by Leo Tolstoy
1883
Bill Lin 譯
當我終於清楚的理解了“不要對抗惡人”，這些字眼是真正的表示我們絕不對抗惡人時，我的以往有關耶穌基督的教導的想法，起了一個全盤的改變。
我最訝異的，不在於最後我的眼睛終於睜開，見到了真理，而是那從始至終，一直矇蔽我的理解的那個奇怪的黑暗。
我知道——我們都知道，基督教教義的基本要求就是愛全人類。所有基督教的精神總結不就是“愛你的敵人”嗎？
從我最早的童年，我就知道了。然後，為什麼一直到今天，我不相信這些字眼的最簡單的意義，反倒去追求他們裡面的一些寓意？
“不要對抗惡人”就是絕不去對抗惡人，也就是絕不用暴力對付任何人。假如有人辱罵你，不要罵回去；受苦，但是絕不動粗。
當我相信，或至少努力去相信，給我們這個誡命的人是神，我怎麼會說依我自己的能力，我做不到呢？假如我的主人告訴我：「去砍柴！」而我竟回答說，以我的力量我做不到，這不就表示，或者我不信主人的話，或是我選擇不聽他的話呢？神給了我們一個誡命，要我們去遵守；祂說只有那些遵守祂的誡命的才得以進入永恆的生命；祂自己實踐了這個誡命，給我們祂的榜樣；即使我從未真正的想實踐這個誡命，我怎能這樣子的說，這是一個人類無法靠自己的力量而且需要超自然的助力才能遵守的命令呢？
神變成人，為了使我們得救。這拯救是基於這個事實：三位一體的神的第二位，神子為人類受難，把我們從罪中救贖出來，而且賜給我們教會，透過教會，神把祂的恩典給了所有的信徒。更甚的，神子留給我們這個教導，還有祂自己的例子，來指示我們得救的方法。只不過，我說耶穌基督給我們的生命的道理不止太難，而且不靠超自然的助力就無法達成。耶穌基督卻不是這樣考慮的，正好相反，祂斬釘截鐵的告訴我們，要實行祂的誡命，不這麼做的不得進入神的國。祂不是說守這個律法很難，正好相反，祂說：「我的軛是容易的，我的擔子是輕省的。」使徒約翰說：「祂的誡命不是難受的。」神所表達的正面的誡命，祂自稱是容易的，祂自己以一個人的樣式遵守它，祂的第一代門徒們都實踐了它，我怎能說對我說太難了，甚至沒有超自然的助力就無法達成呢？
假如一個人定下他心靈的全部功能要去廢掉一個法規，有什麼說詞能比使用“它是個無法實行的法規”的藉口，來得有壓制力？而立法者自己的意見居然是“必須藉著超自然助力才能遵守它”？然而，這正是我以前對“不要對抗惡者”的誡命的想法。我試著回想到底是什麼時候，這個耶穌基督的教義的權威是屬神的卻無法實行的奇怪的觀念，當初是如何的進入我的心裏。在回顧我過去的生命，我發現這個觀念從未赤裸裸的傳遞給我，因為假設是如此的話，當時一定會令我反感；但是我卻在最早的童年時，不知覺當中就感染了，在我的生命的一些蛛絲馬跡裡證實了這個奇怪的錯誤。
自從我的童年，我就被教導：耶穌基督是神，而且祂的教導是屬神的而有權威的；同時在另一方面，我也被教導要尊敬那些國家機構，藉著武力對抗惡人來保障我們的安全；我被教導要尊敬這些神聖的機構。我被教導要對抗惡人；屈服而被惡人迫害是羞恥不榮譽的觀念逐漸的灌輸到我的心裡；而且抵抗惡者是值得被讚美的。我被教導要譴責惡人，執行法律。我被教導要去打仗，就是要對抗惡者不惜殺戮。軍隊，我曾經是軍人，被稱為是一個“愛耶穌基督”的軍隊，而且教會將他們的任務奉為神聖的。我被教導要用武力抵抗侵略者，對私怨報仇，用武力保衛家園。所有的這些，從未被認為是不對的，相反的，他們告訴我，這些都是全然正確，絕對沒有違反耶穌基督的教導。
所有週遭的利益，比如我的家庭、我的家業和我自己的平安和安全，都是建立在耶穌基督所拒絕的律法之上─就是“以牙還牙”。
教會的老師們告訴我，耶穌基督的教導是屬神的，但是無法在軟弱的人類天性上實現；只有神的恩典可以使我們守這條律法。世俗的教師們告訴我，整個生命的行徑證明，耶穌基督的教導只是理想而不實在，事實上，我們必須反其道而行。我慢慢的，幾乎是沒有知覺的吸入了這個現實的無法跟隨神聖的教導的說法。我是如此的習慣於這個說法了，它和我的動物本能密切配合，以致於我從未觀察到我的生活中的矛盾。我看不到——一面良心平安的為著產業組織、法庭、王國、軍隊等等工作，同時又要認定祂的教導的根本就是不對抗惡人的耶穌基督是神，是不可能的。讓我們規定我們的生活要跟耶穌基督的教導背道而馳，然後再祈禱同一位耶穌基督，幫我們來守住祂的饒恕和不對抗惡人的誡命是不可能一致的。我以前沒有想到像現在所想的，事情應該會更直接了當，讓我們規定我們的生活要照著耶穌基督的教導來，然後，假如我們發現為了我們的福祉的需要，法庭、死刑，和戰爭都不能廢棄，我們可以再禱告祈求。
