早期教會相信替代性的贖罪嗎？DID EARLY CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN SUBSTITUTIONARYATONEMENT?
作者: Michael J.
Kruger 翻譯: 駱鴻銘
懷疑論者經常批評一些核心的基督教信念，說最早期的基督徒並不真的相信這些信念。相反，他們說，這些信念是在有了制式教會後才捏造出來的。Skeptics commonly
criticize core Christian beliefs by claiming that they were not really held by
the earliest Christians. Instead, we are told, these beliefs were invented post
facto by the institutional church.
這類論調的經典例子和耶穌的神性有關。這類論調說，最早跟隨耶穌的人，並不真的相信耶穌是神；這是後來的制式教會，因為受到康士坦丁大帝政治壓力的打壓，才堅持耶穌必須具有上帝的身份。因此，有些人主張，相信耶穌是上帝的信念，並不真的是基督信仰。The classic example
of such an argument has to do with the divinity of Jesus. The earliest
followers of Jesus didn’t really believe that Jesus was divine, this argument
goes; it was only the later institutional church, under political pressure from
Emperor Constantine, that insisted Jesus must have divine status. Thus, some
argue, the belief that Jesus is God is not really, well, Christian.
替代贖罪Substitutionary
Atonement
同樣的論證也被用在其他的教義上，尤其是贖罪的代替性本質。由奧連（Gustaf Aulén，1879-1977）的經典著作（ Christus Victor）所帶領的一些批判學者，一直以來都主張早期的基督徒並不相信基督是代替罪人而死的。相反，他們說，早期基督徒相信的是「基督得勝者」（Christius victor）的看法——這個對於贖罪的看法是說，基督在十字架上的死（與復活），戰勝了魔鬼和其他捆綁人的勢力。這種看法認為，基督並沒有代替悖逆的罪人而死，而是從一個墮落的世界裡把受害者拯救出來。This same sort of
argument has also been applied to other doctrines, particularly the
substitutionary nature of the atonement. Critical scholars, led by the classic
work of Gustaf Aulén, have long argued that the earliest Christians did not
believe that Christ died as a substitute for sinners. Instead, they say, these
Christians believed what is known as the “Christus victor” view of the
atonement—the idea that Jesus’s death on the cross (and resurrection) conquered
the Devil and other forces that held people in bondage. On this view, Christ
did not die in place of rebellious sinners but instead rescued victims from a
fallen world.
倘若奧連的看法是正確的，那麼，代替性贖罪的看法是什麼時候出現的呢？澳洲的總主教卡尼（Peter Carnley）的說法，體現了這種典型的批判性思路，他說，替代贖罪的看法，「在安瑟倫之前是不為人知的」。因此，卡尼宣稱，直到中世紀，在安瑟倫寫了《為什麼是神而人者》（Cur Deus Homo= Why the
God-Man?）之後，基督徒才開始相信基督是代替罪人而死的。If Aulén is correct, then
when did the substitutionary view of the atonement arise? Peter Carnley
embodies the typical critical approach when he says that the substitutionary
view “was not known before Anselm’s time.” Thus, Carnley claims, it was not
until the Middle Ages, when Anselm wroteCur Deus Homo (Why the God-Man?), that
Christians began to believe Christ died in place of sinners.
無疑地，這類的學術性論述可以解釋為什麼在近年來，贖罪的其他理論會大行其道，而代替贖罪的看法繼續被誹謗為是非基督徒的看法。貝羅伯（Rob Bell）在他《以愛得勝》（Love Wins）的書中正是這麼作的。他極力地拒絕替代贖罪的看法，而偏好其他的選項。No doubt these
sorts of scholarly arguments can explain why alternative theories of the
atonement have gained popularity in recent years, while the substitutionary
view continues to be vilified as un-Christian. Rob Bell does precisely this in
his book Love Wins, where he roundly rejects the substitutionary view in favor
of other options.
但是替代贖罪的看法在中世紀之前真的找不到踪跡嗎？完全不是這麼回事。我們只要查考新約本身的作品，馬上就可以駁斥這種說法——尤其是保羅的書信。不過，值得我們注意的是，最早期基督徒神學家，也持有替代贖罪的看法的一些關鍵性的元素。其中一個例子是第二世紀，《致丟格那妥書》（Epistle to
Diognetus）的作者。《致丟格那妥書》是一位不具名的希臘作家所寫，為基督信仰辯護的書信。以下是這位作者的一些摘要，肯定了替代贖罪的一些關鍵要點。But is it really
true that the substitutionary view of the atonement was not found before the
Middle Ages? Not at all. Such a claim can be readily refuted merely by examining
the writings of the New Testament itself—particularly the letters of Paul.
