by Leo Tolstoy
1883
Bill Lin 譯
斷言耶穌基督的教導只與個人的得救有關，而與國家的事務毫無關聯，是一個很大的錯誤。這樣子說只是在宣稱一個很魯莽的、無根據的、明顯的謊言，一個片刻認真的反思就足夠把它揭穿。
「像這樣，」我自言自語：「當個平民百姓，我不對抗惡人，我可以被打不還手；但是當敵人侵略我的祖國時，或是其他的國家欺負它的時候，我會被徵召去參加對抗惡人的鬥爭——要去殺人。我該怎麼辦？」這個問題立刻就浮上來了：哪個是事奉神？哪個是事奉假神？該去或不該去？
假設我是個農民，被我的村子選為長老，成為法官，或陪審員。我有義務要發誓，要定罪，也要處罰。同是被造物的人們，我該怎麼辦？再一次，我必須在神的律法和人的律法之間選擇。
或者說，我是一個住在修道院的修士；附近的農民們把我們要用的已經收割的乾草據為己有。我被派去參加對抗惡人——去起訴這些人。再一次，我必須在神的律法和人的律法之間選擇。沒有任何人能逃過避免做這樣的選擇。更不用談到我所屬的社會階層——軍人、法官、行政官員，他們整個生命都奉獻於對抗惡者——沒有一個單一個人，甚至毫不起眼的，會不需要在藉著實踐神的誡命來服事神，或服事他的國家的政府機構裡的假神之間作一個選擇。
我們個人的生活交織著國家的組織，而這國家組織要我們盡非基督徒的義務，跟耶穌基督的教導相違背。目前，服兵役是大家應盡的義務，還有每次去法庭參加陪審團，就把這個窘境非常清晰的擺在所有人的眼前。每個人被要求拿起一個殺人的工具——一把槍，一把刀——甚至，假如他不要殺一個同為被造的人：他幫著把槍彈上膛，磨利刀劍，也就是，他是準備參與殺人。每個公民被要求進到法庭，參加審判處罰他的一個同為被造的人；也就是，每個人要放棄教我們不可抵抗惡者的耶穌基督的教導。
那位哨兵的問題：福音或是軍令？神的律法或是人的法律？正如當年突顯在撒母耳的時代，一直還突顯在我們所有人的面前。它突顯在耶穌基督和祂的門徒們的面前。它現在突顯在所有那些想成為基督徒的人的面前；它突顯在我的面前。
耶穌基督的教導，教導愛、謙虛，和否定自我，總是我所喜愛的。但是我發現了一個相反的規律，同樣的發生在過去的歷史中，也發生在現在我們的生活環境裡——一個使我的心境、我的良心，和我的理性都感到厭惡，卻使我的動物天性受寵若驚的一個規律。
我知道，假如我接受了耶穌基督的教導，我將會被遺棄而痛苦、被迫害而悲傷，如同耶穌基督告訴我們的，祂的跟隨者們的下場。我知道，假如我接受了人的法規，我會受到我的同胞們的贊許；我會感到和平和安全；有的詭辯將會很容易的平息我的良心，而我將會像耶穌基督所說的：「歡笑快樂。」我會感到如此，所以我就避免更仔細的去研讀耶穌基督的律法，試著以一種不影響我的肉體生命的方式來理解它。但這是行不通的，我放棄了所有想要了解耶穌基督的教導的企圖。
現在我才驚訝的發現，這種做法把我帶進了模糊的心理狀態。例如，回想我以前對這些話語的解讀“不要論斷人，免得你們被論斷。” (馬太 7:1)“不要論斷人，就不被論斷；不要定人的罪，就不被定罪” (路加 6:37 )。我曾是法庭裡的一員，法庭保護我們的產業和人身安全。法庭對我來講是毫無疑問的神聖的，而且這些字眼“不要定人的罪”，除了不要說我們自己人的壞話以外，我從來不覺得有什麼更高層的意義。我從來不覺得這些話語會和法庭、地方法庭、刑事法庭、巡迴庭、民事法庭等等有什麼關聯。當我最後得到了“不要對抗惡者”的真正意思時，這個問題浮現在我的心裏：「耶穌基督對所有這些法庭會有什麼樣的意見？」同時我清楚的看到他會拒絕他們，我問自己：「難道這些話語的意思，不只不可說我們弟兄的壞話，而且我們也不可以用我們人類的司法機關來論處他們的刑罰？」
在路加福音6章37~39節，這些話語緊接在不要對抗惡者，而且要以德報怨的誡命之後。“你們要慈悲，像你們天上的父慈悲一樣。”在這些話語之後，我們讀到“不要論斷人，就不被論斷；不要定人的罪，就不被定罪。”
「難道不是這個意思？不只不可用話語論斷我們的弟兄——就是說他的壞話——而且我們也不可以用法庭來論處一個同胞的刑罰？」我告訴自己；這個問題一出現，很快的，我的感性和理性都得到了肯定的答案。
我知道每一個人一開始，都會被這樣理解字句的方式嚇一大跳；我自己也被嚇到了。要顯現出我以前的想法，和這些字句的真實解讀有多大的距離，在這裡我要提到，自己的一個愚蠢的，現在都感到很慚愧的說法：一直到了我已經是個基督徒，而且承任福音是神聖的，每次我碰到一位曾經是律師，法官的朋友，我經常會開玩笑的跟他說：「這樣，你繼續做你的審判工作吧，難道你不知道聖經上這麼說：『不要論斷，你就不會被論斷。』嗎？」我那時很篤定，這些話語除了大家不要互相說壞話以外，沒有其他的意義，我感覺不到我自已的話裡對神的輕蔑。那時我其實很肯定，這些話語不該照著字面的意思來用，而在它們真正的應用時，我卻以玩笑的方式來表達。
我應該舉出一個依照情況的訴說，也就是這些話語的真正的感受解除了我所有的疑惑，而且很明顯的使我認為耶穌基督必須要關閉所有人類的司法機構，而且祂絕對不可能有別的意思。
