Modern Reformation Bilingual 中文双语

当我们聚集时：支持每周圣餐的圣经、历史与信条论证（第一部分）

Tue, 02 Jun 2026 15:00:00 +0000

This is the first installment in a three-part series on the frequency of the Lord’s Supper.

这是关于圣餐频率的三部分系列文章的第一篇。

Preface—Why This Series?

前言——为何写这个系列？

This series began not with a proposal to change church practice, but with a question that emerged from conversation. In separate discussions with my own pastor and with my father-in-law, a retired minister, both appealed thoughtfully to church history and the Reformed confessions in support of a monthly observance of the Lord’s Supper. In both cases, the reasoning was careful and reverent. The Supper was treated not as incidental, but as something weighty enough to warrant restraint.

这个系列的开始并非源于一个改变教会惯例的提议，而是源于对话中产生的一个疑问。在分别与我的牧师以及我的岳父（一位退休牧师）讨论时，他们都审慎地诉诸于教会历史和改革宗信条，以支持每月一次的圣餐礼。在这两种情况下，其推论都十分谨慎且虔敬。圣餐被视为并非次要之事，而是足够庄重，以至于需要节制地施行。

What struck me was not disagreement about the importance of the Supper, but the confidence with which its frequency was assumed rather than examined. The appeal to history and confession was sincere—but it raised a further question: do those sources, read carefully and in context, point in the direction we often think they do?

令我触动的是，我们之间并非在圣餐的重要性上存在分歧，而是在于对其频率的认定如此理所当然，以至于无需审视。诉诸历史和信条的态度是真诚的——但这引发了进一步的疑问：如果仔细地并在语境中阅读这些资料，它们所指向的方向是否真的如我们通常认为的那样？

That question sent me back first and foremost to Scripture. What I found was not an explicit command for weekly communion, but something more formative: a consistent pattern. The New Testament presents the Lord’s Supper as a regular and assumed feature of the church’s gathering. The case for its frequency arises not from a single verse, but by what the Reformed tradition has long described as good and necessary consequence—conclusions that flow naturally from the whole counsel of God.

这个问题促使我首先回到圣经。我发现的并非一个关于每周圣餐的明确命令，而是一些更具塑造意义的东西：一个一贯的模式。新约将圣餐呈现为教会聚集时的一种常态且理所当然的特征。关于其频率的论据并非源于单一的经文，而是源于改革宗传统长期以来所描述的“良好且必要的结论”——即那些从神的全备旨意中自然得出的结论。

This essay forms the first part of a three-part series, making the biblical, historical, and confessional case for weekly communion—not as a liturgical innovation, but as the ordinary pattern of the church when it gathers. Framed this way, the question of frequency is not primarily about preference or novelty, but about what the New Testament itself appears to assume as normal Christian worship—and how those assumptions were received and carried forward by the church.

本文是一个三部分系列文章的第一篇，旨在从圣经、历史和信条的角度论证每周圣餐的合理性——将其视为教会聚集时的常态模式，而非一种礼仪创新。如此界定，频率问题的主要不在于偏好或新奇，而在于新约本身将什么样的基督徒崇拜视为常态，以及这些假设是如何被教会接纳并传承下来的。

Any serious engagement with the church’s history must eventually reckon not only with continuity, but with divergence—especially where later practice reflects instincts formed under specific pastoral or polemical pressures. That reckoning lies beyond the scope of this essay and will be addressed more directly in a larger work. Here, my purpose is deliberately constructive rather than corrective: to present the strongest positive case for weekly communion possible, while honoring the good intentions and pastoral concerns that have shaped differing practices within the Reformed tradition.

任何对教会历史的严肃探讨，最终必须不仅正视其延续性，还要正视其分歧——尤其是后期的实践反映了在特定的牧养或论战压力下形成的直觉。这种正视超出了本文的范围，将在更大规模的作品中更直接地讨论。在这里，我的目的刻意地倾向于建设性而非纠正性：即在尊重塑造了改革宗传统内不同实践的良苦用心和牧养考量之同时，尽可能地为每周圣餐提供最强有力的正面论证。

For many churches, monthly observance has come to feel like a careful middle ground. Weekly communion can sound excessive, while quarterly observance feels insufficient. Monthly rhythms promise reverence without routine, meaning without monotony. The concern is not usually theological neglect, but pastoral caution—the fear that repetition will dull significance rather than deepen it. That instinct deserves to be taken seriously, even as it is examined in light of Scripture.

对于许多教会而言，每月一次的圣餐礼已然成为一种谨慎的中庸之选。每周一次似乎过于频繁，而每季度一次又显得不足。每月的节奏承诺了在不陷入常规之中的敬虔，在不陷入单调之中的意义。这种顾虑通常并非出于神学上的忽视，而是出于牧养上的谨慎——担心重复会削弱而非深化圣餐的意义。这种直觉值得被认真对待，即便它需要根据圣经来重新审视。

Behind that concern often lies a particular view of how meaning is preserved in Christian practice. We tend to assume that rarity safeguards value, while regularity risks familiarity. Yet Scripture frequently teaches the opposite. God forms his people not primarily through infrequent intensifications, but through steady provision. The question, then, is not whether weekly communion feels unfamiliar to modern congregations, but whether the New Testament treats the Supper as a special interruption or as part of the church’s ongoing life with God.

在这种顾虑背后，往往隐藏着一种关于基督徒实践如何保持意义的特定观点。我们倾向于认为，稀少能保障价值，而规律则有陷入习以为常的风险。然而，圣经经常教导相反的道理。上帝塑造祂的子民，主要不是通过偶尔的强化，而是通过持续的供应。因此，问题不在于每周圣餐是否让现代会众感到陌生，而在于新约是将圣餐视为一种特殊的中断，还是将其视为教会与上帝共同生活的常态。

Framing the issue this way clarifies what is at stake. The question is not whether churches that observe the Supper monthly are irreverent or careless. It is whether the rhythms we have inherited reflect the assumptions of the New Testament itself—or whether those assumptions have gradually shifted under the pressure of pastoral caution, historical circumstance, or habit.

这样界定问题便能阐明其核心所在。问题不在于每月举行圣餐礼的教会是否不敬虔或不谨慎，而在于我们继承的这种节奏是否反映了新约本身的假设——或者这些假设是否在牧养谨慎、历史环境或习惯的压力下逐渐发生了偏移。

Reading Scripture for Pattern, Not Prescription

从模式而非指令来阅读圣经

Any discussion of the frequency of the Lord’s Supper must begin with a clarification about how Scripture is being read. The New Testament does not provide a detailed liturgical manual, nor does it address every question of church practice by explicit command. Instead, it often teaches by pattern, assumption, and example. For this reason, the Reformed tradition has long held that the church is guided not only by what Scripture states directly, but also by what may be drawn from it by good and necessary consequence (WCF 1.6).

任何关于圣餐频率的讨论，都必须首先澄清阅读圣经的方式。新约并没有提供一份详尽的礼仪手册，也没有通过明确的指令来解决教会实践的每一个问题。相反，它经常通过模式、假设和榜样来教导。因此，改革宗传统长期以来一直认为，引导教会的不仅是圣经直接陈述的内容，还包括那些可以通过良好且必要的推论（WCF 1.6）从中得出的结论。

This principle applies whenever Scripture is read, but it becomes especially important when the church seeks to establish normative practices of worship in the absence of explicit commands. In such cases, Scripture forms the church not by filling in every detail, but by shaping patterns that must be received and ordered faithfully.

这一原则适用于任何圣经阅读，但当教会在缺乏明确指令的情况下寻求建立规范的崇拜实践时，它变得尤为重要。在这种情况下，圣经塑造教会的方式并非填补每一个细节，而是塑造出必须被忠实地接收并排序的模式。

With respect to the Lord’s Supper, the New Testament nowhere issues a command that reads, “You shall observe the Supper weekly,” or specifies any other interval by name. The question before us, therefore, is not whether Scripture supplies a numerical directive, but whether its witness, taken as a whole, assumes a regular pattern of communion as part of the church’s ordinary gathering. If it does, then the absence of an explicit command does not weaken the case; it clarifies the kind of case Scripture itself invites us to make.

关于圣餐，新约没有任何一处指令写道：“你们应当每周举行圣餐礼”，也没有明确规定任何其他的时间间隔。因此，我们面临的问题不是圣经是否提供了一个数字指令，而是其整体见证是否将规律的圣餐模式视为教会常规聚集的一部分。如果确实如此，那么缺乏明确指令并不会削弱这一论点；反而阐明了圣经本身邀请我们构建什么样的论据。

Devoted to the Ordinary: Acts 2:42

委身于常态：使徒行传 2:42

The clearest early picture of the church’s life together comes not in a prescriptive command, but in a description. Luke tells us that the first Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42). The verse is familiar, but its force is often understated. It presents the ordinary shape of the church’s shared life.

关于教会共同生活的最清晰的早期图景，并非来自一项规范性的命令，而是一段描述。路加告诉我们，第一批基督徒“都恒心遵守使徒的教训，彼此交接，擘饼，祈祷”（使徒行传 2:42）。这节经文人们很熟悉，但其力度往往被低估了。它呈现了教会共同生活的常态。

Several features of the passage deserve attention. Luke speaks of devotion—a settled, ongoing commitment rather than sporadic participation. Moreover, the four elements he names form a coherent whole. Apostolic teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers are not isolated practices but together constitute the recognizable shape of the church’s gathering. Luke does not suggest that some of these belonged to the church’s regular rhythm while others were reserved for infrequent observance.

这段经文的几个特点值得关注。路加谈到了“恒心”——这是一种稳定的、持续的委身，而非零星的参与。此外，他提到的四个要素构成了一个有机整体。使徒的教训、彼此交接、擘饼和祈祷并非孤立的实践，而是共同构成了教会聚集时可辨识的形态。路加并没有暗示其中某些活动属于教会的常规节奏，而另一些则被保留为不频繁的 observance。

The phrase “the breaking of bread” has sometimes been reduced to a reference to ordinary, nonsacramental meals. Yet the context points in a more specific direction. The expression appears alongside practices that are unmistakably corporate and worship-oriented, and it is marked by the definite article: the breaking of bread. Whatever place shared meals held in early Christian life, Luke presents this act as a distinct and repeatable feature of the church’s common worship.

“擘饼”这个短语有时被简化为对普通非圣餐餐食的指代。然而，上下文指向了一个更具体的方向。这个表达与那些毫无疑问是集体性的、以崇拜为导向的实践并列出现，并且带有定冠词：the breaking of bread（那擘饼之举）。无论共同进餐在早期基督徒生活中占据什么位置，路加将这一行为呈现为教会共同崇拜中一个独特且可重复的特征。

Reformed commentators have often read Acts 2:42 in precisely this way. R. Kent Hughes, for example, argues that “the breaking of bread” refers to the regular observance of the Lord’s Supper, noting both its placement among explicitly worship-oriented practices and its deliberate distinction from common meals later in the chapter.¹ [1. R. Kent Hughes, Acts: The Church Afire , Preaching the Word (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1996), 50.] On this reading, Luke presents a church continually devoted to word, prayer, and sacrament as part of its ordinary life together.

改革宗的注释家经常正是以这种方式解读使徒行传 2:42。例如，R. Kent Hughes 主张“擘饼”是指定期地遵守圣餐，他指出，这一行为既被置于明确以崇拜为导向的实践之中，又在随后的章节中与普通餐食被刻意区分开来。¹ [1. R. Kent Hughes, Acts: The Church Afire , Preaching the Word (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1996), 50.] 根据这种解读，路加呈现了一个将道、祷告和圣餐作为其共同生活常态而持续委身的教会。

What is striking is not merely that the Supper appears here, but how it appears. Luke does not pause to justify it or regulate its frequency. He assumes it. The Supper is treated not as a heightened devotional moment, but as part of the church’s settled life together—received as naturally as the word is preached and prayers are offered.

令人惊叹的不仅是圣餐在这里出现，而且是它出现的方式。路加没有停下来为其辩护或规定其频率。他将其视为理所当然。圣餐被对待为教会稳定共同生活的一部分，而不是一个高度灵修的时刻——它被接纳得就像传道和祷告一样自然。

That assumption reflects a broader biblical pattern. Scripture consistently frames God’s provision for his people in terms of sustenance rather than intensification. When the Lord feeds Israel in the wilderness, he does not do so through rare abundance but through daily provision. Manna is given not as a feast for special occasions, but as nourishment for ordinary life, training the people in dependence rather than spectacle. Jesus echoes this logic when he teaches his disciples to pray for daily bread—not exceptional provision, but faithful supply.

这种假设反映了一个更广泛的圣经模式。圣经一致地将上帝对他子民的供应框架在“维持生命”而非“强化体验”的维度上。当主在旷野喂养以色列人时，他不是通过罕见的丰盛，而是通过每日的供应来实现。吗哪被赐下不是作为特殊场合的盛宴，而是作为日常生活的养分，训练子民依赖上帝，而非追求奇观。耶稣在教导门徒祈求日用饮食时也呼应了这一逻辑——不是祈求异常的供应，而是信实的供给。

Read in this light, the Lord’s Supper belongs to the same category of gift. It is not a reward for spiritual maturity or a capstone to worship, but nourishment given to a needy people. Like preaching and prayer, it is an ordinary means through which God strengthens faith over time. Repetition does not cheapen nourishment; it makes life possible.

从这个角度来看，圣餐属于同一类恩赐。它不是属灵成熟的奖赏，也不是崇拜的顶点，而是赐给匮乏之民的养分。与讲道和祷告一样，它是上帝随时间推移增强信心的常规手段。重复并不会降低养分的价值；相反，它使生命成为可能。

Moreover, Scripture also frames God’s relationship with his people through covenant meals that signify belonging and communion. From Israel’s sacrificial meals to Jesus’s table fellowship, eating together is never merely social. It is theological. Meals mark reconciliation, shared life, and covenant identity. To eat at the Lord’s table is to belong to the Lord’s people—called to gather as his covenant community on the Lord’s Day.

此外，圣经还通过象征归属与相通的圣约餐食，来构建上帝与他子民的关系。从以色列的祭祀餐食到耶稣的桌前团契，共同进餐绝不仅仅是社交行为。它是神学性的。餐食标志着和好、共同生活和圣约身份。在主的桌前进食，就是属于主的子民——被呼召在主日作为他的圣约群体聚集在一起。

The New Testament intensifies this logic rather than abandoning it. Jesus’s ministry culminates in a meal where bread and wine are given new covenant meaning. Each time the church eats and drinks, it remembers Christ’s death and anticipates the feast to come. The Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Rev.19:6–9) is not presented as a disconnected future spectacle, but as the fulfillment of a pattern already underway. The church’s present participation at the Table is a foretaste—not a replacement, but a pledge—of that final communion.

新约圣经不仅没有放弃这一逻辑，反而将其强化。耶稣的职事在一次晚餐中达到顶峰，在那里，饼和杯被赋予了新约的意义。教会每次吃喝，都是在纪念基督的死，并期待将来的筵席。羔羊的婚筵（启 19:6–9）并非被呈现为一个脱节的未来奇观，而是已经开始的某种模式的成就。教会现在参与圣餐，是对那最终团契的一次预尝——这不是替代，而是一种凭据。

Seen in this light, the Supper is not functionally set apart from the church’s ordinary rhythm, but an enacted promise woven into it. The church eats now because it will eat then. Regular participation does not diminish eschatological hope; it trains the church to live in expectation of it. In that context, a simple question emerges: if God has given the gifts of bread and wine with such clear analogies to regular nourishment, why should the sustenance of spiritual life be treated differently?

从这个角度看，圣餐在功能上并非与教会的常规节奏相分离，而是一个编织在其中的、被践行的应许。教会现在吃，是因为届时将要吃。经常参与圣餐并不会削弱末世的盼望，反而训练教会生活在对盼望的期待之中。在这种语境下，一个简单的问题随之而来：既然神赐下饼和杯，并赋予其如此清晰的日常滋养之类比，为何属灵生命的养分会被区别对待？

While Acts 2:42 does not tell us explicitly how often the Supper was celebrated, it does tell us where it belongs. It belongs within the ordinary gathering of the church, as a constitutive practice rather than a periodic—even if frequent—supplement. Practices to which a community is devoted shape its regular rhythm.

虽然使徒行传 2:42 没有明确告诉我们圣餐庆祝的频率，但它确实告诉了我们圣餐应当处于的位置。它属于教会的常规聚集，是一种构成性的实践，而非周期性的——即便频率很高——补充。一个群体所致力于的实践，塑造了其常规的节奏。

That logic becomes clearer when Acts is allowed to interpret Acts. If “the breaking of bread” referred merely to ordinary meals, Acts 20:7 would seem to imply that Christians ate only once a week—an implausible conclusion. As Keith Mathison observes, Luke’s language is therefore best understood as referring to the Lord’s Supper, observed on the first day of each week as part of the church’s regular gathering.¹ [1. Keith A. Mathison, The Lord's Supper: Answers to Common Questions (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2019), Kindle edition.]

当允许使徒行传解释使徒行传时，这一逻辑变得更加清晰。如果“擘饼”仅仅是指普通的用餐，那么使徒行传 20:7 似乎暗示基督徒每周只吃一次饭——这是一个不可信的结论。正如基思·马蒂森（Keith Mathison）所观察到的，路加的语言因此最好被理解为是指主餐，即在每周的第一日作为教会常规聚集的一部分而守候.¹ [1. Keith A. Mathison, The Lord's Supper: Answers to Common Questions (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2019), Kindle edition.]

Gathered to Break Bread: Acts 20:7

聚集擘饼：使徒行传 20:7

That pattern appears in more concrete form later in Acts. Luke records that “on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them” (Acts 20:7). Here the narrative moves from summary to situation. We are given a specific day, a specific purpose, and a recognizable shape to the gathering.

这种模式在使徒行传随后的记载中以更具体的形式出现。路加记录道：“七日的第一日，我们聚会擘饼的时候，保罗因为要次日起行，就与他们讲论”（徒 20:7）。在这里，叙事从概括转向了具体情境。我们得到了一个具体的日子，一个具体的目标，以及一个可辨识的聚集形式。

The church comes together on the first day of the week, and it does so to break bread. The Supper is not incidental to the meeting, but one of the reasons for it. Word and sacrament belong together in this assembly. Preaching and the Table are not competing emphases but coordinated acts. The Supper is not treated as a supplement to worship, but a defining element of the church’s Lord’s Day gathering.

教会于每周的第一日聚集，且聚集的目的就是为了擘饼。圣餐并非聚会的附带产物，而是聚会的原因之一。道与圣礼在这次聚集中是统一的。讲道与圣餐桌并非相互竞争的重点，而是协调一致的行为。圣餐不被视为崇拜的补充，而是教会主日聚集的一个定义性元素。

Read alongside Acts 2:42, the picture that emerges is consistent. The New Testament does not legislate frequency by command, but it presents a pattern in which the Lord’s Supper belongs to the church’s ordinary, weekly worship.

将此与使徒行传 2:42 结合阅读，呈现出的画面是一致的。新约圣经虽然没有通过命令来立法规定频率，但它呈现了一种模式，即主餐属于教会常规的每周崇拜。

Participation and Proclamation: 1 Corinthians 10–11

参与与宣告：哥林多前书 10–11 章

If Acts gives us the pattern of the church’s gathering, Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians helps us understand the theological logic of the Supper within that gathering. In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul frames the Supper in terms of participation: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?” (10:16). The Supper is not merely a reminder, but a corporate participation in Christ himself.

如果说使徒行传为我们提供了教会聚集的模式，那么保罗写给哥林多人的第一封信则帮助我们理解聚集之中圣餐的神学逻辑。在哥林多前书 10 章中，保罗从“参与”的角度来阐述圣餐：“我们所祝福的杯，岂不是同领基督的血吗？”（10:16）。圣餐不仅仅是一种提醒，更是集体性地参与基督本身。

That participation is inseparable from the church’s unity. “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (10:17). Here sacrament and ecclesiology converge. The Supper both expresses and reinforces the church’s shared life. A practice that both expresses and reinforces the church’s unity naturally assumes a prominent place in its gathered worship, a pattern Luke elsewhere describes as belonging to the church’s regular assembly.

这种参与与教会的合一密不可分。“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”（10:17）。在此，圣礼与教会论交汇在一起。圣餐既表达又强化了教会共同的生活。一种既能表达又能强化教会合一的实践，自然会在其聚集敬拜中占据重要地位，而路加在其他地方描述的教会定期集会模式正是如此。

In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul turns from theological explanation to pastoral correction. The Supper in Corinth is being abused—marked by division and drunkenness. Yet Paul’s response is instructive. Again and again, he frames his instruction around what happens “when you come together.” He assumes a regular gathering in which the Supper is expected to take place.

在哥林多前书 11 章中，保罗从神学解释转向了牧养上的纠正。哥林多教会的圣餐被滥用了——其特点是分派与醉酒。然而，保罗的应对方式极具启发性。他一次又一次地将他的教导围绕在“当你们聚集”时发生的事情上。他预设了一个规律性的聚集，并且预期圣餐会在其中举行。

Crucially, Paul’s solution to abuse is not reduction. He does not suggest that the Supper should be practiced less often in order to preserve its meaning. Instead, he calls the church to discern the body and to receive the Supper rightly. The problem in Corinth is not how often the Supper occurs, but how it is being understood—or rather misunderstood. As the longstanding Latin maxim puts it, abusus non tollit usum—abuse does not negate proper use. Put another way, when error occurs, the church’s task is reform, not retreat. For those standing in the tradition of the Reformation, this should come naturally.

至关重要的是，保罗解决滥用问题的方案并非削减。他并没有建议为了维护圣餐的意义而减少其举行频率。相反，他呼吁教会要分辨身体，并正确地领受圣餐。哥林多教会的问题不在于圣餐举行的频率，而在于圣餐如何被理解——或者更确切地说，是被误解了。正如那句长久以来的拉丁格言所言：abusus non tollit usum——滥用并不取消正当的使用。换句话说，当错误发生时，教会的任务是改革而非退缩。对于站在宗教改革传统中的人们来说，这应该是自然而然的。

Each time the Supper is celebrated, Paul says the church “proclaims the Lord’s death until he comes” (11:26). The act itself is a proclamation—repeated, public, and eschatologically oriented. Correction presupposes regularity. Paul reforms the practice of the Supper; he does not retreat from it.

保罗说，每次庆祝圣餐时，教会就“表明主的死，直等到他来”（11:26）。这一行为本身就是一种宣告——它是重复的、公开的，且具有末世论导向的。纠正是以规律性为前提的。保罗改革了圣餐的实践，而非从中退缩。

Conclusion: When Scripture Assumes What It Does Not Command

结论：当圣经在未明令要求时将其视为前提

Taken together, Acts and 1 Corinthians establish a trajectory rather than a timetable. Scripture does not issue an explicit command for weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper, yet it consistently portrays a church devoted to the breaking of bread as part of its shared life—gathering on the Lord’s Day to do precisely that, and receiving the Supper as a practice central enough to warrant sustained theological instruction and pastoral correction.

综合来看，使徒行传和哥林多前书建立的是一种轨迹而非时间表。圣经虽然没有发出关于每周守圣餐的明确命令，但它始终将教会描绘成一个致力于“掰饼”作为共同生活一部分的群体——在主日聚集正是为了做这件事，并将圣餐视为一项足够核心的实践，以至于需要持续的神学教导和牧养纠正。

The biblical case for weekly communion, therefore, does not rest on a proof-text—no more than other central doctrines the church confesses, such as the Trinity. It arises by good and necessary consequence from the patterns Scripture presents and the assumptions it makes about the church’s worship when it gathers. If the Supper belongs to the church’s ordinary life, and if that life is ordered around the weekly Lord’s Day assembly, then regular—indeed weekly—communion follows naturally from the shape Scripture gives to the church’s worship.

因此，支持每周圣餐的圣经论据并非依赖于某段孤立的经文——正如教会所承认的其他核心教义（如三位一体）一样。它是从圣经所呈现的模式，以及圣经对教会聚集敬拜的假设中，通过合乎逻辑且必要的推论而得出的。如果圣餐属于教会的常规生活，而这种生活又是围绕着每周的主日聚集而展开的，那么定期的——事实上是每周一次的——圣餐，便自然地遵循了圣经为教会敬拜所设定的形式。

Even if the biblical logic points in this direction, some may hesitate at the conclusion. Surely the early church did not practice the Supper this way—or did it? That question leads naturally to the historical evidence. In Part II, we will examine how the church immediately following the apostles understood and ordered the Lord’s Supper, paying particular attention to whether weekly communion was regarded as exceptional or ordinary.

即使圣经的逻辑指向这个方向，有些人可能仍会对这一结论感到犹豫。早期教会肯定没有这样施行圣餐吧——还是说他们确实如此？这个问题自然地将我们引向历史证据。在第二部分中，我们将探讨使徒之后紧接的教会如何理解并安排圣餐，并特别关注每周圣餐是被视为例外还是常规。

This historical inquiry also helps address familiar Protestant concerns. Did the Reformers themselves practice weekly communion? If John Calvin supported frequent observance, why did many Reformed churches settle into quarterly patterns instead? Were those rhythms the product of theological conviction, pastoral compromise, or historical circumstance? By attending carefully to the early church, the Reformation period, and the realities that shaped post-Reformation practice, the historical case helps distinguish between what the church has sometimes done and what it has consistently understood the Supper to be. It is to that historical witness that we turn next.

这种历史探讨也有助于解决新教中常见的疑虑。宗教改革者本人是否施行每周圣餐？如果约翰·加尔文支持频繁地施行圣餐，为什么许多改革宗教会反而采用了每季度一次的模式？这些节奏是神学信念、牧养妥协还是历史环境的产物？通过仔细研究早期教会、宗教改革时期以及塑造后宗教改革实践的现实情况，历史论据有助于我们将“教会有时所做的”与“教会一贯地对圣餐的理解”区分开来。接下来，我们将转向这一历史见证。

Erik Warren O'Dell

Erik Warren O’Dell holds an M.A. in Theological Studies from Westminster Seminary California. He is an educator and Humanities curriculum writer with six years of experience in classical Christian education. Erik teaches a Sunday school series titled Church History as Apologetics, and the series is currently being developed into a book project. His other writings seek to integrate theology, philosophy, culture, education, and apologetics. Erik lives in Katy, Texas, with his wife, Jessica, who serves on staff at their home church, Christ Presbyterian Church of Houston (PCA).Erik Warren O’Dell 拥有加州西敏神学院的神学研究硕士学位。他是一位教育工作者和人文课程编写者，在古典基督教教育方面拥有六年的经验。Erik 教授一套名为《作为护教手段的教会历史》（Church History as Apologetics）的主日学系列课程，该系列目前正被开发成书籍项目。他的其他著作旨在将神学、哲学、文化、教育和护教相结合。Erik 与妻子 Jessica 住在德克萨斯州的凯蒂（Katy），Jessica 在他们的家庭教会——休斯顿基督长老教会（Christ Presbyterian Church of Houston, PCA）担任职员。

Topics The Lord's Supper主题圣餐

Date Tuesday, June 2, 2026日期 2026年6月2日，星期二

犹太人在五旬节听到了什么，以及这对婴儿洗礼的意义

Tue, 26 May 2026 15:00:00 +0000

When Peter stood up at Pentecost, his audience was entirely Jewish. What did they hear when he declared that "the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself" (Acts 2:39)? What they heard would have immediately governed their covenant practice, including whether they baptized their infants.

当彼得在五旬节站起来说话时，他的听众完全是犹太人。当他宣告“因为这应许是给你们和你们的儿女，并一切在远方的人，就是主—我们神所召来的”（使徒行传 2:39）时，他们听到了什么？他们所听到的内容将立即决定他们的圣约实践，包括他们是否给婴儿施洗。

Peter's words identify three groups. Many interpreters today read "those who are far off" as Gentiles or "your children" as spiritual descendants. But the decisive question is not how we read these words now, with the benefit of progressive revelation; it is how the Jews heard them then—before Cornelius, before the Jerusalem Council—within the covenantal framework they had always known. And remarkably, Acts gives us the evidence to answer that question. Their subsequent behavior reveals their understanding.

