作者：刘赛眉 年份：1982

(一)古代近东民族中「言」的概念：

(1)米索不达米亚的神话

从米索不达米亚的神话中，可见到神的话是充满能力的。当面对神的话时，人无能予以抗拒。此外，神的话亦具有创造的能力，使到万物存在及赋予生命。神的话又能决定人的命运，只要神的话一出口，人的命运就决定了，不能改变。

在米索不达米亚，神的话的能力与魔术性的言语相似。魔术性的话本身具有一种催迫人的力量，它不仅是一句命令的话，它的能力比一句命令的话更有力，能够驱除一切障碍直达它所要达到的目标。而神的话亦拥有这样的性质，它能够创造出它所表征的内涵。

(2)埃及的神话

在埃及地方，人们对「话」的信仰，主要是在「名字」上(name)。他们认为，名字所包含的是一个存在的事实。每一件事物皆有其名字。为他们看来，没有名字的东西是不可理解、不可领会的，因此也不是真实的。

当神呼唤一个名字时，这名字所代表的事物立刻存在。他们又认为，名字是由「心」形成，而他们所认识的心：就是思想的器官，而非感觉的器官；而话就是宣布那由心所形成的事实 名字。因此，当创造之神呼唤一个名字时，此名字里面就存在着一个事实。

古经的天主之言的描述，亦受到了近东文化之影响。在创世纪中，天主呼唤了亚当与厄娃的名字，因此，亚当与厄娃亦由天主的话所创造。在依撒意亚先知书中，天主又说：「我叫了你的名字，你在我眼中是宝贵的。」(见 依四十三：1－4)

(二)希伯来人思想中的「言」：

一方面，希伯来人思想中的「言」，与近东神话中的言，其意义有基本的差别。但另一方面，希伯来的思想的确颇受古代近东文化之影响，现且把二者之异同略述，如下：

希伯来人也如同近东的民族一样，视「言」具有能力，而这种思想是现代文明思想所没有的。希伯来人之所以相信「话」具有能力并非是出于迷信魔术，而是反映出在未有书写文字来保存口传的话的「前文化时期」。(preliterary culture)他们相信话是永久的事实，特别是一些在许诺、盟约、和命令等方式下所表达出来的话。「话」并非一空的概念，而是把人内心所孕育的事实表达出来。

在古经中，话的能力特别是出现在「祝福」及「诅咒」上，尤其是当祝福及诅咒之言是发自人内心深处的时候。说这样的话的人，往往把自己投入话中，把自己身上的全部力量解放出来。在此，我们可以列举古经的几个例子来看看：

(1)希伯来人思想中的「言」：

富依撒格被骗祝福了雅各伯之后，他无法再拾厄撤乌同样的祝福，故只好给他另一个较逊的祝福。为什么呢？因为在第一个祝福里面，依撒格已经把全部祝福的力量投在他所说的话中，傅递到了雅各伯身上。祝福的力量在雅各伯身上解放出来，有如覆水难收，不能返回依撒格身上；因此，第一个祝福已成为不可挽回的事实，于是只好给另一个祝福厄撤鸟。

(2)雅各伯被拉班所骗 (创廿九：20－27)

雅各伯被其岳丈拉斑所骗，娶了拉斑的长女肋阿为妻。为能再次得到辣黑耳，他只好再服侍拉斑七年，因为在婚约的话中，拉斑的话成了不可挽回的事实，而雅各怕在婚约中的允诺，使得他无法不再服侍拉斑七年。

(3)诅咒的话 (民十七：1－2)

在这段圣经中，米加的母亲诅咒过偷她银子的贼，但后来当她知道银子是自己的儿子偷去的时候，她已无法收回那已出之诅咒，故立刻给儿子一个祝福，希望力量互相抵消。关于诅咒之言的例子，可以参阅(撤下十二：1－18)，以及(户五：12－31)。

从上面的例子中，可见希伯来思想中的「话」，是充满动力的；或更好说，是一个动态的事实。这动力与说话的人的意志力有关。「话」亦是一永久的事实，它表达着那说话的人，而且在那人消逝后，这话及其力量仍存在。

(三)雅威之言与先知：

当谈到天主之言时，一定不可忽略它与天主在历史中启示的行动的关系。在巴比伦和埃及等地，当他们的神话谈到神用说话来干预人间的事情时，他们从来没有指出这些事情之间的关联。换言之，神的话只是进入了一件一件独立而互不关连的事情上。可是，在希伯来的思想中，神的话却非如此。天主的话不仅串连个别事件、塑造历史，而且还推动和引导历史，它使历史产生，亦使历史完成。历史是由天主的创造之言开始，直到圣言 耶稣基督 成为血肉而完成。天主的话连结了历史事件而谛造了人类的救恩史，因此，天主的话是既在历史中又超越历史。天主是通过历史来说话，但祂的话却赋予历史一层又深又超越的意义。

在古经中，雅威之言的两大轴心是：先知和法律(即是：口传的十诫和先知的口谕)。

(1)十诫

十诫是天主的启示，在十诫的法律中，雅威肯定自己是主。十诫可以说是天主之言以法律的形式出现。在这具有命令性质的话里，雅威显示了祂自己的能力，因此，在这些话面前，以色列民不仅服从而且俯首叩拜。

(2)先知之言

在法律的话与先知之言之间有着重要的分别。法律的话具有永久的价值，是为世世代代的以色列民而存在的；但先知的话则是在某一特定的环境中说出来的，当先知的话实现了之后，很可能与后来的世代无关。例如：厄里亚先知宣布阿哈齐雅王「必定要死」(列下一：1－55)这话只限于阿哈齐雅王身上，当皇帝死去后，亦即是说，当先知的话实现了以后，这话就失去了它的动力性了。又譬如：米该亚先知预言耶路撒冷与圣殿的毁灭(米三：12)，这预言直到耶肋米亚时代，对人民仍是一大威胁(耶廿六：17－18)，但到了公元前五八七年之后，这预言便没有动力性了。先知每一次发言的时候，雅威都临在于先知的话中，且以「判决」和「救援」的方式表达出自己的意愿。雅威通过先知对个人所说的话，对一切人类都有警告的作用和楷模之价值。先知领受了雅威的话之后，这天主之言往往首先藉着一些挣扎而在先知身上创造一个新生，使他相称于成为天主之言的传达工具。先知接受了雅威的话之后，目的只是为传递，所以，先知的功用常常是中介性的，是传达者或带讯者。先知很多时都会用一定的格式发言，例如：「雅威这样说……」。这个格式(Thus saith Yahweh) 一方面是表示先知所说的是雅威的话；另一方面亦用来分开何者是雅威的话，何者是先知自己的话。

(3)先知之言的两大特色

当先知代替雅威一发言后，雅威的话便脱离先知而独立行动。(见依九：7) Edmond Jacob说，先知的话仿如「计时炸弹」，它一旦投入敌营之后，必定要爆炸的，但却需待以时日，而这些爆炸的事件就是指「历史事件」。
先知之言尚有另一特色；当雅威通过先知发言，雅威的话就有了「圣事性」的特色。意谓：这话必产生效果，而且是产生它所表征的效果。例如：列上十五：29；十六：12；十六：34。列下一：17；七：16；九：26、36；十：17。
雅威的先知性言语，常常带有「破坏」与「建设」的双重作用，就如耶肋米亚先知的使命。雅威之言藉先知之口说出以后，的确有摧毁、破坏、建设、及培植的作用。耶肋米亚先知说：雅威之言如火如锤，能粉碎岩石。(见 耶廿三： 29)先知之言并非常常都立刻实现的，故此，有时这些话造成了很大的威胁，当话一出先知的口而落在人身上后，没有人知道它什么时候会实现、会爆发。

(四)雅威之言与历史

有些圣经神学家告诉我们，雅威之言是整个救恩史的中枢神经及关键。翻开整部圣经，也许圣经的编着者本身也没有发现，他们所编写的这部救恩史，每一阶段都是由天主的话连结而成的。在古经中，第一件发生的事，就是天主用祂的话来创造，从此也就开始了这部人类得救的历史。

在历史上发生的一连串事件，都是由雅威的话所引发，由此可见，雅威之言是整个古经历史每一阶段的「交接点」。譬如：创造之言开始了历史的第一页；接着又由雅威宣布洪水泛滥毁灭人类而开始了第二阶段(创六、七章)；之后，雅威向梅瑟发言，吩咐他带领以色列民出离埃及，在西乃订盟，组成新的子民(出三)；雅威之言在旷野一步一步地导引以民进入福地(申一：6；二：2；三：1、27－28)；在民长纪中，雅威经常发言；雅威之言召叫撤慕耳而结束了民长时期，预备了王国的建立(撒上三)；雅威之言宣告撤乌耳正式为王，是为王国时代之肇始(撒上九：17)；后来，雅威之言又宣布废除撤乌耳而选拔达味(撒上十六：12)；最后，亦是由雅威之言宣告王国分裂为二(列上一：31)。也许，我们可以说，雅威之言就是历史，因为历史的一切事件无非是实现雅威的言词。历史的话是动态的，而且是可以领会的。所谓动态的，即是说，这话必定生效，必会完成它所表征的内涵；所谓可领会的，是说这话塑造了一个历史过程，而这过程是可理解、可领悟、甚至是可见的。于是，我们可以说，整个历史是一个启示，揭露雅威的意旨；也可以说，由于「话」是一个人的力量在藉言的符号中解放，故此，话是启示出说话的那个人。既然，雅威之言是在历史中表达、构成历史，那么，如果我们说整个历史是一个启示亦并无不可，因为雅威是在历史中自我启示。

总言之，雅威之言在历史中有两个特点：(1)可领悟、可理解的；(2)充清动力的。雅威的话不但塑造历史，而且还解释历史。在好几篇圣咏里面，的确可以见到，「言」是超乎历史之上、驾驭着历史的，为此，圣咏的作者在这一点上常表示有极大的安全和信心。(参阅 咏一○五：8－42)。可是，有时雅威在历史中的行动和许诺，需要人极耐心地等待其实现。

(五)天主之言的位格化：

当论到天主之言的位格化时，不能不谈到「言」与「智慧」、以及「言」与「神」的关系。圣经中把言位格化是相当晚期才明朗的思想。位格化的言与智慧和神并列。当天主之言启示天主自己时(咏一一九：89)、在执行天主的命令时(咏一四七：15；一○七：20；依五十五：11；智十八：14及以下)，都表现出其位格化的特色。在古经的训诲文学或智慧文学中，特别可以见到言的位格化。智慧文学用「言」(dabar) 这个字来指在学校及家庭中施训诲的智者的教训；于是，在这文学里，常常把言与智慧等量齐观。由于智慧的主人是天主自己，所以智者的话和教训亦被视为是天主之言的显示。同时，在箴言篇中，我们发现智者之言具有权威性，他们的话的权威就如同法律之言一样有权威。(箴十三：13－14；十六：20－22)。

言除了兴智慧相连以外，还与「神」有关，特别是在创造中。神是雅成口中的「气」，而「言」与「气」是一同由雅威口中发出的，谁聆听了雅威之言也同时接受到雅威的神(圣神)。但是，神与言有别。神更是一位启发行动的助手，祂较大的功能是在启迪行动上。在创造中，神亦是一穗创造的力量(见 创一章)，及生命的主要因素(创二：7；咏一○四：30)。除非神临在于言之中，否则不能有真正的启示，也没有真正的答覆，更谈不上在言中的天人相遇了。然而，在言中的天人邂逅，必须到了新约耶稣基督这位望言降生后，才能够圆满地实现。

结论：

最后，读者必须注意一点，以色列民比较不强调言的创造功能(在此特别指在大自然中的创造)，这点与它的邻近民族很不相同，以民较强调历史。他们是从历史的角度来看世界，视世界为一舞台，历史不断地在这舞台上演，直到完成。在这角度下，他们也注意到这个世界及其中的一切都是由天主的话所创造、所支持的，故此，天主口中所发出的言语亦会在大自然．的现象中具体地启示出来；不寻常的现象:如玛纳(中八:3)，寻常的则如风、雪、雨、雷、电……等等，均可成为雅威启示自己的标记。

作者：黄克镳 年份：1982

导言

圣事与标记是现代天主教神学的重要词汇，梵二称教会为救恩的「圣事」、「与天主亲密结合、以及全人类彼此团结的标记和工具」(教会宪章1)。在梵二前后，不少天主教神学家都以圣事一词解释教会的性质。(1)

圣事一词除应用于教会的奥迹外，也被用来诠解基督的奥迹。如薛理碧(E. Schillebeeckx)的一部早期名着便题名为「基督 与天主际遇的圣事」，(2)主旨说明人必须透过基督的奥迹才能与天主会晤。在今日的基督学中往往看到圣事、标记、肖像、面貌、比喻……等词语，(3)这些名词虽然不是同义词，但有着基本上相同的地方，它们都指出在基督身上，我们可以找到天主及人的真正面目。

圣事与标记也是拉内神学的重要名词，格外见用于他的教会学及基督学。他称教会为救恩的「基本圣事」(Grundsakrament)，却称基督为「原始圣事」(Ursakrament)，(4)即指基督不但是教会及七件圣事的根源，祂本身便是一切使天人际遇的圣事原型。拉内格外以圣事标记来描述基督的死与救恩的关系，这是他对救恩学的特殊贡献。本文分三部份研究拉内论基督的死与圣事标记：首先介绍拉内所创的「真实标记」(real symbol)一词，然后解释拉内论基督死亡的「圣事标记因」(Sacramental-symbolic causality)，最后对这「圣事标记因」加以详述。

一、拉内论「真实标记」(Real Symbol)

为了明白拉内所说的圣事或标记，必须了解他所创的词语「真实标记」(real symbol)。(5)他把标记分为「主要」及「次要」两种，次要标记即一般由人制定的标志或记号，如天秤象征公义，国旗代表国家……等。主要标记也称为「真实标记」，即那些非由人制定，本身具有象征作用的。理由是「真实标记」本身已蕴藏了所象征的事物，使所象征的事物真实地临现。最好的例子要算人的身体，(6)身体是人的「真实标记」，是一个人在世界上具体临在与表现的方式。教会的七件圣事也是很好的例子，圣事虽然是基督所制定，但它们所象征的恩宠奥迹，藉着圣事的标记真的临在及实现。比如圣洗的水象征赦罪与新生命，而圣洗圣事也实在赦免罪过以及赋与圣宠的新生命。拉内的「真实标记」最能表达天主教圣事神学的观念，圣事的意义即是以象征的方式产生所表明的奥迹与恩宠；所以拉内往往把圣事及「真实标记」两词互相混用。

拉内格外把「真实标记」一词应用于基督学，称基督的人性为天主的「真实标记」，(7)他的用意在于强调基督的人性与天主性的内在关系。这人性并非圣言的外衣或工具，只是为了使圣言给世人看见及进行救赎工程，但并不真正的揭示天主圣言。(8)反之，基督的人性便是祂的天主性在世界上的真实临现与真正的「自我表达」(self-expression)；(9)正如人的身体是灵魂的真标记一般。拉内的理论在于彰明基督人性的重要，这人性真的把基督的天主性映射出来，因此基督在世的仪表、举止、言行、以及整个的临在都成了天主子的自我启示，因而也启示了祂的天父。

二、基督之死的「圣事标记因」

拉内认为基督为天主的圣事及标记，最清楚地表现于基督的死。依照教会的训导，基督的死是人类得救的原因。传统的道理称这是「主动因」(efficient cause)。(10)中世纪圣安瑟莫的补偿理论一直是传统救恩学说的主流，补偿理论指出人类的罪冒犯了天主无限的尊威，因此需要一位人而天主的救主代表人类，同天主作相称的补赎。基督的死便是对于天主无上尊荣所受凌辱的相称赔偿，它赔补了天主的公义，平息了祂的义怒，把人欠下的债一笔勾销，使人与天主重归于好。由此可见，基督的死是人类获得赦免及救恩的「主动因」。

拉内对这种有关基督死亡的传统解释感到不满，他认为天父才是救恩的「主动因」，基督的死对救恩来说是「目的因」(final cause)及「圣事标记因」(Sacramental-symbolic cause)。(11)拉内的理论基于他对天主普遍性救恩计划的观点，他相信天主愿意拯救一总人，认为天主圣父是人类救恩的发起人，祂的永恒决策才是救恩的最后「主动因」。基督的死显示了天父的救恩计划并使这计划在历史中具体实现。祂的死就像一件圣事一般，表明并实现救恩的奥迹。因此这死具有圣事标记因。

依照拉内的看法，由于圣父的普遍救恩计划，祂自创世之始便以两种不同的方式把自己通传给人类，即「超越的自我通传」(transcendental self-communication)及「历史中的自我通传」(historical self-communication)。前者指天父藉着圣神无时或息地把自己通传给人，后者是藉着降生的圣言在历史中完成。(12)拉内认为人对于无限、永恒、及神的无止境开放与向往，实际上便是对于恩宠的开放与向往；这种对于恩宠的倾向本身便是恩宠的效果。拉内主张人类一受造便被提升到超性的恩宠境界，纯粹的本性境界并未真实存在过，拉内称这种恩宠境界为人内在的「超性境遇」(Super natural existential)，在人作出自由抉择前已影响了人。(13)即使在人类堕落后，由于基督的救赎，这种恩宠境遇仍然保留，使人同时存在于罪及恩宠的双重境遇下；(14)可是人必须靠基督的救赎，才能对恩宠的呼唤作适当的回应。

