教会与天国的关系——瑞德鲍斯与魏司坚观点之对比呈现 Churchand Kingdom according to Herman Ridderbos and Geerhardus Vos

文 /Daniel Ragusa    译/恩静  校/尘觌

https://reformedforum.org/relationship-church-kingdom-according-herman-ridderbos/

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/2ljpDOPLFhtOAtMZv4P7qQ

瑞德鲍斯论教会与天国的关系

围绕天国与教会关系的问题产生的复杂性，主要是由于定义上的不同。因此在阐述赫尔曼·瑞德鲍斯（Herman Ridderbos，1909-2007）关于福音书的权威著作《天国的降临》（The Coming of the Kingdom）中的观点前，我们先来看看他对教会和天国的定义。

The complexity revolving around the question of the relationship between the kingdom and the church is largely due to varying definitions. So before setting forth Herman Ridderbos’ formulation in his magisterial work on the gospels, The Coming of the Kingdom, we’ll first consider his definition of the church and the kingdom.

教会的定义

The Church Defined

瑞德鲍斯将教会（ekklesia）简明扼要地定义为“藉着福音的宣讲而联合于一个共同体的人们。”[1]换句话说，教会是神的子民，藉着道和圣灵被呼召出来，成为一个单独的聚集。尽管耶稣并不常用“教会”这个词（参太16:18，18:17），但用瑞德鲍斯的话说，教会的概念是“在耶稣的传道和自我启示中的一个非常本质的要素”。[2]那么问题来了：在耶稣的教导中，教会的概念源于何处？

Ridderbos succinctly defines the church (Gk. ekklesia) as “the name of those who have been united into one community by the preaching of the gospel.”[i] In other words, the church is the people of God who have been called out to a single assembly by means of the Word and Spirit. Although Jesus does not use the term “church” often (cf. Matt. 16:18; 18:17), the idea of the church, according to Ridderbos, is “a very essential element in the scope of Jesus’ preaching and self-revelation.”[ii] This raises the question: where did this idea of the church in Jesus’ teaching originate from?

对此，学者们曾诉诸但以理书第7章中“人子”这一象征性的表达（它指向“至高者的圣民”）[3]，还有以色列的“余民”（参赛10:22及以下）。尽管瑞德鲍斯未必反对这些关联，但对于寻找耶稣教导中教会概念的源头来说，他认为这些切入点是多余的。[4]他反倒主张说：“在耶稣对天国（basileia）的弥赛亚式宣讲中，神的子民这一概念有更普遍的基础。……虽然这一概念或许也能从那些特殊关联中貌似合理地建立起来，但相比之下，神的子民这一概念在耶稣宣讲中的地位要核心得多。”[5]

Scholars have appealed to the Son of Man’s symbolic representation of “the people of the saints of the Most High” in Daniel 7[iii] and “the remnant” of the people of Israel (cf. Isa. 10:22ff). But Ridderbos (though not necessarily rejecting these connections) sees them as superfluous starting points for the origination of the idea in Jesus’ teaching.[iv] Instead, he argues, “The idea of God’s people has a much more general foundation in Jesus’ messianic preaching of the basileia [kingdom]. … [It] occupies a much more central place in it than can be made plausible on the ground of such special connections.”[v]

他接着提出了三个基础，认为将教会的概念建立其上更为合适。

He goes on to provide three grounds that he finds more suitable on which to build the idea of the church.

首先，有一个“关于弥赛亚的先验观点”：弥赛亚必须拥有一群子民——“神国的共同体”。他必须代表他们，认同他们，并与他们联合。对于这个群体，他会在他父的面前认他们（太10:32-33），他称他们为自己的弟兄（太12:50，25:40），他们是新郎的陪伴之人（太9:15）。正因这缘故，耶稣说“我的教会”（太16:18）——“弥赛亚论到这个群体时，称它为‘我的’。他已将恩典赐给它，并且统管它。”[6]天国已经来到的这一事实，意味着这个群体不是纯粹末世性的存在，而是当下的现实，甚至今天它也依然正处于被收聚为一的过程中（参太10:34-38,12:30；可9:40；路9:50，11:23，12:51-53）。

First, there is “the a priori messianic viewpoint.” The Messiah must have a people, “a kingdom-of-God-community.” He must act for, answer to and be united with a people—a people whom he will confess before his Father (Matt 10:32–33), whom he calls his brothers (12:50; 25:40) and who are children of the messianic bridegroom (9:15). It is for this reason Jesus says, “my church” (Matt. 16:18)—“it is the ‘my’ of the Messiah speaking of the people to whom he has given his grace and whom he rules.”[vi] The fact that the kingdom has come, means that this people is not a purely eschatological entity, but a present reality that is being gathered even today (cf. Matt. 10:34–38; 12:30; Mark 9:40; Luke 9:50; 11:23; 12:51–53).

其次，以色列拒绝了弥赛亚，结果随之而来的是“神子民的重新组建”，这件事“已随着耶稣的初临而开始实现”。作为神子民的以色列之拒绝，可见于凶恶园户的比喻（太21:33-44；参考赛5:2）。以色列自己拒绝耶稣作弥赛亚，这促使神的国从他们夺去，赐给那“能结果子的百姓”（太21:43）。“这里的‘百姓’……（的意思是）神的新子民，神要越过旧以色列，将天国的救赎赐给他们。”瑞德鲍斯发现，这里的两个概念——神的国以及弥赛亚对神的新子民的招聚，是显而易见的。“天国的救赎指向一群百姓的形成，他们将在救赎历史中取代以色列。”[7]耶稣招聚十二门徒形成新以色列（即神的新子民）的核心或者说基础，这一事实也是对上述要点的进一步论证。这里瑞德鲍斯试图阐述的观点是，耶稣的弥赛亚使命实际上是被“神的新子民（即他的教会）之形成”这一计划所引导和决定。

