欢迎回到 Shameless Popery。 Welcome back to Shameless Popery.
我是乔·赫施迈尔。 I'm Joe Heschmeyer.
如果你是在发布当天收看这个节目，今天是圣周四，就是受难节前一天，复活节前的几天。 So, if you're watching this on the day it's released, it is Holy Thursday, the day before Good Friday, a few days before Easter Sunday.
所以，圣周四快乐！ So, happy Holy Thursday!
对你来说可能现在不是圣周四，对我来说现在其实也还不是圣周四。 It may not be Holy Thursday for you; it's actually not Holy Thursday yet for me.
但如果你现在正在庆祝圣周四，那祝你圣周四快乐！ But if you happen to be celebrating that right now, then happy Holy Thursday to you!
现在似乎是个讨论最后晚餐的奥秘，更重要的是十字架奥秘的好时机。 It seemed like a good time to address the mystery of the Last Supper and, even more, the mystery of the Cross.
我想很多人，不管是基督徒还是非基督徒，都有 这样一个问题：十字架到底是如何发挥作用的？ So, this is a question I think a lot of people, both Christian and non-Christian, have, which is: How does the Cross work exactly?
你知道，作为基督徒，我们说耶稣为我们的罪死在十字架上，而非基督 徒，甚至根据你所成长的基督教背景不同，可能会问，这是什么意思？ You know, as Christians, we say Jesus died on the Cross for our sins, and someone who's non-Christian, or even depending on the kind of Christian you grew up with, might say, What does that mean?
这怎么说得通呢？ How does that make any sense?
为什么耶稣在十字架上的死能为我的罪做什么呢？ Why would Jesus' death on the Cross do anything for my sins?
而且更重要的是，究竟是怎么做到的？ And what's more, again, how?
基督在一世纪在十字架上的死，是通过什么机制对今天的我产生作用的？ What's the mechanism by which Christ's death on the Cross back in the first century somehow does something for me today?
这就是我想要探讨的内容。 So, that's what I want to explore.
我想在一开始就提醒大家，这是一个非常复杂和多层面的问题。 I want to kind of give a caveat at the very beginning, which is to say this is a really complicated and multifaceted dimension.
单是在新约圣经中就用了许多比喻来描述这个：基督是我们的赎价，祂被称为 得胜的基督，如同得胜的弥赛亚，祂是我们的赎罪祭，这些都是不同的模式。 There are a number of images used to describe this in the New Testament alone: that Christ is our ransom, that He is called Christus Victor, like the victorious Messiah, that He's our atonement—all of these different models.
所以，有不同的模式和主题，在这个视频中我不会说我们 必须选择其中一个而排除其他的，因为这样说并不正确。 And so, there are different models or motifs, and I'm not going to argue in this video that we have to choose one of those to the exclusion of the others, because that's not true.
在圣经中，我们没有看到选择其中一个而排除其他的情况。 In the Bible, we don't see one of those being chosen to the exclusion of the other.
要用语言来表达这件事，解释它是什么以及它如何成为一个深刻的属灵现实，是很困难的。 This is a difficult thing to put into words, what's going on and how it's a profound spiritual reality.
我要说的是，其中一个最流行的十字架观实际上 是错误和危险的，但这种错误是比较微妙的。 What I am going to say is that one of the most popular visions of the Cross is actually wrong and dangerous, but wrong in a kind of subtle way.
这种错误是这样的：如果你做几个重要的调整，它就是对的。 Wrong in a way that if you make a few really important tweaks, it's right.
如果不做这些调整，我们将会看到，它最终会使基督教看起来更 像异教，而且与三位一体、正确的基督论和神的公义相违背。 If you don't make those tweaks, it ends up, as we're going to see, making Christianity look much more like paganism, and it's contrary to the Trinity, contrary to good Christology, and contrary to the justice of God.
你可能会想，那么，这是什么样的十字架观呢？ And you might be wondering, well, what vision of the Cross is that?
这种观点被称为刑罚替代论。 That vision is called penal substitution.
现在，我要提出第二个提醒：有许多不同的神学体系都使用刑罚替代论这个名称。 Now, I should give a second caveat: there are a number of different theological systems that go by the name of penal substitution.
刑罚替代论——刑罚就像惩罚——替代的意思是 基督承受我们的刑罚，这样我们就不用承受了。 Penal substitution—penal like penalty—substitution means Christ suffers our penalties so we don't have to.
有不同形式的神学会得出类似的结论。 There are different forms of theology that lead to something like that conclusion.
我不是在批评所有这些观点，我也不能说我理解所有这些观点。 I'm not critiquing all of them; I can't claim to understand all of them.
我想特别关注的是一些改革宗思想家所教导的刑罚替代性救赎或刑罚替代 论，首先是加尔文，然后是许多二十世纪和二十一世纪的改革宗思想家， 他们中很多都很有影响力：约翰·麦克阿瑟、史普罗、约翰·派博等人。 I want to specifically focus on the forms of penal substitutionary atonement, or penal substitution, that are taught by a number of Reformed thinkers, first and foremost John Calvin, but then by a number of 20th and 21st-century Reformed thinkers, many of whom are very popular: John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, John Piper, people like that.
所以，这就是我想要详细解释的内容。 And so, that's what I want to unpack to explain.
这更接近于对十字架的误解和今天异教的献祭观念，而不是任何基督教的理解。 That is much closer to the misunderstanding of the Cross and kind of the pagan vision of sacrifice today than it is to anything Christian.
考虑到这一点，让我们来看看两种不同的十字架观。 So, with that in mind, let's look at the two different visions of the Cross.
一边是阿兹特克人的献祭，另一边是最后的晚餐。 So, you've got on the one side an Aztec sacrifice, and on the other side you've got the Last Supper.
这两者都是献祭的描述，但我想不需要是科学家也能明白，这是两种根本不同的献祭理解。 Those are both depictions of sacrifice, but I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to realize those are radically different understandings of sacrifice.
让我们先看第一个，就是那个错误的——阿兹特克人的献祭。 Let's go to the first of those, the bad one—the Aztec one.
这就是异教对十字架的误解。 That's the pagan misunderstanding of the Cross.
当我这么说时，我并不是在贬低它，我是在字面意义上说这个。 And when I say that, I don't mean that in a pejorative way; I mean that literally.
这就是古代异教徒理解献祭的方式，也是现在一些人理解献祭的方式。 This is how pagans understood sacrifice in the ancient world, and this is how some people understand sacrifice today.
让我播放一段历史播客和历史频道的内容——不是历史频道电视台——来 看看异教的献祭，我想这能让我们了解阿兹特克人的献祭是什么样的。 With that, let me go ahead and just play a little bit from—this is a history podcast and a history channel, not The History Channel—looking at pagan sacrifice, and I think it gives a sense of what did sacrifice look like for the Aztecs.
维齐洛波奇特利是太阳的化身，在主庙特佩约神庙受到崇拜。 Huitzilopochtli was a manifestation of the sun and worshipped at the main temple, Templo Mayor.
在阿兹特克的18个节日中，有4个是庆祝他的。 He is celebrated at four of the 18 Aztec festivals.
在献给维齐洛波奇特利的节日里，祭品会被庄重地装扮上 神明的颜色，全身涂上蓝色颜料，然后被放在祭祀石上。 At festivals dedicated to Huitzilopochtli, the victim would be ceremoniously adorned in the god's colors and covered in blue body paint before being laid upon a sacrificial stone.
祭司会先吟诵，然后举刀向天，随后将刀落下，在祭品的躯干上划出一道深深的伤口。 A priest would chant before raising a blade to the sky, bringing it down and sharply cutting a line through the victim's torso.
他们会把还在跳动的心脏挖出来，举向太阳。 Their heart would be ripped out and still beating, held towards the sun.
最后，他们会做一个看起来不太庄重的动作，把祭品的尸体从金字塔上推下去。 Late then, in a move that seems a bit unceremonious, they push the body of their sacrifice off the pyramid.
尸体会被带走，要么火化，要么交给最初抓获他们的战士。 The body would be carried away and either cremated or given to the warrior who captured them to begin with.
战士会把尸体的部分送给重要人物，好像收到一个拇指是件多么令人愉快的事似的。 The warrior would either send parts of the body to important people, because who doesn't love getting a thumb in the post?
这就是阿兹特克人的做法，对吧？ So, that's the Aztec version, right?
他们抓一个无辜的祭品，挖出心脏，献给众神，然后丢弃尸体。 That you take an innocent victim, you rip their heart out, and you offer it to the gods, and then you discard the body.
我甚至还没说到其他一些可怕的细节。 I didn't even get into some of the other horrific factors.
有时他们还会吃掉尸体，这真是一个可怕的制度。 Sometimes they would eat the body, and it was just a ghastly system.
这太可怕了，简直是邪魔的行为。 It was horrible; it was demonic.
我说这话一点也不夸张。 I mean that not in an exaggerated sort of way.
他们以折磨和谋杀无辜者为乐。 You're delighting in the torture and murder of the innocent.
我想很多非基督徒看着基督教会说，嗯，这不就是你们在受难节所做的事吗？ And I think many non-Christians look at Christianity and say, Well, isn't that what you guys are doing this Good Friday?
按照你们的说法，你们不是在为历史上最无辜的人被折磨和谋杀而欢喜吗？ Aren't you delighting in the torture and murder of the most innocent person in history, according to you?
你们不是说这就是你们的神所要的吗，祂要这种可怕的血祭 ——不仅是基督的心，还要祂被残害、折磨致死的身体？ And aren't you saying that's what your God wants, that He wants this horrible blood sacrifice—not just Christ's heart, but His mutilated and tortured body killed?
这就是为什么我们必须做出一些非常重要的区分。 And this is where some really important distinctions have to be made.
不幸的是，许多受欢迎的基督教讲员和作者不仅没有做 出这些区分，反而在倾向于这种阿兹特克式的献祭观。 Unfortunately, a lot of popular Christian speakers and authors are not only not making those distinctions, but they're really leaning into the kind of Aztec vision of sacrifice.
他们真的在倾向于说，是的，这一切都是关于神 的暴力和流血，这是一个深刻而危险的误解。 They're really leaning into, Yeah, this is all about divine violence and bloodshed, and that is a profound and dangerous misunderstanding.
但我想让我所批评的人先用他们自己的话来描述他们的神学。 But I want to let the people I'm critiquing kind of have the first word describing their own theology.
有很多人都这样做，正如我所说，你会发现刑罚 替代论有不同的层次，有些比其他的好或差。 So, there's plenty of people who do this, and as I said, you'll find different shades of penal substitution; some are better or worse than others.
让我们从约翰·麦克阿瑟开始，他解释说他神学的核心是这样的观念：神对待耶稣基 督就好像耶稣基督本人是个罪人，而且不仅仅是个罪人，而是历史上最大的罪人。 Let's start here with John MacArthur, explaining how at the core of his theology is the idea that God treats Jesus as if Jesus was personally a sinner, and in fact, not just a sinner, but the worst sinner in all of history.
这是麦克阿瑟的原话：「好像祂亲自犯了每一个将来会信 的人所犯的每一个罪，尽管实际上祂一个也没有犯。」 So, here’s MacArthur in his own words: As if He had personally committed every sin ever committed by every person who would ever believe, though in reality He committed none of them.
这在神学上会导致一些令人震惊的结论，因为如果你相信父神认为耶稣基督是历史上最大的 罪人，或者明知祂不是却仍要这样对待祂，那么，神应该如何对待历史上最大的罪人呢？ And this leads to some really shocking kind of places theologically, because if you believe that God the Father believes that Jesus is the worst sinner in all history, or knows He isn't but is still going to treat Him like He is, well, how should God treat the worst sinner in all of history?
结论就是，祂必须咒诅祂。 And the conclusion is, well, He would have to damn Him.
我要提醒你们，接下来的片段语气很强烈，用词也很强烈，这是改革 宗基督教最受欢迎的传道人、思想家和知识分子之一史普罗的话。 So, I will warn you, the next clip is a little strong, and the language in it is really strong, but it's R.C. Sproul, one of the most popular preachers, thinkers, and intellectuals within Reformed Christianity.
他最近去世了，但他是改革宗基督教中的一位巨人。 He recently passed, but he was kind of a giant among Reformed Christianity.
在他最后的一次讲道中，他说神咒诅了耶稣基督，定了祂的罪。 In one of the final appearances that he made, he preached that God cursed Jesus and damned Him.
这是史普罗的原话：「显然在我的罪被放在祂身上之前，祂 经历过父的美善，但那一刻，那位纯洁的不再纯洁了。」 And here’s Sproul in his own words: So obviously He had some experience of the beauty of the Father until that moment that my sin was placed upon Him, and the One who was pure was pure no more.
「神咒诅了祂。」 And God cursed Him.
「就好像从天上传来一声呐喊——请原谅我的用词——但我找不到更准确的说法，就好像耶 稣基督听到了『神咒诅你』这样的话，因为这就是被咒诅、被定罪、被父神弃绝的意思。」 It was as if there was a cry from heaven—excuse my language—but I can be no more accurate than to say it was as if Jesus heard the words, 'God damn you,' because that's what it meant to be cursed, to be damned, to be under the anathema of the Father.
那么，这个体系有什么问题呢？ So, what are the problems with this system?
正如你可能想象的，这个体系是有问题的。 As you might imagine, this system is problematic.
所以，我要列举我看到的这种刑罚替代论理解方式的六个问题。 So, I'm going to list six problems that I see with penal substitution understood in this way.
第一个我们称之为三位一体的问题，这个概念很简单：耶稣就是神。 The first of them we'll call the Trinitarian problem, and the idea is really simple: that Jesus is God.
所以，说神咒诅耶稣或神定耶稣的罪就等于说神在咒诅神自己。 So, to say that God cursed Jesus or that God damns Jesus is to say that God damns God.
诚然，父不是子，子也不是父，但父与子在威严、尊贵和荣耀上是平等的。 Now, it's true the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father, but the Father and the Son are equal in majesty, dignity, and glory.
他们同样都具有神性。 They are equally divine.
因此，第一个三位一体的问题很简单：你不能这样把父、子、圣灵分开，你也 不能把其中一位看作比其他更为神性，否则就会遇到一些很深刻的神学问题。 And so, the first Trinitarian problem is quite simply that you cannot separate the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in this way, and you can't treat one of them as more God than the others without running into some really profound theological problems.
我本想放一些史普罗解释这个问题的片段，但我觉得基督教对三 位一体的理解已经很清楚了——至少在理论上史普罗、派博、麦 克阿瑟和所有这些人都会同意——父、子、圣灵是同等的。 I thought about putting some clips up where R.C. Sproul actually explains this, but I think this is clear enough that the Christian understanding of the Trinity—and this is something that at least on paper Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, and all these guys are going to agree to—is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal.
他们都完全是神或真正是神。 They're all fully God or truly God.
麦克阿瑟和史普罗之间实际上有一个有趣的辩论，是说耶 稣完全是神完全是人，还是说耶稣真正是神真正是人。 And there's actually a funny debate between MacArthur and Sproul about whether we should say Jesus is fully God and fully man or truly God and truly man.
史普罗的观点是，如果说完全是神，听起来好像祂只是神。 Sproul's point is, well, if you say fully God, that makes it sound like He's only God.
无论你想怎么说，我们的意思是耶稣完全具有神性，也完全具有人性。 Whichever way you want to say it, we mean that Jesus is entirely divine and entirely human.
这当然就引出了基督论的问题，这是第二组问题。 So, that leads, of course, to the Christological problem, which is the second set of problems.
正如你不能让父咒诅子来分裂三位一体一样，你也不 能让三位一体的第一位定三位一体的第二位的罪。 Just as you can't separate the Trinity by having the Father damn the Son, you can't have the first person of the Trinity condemning the second person of the Trinity.
你不能让第一位恨三位一体或切断与三位一体第二位的关系。 You can't have the first person hating the Trinity or cutting the second person of the Trinity off.
当你深入研究基督论时——这很重要——祂在天上仍然是三位一体的第二位，是永恒的神。 Well, when you get into Christology—and this is significant—He remains the second person of the Trinity in heaven, divine God.
祂并没有离开天堂。 He doesn't leave heaven.
这可能是史普罗和麦克阿瑟有分歧的一个领域，因为他们都说过一些话 ，似乎暗示神真的成为人，他们可能认为神在道成肉身时离开了天堂。 Now, this is perhaps an area in which Sproul and MacArthur will disagree, because they've both said things that seem to suggest that God is truly man, that maybe they think God left heaven in the Incarnation.
这是早期异教对基督教的误解，早期基督徒不得不说，不，这是不对的。 That was an early pagan misunderstanding of Christianity, and the early Christians had to say, No, that's not true.
但我知道如果是这样的话，如果这些人误解了这一点，那这并不是标准的改革宗立场。 But I know that if that is the case, if those guys are misunderstanding it, that is not the standard Reformed position.
