基督教最重要的教导之一就是，耶稣基督藉着他在十 字架上的死，除去了世人的罪，救赎了所有的罪人。 One of the most important teachings of Christianity is that Jesus Christ, through His death on a cross, took away the sins of the world and redeemed all sinners.
每一个基督徒都相信这一点。 Every Christian everywhere believes this.
但是他是如何做到的呢？ But how did He accomplish this?
他在十字架上的死有什么特别之处，使一切都与以前不同了呢？ What specifically about His death on the cross made anything different than before?
虽然新约为所发生的事提供了许多比喻——我们被救赎、拯救、称 义、释放、洁净——但新约中并没有解释从技术上讲发生了什么。 While the New Testament offers many metaphors for what happened—that we were redeemed, saved, justified, set free, cleansed—there is no explanation in the New Testament as to what technically happened.
因此，多年来神学家提出了许多救赎理论，每一种都有其优点和缺点。 For this reason, theologians have presented many theories of atonement over the years, each with its own benefits and drawbacks.
这些理论是什么，我们如何看待它们呢？ What are these theories, and what do we make of them?
这是天主教焦点系列。 This is Catholicism in focus.
从表面上看，在教义层面上，救赎的概念非常简单：因着我们的罪，我们 与神隔绝，所以神设法使我们重新合一——字面意思是再次成为一体。 At face value and on a dogmatic level, the idea of atonement is quite simple: through our sin, we created separation from God, and so God sought to bring us back together—literally to be at one again.
当一个词的词源就是你已经会说的语言时，你会爱上它的。 Gotta love when the etymology of a word is the language you already speak.
不幸的是，这听起来可能很奇怪；公教会从未教义性地定义这是如何发生的。 Unfortunately, this is as strange as it may sound; the Catholic Church has never dogmatically defined how this happens.
因此，多年来提出了不少理论，大致可分为三类：替代说、道德说和道成肉身说。 For this reason, more than a few theories have been presented over the years, grouped loosely into one of three categories: substitutional, moral, and incarnational.
顾名思义，替代模型强调耶稣为我们代替的事实。 As the name indicates, substitutionary models emphasize the fact that Jesus served as a substitute for us.
他的死偿付了我们无法承担的代价。 His death paid something that we could not afford.
这一类中最古老的就是所谓的赎价理论，源自彼得前书中使 用的比喻，说你们是从祖宗所传流虚妄的行为中赎出来的。 The most ancient in this category is what is known as the ransom theory, drawing from the metaphor used in the First Letter of St. Peter that you were ransomed from the feudal ways inherited from your fathers.
该理论认为，亚当和夏娃因他们的罪将人类卖为奴隶，基督 的死支付了赎金将他们赎回——字面意思是把我们买回来。 The theory suggests that Adam and Eve sold humanity into slavery because of their sins, and Christ's death paid a ransom to redeem them—literally buying us back.
这是当今基督徒常用的一句话，这个比喻本身很有道理。 It’s an incredibly common phrase that Christians use today, and the image itself makes a lot of sense.
但它确实引出了一个明显的问题：这赎金是付给谁的？ But it does raise an obvious question: to whom is this ransom paid?
谁收了这笔债来释放我们呢？ Who received the debt to set us free?
根据支持这一理论的教父们的说法，这笔债是付给了撒但的，而撒但却被骗接受了这笔债。 According to the patristic fathers that supported this theory, the debt was paid to Satan, who was tricked into receiving it.
尼撒的格列高利写道：为了确保我们的赎金能够被那位要求赎金的人轻易接受，神性隐藏在 我们人性的面纱之下，好像饥饿的鱼一样，神性的钩子可能会与肉体的诱饵一起被吞下。 Gregory of Nyssa writes, In order to secure that the ransom in our behalf might be easily accepted by him who required it, the Deity was hidden under the veil of our nature so that, as with ravenous fish, the hook of the Deity might be gulped down along with the bait of flesh.
基本上，因为我们的罪，撒但对我们有了合法的权力。 Basically, because of our sin, Satan had a rightful power over us.
为了释放我们，耶稣道成肉身，代替我们献上自己。 Seeking to set us free, Jesus came in the flesh, offering Himself in our place.
撒但因这笔赎金放我们走，但这当然是钩上的诱饵，因为耶 稣是完美无罪的，意味着撒但无权拥有他，也被迫放他走。 Satan let us go for this payment, but this, of course, was bait on a hook, as Jesus was perfect and without sin, meaning that Satan, having no right to possess Him, was forced to let Him go as well.
圣经中哪里说撒但对罪人有合法的权利，为什么神要与他谈判来拯救我们呢？ Where in the Bible does it say that Satan has a rightful claim over sinners, and why would God have to negotiate with him to save us?
