欢迎回到无耻教皇党。 Welcome back to Shameless Popery.
我是乔·埃施迈尔。 I'm Joe Eschmeyer.
今天我想探讨圣餐神学的五重测试。 So today, I want to explore a five-fold test for Eucharistic theology.
因为当你深入研究圣经关于圣餐的教导时，你会发现五件事是真实的。 Because when you look at what the Bible has to say about the Eucharist, when you delve deep on it, you find five things are true.
首先，圣经关于圣餐的教导是奇特的。 First, the biblical teaching on the Eucharist is strange.
第二，它是祭献性的。 Second, it's sacrificial.
第三，它是严肃的。 Third, it's serious.
第四，它是圣事性的。 Fourth, it's sacramental.
第五，它是令人震惊的。 And fifth, it's shocking.
所以，如果这五个形容词不能很好地描述你对圣餐的看法，这就 是一个大警报，表明你不相信耶稣的教导或门徒们所相信的。 So, if those aren't five good adjectives to describe your own view of the Eucharist, it's a big red flag that you don't believe what Jesus taught or what the disciples believed.
首先我要告诉你，我正在改编我最近写的一本书的内容，书名是《圣餐真的是耶稣吗？》 So, I'll tell you at the outset, I'm adapting all of this from a book that I wrote recently called, The Eucharist is Really Jesus?
基督的身体和宝血如何成为我们所信一切的关键。 How Christ's Body and Blood Are Key to Everything We Believe.
你可以在任何销售优质天主教书籍的地方买到这本书，比如亚马逊网站， You can get that book anywhere good Catholic books are sold, Amazon.com,
或你当地的天主教书店。 your local Catholic bookstore.
但如果你在天主教答疑商店购买，网址是shop.catholic.com， But if you get it at the Catholic Answers shop, shop.catholic.com,
作为无耻教皇党的听众，输入SP33作为促销代码 ，你可以获得单本平装书或电子书33%的折扣。 and as a Shameless Popery listener, put in SP33 as a promo code, you can get a 33% discount on the individual paperback or on the eBook.
我们还为批量购买提供非常优惠的折扣。 We also have really serious discounts for bulk rates.
所以，如果你想为你的圣经研究小组或堂区购买，如果 你购买20本或更多，每本价格低至3.50美元。 So, if you want to buy it for your Bible study or for your parish, copies for as cheap as I think $3.50 if you get sets of 20 or more.
如果你对此感兴趣并想深入了解，可以去那里查看。 So, if you're interested in this and you want to go deeper, you can check it out there.
说完这些，让我们转向五重测试。 With that said, let's turn to the five-fold test.
首先，基督关于圣餐的教导是奇特的。 First, that Christ's Eucharistic teaching is strange.
他在约翰福音第6章中所说的确实很不寻常，我们应该理解这一点。 What he's talking about in John 6 is really unusual, and we should understand that.
因为你看，很多时候人们说，哦是的，当然，耶稣说，我是生命的粮。 Because look, a lot of times people say, oh yeah, sure, Jesus says, I'm the bread of life.
但他也说过类似的话，比如我是羊的门。 But he also says things like, I'm the door for the sheep.
没有人说耶稣真的是一扇门，那么为什么我们在这里要字 面上理解他，而在其他很多地方没有人字面上理解他呢？ And no one says Jesus is literally a door, so why would we take him literally here when there's so many other places when nobody takes him literally?
这是一个好问题。 That's a good question.
我认为这个问题的部分答案来自于仔细查看经文。 And I think part of the answer to that question comes from taking a closer look at the text.
因为当耶稣用比喻说话时，我们看到几件事情发生。 Because when Jesus speaks in figures of speech, we see a couple things happen.
首先是没有人字面上理解他。 The first is that nobody takes him literally.
当他说我是羊的门时，每个人都明白。 When he says, I'm a door for the sheep, everybody gets it.
第二是群众误解了他，当他用比喻或象征性地说话时，他们认为他是在字面上说话。 The second is that the crowd misunderstands him, and they think that he's speaking literally when he's speaking figuratively or symbolically.
例如，在约翰福音第2章，他说，你们拆毁这殿。 So, for instance, in John chapter 2, he says, destroy this temple.
我三日内要再建立起来。 In three days, I'll rebuild it.
当群众误解耶稣时，要么是耶稣自己，要么是记录这段 话的福音书作者会给出一些线索，表明这是一个误解。 Well, what happens when the crowd misunderstands Jesus is that either Jesus or the evangelist writing the account gives some clue that this is a misunderstanding.
所以，在约翰福音第2章的那个例子中，约翰很快告诉我们他是指着他的身体为殿说的。 So, in that instance in John 2, John quickly tells us he spoke of the temple of his body.
在其他情况下，比如约翰福音第3章中尼哥底母误解耶稣时，耶稣迅速纠正了他。 In other instances, as when Nicodemus in John 3 misunderstands Jesus, Jesus quickly corrects it.
现在，在约翰福音第6章中，你会发现耶稣到处纠正群众的误解。 Now, in John 6, you find Jesus correcting the misunderstandings of the crowd all over the place.
但他并没有说，你们把我理解得太字面了。 But he's not saying, you're taking me too literally.
他似乎在告诉他们，他们对他的理解还不够字面。 He seems to be telling them they're not taking him literally enough.
如果你仔细观察，就会明白这一点。 And we get this if you take a very close, careful look.
不要只是断章取义，而是要通读整章，看看来回的对话。 Instead of just pulling a verse out of context, go through the chapter and look at the back and forth.
看看耶稣和他的听众之间的对话。 Look at the conversation between Jesus and his listeners.
要全面理解，你需要知道这段对话实际上是建立在之前的一个事件之上的。 And to get a full sense, you need to know that this conversation really is built on a prior event.
在约翰福音第6章的开始，耶稣行了使饼增多的神迹， 喂饱了五千人。然后他奇迹般地渡过海，到了对岸。 In the beginning of John 6, Jesus has the multiplication of the loaves, the feeding of the 5,000. And then he crosses the sea miraculously, and he gets to the other side.
他在夜间做了这事。 And he does this at night.
但群众很快意识到他在哪里，就来跟随他。 But the crowds quickly realize where he is, and they come and they follow him.
他们绕过水面。 They go around the water.
他们不能奇迹般地渡过水面。 They can't cross the water miraculously.
但耶稣指出他们的动机，他在第26节说，你们找 我，并不是因见了神迹，乃是因吃饼得饱，对吧？ But Jesus calls them out, and he says in verse 26, you seek me not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves, right?
就像，这就是耶稣。 Like, here's Jesus.
他刚刚行了使饼增多的神迹。 He's just in the multiplication of the loaves.
现在群众想要跟随他。 And now the crowd wants to be with him.
现在，他们想要跟随他的一个原因可能是这个人是个行神迹的人。 Now, one reason that they could want to be with him is this guy's a miracle worker.
但耶稣说，不是这样。 But Jesus says, that's not it.
你们只是为了免费的食物。 You're just after free food.
他反而在第29节说，这就是神的工。 And he says instead, in verse 29, this is the work of God.
你们当信神所差来的。 You believe in him whom he has sent.
所以，他在呼召他们，不要只是接受神迹的好处，而是要相信行神迹的那一位。 So, he's calling them from just receiving the good stuff of the miracles to believing in the one working the miracles.
这就是他们需要做的神的工。 That's the work of God they need to be doing.
作为回应，群众在第30到31节说，你行什么神迹，叫我们看见就信你呢？对吧？ And in response, the crowd says, in verse 30 to 31, then what sign do you do that we may see and believe you, right?
就像，如果他在说，看神迹，而不是看免费的食物，你要行什么神迹呢？ Like, if he's saying, look to the signs, not to the free food, what signs are you going to do?
你要做什么工呢？ What work do you perform?
现在，让我们指出，这是一个荒谬的要求，因为他刚刚行了使饼增多的神迹。 Now, this is, let's just point out, an outrageous request, because he's just on the multiplication of the loaves.
但他们说，我们的祖宗在旷野吃过吗哪。 But they say, our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness.
如经上所记：他从天上赐下粮食给他们吃。 As it is written, he gave them bread from heaven to eat.
换句话说，他们在说，为什么不给我们更多免费 的食物来证明你真的是你所声称的那个人呢？ In other words, they're saying, why not give us more free food to prove that you really are the person you claim to be?
这就像是在帮忙，好像在说，嘿，如果你想行神迹，我们可以想出一个。 It's just like a helpful, like, hey, if you want to do a miracle, we can think of one.
摩西给了我们吗哪，天上的粮。 Moses gave us manna, heavenly bread.
耶稣说，我实实在在地告诉你们，那从天上来的粮不是摩西赐给你们的。 And Jesus says, well, truly, truly a city, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven.
我父将天上来的真粮赐给你们。 My father gives you the true bread from heaven.
因为神的粮就是那从天上降下来，赐生命给世界的。 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.
所以这将是这里真正关键的一句话。 So that's going to be the really critical kind of line here.
