路德的十架神学
Luthe's Theology of the Cross
作者：Carl R. Trueman 翻译：唐兴；校对：王一
https://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH05/10b.html
http://www.reformedbeginner.net/luthers-theology-of-cross/
绝对没有人会想到，马丁·路德在1517年10月，为反对罗马天主教赎罪劵所发表的《九十五条论纲》（95 thesis），会引发宗教改革运动。这篇论纲的目的是要为当时的一场大学辩论提出一个论述的架构。路德是要对赎罪劵的实施提出修正，并非要废除它。他确实不是要为广泛蔓延的神学和教会改革提出改革事项。
No one could have expected that the
Reformation would be launched by Martin Luther's Ninety-Five Theses against
Indulgences in October 1517. The document itself simply proposed the framework
for a university debate. Luther was arguing only for a revision of the practice
of indulgences, not its abolition. He was certainly not offering an agenda for
widespread theological and ecclesiastical reform.
其实，1517年9月4日，在《驳经院神学》的论述中，他曾提出更具争议性的议题——批判中世纪神学几个世纪以来所使用的方法。但这个论述在毫无争议下就通过了。确实如此，从人的角度看来，是因为许多特殊之社会、经济和政治因素的结合，才使得后来的九十五条提纲，成为宗教改革的导火线。
Indeed, he had already said much more
controversial things in his Disputation against Scholastic Theology of
September 4, 1517, in which he critiqued the whole way in which medieval
theology had been done for centuries. That disputation, however, passed without
a murmur. Indeed, humanly speaking, it was only the unique combination of
external factors—social, economic, and political—that made the later
disputation the spark that lit the Reformation fuse.
海德堡论纲
The Heidelberg Disputation
然而，导火线被点燃时，教会却犯了致命的错误——认为这是微不足道的地方性事件，而让路德所属的奥古斯丁社团来处理。社团决定要在1528年4月于海德堡召开会议，并且要路德发表一系列关于其神学的论纲，以供他的弟兄们评估。就是在这里，那平淡的九十五条论纲给予路德一个机会，可以清晰的阐述，他先前在9月份所发表关于经院神学的论述。
Once the fuse had been lit, however, the
church made a fatal error: she allowed the Augustinian Order, to which Luther
belonged, to deal with the problem as if it were a minor local difficulty.
There was to be a meeting of the Order in Heidelberg in April 1518, and Luther
was asked to present a series of theses outlining his theology, so that it
could be assessed by his brethren. It was here, then, that the relatively bland
Ninety-Five Theses gave Luther an important opportunity to articulate the
theology that he had expressed in his September Disputation.
海德堡辩论有两个重要性：首先，辩论中现了另外一位宗教改革的巨人：马丁·布塞（Martin Bucer）——斯特拉斯堡（Strasbourg）的宗教改革家，晚年成为剑桥的神学教授。他不但知识渊博，並且对教会的前途独具慧眼。布塞对那时代的改教者颇具深远的影响力，不下于约翰·加尔文。1517年路德在海德堡的论述，使他首次感受到改教的思想。然而，他对路德向教会流行的经院神学，所作的攻击感到惊讶时，却忽略了路德论述的神学中心思想。也就是海德堡辩论的第二个重要性——十字架的神学。
The Heidelberg Disputation is significant
for two things. First, there was at least one other future Reformation giant
present. This was Martin Bucer, the Reformer of Strasbourg, who would end his
days as professor of divinity at Cambridge. A man of vast intellect and wide
ecumenical vision, Bucer was to have a profound influence on a generation of
Reformers, not least John Calvin. And his first taste of Reformation thinking
was provided by Luther at Heidelberg in 1517. Yet, while Bucer left the
disputation marveling at how Luther had attacked what the church had become, he
missed the theological core of what Luther was saying. This is the second point
of importance: the theology of the cross.
十架神学
The Theology of the Cross
路德在辩论结尾时，提出了一些的议题（以路德独特的方式），这些议题看起来似乎荒谬的，至少是很难以琢磨：
Toward the end of the disputation, Luther
offered some theses which seem (in typical Luther fashion) nonsensical, or at
least obscure:
第19条、任何人，若把神不可见之事看作是可被参透如同实际之事（罗1：20），都不配称为神 学家。 第20条、然而，透过苦难和十字架来理解神可见且显明之事的人，才配称为神学家。 第21条、荣耀神学的神学家以善为恶，以恶为善。十架神学的神学家则以言之以实。 第22条、把神所做的不可见之事看为是人能参透的，这种智慧是完全傲慢、盲目、刚硬。路德，海德堡论纲
19. That person does not deserve to be
called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they
were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened [Rom.
