路德與慈運理在馬爾堡
Luther vs. Zwingli Series
作者：Trevin Wax   譯者：誠之
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/luther-vs-zwingli-series/
https://yimawusi.net/2021/02/01/%E8%B7%AF%E5%BE%B7%E8%88%87%E6%85%88%E9%81%8B%E7%90%86%E5%9C%A8%E9%A6%AC%E7%88%BE%E5%A0%A1%EF%BC%88trevin-wax%EF%BC%89/
 

路德與慈運理在馬爾堡（一）：何必小題大作？
Luther vs. Zwingli at Marburg:Why the Fuss?
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/luther-vs-zwingli-at-marburg-why-the-fuss/
 
1529年的馬爾堡會談（Marburg Colloquy）是宗教改革時期的樞紐事件。
The Marburg Colloquy of 1529 was a pivotal event of the Reformation era.
 
馬丁路德和慈運理（Ulrich Zwingli）在聖餐（Eucharist）這件事上未能達成共識帶來的後果，造成政治與信仰的分裂，其後果影響至今，已將近500年。
The political and religious consequences of Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli’s failure to come to agreement on the Eucharist set the course for a political and religious split with reverberations that have lasted almost 500 years.
 
從今天來看馬爾堡的神學討論，我們很容易會帶著一種後啟蒙運動的傲慢，會認為路德和慈運理為這些教義爭論，實在是心胸狹隘，非常膚淺。但是改教家們不是為辯論而辯論，爭論一些雞毛蒜皮的神學問題。當然，改教家的個性，種族背景和墮落的人性本質，在辯論中扮演著一定的角色，但是這個問題（對他們來說）在政治和信仰上的風險實在太大，不能隨便抬槓就讓它過去。
Today’s observer of the theological discussions at Marburg may too easily embrace a post-Enlightenment arrogance that assumes the doctrinal disputes of Luther and Zwingli to be petty and superfluous. But the Reformers did not engage in polemics and debate over minor theological intricacies. Certainly the personalities, ethnicities, and fallen nature of the Reformers played a part in the discussions, but the political and religious stakes were too high to disagree for disagreement’s sake.
 
路德和慈運理至少在一件事情上有堅定的共識：一個人對主的晚餐（Lord’s Supper）的神學觀念不是件小事，或次要的事；它對於正確理解整個基督教信仰是至關緊要的。主的晚餐的爭論在路德和慈運理的神學上具有重要的地位，是因為在爭論中出現了基督論的問題。
Luther and Zwingli firmly agreed on at least one thing: one’s theology of the Lord’s Supper was not minor or secondary, but essential to correctly understanding the entire Christian faith. The debate over the Lord’s Supper occupied a primary place in both Luther and Zwingli’s theologies because of the questions of Christology that arose in the midst of conflict.
 
在接下來的幾天當中，我會介紹路德和慈運理對基督人性的不同看法，如何成為他們在聖餐問題上分裂的主要原因。
Over the next few days, I’d like to show how Luther and Zwingli’s differing views on Christ’s humanity were the primary cause of their division on the Eucharist.
 
我們會先看他們各自在聖餐問題上的神學，然後我們會看改教家對基督人性的看法，以及他們在「肉體」與「屬靈」上的爭論。我希望這個關於主的晚餐的討論能豐富您的歷史知識。不要轉台喔！
We will start by looking at each Reformer’s Eucharistic theology in particular, and then we will turn to the Reformers’ views of Christ’s humanity and their debate over “flesh” and “spirit.” Hope you stay tuned for what I hope will be a historically informative discussion on the Lord’s Supper.
 
 
路德與慈運理（二）：路德對主的晚餐的看法
Luther vs. Zwingli 2: Luther on the Lord’s Supper
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/luther-vs-zwingli-2-luther-on-the-lords-supper/
 
1529年，在路德和慈運理進入馬爾堡，參加這場關於主的晚餐的本質的著名爭論之前，他們都早就胸有成竹，對聖餐以及基督與聖禮同在的本質有著堅定的信念。我們會先查考改教家對於主的晚餐的看法，然後再來看馬爾堡的爭論。
Before Luther and Zwingli entered the Marburg castle in 1529 for their famous debate over the nature of the Lord’s Supper, both these men had formed strong convictions regarding the Eucharist and the nature of Christ’s presence in the sacrament. We will begin by looking at the Reformers’ views of the Lord’s Supper in particular before turning to the debate at Marburg.
 
路德神學對主的晚餐的看法
Luther’s Theology of the Lord’s Supper
 
宗教改革之前的中世紀，彌撒是基督徒崇拜與靈修的核心。路德開始在威登堡執教的三個世紀之前，1215年的第四次拉特蘭大公會議（fourth Lateran council）確立了「化質說」（transubstantiation）的教義。這個教義主張，當天主教的神父奉獻餅和酒之後，其「外形」（accidents，感官所覺察到的）維持原樣，但是其「本質」（substance，內在的「質素essence」）卻奇蹟地轉變成基督實際的身體和血。
In the medieval period before the Reformation, the mass formed the centerpiece of Christian worship and devotion. Three centuries before Luther began teaching in Wittenberg, the fourth Lateran council of 1215 established the doctrine of transubstantiation, which holds that upon the priest’s consecration of the bread and wine, the accidents (according to the senses) remain the same, but the substance (the internal “essence”) is miraculously transformed into the physical body and blood of Christ.
 