加尔文很清楚地指出，在道成肉身时神仍然在天上，这包括圣子。 Calvin was very clear that God remains in heaven in the Incarnation, and that includes God the Son.
圣子，三位一体的第二位，在成为人时并没有离开天堂；祂同时在 马槽里，在加利利海边，也在统管宇宙，将万有维系在自己里面。 That God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, in becoming man does not leave heaven behind; that He is at once in the manger, on the shores of Galilee, and ruling the cosmos, holding all things together in Himself.
如果说祂离开了天堂，你就不得不说三位一体不知怎 的解体了，而且基督所维系的整个宇宙也解体了。 If you were to say He left heaven, you would have to say both the Trinity somehow dissolves and that all the universe, which Christ holds together, dissolves.
这是错误的神学，对吧？ That's bad theology, right?
所以，从神学角度来说，你不能这么说。 So, theologically, you just can't say that.
看，当我们谈论三位一体的内住时，我们常常说父、子、圣灵来住在我里面。 The Trinitarian—look, when we talk about Trinitarian indwelling, we often talk about that in terms of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit coming to dwell within me.
但父、子、圣灵彼此相交也是事实。 But it's also true that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in communion with each other.
他们是位格的交通，是不可分离的位格的交通。 They are a communion of persons, an inseparable communion of persons.
因此，这样理解的刑罚替代论的问题在于，父在惩罚子，父转眼不看子。 And so, the problem with penal substitution understood in this way is that the Father is punishing the Son, and the Father turns His eyes away from the Son.
这要么完全破坏了三位一体内部的交通和本体层面的交通，也就是所谓的 基督位格的联合，因为这样要么是三位一体在咒诅自己，要么是三位一体 的一部分在咒诅另一部分，要么是三位一体的一部分不与另一部分交通。 Either it totally undermines both that intra-Trinitarian communion and the communion at the ontological level, what's called the hypostatic union within Christ, because then either the Trinity is damning itself, or part of the Trinity is damning part of the Trinity, or part of the Trinity isn't talking to part of the Trinity.
或者耶稣在本性上有一种难以置信的分裂，祂的神 性和人性不能和谐相处，只是共用同一个躯体。 Or Jesus, in His nature, has got this incredible schizophrenia where His divine and human natures aren't getting along, and they're just sharing the same house.
这是错误的基督论，我们实际上可以通过阅读约翰 ·麦克阿瑟所说的话来看到这种错误的基督论。 This is bad Christology, and we can actually see this bad Christology on display by reading something John MacArthur said.
这实际上是一篇2000年的讲道。 This is actually, I believe, a 2000 homily.
我在网上找不到，但在他的网站上有讲稿。 I couldn't find it online, but they have a transcript on his website.
他说，如果你没有永恒的三位一体，你就有了错误的神。 He says, Now, if you do not have an eternal Trinity, you have the wrong God.
如果你有了错误的神，你就有了错误的耶稣和错误的福音。 If you have the wrong God, you have the wrong Jesus and the wrong Gospel.
这是一个潜伏的异端，因为它是一个源头性的异端，实际上污染了所有其他的神学。 This is a sleeping heresy because it is a fountainhead heresy that literally pollutes all the rest of theology.
阿们，绝对没错！ Amen, absolutely!
如果你在三位一体神学上出错，其他一切都会出问题。 If you get Trinitarian theology wrong, everything else is going to be screwed up.
完全同意。 Completely agree.
但在同一篇讲道中，他接着说在基督里面没有隔阂。 But in the same homily, he goes on to say that within Christ, there is no alienation.
祂不是罪人。 This is not a sinner.
他在这里谈论基督的受洗，说耶稣受洗不是因为祂 犯罪，祂受洗也不是因为需要恢复与神的交通。 He's talking here about the baptism of Christ, that Jesus isn't baptized because He sins; He isn't baptized because He needs to be restored to divine communion.
所以，没有隔阂。 So, there is no alienation.
祂不是罪人，那关系中没有破裂。 This is not a sinner; there is no breach in that relationship.
他在这里谈到永恒的关系：从永恒到永恒都没有分离。 He speaks here of the eternitarian relationship: there is no separation from eternity through eternity.
在时间中，在耶稣道成肉身期间，祂与父的交通从未中断。 Through time, in the middle when Jesus was incarnate, there never was a break in communication with the Father.
如果他到此为止，那就完全符合正统教义了。 If he'd stopped there, that would be perfectly, profoundly orthodox.
但接着他说，除了在十字架上耶稣说'我的神，我的神，为 什么离弃我？'那一刻，当神为我们的罪处死耶稣的时候。 But then he says, Except that moment on the Cross when Jesus said, 'My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?' when God was executing Jesus for all our sins.
但除了那一刻，没有任何隔阂存在。 But apart from that moment, no alienation existed.
现在，让我们仔细分析一下这个问题。 Now, let's just unpack this for a minute.
他刚说过神的永恒本性就是这种三位一体的内住，而且在道成肉 身中，人性被带入三位一体的第二位格中——不是说神有所改变 ，而是祂取了人性归于自己，这人性也享有三位一体的内住。 He's just said the eternal nature of God is this Trinitarian indwelling, and that in the Incarnation, this human nature is brought into the second person of the Holy Trinity—not that there's a change in God, but He takes a human nature to Himself, and this human nature enjoys this Trinitarian indwelling.
用专业术语来说，基督享有真福直观，祂一生都享有这个，而且 祂里面有三位一体第二位格的内住——不仅仅是像我们通过洗礼 、收养等方式那样，而是祂本身就是具有人性的神性位格。 Christ enjoys, in technical terms, we would say it this way: Christ enjoys the beatific vision His entire life, and He has the dwelling of the second person of the Holy Trinity in Him—not merely the way we might through baptism, through adoption, and so forth, but rather He is a divine person with a human nature.
所以，这不像是一个人里面飘荡着神性。 So, it isn't like He's a human person who has a divine nature floating around in there.
不，祂是具有人性的神性位格。 No, He's a divine person with a human nature.
所以，说这是永恒的真理，除了那三个小时，这是 荒谬的，因为对神来说，一切都是永恒同在的。 And so, it is insane to say, Yes, this is an eternal truth except for three hours, because for one, to God, all things are eternally present.
所以，当你说有这三小时的空隙，三位一体停止成为三位一体，或道成肉身的神停止 成为道成肉身的神，一旦你做出这样的逻辑跳跃，那就干脆说你不相信三位一体。 So, when you say there's this three-hour gap where the Trinity stopped being the Trinity, or when the incarnate God stopped being the incarnate God, once you make that kind of logical leap, then just say you don't believe in the Trinity.
干脆否认三位一体，说我不再是基督徒，因为这就是你的立场。 Just deny the Trinity and say, I'm no longer a Christian, because that's where you're at.
因为这是最严重的错误。 Because that's as profound an error as it gets.
正如他刚才所说，如果你搞错了永恒的三位一体，那么你所有其他 的神学都建立在不稳固的基础上，因为这是一个基础性的真理。 As he just said, if you screw up the eternal Trinity, then all the rest of your theology is on really shaky ground, because this is a kind of priority truth.
从早期基督教就可以看出这一点；这是他们要确保每个人都正确理解的事。 You can know that just from looking at early Christianity; this was the thing they wanted to make sure everybody got right.
而他提出三位一体中存在隔阂的说法在神学上毫无意义，这是一个非常严重的错误。 And he's getting it wrong in a really profound way by suggesting an alienation in the Trinity that makes no theological sense.
这根本行不通，不可能行得通。 It just doesn't work; it can't work.
但我想继续讨论第三个问题：道德和法律问题。 But I want to go on to the third thing: these are the moral and legal problems.
这实际上是人们在批评刑罚替代性救赎或刑罚替代论问题时通常开始的地方。 This is actually where I find people usually start when they're complaining about the problems with penal substitutionary atonement or penal substitution.
这确实使神看起来更像一个非常强大的魔鬼，而不像神。 It certainly makes God out to look more like a very powerful demon than like God.
这似乎是一位以折磨无辜者为乐，却让有罪的人逍遥法外的神。 This is a God who seems to delight in torturing the innocent and letting the guilty go free.
这可能听起来像是讽刺漫画，但从外部来看确实是这样的。 And that may sound like a caricature, but that's certainly how it looks from the outside.
所以，让我们给约翰·麦克阿瑟一个机会来解释他认为有吸引力的地方。 So, let's give John MacArthur kind of a chance to explain what he sees as an appeal.
他要打一个比方，说明法官和法官为什么不能就这样让有罪的人走。 He's going to make this analogy about a judge and how a judge can't just let the guilty person go.
所以，我要先让麦克阿瑟说，然后我要回应为什么我认为这是一个虚假 的问题，以及为什么我认为他用灾难性的方式解决了这个虚假的问题。 So, I'm going to give MacArthur the first word, and then I'm going to kind of respond to why I think it's a fake problem and why I think he solved that fake problem in a kind of disastrous way.
法官和那个人来到你的法庭，他因各种他已认罪的罪行被起诉。 The judge and the guy comes into your court, and he has been indicted for all kinds of crimes to which he has confessed.
他对你说：'法官大人，我有罪。 And he says to you, 'I'm guilty, Your Honor.
这些事都是我做的。 I've done them all.
我是个杀人凶手。 I'm a mass murderer.
我杀了25个人。 I've killed 25 people.
我把他们都肢解了。 I've chopped them up.
我吃了其中几个，其余的埋在我的院子里。' I've eaten a few of them and buried the rest in my yard.'
我对这一切都感到内疚，现在我感觉很糟糕，我 为做过的事感到非常抱歉，我确实想要悔改。 I'm guilty of all of it, but I feel really bad now, and I'm so sorry I did that, and I do want to repent.
您能原谅我，让我走吗？ Would you please forgive me and let me go?
如果法官说，当然可以，我是个好人，我心里充满怜悯。 If the judge said, Sure, I'm a nice guy; I've got a lot of mercy in my heart.
你可以走了，那他就不再是法官了。 You're free to go, he wouldn't be a judge anymore.
法官的责任是什么？ What's a judge's responsibility?
维护什么？ Uphold what?
法律。 The law.
这就是他的责任。 That's his responsibility.
你不能那样做，你不能就这样让那个人走。 You can't do that; you can't just let that man go.
那将是不公正的。 That would be unjust.
所以，我之前提到我认为这是一个虚假的问题，我认为这是 虚假问题的原因是因为神不仅仅是某个巡回法庭的法官。 So, I mentioned before that I think this is a fake problem, and the reason I think it's a fake problem is because God isn't just some circuit court judge.
这是整个宇宙的神。 This is the God of the entire universe.
所以，把法律置于神之上实际上是在否定神的主权，因为主权者可以自由赦免违法的罪。 And so, to put the law above God is to actually make God not sovereign, because the sovereign can freely pardon offenses against the law.
这是一个非常关键的观念，不仅在神学上，在政治上也是如此，对吧？ That's a really critical idea, not just in theology but even in politics, right?
总统可以赦免，国王可以赦免，州长可以赦免州级犯罪。 The president can issue pardons; the king can issue pardons; a governor can issue pardons against state crimes.
我们看到本丢·彼拉多把巴拉巴和耶稣放在那里，问应该赦免哪一个。 We see Pontius Pilate putting Barabbas and Jesus up there, asking which of them he ought to pardon.
所以，不，一个施行赦免的君主并不会因此失去审判者的身份。 So, no, a sovereign who pardons isn't thrown out as a judge.
这完全符合君主的角色。 That's perfectly consistent with the role of a sovereign.
同样，法官也可以说，在这种情况下我们不会盲目遵 循法律，一个很好的例子就是对待一个悔改的罪犯。 Well, likewise, a judge can also say, We aren't going to just blindly follow the law in this case, and a good example of that is if you have a repentant criminal.
如果有人真心悔改，你不认为监禁对他们有任何好处。 If you have someone who's remorseful, you don't think prison time is actually going to do them any good.
所以，我要说的第一点是，不，神可以自由地赦免。 So, the first thing I'd say is, no, God freely can pardon.
现在，我们将看到神选择不仅仅是让我们不悔改就赦免我们所有的罪；祂选择了另一条路。 Now, we're going to see God chooses not just to let us go unrepentant, pardoned from all of our sins; He chooses another course.
阿奎那给出了几个祂选择这条路的原因，其中最重要的是这条路——道成肉 身和十字架的道路——更好地向我们显明了神的爱，也更符合人的尊严。 Aquinas gives several reasons why He chooses that course, not least of which is that this road—the road of the Incarnation and the Cross—better shows us God's love and is more in keeping with human dignity.
但认为祂必须这样做是因为祂受法律约束，这种想法是荒谬的，是离谱的。 But the idea that He had to do this because He was bound by the law is nonsensical; it's outrageous.
虽然罪是违背了我们对神的亏欠，但被冒犯的人总是可以自由地放过冒犯他的人。 And as much as sin is a violation of what we owe to God, well, the person violated is always free to let offenses go against them.
你知道，法官不能赦免他无权处理的事，法官可能 会说，我个人对此没有意见，但我受法律约束。 You know, a judge can't forgive something he doesn't have control over, and the judge may say, Well, I may have no personal problem with this, but I'm bound by the law.
这些都不适用于神，对吧？ None of that applies to God, right?
罪是违背了我们与神的关系，是违背了我们对神的亏欠。 Sin is a violation of our relationship with God; it's a violation of what we owe to God.
而神可以自由地说，我要放过这事，无论这罪多么严重。 And God could freely say, I'm going to let it go, no matter how grave the offense is.
所以，我要说的第一点是，他认为神必须惩罚某人否则就不是好法 官，这种说法误解了什么是法官，更深层地误解了什么是主权者。 So, the first thing I say here is that inasmuch as he argues, Oh no, He has to punish somebody or else He's not a good judge, that misunderstands what it is to be a judge, and it misunderstands even more profoundly what it is to be a sovereign.
神既是主权者也是审判者。 God is both sovereign and judge.
但现在，让我们更深入地思考他刚才说的话。 But now, let's think a little deeper about what he's just said.
好吧，你有这个可怕的食人杀人犯，他说他想被赦免，但法官不能就这样赦免他。 Well, you've got this horrible cannibal murderer, and he says he wants to be pardoned, but the judge can't just pardon him.
所以法官决定折磨和杀死另一个人？ So, the judge decides to torture and kill somebody else?
这怎么能算是解决问题的方法呢，对吧？ How is that a solution to the problem, right?
他要转而折磨和杀死一个无辜的人？ He's going to torture and kill an innocent person instead?
这当然毫无道理。 This, of course, makes no sense.
这行不通。 This does not work.
这样的惩罚是针对犯罪者个人的，你不能随意转移。 Punishment like this is personal to the offender; you can't just transfer it.
你不能说，你知道，史密斯犯了死罪，我们本要处 决他，但他死了，所以我们要杀他的邻居代替。 You can't just say, You know, Smith committed capital crimes, and we were going to execute him, but he died, and so we're going to kill his neighbor instead.
不，这行不通。 No, it doesn't work.
那将是不道德的、令人发指的、疯狂的，而且再说一 次，这更接近异教或邪魔的做法，而不是基督教的。 That would be immoral, outrageous, insane, and again, something closer to pagan or demonic than Christian.
认为良善慈爱的神——那位说'我就是爱'的神——充满愤怒到 要开始折磨一个无辜的人，祂自己的儿子，这在神学上说不通。 The idea that the good and loving God—the God who says, I am love—is so filled with wrath that He's going to start torturing an innocent person, His own Son, doesn't fit theologically.
这不仅仅是说，哦，这冒犯了现代人的感受；这就是刑罚替代论的捍卫者把它歪曲的方式。 It's not just that, oh, it offends modern sensibility; this is how it kind of gets caricatured by penal substitution defenders.
不，不，如果你对正义有任何了解，这根本不符合正义。 No, no, if you understand anything about justice, that makes no sense of justice.
你可以说神的公义高于我们的公义，但神的公义绝不会低于我们的公义。 You can say God's justice is higher than ours, but God's justice isn't lower than ours.
做这种事的人的行为甚至低于人类的公义标准。 A person who did this is acting in a way lower than even human justice.
所以，认为这在某种程度上符合并且是司法公义所要求的这种观点是行不通的。 So, that vision—that this is somehow consistent with and required by judicial justice—doesn't work.
在我看来，这不仅行不通，而且是在回应一个虚假的问题，它无视赦免的存在 ，反而制造了一个可怕的问题，就是想象神自由选择去折磨和杀害无辜者。 As I see it, more than it doesn't work, it's responding to a fake problem that just ignores that pardons exist by creating a monstrous problem, which is it imagines God choosing freely to torture and kill the innocent.