如果真的有赎金的话，把赎金给圣父而不是撒但似乎更合乎逻辑。 It would seem far more logical that any ransom, if there truly was one, would need to go to God the Father, not Satan.
正是考虑到这一点，圣安瑟伦提出了救赎的满足理论， 这在很大程度上受到了当时他周围封建世界的影响。 It was with that in mind that St. Anselm presented the satisfaction theory of atonement in the 11th century, largely influenced by the feudal world around him at the time.
安瑟伦将我们与神的关系解释为类似于农奴对国王的关系，欠下尊荣和服事。 Anselm interpreted our relationship with God as similar to a serf to a king, owing honor and service.
如果臣民以不敬羞辱了主人，就削弱了他的权力，需要满足来恢复社会秩序。 If a subject shames a lord with dishonor, he weakens his power, needing satisfaction to restore social order.
不惩罚就简单地原谅臣民是不可能的，因为整个尊荣和羞辱的体系就会崩溃。 To simply forgive the subject without punishment is not possible, as the whole system of honor and shame would crumble.
不幸的是，对我们人类来说，我们唯一可以奉献给神的就是我们的生命，而这 本来就是我们欠神的；因此，我们没有什么可以做的超越来弥补我们的罪。 Unfortunately for us humans, the only thing that we can offer God is our lives, which we owe God anyway; hence, there is nothing that we can do that goes above and beyond to make up for our sins.
我们需要一位救主。 We need a Savior.
基督所做的，就是取了肉身，作为一个无罪的人死去 ，献上了他所不欠的，偿还了我们所无法承担的。 What Christ did by taking on flesh and dying as a sinless man was offer something that He did not owe, paying what we could not afford.
作为神，他的付出是无限的，因此拯救了我们所有的罪，无论如何。 Being God, His payment was infinite, thus saving all our sins, no matter what.
一方面，这比赎价理论更有道理，因为付款应该给神，而不是撒但。 On the one hand, it makes more sense than the ransom theory, as payment should go to God, not Satan.
但这也带来了一个新问题：什么样的神会要求他的圣子死，好让他的荣耀得以恢复呢？ But it also presents a new problem: what sort of God demands His Son die so that His honor can be restored?
几百年后，这个问题在刑罚替代论中得到了进一步的强调，这一理论由 马丁·路德和约翰·加尔文提出，后来由查尔斯·贺智更具体地阐述。 A few hundred years later, this problem was only further highlighted with the penal substitution theory, one promoted by Martin Luther and John Calvin, before being more concretely articulated by Charles Hodge.
与满足模型一样，欠神的债必须偿还；只是这不是为了恢复神 的正义和荣耀感，而是为了找到神因我们的罪而发怒的根源。 As in the satisfaction model, a debt must be repaid to God; only it is not about restoring a sense of justice and honor in God, but rather in finding a source for God's wrath due to our sin.
耶稣代替了我们，承担了本该属于我们的无法估量的痛苦的咒诅，好让我们能再次自由。 Jesus took our place, taking upon Himself the curse of immeasurable pain that was rightfully ours so that we could go free again.
什么样的神如此充满愤怒，以至于要求他的圣子死，他才能得到满足？ What sort of God is so filled with wrath that He demands that His Son die so that He can be satisfied?
虽然满足模型和刑罚替代模型在法律意义上都有道理，提供了 一对一的交换来维护神的权利，但它确实让基督徒对耶稣事工 中的饶恕产生了疑问，在其中他自由地医治病人，赦免罪人。 While both the satisfaction and penal substitution models make sense in a juridical sense, offering a one-to-one exchange that preserves God's rights, it does leave the Christian wondering about forgiveness in light of Jesus' ministry, in which He freely healed the sick and forgave the sinner.
在读到父亲在浪子的比喻中无条件地宽恕时，为什么神还需要偿还呢？ In reading how the Father unconditionally forgave in the parable of the Prodigal Son, why does God need repayment?
替代模型对此没有明确的答案。 Substitution models don't have a clear answer for this.
正是由于这个原因，其他人采取了一种完全不同的救赎方法 ，而是认为基督在十字架上所完成的在道德上是重要的。 It’s for this reason that others have taken an entirely different approach to atonement, instead suggesting that what Christ accomplished on the cross was morally significant.
这不是为了宇宙存在、神或撒但的利益，而是为了我们。 It wasn't for the benefit of a cosmic being, God or Satan, but for us.
从根本上说，这些理论在本质上是主观的，它们并不假设在本体论、救赎论或 末世论方面有任何本质的改变——这些客观现实改变了世界的运作方式——而 是认为十字架事件提供了一个来自神的见证，旨在改变我们接近神的方式。 Fundamentally subjective in nature, these theories do not posit any essential change in ontology, soteriology, or eschatology—objective realities that change how the world works—but rather suggest that the event of the cross offers a divine witness meant to change the way that we approach God.
