What I Believe / Chapter 4

What I Believe / Chapter 4

by Leo Tolstoy

Now I understood what Christ meant when He said, ‘You have heard that it has been said, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” And I say to you, do not resist evil.’ Christ means, ‘You have been taught to consider it right and rational to protect yourselves against evil by violence, to pluck out an eye for an eye, to institute courts of law for the punishment of criminals, and to have a police and an army to defend you against the attacks of an enemy; but I say to you, do no violence to any man, take no part in violence, never do evil to any man, not even to those whom you call your enemies.’

現在我明白基督說這話的意思，當時祂說：「你們都聽過這個說法：『以眼還眼，以牙還牙。』我告訴你們，不要對抗惡人。」基督的意思是：「你們都被教導過，以武力保護你們自己對抗惡人的觀念是對的，也是理性的，要挖出他的一只眼睛來還一只眼睛，要成立法庭來處罰罪犯，要有警察和軍隊來保護你們，對抗敵人；只是我要告訴你們，不要用暴力對付任何一個人，不要加入暴力圈，不要以邪惡對付任何人，甚至是那些你們所謂的敵人。」

I now understood that, in this doctrine of non-resistance, Christ not only tells us what the natural result of following His doctrine will be, but by placing this same doctrine in opposition to the Mosaic Law, the Roman law, and the various codes of the present time, He clearly shows that it ought to be the basis of our social existence and should deliver us from the evil we have brought on ourselves. He says, ‘You think to amend evil by your laws, but they only aggravate it. There is one way by which you can put a stop to evil; it is by indiscriminatingly returning good for evil. You have tried the other law for thousands of years; now try Mine, which is the very reverse.’ Strange to say, I have had frequent opportunities lately of conversing with men of diverse opinions on this doctrine of non-resistance. I have met with some who agreed with me, though these have been few. But there are two orders of men who always refuse to admit, even in principle, a direct understanding of this doctrine, and warmly uphold the justice of resisting evil. They are men belonging to two extreme poles: our Christian conservative patriots, who consider their Church as the true orthodox one, and our revolutionary atheists. Neither the former nor the latter will give up their right to resist by violence what they consider as evil. Even their cleverest, most learned men close their eyes to the simple, self-evident truth, that if we admit the right of one man to resist what he considers as evil by violence, we cannot refuse another the right to resist by violence what he in his turn may consider as evil. A short time ago I met with a correspondence particularly instructive as bearing on this very point. It was carried on between an orthodox Slavophil and a Christian revolutionist. The former excused the violence of war in the name of his oppressed Slavonian brethren, and the latter vindicated the violence of the revolution in the name of his oppressed brethren, the Russian peasants. Both admit the necessity for violence, and both ground their reasoning on the doctrine of Christ.

現在我明白，在這個不抵抗的教導裡，基督不只告訴我們，跟隨祂的教導的自然後果會是如何，而且藉著把這個教導擺到跟摩西律法、羅馬律法，和現行的各種不同的規條頭碰頭相牴觸，祂清楚的表示，這個教導必須是我們社會生存的基礎，而且它會拯救我們脫離我們自己帶給我們的罪惡。祂說：「你們想要用你們的律法改變惡人，他們反而使它變本加厲，只有一個方法你們可以用來制止惡人；就是不分青紅皂白的以德報怨。上千年來你們已經試用過其他的法律；現在試著用我這一套正好相反的方法。」說也奇怪，我最近有很多機會，和對這不抵抗主義有不同意見的人對話，我見過一些同意我的說法的人，但是人數很少。但是有兩種人總是拒絕承認，甚至是原則上的，直接的來理解這個教導，而且熱烈的擁護對抗惡人的公義。他們是屬於極端二極化的兩群人：一群是我們的基督教保守派愛國者，他們認為他們的教會是真正的正統；另一群是我們的革命的無神論者。不論前者或是後者，都不願放棄他們以武力對抗他們所謂的邪惡的權利。甚至於他們裡面最聰明的，學識最豐富的人，都閉著眼睛，無視於這個簡單，自明的真理。這道理就是，假如我們承認一個人有權利以武力去對抗他所認為的惡人，我們就無法拒絕另一個人的權利，以武力去對抗從他的觀點認為的惡人。不久以前，我見過一則通訊，特別提到的就是這個觀點。這是一個正統Slavophil派的人和一個基督教的革命派之間的通訊；前者以被壓迫的Slavonian同胞的理由辯護戰爭的殘暴，後者則為他的被壓迫的革命同志，蘇聯的農民的名義為革命的暴力開脫。兩者都承認武力是需要的，而且兩者的理由都是基於基督的教導。

