What I Believe / Chapter 1

by Leo Tolstoy

1883

Bill Lin 譯

在我的兩本書《教條神學評論》和《4福音新譯和比較》，我曾經努力的解釋，為何我過去未能適切的瞭解耶穌基督的教導。在這些書中，我查驗所有從人們眼中隱藏真理的作為，而且一句一句的從新翻譯和比較4本福音書。

我為著寫這本書已經花6年左右。每一年，每個月，我總有新的看法和意見，而且還能夠改正因為趕工疏忽而帶來的缺點。或許在完書以前我的生命就終結了，但是我確知這是一個我強加於自己的一個必要的負擔，所以我必須鞠躬盡瘁，死而後已。

這是我的福音神學的外在工作。但是我想在這兒表達的，我的心靈的內在功課，並不是有條理的檢驗教理神學的結果，或是福音書裡實際的文字；它是一個突然除掉對真正的耶穌基督教導的意義的矇蔽——一個瞬間的閃光，讓我把每樣東西都看得很清楚。這就像可能發生在一個人的身上的事：這個人用了一個錯誤的方法，要把一堆混雜的小石子，堆成一座雕像，經過徒勞無功的嘗試以後，突發奇想的把最大的那塊的形狀當成他們所要的形體；然後開始建造那雕像，卻發現他的奇想被所有小塊協和的連結所證實了。

我想在這本書裡告訴你，我如何找到了耶穌基督的教導的鑰匙，藉著這鑰匙的幫助，真理是如此的清楚無疑的表露在我的眼前。

我是這樣子發現的：大概是在我的童年的第一年，當我開始自己讀福音書時，這個教義教導我們愛、謙虛、溫順，否定自我，和以德報怨是最使我感動的教導。我一直以為這是基督教的基本教導而且非常的喜愛它；但是只有等了一段長時間的不信以後，它的完整的意義像閃光照亮了我，使我了解“生命”正如不識字的工人階級了解的“生命”一樣，而且接受了他們宣稱的希臘東正教教會相同的教義。但是我很快的察覺，我休想在教會的教導裡，找到跟我的理念有關愛、謙虛、溫順，否定自我，是基督教信仰主要的基本信條的證實。我看見了這一點：我當成是基本的耶穌基督信仰，並不是教會公開的教導的重點。起初我不把這個看得太重要，我告訴自己：「除了愛、謙虛，否定自我的教義以外，教會又認知了一些教條式和儀式的教義。這些疏遠了我的心；甚至使我感到厭惡，但它是無害的。」

然而，當我接受了教會的教導，我開始越看越清楚，這個奇怪的現象並不像我起初所以為的那麼不重要。我退出了教會是因為各種奇特的教規；因為它贊同迫害、死刑，和戰爭；而且因為它不能容忍其他型式的敬拜方式；但是我的對教會的教導的信仰，更進一步的動搖是因為它的對於在我看來是很基本的耶穌基督的教導竟然無動於衷，而且對我看來不重要部份的教義，卻明顯的青睞。我覺得有些不對，但是我沒有辦法清楚地指出來到底是什麼不對，因為教會並沒有否定我認為是耶穌基督的教導的主要重點，雖然教會沒有給它適當的地位和影響。

我從“虛無主義”過度到教會，只因為我覺得活著而沒有信仰是不可能的——不知道什麼是良善或邪惡，我要依靠除了我的動物本能以外再多一點的東西。我寄望在基督教的信仰裡找到這些。但是基督教的信仰，在我那時看來，只不過是某些很模糊的心理意向。我轉到教會，尋求有約束力的生命的教訓，但是教會只給我這些無法拉近到我追求的基督教信仰的心境，反而更偏離了。我離開了教會。我不在意那些教會所給的有關教條信仰、遵守聖禮、禁食、禱告的教訓；而從耶穌基督的教導為本的教訓卻是從缺。

更甚的是，教會的教訓不只削弱而且摧毀了那我認為本身就足夠是真正的生命的目標的基督教信仰的心境。

困擾我最甚的就是人們所有邪惡的行為，比如非難老百姓、非難整個國家，或其他的宗教；還有因著這些非難必然產生的結果——殺戮和戰爭——都被教會認為是理所當然的。我看了耶穌基督的教導，要我們謙虛、忍耐、原諒、自我否定，還有愛，這些都是被教會所頌揚，但是同時教會又認可和這些教導不能並存的邪惡的行為。

