欢迎大家再次收听 Shameless Popery。 Welcome back to Shameless Popery.
我是 Joe Heschmeyer。 I'm Joe Heschmeyer.
我想探讨一个我自己提出的观点，就是耶稣对婚姻和 教会的教导非常惊人，许多现代基督徒并不了解。 I want to explore a thesis that I have, which is that Jesus has these radical teachings about marriage and about the Church that many modern Christians don't understand.
这两者并非毫无关联；耶稣的婚姻教导能解释祂对于教会的教导，反之亦然。 These are not unrelated issues; Jesus' marriage teaching explains His teaching about the Church and vice versa.
如果你错误理解其中一个，就很可能也会错误理解另一个。 When you get one wrong, you're likely to end up getting the other one wrong as well.
所以请听我说完；我也很想听听你们的想法。 So hear me out; I'd love to hear what you think.
让我们先快速回顾一下。 Let's start with a quick recap.
上周我专门用一整期来讲耶稣那颠覆人心的婚姻教导，所以这部分我会简要带过。 Now, last week I did an entire episode on Jesus' radical marriage teaching, so I'm going to go very quickly through this part.
但为了那些刚刚加入收听且不想花整整一个小时来补课的听众，耶稣在祂的婚姻教 导中回到创世记，说道：「二人要成为一体，不再是两个人，而是合为一体。」 But for those who may be just tuning in and don't want to watch an entire hour to get caught up, Jesus presents a marriage teaching where He goes back to Genesis and says, The two shall become one, so they're no longer two but one.
因此，祂在马可福音第十章第九节说：「神所配合的，人不可分开。」 Therefore, He says in Mark 10, verse 9, What God has joined together, let not man separate.
这听起来像是完全禁止试图解除一段基督徒的婚姻。 Now that looks like a blanket prohibition against trying to dissolve a Christian marriage.
果然，在接下来的几节经文中，祂说，凡休妻另娶的，就是对妻子犯奸淫。 Sure enough, in the next few verses, He says that whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.
指出这是奸淫，等于在说那段婚姻实际上并没有被解除。 Now, to say it's adultery is to say the marriage isn't actually dissolved.
祂并不是说他们犯了淫乱或其他婚外性罪；不，这是实实在在的奸淫之罪。 He's not just saying they're committing fornication or sexual sin outside of marriage; no, it's actually the sin of adultery.
这点非常重要，所以我们在经文中看到，这似乎相当激进地明说禁止离婚和再婚。 That's pretty significant, and so you find very clear passages that look like a really radical view that divorce and remarriage are strictly prohibited.
那么，一些人想为此找例外时，往往会引用马太福音十九章第九 节，其中似乎有一个希腊词 porneia 的例外条款。 Now, those who defend an exception to this tend to cite Matthew 19, verse 9, which gives what appears to be an exception clause for a Greek word called porneia.
这个词常常被误译为奸淫，但正如我们上周所讨论的，por neia 并不是马太福音十九章九节里表示奸淫的那个希腊 词，后者在十九章九节中出现了两次，但并不在例外条款里。 This is often mistranslated to be adultery, but as we saw last week, the word porneia is not the Greek word for adultery, which appears twice in Matthew 19, verse 9, but not in the exception clause.
其实，porneia 指的是犹太人眼中那些不合法的婚 姻，类似于外邦人之间的结合，在犹太律法下是被禁止的。 In fact, porneia was the Jewish term for invalid marriages of the kind that the Gentiles had that were not permissible under Jewish law.
因此，更恰当的解读是：耶稣在马太福音中表明，禁止离婚再婚的教导只适 用于真正的婚姻，也就是神所结合的婚姻，而不是凯撒所定义的那种结合。 So the better understanding of Matthew is that Jesus is showing that this prohibition against divorce and remarriage applies only to valid marriages—those marriages which God has joined together, not those marriages which Caesar has tried to join together.
凯撒可以说两个男人、三个人都能结婚，但神对婚姻有祂特定的旨意。 Caesar can say two men can marry, three people can marry—whatever—but God has a particular vision of marriage.
只要是神所结合的，就不可能离婚和再婚；porneia 条款只是说明，如果不是真正的婚姻，这项禁令就无从谈起。 If God has joined it together, then divorce and remarriage are impossible, and the porneia clause is just making the point that if not, this doesn't apply.
希望这说得明白。 Hopefully, that's clear.
正如我上周说的，这是一个非常颠覆性的教导。 As I said last week, this is a truly radical teaching.
你可以看到在接下来的一节里，门徒们回应说： 「如果婚姻是这样，那倒不如不结婚为妙。」 You get from the very next verse, which the disciples responded by saying, Well, if this is the case with marriage, it's better not to get married.
然后耶稣又提出了有关独身的同样颠覆性的教导，今天咱们就不在这里展开了。 And then Jesus presents an equally radical teaching on celibacy, which we’re not even going to touch today.
现在我想换个角度说：要理解这个颠覆性教导，就需要回 到一个关键点，而圣经反复地将我们指向这个关键点。 I want to turn now and say, okay, to make sense of this radical teaching, you need to go to one place, and Scripture points you to that one place over and over and over again.
就是教会；就是对约的忠诚。 It’s the Church; it’s covenant faithfulness.
因此，这就形成了一个双向的道路。 And so this is, again, a two-way road.
如果你想明白基督与教会之间的关系本质，你就需要先了解婚姻。 If you want to understand the nature of Christ’s relationship to the Church, you need to understand marriage.
如果你想明白婚姻，也要先了解基督与教会之间的关系。 If you want to understand marriage, you need to understand Christ’s relationship to the Church.
从旧约开始，这样的比喻到处可见。 We see this all over the place, beginning in the Old Testament.
玛拉基书第二章是我上周主要引用的经文之一，我特别引 用了第二章第十六节，神在这里说：「我恨恶休妻。」 Malachi 2 is one of the primary texts that I quoted from last week, and the verse I quoted was verse 16 of Malachi 2, where God says, I hate divorce.
很好，这已经非常直接、明确了。 Alright, very clear, very straightforward.
我当时没提到，但现在可以说：神谴责离婚，是在谈利未人不忠于 他们所立之约的情形，也就是祭司和利未人没有忠于摩西之约。 What I didn’t tell you then, and I’m happy to tell you now, is that this condemnation of divorce arises from a discussion of Levitical covenant unfaithfulness, that the priests and Levites hadn’t been faithful to the Mosaic covenant.
所以在玛拉基书第二章中，神说：「现在，祭司们，这命令是给你 们的。」祂指责他们没有忠于祂所说的「我与利未所立的约」。 So in Malachi chapter 2, God says, And now, priests, this command is for you, and He accuses them of being unfaithful to, as He says, My covenant with Levi.
从第十三节开始，祂说：「你们用眼泪、哭泣和叹息遮盖耶和华的坛 ，因为耶和华不再垂顾你们的供物，也不乐意从你们手中收纳。」 Beginning in verse 13, He says, You cover the Lord’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning, because He no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor at your hand.
你们就问：「祂为什么不悦纳呢？」 You ask, Why does He not?
因为耶和华在你与你幼年所娶的妻子立约之时做了见证，而 你对她行事不忠；她本是你的伙伴，是与你在约中的妻子。 Because the Lord was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.
难道不是同一位神造了我们，并赐下存活的灵吗？ Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life?
祂所盼望的是什么呢？ And what does He desire?
是敬虔的后代。 Godly offspring.
我希望各位看得出来，神在责备祭司时，并不是说他们在 家里、离开祭司职分后，都在欺骗妻子、不忠于婚姻。 Now what I hope is clear from this is that in scolding the priests in this way, He’s not literally referring to them saying, You know, in your homes, apart from your priestly duties, you’re all cheating on your wives and you’re being unfaithful to them.
不是那样。这里所谓没有生儿育女、对约不忠的 形象，其实很明显是在说他们对利未之约不忠。 No, the image of failing to reproduce, failing to beget children, and the image of being faithless to the covenant are talking about the Levitical covenant pretty explicitly.
正是在这个背景下，神说：「我恨恶休妻，也恨恶人 以强暴待妻；所以你们当谨守自己，不可行诡诈。」 It’s in this context that God says, For I hate divorce and covering one’s garment with violence, so take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless.
在新约中，你会看到神明确告诉以色列，神与利 未之约之间的关系，就像一个约式婚姻一样。 In the New Testament, you’ve got God clearly saying in Israel that what’s going on between God and the Levitical covenant is very much like a covenantal marriage.
让我们跳到新约来看，有好几个地方可以提到。 Let’s jump forward to the New Testament; there are several different places.
罗马书第七章有一处我觉得相当有意思，因为保罗在上下文里谈到 称义，却说：「若丈夫还活着，她若归于别的男人，便叫淫妇；丈 夫若死了……」你就会想，保罗为什么突然讲起婚姻法规呢？ Romans 7 is one place I think is really interesting because, in the context… Paul is just talking about justification, but he says, Accordingly, she’ll be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive; but if her husband dies… So you just think, like, why is he going on this excursus through marriage law?
他在第4节、接着在第6节解释说：「我们既然脱 离了那捆绑我们的律法，就像对它死了一样。」 Well, he’s going to explain in verse 4, and then in verse 6, he really clarifies, We are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive.
换句话说，在这个约的系统里，基督来成全旧约，并以祂的死建立新约，就像在最后的 晚餐时所说的那样，这就像玛拉基书第二章里描述的古老婚姻之约，现在告一段落了。 In other words, in this change with the covenantal system, Christ coming in and fulfilling the old law with His death and creating a new law at the Last Supper—a new covenant, I should say—that this is very much like the ancient marital covenant that was described in Malachi 2, which has been brought to an end.
可以说，这个约已经完成了，因为这个婚姻中有一方已经死了。 It’s been completed in a way because one of the parties in the marriage is now dead.
大概就是这个意思。 That’s kind of the idea.
所以现在……你就有重新嫁娶的自由了。 So now… oh, now you’re free to marry again.
所以，这个新约的建立，本身就是一个约的概念。 So this creation of a new covenant—that's all a covenantal kind of thing.
这就是保罗在这里所用的图像比喻。 That’s the imagery that St. Paul is using.
因此，如果你对玛拉基书第二章很熟悉，再看罗马书第七章就会更通透。 And so, that makes a lot more sense in Romans 7 if you understand Malachi 2 well.
同样地，在以弗所书第五章，保罗著名地描绘了我们在婚姻中如何彼此相处 ：「你们要存敬畏基督的心，彼此顺服。妻子要顺服丈夫，如同顺服主。」 Likewise, with Ephesians chapter 5, in Ephesians 5, St. Paul famously gives descriptions about how we should interact with each other in marriage: Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ; wives, be subject to your husbands as to the Lord.
但你要注意，他在讲到家庭生活、婚姻关系时，很快就开始谈到教会。 But notice how quickly, in trying to explain family life, in trying to explain marriage, Paul has to turn to the Church.
他这样说：「因为丈夫是妻子的头，如同基督是教会的头；祂又是教会全体的救主。」 He says, For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church, His body, and is Himself its Savior.
接着他说：「正如教会顺服基督，妻子也要凡事顺服丈夫。」 And then he says, Again, as the Church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.
然后又说道：「你们作丈夫的，要爱你们的妻子，正如基督爱教会 ，为教会舍己，用水和道把教会洗净，成为圣洁，可以献给自己， 作荣耀的教会，没有玷污皱纹等类的瑕疵，而是圣洁没有瑕疵。」 And then he says, Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word (baptism), that He might present the Church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
所以，如果你想知道该如何对待丈夫，或如何对待 妻子，就需要了解基督与教会之间的约式关系。 So if you want to understand how to treat your husband, if you want to understand how to treat your wife, you need to understand the covenantal relationship between Christ and the Church.