Each of us gives the doctrine of Christ an interpretation of his own, but it is never the direct and simple one that flows out of His words.

我們每個人對於基督的教導都有自己的一套解讀，但都不像來自祂的話語那樣的直接和簡潔。

We have grounded the conduct of our lives on a principle that He rejects; we do not choose to understand His teaching in its simple and direct sense. Those who call themselves ‘believers’ believe that Christ-God, the second Person of the Trinity, made Himself man in order to set us an example how to live, and they strictly fulfill the most complicated duties, such as preparing for the sacraments, building churches, sending out missionaries, naming pastors for parochial administration, etc.; they forget only one trifling circumstance – to do as He tells them. Unbelievers, on the other hand, try to regulate their lives somehow or other, but not in accordance with the law of Christ, feeling convinced beforehand that it is worthless. Nobody ever tries to fulfill His teaching. Nor is that all. Instead of making any effort to follow His commandments, both believers and unbelievers decide beforehand that to do so is impossible.

我們把我們生命的行為建構在祂所反對的一個原則；我們選擇不要去了解祂的直接了當方式的教導。那些人自稱是“信徒”，相信基督是神，三位一體神的第二位，把祂自己變成了人，為的是要給我們做個例子，要如何的活出來，而且他們很嚴格的遵行最繁瑣的義務，比如準備聖禮，蓋教堂，遣派宣教任務，任用教區治理牧師等等；他們只忽略了一個小狀況─依照祂告訴他們的去做。另一邊，不信的人，試著規範他們的生命這樣或那樣，就是不照著基督的律法去做，他們早就認為它是沒用的。沒有人甚至要試著去實踐祂的教導，還不只如此，不但不努力遵守祂的誡命，所有信徒和非信徒都事先就決定沒辦法這樣做。

Christ says that the law of resistance by violence, which you have made the basis of your lives, is unnatural and wrong; and He gives us instead the law of non-resistance, which, He tells us, can alone deliver us from evil. He says, ‘You think to eradicate evil by your human laws of violence; they only increase it. During thousands and thousands of years you have tried to annihilate evil by evil, and you have not annihilated it; you have but increased it. Follow the teaching I give you by word and deed, and you will prove its practical power.’

基督說，你們把以武力相對抗的法律，當成賴以為生的基礎，是不自然而且是錯誤的；而且祂給我們一個替代的不抵抗的律法，祂說單單這個就可以把我們從邪惡中拯救出來。祂說：「你們以為藉著人類以武力相向的律法可以撲滅惡人；它們只是使它更邪惡。在數千年當中，你們試過用邪惡來消滅邪惡，結果邪惡不但沒有被消滅反而增加了。跟從我給你們的言行教導，你們就可以證實它的實際效能。」

Not only does He speak thus, but He also remains true to His own doctrine not to resist evil in His life and in His death.

