In a number of instances the teachings of Jesus are so incomplete, or so
inappropriate, as to render no assistance in meeting similar situations
in modern life. Either his meaning is not clear, or his instructions are
too primitive to be applicable to our civilization.
_Labor_
The relation between employer and employee is one that requires
practical guidance. Let us see what information Jesus gave on this
important subject.
The parable of the laborers[1] relates that an employer hired men to
work in his vineyard for twelve hours for a penny, and that he paid the
same wage to other workers who toiled only nine, six, three and one
hour. When those who had worked longest resented this treatment, as
modern strikers would, the employer answered, apparently with Jesus'
approval: "Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for
a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this
last, even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with
mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? So the last shall be
first, and the first last."
This parable may be a comfort to autocratic employers, sustaining them
in their determination to dominate labor, but the principles enunciated
are lacking in social vision. Equal pay for unequal work is approved,
and the employer is vindicated in regulating wages and hours as he sees
fit without regard for justice or the needs of the workers. In the
manner of modern employers, the "goodman" calls his worker "Friend" but
treats him with contempt. Jesus taught that the workers were wrong in
demanding justice, that the employer was justified in acting
erratically, as the money paid was his. He presented the issues between
capital and labor and sided with capital. He stated the fact that the
first shall be last, but said nothing to remedy that unfortunate
situation. He did not explain how workers could obtain proper
compensation for their labor.
Jesus assumed a fair attitude when he said, "The labourer is worthy of
his hire", and, "It is enough for the disciple to be as his master, and
the servant as his lord", but he continued with doubtful logic: "If they
have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they
call them of his household", implying that if an employer is
worldly-minded his servants will be even worse.
Little respect is shown for employees in the remark, "The hireling
fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep."[2]
Probably in those days as now many an employee stuck to his post nobly
to do his duty.
The meaning is obscure in his other comment upon an employer who told
his tired servant to serve his master first, ending with the enigma, "We
are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to
do."[3]
_Usury_
In the parable of the talents the servant who did not put his money out
at usury to make profits was condemned: "And cast ye the unprofitable
servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of
teeth."[4] Punishment was to be severe in Jesus' program; the
disobedient servant "shall be beaten with many stripes." Jesus did not
advise leniency in such instances except that "he that knew not, and did
commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes."[5]
In his estimation the servant was a slave to be punished corporeally by
his master, even if ignorant of his wrong-doing.
A Dr. Taylor, former Yale College theologian, is reported to have said:
"I have no doubt that if Jesus Christ were now on earth he would, under
certain circumstances, become a slaveholder." A Southern divine in 1860
could well maintain that slavery was approved in both Old and New
Testaments, but no Christian would now impute slaveholding to Jesus. The
standard of human relationships has improved since slaveholding days in
America. The modern attitude toward servants, though by no means
perfect, is superior to the relationships between master and servants
accepted by Jesus. Slavery was the custom of the times and Jesus did not
rise above it.
In the parable of the unmerciful servant[6] Jesus taught the duty of
forgiveness. He rightly rebuked the servant who oppressed his
subordinates after being well treated by his lord. But the punishment
suggested by Jesus for the abominable conduct was extremely harsh: "And
his lord was wroth and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should
pay all that was due unto him." Torture for criminals was thus taught by
Jesus.
Jesus, apprenticed to his father in his youth, never did any practical
work so far as we know. He lived on the charity of others, setting an
example that would bring trouble to anyone who followed in his train. If
anything, he was an agitator, a peripatetic propagandist, teaching what
he believed right but not working to support himself and therefore not
being a good example for the workaday world today.
_Economics_
Nothing in the teachings of Jesus was more definite than his
denunciation of riches.
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth ... A rich man shall
hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven ... It is easier for a camel to
go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the
kingdom of God ... The rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell
he lifted up his eyes, being in torments ... Woe unto you that are
rich."
These strictures upon the rich appear somewhat severe, and Jesus went
much farther, condemning even ordinary thrift and precaution.[7]
According to Acts ii, 44-45 and iv, 32, "All that believed were together
and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and
parted them to all men, as every man had need ... Neither said any of
them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they
had all things common."
It is to be presumed that the disciples practiced this communism at the
instruction of Jesus. If Jesus approved of communism was he right or
wrong?
"Blessed be ye poor."[8]
Poverty is not a blessing but a curse. Jesus taught the theory that the
poor would be rich hereafter while the rich would be in hell.
_Punishment for Debts_
We have seen that Jesus expected an unjust servant to be tormented until
he paid in full. There are also other evidences that he approved of
imprisonment for debt. "Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou
art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to
the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast
into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out
thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing."[9]
A legislator who patterned his life after Jesus would be justified in
enacting laws imprisoning for debt and scourging for misdemeanors.
Some may say that the sentiments expressed by Jesus were not mistakes
but merely presented the customs of his day. Possibly he did not intend
to advise all that he seemed to approve; but if Jesus was a practical
and prophetic guide he should have made it clear that he did not
sanction the actions he apparently commended.
