What I Believe / Chapter 5
by Leo Tolstoy
Everything
tended to convince me that I had now found the true interpretation of Christ’s
doctrine. But it was a long while before I could get used to the strange
thought that after so many men had professed the doctrine of Christ during
1,800 years, and had devoted their lives to the study of His teachings, it was
given to me to discover His doctrine as something altogether new. It seemed
strange, nevertheless so it was. Christ’s doctrine of ‘non-resistance’ seemed
to rise before me as something hitherto unknown and unfamiliar to me. And I
asked myself how this could be. Had some false conception of Christ’s doctrine
prevented my understanding it?
每樣事都像在說服我，我現在已經找到真正的基督的教導的解說。只是要我能習慣這個奇怪的想法還要一段長的時間，在有如此多的人在1,800年中間宣稱基督的教導，而且奉獻他們生命來研究祂的教導以後，現在交到我身上來發現祂的教導像是個完全新的東西。這似乎很奇怪，但它是如此。基督的“不抵抗”的教導出現在我的眼前，就像一個至今對我來講是完全不認識、沒見過的東西。我自問，怎麼可能如此？是不是有某些對基督的教導的錯誤觀念使我無法了解它？
When I
first began to read the gospel I was not in the position of one who heard the
teaching of Christ for the first time. I already had a complete theory
concerning the sense in which it was to be taken. Christ did not appear to me
as a prophet, come to reveal the law of God to man, but rather as an expounder
and amplifier of the indubitable divine law well known to me. I already
possessed a complete, definite, and very complicated doctrine concerning God
and the creation of the world and of man, as well as concerning the
commandments of God, as transmitted to us through Moses.
當我第一次開始讀福音書時，我並不是個第一次才聽到基督的教導的人。我已經有一個關於我所要讀到的道理的完整理論。我不覺得基督是來把神的律法啟示給人的先知，倒像是一位對我仔細闡述和發揚光大毫無懷疑的神的律法的傳授者。我早已有了一個完全、確切和很複雜的有關神和世界與人的創造的教導，就是經由摩西傳留給我們的。
In the
gospel I found the words, ‘You have been told, “An eye for and eye, and a tooth
for a tooth,” but I say to you, do not resist evil.’ The precept, ‘An eye for
an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,’ was the commandment given by God to Moses.
The precept, ‘I say to you, do not resist evil,’ was a new commandment that
reversed the first.
在福音書裡，我找到了這些話語「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。」這個教訓“以眼還眼，以牙還牙。”是神給摩西的誡命。這個教訓“我告訴你們，不要對抗惡人。”是一個和前面完全相反的新的誡命。
Had I
considered the doctrine of Christ simply, without the theological theory I had
imbibed from my earliest childhood, I should have understood the true sense of these
simple words. I should have seen that Christ sets aside the old law and gives a
new one. But it had been instilled into me that Christ did not reject the Law
of Moses – that, on the contrary, he confirmed it to the least jot and tittle,
and amplified it. The seventeenth and eighteenth verses of the fifth chapter of
St. Matthew, which seem to confirm that assertion, had, in my former studies of
the gospel, struck me by their obscurity, and had raised doubts in my mind.
假如我只有考慮基督的教導，而不考慮到我自小吸收的神學理論，我應該已經了解這些簡單字句的真正道理。我應該已經看到基督把老的律法擺一邊而給了一個新的律法。但是這個基督不拒絕摩西律法的觀念已經被灌輸到我裡面─相反的，祂替它的一點一畫都背書，還要發揚光大。馬太福音第5章17~18節像是確認這個說法，在我過去研究福音書時，因為它們的含含糊糊，在我的內心引起了懷疑。
On reading
the Old Testament, especially the last books of Moses, in which so many
trivial, useless, and even cruel laws are laid down, each preceded by the
words, ‘And God said to Moses,’ it seemed passing strange to me that; His doing
so seemed incomprehensible. But I then left the problem unsolved. I blindly
believed the teaching of my childhood: that these commandments were inspired by
the Holy Ghost, that they were in perfect harmony with each other, that Christ
confirmed the Law of Moses, and that He amplified and completed it. I could,
indeed, never clearly explain to myself wherein the amplification lay, nor how
the striking opposition, so obvious to all, between the verses 17-20 and the
words ‘but I say to you’ could be harmonized. But when I at last really
understood the clear and simple meaning of Christ’s doctrine, I saw that these
two commandments were in direct opposition to each other; that there could be
no question of harmony between them, or of the one being an amplification of
the other; that it was necessary to accept either the one or the other, and
that the interpretation of verses 17-20 of the fifth chapter of St. Matthew,
which, as I have already said, had struck me by their want of clarity, was
erroneous.
