ON THE FALLIBILITY OF JESUS

Dale Baranowski

There is one dogma of Christian theology that is crucial in the success of any missionary. This dogma gives justification for their notion that Jesus is God Almighty. It provides the basis for the missionaries' belief that Jesus was sent to be the ultimate sin sacrifice that saves all humanity. It is the pillar that supports their worship of Jesus the man. It is indeed the key strategic theological and philosophical crossroad within the missionaries' network of doctrines and beliefs. This aspect is very sensitive and successfully countering it will leave the missionaries at a serious disadvantage. This is the doctrine of the perfection of Jesus, where he supposedly observed the Torah (“Law”) of Moses perfectly in every detail that was relevant to him. If it can be demonstrated that Jesus failed in this, even once, the missionaries who set out to catch you like a fisherman trying to snag a prize salmon may find themselves pulled into the drink. Many knowledgeable people who are approached by crusaders attempt to counter their claim that Jesus had perfectly observed the Torah but do it badly, since they have not given the Matthew er proper forethought or are not familiar enough with the New Testament and the rationalizations that Christians bring to bear. This author has learned well from his many errors made in dealing with this subject and the following is offered for those able to benefit.

When one distills the essence of Christian theology, the perfection of Jesus plays a central role. This theology says that God gave the whole world the Torah, the “Law of Moses,” as the standard to live by and that God created man as imperfect. They insist that this Torah was impossible to observe perfectly and man's failure to live by it resulted in sin, the consequences of which are eternal torments, called “hell.” To rectify this appalling situation, God disguised Himself as a man named Jesus, who allowed himself to be murdered and hung on a cross. They say that since Jesus lived a perfect life, he was therefore the perfect sin sacrifice and with that, God forgives all the sins of everyone who believes this story. As a reward, they avoid hell and get into “heaven,” where bliss and eternal life is the fare. Despite a few minor variations from one denomination to another, this is the very foundation of Christianity. Note the crucial role perfection plays in their belief system. The ramifications are pivotal for one trying to counter the missionary. For if Jesus did not live a perfect life, he could not have been a perfect sin sacrifice and Christians would see themselves as still being bound in sin. Also, if Jesus failed in this, it would be hard evidence that he was not omnipotent nor omniscient and so, could not have been God masquerading as a human being - then all the claims of Christianity would be for naught.

Before plunging into the issue at hand, mention must be made of the faulty assumptions they frequently display, so you can be ready to counter them if the need should arise. Many Christians prefer to assume that Jesus was perfect and so, by definition, everything he did or said was above criticism and virtuous. Christians should be aware that anyone can be proclaimed to be God incarnate and then, by definition, everything they do is perfect and beyond reproach. The Roman Caesars were in this category – they could do no wrong. Lucretia Borgia could be regarded as perfect too. She was the wife of the 16th century Italian aristocrat who had a jolly time poisoning everyone that seemed to get in the way of her husband's political ambitions. One could justify her actions by saying that she did not really poison people - those were just lies spread by those jealous of her virtues - she actually added vitamin and mineral supplements to people's food in the days when nutrition was at a low level! On the other hand, one could admit that she did poison rivals but that was only to punish those who were not living a proper moral life! With this rationale, anyone could hold Hitler and Stalin to be perfect and paint portraits of them with benevolent smiles and halos around their heads.

Fortunately, a minority of missionaries use the above rationalization. Yet, a greater proportion says that Jesus never deviated from the Torah standard of perfection. If it seemed that he did, then it was only because Jesus had changed the standard – if only momentarily! As one missionary told me, ”… Jesus is God and it is his privilege to set the standard of perfection. Jesus decided what was right and what was wrong and he will do as he pleases, even if it means changing the standard once in a while – and who is going to argue with God Almighty if He does?” The blatant irrationality of this position is easy to deal with, by using the missionarys’ own logic against them. Simply say, “If God is really so changeable, then any promises made to Christians about what it takes to get into heaven might have been changed too.  If believing in the sacrificial atonement of Jesus got one into heaven last year, perhaps God decided to change the conditions of entry into heaven, even momentarily, so that the same belief gets one into hell - and who will argue with God Almighty if He chooses to be this way?” Actually, there was one Bible figure who did argue with God over His standard and method of dealing with mortals. This is found in Genesis, Ch 18, where Abraham challenged God to be consistent with His standards and act accordingly, when he argued on behalf of the people of Sodom and said to God: “Shall not the Judge of the earth do righteously?” God's words and actions that followed indicated that His standards are consistent and even He acts according to them.