這個教義潛在的涵義到處散佈。平信徒開始從遠處崇拜餅和酒，或迷信地把餅帶回家，種在花園裡增加收成，或者把餅給生病的動物，想讓牠們好起來。為了避免不小心把酒灑出來，神父開始只分派餅給教區的信眾，把聖餐的杯保留給自己。到了1500年代左右，大多數教會連餅也不再分配了。
The implications of this doctrine were widespread. Laypeople began to adore the bread and wine from afar or superstitiously carry pieces of bread back home to plant in the garden for good crops or to give to an ailing animal for good health. To avoid an accidental spilling of the wine, the priests began giving only the bread to parishioners, keeping the cup for themselves. By the 1500’s, even the bread was withheld in most churches.
 
彌撒已經變成一種表演，而不是聖禮。有些教區成員狂熱地在教會間奔波，為的只是要獲得祝福，在同一天內看見不只一個聖體。
The mass had turned into a show instead of a sacrament. Some parishioners feverishly hurried from church to church to obtain the blessing of seeing more than one host in a given day.
 
路德反對這種中世紀迷信所帶來的極端作法，但是他仍然將「聖像，鐘，聖餐袍，教會飾品，祭壇的燈和類似之物」視為「無關緊要之事」（things indifferent）
Luther objected to the extreme practices brought by medieval superstition, but he continued to regard the “images, bells, Eucharistic vestments, church ornaments, altar lights and the like” as “indifferent.”
 
有兩件事特別讓路德對羅馬天主教對主的晚餐的看法感到困擾。首先，他強烈反對不讓平信徒拿聖餐的杯。路德相信平信徒應該要參與到彌撒當中，這個信念強烈到一個地步，他咒詛羅馬天主教的做法有如教會「被巴比倫俘虜」了 。（不過，我們要留意，路德並不認為不給聖餐的杯就必定會使聖餐失效，或上個世紀的基督徒如果沒有領杯，就沒有得到聖禮的福分。）
Two things in particular bothered Luther about the Roman Catholic view of the Lord’s Supper. First, he disagreed sharply with the practice of withholding the cup from the laity. So strongly did Luther believe in the laity’s participation in the mass that he condemned the Roman Catholic practice as one way that “Babylon” holds the church “captive.” (It should be noted however that Luther did not believe that withholding the cup necessarily invalidated the sacrament or that the Christians who were denied the cup during the previous centuries had not received sacramental benefits.)
 
其次，路德相信羅馬天主教把聖禮當作「善工與獻祭」（good work and a sacrifice）是「最邪惡的濫用」（most wicked abuse of all）。路德強而有力地論到，彌撒必須被視為遺囑（testament）──只能領受，不是必須做的善工。在主的聖餐台前，唯一的祭品是我們所獻的祭品。神父把主的身體和血獻為祭的這個觀念，特別令路德感到震驚，他認為這個信仰是羅馬天主教最可憎的錯誤。
Secondly, Luther believed that the Roman Catholic understanding of the sacrament as a “good work and a sacrifice” was the “most wicked abuse of all.” Luther argued forcefully that the mass must be seen as a testament – something to receive, not a good work to perform. The only sacrifice at the Lord’s Table is the sacrifice of ourselves. The idea that a priest could sacrifice the body and blood of the Lord was especially appalling to Luther and he considered this belief the most abominable of Roman errors.
 
雖然路德對主的晚餐有獨立的看法，但是在大多數層面，他和羅馬天主教的神學和做法仍然很相近。雖然他反對向分別為聖的聖體敬拜（adoration），但是同意在聖餐桌前用鞠躬或匍匐的形式來表達敬畏（reverence）的這個觀念。他堅持我們敬拜的對像是耶穌基督──祂在聖餐中與我們同在；不是向餅或酒敬拜。
Despite Luther’s independent thinking on the Lord’s Supper, in most aspects, he remained very close to Roman Catholic theology and practice. Though he rejected the adoration of the consecrated host, he affirmed the idea of reverence in the forms of bowing or prostrating oneself before the table. He insisted that the object of adoration should be Jesus Christ, as He is present in the sacrament, not the bread and wine.
 
但是敬畏和敬拜之間的界限仍然很模糊。雖然路德想要在這方面和羅馬劃清界限，但是他實際上為他所譴責的極端開了一扇門。
But the line between reverence and adoration remained blurry, and though Luther sought to distance himself from Rome in this regard, he actually left the door open for the extremes he condemns.
 
路德和羅馬教會的教義保持接近的另外一個領域是「真實同在」（real presence）的教義。直到1519之前，路德似乎同意化質說的官方教義。但是到了1520，他相當強烈地批評這個看法，把它描繪成根據亞裏斯多德思想的多餘臆測。
Another area in which Luther remained close to Roman doctrine is in the doctrine of the “real presence.” Up until 1519, it appears Luther agreed with the official doctrine of transubstantiation. In 1520, he criticized the idea quite forcefully, painting it as needless speculation based on Aristotelian thought.
 
學習宗教改革的學生，有一個流行的誤解，就是認為路德接受並推廣「同質說」（consubstantiation），但是路德或路德宗教會從來沒有接受過這個說法。路德只是單純地拒絕猜測基督如何同在，而安於確定祂真的在場。基督在聖餐中同在是奇蹟，因此不需要解釋。
A popular misconception among Reformation students is that Luther affirmed and promoted “consubstantiation,” but neither Luther nor the Lutheran church ever accepted that term. Luther simply refused to speculate on how Christ is present and instead settled for affirming that he is there. The presence of Christ in the Supper is miraculous and thus defies explanation.
 
羅馬天主教的神學家特別強調，在奉獻的時候，當神父舉起餅，並且說，「這是我的身體」（Hoc est corpus meum），就在那一剎那，鐘聲會響起，所有的眼睛都盯著被高舉的聖體，餅已經奇蹟似地轉變成了基督的身體。
Roman Catholic theologians strongly emphasized the moment of consecration, when the priest would lift the bread and say “Hoc est corpus meum.” At that moment, bells would be rung and all eyes would be on the elevated host, which had magically been transformed into Christ’s body.
 