如果祂对自己的儿子都这样做，那么在最后的审判时，祂为什么 不能说，你们知道，我虽然应许给你们救恩，但我要改变主意折 磨和杀死你们所有人，因为在我的公义中，我就是这样做的？ And if He does that to His own Son, why couldn't He then, you know, take the Last Judgment and say, You know, I promised you guys salvation, but I'm going to torture and kill you all instead, because in my justice, that's just what I do?
所以，如果你相信一位完全不顾我们所理解的任何形式的公义的神 ，这实际上会破坏我们对神的良善和我们自己得救的任何信心。 So, it actually undermines any confidence we would have in the goodness of God or in our own salvation if you believe in a God who has no regard for what we would understand as justice in any way, shape, or form.
所以，不，神的公义并不要求这样。 And so, no, God's justice does not demand this.
这是人的发明，它误解了法官，误解了君主，也以 一种深刻的、坦白说是令人震惊的方式误解了神。 This is a human invention that misunderstands judges, misunderstands sovereigns, and misunderstands God in a profound and frankly scandalous kind of way.
现在，史普罗实际上看到了这里的一些问题，并试图绕过这些问题。 Now, R.C. Sproul actually sees some of the problems here and tries to work around them.
所以，我要给你——因为他设想了一个假设情况，说，好吧，你不会让一个 母亲来代替，但随后他试图找出原因，比如，也许对神来说是不一样的。 So, I'm going to give you the—because he creates a hypothetical and says, Well, you wouldn't have a mom step in, but then he tries to figure out how, like, well, maybe it's different for God.
我让你来判断他为这种明显的荒谬所作的辩解是否有任何分量。 And I'll let you decide if you think there's any weight involved to his kind of excuse out of this apparent monstrosity.
为什么神惩罚耶稣承担我们的罪是公义的，而人类法官做类似的事却是如此不公义？ Why is God just to punish Jesus for our sins when doing a similar thing would be so unjust for a human judge to do?
这是个很好的问题。 Very good question.
当耶稣死的时候，祂说，父啊，时候到了，愿你荣耀你的儿子，也愿你的儿子荣耀你。 When Jesus died, He said, Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son and glorify Yourself.
父回答说，我已经荣耀了我的名，还要再荣耀。 And the Father came back and said, I have glorified My name, and I will glorify it again.
理解耶稣在神的愤怒下替代性的死的方式是，祂 这样做是为了荣耀并彰显神的荣耀的无限价值。 The way to understand Jesus' substitutionary death under God's wrath is that He is doing it in such a way as to glorify and magnify the infinite worth of the glory of God.
神的荣耀被我们这样的人践踏了。 God's glory has been trampled by people like us.
每当我们选择其他事物而不是神的荣耀时，我们就贬低了神的荣耀，我们每天都在这样做。 Every time we prefer something to the glory of God, we demean the glory of God, and we do it every day.
既然祂的荣耀被诋毁和轻视，祂就必须通过惩罚罪 人来高举祂的荣耀，说，我的荣耀是无限宝贵的。 Since His glory has been impugned and belittled, He has to exalt His glory by punishing sinners and saying, My glory is infinitely valuable.
如果你践踏我的荣耀，你就失去荣耀，我通过你失去荣耀来恢复我的荣耀。 If you trample My glory, you lose glory, and I restore My glory by your losing glory.
耶稣进入其中，祂能做任何人都做不到的事。 Jesus enters in, and He is able to do what no human could do.
这就是为什么有区别；在法庭上没有人能做到这一点。 This is why there's a difference; no human ever could do this in a court of law.
祂如此完美，祂受了如此多的苦，祂的动机如此向着神，以至于 当祂死在十字架上时，所显明的是，看神的荣耀是多么宝贵。 He is so perfect, and He suffers so much, and His motives are so Godward that when He dies on the Cross, what is manifest is, Look how valuable the glory of God is.
如果一个母亲在法庭上站出来说，让我代替我的儿子吧 ，请让我代替我的儿子，我们都知道这将是不公正的。 If a mom stepped forward in a courtroom and said, Let me take my son's place; let me take my son's place, please, we all know that would be unjust.
她去坐电椅，而这个儿子继续犯更多的罪。 She goes to the electric chair, and this son goes on to sin more.
好吧，有两个区别：她这样做不是为了彰显国家的价值， 而是为了彰显她儿子的价值，这不是十字架上发生的事。 Well, the two differences are: she's not doing that to magnify the worth of the state; she's doing it to magnify the worth of her son, and that's not what's happening at the Cross.
第二点是，她释放了一个未经改变的儿子到世界上去继续犯罪。 And number two, she's freeing the son untransformed to go into the world and sin some more.
这正是耶稣之死的两个不同之处。 Those are the very two things that are different about the death of Jesus.
耶稣死不是为了彰显罪人的价值而是为了彰显神 的价值，祂死了并改变那些从地狱里逃脱的人。 Jesus dies not to magnify the sinner's worth but to magnify God's worth, and He dies and changes those who escape from hell.
他不是仅仅让更多的罪在世上泛滥。 He doesn't just release more sin upon the world.
他将圣灵放在我们生命中，开始将我们转变成基督的 形象，使我们比留在罪中时为父带来更多的荣耀。 He puts the Holy Spirit in our lives and begins to transform us into the image of Christ so that we bring more glory to the Father than if we had been left in our sin.
所以，正如我所说，我觉得这不令人信服。 So, as I said, I don't find that convincing.
我实际上不明白这些区别有什么意义。 I don't actually understand how any of those distinctions would matter.
哦，这是为了国家的利益，或是为了法律的利益。 Oh, it's for the good of the state, or it's for the good of the law.
这些都不能成为折磨或惩罚无辜者的理由。 None of that would let you torture the innocent or punish the innocent in this way.
所以，我认为史普罗实际上并没有解决这个问题。 So, I don't think Sproul actually resolves the problem.
但他意识到这一点是好的；他认识到，嘿，我们阐述的神学似乎是不道德的，这是好的。 But it's good that he recognizes it; it's good that he's recognizing, Hey, the theology we're articulating appears to be immoral.
我们阐述的神学似乎把神变成了一个道德怪物，而不是圣经中所呈现的良善的神。 The theology we're articulating appears to make God a moral monster and not the good God that's presented in the Bible.
我认为他解决得不好，但至少他认识到在这个表 述中我们似乎把正义的概念搞错了，这是好的。 I think he resolves it badly, but it's good that he at least recognizes something about justice seems like we've gotten it screwed up in this presentation.
所以，我现在要继续讨论下一个问题，这是我对这种神学的 六个问题中的第四个，就是它似乎要求基督永远被定罪。 So, I'm going to move on now to the next problem, the fourth of the six problems I have with this theology, which is that it seems to require Christ's eternal damnation.
现在，我要说这里有分歧；你知道，我提到刑罚替代论有很多不同形式，有些实际 上支持这点，有些则不支持。有些人认为基督下地狱，有些人认为基督不下地狱。 Now, I will say there's a division; you know, I mentioned there are a bunch of different forms of penal substitution, and some actually argue for this and some don't. Some argue that Christ goes to hell, or Christ doesn't go to hell.
约翰·麦克阿瑟认为基督没有下地狱，但他并不真正理解为什么或这怎么说得通。 John MacArthur argues that Christ doesn't go to hell, but he doesn't really understand the why or how that kind of makes sense.
问题是这样的：如果你说基督承受我们的罪的刑罚，好吧，我们的罪的刑罚是什么？ The problem is this: if you say Christ suffers our penalties for sin, okay, what's our penalty for sin?
永远与神隔绝和在地狱中永远被定罪。 Eternal separation from God and eternal damnation in hell.
对于既是神又是人的那一位来说，永远与神隔绝是说不通 的，因为这样你就必须废除道成肉身并撕裂三位一体。 Eternal separation from God doesn't make sense for someone who is both God and man, because you'd have to undo the Incarnation and tear apart the Trinity.
但永远的定罪同样说不通，对吧？ But eternal damnation makes no more sense, right?
但如果你相信基督承担我们罪的后果，你就必须相 信这点，因为我们罪的后果就是永远与神隔绝。 But that is what you'd have to believe if you believe that Christ bears our consequences for the sins, because our consequences for the sins are eternal separation from God.
所以，这是麦克阿瑟试图解释为什么他能绕过这个问题，然后我要给 你看另一位改革宗神学家，他的前辈加尔文，认为这是行不通的。 So, here's MacArthur trying to explain why he can kind of work around this, and then I'm going to give you some other Reformed theologian, his predecessor John Calvin, who thinks that doesn't work.
但先看麦克阿瑟的说法：在十字架上，神将所有将要 信的人的所有罪的所有愤怒都倾倒在祂儿子身上。 But here's MacArthur first: On the Cross, God poured out on His Son all the wrath for all the sins of all the people who would ever believe.
所有将要信的人的所有罪的所有审判都倾倒在基督身上。 All the judgment for all the sins of all the people who would ever believe was poured out on Christ.
你说，等一下。 You say, Wait a minute.
当我分析十字架时，这实际上只发生在三个小时内。 As I analyzed the Cross, there really were only three hours when this took place.
这一切都发生在三个小时内。 All of that took place in three hours.
人类历史上的罪人怎么可能下地狱呢？ How is it possible that the sinners of human history will go to hell?
而且永永远远在地狱里，所有在地狱里的人永远都无法偿还他们的罪。 And be in hell forever and ever, and all of them in hell forever will never pay the price for their sins.
但基督却能在三个小时内完全偿还所有将要信的人的所有罪。 But Christ can pay the price in full for all the sins of all who would ever believe in three hours.
我能给你的唯一答案是因为祂是无限的位格；祂有无限的能力承受那审判。 And the only answer I can give you is because He is an infinite person; He has an infinite capacity to absorb that judgment.
所以，关于这点有几件事让我感到震惊。 So, a couple of things are striking to me about that.
首先，把耶稣基本上看作只是承受神愤怒的容器，这真的是对耶稣基督的位格的冒犯。 First, the vision of Jesus basically as just a receptacle for divine wrath is really offensive to the person of Jesus Christ.
当然，这也真的是对父神的冒犯。 And I mean, of course, really offensive to God the Father.
但这完全偏离了我们在圣经中所看到的耶稣的牺牲，那是出于对父的爱的极其个人的行动。 But it totally stands apart from the way we see Jesus' sacrifice, which is intensely personal, out of love for the Father, as described in Scripture.
现在，你可能会想，请记住，我现在还没有阐述十 字架的正面观点；那是我接下来要做的第二部分。 Now, you may be like, at this point, bear in mind I'm not laying out a positive vision of the Cross yet; that's the second half of what I'm going to do here.
现在，我只是在说这是一种流行的十字架观，它以一种无法理解三位一体、基督论、神 的良善的方式把事情弄得非常危险和严重错误，而且它甚至无法遵循自己的逻辑结论。 Right now, I'm just saying this is a popular vision of the Cross that gets things really dangerously and profoundly wrong in a way that cannot make sense of the Trinity, of Christology, of the goodness of God, and that it doesn't even follow its own logical conclusions.
因为你看到了这个——这是我要说的第二组三点。 Because you've got this—this is my second three-point set I was going to make.
麦克阿瑟说，那么，这怎么能在三小时内完成呢？ MacArthur saying, Well, how could this work in three hours?
他说，嗯，祂是神性位格；祂是永恒的。 And he says, Well, He's a divine person; He's eternal.
但这实际上说不通，对吧？ But that doesn't really make sense, right?
在地狱中永恒的概念并不是说我们在地狱中度过永恒就把一切都还清了。 The notion of eternity in hell isn't that we spend eternity in hell and then we've paid it all off.
神是永恒的；地狱不是永恒的；它是无尽的。 God is eternal; hell is not eternal; it's unending.
这两个词的意思不一样。 Those two words don't mean the same thing.
我知道我们用它们的方式是一样的。 I know we use them the same way.
那么，说基督在三小时内完成这事然后就结束了，这是什么意思？ And so, what does it mean to say Christ does this in three hours and then no longer?
无论如何，他认识到他的体系中另一个明显的缺 陷是好的，因为这怎么可能在三小时内完成呢？ In any case, it's good that he recognizes another apparent shortcoming in his system, because how would this work in three hours?
这看起来不像是在承担我们罪的后果。 That doesn't look like it's bearing the consequences for our sins.
我们罪的后果不仅仅是身体的死亡，不仅仅是今生与神隔绝，还包括死后永远与神隔绝。 Our consequences of sin are not just bodily death; they're not just alienation from God in this life; they're also eternal separation from God after we die.
约翰·加尔文认识到这一点，他敢于涉足麦克阿瑟不敢涉足的领域。 Well, John Calvin recognizes this, and Calvin goes where MacArthur fears to tread.
他在注释信经时说，除了信经之外，我们必须寻求基督 降入阴间的确切解释，因为使徒信经说基督降入阴间。 He is commenting on the creed, and he says, Apart from the creed, we must seek for a sure exposition of Christ's descent to hell, because the Apostles' Creed said Christ descends into hell.
顺便说一下，使徒信经中的阴间并不是指永罚的阴间，但加尔文似乎并不理解这一点。 Now, the Apostles' Creed, as an aside, does not mean the hell of damnation, but Calvin does not seem to understand this.
他说，如果基督只承受了肉体的死亡，那就等于什么都没做。 He says, Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death.
所以，你刚才听到约翰·麦克阿瑟说，足够了，在十字架上三个小时承担了全部重担。 So, you just heard John MacArthur saying, Good enough, three hours on the Cross; that bears the full weight.
而在刑罚替代模式中，基本上发明了刑罚替代论的加尔文说，不，这行不通，这还不够。 And in a penal substitutionary model, Calvin, who basically invents penal substitution, says, No, that doesn't work; that's not going to be good enough.
如果基督只承受了肉体的死亡，那就等于什么都没做。 Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death.
然后他接着说，因此，说祂降入阴间并不奇怪， 因为祂承受了愤怒的神加在恶人身上的死亡。 Then he goes on to say, Therefore, there's nothing strange in being said that He descended to hell, seeing He endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God.
那么愤怒的神加在恶人身上的死亡是什么？ And what is the death inflicted on the wicked by an angry God?
根据加尔文的说法，就是神把祂送到阴间。 According to Calvin, that God sends Him to hell.
所以，刑罚替代论似乎要求基督被定罪下阴间。 So, penal substitution seems like it requires Christ's damnation to hell.
你明白为什么这是个问题吗？ Do you see why that's a problem?
你明白为什么这是一个非常严重的基督论、神学和道德问题吗？ Do you see why this is a very serious Christological, theological, and moral problem?
首先说神在阴间里——因为要这么说，你就必须说神在阴间里；神把神送到阴间。 To say, first, that God is in hell—because to say that, you'd have to say God is in hell; God sends God to hell.
在那种情况下，在阴间里是什么意思呢？ What does it even mean to be in hell at that point?
这是像冯·巴尔塔萨这样的人的回应：如果你说神去受苦的阴 间，那么也许永恒的救恩就是结果，因为怎么还会有阴间呢？ This is the response of people like von Balthasar: Well, if you say God goes to the hell of suffering, then maybe eternal salvation is the result, because how could there still be hell?
如果神已经去了那里，怎么还会有与神永远的隔绝呢？ How could there still be eternal separation from God if God just went there?
所以，这实际上是错误的地狱神学；这似乎会导向普救论。 So, it's actually the bad theology of hell; it would seem like it would lead to universalism.
而且，是的，这简直是可怕的，在逻辑上也说不通。 It also, yeah, it's just monstrous, and it just doesn't make any logical sense.
所以，你有人说，是的，耶稣在十字架上用三个小时完成 了这事，或者祂在那三个小时加上圣周六完成了这事。 And so, you've got people who say, Yes, Jesus did it in three hours on the Cross, or He did it in those three hours plus Holy Saturday.
但然后在圣周六，祂在阴间里。 But then on Holy Saturday, He was in hell.
但从逻辑上看，如果你真的要接受刑罚替代论并说基督承担了我们的刑罚 ，那么你就必须说耶稣——不，祂不是在天上登基；祂永远在阴间里。 But it seems, again logically, like if you really want to accept penal substitution and say Christ bore our penalties, then you have to say Jesus—no, He's not enthroned in heaven; He's in hell for all eternity.
因为否则，祂就没有承担我们的后果，因为我们犯罪的后果，你知道， 就是与神永远隔绝和在阴间永远受折磨，这个问题没有任何解决方式。 Because otherwise, He's not bearing our consequences, because the consequences of us sinning, you know, without any kind of resolution of that problem of eternal separation from God and eternal torment in hell.
而这实际上不是任何相信刑罚替代论的人认为耶稣所 在的地方，所以他们实际上并没有解决他们的问题。 And that's not actually where anyone who believes in penal substitution thinks Jesus is, so they don't actually resolve their problem.
感谢神，我并不是在说他们中的任何人认为耶稣仍在阴间里。 I'm not arguing that any of them think Jesus is still in hell, thanks be to God.
