[ p. 147 ]
The relation of the New Testament Gospels to one another has been determined by modern historical scholarship with clearness and certainty. The Gospel according to Mark was the first. It was written about the year 70. When Luke and Matthew were written, a few years later, they made large use of Mark, incorporating almost the entire Gospel.
A fact of great significance is that Luke and Matthew agree with similar wording not only in passages taken from Mark, but in a considerable number of other passages. Careful study makes it quite evident that Luke and Matthew used another source from which they supplemented what they took from Mark. This other source, variously called the “Logia,” or “Q,” is sometimes considered as two sources, “G” and “Pm.” This material was not made up of incidents and narratives as in Mark, but consisted largely of sayings of Jesus. It is generally recognized by scholars that it was written at an earlier date than the Gospel according to Mark.
The analysis of the Gospels as given in Burton and Goodspeed Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels, p. iv, is in part as follows: “1. Our second gospel . . . was employed as a source by both our first and third gospels. 2. Matthew and Luke also possessed in common a document containing the non-Marcan material now found in Luke 3: 1 to 9: 50. . . . For convenience it may be called ‘G.’ 3. Matthew and Luke possessed a third document consisting of the non-Marcan material now found in Luke 9: 51 to 19: 28. . . . The portion which was [ p. 148 ] used by Luke only and perhaps not in the hands of Matthew may be called PI; the remainder Pm.”
Other sources used by Matthew or Luke are also indicated by Burton and Goodspeed. This analysis brings out clearly the importance of this early material for the historical student. The whole growth of early Christian records and stories of Jesus falls into perspective. The Gospel of John is the latest of the New Testament gospels. Earlier than John is Matthew, then Luke, then Mark, then perhaps an earlier edition of Mark as reflected in Matthew and Luke, then the special Lukan source “PI,” then “Pm,” then “G,” then a few sayings found both in Mark and in “G” or “P” (doubly attested sayings), then the best attested saying found not only in all four Gospels, but also in the “Logia” (G and Pm). Thus the contents of the Gospels can be easily arranged in ten classes in numerical order of attestation: (i) the best-attested saying (occurring six times), (2) the doubly attested sayings (occurring four times or five times), (3) the document “G” (Matthew and Luke), (4) “Pm” (Matthew and Luke), (5) “PI” (Luke), (6) the “triple tradition” (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (7) Mark, (8) Luke, (9) Matthew, (10) John. While this list is not complete, it serves to bring out the importance of distinction between the betterattested and the less-attested sayings and narratives.
The best-attested saying of Tesus comes very dose to th p heart of his religion—“Anyone who aims to preserve his own self will lose his soul; but anyone who loses himself in the cause of the gospel will find himself.” The Greek word usually translated “life” (American Standard Version, “lose his life”) naturally means the personality or the soul. It represents a word of the Jewish language usually translated “self” in the Old Testament. The Hebrew or Aramaic language had a far simpler vocabulary than the English has. Words of such multiple meaning were very common. The word “lose” does not represent the idea of death or destruction. It is the word used of the lost sheep in the famous parable. The same word is used of the coin which the woman lost and found again (Lk. 15: 8). It is [ p. 149 ] the word used by the father regarding the prodigal son (Lk. 15: 32).
This saying of Jesus represents his protest against selfishness and his appeal to men and women to throw themselves, their souls, their personalities, their lives, into the service of all the members of the Father’s great family, good and bad alike.
The doubly attested sayings all reflect various colors in which this central teaching reveals itself—“Anyone who wishes to be my disciple will practice self-denial and take up a cross.” The cross represented not merely a burden, but a readiness to face death and persecution. “No one who lights a lamp puts it under a cover to hide it.” This saying might have many applications. One of them certainly was Jesus’ appeal to those who see the glory and beauty of the gospel of brotherhood, not to let the fire lie dormant, but to carry forth the torch to light the lives of countless needy ones.
“There is nothing that is covered up which is not going to come to light.” Frankness and sincerity are essential; dissimulation and hypocrisy have no place in the religion of Jesus. “Anyone who has something will gain more.” It is Jesus’ encouragement to spiritual progress. The man who has no desire to be better will deteriorate; the one who has something of good in his soul will grow.
“It is a wicked age which demands a sign.” Where there is real aspiration toward God and goodness, no external arguments are necessary. It is again Jesus’ urge to simplicity of heart and spirituality of purpose. “Anyone who exalts himself will be humbled.” Humility is a thorough-going characteristic of the religion of Jesus.
“Any man who divorces his wife to marry another woman commits adultery.” Jesus’ own sovereign, Herod Antipas, had done exactly this. Herod had particularly outraged Jewish feeling in that it was his own brother’s wife whom he had carried away and married (Lev. 18; 16; Deut. 25: 5). John the [ p. 150 ] Baptist had reproved him for his action (Mk. 6: 18). [1] John the Baptist had lost his life because of his reproof. Nevertheless, Jesus was not deterred from open denouncement of such utter selfishness as Herod had manifested.