以弗所书五章二十八节，保罗还说：「丈夫也当照样爱妻子，如同爱自己的身子。」 Ephesians 5, verse 28, even so, Paul says, Husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.
这是关键的一句：「爱妻子的，便是爱自己。」 This is a critical line: He who loves his wife loves himself.
你会注意到，在以弗所书第五章里，保罗是透过两方面来看教会，进而描绘婚姻的。 You’ll notice in Ephesians 5 here, St. Paul is describing marriage by looking to the Church, and looking to the Church in two aspects.
第一，教会在某种意义上是基督的新妇；第二，教会又在某种意义上是基督的身体。 One, that the Church is in one way the Bride of Christ; and two, the Church is in one way the Body of Christ.
在以弗所书五章二十八节里，他把这两个意象结合起来，二人合 为一体是如此深刻，以至于基督爱教会，也等于基督爱祂自己。 In Ephesians 5:28, he’s brought these two images together, that the two becoming one is so radical that Christ loving the Church is really Christ loving Himself.
我们很少这样谈教会；这真是一个非常颠覆性的教会观。 We don’t talk about the Church this way; that is a really radical vision of the Church.
这同时也是对婚姻非常颠覆性的一个看法。 It’s also a really radical vision of marriage.
当一个男人爱他的妻子，他就是在爱自己。 When a man loves his wife, he’s loving himself.
如果他亏负了妻子，也就是在亏负自己。 If he does ill to her, he’s doing ill to himself.
「爱人如己」对你的邻舍是好的，但你被邀请进入一个更深、更奇妙的层面，不仅是爱别 人如同爱自己，更要体会到，你在某种真实的关系中爱自己，同时也爱这约中另一方。 This loving your neighbor as yourself part is good for your neighbor, but you’re invited into something much deeper and more profound, where it’s not just loving the other as yourself but realizing that in a real way you are loving yourself and loving the other party of this covenantal union.
以弗所书五章二十九节，保罗继续说：「从来没有人恨恶自己的身子， 总是保养顾惜，就像基督之于教会，因为我们是祂身体上的肢体。」 Ephesians 5:29, Paul goes on to say, No man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church, because we are members of His body.
所以如果你读了以弗所书第五章，然后问：「保罗是在讲婚姻，还是在讲教会？」 So if you were to read Ephesians 5 and say, Is Paul talking about marriage or is Paul talking about the Church?
其实你无法分开回答，只能说两者皆是。 you can’t answer that; the answer is just yes.
他谈的正是两者，他没法分开讲，其中一个话题一旦提起，就会提到另一个。 He is talking about both, and he can’t get a sentence out about one without bringing up the other.
这就是他在神学里把这两者紧密相连的方式。 That’s how intimately connected these two themes are in his theology.
在下一节里这一点会更加明显。就像耶稣在论婚姻时强调离婚根本不可接 受，并带我们回到创世记二章二十四节「二人要成为一体」的神原始心意 ，保罗在以弗所书五章三十一节也引用了这句。你可能以为他要用这段话 来阐明婚姻，但他实际上是在讲教会，并且用非常类似圣事的方式来谈。 That’s going to become really clear in the next verse because, just as Jesus, when He’s talking about marriage, points out that divorce is actually completely unacceptable and points us back to God’s original plan in Genesis—Genesis 2:24, where it talks of the two becoming one flesh—Paul quotes that here in Ephesians 5:31. You think he’s going to say this explains marriage, but he actually says this explains the Church, and he puts it in these really sacramental terms.
他说：「这奥秘是极大的，我是指着基督和教会说的。」 He says, This is a great mystery (mysterion, the Greek word for sacrament). This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church.
但他又离不开婚姻话题，所以继续说：「然而，你们 各人也当爱妻子如同爱自己，妻子也当敬重丈夫。」 But he can’t stop talking about marriage as well, so he says, However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
所以，我会说，以弗所书第五章比其他任何经文更能说明：你若不明白 婚姻，就难以明白教会；同样，如果不明白教会，也难以明白婚姻。 So more than any other passage, I would say Ephesians 5 shows that you can't understand the Church without understanding marriage, and you can't understand marriage without understanding the Church.
保罗根本无法把这两者分开，因为它们就是如此紧密相连。 Paul simply can't separate the two because they're that connected.
有很多其他经文也在传达同样的讯息，只是我们可能没注意到。 There are plenty of other passages that point in the same direction, that maybe we’ve overlooked.
比方说，在约翰福音第三章里，施洗约翰说：「你们自己可以给我 作见证，我曾说过：『我不是基督，是奉差遣在祂前面的。』」 For instance, in John 3, St. John the Baptist says, You yourselves bear me witness that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before Him.’
但他是怎么描述他和耶稣之间的关系呢？ But how does he describe his relationship?
他说：「娶新妇的就是新郎。」 He says, He who has the bride is the bridegroom.
这是指基督。 That’s Christ.
「站着听见新郎声音的朋友，因新郎的声音就大大欢喜。」 The friend of the bridegroom who stands and hears Him rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice.
那就是施洗约翰自己。 That’s John the Baptist.
因此，约翰对自己是谁、以及基督是谁的理解，都是透过这样一种婚姻的比喻来表达的。 So John’s whole understanding of who he is and who Christ is is expressed in this kind of marital imagery.
同样地，在启示录第十九章，也就是这卷书的后段 ，我们看到天上有一支大合唱：「哈利路亚！」 Likewise, we can see in Revelation 19, towards the end of the book of Revelation, there’s this heavenly chorus: Hallelujah!
「因为主我们的神、全能者掌权了。」 For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns.
「我们要欢喜快乐，将荣耀归给祂，因为羔羊的婚期到了，新妇也自己预备好了。」 Let us rejoice and exult and give Him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready.
又赐给她穿上明亮洁白的细麻衣。 It was granted her to be clothed with fine linen, bright and pure.
约翰接着说：「这细麻衣就是圣徒所行的义。」 Then John adds, For the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.
所以，在约翰所见展开的天上奥秘里，教会正是那新妇。 So the Church is the bride in this heavenly mystery that John sees unfolding.
这是圣经中一再出现的主题。其实，从旧约到新约，无论先是以 色列，后是教会被称作新妇的经文，我在这里只是浅尝辄止。 This is a recurring biblical theme, and I'm actually just scratching the surface of all of the Old and New Testament references to first Israel and then the Church being the bride.
然而，在启示录十九章九节，有一个关键的邀请，我一定要让你们留 意：天使对约翰说：「你要写上，凡被请赴羔羊之婚筵的有福了。」 Revelation 19, verse 9, though, has this incredible invitation I want to make sure we get, where the angel says to John, Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.
「羔羊的婚筵」也就是整个焦点所在：新郎与新妇之间那奇妙的相会。 So this marriage supper of the Lamb, the wedding feast of the Lamb—that's what all this is pointing to: this incredible encounter between the bridegroom and the bride.
如果你了解犹太婚姻的流程，你会知道它们分为两个阶段。 If you understand how Jewish marriages work, they were in two stages.
我之前还做过其他节目讨论过这个。 I’ve done other videos on this.
首先是正式缔结婚约，但之后新郎会先去为新妇预备住处，然后才再来接新妇进入他的家。 First, you get legally married, but then the bridegroom would go out and prepare a house for the bride, and then he would come and take the bride into his house.
耶稣在最后的晚餐里也表明了祂这样做的目的，就是先去为我们预备地方。 Jesus, at the Last Supper, presents His goal as doing this, that He goes before us to prepare a place for us.
这用的就是新郎的语言，并且在启示录十九章的羔 羊婚筵中达到高潮，也就是犹太婚礼的第二阶段。 This is very much bridegroom kind of language, and it culminates here in Revelation 19 in the wedding feast of the Lamb, which is the second stage of the Jewish wedding.
所以可见这一切非常明确，其中包含了许多礼仪性内容，也有很多与圣餐有关的主题。 So that’s obviously there; there’s a lot there, and there are a lot of liturgical elements, a lot of Eucharistic themes to that.
但此刻我想强调的是，基督与教会之间，在那新郎 和新妇的关系里，存在着某种极其深刻的关联。 But what I want to get right now is just that there’s some kind of very deep connection in Christ’s relationship to the Church and in the bridal-bridegroom relationship.
如果我们没有明白这一点，就会在两者上都失去重要的启示。 If we don't get that, we’re missing something important about both.
我一直在说这个，那么，这两者到底是什么联系呢？ So I keep saying that, but what is that connection?
我想这样说：如果要用最简单的话概括，那就是一个牢不可破、神所建立的约之结合。 Well, I want to present it this way: if you want to understand the connection very simply, it is an indestructible, divinely created covenantal union.
「牢不可破、神所建立的约之结合」。 An indestructible, divinely created covenantal union.
你可以用「二人合为一体」来概括这些特点。 You can capture all of those features together by saying that the two become one.
而既然二人合一，就只会成为一个实体。 And if the two become one, they become only one.
耶稣是元首，不会拥有好几个身体；基督是新郎，也不可能拥有好几个新妇。 Jesus, the Head, doesn't have multiple bodies; Christ, the Bridegroom, doesn't have multiple brides.
如果圣经这种对教会的理解是对的，那么答案就是只有一个教会。 If this biblical understanding of the Church is correct, it follows that there’s one Church.
基督不是多妻主义者，祂并没有许多不同的新娘。 Christ isn't a polygamist; He doesn't have a ton of different brides.
我们会在本集末尾再谈这个，但我要你们先明白：若 看透婚姻的道理，就能明白为什么教会只有一个。 We’ll actually get into that at the very end of this episode, but that’s what I want you to see: if you get marriage right, you can see why there’s one Church.
如果你理解了教会，你也就会懂为什么离婚再婚是行不 通的，因为那是一个牢不可破、神所建立的约之结合。 If you get the Church right, you can see why divorce and remarriage are impossible, because they’re these indestructible, divinely created covenantal unions.
那么，这对教会本身又意味着什么呢？ Now, what does that mean for the Church in particular?
我想先指出几段经文。 I want to flag a couple of passages.
马太福音十六章十八节——这是一个公教徒和新教徒谈到教宗制 度时常常热议的点。这里我不会过多展开，只想强调其中一点。 Matthew 16, verse 18—now, this is a hot-button topic for a lot of reasons for Catholics and Protestants with the papacy, and I’m going to elide most of them and glide right past it and point you to just one feature.
在马太福音十六章十八节，耶稣对圣彼得说：「我告诉你， 你是彼得（磐石），我要把我的教会建造在这磐石上。」 In Matthew 16, verse 18, Jesus says to St. Peter, I tell you, you are Peter (Rock), and on this rock I will build my Church.
然后祂说：「阴间的门不能胜过教会。」 Then He says, The gates of Hades, or hell, won’t overcome the Church.
请注意，这里强调的是教会是神所建立的。 But notice: it’s divinely created.
就像神亲自结合真正的婚姻一样，在这里，真正的教会是神所造的，不是人所创的。 Just as God joins together a true marriage, well, here the true Church is made by God, not by man.
这是至关重要的，因为如果耶稣没有说过这一番话 ，那么祂的跟随者就只能自己去创立各自的宗派。 That’s really important because if Jesus had never said those words, then His followers would have to go start their own denominations.
就像，祂的跟随者会说：「我要跟随耶稣，但祂没给我们留下一间教会 ，所以我们只好自己组织一个人造的团体，然后用那种方式跟随祂。」 Like, His followers would have to say, Hey, I want to follow Jesus, but He doesn’t leave us a Church, so we’ve got to make a man-made organization and follow Him that way.
而事实上，很多人表现得好像耶稣没建立过教会，但 耶稣自己告诉我们相反的事实：祂确实建立了教会。 And a lot of people act as if Jesus didn’t build a Church, but Jesus tells us the opposite: that He did build a Church.
所以我们无需另创什么人造的宗派，也不用自己 建个教会，因为耶稣已经替我们完成了这工程。 So we don’t have to go make some man-made denomination; we don’t have to build our own Church because Jesus already did that work for us.