神的粮就是那从天上降下来，赐生命给世界的。 The bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.
群众是如何回应的呢？ And how does the crowd respond?
他们说，主啊，常将这粮赐给我们。 Well, they say, Lord, give us this bread always.
所以当我们看群众的反应时，他们的第一个猜测是这只是普通的饼。 So as we're going through how the crowd is responding, their first guess is this is just bread.
他们想要的是像普通的面包或者像吗哪那样的东西。 They're wanting something like an ordinary loaf of bread or something like the manna.
吗哪是以色列人在旷野中收到的天上的粮。 So the manna is this heavenly bread the Israelites received in the desert.
但它仍然是一种你可以吃的物质，主要是用来滋养你的。 But it's still like a physical thing that you eat and is primarily intended to nourish you.
现在，吗哪的意义在于神以这种明显超自然的方式供应他们，教导他们依靠他。 Now, the point of the manna was that God is providing for them in this obviously supernatural way to teach them to rely on him.
但他这样做的方式是通过物质上的喂养。 But the way he's doing that is by physically feeding them.
所以他们在想，是啊，那听起来很不错。 And so they're thinking, yeah, that sounds pretty good.
如果我们要得到天上的东西，我的意思是，想象一下，如果作为一 个基督徒，你每天早上出去，就有了，嘿，那就是你当天的食物。 If we're going to get heavenly, I mean, imagine if as a Christian, you just went out every morning and there's, hey, there's your food for the day.
而且它是令人惊叹的。 And it's amazing.
而且是神奇迹般地赐给你的。 And it was given to you miraculously by God.
这是为了教导你信靠他。 This is to teach you to trust him.
那很不错。 That's pretty good.
那是一个很好的交易。 That's a pretty good deal.
这就是耶稣的门徒所听到的，他们说，是的，我们想要那个。 This is what the disciples of Jesus are hearing and saying, yeah, we want that.
所以注意，他们并没有听耶稣的教导并说，哦，你称自己为从天上来的粮。 So notice, they're not listening to Jesus's teaching and saying, oh, you called yourself the bread from heaven.
因此，你一定是在教导类似圣餐的东西。 Therefore, you must be teaching something like the Eucharist.
他们根本没有想到这一点。 They're not anywhere near that.
他们只是在想免费的食物。 They're just thinking free food.
耶稣纠正了这一点。 Jesus corrects this.
在约翰福音第6章35节，他说，我就是生命的粮。 In John 6, verse 35, he says, I am the bread of life.
到我这里来的，必定不饿；信我的，永远不渴。 He who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.
所以，好吧，你们在想类似吗哪的东西。 So, okay, you were thinking something like the manna.
不，我是生命的粮。 No, I'm the bread of life.
在41到42节，我们被告知犹太人因他说我是从天上降下来的粮而私下议论他。 And in verse 41 to 42, we're told the Jews then murmured at him because he said, I'm the bread which came down from heaven.
但这次他们的反对是什么？ But what is their objection this time?
他们说，这不是约瑟的儿子耶稣吗？他的父母我们岂不认得吗？ They said, is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?
他怎么说我是从天上降下来的呢？ How does he now say, I have come down from heaven?
所以注意，他们的第二个猜测是类似道成肉身的东西。 So notice now, their second guess is something like the incarnation.
首先，他们听到从天上来的粮，他们想，好吧，很好。 First, they heard bread from heaven and they thought, okay, great.
这就像吗哪。 It's like the manna.
然后他们听到从天上来的粮，他们就像，哦，耶稣是在谈论他自己。 Then they hear bread from heaven and they're like, oh, Jesus is talking about himself.
他在说他是从天上来的。 He's saying he came from heaven.
现在，这与许多新教徒解释这段经文的方式非常接近。 Now, this is remarkably close to how many Protestants interpret the passage.
当耶稣称自己为从天上来的粮时，他只是在说他来自天上。 That when Jesus calls himself the bread from heaven, he's just saying he came from heaven.
当然，耶稣确实来自天上。 And certainly, Jesus does come from heaven.
但耶稣并不接受这是对他在这里所教导的准确理解。 But Jesus does not accept this as an accurate understanding of what he's teaching here.
在第48节，他反驳道。 In verse 48, he pushes back.
他说，我就是生命的粮。 He says, I am the bread of life.
你们的祖宗在旷野吃过吗哪，还是死了。 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and they died.
这是从天上降下来的粮，叫人吃了就不死。 This is the bread which comes down from heaven that a man may eat of it and not die.
第51节，我是从天上降下来的活粮。 Verse 51, I am the living bread which came down from heaven.
人若吃这粮，就必永远活着。 If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.
注意他现在添加了什么细节。 Notice what details he added now.
不仅仅是我是活粮，而且这活粮是要被吃的。 Not just I'm the living bread, but the living bread is meant to be eaten.
我所要赐的粮就是我的肉，为世人之生命所赐的。 And the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.
现在，这是非常关键的，因为他增加了两个要素。 Now, that's really critical because he's added the two elements.
首先，从天上来的粮自己需要被吃。 First, that the bread from heaven himself needs to be eaten.
其次，他为世人生命所赐的粮就是他的肉。 And second, that the bread which he'll give for the life of the world is his flesh.
如果他说的是「我的教导」，那就会与许多新教对这段经文的解释相符。 If he'd said, like, my teaching, that would harmonize with a lot of Protestant interpretations of the passage.
那样吃基督的肉就只意味着相信他的教导。 That to eat the flesh of Christ just means believe in his teaching.
他本可以轻易地说，我为世人生命所赐的粮就是我的话。 And he could have easily said the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my word.
是我的教导。 It's my teaching.
是我的教义。 It's my doctrine.
他没有这么说。 He doesn't say that.
他说我们需要吃的粮就是他的肉。 He says the bread which we need to be eating is his flesh.
现在，这是一种更加奇特的教导。 Now, that is a much stranger kind of teaching.
现在只有在这里，第52节，我们已经深入这一章了，听见 的犹太人彼此争论说，这个人怎能把他的肉给我们吃呢？ And now it's only here, verse 52, we're well into the chapter now, that the Jews hearing him dispute among themselves and say, how can this man give us his flesh to eat?
现在，注意他们仍然没有说，哦，显然他指的是类似圣餐的东西。 Now, notice they're still not saying, oh, obviously he means something like the Eucharist.
他们感到困惑，但从天主教的角度来看，他们现在的困惑方向是对的。 They're baffled, but they're baffled in, from a Catholic perspective, they're baffled in the right direction now.
所以，第三个猜测是我们需要以某种方式吃耶稣的肉。 So, the third guess is we need to eat the flesh of Jesus somehow.
福音派学者F.F.布鲁斯，20世纪最受尊敬的福音派 学者之一，在他关于约翰福音的著作中描述了这一时刻。 The evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce, one of the best respected evangelical scholars of the 20th century, in his work on the Gospel of John, describes this moment.
他说到那些犹太人，他们并不认为他真的暗示食人，但这是他话语的自然含义。 He says of the Krauts, they did not suppose that he seriously implied cannibalism, yet that was the natural sense of his words.
他们认为，即使他是在比喻性地说话，这也是一种令人不快的说法。 It was an offensive way of speaking, they thought, even if he was speaking figuratively.
如果他是在比喻性地说话，他们无法理解他话语的比喻意义。 And if he was speaking figuratively, they could not fathom the figurative sense of his words.
有人有一种解释，有人有另一种解释，他们之间爆发了激烈的争论。 Some had one interpretation, some another, and a wordy strife broke out among them.
在这场激烈的争论中看到基督徒长期以来对主的设立之言「这是我的 身体，为你们舍的」的意义所进行的争论的预示，是否太牵强了？ Is it too far-fetched to see in this wordy strife an anticipation of the perennial controversies in which Christians have engaged over the meaning of their Lord's words of institution, this is my body, which is for you?
换句话说，布鲁斯是说，表面上，耶稣似乎在字面上说，吃我的肉。 In other words, Bruce is saying, on the surface, Jesus seems to be saying, literally, eat my flesh.
但那些犹太人在说，嗯，那听起来像是食人，所以不可能是这样。 But the Krauts are saying, well, that sounds cannibalistic, so that can't be it.
所以一定是别的意思。 So it must be something else.
但那个别的意思是什么，这个比喻可能意味着什么，完全不透明。 But what that something else is, what a figure of speech this might mean, is totally opaque.
这根本不清楚。 It's not clear at all.
咀嚼耶稣意味着什么，意味着信心吗？ What does it mean to chew on Jesus, to mean faith?
这怎么可能以任何方式意味着门徒身份呢？ How does that mean discipleship in any way?
换句话说，如果这全是比喻，是什么的比喻呢？ In other words, if this is all a metaphor, a metaphor for what?
所以这就是那些犹太人所处的状态。 So that's where the Krauts are at.
他们看到这可能意味着类似圣餐的东西，但他们对为什么会是这样感到困惑。 They're seeing that this might mean something like the Eucharist, but they're baffled as to why that would be the case.