我知道我的錯誤出在哪裡，是出於我在言語上認定耶穌基督卻在行為上否定祂。
“不要對抗惡人”的教訓含括了整個耶穌基督的教導的實質內容，假如我們不把它當成只是一種說法，而且還當成是一則我們應當服從的律法。它像一把門鎖鑰匙，可以打開任一扇門，但是只有在好好的插進鎖裡後才能發生功效。把這個生命之道當成一個非得靠超自然的幫助才能服從的教訓，是在完全的消滅整體的耶穌基督的教導。怎麼可能有一個教導，它的基礎原則被當成不可行的擺到一旁，而它的任一個細節會被認為是可行的呢？
這就是人們如何對待耶穌基督的教導，當他們教導我們，一個基督徒可以不必實踐祂的不對抗惡者的定律。
幾天前，我對一位猶太教的教師讀了馬太福音第五章。幾乎對每一個說法他都說：「這個在聖經裡─這個也在Talmud經卷裡(猶太教聖卷)。」他指出來，在Talmud裡的很多章節和那些在聖經的登山寶訓裡的都很像。但是當我讀到“不要抵抗惡者”的章節時，他不說這也在Talmud裡；但是只笑著問我：「基督徒們守這個規條？他們把另一邊臉頰也讓人打？」我不作聲。我能給他怎樣的回答呢？我知道我們這個時代的基督徒，不但沒有把另一邊臉頰也讓人打，而且從不放過一個給猶太人甩兩個耳光的機會。我渴望知道，在Talmud裡有沒有這個規條，所以我問了，他回答：「沒有，沒有像這樣的東西；不過請告訴我，基督徒們有守過這個規條嗎？」他的問題清楚的指出來，在耶穌基督的律法裡有這麼一個教訓，不僅擺著不遵守，而且被認為不可能做到，是多餘的而且不理性的。
現在我理解了這個教導的真正含義，我看清楚了過去我容許自己內心出現的奇怪的矛盾心態。過去我認知耶穌基督是神，祂的教導是神聖的，同時，我卻安排自己的生活和祂的教導背道而馳。所有我能做的，只有承認這個教導是不可行的嗎？在文字上，我承認這耶穌基督的教導是神聖的；但是在行為上我卻不照著作，因為我承認並尊崇著圍繞著我的非基督徒的機構。
在整本舊約裡，我們看到它說，以色列人的不幸，是出於他們的相信假神而不信真神。在撒母耳記上的第8章和第12章，這先知指控人們捨棄了神，他們的王，而去擁立了他們自認要來拯救他們的一位人間的王。「不要相信虛神(衣袍)無用的東西，他們無法幫助你們也無法拯救你們，因為他們是沒有作用的。為了不和你們的王共亡，只有單單的信靠神。」撒母耳告知百姓們(撒母耳記上12:21)。
我對這些虛神，這些虛空的偶像的信仰，使我的眼睛見不到真理。這些我過去沒有力量放棄的虛神，擋在我到祂的半路上，擋在我的眼前，遮住了祂的亮光。
有一天，當我正經過莫斯科的Borovitzki城門時，我看到一個跛腳的老乞丐，坐在一個角落，把整個頭裹在一件破衣服裡。我正把我的錢包拿了出來，準備把一些零錢給他的時候，一個彪悍、臉色紅潤的哨兵穿著毛皮大衣的制服，從克里姆林Kremlin宮的斜坡跑下來。一看到這士兵，這個乞丐一臉恐懼的跳起來，一跛一跛的往亞歷山大Alexander花園的方向跑走了。哨兵追他但是差一點沒抓到他，開始咒罵那可憐的傢伙，居然敢違規坐在城門邊。我等到那哨兵走回到我站的地方，我問他是否識字。
「會，要幹什麼？」他回答。「你讀過福音書麼？」「讀過。」「你知道這些字眼：『餵養飢餓的人…』嗎？」我重複的把這些字再對他說一次。他留意的聽著。兩個路過的人也停了下來。對這哨兵來說，是明顯的不對頭；他遵守命令，盡責的值行任務，把人們趕離城門，卻意外的處在錯的一方。他顯得困惑，看來想要找些藉口。突然，他看似有智慧的把黑眼珠子一亮，同時開始往他的崗位移動，他問我：「你讀過軍隊的規條嗎？」我告訴他我沒有。他說：「很好，不要再談你不懂的東西。」，得意的搖著他的頭，圍裹起他的外套，走回他的崗哨。
他是我一輩子唯一碰到的，很嚴謹的，有邏輯的回答了我們社會機構的問題，這問題一直突顯在我的面前，也還一直突顯在每個自稱是基督徒的人的面前。