1:20].
这些陈述实际上包含了路德神学的中心思想，如果领悟到他所用的那些难懂的词汇所要表明的意思时，它们不但照明了路德神学教义的内容，并且清楚的指出他认为神学家所应该具有的思想模式。他的确把保罗在哥林多前书中，具爆炸性的十字架论述，发展成为一个完整的神学议题。
These statements actually encapsulate the
heart of Luther's theology, and a good grasp of what he means by the obscure
terms and phrases they contain sheds light not just on the doctrinal content of
his theology, but also on the very way that he believed theologians should
think. Indeed, he is taking Paul's explosive argument from 1 Corinthians and
developing it into a full theological agenda.
路德论述的中心思想，认为人不应该推测神的本性，如何预见祂要向哪些人启示祂自己。因此，他把神的自我启示看作是一切神学的共通原则。可能连历史上所有的异端都会同意这一点，因为不论是自然的、理性的、文化的，或其他的神学，都预先假设了神启示的存在。
At the heart of his argument is his notion
that human beings should not speculate about who God is or how he acts in
advance of actually seeing whom he has revealed himself to be. Thus, Luther
sees God's revelation of himself as axiomatic to all theology. Now, there
probably is not a heretic in history who would not agree with that, because all
theology presupposes the revelation of God, whether in nature, human reason,
culture, or whatever.
但是，路德对启示的定义是狭义的。神在道成肉身中向人启示出祂对人的怜悯——当祂在人类血肉之体中启示祂自己时，其启示的最高峰，乃发生在各各他的十字架上。路德有时候把基督钉十字架称为是“神的背”，其意思是——神的作为与人的理性是互相矛盾的。
Luther, however, had a dramatically
restrictive view of revelation. God revealed himself as merciful to humanity in
the Incarnation, when he manifested himself in human flesh, and the supreme
moment of that revelation was on the cross at Calvary. Indeed, Luther sometimes
referred enigmatically to Christ crucified as "God's backside"—the
point at which God appeared to be the very contradiction of all that one might
reasonably have anticipated him to be.
这样，“荣耀神学的神学家”乃是根据人的理性对神的期望（神像什么样子）来建造他们对神的认识。结果，他们却使神看起来像他们自己。然而，“十架神学的神学家”则以被钉十字架的基督为基础，来认识神的自我启示。
The "theologians of glory,"
therefore, are those who build their theology in the light of what they expect
God to be like—and, surprise, surprise, they make God to look something like
themselves. The "theologians of the cross," however, are those who
build their theology in the light of God's own revelation of himself in Christ
hanging on the cross.
含义
Implications
这种立场具有革命性的含义。首先，路德要求所有神学的词汇，都要因着对十字架的认识而被修正。以“能力”一词为例，当荣耀神学的神学家在圣经中读到神的大能，或使用此名词时，他们会认为神的大能与人的力量类似；把想象中最大的能力无限扩大，来理解神的大能。然而，从十字架的角度来理解，这样的解读与神的大能之真义是完全相反的。神的大能，是在十字架的软弱中彰显，因为正是在耶稣看似被邪恶力量和败坏的属地权势打败的时候，他显明了神的大能——耶稣征服了死亡，战胜了所有邪恶的力量。所以，当基督徒讲到神的大能，或是教会和基督徒的能力时，都应当根据十字架的意义来理解——隐藏在软弱下的能力。
The implications of this position are
revolutionary. For a start, Luther is demanding that the entire theological
vocabulary be revised in light of the cross. Take for example the word power.
When theologians of glory read about divine power in the Bible, or use the term
in their own theology, they assume that it is analogous to human power. They
suppose that they can arrive at an understanding of divine power by magnifying
to an infinite degree the most powerful thing of which they can think. In light
of the cross, however, this understanding of divine power is the very opposite
of what divine power is all about. Divine power is revealed in the weakness of
the cross, for it is in his apparent defeat at the hands of evil powers and
corrupt earthly authorities that Jesus shows his divine power in the conquest
of death and of all the powers of evil. So when a Christian talks about divine
power, or even about church or Christian power, it is to be conceived of in
terms of the cross—power hidden in the form of weakness.