耶稣随后说了六件事作为回应，值得我们深思这六件事。 Jesus then says six things in response, and it's worth pondering these six things.
所以他们此刻在说，我们不明白他这样说是什么意思。 So they're at this moment where they're saying, we don't get what he means by this.
他们并不是直接跳到圣餐的信仰，但他们真的很困惑如何避免那种结果。 They're not just jumping to a Eucharistic belief, but they're really confused as to how they can avoid that kind of outcome.
好，听听耶稣说的六件事。 Well, listen to the six things that Jesus says.
第一，约翰福音6章53节。我实实在在地告诉你们，你们 若不吃人子的肉，不喝人子的血，就没有生命在你们里面。 First, John 6, 53. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
好，耶稣在讲话中增加了什么？ Okay, what has Jesus added to the discourse?
他增加了「喝他的血」这个短语。 He's added the phrase, drink his blood.
正如F.F.布鲁斯指出的，这加强了他有争议的陈述。 As F.F. Bruce points out, this amplifies his contentious statement.
他在加倍强调。 He's doubling down.
事实上，这种加强比原来的陈述更令人不快。 In fact, the amplification is more offensive than the original statement.
摩西的律法禁止饮用任何血，包括吃带血的肉。 The law of Moses imposed a ban on the drinking of any blood whatsoever, including the eating of flesh with the blood in it.
所以你甚至不能吃半生不熟的牛排。 So you couldn't even have a rare steak.
喝人子的血这个想法是令人无法接受的可憎之事。 The idea of drinking the blood of the Son of Man was impossibly abhorrent.
他们，那些犹太人，发现这种奇怪语言所设定的 问题比以往任何时候都更难理解，更令人震惊。 They, the Krauts, found the problem set by a strange language more impenetrable and more scandalous than ever.
所以如果耶稣不是字面意思，如果他不是指圣餐，那么他到底 在这里指的是什么，为什么他似乎在把他们推向错误的方向？ So if Jesus doesn't mean something literal, if he doesn't mean something Eucharistic, what in the world is he meaning here, and why is he seemingly pushing them in the wrong direction?
这是六个声明中的第一个。 That's the first of the six claims.
第二，吃我肉、喝我血的人就有永生，在末日我要叫他复活。 The second, he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
现在，这里又有一个加强。 Now, there's another amplification that's happening here.
正如布鲁斯指出的，耶稣从「吃」（phagian）转换到「咀嚼」（trogia n），这是一个更粗俗的词，意味着咀嚼或嚼碎，在古典希腊语中用来描述动物进食。 As Bruce points out, Jesus has switched from phagian to trogian, which is, as he says, a coarser word, which means to munch or to chew, and is used in classical Greek to describe like animals eating.
所以是咬我的肉，喝我的血。 So gnaw my flesh and drink my blood.
吃我的肉，也许你可以把它看作是我们主选择不当的比 喻，但咬我的肉，喝我的血，意味着接受我的教导？ Eat my flesh, maybe you can take that as kind of a poorly chosen figure of speech on our Lord's part, but gnaw my flesh, drink my blood, to mean accept my teaching?
这意味着什么，接受我的教导？ What would that mean, accept my teaching?
你怎么从中得出比喻？ How do you get the metaphor out of that?
我能理解耶稣如何是羊的门。 I can understand how Jesus is a sheep gate.
他在保护羊群，防止它们走错路。 He's protecting the sheep, keeping them from going the wrong way.
我能理解耶稣用来比喻自己的这些不同短语，甚至他是殿的方式。 I can understand any of these different phrases Jesus uses metaphorically about himself, even the way he's a temple.
他是主的内住和他在世界上的同在，但咬我的肉，喝我 的血仅仅意味着像听我的教导并相信它这样无害的事？ He's the indwelling of the Lord and his presence in the world, but gnaw my flesh, drink my blood to just mean something as innocuous as listen to my teaching and trust it?
他为什么要这样做？ Why would he do this?
这是耶稣的第二种声明。 And that's Jesus's second kind of claim.
在六个声明中，第二个，他现在从吃我的肉变成了类似咀嚼或啃咬我的肉。 Of the six claims, the second one, he's now gone from eat my flesh to something like munch or chew or gnaw my flesh.
第三个声明在约翰福音6:55，他说，我的肉真是可吃的，我的血真是可喝的。 The third claim in John 6.55, he says, for my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
换句话说，他似乎只是在说，别再认为这是某种复杂的比喻了。 In other words, he seems to just be saying, stop thinking this is some convoluted figure of speech.
我实际上是指我的肉是食物，我的血是饮料。 I actually mean that my flesh is food and my blood is drink.
对于不接受这种真实临在观点的新教徒，我只想说，他还能说什么来帮助你理解呢？ And to Protestants who don't take a real presence view like this, I would just say, what more could he be saying here that would help you?
他还能说什么来让你接受天主教的观点，比他实际给你的更多吗？ What more could he be saying here to get you to accept the Catholic view than what he's actually giving you?
但无论如何，我们只讲到了六个声明的一半。 But in any case, we're only halfway through the six claims.
第四个声明在约翰福音6:56，他说，吃我肉 、喝我血的人常在我里面，我也常在他里面。 The fourth claim in John 6.56, he says, he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I am him.
如果你这样做，你就有主的常在。 That if you do this, you have the abiding of the Lord.
然后他的第五个声明在约翰福音6:57，永活的父怎样差 我来，我又因父活着；照样，吃我肉的人也要因我活着。 Then his fifth claim in John 6.57, as the living father sent me and I live because of the father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
不知何故，永生和神的常在与这种明显的圣餐行为，即吃肉喝血，联系在一起。 That somehow, eternal life and the abiding of God are connected to this apparently Eucharistic act of eating the flesh and drinking the blood.
然后在约翰福音6:58，我们得到他的第六个也是最后一个声明。 And then in John 6.58, we get his sixth and final claim.
这就是从天上降下来的粮。吃这粮的人，就不像你们的祖宗吃过吗哪还是死了。 This is the bread which came down from heaven, such as the fathers ate and died.
吃这粮的人就永远活着。 He who eats this bread will live forever.
所以，当我们一直听到需要接受神的粮，吃神的粮，咀嚼神的 粮，喝所有这些关于喝血的语言时，他现在已经把它圆满了。 So, as we've been hearing about the need to receive the bread of God, eat the bread of God, gnaw the bread of God, drink all of this drinking of blood language, he's now rounded it out.
但请注意，如果门徒们感到困惑，而且可以理解他们的困惑，对吧，关于 耶稣的意思，他刚刚给了他们六个声明，似乎把他们推向错误的方向，如 果这是错误的方向的话，因为他似乎在把他们推向一种圣餐式的教导。 But notice, if the disciples were confused and understandably confused, right, about what Jesus meant, he's just given them six statements that seem to push them in the wrong direction, if this is the wrong direction, because he seems to be pushing them towards a Eucharistic kind of teaching.
现在，当我们思考这教导的奇特性时，我想考虑一下门徒们的反应。 And now, as we think about the strangeness of this teaching, I want to just consider the response of the disciples.
我们稍后会回到这个话题。 We'll get back to this in a little bit.
但在约翰福音6:66，他的门徒中有许多人退去了，不再和他同行。 But in John 6.66, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
而这些人曾听过耶稣谈论对信心的需要，对相信的需要。 And these are people who'd heard Jesus talk about the need for faith, the need to believe.
但他在这里所教导的是一些更奇怪的东西，他们觉得无法接受。 But what he's taught here is something stranger that they find intolerable.
在下一节经文中，耶稣并没有说，嘿，你们不理解比喻，让我纠正一下。 And in the next verse, Jesus doesn't say, hey, you guys don't understand metaphors, let me correct that.
他反而甚至对十二个门徒说，你们也要去吗？ He instead goes even to the 12 and says, will you also go away?
圣彼得的回应真是令人惊讶。 And it's really remarkable how St. Peter responds.
他代表十二个门徒回答，并没有说，主啊，我们明白了，我们理解比喻是如何运作的。 He answers on behalf of the 12 and says, not, Lord, we get it, we understand how a metaphor works.
不，他说，主啊，我们还归从谁呢？ No, he says, Lord, to whom shall we go?
你有永生之道，我们已经信了，又知道你是神的圣者。 You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God.
所以，即使是圣彼得，即使是十二个门徒，似乎也不明白耶稣想让我们从中领悟什么。 So, even St. Peter, even the 12, don't seem to get what it is Jesus is wanting us to take away from this.
这是可以理解的，对吧，因为耶稣还没有设立圣餐。 And understandably, right, like Jesus hasn't instituted the Eucharist yet.
所以这一切都会是一个非常令人困惑的教导。 So all of this would be a very baffling teaching.
如果天主教的主张是正确的，那么群众和使徒们的奇怪反应就完全说得通了。 If the Catholic claim is right, the strange reactions that both the crowd and the apostles have make total sense.