耶穌基督的教導可以是如此的脆弱和不一致嗎？我不能相信。除此之外，一直困擾我的，就是發現了教會立基教規的文字都有微僻不醒目的特性，反而那些教我們如何活出來的，都是最簡單和清楚的。當教會訂定教規和所引申出來的義務時，以最強而有力的方式，激勵實踐這種偏僻、黯淡的，而且是神秘的說明。有可能這就是耶穌基督所要的對於祂的教導的結果嗎？我只能細細的讀福音書來尋求我的疑惑的答案，我讀了一遍又一遍。在所有的福音書裡，登山寶訓 Sermon on the Mount 那一部分是我印象最深的，而且我研究那一部分比其他部分來得多。沒有任何其他地方能見到耶穌基督如此嚴肅的說教，沒有任何其他地方祂曾給了如此多的清楚而且容易領悟的道德教訓，將他們推薦給每一個人。假如基督教有任何清楚明確的教訓，他們必定是表達在這個講道裏；所以我在馬太福音的這3章裡頭尋找我的疑惑的解答。

我再三的讀這寶訓，每一次讀到了“把我的另一半臉，也轉過來給那打我的人”，“把我的外套，也一並給了搶我外衣的人”，“和睦對待所有的人” ，和“愛你的敵人”這些文字，我都有相同的感動——而且都在心裡留下不滿的感覺。我還是不清楚這些神的話語，他們像是在要求一個做不到的抹殺生命本身的自我否定。所以依我看來，這種的自我否定不可能是使人類獲救的先決條件。

不過，假如不是得救明確的條件，再也找不出有什麼其他明確的東西了！我不只讀了登山寶訓，也讀了福音書剩下的部分，還有不同的註釋。我們的神學上的解釋告訴我們，在登山寶訓的教導裡給了我們個人必須努力去追求完美的一個指示；一個人，充滿了罪惡，無法用他自身的力量來達到這個完美，而且人的得救在於信心、禱告和來自神的恩典的各般恩賜；但是這些解釋無法使我滿意。

假如耶穌基督事先知道，人單單靠他自己的力量是無法遵守那些教訓的，為什麼祂要給我們，適用於所有的人，如此清楚又美好的教訓？

在讀這些教訓的過程中，我總認為他們是適用我的，而且我在道德上必須遵守他們。我甚至相信從那一刻起，我可以做到他們的全部要求。

我希望，同時也試著這樣做，但是在遵行的當中，只要一碰到任何困難，我不自覺的就想起教會的教導，“人是軟弱的，憑自己無法做任何善事”，接著我就變軟弱了。

他們告訴我，我必須相信，而且要禱告，但是我感到我的信心脆弱，而且不會禱告。他們教我，我必須祈求信心——因為沒有信心的禱告是沒有果效的。他們告訴我信心來自禱告，而禱告又來自信心，這種說法，至少可以說，保證使人迷惑。這樣的陳述本身所要推薦的不是訴之理性也不是來自經驗。

經過好幾次無用的研讀證明這些教導是否屬神的著作以後，同時也碰到更多的疑惑和痛苦之後，我只有獨自面對這本神秘的書，就是寫著耶穌基督所教導我們的書。我無法像別人那樣的來解讀這本書，我不能棄絕這本書，而且我也還未找到一個新的和令人滿意的解讀。一直等到我對所有的學過的神學和評論的解釋都失掉了信心，而且遵照耶穌基督在(馬可10:15)的話語教訓，把那些書都擺到一邊以後，我才開始了解以往看來是無法理解的。這不是靠著深思熟慮，或藉著熟練的比較或註解福音書的文字，我才了解這些教導。相反的，都是因為我不再只依靠各樣的解讀，所有的對我來說，都變得更清楚了。那段引我到真理的文字之鑰就是馬太福音5:39，「你們聽見這麼說：『以眼還眼，以牙還牙。』 只是我告訴你們，不要對抗惡人…」這些話語的簡明意義突然像光一樣的閃過，全然的充滿了我；我得到了這個事實：耶穌基督要我們了解的意思，完全就是照著祂所講的；以後，雖然我沒有任何新發現，所有至今遮蔽真理的，一掃而空，同時真理自己就浮現在我的面前，呈現它自己莊嚴的重要性。

