欢迎回到《无耻教皇党》！ Welcome back to Shameless Popery!
我是乔·赫施迈尔。 I'm Joe Heschmeyer.
基督教中有这么多宗派的原因之一，是因为对圣经中关于教会结构的教导存在分歧。 One of the reasons that there are so many denominations in Christianity is because of disagreements about the biblical teaching on the structure of the Church.
这有时被称为教会治理。 This is sometimes called church polity.
所以这个问题——有很多可能的答案——但大体上，我们可以这 样提出问题：在地方教会中，你们是否有一个三层的治理结构？ So the question—there are a lot of different possible answers to it—but broadly speaking, we could phrase the question like this: In the local Church, do you have a three-tiered structure of governance?
你们是否有主教，然后是长老，再然后是执事？ Do you have bishops, and then you have elders, and then you have deacons?
或者你们是否只有一个两层的治理结构，其中长老和主教是同一个职分？ Or do you just have a two-tiered structure of governance in which elders and bishops are the same thing?
当然，你会发现还有一些变体。 Now, you'll find variations on that.
我并不是说这是对所有解读圣经证据方式的全面概述。 I don't mean to suggest this is an exhaustive overview of all of the different ways you could read the biblical evidence.
我的意思是，这两种是最大的阵营之一，如果我们能搞清楚这一点，会非常有帮助。 I do mean to suggest that these are two of the biggest camps, and if we can get this right, it'll be really helpful.
那么，圣经中的主教是否与长老不同？ So, is a bishop in the Bible something different than an elder?
现在，从术语上来说，我知道有些观众会说，我们不称中 间层为长老；我们称他们为长老，或者称他们为祭司。 Now, terminologically, I know some people watching this are saying we don't call our middle tier elders; we call them presbyters, or we call them priests.
这些称呼都源于同一个词根。 All of that is coming from the same root.
希腊语中表示长老的词是“presbyteros”，我们从中得到了“长老”这个词。 The Greek word for elder, presbyteros, is where we get the word presbyter.
在通俗拉丁语中，这个词变成了“prester”，然后又演变成了“祭司”。 That becomes prester in slangy vulgar Latin, and from prester, it becomes priest.
关于是否将其视为祭司的权柄，这里有更大的神学问题可以讨论，但我会有意 搁置这一点，只专注于这个问题：在中间层之上——无论你称之为祭司、长老 还是长老——是否还有一个高于主教的职分，还是长老和主教是同一个职分？ There are bigger theological issues that we could talk about there, whether we think of this as a priestly authority or not, but I'm going to actually leave that pretty consciously aside just to focus the question on: Do we have above that middle tier—whatever you call it, priest, presbyter, elder—an office above that of bishop, or are elders and bishops the same thing?
那么，教会是否应该再次在地方层面进行管理？ So, should the Church be run again at the local-ish level?
也就是说，每个城市一个教会——在早期教会中，你会找到很多这样的证据。 So, one church per city—you'll have a lot of evidence of that in the early Church.
那么，在城市层面，是否应该由一位主教来管理，就 像你在公教会、东正教和英国圣公会中看到的那样？ So, at the city level, should there be one bishop running that, as you'll see among Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans?
还是应该由一个共同治理的长老会来管理？ Or should there be a co-ruling presbytery?
这是长老会显然的立场，但许多其他新教宗派也倾向于这种模式。 This is where Presbyterians obviously fall into this, but plenty of other Protestant denominations lean towards that.
当然，你也会发现一些变体。 You'll get variations on that as well.
所以，这就是问题的本质所在。 So, that's kind of the nature of the question.
我们在圣经证据中看到了什么？ What do we see in terms of biblical evidence?
我想从托德·弗里尔被问到这个问题开始谈起。 I want to actually start here with Todd Friel being asked this question.
现在，我知道你们中有些人真的不喜欢托德·弗里尔。 Now, I know some of you really don't like Todd Friel.
我部分同意他的观点，也部分不同意。 I'm going to agree with him in part and disagree with him in part.
我认为这是一个经过深思熟虑的回答，我想与之探讨。 I thought this was a thoughtful answer, and I wanted to engage with it.
他会先说，圣经在这个问题上的清晰度可能没有你想象的那么高。 So, he's going to start off by saying the Bible is a little less clear on this than you might imagine.
那么，我们该如何处理这个问题呢？ What do we do with that?
对吧？ Right?
他说：圣经中有一些模糊的空间，因为并没有非常明确的指示教会应该如何被领导。 So here he is: there's a little bit of wiggle room that is in the Bible because there isn't a ton of clear direction about how a church should be led.
但我确实相信其中有足够的清晰度。 But I do believe there is enough clarity.
所以，如果你试图从圣经中回答这个问题，其中一个显而易见的事实是，圣经 中没有任何地方直接说：好吧，你要从头建立一个教会，这里是所有的职分。 So, one of the things that should immediately jump out if you try to answer this question biblically is that there is no place in the Bible that just says, Okay, you're building a church from scratch; here are all of the offices.
长老和主教是同一个职分，还是不同的职分。 Presbyter and bishop mean the same thing; they mean different things.
这个问题从未被直接回答过。 That question is just never directly answered.
我们看到这两个术语都被使用过，但从未被告知它们是相同还是不同的职分。 We see both terms used, but we're never told that they're the same or different offices.
还有很多其他事情只是被顺带提到，我们从未被直接给出如何建立教会的指示。 There are plenty of other things that are kind of referred to in passing, and we're never just given instructions for how to build the Church.
我稍后会谈到为什么会这样，但我想先部分同意这个观点。 I'm going to get into why that is in a second, but I want to actually agree in part.
我认为他得出了错误的结论。 I think he comes to the wrong conclusion.
我不认为圣经中缺乏拼图式的构建块是因为神想给我们留出空间去形成不同的宗派。 I don't think the lack of biblical puzzle-putting-together building-block pieces is because God wanted to give us wiggle room to form different denominations.
我认为这是出于另一个原因。 I think it's instead for a different reason.
但在谈到这一点之前，我想再次强调，新约并不像人们希望的那样清晰。 But before I get there, I want to double down on the fact that the New Testament is not as clear as people might like.
这里我要指出，这些职分是主教，意思是监督； 长老，意思是长老；以及执事，意思是仆人。 Here, I point to the fact that the offices in question are bishop, which just means overseer; presbyter, which means elder; and deacon, which means servant.
使这个问题复杂化，或者说更复杂化的，是这三个希腊词— —我们听到主教、长老、执事——会立刻联想到教会职分。 What makes this complicated, or more complicated, is the fact that all three of those Greek words—we hear bishop, presbyter, deacon—and immediately think of church office.
但在新约中，监督、长老和仆人这三个词有多种用法，并不总是指教会的职分。 But overseer, elder, and servant are all used in a variety of ways in the New Testament, not always referring to a church office at all.
我的意思是这样的：我们从执事开始说起。 Here's what I mean by that: let's start with deacon.
在《罗马书》第十五章中，圣保罗说基督成为了一位执事。 In Romans 15, St. Paul says that Christ became a deacon.
他说基督成为了一位仆人。 He says Christ became a servant.
现在，大多数英文译本会说基督成为了一位仆人，因 为很明显他并不是在说耶稣只是教会中的一位执事。 Now, most English translations are going to say Christ became a servant because it seems pretty clear he's not trying to say Jesus was only a deacon in the Church.
他指的是“diakonos”作为仆人的意思，而不是作为执事的意思。 He means diakonos in the sense of servant, not in the sense of deacon.
同样，在《以弗所书》第三章第七节中，圣保罗说他自己被立为一位执事或仆人。 Likewise, in Ephesians 3, verse 7, St. Paul says that he himself was made a minister or a deacon.
在《提摩太前书》第四章中，他同样说，如果提摩太遵循 他所收到的指示，就会成为基督耶稣的好执事、好仆人。 In 1 Timothy 4, he likewise says that Timothy, if he follows the instructions he's been given, will be a good minister, a good deacon of Christ Jesus.
然后，在《罗马书》第十六章中，他有争议地提到一位名叫非比的女子 ，称她为执事、女执事、仆人或使女——即“diakonos”。 Then, controversially, in Romans 16, he refers to a woman named Phoebe as a deacon or deaconess, or minister, or servant—the diakonos.
那么问题是：这些人中有谁是执事，还是这里指的是别的意思？ So the question is: Are any of those people deacons, or is something else being said there?
对这些经文的普遍解读——我知道尤其是最后一处有争议——但两千年来的普 遍解读是，这些都不是指执事的职分，而是指人作为仆人或服事者的角色。 The general read of those passages—I know especially the last one is controversial—but the general read for 2,000 years has been that none of those are intended to refer to the office of deacon; it's referring to people being servants or ministers.
耶稣显然不仅仅是教会中的一位执事；他是教会的元首。 Jesus is obviously not just a deacon in the Church; he's the head of the Church.
保罗不仅仅是执事；他是一位使徒。 Paul is not just a deacon; he's an apostle.
至于提摩太，我们会看到，他有能力为长老制定指示。 Timothy, we're going to look at, but he's got the ability to lay down instructions for the elders.
他显然不是执事，因为执事的职分是在长老之下的。 He's clearly not a deacon, which are below elders.
所以，在这些情况下，“执事”这个词被使用了，但似乎并不是在指执事的职分。 So all of those cases are ones where the word deacon is being used, but the office of deacon doesn't appear to be in view.
另一方面，在《使徒行传》第六章中，你会看到似乎 是第一次召选了七位执事，这也是长期以来的理解。 On the other hand, in Acts chapter 6, you have what appears to be the calling of the first seven deacons, and this is how it's long been understood.
有七个人被召来管理饭食，以协助使徒的事工。 There are seven people who are called to serve at table to aid in the ministry of the apostles.
但问题是：尽管这些人显然是七位执事，但经文中从未明确称他们为执事。 But here's the thing: even though these are pretty clearly seven deacons, they're never actually called that in the text.
所以在这里，你有执事的职分，但没有“执事”这个词。 So here you have the office of deacon but not the word deacon.
我提到这一点是因为我们不是在问这些词语，而是在问这些职分。 I'm mentioning this because we're not asking about the words; we're asking about the offices.
是两个职分还是三个职分？ Are there two offices or three?
而让人更困惑的是，这些词有时被使用得很模糊，有时甚至可能具有误导性。 And what makes it more confusing is that the words are sometimes used in a confusing and sometimes even potentially misleading sort of way.
现在让我们谈谈长老，因为在《彼得前书》第五章中，圣彼得明确是一位使徒，却劝 勉长老们，同时称自己为同为长老——简单地说就是“presbyteros”。 Let's talk about presbyter now because in 1 Peter 5, St. Peter, who unambiguously is an apostle, exhorts the elders while declaring himself a fellow elder—simply presbyteros.
他显然是为了修辞效果，就像他降低到他们的层次，说： 「嘿，你们知道，作为同工」，就像一个老板那样说话。 He's obviously doing this for rhetorical effect, like he's getting down on their level and saying, Hey, you know, as co-workers, like a boss doing that sort of thing.
但如果你只是字面理解，那听起来好像彼得在说自己不是使徒，只是一个长老。 But if you just took that at face value, well, it sounds like Peter's declaring himself not an apostle; he's just an elder.
他只是一个长老。 He's just a presbyter.
但我们知道他不仅仅是这样。 But we know he's more than that.
在《提摩太前书》中，这本书令人困惑，因为它实际 上用“长老”这个词既指长老，也只是指年长的人。 In 1 Timothy, now, 1 Timothy is confusing because it actually uses the term presbyter to refer to elders, but it also uses it just to refer to old people.
在《提摩太前书》第五章中，我的观点是，仅仅 使用一个术语并不能立即解决我们所问的问题。 In 1 Timothy 5, my point there is that the mere fact that a term is used doesn't immediately solve the question we're asking.
我们不是在问“episcopos”、“presbyteros”、“ diakonos”这些词的用法；我们是在问主教、长老、执事，或者主 教、长老、执事，或者主教、祭司、执事——无论你如何描述这个三重职分 ——我们是在问这个三重职分是否存在，而不是这些词是否清晰地出现。 We're not asking about the usage of episcopos, presbyteros, diakonos; we're asking whether the office of bishop, elders, deacons, or bishop, presbyters, deacons, or bishop, priests, deacons—however you want to describe that three-fold office—we're asking if that three-fold office is there, not if the words are just really clearly there.
因为这些词，我认为按照任何合理的解释，有时都显得有些混淆。 Because the words, I think by any reasonable interpretation, are sometimes kind of confusing.
所以让我们回到我之前提到的拼图问题，因为我认为托德·弗里尔是对的， 基督并没有给我们任何明确的指示，新约中也没有任何非常清晰的指示。 So let's get back to that puzzle piece thing I said before because I think Todd Friel is right that Christ doesn't give us any clear instructions, and nowhere in the New Testament do we get any very clear instructions.
但我认为他从中得出的结论是错误的。 But I think he's wrong in the conclusion he draws from that.
我不认为这是为了给我们留出回旋的空间。 I don't think this is to give us wiggle room.
