The Real Jesus of the Four Gospels Part 9

a.s.suming there is to be ascribed to the modern Sunday the same sanct.i.ty as a holy day that should be accorded to the Sabbath which Jesus observed, His views on the proper observance of the day are summed up in the one sentence: "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark II:27).

The basic idea of the old Puritan Sunday was the direct opposite of that of Jesus. Following the old Mosaic law, which Jesus combatted, the Puritans planned their celebration of the day for the "honor and glory"

of G.o.d, and not for the benefit of man. Conceiving this _G.o.d_, not as a loving Father, but as a stern, austere Judge, who, according to Jonathan Edwards, had reserved the bulk of mankind for burning, who demanded "sacrifice" and not "mercy," and was therefore to be propitiated and placated, the Puritan ministers succeeded, while they had the power, in imposing on their congregations a most atrocious travesty of the Sabbath of Jesus. Religious services were piled up like Pelion on Ossa, and every movement of the day was marked by gloom and austerity. No wonder that William Lloyd Garrison said of the observance of Sunday at a much later date: "The Sabbath, as now recognized and enforced, is one of the main pillars of priest-craft and superst.i.tion, and the stronghold of merely ceremonial religion."

Jesus did not object to the Jewish observance of the Sabbath on the ground that it was too "lax" (to use a modern term), but on just the opposite ground--that certain of their restrictions on man's freedom of action on that day were unnecessary. But the Sabbath of that time, as the Jews celebrated it, and as, from all the accounts in the four Gospels, Jesus celebrated it, was a day of joyous rest and recreation, and in no sense a day of spiritual maceration.

"The same character of cheerfulness, of happy rest from the toil and turmoil of the world's business; of quiet and peaceful return unto one's self; of joyous communion with friends and kindred over good cheer--in short, of mental and bodily relaxation and recreation that strengthens, braces, pacifies, and maketh the heart glad, while the sublime ideas which it symbolizes are recalled to the memory at every step and turn seems to have prevailed at all times down to our own, among the Jews."

"Suffice it to reiterate that in every cla.s.s, every age and every variety of Jews, from first to last, the Sabbath has been absolutely a day of joy and happiness, nay, of dancing, of singing, of eating and drinking, and of luxury."

International Cyclopaedia, Sabbath, Vol. XII, p. 857.

This is the kind of a Sabbath which the Gospels picture Jesus as celebrating, attending feasts in the houses of His friends, walking in the fields with His disciples, or meeting with them in public places, and healing the sick when occasion offered (Matt. XII:1; Mark II:23; Luke VI:1; Luke XIV:1; John V:1, 2, 9; IX:1, 14).

Hard as it may be for Anglo-Saxon prejudice to admit, yet it seems to be true, that the Spanish Sunday--ma.s.s in the morning and a bull-fight in the afternoon--is nearer than the Puritan Sunday to Jesus' ideas of the proper observance of the day, although He would probably approve, as little as we do, that particular form of amus.e.m.e.nt.

There is at the present time a strong and perhaps growing tendency towards enacting Sunday Blue Laws. By this is meant legislation restricting man's freedom of action on that day, which is based, not on any benefit to the individual or society, but on the old Mosaic idea of the supposed sanct.i.ty of the day--that it is holy to the Lord and He will be pleased by a ceremonial observance of it, different from other days.

Insofar as the professed followers of Jesus urge the enactment of such Blue Laws, it seems clear that they are not following Jesus, but going contrary to His precept and example.

(g) TEMPERANCE vs. PROHIBITION

There can be no possible doubt as to the position of Jesus on this question.

At the outset of His prophetic career, He drew the line sharply between Himself and John the Baptist in this matter.

John drank no wine and practiced fasting.

Jesus drank wine and condemned ceremonial fasting.

Each by word and example inculcated these different ideas on his respective followers (Matt. XI:18, 19; Luke V:33).[62]

At the marriage in Cana, He furnishes wine for the guests when the supply runs out (John II:1, 2). In His instructions to His apostles He tells them to eat and _drink_ such things as are set before them (Luke X:7). He uses wine in the celebration of the Last Supper, and promises His apostles to drink with them of the "fruit of the vine" in heaven (Matt. XXVI:29; Mark XIV:25; Luke XXII:18, 30).