耶稣对群众困惑的看似奇怪的反应完全说得通，他是在邀请他们 进入一种真正令人震惊、真正有争议、真正违反直觉的信仰。 Jesus's seemingly strange reaction to the confusion of the crowd makes total sense, that he's inviting them into a really shocking, really controversial, really counterintuitive kind of belief.
好的，这说得通。 Okay, that makes sense.
但如果耶稣的意思是别的什么，那么这似乎就不会是一个非常奇怪的教导。 But if Jesus meant something else by it, well, it doesn't seem that that would be a very strange teaching.
很难理解为什么每个人都表现得如此奇怪。 And it's hard to understand why everyone acts in such a strange way.
耶稣的行为很奇怪，门徒们觉得这整件事很奇怪，使 徒们也觉得这整件事很奇怪，但仍然继续跟随耶稣。 Jesus acts in a strange way, the disciples find this whole thing strange, the apostles find this whole thing strange, but continue to follow Jesus.
尽管如此，我们应该把这理解为一种奇特的教导。 Nevertheless, we should be understanding this as a strange kind of teaching.
第二，耶稣关于圣餐的教导是祭献性的。 The second, Jesus's Eucharistic teaching is sacrificial.
现在，我想转向圣保罗关于圣餐的说法。 Now, I want to turn here to what St. Paul says about the Eucharist.
他在哥林多前书10章说，祝福的杯。 He says in 1 Corinthians 10, the cup of blessing.
现在，让我们暂停一下，思考一下这个。 Now, let's just pause on that for a second.
祝福的杯是逾越节四个杯中的第三个。 The cup of blessing is the third of four cups in the Passover.
斯科特·哈恩和其他人在理解圣餐背后的逾越节神学方面做了很好的工作。 Scott Hahn and others have done really good work on understanding the Passover kind of theology behind the Eucharist.
但要理解，圣餐是一个逾越节。 But understand, the Eucharist is a Passover.
约翰福音第6章发生在逾越节。 John 6 takes place at Passover.
最后的晚餐发生在逾越节。 The Last Supper takes place at Passover.
祝福的杯是逾越节的杯。 The cup of blessing is a Passover cup.
他说，顺便说一下，逾越节是一个祭祀。 And he says, and by the way, the Passover is a sacrifice.
这是一顿祭祀的餐。 It's a sacrificial meal.
这一切都很重要。 All of this is important.
但在哥林多前书10章16节，圣保罗说，我们所祝福的杯，岂不是同领基督的血吗？ But 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，岂不是同领基督的身体吗？ The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
那么，怎么样呢？ Well, how?
他在第17节说，我们虽多，仍是一个饼，一个身体，因为我们都是分受这一个饼。 Well, he says in verse 17, because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
这很容易被忽视，但这对理解哥林多前书10、11和12章真的很关 键。圣保罗在说，教会是基督的身体，因为它分享了基督的圣餐身体。 That's easy to miss, but this is really key to understanding 1 Corinthians 10, 11, and 12. St. Paul is saying the church is the body of Christ because it partakes of the Eucharistic body of Christ.
他在一句话中提出这点，然后继续往下说。 He throws it out there in one line and then moves on.
但如果你抓住了那节经文，它真的很关键，因为在 哥林多前书11章，他将谈论基督的圣餐身体。 But if you catch that verse, it's really key because in 1 Corinthians 11, he's going to talk about the Eucharistic body of Christ.
而在哥林多前书12章，全是关于教会作为基督的身体。 And in 1 Corinthians 12, it's all about the church as the body of Christ.
在这里，哥林多前书10章，他强调了这两件事是如何联系在一起的。 And here in 1 Corinthians 10, he's highlighted how those two things go together.
我们是基督的身体，因为我们在圣餐中领受了基督的身体。 We are the body of Christ because we receive the body of Christ in the Eucharist.
然后他将向我们展示这种祭献性的参与如何使我们与基督合而为一。 And then he's going to show us how this sacrificial participation makes us one with Christ.
他将以一种非常奇特的方式来做这件事。 And he's going to do this in a really strange way.
他首先要指出以色列，旧约的祭祀制度。 He's going to first point to Israel, the Old Testament sacrificial system.
哥林多前书10章18节。你们看属肉体的以色列人。 1 Corinthians 10, verse 18. Consider the practice of Israel.
那吃祭物的岂不是在祭坛上有分吗？ Are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?
现在注意，为了解释圣餐，他指出在旧约甚至在他那个时 代的犹太教中，那些吃祭物的人都是在祭坛上有分的。 Now notice, to explain the Eucharist, he points out that in the Old Testament and even in Judaism of his day, those who eat the sacrifices are partners in the altar.
所以圣餐神学应该包括在祭坛上吃祭物。 So Eucharistic theology should have eating of sacrifices at an altar.
否则不清楚为什么他会认为提出这个比喻会有帮助。 Or it's not clear why he would think that would be a helpful image to bring up.
但接着他在19和20节看到一个更令人震惊的地方。他说，我是 怎么说呢？岂是说祭偶像之物算得什么呢？或说偶像算得什么呢？ But then he looks at an even more shocking place in verses 19 and 20. He says, what do I imply then that food offered to idols is anything or that an idol is anything?
不，我是指异教徒的祭祀。 No, I play it with pagan sacrifice.
他们所献的祭是祭鬼，不是祭神。 They offered to demons and not to God.
我不愿意你们与鬼相交。 I do not want you to be partners with demons.
所以如果仅仅展示以色列人如何在祭坛上吃祭物还不够，现在这就像圣餐。 So if it wasn't enough to show how Israel eats sacrifices on altars, now that's like the Eucharist.
现在他要说，异教徒也是这样做的。 Now he's going to say, so do the pagans.
然后他在21节说，你们不能喝主的杯又喝鬼的杯。 And then he says in verse 21, you cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons.
不能吃主的筵席又吃鬼的筵席。 You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
现在那里的桌子是什么？ Now what's the table there?
这都是关于祭祀的祭坛，吃祭坛上的食物。 This is all about a sacrificial altar, eating the food of the altar.
所以你有三个群体，异教徒、以色列人、基督徒。 And so you've got three groups, pagans, Israelites, Christians.
异教徒，他们如何经历相交？ The pagans, how do they experience communion?
他们吃鬼的筵席上的祭物，这使他们与鬼相交。 Well, they eat the sacrifice from the table of demons, and that makes them partners with demons.
以色列人吃圣殿祭坛上的祭物。 The Israelites eat the sacrifice of the altar in the temple.
而基督徒从主的桌子上吃圣餐。 And Christians eat the Eucharist from the table of the Lord.
现在，如果这是一个三重平行，正如保罗似乎认为的 那样，这只有在圣餐是一种祭祀的情况下才有意义。 Now, if this is a threefold parallel, as Paul seems to think it is, this only makes sense if the Eucharist is a sacrifice.
如果主的桌子像鬼的桌子，那就是一个祭坛。 If the table of the Lord is like the table of demons, and that's an altar.
如果我们像异教徒和以色列人那样吃祭物。 And if we're eating the sacrifice as the pagans and the Israelites did.
所以如果圣餐真的是我们吃的祭祀供物，这一切就真的很清楚了。 So all of this is really clear if the Eucharist really is a sacrificial offering that we then eat.
如果它只是一种纪念，我们并没有真正地献祭任何东西 ，我们也没有真正吃献给神的祭物，那么这就行不通。 If it's just a commemoration where we don't literally sacrifice anything, and we don't actually eat a sacrifice made to God, then this doesn't work.
那么它就不像异教徒所做的，也不像以色列人所做的。 Then it's not like what the pagans are doing, and it's not like what the Israelites are doing.
但如果天主教对圣餐的看法是正确的，那么是的，异教徒、犹太人和 基督徒在祭祀、吃祭物等方面的做法确实有一些明显的相似之处。 But if the Catholic view on the Eucharist is right, well, then yes, there are some obvious similarities between the pagan, the Jewish, and the Christian kind of approaches to sacrifice and eating food sacrifices and the like.
事实上，这是我们作为基督徒经常被批评的事情，对不起，是被非天主教基督徒批评。 In fact, this is something we get knocked on all the time for as Christians, excuse me, by non-Catholic Christians.
他们会说，哦，你们天主教徒，这看起来太像异教了。 They'll say, oh, you Catholics, this looks so pagan.
好吧，圣保罗在说，是的，这里有些东西看起来像犹 太人的圣殿礼仪，有些东西看起来像异教徒的祭祀。 Well, St. Paul is saying, yeah, there's something about this that looks like the Jewish temple service, and there's something about this that looks like the pagan offerings.
它既不是这两者，但这两者都指向真正的牺牲祭品。 It's neither of those, but those two are both pointing to the true sacrificial offering.