In the final analysis, a vast majority of Christians have never entertained the idea that Jesus could have possibly been less than perfect and so, have placed this out of the realm of consideration. Their reaction to someone who introduces this as a possibility is typically disbelief, then staunch denial, coupled with weak rationalizations.

Christian theology insists that God is uncompromising in His demand for human perfection of Torah observance and this point comes out in their proselytizing tactics. A typical approach missionarys use is to point out the sinfulness of their “mark,” the non-believer, whom the crusader tries to convert to Christianity. The missionary asks the mark if he has ever violated any of the Ten Commandments. Even if the mark had led a spotless adult life, the missionary will attempt to jar the memory of the mark to reveal some small indiscretion committed as a child. If the mark admits to an insignificant childhood wrong, like sticking his tongue out behind a parent's back or beating up a friend, the missionary is quick to point out that the mark is a sinner and that even the tiniest wrong condemns one to punishment eternal. “There is only one solution,” says the evangelist. “Put all your faith and sins on Jesus, who lived a perfect life and who died for your sins and you will be saved!” However, here is the crux of the matter, for if Jesus failed even once in his attempts at perfection, then the mark's reason to convert to Christianity is no longer there and the basis of the missionary's faith is like a house built on sand and easily blown away.

One does not need to be a brilliant scholar to determine if Jesus failed to live up to the demands of the Torah. One can easily make do with a good working knowledge of the Ten Commandments, although it would certainly help to apply the other laws found in the rest of the Torah. The Torah says that the judges are the ones to decide in the case of civil as well as religious disputes and a Jew is to follow their directives to the letter (Deuteronomy 17:8-13). The Rabbinical Court known as the Sanhedrin was in power in those days and even Jesus was bound by their decisions. In addition, Jesus himself insisted that his followers abide by the words and directives of the Pharisees (rabbis), as he said that they sat in the seat of Moses and were to be obeyed (Matthew 23:2-3). For Jesus to insist that all others obey the Pharisees, himself being the sole exception, would make him one who says “do as I say but not as I do.” This would be blatant hypocrisy and we all know that Jesus denounced hypocrites in the strongest possible way!

The key here is to apply the same standard to Jesus as Christians say that God applies to the rest of humanity. Now, what Christian would make excuses for one who dishonored a parent or threatened another with a whip? Would the missionary say that these actions were justified and proper in any human being? Never! Christianity says that even the smallest infraction condemns one as a sinner. If this is the standard for mortals and Jesus was 100% mortal, then Jesus too was under that same standard – and no rationalizations or excuses should be accepted just because the believer claims that he was also 100% God. We must be as uncompromising in our judgment of Jesus as Christians claim that God is uncompromising with us mortals. Anything less would be an unfair double standard. We too could be judged as perfect if allowed the benefits of imaginative rationalizations.