當我明白了“不要對抗惡者”這個誡令的真正意義時，第一個讓我吃驚的念頭，就是人類的法庭不僅和這誡令對頭相撞，而且直接的反對了整個耶穌基督的教導，所以祂必定是不准有人類法庭的。
耶穌基督說：「不要對抗惡者。」而法庭的唯一目的就是─要對抗惡者。耶穌基督囑咐我們要以德報怨；法庭要的卻是以怨抱怨。耶穌基督說：「要同等的對待義人和不義的人。」法庭卻從不這樣做。耶穌基督說：「要全然的寬恕。不但要原諒，也不只原諒七次，要無止境的寬恕。」「要愛你的敵人。」「要以德報怨。」法庭不但不寬恕，他們懲罰；他們不對那些他們所謂的社會的公敵行善，卻對他們行惡。所以耶穌基督真正的教導是嚴禁所有的人類法庭。
「怎麼是這樣呢？」我自言自語：「耶穌基督跟法庭一點關係都沒有，從未想到他們。」但是我很快的就看到這個假設是錯的。祂一出生，耶穌基督就在希律王的管轄之下，在三合林Sanhedrin(公會)和大祭司的司法管轄之下。
我們知道，實際上，耶穌基督不只一次提到法庭的審裁是一種邪惡。祂告訴祂的門徒們，他們以後都會被帶到法庭，祂還教導他們如何在法庭上應對。祂說他自己會被定罪，而且他要為我們如何看待這些執法者做個榜樣。毫無疑問的，耶穌基督認為人類的法庭，要來定祂和祂的門徒們的罪；同樣的已經定了，而且直到未來都還要再定上百萬人的罪。耶穌基督一定是已經看到了這種邪惡，因為祂很清楚的把它指出來。在犯姦淫的案子裡，祂正面的推翻了所謂人的公義，而且證明了考慮到每個人的罪惡本質，沒有人有資格去論斷他人。我們看到了相同的教導重複了好幾次，正如祂說的，一個人的眼中有樑木，無法看到他的鄰人眼中的刺；還有瞎子是不能引領瞎子的。
「不過，」我對自己說：「或許這個只適用於審判犯了姦淫的案子，眼中刺的喻言只是要讓我們看見人性普遍的弱點。耶穌基督並沒有要禁止我們為了保護自己對抗惡者而有人類公義的追訴權。」但是我看到這個說法也無法成立。
在登山寶訓裡，針對所有的人，祂說：「假如有人為了你的上衣，要到法院告你，乾脆連外套也給他。」所以祂不要你去訴訟。
或許這個只適用於個人和公眾法庭之間的關係。或許耶穌基督並不否定司法本身，而且同意在基督徒的社會裡可以為了司法的目的而選出某些人來擔任這種任務。我看這種假設也無法通過。在祂的禱告裡，耶穌基督要求所有的人，沒有一個例外，想要被寬恕就得寬恕別人。我們看到相同的教訓重複了許多遍。每一個人必須在他的禱告裡，在他獻祭之前，寬恕他的同胞；一個人怎麼可能審判定罪他人，但是根據他宣稱的信仰卻要求他必須寬恕呢？我可以看見，根據耶穌基督的教導，一個判處他的同為人類的人死刑的法官就不是基督徒。
或許這些字句之間的連結，“不要論斷，不要定罪”和那些後續的，證明了它們和人類法庭無關？這也是錯的，相反的，這些字句之間的連結，和那些後續的，清楚的證明了這些字句“不要論斷”準確的定向反對司法機構。根據馬太福音和路加福音，這些文字“不要論斷，不要定罪”的前面就是“不要對抗惡者，遭遇惡者，以善對待所有的人”。在馬太福音裡希伯來人的刑法“以眼還眼，以牙還牙」一再的重複。引用了這個刑法以後，耶穌基督說：「但是你們不可以這樣做；不要對抗惡者。」然後祂繼續說：「不要論斷。」所以耶穌基督的話語正是提到了我們人類的刑法，而且藉著“不要論斷”，祂很清楚的去否定它。
除此以外，我們看到在路加福音裡祂不只說：「不要論斷，」還接著說：「而且不要定罪。」後面的這個字，幾乎是前面那個字的同義字，加進來一定有某些目的，或許只是要更清楚的表達前一個字的意義。
或許祂想說：「不要論斷你的鄰人，」也就是「不要說他的壞話，」祂應該就會那樣子說；但是祂卻直率的說：「不要定罪，」再接著說：「你就不會被定罪；寬恕人，你就會被寬恕。」
或許耶穌基督的話語跟法庭毫不相干，是我給了它們我自己的解讀，這個解讀對它們來說真是太見外了。
我試過去找出耶穌基督的第一代跟隨者，祂的門徒們，是如何的看待法庭，他們是否贊同它們。
在雅各書4章11~12節，使徒雅各說：「弟兄們，你們不可互相攻訐。人若攻訐弟兄，論斷弟兄，就是攻訐律法，論斷律法。你若論斷律法，就不是遵行律法的，而是審判官。只有一位設立律法的，就是那能救人也能滅人的。你是誰，竟敢論斷別人呢？」
這個翻譯成“說邪惡的話”就是希臘字καταλαλεω攻訐。甚至不用查字典，這個字很明顯的就是“譭謗”。這是任何一個人查字典所能找到，這個字的唯一真正的意義。這一段有疑問的章節的翻譯是這樣的：“人若攻訐弟兄，就是攻訐律法，”問題不由自主的浮上來了，「怎麼會是這樣呢？」攻訐我的弟兄，我並沒有攻訐執法者。不；假若我坐在法庭裡攻訐我的弟兄，我明顯的問罪了耶穌基督的教導；換言之，我把耶穌基督的教導看成是不夠的，也就是論斷定罪神的律法。這很清楚的接下到─我不遵行律法，反倒把自己變成審判官。「一位審判官，」耶穌基督說：「就是那能救人的。」所以我不能救人，怎能是一位懲罰人的審判官呢？