在讀舊約時，特別是摩西的最後一本書(申命記)，裡面列出了許多瑣碎的、沒用的、甚至是殘酷的律法，每句話前面都寫著“神曉諭摩西，”這使我覺得奇怪，神的這個作為使我們難以理解。但是那時對這個沒有解答的問題我就跳過去了。我盲目的相信我的童年的教導：這些誡命是來自聖靈的感動，它們相互間是完全的協和一致，而且基督也確認了這個摩西律法，祂要將它發揚光大而且實踐完成。實際上，我可以從不對我自己清楚的解釋，到底是要在哪裡發揚光大，也可以忽視如此強烈的，有目共睹的反對態度，就在17~18節和“但是我告訴你們”之間要如何的能和協一致。但是最後，當我真正的明白基督的教導的清楚簡明的意義以後，我看到了摩西和基督這兩個誡命相互間是不同方向；必須是選這個或是選那個，而且對馬太福音第5章17~20節使我覺得不清不楚的解讀，正如我已經說過的，是錯誤的。
On a second
reading of the same verses 17-20, which had seemed so unintelligible to me,
their meaning flashed full upon me.
第二次一讀到同樣的17~20的章節，原來對我來說是如此的不能理解的，他們的意義像閃光般照亮了我全身。
This again
was not the result of my having discovered anything new, or having made any
alteration of the words; it was due solely to my having cast aside the false
interpretation that had been given to them.
同樣的，再一次並非因為我有任何的新發現，或這話語曾被作了任何的改變；只是因為我拋棄了以前教我的錯誤的解讀。
Christ says
(Matthew 5:17 -18), ‘Do not think that I have come to destroy the
law or (the teaching of) the prophets. I have not come to destroy, but
to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle (the least particle) shall in no way pass from the
law, until all is fulfilled.’
基督說(馬太5:17~18)：「不要以為我來要廢掉律法和先知(的教導)。我來不是要廢掉，乃是要成全。我實在告訴你們，就是到天地都廢去了，律法的一點一畫(最小的筆劃)也不能廢去，都要成全。」
And (verse
20) he adds, ‘Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the
scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven.’
祂繼續說(馬太20)：「我告訴你們，你們的義若不勝於文士和法利賽人的義，斷不能進天國。」
Christ
means by these words, ‘I have not come to destroy the eternal law, for the
fulfillment of which your books and prophecies are written; but I have come to
teach you how to fulfill that eternal law. I do not speak of the law that your
teachers, the Pharisees, call the law of God, but of the eternal law, which is
less liable to change than heaven and earth.’
基督的這些話意味著：“我並不是要來廢掉永恆的律法。乃是要成全你們的律法書和先知的預言所寫的; 只是我要來教你們如何來成全永恆的律法。我所講的不是你們的教師們(法利賽人)所謂的神的律法，而是比天地都不易改變的永恆的律法。”
I here give
the meaning of the text in other words, solely for the purpose of drawing the
mind away from the incorrect interpretation usually offered. If this incorrect
interpretation did not exist, we should see that the idea of Christ could not
be better or more definitely expressed than by these words.