 
路德同樣強調主設立晚餐時所說的這些話，但是這是因為基督的吩咐所帶來的改變，而不是因為神父說的什麼特別的話。在這個做法和其他的做法上，路德樂於改變羅馬天主教做法背後的想法，而不覺得需要實際上去改變傳統本身。
Luther similarly emphasized the words of institution, but only because Christ’s command leads to the change, not because the priest has made a special utterance. In this and other practices, Luther was content to alter the understanding behind Roman Catholic practice without feeling the need to actually change the tradition itself.
 
路德相信主的晚餐所結出的果子是罪得赦免。羅馬的教義主張只有義人可以領聖餐禮，也就是那些向神父認罪的人。路德相信聖餐禮是給罪人的，他們是最需要基督道成肉身的人。
Luther believed that the fruit of the Lord’s Supper is the forgiveness of sins. Roman doctrine held that Communion was for the righteous, those who have confessed their sins to the priest. Luther believed Communion was for sinners, those who needed Christ’s incarnation the most.
 
路德關於主的晚餐的神學，其核心是「在聖禮中聯合」（sacramental union）的觀念。在主的聖餐台前，在此神聖時刻，餅與酒的元素，在聖禮的意義上與基督的身體和血聯合在一起；在這個時刻，上帝同時啟示祂自己，也隱藏祂自己。上帝的不可透知與自我啟示的這個表面矛盾（paradox）是路德拒絕所有哲學猜測的基礎，他拒絕猜測基督到底是如何實際上與聖餐同在。「聖禮聯合」的觀念是路德對羅馬教會化質說的回應。
The center of Luther’s theology of the Lord’s Supper is the idea of “sacramental union.” At the Lord’s Table, in this sacred moment in which the elements of bread and wine are sacramentally united to the body and blood of Christ, God simultaneously reveals and hides himself. The paradox of God’s incomprehensibility and self-revelation formed the basis for Luther’s rejection of all philosophical speculations on how Christ is physically present. The idea of sacramental union was Luther’s response to Roman transubstantiation.
 
 
路德與慈運理（三）：慈運理對主的晚餐的看法
Luther vs. Zwingli 3: Zwingli on the Lord’s Supper
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/luther-vs-zwingli-3-zwingli-on-the-lords-supper/
 
慈運理不認為在主的晚餐中的「聖禮聯合」有什麼必要，因為他對聖禮有不同的看法。
Zwingli did not see the need for a “sacramental union” in the Lord’s Supper because of his modified understanding of sacraments.
 
根據慈運理的說法，聖禮是先前恩典的公開見証（testimony）。因此，聖禮是「聖事的記號，即屬於先前賜下的恩典」。對慈運理來說，認為聖禮本身帶有任何救恩的功效，是回到猶太教禮儀的洗濯，會讓人認為救恩可以靠自己的努力而得到。
 
According to Zwingli, the sacraments serve as a public testimony of a previous grace. Therefore, the sacrament is “a sign of a sacred thing, i.e. of a grace that has been given.” For Zwingli, the idea that the sacraments carry any salvific efficacy in themselves is a return to Judaism’s ceremonial washings that lead to the purchase of salvation.
 
路德試圖修剪羅馬天主教聖禮儀式的許多壞枝，慈運理則相信問題至少部分出自聖禮本身。解決羅馬過多的儀式唯一合理的方法是重新解釋聖禮的本質。單單修剪壞枝是不夠的；連根拔起才能徹底解決問題。
Whereas Luther sought to prune the bad branches off the tree of Roman Catholic sacramentalism, Zwingli believed the problem to be rooted at least partly in sacramentalism itself. The only way to legitimately resolve Roman excess was to reinterpret the nature of the sacraments. Pruning the tree was not enough; pulling the tree up from its roots was the only action that could actually fix the problems.
 
慈運理把他修正後的對聖禮的認識應用到聖餐上，他確信聖餐主要的目的是宣告救恩，並增強信徒心中的信心。慈運理堅持，聖經經文教導主的晚餐只是一個記號（sign），要賦予它更多的意義，就侵犯了聖禮的本質。不過，這種顧慮並未使慈運理反對這個信念，即藉著「信心的默想」（contemplation of faith），在聖餐中，基督是「屬靈的同在」（spiritual presence）。
Applying his modified understanding of the sacraments to the Eucharist led Zwingli to affirm its primary purpose as the proclamation of salvation and the strengthening of faith in the hearts of believers. Zwingli insisted that the biblical text taught that the Lord’s Supper was a sign, and that to make it something more violated the nature of the sacrament. However, this caution did not keep Zwingli from strongly affirming a “spiritual presence” of Christ in the Eucharist brought by the “contemplation of faith.”
 
慈運理無法接受「真實的同在」，即宣稱基督以祂實際的身體與聖餐同在，不受有形身體的限制。（譯按：即慈運理認為基督的身體不可能無所不在。）
What Zwingli could not accept was a “real presence” that claimed Christ was present in his physical body with no visible bodily boundaries.
 
慈運理說：「這種由喜歡玩弄文字的人想出來的觀念，即一個真實、真正的身體，卻不實際，不確定、不具體地存在於一個地方，這個觀念對我來說是毫無用處的。」
“I have no use for that notion of a real and true body that does not exist physically, definitely and distinctly in some place, and that sort of nonsense got up by word triflers.”
 