“Many who are first will be last.” Again Jesus encourages even the least of his followers to see their great significance in the realm of service. “If you had faith the size of a mustard seed” is one of Jesus’ many paradoxical sayings. It must always have impelled the hearer to wonder what the meaning of it could be and to reflect on the power of faith. “Be constantly watchful.” This saying reflects the urgency which characterizes true religious leaders. Jesus’ disciples never stray from the path of duty in the idea that they will escape detection. They are constantly on guard. No matter when the call may come, they are ready to respond and to give a good account of themselves.
Thus the doubly-attested sayings reveal a religion of unselfish o service, practicing self-denial, carrying its torch into the world, the torch of a sincere uprightness of purpose. Humility, purity, courage, faith, steadfast loyalty are qualities which in their application to the service of others bring the disciple of Jesus into a higher life and nearer to the presence of God.
Turning to the sayings of Jesus contained in the earliest sources “G” and “Pm,” it is not hard to imagine the manner in which Jesus would attract a group of listeners in one village or another in Galilee. The so-called “Sermon on the Mount” reflects the common daily life of the people, where poverty and sorrow have constantly to be faced. When Jesus began “Happy are you poor folks,” one and another would say to themselves with incredulous surprise, “He is talking to me!” Anyone who started out with words like those would be sure of a hearing. Jesus was no scribe sitting on Moses’ seat. He had a sympathetic feeling for all human difficulties and handicaps. He wa s a messenger of hope to jgy.eryone. whq_was^poor or hungry or in sorrow, or friendless and persecuted.
[ p. 151 ]
“Love your enemies.” The words were startling. They commanded attention and thought. They challenged discussion. “Say a prayer for those who abuse you.” Here was a strange new idea. Could the teacher mean what he was saying? “If some one strikes you on the cheek, turn to him the other.” Such a bit of advice the listener would find utterly impracticable. He would dismiss it from his mind. But it would not stay dismissed; it persisted in coming back.
What is the new teacher saying next? He is asserting that God lets his sun shine on both the good and the evil. He is kind to the unthankful and the bad. Jesus is. urging his listeners to live like God in this matter of being full of loving-kindness toward all.
Those who heard Jesus went home full of doubts and objections. Yet something in their hearts responded to this ideal of brotherliness. It was something which they could easily put to the test. It required no investment of money, no political connection, no rabbinic education. It was too high for them to reach, yet the words were plain. One after another they tried it out. They began to substitute love for hate, kindness for violence. They felt themselves growing and coming nearer to God. The number increased until within a few months there were thousands who were finding new happiness and satisfaction in testing the religion of Jesus.
Alas for you Pharisees who pay your tithes of mint and rue and every little herb and yet neglect justice and kindness. These are the things you ought to do without neglecting those lesser things (Lk. 11:42; Matt. 23: 23).
You neglect the will of God and keep the traditions of men (Mk. 7:9).
How shall I come before Jehovah and bow myself before him? Shall I come with burnt offerings? . . . [ p. 152 ] What doth Jehovah require of thee but to do justly and to love kindness and to walk humbly with thy God (Mic. 6: 6-8).
They watched Jesus to see whether he would cure the man on the Sabbath day so that they might have a ground of accusation against him (Mk. 3:2).
No food which enters a man can defile him. . . . It is what proceeds out of the heart of a man which makes bad;— evil thoughts, immorality, stealing . . . greed, arrogance (Mk. 7: 19-22).
One of the scribes came . . . and asked him, “What commandment is chief of all?” Jesus replied “ ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God’ . . . and ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’” (Lev. 19: 18; Mk. 12: 28-31).
Love your enemies and be constantly helpful and your reward will be great. You will in this way be sons of the Most High; he is kind to the unthankful and the bad. Be full of loving kindness as your Father above is loving and kind (Lk. 6: 35, 36; Matt. 5: 44, 45 ; 48 ).
The reading of the sayings of Jesus as given in the previous chapter will give a comprehensive view of Jesus’ religion. The sayings should be studied carefully and reviewed many times. No amount of commentary can take the place of these utterances. The knowledge of the historical background and an intelligent reading of the sayings of Jesus in relation to that background should be complete in themselves.
So few of the sayings of Jesus have been preserved in our gospels that there is a strong tendency to scrutinize these sayings individually. But the utterances of Jesus themselves warn against any literalism in interpretation. They should be read in large sections and understood as vehicles for the new spirit of the time. They embody general principles and do not constitute a new law npr a revision of the Mosaic Law.
[ p. 153 ]
When the Jewish Christians first began to formulate the new religion which they set out to preach, they were naturally asked to state the difference between the new religion and the old. This accounts for the sharp distinction drawn in our Gospels between the law of Moses and the new Christian law. Jesus himself did not say that the old law was outworn, as Paul later said. Jesus did not denounce the Pharisees as a class, but did denounce those among them who were insincere or hypocritical or in some other way failed to live up to the spirit of the law.