所以，如果你所相信的不能与圣殿礼仪中发生的事相比，如果你所相信的不能与异教徒用 食物祭祀、动物祭祀并吃它们来与他们的鬼相交的行为相比，那么你就不是相信圣保罗在 哥林多前书10章中描述的早期基督徒所相信的同样的事。这是五重测试的第二部分。 So if what you're believing in couldn't be compared to what happens in the temple liturgy, if what you're believing in couldn't be compared to what pagans were doing with food sacrifices, animal sacrifices, and eating them to become partners with their demons, then you're not believing the same that the early Christians believed in that St. Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 10. That's the second of the five parts of the test.
第三，基督关于圣餐的教导是严肃的。 The third is that Christ's Eucharistic teaching is serious.
让我们从哥林多前书10章转到11章。圣保罗这样介绍最后的晚餐：我当日 传给你们的，原是从主领受的，就是主耶稣被卖的那一夜，拿起饼来，等等。 Let's turn from 1 Corinthians 10 to 1 Corinthians 11. St. Paul introduces the Last Supper by saying, for I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night when he was betrayed, took bread, and so on.
他有这个设立。 And he has the institution.
但开头那关键的一句话，「我从主领受的，也传给你 们」，是我们可能会忽视的，但那是重要的语言。 But that critical line at the beginning, I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, is something we can kind of overlook, but that's important language.
正如C. P. 科芬指出的，保罗在其他地方也做 过类似的陈述，提到他观点、教义和福音的来源。 As C. P. Coffin points out, Paul has made such statements elsewhere with reference to the source of his views, his doctrine, his gospel.
例如，在他写给加拉太人的书信中，他强调说他的 福音是通过启示得来的，不是从人那里得来的。 For instance, in his writings in the Galatians, he says with great emphasis that he got his gospel by revelation, that he did not get it from men.
换句话说，圣保罗似乎在说，耶稣直接教导他设立的叙述，他不是从其他使徒 那里得到的，这是如此重要，以至于耶稣想让他确切地知道如何正确地做。 In other words, St. Paul seems to be saying that Jesus taught him the institution narrative directly, that he didn't get it from the other apostles, that this was so important that Jesus wanted him to know exactly how to do the right.
科芬接着说，他对哥林多人关于晚餐信息来源的陈述似乎意味着同样的事，即 他对那次事件的看法，他对其意义的理解是通过启示而不是从人那里得来的。 And Coffin goes on, it would certainly seem as if his statement to the Corinthians with respect to the sources of information as to the supper means the same thing, namely that he got his view of that occurrence, his understanding of its meaning by revelation and not from men.
这是一篇1901年的旧文章。在这些年里，你会发现很多学者都提出了同样的观点， 如果你去看加拉太书第一章，圣保罗说，弟兄们，我告诉你们，我所传的福音不是出于 人的意思。因为我不是从人领受的，也不是人教导我的，乃是从耶稣基督启示来的。 Now, that is an old article from 1901. You'll find plenty of scholars in the intervening years who make the same point, that if you go to somewhere like Galatians chapter one, St. Paul says, I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel, for I did not receive it from man, nor as I taught it, but it came through revelation of Jesus Christ.
保罗似乎在这里说同样的话。 Paul seems to be saying the same thing here.
他没有出席最后的晚餐，但关于那些事件发生的方式和呈 现方式的设立模式，他是通过启示从耶稣那里得到的。 He wasn't present at the Last Supper, but the pattern of institution in terms of the events that happen in kind of the presentation of those events, he's getting this from Jesus in a revelation.
这真的很了不起，因为它指出了这个事件的重要性。 So that's really remarkable because it points to the importance of this event.
它指出了这个事件的严肃性，你知道，耶稣并没有直接向圣保罗揭示他生活的每一个细节。 It points to the seriousness of this event, that you know, Jesus isn't revealing every detail of his life to St. Paul directly.
圣保罗并没有声称他是这样，但这一点他说是直接从耶稣那里得到的。 St. Paul doesn't claim that he is, but this one he's saying he got directly from Jesus.
他在哥林多前书11章27节继续说，所以，无论何人，不 按理吃主的饼，喝主的杯，就是干犯主的身、主的血了。 He goes on in 1 Corinthians 11 verse 27 to say, whoever therefore eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
就像你不会把主的桌子字面上理解为只是一张餐桌一样 ，你应该在祭祀的背景下思考，就像鬼的桌子一样。 That just as you don't take the table of the Lord to mean literally just like a dining room table, you should be thinking in sacrificial context like the table of demons.
同样，当我们谈论主的杯，主的饼时，我们不只是说，是 的，是的，它是一个面包，它是一杯酒或一杯葡萄汁。 Likewise, when we talk about the cup of the Lord, the bread of the Lord, we don't just mean, yeah, yeah, it's a loaf of bread, it's a cup of wine or a cup of grape juice.
不。我们怎么知道的？ No. How do we know that?
因为这里有一种严肃性，如果你不配地领受这些，你就会亵渎耶稣基督的真实身体和宝血。 Because there's a seriousness to this that if you receive these unworthily, you will profane the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ.
如果这只是一个比喻，那就说不通了。 That doesn't make sense if it's just a metaphor.
在28节，保罗说，人应当自己省察，然后吃这饼、喝这杯。 因为人吃喝，若不分辨是主的身体，就是吃喝自己的罪了。 In verse 28, Paul says, let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup for anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself like damnation.
因此，在你们中间有好些软弱的与患病的，死的也不少。 That is why many of you are weak and ill and some have died.
现在，我发现这是对仅仅象征性观点的一个非常有说服力的反驳。 Now, this I find to be a really convincing refutation of a merely symbolic view.
耶稣给出了各种各样的比喻，其中一些比喻对某些人来说比其他比喻更有帮助。 Jesus gives all sorts of parables, and some of those parables are more helpful to certain people than other ones are.
例如，耶稣讲了失钱的比喻。 So, for instance, Jesus gives the parable of the lost coin.
他还讲了迷羊的比喻，因为有些人在室内工作，有些人在 室外工作，你可能会发现其中一个比另一个更有帮助。 He also gives a parable of the lost sheep because some people work indoors and some people work outdoors, and you might find one of those more helpful than the other.
这些比喻的要点是完全相同的。 The point of the parables are the exact same.
但是，如果这只是另一个比喻，基本上是另一个应该教导我们关于神的事的象征， 那么如果我们没有正确理解这一点，我们就会吃下自己的罪，这真是令人惊讶。 But this, if this is just another parable, basically, another symbol that's supposed to teach us something about God, it's really remarkable that if we don't get this one right, we eat damnation upon ourselves.
如果你不理解浪子的父亲是谁，你就会下地狱，这种惩罚并不存在。 There's not that kind of punishment attached to if you don't understand who the father of the prodigal son is, you're going to hell.
他们在其他地方找不到这种语言，因为耶稣作为一个伟大的老师 知道，人们在生活的不同阶段以不同的程度理解教导，你可能一 开始只理解一点点，然后随着时间的推移，你会理解得更多。 They don't find that kind of language anywhere else because Jesus knows, as a great teacher, that people understand teachings in different levels at different kind of places in their life, that you might understand it a little bit, and then later on, you'll understand it more.
事实上，当被问到为什么用比喻教导时，他对这一点非常清楚。 And in fact, when he's asked why he teaches in parables, he's very clear about that point.
他知道不是每个人都能立即理解所有的事。 He knows not everybody's going to get everything right away.
但这一点，我们需要正确理解。 But this, we need to get right.
耶稣说，如果我们不这样做，如果我们不分辨身体，我们就是吃喝自己的罪了。 And Jesus says, if we don't, if we aren't discerning the body, we're eating and drinking judgment upon ourselves.
所以这是第三点，关于圣餐的教导是严肃的。 So that's the third thing, that the teaching on the Eucharist is serious.
它是极其严肃的。 It is deadly serious.
事实上，你们中间有许多软弱的与患病的，死的也不少 ，在哥林多教会中有些人没有足够认真地对待这件事。 And in fact, many of you are weak and ill, some have died, that there are those in the Corinthian church who aren't taking this seriously enough.
第四，基督关于圣餐的教导是圣事性的。 The fourth is that Christ's Eucharistic teaching is sacramental.
我们已经看过一位新教学者，F.F.布鲁斯。 So we already looked at one Protestant scholar, F.F. Bruce.
我想看看另一位，唐·卡森，D.A.卡森，和他的书《约翰福音》。 I want to look at another, Don Carson, D.A. Carson, and his book, The Gospel According to John.
他在看不同学者对如何解释约翰福音第6章这部分的观 点，他强调了一个他不同意的观点，但他承认这一点。 And he's looking at different scholarly views on how to interpret this part of John 6, and he highlights one that he doesn't agree with, but he acknowledges this.
他实际上称之为第一种观点。 He actually calls it the first view.
他说这段经文，有人认为，是在讲基督徒应该如何看待圣餐，主的晚餐的圣事。 He says this passage, it is argued, it is talking about how the Christian ought to view the Eucharist, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
吃耶稣的肉和喝他的血这种非常强烈的语言被认为支持这一点，对吧？ The very strong language of eating Jesus's flesh and drinking his blood is taken to support this, right?
