The translation any one knowing Greek would make is this: TraptKTos — besides, Aoyov — the sin, Tropvecas — of dissoluteness, Troizi — he causes, avrrjv — her, p.oLxa(r6cu — to commit adultery; and the result is, word for word: ‘ he who puts away his wife, besides the sin of dissolute- ness, causes her to commit adultery.’
The same sense is found in ch. xix. One need but correct the erroneous translation of the word? ro/Wa, and replace the word 4 forni- THE FIVE COMMANDMENTS 199 cation 5 by the word ‘dissoluteness,’ for it to become plain that the words: et pyj iirl iropvda cannot refer to the wife. And as the words 7rapeKTos \6yov 7ropveia9 can only mean 4 besides the husband’s sin of dissoluteness,’ so the words d ixT] €7 rt n-opvda in ch. xix. can only refer to the husband’s dissoluteness. The words are — d prj hr\ iropvda, word for word: 4 if not from dissoluteness.’ And this mean- ing appears: that Christ, replying in this passage to the belief of the Pharisees, who supposed that if a man left his wife, not to live dissolutely but in order to marry another woman, he was not committing adultery — - Christ says that the leaving of one’s wife, i.e. the cessation of marital relations with her, even if not occasioned by dissoluteness, but done for the sake of marriage-union with another, is also adultery. And a plain meaning results which accords with the whole teaching, I with the context, with the grammar, and with logic.
And this clear and simple meaning, flowing from the words themselves and from the whole I teaching, I had to discover with the greatest ■ difficulty. Indeed, read the verse in German or in French, where it is plainly said pour 1 cause d’infidelite, and, d moins que cela ne soil pour cause d'infidelite, and can you guess that it means something quite different? The word TrapeKTo?, which in all the dictionaries means excepte, ausgenommen, besides, is trans- Ilated by a whole sentence — d moins que cela ne soil; the word 7ropmas is translated infidelite, WHAT I BELIEVE Ehebruch, fornication. And on this intentional perversion of the text rests an interpretation which infringes the moral, religious, gramma- tical, and logical sense of Christ’s words.
Again I was confirmed in the terrible but joyful truth that the meaning of Christ’s teach- ing is plain and simple and its statements are important, but that interpretations of it, based on a wish to justify existing evil, have so ob- scured it that it has to be rediscovered with diffi- culty.. It became plain to me that if the Gospels had been discovered half burnt or obliterated it w ould have been easier to recover their meaning than it is now, when dishonest interpretations have been applied to them with the direct pur- pose of perverting and hiding the meaning of the teaching. In this case it was still plainer than in the former that some private aim of justifying the divorce of some Ivan the Terrible had been the reason for obscuring the whole doctrine of marriage.
As soon as one rejects the commentaries, in place of what was obscure and indefinite the definite and clear second commandment of Christ reveals itself.
Do not make the desire for sexual relations into an amusement; let every man, if he is not a eunuch — that is, if he needs sexual relations — have a wife, and each wife a husband, and let the husband have only one wife and the wife only one husband, and under no pretext infringe the sexual union of one with the other.
Immediately after the second commandment THE FIVE COMMANDMENTS 201 comes again a reference to the ancient law, and the third commandment is set forth (Matt. v. 33-7): ‘ Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths [Lev. xix. 12; Deut. xxiii. 21]: but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God's throne: nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusa- lem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But your speech shall be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one/ This passage, when I had read it before, had always perplexed me. It did so, not (as did the passage about divorce) by its obscurity, nor by contradicting other passages (as did the sanc- tion of anger with a cause), nor by the difficulty I of fulfilling it (as with the passage about offering the other cheek); on the contrary, it perplexed me by its clearness, simplicity, and ease. Side by side with rules, the profundity and im- portance of which terrified and touched me, , one suddenly found such an unnecessary, empty, easy rule, which was of no consequence to me or to others. As it was, I swore neither by Jerusalem, nor by God, nor by anything else, and it cost me no effort to abstain: besides which, it seemed to me that whether I swore or not could have no importance to any one. And wishing Ito find an explanation of this rule, which per- plexed me by its ease, I turned to the inter- 202 WHAT I BELIEVE preters; and this time the interpreters really helped me.