这种恩宠的超性境遇或天主超越的自我通传是不断指向历史的自我通传的。只有在基督身上，天主的自我赐予才达到完满的地步，祂把自己完全赏赐给人，同时又从人一方面取得绝对的回应。因此，基督便是天主对人不断自我通傅以及人不断向天主开放的巅峰，在基督身上天人际遇的双方进程得获最高的显示与实现。(15)但这天人际遇的高峰要在基督的死才充份表现出来，因为拉内视死亡为人生命的最后抉择，死亡不但是被动的事，更是足以影响及注定人一生的行动。(16)基督的一生也以祂的死亡为最后结局，祂的死正式谛结了天人合一的永久盟约。由此可见，基督的死没有改变天父永恒的救恩计划，但把一种常在进展中的天人际遇的事实揭示出来，并把它带到完满及永无反悔的境地。因此，对天父赐予人类的救恩来说，基督的死不是「主动因」，而是「目的因」及「圣事标记因」。

基督的死既然是救恩的实效标记，那么我们可以更进一步分析，这死亡究竟怎样具体地象征及实现救恩。照拉内的看法，基督的死充份启示了罪的性质及后果。今日人类的死亡，除了肉体的痛苦外，还带着焦虑、恐惧的心情，这样的死亡是人类罪的惩罚。(17)基督的死也不例外，除了是罪的惩罚外也把罪的性质表露出来。(18)罪是人对天主的抗拒，人在天主台前愿意自主自足，不肯服属于天主；但结果是与天主隔绝、及沦于无能为力的状态中。基督被钉在十字架上，遭受天父及世人的遗弃，并且悬在架上，不能动弹，无法自救，这种被拋弃以及软弱无能的情况，正好表现出罪的性质。但基督本来无罪，祂所承担的是我们的罪案，祂为了我们的罪受死亡的痛苦。

从另一方面看，基督的死也带来了罪的翻案。罪便是违抗背叛天主，基督的死却是祂对天父的爱心与服从的最高表现。基督一主不断回归天父，向天父事事服从，以承行天父的旨意作每天的食粮，祂的死便是这种不断向天父自我交付的极点。祂以爱及服从承担了罪的后果 死亡，这样便把罪的标记变作服从的标记；(19)正因此基督战胜了罪恶与死亡的势力，建立了一种新的救恩境遇(saving situation)。所以垃内称基督为救恩的「原始圣事」，祂使那些跟随祂的人也能克胜罪恶与死亡，进入恩宠的新生命。(20)今后死亡获得新的意义，但凡以爱心及委顺的态度接受死亡的，便是参与基督的死，能给自己及世界带来救赎。拉内认为基督徒应从领洗时便开始参与基督的死，以后一生延绩，直至生命的最后一刻，这样才算是死在主怀中的幸福者。(21)

这种「圣事标记因」也可以从天父一方面看；前已说过，今日人类带有焦虑与恐惧的死亡本是加给罪的惩罚，但天父既然没有怜惜自己的儿子，竟为了我们把祂交付于死亡，这无异是把一个罪与罚的标记化成爱的标记。(22)

三、圣事标记因的评价

以上简要地介绍了拉内论基督之死的圣事标记因，现在略加评论。拉内提出的圣事标记因也受到某些神学家的批评，如巴达沙(H. U. Von Balthasar) 在最近出版的一书中对这圣事标记因加以评击。(23)他指责拉内忽略了基督的死对救恩的重要性，说他把基督「为我们」而死的事实归功于天父，结果不是基督，而是天父「为了我们」而牺牲，基督的死只揭示了天父永恒的救世计划。

的确，拉内把救恩的重点归于天父的永恒决策，视天父为整个救恩史的发动人及主要角色，这与圣保禄的救恩学相符合，按照宗徒的思想，基督死亡的意义并非为了平息一位忿怒的天主，却是表明那位富于宽恕的「天主在基督内使世界与自己和好」(格后五：19)。(24)圣保禄深明基督「为我们」而死的道理，但也指出天主没有怜惜自己的儿子，反而「为了我们」众人把祂交付了(参阅罗八：32)。同样，拉内也没有否认基督「为我们」而死，只是强调首先是天父「为了我们」把基督交付出来。

拉内虽然不以基督的死为救恩的主动因，但他所提出的目的因及圣事标记因并不减少基督的死对人类救恩的绝对需要。假如我们依从圣多玛斯的见解，说基督主要是为了人类的罪才到世界上来，那么基督的死对我们的罪赦与救恩似乎该具有主动因，可是，拉内跟随思高学派的主张，认为基督主要不是为了补救人类的罪才到世上来。基督一开始便在天父的救恩计划中，是天人际遇的高峰与最终目标。这目标不但指引救恩史的导向，更发挥吸引及推动的力量，这才是目的因的真义。再者，祂的死不但显示了天父的救恩计划，更使这计划在人类历史中完满地、永无反悔地实现。假如没有基督的死，那么天人际遇的进程仍是模棱两可，未达一成不返的巅峰状态。现在祂的死把救恩史引入最后(末世)阶段，成为天人合一的永久盟约与最高标记。其实拉内的圣事标记因也包含了主动因，可是比后者更丰富；圣事标记因说明基督的死像圣事般以象征的方式实现救恩。拉内所反对的主动因是以基督的死为救恩的最后根由，或以为这死改变了天父的永恒计划。

进一步来说，假如有人认为救恩的主要意义在于赎罪，那么圣事标记的解释也远胜于圣安瑟莫的补偿理论。补偿理论所提供的是一种外在、法律性的救恩解释，即基督的死偿还了我们的罪债，使我们成了自由人及与天主重归于好。补偿学说未能指出基督的死本身的意义，拉内的圣事标记解释却能阐明基督死亡的内在意义。这死亡一面表征罪的性质，同时又表明爱克胜了罪的恶势力，把反叛的标记化成爱与服从的标记，因此建立了一种新的救恩秩序，使人类能进入这秩序，分享恩宠的新生命。在这种解释下，人类的死亡也获得了新的意义，只要与基督的死联合起来，死亡便能产生救恩与圣化的价值。所以这圣事标记的解释超越外在、法律的范畴，是一种内在化及与人的存在和境遇有密切关系的救恩解释。而且，这种圣事标记的救恩解释也着重个人的参与，基督的死建立了一种客观的救恩境遇，但人仍需要作出自由的抉择，才能进入这救恩境遇。(25)这好比礼仪中的圣事，为了收到圣事的实效，领受者的信心是先决条件。这种个人参予的因素，在那基督替我们赎罪还债的补偿学说中很容易受到忽视。

最后，拉内的圣事标记解释，把注意集中于基督的死，没有明确指出基督的复活对救恩的标记价值，这确是一大缺憾。其实拉内也曾说过，基督的死与复活是同一奥迹的不同两面，彼此有着密切的连系；(26)可是在阐述救恩的圣事标记时，他却忽略了复活的一面。假如拉内说基督的死是救恩的圣事标记，那么他也该指出复活对救恩的象征意义；正如基督的死格外显示了罪的性质及天主宽恕的爱，复活便表明了恩宠的新生命。基督徒所领受的救恩便是在今世开始分享基督复活的新主命，并在末世新天新地中，以复活起来的「属神的身体」完满地参予基督永恒的生命。因此，拉内所说救恩的圣事标记应该包括整个踰越奥迹，即基督的死亡与复活才是救恩的实效圣事标记。

  

缩写

SM－Sacramentum Mundi: vols. 1-6

TI－Theological Investigations: vols. 1-17

附注

1.参阅： A. Dulles, Models of the Church (Dublin, Gill and Macmillan, 1976) pp. 58-70.
2.E. Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of Encounter with God ET (London, Sheed and Ward, 1963).
3.参阅：E. Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of Encounter with God; Idem, Jesus, An Experiment in Christology (New York, Seabury, 1979) pp. 626ff.; J.-J. Latour, "Imago Dei invisibilis", in Idem et H. Bouesse (eds.), Problemes actuels de christologie (Paris, Desclee,1965) pp. 227-264; J. A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (London, SCM, 1973); H. Kung, On Being a Christian (Garden City, Doubleday, 1976) p. 17; G.O’Collins, What are they saying about Jesus? (New York, Paulist, 1977) p. 17. 拉内有关这题目的著作见下。
4.O. Semmelroth 称教会为「原始圣事」(参阅：Die Kirche als Urakrament [Frankfurt, J. Knecht, 1953]). 拉内却称教会为「基本圣事」(Grundsakrament). 以「原始圣事」(Ursakrament) 一词来称基督本人。参阅：K. Rahner, “What is a Sacrament”, TI vol. 14, p. 142; “Aquinas’ Theology of Scaraments”, ibid., p. 160, note 24.
5.参阅：K. Rahner, "The Theology of the Symbol", TI vol. 14, pp. 221-252. 这篇文章对了解拉内的神学思想极为重要。
6.同上，pp. 245-252.
7.同上，pp. 238.
8.同上，pp. 237-239; K. Rahner, "Current Problems in Christology" TI vol. 1, pp. 156f.
9.K. Rahner, "On the Theology of the Incarnation", TI vol. 4, pp. 115f.; Idem, Foundations of Christian Faith (New York, Seabury, 1978) p. 224.
10.参阅：L. Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Cork, Mercier, 1966) p. 185.
11.Foundations of Christian Faith, p. 284; Idem, "The One Christ and the Universality of Salvation", TI vol.16, pp. 212-216.
12.K. Rahner, "Salvation", SM vol. 5, pp. 430f.; Idem, The Trinity (London, Burns & Oates, 1975) pp. 91-94.
13.Foundations of Christian Faith, pp. 126-133.
14.K. Rahner, "Original Sin", SM vol. 4, pp. 330f.
15.Foundations of Christian Faith, p.169.
16.K. Rahner, "Death", SM vol. 2, p. 60; Idem, On the Theology of Death (London, Burns and Oates, 1961) pp. 30f.
17."Death", SM vol. 2, p. 59.
18.On the Theology of Death, p. 61
19.同上，p. 62; "Death", SM vol. 2, p. 61.
20."Salvation", SM vol. 5, pp. 431f.
21."Death", SM vol. 2, p. 62.
22."Salvation", SM vol. 5, p. 431; Foundations of Christian Faith, p. 305.
23.H.U. von Balthasar, Theodramatik III, Die Handlung (Einsiedein, Johannes Verlag, 1980) pp. 253-262: "Exkurs: Zur Soteriologie Karl Rahners".
24.参阅：D.M. Baillie, God was in Christ, An Essay on Incarnation and Atonement (London, Faber and Faber. 1956). 作者强调圣父才是赎世工程的主要角色。
25.参阅：K. Rahner, "The One Christ and the Universality of Salvation", TI vol. 16, pp. 205-207.
26.K. Rahner, "Resurrection", SM vol. 5, pp. 332f

易福．贡格 (YVES CONGAR)著 汤汉译 年份：1982

贡格说，初期教会缺乏一致的态度，正好显示了地方教会对于普世教会的关系，以及罗马宗座所扮演的角色。而东方教会以圣三为蓝图的教会学，则更进一步给予梵二教会学一个发展的基础与动力。

初期教会并不认为日常习俗的不同，会有害于合一。犹斯定(Justin)支持那些仍旧遵守梅瑟法律的基督徒。教宗安尼西度(Anicetus)虽然不同意坡里革(Polycarp)对于庆祝复活节日期的意见，但他仍容许坡里革主持感恩祭，以表示维持彼此间的共融关系。稍后，依内略(Irenaeus)要求教宗域陀(Victor)不要为了复活节庆日的礼仪问题而对小亚细亚的主教施以绝罚。

虽然所有人都应接受圣经和大公会议的法令，但奥斯定却认为各地方的不同正显示出教会的圆满与美丽。大额我略(Gregory the Great)劝导坎特培里的奥斯定(Augustine of Canterbury)从高卢或其他教会选取礼仪材料，设法把它们配合到自己的传教区域去。

在东方教会亦有类似的开放情形。亚大纳削、希那利、及巴西略认为，只要同意尼西信经的内容，应当准许人们用不同的语言表达。亚历山大城的济利禄接受安提约基雅城的若望用厄弗所会议的「生育天主者」(Theotokos)一词表达信仰，虽然在这方面各人的神学立场不同。

东西方教会一方面对多元化采取容忍态度，另一方面亦同时出现对立的趋势，要统一各教会的习俗。特别在罗马，除了肯定教宗的首席权外，还坚持其他礼仪习俗要与罗马礼仪一致。信仰伯多禄宗座，就必需在法则及礼仪上跟随伯多禄宗座的传统。这是达玛索(三六六 三八四)及良一世(四四○四六一)的呼吁。额我略七世废除西班牙Mozarabic礼仪。本笃十四世要求在统一的教会内实行礼仪拉丁化，而这种趋势仍为庇护九世(甚至长十三世)继绩推动。

究竟罗马对划一的要求是否成功？在实践方面，承认伯多禄与罗马宗座的首席权，并不防碍地方或国家教会在日常生活上的自主权。菲洲教会拼命保持独立。东方教会在教律方面不断抗拒干预。(虽然如此，罗马的干预仍被接受，并不被视为只属对「荣誉首席权」的尊重。)最后，罗马宗座的权威及影响力盛行于西方(菲洲除外)，亦即是流行于广阔的拉丁宗主教管辖区。随着后来的扩张，这种影响伸延到世界各地，造成「公教」与「拉丁化」之混淆，以及「普世教会的首席权」与「西方宗主教职权」的混乱。

由于缺乏地方教会神学，额我略改革后的拉丁教会学便把普世教会视同一个身体，其中每个地方教会是肢体，而罗马教会是头。换言之，普世教会是一个大教区，以教宗为教区的主教(伯多禄达米盎语)。

直至庇护十二世在位末年，教会被视为一个「完美的社团」。这种观念支配着教会学。既然「完美的社团」必需拥有一切立法、司法、和执法的途径以达到自己的目的，则地方教会纵然拥有完整的圣事及信仰生活，仍未算是「完美的社团」。教宗的「权力」往往被强调，以保持他对普世教会所拥有的法律地位。

梵蒂冈第二届大公会议后的转变，并非是为了抹除教宗的首席权，而是要重新发现地方教会。如果教会的完整奥迹能在感恩祭的庆典中实现，则「完美的社团」这个观念连对于教会的外在生活也不足以描述(卡．拉纳语)。所以梵二恢复了东方「圣体教会学」，并描述如下：

「唯一的大公教会就在个别教会的中间，由她们集合而成。」(「教会宪章」第二十三号)「在这些团体中，都有基督亲临其间，因祂的德能而联合成教会。」(「教会宪章」第二十六号)「(教区)由(其牧者)藉福音及圣体在圣神内集合起来，而组成地方教会，基督的教会即临在此处，能在此活动。」(「主教在教会内牧灵职务法令」第十一号)

因为梵二看得出教会的本质建立在超越的原则：天主(若一1：6)、基督(格前1：9)、福音(斐1：5)、圣体(格前10：16)、圣神(格后13：14)上，故此，它能承认在其他基督团体中有教会本质的存在，同时在东正教会中亦存在着真正地方教会的质素。

每个地方教会就是天主的教会，但只限于宣信及与其他地方教会共融的时候才是，而这共融产生了普世教会。罗马宗座的角色最好是从这种共融的需要的脉络里去了解。宗座并非教会本质的源头，但她有使命，也因此有神恩和权力，要藉着维护传统及宣信去推进合一生活，以及仲裁争执，以保证教会问的共融。

神学基础

无论地方教会与普世教会之间的关系，或(地方及普世)教会与其领袖之间的关系，都以圣三的内在关系为蓝本。这个关系在外文称为"Circumincession"，意即：圣三互相存在于对方，性体相同，共融为一；但另一方面，父不是子，而子也不是父，各自享有那存在于对方及存在于圣神的位格内的天主性。

耶稣曾祈祷，使教会的合一肖似祂自己与父的合一。(若17：11)；这正好是把圣三模式运用于教会与教会之间的关系上。正如天主性只存在于位格上，普世教会亦只存在于各地方教会内，并来自地方教会。正如圣三的天主性不能与位格分离，普世教会亦不能与地方教会分离。

在圣经中，「教会」(EKKLESIA)一词是指一个在特定地方的信众团体，把以基督为首的身体的奥妙彰显出来(参阅厄弗所书及哥罗森书)。教会超越地域的性质，并不排除她本身的地区性。只有像天主的教会存在于格林多地方那样(格前1：2……等)，地方教会才「是」天主的教会。

「教会」一词不但运用于众教会之母的耶路撒冷团体(宗5：11)，也应用于其他地方教会(宗15：41)。保禄和巴尔纳伯不但被安提约基雅教会派遣，也接受耶路撒冷教会的欢迎(宗15：3、4)。这两个地方教会都是「天主的教会」(宗20：28)。

团体与其牧者的关系，或地方教会与其主教的关系亦是这样。教会在其管理者身上「拟人化」(宗20：28)。十二宗徒是「新以色列的初芽，同时也是圣统阶级的起源」(「教会传教工作法令」第五号)，所以耶稣在同一个祈祷中包括团体与领袖(若17：20)。

在初期教会的书信中，团体与牧者彼此包含，并不分离。比方：西彼帘说：「与自己的主教联合的群众，以及追随自己的牧者的羊群，才是教会。……主教在教会内，教会也在主教内。」

把这些观念转移到普世层次，亦可以找到圣经和传统的支持。(从罗马天主教观点看)，在职务方面，普世教会的首领和牧者基督，由伯多禄及保禄所建立的罗马教会的主教(教宗)所代表。基督、十二宗徒、教会三者由伯多禄代表(玛16：18：若21：15－17)。脱离三者之一，伯多禄都不能保持他的代表性。

耶路撒冷团体曾是众教会之母(路24：47)，为以后的教会提供模式和参考(格前11：16；迦2：2)。即使我们接受首席权已从耶路撒冷转移到罗马，还应依照圣三的内在关系去解释罗马宗座的地位。

