Jesus the Existentialist

It's Lent, and I'm sure everyone was wondering when my dense theological treatise would make its appearance. Well, wonder no more.

* * *

Professor Robert Solomon introduces his home “Great Course” on existentialism with these words:

The message of existentialism, unlike that of many more obscure and academic philosophical movements, is about as simple as can be. It is that every one of us, as an individual, is responsible—responsible for what we do, responsible for who we are, responsible for the way we face and deal with the world, responsible, ultimately, for the way the world is. It is, in a very short phrase, the philosophy of “no excuses!” Life may be difficult; circumstances may be impossible. There may be obstacles, not least of which are our own personalities, characters, emotions, and limited means or intelligence. But, nevertheless, we are responsible.

Solomon’s characterization of existentialism relies mostly on the language and thinking of Jean Paul Sartre. But Sartre – as brilliant as he might be – was not the first to come up with a philosophy of “no excuses.” Long before Sartre, Jesus also took a dim view of excuses – particularly the excuse that one is relieved of responsibility as long as he follows the rules.

Theologian Rudolf Bultmann has summed up the message of Jesus as: “a great protest against Jewish legalism [emphasis in original] – i.e. against a form of piety which regards the will of God as expressed in the written Law and in the Tradition which interprets it, a piety which endeavors to win God’s favor by the toil of minutely fulfilling the Law’s stipulations.” We hear this protest when Jesus accuses the teachers of the law – the scribes – of having “shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces.” Matthew 23:13. As we shall see, the target of this protest is not some deficiency in the Jewish law but, rather, the very notion that one could fulfill God’s will by meeting formal legal requirements.

Jesus makes his message clear in the Sermon on the Mount. Multiple times he quotes Mosaic laws (“you have heard it said”), and then follows each quotation with the phrase, “But I say unto you. ...” In all these passages the decisive requirement is the same: the action Jesus demands does not stop with the adherence to some rule, nor can it be measured in a way to determine compliance. And so, not only will murder subject you to judgment, but so will being angry with anyone. Likewise, not only is committing adultery wrong but so is looking at a woman lustfully (we call this today “sexual objectification”). And being wronged by another does not relieve you of any obligation to that person; instead, one should turn the other cheek. It is not enough just to love friends; you must also love your enemies. See Matthew 5:21-48.

This same point is made elsewhere in the Gospels. In Jesus’ story of the Pharisee and the publican, the Pharisee who follows the law to the letter – “I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I possess” – is not accounted righteous. The publican who simply prays, “God be merciful to me a sinner” – accepting responsibility – is considered virtuous. Luke 18:10-14. The same is true for the servant who does only what he is told. “So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’” Luke 17:10.

When a young man tells Jesus that he has kept all the commandments, and then asks him “what am I still lacking,” Jesus responds, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Matthew 19:20-21. For Jesus, there is no resting on one’s laurels.

Finally, the greatest commandment, love of God and neighbor, offers no standard or guideline for behavior from which one could measure compliance. The directive to love obviously does not inform us about what in particular we ought to do or ought not to do. Rather, love is open-ended. Oliver in the musical sings, “I’d do anything for you, dear, anything.” Love knows no bounds.

One could look always back over a certain period and determine fairly conclusively whether he or she had told a lie or not, or stolen something or committed murder. It is a much more uncertain matter to determine whether one has fully loved his neighbor.

Here is the principal concern behind Jesus’ protest against the law: simply keeping the commandments does not relieve us of responsibility for our actions. Jesus separates obedience to God’s will from compliance with the legal requirements of an earth-bound authority. He does not set up a better law in opposition to the existing law; he opposes the view that the fulfillment of the law – any law – amounts to obedience to the will of God. For God demands the whole person and not merely specific acts from a person.

For Jesus, because God’s will cannot be confined within specific rules of behavior, it can never be ascertained beforehand; rather, obedience to God’s will is the responsible act made at the particular moment. This notion of obedience is ultimately more demanding than legalism, but it also frees us from any formal authority and from the judgment of religious leaders whose profession it is to explain this authority. Jesus’ opposition to the moral judgment of the self-righteous is expressed in his statement, “my yoke is easy, and my burden is light,” Matthew 11:30, and most likely accounts for the harsh criticism he reserves for the guardians of the law, the scribes and Pharisees (who he variously calls blind guides, fools, hypocrites, brood of vipers, whited sepulchers and murderers). In contrast to Jesus’ easy burden is the weight of the judgment of the Pharisees: “For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.” Matthew 23:4.

Instead, for Jesus, morality depends on the judgment of the individual actor and only he and not the law is ultimately responsible. We alone have the burden to determine how we should behave: “And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?” Luke 12:57

Jesus does not allow the fulfillment of any law to get people off the hook. He calls upon people to accept full responsibility for all that they do. Sartre echoes this sentiment in his contention that we are condemned to be free. For both Sartre and Jesus, the Nuremberg defense – I was only following orders – does not wash.

And so, it is not hard to imagine Jesus nodding in agreement with Sartre: “We are alone, with no excuses. That is the idea I shall try to convey when I say that man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet, in other respects is free; because, once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.”