我不认为这是在说：「去建立你自己的宗派，随你怎么做都可以。」 I don't think this is to say, Go build your own denomination; do whatever you see fit.
不，我认为这是出于完全相反的原因。 No, I think it's because of an opposite reason.
我们没有被给予建立教会的指示，因为耶稣已经完成了这件事。 We're not given building instructions to create the Church because Jesus had already done that.
所以，如果早期的基督徒已经正确理解了教会的问题，而写信给他们的人是教会中的 领袖，比如使徒，他们是写信给那些已经建立并确立的教会，这些教会已经知道成为 教会意味着什么，那么你就不需要再给他们建立的指示，因为教会已经建立了。 So if the early Christians are getting the question of Church right, and if the people writing to them are their leaders in the Church, like the apostles, and they're writing to churches that are already built and established and know what it means to be the Church, then you don't have to give them building instructions because it's already been built.
比如，在美国宪法中，你有关于联邦政府三权分立 的建立指示：行政部门、立法部门和司法部门。 For instance, in the U.S. Constitution, you have building instructions for the three tiers of the federal government: the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch.
但你不会看到关于州长的任何描述，甚至没有提及。 What you don't have are any descriptions or even references to state governors.
当时的州长已经很完善了；你不需要在宪法中提到他们，因为他们已经存在了。 State governors at the time were well established; you didn't need to include them in the Constitution because they already existed.
所以我认为这里的情况也是如此。 So I would suggest that's what's going on here.
比如在《马太福音》第十八章中，提到如果有弟兄得罪了你，在 你和一两个人与他对质后，如果他仍然不听，你就告诉教会。 You have passages like Matthew 18, in which, in the case of a brother who sins against you, after you and one or two others confront him, if he refuses to listen to you, you tell it to the Church.
耶稣假定你知道这是什么意思。 Jesus presupposes you know what that means.
他的原始听众显然明白，因为接着我们被告知，如 果他连教会都不听，就把他看作外邦人和税吏。 His original hearers apparently did because then we're told if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
所以这是某种有形的教会，具有逐出教会的能力，而耶稣理所当然地认为他的 听众知道这意味着什么、看起来如何，以及如何处理诸如争端之类的事情。 So this is some kind of visible Church that has the ability to excommunicate, and Jesus takes for granted that his listeners know what that means and what that looks like and how it handles things like disputes that arise.
同样，圣保罗可以对提摩太说——我们会多次回到这本书——如果他耽搁了，提摩 太可以知道如何在神的家中行事，这家就是永生神的教会，是真理的柱石和根基。 Likewise, St. Paul can say to Timothy—we're going to get back to this book a lot—that if he's delayed, Timothy can know how to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
换句话说，我认为这一切都表明早期教会在教会的问题上是正确的。 In other words, I think all of this points to the fact that the early Church was getting the question of Church right.
当教会有做错的事情——比如早期基督徒做错的事情，我应该这 么说——当早期基督徒为某些事情争论时，使徒们就会介入。 When there are things that the Church is getting wrong—like the early Christians are getting wrong, I should say—when there are times where the early Christians are fighting about something, then the apostles step in.
他们解决争端，讨论争议，以及其他一切问题。 They settle disputes, they discuss controversies, and everything else.
但他们倾向于在问题出现时讨论这些问题；他们并没有直接提出一个系统的神学，对吧？ But they tend to discuss problems that arise when they arise; they don't just lay out a systematic theology, right?
他们在处理问题，尤其是保罗，这对他来说是事实——他是在问题出现时处理它们。 They're handling, especially Paul, this is true of him—he's handling questions as they come up.
所以，如果人们在教会的问题上是正确的，就没有必要写一 篇关于教会本质和职分样式的论文，因为那部分没有争议。 So if people are getting the question of the Church right, there's no need to write a treatise on the nature of the Church and what the offices look like because that part's not in dispute.
你写的是那些有争议的事情，这对使徒来说和今天一样是真实的。 You write about the things that are controversial, and that's true of the apostles as much as it is today.
所以我在一开始提到这一点，是为了说这并不是因为耶稣给了我们回 旋的空间而让我们可以走向不同的方向，我认为这完全误解了证据。 So I mentioned that at the outset to say that rather than this being kind of our ability to go in different directions because Jesus gave us wiggle room, I think that completely misreads the evidence.
新约是写给那些已经是教会成员的人，所以我们 应该做的是弄清楚教会对那些人意味着什么。 The New Testament is written to people who are already members of the Church, and so what we should do is figure out what the Church meant to those people.
因为新约中没有纠正的事实似乎是对事情进展顺利的一种确认。 Because the fact that there's not a New Testament corrective seems to be a confirmation that things are going well.
如果他们对教会的理解是错误的，那没有人告诉他们错了就很奇怪了。 If they're getting the Church wrong, it's weird that nobody's telling them they're getting it wrong.
好吧，让我们回到弗里尔的话题。 Okay, let's go back to Friel.
保罗指示提摩太在每个教会中设立长老，而不是由一个人为所有人做决定。 Paul instructed Timothy to put elders in place in every Church, not one guy making decisions for everybody.
我没有看到——我真的没有看到教会中有任何形式的民主制度。 I don't see—I really don't see any sort of democracy system for a Church.
我认为那更像是我们21世纪的思维方式，即我们这些人来做决定。 I think that's more of our 21st-century mindset that we, the people, make decisions.
我没有看到圣经赋予我们那样的权利。 I don't see us being given that right in the Bible.
相反，我看到保罗指示提摩太设立一些比会众中其他人更属灵成熟的 长老，由他们为会众做决定，因为他们可能比整个会众更了解情况。 Instead, I see that Paul instructs Timothy to put a number of elders who are more spiritually mature than anybody else in the congregation, and they make decisions for them because they presumably know better than the body.
所以，我再次部分同意，部分不同意。 So again, I want to agree in part and disagree in part.
我不认为长老自动就是教会中最有知识或最圣洁的人。 I don't think it's true that the presbyters are automatically the most knowledgeable or holiest people in the body.
首先，这显然是一个仅限男性的职分，而我并不 准备说每个地方教会中最圣洁的人一定是男性。 For one, this is apparently a male-only office, and I'm not ready to say the holiest person in every local Church is going to be a man.
我也不认为在每种情况下最圣洁的人都会成为领导者。 I also don't think the holiest person in every context is going to be the leader.
基督教的领导方式通常不是这样的。 That's not how Christian leadership often works.
如果你看看十二使徒，他们并不是耶稣最圣洁的十二个追随者。 If you were to look at the twelve apostles, those aren't the twelve holiest followers of Jesus.
如果你告诉我，一边是加略人犹大，另一边是伯大尼的马利亚，其中一 个被召到领导的位置，另一个没有，但被召的并不是更圣洁的那一个。 If you were to tell me Judas Iscariot on the one hand and Mary of Bethany on the other, one of them is called to a position of leadership, one isn't, but it's not the one who's holier.
所以我认为那部分是误读，但我认为他有几件事是对的。 So I think that part is a misreading, but I think he gets a couple of things right.
例如，他正确地指出，新约中没有关于民主的命令。 He gets right, for instance, that there is no mandate for a democracy in the New Testament.
我们有这样的偏见，认为民主是最好的，并且我们想把民主强加于基督教。 Like, we have this bias that democracy is the best, and we want to impose democracy upon Christianity.
但那根本不是圣经的模式。 That's just not the biblical model.
耶稣本可以来宣讲「神的民主人民共和国」。 Jesus could have come and preached the Democratic People's Republic of God.
我的意思是，在基督之前，希腊已经尝试过民主，而你知道他是神；他当然知道民主。 I mean, democracy had already been tried in Greece before the time of Christ, and you know he's God; he knew about democracy.
但他没有。他来宣讲的是「神的国」，而且从召选使徒开始，很明显是自上而下的领导。 But he doesn't. He comes and proclaims the Kingdom of God, and it's pretty striking from the calling of the apostles forward that there's top-down leadership.
这不是民主的。 It's not democratic.
现在，弗里尔提到保罗告诉提摩太在每个城里设立长老，这有点奇怪。 Now, Friel's making a strange reference to Paul telling Timothy to appoint elders in every town.
那段经文在新约中并不存在。 That passage doesn't exist in the New Testament.
我不是想刻薄；我只是试图弄清楚他指的是哪段经文 ，我认为他可能把三四段不同的经文混在一起了。 I don't mean that to be mean; I'm trying to figure out what his reference is to, and I think he might be blending together three or four different passages.
所以这是我尽力尝试解读的结果。 So here's my best attempt to unpack it.
我认为，如果你解读他想表达的内容，他是在为两层结构提出一个不错的论点。 I think if you unpack what he's trying to say, he's making a decent argument for a two-tiered structure.
我认为这个论点可能是错误的，但我想确保我正确理解了它。 I think that argument is going to be wrong, but I want to make sure I understand it right.
在《使徒行传》第十四章中，保罗和巴拿巴在每个教会中设 立长老，伴随着祷告和禁食，把他们交托给他们所信的主。 In Acts 14, Paul and Barnabas appoint elders in every church with prayer and fasting, committing them to the Lord in whom they believed.
所以请注意，这是自上而下的领导；保罗和巴拿巴到处设立长老。 So notice it's top-down leadership; Paul and Barnabas are going around appointing elders.
在《提多书》第一章第五节中，我们会回到这段经文，保罗告诉 提多——不是提摩太——按照他的指示在每个城里设立长老。 In Titus 1:5, what passage we're going to get back to, Paul tells Titus—not Timothy—to appoint elders in every town as he directed him.
我认为他可能指的是这段经文。 That's what I think he might be referencing.
但保罗也有很多关于长老的指示是写给提摩太的。 But there are plenty of references that Paul has to Timothy as well about elders.
他在《提摩太前书》第三章中也提到了主教的职分。 He also has a passage in 1 Timothy 3 about the office of bishop.
他谈到了主教的资格标准。 He talks about the criteria of a bishop.
我稍后会谈到这一点，因为他提到你应该在主教身上寻找什么，然后在执事身上寻找什么。 I'll get into that in a second because he mentions what you should look for in a bishop and then what you should look for in deacons.
现在，那些说主教和长老是同一个职分的人会说：「啊哈！」 Now, people who say bishops and elders are the same thing are going to say, Aha!
他没有提到长老，所以显然主教和执事就是长老和执事。 He doesn't mention elders, so clearly bishop and deacon is just elders and deacons.
另一种观点会说：「嗯，很明显，他用复数提到执事，但用单数提到主教。」 The other view is going to say, Well, it's striking that he says deacons in the plural but a bishop in the singular.
但我认为还有另一种方法可以破解这个问题。 But I think there's another way of cracking this nut.
因为请记住，我们不是在争论词语，而是在争论职分。 Because remember, we're not debating the words; we're debating the offices.
在早期教会中，这些职分可能被称呼得稍微宽泛一些。 It's possible that the offices get called things a little more loosely in the early Church.
比如说，如果我们谈论神的拣选这个概念，「拣选」或 「呼召」这个词在新约的不同经文中有不同的用法。 So, for instance, if we were talking about the idea of divine election, that word for election or calling is used in different ways in different passages in the New Testament.
比如，耶稣说：「被召的人多，选上的人少。」 For instance, Jesus says, Many are called, but few are chosen.
显然，这里的「呼召」和圣保罗谈论神的拣选时的用法不同，因为如果是那 样，他就不会说「选上的人少」，而会说「所有被召的人都被选上了」。 Well, clearly that's not the same use of calling as when St. Paul talks about divine election, because then he wouldn't say few are chosen; he'd say everyone who is called is chosen.
但要理解这一点，你不能只看词语本身；你必须看上下文和神学背景。 But to make sense of that, you can't just look at the words; you have to look at the context and the theologies.
同样，当我们谈论教会时，仅仅说「episcopos」和「pres byteros」有时似乎可以互换使用，这并不是一个足够好的论点。 Well, likewise, when we're talking about the Church, it's not a good enough argument to say sometimes episcopos and presbyteros are used in a way that seems interchangeable.
我们不能确定，但可能是这样。 We don't know for sure, but it might be.
更好的问题是：我们是否看到了三层结构？ The better question is: Do we see three tiers or not?
所以在这里，保罗是在对提摩太谈论以弗所的教会。 So here, Paul is talking to Timothy about the Church in Ephesus.
那么让我们快速聚焦到以弗所。 So let's just zoom into Ephesus real quick.
显然，有执事；也显然有长老，因为他们会被多次提到。 Clearly, there are deacons; there are also clearly elders because they're going to get mentioned a lot.
而我们的问题是：是否有高于长老层级的人？ And the question we have is: Is there anybody above the level of elder?
要回答这个问题，我会说要密切注意保罗所说的话，因为 有一个候选人几乎显而易见，以至于我们可能会忽略他。 To answer that question, I would say pay close attention to what Paul says because there's a candidate for that who's almost so obvious we can overlook him.
这就像你在数房间里的人时忘了把自己算进去一样。 It's almost like when you're counting people in the room and you forget to count yourself.