彼得的话语识别出了三组人群。如今许多解释者将“在远方的人”解读为外邦人，或将“你们的儿女”解读为属灵的后裔。但决定性的问题不在于我们现在在渐进启示的益处下如何阅读这些词，而在于当时的犹太人是如何听到这些话的——在哥尼流事件之前，在耶路撒冷会议之前——在他们一直以来所熟知的圣约框架之内。值得注意的是，《使徒行传》为我们提供了回答这个问题的证据。他们随后的行为揭示了他们的理解。

This paper argues that the Jewish Christians at Pentecost understood Peter's three groups as follows:

本文认为，五旬节时的犹太基督徒将彼得提到的三组人群理解如下：

You—the Jews standing before him
Your children—their physical offspring
Those who are far off—Jews scattered among the nations

你们——站在他面前的犹太人
你们的儿女——他们的肉身子嗣
在远方的人——散居在万国中的犹太人

As we will see, the narrative of Acts demonstrates that this was indeed their initial understanding. They were incomplete in their reading of the third group—"those who are far off" ultimately included Gentiles, as the Cornelius episode would reveal. But they were correct in their reading of the second group—"your children" meant exactly what every Jew would have understood: their offspring, the next generation of the covenant community. We know this because no corresponding revelation ever corrected their understanding of children. The correction that came addressed only the scope of adult entry into the covenant, never the status of children within it.

我们将看到，《使徒行传》的叙事证明这确实是他们最初的理解。他们对第三组人群——“在远方的人”——的解读是不完整的，因为哥尼流事件随后揭示了这最终也包括外邦人。但他们对第二组人群的解读是正确的——“你们的儿女”正是每个犹太人都会理解的意思：他们的后裔，圣约群体中的下一代。我们之所以知道这一点，是因为从未有相应的启示来纠正他们对“儿女”的理解。随后的纠正仅针对成年人进入圣约的范围，而从未针对儿童在圣约中的地位。

The book of Acts demonstrates that the Jewish Christians understood "those who are far off" as scattered Israelites, not Gentiles—proven by their behavior and their shock at Cornelius's conversion. If they heard "those who are far off" in traditional Jewish covenant categories, they would have heard "your children" the same way. The later revelation that Gentiles were included addressed adult entry into the covenant—it never revised the status of children.

《使徒行传》表明，犹太基督徒将“在远方的人”理解为散居的以色列人，而非外邦人——这一点由他们的行为以及他们对哥尼流归主的震惊所证明。如果他们是在传统的犹太圣约范畴内听到“在远方的人”，那么他们听到“你们的儿女”时也会以同样的方式理解。后来关于外邦人被接纳的启示是针对成年人进入圣约的——它从未修订儿童的地位。

Every line of scriptural evidence—behavioral, narrative, practical, and epistolary—converges on the same conclusion: the apostles understood and practiced infant baptism as covenant continuity.

每一项圣经证据——无论是行为上的、叙事上的、实践上的，还是书信中的——都指向同一个结论：使徒们将婴儿洗礼理解并实践为圣约的延续性。

The Deuteronomic Template

申命记的模板

Peter's threefold structure was not novel. His Jewish audience would have recognized it immediately from Deuteronomy 30, the great covenant renewal passage that promised Israel's restoration after exile:

彼得的三重结构并非凭空而来。他的犹太听众会立即从申命记 30 章认出这一结构，那是关于以色列在被掳后得恢复的伟大之约更新篇章：

When all these things come upon you ... and you call them to mind among all the nations where the LORD your God has driven you, and return to the LORD your God and obey his voice, according to all that I command you today, you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul, then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes ... and gather you again from all the peoples where the LORD your God has scattered you. If any of you are driven out to the farthest parts under heaven, from there the LORD your God will gather you. (Deut. 30:1–4, emphasis added)

「我所陈明在你面前的这一切咒诅都临到你身上；你在耶和华—你神追赶你到的万国中必心里追念祝福的话；你和你的子孙若尽心尽性归向耶和华—你的神，照着我今日一切所吩咐的听从他的话；那时，耶和华—你的神必怜恤你，救回你这被掳的子民；耶和华—你的神要回转过来，从分散你到的万民中将你招聚回来。你被赶散的人，就是在天涯的，耶和华—你的神也必从那里将你招聚回来。」（申 30:1–4，强调为后加）

The parallel is striking:

这两者的平行之处令人惊叹：

Deuteronomy 30:1–4 申命记 30:1–4	Acts 2:39 使徒行传 2:39
"You" (Israel present) 「你」（当时的以色列人）	"You" (Jews at Pentecost) 「你们」（五旬节时的犹太人）
"Your children" (30:2, 6) 「你的子孙」（30:2, 6）	"Your children" 「你们的儿女」
"Scattered...to the farthest parts" (30:3–4) 「分散……在天涯」（30:3–4）	"All who are far off" 「一切在远方的人」

Peter's Jewish audience would not have heard new covenantal categories. They heard him announcing the fulfillment of what Moses had promised—and Moses had explicitly included children.

彼得的犹太听众听到的并非全新的之约范畴。他们听到的是他在宣告摩西之应许的成就——而摩西已明确地将儿女包含在内。

But the parallel goes deeper. Deuteronomy 30 continues with a promise that sounds remarkably like Jeremiah's New Covenant: “And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live" (Deut. 30:6, emphasis added).

但这种平行关系更为深层。申命记 30 章接下来的应许听起来与耶利米的“新约”极其相似：「耶和华—你神必将你心里和你后裔心里的污秽除掉，好叫你尽心尽性爱耶和华—你的神，使你可以存活」（申 30:6，强调为后加）。

Here is the promise of heart transformation—the same promise Jeremiah would later elaborate as the law "written on hearts" (Jer. 31:33). Yet notice what Deuteronomy explicitly includes: the heart of your offspring (Hebrew: zar'ekha). The promise of heart circumcision is multigenerational. God pledges to transform not only the hearts of those who hear, but the hearts of their children.

这就是关于内心更新的应许——也就是耶利米后来详细阐述的律法「写在他们心上」的应许（耶 31:33）。然而，请注意申命记明确包含了什么：你后裔的心（希伯来语：zar'ekha）。心之割礼的应许是跨代性的。上帝承诺不仅要改变听见之人的心，还要改变他们儿女的心。

The Jews at Pentecost knew this text. When Peter declared that the promise was for them, their children, and those far off, they heard the echo of Moses. And when the Spirit fell—the Spirit who circumcises hearts and writes the law within—they understood this as the fulfillment of what Deuteronomy 30 had promised. That promise had always included their offspring.

五旬节时的犹太人熟悉这段经文。当彼得宣告这应许是给他们、他们的儿女以及在远方的人时，他们听到了摩西之言的回响。而当圣灵降临——这位割除人心并将律法写在内部的圣灵——他们明白这就是申命记 30 章应许的成就。那应许一直包含了他们的后裔。

The Jeremiah 31 Objection Preempted

预先应对关于耶利米书 31 章的反对意见

Before examining the historical evidence from Acts, we must address the primary Baptist objection—the appeal to Jeremiah 31. Baptists argue that the new covenant described there is fundamentally different from previous covenants. They point to Jeremiah's promise that all covenant members will "know the LORD, from the least to the greatest" (Jer. 31:34), arguing that this excludes infants who cannot yet demonstrate such knowledge.

在考察使徒行传的历史证据之前，我们必须首先处理浸信会的主要反对意见——即对耶利米书 31 章的诉求。浸信会主张，那里所描述的新约与之前的约有根本的不同。他们指出耶利米书中的应许，即所有立约成员将“从最小的到至大的都必认识我”（耶 31:34），并据此认为这排除了尚不能证明拥有此类知识的婴孩。

But this objection overlooks what Deuteronomy 30 had already established. The promise of heart transformation—which Jeremiah elaborates—was given centuries earlier by Moses, and it included offspring. If Baptists claim Deuteronomy 30 is prophetic of the new covenant (and they must, since heart circumcision is the essence of new covenant blessing), then they must reckon with the fact that this new covenant prophecy explicitly includes children.

但这种反对意见忽略了申命记 30 章已经确立的事实。关于内心更新的应许（耶利米书对其进行了详述）在几个世纪前就由摩西给出了，且该应许包括后裔。如果浸信会声称申命记 30 章是对新约的预言（他们必须如此，因为心里的割礼是新约福分的本质），那么他们就必须面对这样一个事实：这一新约预言明确地包含了孩子。

Jeremiah 31 does not introduce a new principle that excludes offspring; it elaborates a promise that had always included them. This requires us to read Jeremiah 31 according to the ordinary function of covenantal speech in Scripture. Covenant promises and obligations are frequently announced to the covenant community in comprehensive, adult-capacity language—as is typical of covenantal and prophetic speech—even when that language cannot yet be fulfilled by all members. Such language describes the intended character and maturity of covenant life rather than serving as a prerequisite that restricts covenant membership to those already capable of its full realization.

耶利米书 31 章并没有引入一个排除后裔的新原则；它详述了一个一直包含后裔的应许。这要求我们根据圣经中立约之言的常规功能来阅读耶利米书 31 章。立约的应许和义务经常以涵盖全体、且具备成年人能力的语言向立约群体宣布——这在立约和先知性的言论中十分典型——即便这些语言在当时还不能由所有成员实现。此类语言描述的是立约生活预期的特质和成熟度，而非作为一项前提条件，将立约成员资格限制在那些已经能够完全实现这些特质的人之中。

What then does "from the least to the greatest" mean? Baptists read it as describing the composition of the new covenant—every single member, without exception, will personally know God. Since infants cannot yet "know the LORD," they argue, infants cannot be covenant members. But this reading proves too much. Jeremiah also says, "no longer shall each one teach his neighbor." If needing to be taught disqualifies someone from covenant membership, then Baptists have a problem—they still teach their members. Every church has pastors, discipleship, and instruction. Clearly the phrase does not mean that teaching ceases in the new covenant.

那么，“从最小的到至大的”意味着什么？浸信会将其解读为对新约构成的描述——每一个成员，毫无例外，都将个人地认识神。他们认为，既然婴孩还不能“认识耶和华”，那么婴孩就不能成为立约成员。但这种解读推导得过于绝对。耶利米书还说，“他们各人不再教导自己的邻舍”。如果需要被教导就使一个人失去立约成员资格，那么浸信会就面临一个问题——他们仍然在教导自己的成员。每间教会都有牧师、门徒训练和教导。显然，这句话并不意味着教导在新约中停止了。

The better reading is that Jeremiah describes the democratization of access to God, not a prerequisite for membership. Under the old arrangement, knowledge of God was mediated through a hierarchy—priests and prophets possessed access that ordinary Israelites lacked. The new covenant promise is that this mediation gives way to direct access through the Spirit poured out on all flesh. It describes what will characterize the renewed community, not a prerequisite that must be demonstrated before one may receive the covenant sign.

更好的解读是，耶利米书描述的是接触神的民主化（democratization of access），而非成员资格的前提条件。在旧的安排下，对神的认识是通过等级制度传递的——祭司和先知拥有普通以色列人所缺乏的接触途径。新约的应许是，这种中介将让位于通过倾注在众人身上的圣灵而获得的直接接触。它描述的是更新后的群体将具有什么样的特质，而不是在一个人可以接受立约标志之前必须证明的先决条件。

The pattern throughout Scripture is consistent: cognitive covenant commands describe what characterizes adult covenant members without excluding children from covenant membership and its sign. "Circumcise your hearts" (Deut. 10:16) was commanded to adults who could understand it; eight-day-old infants still received circumcision. "Hear, O Israel" (Deut. 6:4) was addressed to those who could hear; their infants were still covenant members. "They shall all know me" (Jer. 31:34) describes what characterizes the renewed covenant community; it does not specify that only those who already demonstrate this knowledge may receive the covenant sign.

贯穿圣经的模式是一致的：认知性的立约命令描述了成年立约成员的特质，但并未将孩子排除在立约成员资格及其标志之外。“你们要将心里的污秽除掉”（申 10:16）是命令给能够理解此话的成年人的；但出生八天的婴孩仍然接受割礼。“以色列啊，你要听！”（申 6:4）是针对那些能够听见的人说的；但他们的婴孩仍然是立约成员。“他们从最小的到至大的都必认识我”（耶 31:34）描述了更新后的立约群体的特质；它并没有规定只有那些已经证明拥有这种认识的人才能接受立约标志。

The question is not whether heart transformation is essential to the new covenant—it is. The question is whether heart-transformation language functions as a prerequisite for receiving the covenant sign or as a promise that God will fulfill in the covenant community across generations. Deuteronomy 30:6 settles the matter: it is a promise, and the promise includes offspring.

问题不在于内心更新是否是新约的核心——它确实是。问题在于，内心更新的语言是作为接受立约标志的前提条件，还是作为神将在历代立约群体中成就的应许。申命记 30:6 解决了这个问题：这是一个应许，且这个应许包括后裔。

The Evidence from Acts

使徒行传中的证据

The theological argument from Deuteronomy 30 is significant, but the historical evidence from Acts is decisive. We can actually test how the Jewish Christians understood Peter's words by examining their subsequent behavior.

申命记 30 章的神学论证固然重要，但使徒行传中的历史证据则是决定性的。我们可以通过考察犹太基督徒随后的行为，来实际检验他们是如何理解彼得的话语的。

When persecution scattered the church from Jerusalem, those who went out carried the gospel beyond the city—but only to Jews. Acts records that they preached "to no one except Jews only" (Acts 11:19). This detail is crucial. It demonstrates that the early church understood "those who are far off" as scattered Israelites, not Gentiles. Their missionary practice confirms that they were still operating within traditional Jewish covenant categories.

当迫害使教会从耶路撒冷四散时，那些出去的人将福音传到了城外——但仅限于犹太人。使徒行传记载，他们“不向别人讲道，只向犹太人讲”（使徒行传 11:19）。这个细节至关重要。它表明早期教会将“在远方的人”理解为四散的以色列人，而非外邦人。他们的宣教实践证实，他们当时仍是在传统的犹太之约范畴内运作。

This is the key inference: if the Jewish Christians understood "those who are far off" as scattered Jews rather than as Gentiles or spiritual offspring, then they would have understood "your children" in the same traditional Jewish covenant categories—as their physical offspring who belonged to the covenant community and should receive the covenant sign. Some Reformed Baptists argue that "your children" should be understood spiritually—as the elect—appealing to passages like John 6:45. But this argument faces a decisive problem: the Jews demonstrably did not hear Peter this way. If "your children" meant spiritual offspring, then "those who are far off" should also be spiritual (elect Gentiles). You cannot selectively spiritualize one element while leaving another in its covenantal sense. They heard the whole statement through Jewish covenantal ears. The appeal to John 6:45 may work as a theological interpretation, but it fails as a historical claim about how these Jews heard Peter in 30 AD.

这是一个关键的推论：如果犹太基督徒将“在远方的人”理解为四散的犹太人，而非外邦人或属灵的后裔，那么他们也会在同样的传统犹太之约范畴内理解“你们的儿女”——即他们那些属于之约群体并应当接受之约记号的肉身子孙。一些改革宗浸信会信徒主张，“你们的儿女”应当被属灵地理解——即选民——并引用如约翰福音 6:45 等经文。但这一论点面临一个决定性的问题：事实证明，当时的犹太人并非这样听彼得说话的。如果“你们的儿女”是指属灵后裔，那么“在远方的人”也应当是属灵的（选民外邦人）。你不能选择性地将其中一个元素属灵化，而将另一个保留在之约的意义上。他们是用犹太之约的耳朵听完整段话的。引用约翰福音 6:45 或许在神学诠释上行得通，但作为关于公元 30 年这些犹太人如何听彼得说话的历史主张，则是失败的。

The Cornelius episode confirms this reading. In chapter 10, God gives Peter a vision—three times—declaring that what God has made clean, Peter must not call unclean. When messengers from Cornelius arrive, the Spirit tells Peter to go without hesitation. Yet even then, Peter struggles to understand what God is doing. When the Spirit falls on Cornelius's household, Peter is astonished. In chapter 11, the Jerusalem church rebukes him for associating with uncircumcised men.

哥尼流的事件证实了这一解读。在第 10 章中，神三次给彼得异象，宣告神所洁净的，彼得不可说是不洁净的。当哥尼流的使者到达时，圣灵告诉彼得不要犹豫，立即前往。然而即便如此，彼得仍难以理解神在做什么。当圣灵降在哥尼流一家身上时，彼得感到十分惊讶。在第 11 章中，耶路撒冷教会责备他与未受割礼的人交往。

Peter's defense is revealing: "If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?" (Acts 11:17).

彼得的辩护揭示了真相：“神既然给他们恩赐，像在我们信主耶稣基督的时候给了我们一样；我是谁，能拦阻神呢？”（使徒行传 11:17）。

Peter admits that he had been standing in God's way. This is a retrospective acknowledgment that his earlier understanding had been incomplete. He had heard Acts 2:39 in traditional Jewish covenant categories—and he was wrong about the scope of "those who are far off."

彼得承认他此前一直在拦阻神。这是一个回顾性的承认，表明他早先的理解是不完整的。他曾是以传统的犹太之约范畴来理解使徒行传 2:39 的——而他对“在远方的人”的范围理解错了。

The same logic applies to the qualifying phrase, "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." Some read this as limiting the promise to those who are effectually called—that is, the regenerate elect. On this reading, only those who respond savingly to God's call are truly in view, which would exclude infants.

同样的逻辑也适用于限定短语“就是主—我们神所召来的”。有些人将其解读为将应许限制在那些被有效呼召的人身上——即重生之选民。根据这种解读，只有那些对神的呼召做出救恩回应的人才是真正的目标对象，这将把婴儿排除在外。

But this interpretation faces the same problem as the spiritual reading of "your children": it does not match how the Jews actually heard Peter's words. The Jewish Christians understood Peter within their existing covenantal framework—the framework they had inherited and lived within their entire lives. They would have heard "whom the Lord our God calls" as describing how God gathers his people into this new phase of covenant history—not as a restriction that would exclude their children from the covenant community.

但这种解释面临着与将“你们的儿女”进行属灵解读相同的问题：它不符合犹太人实际听到彼得话语时的理解。犹太基督徒是在他们现有的圣约框架内理解彼得的——这个框架是他们继承并生活在其中的一生之基。他们听到“主—我们神所召来的”时，会将其理解为神如何将他的子民聚集到圣约历史的新阶段中，而不会将其视为一种限制，从而将他们的孩子排除在圣约群体之外。

Consider the covenantal logic. God calls; his people respond; the covenant community consists of those who answer that call together with their households. This is precisely the pattern we see throughout Acts—entire households entering the covenant when the head of household believes. The "call" explains how adults enter the covenant; it does not negate the covenantal structure that has always included believers and their children together.

请考虑圣约的逻辑：神呼召，他的子民回应，圣约群体由那些回应呼召的人及其全家组成。这正是我们在《使徒行传》中贯穿始终看到的模式——当一家之主信主时，整个家庭便进入圣约。这里的“呼召”解释了成年人如何进入圣约，但它并没有否定那个始终将信徒及其儿女包含在内的圣约结构。

If the qualifying clause meant "only the regenerate," we would expect the apostles to have clarified this—especially given how easily the Jews would have misunderstood. But no such clarification appears. The Jews heard the promise covenantally, and nothing in the subsequent narrative suggests they were wrong to do so.

如果这个限定子句的意思是“仅限重生者”，我们理应期待使徒们对此做出澄清——尤其是考虑到犹太人如此容易产生误解。但文中并未出现这样的澄清。犹太人是以圣约的方式听到这个应许的，随后的叙述中没有任何迹象表明他们的这种理解是错误的。

But notice what the Cornelius revelation corrected: Peter's understanding of Gentile inclusion. What it did not correct—what is never mentioned, debated, or even hinted at—is the status of children. If the apostles' covenantal understanding of "your children" was also mistaken, the Cornelius moment was the natural point to address both errors. Yet only one correction appears.

但请注意，哥尼流的启示所纠正的是什么：是彼得对外邦人接纳的理解。它没有纠正——且从未提及、讨论甚至暗示——的是孩子的地位。如果使徒们对“你们的儿女”的圣约性理解也是错误的，那么哥尼流事件本是同时解决这两个错误的自然契机。然而，文中仅出现了一项纠正。

The Household Principle After Cornelius

哥尼流事件后的家庭原则

If the Cornelius revelation had corrected the covenantal understanding of children—if the apostles now understood that only professing believers should receive baptism—we would expect to see this reflected in subsequent baptismal practice. Instead, we find the opposite: household baptisms continue throughout Acts.

如果哥尼流的启示纠正了关于孩子的圣约性理解——如果使徒们现在意识到只有公开承认信仰的信徒才应受洗——我们理应在随后的洗礼实践中看到这一点。相反，我们发现的是截然相反的情况：家庭洗礼在《使徒行传》中持续出现。

After Cornelius, Luke records:

在哥尼流事件之后，路加记载：

Lydia's household—"She was baptized, and her household as well" (Acts 16:15)
The Philippian jailer's household—"He was baptized at once, he and all his family" (Acts 16:33)
Crispus's household—"Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household" (Acts 18:8)
Stephanas's household—"I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16)

吕底亚一家——“她和她一家既领了洗”（使徒行传 16:15）
腓立比禁卒一家——“他和属乎他的人立时都受了洗”（使徒行传 16:33）
基利司布一家——“管会堂的基利司布和全家都信了主”（使徒行传 18:8）
司提反一家——“我也给司提反家施过洗”（哥林多前书 1:16）

The Greek term oikos ("household") carries deep covenantal resonance—translating the Hebrew bayit, the household unit that received covenant blessings and obligations together from Abraham onward (Gen. 17:11–13).

希腊词 oikos（“家/户”）具有深厚的圣约共鸣——它翻译了希伯来词 bayit，即从亚伯拉罕起就共同接受圣约祝福与义务的家庭单位（创 17:11–13）。

This household principle continues unbroken through Acts. The apostles did not begin baptizing only professing individuals after Cornelius; they continued baptizing households. If the Cornelius revelation had taught them that children should no longer be included until they could profess faith, Luke's repeated mention of household baptisms would be inexplicable.

这一家庭原则在《使徒行传》中得到了延续。使徒们在哥尼流事件之后，并未开始仅为公开承认信仰的个人施洗，而是继续为整个家庭施洗。如果哥尼流的启示教会他们孩子在能公开承认信仰之前不应被纳入，那么路加反复提到家庭施洗就无法解释了。

Baptists often respond that these households may have consisted entirely of adults, or that all members of the household believed. But this misses the point. The very category of household baptism reflects traditional Jewish covenantal thinking. If the apostles had come to understand baptism as the sign of individual profession only, they would have baptized believers, not households. The continued use of household language demonstrates that the covenantal framework remained intact.

浸信会信徒经常回应说，这些家庭可能完全由成年人组成，或者家庭中的所有成员都信了。但这忽略了重点。家庭施洗这一类别本身就反映了传统的犹太圣约思维。如果使徒们已经将洗礼理解为仅是个人承认信仰的标志，他们将会为信徒施洗，而非为家庭施洗。对家庭语言的持续使用表明，圣约框架依然完好无损。

The Epistolary Confirmation

书信的确认

If the apostles had corrected the Jewish understanding of "your children" from physical to spiritual, they would have needed to reinforce that correction in their subsequent teaching to the churches. Instead, we find the opposite—they continue using covenantal family language without any clarification that its meaning has changed.

如果使徒们将犹太人对“你们的儿女”的理解从肉身层面修正为属灵层面，他们就需要在其随后对教会的教导中强化这一修正。相反，我们发现的是截然相反的情况——他们继续使用圣约家庭语言，而没有做出任何关于其含义已改变的说明。

Consider the evidence: "For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy" (1 Cor. 7:14).

请看证据：“因为不信的丈夫就因着妻子成了圣洁，并且不信的妻子就因着丈夫成了圣洁。不然，你们的儿女就不洁净，但如今他们是圣洁的了”（林前 7:14）。

Paul uses the same covenantal holiness language—hagios, "holy" or "set apart"—that described Israel's covenant status throughout the Old Testament. And he applies it to the physical children of believers. If "your children" in Acts 2:39 now meant spiritual offspring rather than physical descendants, Paul's continued use of this language would have been catastrophically confusing.

保罗使用了同样的圣约圣洁语言——hagios，“圣洁”或“分别出来”——这在整个旧约中被用来描述以色列的圣约地位。并且他将其应用于信徒的肉身儿女。如果《使徒行传》2:39 中的“你们的儿女”现在是指属灵后裔而非肉身后裔，保罗继续使用这种语言将会造成灾难性的混淆。

"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right." (Eph. 6:1)

“你们作儿女的，要在主里听从父母，这是理所当然的。”（弗 6:1）

"Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord." (Col. 3:20)

“你们作儿女的，要凡事听从父母，因为这是主所喜悦的。”（歌 3:20）

Paul addresses children directly as members of the covenant community—"in the Lord"—recipients of apostolic instruction with obligations flowing from their covenant status.

保罗直接将孩子视为圣约群体——“在主里”——的成员，他们是使徒教导的接收者，其义务源于他们的圣约地位。

Paul is writing to churches that include both Jewish and Gentile believers. If the covenantal understanding of children had been corrected—if "your children" now meant "the elect" rather than "your offspring"—Paul's continued use of the old covenantal language would be inexplicable. You do not correct a fundamental misunderstanding about covenant membership and then continue using the same terminology that caused the confusion.

保罗写信给的教会中既包括犹太信徒，也包括外邦信徒。如果关于孩子的圣约理解已经被修正——如果“你们的儿女”现在是指“选民”而非“你们的后代”——那么保罗继续使用旧的圣约语言就无法解释了。你不会在修正了关于圣约成员身份的根本性误解之后，仍然继续使用导致该混淆的相同术语。

Unless, of course, there was no confusion to correct.

除非，当然，根本没有需要修正的混淆。

The Argument from Silence

沉默的论据

What is absent from the New Testament is just as telling as what is present. The great controversies concern whether to include Gentiles, never whether to exclude children. Had the apostles overturned the Abrahamic pattern, it would have provoked outrage, required explanation, and left a record.

新约中缺失的内容与存在的内容一样具有说服力。巨大的争议集中在是否要接纳外邦人，而从未涉及是否要排除孩子。如果使徒们推翻了亚伯拉罕的模式，这必然会引起愤怒，需要解释，并留下记录。

For two thousand years, children of believers had received the covenant sign by God's explicit design (Gen. 17:7). To overturn this would have been a seismic shift—far more significant than Gentile inclusion, which the prophets had anticipated.

两千年来，信徒的孩子一直根据上帝明确的计划（创 17:7）接受圣约标志。推翻这一点将是一个剧烈的转变——比接纳外邦人（先知们早已预见）要重大得多。

Yet Acts records no such controversy. We find extended debates about circumcision requirements for Gentiles (Acts 15), fierce resistance to eating with uncircumcised men (Acts 11:2–3), and careful deliberation about what to require of Gentile converts. But not a single word about excluding children from the covenant community.

然而，《使徒行传》没有记录这样的争议。我们看到了关于外邦人是否需要受割礼的广泛辩论（徒 15），对与未受割礼的人一同进食的激烈抵制（徒 11:2–3），以及关于对外邦皈依者要求什么的谨慎考量。但没有一个字提到将孩子排除在圣约群体之外。

The silence is best explained by continuity, not omission. The controversies of the early church concerned the horizontal expansion of the covenant (to Gentiles)—never its vertical contraction (excluding children). If both changes had occurred, we would expect both to leave traces. Only one does.

这种沉默最好用延续性而非遗漏来解释。早期教会的争议集中在圣约向外邦人的“水平扩张”上，而从未涉及圣约的“垂直收缩”（即排除孩子）。如果这两项变动都发生了，我们理应能看到两者的痕迹。但事实上，只有一项留下了痕迹。

Conclusion

结论

The new covenant did not narrow the scope of God's promises; it expanded them. The children were already in. The surprise was that the Gentiles were, too. Even if the early Jewish Christians initially misunderstood, their covenantal reading would have led them to baptize their infants—and the Cornelius revelation, which corrected their understanding of Gentile inclusion, never touched the status of children.

新约并没有缩小神应许的范围，而是将其扩大了。孩子原本就在其中；令人惊讶的是，外邦人现在也可以进入。即便早期的犹太基督徒最初有所误解，但他们的圣约式解读也会引导他们为婴孩施洗——而纠正他们对外邦人接纳之理解的哥尼流启示，从未触及孩子的地位。

Deuteronomy 30 had promised that God would circumcise the hearts of his people and their offspring. Jeremiah 31 elaborated this promise as a new covenant with the law written on hearts. At Pentecost, Peter announced that this promise had arrived—for those present, for their children, and for all whom the Lord would call from the farthest parts of the earth.

