 5 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 eighteen hundred years, and had devoted their lives to the study of its 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. 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. In the Gospel I found the words, You have been told an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, but I say to you, do not resist evil. The precept, an eye for an eye, 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. 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 seemed to confirm that assertion, had in my former studies of the Gospel struck me by their obscurity and had raised doubts in my mind. 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 Christ should have confirmed such laws. 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 seventeenth to twenty, 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 seventeenth to twenty of the fifth chapter of St. Matthew, which, as I have already said, had struck me by their want of clarity, was erroneous. On a second reading of the same verses seventeenth to twenty, which had seemed so unintelligible to me, their meaning flashed full upon me. 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. Christ says, in Matthew 5, 17 to 19, 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. And in verse twenty he adds, Accept your righteousness, shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven. Christ means by these words, I have not come to destroy the eternal law, for the fulfilment of which your books and prophecies are written, but I have come to teach you how to fulfil 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. 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. 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. 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 verse 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 is preached, and every man presses into it. And immediately after this in the 17th verse we read, and it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than one title of the law to fail. The words the law and the prophets until John annul the written law, the words it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one title of the law to fail, confirm the eternal law. In the first text Christ says the law and the prophets, i.e. the written law. In the second he uses the word law alone, that is the eternal law. It is obvious therefore that the eternal law is here set in opposition to the written law, and that exactly the same occurs in the context of the Gospel of St. Matthew where the eternal law is expressed by the words the law or the prophets. The history of the different renderings of this text, verses 17 to 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 it 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 Saint 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 a or for the word chi 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 zakon law, in Greek nomos, in Hebrew Torah. 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 Torah, the law, to indicate the eternal, unwritten but revealed law of God. This same word, Torah, 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 Torah 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 Torah, 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, you're, 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 annulls the written law. When he says, in Luke 16 verse 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, in 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 verse 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 fulfil 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 controversial, that I have skillfully assorted the context, 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 that this 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 fulfilers 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 Saint John, all the enemies of Christ are called Hebrews. They do not assent to Christ's doctrine, they oppose it only because they are Hebrews. But in the Gospel the Pharisees and Sadducees are not the only enemies of Christ. The lawgivers who keep the Mosaic law, the scribes who study it, and the elders who are considered as the representatives of the popular wisdom are likewise called the enemies of Christ. Christ says, I did not come to call the righteous to repentance, to a change of life, metanoia, 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 ever 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 twofold use of the word, but it often happens that he does not even endeavour 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, Torah, 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 neighbour. Christ expresses this idea on many occasions, for example Luke 10 verse 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 neighbour 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, that is 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 verse 52. It is thus that Saint Irenaeus 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 neighbour 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, Volume 1, pages 320 and 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 towards 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 neighbour's 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. On pages 322 to 323 John Chrysostom further says, Let us suppose that the law is entirely cast aside, 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. But 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 means 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 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, and 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 are forbidden to do so by the Son of God. God said, an eye for an eye, the Son says, do not act thus. One of the commandments must be acknowledged