我在這裡用其他的字眼來解釋這段文字，全然是為了把心思意念從通常所給的不正確的解讀引開來。假如這些不正確的解讀並不存在，我們應該可以看到基督的心思，沒有其他的方式能比用這些字眼有更好或更明確的表示。
The
interpretation that Christ does not reject the Mosaic Law is based on the fact
that in this passage, without any ostensible reason (except the comparison of
the jot of the written law) and contrary to the true sense, the word ‘ law’ is
treated as meaning the ‘written law,’ and not the eternal law. But Christ does
not speak here of the written law. If Christ, in this passage, had spoken of
the written law, He would have used the words ‘the law and the prophets,’ as He
always does in speaking of the written law; but He uses a very different
expression: ‘the law or the prophets.’ Had Christ meant to speak of the written
law, He would have used the words ‘the law and the prophets’ in the next verse,
which is but the continuation of the preceding one; but there He uses the word
‘law’ alone.
基督沒有拒絕摩西律法的解說，是根據這個事實─在這個章節裡，不考慮任何表面上的理由(除了比較律法書裡的一點一撇)，還有真正的道理的對立，這個字眼“律法”是當成“寫下的律法”而言，而不是永恆律。但是基督在這裡不是在談寫下的律法。假如基督在這個章節裡，提到了寫下的律法，祂將會用這些字眼“律法和先知們”正如祂經常在提到寫下的律法時那樣；但是祂用了一個很不同的表達：“律法或先知們”。假若基督是要提到寫下的律法，祂將會用這些字眼“律法和先知們”在下一個章節，那是上一節的繼續；但是在那兒，祂只用了“律法”一個字。
Moreover we
find, in the gospel according to St. Luke, that Christ uses the same words in a
manner that leaves no doubt as to their true meaning (Luke 16:15). Christ says
to the Pharisees, who thought to justify themselves by the written law, ‘You
are those who justify themselves before men; but God knows your hearts, for that
which is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God. The
law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God
還有我們發現在路加福音裡(路加16:15)，基督用了同樣的字眼的方式，使我們絕無懷疑他們的真正含義。基督對一個想從寫下的律法裡對他們的行為自圓其說的法利賽人說：「你們是在人面前自稱為義的，但是神卻知道你們的心；因為人所尊貴的，是神看為可憎惡的。律法和先知到約翰為止。從此神國的福音傳開了，人人努力要進去。」
緊接著，在17節裡，我們讀到：「天地廢去，比律法的一點一畫落空還容易。」這些字眼“律法和先知到約翰為止，”廢止了寫下的律法。這些字眼“天地廢去，比律法的一點一畫落空還容易，” 確認了永恆的律法。在第一部分的文字裡，基督提到“律法和先知們”就是指寫下的律法；在第二部分，祂只用了“律法”一個字，就是指永恆的律法。所以很明顯的，永恆的律法在這裡是擺在對寫下的律法的相反的地位，而且完全一樣的發生在馬太福音的上下文裡，在那裡，永恆的律法表達在“律法或先知們”的字句裡。
The history
of the different renderings of this text (v.17-18) is very curious. In most of
the transcripts the word ‘law’ is not followed by the words ‘and the prophets.’
In this case there can be no doubt of its signifying ‘the eternal law.’ In
other transcripts, as, for instance, in those of Tischendorf and the canonical
transcripts, the word ‘prophets’ is added – not with the conjunction and, but
with the disjunctive or – ‘the law or the prophets,’ which likewise excludes
the meaning of ‘the written law,’ and confirms
that of the ‘eternal law.’
In some
transcripts again, which are not adopted by the Church, we find the word
‘prophets’ preceded by the conjunction and, and not by or; in these
transcripts, after the repetition of the word ‘law,’ the words ‘and the
prophets’ are again added. Thus the meaning given to the whole saying, by this
remodeling, is that Christ’s words refer only to the written law.
These
variations give us the history of the various interpretations to which this
passage has been subjected. One point is obvious: Christ speaks here, as He
does in the gospel according to St. Luke, of the eternal law; but we find men
among the transcribers of the gospels who have added the words ‘and the
prophets’ to the word ‘law,’ with the design of rendering the Mosaic Law
obligatory, and have thus altered the sense of the text.
Other
Christians, again, who reject the Mosaic Law, either leave out the word
completely, or substitute the word η (or), for the word και (and). And thus the
passage enters the canon with the disjunctive or. Yet though the text adopted
by the canon is so indubitably clear, our canonical commentators continue to
expound on the passage in the spirit of the alterations that have not been
adopted.