我们已经看到了这一点。 We already saw that.
许多，他指的是许多学者，认为对于那些把圣餐作为核心仪式 的早期基督徒读者来说，不可能不以这种方式理解这段经文。 Many, he means many scholars here, think that early Christian readers for whom the Eucharist was a central rite could not have failed to understand the passage this way.
我想强调这一点。 And I want to underscore this point.
如果你读早期基督徒关于圣餐或约翰福音第6章的说法，你会发现即使在基督教的前20 0年，有很多非常清晰的肯定，认为圣餐实际上是一个圣事，即使没有使用圣事这个词。 If you read what the early Christians have to say about the Eucharist or about John 6, you'll find that even in the first 200 years of Christianity, there are a lot of these really clear affirmations that the Eucharist is actually a sacrament, even if the word sacrament isn't used.
圣事是什么，它是神借以赐恩给他的子民的仪式。 What a sacrament is, it's a rite by which God gives grace to his people.
它是与基督的相遇。 It's an encounter with Christ.
它是使我们成圣的东西。 It's something that makes us holy.
这就是圣事（sacrament）中的sacra 部分，sacramentum，就像使之成圣。 That's the sacra part of sacrament, sacramentum, like to make holy.
它是使我们成圣的东西。 It's something that makes us holy.
此外，卡森说，可能认识福音书作者的伊格纳丢，对吧？ Moreover, Carson says, Ignatius, who probably knew the evangelist, right?
他认识约翰。 He knows John.
如果你想知道约翰福音第6章的含义，与一个被大多数人认为是 使徒约翰的学生的人交谈，比如伊格纳丢，是一个很好的起点。 If you want to know what John 6 means, talking to a guy who is a student of the Apostle John, as most people believe Ignatius was, is a pretty good place to start.
他在福音书发表后25到40年间写作，采取了圣事主义的立场。 And who wrote between 25 and 40 years after the gospel was published, adopts the sacramentarian stance.
现在，这真的很重要。 Now, this is really important.
卡森不相信约翰福音第6章在教导圣餐和任何圣事性的东西。 Carson is not a believer that John 6 is teaching the Eucharist and teaching anything sacramental.
但他承认伊格纳丢，与卡森不同，与现代新教徒不同，是约翰的直接门徒，确实这样认为。 But he's acknowledging that Ignatius, who, unlike Carson, unlike modern Protestants, was directly a disciple of John, does think that.
他确实相信圣餐是圣事性的，这似乎是他对约翰福音第 6章的理解。所以，卡森将与伊格纳丢持不同意见。 He does believe the Eucharist is sacramental, and that seems to be his understanding of John 6. So, Carson's going to disagree with Ignatius.
他会认为，嗯，伊格纳丢在很多事情上都错了。 He's going to think, well, Ignatius gets a lot of things wrong.
他认为每个城市只有一个主教，这是基督徒直到宗教改革前一直相信的。 He thinks there's one bishop per city, which is what Christians have always believed until the Reformation.
但他会认为所有这些都是后来添加的，所以伊格纳丢不是一个可靠的解释者。 But he's going to think all these things are accretion, so Ignatius is not a reliable kind of interpreter.
无论你是否这样认为，我认为那是一个糟糕的观点。 Well, whether you think that or not, I think that's a bad view.
卡森和那些与他持不同意见的人之间达成一致的是，我们所拥 有的最早的基督徒著作清楚地表明他们相信圣餐是一个圣事。 What is agreed between both Carson and those with whom he's disagreeing is that the earliest Christians that we have writings of clearly believe the Eucharist is a sacrament.
他指出了伊格纳丢，他指出了圣伊格纳丢著作中的三个地方。 And he points to Ignatius, he points to three places in the writing of St. Ignatius.
第一个是他给以弗所人的信。 The first one is his letter to the Ephesians.
现在，伊格纳丢有七封信，这些信是如此的天主教化，以至于约 翰·加尔文认为它们是天主教的伪造品，它们一定是后来写的。 Now, Ignatius has seven letters, and these letters are so Catholic that John Calvin thought they were Catholic forgeries, that they must have been written much later.
它们实际上不可能是公元107年的作品，但我们现在知道它们确实是。 They couldn't actually be from 107, as we now know they are.
它们是如此彻底的天主教化。 That's how thoroughly Catholic they are.
但如果你是一个相信所有这些都是后来天主教发明的人，那么很难将这与我们 在圣经之外拥有的最早的基督徒著作将这些事情视为理所当然的事实相协调。 But if you're someone who believes that all this stuff is later Catholic invention, it's hard to square that with the fact that the earliest Christians' writings we have outside the Bible treat these things as just given.
好吧，伊格纳丢写给以弗所人的信——你知道，这是圣保罗写信并帮 助建立的同一个教会——告诉他们要以专一的心顺服主教和长老。 Well, Ignatius' writing to the Ephesians—this is, you know, the same church to whom St. Paul wrote and helped build up—tells him to obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind.
顺便说一句，对吧，长老和主教不是一回事。 As an aside, right, the presbyters aren't the same as the bishop.
以弗所只有一个主教。 There's only one in Ephesus.
他告诉他们要以专一的心顺服主教和长老，擘同一个饼，这饼是永生 的良药，是防止我们死亡的解药，使我们在耶稣基督里永远活着。 He tells him to obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote to prevent us from dying, which causes that we should live forever in Jesus Christ.
伊格纳丢将耶稣在约翰福音第6章中所说的所有这些话 实际上应用于圣餐，这就是我们如何接受永生的良药。 That Ignatius takes all of those things Jesus says in John 6 as actually applying to the Eucharist, that this is how we receive the medicine of immortality.
这是防止我们死亡的解药。 This is the antidote that prevents us from dying.
这使我们在耶稣基督里永远活着。 This causes we should live forever in Jesus Christ.
这是伊格纳丢写给以弗所人的。 That's Ignatius to the Ephesians.
在写给罗马人的信中，他最后谈到的是，他正准备死去，他说，我渴望神的粮，就是天 上的粮，生命的粮，就是神的儿子耶稣基督的肉，他后来成为大卫和亚伯拉罕的后裔。 To the Romans, the very last thing that he talks about there, he's preparing to die, and he says, I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards the seed of David and Abraham.
我渴望喝神的血，就是不朽的爱和永生。 And I desire to drink of God, namely his blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.
然后在写给士每拿人的信中，伊格纳丢说，他在这里谈到一个 异端团体，可能是诺斯底派，他们不相信基督真的成了肉身。 And then to the Smyrnians, Ignatius says, he's speaking here about a heretical group, probably the Gnostics, who don't believe that Christ actually came in the flesh.
他说他们禁戒圣餐和祷告，因为他们不承认圣餐是我们救主耶稣基督 的肉，就是为我们的罪受苦，又被天父因他的良善复活的那一位。 And he says they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior, Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father of His goodness raised up again.
所以在公元107年，你看到了相信圣餐实际上是耶 稣的肉的基督徒和认为不是的诺斯底派之间的分歧。 So you've got this divide in 107 between the Christians who believe that the Eucharist actually is the flesh of Jesus and the Gnostics who think it's not.
他们认为这只是一个象征。 They take it's just a symbol.
为什么他们认为这只是一个象征？ Why do they think it's just a symbol?
因为他们不认为耶稣真的成为肉身。 Because they don't think Jesus actually came in the flesh.
现在，如果你是一个时空旅行的新教徒，你会处于一个尴尬的境 地，因为这两个群体，你知道，在圣餐问题上与你意见一致的群 体却因为他们认为道成肉身也不是真实的而与你产生分歧。 Now, if you're a time-traveling Protestant, you're going to be in an awkward situation here because the two groups, you know, the group that agrees with you on the Eucharist disagrees with you because they think the Incarnation wasn't real either.
他们不认为耶稣真的死在十字架上。 They don't think Jesus really died on the cross.
他们不认为他真的从死里复活。 They don't think He really rose from the dead.
他们把这一切都当作象征，不仅仅是圣餐。 They take it all as a symbol, not just the Eucharist.
而像伊格纳丢这样的基督徒说，不，这些都不仅仅是象征。 And the Christians, like Ignatius, say, no, none of this is just a symbol.
耶稣确实成为肉身。 Jesus actually came in the flesh.
他确实在肉身中死在十字架上。 He actually dies on the cross in the flesh.
他确实在圣餐中给我们他的肉来吃。 He actually gives us his flesh to eat in the Eucharist.
他确实在肉身中复活。 He actually rose in the flesh.
这些都不仅仅是象征。 None of this is just a symbol.
这些都不仅仅是一个形象。 None of this is just an image.
在所有这些情况下，肉身确实是真实的。 The flesh really is real in all of these cases.
伊格纳丢强调了这一点，他听起来很像圣保罗，因为他 说那些反对神这个恩赐的人在他们的争论中招致死亡。 And Ignatius underscores this, and he sounds a lot like St. Paul because he says those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God incur death in the midst of their disputes.