這整段文字談到人的判斷，而且反對這種判斷。這整封書信穿插著相同的意念。在這個相同的雅各書(2:1~13)，他說：「我的弟兄們，你們信奉我們榮耀的主耶穌基督，便不可按著外貌待人。若有一個人帶著金戒指，穿著華美衣服，進你們的會堂去；又有一個窮人穿著骯髒衣服也進去；你們就看重那穿華美衣服的人，說：『請坐在這好位上』；又對那窮人說：『你站在那裡』，或『坐在我腳凳下邊。』這豈不是你們偏心待人，用惡意斷定人嗎？我親愛的弟兄們，請聽，神豈不是揀選了世上的貧窮人，叫他們在信上富足，並承受他所應許給那些愛他之人的國嗎？你們反倒羞辱貧窮人。那富足人豈不是欺壓你們，拉你們到公堂去嗎？他們不是褻瀆你們所敬奉的尊名嗎？經上記著說：『要愛人如己。(利未記19:18)』你們若全守這至尊的律法，才是好的。但你們若按外貌待人，便是犯罪，被律法定為犯法的。因為凡遵守全律法的，只在一條上跌倒，他就是犯了眾條。原來那說『不可姦淫」的，也說『不可殺人』；你就是不姦淫，卻殺人，仍是成了犯律法的(申命記22:22; 利未記28:17~25)。你們既然要按使人自由的律法受審判，就該照這律法說話行事。因為那不憐憫人的，也要受無憐憫的審判；憐憫原是向審判誇勝。』(最後一句，“憐憫原是向審判誇勝。”經常被翻譯成“在審判裡，憐憫是被頌揚的，”所以被引用來表示人的審判的存在是許可的，只要它是有憐憫心的。)
雅各勸告祂的弟兄們不要在人之間區分不同。假如你找出有不同，然後你就區分διακρίνετε，變成偏見，終於像個有邪惡念頭的審判官。你論斷乞丐比那富人沒有價值。相反的，那富人才是比較沒有價值的人。他就是那欺壓你們，拉你們到公堂去的人。假如你們按照愛和憐憫的律法而活(雅各稱它為至尊的律法，有別於其他的律法)，你們就做對了。假如你們要尊重別人，卻以貧富來區分，你們是干犯那憐憫的律法的人。雅各銘記在心那個被帶到耶穌的面前，要被用石頭打死的犯姦淫的婦人的案子，或是談到姦淫罪的通案，他說，判處犯姦淫的人死刑的人是犯了謀殺罪。他說：「照著使人得自由的律法行事；因為那不憐憫人的，也得不到憐憫，所以憐憫摧毀了審判。」
還有什麼東西會更清楚明確呢？對於人的任一區分都是不許可的，每一個審判經由我們來認定這個是好的，另一個是不好的；人類的司法被特別指出是邪惡的；它很清楚的顯示司法審辦所犯的罪是因為懲處罪犯，所有的審判必被神的律法——憐憫所滅絕。
我讀了使徒保羅的書信，他自己曾經遭受上法庭的苦難，在他的羅馬書第1章裡頭，他對他們的罪惡和錯誤提出警告，而且譴責他們的法庭(羅馬書1:32)。「他們雖知道神判定行這樣事的人是當死的，然而他們不但自己去行，還喜歡別人去行。」
羅馬書2:1~4：「你這論斷人的，無論你是誰，也無可推諉。你在什麼事上論斷人，就在什麼事上定自己的罪；因你這論斷人的，自己所行卻和別人一樣。我們知道這樣行的人，神必照真理審判他。你這人哪，你論斷行這樣事的人，自己所行的卻和別人一樣，你以為能逃脫神的審判嗎？還是你藐視他豐富的恩慈、寬容、忍耐，不曉得他的恩慈是領你悔改呢？」
使徒保羅說，人們完全知曉神的公義的審判，自己卻做出不公義的行為，還教導其他的人做同樣的事；所以由這個人去審判其他人，完全說不過去。這就是我從使徒的書信裡，找到他對人類法庭的看法。我們全都知道，在整個使徒們的生命中，他們一致認為人類的法庭就是邪惡——是一個必須靠著堅定和順服神的旨意來忍受的試煉。
回顧處於異教徒之間的早期的基督徒的處境，我們很清楚的看到那些遭受人類法庭迫害的人，從來不敢公開的要阻止那些法庭。只能偶而暗示他們是一種邪惡，而基本上他們是不會承認的。
********************************************
To affirm
that the Christian doctrine refers only to personal salvation and has no
bearing upon state affairs is a great error. To say so is but to assert an audacious,
groundless, most evident untruth, which a moment’s serious reflection suffices
to destroy. ‘Well,’ I say to myself, ‘I will not resist evil; as a private man,
I will let myself be struck; but what am I to do if an enemy invades my native
land, or other nations oppress it? I am called upon to take part in a struggle
against evil – to go and kill.’ The question immediately arises: which will be
