感謝讚美上帝護理的大能与豐盛的供應。 本網誌內的所有資源純屬學習交流之用。

2021-02-07

 

古老釋經法的四大原則
Four Principles of Older Hermeneutics

作者:Richard C. Barcellos      誠之編譯自:
http://www.rbap.net/four-principles-of-older-hermeneutics/
https://yimawusi.net/2021/02/03/%e5%8f%a4%e8%80%81%e9%87%8b%e7%b6%93%e6%b3%95%e7%9a%84%e5%9b%9b%e5%a4%a7%e5%8e%9f%e5%89%87%ef%bc%88richard-c-barcellos%ef%bc%89/
 
一、聖靈是聖經唯一無謬誤的詮釋者
1 The Holy Spirit is the Only Infallible Interpreter of Holy Scripture.

 
舉例來說,約翰·歐文說道,「聖經唯一獨特的、公眾的、真實的、無謬誤的詮釋者就是聖經的作者自己……即聖靈。」(註1)尼希米·柯西(Nehemiah Coxe)說,「……《舊約》的最佳詮釋者是在《新約》裏對我們說話的聖靈。」(註2)這意思是他們認為聖經對自己的詮釋和應用是無謬誤的,存放在聖經裏的詮釋原則也是無謬誤的。無論聖經用什麼形式(例如:直接引用,暗指,呼應,或者是在《舊約》或《新約》裏的應驗)來註解自己,或使用自己,都是上帝自己的詮釋,因此是上帝對經文應該如何被人領悟的看法。這往往意味著後來的經文會光照先前的經文。這不只是在《新約》對《舊約》的引用時才會發生,也發生在《舊約》自己身上。或者,我們可以這樣說:後來的啟示經常會讓先前啟示中隱藏的事理變得明確(註3)。
As an example of this principle, John Owen says, “The only unique, public, authentic, and infallible interpreter of Scripture is none other than the Author of Scripture Himself . . . that is, God the Holy Spirit.”[1] Nehemiah Coxe says, “. . . the best interpreter of the Old Testament is the Holy Spirit speaking to us in the new.”[2] This meant that they saw the Bible’s interpretation and use of itself as infallible and with interpretive principles embedded in it. When the Bible comments upon, or utilizes itself in any fashion (e.g., direct quotation, allusion, echo, or fulfillment in the OT or NT), it is God’s interpretation and, therefore, the divine understanding of how texts should be understood by men. This often means that later texts shed interpretive light on earlier texts. This occurs not only when the New Testament uses the Old Testament, but it occurs in the Old Testament itself. Or, we could put it this way: subsequent revelation often makes explicit what is implicit in antecedent revelation.[3]
 
註:[1] John Owen, Biblical Theology or The Nature, Origin, Development, and Study of Theological Truth in Six Books (Pittsburgh, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1994), 797.
 
[2] Coxe and Owen, Covenant Theology, 36.
 
[3] See Vern S. Poythress, “Biblical Hermeneutics,” in Seeing Christ in all of Scripture: Hermeneutics at Westminster Theological Seminary, ed. Peter A. Lillback (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Seminary Press, 2016), 14, where he says: “The later communications build on the earlier. What is implicit in the earlier often becomes explicit in the later.”
 
二、聖經的類比(The Analogy of the Scriptures [Analogia Scripturae]
2 The Analogy of the Scriptures (Analogia Scripturae)

 
穆勒(Richard A. Muller)如此定義「聖經的類比」:「如果有兩段指著相同教導或事件的經文,要用對比的方法,讓那段清楚的、不模棱兩可的經文,來解釋那段比較不清楚的、比較含糊的經文。」(註1)舉例來說,我們可以用馬太福音來幫助我們明白馬可福音中處理相同主題的經文。這個原則和第一個原則一樣,都顯然預設了聖經是上帝所默示的。
Here is Richard A. Muller’s definition of analogia Scripturae: “the interpretation of unclear, difficult, or ambiguous passages of Scripture by comparison with clear and unambiguous passages that refer to the same teaching or event.”[1] An example of this would be utilizing a passage in Matthew to help understand a passage dealing with the same subject in Mark. This principle, as with the first one, obviously presupposes the divine inspiration of Scripture.
 
「聖經的類比」這個原則,就具備了信條的地位:「解釋聖經唯一不會有謬誤的原則,就是以經解經。」(1689,倫敦第二信條[2LCF] 1.9;譯按:同西敏信條,1.9
The principle of analogia Scripturae gained confessional status as follows: “The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself . . .” (2LCF 1.9).
 
註:[1] Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985, Second printing, September 1986), 33; emphasis added.
 