Now we are ready to embark on a critique of the deeds and words of Jesus. One of the first and most basic expectations that both Jewish and Christian children learn is the commandment to honor parents, as found in Exodud 20:12 and Deuteronomy 5:16. An example of Jesus having dishonored his parents can be found in Luke 2:41-50. On this occasion, Jesus' whole family was returning home from a trip to Jerusalem and his parents assumed that he was with the rest of the clan, when he had actually stayed behind. When it was discovered that Jesus was missing, his parents returned to the city in search of him. The text tells that they were extremely worried about him, as every good parent would be - and searched for him for three days - no doubt frantically, fearing that all sorts of horrible things might have happened to him. They finally found him sitting among the rabbis in the Temple, discussing matters of importance. Christians like to point to the verse that says that those in the Temple who heard him were astonished at his intelligence and replies (v. 47). Though the rabbis must have been impressed at his mental abilities, they were probably astonished by the interchange he had with his parents – for when his mother confronted him with “My child, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you!” Jesus' only response was, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be busy with my Father's affairs?” Jesus' answer showed that he had no understanding of the effect his actions had on his parents and he was not the least concerned about their anxiety and the three days of frantic searching on his behalf and so he made no gesture of sorrow or apology. These are the words of a boy who was quite self-centered and immature; incidents of this kind are to be expected once in a while in the raising of human children, despite the fact that they create a few more grey hairs on parents! However, Jesus, the missionaries insist, was God incarnate and all-knowing. Since Christianity makes these claims for Jesus, in no way can we accept the excuse that Jesus was unaware that he had caused a problem. Jesus would have known that his folks were running around Jerusalem in a tizzy, worried sick, making every effort to locate him. This obviously did not bother Jesus. If he was the all-knowing and all-powerful God, it would have been no effort at all to have made contact with them, with a message that would have saved needless anxiety and heartache. Jesus might have left them a note in the caravan, to be discovered after they were on their way, assuring them that he would be fine and not to worry - or he could have folded the note into a paper airplane and sent it to them on a favorable wind. Why could he not have sent an angel to tell his folks of his safety? Both Joseph and Mary had taken seriously heavenly messengers in the past! However, Jesus did none of these things and allowed his parents to be put through the anxiety and even terror of a pointless three-day search. It would be the height of cruelty to knowingly put an ordinary caretaker or babysitter through this sort of trauma but to subject his parents to this only added dishonor to cruelty.

Another example of Jesus' failure to honor his mother occurred when he was addressing a group and someone informed him that his mother and brothers were outside, asking to see him. Jesus only replied, “Here are my mother and my brothers. Anyone who does the Will of God is my mother, brother and sister.” (Mark 3:31-35) Part of honoring a parent involves having a place in one's heart and honoring a parent above all others. If a person elevates others to the same degree as his parents, there is no honor given to the parents. Jesus erased the distinction between those who do God's Will and the special honor due only to his mother. Although this may feel good to the Christian, who would like to be on par with Mary in Jesus' eyes, the fact is that by Jesus doing so, he left his own mother lacking. The supreme irony of this is that Jesus called upon others to obey the Will of God, yet Jesus himself violated this commandment in the process.

It is inevitable that legions of Christians will rise up and say: “Hey! You missed the point! Jesus really meant that he who does the Will of God is honored, just like he is a member of Jesus' own family!” To this, one could reply: “Well, if that is what he really meant, why did he not say so?” Actually, if Jesus was only slightly clever, he would have given full honor to his mother and then call everyone who does the Will of God to be on the level of his own family. He could have easily fulfilled this important commandment and gotten his point across at the same time.

Jesus had no concern that others dishonored their parents. In Matthew 4:21-22, Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee and came upon two brothers, James and John, the sons of Zebedee, who were mending nets with their father. Jesus simply said to the sons, “Follow me” and they at once left their father, without a word of farewell, consolation, concern or comfort. Furthermore, their father was left with the burden of completing the work by himself, having been abandoned by his own flesh and blood. Are we expected to believe that the mission of James and John was so pressing that not even a loving word could have been directed to their father, not to mention time taken to arrange help, so that their father may not suffer under the burden of fishing by himself?

There remains one more point to discuss on the matter of honoring parents. Jesus lived only 30-odd years, a short life even in those days. Life did not go well with him: “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head,” said Jesus about himself in Matthew 8:20. Christian theology says that he suffered like no one else before or since. Could the reason for such a sad, short life have been due to Jesus having dishonored his parents and for having encouraged others to follow suit? The connection between these two matters is quite direct, as the following reward for honoring parents is found in the Torah, in Ex 20:12, .”..that your days be prolonged and it may go well with you in the land.” Surely Jesus had no portion in this reward!