申命记 30 章曾应许耶和华神必使他的子民“和他们的后裔心受割礼”。耶利米书 31 章进一步阐述了这一应许，将其描述为一部律法写在心上的新约。在五旬节，彼得宣布这一应许已经临到——不仅是对在场的人，也是对他们的孩子，以及主将从地极召集的所有人。

From the day of Pentecost, Jewish believers would have continued the practice embedded in their covenantal DNA: including their children in the covenant community and marking them with the covenant sign. This was not theological innovation but covenant fidelity—trusting the same God who had promised to circumcise the hearts of his people and their offspring.

从五旬节那天起，犹太信徒会继续实践植根于他们圣约基因中的习惯：将孩子纳入圣约群体，并为他们施以圣约的记号。这并非神学创新，而是对圣约的忠诚——信靠那位应许要使他的子民及其后裔心受割礼的神。

Ronnie Brown

Ronnie Brown has served as a ruling elder in the PCA for over twenty years. His professional background is in IT, but his passion is Reformed theology, particularly covenant theology, soteriology, and biblical exegesis.Ronnie Brown 在美国长老会 (PCA) 担任执政长老已超过二十年。他的专业背景是 IT，但他的热情在于改革宗神学，特别是圣约神学、救恩论和圣经释经。

Topics Baptism, The Covenants主题洗礼, 圣约

Date Tuesday, May 26, 2026日期 2026年5月26日，星期二

遮蔽敌眼的面纱：论托尔金、愚拙与常规恩典手段

Tue, 19 May 2026 15:00:00 +0000

In recent years, there has been a fair amount of criticism of our cultural institutions. Whether they be political, academic, or ecclesiastical, anyone comfortably in a place of leadership in any institution is in the crosshairs of this criticism. Things have only gotten worse on their watch, after all.

近年来，人们对我们的文化机构有不少批评。无论是政治、学术还是教会机构，任何处于领导地位且生活安逸的人都成为了这些批评的靶心。毕竟，在他们的把守下，情况反而变得更糟了。

Older pastors and confessional churches have been lumped into this kind of criticism as well, either for not being focused enough on social justice and activism; or, by those sympathetic to Christian Nationalism, for having what seems to be an incredulous posture to politics and culture.

年长的牧师和信条教会也被卷入这类批评之中，要么是因为不够关注社会正义和激进主义；要么是被那些同情基督教民族主义的人批评，认为他们对政治和文化采取了一种看似不以为然的态度。

The general mood, even on topics other than culture and politics, is that the church and its gatekeepers have become comfortable, weak, and even corrupt.

普遍的情绪是（即便在文化和政治之外的话题上也是如此），教会及其把关人已经变得安于现状、软弱，甚至腐败。

This fits within what many commentators have called a Meaning Crisis. Cognitive scientist John Vervaeke has created a 50-part course and written multiple books on the Meaning Crisis. “We are in the midst of a mental health crisis,” he writes. “This mental health crisis is itself due to, and engaged with, crises in the environment and the political system. Those in turn are enmeshed within a deeper cultural historical crisis that I call ‘The Meaning Crisis’.… People are feeling disconnected from themselves, from each other, from the world, and from a viable and foreseeable future.”

这符合许多评论家所称的“意义危机”（Meaning Crisis）。认知科学家约翰·弗瓦克（John Vervaeke）为此创建了一个由50部分组成的课程，并撰写了多本关于意义危机的书籍。他写道：“我们正处于一场心理健康危机之中。这场心理健康危机本身是由环境和政治系统的危机引起的，并与之相关。而这些危机又交织在一种更深层的文化历史危机之中，我将其称为‘意义危机’……人们感到自己与自我、与他人、与世界，以及与一个可行且可预见的未来脱节了。”

Even amongst committed Christians, there is a sense that the scripts and narratives of the previous generation simply are not working. Many are looking for more rebellious and radical alternatives. If current leaders are not offering a viable and foreseeable future, then things need to be torn down, discarded, started anew, etc. And as a younger millennial myself, I sympathize with the more youthful reactionary impulse. Things are not as they should be. But in my own wrestling with these matters, and with the help of J. R. R. Tolkien, I have become more convinced that even in the face of sclerotic ecclesiastical and cultural systems, the strategy of the church and its ministry—and even how we live our lives—should not be burnt to the ground; rather, it should be regrounded in the foolish, ordinary means of grace.

即使在虔诚的基督徒中间，也有一种感觉，即前一代人的剧本和叙事根本行不通。许多人正在寻找更具反叛性和激进性的替代方案。如果目前的领导者不能提供一个可行且可预见的未来，那么一切都需要被拆除、丢弃、重新开始，等等。作为一名年轻的千禧一代，我同情这种更具青年色彩的反弹冲动。现状并非应有的样子。但在我对这些问题的挣扎中，在J. R. R. 托尔金（J. R. R. Tolkien）的启发下，我愈发坚信，即使面对僵化的教会和文化体制，教会及其事奉的策略——甚至是我们生活的方式——也不应被付之一炬；相反，它应当重新扎根于那看似愚拙的、平凡的恩典手段之中。

“There are other forces at work in this world”

“这个世界上还有其他力量在运作”

In light of the institutional decay in late modernity, it is easy to look at any clerics in these institutions as gatekeepers and good ol’ boys in the country club. When a pastor over the age of 60 chides a young congregant to not spend so much time fretting about what he sees online and instead focus on the ministry of the church through the preaching of the law and the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and observance of the ordinary means of grace, it is easy for the pastor to be dismissed as a “boomer with his head in the sand.”

鉴于晚期现代性的体制衰败，人们很容易将这些机构中的任何圣职人员视为把关人，或是乡村俱乐部里的“老伙计”（good ol’ boys）。当一位60岁以上的牧师责备一名年轻会友不要花太多时间焦虑于网络上的见闻，而应通过律法和福音的宣讲、圣礼的施行以及对平凡恩典手段的持守，来关注教会的事奉时，这位牧师很容易被斥为“一个鸵鸟心态的婴儿潮一代”。

It seems only natural for younger generations to sneer and roll their eyes at what feels like the superficial slogans and trite narratives they were raised with. And there are kernels of truth to this ironic sentiment. Speaking from experience, while you struggle with the prices at the pump, you can only drive by Southern California’s beachfront properties for so long before the opulence begins to feel gross. You can only be so earnest about defending the church before recurring stories of pastoral abuse wear you down.

对于年轻一代来说，对那些在成长过程中接触到的、感觉像是肤浅口号和陈词滥调的叙事嗤之以鼻并翻白眼，似乎是很自然的事。这种讽刺的情绪中确实包含着一定的真理。根据经验，当你为加油站的油价苦恼时，在南加州海滨豪宅区开车经过一段时间后，那种奢华就会开始让人感到厌恶。在不断重复的牧养虐待故事将你消磨殆尽之前，你对捍卫教会的热忱也只能维持一段时间。

The “focus on word and sacrament ministry” response, especially when the world is burning, can feel like pastoral negligence. For those who are struggling with any kind of existential concerns, it seems only fitting to harbor suspicions that everything, even the church, is broken and needs to change, now.

当世界在燃烧时，“专注于道与圣礼的职事”这种回应，可能会让人觉得是牧养上的失职。对于那些正处于各种存在主义忧虑中的人来说，他们难免会心生怀疑，认为一切——甚至包括教会——都已破碎，且现在就必须改变。

I’m not going to tell folks caught in the middle of that rumination that they simply need to chill out. Decadence, neglect, and acedia are real vices that far too many leaders are far too comfortable with.

我不会告诉那些陷入这种沉思之中的人们，让他们简单地“冷静下来”。颓废、忽视与灵性懈怠（acedia）是真实的罪恶，而太多的领导者对此过于习以为常。

And yet I am not going to applaud this cynicism—as some do—describing our world of wars, school shootings, unchecked abuses against the innocent, and various crises as impossibly difficult. After reckoning with the maladies around us, it is still important to say that the pessimistic pathology of younger generations, as reasonable as it feels, is also terribly naive.

然而，我也不会像某些人那样，为这种犬儒主义喝彩，将我们这个充满战争、校园枪击、对无辜者肆无忌惮的虐待以及各种危机的世界描述为难到无法承受。在正视周围的病灶之后，依然重要的是指出，年轻一代的悲观病理虽然感觉合理，但其实也极其天真。

It turns out that cynicism is not exactly a clear-eyed assessment of reality. Middle-class millennials will be financially better off than their boomer parents, and there are good reasons to be skeptical of alarmism and the catastrophic reads on the world that are laundered to us online. We can resist naive despair while still taking existential problems seriously.

事实证明，犬儒主义并非是对现实的清醒评估。中产阶级的千禧一代在经济状况上会比他们的婴儿潮父母更好，而且我们有充分的理由去质疑那些危言耸听之词，以及在网上被洗刷后传达给我们的关于世界的灾难性解读。我们可以在严肃对待存在主义问题的同时，抵制天真的绝望。

In the midst of our bereavements, it is important to remember that our default assumption as modern Westerners, especially Americans, is to look for pragmatic solutions to all of life’s problems. We tend to think that the right methods and techniques, if tried with utmost sincerity, will bring about all of our desired outcomes. If things aren’t working, we can scrap whatever practices we are doing and try again. Scott Clark has explained some of this impulse as the “Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty (QIRC).” Any talk that plays down triumphal activism and instead encourages Christians to persevere as pilgrims on the way to the heavenly city smells of “amillennialist defeatism.” Instead, we desire for our faith to be manifested, the church to be visibly triumphant, for change and transformation to be measurable and quantifiable.

在我们的丧失与悲痛之中，重要的是要记住，作为现代西方人（尤其是美国人），我们的默认假设是为生活中所有的难题寻找实用主义的解决方案。我们倾向于认为，只要以极大的诚意尝试正确的方法和技术，就能带来所有期望的结果。如果行不通，我们就可以摒弃现有的做法，重新尝试。斯科特·克拉克（Scott Clark）将这种冲动解释为“追求不合法的宗教确定性（QIRC）”。任何淡化凯旋主义激进主义，而鼓励基督徒作为前往天城的朝圣者坚忍前行的谈论，听起来都像是“无千禧年论的失败主义”。相反，我们渴望信仰能被彰显，教会能显而易见地得胜，而改变与转型则是可衡量且可量化的。

Whatever righteous anger we might feel, it is important to resist this tendency. This might appear like I am capitulating and toeing the line of the “gatekeepers.” But I am not advocating for a posture of resignation in the Christian life. Far be it.

无论我们感受到怎样的正义之怒，抵制这种倾向都至关重要。这看起来可能像是我在妥协，在顺从那些“把关人”的立场。但我并非在主张基督徒的生活应采取一种听天由命的态度。绝非如此。

The pessimism and cynicism that we breathe, day in and day out, keeps us blind to the wonderful works of God that are happening even now. We think that a clear-eyed assessment of reality means taking into account how the wheels of power are turning, which power brokers are part of backdoor conversations, what cabals are plotting, etc. However much those accountings might be helpful to understand, a deeper reckoning with reality—a deeper truth—is needed. It is not found in the structures and systems of the world but in the mystical and mysterious inbreaking of heaven, through prayer, the Lord’s Supper, baptism, and the foolhardy preaching of the word of God.

我们日复一日呼吸的悲观与犬儒主义，使我们对即便在此时此刻仍在发生的上帝的奇妙作为视而不见。我们认为，对现实的清醒评估意味着要考虑到权力之轮如何运转、哪些权力掮客参与了密室对话、哪些阴谋集团在策划什么，等等。尽管这些考量对于理解现实有所帮助，但我们更需要对现实进行更深层的正视——一种更深层的真理。这种真理不在于世界的结构和系统，而在于天国通过祷告、圣餐、洗礼以及对上帝话语的大胆宣讲而实现的神秘且玄奥的闯入。

Such things might feel like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, but to take our eyes off of these things and turn them to the wisdom of the world is to look away from God himself and to miss entirely what Tolkien calls the eucatastrophe, a "sudden and miraculous grace."

这些事情可能感觉就像是在泰坦尼克号上重新排列甲板椅，但如果我们将目光从这些事情上移开，转而寻求世上的智慧，那就是在回避上帝本身，并且完全错过了托尔金所称的“正向剧变”（eucatastrophe），即一种“突然且奇迹般的恩典”。

“Let folly be our cloak”

“让愚拙成为我们的斗篷”

My fellow pessimists will find a fellow traveler in Tolkien. While his contemporaries were confident that the arc of history would be limitless progress, Tolkien vehemently opposed such modernist notions. And while Tolkien had a bleak view of history, he surely wasn’t a postmodernist, the likes of which, especially after WWI and WWII, radically deconstructed Western society’s modern optimism.

那些和我一样悲观的人会在托尔金身上找到一个同路人。当他的同代人坚信历史的弧线将是无限的进步时，托尔金强烈反对这种现代主义观念。虽然托尔金对历史持有阴郁的看法，但他绝非后现代主义者——后现代主义者（尤其是在一战和二战之后）彻底解构了西方社会的现代乐观主义。

While our cultural moods ebb and flow between modern optimism and postmodern cynicism, Tolkien stood outside this pendulum. Tolkien was a committed Catholic. He saw the bleak effects of industrialization on his boyhood home and witnessed the horrors of trench warfare and the spread of authoritarianism. And like his friend C. S. Lewis, he was a medievalist.

当我们的文化情绪在现代乐观主义与后现代的愤世嫉俗之间起伏波动时，托尔金站在了这个钟摆之外。托尔金是一位虔诚的天主教徒。他看到了工业化对他童年故乡带来的阴郁影响，见证了战壕战的恐怖和威权主义的蔓延。而且，就像他的朋友 C. S. 路易斯一样，他是一位中世纪主义者。

Instead of seeing history as linear, evolving from the arcane and mundane to a progressive utopia, he saw history as cyclical. Each age deals with the same perennial problems but gets further away from its mythic grandeur, gradually succumbing to entropy with each passing cycle. More can be said about this, but Tolkien’s assessment of history isn’t just the musings of some dour and curmudgeonly professor. His views never amounted to despair or cynicism; as is his read on history, they are tethered and illumined by hope.

他并不将历史视为线性的，认为历史是从神秘与平凡演进向进步的乌托邦，而是将其视为循环的。每个时代都面对着同样永恒的问题，但随着每个周期的更迭，历史离其神话般的壮丽越来越远，逐渐屈从于熵增的衰败。关于这一点还可以详述，但托尔金对历史的评估并非某个阴沉且脾气古怪的教授的随笔沉思。他的观点从未演变为绝望或愤世嫉俗；正如他对历史的解读一样，这些观点被希望所系住并照亮。

This is alluded to throughout The Lord of the Rings. In the film adaptation, while Frodo and Gandalf are in the Mines of Moria, Frodo laments,

这一点在整个《指环王》中都有提及。在电影改编版中，当佛罗多和甘道夫在摩瑞亚矿坑时，佛罗多感叹道：

“It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill Gollum when he had the chance.” Notice how Gandalf’s answer isn’t merely a reprimand or a lecture on providence.

“可惜比尔博在有机会的时候没有杀死咕噜。”请注意，甘道夫的回答不仅仅是责备，或是一场关于神圣护理的教训。

Gandalf: “Pity? It's pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play in it, for good or evil, before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.”

甘道夫：“可惜？正是因为怜悯，比尔博才没有下手。许多活着的人本该死去，而有些死去的人本该活着。佛罗多，你能给他们生命吗？不要太急于以审判之名施行死刑。即使是最睿智的人也无法预见所有的结局。我的内心告诉我，在这一切结束之前，咕噜无论在善或恶方面，都将扮演某种角色。比尔博的怜悯可能会主宰许多人的命运。”

Frodo: “I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.”

佛罗多：“我希望戒指从未来到我身边。我希望这一切从未发生。”

Gandalf: “So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides that of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, in which case you were also meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought.”

甘道夫：“所有活到那个时代的人都会如此，但这并非由他们决定。我们唯一需要决定的是，如何利用赋予我们的时间。弗罗多，在这个世界上，除了邪恶之外，还有其他力量在起作用。比尔博注定要找到那枚戒指，在这种情况下，你也注定要拥有它。这是一个令人鼓舞的想法。”

There are other forces at work, indeed. And this is why, at the Council of Elrond in Rivendell, they decided not to strike back at the Dark Lord with his own ring. In the midst of the council’s deliberation, a chief counselor of Elrond's household says in Tolkien's work:

确实，还有其他力量在起作用。这就是为什么在瑞文戴尔的埃隆会议上，他们决定不使用黑暗之主的戒指来反击他。在会议商议期间，埃隆家的一位首席顾问在托尔金的作品中说道：

“What strength have we for the finding of the Fire in which [the Ring] was made? That is the path of despair. Of folly I would say, if the long wisdom of Elrond did not forbid me.”

“我们要寻找制造[戒指]之火的力量从何而来？那是绝望之路。如果不是因为埃隆深远的智慧禁止我这么说，我会称之为愚蠢。”

“Despair, or folly?” said Gandalf. “It is not despair, for despair is only for those who see the end beyond all doubt. We do not. It is wisdom to recognize necessity, when all other courses have been weighed, though as folly it may appear to those who cling to false hope. Well, let folly be our cloak, a veil before the eyes of the Enemy! For he is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety in the scales of his malice. But the only measure that he knows is desire, desire for power; and so he judges all hearts. Into his heart the thought will not enter that any will refuse it, that having the Ring we may seek to destroy it. If we seek this, we shall put him out of reckoning.”

“绝望，还是愚蠢？”甘道夫说，“这不是绝望，因为绝望只属于那些毫无疑问地预见到结局的人。而我们并非如此。当所有其他方案都被权衡之后，承认必然性便是智慧，尽管在那些执迷于虚假希望的人看来，这可能像愚蠢一样。那么，就让愚蠢成为我们的斗篷，成为敌人眼前的面纱吧！因为他极其聪明，在他的恶意天平上精确地权衡一切。但他唯一知道的衡量标准是欲望，对权力的欲望；因此他以此审判所有人的心。他的心中绝不会想到有人会拒绝权力，想到我们拥有戒指却是为了寻求摧毁它。如果我们追求这一点，我们将使他措手不及。”

“At least for a while,” said Elrond. “The road must be trod, but it will be very hard. And neither strength nor wisdom will carry us far upon it. This quest may be attempted by the weak with as much hope as the strong. Yet such is off the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.”

“至少在一段时间内是这样，”埃隆说，“这条路必须走下去，但会非常艰难。无论是力量还是智慧，都无法让我们在其中走得太远。弱者尝试这次探索所拥有的希望，与强者一样多。然而，这与那些推动世界运转的壮举背道而驰：小手在必须做的时候完成它们，而伟人们的目光则在别处。”

In the epic of Tolkien’s literary masterpiece, he does in fantasy and fairy tale what few theologians and professors can do in lectures. In his characters, we see despair assuaged, courage enlivened, contempt tempered. Ultimately, Tolkien reminds us that God has chosen what is foolish in the world to shame the wise (1 Cor. 1:27). Precisely because this is what God does, we can trust that the best strategy for the church and for us individually in the Christian life is not to relent to our reactionary impulses but to “Let folly be our cloak!”

在托尔金文学杰作的史诗中，他用幻想和童话实现了极少数神学家和教授在讲座中能做到的事情。在他的角色身上，我们看到了绝望被抚慰，勇气被激发，轻蔑被克制。最终，托尔金提醒我们，神却拣选了世上愚拙的，叫有智慧的羞愧（林前 1:27）。正因为这就是神的作为，我们可以相信，教会以及我们在基督徒生活中的个人最佳策略，不是屈从于我们的反应性冲动，而是“让愚蠢成为我们的斗篷！”

We might think hanging on to the ordinary means of grace is an act of despair, but it's not. We can’t fathom that in these plain practices, by faith, we are participating in the most powerful things in the world. Not in a methodological, technical, or pragmatic sense; the rituals of the church do not coax God as if he’s a feral animal. God’s mystical and mysterious work is beyond all of that. Rather, they are the very inbreaking of the New Creation in our lives.

我们可能会认为坚持平凡的恩典手段是一种绝望之举，但事实并非如此。我们无法想象，通过信心，我们在这些朴素的实践中参与了世界上最强大的事情。这不是在方法论、技术或实用主义的意义上；教会的礼仪并非像诱导野生动物那样诱导神。神神秘且奥妙的工作远超这一切。相反，它们正是新创造在我们生命中的切入。

You see, in a world where God has revealed himself, become incarnate, died for our sins, and risen for our justification, who promises to come again to judge the living and the dead, there is no room for cultural moods to dictate our life and ministry.

你看，在一个神已经启示自己、道成肉身、为我们的罪而死、为我们的称义而复活，并承诺将再次降临以审判活人与死人的世界里，没有空间让文化情绪来主导我们的生活和事奉。

“With as much hope as the strong”

“弱者亦有同样的希望”

Around New Year’s, I finished reading The Fellowship of the Ring to my nine- and seven-year-old children. I was their age when I listened to the Fellowship on cassette tapes I rented from my town’s local library. Aside from this being a monumental moment in parenting, as I read these sections to my own children, I was moved to tears. I remembered bleak seasons in my life and church, where tears seemed to be my food day and night. Where harbored resentment and despair not only got the better of me, they consumed me. When I looked at my life, it felt as if I could only see the forces of darkness. It felt as though I could do nothing. I could only pray, I could only receive the Lord’s Supper, I could only hear my pastor preach the word of God—I could do nothing but attend to these foolish means of grace. As I read the Fellowship, it almost felt as if Gandalf were helping me with my burdens!

在新年期间，我给九岁和七岁的孩子读完了《魔戒：护戒使者》（The Fellowship of the Ring）。在我那个年纪时，我也曾听过从镇上当地图书馆租来的《护戒使者》录音带。这不仅是育儿过程中的一个里程碑时刻，而且当我把这些章节读给自己的孩子听时，我不禁潸然泪下。我想起了生命和教会中那些凄凉的季节，那时我的眼泪在昼夜之间成了我的食物。潜藏的愤恨与绝望不仅战胜了我，更将我吞噬。当我审视自己的生活时，感觉自己只能看到黑暗势力。我觉得自己无能为力。我只能祷告，只能领圣餐，只能听我的牧师传讲上帝的话语——除了参与这些愚拙的恩典手段，我别无他法。当我阅读《护戒使者》时，几乎觉得甘道夫在帮我分担重担！

I can’t tell you when exactly light started to break through in life, but it did. I can’t say exactly when I grew in love for my wife and children, but I know that I have. I don’t remember the date on the calendar when my prayers went from lamentation to praise. I couldn’t precisely explain how so many desperate prayers over the years were answered, but when I look back, so many of them were. I can’t pinpoint how the Lord continued to guard and consecrate his church, but I know that he has.

我无法告诉你生命中的光芒究竟是在何时开始透进来的，但它确实出现了。我无法准确地说我是在何时增长了对妻子和孩子的爱，但我知道我确实如此。我不记得日历上的哪一天我的祷告从哀歌变成了赞美。我无法精确地解释多年来如此多绝望的祷告是如何得到回应的，但当我回首往事，发现其中许多都得到了回应。我无法精准地指出主是如何继续守护并圣化他的教会的，但我知道他确实如此。

In the faithful attendance to the ordinary means of grace, we are communing with the one true God where he promised to commune with us. We are tasting the morsels and hearing the words and declarations of heaven itself. If our attention and imagination is caught up with the malice and strategies of the enemy and the scales of power in the world, or even with our own sin and shortcomings, we will be utterly blind to it. Worse than that, it will be of no use to us, just as humble hobbits were deemed of no use by the “wise and powerful” in Middle Earth.

在忠心地参与常规恩典手段时，我们是在上帝承诺与我们相交的地方与这位唯一真神相交。我们是在品尝天国的点滴，聆听天国的话语与宣告。如果我们的注意力地和想象力被敌人的恶意与策略以及世上的权力天平所占据，甚至被我们自己的罪和不足所占据，我们将对此完全盲目。更糟糕的是，这些手段对我们来说将毫无用处，就像卑微的霍比特人在中土世界的“智者与强者”眼中被认为毫无用处一样。

And yet, these foolish means are part of God’s strategy to save the world. They’re part of his plan to save and redeem you, to sustain you.

然而，这些愚拙的手段正是上帝拯救世界的策略的一部分。它们是他拯救并救赎你、扶持你的计划的一部分。

I say all this not to temper righteous zeal. As I said, things are not as they should be, and we shouldn’t be comfortable with that harsh reality. But the most powerful ways God is working to make all things new this side of the last judgment are not through our most cunning strategies or tactics or iconoclastic fantasies. As Elrond said, “Neither strength nor wisdom will carry us far. …This quest may be attempted by the weak with as much hope as the strong. Yet such is off the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.”

我说这些并不是为了削弱正义的热忱。正如我所说，现状并非应有的样子，我们不应对这个残酷的现实感到安逸。但在末日审判之前，上帝使万物更新的最有力方式，并非通过我们最狡黠的策略、战术或偶像破坏式的幻想。正如埃隆德所说：“力量与智慧都无法带我们走远。……弱者尝试这次远征，其希望与强者一样大。然而，这正是那些推动世界运转之事的常态：小手在不得不做的时候完成它们，而伟人们的目光却在别处。”

Caleb Wait

Caleb Wait is the Director of Content for Sola Media and he holds an MA in Theological Studies from Westminster Seminary California.Caleb Wait 是 Sola Media 的内容总监，拥有加州西敏神学院的神学研究硕士学位。

Date Tuesday, May 19, 2026日期 2026年5月19日，星期二

旧问题，新倡导者：当今时代的圣经充分性争论

Tue, 12 May 2026 15:00:00 +0000

If You Will Diligently Listen: Hearing God’s Voice in Scripture By Michael W. Sciarra Christian Focus Publishing | 2026 | 160 pages (paperback) | $13.99

《若你肯殷勤聆听：在圣经中聆听上帝之声》作者：Michael W. Sciarra Christian Focus Publishing | 2026 | 160页（平装） | 13.99美元

The church today finds itself amidst a revived trend of advocating for hearing God speaking to his people apart from his word. While there are new figures in this movement, the content of their message is hardly original. One can think of late medieval mysticism’s emphasis on a mystical encounter with God or the Quakers, who exalted the inner illumination of the Spirit over Scripture. There is nothing new under the sun (Eccl. 1:9). While the recurring problem persists, so, too, the same solution solves: a recovery of the sufficiency, authority and perspicuity of Scripture. For Christians seeking a lucid and helpful guide on how to advocate for such doctrines in the midst of a strong tide of different views, Michael W. Sciarra’s If You Will Diligently Listen: Hearing God’s Voice in Scripture, is such a resource.

当今教会发现自己正处于一种复兴的趋势之中，即主张在上帝的话语之外聆听上帝对祂子民说话。虽然这一运动中出现了新的人物，但其信息的内涵几乎毫无新意。人们可以想到中世纪晚期神秘主义对与上帝神秘相遇的强调，或者贵格会（Quakers）将圣灵的内在启示置于圣经之上。日光之下并无新事（传 1:9）。虽然这个问题反复出现，但同样的解决方案依然有效：恢复圣经的充分性、权威性和清晰性。对于那些在各种不同观点的强力浪潮中，寻求一份清晰且有益的指南以捍卫这些教义的基督徒来说，Michael W. Sciarra 的《若你肯殷勤聆听：在圣经中聆听上帝之声》（If You Will Diligently Listen: Hearing God’s Voice in Scripture）正是这样的一份资源。

A Timely Book

一本及时的著作

With so many books coming out at such a rapid pace, it is worth asking the question: Why was this book written now? Sciarra explains, “I write because of the widely popular and deceptive false teachers today, standing in opposition to Scripture’s authority and sufficiency, claiming God speaks apart from Scripture” (2). To prove this claim, he takes two chapters to survey various individuals who advocate the view that God speaks to people individually and personally apart from his revealed word. Initially, attention is drawn to major figures such as Dallas Willard (1935–2013) and Henry Blackaby (1935–2024), both crucial individuals in this trend within modern evangelicalism.