三、信仰的類比(The Analogy of Faith [Analogia Fidei]
3 The Analogy of Faith (Analogia Fidei)

 
穆勒如此定義「信仰的類比」:「用經文意義的整體觀念(這是從清楚、不含糊的地方得出的),作為解釋不清楚或意義含糊的經文的根據。和更基本的『聖經的類比』不同的是,信仰的類比預設了聖經的神學意義。」(註1
Muller defines analogia fidei as follows: the use of a general sense of the meaning of Scripture, constructed from the clear or unambiguous loci [i.e., places] . . ., as the basis for interpreting unclear or ambiguous texts. As distinct from the more basic analogia Scripturae . . ., the analogia fidei presupposes a sense of the theological meaning of Scripture.[1]
 
這個原則一直以來沒有被人正確理解。例如,華德·凱瑟(Walter C. Kaiser Jr.)沒有正確區分聖經的類比和信仰的類比之間的差異,提倡他所謂的「(先前)經文的類比」(註2)。在分析信仰的類比時,他說道,「我們在這裏的問題是,究竟信仰的類比對所有的經文來說,是不是一個可以『(神學上的)芝麻開門』的釋經工具。」(註3)在討論他的「(先前)經文的類比」的提議時,凱瑟自信地論到:
This principle has not always been understood properly. For example, Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. fails to distinguish properly between analogia Scripturae and analogia fidei and advocates what he calls “The Analogy of (Antecedent) Scripture.”[2] While analyzing the principle of the analogy of faith, he says, “Our problem here is whether the analogy of faith is a hermeneutical tool that is ‘open [theological] sesame’ for every passage of Scripture.”[3] While discussing his proposal for “The Analogy of (Antecedent) Scripture,” Kaiser confidently asserts:
 
「當然絕大多數的註釋家會看到,把我們的神學觀察局限在那些在正確解釋經文的情形下所得出的結論,也局限在在這段經文之前就已經出現的經文,是有智慧、有理智的做法。」(註4
Surely most interpreters will see the wisdom and good sense in limiting our theological observations to conclusions drawn from the text being exegeted and from texts which preceded it in time.[4]
 
在他的討論的結尾,他說道:
In the conclusion to his discussion, he says:
 
「不過,在任何情況下,後來的教導都不能在解經上(或任何其他的方法)被用來解釋個別經文的意義或提高個別經文的實用性,而這是我們的研究目標。」(註5
However, in no case must that later teaching be used exegetically (or in any other way) to unpack the meaning or to enhance the usability of the individual text which is the object of our study.[5]
 
最壞的情況,這是否認教會歷史對信仰類比的理解,最好的情況,也只是對這個原則一個毫無幫助且危險的修正。比如說,這意味著我們不能使用創世記一~三章以外的經文來幫助我們解讀這三章經文。因為在創世記一~三章之前沒有出現其他經文,解經者就無法得知上帝如何使用後來的經文,也無法得知上帝後來的解釋,來幫助我們明白這些章節。這個方法最終會自食惡果,因為當我們思考創世記(或聖經其他書卷)時就會發現,創世記從來沒有要成為孤立的書卷(註6)。還有,聖經自己(舊約和新約)都對先前的經文加以評註,幫助讀者明白這些經文中,上帝的意圖是什麼。凱瑟的方法似乎是在暗示,一段特定經文的解釋必須在彷彿沒有後來聖經經文的情況下來進行。我們必須明白,在某種意義上,我們擁有聖經作者所沒有的優勢——我們擁有已經完成的正典。但是我們也必須明白,聖經對自己的用法(無論何時、無論用什麼方法)都是無謬誤的。若是如此,解經(使用該經文之外的一些工具)就必需參考一切可能有用的工具,包括聖經如何註解自己,無論這個註釋出現在哪裏,或是如何註解的。倘若聖靈是聖經唯一無謬誤的解釋者,解經就理當要使用在創世記以外的經文來幫助我們明白。依我看來,凱瑟的建議似乎是授權給我們去參考有誤的創世記註釋,來幫助我們解讀它,卻拒絕我們可以使用聖經本身(包含了上帝所默示的、無謬誤的註釋)來達到相同的目的。
This is, at worst, a denial of the historic understanding of analogia fidei and, at best, a very unhelpful and dangerous modification of the principle. This would mean, for example, that we cannot utilize anything in the Bible outside of Genesis 1-3 to help us interpret it. Since there is nothing in the Bible antecedent to Genesis 1-3, interpreters are left with no subsequent divine use, no subsequent divine explanation of how to understand those chapters. This method ends up defeating itself when we consider that Genesis (and all other books of the Bible) was never intended to stand on its own.[6] As well, the Bible itself (OT and NT) comments on antecedent texts, helping its readers understand the divine intention of those texts. Kaiser’s method seems to imply that the exegesis of a given biblical text is to be conducted as if no subsequent biblical texts exist. We must realize that, in one sense, we have an advantage that the biblical writers did not have—we have a completed canon. But we must also realize that the Bible’s use of itself (whenever and however this occurs) is infallible. If this is so, then the exegete, using tools outside of the biblical text under consideration, ought to consult all possible useful tools, which includes how the Bible comments upon itself no matter where or how it does so. If the Holy Spirit is the only infallible interpreter of Holy Scripture, then certainly exegetes ought to utilize biblical texts outside of Genesis to aid in the understanding of it. It seems to me that Kaiser’s proposal would give warrant for exegetes to consult fallible commentaries on Genesis to aid in its interpretation, but deny the use of the Bible itself (which contains inspired and infallible commentary) to that same end.
 