In the parable of the pounds the nobleman, seemingly with the approval
of Jesus, denounced the servant as wicked who did not put his lord's
money in the bank to draw interest.[10] And in the parable of the
talents the lord rewarded those who had made 100 per cent profit through
speculation.[11]
Another contradiction of his theory of the blessedness of poverty was
his promise that those who followed him "shall receive a hundredfold now
in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and
children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal
life."[12]
Finally, Jesus stated the unfortunate truth, "Whosoever hath, to him
shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath
not, from him shall be taken even that he hath."[13] If Jesus did not
approve of that worldly method of distribution, he could have denounced
its injustice instead of leaving the comment as if it expressed his own
policy.
_Healing_
Many Christians value Jesus most for his healing powers, but Jesus
looked upon disease almost as he did upon demoniacal possession, as
something evil that could be cast out. "But that ye may know that the
Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins (then saith he to the
sick of the palsy) Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thine house."[14]
There was confusion in his mind between sin and sickness.
Jesus healed leprosy and palsy by touching the sick person; he healed
the servant of the centurion by absent treatment, and restored sight by
spitting on the eyes[15] or anointing them with clay made with
spittle[16], or by requiring faith.[17] He healed a withered hand, cured
impediments in speech and deafness, all without medical applications,
even replacing an ear severed by a sword.[18]
Christian Scientists practice the same methods with confidence in
success, but medical and surgical treatment are the most reliable means
of effecting cures, disappointing as they are. If Jesus could cure
disease, it was remiss of him not to instruct men definitely in his
methods so that the suffering from illness that has afflicted the world
could have been averted.
Jesus did not isolate the germ of leprosy, or establish any practicable
method of preventing disease. He has been of less value to the world as
a healer than Pasteur, Lister, Koch, or Walter Reed.
Some Christians will say that Jesus did not tell us how to avoid illness
because man needs to be chastened by pain. If that is correct, if pain
and disease are sent by God and are consciously permitted by Jesus, sick
people should be allowed to suffer instead of trying to heal them.
_Peace_
Jesus has been called the Prince of Peace, but the weight of his
testimony is not on the side of absolute pacifism. With his view of
rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, it is possible that
he would have advised young men to obey the state and enlist, or accept
the draft, whenever their country called.
On November 12, 1931, Rev. Dr. T. Andrew Caraker said at a banquet of
the American Legion in Baltimore that if Jesus Christ had lived in 1917
He would have been the first to volunteer in the American army, the
first to wear a gas mask, shoulder a rifle and enter the trenches.
Other ministers derive from the same gospels the belief that Jesus would
not have stabbed Germans with a bayonet. Nor would Jesus have advised
others to fight if he had been unwilling to fight himself.
Most of the sayings of Jesus regarding violence or non-resistance were
intended to apply chiefly to personal relationships; he said little of
international strife. What he did say showed placid acceptance of the
war system:
"And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not
troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not
yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against
kingdom."[19]
"And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled:
for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet. For nation
shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom."[20]
"But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for
these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by. Then
said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against
kingdom."[21]
These verses have a more direct bearing on war as we now know it than
any of his other sayings. They show his belief in the inevitability of
war. Apparently he did not feel himself competent to counteract general
mass militarism. He offered no program for arbitration of international
disputes, no substitute for war between nations, no policy of war
resistance.
When Jesus advised non-resistance, saying to his follower, "Put up again
thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish
with the sword,"[22] he was merely stating the danger of using violence,
not the immorality of employing force. In fact, he commanded his
disciples to take the very sword which he later told them to sheathe:
"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one ... And
they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It
is enough."[23]
Thus Jesus, the supposed non-resistant, prepared his followers with
swords. These swords were for defense, and when the time came he
repudiated even that use of the weapons, but, nevertheless, he armed his
disciples instead of adhering to his principle of non-resistance. He did
not set a positive example of disarmament.
Jesus said: "Blessed are the peacemakers ... love your enemies ... Have
peace one with another ... On earth peace, good will toward men ...
Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you ... These things have I
spoken unto you that in me ye might have peace ... Resist not evil: but
whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other
also."
Other remarks of Jesus favored violence: "Think not that I am come to
send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."[24]
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but
rather division."[25] "But those mine enemies, which would not that I
should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."[26] "My
kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then
would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the
Jews."[27] "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in
peace: but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome
him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth
his spoils."[28] "And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he
drove them all out of the temple."[29]
In determining whether or not Jesus was a promoter of peace it is only
reasonable to review everything that he said or did relating to the use
of violence, giving equal weight to every verse. We cannot accept one
statement and reject the others. The conclusion reached must be that
Jesus was inconsistent in advocating both non-resistance and the use of
force. He took diametrically opposed positions, the use of swords and
scourges and non-resistance being mutually exclusive. Jesus preached
non-resistance and at the same time armed his retainers with two swords.