我是在说，正因为如此，他们实际上都不认为耶稣承担了罪的全部后果。 I'm arguing that because of that, none of them actually think Jesus bears the full consequence of sin.
只有当这是你的十字架模式时，这才是个问题。 That's only a problem if this is your model of the Cross.
有一个更好的模式不会有这个问题，但我们稍后会讲到。 There's a better model that this wouldn't be a problem in, but we'll get to that.
好的，但接下来我想讨论第五个问题，这个问题相对较小。 Okay, but next I want to go to the fifth problem, which is comparatively small.
看，我的意思是，考虑到我们刚才讨论的内容，最后两 个问题相比之下可能显得较小，但它们仍然很重要。 Look, I mean, given the stuff we've just talked about, the last two might seem smaller in comparison, but they're still important.
第五个问题是基督的祭司职分被摧毁了。 The fifth problem is that Christ's priesthood is destroyed.
所以，记住我们刚才听到的用词：神在处决他的儿子；神把他的愤怒倾倒在他的儿子身上。 So, remember the language we've just heard: that God is executing His Son; God is pouring out His wrath on His Son.
所有这些——我是说，当我说神在处决他的儿子时，这确实是麦克阿瑟的用词。 All of this stuff—I mean, literally, when I say God is executing His Son, that is MacArthur's language.
他说当神为了我们所有的罪处决耶稣时，基督在十字架上呼喊。 He says that Christ cries out on the Cross when God was executing Jesus for all of our sins.
现在，这既似乎使耶稣不是神，也使献祭的祭司变成了圣父而不是圣子。 Now, that both seems to make Jesus not God, but also makes the priest of the sacrifice the Father and not the Son.
为什么这是个问题？ Why is that a problem?
这是个问题，因为圣经说的恰恰相反。 Well, it's a problem because Scripture says the opposite.
圣经说耶稣是我们的大祭司。 It says Jesus is our great high priest.
所以，正如我们将要看到的，有一个更好的十字 架模式，在其中耶稣是向圣父献祭的那一位。 And so, as we're going to see, there is a better model of the Cross in which Jesus is the one offering the sacrifice to the Father.
但在刑罚替代论中，情况并非如此。 But in penal substitution, that's not the case.
耶稣只是牺牲品；他是承载神愤怒的器皿。 Jesus is simply the victim; He's the vessel of divine wrath.
圣父是献祭的祭司。 God the Father is the priest of the sacrifice.
而且这常常以非常深刻的方式被那些为之辩护的人明确地表达出来。 And this is often, in really profound sorts of ways, presented quite explicitly by the people defending it.
所以，约翰·麦克阿瑟实际上有一本书详细阐述这点，恰如其分地称为《耶稣的谋杀》。 So, John MacArthur actually has a book where he lays this out, called fittingly enough, The Murder of Jesus.
他似乎在论证父神是那个谋杀者。 He seems to argue that God the Father is the murderer.
现在，他不认为这是谋杀，但他认为父神是献祭的祭司。 Now, he doesn't think it's murder, but he thinks that God the Father is the priest of the sacrifice.
现在，让我们说几句关于献祭的话，因为我们通常不使用祭司职分或献祭的语言。 Now, just a couple of words on sacrifice here, because we often don't use the language of priesthood or sacrifice.
为了确保你理解，献祭的人被称为祭司。 Just to make sure you're understanding, the person who offers a sacrifice is called a priest.
祭司就是献祭的人。 What a priest is, is one who offers sacrifice.
因此，你不能把献祭和祭司职分分开理解；它们是相关的术语。 And so, you can't understand sacrifice and priesthood apart from each other; they're correlative terms.
祭司就是献祭者。 A priest is a sacrificer.
如果你经常听这个播客，你会知道我一直在说这个，但 这是因为我认为人们没有理解的一个非常重要的观点。 If you listen to this podcast regularly, I say this all the time, but it's because there is a really important point that I think people don't get.
当我们说基督是我们的祭司时，我们的意思是他 是献祭的那一位，他献上自己作为完美的祭物。 When we talk about Christ as our priest, we mean He's the one who offers the sacrifice, and He offers the perfect sacrifice of Himself.
但在这个模式中，是父神在献祭。 But in this model, the Father is the one offering the sacrifice.
所以，这是约翰·派博。 So, here's John Piper.
现在，我没有这个的视频；这只是一个音频片段，他在其中用相当明确 的语言描述这个，描述父神基本上在谋杀耶稣，父神是献祭的祭司。 Now, I don't have a video for this; this is just an audio clip in which he talks about this in pretty explicit terms, describing the Father basically murdering Jesus, the Father being the priest of the sacrifice.
现在，再说一次，这在阿兹特克模式中很合适，在那里 祭司抓一个无辜的祭品，折磨和杀死他们，然后献上。 Now, again, this works really nicely in like an Aztec model, where the priest takes an innocent victim and tortures and kills them and then offers that up.
那是一种献祭，但不是基督教的献祭，在基督教的献祭中，是耶稣献上自己。 That is a sacrifice that is not the Christian sacrifice, in which Jesus offers Himself.
但这是派博的描述：顺便说一下，我不知道这是不是他在说话，但我知道这些话是他写的。 But here's Piper's description: I don't know if this is him speaking, by the way, but I know he wrote these words.
我不知道是不是他在说这些话：就像亚伯拉罕举刀对着他儿子以撒的胸膛， 但因为灌木丛中有一只公羊就饶了他儿子一样，父神举刀对着他自己的儿子 耶稣的胸膛，但没有饶了他，因为他就是那只公羊，他就是那个替代品。 I don't know if he's the one saying them or not: Just as Abraham lifted the knife over the chest of his son Isaac but then spared his son because there was a ram in the thicket, so God the Father lifted His knife over the chest of His own Son, Jesus, but did not spare Him because He was the ram; He was the substitute.
好的，我要提出的六个问题中的最后一个是最后的晚餐变成多余的。 All right, and so the final of the six problems I want to raise is that the Last Supper is rendered superfluous.
再说一次，这最后两个问题当然看起来比我提出的前四个反对意见小，这很公平。 And again, these last two certainly look smaller than the first four objections that I raised, and fair enough.
我不想从小事开始；我想从大事开始。 I didn't want to start with the tiny stuff; I want to start with the big stuff.
但如果你理解献祭背后的神学，它们真的很重要。 But they're really important if you understand the theology behind the sacrifice.
这里重要的方面之一是最后的晚餐显然是耶稣在准备的事情。 One of the important aspects here is the Last Supper is something Jesus is clearly preparing for.
他切切地想要与使徒们分享这顿饭；他告诉他们所有这些。 He's eagerly desired to share this meal with the apostles; He tells them all that.
但为什么最后的晚餐很重要却不清楚。 But it's not clear why it's important that the Last Supper happens.
为什么它在他被处决前的晚上发生很重要也不清楚。 It's not clear why it's important that it happens the night before He's executed.
你知道，你可以说这是一个很好的告别；你可以说这是 一个很好的纪念；这是对十字架的一个很好的记念。 You know, you could just say it's a nice send-off; you could say it's a nice memorial; it's a nice remembrance of the Cross.
但你会注意到，在这些人阐述的神学中，没有任何东西 解释最后的晚餐和十字架之间有什么有机的统一性。 But you'll notice there's nothing in the theology any of these guys are laying out that explains how there's any organic unity between the Last Supper and the Cross.
这是个问题，因为早期基督徒看到了这种统一性。 And that's a problem, because the early Christians saw there was a unity.
从圣周四到复活节主日这段时期被称为三日节期。 This period from Holy Thursday to Easter Sunday is called Triduum, with three days.
在计算三天三夜的时候，耶稣似乎认为一切都从最后的晚餐开始，而且最后的晚餐真的很重 要：周四晚上，周五白天，周五晚上，周六白天，周六晚上，然后是复活节主日的早晨。 And with the numbering, the measure of the three days and three nights, Jesus seems to have in mind that everything begins with the Last Supper and that the Last Supper is really important: Thursday night, Friday day, Friday night, Saturday day, Saturday night, and then the morning of Easter Sunday.
这就是你的三天三夜。 Those are your three days and your three nights.
如果你没有这个，你就真的没有三天。 If you don't have that, you don't really have the three days.
你就没有三日节期。 You don't have the Triduum.
奇怪的是，一些新教徒注意到了这一点，想出了一些奇怪的解决办法。 And strangely, some Protestants have noticed this and come up with some weird workarounds.
所以，詹姆斯·道布森博士——我记得小时候听过；我相信是他。 So, Dr. James Dobson—I remember as a kid listening; I believe it was him.
是新教电台上的某个人。 It was someone on the Protestant radio station.
如果这不是道布森，我道歉；我想是道布森博士——他建议最后的晚餐可 能更早，比如星期二，或者基督可能是在星期三之类的时候被处决的。 If this wasn't Dobson, I apologize; I think it was Dr. Dobson—suggested maybe the Last Supper was earlier, like Tuesday, or maybe Christ was executed on like a Wednesday or something.
他试图弄清楚怎么从这里得出三天？ He was trying to figure out how do you get three days out of this?
答案是因为最后的晚餐与受难节密切相连。 And the answer is because the Last Supper is intimately connected to Good Friday.
如果你理解献祭，当耶稣是献祭的祭司时，这就说得通了。 If you understand the sacrifice, this makes sense if Jesus is the priest of the sacrifice.
但如果不是这样，如果这仅仅是关于耶稣是牺牲品而已 ，那么你就切断了最后的晚餐和受难节之间的联系。 But if that's not the case, if this is just about Jesus being the victim and that's it, then you've now severed the connection between the Last Supper and Good Friday.
好了，关于这点说得够多了。 Okay, so enough about that.
这就是为什么我不喜欢这整个体系，而且我确实用这些异教的术语来描述它。 That is why I don't like all of that system, and I did describe it in these pagan terms.
你可能会说这似乎说得太重了。 You might say that seems really strong.
好吧，对此，我只想说耶稣在约翰福音中似乎用更强烈的词来描述它。 Well, to that, I would just say Jesus seems to depict it in even stronger terms in the Gospel of John.
在约翰福音第8章，耶稣说，你们是出于你们的父魔鬼，你们父的私欲你们偏要行。 In John chapter 8, Jesus says, You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires.
他从起初是杀人的，不守真理，因为他心里没有真理。 He was a murderer from the beginning and has nothing to do with the truth because there is no truth in him.
他说谎是出于自己的本性，因他本来是说谎的，也是说谎之人的父。 When he speaks, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
我将真理告诉你们，你们却不信我。 Because I tell you the truth, you do not believe me.
你们中间谁能指证我有罪呢？ Which of you convicts me of sin?
我既然将真理告诉你们，为什么不信我呢？ If I tell you the truth, why do you not believe me?
耶稣展示了这场在祂和那些试图定祂有罪的人之间的宇宙性争战，那些试图让祂 承担这些后果的人，祂将这描述为邪魔的作为，是那杀人和说谎之人的工作。 That Jesus presents this cosmic battle between Him and those who would attempt to convict Him of sin, those who would attempt to make Him bear those kinds of consequences, and He presents that as demonic, as the work of the devil, who is a murderer and a liar.
因为，看，把耶稣说成是对人类历史上所有罪都有罪，这是在编造一个故意的虚构。 Because, look, to present Jesus as guilty of all the sins throughout all of human history is to present an intentional fiction.
这是虚假的；这是把神变成说谎者和杀人者。 It's a falsehood; it's to make God a liar and a murderer.
这是把神变得更像撒但。 It's to make God into something more like Satan.
这是耶稣在约翰福音第8章的见证：不，你们不能定祂有罪；祂是无罪的。 That's Jesus' testimony in John 8: No, you don't convict Him of sin; He is without sin.
祂是无瑕疵的羔羊。 He is the Lamb without blemish.
这实际上是使基督的牺牲如此美丽和有价值的原因。 And that's actually what makes the sacrifice of Christ so beautiful and so worthwhile.
那么，有什么积极的观点呢？ So, with that, what's a positive vision?
在阐述十字架的积极观点时，也许首先要说的是会有一些相同的元素。 In laying out a positive vision of the Cross, maybe the first thing to say is that there are going to be some elements that are the same.
比如说，在某种意义上我们可以说神恨恶罪。 So, for instance, there is a sense in which we can say God hates sin.
神对罪有愤怒——而不是对罪人。 There's a wrath of God for sin—not for sinners.
祂显然爱罪人；祂来是要拯救罪人。 He clearly loves sinners; He comes to save sinners.
但祂恨恶罪，恨恶罪的原因是因为罪使我们与祂隔绝。 But He has a hatred of sin, and the reason for the hatred of sin is because sin separates us from Him.
它使我们在一个真实而深刻的意义上不配在祂面前。 It makes us unworthy to be in His presence in a real and profound way.
因为祂爱我们，所以祂恨恶那些扭曲和损害我们的事物。 And because He loves us, He hates those things that distort and mangle us.
所以，我们要保留神对罪有愤怒这个要素——不 是把神变成道德怪物，而是真正反映神的良善。 So, we want to preserve the element that there is a divine wrath for sin—not in making God a moral monster, but really reflecting the goodness of God.
不是那种'哦，我太纯洁了，我太好了'的良善，而是祂爱我们、关心我们的那种良善。 Not goodness like, Oh, I'm just too pure; I'm too good for this, but goodness like He loves us and He cares for us.
因此，任何与我们的益处相违背的事——任何伤害我们与祂、与自己或与他人关系的事— —祂都会恨恶，就像父母恨恶看到他们的孩子做出真正有害、破坏性的生活决定一样。 And so, anything that's contrary to our good—anything that hurts our relationship with Him or with ourselves or with one another—He's going to hate that, in the same way a parent hates watching their kids make really damaging, destructive life decisions.
但不仅如此，我们还要保留基督把我们的罪担在自 己身上，或祂除去我们的罪，或类似这样的含义。 But more than that, we want to preserve also that there is this sense in which Christ takes our sins upon Himself, or He takes our sins away, or there's some sense of that.
这在圣经中有清楚的记载。 And this is clearly spoken to in the Scriptures.
第三，我们要在两个体系中都保留的第三件事是这确实是一个献祭。 And third, the third thing we want to keep in both systems is this real sense that this is a sacrifice.
但关键的区别是：这是一个自愿的自我牺牲。 But the critical difference is this: this is a voluntary self-sacrifice.
这不像阿兹特克人的献祭。 This is not like the sacrifices that the Aztecs had.
你知道，阿兹特克人不需要你同意就做开胸手术；他们就是要把你的心挖出来。 You know, the Aztecs didn't need your consent to do open-heart surgery; they were just going to rip your heart out.
在那些情况下，正如我们刚才所看到的，受害者根本不需要合作或同意。 The victim in those cases, as we've just seen, has no need for their cooperation or their consent at all.
他们不需要相信阿兹特克宗教；他们根本不需要参与。 They don't have to believe in the Aztec religion; they don't have to be participants at all.
所以，我们不要一个看起来像那样的十字架模式， 因为那既不忠于神的良善，也不忠于圣经的见证。 And so, we don't want a model of the Cross that looks like that, because that is not faithful either to the goodness of God or to the scriptural testimony.
相反，对十字架的正确理解是基督献上自己。 Instead, a proper understanding of the Cross is one in which Christ gives Himself.
他是祭司也是祭品，但作为祭品，他不是父神愤怒的牺牲品。 He is the priest and the victim, but in being the victim, He's not the victim of the Father's wrath.
相反，他使自己顺服于所有邪恶势力，包括这个世 界的和黑暗势力的，他让它们尽其所能地作恶。 Rather, He submits Himself to all the forces of evil, both in this world and the forces of darkness, and He lets them do their worst.
他们最坏的所作所为就是加略山；他们最坏的就是钉死他，而他得胜了。 The worst they can do is Calvary; the worst they can do is crucify Him, and He triumphs.
这种自我牺牲的行为比世界上所有其他事物加起来都更有价值。 This act of self-sacrifice is worth more than everything else in the world combined.
想想看：电影中经常出现有人为他人挡子弹的情节。 So think of it: there's this common movie trope of the person throwing themselves in front of the bullet.
这种情节反复出现是有原因的，因为其中有些东西在很深的人性层面上打动我们。 This is a trope for a reason, because something in that appeals to us at a very visceral kind of human level.
但这种行为最深刻的展现——我们在电影院看到的最重大的例子——甚至不是在银幕上。 But the most profound demonstration of this—the biggest instance of this we've seen in a theater—wasn't even on screen.
2012年，在科罗拉多州奥罗拉市发生了那起臭名昭著的电影院枪击案。 In 2012, in Aurora, Colorado, there was the infamous movie theater shooting.
