Orthodox Christians accept both Old and New Testaments as authority for
their actions, whereas Modernists are not much concerned with the
commands of Jehovah but maintain that Jesus is the pattern for their
lives. Religious liberals feel that the troubles of the world come
largely from failure to follow the teachings of the Nazarene. They look
upon him as the perfect example of what a man should be. In their
opinion, if everyone would act as Jesus did all would be well.
On December 7, 1931, Dr. Henry Van Dyke preached at the Brick
Presbyterian Church, New York City, that the way to end the financial
depression was to act as Jesus would: "We can judge only by what he did
and said in the first century, an age not so different from our own, an
age of unsettlement, violence, drunkenness and license. Christ would
tell us not to yield to panic.... Christ would not tell us to join any
political party or social group...."
Such a sermon sounds encouraging but, as a matter of fact, Jesus has not
shown any of his ministers how to end the depression. To trust him for
guidance in our modern world is to pin faith on an incompetent
instructor. We can learn how to end the depression by examining the
records of our own time and by correcting the errors that have been
made. It is not safe to rely upon a person who had no knowledge of
America's practical needs and whose acts and advice regarding worldly
affairs in Jerusalem fell short of the best ethical values.
In this treatise it has been shown that Jesus made mistakes. Every
instance cited may not appeal to all readers as worthy of criticism, but
there can be no doubt in the mind of any honest thinker that several at
least of Jesus' ideas were erroneous. His theology was filled with
superstitions, his cosmology was that of the pre-scientific era, he
expected the end of the world within a generation, his conception of sin
was theological rather than ethical, he failed to convince his hearers
by his oratory, he exaggerated the results from prayer and he related
parables that gave a false sense of values.
Now we shall turn to his personal character and teachings to see if he
was always the meek, gentle soul portrayed by the conventional Christ.
_Cursing Nature_
The act in Jesus' life that has been most difficult for theologians to
explain was the cursing of the fig tree. The tree was created to bear
fruit in the Summer, but when Jesus found it without fruit in the
Spring, he cursed it so that it withered away.
"Now in the morning, as he returned into the city, and when he saw a fig
tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves
only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforth for ever.
And presently the fig tree withered away."[1] "For the time of figs was
not yet."[2]
This episode involves several mistakes--ignorance of the seasons;
destruction of a profitable food-producing tree; exhibition of temper
when thwarted, and giving false information regarding man's power to
effect physical changes by a curse.[3]
If Jesus acted unwisely in this one instance and was right in all
others, he is neither an infallible God nor a perfect pattern for
mankind.
_Forgiveness_
The conventional Jesus is emblematic of supreme kindness and
forgiveness, but in reality he was far from lenient in many instances,
nor did he advocate forgiveness for certain offenses.
"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee ... tell it unto
the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee
as a heathen man and a publican."[4]
In the parable of Dives and Lazarus, Abraham was represented as
justified in not forgiving the rich man tortured in hell, or even in
saving the rich man's brothers as requested by the victim of Jesus'
policy of punishment.
Again Jesus said: "Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also
deny before my Father."[5] "Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy
Ghost hath never forgiveness."[6]
All the wicked were condemned by Jesus to eternal punishment with no
chance of forgiveness.
_Vituperation_
Jesus was often vehement in his language to an extent hardly compatible
with gentleness of character.
"O generation of vipers! how can ye, being evil, speak good things?"[7]
"Woe unto you, hypocrites, for ye compass sea and land to make one
proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him two-fold more the child of
hell than yourselves."[8]
"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation
of hell?"[9]
"If I should say I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you."[10]
"All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers."[11]
"Ye fools and blind."[12]
This language may have been necessary, in Jesus' opinion, to convince
his hearers of their sins, but such vituperation does not become a
modern ethical teacher.
_Destruction of Property_
Two acts of Jesus, consistent with his disregard of worldly goods, were
destructive in character.
"And there was a good way off from them a herd of many swine feeding. So
the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go
away into the herd of swine. And he said unto them, Go. And when they
were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole
herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and
perished in the waters."[13]
Jesus did what the devils requested, cruelly killing two thousand
inoffensive valuable animals that belonged to other people.
"Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and found in the temple those that sold
oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: and when he
had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple,
and the sheep and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and
overthrew the tables."