那么，在这种情况下，我们可能会忘记的人是他正在对话的人，不是我们，而是提摩太。 Well, in this case, the person we can forget about is the person he's talking to, which isn't us; it's Timothy.
所以，提摩太——听听圣保罗对提摩太的指示，关于他在以弗所教会中的角色。 And so, Timothy—listen to the way that, well, just listen to the instructions that St. Paul gives to Timothy about what his role is in the Church of Ephesus.
他在第一章第三节开始，告诉他要留在以弗所，好指示某些人不可传异教。 He begins in verse 3 of chapter 1, telling him to remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine.
所以在以弗所教会中，有一些人拥有教导的权柄，而 提摩太的角色是维护正统，确保没有人传讲异端。 So you've got people in the Church in Ephesus who have teaching authority, and then Timothy has the role of enforcing orthodoxy, making sure nobody is preaching heresy.
有几章内容；第二章是关于祷告，第三章是关于主教或执事的资格，然后在第 四章中，在给出一系列命令后，他说：「这些事你要吩咐人，也要教导人。」 There are several chapters; chapter 2 is about prayer, chapter 3 is about what to look for in a bishop or in deacons, and then chapter 4, after giving a bunch of commands, he says, Command and teach these things.
所以他拥有命令的权柄和教导的权柄，他说：「不可叫人小看你年轻。」 So he's got an authority of command, an authority of teaching, and he says, Let no one despise your youth.
所以请注意，他并不是字面意义上的年长者「presbyteros 」；他不是那种意义上的长老，但他处于一个可以命令长老的职位上。 So notice he's not a presbyteros in the literal sense of an older man; he's not an elder in that sense, but he is in the position that he is commanding elders.
此外，他被指示要专心于宣读圣经、讲道和教导。 Additionally, he's told to attend to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching, and to teaching.
所以他拥有宣讲神道的权柄。 So he has a proclamation of the Word authority.
在下一节中，保罗说了一些备受争议的话。 In the next verse, Paul says something that has been hotly debated.
《提摩太前书》第四章第十四节中，保罗对他说：「不可轻忽所得 的恩赐，就是从前借着预言，在众长老按手的时候赐给你的。」 1 Timothy 4, verse 14 says Paul tells him, Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the elders laid their hands upon you.
现在，这段经文有两种解读方式。 Now, there are two ways of reading that passage.
一种解读是，这是一种属灵恩赐；他们按手在他 身上，然后开始说方言，类似的事情发生了。 One way is that this is a charismatic gift; they laid hands on him, and they started speaking in tongues, that sort of thing is happening.
另一种解读——我认为是更古老且更有力的解读——是这指的是他被按立为长老。 The other reading—and I think the older and stronger reading—is that this is a reference to his ordination as an elder himself.
但还有更多，因为这是由其他长老进行的按立。 But there's more because this is an ordination given by the other elders.
如果主教存在的话，长老是不能按立主教的。 The elders can't ordain a bishop if bishops exist.
但圣保罗提到了第二次按手。 But there's a second laying on of hands that St. Paul refers to.
注意，《提摩太前书》第四章第十四节中提到的是由同为长老的人按手。 Notice this one in 1 Timothy 4:14 is given by the fellow elders.
在《提摩太后书》第一章中，圣保罗提醒他说：「要 将神借我按手所赐给你的恩赐再如火挑旺起来。」 In 2 Timothy 1, St. Paul reminds him to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands.
所以，使徒们不仅按立长老，他们也可以按立主教。 So the apostles weren't just ordaining elders; they could also ordain bishops.
这是一个支持三层主教结构的论点。 This is a three-tiered bishop argument.
现在，我知道有些人会不同意这一点，但我们似 乎确实在提摩太身上看到了两次不同的按立。 Now, I realize some people are going to disagree with that, but we have what appear to be two different ordinations referenced in regards to Timothy.
现在，我只是想强调这一点，我知道有些人会拒绝这一点，因为他们拒绝按立神学。 Now, I'm going to just highlight that, and I know some people are going to reject that because they reject the ordination theology.
没关系；让我们看看其余的证据。 That's fine; let's look at the rest of the evidence.
回到《提摩太前书》，现在我们来到第五章。在《提摩太前书》第 五章中，他说：「那善于管理的长老，当以加倍的敬奉为配得。」 Getting back to 1 Timothy, now we're up to 1 Timothy 5. In 1 Timothy 5, he says, Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor.
现在，这指的是他们得到更多的报酬，这一点很清楚，因为他引用了两段圣经经文。 Now, this is a reference to them getting paid more, and this is very clear because he cites two biblical passages.
其中一段明确地说：「工人得工价是应当的。」 One of them very clearly states, The laborer deserves his wages.
另一段对我们来说可能不太清楚：「牛在场上踹谷的时候，不可笼住它的嘴。」 The other one may be less clear to us: You shall not muzzle an ox while it's treading out the grain.
这里的意思是，如果农夫有一头牛在田里工作，给 它戴上笼嘴让它在工作时不能吃东西是残忍的。 The idea there was that a farmer, if you've got an ox working in the field, it's cruel to put a muzzle over its mouth where it can't eat while it's working.
如果它在踹谷，就应该允许它在踹谷时吃谷物。 If it's treading the grain, it should be allowed to eat the grain while it's treading.
同样，长老在神的国度中服事时，也应该能够获得报酬。 So likewise, an elder should be able to make money while they're serving in the Kingdom of God.
令人惊讶的是，这里的财政权显然掌握在提摩太手中。他 是那个决定哪些长老管理得好并值得获得更多报酬的人。 Strikingly, apparently the purse strings here are Timothy's. He's the one deciding which ones he thinks are ruling well and are deserving of getting more money.
这是一个相当重要的权柄，而这并不是提摩太与其他人共享的权柄。 That is a pretty significant authority, and it's not what Timothy is sharing with anybody else.
但如果这还不够，在第十九节中，我们被告知他在对长老进行公正裁 决时该怎么做：「控告长老的呈子，非有两三个见证就不要收。」 But if that's not enough, in verse 19, we're told what he's to do in terms of adjudicating justice against the elders: Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
至于那些继续犯罪的，要当众责备他们，使其余的人也可以存敬畏的心。 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so the rest may stand in fear.
我看不出有什么方式可以解读为提摩太只是共同治理的长老之一。 I don't see a way to read this and say Timothy is just one of the co-ruling elders.
他是那个决定谁被按立、谁不被按立的人。 He's the one choosing who does and doesn't get ordained.
他是那个决定他们拿多少报酬的人。 He's the one choosing how much they're getting paid.
他是那个在有人控告他们时进行裁决的人。 He's the one who's adjudicating when charges are brought against them.
他是那个其他人应该敬畏并尊重其权威的人，尽 管他年轻——在许多情况下可能比他们还年轻。 He's the one whom the others are supposed to fear and respect his authority, even though he's young—probably younger than them in many cases.
他被赋予了公开宣讲的权柄以及维护正统的能力，以确保人们不传讲错误的教义。 He's given this public proclamation power and the ability to enforce orthodoxy, to make sure people aren't preaching false doctrine.
然后在第21到22节中，他被提醒不要急于按手，也不要在别人的罪上有份。 Then in verses 21 to 22, he's reminded not to be hasty in the laying on of hands and not to participate in another man's sins.
换句话说，不要按立一个你不知道是否会成为优秀长老的人。 In other words, don't ordain somebody you don't know is going to be a quality elder.
所以他有能力做所有这些事情；他显然不仅仅是另一个长老。 So he has the ability to do all of these things; he's not just apparently another one of the elders.
所以如果我们问这个问题：在以弗所的教会中，有执事，在执事之上有长老。 So if we ask the question: In the Church in Ephesus, there are deacons, and above that, there are elders.
在长老之上还有人吗？ Is there anyone above that?
在我看来，圣经的证据相当明确：在以弗所，有提摩太，长老们以一种他们对其他人不需要 负责的方式对提摩太负责，而提摩太也不需要对其他人负责——至少在地方层面上，对吧？ It seems to me that the biblical evidence is pretty unambiguous that there is this Timothy, that in Ephesus, the elders are accountable to Timothy in a way that they're not accountable to anybody else, and the way Timothy isn't accountable to anybody else—at least at the local level, right?
比如，我们不是在谈论全球层面。 Like, we're not talking about the global level.
我们这里不是在谈论使徒；我们是在看地方教会。 We're not talking about the apostles here; we're looking at the local Church.
同样，这只是一个教会——这只是以弗所教会。 Well, likewise, this is just one Church—this is just Ephesus.
让我们跳到克里特岛，在那里我们发现提多的情况非常相似。 Let's jump over to Crete, the isle of Crete, and there we find a very similar situation with Titus.
正如你在《提多书》中读到的，圣保罗告诉他，他留提多在克里特岛，「好 将那没有办完的事都办整齐了，又照我所吩咐你的，在各城设立长老。」 As you can read in the letter to Titus, St. Paul tells him that he left him in Crete, quote, that you might amend what was defective and appoint elders in every town as I directed you, end quote.
所以再次，他有权决定谁被任命，谁不被任命。 So again, he has the power to decide who does and doesn't get appointed.
这不是基层的，也不是自下而上的。 It's not grassroots; it's not bottom-up.
而是提多在岛上走动，确定每个城里谁应该成为长老。 It's Titus going around the island figuring out in every town who should be the elders in that town.
然后他被告知：「至于你，要讲合乎那纯正教义的事。」 Then he's told, As for you, teach what befits sound doctrine.
所以他也有教导教义的权柄。 So he has a teaching authority to teach doctrine as well.
在《提多书》第二章末尾和第三章开头，圣保罗对他说 ：「你要讲这些事，用各等权柄劝戒人，责备人。」 In Titus 2 and into 3, at the very end of chapter 2 and into chapter 3, he says, Declare, St. Paul says to him, declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority.
所以他被设立在一个有权柄的位置上。 So he's being set up in a position of authority.
他被告知要用各等权柄劝戒人，责备人，不要让别人轻视他和他的权柄。 He's told to exhort and reprove with all authority and not to let others just disregard him and his authority.
他不仅仅是被呈现为一个好榜样；你知道，他不是只是来说：「这是我的个人看法。」 He's not just presented as a good model; you know, he's not just coming in to say, This is my personal view.
不，他是带着权柄在命令和教导，如果有人反对他，是会有后果的。 No, he is commanding and teaching with authority, and if he's opposed, there are consequences for that.
在《提多书》第三章第10到11节中，他说：「分门结党的人，警戒过一两次， 就要弃绝他；因为知道这等人已经背道，犯了罪，自己明知是这样，还是去作。」 In Titus 3:10 to 11, he says, As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.
这非常引人注目。 That's pretty striking.
正如我们在以弗所教会中看到的，在执事和长老之上，有提摩太。 So just as we saw in the Church of Ephesus, above the level of deacon and elder, there is Timothy.
那么，在克里特的教会中，在执事和长老之上，有提多。 Well, in the Church in Crete, above the level of deacon and elder, there's Titus.
现在，圣保罗从未为这个职分命名；他从未说过：「我们要把提摩太和提多在地方教会中担 任的这个角色称为什么」，这个角色是由一个人负责管理一切，甚至长老们都要向他负责。 Now, St. Paul never names this office; he never says, Here's what we're going to call this role that Timothy and Titus serve in the local Church, where it's one guy who's in charge of administering everything and who even the elders are accountable to.
但最终——而且没花多长时间——早期基督徒明确地将其认定为主教的职分。 But eventually—and it doesn't take long—the early Christians clearly identify this with the office of bishop.
所以，再次，这里有两个例子。 So again, those are two examples.
它们并不是孤立的，但我们从保罗相对直白的书信转 向圣约翰在《启示录》中更神秘且难以理解的写作。 They're not alone, but here we go from the pretty straightforward writings of Paul to the much more mystical and hard-to-understand writings of St. John in the Book of Revelation.
为了提供一些背景，《启示录》中提到了七个教会。 So for a little bit of context here, there are seven churches that are mentioned in Revelation.
传统上认为，约翰此时已经被流放到拔摩岛，这个岛就在现代土耳其海岸附近。 John is traditionally understood to be already in exile at this time on the isle of Patmos, which is just off the coast of modern-day Turkey.
在这一地区内有七个教会，他从神那里得到了启示，带有对这七个教会的指示。 There are seven churches within the general vicinity, within the general region, and he receives a revelation from God with instructions to those seven churches.
但这些指示是以一种非常奇特的方式传达给他的。 But these instructions are given to him in this very curious way.
我给你一个例子：在《启示录》第二章第一节中写道：「你要写信给以弗所教会的使者。」 So I'll give you an example: in Revelation 2, verse 1, it says, To the angel of the church in Ephesus write.
好吧，表面上看，他被告知要写信给一个天使。 Okay, so he's on paper being told to write a letter to an angel.
让我们承认这其中的奇怪之处。 Let's acknowledge the weirdness of that.
我们也要承认，《启示录》中使用了大量的象征性图像。 Let's also acknowledge that there's a lot of imagery used in the Book of Revelation.