He advocated turning the other cheek but did not criticize war.
Therefore, pacifists and militarists, with their opposite philosophies,
should both admit that at times Jesus was mistaken.
_Marriage_
Jesus occasionally eulogized marriage: "For this cause shall a man leave
father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be
one flesh ... What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put
asunder."[30]
_Celibacy_
On other occasions he made remarks which indicated his preference for
celibacy as the higher state, the one he adopted for himself. "In the
resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as
the angels of God in heaven."[31] "The children of this world marry, and
are given in marriage: but they which shall be accounted worthy to
obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry,
nor are given in marriage."[32] "I say unto you, That whosoever looketh
on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in
his heart."[33] "There are some eunuchs which were so born from their
mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of
men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the
kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive
it."[34] "There is no man that hath left ... wife, or children for the
kingdom of God's sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this
present time, and in the world to come life everlasting."[35]
Jesus referred to the absence of marriage in heaven, the ideal realm.
Paul's testimony adds to the evidence that Jesus considered celibacy
preferable to any form of sex expression, even marriage.
_Adultery_
On the other hand, Jesus was tolerant of sex offenses. He chatted in a
friendly manner with the woman of Samaria, saying: "Thou hast had five
husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband."[36] And about
the woman taken in adultery he said: "He that is without sin among you,
let him first cast a stone at her ... Neither do I condemn thee: go and
sin no more."[37] "The harlots go into the kingdom of God before
you."[38]
_Divorce_
Jesus sanctioned divorce. His followers are so annoyed at this fact that
they frequently quote the verse on the subject with the offensive clause
omitted. The text reads: "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away
his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you,
That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of
fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry
her that is divorced committeth adultery."[39] Again in Matthew xix, 9,
he makes the same exception. It is evident, therefore, that Jesus
permitted divorce for one cause. If the wife was unfaithful the husband
could divorce her, but otherwise no matter how unhappy the couple might
be, they must remain married.
The admirable leniency of Jesus toward sex offenders, and his permission
to divorce, must seem like mistakes to churchmen who consider
extramarital sex relations the unforgivable sin. And everyone must see
the danger of having our judges adopt as a principle of justice the
dismissal of offenders on the ground that the prosecutors have also
sinned.
A Christian girl of today would not be encouraged by the most zealous
religious parents to marry a man exactly like Jesus.
_Faulty Judgment_
Jesus selected Judas to be the treasurer of the apostles' joint funds,
but later admitted his error, saying: "Have I not chosen you twelve, and
one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for
it was he that should betray him, being one of the twelve."[40]
Jesus erroneously supposed that "salvation is of the Jews."[41] "Go not
into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter
ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."[42] A
nationalistic and partial spirit is expressed in these sentences, a
spirit that has been followed to the extent that Jesus would not be
permitted to enter America if he applied for a visa.
_Unconvincing_
Jesus failed in his mission to save the world. He made the supreme
sacrifice in vain. His method of proving his divinity did not convince
his hearers: "But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet
they believed not on him."[43] "For neither did his brethren believe in
him."[44] After he had healed many, cast out unclean spirits and
appointed his twelve apostles to do likewise, his friends "went out to
lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself."[45]
Jesus admitted his impotence as a human being when he said, "I can of
mine own self do nothing."[46] Even with the assistance of his Father he
did not accomplish what he set out to do.
_Prohibition_
The miracle of turning water into wine, providing one hundred gallons of
wine after the people at the party had "well drunk", must appear to
prohibitionists like a mistake on the part of Jesus. Many Methodists
and Baptists would have preferred to have him turn the wine into water;
yet they will not admit that Jesus made a mistake.
_Lack of Experience_
So far as the gospels relate, Jesus never had any experience with three
of the chief difficulties of human life--sex, earning a living and
illness. He was therefore less able to explain those relationships than
one who has struggled through in the customary manner of mankind. To
take the inexperienced Jesus as our guide in practical living would be
like a traveller who was planning a trip over perilous mountains and
engaged as a guide a man who had never crossed the mountains.
As Jesus believed that the end of the world was approaching, and as he
revealed no information about the future, his teachings should be taken
as applying solely to his own time. A divinity living now would preach
far differently from the inadequate doctrines of Jesus.
* * * * *
The abandonment of reliance upon a Jesus who has not changed in nineteen
hundred years, in favor of an Evolutionary philosophy that requires
constant change, leads to a new conception of the world and its
possibilities for man. A person who has thought himself out of
antiquated theology may be expected to have an open mind towards the
betterment of human customs.
Every improvement in human relationships originates secularly and is
adopted by the Church only after a bitter struggle. Faith in Jesus is a
reactionary force. The Christian opposes change in the creations of God;
the Evolutionist seeks to alter every unsatisfactory condition. The
Evolutionist is more responsive than the orthodox Christian to proposals
for promoting the happiness of the human race. Many liberals have
abandoned conservatism because they saw the hypocrisy in Christianity.