在如此多书籍快速出版的今天，一个值得思考的问题是：为什么这本书在现在被写出来？Sciarra 解释道：“我写作是因为当今广泛流行且具有欺骗性的假教师，他们反对圣经的权威性和充分性，声称上帝在圣经之外说话”（2）。为了证明这一主张，他用了两章来考察各种主张上帝在启示的话语之外，以个人化且私密的方式向人们说话的观点。首先，他将注意力集中在诸如 Dallas Willard (1935–2013) 和 Henry Blackaby (1935–2024) 等关键人物身上，他们都是现代福音派中这一趋势的核心人物。

From there, Sciarra surveys this view amongst prominent evangelical figures today, such as John Mark Comer and John Eldredge. As a Presbyterian pastor, I was aware that such a belief existed, but unaware of just how widespread it has become amongst many evangelicals today. A major strength of this book is educating its readers on just how prominent this belief is as evidenced through the plethora of citations from works written by proponents of the view. As a reading practice, I often write exclamation points in the margins when I find something interesting or shocking. In these first two chapters, I found myself writing exclamation points next to quotes on each page out of pure shock. John Eldredge, on seeking to discern God’s answers to his questions, writes, “Still in quiet surrender, I ask the Lord, is it yes, you want us to go? Pause. In my heart, I am trying it on, letting it be as though this is God’s answer … By trying on the possible answers, I find it enables me to come into alignment with his Spirit” (32). If this is indeed as prevalent a method of deciphering God’s will as Sciarra claims it to be, then there is certainly a need for this book.

随后，Sciarra 考察了当今著名的福音派人物中的这一观点，例如 John Mark Comer 和 John Eldredge。作为一名长老会牧师，我知道这种信仰的存在，但并未意识到它在当今许多福音派信徒中已如此广泛。本书的一个主要优点在于，它通过大量引用该观点支持者的著作，让读者意识到这种信仰的盛行程度。在阅读习惯上，每当我发现有趣或令人震惊的内容时，经常会在页边空白处写下感叹号。在最初的两章中，我发现自己因为纯粹的震惊，在每一页的引用文字旁都写下了感叹号。John Eldredge 在论述如何寻求分辨上帝对他问题的答案时写道：“在安静的顺服中，我问主：‘是的，您想要我们去吗？’ 停顿。在心中，我尝试将其代入，就好像这就是上帝的答案……通过尝试可能的答案，我发现这使我能够与祂的灵达成一致”（32）。如果这种解读上帝旨意的方法确实如 Sciarra 所言那样普遍，那么这本书确实是非常必要的。

Defending the Sufficiency of Scripture

捍卫圣经的充分性

The cure this book provides to this problem of personal revelation is a recovery of the sufficiency of Scripture. In an age of confusion and questioning whether Scripture alone is sufficient for the Christian life, Sciarra does a good job defending the doctrine. He writes, “The sufficiency of Scripture means the Bible contains all the words of God He wanted us to have for salvation and for growth, everything we need for trusting and obeying Him” (61). Sciarra still gives guidance to earnest Christians who have questions about their lives, but encourages them to seek help through applying the principles of God’s word to their lives rather than expecting a personal spoken word.

这本书为个人启示的问题所提供的良药，就是恢复对圣经充分性的认识。在这个混乱的时代，人们质疑唯独圣经是否足以指导基督徒的生活，而 Sciarra 在捍卫这一教义方面做得很好。他写道：“圣经的充分性意味着，圣经包含了神希望我们拥有的、为了救恩和成长而赐下的所有话语，以及我们信靠并顺服他所需的一切”（61）。Sciarra 依然为那些对生活有疑问的虔诚基督徒提供指导，但他鼓励他们通过将神话语的原则应用于生活来寻求帮助，而不是期待一个个人的口头启示。

For a book about Scripture, the author avoids irony in rarely citing biblical passages alone, but in interacting with them in a way that tries to illustrate the truth of his argument. The reader is confronted with the truth and beauty of God’s word on nearly every page. Especially helpful is the section that does exegesis on popular passages used by those who promote the idea of God speaking apart from his word (74–82). Although, it is curious that Sciarra does not interact in depth with 1 Samuel 3 here, given that many authors examined earlier cite that passage as a support for their view.

对于一本关于圣经的书来说，作者巧妙地避免了讽刺——他很少单独引用圣经经文，而是通过与经文的互动，试图阐明其论点的真理。读者在几乎每一页都能面对神话语的真理与美感。尤其有帮助的是，书中有一节对那些宣称神在圣经之外说话的人所常用的经文进行了释经（74–82）。不过，令人好奇的是，Sciarra 在这里没有深入探讨撒母耳记上 3 章，因为他之前提到的许多作者都引用该章节来支持其观点。

While demonstrating that God’s word does not promise that we will receive private revelation, the book draws attention to a wonderful fact: God does speak to us in his word (Heb. 3:7; 4:2, 7). Because of this, attention is drawn to trusting the Spirit to illuminate God’s inspired word to his people (1 Cor. 2:6–16). Both of these facts help exhort readers to rich meditation on Scripture that will yield a delight in the Lord (Ps. 34:8). In doing so, Sciarra draws out one of the wonderful implications of trusting in the sufficiency of Scripture: It leads God’s people on a sure path towards delighting in and enjoying the riches of the Lord through his word (93–98).

在证明神的话语并没有承诺我们会收到私人启示的同时，本书引起了读者对一个奇妙事实的关注：神确实在他的话语中对我们说话（希 3:7；4:2, 7）。因此，本书引导人们信靠圣灵，使圣灵将神所启示的话语照亮他的子民（林前 2:6–16）。这两点都勉励读者对圣经进行丰富的默想，从而在主里得享喜乐（诗 34:8）。通过这样做，Sciarra 揭示了信靠圣经充分性所带来的一个美妙影响：它引导神的子民走上一条稳妥的道路，通过他的话语来喜乐并享受主的丰盛（93–98）。

Pastoral Guidance

牧养指导

Far from just defending the sufficiency of Scripture in a theological sense, Sciarra shows the rich and beautiful implications for the Christian life in holding to such a view. Even when engaging with those who disagree, the book frequently instructs Christians to be gracious, gentle, and prayerful (51, 111–112). While it may sound good in theory to believe that God does speak to people apart from Scripture, this book draws Christians back to the biblical truth of who God is and how we should expect him to work ordinarily in the life of a believer. Sciarra writes, “This is not merely about semantics; it is about our understanding of God and how He works” (109). Exactly. While some prominent and influential church leaders communicate that we should anticipate hearing God speak to us outside of his word, it is crucial to recover the freedom of trusting in God’s word alone. The church needs to recover teaching the ways God has promised to work—through his Holy Spirit and the ordinary means of grace—in the lives of believers rather than being shackled by unbiblical expectations.

Sciarra 不仅仅是在神学意义上捍卫圣经的充分性，他还展示了持此观点对基督徒生活所带来的丰富且美好的影响。即使在与持不同政见者交流时，书中也经常教导基督徒要恩慈、温柔且祷告（51, 111–112）。虽然在理论上，相信神在圣经之外对人说话听起来很美好，但本书将基督徒拉回到关于神是谁以及我们应当期待他在信徒生活中如何常态化工作的圣经真理中。Sciarra 写道：“这不仅仅是语义问题，而是关乎我们对神的认识以及他如何工作”（109）。确实如此。虽然一些显赫且有影响力的教会领袖传达出我们应当期待在圣经之外听到神说话，但恢复唯独信靠神话语的自由至关重要。教会需要恢复教导神应许工作的方式——通过他的圣灵和常态的恩典手段——在信徒的生活中运行，而不是被非圣经的期待所束缚。

In light of the power of the word, Sciarra urges churches to give a prominent role to Scripture in worship services, both in the reading and preaching of the word, and also in discipleship, all of which leads Christians to a deeper maturity in their faith and relationship with God.

鉴于话语的能力，Sciarra 敦促教会要在崇拜服务中给予圣经显著的地位，无论是在读经和讲道中，还是在门徒训练中，这一切都将引导基督徒在信仰和与神的关系上达到更深层的成熟。

Finally, the book concludes with a focus on what the main goal of a word-centered life is: the glory of Christ. Helpfully, several practical examples are laid out about how Christians can treasure Christ by faith and through his word. Sciarra notes, “The more you cherish Christ as your greatest treasure, the more saturated with Scripture you will want to be; your thoughts flavored by, answers shaped and desires bent to God’s self-revelation in Scripture” (130). May the Lord be pleased to use the words of this book to draw us back to his word and to his Son, the Word, his fullest revelation.

最后，本书在结尾处聚焦于以话语为中心的生活的主要目标：基督的荣耀。非常有帮助的是，书中列举了几个实际的例子，说明基督徒如何通过信心和他的话语来珍视基督。Sciarra 指出：“你越是将基督视为你最大的至宝，你就越希望被圣经浸透；你的思想被圣经浸染，你的答案由圣经塑造，你的欲望向神在圣经中的自我启示俯伏”（130）。愿主悦纳这本书的话语，将我们拉回到他的话语以及他的儿子——也就是那话语，他最完全的启示之中。

Arie Van Weelden

Arie Van Weelden is an Assistant Pastor at Skyview Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Centennial, Colorado. He is a graduate of Westminster Seminary California. He is married to his wife Mary and has a daughter. When he's not working, he enjoys reading a good book, watching a good film and bird watching with his wife.Arie Van Weelden 是科罗拉多州森蒂尼尔 Skyview 长老会教会 (PCA) 的助理牧师。他毕业于加州西敏神学院。他与妻子 Mary 结婚并育有一女。在工作之余，他喜欢阅读好书、观看优秀电影以及与妻子一起观鸟。

Topics Books, The Bible主题书籍, 圣经

Date Tuesday, May 12, 2026日期 2026年5月12日，星期二

护教新阵地：军队中的灵性与苦难

Tue, 05 May 2026 15:00:00 +0000

In an institution like the military, where soldiers must die, platitudes must die as well. Horace’s famous words, “Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori” (How sweet and fitting it is to die for one’s country), grind to a halt before real suffering:

在军队这样一个士兵必须面对死亡的机构中，陈词滥调也必须随之消亡。贺拉斯那句名言——“Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori”（为国捐躯，甜蜜而光荣）——在真实的苦难面前戛然而止：

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,— My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.¹ [1. Wilfred Owen, "Dulce et Decorum Est" from Poems, ed. Siegfried Sassoon. New York: The Viking Press, 1921. Public domain.]

若你能听到，在每一次颠簸中，血液从被泡沫腐蚀的肺部中咯咯作响，如癌症般猥亵，如无辜之舌上卑劣且不可治愈的溃疡之反刍般苦涩—— 我的朋友，你便不会如此兴致勃勃地向那些渴求某种绝望荣耀的孩子们讲述那个古老的谎言：Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori（为国捐躯，甜蜜而光荣）。¹ [1. Wilfred Owen, "Dulce et Decorum Est" from Poems, ed. Siegfried Sassoon. New York: The Viking Press, 1921. Public domain.]

The realism inherent to such work often leads to more penetrating glances, not just at the world, but to the present culture and its blind spots. This is especially helpful in an age when the tried-and-true syllogisms of twentieth-century apologetics fall flat. What then can we learn from the military milieu that will help us to take every thought captive?

此类工作中固有的现实主义，往往能引导人们产生更深刻的洞察，不仅是对这个世界，更是对当下的文化及其盲点。在二十世纪护教论中那些经久考验的三段论失效的时代，这一点尤为有益。那么，我们能从军队的环境中学到什么，来帮助我们将每一个想法掳获？

The Reemergence of Spirituality

灵性的重新出现

Contrary to the claims of those who thought religion and spirituality to be a dead letter, spirituality is on the rise—claiming victims from atheism, Christianity, and everything in between. Some holdovers from the moral majority era might see this as an unmitigated good (we have more in common with someone who believes in a higher power than not, after all). Others may assume the sky is falling when they consider that, in loosening the theological bonds that once knit communities together, “spirituality” is often just shoe polish for a nihilistic narcissism.

与那些认为宗教和灵性已成死信的人的主张相反，灵性正在兴起——它在无神论者、基督徒以及两者之间的一切人群中寻找“受害者”。一些“道德多数派”时代的遗老可能会将此视为纯粹的好事（毕竟，与一个相信更高权力的人相比，我们与不信者有更多的共同点）。而另一些人则可能认为天要塌了，因为他们意识到，在松动曾经将社区凝聚在一起的神学纽带时，“灵性”往往只是为虚无主义的自恋所涂的一层粉饰。

There is one evident gain that Christians should take advantage of, however. In gaining a cultural consensus, spirituality now takes pride of place in how Christians engage the culture. The Army chaplaincy, for example, has quickly built upon the work of Dr. Lisa Miller, a professor of clinical psychology at Columbia University. With countless peer-reviewed studies, she has shown that every person is born with a “spiritual core” that reaches upward and outward and can be developed, wounded, and healed.

然而，基督徒应当利用其中一个显而易见的机会。随着文化共识的达成，灵性现在在基督徒如何接触文化方面占据了核心地位。例如，陆军军牧体系迅速借鉴了哥伦比亚大学临床心理学教授丽莎·米勒（Lisa Miller）博士的研究成果。通过无数经过同行评审的研究，她证明了每个人天生就有一个向上的、向外的“灵性核心”，它可以被开发、被伤害，也可以被治愈。

There is much that Christians could add to this discussion from Romans 1 and 2, but we would be jumping the gun. First, we need to show why the concept of a spiritual core is helpful. As psychologists and sociologists speak of an “epidemic of loneliness” in our culture, they generally describe loneliness as the lack of vertical and horizontal bonds that give rise to meaning, purpose, and identity.

关于这一点，基督徒可以从罗马书第1章和第2章中补充很多内容，但那样就操之过急了。首先，我们需要展示为什么“灵性核心”这个概念是有帮助的。当心理学家和社会学家谈到我们文化中的“孤独流行病”时，他们通常将孤独描述为缺乏能够产生意义、目的和身份认同的纵向和横向纽带。

Consequently, if we are made to connect vertically with God or a higher power, and horizontally with our fellow man, but are not doing so, then we have a problem. This concept of a spiritual core provides the principle; the epidemic of loneliness presents the need—in both the military and the wider culture.

因此，如果我们被造是为了在纵向上与上帝或更高的权力连接，在横向上与同胞连接，但我们却没有这样做，那么我们就遇到了问题。这种“灵性核心”的概念提供了原则，而“孤独流行病”则呈现了需求——无论是在军队中还是在更广泛的文化中。

To address this need, the Army has committed an entire chapter to “spiritual readiness” in their field manual on holistic fitness.¹ [1. Department of the Army, FM 7-22, Holistic Health and Fitness (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2020).] Of course, in formulating a doctrinal approach to spiritual readiness, the document—due to pluralism concerns—remains remarkably averse to any theological doctrine that may provide such readiness. But the point is not that the shot falls short of the target, but rather that the Army is taking a shot at all.

为了应对这一需求，陆军在其关于整体健身的野战手册中，专门用一整章来讨论“属灵准备”（spiritual readiness）。¹ [1. Department of the Army, FM 7-22, Holistic Health and Fitness (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2020).] 当然，在制定属灵准备的原则性方法时，该文件由于对多元主义的考量，对任何可能提供此类准备的神学教义都表现出显著的排斥。但重点不在于这一击是否未能命中目标，而在于陆军竟然尝试开了一枪。

Spirituality no longer stands on one side of the culture divide. It is the deepest part of a person and arguably the most determinative factor in mental health. And, across disciplines, we are seeing that it is not effectively engaged. Thus, it stands as a key connection point between the believer and unbeliever. What is happening at the core level in each of our hearts? What was this core made for? How has it been shaped? Conversational doors open at each of these questions.

灵性不再处于文化分歧的一侧。它是一个人最深层的部分，而且可以说也是心理健康中最具决定性的因素。而且，在各个学科中，我们都看到灵性并未得到有效的探讨。因此，它成为了信徒与非信徒之间一个关键的连接点。在我们每个人的内心“核心”层面正在发生什么？这个核心是为了什么而造的？它是如何被塑造的？每一个问题都为对话开启了大门。

Spirituality is not only a present concern of the Army. In most Army writings concerning Large Scale Combat Operations (LSCO)—future wars against major powers—there is constant mention of the indispensability of “spiritual resiliency” in our soldiers. While the term is not formally defined, the context makes the implication clear: We need soldiers who are able to undergo and ascribe meaning to suffering. They need a belief system—a religion—that makes sense of suffering and enables them to endure. Suffering—and the prospect of suffering—brings the topic of spirituality to the fore.

灵性不仅是陆军目前的关注点。在大多数关于大规模作战（LSCO）——即未来与大国之间战争——的陆军著作中，经常提到士兵拥有“灵性韧性”（spiritual resiliency）是不可或缺的。虽然这个词没有正式的定义，但语境使其含义十分明确：我们需要能够承受苦难并为苦难赋予意义的士兵。他们需要一套能够解释苦难并使他们能够忍耐的信仰体系——一种宗教。苦难以及对苦难的预期，使灵性这一话题凸显出来。

The Ever-Present Problem of Suffering

苦难这一永恒的问题

Conversations about spirituality could be stiff-armed away (and often are in our culture of distraction), if not for the ever-present problem of suffering. We live in an age of distraction, where most people find enduring and intoxicating ways to cope and avoid the problem of suffering. Yet, the universal nature of suffering means that reality will come knocking at the door of distraction unbidden.

如果不是因为苦难这个永恒存在的问题，关于灵性的对话可能会被拒之门外（在我们这个分心的文化中经常如此）。我们生活在一个分心的时代，大多数人找到了持久且令人沉溺的方式来应对和逃避苦难问题。然而，苦难的普遍性意味着，现实会不请自来，敲响那扇被分心掩盖的大门。

In the military, service-members must reckon with this pernicious problem on a more regular basis. They must be prepared to take life or give it, suffer in myriad ways, and then come home healthy and whole. A key marker of spiritual readiness is resiliency—a term that implies the existence of external pressure, stress, or suffering—and the ability to persevere.

在军队中，服役人员必须更频繁地正视这个棘手的问题。他们必须准备好夺取生命或献出生命，以无数种方式承受苦难，然后健康且完整地回家。灵性准备的一个关键标志是韧性——这个词暗示了外部压力、压力或苦难的存在，以及坚持下去的能力。

But how is a soldier—or any person for that matter—able to persevere in and through suffering? Sadly, many don’t—at least not well. This is where two other terms that are growing in prominence within the military are important: “moral injury” and “spiritual injury.”

但是，一名士兵——或者任何一个人——如何才能在苦难中坚持并从中走出来？遗憾的是，许多人做不到——至少没能很好地做到。这就是在军队中日益受到关注的另外两个词变得重要的原因：“道德损伤”（moral injury）和“灵性损伤”（spiritual injury）。

Both resist simple definitions, but we’ll simplify nonetheless in order to keep the focus on the implications of these terms. Moral injury is the negative emotions that come with the betrayal of your moral code—either by yourself or another. These feelings—such as shame—cannot fully be comprehended by psychology, let alone the natural sciences, because they get to a fundamental understanding of the true, good, and beautiful.

这两个词都难以用简单的定义来概括，但为了将重点放在这些词的含义上，我们还是将其简化。道德损伤是指由于你或他人背叛了你的道德准则而产生的负面情绪。这些感觉——例如羞耻感——无法完全由心理学，更不用说自然科学来理解，因为它们触及了对真、善、美的根本理解。

Spiritual injury is a soul wound caused by trauma that alters your relationship to yourself, to others, and to God. This also cannot be quantified or fully addressed by other disciplines. How can a psychologist heal the breach you feel between yourself and God? There is likely a dissertation waiting for the person who can draw a throughline from the spiritual core to spiritual injury to the epidemic of loneliness.

属灵创伤（Spiritual injury）是一种由创伤引起的灵魂伤口，它改变了你与自己、与他人以及与上帝的关系。这种创伤无法被量化，也无法由其他学科完全解决。心理学家如何能修复你感到自己与上帝之间产生的裂痕？对于能够将灵性核心、属灵创伤与孤独症流行这三者串联起来的人来说，这里可能潜藏着一个博士论文的课题。

Like PTSD, both concepts will likely grow in prominence due to their universality in scope. As with PTSD, these issues might be more urgent and prevalent in a military setting, but they also cast greater light upon the human condition at large. They remind us that within both the military and our cultural context, we don’t have an answer for the problem of suffering…and that is a problem.

与创伤后应激障碍（PTSD）一样，这两个概念由于其范围的普遍性，可能会变得越来越受关注。正如 PTSD 一样，这些问题在军事环境中可能更为紧迫且普遍，但它们也更深刻地揭示了广泛的人类处境。它们提醒我们，无论是在军队中还是在我们的文化语境中，我们都无法为苦难问题提供答案……而这本身就是一个问题。

The Theodical Approach

神义论路径

Tim Keller gets at the vacuous and hypocritical condition of our culture regarding suffering in his book, Walking with God through Pain and Suffering. Theodicy—the justification of God in the face of evil—is often treated as a problem for Christians. But what alternatives do people have to that which we have in the Bible? And for that matter, why should they care? Why would they consider it a problem unless we were made for something better?

提摩太·凯勒（Tim Keller）在他的著作《与神同行，走过痛苦与苦难》（Walking with God through Pain and Suffering）中，探讨了我们文化在面对苦难时那种空洞且虚伪的状态。神义论（Theodicy）——即在面对邪恶时为上帝辩护——通常被视为基督徒需要面对的问题。但除了我们从圣经中获得的东西，人们还有什么替代方案？而且就此而言，他们为什么要关心？除非我们天生就是为了更好的目标而造，否则他们为何会认为这是一个问题？

It turns out that the quest inward has not allowed our spiritual types to escape the devil of suffering. Paraphrasing Luther on the monastics, our spiritual friends have merely taken the devil in with them. And guess what? They don’t know how to kick their unwanted guest back out.

事实证明，向内的探索并未能让那些追求灵性的人逃脱苦难这个魔鬼。借用路德对修道士的描述，我们的灵性之友只不过是将魔鬼一起带进了屋子。你猜怎么着？他们不知道如何将这个不请自来的客人们赶出去。

A new apologetic front is opening—let’s call it the “Theodical Approach.” Instead of going on the defensive and trying to explain how the God of the Bible could allow evil or suffering to occur, we should challenge our friends to come up with a better alternative. How have they made sense of suffering? Let’s unpack this approach (which I use often with soldiers and even strangers at the brewery) with several moves:

一个新的护教阵地正在开启——我们可以称之为“神义论路径”。我们不应采取防御姿态，试图解释圣经中的上帝为何允许邪恶或苦难发生，而应挑战我们的朋友，让他们提出一个更好的替代方案。他们是如何理解苦难的？让我用几个步骤来拆解这个方法（我经常将其用于士兵，甚至是在精酿啤酒厂遇到的陌生人）：

The initial challenge. I recently lost a soldier. Not just any soldier, but the one I baptized on my recent deployment. I carried this grief with me to my neighborhood brewery, where I know all the locals, and talked about my soldier, my grief, and my hope. This vulnerability invites conversations, and sure enough, a young man asked, “How can you possibly believe in a God who allows suffering?”

初步的挑战。 我最近失去了一名士兵。不只是任何一名士兵，而是我在最近一次部署期间洗礼的那位。我带着这份悲痛来到社区的啤酒厂，那里所有的当地人都认识我，我谈到了我的士兵，我的悲痛以及我的希望。这种坦诚地展露脆弱会引发对话，果不其然，一名年轻人问道：“你怎么可能相信一位允许苦难存在的上帝？”

This question is a well-intentioned trap. People who ask this question are rarely malicious, but it is an easy way to deal with a difficult issue. They know that there is no simple, satisfying way to answer the question. Christians often get caught in a myriad of webs. Perhaps our response is that suffering is a result of the fall of our first parents. Inevitably, the retort will lead us astray: “Why did God allow the fall?” “Why are we made to suffer for their failure?” There are responses to all these questions, but we will never get back to the original question.

这个问题是一个出于好意的陷阱。问这个问题的人很少心怀恶意，但这是一种处理困难问题的简便方法。他们知道没有简单且令人满意的方式来回答这个问题。基督徒经常陷入重重困境之中。也许我们的回答是，苦难是始祖堕落的结果。不可避免地，对方的反问会将我们带偏：“上帝为什么允许堕落发生？”“为什么我们要为他们的失败而受苦？”虽然所有这些问题都有答案，但我们永远无法回到最初的问题上。

The key to the initial challenge is to change the direction of the challenge. Why do they care about what Christians think about suffering? Do they have a personal interest or a story they want to share? Otherwise, the question is irrelevant (unless a Christian is directly evangelizing and they can fairly ask the question since we’re asking them to change their belief system). They ask us this question because they’re emotionally invested, and it is right to ask them to lay their investment upon the table.

应对初步挑战的关键在于改变挑战的方向。为什么他们关心基督徒如何看待苦难？他们是否有个人兴趣，或者有想要分享的故事？否则，这个问题就毫无意义（除非基督徒正在直接传福音，而对方可以公正地提出这个问题，因为我们正要求他们改变其信仰体系）。他们问我们这个问题，是因为他们在情感上有所投入，而要求他们将这种投入坦诚地摆在桌面上是正确的。

Exposing the wounded bias. The term “wounded bias” is used intentionally. When we are hurt, we often like to challenge and distract others to keep people away from the hurt. When we protest, we protest because we care. People protest the God of the Bible because they believe that he exists (Rom. 1–2). They rightfully feel wounded—spiritually injured, if you will. They have a soul wound in need of dressing.

揭示“受伤的偏见”。 使用“受伤的偏见”（wounded bias）这个词是有意为之的。当我们受伤时，我们往往喜欢挑战和分散他人的注意力，以防止人们触及伤口。当我们抗议时，是因为我们在意。人们抗议圣经中的上帝，是因为他们相信祂存在（罗 1–2）。他们理所当然地感到受伤——如果你愿意的话，可以称之为精神上的创伤。他们的灵魂之伤需要包扎。

There are many ways to expose this wounded bias. We can ask abstract questions about why they care about suffering, why they call it wrong, or why they care about God amidst it all. But the more effective questions are usually more personal—something that gets at their own hurt. Why are they upset with the God who made them? If they’re willing to tell that story, we can start making our way home.

揭示这种受伤偏见的方法有很多。我们可以问一些抽象的问题，比如他们为什么关心苦难，为什么认为苦难是错误的，或者为什么在苦难中依然关心上帝。但通常更有效的问题是更具个人色彩的——能够触及他们自身伤痛的问题。为什么他们会对创造他们的上帝感到愤怒？如果他们愿意讲述那个故事，我们就可以开始寻找回家的路。

Be willing to be broken. Most people we meet in contemporary culture grew up in broken homes, and asking them to be vulnerable is asking a lot. This is a wonderful opportunity to share our own brokenness with them. Christians are no less stricken by suffering than others. We simply grieve as those with hope.

愿意展现破碎。 我们在当代文化中遇到的大多数人成长于破碎的家庭，要求他们展现脆弱是很高要求。这是一个与他们分享我们自身破碎的绝佳机会。基督徒遭受苦难并不比其他人少，我们只是带着希望在哀恸。

My new friend at the bar grew tired of unpacking his own story and biases. “We deal with all these stereotypes. What if it was your family? What if it’s something that is particularly hard to explain?” With tears in my eyes, I reminded him that the kid I baptized was a pastor’s kid. He professed faith on Easter Sunday and then committed suicide the day after Christmas.

我在酒吧结识的新朋友厌倦了剖析自己的故事和偏见。“我们面对着所有这些刻板印象。如果那是你的家人呢？如果那是某种特别难以解释的事情呢？”我眼中含泪地提醒他，我曾洗礼过的一个孩子是牧师的孩子。他在复活节主日承认信仰，然后在圣诞节后的第二天自杀了。

There was a respectful moment of silence. I think we tapped our glasses together. This has happened many times. When we’re willing to be vulnerable, there is a moment when the glasses clink. We’re reminded that Jesus was born in the dark of the night, forsaken. He wept at the tomb of Lazarus. He dreaded the cup of God’s wrath, but declared “Not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42). For the joy set before him, he endured the cross (Heb. 12.1). All of those threads come together when the glasses clink.

现场陷入了肃穆的沉默。我想我们碰了碰杯。这种情况发生过很多次。当我们愿意展现脆弱时，就会出现杯子碰撞的时刻。我们被提醒，耶稣出生在黑夜之中，被弃绝；祂在拉撒路坟前哭泣；祂恐惧上帝愤怒的杯，但宣告：“不要成就我的意思，只要成就你的意思”（路 22:42）。为了摆在前面的喜乐，祂忍受了十字架（希 12:1）。当杯子碰撞时，所有这些线索都交织在了一起。

A place for tears. We weep for a reason. All of us end up weeping at some point—God designed our hearts that way. Our tears aren’t the problem. They are the right response to a broken world, as Jesus modeled for us (John 11:35). When we truly engage others in loving conversations about suffering, tears often ensue. Why?