这是第一点：由神所设立的。 That’s the first thing: divinely instituted.
第二点，这里存在一种真实的参与……在这里，又会出现和圣餐相关的主题。 Second, there’s a real participation… Now here, those Eucharistic themes are going to come out again.
在哥林多前书十章十六节，圣保罗说：「我们所祝福的福杯，岂不是与基督的血相交吗？」 In 1 Corinthians 10, verse 16, St. Paul says, The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?
「我们所擘开的饼，岂不是与基督的身体相交吗？」 The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
这样与基督身体和宝血相交的概念是一个非常宝贵的主题，我在这里无 法详尽展开，但我想指出一点：在第十七节，保罗说：「因为只有一个 饼，所以我们虽多，仍是一个身体，因为我们都分受这一个饼。」 This idea of participating in the body and blood of Christ is a really great theme, and I’m not going to do it justice here, but I want to point to one thing: in verse 17, Paul says, Because there is one bread, or the word can also be translated because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
因此，正是圣餐真实地使我们与基督合而为一。 So the Eucharist is what causes us, in a real way, to become one with Christ.
正如在婚姻中，夫妻行合一之事使二人成为一体；同样地，在教 会生活中，与基督身体在圣餐里的相遇，也使两者成为一体。 Just as in marriage, the act of the marriage act makes the two become one flesh, here in the life of the Church, this encounter with the body of Christ in the Eucharist makes the two become one flesh.
这里有一个有趣的平行之处：这种身体层面的结合并非巧合。 There’s an interesting parallel here; these acts of physical union, if you will, are not a coincidence.
从人的角度来看，这是最亲密的结合方式。 It’s the most intimate expression of union from a human perspective.
要知道，我们是人，有身体也有灵魂。 Because look, you’re a human being; you have body and soul.
当我们要表达合一时，常常会在身体层面上找方法。 When you want to express union, we often find ways of doing that at a bodily level.
从握手、拥抱，甚至割破手掌互相对接血液、成了结拜兄弟，到夫妻之间的 亲密拥抱，再到在圣餐中与基督的结合，都是在身体层面展示这种合一。 That can be anything from a handshake to a hug, you know, becoming blood brothers where you cut your hand and press your blood against theirs to show this union, even in the blood, to the embrace of a husband and wife, and here in the Eucharist with Christ.
这就是关键：要成为一体。 So that’s the idea: to become one flesh.
那这是如何达成的呢？ And how does that happen?
正如圣保罗所说，这是借着圣餐的方式实现的。 Well, it’s happening, as St. Paul tells us, in a Eucharistic way.
与基督成为一体是什么意思？ What does it mean to become one flesh with Christ?
保罗在以弗所书第一章也有说明。他在第二十二节说，神叫万有都服在基督 脚下，使祂为教会作万有之首。教会是祂的身体，是充满万有者所充满的。 Well, Paul tells us that as well in Ephesians chapter 1. He tells us in verse 22 that God has put all things under Christ’s feet and has made Him the head over all things for the Church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
换句话说，当保罗说教会是基督的身体时，他是在强调教会乃是基督的丰盛。 In other words, Paul is letting you know when he says that the Church is the body of Christ, he means that the Church is the fullness of Christ.
若只要耶稣而不要教会，你就无法拥有完整的基督。 You don’t have the full Christ if you have Jesus and not the Church.
这就好比你认识某个人，却不认识他的妻子。 It’s like knowing somebody and not knowing their wife.
你也许已经相当了解他，但若要真正明白他是谁，还需要去认识与他成为一体的另一半。 You know them pretty completely, but to really understand who they are, you have to see the other half of them because the two have actually become one flesh.
保罗在这里所说的正是：是的，这两者确实合而为一。 Well, here Paul is saying, Yeah, the two actually are one.
在其他方面你也能看见这层意义。 You can see this in some other ways as well.
举例来说，在约翰福音十四章第六节里，耶稣有名地说：「我就是道路、真理、生命。」 For instance, in John 14, verse 6, Jesus famously says, I’m the way, the truth, and the life.
那教会在《使徒行传》里又是如何自我称呼的呢？ What does the Church say about herself in the Acts of the Apostles?
她自称为「这道」。 Well, she refers to herself as the Way.
我们在使徒行传二十四章十五节之类的地方都能看到。因此，新约中教会对自己的称 呼也表明，她自视为耶稣在地上的延续，是祂的身体以奥妙的方式继续在地上体现。 We see that in places like Acts 24, verse 15. So even the description the Church has for herself in the New Testament shows that she understands herself to simply be a continuation of Jesus on Earth; that this is His body continuing to be incarnate in a mysterious way on Earth.
没错，从身体层面来说，耶稣已经去了天上，祂升天了。 Yes, bodily, Jesus has gone to heaven; He ascended into heaven.
但祂并没有撇下我们。 And yet He hasn’t abandoned us.
祂为何没有撇下我们呢？ Why has He not abandoned us?
因为在另一个意义上，祂的身体仍在地上——祂的新妇还在这里。 Because there’s another sense in which His body is still on Earth: because His bride is still on Earth.
新郎与新妇有着如此紧密的合一，以至于你在何处看见教会，就在那里看见基督。 And so radically are Bridegroom and Bride to be identified one with another that where you see the Church, you see Jesus.
因此，教会才敢堂而不惧地自称为「这道」。 That’s why, without blasphemy, the Church can refer to herself as the Way.
因为，再一次想起保罗的话：「爱妻子的便是爱自己。」 Because, again, remember Paul’s words: He who loves his wife loves himself.
他就是这样将它应用在基督和教会的关系上。 He applies this to Christ and the Church.
也就是当基督爱教会时，祂实际上是在爱祂自己。 That when Christ loves the Church, He’s really loving Himself.
那么，这对类似宗教改革这样的事件就很具有深远意义了。 Now that’s big for something like the Protestant Reformation.
为什么呢？ Why?
因为反对教会就是反对基督。 Because opposing the Church is opposing Christ.
你无法说「我爱耶稣，但我恨教会」。 You don’t get to say, I love Jesus, but I hate the Church.
在基督信仰中没有这种说法的余地。 There’s not room for that in Christianity.
在使徒行传五章三十八到三十九节，加玛列，就 是我们几周前提到的那位，他对此有所论述。 Acts 5, verse 38 and 39, Gamaliel, whom we looked at a few weeks ago, talks about this.
他虽不是基督徒，却是犹太领袖，是个法利赛人。 Even though he’s not a Christian, he’s a Jewish leader; he’s a Pharisee.
他谈到使徒们的事工时说：「若是出于神，你们 就不能败坏他们；恐怕你们倒是与神对抗了。」 He says about the apostolic movement that if this undertaking is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; you might even be found opposing God.
这话后来果然显示出先见之明，因为在使徒行传第九章里，有一 个年轻人名叫大数的扫罗，向主的门徒口吐威吓和凶杀的话。 Well, those words certainly appear to be prophetic because a few chapters later, in Acts chapter 9, a young man by the name of Saul of Tarsus is breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord.
要注意的是，他并不是想去抓耶稣或杀耶稣。 Now catch that: he’s not going to try to go capture and kill Jesus.
耶稣已经生活在人间、受死、复活，并升了天。 Jesus has lived, died, risen again, and gone to heaven.
这并不是扫罗的目标；他要迫害的是基督徒。 That’s not Saul’s mission; he’s trying to persecute Christians.
他要迫害教会。 He’s trying to persecute the Church.
于是他去见大祭司，求他发文书，好让他在大马士革若找着 「这道」的人，不论男女，都能把他们捆绑带到耶路撒冷。 So he goes to the high priest and asks for letters so that if he finds any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them from Damascus to Jerusalem.
但当他前往大马士革的路上，他被击倒在地，听见有声音对他说： But as he’s on the way to Damascus, he’s knocked to the ground and hears a voice saying to him.
那声音并没有说：「扫罗，扫罗，你为什么逼迫我的教会？」 The voice doesn’t say, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute my Church?
也没说：「你为什么逼迫我的跟随者？」 It doesn’t say, Why do you persecute my followers?
而是这样说：「扫罗，扫罗，你为什么逼迫我？」 It simply says, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?
从天上听见这样的声音非常颠覆性，因为你怎么可能去逼迫一位已在天上的人呢？ That is a baffling thing to hear from heaven because how could you be persecuting someone in heaven?
祂已经在天上了。 They’re in heaven.
扫罗感到困惑，就说：「主啊，你是谁？」 Saul’s confused and says, Who are you, Lord?
那声音回答：「我就是你所逼迫的耶稣。」 The answer comes back, I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
逼迫教会就是逼迫耶稣；反对教会就是反对耶稣。 To persecute the Church is to persecute Jesus; to oppose the Church is to oppose Jesus.
如果只是教会自己这样宣称，人们或许会质疑说这是亵渎。 If the Church had just said those things about herself, you could look at that and say that’s blasphemous.
但这是圣经中记载的，因为这是耶稣亲口所说的。 But this is actually what Scripture says because this is what Jesus said.
因此，你应该能看见，基督信仰当中的婚姻教导相 当颠覆性，而对于教会的教导也一样超乎寻常。 So hopefully you can see that the marriage teaching in Christianity is really radical; the teaching on the Church in Christianity is also really radical.
而且这两者在彼此的映照之下才更显意义；二人成为一体。 And the two make sense in light of each other; the two become one flesh.
那么你或许会问：「后来发生了什么事？」 So you might ask, What happened?
为什么我们当中这么多人对这两个颠覆性的教导渐渐视而不见？ How did we lose sight, so many of us, of these two radical teachings?
要完整回答这个问题并不容易，我在这段内容中无 法面面俱到，但我想先提出一个相对简化的解释。 That is a more difficult question to answer adequately than I can do in one video, but I want to propose a somewhat simplified answer.
首先，宗教改革者重新定义了「教会」。 First, the Reformers redefine the Church.
他们在字面上保留了教会的教义，但却改变了「教会」一词的内涵。 They keep on paper the teaching about the Church, but they just change the meaning of the word Church.
在圣经的语境里，耶稣谈到教会时，会说：「你们是世上的光 。城造在山上是不能隐藏的，人点灯也不会放在斗底下。」 So when you talk about the Church in the biblical context, Jesus says things like, You are the light of the world; a city set on a hill cannot be hid, nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel.
因此有两点值得留意： So there are two features to notice.
第一，教会是有形可见的；它像山上的城，可以被人看见。 Number one, the Church is visible; it’s on a hill where you can see it.
它就像灯光，不能被斗盖住，也无法被隐藏。 It’s a light that you can’t put under a bushel basket; it cannot be hidden.
第二，教会是有组织、有架构的。 And number two, it’s organized; it’s structured.
我们在许多经文里都能看到这点。 We see this all over the place.
人们会为各种事去找教会：遇到问题，你要去告诉教会。 People go to the Church for things: when there’s a problem, you take it to the Church.
在圣经的时代，人很清楚教会在哪里、是什么。 People clearly know where and what the Church is during the times of the Bible.
那后来发生了什么？ So what happens?
我想先集中谈我们刚刚引用的马太福音第五章经文被再诠释 的部分。其实还有很多可说，但我认为这是一个重要例子。 Well, I want to focus just on the reinterpretation of the words I just quoted from Matthew 5. There’s much more that could be said, but I think this is a big one.
因为在马太福音第五章，耶稣讲到教会，然后不久 就在同一篇登山宝训里，讲到离婚和再婚不可行。 Because in Matthew 5, Jesus tells us this about the Church, and then shortly after that, He talks about the impossibility of divorce and remarriage; both of these are in the Sermon on the Mount.
我以为这并非巧合。 I suggest not coincidentally.
那么，山上之城是怎么被重新定义的呢？ So how do we get this redefinition of what the city on a hill is?
