WHEN I understood the law of Jesus as the law of Jesus, and not as the
law of Jesus and of Moses, when I understood the commandment of this law
which absolutely abrogated the law of Moses, then the Gospels, before to
me so obscure, diffuse, and contradictory, blended into a harmonious
whole, the substance of whose doctrine, until then incomprehensible, I
found to be formulated in terms simple, clear, and accessible to every
searcher after truth.[4]
[4] Matt. v. 21-48, especially 38
Throughout the Gospels we are called upon to consider the commandments
of Jesus and the necessity of practising them. All the theologians
discuss the commandments of Jesus; but what are these commandments? I
did not know before. I thought that the commandment of Jesus was to love
God, and one's neighbor as one's self. I did not see that this could not
be a new commandment of Jesus, since it was given by them of old in
Deuteronomy and Leviticus. The words:--
"_Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and
shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called
great in the kingdom of heaven_," (Matt. v. 19.)--these words I believed
to relate to the Mosaic law. But it never had occurred to me that Jesus
had propounded, clearly and precisely, new laws. I did not see that in
the passage where Jesus declares, "_Ye have heard that it was said....
But I say unto you_," he formulated a series of very definite
commandments--five entirely new, counting as one the two references to
the ancient law against adultery. I had heard of the beatitudes of Jesus
and of their number; their explanation and enumeration had formed a part
of my religious instruction; but the commandments of Jesus--I had never
heard them spoken of. To my great astonishment, I now discovered them
for myself. In the fifth chapter of Matthew I found these verses:--
"_Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not
kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I
say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause
shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his
brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall
say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the Gehenna of fire. Therefore if
thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother
hath aught against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go
thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy
gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with
him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the
judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily
I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast
paid the uttermost farthing._" (Matt. v. 21-26.)
When I understood the commandment, "_Resist not evil_," it seemed to me
that these verses must have a meaning as clear and intelligible as has
the commandment just cited. The meaning I had formerly given to the
passage was, that every one ought to avoid angry feelings against
others, ought never to utter abusive language, and ought to live in
peace with all men, without exception. But there was in the text a
phrase which excluded this meaning, "Whosoever shall be angry with his
brother _without a cause_"--the words could not then be an exhortation
to absolute peace. I was greatly perplexed, and I turned to the
commentators, the theologians, for the removal of my doubts. To my
surprise I found that the commentators were chiefly occupied with the
endeavor to define under what conditions anger was permissible. All the
commentators of the Church dwelt upon the qualifying phrase "_without a
cause_," and explained the meaning to be that one must not be offended
without a reason, that one must not be abusive, but that anger is not
always unjust; and, to confirm their view, they quoted instances of
anger on the part of saints and apostles. I saw plainly that the
commentators who authorized anger "for the glory of God" as not
reprehensible, although entirely contrary to the spirit of the Gospel,
based their argument on the phrase "without a cause," in the
twenty-second verse. These words change entirely the meaning of the
passage.
Be not angry without cause? Jesus exhorts us to pardon every one, to
pardon without restriction or limit. He pardoned all who did him wrong,
and chided Peter for being angry with Malchus when the former sought to
defend his Master at the time of the betrayal, when, if at any time, it
would seem that anger might have been justifiable. And yet did this same
Jesus formally teach men not to be angry "without a cause," and thereby
sanction anger for a cause? Did Jesus enjoin peace upon all men, and
then, in the phrase "without a cause," interpolate the reservation that
this rule did not apply to all cases; that there were circumstances
under which one might be angry with a brother, and so give the
commentators the right to say that anger is sometimes expedient?
But who is to decide when anger is expedient and when it is not
expedient? I never yet encountered an angry person who did not believe
his wrath to be justifiable. Every one who is angry thinks anger
legitimate and serviceable. Evidently the qualifying phrase "without a
cause" destroys the entire force of the verse. And yet there were the
words in the sacred text, and I could not efface them. The effect was
the same as if the word "good" had been added to the phrase. "Love thy
neighbor"--love thy good neighbor, the neighbor that agrees with thee!
The entire signification of the passage was changed by this phrase,
"without a cause." Verses 23 and 24, which exhort us to be reconciled
with all men before appealing for divine aid, also lost their direct and
imperative meaning and acquired a conditional import through the
influence of the foregoing qualification. It had seemed to me, however,
that Jesus forbade all anger, all evil sentiment, and, that it might not
continue in our hearts, exhorted us before entering into communion with
God to ask ourselves if there were any person who might be angry with
us. If such were the case, whether this anger were with cause or without
cause, he commanded us to be reconciled. In this manner I had
interpreted the passage; but it now seemed, according to the
commentators, that the injunction must be taken as a conditional
affirmation. The commentators all explained that we ought to try to be
at peace with everybody; but, they added, if this is impossible, if,
actuated by evil instincts, any one is at enmity with you, try to be
reconciled with him in spirit, in idea, and then the enmity of others
will be no obstacle to divine communion.
Nor was this all. The words, "Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,
shall be in danger of the council," always seemed to me strange and
absurd. If we are forbidden to be abusive, why this example with its
ordinary and harmless epithet; why this terrible threat against those
that utter abuse so feeble as that implied in the word _raca_, which
means a good-for-nothing? All this was obscure to me.
I was convinced that I had before me a problem similar to that which had
confronted me in the words, "_Judge not_." I felt that here again the
simple, grand, precise, and practical meaning of Jesus had been hidden,
and that the commentators were groping in gloom. It seemed to me that
Jesus, in saying, "_be reconciled to thy brother_," could not have
meant, "be reconciled in idea,"--an explanation not at all clear,
supposing it were true. I understood what Jesus meant when, using the
words of the prophet, he said, "_I will have mercy, and not sacrifice_;"
that is, I will that men shall love one another. If you would have your
acts acceptable to God, then, before offering prayer, interrogate your
conscience; and if you find that any one is angry with you, go and make
your peace with him, and then pray as you desire. After this clear
interpretation, what was I to understand by the comment, "be reconciled
in idea"?