serving God, and which will be serving ‘toga’? To go, or not to go? Suppose I
am a peasant. I am chosen as the senior member of my village, as judge, as
juryman. I am bound to take an oath, to judge, and to punish. Fellow-creature,
what am I to do? I have again to choose between the law of God and the law of
man. Or let us say I am a monk and live in a monastery; the neighboring
peasants have taken possession of the hay we had mown for our own use. I am
sent to take part in a struggle against evil – to prosecute these men. I have
again to choose between the laws of God and the laws of man. None of us can evade
the demand for such a decision. To say nothing of the class of society that I
belong to – military men, judges, administrators, whose whole lives are passed
in resisting evil – there is not a single private individual, be he ever so
insignificant, who has not had to choose between serving God by fulfilling His
commandments, or serving the ‘toga’ in the government institutions of his
country. Our private lives are interwoven with the organization of the state,
and the latter requires unchristian duties of us, contrary to the commandments
of Christ. At the present time, the military service, which is obligatory on
all, and the participation of each, as jurymen, in the courts of law, place
this dilemma with striking clarity before all. Each man is called upon to take
up an instrument of murder – a gun, a sword – even if he does not kill a
fellow-creature; he loads the gun and sharpens the sword, i.e., he is ready to
commit murder. Each citizen is called upon to enter the courts of law, to take
part in judging and punishing his fellow-creature; i.e., each must renounce the
doctrine of Christ that teaches us not to resist evil.
The
grenadier’s question: the gospel or the military code, the law of God or the
law of man? It still stands before all of us, as it did in the time of Samuel.
It stood before Christ and His disciples. It now stands before all those who
wish to be Christians; it stood before me.