有关地方教会的新神学，以及梵二「教会宪章」的圣三教会学，都一起重申东正教神学多年来所坚持的主题：「任何民族的主教们都应知道，在他们之中谁人居首，也应尊敬他，视如首领。没有与他商量，不应作任何重大事情。……而居首的，没有谘询过全体主教，也不应有所行动。……这样才能充满和谐，在圣神内，藉着子，光荣天父。(公元约四百年的「宗徒宪章」)」

这里，在赞颂圣三的脉络中，订定了个独角色和彼此沟通的规则，以致在主教全体与其首领的关系上，不但全体能够临现于个人，而且个人亦得以临现于全体。

一三五七年，君士坦丁堡的亚大纳削曾引用若望福音第十七章十一节及二十至二十二节以说明：正如圣三是一体，宗徒们(主教们)亦只有一个首领。当代东正教神学家舒密曼(A. Schmemann) 也说：「正如圣三的三个位格并不把天主性分裂，每一位都完整地拥有天主性，……因此教会的性质亦不会因为教会的多元化而分裂。……正如圣三的位格有『三』，……因此教会亦见众数，……而且在众教会中有圣统制，……有居首的教会及居首的主教。这并非是把一个教会辖属于另一个教会之下，而只是使每个教会活于全体教会内，而全体教会亦活于每个教会内。」

我们还须面对现实，就是：梵蒂冈第一届大公会议所钦定的教宗首席权，不可能贬抑为「居首的教会」及「居首的地位」，因为首席权教义一直被罗马天主教各地方教会接受。但历史使我们确信，一旦深悟这项教义的底蕴，并非不可能修正，而我们今日从圣三的内在关系去看这项教义时，首席权的真谛终于呈现出来。梵二开始采取了主教团的观念和共融的教会学，以表达出这项教义的内蕴。

如果「首席教会」及「首席地位」有一个使命，因而有一个神恩和不能削减的权力，则存在于这个首席教会内的地方教会，亦有不能削减的地位，就是怕多禄所代表的地位。至论教宗的不能错误神权，梵二认为它只是教会的不能错误神权(「教会宪章」第廿五号)。这正好暗示出个人代表团体。换言之，伯多禄个人代表整个教会(奥斯定语)，所有教会临现于个别教会当中，而各个教会以一种特殊方式临现于罗马教会。

具体应用

共融要求沟通；遇到要对共同信仰作决断时，便当谘询其他教会：「何处有共融，何处便有共同的决断。」(盎博罗削语)自从把「与子」(FILIOQUE)一词加插在信经以后，我们西方教会好像已不再把东正教会视为姊妹教会，而(在一八五四、一八七○及一九五○年)自行钦定信条。

我们理应与步耶(Bouyer)、纳胜加(Ratzinger)、杜勒斯(Dulles)三位神学家一超质问：当某一个教会没有份参与大公会议，而且大公会议所订立的信条不符合这个教会的传统时，我们能否把这些议决、甚至教条强加于这个教会身上？

罗马在担当普世教会共融的督导者角色时，应该采用法律和组织方法，以推进各教会间的沟通。而学者、尤其是历史学家则可以帮助罗马重新检讨过往流传下来的不同意见。

今日教会如欲复制出第三或第四世纪教会的结构，当然是不切实际的试图。教会现况与教宗权威已发展成长，他们所担当的角色亦无法退回往昔情况。毕竟历史能显示出：罗马宗座虽然不是其他教会之源头，但仍担当中心角色。这个权威的拥有者多被称为「基督代表」，少被呼作「罗马主教」，但是，从上述的探讨我们觉得，「罗马主教」这个被遮盖了的名衔对教宗更为切合。

  

译自

YVES CONGAR, LOCAL AUTONOMY AND CENTRAL POWER, in： THEOLOGY DIGEST, VOL. 29, No. 3, FALL 1981, pp. 227-230.

作者：林祖明 年份：1982

（甲）导言

教友在礼仪生活中，直接和经常与教会接触的是圣体与修和圣事，其余的圣事在教友生活中原则上只有一次或在特殊的境遇中才会领受。由于罪赦与圣体圣事有关系，所以罪赦在修和圣事外的可能性便产生了。教友是否可以在修和圣事外，在圣体圣事中有把握地得到罪赦，与天主及教会和好？这是本文所希望探讨的。现在我们首先澄清罪与赦罪的含意。

（乙）罪与赦罪的意义

在圣经上论及罪的意义皆指在思、言、行为上违反天主旨意的某种行为。(1)在古经中，就以色列民承行或违背天主与他们所订的盟约为准则，罪是一种使人与天主隔绝的行为。在新约中指出，所有人都沉溺在罪恶中，因此耶稣一开始宣讲就劝人悔改；在美善天主的台前，人是不完美和有欠缺的，是在撒旦的权下期待救赎的一群。耶稣在宣讲天主无限慈爱的同时，提醒世人要重新回归天主的怀里，荡子的比喻便是毫无保留地描述出天主慈爱的伟大，祂无论在任何时间和环境之下，都会接纳一个真心回归的荡子。

罪之赦就是人在犯罪后，获得天主的宽恕，重新与天主和好的意思。在整个的旧约中，人类与天主的关系，经常在一种摇摆不定的情况中。叛逆与服从、犯罪与归依的例子多得不可胜数，这是以民犯罪与得救的历史。但是罪赦并不意味着暂罚的免除；原祖要承担犯罪的后果，劳苦工作、用血汗谋生。罪过的赦免完全是天主的主动爱情，并不是罪恶的掩盖，而是完全约铲除(达九24)和忘记(耶卅一34)。

在新约中，罪赦的意义与旧约相同，就是将人与天主的隔离障碍取消，人再次与天主和好；这完全是由于基督的死亡复活的效果，但这罪过的赦免不是单方面的行动，而是个人积极的「更新」、「改造」和「新的创造」：「天主、求你给我再造一颗纯洁的心…」(咏五十一8)。这个「新创造」的成功与否要视乎人的参予和回应、人与恩宠的合作而产生的。

（丙）赦罪在圣体圣事内的位置

一、圣经的启示

建立圣体圣事的叙述，很清楚记载在对观福音和格林多人前书内。虽然从文学类型的批判中，发现他们的词语结构并非耶稣在最后晚餐中建立圣体圣事的说话，有可能是转载目初期教会的礼仪经文。(2)

将四段建立圣体的叙述比较时，发现格前和路加相近，玛窦和马尔谷相似，因此神学家认为它们是来自两个不同的礼仪传统；而它们分别表达了两个古经的神学传统：「先知」和「司祭」。「先知」传统是以「新的盟约」为申心；司祭传统则以「祭祀」为中心，而祭祀就与「血」有极大的关连。祭祀的血在古经中有赎罪和立约的意义 这盟约的血为众人而倾流，以赦免罪恶…。虽然，在路加和格前没有明显记载「赦免罪过」的字样，但并没有削弱其对赎罪的意义，因为两个传统都是共同表达出受苦之仆的型像。(3)

二、受苦之仆的祭献意义

在玛窦和马尔谷有关耶稣在最后晚餐的叙述中，用了「这是我的血，新约的血，为大众倾流」的话，(玛廿五28、谷十四24)它们隐藏着古经的「受苦之仆」为大众的罪而死的思想 「因为他为了承担大众的罪过，作罪犯的中保，牺牲了自己的性命……」(依五十三12)；又谓：「我正义的仆人要使多人成义，因为他承担了他们的罪过」(依五十三11)。而且，「受苦之仆」被天主立为祂与人类的盟约的中保(依四十九8)。故此，盟约的观念不被局限于法律中，而是由「仆人」的无我和牺牲精神所建立的，而这仆人的遭遇正好反映在耶稣身上。

耶稣将这旧约观念放在自己的死亡行动中，应验古经所载，把「谁是这位受苦之仆」的谜底揭开，他自己就是这个真正的「仆人」，实现了古经的期待和盼望，而且，耶稣把「受苦之仆」的形像提升成为天主第二位的牺牲，超越了古经的概念。人类的任何牺牲都不能与祂的相比：「人还能拿什么作为自己灵魂的代价？」(谷八37)；只有耶稣的牺牲才使天主悦纳。「受苦之仆」的身份不是任何一个人可以胜任，唯有降生成人的耶稣才能圆满的实现这个预言，他所建立的圣体圣事为天主所悦纳，使人的罪过得到赦免：「他所背负的，是我们的疾苦；担负的，是我们的疼痛…他被刺伤，是因了我们的悖逆，他被打伤是因了我们的罪过；因他受了惩罚，我们便得了安全，因他的受伤，我们得了痊愈」(依五十三4－5)。

三、祭献与赦罪的关系

若要更深入瞭解耶稣牺牲的赎罪意义，就不能不从犹太古经传统去看二者的关系。

在古经中，任何一个祭献都有赎罪的成份。(4)「赎罪」(Atonement)就是表明愿意脱离邪恶的行为，从罪恶的势力中解放出来。有罪的人不能与天主直接沟通，需要一个牺牲为中介，藉此希望能消除天主的义怒，使神与人之间的关系能重新建立起来。(5)

以色列人在举行赎罪祭时，会把那选定的「代罪恙羊」放在祭坛上，同祭会把手按在羔羊头上，按着司祭会宰杀恙羊，把羊血洒在会幕的四周，其余的血就倒在祭坛脚旁(肋四)。洒血象征祝圣、洁净和圣化。这个思想便影响了初期归化的犹太基督徒，把赎罪日基督化：「没有血的倾流，罪恶就得不到宽恕。」(希九22)(6)

四、新约有关耶稣牺牲的瞭解

在对复活基督的经验的影响下，福音作者在描述耶稣的事迹时，隐藏着不少的神学思想。玛窦讲述贤士献给婴孩耶稣的礼物时，以殁药暗示耶稣的牺牲(玛一11)。马尔谷在耶稣论及人子的将来时，反映出「受苦之仆」为罪人牺牲的一幕：「人子不是来受服事，而是来服事人，交出自己的牲命，为大众作赎价。」(谷十45)

记述耶稣苦鸡的四位新约作者，同时用踰越节晚餐的背景来描写耶稣的最后晚餐。在他们心目中，耶稣的苦难、死亡和复活是踰越的事件。对观福音指出了这个晚餐是踰越晚餐；而若望更指出耶稣自己就是踰越的「恙羊」，将要为人而牺牲。用「血」建立新的盟约更加说明耶稣的死是流血的赎罪牺牲。(7)

圣保禄指出，踰越节恙羊基督已被祭杀作了牺牲(格前五7)。耶稣自己就是赎罪祭…不但赎我们的，而且也赎全世界的罪过(若一书二2)。若望和保禄都指出耶稣的死有双重意义：成为「踰越的牺牲」和「赎罪的牺牲」，显示出新约的救赎和宽恕。(8)

五、初期教会的训诲

初期教会对信仰的训诲和着作往往被后期基督徒视为信仰反省上的资科和根据，在教会的传统中占有重要位置。

「十二宗徒训言」(Didache) 记载，在预备主的感恩祭时，为能使天主悦纳，首先要忏悔罪过。这很明显与玛窦福音(五23－24)互相辉映，表明圣体与祭献的关系。安提约基雅的依纳爵强调自己的祭献与基督的祭献参合(致罗马人书四1－2)。(注九)儒斯定更取了犹太人的观念来解释祭献的目的是赎罪，而基督是踰越祭献的完成，基督是赎罪祭，圣体圣事就是这祭献在今世的延绩。

依来内重覆基督用自己的血把人从罪恶中救出来。(10)依波里都继承传统对祭献瞭解的同时，更深入指出，从圣言降生成人和从死人中复活升天的事件中，不只是圣言自己回归天父台前，而且祂也把人类献于天父面前，使人类也分享天主子的神圣性。(11)人类不仅消极的被赦免，也积极地参予天主圣三的生活。

六、小结

在教会的神学发展中，对圣体圣事有更深入的瞭解。今日，更注意圣体是教会共融、互爱、感恩和爱宴的观念，而不太强调圣体的赎罪意义。但当我们返回新约和初期教会的时代，清楚看到圣体和罪赦的祭献有密切关系。福音反映出当时不同地方教会传统的信仰表达，而福音作者觉察到圣体的赎罪意义为当时教友的重要性，同时亦是他们信仰的表达方式，所以从祭献的角度来表达出罪赦完全是由于基督的牺牲。「新盟约的血」、为众人而倾流」、「受苦之仆」、「为纪念我而举行」等思想，都藉圣体圣事表达出来了。而初期教会的训导，便是这事实的见证。

耶稣赐予教会「束缚」和「解除」罪恶的权力，藉着教会的行动，罪人可以在天主台前获得直接而完全的罪赦，这全基于耶稣在十字架上的死亡、复活和升天。祂为人类赚得了天主义子的福份(罗八)。圣体圣事的建立正是要我们为「纪念」祂，「纪念」不只是事件的重温，还有更深的意义，就是求主记忆祂与人订立的盟约，记起祂对人所施的救恩和护佑，成为一个宣示救恩的行动。(12)在人更深体验天主的忠信和爱情的同时，也要求人自省，记起自己的软弱，经常有犯罪的倾向，承认自己的不足，再次藉着基督，在这个「纪念」的行动中，求主接纳和宽恕一切过犯。

（丁）圣体圣事的实际赦罪能力

脱利腾大公会议谴责那些认为圣体圣事的主要功效是赦罪的理论。这次公会议重申圣体圣事只消除小罪与其暂罚：「由圣体圣事而产生的对天主的完善爱德行为，使小罪及其暂罚消除，而小罪与罪罚消除的程度紧系于爱的深度」。(13)

圣体圣事的主要效果有三：(一)、是与基督最密切的契合；(二)、是灵魂的食粮，使超性坐命能得以保存和滋长；(三)、是未来永福和身体复活的保证。圣体实际赦罪的范围只限于小罪及其暂罚，但这并非无条件机械式的赦免行动，是要视乎领受人的情况而定，例如：他「爱」的程度有多深、佃与天主的关系如何等。但这个罪赦并不只是他与天主两者的事情，而是藉着基督所建立的教会去完成，故此教会也参予其间，在圣体圣事中是基督在教会内宽赦他的罪过。

教会是基督的圣事，而基督则是天主父的原始圣事，是天主恩宠的标记 天主与人相遇的特殊标记。当人愿意藉圣体圣事与天主结合，又不是处于大罪的境况中，天主可以直接把那人的过失消除，使他没有阻碍地、直接地与天主结合。在这个情况下，可以说是圣体圣事赦免了人的罪过，但是要在与天主密切契合的大前题下才有效，因为罪过是阻碍与天主契合的主要因素。

圣体圣事对大罪实在是无能为力的，因为大罪是整个人毫无保留的整个投向罪恶，不只是以事情的大小来衡量其严重性，也是看整个人的生活取向和态度，这也非一朝一夕的结果。犯大罪的人整个的内心远离天主，充满邪恶，毫无与天主契合的意愿，就算有天主的恩宠，也不能达到圣体圣事的圆满效果。所以若果认为圣体圣事可以有赦大罪的直接功效，就是忽略大罪是离弃天主的行为和后果，认为圣体圣事是万应的魔术。

内心取向的改变是要经过不断的归化过程，藉着每次的修和能使罪人更接近天主，在改受基本抉择的过程中可能会经常遇到失败，但教会从不会拒绝罪人归依，和得到赦罪的需要。在每次的归依中，人接受更多的恩宠，使自己更堪当接受与天主契合的圣体圣事。所以圣教会规定领受圣体圣事必要没有大罪在身，即是：若察觉有大罪必须领受修和圣事，为了更圆满的与天主契合，与教会共融，分享教会的生命。

但这引起一个似乎矛盾的问题：若果圣体圣事是基于加尔瓦略山上的牺牲，是天主与人修好的标记，为何它不能担当实际的修和角色，而只有赦免小罪的能力，对于消除大罪则只可以在特殊的情形下才能有效？

若要瞭解这个问题，首先要看看圣体圣事在教会中的位置及它与别的圣事之关系。

圣体圣事完全是来自天主的爱与主动，而不是由于人的功绩。因着罪的缘故，天主与人之间存在着一条不可跨越的鸿沟。基督为了填补它，不惜牺牲自己，成为人类与天父间的修和中介。天父接纳基督代表人类的赎罪祭，重新与人建立关系，更藉着基督所建立的教会把恩宠分施。

所以「圣体圣事乃是基督完全的奉献、共融的祭祀、赎罪的牺牲，为了消除世界的罪恶」；(14)「单是基督的牺牲，就足够使天主与人修和，消除一切罪恶」，(15)并足够赚来罪过的宽恕。祂的死带来救恩。(16)祂打破了人神的阻碍(弗二14)。这完全是天主的主动，祂甚至交付自己的身体，作为爱的最后凭证，为了取得罪人的回头。(17)所以圣体圣事是其他圣事的中心。(18)

由于圣体圣事，其他的圣事才可以成立、才有意义，因为若果没有十字架上的牺牲，天父与人还未修好，而人永久与神有隔膜。加尔瓦略山上的牺牲是人类救恩的开始，它赋予教会圣事的基础，而修和圣事亦在这个背景之下建立；而它存在的目标，就是使人能从罪中回头。

圣体圣事并不保证领受人自动得救，人自己要参予其中。但罪人单靠自己也不能解除与天主及教会的隔阂，必需藉教会的祈祷与修和圣事的帮助。在存在的角度来看，修和圣事是圣体圣事的预备，但实际上圣体圣事是先于修和圣事。若修和圣事脱离了基督苦难复活的祭献含义，就毫无意义了。正如圣保禄所说：若果基督不是真的从死者中复活起来，我们的信仰便是空的，我们成了全世界最傻的人。若果圣史不是领略到耶稣的教训，和经验到复活基督的启示，一定不能带出希望的讯息和暗示出希望的圣事 修和圣事。而这观念是始于天主从古经的时代藉先知启示给犹太人，而在新约时代则藉基督得以完成。所以圣体圣事的建立是天主宽恕世人的保证，是天主与人重新建立关系的起点，使所有的人都有机会得救。而修和圣事是人类得救的实现，罪恶彻实地得到宽恕。