慈運理對主的晚餐的神學，不是一種新的發明，不存在於之前的教會歷史。慈運理宣稱，他對化質說的懷疑是當時許多人的共識，這使得他主張，神父從來就不相信有這等事，雖然「絕大多數的人都這樣教導，或至少假裝相信。」
Zwingli’s theology of the Lord’s Supper should not be viewed as an innovation without precedent in church history. Zwingli claimed that his doubts about transubstantiation were shared by many of his day, leading him to claim that priests did not ever believe such a thing, even though “most all have taught this or at least pretended to believe it.”
 
如果慈運理「真實存在」的修正教義是個新發明，他的教區成員不會如此熱情地加以接納。這種象徵的看法之所以散佈得很快，是因為慈運理只是對一個已經廣為傳播的看法大聲疾呼，並賦予其合法性而已。
Had Zwingli’s modified doctrine of the “real presence” been an innovation, it would probably not have been so eagerly accepted by his parishioners. The symbolic view spread rapidly because Zwingli had given voice and legitimacy to an opinion that was already widespread.
 
蘇黎世在1525年廢除了彌撒。他們用新的敬拜禮儀來慶祝主的晚餐，用主餐台和桌布來取代祭壇。
In Zurich, the mass was abolished in 1525. The Lord’s Supper was celebrated with a new liturgy that replaced the altar with a table and tablecloth.
 
慈運理派遵守聖禮最突出的特色是它的簡潔。因為餅與酒沒有在實際上轉化成基督的身體和血，虛假的典禮和浮誇的儀式就可以免了。簡潔和敬畏是其特色，強調其作為紀念的本質。
The striking feature of the Zwinglian observance of the sacrament was its simplicity. Because the bread and wine were not physically transformed into Christ’s body and blood, there was no need for spurious ceremonies and pompous rituals. The occasion was marked by simplicity and reverence, with an emphasis on its nature as a memorial.
 
雖然慈運理否認「真實存在」，但是並沒有因此忽略聖禮。這是後來幾個世紀許多跟隨者的特色。他看到主的晚餐有七個優點，可以証明它對基督徒生活的重要性。
Zwingli’s denial of the “real presence” did not result in the neglecting of the sacrament that would characterize many of his followers in centuries to come. He saw seven virtues in the Lord’s Supper that proved its importance for the Christian life.
 
首先，這是神聖的儀式，因為是基督，我們的大祭司親自設立的。
First, it is a sacred rite because Christ the High Priest has instituted it.
 
其次，同領聖餐是為所已經完成的事作見証。
Secondly, Communion bears witness to something already accomplished.
 
第三，這個行動取代了它所代表的事。
Third, the action takes the place of the thing it signifies.
 
主的晚餐之所以寶貴，是因為它所代表的──與基督相通，支取力量；以及與其他聖徒相通，尋求合一。
The Lord’s Supper is valuable because of what it signifies (communion with Christ for strength and communion with others for unity).
 
 
第四，守主的晚餐會增強並鞏固我們的信心。最後，它的能力來自它信守一個忠誠的誓言。
Sixth, observance of the Lord’s Supper increases and supports faith, and finally, its power is its keeping of an oath of allegiance.
 
雖然路德和慈運理似乎在「真實同在」的問題上勢同水火，但是實際上他們的立場比我們想像的更為接近。
Though Luther and Zwingli seemed to be strongly opposed on the question of the “real presence,” they were actually closer than one might expect.
 
他們都肯定基督在聖餐中的同在。
Both affirmed Christ’s presence in the Eucharist.
 
都肯定聖禮的本質是記號，可增強信徒的信心。
Both affirmed the nature of the sacrament as a sign that strengthens faith in the hearts of believers.
 
都拒絕化質說，以及羅馬天主教把彌撒當作獻祭的認識。
Both rejected transubstantiation as well as the Roman Catholic understanding of the mass as a sacrifice.
 
這兩位改教家的分歧之處在哲學領域，特別是實體（physicality）的本質。慈運理不贊同實際的身體會無所不在這樣的觀念，這就是他為什麼相信基督在主的晚餐中只能是屬靈的同在。路德相信「屬靈」的同在實際上就是根本不存在，而這個信念會剝奪了主的晚餐的能力，讓基督設立晚餐的話成為謊言。
Where the two Reformers diverged was in the philosophical realm, specifically the nature of physicality. Zwingli could not affirm the idea of an omnipresent physical body, which is why he believed that Christ could only be spiritually present in the Lord’s Supper. Luther believed that a “spiritual” presence was really no presence at all and that this belief emptied the Lord’s Supper of its power, making Christ’s words of institution to be a lie.
 
 
路德與慈運理（四）：人性與實體
Luther vs. Zwingli 4: Humanity and Physicality
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/luther-vs-zwingli-4-humanity-and-physicality/
 
但是在這些爭論的背後是馬爾堡爭論的核心：基督論，特別是基督的人性的問題。
But behind these squabbles is the heart of the Marburg debate: Christology, and specifically the question of Christ’s humanity.
 
路德：「基督的人性使得祂在主的晚餐中與我們實際同在成為必要。」
Luther: “Christ’s Humanity Demands a Physical Presence in the Lord’s Supper”
 
路德相信並教導耶穌的人性本質參與在祂的神性本質中，意思是祂的身體（既是人又是神）必然享有祂的神性，包括無所不在。因此，路德毫不遲疑地肯定耶穌的身體存在於某個地方，也同時存在於其他地方。他並未試圖要解決由此而來的邏輯張力，因為聖經並沒有提到這些問題。
Luther believed and taught that Jesus’ human nature participated in his divine nature, meaning that his body (as both human and divine) must share in the attributes of divinity, including omnipresence. Therefore, Luther had no problem affirming both that Jesus was physically present in one location while also present in another. He did not seek to resolve the logical tensions that arose from such a view since Scripture did not address those issues.
 