The
doctrine of Christ, which teaches love, humility, and self-denial, had always
attracted me. But I found a contrary law, both in the history of the past and
in the present organization of our lives – a law repugnant to my heart, my
conscience, and my reason, but one that flattered my animal instincts. I knew
that if I accepted the doctrine of Christ, I should be forsaken, miserable,
persecuted, and sorrowing, as Christ tells us His followers will be. I knew
that if I accepted that law of man, I should have the approbation of my
fellow-men; I should be at peace and in safety; all possible sophisms would be
at hand to quiet my conscience and I should ‘laugh and be merry,’ as Christ
says. I felt this, and therefore I avoided a closer examination of the law of
Christ, and tried to comprehend it in a way that should not prevent my still
leading my animal life. But, finding that impossible, I desisted from all
attempts at comprehension.
This led me
into a state of mental obscurity, which now seems surprising to me. For
instance, let me recall my former interpretation of the words, ‘Do not judge,
and you shall not be judged’ (Matt. 7:1). ‘Do not judge, and you shall not be
judged; do not condemn, and you shall not be condemned’ (Luke 6:37 ). The court of law of which I was a
member, and which guarded my property and my personal safety, seemed to me so
unquestionably sacred that it never came into my mind that the words ‘do not
condemn’ could have any higher meaning than that we were not to speak evil of
our fellow-men. The idea never occurred to me that these words could have any
reference to courts of law, district courts, criminal courts, assizes, courts
of peace, etc. When I at last took in the real meaning of the words ‘do not
resist evil,’ the question arose in my mind, ‘What would Christ’s opinion be of
all these courts of law?’ And seeing clearly that He would reject them, I asked
myself, ‘Do these words mean that we are not only never to speak ill of our
brethren, but that we are not to condemn them to punishment by our human
institutions of justice?’
In the
gospel of St. Luke, chapter 6, verses 37-39, these words come immediately after
the commandment not to resist evil, and to return good for evil. After the
words, ‘Be merciful, even as your Father in heaven is merciful,’ we read, ‘Do
not judge, and you shall not be judged; do not condemn, and you shall not be
condemned.’ ‘Doesn’t it mean that we are not only never to condemn our brother
in word – i.e., speak evil of him – but that we are not to institute courts of
law for the condemnation of a fellow-creature to punishment?’ I said to myself;
and no sooner did this question arise, then both my heart and my reason answered in the
affirmative.
I know how
greatly this way of understanding the words surprises everyone at first. I was
surprised, too. To show how far I formerly was from the true interpretation of
these words, I may here mention a foolish saying of mine, of which I am now
heartily ashamed. Even after having become a believer, and having recognized
the divinity of the gospel, I used to say, jokingly, on meeting with a friend
who was an attorney or a judge, ‘So, you go on judging, and yet isn’t it said,
“Do not judge, and you shall not be judged”?’ I was so firmly convinced that
these words had no other meaning than that we were not to speak ill of one
another, that I did not see the blasphemy of my own words. So sure was I that
the words were not to be taken in a literal sense, that I used them – jokingly
– in their true application.
I shall
give a circumstantial account of the way in which all my doubts as to the real
sense of these words were dispersed, and how it became evident to me that
Christ forbids all human institutions of justice, and that He could mean
nothing else.
The first
point that struck me, when I understood the commandment, ‘Do not resist evil,’
in its true meaning, was that human courts were not only contrary to this
commandment, but in direct opposition to the whole doctrine of Christ, and that
therefore He must certainly have forbidden them.
Christ
says, ‘Do not resist evil.’ The sole object of courts of law is – to resist
evil. Christ enjoins us to return good for evil. Courts of law return evil for
evil. Christ says, ‘Make no distinction between the just and the unjust.’
Courts of law do nothing else. Christ says, ‘Forgive all. Forgive not once, not
seven times, but forgive without end.’ ‘Love your enemies.’ ‘Do good to those
who hate you.’ Courts of law do not forgive, but they punish; they do not do
good, but evil, to those whom they call the enemies of society. So, the true
sense of the doctrine is that Christ forbids all courts of law. ‘This cannot be
the case,’ I said to myself, ‘Christ had nothing to do with human courts of
law, and never considered them.’ But I soon saw that this supposition was
impossible. From the day of His birth, Christ had to submit to the jurisdiction
of Herod, the Sanhedrin, and the high priests. Indeed, we find that Christ
speaks more than once of tribunals as being an evil. He tells His disciples
that they will have to be cited before the tribunals, and teaches them how they
are to behave in courts of law. He says that He Himself will be condemned, and
sets us all an example of the way in which we are to treat the laws of man.