When Mahomet appeared, he followed the example of John the Baptist, and prohibited the drinking of wine. Since his time, on two points the line has always been sharply drawn between the Gospel of Jesus and that of Mahomet. The orthodox Christian could eat pork and drink wine, while the orthodox Mohammedan could do neither.

The majority of professed Christians have presumably supported the recent prohibition legislation in the United States. In so doing, they are not following Jesus, but going directly contrary to His precept and example. They are in effect saying that, on this point, Mahomet knew better than Jesus what was for the best good of the human race.

(h) SACRIFICE vs. MERCY

Under the term "sacrifice," Jesus included all ceremonial religious worship, and tried constantly to impress on His followers that this was not the offering pleasing to G.o.d, but, rather, deeds of mercy (Matt.

IX:13; XXIII:23).

Realizing how strong is the tendency in human nature to impute to itself righteousness on account of its "t.i.thes of mint and anise and c.u.mmin,"

He carried His condemnation of ceremonies into the smallest details.

This is well ill.u.s.trated by His enjoining His apostles not to wash before eating (Matt. XV:1, 2 and 20; Luke XI:37, 38). As He states, His objection was not to washing in itself, but because the Pharisees had made a religious ceremony of it.

Simplicity is the marked characteristic of all Jesus' acts of devotion.

While it was His custom to preach in the synagogue on the Sabbath day, yet, so far as appears in the four Gospels, Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, Luke's Sermon on the Plain, the Lord's Prayer, and most of Jesus'

important discourses were delivered, not in the synagogue and on the Sabbath day, but wherever time and place suited His convenience--from a ship, on a mountain, on a plain, in His own house, etc. (Matt. V:1; X:1; XII:2; XVIII:1; XXIII:1; XXIV:3; Mark IV:1; X:1; Luke V:3; VI:17; X:1; XI:1; XII:1; John III:2; IX:40; XII:22, 23; XIV; XV; XVI; XVII).

To demonstrate how far modern Christianity has traveled from the ideas of Jesus, it is only necessary to attend some ceremonial service in an Episcopalian or Catholic Cathedral, or some protracted prayer meeting of one of the Evangelical denominations.

Out of the fruitful field of Pauline theology, there sprang, even within a few centuries after the Crucifixion, a plentiful crop of the direst evils that have ever afflicted mankind--creeds and definitions of belief. Fortunately, disputatious theologians are now limited to the weapons of pen and ink, but in the Middle Ages oceans of blood were spilt over these religious quarrels.

If we could suppose the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the Thirty-nine Articles, or the Augsburg Confession to be submitted to Jesus for His approval, it is easy to imagine the substance of His answer: "I don't know what all this stuff means. I do not understand your terms--pre-destination, fore-ordination, trans-substantiation, infant d.a.m.nation, etc. There is nothing here that I ever preached. I have given you a simple standard of righteousness, which every one can understand and follow, viz., right living. Have you forgotten my saying, that 'all the law and the prophets were contained in the two commandments to 'Love the Lord thy G.o.d with all thy heart,' and to 'love thy neighbor as thyself' (Matt. XXII:37-40). These creeds of yours may be true, or partly true, or wholly false. But the important fact for you to remember is, that they are unnecessary to salvation--are non-essentials. If this sort of logomachy pleases you as an intellectual exercise, well and good, if it goes no further. But, beware that, in following this _ignis fatuus_, you do not neglect the only one main essential to G.o.d's favor--'to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy G.o.d.'"

CONCLUSION

The Great War has brought about a wondrous upheaval in the society of the world. Nearly every phase of mental and physical activity in man is in a process of transformation. Government, religion, labor, pleasure, business, finance, international relations--all are on a shifting basis, seeking readjustment to new ideas and new conditions. To cling to worn-out conceptions of life--to worn-out ideas and phrases is mere folly. These new problems can only be met and settled with a "_tabula rasa_." We must wipe out the old prejudices, the old accepted canons, and above all the old hypocrisies and cant.