祂不只這樣說，而且祂也持續忠實於祂自己的不對抗惡人的教導，在祂的有生之年，也堅持到祂的死亡。

Believers take all this in with their ears and hear it read in churches, calling it the Word of God. They call Him God, and then they say, ‘His doctrine is sublime, but the organization of our lives renders its observance impossible; it would change the whole course of our lives, to which we are so used and with which we are so satisfied. Therefore, we believe in this doctrine only as an ideal that mankind must strive after – an ideal that is to be attained by prayer, by believing in the sacraments, in redemption, and in the resurrection of the dead.’ Others, unbelievers, the free interpreters of Christ’s doctrine, the historians of religion – Strauss, Renan, and others – adopting the interpretation of the Church, that this doctrine has no direct application to life and is only an ideal teaching that can only serve to console the weak-minded, say, very seriously, that the doctrine of Christ was all very well for the savage population of the deserts of Galilee, but that we, with our civilization, can only consider it as a lovely reverie ‘du charmant Docteur,’ as Renan calls Him. According to their opinion, Christ could not attain the height of understanding all the wisdom of our civilization and refinement. If He had stood on the same scale of civilization as these learned men, He would not have uttered those pretty trifles about the birds of the air, about letting one’s cheek be struck, and about taking no care for tomorrow. Learned historians judge Christianity according to what they see in our Christian society. Now the Christian society of our times considers our life as a good and holy one, with its institutions of solitary imprisonment, of fortresses, sweatshops, journals[4], brothels, and parliaments, while it only borrows from the doctrine of Christ what is not against these habits of life. And, as Christ’s teaching is in direct opposition to all this, nothing is taken from that teaching but its mere words. The learned historians see this, and not having the same interest in concealing the fact as the so-called believers have, they subject this, for them, meaningless doctrine of Christ to a profound analysis, argue against it, and prove on good grounds that Christianity never was anything but the dream of an idealist. And yet it seems to me that before pronouncing an opinion upon the doctrine of Christ, we ought clearly to understand what it is, and in order to decide whether His teaching is rational or not, it is necessary first of all to believe that He meant exactly what He said. This is just what neither the interpreters of the Church nor free-thinkers do, and the reason why is not hard to see.

信徒們用他們的耳朵聽了這些教導，而且在教會裡聽了又聽，讀了又讀，稱他們是神的話語(聖經)。他們稱祂是神，然後他們說：「祂的教導是崇高的，但是我們生活的體制，無法遵照這教導活出來；它將會改變我們已經很習慣和很滿足的整個的生活過程。所以，我們只相信這個教導是一個人類必須努力追求的理想─一個理想可以藉著禱告、藉著信靠聖禮、救贖，死裡復活來達成。」

We know very well that the teaching of Christ, as we have received it, embraces all the errors into which humanity has fallen, all the ‘toga,’ empty idols, the existence of which we try to justify by calling them church, government, culture, science, arts, and civilization, thinking thus to exclude them from the rank of errors. But Christ warns us against them all, without excluding any ‘toga.’

我們知道得很清楚，正如我們聽到的，基督的教導指出了所有導致人類沉淪的錯誤，所有的虛神，偶像，還有存在著我們試著辯白想要把它們排除在錯誤名單之外的教會、政府、文化、科學、藝術和文明。但是基督警告我們要反對他們全部，包括每一個虛神在內。

Not only Christ’s words, but those of all Hebrew prophets, of John the Baptist, and of all the truly wise men who have ever lived, have referred to this same church, this same government, culture, civilization, etc., calling them evils and the causes of man’s perdition.

不只是基督的話語，而且所有的那些希伯來先知們的話語，施洗約翰的話語，和所有早先的真正的有智慧的人們，都提過這相同的教會，這相同的政府，文化、文明等等，稱呼他們是邪惡而且是人類失喪淪亡的原因。

For instance, suppose an architect were to say to the owner of a house, ‘Your house is in a bad state; it must be wholly rebuilt,’ and were then to go on giving all the necessary details about the kinds of beams that would be required, how they were to be cut, and where placed. If the owner were to turn a deaf ear to the architect’s words about the ruinous condition of the house and the necessity for its being rebuilt, and were only to listen with a feigned interest to the secondary details concerning the proposed repairs, the architect’s counsels would evidently appear but so much useless talk; and if the owner happened to feel no great respect for the builder, he would call his advice foolish. This is exactly what occurs with the teaching of Christ.

I used this simile for want of a better one, and I remember that Christ, while preaching His doctrine, used one very like it. He said, ‘I will destroy your temple, and within three days I will build up another.’ He was crucified for these words. His doctrine is crucified for the same reason up to the present time.