我經常讀這段經文，但這些話語從未像現在這樣牢牢的抓住我的注意力：「我告訴你們，不要對抗惡人。」

自此以後，我跟很多對福音書很熟的基督徒朋友對話，我觀察到他們都跟我以前一樣，對於這段文字的力量毫無知覺。沒有人特別記得這些字眼；而且，當我提到這些文字，我知道他們還查考新約聖經，為的是要卻確信這些字眼確實是在那兒。

這話語，“任何人打了你的右臉，把另一面也轉向他，”一向給我這種印象，就是需要忍耐和自我控制，這是人類天性很難做到的。他們感動我，我覺得這樣做，就是要達到道德上的完美；但是我也覺得，我應該沒有辦法服從這些教導，假設他們只是單單惹起痛苦而已。我告訴自己：「就這樣，我可以轉過我的臉——我可以讓自已再被揍。我可以放棄我的外套——他們可以拿走我的所有，他們甚至可以拿走我的生命。但是，生命是神賜給我的，我為什麼要如此的失掉它？這應該不是耶穌基督要求我們去做的。」然後我告訴自己：「或許在這些話裡，耶穌基督的唯一目的就是要高舉受苦和自我否定，為了這樣，祂誇大地說，所以祂所表達的可說是例證而不是確實的要求。」但是當我一了解“不要對抗惡人”的意義時，我立刻明白了——耶穌基督沒有誇大，祂不是要求單為苦而受苦，祂只是清楚明確的表達祂的心思意念。祂說：「不要對抗惡人，」假如你不對抗惡人，你有可能碰到某人，打了你一耳光，你沒還手，再繼續打另個耳光；拿走了你的大衣，也還要拿走你的外套；藉你做的工賺了錢，還強迫你繼續做下去；巧取豪奪，從不歸還。「不管如何，我叮嚀你們，不要對抗惡人。還是要以良善對待那些打你罵你的人。」

現在我明白這教導的全部力量，是擺在“不要對抗惡人”這些字眼裡，而整個前後文，就是這個偉大的教訓的一個應用。我看到了耶穌基督並不是要求我們轉另一邊臉頰，也不是要我們給外套來使我們受苦難；祂只是教我們不要對抗惡人，同時警告我們，這樣子做有可能遭到個人的苦難。一個父親，看到他的兒子準備出遠門；會告訴他晚上不要睡覺，吃一點點，全身弄濕，或挨凍？難道這當父親的不會告訴他，「去吧，假如在路上太冷或飢餓，不要氣餒，繼續走下去」？耶穌基督不是說：「讓人來打你耳光，準備受苦。」但是祂說：「不要對抗惡人，不管人們會怎樣的對付你，不要對抗惡人。」這些字眼“不要對抗惡人”做這樣的理解，就是使我弄清楚所有教導的線索，我很訝異自此以後，我能用如此的不同的方法來看待他們。耶穌基督的意思是這麼說：「不管人們會怎樣的對付你們，承擔起來，接受苦難，甘受屈服；但是不要對抗惡人。」有什麼可比這個更清楚的、更容易領悟的、更不容置疑的呢？當我一明白這些簡單字眼的準確意義，所有以前在耶穌基督的教導裡看來困惑的，馬上就可領悟了；以往是矛盾的現在是變成一致了；以往我認為是多餘的，變成是不可或缺的。全部都連成了一體，每個部分互相密合支持，就像一個破碎的雕像，每個碎片都再一起被擺回到適當的位置。

不抵抗的教導，在福音書裡一再的被提起。在登山寶訓裡耶穌基督再次的告誡祂的跟隨者——就是那些跟從祂的不抵抗的規定的人，是注定要被迫害，被丟石頭，淪落為乞丐的。在其他地方，祂告訴我們，那個門徒不願扛起自己的十字架，不願放棄所有的，就不配當祂的追隨者，祂於是描述給人這個因為實踐不抵抗的教導而準備承擔可能的後果。耶穌基督告訴祂的門徒們：「做個窮人，做個隨時承受迫害、受苦難、甚至死亡也不對抗惡人的人。」祂自己準備接受苦難和死亡而不抵抗惡人；祂譴責彼得，因為他為著祂計畫用這種方式屈服而哀傷；而祂死了，繼續禁止祂人抵抗惡人，繼續忠於祂的教導和祂自己的範例。所有祂的直接門徒們服從相同的不抵抗惡人的規定，把他們的生命交托在無力和被迫害中。

