Rabbi DAN COHN-SHERBOK, speaking at the joint Christian-Jewish-SoF service at the Honest to Jesus conference in Manchester Cathedral on April 1, urged us to start... taking leave of jesus
It is rather daunting to be the preacher at this first Jewish-Christian service at Manchester Cathedral. I have been asked to tell you my view of Jesus. Now, this is a bit embarrassing. After all, here we are in this hallowed centre of Christian worship where for centuries the faithful have offered prayers in Jesus’ name. And now I am coming along as a rabbi to raise questions about his messiahship, his divine nature, and his ethical teaching.
This past week I woke up in the middle of the night. I couldn’t sleep. I woke up my wife. “Look”, I said, “you know we're going to Manchester this weekend, and I am supposed to preach about my view of Jesus.” “Why don't you go back to sleep?”, she said. “Can't sleep”, I said, “they won't like what I have to say.” “That won't be a surprise”, she mumbled. “They never do.” You see, I have had trouble about this kind of thing before. In the 1970s I was a rabbi in South Africa for the summer. When J arrived, I was told not to preach about apartheid. So I didn’t. The congregation, made up of extremely rich Jews in Johannesburg, later offered me a job. But I couldn’t help myself. On Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, I preached a sermon about the social and political situation. I told my congregants that they should be less materialistic and more concerned about their black brothers and sisters. Well, my sermon was not a success. I was told categorically by the President of the synagogue that it was the worst sermon they ever heard.
And they withdrew the job offer.
So I've learned that I should be careful what I say. And so with trepidation I phoned Duncan Park, the head of Pilgrim Network, who is partially responsible for organizing today’s conference. I said: “Duncan, I've been thinking about what I should say in my address in the cathedral. I dont want to be offensive. Do you think I should tell them what I really think?” “Of course”, he said. “But the Dean's going to be there. We’re supposed to do this service together.” “He won't mind”, Duncan said. “What about the audience. Who’s going to be at the service?” : “It'll be mostly Sea of Faith people. They’re openminded. They're radical. They want to hear what you honestly believe. Don't worry.” So, here goes. The truth about Jesus. At least as I see it.
Through the ages the Church has viewed Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah. The Second Person of the Trinity.
The Saviour of the world. But, I think this is all a mistake. Why? First, Jesus in no way fulfilled the Jewish expectations of the Messiah. Basing themselves on Scripture, Jews believed that the Messiah would bring about the total transformation of earthly life. He would be a kingly figure who would resurrect the dead, initiate a reign of peace on earth, return the exiles to Zion, and eventually bring about final judgement of all humankind.
Now Jesus simply did not do these things. He did not restore the kingdom of David to its former glory. Neither did he gather in the dispersed ones of Israel and restore all the laws of the Torah that were in abeyance. He did not compel all Israel to walk in the way of the Torah, rebuild the Temple, nor usher in a new order in the world and nature. In other words, Jesus did not inaugurate a cataclysmic change in history. Universal peace, in which there is neither war nor competition, did not come about on earth. Thus, from a Jewish point of view, Jesus did not fulfil the prophetic messianic hope in a redeemer who would bring political and spiritual redemption as well as earthly blessings and moral perfection to the human race.
So, Jesus was not the Messiah. Nor, I believe, was he the Second Person of the Trinity. If God is one, then I don't think it makes any sense to think that there can be any plurality in the Godhead. I agree with the great twelfth century Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides when he wrote in this respect: “This God is One, not two or more than two, but One whose unity is different from all other unities that there are... Nor is he one as a body, containing parts and dimensions... But His is a unity than which there is no other anywhere.” What Maimonides is saying is that if God is a unity, he cannot be anything other than one. According to rabbinic sources, the belief that God was in Christ is heretical; the doctrine that God is both Father and Son was viewed as a dualistic theology. And I think the rabbis were right about this.
Moreover, if Jesus were fully human, then it would simply have been impossible for him to be God. Within i both Judaism and Christianity, God is understood as omniscient and omnipotent. He is a perfect being whose existence is necessary. Jesus was not like this in any way.
He was limited just as all of us are. Hence, he could not have been God because as a human person he did not possess these divine attributes. Now, some Christians maintain that God emptied himself of these divine characteristics in Christ. Yet, if this is so, then Jesus could not have been God because he did not possess the requirements of being divine. In the second century the Christian theologian Tertullian declared that he believed in the Trinity because the doctrine is impossible. That, it seems to me, is ridiculous. We shouldn’t believe what is impossible. We should reject what is absurd.
So far I have been speaking about Christian claims concerning Jesus’ nature as Christ and as the Second Person of the Trinity. To reiterate, I don’t think these beliefs make any sense. And, certainly I reject them. No doubt, many of you, as members of Sea of Faith, reject them too. After all, if you don’t believe in a supernatural deity, then it only follows that you will wish to discard any kind of supernatural claims about Jesus. In this matter, I expect you would agree with me, though possibly not for the reasons I have given. But what about Jesus’ ethical teaching? Over this issue there may be a parting of the ways.
Possibly some of you, perhaps even the majority, find : in Jesus’ message about human relationships a source of spiritual truth. Jesus does not have to be the Messiah or God incarnate for him to be a great teacher of wisdom. | But does he have something of great significance to say to all of us? Are Jesus’ words meaningful to me?