There was a growing tendency in Jesus’ day to bury the glorious heritage of the Hebrew prophets in a mass of legalistic traditions. These traditions which were later written down and which are represented by the quotations from the Mishnah in an earlier chapter were the object of Jesus’ attack. Any tendency so to emphasize the keeping of the Sabbath as to obscure the duty or cause of mercy was quite opposed to the spirit of Jesus’ religion.
In his little book, The Ethical Teaching of Jesus (p. 33), Scott says, “In Judaism as in all religions of the time ceremonial and ethical duties were placed on the same level.” Again he says that Jesus “distinguished between the Sabbath law and the law of mercy, and insisted that when they were in conflict with each other the Sabbath law must always give way.” This is true of Jesus, but is hardly fair to the Judaism of Jesus’ day. It seems likely that many Jewish rabbis were insisting that the law of mercy take precedence over all other laws. Perhaps it would be better to say, as Scott does on another page, that Jesus was “out of sympathy with the whole spirit of legal religion.” Jesus saw a great danger in the growing legalism of the Jews of his day. While he did not oppose the keeping of the law, he made such ritualism secondary.
In distinction from the legalistic spirit, Jesus emphasized the importance of heart righteousness. In this he was at one with some of the greatest of the Hebrew prophets, who said that the keeping of the law is of no avail unless accompanied by [ p. 154 ] inner purity of soul. But Jesus went beyond the Hebrew prophets and beyond other leaders of his day among the Jews in making the inner uprightness of character primary and the ^keeping of the law secondary. I t is what a man says and thinks and plans which profanes him more than any food he may eat in violation of the rules of the Hebrew Scriptures.
The Christian Church has always found it difficult to follow Jesus in this emphasis. From the first century to the twentieth century there have always been good, conscientious Christian leaders who have said that the Christian should first of all obey the commandments of Scripture. Jesus certainly was clear in his attitude on these matters. He did not denounce anyone for keeping the law of Moses, but he declared that the primary basis of acceptance with the heavenly Father is a brotherly spirit and a pure heart.
The nature of Jesus’ religion is very different from that of legal ism. He has left his followers no formal volume of teaching. He did not, like Mohammed, write a Koran. To be sure, Matthew sometimes gives the impression that Jesus revised the law of Moses and gave his followers a new set of rules for conduct. But in the earlier sources Jesus appears in a friendly, informal manner, cheering and comforting, encouraging and inspiring, those around him. He urged them to live up to their highest possibilities and to be worthy of the love and care which the heavenly Father was pouring out upon them.
He would often be asked some question as to how to pray or as to how many times to forgive a man for doing an injury. His answer would usually take the form of a story or a parable. The story would be easily remembered. Many a soul would be encouraged to pray by hearing the simple tale of the Pharisee and the publican (Lk. 18: 9-14). Many a man would be induced to forgive his brother by hearing the story of the unmerciful servant (Matt. 18: 21-35).
The_records of Jesus’ religion do not present any complete system. So far as we know, Jesus never attempted to gather together his various words of advice into any book of precepts. [ p. 155 ] It might even be said that his sayings are illustrations rather than directions, and that these illustrations fit the life of his time rather than any other period. But in these utterances the historical student can clearly see the greatness of Jesus’ personality, can discern the stupendous grandeur of his idealism, can feel the unattainable heights of his communion with God, can appreciate the simple, direct way in which Jesus brought men and God nearer to one another.
All Jesus’ ethical teaching was profoundly religious. There have been great ethical teachers, both ancient and modern, who have built up an ethical philosophy and program upon a purely human basis. They have demonstrated that man is a social being and that the best social life is attainable through certain rules of cooperation and brotherhood. Or they have demonstrated that the cultivation of the highest type of personal character is essential to the good social order. For Jesus, however, ethical practices were rooted in a religious experience. The religion of Jesus begins and ends in a personal sense of kinship to th e ete rnal Spirjt. When Jesus urged his listeners to do a kind act to the brother in need, he reminded them that the brother was one of the children of the great Father.
Jesus asked his followers to be worthy of their place as children of the heavenly Father. By this he meant that they should purify their hearts and minds and express themselves as the Father above expresses himself in the showering of countless blessings upon the great family of mankind. It is through this inner purity of soul and this outward expression of good that we enter into ever closer fellowship with that Spirit in the never-ending work of blessing humanity and bringing happiness to all, both good and bad, both near and far.
There is a modern tendency to say that the social gospel is all that man needs. Many a young person is unconsciously led into the attitude that religion is an aid to social morality, that the chief vindication of religion is in a better social order which it advocates. Some men even find their greatest inspiration in the patient courage of some other individual and so feel that there [ p. 156 ] is no ultimate need of God. Surely, however, such men find sooner or later that the individual who gives the inspiration is in frequent communion with an unseen power.