无论是阿伯拉德提出的道德影响理论，还是福斯托·保罗·索西尼提出的道德榜样理论 ，十字架都旨在成为神对人类之爱的标志——一种旨在使我们的心转向神的明确牺牲。 In both the moral influence theory proposed by Abelard and the moral example theory proposed by Fausto Paolo Sozzini, the cross was meant to be a sign of God's love for humanity—an unmistakable sacrifice intended to turn our hearts back to God.
见证基督为我们所做的，我们作为他的追随者，应该受到如此的鼓舞，为他人做同样的事。 In witnessing what Christ has done for us, we, as His followers, should be so inspired to do so for others.
从圣经的角度来看，这种方法也有很多支持，特别是在约翰福音中。 Biblically, there's a lot to support this approach as well, particularly in the Gospel of John.
耶稣将十字架与最后的晚餐联系起来，这是彼此相爱的命令。 Jesus connects the cross with the Last Supper, the mandatum to love one another.
在对观福音中，耶稣明确地说，如果我们要作他的门徒，就必须背起自己的十字架。 In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus explicitly says that we must take up our own crosses if we are to be His disciples.
十字架确实有一种效法的元素。 There is certainly an element of imitation to the cross.
勒内·吉拉尔在此基础上提出了他的替罪羊救赎理论。 René Girard builds upon this with his scapegoat theory of atonement.
与耶稣是真正的替罪羊、为除去我们罪的替代模型不同，吉拉尔认为， 基督被邪恶的人当作替罪羊——这一令人发指的罪行的受害者——旨在 揭露暴力解决我们问题的谎言，唤醒我们过一种和平、公正的生活。 Unlike the substitution models in which Jesus is an actual scapegoat meant to take away our sins, Girard suggests that the witness of Christ being scapegoated by evil people—the victim of a heinous crime—is meant to expose the lie that violence solves our problems, awakening us to a peaceful, just existence.
再次，从圣经的角度来看，这种方法有一定的道理。 Again, biblically, there is some truth to this approach.
耶稣的事工不断揭示暴力的徒劳无益。 Jesus' ministry continually undermined the futility of violence.
在受难前的园中，他告诫那些用剑来保护他的人。 In the garden before His Passion, He admonishes those who use the sword to defend Him.
此外，它把神置于非暴力受害者一边，使神摆脱了替代理论中的一些道德问题。 Furthermore, it places God on the side of the non-violent victim, freeing God from some of the moral issues found in the substitution theories.
然而，这两种模型都有自己的问题，最明显的是它们支持一种称为伯拉纠主义的温和异端。 Yet neither of these models are without their own issues, most notably the fact that they espouse a mild form of heresy called Pelagianism.
如果十字架所做的只是教导一个功课，那么可以说有些人可能不需 要它，这意味着十字架并没有为我们的救恩增添任何新的东西。 If all the cross did was teach a lesson, then it can be argued that some people may not have needed it, meaning that the cross doesn't add anything new to our salvation.
我们一直拥有得救的力量。 We possessed within us the power to be saved all along.
这显然是有问题的。 This is clearly problematic.
正是由于这个原因，尽管这种方法的根源相当古老，但在 过去的一个世纪里，第三种方法已经得到了一些支持。 It’s for this reason that a third approach to the question has picked up some ground over the past century, even though its roots are fairly ancient.
关注救赎的道成肉身的意义，这种方法的支持者不仅仅孤立 地看十字架，而是将十字架与基督的生命和复活联系起来。 Focusing on the incarnational significance of atonement, proponents of this approach look not just to the cross in isolation, but to the cross as it relates to Christ's life and resurrection.
纵观二世纪圣依勒内的著作，我们看到了对重述概念的强 调——基督的生命是对亚当故事的重述，但结果不同。 Looking to the work of Saint Irenaeus in the second century, we see a heavy emphasis on the idea of recapitulation—that Christ's life was a retelling of the story of Adam with different results.
亚当因一棵树而犯罪，基督却顺服至死，且死在木头上。 While Adam sinned because of a tree, Christ was obedient to the point of death on a tree.
对于依勒内和其他古人来说，基督生命的重要性不仅在于他为我们的罪 而死；更在于他那毫无罪的完美生命包括了死亡，并以复活达到高潮。 For Irenaeus and other ancients, what was significant about Christ's life wasn't just that He died for our sins; it's that His perfect life of undoing sin included death, culminating in the resurrection.
这自然改变了被罪污染的历史进程，但更重要的 是，它亲密地恢复并联结了我们与神的关系。 This naturally changed the course of history, corrupted by sin, but more importantly, it intimately restored and connected us to God.