There can be no doubt that Christ meant the human courts of law, which were to
condemn Him and His disciples; which have always condemned, and still continue
to condemn, millions of men. Christ must have seen this evil, for He distinctly
points it out. In the case of the adulteress He positively rejects human
justice and proves that, on account of each man’s own sinful nature, he has no right
to judge another. We find the same doctrine repeated several times, as when He
says, for instance, that the one who has a beam in his own eye cannot see the
mote in his neighbor’s eye; and that the blind cannot lead the blind.
‘But, perhaps,’ I said to myself,
‘this applies only to the judgment of the adulteress, and the parable of the
mote is only intended to show us the frailty of human nature in general. Christ
does not intend to forbid our having recourse to human justice for our
protection against evil men.’ But I saw that this would not hold true either.
In the
Sermon on the Mount, addressed to all men, He says, ‘And if anyone sues you at
the law for your coat, let him have your cloak also.’ Therefore He forbids our
going to law.
But perhaps
this applies only to the relations between private individuals and public
courts of law. Perhaps Christ does not deny justice itself, and admits in
Christian societies the existence of persons chosen for the purpose of
administering justice. I see that this hypothesis is likewise inadmissible. In
His prayer Christ enjoins all men, without any exception, to forgive as they
hope to be forgiven. We find the same precept repeated many times. Each man
must forgive his brother when he prays, and before bringing his gift. How,
then, can a man judge and condemn another when, according to the faith he
professes, he is bound to forgive? Thus I see that, according to the doctrine
of Christ, a judge who condemns his fellow-creature to death is no Christian.
But perhaps
the connection between the words, ‘do not judge, do not condemn,’ and those
that follow proves that they do not refer to human courts of law? This is
likewise false. On the contrary, the connection between these words and those
that follow proves clearly that the words ‘do not judge’ are directed precisely
against the institutions of courts of law. According to the gospels of Matthew
and Luke, the texts, ‘Do not judge; do not condemn,’ are preceded by the words,
‘Do not resist evil, suffer evil, do good to all.’ In the gospel according to
Matthew the words of the Hebrew criminal law are repeated, ‘An eye for an eye,
a tooth for a tooth.’ And after citing the criminal law, Christ says, ‘But you
are not to act thus; do not resist evil.’ Then He goes on to say, ‘Do not
judge.’ So Christ’s words refer precisely to our human criminal law, and by the
words ‘do not judge’ He clearly rejects it.
Besides
this, we find in St. Luke that He not only says, ‘Do not judge,’ but also adds,
‘and do not condemn.’ The latter word, almost synonymous with the former, must
have been added with some purpose, and it could have been with no other than
that of showing clearly the sense in which the first word is to be taken.
Had He
wished to say, ‘Do not judge your neighbor,’ i.e., ‘do not speak evil of him,’
He would have said so; but He says plainly, ‘Do not condemn,’ and then adds,
‘and you shall not be condemned; forgive, and you shall be forgiven.’
But perhaps
Christ’s words do not apply to courts of law at all, and I give them an
interpretation of my own that is foreign to them.
I tried to
discover how the first followers of Christ, His disciples, considered human
courts of law, and whether they approved of them.
In chapter
4, verses 11 and 12, the disciple James says, ‘Do not speak evil of one
another, brethren. He who speaks evil of his brother, and judges his brother,
speaks evil of the law, and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are
not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and
to destroy. Who are you to judge another?’
The word
that is translated as ‘speak evil’ is the word καταλαλεω. Even without
consulting the dictionary, it is evident to all that this word can mean nothing
but ‘to accuse.’ That is the only true meaning of the word, as anyone can find
by consulting the dictionary. The translation of the passage in question is as
follows: ‘He who speaks evil of his brother speaks evil of the law,’ and the
question involuntarily arises, ‘How so?’ In speaking evil of my brother, I do
not speak evil of the law of man. No; but if I accuse and sit in judgment over
my brother, I evidently condemn the doctrine of Christ; i.e., I look upon the
doctrine of Christ as insufficient, and thus judge and condemn the law of God.
It clearly follows that I do not fulfill this law, but I myself become a judge.
‘A judge,’ Christ says, ‘is he who can save.’ Then how can I, being unable to
save, be a judge and punish?
This whole
text speaks of human judgment, and rejects it. The whole of this epistle is
penetrated with the same idea. In the same epistle of James (2:1-13) he says,
‘My brethren, do not have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of
glory, together with a respect of persons. For if there comes into your
assembly a man with a gold ring in fine clothes, and there comes in also a poor
man in shabby clothes; and you have respect for him who wears the fine
clothing, and if you say to him, “Sit here in a good place,” and say to the
poor man, “Stand there,” or, “Sit here under my footstool,” are you not then
being partial, and have you not become judges with evil thoughts? Hearken, my
beloved brethren, hasn’t God chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith
and heirs of the kingdom, which He has promised to those who love Him? But you
have despised the poor. Don’t rich men oppress you, and draw you before the
judgment seat? Don’t they blaspheme that worthy name by which you are called?