as just. John Chrysostom and the church follow the commandments of the Father, that is 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 among 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 Torah, which he rejected. This Torah is said to be the revelation of the spirit of truth, that is of the Holy Ghost, and so Christ is taken in the meshes of his own revelation. And now, after eighteen hundred years, the strange duty has fallen to my lot to discover the sense of Christ's doctrine as something new. It is 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. End of Chapter 5 Chapter 6, Part 1 of What I Believe This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. What I believe, by Count Leo Tolstoy, translated from the Russian by Constantine Popov, Chapter 6, Part 1. Now it has grown clear to me that Christ's law is truly his law, and not the mixed law of Moses and Christ. The claim of his doctrine distinctly repudiates the claim of the Mosaic law. And consequently, instead of the obscurity, defuseness, and inconsistency that I had previously found in the Gospels, they now combine to form an indissoluble whole. And the basis, or central maxim, of the entire doctrine is expressed in the simple, clear, and perfectly intelligible Five Commandments of Christ, Matthew Chapter 5, Verses 21-48, which I had hitherto failed to apprehend. Mention is made in all the Gospels of the Commandments of Christ, and their fulfilment is enjoined. All theologians speak of the Commandments of Christ, but I never knew what these Commandments were. I supposed the Commandment of Christ to be the exhortation to love God and our neighbour as ourselves. I did not see that this could not be the Commandment of Christ, seeing that it was a commandment given to the ancient Hebrews, see Deuteronomy and Leviticus. On reading the words, Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these Commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew Chapter 5, Verse 19 I thought they referred to the Mosaic Law. It never occurred to me that the new Commandments of Christ were clearly and distinctly expressed in Verses 21-48 of the Fifth Chapter of St Matthew. Nor did I notice that by the words, You have heard that it has been said, But I say to You, Christ gives us new and most definite Commandments. Annexed to the five quotations of the Mosaic Law, reckoning the two quotations that refer to adultery as one, we find five new and definite Commandments of Christ. I had often heard about the Beatitudes, and had met with the enumeration and explanation of them in the course of the religious instruction given to me in my youth, but I never heard a word about the Commandments of Christ. To my great surprise, I had to discover them. I shall now point out what led me to the discovery. In Matthew Chapter 5, Verses 21-26, we read, You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, You shall not kill, and whoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. Exodus Chapter 20, Verse 23 But I say to you, that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment, and whoever shall say to his brother, Raka shall be in danger of the judgment, but whoever shall say, You fall shall be in danger of hellfire. Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way, first to be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest at any time the adversary deliver you to the judge, and the judge deliver you to the officer, and you be cast into prison. Truly I say to you, you shall by no means come out from there until you have paid the last co-pec. On a clear comprehension of the doctrine of non-resistance, it seemed to me that the text quoted above must have the same application to life as that doctrine. I had formally considered these words as meaning that we were to avoid all anger against a fellow creature, that we were never to use abusive language, and that we were to live at peace with all, not accepting any. But there stood a clause in the text, which excluded all possibility of thus understanding it. It is said, whoever is angry with his brother without cause, and the idea of unconditional peace is annulled by the last italicised words. They puzzled me. I sought for a solution of my doubts in theological commentaries, but to my surprise I found that the interpretation of the fathers of the church were especially directed towards defining the cases in which anger may be excused and cannot be excused. Laying particular stress on the words without a cause, commentators tell us the meaning of the text, is that we are never to wound a man's feelings causelessly, nor use abusive language, but add that anger is not always unjust, and in support of that opinion they cite instances of the anger of the apostles and the saints. I was obliged to acknowledge that, though contrary to the whole spirit of the gospel, the interpretation of the fathers, by which anger is accounted justifiable when, to use their own expression, it is to the glory of God, was consistent, being based on the words without a cause which we find in verse 22. This clause entirely altered the sense of the saying, Do not be angry without a cause. Christ exhorts us to forgive all, to forgive without end. Christ himself forgave, and when led away to be crucified, reproved Peter for defending him against Malchus, and yet it would seem that Peter had good cause for anger, and the same Christ exhorts all men not to be angry without a cause, thus justifying anger if there is a reason for it, if it is not causeless. Isn't it as if Christ, who came to preach peace to all simple-minded men, had on second thoughts, added the words without a cause, to show that this precept did not apply to all cases indiscriminately, that anger might sometimes be justifiable? Commentators tell us that anger may be justifiable, but, I said to myself, can any man be a fit judge of the