一個正確理解並使用信仰類比的例子是辨識創世記第三章裏出現的蛇。我們可以用十足的把握說,那蛇就是魔鬼,即撒但。我們知道這點是因為上帝透過後來的經文告訴了我們。啟示錄十二章9節說:「大龍就是那古蛇,名叫魔鬼,又叫撒但,是迷惑普天下的。」二十章2節說:「他捉住那龍,就是古蛇,又叫魔鬼,也叫撒但」。因此,根據信仰的類比,我們可以確定創世記第三章的蛇就是魔鬼,即撒但。
An example of the proper understanding and use of the analogy of faith would be identifying the serpent of Genesis 3. We can say with utter certainty that the serpent is the devil and Satan. We know this because God tells us via subsequent Scripture in Revelation 12:9, “And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan” and 20:2, “And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan.” So, according to the analogy of faith, we can affirm that the serpent of Genesis 3 is the devil and Satan.
 
那受聖靈默示的、無謬誤的信仰準則就是整本聖經,每一部分的經文都必須根據經文整體的神學來理解。這會保證當我們在看經文個別的樹木時,不會丟掉經文的整個神學森林。這會讓我們避免用經文彙編的方式來研究神學,把字義研究作為解釋聖經的唯一目的,並依靠使用同樣字詞的經文,從中得出神學結論。這些方法往往沒有根據經文出現背景的各個階層(即短句,字句,句子,段落,書卷,作者,《新約》還是《舊約》,整部正典)來考慮經文(或字詞)的意義。信仰類比的原則也向我們保證,當我們想要明白聖經的任何經文時(例如,創世記第一~三章),在釋經過程中,聖經的所有經文都是可以引用的。或者我們可以這樣說:每一節經文的語境都是全部的聖經經文。
The inspired and infallible rule of faith is the whole of Scripture, whose textual parts must be understood in light of its textual-theological whole. This insures that the theological forest is not lost for the individual textual trees. It should keep us from doing theology concordance-style, doing word-studies as an end-all to interpretation, and counting texts that use the same words and drawing theological conclusions from it. These methods often do not consider the meaning of the text (or word) under investigation in light of the various levels of context (i.e., phrase, clause, sentence, pericope, book, author, testament, canon) in which it occurs. The principle of the analogy of faith also warrants that, when we are seeking to understand any text of Scripture (e.g., Gen. 1-3), all texts of Scripture are fair game in the interpretive process. Or it could be stated this way: the context of every biblical text is all biblical texts.
 
「信仰的類比」這個原則,如此得到了信條的地位:
The principle of analogia fidei gained confessional status as follows:
 
「解釋聖經唯一不會有謬誤的原則,就是以經解經。所以,當我們對任何一處聖經的真實完整意義(每處聖經都只有一個含義,而沒有多種含義)有疑問時,就當查考聖經其他比較清楚的經文,以明白其真義。」(1689,倫敦第二信條[2LCF] 1.9;譯按:同西敏信條,1.9
The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture, (which is not manifold, but one,) it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. (2LCF 1.9)
 
註:[1] Muller, Dictionary, 33.
 
[2] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward An Exegetical Theology (1981; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, Sixth printing, January 1987), 134ff.
 
[3] Kaiser, Toward An Exegetical Theology, 135; bracketed word original.
 
[4] Kaiser, Toward An Exegetical Theology, 137.
 
[5] Kaiser, Toward An Exegetical Theology, 140; emphasis original.
 
[6] The OT is not an end itself; it is heading somewhere and demands answers to various issues left unfulfilled. It sets the stage for God’s future acts of redemption and assumes that God will follow his redemptive acts with corresponding redemptive-revelational words. The OT cannot stand on its own; it is an open-ended book and must be interpreted as such. The NT provides the rest of the story. See Dennis E. Johnson, Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2007), 160, n. 51, where he takes Kaiser to task for claiming that the OT can stand on its own. In Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament: A Guide for the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 27, he claims: “The Old Testament can stand on its own, for it has done so both in the pre-Christian and the early Christian centuries.” Johnson replies: “As will be argued in Chapter 6, the preacher to the Hebrews saw in the Old Testament Scriptures themselves various indications that the Old Testament and its institutions could not ‘stand on their own[‘] but testified to a better, more ‘perfect’ order to come.” Johnson’s book is highly recommended. Reading and interpreting the OT on its own is like reading the Gospels without the Epistles, the Epistles without the Gospels, the Prophets without the Pentateuch, the Pentateuch without the Prophets, and the NT without the OT. Kaiser’s position seems to entail reading and interpreting the OT without the New. If this is the case, it would give the appearance of over-emphasizing the human authorial element of Holy Scripture. The apostle Peter informs us, concerning the writing prophets of the OT: “It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look” (1 Pet. 1:12). The prophets wrote with a future-oriented messianic consciousness. What they predicted happened when our Lord came and the NT interprets our Lord in light of the OT.
 