有趣的是，「山上之城」这个词组在美国政治中扮演了十分重要的角 色，从清教徒时代到后来雷根这样的政治人物，都用它来形容美国。 Well, fortunately, the phrase city on a hill has a really important role to play in American politics, from the Puritans on to figures like Ronald Reagan, where it’s applied to describe America.
有不少并非神学家的人也曾追溯过这个用语的历史，这本 身就很有意思——因为他们是以外部视角来探究这点。 There are a number of people who aren’t theologians who have actually traced this history, which is kind of fun—seeing people from an outside perspective just exploring this for other reasons.
其中之一是 Richard M. Gamble，他在《寻 找山上之城：一个美国神话的建与毁》这本书里谈到了这一点。 One of those is Richard M. Gamble in his book, In Search of the City on a Hill: The Making and Unmaking of an American Myth.
他追溯这一段经文是如何被演绎成耶稣于登山宝训中的话 用来形容美国——要知道，耶稣的时代可并没有美国。 He traces how interpretations of this passage ended up taking Jesus’ words from the Sermon on the Mount and used them to describe the U.S.A., which wasn’t around, whether you know it or not, in Jesus’ day.
Gamble 指出，早期教父对这座城之可见性的理解，与 耶稣后面谈到灯台上那盏照亮全家的灯之可见性是一致的。 Gamble says the early Church Fathers had understood the city’s visibility as expressing the same meaning as Jesus is pointing to in the following verse about the lamp’s visibility on the stand and the height of the lamp that’s illuminating the whole house.
因此，当这些神学家，也就是早期基督徒，回到这座城的画面时，他们在解 读上或许各有角度，但始终在一个相对狭窄的范围里运行，总是指向教会。 So when these theologians—again, the early Christians—turned to the picture of the city itself, they interpreted it in a variety of ways, but always within a fairly narrow range and always in reference to the Church.
他们也许从经文中延伸出不同的主旨，但都一致认为这 是耶稣对教会的教导，而且这不仅仅是在早期教会中。 They might draw different themes from the passage, but they always understood this to be Jesus’ teaching about the Church, and that’s not just early Christianity.
Gamble 指出，这种解读至少一直延续到十三世纪的阿奎那那 个时期；所有这些作者都同意，这就是耶稣用来比喻祂的教会是祂的 身体，展示祂持续的教导事工，并彰显门徒生命中那明显的真理。 Gamble points out that this continues to be the case down through Aquinas, at least in the 13th century; all of these writers agree on the meaning: it was Jesus' metaphor for His Church as His own body, for His ongoing teaching ministry, and for the conspicuous doctrine in the life of His disciples.
好的，这就是宗教改革前对这一切的看法。 Okay, so that’s the pre-Reformation view of things.
那到了宗教改革时，又发生了什么？ What happens with the Reformation?
在公教与新教的辩论和对话中发生了什么事，使这里被重新诠释了呢？ What happens in Catholic-Protestant debate and dialogue that makes this get redefined?
我想在这里引述 Abram C. Van Ingen 在他所写的《山上之城：美国特殊主义史》这本书中的观点。 Well, here I want to turn to Abram C. Van Ingen in his book City on a Hill: A History of American Exceptionalism.
你会再次发现，那些想要了解美国发展史的人， 必须大费周章去剖析「山上之城」这个概念。 You’ll see, again, that people who want to know the U.S. story have to do a lot of work unpacking this city on a hill idea.
Van Ingen 说，对公教徒而言，马太福音五章十 四节定义了真正的教会是一种永存、有形、普世的机构。 Van Ingen says for Catholics, the verse Matthew 5:14 defines the true Church as a permanent, visible, universal institution.
没错——我们刚才也看到了这节经文究竟是如何呈现这一点的，对吧？ And right—we just saw how it does that, right?
耶稣真正的跟随者就像被安置在山上，让所有人都能看见。 Jesus' true followers were set on a hill to be seen by all.
但自从新教徒于十五世纪后出现之前，他们在一千多年 的时间里形同不存在、无迹可寻、也无人知晓或看见。 Since Protestants first appeared in the 1500s, they’ve been effectively non-existent, invisible, unknown, or unseen for over a millennium.
那么，他们该如何宣称自己承继了基督的教导与生活呢？ How could they argue that they were descended from the life and teachings of Christ?
对吧？ Right?
因此，如果你是新教徒，你必须在三种说法里选其一。 So if you’re a Protestant, you have to say one of three things.
第一：「噢，是的，新教一直都存在。」 Number one, Oh yeah, Protestantism’s always been around.
可这在历史上难以站得住脚，因为人会问：「好的，把证据拿出来。」 Now, that's historically untenable, and someone’s going to tell you, Okay, well show me the evidence.
于是你可能转到第二种说法：「新教一直都在，但一直隐藏起来了。」 So you can go to position two, which is, Protestantism’s always been around, but like it was hiding.
就像说：「我们在山里潜藏了一千年，我们的记录都被毁了，所以你们才不知道我们。」 You know, for a thousand years we were in the mountains, and people destroyed all of our records, and so you didn’t know about us.
可这样的话，你并不是真正的「山上之城」，你在一千年里都像被闷在斗底下。 Well then, you weren’t really a city on a hill; you were under a bushel basket for a millennium.
或者第三，你只好咬牙承认：「对，我们所有这些独特的神学主张，以及那 些使我们和公教会分道扬镳的核心教义，起码在一千年里没有人信奉过。」 Or number three, you just bite the bullet and say, Yeah, all of these distinctive theological ideas, all of the core doctrines that divide us from Catholics, these were things that for at least a thousand years nobody believed.
哦，那听起来也不像什么「山上之城」。 Okay, well you don’t sound like a city on a hill there either.
所以，无论你怎么诠释宗教改革前的新教历史，如果你是新教徒 ，看起来都不像曾是那座明显可见、明确宣讲福音的山上之城。 So however you interpret your own pre-Reformation history, if you’re a Protestant, it doesn’t seem to be that you were a city on a hill that was clearly visible and clearly teaching the Gospel.
事实似乎并不是那样子的。 That just does not appear to have been the case.
因此，Van Ingen 说，另外，公教徒也强调：「耶 稣明确宣告这样做的理由：教会必须是公开的、可见的。」 And so Van Ingen says, Moreover, Catholics added, 'Jesus made the reason for His declaration abundantly clear: the Church had to be public and visible.'
它必须是罗马公教会的山上之城，使所有基督徒都知道该向何处寻求引导。 It had to be the city on a hill of the Roman Catholic Church so that all Christians would know where to turn for guidance.
那么，为何如此呢？ Well, why is that?
因为在各时代，基督徒都被教导要顺服教会的教导，对吗？ Because in every age, Christians were admonished to obey the teachings of the Church, right?
就像希伯来书十三章十七节告诉我们要顺从那些带领我们 的人，也就是指教会的领袖，因为他们将来要向神交账。 Like Hebrews 13:17 tells us to obey our leaders; it’s talking about our Church leaders as those who will have to give an account.
所以，如果我应当顺服神设立在我生命之上的属灵领袖，我就必须知道那个人是谁。 So if I’m supposed to be obeying some spiritual leader God has put in authority over my life, I need to know who that leader is.
可听起来神并没有要我各自去找一个我个人喜欢的导师，或只是附和我想法的牧师。 It doesn’t sound like God is telling me to go choose my own guru or go choose my own pastor who agrees with what I already think.
不，祂是要我「顺服」。 No, He’s telling me to obey.
祂之所以要这样叮嘱，是因为人常常并不想这样做。 But He would only be telling me that if I might not want to do it.
但若我连教会都找不着，又如何顺服呢？ But I can’t obey if I can’t find the Church.
所以，教会为什么要能够被看见，其中一个原因是，不然的话，基督信仰就无法实践。 So one of the reasons the Church is visible is because otherwise, Christianity is impossible.
若你找不到可顺服的教会，就没法遵行耶稣的吩咐。 You just can’t obey Jesus' commands if there is no Church that you can find to obey.
你也许会说：「好的，这听起来很有道理。」 So you might say, Okay, that seems like a sound argument.
那么，当时的新教徒又如何回应呢？ How did all the Protestants at the time respond?
Van Ingen 表示，首先，新教徒回应此事的方法，是根本不去理会这句经文。 Van Ingen says, Well, first, Protestants responded by simply ignoring the verse altogether.
他们不想碰这一点，因为没有一个恰当的回应。 They just didn’t mess with it; they didn’t have a good response.
但最终，他们意识到自己无法回避这节经文，也 不想让这段经文拱手让给对方用来支持其立场。 But eventually, they realized they couldn’t just leave the verse alone; they didn’t want to just concede the verse of Scripture to the other side.
于是他们开始重新诠释，主张基督并没有应许任何人永远可见性的地位。 To unpack and reinterpret it, they began by arguing that Christ never promised perpetual visibility to anyone.
这就成了这一讨论中的关键点。 That becomes a really critical point in the story.
如果你想知道他们如何把每个地方教会说成一座座「山上之城」， 然后清教徒用这个来形容新英格兰的实验，再接着殖民者用它来形 容十三州殖民地，直到最后套用在美国，这就是后续的故事了。 Now, if you’re interested in how that goes from there to each local community being a city on a hill, to then the Puritans taking that to describe the New England experiment, to then the colonists taking that to describe the 13 colonies, and then the U.S.A., that’s the rest of the story there.
关于这点，有很多书写过，相信你也能想见。 And there are a bunch of books on that, as you can probably imagine.
但我想真正关注的，是故事里这一段：宗教改革者其实拿不出什么有力论据 ，却意识到他们和公教徒的关键差异在于，他们对「教会」的定义不同。 But I want to actually focus on this part of the story: that the Reformers don’t have a good argument, but they realize that the key difference between them and the Catholics is that they’ve redefined Church.
对此，John Talbot 其实相当直言不讳。 John Talbot is actually pretty open about this.
若你不熟悉他，他是最早期的宗教改革者之一。 If you’re not familiar, he’s one of the earliest Reformers.
你先有马丁·路德，然后出现了改革宗的新教徒 ，约翰·加尔文算是改革宗这派的领军人物。 So you’ve got Martin Luther, and then you have the Reformed Protestants, and John Calvin is kind of the head of that.
虽说这形容有点宽泛，但大致可视他为这一派的主导者。 It’s a little loose, but he’s kind of the head of that.
他在《基督教要义》的开篇就写了一篇献辞给法王弗朗索瓦，在那里说明了主要的争议点。 At the beginning of Institutes of Christian Religion, he has a prefatory address to King Francis, and he tells him what the major issues are.
他说：「争论所围绕的关键点在于……第一，在他们主张教会的形式总是 可见且明显这一点上，公教徒声称教会的形式总是可见且明显，对吗？」 He says, The hinges on which the controversy turns are these… First, in their contention that the form of the Church is always visible and apparent, Catholics claim the form of the Church is always visible and apparent, right?
因为我们刚刚已经看到了，当然，确实如此。 Because we already saw, of course, it is.
其次，他们把这种形式安置在罗马公教会的教座与其层级制度里。 Secondly, they’re placing this form in the See of the Church of Rome and its hierarchy.
现在，加尔文说得没错：这是两个不同的问题。 Now, Calvin is right: these are two separate issues.
有人可能相信教会是可见的，却拒绝承认它是罗马的。 Someone could believe that the Church is visible and still reject that it’s Roman.
例如，东正教会会说：「是的，确实有一个可见的教会，但那是我们，不是罗马。」 The Eastern Orthodox, for example, they’re going to say, Yep, that’s right, there is a visible Church, but it’s us, not Rome.
这是一个自洽的立场。 That’s a coherent position.
在第二个问题上，公教会、东正教会、科普特教会或其他等，就会展开辩论。 That second thing is where Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, and whoever else debates that.