泪水的空间。 我们流泪是有原因的。我们所有人最终都会在某个时刻流泪——上帝如此设计我们的心。泪水本身不是问题，而是对破碎世界的正确反应，正如耶稣为我们所作的榜样（约 11:35）。当我们真正地与他人进行关于苦难的充满爱心的对话时，泪水往往随之而来。为什么？

My friend at the bar had no explanation. We can gaslight people and tell them that their tears are the problem. Or we can acknowledge—as only the Bible does—that we weep over a broken world. We miss Eden as we weep over the wilderness. We long for a new heavens and new earth.

我在酒吧的朋友无法解释。我们可以通过心理操纵（gaslight）告诉人们，他们的泪水才是问题所在。或者，我们可以像唯有圣经那样承认——我们是在为这个破碎的世界而哭泣。当我们为旷野哀哭时，我们是在思念伊甸园。我们渴望新天新地。

This was the most compelling point. No other worldview can adequately account for our tears. Only the Bible sufficiently explains why we grieve. Only the Bible shows us what we can do with those tears. This is why Christians don’t need to feel threatened by the questions. The One we question is the One who alone holds our tears (Ps. 56:8).

这是最令人信服的一点。没有其他任何世界观能充分地解释我们的泪水。唯有圣经能充分解释我们为何悲伤，唯有圣经能向我们展示我们可以如何处理这些泪水。这就是为什么基督徒不需要对这些疑问感到威胁。我们所质疑的那一位，正是唯一将我们的眼泪装在皮袋里的那位（诗 56:8）。

Image: "Two Men by the Window," by Edvard Munch (1863–1944), oil on board. {CC BY-SA 4.0} Cropped by MR.

图片：“窗边的两个男人”，爱德华·蒙克 (Edvard Munch, 1863–1944) 著，板上油画。{CC BY-SA 4.0} MR 裁剪。

Stephen Roberts

Stephen Roberts is a US Army chaplain and has written for The Washington Times and The Federalist.Stephen Roberts 是美国陆军牧师，曾为《华盛顿时报》和《联邦党人》撰稿。

Topics Suffering, Apologetic Methodologies主题苦难, 护教方法论

Date Tuesday, May 5, 2026日期 2026年5月5日，星期二

进步基督教的元现代姿态

Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:00:00 +0000

What does an elder who is leaving a local evangelical church because—in part—he felt this church wasn’t taking social justice issues seriously have in common with another Christian who is forsaking Classical Theism for Open Theism? Further, what unites these with a third Christian whose journey of deconstruction equates to a refusal to accept the status quo, who questions every whiff of Christian dogmatism because he thinks it arises from the hegemony of church history?

一个因为（部分地）觉得当地福音派教会没有认真对待社会正义议题而离开教会的长老，与另一个放弃古典有神论而转向开放有神论的基督徒，之间有什么共同之处？此外，他们与第三位基督徒又有什么共同点？后者的解构之旅等同于对接受现状的拒绝，他质疑任何带有基督教教条主义色彩的东西，因为他认为这源于教会历史的霸权。

First, these are three friends of mine who do—in one case, did—profess to be Christians. Second, these three are sojourners to a city built by human hands, a trek some call “deconstruction” and others Progressive Christianity.

首先，他们是我三个朋友，其中一人（在某种程度上）曾自称是基督徒。其次，这三人都是前往一座由人手建造之城的旅人，这段旅程有人称之为“解构”，有人称之为“进步基督教”。

Third, though their journeys look different, they share an assumption: that historic Christianity should be questioned, and more, overturned by the canons of postmodernism, namely, the removal of metanarratives (overarching stories or beliefs/dogmas).

第三，尽管他们的旅程看起来不同，但他们共有一个假设：历史基督教应当受到质疑，而且更进一步，应当被后现代主义的准则——即剔除元叙事（概括性的故事或信仰/教条）——所颠覆。

Complicating this, Progressive Christianity doesn’t fully embrace the logical end of deconstruction—abject moral relativity commensurate with postmodernism’s “death of God.” Progressive Christianity treats truth as if it is knowable, though it does so arbitrarily. Ultimately, Progressive Christianity adopts a metamodern posture toward the knowability of truth, retaining a sort of placebo-like-faith in modernism’s optimism in the knowability of truth, while ultimately maintaining postmodernism’s rejection of absolutes.

复杂的是，进步基督教并未完全接纳解构的逻辑终点——即与后现代主义的“神之死”相称的彻底道德相对主义。进步基督教将真理视为仿佛是可以认知的，尽管这种认知是随意的。最终，进步基督教在真理的可认知性上采取了一种元现代姿态：它保留了一种类似安慰剂般的信仰，认同现代主义对真理可认知性的乐观，但最终却维持着后现代主义对绝对真理的拒绝。

Progressive Christianity seeks to have its cake and eat it too.

进步基督教试图鱼与熊掌兼得。

From Blue Jazz to Rainbow Flags

从《蓝色爵士》到彩虹旗

Progressive Christianity has left the Emerging church behind. Up-and-comers like Brandan Robertson (leader of Sunnyside Reformed Church), Tim Whitaker (The New Evangelicals), or sophisticated thought-leaders like Pete Enns (The Bible for Normal People) have replaced the Rob Bells and Donald Millers (Blue Like Jazz) of the previous era.

进步基督教已经将新兴教会抛在身后。像 Brandan Robertson（Sunnyside Reformed Church 的领袖）、Tim Whitaker（The New Evangelicals）这样的新秀，或者像 Pete Enns（The Bible for Normal People）这样成熟的思想领袖，已经取代了前一个时代的 Rob Bell 和 Donald Miller（《蓝色爵士》)）。

Progressive Christianity has moved (note the word) from mere postmodern deconstruction to principled-but-selective metamodern reconstruction of religious ethics and belief adopted as if true. Metamodernism gets its assumptions from postmodernism—an “as if” true proposition still only performed as true—but escapes nihilism by appeal to the moral codes most suitable to its appetite. Metamodernism lives in perpetual pendulum swing between denial of truth and embracing truth “as if” it could be so.

进步基督教已经（请注意这个词）从单纯的后现代解构，转向了一种基于原则但具有选择性的元现代重构，将宗教伦理和信仰视为仿佛真实而采纳。元现代主义从后现代主义中继承了其假设——一个“仿佛”真实的命题依然仅仅是作为真实而被执行的——但它通过诉诸最符合其胃口的道德准则，从而逃避了虚无主义。元现代主义生活在一种永恒的钟摆式摇摆之中：一边是拒绝真理，另一边则是将真理视为“仿佛”可能如此而接纳。

As Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker define it:

正如 Vermeulen 和 Robin van den Akker 所定义的：

Ontologically, metamodernism oscillates between the modern and the postmodern. It oscillates between a modern enthusiasm and a postmodern irony, between hope and melancholy, between naïveté and knowingness, empathy and apathy, unity and plurality, totality and fragmentation, purity and ambiguity. Indeed, by oscillating to and fro or back and forth, the metamodern negotiates between the modern and the postmodern.

在本体论上，元现代主义（metamodernism）在现代与后现代之间摆动。它在现代的热情与后现代的讽刺之间摆动，在希望与忧郁之间摆动，在天真与精明之间摆动，在共情与冷漠之间摆动，在统一与多元之间摆动，在整体与碎片之间摆动，在纯洁与模棱两可之间摆动。事实上，通过这种来回的摆动，元现代主义在现代与后现代之间进行协商。

This is why metamodernism has been likened to having your cake and eating it too. Robertson’s church, Sunnyside Reformed, is a good example of Progressive Christianity’s selective reconstruction of meaning. In scrubbing every page for a doctrinal statement, one finds only their Open and Affirming Covenant which gives primacy to inclusion and “all expressions of human diversity” in a homogenized and triumphant “unity of faith.” No creeds or confessions are referenced or affirmed.

这就是为什么元现代主义被比作既想吃掉蛋糕又想保留蛋糕（鱼与熊掌兼得）。Robertson 的教会——阳光边改革宗教会（Sunnyside Reformed）——就是进步基督教（Progressive Christianity）选择性重构意义的一个典型例子。在翻遍该教会每一页寻找教义声明时，人们只能发现他们的《开放与肯定之约》（Open and Affirming Covenant），该约在一种同质化且得胜的“信仰统一”中，将包容和“人类多样性的所有表达”置于首位。文中没有引用或确认任何信经或信条。

What is clear is what Sunnyside church affirms above all: affirmation itself.

显而易见的是，阳光边教会最看重的是什么：肯定本身。

Nearly every page of the church’s website stresses the preeminent importance of inclusion. As Sunnyside’s church covenant expresses (adopted in October 2024), they consider themselves “one body with many members, embracing people of every race, ethnicity, creed, class, age, gender, marital status, physical or mental ability, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.”

该教会网站的几乎每一页都强调包容的至高重要性。正如阳光边教会的教会之约（2024年10月通过）所表达的，他们认为自己是“一个拥有许多肢体的身体，接纳每一个种族、民族、信仰、阶级、年龄、性别、婚姻状况、生理或心理能力、性倾向、性别认同和性别表达的人”。

This radical inclusion leaves open the full scope of “the life and mission of our church.” Anyone, regardless even of beliefs, is invited to “participate fully in our worship, rites, and sacraments, and to take leadership roles within our congregation.”

这种激进的包容为“我们教会的生活与使命”留下了完整的空间。任何人，无论其信仰如何，都被邀请“充分参与我们的崇拜、礼仪和圣礼，并在我们的会众中担任领导职务”。

Sunnyside may be “over easy” on doctrine, but what they value appears clear: the only rule is that there are none. Or—scarcely different—no rule is allowed which seems to hurt or exclude another person. This selective dogmatization of inclusion at the expense of clear exclusionary teachings in Scripture—such as Romans 1:24–27, where homosexual behavior is clearly condemned—evinces Sunnyside’s metamodern, arbitrary posture, which has become a hallmark of Progressive Christianity. Indeed, Robertson and his church aren’t an isolated case. The widely adopted Phoenix Affirmations—twelve affirmations written originally in 2006 by United Church of Christ minister Eric Elnes—first affirms “walking fully in the path of Jesus, without denying the legitimacy of other paths God may provide humanity.” Radical inclusion, and the exclusion of Christ’s exclusivity, is upheld in Progressive Christianity, done so at the expense of Scripture’s clear teaching of the illegitimacy of any other way to God but through the Son (i.e. John 14:6).

阳光边教会对教义可能采取“随缘”的态度，但他们所看重的东西很明确：唯一的规则就是没有规则。或者——几乎没有区别——任何似乎会伤害或排斥他人的规则都是不允许的。 这种以牺牲圣经中明确的排他性教导（例如罗马书 1:24–27 中明确谴责同性行为）为代价，而选择性地将包容教条化的做法，揭示了阳光边教会元现代主义的、随意地姿态，而这已成为进步基督教的标志。事实上，Robertson 和他的教会并非孤例。被广泛采纳的《凤凰确认书》（Phoenix Affirmations）——由美国基督联合教会牧师 Eric Elnes 于 2006 年最初撰写的十二项确认——首先确认要“完全行走在耶稣的道路上，而不否认神可能为人类提供的其他道路的正当性”。激进的包容，以及对基督唯一性的排斥，在进步基督教中得到了维护，而这是以牺牲圣经中关于除圣子之外没有其他通往神的正当道路的明确教导（即约翰福音 14:6）为代价的。

But by what criteria does Progressive Christianity select its rules/beliefs? And how does this selection criteria show its metamodern posture?

那么，进步基督教根据什么标准来选择其规则/信仰？这种选择标准又是如何展现其元现代主义姿态的？

The Emotive Metamodern Ethics of Progressive Christianity

进步基督教的情绪化元现代伦理

What constitutes a rule (or belief) as hurtful or exclusionary in Progressive Christianity is defined by the internal psychological world of the “modern self” that Carl Trueman has ably detailed. Trueman’s work is programmatic for conservative Christians engaging with the “social imaginary” of the current day. It is also helpful in elucidating categories for the discussion of how Progressive Christianity forms its virtues.

在进步基督教中，什么样的规则（或信仰）被定义为具有伤害性或排他性，是由卡尔·特鲁曼（Carl Trueman）在其著作中精辟详述的“现代自我”的内在心理世界所定义的。特鲁曼的作品为保守派基督徒应对当今的“社会想象”提供了纲领性的指导。在阐明进步基督教如何构建其美德的讨论类别方面，该书也大有裨益。

Trueman, reliant on Alasdair MacIntyre—chiefly in his work After Virtue—details the concept of emotivism, which Trueman defines as an ethical philosophy where morality is “nothing more than the language of personal preference based on nothing more rational or objective than sentiments or feelings.”

特鲁曼依托于阿拉斯代尔·麦金太尔（Alasdair MacIntyre）——主要是其著作《德性之后》（After Virtue）——详细阐述了“情绪主义”（emotivism）的概念。特鲁曼将其定义为一种伦理哲学，在这种哲学中，道德“不过是基于情感或感觉，而没有任何更理性或客观基础的个人偏好之语言”。

Emotivism views good and bad as irrevocably dependent on the subject's perception of them as such. Emotivism unites the truth of a proposition and the subject’s perspective of that proposition. The two propositions “stealing is wrong” and “I disapprove of stealing” are, in emotivism, synonymous.

情绪主义认为，好与坏不可避免地取决于主体对它们的感知。情绪主义将命题的真理性与主体对该命题的看法统一起来。在情绪主义看来，“偷窃是错误的”和“我不赞成偷窃”这两个命题是同义的。

This is helpful for revealing how Progressive Christianity reformulates—via metamodernism—its morality after postmodern virtue-death. Deconstruction in Progressive Christianity becomes its own rule of faith, domesticating Scripture’s clear teaching to the rule of whatever is most agreeable to the community. It reformulates the community’s confessed ethics and doctrine along emotive lines, ethics and doctrine equated with what is most affirming of the other’s psychological feelings. This forms a veritable “canon within the canon,” Progressive Christianity adopting a red letter Christianity congruent with the community’s emotive sentiments. The community’s emotive sense of good and bad then become a magisterium in Progressive Christianity, having authoritative sway over what is acceptable or not. This emotive magisterium trumps Scripture, in the end making Scripture a handmaiden to it, rather than Scripture alone holding magisterial authority with its own retinue of subordinate handmaidens (i.e. Tradition, Philosophy, or any other non-inscripturated source of truth). This entailment of one of Progressive Christianity’s first principles—emotive affirmation—may not be a leap explicitly confessed by those who call themselves Progressive Christians, but it is a necessary entailment of Progressive Christianity as a theological system, and is a fruit tasted, even if not confessed, everywhere Progressive Christianity is found.

这有助于揭示进步基督教在后现代的“美德之死”之后，如何通过元现代主义（metamodernism）重新构建其道德观。在进步基督教中，“解构”本身变成了其信仰准则，将圣经清晰的教导驯化为只要是社群最能接受的规则即可。它沿着情绪化的路线重新构建社群所承认的伦理和教义，将伦理和教义等同于对他人心理感受最能肯定的内容。这形成了一个真正的“典籍中的典籍”，进步基督教采用了一种与社群情绪认同相一致的红字基督徒（red letter Christianity）立场。随后，社群对好坏的情绪化感知成为了进步基督教中的一个“教导权”（magisterium），对什么是可以接受的或不可接受的具有权威影响力。这种情绪化的教导权最终凌驾于圣经之上，使圣经成为了它的侍女，而不是由圣经独自持有教导权，并拥有一系列从属的侍女（即传统、哲学或任何其他非圣经记载的真理来源）。这种进步基督教首要原则——情绪化肯定——所导致的必然结果，或许并非那些自称进步基督徒的人明确承认的飞跃，但它是进步基督教作为一个神学体系的必然推论，并且在任何出现进步基督教的地方，人们都能品尝到这一果实，即便他们并不承认。

As the community’s emotive sentiments inform what is considered moral, this informs the community’s accepted doctrine. Progressive Christianity then dogmatizes what it wants to, or rather, what seems most acceptable to the widest number of people who consider themselves part of this community. This is why Progressive Christianity elevates the Golden Rule—do unto others what you want done to yourself—to the place of a central dogma. Only by “what you want done to yourself,” Progressive Christianity means: anything and everything the heart desires. Human desires (fallen) are then equated with morality, which is emotivism. This dogmatic misinterpretation of the Golden Rule is motivated by the key value of affirming the other in Progressive Christianity, leaving no room for Christianity’s exclusive claims.

由于社群的情绪认同决定了什么被认为是道德的，这进而影响了社群所接受的教义。于是，进步基督教将其想要将其教条化的内容，或者更准确地说，是将那些对绝大多数自认为属于该社群的人最可接受的内容教条化。这就是为什么进步基督教将“黄金法则”——你想别人怎样对待你，你就要怎样对待别人——提升到核心教义地位的原因。然而，进步基督教所指的“你想别人怎样对待你”是：心中渴望的一切。于是，（堕落的）人类欲望被等同于道德，这就是情绪主义。这种对黄金法则的教条式误读，是由进步基督教中肯定“他人”这一核心价值所驱动的，从而不给基督教的排他性主张留下任何空间。

It is no wonder that Progressive Christianity increasingly dogmatizes what it considers proper faith and practice based upon what pleases the most people. Anything goes—sexual or otherwise. It must be realized, though, that anything goes is a paraphrase for following the lusts of the flesh. Sadly, Progressive Christianity’s enshrinement of an “anything goes” ethic is merely a function of an emotive moral compass (Gal. 5:19–21; 1 John 2:16). Progressive Christianity, as a result, calls evil good (Isa. 5:20–21; cf., Gen. 3; Rom. 1:18–23).

难怪进步基督教越来越多地根据取悦大多数人的标准，将其认为恰当的信仰和实践教条化。无论性方面还是其他方面，一切皆可。然而必须意识到，“一切皆可”实际上就是“随从肉体私欲”的另一种说法。遗憾的是，进步基督教对“一切皆可”伦理的奉若神明，仅仅是情绪化道德指南针运作的结果（加 5:19–21；约一 2:16）。结果，进步基督教将恶称为善（赛 5:20–21；参创 3；罗 1:18–23）。

Contrary to emotivism (and Progressive Christianity), Scripture presents facts that cut directly against the desires of fallen people. Who of their own accord, without Scripture’s testimony and the Spirit’s inward illumination, wants to admit there is a Hell? Who without God’s regenerating work wants to repent of dead works and cling to God in chastity and abstinence? Who wants to confess that a hard, narrow gate is the only way to finding God, a large swath of humanity missing it (Matt. 7:13–14)?

与情绪主义（以及进步基督教）相反，圣经呈现的事实直接抵触堕落之人的欲望。如果没有圣经的见证和圣灵的内在照明，谁会自愿承认有地狱的存在？如果没有神的重生之工，谁会愿意为死行悔改，并在纯洁和节制中紧紧跟随神？谁愿意承认，只有通过那道“窄门”才是寻找神的唯一途径，而绝大多数的人都进不去（太 7:13–14）？

But it is precisely these truths which Scripture presents. It is also precisely these truths that the fallen person wants to avoid. Sadly, it is also precisely these truths that Progressive Christianity flattens, excises, or obscures by dogmatizing affirmation.

但圣经呈现的恰恰就是这些真理。而堕落之人想要避开的也恰恰就是这些真理。遗憾的是，进步基督教（Progressive Christianity）通过将“肯定”（affirmation）教条化，将这些真理扁平化、剔除或掩盖了。

A Call to the Absolute Truth of the Cross

呼吁回归十字架的绝对真理

Back to my three friends. Each is a caring individual who—from my vantage—appears to desire nothing more than what they perceive is the best for society: their version of Christianity the solution. After all, God is a lover, not a fighter, wanting nothing else but to sweep the world into his arms, even—it seems—at the expense of his justice.

回到我的三位朋友。在我看来，他们每一个人都充满关怀，且似乎不希望有任何事情能比他们认为的对社会最好的方案更重要：即他们版本的基督教是唯一的解决方案。毕竟，上帝是一位爱人而非战士，祂除了将世界拥入怀中之外别无所求——即便这似乎是以牺牲祂的公义为代价。

The problem is that such doctrinal conclusions are increasingly formulated along emotive, metamodern lines. Progressive Christianity dogmatizes—affirms—Jean Paul Sartre’s equating of freedom and existence: “Freedom is existence, and in it existence precedes essence.” As a theological system, Progressive Christianity dwells in a space beyond good and evil clearly (biblically) defined. A place where “if we must have virtues, have those only which have come to agreement with our most secret and heartfelt inclinations, with our most ardent requirements[.]” Modifying a concept from Philip Rief, Progressive Christianity is a third world, forging what it wants from the sacred order of the Christian second world. Though each of my friends wouldn’t confess these sentiments expressly, the theology they wear on their sleeves in regular conversation shows this as the case.

问题在于，此类教义结论正日益沿着情感主义和元现代主义（metamodern）的路线被构建出来。进步基督教将让-保罗·萨特（Jean Paul Sartre）关于自由与存在的等同论教条化（即肯定）：“自由即存在，且在这种状态下，存在先于本质。”作为一个神学体系，进步基督教栖身于一个显然（在圣经定义之外）超越善恶的空间。在那个地方，“如果我们必须拥有美德，那么只能拥有那些与我们最隐秘、最深切的倾向以及我们最热烈的需求相一致的美德。”借鉴菲利普·里夫（Philip Rief）的一个概念，进步基督教是一个第三世界，它从基督教“第二世界”的神圣秩序中锻造出它想要的东西。尽管我的朋友们不会明确承认这些观点，但他们在日常对话中流露出的神学立场表明事实正是如此。

Progressive Christianity in final analysis forms and then ascends a mountain of its own making, at the summit transfiguring the community’s internal inclinations into external dogma. Such idol-making is the only recourse for Progressive Christianity, dwelling in the shadow of nihilism, rubbing modernism and postmodernism together in bifurcated hopeful-despair for a flame to arise.

归根结底，进步基督教构建并攀登一座由其自身创造的山峰，在顶峰将社群内部的倾向转化为外部的教条。这种偶像制造是进步基督教唯一的出路，它栖身于虚无主义的阴影中，将现代主义与后现代主义在分叉的希望与绝望中相互摩擦，试图以此点燃火焰。

I invite these friends—and many more—back to the absolute reality of the Cross; to the firelight of God’s glory revealed in the face of Christ, revelation given a priori to our fallen doubts. I adjure them to receive the exhortation—and blessing—Jesus spoke to doubting Thomas about those who would doubt after him: “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29).

我邀请这些朋友——以及更多的人——回到十字架的绝对现实中；回到在基督面容上显现的上帝荣耀之光中，这启示是在我们堕落的怀疑之前（a priori）就已赐下的。我恳请他们接受耶稣对怀疑的多马以及后来那些怀疑者所说的劝勉与祝福：“耶稣对他说：『你因看见了我才信；那没有看见就信的有福了。』”（约翰福音 20:29）。

Jeffrey Beaupre

Jeff Beaupre is an M.Div student at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is passionate about writing both academic theology and science fiction/fantasy. He has written for Christoverall.com, and you can find his writing on his substack, Captured Imaginary (https://jefferyryanbeaupre.substack.com). Additionally, he is working on an epic fantasy novel which is the first of a planned seven-part series. He lives with his beautiful wife and daughter in Northern California, and is a member at Neighborhood Church in Anderson, CA.Jeffrey Beaupre 是南浸信会神学院（Southern Baptist Theological Seminary）的 M.Div 学生。他热衷于撰写学术神学以及科幻/奇幻小说。他曾为 Christoverall.com 撰稿，您可以在他的 Substack 专栏 Captured Imaginary (https://jefferyryanbeaupre.substack.com) 找到他的文章。此外，他正在创作一部史诗奇幻小说，这是计划中的七部曲系列的第一部。他与美丽的妻子和女儿住在北加利福尼亚州，是加州安德森市 Neighborhood Church 的成员。

Topics Movements, Worldview主题运动, 世界观

Date Tuesday, April 28, 2026日期 2026年4月28日，星期二

不容后千禧年论的乐观主义：探讨以赛亚书 24-27 章中的圣徒与混乱之城

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 15:00:00 +0000

Christians today join the saints before them in searching the Bible to understand what exactly God promises us about the Last Days. No shortage of speculation exists, and it would be hard to overstate the impact eschatology has had on Christian life as believers navigate the spaces of politics and culture. As Christians long for the Second Coming of Christ, concern has centered around what this final appearance of Christ will look like. Will he come and consummate a world that has been completely reclaimed—states and souls alike—by the church? Does his return hinge upon the efforts of his people to conquer the kingdoms of this earth in his name? Or can we expect the bad to get worse, for the kingdoms of this world to flourish in the darkness? Will this pilgrimage as strangers in a strange land continue to be the norm for believers before our Lord comes again and defeats, at last, the final enemy once and for all? Though cloaked in imagery that seems foreign to modern readers and separated from us by thousands of years, the words of Isaiah and Paul are especially helpful in understanding what Scripture tells us about the Last Days—and in what Christians should put their hope. It’s not for the faint of heart, not for those optimistic that Christendom can create a flourishing earthly city that will usher in the kingdom of God. But the hope is there, for final judgment and justice and the coming kingdom, for death conquered at last—it’s simply anchored in something greater than human effort.

如今的基督徒与先前的圣徒一样，在圣经中寻求，以了解神究竟向我们承诺了关于末日的什么。关于此的推测层出不穷，而末世论对基督徒生活的深远影响，在信徒应对政治与文化空间时，无论如何强调都不为过。当基督徒渴慕基督的第二次降临之时，关注的焦点集中在基督最后一次出现将是怎样的景象。他是否会降临并完成一个已被教会完全收复（无论是国家还是灵魂）的世界？他的回归是否取决于他的子民以他的名征服这地上各国的努力？或者，我们是否可以预见坏事会变得更糟，这世界的王国将在黑暗中兴旺？在我们的主再次降临并最终一次性地击败最后一个仇敌之前，作为客旅在异乡的这种漂泊状态是否将继续成为信徒的常态？尽管以赛亚和保罗的话语披着一层对现代读者而言显得陌生且相隔数千年的意象，但它们对于理解圣经告诉我们的末日真相，以及基督徒应当将希望寄托在何处，具有极大的帮助。这并非胆小之辈所能承受，也不适用于那些乐观地认为基督徒世界（Christendom）能建立一座繁荣的地上之城并由此开启神国的人们。但希望确实存在——是对最终的审判与公正、对将临之国的希望，是对死亡最终被征服的希望——只不过，这种希望锚定在比人类努力更伟大的事物之上。

The City and the Mountain

城与山

First, a broader framing is in order. Isaiah 24–27 is often pointed to as apocalyptic writings that both unveil Isaiah’s vision of the Last Days and anchor much of the other imagery that appears in the book. He makes use of several key terms in 24–27 that need to be contextualized within the entirety of his writings. “The City of Chaos” in Isaiah 24:10 and references to “this mountain” in 25:6–7, 10—echoed again in 27:13—are both crucial for placing Isaiah’s eschatological paradigm, specifically in understanding to whom the prophecy refers. Is this for the ancient nation of Israel, the people headed into exile—or for the Israel of today—or is this for all God’s people across time and place?

首先，有必要进行一个更广泛的框架分析。以赛亚书 24–27 章常被视为启示文学，既揭示了以赛亚对末日的异象，也为书中出现的许多其他意象奠定了基础。他在 24–27 章中使用了几个关键术语，需要将其置于其全部著作的语境中来理解。以赛亚书 24:10 中的“荒凉的城”（City of Chaos）以及 25:6–7, 10 中提到的“在这山上”（在 27:13 中再次呼应），对于定位以赛亚的末世论范式至关重要，特别是为了理解预言是指向谁。这是针对古代以色列民族——那些即将进入被掳之地的子民，还是针对今日的以色列，抑或是针对古往今来所有神的人民？

This “Isaiah apocalypse” holds a crucial place in understanding the cities that appear in the book, and urges us to wonder: Who is the City of Chaos meant to represent?¹ [1. Mark E. Biddle, “The City of Chaos and the New Jerusalem: Isaiah 24–27 in Context.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 22 (1995), 6.] Throughout Isaiah are references to Jerusalem and Babylon, cities that represent the great ladies in the narrative of redemptive history playing out the role of the elect nation of Israel and the pagan nations which surround her. As the poems wind through Isaiah, it is clear that Babylon is destined to fall and sinful Jerusalem to be replaced by a New Jerusalem. And then there are the unnamed cities. The unnamed city in Isaiah 57 presents as Jerusalem’s “sinful alter ego” which must fall and be remade, and in chapter 47 it is possibly meant to juxtapose Babylon.² [2. Ibid., 5–6.] Despite being addressed to the remnant of Israel, those crying out to God, the imagery surrounding the destruction language matches what is also said of Tyre, Sidon and other condemned cities in Isaiah 13–33.