If Christianity is to be a living, efficient force in the coming readjustment, it must cleanse itself of some of these old barnacles of hypocrisy now clinging to it. Not that hypocrisy will be less prevalent under the new regime than under the old. Human nature will remain essentially the same, but it will demand new forms of hypocrisy. The specious, shallow reasoning of the charlatan, the fulsome adulation and extravagant promises of the demagogue, and other forms of humb.u.g.g.e.ry will still attract their thousands. Patient merit will still suffer its many spurns from the unworthy. But the followers of Jesus, if they will throw overboard their useless ecclesiastical and theological lumber, and return to the simple teachings and example of the Great Teacher, are sure to win.

The first and most important matter is to get rid of the hypocrisy of war. War is the most direful menace to the happiness and prosperity of mankind and, notwithstanding the bitter lessons of the Great War, little progress has been made towards averting it in the future.

And no permanent progress in that direction will be made until the Christian peoples of the world reject, root and branch, such views of national wars as are expressed by the late President Roosevelt in the quotations from his works already given (see (a) War, _supra_). The underlying principle of this war philosophy is the same as that of the modern Germans, Treitschke, Nietzsche and Bernhardi, except that they express themselves with more brutal frankness. It was preached long ago by Machiavelli, Francis Bacon, Hobbes, Eichte, Hegel and others. It is in substance that the State, although all its component units are sincere followers of Jesus, should not be governed by any moral laws in its dealings with other States. The State can do no wrong. It should pursue its ends with utter, callous selfishness, and its only law is that might makes right.

President Roosevelt has been quoted, because, in his views, he unquestionably voiced the sentiments of the great majority of past and present Americans. If this be true, should we not look for the beam in our own eye, before we criticize Germany for starting the Great War? She was simply applying the law that might makes right, except that she underestimated the might of the enemies she was arraying against herself. If she had been successful (as she probably would have been except for the unexpected valor and self-sacrifice of the Belgians), would she have been any worse sinner (barring some barbarous details of her warfare) than the United States with its condonation and approval of the Mexican and Spanish wars? Both of these were wars of aggression against weaker nations, and the Mexican war, at least, is admitted on all hands to have been morally unjustifiable, even by such stalwart Americans as President Roosevelt. More than a hundred years ago, a distinguished admiral of the United States Navy is reported to have said: "Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong." Now, this is a high-sounding phrase and is a great refuge for Jingo politicians when they have precipitated the country into an unrighteous war. But before the bar of Jesus it is the veriest clap-trap. The sincere follower of Jesus should insist that we be sure we are right in the first instance, and, if it is discovered that we have been misled into a by-way of wrong and injustice, that we get back at once to the straight and narrow way of right and justice.

Our churches must denounce these Rooseveltian doctrines early and late, as a perversion of Jesus' laws. They must insist that opposition to wars becomes a service of the heart and not of the lip. They must mould us into a nation of sincere "conscientious objectors," condemning all wars as un-Christian, judging every aggressive war as _prima facie_ unjustifiable, and insisting that the advocates of any war prove the justness of their cause beyond a reasonable doubt. Let our politicians and leaders understand that if they plunge us into an unjust war, they are to be punished, and not rewarded by the Presidency, as was Roosevelt after the Spanish war, and Taylor after the Mexican war. How many of our wars would have lacked advocates, if they had been obliged to plead their cause under the principles of the Sermon on the Mount?

As long as the people of the United States are animated by, and their conduct based on, the war philosophy of Roosevelt, it is hard to see how any League of Nations could be anything but a farce--a mere "sc.r.a.p of paper." On the other hand, if all the Christian nations were sincere, ardent "conscientious objectors," wars would be avoided without the need of any League of Nations. If the Christian people of Germany had been "conscientious objectors" in this sense, there would not have been a Great War. But unfortunately they were of a different faith, and according to German writers still cling to that faith, after all their bitter experiences. (Germany since the Revolution. Yale Review, Jan., 1921). Nor may we flatter ourselves that we are free from the same views. For instance, there is apparently, at the present time (as there was before the Spanish war) a Jingo junto of politicians and newspapers who seize every opportunity to stir up prejudice and hostility against j.a.pan, although it has always acted towards us as a peace-loving, neighborly nation. If it were as vulnerable to our attack as Mexico or Spain, these Hotspurs might quite likely drag us into a war, but the uncertainty of the contest in this case must give them pause.

