there really had ever been any communism, its outcome was a reductio ad absurdum—a commentary upon the words of Jesus that will repay reflection.[1]
In the matter of charity we find Jesus expressing by his life the common sense that is to be used in the interpretation of his more radical statements. When his friends saw fit to criticise a woman who had anointed him, on the ground that the cost of the ointment might much better have been given to the poor, Jesus rebukes them.[2] There was a duty higher than such charity. It would, indeed, be far less correct to say that Jesus taught indiscriminate giving than to say that according to his general principle of love, charity would at times be forbidden as hurtful rather than helpful.
Nor did Jesus approach that form of socialism that would equalize the sharing of products. On the contrary, when using commercial matters as illustrations he did not condemn competition, and in one instance he distinctly recognized the principle of difference in rewards. "Unto him that hath shall be given"[3] comes with ill grace from a socialist. The parable of the market-place has no economic force ; but if it had, equality in wages is not its point, but the owner's right to do as he saw fit with his own property.[4] Farthest possible was Jesus from the curse of most socialistic programmes — the assumption that the ideal social order is based upon an increase in creature comforts. If there is anything unchristian, it is the notion that bread and amusements and good drainage are going to bring in the millennium. The same Jesus that fed the multitude withstood the temptation to use his higher powers to satisfy mere hunger, and deliberately alienated those who sought to exploit his philanthropy while refusing his teaching.[5]
VI.
The translation of this central teaching of Jesus into modern
phrase is by no means difficult, although at this point temptation