枪手闯入开始向电影院射击，当时有四个不同的男人：亚历克斯·特雷维斯、马特·麦 奎因、约翰·布伦克和约翰·拉里默——他们为自己的女朋友或约会对象挡住了子弹。 Gunmen came in and started shooting up the theater, and there were four different men there: Alex Trevis, Matt McQuinn, John Blunk, and John Larimer—who threw themselves in front of bullets for their girlfriends or for their dates.
这是令人难以置信的爱的行为。 That is an incredible act of love.
你可以看着这事说：「人为朋友舍命，人的爱心没有比这个大的。」 You can look at that and say, No greater love has man than this, than to lay down his life for his friends.
这就是自我牺牲，这正是我们在新约中所看到的那种献祭。 That is self-sacrifice, and that is very explicitly the kind of sacrifice that we're dealing with in the New Testament.
耶稣完全献上自己；他为我们舍命。 Jesus is giving Himself totally; He's laying His life down for us.
正是这种自我牺牲的行为使一切都变得有价值。 And it's that act of self-sacrifice that makes it all worthwhile.
那四个人，以及我们所有人，都可以看着这事说，多么深刻的爱啊。 Those four men, and all of us by extension, can look at that and say, What profound love.
这不是... And it's not...
我们需要这四个人死来平息我们的愤怒，或者我们需要——没有这样的事；那是可怕的。 We need these four men to die to avenge our wrath, or we need—there's nothing like that; that's monstrous.
而是那个愿意为他人这样做的人在行动上展示了爱的深度，不仅仅是在言语上。 It's rather the person willing to do this for someone else who is demonstrating a profundity of love in action, not just in words.
这是关键；这是十字架的关键。 That's the key; that's the key to the Cross.
圣托马斯·阿奎那在《神学大全》中是这样说的：当一个人为冒犯提供的东 西，是被冒犯者同样喜爱或比他憎恨那冒犯更喜爱的，这才是适当的赎罪。 St. Thomas Aquinas puts it like this in the Summa: He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally or even more than he detested the offense.
现在，我们可以很简单地想这个问题，对吧？ Now, we can think of this really simply, right?
比如说，如果我三岁的女儿从她一岁的弟弟那里拿走一 个玩具，她现在就有智慧很快试图给他另一个玩具。 Like if my three-year-old takes a toy from her one-year-old brother, she has the wisdom even now to quickly try to give him another toy.
如果他同样喜欢或更喜欢那个新玩具，就没问题了；一切都好。 And if he likes the other toy just as much or better, no problem; everything is okay.
他不会生她的气；这就是赎罪。 He's not upset with her; there's atonement.
他们和好了，这就是赎罪的意思。 They are at one, which is what atonement means.
所以，没有不和；没有冲突。 So, there's no disunity; there's no conflict.
她能够通过给他一个他更想要的东西来避免或解决冲突。 She's able to avoid the conflict or resolve it by giving him something that he wants even more.
因此，阿奎那说，基督出于爱和顺服而受苦，给 予神的比补偿整个人类的罪所需要的还要多。 And so, Aquinas says, By suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race.
所以想想我们所有的罪加在一起的重量。 So think about the weight of all of our sins put together.
阿奎那说，是的，耶稣给予父的——这种自我牺牲的 爱的行为——比你们所有的罪加起来都更有价值。 Aquinas says, Yeah, what Jesus gives the Father—this act of self-sacrificial love—means more than all of your sins combined.
这就是十字架的工作方式。 That's how the Cross works.
现在，注意这里有一个有趣的特点：这不是等于；这是多于。 Now, notice there's an interesting feature here: this is not equal to; this is more than.
在刑罚替代模式中，基督承担我们的罪的刑罚，你在追求一种平等。 In the penal substitution model, where Christ bears our penalty for sin, there's a certain equality that you're striving for.
这是我们所欠的，所以父要从他的儿子身上取出那一磅肉。 This is how much we owed, and so the Father is going to take that pound of flesh out of His Son.
他要折磨耶稣这么长时间，来弥补他本应折磨我们的时间。 He's going to torture Jesus for this much time to make up for the amount of time He would have tortured us.
尽管在十字架上三个小时为什么是合适的数量这一点 说不通，但阿奎那会说这甚至不是我们要寻找的。 And despite the fact that it doesn't make a ton of sense why three hours on the Cross is the right quantity for that, Aquinas would say that's not even what we're looking for.
新约的模式不是耶稣只给最低限度的应得。 The New Testament model isn't that Jesus gives the bare minimum due.
不，新约的模式是耶稣给予更多——无限地更多——在罪增多的地方，恩典就更加增多。 No, the New Testament model is that Jesus gives more—infinitely more—that where sin abounded, grace abounds all the more.
基督的自我牺牲是过度的；这不仅仅等于我们所有的罪；这比我们所有的罪都更大。 There's an excessiveness to Christ's self-sacrifice; this is not just equal to all of our sins; this is greater than all of our sins.
他会说这在几个方面是真实的：首先，因为他受苦时所显出的极大的爱；其次，因为他 整个生命的尊贵，他的整个生命都是自我牺牲和对父的顺服；第三，因为受苦的程度。 And he's going to say this is true in a couple of ways: first, because of His exceeding charity from which He suffered; second, on account of the dignity of His entire life, and that His whole life is a life of self-sacrifice and of obedience to the Father; and third, on the extent of the sufferings.
所以，你有极大的爱，你有终身的顺服和爱，你有极度的苦难。 So, you've got the extreme charity, you've got the lifelong obedience and love, and you've got the extreme kind of suffering.
因此他说基督的受难不仅足够，而且是为人类的罪所作的超额赎罪。 And so he says Christ's passion was not only sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race.
然后他引用约翰一书2:2，说他为我们的罪作了挽 回祭，不是单为我们的罪，也是为普天下人的罪。 Then he quotes 1 John 2:2, that He is a propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
这实际上因为很多原因都很重要。 This is actually a really important thing for a lot of reasons.
我们不会深入讨论，但我一直引用的那些人认为耶 稣的十字架只延伸到选民，这是有限救赎的观点。 We're not going to get into it, but the same guys I've been quoting from think that Jesus' Cross only extends to the elect, and this is a view of limited atonement.
所以，这是一个很小的十字架，而阿奎那说，不，它更大；它要大得多得多。 So, it's a very small Cross, and Aquinas is saying, Nope, it's bigger; it's much, much bigger.
而且圣经甚至说它为全世界更大。 And Scripture even speaks of it being much bigger for the whole world.
不仅如此，恩典是在十字架上为我们赢得的。 And more than that, graces are won for us on the Cross.
这里有一整套神学，表明这不仅仅是支付最低限度的代价。 There's a whole theology here that this is not just paying the bare minimum out.
所以，希望你能看到表面上有一些相似之处，但这是一个重大的区别。 So, hopefully, you can see how there are some surface-level similarities, but this is a major difference.
这是自我牺牲。 It's self-sacrifice.
在这里，圣父不是恶人；他不是道德怪物。 Here, the Father is not the villain; He's not a moral monster.
相反，圣父因他的儿子而喜悦，因为他的儿子在做一件极其美丽、仁慈和无私的事。 The Father, instead, is pleased with His Son because His Son is doing something tremendously and profoundly beautiful and charitable and selfless.
他过着完美的生活。 He is living the perfect life.
所以，阿奎那实际上要论证这解释了另一个问题。 And so, Aquinas is actually going to argue this explains another problem.
记得我早些时候说过，那么，为什么神不直接赦免我们的罪呢？ Remember earlier I said, Well, why doesn't God just forgive our sins?
你知道，君主可以不需要任何其他条件就赦免罪，他可以直接说，嗯，不用担心。 You know, the king can pardon sins without any further problem; he could just say, Eh, don't worry about it.
他可以对罪不以为意，但他没有这样做。 He can shrug off the sin, but He doesn't do that.
为什么不呢？ Why not?
阿奎那给出了五个原因。 Aquinas gives five reasons.
他说，第一，这样我们就能知道神多么爱我们，从而被激励去回报他的爱。 He says, first, so that we can know how much God loves us and thereby be stirred to love Him in return.
这是人类救恩的完全——不仅仅是，哦，我要避 免下地狱，而是我真正爱神，并且效法基督。 This is the perfection of human salvation—not just, Oh, I'm going to avoid hell, but I actually love God, and I'm conformed to Christ.
所以他引用罗马书5:8：惟有基督在我们还作罪 人的时候为我们死，神的爱就在此向我们显明了。 And so he quotes Romans 5:8: That God commendeth His charity toward us, for when as yet we were sinners, Christ died for us.
就是说，神通过这个向我们显明他的爱。 That is, God is showing us His love through this.
现在，注意在刑罚替代模式中，圣父如何向我们显明爱是不清楚的。 Now, notice in the penal substitution model it is not clear how God the Father is showing us love.
看起来他是在向我们显明他的愤怒——一种被误导的愤怒，以至于他将它加在无辜者身上。 It looks like He's showing us His wrath—a wrath so misguided that He'll place it on the innocent.
但阿奎那说，不，在这个观点中，神差遣耶稣来展示对我们的爱，这种爱令我们 惊叹不已，真正向我们显明了神的爱——神并没有在我们犯罪时就抛弃我们。 But Aquinas is saying, No, in this view, God sends Jesus to demonstrate love for us of a kind that really takes our breath away, that actually shows us something of divine love—that God doesn't just abandon us in our sin.
第二，这给我们树立了顺服、谦卑、坚定、公义等品格的榜样。 Second, that this gives us a model of obedience, humility, constancy, justice, and the like.
这里阿奎那引用彼得前书2:21：基督也为你们受 过苦，给你们留下榜样，叫你们跟随他的脚踪行。 And here Aquinas quotes 1 Peter 2:21: Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow in His steps.
现在，我们要稍微讨论一下这点，但这是一个重要的细节，因 为在刑罚替代模式中，似乎基督受苦是为了让我不用受苦。 Now, we're going to cover this in a little bit, but this is an important detail because in the penal substitution model it seems that Christ suffered so I don't have to.
但如果你读新约的任何内容，你会发现它不断地说，背起你的十字架。 But if you read anything in the New Testament, you realize that it's constantly, Take up your cross.
基督受苦了，现在轮到你了。 Christ suffered, and now it's your turn.
这在刑罚替代模式中说不通，但如果基督在行完美的自我牺牲，然后邀请我们以我们 不完美的自我牺牲来配合，而这些都是他用恩典赐能力给我们的，这就说得通了。 And that doesn't make sense in the penal substitution model, but it does if Christ is performing the perfect act of self-sacrifice and then inviting us to cooperate with our own imperfect acts of self-sacrifice, which He empowers by His grace.
第三，基督通过他的受难确实把我们从罪中拯救出来 ，但他也为我们赚得了称义的恩典和福乐的荣耀。 Third, Christ, by His passion, delivers us from sin, sure, but He also merits justifying grace for us and the glory of bliss.
这不仅仅是避免下地狱；他为我们赚得了天上的荣耀。 It's more than just the avoidance of hell; He is meriting for us glory in heaven.
因为你可以想象，好吧，罪债已经还清了，但这 并不意味着我们自动就赚得了天上的永恒荣耀。 Because you can imagine, okay, well, the debt of sin is paid, but there's no reason we thereby automatically earn eternal glory in heaven.
而且如果我们确实赚得了天上的永恒荣耀，我们享受什么程度，或者我们在什么层次？ And if we do earn eternal glory in heaven, what level do we enjoy, or what tier are we at?
这些在刑罚替代模式中都说不通。 None of that makes a ton of sense from the penal substitution model.
但如果基督付出的超过所需，你就能看到这种超额的付出意味着 我们不仅避免下地狱，而且通过他的功德，实际上赚得了天堂。 But if Christ is paying over and above, you can see how that excessive payment means that not only do we avoid hell, but we're actually meriting, through His merits, heaven.
第四，作为阻止我们犯罪的方式，这里他引用圣保罗在哥林多前书6 :20的话：你们是重价买来的，所以要在你们的身子上荣耀神。 Fourth, as a way of discouraging us from sin, and here he quotes St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:20: You were bought with a great price; glorify and bear God in your body.
第五——这是我真正想要关注的，因为这关系到人更大 的尊严——这个想法很简单：罪是因人进入世界的。 And fifth—and this is what I want to actually focus on because it redounds to man's greater dignity—the idea is really simple: sin comes into the world because of man.
亚当和夏娃自由选择犯罪；他们被魔鬼胜过和欺骗。 Adam and Eve freely choose to sin; they were overcome and deceived by the devil.
神决定不抛弃我们而要拯救我们。 And God decides that He's going to not abandon us but save us.
很好，对吧？ Good, right?
我们已经讲过这点了。 We've already covered that.
但他不只是不顾我们而拯救我们；他要通过我们来拯救我们。 But He's not just going to save us in spite of us; He's going to save us through us.
这意味着神的儿子成为我们中的一员；他成为真正的人。 Meaning that God the Son becomes one of us; He becomes a true man.
这是一个非常重要的细节，因为你可以想象他说，好吧，人类 把一切都搞砸了，所以这是救恩计划，我们要绕过人类来做。 This is a really important detail because you can imagine Him saying, Okay, humans screw up everything, so here's this plan of salvation, and we're going to work around humans.
我们有办法完成这个，我们要为他们做这事，但我们不 会让他们参与任何部分，因为他们碰什么就搞砸什么。 There's some way we can accomplish this, and we're going to do it for them, but we're not going to let them have any part in it at all because everything they touch, they screw up.
但相反，他让我们成为胜利的一部分。 But instead, He allows us to be part of the victory.
所以这里阿奎那引用圣保罗在哥林多前书15章的 话：感谢神，使我们借着我们的主耶稣基督得胜。 And so here Aquinas quotes St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15: Thanks be to God who has given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
他已经给了我们胜利；他让我们成为获胜队伍的一部分。 That He's given us the victory; He's let us be part of the winning team.
所以我认为团队的比喻很好。 And so the team imagery, I think, is a good one.
你可以想象一个团队得到了一个了不起的球员。 You can imagine a team acquiring an amazing player.
我是酋长队的球迷；我们有马霍姆斯，所以我们知道对团队的其他成员来说— —你知道，他们可能很好，可能不太好——被真正的伟大带动是什么感觉。 I mean, I'm a Chiefs fan; we've got Mahomes, so we know what it's like for other members of the team—they're, you know, maybe good, maybe not good—to be carried along by true greatness.
这里也有类似的情况：基督加入人类团队，然后成为全明星，实际上是完美的球员。 There's something like that here: that Christ joins the human team and then is an all-star, and in fact, is the perfect player.
他完美地完成这一切，因为我们与他联合，我们 是他团队的一部分；他的胜利就是我们的胜利。 He performs this perfectly, and so because we've been united to Him, we're part of His team; His victory is our victory.
这就是这个想法。 That's the idea.
所以，注意这实际上解决了我们甚至没有谈到的刑罚替代论的另一个问题。 So, notice this actually solves another problem that we didn't even talk about with penal substitution.
基督的功德如何应用到我们身上并不清楚。 It's not clear how Christ's merits get applied to us.
比如，这种替代性的赎罪是如何实现的？ Like, how is this substitutionary atonement being made?
如何实现？为什么？ How and why?
这整个调换是以什么方式发生的？ And in what way does this whole switcheroo happen?
因为记住，刑罚替代模式是建立在一个谎言之上的。 Because remember, the penal substitution model is built on a lie.
它建立在一个叫做归算的谎言上——就是神宣告无辜的耶稣有罪，又宣告有罪的我们无辜。 It's built on a lie called imputation—that God declares Jesus, who is innocent, guilty, and declares us, who are guilty, innocent.
现在，这可能听起来像是恶意的曲解，所以我要引用约翰·麦克阿瑟 的话，让他自己来说：他过着完全无罪的生活；这被记在你的账上。 Now, that might sound like a mean mischaracterization, so I'm going to quote John MacArthur or let him actually speak on it for himself: He lived a complete sinless life; that is credited to your account.
在十字架上，神看着基督，看到的是你。 On the Cross, God looked at Christ and saw you.
现在他看着你，看到的是基督。 Now He looks at you and sees Christ.
你的罪归算给他，他的义归算给你。 Your sin imputed to Him, His righteousness imputed to you.
现在，重要的是要知道，这种意义上的归算是16世纪的一个新观念。 Now, it's important to know that imputation, in this sense, is a novel idea in the 16th century.
加尔文主义历史学家阿利斯特·麦格拉思承认这一点。 Alistair McGrath, the Calvinist historian, acknowledges this.
他说这与之前的一切都不连续，他称之为神学新创——16世纪的新事物。 He says it's in discontinuity with everything that's come before it, and he calls it a theological novum—a novelty of the 16th century.
神宣告无辜的有罪，有罪的无辜这种法律观念——这就是改革宗的新观点。 This legal idea that God declares the innocent guilty and the guilty innocent—that's what's new to the Reformation.