我們可以因為反對而提出持久服從這個規定的困難；我們甚至可以像不信的人一樣說，它是個愚蠢的教導，耶穌基督是個夢想家，理想主義者，給了無法實行的教訓。但是，不管我們怎麼反對，我們不能否認，耶穌基督非常請楚無疑的表達了祂的心意；而祂的心意就是人必不可抵抗惡人；完全接受祂的教導的人不能抵抗惡人。

********************************************

I have endeavored to explain the reason why I had not properly understood the doctrine of Christ in my two works, A Criticism on Dogmatic Theology and A New Translation and Comparison of the Four Gospels, with a commentary. In these works I examine all that conceals the truth from the eyes of men, and also retranslate and compare the four gospels verse by verse.

I have been engaged for some six years upon this work. Every year, every month, I find new solutions and suggestions, and I am enabled to correct the defects that creep in through haste or impulse. My life will perhaps end before the work is complete, but I am sure that it is a much needed labor I have imposed on myself, and therefore I shall do what I can while my life lasts.

This is my outward work on the theology of the gospel. But the inner working of my soul, which I wish to speak of here, was not the result of a methodical investigation of doctrinal theology, or of the actual texts of the gospel; it was a sudden removal of all that hid the true meaning of the Christian doctrine – a momentary flash of light, which made everything clear to me. It was something like that which might happen to a man who, after vainly attempting, by a false plan, to build up a statue out of a confused heap of small pieces of marble, suddenly guesses at the figure they are intended to form by the shape of the largest piece; and then, on beginning to set up the statue, finds his guess confirmed by the harmonious joining in of the various pieces.

I wish to tell in this work how I found the key to the doctrine of Christ, by the help of which the truth was disclosed to me so clearly and convincingly.

I made the discovery in the following manner. Almost from the first years of my childhood, when I began to read the gospel for myself, the doctrine that teaches love, humility, meekness, self-denial, and returning good for evil was the doctrine that touched me most. I always considered it as the basic teaching of Christianity and loved it as such; but it was only after a long period of unbelief that its full meaning flashed upon me, that I understood ‘life’ as our unlettered working classes understand it, and accepted the same creed that they profess, the creed of the Greek Orthodox Church. But I soon observed that I should not find in the teaching of the Church the confirmation of my idea that love, humility, meekness, and self-denial were the essential principles of Christianity. I saw that this, which I regarded as the basis of Christianity, did not form the main point in the public teaching of the Church. At first I did not attach much importance to this. ‘The Church,’ I said to myself, ‘acknowledges, besides the doctrine of love, humility, and self-denial, a dogmatic and ritualistic doctrine. This estranges my heart; it is even repulsive to me, but there is no harm in it.’

While, however, submitting to the teaching of the Church, I began to see more and more clearly that this peculiarity was not as unimportant as I had at first regarded it. I was drawn away from the Church by various singularities in its dogmas; by its approval of persecution, capital punishment, and war; and also by its intolerance of all other forms of worship than its own; but my faith in the teaching of the Church was shaken still more by its indifference to what seemed to me the very basis of the teaching of Christ, and by its evident partiality for what I could not consider an essential part of that doctrine. I felt that there was something wrong, but I could not make out distinctly what it was, because the Church did not deny what seemed to me the main point in the doctrine of Christ, though it failed to give it its proper position and influence.

I only passed from ‘Nihilism’ to the Church because I felt the impossibility of living without faith – without a knowledge of what is good and evil, resting on something more than my animal instincts. I hoped to find this ‘something’ in Christianity. But Christianity, as it appeared to me then, was only a certain disposition of mind – a very vague one. I turned to the Church for obligatory precepts of life, but the Church gave me only such as did not draw me nearer to the Christian state of mind I longed for, but rather alienated me from it. I turned away from the Church. For the precepts that were given to me by the Church concerning belief in dogmas, observance of the sacraments, fast-days, and prayers, I did not care; and precepts really founded on the teachings of Christ were wanting.