在馬爾堡，路德拒絕放棄發生在聖禮的元素和基督的身體和血之間的「聖禮聯合」的這個觀念。雖然他拒絕餅與酒實際上被轉化的這個觀念，但是他相信基督的身體和血在聖禮中是與餅與酒聯合在一起的，因此，當我們吃餅的時候，我們是在吃基督的身體。在某些方面，路德甚至走得比羅馬天主教更遠，他說，一個人如果把餅咬碎，同樣，基督的身體也被壓碎，因為基督的身體和餅是聯合在一起的。
At Marburg, Luther refused to give up the idea of “sacramental union” that took place between the elements and Christ’s body and blood. Though rejecting the idea that the bread and wine were actually transformed, he believed that Christ’s body and blood were sacramentally united to the bread and wine, so that when one ate the bread, one was eating Christ’s body. At some points, Luther goes farther than the Roman Catholic Church, by stating that if a person’s teeth crush the bread, then the same thing happens to Christ’s body also, since Christ’s body is united to the bread.
 
路德在主的晚餐這件事上無法與慈運理妥協，因為他相信道成肉身的教義和基督的人性會因此受到危害。慈運理根據邏輯結論和理性來辯論；路德則一再訴諸基督所說的「這是我的身體」。路德把耶穌在最後晚餐所說的話當作他所需的全部彈藥，以擊倒其他任何的意見。
Luther would not compromise with Zwingli on the Lord’s Supper because he believed the doctrines of the incarnation and Christ’s humanity to be at stake. Zwingli sought to debate based on logical conclusions and reason; Luther appealed again and again to Jesus’ words “This is my body.” Luther saw Jesus’ words at the Last Supper as all the ammunition he needed to shoot down any other opinions.
 
慈運理根據邏輯和人類理性相信，人類身體不可能出現在一個以上的地方；路德向他挑戰，要他相信基督自己說的話；如果耶穌說祂實際在場，那麼，邏輯和人類理性就要被迫符合基督永存的話語──而不是相反。在路德的眼中，慈運理是試圖修改閱讀基督的話最自然的方式，好讓它能符合人類理性。
Zwingli believed, based on logic and human reason, that a human body could not be present in more than one place; Luther challenged him to take Christ at his word. If Jesus said he was physically present, then logic and human reason should be forced to correspond to the everlasting words of Christ – not the other way around. In Luther’s eyes, Zwingli was seeking to modify the natural reading of Christ’s words in order to make it compatible with human reason.
 
「我不是在問基督如何同時是神又是人，以及祂的兩個本質如何能聯合在一起。因為上帝能夠超越我們的想像來行動。對於上帝的話，我們只能順從。當基督自己說，『這是我的身體』，是否要証明基督不在場，取決於你自己。我不想聽理性的一面之詞。我斷然拒絕世俗和幾何的論証……」
“I do not ask how Christ can be God and man and how His natures could be united. For God is able to act far beyond our imagination. To the Word of God one must yield. It is up to you to prove that the body of Christ is not there when Christ Himself says, ‘This is my body.’ I do not want to hear what reason says. I completely reject carnal or geometrical arguments…”
 
路德並不明白慈運理為何無法接受基督在聖餐中實際的同在。他相信正如基督的身體對救恩來說是必要的，因此，基督的身體實際與我們同在，對主的晚餐來說，也是非常重要的。路德把慈運理試圖把基督的同在「屬靈化」，視為想要在暗地裡否定基督真實的人性。
Luther did not understand Zwingli’s reticence to accept a physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He believed that just as the body of Christ was necessary for salvation, so a physical presence of Christ was important for the Lord’s Supper. Luther saw Zwingli’s attempt to “spiritualize” the presence of Christ as a backhanded way of denying Christ’s true humanity.
 
 
路德與慈運理（五）：人性與無所不在
Luther vs. Zwingli 5: Humanity and Omnipresence
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/luther-vs-zwingli-5-humanity-and-omnipresence/
 
路德相信慈運理「屬靈同在」的觀點會貶低基督的人性，而慈運理則認為，路德的觀點才會真正貶抑祂完全的人性。
Though Luther believed Zwingli’s view of “spiritual presence” downplayed Christ’s humanity, Zwingli argued that it was Luther’s view that actually demoted Christ from his proper place as fully Man.
 
根據慈運理的說法，路德混同基督的神性和人性，是和「基督一性論」（Eutychianism 宣稱基督的兩種本質混合在一起，創造出第三種本質的異端），或者更嚴重的是和幻影派（Docetism 基督只是看起來像人的異端）有危險的曖昧關係。慈運理相信，路德過於強調基督的神性，以至於忽略（甚至於否定）祂人性的身體層面。
According to Zwingli, Luther’s fusion of Christ’s divine and human natures was a dangerous flirtation with Eutychianism (the heresy that claimed Christ’s natures were fused together, creating a third kind of nature), or even worse, with Docetism (the heresy that Christ only appeared to be human). Zwingli believed Luther had so emphasized Christ’s divinity that the physical aspects of his humanity were being dismissed or worse, denied.
 
慈運理訴諸奧古斯丁來支持他的觀點，聖禮是記號，基督的身體、祂的人性本質不可能是無所不在的。慈運理也援引聖經為自己辯護，不只是訴諸理性。慈運理堅持基督設立聖餐的話必須解讀為：「這『象徵』我的身體。」，而不是照字義解釋為「這『是』我的身體。」
Zwingli appealed to Augustine as a supporter of his view that the sacrament is a sign and that Christ’s physical, human nature cannot be omnipresent. Zwingli also appealed to Scripture in his defense, not merely to reason. Zwingli insisted that Christ’s words of institution should be understood as “This signifies my body” instead of the literal “This is my body.”
 