神接纳不敬虔的人，拯救他们，使他们成为敬虔——这是旧观点。 The idea that God takes the ungodly and saves them and makes them godly—that's the old view.
但当神宣告我们为义时，他实际上是使我们成为义的。 But when God declares us righteous, He actually makes us righteous.
我在天主教解答的同事特伦特·霍恩对此有一个很好的例子。 Trent Horn, my colleague at Catholic Answers, had a really good example of this.
他说，当神说'要有光'的时候，不是继续保持黑暗，然后只是贴上'光'的标签。 He said, When God says, 'Let there be light,' it doesn't just continue to be dark and then they just put the label 'light' on it.
同样，归算模式就是神把有罪和无辜的标签贴在错误的人身上，这是一个谎言。 Well, likewise, the imputational model is just God putting the label guilty and innocent on the wrong people, and that's a lie.
我的意思是，这和把男人叫做女人或把女人叫做男人没有什么不同。 I mean, it'd be no different than calling a man a woman or a woman a man.
显然，我们永远不会那样做，但那就是这种想法。 We would never do that, obviously, but that's the idea.
你不能仅仅给某人错误的标签就把它作为你的神学，但这就是归算的运作方式。 You can't just mislabel somebody and have that be your theology, but that is how imputation works.
所以，注意这不是阿奎那的十字架模式的运作方式。 So, notice that's not how Aquinas' model of the Cross works.
这不是历史上基督教十字架模式的运作方式；这不是天主教理解十字架的方式。 This is not how the historic Christian model of the Cross works; this is not how Catholics understand the Cross.
这是非自愿的自我牺牲。 It's involuntary self-sacrifice.
这不是给耶稣和罪人贴错标签。 It's not, Let's mislabel Jesus and sinners.
不，不，耶稣是真实地加入人类团队——不仅仅是在他身上贴上人的标签。 No, no, Jesus actually joins the human team truly—not just having the label man slapped on Him.
他真实地成为人。 He actually becomes man.
道成了肉身。 The Word became flesh.
所以我们实际上可以说是一个人向神献上了完美的祭。 And so we can actually say a man offered the perfect sacrifice to God.
是的，人犯了罪；是的，我们一路走来历史很坎坷。 That yes, man sinned; yes, we have a pretty bumpy history along the way.
但是，看看这一位真正伟大的人活出的生命，这一切都是真实的。 But also, look at this one really great man who lived, and all of that's true.
因着道成肉身，这不是谎言，这救赎了人类。 It's not a lie because of the Incarnation, and that redeems the human race.
尽管我们做了那么多糟糕的事，我们有这一位光辉灿烂的人——这位亚当的后裔，马利亚的 儿子——他做了人类历史上最伟大的事，不仅是人类历史，而是所有历史中最伟大的事。 That for all of the lousy stuff we do, we've got this one bright shining man—this Son of Adam, this Son of Mary—who does the greatest thing in human history, the greatest thing in all of history, not just human history.
这比任何天使所做的事都更有价值，比任何其他人所做的事都更有价值。 That is worth more than anything any angel's ever done, worth more than anything any other man has ever done.
这就是我们的救赎。 That is our redemption.
这就是这个观念，这是一个自愿的自我牺牲行为。 That's the idea, and it's this voluntary act of self-sacrifice.
所以希望这说得通，希望你能看到它如何保留了刑罚替代模式所追求 的所有东西——我认为这些追求是合理的，你知道，确保我们意识到 神不喜欢罪等等——但它做到这一点的同时没有把神变成道德怪物。 So hopefully that makes sense, and hopefully you can see how it preserves all of the things that the penal substitution model is trying for—and I think reasonably trying for, you know, making sure we realize God doesn't like sin and all that—but it does so without making God a moral monster.
它以一种更忠于圣经的方式做到这一点，我认为阿奎那是对的。 It does so in a way that's more faithful to Scripture, and I think Aquinas is correct.
当你听到这些时，很难理解为什么有人会选择刑罚替代模 式而不是之前的模式，因为后者似乎有一些明显的优势。 When you hear it, it's hard to see why one would prefer the penal substitution model over the model that came before, because it seems like there are some obvious advantages.
让我们探讨一下这些优势。 Let's explore a few of those advantages.
好的，首先，它使圣经中的债务语言变得有意义。 Okay, so first of all, it makes sense of the debt language in Scripture.
现在，这是一个微妙但可能很重要的细节。 Now, this is a subtle detail but maybe an important one.
记住那个例子，哦，你不能就这样惩罚一个无辜的人，但如果是为了法律的荣耀， 也许你可以，还有你之前从史普罗和麦克阿瑟那里听到的所有这些奇怪的东西。 Remember the example of, Oh, you can't just punish an innocent person, but maybe you could if it was for the glory of the law and all this weird stuff that you heard from Sproul and MacArthur earlier.
好吧，这一切都是假设罪的司法层面是类似于监禁或死刑之类的东西。 Well, all of that is presupposing that the judicial dimension of sin is something like a jail term or capital punishment or something like that.
但这实际上不是圣经用来描述它的语言。 But that's not actually the language Scripture uses to describe it.
相反，圣经使用债务的语言。 Instead, Scripture uses the language of a debt.
为什么这很重要？ And why does that matter?
因为你可以偿还别人的债务，当你这样做时你并不 是在受惩罚；你是在自愿选择减轻别人的惩罚。 Because you can pay somebody else's debt, and you're not being punished when you do that; you're voluntarily choosing to alleviate someone else's punishment.
对吧？ Right?
所以如果你的邻居遇到了法律问题，比如欠了停车罚单之类的，你可以说，好的，我来付。 So if your neighbor gets into some trouble with the law and they owe a parking ticket or something, you can say, Yeah, I'll pay that.
你不能代替他们坐牢，但你可以为他们付罚款；你可以还债。 You can't serve a prison sentence for them, but you can pay a fine for them; you can pay a debt.
所以注意这很明显，但圣经用债务的语言来说这事是很重要的。 And so notice this is pretty obvious, but it's pretty significant that Scripture speaks of this in debt language.
所以在马太福音18章，彼得来到耶稣面前说，主啊，我弟兄得罪我，我当饶恕他几次？ And so you have in Matthew 18, Peter comes up to Jesus and says, Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him?
到七次可以吗？ As many as seven times?
耶稣说，不是到七次，乃是到七十个七次，或其他版本说七十七次。 Jesus says, Not seven, but seventy times seven, or other variations, seventy times seventy.
他接着说，下一节：天国好比一个王要和他仆人算账。 And He says, Therefore, this is the next verse: the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants.
有一个仆人欠王一万他连得，他无力偿还。 And so one of the servants owes the king ten thousand talents, and he can't pay.
他就俯伏拜他，说，主啊，宽容我，我都要还清。 So he falls on his knees and says, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.
耶稣说，那仆人的主人就动了慈心，把他释放了，并且免了他的债。 And Jesus says, Out of pity for him, the lord of that servant released him and forgave him the debt.
现在注意，王可以这样做。 Now notice there, the king can do that.
他没有说，然后王因为没有执行法律，而法律不知怎的比王 还高，就被赶出去——你知道，他不能再做法官或国王了。 He doesn't say, And then the king, because he didn't serve the law, which was somehow higher than the king, was bounced out of—you know, he could no longer be a judge or a king.
不，这些都没有发生。 No, none of that happened.
史普罗和麦克阿瑟这些人在这点上完全错了。 Sproul and MacArthur and these guys are totally wrong about that.
不，王可以自由地赦免，但他自由赦免的是债务。 No, the king can freely forgive, but what he's freely forgiving is a debt.
现在，在这个例子中，那个被免了大额债务的人不 肯免他邻舍的小额债务，所以他被带回到王面前。 Now, in this case, the man who's forgiven the large amount doesn't forgive his neighbor a small amount, and so he's brought back to the king.
王收回赦免，说，你这恶奴才！ The king unforgives him and says, You wicked servant!
你求我，我就免了你的债，你不应当怜恤你的同伴，像我怜恤你吗？ I forgave you all that debt because you besought me, and should you not have had mercy on your fellow servant as I had mercy on you?
主人就大怒，把他交给掌刑的，等他还清了所有的债。 In anger, his lord delivered him to the jailers till he should pay all his debt.
你们各人若不从心里饶恕你的弟兄，我天父也要这样待你们。 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.
这是一段非常关键的经文，解释了救恩和罪得赦免是如何运作的，因为这正是耶稣所说的。 This is a pretty critical passage to explain how salvation works and how forgiveness of sins works, because this is exactly what Jesus is speaking about.
这就像一笔债务，而且是我们无法偿还的债务。 It's like a debt, and it's a debt we cannot pay off.
耶稣能偿还它；他也能自由地赦免它。 Jesus can pay it off; He can also freely forgive it.
如果这要发生，他也期望我们饶恕他人。 He also expects us to forgive others if this is going to happen.
所以我要进一步解释，因为我认为这很清楚。 So I'm going to unpack it more than that because I think it's pretty clear.
想想这个模式——你知道，唯独因信，你无条件 地称义——你实际上不需要饶恕别人欠你的债。 Think about whether the model— you know, sola fide, where you're unconditionally justified—you don't actually have to forgive others their debts to you.
你知道，这怎么能符合'免我们的债，如同我们免了人的债'？ You know, how does that fit with Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors?
这怎么能符合马太福音18章？这怎么能符合这整个模式？ How does that fit with Matthew 18? How does that fit with this entire model?
但因为这里的重点是十字架的功效，我的观点很简单： 罪在这里被比作债务，而基督可以超额偿还这个债务。 But because the focus here is on the efficacy of the Cross, my point is really simple: that sin is being compared here to a debt, and Christ can overpay that debt.
你知道，如果你在酒吧欠了100美元的账单，而你 的朋友进来说，这是500美元，他们可以这样做。 You know, if you run up a $100 bar tab or something and your friend goes in and says, Here's $500, they can do that.
他们可以多付，他们被允许这样做。 They can overpay; they're allowed to do that.
这不是说，我需要惩罚你的朋友。 It's not, I need to punish your friend.
不，完全不是那样。 No, it's not that at all.
但他们可以说：「嘿，我想把事情做对，这是给你添麻烦的补偿，对吧？」 But they could say, Hey, I want to make things right; here's something for your troubles, right?
这里有一种超额的丰富。 There's a superabundance to it.
好的，第二，阿奎那描述的模式能更好地解释旧约的献祭。 Okay, second, the model that Aquinas describes makes better sense of Old Testament sacrifices.
现在，我这样说是什么意思？ Now, what do I mean by that?
改革宗人士不理解旧约的献祭，他们想象它们的运作方式类似于阿兹特克的献祭，但 事实并非如此。旧约的献祭有其特殊的神学含义，大多数基督徒都不了解这一点。 The Reformers don't understand Old Testament sacrifices; they're imagining that they work something like the Aztec sacrifices do, and they just don't. Old Testament sacrifices have a particular kind of theology to them that most Christians are unaware of.
我给你举一个例子。 I'm going to give you just one example.
在出埃及记24章，有立约之律法的开始。 In Exodus 24, there's the inauguration of the first law of the covenant.
所以当希伯来书谈到这个，当它谈到若不流血，罪就不得赦免时，它指 向这段经文，并明确地将这段经文与最后的晚餐和十字架联系起来。 So when Hebrews talks about this, when it talks about how without the shedding of blood there's no forgiveness of sins, it points to this passage and connects it pretty explicitly between this passage and then the Last Supper and the Cross.
所以在出埃及记24章，摩西清早起来，筑了一座坛，并召集以色列人。 So in Exodus 24, Moses gets up early, builds an altar, and he brings Israel together.
他们向耶和华献平安祭，就是牛。 They sacrifice peace offerings of oxen to the Lord.
然后摩西将一半血洒在坛上。 Then Moses took half of the blood and he throws it on the altar.
之后，他拿约书念给百姓听，他们说：「耶和华所说的，我们都必遵行，也必顺从。」 After that, he takes the Book of the Covenant, reads it to the people, and they say, All the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.
然后他把另一半血洒在百姓身上，说：「看哪，这是立 约的血，是耶和华按这一切话与你们立约的凭据。」 Then he takes the other half of the blood and throws it on the people, saying, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.
现在，这种用语应该让人想起最后的晚餐——「看哪，这是立约 的血」的用语——因为这与耶稣在最后晚餐时说的话非常相似。 Now, that language should recall the Last Supper—the behold the blood of the covenant language—because this is very similar to what Jesus says at the Last Supper.
所以我们应该问：这到底是怎么回事？ And so we should be asking, What on earth is going on here?
为什么摩西要把血洒在人身上和坛上？ Why is Moses flinging blood on people and on the altar?
长期以来，许多新教神学家认为这是一种威胁——他把血洒在 他们身上，是在说：「如果你们不这样做，你们就会死。」 For a long time, many Protestant theologians had a vision that it was a threat—that he's putting the blood on them, saying, If you don't do this, you will die.
这样理解的问题是，那么，为什么他要把血洒在坛上呢？ And the problem with that is, well, then why would he put blood on the altar?
因此，旧约学者G．辛顿·戴维斯解释说，这是一种误解。 And so, G. Hinton Davies, who’s an Old Testament scholar, explains that this misunderstands it.
实际上，这是在分享生命，而不是死亡；就所涉及的事情而言，神和人这两个伙 伴是结合和联合的——就是在给予和接受主的话语，以及被宰杀的动物的血。 That actually, this is a sharing in life, not in death; that both partners, divine and human, are joined and united so far as the matter in hand is concerned—the giving and accepting of the words of the Lord and the blood of the animals which have been slaughtered.
所以，在给予和接受主的律法时，百姓作为合同的伙伴彼此对立：你做这个，我做那个。 So, in giving and accepting the law of the Lord, the people stand over and against each other as contracting partners: You do this, I do that.
在血的仪式中，他们现在成为有机地相关并联合。 In the blood ritual, they now become organically related and become united.
他说这是立约关系的圣事性赎罪——就是在血中的分享。 He says this is the sacramental atonement of the covenant relationship—that there's a sharing in the blood.
所以，如果你想要一个清晰的形象来理解这是什么样子，如果你曾经有过结 拜兄弟的经历——这总是一个奇怪的例子——但就像你是个孩子，和某人是 朋友，你们说：「我割破我的手，你割破你的手，我们把血混在一起。」 So, if you want a really clear image of what this looks like, if you ever were like blood brothers—this is always a weird example—but like you're a kid and you're friends with somebody, and you're like, I'll cut my hand, you cut your hand, we'll put the blood together.
如果你从未听说过这个，觉得我是个疯子，相信我，其他人也这样做过。 If you've never heard of this and you think I'm a crazy person, trust me, other people have done this.
我的意思是，我可能是个疯子，但不是因为这个。 I mean, I might be a crazy person, but not for this.
这不是威胁；你不是在说，要么和我做朋友，要么我就杀了你。 That's not a threat; you're not saying, Be friends with me or I'll murder you.
不，这是对血是圣洁的、血就是生命的认识。 No, there's this recognition that blood is sacred, that blood is life.
所以，在这种分享中，你是在分享你最深层的部分。 And so, in sharing in this, you're sharing in the deepest part of yourself.
你通过血来表达一些你用其他方式无法表达的东西。 You're expressing through blood something that you really couldn't express any other way.
你可以往手上吐口水然后握手，但那感觉完全不一样。 You can spit on your hands and shake, but it just isn't the same.
可以说，血真的说明了一些发自内心的东西——这里是双关语。 That blood really speaks to something visceral, so to speak—pun intended there.
利17章也谈到这一点。它说：肉体的生命是在血中。 And Scripture speaks to this in Leviticus 17. It says, The life of the flesh is in the blood.
这就是为什么犹太人不能吃动物的血，因为那就像是与动物的共融。 This is why the Jews couldn't eat animal blood, because it was like a communion with the animal.
所以，他说：肉体的生命是在血中，我把这血赐给你们在 坛上，为你们的生命赎罪，因血里有生命，所以能赎罪。 And so, He says, The life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life.
以色列的献祭制度不是关于一个嗜血的神，一个只想要死亡、死亡、死亡的神。 The sacrificial system in Israel is not about a bloodthirsty God who just wants death, death, death.
不，血是生命的象征；这是他圣洁的表达。 No, the blood is an image of life; it's His sacred expression.
既然神和人在立约，神不能就割破他的手腕然后和人的手握在一起。 And since God and man are forming a covenant, God can't just cut His wrist and then put it to man's hand and shake on it.
所以你取一只动物，把一半血洒在坛上，代表神的那一 半，把另一半血洒在百姓身上，代表他们的那一半。 And so you take an animal, and you put half the blood on the altar, representing God's half, and half the blood on the people, representing their half.
这是在血中的分享。 It's a sharing in the blood.
我说神不能就割破他的手，但在道成肉身中，他可以，对吧？ I said God can't just cut His hands, but in the Incarnation, He can, right?