这段“以赛亚启示录”在理解书中所出现的城市方面占据着至关重要的地位，并促使我们思考：这座“混乱之城”旨在代表谁？¹ [1. Mark E. Biddle, “The City of Chaos and the New Jerusalem: Isaiah 24–27 in Context.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 22 (1995), 6.] 在整个《以赛亚书》中，多次提到耶路撒冷和巴比伦，这两座城市在救赎历史的叙事中分别代表了扮演选民以色列和周围异教国家的“伟大女性”。随着诗篇在《以赛亚书》中展开，显然巴比伦注定要倾覆，而罪恶的耶路撒冷将被一座新耶路撒冷所取代。此外还有一些未具名的城市。以赛亚书 57 章中提到的未具名城市表现为耶路撒冷的“罪恶分身”，必须倾覆并重建；而在 47 章中，它可能是为了与巴比伦形成对比。² [2. Ibid., 5–6.] 尽管这些话是对以色列的余民——那些向神哀求的人——所说的，但围绕毁灭之语的意象与以赛亚书 13-33 章中对推罗、西顿和其他被谴责城市的描述相一致。

So, is the City of Chaos a pagan lady or the sinful Jerusalem? He contends that this might be intentionally unresolvable, that the reader is left to wonder.¹ [1. Ibid., 10.]

那么，混乱之城是一位异教女性，还是罪恶的耶路撒冷？他认为这可能是刻意不让得出结论的，旨在让读者去思考。¹ [1. Ibid., 10.]

This analysis puts Isaiah’s eschatology into an interesting light. Indeed, without directly labeling a city, how can one say the people of one particular nation will be saved over another? Calvin makes an interesting note in his Commentaries, regarding Isaiah 24:14, that “as the Jews were the first fruits… they are here placed in the highest rank.”¹ [1. Jean Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah . Translated by William Pringle. Calvin's Commentaries, (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub, 1948), 175.] And yet, Calvin also observes that these cries of joy and exaltation of the name of the Lord do come from both East and West, coastlands and valleys (vv. 14–16). He notes that Isaiah writes “of spreading the true religion through the whole world; and this makes it still more evident that the prophecy relates to the kingdom of Christ, under which true religion has at length penetrated into the foreign and heathen nations.”² [2. Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 176–177.]

这一分析为以赛亚的末世论提供了一个有趣的视角。的确，在没有直接标明城市名称的情况下，一个人如何能说某个特定国家的人将比另一个国家的人更容易得救？加尔文在关于以赛亚书 24:14 的《注释》中提出了一个有趣的观察，即“由于犹太人是初熟的果子……他们在这里被置于最高之位”。¹ [1. Jean Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah . Translated by William Pringle. Calvin's Commentaries, (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub, 1948), 175.] 然而，加尔文也观察到，这些欢呼和对主名之颂赞的声音确实来自东方和西方，来自海岛和山谷（14-16 节）。他指出，以赛亚写到“将真正的信仰传播到全世界；这使得该预言与基督的国度之关联更加明显，在基督的国度之下，真正的信仰最终渗透到了外邦和异教国家之中”。² [2. Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 176–177.]

This is mirrored in chapter 25 where “the Lord of armies will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain” (v. 6). He removes the veil which stretches over all the nations (v. 7), which Calvin says is the ignorance of the sinful nature, now dispelled by the light of the gospel.¹ [1. Ibid. , 198.] And then God wipes away tears from all faces (v. 8). Old Testament scholar Joseph Blenkinsopp writes: “It is also consoling, and perhaps remarkable, that all peoples are invited to the banquet, the mantle of mourning will be removed from all nations, and the tears will be wiped from every face, unconditionally, with no restrictions or reservations.”² [2. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary . Firsted. The Anchor Bible Commentary Series, (New York, New York: Doubleday, 2000), 359. (emphasis original)]

这一点在 25 章中得到了映照，在那里“万军之耶和华必为万民用肥甘设摆筵席”在这山上（6 节）。他除灭了遮盖万民之物和遮蔽万国蒙脸的帕子（7 节），加尔文说这代表罪性带来的无知，如今被福音的光芒所驱散。¹ [1. Ibid. , 198.] 随后，神擦去各人脸上的眼泪（8 节）。旧约学者约瑟夫·布伦金索普（Joseph Blenkinsopp）写道：“令人宽慰且或许值得关注的是，万民都被邀请参加筵席，哀恸的斗篷将被从万国身上除去，眼泪将被从每张脸上擦去，这是无条件的，没有任何限制或保留。”² [2. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary . Firsted. The Anchor Bible Commentary Series, (New York, New York: Doubleday, 2000), 359. (emphasis original)]

It seems apparent, then, that the City of Chaos is made up of those who do not call on the name of the Lord, which might include even ethnic Israelites (Rom 9:6). Those who are invited to the banquet, whose tears will be wiped away, are from every nation—they call out to God as Lord and he saves them.

因此，显而易见的是，“荒凉的城”是由那些不求告主名的人组成的，其中可能甚至包括血统上的以色列人（罗 9:6）。那些被邀请参加筵席、眼泪将被擦去的人来自各国——他们求告神为主，他就拯救他们。

In conjunction with this perception of a multi-ethnic city of believers is the place where this victory shall be inaugurated. The first “eschatological banquet”¹ [1. Ibid., 358.] happens “on this mountain.” It is a mountain referred to often in Isaiah, beginning in chapter 2:

与这种对多民族信徒之城的认知相伴的，是这场胜利将要开启的地点。第一次“末世筵席”¹ [1. Ibid., 358.] 发生在“在这山上”。这座山在《以赛亚书》中经常被提到，从第 2 章就开始了：

Now it will come about that In the last days The mountain of the house of the Lord Will be established as the chief of the mountains, And will be raised above the hills; And all the nations will stream to it. (Isa. 2:2)

末后的日子，耶和华殿的山必坚立，超乎诸山，高举过于万岭；万民都要流归这山。（赛 2:2）

Mount Zion is notably quite low and, at the time of this writing, Jerusalem would have already been destroyed.¹ [1. Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah , 92.] It is thusly peculiar imagery to point to a small hill and a ruined city as the points of triumph, and Calvin explains that “it was the duty of the pious to look not at those ruins, but at this vision.”² [2. Ibid., 93.] It is a vision of the temple, of Christ and of his kingdom.

锡安山显著地非常低矮，且在写作之时，耶路撒冷应该已经被摧毁了。¹ [1. Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah , 92.] 因此，将一座小山和一座废墟之城指向为胜利之点，是一种奇特的意象，加尔文解释说，“虔诚之人的职责不是看向那些废墟，而是看向这个异象”。² [2. Ibid., 93.] 这是一个关于圣殿、关于基督及其国度的异象。

Of course, Isaiah would not have had the context nor the vocabulary to include the incarnate Jesus and the New Testament era church into this prophecy, nor would Israel have been able to comprehend them. But they are here pictured in Mount Zion as the place where offerings are brought (Isa. 60:22), a house of prayer (Isa. 56:20), and the ones who take refuge in the Lord will inherit it (Isa. 57:13).

当然，以赛亚当时既没有背景也没有词汇将道成肉身的耶稣和新约时代的教会纳入这一预言之中，以色列人也无法理解。但在此时，他们被描绘在锡安山中，那里是献祭之所（赛 60:22），是祷告之殿（赛 56:7），而投靠耶和华的人必承受它为业（赛 57:13）。

Although this imagery would have first been understood as the temple, it points forward even more to Christ and the church (Heb. 7:22–25), and in Isaiah 65:25, “My holy mountain” is used as capstone for the preceding passage about the new heavens and new earth. This mountain is then the church consummate—or perhaps more fittingly, as Isaiah 65:25 portrays with the lion and the lamb peacefully domesticated together, the church at rest.

虽然这些意象最初会被理解为圣殿，但它更进一步指向基督和教会（希 7:22–25）；在以赛亚书 65:25 中，“我的圣山”被用作前文关于新天新地论述的总结。这座山便是圆满的教会——或者更贴切地说，正如以赛亚书 65:25 描绘狮子与羊羔和平共处那样，是安息中的教会。

Without the benefit of history, of seeing the fulfillment of God’s redemptive plan, Mount Zion was meant to be a picture of comfort for God’s people, and, as is true of the church today, Zion is extolled not in her own right but on account of what the Lord will do through her.¹ [1. Ibid., 92–93.]

在没有历史经验、没有亲眼见证神救赎计划之成就的情况下，锡安山旨在成为神子民安慰的图画；正如今天的教会一样，锡安被颂扬并非因为她自身的价值，而是因为主将通过她所成就的事。¹ [1. Ibid., 92–93.]

This is an important framework for understanding the Last Days in our modern context. It is too easy to take the language of Isaiah and transpose it onto current political events or movements, but Isaiah isn’t just talking about one earthly nation or ethnicity. The eschatological banquet and the passages of 24–27 are intended for God’s elect, those in the nation of Israel at the time of this writing and those in the church in the age to come—to all those who join in singing “Glory to the Righteous One” (Isa. 24:16).

这对于我们在现代语境中理解末后日子是一个重要的框架。人们很容易将以赛亚书的语言直接套用到当前的政治事件或运动上，但以赛亚并非仅仅在谈论一个地上的国家或民族。末世筵席以及 24–27 章的篇章是面向神的选民的——包括写作时以色列国中的人们，以及未来时代教会中的人们——面向所有一同歌唱“荣耀归于义人”（赛 24:16）的人。

The Millennium in Isaiah

以赛亚书中的千禧年

Isaiah’s apocalypse poem does more than tell us who will be saved in the Last Days. It offers perspective on the question of the millennium: when will the Kingdom of God come and how will it appear? As the nations continue to rage, and the church seeks to find its place amid their warring, this question remains prevalent.

以赛亚的启示诗不仅告诉我们末日谁将被拯救，还为千禧年问题提供了视角：神的国何时到来，又将如何显现？随着万国继续喧嚷，教会也在这些战争中寻求自己的位置，这个问题依然普遍存在。

To this end, Calvin’s observation about the Lord working through Zion, rather than Zion doing the work, is an important place to start. Based on 24–27, it would not seem that Isaiah envisions a world of pre-Second Advent glory, nor of an earthly post-Coming reign. Rather, Isaiah sees a time of bitterness and gloom where the saints are few and God’s judgment is brought upon the earth (ch. 24), followed by feasting and celebration, the curse conquered and the death-blow dealt to death (ch. 25). This pattern is largely repeated in 26–27. God’s people are saved, his enemies are destroyed.

为此，加尔文关于主在锡安中作工，而非锡安在作工的观察，是一个重要的起点。基于 24-27 章，以赛亚似乎并未预见到一个在第二次降临之前的荣耀世界，也没有一个在降临之后的地上统治。相反，以赛亚看到的是一个苦楚与阴郁的时代，圣徒寥寥，神的审判临到地上（24 章），随后是筵席与庆典，咒诅被征服，死亡被给予致命一击（25 章）。这一模式在 26-27 章中大致重复：神的子民得救，他的仇敌被毁灭。

This small remnant seen especially in chapter 24 is important in understanding Isaiah’s distinctly non-Post-Millennium vision. It is counterintuitive that the few inhabitants mentioned in Isaiah 24:6 could produce with their voices songs that are heard over all the earth (v. 16)—it is clearly a work of God’s hand, in salvation and in judgment.¹ [1. Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 175–176.] Surely, men will not bring about the triumph of the Kingdom of God, not as they are described here in Isaiah as a small number, scattered (v. 1) and dwindling (v. 4).

在 24 章中特别看到的这小部分余民，对于理解以赛亚截然非后千禧年论的异象至关重要。以赛亚书 24:6 中提到的少数居民能够发出传遍全地的歌声（16 节），这在直觉上是难以想象的——这显然是神在救赎与审判中的作为。¹ [1. Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 175–176.] 毫无疑问，人类无法凭己力带来神国度的胜利，因为在这里，以赛亚将他们描述为人数稀少、分散（1 节）且在减少（4 节）的状态。

In addition to this gloomy picture is the City of Chaos itself. Though often translated as the City of Chaos, the ruined city, or the wasted city, the Hebrew construct in question might be better rendered “the formless city.” Tohu is the same word used in Genesis 1:2 when the Spirit of God is hovering over the waters of an earth that is “formless” and empty. Tohu is used often to refer to or to suggest a breakdown of order or a reversal of roles, and that is exactly what is pictured here. This City of Chaos is the antithesis of man’s achievements. Humans build, create, order, and fill the earth with great cities, grand monuments, and sprawling infrastructures. But this city is formless, desolate, barren. Described in Isaiah’s vision is the opposite of what humankind was called to do in the creation mandate: to fill the earth and subdue it. Here, people are scattered and few and they live in a city of emptiness. This is not Post-Millennium Glory.

除了这幅阴郁的画面，还有“混沌之城”本身。虽然通常被翻译为“混沌之城”（City of Chaos）、废墟之城或荒废之城，但相关的希伯来语结构或许翻译为“无形之城”更好。Tohu 与创世记 1:2 中神之灵运行在“混沌”且空虚的地上的水面上时所使用的词相同。Tohu 常被用来指代或暗示秩序的崩溃或角色的反转，而这正是这里所描绘的。这座混沌之城是人类成就的对立面。人类建造、创造、规划，用巨大的城市、宏伟的纪念碑和蔓延的基础设施填满大地。但这座城市却是无形的、荒凉的、贫瘠的。以赛亚异象中所描述的，恰恰是人类在创造委任中所受呼召的反面：即充满地面并治理它。在这里，人们分散且稀少，生活在空虚之城中。这绝非后千禧年的荣耀。

It would be difficult from this text to draw the conclusion that any kind of grand earthly reign of the church will take place before or after the Second Coming of Christ, and it is worth noting that Isaiah himself would not have had context for two separate advents. His prophecy has no timeline for the events foretold (e.g. the virgin birth, the raising up of the suffering servant, the resurrection of the dead, etc.). And yet, in Isaiah 24:23, we are told that the Lord will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and we know that Mount Zion refers to the place of the church, yes, even the church entering into eternal rest. Isaiah even tells us as much in 2:2 when he introduces the mountain, according to Calvin:

很难从这段经文中得出这样的结论，即在基督第二次降临之前或之后，教会将进行某种宏大的地上统治；而且值得注意的是，以赛亚本人并没有关于两次降临的背景。他的预言没有为预言的事件（例如童贞女怀孕、受苦仆人的兴起、死人复活等）提供时间表。然而，在以赛亚 24:23 中，我们被告知主必在锡安山和耶路撒冷作王，而我们知道锡安山是指教会所在之地，是的，甚至是指教会进入永恒的安息。加尔文认为，以赛亚在 2:2 介绍这座山时就已告诉了我们这一点：

When [Isaiah] mentions the end or completion of days, let us remember that he is speaking of the kingdom of Christ; and we ought also to understand why he gives to the kingdom of Christ this appellation. It was because till that time everything might be said to be in a state of suspense, that the people might not fix their eyes on the present condition of things, which was only a shadow, but on the Redeemer, by whom the reality would be declared. Since Christ came, therefore, if that time be compared with ours, we have actually arrived at the end of ages… Yet it ought to be observed, that while the fullness of days began at the coming of Christ, it flows on in uninterrupted progress until he appear the second time for our salvation.¹ [1. Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 91–92.]

当[以赛亚]提到日子的终结或完成时，让我们记住他是在谈论基督的国；我们也应当理解他为何给基督的国起这样一个名称。这是因为在那个时刻之前，可以说一切都处于悬而未决的状态，好让人们不要将目光聚焦在当下的处境上——因为那仅仅是影子——而应聚焦在救赎主身上，由他来揭示真实的实相。因此，既然基督已经降临，如果将那个时代与我们的时代相比，我们实际上已经抵达了时代的终结……然而应当注意到，虽然日子的丰满始于基督的降临，但它将持续不断地推进，直到他第二次显现以救赎我们。¹ [1. Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 91–92.]

God’s kingdom reign will not be on a physical mountain in the Middle East but rather over his church. Although Isaiah makes it clear that God will reign over his people, he does not say specifically where that will be.

神国的统治将不在中东的一座实体山上，而是在他的教会之上。虽然以赛亚明确表示神将统治他的子民，但他并未具体说明那将在哪里。

Death Shall Be Swallowed

死亡将被吞灭

While Isaiah does not provide a strict timeline for events (e.g. when God will lay waste to the earth, imprison kings, reign on his holy mountain, or wipe tears from the eyes of all people), the book does reveal one crucial aspect of the Kingdom of God: the resurrection.

虽然以赛亚没有为这些事件提供一个严格的时间表（例如：上帝何时将大地变为荒废、囚禁君王、在祂的圣山上掌权，或擦去所有人的眼泪），但这本书确实揭示了上帝之国的一个关键方面：复活。

Blenkinsopp submits that this reference to death being swallowed up might be a nod to the Canaanite myth about Mot (who embodies Death) swallowing Baal, but then later being himself overcome.¹ [1. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah , 359.] Whatever similarities those Ancient Near East mythologies may share, the death being referred to here is much more than just the last breath of a person that passes from lungs to lips. It refers to the state of having death ever before one’s eyes, aware of the outward wasting away (2 Cor. 4:16). This is the presence of the curse which will be once-for-all overthrown. Death conquered is not just an extension of life but a reversal of the curse—the sin and suffering we are subjected to in so many ways will be overcome. Covenant promises will at last be fulfilled. In Christ’s first coming, he crushed the serpent’s head, but the final victory has not yet been consummated. This is shadowed in Isaiah’s imagery in chapter 24, where the people praise God amidst the desolation of the earth. This worship must indicate assurance of God’s victory because, as the psalmist writes, who can praise God in death? (Ps. 6:5)—death must already be conquered for the people of God to have such hope.

Blenkinsopp 认为，这段关于死亡被吞灭的描述可能是对迦南神话中关于 Mot（死亡的化身）吞噬巴力但随后被击败的暗示。¹ [1. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah , 359.] 无论那些古代近东神话有哪些相似之处，这里所指的死亡远不止是一个人从肺部到唇边的最后一次呼吸。它指的是一种死亡时刻在眼前、意识到“外体虽然毁坏”（林后 4:16）的状态。这是咒诅的临在，而这咒诅将被一次而永久地推翻。征服死亡不仅仅是生命的延长，更是对咒诅的逆转——我们以诸多方式所承受的罪与苦难将被克服。圣约的应许终将实现。在基督第一次降临中，他击碎了蛇的头，但最终的胜利尚未完全达成。这在以赛亚第 24 章的意象中有所预表，在那里，人们在地的荒凉之中赞美上帝。这种敬拜必然表明对上帝胜利的确信，因为正如诗篇作者所写，“在死地无人记念你，在阴间有谁称谢你？”（诗 6:5）——死亡必须已经被征服，上帝的子民才能拥有这样的盼望。

As Paul and Isaiah stare down the horizon of God’s promises from either side of the First Advent, they both equally look forward to a final day in which salvation will be fully consummated. But that optimism isn’t placed in earthly kingdoms or the rising of Christian empires. God doesn’t need humans or their governments to usher in the judgment of the Last Days—that is something only the Messiah can do. Isaiah penned this covenantal promise of life and judgment from his context as a prophet of the living God speaking to a ruined Israel, hoping for the return of God’s favor and the sign of its coming: the virgin birth of Immanuel (Isa. 7:14)—an Israel that has now seen the ingrafting of the nations and is called the church. Paul wrote about this promise having met the resurrected Christ himself on the Damascus road—he has seen the sign fulfilled, he himself bears witness to Immanuel and to the dead raised back to life. In 1 Corinthians 15:54, Paul is able to contextualize the words of the prophet Isaiah with the events of the first coming of Christ: “But when this perishable puts on the imperishable, and this mortal puts on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written: ‘Death has been swallowed up in victory’” (1 Cor. 15:54).

保罗和以赛亚分别从基督初临的前后两端凝视上帝应许的地平线，他们同样期待着救恩完全成就的最后一日。但这种乐观并不寄托于地上的王国或基督徒帝国的兴起。上帝不需要人类或其政府来开启末日的审判——那是只有弥赛亚才能做到的事。以赛亚在作为活上帝的先知、向被毁的以色列说话的背景下，写下了关于生命与审判的圣约应许，希望上帝的恩宠回归，并期待其临在的兆头：童女怀孕生子，起名叫以马内利（赛 7:14）——而现在的以色列已经见证了万民的接枝，并被称为教会。保罗在但马色路上亲眼遇见复活的基督后，写下了关于这个应许的文字——他见证了兆头的应验，他本人见证了以马内利以及死人复活。在哥林多前书 15:54 中，保罗能够将先知以赛亚的话与基督初临的事件联系起来：“这必朽坏的既变成不朽坏的，这必死的既变成不死的，那时经上所记「死被得胜吞灭」的话就应验了”（林前 15:54）。

The when of this resurrection is important in the discussion of eschatological millennia. When is this resurrection, when is this last day, when death is swallowed and tears are wiped away? It cannot be this inter-advent period, because, as Paul outlines in Corinthians, death is still very much present, in both bodily demise and the external wasting away of the flesh, to say nothing of the persecutions and suffering of the saints (1 Cor. 4:9ff). This language is mirrored in the psalms and prophets, as persecution and death hound God’s people continuously (Ps. 44:22). But we know that Christ has conquered death and the songs lifted up in Isaiah 24 declare assurance of such before the consummation of the eschatological banquet. Calvin explains:

在讨论末世千禧年时，这次复活的“时间”至关重要。这次复活在何时？这最后一日在何时？那时死亡被吞灭，眼泪被擦去。这不可能发生在两次降临之间（inter-advent period），因为正如保罗在哥林多前书中所概述的，死亡依然真实地存在，无论是身体的消亡还是肉体外在的毁坏，更不用说圣徒所遭受的迫害和苦难（林前 4:9起）。这种语言在诗篇和先知书中也有镜像体现，因为迫害和死亡不断地追逼上帝的子民（诗 44:22）。但我们知道基督已经征服了死亡，而以赛亚书 24 章中升起的赞歌在末世筵席的圆满之前，就宣告了对此的确信。加尔文解释道：

They must undoubtedly be referring to the universal kingdom of Christ;—universal, I say, because we must look not only at the beginning, but also at the accomplishment and the end: and thus it must be extended even to the second coming of Christ, which on that account is called ‘the day of redemption’ and ‘the day of restoration;’ because all things which now appear to be confused shall be fully restored, and assume a new form.¹ [1. Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah , 198–199.]

他们无疑是指基督的普世国度；我说普世，是因为我们不仅要看其开端，还要看其成就与终结：因此，它必须延伸至基督的第二次降临，正因如此，那一天被称为“救赎之日”和“恢复之日”；因为现在看来混乱的一切都将被完全恢复，并呈现出新的形态。¹ [1. Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah , 198–199.]

Paul interprets Isaiah 25:8 to take place “in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet” (1 Cor 15:52). “In these words, God intimates that he accomplishes the salvation of his people only when death and the grave are reduced to nothing.”¹ [1. Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 62.] Calvin’s case is that we do not enjoy that complete salvation until the last day; then death will be swallowed up accordingly, “in every respect, a complete victory over it.”

保罗将以赛亚书 25:8 的实现解释为“就在一霎时，眨眼之间，号筒末次吹响的时候”（林前 15:52）。“在这些话语中，上帝暗示他只有在死亡和坟墓被化为乌有时，才完成对他子民的救赎。”¹ [1. Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 62.] 加尔文的论点是，直到最后一日，我们才享有那完全的救赎；那时死亡才相应地被吞灭，“在各方面，是对死亡的完全胜利”。

What we see in Isaiah 25:7–10 is a glimpse of the new creation, one which mirrors the picture of peace and rest seen in 65:25. There is no objective ground to support a millennialist view, but rather these passages of Isaiah by themselves indicate a period between first victory and final triumph when God’s people will be scattered in a broken world before he comes at last to swallow up death forever and comfort those who seek refuge in him. Kingdoms of earth will rise and fall—maybe even kingdoms espousing Christian virtues or beliefs—but they will be fleeting, like everything else in this age that is passing away. More so in light of Paul, we see that this coming resurrection, as promised with the risen Christ, is the hope of the Christian faith—not any man-made earthly fortification, but that on the last day, both the destruction of the body and the curse of this world will be overcome.

我们在以赛亚书 25:7–10 中看到的是新创造的一瞥，它镜像了 65:25 中所见的平安与安息之景。没有客观依据支持千禧年主义的观点，相反，以赛亚书的这些段落本身就表明，在初次胜利与最终凯旋之间存在一个时期，那时上帝的子民将散布在破碎的世界中，直到祂最终降临，永远吞灭死亡，并安慰那些在祂里面寻求避难的人。地上的王国将兴起又衰落——甚至可能是那些秉持基督徒美德或信仰的王国——但它们将是短暂的，就像这个正在逝去的时代中的一切一样。结合保罗的教导，我们更清楚地看到，这次随复活基督而应许的复活，才是基督徒信仰的希望——而非任何人为的地上的堡垒，而是在最后一日，身体的毁坏和这个世界的咒诅都将被克服。

Mary Van Weelden

Mary Van Weelden is a writer and a journalist, and has a double M.A. in Biblical and Theological Studies from Westminster Seminary California. She and her husband are actively searching for the best taco place in Denver, CO. Come talk to her about practical theology and comma placements on Twitter at @agirlnamedmary.Mary Van Weelden 是一位作家和记者，拥有西敏神学院（加州）圣经与神学研究的双硕士学位。她和丈夫正积极在科罗拉多州丹佛市寻找最棒的塔可店。欢迎在 Twitter (@agirlnamedmary) 上与她探讨实践神学和逗号的用法。

Topics Bible Prophecy, End Times / Return of Christ主题圣经预言, 末世 / 基督再临

Date Friday, April 17, 2026日期 2026年4月17日，星期五

《一种不同的存在方式》（大卫·基尔瓦·塔鲁斯著）书评

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 15:00:00 +0000

A Different Way of Being: Towards a Reformed Theology of Ethnopolitical Cohesion for the Kenyan Context By David Kirwa Tarus Langham Monographs | 2019 | 230 pages (paperback) | $40.99

A Different Way of Being: Towards a Reformed Theology of Ethnopolitical Cohesion for the Kenyan Context （《另一种存在方式：面向肯尼亚语境的族群政治凝聚力改革宗神学》）作者：David Kirwa Tarus Langham Monographs | 2019年 | 230页（平装） | 40.99美元

I have had the pleasure of corresponding with David Kirwa Tarus while writing my children’s book on Byang Kato (an important African theologian). I have a high estimation of Tarus’s work in his African context, and I am a firm believer in the importance of learning from the global church because we can often get used to our comfortable blinders. I was eager to read this book, certain that it would have much to offer to churches outside of its geographical area. I was not disappointed.

在撰写关于拜昂·卡托（Byang Kato，一位重要的非洲神学家）的儿童读物时，我有幸与大卫·基尔瓦·塔鲁斯（David Kirwa Tarus）进行了通信。我对塔鲁斯在非洲语境下的工作高度评价，并且我坚信向全球教会学习至关重要，因为我们往往容易习惯于自己舒适的盲区。我非常渴望阅读这本书，并确信它能为该地理区域以外的教会提供很多启发。而事实证明，这本书没有让我失望。

Tarus begins by agreeing with a Facebook user that most Kenyan Christians pledge their allegiance first to their tribe, then to their political parties, and finally to Christ. Although this book was written to address the problem of ethnopolitical conflicts in Kenya, it made me wonder if, by substituting the word “tribe” with “family,” this assessment could be applied to some American Christians.

塔鲁斯在书的开头同意了一位 Facebook 用户的观点，即大多数肯尼亚基督徒首先效忠于自己的部落，其次是政党，最后才是基督。虽然这本书是为了解决肯尼亚族群政治冲突的问题而写的，但它让我思考，如果将“部落”一词替换为“家庭”，这种评估是否也适用于一些美国基督徒。

This misguided allegiance, Tarus argues, is at the root of the animosity, bigotry, and violence that have plagued his nation. The numbers are staggering. In the months following the disputed presidential election of Mwai Kibaki on December 27, 2007, more than 1,100 Kenyans were reported killed, thousands more injured, 650,000 people internally displaced and 78,000 houses were burned down. The descriptions of some of these acts of violence are disturbing.

