Book Q7- . Cofpight N" CSEmiGHT DEPOSm WHAT Dm JESUS TEACH ? OTHER BOOKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR A HISTORY OF EDUCATION IN THREE VOLUMES Vol. I. Before the Middle Ages Vol. n. During the Middle Ages and the Transition to Modern Times Vol. m. In Modern Times GREAT EDUCATORS OF THREE CENTURIES PETER RAMUS AND THE EDUCATIONAL REFORMATION OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY A STUDENT'S HISTORY OF EDUCATION WHAT DID JESUS TEACH ? AN EXAMINATION OF THE EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL AND METHOD OF THE MASTER BY FRANK PIERREPONT GRAVES (PH.D., COLUUBIA) DSAN or THE SCHOOL OF BDUCATIONi UNIVEKSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA Nno fork THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 1919 All rights restfMd ^-^t Copyright, 1019 By the MACMILLAN COMPANY Set up and electrotyped. Published November, 1919. m 26 1913 ©CI.A535879 ^1 TO EDGAR FAHS SMITH, Ph.D., LLJ>. Provost of the University of Pennsylvania WHOSE ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN MARKED BY A DEEP INTEREST IN RELIGIOUS EDUCATION PREFACE During the recent turmoil and strife existing through- out the civilized worid, it was often asked whether Chris- tianity has not failed. To answer this question, we must first imderstand what constitutes Christianity. The present would, therefore, seem a favorable time to study anew the teachings of the Founder of that religion, stripped of the accretions that subsequent time has gath- ered aroimd them. Acting upon this belief, the Christian Association of the University of Pennsylvania recently started a campaign to induce at least two thousand students to read during the Lenten period the life and sayings of Jesus as presented in their simplest form by the book of Mark. The first announcement of the course read: "Christianity = x -f- y y = 'isms' This is an equation, not an identity." After this statement of the equation had been posted long enough to arouse some curiosity in the student body, the second announcement, which was explanatory of the first, was made. It read as follows: "Has Christianity failed? Or only its ' isms'? What did Jesus teach?'' Vm PREFACE Those who pledged themselves to undertake this course were organized into seventy-two discussion groups. These groups arranged to meet once a week under the direction of a leader at fraternity houses, dormitories, classrooms, and the conunittee rooms of the Houston (Student's) Club. The leaders were enlisted from the faculty men, Christian Association secretaries, older students, and extramural friends of the University, and the conduct of a normal class for training the leaders was assigned to me as the representative of our School of Education. The study groups were composed of Jews, Catholics, Protestants of numerous shades of belief, and not a few who liked to call themselves agnostics. It was well, therefore, that it had been planned to limit the discussion to the essential teachings of Jesus, and to exclude as far as possible all extraneous and sectarian matter. Taken as a whole, the campaign seems to have been a conspicuous success. Even in the normal-training class it was felt by several that a new point of view concerning the sub- ject had been developed, and that this ought to be published. It was believed that the material in printed form might be of service in similar campaigns, state reading-circle courses, Chautauquas, round tables, Sun- day-school classes, and even the programs of schools, colleges, and universities. Such as they are, the studies have been here pre- sented in about the form that they were originally given, although occasionally additions and modifications have been introduced. The title of the course, which was originally suggested by Professor James T. Yoimg, and most of the topics for discussion have been preserved in PREFACE IX the book. As might be expected under the circumstances, the work is largely confined to the sources furnished by the writers of the New Testament, especially the gospels. Being untrained in theology, I have not attempted to find my way very far into the alluring by-paths of exe- gesis. The book is simply the product of a History of Education man, describing a well-known road, when viewed from his own angle. As an educationalist, too, I have inevitably tended toward the use of pedagogical devices. It is my hope that the paragraph headings, the marginal notes, the smnmaries at the end of the chapters, the supplementary readings, and the final con- clusions may all be of value in clarifying the text, making it more interesting, and fixing it lq mind. All of this, however, is not to say that the work is entirely original. Numerous standard books that have been written upon the teachings of Jesus were open to me, and I have not hesitated to read and borrow from many. To render the sources more intelligible and real to the modem mind, I have, with the permission of its publishers (Fleming H. Revell Company), made prac- tically all citations from The Twentieth Century New Testament, Several persons acquainted with the mod- em study of the Bible have been kind enough to read through the completed manuscript and to eliminate ob- vious errors and offer most helpful suggestions. Among these martyrs to the cause of friendship I take pleasure in recording my colleague. Professor Arthur J. Jones; Reverend M. Willard Lampe, Ph.D., Secretary for the Presbyterian Students, Christian Association of the Uni- versity of Pennsylvania; Dr. Edwin E. Slosson, a former X PREFACE Colleague, now Literary Editor of The Independent; and Reverend Howard M. Stuckert, M.A., Rector of the Church of the Holy Comforter, Philadelphia, and Assist- ant in History at the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Stuckert has also furnished me with charts illustrating the synoptic problem, and has endeavored to guide me through the eschatological mazes of the apocalyptic writ- ings. None of these gentlemen, however, should be held responsible for my failure to accept their advice upon mooted questions, or for the actual errors that have probably crept into this book. I have also been aided, as usual, by the painstaking assistance of my wife, Helen Wadsworth Graves. F. P. G. Philadelphia, August i, 1919. CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. Historical Sources for the Teachings of Jesus i II. Jesus as a Teacher 32 III. Jesus' Methods of Teaching 50 IV. Jesus' Idea of God 73 V. Jesus' Idea of Man 95 VI. Jesus' Conception of the Ideals and Recon- struction OF Life 106 Vn. The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Future 124 VIII. Jesus' Teaching Concerning the Kingdom and THE Church 142 DC. Jesus and Modern SoaETY 154 Conclusions-— What Did Jesus Teach? 180 Bibliography 183 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? CHAPTER I HISTORICAL SOURCES FOR THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS The Historical Method of Approach. — Is Jesus a myth? Or is he to be regarded as historic? If we be- Heve in his historicity, we should wish to study him in the light of history. If his recorded teachings appeal to us, we should approach them by historical methods. To gain an adequate idea of his life and teaching, then, we must resort to the primary sources. As in all other his- torical study, we should carefully examine the docu- ments bearing upon the subject, influenced as little as possible by personal bias or tradition. It would also ^ents^and*thdr seem essential to learn something of the writers of the ^ten»«« the mustard seed or remarkable spread of truth {Mt. XIII, 32), and the leaven or natural development of truth {Mt. XIII, 33). The people of Jesus' day would, too, have instantly recognized the significance of the discovery of a buried treasure by a farmer {Mt. XIII, 44), the securing of pearls by deep- sea diving {Mt. XIII, 45 f. )? the separation of fish taken in a net {Mt. XIII, 47 ff.)> the thief and the shepherd {Jn. X, I ff.), the especial need of the sick for a doctor {Mt. IX, 12), and the comer stone of a foundation {Lk. XX, 17). Sometimes, however, he recognized that his hearers were so limited spiritually that it would be impossible for them to grasp his meaning. For example, it is re- corded that "Jesus used to speak to the people of his JESUS' METHODS OF TEACHING 59 message, as far as they were able to receive it" {Mk. rV, 33). He himself said: "It is not every one who can accept this teaching, but only those v/ho have been enabled to do so. . . . Let him accept who can" {Mt, XIX, II f.). Again, according to the Fourth Gospel, f^ "^r foZ he declared: "I have stiU much to say to you, but you hkSachhlr^^ cannot bear it now" {Jn. XVI, 12). At times the limi- tation would appear to be emotional, and Jesus seems to feel that his teachings could not be received because of the moral disposition of certain hearers. John de- picts him as saying: "My teaching is not my own; it is his who sent me. If any one is willing to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching is from God" {Jn. VII, 17). But whenever he was obliged to with- hold his teachings, because those about him were un- prepared or unworthy to receive them, he strove by careful selection and repetition of material, and choice of methods and illustrations, to build up an understand- ing and interest in them. This is especially seen in the case of his slow-minded disciples, who could not under- stand how his teachings differed from certain current Messianic conceptions. His Recognition of " Apperception." — Thus through- out his teaching Jesus recognized that every new idea or group of ideas can be grasped only through those already in consciousness. The method of teaching based upon this has been utilized by every successful educator. Even the "natural-bom" teacher, who prides himself upon being enslaved to no patent method, relies for his results largely upon an appeal, conscious j^^^g ^^^^^^ or unconscious, to the pupil's previous experience. The '^^percepu^"^ 6o WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? principle underlying this method was called "apper- ception," by the great philosopher, Herbart. The first step in the Herbartian method of instruction, "prepara- tion," depends upon it, and it forms the central doctrine of his entire educational system. There is, however, nothing new in the principle, and, although the activity side has come to be emphasized by the term, "associa- tion" or "assimilation" would have expressed the idea quite as well. In accordance with this doctrine, the teacher can hope to secure interest and the attention of the pupil to any new idea or set of ideas and have him retain it, only through making use of his body of related knowledge. Hence, in his teaching, Jesus is always concerned in presenting new material in such a way that it can be "apperceived" or incorporated with the old. In each case, however, he seems to feel that this appeal to similar ideas in the pupil, as we have seen (pp. 51 f.), can be effected only by means of a problem, which is a necessity that Herbartianism has failed to recognize. Most of those among whom Jesus taught were Jews, and, being of the same origin, he was able to imderstand the content of their "apperception mass." He was acquainted with the workings of their mind, their na- tional religion, sects, and factions, the character of their teaching, their political ambitions, and other traditions, and was able to use this knowledge effectively in his instruction. He did not repudiate the Judaistic laws, customs, and beliefs, but developed the spiritual, by reinterpreting ^ruth in them and insisted upon their inner meaning. &rip?i^M!~ He generally based his teachings upon the Hebrew JESUS' METHODS OF TEACHING 6l Scriptures and illustrated and reenforced his truths by an appeal to their authority, but he allied himself with the moral interpretation of the prophets, rather than with the legalistic tendencies of the scribes. He treated the Hebrew writings not as a body of rules, but as a revelation of God's purpose, and stressed their essence more than their form. He strove to remove the external element and reveal the imderlying truth. One of the best examples of this new emphasis upon old material is found in the case of Sabbath observance, sabbath ob- servance, already mentioned (p. 54). This "day of rest" was strictly construed imder the old Law (see Ex. XX, 8ff.; XXm, 12; XXXI, 12 ff.; XXXIV, 21; XXXV, iff.; Deut. V, 12 ff.), and was later elaborated by the scribes, but Jesus allowed his disciples to pluck com on that day {Mk. II, 23 ff.; Mt. XII, i ff.), and defended his action by appealing to ecclesiastical precedent. He then added his own principle that the Sabbath is not an end in itself, but a means to an end, — man's real interest and needs. Jesus' attitude toward sacrifice, the central feature of the Jewish ceremonial, was simi- lar. He attended the feasts of the Passover and the Tabernacles, and other festivals where sacrifices were offered {Mk. XXII, 7 ff.; Jn. IV, 45; V, i; VI, 4; VII, 2ff.; XI, 55 f.; XIII, 29), but while he recognized the customs, he sought through them to lead his hearers to a love of God and mercy toward their fellows. "To love God," he declared, "with all one's heart, and with all one's imderstanding, and with all one's strength, and to love one's neighbor as one loves oneself is far beyond all burnt-offerings and sacrifices" {Mk. XH, sacrifices. 62 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 33). In the Sermon on the Mount he enjoined his followers to be reconciled to any of their fellows they had wronged before performing the sacrifices {ML V, 23 f.). Later, he twice recalled God's preference for mercy to sacrifice {ML IX, 13; XII, 7). Again, in re- gard to fasting, which was considered such a mark of piety among the Jews {Lk. XVIII, 12), Jesus did not issue a prohibition, but he brought out the inner mean- ing of real contrition by requesting: ''When one of you fasts, let him not be seen by men, but by his Father who dwells in secret" {ML VI, 18). The Jewish law clean," ^^ ^' ^^ ''clcau and unclean" he likewise explained as appli- cable only in a moral and rehgious sense by saving: ''It is what comes out from a man that defiles him, for it is within, out of the hearts of men, that there come evil thoughts" {ML VII, 20 f.). This tendency of Jesus to build the new upon the old by bringing out its spiritual significance is seen in his method of dealing with the moral commands of Judaism, as well as with its observances. Here he frequently contrasted his own interpretation of the spirit of a commandment with the old literal form. Thus, while murder, the traditional law read, "Thou shalt not commit mur- der," and "Whoever commits murder shall be Hable to answer for it to the (local) court," he maintained that the fault lies in the moral condition that may lead to murder, and declared {ML V, 22) that "any one who cherishes anger against his brother shall be liable to answer for it to the Messianic court." His attitude adultery, toward thc prohibition of adultery was similar, for he held that "any one who looks at a woman with an im- JESUS' METHODS OF TEACHING 63 pure intention has already committed adultery with her in his heart'' {ML V, 28). Again, he stated that not only must one not break his oath, but he must keep his word and hold it sacred and inviolate without swearing to it (Mt. V, 33). He further maintained that the old exaction of '^an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" should yield to the principle of patient ^^ vengeance, endurance {ML V, 38). More characteristic than all was his universalizing the sphere of kindliness, and extending the command of love to enemies as well as neighbors {Mt. V, 43 ff.)- His Principle of " Fulfillment." — This use of "ap- perception," or the formation of "a bond between the new and the old," as it is generally described in modern pedagogy, was referred to by Jesus in his principle of ''fulfillment" or completion. As an introduction to the instances just quoted, Matthew (V, 17) records him as saying: "Do not think that I have come to do away, with the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to do l]^°^^ ^^°S^ away with them, but to complete them." In some cases, however, Jesus frankly treated the traditional practice ^*^°^ as preparatory and partial, suitable legislation for the times, but, with the advance of civilization, somewhat subject to revision. This is indicated especially in his reply to the question concerning divorce {Mk. X, 2 ff.). "It was owing to your hardness of heart," said Jesus, " that Moses gave you this direction." Then he cited an earlier law and added: "What God himself has yoked together, man must not separate." Such an attitude appears to be largely true, too, of his dis- placement of "an eye for an eye," "hating one's ene- the traditional practice as prep- 64 "WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? mies," and other modifications of the old law mentioned above. This enrichment, and at times even modification, of the traditional Law is a distinctive feature of Jesus' method. While he based much of his teaching upon the current principles, he was never satisfied merely with the authority of the past. With him the new was of even more importance than the old. He emphasized the inner meaning of the observances and commands of Judaism, and insisted upon a more complete revela- tion of the love of God. All six passages dealing with his "fulfillment" of the Jewish Law, are introduced with the words: "You have heard that it was said, but I say to you" {ML V, 21 f.; 27 f.; 31 f.; 33 f.; 38 f.; 43 f.). 2Sibes"°^^* ^^* Therein his teaching differed radically from that of the scribes, who made legaUstic renderings after much study of the Law and the body of tradition. They quoted, inferred, and gave allegorical interpretations of a mooted passage, quibbling over external matters, like the breadth of phylacteries, the ceremonial washing of cups, jugs, and copper pans, and the tithing of mint, anise, and cumin, but lacked in spontaneity, freshness, vigor, and originality. Their adherence to precedent and authority was slavish. Li contrast to this, Jesus seems not so much to borrow and make inferences from the traditional Law as to speak from conviction or an intui- tion of the truth. Li his teaching, there is no delay or hesitation, no feeble reasoning and cautious deduction, but a flashing of conviction. He seems to assume that the truths he uttered were truths of man's own nature and were not to be made more evident by argument. JESUS* METHODS OF TEACHING 65 He speaks with a finality that has made his principles seem inevitable to the human conscience of every age and under all circumstances; they contain a certain urgency that renders them impressive and solemn. Hence we are not surprised to learn that in the syna- authSrit^^of *° gogue at Capernaum, "the people were amazed at his ^^sown. teaching, for he taught them like one who had authority, and not like the Teachers of the Law'' {Mk. I, 22). His Use of Epigrams and Aphorisms. — Looking to the external form in which Jesus clothed his teachings, it has been easy to see that he largely used epigrammatic and aphoristic expressions. He uttered sententious maxims, gnomes, or proverbs, and his language was often paradoxical and hyperbolical. These types of The external \ ^ "^ *■ ^ ^ "^ ^ forms of Jesus expression, which were characteristic of the Orient in teaching were ^ ' always prover- general and of the Jews in particular, are especially atiie,*"^^ ^^^' adapted to ethical and religious teaching. Jesus used them with complete mastery and great efficiency. Numerous sayings of this sort will at once occur to any student of the gospels. Such, for example, were the numerous suggestions he made through a contrast of the higher and lower meaning of terms, such as: "Who- ever wishes to save his life, will lose it, and whoever, for my sake and for the sake of the Good News, will lose his life, shall save it" {Mk, VHI, 35); "many who are first now will then be last, and the last will be first" {Mk. X, 31; Mt. XX, 16); "many are called, but few chosen" {Mt. XXH, 14); and "every one who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself wiU be exalted" {Lk. XIV, 11). A somewhat different, but equally attractive, type 66 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? of expression is that furnished by the metaphorical allusions of Jesus to everyday life. This would include a number of aphorisms found in Mark, among which may be cited: ^'It is not those who are in health that need a doctor, but those who are ill. I did not come to call the religious, but the outcast" (II, 17). ''No man ever sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; if he does, the patch tears away from it — the new from the old — and a worse rent is made. And no man ever puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the skins are lost" (II, 21 f.). ''When a kingdom is divided against itself, it cannot last; and when a household is divided against itself, it will not be able to last" (III, 24). This figurative and epigrammatic type of speech appears everywhere throughout the teaching of Jesus, dM ifo\ fdJpt^* ^^^ ^^^ statement in the form of a story or parable, the parable. which is SO characteristic of him, was not used at first. • Early in his ministry he proclaimed the great facts of the gospel — the forgiveness of sins, the Kingdom of God, the call to discipleship and sonship — to large crowds, and made his declarations in direct terms. But the results of his first preaching tours were most dis- couraging. There was an almost total want of response from the masses of the people, and even those nearest to Jesus failed to understand, while the opposition of the Pharisees became increasingly bitter. Consequently, he felt more and more impelled to narrow the persons addressed to the disciples and to adopt a more effective method of teaching than that of direct and immediate statement. This concentration of his audience did not JESUS' METHODS OF TEACHING 67 imply that he was any less interested in all mankind, but the Step was taken in the hope of securing a nucleus for his message by the intensive culture of a few devoted followers. He felt that a special training was needed to elucidate thoughts that were so far in advance of the times. His Adoption and Mastery of the Parable. — The method chosen for communicating this training was that of the parable. This form of teaching was in common use among the Jews, but it was mastered by Jesus to such an extent as to make it peculiarly his own. While its material is not necessarily historic or real, but is often fictitious and invented, it is always harmonious with na- The parables of ture and life, and at least within the bounds of probabil- [ate real events. , * but are m har- ity. A parable does, moreover, distinguish between its °^o°y ^i^h life, essence or underlying spiritual truth and the mere form of its story, as a myth, which identifies the truth with its own creations, does not. It differs from a fable in beiQg more serious and dignified, and in its adaptation to moral and religious instruction. A parable cannot, on the other hand, be interpreted entirely as an allegory, with each character and incident treated as a special symbol. The attempt of some literalists to do this has been productive of most fanciful results. Each parable is intended to teach one single truth, and the point may rest in the entire picture or in some single aspect, and it is not essential to offer any explanation of the rest. The parables would be ruined, if forced to "go on all fours." The parable was used by Jesus as the most convenient instrument at hand for conveying to a few the secret of his Messiahship, without disclosing it to the many. The 68 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? imminence of the Kingdom and its small and obscure beginnings, as contrasted with its ultimate and certain triumph, are all readily portrayed through the parabolic ^SilteT to^'at- i^e^^iiii- Their form was such as to attract attention, aS^ii^press'the causc reflection, and impress the memory of the hearer, memoiy. rpj^^ radical teachings of the Master could not be grasped superficially or hastily, and the picturesqueness of the parable was adapted to holding the truth in men's minds until they grew to the point of understanding it. And it not only preserved the revelation for those not yet pre- pared to receive it and kept them from closing their minds to it, as a direct presentation could not have done, but through its attractiveness it gave permanence and currency to the teachings contained therein. Hence it is recorded that "the mass of people Ustened to Jesus with delight" (Mk. XII, 37), and "were filled with amaze- ment at his teaching" {ML VII, 28), and that the officers who were sent to arrest him declared: "No man ever spoke as he speaks!" {Jn. VII, 46). The recorded parables of Jesus begin with that of The ?i;f s^rrlSS Sower (ML IV, 3 ff.; ML XHI, 3 ff.; Lk, VIII, 5 ff.), SLb^rf^ "" which he spoke to the great multitude by the sea and afterward interpreted for his closest followers. This method of teaching proved most successful, and we are told: ''with many such parables Jesus used to speak to the people of his Message as far as they were able to receive it; and to them he never used to speak except in parables; but in private to his own disciples he explained everything" (Mk. IV, 33 f.). There are some thirty of these parable stories recorded in the gospels.^ They 1 There are at least forty, if we count such "parable germs" JESUS' METHODS OP TEACHING 69 hold up in various and striking lights one central idea. In a dozen of them the Kingdom of God is directly com- *^|y centST"* pared to something to indicate its coming expansibility riou"? 'f^hS, '"^' and universality, but often the parable deals more in- ^^ directly with the membership of the Kingdom, as in the case of the seed of the sower aheady mentioned, the sons asked to labor in the vineyard (ML XXI, 28 ff.)> or the returning prodigal (Lk. XV, 12 iff.)* They often occur in pairs, or even in clusters, in order to teach two or more often occur in closely related aspects of the same general truth, or sim- ply to reenforce each other. Thus Mark (IV, 26 £f.) has in juxtaposition the Kingdom of God likened to the nat- ural growth of a seed and to the expansion of a grain of mustard seed, while Matthew (XIII, 24 ff.) enlarges the comparison so as to embrace the parables of The Tares, The Mustard Seed, and The Leaven. Similarly, we have in Luke (XV, 4 ff.) the group of parables of The Lost Sheep, The Lost Coin, and The Lost Son. His Use of the Allegory in the Fourth Gospel. — The Fourth Gospel introduces a variation in the method of Tesus^ teaching. This is the allegory, which differs from in John, jesus uses the allegory. the parable in absolutely identifying the symbol with the which is a va- thing symbolized and containing a more extended dis- parable. cussion. Possibly the best illustration of it is found in the lengthy description of Jesus both as the Good Shep- herd and as the Door of the Sheepfold in the tenth chap- as the "new cloth on an old garment/' the "new wine in old bottles," and the "candle under a bushel," which were in some instances spoken before Jesus' real use of parable stories began. Of the forty, thirty are recorded in one gospel only, three in two gospels, and seven in all three synoptics. 