Was Jesus Good?, Part 3

Was Jesus a moral savior sent by God as a gift to spare his children from their sins? And was God's short cameo appearance here on earth truly his best possible performance? What all-important moral imperatives did God place in humanities survival kit, marooned as we are on this sinful planet, so far from our eternal home in heaven?

We know what Christians think. Undoubtedly millions of pages have been written on the subject, heralding and expounding upon the flawless, divine wisdom of the teachings of Jesus. The author's conclusions? Jesus and his teachings were not only good, they were so perfect as to make his name synonymous with "love", "truth", and "goodness". Jesus is all these things and more, they say. He is EVERYTHING to a Christian-he is their savior, their redeemer, their God.

But can Jesus's words stand up on their own, far from the loving embrace of his followers? Can they weather the gentle scrutiny, the mere common sense of a person of average intelligence? If we approach the subject as an outsider who has never heard of Jesus and has no preconceived notions of his alleged greatness, can his words be found deserving of our admiration? And if they pass the test, can we then conclude that Jesus bestowed upon the world the greatest moral teaching of all world-bound philosophers-teachings so enlightening they compel our strictest obedience? Let's continue our critique and see if we come closer to the answers to these questions. (The following phrases in italics are my own translations of Jesus's words as read in the Jefferson Bible. I "translated" his words in order to extract and condense the most basic essence/meaning of his Biblical tracts)

Do good works so that others can see and glorify God. Hold on. Wasn't Jesus just saying we shouldn't be boastful? Maybe there's a distinction to be made between showing off and letting your "light shine"? It might come down to who gets the glory-God or you? Glorifying yourself is bad, glorifying god is good. Why? All we know is that God prefers it this way. In other words, Biblical morality is arbitrary. At least its not contradictory (in this case).

But this can't be it, can it? Even I feel there's something positive about the rule. Oh right. It says "do good works..." Ah hah! Now we have something preachers can work with, that a congregation can really get behind. The Bible is a good moral textbook after all!

Not so fast. In this instance, we're not given a definition of "good". Jesus doesn't seem too concerned about leaving his listeners/readers out to dry. Could it be that what is good is already well understood? Jesus doesn't appear to be concerned with imparting a moral philosophy. He's not advocating doing good for the sake of ourselves or others. The ultimate goal, as we've discovered before, is to glorify God.

Obey the Halakhah (the Jewish Law) until "fulfillment" (of prophecy?).

I may be wrong, but I think Christians believe prophecy was fulfilled with the death and resurrection of Jesus. That's their excuse for not living in strict adherence to the Halakhah. When I read this commandment, I thought Jesus was calling for his listeners to obey The Law until the Kingdom of God was established. I carefully read the scriptures pertaining to the Kingdom of God and thought it plain that the kingdom was a real place/event, as the word "kingdom" is commonly understood (history indicates that followers expected this kingdom to arrive within their lifetimes, even within the lifetime of Christ and soon after). If true, Christians are openly disobeying an unambiguous commandment.

But there may still be a catch. I've heard some say that the Kingdom of God came to earth and began to be established with the arrival of Jesus. According to them, it simply has yet to be fully established, which it will be when Jesus returns. Right. Christians are still disobeying a direct order...

Ugh. This kind of stuff hurts my brain. We haven't even begun to discuss the merits of obeying the Halakhah. We've found ourselves caught up in the endless, tedious exercise of finding the TRUE meaning of Biblical passages. I get the feeling that religious experiences, including religious education, largely consists of dealing with this kind of creative interpretative mumbo jumbo. Fortunately, we're not confined to a classroom and are not subject to the scolding corrections of Bible teachers. A common sense conclusion based on a simple reading of the relevant passages is that Christians are simply disobeying the words of their savior when they don't behave like well-behaved Jews.

As for the merits of the Halakhah, I have read that the purpose of such tedious micro management by God is, 1) to prevent adherents from forgetting God in their day-to-day activities, and 2) to provide believers with opportunities to demonstrate their obedience to God. If the Halakhah is "good", then goodness is bound strictly with obedience to, and glorification of, God. There is no better illustration of this point than the Halakhah. At least at one time, Jesus absolutely endorses Jewish Law, and therefore approves of whatever morality lies behind it (as vacuous as it is).

Be more righteous than the Pharisees or scribes if you want to enter Heaven.

Is this a moral lesson for citizens of the 21st century? Undoubtedly, orthodox and learned people still inhabit this earth. Thus, Christians can and do ignore the literal reference to Pharisees and scribes and find appropriate replacements in order to keep scripture relevant.