I saw that what seemed to me the only clear and direct meaning of the
verse was destroyed by the phrase, "without a cause." If I could
eliminate that, there would be no difficulty in the way of a lucid
interpretation. But all the commentators were united against any such
course; and the canonical text authorized the rendering to which I
objected. I could not drop these words arbitrarily, and yet, if they
were excluded, everything would become clear. I therefore sought for
some interpretation which would not conflict with the sense of the
entire passage.
I consulted the dictionary. In ordinary Greek, the word [Greek: eikê]
means "heedlessly, inconsiderately." I tried to find some term that
would not destroy the sense; but the words, "without a cause," plainly
had the meaning attributed to them. In New Testament Greek the
signification of [Greek: eikê] is exactly the same. I consulted the
concordances. The word occurs but once in the Gospels, namely, in this
passage. In the first epistle to the Corinthians, xv. 2, it occurs in
exactly the same sense. It is impossible to interpret it otherwise, and
if we accept it, we must conclude that Jesus uttered in vague words a
commandment easily so construed as to be of no effect. To admit this
seemed to me equivalent to rejecting the entire Gospel. There remained
one more resource--was the word to be found in all the manuscripts? I
consulted Griesbach, who records all recognized variants, and discovered
to my joy that the passage in question was not invariable, and that the
variation depended upon the word [Greek: eikê]. In most of the Gospel
texts and the citations of the Fathers, this word does not occur. I
consulted Tischendorf for the most ancient reading: the word [Greek:
eikê] did not appear.
This word, so destructive to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus, is
then an interpolation which had not crept into the best copies of the
Gospel as late as the fifth century. Some copyist added the word; others
approved it and undertook its explanation. Jesus did not utter, could
not have uttered, this terrible word; and the primary meaning of the
passage, its simple, direct, impressive meaning, is the true
interpretation.
Now that I understood Jesus to forbid anger, whatever the cause, and
without distinction of persons, the warning against the use of the words
"raca" and "fool" had a purport quite distinct from any prohibition with
regard to the utterance of abusive epithets. The strange Hebrew word,
_raca_, which is not translated in the Greek text, serves to reveal the
meaning. _Raca_ means, literally, "vain, empty, that which does not
exist." It was much used by the Hebrews to express exclusion. It is
employed in the plural form in Judges ix. 4, in the sense, "empty and
vain." This word Jesus forbids us to apply to any one, as he forbids us
to use the word "fool," which, like "raca," relieves us of all the
obligations of humanity. We get angry, we do evil to men, and then to
excuse ourselves we say that the object of our anger is an empty person,
the refuse of a man, a fool. It is precisely such words as these that
Jesus forbids us to apply to men. He exhorts us not to be angry with any
one, and not to excuse our anger with the plea that we have to do with a
vain person, a person bereft of reason.
And so in place of insignificant, vague, and uncertain phrases subject
to arbitrary interpretation, I found in Matthew v. 21-26 the first
commandment of Jesus: Live in peace with all men. Do not regard anger as
justifiable under any circumstances. Never look upon a human being as
worthless or as a fool. Not only refrain from anger yourself, but do
not regard the anger of others toward you as vain. If any one is angry
with you, even without reason, be reconciled to him, that all hostile
feelings may be effaced. Agree quickly with those that have a grievance
against you, lest animosity prevail to your loss.
The first commandment of Jesus being thus freed from obscurity, I was
able to understand the second, which also begins with a reference to the
ancient law:--
"_Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not
commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman
to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee:
for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and
not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand
offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for
thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body
should be cast into hell. It hath been said,[5] Whosoever shall put away
his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit
adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth
adultery._ (Matt. v. 27-32.)
[5] Deut. xxiv. 1.
By these words I understood that a man ought not, even in imagination,
to admit that he could approach any woman save her to whom he had once
been united, and her he might never abandon to take another, although
permitted to do so by the Mosaic law.
In the first commandment, Jesus counselled us to extinguish the germ of
anger, and illustrated his meaning by the fate of the man who is
delivered to the judges; in the second commandment, Jesus declares that
debauchery arises from the disposition of men and women to regard one
another as instruments of voluptuousness, and, this being so, we ought
to guard against every idea that excites to sensual desire, and, once
united to a woman, never to abandon her on any pretext, for women thus
abandoned are sought by other men, and so debauchery is introduced into
the world.
The wisdom of this commandment impressed me profoundly. It would
suppress all the evils in the world that result from the sexual
relations. Convinced that license in the sexual relations leads to
contention, men, in obedience to this injunction, would avoid every
cause for voluptuousness, and, knowing that the law of humanity is to
live in couples, would so unite themselves, and never destroy the bond
of union. All the evils arising from dissensions caused by sexual
attraction would be suppressed, since there would be neither men nor
women deprived of the sexual relation.
But I was much more impressed, as I read the Sermon on the Mount, with
the words, "Saving for the cause of fornication," which permitted a man
to repudiate his wife in case of infidelity. The very form in which the
idea was expressed seemed to me unworthy of the dignity of the
occasion, for here, side by side with the profound truths of the Sermon
on the Mount, occurred, like a note in a criminal code, this strange
exception to the general rule; but I shall not dwell upon the question
of form; I shall speak only of the exception itself, so entirely in
contradiction with the fundamental idea.
I consulted the commentators; all, Chrysostom and the others, even
authorities on exegesis like Reuss, all recognized the meaning of the
words to be that Jesus permitted divorce in case of infidelity on the
part of the woman, and that, in the exhortation against divorce in the
nineteenth chapter of Matthew, the same words had the same
signification. I read the thirty-second verse of the fifth chapter again
and again, and reason refused to accept the interpretation. To verify my
doubts I consulted the other portions of the New Testament texts, and I
found in Matthew (xix.), Mark (x.), Luke (xvi.), and in the first
epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, affirmation of the doctrine of the
indissolubility of marriage. In Luke (xvi. 18) it is said:--
"_Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth
adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband
committeth adultery._"
In Mark (x. 5-12) the doctrine is also proclaimed without any exception
whatever:--
"_For the hardness of your heart he_ [Moses] _wrote you this precept.