Second, Israel’s rejection of the Messiah warrants “the concomitant new formation of God’s people”—something that “has already begun to be realized with the coming of Jesus.” The rejection of Israel as the people of God is seen in the parable of the wicked tenants (Matt. 21:33–44; cf. Isa. 5:2). Israel’s own rejection of Jesus as the Messiah catalyzes the ripping of the kingdom from their possession and the giving of the kingdom to “a people producing its fruits” (Matt. 25:43). “By this ‘people’ is… [meant] the new people of God to whom, in passing over the old Israel, he will give the salvation of the kingdom.” Ridderbos recognizes that here the two concepts—the kingdom of God and the gathering of a new people of God by the Messiah—are apparent. “The revelation of the kingdom is directed to the formation of a people that will replace Israel in the history of salvation.”[vii] This finds further support in the fact that Jesus gathers twelve disciples to form the nucleus or foundation of the new Israel, the new people of God. The point Ridderbos seeks to make here is that Jesus’ messianic mission was, in fact, directed and determined by this idea of forming the new people of God, his church.

第三，教会的概念源于“约以及神的子民这两个基本主题”。这一点可见于教会（ekklesia）的定义——“圣约子民的聚集”。[8]这些属于圣约之主的人，是弥赛亚的子民，反之亦然。

Third, the idea of the church arises from “the basic motif of the covenant and of the people of God.” This is found in the definition of ekklesia as “the gathering together of the people of the divine covenant.”[viii] These people who belong to the Covenant Lord are the people of the Messiah and vice-versa.

这三点观察，使瑞德鲍斯将教会定义为：“神的真子民的共同体，因弥赛亚的初临，现已暂时领受了天上国度的恩赐，并在人子再临之日达至完全。”换句话说，“教会（ekklesia）是被神拣选呼召以承受天国（basileia）福分的一群人”。[9]

These three observations lead Ridderbos to define the church as：the community of those who, as the true people of God, receive the gifts of the kingdom of heaven provisionally now already since the Messiah has come, and one day in the state of perfection at the parousia of the Son of Man.” In other words, “the ekklesia is the people elected and called by God and sharing in the bliss of the basileia.[ix]

天国的定义

The Kingdom Defined

瑞德鲍斯将天国定义为“神荣耀的彰显（太16:27，24:30；可8:38，13:26 等）”。瑞德鲍斯注意到，basileia可被译为“国度”（kingdom）、“王位”（kingship）或“王权”（kingly dominion）；比起王权内涵，其空间内涵被看作次要。由此，瑞德鲍斯主张，神的国有“个人化的内涵”，因为它是“神自己作为君王的临在”。他以天国的比喻为论据，因为处于那些比喻的中心位置的，永远是一个有位格的存在，而不是某种静态的、非人格的力量（参太13:24及以下，18:23及以下，20:1及以下，21:33及以下，22:1及以下，25:14及以下）。这与旧约中的观念——国度的来到表现为某个人（一般被设想为弥赛亚）的来到，是一致的。[10]然而，王权也要求必须创造或维护一块土地，好在其上施行这权柄，这样“国度”（kingdom）就是basileia的一个合理的译法。因此，天国的降临既有空间（土地）内涵，又有伦理（王权）内涵。

The kingdom is defined by Ridderbos as “the revelation of God’s glory (Matt. 16:27; 24:30; Mark 8:38; 13:26, etc.).” Ridderbos notes that basileia can be translated as “kingdom,” “kingship,” and “kingly dominion.” The spatial interpretation is to be seen as secondary to the kingly dominion sense. From here Ridderbos argues that the kingdom of God has a “personal connotation” for it is “the coming of God himself as king.” He appeals to the parables of the kingdom for support since a personal character always stands at the center of them, not some static, impersonal force (cf. Matt. 13:24ff; 18:23ff; 20:1ff; 21:33ff; 22:1ff; 25:14ff). This is consistent with the Old Testament conception of the coming of the kingdom as a coming of a person, generally conceived of as the Messiah.[x] Nevertheless, dominion must create or maintain a territory where it can operate, which makes “kingdom” a legitimate translation of basileia. Therefore, the coming of the kingdom has both a spatial (a territory) and an ethical (a power of dominion) connotation.

在耶稣的降临中，天国被展现为：1）能力，这能力见于耶稣的神迹以及撒但统治的败落，这能力带来审判与拯救，以及创造秩序的恢复；2）拯救的信息，这信息向着灵里贫穷的人宣讲；3）恩赐，神的百姓（即教会）在这恩赐中欢喜快乐。总之，“天国是伟大神圣的救赎之工，在基督里成就和完全”。[11]

In Jesus’ coming, the kingdom is revealed as (1) a power seen in Jesus’ miracles and ruination of Satan’s reign that brings judgment, salvation, and restoration to the created order, (2) a message of salvation that is preached to the poor in spirit, and (3) a gift that the people of God, the church, may delight in. In summary, “the basileia is the great divine work of salvation in its fulfillment and consummation in Christ.”[xi]

现在出现在我们面前的问题是：教会——被神拣选呼召的子民，与国度——伟大神圣的救赎之工，它们之间的关系如何？

The question that now presents itself to us is: How does the church, the people elected and called by God, relate to the kingdom, the great divine work of salvation?