reasonableness of his anger? Never yet have I seen an angry man who did not consider himself perfectly just in his anger. Each thinks his anger both lawful and necessary. The words without a cause seem entirely to destroy the meaning of the text, but they were in the gospel, and I could not set them aside. And yet it came to much the same as if to the saying, love your neighbour, were added the words, your neighbour who pleases you. The words without a cause destroyed the significance of the whole text for me. Verses 23 and 24, in which we read that before praying we must be at peace with him who has something against us, which would have had a direct, obligatory sense without the words without a cause, now acquired a conditional meaning. It seemed to me that Christ must have meant to forgive all anger, all ill will, and in order to suppress it had enjoined each person before he brings his gift to the altar, that is before he draws near to God, to think upon whether there is any man who is angry with him, and if there is someone he must be reconciled to him first, and then he may bring his gift to the altar or pray. It seemed thus to me, but according to all commentaries, the sense of the passage was conditional. In all commentaries we are told that we must try to be at peace with all men, but if that is impossible, on account of the perversity of our adversary, we must be at peace with him in mind, in our thoughts, and then his enmity will be no barrier to our prayer. Moreover, the words that declare that whoever shall say raka or you fall commits a great sin always seemed most strange and unintelligible to me. If the words forbid abusive language, why are such weak epithets chosen, which can hardly be reckoned terms of abuse, and why was there so awful a threat against one who might, perhaps inadvertently, use as inoffensive a word as raka, that is a worthless fellow, this seemed incomprehensible to me. I felt sure that there was the same misunderstanding here, as I had found in the words do not judge. I felt that a simple, definite, and highly important commandment, which all have it in their power to fulfil, had been perverted, as in the preceding instance, into something almost incomprehensible. I felt sure that Christ had not used the words be reconciled to your brother, in the sense now given to them by our commentators, be reconciled to your brother in mind. Reconciled in mind, what can that mean? I thought that Christ meant exactly what he expressed in the words of the Prophet, I will have mercy, that is, love to all men, and not sacrifice. And therefore, if you wish to find favour in God's sight, before repeating your morning and evening prayer, or before attending public worship, reflect whether any one is angry with you, and if such a one can be found, go and be reconciled to him first, and then you may come and pray. Let your reconciliation not be in mind only. I saw that the interpretation which destroyed the direct and clear meaning of the text was based on the words without a cause, their omission would render the whole perfectly clear, but the canonical gospel in which stand the words without a cause, and all commentaries upon it, were contrary to my interpretation. Had I chosen arbitrarily to alter the sense of the passage, I might have done so with any other text as well, and might not other interpreters have done so too. All the difficulty lay in one little clause. If this clause were removed, all would be clear. So I endeavoured to find some philological explanation of the words that should not destroy the sense of the text. On consulting the dictionary I saw the Greek word is icon, and that it likewise means purposelessly, thoughtlessly. I again read the text over attentively to see if any other meaning could be given to it, but found that the clause was evidently correct. I consulted the Greek dictionary, and the meaning given to the word was the same. I consulted the context, but the word is only used once in the Gospels, in the Passaging Question. We find it several times in the Epistles, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 15 verse 2, it is used in the same sense. Therefore there seemed to be no other possible rendering of the text, and I found myself obliged to believe that Christ said, Do not be angry without a cause. I must confess that, to believe in Christ's having uttered so indefinite a saying, which admits of an interpretation that reduces it to a mere nothing, seemed to me equivalent to an entire renunciation of the Gospel itself. A last hope was left to me. Was this clause to be found in all the transcripts of the Gospel? I examined various translations. I looked in Grisbach's edition of the Gospels, in which he enumerates all the transcripts in which a similar expression is used, and I found, to my great joy, that there were several references attached to this particular text. I examined them, and found that they referred to the very words without a cause. In the greater number of the transcripts of the Gospel, and in the commentaries of the Fathers of the Church, these words are omitted. Thus the majority understood the text as I do. I then consulted the first transcript of Tischendorf, but the words are not there. The shortest way to solve the problem would have been to look in Luther's translation of the Gospel, but the words are not to be found there either. The clause, which so entirely destroys the sense of Christ's doctrine, was an addition made in the fifth century, and is not to be found in any of the most trustworthy transcripts of the Gospel. Someone had inserted the clause, and others had approved of it, and then tried to explain it. Christ never could have added so monstrous a clause, and the simple, direct meaning of the text which had first struck me and must strike others, is the true one. Nor is this all, for no sooner did I understand that Christ's