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to
his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more
twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not
man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the
same matter. And he said unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife,
and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall
put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth
adultery._"
The same idea is expressed in Matt. xix. 4-9. Paul, in the first epistle
to the Corinthians (vii. 1-11), develops systematically the idea that
the only way of preventing debauchery is that every man have his own
wife, and every woman have her own husband, and that they mutually
satisfy the sexual instinct; then he says, without equivocation, "_Let
not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her
remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the
husband put away his wife_."
According to Mark, and Luke, and Paul, divorce is forbidden. It is
forbidden by the assertion repeated in two of the Gospels, that husband
and wife are one flesh whom God hath joined together. It is forbidden by
the doctrine of Jesus, who exhorts us to pardon every one, without
excepting the adulterous woman. It is forbidden by the general sense of
the whole passage, which explains that divorce is provocative of
debauchery, and for this reason that divorce with an adulterous woman is
prohibited.
Upon what, then, is based the opinion that divorce is permissible in
case of infidelity on the part of the woman? Upon the words which had so
impressed me in Matt. v. 32; the words every one takes to mean that
Jesus permits divorce in case of adultery by the woman; the words,
repeated in Matt. xix. 9, in a number of copies of the Gospel text, and
by many Fathers of the Church,--the words, "unless for the cause of
adultery." I studied these words carefully anew. For a long time I could
not understand them. It seemed to me that there must be a defect in the
translation, and an erroneous exegesis; but where was the source of the
error? I could not find it; and yet the error itself was very plain.
In opposition to the Mosaic law, which declares that if a man take an
aversion to his wife he may write her a bill of divorcement and send her
out of his house--in opposition to this law Jesus is made to declare,
"_But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for
the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery_." I saw
nothing in these words to allow us to affirm that divorce was either
permitted or forbidden. It is said that whoever shall put away his wife
causes her to commit adultery, and then an exception is made with regard
to a woman guilty of adultery. This exception, which throws the guilt of
marital infidelity entirely upon the _woman_ is, in general, strange and
unexpected; but here, in relation to the context, it is simply absurd,
for even the very doubtful meaning which might otherwise be attributed
to it is wholly destroyed. Whoever puts away his wife exposes her to the
crime of adultery, and yet a man is permitted to put away a wife guilty
of adultery, as if a woman guilty of adultery would no more commit
adultery after she were put away.
But this is not all; when I had examined this passage attentively, I
found it also to be lacking in grammatical meaning. The words are,
"Whoever shall put away his wife, except for the fault of adultery,
exposes her to the commission of adultery,"--and the proposition is
complete. It is a question of the husband, of him who in putting away
his wife exposes her to the commission of the crime of adultery; what,
then, is the purport of the qualifying phrase, "except for the fault of
adultery"? If the proposition were in this form: Whoever shall put away
his wife is guilty of adultery, unless the wife herself has been
unfaithful--it would be grammatically correct. But as the passage now
stands, the subject "whoever" has no other predicate than the word
"exposes," with which the phrase "except for the fault of adultery"
cannot be connected. What, then, is the purport of this phrase? It is
plain that whether for or without the fault of adultery on the part of
the woman, the husband who puts away his wife exposes her to the
commission of adultery.
The proposition is analogous to the following sentence: Whoever refuses
food to his son, besides the fault of spitefulness, exposes him to the
possibility of being cruel. This sentence evidently cannot mean that a
father may refuse food to his son if the latter is spiteful. It can only
mean that a father who refuses food to his son, besides being spiteful
towards his son, exposes his son to the possibility of becoming cruel.
And in the same way, the Gospel proposition would have a meaning if we
could replace the words, "the fault of adultery," by libertinism,
debauchery, or some similar phrase, expressing not an act but a quality.
And so I asked myself if the meaning here was not simply that whoever
puts away his wife, besides being himself guilty of libertinism (since
no one puts away his wife except to take another), exposes his wife to
the commission of adultery? If, in the original text, the word
translated "adultery" or "fornication" had the meaning of libertinism,
the meaning of the passage would be clear. And then I met with the same
experience that had happened to me before in similar instances. The text
confirmed my suppositions and entirely effaced my doubts.
The first thing that occurred to me in reading the text was that the
word [Greek: porneia], translated in common with [Greek: moichasthai],
"adultery" or "fornication," is an entirely different word from the
latter. But perhaps these two words are used as synonyms in the Gospels?
I consulted the dictionary, and found that the word [Greek: porneia],
corresponding in Hebrew to _zanah_, in Latin to _fornicatio_, in German
to _hurerei_, in French to _libertinage_, has a very precise meaning,
and that it never has signified, and never can signify, the act of
adultery, _ehebruch_, as Luther and the Germans after him have rendered
the word. It signifies a state of depravity,--a quality, and not an
act,--and never can be properly translated by "adultery" or
"fornication." I found, moreover, that "adultery" is expressed
throughout the Gospel, as well as in the passage under consideration, by
the word [Greek: moicheuô]. I had only to correct the false translation,
which had evidently been made intentionally, to render absolutely
inadmissible the meaning attributed by commentators to the text, and to
show the proper grammatical relation of [Greek: porneia] to the subject
of the sentence.
A person acquainted with Greek would construe as follows: [Greek:
parektos], "except, outside," [Greek: logou], "the matter, the cause,"
[Greek: porneias], "of libertinism," [Greek: poiei], "obliges," [Greek:
autên], "her," [Greek: moichasthai], "to be an adulteress"--which
rendering gives, word for word, Whoever puts away his wife, besides the
fault of libertinism, obliges her to be an adulteress.
We obtain the same meaning from Matt. xix. 9. When we correct the
unauthorized translation of [Greek: porneia], by substituting
"libertinism" for "fornication," we see at once that the phrase [Greek:
ei mê epi porneia] cannot apply to "wife." And as the words [Greek:
parektos logou porneias] could signify nothing else than the fault of
libertinism on the part of the husband, so the words [Greek: ei mê epi
porneia], in the nineteenth chapter, can have no other than the same
meaning. The phrase [Greek: ei mê epi porneia] is, word for word, "if
this is not through libertinism" (to give one's self up to
libertinism). The meaning then becomes clear. Jesus replies to the
theory of the Pharisees, that a man who abandons his wife to marry
another without the intention of giving himself up to libertinism does
not commit adultery--Jesus replies to this theory that the abandonment
of a wife, that is, the cessation of sexual relations, even if not for
the purpose of libertinism, but to marry another, is none the less
adultery. Thus we come at the simple meaning of this commandment--a
meaning which accords with the whole doctrine, with the words of which
it is the complement, with grammar, and with logic. This simple and
clear interpretation, harmonizing so naturally with the doctrine and the
words from which it was derived, I discovered after the most careful and
prolonged research. Upon a premeditated alteration of the text had been
based an exegesis which destroyed the moral, religious, logical, and
grammatical meaning of Jesus' words.