Moreover, the precepts of the Church weakened, and sometimes even destroyed, that Christian state of mind that alone seemed to me to be the true aim of life.

What perplexed me most of all was that all the evil things that men do, such as condemning private individuals, whole nations, or other religions; and the inevitable results of these condemnations – executions and wars – were justified by the Church. I saw that the doctrine of Christ, which teaches us humility, tolerance, forgiveness, self-denial, and love, was extolled by the Church, but that at the same time she sanctioned what was incompatible with such teachings.

Could the doctrine of Christ be so weak and inconsistent? That I could not believe. Besides, it had always perplexed me to find that the texts upon which the Church has grounded her dogmas are of an obscure character, whereas those that teach us how to live are the most simple and clear. While the Church specifies the dogmas, and the duties derived from them, in the most forcible manner, the practice of the ‘doctrine’ is urged only in obscure, dim, and mystical expressions. Is it possible that this was what Christ desired for His teaching? I could only find the solution of my doubts in the perusal of the gospels, and I read them over and over again. Of all the gospels, the Sermon on the Mount was the portion that impressed me most, and I studied it more often than any other part. Nowhere else does Christ speak with such solemnity; nowhere else does He give us so many clear and intelligible moral precepts, which commend themselves to everyone. If there are any clear and definite precepts of Christianity, they must have been expressed in this sermon; and, therefore, in those three chapters of St. Matthew’s gospel I sought the solution of my doubts.

Many and many a time I read over the sermon, and every time I felt the same emotion on reading the texts about ‘turning my cheek to the one who strikes me,’ ‘giving up my cloak to him who takes my coat,’ ‘being at peace with all men,’ and ‘loving my enemies,’ – and yet there remained in me the same feeling of dissatisfaction. The words of God were not as yet clear to me. They seemed to enjoin an impossible self-denial that annulled life itself, and therefore it seemed to me that such self-denial could not be the requirement on which man’s salvation depended.

But, then, if that was not the express condition of salvation, there was nothing fixed and clear! I not only read the Sermon on the Mount, but the rest of the gospels, and various commentaries upon them. Our theological explanations tell us that in the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount an indication is given of the perfection after which man must strive; that man, being full of sin, cannot attain this perfection by his own unaided strength, and that the salvation of a man lies in faith, prayer, and the gifts of the grace of God; but these explanations did not satisfy me.

Why should Christ have given to us such clear and good precepts, applicable to us all, if He knew beforehand that the keeping of them was impossible by man in his own unaided strength?

On reading over these precepts, it always seemed that they applied to me, and that I was morally bound to obey them. I even felt convinced that I could, immediately and from that very hour, do all that they enjoined.

I wished and tried to do so, but as soon as any difficulty arose in the way of my keeping them, I involuntarily remembered the teaching of the Church, that ‘man is weak, and can do no good thing by himself,’ and then I became weak.

I had been told that it was necessary to believe and to pray, but I felt that my faith was weak and that I could not pray. I had been told that it was necessary to pray for faith – for that faith without which prayer is of no avail. I was told that faith comes through prayer and that prayer comes through faith, which, to say the least, was certainly bewildering. Such statements commended themselves neither to reason nor experience.

After much useless study of the works that have been written in proof of the divinity or non-divinity of this doctrine, and after many doubts and much suffering, I was left alone with the mysterious Book, in which the doctrine of Christ is taught. I could not interpret it as others did, I could not abjure the Book, and yet I could not find a new and satisfying interpretation. It was only after losing all faith in the explanations of learned theology and criticism, and after laying them all aside in obedience to the words of Christ (Mark 10:15), that I began to understand what had until then seemed incomprehensible to me. It was not by deep thought, or by skillfully comparing or commenting on the texts of the gospel, that I came to understand the doctrine. On the contrary, all grew clear to me for the very reason that I had ceased to rest on mere interpretations. The text that gave me the key to the truth was the thirty-ninth verse of the fifth chapter of St. Matthew, ‘You have heard that it has been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, do not resist evil…’ The simple meaning of these words suddenly flashed full upon me; I accepted the fact that Christ meant exactly what He said; and then, though I had found nothing new, all that had hitherto obscured the truth cleared away, and the truth itself arose before me in all its solemn importance.