words forbade anger against any person whatever, than the command not to call a fellow creature rucker, or you fall, struck me in a new light, and I could no longer consider it as being intended to forbid the use of abusive language. The untranslated word rucker opened my eyes to the true sense. The word rucker means trampled upon, set at naught, made of no account. The word rack is a word very generally used, and it signifies accepting, only not. Rucker, therefore, means a man unworthy of the title of man. We find the plural, rakim, used in the Book of Judges, chapter 9 verse 4, in the sense of lost. So this is the word we are forbidden by Christ to use in speaking of a fellow creature. In the same manner he forbids our saying, you fall, words by which we may consider ourselves justified in setting aside our duty toward our neighbour. We give way to anger, wrong others, and allege for our justification that the man who has excited our anger is a lost man, or a fall. And these are the epithets that we are forbidden by Christ to apply to any man. He forbids our giving way to anger against our fellow creatures. He forbids our justifying our anger by calling its object a lost man, or a fall. And now, in the place of an indistinct, indefinite, and insignificant expression, subject to countless arbitrary interpretations, the first simple, clear, and distinct commandment of Christ arose before me, as contained in verses 21 to 26. Be at peace with all men, and never consider your anger as just. Never look upon any man as worthless, or a fall, neither call him such. Not only shall you never think yourself justified in your anger, but also you shall never consider your brother's anger as causeless. And therefore, if there is one who is angry with you, even if it is without a cause, go and be reconciled to him before praying. Endeavour to destroy all enmity between yourself and others, that their enmity may not grow and destroy you. And now the second commandment of Christ, which also begins with a reference to the ancient law, grew clear to me also. Matthew 5 verses 27 to 32. You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, you shall not commit adultery. Exodus 20 verses 14 to 28. But I say to you, that whoever looks on a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if your right eye offends you, pluck it out, and cast it from you, for it is profitable for you, that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell. And if your right hand offends you, cut it off and cast it from you, for it is profitable for you, that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell. It has been said, whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. Deuteronomy chapter 24 verse 1. But I say to you, that whoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery, and whoever shall marry a divorced woman commits adultery. I understood these words to signify that no man must ever admit, even in thought, the possibility of leaving the woman he was first united to for another, a thing that is permitted by the Mosaic law. As in his first commandment against anger, we are advised to stifle the feeling in its birth, the advice being further exemplified by the comparison of the man delivered up to the judge. So here Christ says that fornication is the consequence of men and women letting their thoughts dwell on sexual relations, and to avoid this we must set aside all that can excite such thoughts, and when once united to a woman we must never leave her under any pretext whatever, because this opens the door to sinful indulgence. I was struck by the wisdom of the saying. It tends to do away with all the evils resulting from sexual relations. Men and women are to avoid all that can excite sensuality, being fully aware that nothing is more conducive to dissensions in the world than carnal pleasures, and knowing also that the law of nature is that the race should live together in couples united in bonds that cannot be dissolved. In the Sermon on the Mount the words, saving for the cause of fornication, which had always seemed strange to me, struck me still more forcibly when I saw that they were considered as permitting divorce if the wife had committed adultery. Besides there being something unworthy in the very way the idea is expressed, and in this strange exception standing side by side with the most important principles that the Sermon contained, like a regulation in some code, the exception itself was in direct opposition to the fundamental idea of Christ's teaching. I consulted the commentators of the Gospels, and all of them, John Chrysostom, page 365, and even theological critics like Ruths, affirmed that these words mean that Christ permits divorce if the wife has committed adultery, that in Christ's prohibition of divorce, in Matthew chapter 19 verse 9 where we read, saving for the cause of fornication, the words have that meaning. I read the 32nd verse over and over again, and came to the conclusion that this interpretation of the words was erroneous. In order to verify my opinion, I examined the context and found earlier in chapter 19 of the Gospel according to St Matthew, in Mark 10, in Luke 16, and in the first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, a similar declaration of the indissolubility of the marriage tie, without exception of any kind. In the Gospel according to St Luke chapter 16 verse 18 we read, whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman who is put away from her husband commits adultery. In the Gospel according to St Mark chapter 10 verses 4 to 12 we read, for the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept, but from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female, for this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh. So then they are no longer two, but one flesh, therefore what God has joined together do not let