可是在公教与新教之争上——以及东正教与新教或科普 特教会与新教之间的争论，其实并不局限于那一点。 But the Catholic-Protestant debate—and for that matter, the Orthodox-Protestant debate or the Coptic-Protestant debate—isn't on that.
并不是在于「我们在哪里找得到这可见的教会」的问题， It’s not Where do we find the visible Church?
而是「基督起初是否真的建立了一间可见的教会呢」？ It’s, Well, did Christ really found a visible Church in the first place?
教会是否总是可见且明显呢？ Is the Church always visible and apparent?
加尔文的回答是否定的。 And Calvin says no.
他说：「相反地，我们主张教会可以完全没有任何明显的形态，而 且教会的形态也不是由他们愚昧崇尚的那种外在光辉来决定的。」 He says, We, on the contrary, maintain that both the Church may exist without any apparent form and moreover that the form is not ascertained by that external splendor which they foolishly admire.
所以，他又在冷嘲热讽：「哦，你们就是喜欢罗马多么华丽罢了。」 So again, he’s taking cheap pot shots: Oh, you just like how pretty Rome is.
但关键在于，加尔文所表达的新教徒立场是：教会可以在没有任何外在形态的情况下存在。 But the main point there is the Protestant claim, says Calvin, is that the Church can exist without any apparent form.
就像这样——不是像一个有形体的身体，而更像一缕烟或一个没有实体的灵。于是，我们判 断教会的形态时，并不靠任何外在特征，而是看是否纯粹地传讲神的道，并妥善施行圣事。 It’s just like this—not like a body which has a form, but like a puff of smoke or a spirit which doesn’t. And so we ascertain the form, not by anything apparent, but rather by the pure preaching of the Word of God and the due administration of the sacraments.
问题在于，这种重新定义的「教会」——只要有人纯粹地 传讲神的道、并正确施行圣事就算教会——过于主观。 The problem with that redefinition of the Church—where the Church is wherever the Word of God is preached purely and the sacraments are administered properly—is completely subjective.
你对健全讲道的理解，和我的看法可能正好相反。 Your idea of sound preaching and mine might be 180 degrees opposed.
你对良好圣事规范的想法，也可能与我的截然不同。 Your idea of good sacramental discipline and mine might be 180 degrees opposed as well.
加尔文也承认，只要无法用手指指明教会所在时，公教徒就会大呼抗议。 And Calvin acknowledges that Catholics make an outcry whenever the Church cannot be pointed to with a finger.
就像是，「你们把教会重新定义了之后，没有人能准确说它 在哪里或不在哪里，这看起来非常主观而且毫无定型。」 It’s like, You’ve redefined Church where no one can say where it is or isn’t, and it looks pretty subjective and pretty amorphous.
我若不顺服教会，就等同于违抗基督、与祂作对——除非我能证明 教会已不再正确地传讲神的道或不当施行圣事，从而显示它有错。 I have to obey the Church on penalty of disobeying Christ and fighting Him unless I’m convinced the Church is wrong because it’s no longer preaching the Word of God properly or administering the sacraments correctly.
你看这逻辑循环有多么明显吗？ Do you see how question-begging that is?
它基本是在说：只要对方没错，你就得赞同；而顺服之所以重要 ，正是因为它用在当你自认为正确而带领者却似乎有误之时。 It basically says you have to agree unless the other side's wrong, and the whole point of obedience is that it only matters when you have reason to think you might be right and the people in charge are wrong.
若没有这种张力，顺服当然很容易。 If that’s not the issue, then obedience is easy.
如果你的教宗、主教、神父或牧师等长辈所说的，恰好与你 想法完全一致，根本不需要劝你顺服，你本来就会照做。 If your pope, bishop, priest, pastor, or whatever elder just says things that you think are brilliant and you agree with all of it, there’s no need to call you to obedience; you’re going to do it.
真正检验顺服的时候，是当你对某件事的判断、智慧、诠释等意见不合时。 Obedience, where the rubber hits the road, is where you actually disagree about the prudence of something, the wisdom of something, the interpretation— all of that stuff.
于是，加尔文用这样的方式重新定义教会，就使教会变得毫无定型。 And so Calvin, by redefining Church in this way, has made the Church this completely amorphous thing.
基本上就无法再说谁是谁非，谁在分裂教会，因为没有客观标准可言。 It’s basically impossible to be in schism anymore because who’s to say who is and isn’t in schism?
每个人都会说自己的诠释才对，别人都是错误地传讲神的道。 Everyone's going to say their interpretation is the right one and it’s everybody else who’s preaching the Word wrongly.
这就是加尔文的想法。 That’s Calvin.
马丁·路德也有非常类似的说法。 Martin Luther says very similar things.
他的教会论稍有不同；新教徒可以指出加尔文与路德对教会的看法之间有一些 微妙差异，但他同样相信这种对教会的重新定义，把它视为更隐形的存在。 He has a slightly different ecclesiology; there are some subtle differences that Protestants can highlight between Calvin's vision of the Church and Luther’s, but he also believes in this kind of redefinition of the Church and treats it as a much more invisible reality.
当然，路德的教会观比较有机一些，而且路德和加尔 文的看法都不同于那些主张只有「隐形教会」的人。 Now, Luther's is a little more dynamic, and both Luther and Calvin believe something different than those who say there's only an invisible Church.
路德与加尔文都承认「有形教会」在某种程度上的地位，但如 你所见，在加尔文的立场中，教会是可以没有外在形式的。 Both Luther and Calvin have a role for the visible Church, but as you can see, in Calvin’s case, it’s possible for the Church not to have any apparent form.
类似地，路德这样说：「所以，凡不想犯错的，都应当清楚 铭记，基督信仰乃是一群灵魂在同一信仰中的属灵集会。」 Likewise, in Luther, he says, Therefore whoever does not want to err should remember clearly that Christianity is a spiritual assembly of souls in one faith.
也就是说，它不是人们在肉身层面上的聚集，而是一种灵魂 的属灵集合；没有人会因为身体上的聚合就被视作基督徒。 So it’s not like the bodily gathering of human beings; it’s this spiritual collection of souls, and that no one is regarded as a Christian because of his body.
你看这有多么不强调肉身吗？ Do you see how disincarnate this is?
早期基督徒之所以说教会是基督的身体，正是因为它需要以某种身体的形式存在于世上。 The whole reason early Christians would tell you that the Church is the Body of Christ is because it needs to be bodily present on Earth.
这并不像诺斯低派那样，声称有一些隐秘的教导存在。 This isn’t like Gnosticism, where you’re going to find some hidden teaching.
但路德把它重新定义成你的身体并不重要，而是一种关乎你灵魂的隐形形态。 But Luther has redefined it so that your body is just not important; it’s all about your soul in this invisible way.
那是一群属灵的灵魂之聚会，而不是有形的身体聚集。 It’s a spiritual assembly of souls, not a bodily assembly.
因此，路德说，有一种天生的、真实的、真正且本质的基督信仰在灵 里存在，而不在任何外在之物当中，不管那外在之物被称为什么。 Therefore, Luther says there’s a natural, real, true, and essential Christendom that exists in the spirit and not in any external thing, no matter what it may be called.
接着，路德会说教会有两种：有形教会和无形教会。 Now, Luther will go on to say there are two types of churches: the visible Church and the invisible Church.
后来的新教徒会争论，这两者之间到底有没有关系。 Subsequent Protestants will debate what, if any, relationship there is between them.
无形教会是有形教会的一个子集吗？ Is the invisible Church a subset of the visible Church?
或者说，它们像个维恩图那样有交集，还是有些人在这一边，却不在那一边？ Are they like a Venn diagram where there’s an overlap, or are there some people in one and not the other?
结果就变成了，他们发明出了所谓的「无形教会」。 It turns out that they’ve just invented this thing called the invisible Church.
我说「发明」并不精确，因为这是从十五世纪的约翰·威克里夫和约翰·胡 思那里传下来的，不过他们确实是在为教会作一个非常颠覆性的重新定义。 No, I say “invented” because they’ve gotten this from John Wycliffe and John Huss from the 1400s, but they’re defending this very radical redefinition of the Church.
所以我们要面对的第一种重新定义就是：对，他们会说「我们必须跟随教会 」，但这个教会并不是基督在世的可见身体，而是某种灵魂的属灵聚集。 So that’s the first kind of redefinition we have to deal with: yeah, they’ll say, We have to follow the Church, but it’s not the incarnate, visible body of Christ; it’s a spiritual assembly of souls somewhere.
第二个重新定义，当然是针对婚姻，因为他们也会冲淡耶稣对于离婚和再婚的教导。 The second redefinition, of course, is marriage, because they’re going to also water down Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage.
这似乎也合理——我是说，如果你要否定基督的 一个约式结合，为什么不把所有都一并否定？ Because it makes sense—I mean, if you’re going to attack one covenantal union of Christ, why not attack them all?
这样说可能有点刻薄，但待会儿你会明白我的意思。 That’s an uncharitable way of putting it, but you’ll see what I mean as I go.
我想提一下两位新教作者：威廉·赫斯和戈登·温纳姆。 I want to actually turn to a couple of Protestant authors, William Heth and Gordon Wynham.
他们合著了一本书，名为《耶稣与离婚：福音派共识的问题》。 Now, they together wrote a book called Jesus and Divorce: The Problem with the Evangelical Consensus.
不过，威廉·赫斯在另一本名为《离婚与再婚：四种基督教观点》的 著作里，提到了法国耶稣会士亨利·科泽尔于1971年的研究，称 这是对早期基督徒如何理解新约关于离婚与再婚教导的最全面研究。 But William Heth, in a separate book called Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views, talks about the work of a French Jesuit, Henri Cozel, from 1971. He calls it the most comprehensive study of the earliest Christian writers’ understanding of the New Testament teaching on divorce and remarriage.
我手头并没有科泽尔的这本著作的英文版，我到处都找不到。 Now, I don’t have Cozel’s book in English; I couldn’t find it anywhere.
不过我看了赫斯对它的总结，他说在头五个世纪当中，除了安布罗夏斯特（Am brosiaster）以外的所有希腊与拉丁作家——对，就只除他一个—— But I have Heth’s summary of it, which is that in the first five centuries, all Greek and Latin writers—except for one, Ambrosiaster, is that one?
也有人称这人是「伪安布罗斯」，他是个匿名作者，人们曾长期误以为他是米兰 的圣安布罗斯，却并不是，甚至有可能是伯拉纠派的异端，虽然这也有争议。 Or pseudo-Ambrose, who is an anonymous author who for a long time they thought was St. Ambrose of Milan but isn’t, and who may be a Pelagian heretic, although there are debates about that.
不管怎样，安布罗夏斯特并不是一个显赫的早期教父人物。 But Ambrosiaster, either way, is not like a prominent early Church Father.
所以，除了安布罗夏斯特之外，在东边西边、希腊语和拉丁语 的教会中，所有人都同意，因任何理由离婚后再婚就是奸淫。 So everyone other than Ambrosiaster in the East and in the West, in the Greek and in the Latin Church, agrees that remarriage following divorce for any reason is adulterous.
也就是说，没有人持有那种「有奸淫例外就可以再婚」的想法。 So nobody held to this idea that there was an adultery exception that let you get remarried.
即使有些人认为奸淫是分居的理由，他们仍坚持 配偶双方被婚姻束缚，直到其中一方去世为止。 And so even those who believed that adultery was grounds for separation still held that the spouses were bound to the marriage until the death of one of them.
若一方配偶犯了不贞洁之罪——通常被理解为奸淫——另外一方可以分居，但并无权再婚。 When a marriage partner was guilty of unchastity—which was usually understood to mean adultery—the other was expected to separate but did not have the right to remarry.