Countless
commentators have treated this passage, and as the expounder agrees less with
the simple, direct sense of the doctrine of Christ, the further his commentary
must necessarily be from the true sense of that doctrine. The majority of
expounders retain the apocryphal sense, which the text rejects.
In order to
be convinced that Christ speaks in this verse only of the eternal law, it will
suffice to fully understand the word that has given rise to these false interpretations.
In Russian, it is ‘законъ’ (law); in Greek νομος; in Hebrew, ‘tora.’ This word
has two principal meanings in the Russian, Greek, and Hebrew languages: the
one, the unexpressed, unwritten law; the other, the written expression of what
certain men call the law. Indeed, the difference exists in all languages.
In Greek,
in the epistles of Paul, the difference is sometimes marked by the use of the
article. In speaking of the written law, the apostle omits the article before
the word law, and when he speaks of the eternal law, the article is prefixed.
The ancient
Hebrews, the prophets, and Isaiah always use the word ‘tora’ (the law) to
indicate the eternal, unwritten, but revealed law of God. This same word ‘tora’
(the law) was first used by Ezra, and later we find it in the Talmud, as
signifying the five books of Moses, which bear the general title of ‘tora’ in
the same sense as our word ‘Bible,’ with this difference, however, that we
distinguish the Bible from the law of God by two different denominations, while
in the Hebrew language there is but one word for both.
Therefore
Christ, using the word ‘tora,’ takes it in the two different accepted meanings
of the word – either confirming it, as Isaiah and the other prophets do, in the
sense of the law of God, which is eternal, or rejecting it, when He refers to
the Mosaic Law. But in order to make a distinction between the different
meanings of the word, he always adds ‘and the prophets,’ and the pronoun
‘your,’ in speaking of the written law.
When Christ
says, ‘As you would want men to treat you, also treat them likewise; this is
the whole law and the prophets,’ He refers to the written law. He tells us that
the whole written law may be reduced to this sole expression of the eternal
law; and, by these His words, He annuls the written law.
When He
says (Luke 16:16 ), ‘The law and the prophets until John the Baptist,’ He
refers to the written law, and by these words asserts that it is no longer
obligatory.
When He
says (John 7:19), ‘Didn’t Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keeps the
law?’ or (John 8:17), ‘Isn’t it said in your law?’ or again (John 15:25), ‘The
word that is written in their law,’ He refers to the written law – the law that
He rejects – the law by which He was, soon after, sentenced to death. John
19:7: ‘The Jews answered Him, “We have a law, and by our law He ought to die”.’
It is obvious that this law of the Hebrews, by which Christ Himself was
sentenced to death, was not the law that He taught. But when Christ says, ‘I
come, not to destroy the law, but to teach you to fulfill it, for nothing can
be altered in the law, but all must be fulfilled,’ He does not speak of the
written law, but of the divine, eternal law.
It may be
said that these proofs are controvertible; that I have skillfully assorted the
contexts, and have carefully concealed all that could contradict my
interpretation; that the commentaries given by the Church are very clear and
convincing, and that Christ did not destroy the Law of Moses, but that He left
it in full force. Let us suppose this to be the case. What, then, does Christ
teach?
According
to the commentaries of the Church, He taught men that He was the Second Person
of the Trinity, the Son of God the Father, and that He had come down from
heaven to redeem mankind from the sin of Adam. But whoever has read the gospel
knows that Christ says nothing of this, or, at least, alludes to it in very
ambiguous terms; the passages in which Christ speaks of Himself as being the
Second Person of the Trinity, and of His redeeming mankind, are the shortest
and least perspicuous in the gospels. In what, then, does the rest of Christ’s
teaching consist?
It is
impossible to deny, what all Christians have always acknowledged, that the main
point in Christ’s doctrine consists in His rules of life – how men are to live
together. Now, if we admit that Christ taught a new system of life, we must
form some definite idea of the men among whom He taught.
Take, for
instance, the Russians, the English, the Chinese, the Hindus, or even any wild
insular tribe, and you will be sure to find that they all have their own rules
of life, their own laws; and that no teacher could introduce new laws of life
without destroying the former ones; he could not teach without infringing them.