********************************************
When I at
last clearly comprehended that the words ‘do not
resist evil’ do really mean that we are never to resist evil, my former
ideas concerning the teaching of Christ underwent a complete change. I
wondered, not so much at my eyes being opened to the truth at last, but at the
strange darkness that had, until then, enveloped my understanding. I knew – we
all know – that the foundation requirement of the Christian doctrine is love
toward all men. Isn’t all Christianity summed up in the words, ‘Love your
enemies’? I had known that from my earliest childhood. How was it, then, that I
had not hitherto taken in these words in all their simplicity, but rather had
sought for some allegorical meaning in them? ‘Do not resist evil’ means never
to resist evil, i.e., never offer violence to anyone. If a man reviles you, do
not revile him in return; suffer, but do no violence. While believing, or at
least endeavoring to believe, that He who gave us this commandment was God, how
did I come to say that I could not obey it in my own strength? If my master
were to say to me, ‘Go and cut wood,’ and I were to answer that I could not do
it in my own strength, would it not show that either I had no faith in my
master’s words, or that I did not choose to obey him? God has given to us a
commandment that He requires us to obey; He says that only those who keep His
commandments shall enter life eternal; He fulfilled this commandment Himself,
as offering us His example; and how could I then say that, though I never
really tried to fulfill it, this injunction was one that it was impossible for
a man to keep in his own strength, and without supernatural aid?