四、聖經的要旨(The Scope of the Scriptures [Scopus Scripturae]
4 The Scope of the Scriptures (Scopus Scripturae)

 
「以基督為中心」(Christ-centered and Christocentric)這類的語詞,在我們這個時代經常被人使用。但是這些語詞是什麼意思呢?拉丁文片語Scopus Scripturae(即經文的要旨),精準地涵蓋了這些語詞所指向的概念,即整本聖經所關心的目標或目的,這是老式的稱呼這個概念的方法。這個概念也在威斯敏斯特信仰告白,倫敦第二信條[2LCF]中得到了信條的地位。在這兩個信條的第一章第5條論及聖經時說到,「……整體的要旨(將一切榮耀歸給上帝)……」。
Terms such as Christ-centered and Christocentric are used often in our day. But what do they mean? The older way of naming the concept these terms point to, the target or end to which the entirety of the Bible tends, is encapsulated by the Latin phrase scopus Scripturae (i.e., the scope of the Scriptures). This concept gained confessional status in the WCF, the SD, and the 2LCF in 1.5, which, speaking of Holy Scripture, say, “. . . the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God) . . .”

宗教改革和後宗教改革的改革宗神學家是以兩種意義來理解「要旨」(scope)這個詞的。狹義的意義,即一段經文的要旨,其基本的旨趣;但是還有較廣的含義,即所有經文所關切的目標或靶心。(註1)我們的焦點也會放在這第二個含義上。
Reformation and post-Reformation Reformed theologians understood scope in two senses. It had a narrow sense—i.e., the scope of a given text or passage, its basic thrust—but it also had a wider sense—i.e., the target or bull’s eye to which all of Scripture tends.[1] It is to this second sense that we will give our attention.

這裏所謂的要旨,是指整本正典啟示的中心或標的,是整本聖經所指向的。無論這是什麼,都必須成為我們解釋聖經的任何一部分和所有部分的條件。對十七世紀的聖約神學家來說,聖經的主旨是道成肉身的神的兒子的救贖工作中所顯出的上帝的榮耀。(註2)他們對聖經主旨的結論,本身就是從聖經而來的,而不是從外頭帶到聖經裏頭的前提預設,而它也掌控了接下來的所有解釋。
Scope, in the sense intended here, refers to the center or target of the entire canonical revelation; it is that to which the entire Bible points. And whatever that is, it must condition our interpretation of any and every part of Scripture. For the federal or covenant theologians of the seventeenth century, the scope of Scripture was the glory of God in the redemptive work of the incarnate Son of God.[2] Their view of the scope of Scripture was itself a conclusion from Scripture, not a presupposition brought to it, and it conditioned all subsequent interpretation.

比方說,威廉·阿穆斯(William Ames)說,「《舊約》和《新約》可以被化約為這兩個主要的標題:舊約應許基督要來,而新約證實祂已經來了。」(註3)同樣,約翰·歐文說,「基督……是整本聖經的主要目的……」(註4)他在其他地方則繼續說到:
William Ames, for example, said, “The Old and New Testaments are reducible to these two primary heads. The Old promises Christ to come and the New testifies that he has come.”[3] Likewise, John Owen said, “Christ is . . . the principal end of the whole of Scripture . . .”[4] He continues elsewhere:

「在我們讀聖經時,這個原則必須時時刻刻留在我們的腦海裏,也就是說,基督的位格和祂的職分的啟示與教義,是先知和使徒所有其他教訓的基礎,以建造教會,是他們心之所向……同樣,是我們的主耶穌基督自己也充分說明的,路廿四26-2745-46。撇開這方面的考慮,聖經並不像它們所假裝的那樣,即在教會的救贖中啟示上帝的榮耀……」(註5
This principle is always to be retained in our minds in reading of the Scripture,—namely, that the revelation and doctrine of the person of Christ and his office, is the foundation whereon all other instructions of the prophets and apostles for the edification of the church are built, and whereunto they are resolved . . . So our Lord Jesus Christ himself at large makes it manifest, Luke xxiv. 26, 27, 45, 46. Lay aside the consideration hereof, and the Scriptures are no such thing as they pretend unto,—namely, a revelation of the glory of God in the salvation of the church . . .[5]
 
柯西(Coxe)說道,「……要在聖經中尋求上帝的心意,我們應當問與基督有關的問題。」(註6
Coxe said, “. . .  in all our search after the mind of God in the Holy Scriptures we are to manage our inquiries with reference to Christ.”[6]
 
他們以基督為中心來解釋聖經的原則是從聖經本身而來的,也是「唯獨聖經」在釋經學上的一種應用。換句話說,他們將聖經的權威視為延伸到我們如何解釋聖經上。或者可以這樣說:他們認為聖經的權威延伸到了聖經的解釋上。(註7
Their Christocentric interpretation of the Bible was a principle derived from the Bible itself, and an application of sola Scriptura to the issue of hermeneutics. In other words, they viewed the Bible’s authority as extending to how we interpret the Bible. Or it could be stated this way: they saw the authority of Scripture extending to the interpretation of Scripture.[7]
 
註:[1] See the discussion in Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, Volume Two Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003 [Second Edition]), 206-23, where he discusses these distinctions. See also James M. Renihan, “Theology on Target: The Scope of the Whole (which is to give all glory to God),” RBTR II:2 (July 2005): 36-52; Richard C. Barcellos, “Scopus Scripturae: John Owen, Nehemiah Coxe, our Lord Jesus Christ, and a Few Early Disciples on Christ as the Scope of Scripture,” Journal of the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies [JIRBS] (2015): 5-24; and Stephen J. Casselli, Divine Rule Maintained: Anthony Burgess, Covenant Theology, and the Place of the Law in Reformed Scholasticism (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016), 102-07.
 