In any case the religion of Jesus is not a social program, assisted by ritual and worship. It is a way to find Gcd. Through forgiveness of injury the soul may rise; through purity of heart, character may be strengthened; through brotherliness and helpfulness, qualities of personality are developed which grow upward toward the ideal and the eternal.
Your Father above knows that you need these things. But seek first his kingdom and these other things will be yours besides (Lk. 12: 30, 31; Matt. 6: 32, 33)
May thy kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread (Lk. 11: 3; Matt. 6: 11).
What would it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul (Mk. 8: 36).
Anyone who aims to preserve his own self will lose his soul; but anyone who loses himself in the cause of the kingdom will find himself (Mk. 8: 35).
There is a widespread idea that the religion of Jesus is first and foremost a call to renounce the world and to deny oneself the natural ambitions and joys of life. There is little basis for this idea in the early records of Jesus’ sayings. Those who try to find it there sometimes separate it from the more important supplementary idea of the devotion of life in all its aspects to the supreme purpose of preparation for the kingdom of God.
“Anyone who wishes to be my disciple will practice self-denial and take up a cross and follow after me” (Mk. 8: 34). This saying taken out of its context and placed by itself could be made a basis for a teaching of extreme asceticism. Mediaeval [ p. 157 ] monks felt they were fulfilling this rule of Jesus when they left home and friends and property. They denied themselves every conceivable comfort, even in matters of food and clothing. They literally carried a cross upon a chain or band around the neck. They tried to “follow” Jesus literally by walking along the road from place to place, as Jesus did.
The ascetic and monastic movements so important in the history of the Church did not come from Jesus. In modern times the religions of India disclose the real home of such practices. In ancient times Oriental philosophies made their way westward into the Roman Empire and had strong influences through Gnosticism upon various branches of the Christian Church. Asceticism perhaps had gained some acceptance among the Jews. John the Baptist is described in terms which might mean that he had renounced the world. In Mark 2: 18, there is a reference to fasting practiced by John’s disciples and by the Pharisees.
But Jesus’ disciples did not fast (Mk. 2: 18). “John came not eating or drinking like others, and you say ‘He has a bad spirit.’ Now the son of man has come, eating and drinking like others, and you say, ‘There is a glutton and a drinker, a friend of tax-collectors and worldly people’” (Lk. 7:33, 34; Matt, xi : 18). Jesus did not regard either fasting or eating as having any independent value. Self-denial may be either good or bad, according to the purpose prompting it. The kingdom of God is like “a merchant looking for precious pearls; and having found one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it” (Matt. 13: 45, 46). Material possessions are the lesser pearls of life’s store, but may be of great value in making it possible to secure the one pearl of great price.
The Father above knows that his children have need of the necessities of life (Matt. 6: 32). The Lord’s Prayer recognizes the need of food for our daily living. But spiritual values are of greater importance. It would be of little use for a man to accumulate earthly possessions even to the point of gaining the whole world, if in so doing he lost his own soul.
[ p. 158 ]
A much misunderstood saying of Jesus suggests that it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to find the higher life (Mk. io: 25). Of course, Jesus did not mean that God has any prejudices against rich men, as such; for he is good to all alike. If the context of the saying is read, it is apparent that Jesus said this with reference to a particular rich man who had just come to him and who had found it extremely difficult to follow Jesus’ words to go and give to the poor. The rich man “went away sorrowful.” It is possible that the “needle’s eye” was the name of one of the gates of Jerusalem which a camel disliked because in order to pass through it he had to get upon his knees. In any case, Jesus’ observation fitted the case of the man about whom it was originally stated. It would also fit any one who finds it difficult to enter into that close sympathy with his fellow men which alone can make a man truly great.
Self-denial is a means to an end. Brotherly helpfulness, the devotion of all to the welfare of others, constitutes the higher good, to which all lesser things must be brought into subjection. The one who makes it his rule of life to cater to his own comfort and fulfill all his personal desires will lose his soul. It is through the giving of all one’s capacities and possessions to the higher ambition that a man will truly find himself.
The relation of self-denial to social service has been a matter of much discussion. Many modern social leaders claim, as Plato did in ancient days, that the good of the individual must always be subordinated to the good of the group. Such thinkers conceive of a society perfected through the contribution of each of its members. If every act of every individual has in view the good of all, then the result must be completely good.
This attitude, however, is not at all that of Jesus. He had no such social program. As will be stated in a later chapter, Jesus expected the coming of the kingdom, and he left to God the plans for the inauguration of that new social order. Jesus was chiefly concerned in preparing men and women for that great day when it should come. His interest was in the individual [ p. 159 ] soul. Jesus called upon his disciples to devote all to the service of others, not because he wished to subordinate the individual to the community, but because he knew that service was the secret of growth. He taught men how to develop their highest and best selves.
The religion of Jesus has become the greatest power in the world for social service. This is because it fosters the highest type of individual character. Of what use would a perfect social order be if the individuals of which it was composed were only commonplace mortals? Many of the lower animals have a welldeveloped order of society. The level of life of the group depends upon the character of attainments of the individuals in it. Jesus was very close to the heart of life in his insistence upon the development of the highest type of personal character.