Jesus has been defended for other acts on the ground that he was living
in less civilized times than our own, but here he is seen offending both
ancient and modern sensibilities. The destruction of the swine and the
routing of the merchants were sensational and erratic exhibitions. If
reformers today should destroy herds of animals, except to protect
public health by due process of law, or overthrow banks, they would be
liable to arrest in any city of Christendom. Therefore the consensus of
opinion denies exoneration to Jesus for his spasmodic resort to direct
action.
_Egotism_
If Jesus was not God, but merely the ideal man, his estimate of himself
was excessive. In addition to his remarks already quoted there are many
other instances of an exaggerated ego.
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife,
and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he
cannot be my disciple."[14]
"Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die."[15]
"If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."[16]
"I am the light of the world."[17]
"I am the Son of God."[18]
"I am the resurrection and the life."[19]
If Jesus was correct in claiming that he was the Messiah, if he could
control the elements and send people to heaven or hell, he was justified
in any extreme remarks; but not if he were merely a man. Every person is
entitled to have as good an opinion of himself as his character and
ability warrant, but expressions of his own worth are unseemly even if
true, and are inexcusable if exaggerated. As Jesus himself said (though
this authority is only for believers) testimony about oneself is
unreliable.
Jesus not only claimed to be more than a man, he threatened his hearers
with death if they did not agree with him. All of which might be
permissible if he were God, but was an egotistical illusion if he was
merely human.
_Lack of Courtesy_
Jesus did not always exhibit the courtesy one would expect of a
gentleman, or even of a nature's nobleman.
The first instance of lack of consideration was when he slipped away
from his parents, causing them unnecessary anxiety: "Son, why hast thou
thus dealt with us? behold thy father and I have sought thee
sorrowing."[20] He had remained behind to study Hebrew theology and did
not tell his parents, presumably because he thought they would not have
permitted the venture.
Another instance was found in his daily life:
"A certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and
sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had
not first washed before dinner. And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye
Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your
inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. Ye fools ..."[21]
Jesus had not only failed to wash as was expected of a guest, but
defended his uncleanliness and abused his host.
At another time Jesus was discourteous to his mother:
"And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They
have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with
thee?"[22]
Jesus was apparently annoyed at his mother's interference, though he
followed her suggestion. He did not set a good example for children in
addressing their mothers.
When the Syrophenician woman asked him to help her daughter, "Jesus
saith unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to
take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. And she
answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat
of the children's crumbs. And he said unto her, For this saying go thy
way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter."[23]
Jesus practically admitted that he had made a mistake in speaking
unkindly to a Gentile. Her clever answer induced him to change his
decision. A physician who called a stranger's child a dog would now be
considered brutal even in a free hospital.
"And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go
and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead
bury their dead."[24]
Jesus could have allowed the man to attend his father's funeral and
follow him later. Would not that have set a better precedent?
When Peter intervened to protect Jesus, the latter "turned, and said
unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me."[25]
Even though Jesus was determined to go on with the sacrifice, he could
have been more appreciative of his best friend's suggestion.
_Unethical Advice_
When the unjust steward cheated his employer, Jesus gave the following
remarkable advice:
"And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely:
for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the
children of light. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of
the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you
into everlasting habitations."[26]
This passage should be read again before deciding whether Jesus advised
opportunism rather than morality. The words must be taken as they are;
no interpretation can be based upon the assumption that Jesus was always
right and therefore meant something different from what he said.
_Sermon on the Mount_
Many Christians say that they care nothing for theology; that the Sermon
on the Mount contains all that is necessary for a religious life, being
a perfect system of ethics.
The Sermon on the Mount does contain many admirable principles, but also
some that are inferior to present standards. Few of the people who
praise this Sermon would think it proper to abide by all the teachings
therein. Christian parents do not wish their children to follow either
the letter or the spirit of this famous preachment. It begins in the
fifth chapter of Matthew.
"Blessed are the poor in spirit." Is it better to be poor in spirit than
rich and eager in spirit? Being poor in spirit is to be faint of heart.
This is bad advice, is it not?
"Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted." This means
that those who mourn on earth will be comforted in heaven; but now that
life on earth has assumed greater importance, so far as our daily
conduct is concerned, than life in heaven, the philosophy of gloom is
unfortunate. Jesus preached acceptance of unhappiness as the common lot
of man; he should not therefore be credited with providing happiness on
earth. His urge to rejoice was usually in anticipation of good things to
come in the next world. He preached sorrow for all here rather than the
greater happiness for the greater number.