天国与教会相辅相成

The Kingdom and the Church are Complementary

瑞德鲍斯坚决强调，天国与教会不能等同起来。他写道：“国度（basileia）的概念，既没有在教会（ekklesia）一词含义的层面上出现过……（也没有）在‘神的国暂时彰显于地上时，以教会的形式和组织被具体化’这一层面上使用过。”[12]

Ridderbos strongly stresses that the kingdom is not to be identified with the church. He writes, “The concept basileia nowhere occurs in the sense of this idea of the ekklesia … [nor is it] used in the sense that the kingdom of God in its provisional manifestation on earth would be embodied in the form and organization of the church.”[xii]

但是，一直以福音为中心的那些天国比喻（例如太13），似乎暗示了教会的到来。加尔文甚至试图将其中一些比喻（例如麦子与稗子、撒网等比喻）应用在教会上。面对这些比喻时，常出现的说法是“教会中恶人与义人混杂并存”。在这些比喻的当代解读中，这种应用仍十分常见。然而，瑞德鲍斯反对这种不够细致的应用，因为“义人与恶人一齐生长之处，乃是世界”，而不是教会。这些比喻涉及的范围广得多，涵盖了“宇宙性的神圣救赎之工”；将它们限定在教会上，乃是不恰当地窄化了它们。这倒不意味着必须排除教会，因为正如瑞德鲍斯评论的那样，“这一进程把‘对一切承受天国之人的拯救’也包括在内”。[13]

However, the kingdom parables (e.g., Matt. 13), which keep the gospel central, seem to suggest the coming of the church. Calvin even tried to apply some of them to the church (e.g., the wheat and tares and the fishing net). The issue that is often at hand when these parables are taken up is the “mingling of the wicked and the good in the church.” This application is still widely popular in contemporary interpretation of the parables. However, Ridderbos rejects such un-nuanced application since “the field in which the wicked and good are growing up in together is the world,” not the church. The parables are much more broad, encompassing “the universal work of the divine salvation.” To limit them to the church is to unduly narrow them. This does not necessarily have to exclude the church, for, as Ridderbos comments, “this progress includes the salvation of all those who will inherit the kingdom.”[xiii]

那么，对瑞德鲍斯来说，若是考虑天国与教会的下述联系与区别，它们的关系就清楚了：

For Ridderbos, then, the relationship between the kingdom and the church is clear with regard to their connections and differences:

天国（basileia）是伟大神圣的救赎之工，在基督里成就和完全；教会（ekklesia）是被神拣选呼召以承受天国（basileia）福分的一群人。逻辑上讲，在前的是天国，而不是教会。因此，前者包含的内容全面得多。它（天国）展现的角度包罗万象，它代表全部历史的完成、带来恩典与审判、拥有宇宙性的维度、遍及时间与永恒。在这一切中，教会（ekklesia）乃是这样的一群人，他们已在这部伟大的戏剧中，藉着神的拣选与盟约，在基督里被置于神这一边。他们已被赐予神的应许，他们已藉福音的宣讲而被显明和招聚，他们要承受天国的救赎——既在当下，也在那伟大的将来。[14]

The basileia is the great divine work of salvation in its fulfillment and consummation in Christ; the ekklesia is the people elected and called by God and sharing in the bliss of the basileia. Logically, the basileia ranks first, and not the ekklesia. The former, therefore, has a much more comprehensive content. It [the kingdom] represents the all-embracing perspective, it denotes the consummation of all history, brings both grace and judgment, has cosmic dimensions, fills time and eternity. The ekklesia in all this is the people who in this great drama have been placed on the side of God in Christ by virtue of the divine election and covenant. They have been given the divine promise, have been brought to manifestation and gathered together by the preaching of the gospel, and will inherit the redemption of the kingdom now and in the great future.[xiv]

随着耶稣来到，天国被展现为权能、信息与恩赐。然后，天国被教会所展现，展现在其“救赎的意义”上，展现在那些“在基督里且通过基督现已应许并赐下的一切恩赐和财宝”上。教会是天国的“救赎性的目标……只涉及到人类”。天国带来的救赎是世界性的、宇宙性的，在咒诅尚存的一切地方恢复一切受造，“这其中也包括教会自己”。[15]换句话说，教会对天国的展现，并非全部，而只是部分；比起教会，天国所涵盖的内容多很多。

In Jesus’ coming, the kingdom is revealed as a power, message, and gift. The church, then, reveals the kingdom “in its redeeming and saving significance, in all the gifts and treasures promised and granted now already in and through Christ.” The church is “as far as humanity is concerned… the soteriological goal” of the kingdom. The salvation that the kingdom is bringing is universal and cosmic, restoring all of creation as far as curse is found, “in which the church is herself included.”[xv] That is to say, the church does not reveal the kingdom comprehensively, only in part—the kingdom is far more encompassing than the church.

教会与天国并非彼此对立、无法并存。不过，他们也不该被解释成一回事。天国带来的救赎“兼有弥赛亚式的特征及历史性的特征”。弥赛亚必须有子民，并且因为天国在历史中正在实现，所以教会有着当下的、历史性的特征。“教会是天国之彰显的果子；反之，没有教会，天国便无法想象。它们密不可分，但它们也互不混淆。”[16]天国拥有宇宙性的范围，教会在其中分享它，却永远不能涵盖它。教会是天国的果子，而不是天国本身。雷蒙德·佐恩（Raymond Zorn）在他的一本有益的书《基督得胜：圣经对基督的教会和国度的观点》（Christ Triumphant: Biblical Perspectives on His Church and Kingdom）中，与瑞德鲍斯如出一辙地写道：“教会可以在天国中找到，但并非与天国同延（co-extensive）。”[17]

The church and the kingdom do not oppose one another, as if only one can exist, but neither are they to be construed as identical. The salvation that the kingdom brings “bears both a messianic and a historical character.” The Messiah must have a people and since the kingdom is already being realized in history, the church takes on a present, historical nature. “The ekklesia is the fruit of the revelation of the basileia; and conversely, the basileia is inconceivable without the ekklesia. The one is inseparable from the other without, however, the one merging into the other.”[xvi] The kingdom has a universal scope in which the church shares but which she never encompasses. The church is the fruit of the kingdom, not the kingdom itself. Raymond Zorn, in his helpful book, Christ Triumphant: Biblical Perspectives on his Church and Kingdom, writes in agreement with Ridderbos, “The church is to be found within the kingdom but is not co-extensive with it.”[xvii]