需要留意的是，这种解读并没有触及 porneia 在犹太文化中的意义，这 也可以理解，因为他们并非出身犹太背景，而且当时关于犹太教的研究也不多。 Now notice that this interpretation is missing the Jewish context of what porneia means, which is understandable because a lot of these people are not coming from a Jewish background, and scholarship on Judaism isn’t really a big thing.
可即使如此，他们对 porneia 条例的解读，依然能和其他经文保持一致。 But even then, they’re reading this exception for the porneia clause in a way that’s harmonious with the other parts.
现代一些新教徒会说只要发生奸淫，就能离婚再婚，或甚至为其 他缘由离婚再婚——他们必须让马太福音和马可福音对立起来， 因为在马可福音里，耶稣非常清楚地说，离婚再婚就是奸淫。 Modern Protestants who say that you can get divorced and remarried if there’s adultery, or sometimes for any other kind of reason, have to oppose Matthew to Mark, because Jesus in Mark clearly says divorce and remarriage at all is adultery.
于是他们就把这教导撇在一边，基本上说：「哦不，我们更喜欢马太福音的说法。」 And so they just kind of push that teaching to one side and say, Oh no, we like this version better, basically.
早期基督徒可没这样做，他们并没有各取所好。 Well, the early Christians aren't doing that; they’re not picking and choosing.
他们以可与马可互相印证的方式来诠释马太。 They’re reading Matthew in a way that they can harmonize with Mark.
因此，如果把经文视为允许「分开」但不允许「再婚」，那么也就不会出现离婚再婚的 问题，因为没有人去再婚犯奸淫——他们只是因为奸淫而分居或在法律上解除关系。 And so if they view it as allowing divorce but not remarriage, well then you don’t have the divorce and remarriage problem because no one’s committing adultery—they’re just separating or legally divorcing because of adultery.
希望这一点清楚。 So hopefully that’s clear.
当时人们的理解是，如果另一方犯了奸淫，你可以分居， 甚至可办理民事离婚，而公教会至今也依然持这种看法。 There was an understanding that if the other partner was adulterous, you could separate and maybe even get a civil divorce, and that is still what the Catholic Church says.
这点并没有改变，也不会让再婚时出现奸淫的问题，因为处于那种情况的人，就像圣保 罗在哥林多前书里说的，可以回到原先的配偶一方，或选择继续独身，但不能再婚。 That’s not different, and that doesn’t create the adultery problem that happens with attempting remarriage because the person in that position is still, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians, able to either go back to the person they were with or remain effectively single, but they can’t remarry.
我们可以看看威廉·赫斯和亨利·科泽尔提到的一些早期基督徒的例子。 We see a couple of examples of the early Christians that William Heth is talking about and that Henri Cozel is talking about.
例如，大约在公元一百多年中期时，殉道者游斯丁在他的《第一次护教书》中说，凡按 照人间法二次结婚的人，在我们主的眼中，与那些看见妇女就起淫念的人同样是罪人。 For instance, in the mid-100s, in his First Apology, St. Justin Martyr says that all who by human law are twice married are in the eyes of our Master sinners, and those who look upon a woman to lust after her.
这已经很明确了，对吗？ That’s pretty clear, right?
说得相当直接。 That’s pretty direct.
亚西纳哥拉在他的《为基督徒辩护》中说：「我们所关注的，不是口 头之表，而是行为上的展现与教导。一个人要么保持原初的状态，要 么只满足于一次婚姻。因为再次结婚无异于一种貌似的奸淫。」 Athenagoras says in his A Plea for Christians that we bestow our attention not on the state of words but on the exhibition and teaching of actions, and that a person should either remain as he was born or be content with one marriage, for a second marriage is only a specious adultery.
这又是非常直白大胆的言语，放到今天，很多基督徒讲台并不常这样说。 Again, bold kind of language you don’t hear from many Christian pulpits today.
那么，他这种话是在哪里来的呢？ Well, where is he getting this from?
显然是来自圣经的教导。 Well, he’s getting it from Scripture.
他引用耶稣的话：「凡休妻另娶的，就是犯奸淫。」 He quotes Jesus, That whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery.
「因此，不容许一个人放弃与他已结束贞洁关系的那位妻子，也不得再次娶妻。」 Not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity is brought to an end, nor to marry again.
好的，这就是那些早期基督徒的观点。 Okay, so those are the early Christians.
现在，我们再回到戈登·温纳姆在《耶稣与离婚》这本书里的说法。 Let’s turn back to this time with Gordon Wynham in his book Jesus and Divorce.
他们会把许多婚姻重新定义的问题归咎于鹿特丹的伊拉斯谟。 They’re going to pin a lot of the redefinition of marriage problems on Erasmus of Rotterdam.
伊拉斯谟与马丁·路德是同一时代的人，有时是朋友，有时又是对手。他是一位温和的改 革者，去世时仍是公教徒，但他是个人文主义者，在当时的一些观念上算是比较自由。 Now, Erasmus was a contemporary of Martin Luther, a friend and sometimes foe of Luther's. He was a moderate reformer who died a Catholic, but he was a humanist who was kind of liberal in his day in some of his beliefs.
他推动了一些改革——有些我认为大家可以认同，但也确实有些不太正确的。 He pushed for some things—some of them I think people would agree with, and some of them were wrong.
其中一个错的就是他提出了对于教会婚姻教导的重新解读。 One of the things he pushed for that was wrong was a re-understanding of Church teaching on marriage.
他在1519年发表于《注解》这部作品里，对哥林多前书第七章提出 了一种看法。我们不多做深入讨论，但如威廉·赫斯所说，他的看法有 两点：第一，不是随便就解除某些婚姻，而是因非常严重的理由，由教 会当局或认可的法官来做决定；第二，让无过错的一方可以再婚。 He does this in 1519 in a work called Annotations, in which he's looking at 1 Corinthians 7. We're not going to go deep on that, except to say, as William Heth does, that he makes two arguments: number one, it should be permissible to dissolve certain marriages not fortuitously, but for very serious reasons, by the ecclesiastical authorities or by recognized judges; and number two, to give the innocent party the freedom to marry again.
所以他似乎认为在某些特殊情况下，教会或也许是 民事机构，可以批准离婚，并允许当事人再婚。 So he seems to think these are exceptional cases where the Church, or maybe a civil authority, could grant a divorce that then permits you to remarry.
但这样就要去改变教会的既有教导——就像极端立场那样 ，最后好像会导致任何情况都能离婚再婚的大门敞开。 But that’s going to try to change Church teaching—just like in extremism, it always ends up seemingly blowing the doors open to anything.
这里总是存在一个“滑坡效应”。 There’s always this kind of slippery slope.
一旦你说：“没错，我在99%的情况下都赞同耶稣 ”，用不了多久，各种例外就会取代原本的规则。 So once you say, Yeah, I agree with Jesus 99% of the time, it’s not long before the exception swallows the rule.
再看马丁·路德，他其实很明确地认为，婚姻只能由死亡来解除。 Looking at Martin Luther, he is actually really clear that marriage has to be dissolved by death.
他甚至在对登山宝训的注释中说到，只有死亡才能让婚姻结束。 He even says in his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount that death alone dissolves marriage.
然而，他又坚持说，通奸者已经被离婚——这不是出于人的决定 ，而是神亲自做的——因为在旧约律法下，奸淫是要被处死的。 Nevertheless, he maintains that an adulterer is already divorced—not by man, but by God Himself—because under the Old Law, adultery incurred the death penalty.
他的论点是：就摩西律法而言，犯奸淫的人早就该被处死，所 以他（她）在事实上已经和配偶甚至这条生命脱离了关系。 So his argument is, well, legally under the Mosaic Law, you’d be dead, and therefore you’re cut loose from your spouse and even from this life.
我想大多数人都能看出这说法相当牵强。 I think most of us would recognize that’s a pretty weak argument.
照这个逻辑推下去，旧约中很多罪都得死刑，那犯下这些罪 也都能使婚姻自动解除吗？因为你在灵里面算是“死了”？ By that standard, seemingly any sin you committed that would have incurred the penalty of death—which is a lot of sins in the Old Covenant—would also dissolve a marriage because you’re spiritually dead.
换言之，只要你犯了什么致死的罪，你的婚姻也就结束了？ Anytime you commit a mortal sin, your marriage is over.
这就是路德的论点，接着他说：既然现在是神离 婚了另一方，那么那个人就完全获得了自由。 So that's Luther's argument, and he goes on to say that because now God, here, divorces the other party, the other person is fully released.
所以，就算他或她还想维系婚姻，也不再有义务留住这位已经不忠的配偶。 So he or she is not bound to keep the spouse that has proved unfaithful, however much he or she may desire it.
这就变成当事人的选择：你可以再婚，可以重新嫁给那 个人，也可以作为一个“自由人”，因为对方犯罪了。 It becomes your prerogative: you can remarry, you can marry that person again, you can consider yourself free because they've committed this sin.
但要注意，就像我们上周提到的，这就形成一个“两层次 制度”——若你是性罪的受害者，你就有权离婚并再婚。 But notice this, as we pointed out last week: this creates a special two-tiered system where if you're the victim of sexual sin, you're free to divorce and remarry.
可路德又不想说，如果是你自己犯了性罪，那你就自由可以离婚和再婚。 But Luther doesn't want to say that if you commit sexual sin, you're free to divorce and remarry.
这就很荒谬了，因为你会说：“嗯，这段约已经因奸淫而破裂了。” So this creates a ridiculous position where you say, Well, this covenant was dissolved because of adultery.
可要是你真的这么执行，你只要对配偶不忠，就能自行终结婚姻。 Well, if you follow that correctly, then you can end any marriage just by cheating on your spouse.
然后你会说：“好吧，我犯了奸淫，我也感到抱歉，但现在我可以再婚啦。 因为另外一种情况——也就是路德描述的——是对方已完全被释放了。” Then you say, Well, you're sorry about having committed adultery, but now you’re free to get married again, because the alternative—what Luther has described here—is that the other party is fully released.
那又为什么你自己不会被释放呢？ Why would you not be fully released?
你又没法继续跟路德眼中“神已解除婚约”的那个 人保持婚姻，说不定那个人已经和别人结婚了。 You can't stay married to a person whom, according to Luther, God has dissolved your marriage with, and maybe they’ve gone off and married somebody else.
这完全说不通。 It doesn’t make any sense.
这就是路德的立场；你可以看得出来，他在开设这些离婚 再婚的漏洞，而且这些漏洞比伊拉斯谟设定的还要更大。 So that's Luther's position; you can see he’s introducing these kinds of loopholes, and they're already much bigger than Erasmus' loopholes.
加尔文比路德稍晚些，他指出了其实“奸淫例外”并无多少道理。 John Calvin, who is slightly after Luther, points out that actually the adultery exception doesn’t make a lot of sense.
他基本把这个说法批了，因为他认为：“好吧，如果在 摩西律法下，犯奸淫该被处死，那还谈什么离婚呢？” He sort of throws this out because he says, Okay, well, if the adulteress deserved to be punished with death under the Mosaic Law, what purpose does it serve to talk about divorces?
既然奸淫会被判死刑，何须给它预留一个离婚的例外？ Why would there be an exception for adultery if adultery was punished by the death penalty?
你的配偶都算死了，就不用担心在摩西律法下是否得办理合法离婚了。 Your spouse is dead; you don’t have to worry about can you legally divorce them or not under the Mosaic Law.
这到底是怎么回事呢？ What is going on here?
所以他也看出这种解读有问题，但并没有真正加以解决。 So even he seems to realize there’s something wrong with this interpretation, but he doesn’t really resolve that fact.
相反地，他只是宣称，即便经文看起来像是耶稣彻底谴 责离婚与再婚，耶稣其实“并不是真的那样意思”。 Rather, he just argues that even when it sounds like Jesus is completely condemning divorce and remarriage, he doesn’t mean it.