當慈運理引用希臘文經文時，路德打斷他，要他唸德文或拉丁文。但是慈運理繼續使用希臘文，作為人文主義傳統的學者，他相信語言是很重要的。翻譯是無法與原文匹敵的。對慈運理來說，希臘原文中沒有「是」這個字是很重要的，因為路德選擇把他全部的論証寄於這個字的字面意義上。
As Zwingli cited the Greek text, Luther interrupted him and ordered him to read German or Latin. Zwingli continued to use Greek, as a scholar of the humanist tradition who believed that the language mattered very much. Translation did not equal equivalency. The absence of the word “is” in the Greek was important to Zwingli because Luther had chosen to hang his entire argument on the literal meaning of that word.
 
路德堅持，這句經文必須按字面來解釋。因此慈運理反駁路德，要他按字面來解釋耶穌所說的，「我不在世上」（約17：11）和聖禮之間的關係。他也挑出舊約聖經裡面的幾處例子說明「是」必須按比喻來解釋（結5：1；賽9：14等）。
Luther remained adamant that the text should be interpreted literally. So Zwingli pushed back at Luther by telling him to interpret literally Jesus’ statement “I am no more in the world” with regard to the Eucharist. He also culled several examples from the Old Testament where “is” is interpreted metaphorically (Ezekiel 5:1, Isaiah 9:14, etc.).
 
馬爾堡會談的第三場會議（週日，十月三日）的主題是基督論的辯論，這是整個爭議的核心。慈運理論到路德的觀點不讓基督人性的身體留在天上，在父神的右邊，是詆毀基督的人性。路德論到慈運理的觀點，否認基督的身體與主的晚餐同在，是在詆毀基督的人性。
The third session of the Marburg Colloquy (Sunday morning, October 3) featured the Christological debate that formed the heart of the entire controversy. Zwingli argued that Luther’s view denigrated the humanity of Christ by not allowing Christ’s human body to remain in heaven, at the right hand of the Father. Luther argued that Zwingli’s view denigrated Christ’s humanity by denying its presence in the Lord’s Supper.
 
慈運理相信路德的看法特別危險，因為如果基督的人性分享祂神性無所不在的性質，那麼我們很自然地可以得到這個結論，就是基督的身體到處存在於每一片餅中，甚至大自然的每個部分。
Zwingli believed that Luther’s view was particularly dangerous, for if Christ’s humanity shares the attribute of omnipresence with his divinity, then one could naturally conclude that Christ’s body is in every piece of bread everywhere and even in every part of nature.
 
因為聖經和大公信條嚴格區分基督的兩個本質，慈運理試圖解釋基督在主的晚餐中的同在是屬靈的同在。對慈運理來說，路德肯定人的身體的無所不在，無可避免地會否定人的身體的真正本質。
Because the Scriptures and the ecumenical creeds demanded a strict distinction between the natures of Christ, Zwingli sought to interpret the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper spiritually. For Zwingli, Luther’s affirmation of a human body’s omnipresence inevitably negated the very essence of what a human body is entirely.
 
路德回應慈運理基督論的論証，他再次訴諸基督設立聖餐的話。耶穌說，「這是我的身體」，如果耶穌說的是事實，那麼神的無所不在必定也包括基督的身體，以至於祂的身體在物質層面和其他的人體是不同的。
Luther responded to Zwingli’s Christological argument by again appealing to Christ’s words of institution. If Jesus was speaking truthfully when he said “This is my body,” then God’s omnipotence must govern Christ’s body, so that his body is not corporeal in the same way other human bodies are.
 
慈運理同意神有能力讓同一個身體同時出現在不同地方，但是他在聖經中看不到這個証據，說明這會發生在主的晚餐中。此外，慈運理也相信路德的解釋削弱了他的基督論，忽略基督與我們的人性認同的許多重要層面。
Zwingli agreed that God has the power to make a body be in different places at the same time, but he saw no Scriptural proof to indicate that this happens in the Lord’s Supper. Furthermore, Zwingli believed Luther’s interpretation weakened his Christology, neglecting important aspects of Christ’s identification with our humanity.
 
 
路德與慈運理（六）：肉體與屬靈
Luther vs. Zwingli 6: Flesh and Spirit
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/luther-vs-zwingli-6-flesh-and-spirit/
 
如果路德最喜歡用來支持他的觀點的經文是「這是我的身體」，慈運理最喜歡的經文則是約翰福音六章63節，耶穌說，「肉體是無益的」。
If Luther’s favorite text in support of his view was “This is my body,” Zwingli’s favorite was John 6:63, where Jesus claims “The flesh profits nothing.”
 
走過基督論爭論的過程，來看基督是否在主的晚餐中，我們會發現一種強烈的肉體與靈魂的二分法。對路德來說，屬靈的同在卻沒有身體的同在，就不是真正的同在。對慈運理而言，相信基督的身體和血包含在餅與酒之內，幾近乎偶像崇拜。慈運理不斷對路德施壓，質問他如果「肉體是無益的」，為什麼身體的同在是必要的。
Coursing through the Christological debate over Christ’s presence in the Supper was a strong dichotomy between flesh and spirit. For Luther, a spiritual presence with no physical local presence was not a true presence at all. For Zwingli, the belief that the bread and wine contained the physical body and blood of Christ bordered on idolatry. Zwingli continually pressed Luther on why the physical presence was necessary if the “flesh profits nothing.”
 