Say we go with it. Say we ignore the fact that there were specific individuals living during Jesus's time who were the bane of his existence. Never mind that these were the direct critics of Jesus, who made him a criminal on the run fearing for his life, and never mind that Jesus had every reason to feel bitter towards these personal antagonists. So let's think like a Christian.

It is better, according to our new outlook, to be a "holy" person than to be a pompous well-educated person. As we've learned, being holy means being obedient to God and glorifying him whenever possible. In practice, this means adhering to the commandments of God and participating in regular worship services. If we want to proceed with a critique of these practices based on a common understanding of goodness, we need to critique the Ten Commandments (and others) as well as examine worship services and derive the good that comes from them. The latter part of this task would be nigh impossible considering the great variation in Sunday (and Saturday) worship services. No two Christian sects are the same, though we may be able to provide a list of their commonalities. This would all take more work than I'm willing to put in for a little blog post.

There is one point that's crying out to be made: Intelligence and righteousness are not mutually exclusive. Why denigrate knowledgeable people if they could be very righteous as well? Surely it wasn't intelligence itself that so offended Jesus. This analysis must be off track. Upon review, we find that Jesus was concerned about righteousness, admonishing his followers to be MORE righteous than the Pharisees and scribes. They just so happened to be the well educated member of society. I may not be the only one having a hard time following Jesus's point. Consider how many Christian conservatives today seem to harbor disdain for "elites" and college professors. But no, the problem is a lack of righteousness, not an overabundance of intelligence. Or at least it doesn't hurt to grant Christians this point.

So Jesus likely disapproved of the Pharisees and scribes because they weren't Christ-like enough. I think this is a safe translation to make. Being Christ-like was a NEW way to be, or at least we're led to believe that Jesus was a revolutionary when it comes to this modern understanding of goodness-helping the downtrodden, being humble, loving everybody, being peaceful and charitable, etc. We might assume that the Pharisees and scribes were known for enforcing strict obedience to the letter of Jewish Law, but were not known for being very nice people. Jesus pointed out their hypocrisy (to true morality, not to their obedience to God).

In conclusion, Jesus helped free us from the tyranny of the Law by implying that there was a goodness that transcended it. For this he and his teachings deserve our admiration. Unfortunately, he never completely unchained himself or his followers from the false authority and stifling morality of the Old Testament. And while his teachings and parables are useful tools for instilling in children a sense of right and wrong; in his lifetime, he could have laid a stronger foundation for true morality. It also didn't help that he humored and facilitated the spread of superstition and god-worship. For these things his words deserve our criticism.

Do not be angry without a cause.

It would be too easy to ridicule this admonishment (revolutionary moral teaching, indeed). But honestly, I find it's something that could not be said enough. At its deepest, the words champion human reason over instinctual reaction. Yes, it could be said that even when someone seems to loose their temper for little to no reason, there still IS a reason or a cause. This had to be plain even to Jesus, so we're forced to read greater meaning into his words. While I am no fan of denigrating natural human passions-I often say they should be celebrated instead-Jesus must have understood as I do that civilization and civility itself could not last long if we did not use reason to at times control or direct our emotions. Before we declare such wisdom mere common sense, let's think back on our lives and all the people (or nations) who failed to demonstrate this "common sense". And lets think of the tremendous repercussions that too much anger and too little reason produce. Good one, Jesus.

Do not call someone a "fool", or you may burn in hell.

Ok, I grant permission to ridicule this one. First, hell, what hell? Second, what's so terrible about calling someone a fool? I can think of reasons. For one, we are ALL dumb, relatively speaking. It seems in bad taste for a stupid person to call anyone else stupid. And its just plain mean, calling someone a fool. There's nothing I abhor more than meanness, and I mean it. If I was a god with a fiery pit and I had a quota to meet, I'd happily throw all the mean dicks into the flames. But I'm not a god and I don't have a hell. Moreover, I'm a firm believer that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Words CAN be powerful, they can suck, but the last thing we want to do is grant them more power over us than they deserve. Someone can call me a fool and I might stew over it for awhile, but in a short time I'll shake it off and get on with my life. Words, eh, big deal. Jesus could have saved us-and hell-a whole lot of trouble by not saying anything about it.

Reconcile your grievances before sacrificing at the alter.

What alter? Christians don't sacrifice at the alter. What grievances? Perhaps someone called you a fool and you're pissed. Shake it off. Don't take that anger into the car and onto the freeway connector. We'll all be a little safer and saner if we get good at leaving our negative feelings behind. Yes, there's wisdom here; but no, its not particularly deep.