Such would be the case everywhere. The teacher would inevitably have to begin
by destroying our laws, which have grown precious and almost sacred in our
eyes.
Perhaps in
our days it might happen that the teacher of a new doctrine of life would only
destroy our civil laws, our government, and our customs without interfering
with the laws that we call divine, though this is hardly probable. But the
Hebrews had only one law – a divine law that embraced life in its minutest
details. What could a preacher teach them if he began by declaring that the
entire law of the people to whom he preached was inviolable?
But let us
assume that this is not regarded as a proof. Then let those who assert that
Christ’s words confirm the Mosaic Law explain to themselves who they were whom
Christ denounced during His whole life; who did He speak against, calling them
Pharisees, lawyers, and scribes? Who was it that refused to follow the doctrine
of Christ, and crucified Him?
If Christ
acknowledged the Mosaic Law, where were the true followers of the law, whom
Christ must have approved of? Is there a single one? We are told that the
Pharisees were a sect. The Hebrews do not say so. They call the Pharisees the
true fulfillers of the law. But let us suppose they were a sect. The Sadducees
were also a sect. Where, then, were the true believers – those who did not
belong to any sect?
In the
gospel according to St. John
Christ
says, ‘I did not come to call the righteous to repentance,’ to a change of
life, μετανοια, ‘but sinners.’ Where were the righteous, and who were they?
Surely Nicodemus was not the only one? And even Nicodemus is described as being
a good man, but one who had gone astray.
We have
grown so used to the singular interpretation given to us, that the Pharisees
and some wicked Hebrews crucified Christ, that the simple question never occurs
to us, ‘Where were the true Hebrews, who kept the law and who were neither
Pharisees nor wicked men?’ No sooner does the question arise than all grows
clear. Christ, be He God or man, brought His doctrine to a people who already
had a law that gave them definite rules of life, and which they called the law
of God. In what light could Christ have considered that law?
Every
prophet – teacher of a faith – on revealing the law of God to a people, will
find that they already possess a law that they consider as the divine law, and
he cannot avoid a twofold application of the word, as referring either to what
men wrongly consider the law of God (your law) or as referring to the true
eternal law of God. Moreover, not only is the preacher of the new doctrine
unable to avoid the two-fold use of the word, but it often happens that he does
not even endeavor to do so, and purposely unites both ideas, in order to point
out that the law confessed by those he tries to convert, though defective as a
whole, is not devoid of some divine truths. And it is just these truths, so
familiar to his hearers, which every preacher will take as the basis of his
preaching. Christ does so in addressing the Hebrews, who have the same word
‘tora’ for both laws. Referring to the Mosaic Law, and more often still to the
prophets, especially the prophet Isaiah, whom he often quotes, Christ
acknowledges that in the Hebrew law, and in the prophets, there are eternal
truths, divine truths, which coincide with the eternal law; and He bases His
doctrine upon them, as for instance in the saying ‘Love God and your neighbor.’
Christ
expresses this idea on many occasions, e.g., Luke 10:26: ‘What is written in
the law? How do you read it?’ We may find the eternal truth in the law, if we
can read. And He points out more than once that the precept contained in their
law of love to God and their neighbor was a precept of the eternal law.
After the
parables by which he explains His doctrine to His disciples, Christ says, as if
in reference to all that had preceded, ‘Therefore every scribe (i.e. every man
who can read and has been taught the truth) is like a householder who brings
forth out of his treasure (indiscriminately) things old and new.’ (Matthew
13:52)
It is thus
that St. Irenaus understands these words, and so does the Church, and yet,
arbitrarily transgressing the true sense of the saying, they attribute to these
words the meaning that the whole ancient law is sacred. The obvious meaning of
the text is that he who seeks for what is good, takes not only what is new, but
what is old too, and that its being old is not a sufficient reason for throwing
it aside. Christ means, by this saying, that He does not deny what is eternal
in the ancient law. But when questioned concerning the law or its forms, He
says, ‘We do not pour new wine into old bottles.’ Christ could not confirm the
whole law, neither could He completely deny the law and the prophets; He could
neither deny the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ nor the
prophets, in whose word He often clothes His thought.