7© "WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? ter of John. In this occur a number of beautiful and familiar passages, such as: "Whoever does not go into the sheepfold through the door, but climbs up at some other place, that man is a thief and a robber; but the man who goes in through the door is shepherd to the sheep . . . I am the Door for the sheep. All who came before me were thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not listen to them. . . . The thief comes only to steal, to kill, and to destroy ; I have come that they may have Life, and may have it in greater fullness. I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." The allegorical discussions occur only in John, and there is some doubt as to whether this extended form of teach- ing was actually employed by Jesus, or is due to the peculiar nature of a comparatively late gospel (seep. 21). It may, however, have occasionally formed part of Jesus' uhi ^SKiive-' method. While not as crisp and succinct as the parable, it **^^" may well have proved effective for much the same reasons. The Accompaniment of Outward Action. — Jesus often accompanied his teaching with a demonstration through outward action. In fact, this may be considered one form of his method. An example of this procedure is seen in the way he "took a little child and placed it in Jesu^s^^ften^em- the middle of the disciples." Then, "folding it in his pro?rkte actioS" ^^^15," hc cmphasizcd the necessity of childlikeness in those who would be members of his Kingdom (Mk, IX, 36 f.). In like fashion, an object lesson in humility was given his disciples by washing their feet (Jn. XITE, 4 ff.). Such illustrations of their teaching through gestures and external acts of necessity form part of the method of all successful teaching. JESUS' METHODS OF TEACHING 7 1 Summary. — In his teaching Jesus was informal, and, like all great teachers, seemed to be using no set method. He realized, however, the need of raising a problem, and he often utilized a perplexity of long standing, awakened a query himself, or seized upon some hostile inquiry. He was enabled to do this through his profound knowl- edge of human nature, as witnessed by the introductions to various sayings of his in the gospels. He adapted his stimulus to each individual and employed a wide range of topics, but sometimes had to defer his teaching, because of the mental or moral limitations of his hearers. Hence he recognized the importance of the principle afterward called "apperception" by Herbart. He especially under- stood the traditions of the Jews, who composed most of his hearers, and often based his teachings upon the He- brew Scriptures, but stressed their inner meaning and somewhat modified them. In this respect the cautious legalism of the scribes was in marked contrast with Jesus' spontaneity and intuition, and "he taught like one having authority." Jesus always clothed his teachings in epi- grams and aphorisms, but he did not at first use "par- ables," which later became so characteristic of him. While parables do not necessarily relate real events, they are in harmony with life, and are calculated to attract attention and impress the memory. This method of teaching proved most successful. There are some thirty parables, and they hold up one central idea in various lights, and often occur in pairs or clusters. John records Jesus as using the allegory, which is a variant of the parable. Jesus also emphasized his teachings by the method of external acts. 73 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? SUPPLEMENTARY READING Glover, T. R. The Jesus of History. Chapters III and IV. Hinsdale, B. A. Jesus as a Teacher. Chapters X-XVII, and XX. Kent, C. F. The Social Teachings of the Prophets and Jesus. Chapter XVII. Penniman, Josiah H. A Book about the English Bible, Chap- ter XII. Rall, H. F. New Testament History. Chapter IX. Rhees, Rush. The Life of Jesus of Nazareth. Part 11, Chap- ters III and IV. Stevens, G. B. The Teaching of Jesus. Chapters HE and IV. TrpswoRD, H. M. Pedagogics of Jesus. Part II. Wayland, J. W. Christ as a Teacher. CHAPTER IV JESUS ' IDEA OF GOD The Concept of God as the Test of a Man's Char- acter. — The teaching of Jesus is essentially religious. His conception of God is typical of the entire content of his instruction. His simple but lofty vision of the Divine and of the "one increasing purpose which through the ages runs" is a leading feature in distinguishing the teaching of Jesus from that of all others. This conception reveals to us his own nature, for a person's character can be known from that of the God iTie character , « of a person or he worships. While Robert G. Ingersoll would hardly pation appears *■ o •' m their concep- be taken as an authority on theology, he cleverly hints '^°° °^ ^°^- at this truth in his parody upon the Scottish bard, — , "An honest God's the noblest work of man." Similarly, the ideals of any nation or race and the stage of its ad- vancement appear in its concept of God. Realizing that, more than half a millennium before the advent of Christ, the Greek philosopher, Xenophanes, satirically de- clared: " Men ever suppose that the gods have a body and voice and wear clothing like their own. . . . Hence the gods of the Ethiopians are swarthy and snub-nosed, and the gods of the Thracians are fair-haired and blue-eyed. . . . Similarly, Homer and Hesiod attributed to the gods all that is disreputable and blameworthy among men . . . 73 74 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? theft, adultery, deception, and other lawless deeds. . . . So if cattle and horses had hands with which to depict and produce works of art, they would describe the gods and make their bodies according to their own shape . . . horses like horses, and cattle like cattle." Jesus' Idea of God as Father. — Many centuries, then, must have elapsed before the human race, la its efforts to form an idea of the Divine, arose from animism, totemism, ancestor worship, and polytheism, through the intervening stage of henotheism, to the higher reaches of monotheism.^ Every step of this progress is well illustrated in the long history of the Hebrews, with their development from the tribal and anthropomorphic gods of pre-Mosaic days to the monistic, spiritual, and ubiqui- ^'tous concepts of Jahweh formed by the prophets. And Jesus added ^t^o all the Hghcr attributes of the godhead — universality, co!tST°Jf G^ in2,jesty, wisdom, power — that had been gradually as Father. evolvcd iu this coursc of Jewish religious development, seem to have been assmned as part of his spiritual heri- tage by Jesus. In addition to these, however, he pro- duced the greatest transformation in the concept of the Deity by emphasizing his close relationship to men as their "father." The Old Testament had occasionally referred to Jahweh as "father," but this relation was 1 Even to-day many well meaning and presumably intelligent people, who suppose themselves to be monotheists, are at best groping in the twilight of "henotheism." They hold to a species of modernized pantheon, recognizing good and bad angels, per- sonal devils, and pluralistic views of the Trinity, which imply a variety of demoted deities or demigods, and they have never fully emerged into the daylight of monotheism. JESUS' IDEA OF GOD 75 generally expressed in the case of Israel alone (Ex. IV, 22; Deut. XIV, i; Hos. XI, I'jJer. Ill, 4), or of its the- ocratic king (II Sam'l VII, 14; Ps. LXXXIX, 26), or important magistrates (Ps. LXXXII, 6). It usually im- plied a special mark of divine favor for a chosen people or persons. Jesus, on the other hand, seems never to have thought of this kinship as limited to any race or people, but he extended it to all mankind, and made it the central and supreme idea of his teaching. Without in the least weakening the awe and reverence that had come to be associated with Jahweh as Creator, Protector, and Ruler by this suggestion of fatherhood, the idea of God was shot through and through with new meaning, and each existing epithet or title of dignity for the Deity, such as "Most High" (ML V, 7), "Blessed" (ML XIV, 61), or Power" (ML XIV, 62), when he uttered it, took on an increased significance. Man's reverence for God and his dependence upon him existed no longer because he was the "servant" of God, but because he was his child. Jesus described God as "father," because this term seemed best to indicate the intimacy of relationship as companion or friend. And it can readily be seen how different is this con- The conception , "^ of fatherhood ception of fatherhood from the idea of God as a law- f^^m fh^t^o?^^ giver that was current at the time with the Pharisees lawgiver. and others. From Jesus' point of view, righteousness consisted not in obedience to a fixed set of laws or a definite ceremonial handed down from ancient days, but in loyalty to a beloved father and sympathetic compan- ionship with him. Men are the children of God, not because he is their Creator and Ruler, but because they 76 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? are related to him by bonds of sympathy and dependence. Friendship with God, Jesus taught, is not obtained by the study of ritual or devotion to Temple worship, but by working to accomplish the divine purpose in the world and in the development of the race. The Attributes of Fatherhood. — What, then, are the moral attributes that Jesus associates with God as Father and that may be emulated by mankind as his sons? Foremost among the characteristics of a wise and loving father, constantly attributed to God by Jesus, is that Protecting care, of Drotccting carc. Any ouc who has kuown the afifcctiou- as the character- *-- o •' w °^ ^^^^^^' ^^^ protection of a father, or who has been stirred by the emotional promptings of paternal anxiety and vigilance, can imderstand the significance of this characterization. Matthew repeatedly cites the Father's solicitude as the sure ground for a belief in the divine Providence, and makes it a leading thought in the Sermon on the Mount. Continual begging from the Father is foolish, he holds, "for God, your Father, knows what you need before you ask him" (VI, 8). Likewise he says: "Do not then ask anxiously 'What can we get to eat? ' or 'What can we get to drink?' or 'What can we get to wear?' All these are the things for which the nations are seeking, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all" (VI, 31 f.). Another admonition of Jesus to the same effect was given earlier in the chapter (VI, 25 f.), together with the familiar proof of God's thoughtful pro- vision for mankind: "Look at the wild birds . . . they neither sow, nor reap, nor gather into bams; and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. . . . Study the wild lilies and how they grow. They neither toil nor spin; JESUS' IDEA OP GOD 77 yet I tell you that even Solomon in all his splendor was not robed like one of these." The comparison of God's evident care for the birds is even more effectively given later (X, 29 £f.) in the rhetorical question: "Are not two sparrows sold for a hahpenny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father's knowledge. While, as for you, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not, therefore, be afraid; you are of more value than many sparrows." Luke (XII, 22 ff.) has absorbed the Sayings of Jesus (see pp. 9 f .) in much the same form, although the illustrative birds are ravens, not sparrows, when they are declared neither to sow nor reap (XII, 24), and the selling price becomes slightly more of a bargain in an earlier passage, where sparrows are mentioned (XII, 6). But these evidences of God's paternal regard for our physical comfort are cited by Matthew simply as argu- ment for the preeminent value of spiritual sustenance, and as a caution against undue worry in material matters, which are of so much less importance, for he continues: "But first seek his Kingdom and the righteousness he requires, and then all these things shall be added for you. Therefore do not be anxious about to-morrow, for to-morrow will bring its own anxieties. Every day has trouble enough of its own" (VI, 33 ff.). This advice is not intended in any way to encourage heedlessness, lethargy, or fatalism. His Father's interest in his wel- but not intended \ , *^o encourage fare furnishes a reason to no man why he should fail {^^^^^-3^°^^ °^ to use the ordinary means of making a livelihood, or take the precautions necessary to insure his personal safety. That the Synoptists (see p. 9) did not hold this to be 78 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? the meaning of Jesus, is shown by their account of his resistance to the temptation to rely upon his Father to make bread from the stones, or to save him from death, if he were to throw himself from the pinnacle of the Temple {ML IV, i ff.; ML I, 12 ff.; Lk. TV, i ff.)- Pity and for- Other patent attributes of the divine fatherhood are giveness, as char- ^ Father!^'^shouid^ P^^Y ^^^ forgiveucss. Thcse qualities follow almost as hfe chlSkS ^^ a corollary from the proposition of watchful care. Even the Old Testament {Ps. CIII, 13) distinguishes pity as an attribute of paternity in the expression: "Like as a father pitieth his children, so Jehovah pitieth them that fear him.'' And Jesus throughout the syn- optic gospels not only stresses these characteristics of the Father, but insists that they become an example for all his children. In Luke (VI, 36) it is taught: "Learn to be merciful — even as your Father is merci- ful." So the disciples are to pardon, as well as to be pardoned. The model prayer suggests the petition: "Forgive us our debts, as we have also forgiven our debtors" (ML VI, 12, cf. Lk. XI, 4). And as an ex- planation, Jesus adds: "For if ye forgive others their offenses, your heavenly Father will forgive you also; but if you do not forgive others their offenses, not even your Father will forgive your offenses" (ML VT, 14 f.). Likewise Jesus insists upon forgiveness as antecedent to prayer: "Whenever you stand up to pray, forgive any grievance you have against any one, that your Father who is in Heaven also may forgive your offenses" (Mk. XI, 25). And he even declares specifically: "Therefore, when presenting your gift at the altar, if even there you remember that your brother has some grievance JESUS* IDEA OF GOD 79 against you, leave your gift there, before the altar, go and be reconciled to your brother first, then come and present your gift'' {ML V, 23 f.). And he makes more explicit the principle underlying forgiveness by recount- ing Jesus' parable of the unmerciful servant. Here (Mt. XVin, 23 ff.) the servant, who had been forgiven a large debt by his master, was most ruthless in his treatment of a fellow servant, who vainly besought patience in the case of a small amount, and when the master heard this, he "handed him over to the gaolers, until he should pay the whole of his debt. So also, will my heavenly Father do to you, imless each one of you forgives his brother from his heart." This, it will be recalled, was the parable used as an illustrative basis for Jesus' reply to Peter that he should forgive not "seven times, but seventy times seven" (ML XVIII, 21 f.). Sonship Attained by Adopting the Ethical Attri- butes of God. — But it may still be asked, did Jesus mean to imply that God was to be regarded as the "father" of all men? Was sonship to be extended to those who rejected him and his characteristics, or to be limited to the faithful? Clearly in the sense of cre- atorship God is the father of all men, and Jesus makes it equally apparent that they are all made in his spirit- ual image, and may, if they will, aspire to the moral attributes desired by him. By virtue of their very humanity, they possess an ineradicable likeness to God, and with the spark of the Divine within, they are ever capable of rising to the greatest nobility in the way of self-sacrifice and devotion. Sonship rests in their own efforts. All men possess God's characteristics poten- 8o WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? Au men are tiallv and hc is at least ideally the Father of them all. potentially sons •' ^ "^ of God, Some realize the ideal very imperfectly, and some may even by their own will repudiate the filial relation, but the potentiality to some extent remains. Even the unfilial conduct of the Prodigal Son could not destroy the paternal relation and characteristics {Lk. XV, 21 ff.)- And throughout the Sermon on the Mount it is evident that God's love and forgiveness are regarded as universal, and that the door is never closed to the wanderer. Here it is that Jesus maintains: "You, then, must become perfect {i.e., complete and not partial in love), as your heavenly Father is perfect" {Mt. V, 48). Yet it must be noted that, whUe God is represented as remaining the loving Father of humanity, ever ready to forgive, sonship is held to consist in becoming the moral counterpart of God, and they are more truly the sons of God who live the life of close fellowship with him. Through striving after noble ends and con- sciously strengthening their determination by prayer, such men may be said to develop a more intimate and responsive relationship to God. They become molded into a new character and obtain a more complete like- ness through personal contact. The mutual love and the similarity of nature thus engendered render the human analogy taken from fatherhood more appropri- ate in their case. They are, so to speak, more intensively the sons of God. Thus, while God's love and forgiveness for the entire race never cease, and Jesus maintains that the divine but there are t j SJ^tiiek^reaiiS- patcmity exists for all, there are widely differing degrees tion of sonship. ^f ^^^ ^0^^ and obcdieuce, and some men may be con- JESUS' IDEA OF GOD $1 sidered more nearly members of a divine family. "To all who did receive him/' declares John (I, 12), "he gave power to become children of God." Hence Jesus, while never denying the universality of Fatherhood, reserves the dignity of sonship for those who have entered the kingdom, and have, in John's (III, 3) phrase- ology, been "reborn." So real and important is this metaphorical and spiritual kinship that at times he holds that it must even supersede that of one's own blood and family relations. He even bade one of the disciples who wished first to bury his father: "Follow me and leave the dead to bury their dead" (ML VIII, 22; Mk. IX, 60). In his own case, too, when told that his mother and brethren were waiting to speak to him, Jesus declined to go, and, "stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said: 'Here are my mother and my brothers '" (ML XH, 49 f. Cf. ML III, 34 ff.; LL VIII, 20 f.). This last passage seems also to indicate the main ground upon which Jesus held himself to be the son of God, — ethical like-mindedness. That view he proceeds Jmus is also the ' ^ son of God, be- to substantiate by saying: "For any one who does the fienes^^J^^"^* will of my Father who is in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." That is to say, the test of sonship or membership in the divine family is found in the en- deavor to follow the requirements of God. And Jesus makes his own claim to sonship analogous with that of all faithful followers of God. This is quite a different a, very different , ^ view from that mterpretation of the meaning of "the Son of God" from ?^ ^^ ??<=¥. ■*■ o Jewish Messiah. that rather official and material use of the term which had grown up in connection with some of the Jewish 83 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? views of the expected Messiah. The sonship claimed by Jesus was, however, frequently understood in that miraculous and primitive sense. Illustrations of this are found in the challenge to show himself really the Son of God by turning stones into bread or by casting him- self from the pinnacle of the Temple {ML TV, 3 ff.; Lk. rV, 3 ff.)> and in the taunting request to demonstrate his sonship by coming down from the cross (ML XXVII, 40 ff.; Lk. XXIII, 35 ff.). A similar conventional inter- pretation of the Messiahship as consisting simply in the performance of wonders is found in the well-known in- cident: "Now John had heard in prison what the Christ was doing, and he sent a message by his disciples and asked — ^ Are you The Coming One, or are we to look for some one else?'" (ML XI, 2). The Sonship of Jesus Himself. — But Jesus often spoke and acted about his sonship as if it were something imique, although he seems not to have adhered to any merely material view of this relation. Constantly dur- ing his ministry he indicated his certainty that he held a peculiar relationship to God, but this attitude is always susceptible of meaning moral kinship and sympathy. Spou^lswS According to Matthew (XI, 27), Jesus declared: "Every- "^'"1"^' thing has been committed to me by my Father; nor does any one fully know the Son, except the Father, or fully know the Father, except the Son, and those to whom the Son may choose to reveal Him." In John this ethical similarity is even more emphasized, for Jesus maintained: "He who has seen me has seen the Father. . . . Believe me when I say that I am in union with the Father and the Father with me" (XIV, 9 ff.). > JESUS' IDEA OP GOD 83 Other allusions, while more subtle, are no less clear. Un- doubtedly Jesus himself is intended to be understood as the "beloved son" sent by the owner of the vineyard to represent him (M/. XXI, 37 ff.; Mk, XII, 6 Q.',Lk. XX, 13 jBf.)' He is likewise indicated in the parable of the "king who made a marriage feast for his son,'^ and had such poor success in securing the guests {Mt. XXII, 2 ff.). Thus in every reference the sonship seems to be spirit- fjSrkud.— n^f ual. A personal identification of himself with Gk)d is p^^^^^^J probably not impHed even in John's description of the intimacy of the relation by figurative expressions drawn from the physical side of human life, such as "the Only Son sent from the Father" (I, 14 and 18. Cf. Ill, 16 and 18). In his interpretation of sonship Jesus transcends the current material and restricted view. He never makes this his prime idea, but clearly indicates that he is the son of God because he reveals the Father in his own life, and because, in his new interpretation of the ideals of Gk)d and in the salvation of men from their lower selves, he stands alone. While the sonship of Jesus is analogous to that of faith- ful men everywhere, it is most certainly unique. This was the sure, though humble, conviction of Jesus. While he spoke as if he were the son of God in the same sense that all true believers were his children, by sympathetic n^a^'b^Sl kinship, he never considered the sonship of the disciples '''^^ humility. on a par with his own. In his conversations with them he regularly refers to "your Father" or to "my Father," but never to "our Father." This possessive pronoun is used, of course, in his model prayer, but the petition is there suggested to the disciples for their own use. Thk 84 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? distinctive recognition of Jesus as the son of God par ex- cellence is confirmed in such passages as the baptism of Jesus, where the voice from the heavens declared: ''This is my Son, the Beloved, in whom I delight" {Mt. Ill, 17. Cf. Mk. I, 11; Lk. Ill, 22), or in the descriptions of the transfiguration, where a similar phenomenon is recorded (ML XVII, 5; Lk. IX, 35). Hence Jesus declared that all men might, by faith and deeds, become the children of God (Jn. I, 12), but that he actually was the son of God. He taught the imiversal fatherhood of God through moral kinship, but for that very reason the closeness of the relation was in his own case absolutely unique. Jesus* Idea of God as King. — Such was the new idea of God as Father taught by Jesus. One other title is also implied of God by the Great Teacher and that is "king." jH"s\ha't°Gld'is '^^^ ^^"^ itself is seldom used, but Jesus constantly " king," refers to ' ' the Kingdom of God, ' ' and thereby might seem to indicate a group of people imder the sovereignty of a Supreme Being. This characterization of God appears at the beginning of Jesus' teaching and remains a prime concept throughout. According to Mark (I, 14), as soon as Jesus started his work in Galilee, he declared: "The time has come, and the Kingdom of God is at hand." The phrase recurs throughout the gospel of Mark and it is used at every turn in Luke. Matthew usually employs an alternative expression, "the Kingdom of Heaven," to indicate the same idea. But the synonymous form is probably used by this ecclesiastical (see p. 16) evangelist, simply to avoid, in keeping with the Jewish custom, the direct use of the name of the Deity, wherever possible. JESUS' IDEA OP GOD 85 And even in Matthew "the Kingdom of God'' occurs three times (XII, 28; XXI, 31 and 43). This idea of kingship, however, when used by Jesus, ^g^^e^nj^^^^i^^'^t^J may be regarded as simply another side to fatherhood. |id?%V'^{a2i?l His use of the term seems to emphasize the authority of ^°°^' the Father, and to recognize more expressly the necessity for living in accordance with his truth and law, but the "Kingdom" is, after all, simply the idea of a family expanded and made more comprehensive. The king is the father and the subjects are brothers. In fact, the filial relation to the Father and citizenship in the King- dom are sometimes used interchangeably. "Blessed {i.e. happy) are the peacemakers," says Jesus in Matthew (V, 9), "for they shall be called the Sons of God," whereas he holds that "the poor in spirit" (V, 3) and "those who have been persecuted in the cause of righteousness" (V, 10) should be happy, "for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven." So the first petition in the model prayer reads: "Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name," while the second is "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done" {ML VI, 9 f. Cf. Lk. XI, 2). Similarly, Jesus insists upon an outstanding characteristic of childhood, — implicit trust in the Father, as the only means of entering the Kingdom {Mt. XVIII, 3; Mk. X, 15). In many other ways the terms of "father" and "king" are equated, and the two ideals blend throughout the synoptic gospels. Possibly citizenship in the heavenly polity may be con- sidered to stress the social side of the situation, just as membership in the divine family makes reference to the individual. Jesus was striving not merely for love and loyalty to a divine Father, but for a social order which 86 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? should realize the divine purpose. Through the family of faithful sons were to be trained efficient spiritual citizens, and entrance into a transformed society was to be the goal and reward of the individual's efforts. The concept of devoted family relations extended to society at large was the perfected social ideal of Jesus. The Ideal of a Material Kingdom Enlarged. — Much more than in the case of the concept of fatherhood (see p. 74), the "king" idea had been somewhat developed in the Old Testament. Jesus in a way but gave a new meaning or "fulfillment" (see p. 63) to a well-established Jewish tradition. The Hebrews always regarded their state as a theocracy — a monarchy ruled by Jahweh. Their kings and magistrates were held to be his vice- gerents upon earth, even to the extent, as we have seen (p. 75), of calling them "the sons of God." During the various periods of domination and oppression that Judaea had suffered under Babylon, Persia, Alexander, the Ptolemies, Syria, and Rome, this idea was strengthened d^ine'^?ing°dom ^^^ elaborated. The conception of a divine kingdom b^'^thfttaiT'ol bad, by the time of Jesus, developed into a belief in the ^^^' establishment of a great empire, which was destined to cast off the foreign yoke and dominate the world. This enlarged idea is often portrayed, especially in the apoc- alyptic literature of the Old Testament, as, for example, the passage from Daniel (II, 44) : " And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever." This Messianic view of the Kingdom, as we JESUS' IDEA OF GOD 87 shall see (pp. 142 f.), became more pronounced in Enoch, Baruch, and various other recently discovered apoca- lyptic books. There was a general belief that a Messiah would suddenly arise amid signs and wonders. He would quickly conquer the world and establish the divine empire, with Jerusalem as its capital. This ideal of a Messianic kingdom was adapted by and JpirftuauSd Jesus, and given a wider and more spiritual significance. *'• His conception of the Kingdom of God crystallized all the inherited loyalty and devotion of the Jewish race, but he no longer limited the Kingdom to Judaea. He extended the possibility of citizenship therein to all mankind, and made the test for entrance not race, wealth, power, or social standing, but the possession of certain virtues and moral qualities. While Jesus never defines this spiritual Kingdom, in the varied language of the Beatitudes {ML V, 3-1 1) he catalogues those whose characteristics will enable them to attain membership in it; to wit, the humble, penitent, gentle, virtuous, compassionate, pure- minded, peacemakers, and martyrs. Elsewhere (ML XVIII, 3 ff.; Mk. X, 15) he cites submissiveness and childlike trust as qualities for citizenship in the Kingdom. Again {ML XX, 21 ff.) he declares service to be the real test for good standing there. According to John's mys- tical statement (III, 3), Jesus maintained that the achievement of these qualities entails a new birth. In other words, allowing for the pedagogical repetition in the Beatitudes, the Great Teacher holds