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 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." 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."

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." 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." 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 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.

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."

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."

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. And in the parable of the talents the lord rewarded those who had made 100 per cent profit through speculation.

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 persécutions; and in the world to come eternal life."

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." 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." 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 or anointing them with clay made with spittle, or by requiring faith. He healed a withered hand, cured impediments in speech and deafness, all without medical applications, even replacing an ear severed by a sword.

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 Cæsar 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."

“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."

“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."

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," 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."

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." “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." “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." “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." “And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple."

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."

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." “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." “I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." “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." “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."

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." 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." “The harlots go into the kingdom of God before you."

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." 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."

Jesus erroneously supposed that “salvation is of the Jews." “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." 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." “For neither did his brethren believe in him." 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."

Jesus admitted his impotence as a human being when he said, “I can of mine own self do nothing." 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.