I had often read the passage, but these words had never until now arrested my attention: ‘I say to you, do not resist evil.’

In my conversations since with many Christian people, who know the gospels well, I have observed the same indifference to the force of this text that I had felt. Nobody specially remembered the words; and, while conversing with persons upon the text, I have known them to take up the New Testament in order to assure themselves that the words were really there.

The words, ‘Whoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also,’ had always presented themselves to me as requiring endurance and self-mastery such as human nature is hardly capable of. They touched me. I felt that to act thus would be to attain moral perfection; but I felt, too, that I should never be able to obey them if they entailed nothing but suffering. I said to myself, ‘Well, I will turn my cheek – I will let myself be struck again. I will give up my coat – they shall take my all. They shall even take away my life. Yet, life is given to me. Why should I thus lose it? This cannot be what Christ requires of us.’ Then I said to myself, ‘Perhaps in these words Christ only purposes to extol suffering and self-denial, and in doing so He speaks exaggeratingly and His expressions are therefore to be regarded as illustrations rather than precise requirements.’ But as soon as I comprehended the meaning of the words, ‘do not resist evil,’ it became clear to me that Christ does not exaggerate, that He does not require suffering for the mere sake of suffering, and that He only expresses clearly and definitely what He means. He says, ‘Do not resist evil,’ and if you do not resist evil, you may meet with some who, having struck you on one cheek, and meeting with no resistance, will strike you on the other; after having taken away your coat, will take away your cloak also; having profited by your work, will oblige you to work on; will take, and will never give back. ‘Nevertheless, I say to you, do not resist evil. Still do good to those who even strike and abuse you.’

Now I understood that the whole force of the teaching lay in the words ‘do not resist evil,’ and that the entire context was but an application of that great precept. I saw that Christ does not require us to turn the other cheek, and to give away our cloak, in order to make us suffer; but He teaches us not to resist evil, and warns us that doing so may involve personal suffering. Does a father, on seeing his son set out on a long journey; tell him to pass sleepless nights, to eat little, to get wet through, or to freeze? Will he not rather say to him, ‘Go, and if on the road you are cold or hungry, do not be discouraged but go on’? Christ does not say ‘Let a man strike your cheek, and suffer,’ but He says, ‘Do not resist evil. Whatever men may do to you, do not resist evil.’ These words, ‘do not resist evil’, thus apprehended, were the clue that made all clear to me, and I was surprised that I could have hitherto treated them in such a different way. Christ meant to say, ‘Whatever men may do to you, bear, suffer, and submit; but never resist evil.’ What could be clearer, more intelligible, and more indubitable that this? As soon as I understood the exact meaning of these simple words, all that had appeared confused to me in the doctrine of Christ grew intelligible; what had seemed contradictory now became consistent, and what I had deemed superfluous became indispensable. All united in one whole, one part fitting into and supporting the other, like the pieces of a broken statue put together again in their proper places.

This doctrine of ‘non-resistance’ is commended again and again in the gospels. In the Sermon on the Mount Christ represents His followers – i.e., those who follow this law of non-resistance – as liable to be persecuted, stoned, and reduced to beggary. Elsewhere He tells us that the disciple who does not take up his cross, who is not willing to renounce all, cannot be His follower, and He thus describes the man who is ready to bear the consequences that may result from the practice of the doctrine of non-resistance. Christ says to His disciples, ‘Be poor, be ready to bear persecution, suffering, and even death, without resisting evil.’ He prepared for suffering and death Himself without resisting evil; He reproved Peter, who grieved over Him because He proposed to yield in this way; and He died, forbidding others to resist evil, remaining true to His own doctrine and His own example. All His first disciples obeyed the same law of the non-resistance of evil, and passed their lives in disability and persecution.

We may bring forward, as an objection, the difficulty of always obeying such a law; we may even say, as unbelievers do, that it is a foolish doctrine, that Christ was a dreamer, an idealist who gave precepts that are impossible to follow. But, whatever our objections may be, we cannot deny that Christ expresses His meaning most clearly and distinctly; and His meaning is that man must not resist evil; he who fully accepts His teaching cannot resist evil.