However, it is also worth noting that key elements of the substitutionary view
were held by some of the earliest Christian writers. One example is the author
of the Epistle to Diognetus from the early second century. The Epistle to
Diognetus was written by an unknown Greek author as an apology for
Christianity. Below are some excerpts from the author that affirm key aspects
of substitutionary atonement,
罪的嚴重性Seriousness of Sin
這位作者寫道：The author writes:
我們已經證明，我們是無力的。我們之所以能進入上帝的國，完全不是靠自己，而是靠上帝的能力。因為我們不義的生活碩果累累，十分清楚的是，我們所能預期的、它最終的獎賞只能是懲罰和死亡（9.1-2）。And when we had
demonstrated that we were powerless to enter the kingdom of God on our own,
were were enabled by the power of God. For our unrighteous way of life came to
fruition and it became perfectly clear that it could expect only punishment and
death as its ultimate reward. (9.1-2)
這是一個十分清楚的確認，證明人無力拯救自己（類似於完全敗壞），也是完全承認罪配得到最終死亡的刑罰。Here is a clear
affirmation of human inability to save ourselves (akin to total depravity), and
a full acknowledgement that sin deserves the ultimate penalty of death.
上帝的恩典與愛Grace and Love of
God
上帝藉著祂贖罪的死來彰顯祂對罪人的愛。
God
demonstrated his love for sinners through his atoning death. The author writes:
然而，當上帝計劃最終要啟示祂的良善和能力的時候到來時（啊！上帝的愛，至善至慈！），祂並不恨惡我們，毀滅我們，或對我們懷恨在心。（9.2）But then, when the
time arrived that God planned to reveal at last his goodness and power (Oh the
supreme beneficence and love of God!), he did not hate us, destroy us, or hold a
grudge against us. (9.2)
上帝對我們的罪的回應（罪配得死亡），不是帶來審判，而是顯明恩慈。請注意，作者對上帝的憐憫感到詫異。這位作者認識到上帝自然的反應，由於祂的聖潔，應該是毀滅有罪的人。God's response to
our sin, though deserving of death, is not to bring judgment but to show mercy.
Notice that the author is amazed by God’s mercy. The author recognizes that God’s
natural response, due to his holiness, would be to destroy sinful people.
基督把我們的罪擔在自己身上Christ Bore Our
Sins on Himself
這是我們理解替代贖罪的關鍵：Here is where we
get to the crux of substitutionary atonement:
但上帝很有耐心，祂忍受我們，並且出於對我們的憐憫，祂把我們的罪擔在自己身上。祂賜下祂的愛子，為我們成為贖價，聖潔的代替不法的，無罪的代替邪惡的，義的代替不義的，不朽的代替必朽的，不死的代替必死的。（9.2）But [God] was
patient, he bore with us, and out of pity for us took our sins upon himself. He
gave up his own Son as a ransom for us, the holy one for the lawless, the innocent
one for the wicked, the righteous one for the unrighteous, the imperishable one
for the perishable, the immortal one for the mortal. (9.2)
這段非常精彩。無疑地，這位作者將基督在十字架上的工作視為一種交換，義的代替不義的，好叫我們可以得救；基督是一個替身（substitute）。This is a
remarkable passage. Undoubtedly, the author views the work of Christ on the
cross as an exchange of the righteous for the unrighteous, that we might be
saved; Christ is a substitute.
作者甚至說到，「上帝把罪擔在自己身上」。我們可以假定作者的意思是指上帝的兒子，或只是單純地說上帝（在基督裡）把罪擔在自己身上。不管是哪一種，「自己身上」這個語句必然是指承擔罪孽。這點可以由這個事實得到確認，即耶穌被描述為「贖價」，某種的付款。Even more the
author says, “God took our sins
upon himself.” Presumably the
author has God the Son in view here, or is simply saying that God (in Christ)
took sins upon himself. Either way, the phrase “upon himself” certainly
suggests bearing sin. This is confirmed in the fact that Jesus is described as
a “ransom,” a payment of some sort. His work on the cross pays some debt.
