Rebel With A Cause: Shattering the Myth of Jesus as Non-Conformist, Part 1

I had read the status of a facebook friend describing Jesus thus:

I do know that in His time Jesus was an outcast, a deviant, a misfit, a rebel. He defied institutions and challenged the status quo all the time.

It is perfectly understandable where these ideas come from.  Jesus Christ was seen as one who challenged the Jewish and Roman institutions.  (The parallels to liberation theology are not just coincidental.)  This imagery is reinforced by Jesus' frequent use of the formula "you have heard... but I say unto you..." during the sermon on the mount.

The problem however, is the corollary to this idea that Jesus was a rebel. These days, when certain dissident Catholics are criticised rightfully for their rebellion against the teaching authority of the Church, their excuse is to cite the popular image that Jesus "defied institutions" and "challenged" things.  Thus, these modern day pretended reformers (oh sorry, that is insulting to the pretended reformers; at least Luther and his ilk had the balls to actually leave the Church and the hard teachings they could not accept), use that image of Jesus as rebel and challenger and questioner to justify their oen rebellion and dissent.

They are in effect comparing our priests and bishops to the Pharisees and Sadducees. Of course, the way our clergy act, they sometimes ARE worse than the Pharisees and Sadducees.  But a simple examination of the facts will show that such a comparison is totally unapt and inappropriate.

At this point we must define the questions that we seek to answer:

Firstly, is it appropriate to call Jesus an outcast, a deviant, a misfit and a rebel?

Secondly, did He indeed defy institutions and challenged the status quo all the time?

Thirdly, is it correct to compare the Pharisees and Sadducees to our modern day Catholic Hierarchy?

And Lastly, is it therefore justifiable to disobey Catholic teaching as defined by the authority of the Church Hierarchy, as the major religious institution of our time on the basis of Jesus apparently disobeying the institutions of the time?

Bear with me as I share my thoughts.

Is it appropriate to call Jesus an outcast, a deviant, a misfit and a rebel?

For the non-Christian, Jesus definitely did and said things that challenged the status quo.  At the time, the status quo was the Mosaic Law.  The notion that Jesus challenged the status quo was his frequent exhortations apparently changing certain precepts of the law of Moses.  Matthew chapter 5 gives the most important examples of these.

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. (Matthew 5:21-22)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.(Matthew 5:27-28)

“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."(Matthew 5:31-32)

“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all:  (Matthew 5:33-34)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." (Matthew 5:38-19)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..." (Matthew 5:43-44)

Another example that serves to reinforce this image of Jesus as rebel is his words about the Sabbath.

" One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:23-38)

Based partly on these examples, it would thus seem that Jesus indeed was rebellious and defiant of the Mosaic Law.  He apparently did not care for "official doctrine".  He apparently didn't care about "following the rules".

Note that I used the words "seem" and "apparently."  Again the words of Scripture themselves will illuminate the confusion about the Truth.

Jesus' Intention Was Not To Rebel Against The Mosaic Law


Christ's own words on the topic are as such:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 17:20)

Hence, to say that Jesus was a non-conformist to the Mosaic Law is an error.  Rather, Jesus was saying that the Mosaic Law needed to be fulfilled and perfected.

Of course, that mere act of updating or fulfilling may be seen as some as equivalent to the acts of today's dissenters.  For example, how often do we hear that "The Catholic Church must update it's doctrines on contraception and homosexuality".  Granted, it IS possible that an analogy may be drawn with regards to Jesus fulfilling the law and these dissenters seeking to "update" Catholic doctrine.

The major difference is that for dissenters to do that would be to equate themselves with Christ.

Now, we are Christians are called to be LIKE Christ, but not to EQUATE ourselves to Christ.

So why could Jesus have the authority to make changes and not us "common folk" ?
To understand this in the Christian context, we must go back to the basics: Who was Jesus?  We Christians do not believe He is merely a prophet, a pathway to truth.  We take his word for it when He himself says:

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

Hence we believe that Jesus is not just some conduit to the truth.  He IS Truth itself.

Matthew also quotes Jesus as saying:

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matthew 28:18)

St. Paul writes,

For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. (Colossians 1:16)

For the Christian then, Jesus IS the ultimate authority.  All authority comes from him.

Can it not therefore be argued then, that for the Christian who believes in the divine authority of Jesus Christ, that He is not the one going against the standards of the world, but that it is the world's standards that are rebelling against His authority?

Again this is in perfect harmony with Christ's earlier comments about fulfilling the Law.

For the sake of argument, can we say that Jesus teachings, however, upset the higher ups?

The Pharisees themselves elaborate their reason the best:

"We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (John 10:33)

So that was Jesus' rebellion, blasphemy, claiming to be God.

We have to face it.  As Christians, we either have to accept Jesus' authority as God (and the authority of those to whom he passes that authority to) or we have to admit that Jesus was some A-1 insane efftard.  It can't go either way.

Since as a Christian I believe He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, I cannot in good conscience label Christ as a "deviant" or a "rebel". Rather, it is the world that deviates from and rebels from Him.

More to come in Part II.

Jesus, Lazarus and the Undead

Easter Sunday begins in a few, and so we faithful are going to have to endure many facebook memes and jokes referring to the Zombie Christ or something.  To clarify, zombies and other revenants are often remembered on the Resurrection Pasch day but they aren't quite the same as what happened to Christ.  Let's look one by one.

Firstly, legends throughout the world are filled with horror fables about the dead rising from the grave.  Normally a dead loved one rising from the dead should not be a sad or scary thing.  In fact, it ought to be a happy thing.  Unless the so-called "living dead" bears little resemblance both in appearance and behaviour to it's living counterpart.  Examples of this kind of being, called a revenant, includes vampires, zombies, liches, and a whole plateau of re-animated dead.

