of Barabbas is Jesus Barabbas.