就像当耶稣成为人时，他现在有能流血的手，而且在十字架上确实流血了。 Like when Jesus becomes man, now He has hands that can bleed, and they do on the Cross.
所以你在基督里看到所有这些流血祭的应验。 And so you have the fulfillment of all of these bloody sacrifices in Christ.
但再说一次，这不是关于一个嗜血的神。 But again, it's not about a bloodthirsty God.
这就像与耶稣基督结为血兄弟。 This is like being blood brothers with Jesus Christ.
我们通过共同的人性在某种意义上已经与他共享血脉；现在我们 以一种更深刻的方式分享，他能把血洒在坛上也洒在百姓身上。 We already shared in the blood with Him in one sense through common humanity; we now share in a much more profound sense that He can put the blood both on the altar and on the people.
这就是这个想法——这里面有一些非常深刻的东西。 That's the idea—that there's something really profound about this.
如果你理解旧约的献祭制度，那么你就能看到这个模式——耶稣自愿把自 己献给神，自由地舍弃他的生命——这不是关于耶稣成为愤怒的对象。 If you understand the Old Testament sacrificial system, then you can see that this model—Jesus voluntarily giving Himself to God, laying down His life freely—this is not about Jesus being the object of wrath.
这是关于耶稣是完美的人和神。 This is about Jesus being the perfect man and God.
这引出第三个优点，就是父明显对子的牺牲感到喜悦。 That leads to the third advantage, which is that the Father is clearly pleased with the Son's sacrifice.
这似乎应该是一个明显的细节，但当所有这些刑罚替代的说法 设想父转离子并背弃子时，这严重忽视和扭曲了圣经的记载。 This feels like it should be an obvious detail, but when all of these accounts of penal substitution envision the Father turning away from the Son and turning His back on the Son, this ignores and screws up the biblical account pretty profoundly.
所以我给你举一个经常被误用的经文例子。 So I'll give you one example of a passage that gets misused pretty regularly.
在哥林多后书5章，我们被告知要作基督的使者，与神和好，保罗说 ，神使那无罪的，替我们成为罪，好叫我们在他里面成为神的义。 In 2 Corinthians 5, we're told to be ambassadors for Christ, to be reconciled to God, and Paul says, For our sake, He made Him to be sin (hamartia), who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.
你可以想象，改革宗神学家对这段经文大做文章。 As you might imagine, Reformed theologians have a field day with this passage.
但有一个问题：说耶稣成为罪——这实际上不是他们所相信的，对吧？ But there's a problem: to say that Jesus becomes sin—that's not actually what they believe, right?
比如，他们相信耶稣被当作有史以来最有罪的人对待，但他们不认为他真的是罪。 Like, they believe Jesus is treated as the most sinful man who ever lived, but they don't think He’s actually sin.
所以即使在改革宗的观点中，这种刑罚替代的观点中，也不清楚如何理解这段经文 ，因为他们不认为基督成为罪人，或者基督虽然不是罪人，却被当作罪人对待。 And so even in the Reformed vision, the kind of penal substitution vision, it's not clear how you make sense of this passage because they don't think Christ became a sinner or that Christ, although not a sinner, was treated as a sinner.
不，经文说他成为罪。 No, it says He became sin.
那么这里到底是怎么回事？ So what is going on here?
好消息是，这是有解释的，但和上一点一样，你必须对旧约有所了解。 Well, good news, there's an explanation, but as with the last point, you have to know something about the Old Testament.
你必须了解一些犹太人的制度，犹太人的背景。 You have to know something about the Jewish system, the Jewish background.
换句话说，你必须像一世纪的犹太人那样阅读这段经文，而不是像16世纪的新教徒那样。 In other words, you have to read this like a first-century Jew and not like a 16th-century Protestant.
一世纪的犹太人会知道希伯来语中'罪'这个词有双重含义；它既表示罪，也表示赎罪祭。 The first-century Jew would know that the word for sin in Hebrew has a double meaning; it means both sin and sin offering.
我是个书呆子；这被称为自反义词或对立词。 I'm a nerd; this is called an autoantonym or a contronym.
我喜欢这些东西！ I love these things!
所以，就像'cleave'可以表示分开，也可以表示结合。 So, like cleave can mean either to separate or to join together.
你与妻子结合；你们联合在一起。 You cleave to your wife; you join together.
你给蛋糕撒粉；你是在添加粉。 You dust a cake; you're adding dust.
你打扫房间；你是在除去灰尘。 You dust the room; you remove dust.
这些词，根据上下文，可能表示一件事或完全相反的事。 These words, depending on the context, could mean one thing or the polar opposite.
监督可以表示你在看管某事，也可以表示你没有看管某事。 Oversight could mean you're watching something or you're not watching something.
哦，这是个疏忽。 Oh, it was an oversight.
不，没有疏忽因为我有很好的监督。 No, there wasn't an oversight because I had good oversight.
这些词必须在上下文中才能说得通。 Those kinds of things contextually have to make sense.
为什么这很重要？ Why does that matter?
因为hamartia是用来翻译旧约中既表示罪又表示赎罪祭的希伯来词的希腊词。 Because hamartia is the Greek word used to translate the Hebrew word for both sin and sin offering in the Old Testament.
所以在新约的希伯来书中，当它提到赎罪祭时，用的 是perihamartias——仅仅表示为罪。 And so in Hebrews, for instance, in the New Testament, when it refers to sin offerings, this is perihamartias—just for sins.
实际上没有'祭'这个词，但我们知道它实际上不是 在说把罪献给神；而是在说为罪所献的祭物献给神。 There's no actual word for offerings, but we know it's not actually talking about sins being offered to God; it's talking about offerings for sins being offered to God.
所以我们在英语中加上'祭'这个词使它说得通。 And so we add the word offerings in English to make it make sense.
为什么这很重要？ Why does it matter?
因为说基督成为hamartia，可能意味着基督成为罪。 Because in saying that Christ becomes hamartia, it could mean that Christ becomes sin.
这说不通，但它可能有这个意思。 That doesn't make sense, but it could mean that.
它也可能意味着——从上下文来看显然是这个意思 ——基督成为我们的赎罪祭，他是为罪献上的祭。 It could also mean—and contextually clearly does mean—that Christ becomes our sin offering, that He is the sacrifice for sin.
为什么这很重要？ Why does that matter?
因为赎罪祭被视为至圣的；利未记6章是这么说的。 Well, because the offering for sin was treated as most holy; Leviticus 6 says that.
所以赎罪祭不是主厌恶的东西。 And so the offering for sin isn't something the Lord is disgusted by.
他不会看着赎罪祭说，哦，这让我想起罪。 He doesn't look at the offering for sin and say, Oh, that reminds me of sin.
哦，我对此感到恐惧；我必须转离它。 Oh, I'm horrified by that; I have to turn away from it.
不，完全相反。 No, it's completely the opposite of that.
它被描述为馨香之气。 It's described as a fragrant odor.
所以，父对子的牺牲感到喜悦，我们在约翰福音10章中很明确地看到这一点。 So, the Father is pleased with the Son's sacrifice, and we see this in John 10 very explicitly.
耶稣说，注意父不是在谋杀我；这是一个使父喜悦的自愿的自我牺牲。 Jesus says, Notice that the Father’s not just murdering me; this is a voluntary self-sacrifice that makes the Father happy.
我有权柄舍弃生命，也有权柄取回来。 I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.
这是我从我父所受的命令。 This charge I have received from my Father.
因此，他说，我父爱我，不是恨我，不是将他的愤怒倾倒在我身上——而是爱我。 For this reason, He says, My Father loves me, not hates me, not pours out His wrath on me—loves me.
在十字架上，持刑罚替代论的神学家喜欢指出耶 稣呼喊说：我的神，我的神，为什么离弃我？ On the Cross, theologians who are of the penal substitution variety like to point to Jesus crying out, My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?
他们忽略了紧接着耶稣说的话：父啊，我将我的灵魂交在你手里。 And they miss the very next line where Jesus says, Father, into Your hands I commend my spirit.
即使他经历着所有被遗弃的情感，他知道他实际上并没有被遗弃。 That even as He's experiencing all the emotions of abandonment, He knows He's not actually abandoned.
他引用的诗篇中，诗人是被证明是对的。 And He's quoting a psalm in which the psalmist is vindicated.
他引用的诗篇中，诗人看到有人被钉十字架并被神证明是对的。 He's quoting a psalm in which the psalmist perceives someone being crucified and vindicated by God.
他实际上并没有对神绝望；他实际上并没有被神遗弃。 He's not actually despairing of God; He's not actually abandoned by God.
但他感受到被遗弃的深切。 But He feels the profundity of abandonment.
在人性层面，他完全感受到这份重担。 At a human level, He feels the full weight of this.
这是一个奥秘，我推荐托马斯·约瑟夫·怀特神父写的一篇很棒的 文章，从神学角度解释了我们如何以尊重道成肉身、三位一体和耶 稣拥有真福直观的方式理解这一切——耶稣一直享有这种直观。 That is a mystery, and I would recommend actually Father Thomas Joseph White has a fantastic article on this, explaining theologically how we make sense of all of that in a way that's respectful of the Incarnation, of the Trinity, and of Jesus having the beatific vision—that Jesus always enjoys the vision.
即使在他的人性中，他也享有对神的直观。 Even in His humanity, He enjoys the vision of God.
你不能说他没有，那样会真正损害道成肉身的教义。 You can't say He didn't without doing some real disservice to the Incarnation.
即使在十字架上，他在经历这深切的苦难和痛苦时，仍然完全享有对圣父的直观。 Even on the Cross, He's still enjoying the full vision of the Father while experiencing this profound suffering, this profound pain.
所以他可以呼喊，这些话听起来好像他完全被神遗弃了，但他仍然能把自己交托给神。 And so He can cry out, and these words sound like He's just been totally abandoned by God, and yet He can still abandon Himself to God.
注意这里另一个自反义：他能完全把自己交给圣 父，说：「父啊，我将我的灵魂交在你手里。」 Notice another kind of auto-antonym there: He can give Himself entirely to the Father and say, Father, into Your hands I commend my spirit.
他能说在做这事时，圣父爱他，不是恨他，不是将愤怒倾倒在他身上——而是爱他。 And He can say that in doing this, the Father loves Him, doesn't hate Him, doesn't put His wrath upon Him—loves Him.
我提到这在献祭上是神所喜悦的，对吧？ I mentioned this was pleasing to God sacrificially, right?
记得赎罪祭吗？ Remember the sin offering?
以弗所书5章说：「基督爱我们，为我们舍了自己，当作馨香的供物和祭物献与神。」 Ephesians 5 describes Jesus as having loved us and gave Himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
现在，显然，这种馨香的供物的说法有点比喻性。 Now, obviously, that fragrant offering language is a little metaphorical.
圣保罗不是在说耶稣拿着刀；不，他指的是令人喜悦的祭物是这样被描述的。 St. Paul’s not just saying Jesus held knives; no, he’s referring to the fact that pleasing sacrifices were described this way.
比如，在创世记8章，挪亚献燔祭，经上说，耶和华闻那 馨香之气，就心里说：'我不再因人的缘故咒诅地。' So, for instance, in Genesis 8, Noah offers burnt offerings and says, When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor, He said in His heart, 'I’ll never again curse the ground.'
就是这个意思，对吧？ So that idea, right?
就像这是令人喜悦和可接受的祭物——这就是他成为馨香的供物的意思。 Like this is a pleasing and acceptable sacrifice—that's what it means for Him to be a fragrant offering.
这与刑罚替代模式非常非常不同，在这里父没有转离子。 That is very, very different from the penal substitution model, where the Father is not turning away from the Son.
父所喜悦的不是子的受苦，而是子彻底的自我牺牲。 The Father is enjoying not the Son's suffering, but the Son's radical self-sacrifice.
我们不会因为四个人在电影院被杀而高兴，但我们被他们愿意这样做的事实深深打动。 We don't enjoy the fact that four men got murdered in a movie theater, but we are profoundly moved by the fact that they were willing to do it.
所以我们可以看着那事说，那是好的。 So we can look at that and say, That is good.
再说一次，不是他们被杀这件事，而是他们愿意被杀。 Again, not that they got murdered, but that they were willing to be murdered.
同样，受难节是好的——不是因为耶稣被杀，而 是因为他愿意被杀，愿意为我们走上十字架。 So too, Good Friday is good—not that Jesus was murdered, but that He was willing to be murdered, that He was willing to go all the way to the Cross for us.
这就是使受难节成为好日子的原因——不是罗马人，不 是把他钉在十字架上的人，而是耶稣和他的自我牺牲。 That is what makes Good Friday good—not the Romans, not the people who nail Him to the Cross, but Jesus and His self-sacrifice.
所以圣彼得在彼得前书1:18-19描述我们得赎，不是凭着能坏的 金银等物，乃是凭着基督的宝血，如同无瑕疵、无玷污的羔羊之血。 And so St. Peter in 1 Peter 1:18-19 describes how we were ransomed, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.
这个无瑕疵羔羊的形象实际上被反复使用。 And that spotless lamb imagery is actually used pretty repeatedly.
这很重要，因为许多刑罚替代模式所看重的主题是替罪羊的概念。 This is pretty significant because the motif that a lot of penal substitution models look to is the notion of the scapegoat.
我们不会深入讨论替罪羊的整个问题，但值得指出的是这不是新约使用的献祭主题。 We're not getting into the whole thing with the scapegoat, but it's probably just worth pointing out that's not the motif the sacrificial motif that the New Testament uses.
它使用神的羔羊——这羔羊是令人喜悦和完美的；是无瑕疵、无玷污的。 It uses the Lamb of God—this lamb that’s pleasing and is perfect; it is without blemish, it is without spot.
基督向父献上完美的礼物，父以爱接纳。 That Christ sacrifices one of the perfect gifts to the Father that the Father accepts with love.
希望这是清楚的。 Hopefully, that's clear.
希望很清楚为什么这与刑罚替代模式有根本的对立。 Hopefully, it's clear why that's really radically opposed to the penal substitution kind of models.
但第四个优点是这使新约的故事恰当地关乎爱和顺服，而不是神的暴力。 But the fourth advantage is that this makes the New Testament story properly about love and obedience, not divine violence.
在刑罚替代模式中，父对罪如此愤怒以至于他需要打击某人，而他打击他自己的儿子。 In the penal substitution model, you have the Father so outraged with sin that He needs to beat up somebody, and He beats up His own Son.
这是一个在新约书页中奇怪地缺席的故事。 That is a story strangely absent from the pages of the New Testament.
相反，阿奎那表明这是一个关于爱和顺服的故事。 Instead, Aquinas shows this is a story of love and obedience.
是的，我们没有像应该的那样爱神；是的，我们违背了神。 Yeah, we didn't love God like we should; yeah, we disobeyed God.
但随后一个人来了，他完全地爱神，他完全地顺服神，因为他完全是神也完全是人。 But then a man came, and he loved God perfectly, and he obeyed God perfectly because he was fully God and fully man.
这与旧约和新约所说的关于爱、顺服和献祭之间联系的一切相符。 This comports with everything the Old and New Testament says about the connection between love, obedience, and sacrifice.
例如，在撒母耳记上15章，先知撒母耳说：耶和 华喜悦燔祭和平安祭，岂如喜悦人听从他的话呢？ For instance, in 1 Samuel 15, Samuel the prophet says, Well, has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord?
听命胜于献祭，顺从胜于公羊的脂油。 Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
这是我们需要理解的关键一点：最高的献祭是顺服的献祭。 That's a critical line that we need to understand: the highest sacrifice is the sacrifice of obedience.
你可以把你所有的东西都给神；你可以向他献上动物；你可以放弃你所有的财产。 You can give God all of your stuff; you can sacrifice animals to Him; you can give up all your possessions.
但如果你不愿意真正顺服他，如果你不愿意真正听从他，这一切都是徒然的。 But if you're not willing to actually obey Him, if you're not willing to actually listen to Him, all of that comes for nothing.
好吧，所以在刑罚替代模式中，我们只需要一个可以献血的对象——哦，好的。 Well, so here with the penal substitution model, we just need somebody to whom we can offer the blood for—oh, okay, good.
我们找到了一个无限的位格；我们可以把他放在十字架上，然后他的血就足够了。 We found an infinite person; we can put Him on the Cross, and then His blood will be good enough.
但这根本不是圣经的模式。 And that's not actually the biblical model at all.
不，有比自我牺牲——对不起，比动物献祭更高的东西。 No, there's something higher than self-sacrifice—or, excuse me, than animal sacrifice.
有顺服的献祭，就是你说，我要做神要我做的事的那种自我牺牲。 There's the sacrifice of obedience, the self-sacrifice where you say, I'm going to do what God wants me to do.