They all see in these words a confirmation of the third commandment of Moses — not to swear by the name of God. They explain these words to mean that Christ, like Moses, forbids us to pronounce God's name in vain. But besides this, the interpreters also explain that this law of Christ's — not to swear— is not always obligatory and does not relate at all to an oath of loyalty which each citizen gives to those who hold authority 1 * *; and texts are selected from Holy Writ, not to confirm the direct meaning of Christ's injunction, but to prove that it may and should be disobeyed.
It is said that Christ himself confirmed an oath in a court of law when in reply to the High Priest's words, ‘ I adjure thee by the living God,' he replied, 4 Thou hast said.' It is said that the apostle Paul called God to witness the truth of his words, which is evidently the same as an oath; it is said that oaths were enjoined by the law of Moses, and that God did not abolish these oaths; it is said that it is only vain, pharisaical, hypocritical oaths that are abolished.
And on understanding the meaning and aim 1 A reason Tolstoy ignores for forbidding oaths is, that as the belief (common in primitive times) that men can stake their lives or possessions on the veracity of their assertions and that the deity will enforce the penalties should the oath be a false one, fades away, the use of such oaths becomes incompatible with intellectual integrity, and therefore fails to accom- plish its object and even conflicts with it.
THE FIVE COMMANDMENTS 203 of these explanations, I understood that Christ's injunction concerning oaths is not at all so insignificant, easy, and unimportant as it had seemed to me when, among the oaths prohibited by Christ, I had not included oaths demanded by the State.
And I asked myself: Is it not said here that the oath is also forbidden for which the Church i commentators are so anxious to make an ex- ception? Is not the oath here forbidden, that very oath without which the separation of men into nations is impossible, and without which a military class is impossible? Soldiers are those who do all the violence, and they call themselves ‘ the sworn.' 1 * * Were I to ask the Grenadier how he solves the contradiction between the Gospels and the military code he would tell me that he has been sworn in: that is to say, has taken an oath on the Gospels. Such replies have always been given me by military men. So necessary is an oath for the organization of the terrible evil which is produced by violence and war, that in France, where Christianity is officially rejected, the oath is nevertheless retained. Indeed if Christ had not said ‘ Swear not at all,' I he ought to have said it. He came to destroy evil, and, had he not abolished the oath, this enormous evil would have remained in the world. Perhaps it will be said that in the time of Christ that evil was not noticeable. But this is untrue: 1 In Russian literally 4 the oath.’ The equivalent * English expressions, ‘ volunteers ’ or 4 conscripts,’ do not carry the same significance, though in England they also take an oath of allegiance.
WHAT I BELIEVE Epictetus and Seneca spoke about not taking an oath to any one; in the laws of Manu that rule is found. Why should I say that Christ did not see this evil? And especially when he said this so directly, clearly, and even minutely.
He said: Swear not at all. That expression is as ["simple, clear, and indubitable as the words ‘ Judge not and condemn not/ and as little sus- ceptible of misinterpretation, especially as it is added, in conclusion, that anything demanded of you beyond yes and no comes from the source of evil.
Really, if Christ's teaching is that one should always obey the will of God, how can a man swear to obey the will of man? The will of God may not coincide with the will of man. Indeed, in this very passage Christ says that very thing. He says, Swear not by thy head, for not only thy head, but every hair of it, is in God's power. The same is said in the Epistle of James.
At the end of his Epistle, in conclusion, the Apostle James says (ch. v. 12); But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath: but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; that ye fall not under judgement. The Apostle says plainly why one should not swear: the oath by itself appears innocent, but from it people fall under judgement, and therefore swear not at all. How could what is said both by Christ and by the Apostle be said more plainly?
But I had been so entangled that I long asked myself in astonishment: Can it be that it means what it does mean? How is it that we are all THE FIVE COMMANDMENTS 205 made to swear on the Gospels? It is im- possible!
But I had already read the commentators and had seen how this impossibility was accomplished.
As with the explanations of the words, Judge not, do not be angry with anybody, do not break the bond of husband and wife, so also here. We have established* our ways of life, we like them, and wish to consider them sacred. Then comes Christ, whom we consider to be God, but we do not wish to abandon our ways of life. What are we to do? Where possible, slip in the words without a cause, and reduce the rule against anger to nothing; where possible, like the most unscrupulous of unjust judges, interpret the meaning of the articles of the law so as to make it mean the very reverse, and that instead of a command never to divorce one’s wife it should mean that one may divorce her. And where, as in the case of the words J udge not, and condemn not, and swear not at all, it is quite impossible to misinterpret, act boldly and directly contrary to the teaching, affirming that we are obeying it. Indeed the chief obstacle to understanding that the Gospels forbid every vow, and especially r every oath of allegiance, is that pseudo-Christian teachers with extraordinary effrontery oblige men, on the Gospels themselves, to swear by the Gospels — that is to say, oblige them to do what is contrary to the Gospels.