Do not worry about your life, fretting as to what food you are going to eat or about your body as to what clothes you are going to wear. Your life is more important than what you wear. Look at the birds of the air, they do not even plant fields or reap harvests; they have no storehouses or barns; yet the Father above gives them food. You are of far greater value than the birds.
Will worry help any one of you to add a single hour to his life? If worry cannot help you in the least, what use is there in it?
Learn a lesson from the lilies of the field (Lk. 12: 22-27; Matt. 6: 25-28).
One of the obstacles in the way of human progress through the centuries has been fear. People of backward countries are still in modern times largely controlled by motives of fear. They are afraid of lightning, thunder, darkness. They are terrifled [ p. 160 ] by eclipses, volcanic eruptions, and other unusual occurrences. Many primitive religions are based upon the ineradicable sense of fear and superstition. Awe, for instance, makes Oriental mothers sacrifice babies to some river god, whom they think may otherwise visit them with disease or plague or famine.
Caution and foresight, however, are virtues of the highest order. It is a certain kind of useless fear, carried to extreme, which men share with the lower animals. The finest type of horse is seized with fear when its stable catches fire, not a fear which makes him seek safety, but a fear which makes it almost impossible for him to be rescued from danger.
Human beings are often subject to similar panic in times of sudden catastrophe. It is this sort of fear which the religion of Jesus aims to remove from human life. Jesus had no fear which in any way interfered with his usefulness. He did not shrink from death itself. His ministry stands out as the clearest example in history of the fearless life.
A particularly destructive expression of fear is found in the highest and best civilization of modern times. In the life of our large cities, the individual is pursued and harassed by an enemy known as “worry.” The hospital patient who is to undergo an operation is driven by anxiety into such a state of mind as often to endanger the success of the operation. The man who cannot pay his rent begins to lie awake at night. And often the man who is financially solvent makes his life unhappy by worry about his social status.
The religion of Jesus has no place for worry. It eliminates fear and anxiety. If even the birds of the sky and the flowers of the field thrive in the course of nature, what rational basis can there be for thinking that God will not take care of his human family? Jesus very strongly asserts the need of caution and foresight. In the parable of the talents, his denunciation of the man who laid away his talent and failed to improve his opportunity is unmistakable. The ten virgins were five of them prudent and watchful, while the other five were shortsighted and [ p. 161 ] unprepared. The unjust steward was commended for his clever foresight.
Jesus’ teaching is not that we should let the future take care of itself, but that we should not let undue anxiety interfere with the concentration of all our best on the present task and the larger program. It should be noted, too, that Jesus does not tell the sluggard or the self-centered man not to worry. Jesus speaks to those who have turned their abilities to a high and noble purpose. He never encourages laziness or lack of thrift.
When Jesus states in what seems an absolute and extreme way that the Father will take care of his children, he is not saying that the children need not do anything for themselves. He is rather expressing the attitude and state of mind in which the children may undertake to work out their own salvation. Men need not be afraid that God is working against them. They may rather feel that there is an abundance of good things in the natural resources of life. Men are surrounded by abundant opportunities for growth and happiness.
These beliefs of Jesus are in striking contrast to the attitude of many ancient philosophers toward nature. Thus the philosophy of Plato was gradually developed into a dualism which sometimes conceived of life as a great struggle between the spirit of God dwelling in men, and the contrary element existing in a hostile world. But Jesus taught his followers to be friends with nature. To be sure, he expressed very strongly the value of work and service and effort. But he also made men see the great value of occasional relaxation. The functions of the human body soon deteriorate unless they have relaxation as well as exercise.
Trust in the heavenly Father is one of the greatest truths and necessities of the largest life. It does away with unnecessary worry and anxiety. It enables men and women to develop the highest and finest qualities of which they are capable in an increasingly favorable environment.
[ p. 162 ]
Love your enemies, do a kindness for those who hate you, say a prayer for those who abuse you (Lk. 6: 27, 28; Matt. 5: 44).
If anyone takes something of yours, do not demand it back (Lk. 6: 30; Matt. 5: 42).
Do not pass judgment on others (Lk. 6: 37; Matt. 7: 1).
One of the most widely discussed questions about Jesus has to do with his attitude toward war. The answer is clear. Jesus said nothing directly on the subject. Jesus addressed himself to the people and conditions of his time. The only nation against whom the Jews could have declared war in that day was the Roman Empire. If Jesus ever said anything about war with Rome, it was, of course, to advise against such a war, which could have only one possible ending—the destruction of Jerusalem. Simkovitch in his admirable little book on Jesus has brought out with great clearness the political situation which was the background of anything Jesus might have said about political non-resistance.
One or two passages found in the Gospel of Matthew have been made into a teaching of universial pacifism. “He who takes the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt. 26: 52). It is doubtful whether the words should be taken out of their context and applied to other situations than the one for which they were spoken.