God became
man for the securing of our salvation. Salvation lies in the fact that the second
person of the Trinity, God the Son, suffered for us men, redeemed us from sin,
and gave us the Church through which the grace of God is transmitted to all
believers. Moreover, God the Son has left us this doctrine (teaching), and His
own example, to show us the way of salvation. And yet, I said that the rule of
life given to us by Christ was not only a hard one, but also an impossible one,
apart from supernatural aid. Christ does not consider it as such. On the
contrary, He says definitely that we are to fulfill His commandments, and that
he who does not shall not enter the kingdom of God St. John the Evangelist says, ‘His
commandments are not grievous.’ How was it, I said, that the express and
positive commandment of God, which He Himself speaks of as being easy, the
commandment which He Himself obeyed as a man, and which His first followers
also fulfilled, was too hard for me, and even impossible for me, without
supernatural aid?
If a man
were to set all the faculties of his mind to the annulling of a given law, what
more forcible argument could he use for its suppression than that it was an
impracticable law, and that the legislator’s own opinion of it was that it
could not be kept without supernatural aid? And yet, this was exactly what I
had thought about the commandment ‘not to resist evil.’ I tried to remember
when and how the strange idea had first come into my mind, that the doctrine of
Christ was divine in authority but impossible in practice. On reviewing my past
life, I discovered that this idea had never been transmitted to me in all its
nakedness, for then it would have repelled me; but that I had imperceptibly
imbibed it from my earliest childhood, and that the associations of my life had
confirmed the strange error.
I was
taught from my childhood that Christ is God and that His teaching is divine and
authoritative; while, on the other hand, I was also told to respect those institutions
that, by means of violence, secured my safety from evil; I was taught to honor
those institutions as being sacred. I was taught to resist evil; and it was
instilled into me that it was humiliating and dishonorable to submit to evil
and to suffer from it; and that it was praiseworthy to resist evil. I was
taught to condemn and to execute. I was taught to make war, i.e., to resist
evil by murder. The army, a member of which I was, was called a ‘Christ-loving’
army, and the Church consecrated its mission. I was taught to resist an
offender by violence and to avenge a private insult, or one against my native
land, by violence. All this was never regarded as wrong, but, on the contrary,
I was told that it was perfectly right and in no way contrary to Christ’s
doctrine.
All
surrounding interests, such as the peace and safety of my family, my property,
and myself were based on the law that was rejected by Christ – on the law of a
‘tooth for a tooth.’
Ecclesiastical
teachers told me that the doctrine of Christ was divine, but that its
observance was impossible on account of the weakness of human nature; and that
the grace of God alone could enable us to keep this law. Secular teachers told
me, and the whole order of life proved, that the teaching of Christ was
impracticable and ideal, and that we must, in fact, live contrary to His
doctrine. I imbibed such a notion of the practical impossibility of following
the divine doctrine gradually and almost imperceptibly. I was so accustomed to
it, it coincided so well with all my animal feelings that I had never observed
the contradiction in which I lived. I did not see that it was impossible to
admit the Godhead of Christ – the basis of whose teaching is non-resistance of
evil – and, at the same time, to work consciously and calmly for the
institutions of property, courts of law, kingdoms, the army, and so on. It
could not be consistent for us to regulate our lives contrary to the doctrine
of Christ, and then pray to the same Christ that we might be enabled to keep
His commandments – to ‘forgive,’ and not to ‘resist evil.’ It did not then
occur to me, as it does now, that it would be much simpler to regulate our
lives according to the doctrine of Christ; and then, if courts of law,
executions, and war were found to be indispensably necessary for our welfare,
we might pray to have them too.
And I
understood from where my error arose. It arose from my professing Christ in
words and denying Him in deed.
The precept
‘not to resist evil’ is one that contains the whole substance of Christ’s
doctrine, if we consider it not only as a saying, but also as a law we are
bound to obey. It is like a latchkey that will open any door, but only if it is
well inserted into the lock. To consider this rule of life as a precept that cannot
be obeyed without supernatural aid is to annihilate the whole doctrine of
Christ completely. How can a doctrine, the fundamental law of which is cast
aside as impracticable, be considered practicable in any of its details?
