My Religion — A Reader’s Guide

The 'Son of Man' as a Collective Ideal

Tolstoy's central interpretive move is to read the phrase 'son of man' not as a title for Jesus alone but as a designation for every person's true life, which is lived in unity with all humanity. He writes that 'the life of the son of man has been given to all men, and they know not why.' This collective understanding transforms the parable of the talents: the servants who 'labored for the good of the master' are those who use their lives for the benefit of the whole. Tolstoy insists that Jesus's teaching is not about individual salvation but about aligning one's life with the universal human community. The 'son of man' becomes a kind of corporate personality, and serving the hungry, thirsty, and wretched is serving that greater self. This interpretation allows Tolstoy to sidestep traditional Christological debates and ground ethics in a concrete, social imperative.

Denial of Personal Resurrection

A striking feature of the excerpts is Tolstoy's repeated and emphatic denial of individual resurrection. He claims that Jesus 'not only said nothing in affirmation of individual resurrection and individual immortality beyond the grave, but on the contrary, every time that he met with this superstition ... he did not fail to deny its truth.' To support this, Tolstoy points to Jesus's response to the Sadducees, where he argues that the dead are 'living in God'—not as separate souls but as those who have lived the life of the son of man. For Tolstoy, the only resurrection is the ongoing life of those who have served humanity; they are 'united to God' in a way that transcends biological death. This position places him in direct opposition to mainstream Christian eschatology and reveals his commitment to a this-worldly, ethical religion over supernatural promises.

The Authority of Personal Interpretation

Throughout the excerpts, Tolstoy exercises a striking independence from established theological authorities. He does not cite church councils, creeds, or commentators; instead, he reads the Gospels as if encountering them for the first time. His method is to isolate what he considers the authentic core of Jesus's teaching—the command to serve the son of man—and to discard everything that conflicts with it, including the doctrine of the resurrection. This approach is evident in his handling of the parable of the talents, which he interprets without reference to traditional allegorical readings. The translator's preface notes that Tolstoy was 'acknowledged by competent critics to be a man of extraordinary genius,' but the text itself shows a writer who trusts his own moral intuition over received dogma. Readers should be prepared for a work that is as much a critique of institutional Christianity as an exposition of faith.

Tolstoy's My Religion is best approached as a philosophical argument rather than a devotional guide. The excerpts suggest a writer who is impatient with metaphysical speculation and focused on the practical transformation of life. Readers interested in the development of Tolstoy's later thought—especially his turn toward non-resistance and simplicity—will find the seeds of those ideas here. The book rewards careful attention to its scriptural reasoning, even—or especially—when that reasoning diverges from familiar interpretations.

Tolstoy’s My Religion taught me that Job’s anguish isn’t a puzzle to solve but a companion in the dark. Both books whisper that faith survives not in answers, but in the honest asking. I’ve often placed them side by side, old friends who never argue—just sit quietly together, sharing the same patient ache for meaning, like The Sceptics of the Old Testament: Job - Koheleth - Agur — Context and Discussion beside a well-worn Tolstoy.