塔鲁斯认为，这种误导性的效忠是困扰其国家的敌意、偏见和暴力的根源。相关数据令人震惊。在 2007 年 12 月 27 日姆瓦伊·基巴基（Mwai Kibaki）那场有争议的总统选举后的几个月里，据报道有 1,100 多名肯尼亚人被杀，数千人受伤，65 万人国内流离失所，7.8 万栋房屋被焚毁。书中对其中一些暴力行为的描述令人不安。

In the face of this crisis, Tarus believes that “the search for ethnic cohesion in Kenya is a theological task that calls for a new theological anthropology and politics. Thus, a new future in Kenya calls for a new way of being human, which can only be availed of when people respond to the divine call and grace” (2).

面对这场危机，塔鲁斯认为，“在肯尼亚寻求族群凝聚力是一项神学任务，它要求一种新的神学人类学和政治学。因此，肯尼亚的新未来需要一种新的为人方式，而这种方式只有在人们回应神圣的呼召与恩典时才能实现”（第 2 页）。

The book goes on to consider how this goal can be achieved. What Tarus calls “a new theological anthropology” is essentially a return to the biblical teaching that humans are created in God’s image. Tarus devotes a whole chapter to this concept of the imago Dei as a reality that encompasses all humanity, though marred by the Fall. To this, Tarus adds a reminder that this image includes people of all ethnicities—a reality which he believes to be prelapsarian, given that “God’s creation is depicted as an intricate world of vibrant diversity” (6). (He follows this statement with biblical references.)

书中接着探讨了如何实现这一目标。塔鲁斯所谓的“一种新的神学人类学”，本质上是回归到圣经的教导，即人类是按照神的形象创造的。塔鲁斯用整整一章来讨论 imago Dei（神的形象）这一概念，将其视为涵盖全人类的现实，尽管这一形象因堕落而受损。对此，塔鲁斯提醒人们，这一形象包括所有族群的人——他认为这是一个前堕落（prelapsarian）的现实，因为“神的创造被描绘为一个充满活力且多样化的复杂世界”（第 6 页）。（他在这一陈述之后列举了圣经参考资料。）

In the same chapter, Tarus examines several views of the imago Dei throughout church history and particularly in the writings of John Calvin. Drawing from the works of several authors, Tarus highlights ways in which a diminished view of God's image in mankind can lead to violence. Conversely, he shows how a true understanding of God's image, exemplified in the courageous actions of Kenyan Christians in the wake of the 2007–2008 violence, is foundational to the Kenyan value of utu (human dignity). This might be his most important chapter in the book, since the imprint of God's image on every human being is at the foundation of Tarus's challenge to the church.

在同一章中，塔鲁斯考察了教会历史上，特别是约翰·加尔文（John Calvin）著作中关于 imago Dei 的几种观点。塔鲁斯借鉴多位作者的作品，强调了对人类身上神形象的低估如何导致暴力。相反，他展示了对神形象的正确理解——正如 2007-2008 年暴力事件后肯尼亚基督徒的勇敢行动所体现的那样——是如何成为肯尼亚 utu（人的尊严）价值观之基石的。这可能是本书中最重要的章节，因为神形象在每个人身上的印记，正是塔鲁斯向教会发起挑战的根基。

The following chapter explores the meaning of identity for a Christian, showing how the Christian maintains his or her identity while forgoing aspects of that identity “that are not aligned with God’s will” (134). This chapter underlines the roles of Christ, the Holy Spirit, God’s word, and the church, as well as the progressive nature of sanctification.

接下来的章节探讨了基督徒身份的意义，阐明了基督徒如何在舍弃那些“不符合神旨意”的身份特质（134）的同时，维持其身份。本章强调了基督、圣灵、神的话语以及教会的作用，以及成圣的渐进性质。

Chapter six deals with the issue of politics. I have some qualms about the comparison of David VanDrunen’s thought with that of Neo-Calvinists such as Abraham Kuyper, since the use of terms such as “dualism,” “dichotomy,” and “antithetical” to describe VanDrunen’s view of God’s two kingdoms is not accurate. VanDrunen’s writings clearly outline that both kingdoms are God’s and are therefore complementary, although distinct. The chapter as a whole, however, is an excellent reflection on a Christian view of politics in light of Calvin's perception of it as an instrument for the common good, which includes the interests of the poor and marginalized.

第六章讨论了政治问题。对于将大卫·范德鲁宁（David VanDrunen）的思想与亚伯拉罕·凯伯（Abraham Kuyper）等新加尔文主义者进行比较，我持有某些疑虑，因为使用“二元论”、“二分法”和“对立”等词汇来描述范德鲁宁对神两个国度的看法并不准确。范德鲁宁的著作清楚地指出，两个国度都属于神，因此虽然截然不同，但却是互补的。然而，本章整体上是对基督徒政治观的一次极佳反思，它基于加尔文将政治视为实现公共利益（包括贫穷者和边缘化群体的利益）之工具的认知。

The last three chapters in the book address the thought and work of four significant Kenyan theologians: David Gitari, Henry Okullu, Jesse Mugambi, and John Mbiti. Each of these men proposed different solutions to Kenya’s problems. After giving a brief description of their lives, Tarus examines their views in comparison with Calvin’s.

书中的最后三章探讨了四位重要肯尼亚神学家的思想和工作：大卫·吉塔里（David Gitari）、亨利·奥库鲁（Henry Okullu）、杰西·穆甘比（Jesse Mugambi）和约翰·姆比蒂（John Mbiti）。这些人分别为肯尼亚的问题提出了不同的解决方案。在简要介绍他们的生平之后，塔鲁斯（Tarus）将他们的观点与加尔文的观点进行了对比研究。

Throughout the book, Tarus quotes many other authors, including members of the Circle of Concerned African Women, a group that has made important contributions to African theology. Some Western Christians might react negatively to definitions such as “feminist” or “liberation theology,” but the meaning intended by the authors might differ from our assumptions. For example, Mercy Amba Oduyoye, founder of the Circle, defines feminist theology as “simply letting African women solve issues African women encounter in their day-to-day lives” (18).

在整本书中，塔鲁斯引用了许多其他作者的话，包括“关注非洲女性之圈”（Circle of Concerned African Women）的成员，该团体为非洲神学做出了重要贡献。一些西方基督徒可能会对“女权主义”或“解放神学”等定义产生负面反应，但作者所意指的含义可能与我们的假设不同。例如，该团体的创始人默西·安巴·奥杜约耶（Mercy Amba Oduyoye）将女权主义神学定义为“简单地让非洲女性解决她们在日常生活中遇到的问题”（18）。

History enthusiasts will enjoy the chapters devoted to the history of postcolonial Kenya, which highlights some problems of colonialism which are not typically discussed in history books. According to Tarus, even most missionaries unwillingly “precipitated the volatile problem of tribalism in Kenya by concentrating their outreach on specific ethnic communities while neglecting others” (94).

历史爱好者会喜欢那些致力于探讨后殖民时期肯尼亚历史的章节，这些章节揭示了一些历史书中通常不讨论的殖民主义问题。根据塔鲁斯的说法，即使是大多数传教士也无意中“加剧了肯尼亚动荡的部落主义问题，因为他们将宣教重点放在特定的族群，而忽略了其他族群”（94）。

The book concludes with a challenge to Kenyan Christians not only to put into practice the doctrine of the imago Dei, but also to learn to converse charitably with others in their pluralistic society: “Kenyan Christians, as they respond to God’s gift of grace in their lives, are enabled to live lives that truly reflect the meaning of love and neighborliness in a society that is characterized by ethnic hatred and political divisions” (292).

本书最后向肯尼亚基督徒发起挑战，不仅要求他们将“上帝形象”（imago Dei）的教义付诸实践，还要学会与多元社会中的他人进行宽容的对话：“肯尼亚基督徒在回应神在他们生命中所赐的恩典时，能够在这个以种族仇恨和政治分歧为特征的社会中，活出真正反映爱与邻舍关系真谛的生活”（292）。

While Tarus embraces a view of faith as integrated into all aspects of life, he strongly cautions against coercion and exhorts Christians to “be civil in their engagement with culture,” seeking language that emphasizes common ground (293).

虽然塔鲁斯认同信仰应融入生活的方方面面，但他强烈警告不要采取强迫手段，并劝勉基督徒“在与文化的接触中保持文明”（293），寻求强调共同点的语言。

This book may not appeal to everyone. Those readers with many daily responsibilities may not have time to study the history and challenges of the church in Kenya alongside proposed theological solutions. But for readers concerned about rising violence and division in our own country, listening to voices from contexts that have endured similar struggles—often on a greater scale—might prove beneficial and enriching.

这本书可能并非所有人都会感兴趣。那些日常职责繁重的读者可能没有时间在研究拟议的神学解决方案的同时，去研究肯尼亚教会的历史和挑战。但对于那些关注我们国家日益增长的暴力和分歧的读者来说，倾听来自经历过类似挣扎（且规模通常更大）之环境的声音，可能会被证明是有益且令人获益匪浅的。

Simonetta Carr

Simonetta Carr is the author of numerous books, including Broken Pieces and the God Who Mends Them: Schizophrenia through a Mother’s Eyes, and the series Christian Biographies for Young Readers (Reformation Heritage Books).Simonetta Carr 是多本书籍的作者，包括 破碎的碎片与修补它们的神：母亲眼中的精神分裂症 以及《青少年基督徒传记》系列（Reformation Heritage Books）。

Topics Books, Social Issues主题书籍, 社会议题

Date Tuesday, April 14, 2026日期 2026年4月14日，星期二

逾越节的会众

Tue, 07 Apr 2026 15:00:00 +0000

One cannot exaggerate just how critical the sequence of events recorded in Chapters 11, 12, and 13 of Exodus is in the history of Israel, the church, and the world. What God does, says, and reveals to his servant Moses and his covenant people still resonate with God’s people today as the Lord not only fulfills his word of promise to them, but also foreshadows his plans for us. Integral to this section are Stephen’s words from his sermon in front of the Sanhedrin council, where he refers to the Israelites as the “church in the wilderness” (Acts 7:37). The congregation or ekklesia that has survived countless eras of division, persecution, and suffering finds some of its foremost ingredients in an ancient ritual that was first uttered to slaves. In other words, while we recognize Acts 2 and the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost as the proverbial “birthday” of the church, and rightly so, the DNA for the church stretches all the way back to the days of Egyptian servitude, when God, with “a strong hand,” brought his people out of slavery and into freedom.

出埃及记第11、12和13章所记载的一系列事件，在以色列、教会以及世界的历史中具有至关重要的意义，无论如何强调都不为过。神对他仆人摩西及其立约之民所做、所说和所启示的一切，至今仍引起神的子民的共鸣，因为主不仅成就了对他们的应许之言，也预示了他对我们的计划。在这一部分中，司提反在公会面前讲道时的话语至关重要，他将以色列人称为“旷野中的教会”（使徒行传 7:37）。这个在无数次分裂、迫害和苦难的时代中幸存下来的会众或ekklesia，其最核心的要素部分源于一个最初对奴隶所颁布的古老仪式。换句话说，虽然我们将使徒行传第2章五旬节圣灵的浇灌视为教会名义上的“生日”，且这确实如此，但教会的基因可以一直追溯到在埃及为奴的日子，那时神用“大能的手”将他的子民从奴役中带入自由。

Setting the Stage for Salvation

为救赎铺路

To set the scene, we have to look at the prologue to the tenth and final plague and some of the elements that make it unique, chief among them being God’s extended introduction and reminder to set Moses’s expectations (Exod. 11:1–10). Back in Chapter 6, it was revealed that it would be none other than Pharaoh himself who’d drive the Israelites out of Egypt (Exod. 6:1). So far, though, that hadn’t happened. As the Lord reiterates what he said previously, he also reminds Moses of the “peaceful plunder” his people were about to mount on the Egyptians (Exod. 11:2–3). As that nation of slaves exited the land, they wouldn’t be doing so empty-handed; they’d leave with all the articles necessary to worship Yahweh just as he intended (Exod. 12:36; cf. Gen. 15:14).¹ [1. This detail becomes all the more tragic once you make the connection that the jewelry plundered from Egypt and earmarked for the Tabernacle is the same jewelry Aaron confiscates to fabricate his golden calf (Exod. 32).] And what would prompt the Egyptians to want to get rid of them is the final plague, which was the most personal and excruciating of them all, leaving every firstborn—regardless of socio-economic status—struck down and drawing a “great cry” from all those affected (Exod. 11:4–8).

为了铺陈背景，我们必须审视第十场也是最后一场灾殃的序幕，以及使其独特的几个要素，其中最重要的是神对摩西所作的详细引导和提醒，以设定摩西的预期（出 11:1–10）。早在第六章中就揭示了，正是法老本人将把以色列人赶出埃及（出 6:1）。然而，直到那时，这件事尚未发生。当主重申他之前的嘱托时，他也提醒摩西，他的百姓即将对埃及人进行一场“和平的掠夺”（出 11:2–3）。当这个奴隶之国离开那片土地时，他们不会空手而归；他们将带走所有敬拜耶和华所需的物品，正如他所计划的那样（出 12:36；参创 15:14）。¹ [1. 一旦你将从埃及掠夺并预定用于会幕的珠宝，与亚伦后来没收用来制造金牛犊的珠宝联系起来，这个细节就变得更加悲剧（出 32）。] 而促使埃及人想要摆脱他们的，则是最后一场灾殃，这是所有灾殃中最具个人色彩且最令人痛苦的一场，导致每一个长子——无论社会经济地位如何——都被击杀，令所有受影响的人发出“大哀号”（出 11:4–8）。

A distinction is made, though, between those in Egypt and those who belong to the Lord. While the former’s hallways would rattle with the noise of their grief, not even a dog would growl in the latter’s homes—an obvious allusion to the solace, calm, and salvation the Lord would provide for them. After announcing the last plague and departing Pharaoh’s throne room in a rage (Exod. 11:8; cf. 10:28–29), Moses receives a special set of instructions that detail the means by which the people of Israel could survive the looming night of judgment, safe and sound (Exod. 12:1–13). This, of course, is the first announcement of the Lord’s Passover, that is, his offering of relief and escape from the plague of death, within which the Lord resets his people’s identity by resetting their calendar (Exod. 12:2). More than merely a new ritual or new rhythm, God was tethering who they were to what he was about to do.

然而，在埃及人与属于主的人之间存在着区别。前者的走廊将回荡着悲痛的喧嚣，而后者家中连狗也不敢摇舌——这显然是指主将为他们提供的安慰、平静和救赎。在宣布最后一场灾殃并愤怒地离开法老的宝座室后（出埃及记 11:8；参 10:28–29），摩西收到了一套特别的指示，详细说明了以色列子民如何在即将到来的审判之夜平安幸存（出埃及记 12:1–13）。当然，这就是主第一次宣布逾越节，即他提供的免于死亡灾殃的救济和逃脱之途，在此期间，主通过重设他们的历法来重塑他子民的身份（出埃及记 12:2）。这不仅仅是一个新的仪式或新的节奏，神正将他们的身份与他即将要做的事紧紧联系在一起。

In other words, they were to be a congregation of the Passover. Just as their calendars revolved around this day, so, too, were they to be absorbed by it. Each household was to take a lamb “without blemish” or defects, kill it, roast it, and then—according to a set of specific instructions (Exod. 12:8–11)—eat it. After sacrificing this lamb, they were to take some of its blood and apply it to the doorframes of their homes as a graphic emblem of God’s mercy and preservation (Exod. 12:12–13). As the rest of the land cried great cries of unfathomable grief, where no blood was found, the blood-stained doorframes were the Lord’s distinguishing ensign of who belonged to him and who were under his gracious protection. “When they sprinkled its blood on the posts,” Rev. Alexander Maclaren once said, “they confessed that they stood in peril of the destroying angel by reason of their impurity, and they presented the blood as their expiation.”¹ [1. Alexander Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture , Vols. 1–17 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1944), 1:1.40–41.] God’s people, you might say, have always been identified by the blood that sets them apart.

换句话说，他们应当成为一个逾越节的会众。正如他们的历法围绕这一天运转，他们也应当被这一天所吸引。每个家庭都要选取一只“无残疾”或缺陷的羊羔，将其宰杀、烤熟，然后根据一套具体的指示（出 12:8–11）将其吃掉。在献祭这只羊羔之后，他们要取其血涂在房屋的门框上，作为神怜悯与保守的生动标志（出 12:12–13）。当这片土地的其他地方在无法言喻的悲痛中发出大哀号，且在那些地方找不到血迹时，染血的门框便是主区分谁属于他、谁在他的恩典保护之下的显著标志。亚历山大·麦克拉伦（Alexander Maclaren）牧师曾说：“当他们将血洒在门柱上时，他们承认自己因不洁而处于毁灭之使者的危险之中，并以这血作为他们的赎罪。”¹ [1. Alexander Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture , Vols. 1–17 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1944), 1:1.40–41.] 你可以说，神的子民一直是通过那使他们与众不同的血而被认出来的。

The point is that only those who listen to the Lord’s words would be safe (Exod. 12:21–28). They couldn’t get away with boiling the lamb or deep frying it, as much as that might’ve tasted better, nor could they apply the blood in any old way they liked. Judgment would pass over those who listened and believed in the words of God, which were words of grace, solace, and deliverance. Similarly, the Body of Christ is a congregation that listens to the words that offer relief and release from grief, judgment, and death, which come from Christ alone. The church isn’t set apart by the words of humans, institutions, councils, or symposiums—as important as they might be. Rather, the distinguishing mark of God’s people is and always has been that they are a people who listen to and find their identity in the Lord’s words, especially the Word who became flesh for them.

重点在于，只有那些听从主之话的人才是安全的（出埃及记 12:21–28）。他们不能因为水煮或油炸羊羔可能更好吃就随意更改，也不能随心所欲地涂抹血液。审判将越过那些听从并相信神之话的人，而这些话语是恩典、安慰和拯救的话语。同样，基督的身体是一个听从那些提供救济并释放其脱离悲伤、审判和死亡之话语的会众，而这些话语唯独来自基督。教会并非由人类、机构、议会或研讨会的话语来分别——尽管这些可能很重要。相反，神子民的显著标志过去是、现在依然是：他们是一群听从主之话并在此中寻找身份的人，特别是那位为他们成为肉身的道。

Exodused for Worship

出埃及以敬拜

Events unfold just as God said they would, as nightfall is accompanied by the angel of death who takes the life of all the firstborn where the blood wasn’t applied (Exod. 12:29–32). This, as you might imagine, sends Egypt into bedlam, with the king himself being roused in the middle of the night to find that he, too, was a victim of this divine judgment. With the deafening cries of his people echoing in the streets, Pharaoh finally had enough. After reaching the point of giving up, he forces Moses and Aaron to get out, along with the rest of their kind, much to the delight of every Egyptian citizen (Exod. 12:33). For them, the Hebrews were living reminders of the curse that had befallen them, one that would soon put them in the grave as well.

事件正如神所说的那样展开，夜幕降临，灭命的天使随之而来，在没有涂血的地方夺走了所有长子的生命（出埃及记 12:29–32）。你可以想象，这让埃及陷入了极大的混乱，国王本人也在半夜被惊醒，发现自己同样是这次神圣审判的受害者。随着子民震耳欲聋的哭喊声在街道上回荡，法老终于忍无可忍。在绝望地放弃之后，他强迫摩西和亚伦离开，以及他们同类的所有人，这让每一个埃及公民都感到欣喜（出埃及记 12:33）。对他们来说，希伯来人是临到他们之上的咒诅的活生生提醒，而这个咒诅很快也将把他们送入坟墓。

As the Exodus develops, it becomes a hurried and anxious affair. In fact, things moved so fast that the Israelites had no time to let the yeast in their dough work its magic and make their bread loaves warm and fluffy (Exod. 12:34). Instead, they were forced to bake unleavened bread due to how hastily they were constrained to leave (Exod. 12:39). But leave they did, every last one of them (Exod. 12:35–41). After more than four centuries of bondage and suffering, they were finally free; no longer slaves. This, of course, had nothing to do with them, and everything to do with their God, the I Am, who did what he promised in and for his people. They were “brought out” by someone much better and stronger than them—a fact that the Lord is eager for them to remember. In fact, near the beginning of Chapter 13, the Israelites are reminded some seven times in fourteen verses that they were “exodused” via the “strong hand” of the Lord (Exod. 13:3–16). This was an event made entirely possible through divine intervention.

随着出埃及事件的展开，整个过程变得匆忙而焦虑。事实上，事情进展得如此之快，以至于以色列人没有时间让面团中的酵发挥作用，使面包变得温暖蓬松（出 12:34）。相反，由于他们被催逼离开，不得不烤无酵饼（出 12:39）。但他们确实离开了，一个也没有留下（出 12:35–41）。在经历了四个多世纪的奴役和苦难之后，他们终于获得了自由，不再是奴隶。当然，这与他们本身毫无关系，而完全在于他们的神——那位“我是”，他对他的人民成就了所应许的。他们是被一位比他们更好、更强的人“领出来”的——主渴望让他们记住这个事实。事实上，在第 13 章的开头，以色列人在 14 节经文中被提醒了大约七次，他们是通过耶和华的“大能的手”而被“领出”的（出 13:3–16）。这一事件完全是通过神圣的干预才成为可能的。

But the point is that they weren’t just emancipated, and that was the end of it. They might’ve been thrust out by the Egyptians, but it was Yahweh who was bringing them out so that they could follow and worship him alone (Exod. 13:1–2, 11–12). He was their God, and they were to be his people. They weren’t just saved from something; they were saved to something. “The Israelites ate the Passover meal,” J. Alec Motyer notes, “as those committed to go walking with God.”¹ [1. J. Alec Motyer, The Message of Exodus: The Days of Our Pilgrimage , Revised Edition, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2021), 118–19.] They were rescued to become a worshiping people, that is, a community whose life and worth are found outside of them. This is the premise behind the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which called every Israelite to cast off the old leaven of sin and live in the “new” life of “sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:7–8).

但重点在于，他们不仅仅是被解放了，然后事情就结束了。他们可能是被埃及人驱逐的，但却是耶和华将他们领出来，好让他们能单单跟随并敬拜他（出 13:1–2, 11–12）。他是他们的神，而他们应当成为他的子民。他们不只是被救离了某些事物，更是被救向某些事物。J. Alec Motyer 指出：“以色列人吃逾越节的晚餐，是以那些委身于与神同行的人的身份而吃。”¹ [1. J. Alec Motyer, The Message of Exodus: The Days of Our Pilgrimage , Revised Edition, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2021), 118–19.] 他们被拯救是为了成为一个敬拜的子民，也就是说，成为一个其生命和价值不在于自身之内的群体。这就是无酵节背后的前提，它要求每个以色列人除净罪的旧酵，活在“诚实真正”的“新”生命中（林前 5:7–8）。

Just as God had “set them apart” by making a distinction between them and Egypt, they were to set themselves apart, consecrating themselves for his service. In other words, they were “brought out” so that they could follow the Lord wherever he leads or wills, a quality that endures as a defining characteristic of the church (Rom. 6:17–18). The Body of Christ is comprised of those who’ve been set free by the strong, nail-scarred hands of the Christ of God, which reconcile and embrace them, forming them into an assembly that sings endless praise to the Lamb that was slain for them (Rev. 5:9–10). The church, in other words, has been exodused for worship by the Messiah whose wounds serve as the central melody of its song. We are not our own. Rather, gloriously, we belong to the one who brought us out so that we might be gathered into his presence as a worshiping assembly.

正如神通过将他们与埃及区分开来而将他们“分别出来”一样，他们也要将自己分别出来，把自己奉献给他的服务。换句话说，他们被“领出来”，是为了无论主引导或旨意在何处，他们都能跟随主，这种特质至今仍是教会的一个定义性特征（罗 6:17–18）。基督的身体由那些被神的基督那双强有力的、带有钉痕之手释放的人组成，这双手使他们与神和好并接纳他们，将他们组成一个会众，向那位为他们被杀的羔羊献上无尽赞美（启 5:9–10）。换句话说，教会是被弥赛亚领出以进行敬拜的，弥赛亚的伤痕正是教会赞美之歌的核心旋律。我们不属于自己。相反，荣耀地，我们属于那位将我们领出来的人，好让我们能作为敬拜的会众聚集在他的面前。

The Meal That Preaches

传道之餐

Chief among the characteristics of God’s newly formed congregation is that they are a people who remember. Right on the heels of instituting the Passover, God’s first move is to ensure that what he’s about to do won’t be forgotten (Exod. 12:14–20). The blood on the doorposts hadn’t even dried yet, nor had anyone even set foot beyond the borders of Egypt, and yet the Lord was already preparing a way for them to remember. He knows how easily his people move on, how quickly we drift, and how prone we are to take his mercy for granted. Thus, he offers tangible and repeatable means by which his provision and grace can continually be called to mind. Instead of ceremonial busywork, these God-ordained rituals were designed as divine memory aids, so that those who belong to Yahweh can recall what he did for them, generation after generation.

神新建立的会众最主要的特征之一就是他们是一个懂得纪念的子民。在设立逾越节之后，神的第一个举措就是确保他即将成就的事不会被遗忘（出 12:14–20）。门框上的血甚至还没有干，也没有人踏出埃及的边界，但主已经在为他们预备纪念的方式。他知道他的子民多么容易忘却，我们漂泊得多么快，以及我们多么倾向于将他的怜悯视为理所当然。因此，他提供了切实且可重复的手段，使他的供应和恩典能被不断地想起。这些由神设立的仪式并非仪式性的繁琐工作，而是被设计成神圣的记忆辅助工具，好让属于耶和华的人能够代代相传地回忆他为他们所做的事。

The Feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread were “statutes” created by God to “memorialize” the Exodus, wherein every element told the story of their deliverance. As Allan M. Harman says, “The ritual of the Passover also served to function as a teaching ministry, for there was a recital of the redemptive history.”¹ [1. Allan M. Harman, Exodus: God’s Kingdom of Priests , Focus on the Bible Commentary Series (Ross-shire, England: Christian Focus, 2017), 134.] The slain lamb spoke of the cost of deliverance and how freedom always comes at a price. The unleavened bread spoke of the urgency of their deliverance and how there’s no room for delays when God places his call on you. The blood spoke of the means of their deliverance and the redemptive judgment that made them his. The bitter herbs spoke of the pain and misery from which God delivered them. In other words, every bite they took preached something to them. The whole meal was a sermon—one that was intended to be repeated, over and over again (Exod. 12:14, 17, 24), so that even centuries later, the same testimony of God’s gracious deliverance could resonate in the hearts of the redeemed (Exod. 13:8–10).

逾越节和无酵节是神设立的“定例”，旨在“纪念”出埃及事件，其中的每一个元素都在讲述他们得救的故事。正如 Allan M. Harman 所说：“逾越节的仪式还起到了教学事工的作用，因为其中包含了对救赎历史的叙述。”¹ [1. Allan M. Harman, Exodus: God’s Kingdom of Priests , Focus on the Bible Commentary Series (Ross-shire, England: Christian Focus, 2017), 134.] 被杀的羊羔诉说着拯救的代价，以及自由总是需要付出代价。无酵饼诉说着拯救的紧迫性，以及当神向你发出呼召时，没有拖延的空间。血诉说着拯救的手段，以及使他们成为神子民的救赎性审判。苦菜诉说着神将他们从中拯救出来的痛苦与悲惨。换句话说，他们吃下的每一口食物都在向他们传道。整顿晚餐就是一篇讲章——一篇旨在一次又一次重复的讲章（出 12:14, 17, 24），以便即使在几个世纪之后，关于神恩典拯救的同样见证仍能在被救赎者的心中产生共鸣（出 13:8–10）。

When the soon-to-be crucified Messiah reclined around the table with his disciples mere hours before he was betrayed and given the kiss of death, he shared in one last Passover, taking each of those familiar elements and reinterpreting them around himself, and the work he was about to accomplish (Luke 22:14–20). The bread and the cup are recast as marks of the new covenant that emerges from Jesus’s death and resurrection. Thus, whenever the church partakes of the Lord’s Supper, the resonance of that first Passover meal continues to reverberate, resonating even deeper and truer in a meal that preaches the good news of deliverance from sin.