that citizenship in the Kingdom of God requires that one develop humil- ity, purity, and service as the texture of his character. Such a spiritual society was somewhat different from 88 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? the earthly kingdom that many of the Jewish apocalyptic writers had described. It was not material and objective, with a fixed organization and administrarion, but was spiritual and a product of congenial intellects, emotions, and wills. Like Boston, as the wag has expressed it, it was not a place, but a state of mind. The great human- ist, Erasmus, declared, when Italy was the center of culture: "To me any one who is truly learned is an Italian, even if born among savages." So anyone who shared the thoughts and purposes of God in an attitude of love and loyalty to him was to become a citizen of his Kingdom, wherever his birthplace might have been. In a union of this sort distance was no obstacle, and the members might be widely separated. " For where two or three have come together in my Name, I am present with them" {ML XVIII, 20). Since the relationship is a spiritual one, it is possible for all to attain it, and it could well be declared that "many will come from East and West, and take their places beside Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven" {ML VIII, 11). Development of the Kingdom. — This spiritual king- Kfngdl?m^was*tJ ^°"^' Jcsus sccms to have held, was destined constantly develop and ^q grow and expand in power and repute. Hence in Matthew (XIII, 31 ff.) it is likened to the mustard seed developing into a large plant, or to the yeast spreading in the meal, while Mark (IV, 26 ff.) reports the metaphor of a seed of growing grain, which becomes "first the blade, then the ear, and then the full grain in the ear." This process of realizing the divine ideals, too, would seem to answer the question that has sometimes been raised as to whether Jesus referred, by the "Kingdom expanc as in thi future. JESUS' IDEA OP GOD 89 of God" and the *' Kingdom of Heaven," to a present reality or to a future state of blessedness. As the chapter on The Teaching of Jesus concerning the Future (VII) will indicate in detail, apparently he meant both. While the ideals formulated could only be approximated, he regarded them as somewhat attainable upon earth and did not look forward to a heavenly Kingdom only. Said Jesus, when questioned by the Pharisees : ^ ' The Kingdom S iJ^b^egin'^^w of God does not come in a way that admits of observa- wS°as^£^the tion, nor will people say 'Look, here it is!' or 'There it is ! ' ; for the Kingdom of God is in your midst" (Lk. XVII, 21). The earthly Kingdom was to be but anticipatory of the heavenly. Hence it is not merely in the future that men are to become brothers, but in the present as well. ''You have only one Teacher," Jesus said, "and you yourselves are all brothers" (ML XXIII, 8). The social order in which the relation of men to God is that of sons and to each other of neighbors and brothers is to be begun here and now {Lk. X, 25-37). The hopes of the Jewish masses for a present kingdom and the es- chatological vision of the later Jewish writers of a future divine Israelitish state, with a Messiah at the head as God's vicegerent, and all other peoples as subjects, both entered into the new interpretation of Jesus. He took these expectations of a divinely reconstituted society, and purified the ideas of both present and future con- tained in them. He also harmonized and imiversalized them in his conception of a spiritual kingdom progres- sively achieved. Difficulties in Comprehending Jesus' Idea of the King- dom. — But the concept of a kingdom of this sort — of the timM, 90 "WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? spiritual, universal, widely separated, and gradual — was Sea coSKot difficult for the people of the times to grasp. While it bj the"SSS was derived from a well-established hope and expectation, the adaptation was so radical as to prove confusing and misleading to those looking for a visible and material kingdom. Jesus himself soon recognized that this ex- treme departure from the original idea of a political kingdom or theocratic state was so great that one could not without disaster, as he expressed it, sew the new fabric upon the old garment or put the new wine into the old containers {Mk. II, 21 f.). So well-rooted and persistent, however, was the idea of an earthly empire that even Jesus found the temptation to become a new Caesar forced upon him. But he steadfastly refused to attempt any miraculous exhibition of his imperial vice- gerency by turning stones into bread or hurling himself from the top of a great building, saying in the one case: "Scripture says — 'It is not on bread alone that man is to live ' " {Lk. IV, 4), and in the other: " It is said — 'Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God' " {Lk. IV, 12). And when, thirdly, he was tempted to assume dominion over "all the kingdoms of the world," he recalled the words: "Scripture says — *Thou shalt do homage to the Lord thy God, and worship him only'" {Lk. IV, 8). He often had to decline to perform any wonders as a sign of his Messiahship, and declared to the expectant multitude on one occasion: "This generation is asking a sign, but no sign shall be given to it, except the sign of Jonah ... for they repented at Jonah's proclama- tion; and here is more than a Jonah" {Lk. XI, 30 ff.). And, after the wonderful feeding of the multitude, it is JESUS' IDEA OP GOD 9I related: "When the people saw the signs which Jesus gave, they said: "This is certainly 'the Prophet who was to come' into the world. But Jesus, having discovered that they were intending to come and carry him off to make him king, retired again up the hill quite alone" {Jn. VI, 14 f.). Repeatedly those who witnessed his remarkable works and teaching, mindful of the tradi- tional Kingdom of God and the promised Messiah or vicegerent, endeavored without success to drag him into politics and seat him upon a visible throne. On the other hand, because he maintained, when challenged, that he was a king, his hearers, who failed to take this in the spiritual sense, had him put to death {Lk. XXIII, 2 ff.). They were never able to understand his declara- tion: "My kingly power is not due to this world" {Jn. XVIII, 36). The disciples of Jesus themselves, with all the oppor- J^j^^ ^^ ^" tunities they had to listen to his teachings, failed to appreciate his mission. They seemed to have been frankly disappointed wheh, as Gk)d's representative, he claimed no earthly throne. We read {ML XVIII, i ff.) how they came to the Master and naively asked: "Who is really the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven? " When in answer Jesus called a little child to him, and then said: "Any one who will hiunble himself like this child, that man shall be the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven," they must have been perplexed and probably grieved by the interpretation. When later the mother ^ of James and John came with her sons and actually went so far »In Mark (X, 35 ff.) the two disciples themselves are repre- Bcnted as preferring the request. 92 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? as to make the request: "I want you to say that in your Kingdom these two sons of mine may sit, one on your right, and the other on your left" {ML XX, 21 ff.), Jesus replied: ''You shall indeed drink my cup, but as to a seat at my right and at my left — that is not mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father." And to the other ten disciples, who, upon hearing the request, ''were very indignant about the two brothers," he explained: "Whosoever would be great among you shall be your minister; and whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant; just as the Son of Man came, not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." But still the spiritual Kingdom seems to have re- mained but indifferently comprehended by these men who were nearest to Jesus. Upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, just before the crucifixion, the disciples were probably among those who joined in the shout: "Blessed is the coming Kingdom of our father David!" (Mk. XI, 10). At any rate it is recorded (Acts I, 6) that after the resurrection they even yet failed to get the purport of his interpretation of the Kingdom of God and inquired impatiently: "Master, is this the time when you intend to reestablish the Kingdom of Israel? " Jesus* Idea of God a " Fulfillment." — Thus the de- scription of God's character, both as "father" and as "king," was adapted by Jesus from Jewish traditions, but, as compared with many of these, so humanized and spiritualized as to become largely original with him. While it was difl&cult for the people of the times, and even his professed followers, fully to comprehend the JESUS' IDEA OF GOD 93 sense in which he used these terms, they must have felt that it was a genuine "fulfillment" and became a Yet aii must have realized bond between the new and the old. The complete the "fumu- . ment. significance and more extensive acceptance have been gradually growing with the progress of time. An ap- preciation of the Father in Heaven and the furtherance of his Kingdom have been increasing ever since the prayer was offered as a model. Summary. — Jesus' idea of God reveals his own nature. To the wisdom, majesty, and power conceived by the Jewish traditions, he added the idea of fatherhood, with the attributes of protecting care, pity, and forgiveness. Men become the children of God in so far as they adopt these qualities, and the sonship of Jesus, while unique, is founded upon the revelation of God in bis own life. The idea of kingship was also attributed to God by Jesus, but this seems simply to expand the idea of a divine family and to stress its social side. This con- ception also had been developed in Hebrew history, but Jesus represented it as a spiritual, rather than a material, kingdom, and made humility, purity, and service the test of membership. The realization of these ideals was to be gradual, and the Kingdom of God was a present reality, as well as a future state. The people of the times, and even the disciples, found it difficult to grasp this departure from the concept of a political kingdom. SUPPLEMENTARY READING BoswoRTH, E. I. Studies in the Teaching of Jesus. Part I. Glover, T. R. The Jesus of History. Chapter V. 94 "WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? HiLLis, N. D. The Influence of Christ in Modern Life. Chap- ters VII and VIII. Mathews, Shailer. Message of Jesus to Modern Life. Study I. Mathews, S. Social and Ethical Teaching of Jesus. Studies II, III, and VI. MoFFATT, James. The Theology of the Gospels. Chapter III. Rall, H. F. New Testament History. Chapters X-XV. Scott, E. F. The Kingdom and the Messiah. Chapters I and 11. Stevens, G. B. The Teaching of Jesus. Chapters I, V, and VI. CHAPTER V JESUS' IDEA OF MAN The Brotherhood of Man and the Divine Commun- ity. — After the elaboration of Jesus' conception of God in the last chapter, further comment regarding his view of man might seem to be superfluous. The one idea is so obviously the correlate of the other. And yet it may afford a more comprehensive view and bring out certain implications, to state the attitude of Jesus from the obverse side. All men are potentially the sons of God, Jf'God^*are'°°' but to claim their birthright they should strive after Sf'' '" """^ the divine characteristics or attributes required of them.i But, through his deep-lying social instincts, man has a capacity and desire for a union with his fellows, as well as a purely individualistic side. If it is true that all may become the children of God, it follows that they may be brothers to each other. If they once become fully con- scious of their common sonship, they will naturally be drawn into relations of sympathy and brotherly love. So important does Jesus deem this fraternal feeling and action to be that he holds that any obstruction to its origin and function should be ruthlessly removed, even if the punctuality of a formal religious observance is thereby violated. That is the meaning of the well-known passage: "Therefore, when presenting your gift at the altar, if 95 96 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? On the social side, a divine community, or " Kingdom of God," will be established. even there you remember that your brother has some grievance against you, leave yoiir gift there, before the altar, go and be reconciled to your brother first, then come and present your gift'' {ML V, 23 f.). A sense of this common filial relationship and frater- nity, Jesus clearly held, should animate a man's dealings even with his adversaries and enemies. While one could hardly be expected to have the actual affection for them that seems to have been felt for his opponents by the Mas- ter, he can always treat them as if they were his brothers. The characteristics of mankind that make a union with the divine purpose necessary and normal, should perforce bring one into unified relations with all his fellows. The consummation of activity of this sort must be the gradual establishment of a social order in which fraternity will characterize all phases of social life. This divine society Jesus describes metaphorically in a variety of ways, such as the organic growth of a vine and its branches (Jn. XV, I f.), or the activities of a family community dweUing in the Father's place of abode (Jn, XIV, 2 f.). And the members of this group are spoken of as "salt," the all- important condiment for the religious food of the world {ML V, 13), and are viewed as companions and sympa- thetic yoke fellows {Mt. XI, 28 ff.)- ^^t the ideal society is most frequently indicated by the "Kingdom of God," which both is and is to come, for the members are con- stantly increasing and the Kingdom itself expanding its vision. Hence, just as Jesus holds that the individual man is ideally God's son and may make the relation real by seek- ing to attain certain ethical qualities, on the social side JESUS' IDEA OF MAN 97 man becomes a member of God's Kingdom when he rec- ognizes these characteristics as the laws of his life. The point of view underlying both these descriptions of man's nature constitutes the peculiarity and uniqueness of the Master's teaching on the subject. Instead of making morals the basis of religion, religious experience is the real ground of morality. Ethical conduct is sought SSf 'tJ^^basis to attain to sonship, and right social relations are nee- reifion.'^ '^ '"^ essary to enter the Kingdom or community of God. And when one has come under the influence and direction of these ideals, he does not lose his real self, but for the first time finds it. He has entered into his natural inheritance and become the son of God and a member of the divine society. The Infinite Worth of a Human Soul. — The possi- bility of securing such a relationship explains the repeated insistence of Jesus upon the infinite worth of every human soul and upon the nature and unwisdom of sin. The de- J^^^^^^^^^ velopment of one's soul into God's likeness and the secur- '^ paramount, ing of sonship cannot be accounted secondary to any other object in life, whereas a sinful life means discard- ing one's likeness and severing the filial relation, and con- stitutes the most suicidal folly. *'What good is it," asks Jesus rhetorically, "to a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life (or soul)? For what could a man give that is of equal value with his life? " (Mk. VIII, 36 f. Cf. ML XVI, 26 and Lk. IX, 25). Hence the crim- inal folly of the rich man of the parable, who said to his soul: "Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years, take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou foolish one, this night is thy 98 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? soul required of thee; and the things which thou hast pre- pared, where shall they be? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God" ^ {Lk. XII, 19 £[.)• This, too, is the significance of the advice: "Do not be anxious about your life here — what you can get to eat or drink; nor yet about your body — what you can get to wear. Is not life more than food, and the body than its clothing?" {ML VI, 25). And, similarly, it is held to be better to lose one's hand, foot, or eye than to lose one's soul or possibility of likeness to God and fel- lowship with him {Mk. IX, 43 ff.). It was because of his feeling for the sanctity and possi- bilities of each human soul that Jesus treated every one he met with consideration and dignity. He was uniformly kind in all his dealings, whether with the learned Pharisee, the supercilious high priest, the humble peasant, the de- spised publican, or the outcast woman. However confi- dent or humble, every human being was to him a real per- son, with a soul precious beyond measure. This accounts for the seeming hyperbole: " If any one puts a snare in the way of one of these lowly ones who beheve in me, it would be far better for him if he had been thrown into the sea with a great millstone roimd his neck" {Mk. IX, 42). With his clear insight, he realized that whatever stands in or°rdfei?us '^^ the way of a man's spiritual life, even though it be a well- established religious tradition, such as the observance of the Sabbath, must give way {Mt. XH, 10 ff.). And all these evidences of the Master's high valuation of the human soul harmonize well with his description of the iThe King James Version is used here, since it brings out more clearly the chief thought of the paragraph. traditions. JESUS' IDEA OP MAN 99 Father's watchful care and solicitude, previously noted (p. 76). To him who regards even the fall of a sparrow, man must seem of infinite importance. Abhorrence for Sin. — This attitude fully accords with the abhorrence that Jesus had for sin, and his desire to do everything possible to save men from it. To him sin meant the ruin of a man's real self, sacrificing his sonship sm fa^uMaturai to God, and excluding himself from the divine community. To dress the idea of Jesus in more modem garb, sin seemed an unnatural and abnormal state for man. It meant a failure to realize his higher life. It implied liv- ing with his most primitive and outworn instincts, and not developing the life of the spirit. It was the life of the lower animals, without aim or guidance, and largely negated all the social instincts and impulses. It was anti- social conduct, a disregard for or an invasion of the rights of one's fellows. It was a repudiation of the ideas of duty, law, and service, and an arrested de- velopment of higher living. It is, therefore, a perversion, and a rejection of man's real self. A human race over- come by sin would, accordingly, seem a contradiction in terms, since it implies the loss or want of development of the parts of man's original nature that constitute him man as distinguished from the brutes. Habitual sinning means the loss of spiritual vision, — a distortion of sight lead- ing ultimately to an inability to see. "The lamp of the body, " said Jesus, "is the eye. If your eye is unclouded, your whole body will be lit up; but, if your eye is dis- eased, your whole body will be darkened. And if the inner light is darkness, how intense must that darkness be!" {ML VI, 22 f.; Lk. XI, 34 ff.). lOO WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? This will explain why Jesus so frequently described asl statfwilSe ^^ ^^ ^ ^tatc whcrc somethiug has been lost, spoiled, or ^mething is separated, and has failed to meet the need for which it was intended. The situation of sinful humanity is lik- ened to that of a lost sheep {Lk. XV, 3 ff.); a lost coin {Lk. XV, 8 ff.), a lost son {Lh XV, 11 ff.), lost health {Mk. II, 17), spoiled fruit {ML VII, 17), a dead limb {Jn. XV, 6), decayed bodies {Mt. XXIII, 28), exclusion from the Hght {ML XXII, 13), loss of money {ML XXV, 28), and separation from happiness {ML XXV, 41). The apostle Paul renders more explicit this loss of son- ship and rejection of the higher life impKed in the teach- ing of Jesus. The way in which sin cuts man adrift from God is indicated by him in a number of vivid phrases. He declares that sin reduces men to a condition where they are "cut off from the life of God" {Eph. IV, 18. Cf. CoL I, 21), are "in the world without God" {Eph II, 12), and are "enemies of God" {Rom. V, 10; CoL I, 21), and he even goes so far as repeatedly to declare of sinful men that "God abandoned them" {Rom. I, 24, 26, 28). Sin Not Technical and External. — With Jesus and his followers, then, sin was not, as it was in large measure with the religious authorities of his day, technical and ex- S 'outwar? Hff tcmal. It was not a matter of outward life nor of ritual and ceremonial, ^^^ ccremomal. It fouud its basis in perverseness of dis- position and a low set of ideas and emotions, rather than in eating pork or a failure to partake of unleaven bread. While Jesus did not despise these observances, he held them subordinate to the spirit in which they were per- formed. "There is nothing external to a man," he de- clared {Mk. VII, 15), "which by going into him can 'de- JEStrs' IDEA OF MAN lOI file' him; but the things that come out of a man are the things that defile him." Even words and acts are but the expression of the inner life of principles and motives, and at best can be regarded only as an index and are not of value in themselves. ''From within, out of the hearts but proceeds from within; of men," said Jesus, "there come evil thoughts — un- chastity, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, haughtiness, folly" {Mk. VII, 21 f.; ML XV, 19). Thus Jesus renders more specific both the words of the elder sage: "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he" {Prov. XXIII, 37), and the principles of the modem psychologist to the effect that "all ideas are motor" and "there can be no im- pression without expression." The standard, then, is one's inner attitude and dispo- sition, rather than some outward observance, and the types of people that are warned in various passages by Jesus that they are in danger of losing their birthright all fall under this test. In the first place, he tells us in the Sermon on the Mount that it is not merely overt mur- derers or adulterers that are to be punished, but rather ^^^^ SEf^n°^ those who indulge in anger or unclean thinking {ML V, S attltuSr^ 21 ff.). Jesus likewise predicts a dire fate to the scribes and Pharisees, who "pay tithes on mint, fennel, and caraway seed, and have neglected the weightier matters of the Law — justice, mercy, and good faith" {ML XXIII, 23). Again, he declares that at the Last Judgment will be condemned those who did not reveal instinctive pity for the poor, hungry, and unfortunate {ML XXV, 42 ff.). Fourthly, Jesus excludes from the kingdom those who have failed to arrive at definite convictions, whether they are condemned. I02 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? look back after putting their hand to the plow {Lk. IX, 62), or refuse to utilize their opportunities at all {Mt. XXV, 24). While, most emphatically of all, he insists that "whoever slanders the Holy Spirit remains unfor- given to the end; he has to answer for an enduring sin" {Mk. m, 29). Jesus felt that The Optimism of Jesus. — But the attitude of Jesus a ^sbne'J^aT^ toward thosc who were "lost" is by no means identical with that of many a theologian of the past generation. He did not use the word at all in the same sense. Their condition was not irreparable. Those who were "lost" might, he held, be found. This happened in the case with the coin, the sheep, and the prodigal of his parables. Much as Jesus abhorred sin, he always discriminated in his action between the sinner and his sin, and he never allowed himseK to become pessimistic in his views of the former. Realizing that a sin does not consist primarily in the outward act, which is but a motor accompaniment of wrong ideals and disposition, he felt that sinners could be made over through the reception of new ideals and interests and a redirection of their lives. He never felt, in consequence, that the state of a sinner was so desperate as to lead to his abandonment as hopelessly lost. His great optimism in this respect and his continued efforts to reconstruct the life of those who had strayed led to his being often accused of leniency and even toleration of sin. He was generally known as "a friend of- taxgather- ers and outcasts" {Mt. XI, 19). It was likewise this recognition of inner motives as the foundation of sin and of the possibility of substituting better ideals in all men that kept Jesus from treating men JESUS' IDEA OF MAN 103 as sharply divided into two hard-and-fast classes, — those who sinned and were hopelessly bad, and those who did be'^divfdld bto^ not and were ever righteous. While he himself used these "sFnnere"Tnd~ terms — ''sinners" (or "outcasts") and "righteous"— ""g^t«°"«'" occasionally, he did so only in recognition of the current practice, and repeatedly showed that the "unco' good'* were often the greater sinners of the two. The official "sinners," both in his parables and in the incidents of his life, seemed more ready to respond to new ideals than the righteous. This was the situation with the two sons, one of whom said: "I will not go, but afterwards he was sorry and went," while the other said, "Yes, sir, but did not go" (ML XXI, 29 f.). A more graphic in- stance is found in the story of the self-satisfied Pharisee, and the publican, who "kept striking his breast and say- ing, '0 God, have mercy on me, a sinner' " (Lk. XVIII, 10 ff.). Because, too, of his belief that an effective appeal might be made to "sinners," Jesus succeeded in trans- forming a grasping publican named Zaccheus into a pub- lic benefactor and in rendering the prostitute Magdalene a virtuous disciple. He was not, however, friendly to publicans and sinners simply because they were outcasts, but because he wished to aid the sinning whenever they were conscious of their need. Nor was he prejudiced against the scribes and Pharisees as such, but was glad to befriend them when they abandoned their complacency and sought his aid. He even declared of one scribe that he was "not far from the Kingdom of Gk)d" {ML XII, 34). Jesus, then, recognized that men are swayed by mixed motives, and that there is good and bad in each of them. never occurs. 