And so,
instead of our understanding these clear and simple words as they were said,
and in the sense that the whole doctrine of Christ confirms, an obscure
interpretation is given to us, which introduces inconsistency where there is
none, and thus destroys the true sense of the doctrine, leaving nothing but
words, and in reality re-establishing the Mosaic teaching with all its
barbarous cruelty.
According
to the commentaries of the Church, and those of the fifth century in
particular, Christ did not destroy the written law, but confirmed it. But we
are not told how He confirmed it, or how the law of Christ and the Mosaic Law
can be supposed to be united into one. We find nothing in these commentaries
but a play upon words. We are told that Christ kept the Mosaic Law by the
prophecies concerning Himself being fulfilled; and that Christ fulfilled the
law through us, through the faith of men in Him. No effort is made to solve the
only question that is of essential importance to every believer: how these two
contradictory laws, referring to life, can be united into one. The
inconsistency of the text, which says that Christ does not destroy the law,
with the one in which we read, ‘It has been said…but I say to you,’ (indeed the
contradiction between the whole spirit of the Mosaic Law and the doctrine of
Christ) remains in all its force.
Let
everyone who is interested in this question examine for himself the
commentaries on this passage given to us by the Church, beginning from John
Chrysostom to the present time. It is only after having read these that he will
see clearly not only that no explanation of the contradiction is given, but
also that a contradiction has been skillfully inserted where there was none
before. The impossible attempts at uniting what cannot be united are clear
proof that this was not an involuntary mental error, but was effected with some
definite purpose in view; that it was found necessary; and the cause of its
having been found necessary is obvious.
Let us see
what John Chrysostom says in answer to those who reject the Mosaic Law
(Commentary of the gospel according to St. Matthew, vol. 1, pp. 320, 321).
‘On examining the ancient law that
enjoins us to take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, the objection is
raised, ‘How can He who speaks thus be righteous? What answer can we give?’
Why, that it is, on the contrary, the best token of God’s love toward man. It
was not that we should really take an eye for an eye that He gave us this law,
but that we should avoid wronging others for fear of suffering the same at
their hands. As, for instance, when threatening the Ninevites with destruction,
His desire was not to destroy them (had He indeed decreed their destruction He
would not have spoken of it); His purpose was only, by His menaces, to induce
them to amend their lives and, by so doing, turn His wrath aside. Thus likewise
the hot-tempered, who are ready to put out their neighbors’ eyes, are
threatened with punishment for the sole purpose of making their fears of
punishment restrain them from injuring their fellow-creatures. If this is
cruelty, there is cruelty likewise in the commandment that forbids murder, or
the one that interdicts adultery. But such an argument would only prove a man
to have reached the last stage of madness. And I so dread calling these
commandments cruel, that I should rather be inclined to consider a contrary law
as wrong, according to plain common sense. You call God cruel because He has
enjoined taking an eye for an eye; but I say that many would have had a greater
right to call Him cruel, as you do, had He not given this commandment.’
John
Chrysostom plainly acknowledges the law of a tooth for a tooth to be the divine
law, and the reverse of that law – i.e. Christ’s doctrine of non-resistance –
to be wrong.
Pages 322,
323: ‘Let us suppose that the law is entirely cast aside,’ says John Chrysostom
further, ‘that all fear of promised punishment is done away with, that the
wicked are left to live according to their inclinations, without fear of
punishment – adulterers, murderers, thieves, and perjurers. Wouldn’t all be
overthrown; wouldn’t houses, marketplaces, cities, lands, seas, and the whole
universe be full of iniquity? This is obvious. For if even the existence of
laws, fear and threats of punishment, can hardly keep the evil intentioned with
bounds, what would there then be to restrain men from evil deeds, if all
obstacles were removed? What disasters would then rush in torrents into the
lives of men! Cruelty does not lie in leaving the wicked free to act as they
please, but in letting the innocent man suffer without defending him. If a man
were to collect a crowd of miscreants around him, and having furnished them
with weapons, were to send them forth into the town to kill all those they met
in the streets, could anything be more barbarous? And if another were to bind
these armed men and imprison them, releasing the victims these miscreants had
threatened with death, could anything be more humane?’