他说：“虽然后来娶被休之妻的人在基督眼中被定为犯奸 淫，但这无疑是局限于那些不合法、毫无根据的离婚。” He says, Though Christ condemns as an adulterer the man who marries a wife that has been divorced, this is undoubtedly restricted to unlawful and frivolous divorce.
所以，虽然经文并没有说只有“不合法、草率的离婚”才是奸淫——事实上 ，这样解读等于扭曲整个经文——但他就是把那种例外条款硬加进去了。 So even though Christ doesn't say it's only unlawful and frivolous divorces—despite the fact that it completely undermines the entire passage to read it that way—he just reads that kind of exception clause in there.
可以对比耶稣在马可福音第十章所说的话：“凡休妻另娶的， 就是对妻子犯奸淫；妻子若离弃丈夫另嫁，也是犯奸淫。” Now contrast that with Jesus' words in Mark 10: Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.
这是一个很颠覆性的教导，而且本来就打算如此。 This is a radical teaching, and it’s intended to be a radical teaching.
然而，他却从经文里读出了一些并不存在的潜在例外。 And yet, he’s reading in implied exceptions that are not hinted at in the text.
实际上，加尔文说犹太人对离婚和再婚的态度过 于随便，以至于马可没有把那些例外写出来。 In fact, Calvin makes the argument that the Jews were so, you know, basically promiscuous with divorce and remarriage that Mark just doesn’t give us those exceptions.
所以在马可福音里没有留下一点余地。 So there's no wiggle room.
他说，马可是想要展现主耶稣谴责当时普遍存在的堕落情形。 He says Mark intended to show that our Lord condemned the corruption that was at that time universal.
可他们往往自愿离婚，双方再各自进入新的婚姻，所以马可就没有提到奸淫。 But after voluntary divorces, they entered on both sides into new marriages, and therefore he makes no mention of adultery.
现在我想确保你明白他的意思：他是在说，耶稣曾经教导过「有奸淫的例外」。 Now I want to make sure you get what he’s saying here: he’s saying Jesus had taught there was an adultery exception.
马可明知此事，却不想让人滥用耶稣给的这个特例，所 以他把这条与奸淫相关的例外隐藏起来，根本不提。 Mark knew this and didn't want you to abuse that privilege that Jesus had given, and so Mark covers up the adultery exception; he just doesn’t mention it because he doesn’t want you to take that ball and run with it.
这是对马可福音一个非常奇怪的诠释。 That is a very strange interpretation of the Gospel of Mark.
没有任何依据能支持这样的说法。 There is no evidence of that whatsoever.
实际上，除了马太之外，其他经文都相当明确地表明并没有任何例外。 In fact, everybody besides Matthew just has a very clear no exception.
所以如果不是大家都在类似地隐瞒耶稣的教导，那么这种解读就十分牵强。 So unless they're all engaged in a similar kind of cover-up of Jesus' teaching, it’s very strange to read them that way.
最清晰的看法会是：马太所谓的 porneia 例外根本不是真正的「例外」；它只是 说明，这道理并不适用于那些在神眼中原本就不成立的婚姻，也就是神并没有结合的婚姻。 It seems much clearer to say that Matthew's so-called exception for porneia isn't really an exception whatsoever; it’s just an acknowledgment that this teaching doesn’t apply to invalid marriages that were never valid in the eyes of God—that God didn't join together.
好了，现在让我们回到 Heth 和 Wynham 的《耶稣与 离婚》这本书。他们把这些观点统称为「伊拉斯谟式」解经，事实上 这就是新教徒的一般立场——虽然也不乏特例，但基本上就是这样。 Okay, let's return again to Heth and Wynham's Jesus and Divorce, because they’re going to call all of this, which is really the standard Protestant position—although you will find exceptions; I don’t want to discount that—you will find exceptions.
这是相当普遍的新教立场。 But this is a pretty standard Protestant position.
他们会称这种立场为「伊拉斯谟派」看法，以纪念伊拉斯谟。 They’re going to call this the Erasmian position, in honor of Erasmus.
他们讨论的正是这一点。 But that’s what they’re talking about.
他们说，在很多新教教会里，这种伊拉斯谟式解经相当盛 行，以至于有人觉得，因为它流行太久，就一定有理。 And they say in many Protestant churches, Erasmian exegesis of these texts has held sway for so long that some will no doubt feel this is proof that there must be something in it.
可其实并不必然如此。 But that doesn't follow.
就算许多新教徒长期以来都持有伊拉斯谟、路德、加尔文那一派的看法，也不代表他们就 有扎实的圣经根据。根据伊拉斯谟派的观点，温纳姆和赫斯指出，这等于把耶稣说成与沙 麦派犹太人的观点相同，并且抵挡更自由的希列派，让离婚后在某些情况下可以再婚。 Like, the fact that a lot of Protestants have believed Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, and the rest on this for a long time doesn’t mean they actually have a strong biblical case because they don’t. On the Erasmian view, Wynham and Heth point out that Jesus is made to agree with the Shammaite Jews against the more liberal Hillelites by permitting remarriage after divorce in certain instances.
听到这儿你也许会说：「你刚刚说了什么？」 Now you might have just said, What did you just say?
「你这又是在讲什么？」 What are you talking about?
咱们先快速了解一下犹太拉比传统，稍微岔开一下话题。 Let’s do a quick rabbinical excursus or a little bit of an aside.
这是理解马可福音第十章和马太福音第十九章经文时非常重要 的背景。根据申命记第二十四章，按摩西律法是允许离婚的。 This is really important background to understanding the biblical text and understanding what Jesus is talking about in Mark 10 and in Matthew 19. In Deuteronomy 24, under the Mosaic Law, divorce was permitted.
若妻子在丈夫眼中不蒙恩宠，丈夫发现她有什么「不堪之处」，就可与之离婚。 A man could divorce his wife if she finds no favor in his eyes because he's found some indecency in her.
希伯来文称为 ervat davar，翻作「不堪之事」。 Ervat davar is the Hebrew—which I’m sure I’m butchering—but that’s some indecency.
问题是，当你在妻子身上发现「不堪之事」就能离婚，这到底该如何理解？ And the question is, what does it mean to say you can get divorced if you find some indecency in your wife?
Luke Greenberg 在《犹太离婚法》里解释说，主前一世 纪时有两个主要的犹太拉比学派，也就是在耶稣之前大约一百年的事。 Well, Luke Greenberg in Jewish Divorce Law explains that there were two rabbinical schools in the first century B.C. So this is a century before Christ.
其中一派是沙麦学派，采取的是更严格的解读，把 erv at davar 直接视为「奸淫」，而且只针对奸淫。 One view is that of Shammai; it’s a more strict construction or interpretation that views ervat davar as meaning literally and exclusively adultery.
也就是说，如果妻子犯奸淫，你就可以离婚再婚。 So if your wife commits adultery, you can get divorced and remarried.
这是比较严苛的派别。 That’s the stricter view.
希列学派则更宽松，认为所谓「不堪之事」可以是任何让丈夫不悦的事。 Hillel has a more liberal view that says indecency is just anything that displeases you about her.
换言之，你便可以离婚。 So you can get divorced.
有些拉比甚至说，只要你不喜欢妻子的手艺，都能离婚。 Some rabbis even said you could get divorced if you didn’t like your wife’s cooking!
也就是这么随意——任何理由都能成为离婚理由。 I mean, it was just that level of permission—yeah, you can get divorced for any reason.
只要她有哪点让你不顺心，就可以离婚。 The only time you’re going to want to get divorced is if there’s something that displeases you about her.
所以希列学派的看法等同于想离婚就离婚，想再婚就再婚。 So Hillel's view amounts to divorce on demand; divorce and remarriage on demand.
沙麦学派则只允许在奸淫的情况下离婚。 Shammai's view is only in the case of adultery.
而新教徒多数会倾向沙麦学派的立场，但耶稣认为两派都不对。 Now, Protestants will say Shammai has it right; Jesus said both had it wrong.
所以他们去问耶稣如何解释摩西律法，耶稣在马太福音十九章八节里回 答说：「摩西因为你们的心硬，才准你们休妻；但起初并不是这样。」 So they come to Him to settle this question of how to interpret the Mosaic Law, and Jesus responds in Matthew 19, verse 8, For your hardness of heart, Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
也就是说，耶稣并没有明确主张要用摩西律法的宽松或严格版本。 So explicitly, Jesus isn’t saying, Let’s take a liberal view of Moses or Let’s take a conservative view of Moses.
祂在说明，在创世之初的安排里，人对婚姻的要求要超越摩西律法所允许的离婚例外。 He’s telling you that in the order of creation, you were called to more than the Mosaic exception for divorce.
因此祂最终给出的答案就是没有例外。 So no exceptions is where He goes.
然而，有很多新教徒现今的诠释，却完全冲淡了这一点。 The interpretation so many Protestants have totally annihilates this.
依照这种逻辑，耶稣实际上是在说：「我同意沙麦而不是希列」， 那就不会令人惊讶，也不至于让门徒觉得「这样还不如不结婚」。 What Jesus really meant to say is, I agree with Shammai, not Hillel, which wouldn’t be a shocking teaching and wouldn’t have raised eyebrows— as we saw, the Apostles’ eyebrows were raised when they said it would be better not to get married.
但实际上，如果耶稣只是附和沙麦的看法，那么在当时并不会成为特别的教导。 No, this would be an absolutely ordinary, conventional position that was widely held in Jesus’ day.
耶稣显然并没有给出一个当时普遍认可的立场；相反祂采取了一个极为颠覆性的教导，认 为摩西律法允许的那层「离婚例外」已不适用，因为受造之初的安排对我们有更高要求。 Jesus is clearly not giving a widely held position of His day; He’s taking a radical position that the Mosaic Law exception is over because the order of creation calls us to more.
好了，我们回到 Heth 和 Wynham 的讨论，这只不过是问题的开端。 Okay, going back to Heth and Wynham, that’s just the beginning of the problem.
因为，就像我说过的，为了证明四福音作者和保罗同样遵循耶稣的教导，他 们就得把福音书和哥林多前书里有关耶稣离婚教诲的经文全都重新解释，硬 要让新约看起来像沙麦派一样，给不道德行为所导致的某些离婚预留余地。 Because, as I explained, in order to prove that the Gospel writers, the Evangelists, and Paul followed Jesus in this respect, they have to reinterpret all the passages in the Gospels that we've already seen in 1 Corinthians, touching on Jesus' teaching about divorce, to show the New Testament like Shammai allowed some dissolution divorces where immorality was involved.
因此，他们不得不把所有原本看似没有例外的经文解读成「其实有例外」。 So you have to reinterpret all of these texts, which don’t seem to have an exception, as if there is an exception.
他们说道：「我们已经努力证明这种解读十分牵强，与《 马可福音》、《路加福音》和保罗的教导格格不入。」 And they say we’ve endeavored to show this interpretation is quite foreign; it’s out of Mark, Luke, and Paul.
如果你读《马可福音》、《路加福音》和保罗书信时，不 去强加一条例外条款，你会发现根本没有所谓的例外。 When you read Mark, Luke, and Paul without trying to invent an exception clause, you’ll see there is none.
这些经文没有任何暗示说离婚后可以再婚；经文里没有这样的内容。 They give no hint that anyone may remarry after divorce; it simply is not there.
最终，他们说，这些各式各样的诠释花招，终究会在某个时刻遭遇滑铁卢。 Ultimately, they say these exegetical gymnastics finally meet their Waterloo.
这比喻或许有些混杂；我也不知道何种体操会落 得在滑铁卢收场，也许是拿破仑式的体操吧。 It’s a weird mixed metaphor; I don’t know what kind of gymnastics ends in Waterloo—Napoleonic gymnastics, I guess.
然而，这些歪曲的诠释手段，最终在早期教父的教 导面前碰壁，也无法解释成「允许离婚后再婚」。 But these gymnastics finally meet their Waterloo in the teaching of the early Church Fathers, which cannot be reinterpreted to permit remarriage after divorce.