And thus once more I found a confirmation of the terrible fact that the
meaning of the doctrine of Jesus is simple and clear, that its
affirmations are emphatic and precise, but that commentaries upon the
doctrine, inspired by a desire to sanction existing evil, have so
obscured it that determined effort is demanded of him who would know the
truth. If the Gospels had come down to us in a fragmentary condition, it
would have been easier (so it seemed to me) to restore the true meaning
of the text than to find that meaning now, beneath the accumulations of
fallacious comments which have apparently no purpose save to conceal the
doctrine they are supposed to expound. With regard to the passage under
consideration, it is plain that to justify the divorce of some Byzantine
emperor this ingenious pretext was employed to obscure the doctrine
regulating the relations between the sexes. When we have rejected the
suggestions of the commentators, we escape from the mist of uncertainty,
and the second commandment of Jesus becomes precise and clear. "Guard
against libertinism. Let every man justified in entering into the sexual
relation have one wife, and every wife one husband, and under no pretext
whatever let this union be violated by either."
* * * * *
Immediately after the second commandment is another reference to the
ancient law, followed by the third commandment:--
"_Again, ye have heard that it hath been said[6] by them of old time,
Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine
oaths: 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
Jerusalem; 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 let your communications be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is
more than these cometh of evil._" (Matt. v. 33-37.)
[6] Levit. xix. 12; Deut. xxiii. 21, 34.
This passage always troubled me when I read it. It did not trouble me by
its obscurity, like the passage about divorce; or by conflicting with
other passages, like the authorization of anger for cause; or by the
difficulty in the way of obedience, as in the case of the command to
turn the other cheek;--it troubled me rather by its very clearness,
simplicity, and practicality. Side by side with rules whose magnitude
and importance I felt profoundly, was this saying, which seemed to me
superfluous, frivolous, weak, and without consequence to me or to
others. I naturally did not swear, either by Jerusalem, or by heaven, or
by anything else, and it cost me not the least effort to refrain from
doing so; on the other hand, it seemed to me that whether I swore or did
not swear could not be of the slightest importance to any one. And
desiring to find an explanation of this rule, which troubled me through
its very simplicity, I consulted the commentators. They were in this
case of great assistance to me.
The commentators all found in these words a confirmation of the third
commandment of Moses,--not to swear by the name of the Lord; but, in
addition to this, they explained that this commandment of Jesus against
an oath was not always obligatory, and had no reference whatever to the
oath which citizens are obliged to take before the authorities. And they
brought together Scripture citations, not to support the direct meaning
of Jesus' commandment, but to prove when it ought and ought not to be
obeyed. They claimed that Jesus had himself sanctioned the oath in
courts of justice by his reply, "_Thou hast said_," to the words of the
High Priest, "_I adjure thee by the living God_;" that the apostle Paul
invoked God to witness the truth of his words, which invocation was
evidently equivalent to an oath; that the law of Moses proscribing the
oath was not abrogated by Jesus; and that Jesus forbade only false
oaths, the oaths of Pharisees and hypocrites. When I had read these
comments, I understood that unless I excepted from the oaths forbidden
by Jesus the oath of fidelity to the State, the commandment was as
insignificant as superficial, and as easy to practise as I had supposed.
And I asked myself the question, Does this passage contain an
exhortation to abstain from an oath that the commentators of the Church
are so zealous to justify? Does it not forbid us to take the oath
indispensable to the assembling of men into political groups and the
formation of a military caste? The soldier, that special instrument of
violence, goes in Russia by the nickname of _prissaiaga_ (sworn in). If
I had asked the soldier at the Borovitzky Gate how he solved the
contradiction between the Gospels and military regulations, he would
have replied that he had taken the oath, that is, that he had sworn by
the Gospels. This is the reply that soldiers always make. The oath is so
indispensable to the horrors of war and armed coercion that in France,
where Christianity is out of favor, the oath remains in full force. If
Jesus did not say in so many words, "Do not take an oath," the
prohibition ought to be a consequence of his teaching. He came to
suppress evil, and, if he did not condemn the oath, he left a terrible
evil untouched. It may be said, perhaps, that at the time at which Jesus
lived this evil passed unperceived; but this is not true. Epictetus and
Seneca declare against the taking of oaths. A similar rule is inscribed
in the laws of Mani. The Jews of the time of Jesus made proselytes, and
obliged them to take the oath. How could it be said that Jesus did not
perceive this evil when he forbade it in clear, direct, and
circumstantial terms? He said, "_Swear not at all_." This expression is
as simple, clear, and absolute as the expression, "_Judge not, condemn
not_," and is as little subject to explanation; moreover, he added to
this, "_Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is
more than these cometh of evil_."
If obedience to the doctrine of Jesus consists in perpetual observance
of the will of God, how can a man swear to observe the will of another
man or other men? The will of God cannot coincide with the will of man.
And this is precisely what Jesus said in Matt. v. 36:--
"_Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one
hair white or black._"
And the apostle James says in his epistle, v. 12:--
"_But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven,
neither by earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea;
and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation._"
The apostle tells us clearly why we must not swear: the oath in itself
may be unimportant, but by it men are condemned, and so we ought not to
swear at all. How could we express more clearly the saying of Jesus and
his apostle?
My ideas had become so confused that for a long time I had kept before
me the question, Do the words and the meaning of this passage agree?--it
does not seem possible. But, after having read the commentaries
attentively, I saw that the impossible had become a fact. The
explanations of the commentators were in harmony with those they had
offered concerning the other commandments of Jesus: judge not, be not
angry, do not violate the marital bonds.