How can it occur to a man who is obliged to swear on a cross, or on the Gospels, that the cross is sacred because on it he was crucified who for- WHAT I BELIEVE bade us to swear, and that when taking an oath one perhaps kisses, as what is sacred, the very place 1 in the book where it clearly and defi- nitely says: Swear not at all.
But this effrontery no longer disconcerted me. I saw clearly that in Matt, v., verses 33 to 37, a definite and practicable third commandment is clearly expressed: Never take an oath to any one, anywhere, about anything. Every oath is extorted for evil ends. Following this third commandment comes a fourth reference and a fourth commandment (Matt. v. 38-42; Luke vi. 29, 30): 4 Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him twain.2 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away/ I have already spoken of the direct and definite meaning of these words, and of the 1 In Russian Courts the oath was administered on the open Gospels.
2 If Christ wished to lay down that it is wrong ever to use physical force to prevent any man from doing what he wishes to do (and that is the rule Tolstoy deduces) it is curious that Christ gives here an illus- tration of going two miles with a man who demands that you accompany him one; for, with reference to the second mile, there is clearly no reference to the use of physical force, any more than in the following example of lending to him who asks.
THE FIVE COMMANDMENTS 207 a fact that we have no right to give them an allegorical interpretation. The commentaries on these words, from St. John Chrysostom’s till to-day, are truly amazing. These words please everybody, and in references to them they make all kinds of profound conjectures, excepting one only, namely, that the words have their plain meaning. The Church com- mentators, not at all embarrassed by the authority of him whom they call God, most calmly restrict the meaning of his words. They say: 4 It is, of course, understood that all these commandments about enduring wrongs, about renouncing revenge, are in fact directed against the Jewish spirit of relentlessness, and do not prohibit either public measures for restricting evil and punishing evil-doers, or the private, personal exertions and efforts of each individual to maintain the inviolability of his rights, to correct wrong-doers, and to deprive ill-intentioned men of the possibility of harming others; for otherwise the spiritual laws of the Saviour would themselves, in the Jewish way, become mere words, and might serve to promote the success of evil and the suppression of virtue. A Christian’s love should be like God’s love; but the divine love refrains from limiting and punishing evil only so long as it remains within limits more or less innocuous to God’s glory and to the safety of one’s neighbours; in the contrary case evil should be limited and punished, a duty which is specially incumbent on the Government.’ (The Annotated Gospel of the Archimandrite Michael, which is all 208 WHAT I BELIEVE based on the commentaries of the Fathers of the Church). The learned and freethinking Christians are also not embarrassed by the meaning of Christ’s words, and correct him. They say that this is a very lofty saying, but one lacking in any possible application to life; for an application to life of the law of non- resistance to evil destroys the whole order of life, which we have so admirably arranged: so say Renan, Strauss, and all the freethinking commentators.
But one need only take the words of Christ as we take those of the first man we meet and who speaks to us — that is to say, assume that he means what he says, to do away with the necessity for any profound conjectures. Christ says: I consider that your method of securing your life is stupid and bad. I propose to you quite another method, as follows. And he speaks the words given in Matthew v. 38-42. It would seem that, before correcting those words, one should understand them. But that is just what no one wishes to do, having decided hi advance that the order of our life which is infringed by those words is a sacred law of humanity.
I did not consider our life either good or sacred, and therefore understood that com- mandment sooner than other people. And when I had understood the words as they are spoken, I was amazed by their truth, exactitude and clarity. Christ says: ‘You wish to destroy evil by evil. That is unreasonable. That there should be no evil, do none.’ And THE FIVE COMMANDMENTS 200 then he enumerates the cases in which we are accustomed to do evil, and says that in these cases it should not be done.
This fourth commandment of Christ was the first I understood, and it was the one which disclosed to me the meaning of all the others. This fourth, simple, clear, practicable com- mandment says: Never resist the evil-doer by force, do not meet violence with violence. If they beat you, endure it; if they take your possessions, yield them up; if they compel you to work, work, and if they wish to take from you what you consider to be yours — give it up.