But John
Chrysostom does not tell us by what the other is to be guided in his definition
of the wicked. May he not himself be a wicked man, and imprison the good?
‘Now apply this example to the law.
He who gave the commandment, “an eye for an eye” has bound the minds of the
wicked in chains of fear, and may be compared to the man who bound the
miscreants; but if no punishment were appointed for criminals, would it not be
arming them with the weapons of fearlessness, and acting like him who gave
weapons to the miscreants, and sent them forth into the town?’
If John
Chrysostom does acknowledge the doctrine of Christ, he ought to have told us
who is to take an ‘eye for an eye,’ or a ‘tooth for a tooth,’ and cast into
prison. If He who gave the commandment, that is, God Himself, were to inflict
the threatened punishment, there would be no inconsistency; but it must be done
by men, the men who were forbidden to do so by the Son of God. God said, ‘An
eye of an eye.’ The Son says, ‘Do not act thus.’ One of the two commandments
must be acknowledged as just. John Chrysostom and the Church follow the
commandments of the Father – i.e., the Mosaic Law – and reject the commandments
of the Son, while ostensibly professing His doctrine.
Christ
rejects the Mosaic Law, and gives His own in its stead. For him who believes in
Christ there is no contradiction. He pays no heed to the Mosaic Law, believes
in Christ’s doctrine, and fulfills it. Neither is there any contradiction for
him who believes in the Mosaic Law. The Hebrews do not consider the words of
Christ valid, and they believe in the Mosaic Law. There is a contradiction only
for those who, while choosing to live according to the Mosaic Law, try to
persuade themselves and others that they believe in the doctrine of the Christ;
only for those whom Christ calls, ‘You hypocrites, you generation of vipers.’
Instead of
acknowledging one of the two – either the Mosaic Law or the doctrine of Christ
– we say that both are divine truths.
But no
sooner does the question touch upon life itself, than the doctrine of Christ is
straightway cast aside, and the Mosaic Law is acknowledged.
If we
examine this false interpretation closely, we shall see in it one phase of the
awful struggle between good and evil, light and darkness.
Christ
appears amidst the Hebrews, who were entangled in countless minute rules, laid
down by their Levites, and called by them the divine law, each of which was
preceded by the words, ‘And God said to Moses.’
Not only
the relations in which man stands to God, but the sacrifices, feast days,
fasts, the relations between men – public, civil, and family relations – all
the details of private life, circumcision, ablution of themselves and their
cups, their clothes, all – even in the most trifling details – were encompassed
by rules, and these were acknowledged as the commandments of God, the law of
God. What could a prophet do – I do not say Christ-God – but what could a
prophet, a teacher do, when teaching such a people, without first destroying
the obligations of a law by which everything, down to the smallest detail of
life, was thus regulated? Christ does what any other prophet would do. He takes
from the old law, considered by the people as divine, what is truly the law of
God. He takes the basic principles, setting all the rest aside, and He adds to
it His own revelation of the eternal law. Though all need not be cast aside, a
law that is considered obligatory in all its minutest details must inevitably
be violated. This is what Christ does, and He is accused of destroying the law
of God; and He is crucified for this. But His teaching remains among His disciples,
and passes on to other peoples. Yet, in the course of ages, and among the new
peoples who receive Christ’s truth, the same human interpretations and
explanations shoot up. Again the shallow precepts of man appear in place of the
divine revelation. Instead of the words, ‘And God said to Moses,’ we now read,
‘By the revelation of the Holy Spirit.’ Again the letter rather than the spirit
of the doctrine is preferred. It is a striking fact that the doctrine of Christ
is united to all this ‘tora,’ which He rejected. This ‘tora’ is said to be the
revelation of the Spirit of Truth – i.e., of the Holy Ghost – and so Christ is
taken in the meshes of His own revelation.
And now,
after 1800 years, the strange duty has fallen to my lot to discover the sense
of Christ’s doctrine as something new.
It was no
small discovery that I had to make. I had to do what all those who seek to know
God and His law have to do: to find out the eternal law of God from amidst the
precepts that men call His law.
No comments:
Post a Comment