（戊）圣体圣事与修和圣事的比较

基督是天主父的原始圣事，祂是不可见的天主的肖像(哥一15)，充满天主的恩宠和光荣(若一14)：祂是恩宠之泉，祂自己是天主，而祂在受难之前为自己和为人类建立了爱情的圣事：「你们要为纪念我而举行这事」(路廿三19)：并在升天前许下圣神，建立教会，继续祂的工程。教会是基督的圣事。教会在她的生活中，因着教友不同的需要，在七个不同的时刻中行动，藉着这些行动，人与天主接触，得到特殊的恩宠。

圣体圣事是教会最完整表达自己的行动，是其他圣事的基础。「藉着十字架的奥迹，人与天主建立新的盟约，圣体圣事就是这个盟约的肯定和证明」。(19)所以若果没有十字架，基督的工作还未圆满，教会也不能从中产生，其余的圣事也不能成立。

圣体圣事和修和圣事的相同点，就是两者同是恩宠的泉源，二者都建基在基督的死亡和复活奥迹上，而圣体圣事可以被称为圣事中的圣事，是一切圣事的中心。它的目的就是为了建立基督徒的团体，促进团体的共融团结。

修和圣事是为了处理基督徒的悔改而设，藉着这圣事帮助人类不断归依，而这个效果并非圣体圣事可以完全达到的。修和圣事的存在固然是因为基督曾在福音说过「束缚和释放」或赦免罪过的说话，但这些说话必需在祂的整个生活中，祂的降生，自我牺牲，死亡和复活的事件中去了解才有意义。

圣体圣事本身已隐藏着赦罪与修和的意义和力量，而这效果需要在修和圣事的境况中才能圆满的彰显出来。修和圣事是一件切实的悔罪圣事，圣体圣事就是修和的泉源，而修和就是进入共融团体的第一步。

基督徒藉圣言和擘饼，纪念基督死而复活的奥迹，同天父呈上赞颂和感恩的祭献；在圣神的带领下，使团体能够在信德和爱情的气氛下日渐成熟，直到基督再度来临的时刻。教会也透过修和圣事继续基督的赦罪和治疗的职务，使天国更深的实现。罪人在圣神的感动和引导下，在回头的过程中与教会修和，重建因罪恶而被损坏的关系，赞扬和宣示天主无穷的慈爱。(20)

圣体圣事是纪念和庆祝天主藉基督带给人类的整个救恩行动，所以圣体圣事是一件具有「修和」效能的圣事；而修和圣事更是「修和」的彻底实现。

　

  

1.思高圣经学会 圣经辞典，页九一○。
2.王敬弘、新约中的圣体圣事，「神学论集」第十二期 (香港真理学会，光启出版社发行 民国六十一年)　页二○○
3.同上　　　页二○四
4.同上　　　页一九七
5.Robert J. Daly, S. J., “The Origins of the Christian Doctrine of Scrifice” (Darton, Longman and Todd Ltd, 1978) p. 26-28.
6.ibid p. 29-31
7.ibid p. 54-56
8.ibid p. 78
9.ibid p. 85-87
10.ibid p. 93
11.ibid p. 100
12.Max Thurian, “The Eucharistic Memorial” part 1 Ecumenical Studies in Worship no. 7 (John Knex Press 1960) p. 39.
13.天主教信理神学下册 页六二四
14.神学论集 第十二期 页一九六
15.Max Thurian "The Eucharistic Memorial" part 2 p. 79.
16.Joachim Jeremias, "The Eucharistic Words of Jesus" (SCM Press Ltd., Bloomsbury St. London 1964) p. 226.
17.Oscar Cullmann, "Essays on the Lord's Supper" Ecumenical Studies in Worship no.1 (John Knox Press, Richmond, Virginia 1958) p. 61-62.
18.Karl Rahner, "The Church and the Sacrament" (Herder Freiburg, Burns and Oates London 1963) p. 82.
19."The Eucharistic Memorial" part 2, p. 56.
20.James Dallen, "Eucharist and Penance",. (Worship vol.50 No. 4 July 1976) p. 327-328.

作者：吴智勋 年份：1982


(一) 问题的发生

很少人会否认宗教信仰和伦理有密切的关系。保禄书信便曾劝勉教徒生活行动要相称天主的宠召，应「脱去旧人，穿上新人」(弗四：17-32)。如果对基督的信仰，能在伦理生活上产生显着的效果，似乎顺理成章的形成所谓基督徒的伦理。六十年代末期到今天道十几年中，天主教伦理神学突然热烈的讨论这个题目：基督徒伦理的特征是什么？但也有神学家对整个假定发生怀疑，因此他们追溯一个更基本的问题：究竟有没有特殊的基督徒伦理？

促成这问题的探讨是有几个近因的：第一就是所谓神学的俗化运动(Secularization)。(1)俗化一方面反对把世界神话化、神性化或神秘化；而另一方面注意世界本身的自主性及内在价值，俗化并非无神主义，它承认天主创造了世界，但这并不是一个空虚、无意义的世界，天主在创造时已给与世界其内在的意义。俗化亦不同世俗主义(Secularism)。世俗主义是一种反宗教的意识型态，它强调人的内在自主，完全独立于一个超越的天主之外，故它否定一切来世及超自然的思想。

俗化运动也影响到伦理界。如果天主的法律已铭刻在人的心中，人的道德已有其内在价值；换句话说，我们实在不需要把它基督化，它才产生意义和价值。天主并没有创造一个无意义的世界，然后派遣基督来给予它价值。我们的世界是天主所创造、救赎的世界，天主的恩宠既在起初已内在于自然里，因此神学家便注意到这个问题：基督信仰究竟有没有对人的道德(Human morality)加添了一些实质内容？

另一个促成讨论的原因是对教会训导地位的商榷。天主教徒都知道圣统教会有训导的权力，但不少教会当局的伦理训导和一般人的意见不相同，形成天主教徒有与众不同的伦理信念，例如：婚姻的不可解散性，人工避孕、堕胎、安死等的不道德，其中有些似乎只有天主教才如此主张。教会训导当局既和一般人抱不同的伦理意见，人们很自然会问：是否当局除了理性外，还有一些其他基础(比方启示)，使它和别人有不同的观点？「人类生命」通谕(Humanae Vitae)公布后的十几年间，很多神学家都提出对当局非不能错的训导有持异议的权利。在理论上及事实上，越来越多人不接受当局对某些伦理问题的训导。对教会训导权的动摇也影响了特殊基督徒伦理的存在。

梵二以后，教会普遍兴起交谈之风，这是因为梵二如此鼓吹之故：「大公会议……将指出这天主子民对其寓居其内的世界所有联系、尊重及爱护。但为达成这目标，再没有比对上述诸难题，同人类直接交谈更妙。在这交谈内，教会将借助福音神光，将她在圣神教诲下，由其创立者所接受的神力神方，提供给人类」。(2)不少神学家响应此号召，与非天主教徒作各式各样的交谈。基督徒伦理的特征也是交谈题目之一。古伦(Charles　E. Curran) 的「交谈文集」便有一篇重要文章：「与人文主义交谈：是否有特殊的基督徒伦理？」(3)

基督徒伦理特征的讨论始于欧洲。一九六六年三月第二十八届法国天主教知识份子周，便以讨论人的道德和基督徒的道德为题目。(4)一九六九年九月法语伦理教授会议，重点亦在基督徒伦理的特征上。其中奥拔(J. M. Aubert) 和西门(R. Simon) 的文章，更奠定以后讨论的基础。(5)德国和意国的神学家也举行了类似的会议。(6)至于英语的伦理神学家慢慢迎头赶上。麦哥铭(Richard A. McCormick) 每年一次的「伦理神学摘要」，便曾三次讨论这个问题。(7)他更和古伦携手搜罗了有关这方面的重要文章，编成「伦理神学文选」第二集，以「基督徒伦理的特殊性」为主题。(8)十几年来，这个题目一直流行于天主教伦理神学的圈子里，以致有人认为这是现代伦理神学最基本的课题。

(二) 问题的处理

天主教历来主张自然律伦理，认为人性与人的理智并未完全为罪恶所败坏，人的理智能够分辨天主的计划。圣多玛斯便认为自然律分享天主永久的法律。人既然有同样的本性，因此在伦理境界内，基督徒与非基督徒有共同的基础。不少教宗的通谕都从这个基础出发。教宗良十三世的「新事」通谕(Rerum Novarum) 主张以人性及人性尊严为基础去处理社会问题；若望二十三世的「和平」通谕(Pacem in Terris)，是对着所有善心人而说的，因为他们都怀有基于自然律的理智。因此，从传统自然律伦理看来，天主教似应赞成没有所谓特殊的基督徒伦理。

可是，事情不是这样简单。首先，自然律受到部份天主教伦理学家的攻击。古伦便认为天主教自然律伦理太乐观，忽视人罪恶的事实；这种伦理是静止的、保守的、不变的，未能适应今日万变的社会；最严重的，是它把自然(natural) 和超自然(supernatural)、创造和救赎分开；换句话说，人本性能不受超性所影响。(9)这种对立，受到不少神学家非议。另一方面，有些伦理神学家亦不满意把基督徒伦理和一般伦理混为一谈，失却它本身的特色。他们保持圣保禄「换上新人」的信念，认为基督信仰实可改变人的行为和伦理准则。

辩论中有些观念慢慢澄清，焦点集中在基督徒伦理有没有特殊的物质内容(material content)上。奥拔首先尝试用圣多玛斯的「四因」，去解决基督徒伦理的特征问题。他认为伦理的物质内容只有一种，基督徒与非基督徒皆一样，基督徒伦理的特征不应在这里找寻。(10)可是也有人反对他的意见，因而形成在天主教内有两种主张：

(甲) 肯定基督徒伦理的特殊物质内容

这个立场主要来自意国一份神学杂志「天主教文明」(Lacivilta cattolica) 的社论。(11)它首先提出，基督徒伦理的两大特征是信德和圣宠。它承认「人的道德」基于理智，合乎理智的便是道德的；「基督徒的道德」亦基于理智，但是指受信德光照、提升的理智；该理智聆转天主的圣言，特别是从圣经、传统和教会训导处发出的天主圣言。它不同意基督徒伦理仅在乎一个新的精神和一个基督徒的意向性(intentionality)，而没有新的行为和准则：「信德和圣宠……不可能不产生新的行为和诚命」。(12)耶稣并非只教导自然道德规范，他来是为成全它们，扩大它们的领域。它举出一些不见于自然伦理的例子：爱仇、不报复邪恶、谦逊甘愿坐末席、舍弃财物、热爱十字架、听命至死、为天国而守贞等。

该社论强调基督徒与非基督徒间有一本质上的不同。基督徒是新人，新创造物，被召去「过一个新生活」(罗六：4)。基督徒是指相信基督，在基督内的人；非基督徒是指那不信基督，不在基督内的人。明显的信仰使基督徒与非基督徒产生本质上的不同。

我认为这种论调有一个困难，即把基督徒和非基督徒对立起来；前者在基督内，后者不在基督内。可是另一方面，该社论又不能不随从梵二以来教会的指示，即有些非基督徒能按照自然律伦理生活，得到救赎而与基督结合。这样，社论中的非基督徒，似乎只能是既不信基督，又不随从自然律伦理生活的人，大概他们是圣若望所谓与基督对立，「属于世界」的人(若十五：19)。

该社论的原意可能是这样：非基督徒是指没有明显信仰基督的人，但能随从人的伦理去生活。基督并不来废除，而是来完成、净化所有人的价值。可惜社论进一步的说：完满的人的伦理只能是基督徒伦理，完整的人的道德必须是基督徒的(指明显的基督徒)。这种论调的结果，是把基督徒与非基督徒对立超来，使基督徒在伦理上有优越感，人的伦理只能是二等伦理。

(乙) 否定基督徒伦理的特殊物质内容

大部份的天主教伦理神学家都主张无所谓基督徒伦理的特殊物质内容。他们所用的名称可能不同，但意思是大同小异的。奥拔把伦理分为物质(material) 和形式(formal) 的层面，福斯(J. Fuchs) 则分为实际的(categorical) 和超验的(transcendental) 两个层次。(13)物质或实际的层面，是指伦理生活上各种特别的价值、行为、规律。在这个层面上，没有所谓基督徒伦理的特殊内容；但在形式或超验的层次里，特殊的基督徒伦理是可能的。至于这个基督徒伦理的特征是什么，则每个伦理神学家的重点不一。

尤斯丹(A. Jousten) (14)指出：在旧约，伦理是与盟约连在一起，伦理规律能表现围绕着盟约的救恩；在新约，救恩的指示亦与道德命令连在一超。厄弗所书所云：「脱去旧人，穿上新人」，就是这个意思。尤斯丹跟着提出两个基督徒伦理的特征：

(1) 基督徒伦理本质上是一个宗教的伦理，它处于基督宗教的讯息之中，即宣布天国的来临，显示天主的意旨。天主圣言是一个伦理原则，因为它使信从的人，面临一个基本抉择。故此，基督徒的伦理有一个纵面的尺度，它不是回应人的召叫，而是回应基督的召叫。表面上，「基督徒的」道德行为与「人的」道德行为无异，即无物质内容的不同，亦不能与自然律分家；但为一位基督徒，道德生活成为信仰基督的表现。伦理之所以称为「基督徒的」，只能因为基督临在其中，其特征就在于此。

(2) 基督徒伦理的第二个特征就在于「爱的诫命」，这是基督徒伦理的内容。基督把旧约法律和先知都系于爱的诫命。这个爱的诫命，并非一般的伦理规律，它是基督信仰在实际环境中的实践原则。爱的召叫与回应是个人的、独特的，只有在那境遇中的人，才能明白爱究竟要求他采取什么行动。自然律能够是实现爱的方式，基督徒伦理的特征兴及它和自然伦理的关系也在于此：基督徒伦理把自然律深切化和彻底化。

奥拔用圣多玛斯的四因去处理基督徒伦理的特征问题。(1)物质因：指伦理行为、规律等。伦理的物质内容，有无信仰的人皆一样。(2)目的因：爱是目的因，爱贯通整个伦理生活。(3)功效因：指天主的恩宠，它藉着爱和人的意志联合。(4)形式因：指信德。奥拔认为这是基督徒伦理特征所在。由信德而生意向性，把一般道德规律付诸实行。从他的信德，基督徒认识到他的道德行为有一超验的、超世的目的，因而不会把世上的目的绝对化。奥拔的主张很有启发性，但他过于要配合多玛斯的四因，勉强把相连的东西分开了，同时亦把特征拘限于形式因。但目的因中的爱，功效因中的恩宠，实在不能和形式因中的信德分开，信德不能不包含爱与恩宠。没有爱与恩宠也没有信德的可能。

福斯分析基督徒的伦理行为为两层面。在实际层面里，基督徒与非基督徒的伦理表现、规律等是相同的；在超验层面内，基督徒伦理有其独特的地方。福斯问：当我施舍时，我究竟做了什么？我是否只做了给钱的行为而已？抑或藉着这个好行为，我满全自己的人格，成为一个好人？这个好行为亦使我与天主连在一起。他认为有一个意向性贯通所有道德行为，这个意向性是基督徒的基本抉择，即与天主连在一起，接受基督的一个基本决定。基督徒行善时，能意识到此关系；作恶时，这个意向性也存在，不过是拒绝接受此关系。罪因此有一个「基督徒的」意思，罪人不单是做了某一恶事，他更把自己与天主对立超来，并拒绝基督和他的圣神。福斯把这个超验的、基督徒的意向性作为基督徒伦理的特微。

侯士(G. J. Hughes) 从一个与众不同的角度去研究这个问题。(15)他的问题是：伦理是否需要一个基督徒的基础？经过仔细的分析，他发觉基督的启示、教训、模范，都不能加给我们的伦理知识一个实质内容(substantive content)。换句话说，没有一个伦理的实质内容只有基督徒才能拥有，而非基督徒是无法领略的。侯士的结论是：基督徒的信仰能为伦理做到的，是「提供刺激力、上下文和动机」(a stimulus, a context and a motivation)。天主的启示常刺激我们不满足一般世俗的伦理思想，它要求我们变为成全的，如同天父是成全的一样。基督徒的信仰能光照我们的伦理生活，使我们洞悉它的全面性。在这个上下文里，我们能对伦理有新的了解。基督徒的信仰亦给予我们希望的动机，不管情况如何恶劣，在基督内的人总是不失望，效法基督，朝着最高的理想目的走。

古伦对这个问题讨论很多，也是最激进的一个，因为他认为无所谓特殊基督徒伦理的存在。他首先提出天主的救赎是为全人类，并非只为基督徒。至于全人类如何得到救恩，则有不同的说法。古伦利用拉内(K. Rahner) 的隐名基督徒的观念去解释。拉内认为天主向全人类提供救恩，人能拒绝或接受它而并无明显的认识耶稣是主，故善心的无神论者亦能是隐名的基督徒。可见基督徒和非基督徒并不对立，他们都能分享基督的救恩。同样，世界不是一个纯粹自然，不受天主恩宠影响的地方，创造与救赎不能分开。我们只有一个历史性的秩序(Historical order)，即人被造、犯罪、救赎三者合而为一。换句话说，所有人皆处于罪恶及恩宠的影响下，皆被召分享天主的救恩。基于此历史性的秩序，人的伦理必须与基督徒伦理有相同的内容。古伦初期的结论是：基督徒与非基督徒皆分享相类的伦理规律、态度、趋向、目的等。(16)他后期的结论更大胆，认为人甚至能分享意向性和动机性，虽然这不是出于有意的反省。(17)古伦主张基督徒伦理唯一与众不同的，只在于基督信仰能影响个人的意识及对该意识有意的反省(Thematic reflection)。