慈運理的同伴艾科蘭巴迪（Oecolampadius），也參與了馬爾堡的辯論，他宣稱約翰福音六章63節表明，只有藉著信心在「屬靈」上吃喝基督才是必要的，沒有必要吃喝真實的身體。路德同意艾科蘭巴迪的說法，約翰福音第六章是指屬靈的吃喝，但是他不同意這個觀念，即屬靈的吃喝不需伴隨著真實身體的吃喝。
Zwingli’s cohort Oecolampadius, who also contributed to the debate at Marburg, claimed that John 6:63 indicates that it is a spiritual feeding on Christ through faith that is necessary, not a carnal, fleshly feeding. Luther agreed with Oecolampadius that John 6 refers to a spiritual eating, but he disagreed with the idea that the spiritual eating is unaccompanied by bodily eating.
 
路德也肯定聖經中有許多比喻的說法，但是他不相信慈運理和艾科蘭巴迪有足夠的論証說明耶穌設立晚餐的話必須被解讀為比喻。「我有清楚有力的經文！」他宣稱。
Luther also affirmed the presence of many metaphors in Scripture, but he did not believe Zwingli and Oecolampadius had strong arguments for seeing Jesus’ words of institution as necessarily metaphorical. “I have a clear and powerful text!” he proclaimed.
 
馬爾堡辯論的原因有很多必須追溯到慈運理的傾向，他慣於把真實的（外在的）和屬靈的（內在的）加以二分，以及路德的傾向，他總是把二者緊密結合在一起。二位改教家的論點都不錯，但是都走上了極端。他們都想安全地翱翔在基督論的絕壁上，一方的危險是把基督的兩個本性分得太開（慈運理），另一方的危險是把祂的兩個本性綁得太緊（路德）。
The basis for much of the debate at Marburg goes back to Zwingli’s tendency to draw a dichotomy between the physical (outward) and the spiritual (inward) as well as Luther’s tendency to keep them too closely united. Both Reformers made good points; both went to extremes. Both were trying to navigate their way safely over a Christological precipice that threatened either to divide Christ too much (Zwingli) or unite his natures too closely (Luther).
 
慈運理認為路德對主的晚餐的觀點是不合理性的信仰，是重回羅馬天主教的教義。他認為路德是害怕割斷與羅馬的臍帶，要用理性在聖經中找尋對聖餐的真正理解。
Zwingli saw in Luther’s view of the Lord’s Supper an irrational belief that hearkened back to Roman Catholic dogma. In his mind, Luther was afraid to cut the ties from Rome and to seek the true understanding of the Eucharist found in Scripture and based on reason.
 
根據慈運理的說法，路德對聖禮的理解會讓人依賴教會，並把一個外來的架構引到聖經經文內。路德同樣認為慈運理對主的晚餐的看法是重回到羅馬教會。慈運理對「真實存在」的看法，確實與化質說有很大的不同，但是他強調聖餐的紀念層面，並認為這是順服的舉動，而不是神的恩賜。對路德來說，這就變成是做「善工」來領受神的祝福。路德覺得，正如羅馬天主教把聖餐變成一種善工，並且把聖餐的元素單單保留給神父，慈運理的教義也會導致聖餐只是個記號，如此，就剝奪了慶祝聖餐的理由。
According to Zwingli, Luther’s understanding of the sacraments kept one dependent upon the Church and introduced a foreign paradigm to the biblical texts. Luther likewise saw a return to Rome in Zwingli’s view of the Lord’s Supper. Granted, Zwingli’s view of the “real presence” was quite different than transubstantiation, but his emphasis on the memorial aspect of the Supper and his view of it as an act of obedience more than a gift from God seemed to Luther to be a “good work” performed to receive God’s blessing. Luther felt that just as Roman Catholicism had turned the Eucharist into a good work and kept the elements for the priests alone, Zwingli’s doctrine would lead to the Eucharist as a mere sign, which would then take away any reason for celebrating the Eucharist.
 
二位改教家不只是在「肉體」和「屬靈」的問題上有相反的看法，他們對邏輯和理性在哲學上的理解也有所不同。
The two Reformers not only had opposing views on the question of “flesh” and “spirit,” but they also differed on the philosophical understanding of logic and rationality.
 
慈運理相信聖經肯定邏輯與理性，因此當基督在約翰福音十二章8節說，「你們不常有我」時，必然排除了身體的同在，因為一個身體不可能同時在天上又在地上。路德訴諸神蹟，說無論它聽起來在邏輯上多麼荒謬，兩種說法都是真的。「我承認基督的身體在天上，但是我也承認它存在於聖禮中。」
Zwingli believed that the Scriptures affirmed logic and reason, and therefore when Christ said in John 12:8 “You will not always have me,” a bodily presence must necessarily be excluded for one body cannot be both in heaven and on earth at the same time. Luther appealed to the miraculous, stating that both are true, no matter how logically absurd it may sound. “I confess that the body is in heaven, but I also confess that it is in the sacrament.”
 
Oecolampadius sought to bring the two together by pointing out the common ground. “What we are agreed on is that Christ is present in heaven (according to his divinity and humanity) and in the Supper (according to his divinity).” He then told Luther that he should not cling to the humanity and the flesh of Christ, but instead lift up his mind to Christ’s divinity.
 
艾科蘭巴迪試圖讓雙方修好，他指出他們共同的立場。「我們一致同意的是基督在天上（根據祂的神性和人性），也在晚餐中（根據祂的神性）。」然後，他告訴路德不要依附在基督的人性和肉體上，而是要把他的想法提升到基督的神性上。
Oecolampadius sought to bring the two together by pointing out the common ground. “What we are agreed on is that Christ is present in heaven (according to his divinity and humanity) and in the Supper (according to his divinity).” He then told Luther that he should not cling to the humanity and the flesh of Christ, but instead lift up his mind to Christ’s divinity.
 