也請注意這個「個人性」的語言：「我們的」罪。耶穌不是為一個原因而死，或為一個觀念而死，而是為一些人而死。And notice the
personal language: “our
sins.” Jesus did not just
die for a cause, or for an idea, but for individuals.
這整個組合是說，耶穌把一些人的罪擔在自己身上，作為一個償付。償付什麼呢？考慮到作者先前的陳述（即我們的罪配得到從上帝而來的「懲罰」），一個似乎合理的結論是，耶穌為我們所配得的刑罰償付了代價。祂滿足了上帝的公義，若非如此，這公義的刑罰就會落在我們身上。This entire
combination suggests that Jesus took the sins of individuals upon himself as a
payment. A payment for what? Given the author’s earlier statement that we
deserve “punishment” from God for our sins, it seems reasonable to conclude
that Jesus paid this penalty we deserve. He satisfies the justice of God that
would otherwise fall upon us.
基督的義遮蓋我們Christ's
Righteousness Covers Us
令人難以置信地，《致丟格那妥書》的作者甚至似乎肯定了改革宗神學家所謂的歸算的教義。這個教義是說，我們的稱義不只是使我們的罪被挪去而已，更是讓基督積極的義遮蓋我們。Incredibly, the
author of the Epistle to Diognetus even seems to affirm what Reformed
theologians refer to as the doctrine of imputation. This doctrine says that our
justification is not only about having our sins taken away, but also having
Christ's positive righteousness cover us.
這個教義在最近一些年受到攻擊。有些學者主張，改革宗的稱義觀，即很濃厚的對歸算的理解，大部分是在他們對羅馬教會的過度反應中發明出來的。This doctrine has
also come under attack in recent years. Some scholars have suggested that the
Reformed view of justification, which includes a robust understanding of
imputation, was largely invented by the Reformers in their overreaction to
Rome.
這裡沒有足夠的空間完整回應這種說法。但是《致丟格那妥書》的作者提出一種看法，聽起來與改革宗對歸算的理解很接近：There is not space
to respond fully to such claims here. But the author of the Epistle to
Diognetusarticulates a view that sounds close to the Reformed understanding of
imputation:
除了基督的義之外，還有什麼可以隱藏我們的罪呢？我們這些不法、不敬虔之人，除了唯獨靠上帝的兒子之外，怎能成為義呢？啊，美妙的交換！……眾人的不義之舉，竟然受那位公義者所隱藏，而一人的義竟可以使不法的眾人成為義！（9.3-5）For what else could
hide our sins but the righteousness of that one? How could we who were lawless
and impious be made upright except by the son of God alone? Oh the sweet
exchange! . . . That the lawless deeds of many should be hidden by the one who
was upright, and the righteousness of one should make upright the many who were
lawless! (9.3-5)
這段的意義非同小可，因為它的重點不只是放在我們的罪被挪去了，更在實質上、主要地處理了基督的義。基督的義成就了什麼呢？它遮掩了我們的罪。它「使不法的成為義」。而這是在一個「甜蜜的交換」裏完成的。倘若我們要找一位描寫基督的義的歸算的古代作家，這位作者足堪任之。This is a
significant passage because it doesn't dwell merely on our sins being taken
away, but deals substantively and primarily with the righteousness of Christ.
And what does that righteousness do? It hides our sins. It “makes upright” the
lawless. And this happens in a “sweet exchange.” If we are looking for an
ancient writer who describes the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's
righteousness, this author comes awfully close.
《致丟格那妥書》說明，替代贖罪的教義，和基督的義的歸算的教義，不是後來的基督徒大規模捏造出來的，而是已經存在，至少是以種子的形式，很早就存在於基督教的歷史裏的。是否有其他的基督教群體對這件事有不同的看法？當然。但是這份書信和保羅的作品（特別是羅馬書第五章）之間的延續性，清楚證明替代贖罪/歸算的看法，的確很早就出現了。The Epistle to
Diognetus shows that the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement and the
imputation of Christ's righteousness are not wholesale inventions of later
Christians, but were present, at least in seed form, early in the history of
Christianity. Did some Christian groups hold other views of such matters? Sure.
But the continuity between the teachings of this epistle and the writings of
Paul himself (see especially Romans 5) make it evident that the substitutionary
atonement/imputation view goes back very early indeed.
Michael
J. Kruger is professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in
Charlotte, North Carolina, and the author of Canon Revisited: Establishing the
Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Crossway, 2012). He blogs
regularly at Canon Fodder.