"There shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes in divers
places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver
you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all
nations for my name's sake ... and because iniquity shall abound, the
love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the
same shall be saved."[27]
"Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh."[28]
The beatitude, "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth"
is of doubtful accuracy or value.
The commands to pluck out an eye or cut off a hand may not have been
intended literally, although it does appear as if Jesus referred to the
physical body, and men have often so interpreted these doubtful
instructions.
Jesus said that "Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth
adultery", which is no longer true. Those who permit remarriage after
divorce should admit an error on Jesus' part.
"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil." This instruction should
be reversed, should it not? Evil should be resisted in every possible
way that does not involve evil in itself. What modern ethical teacher
will say that evil should not be resisted, or that this advice of Jesus
was perfection? If his instruction was intended to refer to physical
resistance, then no righteous person should fight in any war, no police
should be delegated to arrest criminals. If the phrase has merely a
spiritual meaning, it is certainly unsound advice, for evil should be
overcome by good.
A fanatical attitude towards the law was recommended when Jesus said:
"If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him
have thy cloak also." Extreme generosity and non-resistance are taught,
but the illustration was not well thought out, for if the man had
already won his suit and taken the coat, it is evident that the owner of
the coat had put up a legal fight instead of giving away his coat and
cloak as Jesus implies he should. Yielding more than a legal opponent
wins in court is not compatible with defending the suit, nor is it a
principle that would meet the approval of most of Jesus' followers
today.
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
perfect." If Jesus referred to Jehovah as his Father in heaven, the
standard of perfection advocated was very low, for Jehovah was, as
Thomas Jefferson put it, "cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust."
The Lord's Prayer is not the simple, clear, devotional petition that is
usually supposed. Take it literally, as was undoubtedly intended, and
its irrelevance to actual life is at once apparent.
"Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." This is a proper
invocation only if there is a heaven in which God's will is done. None
such has been discovered.
"Give us this day our daily bread" indicates that God would not give our
daily sustenance without being asked, whereas there is no apparent
distinction in actual living between those who pray for bread and those
who do not.
"And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors" intimates that
divine forgiveness is not to be superior to that of men.
"And lead us not into temptation"--as if God were anxious to lead us
there and would be deterred by our prayer.
It may seem like petty cavil to criticize the prayer that has been
acclaimed for many centuries as ideal, but, seriously, what valuable
principle for guidance through life does the Lord's Prayer contain? Do
its requests represent the best modern conception of prayer as an inward
aspiration rather than as petitionary? Is it not vain repetition to
recite it again and again?
The general idea of offering prayer in order to obtain various needs
presents the difficulty of reconciling the conception of an omnipotent,
all-foreseeing God with the contradictory theory of a Father who
requires prayer before caring for his children, an almighty God who will
be turned from his course by human petitions. Man can do wonders in the
way of conquering nature, but he has not been able to alter natural
laws, nor is there any evidence that such laws have been changed at any
time in answer to prayer.
If the Lord's Prayer is not essential for man's welfare in the world, we
may conclude that Jesus over-emphasized its importance.
One of the most important portions of the Sermon on the Mount is the
advice regarding worldly possessions. Nothing in the teaching of Jesus
is more definite than his instructions regarding wealth. He strikes an
admirable note when he says, "What is a man profited if he gain the
whole world and lose his own soul? ... A man's life consisteth not in
the abundance of the things which he possesseth." This general principle
is sadly needed in the modern money-seeking world, but the teachings of
Jesus on economics go much further, far beyond anything the best people
of today are willing to follow.
"Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall
drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on ... Take therefore no
thought for the morrow."[29]
These commands, taken literally as Jesus intended, would lead to
infinite trouble. Men are obliged to take thought for the morrow; if
they do not they will fail to survive. In Jesus' plan provision for the
earthly future was of no importance because of the imminence of eternal
life, but now it is considered one's duty to provide for old age.
This mistake of Jesus cannot be explained away by saying that Jesus was
right and that man falls short of the counsel of perfection given by
the Master. No, there are few indeed who will say that it would be right
to shape their financial life as Jesus advised. If they do not believe
it right to follow his instructions, definite as they are on this
subject, they must admit that he was wrong. Either thrift is now
unrighteous, or Jesus is not a dependable guide for modern life.