小结

Conclusion

瑞德鲍斯从天国的角度阐述了教会，由此引出以下三个结论。首先，教会是共同体，等候天国救赎的彻底完成。其次，教会是“（天国的）恩赐和权能被赐予和领受”的地方。第三，教会是天国的工具，因为她认信耶稣是基督，遵守他的命令，通过将福音传到地极而完成大使命。因此“在各个方面，教会被彰显、被历史进程、被神国的未来所围绕和推动，然而它本身并不是天国，也从未与天国混为一谈”。[18]

Ridderbos’ formulation of the church from the viewpoint of the kingdom leads to three conclusions. First, the church is the community that awaits the full salvation of the kingdom. Second, it is the place where “the gifts and powers of the [kingdom] are granted and received.” Third, it is the instrument of the kingdom as she professes Jesus as the Christ, obeys his commandments, and fulfills the Great Commission by preaching the gospel to the ends of the earth. “In every respect,” then, “the church is surrounded and impelled by the revelation, the progress, the future of the kingdom of God without, however, itself being the basileia, and without ever being identified with it.”[xviii]

魏司坚论教会与天国的关系

The Relationship between Church and Kingdom according to Geerhardus Vos

用魏司坚（Geerhardus Vos，1862-1949）的话来说，天国与教会的关系，是一个“微妙而又特别实际的问题”。[19]事实上，教会界对这一关系的解释众说纷纭，由此已产生出不同的教会论。[20]这个问题至少对于理解教会的身份和使命有意义，因此为解决它而下大功夫是非常值得的。瑞德鲍斯和魏司坚两位杰出的神学家对此已有深入研究。

The relationship between the kingdom of God and the church, in the words of Geerhardus Vos, is a “delicate and eminently practical question.”[i] In fact, different ecclesiologies have even arisen because of the various ways the church has construed this relationship.[ii] It has implications for the church’s identity and mission (to say the least), which makes it a question well worth wrestling with. Two prominent theologians who have done just this are Herman Ridderbos (1909–2007) and Geerhardus Vos (1862–1949).

瑞德鲍斯和魏司坚写作的时期，正值自由主义以及“唯独末世论”（exclusive eschatology）（或“过度实现的末世论”（over-realized eschatology））试图将圣经提供的天国与教会之关系的整全图谱在现今及未来的维度上掐头去尾。[21]魏司坚在他的文章《神的国》（The Kingdom of God）中写道：

Ridderbos and Vos wrote in a theological climate in which liberalism and exclusive (or over-realized) eschatology looked to reduce on opposite ends of the spectrum the wholesome picture the Scriptures provide regarding the relationship between the kingdom and the church in their present and future dimensions.[iii] Vos writes in his article, “The Kingdom of God,”

（耶稣）所讲的天国，是否指事物在外在形式上突然实现的一种新状态？……抑或是指……一个属灵创造，它以无形的方式逐渐实现自己？为方便起见，可将这两种观念分别称为‘末世论的’和‘属灵有机的’。……现代的著作将它们轮流推向极端，使它们彼此互斥。目前的趋势……是认为（耶稣的）天国观念基本上是末世论的。而另一方面……相反的趋势也出现了，即尽可能抹除末世论要素，认为耶稣所说的天国，是彻底属灵内在的天国。（《短文集》，第307页）

“Did [Jesus] mean by the kingdom a new state of things suddenly to be realized in external forms … or did He mean by it … a spiritual creation gradually realizing itself in invisible ways? For convenience sake these two conceptions may be distinguished as the eschatological and the spiritual-organic conception. … In modern writings both have in turn been pushed to an extreme in which they become exclusive of the other. The tendency at present … is to make [Jesus’] conception of the kingdom largely eschatological. On the other hand … the opposite tendency appears, viz., to eliminate as much as possible the eschatological elements and ascribe to Him the idea of a kingdom entirely spiritual and internal” (Shorter Writings, 307).

类似地，瑞德鲍斯发现：

Likewise, Ridderbos observes,

自由派神学宣称，教会——具有某种组织性的信徒的有形聚集——彻底落在了耶稣的视线之外。耶稣只不过是要成为‘内心的’宗教的先知……按（‘唯独末世论’的）解释，耶稣绝不可能考虑给教会生活及教会组织留出空间的某种地上的发展。（《天国的降临》，第335-336页）

“The liberal theology asserted that, as a visible gathering of believers with a certain amount of organization, the church lay entirely outside the field of Jesus’ vision. Jesus was only supposed to be the prophet of the “inner” religion. … According to [the eschatological] interpretation, it is quite out of the question that Jesus took account of an earthly development in which there would be room for the life of a church and for its organization” (The Coming of the Kingdom, 335–36).

自由主义企图清除一切未来的方面，建立一个纯粹内心的宗教，取消有组织的教会的必要性；而“唯独末世论”企图将天国降格为只关乎未来，并没有涉及任何当下的“闯入”，结果就是教会与天国并不相干。在两种情况下，教会都失掉了身份和使命。在自由主义中，教会不过是一种社会现象。在“唯独末世论”的阵营中，教会是那要来的天国失败了的结果。[22]耶稣宣讲的是天国，到来的却是教会。[23]

While liberalism sought to remove all future aspects to form an exclusively internal heart religion making the organized church unnecessary, exclusive eschatology sought to relegate the kingdom only to the future without any present intrusion of it so that the church and kingdom are unrelated. In either case, the church lost its identity and mission. In liberalism, the church simply became a sociological phenomenon. In the exclusive eschatology camp, the church became the consequence of the failure of the kingdom to come.[iv] Jesus preached the kingdom, but what came instead was the church.[v]

瑞德鲍斯和魏司坚试图站在中间立场，将天国和教会置于“已然未然”的范式中，从而恰当地考虑了二者在当下及未来的两个维度。在前面，我们已思考过瑞德鲍斯的陈述，现在我们转向魏司坚的那稍稍不同的进路，他的观点大体可以在他那本很棒的书《耶稣对天国和教会的教训》里找到。

Ridderbos and Vos sought to set forth mediating positions that properly took into account the present and future dimensions of the kingdom and church by setting them within an already-not yet paradigm. In a previous article we considered Ridderbos’ formulation, so now we turn to the slightly different approach of Vos, primarily found in his excellent book The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church.