If you fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your
neighbor as yourself” (Lev.19:18), you do well. But if you have respect to
persons, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For
whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of
all. For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not kill.” Now
if you commit no adultery, yet if you kill, you have become a transgressor of
the law (De.22:22; Le.28:17-25). So speak and act as those who shall be judged
by the law of liberty. For he who has shown no mercy shall have judgment
without mercy; mercy triumphs over the law.’ (The last words, ‘mercy triumphs
over the law,’ have often been translated as, ‘Mercy is extolled in judgment,’
and are cited as meaning that the existence of human judgment may be admitted,
provided that it is merciful.)
James
exhorts his brethren to make no difference between men. If you make any
difference, then you διακρίνετε(distinguish), become partial, and are like judges with evil
thoughts. You judge the beggar as being less worthy than the rich man. On the
contrary, the rich man is the less worthy one. It is he who oppresses you and draws
you before the judgment seat. If you live according to the law of love and
mercy (which James calls the royal law to distinguish it from the other), you
do well. But if you have respect of persons, and make a distinction between
rich and poor, you are transgressors of the law of mercy. James, bearing in
mind the case of the adulteress who was brought before Christ to be stoned, or
perhaps speaking of adultery in general, says that he who punishes an
adulteress with death is guilty of murder, and transgresses the eternal law,
because the same eternal law that forbids adultery also forbids murder. He
says, ‘And act like men who are judged by the law of liberty; because there is
no mercy for him who is himself without mercy, and therefore mercy destroys judgment.’
Can
anything be more clear and definite? Every distinction between men is
forbidden, every judgment by which we consider the one as good and the other as
bad; human justice is distinctly pointed out as being evil; it is clearly shown
that judgment sins by punishing for crime, and that all judgment is annihilated
by the law of God – mercy.
I read the
epistle of Paul the apostle, who had himself suffered from courts of law, and
in his first chapter to the Romans he warns them against their vices and
errors, and speaks against their courts of law (Ro.1:32). ‘Who, knowing the
judgment of God, that they who commit such things are worthy of death, not only
do the same, but have pleasure in those who do them.’
Romans
2:1-4: ‘Therefore you are without excuse, you who judge; for when you judge
another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge do the same things. But we are
sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who commit
such things. And do you think that when you judge those who do such things, and
do the same things yourself, that you shall escape the judgment of God? Or do
you despise the riches of His goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not
knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?’
The apostle
Paul says, while fully aware of the just judgment of God, men act unjustly
themselves, and they teach others to do the same; therefore the man who judges
another cannot be justified. Such is the opinion I find in the epistles of the
apostles in reference to courts of law. We all know that, during the whole
course of their lives, human courts of law could never have been considered by
them as anything but evil – a trial that was to be endured with firmness and
submission to the will of God.
On
reviewing the position of the early Christians amidst the heathens, we clearly
perceive that men who were themselves persecuted by human courts of law could
never have dared openly to forbid them. They could only occasionally allude to
them as an evil, the basis of which they could not admit.
殉道者
I examine
the writings of the earliest teachers of Christianity, and I find that they all
consider the precept never to use force, never to condemn or execute, as the
one that distinguishes their doctrine from all others (Athenagarus, Origen).
They only submit to the tortures inflicted upon them by human justice. The
martyrs all confessed the same, not only in word, but also in deed.
I find that
all true Christians, from the disciples up to the time of Constantine
All this
convinced me that the words ‘do not judge and do not condemn’ apply to courts
of law; and yet these words are so generally understood as meaning only ‘speak
no evil of your neighbor,’ that courts of law flourish, so boldly and with such
assurance, in all Christian states, and are openly upheld by the Church. It was
some time before I could feel quite convinced that my interpretation was the
right one.
‘If all have until now interpreted
the words as referring to evil speaking, and have, consequently instituted
these courts of law, they must have some good grounds for acting thus,’ I said
to myself, ‘and I must be in the wrong.’
And I
turned to the commentaries of the Church. In all of them, from the fifth
century to the present day, I found that these words are considered as
signifying to condemn in word – i.e., to speak evil of our neighbor. Now if
these words are understood as meaning nothing else, doesn’t the question
immediately arise, ‘How can we help judging others?’ We must condemn (blame)
what is evil? Thus the point on which all comments turn is: what may we
condemn, and what may we not condemn? We are told that these words cannot be
considered as forbidding the servants of the Church to judge – that the
apostles themselves judged (Chrysostom and Theopilactus). We are told that
these words of Christ probably applied to the Hebrews, who often used to accuse
their neighbors of trifling sins while committing greater ones themselves.