你无法宣称早期基督徒持有那种观点，因为他们明显不是。 You just can’t say the early Christians held that view because they clearly did not.
于是有人或许会说：「好吧，也许早期基督徒当时理解错了。」 So then you have to say, Well, maybe the early Christians got it wrong.
接着问题就来了：若真是如此，为什么当时有那么多人都搞错了呢？ And then the question is, how did so many of them get it wrong?
因为温纳姆和赫斯指出，如果你持此立场，你就得相信某位早期教父（例如 赫尔玛，或一位不知名的教父）竟能说服整间教会走向如此极端的改变。 Because Wynham and Heth point out that if you’re going to take that view, you have to believe that some early Church Father, like Hermas or some other unknown early Father, persuaded the rest of the Church to take this drastic step.
好像他们会说：「是的，耶稣给了我们个例外条款，但我们就把它抛开吧。」 Yeah, Jesus gave us an exception clause, but let’s ignore that.
让整个教会采用比耶稣自己还更严格的标准，而且所有人都接受了。 Let’s take a harder standard than Jesus' own standard, and everybody just went along with it.
他们指出，坦白说，不太可能由一位无名小辈就 能在整个教会推行如此重大的社会态度革新。 They say, Well, frankly, it seems unlikely that such a revolution in social attitudes could have been foisted on the entire Church on the authority of a minor figure.
将它归因于耶稣或保罗才更可信。 It’s more credible to attribute it to someone like Jesus or Paul.
对吗？ Right?
若这是耶稣或保罗的教导，那么整个教会相信它就顺理成章了。 Like, if Jesus or Paul taught it, it makes sense that the whole Church would believe it.
可若只是某位对婚姻教导并不理解的小人物提出这种教导，为 何没有人站出来说：「嘿，大家都知道还有奸淫例外呢！」 But if some random person who didn’t understand the Church's teaching on marriage taught it, why did no one say, Hey, there’s this adultery exception we all know about?
因此，他们总结说，早期教会「不许离婚例外」的立场，证明了耶 稣是那位在婚姻与离婚问题上突破犹太传统共识的伟大改革者。 And so they conclude that the early Church view—the no exception for divorce view—makes Jesus the great revolutionary who broke with the Jewish consensus about marriage and divorce.
而伊拉斯谟派的看法，只是把祂变成沙麦门徒的翻版而已。 The Erasmian view merely makes Him a disciple of Shammai.
仿佛耶稣并未提什么新道理；即便看似是新的教导，其 实不过是重复了那一百多年前犹太拉比所说的罢了。 That Jesus isn’t even presenting a new teaching; even when He presents it as if He’s teaching a new teaching, He’s just regurgitating what prior Jewish rabbis had taught a century earlier.
这显然是一个大有问题的说法。 That seems like an obviously false claim.
因此，希望你能看出其中的来龙去脉：伊拉斯谟、路德和加尔文对经文进行了重新 诠释，加入并不存在的例外条款，进而彻底歪曲并改变了教会原先对婚姻的教导。 So hopefully you can see what’s happened: Erasmus, Luther, and Calvin have reinterpreted Scripture, read into it exception clauses that don’t exist, and have totally distorted and changed Church teaching on marriage.
与此同时，路德和加尔文也对教会的圣经教导进行了彻底再 诠释和更改，我想说的是，这两件事之间并非毫无关联。 Simultaneously, Luther and Calvin have totally reinterpreted and changed biblical teaching on the Church, and I’m just suggesting that these two things are not unrelated moves.
这两者背后似乎有着同一种缺失。 It seems to be a common flaw behind both of them.
因为，若你明白教会确实是基督的新妇，又知道神憎恶离婚， 那么你就无法为离婚再婚找理由，也不能为分裂教会找借口。 Because if you understand the Church really is the Bride of Christ, and if you understand that divorce is hated by God, then you can’t justify divorce and remarriage, and you can’t justify schism.
但若你要为教会分裂辩护，你就必须在经文里大量加 入基原本没有的破口例外，去重新诠释这些教导。 But if you’re going to justify schism, you have to do a lot of work to reinterpret all those texts to put in loopholes that weren’t there before.
最后，题外话：这些对一夫多妻制又意味着什么？ Finally, a little postscript: what does all this mean about polygamy?
因为事实证明，若你在离婚再婚的问题上出错，又在教会的 教导上出错，你很可能也会在多妻制的议题上陷入谬误。 Because it actually turns out that if you get divorce and remarriage wrong, and you get the Church wrong, you're likely to get polygamy wrong as well.
这件事起因于上一期视频中，一位来自非洲背景的观众的问题，想让我谈一谈多妻制。 This was prompted by a viewer's question from an African context on last week’s video, asking me to address polygamy.
首先，在我谈多妻制的脉络里，我提到无法娶继母为妻，因为她与你的父亲已成为一体。 So first, in the context of what I was saying about polygamy, I was referring to the impossibility of marrying your stepmother because she’s one flesh with your father.
这里并不是说你父亲在同一时间拥有两个妻子。 That’s not talking about your father having two wives simultaneously.
而是指：假设你的父母中母亲去世，父亲续娶， That’s like you’ve got a dad and mom; mom dies, dad remarries.
然后父亲也去世， Dad dies.
即便你的继母未再嫁，她可以与别人结婚自由， Even though your stepmom's unmarried, she’s free to marry somebody else.
但她不能嫁给你，你也不能娶她， She can’t marry you; you can’t marry her.
因为她先前与你的父亲已经合而为一， She’s off-limits because she had become one flesh with your father.
所以按《利未记》第十八章，这种关系该被视为 porneia， 也就是乱伦的范畴，就算你能想象它被许可，也依然属不当之事。 And so under Leviticus 18, that was considered porneia; that was considered basically incest, even though you could imagine that being permitted.
而在《哥林多前书》中，圣保罗提到，有一件看起来近似这种 乱伦之事在哥林多人眼中似乎被容忍，他对此感到极度厌恶。 Now, in 1 Corinthians, St. Paul talks about a case where there seemed to be something like that that was acceptable in the eyes of the Corinthian Christians, and he’s disgusted.
他称之为 porneia，并严令他们不可容许这种淫乱之行。 He calls it porneia and tells them not to allow this kind of sexual immorality.
我们对那案例的细节并不了解太多，所以我就不再多加阐述。 We don’t know more of the details of that, so I don’t want to go deeper on that.
但我想借此说明：若我们正确理解婚姻的这份颠覆性教导，以 及对教会的颠覆性教导，就会明白教会为何不允许多妻制。 But I want to use this as a basis to say, get the radical teaching on marriage and the radical teaching on the Church right, and you’ll see why we don’t allow polygamy.
圣托马斯阿奎那在《神学大全》中也谈到了这点。 St. Thomas Aquinas talks about this in the Summa.
他论及婚姻有三大目的， He discusses how marriage has three purposes.
我暂且不谈前两个重点，只聚焦于第三条：在信徒之间，婚姻象 征基督与教会的奥秘，因此这个圣事本身可视为婚姻的益处。 I want to ignore the first two of those and just focus on the third one: that between believers, there’s what he calls the signification of Christ in the Church, and thus the sacrament is said to be a marriage good.
婚姻的益处之一，就是它以圣事的形式体现基督与教会之间的关系。 One of the goods of marriage is that it is a sacramental embodiment of Christ's relationship with His Church.
希望这点很明白。 So hopefully that’s clear.
他会说多妻制与此相违，因为基督是独一的，教会也是独一的。 He’s going to say that polygamy is contrary to that because as Christ is one, so also is the Church one.
基督只有一个身体。 Christ has one body.
你无法想象一个头却拥有两个身体；那就像个怪物。 You can’t imagine one head with two bodies; that’s a monster.
那并不是耶稣。 That’s not Jesus.
同样地，你也不能有一个新郎却娶两位新娘。 And so likewise, you can’t have one Bridegroom with two brides.
这同时向我们揭示了独一真教会的事实，以及多妻制并不被允许。 That tells us something simultaneously about there being one true Church and about polygamy being off the table.
因此，当你否认了这其中的第一点——那就是独 一的真教会，也就等于为多妻制打开了大门。 So it turns out when you reject the first of those—the one true Church—you also open the door to polygamy.
路德在1526年便向我们展示了这一点，当时黑森领主菲利普问他能否娶第二位妻子。 Martin Luther shows us this in 1526 when the Landgrave of Hesse, Philip, wants to know if he can have a second wife.
路德说：「我无法赞成，但会强烈反对，尤其是对基督徒而言 ，除非万不得已，例如妻子患了麻风病或类似的严重疾病。」 Luther says, I cannot advise it but strongly advise against it, especially to Christians, unless it might be a case of high necessity, like if your wife has leprosy or is similarly afflicted.
请注意，他在这里有意稍微敞开了一点门缝，为多妻制留下空间。 So notice he starts to open the door a little bit to allow in some polygamy.
他确实就是这样明白地表示。 That’s just explicitly what he’s doing.
正如我们之前在伊拉斯谟的例子里看到的，一旦你稍微开启了一条缝 ，说「在极端情况下就可以破例」，从此那扇门就再也关不上了。 And as we saw before with Erasmus, once you open that door a little bit and say, Well, in extreme cases, all bets are off, well now you can’t close that back up again.
那扇门只会越开越大。 That door is just going to get wider and wider.
于是在五年后，亨利八世想以 porneia 为由来废除他的婚姻。 So five years later, Henry VIII wants to get his marriage annulled because of porneia.
我不准备详细展开那些纷扰，但国王派了罗伯特·巴恩斯来找路德，希望能得到他的支持。 I’m actually not going to get into all of the messiness, but Robert Barnes, writing on behalf of the king, reaches out to Luther to try to get his support.
这其实非常讽刺，因为亨利八世先前曾经（由圣托马斯·莫尔代笔 ）写过一篇捍卫七件圣事的文章，并以他的名义发表来谴责路德。 This is ironic since Henry VIII had written in defense of the seven sacraments earlier—actually, probably St. Thomas More wrote it—but it was published under Henry VIII's name denouncing Luther.
可如今，他自己要离婚了，却转而求助路德。 But now that he wants a divorce, he’s going to Luther.
马丁·路德也给出了回应。 And Martin Luther replies.
请看，路德在努力把我们带回摩西律法对于离婚再婚所开的那些例外——例如通 奸或各种过错——的同时，也让我们重新回到一个并不明朗的一夫一妻立场上。 So notice, in trying to bring us back under the Mosaic Law with its exceptions to divorce and remarriage—that you can do it in the case of maybe adultery or maybe any fault—Luther has also brought us back to a position where it’s less clear that we need to be monogamous.
当然，我只是举了两个例子，但想指出这三者是互相关联的：对教会的 理解若是正确，对婚姻的理解也会正确，就能明白多妻制是行不通的。 Now, those are just two throwaway lines, but I want to suggest that those three things are all connected: getting the Church right, getting marriage right, and then seeing how that means you can’t have polygamy.
我把这些当作一个主要论点提出，是因为我还没见过有人明确 指出：改革者否定其中一个，就会促使他们也否定另一个。 I’m presenting all this largely as a thesis because I’ve not seen anyone explicitly say that the Reformers, in rejecting the one, kind of feed their rejection of the other.
不过，考虑到在像《以弗所书》第五章之类的经文中，这两 者对于彼此的理解至关重要，所以我在此提出这个论证。 But given how important the two are to understanding each other in texts like Ephesians 5, I'm advancing that as an argument.
我很想知道你对此的看法，也期待你在下方评论里提出你的想法。 I’m curious as to what you think about it, so I look forward to your thoughts in your comments below.
愿神祝福你！ God bless you!
如果你还有任何问题或需要进一步讨论，欢迎再提。 If you have any more questions or need further discussion, feel free to ask.