天国与教会的定义

The Kingdom and the Church Defined

魏司坚写道：“当耶稣藉他的死和复活而进入弥赛亚职分的新阶段时，天国便以教会的形式展现出来。”他还说：“教会就是那新的会众，取代了以色列旧会众，由耶稣作为弥赛亚而设立，并处于他的弥赛亚统治之下。”[24]直到耶稣的死亡、埋葬、复活都已成就，并且随后作为弥赛亚被高举到父右边，这会众才真正开始（参考徒2:36）。

Vos writes, “The church is a form which the kingdom assumes in result of the new stage upon which the messiahship of Jesus enters with his death and resurrection.” Also, he states, “The church is that new congregation taking the place of the old congregation of Israel, which is formed by Jesus as the Messiah and stands under his Messianic rule.”[vi] This congregation could not begin until Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection were accomplished and he was subsequently exalted to the Father’s right hand as the Messiah (cf. Acts 2:36).

与瑞德鲍斯不同，魏司坚并不认为“共同体”这一要素被排除在天国的定义外。他写道：“天国确实是一个共同体，其中的人们被最紧密的纽带连结在一起。在联系到主关于教会的教导时，这一点（即天国的共同体特征）尤其被表达出来。”[25]但他也澄清说，天国并不限于这一要素；实际上，他承认天国的这个方面在耶稣的教导中鲜被强调（参太13:24-30, 47-50）。他进一步说道，这个方面“并不是根本性的，因为天国的形成，并不在于人的联合本身，而在于神；这共同体乃是被他所造，且以他为根基”。[26]

Vos, unlike Ridderbos, does not see the element of community as foreign to the definition of the kingdom. He writes, “The kingdom is indeed a community in which men are knit together by the closest of bonds, and especially in connection with our Lord’s teaching on the church this is brought out.”[vii] He clarifies though that the kingdom is not limited to this; in fact, he recognizes that this aspect of the kingdom receives little emphasis in Jesus’ teaching (cf. Matt. 13:24–30, 47–50). He goes as far to say that this aspect “is not ultimate because not the union of men as such, but that in God which produces and underlies it, is the true kingdom-forming principle.”[viii]

天国不仅存在于“神的至高之处（因为实际上，在一切时候、一切情形下这都是事实），也存在于神超自然地向一切敌对势力施行至高主权，并引人甘心承认他主权的地方。这是事物的一种状态，在此状态中，一切都汇集于、趋向于神这一位至高美善者”。在天国这范围内的，是神圣的能力、神圣的公义、被神圣赐予的福气。天国“在它赖以建立的那些作为中”将自己显为能力，“在它所处的伦理秩序中”将自己显为公义，“在它里面供人享受的那些属灵福气、特权、欢喜中”将自己显为福气。[27]

The kingdom exists not merely where “God is supreme, for that is true at all times and under all circumstances, but where God supernaturally carries through his supremacy against all opposing powers and brings man to the willing recognition of the same. It is a state of things in which everything converges and tends towards God as the highest good.” Within this sphere of the kingdom is divine power, divine righteousness, and divinely bestowed blessedness. The kingdom reveals itself as power “in the acts by which [it] is established,” as righteousness “in the moral order under which it exists,” and as blessedness “in the spiritual blessings, privileges and delights that are enjoyed in it.”[ix]

马太福音16:18-19和18:17中的教会，以及天国的钥匙

The Church and the Keys of the Kingdom in Matthew 16:18–19 and 18:17

根据魏司坚所说，马太福音16:18论到教会时“很明确是为了将它作为一件新事引入，描绘它的特征，以及定义它与天国的关系”。这个新启示的时机，乃是彼得认耶稣是基督，他与弃绝耶稣的众人形成强烈的对比。“正是这坚如磐石的品格……为耶稣所赞扬。当其他人摇摆不定时，他却一直忠于自己的认信。”[28]

Matthew 16:18, according to Vos, deals with the church “for the express purpose of introducing it as something new, of describing its character and defining its relation to the kingdom.” The occasion for this new revelation was Peter’s confession of Jesus being the Christ, which stood in stark contrast to the multitude who abandoned him. “It is this rock-character … that is praised by Jesus, that, when others wavered, he had remained true to his conviction.”[x]

把天国的钥匙“给教会的磐石彼得（因此也是给教会）”，并不意味着他（或教会）“以某种方式被赐予权柄打开或关闭天国的大门”。假如这样解读，就是把教会当作天国的守门人。然而，“捆绑和释放并不是针对天堂本身，仿佛天堂被关闭或打开，而是针对天堂范围内的某些事物，并且不单论到天上，也论到地上”。魏司坚主张，这钥匙不是外门的钥匙，而是全房的钥匙。这里的教会并不是被当作守门人，而是“房屋的管家，因此总的来说象征着对房屋事务的管理”。[29]

The giving of the keys of the kingdom to Peter, “as the foundation of the church, and therefore to the church,” does not mean that he (or the church) “had been given the power in some way or other to open and shut the gates of the heavenly kingdom.” This interpretation would make the church the gatekeeper of the kingdom. “The binding and loosing do not refer to heaven itself, as if heaven were shut or opened, but refer to certain things lying within the sphere of heaven, and not of heaven alone but of earth likewise.” Vos argues that the keys are not to the outer door, but to the entire house. The church is not here referred to as a gatekeeper, but “the house-steward, and therefore symbolize the administration of the affairs of the house in general.”[xi]