104 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? by'mked mT"^ Theic is nothuig in any of his teachings to warrant the Sravi?y""'°'^^ austcie doctrinc of "total depravity," which used to be preached. He nowhere justified the idea, that, because of the original sin of our first parents, men are by nature altogether inclined toward evil. Jesus recognized the evil tendencies in all, but saw in each the spark of the Divine, and believed that it might be fanned into activ- ity. He saw the ignorance, weakness, and wickedness with which mankind is surrounded, — the wrongs in- flicted by the oppressor, the pride of the overweening, the insolence of the official, and he did not hesitate Lo rebuke wrongdoing on the part of any one, but he never de- spaired. He showed men constantly that they were being estranged from God, and that he had come to call them back to their better selves. Thus the new inter- pretation of man offered by Jesus gives point to the words of the psalmist: "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him but little lower than God" ^ {Ps, VIII, 4 f.). Jesus' idea of man is indeed correlative with his concept of God, and enables man to claim his sonship by aspiring to the higher life. Summary. — The common sonship to God, which may be secured by all men, constitutes them brothers and fellow members of the divine community. Jesus bases morals upon religion, rather than the reverse. With him the development of the human soul into God's likeness cannot be secondary to any other object, and he abhors sin as a rejection of a man's real self. Sin Jesus felt to be 1 The revised version can easily be seen to be a great improve- ment over the old translation, "little lower than the angels." JESUS' IDEA or MAN I05 based upon the inner life, rather than to be something external and technical, and the types of people he holds to be condemned are judged by this internal test. Hence he discriminated between the sinner and his sin, and was exceedingly optimistic about being able to redirect the lives even of great sinners. Jesus did not divide men into two fixed classes as "sinners" and "righteous," but believed that men were swayed by mixed motives, and that "total depravity" never existed. SUPPLEMENTARY READING BoswoRTH, E. I. Studies in the Teaching of Jesus. Part III. Glover, T. R. The Jesus of History. Chapter VI. Mathews, Shatler. Message of Jesus. Study II. Mathews, S. Social and Ethical Teaching of Jesus. Study VI. Mathews, S. Social Teaching of Jesus. Chapter II. Stalker, James. The Ethic of Jesus. Chapters XIII and XIV. Stevens, G. B. The Teaching of Jesus. Chapters VIII and IX. CHAPTER VI JESUS' CONCEPTION OF THE IDEALS AND RECONSTRUC- TION OF LIFE Ethical Theories and Their Ideals. — When we spoke of Jesus' attitude toward sin in the last chapter, we made our entrance into the field of ethics. Sin con- stitutes the negative side of Christian virtue or the failure to carry into effect the life ideals presented by Jesus. Ethical inquiry has always been interested in the nature of the r;ood and in setting up some ''supreme good" as a goal or ideal for one's efforts. This summum bonum, as it is commonly called, has been conceived of in a variety of ways and given a diversity of mean- fS £sTtl°^ ^^S^ corresponding to the theories of the various schools "chief good." Qf ethics regarding the nature and destiny of man as a rational being and his fundamental relations to the Supreme Being. To the "hedonist," for example, pleasurable feeling is the ultimate standard of moral value, whereas ''self-realizationists" find their moral ideal in perfection of character or the harmonious de- velopment of personal capacities. Naturally the goal of self-realization is less definite and affords a greater variety of theories than hedonism. The perfection to be attained or the self to be realized can be decided upon only after philosophical inquiry. Jesus* Ideals. — We cannot imagine Jesus plunging into the sea of abstract metaphysics or consciously io6 JESUS' CONCEPTION OF LIFE'S IDEALS I07 setting up a scientij&c goal for conduct. But it may IJ^J'l^^^^gg be said, without straining the facts or committing the ^eiiiSdon^^^' ''historical fallacy," that he stated a simple and clear- cut summum honum of his own, and while this can hardly be identified with that of the self-realizationists, it is not out of keeping with their general position. As in the case of most ethical theories, the ideal of Jesus harmonizes with his conception of man and of man's relation to God. To one teaching the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man, the "supreme good" is obedience to and oneness with God, and in general it implies love to God and man, and involves service to both. These ideals Jesus repeatedly presents in various forms. Once a wily student of the Law under- and he has « his "' "chief good, took to test him as follows: "Teacher," said he, "what must I do if I am to 'gain Immortal Life' ?" "What is said in the Law?" answered Jesus. "What do you read there?" His reply was — "'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thou dost thyself.'" "You have an- swered right," said Jesus, "do that and you shall live" {Lk. X, 25 Iff. Cf. ML XII, 28 fif.; ML V, 43 ff.; ML XXII, 35 ff.). Love toward God and man, then, is Jesus' ideal for right living. As John (XIII, 35) declares: "It is by this that every one will recognize you as my disciples — by your loving one another." "Love" is, however, "love" susceptible of so many meanings, and, when stated as the ideal of Jesus, has so often stamped Christianity as a religion of sentimentality, that it is worth while I08 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? to note that the Greek so translated is often a cognate of the word for "friend," and a more accurate concep- tion is gained by thinking of the ideal as friendship with God and man.^ Such a feeling of loyalty to God and of good will to men will inevitably lead to a desire for social service. Hence Jesus gives us a further ideal in his statement of what constitutes true greatness. and "service," "Whocvcr wauts to bccomc great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to take first place among you must be the servant of all; for even the Son of Man came, not to be served, but to serve" (Mk, X, 43 ff. Cf. Mk. IX, 35; ML XX, 26; XXm, 11; XXV, 31-46; Lk. XXII, 27). Hence the sunimum bonum of Jesus may be held to be the emotion of friendly love toward God and man, which expresses itself in service to one's fellows. These are the ideals by which man's moral life is to be guided, and which, when summing up his greatest teachings, embodied in the Jesus cmbodics iu the form of the Golden Rule: "Do Golden Rule, •' to others whatever you would wish them to do to you" {ML VII, 12] Lk. VI, 31). It should be noted that this precept is as practical as it is comprehensive. It does not require one to obliterate or lower his own personal- ity, but rather to maintain self-respect and at the same time similarly regard the personality of every one else. Moreover, we have seen that it is the people who adopt these ideals of Jesus and strive to follow his "rule" 1 The Greek verb here referred to is <^iXei&), but ayaTrao) is sometimes {e.g. Mt. V, 43 and Lk. VII, 47) employed to express much the same idea. In Jn. XXI, 15-17, the two words seem to be used synonymously. JESUS' CONCEPTION OP LIFE'S IDEALS ICQ that are to become members of the "Kingdom of God" (ML V, 19 f.). The divine community thus becomes "^th?gg^dom a goal of human efforts, as well as a reward of persecu- °^^'*- tion and an abode of blessedness, and membership in it may, on the social side, be viewed as a species of objectified summum honum. Jesus' Conception Contrasted with the Formal Ideas of the Day. — These ideals for right Kving, however phrased, are simple, clear, and easily comprehended by all. They make a direct appeal to the emotions, in- telligence, and behavior of every one, and have marked Christianity as a imiversal religion. They also form a strong contrast to the ceremonial and legal idea of ^remEf'^ righteousness that prevailed among many in the day opjws"? t^'"^^ of Jesus, which consisted largely in such external acts as keeping the commandments, fasting, and tithing. The fulfillment of these formal requirements, of course, is not necessarily opposed to the moral ideals presented by Jesus, but both then and in modem times various ceremonial and ritualistic observances, denominational tests, and particular "isms" have tended to obscure tiVthe^^piace the real essence of religion and have been stressed at SleabT^"^ the expense of their imderlying ethical basis. At times external acts have even come to take the place of these fruits of the spirit. This was a danger that Jesus fully appreciated. He constantly inveighed against formal practices in his teaching, although he always made it clear that the traditional observances were not intrinsically opposed to his ethical ideals. For example, he chided the Phari- sees, saying: "You pay tithes on mint, rue, and herbs no WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? of all kinds, and pass over justice and love of God," but added: "These last you ought to have put in prac- tice without neglecting the first" {Lk. XI, 42). On the other hand, he first strove to estabhsh sympathetic relations with his auditors upon the Mount by saying: "Do not think that I have come to do away with the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to do away with them, but to complete them." And he then uttered the warning: "Unless your religion is above that of the Teachers of the Law and Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven" {ML V, 20). But the clearest contrast drawn between the two attitudes, as well as the most extreme requirement ever made of any one by Jesus, is found in the case of the " rj?t^e rich ^^ young man, who wished to know what he must do young man. ^^ sccurc Lumortal Life. Jesus used the Ten Command- ments as a preliminary test of his earnestness, and finding that he had always kept every formal observance, added: "'There is still one thing wanting in you; go and sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have wealth in Heaven; then come and follow me.' But the man's face clouded at these words, and he went away distressed, for he had great possessions" {Mk. X, 21 f.). A detailed and graphic touch which seems fairly in keeping with the incident is that given in the variant presented by the apocryphal Gospel according to tJte Hebrews (see p. 14): "The rich man began to scratch his head and it did not please him. And the Lord said to him, 'How say est thou, "The Law I have kept and the Prophets"? For it is written in the law, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyseK," and behold, many JESUS' CONCEPTION OF LIFE'S IDEALS III who are thy brethren are clad in filth and dying of hunger, and thy house is full of many good things, and nothing at all goes out from it to them.''* Jesus thus made clear the contrast between the spirit and the letter of the old requirements, and gave the young man the strong antidote needed for the formalism and selfish- ness into which he had fallen. And many a professed follower of the Master to-day, who stands high both in the synagogue and the market-place, may similarly need to be forced to hark back to these ideals underly- ing and animating the formal observances and external tests. Characteristics of Jesus' Ideals and the Resulting Christian Virtues. — It may be well to analyze further the ideals of ^'love'' and "service," that their connota- "^v?",*^^ , ' service imply tion may be more fully imderstood. The Sermon on i^e^e!*meS°" the Mount reveals a variety of specific characteristics "S; I^d^othl; that are implied by these concepts, and a number of ^^^^^^^' precepts that find their root in them. The qualities especially commended in the Beatitudes are humility, penitence, meekness, righteousness, compassion, purity of heart, peaceableness, and endurance of injury (ML V, 3-9). It is interesting to see that the first four of these characteristics seem to represent the individual attitude, while the last four imply social relations. The ''poor in spirit," or humble, are those who have attained to a modest estimate of self; the "mourners" have aspirations toward a higher seK; the "meek" observe the right at- titude toward personal honors; and " those who himger and thirst for righteousness" seek an upright life. On the other hand, the "merciful" cultivate a kindly atti- 113 "WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? tude toward their fellows; the "pure in heart" wish to maintain a moral environment; the ''peacemakers" bring harmony into social relations; and those "persecuted for righteousness^ sake'' ofifer their lives and comfort in the cause of social reform, patriotism, and civilization. Later in the discourse, as recorded by Matthew (V, 22-47 ^^^ VT, I- 1 8), Jesus brings out the implication of his ideals, both individual and social, from a negative point of view. He forbids angry feelings, continued enmity, impure thoughts, plurality of family relations, use of oaths to obscure the truth, revenge, limitation of ''love" to one's friends, and ostentatious giving, praying, and fast- ing. Sdtf^neS"**^ Thus, through the ideals of Jesus, Christianity came group of virtues, ^q exalt a ncw group of virtues and to iuculcate an entirely different point of view from that of any of the philosophies that had preceded. In distinction to the wisdom, courage, temperance, justice, high-mindedness, liberality, imperturbability, and other virtues of Plato, Aristotle, and the later Greeks, self-sacrifice, charity, mercy, peace, forgiveness, and long-suffering have since the time of Jesus characterized the highest levels of civilization. Men have no longer merely exulted in the pride of life, but faced one another as creatures requiring help, consolation, and comfort. As children of a com- mon father and neighbors in a divine community, they have adhered to the ideals of "love" and "service," and have realized the need of aid from their fellows and salvation from God. Misunderstanding and Criticism of "Passive" Vir- tues. — These virtues that have sprung from Jesus' JESUS' CONCEPTION OF LIFE'S IDEALS 113 ideals of "love" and "service" have been generally char- acterized as "passive." They have often been severely y^J'^^^^' criticised as impractical and even hysterical by those iSc°°°^ who pride themselves upon being red-blooded and stren- uous in their living. The hyperbolic passage in which Jesus seems to advocate the most radical nonresistance has especially been an object of ridicule. In this he advises: "I say to you that you must not resist wrong; but if any one strike you on the right cheek, turn the other to him also; and when any one wants to go to law with you, to take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and, if any one compels you to go one mile, go two miles with him" (Mt. V, 39 ff.). But it should be remembered that this teaching was given to contrast as sharply as possible his policy of patience with that of revenge. It was a reaction to the statement just preceding: "You have heard that it was said — 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,'" and it was intended more as a complete repudiation of but opposition ,..,.-. , , to vengeance, this ancient doctrme of vengeance than as an advocacy of nonresistance. Jesus felt that, of the two evils, it would be better to endure repeated injury than con- stantly to seek revenge, since the attempt to equal or outdo a wrong that has been inflicted is the direct cause of the greatest evils in life, and never removes any in- jury or wrong. He wished to emancipate the world from the prevailing rule of force by cultivating a con- trol of resentment and hatred. He realized how strongly imbedded in human nature is the primitive instinct of retaliation and revenge, and the necessity for overcoming it in the life of reason and morality. Hence he dramat- 114 WHAT DH) JESUS TEACH? ically declares that even the most humiliating surrender is better for a man that the continuance of dissension and increasing bitterness of feeling. Moreover, as we have indicated (see p. 5), the whole of Jesus' teaching on any subject is seldom found in a single passage. His radical position here must be esti- for Jesus could mated in connection with his attitude and acts else- be most severe, where. Jesus was certainly no "mollycoddle." He was possessed of the stronger and more rugged marks of character, as well as of the milder and gentler. He advocated courage, justice, and firmness, when the occa- sion called for these virtues, as tenaciously as he did compassion, tenderness, and mercy in their turn. In his perfect character were blended stern, as well as mild traits, for the strongest minds are ever the gentlest. Accordingly, while Jesus counseled long-suffering and forgiveness in extreme language, where this advice was needed, he could be most severe in his denunciation of as in the case of the corrupt scribcs and Pharisees. His excoriation of the scribes and ^ Pharisees, thesc promiucut classes as "hypocrites," "blind guides," "whitewashed tombs," "serpents and brood of vipers," and "persecutors of the prophets," is one of the most scathing in history (ML XXIII, 14-36). Upon another occasion he did not hesitate to deliver a stinging rebuke Sg It^th?^''"^ and even to drive the corrupt and grafting ring of mer- Tempie. chauts and bankers from the Temple at Jerusalem by force. When he found some of these people in the sacred place selling oxen, sheep, and doves for the sacrifices, and others making large gains in the exchange of foreign coin for the Hebrew currency, in which alone the priests' charges could be paid, "he made a whip of cords, and JESUS' CONCEPTION OP LIFERS IDEALS II5 drove them all out of the Temple Courts, and the sheep and bullocks as well; he scattered the money of the money changers, and overturned their tables, and said to the pigeon dealers: 'Take these things away. Do not turn my Father's House into a market-house"' {Jn, II, 13 ff.). And the need of this discipline is shown by their abrupt flight. "Thus conscience doth make cowards of us all." The " Passive " Virtues and the Invasion of Rights. — Assuredly these "passive" virtues of Jesus do not in his These virtues are , , .i« ' M , ^,^ M» ^°^ inconsistent judgment seem to be mconsistent with preventmg or with resisting . ..-,.. . ..an invasion of resistmg a personal mdigmty or contestmg an mvasion rights; of human rights. He did not wish to countenance aggressive and persistent injury, but simply to forestall continued hate. "Take heed to yourselves," he en- joined the disciples; "if thy brother sin, rebuke him," though he added: "if he repent, forgive him." Similarly, we repeat that the injunction to "love thy neighbor as thou dost thyself" {Mt. XXII, 39), does not imply ab- solute self-renunciation, but admits a respect for one's own rights not less than for the neighbor's. So Jesus openly resented the unwarranted blow given him by the poUce officer at his trial, saying: "If I said anything wrong, give evidence about it; but if not, why do you strike me?" {Jn. XVIII, 23). The misinterpretation of the ideals of Jesus in this matter of force has been heightened by the literal way in which they have been taken and followed by certain visionaries and doctrinarians. Strange indeed has been the perversion of his teachings by people possessed of such millennial zeal as Count Tolstoy and other phil- Ii6 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? do not Imply withdrawal of restraint or con- donement of and are no ar- gument against righteous war. osophic anarchists. The desire of Jesus to eliminate re- venge and strife from the world has at times been inter- preted as the withdrawal of all restraint of depredation and the refusal to punish any crime. But the fact that the Master did not formulate a definite philosophy of either nonresistance or force, does not by any means indicate that he would ever have thwarted the cause of justice or have predetermined any case. There is no reason to believe that he would have sanctioned a free rein for evildoers to prey upon society, nor that he would have discouraged the efforts of society to reform its members by righteous punishment. The indulgence of an injured individual in selfish emotion and revenge is very different from a calm and sympathetic judgment by an enlightened community. Equally has the professed pacifist and internationalist strained the Master's teachings into a forbidding of war, even in a righteous cause. Jesus did request of the friend who used force at his arrest: "Sheath your sword, for all who draw the sword will be put to the sword'' (ML XXVI, 52). But, on the other hand, we find him declaring: "I have come to bring, not peace, but a sword" (ML X, 34). Nor should his judgment in this individual case of jdelding to his destiny be ex- tended to cover nonresistance at all times and seasons, and to justify the notion that the sword should never be used in defense of human rights. Long-standing abuses and injuries to the welfare of humanity and civilization must, when peaceful methods have failed, be removed by force, if "love," "service," and the "Kingdom of God" are to prevail. War is always JESUS' CONCEPnON OF LIFE's IDEALS II7 ethical and Christian, whenever avoidance of it would tolerate a condition more evil and unchristian than itself. The Christian Virtues and Actual Practice. — Nor must the '' passive virtues" be supposed to imply want Stue*s^ n-.i to God, leads to discard sm and claun his npjhtful sonsmp. The act the state known *=" ^ as "salvation." or proccss of tumiug oue's life back to obedience to God and to the divine characteristics through the adoption of the ideals of Jesus has long been known in Christian parlance as "conversion," and the state at- tained thereby is generally called "salvation." This reconstruction of a man, often spoken of by Jesus as the attainment of the "righteous," " immortal," This reconstruc- or "eternal" life, is effected, according to the Master, tion, often J ? o 7 ltSnm?nt%f^^ through repeutauce and faith, and comes through the ge; eternal grace and forgiveness of God. He started his ministry by JESUS' CONCEPTION OF RECONSTRUCTION II9 declaring: "The time has come, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe the Good News" {Mk, I, 15). Later he applied the poetic words of Isaiah to those who have failed to receive his message of salva- tion: "The mind of this nation has grown dense, and their ears are dull of hearing, their eyes also have they closed; lest some day they should perceive with their eyes, and with their ears they should hear, and in their mind they should understand, and should turn — and I should heal them'^ {Mt. XIII, 15). Thus, in this process of conversion eventuating in salvation, men must give up their sin, and turn to obedience, Godlikeness, and sonship. In psychological terms, this simply means overcoming or reshaping the jesu7"n^l'^ van- inherited instincts and fixed habits that are inconsistent ^^^ °^ ^2"''^^- with the highest ideals and the life of reason. This proc- ess is described by Jesus in a variety of figures, all of which express more or less the surrender and humility necessary for recognizing one's state, repenting, and following the new ideals and precepts. Besides the familiar phrases, "entering (or 'receiving') the King- dom of God," he uses {e.g. Mt. XI, 28 fif.) such terms as "coming to Christ," "learning of Christ," "taking up his cross," "drinking of his cup," and "taking his yoke." ^ Sometimes two or more of these expressions * It is most unfortunate that these and other beautiful and apt metaphors should have become cant terms in the vocabulary of the obscurantist and religious sentimentalist. Such expressions as "saved by the blood," "saved by the Lamb," "coming to Christ," "taking his cross," "drinking of his cup," and "being born again," have too often been used to the confusion of the 120 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? are used together. The importance of the step Jesus describes by comparing it to the discovery of a ** treasure hidden in a field" or "a pearl of great value" {ML XIII, 44 ff.), and he indicates the quiet, gradual, and effective way in which salvation proceeds by likening the expansion of the Kingdom to that of the yeast in the flour {ML XVIII, 33; Lk. XHI, 20 f.), of the com into ''first the blade, then the ear, and then the full grain in the ear" {ML IV, 28 f.), and of the small mustard seed into a tree {ML TV, 31 f.; ML XVIII, 31 f.), respectively. The Threefold Means of Accomplishing Peconstruc- fwchSgl'forthis ^^^ Used by Jesus. — The means used by Jesus to jtsSJ'used ^S* bring about this reconstruction of human lives has been means threefold. Besides his revelation of the fatherhood of God, the potential sonship of man, the ideals of "love" and "service," and other features in his teaching al- ready discussed at length, humanity has been greatly influenced by two other factors. These are, first, the embodiment of these truths in the Master's own life, and, second, the great example of fidelity to conviction Snit7°whh °the ^^^ ^^ty furnished by his death. Father, and jj^^ jj£g q£ jggug would sccm to be luiique. It was that of the perfect genius in religion. He believed that his life was ever united with that of the Father. He Hved in harmony with his conception of God's will, and sought aid through prayer in his efforts to over- religious consciousness or indulgence in maudlin emotions that lead nowhere. Religious tactics of this sort have often kept in- telligent people from realizing that Christianity is thoroughly- rational and in harmony with the highest aspirations of humanity. JEStTS' CONCEPTION OF RECONSTRUCTION 121 come sin and external difficulties. Thus Jesus stirred men to emulation by revealing the possibilities of human life in his own life and character. He felt that the most beneficent results coming to his disciples through com- panionship with himself were due to sharing in this commimion he held with the Father. In his most re- markable intercession for his disciples, he asked ''that as thou, Father, art in union with me and I with thee, so they also may be in union with us," and then he declared: "I have given them the honor which thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are one — I in imion with them and thou with me — that so they may be perfected in their miion" {Jn, XVII, 21 ff.). The Master believed that in this way their natural demand for a union with God would be satisfied. This companionship, in turn, would result in new moral motives, impulses, and choices, or, as John (III, 3 and 6) phrases it, in being "bom again." The other factor in the influence of Jesus was his ws death as an death. Through this supreme test of his devotion to itytoduty. God, men were encouraged to submit their wills to God's purpose in the world and to come to the life of complete obedience and harmony. With his extreme reforms, Jesus foresaw that death at the hands of the rulers was inevitable, but he never for an instant de- viated from his ideals and conception of his duty. The disciples, however, were imable to understand that the Kingdom of which Jesus spoke was not earthly and material, and were stunned at the idea of his being put to death. When Peter began to protest vehemently, Jesus had to explain that this was the only way in which 122 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? his mission could be performed. Self-sacrifice, he de- clared, was the inevitable concomitant of reform, and all who wished to follow him must be self-denying even to the point of surrendering life itself. Moreover, neither his death nor any sacrifice of theirs should be viewed as defeat and disaster, but rather as a victory of incalculable benefit to humanity. The account of the whole incident is most memorable: ^'At that time Jesus Christ began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem, and undergo much suffering at the hands of the Councilors, and Chief Priests, and Teachers of the Law, and be put to death, and rise on the third day. But Peter took Jesus aside, and began to rebuke him. 