We have organized a social order which we cherish and look upon as
sacred. Jesus, whom we recognize as God, comes and tells us that our
social organization is wrong. We recognize him as God, but we are not
willing to renounce our social institutions. What, then, are we to do?
Add, if we can, the words "without a cause" to render void the command
against anger; mutilate the sense of another law, as audacious
prevaricators have done by substituting for the command absolutely
forbidding divorce, phraseology which permits divorce; and if there is
no possible way of deriving an equivocal meaning, as in the case of the
commands, "_Judge not, condemn not_," and "_Swear not at all_," then
with the utmost effrontery openly violate the rule while affirming that
we obey it.
In fact, the principal obstacle to a comprehension of the truth that the
Gospel forbids all manner of oaths exists in the fact that our
pseudo-Christian commentators themselves, with unexampled audacity, take
oath upon the Gospel itself. They make men swear by the Gospel, that is
to say, they do just the contrary of what the Gospel commands. Why does
it never occur to the man who is made to take an oath upon the cross and
the Gospel that the cross was made sacred only by the death of one who
forbade all oaths, and that in kissing the sacred book he perhaps is
pressing his lips upon the very page where is recorded the clear and
direct commandment, "_Swear not at all_"?
But I was troubled no more with regard to the meaning of the passage
comprised in Matt. v. 33-37 when I found the plain declaration of the
third commandment, that we should take no oath, since all oaths are
imposed for an evil purpose.
* * * * *
After the third commandment comes the fourth reference to the ancient
law and the enunciation of the fourth commandment:--
"_Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth
for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever
shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if
any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have
thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with
him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow
of thee turn not thou away._" (Matt. V. 38-42.)
I have already spoken of the direct and precise meaning of these words;
I have already said that we have no reason whatever for basing upon them
an allegorical explanation. The comments that have been made upon them,
from the time of Chrysostom to our day, are really surprising. The words
are pleasing to every one, and they inspire all manner of profound
reflections save one,--that these words express exactly what Jesus meant
to say. The Church commentators, not at all awed by the authority of one
whom they recognize as God, boldly distort the meaning of his words.
They tell us, of course, that these commandments to bear offences and to
refrain from reprisals are directed against the vindictive character of
the Jews; they not only do not exclude all general measures for the
repression of evil and the punishment of evil-doers, but they exhort
every one to individual and personal effort to sustain justice, to
apprehend aggressors, and to prevent the wicked from inflicting evil
upon others,--for, otherwise (they tell us) these spiritual commandments
of the Saviour would become, as they became among the Jews, a dead
letter, and would serve only to propagate evil and to suppress virtue.
The love of the Christian should be patterned after the love of God; but
divine love circumscribes and reproves evil only as may be required for
the glory of God and the safety of his servants. If evil is propagated,
we must set bounds to evil and punish it,--now this is the duty of
authorities.[7]
[7] This citation is taken from the _Commentaries on the Gospel_,
by the Archbishop Michael, a work based upon the writings of the
Fathers of the Church.
Christian scholars and free-thinkers are not embarrassed by the meaning
of these words of Jesus, and do not hesitate to correct them. The
sentiments here expressed, they tell us, are very noble, but are
completely inapplicable to life; for if we practised to the letter the
commandment, "_Resist not evil_," our entire social fabric would be
destroyed. This is what Renan, Strauss, and all the liberal commentators
tell us. If, however, we take the words of Jesus as we would take the
words of any one who speaks to us, and admit that he says exactly what
he does say, all these profound circumlocutions vanish away. Jesus says,
"Your social system is absurd and wrong. I propose to you another." And
then he utters the teachings reported by Matthew (v. 38-42). It would
seem that before correcting them one ought to understand them; now this
is exactly what no one wishes to do. We decide in advance that the
social order which controls our existence, and which is abolished by
these words, is the superior law of humanity.
For my part, I consider our social order to be neither wise nor sacred;
and that is why I have understood this commandment when others have not.
And when I had understood these words just as they are written, I was
struck with their truth, their lucidity, and their precision. Jesus
said, "You wish to suppress evil by evil; this is not reasonable. To
abolish evil, avoid the commission of evil." And then he enumerates
instances where we are in the habit of returning evil for evil, and says
that in these cases we ought not so to do.
This fourth commandment was the one that I first understood; and it
revealed to me the meaning of all the others. This simple, clear, and
practical fourth commandment says: "Never resist evil by force, never
return violence for violence: if any one beat you, bear it; if one would
deprive you of anything, yield to his wishes; if any one would force you
to labor, labor; if any one would take away your property, abandon it at
his demand."
* * * * *
After the fourth commandment we find a fifth reference to the ancient
law, followed by the fifth commandment:--
"_Ye have heard that it hath been said,[8] Thou shall love thy neighbor
and hate thine enemy. 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 the children of
your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the
evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if ye love them which 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 publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even
as your Father which is in heaven is perfect._" (Matt. v. 43-48.)
[8] See Levit. xix. 17, 18.
These verses I had formerly regarded as a continuation, an exposition,
an enforcement, I might almost say an exaggeration, of the words,
"_Resist not evil_." But as I had found a simple, precise, and practical
meaning in each of the passages beginning with a reference to the
ancient law, I anticipated a similar experience here. After each
reference of this sort had thus far come a commandment, and each
commandment had been important and distinct in meaning; it ought to be
so now. The closing words of the passage, repeated by Luke, which are to
the effect that God makes no distinction of persons, but lavishes his
gifts upon all, and that we, following his precepts, ought to regard all
men as equally worthy, and to do good to all,--these words were clear;
they seemed to me to be a confirmation and exposition of some definite
law--but what was this law? For a long time I could not understand it.
To love one's enemies?--this was impossible. It was one of those sublime
thoughts that we must look upon only as an indication of a moral ideal
impossible of attainment. It demanded all or nothing. We might, perhaps,
refrain from doing injury to our enemies--but to love them!--no; Jesus
did not command the impossible. And besides, in the words referring to
the ancient law, "_Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt ...
hate thine enemy_," there was cause for doubt. In other references
Jesus cited textually the terms of the Mosaic law; but here he
apparently cites words that have no such authority; he seems to
calumniate the law of Moses.