(三) 问题的澄清与反省

辩论的双方，看来是难以调和，但若加以仔细的分析，则两者其实有很多共通的地方。双方讨论时，有些地方含糊不清，甚至用相同的字而不是指同样的东西，故必须把含混的东西澄清。

(甲) 伦理的含义

既然是谈基督徒的伦理，伦理两字必须弄清楚。华特(James Walter) 把伦理的意义分析得很好。(18)我觉得有助于问题的了解。伦理一词能带有三个意思：(1)伦理基础(ground of ethics)：此指人存在的超验境界。人在其存在的基层内，有自由、反省、负责的可能性。人若没有目由、反省、负责的能力，便不能算是一个道德主体了，因为他连伦理基础也没有。(2)伦理自身(ethics as such)：此指一套伦理原则、假定和判断，人有意的用这一套东西去决定自己的道德行为。伦理作为一种科学就在于此。每人都可反省自己的经验，有意的形成一种规律和生活态度，并以此去指导自己的伦理生活。(3)道德(morals)：此指人的实际伦理行为和操行。

华特认为任何基督徒伦理的特征只能在实际界，而不能在超验界。换句话说，只能在伦理自身及道德这两范畴，而不能在伦理基础上，因为伦理基础只能有一个，任何人皆相同。他认为基督徒伦理的独特性就是基督徒的意向性。(19)

本文主要不是批评华特的文章，但对他文章的评论实有助于问题的澄清。福斯和华特都同意基督徒的意向性是基督徒伦理的特征，但福斯把意向性放在超验界面华特却放在实际界！我认为把意向性放在超验界是比较合理的。意向性并不指某一特殊伦理行为、规律等，它指基督徒的一个基本决定、基本态度，接受并答覆天主在基督内所显示的爱。这个意向性存在于所有实际界里的道德行为，它也是产生个别意向的原动力。华特把意向性放在实际界，但那该属「伦理自身」呢抑或「道德」呢？看来两者皆不属，因为意向性根本不是一套伦理原则、规律等用以决定道德行为，它也不算是其一道德行为本身。倘若三个伦理范畴皆不属，似不应称为伦理特征了。

我认为华特相古伦的错误，是以为基督徒伦理的特征，会在伦理基础上再加一层。两个伦理基础会产生创造与救赎、自然与超自然、「人的」与「基督徒的」对立。其实，基督徒意向性这个特征，并非在伦理基础上加上另一基础，它只是形容(qualify) 该伦理基础而没有替代了那基础。

(乙) 特殊性与独特性

这是澄清问题最重要的一环。当我们讨论基督徒伦理的特征时，那特征是指特殊性(distinctiveness) 抑或独特性(specificity) 呢？一般参加讨论的伦理神学家都没有好好分清楚此点。打开「伦理神学文选」第二册，里面的题目有些用特殊性，有些用独特性。古伦较喜用特殊性，但有时两者运用，(20)有时标题用特殊性，而下面跟着的解释却用独特性，(21)充份表现他把二者看成是同义词。森逊(Michael Simpson) 也在同一句子里用了两者：「这种个人道德要求是独特地基督徒的。……因为它基于一特殊的基督徒意识，此意识与别的宗教意识不同」。(22)

我想强调的是：古伦和森逊皆以英语为母语，他们认为两者是同义词，对于此事实，我们自无异议。但为了澄清问题，把独特性和特殊性看成有不同意义，未免不是一件好事，免得再纠缠不清。独特性应指唯独我才有，而别的不能有，即含有排斥性的意义。特殊性是指与一般不相同，是一个特征，一个标志，但并不表示别人绝不能有。例如：刻苦耐劳的美德，是中国人的特殊性，与一般其他人不太相同的特征，但并不排斥他国人有刻苦耐劳的可能。

有了这个分别，我们回头看看上述的讨论。「天主教文明」的社论肯定有特殊的基督徒伦理内容，它的例子是：爱仇、不报复邪恶、舍弃财物、热爱十字架、听命至死、守贞等。我们可以说，这些行为都是基督徒伦理特殊之处，基督徒以此为标记。如果该社论认为这些是基督徒伦理的特殊性而非独特性，则理论可以成立，基督徒确以此突出于一般人之外。但倘若该社论认为只有基督徒才有，则大有问题，非基督徒也能爱仇、不报复邪恶、舍弃财物、守贞等。

一般人认为反对人工节育、绝育、离婚、堕胎、安死等是天主教伦理的特征。这种特征，只能指特殊性，是天主教伦理的标志，但不应指独特性，只有天主教伦理才有。很多非天主教徒也反对绝育、离婚、堕胎、安死等。这些伦理表现都在实际界，故只能有特殊性而没有独特性。

同一原则，我们可看看古伦前后期的文章。最初，古伦主张基督徒与非基督徒都能分享相类的伦理规律、态度、趋向、目的等。他所举的例是自我牺牲的爱、希望、对近人的关怀等。古伦若指基督徒在这几方面并无独特性，那是对的；但他应保留的说，在这几方面，特殊性是可能的。至于后期的文章，他大胆的说非基督徒也能分享基督徒的意向性，则有些问题。我认为基督徒的意向性是超验的、独特的，而非基督徒是分享不到的。

(丙) 本质伦理和存在伦理

李嘉利(Norbert Rigali) 曾对伦理一词加以分析，受到麦哥铭的赞赏。(23)李嘉利指出，伦理神学家认定基督徒与非基督徒伦理物质内容相同，仅能就本质伦理(essential ethics) 而说，即基于人的本质而来的伦理。但伦理的范围并不止此，李嘉利认为本质伦理外还有三类：(1)存在伦理(existential ethics)：这不是指着人的本质来说，而是对着人的个体性(individuality) 而言。在存在伦理境界内，人人都因着背景、倾向、才能等的不同，对绝对道德的要求，作出不同的回应。(2)基督徒本质伦理(Christian essential ethics)：每个团体能产生一些伦理决定，而非该团体中人是不会有的。天主教会是一个团体，有基于基督信仰的本质，由这些本质所产生的伦理决定，是非基督徒所无的，例如：决定做神父、参与弥撒、办告解、用耶稣的名为别人祈祷，这些决定只有花基督徒团体的环境内才会产生，非基督徒不会有此。(3)基督徒存在伦理(Christian existential ethics)：此指基督徒作为一个个体所作的伦理决定，例如：基督徒决定去过修道生活。麦哥铭很赏识李嘉利的四分法，而且自己也采用，(注廿四)即主张在本质伦理内，无所谓独特性，但其他三个范畴内，独特性是可能的。

我认为这种区分是有商榷的地方。首先，我承认每人都是独一无二的(unique)，他的个体性是绝对的，世界再找不到一个和他有一模一样的背景、心态、气质、才能的人。但从这个角度去谈伦理特征是没有什么特别意义。单就人的个体性来说，既是独一无二的，就不能构成一类有特殊性或独特性的伦理。我们只能说这是其某人的伦理，不能是什么基督徒的伦理；独一无二的个人，永远不能构成一类。倘若我们不单从个体性来研究，则讨论仍有可能。

李嘉利的本质伦理相存在伦理，相类我们上面谈过的「伦理自身」和「道德」。伦理自身是基于人性而来的一些伦理规律、原则等，人应用来作伦理决定；道德是指个人实在的道德行为、决定等。如上所说，没有两个人的存在伦理或道德会一模一样，但撇开不能归类的单一性不谈，仅就其作为一道德行为来看，人的道德仅有特殊性而无独特性。你的道德行为别人也能够作，某一类的伦理行为只能作为你的特征，你的标志，但不能排斥别人可能如此作。因此，把存在伦理看成是独特的是大有问题。

其次，李嘉利的「基督徒本质伦理」和「基督徒存在伦理」界线不清楚。不知他为什么把要做神父与否，领圣事与否、建天主教学校与否都放在基督徒本质伦理中，而在基督徒存在伦理又有要过修道主活的决定？看来它们似应在存在伦理内。此外，他把伦理的范围推得太广，似乎和一般人认为的规范伦理范围不同。他所举的例子中：决定是否要建天主教学校、组织合一团体、维持一宗座代办等是否都属规范伦理的范围，确值得怀疑。这些决定当然和生活有关，但中间似不牵涉是非善恶的问题，把它们括入伦理境界是值得商榷的。

我认为前述伦理的三分法是正确的，即伦理基础、伦理自身和道德。李嘉利的分法似乎忽略了伦理基础的存在。既然前面说基督徒伦理的独特性只能在超验的境界，则李嘉利所列出的基督徒本质伦理和基督徒存在伦理只能有特殊性而无独特性。基督徒伦理的独特性不在于伦理的物质内容上面，而在于「基督徒的」一词上。很明显的，基督徒伦理的独特性最基本的是信德。信德使伦理冠上基督徒之名，它贯通所有伦理规律、伦理决定和伦理行为。

(四) 结语

我们讨论的是「基督徒」伦理的独特性，而不是「回教徒」或「佛教徒」的，因此独特性显然落在「基督徒」一词上。基督徒是指明显地信仰基督的人，他们不但在基督内与天主相连，同时亦应和基督徒团体相连。耶稣的来临不是为人带来独特的伦理原则及伦理行为，他来是为改变人。基督徒的信德使人在天主的光照下，对事物有全面和正确的看法。梵二也强调此点：「信德既以新的光芒照耀一切，并显示天主对人的整个使命所有的计划，故能指导人心，朝向充份合乎人性的解决方案进行。大公会议立意在信德神光的烛照下，对今天颇为人们重视的价值，加以衡量，并将这些价值归诸天主，因为祂是这些价值的泉源。这些价值既出源于人的智能，而人的智能又是天主的恩赐，故都是很好的。但由于人心的腐化，这些价值多次脱离其应循的秩序，而必须予以净化」。(25)

人的伦理判断标准是基于人性的理智，信德并无取代理智，而是有提醒、光照、净化的作用，使人对人的意义和价值爱得更敏锐。信德作为基督徒伦理的独特性听来似乎缺乏伦理的气味，故不少伦理神学家用较伦理化的词汇表现出来，如福斯用基督徒的意向性，尤斯丹用爱的诫命等。

今日社会在文化、风俗、信仰上越形复杂。如果基督徒坚持有独特的伦理原则、规律和行为，则社会公共的决策会遇到很多难题。在基督徒占大多数的国家里，基督徒能基于他们独特的伦理，订立一些法律，勉强其他非基督徒遵守。在基督徒只是少数的国家里，他们可能受到社会的压力和歧视，弄到生活十分困难。我相信基督徒能有他们特殊的伦理规律和行为，但这些都是基于人性的，别人也能分享，也能认知的。只有这样，彼此和谐共处才有可能。

　

  

1.参阅张春申著「俗化的意义」，神学论集第十四号，五五一～五六一页。张神父提及俗化在社会、政治、文化及宗教范畴里的意义。
2.「论教会在现代世界牧职宪章」，第三节。
3.Charles E. Curran, "Dialogue with Humanism: Is there a Distinctively Christian Ethics?" in "Catholic Moral Theology in Dialogue", Notre Dame: Fides, 1972, pp. 1-23.
4.该周所宣读的论文载于 "Morale humaine, morale chretienne", Recherches et Debats, LV (1966).
5.J-M. Aubert, "La specificite de la morale chretienne selon saint Thomas" in "Le Supplement" 92 (Fevrier,1970), pp. 55-73.　R. Simons, "Specificite de l'ethique chretienne", ibid., pp. 74-104.
6.可参Sergio Baotianel, "I1 carattere specifico della morale cristiana", Assisi: Cittadella Editrice, 1975, p.11.
7.Richard A. McCormick, "Notes on Moral Theology", in "Theological Studies", March, 1971, pp. 71-78; March, 1973, pp. 58-60; March, 1977, pp. 58-70.
8.Charles E. Curran and Richard A. McCormick (ed.), "Readings in Moral Theology, No. 2: The Distinctiveness of Christian Ethics", New York: Paulist Press, 1980.
9.Charles E. Curran, art. cit.
10.J-M. Aubert, art. cit., p. 71.
11."La civilta cattolica", 1972, III, pp. 449-455.
12.ibid, p. 453.
13.Joseph Fuchs, "Is there a Specifically Christian Morality?" in "Readings in Moral Theology, No. 2", pp. 3-19.
14.A. Jousten, "Morale humaine on morale chretienne" in "La foi et ie temps", 1(1968), pp. 419-441.
15.Gerard J. Hughes, "A Christian Basis for Ethics" in "The Heythrop Journal", January, 1972, pp. 27-43.
16.Charles E. Curran, art. Cit. p. 20.
17.Charles E. Curran, “Catholic Ethics, Christian Ethics, and Human Ethics”, in “Ongoing Revision in Moral Theology”, Notre Dame: Frides, 1975, pp. 25-26.
18.James Walter, "Christian Ethics: Distinctive and Specific?" in "Readings in Moral Theology, No. 2", pp. 90-110.
19.ibid., p. 102.
20.Charles E. Curran, "Catholic Ethics, Christian Ethics, and Human Ethics", op. cit., pp. 9-11.
21.ibid., p. 16.
22.Michael Simpson, "A Christian Basis Ethics?" in "The Heythrop Journal", July, 1974, p. 292.
23.Richard A. McCormick, "Notes on Moral Theology", March, 1973, p. 59.　Norbert J. Rigali, “On Christian Ethics” in "Chicago Studies", 1971, no. 3, pp. 227-247.
24.Richard A. McCormick, "Does Religious Faith add to Ethical Perception?" in "Readings in Moral Theology, no. 2", pp. 157-158.
25.「论教会在现代世界牧职宪章」，第十一节。

作者：祈士真 Casey, John J.年份：1982

THE ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHER AND THE THEOLOGIAN:

A CONTEMPORARY DIALOGUE



I. INTRODUCTION

If we understand human experience in the broad sense of the conscious events that make up the individual life, then it is easy to see that throughout the history of the Christian tradition, people have considered themselves as coming in contact with the divine through various kinds of human experience. For instance physical experience has played a significant role in the lives of some. Saint Paul tells us he underwent a profound physical experience of God on the road to Damascus and his response was a sharp and immediate change in the direction of his life. Martin Luther underwent a more ordinary but no less physical experience when he was struck to the ground by lightning as a young student at the University of Erfurt and immediately vowed that if saved, he would become a monk. And emotional experience of the divine was a frequent claim of mystics as well as others. In fact in fundamental Protestantism today, this is a common experience of the born-again Christian. Finally, intellectual experience has provided a way to God whereby through reflection the reality of the divine becomes clear in our minds. The theology of the Christian tradition abounds in such experience and in the Catholic Church the master of this way has been considered to be Saint Thomas Aquinas.

Of the three kinds of the experience of the divine mentioned above, the most widely accepted has been the intellectual experience of God. This is not to say that other kinds of experience of the divine have been frowned upon. But physical and emotional experiences of God cannot be judged impartially as to their authenticity because they cannot be objectivised. Since they are intensely personal experiences, they cannot be shared at the experiential level. In short, they cannot be made scientific, that is couched in some kind of an objective framework of expression whereby others can also experience the same thing and by virtue of this experience accept or reject the conclusion. And since making the intellectual experience of God scientific is exactly what the great classical theologians have tried to do for centuries, it is not at all strange that this kind of experience of the divine should be the favored one. But in the recent history of thought, the traditional intellectual experience of God has shown itself to be less and less convincing to many people. The reason is that the framework within which one can objectify his reflective experience of any kind has been expanding and as it grows the traditional categroies of the intellectual experience of the divine receed further and further into the distance. The initial framework within which the divine was scientifically objectified was a framework of causes. God as the efficient and final cuase of everything seemed very close; in fact, his causality was seen as almost contiguous to us in space. But first the development of science extended our reflective framework through the discovery of the workings of natural laws which in turn pushed God off into the distance as efficient cause and ignored him as final cause. Thus the framework of science tended to make God spatially distant. Next history further expanded our framework of reflection while at the same time pushing the unique manifestation of God in the world in the person of Jesus Christ back into a specific temporal and cultural milieu. Thus the framework of history tended to make God in the world temporally distant. Finally, the development of philosophy seemed to give the final blow to any meaningful reflective experience of the divine.

Since Immanuel Kant synthesized epistemology into a dualistic principle of knowledge consisting of a priori categories of the mind and a posteriori elements of experience, the pre-reflective ground rules of knowledge lean heavily toward the assumption that any reflection that is not grounded in immediate conscious experience cannot be factual and therefore significant to the practical affairs of life. Nowhere is this idea more clearly expressed and defended that in the tradition of philosophy known as the analytic tradition. This way of thinking does not deny that people are having reflective experience nor does it deny that they are calling it religious experience. What it does question, however, is the connection between the reflective experience they are having and any factual religious content.

All of this, however, has not stopped the theologian from his search for an intellectual experience of God. By and large he accepts the post-Kantian pre-reflective ground rules of knowledge and thus espouses the claim that any meaningful thought about God must be grounded in immediate conscious experience. He also realizes that this acceptance is not enough and that he must submit himself to interrogation by the watchdog analytic philosopher who will determine whether he is talking sense or nonsense. This dialogue between the analytic philosopher and the theologian leads to some interesting conclusions and this paper will illustrate a few. It will look first at the way the analytic philosopher guards the field of meaningful experience. Then it will look at several theologians who claim that immediate conscious experience does lead to an experience of the divine. And finally, it will look at the dialogue as it develops. It must be noted here, however, that in this dialogue experience of the divine－which after all is very personal－must be objectivised into religious language. The dialogue, then, will concern whether immediate conscious experience－or common human experience, if you will－leads to meaningful religious language.