'Master,' he said, 'please God that shall never be your fate!' Jesus, however, turning to Peter, said: 'Out of my way, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you look at things, not as God does, but as man does.' Then Jesus said to his disciples: 'If any man wishes to walk in my steps, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever wishes to save his life will lose it, and whosoever for my sake, loses his life shall find it. . . . For the Son of Man is to come in his Father's Glory. . . and then he will give to every man what his actions deserve'" {Mt. XVI, 21-28). Thus by his death Jesus set for all men an example of fidelity to duty. Hence, it happened that, even as Judas went out to betray him, the Master could declare prophet- ically: "Now the Son of Man has been exalted, and God has been exalted through him; and God will exalt him with himself — yes, he will exalt him forthwith " (Jn, XIII, 31 f.). JESUS' CONCEPTION OF RECONSTRUCTION 1 23 Summary. — The ethics of Jesus seems to be in har- mony with "self-realization," and finds its summum honum in "love " and "service." Hence the Golden Rule becomes its precept and the Kingdom of God its goal. The ceremonial and legal idea of righteousness that pre- vailed in the day of Jesus contrasted strongly with these ethical ideals of his. When further analyzed, Jesus' ideals of "love " and "service " are found to imply charity, mercy, forgiveness, and a number of new virtues. In teaching these "passive" virtues, Jesus did not advocate nonresistance, nor argue against righteous war. And the Christian virtues, though "passive," were intended to be put into practice. Through these ideals of Jesus the lives of those adopting them are to be reconstructed. "Conversion," or turning one's life back to God, leads to "salvation" and membership in the Kingdom. To effect this reconstruction, Jesus used a threefold means, — his life and death, as well as his teachings. His life was unique in its union with the purposes of the Father; his death was an example of fidelity to duty. SUPPLEMENTARY READING Dewey, J., and Tufts, J. H. Ethics. Chapter VI. Glover, T. R. The Jesus of History. Chapter VII. Jenks, Jeremiah W. Social Significance of the Teaching of Jesus. Study XII. King, H. C. The Ethics of Jesus. Chapters V-VIII. Mathews, Shailer. Message of Jesus. Studies III and IX. Mathews, S. Social and Ethical Teaching of Jesus. Studies IV and V. Stalker, James. The Ethic of Jesus. Chapters I, IV-VIII, and XI-XIII. Stevens, G. B . T/te Teaching of Jesus. Chapters IX, XI, and XII. CHAPTER Vn THE TEACHING OF JESUS CONCERNING THE FUTURE Jesus and the Resurrection. — After having completed our discussion of Jesus' conception of God and man, and of life's ideals and their effect upon the regeneration of the race, we might seem to have all of his message that can possibly prove fruitful to humanity. Our real concern should be for the improvement of society and for right living here on earth, without regard to the future state, for this is within our immediate control and responsi- bility. If man is immortal and all human beings continue to exist in some form hereafter, the whole matter must be in the hands of a Supreme Being, infinitely wiser than we are, and we can afford to intrust the future to him. Speculation would seem to be vain and idle, and immor- tality, whether true or not, might seem of Httle import in our daily life. All of this reasoning might be considered final, were it not for the fact that our ideals for present living and our conduct now are likely to be inextricably bound up with Our ideals .for our couceptiou of the future. This is clearly the case present living ^ ^ wkh'thTfuSSre "^^ ^^ principles of Jesus, and, if we are to study his teachings at all, we must deal with all of them, including those concerning the future. Many of his ideas on this subject may seem vague and uncertain, especially as they have in many instances passed through the medium of 134 JESUS CONCERNING THE FUTURE 1 25 John's Hellenic philosophy (see p. 21), but we must endeavor to fathom them as far as we can. Jesus says but little and furnishes no extended argu- ment concerning the life hereafter. He seems generally J«"9 to assume that, since men are the sons of God, they must share in his immortality. In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, the beggar is depicted as resting on Abraham's bosom, which was a metaphorical descrip- tion of a happy existence hereafter {Lk. XVT, 19 ff.). Similarly, in his account of the Judgment Day, those who had devoted themselves to the service of the less fortunate are pictured as inheriting in the future a king- dom prepared for them from the beginning {ML XXV, 34 ff .) . His faial words to the disciples, too, assured them of a dwelling place that he was going to prepare for them in the hereafter (Jn. XIV, 2). Likewise he promised the repentant robber that he should be with him that day in Paradise {Lk. XXIII, 43). Sometimes, however, Jesus does definitely assert the e^fnS^** fact of a resurrection and a future state. For example, ^^ resurrecUon, in his confutation of the Sadducees, who sought to test him through the hypothetical case of the woman who had married seven husbands {Mk. XII, 18-27; Mt. XXII, 23-33 ;L^. ^^^7 27-40), he convicts them definitely from their own Scriptures by saying : " As to the dead, and the fact that they risQ, have you never read in the Book of Moses, in the passage about the Bush, how God spoke to him thus — ' I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ' ? He is not God of dead men, but of living. You are greatly mistaken" {Mk, XII, 26 f.). 126 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? But in every statement concerning the future Jesus thiigf uSettfed le2,ves many things unsettled, as if they were not essen- tial. He neglects altogether the categories of space and time. He is not concerned with the ordinary details as to how resurrection takes place, and he undertakes no real description of the future existence. He makes no statement concerning the way in which the soul is to be embodied in the hereafter, though he stresses a resurrec- tion of persons, rather than bodies, by stating that the resurrection is ''from among the dead." ^ It is not altogether clear, according to Jesus, whether all men, or only the righteous, are to be resurrected. In his discussion with the Pharisees, he maintains that ''those who are thought worthy to attain to that other world and the resurrection from the dead ... are God's sons" {Lk. XX, 35 f.). But he speaks elsewhere of the "resurrection of the good" {Lk. XIV, 14), as if the bad were also resurrected, and in John (V, 29) it is definitely stated that "those who have done good rise to life, and those who have lived evil lives rise for condemnation." It can only be inferred, then, that Jesus held that all men would meet with a resurrection, but imder different conditions and with varjdng results. The Resurrection is Both of the Present and the Future. — But the apocalyptic position is somewhat softened in John, and, according to that gospel, Jesus represents the resurrection to be a matter of the present, as well as of the future. John wrote comparatively late (see p. 21), and, when it became obvious that the Coming of Jesus was not to be soon, he was inclined to feel that 1 e/c T(av veKptav. I JESUS CONCERNING THE FUTURE 1 27 the resurrection might, in a sense, take place now. For example, Jesus is represented as saying: "In truth I tell you that a time is coming, indeed it is already here, when the Dead will listen to the voice of the Son of God, and when those who listen will live" {Jn. V, 25). Sim- ilarly, when Martha concedes that her brother will rise to life "in the resurrection at the Last Day," Jesus adds The resurrection occurs now, as at once: "I am the Resurrection and the Life. He that ff as in the future, believes in me shall live, though he die; and he who lives and believes in me shall never die" (Jn. XI, 24 f.). This point of view is not contradictory of that in the synoptic gospels, but is supplementary to it. A possible explanation of this apparent inconsistency as to the time when the resurrection occurs, might be through moral renewal or a that the resurrection of the present may be considered J^Jj*^ °^ *^®''" a moral renewal of life, or else that it is a feeling of cer- tainty that one will rise again so strong that the resur- rection may be said to be virtually present already. Possibly we may interpret the resurrection of the pres- ent as a combination of both these ideas. The resur- rection, as being a conquest over death, may be held to transcend the time relation altogether. The believer may be said, as it were, from the beginning to be vic- torious over death. The resurrection is, of course, also asserted to take place in the future, but the teaching is more comprehensive than this alone, and includes the idea of a victory already begun. This interpretation of John would explain why Jesus speaks almost exclusivelp of a resurrection of the "good" or "worthy," that is, of those who have even now become triumphant over death. Jesus might thus further hold that those who tional, 128 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? refuse to believe will also survive, after their actual death, although we are nowhere definitely informed what the conditions of their resurrection are to be. The Judgment. — Another conception closely con- nected with the resurrection was that of the Day of Judg- Siitf°T\he' ^^'^t. This associated phenomenon, which previously HkelSrtradI appeared in many of the Jewish apocalyptic writings, seems to have been adopted by Jesus, according to the Synoptists, especially Matthew, with his transitional emphasis (see p. 16). When speaking of the return, this evangehst describes all nations as coming before the Son of Man, and being separated by placing the ''sheep "on his right hand and the "goats" on his left. He continues: "Then the King will say to those on the right 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, enter upon possession of the Kingdom prepared for you ever since the beginning of the world. For, when I was hungry, you gave me food; when I was thirsty, you gave m^e drink; when I was a stranger, you took me to your homes; when I was naked, you clothed me; when I fell ill, you visited me; and when I was in prison, you came to me.' Then the Righteous will answer ' Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you? or thirsty, and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger, and take you to our homes? or naked, and clothe you? When did we see you ill, or in prison, and come to you? ' And the King will reply, 'I tell you, as often as you did it to one of these my brothers, however lowly, you did it to me. ' "Then he will say to those on his left 'Go from my presence, accursed, into the "iEonian fire which has been prepared for the Devil and his angels." For when I was JESUS CONCERNING THE FUTURE 1 29 hungry, you gave me no food; when I was thirsty, you gave me no drink; when I was a stranger, you did not take me to your homes; when I was naked, you did not clothe me; and when I was ill and in prison, you did not visit me.' Then they, in their turn, will answer 'Lord, when did we see you himgr}^, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or ill, or in prison, and did not supply your wants? ' And then he will reply 'I tell you, as often as you failed to do it to one of these, however lowly, you failed to do it to me/ And these last will go away 'into Ionian punishment,' but the righteous 'into JEoman life'" (Mi, XXV, 33-46).! This account of the judgment, however, must not be taken too literally. It should not be supposed to afiford toke^too°Htil:- the sole standard by which character is measured by ^^• Jesus, or to lay down the only grounds upon which man will be rewarded or punished. It is simply an allegorical expression of the principle of judgment in general, and teaches how apparently insignificant acts of mercy or the omission of them may indicate the basic motives and principles governing one's life, and thus enable the Judge to decide to which general class a person belongs. Judgments in the Present and the Future. — But, ac- cording to John 2 again, the "judgment," like the resur- ^This passage is clearly based upon the apocalyptic book of Enoch (LXII). 2 No such statements are found in the Synoptists, and it is, of course, doubtful whether they really form part of Jesus' teach- ing, or are the product of John's eschatology. Undoubtedly he felt that, since the parousia had not occurred, Jesus must have meant that we are constantly being judged in this life. 130 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? rection, would not seem to be a matter of the future JonSaUybdng ^lone. It is certauily going on now. Just as the resur- made now, rcction bccomcs possible even in the present, through the assured feeling of attaining it, so, if we may trust John,^ present judgments are continually being made. Passages to this effect appear frequently in the Fourth Gospel. Thus Jesus tells us definitely: "Now this world is on its trial" (XII, 31). He also defends his mission by stating: "It was to put men to the test that I came into this world" (IX, 39). Elsewhere, he says: "I judge as I am taught; and the judgment that I give is just, because my aim is not to do my own wiU, but the will of Him who sent me" (V, 30). Similarly he de- clares later: "If I were to judge, my judgment would be trustworthy: because I am not alone, but the Father that sent me is with me" (VIII, 16). Hence, according to John,^ judgments are ever occurring, since judgment is inseparable from salvation. And judgment may rea- sonably have been considered part of the work of Jesus, since men must be divided into those who believe and those who reject his truth. The existence of these serial judgments, however, as weu as in the would uot be inconsistent with there being a future future. . /fxT 1 • T T 1 judgment. He who rejects me, and disregards my teaching," said Jesus, "has a judge already — the very Message which I have delivered will itself be his judge at the Last Day" {Jn, XII, 48). That is, the constant judging culminates in a future judgment, just as the aggregate of entries on the debit and credit columns eventually determine one's solvency or bankruptcy. 1 See note 2, page 129. JESUS CONCERNING THE' FUTXJRE 131 This future judgment represents a crisis, which is a con- clusion to the continuous judging process that has always been going on in each person's life. But even this judg- ment may not be final, since, as we shall see (p. 134), existence and the moral hfe do not necessarily close with the change known as "death.'' Reward and Punishment. — The question of reward and punishment also is logically connected with that of Reward or pun- , * o J ishment always judgment. It forms a necessary part of all Jesus' teach- ^JJ^^^^J'^^ ings, not only concerning the future, but all other sub- jects. Reward or punishment is a verdict accompanying judgment, and is the consequence of reconstruction or of continued sin respectively. These features are not accidental and external, but they come from God and are part and parcel of the history of the Kingdom and of the individual soul. Jesus repeatedly declared that the upshot of the judgment is reward or punishment according to the performances of the individual. "For the Son of Man," he said, "is to come in his Father's Glory, and then he will give to every man what his actions deserve" {Mt, XVI, 27). Elsewhere Matthew is more specific, and in detailing the sure reward that awaits the good and the definite punishment assigned to the wicked, he uses the apocalyptic traditions and terminology of the day. He reports Jesus, when explain- ing the Parable of the Tares {Mt. XVIII, 24-30), as saying: "The sower of the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world. By the good seed is meant the people of the Kingdom. The tares are the wicked, and the enemy who sowed them is the Devil. The harvest time 133 "WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? Is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels. And, just as the tares are gathered and burnt, so will it be at the close of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather from his Kingdom all that hinders and those who live in sin, and will 'throw them into the fiery furnace,' where there will be weeping and grinding of teeth" {Mt. XIII, 37 ff.)- The "fiery furnace" as an instrument of punishment for the wicked, in accordance with apocalyptic accounts, is occasionally mentioned elsewhere. A well-known al- lusion appears in Mark (IX, 43-46), where Jesus main- tains, in a discussion on sin and punishment, that one would better lose his hand, foot, or eye than to have his entire body cast into " Gehenna. " But the sense in which the term is there used is apparently more metaphorical than literal. Gehenna was the "unquenchable fire" in the valley of Hinnom, just outside of Jerusalem, which was intended to consume all the refuse of the city, and being burnt in it may be figuratively used here to repre- sent the sufferings of those excluded from the Kingdom by their unwillingness to undergo the self -discipline and sacrifice typified in the extreme by the loss of bodily mem- bers. So in the case of several statements concerning pun- ishment and other subjects reported in the gospels, we cannot be certain whether Jesus followed the pathway of tradition or was only speaking figuratively and had a traditional coloring given his sayings by the disciples. He may well himself have employed the current apoca- lyptic language, though perhaps as the vehicle of a greater truth, or his sayings may have been somewhat misimder- JESUS CONCERNING THE FUTURE 133 Stood or distorted. At any rate, unless we do hold that Jesus was entirely a product of his times and so take the statements concerning the "fiery furnace" literally, the teaching of the Master stops with the general principles ^^ ^o£b?'not of reward and punishment. It is not unlikely that, as in specified, all his teachings, he stands for principles, rather than specific details. It may well be held that he does not weaken the practical operation of his life ideals or of his conception of the Kingdom by a circumstantial descrip- tion of its joys, and that, except for a few general allu- sions and warnings, he was little concerned with a de- tailed account of punishment. Certainly much more has been said by Jesus concerning marriage and wealth, for example, than such conceptions as "heaven" and "hell." With him punishment seems to be simply the logical outcome of the abuse of a man's life. This view of Jesus is not out of keeping with modem thought. A man who habitually neglects to develop his fimda- mental instincts and capacities in harmony with the high- est ideals, may become largely incapable of opening his nature to these influences, and so realizing his best self. In the terms of Jesus, he loses the capacity of becoming a member of God's family, and so is punished by exclu- sion from the Kingdom, and is "banished into the dark- ness outside" (Ml VIII, 12). As the result of neglect of his duties, his social and moral nature has so degener- ated that he is imfitted for participation in and enjoy- ment of the ideal life. Nor is either the punishment or reward to be regarded » as " eternal. ' ' The word that has ordinarily been so trans- and they are , "^ not "eternal, lated IS more properly rendered, as it is here (see pp. 134 f . 134 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? and 143), as cBonian or "of the age." It means that the reward or punishment belongs to that great cBon, — the age referred to by apocalyptists, when the Messiah has come in trimnph to judge. And life consists in a series of decisions, and of progress or retrogression. One never stands still in his moral and religious life, and in the since death is a , . , , , . . transition, and teachings of J csus no rcward or pumsnment is necessarily the struggle still o J .... goes on. "eternal." Death is but an artificial line. It is merely a transition to another state, and men do not cease to be men because of death. The life begun here will continue, if we believe in resurrection and immortality, and man will in the life to come reap exactly what he has sown. The consummation will not come with death in the form of "eternal" reward or punishment. Man's struggles and his moral and religious life may well continue here- after. The Future Coming of Jesus. — The most discussed phase of Jesus' teaching concerning the future is that which appears in connection with the accoimts of his Ad- vent. All three of the synoptic gospels in several places dkt jM^S^fuSIJe represent Jesus as predicting that he would suddenly ap- coming, pgg^j. ^ power and glory as the Messiah. We have seen (p. 122) that at the time of Peter's protest against the death of Jesus, the Master declared the need of this sacrifice, and then stated prophetically: "Whoever is ashamed of me and of my teaching in this unfaithful and wicked generation, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed, when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels " (Mk. VIH, 38; ML XVI, 27; Lk, IX, 26). Likewise, after predicting the fall of Jerusalem to certain disciples, he declared : "Then will be seen the ' Son of Man JESUS CONCERNING THE FUTURE 135 coming in clouds' with great power and glory; and then will he send the angels, and gather his people from the four winds, from one end of the world to the other" {Mk. XIII, 26 f.; ML XXIV, 30 f.; Lh XXI, 27 f.). Again, when the high priest demanded to know whether Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, he replied: "I am, and you shall all see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Almighty; and 'coming in the clouds of heaven'" {Mk. XIV, 62; ML XXVI, 64; Lh XXII, 70). There are many other passages intimating the same views. Jesus clearly predicted, according to the gospels, that after his resurrection he would appear in celestial majesty, to perfect the work interrupted by his death, but still to be renewed and carried on through the ages by his spiritual energy. This supreme manifestation of his glory was to signalize the triumph of his cause and the complete establishment and consummation of the Kingdom of God. It was to be immediately preceded by E«-ec«ied by many social upheavals and other signs, such as the ap- pearance of pretended Christs, "wars and the rumors of wars," "famines and earthquakes," persecutions and tribulations, and darkened sun, unlighted moon, and faUing stars {ML XXIV, 5, 7, 9, 29 and Mk. XIII, 6, 7, II ff., 24 f.). But, despite these forewarnings the event was to come in a startling and unexpected manner, and was pictured in lurid colors. "As it was in the days of Noah {Gen. VII), so will it be again in the days of the Son of Man. People and in a sudden , and unexpected, were eatmg and drinking, marrying and being married, up to the very day on which Noah entered the ark, and then the flood came and destroyed them all. So too, in 136 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? but unmistak- able manner. although the time is uncer- tain. the days of Lot {Gen. XIX), they were eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, building; but, on the very day on which Lot came out of Sodom, it rained fire and sul- phur from the skies and destroyed them all. It will be the same on the day on which the Son of Man reveals himself" {Lk. XVII, 26-30). Similarly, it is likened to the sudden return of the bridegroom in the night, when the bridesmaids were unprepared {ML XXV, i ff.), to the unexpected arrival of the master when the steward is abusing his power {Lk. XII, 42 £f.), or even to the robber stealing into a house {Lk. XII, 39 f.). Yet, while the appearance of the Messiah was to come about suddenly and unexpectedly, there was to be no doubt about it when it did come. "For just as the lightning flashes in the east and is seen to the very west, so will be the Coming of the Son of Man" {Mt. XXIV, 27). There is, however, some difficulty in reconciling two types of statements made by Jesus concerning the exact time when this event is to take place. In certain passages he indicates that it will occur within the lifetime of the existing generation {Mk. IX, i; Mt. X. 23; XVI, 2^; XXIV, 34; Lk. IX, 27). But elsewhere he impKes that there will be a lengthened period of waiting {Mk. XIII, 35; Mt. XXV, I E.\Lk. XII, 42 fl.), and that, as a matter of fact, "about ' That Day ' or ' The Hour,' no one knows — not even the angels in Heaven, nor yet the Son — but only the Father" {Mk. XIII, 32; ilf/. XXIV, 36). Such was the prediction concerning his Advent made by Jesus in the synoptic gospels. What shall we say con- cerning the truth and meaning of this miraculous appear- ance? The passages have been interpreted in various JESUS CONCERNING THE FUTURE I37 ways. There are many worthy people who maintam h2^beeA?r- that they are to be taken in their literal form and that the p'^^^^ ^^^"^^^ Coming, with all its accompanying wonders and glory, will yet take place. They, of course, have to minimize in some way the passages cited above that indicate that Jesus did clearly expect to return during the existing generation. But most modem readers hold that the message is to be taken only in a spiritual sense. They declare that the disciples and evangelists misinterpreted the statements of Jesus on this subject and reported him too literally, or even added descriptions from the apoc- alyptic writings of the times. The people of Jesus' day had long held to certain tra- ^ ditions that had sprung up concerning the coming of the Messiah. These apocalyptic accounts depicted the glorified appearance and the striking physical phenomena and demonstrations of supernatural power that were to accompany him and to usher in the establishment of his kingdom and rule over all nations and peoples. Hence the modem psychological interpretation has been that, al- though the Kingdom that was to be founded by Jesus was based upon inward ethical and spiritual changes in the minds and hearts of men, whenever Jesus hinted at the coming crises and triumphs, even his most sympathetic hearers assumed that he referred to these long-cherished apocalyptic hopes and visible demonstrations of power and elory. In other words, the traditionalized followers or. as due to a , . . # misunaerstand- of Jesus misimderstood him and embodied their inter- ^s of his dis- •^ ^ ^ ^ ciples, pretation in phrases of the times that the Master was supposed to have uttered. Statements that did not at all refer to a visible return within the generation of those 138 "WHAT DID JESTTS TEACH? then Kving were, as a result of the disciples' preconcep- tions, so understood and recorded. General expressions concerning the development of the Kingdom and its triumphs over the things of this world were transformed into definite predictions of the Messiah's advent, with all its popular concomitants. The traditional phenomena and displays of divine power were thus blended in the record of the gospels with the sayings of Jesus. This "psychological" interpretation is not altogether convincing. Such an explanation includes some elements of anachronism, and seems to cormnit the "historical fallacy." It is quite as likely that modernists have in- vested Jesus with their own psychology as that the dis- ciples did. While the spiritual principles of Jesus may be considered valid for all ages and we are only just begin- ning to perceive their significance, he must in some degree have been the child of his age and people. It was in- evitable that he should more or less have taken over the *^?obIbf %^"t- prevailing views of the future, and adopted the apocalyp- gf^^p°^^yp'^*^ tic eschatology with slight modification. Some apoca- lyptic ideas and phrases that he did not use may have been attributed to him and he probably read a deeper meaning than was generally understood into the apoca- lyptic language, but it is inconceivable that the escha- tology attributed to him was a complete interpolation.^ iThe latest great German critic, Schweitzer, in his Secret of the Messiahship and in his Quest of the Historical Jestis main- tains that he has given the coup de grdce to the "psycho- logical" interpretation, and his ideas have largely been adapted by a number of modern theologians of various churches, — Tyrell (Roman Catholic), Sanday of Oxford and Burkitt of Cambridge JESUS CONCERNING THE FUTURE 139 On this basis, too, the discrepancy concerning the time of the Advent may reasonably be explained. Jesus probably took into account the gradual evolution of human affairs in contemplating the triumph of his King- dom. He seems often to have realized that it might be long delayed, and he even declared that the hour was known only to God. On the other hand, the Old Testa- ment prophecy and the inner consciousness of his Messiah- ship imbued him with a faith in his triumph so real and assured and a vision of it so clear that at times it seemed to him aheady imminent. And even if we hold that Jesus expected the literal fulfillment of all these Messianic phenomena and that this was altogether a mistake and an illusion, it does not discount his real greatness nor the validity of his message. Moreover, the account of the astounding Appearance is scarcely more wonderful than the sublime confidence of Jesus that a small group of devoted followers, imbued with his own spirit, could leaven the whole world and become the nucleus of a great society with increasing ^org^^oJderfJJ expansion and infinite possibilities for humanity. His Jri^ph.^^""'"^ widespread spiritual rule, which has come about through (Anglican), Scott (Presbyterian), Moffatt (United Free Church, Presbyterian), etc. Schweitzer makes Jesus and his eschatology practically a product of the apocalyptic times into which he was born, but grants a certain amount of plausibihty to the hy- pothesis of Wrede {The Messianic Secret), — that the apocalyptic element was interpolated by Mark. "The historical Jesus, of whom the criticism of the future will draw the portrait," says he, "will be a Jesus, who was Messiah, and lived as such, either on the ground of a literary fiction of the earhest Evangelist or on the ground of a purely eschatological Messianic conception." I40 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? the gradual acceptance of his principles and the recon- struction of human living, while quite in accordance with all natural law, has been, if anything, more remark- able than a supernatural return in the flesh and the miraculous establishment of a world empire. Summary. — Jesus both assumes and asserts a "res- urrection," but he leaves the details unsettled. Resur- rection may be said to occur in the present, as well as in the future, through a moral inspiration or feeling of certainty that one will rise again. Jesus also asserts the principle of "judgment," but his description must not be taken as laying down the sole grounds upon which men are rewarded or punished. Judgments are constantly being made, since they are inseparable from salvation, but there is also a judgment of the future. The gospel description of "reward" and "punishment" must be considered as figurative, and neither one can be taken as ''eternal." A most difficult phase of Jesus' teaching concerning the future is that connected with his future coming in power and glory, which the gospels represent him as prophesying. In this Jesus adapted the apocalyp- tic ideas of the times, but these were scarcely more won- derful than his spiritual triumph. SUPPLEMENTARY READING Charles, R. H. Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life. Charles, R. H. Religious Development between the Nerw and Old Testaments. MoFFATT, James. The Theology of the Gospels. Chapter 11. Penniman, Josiah H. A Book about the English Bible. Chap- ter XV. JESUS CONCERNING THE FUTURE 14I Rhees, Rush. The Life of Jesus of Nazareth, Part II, Chap- ter IX; Part III, Chapter III. Schweitzer, A. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Chapters XVIII-XX. Scott, E. F. The Kingdom and the Messiah. Chapters II and VIII. Selwyn, E. G. The Teaching of Christ. Chapter V. Stevens, G. B. The Teaching of Jesus. Chapters XIV and XV. CHAPTER VIII JESUS^ TEACHING CONCERNING THE KINGDOM AND THE CHURCH The Expectation of a Restored Kingdom in the Apocalyptic Writings. — The discussion in the last chap- ter concerning the future reveals more fully than any that has preceded the focal point in the teachings of Jesus. To a large extent all the other instruction &ofUi?King- centers in his conception of the Kingdom of Heaven, dom of Heaven ^y^j^ ^^^ adapted from the apocalyptic traditions of the times. His idea of God and man, his conception of life and its reconstruction, and his teaching concern- ing the resurrection, judgment, and future coming may all, in a sense, be said to grow out of his idea of the divine community, and the coming of the Messiah in power and glory. While these by-products are of the greatest importance and constitute his permanent message, the Master was primarily concerned in the coming of the Kingdom, where the will of God is to be accepted by his sons, and Jesus, as his vicegerent, is to admit men to citizenship or reject them, according as they have, or have not, been prepared to enter by means of penitence, prayer, and righteousness. This complex of conceptions contained various factors, but probably presented itself to Jesus as a whole and wat subsumed under a single name, — the Kingdom X4a TEE KINGDOM AND THE CHURCH 143 of God. And, as it has several times been hinted, we JJ^^'J^JT^ must go back to the Jewish Scriptures for its eiplana- ^ tion. The idea had been a continuous and lasting element in the religion of the Jewish people up to the time of Jesus, and was effectively used by him as a means of conveying his message. The Jews^had for centuries ^^^^^^^^p^op^- looked forward with longing and confidence to a Golden vSktiSdom? Age when God's rule should be complete, and, under the leadership of a Messiah, they should return to their pristine powe?: and glory. Amid religious and moral crises and the oppression inflicted by various dominating people^, they continued to expect a restoration of the days of the Davidic kingdom, when Israel had been prosperous and famous. These ideas appear in such prophets as Daniel and Zechariah and in the apocalyp- tic books called Esdras, the Psalms of Solomon, and the Assumption of Isaiah, and are elaborated^ in the apocalypses of Enoch, Baruch, Noah, and many other recently discovered books. They are characterized by figurative and symbolic language, and contain predic- tions concerning the final issue in human histoiy in the form of an "apocalypse" or revelation. As time went on, the apocalyptic conceptions became more and more heightened. It was definitely prophe- with a variety oS sied that the reign of renewed prosperity was to be inaugurated by a popular uprising against the dominant Roman power, and that the movement, as we have seen, was to be preceded by various phenomena. A total eclipse of the sun was to occur and the stars were to fall from their elements, and there were to be universal wars and anarchy. The Messiah was to have a fore- 144 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? runner, to turn the hearts of the people, and Antichrist was to be overthrown. The endless Kingdom was to be ushered in with a judgment, over which the Messiah presided, and to be enjoyed by the righteous in a new heaven and a new earth. Those found wanting at the judgment were to be rejected from the Kingdom, and burnt or tortured in a special part of Sheol. Provision was made for the dead in the doctrine of a resurrection, although it is difficult to say whether all, or only the good, were expected to rise. The Interpretation as Adapted by Jesus. — There were naturally wide differences in detail as to the nature of the Kingdom and the personality of the Messiah, although the apocalyptic writings agreed in most es- sentials. While the new monarchy was generally re- garded as earthly in location and character, its heavenly origin was never forgotten. Sometimes the Almighty was depicted as the king, and sometimes the Messiah was so regarded; occasionally the latter served as the vicegerent of the former. The Kingdom itseK was variously regarded as (i) the sequel of a political revolution, in which God would enable the oppressed to release themselves; (2) the result of divine action alone, in which humanity had no part except to keep the Law; or (3) the outcome of a religious movement of the people, rather than a poHtical upheaval. Elements of all three interpretations appear in various parts of the gospels, and were more or less adopted or adapted by Jesus. But while he was somewhat a product of his times and seems to have been influenced by the apocalyptic atmosphere, descriptions, and language THE KINGDOM AND THE CHURCH 145 (see p. 137), he leans toward the third of these inter- pretations and is inclined always to regard the King- dom as a spiritual one. This his hearers often found it difficult to understand. The constant tendency of jesus^^r^'mis- even his disciples was to conceive of the Kingdom as ^ ^"^° a great political creation. Hence, we find such incidents as the request of John and James, or their mother, that these apostles stand first in the monarchy, or the last inquiry of the disciples: "Master, is this the time when you intend to reestablish the Kingdom for Israel?" {Acts I, 6). It must, therefore, have been a disappointment to his disciples when Jesus founded no party, led no popular uprising, and made no use of the sword. They could scarcely conceive of a victory attained through humility, sacrifice, and service. The import of such a Kingdom of God was slow in dawning upon them, and required much patient teaching concerning its applications in a variety of directions that we have discussed in the foregoing chapters. According to the ["on'o/th?KFn^- view of Jesus, the coming of the Kingdom meant for the ^°°'* most part a relief from spiritual, rather than political, slavery. Man's nature had been corrupted by sin, but it was possible for him to recover his membership in the divine community through repentance. The coming of this spiritual polity and the deliverance of man through God, he came to proclaim as the "gospel" or Good News. The Relation of the Church to the Kingdom. — Apparently Jesus conceived of the complete realization of the Kingdom as occurring some time in the future* 146 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? The Kingdom was foreshad- owed by the brotherhood that he sought to organize, But the Kingdom of God was also considered by him to be "at hand" in the incipient community or brother- hood, which foreshadowed that which was to come. In other words, the ecclesia or "congregation" was regarded as a species of proleptic Kingdom. (In order to build up a community that should inherit this coming King- dom, Jesus gathered around him a group of followers and strove to instruct them in his conception of God and the higher law and to produce in them a radical change of will. He believed that by bringing them into the right fellowship with God, he would cause them to conform to the conditions that were soon to prevail. He intended to have them form the nucleus of the new people that God would set apart for himself after his judgment. They could thus avail themselves of the powers and privileges of the Kingdom, and become at once the children of the new age. In his conception of the Kingdom, then, the present and future were somewhat blended; it seemed to him so near that the approach of it could already be felt. Hence, while the Kingdom was yet in the future, Jesus desired that there should be called into existence a group which had broken from the existing order and should seek to identify itself with that to come. He, accordingly, brought the twelve into a species of per- manent relationship with himself as his associates and messengers, and thus the nucleus of an organization was formed. At that time a common life and fellow- ship were established, with simple rites of initiation and membership taken over from contemporary apocalyptic thought, such as baptism {Mk. I, 4, etc.) and the Mes- THE KINGDOM AND THE CHURCH 147 slanlc banquet {ML XIV, 22 ff.)- TWs, however, ft not to say that Jesus expected his brotherhood to be a for- mally organized institution with authoritative officials, set laws, a creed, and ceremonial, such as is generally indicated by the word "Church" to-day. He was little fKoicemId concerned with founding a religious institution. His StutioSl^*''^^ chief interest was not in a Church, but a Kingdom. He seldom spoke about organization and left behind no fixed ritual, although he used baptism, which he had inherited from Judaism, as the symbol of moral regen- eration and a sign of admission to the Messianic com- munity. He himseK formulated no code of rules, but simply described the spirit of Christian life, which his disciples were expected to learn and follow. The prin- ciples he taught were to be used only as a guide in the case of a quarrel, difference of opinion, or actual injury. For the procedure to be used in disputes, however, Jesus did outline this policy: "If your brother does wrong, go to him and convince him of his fault when you and he are alone. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. But, if he does not listen to you, take with you one or two others, so that ' on the evidence of two or three witnesses, every word may be put beyond dis- pute.' If he refuses to listen to them, speak to the Church; and, if he also refuses to listen to the Church, treat him as you would a Gentile or a taxgatherer" (Mt. XVIII, 15 ff.). Then he added: "I tell you, all that you forbid on earth will be held in Heaven to be forbidden, and all that you allow on earth will be held in Heaven to be allowed. Again, I tell you that, if but two of you on earth agree as to what they shall pray for, whatever it "oe, 148 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? it will be granted them by my Father who is in Heaven. For where two or three have come together in my Name, I am present with them'' (ML XVIII, 18 ff.)- The Basis of the Petrine Theory. — This apparently is as far as Jesus goes anywhere in prescribing the by- laws or the government of the congregation he wished to establish. And this seems to be decidedly elastic and democratic in its form. It includes no codified canons and no definite officials and hierarchy such as were after- ward evolved in the history of the Christian Church. ft™wasg1?en°the ^^ ^^ interesting also to note that, in the passage usually disciples as a citcd to Substantiate the claim that Peter was given a special recognition and supremacy over the other dis- ciples as Christ's vicegerent upon earth, exactly the words used in the passage above for "forbid" and "allow" ^ are employed by Jesus. The complete text upon which this "Petriae theory" is largely based reads as follows : "Yes, and I say to you, Your name is ' Peter ' — a Rock, and on this rock I will build my Church (or Congregation), and the Powers of the Place of Death ^ shall not prevail over it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you forbid on earth will be held in Heaven to be forbidden, whatever you allow on earth will be held in Heaven to be allowed" (ML XVI, 18 f.). with that These words were directed to Peter, in the presence granted to ' ^ eter, 1 Beco and Xvo); in the King James Version and elsewhere they are translated literally "bind" and "loose." 2 Usually translated "Hell," or better, "Hades," but used not in the sense of a place of punishment, but with the Greek signifi- cance of the abode of all the dead. THE KINGDOM AND THE CHtTRCH 149 of the disciples, just after that impulsive follower, in response to a question asked by Jesus of them all, had made clear recognition of him as the Messiah. Jesus, then, being pleased that his mission had become so re- vealed in his life, took Peter as an index of the little group of the "faithful,'' and in a pun declared that he had proven himself the bed rock upon which the congregation was to be founded, — the pattern disciple after whom were to be modeled the members of the brotherhood that was to unlock the doors to the Kingdom of Heaven. But, however we interpret this passage, there is no J^'J,.^,^^ ^J^J^, indication that Peter was ever given any official recog- ciariuthority^S nition or special authority by the disciples themselves. ^^^^'■• He was simply a natural leader in a company of equals and a sort of spokesman in the democratic group. The same interpretation is probably also to be made of the two other passages {Lk, XXH, 31 f., and Jn. XXI, 15 ff.) in which Peter seems to be given a special commission. And no greater significance need be attached to the fact that his name always appears first in every list of the apostles {Mk. HI, 16; Mt. X, 2; Lk. VI, 14; Acts I, 13), or that throughout Acts Peter is obviously the spokes- man and leader of the group. James, rather than Peter, presided at the Council in Jerusalem, when Paul and Barnabas disputed with the Judaizing Christians, who wished to insist upon the rite of circumcision {Acts XV, 13 ff.). Again, Peter was freely criticised by the other disciples, whenever they thought him in the wrong. A typical instance of this was the occasion when he was attacked on the ground that he had eaten with the undrcumdsed, and in defense related his vision at Joppa 150 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? {Acts XI, 2 ff.). Similarly, Paul exhibited the vacillating nature of Peter and his own promptness in pointing out his inconsistency. "When Peter came to Antioch," said he, "I opposed him to his face; for he stood self -con- demned. Before certain persons came from James, he had been in the habit of eating with Gentile converts; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold aloof, for fear of offending those who still held to cir- cumcision. ... I said to Peter before them all, ^if you, who were born a Jew, adopt Gentile customs, instead of Jewish, why are you trying to compel the Gentile converts to adopt Jewish customs?'" (Gal. II, 11 ff.). Certainly Paul and the other disciples do not seem to have heard anything of Peter's vicegerency or of any infallibility in his judgment. The Nature and Importance of the Church. — This whole question of the organization and the proper govern- ment of the Church, however, is a matter that has been much mooted. Not only do the two grand divisions of Christianity, popularly known as "Catholic" and "Prot- estant," radically differ upon the matters involved, but the various Protestant denominations, and, to some extent, the Catholic orders, are not altogether a unit. But this would seem to be a matter of relatively minor importance, and one upon which every person may de- cide according to the evidence and the dictates of his own conscience. The fact remains, whether or not Jesus Say?be^en a" anticipated all the officials and ceremonies of the Church Snfnot a°Si- to-day iu forming his small brotherhood, that the in- lection. stitution began not as a collection of persons, but as a group. The idea of a redeemed community was funda- THE KINGDOM AND THE CHURCH 151 mental In early Christian thought People were to In- herit the Kingdom not as a mass of separate individuals, who had been won to the principles of Jesus, but as com- mon parts of an organic whole, bound by the imity of a single purpose. In order to participate in the new life, one must become a member of the body, and the in- dividual apart from the entire community was as naught. Jesus himself organized this brotherhood of the future, and afterward his disciples clung tenaciously to the idea. They insisted that their powers and privileges belonged to them as a body and that the individual could receive them only in so far as he was a member of that body. It may well be that in the course of time this idea has become somewhat set and formal. The divine commu- nity may have crystallized into a social institution or- J^^^'tetu-*' ganized and administered like any other, and the early t^o^aiized, Christian teaching may have been somewhat perverted and degenerated into the dogmatic attitude that there can be no salvation outside of this privileged institution. And it is clear that the Church can never exactly repre- sent the Kingdom, since there may be many outside the Church and not formally connected with it that are to be accounted among the "faithful," and among those of the professing may be hypocrites or inconstant mem- bers, who are not really part of the Kingdom. But in the beginning the Christian faith was rightly identified with a community into which men had to be admitted before they could participate in the Kingdom, and the Church is now organically a natural development from the Messianic Kingdom proclaimed by Jesus. Moreover, some such social organization was needed 152 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? t^h°iTelT to perpetuate the principles of the Master. To bring most effective, ^^out the dissemination of new truths and methods of Kving, we must take advantage of the deep-l3dng social in- stinct in humanity. If a religious point of view is to prevail, it has to find social expression, and to lead out into common sympathies and activities. "No man Kveth to himself alone. ' ' Certainly the way in which the Church has extended out of its primitive beginnings in a remote Roman province into a great world rehgion, without either outward revolution or popular excitement, and with the complete transformation of thought, viewpoint, morals, and activities it has occasioned, and the great persistence and perpetuity it has exhibited, surviving all the states and nations in existence at its foundation, have fully justified its formation and whatever evolution that has taken place. The Church is to-day, as it has been for centuries, both the chief form of social contact among those already endeavoring to incorporate the teachings of Jesus in their lives, and the most active means of winning over those outside of the Kingdom to efforts toward salvation and the reconstructed life. It is most universal and effective, and until late years about the only force that has been systematically exerted in the regeneration of society. Summary. — All the teaching of Jesus centers around his conception of the Kingdom of Heaven, which goes back to various apocal}^tic writings of the Jews. Jesus tended toward a spiritual interpretation of the Kingdom, which was much misunderstood. He regarded the coming of the Kingdom as future and present, but held that it was to be foreshadowed by an earthly community, for THE KINGDOM AND THE CHURCH 1 53 which he arranged common bonds of fellowship. He does not, however, seem to have instituted authoritative officials or ceremonial, although he outlined a procedure for cases of dispute. Peter was apparently a natural leader, but he does not seem to be recognized as the vicegerent of Jesus by the other disciples. The Church has never been considered a collection of individuals, but an organic group, and, although at times it has been over- institutionalized, it has harmonized with the social instincts of humanity, and has been a most efficient means of developing Christianity and regenerating society. SUPPLEMENTARY READING. Jenks, Jeeemiah W. Social Significance of the Teaching of Jesus. Study III. Mathews, Shailer. Message of Jesus. Study VIII. Mathews, S. Social and Ethical Teaching of Jesus. Study III. Rauschenbusch, W. Christianity and the Social Crisis. Chap- ter II. Rauschenbusch, W. Social Principles of Jesus. Part II, Chapters IV and V. Scott, E. F. The Beginnings of the Church. Especially Lectures I, VI, and X. Scott, E. F. The Kingdom and the Messiah. Chapters I, and IV-VI. Selwyn, E. G. The Teaching of Christ. Chapters I-IV and VI. Stevens, G. B. The Teaching of Jesus. Chapters V and XIII. CHAPTER rX JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETY Jesus Uttered Principles Rather than Precepts. — The question is often asked whether Christianity is practicable to-day. With the passage of these many centuries, and the tremendous changes in social, political, and economic conditions, can a point of view formulated in a remote comer of the Roman world still obtain in modem society? Do Jesus' teach- Do the principles of the fatherhood of God, the brother- present lociety? hood of man, "love" or friendship, service, and "salva- tion " or reconstmction, any longer have a bearing upon human life and conduct? Does "the Kingdom of God" yet endure, and is the "congregation" started by Jesus still an active force in the regeneration of humanity? Do the teachings of Jesus have any message for us, and if so, what is it? If we expect to find direct legislation on social problems and specific reforms in the teachings of Jesus, we are doomed to disappointment. Very little in the way of eixplicit social teaching appears in the gospels. Jesus was, in general, not concemed with the type of injunctions laid down under the Mosaic Law, or even with the applica- tions of his principles made for the early Christian groups by his great disciple, Paul. The gospels and the early part of Acts, in which Jesus' real principles and social teaching are discovered, differ from the Pentateuch and XS4 JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETY 1 55 the Epistles In about the same way that a constitution does from legislative statutes. Jesus formulated prin- ciples rather than precepts. He did not attempt to set up Jejus feit that laws and make everything on one side of the line right S"gw:eete?S" and on the other side wrong. His chief work was the elaboration of ideals and the description of how spiritual powers might be realized. He seems to have felt that rules are temporary, but that principles are eternal. Nor did he confine himself to social and economic reforms. It was his mission to reveal and inspire. A reformer works for a single age ; a revealer is for all time. The mind of Jesus was raised above the social issues of the times, and thus his outlook was wider and his insight deeper. He surveyed the social struggle from above. He viewed it as an incident, as it were, in the campaign of Gk)d. Hence his views of society as it is are infrequent, and his chief interest is in what it may become. But this absence of rules and detailed directions in the teachings of Jesus did not come about because there was no need of reforms in the Roman Empire of his day. Political oppression and social abuses were at that time Hence he did not - , Til 1 r concern himself rampant and overt m a way seldom known before or with abuses of since. The reason why the Master did not concern him- self with these crying problems of the times, was simply because his attention was fixed upon the means by which all social questions might find their own solution. He would not limit the scope and duration of his work by uttering a series of moral precepts adapted to the age and the existing social situation alone. The "new birth " was more than a new subjection to law. His prin- ciples penetrate to the springs of conduct, to the inner 156 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? Spirit, and the secret determinations of man, and he felt that the moral force thereby generated could be trusted to work out specific reforms in every age and under all circumstances. The Social Teachings of Jesus Are Incidental, and Often Seem Contradictory. — Hence the teaching of Jesus upon various social problems is fragmentary and isolated. His treatment of reforms comes about in a purely occasional and incidental fashion, and he seldom He turned from evcu approachcs the making of a code or system. When- Sifin'^h"''' ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ with a problem, he turned from its direct consideration to the principles imderlying it. He dealt with it as a physician does with symptoms. For example, in the case of the man who wanted Jesus to compel his brother to share the property with him, the Master refused to intervene, but added, probing the real seat of the difficulty: ^'Take care to keep yourself free from every form of covetousness; for even in the height of his prosperity a man's true Life does not depend on what he has" (LL XH, 15). The social teachings of Jesus, then, seem to be usually a species of by-product or illustration of his principles, although, as is often the case with by-products, the value His statements may bc vcry great. But the fact that each statement grew out of '' ^ o special occa- cn-cw out of thc occaslou and of the needs of the person sions, and often o r- seem inconsist- addrcsscd, not infrequently makes the teaching of Jesus upon any one point seem contradictory in details. For example, we saw that Jesus appears to comisel nonre- sistance in the suggestion: "When a man gives one of you a blow on the cheek, offer the other cheek as well " {Lk. VI, 29), or in his statement: "All who draw the sword will be JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETY 157 put to the sword" (ML XXVI, 52); but, on the other hand, he seems to declare as positively: "I have come to bring, not peace but a sword" (ML X, 34), and later he advises each departing disciple to "sell his cloak and buy a sword" (Lk. XXII, 36). Similarly, Jesus seems to be equally inconsistent in declaring: "Alas for you who are rich" {Lk. VI, 24), but in meeting with the young man of great possessions and loving him (Mk. X, 21). Obviously we cannot gain the views of Jesus from any one statement on a subject. We must reserve our judg- ment until we have examined all the passages where he dealt with it, and must take into critical consideration the temperament and experiences of the one reporting him. Otherwise we shall be certain to be partial and one-sided in our understanding of his social teachings. For each of his seeming pronouncements is but the outgrowth of the incident with which he is dealing, and is largely col- ored by it, and it must be viewed as an illustration of some underlying principle. For Jesus concerned him- self with the promulgation of principles, rather than def- inite rules. Jesus' Attitude toward Marriage and Divorce. — The only place where Jesus has ever seemed to depart from his usual procedure of laying down principles rather than laws, is found in the case of marriage and divorce, and even this exception is more apparent than real. Let us examine this seeming instance of specific legislation as reported in the three synoptic gospels. The oldest ac- count reads: " Some Pharisees came up, and, to test him, asked: 'Has a husband the right to divorce his wife? ' ' What direction IS8 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? did Moses give you? * replied Jesus. * Moses/ they said, 'permitted a man to draw up in writing a notice of separa- tion and divorce his wife/ 'It was owing to the hardness of your hearts/ said Jesus, 'that Moses gave you this direction; but, at the beginning of the Creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the man and his wife shall become one; so that they are no longer two, but one. What God himself, then, has yoked together, man must not separate.' When they were indoors, the disciples asked him again about this, and he said: 'Any one who divorces his wife and marries another woman is guilty of adultery against his wife; and, if the woman divorces her husband and mar- ries another man, she is guilty of adultery ' " {Mk. X, 2-12). The general position here taken by Jesus would seem Jesus insisted to bc fairly clear. In opposition to lax conditions in the tegrityofthe maintenance of the family that had arisen under the Mosaic law and that had become scandalous under the Roman jurisprudence, he seems to insist upon the integ- rity of the marriage bond. He admitted that, imder the crude conditions when the Mosaic law (see Deut. XXTV, i) was instituted, it may have been found necessary to permit men to dismiss their wives because of small faults or mere displeasure and remarry, in order that worse might not happen. But, as against this, he asserted the older law of God and of our very natures {Gen. I, 27 and n, 24), that by marriage two lives and personalities have been merged, and a spiritual, as well as physical, union has been formed. He seems to have regarded marriage JISUS AND MODERN SOCIETY 159 not as a concession to human weakness, but as a fulfill- ment of the innate social and spiritual needs of man. Be- cause of the importance of such a union to the welfare of the individual and society, he maintained that it should not be lightly broken. He is even represented as declar- ing that the relation could not be dissolved without the commission of adultery. This sentiment is briefly corroborated by the careful statement of Luke (XVI, 18), but the version of Matthew in general he re- (V, 32 and XIX, 9) softens the statement to: ''Any one with^rem'am-age, who divorces his wife, except on the ground of her imchas- tity, and marries another woman, is guilty of adultery. '* The exception, however, is probably an ecclesiastical gloss of Matthew's (see p. 16), to make matters a little easier for the Church. It does not affect the principle, for, in the case of adultery, the coalesced personalities may well be regarded as having been sundered. Obviously, un- der this interpretation of Matthew, the innocent party might re-wed without offense, and modem thinkers, who claim to be in harmony with the spirit of Jesus, have at times gone further than Matthew in the looseness of Manyiegai iJieir construction. Desertion, habitual cruelty, heredi- di?o?c?sleL out tary insanity, venereal disease, or even nonsupport, as a the^spTrit°or'^'* cause, has by some been held to be the full equivalent of adultery in breaking the physical and psychical union. Such an elastic interpretation is, of course, very ques- tionable, especially if we undertake to extend it to all of the two score of causes recognized in various states of the Union, or even claim, as do some people, that divorce and a new marriage are in harmony with the principles of Jesus, whenever conjugal love is felt by one or both par- l6o WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? ties to be dead.