As with regard to my former doubts, so now the commentators gave me no
explanation of the difficulty. They all agreed that the words "_hate
thine enemy_" were not in the Mosaic law, but they offered no suggestion
as to the meaning of the unauthorized phrase. They spoke of the
difficulty of loving one's enemies, that is, wicked men (thus they
emended Jesus' words); and they said that while it is impossible to love
our enemies, we may refrain from wishing them harm and from inflicting
injury upon them. Moreover, they insinuated that we might and should
"convince" our enemies, that is, resist them; they spoke of the
different degrees of love for our enemies which we might attain--from
all of which the final conclusion was that Jesus, for some inexplicable
reason, quoted as from the law of Moses words not to be found therein,
and then uttered a number of sublime phrases which at bottom are
impracticable and empty of meaning.
I could not agree with this conclusion. In this passage, as in the
passages containing the first four commandments, there must be some
clear and precise meaning. To find this meaning, I set myself first of
all to discover the purport of the words containing the inexact
reference to the ancient law, "_Ye have heard that it hath been said,
Thou shalt... hate thine enemy_." Jesus had some reason for placing at
the head of each of his commandments certain portions of the ancient law
to serve as the antitheses of his own doctrine. If we do not understand
what is meant by the citations from the ancient law, we cannot
understand what Jesus proscribed. The commentators say frankly (it is
impossible not to say so) that Jesus in this instance made use of words
not to be found in the Mosaic law, but they do not tell us why he did so
or what meaning we are to attach to the words thus used.
It seemed to me above all necessary to know what Jesus had in view when
he cited these words which are not to be found in the law. I asked
myself what these words could mean. In all other references of the sort,
Jesus quotes a single rule from the ancient law: "Thou shalt not
kill"--"Thou shalt not commit adultery"--"Thou shalt not forswear
thyself"--"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"--and with regard to
each rule he propounds his own doctrine. In the instance under
consideration, he cites two contrasting rules: "_Ye have heard that it
hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine
enemy_,"--from which it would appear that the contrast between these two
rules of the ancient law, relative to one's neighbor and one's enemy,
should be the basis of the new law. To understand clearly what this
contrast was, I sought for the meanings of the words "neighbor" and
"enemy," as used in the Gospel text. After consulting dictionaries and
Biblical texts, I was convinced that "neighbor" in the Hebrew language
meant, invariably and exclusively, a Hebrew. We find the same meaning
expressed in the Gospel parable of the Samaritan. From the inquiry of
the Jewish scribe (Luke x. 29), "_And who is my neighbor?_" it is plain
that he did not regard the Samaritan as such. The word "neighbor" is
used with the same meaning in Acts vii. 27. "Neighbor," in Gospel
language, means a compatriot, a person belonging to the same
nationality. And so the antithesis used by Jesus in the citation, "_love
thy neighbor, hate thine enemy_," must be in the distinction between the
words "compatriot" and "foreigner." I then sought for the Jewish
understanding of "enemy," and I found my supposition confirmed. The word
"enemy" is nearly always employed in the Gospels in the sense, not of a
personal enemy, but, in general, of a "hostile people" (Luke i. 71, 74;
Matt. xxii. 44; Mark xii. 36; Luke xx. 43, etc.). The use of the word
"enemy" in the singular form, in the phrase "_hate thine enemy_,"
convinced me that the meaning is a "hostile people." In the Old
Testament, the conception "hostile people" is nearly always expressed in
the singular form.
When I understood this, I understood why Jesus, who had before quoted
the authentic words of the law, had here cited the words "_hate thine
enemy_." When we understand the word "enemy" in the sense of "hostile
people," and "neighbor" in the sense of "compatriot," the difficulty is
completely solved. Jesus spoke of the manner in which Moses directed
the Hebrews to act toward "hostile peoples." The various passages
scattered through the different books of the Old Testament, prescribing
the oppression, slaughter, and extermination of other peoples, Jesus
summed up in one word, "hate,"--make war upon the enemy. He said, in
substance: "You have heard that you must love those of your own race,
and hate foreigners; but I say unto you, love every one without
distinction of nationality." When I had understood these words in this
way, I saw immediately the force of the phrase, "_Love your enemies_."
It is impossible to love one's personal enemies; but it is perfectly
possible to love the citizens of a foreign nation equally with one's
compatriots. And I saw clearly that in saying, "_Ye have heard that it
hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But
I say unto you, Love your enemies_," Jesus meant to say that men are in
the habit of looking upon compatriots as neighbors, and foreigners as
enemies; and this he reproved. His meaning was that the law of Moses
established a difference between the Hebrew and the foreigner--the
hostile peoples; but he forbade any such difference. And then, according
to Matthew and Luke, after giving this commandment, he said that with
God all men are equal, all are warmed by the same sun, all profit by the
same rain. God makes no distinction among peoples, and lavishes his
gifts upon all men; men ought to act exactly in the same way toward one
another, without distinction of nationality, and not like the heathen,
who divide themselves into distinct nationalities.
Thus once more I found confirmed on all sides the simple, clear,
important, and practical meaning of the words of Jesus. Once more, in
place of an obscure sentence, I had found a clear, precise, important,
and practical rule: To make no distinction between compatriots and
foreigners, and to abstain from all the results of such
distinction,--from hostility towards foreigners, from wars, from all
participation in war, from all preparations for war; to establish with
all men, of whatever nationality, the same relations granted to
compatriots. All this was so simple and so clear, that I was astonished
that I had not perceived it from the first.
The cause of my error was the same as that which had perplexed me with
regard to the passages relating to judgments and the taking of oaths. It
is very difficult to believe that tribunals upheld by professed
Christians, blest by those who consider themselves the guardians of the
law of Jesus, could be incompatible with the Christian religion; could
be, in fact, diametrically opposed to it. It is still more difficult to
believe that the oath which we are obliged to take by the guardians of
the law of Jesus, is directly reproved by this law. To admit that
everything in life that is considered essential and natural, as well as
what is considered the most noble and grand,--love of country, its
defence, its glory, battle with its enemies,--to admit that all this is
not only an infraction of the law of Jesus, but is directly denounced by
Jesus,--this, I say, is difficult.