就像圣保罗指出哥林多前书11章的严肃性，如 果你不正确地领受这个，你会在灵性上死亡。 Just as St. Paul pointed to the seriousness of 1 Corinthians 11 that you will spiritually die if you are not receiving this properly.
伊格纳丢对那些否认真实临在的人说了同样的话，但如果他们 以尊重的态度对待它，他们也可能再次复活，这对他们更好。 Well, Ignatius says the same thing about those who are denying the real presence, but it were better for them to treat it with respect that they also might rise again.
然后他说，因此，你们应该远离这样的人，无论 是私下还是公开都不要谈论他们，这是合适的。 And then he says, it is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons and not to speak of them either in private or in public.
不止一个新教徒在讲述他们的皈依历程时告诉我，当他们意识到早期基督徒甚至不会把他 们视为基督徒时，他们的眼睛就打开了，新教离早期基督教如此之远，以至于当你听到有 人教导类似新教圣餐教义的东西时，伊格纳丢说基督徒不应该与这样的人有任何关系。 I've had more than a few Protestants tell me in their kind of story of their conversion journey that their eyes were open when they realized that the early Christians wouldn't have even regarded them as Christian, that Protestantism is so far from early Christianity that when you hear someone teaching something like the Protestant doctrine of the Eucharist, Ignatius says Christians should have nothing to do with such a person.
这真的很惊人。 That is really striking.
这真的令人震惊。 It's really shocking.
你要么接受卡森的观点，认为下一代基督徒严重丢失了福音，以至 于伊格纳丢完全不知道他自己的老师教导了什么，但如果是这样， 为什么要相信这些同样的基督徒知道哪些福音书是正确的呢？ You either have to take Carson's view that the next generation of Christians lost the gospel so badly that Ignatius has no idea what his own teacher taught, but if that's the case, why trust these same Christians got which gospels were right?
为什么要相信这些同样的基督徒在传承基督教时能正确地传承任何东西？ Why trust these same Christians to have gotten anything right in the transmission of Christianity?
为什么不直接说早期就发生了大背道，我们不能相信 他们保存了新约，甚至不知道哪些书应该在新约中？ Why not just say there was a great apostasy so early, we can't trust that they preserved the New Testament or even know which books were supposed to be in the New Testament?
如果他们不理解圣餐是什么，而这在早期基督教中是核心 仪式，为什么我们要相信他们正确地选择了新约的书卷？ If they don't understand what the Eucharist is, which was the central right in early Christianity, why would we trust that they got the books of the New Testament right?
为什么神会奇迹般地保存那些，同时允许他们教导明显的偶像崇拜和异端等，对吧？ Why would God miraculously preserve that while allowing them to teach rank idolatry and heresy and the like, right?
所以，要么你走卡森的方向，认为下一代基督徒是不可靠的见证 人，在这种情况下，你似乎应该从逻辑上放弃基督教，因为这是 摩门教的观点，是穆斯林的观点，认为早期基督徒是不可信的。 So either you go in Carson's direction and you undermine the next generation of Christians as being unreliable witnesses, in which case you should give up on Christianity seemingly logically because this is the Mormon view, the Muslim view that the early Christians cannot be trusted.
或者你说，不，如果我不理解这段文字，而这里有一个人花了多年时间在 写这段文字的人门下学习，我可能可以相信他说他的老师教导的内容。 Or you say, no, if I don't understand the text and here's a guy who spent years studying under the guy who wrote the text, I could probably trust what he says his teacher taught.
即使撇开神在保护和建立他的教会这个事实不谈，仅从人的角度来看，你也会期望如此。 Even leaving aside the fact that God is protecting his church and building up the church, just on a human level you would expect that.
然后你看到伊格纳丢是如此圣洁的人物，他将成为早期基督教的殉道者。 And then you look at the fact that Ignatius is such a saintly figure that he's going to be martyred to be an early Christian.
他是安提阿的主教，那里是基督徒首次被称为基督徒的地方。 He's a bishop of Antioch where Christians are first known as Christians.
你不能只说一个人走错了路，而是要说安提阿、以弗所、罗马和各地的教会，这些圣经中的 教会都在大约107年时很快就走错了路。约翰大约在100年去世。所以想想这七年。 You'd have to not just say one guy went astray, but the churches in Antioch and Ephesus and Rome and all over the place, these biblical churches all went astray very quickly by like 107. John dies about the year 100. So think about seven years.
我的意思是，这是很多。 I mean, it's a lot.
声称所有这些人都变坏了是一个很大的说法，因为不仅仅是伊格纳丢相信这个。 It's a lot to claim that sort of thing that all of these people went bad because it's not just Ignatius believes this.
他认为他写信的这些教会也相信这些东西是理所当然的。 He takes for granted that these churches he's writing to believe this stuff as well.
所以这一切都是说，最早的基督教观点，圣经的观点，似乎肯定是圣事主义的。 So all that's to say the earliest Christian view, the biblical view, certainly seems to be sacramentarian.
编纂圣经的人似乎肯定认为这就是圣经所说的。 And the people who compiled the Bible certainly seem to think that's what the Bible is saying.
第五个也是最后一个测试是基督关于圣餐的教导是令人震惊的。 The fifth and final test is that Christ's Eucharistic teaching is shocking.
我已经稍微提到了这一点，但是它的奇特性。 Now I've already alluded to this a little bit, but the strangeness.
但是这种奇特性，它是不寻常的这个事实，并不是我们想要关注的唯一部分。 But the strangeness, the fact that it's something unusual, isn't the only part we want to focus on.
它也是真的令人震惊的，对吧？ It's also something really shocking, right?
一旦那种顿悟的时刻发生，他们意识到这不仅仅是耶稣道成肉身或从天而降的比喻。 Once the light bulb moment kind of happens and they realize this isn't just a metaphor for Jesus being incarnate or coming from heaven.
它不仅仅是在谈论像吗哪这样的东西，而是真正的吗哪是基督的肉和血。 And it's not just talking about something like the manna, but the true manna is Christ's flesh and blood.
犹太人彼此争论说，这个人怎能把他的肉给我们吃呢？ The Jews dispute among themselves and how can this man give us his flesh to eat?
这里有一些令人震惊的东西。 There's something shocking here.
现在你可以说，好吧，那是犹太人。 And now you can say, well, that's the Jews.
而且不清楚那些是信徒还是不是。 And it's not clear if those are believers or not.
好吧，在66节，这是非常清楚的。 Well, in verse 66, it's really clear.
他的门徒中有许多人退去了，不再和他同行。 Many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
所以这不仅仅是对那些偶尔听耶稣讲道的人来说令人震惊或奇怪的事。 So this isn't something that's just shocking or strange to those who are casual listeners of Jesus.
这甚至对耶稣的门徒来说也是令人震惊的事。 This is something shocking even to the disciples of Jesus.
所以，如果你对圣餐的信仰甚至对其他基督徒来说都 不令人震惊，那么它们就不是早期基督徒所相信的。 And so if your Eucharistic beliefs aren't shocking even to other Christians, then they're not what the early Christians believed.
所以我要回到，你知道，我一直在指出的那个新教观 点，那种认为这一切只是相信耶稣的象征的观念。 And so I'm going to go back to, you know, the one Protestant view I've been kind of pointing to, that notion that this is all just a symbol for something like believing in Jesus.
那并不令人震惊。 That's not shocking.
告诉门徒，哦，你需要相信，这没有什么令人震惊的。 Telling disciples, oh, you need to believe, there's nothing shocking about that.
门徒们已经在这样做了。 The disciples already were doing that.
记住，我们现在在约翰福音第6章。回想一下约翰福音第5章，因为门徒们经历了第5章。 我说经历是因为在约翰福音5章17和18节，耶稣说，我父做事直到如今，我也做事。 Remember, we're now in John 6. Think back to John 5 because the disciples endured John 5. And I say endured because in John 5 verse 17 and 218, Jesus says, my father is working still and I am working.
他在谈论为什么他在安息日行神迹。 He's talking about why he's performing miracles on the Sabbath.
约翰说，所以犹太人越发想要杀他，因为他不但犯了安息日，现在他实际上并没有 违反，但他被视为违反了安息日，而且还称神为自己的父，将自己与神当作平等。 And John says, this was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him because he not only broke the Sabbath, now he didn't actually break it, but he was seen as breaking the Sabbath, but also called God his father, making himself equal with God.
所以耶稣正在做这些真正令人震惊的事。 So Jesus is doing these really shocking things.
他似乎在违反安息日。 He's apparently breaking the Sabbath.
他似乎在称自己与父同等，并称自己为父的儿子。 He's apparently calling himself equal with the father and calling himself the son of the father.
他做出这些明显的神性宣称，而这些门徒完全愿意继续跟随他。 He's making these apparently divine claims and these disciples are totally fine to continue following him.