比如，你有四个活物，传统上至少从公元100年代开始，就被 认定为与马太、马可、路加和约翰——四福音书——相关联。 So you have the four living beings who have traditionally, going back to at least the 100s, been identified with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—the four Gospels.
有很多事情在发生，这可以理解地让许多基督徒对《启示录》感到非常困惑。 There's a lot of stuff going on, which understandably causes a lot of Christians to get very confused by the Book of Revelation.
所以问题是：圣约翰写信给的这七个教会的七位使者是谁？ So the question is: Who are these seven angels of the seven churches that St. John is writing to?
科林·赫默，D.A.卡森的门徒，写了一本书 叫《写给亚细亚七教会的书信及其地方背景》。 Colin Hemmer, a disciple of D.A. Carson, has a book called The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia and Their Local Settings.
赫默已经去世了——不幸的是，愿神安息他的灵 ——他提出了五种解读这段经文的基本方式。 Hemmer, who is now deceased—unfortunately, God rest his soul—suggests there are basically five ways of reading this passage.
第一种，我们可以将它们视为字面意义上的天使，即教会的天上守护者。 Number one, we could view them as literally angels, heavenly guardians of the churches.
第二种，人类代表，通常就是主教。 Number two, human representatives, typically just as bishops.
赫默说，这两种是常见的观点。 Those are the two common views, Hemmer says.
但他还提到了另外三种观点。 But he also mentions three additional views.
第三种观点是，这些天使只是教会的拟人化象征。 So view number three is that the angels are just personifications of the churches.
第四种观点是，它们是字面意义上的人类使者。 Number four, that they're literally human messengers.
或者第五种，我们耸耸肩说，这太难判断了。 Or number five, we kind of shrug our shoulders and say it's too hard to tell.
所以，我们解读《启示录》第二章和第三章的五种可能是：这些是写给以下对象的七封信， 或者七个劝诫、鼓励、话语、信息：第一，字面意义上的天上天使；第二，七个教会的七位 主教；第三，教会本身；第四，人类使者；或者第五，我们无法确定一个明确的含义。 So the five candidates for how we read Revelation 2 and 3 are that these are seven letters being written, or seven admonitions, encouragements, seven words, seven messages being written to: number one, literal heavenly angels; number two, the seven bishops of the seven churches; number three, the churches themselves; number four, human messengers; or number five, we just can't determine a clear meaning.
让我们逐一分析这个列表。 Let's work through this list.
我认为我们可以排除其中的一些可能性。 I think we can cross off some of these candidates.
在《启示录》的背景中，在第一章的结尾，就在第二章和 第三章的内容之前，有一个七星和七个金灯台的图像。 In the context of the Book of Revelation, at the end of Revelation 1, right before this bit in Revelation 2 and 3, there's an image of seven stars and seven golden lampstands.
《启示录》第一章第二十节解释了这个图像：七 星是七个教会的使者，七个灯台是七个教会。 Revelation 1:20 explains this image: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
所以，再次强调，这里有很多象征性图像，但你有灯台，也有星星。 So again, there's a lot of imagery, but you have the lampstands and you have the stars.
星星代表教会的使者，灯台代表教会。 The stars represent the angels of the churches, and the lampstands represent the churches.
所以，无论这些使者是什么，它们都不是教会本身，因为这里用了两个不同的图像 ，并且在《启示录》第一章第二十节中明确区分为两个不同的象征性群体。所以我 们可以把第三种可能性排除：它们不是教会本身；教会是灯台，而不是星星。 So whatever the angels are, they are not the churches themselves because there are two different images used, and they're clearly distinguished as two different symbolically represented groups in Revelation 1:20. So we can take that third option off the list: they're not the churches themselves; the churches are the lampstands, not the stars.
在我看来，我们也可以排除第一种可能性——这些是字面意义上写给天使的信。 We can also take, it seems to me, the first option off the list—that these are literally writings to angels.
事实上，我觉得这种观点有点奇怪，因为许多持这种观点的人，不 愿意将其解读为写给地方教会七位主教的信，因为他们不喜欢早期 教会在圣经时代就有主教，并且这是得到耶稣认可的这个想法。 In fact, I find this one kind of strange because many of the people who identify this, like many people, don't want to read this as letters to seven bishops of local churches because they don't like the idea that the early Church had bishops in biblical times and that this was approved by Jesus.
所以他们想说：「不，不，不，这些是字面意义上的天使。」 So they want to say, No, no, no, these are literally angels.
但这些人中许多人实际上并不接受今天有人写信给天使。 But many of the same people are not actually okay with someone today writing a letter to an angel.
如果你说：「我要去写一封信给天使」，他们会说 那是招魂术，尽管显然不是，因为天使并没有死。 If you were to say, I'm going to go write a letter to an angel, they would say that's necromancy, even though it's clearly not because the angels aren't dead.
但那是灵界交往；那是某种——那是异端，那是邪恶的，那是不好的。 But it's spiritism; it's something—it's a cult, it's evil, it's bad.
你不被允许那样做；那是偶像崇拜。 You're not allowed to do that; that's idolatry.
这是一个泛泛的概括，但你经常会看到这些同样声称《启示 录》第二章到第三章是在告诉约翰必须写信给天使的人。 That's a broad brush here, but what you often see from the same people who claim that Revelation 2-3 is telling John he has to write letters to angels.
所以我觉得这有点奇怪。 So I just find that kind of curious.
但我认为我们可以提出一个更有力的论点，而更有力的论点 是，如果这些信是字面意义上写给天使的，那就说不通了。 But I think we can make a stronger case, and the stronger case would be that the letters don't make sense if they're written literally to angels.
例如，在《启示录》第三章第14到16节中，老底嘉教会的使者被警告他的属灵冷淡。 For example, in Revelation 3:14-16, the angel of the church of Laodicea is warned about his spiritual lukewarmness.
耶稣说，那对天使来说是非常奇怪的话。 Jesus says that would be a very strange thing to say to an angel.
很难想象一个属灵冷淡的天使。 It's very hard to imagine a spiritually lukewarm angel.
如果你理解天使的神学，这就完全说不通了。 It doesn't make any sense if you understand the theology of angels.
他们不会只是懒散无所事事。 They're not just lazing about.
此外，在士每拿教会的情况下，士每拿教会的使者被告知：「不要怕你将要受的苦。」 Moreover, you have in the case of the Church of Smyrna, the angel of the Church of Smyrna is being told, Do not fear what you're about to suffer.
「看哪，魔鬼要把你们中间几个人下在监里。」 Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison.
那么，他们怎么可能把一个天使下在监里呢？ Well, how are they going to throw an angel?
谁能逮捕一个天使？ Who's arresting an angel?
而且为什么天使会害怕被逮捕？ And why would an angel be afraid of being arrested?
这些都说不通。 None of that makes sense.
所以我认为，如果你把《启示录》第二章到第三章 解读为写给字面意义上的天使，那是说不通的。 So I would suggest that Revelation 2-3 doesn't make sense if you read it as being written to literal angels.
同样，我也不认为把它解读为写给人类使者是有意义的， 因为那基本上是在责怪使者，几乎是字面意义上的责怪。 Likewise, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to view it as being written to human messengers because you're basically shooting the messenger there, almost literally.
你让他们为教会的属灵冷淡负责。 You're holding them accountable for the spiritual lukewarmness of the Church.
可是，他们只是使者；为什么他们要因为教会的失败而 被定罪和责备，除非他们对教会有某种属灵的权柄？ Well, they're just a messenger; why should they be condemned and rebuked for the failing of a Church unless they have some kind of spiritual authority over that Church?
所以这让我们剩下两个可能：要么我们无法说清它的意 思，要么如果可以，那就是指七个教会的七位主教。 So that leaves us with two candidates: either we can't say what it means, or if we can, it's about seven bishops of the seven churches.
那么，有没有积极的理由可以证明这些是七位主教呢？ Now, is there a positive case to be made that these are seven bishops?
答案是肯定的。 The answer is yes.
因为尽管我们通常将「天使」这个词指代属灵的存在，但 「天使」这个词的意思是使者，在旧约中也用来指祭司。 Because even though the term angel we normally refer to the spiritual beings, the word angel means messenger, and it's used to refer also to the priests in the Old Testament.
例如，在希伯来语中，这个词是「malak」。 For instance, in Hebrew, the word is malak.
在《创世记》十六章第九节中，「耶和华的使者」 （malak）是你听到天使被提到的一种方式。 The angel of the Lord, the malak of the Lord in Genesis 16:9, is one of the ways you hear angels referred to.
在《玛拉基书》第二章第七节中，我们被告知：「祭司的嘴里当存知识，人 也当从他口中寻求律法，因为他是万军之耶和华的使者（malak）。」 Well, in Malachi 2, verse 7, we're told, For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the malak of the Lord of hosts.
他是万军之耶和华的使者，天使。 He is the messenger, the angel of the Lord of hosts.
因此，由于旧约中的祭司和新约中的主教都与这种教导的权 柄相关联，他们可以被称为使者（malak）或天使。 So because there's this teaching authority associated with the priest in the Old Testament and with the bishop in the New Testament, they can be called messengers, malaks, or angels.
这并不意味着他们有翅膀或天使的形象，而是说他们确实是使者。 That doesn't mean that they have wings or a mental image of angels, but they are literally messengers.
「天使」是对一种职务的描述。 Angel is a description of a job.
因此，作为「malak」，作为天使，他们是使者。 And so, as a malak, as an angel, they are messengers.
同样，在《传道书》第五章中，当谈到在圣殿中轻率许愿时，你被告知：「你到神的殿要 谨慎脚步，不可让你的口陷你于罪，也不可在使者（malak）面前说是错许了愿。」 Likewise, in Ecclesiastes 5, when it talks about making rash vows in the temple, you're told to guard your steps when you go to the house of God and let not your mouth lead you into sin, and do not say before the malak that it was a mistake.
这里的「malak」并不是指你在与天使交谈，而是指祭司。 The malak there is not that there's an angel you're talking to; it's the priest.
不要在祭司面前作为耶和华的使者轻率许愿，因 为你会被这个愿约束，而你可能无法履行它。 Don't go and make a promise in front of the priest as the angel of the Lord because you're going to be bound to it, and you wouldn't be able to live it out.
所以不要轻率地这样做。 So don't rashly do that.
所有这些表明，有一个强有力的论据可以说《启示录》中的七位使 者是那七个教会的七位主教，这表明不仅仅是以弗所和克里特，还 有小亚细亚的这七个教会，我们看到每个教会都有一位主教。 All that's to say, there seems to be a strong positive case to say the seven angels in Revelation are the seven bishops of those seven churches, which points to the fact that it wasn't just Ephesus and Crete, but also these seven churches in Asia Minor where we see one bishop per church.
然而，赫默并不这样看待这些事情。 Now, Hemmer doesn't view things that way.
事实上，他将提出一个论点，认为我们可以很容易地否定这个理论。 In fact, he's going to make the argument that we can really easily discard this theory.
他认为最容易否定的两种说法是主教和人类使者。 He thinks the two things that are easiest to say it's not are bishops and human messengers.
他说这些是最容易被批评的理论。 He says those are the theories proposed that can most easily be criticized.
现在，在我看来，这至少应该引起一些警觉，因为这是一个非常流行的观点。 Now, that should raise at least a couple of red flags, it seems to me, because it's such a popular view.
不过，好吧，让我们听听他的论点。 But fine, let's listen to his argument.
他说，个人几乎不可能为教会的品格负责。 He says the individual could scarcely be held responsible for the character of the church.
让我们在这里停一下。 Let's pause there.
他不认为这可能是主教，因为主教几乎不可能为他教会的品格负责。 He doesn't think it could be the bishop because the bishop could hardly be held responsible for the character of his church.
从圣经的角度来看，这显然是错误的。 Biblically, that's just obviously wrong.
无论你如何看待早期教会中的主教，教会中有具有 属灵权柄和责任的领袖这一观念是绝对明确的。 Whatever you think about bishops in the early Church, the idea that there are leaders in the Church that have spiritual authority and accountability is absolutely explicit.
这个论点在事实层面上就是错误的。 Like, this argument is just factually wrong.
在《希伯来书》十三章十七节中，我们被告知：「你们要依从那些引导你们 的，且要顺服，因为他们为你们的灵魂时刻警醒，好像那将来交账的人。」 In Hebrews 13:17, we're told to obey our leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls as men who will have to give account.
这就很清楚了：你们的领袖——这显然是指教会中的领袖——他们为你们的灵魂警醒。 Like, it's right there: your leaders—and this is clearly talking about the leaders in the Church—they're keeping watch over your souls.
他们不是政治领袖；教会中的领袖是我们被要求顺服和依从 的，他们为我们的灵魂警醒，好像那些将来要交账的人。 They're not political leaders; the leaders in the Church we are required to obey and submit to, and they're keeping watch over our souls as men who will have to give account.
如果他们领导得不好，他们将面临严重的后果。 If they lead poorly, they will face serious consequences.
所以，认为个人几乎不可能为教会的品格负责的观点，在主教的情况下显然是错误的。 So the idea that the individual could scarcely be held responsible for the character of the Church is obviously wrong in the case of a bishop.