man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter, and he said to them, whoever shall put away his wife and marry another commits adultery against her, and if a woman shall put away her husband and be married to another she commits adultery. We find the same teaching in the Gospel according to St Matthew chapter 19 verses 4 to 8. In the epistle of Paul to the Corinthians chapter 7 verses 1 to 12 the statement that depravity may be prevented by husbands and wives never forsaking each other, nor defrauding each other of their rights is enlarged upon, and it is distinctly said that neither shall the husband in any case forsake his wife for another woman, nor the wife leave her husband for another man. Thus we see that according to the Gospels of Mark and Luke and the epistle of Paul divorce is wholly forbidden. According to the interpretation that husband and wife are one flesh joined together by God, which we find repeated in two of the Gospels, divorce is forbidden. According to the sense of the whole doctrine of Christ, who exhorts us to forgive all, not excluding the wife who has gone astray, it is forbidden. According to the sense of the whole text which clearly points out that a man's leaving his wife brings depravity into the world, it is forbidden. From where, then, is the conclusion drawn that a wife who has committed adultery may be divorced, and on what is it grounded? It is grounded on the very words of Matthew chapter 5 verse 32 which had so strangely struck me. It is alleged that these words prove that Christ permits divorce if the wife has committed adultery, and they are also repeated in the 19th chapter in numerous transcripts of the Gospel and by many of the Fathers of the Church, instead of the words, accept it be for fornication. I read the words over and over again, and it was long before I could understand them. I saw that there was probably something incorrect in the translation and interpretation, but could not for some time make out what it was. That there was a mistake was obvious. Placing his commandment in opposition to that of the Mosaic Law, which says that if a man hates his wife he may put her away, giving her a writing of divorcement, Christ says, but I say to you that whoever puts away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. There is no opposition in these words, and no mention made of the possibility or impossibility of divorce. We are only told that he who puts away his wife causes her to commit adultery, and then comes a clause that accepts the wife guilty of adultery. This exception is altogether strange and unexpected. It is indeed absurd, as it destroys even the dubious sense of the words. It is stated that the putting away of a wife causes her to commit adultery, and then the husband is exhorted to put away his wife if she is guilty of adultery, as if the wife who was guilty of adultery would not commit adultery. Moreover, on a closer examination of the text I saw that it was even grammatically incorrect. It is said, whoever puts away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery, or if we translate the word perectos literally, besides fornication, causes her to commit adultery. The words refer to the husband who causes his wife to commit adultery by putting her away. Then why is the clause cause of fornication inserted? If it were said that the husband who puts away his wife, besides being guilty of fornication, commits adultery, the sentence would be grammatically correct. But as the text stands, the noun husband has one predicate, causes her, etc. And how does the phrase saving for the cause of fornication refer to it? Cannot cause her to commit adultery, saving for the cause of adultery? Even if the words wife or her were added, which is not the case, the words could have no reference to the predicate, causes her. According to the accepted interpretation, these words are considered as referring to the predicate puts away, but the verb puts away is not the predicate of the principle sentence, for that is, causes her to commit adultery. Therefore, for what purpose are the words saving for, or besides, the cause of fornication inserted? Whether the wife is guilty of adultery or not, by putting her away, the husband causes her to commit that sin. The sentence would have a meaning, if in the place of the word fornication we found the words lasciviousness, debauchery or some similar word expressing not an action, but a quality or a state. Doesn't it mean, I said to myself, that he who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery and is besides guilty of debauchery himself? For if a man divorces his wife, it is in order to take to himself some other woman. If the word used in the text is found to mean debauchery, then the sense will be clear. And again, as in the preceding instances, the text confirmed my surmise in a manner that left no room for doubt. What first struck me on reading the text was that the word porneia, which is in all translations except the English, rendered as adultery in the same way as moikastai, is in reality quite another word. Perhaps the two words are synonymous, or are used in the Gospel in the same sense, I thought. So I referred both to the common dictionary and to the evangelical glossaries, and found that the word porneia, which is equivalent to the Hebrew zono, the Latin fornicatio, the German hurray, has its own definite meaning, and in no dictionary is it considered a signifying adultery, adulter, eobruch, as it has been translated by Luther. It properly implies a depraved state or disposition and not an action, and cannot therefore be translated by the word adultery. Moreover, I saw that the word adultery is always expressed in the Gospel and even in the above-named verses by another word, moikayo. And no sooner had I corrected this evidently intentional perversion of the text, than I saw that the sense given to the