对路德而言，同样思考模式必须被应用在其他的神学用语上。举例来说，神的智慧是在愚拙的十字架上被显明出来。谁能够发明这种愚拙的想法——神取了人的肉身，並且代替罪人死于可怕的苦难；为了要洁净罪人，神自己担当了他们的罪；为了要兴起有新生命的子民，祂自己却顺服至死？我们可以继续以同样的看法来理解其他的名词：生命，祝福，圣洁，和公义。每一个名词都必须按照十字架的真理加以重新思考。这些都是重要的神学观念；人很容易就把他自己本身的印象植入其中；这些神学观念都必须被放在十字架的亮光下，再被重新铸造。
For Luther, the same procedure must be
applied to other theological terms. For example, God's wisdom is demonstrated
in the foolishness of the cross. Who would have thought up the foolish idea of
God taking human flesh in order to die a horrendous death on behalf of sinners
who had deliberately defied him, or God making sinners pure by himself becoming
sin for them, or God himself raising up a people to newness of life by himself
submitting to death? We could go on, looking at such terms as life, blessing,
holiness, and righteousness. Every single one must be reconceived in the light
of the cross. All are important theological concepts; all are susceptible to
human beings casting them in their own image; and all must be recast in the
light of the cross.
这样的洞察力（是路德思想的要素之一），赋予其神学一种内在的逻辑性和统一性。以路德对称义的理解为例，神宣告信徒是义人，不是藉着人原有的和本质上的义（任何靠信徒本身所成就或取得的），而是基于一种外来的义（alien righteousness）——就是基督的义，这义是在信徒以外的义。难道这不奇怪、不寻常，但却是神十字架的奇妙逻辑吗？人的确是不义的，的确是被罪污染的，却被神宣告为圣洁和义的！这样的真理，是人理性的逻辑所无法理解，但按照十字架的逻辑，却是十分合理的。
This insight is one of the factors in
Luther's thinking that gives his theology an inner logic and coherence. Take,
for example, his understanding of justification, whereby God declares the
believer to be righteous in his sight, not by virtue of any intrinsic
righteousness (anything that the believer has done or acquired), but on the
basis of an alien righteousness, the righteousness of Christ that remains
external to the believer. Is this not typical of the strange but wonderful
logic of the God of the cross? The person who is really unrighteous, really
mired in sin, is actually declared by God to be pure and righteous! Such a
truth is incomprehensible to human logic, but makes perfect sense in light of
the logic of the cross.
神爱那些不可爱和不义的人，是在他们有任何爱神的倾向之先，这又如何解释呢？对于荣耀神学的神学家们而言，他们认为神，就像他们自己和其他的人一样，只回应那些可爱良善的人，或是那些赢得他们好感的人。但是，十字架的真理告诉我们，神却非如此。与人的理性相反，神并不要求其所爱的对象先爱祂；祂在先的爱会创造爱，並且没有任何预设条件。耶稣被钉十字架的丑陋残忍的一幕，却启示出神令人惊奇、出乎意料之外的温柔和美丽。
And what of the idea of a God who comes
down and loves the unlovely and the unrighteous before the objects of his love
have any inclination to love him or do good? Such is incomprehensible to the
theologians of glory, who assume that God is like them, like other human
beings, and thus only responds to those who are intrinsically attractive or
good, or who first earn his favor in some way. But the cross shows that God is
not like that: against every assumption that human beings might make about who
God is and how he acts, he requires no prior loveliness in the objects of his
love; rather, his prior love creates that loveliness without laying down
preconditions. Such a God is revealed with amazing and unexpected tenderness
and beauty in the ugly and violent drama of the cross.
基督徒伦理的关键
The Key to Christian Ethics and Experience
路德没有把十架神学局限于神客观的启示上，而视其为理解基督徒伦理和生活的关键。两者共同的根基是信心：对不信的人，十字架是荒唐无意义的；从表面上看，它是被神咒诅的人受击打污秽的死亡。不信的心对十字架的理解是——希腊人认为它是愚拙的，犹太人认为它是上帝的刑罚（完全取决于你认为罪是智力上的傲慢，还是道德上的自义）。唯有被信心开启的心思，才能认识到十字架的真实意义。神的启示隐藏于外在的形体中。信心是神所赐的礼物，不是人类心智本身的能力。
Luther does not restrict the theology of
the cross to an objective revelation of God. He also sees it as the key to
understanding Christian ethics and experience. Foundational to both is the role
of faith: to the eyes of unbelief, the cross is nonsense; it is what it seems
to be—the crushing, filthy death of a man cursed by God. That is how the
unbelieving mind interprets the cross—foolishness to Greeks and an offence to
Jews, depending on whether your chosen sin is intellectual arrogance or moral
self-righteousness. To the eyes opened by faith, however, the cross is seen as
it really is. God is revealed in the hiddenness of the external form. And faith
is understood to be a gift of God, not a power inherent in the human mind
itself.