Another field for church action is in working towards making Sunday like the Sabbath of Jesus' time--a day of joyous relaxation and recreation, but always remembering that deeds of mercy and the promotion of the happiness of others, are to feature the day, as the offering acceptable to G.o.d. One of the marked features of the time is the growing spirit of unrest and discontent among the ma.s.s of the people. This spirit of unrest manifests itself, in part, by an increasing appet.i.te for amus.e.m.e.nt. While this outlet for people's uneasiness may perhaps not be of the highest, it is much preferable to others, to which their discontent might turn. The churches should recognize this present need of man, realize the truth of Jesus saying that the Sabbath was made for man, oppose all new Sunday Blue Laws, and seek the repeal of those now existing. Instead of putting the ban of the church on all Sunday amus.e.m.e.nts, it should encourage such harmless recreations as it can well sanction under the example of Jesus. There should be meetings in the churches, as in the synagogue in Jesus' time, but as an incident, and not the chief end, of the day.

In the matter of temperance vs. prohibition, a great Christian nation has, for the first time in history, recently inaugurated the experiment of a general prohibition law. What the results of this policy may be, remains an uncertain question for the future to decide. Certain it is that the Anglo-Saxon race has reached its present stage of progress and civilization under a regime of practically unrestricted use of alcoholic drinks. Of the eminent names in its history--in government, war, literature, arts, sciences, industrial work and invention--the percentage of those who all their lives have been consistent abstainers from liquor must be exceedingly small. The prohibitionist will say that all this progress has been made in spite of the evils of drink. But that can only be proved by generations of experience under prohibition laws.

The other hypothesis is, _prima facie_, equally tenable, that this progress has been due in part to the stimulus which the temperate use of liquor undoubtedly does, at least temporarily, give to the physical and mental activity of man. The thirteen centuries of experience of the followers of Mahomet demonstrate that prohibition does not of itself produce great men, or general virtue, progress or prosperity.

Theoretically the success of prohibition is handicapped by the fact that it is opposed to the evolutionary processes of nature. The basic idea of prohibition is to improve man by removing the cause of evil. For no one can deny that excess of drinking is an evil, just as is excess of eating, of fasting, of prayer, or any other form of human activity. Even excess of charity may be an evil, if it results in impoverishing one's family. But nature works on the contrary idea. It develops its highest types by exposing them to evil, and teaching them to conquer it. Take the matter of climate, for instance. _A priori_ one might have reasoned that a mild, equable climate, like that of the South Sea Islands, where the means of subsistence are easily obtained, would be the best for the human race. It could plausibly be argued that man would have more time and energy for his intellectual development if he were not absorbed in a continuous, laborious struggle for his physical existence. But experience has shown that just this contest with the extremes of heat and cold--this continual battle for subsistence under uncongenial conditions--has produced not only the most efficient workers in material progress, but also the highest types of intellectual development.

Whether the prohibition theory of wrapping men in lamb's wool, instead of putting them out to fight the battle of life, will not produce more evil than good, is at least uncertain. It may be that, after some time of experimenting, men may come back to the idea that Jesus was right in thinking that temperance is better for the human race than prohibition.