其次，他说在《启示录》的教会中，没有明确的证据支持主教权威的观念。 Second, he says there is no unambiguous evidence for the idea of episcopal authority in the churches of the Revelation.
嗯，我之前没有提到这一点，但我提到了克里特和以弗所。 Well, I didn't mention this before, but I mentioned Crete and Ephesus.
以弗所是小亚细亚的七个教会之一，所以我们已经知道其中一个教会显然有一 位主教，一个整个教会向他负责的领袖，因为提摩太之前曾担任过这个角色。 Ephesus is one of those seven churches in Asia Minor, so we already know one of those clearly has one bishop, one leader of that entire church that reports to him, because Timothy had been in that role before.
在《启示录》写成时，他可能还在或不在那个位置，但说《启示录》的 七个教会中没有明确的证据支持主教权威的观念，这显然是不正确的。 He may or may not be by the time the Book of Revelation is written, but it's just not true that of the seven churches in Revelation, there's no unambiguous evidence for the idea of episcopal authority.
显然是有的。 There clearly is.
我不确定「明确」是否是最好的论证标准。 I'm not sure unambiguous is the standard that is going to be the best to argue for.
你不能仅仅因为说「嗯，我没有找到明确的证据」就否定一个理论。 You can't throw out a theory just because you say, Well, I don't find the evidence unambiguous.
显然有相当好的证据表明有一个叫提摩太的人，其他长老都要向 他负责，因为我们在《提摩太前书》中到处都能看到这一点。 There's clearly decently good evidence that there's a guy called Timothy whom the other elders are accountable to, because we see that all around 1 Timothy.
所以，《启示录》的七个教会中至少有一个确实有独立的权威。 So at least one of the seven churches of Revelation does have independent authority.
但说「嗯，《启示录》不可能是关于七位主教的，因为我们没有任何 证据表明《启示录》是关于七位主教的」，这也是一种循环论证。 But it also is kind of question-begging to say, Well, Revelation can't be about seven bishops because we don't have any evidence that Revelation is about seven bishops.
嗯，证据就在那里。 Well, the evidence is right there.
它们要么是那七位使者，要么不是。你不能用没有其他经 文的事实来否定这个理论；我的意思是，这根本说不通。 They either are the seven angels or they aren't. You can't use the fact that there's not another passage to dismiss the theory; I mean, it just doesn't make sense.
好吧，但他承认，这在二十年后对依纳爵来说显得尤为重要。 All right, but then he acknowledges that it looms large for Ignatius 20 years later.
换句话说，让我读一下整段内容。 In other words, let me read that whole passage.
他说的意思是，当圣依纳爵在公元107年左右写信给以弗所教 会时，很明显他们有一位主教，因为他提到——这非常明确。 He says what he means there is when St. Ignatius is writing about the year 107 to the Church in Ephesus, it's very clear they have a bishop because he talks—it's very explicit.
所以你有三个独立的来源：《提摩太前书》、《启示录》第二到第三 章，以及圣依纳爵写给以弗所人的书信——所有这些都非常早，公元 107年或更早——独立地证实了以弗所教会有一位单一的领袖。 So you have three separate places: 1 Timothy, Revelation 2-3, and the writings of St. Ignatius to the Ephesians—all very early, 107 or earlier—independent corroborations of the fact that the Church in Ephesus has a single leader.
所以你可以说：「嗯，那是二十年后」，但你没有相反的证据。 So you can say, Well, that's 20 years later, but you don't have evidence pointing the other way.
所有的证据都指向同一个方向：以弗所有一位主教。 All of the evidence points in the same direction: that there is one bishop in Ephesus.
所以这是一个很好的过渡，可以说：「好吧，最早的基督徒有主教吗？」 So this is a nice segue then to saying, Okay, did the earliest Christians have bishops?
因为你看，记住，如果我们对新约的解读是正确的，我们必须说 最早的基督徒在教会的问题上是正确的，否则我们会在新约中找 到某种指示说：「不要那样建立你的教会；要这样建立。」 Because look, remember, if our read of the New Testament is correct, we have to say the earliest Christians got the question of Church right, or we would have found some kind of New Testament instruction saying, Don't build your Church that way; build it this way.
事实上，他们甚至不是建立教会的人；使徒们才是。 And in fact, they weren't even the ones who built it; the apostles were.
那么，当我们观察最早的基督徒时，我们发现了什么？ So what do we find when we look at the earliest Christians?
我想引用《福音派神学词典》第二版，因为在其中，利昂·莫里斯说：「对所有证 据的考量使我们得出结论，将我们现代的任何系统追溯到使徒时代是不可能的。」 I want to turn here to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, the second edition, because in there, Leon Morris says, A consideration of all of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that it is impossible to read back any of our modern systems into the apostolic age.
如果我们决心对所有与我们自身体系冲突的东西视而不见， 我们可能会在那里找到它，但几乎不可能在其他地方找到。 If we are determined to shut our eyes to all that conflicts with our own system, we may find it there, but scarcely otherwise.
这是一个令人绝望的观点，但你知道，就像弗里尔寻找回旋余地一样，莫里 斯提出了这样的观点：「哦，没有人是对的；这个问题没有正确答案。」 That is a hopeless note, but you know, just like with Friel finding wiggle room, you have this idea Morris presents that, like, oh, nobody's right; like there's no right answer to this question.
我们的教会都不是源于圣经的，我认为我们可以做得更好。 None of our churches are biblical in origin, and I think we can do better.
我认为证据指向了一个显然更好的结论。 I think the evidence points to something clearly better.
我之所以这么说的原因之一是莫里斯自己提出的一个或几个论点。 One of the reasons I say that is an argument—or a couple of arguments—that Morris makes himself.
他说，同样的三重职分，也就是我们之前看到的：主教、长老、执事，一 旦有足够的证据显示职分的性质，就被视为贯穿早期教会的普遍现象。 He says the same threefold ministry, which is the one we saw before: bishop, presbyter, deacon, is seen as universal throughout the early Church as soon as there is sufficient evidence to show us the nature of the ministry.
让我们来解析一下这是什么意思。 Let's unpack what that means.
当你查看历史证据时，这对新约的证据是成立的；这对 新约之外的第一、第二和第三世纪的证据也是成立的。 When you're looking at the evidence from history, this is true of the New Testament evidence; this is true of the evidence outside of the New Testament from the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries.
证据有两类：第一类是模糊的证据。 There are two categories of evidence: number one, there's ambiguous evidence.
这些是可以有多种解读的经文；你可以合理地这样解读，也可以合理地那样解读。 These are passages that could be read in multiple ways; you could plausibly read them one way and plausibly read them another way.
第二类证据是清晰的证据，明确的证据。 The second type of evidence is clear evidence, unambiguous evidence.
而每当我们找到明确的证据时，它总是指向同样的三重职分。 And whenever we find unambiguous evidence, it always points to the same threefold ministry.
这是莫里斯在《福音派神学词典》中的观点，他完全正确。 That's Morris' point in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, and he's absolutely right.
无论我们在哪里查看，要么看到的是一幅模糊到无法辨认的图景，要么看到 的是教会三重结构的清晰图景：主教、长老、执事；主教、长老、执事。 We find, wherever we look, either a picture too out of focus to know what it's showing or a very clear picture of the threefold structure of the Church: bishop, presbyters, deacons; bishop, elders, deacons.
我将仅举几个例子，因为我不想过多赘述。 I'm going to give just a couple of examples of that because I don't want to belabor it.
问题是：这是否在圣经中？ The question is: Is this in the Bible?
我想展示我们可以知道它在圣经中的一种方式，那就是最早的基督徒显然有这种教会 模式，而正如我将要论证的，除非这是圣经和使徒的模式，否则你无法解释这一点。 And I want to just show one of the ways we can know it's in the Bible is that the earliest Christians clearly had this model of Church, and as I'm going to argue, you can't account for that unless this is the biblical and apostolic model.
但我们会谈到这一点，所以我没有忘记这个问题的重点。 But we're going to get there, so I haven't forgotten what the prompt is.
我没有忘记这是关于圣经证据的。 I haven't forgotten this is about the biblical evidence.
但我们知道圣经教导的方式之一是看最早的人是如何 理解它的，然后他们是否因为那样的理解而被纠正？ But one of the ways we know what the Bible teaches is how did the earliest people understand it, and then were they corrected for understanding it in that way?
在这一点上，最早的人之一是前面提到的圣依纳爵。 So on this score, one of the earliest people is the aforementioned St. Ignatius.
依纳爵大约在公元107年写作，也许是在《启示录》之后的二十 年，或者稍微少一些，他非常清楚地表明每个教会都有三重结构。 Ignatius, who’s writing around 107, so maybe 20 years after the Book of Revelation, or maybe a little less than that, makes it incredibly clear that there’s a threefold structure of every Church.
他会告诉你这一点，而且他不仅仅是说有三重结构；他还会给出具体细节。 He’s going to tell you that, and it’s not just that he’s going to say there’s a threefold structure; he’s going to give specifics.
例如，当他写信给玛格尼西亚教会时，他向他们最尊贵的主教达玛斯致意。 For example, when he’s writing to the Church in Magnesia, he greets Damas, their most worthy bishop.
他向你们尊贵的长老巴苏斯和阿波罗尼乌斯致意，并向他的同工执事索迪乌斯致意。 He greets your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius, and he greets his fellow servant, the deacon Sodius.
我提到这一点是因为他在点名；他确切地告诉我们谁是主教，两位长老和一位执事。 I mention this because he’s naming names; he’s telling us exactly who the bishop, two of the presbyters, and a deacon are.
现在，可能还有更多的人，但我们知道有一个三重职分。 Now, there may be more people, but we know there’s a threefold office.
所以他不仅仅是在谈论一个理论上的概念；他是在非常具体地说明。 So he’s not just talking about it as a theoretical idea; he’s saying it very concretely.
与此相对，有人说早期教会只是由长老-主教组成的共同治理小组。 Contrast this with when people say the early Church just had a co-ruling panel of presbyter-bishops.
问他们是哪一个教会，以及共同治理的长老叫什么名字，他们 从来没有明确的证据表明有两个人同时共同治理并被承认。 Ask them what Church and what were the names of the co-ruling elders, and they never have clear evidence of here are two guys who were co-ruling at the same time and acknowledged it.
你刚刚在依纳爵的书信中听到的具体程度，他点名并明确指出是谁，而那些 说「哦不，不，这实际上只是一个两重职分」的人并没有这样的具体性。 The level of specificity you just heard in Ignatius' writing, where he names names and says here’s exactly who it is, you don’t have that from the people who are saying, “Oh no, no, it’s actually just a two-fold office.”
这在证据负担上是一个非常大的差异：依纳爵提供的是明确的 点名和清晰的证据，而那些不同意依纳爵的人总是模糊地说某 个时间、某个地方、某个人，但从未真正给出任何具体细节。 That is a pretty wild difference in the kind of evidentiary burden that Ignatius is presenting: unambiguous naming names, clear evidence, and the people who disagree with Ignatius are always just vaguely saying sometime, someplace, somewhere, somebody, but not really giving you any specifics.
我的意思是，当你试图展示相反的情况时，你很容易看到这样的例子。 And I mean, you can easily see examples of this when you try to show the opposite case.
如果这还不够，依纳爵会非常明确地表明，这不仅仅是「哦， 我们决定尝试一件新事」，或者「每个人都做自己的事」。 If that wasn’t enough, Ignatius is going to make it very clear this is not just, “Oh, we decided to try a new thing,” or “Everybody does their own thing.”
不，他实际上说：「同样地，大家要尊敬执事，因为他们是耶稣基督的任命；尊敬主教 ，因为他是耶稣基督，圣父的儿子；尊敬长老，因为他们是神的公会和使徒的集会。」 No, he actually says, “In like manner, let all revere the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God and assembly of the apostles.”
然后他说：「离开这些——也就是离开三重职分——就没有教会。」 And then he says, “Apart from these”—meaning apart from the threefold office—“there is no Church.”
考虑到这一切，我相信你们也持相同的观点。 Considering all this, I am persuaded that you are of the same opinion.
所以他认为三重职分是绝对必要的，甚至是你的教会被称为教会的必要条件。 So he views the threefold office as absolutely necessary even for your Church to be called a Church.
这不是众多模式中的一种；这不是某种新的尝试。 This is not one model among many; this is not some new experiment.
这是一个真正教会的DNA的一部分。 This is part of the DNA of a true Church.
如果你没有这个，你就没有教会。 If you don’t have this, you don’t have a Church.
这有时会在公教徒和新教徒的对话中变得尴尬，因为新教徒会提到教会——比如所有这些不 同的宗派——而公教徒通常会有一种不安的感觉，他们不承认你们所拥有的是一个教会。 This is one of the things that sometimes gets awkward in Catholic-Protestant conversations because Protestants will refer to the churches—like all these different denominations—and Catholics often have this uneasy feeling that they don't acknowledge what you have as a Church.