这种信心的原则让信徒了解到他应该如何去生活。基督是大君王和大祭司，信徒藉着与祂联合，也是君王和祭司。事实上，君王和祭司在信徒身上所扮演的角色，就如同基督一般：借着受苦和自我牺牲服事他人。信徒借着做每个人的仆人，成为所有事物的君王；信徒藉着顺服于所有人之下而全然自由。正如基督藉着在十字架上的死，彰显了祂的王权和大能；信徒为他人的益处而无条件的舍己。我们应该像小基督一般对待我们的邻舍，这样做，会使我们认识作为神儿女的真实意义。
This principle of faith then allows the
believer to understand how he or she is to behave. United to Christ, the great
king and priest, the believer too is both a king and a priest. But these
offices are not excuses for lording it over others. In fact, kingship and
priesthood are to be enacted in the believer as they are in Christ—through
suffering and self-sacrifice in the service of others. The believer is king of
everything by being a servant of everyone; the believer is completely free by
being subject to all. As Christ demonstrated his kingship and power by death on
the cross, so the believer does so by giving himself or herself unconditionally
to the aid of others. We are to be, as Luther puts it, little Christs to our
neighbors, for in so doing we find our true identity as children of God.
这样的论述是具有爆炸力的，它为基督徒权柄下了一个全新的定义。举例而言，长老并非那些使用权力欺压他人，用地位、财富或学位来强化自己意见的人。真正的基督徒长老是奉献他整个生命来服事他人的人。而这种服事是痛苦、困难和卑微的。然而，他这样正彰显了如基督般的权柄——就是基督自己藉着祂肉身的生命，以及在各各他的十字架上所彰显出来的权柄。
This argument is explosive, giving a whole
new understanding of Christian authority. Elders, for example, are not to be those
renowned for throwing their weight around, for badgering others, and for using
their position or wealth or credentials to enforce their own opinions. No, the
truly Christian elder is the one who devotes his whole life to the painful,
inconvenient, and humiliating service of others, for in so doing he
demonstrates Christlike authority, the kind of authority that Christ himself
demonstrated throughout his incarnate life and supremely on the cross at
Calvary.
借着苦难得祝福
Great Blessings through Great Suffering
十架神学对信徒的意义并不止于此。神也按照十字架的模式，来处理和对待藉着信心与基督联合的信徒。简言之，就是苦难越大祝福越大。
The implications of the theology of the
cross for the believer do not stop there. The cross is paradigmatic for how God
will deal with believers who are united to Christ by faith. In short, great
blessing will come through great suffering.
生活在富裕西方的人，很难接受这样的观念。举例来说，许多年前我在某教会教导这个主题，我指出十字架不只是讲到关于代赎，更讲到神如何对待和处理祂所爱的人。聚会结束后，有人反驳我，认为路德的十架神学忽略了十字架和复活，是代表着咒诅被逆转的开始，因此我们应该期待祝福。专注在受苦和软弱上，就等於忽视基督的职事在末世的重要性。
This point is hard for those of us in the
affluent West to swallow. For example, some years ago I lectured at a church
gathering on this topic and pointed out that the cross was not simply an
atonement, but a revelation of how God deals with those whom he loves. I was
challenged afterwards by an individual who said that Luther's theology of the
cross did not give enough weight to the fact that the cross and resurrection
marked the start of the reversal of the curse, and that great blessings should
thus be expected; to focus on suffering and weakness was therefore to miss the
eschatological significance of Christ's ministry.
当然，此人未能彻底地运用路德的十架神学。其所言虽然对，却未能按照十字架来理解。是的，路德会同意咒诅的逆转，但这逆转被显明出来，是因为良善完全颠覆了邪恶。如果基督的十字架，这一人类历史最邪恶的行为，能够与神的旨意一致，并且成为击败邪恶的力量，那么其他的恶也会被颠覆来称为善的源泉。
Of course, this individual had failed to
apply Luther's theology of the cross as thoroughly as he should have done. All
that he said was true, but he failed to understand what he was saying in light
of the cross. Yes, Luther would agree, the curse is being rolled back, but that
rollback is demonstrated by the fact that, thanks to the cross, evil is now
utterly subverted in the cause of good. If the cross of Christ, the most evil
act in human history, can be in line with God's will and be the source of the
decisive defeat of the very evil that caused it, then any other evil can also
be subverted to the cause of good.