然后在约翰福音第6章，他说了一些如此令人震惊 的话，以至于他们离开了，而耶稣让他们离开。 And then in John 6, he says something so shocking that they walk away and Jesus lets them walk away.
如果耶稣只是意味着相信我，那不会造成这种结果。 If Jesus just meant believe in me, that wouldn't have done it.
为什么我们这么说？ Why do we say that?
因为他在约翰福音5章46节说，你们如果信摩 西，也必信我，因为他书上有指着我写的话。 Well, because he says in John 5 verse 46, if you believed Moses, you'd believe me for he wrote of me.
这不仅仅是在说，相信我的信息。 That's not just saying like, believe my message.
他还声称自己就是摩西在旧约中所写的那一位。 He's also claiming to be the one of whom Moses wrote in the Old Testament.
在约翰福音第2章，在迦拿的婚宴之后，约翰说，这是他所行的第一个神迹。 And in John 2, after the wedding feast of Cana, John says, this is the first of his signs.
耶稣在加利利的迦拿行了这神迹，显出他的荣耀来，他的门徒就信他了。 Jesus did it at Cana and Galilee and manifested his glory and his disciples believed in him.
我们可以说门徒们的一个特点就是他们相信耶稣。 The one thing we can say of the disciples is they believed in Jesus.
所以在约翰福音第6章，这些曾经相信耶稣的人停止跟随他。 And so in John 6, these people who had believed in Jesus stop following him.
他们不再跟随他，因为他说了一些比以前更深奥的话，而不仅仅是相信我。 And there's not following him anymore because he says something a little more profound than believe in me as he had before.
他说的话比那更令人震惊。 He's saying something more shocking than that.
我要在这里指出，记得F.F.布鲁斯提出的观 点，他说的是这种听起来像食人的圣餐教导。 And I would point out here that one of the, remember the point that F.F. Bruce makes, he's speaking of this Eucharistic teaching that sounds cannibalistic.
早期的基督徒因为他们的圣餐神学经常被指责为食人族。 Well, the early Christians were regularly accused of being cannibals for their Eucharistic theology.
所以，如果你的圣餐神学不会被误解为食人主义，那么它就不是耶稣所教导的。 So if your Eucharistic theology couldn't be mistaken for cannibalism, then it's not what Jesus taught.
这不是门徒们所相信的。 It's not what the disciples believed.
这不是早期基督徒所相信的。 It's not what the early Christians believed.
关于这种令人震惊的性质的最后一点，我在书中没 有提到，因为它更具推测性，但我还是要提出来。 The last point here on the shocking nature of this is one that I didn't make in the book because it's more speculative, but I'm just going to throw it out there.
你可以接受它或拒绝它。 You can accept it or reject it.
但我想指出约翰福音第6章末尾发生的事。记住， 耶稣去找十二个门徒，问他们，你们也要去吗？ But I want to point to something that happens at the end of John 6. Remember, Jesus goes to the 12 and asks, will you go away also?
西门彼得说，主啊，我们还归从谁呢？ Simon Peter says, Lord, to whom shall we go?
你有永生之道。 You have the words of eternal life.
耶稣回答说，我不是拣选了你们十二个吗？但你们中间有一个是魔鬼。 Jesus then responds, did I not choose you, the 12, and one of you as a devil?
在约翰福音第6章的最后一节，约翰说，耶稣这话是指着加略人西门的 儿子犹大说的，因为他本是十二个门徒里的一个，后来要卖耶稣的。 And in the last verse of John 6, John says, he spoke of Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the 12, was to betray him.
值得问的是，为什么耶稣现在提起这个？ And it's worth asking, why does Jesus bring this up right now?
因为这是门徒们的关键时刻。 Well, because this is a make or break moment for the disciples.
你看到耶稣的门徒因他的圣餐教导公开离开。 You've got disciples of Jesus openly walking away over his Eucharistic teaching.
这可能是一个线索，表明这就是犹大背叛的种子被种 下的地方，这是他认为，好吧，这太过分了的时刻。 And this might be a clue that this is where the seeds of Judas' betrayal are sort of planted, that this is the moment where he thinks, okay, this is too much.
这个人不是好消息。 This guy is not good news.
还有另一个理由让我们相信这可能就是这里发生的事，因为在这一章的开始，约翰 告诉我们这发生在逾越节的时候，约翰福音6:4。那时犹太人的逾越节近了。 And there's another reason to believe that might be what's going on here because at the beginning of the chapter, John tells us this happens at Passover time, John 6, 4. Now, the Passover, the Feast of the Jews was at hand.
这是非常重要的背景，因为约翰在向我们展示，如果你想理解耶稣的教 导，你需要思考过去的逾越节，那时你实际上吃了神的羔羊的祭物。 That's really important context because John is showing us, if you want to understand what Jesus is teaching, you need to be thinking of the Passover in the past where you actually ate the sacrifice of the Lamb of God.
这就是正在发生的事，对吧？ That's what's going on, right?
但你也在为一年后将要发生的事做准备，这是他们不知道的。 But you also are being prepared for what's going to happen a year from now, which is what they don't know.
但我们现在回顾阅读这段文字时知道，在这之后一年的逾越节时，你有最后的晚餐。 But we know, as we're looking back now reading the text, that one year after this at Passover time, you have the Last Supper.
所以，在马太福音26章17节，除酵节的第一天，也就是逾越节 ，门徒来问耶稣说：你吃逾越节的筵席，要我们在哪里给你预备？ And so, in Matthew 26, verse 17, on the first day of unleavened bread, that means Passover, the disciples came to Jesus saying, where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?
这就是我们需要理解的，圣餐是逾越节祭祀的实现。 That's how we need to understand the Eucharist is the fulfillment of the Passover sacrifice.
然后在第20节，到了晚上，耶稣和十二个门徒坐席。 And then in verse 20, when it was evening, he sat at table with his 12 disciples.
正吃的时候，耶稣说：我实在告诉你们，你们中间有一个人要卖我了。 And as they were eating, he said, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.
他们都很忧愁，一个一个地问他说：主，是我吗？ And they all say, is it I, Lord?
耶稣回答说：同我蘸手在盘子里的，就是他要卖我。 And he says, he who has dipped his hand in the dish with me will betray me.
犹大的背叛似乎是在逾越节时，伴随着关于圣餐的教导而种下的。 That Judas's betrayal seems to have been planted at Passover with the teaching on the Eucharist.
它在下一个逾越节，伴随着圣餐的设立，达到了可怕的 结果，犹大从最后的晚餐离开，让耶稣被捕并被杀。 And it comes to its horrible fruition at the next Passover with the institution of the Eucharist, that Judas goes out from the Last Supper and has Jesus arrested and killed.
但耶稣关于圣餐的教导中有一些令人震惊的东西，似乎不仅对约翰福音6:66中的 那些门徒来说太过分了，对犹大·加略人来说尤其如此，它似乎与犹大的背叛有关。 But there's something shocking about Jesus's Eucharistic teaching that seems to have been too much, not only for those disciples in John 6, 66, but also for Judas Iscariot, particularly, that it seems to be connected to Judas's betrayal.
在礼仪日历上，有所谓的「密探星期三」，就是圣周四前的那天 ，你有密探星期三，纪念而不是庆祝犹大将要背叛耶稣的事实。 On the liturgical calendar, there's what's known as Spy Wednesday, the day before Holy Thursday, you have Spy Wednesday, commemorating the fact, not celebrating, but commemorating the fact that Judas is going to betray Jesus.
最后的晚餐发生了很多事。 There's a lot going on at the Last Supper.
所以我们把它移到了另一天，只是为了引起人们对这个事实的 注意，即圣餐的教导是如此令人震惊，以至于基督徒离开了。 So we got moved to a different day, just to draw attention to that fact, that the Eucharistic teaching is so shocking, that Christians walk away.
门徒离开了。 Disciples walk away.
十二个门徒中的一个似乎离开了，并决定因此背叛耶稣。 One of the 12 seemingly walks away and decides to betray Jesus over this.
所以，如果你对圣餐的信仰并不那么令人震惊，而且你没有看到它如此令 人震惊的外部证据，那么你似乎并不相信耶稣和门徒所相信的同样的事。 And so if your belief on the Eucharist isn't that shocking, and you don't see external evidence that it's that shocking, then it doesn't seem that you're believing the same thing Jesus and the disciples believed.
现在，正如我提到的，除了最后关于犹大的半点之 外，所有这些都来自我的书《圣餐真的是耶稣》。 Now, as I mentioned, all of this is derived from my book, The Eucharist is Really Jesus, other than that very last half a point about Judas.
如果你想了解更多，我鼓励你随意在shop.catholic.com购买这本书， And so if you want to know more, I encourage you to feel free to pick up the book at shop.catholic.com,
使用促销代码SP33可获得33%的折扣，或者批量订购可以省很多钱。 use the promo code SP33 to get 33% off, or get a bulk order where you can save a lot of money.
我很想在下面的评论中听到你的想法、评论和反应。 And I would love to hear your thoughts, your comments, your reactions in the comments below.