我用這個明喩比方，因為想不到一個更好的，我記得基督在傳講祂的教導時，用了一個很像這個的明喩。祂說：「我要拆毀你們的聖殿，三天內我要蓋好另一座。」祂為了這句話被釘上十字架。祂的教導也因為相同的理由被釘上十字架直到今日。

The least that can be required of those who judge another man’s teaching is that they should take the teacher’s words in the exact sense in which he uses them. Christ does not consider His teaching as some high ideal of what mankind should be but cannot attain to, nor does He consider it as a chimerical, poetical fancy, fit only to captivate the simple-minded inhabitants of Galilee; He considers His teaching as work – a work that is to save mankind. His suffering on the cross was no dream; He groaned in agony and died for His teaching. And how many people have died, and will still die, in the same cause? Such teaching cannot be called a dream.

Every doctrine of truth is a dream for those who are in error. We have come to such a state of error that there are many among us who say, as I did myself formerly, that this doctrine of Christ is chimerical because it is incompatible with the nature of man. It is incompatible with the nature of man, they say, to turn the other cheek when he has been struck; it is incompatible with the nature of man to give up his property to another – to work, not for himself, but for others. It is natural to man, they say, to protect himself, his own safety, that of his family, and his property – in other words, it is the nature of man to struggle for life. Learned lawyers prove scientifically that the most sacred duty of a man is to protect his rights – i.e., to struggle.

We need only for one moment to cast aside the idea that the present organization of our lives, as established by man, is the best and most sacred, and then the argument that the teaching of Christ is incompatible with human nature immediately turns against the arguer. Who will deny that it is repugnant and harrowing to a man’s feelings to torture or kill, not only a man, but also even a dog, a hen, or a calf? I have known men, living by agricultural labor, who have ceased entirely to eat meat only because they had to kill their own cattle. And yet our lives are so organized that for one individual to obtain any advantage in life another must suffer, which is against human nature. The whole organization of our lives, the complicated mechanism of our institutions, whose sole object is violence, are but proofs of the degree to which violence is repugnant to human nature. No judge will ever undertake to strangle with his own hands the man whom he has condemned to death. No magistrate will himself drag a peasant from his weeping family in order to shut him up in prison. Not a single general, not a single soldier, would kill hundreds of Turks or Germans, and devastate their villages – no, not one of them would consent to wound a single man, were it not in war, and in obedience to discipline and the oath of allegiance. Cruelty is only exercised (thanks to our complicated social machinery) when it can be so divided among a number that none shall bear the sole responsibility, or recognize how unnatural all cruelty is. Some make laws, others apply them; others, again, drill their fellow-creatures into habits of discipline – i.e., of senseless passive obedience; and these same disciplined men, in their turn, do violence to others – killing without knowing why or wherefore. But let a man even for a moment shake off in thought the net of worldly institutions that so ensnares him, and he will see what is really incompatible with his nature.

If once we cease to affirm that the evil we are so used to, and profit by, is an immutable divine truth, we may see clearly which is the more natural to man – violence, or the law of Christ. Which is better – to know that the comfort and safety of my family and myself, all my joys and pleasures, are obtained at the price of the misery, depravity, and suffering of millions, by yearly executions, by hundreds of thousands of suffering prisoners, and by millions of soldiers, policemen and sergeants (урядниковъ) torn from their homes and half stupefied by military discipline, who protect my idle pleasures by keeping starving men at a distance with their loaded pistols[5]; to know that every dainty morsel I put into my mouth, or give my children, is obtained at the price of all this suffering, which is inevitable, in order to obtain these dainties; or to know that my fare is my own, that nobody suffers for the want of it, and that nobody has suffered in procuring it for me?