^ While these views of divorce may pos- sibly be defended on the ground that they are more prac- tical, judicious, or sociologically soimd, they would seem to strain the principles of Jesus beyond the breaking point. The civil law may with propriety maintain that marriage is a temporary contract arranged for the con- venience of the parties concerned, and scholars may rea- sonably hold that the monogamic family is but the prod- uct of evolution and is subject to further transition and change, but certainly shiftiness or impermanence in such a vital social relation hardly seems in keeping with the ideal fraternity and the social and divine nature of man as conceived by Jesus. But even in this matter, it is not likely that Jesus wished to assume the attitude of a lawgiver and formulate a definite program or unchanging scheme of domestic re- but he does not latious. WHlc the spirit of his teachings is clear, they assume the ... ^tndeoiai&w- seem to be intended not as legislation, but as an illustra- tion of his ideas about the nature of marriage, which are in keeping with all his principles concerning the nature of God and man and of sin and salvation. It is a genuine union of personalities, physical and spiritual, and, if the Kingdom, or divine society upon earth, is to be realized, there is great danger in instability. The principles of Jesus, however, constitute an ideal and not a law. It does not seem probable that concerning the matter of mar- riage and divorce alone, vital as the maintenance of the ^This latter situation, it is claimed, means a continuance of physical relations when the psychical have been destroyed, and is a sex outrage and a violation of the idea of union set up by Jesus. giver. JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETY l6l family is to his idea of brotherhood and a divine society, he would have varied from his usual procedure. He was primarily a promulgator of great principles; not a promo- ter of specific social reforms. His Reverence for the Family. — Jesus' reverence and care for the preservation of the human family ap- Jj|"je^h^^°^** peared in a variety of other ways. The family was the gmliy?"" '^® finest development imder the Jewish prophets and sages, but the regard for it was greatly elaborated by Jesus and his ideal of social structure centered about it. Upon this analogy he based his conception of the Kingdom or heavenly family. With him the unity of the family became a social force, molding all man- kind into one divine family under the fatherhood of God. Through the home alone he felt that the finest and most significant social inheritances can be taught and trained into character. And without the coopera- tion of the family and society, he scarcely hoped that much could be accomplished for the race. This regard of Jesus for the family was also re- flected in his habitual sympathy for domestic life and his considerate attitude toward women. He placed wonfin^^uljon a woman upon a par with man, and made her some- p^^'"'^^"*"' thing more than a plaything or toy, — more than a creature of man's fancy, an instrument of his pas- sion, or a subject of his tyranny. With Jesus, woman was regarded as the companion and friend of man, and became endowed with the same rights and duties, — " A creature not too fair and good For human nature's daily food." l62 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? While woman had come to be very largely emanci- pated before the days of the Roman Empire, and to occupy a fairly important position among the Jews, Jesus raised her beyond any standing she yet had known. In Rome she was continually ridiculed by the satirist and writer of comedy, and in Judaea she could easily be divorced by her husband and had little recourse against this abuse. The condition of equality, sympathetic companion- ship, and respect to which she attained through Jesus is witnessed by numerous incidents in his life. There is nowhere recorded a dealing of Jesus with women that is not respectful and kindly. The housewife car- ried to him her cares of preparing the meal, and was by him raised to sentiments beyond her dull routine {Lk, X, 38-42). The degraded woman called forth his sym- pathy, and to her he revealed an ability to be pure and kind at the same time {Lk. XXI, 38 ff.; Jn. Vm, i £F.). It was women that especially afforded him and his apostles material support out of their own means, in gratitude for what he had done for them {Lk, ViJJL, 2 f.). A woman, too, through grateful faith, anointed him with costly perfume during his last days upon earth {ML XXVI, 6-13; Jn. Xn, 1-8). Finally, it was a wo- man of whose welfare he thought even when death im- pended, and with his last words he commended his mother to the care of his beloved disciple {Jn. XIX, 26 f.). Thus, the great apostle, Paul, in interpreting the teachings of Jesus, might well say: "All distinctions between . . . male and female have vanished; for in JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETY 163 union with Christ Jesus you are all one" (Gal, HI, 28). Yet in maintaining the equality and companionship of women, as elsewhere, Jesus held to principles rather than precepts, and was not concerned with social re- forms and specific legislation. He did not directly attack any of the conventions that then and centuries since have kept woman as a political, legal, and eco- nomic dependent of man. He never inveighed specif- ically against the double standard of morality, nor ad- specmc^^refo°Sis. vocated equal rights for women. Here also he seems to have felt that, as his spirit and general teachings prevailed, all special cases of injustice and evil would naturally vanish. The importance that Jesus attached to the integrity of the family is also seen in the deep personal inter- est and regard that he had for children. He could never conceive of children being treated by their par- ents in any except a kindly way (Mt. VII, 9 f.; Lk. XI, II f.). The most familiar picture that we can form of the Master shows him with little children upon his knee or in his arms (Mk. IX, 36; X, 6). Likewise, we read that *' little children were brought to Jesus, for him to place his hands on them, and pray" (ML XIX, 13). And he seems to have been glad that children were playing an important part in his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (ML XXI, 15 ff.). Jesus loved children for their simplicity, intuition, humility, and teachableness, and, because of these qualities, made them generally symbolic of the entrance of an individual soul into the divine commimity. "Let SenS^mboift the little children come to me," he said, "and do not christian life. 164 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? hinder them; for it is to the childlike that the Kingdom of God belongs. I tell you, unless a man receives the Kingdom of God like a child, he will not enter it at all" {Mk. X, 14 f.; Lk. XVIII, 16 f.; ML XIX, 14). Simi- larly, he made the life of the child typical of the real Christian life, when the disciples came to him and asked: "WTio is really the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?" On that occasion he called a little child to him, and said: "Any one who will hmnble himself like this child — that man shall be the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. And any one who, for the sake of my Name, welcomes even one little child like this, is welcoming me" {ML XVIII, 1-5). So, too, he uttered the prayer: "I thank thee. Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, that, though thou hast hidden these things from the wise and learned, thou hast revealed them to the childlike! Yes, Father, I thank thee that this has seemed good to thee" {ML XI, 25 f.). Hence, when about to leave his disciples, Jesus referred to them as his "children" {Mk. X, 24; Jn. Xm, 33). and since his day Siucc the day of Tcsus our attitude toward children the attitude to- ... ^reati^^cfan^S ^^^ ^^^^^ training and discipline has greatly improved. Children now have a hold upon the thoughts, feelings, and conduct of men such as was never possessed in ancient times. While many factors have undoubtedly contributed to this humanization, one chief cause has been the life and teachings of Jesus. Yet here again it is with Jesus a matter of ideals and principles, rather ^res^ribl'^iiSS ^^^ ^^ specific precepts and laws. He never prescribed gr their train- ^iTiy definite regulations for rearing and educating chil- dren, or for their treatment by parents or others. He JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETY 165 seems to have felt that his conception of the fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man, and the ideals associ- ated therewith were sufficient to produce the most satisfactory results in every age. He simply taught the dignity of every human soul, the duty of sympathizing with the weak and lowly, and the important position of children in human life. It has been left to those who would follow him to apply these principles and to fit them to the needs and possibilities of an imperfect society. Jesus' Use of Banquets and Social Life. — The gen- eral attitude of Jesus toward social life and recreation may also be readily gathered from his statements and conduct upon sundry occasions. It is obvious that, while he was " a man of sorrow and not unacquainted with grief,'' this was not the dominant note in his life. His whole soul was wrapped up in duty and achievement, but he often sought joy and diversion as a means of refreshing himself for his own work and of teaching higher lessons to others. He was no ascetic, but associ- ated himself with an accepted hospitality from all classes. There is no record of his ever declining an invitation to a social gathering. He began his mission by being present at a wedding feast {Jn. II, 1-12), and closed it with bringing his disciples about a common board {Mk. XIV, 15 ff.). He was entertained by his future SSJ^for'" disciple, Matthew, upon an occasion when "a number oSonf/''^'''^ of taxgatherers and outcasts took their places at table with Jesus and his disciples," and his association with these people brought him much censure {Mk. II, 13-16). Likewise, he encountered criticism by requesting an l66 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? invitation to visit in the home of Zaccheus, who was a tax-gatherer and a*' sinner '^ {Lk. XIX, 5 ff.)- More- over, it was at a dinner given him by the Pharisee, Simon, that *'a woman, who was an outcast in the town, . . . brought an alabaster jar of perfume, and placing herself behind Jesus near his feet, . . . anointed them with the perfume," and thus led to Simon's ques- tioning the status of Jesus as a prophet {Lk. VTE, 36- 39). And at a breakfast to which he was asked by another Pharisee, we know that he was taxed by his host with not observing the Jewish ceremonial {Lk. XI, 37 f-). Upon many other festive occasions Jesus must have been in attendance. Banquets often figure as the central feature in his parables, and even the Prodigal Son closes with a celebration of this kind. This frequent mention of and participation in social life during his ministry brought down upon the Master much abuse not only for the company he kept, but as a "glutton and wine- to^prepSf fo? bibber" {ML XI, 19; Lk. VII, 34). But Jesus was, of hdp''othere°'^ course, neither an epicure nor a mere pleasure seeker. Life to him was more than food and drink {ML VI, 25; cf. Rom. XIV, 17). It was always his purpose, by means of festive gatherings, to prepare himself for further work, and to advance the happiness and moral welfare of others. ^y^orS^(?^ Hence Jesus did not treat any particular material ^ki°™tertaiii- pleasure or species of social life as inherently wrong and an unmitigated source of e\dl, but taught that it be- came so only when completely >delded to and made an end in itself. Nor, on the other hand, did he specifically ment; JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETY 167 prescribe banquets, paxtJes, and other amusements. Everything of the sort must become a means to some- thing higher. In his philosophy there were no set rules with regard to forms of diversion. Nothing was def- initely required or forbidden; all depended upon the use made of it. Food and clothing, creature comforts u^n'thJ'u^ and enjoyment, were all of value in their way, but he ^^^ °* *^ bade his disciples: "first seek his Kingdom, and then all these things shall be added for you" (ML VI, 31 ff.)- He did not condemn the joys and relaxations of this world, nor advocate self-abnegation per se. He held that we overcome the world, not by isolating ourselves from it, but by subordinating it to our higher uses. He prayed for his disciples: "I do not ask thee to take them out of the world, but to keep them from Evil" {Jn. XVn, 15). He preferred that they should rather re- main in the midst of society as " the Light of the world" {ML V, 14). Jesus' Attitude toward Wealth. — Again, in regard to the accumulation of wealth in this life, as already noted (see p. 157), we must be careful not to distort the teachings of Jesus. We must look for underlying prin- ciples, rather than for definite commands. The various passages of the gospel in which he treats of wealth must not be taken literally or as a set of disconnected aphorisms, but the scattered statements must be care- fully weighed and a general impression derived. On the one hand, there are innumerable passages, especially in Luke (see p. 18), where Jesus pointed out the dangers of wealth. He hinted constantly at the Jgfh".^ difficulties that exist for the holders of great riches, and i68 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? transitoriness, dulling of sympathy, Sternly warned those who were very prosperous. Riches he repeatedly showed, in the first place, are transient; the tenure of them is brief, and the pleasures that they can bring are limited. The rich man of the parable, who had lived only to fill his bams, found that his life was required of him before he had time to enjoy his wealth. "So it is," said Jesus, "with those who lay by wealth for themselves and are not rich to the glory of God" {Lk. XII, 2i). Hence he advised his disciples: "Sell what belongs to you, and give in charity," since the credit thereby obtained in heaven would not be liable to theft or loss, like earthly wealth {Lk, XII, 33 f.; Mt, VI, 19 f.). The possession of wealth, too, he clearly saw, tends to dull one's sense of human brotherhood, and to cause him to forget the existence of misery in others. The rich man was utterly oblivious of Lazarus, who lay at his gate, was covered with sores, and longed to satisfy his hunger with the crumbs that fell from the other's table {Lk. XVI, 19 ff.). Likewise, the wealthy young man of conventional morals, who consulted Jesus, was felt by him to be too complacent of existing con- ditions, and was told: "There is one thing still lacking in you; sell everything that you have, and distribute to the poor" {Lh XVIII, 22\Mt. XIX, 21). This advice en- tailed a more complete surrender of possessions than Jesus elsewhere required, but he realized that the antidote was none too strong for the selfishness of the individual con- cerned. The man's wealth, he saw, had blinded him to the suffering of the poor, and affected his entire character. His accumulations had not only resulted in wronging others, but in largely ruining his own possibilities. JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETY 169 This dwarfing of personality, so subversive of one's ^^^^ °^ p*'- best interests and happiness, was another reason for Jesus* invectives against wealth. "What good is it to a man," he asked, "to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?" {Mk, VIII, 36). And again he exclaimed: "Alas for you who are rich, for you have had your com- forts in full" (Lk. VI, 24). He thus condemns the rich, not because of their wealth, but because they have no further aspiration. And, as he says later: "Even in the height of his prosperity a man's true Life does not depend on what he has " {Lk. XII, 15). As we have seen, too, in all the preceding citations, it was only by a regard for the poor and the consequent development of his own character that one could come into harmony with the and want of •' harmony with love of the Father, and claim membership in the King- ^od; dom. "No one," Jesus said elsewhere, "can serve two masters, for either he will hate one and love the other, or else he will attach himself to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money" (ML VI, 24). And this was the ground for his hyperbolic remark to the disciples, when the young man of great possessions went away distressed at his suggestion of giving up his wealth: "It is easier for a camel to get through the needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven" {ML XIX, 24; ML X, 24 f.). On the other hand, Jesus frequently showed no op- position whatever even to very great wealth. If he had disapproved of the accumulation of property, it would be difficult to account for his use of metaphors drawn from the relations and duties of householders, landowners, and stewards, to throw light upon spiritual truths. More- It ministers to public good, 17* WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? jSifiSK^whcn ^^^^> ^^^ ^^ approved of Zaccheus, for exMnple, when he offered to give one-half his property to the poor, there is no indication that he objected to his retention of the remainder (Lk. XIX, 8). Although he generally recognized that the pursuit of riches might destroy the highest ideals and interests both of man and society, he elsewhere taught that great possessions could be rightfully obtained and faithfully used. If they master the possessor, he becomes their slave; but they may be made his servant and be used to minister to the highest interests of himself and society. Wealth may be prop- erly used for charity, for increasing the happiness or culture of the people at large, or for enabling one to carry on scrupulously and effectively his special work in life. Money, Jesus would seem to hold, is not owned, but owed by the rich; it constitutes a trusteeship, not a possession. Wealth is justifiable, provided that it con- tributes to the public good. Hence in the parable of the talents (ML XXV, 14-30), Jesus did not condemn, but decidedly approved of thrift and the accumulation of property. "Well done, good, trustworthy servant," the master is represented as saying to the one who had successfully invested the sum in- trusted to him, while the one who had kept the money unemployed is called, "You lazy, worthless servant !'* And the master even went so far in rewarding the thrifty servant as to present him with the money taken from the other and to declare: "To him who has, more will be given, and he shall have abundance; but, as for him who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away from him." So even an unjust steward is commended, be- JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETY 171 cause he utilized the material means of his master to secure things of more value, — friendship and business credit {Lk. XVI, 1-12). A wise administration of wealth, therefore, is one that leads to the building of character, and Jesus counsels: "Store up treasures for yourselves in Heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" {ML VI, 19 f.; Lk. XII, 33 f.). Thus it is possible to get back of these two radically divergent views of Jesus about wealth to the general principles involved. He does not stigmatize the accumu- ^^ sSatt? lation of riches in itself, except as it brings a man's char- jeopard^ '' acter into jeopardy. Wealth may be used to the benefit *^^'^^*=^^- of society and the strengthening of its possessor. No sin-" gle social type — the rich or the poor — monopolized the sympathy or acceptance of Jesus, and he never intended to array one class against the other. The categories of his social judgment were never those of wealth and pov- erty; he was interested only in the extension of the King- dom of God. Jesus' Ideas about Almsgiving. — Similarly, Jesus |g,'i\ ^L'^"^® has little to say about the giving of alms. From one «^^°s; passage only do we gather that he was himself accus- tomed to give to the poor {Jn. XIII, 29), and there it is foimd merely stated as a fact without further reference to attendant circumstances. <(^He was concerned with removing the conditions of poverty, rather than with alleviating it. ;The cure of the disease he believed to lie in eradicating its causes, moral and intellectual, rather than in treating the symptoms. He endeavored to de- 172 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? velop industry and fidelity, on the one hand, and check all exaction, exploitation, and other social ills on the other, by putting men in the right relations with God and their fellows and inspiring fraternity and helpfulness, and by recognizing wealth as a species of stewardship. He was strikingly considerate and tender toward the poor, as is shown in a variety of his sayings. '^ Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God," for example, is the form in which the beatitude appears in Luke (VI, 20). The complacent young man is advised to" give (or distribute) to the poor" {ML XIX, 21; Lh XVIII, 22), and the disciples are instructed to "give to everyone who asks of you" {ML V, 42; Lk. VI, 30). But no definite indication is ever given as to the intention, manner, or amount of the donation. In fact, almsgiving is clearly only an incidental of the teaching of Jesus, and may at times be even contradic- hc warns against tory of his main principles. For, praiseworthy as he its abuses, i i r . ^ -, assumed it to be, he often warns against the abuses, ostentation, or commercialism into which it may sink. *' Therefore, when you do acts of charity," he said, ''do not have a trumpet blown in front of you, as hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. There, I tell you, is their reward! But, when you do acts of charity, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your charity may be secret; and your Father, who sees what is in secret, will recompense you" {ML VI, 2 £[.). In the case of the Good Samaritan {Lk. X, 30-36), the financial relief is pictured as of much less importance than the compassion and care shown him. Likewise, the rich men JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETY 173 who gave of their superfluity to the Temple offerings were scorned in comparison with the widow with her two farthings, of whom Jesus said: "I tell you that this poor widow has put in more than all the others; for every one else here put in something from what he had to spare, while she, in her need, has put in all she had to live upon " SfdefiniS^'Ses (Lk. XX, 1-4). Evidently, with Jesus, almsgiving is an ^°'^'*' important virtue, but no definite rules can be laid down for it, and it requires watchfulness and discipline. Its value depends upon the spirit in which it is given and the sacrifice it entails. The Attitude of Jesus toward Industrial Conditions. — In his teaching concerning industrial life, too, Jesus gave no specific instruction and laid down no definite program. Reviewed all questions from above and treated them from the standpoint of preparation for the Kingdom of God. Although many have represented him as the advocate of one system or another — individualism, communism, so- cialism, anarchy — in reality, he never advocated any jesus advocated definite form of economic control. He would have held oi economic con- trol, that any industrial system is to be valued by its contri- bution to character rather than by economic advantage, and that our desires and ambitions should be for spiritual, and not economic, profit. His motive is quite different from that of various propagandists. Where they would begin with economic needs and proceed to economic re- forms, he started with spiritual needs and led toward a spiritual Kingdom. The one holds to economic trans- formation as the basis of character; the other bases his ex- pectations upon the belief that character will produce economic transformation. 