1)Cf. Ian Campbell, ‘Some Cultural Problems of the Galilean Period’ ATEISMO E DIALOGO Vol. XV, No. 3 (September, 1980) 149-156.

2)Cf. Peter Berger, A RUMOR OF ANGELS (Garden City: Anchor Books Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1970), pp. 1-27.

作者：陆鸿基 Luk, Hung Kay, Bernard 年份：1982

THE WANING OF A MEDIEVAL SOCIETY:

INTERPLAY OF MOTIVES IN THE SCOTTISH REFORMATION



In the past, writers on the Protestant Reformation often tended to emphasize the religious causes of this major upheaval in European history, and, depending on their own sectarian or political positions, sided with one party or another in the momentous events. A number of Protestant authors, for instance, were unsparing in pouring invective on what were regarded as the abuses of the Catholic Church. More recently, historians have come to recognize that the Reformation, like any other period of profound and rapid change, was not a simple set of events, nor did it have just one kind of cause. More ecumenically, and more fair-mindedly, modern historians note that not only were there national and doctrinal variations in the Protestant Reformation; there were also dynastic, diplomatic, and economic motives no less important than the religious ones. A fuller understanding of the Reformation demands an appreciation of the inter-play of motives. Furthermore, the Reformation resulted not only in the disunity of Latin Christendom; it also helped launch many a country on the fringes of Europe from the middle ages into the early modern era. As religious persons went one way or another in the struggles, it was the secular power that gained the most from the Reformation. In the case of the Scottish Reformation, problems of Church lands, aristocratic versus royal power, national independence and international alliances, were mingled with questions of political rebellion and religious reforms. And for a while, the little backward country off the northwest coast of Europe can be said to have held the key to the fortunes of Calvinist Protestantism.

CHURCH AND STATE

To understand the Scottish Reformation, one must appreciate the political structure of sixteenth-century Scotland. One historian has put it succinctly:－

The most obvious fact about sixteenth-century Scotland is that Scotland, unlike her southern neighbour, was still a medieval country, both politically and economically. The power of the nobility, collectively (and even, on occasion, individually, though this was rare), was far greater than that of the King. To this situation chronic wars with England and the dynastic misfortunes of the successors of the Bruce were the major contributors……The Privy Council, the Parliament, and the Convention of Estate had no legal authority independent of the Crown. But the Crown was never independent of one faction, at least, of the great nobles……(1)

There was no powerful burgher class to counterbalance the aristocracy, and hence national politics meant the competition, or manipulation by the Crown, of factions of noble families. Some of these families were the Hamiltons, the Douglasses, and branches of the royal clan of the Stewarts. Several of them were ancient enemies and constant rivals. While the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries saw the gradual rise of a Scottish national identity (provoked by wars with the English), consideration of clan interests usually continued to be of primary importance.

But while politically powerful, the nobility, whose wealth was based on not very productive land, was chronically impecunious. The Church, on the other hand, was wealthy and powerful although the wealth was being sucked away by the Crown and the nobility in the early sixteenth century. The Scottish Church was also very corrupt. In the view of the same historian, perhaps 'no branch of the Church in Europe was more riddled with vice. '(2) Sexual immorality was rampant, although apparently more so among the upper than the lower ranks of the clergy.(3) The lower clergy was too poorly paid to be anything but dull, ignorant, and guilty of unspectaculars.(4) Many priests were illiterate, and totally unable to perform any kind of clerical function except the frequent and indiscriminate use of excommunication or 'cursing'. Benefices were gifted to relatives or sold to third parties in irregular ways, and offices were often passed down from generation to generation to legitimized sons born in concubinage.(5)

But in simony and plurality, as well as in nepotism, the offences of the lower clergy were trivial compared to the carryings-on among the prelates and the nobility. Benefices were regarded almost as family possessions or as honourable outlets for illegitimate offspring, and little children were often appointed to high offices. The most notorious of such cases was when, in 1533, King James V was able to use the example of the looming English reformation of Henry VIII to blackmail Pople Clement VII to legitimize his three bastards and grant them benefices. (6)

At the same time, the Church was coming more and more under royal influence and control. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, conciliarist ideas had gained a dominant position in the University of St. Andrews. In the late fifteenth century, after long struggles with the Pope, King James III won an indult to nominate bishops; and in 1526, the Estates asserted that

quhatsumever persone……takis ony bischeppes placis……but our soverane lordis command letteris or chargis or desyre……, thai sail incur the cryme of tresone and leise majestic.(7)

In 1543, Parliament legislated that

the frutis of the abbacyis and prioryis pertening to the kingis gracis sonnis……be convertit and deliverit to the quenis grace comptrollar for the honorable sustenation of hir grace......(8)

The queen referred to was the baby Mary Stewart. Such legislation was only the culmination of a whole generation of squeezing the wealth of the church by means of the feu-farm.

Feuing was a heritable land-tenure in return for an annual fixed money rent, the feu-duty. While this arrangement brought in hard cash for the person or institution granting the tenure, it also in effect meant the alienation of the land to the grantee. Hence, canon law forbade the feuing of Church lands. In 1531, King James V used the excuse of establishing a College of Justice (and the threat of siding with the Protestant military Schmalkald League of Lutherans and Swiss reformers) to persuade Pope Clement VII to grant an annual tax of ￡10,000 Scots to be paid by the Scottish prelates. The only way the prelates could meet such payment was by large-scale feuing. Clement thus opened the floodgates for the alienation of Church lands to the Scottish nobility.(9) After holding out for a few more years, the Pope even granted the Archbishop of St. Andrews the right to confirm the institution of feufarms without reference to Rome.(10) In these transactions, it was the nobility, not the yeomanry, that benefitted.(11)

Thus, unlike in England where King and gentry benefitted financially from the Reformation and the Dissolution of monasteries, in Scotland, the King and the aristocracy were able to milk the clergy quite satisfactorily without changing religion, just by waving the Protestant threat. Although Lutheran ideas were introduced into Scotland soon after the outbreak in Germany, in 1525 there was an act of Parliament prohibiting the importation of Lutheran literature, and the Reformation at first evoked little response from Scotland. Some efforts were made by the Scottish Church at internal reform, but without much success.(12)



1)Maurice Lee, James Stewart, Earl of Moray (New York, 1953), 6-8.

2)Ibid., 12. Cf. L. Macfarlane, 'Scotland', The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), xii xii, 1231.

3)William Croft Dickinson, et al., eds., A Sourcebook of Scottish History (London, 1953), ii, 142. Cf. Gordon Donaldson, Scotland: Church and Nation through Sixteen Centuries (London, 1960), 48.

4)Donaldson, ibid., 41-42.

5)Dickinson, op. cit., 99-102. Cf. Sir James Balfour Paul, 'Clerical life in Scotland in the sixteenth century', Scottish Historical Review, xvii (1920), 177-189.

6)Dickinson, 89-90. New Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., 1231.

7)Dickinson, ibid., 81-89.

8)Ibid., 91.

9)R.K. Hanny, 'On the foundation of the College of Justice', Scottish Historical Review, xv (1918), 30-46. Dickinson, 47, 220-221.

10)R.K. Hanny, 'A study in Reformation history', Scottish Historical Review, xxiii (1926), 18-33.

11)Ibid., 33.

12)Lee, op. cit., 13.


SCOTLAND'S INTERNATIONAL POSITION

Another reason for the initial non-receptiveness of the Scots to the ideas of the Reformation was due to the international position of their country. For centuries, England had been Scotland's 'Auld Enemy', while France was the 'Auld Ally'. Since England was breaking away from the Roman Church, and France was remaining Catholic, it followed that Scotland should choose to remain Catholic too. This tendency was further bolstered by the recent memory of the defeat of all the available forces of Scotland by the English in the battle of Flodden in 1513. To stay with France seemed the only way to avoid conquest and assimilation by the English under the Tudors.(l3) But many historians who hold this view also believe that the battle at Flodden, paradoxically, also marked the turning point in Anglo-Scottish relations, because Scotland was defeated in foolhardy support of their French allies, and gradually more and more Scots came to accept that the destiny of their country lay with England, not with France; and such attitudes helped eventually to precipitate the Scottish Reformation. Upon the death of James V in 1542, Henry VIII proposed a match between his son Edward and the infant Queen Mary Stewart; but the deal would have implied the absorption of Scotland by England, and was therefore rejected by the Scottish court. Marie of Guise, the French queen dowager and regent of Scotland, was thus enabled to pursue a pro-French policy and a match between her daughter and the Dauphin. This in turn meant absorption by France; and those patriots who had previously feared England now feared the even closer danger of France, as personified in the queen dowager. By this time, England under Mary Tudor was Catholic and persecuted Protestants; Scottish leaders, in reaction against both France and England, became much more receptive to Protestant ideas.(14) In this connection, it may be noted that unsuccessful internal reforms undertaken by the Scottish hierarchy in the 1540's and 50’s were actually quite close to Lutheranism in certain parts of theology (such as justification by faith), suggesting that the active elements among the clergy might not have been averse to a Henrician-type reformation, and that it was for reasons other than religion that such a reformation did not take place.(15)

The above analysis is not intended to suggest that diplomacy was the determining factor in the outbreak of the Scottish Reformation. Rather, international relations was one of several important factors. One of the points which a strictly diplomatic interpretation of the Scottish Reformation would not explain was the possibility of a Protest ant Scotland allied with a Catholic France against a Protestant England, or a Catholic Scotland allied with a Protestant England against a Catholic France. Sixteenth-century international relations were often not dictated by religious affiliation, to say the least; and it is further inappropriate to assume that the religious policies of the Scots were simply reacting to the fluctuating situation south of the border. Other important causes of the Scottish Reformation are to be found in the domestic politics of the country.



13)See, for example, P. Hume Brown, John Knox, a biography (London, 1895), 39-41; Lee, op. cit., 14; and the New Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., 1231-1232.

14)Lee, ibid. Also, Donaldson, op. cit., 52.

15)Dickinson, 140-141, 121. Donaldson, 50.


ARISTOCRATIC FACTIONS

The first Scottish martyr to the Protestant cause was one George Wishart, who was burnt at the stake in 1546 as a heretic.(16) He had made few but dedicated converts, and some of these proceeded to murder Cardinal Beaton, Archbishop of St. Andrews and leader of the pro-French party. But religion and diplomacy were not the only causes for the assassination. Beaton had made many enemies in local disputes, and had threatened the interests of some noble families by his land and succession policies.(17) After his death, the affairs of state were in the hands of the queen dowager and the new archbishop, John Hamilton, half-brother to the heir apparent to the throne, the earl of Arran. While the French alliance was uppermost in the mind of the queen dowager, Hamilton's main interests were those of his family. As it was more to the advantage of the Hamilton family for the French influence to be restricted (since Arran would inherit the throne if Mary Stewart died childless, and also because Arran ' s son was a contender for Mary Stewart's hand), archbishop and queen dowager did not always see eye to eye, and the domestic as well as foreign policy of this period by no means had the unanimous support of all the factions in the country. In religion, reforms by the hierarchy took place side by side with the wooing, by different political factions, of the growing Protestant elements.(18) Some of the converts to Protestantism were no doubt sincere, while others had less honest motives; but despite their growing numbers, they did not form a coherent group until after John Knox, an unknown preacher implicated in the murder of Beaton, returned from exile to the Continent and training under Calvin in 1555. The struggles between the queen dowager, the Hamiltons, and the supporters of Lord James Stewart of Moray, bastard half-brother of Mary Stewart, were reaching a crisis because of domestic disputes and the marriage of Mary to King Francois II of France. Knox was able to unite the Protestant nobles, in a 'Common Band' of the Lords of the (Protestant) Congregation in 1557. Religious reform thus merged with political rebellion against the regent queen dowager. When factions of Protestant as well as Catholic nobles, such as Huntly, succeeded in toppling the regent, the Reformation in Scotland officially began. The decisive campaign was fought in 1560 between the French troops of the government and English troops sent by Queen Elizabeth to support the rebels of the Congregation and to prevent French hegemony in her northern neighbour. The Protestant army entered Edinburgh in the spring of that year. In June, the queen dowager died. And in August, the Scottish Parliament abrogated Papal authority, prohibited the Mass, and adopted a reformed Confession of Faith drafted by Knox and his comrades. That same year, Knox et alii also produced the First Book of Discipline. outlining their Calvinistic ideas of religious, social, and educational reforms. Meanwhile, the organisation of local congregations in place of the old parishes continued apace. Although it was some years before the Church of Scotland was firmly set up, the old Scottish Church had come to an end.

SUMMING UP

Such, in brief, were the events leading up to the establishment of Protestant power in Scotland. The multiplicity of causes and motives is evident. Although abuses in the old Scottish Church were common, and although the sincerity of religious motives in some of the reformers is not to be doubted, the Protestant Reformation in Scotland was probably not religiously inevitable. If the situation had been different in the aristocratic, ecclesiastical, and diplomatic arenas, a Catholic Reformation might have been successful. As it was, the fact that the Scottish Reformation was Calvinis t rather than Lutheran was ironical in that the Auld Alliance, which had initially kept Scotland Catholic, also led the Scottish Reformers to seek inspiration in the French-speaking, rather than the German-speaking lands of the Continent. And Calvinism, thus translated into English, soon became the Puritanism of old and New England.





16)Dickinson, 128-130. Brown, op. cit., 60-70, J. Durkan, 'Scotland, Church of', in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., 1235-1236.

17)Dickinson, 119-121. Brown, 68-69.

18)Lee, 20. Brown, 272. New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1232, 1236.

19)Brown, 300, et seq. Lee, 22-23. D. Mc Roberts, 'Knox, John', in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., viii, 242-243.

20)New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1232-1233, 1236. Lee, 53, 57.

作者：Johnston, Marcia Ellen 年份：1982

SOME SPECULATIONS ON THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL

The human personality of Jesus Christ is a topic that has long fascinated students of the Gospels. Christ seemed in his most ordinary encounters with others to be able to draw on the Spirit and establish a relationship in a totally new way. There seems to be a history of his personal charismata as well as his divine mission to men.

Unfortunately, reading the Gospel looking for clues to the personal psychology of Jesus is far more eisegesis than exegesis. Despite this major flaw, the Gospel of John can provide a basis for making exegesis-style speculations about the nature of Christ's relationships with others, and to extrapolate from this to some idea of the nature of Christian counseling.

Christian counseling, the marriage of the spiritual level of man's existence with the problem-solving approaches of modern psychology, is relatively new and certainly a more counter-culture approach to traditional movements within the Church, or at least the 'established' Church. “Spiritual health lies with a Christianity that has more in common dynamically with the counterculture that strives for honesty, openness, sharing, genuineness, loving confrontation and awareness, than it has with those centres where establishment religion presses upon the clergy and people for compliance with restrictive ways of avoiding closeness to all those Christ-like qualities.”(1)

It is natural that the Church should return to the healing of man, as a return to the active the Gospel. Counseling is an area well supported in the Gospels by the attention given not only to the physical processes of healing but also, quite accurately, to mental illnesses. Whether in theory possession by devils in scripture is seen as a real possession or merely as an aetiological expression for mental illness, there is direct Gospel evidence to support both Christ's rebuke of the state of the person, and his cure. "The dialogues of Jesus with individual people remain at the center of the Gospel. He spoke so specifically in relation to the needs of the individuals."(2)

Frank Lake, clinical theologian, has developed a model of the dynamic cycle in the life of Christ which is later used as the basis for the analysis and origins of normal healthy human personality structure. Using St. John's Gospel, he cites four stages of development: acceptance, sustenance, status and achievement. The first stage(analogous to pre-birth infancy experiences of human infants) postulates Christ's acceptance by the Father (Jn. 3:17; 17:5). Sustenance is shown in the direct relationship with the Father through prayer. Constant access to the Father is also a dimension of sustenance, shown in Jn, 11:42. In the second stage, where in human infancy bonds are maintained through eye and touch contact, the beginnings of seperation from the mother and ego identity are found. The needs in the second stage are for sustained sustenance. Lake finds this model in Christ's abiding in the Father (Jn. 1:18, 15:9, 5:20, 3:34 and 14:11), all of which refer to the sustenance found in the permanent relationship between Father and Son.

Both of the first two stages are seen as 'input', while the third stage of development indicates the capacity to see a personal identity separated from the figure of sustenance. In the life of Christ this refers to his specific statements of the consciousness of his own being: "I am from above" (8:23); "I am the Son of God" (10:36); "I am not alone" (8:16-18); "I am the light of the world" (8:12); etc. Everything is entrusted to him by the Father (Mt. 11:27), and Jesus by virtue of his sustained identity is able to say, "Follow me" (1:43, 12:26).

The fourth stage is the stage of achievement. In the life of Christ this is strictly limited by the will of the Father. "The son can do nothing of himself but what he sees the Father do." (5:19,30, 36). He can speak of nothing but what he hears from the Father (8:26); the words he does speak are from the Spirit (6:63), and he is to finish the work of redemption God gave him to do (4:34, 16:5, 19:30). In the human translation of this stage, it is at this point that the sustained and newly separated identity of the child is able to organize itself and reach out to the world. In the adult identity it is the stage where work is possible, and the goal of the work is that of Christ, service to others.