And following that fourth commandment comes a fifth reference to the old law, and the fifth commandment (Matt. v. 43-8): 4 Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy [Lev. xix. 17, 18]: but I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you: that ye may be sons of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. For if ye love them that love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the Gentiles the same? Ye there- fore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.’
Those verses formerly seemed to me to be WHAT I BELIEVE an explanation, completion, and enforcement ~I would even say an exaggeration— of the precept about not resisting the evil-doer. But, having found a simple, applicable, and definite meaning in each passage that began with a reference to the ancient law, I anticipated that the same would be the case here. After each quotation a law was announced, and each verse of the commandment had a meaning and could not be omitted, and so it should be here also. The concluding words, repeated by Luke, that God does not make distinctions between people, but sends His blessings upon ail, and that you therefore should be like God, not making distinctions between people, and should not do as the Gentiles do, but should love all men and do good to all alike — those words were clear, and they appeared to me to be like a confirmation and explanation of some definite rule; but what that rule was it was long before I could discern.
To love one’s enemies. That seemed im- possible. It was one of those beautiful phrases which can only be regarded as indications of an unattainable moral ideal. It was either too much, or nothing at all. One could abstain from injuring an enemy, but to love him was impossible. Christ could not prescribe an impossibility. Besides that, the very first words, the reference to the ancient law, 4 Ye have heard that it was said: Thou shall hate thine enemy, were questionable.-' In previous passages Christ quotes the actual, precise words of the Mosaic law; but here he uses THE FIVE COMMANDMENTS 211 words which had never been uttered. He appears to misrepresent the law.
As in the case of my former perplexities, the commentaries on the Gospels explained nothing to me. They all admit that the words, * ‘ Thou shalt hate thine enemy,’ do not occur in the Mosaic law, but no explanation of this incorrect citation is given. They speak of the i difficulty of loving enemies and bad people; and in most cases they correct Christ’s words, and say it is impossible to love one’s enemies, but possible not to wish them evil or to do them harm; incidentally it is suggested that one may and should expose, that is to say oppose, one’s enemies; mention is made of various degrees of attainability of this virtue; so that the ultimate deduction to be made from the Church commentaries is that Christ, for some unknown reason, made an incorrect, citation of the Mosaic law and uttered many beautiful, but really empty and inapplicable, words.
It seemed to me that this was unsatisfactory. There should be some clear and definite meaning here, as in the first four commandments. And, to understand this meaning, I first of all tried to understand the meaning of the incor- rect citation from the law: hate your enemies. It is not for nothing that Christ, before each of his injunctions, quoted the words of the law: ‘ Thou shalt not kill, shalt not commit adultery,’ &c., and contrasted those words with his own doctrine. Without understanding what was alluded to in the words he cites from the old law one cannot understand what he s I 212 WHAT I BELIEVE enjoined. In the commentaries it is plainly ( said, what cannot but be admitted, that he! r cites words which are not found in the law;! f but it is not explained why he did so, nor what t this incorrect citation means. It seemed to f me that one had first to explain what Christ 1 may have meant when he cited those words j i which do not occur in the law. And I asked j c myself: What can. the words mean which j 1 Christ has incorrectly quoted from the Mosaic j e law? In all his former citations of the law j i only one precept of the ancient law is quoted, ‘ as: ‘ Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not! c commit adultery; Thou shalt not forswear 1 thyself; A tooth for a tooth/ And in con- i nexion with that single precept, Christ’s corre- j sponding doctrine is announced. Here, however, 3 two precepts are cited, and contrasted one with ] the other; ‘ Ye have heard that it was said, i Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine i enemy/ so that evidently the basis of the new r law should deal with the difference between t the two injunctions of the ancient law in re- j t ference to neighbours and enemies. And to j understand more clearly wherein that difference lay, I asked myself: What do the words ‘ neigh- c hour ’ and c enemy 5 mean in Gospel language?! \ And, on consulting the dictionaries and con- j cordances of the Bible, I convinced myself! 1 that ‘ neighbour/ when used by a Jew, always j i meant, and only meant, a Jew. That meaning j r of ‘ neighbour 5 is found also in the Gospel c parable of the Good Samaritan. According ( to the view of the Jewish lawyer, who asked Ij THE FIVE COMMANDMENTS 213 4 Who is my neighbour? ’ a Samaritan could not be a neighbour. A similar definition of 4 neighbour ’ is given in Acts vii. 27. 4 Neighbour/ in the language of the Gospels, means fellow-countryman, a man of one’s own people. Therefore, surmising that the contrast Christ is setting up in this passage by citing the words of the law, 4 Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy/ lies in the contrast of fellow-countrymen with foreigners, I asked myself what was an i 4 enemy J in the Jewish conception, and I found confirmation of my conjecture. The word 4 enemy ’ is used in the Gospels almost always in the sense, not of a personal foe, but of a public, national enemy (Luke i. 71-74; Matt, xxii. 44; Mark xii. 36; Luke xx. 43, &c.). The singular number used for the word 4 enemy ’ in these verses, in the phrase 4 hate thine enemy/ indicated to me that the national enemy is referred to. The singular number refers to the collective whole of the enemy people. In the Old Testament the conception of a hostile people is always expressed in the singular.
