上帝在受難日死了?DIDGOD DIE ON GOOD FRIDAY?
作者: Adriel Sanchez 譯者: Maria Marta
耶穌基督的十字架是受難日的中心。復活節前的星期五，耶穌被釘死在十字架上。這事件導致一些人思維混亂, 落入兩難境地。倘若耶穌是上帝，祂怎麽可能死? 畢竟，上帝是不改變的 (瑪三6)，所以我們如何理解耶穌的死? 耶穌（上帝）死了是真的嗎?
無論你是否相信，教會歷史上有些人說耶穌不能死! 教會歷史早期，有一個稱為諾斯底派（Gnostics）的異端組織給基督教教會帶來不少困擾。這群人廣為人知的信念是人可以靠一種神秘知識得救 [1] 。
諾斯底派也不太喜歡物質，所以他們完全不能接受耶穌有身體，和耶穌受苦難的觀念 [2] 。
另外有些人堅定捍衛上帝的超越性，以至於他們無法理解上帝受難的觀念。異教徒聶斯脫裏(Nestorius) 就是這種立場的堅持者之一。聶斯脫裏斷言，上帝的位格 (約一1中的道) 不分擔人類的苦難。這種想法使他明確區分耶穌基督的兩種本性(人性和神性)。有時，聶斯脫裏甚至似乎要把耶穌分成兩個位格，神性位格有時會在某些場合活動，而所取的人性則在另一些場合活動 [3] 。 這可能有點混亂，但它強調一個事實， 那就是此問題對早期教會來說是個棘手的問題。然而，早期的基督教領袖，如安提阿的伊格那丟(Ignatius of
Antioch)，在談論上帝受難時似乎沒有問題 [4] 。
在如使徒行傳廿章28節這樣的經文中，保羅會說上帝「用自己血」買來教會。那麽，我們應該怎樣理解上帝的受難和死亡呢?”
教會教父們以符合聖經的回應反駁早期異教徒：永恒的道不能受難和死亡(因為祂是永恒的!)，但永恒的道取了人性，由童貞女所生，祂所取的肉身受難和死亡。因為祂取了人性，因此的確可以說上帝受難和死了 (也正是因為這個原因，我們可以這樣說：「上帝由童貞女所生」)。因此，永恒的道在道成肉身時，取了肉身，能經受苦難，以致于能為罪人死 [5] 。
神格（Godhead）不經受苦難。耶穌始終是永恒和無痛感的 (impassible) [6] 。基督十字架的奧秘和奇妙之處在於: 免疫於痛苦的上帝取了肉身，以便把我們的痛苦變成祂自己的痛苦 [7] 。 就這種情況來說，我們可以說上帝，即道在受難日死了。在這個受難日，讓我們以謙卑的心屈膝敬拜，敬拜這位上帝——無痛感，卻帶走我們的苦難；永恒，卻被殺害了。成就救贖的，既非純粹的人，也非虛幻的靈，而是被釘在十字架上的榮耀之主(林前二8)。在這個受難日，我們不僅要默想十字架，更要默想為人類懸掛在十字架上的那一位。
Notes
[1] Jaroslav
Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, 82.
[2] This was also the view of the Docetic heresy.
“Docetism narrowly defined is the view that the founder of Christianity had
only an apparent, not a real human body and was subject to the human experience
of birth, fatigue, thirst, hunger, suffering, death, and the like in appearance
only, in reality being immune from them.” Paul L. Gavrilyuk, The Suffering of
the Impassible God, 79.
[3] Donald Fairbairn, Grace and Christology in the
Early Church, 54.
[4] Ignatius, Rom. 6.3; Cf. Eph 1.1.
[5] In the words of Pelikan, “He was incapable of
suffering but took on a flesh that could suffer, so that the suffering of his
flesh could be said to be his own.” Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic
Tradition, 231.
[6] To be impassible means the Godhead is immune
from suffering. This is why in order to suffer for us, the Word had to take on
flesh. He was, “… passible in his flesh, impassible in his Godhead;
circumscript in the body, uncirumscript in the Spirit; at once earthly and
heavenly, tangible and intangible, comprehensible and incomprehensible; that by
one and the same Person, who was perfect man and also God, the entire humanity
fallen through sin might be created anew.” Gregory of Nazianzus Letters on the
Apollinarian Controversy, Ep. 101.
[7] “And
we confess that he who was begotten from God the Father as Son and God
only-begotten, though being by his own nature impassible, suffered in the flesh
for us, according to the Scriptures, and he was in the crucified flesh
impassibly making his own the suffering of his own flesh. So by the grace of
God he tasted death for everyone…” The Third Letter of Cyril to Nestorius.