这并不是要显得刻薄；而是因为从最早的时候起，依纳爵就说 「教会」这个词是有意义的，它不仅仅意味着人们随意聚集。 It's not to be a jerk; it's because from the earliest days, Ignatius is saying the word Church means something, and it doesn't just mean people gathering however they want to.
比如，如果你在工作中有一个查经小组，那不是一个教会。 Like, if you've got a Bible study at work, that's not a Church.
那很好；这是好的，我们并不是在批评它，但那不是教会的定义。 That's great; it's good, and we're not knocking it, but that's not what a Church is.
教会的意义远不止于此，其中之一就是主教、长老和执事的三重职分。 Church means something more than that, and one of the things it means is this threefold ministry of bishop, presbyter, and deacon.
这是来自安提阿的依纳爵，他被认为是使徒约翰的学生，大约在公元107年。现 在，依纳爵只是众多人物中的一个，但因为他在这个话题上如此著名，因为他写作 的时间如此早，并且因为他在这个话题上如此多产，我将主要停留在这些证据上， 除了说你有时会听到有人声称：「哦，依纳爵写到这一点的事实证明存在争议。」 That is coming from Ignatius of Antioch, believed to be a student of the disciple John, around 107. Now, Ignatius is only one among many, but because he’s so famous on this topic, because he’s so early, and because he’s so prolific about this topic, I'm going to leave the evidence largely there, except to say that you’ll sometimes hear people claiming, Oh, the fact that Ignatius is writing about it proves there’s a controversy.
我明白；我的意思是，我刚刚使用了相反的论点。 I get that; I mean, I just used the opposite argument.
新约没有大量写到这一点的原因之一是当时没有争议。 One of the reasons the New Testament doesn’t write a lot about it is that there wasn’t a controversy.
所以，也许依纳爵写了这么多是因为人们对教会 的结构感到不安，但他实际上完全没有这么说。 So maybe Ignatius is writing this much about it because people are uneasy with the structure of the Church, but he doesn’t actually say that at all.
事实上，他非常清楚地对以弗所人说——这里再次提 到以弗所教会——「我深信你们也持相同的观点。」 In fact, he says pretty clearly to the Ephesians—here again, the Church in Ephesus—“I am persuaded that you are of the same opinion.”
他不认为对此存在争议；他认为三重结构是他们 已经相信并认为对教会的本质是必要的东西。 He doesn’t think there’s a controversy about this; he thinks the threefold structure is something they already believe in and already think is necessary for the nature of a Church.
但他并不是孤立的。 But he’s not alone.
现在我想转向一些更多的第一世纪的证据，这就是主教名单的概念。 I want to turn now to a little bit more first-century evidence, and this is the notion of bishop lists.
我来解释一下这是什么意思。 I’ll explain what that means.
每个地方教会都会追溯其所有主教的名单，直到使徒 时代，并且他们在公元100年代会有书面的记录。 Every local Church kept track of who all of its bishops were back to the time of the apostles, and they would have written records of this in the 100s.
这些记录现在大部分（如果不是全部的话）都已经遗失了， 但尽管如此，他们提到了这些记录；他们谈论了这些记录。 Most, if not all, of those records are gone now, but nevertheless, they refer to them; they talk about them.
所以这显然不仅仅是「我们在尝试一件新事」，或者「这 是某种晚期的调整」，或者「每个人都在做自己的事」。 So it’s very clearly not just, “We’re trying a new thing,” or “This is some late adaptation,” or “Everybody’s doing their own thing.”
但在我谈到这一点之前，让我们解释一下为什么这些名单很重要。 But before I get there, let’s explain why these lists matter.
在《提摩太后书》中，圣保罗警告提摩太：「时候要到，人必厌烦纯正的道理，耳 朵发痒，就随自己的情欲增添好些师傅；并且掩耳不听真道，偏向荒渺的言语。」 In 2 Timothy, St. Paul warns Timothy that the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching but will have itching ears, accumulating for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.
现在，需要注意的是，正统比异端更古老。 Now, the thing to note there is that orthodoxy is older than heresy.
就像，那个时候是在未来，对吧？ Like, the time is coming in the future, right?
当人们将离开正统而转向异端的时候。 When people are going to leave orthodoxy for heresy.
所以反对异端最古老的论据之一就是古老性——通过表明我们的教 导比你们的更古老，我们的教会比你们的更古老，这就是一个明确 的标志，表明你们就是圣保罗在《提摩太后书》中警告的那些人。 So one of the oldest arguments against heresy is antiquity—by just showing our teaching is older than yours, our Church is older than yours, and that’s a clear sign that you’re the people that St. Paul was warning about in 2 Timothy.
因为如果你能表明你可以追溯到两千年前，那将是一个非常有力的证据。 Because if you could show that you go back 2,000 years, that would be a pretty strong bit of evidence.
如果你不能做到这一点，那看起来你就是他所警告的那 些人，当他说「时候要到」时，意思是未来的那些人。 If you can’t do that, it looks like you’re the people he warned about when he said the time is coming, meaning in the future.
所以，如果你坚持一个有两千年历史的基督教版本，那是一个非常好的标志。 So if you’re holding on to a 2,000-year-old version of Christianity, that’s a really good sign.
如果你不是，那是一个非常糟糕的标志。 If you’re not, that’s a really bad sign.
这就是这个论点的简要概述。 That’s the argument in a nutshell.
早期的基督徒提出了这个论点——不仅仅是，我的意思是，显然 对他们来说不是两千年前；对他们来说是大约一百年前的事情。 The early Christians make this argument—not just, I mean, obviously it wasn’t 2,000 years ago for them; it was like 100 years ago for them.
例如，圣爱任纽在大约公元180年写的《驳异端》第三卷中非常 清楚地指出了这一点。他说：「因此，在每个教会中，凡愿意看见 真理的人，都有能力清楚地观察到使徒的传统在全世界的显现。」 For instance, St. Irenaeus, writing about 180, makes this point very clearly in Against Heresies, Book 3. He says, “It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world.
「我们能够列举那些由使徒在教会中设立为主教的人」——然后我们加上「以证 明」这个短语，因为它在希腊文中是隐含的——「并证明这些人的继承一直延续 到我们这个时代，他们既没有教导也不知道这些异端所狂热宣扬的任何东西。」 And we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the churches”—and then we’re adding the phrase “to demonstrate” because it’s implied in the Greek—“and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times, those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics rave about.”
换句话说，他在说：「好吧，各位，现在是公元100年代了。」 In other words, he’s saying, “Okay, everybody, this is in the 100s now.
你可以看看你们的教会；去探索你们教会的历史。 You can look to your churches; go explore the history of your Church.
如果它可以追溯到使徒时代，并且你可以追踪每一位主教，看到这 些人没有教导诺斯替主义」，这是他在这种情况下所反对的异端。 If it goes back to the time of the apostles and you can trace every bishop and see that these guys didn’t teach Gnosticism,” which is the heresy he’s combating in this case.
但请注意，他理所当然地认为每个地方教会都保存了书面记录，记录 了他们的主教可以追溯到使徒时代，这强烈地表明使徒设立了主教。 But notice he’s taking for granted that every local Church keeps written records of who their bishops were going back to the time of the apostles, which suggests very strongly that the apostles created bishops.
因为你只有两个选择：第一，一个巨大的早期基督教骗局，每个教会都在撒谎关于自 己的历史——每个由使徒建立的地方教会都在撒谎关于他们的主教是谁，因为实际上 主教是非常新的；或者第二，他们有如此详尽记录的原因是因为他们在讲真话。 Because you’re left with two options: either one, a massive early Christian fraud, that every Church is lying about its own history—every local Church created by the apostles is lying about who its bishops were because actually bishops are very new—or two, the reason they have such great records is because they’re telling the truth.
而且不仅仅是爱任纽指出了这一点；大约在公元200年，特土良也谈到了这一点。 And it’s not just Irenaeus who points this out; Tertullian, around the year 200, talks about it.
这是一个反对异端的有力论点。 This is a great argument against heresy.
他说，如果这些异端或异端分子胆敢把自己植根于使徒时代，声称是由使徒传下来的 ，并在使徒时代就已经存在，我们可以说：「让他们拿出他们教会的原始记录。」 He says if any of these heresies or heretics are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, claiming to have been handed down by the apostles and having existed at the time of the apostles, we can say, Let them produce the original records of their churches.
「让他们展开他们主教的名单，从一开始就按顺序传承下来。」 Let them unfold the roll of their bishops running down in due succession from the beginning.
换句话说，他们有实际的书面记录，记录了他们的主教是谁，用卷 轴形式保存，表明正如特土良所解释的，他们的第一位主教是使徒 之一，或者是一位使徒性的人——一个与使徒坚定同行的人。 So in other words, they had literal physical records keeping track of who their bishops were in a written scroll, showing that, as Tertullian explains, their first bishop was someone who was either one of the apostles or an apostolic man—a man who continued steadfast with the apostles.
也就是说，要么是使徒，要么是使徒的忠实同工。 So, an apostle or a faithful associate of the apostles.
如果他们要声称自己是使徒性的教会，他们需要具备这些条件之一。 If they’re going to claim to be an apostolic Church, they need one of those things.
他解释说，这就是使徒性教会传递其名册的方式，并举例说明， 比如士每拿教会，记录显示波利卡普是由约翰安置在那里的。 He explains this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers, and he gives examples like the Church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John.
所以我的观点是，如果你回顾教会的古代记录， 你会发现他们声称拥有这种不间断的主教传承。 So my point there is you can find, if you go back through the ancient records of the churches, them claiming to have this unbroken lineage of bishops.
但接着他说：「以完全相同的方式，其他教会也同样展示了这一点。」 But then he says, In exactly the same way, the other churches likewise exhibit this.
所以这不仅仅是一两个教会的情况。 So it’s not just like one or two churches.
你不能说：「哦，罗马教会编造了这个。」 You can’t say, Oh, the Church of Rome made this up.
你还得说以弗所教会、士每拿教会、耶路撒冷教会，以及其他所 有的早期教会——到公元100年代的所有教会显然都在撒谎。 You’d also have to say the Church of Ephesus, and Smyrna, and Jerusalem, and fill in the blank—all of the early churches by the 100s are apparently lying.
我们稍后会谈到这一点。 We’ll get into that in a second.
而且，这不仅仅是一两个教会的情况。 And it’s not, again, just like one or two.
玛格丽特·迈尔斯在《道成肉身：基督教思想史》中指出，我们有主教名单。 Margaret Miles, in The Word Made Flesh: A History of Christian Thought, points out that we have lists.
大部分实物证据现在已经消失，因为据认为过去两 千年的环境条件导致98%的纸莎草文献被毁。 Most of the physical evidence is now gone because 98% of papyrus is believed to have been destroyed just because of conditions over the last 2,000 years.
但在非常温暖干燥的地方，纸莎草文献的保存寿命会更长。 But in places that are really warm and dry, papyrus has a better lifespan.
因此，在北非，这是少数几个仍有证据存在的地 方之一，我们仍然有数百位三世纪主教的名单。 So in North Africa, one of the few places for which evidence exists, we still have lists of hundreds of 3rd-century bishops.
她提到，每个小镇都有一位主教。 She mentions every small town had a bishop.
所以，当我们谈论主教名单时，我们不是在谈论一两个教会；我们是在谈论数百个 教会——既包括那些由使徒和使徒性人物（使徒的同工）直接建立的教会，也包括 那些可以追溯到谁建立了它们以及它们与更广泛的教会历史故事的联系的小教会。 So when we’re talking about bishop lists, we’re not talking about one or two churches; we’re talking about literally hundreds of churches—both those directly established by the apostles and apostolic men, the associates of the apostles—but also just little churches that could trace back who did found them and kind of what their connection is to the broader story of Church history.
这是很多的，而且它们最终都有同样的结构：每个教区有一位主教。 That’s a lot, and they all are ending up with the same thing: with one bishop per diocese.
在许多情况下，一个非常小的教会，可能是一个小镇或 一个非常小的群体；他们仍然有一位主教在管理事务。 In many cases, a very small church, you know, might be a little town or a very tiny group of people; they still have one bishop running things.
那么，让我们看看我们掌握的证据以及如何理解它。 So let’s see where we are with the evidence and how we make sense of it.
希望公教徒、新教徒、东正教徒——所有人都可以同意，最迟到公元10 0年代，我们发现的每个基督徒都属于一个具有这种三重结构的教会。 Hopefully, Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox—everybody can agree that by sometime in the 100s at the latest, every Christian that we find is part of a Church that has this threefold structure.
可能会有一些非常激进的边缘例外，但我们清楚地看到，在基督教中，无论是在耶路撒冷 、罗马、大城市还是小城镇——无论我们在哪里看，都发现了主教、长老、执事的结构。 There may be some really radical fringe exceptions to that, but we clearly see across Christianity the bishop, presbyter, deacon structure in Jerusalem, in Rome, in the big towns, in the little towns—wherever we look, we find this same thing.
此外，他们声称这不是他们发明的；他们声称这是从使徒那里传承下来的。 Moreover, they’re claiming that they didn’t just invent it; they’re claiming they got it from the apostles.