And, as soon as I understood this, the diffi- culty was immediately removed as to why and how Christ, after previously always quoting the precise words of the law, could here cite words which had never been uttered. I had only to understand the word 4 enemy ’ in the sense of national enemy, and 4 neighbour, in the sense of compatriot, for that difficulty to disappear. ' Christ speaks of how, in the Mosaic law, the Jews were told to treat their national enemy.
WHAT I BELIEVE All those passages, scattered through different books of the Bible, in which they are bidden to oppress, slay, and exterminate other tribes, Christ sums up in the one expression, to ‘ hate ' — to harm — the enemy. And he says: Ye have heard that it was said that you should love your own people and hate your nation's enemy; but I say to you that you should love all men without discrimination of the race to which they belong. And as soon as I understood the words in this way, the other and chief difficulty was disposed of, as to how one should understand the words, ‘ love your enemies/ It is impossible to love one's personal enemies. But one can love a hostile people in the same way that one does one's own. And it became plain to me that Christ is speaking of the fact that every one is taught to consider the people of his own race as his 4 neighbours,' and to consider other nations as ‘ enemies,' but that he bids us not to do so. He says: The law of Moses makes a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, the national enemy, but I say unto you, that you should not make that distinction. And, in fact, both in Matthew and Luke, following this commandment, he says that before God all men are equal; the sun rises and the rain falls for them all. God does not distinguish between the peoples, but does good to all alike; so should men also do to all without distinction of nationality, and not as the Gentiles, who divide themselves into different nations.
So that, once again, from different sides a plain, important, clear, and applicable meaning THE FIVE COMMANDMENTS 215 of Christ's words confirmed itself for me. Again, instead of misty expressions of vague philosophy, a clear, definite, important, and practicable rule discloses itself: not to make distinctions between one's own and other nations, and not to do all the things that flow from making such distinctions; not to bear enmity to foreign nations; not to make war nor to take part in warfare; not to arm oneself for war, but to behave to all men, of whatever race they may be, as we behave to our own people.
This was all so clear and simple that I was astonished I had not understood it im- mediately.
The cause of my not having understood it was the same as the cause of my not having promptly understood the prohibition of law-courts and of oaths. It was very difficult to understand that those courts — which are opened with a religious ceremony, and blessed by those who consider themselves the guardians of Christ's teaching— that those same courts are incom- patible with a confession of Christ, being directly opposed to him. Yet more difficult was it to guess that the very oath administered to all men by the guardians of the law of Christ is directly prohibited by that law; but to guess that what in our life is considered not merely necessary and natural, but most excellent and brave — the love of one's fatherland, its defence, its exalta- tion, resistance to its enemies, and so forth — are not merely offences against the law of Christ but a plain repudiation of it — to guess that this is so, was very difficult. Our life has so diverged 2M WHAT I BELIEVE 2M WHAT I BELIEVE from the teaching of Christ that that very divergence has become the chief hindrance to our understanding his teaching. We have so disregarded and forgotten all he said about our way of life — his injunction not merely not to kill, but not even to hate any man; not to defend ourselves but to turn the other cheek and to love our enemies — that now, being accus- tomed to call people who devote their lives to killing, the Christ-loving army,1 being accus- tomed to hear prayers addressed to Christ for victory over our enemies, to pride ourselves on slaying, and having made of the sword a holy symbol of murder (until a man without a sword, without a dagger, is a man to be held in con- tempt)— it now seems to us that Christ did not forbid war, and that if he had forbidden it he would have said so more explicitly.
We forget that Christ could not imagine people believing in his teaching of humility, love, and universal brotherhood, quietly and deliberately organizing the murder of their brother men.