[2] See my forthcoming The Doxological Trajectory of Scripture: God Getting Glory for Himself through what He does in His Son — An Exegetical and Theological Case Study, Chapter 5, “Christ as Scopus Scripturae — John Owen and Nehemiah Coxe on Christ as the Scope of Scripture for the Glory of God.”
 
[3] William Ames, The Marrow of Theology (Durham, NC: The Labyrinth Press, 1983), 1.38.5 (202).
 
[4] John Owen, The Works of John Owen, 23 vols., ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1987 edition), 1:74.
 
[5] Owen, Works, 1:314-15.
 
[6] Coxe and Owen, Covenant Theology, 33.
 
[7] See Poythress, “Biblical Hermeneutics,” 11, where he says: “We use the Bible to derive hermeneutical principles. Then we use hermeneutics to interpret the Bible.”

 

舊約預表論的釋經涵義
The Hermeneutic Implications of Old Testament Typology

誠之譯自:Dennis E. Johnson著,Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scripture, pp. 230-23
https://yimawusi.net/2021/02/03/%e8%88%8a%e7%b4%84%e9%a0%90%e8%a1%a8%e8%ab%96%e7%9a%84%e9%87%8b%e7%b6%93%e6%b6%b5%e7%be%a9%ef%bc%88dennis-johnson%ef%bc%89/
 
當我們復習舊約聖經啟示的三個特徵,即舊約事件和制度之象徵深意(symbolic depth),先知以上帝先前的作為所設定的模式[patterntypoi]以描繪未來的救贖,以及蘊藏其中的記號是不完全的,我們就會發現到,在使徒的釋經法中所表現出來的「連接線」(connecting threads),已經從一開始就被編織到聖經的結構當中。這個發現會更進一步幫助我們避免兩個嚴重錯誤。在整個教會歷史中,已經有許多牧師受這兩個錯誤的毒害,特別是當他們希望讓聖經文本和當代讀者之間產生聯結時所產生的。正如我們在保羅的宣講神學(按:本書第三章)中見到的,聖經的聖約特徵及其目的是為了向聽眾最深層的需要(即與上帝和好並按祂的形象重造)喊話,會要求牧師們向他們的讀者顯明聖經與他們的關聯。我們經常看到一種情況,如同我們在第四章所看到的,這條關聯線是以「靈意解經」(allegorism)或「道德主義」(moralism)的方式──無論是無意還是有意地,想要以一種創新的方式──所描繪出來的。我們在《希伯來書》中看到了聖經文本與當代聽眾之間的聯繫模式,現在又看到從舊約先知書和新約使徒詮釋法中更普遍出現了這種模式,這與寓言主義和道德主義究竟有何不同呢?
 
許多學生和讀者從克羅尼(Edmund. P. Clowney)的洞見中受益良多。他對以基督為中心、救贖歷史講道法的洞見,可以在圖一中看到。在他許多的講道法著作中,這個圖有時會以不同的形式出現。

 
圖一繪製了許多條「道路」(試著把每個箭頭看成是一條路),這是牧師們試著把舊約事件或制度的信息,在其原初的歷史和文學脈絡(左下角的「Event」)和當代讀者的屬靈需要(右下角,「我們的講道」)下傳遞出來的方式。如果我們要避免把舊約聖經故事變成對古代近東歷史的演講,大多數牧師直覺地意識到,我們必須走這趟旅程,以運送我們的珍貴貨品。但是上圖所標示出來的網路,只有一條路可以追溯到使徒們解釋聖經的方法,展現他們對基督完整的見證。其他的路都是「抄近路」,貌似可以完成把古代文本和當代聽眾聯繫起來的工作,但它們實際上是掠過了一個至為關鍵的叉路(右上),從而把使徒所傳遞的最終信息弄得十分貧瘠。
 
靈意解經
 

靈意解經乃是建立在這樣的認識上,就是舊約事件必須根據以色列救贖歷史的象徵深意來解讀。如同我們在第四章看到的,在其更為反思式(reflective)的教父式的表達中,其古代實踐者認為自己是在複製使徒的解經方法(例如保羅在加拉太書第四章對夏甲和撒拉的「寓意解經」),並認為把聖經加以寓意化(靈意化)來解釋聖經是一個可以讓人信服的方法。在這種方法中,聖經人物的行動會得到上帝含蓄或明確的贊同,雖然這些行為違背了聖經其他地方的道德標準(例如,亞伯拉罕獻以撒為祭)。如此,從某個角度來看,靈意解經的功勞是對抗一種僵硬的道德主義,想要把每個舊約人物或事件變成一種正面或負面的,對道德行為的說明。
 