这让我认为我们可以用三种方式来解释这些证据，我们称之为忠实、偏离和自由发挥。 This suggests to me that there are three ways we could account for that evidence, and we’ll call them faithfulness, deviation, and free-for-all.
忠实的选项是，教会在公元100年代看起来都一样的原因是因为这是耶稣所设立的。 The faithful option is that the reason the churches all look the same in the 100s is because that’s what Jesus established.
耶稣和使徒在到处按立人的时候，设立了具有三重结构的教会。 That Jesus and the apostles established churches with a threefold structure when they were going around ordaining people.
他们按立的人知道这是教会的结构，因此他们忠实地保存了它。 The people they’re ordaining know this is the structure of the Church, and so they faithfully preserve it.
这是第一个选项：忠实。 That’s the first option: faithfulness.
第二个选项是早期基督徒是叛逆的。 The second option is that the early Christians were rebellious.
他们在偏离。 They’re deviating.
耶稣和使徒设立了一个教会——或者说多个教会——具有不同的结构，比如两重结构。 Jesus and the apostles established a Church—or churches, I should say—with a different structure, like a two-fold one.
他们想要共同治理的长老，但后来早期教会一个接一个地改变了——有数百个例子——所有 这些教会都反叛了耶稣和使徒所设立的东西，转而支持有一位主教而不是共同治理的长老。 They wanted co-ruling presbyters, but then the early churches changed it one after another, after another—hundreds of examples—all of these churches rebelled against the thing that had been given by Jesus and the apostles in favor of having one bishop instead of co-ruling presbyters.
第三个选项是，这是一种自由发挥的情况。 The third option is that it was kind of a free-for-all.
耶稣和使徒没有设立任何特定的结构。 Jesus and the apostles didn’t set up any particular kind of structure.
这就是所谓的回旋余地的想法——没有正确答案；每个人都 可以做自己的事情，因为没有所谓的圣经中的教会模式。 This is, you know, very much the idea of wiggle room—there’s no right answer; everybody can just do their own thing because there’s no such thing as a biblical model of the Church.
因此，他们完全有自由去做任何他们想做的事情，而他们都选择了同样的东西。 And so they all just had this total liberty to do whatever they wanted, and they all chose the same thing.
现在，我会说相反的理论——第二种和第三种——对我来说似乎不太可信。 Now, I would say the opposite theories—two and three—don’t seem plausible to me.
比如，当圣依纳爵说你必须有三重结构才能被称为教会时，他似乎既不认为 这是一个基督徒自由的问题——「我们可以做任何我们想做的事」——也不 认为这是一个我们选择做与耶稣和使徒给我们的东西不同的事情的问题。 Like, when St. Ignatius is saying that you have to have the threefold structure to even be called a Church, he doesn’t seem to view this as either an issue of Christian liberty—“We can do whatever we want”—nor does he seem to view this as an issue where we are choosing to do something different than what Jesus and the apostles gave us.
再说一次，依纳爵被认为是使徒约翰的门徒，所以如果他 只是公开反叛约翰和其他使徒，那将是相当令人震惊的。 Again, Ignatius is believed to be a disciple of the apostle John, so it would be kind of striking if he was just in open rebellion against John and the other apostles.
我们也完全没有看到任何这样的证据。 We also just don’t see any evidence of that.
我的意思是这样的：斯塔格曼在他的书《教会中的权威》中说了以下内容。 Here’s what I mean by that: Stagemann, in his book Authority in the Church, says the following.
这是一个引人注目的故事，我只是想提出一个故事。 This is a striking kind of story, and it’s just that I’m going to suggest a story.
他说，在第二世纪，基督教会的权威结构经历了一次深刻的改变。 He says in the second century, the structure of authority in the Christian Church underwent a profound alteration.
在世纪初，教会中并存着两种治理形式：由一群长老 （我认为是集体的）领导，以及由单一主教领导。 At the beginning of the century, two forms of government existed side by side in the Church: leadership by a group of elders, I think corporately, and leadership by a single bishop.
换句话说，他声称在公元100年代初期，你有两种 不同的模式：一种是三重模式，一种是两重模式。 In other words, he’s claiming that in the early 100s, you have two different models: you’ve got a threefold model and you’ve got a twofold model.
到同一世纪末——也就是公元100年代末——后一种形式，即君主制 主教制（由单一领袖治理地方教会），似乎已经在各地占据主导地位。 By the end of the same century—meaning the end of the 100s—the latter form, monarchial episcopacy, i.e., governance of the local Church by a single leader, seems to have taken hold everywhere.
所以，当我们有明确证据时，我们看到无论我们在哪里看，三重模式都已经胜出。 So by the time we have clear evidence, we see everywhere we look that the threefold model has won.
所以这有点令人震惊；这似乎要么是偏离的观点，要么是 自由发挥的观点，但它以一种令人震惊的统一性结束。 So that’s kind of striking; that seems to be either a view of deviation or of a free-for-all, but it ends with a shocking kind of uniformity.
而我会建议，这从来不是自由发挥的样子，对吧？ And I would suggest that’s not how a free-for-all ever looks, right?
比如在新教的世界里，如果你说每个人都可以自由地按照自己的意愿 设计教会，这会有多大可能导致每个人设计的教会看起来完全一样？ Like in the world of Protestantism, say, if you’re going to say everybody’s free to design a Church however they want, how often is that going to lead to everyone designing churches that look the exact same?
显然不会。 Seemingly not.
但更广泛地说，在偏离理论的问题上，你必须相信以下几点：第一，耶 稣设立了一个两重结构；他想要共同治理的长老和执事——仅此而已。 But more broadly, on the problem of the deviation theory, you have to believe the following: number one, Jesus established a two-fold structure; he wanted co-ruling presbyters and deacons—that’s it.
第二，发生了一些事情——是什么，怎么发生的，谁知道呢？ Number two, something happens—what, how, who knows?
只是发生了一些事情——这导致了第三点：基督徒决定采 用一个三重结构；他们想要一个主教来统领他们所有人。 Just something happens—which leads to number three: the Christians decide instead upon a three-fold structure; they want one bishop to rule them all.
第四，如果我们考虑那些主教名单，他们显然伪造了自己的历史来掩盖这一变化。 And number four, if we’re thinking about those bishop lists, they then apparently falsify their own history to cover up this change.
仅仅说「根据我对新约的解读，主教和长老是同一个意思」是不够的。 It’s not enough to say, “The way I read the New Testament, bishops and presbyters mean the same thing.”
如果你对历史一无所知，你可以相信这一点。 You can believe that if you don’t have any knowledge of history.
但如果你了解历史，并试图将你的信念融入历史，你会 得出一些奇怪的结论，因为你必须说：「是的……」 But if you have knowledge of history and you try to plug your belief into history, you come to some weird conclusions because you have to say yes...
耶稣和使徒想要共同治理的主教——一个教会中有多个主教——但不知为 何，早期的基督徒似乎都没有收到这个通知，因为他们都认为教会中应该 只有一个主教，他不仅仅是一个长老，而是实际上对长老拥有权威的人。 Jesus and the apostles wanted co-ruling bishops—multiple bishops in a single Church—and yet somehow none of the early Christians seem to have gotten that memo because they all thought there was only supposed to be one bishop in the Church, that he wasn't just a presbyter, but that he actually had authority over the presbyters.
而且，如果你选择了一个不同的模式，你就是在拒绝教会的定义。 And that if you chose a different model, you were rejecting the idea of what it was to be a Church.
这是一个令人震惊的理论；这远远超出了「我将长老和主教视为可以互换的」的范围。 That is a striking theory; that’s a lot bigger than just, “I read presbyter and episcopos as interchangeable.”
你是在对历史说一些更大、更奇怪的事情。 You’re saying something much bigger and much stranger about history.
所以，第二步——发生了一些事情——你会发现不同的人对此有不同的理论。 So that second step—the something happens—you’ll find different people who have different theories about it.
哦，也许是诺斯替主义；也许是某种异端的兴起；也许两重结构太低效，什么都做不了。 Oh, maybe it was Gnosticism; maybe it was the rise of some heresy; maybe the two-fold structure was just too inefficient to do anything.
换句话说，耶稣和使徒创造了一种治理结构，但它运作得并不好，无法有效地对抗异端。 The Jesus and the apostles created a structure of government, in other words, that just didn’t work very well and couldn’t combat heresy very effectively.
这是一个非常奇怪的第二步。 That’s a really strange second step.
所以你会注意到，在斯塔格曼的理论中，他甚至没有真正 阐明，至少在这个论述中，没有说明第二步到底是什么。 And so you’ll notice in Stagemann’s theory, he doesn’t even really spell out, at least in this presentation of the claim, kind of what that second step is.
他们只是被告知，最初有不同的模式，然后一种模式胜出了。 They were just told, like, originally there were different models, and then one model won.
为什么它胜出了？ Why did it win?
它是如何胜出的？ How did it win?
但问题比这更大。 But it’s bigger than that.
我认为我们有很好的理由相信这些都没有发生。 I would suggest we’ve got really good reasons to believe that none of that happened.
想象一下，如果你明天走进一所新教大学，说：「嘿，我们不再举行普通 的会众式、长老会式或其他形式的礼拜，我们要用拉丁弥撒取而代之，从 现在开始，我们将有一位主教，他将拥有按立、主持圣事等所有权力。」 Imagine you were to go into a Protestant university tomorrow and say, “Hey, instead of having the normal congregational, Presbyterian, whatever worship service, we’re going to replace it with the Latin Mass, and from now on, we’re going to have one bishop, and he’s going to have the power to ordain and administer sacraments and do all this stuff.”
现在，在这个理论中，你认为学生们会不会只是说：「哦，好吧，酷，我们就接受吧？」 Now, in that theory, do you think the students are going to just be like, “Oh, okay, cool, let’s just roll with it?”
当然不会。 Of course not.
这将会引起巨大的反对。 There’s going to be enormous pushback.
这将是那种会造成巨大分裂的事情。 That’d be the kind of thing that created enormous divides.
而在历史上，当宗教发生重大变化时，它导致了 巨大的分裂；它在16世纪引发了无数战争。 And in history, when there were major changes in religion, it led to major divides; it led to numerous wars in the 16th century.
因此，这相当引人注目，例如，利昂·莫里斯说：「没有任何证据表明发生了暴力 斗争，而如果一个神圣设立的会众制或长老制被推翻，这本应是自然的结果。」 So it’s pretty striking that, for instance, Leon Morris says, “Nowhere is there evidence of a violent struggle as would be natural if a divinely ordained congregationalism or Presbyterianism were overthrown.”
这不仅仅是「我不喜欢你们的方向」。 It’s not just, “I don’t like the direction you’re going.”
如果我知道这是第一世纪，或者第二世纪初，无论如何，使徒们的记忆 仍然相当鲜活，而你却过来说：「我们要废除我知道是耶稣和使徒给我 们的模式，用一个新模式取而代之，在这个模式中只有你是老板？」 If I know it’s the first century, the early second century, whatever, the apostles are still a pretty fresh memory, and you’re coming along and saying, “We’re going to get rid of the model that I know Jesus and the apostles gave us and replace it with some new model where you alone are the boss?”
当然，我不会对此坐视不管。 Of course, I’m not just going to take that sitting down.
没有人会。 Nobody would.
没有忠实的基督徒会只是说：「好吧，我想我们现在要做一件新事了。」 No faithful Christian would just be like, All right, I guess we’re doing a new thing now.
当你仔细想想，这是一种荒谬的理论。 It’s a preposterous theory when you think about it.
对此应该有大量的证据，而莫里斯并不是唯一一个这样说的人。 There would be enormous evidence of this, and Morris isn’t the only one who says this.
迈克尔·麦格雷戈说：「教会选择其教会秩序的概念在基督 教传统中是闻所未闻的，直到16世纪瑞士的宗教改革。」 Michael McGregor said, “The notion of a Church choosing its church order is unheard of in Christian tradition until the 16th century with the Reformation in Switzerland.”
让我们在这里停一下。 Let’s pause on that.
当你阅读早期基督徒的著作时，他们非常清楚地 表明，他们不认为这是一个可以选择的事情。 When you read the writings of the early Christians, they’re really clear that they don’t think this is an option.
他们认为这是基督赐予他们的，他们必须顺服。 They think this is something they’ve been given by Christ, and they have to obey.
你是否喜欢这种治理形式并不重要；这不是问题所在。 Whether you like having this form of governance or not is not relevant; that is not the question.
我们的职责是顺服我们的领袖并为他们祷告，因为 我们知道他们将为如何照顾我们的灵魂而交账。 Our job is to submit to our leaders and to pray for them because we know they’re going to have to keep account for how they’re caring for our souls.
所以我们的职责不是设计某种新的教会形式或新的领导结构。 So our job is not to design some new form of Church, some new structure of leadership.
所以他说：「教会选择其教会秩序的概念在基督教传统 中是闻所未闻的，直到16世纪瑞士的宗教改革。」 So he says, “The notion of a Church choosing its church order is unheard of in Christian tradition until the 16th century with the Reformation in Switzerland.”