Lake's model goes on in its second stage to elaborate on the dynamics of the ontology of grace, and a fourfold phase of the 'being-well-being' which is dependent on grace. God grants acceptance through Christ, the obedient Son, and we are signed into acceptance through baptism, and the family acceptance of the fellowship. New life brought into being through Christ is sustained by the Spirit. Sustenance is through the Word, the Eucharist, the fellowship. In the third phase, "having been loved into abundant life by God, through Christ in the Spirit, we have a new identity, a new purpose in living.'(3)

The new status conveys responsibility as well. If acceptance and sustenance have been given us unconditionally, our motivation then is to love as we have been loved. Gifts for specific service are given. The work stage is the last, service to the world and Word.

Lake's Christ-centered model is the basis for the ontological model which serves as a training tool for Christian counselors to understand and guide change in the human personality, starting with an examination of their own growth. The four stage ontological model is divided again into input and output stage. Lake explains "the sources of personal well-being as being opened by love and care, sustained by the source person, who goes 'down' to draw the needy one into being by relationship and then opens up rich communicable personal resources. These respondants complete the input. A strong sense of status and identification motivates a movement to give out to others. The achievement of this service is output."(4)

What has any of this to do with John's Gospel? It will be my contention that, by examining the relationships found in John's Gospel between Christ and the other characters, a basic model for Christian counseling, similar to Lake's thesis, can be supported. It is a question of interpretation. Superficially one can argue that the historical reality of each encounter may not hold up under strict exegesis. However, the attitude maintained by Christ in his relationships with other persons in the Gospel, although undoubtedly arranged by John and his redactor, does portray a basic sense of human psychology. Lake summarizes the change in God / human relationships by staling that: "Unmerited grace, Christ's love for wrecked men, itself creates a new relationship and a new being."(5)

For the purpose of relative simplicity the text will be divided into sections: Jesus and the disciples, Jesus and his relationship with John the Baptist, the 'healing cycle', Jesus and the Samaritan woman, Jesus and the adultress, Jesus and Nicodemus, Jesus and his friends: Mary, Martha and Lazarus. I would stress again that much of the interpretation is taken from the carefully studied exegesis of authorities on the Gospel, but the interpretation of it is my own subjective model. I think quite validly that a case can be made for developing levels of understanding in the Gospels, starting with a historical veracity, with the Christology and theological levels and the socioeconomic pastiche, and I find no difficulty in seeing the psychological level as well. Being a novice both in theological discourse and psychological training, I may prove to be erroneous in both areas. However the purpose of the paper is, not to offer conclusions, but to present some interesting speculations on the personal interpersonal relations Christ had and the underlying psychology of those relationships.

JESUS AND THE DISCIPLES

In his Commentary on John in the Anchor Bible series, Raymond Brown speaks of Christ's coming as a crisis for all men: "All through the Gospel Jesus provokes self-judgement as men line up for or against him; truly his coming is a crisis in the root sense of that word. "(6) In his initial encounters with his disciples there is a sense of this same crisis and self-judgement. Jesus acts in two ways which indicate his awareness of the critical moment for the disciples. First, he calls them by name. On the surface this seems simplicity, and yet on one level the name is the personal summation of all that we are: we are called into life by our name; God, who is all Wisdom, knows us by name.

Jesus is in a different sphere of existence, that belonging to the spirit, but also present in the reality of the flesh. When he performs his 'signs' and his work, the gifts he gives are 'real' gifts, that is, they are from heaven; the 'real' water is contrasted with ordinary water; the real bread, the bread of life, is in contrast with bread which parishes; and Jesus is the real light that has come into the world.(7) By this same logic one might argue that when he 'calls' the disciples he calls them by their real name; that, throughout the Gospel, he is dealing on different levels with the individual characters, one level being the level where he both recognizes and responds to the real person.

No list of the disciples is given explicitly in the Fourth Gospel. Among those mentioned are Simon Peter, Andrew, Philip, Thomas and Judas Iscariot, Nathaniel. In the earliest pericope with the disciples, Jesus in vs. 35-39 clearly issues an invitation to Andrew and the other disciple, possibly John. The most significant phrase is "Come and see" (1:39). The earlier phrases set the direction of the dialogue: Jesus asks, "What are you looking for?". They misinterpret the question and ask prosaically where he is staying. Christ issues the invitation "Come and see". In the exegesis of the phrase, "What are you looking for?", two meanings can be found. Superficially, "What do you want?"; and, with deeper meaning, "What are you searching for?". "Jesus' first words in the Fourth Gospel are a question that he addresses to a very one who would follow him……This question touches on the basic need of man that causes him to turn to God, and the answer of the disciples must be interpreted on the same theological level. Man wishes to stay (menein: "dwell, abide") with God; he is constantly seeking to escape temporality, change and death, seeking to find something that is lasting. Jesus answers with the all-embracing challenge to faith: 'Come and see '."(8)

Implicit in this faith is the promise of truth, that Jesus will show them that which is real, the reality of the God/man relationship, his real self and, finally, their own reality. Although Brown does not include this in his commentary, I think it can be a logical derivation that Jesus is not only offering an invitation to the disciples but a challenge to 'come and see' reality. The challenge lies in the danger of the unknown, of discovering or being discovered in the secret part of the self that demands protection and hiding. Christ promises they will 'see' and Brown equates 'seeing' with faith throughout the Gospel. Perhaps it is also synonomous with truth, and with that contact with truth which can be a painful though cleansing experience.

In verse 42, Christ responds to Peter by performing both actions: He looks at him, that is, sees or knows him clearly in the spiritual and psychic sense, and he names him. This twofold act sets the relationships throughout the Gospel. In terms of human counseling relationships, Jesus sets a clear pattern for seeing what is there, the spoken and the unspoken message from the sufferer, the body language, the 'little flags' behind the dialogue. It is Jesus who "in the beginning of the process of discipleship……takes the initiative by turning and speaking. As John xv 16 will enunciate, ‘It is not you who chose me. No, I chose you’."(9)

If attention is turned to the individuals chosen, then the emphasis moves from 'seeing-looking-believing' which are all ways of describing the same action, coming to believe in Jesus Christ, to the effect of the actions of Christ's seeing. On the psychological level, the idea of deepening trust is present, leading to an ability through the relationship to accept self and others, and to greater insight which parallels the growth of faith. Perhaps they are the same, trust implying belief and acceptance in the relationship, faith in the person of Jesus. More importantly for the disciples is the reflection of Jesus' seeing: it is also the attraction to Christ: here is a man who knows / accepts / wants me. There is a natural inclination to want to stay with the 'one who knows'.

Dodd remarks that in "the meeting between the two……contrived by Andrew, who, informing his brother that he had found the Messiah, brings him to be introduced", there is an implication that Jesus "gave Simon the name by which he came to be known".(10) Brown stresses that the "name came from Jesus' insight into Simon".(11) The results are the same, the 'knowing' of the name and the giving of the 'known' name to Peter are the direct symbols of the starting discipleship and summarize the relationship between Christ and Simon Peter. Even in his weakness Christ will also see the later strength.

A parallel picture emerges with the introduction of Philip. Again Jesus 'finds' him, knows him to be Philip and offers the 'follow me－come and see' formula. Brown implies that there might have been an earlier contact with Christ, and in this second encounter Philip shows a growth of insight. He speaks of Christ as the very one, a description that could also lead back to the notion of the 'real' one.

Nathanael is called the figurative symbol of reaction on the part of the Jews who accept Jesus through doubt. The conversation between Jesus and Nathanael reinforces the idea of 'knowing'. Jesus does not only see Nathanael－he recognizes him, and by this deep recognition the invitation to join him is issued. Dodd characterizes the inter-change as a dialogue "of unusual form in which Jesus makes an observation not to, but about Nathanael, and Nathanael apparently overhears". "It is this evidence of Jesus’s knowledge of him, it seems, that evokes Nathaniel's confession".(12)

In these first interchanges in the Fourth Gospel, the character of Jesus already offers several insights into how Christ related to others. First, he goes to them, he reaches out to others. Secondly, there is the notion of his ability to 'know' others, and to convey that knowledge by calling them by their name. He seems to understand or empathize with both the apparent and the hidden areas of their personalities. Thirdly, he offers them a way of knowing, of awareness both of themselves and of Him, a look at his realities. By responding to the search of others for meaning and for truth Jesus calls them to himself and his Father.



In these Notes, the following abbreviations are used:－

Dodd:C.H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. (Cambridge, University Press, 1963).

Brown, Jn.:R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to St. John, vol. 1. (London, Geoffrey Chapman, 1966).

Brown, N.T.E.:R. E. Brown, New Testament Essays. (Milwaukee, Bruce, 1965). Chapter X, “The Gospel Miracles”, pp. 168-191.

　

1)Frank Lake, Clinical Theology, Introductory Pamphlet (pro ms.), 8.

2)Ibid.

3)Frank Lake, Clinical Theology, Chart N.c., Dynamic Cycle or Law of the Spiritual Life, in the Body of Christ (pro ms.). (Cit. modified).

4)Frank Lake, Clinical Theology, Chart Na. 1, The Basic Form of the Model (pro ms.). (Cit. modified).

5)Frank Lake, Clinical Theology, Introductory Pamphlet (pro ms.), 13.

6)Brown, Jn., cxvii.

7)On the meaning of "real", cf. Brown, Jn., Appendix I, 2, 499 ff.

8)Brown, Jn., 78f.

9)Id, 78.

10)Dodd, 306-307 (Emphasis added).

11)Brown, Jn., 80.

12)Dodd, 310.

JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST

The first character presented in John's Gospel is of course John the Baptist. He is known from the Synoptic Gospels as the cousin or relative of Christ. John is chiefly characterized in the Fourth Gospel by statements about what he is not. There is little personal contact indicated between Jesus and John. Only the baptismal scene in other versions indicates direct meetings. Despite the absence of direct dialogue, there is a relationship between the two men, if only in the interchange of their apostles. If Jesus was gifted with the spiritual knowledge of others, then John also had some power of knowledge with his divine mission. "His baptizing and preaching in the desert was opening up the hearts of men, leveling their pride, filling their emptiness and thus preparing them for God's intervention."(13) John's claim to identity is also interesting; he is by his own admission the 'Isaian voice in the wilderness', the one who takes the angelic role in preparing a way through the desert for the Israelites to return to Palestine. "John the Baptist is to prepare a road, not for God. God's people to return to the promised land, but for God to come to His people."(14) In the preparation John's basic ministry is a call to self-assessment, to personal honesty. How neatly this dovetails with the call of Jesus to 'come and see '. John's own integrity is shown in his denial of the prophetic or kingly roles that are wished on him and the maintenance of his secondary status to the 'one who is to come'. John's relationship with Jesus is heavily circumscribed the strict character with which the author of the Gospel sets him up: "The character in which the Baptist is to be presented is defined in advance by a statement in the Prologue (i. 6-8): the man named John, who was sent from God, (a) was not the Light, but (b) came to bear witness to the Light, (c) in order that through his agency all might become believers. This threefold schema controls subsequent sections dealing with the Baptist."(15)

It seems clear that, in the long term relationship of Jesus and John, with the possibility that they both had some connection with the Qumran community, and the strong possibility that Jesus had been an earlier follower of the Baptist, Jesus was able to 'know' John for who he was, while John was less sure of Jesus. The ability of Jesus to know in the divine sense as well as the human begins to emerge in his public ministry, after he left John and moved into his teaching ministry. John says twice, "And I myself never recognized him' (Jn. 1:31,33). His role in hindsight was the recognition of Jesus as a Jewish apocalyptic figure" raised up by God to destroy evil in the world."(16)

When Jesus began his teaching ministry, his behaviour no longer fitted the expected pattern for John, of the judgemental prophet or priestly king, and thus, from prison, John sends his disciples to question the change in direction.

"It is precisely that change in the way Jesus was conducting himself (a change that took place after John the Baptist was imprisoned) which led John the Baptist to send from prison to inquire if, after all, Jesus was really the one to come" (Lk. 7:20).(17) The relationship illustrates a strong point in the personal psychology of Jesus Christ－he rarely behaved in the way others expected him to. In the relationship with John, this misunderstanding, and John's persistence in clinging to his former patterns of expectation, caused a break in trust with Jesus. It also indicated a clinging to Christ, John giving all his own glory to the 'one who is to come' but somehow expecting that this figure would fit his own image, that he would have some control. When he found that he could not control the Messiah figure he had trouble dealing with the relationship.

"If John the Baptist actually did expect an Elijah-like figure we have at last the explanation of why he sent his disciples to see if Jesus really was the one to come－Jesus was not acting in the way John the Baptist expected! And Jesus answered him in terms of Isaiah: His was not the role of a destroying judge; but that of a gentle healer and preacher predicted by Is. 35:5-6 and 66:1."(18) Looking at the evidence from the Dead Sea scrolls, Dodd postulates that "it is by no means unlikely that the Baptist should have deliberately set himself to fill the role of the voice "If the man of Qumran believed themselves to have been called (or believed that they might in future be called, according to the interpretation adopted) to fill the role of the Voice in the Wilderness, so may John the Baptist have believed himself called, though his conception of the role went somewhat beyond the 'study of the law'."(19)

St. Paul, in a speech to Jews at Pisidian Antioch, states: "Before his coming John had preached a baptism for the repentence……and as John was finishing his course he said, what do you suppose I am? I am not he. No, but one is coming, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie."(20)

With the elaborate preconception of the 'glorious one' to come it may well have been difficult for John to recognize, or be reconciled with, the existence of Jesus. When he did, he seems to have gone to the furthest extreme in denying himself－in the bridegroom speech and other disclaimers. This suggests to me that he was never comfortable with the day to day reality of Jesus in visibly human form and activity.



13)Brown, Jn., 50.

14)Ibid.

15)Dodd, 248.

16)Brown, Jn., 60.

17)Id, 155.

18)Brown, N. T. E., 139.

19)Dodd, 253.

20)Acts 13:24-25.


THE HEALING STORIES

Moving from the first relationships outlined in the Gospel, we find the Cana cycle with its repetition of sign and Christ's emerging public ministry. The theology of the 'Cana to Cana' cycle plays an important part in the message of John's gospel. John places less emphasis on the miracle story per se to prevent the idea of Christ as a mere miracle work, a notion he suggests strongly was repugnant to Jesus himself. "It is on the meaning of the Johannine miracle that we must center our attention, and perhaps we can find a key to this in John's vocabulary. Although others (including the editor of the Gospel) refer to the Jesus' miracles as 'signs', Jesus himself consistently refers to them as 'works '."(21) Brown suggests that the Old Testament background for the notion refers to the work of God accomplished by creation and continuing throughout the salvation history. John specifically has Jesus sum up his ministry in 'work' terms:" "I glorified you on this earth by completeing the work you have given me to do'. Not only are Jesus's miracles works; His words are works too: ‘The words that, I say to you people are not spoken on my own; it is the Father, abiding in me, who performs the works’."(22)

If the notion of work is a direct reference to the miracles performed in the course of his public teaching ministry, the notion of faith is implied in the performance of the signs. In John's description of the healing / signs cycle, the faith of the one who wishes to be or is healed, is as important in the dialogue as the power of the healer. "In fact, several times Jesus attributes the salvation directly to the faith of the person healed. 'Your faith has healed you' (Luke 8:48, 17:19, 18:42) ".(23) The range of faith varies from complete trust and faith in Christ, to scepticism and later conversion. Jesus speaks harshly (Jn. 2:23-25; 4:48; 6:26) of the belief which comes in the more typically Johannine and less Synoptic cases, "where people come to believe in Jesus because of the signs."(24) "Evidently Jesus is not satisfied with having his miracles looked on as mere credential cards; He wants an understanding of what they reveal."(25)

On a psychological level, Jesus seems to seek the development of insight on the part of the healed. Faith implies acceptance, understanding and belief－a knowledge of who the healed 'really is' and who Jesus 'really is'. The growth of faith and insight moves through what Brown categorizes as the unsatisfactory stages in reaction to the signs: refusal to see the signs with any faith, such as Caiaphas; belief in the miracle-working power of Jesus alone, a magic-worker image which Jesus refuses to accept. The acceptable response is found in those who see what is meant by the signs and who are able to learn who Jesus is and what he will do, and thus completely believe in Him. The highest level of belief is found in those who believe without signs (Jn. 20:29).

In a counseling relationship similar levels of reaction are displayed. The growth of trust is often based on how much better the counselor can initially make the client feel－temporary relief of symptoms, which is often preceded by scepticism and disbelief. From the initial distrust, the healer in this case is able to concentrate on demonstrating his ability to be trustworthy. Those who are able after time to trust the counselor are enabled through trust to gain insight. The counselor is in a position gradually to introduce the client to areas of his behaviour or personality that are unknown to him, just as the client is gradually able to 'allow' the counselor to have access to more of the hidden self. Those who are able to understand and see themselves have developed insight and often the personal strength to change behaviour in a desired way. At the highest level of a counseling relationship the client will be able to accept the information of the counselor without having to 'test' the trust relationship continually.

Of course this is a very rough image of both Jesus' ministry and the counseling process, but the parallels in the 'healing stories' seem very clear. In each situation Jesus looks for a response from the 'one to be healed'.

The Cana cycle begins with the wedding at Cana, which shows a small scene in the relationship of Mary and Jesus. Although the scene has been interpreted as a denunciation of Mary, Brown argues that this is misleading. Instead Mary plays a definite and honored role in her association with the disciples, and her request initiates Jesus' public ministry of signs. His refusal directly to accede to her request makes it clear that he is not there to act on her behalf or the will of others but only to answer the will of his Father. Mary, on the other hand, shows her complete belief in her son by asking the impossible and even in rejection persisting in her acceptance of what Jesus is capable of doing. It is as if she is saying－Look, this is what this man my son is, nothing is closed to him. Other characters in the miracle cycle show similar persistence in the face of the initial rejection, and Jesus responds. By the end of the Cana sign we have been introduced to what John wants us to know: that at this wedding Jesus first reveals his glory and "his disciples believed in him."(26)

With that focus Jesus shows great insight in dealing with his mother: the sign is obliquely at his mother's request, and he honors her presence, a presence he knows will no be possible from that point on. It seems to be a natural breaking point in their relationship and yet by publicly including her in the scene and act of his first sign he also pays respect to her role in the preparation of his ministry.