The following instructions have little meaning now except for Roman
Catholics. "But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy head, and wash thy
face, that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which
is in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee
openly."
Another portion of the Sermon holds out false hopes that cannot be
substantiated: "For everyone that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh
findeth." Is there any virtue in thus deceiving the people regarding the
possibilities of prayer?
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do
ye even so to them." This is the famous Golden Rule that has been
heralded as one of the most original portions of Jesus' teachings. But
Jesus admitted that he did not first state this rule when he said, "for
this is the law and the prophets."[30]
Confucius, born in 551 B.C., several times announced the rule, "What you
do not like when done to yourself, do not to others." This negative
statement is less effective than the Jewish rule, but both are admirable
regardless of who first formulated them. The Golden Rule is as valuable
coming from the Hebrew fathers as if Jesus had originated it.
The Golden Rule, however, is not perfect. It is one of the best rules of
the ancients, showing the desirability of reciprocity, but it does not
demand that our desires be always just, nor does it insure that what we
want done to ourselves will always be what others most need. It would be
consistent with the Golden Rule for a convivial man to entertain his
prohibition friends at a speakeasy, or for a Catholic to take his
atheist guests to daily mass. Possibly an even better rule than judging
others by ourselves would be to do unto others what best pleases them.
_Inconsistency_
"The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by
whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had
not been born."[31]
Apparently the arrangement between Jehovah and Jesus was that Jesus
should not give himself up as a sacrifice voluntarily but should be
betrayed by someone else; and yet, although the betrayal was desired,
the man who assisted was to be condemned.
The sacrificial plan for salvation was continued to the end in order
that "the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled."[32] The
scriptures were Jewish, so this is additional proof that Jesus, rejected
by the Jews, considered himself the predicted Jewish Messiah. While the
Jews expected a Messiah, there is no clear prediction of Jesus in the
Old Testament.
_Fear_
Jesus said, "Be not afraid of them that kill the body"; but when
threatened with bodily injury himself, he was afraid. "Then took they up
stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself."[33] "Then the Pharisees
went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.
But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence."[34]
This avoidance of physical injury may have been due to a desire to
postpone his end until the proper time, as indicated by "Mine hour is
not yet come", but when the time did come, Jesus did not bear his
approaching death bravely, as Socrates did when about to drink the cup
of hemlock. Jesus was much afraid, "and prayed, saying, Father, if thou
be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless, not my will but thine
be done."[35]
He was resolved to go through with the painful experience at any cost
but was much more frightened than many a mortal man, though he had a
greater cause to sustain him than martyrs who have suffered
uncomplainingly; for he believed that his sacrifice would save the
world: "and there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening
him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was
as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."[36]
After saying, "The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified
... He that loveth his life shall lose it", he again showed terror: "Now
is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this
hour, but for this cause came I unto this hour."[37]
It is to be noted that God did not answer the prayer of Jesus, though
Jesus had said that God would always answer prayers in his name. Jesus
recognized his failure to obtain the answer, saying on the cross, "My
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"[38]
_Failure_
Many a good man is a failure from a worldly point of view, but failure
is not what one would wish to copy. Jesus sought to save the world.
Surely no one looking at the world today can say that he succeeded. His
plan of salvation was a failure; it did not work out as Jehovah and
Jesus intended. An ideal teacher is needed now almost as much as two
thousand years ago. If the world is gradually improving, as seems
probable, it is in spite of the superstitions of the past, not because
of them.
At one time Jesus denied his own perfection, saying: "Why callest thou
me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."[39]
Christian parents who hold Jesus up to their children as a paragon would
not wish their sons to grow up to be just like Jesus. He is not an
acceptable prototype.
Jesus did not provide the knowledge so much needed by man to enable him
to shape his course through life. No one knows how to live correctly,
how best to meet each situation, what action is suited to the occasion.
Jesus did not tell us what to do. His sayings are interpreted in many
different ways. He failed to predict the needs of the future.
Jesus did not explain relations between man and wife, nor between
employer and employee, nor how to educate children, nor how to preserve
health, nor how to make a living, nor how to prevent war, poverty and
suffering. Jesus gave little practical information, and his spiritual
advice was not clearly enough expressed to enable man to apply it to
modern conditions. Jesus neglected to instruct people how to live. His
knowledge of the world was less than that of the average American
citizen.