Our existence is now so entirely in contradiction with the doctrine of
Jesus, that only with the greatest difficulty can we understand its
meaning. We have been so deaf to the rules of life that he has given us,
to his explanations,--not only when he commands us not to kill, but when
he warns us against anger, when he commands us not to resist evil, to
turn the other cheek, to love our enemies; we are so accustomed to speak
of a body of men especially organized for murder, as a Christian army,
we are so accustomed to prayers addressed to the Christ for the
assurance of victory, we who have made the sword, that symbol of murder,
an almost sacred object (so that a man deprived of this symbol, of his
sword, is a dishonored man); we are so accustomed, I say, to this, that
the words of Jesus seem to us compatible with war. We say, "If he had
forbidden it, he would have said so plainly." We forget that Jesus did
not foresee that men having faith in his doctrine of humility, love, and
fraternity, could ever, with calmness and premeditation, organize
themselves for the murder of their brethren.
Jesus did not foresee this, and so he did not forbid a Christian to
participate in war. A father who exhorts his son to live honestly, never
to wrong any person, and to give all that he has to others, would not
forbid his son to kill people upon the highway. None of the apostles, no
disciple of Jesus during the first centuries of Christianity, realized
the necessity of forbidding a Christian that form of murder which we
call war.
Here, for example, is what Origen says in his reply to Celsus:[9]--
[9] _Contra Celsum_, book VIII. chap. LXXIII.
"In the next place, Celsus urges us 'to help the king with all our
might, and to labor with him in the maintenance of justice, to fight for
him; and, if he requires it, to fight under him, or lead an army along
with him.' To this, our answer is that we do, when occasion requires,
give help to kings, and that, so to say, a divine help, 'putting on the
whole armour of God.' And this we do in obedience to the injunction of
the apostle, 'I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplications,
prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men, for
kings, and for all that are in authority'; and the more any one excels
in piety, the more effective help does he render to kings, even more
than is given by soldiers, who go forth to fight and slay as many of the
enemy as they can. And to those enemies of our faith who require us to
bear arms for the commonwealth, and to slay men, we can reply: 'Do not
those who are priests at certain shrines, and those who attend on
certain gods, as you account them, keep their hands free from blood,
that they may with hands unstained and free from human blood, offer the
appointed sacrifices to your gods? and even when war is upon you, you
never enlist the priests in the army. If that, then, is a laudable
custom, how much more so, that while others are engaged in battle, these
too should engage as the priests and ministers of God, keeping their
hands pure, and wrestling in prayers to God on behalf of those who are
fighting in a righteous cause, and for the king who reigns righteously,
that whatever is opposed to those who act righteously may be
destroyed!'"
And at the close of the chapter, in explaining that Christians, through
their peaceful lives, are much more helpful to kings than soldiers are,
Origen says:--
"And none fight better for the king than we do. We do not, indeed, fight
under him, although he require it; but we fight on his behalf, forming a
special army,--an army of piety,--by offering our prayers to God."
This is the way in which the Christians of the first centuries regarded
war, and such was the language that their leaders addressed to the
rulers of the earth at a period when martyrs perished by hundreds and by
thousands for having confessed the religion of Jesus, the Christ.
And now is not the question settled as to whether a Christian may or may
not go to war? All young men brought up according to the doctrine of the
Church called Christian, are obliged at a specified date during every
autumn, to report at the bureaus of conscription and, under the guidance
of their spiritual directors, deliberately to renounce the religion of
Jesus. Not long ago, there was a peasant who refused military service
on the plea that it was contrary to the Gospel. The doctors of the
Church explained to the peasant his error; but, as the peasant had
faith, not in their words, but in those of Jesus, he was thrown into
prison, where he remained until he was ready to renounce the law of
Christ. And all this happened after Christians had heard for eighteen
hundred years the clear, precise, and practical commandment of their
Master, which teaches not to consider men of different nationality as
enemies, but to consider all men as brethren, and to maintain with them
the same relations existing among compatriots; to refrain not only from
killing those who are called enemies, but to love them and to minister
to their needs.
When I had understood these simple and precise commandments of Jesus,
these commandments so ill adapted to the ingenious distortions of
commentators,--I asked myself what would be the result if the whole
Christian world believed in them, believed not only in reading and
chanting them for the glory of God, but also in obeying them for the
good of humanity? What would be the result if men believed in the
observance of these commandments at least as seriously as they believe
in daily devotions, in attendance on Sunday worship, in weekly fasts, in
the holy sacrament? What would be the result if the faith of men in
these commandments were as strong as their faith in the requirements of
the Church? And then I saw in imagination a Christian society living
according to these commandments and educating the younger generation to
follow their precepts. I tried to picture the results if we taught our
children from infancy, not what we teach them now--to maintain personal
dignity, to uphold personal privileges against the encroachments of
others (which we can never do without humiliating or offending
others)--but to teach them that no man has a right to privileges, and
can neither be above or below any one else; that he alone debases and
demeans himself who tries to domineer over others; that a man can be in
a no more contemptible condition than when he is angry with another;
that what may seem to be foolish and despicable in another is no excuse
for wrath or enmity. I sought to imagine the results if, instead of
extolling our social organization as it now is, with its theatres, its
romances, its sumptuous methods for stimulating sensuous desires--if,
instead of this, we taught our children by precept and by example, that
the reading of lascivious romances and attendance at theatres and balls
are the most vulgar of all distractions, and that there is nothing more
grotesque and humiliating than to pass one's time in the collection and
arrangement of personal finery to make of one's body an object of show.
I endeavored to imagine a state of society where, instead of permitting
and approving libertinism in young men before marriage, instead of
regarding the separation of husband and wife as natural and desirable,
instead of giving to women the legal right to practise the trade of
prostitution, instead of countenancing and sanctioning divorce--if,
instead of this, we taught by words and actions that the state of
celibacy, the solitary existence of a man properly endowed for, and who
has not renounced the sexual relation, is a monstrous and opprobrious
wrong; and that the abandonment of wife by husband or of husband by wife
for the sake of another, is an act against nature, an act bestial and
inhuman.