The Nicodemus scene continues the healing cycle, and begins John's use of the dialogue as a form of learning. Questions on one level are answered on another. "The lactic of the Johannine dialogue is always for the answer to transpose the topic to a higher level; the questioner is on the level of the sensible, but he must be raised to the level of the spiritual."(27)

Jesus responds in the Nicodemus dialogue in such a way as to present a challenge to the man himself－a point of asking / challenging growth. Brown points out the answers of Christ were not that oblique; while Nicodemus might have had some confusion about the role of the Spirit, he should have been able to understand some of the material from his Old Testament background. A second point brought out implicitly with the dialogue was the inability of 'knowledge' to prove the correct response to Christ. Indeed in the parallel to the counseling progress, 'knowledge' can prove an obstacle to growth, what we freely 'acknowledge' about ourselves can be superficial and masking of what is the real state. Nicodemus hid behind his mask－the role of an educated man, refusing to allow his own lack of knowledge in an inner sense, and it was this role that Christ challenged. As long as the belief was with the conscious mind and not from the deep emotional level of the personality, it was not effective in change.



21)Brown, N.T.E., 180f.

22)Id, 181.

23)Id, 179.

24)Id, 183f.

25)Id, 184.

26)Brown, Jn., 103.

27)Id, 138.

SAMARITAN WOMAN

The interchange with the Samaritan woman at the well illustrates the Johannine dialogue in use with a different social stratum. Nicodemus is eminently respectable, the Samaritan woman is not. "If we analyze the repartee at the well, we find quite true-to-life the characterization of the woman as mincing and coy, with a certain light grace."(28) She fails to appreciate his gesture in conversing with her－outside the normal custom. It is suggested by Roustang that the woman is mocking Christ in the first exchanges about water. Certainly she is not expecting serious consideration from this man who is a Jew and Rabbi. The dialogue shows rising clarification: Jesus asks for water, the woman fails to understand, he clarifies, she asks about the clarification－an indication of 'buying the answer'－and takes the initiative in demonstrating that he can see her. He points out his knowledge of her, mirrors her for herself. The woman tries to evade the knowledge Christ has put in front of her but Jesus again uses her answer to show her who she is.

The entire scene shows the progressive relationship of the healer and the healed: before Jesus can bring her to healing in her life she must see, as he does, who she is. The flirtation, the evasion and twisting of the truth would be characteristic of a normal counseling relationship especially in the case of the hysteric personality. The woman seeks to manipulate Jesus, that being the only pattern with which she is familiar. Under the pattern lies the lack of acceptance, which has marred her life and prevented trust and the building of permanent relationships. Jesus not only responds, indeed, initiates the contact, but also demonstrates that he knows who she is and is still willing to accept her. "We heard in iii 19-21 that those whose deeds are evil do not come near the light lest their deeds be exposed. The dialogue in 16-18 constitutes the crucial moment of judgement: will she turn her back on the light?"(29)

Judgement is not really the best description of what is happening in this scene. Reality modeling is a closer description; Christ will not allow her to play games or evade the truth about who she is. The turning point in the healing process must be her acceptance of this reality, and her realization that he is willing to accept her despite her desperate manipulation because he sees what lies beyond the role. In verses 19-20 we have the situation where the woman sees the 'light' and in 21-24 Jesus explains "that true worship can come only from those begotten by the Spirit of truth. Only through the Spirit does the Father beget true worshipers."(30) In verses 25-26 the woman finally recognizes who Jesus is and Jesus affirms it; and implicit in this fact is that she recognizes who she is, and that He also affirms it－one without the other is difficult. She must know who she is in order really to 'see' him clearly. Brown comments: "In this scene John has given us the dramma of a soul struggling to rise from the things of this world to belief in Jesus ". (31)He has also given us the basics of a psychological dramma. When she calls Jesus a prophet, her identification of him" stems from the special knowledge that he has exhibited, but may also refer to his obvious wish to reform her life."(32) The insight Christ shows in seeing what her real needs are, and his tolerance for her behaviour again mirrors his ability to 'see' the person beyond normal perceptiveness.



28)Id, 175, citing M.J. Lagrange, Evangile selon S. Jean (8th ed; Paris, Gabalda, 1948), 101. The following reference to Roustang is taken from Brown, Jn., 177.

29)Id, 177.

30)Ibid.

31)Id, 178.

32)Id, 171.

OFFICIAL'S SON

The sign of the cure of the official's son deals with a more physical reality of Christ's ministry. Many of the same elements are however present in this scene. There is a question of trust or faith at the center of the scene; "the man put his trust in the word Jesus had spoken to him and started for home." (Jn. 4:50b). Jesus comments that only by seeing will people believe; and, interpreted on the double level John is often intending, the question of seeing can go beyond physical sight and mean the development of insight into who Jesus is, and what the relationship between Christ and man must be. Of course this is a passage concerning the power Jesus has over death and life, and coming to believe in Christ who is the eternal word / life, but it is also a passage about trust, and man's basic fear of trusting that which is not visible.

Fearing risk is common both in these passages and in any counseling relationship. In spiritual or psychological counselling that person must take the initial risk of accepting the unknown, and this is often the greatest obstacle to growth. Jesus models risk taking and calls for it in his relationships with others.

BETHESDA CRIPPLE

"The general pattern or form of the Bethesda story, like that of several pericopae in the Synoptic Gospels……, is determined by a feature common to them all: that Jesus takes action on his own initiative, without any appeal either from the patient or from his friends."(33) Common to the healing stories is the challenge of Jesus to the sick man, '"Do you really want to become a healthy man?' 'Have you the will to health?' The man's reply is a feeble excuse, which shows that his will to health has been weak. In view of this, the further command, 'Rise, pick up your stretcher and walk!' is felt as a further challenge to the man's enfeebled will, and, in fact, as a demand for his co-operation in the cure."(34)

Once again Jesus deals with the reality of the man's personality: if he does not have the will to be healthy, then he will be unable to accept the cure. The healing process indicated by Christ in this scene is two-fold; the healing power of the Spirit and the acceptance of the healing by the will of the patient, the desire to be healthy. The psychological parallels are so obvious it would be redundant to mention them. One is not cured, one becomes well; and this becoming involves the will to accept, grow, change and live. The responsibility for change belongs to the sick person. Jesus challenges the man to take up his own life and be responsible for it. He also challenges the man not to return to his former behaviour, 'sin no more', recognizing the psychological dimensions of the weak will which made him ill. Christ makes a distinction in the opening lines of the scene between sin and suffering, yet he recognizes the role that the self has had in the cause of the illness. The grumbling character of the sick man illustrates this: "If the paralytic's malady were not so tragic, one could almost be amused by the man's unimaginative approach to the curative waters. He crotchety grumbling……betrays a chronic inability to seize opportunity, a trait reflected again in his oblique response to Jesus' offer of a cure."(35)

THE ADULTRESS

The psychology of the adultress scene in Chapter Eight is similar to the dialogue with the Samaritan woman. Both deal with women of a socially unacceptable class, who are considered guilty of social crimes. Jesus laid down some clear reactions to guilt, both the guilt of the society which causes the women to be ostacised and the guilt of the individual. He proved unshockable, he did not recoil in horror from the woman; he refused to join them in their guilt trip, and he made a clear statement－that the truth of the woman's sin was more acceptable than the hypocrisy of the accusers. Finally he accepted, acknowledged what she had done, but made it clear that he was concerned only with her present and future behaviour.

The writing in the sand is debated, but the majority opinion suggests that he wrote from the Old Testament texts dealing with scandal. The "adultery in Law was concerned with unfaithfulness on the part of a wife, and not with affairs between husbands and unmarried women."(36) Christ indicated the double standard of the accusers. In this scene we are shown "the delicate balance between the justice of Jesus in not condoning the sin and his mercy in forgiving the sinner"; it is "one of the great gospel lessons".(37) It is perhaps the power of Christ's acceptance that enables the woman to stop.

An example of the 'acceptance' of Jesus is found in the discourse in 8:25-26: "What I have been telling you from the beginning. Many are the things I could say about you and condemn; but the only things I say to this world are what I have heard from Him, the One who sent me, who is truthful".



33)Dodd, 174.

34)Id, 176.

35)Brown, Jn., 209.

36)Id, 333.

37)Id, 337.

THE BLIND MAN

In Chapter Nine, the blind man episode deals with the 'seeing of the Light', In this case, the physical blindness of the man is not a bar to his insight: he is better able to see and appreciate Jesus than the blindness of faith on the part of the Sadducees. "The encounter is a casual one…… As at Bethesda and at Nain, Jesus 'saw' the sufferer. But on the present occasion the 'seeing' does not at once lead to active intervention, which waits on the initiative of a third party: the disciples draw their Master's attention to the blind man."(38)

In contrast with other healing stories, the healing of the blind man is not immediate. "In our present passage, on the other hand, after the operation with spittle, the patient is bidden, 'Go wash in the pool of Siloam'. He goes, carries out his instructions, and emerges with the power of sight. This gives a different aspect to the story: the co-operation of the patient is demanded. His readiness to obey the command of Jesus is an essential element in the cure, and is in fact a measure of his faith, though John does not use the term."(39)

It is also a very directive statement on the part of Jesus. While he normally leads or acts on behalf of others, here he directs the man to effect his own cure. Obviously the character of the blind man is completely different from the paralytic of Bethesda or the women of the earlier encounters. Here is a man who needs only guidance and direction, and Jesus recognizes this.

It is also a comment on the vulnerability of the human condition, to be in a life where for the most part man walks blindly, with only the trust of others as a guide. Christ offers his guidance. Only by trusting can the man accept the offer and participate in his own cure. True, this is a very allegorical way of seeing the story; but much of John's scenerio is built around Jesus the light and my interpretation extends only into the psychogical level, dealing with the inability of people to see themselves clearly.

Other stories in the Synoptic gospels, (the story of the paralytic in Mark, the man with the withered arm, the lepers in Luke) show similar scenes with the faith of the sick person operative in the cure. In a counseling situation faith in God begins with trust in the source person. Jesus was able to inspire trust in most of the men and women he touched.

Jesus makes several comments in the blind man scenario about the nature of blindness and his own role, which again give clues to the personal psychology of the human Jesus. 'I came into the world for judgement; that those who do not see may be able to see and those who do see may become blind' (9:30). That he is talking about vengeance is nonsense, he is talking about ignorance, and free will. This is more evident in 9:41: 'If only you were blind then you would not be guilty of sin, but now that you claim to see, your sin remains.' This seems to refer to the responsibility of insight: once you are able to see your own behaviour, just as once you are able to see Christ, then the rejection of both goods becomes self-condemnation. In making the blind man able to see, Jesus is also freeing him to become responsible for his life, with the possibility of choosing the rejection of the good as well as to follow it in Jesus. He will no longer be attached to the sin, or behaviour of his parents, but become a person in his own right. Perhaps this is why Jesus does not initially rush to cure him. Brown comments that "the care with which the evangelist has drawn his portraits of increasing insight and hardening blindness is masterful". (40)

THE LAZARUS STORY

Finally we come to the dramatic climax of the healing stories, leading to Jesus' own death. He has been revealed as the Wisdom, and the Light, and the Life of the world, now he demonstrates that he is indeed physical life for others. Jesus resurrects his dead friend Lazarus from the tomb. "There is much dramatic or picturesque detail. There is, once again, the delay, allowing the illness of the patient to reach a fatal conclusion, and this leads, after much dialogue of a peculiarly Johannine cast, to the theme of death as sleep (xi. 11-14). Then we have, in highly dramatic vein, the journey of Jesus, his arrival four days too late (as it seems), his meeting with the sisters……the scene of mourning, in which Jesus is constrained to join."(41) There are also strong elements of response on the part of Jesus, of emotional reactions, and some revealing moments showing his relationship with his friends, Lazarus, Martha and Mary.

The scene is "unique in this gospel for the way in which it combines narrative and discourse in an inseparable whole".(42) It is the longest continuous dramatic narrative in the Gospel, and has very distinct characterization. It is unique in showing some of the personal life Jesus had with this family in Bethany. "There is frequent emphasis on the love that Jesus has for the family. If Bethany was Jesus' lodging place when he came to Jerusalem……then it is not too unreasonable to suggest that it was at this home that he stayed and that its occupants were truly his close friends."(43)

In this scene, as throughout the Gospel, it is clear that Jesus had a very personal and individual relationship with each of the three friends, as well as the normal social relationship. Like Mary, his mother, at Cana (Jn. 2:5), they felt able to turn to him confidently when Lazarus fell ill. In each case, there is the same half-expressed hope that Jesus will act despite the seeming impossibility of the situation".(44) Although it does not mention that Lazarus petitioned his Master, it can be assumed that he too hoped that Jesus would come to heal him. There is ample evidence that Jesus knew of the sickness: vs. 4, 11, 13, 14; and yet he did not respond in the way the sisters expected. As at the Cana wedding scene Jesus is not manipulated, he cannot allow them to control his action, although he expresses concern. Bultmann claims that "Jesus' works have their own hour." Certainly in the Lazarus story this is true－"Out of love Jesus did not go to help the sick Lazarus, for he would be of more help to Lazarus when Lazarus was dead."(45)

I do not think that Jesus would test them just to see to what extent their belief would hold. Instead the focus could be on the other side of trust－to believe freely even when the concrete support is missing, a centered faith that sustains the relationship with love, even when the loved one behaves in a way outside our expectations. Jesus was himself, he was responsive to the will of his Father, and responded with compassion to the need of the three in Bethany, knowing that he did not need to let them dictate his actions. If they were in fact his close friends, then the relationship did not need him to act. He loved them enough to know that they would accept who he was and what he did.

When he finally went to Bethany and came at that time of the funeral scene, he was met by the two sisters－Martha, who "throughput the incident……believes in Jesus but inadequately" and who indicates, 11:39, “that she does not as yet believe in his power to give life”(46) and Mary who again affirms that she believes and accepts Christ.

The emotional outburst from Jesus indicates that the scene is really a point where, not only in the spiritual sense but in a real human psychological sense, Jesus is free to show these friends who he is. The spiritual concepts of glorification and belief are on another level the expression of real love and trust. He demonstrates his trust in their belief by accepting the hard situation, not responding to Lazarus immediately, and yet expressing his own real pain at Lazarus's death. Facing the tomb of Lazarus also calls out of Jesus his pain at his own approaching death and he feels free to share that with these his friends.

The interchange with Martha is one where she demonstrates what she thinks she knows of Jesus and he affirms for her what he really is. "As usual with the 'I am' statements which have a predicate, the predicates 'resurrection' and 'life' describe what Jesus is in relation to men－they are what Jesus offers to men."(47)

In that context the openess with which Jesus comes to Martha and Mary is truly the offering of his love to them, that here at this time he will be himself with them. It is as himself, the very real expression of who he is, that he raises Lazarus from the tomb, from death and from the darkness that death represents. And in doing so he must face his own death, and perhaps his own fears of death.

The model for the counseling relationship is clear. The healer must be truly free to be him / herself and to affirm that identity with the client. Secondly, to reach the pain and disorder of the client, requires empathy－to go to that place－and the facing of one's own personal darkness. Jesus goes beyond what might be expected to be with Lazarus all the way even to death.

After dealing with the relationship of Jesus with the family in Bethany, we move to the anointing scene. It shows many of the same elements, in the close portrayal of friendship between Mary and Jesus. If, as it is sometimes suggested, Mary was also the Magdalen, brought back into society through Jesus, then the portrayal of this scene has an even deeper meaning. Mary's caring for Jesus is obvious, she listens to him, she embraces his feet in the Lazarus scenario, she is there for him. In the context of a loving relationship that is only hinted at, she is clearly a person close to Christ. Finally in this scene she anoints him, and as with his mother in the Cana scene, her presence and action take on prophetic overtones. Benoit separates the scene into two incidents, one, involving a sinner woman who anoints Jesus' feet with her tears, as in the Lucan drama; and the second involving a close friend of Jesus who anoints Jesus with her best perfume on his head. Whichever version is accepted, the evidence of three accounts, Mark, Matthew and John, plus the Lucan version certainly support the fact that Jesus was lovingly anointed by a woman and not only accepted the anointing but rebuked those who thought it unseemly.

I find the action of Mary a real and understandable expression of love, made in a way that forced her beyond the 'reasonable' limits of social expression of her time. She took a risk because she loved Jesus enough to risk showing it. The greater risk would have been to keep silent and do nothing. The fact that it was a physical action suggests that she was symbolically saying what she could not express verbally, and doing something that was a frightening and intense expression of her feelings. It is Jesus’ acceptance of the love that frees her; not to have it demanded that the love be returned in kind, Jesus has made it clear earlier that he cannot be held by human relationships, and yet, by his acceptance of Mary's acts, he makes his love for her clear. By demonstrating that he understands what this is for her, he affirms her and offers her himself. Much is made of the action: "Mary's action constituted an anointing of Jesus's body for burial, and thus unconsciously she performed a prophetic action," (48) but I think it is this emotional climate which is the center of the scene. Jesus gives Mary permission to be herself, to love, and to express the love, and to have the love accepted. The model for Christian relationships is clear.

　

38)Dodd, 181.

39)Id, 183.

40)Brown, Jn., 377.

41)Dodd, 231.

42)Id, 228.

43)Brown, Jn., 431.

44)Id, 433.

45)Id, 431; ibid. for the reference to R. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes, 303.

46)Id, 433.

47)Id, 434.

48)Id. 454.