根据这一关系，魏司坚认为天国“至少部分地存在于地上”。钥匙是天国的钥匙，但他们是在地上捆绑和释放。因此彼得“在地上对天国所施行的治理，在天上也会被认可”。[30]魏司坚认为耶稣的这两个陈述——“你是彼得，我要把我的教会建造在这磐石上”（太16:18）和“我要把天国的钥匙给你”（太16:19），它们有相同的所指或者说喻象——也就是房屋。他写道：

From this relationship, Vos sees the kingdom of heaven “existing, in part at least, on earth.” The keys are of the kingdom of heaven, but they bind and loose on earth. So what Peter “does in the administration of the kingdom here below will be recognized in heaven.”[xii] Vos sees the two statements of Jesus (“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” [Matt. 16:18] and “I will give you [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven” [Matt. 16:19]) as having the same referent or figure, namely, that of the house. He writes,

首先，房屋表现为“建造中”，而彼得是基石；然后，同一个房屋表现为“已完工”，而彼得领受房屋的钥匙以管理其事务。房屋的喻象不可能在前面是一个意思，在后面却是另一个意思。我们至少有把握断言：教会可以被称为天国。[31]

First the house is represented as in process of building, Peter as the foundation, then the same house appears completed and Peter as invested with the keys for administering its affairs. It is plainly excluded that the house should mean one thing in the first statement and another in the second. It must be possible, this much we may confidently affirm, to call the church the kingdom.[xiii]

以上提供了解经方面的基础，从中他表达出天国与教会的同一性。

This provides the exegetical ground from which he formulates the relationship between the kingdom and the church as being identical.

天国与教会的同一性

The Kingdom and the Church are Identical

魏司坚主张，在耶稣较早的教导中，关于天国是由人构成的有机体、是教会，这样一种观点已初露端倪。他认为：“像马太福音20:25、马可福音9:35、路加福音20:25等处的教导至少暗示：天国是一个社群。”根据魏司坚的说法，耶稣所招聚的门徒共同体，正是神的国始终意图成为的样子，即人的聚集。麦子和稗子的比喻（太13:24-30, 36-43），以及撒网的比喻（太13:47-50），都支持这一观点。“‘人子的国度’相当于‘耶稣的教会’，因为这两个短语都将天国看作一群在弥赛亚统治下的人。”假如这始终是天国的意图，那么这外在有形的教会就显然是天国的一种进展，因为天国原先一直只是内在无形的。魏司坚据此认为，这一进展“肯定不仅仅在于‘天国就是一群门徒’，而在于这之外的别的东西”。

Vos argues that Jesus’ view of the kingdom as an organism of men, a church, is found subtly in his earlier teaching. He maintains that “sayings like Matt. 20:25; Mark 9:35; Luke 20:25, at least suggest the idea of the kingdom as a society.” Jesus’ gathering of the disciples, according to Vos, is what the kingdom of God was always intended to be, namely, an aggregate of men. This is supported by the parables of the wheat and the chaff (Matt. 13:24–30, 36–43) and the fishnet (Matt. 13:47–50). “This ‘kingdom of the Son of man’ agrees with the ‘church of Jesus,’ in that both phrases make the kingdom a body of men placed under the Messiah as their ruler.” If such was always the intention of the kingdom, then the church, being external and visible, is clearly an advancement of it since it only previously had been internal and invisible. For this reason, Vos argues that the advance “must be sought in something else than the mere fact of its being a body of disciples.”

对此，他提出两点。首先，拒绝弥赛亚的旧约教会必须被取代，“（天国）因此获得某种外在组织的形式”。[32]魏司坚接着说：

He puts forth two points concerning this. First, the Old Testament church that rejected the Messiah must be replaced and “therefore receive some form of external organization.”[xiv] Vos continues,

这一要素（即外在组织），是天国此前从未拥有的。天国非但在本质上是内在无形的，而且这种本质此前从未拥有外在形体。耶稣现在却提及房屋和它的钥匙，提及地上的捆绑与释放，并提及教会纪律，为加诸形体做准备。[33]

This [viz., external organization] the kingdom had not hitherto possessed. It had been internal and invisible not merely in its essence, but to this essence there had been lacking the outward embodiment. Jesus now in speaking of the house and the keys of the house, of binding and loosing on earth, and of church discipline, makes provision for this.[xv]

其次，魏司坚主张：“我们的主让我们明白，他的弥赛亚身份现在要进入新阶段，给天国带来全新流入的超自然的权能，从中既外在而又内在地创造出被他称为‘教会’的新事物。”魏司坚在耶稣关于“阴间的门”的话中寻求自己断言的论据。他认为这一短语或许应被翻译为“阴间的门将不能胜过它”。他将“阴间的门”理解为“所能想象的最强的力量，因为没有人能突破阴间的门”。[34]因此耶稣是在说，教会的权能甚至将胜过所能想象的最强的力量。对魏司坚来说，教会的力量来源于它被建立在磐石上。这全新流入的权能也被说成是“天国的”（参太16:28，26:64；可9:1，14:62；路9:27，22:69），因此教会与天国是等同的。

Second, Vos contends, “Our Lord gives to understand that the new stage upon which his Messiahship is now about to enter, will bring to the kingdom a new influx of supernatural power and this makes out of it, not only externally but also internally, that new thing which he calls his church.” Vos looks for support of this claim in Jesus’ words regarding the gates of Hades. He posits that the phrase should be translated: “the gates of Hades shall not surpass it.” He understands the gates of Hades as “a figure for the highest conceivable strength, because no one can break through them.”[xvi] So Jesus is saying that the church’s power will excel even that of the highest conceivable strength. For Vos the church’s strength is owing to its being built upon a rock. This new influx of power is also spoken of the kingdom (cf. Matt. 16:28; 26:64; Mark 9:1; 14:62; Luke 9:27; 22:69), hence the church and kingdom are identical.