But nowhere
is there a word said about our human institutions of courts of law, or of the
reference that this precept not to judge might have to them. Does Christ forbid
them, or does He approve of them? This question, which arises so naturally in
our minds, is left unanswered, as if there could not be the slightest doubt
that, when once a Christian has taken his seat in the judgment hall, he has a
right, not only to judge his neighbor, but also even to condemn him to death.
I consulted
the Greek, Catholic, and Protestant theologians, as well as the works of the Tubingen
This made
me doubt the sincerity of these interpretations, and I applied myself to a
closer examination of the translation of the words ‘judge’ and ‘condemn,’ which
is the thing I ought to have begun with. In the original these words are κρινω
and καταδικαζω. The incorrect rendering of the
word καταλαλεω in the epistle of James, which is translated as ‘do not speak
evil,’ confirmed my doubts of the correctness of the translation.
I consulted
the translation of the words κρινω and καταδικαζω in the gospels in various
languages, and I found that the word ‘to condemn’ is translated in the Vulgate
and in French by the word condemnare; in Slavonic, ocyждamъ; by Luther,
verdammen – to damn, to doom.
The
different renderings of these words increased my doubts, and I asked myself
what the Greek word κρινω, used in both the above-mentioned gospels, could
really mean, and what was the true signification of the word καταδικαζω, which
is used by Luke the Evangelist, who wrote, according to the opinion of all able
scholars, in good Greek? If a man, who knew nothing about the gospel and the
interpretations given to it were to have this saying placed before him, how
would he translate it?
I consulted
the common dictionary, and I found that the word κρινω has many different
meanings, and among others is very often used in the sense of ‘condemning by
judgment’ – executing – but never in that of ‘evil-speaking.’ I consulted the
glossary of the New Testament, and I found that this word is often used there
in the sense of condemning by judgment. It is sometimes used as meaning ‘to
choose,’ but never as ‘to speak evil of.’ And so I saw that the word κρινω may
be rendered in several ways, but that a translation that renders it as
‘speaking evil of’ is the furthest from the original.
I looked
for the word καταδικαζω and added to it the word κρινω, which has several
meanings, for the purpose of explaining the sense in which the writer himself
takes the first word. I looked in the common dictionary for the word καταδικαζω
and I found that this word never had any other meaning than to ‘condemn by
judgment’ or to ‘execute.’ I consulted the glossary of the New Testament, and I
found that this word is used in the New Testament four times, and every time in
the sense of ‘condemn’, ‘execute.’ I consulted the context, and I found that
this word is used in the epistle of James, chapter 5, verse 6, in which it is
said, ‘You have condemned and killed the just.’ The word ‘condemned’ is the
same word, καταδικαζω, which is used in reference to Christ, who was condemned
to death; and in no other way and in no other meaning is this word used, either
in the whole New Testament or in any Greek dialect.
What can
this mean? What a state of idiocy have I fallen into! All of us, when reflecting
on the destiny of man, have been struck with terror at the sufferings and evils
that our human criminal laws have brought into our lives – evils both for those
who judge and for those who are judged, from the executions of Tshingis-Han in
the second half of the 12th century and the revolutions to those of the present
day.
No man of
feeling has escaped the impression of horror and doubt concerning ‘good,’
produced by the recital, if not by the sight, of men executing their fellow-men
by rods, the guillotine, or the gallows.
In the
gospels, every word of which we esteem sacred, it is said clearly and
distinctly, ‘You have the criminal law – a tooth for a tooth; and I give you a
new one – do not resist the evil man. Fulfill this commandment all of you; do
not return evil for evil; always do good to all; forgive all.’
And farther
on we read, ‘Do not judge.’ Then, in order to render all doubt impossible as to
the meaning of His words, Christ adds, ‘do not condemn to punishment by courts
of law.’ My heart says clearly and distinctly, ‘Do not execute.’ Science says,
‘Do not execute; the more you execute, the more evil there will be.’ Reason
says, ‘Do not execute; you cannot put a stop to evil by evil.’ The Word of God,
which I believe in, says the same. I used to read the whole doctrine. I read
these words, ‘Do not judge and you shall not be judged; do not condemn and you
shall not be condemned; forgive and you shall be forgiven.’ I acknowledged that
these were God’s words, and I thought they meant that we are not to gossip or
slander, and I continued to consider courts of law as Christian institutions,
and myself as a judge and a Christian! I was shocked at the grossness of the
error I was indulging.
No comments:
Post a Comment