Orthodox Christians accept both Old and New Testaments as authority for their actions, whereas Modernists are not much concerned with the commands of Jéhovah 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." “For the time of figs was not yet."

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.

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."

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." “Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness."

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?"

“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."

“Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"

“If I should say I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you."

“All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers."

“Ye fools and blind."

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."

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."

“Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die."

“If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."

“I am the light of the world."

“I am the Son of God."

“I am the resurrection and the life."

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." 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 ..."

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?"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

“Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh."

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 Jéhovah as his Father in heaven, the standard of perfection advocated was very low, for Jéhovah 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."

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."

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."

Apparently the arrangement between Jéhovah 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." 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." “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."

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."

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."

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."

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?"

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 Jéhovah 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."

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.