Growing up in the leafy suburbs of Denver, Colorado, I never gave this question much thought. In my religion school, we read the Hebrew Scriptures, not the New Testament. I had Christian friends, but I did not think about whether Jesus’ teaching had any significance for me. It was only much later at university when I read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that I thought seriously about Jesus’ message. Unlike many of you, I came to the New Testament without having received any previous indoctrination. And, I have to say, I was impressed. I was Jesus did not inaugurate a cataclysmic change in history.
Universal peace, in which there is neither war nor competition, did not come about on earth. struck particularly by the parable of the Good Samaritan as well as Jesus’ admonition that we should love our enemies and forgive all those who harm us. Of course, many if not most of Jesus’ sayings are paralleled in Jewish sources. Nonetheless, I was drawn to his teaching about sacrificial love, as well as the idea that the meek shall inherit the earth.
But the more I thought about his teaching, and the more I got to know Christians, the more disenchanted I became. Was Jesus right to think that we should love unconditionally? That we should help everyone no matter what the cost to ourselves? Was he correct to tell us that we should love our enemies? Or that we should forgive no matter what the circumstances? For nearly twenty centuries, Christians have taught that they should live up to these religious ideals. But can we? And have Christians themselves done so?
No doubt there have been some Christians in the past who have. And I’m sure there are some today who do.
But in my experience they are not very numerous. Now, I should explain that for most of my adult life I have lived in a thoroughly Christian environment. For over twenty years I taught Jewish theology at the University of Kent at Canterbury, living just outside the precincts. From first-hand experience, I have seen little evidence of the kind of unconditional love preached by Jesus. The Cathedral clergy simply did not practise what they preached. The precincts of Canterbury were just like the precincts of Barchester, and no doubt like Cathedrals everywhere, possibly dare I say even this one, full of jealousy, back-biting and bitterness.
And what I witnessed in Canterbury is no different from the way churchmen and women have behaved through the centuries. To take one modern example: during the Holocaust the vast majority of Christians, Catholic and Protestant, had little concern for the plight of those victims who suffered at the hands of the Nazis.
Within Germany, the Reich Church supported Hitler. It was only a small minority of the Confessing Church who stood out against the brutality of the Nazi system.
Outside Germany, Pope Pius XII was fully aware of the horrors.of the Holocaust, yet he was more interested in protecting the Catholic community than in preaching the gospel of love.
This, of course, does not prove that there is anything inherently mistaken in Jesus’ teaching. But, it does illustrate that the Christian community has not and does SOF 41 / May 2000 not live up to his moral principles. And, to my mind, it is not surprising that this is so. I believe Jesus was mistaken in encouraging his followers to lead lives of self-sacrifice.
This is a moral error. It is unrealistic to think that human beings will be able to live selflessly. Humans are not designed to live in this way. The vast majority cannot.
And history illustrates that most Christians do not.
But not only are Jesus’ moral precepts unrealistic, they actually distort human relationships. In the Gospels Jesus tells his followers that they should love all human beings, even their enemies, and that they should forgive seventy times seven. In other words, we are to be active participants, whereas others are to be the objects of our concern. Paradoxically, by acting in this way we actually diminish other human beings. They become faceless, twodimensional.
The Jewish philosopher Martin Buber described the ideal relationship as that of I-Thou, as opposed to I-It. In his book I-Thou he cautioned against turning other people into objects, or Its. Yet, this is precisely what Jesus encourages us to do. Let me put the matter a different way. All of us wish to be treated as adults, and we want others to behave in an adult fashion. But if we follow Jesus’ teaching we infantalize other human beings. If we are to love others unconditionally, and forgive them for whatever they do, then these individuals have ceased to be autonomous, responsible moral agents.
In my view, we should abandon Jesus’ ethical prescriptions and substitute instead a more mature framework. In place of selfless giving we should act on the principle of reciprocity. In other words, human relationships should be guided by mutual concern, give SOF 41 / May 2000 Jesus was mistaken in encouraging his followers to lead lives of selfsacrifice.
This is a moral error. and take. All giving should be balanced by the desire to receive. We should act so that in every relationship there is an equal rate of exchange. Parents should expect their children to give as well as receive. Husbands and wives should act similarly toward one another. One partner should not do all the giving, and the other all the taking.
The same applies to work. We should not expect to receive without giving. But we should not be compelled to give without remuneration. I am suggesting, therefore, that Jesus’ teaching about selflessness be replaced by the principle of give and take..If we give, we should expect to take. And if we take, we should expect to give.
The original title of this conference was “Taking Leave of Jesus”. For two millennia the Church has fostered a mistaken and misguided understanding of Jesus. He is not the long-awaited Saviour of the world. Nor is he divine. Jesus was nothing more than a first century Jewish preacher and miracle worker, a charismatic figure who in many respects was similar to other Jewish teachers of the age. Because of the emergence of Christendom, his words have profoundly influenced millions of people. Yet, paradoxically, the Christian community and individual Christians have throughout history betrayed his message. The time has now come to acknowledge such failure. On the threshold of the third millennium, we should take leave of Jesus as the Church has understood him, and relinquish the hold that his teaching has had on humankind.
Rabbi Dan Cohn-Sherbok is Professor of Judaism, University of Wales Religious Humanism Past, Present - and what kind of Future?