On many occasions Jesus allowed himself to be injured or insulted without retaliating. In fact, it is clear that Jesus never answered a personal injury by the use of force. In the case of the cleansing of the temple, his use of violence was not to avenge any personal injury, but to right a wrong which he discovered. Such a scene as that in the temple gives a vigorous impression of the physical presence of Jesus. Bruce Barton, [ p. 163 ] in his little book entitled The Young Man’s Jesus has portrayed him as muscular, athletic, and imposing. There is no doubt that Christian art has overdrawn the feature of non-resistance in portraying his appearance.
Nevertheless, it is certain that Jesus told his listeners to love their enemies and to do a kindness for those who hated them. He told them to return good for evil. Scott, in his book, has an interesting paragraph on this subject. He says that the rule of not returning evil for evil has “been now incorporated in the customs of all civilized nations. It is recognized that however grievously a man has been injured, he must not retaliate for himself. The world has gradually discovered that when once the right of private revenge is granted, the door is thrown open to all kinds of evil and injustice. Nothing in the teaching of Jesus has been so often ridiculed as his precept of nonresistance; yet all experience has proved its wisdom” (Ethical Teaching of Jesus, p. 72).
Jesus’ teaching against personal revenge, like that regarding self-denial, is not to be understood by itself, but only in relation to the more important ideal of doing good to all, both friend and enemy. “Love your enemies, do a kindness for those who hate you.” To return evil for evil is only to increase the amount of hatred and hostility. The true way to overcome and banish evil is through kindness, forbearance, and brotherhood. This higher ideal of Jesus is the subject of a later chapter.
Anyone who does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother (Mk. 3: 35).
Any man who has left house or wife or brethren or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will receive many times as much in this world and will inherit eternal life (Lk. 22: 30; Mk. xo: 29; Matt. 19: 29).
Any man who divorces his wife and marries another [ p. 164 ] woman commits adultery (Lk. 16: 18; cf. Matt. 5: 32).
To the married I give advice, not I but the Lord; let not the wife depart from her husband, but if she depart, let her remain unmarried (I Cor. 7: 10, 11).
And some Pharisees were asking him if it is right for a husband to divorce his wife. . . . Moses permitted a man to write a statement and send his wife away. This rule was written in consequence of your hardness of heart. . . . Let not a man separate what God has joined together (Mk. 10: 2-9).
There are many sayings in the Gospels which have been interpreted as meaning that Jesus regarded marriage as something inferior to the higher state of a celibate life. These are, for the most part, passages in which Jesus is emphasizing a spiritual ideal of placing God and his kingdom above all other interests of life, even one’s own home and family. Jesus himself did not marry. His rapid, active ministry, with its dangerous and its tragic end, left little opportunity for home life.
But there is little basis for the idea that Jesus in any way disapproved of marriage or of married life. He speaks in the highest terms of the sanctity of the marriage tie. He looked with profound disapproval upon the easy divorce customs of his time. In the days of Moses it had been customary for a man to send his wife back home without any explanation or apology. The legislation of Moses introduced a new era in the history of marriage, by requiring the husband to write out a statement and give it to her (Deut. 24: 1) when he sent her away. She was then given a definite status and had a legal right to marry another man.
In the time of Jesus there was much feeling that even such a written statement from the husband was not sufficient. There should be some sort of official understanding in the matter, and some recognition of the growing feeling that marriage had more sanctity in it than the mere passing whim of a husband. [ p. 165 ] What Jesus most seriously opposed was such an action as that of Herod Antipas, who fell in love with another woman and proceeded to send home his own wife. Then, because John the Baptist objected, Herod had yielded to the plea of Herodias and given the order for the execution of that noble prophet of righteousness.
It is evident that Jesus was suggesting a great principle, rather than laying down any arbitrary rule. Jesus believed the institution of marriage to be a holy and beautiful one and that it was being flagrantly abused. There has been much discussion regarding the meaning of the “doubly attested” saying of Jesus regarding marriage. Taken literally, it means that anyone who “sends away his wife and marries another”—that is, anyone who not only divorces his wife but marries again—has broken the Mosaic Law. In other words, it is remarriage rather than divorce which Jesus opposed. This is the sense in which Paul applied the rule of Jesus in the situation at Corinth.
Perhaps Jesus was not so much condemning either the divorce or the remarriage as the combination of the two in a divorce secured for the immediate purpose of remarriage. But to insist upon any exact application of Jesus’ rule is to become a literalist like the scribes whom Jesus denounced. The spirit of Jesus’ attitude stands out clearly above all such discussion. It was a part of his religion to inculcate a greater reverence toward the love of man and wife.