從另一方面來說,如同圖表下方的虛線所隱含的,靈意解經是從某個舊約事件的歷史細節和我們讀者的經驗或神學中,帶出直接的象徵聯結,而不按這個事件在救贖歷史中的地位,來考慮其象徵的深意與救贖的意義。這個事件被當作是某個神學真理的一幅圖畫,而這幅圖畫是脫離現實,而且是與歷史無關的。這個問題經常會被忽略,就是原初的讀者──在基督降臨前的時間點──是否有可能在這個事件中瞥見這樣的意義,亦即現在的基督徒詮釋者為這個事件所賦予的意義。其結果是一種對舊約敘事的象徵性解讀,而這種解讀在大體上是不考慮記載在聖經中的特殊啟示對歷史的「塑造」(historical shaping”),並且讓詮釋者的想像可以脫離聖經之原初脈絡──包括歷史的和神學上的──的「控制」而隨意馳騁。靈意解經的詮釋者在古代經文和他的基督徒讀者間,過早地直接畫了一條線,而沒有先問一個問題,就是對其古代的參與者和原初的領受者(第一層的真理T1 = truth to the first power)來說,這個事件在屬靈上和聖約上的意義是什麼。其結果是,從經文而來的象徵意義(或多層的意義),即使它說明瞭與基督有關的教義,也未能解釋基督為何能成全原先舊約事件的救贖意義,以完美取代不完美,以歷史預示取代事實(Tn = 終極的真理,truth to the ultimate power)。Tn 毫無疑問是遠遠超乎T1的;其指數(n)所隱含的是在基督裏的應驗超越了舊約事件之聖約、救贖和屬靈果效。但是在亞當、亞伯拉罕,和以色列的得救經驗,以及與他們立約的上帝的交往,以及由耶穌為我們所贏得的完全拯救和親密關係,兩者之間有一條很重要的、真正的連結線。忽略這些,而偏好與我們自己的想像之象徵性的連接,就是貶損了上帝對歷史的救贖和啟示所做的漸進工作,也削減了我們想要在古代經文和我們的聽眾之間想要畫的關聯線的可靠性。
 
道德主義

 
有許多人用不同的方式來定義道德主義。有時候,在講道中有任何呼籲,要求信徒必須有具體的行為改變,都會被嗤之以鼻,並受人責罵,說這是「道德主義」──即使新約使徒和耶穌的教導都充滿了這種倫理的教導。對道德主義更可靠的定義是指一種講道學的實踐,這種實踐並未以福音為根基,或顯明它們為何是對上帝在基督裏的救贖工作的一種感恩的回應。這種道德式講道的結果是聽眾在聽完講道後,心中留下這樣的印象,就是上帝之所以悅納他們,在某種程度上是基於他們在順服和愛鄰舍的行為表現上(永遠是不完美的),而不是唯獨基於耶穌基督完美的順服和代替我們受苦。這個道德上的弦外之音也許不是講道者的意圖──牧者在救恩教義上也許是正統的。反而,這可能是忽略所帶來的間接結果,或是根據這樣的假設,就是最終我們不需要再提醒基督徒,基督徒生活(包括其動力──與基督聯合;以及其動機──感恩的愛,在父神的愛中是穩固的)是從福音中所流淌出來的恩典。無論如何,他的聽眾在講道之後會有一種沉重感,就是以為若想得到上帝的稱讚,必須靠我們的勤奮努力來達成。
 
克羅尼的圖表所呈現的道德主義,有時候會被稱為「榜樣主義」(examplarism),就是主要把舊約事件和人物當成榜樣,無論是正面或負面的榜樣,或者是忠於聖約的生活榜樣。榜樣式的講道似乎是在模仿使徒的模式,鼓勵基督徒聽眾要避免負面的榜樣,例如以色列在曠野的不信(希伯來書三~四章;哥林多前書十章),並要盡力效法正面的榜樣,例如那些信心的得勝者(希伯來書十一章)。如此,道德式的講道充其量的確會按照其原初的背景,論及有關聖約(在屬靈上和道德上)的動態,以及在舊約事件和經文中運行的象徵深意。從這點來看,其詮釋是尊重救贖歷史的完整性,並且把講道者的詮釋放在合理的歷史和文學背景的管制之下,而這些背景乃是出現在聖經正典逐漸展開的啟示當中的。在其原初的背景(T1)下,直接在舊約事件的象徵/屬靈/聖約的意義和我們當前的倫理議題(我們的講道)之間畫出一條線,至少是在舊約的場景下,嚴肅地看待原初事件的屬靈和象徵的意義。
 
道德式、榜樣式講道最大的弱點是它會有一個傾向,就是把舊約的榜樣列一個清單,以便在讀者身上設立一種道德責任,卻沒有說明基督如何信實地遵守了聖約,是那些負面的榜樣所未能做到的;以及基督完美的義如何應驗了即使是舊約中最正面的榜樣所能給予之最佳的順服。靠著「抄近路」,並為了要顯明經文和讀者每天的掙扎和人際關係之間的相關性,卻忽略經文「在基督裏的應驗」(右上角的Tn),道德主義就把經文改變生命能力的源頭,從聖經的敘述中切除了。這泉源就是經文對上帝的憐憫(這憐憫原顯明在耶穌的順服和犧牲當中)的見證。當基督和祂作為聖約的主和聖約的僕人這個滿足了一切的角色,被遺漏在這個「等式」之外時,挪亞、雅各、約瑟、參孫、大衛、尼希米的故事,就微妙地從福音被轉變成了律法:「如此行就得以存活」;「效法某某,才得以存活」。然而,律法本是「聖潔、公義和良善的」──因為它是上帝的標準(羅七12),就被我們墮落有罪的本性所削弱了,也無法將我們所需要的生活和屬靈的力量分賜給我們,以遵行其吩咐,或殷勤地效法其正面的榜樣(羅八3;加三21;林後三6-9)。那麼,讓使徒的救贖歷史預表論和靈意解經與道德主義分開的,究竟是什麼呢?
 