DID
GOD DIE ON GOOD FRIDAY?
Adriel
Sanchez
The
centerpiece of Good Friday is the cross of Jesus Christ. On the Friday before
Easter, Jesus was crucified and died. This creates a dilemma in the mind of
some. If Jesus is God, how could he die? After all, God cannot change (Mal.
3:6), so how are we to make sense of Jesus’ death? Was it real?
Believe
it or not, some people in church history said it was not! Early on, there was a
heretical group that plagued the Christian church called the Gnostics. This group
was known for believing that the redemption of our spirits could be gained
through the acquisition of secret knowledge.[1]The Gnostics also did not like
matter very much, so the idea that Jesus had a body, and that he suffered ,was
out of the question.[2]
Some
were so determined to safeguard the transcendence of God that they could not
fathom the idea of God suffering. One such person who maintained this position
was the heretic Nestorius. Nestorius contended that the Divine Person (the Word
in John 1:1) could not share in human suffering. This caused him to distinguish
sharply between the two natures of Jesus Christ (human and divine). Sometimes
it even seemed like Nestorius was splitting Jesus into two persons, where the
Divine person would act on some occasions and the assumed human would act on
others.[3] This may be a little confusing, but it highlights the fact that this
issue was a sticky one for the early church. Nevertheless, early Christian
leaders like Ignatius of Antioch seemed to have had no problem talking about
God suffering.[4] And in places like Acts 20:28, Paul could say that God
obtained the church “with his own blood.” How then are we to make sense God
suffering and dying?
The
biblical answer the Church Fathers defended against the early heretics was
this: the Eternal Word who cannot suffer and die (he’s eternal!) assumed
humanity, was born of a virgin, and suffered and died in the flesh which he
assumed. Because he assumed humanity, the suffering and death are truly said to
be God’s (it’s also for this reason that we can say things like, “God was born
of a Virgin”). Thus, in the incarnation, the Eternal Word took to himself flesh
that was capable of suffering so that he might die for sinful humanity.[5]
The
Godhead does not suffer. Jesus never ceased to be eternal or impassible.[6]
This is the mystery and the wonder of Christ’s cross: the impassible God took
on flesh so that he might make our suffering his own.[7] Insofar as that is the
case, we can say that God the Word died on Good Friday. Let us bow in humble
adoration of this God—impassible yet taking our plight, eternal yet murdered.
Neither a mere man nor a phantom spirit accomplished our salvation; the
crucified Lord of glory did (1 Corinthians 2:8). On this Good Friday, let us
not simply meditate upon the cross, but who it was that hung there for the race
of mankind.
Notes
^
Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, 82.
^
This was also the view of the Docetic heresy. “Docetism narrowly defined is the
view that the founder of Christianity had only an apparent, not a real human
body and was subject to the human experience of birth, fatigue, thirst, hunger,
suffering, death, and the like in appearance only, in reality being immune from
them.” Paul L. Gavrilyuk, The Suffering of the Impassible God, 79.
^
Donald Fairbairn, Grace and Christology in the Early Church, 54.
^
Ignatius, Rom. 6.3; Cf. Eph 1.1.
^ In
the words of Pelikan, “He was incapable of suffering but took on a flesh that
could suffer, so that the suffering of his flesh could be said to be his own.”
Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, 231.
^ To
be impassible means the Godhead is immune from suffering. This is why in order
to suffer for us, the Word had to take on flesh. He was, “… passible in his
flesh, impassible in his Godhead; circumscript in the body, uncirumscript in
the Spirit; at once earthly and heavenly, tangible and intangible,
comprehensible and incomprehensible; that by one and the same Person, who was
perfect man and also God, the entire humanity fallen through sin might be
created anew.” Gregory of Nazianzus Letters on the Apollinarian Controversy,
Ep. 101.
^
“And we confess that he who was begotten from God the Father as Son and God
only-begotten, though being by his own nature impassible, suffered in the flesh
for us, according to the Scriptures, and he was in the crucified flesh
impassibly making his own the suffering of his own flesh. So by the grace of
God he tasted death for everyone…” The
Third Letter of Cyril to Nestorius.
Adriel
Sanchez
Adriel
Sanchez is pastor of North Park Presbyterian Church, a congregation in the
Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). In addition to his pastoral
responsibilities, he also serves the broader church as a host on the Core
Christianity radio program. He and his
wife Ysabel live in San Diego with their three children.