路德的回應清楚表明他不會妥協。「除了那位成了肉身的神以外，我不認識其他的神，我也不會想要別的神。」路德用這些話間接暗示，當慈運理在追求對主的晚餐的理性認識時，否認了基督真正的人性。到最後，這場爭論不歡而散，基督論的問題使得改教家在聖餐的教義上分道揚鑣。
Luther’s response made it clear that no compromise would take place. “I do not know of any God except him who was made flesh, nor do I want to have another.” With those words, Luther indirectly implied that Zwingli was denying the true humanity of Christ in his pursuit for a rational understanding of the Supper. The debate would come to an unhappy close, with the Christological questions keeping the Reformers apart on the doctrine of the Eucharist.
 
 
路德與慈運理（七）：馬爾堡的結論
Luther vs. Zwingli 7: Marburg’s Conclusion
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/luther-vs-zwingli-7-marburgs-conclusion/
 
馬爾堡辯論的口吻雖然很尖刻，但聖靈同在的記號仍然浮現在整個討論中。
Despite the bitter tone of the debates at Marburg, signs of the Holy Spirit’s presence surfaced throughout the discussion.
 
在會談的末了，路德和慈運理一起抱頭痛哭，為尖刻的言語尋求赦免。他們維持各自堅定的信念，並鼓勵對方尋求神的光照。路德說出非常著名的話：「你的靈和我的靈走不到一起。的確，很顯然地，我們擁有的不是同一靈。」
By the end of the Colloquy, Luther and Zwingli wept together and asked forgiveness for bitter words. Both remained firm in their convictions and encouraged the other to ask for God’s enlightenment. Luther uttered the famous line, “Your spirit and our spirit cannot go together. Indeed, it is quite obvious that we do not have the same spirit.”
 
很不幸地，路德和慈運理認為在主的晚餐上的歧義，排除了他們在政治和宗教上結盟的可能性。在15條信條中，二位改教家同意了14條。主的晚餐，即主所賜的聖禮，本來是要讓兄弟姐妹在合一中來到主的桌前，卻諷刺地成為路德宗和改革宗傳統無法有更深團契的教義。
It is unfortunate that Luther and Zwingli saw their differences on the Lord’s Supper as excluding any possibility for political and religious alliance. The two Reformers agreed on 14 out of the 15 articles of faith. The Lord’s Supper, the sacrament given by our Lord to be the place for brothers and sisters to come to the table in unity, proved ironically to be the doctrine that has kept the Lutheran and Reformed traditions from greater fellowship.
 
1540年版的奧斯堡信條，路德的學生墨蘭頓（Philip Melanchthon）在主的晚餐條文上用詞的方式，是為了消弭路德宗和改革宗傳統的差異。
In the 1540 version of the Augsburg confession, Luther’s disciple Philip Melanchthon worded the article on the Lord’s Supper in such a way as to mute the differences between the Lutheran and Reformed traditions.
 
今天，宗教改革傳統的許多敵意已如煙消雲散。路德宗，改革宗和浸信會都重新確認他們對宗教改革時期對福音的理解的委身，雖然在教會治理，洗禮和主的晚餐等議題上維持他們之間的區別。
Today, much of the animosity between the Reformation traditions has passed. Evangelical Lutheran, Reformed, and Baptist groups have reaffirmed their commitments to the Reformation understanding of the gospel, even though maintaining distinctions on issues related to church polity, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper.
 
著名的廣播節目，《白馬客棧》（The White Horse Inn），曾舉辦一次專題討論，請來了四位牧師，分別來自路德宗，（歐陸）改革宗，長老會和浸信會。雖然他們在主的晚餐和其他議題上維持不同的看法，但是對聽眾來說，他們在宗教改革傳統上有共同的立場是很明顯的。
The popular radio program, The White Horse Inn, features a panel discussion between four ministers, one Lutheran, one Reformed, one Presbyterian, and one Baptist. Though they maintain distinct views on the Lord’s Supper and other issues, the common ground between each Reformation tradition is evident to listeners.
 
基督論的問題構成了路德和慈運理在主的晚餐上激烈辯論的基礎。但是改教家相信他們關於主的晚餐信仰，其隱含的概念實在太重要了，因此無法妥協。他們對這些涵義有哪些也有一個誇大的看法。在一個社會的宗教信仰非常排外的時代，這兩位改教家同意，合一的基礎必須是所有教義都合乎真理，不只是在某些領域。
The question of Christology formed the basis for Luther and Zwingli’s fierce debate on the Lord’s Supper. Both the Reformers believed the implications of their beliefs about the Lord’s Supper to be too important for compromise. Both also had an exaggerated view of what those implications might be. In a day when the religious beliefs of society were exclusive, these two Reformers agreed that unity must be based on truth in all doctrine, not just in certain areas.
 
雖然慈運理和路德對「無關緊要之事」很寬容，但他們都不相信主的晚餐是細微末節。關於主的晚餐的辯論在路德和慈運理的神學中佔據一個很重要的地位，因為這關乎岌岌可危的基督論議題以及他們個別學派思想的哲學基礎
Though Zwingli and Luther were tolerant of matters “indifferent,” neither one believed the Lord’s Supper to be a minor issue of indifference. The debate over the Lord’s Supper occupied a primary place in both Luther and Zwingli’s theologies because of the Christological issues at stake and the philosophical underpinnings of their respective schools of thought.
 
也許今天我們在研究馬爾堡會談時，最好的回應是熱切的禱告，盼望主的晚餐這個動作可以再次宣告基督的身體為我們在加略山而捨，而不是在祂的教會中有分裂的身體。
Perhaps the best response to studying the Marburg Colloquy today is praying fervently that the act of the Lord’s Supper would once again proclaim Christ’s body, broken for us on Calvary, instead of the broken body of Christ in his Church.
 
written by Trevin Wax. copyright © 2008 Kingdom People Blog.