救贖歷史預表論(Redemptive-Historical Typology
 
上帝把屬靈意義賜與舊約事件、職分和制度(E),作為祂冗長歷史工程的重要部分,以扭轉罪和罪的後果,把得救的百姓帶進新的創造之中。在這個新造中,祂不僅要因祂的榮美、聖潔、公義、能力和智慧得著讚美,也要因祂奇妙的恩典得著讚美。如同新約洗禮和聖餐的聖禮,這些舊約事件、職分和制度所指向的,乃是要超越它們本身,以象徵那完全的、末世的救恩。這是上帝為歷史所賦予的目的,這目的會在基督的第一次降臨中奠定,也會在祂第二次降臨裏成全。如同我們所看到的,即使在舊約聖經中,先知也啟示了舊約聖經事件(出埃及記)、職分(君王)和制度(聖所、獻祭)的象徵深意。他們呼召上帝的百姓,盼望一個比以色列在應許的時代所經歷到的更大、更深、更持久的救恩,以及屬靈的產業和敬拜等等。
 
舊約的諸多預表,從另一個角度來看,就像是聖禮:它們同時是印記,也是記號或象徵。換句話說,他們不只是上帝向族長和以色列人所啟示的救恩福分的圖畫,而這些福分只是完全保留給那些有特權生活在彌賽亞救贖成就之後的時期的人的。不,那些古代的事件和制度(包括像挪亞的彩虹,以色列的節慶,以及聖所及其獻祭等「聖禮」),實際上是上帝藉著未來的彌賽亞,要激起並堅固信心的施恩管道,也藉此把基督在「時候滿足」時,透過祂的死、復活和升天所要完成的救贖恩益,提前施行在舊約的信徒身上。如此,上帝「早已傳福音給亞伯拉罕」(加三8)──這位信福音的人。上帝已經在期待基督的挽回祭當中,越過(逾越)亞伯拉罕的罪,好到最後「顯明祂的義,使人知道祂自己為義,也稱信耶穌的人為義」(羅三26)。雖然保羅以他自己個人的歷史,認罪說他過去是「不信不明白」(提前一13),他也可以作為古代以色列的代表,把「我們[猶太人]這首先在基督裏有盼望的人」(弗一12)和那會透過福音在之後被納入的外邦人區分開來。
 
如同我們在下一章會更完全明白的,遵循使徒的釋經和講道的腳蹤,需要我們有紀律地,並耐心地注意任何聖經文本的一切相關背景。為了明白舊約事件(、職分、職事或制度)如何宣講基督,並在祂裏面得著應驗,我們首先必須按照這個事件在救贖歷史中的位置,領會其象徵深意(從E T1 的垂直線:象徵)。逾越節羔羊的血宣告說,出埃及不只是一群被壓迫的百姓從一個邪惡且暴虐的帝國得著政治上的解放:以色列的長子和埃及的長子一樣,在上帝的手中都無法倖免於難!沒有把替代羔羊的血打在以色列家的門楣上,他們的長子也會落在上帝的死亡審判底下,與壓迫他們的人同遭厄運。上帝為以色列所供應的作為替代的公羊,提供了事前的背景,而在摩西五經中,對會幕裏的動物獻祭所作的解釋,也為這個儀式的象徵深意指出了方向。後來的經文指正了以色列的失敗。他們未能明白這個由被宰殺的動物所指向的深意(詩篇四十6-8,五十7-15,五十一16-17),而先知們指向一位僕人,他會作為一隻沉默的羔羊,承擔百姓的罪,使他們被稱為義(賽五十三章)。
 
接下來,我們需要考慮此事件(職分/職任,制度)原先所象徵的深意(以影子的形式所指向的救贖面向),如何在基督裏得著最終和完全的應驗(從T1Tn的水平線──救贖和啟示歷史)。舊約聖徒所經歷到的每個救贖、拯救的經驗,都虧缺了由基督所帶來的豐盛救恩,而最終都要依賴祂的救贖工作。出埃及事件奇妙地彰顯出上帝為了族長的緣故所向以色列顯明的,祂的信實、能力、憐憫,但那些經歷此事的人當中,有許多人因為不信而倒在曠野(希伯來書三~四章)。大衛是合上帝心意的人,但是他卻犯了姦淫和謀殺罪。當他外在的敵人被撲滅之後(撒下七1),他自己的罪很快就在他自己的家中生出更危險的敵人(撒下十二11)。保羅「顯明的奧秘」的語言(羅十六;弗三;西一,等等)說明歷史先前的篇章,只能按照歷史的高峰得到正確的詮釋。除非我們根據此奧秘在最終所獲得的解答,來定位這些沿路所播下的「線索」,否則我們就會誤讀這些線索。因此,在按照這個事件在救贖歷史中的位置,來辨識其屬靈的意義之後,我們不會把約瑟的屬靈試煉(舉例而言)直接用在我們的屬靈試煉上。相反地,我們會讓啟示歷史來引導我們的視線:從約瑟到基督(圖表上方的水平線)。若我們按照這個事件的時期,深入到此事件的屬靈意義,然後沿著歷史的軌跡向前走,來到這個事件在基督裏得著應驗的意義,我們就可以有信心和把握來畫出「預表」的那條對角線。當我們跟隨使徒從耶穌身上所學到的釋經路徑,沒有越過這個事件在它自己的歷史脈絡下的意義,或忽視這個事實,就是這個事件和其緊接的歷史背景是編織在一個更大的繡帷中的線條時,我們就會在耶穌裏看到那最終而完全的模式。
 