This is
what was done with Christ’s doctrine when we were taught that it was possible
to be a Christian without fulfilling His law not to resist evil.
A few days
ago I was reading the fifth chapter of St. Matthew to a Hebrew rabbi. ‘That is
in the Bible – that is in the Talmud too,’ he said at almost each saying,
pointing out to me, in the Bible and the Talmud passages very much like those
in the Sermon on the Mount. But when I came to the verse that says, ‘do not
resist evil,’ he did not say that is also in the Talmud; but only asked me with
a smile, ‘Do Christians keep this law? Do they turn the other cheek to be
struck?’ I was silent. What answer could I give, when I knew that Christians,
in our days, far from turning the other cheek when struck, never let an
opportunity escape of striking a Hebrew on both cheeks. I was greatly
interested to know if there was any law like this in the Talmud, and I
inquired. He answered, “No, there is nothing like it; but please tell me, do Christians ever keep
this law?’ His question showed me clearly that the existence of a precept in
the law of Christ, which is not only left unobserved, but of which the
fulfillment is considered impossible, is superfluous and irrational.
Now that I
comprehend the true meaning of the doctrine, I see clearly the strange state of
contradiction within my own self that I had permitted to arise. I was
confessing Christ as God, and His teaching as divine, and at the same time I
was ordering my life contrary to His teaching. What was left for me to do but
to acknowledge the teaching as an impracticable one? In word I acknowledged the
teaching of Christ as sacred; but I did not carry out that teaching in deed,
for I admitted and respected the unchristian institutions that surrounded me.
Throughout
the Old Testament we find it said that the misfortunes of the Israelites arose
from their believing in false gods, and not in the true God. In the eighth and
twelfth chapters of the first Book of Samuel, the prophet accuses the people of
having chosen, instead of God, who was their King, a human king who, according
to their opinion, was to save them. ‘Do not believe in [toga] vain things,’
says Samuel to the people (1Sa.12:21). ‘They will not help you and will not
save you, for they are [toga] vain. In order not to perish with your king,
believe in God alone.’
My faith in
these ‘toga,’ in these empty idols, hid the truth from my eyes. In my way to
Him these ‘toga,’ which I did not have the strength to renounce, stood before
me, obscuring His light.
One day, as
I was passing through Borovitzki gate, I saw a crippled old beggar with his
head bound up in a ragged cloth and sitting in a corner. I had just taken out
my purse to bestow a trifle upon him, when a bold, ruddy-faced young grenadier
in a government fur coat came running down the Kremlin slope. On seeing the
soldier, the beggar sprang up with a look of terror and ran limping down toward
the Alexander Garden. The grenadier pursued him, but, not succeeding in
overtaking him, stopped short and began to abuse the poor fellow for having
dared to sit down near the entrance-gate in defiance of orders. I waited until
the grenadier came up to where I stood, and then asked if he could read.
‘Yes; what of that?’ was the answer.
‘Have you ever read the gospel?’ ‘I have.’ ‘Do you know these words: “He who
feeds the hungry …”?’ I repeated the text to him. He listened attentively. Two
passers-by stopped. It was evidently disagreeable to the grenadier that, while
conscientiously discharging his duty by driving people away from the
entrance-gate, as he was ordered to do, he unexpectedly found himself in the
wrong. He looked puzzled, and seemed to be searching for some excuse. Suddenly
his dark eyes brightened up with a look of intelligence, and, moving away as if
about to return to his post, he asked, ‘Have you read the military code?’ I
told him that I had not. ‘Well, then, do not talk of what you do not
understand,’ he said, with a triumphant shake of his head; and muffling himself
up in his overcoat, he went back to his post.
He was the
only man I have met in all my life who strictly, logically, solved the problem
of our social institutions, which had stood before me, and still stands before
each who calls himself a Christian.
No comments:
Post a Comment