当那位即将被钉十字架的弥赛亚在被背叛并被亲吻出卖前几个小时，与门徒一同在桌旁斜靠时，他参与了最后一次逾越节，将那些熟悉的元素一一取出，并围绕他自己以及他即将成就的工作重新诠释（路 22:14–20）。饼和杯被重新定义为从耶稣的死亡和复活中产生的新约标志。因此，每当教会参与圣餐时，那第一顿逾越节晚餐的共鸣便继续回荡，并在这一顿传讲脱离罪恶之拯救好消息的餐食中，产生更深、更真实的共鸣。

The Rhythm of Remembrance

纪念的律动

The Exodus wasn’t meant to be an event quarantined to ancient history. Rather, it was to be the abiding and defining event that preached to God’s people how they became God’s people. “The Passover,” Michael P. V. Barrett asserts, “as is true for the entire exodus, is more than history; it conveys the message of the everlasting gospel.”¹ [1. Michael P. V. Barrett, The Gospel of Exodus: Misery, Deliverance, Gratitude (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2020), 107.] Thus, the rhythm of Israel’s worship was built around this rehearsed reality, where every feast, every law, every Sabbath, and every psalm was geared towards remembering the Lord who saves, who delivers, and who keeps every single one of his promises. And the reason this is so important is because forgetfulness is the first step on the road to rebellion (Deut. 8:11–14; Ps. 78:5–8). When God’s people forget what he has done, they soon start living as though he never did it, or they begin to take credit for who they are and where they are, causing gratitude to dissipate and worship to become dull and performative.

出埃及事件并非旨在被隔离在古代历史之中。相反，它应当成为一个持久且定义性的事件，向神的子民传讲他们是如何成为神子民的。迈克尔·P·V·巴雷特（Michael P. V. Barrett）断言：“逾越节，正如整个出埃及事件一样，不仅仅是历史；它传递了永恒福音的信息。”¹ [1. Michael P. V. Barrett, The Gospel of Exodus: Misery, Deliverance, Gratitude (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2020), 107.] 因此，以色列敬拜的节奏是围绕着这个被反复演练的现实而构建的，每一次节期、每一条律法、每一个安息日以及每一篇诗篇，都旨在纪念那位拯救、救赎并信守每一个应许的主。而这之所以如此重要，是因为遗忘是走向反叛之路的第一步（申 8:11–14；诗 78:5–8）。当神的子民忘记他所做的事时，他们很快就会开始生活得好像他从未这样做过，或者开始将自己的身份和地位归功于自己，导致感恩之心消散，敬拜变得枯燥且流于形式。

Consequently, right from the very start, God ingrained a pattern of remembrance into the lives of his people, a pattern that is maintained whenever the church gathers to remember the work of God in Christ for them (Acts 2:42). This is the heartbeat of Christian worship—namely, a steady, deliberate rehearsal of what God has done. “Perhaps the most crucial part of our worship,” Griffin Gooch recently wrote, “is that we worship repeatedly, rhythmically, and sustainably.” When we, as the church, assemble, we engage in the same divine rhythm of hearing (again) the story of our deliverance, proclaiming it (again) to one another, and letting it shape and inform how we live. We come together, not to hear some newfangled doctrine, fresh idea, or innovative lecture. Rather, we come together to hear and remember what’s been done. This is what keeps the church steady, which is why we keep telling the same story of grace on repeat. Because when we stop remembering, we forget who we are.

因此，从一开始，神就在他子民的生活中植入了一种纪念的模式，每当教会聚集在一起纪念神在基督里为他们所成就的工作时，这种模式就会得以维持（使 2:42）。这就是基督徒崇拜的核心——即对神所成就之事的稳定且刻意的反复操练。“也许我们崇拜中最关键的部分，”格里芬·古奇（Griffin Gooch）最近写道，“就是我们重复地、有节奏地且可持续地进行崇拜。”当我们作为教会聚集时，我们参与到同样的属神节奏中：再次聆听我们被救赎的故事，再次向彼此宣告，并让这个故事塑造并指导我们的生活。我们聚集在一起，不是为了聆听某种新奇的教义、新鲜的想法或创新的讲座。相反，我们聚集在一起是为了聆听并纪念那些已经成就的事。这就是让教会保持稳固的力量，也是为什么我们不断重复讲述同一个恩典故事的原因。因为当我们停止纪念时，我们就忘记了自己是谁。

Bradley Gray

Bradley Gray serves as the senior pastor of Stonington Baptist Church in Paxinos, Pennsylvania, where he lives with his wife Natalie and their three children, Lydia, Braxton, and Bailey. He is the author of Finding God in the Darkness: Hopeful Reflections from the Pits of Depression, Despair, and Disappointment and is a regular contributor for 1517 and Mockingbird. He also blogs regularly at www.graceupongrace.net.Bradley Gray 担任宾夕法尼亚州 Paxinos 的 Stonington 浸信会高级牧师，与妻子 Natalie 及三个孩子 Lydia、Braxton 和 Bailey 共同生活。他是《在黑暗中寻找神：从抑郁、绝望和失望的深渊中发出的希望反思》（Finding God in the Darkness: Hopeful Reflections from the Pits of Depression, Despair, and Disappointment）一书的作者，也是 1517 和 Mockingbird 的定期撰稿人。他还在 www.graceupongrace.net 定期撰写博客。

Topics Redemptive History, Atonement主题救赎历史, 赎罪

Date Tuesday, April 7, 2026日期 2026年4月7日，星期二

圣礼的脚手架：加尔文论旧约与新约的连续性

Tue, 31 Mar 2026 15:00:00 +0000

Everyone is moving to Florida. Everywhere I look there are new roads, new subdivisions, new buildings piercing the sky. New everything. Several years ago, my oldest son and I sat and marveled as we watched construction workers scaling up and down a building using several stories of scaffolding, like ants winding their way through a labyrinthian ant farm. The scaffolding would be there only for a season, but for that time it would provide real and necessary support to the workers until they completed their task. And then it dawned on me—the scaffolding encircling the building was to those construction workers what the sacraments of the old covenant were to old covenant saints.

现在每个人都在搬到佛罗里达州。无论我看向哪里，到处都是新路、新社区和直插云霄的新建筑。一切都是新的。几年前，我和我的长子坐在一起，惊叹地看着建筑工人利用好几层脚手架在建筑上攀爬，就像蚂蚁在迷宫般的蚁穴中穿行一样。脚手架只会在一段时间内存在，但在那段时间里，它为工人提供了真实且必要的支撑，直到他们完成任务。这时我突然意识到——环绕建筑的脚手架之于建筑工人，就如同旧约的圣礼之于旧约的圣徒。

But perhaps I should back up first. Why did I see a sacramental analogy in scaffolding? Because of something John Calvin writes in his Institutes.¹ [1. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody, MA: Hendricksen Publishers, 2008).]

但也许我应该先回顾一下。为什么我在脚手架中看到了圣礼的类比？因为约翰·加尔文在他的《基督教要义》中写到了一些内容。¹ [1. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody, MA: Hendricksen Publishers, 2008).]

Continuity vs. Discontinuity

连续性与不连续性

In book 4 chapter 14 of the Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin aims to convince his readers that the sacraments of the Old Testament served the same purpose as the sacraments of the New Testament—to lead believers to Christ, their substance. Sacraments, regardless of where they fall on the timeline of redemptive history, are God’s appointed means of confirming his promises of salvation and communing with his people.¹ [1. I refer to Old Testament sacrificial rites as “sacraments” in line with the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) 27:1, “Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him” and John Calvin, “The term sacrament, in the view we have hitherto taken of it, includes, generally, all the signs which God ever commanded men to use, that he might make them sure and confident of the truth of his promises” (4.14.18). Interestingly, Westminster Shorter Catechism (WSC) question 92 answers the question “What is a sacrament?” this way, “A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ , wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers” (emphasis mine).” Though it may seem that the Confession and Shorter Catechism are at odds with each other (viz. old covenant ceremonies were neither instituted by the incarnate Christ nor signs of the new covenant but the old) WCF 27:1 should be understood instead as defining sacraments generally, and WSC Q.92 defining new covenant sacraments particularly. Because the Shorter Catechism goes on to treat only the Lord’s Supper and baptism in questions 93-97 and the Lord’s Prayer in questions 98-107, this narrower focus makes sense. The divines were focusing the minds of the catechumen on the outward and ordinary means of grace that we are to make diligent use of as new covenant believers (cf. WSC Q.88), not the means of grace in general.]

在《基督教要义》第四卷第14章中，加尔文旨在使读者相信，旧约的圣礼与新约的圣礼具有相同的目的——即引导信徒走向基督，因为基督才是圣礼的实体。无论圣礼处于救赎历史时间线上的哪个位置，它们都是上帝所设立的手段，用以确认祂的救恩应许并与祂的子民交往。¹ [1. 我将旧约的祭祀礼仪称为“圣礼”，这是为了与《威斯敏斯特信条》（WCF）27:1保持一致：“圣礼是恩典之约的神圣记号和印证，由上帝直接设立，用以代表基督及其恩惠，并确认我们在祂里面的份”；以及约翰·加尔文所言：“就我们迄今为止对‘圣礼’一词的看法而言，它通常包括上帝曾命令人们使用的所有记号，好叫他们能确信并坚信祂应许的真实性”（4.14.18）。有趣的是，《威斯敏斯特小教理问答》（WSC）第92问在回答“什么是圣礼？”时是这样说的：“圣礼是基督设立的神圣条例，通过可感知的记号，将基督和新约的恩惠代表、印证并应用在信徒身上”（强调为我所加）。虽然《信条》和《小教理问答》似乎相互矛盾（即旧约的礼仪既非由道成肉身的基督设立，也不是新约而是旧约的记号），但应当将 WCF 27:1 理解为对圣礼的普遍定义，而将 WSC 第92问理解为对新约圣礼的具体定义。因为《小教理问答》在接下来的第93-97问中仅讨论圣餐和洗礼，在第98-107问中讨论主祷文，因此这种更狭窄的关注点是合理的。这些神学家旨在引导受教者的注意力集中在那些作为新约信徒应当勤勉使用的外在且常规的恩典手段上（参见 WSC 第88问），而非泛指所有的恩典手段。]

For those discipled in Christian traditions that stress the discontinuity between the old and new covenant, such symmetry feels foreign. It sounds like a flattening of redemptive history, a denial of the differences between the old covenant and new. But to those in the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition, this continuity is foundational for our soteriology (cf. Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3) and our sacramentology, especially with regard to baptism (Gen. 17:7–8; Acts 2:38–39; Col. 2:11–12). While we fully acknowledge that there is considerable change in terms of the outward form and number of sacraments (WCF 7:6), and that “Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises” (Heb. 8:6), we nevertheless maintain that the “sacraments of the old testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new” (WCF 27:5). The gospel is one, from Genesis to Revelation, and so every sign, every ceremony, every drop of blood and water ushers us on to him who is the sum and substance of the gospel.

对于那些在强调旧约与新约之间不连续性的基督教传统中受训的人来说，这种对称性感觉很陌生。这听起来像是将救赎历史扁平化，否认了旧约与新约之间的差异。但对于处于改革宗和长老会传统中的人来说，这种连续性是我们救恩论（参创 15:6；罗 4:3）和圣礼论的基础，尤其是在洗礼方面（创 17:7–8；徒 2:38–39；西 2:11–12）。虽然我们完全承认，在圣礼的外在形式和数量上存在相当大的变化（WCF 7:6），且“如今耶稣所得的职任是更美的，正如他作更美之约的中保；这约原是凭更美之应许立的”（希 8:6），但我们依然主张，“旧约的圣礼，就其所预表和展示的属灵事物而言，在实质上与新约的圣礼是相同的”（WCF 27:5）。从创世记到启示录，福音只有一个，因此每一个记号、每一场礼仪、每一滴血和水，都将我们引导向那位福音的总和与实体的基督。

Shadows Only?

仅仅是影子吗？

These two portions of the Confession were instrumental in helping me resolve a question that had racked my brain for years—what did old covenant saints get in the blood of bulls and goats? Was it all shadow, no substance? Was Christ only signified and foreshadowed in the blood of bulls and goats or was there a real participation in the grace of Christ even before his coming in the incarnation?

信条的这两部分对我解决一个困扰多年的问题起到了关键作用——旧约圣徒在公牛和山羊的血中得到了什么？难道全部都是影子，而没有实体吗？基督在公牛和山羊的血中仅仅是被预表和预示，还是在祂道成肉身降临之前，人们就已经真实地参与了基督的恩典？

Before becoming reformed, I assumed the former view. After all, Hebrews 10:1 speaks of the law as having, “but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities.” A shadow is not, properly speaking, a part of the form it outlines. If traced to its origin, a shadow will lead you to the object that casts that shadow, but it would be wrong for me to point to the ground and say, “That shadow is a part of me.” And so, if the law (i.e. old covenant era) is a shadow as the writer of Hebrews says, then that must mean that Christ himself wasn’t present in the Old Testament sacrificial rites but only foresignified by them. It’s not a stretch to see why many, like me, understand Old Testament sacraments this way.

在成为改革宗信徒之前，我倾向于前者。毕竟，希伯来书 10:1 提到律法“既是将来美事的影儿，不是本物的真像”。严格来说，影子并不是它所勾勒出的形状的一部分。如果追溯到源头，影子会引导你找到投射影子的物体，但如果我指着地面说“那个影子是我的一部分”，那是错误的。因此，如果律法（即旧约时代）如希伯来书作者所说是一个影子，那么这意味着基督本人并未在旧约的祭祀礼仪中临在，而仅仅是被它们预表。可以理解为什么许多人（包括我）会这样看待旧约的圣礼。

But now, together with Calvin, I maintain that the sacraments of the Old Testament weren’t merely shadows, but shadows with substance to them, and that substance was Christ. They were a real and true means of communing with the person of the Son and the benefits of his redemption.

但现在，我与加尔文一样主张，旧约的圣礼并非仅仅是影儿，而是具有实体的影儿，而那实体就是基督。它们是与圣子之位格及其救赎之益处相交通的真实且有效的手段。

Calvin confronts this “shadow only” understanding of Old Testament sacraments in several places. He writes, “The Scholastic dogma (to glance at it in passing), by which the difference between the sacraments of the old and new dispensation is made so great that the former did nothing but shadow forth the grace of God, while the latter actually confer that, must be altogether exploded” (4.14.23).

加尔文在多处反驳了这种认为旧约圣礼“仅是影儿”的理解。他写道：“经院哲学之教义（顺带提及），将旧约与新约圣礼之间的区别扩大到如此之程度，以至于前者除了预表神的恩典之外毫无作用，而后者则实际地赋予该恩典，这种观点必须被彻底摒弃”（4.14.23）。

Calvin is adamant that the sacraments of the old covenant not only displayed the grace of God that would come in the incarnation, but that they actually conferred the grace of Christ to those who partook in faith. When believers killed, ate, and spread the blood of a year-old lamb upon the posts and lintels of their home, they were sacramentally partaking of the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). When they drank water flowing from the rock in the wilderness, they were participating in Christ (“That rock was Christ,” cf 1 Cor. 10:4).

加尔文坚决认为，旧约圣礼不仅展示了将在道成肉身中临到的神之恩典，而且实际上将基督的恩典赋予了那些凭信心参与其中的人。当信徒宰杀、食用，并将一年龄羔羊的血涂在他们家中的门框和门楣上时，他们是在圣礼上分享那“除去世人罪孽的神的羔羊”（约翰福音 1:29）。当他们在旷野饮用从磐石流出的水时，他们是在参与基督（“那磐石就是基督”，参哥林多前书 10:4）。

Calvin continues:

加尔文继续写道：

I repeat what I have already hinted, that Paul does not represent the ceremonies as shadowy because they had nothing solid in them, but because their completion was in a manner suspended until the manifestation of Christ. Again, I hold that the words are to be understood not of their efficacy, but rather of the mode of significancy. For until Christ was manifested in the flesh, all signs shadowed him as absent, however he might inwardly exert the presence of his power, and consequently of his person on believers (4.14.25, emphasis mine).

我重复我之前暗示过的观点，即保罗将这些仪式描述为影儿，并非因为它们内部没有实质，而是因为它们的完成在某种程度上被延迟，直到基督显现。此外，我认为这些话语不应被理解为关于其效力，而应理解为关于其指涉的方式。因为在基督以肉身显现之前，所有迹象都将他预表为不在场，尽管他在内在地向信徒施展其权能的临在，并随之施展其位格的临在（4.14.25，强调为笔者所加）。

Solid shadows. According to Calvin, Scripture refers to the time of the law as a shadow to signal that the old covenant was not the end, but the means to the end of Christ and the new covenant. Shadows, by their very nature, communicate that there is something more that lies ahead. In the same way that it would be strange to see a shadow on the floor, stop, and never look up to address the one who is casting the shadow, Paul is stressing that it was “impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). Those ceremonies were not meant to be looked to as though they had power to forgive sins. They were meant to draw the eyes of the offerer onto something beyond themselves in the same way that a shadow draws our eyes not to itself but to the shadow caster. The sacraments of the Old Testament and the New Testament are both 100 percent efficacious (effective) in terms of “inwardly exert[ing] the presence of [Christ’s] power.” But, they do differ in this—the old covenant sacraments signal that the fullness of redemption was still forthcoming and new testament sacraments confirm that the fullness has come.

有实体的影儿。根据加尔文的观点，圣经将律法时代称为影儿，是为了表明旧约并非终点，而是通往基督和新约这一终点的手段。影儿就其本质而言，传达了前方还有更深层之物的信息。正如在地板上看到一个影子却停下来，而从未抬头去看那个投射影子的人是极其奇怪的，保罗同样在强调，“因为公牛和山羊的血，断不能除罪”（希伯来书 10:4）。那些仪式并非旨在被视为具有赦罪之能。它们旨在将献祭者的目光引向它们之外的某物，就像影子将我们的目光引向投射者而非影子本身一样。旧约和新约的圣礼在“内在施展[基督]权能的临在”方面，都是百分之百有效的。但它们的区别在于——旧约圣礼预示着救赎的丰盛仍将临到，而新约圣礼则确认这丰盛已经临到。

Finally, Calvin reiterates that the language of shadow is not meant to deny the efficacy of old testament sacraments but to highlight the superiority of new testament sacraments, in the same way that the form casting a shadow is superior to the shadow it casts.

最后，加尔文重申，“影儿”这一语言并非旨在否认旧约圣礼的效力，而是为了突出新约圣礼的卓越，正如投射影子的形体优于它所投射的影子一样。

In this sense we are to understand the words of Paul, that the Law was a “shadow of good things to come, but the body is of Christ” (Col 2:17). His purpose is not to declare the inefficacy of those manifestations of grace in which God was pleased to prove his truth to the patriarchs, just as he proves it to us in the present day in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but to contrast the two, and show the great value of what is given to us, that no one may think it strange that by the advent of Christ the ceremonies of the law have been abolished (4.14.22, emphasis mine).

在这种意义上，我们应当理解保罗的话，即律法是“后事的影儿；那形体却是基督”（歌罗西书 2:17）。他的目的并非要宣告那些恩典显现的无效——在那些显现中，神乐意向先祖证明他的真理，正如他现今在洗礼和圣餐中向我们证明一样——而是为了将两者对比，并展示赐予我们的之物的巨大价值，好叫没有人觉得基督降临后，律法的仪式被废除是奇怪的（4.14.22，强调为笔者所加）。

Remember the issue that prompted the book of Hebrews. Jewish Christians were being pressured to return to the sacrifices of the old covenant. And one can understand why it was so tempting. If, as they’d been told their entire lives, the sacraments of the Old Testament were God’s divinely appointed means of grace, then it would take something hugely significant, something superior to the old covenant sacraments, to justify their abolishment. This then is why the writer of Hebrews describes the old covenant sacraments as shadows, to stress that the new covenant sacraments were superior. And why so? Because fulfillment is superior to non-fulfillment (or that which is yet to be fulfilled).

回想一下促使写成《希伯来书》的问题。当时的犹太基督徒正承受压力，被要求回归旧约的祭祀。人们可以理解为什么这如此具有诱惑力。如果正如他们终身被告知的那样，旧约的圣礼是神神圣设立的恩典之手段，那么就需要某种极其重大、且优于旧约圣礼的事物，才能为其废除提供正当理由。这就是为什么《希伯来书》的作者将旧约圣礼描述为“影”，以强调新约圣礼确实更为卓越。原因何在？因为成就优于未成就（或尚未成就之物）。

Think of it this way—which is better, to be engaged or to be married? Married, hands down. Why? Because an engagement is not the full realization of the hopes and desires of the couple. Engagement is unto marriage. It’s a good thing, but not the ultimate thing. And so it is with the relationship between the old and new covenants and their respective sacraments. Christ has come, redemption has been accomplished and that is better than waiting for its accomplishment, which was the case with the types and shadows of the Old Testament. Quoting Augustine, Calvin writes, “Those [the sacraments of the Mosaic law] were promises of things to be fulfilled, these indications of fulfillment” (4.14.26).

可以这样想——订婚和结婚，哪个更好？毫无疑问是结婚。为什么？因为订婚并非这对夫妇之希望与渴望的完全实现。订婚是指向婚姻的。它是一件好事，但并非最终的目标。旧约与新约及其各自圣礼之间的关系亦是如此。基督已经降临，救赎已经成就，这比等待救赎的成就（即旧约的预表与影子）要好得多。加尔文在引用奥古斯丁时写道：“那些（摩西律法的圣礼）是对将要成就之事的应许，而这些则是成就的标志”（4.14.26）。

Sacramental Scaffolding

圣礼的脚手架

So, taking into account all that Calvin says in these excerpts, here is how I see scaffolding as a fitting illustration for the function and importance of old covenant sacraments in relation to the new.

因此，综合加尔文在这些摘录中所说的所有内容，我认为将“脚手架”作为一种恰当的比喻，来阐明旧约圣礼相对于新约圣礼的功能与重要性。

The sacraments of the old covenant, like scaffolding, were an efficacious means of supporting the faith of old covenant believers. Believers were able to make their way “up and down,” to commune with God, in the same way that we commune with God in the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. As Calvin wrote, “Whatever, therefore, is exhibited to us in the sacraments, the Jews formerly received in theirs—i.e., Christ, with his spiritual riches. The same efficacy which ours possess they experienced in theirs—i.e., that they were seals of the divine favor toward them in regard to the hope of salvation.”
Nevertheless, just as scaffolding is disassembled once a building is completed with its internal staircases and elevators, so too were Old Testament sacraments abrogated with the coming of Christ and the sacraments of the new covenant (i.e. the completed building). A thing can be useful for a time, but inappropriate if used outside of that window of time.
Though it is true that elevators and staircases are much to be preferred over the scaffolding that preceded them, their superiority does mean that the scaffolding was ineffective in supporting the workers who scaled up and down it.

旧约的圣礼就像脚手架一样，是支持旧约信徒之信心的有效手段。信徒能够通过它“上下”往来，与神交通，正如我们通过洗礼和圣餐这两项圣礼与神交通一样。正如加尔文所写：“因此，凡是在圣礼中向我们展示的，犹太人以前在他们的圣礼中也已收到——即基督及其属灵的丰盛。我们的圣礼具有怎样的功效，他们也在其圣礼中经历了同样的功效——即这些圣礼是神在救恩盼望方面向他们施展恩宠的印记。”
然而，正如建筑完工并安装好内部楼梯和电梯后，脚手架就会被拆除一样，旧约的圣礼也随着基督的降临和新约圣礼（即完工的建筑）的出现而被废除。一件东西在一段时间内是有用的，但如果超出那个时间窗口使用，就不再合适。
虽然电梯和楼梯显然比之前的脚手架更胜一筹，但这并不意味着脚手架在支持那些在上面上下往来的工人时是无效的。

Conclusion

结语

In extolling the superiority of the new covenant and its innumerable benefits, we need not disparage the old. That the old covenant is described as a shadow does not hollow it out of any and all substance or significance. Though the means of grace certainly looked different in that era of redemptive history, they were means of grace still, and that of the same grace in Christ Jesus. We should give praise to God for not only foreshadowing but feeding and nourishing the faith of our forefathers, just as he does ours. We are one people, in one Christ, who pours out his grace upon all, whether they looked forward to or back to his sacrifice upon the cross.

在颂赞新约的卓越及其无数益处时，我们无需贬低旧约。旧约被描述为“影”，并不意味着它被剥夺了所有实质或意义。虽然在救赎历史的那个时代，恩典之手段看起来截然不同，但它们依然是恩典之手段，且指向的是在基督耶稣里同一份恩典。我们应当赞美神，祂不仅预表，而且喂养并滋养了我们先祖的信心，正如祂现在滋养我们的信心一样。我们在同一位基督里是一个子民，祂将恩典倾注在所有人身上，无论他们是仰望基督在十字架上的牺牲，还是回首纪念那次牺牲。

Stephen Spinnenweber

Stephen Spinnenweber is the senior minister of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Jacksonville, Florida. He is a graduate of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary (GPTS, 2019) and an Executive Council member of the Gospel Reformation Network (GRN). Stephen is an avid writer, having written Loving the Law: The Law of God in the Life of the Believer (Christian Focus Publications, 2025) and contributed to Tabletalk magazine, the Gospel Reformation Network, Reformation21, and the Heidelblog.Stephen Spinnenweber 是佛罗里达州杰克逊维尔西敏斯特长老教会（Westminster Presbyterian Church）的主任牧师。他毕业于格林维尔长老会神学院（GPTS, 2019），并且是福音改革网络（GRN）执行委员会成员。Stephen 是一位热衷于写作的作者，著有《热爱律法：信徒生活中的神之律法》（Loving the Law: The Law of God in the Life of the Believer, Christian Focus Publications, 2025），并为《Tabletalk》杂志、福音改革网络、Reformation21 和 Heidelblog 撰稿。

Topics The Covenants主题圣约

Date Tuesday, March 31, 2026日期 2026年3月31日，星期二

Modern Reformation Bilingual 中文双语

当我们聚集时：支持每周圣餐的圣经、历史与信条论证（第一部分）

Preface—Why This Series?

前言——为何写这个系列？

Reading Scripture for Pattern, Not Prescription

从模式而非指令来阅读圣经

Devoted to the Ordinary: Acts 2:42

委身于常态：使徒行传 2:42

Gathered to Break Bread: Acts 20:7

聚集擘饼：使徒行传 20:7

Participation and Proclamation: 1 Corinthians 10–11

参与与宣告：哥林多前书 10–11 章

Conclusion: When Scripture Assumes What It Does Not Command

结论：当圣经在未明令要求时将其视为前提

犹太人在五旬节听到了什么，以及这对婴儿洗礼的意义

The Deuteronomic Template

申命记的模板

The Jeremiah 31 Objection Preempted

预先应对关于耶利米书 31 章的反对意见

The Evidence from Acts

使徒行传中的证据

The Household Principle After Cornelius

哥尼流事件后的家庭原则

The Epistolary Confirmation

书信的确认

The Argument from Silence

沉默的论据

Conclusion

结论

遮蔽敌眼的面纱：论托尔金、愚拙与常规恩典手段

“There are other forces at work in this world”

“这个世界上还有其他力量在运作”

“Let folly be our cloak”

“让愚拙成为我们的斗篷”

“With as much hope as the strong”

“弱者亦有同样的希望”

旧问题，新倡导者：当今时代的圣经充分性争论

A Timely Book

一本及时的著作

Defending the Sufficiency of Scripture

捍卫圣经的充分性

Pastoral Guidance

牧养指导

护教新阵地：军队中的灵性与苦难

The Reemergence of Spirituality

灵性的重新出现

The Ever-Present Problem of Suffering

苦难这一永恒的问题

The Theodical Approach

神义论路径

进步基督教的元现代姿态

From Blue Jazz to Rainbow Flags

从《蓝色爵士》到彩虹旗

The Emotive Metamodern Ethics of Progressive Christianity

进步基督教的情绪化元现代伦理

A Call to the Absolute Truth of the Cross

呼吁回归十字架的绝对真理

不容后千禧年论的乐观主义：探讨以赛亚书 24-27 章中的圣徒与混乱之城

The City and the Mountain

城与山

The Millennium in Isaiah

以赛亚书中的千禧年

Death Shall Be Swallowed

死亡将被吞灭

《一种不同的存在方式》（大卫·基尔瓦·塔鲁斯 著）书评

逾越节的会众

Setting the Stage for Salvation

为救赎铺路

Exodused for Worship

出埃及以敬拜

The Meal That Preaches

传道之餐

The Rhythm of Remembrance

纪念的律动

圣礼的脚手架：加尔文论旧约与新约的连续性

Continuity vs. Discontinuity

连续性与不连续性

Shadows Only?

仅仅是影子吗？

Sacramental Scaffolding

《一种不同的存在方式》（大卫·基尔瓦·塔鲁斯著）书评