最後,我們既然已經透過這個鏡片(即以其在基督裏的救贖和象徵深度得著應驗的鏡片)來看待聖經的經文,我們就必須辨認並構思,這個信息如何用在我們以及廿一世紀的聽眾身上(從Tn到「我們的講道」──「意義」)。雖然我們承認,「救贖歷史講道法」有時得了(也許有時候也配得)這樣一個臭名,就是它避免作出更具體的應用,而只是「在基督已經為你完成的事上,以及在祂裏面所為你完成的以天上的事為念的生活而歡欣」,然而事實上使徒對耶穌的宣告,就是祂應驗了上帝所有的應許,已經為在我們的個人紀律,家庭生活,教會生活,和在職場上的公眾生活──甚至,有必要的話,也為我們在監獄的生活(和保羅一樣)──提供了豐富的指引。
 
基督徒靠著信心已經與基督聯合了──在地位上和生命上(representatively and vitally)。我們在地位上與救主的聯合,包含了福音的客觀真理,就是基督為我們遵守了上帝的律法,為我們承受了律法的咒詛,也為我們復活,為我們伸張公義。因此,我們在祂──我們的盟約之首──裏面已經順服,已經受咒詛,已經得到公義的伸張。我們與基督在生命上的聯合,意味著福音的真理已經主觀地施行在我們身上,祂把復活的生命藉著聖靈分賜給我們,創始而成終地把我們從死亡中救拔出來,進入新造的生命當中,並因此在我們裏面生發出聖約的信實──聖靈的果子。當「預表法」的對角線已經從舊約事件連接到它在基督裏永遠的應驗時,已經在新約使徒的作品中所顯明出來的、對舊約的預表性詮釋並不是就此嘎然而止。基督的救贖大功不只是在法律層面,在我們之外的(稱義、收養),也包括動態的、在我們裏面的(新造:重生、成聖)──而這兩股線會在得榮耀時匯合在一起。到那日,當我們地上的身體被轉化成像耶穌榮耀的身體時(腓三21),我們的復活不僅會在公開的場合顯明,就是上帝已經宣告我們是義人,也收養我們做祂的兒女──藉著在基督裏的信心(羅五17-18;八23),它也會完成在主觀上賦予我們生命和效法基督聖潔的這個工程,也就是聖靈在我們重生時所開始的工作(羅八10-1129-30;約壹三2-3)。因此,救贖歷史的講道(如同使徒所實踐的)所要論述的,就不只是基督這位忠心的聖約義僕所為我們成就的,也論及基督在我們裏面所作的,好讓我們能成為忠心的聖約僕人。我們是從我們在基督裏的身分,到我們的人如何在生活中表達這個新身分,表達出祂恩典的禮物,來畫出「意義」這條線。換句話說,就是從「在基督裏的應驗」到「我們的講道」來畫這條「意義」的線。
 
總結
 
在整本聖經中看見基督,需要一個耐心和謙卑的聆聽過程。使徒向我們指出互相交織的模式(或者,如果你偏好司布真的比喻,就是縱橫交錯的快速道路系統),使得聖經各樣的文件,屬於不同的文體和時代,融貫地圍繞著一個中心的主題:上帝為世界歷史所作的救贖、恢復、重造的工作。我們在這章中所作的綜覽,是從新約作者所提供的最確定和最少爭議的舊約預表論的詮釋,到更微妙的,經文之內的暗示和主題式的聯結(這些聯結把古代以色列的事件、領袖們和制度綁在一起),這是一方面;而在另一方面,再到耶穌基督為祂的新社群,以及在祂的新社群中的位格和工作。我們也觀察到使徒釋經的根源和舊約對自己的詮釋的教導,更進一步地豐富我們對交織在聖經的扉頁和救贖歷史的時代中的紋理的感知。在下一章當中,我們的討論會從觀察使徒的釋經和教導模式,轉移到以下的問題,即如何在今天運用使徒的宣講。我們會看到兩個普遍的聖經主題──創造和聖約。它們的作用同時是橋樑和柵欄,把舊約和新約中廣大的差異性,聯結到它們的中心;與此同時,也為所有想要宣講上帝純淨的話語和對祂兒子的見證,而不是他們自己的天才的人,提供一個有把握的約束。

 

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(Lords 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1711)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51;賽914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.