不仅如此，如果基督的死是一种祝福，那么信徒所经历的任何邪恶，都也可以成为祝福。咒诅的确被逆转，祝福的确要流溢；但谁能宣告这些祝福，必须与富裕的美国人所热望和期待的，互相吻合呢？对路德而言，十字架教导我们基督是地上最受祝福的人；基督藉着十字架启示祂所受的祝福，正出于祂的受苦和死亡。如果那是神对待祂的爱子的方法，那些藉着信心与基督联合的人，难道有任何权利有不同的期待吗？
More than that, if the death of Christ is
mysteriously a blessing, then any evil that the believer experiences can be a
blessing too. Yes, the curse is reversed; yes, blessings will flow; but who
declared that these blessings have to be in accordance with the aspirations and
expectations of affluent America? The lesson of the cross for Luther is that
the most blessed person upon earth, Jesus Christ himself, was revealed as
blessed precisely in his suffering and death. And if that is the way that God
deals with his beloved son, have those who are united to him by faith any right
to expect anything different?
有些人，像《坏事发生在好人身上》的犹太拉比作者：哈罗德•库希那（Harold Kushner），对邪恶的看法与路德不同。但是，路德会说，这些事的确会发生，因为这是神对信徒的祝福。神是藉着祂在信徒心中奇妙的工作（与我们所期待的相反）来成就祂的善工；祂的确会藉着明显的咒诅，来达到其祝福的目的。
This casts the problem of evil in a
somewhat different light for Luther than, say, for Harold Kushner, the rabbi
who wrote When Bad Things Happen to Good People. They happen, Luther would say,
because that is how God blesses them. God accomplishes his work in the believer
by doing his alien work (the opposite of what we expect); he really blesses by
apparently cursing.
的确，当我们领悟到，历史上最大的罪恶——基督的死，是出于三一真神玄妙深奥的旨意，但却未使神与道德的罪有所关联时，就解决了那个古老的问题：免除全能的神对邪恶的责任。邪恶的问题不在于要找到它的出处，因为它没有被启示出来。在十字架的时刻，邪恶清楚地被良善全然的推翻毁灭了。是基督的十字架，使罗马书八章28节就成为真实的：神若能使极大的邪恶，逆转成为极大的祝福；祂就更能使那些玷污人类历史的罪恶（从个人的不幸到跨国的大灾难），得以转变达到祂良善的目的。
Indeed, when it is grasped that the death
of Christ, the greatest crime in history, was itself willed in a deep and
mysterious way by the triune God, yet without involving God in any kind of
moral guilt, we see the solution to the age-old problem of absolving an
all-powerful God of responsibility for evil. The answer to the problem of evil
does not lie in trying to establish its point of origin, for that is simply not
revealed to us. Rather, in the moment of the cross, it becomes clear that evil
is utterly subverted for good. Romans 8:28 is true because of the cross of
Christ: if God can take the greatest of evils and turn it to the greatest of
goods, then how much more can he take the lesser evils which litter human
history, from individual tragedies to international disasters, and turn them to
his good purpose as well.
路德的十字架神学极其丰富，无法在一篇文章中详述，但是我相信，藉着以上简单的描述，在思想哥林多前书时，会认识到外貌和事实之间的巨大反差。这种反差遍布在圣经中，且被马丁路德有力地汇集起来，使我们可以挖掘到这种神学思想丰富的矿脉。这是神学的金矿，是对于感觉主义、成功神学，以及过分属世之末世观的解毒剂。十字架不只是神为我们赎罪的地方；它也是一个深奥的启示：告诉我们祂是什么样的神，祂如何对祂所创造的万物施行祂的作为。
Luther's theology of the cross is too rich
to be covered adequately in a single article, but I hope that my brief sketch
above will indicate the rich vein of theological reflection which can be mined
by those who reflect upon 1 Corinthians 1 and upon the dramatic antitheses
between appearance and reality that are scattered throughout Scripture and
marshaled with such force by Martin Luther. An antidote to sentimentality,
prosperity doctrine, and an excessively worldly eschatology, this is
theological gold dust. The cross is not simply the point at which God atones
for sin; it is also a profound revelation of who God is and how he acts toward
his creation.
2021-07-06
2021-02-07
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.
2018-10-16
路德书目