然后他说：「在长老制和主教制之间的选择是分裂教会的。」 And then he says, “The choice between presbyteral and episcopal government is church-dividing.”
直到今天，有许多倾向加尔文主义的浸信会和倾向加尔文主义的长老会 ，他们不能属于同一个宗派，因为他们在教会结构上无法达成一致。 To this day, there are plenty of Calvinist-leaning Baptists and Calvinist-leaning Presbyterians, and they can’t be in one denomination because they don’t agree on the structure of the Church.
当然也可能有其他原因，比如洗礼的神学，但教会结构是 一个很大的原因，这甚至体现在「长老会」这个名字中。 There can be other reasons as well, like the theology of baptism, but that is a big one built into the name of Presbyterian.
如果你们在教会结构上无法达成一致，你们就不能合而为一。 If you don’t agree on the structure of the Church, you can’t be one.
因此，你会预期看到大量非常显著、明显的分裂。 And so you would expect to see tons of very prominent, obvious kinds of schisms.
麦格雷戈接着说：「那么，是否可以假设在教会生命的最初几十年 ，这不会同样具有分裂性，并且可以发生而没有留下任何痕迹？」 McGregor then says, “Well, is it possible to suggest that it would not have been equally divisive in the first decades of the Church’s life and could have taken place without leaving any trace whatsoever?”
比如，给我看看任何的裂痕。 Like, show me any of the faults.
第一，给我一些这些共同治理的长老的名字，因为你已经 看到早期教会可以追溯到使徒并列出他们的主教名字。 Number one, give me the names of some of these co-ruling presbyters because you already have seen that the early churches could name their bishops back to the apostles.
依纳爵能够按名字向地方主教致意。 Ignatius was able to greet by name the local bishop.
这种事情在三重结构的观点中相当常见。 That kind of thing is pretty common among the three-tiered view.
我们可以说，这不仅仅是理论上的存在，而是实践中的存在。 We can say not just this existed in theory, but here it is in practice.
这里是这些人的名字。 Here are the names of the people.
你可以做第一点：你可以向我展示一个非常清晰、同样明确的两重结构的实践模式。 You could do number one: you could show me here’s a very clear, equally unambiguous two-tiered model in practice.
这里有一个具有两重结构的教会，这里是共同治理领袖的名字。 Here’s a Church that has the two tiers, and here are the names of the co-ruling leaders.
第二，你可以展示他们是什么时候转变的；原因是什么。 Number two, you could show here’s when they switched; here’s why.
与其只是编造一个关于可能发生了什么的故事，不如展示实际的证据，证明 两重结构因为这个原因变成了三重结构——也许是在这一年或这一时期。 Rather than just making up a story about maybe what could have happened, show actual evidence that the two-tiered model became a three-tiered model because of this reason—maybe in this year or around this time period.
这些是参与的主要人物；这里是支持它的人；这里是反对它的人。 These were the major players involved; here were the people who supported it; here were the people who opposed it.
这些证据都不存在，因为我认为偏离理论和自由发挥理论是虚构的。 None of that evidence exists because I would suggest the deviation theory and the free-for-all theory are fiction.
它们根本不是真的。 They’re just not true.
早期基督徒普遍采用三重治理体系的原因是他们忠于使徒。 The reason the early Christians universally have a three-tiered system of governance is because they’re being faithful to the apostles.
那么，为什么呢？ Why then?
这仍然留下一个最终的问题：为什么神会希望有一位主教？ That still leaves one final question: Why would God want there to be one bishop?
依纳爵对此给出了一个答案。 Ignatius gives one answer to that.
有些人会提出实用性的论点；有些人会从腐败的角度对此感到担忧。 Some people are going to make pragmatic arguments; some people are going to be worried about it from a level of corruption.
我对任何一种方向都不是特别信服。 I’m not super convinced in either direction.
确实，教会由一位主教管理可能会导致不好的事情；你可能会遇到一个坏主教。 It is certainly true that having a Church run by one bishop can lead to bad things; you could have a bad bishop.
同样，如果由一群长老或长老管理，你也可能会得到一个「老兄 俱乐部」，而且可能会有人对首席牧师或其他人不公平，对吧？ It’s also true that if you have it run by a group of presbyters or elders, you could also get a good old boys' club, and you could have people who are unfair to the lead pastor or whoever, right?
事实上，由一群人而不是一个人管理，对我来说并不明显哪一种更容易或不容易腐败。 The fact that it’s a group of people as opposed to one, it’s not obviously clear to me that one of those is going to be more or less prone to corruption.
我的意思是，我们在圣经中看到民主的唯一一次是人们选择巴拉巴而 不是耶稣，所以我认为任何方向的实用性论点都没有帮助或说服力。 I mean, the one time we see democracy in the Bible is people choosing Barabbas over Jesus, so I don’t find the pragmatic arguments in either direction helpful or persuasive.
依纳爵指出，主教的合一是教会合一的标志。 Ignatius points to the oneness of the bishop as a sign of the oneness of the Church.
他说：「应该有一个圣餐，就像我们主耶稣基督的一个身体 ；一个杯子，彰显他宝血的合一；一个祭坛，一个主教。」 He says there should be one Eucharist as there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, one cup to show forth the unity of his blood, one altar, one bishop.
我认为他在论证，这最终显示了神的合一性。 This is showing ultimately, I think he’s arguing, the oneness of God.
就像我们不相信多神论——即众神共同治理的模式——我们的教会是信 奉一神论的，并且是君主制的；它们有一位领袖，最终代表唯一的神。 Just like we don’t believe in polytheism—the co-ruling panel of gods—our churches are monotheistic, and they’re monarchical; they have one leader that ultimately represents the one God.
现在，我发现非常有趣的是，尽管弗里尔更多地谈到了实用性的东西，但在 阐述了他的两重结构论点之后，他似乎直觉地认为，根据我们在圣经中看到 的其他一切指向一个人拥有属灵权柄的内容，这其中确实有一些道理。 Now, what I found really fascinating, even though he goes a little more into sort of the pragmatic thing, Friel, after laying out his argument for the two-tiered model, seems to sort of intuit that there’s something to this based on everything else we see in Scripture that points to one person having spiritual authority.
所以我想给你这个作为一个最终的真实片段，我基本上是同意的。 So I want to give you this as kind of a final real clip that I’m largely going to agree with.
此外，话虽如此，尽管我确实相信应该有某种形式的长老多元 性，但在那群长老中，我相信应该有一位长老是最终的领袖。 Furthermore, having said that, while I do believe that there should be some sort of plurality of elders, nevertheless, inside of that group of elders, I believe there should be an elder who is ultimately the leader.
现在，这一点可能会有点复杂，但我认为因为三位一体——圣父、圣子和圣灵 ——我们看到圣父，圣子顺服圣父，圣灵顺服圣父和圣子，为了秩序的缘故。 Now, it can get a little bit complicated at this point, but I think because of the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—we see the Father, the Son submitting to the Father, the Holy Spirit submitting to the Father and the Son for the sake of order.
我们在政府中看到这一点；我们在学校中看到这一点。 We see that in government; we see that in schools.
我们在婚姻中看到这一点；我们在商业中看到这一点。 We see that in marriage; we see that in business.
对于长老团体来说，同样的事情也应该成立，如果你没有一个人 最终拥有比其他人更多的权柄，你就会缺乏领导力，你的结构就 不会像三位一体的运作方式，也不会像其他领域的运作方式。 The same thing should be true for the body of elders, that if you do not have one person who has ultimately got, let’s just say, more authority than the others, you’re going to be lacking leadership, and you’re not going to be structured the way the Trinity operates and the way that every other realm operates.
正如我所说，这里有点混合；他的一些论点更倾向于实用性。 As I say, it’s kind of a blend here; some of his arguments are more pragmatic.
我对那些不太感兴趣。 I’m not as interested in those.
我认为真正有趣的是他谈论三位一体的方式，我想在这一点上稍微扩展一下。 What I think is really interesting is the way he talks about the Trinity, and I want to expand on that even a little bit.
显然，圣父、圣子和圣灵——他们是平等的；他们同样值得荣耀和尊崇。 That obviously, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—they’re co-equal; they’re equally worthy of glory and honor.
然而，第一位是三位一体中的第一位；这是不可互换的。 And yet, the first person is the first person of the Trinity; it’s not interchangeable.
圣子宣告他来是要遵行圣父的旨意，所以他确实如此。三位一体并不像一 个三头怪物；甚至在三位一体中也显然存在有时被称为君主制的结构。 The Son announces he’s here to do the will of his Father, and so he doesn’t. The Trinity is not like a three-headed monster; there is clearly what’s sometimes called a monarchy even within the Trinity.
有一种正确的理解方式，那就是圣父并不比圣子更神圣，而是圣子遵行圣父的旨意。 There’s a way of understanding that properly where it’s not that the Father is more divine than the Son, but the Son does the will of the Father.
然而，这符合圣经；这是正确的；这是早期基督徒所理解的。 Nevertheless, that is biblical; that is sound; that is something the early Christians understood.
但我们也看到，这贯穿于基督教和圣经，一直追溯到旧约。 But we also see that throughout Christianity and Scripture, going all the way back to the Old Testament.
比如，记住，耶稣来是宣讲神的国度。 Like, remember, the Kingdom of God is what Jesus comes proclaiming.
在《马可福音》中，它以耶稣说：「悔改，信福音，因为神的国近了」开篇。 In the Gospel of Mark, it opens up with Jesus saying, “Repent, and believe the Kingdom of God is at hand.”
那么，神在以色列开始建立一个国度，当他这样做时，他设立了一位君王，比如大卫王。 Well, God had started to build a kingdom in Israel, and when he did that, he had one king, like King David.
这不是一个由以色列长老共同治理的委员会。 It wasn’t a co-ruling panel of elders of Israel.
确实有长老，对吧？ It’s true there were elders, right?
比如，「长老」这个词也是描述公会以及围绕大祭司的那种团体的方式之一。 Like the term elder is also one of the ways of describing the Sanhedrin and the kind of group that is around the high priest.
但从来没有只是共同治理的长老；总是有一个人——无论是大祭司还是君王，无论我们处 理的是哪种背景，旧约中的士师——总是有一个人最终对所发生的事情在属灵上负责。 But there is never just co-ruling elders; there’s always one person—whether it’s the high priest or the king, whatever context we’re dealing with, the judges in the Old Testament—there’s always someone who is ultimately spiritually responsible for what happens.
正如托德·弗里尔指出的，这就是为什么我们相信婚姻中的男性领导 权的根源，这在圣经中有明确的教导——总是有一个人最终要负责。 And as Todd Friel points out, this is the root of why we believe in male headship in marriage, which is clearly spoken to in Scripture—that there is someone who is ultimately accountable.
这不仅仅是一个50-50投票的民主；总是需要有人负责。 It’s not just a democracy with a 50-50 vote; someone has to be responsible.
同样，就像三位一体一样，你不必因此说丈夫比妻子更好。 Again, as with the Trinity, you don’t have to say, therefore, the husband is better than the wife.
只是总得有一个人最终负责并承担责任。 It’s just that someone has to ultimately be responsible and accountable.
我认为我们在旧约和新约中都可以看到这一点。 I would suggest we see this throughout the Old and the New Testament.
现在，这引出了一个问题：那么，耶稣是否对使徒们也这样做了？ Now, this is going to tee up the question: Well, did Jesus do that with the apostles?
他是否选择了一位使徒，并赋予他比其他使徒更多的权柄？ Did he choose one apostle and give him more authority than the other apostles had?
因为我们在其他地方看到的这种合一性在使徒中也同样成立。 Because this oneness that we see everywhere else is true as well with the apostles.
但这是另一天要讨论的问题。 But that is a question for a different day.
我有意搁置了两个非常相关的问题：第一，在这个时期罗马的主教是什么样的？ I’ve purposely left aside two very much related questions: number one, what did the bishop of Rome look like during this period?
第二，最早的基督徒是否有教宗制度，或者我们现在称之为教宗制度的东西？ And number two, did the earliest Christians have a papacy, or what we would now call a papacy?
我有意搁置了这些问题，因为这一集已经很长了，而这些是另一天要讨论的问题。 I’ve purposely left those aside because this is a long episode as it is, and those are questions for another day.
如果你觉得这有趣，请在下面的评论中告诉我。 If you find that interesting, please let me know in the comments below.
我很乐意制作关于教会最早几个世纪的教宗制度以及罗马主教的角色和权威的节目。 I’d be happy to do episodes on the papacy in the very earliest centuries of the Church and what was the role and authority of the bishop of Rome.
因为你会发现有人声称直到依纳爵之后才有罗马主教。 Because you’ll find people who claim there wasn’t even a bishop of Rome until after the time of Ignatius.
但正如我所说，我有意搁置了这个问题，以防你想将其作为一个单独的话题来处理。 But I’ve purposely, like I said, left that aside in case you want to handle that as a separate topic.
我是乔·赫施迈尔，这是《无耻教皇党》。 For Shameless Popery, I’m Joe Heschmeyer.
愿神祝福你。 God bless you.