The Sabbath is a pillar of Judaism. It is not only a day where restrictions in behavior are in force but it brings an opportunity for study, rest, regeneration, enjoyment of life and freedom from even the closest encounter with toil. Jesus permitted his followers to harvest grain on the Sabbath, even though the rabbis (Pharisees) decreed this to be a prohibited act and the Sanhedrin supported the rabbis in this and all Jews are obliged to follow this ruling (Deut 17:8-13). Christians typically respond with the words of Jesus, when he said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” and that Jesus was the “master of the Sabbath.” If Jesus was put on earth to observe the Torah perfectly, then these are strange words indeed, for no one can expect to observe it and at the same time, claim to be master over it. How would today's authorities react if I drove as I wanted and then defended myself in traffic court by saying that “traffic laws were made for man, not man for traffic laws”? The judge would say I was acting presumptuously and this is exactly the way the Torah describes one who goes against the decisions of the Sanhedrin, in Deut 17:13. Many Christians insist that Jesus was obeying a “higher law” than the Torah. If this was so, he should have taken his point of view to the Sanhedrin for judgment in the case of a dispute or difference of opinion in the practical observance of any commandment.

Another area of the Torah that Jesus violated was when he physically assaulted people and damaged and destroyed their property. Many missionaries flaunt the verse in Isaiah 53, where it says, “he had done no violence” and claim it to be a prediction of Jesus. It is very easy for them to forget that Jesus made a whip of many cords and used it to drive people out of the Temple and overturn tables upon which their goods were on sale (John 2:13-16). The rabbis had decided long before this that even raising one's hand to threaten another was a serious transgression. Christian apologists quote Jesus as saying “Is it not written, 'My House shall be called a house of prayer for all nations but you have made it a den of thieves!'.” (Mark 19:45-46) Even if there were grounds for Jesus' objections, when does one who is aspiring to observe the Torah perfectly take the law into his own hands? There was a judicial system that functioned to dispense justice and Jesus again failed to use it. If the judges of the Sanhedrin were corrupt, as many Christians insist, Jesus still had no justification for assaulting a crowd and damaging property, for two wrongs never make a right!

In the case of the adulterous woman (John 8:1-11), Jesus again was a law unto himself. The Gospel states that a woman was caught in the act of adultery by witnesses and a crowd gathered to carry out the death penalty of stoning. Jesus addressed the crowd, calling for all those who had not sinned to cast the first stone. All potential stoners crept away embarrassed, as they were sinners too. Jesus then said that since there was no one there to condemn her, neither would he condemn her: “Go, sin no more” were his final words to her. The problem here is that both Jesus and the crowd were in the wrong, for the Torah demands the death penalty for both parties in the adulterous union (Leviticus 20:10) and Jesus just sent her away. The crowd and Jesus were both wrong because the Sanhedrin, the Rabbinical Judges, were empowered to investigate this case, hand down judgment and carry out the sentence. Judaism has never permitted lynch mobs. Many Christians have objected to this, saying, “Hey! You missed the point! Jesus really meant that no one has the right to condemn others because we are all sinners.” From a close reading of the text, they are quite right, for that seems to be the very point that Jesus was making. Yet, if Jesus was really clever, he could have made that same point and then delivered the woman (and hopefully, her partner) to the Sanhedrin for judgment, as the Torah requires. Jesus did not need to be almighty and all-knowing to have observed the Torah in this matter. He only needed to be a bit more clever.