所以基督在十字架上献上那更高的祭，这是顺服的献祭。 And so Christ offers that higher sacrifice on the Cross, and it's a sacrifice of obedience.
在刑罚替代模式中奇怪地缺少顺服。 Obedience is weirdly lacking in the penal substitution model.
没有对顺服的要求。 There's no requirement for obedience.
你可以讲两个小时的刑罚替代论而完全不提基督是自愿的 参与者或顺服父或类似的事，这是极其不符合圣经的。 You can have an entire two-hour talk on penal substitution without any reference to Christ being a voluntary participant or obeying the Father or anything like that, and that is profoundly unbiblical.
接下来，在罗马书5章，圣保罗指出同样的事：因一人的过犯，众人都 被定罪——亚当——照样，因一人的义行，众人也就被称义得生命了。 Next, in Romans 5, St. Paul points out the same thing: that as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men—Adam—so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.
对吧？ Right?
就像人类把我们带入这个困境，人类也把我们带出这个困境。 Like the human race got us into this mess, and the human race got us out of this.
一个人，亚当，把我们带入其中；一个人，耶稣，把我们带出来。 One man, Adam, got us into this; one man, Jesus, got us out of it.
因一人的悖逆，众人成为罪人，照样，因一人的顺从，众人也成为义了。 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.
这是关于一个人完全地、无限地顺服神，因为他既是神又是人。 This is about a human obeying God perfectly, infinitely, because He’s both divine and human.
这在罗马书5章很重要；这是一个人——这就是字面上的重点。 It matters in Romans 5; this is a man—that's literally the point.
但我认为这一点在其他十字架模式中丢失了。 But that point is, I think, lost in other models of the Cross.
在罗马书5章前面，我已经提到了这段经文。 Earlier in Romans 5, I already alluded to this passage.
保罗说，当我们还软弱的时候，基督就按所定的日期为不敬虔的人死。 Paul says, While we were yet helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
为义人死，是少有的；为仁人死，或者有敢做的。 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die.
惟有基督在我们还作罪人的时候为我们死，神的爱就在此向我们显明了。 But God shows His love for us while we were yet sinners; Christ died for us.
这是关于自我牺牲；这是关于顺服；这是关于爱。 This is about self-sacrifice; this is about obedience; this is about love.
这完全解释了十字架如何运作，而不需要诉诸神需要杀某人，需要伤害某人。 And that fully explains how the Cross works without any recourse to God needing somebody to kill, needing somebody to hurt.
这些都不存在；这些都不需要，因为这些都不是真的。 There's none of that; none of that is required because none of that is true.
好的，第五，它为我们的十字架留下空间。 All right, fifth, it leaves room for our crosses.
现在，这是一个简短的观点，但值得思考。 Now, this is a quick point, but it's worth contemplating.
耶稣说，若有人要跟从我，就当舍己，背起他的十字架来跟从我。 Jesus says, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
那么，这怎么说得通呢？ Well, how does that make sense?
我以为重点是耶稣死在十字架上所以我不用死；他承担了我的刑罚，对吧？ I thought the whole point was Jesus died on the Cross so I don't have to die; He bore my penalty, right?
好吧，事实证明这不是真的。 Well, it turns out that isn't true.
耶稣死在十字架上，而我现在必须背起我的十字架跟随他。 Jesus dies on the Cross, and I now have to take up my cross and follow Him.
他是父所喜悦的祭，现在我也需要成为献给父的祭。 And He was a pleasing sacrifice to the Father, and now I need to be a sacrifice to the Father as well.
在哥林多后书2章，我们在神面前是基督馨香之气，对吧？ In 2 Corinthians 2, we are the aroma of Christ to God, right?
我们现在要成为那使神喜悦的燔祭。 We are now to be that burnt offering that's pleasing to God.
通过在我们生命中有这些自我牺牲的行为，我们现在与基督完美的牺牲联合。 By having these acts of self-sacrifice in our life, we are now united to Christ's perfect sacrifice.
我们不完美的祭与他完美的祭联合。 Our imperfect sacrifices are united to His perfect one.
他这样做不是为了消除我们做这事的需要；他这 样做是为了使我们能向父献上有价值的东西。 He isn't doing this to take away our need to do this; He's doing this to make possible our offering something to the Father that's worth something.
这在歌罗西书1:24中得到深刻的表达。我现在为你们受苦，倒觉欢乐，圣保 罗说，并且为基督的身体，就是为教会，要在我肉身上补满基督患难的缺欠。 And so this is really profoundly expressed in Colossians 1:24. I rejoice, St. Paul says, I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of His body, that is, the church.
你读到这个就会想，这是怎么回事？ You read that and you just think, What in the world?
刑罚替代模式告诉我基督承担了这一切；我不需要做任何事。 The penal substitutionary model told me Christ bore all this; I didn't have to do anything.
现在你告诉我有所缺欠，而且是我的受苦？ Now you're telling me something's lacking, and it's my suffering?
惊喜！ Surprise!
这是因为刑罚替代模式是错误的。 Well, that's because the penal substitutionary model is wrong.
基督献上这完美的爱和顺服的祭。 Christ offers this perfect offering of love and obedience.
这使我们能够与他联合，献上我们自己的牺牲、受苦、爱和顺服的行为。 And that makes it possible for us to be united with Him in offering our own acts of sacrifice, of suffering, of love, and of obedience.
注意这种受苦与基督在十字架上的受苦是相连的。 And notice this suffering is connected with the suffering of Christ on the Cross.
现在我们的患难和基督的患难结合在一起。 Now our afflictions and Christ's afflictions are combined.
为什么我要指出这一点？ Why do I point this out?
这是一个明显的观点，但当我们受苦时，我们不会说神在向我们倾倒他的愤怒。 This is an obvious point, but when we suffer, we don't say God is pouring out His wrath on us.
不，我们说他所爱的他必管教，或者基督允许我们为自己的荣耀受苦，或类似的话。 No, we say the ones He loves He disciplines, or that Christ permits us to suffer for our own glorification or anything like this.
我们不会简单地说神在向我们倾倒他的愤怒。 We don't just say that God is pouring out His wrath upon us.
所以如果这对我们的患难来说不是真的——我们的患难是基督患难的回响 和联系——那么这对基督的患难来说可能也是一个错误的模式，对吧？ And so if that's not true of our afflictions—our afflictions are this echo and connection to Christ's afflictions—then maybe that's a bad model for Christ's affliction as well, right?
所以如果你对基督患难的理解使我们的患难变得难以理解，而且无法 解释为什么我们应该受苦，那么，这就是一个错误的十字架模式。 So if your understanding of Christ's affliction makes our afflictions incomprehensible, and it doesn't make sense why we should suffer, well, that's a bad model of the Cross.
但如果耶稣付出一切是为了让我们能与他联合向父付出——因为我们不只是在试图 还债；我们实际上是在做超出的事——那么，我们的受苦是有价值的就说得通了。 But if instead Jesus pays for everything so we can then be united with Him in making these payments to the Father—because we're not just trying to pay off a debt; we're actually doing over and above—well, it makes sense that our sufferings are worth something.
它们实际上为他人赢得恩典。 They actually win graces for others.
记住，阿奎那早先谈到这不仅仅是足以把我们从坟墓中救出来，而是为我们赢得荣耀。 Remember, Aquinas was talking earlier about how this isn't just enough to save us from the grave, but this is winning glory for us.
同样，我们也能成为这个赢得荣耀过程的一部分。 Well, likewise, we can be part of this winning glory process.
我们能在自己的肉身上补满基督患难的缺欠，为了他的身体，就是教会。 We can make up in our own flesh what is lacking in Christ's affliction for the sake of His body, the Church.
我们能为我们的弟兄赢得荣耀，就像基督为他的弟兄赢得荣耀一样。 We can win glory for our brothers just as Christ won glory for His brother.
这是一个深刻的神学，它真的值得比我刚才给的更多的时间和关注。 That's a profound theology, and it really deserves more time and attention than I just gave it.
我现在要说，如果这一切对你来说完全陌生，如果歌罗西书1: 24对你来说听起来很奇怪，这应该是一个警告信号，对吧？ I would just say now, if that all sounds totally alien to you, and if Colossians 1:24 sounds bizarre to you, that should be a red flag, right?
天主教徒和东正教徒可以看着这些事说：「是的，这与我们的神学是相符的。」 Catholics and Orthodox can look at these things and say, Yeah, this makes sense with our theology.
我们可以为他人奉献这些。 We can offer these things up for others.
你知道，对天主教徒来说，当你受苦时说「奉献出来」这句话几乎用得太多了。 You know, Catholics, it's like a really overused phrase when you're suffering to say, Offer it up.
你在自己的生活中做这个小小的祭司性的牺牲，把你的牺牲与基督的牺牲联系起来。 You make this little priestly sacrifice in your own life, connecting your sacrifice with Christ's sacrifice.
这一切都说得通；这解释了为什么我们是祭司。 All that makes sense; it makes sense why we are priests.
这解释了为什么我们向神献上赞美的祭和在我们自己身上的祭——我们属灵的敬拜。 It makes sense why we're offering to God this sacrifice of praise and sacrifices in our own bodies—our spiritual worship.
这一切都行得通；基督这位大祭司有一大群祭司与他同在——就是我们所有人。 All of that works; that Christ, the High Priest, has a whole slew of priests with Him—all of us.
这就引出了这个体系的第六个也是最后一个优点，就是它明确地让基督作为大祭司。 And that leads to the sixth and final advantage of this system, which is that it squarely leaves Christ as the High Priest.
顺便说一下，这向我们显示了为什么最后的晚餐很重要。 And by the way, it shows us why the Last Supper matters.
希伯来书2章说，他凡事该与他的弟兄相同，为要在神的 事上成为慈悲忠信的大祭司，为百姓的罪献上挽回祭。 Hebrews 2 makes the obvious point that Jesus had to be made like His brethren in every respect so that He might become a merciful and faithful High Priest in the service of God to make expiation for the sins of the people.
现在，这是一个重要的细节：基督是献祭的祭司。 Now, this is an important detail: that Christ is the priest of the sacrifice.
我现在已经提到这点几次了——现在可能太多次了。 I've mentioned this several times now—too many times now.
为什么这很重要？ Why does this matter?
因为如果圣父在十字架上转脸不看耶稣，他就是在转脸不看献祭的人和祭物。 Because if the Father turns His face away from Jesus on the Cross, He's turning His face away from the one offering the sacrifice as well as from the sacrifice.
那就是被拒绝的祭，然后十字架就被拒绝了。 That's a rejected sacrifice, and then the Cross is rejected.
我们都死在罪中；我们没有盼望。 We all die in our sins; we have no hope.
但事实上，新约的模式与此相反：基督是我们的大祭司，他把自己作为令父喜悦的祭献上。 But in fact, the New Testament model is the opposite of that: that Christ is our High Priest, and He makes this pleasing sacrifice of Himself to the Father.
我之前引用了约翰福音10章，但注意他使用的是大祭司的语言。 I quoted John 10 earlier, but notice He uses high priestly language.
他说，我为羊舍命。 He says, I lay down my life for the sheep.
父爱我，因为我舍命，好再取回来。 For this reason, the Father loves me because I lay down my life, that I may take it up again.
没有人夺我的命去，是我自己舍的。 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.
这都是祭司的语言。 That is all priestly language.
但这引出一个重要的问题：他在哪里做这事？ But this leads to an important question: Where does He do this?
大祭司在哪里献上自己？ Where does the High Priest offer Himself?
他在哪里把自己作为祭物献给父？ Where does He present Himself as an offering to the Father?
好的，我们有清楚的圣经证据；是在最后的晚餐上。 Well, we have clear biblical evidence; it's at the Last Supper.
他说，你们拿着吃，这是我的身体。 He says, Take, eat; this is my body.
然后他拿起杯来说，你们都喝这个，因为这是我立约的血，为多人流出来，使罪得赦。 And then He takes the chalice and says, Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
他明确地说，我把我的身体给你们；我把我的血给你们，我要我的血为赦罪流出来。 He's explicitly saying, I'm giving you my body; I'm giving you my blood, and I want my blood to be poured out for the forgiveness of sins.
他将自己与我们联合，不仅是在我们共同的人性 上，而且在最后晚餐的共融中更加深刻地联合。 He is uniting Himself to us, not just in our common humanity, but even more profoundly in this communion in the Last Supper.
这就是他把自己献给父的行动。 And that is the action in which He is sacrificing Himself to the Father.
现在你可以明白为什么三日节期需要三天——因为献祭从这里开始。 Now you can see why the Triduum misses three days—that the sacrifice begins here.
现在，我要简单地解释一下，如果可以的话，旧约的献祭是如何与逾越节配合的。 Now, here I'm going to just explain very briefly, if I can, the way the Old Testament sacrifices work with the Passover.
在逾越节，你有两个事件：一个叫预备日，在那天宰杀羔羊，然后是第二天的逾越节晚餐。 With the Passover, you have two events: you've got what's called Preparation Day, where you kill the lamb, and then you've got the Passover meal, which is the following day.
按犹太历法，我们会说是那天晚上，然后你吃羔羊。 On the Jewish calendar, we would say it's that night, and then you eat the lamb.
现在，这很关键：你在预备日流羔羊的血，在逾越节吃羔羊。 Now, this is really critical: you shed the lamb's blood on Preparation Day, and you eat the lamb on Passover.
在吃羔羊时，那祭就应用到你身上。 And in eating the lamb, that sacrifice becomes applied to you.
因为我可以去圣殿宰杀一只羔羊——但那是为谁呢？ Because I could go to the temple and kill a lamb—well, who is that for?
我怎么知道呢，对吧？ How do I know, right?
这就像我之前试图强调的刑罚替代的问题。 Like, this is a penal substitutionary problem I tried to highlight before.
好的，基督死在十字架上——那是为谁，我们怎么知道？ Okay, Christ dies on the Cross—who is that for, and how do we know?
一个人如何成为那献祭的参与者？ How does one become a participant in that sacrificial offering?
好的，有实际的方式让你成为献祭的参与者。 Well, there are actual ways you become a participant in a sacrificial offering.
最常见的方式之一就是吃那祭物。 One of the most common ones is to eat the sacrifice.
在逾越节，你有两个时刻：你把血涂在门框上，然后吃祭物。 In the Passover, you have two moments: you smear the blood on the doorposts, and you eat the sacrifice.
那么这一切预表的是什么？ So what is all of that prefiguring?
预备日是受难节的预表。 Preparation Day is a prefigurement for Good Friday.
约翰在他的福音书中把受难节描述为预备日，基督的血涂抹在十字架的木头上。 John, in his Gospel, describes Good Friday as Preparation Day, and the blood of Christ is smeared on the wood of the Cross.
但我们仍然需要吃这祭物才能与这祭联合。 But we still need to eat the sacrifice to be united with this sacrifice.
这就是我们在最后的晚餐和每次弥撒中所做的。 And that's what we do at the Last Supper and at every Mass.
我知道这是一集很长的节目，我为此道歉，但我不想亏欠十字架。 I know this is a super long episode, and I apologize for that, but I didn't want to do a disservice to the Cross.
我认为重要的是我们要明白，把十字架看作像阿兹特克的献祭和把十字 架看作像犹太人的献祭之间有很大的区别，因为这两者有天壤之别。 I think it's important that we understand there are some really big differences between thinking the Cross is like an Aztec sacrifice or thinking of the Cross as like a Jewish sacrifice, because those are a world apart.
作为犹太人的献祭，基督既是大祭司又是祭品，这是一个自愿的献祭。 As a Jewish sacrifice, Christ is both the High Priest and the victim, and this is a voluntary sacrifice.
这不是神的愤怒的献祭，而是神的爱的献祭。 This is a sacrifice not of divine wrath but of divine love.
父向我们显明他的爱，而不是他的恨，而且基督 向我们显明他对我们的爱——他为朋友舍命。 The Father is showing us His love, not His hatred, and that Christ is showing us His love for us—that He laid down His life for His friends.
这是好消息；这是最大的好消息；这是有史以来最好的消息。 This is good news; this is the greatest news; this is the best news that ever existed.
所以我希望你从这里得到安慰。 So I hope you take solace from this.
我希望这帮助你理解圣周四——就是你今晚要庆 祝的，受难节——以及更广泛的基督徒生活。 I hope this helps you to make sense of Holy Thursday—that's what you're going to celebrate tonight, Good Friday—and just the Christian life more broadly.
非常感谢大家。 Thank you guys so much.
愿神祝福你，感谢收听天主教答疑播客网络制作的 Shameless Popery。 God bless you, and thank you for listening to Shameless Popery, a production of the Catholic Answers Podcast Network.
访问天主教答疑播客网站，可以找到更多精彩节目。 Find more great shows by visiting CatholicAnswersPodcast.com
或在你收听播客的任何平台上搜索天主教答疑。 or search Catholic Answers wherever you listen to podcasts.