Yup, that's the term - re-animated.

These days, when we think of animation, we think of animated cartoons.  If you think about it, that's just about right.  Animation here refers to the process of giving these drawings or images the semblance of movement.  A person who is very active is said to be animated.  To animate is to move.  The word anima or animus refers to soul, or that which makes something active or move.  Hence, animals, like humans, have souls.

The zombie is thus a corpse that has been re-animated.  The body moves again of it's own power.  However, the spirit, or the supernatural quality that makes the human being different than animals is no longer there.  Spirit is different than the soul in the sense that it is spirit that gives us the ability to have language, intellect and culture.  Angels are pure spirits.  People are not.  The latin for spirit, though, comes from the word for breath.

It may be argued that vampires and liches are not just re-animated, but also retain their souls.  However, one difference is that their bodies are transformed, but in a negative way.

Secondly, what happened to Lazarus was different.  Lazarus wasn't just restored to life or re-animated.  He retained his spirit and other faculties, and brought back into a state before he died.  He is still mortal and can still die in the future.  Think of it as restoring from a backup file.

This, my friends, is what we call resuscitation. The dead person is restored to a previous state.

Jesus on the other hand, did not just resuscitate.  He came back to life into a body with totally different properties.  In this sense, He is like a vampire or lich.  The change however, is positive.  Unlike a vampire, the resurrected Jesus need not drain life or blood from others like a parasite.  Unlike a lich,  the resurrected Jesus' body is perfect and immortal.

What characteristics differentiate the resurrected from the resuscitated?

In the gospels, the resurrected Christ is shown to alter appearance or to make sure that He is unrecognised unless  He wants to be.  The resurrected Christ also seemingly has the ability to instantaneously appear in enclosed rooms to the apostles.  Teleportation?

Catholics believe that the resurrected body is then also immortal.  Catholics believe that all the dead will be resurrected.  Some to damnation and some to heaven.  Beyond the topic now.

To summarize: re-animation for zombies, resuscitation for Lazarus, and resurrection for Christ.

Let's Get Serious

When I was attending a Jesuit high school in San Juan, I ran into some questions that no one seemed to want to (or be able to) answer.  I recall these questions to belong to two general categories:

a) Marian doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception and
b) Soteriology questions, particularly the reconciliation between God's justice and God's mercy, and the biblical evidence, if any, for purgatory.

Now, I know what the typical reaction of you, the reader, would be.

What in tarnation are you doing during HIGH SCHOOL thinking about such things?

Well, I'm the kind of person who believes, but wants to know WHY I believe.  That way I can justify it to those who ask my reasons.  That way I can justify it to myself.


I have in fact been accused of being too cerebral.  If my belief is based on intellect then it is not faith, I have been told.

Au contraire! A faith that is anchored on nothing will simply end up getting lost.  A faith that is anchored on error will only lead one to more error.

Hence, faith must be anchored on Truth, and I believe that Truth to be the Gospel as taught by our Lord Jesus Christ through the Apostles.

The fact of the matter is this: I want to turn the tables on the devil-may-care attitude of today's Catholics and tell them that it is not I who am too cerebral, it is the majority that are not cerebral enough.

Ask an everyday Catholic a question such as, "why do you believe that Mary is conceived without original sin?"

You can almost hear the the gears in the heads trying to turn.  Note that I said, "trying."

Heck, the typical Philippine Catholic probably couldn't look up a Bible verse if his life depended on it.  Some might even go, "what's a verse?"

This, more than anything else, is the reason that our Philippine Church is in chaos.  It does not help that some priests and religious who are supposed to be the ones promoting truth are the ones promoting dissent and rebellion through their own ignorance and pride.

The typical Filipino Catholic, being left on their own due to poor instruction and catechesis, is left to try to find the answers on their own.  Unfortunately inane "teachers" like the priests and religious who are too busy doing other things than actually teaching sound doctrine to their charges.

Left to their own devices, the youths are corrupted by ideas contrary to Christianity.  They daydream about freedom without responsibility, they reject apostolic authority and thus are lost when it comes to navigating the complexities of the Scriptures.  Easy prey for the pretended reformers.  Easy prey for dissenters and rebels and wolves in sheep's clothing.

Worst of all, when corrected by their elders and bishops, they even cry that they are bullied and compare themselves to Christ being persecuted by Pharisees.  They consider any attempt at correction as arrogance on the part of the corrector.  They think themselves "humble" and "searching for truth" when the painful part is that the Truth is already there in the form of the Gospel and the Church.

Back to me.I was graced that despite my inadequate religious instruction (in a Jesuit school, no less), I was able to find the truth after being introduced to the writings of the Fathers of the Church, of Scott Hahn, Karl Keating, Tim Staples, William G. Most and in college, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine.  I was saved from the inanity of Philippine Catholic pedagogal idiocy. It was from their writings that I learned the answers to my earlier questions, and sealed my current Catholic identity.  Heck, after reading Most, Hahn, Keating and Staples, I couldn't be protestant even if I wanted to.

Let's get serious about our faith and the instruction of our youths.  We need to take a long hard look at the religious instruction of our Catholic institutions. 

If ever I am in charge of the religious formation of youngsters, the authors I mentioned will be required reading.  No more of this complex philosophical gobbydegook.  Let's get to the basics.  The Life of Christ, Church history.  Apologetics.  Doctrinal development, Bible studies.  The catechism.

Let's get back to the roots of it all. And let's take our faith seriously this time.