人子降临在他的国里（太16:27-28）

The Son of Man Coming in His Kingdom (Matt. 16:27–28)

实际上，耶稣向门徒说的话对此非常明确：“人子要在他父的荣耀里，同着众使者降临，那时候，他要照各人的行为报应各人。我实在告诉你们：站在这里的，有人在没尝死味以前，必看见人子降临在他的国里。”（太16:27-28）众使者和父的荣耀的画面代表着能力。然而在哪种意义上，耶稣的门徒会在他们死前看见这国度？魏司坚相信，“在教会中，我们便能解释这些关于天国降临的话语”。耶稣的宣告非常明确，因为那在早期教会中工作的圣灵之能力“预先展现着世界末了之时会看到的景象的某些方面……实际上，教会里有着那将来世界的权能。她不仅是耶稣被高举前就已存在的固有的国度，而是今生与永生之间的一个链环”。[35]

In fact, Jesus’ words to his disciples are emphatic about this: “The Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (Matt. 16:27–28). The imagery of angels and the glory of the Father denotes power. But in what sense will the kingdom be seen by Jesus’ disciples prior to their death? Vos believes “we can interpret these sayings of the coming of the kingdom in the church.” Jesus’ statement is so emphatic because the power of the Holy Spirit that was at work in the early church anticipates “in some respects the phenomena that will be observed at the end of the world. … The church actually has within herself the powers of the world to come. She is more than the immanent kingdom as it existed before Jesus’ exaltation. She forms an intermediate link between the present life and the life of eternity.”[xvii]

小结

Conclusion

上述分析引向如下结论：“当耶稣藉着他的死和复活而进入弥赛亚职分的新阶段时，天国便以教会的形式展现出来。”魏司坚进一步说道：“耶稣清楚指出，无形教会等同于天国。”他诉诸约翰福音3:3-5，那里明确地教导我们，任何人想要看见或进入神的国，就必须被重生。“故此，天国与无形教会都由重生的人构成，唯有重生的人才能在自己里面体验天国的权能，培养天国的公义，享受天国的福分。”[36]

The above analysis leads to this conclusion: “The church is a form which the kingdom assumes in result of the new stage upon which the Messiahship of Jesus enters with his death and resurrection.” Vos takes it further saying, “Jesus plainly leads us to identify the invisible church and the kingdom.” He appeals to John 3:3–5, which explicitly teaches that to be born again is a requirement for anyone who would see or enter into the kingdom. “The kingdom, therefore, as truly as the invisible church is constituted by the regenerate; the regenerate alone experience in themselves its power, cultivate its righteousness, enjoy its blessings.”[xviii]

如果无形教会等同于天国，那么有形教会与天国是什么关系？魏司坚的回答是：“我们的主把有形教会看作他国度的确实的形体。正因为无形教会实现神的王权，所以有形教会也必须如此。”天国的钥匙带给天国某种外在表现；而通过赐予这权柄，耶稣在有形教会中作王。魏司坚进一步得出有形教会与天国等同，他说：“在马太福音13:41中，人子的国度……不是别的，正是有形教会。基督登上荣耀之君的宝座时，就建立了有形教会。”那存在于不可见领域中的天国的无形力量，“在有形教会的国度有机体中得到表现”。[37]这样，在最后，魏司坚视天国与教会等同，因为对他来说，教会就是有外在组织的天国。

If the invisible church is equated with the kingdom, then what is the relationship between the visible church and the kingdom? Vos answers, “Our Lord looked upon the visible church as a veritable embodiment of his kingdom. Precisely because the invisible church realizes the kingship of God, the visible church must likewise partake of this character.” The keys of the kingdom bring some sort of visible manifestation to the kingdom. And Jesus by conferring this power acts in the capacity of King over the visible church. Vos further draws the identity of the visible church and the kingdom when he says, “In Matt. 13:41 the kingdom of the Son of Man … is nothing else but the visible church. The visible church is constituted by the enthronement of Christ as the King of glory.” The invisible forces of the kingdom that exist in the invisible sphere “find expression in the kingdom-organism of the visible church.”[xix] In the end, Vos identifies the kingdom with church since for him the church is the externally organized kingdom.

 [1] Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, p.343.

[2] Ibid.,p.347.

[3] 毕尔（G.K. Beale）认为“圣子是一个独立的人同时也是一个共同体的代表”。A New Testament BiblicalTheology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New，Grand Rapids,Mich.: Baker Academic, 2011, 394ff.  同样，如启示录里至高者的圣徒，就是教会，和羔羊一同掌权作王（1:6、9，2:26–27，3:21，5:9–10），而这似乎是与但以理书7章是相一致的。

G.K. Beale argues that “the Son of Man is both an individual and also a representative for a community” (A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2011], 394ff). Also, in the book of Revelation the saints of the Most High, i.e., the church, shares the authority and dominion of the Lamb (1:6, 9; 2:26–27; 3:21; 5:9–10), which seems to be consistent with Daniel 7.

[4] Ridderbos, The Coming of theKingdom, pp.347–348.

[5] Ibid.,p. 348.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., pp.351–53.

[8] Ibid., p.354.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, pp.24–27.

[11] Ibid.,p. 354.

[12] Ibid., p.343.

[13] Ibid.,pp. 344–47.

[14] Ibid., pp.354–55.

[15] Ibid., p.355.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Raymond O. Zorn, Christ Triumphant: Biblical Perspectives on His Church and Kingdom, p.71.

[18] Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, p.356.

[19] Vos, Geerhardus, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom and the Church, PTR 2: pp.335–336.

[20] Morgan, Christopher W., and Robert A. Peterson, The Kingdom of God , Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2012, p.179.

[21] 要对魏司坚和瑞德鲍斯对这两种观点的回应有一个简要的了解，请参见埃里克森所著的《末世论入门导读》一书。Millard Erickson, A BasicGuide to Eschatology, pp. 21–22.