Another major transgression on Jesus part was when, in one breath, he demanded that the Torah be upheld and said, “the man who infringes even the least on these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be considered the least in the Kingdom of Heaven but the man who keeps them and teaches them will be considered great in the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 5:19). One of the commandments in the Torah is the prohibition of adding to or subtracting from laws found therein (Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:31), yet, in Jesus' next breath, he launched into a list of changes he made regarding observance! For instance, in the Torah, adultery is a physical act but Jesus created a new prohibition called “adultery in the heart,” which was committed with only a lustful thought (Matthew 5:27). Jesus then declared another new law, saying that divorce was permitted only in the case of adultery. Afterwards, Jesus demanded non-resistance to evil (Matthew 5:27), which directly contradicts the Torah in at least eight separate places. Matthew 5 concludes with Jesus pronouncing another new law, the impossible demand that “you shall be perfect, just as your Heavenly Father is perfect” (v. 48), a thing that was not commanded in the Torah and neither Jesus nor his followers ever fulfilled! Jesus also encouraged the disobedience of the prohibition of castration. The Torah states, “an animal must not be offered to the Lord if its testicles have been bruised, crushed, removed or cut. You are not to do that in your country...” (Leviticus 22:24). Yet, Jesus said, .”..there are eunuchs made so by men; there are eunuchs who have made themselves that way for the sake of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can” (Matthew 19:12). Jesus also violated the rabbinical injunction to wash his hands before a meal (Luke 11:38). He contradicted the Torah when he declared all foods to be ritually clean: “Can you not see that whatever goes into a man from the outside cannot make him unclean because it does not go into his heart but through his stomach...thus, he pronounced all foods clean” (Mark 7:18-19). Yet, the Torah explicitly says that certain foods are unclean and a list is provided in Deut 14:3-20. In addition, Jesus chided one of his followers who picked up a sword to defend Jesus when a band started to take him away for crucifixion. The rabbis say that saving a life is one of the most important religious obligations and even Sabbath observance is put aside to save a life. In this case, one noble individual tried to save his life and Jesus rebuked him for his trouble in Matthew 26:50-53.

This brings us to the last, but the most serious of all Jesus' transgressions: that of his “sacrificial death on the cross.” Missionaries claim that Jesus' role was to live the perfect life and die as a sin sacrifice so perfect that it was sufficient to atone for every sin imaginable. The problem here is that theologians, clergy and missionaries alike insist that he went willingly to his death and even passively cooperated with his executioners. This is supported by the New Testament text in Matthew 26:54-55. If it is true that Jesus fully cooperated with his murderers, this made him an accomplice in the murder, which would make his death self-murder or suicide. Suicide is condemned by the rabbis as the worst form of murder in Jewish Law and if Christian theology is correct, Jesus violated this prohibition as well.

What is more, the Torah explicitly forbids anyone from dying as a substitute for someone else's sins: “fathers may not be put to death for their sons, nor sons for fathers. Each person is to be put to death for his own sins” (Deuteronomy 24:16). This sentiment is echoed by Ezekiel 18:20, “The man who has sinned is the one who must die; a father is not to suffer for the sins of his son, nor the son for the father. To the upright man, his integrity will be credited and to the wicked man, his wickedness.” It is astounding to realize that the very essence of Christian doctrine, that of Jesus' substitution sacrifice on the cross, is a most serious violation of the Torah. Ironically, this alone would keep him from claiming to have fulfilled and observed the “Law of Moses” perfectly!

With this, our expose into the non-perfection of Jesus is finished. However, it should be made abundantly clear that the failings noted above are not a complete catalogue of the wrongdoings of Jesus. There may well be many more to be found if one wants to investigate further, but why bother? It only takes one tiny transgression to make anyone imperfect and more than enough have been noted here. What is most important to realize is that Jesus was as fallible as you and I and no missionary need convince you to deify this ordinary fallible human being.

Footnotes:

1. Often, Christians object, saying that the rabbis violated this and added commandments too. Even if this is true, it is an irrelevant Matthew er and should not be allowed to distract us from the issue of whether Jesus violated this.

2. See Deut 13:5, 7; 17:7; 12, 19:20; 22:21, 22, 24; 24:7

RETURN