174 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? Thus Jesus impKed that the real difficulty with indus- trial conditions is not mechanical, but moral. From his principle already discussed, that wealth is to be held by its possessor in trust for society, it would follow that a faithful steward would see that those for whom he held it were given sufficient means for their support. This would mean at least a living wage for all. Hence, while Jesus recognized in the parable of the talents that men should be rewarded according to their efforts, by the story of the workers in the vineyard (ML XX, 1-15) he but estimated au taught that thc employer should be interested not existing institu- ,./,. . -iit e •• tjj>^^accordmg chiefly m gettmg the work done for a mmuniun of cost, of fraternity. b^t iu sceuig that employment and a living were afforded to all. Those who had worked but an hour, as well as the full-time laborers, had done their best, and it was the duty of society to afford them both a livelihood. Here also, then, Jesus was not an economist, and was urging no industrial propaganda, but he would determine the value of any existing economic institution or custom according as it tended toward the establishment of the principle of fraternity or not. Jesus* Position on Politics and Government — Con- cerning government and politics also, Jesus seems never to have made any definite pronouncement. While we find general statements, comparisons, and implications on the subject scattered through the gospels, he no- He did not favor whcrc formulatcd a poHtical system. To have advocated one form of government or Que type of govcmment above all others, or to have favored one political party or another, would have limited his message to his own day; and he would al- most certainly have ruined his influence, had he aroused JESUS AND MODEliK SOCIITT 175 political feelings in any direction. At that time the civil government was largely in the hands of Rome, but the Jews held two very different attitudes toward it. While the Roman Emperor had granted relative local autonomy to Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, who represented him in Galilee and Perea, Judaea came more directly under the imperial government through the procurators. The majority of the people felt that they should submit to this latter control, but a goodly minority, known as the "Herodians," were ready to revolt at any favorable moment. It was, there- fore, with the idea of embroiling Jesus either with the Roman government or with the Herodians, that the Pharisees once asked him: "Are we right in paying taxes to the Emperor, or not?" But, instead of answering categorically, he said: "Pay to the Emperor what be- longs to the Emperor, and to God what belongs to God" {Mk. Xn, 13 ff.; ML XXII, 15 ff.; Lk. XX, 20 f.). Thus Jesus avoided the horns of a dilemma and a partisan position in politics. He simply recognized con- J^*J,^i^ ^on- stituted authority in its own sphere, and advocated Jy"'*** *"^^°'" obedience to it when it existed for the welfare of society. Elsewhere he showed his acceptance of existing mon- archical institutions by the illustrations he often drew from the life of royalty. Such were the parable con- cerning the nobleman, who went to claim his kingdom and left ten poimds with each of ten servants {Lk. XIX, 12-27), the story of the king who made a marriage feast for his son {Mt. XXII, 2-10), the parable of the king that was more merciful than one of his subjects {ML XVni, 23-35), and the statement about a kingdom 176 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? divided against itseK {ML III, 24). Similarly, he re- spected and supported the existing ecclesiastical authori- ties. When the collectors demanded the annual Temple rate, after stating his claim to exemption from this tax for the maintenance of his Father's house, he instructed Peter how to pay it ^ (Mt. XVII, 24 ff.)- He would not descend to a controversy, but yielded in this nonessential, in order that he might stress something more important and that his example to the contrary might not tempt others to stumble. At other times also Jesus showed respect for the needs he held that and claims of the state and established relidon, but, as God's claims ^ ' ' were lupreme. Jn the casc of the civil tax, he implied that this was of small import as compared with obedience to God. While, for example, he justified Pilate as a judge and submitted to the government, he answered Pilate's declaration of his power by saying: "You would have no power over me at all, if it had not been given you from above" (Jn. XIX, 11). He was never primarily concerned in earthly governments, but in the establishment of a spir- itual ELingdom. Thus he earlier declared to Pilate: *'My kingly power is not due to this world. If it had been so, my servants would be doing their utmost to prevent my being given up to the Jews; but my kingly power is not from the world" {Jn. XVIII, 36). Since the establishment of the Kingdom of God was his chief mission, he gave no definite instructions concerning earthly government and poKtical parties. He yielded * This incident does not appear in Mark (IX, ss), and seems to have appealed to Matthew, because of his desire to heighten a narrative through the miraculous (see p. 16). JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETY 1 77 obedience to existing authority, and confined his teaching to principles and motives. For in politics, as elsewhere, he held that principles are eternal, and principalities are ephemeral. The Principles of Jesus and Their Application. — Many other social, economic, and political questions are discussed in the gospels. But in all his treatment of social problems, as in the rest of his teaching, Jesus lays down no definite laws. And any one who seeks Hence on aJi •' •' social problems to discover a "rule of thumb" is liable to pervert his Jo^'Jefimte kws* teaching. Such a man is endeavoring to make a sign- post out of a guiding star. He finds precepts and rules, where Jesus had the vision to formulate broad principles amd high ideals. He would make a rule of thumb of the teachings of the Master, to save himself the necessity of thinking and working out his own salvation. He prefers, by a blind selfishness, to limit the sayings to his own brief span of life, while Jesus uttered his teach- ings for all time. Of course, this is not to say that Jesus has no message for modem society. On the contrary, it has been found that, as it advances, civilization comes constantly into greater harmony with the principles and teachuigs of Jesus. But we must make the application ^fU^to^" for ourselves. His more important message does not ^pp^'*^ exist for the dull, inert, or closed mind. Summary. — Jesus formulated ideals and principles, and did not lay down definite rules, since the latter could apply but to a siagle age, while principles are eternal. His utterances upon a given social problem, therefore, were made as illustrations of his principles, and, growing out of the occasion, often seem contradictory, unless 178 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? they ar« wautnlned together. Jesus* attitude toward divorce seems most nearly an exception to this general procedure, but, while he held that marriage muted two personalities, and that any breach of the union, though it were legal, constituted adultery, it is doubtful whether even here he acted as a lawgiver. The reverence of Jesus for the integrity of the family is reflected in his con- sideration for women and his love of children, but he did not advocate any special reforms in the treatment of women, nor prescribe regulations for the rearing of children. Jesus used social occasions for recreation and instruction in higher views of life, but formulated no rules concerning diversions. The accumulation of wealth was regarded by Jesus as dangerous to the possessor and to society, although he held that it was justifiable, if treated as a stewardship. While he commended alms- giving, he wished to guard against its abuses. In indus- trial life, he advocated no one system, but held that each must be measured by a moral, rather than an economic standard. Nor did Jesus formulate a definite political system; he recognized existing authorities, but held to the principle that obedience to God is paramount. On all other social questions, Jesus laid down no specific laws, but left his followers to apply his principles to the problems of each age. SUPPLEMENTARY READING Abbott, Lyman. The Ethical Teachings of Jesus. Jenks, Jeremiah W. Social Significance of the Teaching of Jesus. Studies VI-XI. Kent, C. F. The Social Teachings of the Prophets and Jwus. Chapters XVI and XVIII-XXII. JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETT 179 Mathews, Shaher. Message of Jesus. Chapters IV-Vn. Mathews, S. Social and Ethical Teaching of Jesus. Studies VII-IX. Mathews, S. Social Teaching of Jesus. Chapters III-IX. Peabody, F. G. Jesus Christ and the Social Question. Chapter I. Rauschenbusch, W. Christianity and the Social Crisis. Chap- ter II. Rauschenbusch, W. Christianizing the Social Order. Part II, Chapter VI; Part III, Chapter^I. Stalker, James. The Ethic of Jesus. Chapters XV and XVI. CONCLUSIONS WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? The teachings of Jesus were presented in the dress of the Messianic prophesies of the apocalyptic writers, which he had inherited and adapted. They centered around the Kingdom of God, which was to be estab- lished in the near future, and involved the iQauguration of a new order, in which everything would be in com- plete accord with the divine will. Jesus felt that this future Kingdom was so near at hand as to be already projecting its influence into the present, and that men might at once begin to submit their lives to its higher law. To this end he sought to foreshadow the new order in an earthly congregation or "church," which should be ready to inherit the divine Kingdom when it came. He gathered around him a group of followers, and strove to teach them his new conceptions of God and the higher law. But the Messianic categories in which the Master's teachings were presented had begun to lose their meaning almost before the gospels were recorded. They have ever since had to be inter- preted anew by the Church he started, in order to be intelligible in later times and with different peoples. And to-day the world finds its consolation and help in the moral and reKgious ideals of the Master and the aspect of Jesus as a teacher, rather than in the con- i8o CONCLUSIONS l8l summation of a Messianic Kingdom and in his coming in power and glory. His teachings may be briefly recapitulated. Jesus described God as "father," with the attributes of pro- tecting care, pity, and forgiveness, and held that men became the sons of God by adopting these character- istics. On the social side, he regarded God as "king," and made humility, purity, and service the test of membership in his Kingdom. These ideals, then, lead to a process of reconstructing one's life known as "con- version," and the state attained thereby is called "sal- vation." In his teaching concerning the hereafter, ac- cording to John, Jesus asserted a present resurrection, as well as a future. The same evangelist represents him as teaching that judgments are constantly being made, but culminate in final judgments; and that re- ward and punishment will not consummate with death. For the solution of social problems — divorce, the family, diversions, wealth, almsgiving, industrial conditions, and poUtics, Jesus has furnished principles and not definite rules. And his utterances upon any problem were illustrative of these principles, and, growing out of the occasion, often seem contradictory, unless they are examined together. Thus, while his central concept of the Kingdom was not really original with Jesus, the ideas that were at first ancillary to it are largely his own. He certainly associated with Messianism a higher ethical teaching than the traditional rules of conduct imder the old Law, and this was the legitimate fruit of his own deep sym- pathy with the will of God. It involved a fellowship l82 WHAT Dm JESUS TEACH? and communion with God so intimate that it could be best expressed in the terms of the relation between father and son, and he felt that he had in his own life anticipated this relation. Hence the Messianic guise has affected but little the permanent contribution made by the teachings of Jesus. The presuppositions from which they made their start have largely disappeared, but the real message is brighter than ever. It may be differently apprehended by various ages and peoples, but it always makes the same striking appeal. What Jesus taught has held a meaning for all races and gener- ations of men, unequaled by that of any other teacher, and the Christian teachings have made their way into the world, imsurpassed for the healing of the nations. BOOKS FOR THE STUDY OF JESUS AS A TEACHER Besides the standard translations, a number of books may be mentioned as valuable references for further study. The list given below, while extensive, can make no claim to completeness. It has been confined to works in English, and for the most part to those written since the opening of this century. The books seeming to be more important have generally been marked with an asterisk, and some brief bibliographical notes have been at- tempted in various places. I. THE GREEK TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT *Lake, K. The Text of the New Testament. (Gorham, 1908.) Inexpensive and scholarly. * MiLUGAN, G. New Testament Documents. (Macmillan, 1913.) Illustrated, popular, and interesting. Scrivener, F. H. A. The New Testament in Greek. (Cambridge University, 1908.) SouTER, A. Text and Canon of the New Testament. (Scribner, 1913.) Westcott, B. F., and Hort, F. J. A. The New Testament in Greek, (Macmillan, 1881.) n. INTRODUCTIONS TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Bacon, B. W. Introdtiction to the New Testament. (Macmillan, 1900.) Inexpensive, but antiquated in part. * Jones, M. The New Testament in the Twentieth Century. (Macmillan, 19 14.) Popular and interesting. JULICHER, A. Introduction to the New Testament. (Putnam, 1904.) 183 184 BOOKS FOR STUDY •Moftatt, James. Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament. (Scribner, 191 1.) The standard work. MoHR, J. C. B. Introduction to the New Testament. (Crown Theological Library, Williams & Norgate.) *Peake, a. S. Critical Introduction to the New Testament, (Scribner, 19 10.) Inexpensive handbook. Pfleiderer, O. Primitive Christianity. (Putnam, 1906-10.) SoDEN, H. VON. History of Early Christian Literature. (Putnam, 1906.) Wrede, W. The Origin of the New Testament. (Harper, 1909.) Zahn, T. Introduction to the New Testament. (Scribner, 1909.) Traditional, but learned. m. COMMENTARIES ON THE GOSPELS Allen, W. C. St. Matthew. (Scribner, 1908.) Bacon, B. W. Beginnings of the Gospel Story. (Yale Univer- sity, 1909.) Bruce, A. B., and Dods, M. Expositor's Greek Testament. (Dodd, 1897.) Gould, E. P. St. Mark. (Scribner, 1896.) *McNeile, a. H. St. Matthew. (Macmillan, 1915.) Excep- tionally valuable. Menzies, a. The Earliest Gospel. (Macmillan, 1901.) Plummer, a. St. Matthew. (Scribner, 1909.) Plummer, a. St. Luke. (Scribner, 1909.) Swete, H. B. St. Mark. (Macmillan, 1902.) Westcott, B. F. St. John. (Murray, 1908.) IV. THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM BuRKiTT, F. C. The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus. (Houghton, Mifflin, 19 10.) Inexpensive; best simple intro- duction. *BuRKiTT, F. C. The Gospel History and Its Transmission. (Scribner, 1907.) BOOKS FOR STUDY 185 Burton, E. D. Principles of Literary Criticism and the Synoptic Problem. (University of Chicago Press, 1904.) Carpenter, J. E. The First Three Gospels, (Unitarian S. S. Society, 1910.) Castor, G. D. Matthew's Sayings of Jesus. (University of Chicago Press, 1918.) Harnack, a. Luke the Physician. (Putnam, 1907.) Harnack, a. The Sayings of Jesus. (Putnam, 1908.) Harnack, A. The Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels. (Putnam, 19 11.) Hawkins, J. C. Horce Synopticce. (Frowde, 1909.) Manson, W. The First Three Gospels. (Clark, 19 14.) •Oxford, Members op the University of. Studies in the Synoptic Problem. (Oxford, 19 11.) This and the two books following are up to date, but technical. •Patton, C. S. Sources of the Synoptic Gospels. (Macmillan, 1915.) See note above. •Sanday, W. Studies in the Synoptic Problem. (Clarendon Press, 191 1.) See note above. Stanton, V. H. The Gospels as Historical Documents. (Cam- bridge, 1909.) V. THE FOURTH GOSPEL ASKWITH, E. H. The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel. (Hodder, 1910.) Bacon, B. W. The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate. (Mof- fat, 19 10.) Erudite. Drummond, James. The Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospd. (Scribner, 1904.) In favor of traditional author- ship, though by a Unitarian. ♦Gardner, P. The Ephesian Gospel. (Putnam, 19 15.) Best popular treatment. Johnston, J. S. The Philosophy of the Fourth Gospel. (Gorham, 1909.) Lewis, F. G. The Irenceus Testimony as to the Fourth Gospd. (University of Chicago, 19 10.) l86 BOOKS POE STUDY ♦Sanday, W. Th$ Criiicism of tht Feurth Gospel. (Scribner, 1905.) ScHMiEDEL, P. W. The Johannine Writings. (Macmillan, 1908.) ♦Scott, E. F. The Fourth Gospel. (Houghton, 1909.) In keeping with the liberal school. Weaeing, Thomas. The World View of the Fourth Gospel. (Uni- versity of Chicago Press, 19 18.) Wendt, H. H. The Gospel according to St. John. (Scribner, 1902.) VI. HARMONIES OF THE GOSPELS * Burton, E. D., and Goodspeed, E. J. Earmmiy of the Synoptic Gospels. (Scribner, 19 17.) Inexpensive, and best for the average use. Sell, H. T. The Twentieth Century Story of Christ. (Revell, 1918.) Sharman, H. B. Records of the Life of Jesus. (Doran, 1917.) Thompson, J. M. The Synoptic Gospels. (Oxford University, 1910.) Best for Hterary analysis. Weight, A. A Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek. (Macmillan, 1903.) Vn. THE LIFE OF JESUS Note. — Of the innumerable Uves of Jesus only a few need be consulted. They all may be classified as "conservative," "liberal," or "eschatological," according as they represent the traditional orthodox point of view, embody the modernistic psychological treatment of the German school of the last century, or accept, wholly or in part, the revolutionary reinterpretation of Weiss and Schweitzer (see pp. 138 f.). All the presentations of each class follow the same general lines. The beginner is, there- fore, advised to read but one life of each school, and then analyze, compare, and interpret the synoptic gospels for himself upon the basis of a harmony, such as that of Burton and Goodspeed. BOOKS FOR STUDY 187 Anderson, F. L. The Man of Nazareth. (Macmillan, 1914.) Belongs to liberal school. BoussET, W. Jesus. (Putnam, 1906.) Liberal or psychological school. Briggs, C. a. New Light on the Life of Jesus. (Scribner, 1904.) Conservative. Bruce, A. B. With Open Face. (Scribner, 1896.) Liberal. Case, S. J. The Historicity of Jesus. (University of Chicago Press, 19 1 2.) Gilbert, G. H. Jesus. (Macmillan, 191 2.) Brief and liberal. Glover, T. R. The Jesus of History. (Doran, 1917.) Brief and recent; conservative. * HoLTZMANN, O. Life of Jesus. (Macmillan, 1904.) Standard work of the liberal school. Knowling, R. J. The Testimony of St. Paul to Christ. (Scrib- ner, 1905.) ♦Mackintosh, Article on Jesus Christ in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. (Clark, 1914.) Admirably done. Neuman, a. Jesus. (Macmillan, 1906). Brilliant little sketch by a liberal. Rhees, R. The Life of Jesus of Nazareth. (Scribner, 1900.) Brief and conservative. Sanday, W. Article on Jesus Christ in Hastings^ Dictionary of the Bible. (Scribner, 1902). Reprinted as book (Scribner, 1905.) Inexpensive and brief; conservative. * Sanday, W. The Life of Christ in Recent Research. (Oxford University, 1907.) Well balanced, but not up to date. * Schweitzer, A. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. (Macmillan, 1910.) Readable survey of two centuries of German scholar- ship, and brilliantly translated by Montgomery; eschato- logical. Smnmary in last chapter. ♦Scott, E. F. The Kingdom and the Messiah. (Clark, 1911.) Eschatological. Smith, D. The Days of His Flesh. (Doran, 19 10.) Strauss, D. F. The Life of Jesus Critically Examined. (Mac- millan, 1908.) New edition of a classical book, but now antiquated. l88 BOOKS FOR STUDY Streeter, B. M. The Historic Christ: Part m of Foundations in A Statement of Christian Belief in Terms of Modern Thought by Seven Oxford Men. (Macmillan, 191 2.) Eschatological. Weiss, B. The Life of Christ. (Scribner, 1909.) Conservative. Vm. THE TEACHING OF JESUS Abbott, L. The Ethical Teachings of Jesus. (University of Pennsylvania, 19 10.) BoswoRTH, E. I. Studies in the Teaching of Jesus. (Association Press, 1905.) Briggs, C. a. The Ethical Teaching of Jesus. (Scribner, 1904.) Bruce, A. B. The Parabolic Teaching of Jesus. (Doran, 1892.) Bruce, A. B. The Training of the Twelve. (Doran, 1902.) Burton, E. D., Smith, J. M. P., and Smith, G. B. Biblical Ideas of Atonement. (University of Chicago, 1909.) Cone, 0. Rich and Poor in the New Testament. (Macmillan, 1902.) * Cross, G. What is Christianity? (University of Chicago Press, 1918.) DoDS, M. The Parables of Our Lord. (Whittaker, 1895.) Hall, T. C. The History of Ethics within Organized Christianity. (Scribner, 19 10.) Harnack, a. What is Christianity? (Putnam, 19 10.) Liberal position. •Hinsdale, B. A. Jesus as a Teacher. (Christian Publishing Co., 1895.) Probably the best work on the method of Jesus. Hughes, H. M. The Ethics of Jewish Apocryphal Literature, (Cully, 1909.) Jenks, J. W. Social Significance of the Teachings of Jesus. (As- sociation Press, 1907.) Kent, C. F. Social Teachings of the Prophets and Jesus. (Scrib- ner, 1917.) King, H. C. The Ethics of Jesus. (Macmillan, 19 10.) Knox, G. W. The Gospel of Jesus. (Houghton, 1909.) Lyttleton, E. H. Studies in the Sermon on the Mount. (Long- mans, 1905.) BOOKS FOR STUDY 189 * Mathews, Shailer. The Message of Jesus to Our Modern Life, (University of Chicago, 1915.) Mathews, Shailer. The Social Teaching of Jesus. (Macmillan, 1905.) * MoFFATT, James. The Theology of the Gospels. (Duckworth, London, 19 12.) Murray, G. Jesus and His Parables. (Clark, 19 14.) *Peabody, F. G. Jesus Christ and the Christian Character, (Macmillan, 1904.) * Peabody, F. G. Jesus Christ and the Social Question. (Mac- millan, 191 2.) Pell, E. L. What Did Jesus Really Teach about War? (Revell, 1918.) Pfleiderer, O. Primitive Christianity. (Putnam, 1906-10.) Rauschenbusch, W. The Social Principles of Jesus. (West- minster Press, Philadelphia, 19 18.) Ross, D. M. The Teaching of Jesus. (Clark, 1904.) *Selwyn, E. S. The Teaching of Christ, (Longmans, 1915.) Eschatological. Smith, F. W. Jesus —- Teacher, (Sturgis-Walton, 19 16.) * Stalker, James. The Ethic of Jesus. (Doran, 1909.) * Stevens, G. B. The Teaching of Jesus. (Macmillan, 1911.) Liberal, clear, and interesting. Stokes, A. P. What Jesus Christ Thought of Himself (Mac- millan, 19 16.) TiPSWORD, H. M. The Pedagogics of Jesus. (Badger, Boston, 1916.) Toy, C. H. Judaism and Christianity. (Little, 1892.) Wayland, J. W. Christ as a Teacher. (Stratford Co., 1919.) Wernle, p. The Beginnings of Christianity. (Putnam, 1903-4.) Extreme example of the psychological; popular, facile, and interesting. Wilson, F. E. Contrasts in the Character of Christ. (Revell, 1916.) IQO BOOKS FOR STUDY IX. GENERAL SUBJECTS * BuRKiTT, F. C. Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, (London, 1913.) Eschatological. Carpenter, J. E. The Bible in the Nineteenth Century. (Long- mans, 1903.) * Charles, R. H. Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, (London, 19 13.) * Charles, R. H. Religious Development between the New and Old Testaments. (Holt, 19 14.) *CoBERN, C. W. The New Archeological Discoveries and their Bearing upon the New Testament. (Funk & Wagnalls, 19 17.) Falconer, R. A. The Truth of the Apostolic Gospel. (Associa- tion Press, 1904.) * Goodspeed, E. J. The Story of the New Testament. (Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 19 16.) Gordon, G. A. Religion and Miracle. (Houghton, Mifflin, 1909.) Gould, E. P. The Biblical Theology of the New Testament. (Mac- millan, 1900.) Hall, G. Stanley. Jesus the Christ in the Light of Psychology, (Doubleday, Page, 19 18.) HiLLis, N. D. The Influence of Christ in Modern Life. (Mac- millan, 1900.) Hunting, H. B. The Story of Our Bible. (Scribner, 1915.) * Mathews, Shailer. History of New Testament Times in Palestine. (Macmillan, 1908.) Moulton, R. G. The Literary Study of the Bible. (Heath, 1899.) MouLTON, R. G. The Bible at a Single View. (Macmillan, 1918.) Nash, H. S. History of the Higher Criticism of the New Testament. (Macmillan, 1900.) * Penniman, Josiah H. A Book about the English Bible. (Mac- millan, 1919.) Interesting literary discussion; up to date, but moderate in tone. Rall, H. F. New Testament History. (Abingdon Press, New York, 1 9 14.) Scott, E. F, The Beginnings of the Church, (Scribner, 19 14.) Eschatological. BOOKS FOR STUDY 19I Selleck, W. C. The New Appreciation of the Bible, (University of Chicago Press, 1907.) Sheldon, F. M. The Bible in our Modern World. (Pilgrim Press, Boston, 1918.) Smyth, J. Paterson. How We Got Our Bible. (James Pott, New York, 1899.) * Smyth, J. Paterson. The Bible in the Making. Qames Pott, New York, 1914.) Popular and clear. TiPLADY, T. The Cross at the J^ront. (Revell, 19 18.) Vincent, M. R. The History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. (Macmillan, 1899.) VoTAW, C. W. The Sermon on the Mount in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible. (Scribner, 1904.) Wilson, P. W. The Christ We Forget. (ReveU, 1918.) INDEX Allegory, Jesus' use of, 44, 69 f . Almsgiving, 171 ff. Aphorisms, Jesus' use of, 65 ff. Apocalyptic writings, 137 f., 142 ff. "Apperception," 59 f. Aristotle, 112. Authorized Version f 28. Banquets, 165 f. Baptism, 147. Barnabas, 13. Baruch, 87, 143. Beatitudes, i8. Beza, 27. Brotherhood of man, 95 f . Burkitt, 138. By-products, Jesus' teachings as, 156. Capernaum, 13, 23, 44. Children, 163 f. Christian virtues, iiiff.; and practice, 117 f. Christocentric, 22. Church, 14s f., 150. Clement, 7. Complutensiany 26. "Congregation," 146. Conversion, 118 ff. Daniel, 86. David, 143. Demas, 17. Divorce, 157 £f. Docetists, 25. Elzevir, 27. Enoch, 87, 129, 143. Epaphras, 17. Epigrams, Jesus' use of, 65 ff. Epistles of Paul, 11. Erasmus, 26, 88. EsdraSy 143. Ethical theories, 106. Family, 161. Father, God as, 74 ff. Fatherhood, attributes of, 76 ff. Fiery furnace, 132 f. Fourth Gospel, see Gospel of John. "Fulfilhnent,"63f., 92f. Future coming of Jesus, 134 ff. Gehenna, 132. God, Jesus' idea of, 73 ff. Gospel, 12; of Mark, 12, 13, 14, IS, 32f.; of Matthew, 14, 15, 16 f.; of Luke, 14, 15, 17 ff.; of John, 20 ff.; according to 193 194 INDEX Hebrews, 34, ixo; of Peter, 24. Government, Jesus' attitude to- ward, 174 ff. HiUel, 47. Historical approach, i f. Human nature, Jesus' knowl- edge of, 55 ff. Ideals, Jesus', 106 ff. Ignatius, 7. Industrial conditions, 173 f. Informality of Jesus* teaching, 50 f. Literal interpretation, 3 ff. Levi, see Matthew, 16. Logos doctrine, 21, 22. Luke, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15. Manuscripts of New Testament^ 26 ff. Mark, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, IS, 32. Marriage, 157 ff. Mary, mother of Mark, 13. Matthew, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15. Moffatt, 29, 139. New Testament, in Modern Speech, 28; Twentieth Cen- tury; New Translation, 29. Noah, 143. Jerome, 24. Jerusalem, 23. Jesus, as supernatural, in Mark, 32; as teacher and law-giver, Optimism of Jesus, 102 ff. in Matthew, ZZ, 34 ff-; as Qrigen, 24. humanitarian, in Luke, 33; Outward action, Jesus' use of, as "word" in John, ^Z) as ^^^ Messiah, 32 f., 33, 34, 82, 87, 89, 134 ff., 142 ff.; as Papias, Bishop, 7, lo, 12, 16. Teacher, 34 ff. ; his character, Parables, 44, 67 ff. 2)^ f . ; his intuition, 56 f . John, 8, 9, 21 ff., 126, 129. John, see Mark, 13. John the Baptist, 22, 44, 47. Josephus, 25. Judgment, the, 128 ff. Justin Martyr, 7, 12. Kingdom of God, 32, 33, 34, 45, 845., 96 f., loi, 109, no, 117, 13s, 137 ff-, 142 ff., 181. "Passive" virtues, 112 ff. Paul, II, 13, 17, 150. Peter, 7, 12, 13, 16. Petrine theory, 148 ff., 150. Philo Judaeus, 21, 22, 25. Plato, 112. Pliny the Yoimger, 25. Plutarch, 25. Politics, 174 f. Polycarp, 7. Principles, rather than pm- I INDEX 195 cepts, 154 f-> 160, 163, 164 f., 173, 174, 177- "Problem," use of in teaching, 51 ff. Psychological interpretations, 137 f. Punishment, 131 fif. Q {Quelle), 10. Reconstruction of life, 120 ff. Rejection of historicity, 2 f. Resurrection, i24ff. Revised Version, 28. Reward, 131 ff. Salvation, 118. Sanday, 138. Sayings of Jesus, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 32. Schweitzer, 138. Scott, 139. Seneca, 25. Sm, 99 ff. Social life, 165 ff. Solomon, 143. Sonship, 79 ff., 95 ff.; of Jesus, 82 f. Soul, worth of, 97 f. Sources, 8 ff., 97 f. Stephanus, 27. Suetonius, 25. Siunmary of Jesus* teachings, 29 f., 48 f., 71, 93, 104 f., 123, 140, 152 f., 177 f., 180 ff. Summum bonum, 107; of Jesus, 107 ff. Printed in the United States of America Synoptic gospels, 9, 19 f. Synoptic problem, solutions of, 20. Tacitus, 25. Teaching, Jesus* fitness for, 35 ff- Teaching of Jesus, 39 f.; aim, 40 ff . ; content, 42 f . ; methods, 43 f., 50 ff.; organization, 44 f . ; results, 46 ff. Texts of New Testament, 26 f. Theocentric, 22. Tolstoy, 115. Translations, see Versions, Tyndale, 28. TyreU, 138. Verbal inspiration, 3 ff. Version, Authorized, 2S; Revised, 28; King James, 28; Wey- mouth, 28; Twentieth Century, 29; Moffatt, 29. Vulgate, 28. War, Jesus' view of, 116 f., 156 f. Wealth, 167 ff. We3Tnouth, 28. Woman, 161 ff. WycUf, 28. Xenophanes, 73. Ximenes, Cardinal, 26. Zechariah, 143. I I Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide Treatment Date: June 2005 PreservationTechnologie> A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIOr 1 1 1 TTiomson Parts Dnve Cranberrv- Tovinshio PA 16066