[22] 瑞德鲍斯还补充道：“因此教会的起源就被归结于，耶稣的门徒没有等到天国的降临这个现实，而为了延续历史不得不选择成立的一个组织。”Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, p.337。

Ridderbos adds, “The church is then supposed to owe its origin to the fact that those who had been waiting for the coming of the kingdom in vain had no other alternative in the continuation of history than, as Jesus’ disciples, to form an organization” (Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, 337).

[23] 这两种思想体系的应用很广泛，因为在两者中，教会成了仅仅是人的发明而与天国没有关系。

[24] Vos, Geerhardus, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church, p.79, pp.85–86.

[25]完整的引述是：“我们必须摒弃现代的一种由于不充分而有失偏颇的解释，就是天国的样式可以用来对照的点主要在于人联合而成的共同体，也就是建立一个道德或者宗教的有机体。天国确实是一个共同体，人们在其中被一个最紧密的盟约连接在一起，尤其是连接于我们主对于教会的教导，带出这样的结果。但是如果把马太福音13:24–30, 47–50对天国的教导整体来看，这一点其实是较少强调的。另外，这种观点也不够宽到可以覆盖福音书中对于天国所有的宣告，这些宣告认为天国更多的是由从上面来的恩赐和力量，而不是人际关系和活动来组成的。把它类比为一个共同体只能对其国度的属性提供一个局部的解释，尽管这个解释是正确的，但不是终极性的，因为不是人们的联合而是神创造并成为根基才是天国形成的真正原则。 (Vos, The Teaching of Jesus, 49)然而，魏司坚在他Das Reich Gottes nach den synoptischen的评论中，尽管尊重这个共同体的一面，却把天国定义为“上帝的礼物”（而不是一个任务、一个目标、一个理念或者一个共同体）；人对此应有的态度是单单的接受而没有任何创造性的参与；天国是神造作的；人类的行为仅限于接受还是失去天国……只有当天国从隐藏的状态走出来并将世界纳入他的掌管之下时，世界才能接受天国；神通过基督带来神的国，而基督是通过神的权能带来神的国，这两个是同样的意思。Vos, Geerhardus, and James T. Dennison, The Letters of Geerhardus Vos, 54。要注意的是，这个定义写于1900年，而《耶稣对神国和教会的教导》一书是1903年才出版的。

The full quote: “We must reject as inadequate the favorite modern explanation that in the figure of the kingdom the point of comparison lies primarily in the mutual association of men so as to form a moral or religious organism. The kingdom is indeed a community in which men are knit together by the closest of bonds, and especially in connection with our Lord’s teaching on the church this is brought out. Taking, however, the kingdom-teaching as a whole this point is but little emphasized, Matt. 13:24–30, 47–50. Besides, this conception is not nearly wide enough to cover all the things predicated of the kingdom in the Gospel, according to which it appears to consist as much in gifts and powers from above as in inter-human relations and activities. Its resemblance to a community offers at least only a partial explanation of its kingdom-character, and so far as this explanation is correct it is not ultimate because not the union of men as such, but that in God which produces and underlies it, is the true kingdom-forming principle” (Vos, The Teaching of Jesus, 49). However, Vos defines the kingdom differently with respect to this community aspect in his review of Das Reich Gottes nach den synoptischen as “a gift of God (not a task, a goal, an ideal or a community); the attitude of man with reference to it is purely receptive, not productive; the kingdom is wrought by God; human activity comes into consideration only in so far as it conditions the reception or loss of the kingdom … the world receives the kingdom in so far as the latter steps forward out of its hidden state and by drawing the world into its sphere becomes manifest; God brings the kingdom, though in Christ, and Christ through the power of God, these two being synonymous” (Vos, Geerhardus, and James T. Dennison, The Letters of Geerhardus Vos, 54). It should be noted that this definition was written in 1900, while the Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom and the Church was published in 1903.

[26] Vos, The Teaching of Jesus,p.49.

[27] Ibid., p.50, p.52.

[28] Ibid., p.78.

[29] Ibid., pp.80–81.

[30] Ibid., p.81.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid.,pp. 82–83.

[33] Ibid.,p. 83.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid., p.84.

[36] Ibid., pp.85–86.

[37] Ibid., p.87. 魏司坚非常确定地给出上述结论，教会不是别的，而单单是无形教会的彰显。他写到：“毋庸置疑，神的王权是要遍布和掌管人类生活的方方面面的。”当在“神主权和荣耀的原则掌管之下时”，国度因此也在生活的各个领域彰显（如科学、艺术、家庭、国家、商业、工业等等）。耶稣将人类生活的各个领域都看成将要“组成神的国的一部分”但是他却不认为顺服有形教会是完成这一目标的途径。 因为国度渗透到生活的各个领域并在其中运作，包括在教会中，更新的原则是那里必须有超自然的工作。“区分可见教会与基督教政府、基督教艺术、基督教科学等等这些事物是合宜的，因为这些事物若真的属于神的国度，就必须是从无形教会重生的生命中发展出来的。”（Vos, The Teaching of Jesus, pp.87–89.）

Ibid., 87. Vos is sure to clarify the above conclusion noting that the church is not the only expression of the invisible kingdom. He writes, “Undoubtedly the kingship of God… is intended to pervade and control the whole of human life in all its forms of existence.” The kingdom, then, manifests itself in the various spheres of life (e.g., science; art; family; state; commerce; industry; etc.) when it comes under “the controlling influence of the principle of the divine supremacy and glory.” Jesus looked upon every province of human life as being intended to “form part of God’s kingdom,” though he did not see subjection to the visible church as the way it would be accomplished. For the kingdom to penetrate any sphere of life and manifest itself there, including in the church, the principle of regeneration must be there from which it supernaturally empowers it. “While it is proper to separate between the visible church and such things as the Christian state, Christian art, Christian science, etc., these things, if they truly belong to the kingdom of God, grow up out of the regenerated life of the invisible church” (Vos, The Teaching of Jesus, 87–89).