The Gospel of Matthew introduces an element not found in the other Gospels. Any man who sends his wife away, “except for unchastity” (Matt. 19:9; 5 ; 3 2 )> is a trespasser. This addition of Matthew’s reflects a period in the early Church when Christians were trying to find exact rules of conduct in the sayings of Jesus. To them it seemed that Jesus must have made such an exception to his rule against divorce. The exception is not in accord with the spirit of Jesus nor in accord with his manner of expression. He spoke in general principles, not in exact rules. Surely the modern mind can rise above this [ p. 166 ] ancient pre-Christian and un-Christian idea and attitude (cf. John 8: 1-11).
The mutual love of man and wife will, in the spirit of Jesus, be exalted higher and higher with the passing centuries. All sorts of changes in marriage laws and in divorce laws may occur. Some of them may be good and some may be bad, but all those which tend to enthrone the mutual love of man and woman as a God-given blessing are in the spirit of Jesus.
There is nothing that is covered up which is not going to come to light (Lk. 8: 17).
Do not swear either by heaven … or by earth . . . but let your speech be “yes” and “no” (Matt. 5: 34, 37) When you are invited to a banquet do not take the best seat . . . but when you are invited, go and take the lowest place so that your host may be able to say to you “My friend, come up higher” (Lk. 14: 8, 10).
Because you have been found faithful in a small matter, you will have authority over ten cities (Lk. 19: 17).
The one who is faithful in a small matter is faithful also in a large one (Lk. 16: 10).
A healthy tree does not produce bad fruit, nor does a bad tree yield good fruit (Lk. 6: 43; Matt. 7: 18).
Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness (Lk. 12: 31; Matt. 6: 33).
Jesus insists that sincerity is a primary quality in personal character. The doubly attested saying, “There is nothing that is covered up which is not going to come to light,” is only one of his many utterances to this effect. There is scarcely any sin which Jesus denounces so often and so sharply as hypocrisy. Any falsehood of character such as he observed in some of the [ p. 167 ] Pharisees was for him intolerable. One who pretends to be good when he is not and who misleads himself into thinking that he is God’s favorite is sinning against the very spirit of goodness. Such an attitude is “unpardonable” (Mk. 3: 29).
“If the light that is in you be darkness, how great is the darkness! ” It is a further development of the insistence of the Old Testament prophets upon the need of heart righteousness in winning Jehovah’s favor. Religion is not a matter of external acts or ceremonies so much as a cultivation of noble character. The Beatitude, “Blessed are the pure in heart,” (Matt. 5:8; Psa. 24: 4) has primary reference, both in Jesus’ thought and in the Psalm, to this same quality of sincerity and purity of purpose and action.
To be truly sincere, moreover, a man should avoid every sort of falsehood and lie. The commandment, Thou slialt not tell a lie, is a decidedly modern commandment. The ancient Spartans are said to have considered it far better to lie than to be caught in an act of stealing. Lying was and still is so common in the Orient that the custom is that when a man wishes to convince his listener that he is telling the truth, he swears by heaven (Gal. 1: 20) or by some other sacred object that he is not lying. Jesus carried his teaching of sincerity to such an extreme that he begged his followers to avoid all such swearing and to answer questions with a simple “yes” or “no” (Matt. 5: 34, 37).
Humility is another basic quality in Jesus’ ideal of personal character. A Pharisee who publicly gave thanks to God that he was not like other men (Lk. 18: n) did not win God’s favor by any such prayer. It is the man who recognizes his own shortcomings, the man who has ideals which reach out far ahead and above him, the man who is humble in the presence of great ideals, who is the more likely to grow and improve.
This teaching of Jesus has been misrepresented and misunderstood as much as any other. Jesus had no place in his religion for an inferiority complex. A man or a woman who suffers from such a misfortune may find in the religion of [ p. 168 ] Jesus the best cure for such a condition. Jesus never tells anyone to consider himself inferior to any of his fellows. Even in the presence of kings and governors, early Christians held their heads and hearts strongly and courageously. Scott has put the gist of the matter in a single sentence when he says “The humility which Jesus demands is humility towards God.” [2] Humility is for Jesus primarily a religious attitude. It is a recognition that there are higher ideals of living to which men have not yet attained.
The Beatitude of Matt. 5: 5, “Blessed are the meek,” has often been interpreted to mean that meekness is a Christian virtue. This interpretation is guilty of three errors. In the first place, the word “meek” in its modern connotation is not a good translation. Goodspeed translates “humble-minded,” Moffatt translates “the humble.” Humility is one of the elements in the character of the world’s greatest leaders. Washington and Lincoln, Jesus and Paul, were all examples of the power and blessing of humility. The second error lies in the assumption that the beatitudes were in praise of certain qualities. This is perhaps true in the Gospel of Matthew, but according to Luke the Beatitudes, at least some of them, had a more direct application to actual existing conditions in Palestine. “Blessed are you who are poor” (Lk. 6: 20) did not, of course, mean that poverty was a blessing, but meant rather that Jesus was addressing himself to poor people and exhorting them to hope for a blessing in the future. In this sense, Jesus may have promised blessing to the humble-minded. The third error is in failing to understand that “the meek” is a common phrase in the Old Testament and refers to a particular class or group of God’s people. The Beatitude of Matthew is, in fact, a direct quotation from Psalm 37: 11 in which the psalmist sings of the glorious future in store for God’s favorite ones.