依勒内认为，基督取了肉身，经历了我们所经历的一切，却没有罪——甚 至死亡——基督成为了我们的样式，为要使我们成为他自己所是的样式。 In taking on flesh and experiencing all that we experience, but sin—even death—Irenaeus posits that Christ became what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.
这样，十字架的目的本身不是苦难；它本身并不偿 还债务；它甚至不是救恩计划中最重要的部分。 In this way, the purpose of the cross is not suffering in itself; it does not pay a debt in itself; it is not even the most essential part of the plan of salvation.
基督所要成就的是毁灭罪和死亡，他通过自己无罪并死去来实现这一点。 What Christ sought to accomplish was the destruction of sin and death, and He did so by being sinless and dying Himself.
从某种意义上说，重要的不是他如何死的，而是他死了这个事实。 What matters, in a sense, is not so much how He died, but rather that He died.
因为正是藉着死亡，我们得救的途径才真正实现——就是复活。 For it was through death that the means of our salvation was truly accomplished—the resurrection.
保罗怎么说呢？ For what does St. Paul say?
当我们藉着洗礼与基督的死联合，我们也与他复活的生命联合。 When we unite ourselves to Christ's death through baptism, we also unite ourselves to His life in the resurrection.
这不是因为十字架的字面性质，痛苦和苦难的偶然 现实，好像神需要付款或一个发泄愤怒的目标。 It is not because of the literal nature of the cross, the accidental reality of pain and suffering, as if God needed payment or a target on which to take out His wrath.
而是因为基督已经使人性与神性联合，一劳永逸地战胜了罪和死亡。 It's because Christ has divinized humanity, conquering sin and death once for all.
1931年，古斯塔夫·奥伦将依勒内的思想纳入了自己的理论：基督得胜的救赎论。 In 1931, Gustav Aulén incorporated Irenaeus' thought into a theory of his own: the Christus Victor theory of atonement.
对奥伦来说，基督的工作首先是战胜了奴役人类的权势——罪恶、死亡和撒但。 For Aulén, the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage—sin, death, and the devil.
因此，更多的注意力放在这样一个事实上：我们被集体罪恶 所奴役，陷在一个破碎的历史中，我们单凭自己无法修复。 Because of this, more attention is given to the fact that we are enslaved by corporate sins, stuck in a broken history that we alone cannot fix.
与其他模型不同的是，在其他模型中基督的满足 就是胜利，而奥伦认为基督的胜利就是满足。 In distinction to the other models in which Christ's satisfaction is the victory, Aulén responds that Christ's victory is the satisfaction.
这是一个巧妙的文字游戏，当然也是一个吸引人的模型。 It's a clever play on words and certainly an appealing model.
那么我们可以说它有什么问题呢？ So what might we say is wrong with it?
基本上，它没有考虑其它模型。 Well, basically that it isn't the other models.
虽然代赎模型和道德模型确实存在严重缺陷，但它们也抓 住了我们神学的一个重要方面，深深植根于圣经之中。 While the substitutional and moral models do bear serious flaws, they also capture an important aspect of our theology, deeply rooted in Scripture.
使徒明确地告诉我们，十字架是赎价，是赎罪祭， 是救赎，它也确实是为了灵魂的归正而当效法的。 The apostles tell us definitively that the cross is a ransom; it is expiation for our sins; it is redemption, and it most certainly is meant to be imitated for the conversion of souls.
这些道成肉身模型没有包括对这种语言的解释，有时甚至反驳它们，这使它不完整。 The fact that these incarnational models do not include explanations of this language, even at times refuting them, leaves it incomplete.
我们可以说这就是过程的美妙之处，不是吗？ Which we could say is kind of the beauty of the process, is it not?
我们在救赎神学中所处理的不是一个经验事实，它没有观察数据可供研究。 What we're dealing with in the theology of atonement is not an empirical fact; it bears no observational data to be studied.
这是一个奥秘。 It's a mystery.
这是一个深入探究神心意的问题，问，神怎能拯救像我这样的罪人？ It's a matter of wondering deeply into the heart of God and asking, How could God save a sinner like me?
我们有如此多的理论，每一个都抓住了真理的一个方面，这对我们的灵魂有益。 The fact that we have so many theories, each capturing a facet of the truth, is to the benefit of our souls.
没有一个理论能抓住真理的每一个方面，这邀请我们继续寻求。 The fact that no one theory captures every facet of the truth invites us to keep searching.
奥秘始于一个真理——十字架为我们的罪赎罪——但并非要被解开。 Mysteries begin with a truth—that the cross atones for our sins—but are not meant to be solved.
我们可能永远不知道如何解开。 We may never know how.
有时我们所能做的就是进入那个奥秘，让我们的神将我们越来越深地吸引到他拯救的爱中。 Sometimes all we can do is enter that mystery and allow our God to draw us deeper and deeper into His saving love.