Instead of regarding it as natural that our entire existence should be
controlled by coercion; that every one of our amusements should be
provided and maintained by force; that each of us from childhood to old
age should be by turns victim and executioner--instead of this I tried
to picture the results if, by precept and example, we endeavored to
inspire the world with the conviction that vengeance is a sentiment
unworthy of humanity; that violence is not only debasing, but that it
deprives us of all capacity for happiness; that the true pleasures of
life are not those maintained by force; and that our greatest
consideration ought to be bestowed, not upon those who accumulate riches
to the injury of others, but upon those who best serve others and give
what they have to lessen the woes of their kind. If instead of regarding
the taking of an oath and the placing of ourselves and our lives at the
disposition of another as a rightful and praiseworthy act,--I tried to
imagine what would be the result if we taught that the enlightened will
of man is alone sacred; and that if a man place himself at the
disposition of any one, and promise by oath anything whatever, he
renounces his rational manhood and outrages his most sacred right. I
tried to imagine the results, if, instead of the national hatred with
which we are inspired under the name of "patriotism"; if, in place of
the glory associated with that form of murder which we call war,--if, in
place of this, we were taught, on the contrary, horror and contempt for
all the means--military, diplomatic, and political--which serve to
divide men; if we were educated to look upon the division of men into
political States, and a diversity of codes and frontiers, as an
indication of barbarism; and that to massacre others is a most horrible
forfeit, which can only be exacted of a depraved and misguided man, who
has fallen to the lowest level of the brute. I imagined that all men had
arrived at these convictions, and I considered what I thought would be
the result.
Up to this time (I said), what have been the practical results of the
doctrine of Jesus as I understand it? and the involuntary reply was,
Nothing. We continue to pray, to partake of the sacraments, to believe
in the redemption, and in our personal salvation as well as that of the
world by Jesus the Christ,--and yet that this salvation will never come
by our efforts, but will come because the period set for the end of the
world will have arrived when the Christ will appear in his glory to
judge the quick and the dead, and the kingdom of heaven will be
established.
Now the doctrine of Jesus, as I understood it, had an entirely different
meaning. The establishment of the kingdom of God depended upon our
personal efforts in the practice of Jesus' doctrine as propounded in the
five commandments, which instituted the kingdom of God upon earth. The
kingdom of God upon earth consists in this, that all men should be at
peace with one another. It was thus that the Hebrew prophets conceived
of the rule of God. Peace among men is the greatest blessing that can
exist upon this earth, and it is within reach of all men. This ideal is
in every human heart. The prophets all brought to men the promise of
peace. The whole doctrine of Jesus has but one object, to establish
peace--the kingdom of God--among men.
In the Sermon on the Mount, in the interview with Nicodemus, in the
instructions given to his disciples, in all his teachings, Jesus spoke
only of this, of the things that divided men, that kept them from peace,
that prevented them from entering into the kingdom of heaven. The
parables make clear to us what the kingdom of heaven is, and show us the
only way of entering therein, which is to love our brethren, and to be
at peace with all. John the Baptist, the forerunner of Jesus, proclaimed
the approach of the kingdom of God, and declared that Jesus was to bring
it upon earth. Jesus himself said that his mission was to bring peace:--
"_Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world
giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it
be afraid_" (John xiv. 27).
And the observance of his five commandments will bring peace upon the
earth. They all have but one object,--the establishment of peace among
men. If men will only believe in the doctrine of Jesus and practise it,
the reign of peace will come upon earth,--not that peace which is the
work of man, partial, precarious, and at the mercy of chance; but the
peace that is all-pervading, inviolable, and eternal.
The first commandment tells us to be at peace with every one and to
consider none as foolish or unworthy. If peace is violated, we are to
seek to re-establish it. The true religion is in the extinction of
enmity among men. We are to be reconciled without delay, that we may not
lose that inner peace which is the true life (Matt. v. 22-24).
Everything is comprised in this commandment; but Jesus knew the worldly
temptations that prevent peace among men. The first temptation perilous
to peace is that of the sexual relation. We are not to consider the body
as an instrument of lust; each man is to have one wife, and each woman
one husband, and one is never to forsake the other under any pretext
(Matt. v. 28-32). The second temptation is that of the oath, which draws
men into sin; this is wrong, and we are not to be bound by any such
promise (Matt. v. 34-37). The third temptation is that of vengeance,
which we call human justice; this we are not to resort to under any
pretext; we are to endure offences and never to return evil for evil
(Matt. v. 38-42). The fourth temptation is that arising from difference
in nationalities, from hostility between peoples and States; but we are
to remember that all men are brothers, and children of the same Father,
and thus take care that difference in nationality leads not to the
destruction of peace (Matt. v. 43-48).
If men abstain from practising any one of these commandments, peace will
be violated. Let men practise all these commandments, which exclude evil
from the lives of men, and peace will be established upon earth. The
practice of these five commandments would realize the ideal of human
life existing in every human heart. All men would be brothers, each
would be at peace with others, enjoying all the blessings of earth to
the limit of years accorded by the Creator. Men would beat their swords
into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, and then would
come the kingdom of God,--that reign of peace foretold by all the
prophets, which was foretold by John the Baptist as near at hand, and
which Jesus proclaimed in the words of Isaiah:--
"'_The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to
preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken
hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight
to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the
acceptable year of the Lord.'[10]... And he began to say unto them,
To-day hath this Scripture been fulfilled in your ears_" (Luke iv. 18,
19, 21).
[10] Isaiah lxi. 1, 2.
The commandments for peace given by Jesus,--those simple and clear
commandments, foreseeing all possibilities of discussion, and
anticipating all objections,--these commandments proclaimed the kingdom
of God upon earth. Jesus, then, was, in truth, the Messiah. He fulfilled
what had been promised. But we have not fulfilled the commands we must
fulfil if the kingdom of God is to be established upon earth,--that
kingdom which men in all ages have earnestly desired, and have sought
for continually, all their days.