Non-Resistance to Evil by Force

“You have heard that it was said: ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you: ‘Do not resist the one who is evil’” (Matt. 5:38-39).

Christ teaches us not to resist evil. This teaching is true because it tears evil out by the root from the heart of both the wronged and the wrongdoer. This teaching forbids doing that which multiplies rather than ends evil in the world. When one person attacks another, wrongs him, he thereby kindles in that other a feeling of hatred—the root of all evil. What then can we do to extinguish this feeling of evil? Should we really do the very thing that evokes this evil feeling—wrong another, that is, repeat the bad deed? To act thus means, instead of casting out the devil, to strengthen him. Satan cannot be cast out by Satan, falsehood cannot be cleansed by falsehood, and evil cannot be conquered by evil.

Therefore non-resistance to evil by evil is the only means of conquering evil. It kills the evil feeling both in the one who did evil and in the one who suffered it.

“But,” they ask, “if the idea of the teaching is correct, is it practicable?” It is just as practicable as any good prescribed by God’s law. Good cannot be practiced under any circumstances without self-denial, deprivation, suffering, and in extreme cases, without the loss of life itself. But he who values life more than the fulfillment of God’s will is already dead to the only true life. Such a person, in trying to save his life, will lose it. Besides, in general, where non-resistance costs the sacrifice of one life or some substantial good of life, resistance costs a thousand such sacrifices. Non-resistance preserves; resistance destroys.

It is incomparably safer to act justly than unjustly; to bear an offense than to resist it with force—safer even in relation to the present life. If all people did not resist evil with evil, our world would be blessed.

“But when only a few act this way, what will become of them?” If even only one person acted thus, and all the rest agreed to crucify him, would it not be more glorious for him to die praying for his enemies than to be a king wearing a crown spattered with the blood of the slain? But whether one or thousands of people have firmly resolved not to resist evil with evil, all the same, they—whether among enlightened or savage neighbors—are far more safe from violence than those who rely on violence. The robber, murderer, deceiver will sooner leave them in peace than those who resist with weapons. Those who take up the sword will perish by the sword, but those who seek peace, who act in friendship and harmlessness, who forget and forgive offenses, for the most part enjoy peace, or if they die, they die blessed.

Thus, if everyone observed the commandment of non-resistance, there would obviously be neither offense nor evildoing. If the majority were such, they would establish a rule of love and benevolence even over offenders, never resisting evil with evil, never using violence. If such people formed a fairly numerous minority, they would exert such a moral influence on society that all cruel punishments would be abolished, and violence and enmity would be replaced by peace and love. If there were only a small minority of them, it would rarely experience anything worse than the world’s contempt, while the world, meanwhile, without feeling it and without being grateful for it, would constantly become wiser and better.

And if, in the very worst case, some members of the minority were persecuted unto death, these people who perished for the truth would leave behind their teaching, already sanctified by their martyr’s blood.

—Adin Ballou

---

Translator’s Notes:

• Adin Ballou (1803-1890) was an American Christian socialist, abolitionist, and pacifist. His book Christian Non-Resistance (1846) profoundly influenced Tolstoy’s articulation of non-violence.
• Tolstoy initiated correspondence with Ballou in 1889 and wrote an introduction to Ballou’s “Catechism of Non-Resistance” for Russian readers.
• The Gospel quotation (Matt. 5:38-39) is foundational to Tolstoy’s entire moral philosophy as developed in What I Believe (1884) and later works.
• This essay systematically addresses the practical objections to non-resistance—that it is impracticable, that only a few will follow it, that followers will be victimized—arguing that even martyrdom is preferable to participation in violence.