The Mistakes of Jesus Part 5

[15] Matt. v, 16.

[16] Matt. vi, 1.

[17] Matt. v, 17-18.

[18] John xvi, 8-11.

[19] John xvi, 25.

[20] Luke viii, 10.

[21] Mark iv, 11-12.

DEFICIENT INSTRUCTIONS

In a number of instances the teachings of Jesus are so incomplete, or so inappropriate, as to render no a.s.sistance 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 a.s.sumed a fair att.i.tude 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 n.o.bly 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 gnas.h.i.+ng 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 circ.u.mstances, 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 relations.h.i.+ps has improved since slaveholding days in America. The modern att.i.tude toward servants, though by no means perfect, is superior to the relations.h.i.+ps 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 G.o.d ... The rich man also died, and was buried; and in h.e.l.l 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 h.e.l.l.

_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 n.o.bleman, 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 G.o.d and are consciously permitted by Jesus, sick people should be allowed to suffer instead of trying to heal them.

_Peace_