context of the nineteenth chapter, and by our commentators, was altogether impossible. I saw that there could be no doubt about the word porneia, referring only to the husband. Every Greek scholar will construe the passage thus. Parectos, besides logo, the matter, porneas of lewdness, poie, causes, alten, her, moikastai, to commit adultery. Therefore, the text stands word for word thus. He who divorces his wife, besides the sin of lewdness, causes her to commit adultery. We find exactly the same in the nineteenth chapter. No sooner is the incorrect translation of the word porneia amended, as well as that of the preposition eti, which has been translated for. No sooner is the word lewdness placed instead of adultery, and the preposition by instead of for. Then it grows perfectly clear that the words aimer epiporneia can have no reference to the wife. And as the words parectos, logo, porneas, can have no other meaning than, besides the sin of lewdness of the husband, so the words aimer epiporneia, which we find in the nineteenth chapter, can have no reference to anything except the lewdness of the husband. It is said, aimer epiporneia, which being translated literally is, if not by lewdness, if not out of lewdness, and thus the meaning is clear that Christ in this passage refutes the notion of the Pharisees that a man who put away his wife not out of lewdness, but in order to live matrimonially with another woman did not commit adultery. Christ says that the repudiation of a wife, even if it is not done out of lewdness, but in order to be joined in bonds of matrimony to another woman, is adultery, and thus the sense is simple, clear, perfectly consistent with the whole doctrine, and both logically and grammatically correct. It was with great difficulty that I at last discovered this clear and simple meaning of the words themselves, and their harmony with the whole doctrine of Christ. And, in truth, read the words in the German or French versions where it is said, pour cause d'infidélité, or a moins que cela ne soit pour cause d'infidélité, and you will hardly be able to guess that the text has quite another meaning. The word parectos, which according to all dictionaries means, excepté, ouscanomen, is translated in the French by a whole sentence, amouant que cela ne soit. The word porneia is translated infidélité, ébreuch, adultery, and on this intentional perversion of the text is based an interpretation that destroys the moral, religious, grammatical, and logical sense of Christ's words. And once more I received a confirmation of the truth that the meaning of Christ's doctrine is simple and clear. His commandments are definite and of the highest practical importance, but the interpretations given to us, based on a desire to justify existing evils, have so obscured his doctrine that we can with difficulty fathom its meaning. I felt convinced that had the gospel been found half-burned or half-obliterated, it would have been easier to discover its true meaning than it is now, that it has suffered from such unconscious interpretations which have purposely concealed or distorted its true sense. In this last instance the special object of justifying the divorce of some Ivan the Terrible which thus led to the misrepresentation of the Christian doctrine of matrimony is more obvious than in the preceding cases to which reference has been made. No sooner are all these interpretations thrown aside than vagueness and mistiness fade away, and the Second Commandment of Christ rises plainly before us. Take no pleasure in concupiscence. Let each man, if he is not a eunuch, have a wife, and each woman a husband. Let a man have but one wife and a woman one husband, and let them never under any pretext whatever dissolve their union. Immediately after the Second Commandment we find a new reference to the ancient law and the Third Commandment is given. Matthew 5 verses 33 to 37. Again you have heard that it has been said to the people long ago, you shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord your oaths. Leviticus 19 verse 12 Deuteronomy 23 verse 21. But I say to you, do not swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is God's throne, nor by the earth, for it is his footstall, neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king. Neither shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black, but let your word be yes, yes, or no, no. For whatever is more than these comes from evil. In my former readings of the Gospel this text had always puzzled me, not by its obscurity as the text referring to divorce did, nor by its inconsistency with other passages as did the text that forbids anger only if it is without a cause, nor again by the difficulty of fulfilling the commandment like the text that enjoins our letting ourselves be struck. It puzzled me, on the contrary, by its evident clarity and simplicity. Side by side with precepts, the depth and importance of which filled me with awe, I found an apparently useless, insignificant precept, very easy a fulfilment, and comparatively unimportant in its bearing upon myself or upon others. I had never sworn by Jerusalem or by God or by anything, and had never found any difficulty in abstaining from doing so. Besides, it seemed to me that my swearing or not swearing could be of no importance to any one. And longing to find some explanation of a precept that puzzled me by its simplicity, I consulted the commentaries on the Gospel. This once they helped me. Commentators see in these words a confirmation of the third commandment of Moses, not to swear by God's name. They say that Christ, like Moses, forbids our taking God's name in vain. But they add besides that this precept given to us by Christ is not always obligatory, and that in no case does it refer to the oath of allegiance to the existing powers which every citizen is obliged to take. They choose out