It is sufficient to comprehend, once and for all, that, in our present organization of life, every joy and every moment of peace is bought at the cost of the privations and sufferings of thousands, who are only restrained by violence, in order to see clearly what is natural to man; i.e., not only to the animal nature of man, but to his rational nature as well. It is sufficient to understand the doctrine of Christ in all its high significance and with all the consequences it entails, to see that it is not inconsistent with human nature, but that, on the contrary, His whole doctrine throws aside what is inconsistent with human nature – the delusive human teaching of resistance of evil, which is the chief cause of all human misery.

The doctrine of Christ, which teaches us not to resist evil is – a dream! But the sight of men in whose breasts love and pity are innate, spending their lives in burning their brethren at the stake, scourging them, breaking them on the wheel, lashing, slitting their nostrils, putting them to the rack, keeping them fettered, sending them to the galleys or the gallows, shooting them, condemning to solitary confinement, imprisoning women and children, organizing the slaughter of tens of thousands by war, bringing about periodical revolutions and rebellions, the sight of others passively fulfilling these atrocities, the sight of others again writhing under these tortures or avenging them – this is no dream!

When once we clearly understand the teaching of Christ, we see that it is not the world given by God to man for his happiness that is a dream, but the world such as men have made it for their own destruction that is a wild terrifying dream – the delirium of a madman – a dream from which it is enough to awake once, never to return to it.

God came down from heaven – the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity – and became man to redeem us from the punishment entailed by the sin of Adam. We think that this God must speak in some mysterious, mystical way, difficult to be understood; indeed, that His Word can only be understood through faith and God’s grace; and yet God’s words are so simple and so clear. He says, ‘Do no evil to each other, and there will be no evil.’ Is it possible that the revelation of God is so simple? Can this be all? All this is so familiar to us.

神從天上降臨到人間─神子，三一神的第二位─變成了人來救贖我 們因著亞當的犯罪而惹起的刑罰。我們以為這位神一定是用神秘的方式，說神秘的事，很難理解；確實，祂的話語只能藉著信心和神的恩典才能明白；然而神的話語是如此簡單如此的清楚；祂說：「不要以邪惡來互相對付，就不再有邪惡了。」有可能神的啟示是如此簡單嗎？就只有這樣嗎？這所有都是我們所熟悉的。

The prophet Elijah, having fled from the hunts of men and concealed himself in a rock, had it revealed to him that he should see God at the entrance of the cavern. A tempest arose – the trees were rent asunder. Elijah thought God was there and looked, but God was not there. The earth quaked, fire issued out of it, the rock was split in two, and the mountains fell. Elijah looked, but God was not there. Then all grew still and calm, and a light breeze wafted the fragrance of the freshened fields toward him. Elijah looked, and God was there! It is thus with the simple words of God, ‘Do not resist evil.’

先知以利亞，逃脫了人們的搜尋，藏匿在石縫中，一個啟示臨到他，他應該會在洞穴的進口處見到神。括過了一鎮暴風雨─樹木被吹得東倒西歪。以利亞想，神可能在那裡，尋找了，但是神不在那裡。

They are very simple, but they contain in themselves the sole and eternal law of God and man. This law is eternal, and if in history we find any progress made toward the annihilation of evil, it is due to those who truly understood the doctrine of Christ, who suffered evil without resisting by violence. The progression of mankind toward good is brought about by martyrdom, not by tyranny. Fire cannot extinguish fire, no more than evil can extirpate evil. Good, meeting with evil and remaining untainted by it, can alone conquer evil. There is a law in the heart of each man that is as immutable as the law of Galileo – still more immutable. Men may turn aside from it or conceal it from others; nevertheless it is the only path that leads to true happiness. Each step that has brought us nearer to this great end was taken in the name of the doctrine of Christ: ‘Do not resist evil.’ It is with greater confidence even than Galileo that the follower of Christ can say, in defiance of all the temptations around him and the threats held out to him, ‘It is not by violence but by doing good that you will eradicate evil.’ And if the progress is made slowly, it is only because the clarity, simplicity, and rationality of the teaching of Christ and its inevitable absolute necessity are concealed from the eyes of men in the most crafty and dangerous manner; concealed under a spurious teaching, falsely called His.