There is, in fact, in the religion of Jesus a dynamic quality which develops personality to the greatest extent. He never calls on anyone to dwarf his own personality. The spirit of [ p. 169 ] Jesus rather makes a man understand that he is a child of God with an eternal destiny and that the world is a workshop in which character can be developed and enlarged until it is fitted for the larger plans which God has in store for his human family.
It is often asserted, furthermore, that the universally admired characteristic of bravery or personal valor is neglected in Jesus’ religion. Here again is a fundamental error. Jesus, to be sure, did not encourage his disciples to take up the sword to bring the kingdom to pass. The bravery of his followers was not of the destructive type, and was, therefore, all the more courageous. He frequently told his disciples to fear no man, and in face of danger, to go out to heal and to help and to save.
Courage is a primary quality of the Christian religion, a courage which leads men in modern times into the laboratory of science to risk health and life in pursuit of a cure for some human affliction. It is this same courage which sends men into all the countries and races of the earth, to build up a better type of manhood and womanhood. This personal valor is the keynote again in that best-attested saying of Jesus, “He who tries to preserve his own life will lose his soul, but the one who gives his life to the cause of the gospel will find himself” (Mk. 8:35).
Faithfulness and loyalty comprise another element in personal character which the religion of Jesus develops. Many are the sayings and the stories in the Gospels which portray this virtue. The man who performs his task conscientiously wins the favor of his heavenly father. No matter how small the responsibility may be, it is the quality of fidelity which is allimportant. In other words, it is not primarily the work which a man does, but rather the strength of personality developed, which is important. The parable of the pounds and the parable of the talents have the same teaching—that he who is faithful in a small matter is considered in God’s sight to be worthy of large responsibility in the kingdom of God.
The development of personal character is thus the end of [ p. 170 ] all these qualities which Jesus taught and practiced. Through all the history of the Christian religion great leaders have again and again emphasized this truth. As Luther declared, “Good works do not make a good man, but a good man does good works.” Jesus stated it in a picture: A bad tree does not bear good fruit; it takes a healthy tree to bear good fruit. Jesus’ ministry was devoted not to teaching a new religion, but to developing in his disciples a type of character which would cause them to go out among others and duplicate in them this same exalted type of personality. Herein lies the reason for Jesus’ emphasis on the value of the individual soul in the sight of God. His teaching was directed to no social program in the usual sense of the term. He felt that the great need is to develop the highest type of individual. He did not set about this task in the way in which the Greeks undertook it. He did not keep men’s eyes upon an earthly goal when instructing them in the building of better characters. Rather he endeavored to live in close communion with the Eternal Spirit who has in store for men a better future.
Jesus’ approach to the development of individual personality is distinctly religious. He led men to find God and to prepare themselves for his kingdom. Particularly did he react against the common idea of his day that God keeps a record of deeds and misdeeds, that he will reward or punish according to the record which shows on his ledger. It is significant that in the scene of the great judgment (Matt. 25: 31 ff.), the righteous are greatly surprised when the judge highly commends them. They have been living godly lives but have not been counting their credits. The ideal of the religion of Jesus is not that of building up a life of credit, piece by piece, but the development of character which does good spontaneously. The true follower of Jesus works not for fear of hell or hope of heaven. He works not for reward, but unconsciously, easily. Because he is God’s son, he lives the life of God’s kingdom.
Such a life is the pearl of great price. The life of the age-tocome lived here and now. This life of the age-to-come is not [ p. 171 ] easy to attain. It is through constant and persistent prayer that Jesus attained to his consciousness of that higher order. His thought was that if men could only all now live the life of the perfect brotherhood, the great reward would at once be realized. This teaching is the “Gospel,” the Good News. Jesus urged his disciples to tell it to all men and give them this vision of a kingdom already coming to pass and near at hand.
In establishing contact with this life of the age-to-come and in maintaining close communion with the heavenly Father’s plan for his children, prayer becomes an essential element and assumes an important part.
Bosworth, Life and Teaching of Jesus, pp. 81-165.
Bundy, The Religion of Jesus, pp. 62-104.
Burch, Ethical Teaching of the Gospels , pp. 160-188.
Burton, Teaching of Jesus , pp. 45-174.
Glover, The Jesus of History , pp. 63-86.
Kent, Life and Teaching of Jesus, pp. 122-141.
King, Ethics of Jesus , pp. 152-190.
McCown, The Genesis of the Social Gospel , pp. 245-291.
Scott, The Ethical Teaching of Jesus, pp. 22-41, 51-119.
Simkovitch, Toward the Understanding of Jesus, pp. 1-83.
Walker, Teaching of Jesus and Jewish Teaching, pp. 225-307.
Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, Vol. I, pp. 325-364.
Zenos, Plastic Age of the Gospel, pp. 49-64*