texts from Holy Scripture, not with the purpose of confirming the direct meaning of Christ's precept, but in order to prove that it is possible, and even necessary, to leave it unfulfilled. It is affirmed that Christ himself sanctioned the taking of an oath in courts of law by his answer, You have said to the high priest's words, to the high priest's words, I charge you under oath by the living God. It is likewise affirmed that the apostle Paul called upon God to bear witness to the truth of his words, and that this was obviously an oath. It is affirmed that the Mosaic law enjoined oaths, and that Christ did not abrogate them, and only set useless, phariseically hypocritical oaths aside. And when I saw the meaning and the true object of the interpretation, it grew clear to me that Christ's law against swearing was not as insignificant and easier fulfilment as I had thought before I came to regard the oath of allegiance as one of those that are forbidden by Christ. And I said to myself, doesn't it mean that the oath which is so carefully fenced around by the church commentaries is also forbidden? Don't Christ's words oppose the very oath without which the division of men into separate governments would be an impossibility, the oath without which a military class would be impossible? Soldiers are those who act by violence, and they call themselves sworn men. Had I asked the Grenadier, I mentioned in a preceding chapter how he solved the problem of the inconsistency between the Gospel and the military code, he would have answered that he had taken an oath, that is, sworn upon the Gospel. All the military men I ever asked answered thus. Oaths are so essential in upholding the awful evils brought about by war and violence, that in France, where Christ's doctrine is entirely set aside, the oath of allegiance remains in full force. Indeed, had Christ not said, do not swear at all, he ought to have said so. He came to destroy evil, and how great is the evil brought about in the world by the taking of oaths. Perhaps some may urge that this was an imperceptible evil in Christ's time. No assumption can be more gratuitous. Epictetus and Seneca enjoined all men to take no oaths. In the Laws of Mano the same precept may be found. Why should I say that Christ did not see this evil when he speaks of it so definitely and so forcibly? He says, I say to you, do not swear at all. The saying is as clear, as simple, and as indubitable as the words, do not judge, do not condemn, and it gives as little scope for false interpretation, the less so, because the words, let your communication be yes, yes, or no, no, for whatever is more than these comes from evil, are added. Now, if Christ, by this teaching, exhorts us always to fulfil the will of God, how dare a man swear to obey the will of another man? The will of God may not always coincide with the will of man. Christ tells us so in this very text. He says, in verse 36, do not swear by your head, for not only your head but every hair on it is subject to the will of God. We find the same thing taught in the Epistle of James, who says in chapter 5 verse 12, But above all things, my brethren, do not swear, neither by heaven, neither by earth, neither by any other oath, but let your yes be yes, and your no be no, lest you fall into condemnation. The apostle tells us why we are not to swear, though the taking of an oath may be no sin in itself. He who swears falls into condemnation, and therefore shall no man swear. Can any language be clearer than the words of Christ and of this apostle? But my ideas on this point were in so confused a state that for some time I went on asking myself with surprise, does the precept really mean this? How is it that all swear by the gospel it cannot be? But I had read the commentaries on the gospel and saw that what I deemed impossible had nevertheless been done. The same remark has to be made in reference to this as to the texts do not judge, do not give way to anger, never break the union of husband and wife. We have set up our own institutions, we love them, and choose to consider them sacred. Christ, whom we acknowledge to be God, comes, and he says that our rules of life are bad. We acknowledge him to be God, yet we do not choose to set our rules of life aside. What is left then for us to do? When, by inserting the words without a cause, we turn the commandment against anger into a meaningless sentence. When, like crafty lawyers, we interpret the sense of the commandment in a manner that gives it a contrary meaning to that designed by him who spoke it, as we do if, instead of prohibiting altogether the putting away of a wife, we declare divorce to be lawful and just, we put our institutions in the place of truth. But if it is impossible to interpret the words otherwise than as I have indicated, in the treatment of the precepts do not judge, do not condemn, do not swear at all, then we boldly act in direct opposition to Christ's doctrine, while asserting that we strictly fulfil it if we cleave to traditional interpretations. The chief obstacle to our understanding that the gospel wholly forbids our taking an oath is that the so-called Christian teachers boldly insist upon men's taking oaths upon the gospel, and in this, acting contrary to the gospel. How can it come into the head of a man who is made to take an oath on the gospel or the crucifix? That the crucifix is sacred for the very reason that he who forbade our swearing was crucified upon it. He who takes the oath perhaps kisses the very passage that so clearly and definitely says, do not swear at all. But such boldness no longer confounded me. I clearly saw that in the fifth chapter, verses 33 to 37, lay the third definite and practicable commandment of Christ, which may be stated, never take an oath under any circumstances. Every oath is extorted from men for evil. End of the first part of chapter 6.