The old law and the new.

Everyone who has compared the teachings of the law of Moses with those of Jesus must have been impressed with the essential difference between those teaching's. The old law always emphasized the actual, or material, elements of life, and provided punishment for deeds actually committed. Thus the law of Moses exhorted, Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not do this or that. And if one violated this material law, he became liable to the penalty—but only if he actually committed a deed in violation of law. Jesus, on the other hand, went back of the act to the state of mind that prompted the act. In other words, the essential thing in the philosophy of Jesus was not the act itself, but the motive back of it. Instead of "Thou shalt not kill," Jesus said, "Whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment." Jesus did not say. Thou shalt not commit acts of immorality, but, He that entertains an impure thought is already guilty of the immoral act.

The teaching of Jesus psychological.

Jesus was not a psychologist in the modern sense, yet this teaching of Jesus is psychologically true. Our acts are but the fruits of thoughts that have found lodgment, care, and nourishment in our minds. Our minds, indeed, are but gardens. Seed-thoughts are blown into them by this wind and by that. Involuntarily as well as voluntarily suggestions come into the mind. Now, if the seed-thoughts that are waited into the mind-garden are good, and are carefully tended and nurtured, the garden {238} will bear good fruit—the acts performed will be charitable and clean. But if the seed-thoughts that find lodgment in the mind are noxious, and if these noxious seeds—these destructive weeds of the mind—be tended and nurtured, then the acts resulting therefrom will necessarily be evil.

A concrete example.

Let us turn from this abstract discussion to the concrete example. Do you know why a good boy, who has been taught all his life to keep his body clean from the loathsome poison of tobacco, sometimes takes to smoking cigarettes in spite of his teaching? The reason is perfectly clear. The boy has been tempted. A noxious seed-thought has found lodgment in the boy's mind. Now, had the boy been really strong, had he gone to like a good gardener, hoe in hand, and cleaned out the weeds, the noxious plants could never have bloomed nor borne fruit. But because the boy entertained the evil thought, gave it nourishment and tended it, it grew and spread until the good seed and fruitage of his conscience were crowded out of the mind. One thought, then, remained in power; and on that thought the boy acted. He became a smoker of cigarettes.

The motive all important.

Such examples as this might be multiplied without limit. If you will examine your own acts, you will find that every act of yours is the result of a preconceived thought, entertained and fed. Is it not clear, then, that the teaching of Jesus is far better than the teaching of the Old Law? It is more important to train the mind and to guard the motives, than merely to guard one's acts. If one's {239} motives are pure, wholesome, and sound, one's acts cannot but be so also.

Jesus's doctrine of rewards.

Now, just as Jesus differed in His teaching of the ultimate basis of the moral life from the teaching of the Old Law, so He differed from the Old Law in His teachings about rewards. Amongst the Jews of the time of Jesus, the fear of punishment or the hope of immediate good fortune constituted the primary motive of a good life. In other words, rewards—more or less material and immediate—were in the Old Law the inspiration to action. Jesus would do away with such an attitude toward charitable living. He would have people do good for the good's sake; He would have people live right for the sake of right living, He would have people work righteousness for the sake of righteousness. And He emphasized and drove home the thought that if any one worked merely to increase his own honor and to exalt himself in the eyes of men, he should fail, and should be humiliated in the attempt.

A parable in point.

"It came to pass," says the New Testament narrative, "as (Jesus) went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched Him. . . . "And He put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when He marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them. When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him; and he that bade thee and him come and say to thee. Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. But when thou {240} art bidden, go and sit down in the lowes............