Religion In Ernest Hemingway's Grapes Of Wrath
Grant establishes himself as an atheist early in the novel, and continuously admits his resent towards the church and his rejection of the bible. The only thing that was able to feel any form of religious faith and acceptance was when he was with Grant, “I felt like someone who had just found religion. I felt like crying with joy. I really did,” (Gaines 186). Grant has never felt the unity that religion can bring to an individual once they experience it. The religious dominance in Grant’s town helps unite every individual, and Grant desperately desired that closeness that it can bring. Once he becomes closer to Jefferson, however, he begins to experience the love and joy that people associate with a religious affiliation and enjoys it. On top
…show more content…
of that, Grant repeatedly puts Jefferson on a pedestal and equates Jefferson’s sacrifice as heroism, “A hero does for others. He would do anything for people he loves, because he knows it would make their lives better.
I am not that kind of person, but I want you to be. You could give something to her, to me, to those children in the quarter. You could give something I never could. They expect it from me, but not from you. The white people out there are saying you don’t have it—that you’re a hog, not a man. But I know they are wrong.” (191). Grant deems Jefferson as a hero; he repeatedly mentions that Jefferson has what it takes to change the community and end the racism prevailing in their community. He recognizes Jefferson as something more than a hog; he knows he is an individual and is the most capable of saving the black civilians, even if the whites doubt it and equate him to an animal. Jesus brought enlightenment to all of the Jewish individuals before his death. He helped people feel things they had never felt before. Not only that, but he also was a very hated individual by those who opposed him, yet he refused to return that hate, and was quickly recognized as a heroic figure and was quickly idolized, and as is Jefferson. He becomes quickly praised by Grant, and grants enlightenment in such a way that Grant feels the unity and happiness religion can
give. Both Jefferson and Jesus also demonstrate a sense of purity and innocence, in not only a literal sense, but also a metaphorical sense. While being tried for robbery and murder, the defense attorney pleaded Jefferson’s moral innocence, rather than his innocence from the actual crime, “Gentlemen of the jury, look at this–this–this boy. I almost said man, but I can't say man. Oh, sure, he has reached the age of twenty-one, when we, civilized men, consider the male species has reached manhood, but would you call this–this–this man? No, not I. I would call it a boy and a fool. A fool is not aware of right and wrong. A fool does what others tell him to do,” (7). Jefferson’s lawyer, in order to excuse Jefferson for the crime, argues that Jefferson is nothing but a fool. Jefferson can be considered a fool, but it can be linked to him just being ignorant; he can be considered pure due to his ignorance and unfamiliarity of the world. He follows things blindly trusts people, because he is unaware, or at least unfazed, by the negativity some people can display. Concerning his actual innocence on him participating in the crime, that too is evident. The jury ruled, “The jury retired, and it returned a verdict after lunch: guilty of robbery and murder in the first degree. The judge commended the twelve white men for reaching a quick and just verdict […] Death by electrocution. The governor would set the date,” (8-9). The jury, composed of twelve white men, had been fueled by their own personal bias on the case, and it eventually led to his death. Similarly, Jesus had been tried for a crime he did not commit and convicted by people with overwhelming bias, and was too sentenced to death. Also, Jesus was very pure and innocent, not in the sense of ignorance, however, but in a sense of wholesomeness and bravery, which are two traits Jefferson can express.
of that, Grant repeatedly puts Jefferson on a pedestal and equates Jefferson’s sacrifice as heroism, “A hero does for others. He would do anything for people he loves, because he knows it would make their lives better.
I am not that kind of person, but I want you to be. You could give something to her, to me, to those children in the quarter. You could give something I never could. They expect it from me, but not from you. The white people out there are saying you don’t have it—that you’re a hog, not a man. But I know they are wrong.” (191). Grant deems Jefferson as a hero; he repeatedly mentions that Jefferson has what it takes to change the community and end the racism prevailing in their community. He recognizes Jefferson as something more than a hog; he knows he is an individual and is the most capable of saving the black civilians, even if the whites doubt it and equate him to an animal. Jesus brought enlightenment to all of the Jewish individuals before his death. He helped people feel things they had never felt before. Not only that, but he also was a very hated individual by those who opposed him, yet he refused to return that hate, and was quickly recognized as a heroic figure and was quickly idolized, and as is Jefferson. He becomes quickly praised by Grant, and grants enlightenment in such a way that Grant feels the unity and happiness religion can
give. Both Jefferson and Jesus also demonstrate a sense of purity and innocence, in not only a literal sense, but also a metaphorical sense. While being tried for robbery and murder, the defense attorney pleaded Jefferson’s moral innocence, rather than his innocence from the actual crime, “Gentlemen of the jury, look at this–this–this boy. I almost said man, but I can't say man. Oh, sure, he has reached the age of twenty-one, when we, civilized men, consider the male species has reached manhood, but would you call this–this–this man? No, not I. I would call it a boy and a fool. A fool is not aware of right and wrong. A fool does what others tell him to do,” (7). Jefferson’s lawyer, in order to excuse Jefferson for the crime, argues that Jefferson is nothing but a fool. Jefferson can be considered a fool, but it can be linked to him just being ignorant; he can be considered pure due to his ignorance and unfamiliarity of the world. He follows things blindly trusts people, because he is unaware, or at least unfazed, by the negativity some people can display. Concerning his actual innocence on him participating in the crime, that too is evident. The jury ruled, “The jury retired, and it returned a verdict after lunch: guilty of robbery and murder in the first degree. The judge commended the twelve white men for reaching a quick and just verdict […] Death by electrocution. The governor would set the date,” (8-9). The jury, composed of twelve white men, had been fueled by their own personal bias on the case, and it eventually led to his death. Similarly, Jesus had been tried for a crime he did not commit and convicted by people with overwhelming bias, and was too sentenced to death. Also, Jesus was very pure and innocent, not in the sense of ignorance, however, but in a sense of wholesomeness and bravery, which are two traits Jefferson can express.