Furthermore, prohibition, besides being opposed both to the laws of Jesus and the laws of nature, has the essential weakness, as a remedy for intemperance, that it attacks the means or rather one of the means, of intemperance, and not the cause--the _causa efficiens_, as the logicians would say. The Anglo-Saxons have for centuries been meat-eaters and liquor-drinkers. What end they would have attained on a diet of vegetables and cold water, we can only guess, but all science is wrong if it would not have been some end quite different. Now, this appet.i.te for stimulants--the growth of centuries--is not to be eradicated by prohibiting the use of alcoholic drinks, any more than the appet.i.te for fornication can be eradicated by the suppression of houses of prost.i.tution. In spite of all the prohibition laws in the world, the appet.i.te for stimulants will continue to exist in the Anglo-Saxon race, and will seek its gratification in one way, if not in another. Whether these subst.i.tutes may not be worse in the end than alcohol, remains to be seen. Suppose, for instance, that accustomed liquor-drinkers should now subst.i.tute, as their stimulant, large quant.i.ties of strong tea or coffee, or, possibly, some concentrated product of one or the other of those plants. Probably nine-tenths of our medical authorities would agree that the change would be, generally speaking, undoubtedly for the worse.

It is to be observed that never in the United States has there been made any general systematic effort towards temperance, such as is now being made towards prohibition. No greater hypocrisy has ever been worked off on the American people than that under the name of "Temperance." Societies have labeled themselves with that name, orators and prominent leaders have paraded under that name, when, in fact, it was a mere subterfuge, and the bearers of it were really prohibitionists. Probably no one who has ever worked for real temperance measures in any of our large cities but would testify that his work has been seriously hampered by the entire lack of interest, if not by the actual hostility, of these so-called temperance reformers and societies.

In fact, many of them would make no scruple in openly avowing that they were opposed to any practical temperance measure, because it would r.e.t.a.r.d the coming prohibition. With the hearty support of the prohibitionists, there is no reason today why scientific temperance measures should not be put in force throughout the United States, that would do away with at least seventy-five per cent of the evils of drunkenness.

Our present Federal prohibition law is still on trial. It never would have been enacted unless we had been precipitated into the Great War. It has never been submitted to a plebiscite of the people. In one respect, it has done much evil in increasing the unrest and discontent of a large part of our population, who regard malt liquors as comparatively innocuous, and as necessary to their comfort and health, and who regard the deprivation of them as an invasion of their personal liberty. When Rome was threatened, as we are now, by a rising tide of unrest and discontent, the rulers of that day advised "_panem et circenses_"--food and amus.e.m.e.nt. Many of the thinkers of today neglect this sage, old maxim in depriving the people of their beer, in urging more stringent Sunday Blue Laws, and, generally, in restricting or prohibiting popular amus.e.m.e.nts, on one pretext or the other. In reading some of the proposed restrictions on minors, one sometimes wonders how it is supposed that stalwart, young lads from sixteen to twenty-one are to spend their evenings. They most a.s.suredly will not spend them at home reading the Bible.

In the future consideration of temperance vs. prohibition, it will be well for the followers of Jesus to weigh maturely His position on the question. His precept and example are not lightly to be disregarded, especially where, as here, they harmonize with the laws of nature, instead of, as in the case of war, being opposed to them. If all hypocrisy were eliminated, and the non-compromisers and sacro-sancts kept out of the discussion, there is no reason why the opposing forces of temperance and prohibition could not arrive at a compromise, which would reduce the evil of drunkenness to a minimum, and, at the same time, not rob life of the joy and good cheer that comes from a temperate enjoyment of the "fruit of the vine." If it is to be a part of the heavenly life (Matt. XXVI:29; Mark XIV:25; Luke XXII:30), let it be also a part of the earthly life.

In the matters of prayer, fasting and ceremonial worship, the churches must make radical changes in their practice, if they are to win back their influence over the ma.s.ses of the people--an influence which, it is generally admitted, has been on the wane during the past few decades.

The contrast is altogether too glaring between the simple form of worship, practiced and preached by Jesus, and that of most of our modern religious denominations. The luxury of modern living is a favorite subject of invective by essayists and philosophical writers. But it is little wonder that the layman runs to this extreme, when he has before him the example set by many of the successors of Jesus' apostles--popes, bishops, cardinals, ministers of wealthy parishes, etc. And, in saying this, the fact is not overlooked that many ministers of the Gospel are worthy, self-denying, conscientious followers of Jesus in these matters, but the exceptions are too numerous. The conduct of a cla.s.s is usually judged by that of its most prominent representatives.

As to creeds, theological disputes and sectarian differences, the common people are more and more acting on the lines of Pope's couplet: