山道期刊

Religious Commitment in a Pluralistic Society: An Old Testament Perspective

WONG Fook Kong

This essay begins with Brueggemann's observation about the “amazing pluralism” both within and without the Church. I agree with this statement with the qualification that this has been the experience of Asian churches all along. Pluralism both within and without its ranks is not new to Asian churches. When we look at the Old Testament against the background of the ancient Near East, it is evident that ancient Israel also lived in a pluralistic society. Different gods competed for loyalty among the nations. Within Israel too there were different views about YHWH . It is against these competing ideologies that the authors of the Bible affirmed their commitment to worship YHWH as the one and only God. Thus pluralism should not be a reason for abandoning one's commitment to worship YHWH as the one and only God. Rather, it is exactly in face of alternatives and competing claims that one needs to make a firm commitment to worship YHWH.

The Challenge of Religious Pluralism: The Book of Acts as a Test Case

Poling J. Sun

Since the 80s of the last century the issue of religious pluralism has become a challenge to Christian communities. Granted the highly developed connections among nations in this electronic age resulting in conversations and mutual influences, a plurality of cultural and religious phenomena seems inevitable. This is similar to the situation in which the early Christian communities found themselves, addressing and being addressed by a world characterized by cultural inter-penetration. With this in view, this article offers a study of several passages in the Book of Acts, attempting to explore how the early Christian communities encountered their surrounding culture in the course of finding their identity and appropriating their mission.

The Church and Pluralism in the Patristic Period: A Reconsideration of the Progress of Christianization of the Roman Empire during the Time of Constantine

Nathan K. Ng

The reason for the conversion of Constantine has long been a matter of scholarly debate. Traditionally, the emperor is believed to have been converted religiously by the power of Christ. Modern scholarship, however, tends to attribute the conversion to political reason. This article intends to reevaluate the controversial conversion through a reexamination of the progress of christianization of the Roman Empire.

The first section tries to show that the political stature of paganism was actually at that time much higher than the church. It would be very difficult to explain why Constantine chose to become a Christian if, as many modern scholars suggest, political stability was his sole concern. On this foundation, the second section argues that the emperor's bias towards Christianity was at least partially religious. Putting all evidences into consideration, a proposal of the spiritual journey of Constantine is tentatively reconstructed at the end of the discussion.

Please refer to the Chinese page.

网上报名

网上报名

黄福光

副院长（学术）、旧约教授

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

为何灾祸临到？

　　当不幸的事情发生，不少人会问「为什么？」。其实许多时候，导致事情发生的直接成因，是我们知道的。根据世界卫生组织的数据，截至2026年1月25日，合共7,110,188人死于新冠肺炎（COVID-19）。¹ 距离我们更近的大埔宏福苑火灾，官方死亡人数达168人。这两场灾难都对香港巿民造成深远的影响，但其起因并非我们不知晓。新冠疫情是由新型冠状病毒SARS-CoV-2引起，而大埔火灾已查明多项肇因，当中没有一项是神秘莫测或无法理解的。

　　那么，为何我们即使知道灾难的直接成因，仍要追问为什么呢？想必是因为我们不单想知道灾祸的起因，更渴望明白其深层意义。换言之，我们想知道为甚么神容许――甚或促使――灾祸发生。在圣经里，神透过天使、先知、异象或梦境传达祂的旨意，也向人显现，亲自传递祂的话语，一点也不含糊。然而，这些事件非人所能掌控――在圣经里如此，今天更是如此。因此，对于现今的灾难，我们不能寄望从这些途径获得解释。

　　不过，我们现有的圣经，是既易取得且具权威的资料来源，对灾祸为何发生提供许多解释。原因包括邪灵的攻击（例如：约伯记）、人类的罪性（例如：士十九～二十一）、相关人士的愚昧决定（箴十14，十四16），以及神的审判（申二十八15-68）。传道书九章12节指出，危及生命的灾祸（原文作「恶时」）可以在毫无预警之下忽然临到任何人；也就是说，在这堕落的世界，灾难是常态，无需多加解释。从较正面的角度看，神容许某些灾祸发生，可能是藉此教导或训练我们学义（申八1-3；彼前一6-7），或这是我们蒙召为神国所受的苦（太五10-12）。这些全都是合理的答案，但问题是我们未必能够辨明，对于某个处境，哪个才是正确的解答。即使我们以为明白，也可能弄错了。约伯的朋友便是如此，以为自己知道答案，谁知是看错了。

探寻灾难的意义

　　我认为探寻灾难的意义时，该先调查直接的肇因，因为这也许就是意义所在。举例说，若有人犯罪、犯法或做了愚昧的事，招致灾祸（甚至祸及他人），他就应该为自己的罪恶、过犯或愚昧而悔改，不用寻求更深层的意义。此举对于防止灾难重演，十分重要。但假如直接肇因并不明确，强作解释则会适得其反，无助于阻止灾难重演。况且，将过失归咎于无辜者，亦有欠公允。

　　至此，我们须再谈谈约伯的朋友。他们的神学观点没有出错――神奖赏遵行祂话语的人，惩罚违背者，这观念可见于圣经（例如：申二十八；士三7-8）。但他们的错误是把这个神学观点套用在约伯身上。应用错误比诠释错误更难纠正，因为这是个主观判断。尽管圣经为灾祸和苦难提供许多解释，但要判断对于某个处境，哪个解释（如有）方为正确，并非易事。正如伽达默尔（Hans-Georg Gadamer）引述康德（Immanuel Kant）说：「没有任何规则规范我们合理地运用规则。」² 我们没有另一本圣经教我们如何运用圣经。这提醒我们：即使诠释正确，在应用时仍可能出错。正因如此，研读圣经不仅关乎历史资讯、文法分析和神学知识，还需要圣灵引导和辨识能力，才能将真理正确地应用于生活。

另一种应对方式

　　面对灾难，路得记中的路得和波阿斯，采用了另一种应对方式。有别于约伯的朋友，路得没有试图解释拿俄米为何失去丈夫和两个儿子，而是选择陪伴她返回伯利恒，悉心照顾她。同样，波阿斯也没有尝试解释悲剧为何发生在拿俄米和路得身上，而是协助她们获取粮食，后来更成为她们的「亲属赎者」（kinsman redeemer）。我们无法解释灾祸，并不表示我们就无能为力。相反，我们仍可以做很多实事去帮助受灾者。

　　那么，我们应该探求灾难的深层意义吗？我想对大部分人而言，这意思是从中可以汲取甚么属灵教训。这涉及主观的领受。即使我们不是亲身经历灾难，也可以从中领悟属灵的功课；若亲历其中，就更不用说了。不过，如果是指另一层面，意思是我们能否在灾难中辨识神的旨意，那就应当谨慎了。举例说，是否因为这世代邪恶，所以神藉新冠病毒来惩罚世界？抑或这是基督再来之前的阵痛预兆（可十三8）？两者皆有可能，但我们无法肯定。因此，我们不应把这些解释当作真理去教导人。与其提出无法确定的解释，不如切实遵行申命记二十九章29节的教训：「隐秘的事是属耶和华──我们神的，惟有明显的事是永远属我们和我们子孙的，好叫我们遵行这律法上的一切话。」同样，神容许或促使灾祸发生，当中的旨意也许隐而不显；但祂吩咐我们帮助有需要的人，这旨意已清楚显明了。

____________________________________________

¹ “Number of COVID-19 deaths reported to WHO”〔网上资料〕；取自世界卫生组织（World Health Organization）网页（https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/deaths）；浏览于2026年2月13日。
² Hans-Georg Gadamer, Reason in the Age of Science, trans. Grederick G. Lawrence (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998), 121.

（翻译：陈秀媚）

Experiencing God's Love

Growing up in a Christian primary school, I regularly listened to teachers explain the Bible. From that time on, I had a simple faith in God and obeyed Him. Later, someone invited me to attend church worship services, which marked the beginning of my church life. However, at that time, I only participated in worship services, and since I subsequently studied abroad for many years, my connection with the church remained distant.

In October 2016, I returned to Hong Kong after graduating from a university, and shortly after, my grandfather passed away. I felt deeply saddened, but when the pastor expressed the church's condolences and care to me, I suddenly felt God's love, which stirred in me a desire to respond and seek Him further. Thereafter, I joined the church fellowship and genuinely experienced the love of brothers and sisters in Christ, joining them in the pursuit of spiritual growth.

Awakening My Heart for Missions

At the end of 2018, two brothers invited me to serve with them in Myanmar. This experience opened my eyes, deepening my understanding of faith and enriching my spiritual life. It also planted a blossoming desire in my heart for the Great Commission of spreading the gospel.

Praise be to the Lord for, after several years, my passion remained unfading, and I constantly kept the ministry of the Abundant Life Church in Myanmar in my thoughts and prayers. In the summer of 2023, I visited the area for the third time. In addition to meeting with co-workers, children, and other brothers and sisters, I took the opportunity to check the condition of the library which had been previously established. I also participated in the expansion project of that church.

Whether then or now, the situation in Myanmar remains heartbreaking. Since the military reclaimed power, the nation has been engulfed in endless warfare, leaving its people displaced and suffering. Hospitals lack doctors, schools lack teachers, and hope has vanished from the eyes of the people—alas! When I returned to the Abundant Life Church, my heart was often stirred, and I was moved to tears. I saw so many people in dire need, longing for blessings. The church's electronic organ had never worked properly; the girls' dormitory did not have a single fan, making summer nights unbearably hot and sleepless. Upon learning this, I immediately went to purchase fans, hoping that these young people could live a little better. Though such help may seem very limited in scope, I felt that it was important to do whatever I could to help.

Later, the children's pure hearts touched me yet again. They were filled with eagerness to understand Chinese literature, so I helped guide them through Su Dongpo's “Water Melody” and Li Houzhu's “Lady Yu.” Seeing their faces light up with satisfaction made the discomfort from the heat at night feel worthwhile. Their excitement reminded me to keep a pure and simple heart every day and led me to reflect that God values our innermost beings most. It also prompted me to ask myself: Do I truly possess a pure and humble heart to follow the Lord?

While there, I also visited several impoverished families. Though destitute and living in conditions unfit for habitation by Hong Kong standards, they sang hymns and worshiped God from the depths of their hearts that evening. This sight moved me to tears. Additionally, I visited a newly established primary school in the rural outskirts. Despite being church-run, it even had young monks attending classes. I pray the Lord to bestow His grace upon that land and lead more teachers to come and teach them.

The multitude of ministries there is beyond counting, making me keenly aware that the harvest is plentiful but the laborers are few. After returning to Hong Kong that time, I visited various churches to share my experiences and insights, hoping that more brothers and sisters in Christ would learn about the Abundant Life Church, so they may give offerings generously, pray persistently, and work together to bless the churches in Myanmar.

Embracing the Missionary Vision

Through the ministry in Myanmar, God has given me a vision for mission. May God grant me His heart for the needy and persecuted. Let me not only worship Him sincerely but also lead all nations and peoples to know Him. Even if a lifetime of mission yields only a small harvest, how wonderful it would be if it could bring us, His creation, into fellowship with the Triune Creator, singing praises to Him with joyful voices!

On August 9, 2024, I turned thirty. I am grateful that I was in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, at that time, participating in a mission trip. Under the guidance of the Rev. Eric Wing-mun Tong and the Rev. Chi-kwong Chung, I was inspired to reflect on the idea of “establishing oneself at thirty”: First, I asked myself, “Why does the Lord give me all these gifts?” Then, I asked myself, “Why have I not girded my loins and set out, now that my youth is past? Why wait until old age overtakes me?” Thus, I resolved to answer God's call, enter the seminary for training, and aspire to be used by Him.

Lord, though I am weak and inadequate, I ask for Your grace and love. Send me forth and use me. I desire to follow You all my life! Amen!

大埔宏福苑火灾

大埔宏福苑火灾

Learn More

林天佑

新约助理教授

Daniel Lam

Assistant Professor of New Testament

再思保罗笔下的普纽玛

　　使徒保罗写希腊文πνεῦμα（音译：普纽玛 / pneuma）一词时，心中所指的是甚么？对大多数现代读者而言，答案似乎非常简单：人的灵或圣灵，后者即三一神的第三位格，一位赐人安慰、使人信服、满有能力的神圣施动者。我们很自然就想起这个神学解读，恍如理所当然的答案；读者和译者都几乎本能地如此理解。但近年有人却质疑该否把πνεῦμα译作「灵」。本文旨在探讨这些异议，并探索以其他方式翻译πνεῦμα一词的可能性。

　　现代学术界对这个问题的研究历来展现出神学进路与历史进路之间的张力。二十世纪初，衮克尔（Hermann Gunkel）提出二分法，将保罗书信中的普纽玛从其旧约及希腊化犹太教的根源割裂出来，放进「超自然」与自然二元对立的框架。此举影响深远，因这框架后来由布特曼（Rudolf Bultmann）和盖士曼（Ernst Käsemann）等巨擘进一步发展。他们深具路德宗特色的解读，巩固了一种「灵意」诠释法，强调内在主观的宗教体验。在这个学术流派里，灵就等同于信仰的内在生命，这却往往忽略了其宇宙层面和形体层面。

　　二十世纪末出现了重要的修正，有学者坚持采用较有历史根据的「物理主义」（“physicalist”）解读方式。戴尔‧马丁（Dale Martin）的著作《哥林多身体论》（The Corinthian Body, 1995）具有开创性意义，阐明保罗的听众是如何从整体性的古代宇宙观去理解身体和灵；在这宇宙观里，物质与灵相互交织。其后，恩贝格—佩德森（Troels Engberg-Pedersen）在《使徒保罗的宇宙论与自我》（Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul, 2010）一书主张，该从斯多亚主义（Stoic）的视角解读保罗书信中的「普纽玛」，那是宇宙中具智慧之「气」，是构成并联合万物的。这些研究标志着重大的转向，学者开始认真对待保罗所展现的物质观。这意味着搁下「后笛卡儿」（post-Cartesian）的观念：视「灵」为非物质的个人感受；并且重拾古时的实体理解：视普纽玛为实体物质。对这些学者而言，要重拾这个解读，最关键的钥匙就是斯多亚哲学，因为那是保罗身处的希腊罗马世界的主导思想体系。

普纽玛――斯多亚学派所说的物质？

　　对斯多亚学派而言，普纽玛并非灵魂或非物质存有，而是宇宙性的生命力，是气与火的混合体，具智慧的，渗透万物并构成整个宇宙。它是绳索的张力、植物的生长、人类的理性思维、星辰的构成物质。这普纽玛既神圣又理性，且完全是物质的。它构成存有的层级体系（hierarchy of being），从沉重坚实的岩石到虚无飘渺的神明，物质与神性之间并没有不可逾越的鸿沟。

　　恩贝格—佩德森主张，保罗的听众――无论是犹太人或外邦人――都沉浸于这种思想氛围。当保罗谈论普纽玛，他们就联想起这宇宙性、赋予生命力的物质。因此，将普纽玛惯性地译做无形无体的「圣灵」，实属时代错置，把心灵与身体二元对立的现代观念引入经文；这对保罗来说，是陌生的想法。要正确解读保罗的观点，恩贝格—佩德森认为我们必须按字面意思去理解他这个有关物质的用语：普纽玛是一种东西，可倾流，可饮用，可灌注；它是有形有体的实在，能由内而外转化信徒。

　　从斯多亚物质观的视角去看普纽玛，将彻底重塑我们如何解读那些熟悉的经文。先看哥林多前书十五章44至45节保罗怎样论述复活的身体。此处保罗将死去的「血肉的身体」（σῶμα ψυχικόν）与复活的「灵性的身体」（σῶμα πνευματικόν）作对比，最终震撼地宣言：复活的基督已成为「赐生命的普纽玛」（和合本：「叫人活的灵」）。传统的解读将「灵性的身体」理解为满有荣耀、永不朽坏的身体，是由圣灵引导的，而基督或是拥有圣灵，或是与圣灵同行。然而，恩贝格—佩德森提出新的见解，将这两节经文连系于保罗在上文十五章40至41节有关日月等天体的论述。他认为对保罗而言，「灵性的身体」实际上是由「普纽玛物质」（pneuma-stuff）构成的躯体，这好像斯多亚学派对星辰的理解，他们认为星辰就是由这种精纯、神圣的物质组成。因此，基督作为「末后的亚当」，不仅是领受了圣灵，祂复活的存在形态就是普纽玛。祂成为那赋予生命的物质之源，而这物质终必重构信徒的形体。按此诠释，复活不单是恢复生命，更是转化肉身成为全然崭新、属普纽玛体系的存有形态。

　　第二个例子是罗马书五章5节，保罗写道：「因为所赐给我们的圣灵（pneuma）将神的爱浇灌在我们心里。」（和合本）传统的解读将这句话看成一个美丽的隐喻，描述圣灵赋予我们内在情感的确据，表明我们领受了神的爱。然而，按物质观解读，则可看出更为直接的含义。根据古代医学理论「普纽玛论」（Pneumatism，或译作「气论」），普纽玛是一种透过呼吸进入人体的外界物质，经心脏处理后，由动脉输送到身体各处，调控人的思想和行动。当保罗说普纽玛被「浇灌在我们心里」，描述的也许是真实的生理过程：神圣普纽玛实质地注入信徒的心脏中枢，物理性地改变其体质，使他们能按照神的爱行事。根据这个观点，这个改变同时涉及认知和身体，是整个人内外彻底的转化。

反对意见：两大批判

　　尽管这观点日益受到重视，但其物质观论述却遭到其他顶尖学者批评。巴克礼（John Barclay）及利维森（John Levison）精准地指出了恩贝格—佩德森的观点中的张力。

　　巴克礼指出，恩贝格—佩德森的理论虽然在哲学层面十分精确严密，却忽略了保罗神学的核心：基督事件所带来的彻底、颠覆性的崭新。对保罗而言，普纽玛并非先存的宇宙性物质，仅是从天上传送到地上；它乃基督的复活所释放出来的终末实体，是前所未有的「新创造」（林后五17）。对于哥林多前书第十五章，巴克礼驳斥那明确指称日、月、星辰等「天体」为「灵性的 / 由普纽玛组成的」之说法。他主张保罗的重点，是强调神的能力，能赋予万物各有其形体，而非勾勒斯多亚学派的自然阶梯（scala naturae，即存有的层级体系）。第45节所说的「赐生命的普纽玛」是指复活的大能，而非更高层次的宇宙性物质。巴克礼警告说，若将其简化为斯多亚物理学，则无异于将复活贬低为「对既有宇宙元素的重新组合」。

　　然而，不将「灵性与物质」二元对立的现代概念加诸保罗身上，这点却是重要的。因此，翻译πνεῦμα时，采用音译（「普纽玛」）正好可以是一种手段，让我们暂时搁下自己的神学预设，从而聆听保罗话语的本意。运用这个手段，我们就可以看见保罗是使用了当时最能表达转化力量的用语――一种神圣、转化生命的物质――来描述在基督里的新生命。我们无须因而断言保罗是斯多亚学派信徒，或将普纽玛视为「仅仅」医学上的「气」。这只是表明：保罗运用了这套概念体系来阐述那难以言喻的「崭新性」，那就是巴克礼想要维护的。这「崭新」在于神在基督里成就的救赎行动；但其描述方式，却用了第一世纪当代的物质观念。

　　利维森则赞同普纽玛具有实质性的维度，但批评恩贝格—佩德森运用斯多亚主义的手法有选择性，有时甚至显得牵强，而且忽视保罗的犹太传统观念有更丰富的对应元素。他特别提出两项疑虑：首先，恩贝格—佩德森援引的斯多亚范例，例如宇宙大火（ἔκπυρωσις）或西塞罗（Cicero）对占卜的随笔论述，并不能有力地解释普纽玛在信徒身上持续的转化工作。而且事实上，按照斯多亚学派对启示的描述，例如记述德尔斐城（Delphi）的神谕时，是将普纽玛描绘为地表的蒸气或微风，而非宣讲时在话语中流动的物质。其次，更关键的是，恩贝格—佩德森很少触及犹太经典，而其中所描写的普纽玛是既具实体，又可感知。他列举例子：那降临在众长老身上、使他们能管治百姓的「灵」（民十一25），在但以理里头那使人有智慧的「卓越的灵」（但五12，和合本作「美好的灵性」），以及那催迫以利户吐露智慧之言的「灵」（伯三十二18-20）。死海古卷也描绘一个被灵转化并授予知识的群体。对利维森而言，与抽象的斯多亚物理学相比，这些犹太思想体系才更可能、更直接地是保罗思想的主要背景。

　　暂且撇开利维森那错将犹太教与希腊罗马世界割裂的二分法（参亨格尔着《犹太教与希腊化》〔Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism〕，该著作的观点已成为学术界共识，即人无法将犹太教与其周遭文化分割），我们仍可顾及利维森的疑虑，同时又保留物质观的洞见。在整个希腊化世界（包括犹太地区），医学毕竟是一种共通的文化语言。像保罗这样的希腊化犹太人，能轻易将犹太观念的ruach（和合本译作「灵」，指神满有能力、赋予生命的气），与当代医学界视普纽玛（pneuma，或译「气」）为赋予活力、具形体的物质这种理解，融合起来。因此，若采纳「医学上」的普纽玛这个观点，就不是选择「希腊文化」而舍弃「犹太文化」，而是指出有一种流通的共同知识，人可藉此用物理的观念来理解犹太神学的概念。这可以回应利维森的批评，给予一个令人满意的解答：保罗笔下普纽玛的物质性，不一定只是源自斯多亚哲学，也可能源于犹太神学与古代地中海世界广泛流行的生物医学概念两者的融合――这与斐罗（Philo）在其著作的做法别无二致。

综论：关键何在？

　　在此我们必须承认，「普纽玛」一词确实可能含有斯多亚主义的意涵。恩贝格—佩德森正确指出，对于第一世纪保罗的听众而言，这词使人想起一种实体的、宇宙性的、能赋予生命的物质。但我们也必须注意恩贝格—佩德森论点的局限：保罗书信中的普纽玛，绝非仅是斯多亚派所说的宇宙性物质。有些经文明确描述普纽玛有具位格的行为：普纽玛「用说不出来的叹息替我们祷告」（罗八26）；「随己意分给各人」（林前十二11）；会「担忧」（弗四30）。这些绝非纯粹实体的「物质」所能做到；这暗示普纽玛是一个具备情感、意志、能与他者建立关系的位格（person）。将普纽玛约化为纯粹斯多亚主义的物质，便忽略了保罗神学中这至关重要的位格层面。

　　因此，对于恩贝格—佩德森的论点，我们需要修正，而非全盘接受。他正确地提醒我们须注意普纽玛的物质层面，但其诠释方式过度强调其与斯多亚主义的延续性，没有充分考虑保罗描述的普纽玛具有位格特质，以及基督事件所带来的彻底崭新。对细心的读者而言，获取最透彻理解的途径，或许正在于持守这种张力：既知道普纽玛在古代语境中有物质的含意，同时承认其在保罗书信中具位格的角色。

认真对待这场辩论

　　在此必须澄清：要从这场讨论中获益，我们无须完全接受恩贝格—佩德森的论点，亦不必断言保罗是斯多亚学派信徒（事实上，恩贝格—佩德森从未如此要求）。身为基督徒的我们，若重视神的话语（在这例子，即保罗实际说的话）就必须保持开放的态度，承认我们对普纽玛的理解可能存在不足，需要修正或深化。恩贝格—佩德森的论点或许并非全然正确，但他提出了一个值得严肃思考的问题：现代文化的预设，是否导致我们忽略了保罗原本想要传达的某些面向？

　　翻译πνεῦμα时，采用音译，正好可以是一种手段，帮助我们认真对待这个问题。这没有强迫我们接受任何特定的结论，却创造出一个空间，让我们可停下来问：「保罗在此使用『普纽玛』一词，究竟是指甚么？」这种好发问的态度，就是力求更忠于圣经的表现，承认神的启示或比我们所理解的更为丰富深邃，并容许圣经文本挑战我们，而非单单用来印证我们自以为已知的观念。

　　值得注意的是，翻译保罗书信中的πνεῦμα时，采用音译，尤其具说服力。因为我们能相当具体地指出谁是保罗的听众（第一世纪希腊罗马世界的犹太人及外邦人社群），以及他所处的历史背景（斯多亚主义和医学理论盛行的时期）。在这特定的历史背景下，保罗的听众对「普纽玛」的理解，远比现代读者更贴近这个词的丰富文化内涵。因此，至少对于保罗书信，翻译时采用音译（「普纽玛」）而不意译作「灵」，更能帮助我们避免时代错置，以及更忠实地领会保罗想要传达的意思。

总结

　　说到底，翻译πνεῦμα时，采用音译，并非懒惰，亦非回避译者的职责；这反而是更深地忠于原文的表现。这激励我们持续探索，让保罗亲自向我们阐明普纽玛的真义。在这段探索过程中，我们不仅更深认识保罗，也更深认识那位透过他向人说话的神。

（翻译：陈秀媚）

Rethinking Pneuma in Paul

When the Apostle Paul wrote πνεῦμα, what did he have in mind? For most modern readers, the answer seems straightforward: human or holy spirit, that is, the Third Person of the Trinity, a divine agent of comfort, conviction, and power. This theological reading is so natural that it feels obvious, and it is almost instinctive to readers and translators. But recently, this translation has been challenged. This article seeks to discuss what those objections are and explore the possibility of translating πνεῦμα differently.

The history of modern scholarship shows a persistent tension between theological and historical approaches. In the early 20th century, Hermann Gunkel proposed dichotomies that separated Pauline pneuma from its Old Testament and Hellenistic Jewish roots and framed it as “supernatural” versus natural. This move proved to be influential as this framework was adopted by important figures like Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Käsemann, whose deeply Lutheran readings further solidified a “spiritualizing” interpretation that prioritized inner, subjective religious experience. In this stream of scholarship, pneuma became synonymous with the inner life of faith, often at the expense of its cosmic and corporeal dimensions.

At the end of the 20th century, a significant corrective emerged, with scholars who insisted on a more historically grounded, “physicalist” reading. Dale Martin's The Corinthian Body (1995) was groundbreaking, showing how Paul's audience understood bodies and spirits within a holistic ancient cosmology where the physical and spiritual were intertwined. Troels Engberg-Pedersen then argued in Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul (2010) for reading Pauline pneuma through a Stoic lens, as the cosmic, intelligent “breath” that constitutes and unifies all matter. These works represent a major shift, taking Paul's materialism seriously. This means setting aside our post-Cartesian idea of “spirit” as a non-material, private feeling, and recovering the ancient, concrete understanding of pneuma as a physical substance. For these scholars, the most helpful key to this recovery is Stoic philosophy, the dominant intellectual framework of Paul's Greco-Roman world.

Why a Stoic, Material Pneuma?

For the Stoics, pneuma is not a ghost or immaterial being. It is the cosmic life-force, an intelligent mixture of air and fire that permeates and structures the universe. It is the tension in a rope, the growth in a plant, the rational mind of a human, and the substance of the stars. This pneuma is divine, rational, and utterly material. It constitutes a hierarchy of being, from dense rocks to rarified gods, with no unbridgeable chasm between the physical and the divine.

Engberg-Pedersen argues that Paul's audiences—Jew and Gentile alike—breathed this intellectual air. When Paul spoke of pneuma, they would have heard echoes of this cosmic, animating substance. The automatic translation of pneuma as a disembodied “Spirit” is therefore an anachronism, importing a modern mind/body dualism that would have been foreign to Paul. To read him correctly, Engberg-Pedersen contends, we must take his physical language literally: pneuma is a stuff that can be poured, drunk, and infused; it transforms the believer from the inside out via a tangible, physiological reality.

　　Viewing pneuma through this Stoic, materialist lens dramatically reshapes how we read familiar passages. Consider first Paul's discussion of the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15:44-45. Here Paul contrasts the “natural body” (σῶμα ψυχικόν) sown in death with the “spiritual body” (σῶμα πνευματικόν) raised in life, culminating in his striking declaration that the risen Christ became a “life-giving pneuma.” The conventional reading understands the “spiritual body” as a glorified, immortal body oriented by the Holy Spirit, with Christ either possessing the Spirit or being accompanied by him. But Engberg-Pedersen offers a different perspective by connecting this passage to Paul's earlier mention of heavenly bodies like the sun and moon in 1 Corinthians 15:40-41. He argues that for Paul, a σῶμα πνευματικόν is a body actually made of pneuma-stuff, analogous to the Stoic understanding of stars as composed of this refined, divine substance. Thus Christ, as the “last Adam,” has not merely received the Spirit; rather, his resurrected mode of existence is pneuma itself. He becomes the source of that life-giving, material substance that will ultimately reconstitute believers. In this reading, resurrection is not merely a restoration of life but a physical transformation into an entirely new, pneumatic order of being.

A second example comes from Romans 5:5, where Paul writes that “God's love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit (pneuma) who has been given to us” (NIV). The conventional reading takes this as a beautiful metaphor for the internal, emotional assurance of God's love provided by the Holy Spirit. But the materialist reading reveals something more literal. Following ancient medical theories known as Pneumatism, pneuma was understood as an external substance drawn into the body through breathing, processed by the heart, and then channeled through the arteries to govern thoughts and actions. When Paul speaks of pneuma being “poured into our hearts,” he may be describing an actual physiological process: the divine pneuma is literally infused into the cardiac centre of the believer, physically altering his/her constitution and enabling him/her to act in accordance with God's love. The change, in this view, is simultaneously cognitive and corporeal—a transformation of the whole person, inside and out.

Scholarly Pushback: Two Major Critiques

While this view is gaining momentum, this materialist thesis has faced criticism from other leading scholars. John Barclay and John Levison pinpoint two major tensions in Engberg-Pedersen's proposal.

　　Barclay argues that Engberg-Pedersen's model, for all its philosophical precision, misses the core of Paul's theology: the radical, disruptive newness of the Christ event. For Paul, the pneuma is not a pre-existing cosmic substance simply transferred from heaven to earth. It is an unprecedented, eschatological entity unleashed by Christ's resurrection, a “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17). Regarding 1 Corinthians 15, Barclay disputes the claim that “heavenly bodies” such as the sun, moon, and stars are explicitly called “pneumatic.” Paul's point, he contends, is God's power to give each its own kind of body, not to outline a Stoic scala naturae or hierarchy of being. The “life-giving pneuma” in verse 45 is the power of resurrection itself, not a higher-grade cosmic material. To reduce it to Stoic physics, Barclay warns, is to turn the resurrection into a mere “reordering of already-existing cosmic elements.”

However, it is important to avoid imposing modern, dualist categories of “spiritual vs. material” onto Paul altogether. As such, to transliterate pneuma is precisely a tool to suspend our theological assumptions long enough to hear Paul on his own terms. Using this tool, we can see that Paul describes the new life in Christ using the best available language of his day for a transformative power, namely, the language of a divine, life-altering substance. This does not require us to claim that Paul was a Stoic or that the pneuma is “just” medical pneuma. It simply asserts that this was the conceptual tool Paul employed to articulate the very ineffable newness that Barclay wants to protect. The “newness” resides in the salvific action of God in Christ; the mechanism of description, however, is the contemporary materialist framework of the first-century world.

　　Levison, for his part, agrees that pneuma has a concrete dimension but charges Engberg-Pedersen with a selective and sometimes strained use of Stoicism, while neglecting the richer parallels in Paul's Jewish heritage. He raises two specific concerns. First, the Stoic models Engberg-Pedersen employs, such as the cosmic conflagration (ἔκπυρωσις) or a passing comment from Cicero on divination, do not convincingly explain the ongoing, transformative work of pneuma in believers. Meanwhile, actual Stoic accounts of inspiration, such as those describing the oracle at Delphi, portray pneuma as a terrestrial vapor or breeze, not as a substance flowing through preached words. Second, and more centrally, Levison points to the dearth of engagement with Jewish texts where pneuma is also depicted as both concrete and cognitive. He cites the “spirit” placed upon the elders to govern (Nm 11:25), the “excellent spirit” of wisdom in Daniel (Dn 5:12), and the spirit that besieges Elihu, forcing out wise speech (Jb 32:18-20). The Dead Sea Scrolls, too, present a community transformed and granted knowledge by the spirit. For Levison, this Jewish matrix provides a more direct and likely foreground for Paul's thinking than an abstracted Stoic physics.

Setting aside Levison's misguided dichotomy of Judaism and the Greco-Roman world (see Hengel's Judaism and Hellenism, which has become a scholarly consensus; one cannot separate Judaism from its surrounding culture), there is a way to honor Levison's concerns while retaining materialist insight. Medicine, after all, was a shared cultural vernacular across the Hellenistic world, including Judea. A Hellenistic Jew like Paul could easily integrate the Jewish concept of ruach (understood as God's powerful, life-giving breath) with contemporary medical understandings of pneuma as an animating bodily substance. To argue for a “medical” pneuma, then, is not to choose “Greek” over “Jewish.” Rather, it is to identify the common intellectual currency through which Jewish theological concepts could be understood in physical terms. This provides a more satisfying answer to Levison's critique: the physicality of pneuma in Paul needs not come exclusively from Stoic philosophy. It could just as plausibly emerge from the synthesis of Jewish theology and the widespread biomedical concepts that permeated the ancient Mediterranean world, not dissimilar from what Philo did in his work.

Synthesis: What Is at Stake?

Here we must acknowledge that pneuma may indeed carry Stoic connotations. Engberg-Pedersen correctly observes that for Paul's first-century audience, the word pneuma would have evoked a material, cosmic, life-giving substance. Yet we must also attend to the limits of Engberg-Pedersen's argument. The pneuma in Paul's letters is not merely Stoic cosmic matter. Certain passages attribute unmistakably personal actions to pneuma: it “intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words” (Rom 8:26 NABS); it “apportions to each one individually as he wills” (1 Cor 12:11 ESV); it can be “grieved” (Eph 4:30). These are not things that a mere material “substance” can do; they imply a person with emotions, will, and relational capacity. To reduce pneuma entirely to Stoic matter is to miss this crucial personal dimension in Paul's theology.

Thus, Engberg-Pedersen's thesis requires correction, not wholesale acceptance. He rightly alerts us to the material dimension of pneuma, but his model overemphasizes Stoic continuity and fails to fully account for the personhood Paul attributes to pneuma and the radical newness introduced by the Christ event. For careful readers, the path to the richest understanding may lie precisely in holding this tension: recognizing the concrete, material connotations of pneuma in its ancient context while also acknowledging its personal role in Paul's letters.

Taking the Debate Seriously

An important clarification is necessary here: we need not fully accept Engberg-Pedersen's thesis, nor must we claim that Paul was a Stoic, in order to benefit from this discussion (in fact, Engberg-Pedersen never made such a claim). As Christians, if we care about God's word, in this case what Paul actually said, we must remain open to the possibility that our understanding of pneuma may be incomplete and need correction or enrichment. Engberg-Pedersen's argument may not be entirely correct, but he has raised a question worth taking seriously: Have our modern cultural assumptions caused us to miss certain dimensions of what Paul originally intended to communicate?

Transliterating pneuma is precisely the tool that helps us take this question seriously. It does not force us to accept any particular conclusion, but rather creates a space where we can pause and ask: “What did Paul mean when he used the word pneuma here?” This questioning is an act of greater faithfulness to Scripture. It acknowledges that God's revelation may be richer and deeper than we have yet understood, and it allows the biblical text to challenge us rather than merely confirming what we already think we know.

It is worth noting that this practice of transliterating pneuma is particularly compelling in the case of Paul's letters. This is because we can identify with reasonable specificity both Paul's audience (communities of Jews and Gentiles in the first-century Greco-Roman world) and his historical context (a period when Stoicism and medical theories were prevalent). In this particular historical setting, Paul's listeners would have understood pneuma in ways far closer to the word's rich cultural connotations than modern readers do. Therefore, at least in the case of Paul's letters, using the transliteration pneuma rather than translating it as “Spirit” can better help us avoid anachronism and more faithfully hear what Paul intended to communicate.

Conclusion

In the end, transliterating pneuma is not an act of laziness or an evasion of the translator's task. It is an expression of deeper faithfulness to the text. It invites us into an ongoing exploration, allowing Paul himself to tell us what his pneuma truly means. In the course of this exploration, we come to know better not only Paul but also the God who spoke through him.

蓝志扬

基督教教育助理教授

Chi-yeung Lam

Assistant Professor of Christian Education

超越「预设」的上帝

　　马大、马利亚需要甚么？

　　约翰福音第十一章记载了拉撒路复活的神迹。经文记载耶稣和门徒来到伯大尼时，拉撒路已经安葬四日，亲友从各地赶来慰问。马大听见耶稣到来，就急忙出村迎接；当马利亚见到耶稣，就俯伏在祂脚前，哭着说：「主啊，你若早在这里，我兄弟必不死。」这句话与马大先前所说的如出一辙，表达了对耶稣「迟来」的遗憾。

　　马大和马利亚深信耶稣能医治重病，但她们的认知却停留在「有限复活」的层面，未曾想过耶稣能够在末日之前，叫一位已死四日、甚至发臭的人复活。她们为耶稣设下时间限制，认为「早到」才有可能，「现在」已经太迟。这种想法某程度上限制了耶稣的能力。

　　马大和马利亚并非没有听闻过死人复活的事迹。旧约里，以利亚和以利沙都曾使死人复活；新约里，耶稣也曾使睚鲁的女儿和拿因城寡妇的儿子复活。作为耶稣的挚友，她们理应知道耶稣拥有超越死亡的大能。然而，当苦难临到自己的家，她们就陷入负面思维，认为「迟来」等于「无可能、无法逆转」。这种反应的确是世人真实的经验。或许，我们在困境中也曾为上帝设限：「如果早一点……」、「如果当时……」，这些想法往往源于我们对上帝持有某种「预设」。

团契与培育韧性

　　拉撒路最终奇妙地复活了，但这神迹毕竟是特例。在现实生活，一般人还是要面对亲友离世后的漫长岁月，以及如何在哀伤中继续生活。

　　「社会情绪选择理论」指出，个人经历了生命的重大事件（如疫情、灾难），心态可能出现显著转变：他们开始将生活焦点转向那些对情感有意义的行为，更多倾向与亲密的亲友互动。这种选择性的社交模式，表面看似缩小了社交圈子，实则强化了情感支援的素质和深度。这观点与信仰群体的经验一致。有深度的团契生活，正是建立心理韧性的重要养分。当我们在教会不只是维持表面的寒暄关系，而是建立生命与生命的真实连结，这种支援系统就能够在风暴中成为我们的避难所。

祷告与生命韧性

　　一項針對美國慢性病患者長達六年的追蹤研究，揭示了禱告與生存韌性的關聯。^* 一项针对美国慢性病患者长达六年的追踪研究，揭示了祷告与生存韧性的关联。^* 在控制多项变数后，研究发现每日作私祷的病人，六年后的生存率显著高于不常祈祷者。虽然其中确切的机制仍需深入研究，但研究人员推断，祷告带来的「希望感」是关键因素。当信徒在祷告中持续将难以掌控的事情（如病情）交托给上帝，这重复的肯定和交托，能够带来心灵的平安和释放。从生理层面看，这有助减少压力荷尔蒙的分泌，降低对健康的负面影响。这正提醒我们，祷告不仅是属灵的操练，也是全人健康的根基。在祷告里，我们承认自己的有限，并且同时经历上帝的无限和同在。

眼动治疗

　　除了团契和祷告，现代心理学也提出一些建立情绪韧性的实用方法，例如「眼动身心重建法」（Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing，简称EMDR），中文简称「眼动治疗」。若在二十年前谈论眼动治疗，或许会引起误解，因为治疗时，治疗师的手指在患者眼前左右移动，看起来有些像民间宗教的施法。然而，这套疗法的起源其实非常生活化：创始人夏皮罗（Francine Shapiro）在公园散步时，无意间发现当眼睛随着景物左右规律运动后，自己的负面情绪竟明显减少了。随后，她展开多年的临床测试，而这套治疗方法也逐渐获得医学界肯定。这给我们一个实用的启发：当你发现自己陷入负面情绪，甚至像马大和马利亚那样被哀伤笼罩，就不妨效法夏皮罗，到公园散散步，让眼睛自然地左右转动，看看两旁的风景。这简单的动作对舒缓情绪应该有所帮助。（当然，若发现情绪问题越来越严重，就务必寻求专业的医疗或心理辅导。）

　　「韧性」一词近年备受关注，在中国内地誉为2025年的关键词。这反映不少人正身处不确定的外在环境，内心焦虑不安，甚至影响个人生活及群体协作。我们心底里渴望自己不受制于环境，能够继续向前迈进。回顾拉撒路的故事，马大和马利亚见证了超越她们想象的神迹。愿我们在团契生活和个人祷告的操练中，能够建立身心灵的韧性。

____________________________________________

^* Gail Ironson and Salman Shaheen Ahmad, “Frequency of Private Prayer Predicts Survival Over 6 Years in a Nationwide U.S. Sample ofIndividuals with a Chronic Illness,” Journal of Religion and Health 63.4 (August 2024): 2910-2923〔网上文章〕；取自Springer Nature Link网页（https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-023-01870-z）；浏览于2026年3月1日。

God is beyond Our “Assumptions”

What did Martha and Mary need?

John 11 records the miracle of Lazarus' resurrection. By the time Jesus and His disciples arrived in Bethany, Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days, and relatives and friends had gathered to offer their condolences. When Martha heard of Jesus' coming, she hurried out of the village to meet Him. When Mary saw Jesus, she fell at His feet and wept, saying, ’Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.’ These words echoed Martha's earlier statement, expressing sorrow over what seemed to be Jesus' “delayed arrival.”

Martha and Mary were convinced that Jesus could heal serious illnesses, though their understanding of resurrection was limited. They never imagined that Jesus could raise someone before the last day, even one who had been dead for four days and whose body had already begun to decay. They assumed there was a time limit to His power, believing healing was possible only if He had arrived “early,” and that “now” was already too late. In this way, their thinking reveals they perceived Jesus' power to be restricted in this way.

However, Martha and Mary were familiar with the stories of resurrection. In the Old Testament, Elijah and Elisha raise the dead; in the New Testament, Jesus raises Jairus' daughter and the widow's son at Nain. As close friends of Jesus, they surely knew that He possessed power over death. However, when suffering struck their own family, in their grief, they fell into a negative mindset, believing that ’delayed“ meant ”impossible“ or ”irreversible.“ That is a very human response. Perhaps, in our own struggles, we too assume limits to God: ”If only it happened sooner …“ or ”If only we had acted back then …“ These thoughts often stem from certain ”assumptions“ we hold about God.

Fellowship and Resilience

Lazarus was miraculously raised from the dead, but after all, this event is an exception. In everyday life, most people must endure the long years that follow the loss of loved ones and seek ways to continue despite their grief.

The Socioemotional Selectivity Theory (SST) suggests that when individuals encounter major life events—such as a pandemic or natural disaster—their mindset may undergo a significant shift: they refocus on emotionally meaningful behaviors and tend to deepen ties with close friends and family. While this selective social pattern may appear to narrow one's social circle, it actually enhances the quality and depth of emotional support. This dynamic closely parallels the experience of faith communities. A meaningful fellowship life is precisely what nourishes psychological resilience. When we go beyond superficial small talk and build genuine, heart-to-heart connections in church, this support system becomes our refuge in the storm of life.

Prayer and Resilience

A six-year longitudinal study of patients with chronic illnesses in the United States revealed a positive link between prayer and resilience. ^* After controlling for a range of variables, the study found that patients who engaged in daily private prayer had a significantly higher survival rate than those who prayed less frequently. Although the mechanism requires further investigation, researchers suggested that the “sense of hope” derived from prayer may play a key role. When believers consistently entrust matters beyond their control—such as illness—to God in prayer, this repeated affirmation and entrustment foster peace and consolation. Physiologically, such practices help lower stress hormone levels, thereby reducing negative health impacts. This reminds us that prayer is not only a spiritual discipline but also the foundation of holistic well-being. In prayer, we admit our own limits while simultaneously experiencing God's infinite power and presence.

Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing

In addition to fellowship and prayer, modern psychology has developed practical methods for fostering emotional resilience, such as Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR). If we talked about EMDR twenty years ago, it might be misunderstood, because during the therapy, the therapist moves his or her fingers back and forth in front of the patient's eyes, somewhat like a ritual performed in folk religions. Yet its origins are simple: its founder, Francine Shapiro, was once taking a walk in the park when she accidentally discovered that as her eyes moved rhythmically from side to side, her negative emotions noticeably diminished. She subsequently conducted years of clinical trials, and this therapeutic approach has gradually gained recognition in the medical community. This offers us a practical insight: when you feel stuck in negative emotions—or even overwhelmed by grief, as Martha and Mary were—you might follow Shapiro's example and take a walk in the park, allowing your eyes to move naturally from side to side as you observe the scenery. Such a simple act may help ease your emotions. (Of course, if distress becomes severe, seek professional medical or psychological counseling.)

The term “resilience” has gained significant attention in recent years and topped the list of buzzwords of 2025 in mainland China. This reflects the reality that many people are navigating uncertain external environments, experiencing anxiety and unease that may impact both their personal lives and collective cooperation. Deep down, we long to break free from circumstantial constraints and continue moving forward. Reflecting on the story of Lazarus, Martha, and Mary, we find a miracle beyond their imaginations. May we cultivate resilience in mind, body, and spirit through fellowship and personal prayer, finding strength in God together.

____________________________________________

^* Gail Ironson and Salman Shaheen Ahmad, “Frequency of Private Prayer Predicts Survival Over 6 Years in a Nationwide U.S. Sample ofIndividuals with a Chronic Illness,” Journal of Religion and Health 63.4 (August 2024): 2910-2923 [article online]; available from Springer Nature Link website (https: //doi.org/10.1007/s10943-023-01870-z); accessed 1 March 2026.

璩理

基督教思想助理教授

Curie Qu

Assistant Professor of Christian Thought

三类苦罪

　　每当世界发生重大灾难，信仰群体中就常常有人再次提出神正论（Theodicy，或作：神义论）来反复讨论。由于受灾情影响，这类讨论往往夹杂着强烈的情绪，难以保持平静和理性。当今时代，信息流通异常迅速，只要稍有不慎，信徒的一些表述就可能触发受灾群体及公众的敏感情绪。所以我们反思、讨论这些问题时，先要祷告，求神赐给我们同情的心、智慧的脑、谨慎的口。

　　在神的创造秩序中，可以识别出三类主要的苦罪：（1）道德罪恶：人类滥用自由意志而犯下的罪行，如屠杀、偷窃、背叛等；（2）自然灾难：人类即使采取了最好的预防措施，也无法避免的灾祸，如地震、火灾、车祸等；（3）生命苦痛：无论是源于人为还是自然因素，不幸总会降临在一些人身上，如丧亲之痛、身体残疾、情绪抑郁等。这三类苦罪当然不是截然分开，而是彼此重迭，互相交织。

信仰挑战

　　这些苦罪真实存在，往往触动我们信仰的根基。信徒和非信徒都有可能从这三个角度挑战基督教信仰：（1）逻辑问题：陈述一「神是全能和全善的」与陈述二「苦罪存在」，在逻辑上不相容；（2）实证问题：苦罪的存在就是否定神存在的证据──要么神不存在，要么神不是全能或全善；（3）实存问题：撇下纯理性的争论，我们事实上被各种苦难缠绕，叫人叹息：「这没意义啊！」、「这不应该发生啊！至少不应该发生在我身上！」

　　对于来自逻辑和实证方面的挑战，萊布尼茲（G. W. Leibniz）的主张是，我们的现实世界，尽管有苦难存在，仍然是「可能的世界中最美好的一个」。神作为全知、全能且全善的存有，创造这个世界是出于最好的意图。这个世界中存在邪恶和苦难，也是为了实现更大的善或更长远的目的。黑格尔（G. W. F. Hegel）也有类似的观点，认为苦难是实现更高之善的必要条件。莱布尼兹和黑格尔的回应，是采取一种超然、远离现实灾难、纯理性的进路。这样的回应在理性上也许能够成立，但是对于现实处境中正在受苦的人群来说，将其所有苦难「合理化」，却可能同时是将具体的苦难抽象化，甚至是「虚无化」。仍受灾情困扰的人恐怕要反问：难道我现在的困难，就是神要达至最大美善的「必要代价」或「必要手段」？我只是神必胜的大棋局中一枚可以弃掉的棋子吗？

苦难就是苦难

　　「天道远，人道迩」。如果对逻辑和实证方面的回应显得太遥远（它们并非不重要，只是不一定切合受苦者的具体处境），那么我们不妨从第三个角度着手，即从现实的生存处境来正视实实在在的苦难。从受苦者的视角出发，首先就不能如前两个角度那样将苦难问题抽象化，即从苦难的笼统概念出发，在理论思维层面论证其必然性；而是要正视、认真看待真实的苦难，就苦难本身来对待苦难。其次，就是不要为每一个真实的苦难勉强找一个看似「属灵正确」的合理解释：「这是神要你放下一切，单单仰望祂」、「在伤痛中，你会更真实地经历神的恩典和眷顾」。有些苦难可能就是无意义的、全然负面的。我们不知它为何发生，为何发生在某人身上。如果一定要强作解人，为每个具体的苦难找出合理的解释，就很容易犯上约伯三友那样的错误。我们可以与哀哭的人同哀哭，也可以和伤痛的人分享约伯记，或作家杏林子（刘侠）、布道家兼激励演说家力克‧胡哲（Nick Vujicic）的生命故事。这或可帮助他们，安慰他们。当然，这也可能不行，因为别人的苦难故事和自己亲历的苦难，两者始终还有很大的距离。

承受与盼望

　　马丁路德晚年失去心爱的十三岁女儿，他说：「这感觉很奇怪，我知道她在天父那里，一切都很好，却又忍不住悲伤。」他还引用马太福音二十六章41节，感叹自己「心灵固然愿意，肉体却软弱了」。因为我们肉身软弱，在苦难中可能会质疑神，对神恼怒，祷告时说不出感谢赞美的言语，这也是人之常情──我们本来都是如此软弱的。但是另一方面，我们也应该看到：这些将残的灯火，压伤的芦苇，只要还没有熄灭，没有折断，生活就还要继续下去，信心就还要重拾；就算有些灯火真的熄灭了，有些芦苇真的折断了，那也不是最终的结局──在道路的尽头，有曾经从死里复活的主，在那里等待我们回到永恒的天家。

Three Kinds of Suffering

Whenever a major disaster occurs, faith communities often engage in renewed discussions of theodicy. Under the weight of disaster, such discussions tend to become emotionally charged, making it difficult to maintain a calm and rational spirit. In today's world, information spreads with unprecedented speed. Even the slightest misstep in a believer's words can provoke strong emotions among disaster victims and the public. Therefore, as we reflect on and discuss these issues, we must first pray, asking God to grant us compassionate hearts, wise minds, and cautious tongues.

In God's creation order, three major categories of suffering can be identified: (1) moral evils: sins committed by humans through the misuse of their free will, such as murder, theft, and betrayal; (2) natural disasters: calamities that cannot be avoided even with the best preventive measures, such as earthquakes, fires, and traffic accidents; (3) the sorrows of life: whether stemming from human or natural causes, misfortune inevitably befalls some people, such as bereavement, physical disabilities, and depression. These three categories of suffering are, of course, not strictly separate but overlap and intertwine.

Challenges to Christian Faith

Suffering and these evils are a reality that often shakes the very foundations of our faith. Both believers and non-believers may challenge the Christian faith from these three perspectives: (1) the logical problem: statement 1, “God is omnipotent and perfectly good,” and statement 2, “Evil exists,” are logically incompatible; (2) the evidential problem: the existence of evil serves as evidence against God's existence—either God does not exist, or God is not omnipotent or perfectly good; (3) the existential problem: setting aside purely rational arguments, we are in fact beset by various forms of suffering, leading us to exclaim, “This is meaningless!” or “This shouldn't be happening! At least, it shouldn't be happening to me!”

In response to the challenges from the logic and evidential problems, GW Leibniz argues that the actual world, despite the existence of suffering, is still “the best of all possible worlds.” As an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being, God created this world with the best intentions. The existence of evil and suffering in this world serves to realize a greater good or a long-term purpose. GWF Hegel holds a similar view, arguing that suffering is a necessary condition for the realization of a higher good. Both Leibniz and Hegel adopted a detached, purely rational approach that distanced themselves from the realities of disaster. While such responses may be valid on rational grounds, for those suffering in real life, “rationalizing” may abstract—or even “nullify”—their concrete experience of suffering. Those still plagued by disaster may well ask: Is my current hardship merely the “necessary cost” or “necessary means” for God to achieve the greatest good? Am I simply a disposable pawn in God's grand chess game that He will win in the end?

Seeing Suffering as Suffering

As an old Chinese saying goes, “the way of heaven is distant, but the way of humans is near.” If responses to the logic and evidential problems seem too abstract (not that they are unimportant, but that they may not fully address the circumstances of sufferers), we might approach the issue from a third perspective: viewing the concrete suffering as lived reality. From the perspective of those who suffer, we must first avoid abstracting the problem of suffering as the previous two approaches tend to do—starting with a general concept of suffering and arguing theoretically for its inevitability. Instead, we must face and take real suffering seriously, addressing suffering on its own terms. Second, we must not force a seemingly “spiritually correct” explanation onto every real suffering: “God wants you to let go of everything and look to Him alone,” or “In your pain, you will experience God's grace and care more deeply.” Some suffering may simply be gratuitous. We do not know why it occurs, nor why it afflicts a particular person. If we insist on assuming the role of an all-knowing interpreter who must find a rational explanation for every instance of suffering, we risk repeating the error made by Job's three friends. In fact, we can mourn with those who mourn. We can share with the grieving people the story of Job, or the life stories of the writer Xing Linzi (Liu Xia) and the evangelist and motivational speaker Nick Vujicic. This may help them and bring them comfort. Of course, it may not work because there is always a deep divide between accounts of others' suffering and the suffering one endures firsthand.

Endurance and Hope

When Martin Luther lost his beloved thirteen-year-old daughter in his later years, he said, “It's strange to know that she is surely at peace and that she is well off there, very well off, and yet to grieve so much!” He also quoted Matthew 26:41, lamenting, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Because our flesh is weak, we may question God in the midst of suffering, grow angry with Him, and find ourselves unable to utter words of thanksgiving and praise in prayer. This is only human—we are all inherently weak in this way. But on the other hand, we must also recognize this: As long as the smoldering wicks have not yet been quenched and the bruised reeds have not been broken, life must go on, and faith must be restored. Even if some wicks have indeed been extinguished, and some reeds have truly been broken, that is not the end—at the end of the road, the Lord who has risen from the dead awaits us there, ready to welcome us into our eternal heavenly home.

吴国杰

副院长（教务）、基督教思想（教会历史）教授

Nathan Ng

Vice President (Academic Affairs)
Professor of Christian Thought (Church History)

灾难中的初期教会

　　基督宗教从开始即面对大大小小不同的压迫和灾难。自从罗马皇帝尼禄（Nero，公元37-68年）纵火焚城并嫁祸给基督徒以后，教会便成为罗马帝国打压的非法组织。仅是坚持相信基督，就足可判以死罪。第二世纪初，巡抚小皮里纽（Pliny the Younger，公元61-113年）致信皇帝他雅努（Trajan，公元53-117年），请示如何处置基督徒，说：「在我面前有人被告发是基督徒，我就采取这些行动：我先问他们是不是基督徒；若他们承认，我就再问两三次，并以刑罚来威吓他们；若他们仍然坚持，我就下令将他们处决。」¹ 他雅努回复，指皮里纽「已采取正确的路向」，但提醒他：「人若否认自己是基督徒，务必严加验证，确定他们是敬拜我们的诸神」。²

　　君士坦丁大帝（Constantine the Great，公元 272-337年）于公元313年颁布《米兰谕旨》（Edictum Mediolanense）之前的二百多年里，基督徒遭受无数残酷的迫害。有的被集体钉死在十字架上，有的当作火把焚烧，有的在斗兽场给狮子咬死，有孩童被披上兽皮给狂犬撕咬。皇帝奥热流（Marcus Aurelius，公元121-180年）煽动暴民攻击教会；在他执政期间，基督徒「承受狂燥暴徒惯常对待其仇敌和对手的那各种羞辱」。³ 皇帝德修（Decius，公元201-252年）要求全国人民皆要向罗马的神祇「献祭、奠酒，并要品尝祭肉」，以此证明自己，违者要遭受酷刑。⁴ 皇帝戴克里先（Diocletian，公元245-311年）更下令「铲平教会，焚烧圣经」。面对无惧死亡的基督徒，他「监禁各地的教会领袖，然后用尽一切方法强迫他们献祭」，意图藉此摧毁信徒群体的信心。⁵

早期教父的提醒

　　从现存的早期教父著作可见，遭受长时间残酷迫害、陷在苦难中的初期教会并没有生出苦毒怨恨或灰心丧志；相反，信徒常从属灵角度积极面对，信靠基督，盼望将来的荣耀。这些教父对灾祸苦难的言训教导，可以归纳成以下三方面的提醒：

1. 上主在灾难中同在，给受苦的圣徒带来安慰：就如罗马长老希坡律陀（Hippolytus，约公元170-235年）所说，逼迫灾难乃源自敌基督对圣徒的攻击，然而信徒可仰望「上主从天上显现」。⁶ 这种显现可以让圣徒化危为机――或得着能力忍受痛苦，或殉道后得见主面。
2. 死亡不是生命的终结，而是暂且安息的美好时刻：特土良（Tertullian，约公元155-220年）解释马太福音六章6节时，指「内室」预表坟墓，那些在敌基督终极猛烈攻击下离世的人，可以在其中安息片时。⁷ 因此，圣徒无须惧怕苦难和死亡；离世与主同在反而值得向往。
3. 在灾难中坚忍到底的圣徒，可以得着荣耀的冠冕：爱任纽（Irenaeus，约公元125-202年）解释马太福音二十四章21节所描述的大灾难时，明言「这是义人最后的试验，得胜的可得不朽的冠冕」。⁸ 故此，圣徒应当惧怕的不是灾难，而是在信仰上因逼迫而软弱跌倒，从此失去属天的福分。

按照以上理解，圣徒可存喜乐的心积极面对各种逼迫灾难，就如使徒教父著作《黑马牧人书》（Pastor Hermae）所说：「那些在将要来临的大灾难中坚忍的人应当欢喜快乐」。⁹ 他们重视将来天上永恒的属灵生命，远多于地上短暂的肉身生命；这原则正是他们从主耶稣基督受苦受死的榜样中学习得来的。

　　今日世上也有许多苦难，有的是人明显因信仰而遭受的，这时教父的教导能给信徒适切的鼓励，但也有的是不易分辨其因由。国际间，战争导致灾民死伤无数，流离失所；地区内，人祸致使亲人生死相隔，家园尽毁。这些痛苦都是实在的，令人哀叹。无论如何，早期教父的教导也提醒信徒：切勿将眼目仅放在短暂的今世，当以属灵的眼光注视永恒的将来；相信灾难只是短暂的试炼，基督是我们随时的帮助。肉身受苦甚至受死并不可怕，只要在灾难中坚忍到底，就能得着属天荣耀的奖赏。

____________________________________________

¹ Pliny the Younger, Epistulae 10.96.
² Pliny the Younger, Epistulae 10.97.
³ Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 5.1.
⁴ George Milligan, Greek Papyri (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912), no. 48.
⁵ Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 8.2.
⁶ Hippolytus, Commentariorum in Danielem 2.7.
⁷ Tertullian, De Carne Christi 4.27.
⁸ Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 5.29.1.
⁹ Pastor Hermae, vision 2.2.

The Early Church in Tribulation

From its inception, Christianity faced oppression and tribulation of varying degrees. After the Roman Emperor Nero (37-68 AD) set fire to Rome and put the blame on the Christians, the Church became an outlawed organization under the Roman Empire. At that time, merely having faith in Christ was sufficient grounds for a death sentence. In the early second century, the governor Pliny the Younger (61-113 AD) wrote to Emperor Trajan (53-117 AD) for guidance on how to deal with Christians, saying, “For the moment this is the line I have taken with all persons brought before me on the charge of being Christians. I have asked them in person if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution.” ¹ Trajan responded, affirming that Pliny “had followed the right course of procedure,” while cautioning him: “in the case of anyone who denies that he is a Christian … make it clear that he is not by worshipping our gods.” ²

For over two centuries before Emperor Constantine the Great (272-337 AD) issued the Edictum Mediolanense in 313 AD, Christians endured countless brutal persecutions. Some were crucified en masse, burned, or torn apart by lions in the arena. Even children were clad in animal skins and devoured by rabid dogs. Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD) incited mobs to attack the Church. During his reign, Christians “endured every kind of disgrace that frenzied mobs habitually inflicted upon their enemies and adversaries.” ³ Emperor Decius (201-252 AD) demanded that all citizens must “offer sacrifices, pour libations, and partake of the sacrificial meat” to the Roman gods as proof of their allegiance, threatening torture for those who refused. ⁴ Emperor Diocletian (245-311 AD) went further, ordering churches to be “leveled to the ground and the Scriptures burned.” To subdue Christians who feared no death, he “imprisoned church leaders throughout the empire and employed every means to force them to sacrifice,” aiming to shatter the faith of the Christian community. ⁵

Exhortations from the Early Church Fathers

It is evident from the extant writings of the early Church Fathers that the early Church, enduring prolonged brutal persecution and suffering, did not give rise to bitterness, resentment, or despair. On the contrary, believers consistently confronted adversity from a spiritual perspective, placing their trust in Christ and looking forward to future glory. The teachings of these Fathers regarding tribulation and suffering can be summarized in the following three exhortations:

1. The Lord is present in tribulation, bringing comfort to suffering saints: as the presbyter Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235 AD) stated, persecution and tribulation stem from the Antichrist's assault upon the saints, yet believers may look to “the Lord appearing from heaven.” ⁶ This manifestation enables the saints to turn adversity into victory—either gaining strength to endure suffering or beholding the Lord's face after martyrdom.
2. Death is not the end of life, but a beautiful moment of temporary rest: Tertullian (c. 155-220 AD) explained Matthew 6:6, noting that “your room” symbolizes the grave, where those who depart during the fierce final assault of the Antichrist may rest for a time. ⁷ Therefore, saints need not fear suffering or death; departing to be with the Lord is something to be longed for.
3. The saints who endure to the end in tribulation shall receive the crown of glory: Irenaeus (c. 125-202 AD), interpreting the great tribulation described in Matthew 24:21, explicitly states, “This is the final trial of the righteous, and those who overcome shall receive the crown of immortality.” ⁸ Therefore, what saints should fear is not tribulation itself, but rather any weakening or falling away in their faith due to persecution, causing them to lose their portion of heavenly blessings.

According to this understanding, saints can face all kinds of persecution and tribulations with joyful hearts, as stated in the Apostolic Father's work Pastor Hermae: “Happy are you who endure the great tribulation that is at hand.” ⁹ They valued the eternal spiritual life in heaven far more than the fleeting physical life on earth. This principle is what they learned from the suffering and death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Today, the world is filled with suffering. There are afflictions that we endure clearly for the sake of faith, and in such cases, the teachings of the Church Fathers offer believers fitting encouragement. Yet, for some cases of suffering, it is harder to discern the meaning. Internationally, wars claim countless lives and leave countless displaced; locally, human-made disasters tear families apart and lay waste to homes. These sufferings are real and cause deep lamentation. Nevertheless, the early Church Fathers reminded believers: do not fix your eyes solely on this fleeting world; instead, gaze with spiritual vision toward the eternal future, believing that tribulations are but temporary trials, and Christ is our ever-present help. Physical suffering, even death, need not be dreaded. By persevering to the end amid tribulations, one will receive the heavenly reward of glory.

____________________________________________

¹ Pliny the Younger, Epistulae 10.96.
² Pliny the Younger, Epistulae 10.97.
³ Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 5.1.
⁴ George Milligan, Greek Papyri (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912), no. 48.
⁵ Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 8.2.
⁶ Hippolytus, Commentariorum in Danielem 2.7.
⁷ Tertullian, De Carne Christi 4.27.
⁸ Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 5.29.1.
⁹ Pastor Hermae, vision 2.2.

梁俊豪

新约副教授

Bernard Leung

Associate Professor of New Testament

对受苦者的两种反应

　　看到别人受苦，我们通常有两种反应：第一，与大多数人一样，我们心生同情，为别人的不幸感到难过，因而关心他们的福祉；第二，部分人能够理解受苦者的观点，并且体会他们的感受，产生共鸣。当媒体广泛报导灾难情况，我们自然对受害者产生第一种反应，这份同情推动我们关心、慰问或施予援助（例如捐款）给受苦者，期望减轻他们的苦楚。然而，我们所做的，是否真正能够帮助他们？这是十分值得探讨的问题。过度慰问可能带给受苦者压力；重复谈论灾难，也可能对他们造成二次伤害。在这种出于同情的行动，我们时常担演施予者的角色，站在安全界线之后，向受助者伸出援手，但彼此的观点和立场却可能并不相同。当媒体减少报导，我们对受苦者的诉求和处境逐渐缺乏了解，对他们的关注和同情也就逐渐减退，甚至可能以自己的标准去判断他们的感受。

　　第二种反应对我们来说比较陌生，需要我们设身处地，采纳受苦者的观点，对他们的苦况感同身受。放下自我观点，深度代入受苦者的角度和情感世界，最能肯定他们的感受，并展现我们最真摰的人性和团结。但要达到这种程度的共鸣，对大部分人来说，甚至对接受过专业训练的辅导人员来说，都是相当耗费精力。若果期间忽视了彼此之间的界线，还有可能使自己陷入抑郁状态或出现心理创伤。

「记得」与「感同身受」

　　然而，新约圣经希伯来书的作者却呼吁信徒要以近似第二种反应的态度，对待那些因信仰的缘故遭受迫害的人：「也要记得那些受虐待的人，感同身受」（十三3，环球圣经译本，下同）。 「要记得」是承接上半节的吩咐：「你们要记得那些坐牢的人」，不只是意识上记忆起，也不只是言语上表达关注，而是用实际行动，持续不断地（这吩咐是现在时态的）帮助他们。同样，「感同身受」与上半节「好像跟他们一起坐牢一样」平行，其原文是ὡς καὶ αὐτοὶ ὄντες ἐν σώματι，和合本修订版和新汉语译本译作「好像你们也亲身受到虐待一样」。原文的ἐν σώματι（「在身体上」）表达彻底认同受苦者，其基础是我们同有脆弱的身体和人性，彼此有特殊的结连。

　　这种人性的结连，在基督的救赎工作中显露无遗。希伯来书二章11节指出神之子作为大祭司，与那称为弟兄的子民「同是出于一个源头」。子民既然「同有血肉之体」，拥有脆弱的人性，基督也分享这人性，「照样成为血肉之体」（二14），「在各方面与他的弟兄们相同」（二17），包括「经过试探，受了苦」（二18），「帮助那些正在受试探的人」，以达成大祭司为人民赎罪之职。

　　希伯来书作者更形容大祭司能够「同情我们的种种软弱」（四15）。 「同情」（συνπαθῆσαι，或译「体恤」）不只是心理上的感受，更是分享软弱人性的经验，亲身「在各方面都受过试探，像我们一样」。基督作为大祭司，不是高高在上地可怜、同情我们因人性软弱、落入试探而不能自救的苦况，而是选择「在各方面」与我们「相同」（二17），即使要经历与我们一样的脆弱。这就是完全参与我们的人性软弱，与我们结连。

　　我们能否「记得」受苦者，感同身受，在于我们有没有学像基督，放下自己的身分、观点或自以为与别不同之处，承认、体现并接受自己与受苦者有同样脆弱的人性。人性的软弱之一，是逃避苦楚，包括逃避自己的和别人的苦楚。然而，无视别人之苦，以种种理由划清界线，割断彼此间的结连，这无疑等于认为自己的人性比别人的更高贵、更神性、更有特权受到保护。要感同身受，与受苦者结连，就要像基督与我们结连一样。这样我们的同行和帮助才有意义。

Two Responses to Those Who Suffer

When we witness others suffering, we typically have two reactions: First, most people feel sympathy, grieving for their misfortune and thus caring about their well-being; second, some individuals can understand the sufferer's perspective, empathize with their feelings, and resonate with them. When disasters receive extensive media coverage, we naturally experience the first reaction toward the victims. This sympathy drives us to offer care, condolences, or aid (such as donations) to those suffering, hoping to alleviate their pain. However, does what we do truly help them? This is a question well worth exploring. Excessive expressions of condolences may place undue pressure on those suffering. Repeated discussion of the disaster may also cause secondary trauma. In these acts of sympathy, we often assume the role of benefactors, extending aid from a safe distance. Yet, our perspectives and positions may differ significantly from theirs. As media coverage diminishes, our understanding of the victims' needs and conditions gradually fades. Our attention and sympathy wane, and we may even judge their feelings based on our own yardsticks.

The second type of response is less familiar to us, requiring us to put ourselves in their shoes, adopt the perspective of those suffering, and empathize deeply with their plight. Setting aside our own views and deeply immersing ourselves in the sufferer's perspective and emotional world best affirms their feelings and demonstrates our most genuine humanity and solidarity. However, such deep resonance is quite exhausting for most people—even professionally trained counselors. If boundaries are neglected during the process, it may even plunge one into depression or psychological distress.

“Remember” and “Since You Also Are in the Body”

Nonetheless, the Epistle of Hebrews urges believers to adopt an attitude akin to the second response toward those persecuted for their faith: “… and [remember] those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body” (13:3b ESV). The verb “remember” is in the present tense in Greek; accordingly, NIV renders it as “Continue to remember …” The command denotes more than mere mental recollection or a verbal expression of concern, but a call to take concrete action to provide ongoing assistance to those in tragedy. This command to continue remembering those who are mistreated is grounded in the recognition that “you also are in the body,” indicating that all share in the weakness of bodily existence. This common humanity thus becomes the basis for solidarity with those who suffer.

This solidarity with others is fully revealed in Christ's redemptive work. Hebrews 2:11 states that the Son of God, as the High Priest, and the people who are called His brothers and sisters “all have one source.” Since the people “share in flesh and blood,” possessing fragile human nature, Christ likewise shared this humanity and “partook of the same things” (2:14), “to be made like his brothers in every respect” (2:17), having “suffered when tempted,” “to help those who are being tempted” (2:18), thereby fulfilling the high priest's role of atoning for the people.

The author of Hebrews further describes the High Priest as one who is capable of “[sympathizing] with our weaknesses” (4:15). “To sympathize” (συνπαθῆσαι, NIV renders as “to empathize”) is not merely an emotional response, but a shared experience of human frailties, having been “in every respect … tempted as we are” (4:15). Christ, as the High Priest, does not stand aloof in a position of superiority, merely pitying with our plight as those who, in human frailty, fall into temptation and are unable to deliver themselves. Instead, He chose to be “made like [us] in every respect” (2:17), even to the point of experiencing the same frailties. This means full participation in our human weaknesses as an expression of solidarity with us.

　　Whether we can “remember” those who suffer and feel their pain as our own depends on whether we have learned to be like Christ—laying aside our own status, perspectives, or perceived differences, to acknowledge, embody, and accept that we share the same fragile humanity as those who are suffering. One weakness of human nature is the tendency to flee from pain—our own and that of others. However, to disregard the suffering of others by erecting boundaries through various justifications and severing the bonds that connect us amounts to the implicit claim that one's own humanity is more noble, more divine, and more entitled to protection than that of others. To share in the experience of others and to be joined with those who suffer, one must identify with them in the same way that Christ identifies with us. Only then does our companionship and aid hold meaning.

黄福光

副院长（学术）、旧约教授

Fook-kong Wong

Vice-President (Research)
Professor of Old Testament

为何灾祸临到？

　　当不幸的事情发生，不少人会问「为什么？」。其实许多时候，导致事情发生的直接成因，是我们知道的。根据世界卫生组织的数据，截至2026年1月25日，合共7,110,188人死于新冠肺炎（COVID-19）。¹ 距离我们更近的大埔宏福苑火灾，官方死亡人数达168人。这两场灾难都对香港巿民造成深远的影响，但其起因并非我们不知晓。新冠疫情是由新型冠状病毒SARS-CoV-2引起，而大埔火灾已查明多项肇因，当中没有一项是神秘莫测或无法理解的。

　　那么，为何我们即使知道灾难的直接成因，仍要追问为什么呢？想必是因为我们不单想知道灾祸的起因，更渴望明白其深层意义。换言之，我们想知道为甚么神容许――甚或促使――灾祸发生。在圣经里，神透过天使、先知、异象或梦境传达祂的旨意，也向人显现，亲自传递祂的话语，一点也不含糊。然而，这些事件非人所能掌控――在圣经里如此，今天更是如此。因此，对于现今的灾难，我们不能寄望从这些途径获得解释。

　　不过，我们现有的圣经，是既易取得且具权威的资料来源，对灾祸为何发生提供许多解释。原因包括邪灵的攻击（例如：约伯记）、人类的罪性（例如：士十九～二十一）、相关人士的愚昧决定（箴十14，十四16），以及神的审判（申二十八15-68）。传道书九章12节指出，危及生命的灾祸（原文作「恶时」）可以在毫无预警之下忽然临到任何人；也就是说，在这堕落的世界，灾难是常态，无需多加解释。从较正面的角度看，神容许某些灾祸发生，可能是藉此教导或训练我们学义（申八1-3；彼前一6-7），或这是我们蒙召为神国所受的苦（太五10-12）。这些全都是合理的答案，但问题是我们未必能够辨明，对于某个处境，哪个才是正确的解答。即使我们以为明白，也可能弄错了。约伯的朋友便是如此，以为自己知道答案，谁知是看错了。

探寻灾难的意义

　　我认为探寻灾难的意义时，该先调查直接的肇因，因为这也许就是意义所在。举例说，若有人犯罪、犯法或做了愚昧的事，招致灾祸（甚至祸及他人），他就应该为自己的罪恶、过犯或愚昧而悔改，不用寻求更深层的意义。此举对于防止灾难重演，十分重要。但假如直接肇因并不明确，强作解释则会适得其反，无助于阻止灾难重演。况且，将过失归咎于无辜者，亦有欠公允。

　　至此，我们须再谈谈约伯的朋友。他们的神学观点没有出错――神奖赏遵行祂话语的人，惩罚违背者，这观念可见于圣经（例如：申二十八；士三7-8）。但他们的错误是把这个神学观点套用在约伯身上。应用错误比诠释错误更难纠正，因为这是个主观判断。尽管圣经为灾祸和苦难提供许多解释，但要判断对于某个处境，哪个解释（如有）方为正确，并非易事。正如伽达默尔（Hans-Georg Gadamer）引述康德（Immanuel Kant）说：「没有任何规则规范我们合理地运用规则。」² 我们没有另一本圣经教我们如何运用圣经。这提醒我们：即使诠释正确，在应用时仍可能出错。正因如此，研读圣经不仅关乎历史资讯、文法分析和神学知识，还需要圣灵引导和辨识能力，才能将真理正确地应用于生活。

另一种应对方式

　　面对灾难，路得记中的路得和波阿斯，采用了另一种应对方式。有别于约伯的朋友，路得没有试图解释拿俄米为何失去丈夫和两个儿子，而是选择陪伴她返回伯利恒，悉心照顾她。同样，波阿斯也没有尝试解释悲剧为何发生在拿俄米和路得身上，而是协助她们获取粮食，后来更成为她们的「亲属赎者」（kinsman redeemer）。我们无法解释灾祸，并不表示我们就无能为力。相反，我们仍可以做很多实事去帮助受灾者。

　　那么，我们应该探求灾难的深层意义吗？我想对大部分人而言，这意思是从中可以汲取甚么属灵教训。这涉及主观的领受。即使我们不是亲身经历灾难，也可以从中领悟属灵的功课；若亲历其中，就更不用说了。不过，如果是指另一层面，意思是我们能否在灾难中辨识神的旨意，那就应当谨慎了。举例说，是否因为这世代邪恶，所以神藉新冠病毒来惩罚世界？抑或这是基督再来之前的阵痛预兆（可十三8）？两者皆有可能，但我们无法肯定。因此，我们不应把这些解释当作真理去教导人。与其提出无法确定的解释，不如切实遵行申命记二十九章29节的教训：「隐秘的事是属耶和华──我们神的，惟有明显的事是永远属我们和我们子孙的，好叫我们遵行这律法上的一切话。」同样，神容许或促使灾祸发生，当中的旨意也许隐而不显；但祂吩咐我们帮助有需要的人，这旨意已清楚显明了。

____________________________________________

¹ “Number of COVID-19 deaths reported to WHO”〔网上资料〕；取自世界卫生组织（World Health Organization）网页（https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/deaths）；浏览于2026年2月13日。
² Hans-Georg Gadamer, Reason in the Age of Science, trans. Grederick G. Lawrence (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998), 121.

（翻译：陈秀媚）

Why Does It Happen?

It is not uncommon for people to ask, “Why?” when something bad happens. Actually, in many cases, the immediate causes are known. According to the World Health Organization, as of January 25, 2026, 7,110,188 people have died from COVID-19. ¹ Closer to home, the official figure of people who died in the Wang Fuk Court fire is 168. Both disasters impact Hong Kong residents deeply, but their causes are not unknown. The COVID-19 pandemic was caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Quite a number of causes for the fire at Tai Po have been identified, and none of them is mysterious or unfathomable.

So, why do we ask why even when we know the immediate cause of a disaster? I think the reason is that we want to know the deeper meaning of a disaster rather than just the cause. In other words, we want to know why God allowed or even caused it to happen. In the Bible, God communicates his will through angels, prophets, visions, or dreams. He may also appear to convey his words. So, there was no ambiguity. Nevertheless, these events are beyond human control; this was the case in the Bible and is certainly the case today. Thus, we cannot depend on them to explain why a disaster happens today.

A readily accessible and authoritative source of information is the Bible, which gives us quite a lot of explanations about why disasters happen. They include attacks by evil spirits (eg, Job), the sinfulness of humanity (eg, Jgs 19-21), foolish decisions of people involved (Prv 10:14; 14:16), and judgment of God (Dt 28:15-68). Ecclesiastes 9:12 states that a life-threatening disaster (lit. “evil time”) may befall anyone suddenly without warning. That is, disaster is a norm in this fallen world and may require no further explanation. More positively, some disasters may be permitted as a means of teaching or training us in righteousness (Dt 8:1-3; 1 Pt 1:6-7). We may also be called to suffer for the sake of God's Kingdom (Mt 5:10-12). They are all legitimate answers, but the problem is that we may not know which of these is the correct answer in a specific situation. Moreover, we may be mistaken even if we think we know. This was the case with Job's friends. They thought they knew, but they were wrong.

The Meaning of a Disaster

　　I think that in searching for the meaning of a disaster, we should begin with the immediate cause since it may also be the meaning. For example, if a person commits a sin, a crime, or something foolish that brings a disaster on himself (and perhaps on others), he should repent of his sin, crime, or foolishness. There is no need to look for a deeper meaning. This step is important to prevent the disaster from happening again. However, if the immediate cause is not obvious, forcing an explanation is counterproductive. It won't prevent the disaster from recurring. Moreover, it is unjust to blame an innocent person for wrongdoing.

This brings us back to Job's friends. Their theology was not wrong. The notion that God rewards those who keep his words but punishes those who disobey is found in the Bible (eg, Dt 28; Jgs 3:7-8). It was their application of that theology to Job that was wrong. Wrong application is more difficult to correct than wrong interpretation because it is a subjective decision. Although the Bible offers many explanations for disasters and suffering, it is not easy to decide which of these explanations (if any) is correct in a specific situation. As Hans-Georg Gadamer, quoting Immanuel Kant, says, “There are no rules governing the reasonable use of rules.” ² We don't have another Bible to teach us how to use the Bible. This warns us that even when our interpretation is correct, we may still make a mistake in application. This is why Bible study is not just concerned about historical information, grammatical analyses, and theological knowledge. We also need the guidance of the Holy Spirit and discernment to appropriate it correctly in our lives.

Another Approach

Another approach to disaster was taken by Ruth and Boaz in the Book of Ruth. Unlike Job's friends, Ruth did not try to explain the reason Naomi lost her husband and sons. Instead, she accompanied Naomi back to Bethlehem to take care of her. Similarly, Boaz did not try to explain the tragedy that befell Naomi and Ruth. Instead, he helped them get food and later became their kinsman redeemer. Just because we cannot give an explanation for a disaster does not mean we can do nothing. On the contrary, we can do many practical things to help the victims.

So, should we attempt to find deeper meanings in a disaster? I think that for most people, it means whether there are any spiritual lessons we can learn from it. This is a subjective perception. There is no reason why we cannot learn spiritual lessons from a disaster, even if we are not personally involved; more so, if we are personally involved. At another level, if the question is whether we can discern God's will in the disaster, we should be wary. Was God punishing this world through COVID-19 because of its wickedness? Or was it the birth pangs heralding the Second Coming of Christ (Mk 13:8)? They are both possible, but we can't be sure. Therefore, we should not teach them as truths. Instead of offering uncertain explanations, we do well to heed the teachings of Deuteronomy 29:29, which says, “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (ESV). Similarly, God's will in allowing or causing a disaster to happen may be hidden from us, but his will for us to help those in need is clearly manifested.

____________________________________________

¹ “Number of COVID-19 Deaths Reported to WHO” [data online]; available form World Health Organization website (https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/deaths); accessed 13 February 2026.
² Hans-Georg Gadamer, Reason in the Age of Science, trans. Grederick G. Lawrence (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998), 121.

时代纷乱，灾难频仍，基督徒该如何面对？圣经或神学对我们有什么提醒或安慰？我们邀请了多位老师从不同的角度探讨这些问题。

In an age marked by turmoil and disaster, how should Christians respond? What counsel and consolation does God's Word and theology give us? To explore these questions from diverse perspectives, we have invited some of our faculty members to share their reflections.

时间是神创造的吗？——再思奥古斯丁论时间的起源

时间在自然科学和宗教思想里都是一个极其重要的议题。「时间」不仅吸引科学家和宗教思想家的关注，也决定了我们普通人看待万物的方式。

在《忏悔录》中，奥古斯丁将时间内置于神的创造秩序，其思想成为后世探讨物理时间和心理时间的重要思想资源。

本讲座将当代理论物理及心理学的时间理论追溯到奥古斯丁的时间起源论，尝试实现一种新的神学文本诠释上的「视域融合」。

报名请按此

报名请按此

Please refer to the Chinese page.

Please refer to the Chinese page.

网上报名

网上报名

黄福光

副院长（学术）、旧约教授

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

为何灾祸临到？

　　当不幸的事情发生，不少人会问「为什么？」。其实许多时候，导致事情发生的直接成因，是我们知道的。根据世界卫生组织的数据，截至2026年1月25日，合共7,110,188人死于新冠肺炎（COVID-19）。¹ 距离我们更近的大埔宏福苑火灾，官方死亡人数达168人。这两场灾难都对香港巿民造成深远的影响，但其起因并非我们不知晓。新冠疫情是由新型冠状病毒SARS-CoV-2引起，而大埔火灾已查明多项肇因，当中没有一项是神秘莫测或无法理解的。

　　那么，为何我们即使知道灾难的直接成因，仍要追问为什么呢？想必是因为我们不单想知道灾祸的起因，更渴望明白其深层意义。换言之，我们想知道为甚么神容许――甚或促使――灾祸发生。在圣经里，神透过天使、先知、异象或梦境传达祂的旨意，也向人显现，亲自传递祂的话语，一点也不含糊。然而，这些事件非人所能掌控――在圣经里如此，今天更是如此。因此，对于现今的灾难，我们不能寄望从这些途径获得解释。

　　不过，我们现有的圣经，是既易取得且具权威的资料来源，对灾祸为何发生提供许多解释。原因包括邪灵的攻击（例如：约伯记）、人类的罪性（例如：士十九～二十一）、相关人士的愚昧决定（箴十14，十四16），以及神的审判（申二十八15-68）。传道书九章12节指出，危及生命的灾祸（原文作「恶时」）可以在毫无预警之下忽然临到任何人；也就是说，在这堕落的世界，灾难是常态，无需多加解释。从较正面的角度看，神容许某些灾祸发生，可能是藉此教导或训练我们学义（申八1-3；彼前一6-7），或这是我们蒙召为神国所受的苦（太五10-12）。这些全都是合理的答案，但问题是我们未必能够辨明，对于某个处境，哪个才是正确的解答。即使我们以为明白，也可能弄错了。约伯的朋友便是如此，以为自己知道答案，谁知是看错了。

探寻灾难的意义

　　我认为探寻灾难的意义时，该先调查直接的肇因，因为这也许就是意义所在。举例说，若有人犯罪、犯法或做了愚昧的事，招致灾祸（甚至祸及他人），他就应该为自己的罪恶、过犯或愚昧而悔改，不用寻求更深层的意义。此举对于防止灾难重演，十分重要。但假如直接肇因并不明确，强作解释则会适得其反，无助于阻止灾难重演。况且，将过失归咎于无辜者，亦有欠公允。

　　至此，我们须再谈谈约伯的朋友。他们的神学观点没有出错――神奖赏遵行祂话语的人，惩罚违背者，这观念可见于圣经（例如：申二十八；士三7-8）。但他们的错误是把这个神学观点套用在约伯身上。应用错误比诠释错误更难纠正，因为这是个主观判断。尽管圣经为灾祸和苦难提供许多解释，但要判断对于某个处境，哪个解释（如有）方为正确，并非易事。正如伽达默尔（Hans-Georg Gadamer）引述康德（Immanuel Kant）说：「没有任何规则规范我们合理地运用规则。」² 我们没有另一本圣经教我们如何运用圣经。这提醒我们：即使诠释正确，在应用时仍可能出错。正因如此，研读圣经不仅关乎历史资讯、文法分析和神学知识，还需要圣灵引导和辨识能力，才能将真理正确地应用于生活。

另一种应对方式

　　面对灾难，路得记中的路得和波阿斯，采用了另一种应对方式。有别于约伯的朋友，路得没有试图解释拿俄米为何失去丈夫和两个儿子，而是选择陪伴她返回伯利恒，悉心照顾她。同样，波阿斯也没有尝试解释悲剧为何发生在拿俄米和路得身上，而是协助她们获取粮食，后来更成为她们的「亲属赎者」（kinsman redeemer）。我们无法解释灾祸，并不表示我们就无能为力。相反，我们仍可以做很多实事去帮助受灾者。

　　那么，我们应该探求灾难的深层意义吗？我想对大部分人而言，这意思是从中可以汲取甚么属灵教训。这涉及主观的领受。即使我们不是亲身经历灾难，也可以从中领悟属灵的功课；若亲历其中，就更不用说了。不过，如果是指另一层面，意思是我们能否在灾难中辨识神的旨意，那就应当谨慎了。举例说，是否因为这世代邪恶，所以神藉新冠病毒来惩罚世界？抑或这是基督再来之前的阵痛预兆（可十三8）？两者皆有可能，但我们无法肯定。因此，我们不应把这些解释当作真理去教导人。与其提出无法确定的解释，不如切实遵行申命记二十九章29节的教训：「隐秘的事是属耶和华──我们神的，惟有明显的事是永远属我们和我们子孙的，好叫我们遵行这律法上的一切话。」同样，神容许或促使灾祸发生，当中的旨意也许隐而不显；但祂吩咐我们帮助有需要的人，这旨意已清楚显明了。

____________________________________________

¹ “Number of COVID-19 deaths reported to WHO”〔网上资料〕；取自世界卫生组织（World Health Organization）网页（https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/deaths）；浏览于2026年2月13日。
² Hans-Georg Gadamer, Reason in the Age of Science, trans. Grederick G. Lawrence (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998), 121.

（翻译：陈秀媚）

Experiencing God's Love

Growing up in a Christian primary school, I regularly listened to teachers explain the Bible. From that time on, I had a simple faith in God and obeyed Him. Later, someone invited me to attend church worship services, which marked the beginning of my church life. However, at that time, I only participated in worship services, and since I subsequently studied abroad for many years, my connection with the church remained distant.

In October 2016, I returned to Hong Kong after graduating from a university, and shortly after, my grandfather passed away. I felt deeply saddened, but when the pastor expressed the church's condolences and care to me, I suddenly felt God's love, which stirred in me a desire to respond and seek Him further. Thereafter, I joined the church fellowship and genuinely experienced the love of brothers and sisters in Christ, joining them in the pursuit of spiritual growth.

Awakening My Heart for Missions

At the end of 2018, two brothers invited me to serve with them in Myanmar. This experience opened my eyes, deepening my understanding of faith and enriching my spiritual life. It also planted a blossoming desire in my heart for the Great Commission of spreading the gospel.

Praise be to the Lord for, after several years, my passion remained unfading, and I constantly kept the ministry of the Abundant Life Church in Myanmar in my thoughts and prayers. In the summer of 2023, I visited the area for the third time. In addition to meeting with co-workers, children, and other brothers and sisters, I took the opportunity to check the condition of the library which had been previously established. I also participated in the expansion project of that church.

Whether then or now, the situation in Myanmar remains heartbreaking. Since the military reclaimed power, the nation has been engulfed in endless warfare, leaving its people displaced and suffering. Hospitals lack doctors, schools lack teachers, and hope has vanished from the eyes of the people—alas! When I returned to the Abundant Life Church, my heart was often stirred, and I was moved to tears. I saw so many people in dire need, longing for blessings. The church's electronic organ had never worked properly; the girls' dormitory did not have a single fan, making summer nights unbearably hot and sleepless. Upon learning this, I immediately went to purchase fans, hoping that these young people could live a little better. Though such help may seem very limited in scope, I felt that it was important to do whatever I could to help.

Later, the children's pure hearts touched me yet again. They were filled with eagerness to understand Chinese literature, so I helped guide them through Su Dongpo's “Water Melody” and Li Houzhu's “Lady Yu.” Seeing their faces light up with satisfaction made the discomfort from the heat at night feel worthwhile. Their excitement reminded me to keep a pure and simple heart every day and led me to reflect that God values our innermost beings most. It also prompted me to ask myself: Do I truly possess a pure and humble heart to follow the Lord?

While there, I also visited several impoverished families. Though destitute and living in conditions unfit for habitation by Hong Kong standards, they sang hymns and worshiped God from the depths of their hearts that evening. This sight moved me to tears. Additionally, I visited a newly established primary school in the rural outskirts. Despite being church-run, it even had young monks attending classes. I pray the Lord to bestow His grace upon that land and lead more teachers to come and teach them.

The multitude of ministries there is beyond counting, making me keenly aware that the harvest is plentiful but the laborers are few. After returning to Hong Kong that time, I visited various churches to share my experiences and insights, hoping that more brothers and sisters in Christ would learn about the Abundant Life Church, so they may give offerings generously, pray persistently, and work together to bless the churches in Myanmar.

Embracing the Missionary Vision

Through the ministry in Myanmar, God has given me a vision for mission. May God grant me His heart for the needy and persecuted. Let me not only worship Him sincerely but also lead all nations and peoples to know Him. Even if a lifetime of mission yields only a small harvest, how wonderful it would be if it could bring us, His creation, into fellowship with the Triune Creator, singing praises to Him with joyful voices!

On August 9, 2024, I turned thirty. I am grateful that I was in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, at that time, participating in a mission trip. Under the guidance of the Rev. Eric Wing-mun Tong and the Rev. Chi-kwong Chung, I was inspired to reflect on the idea of “establishing oneself at thirty”: First, I asked myself, “Why does the Lord give me all these gifts?” Then, I asked myself, “Why have I not girded my loins and set out, now that my youth is past? Why wait until old age overtakes me?” Thus, I resolved to answer God's call, enter the seminary for training, and aspire to be used by Him.

Lord, though I am weak and inadequate, I ask for Your grace and love. Send me forth and use me. I desire to follow You all my life! Amen!

大埔宏福苑火灾

大埔宏福苑火灾

Learn More

林天佑

新约助理教授

Daniel Lam

Assistant Professor of New Testament

再思保罗笔下的普纽玛

　　使徒保罗写希腊文πνεῦμα（音译：普纽玛 / pneuma）一词时，心中所指的是甚么？对大多数现代读者而言，答案似乎非常简单：人的灵或圣灵，后者即三一神的第三位格，一位赐人安慰、使人信服、满有能力的神圣施动者。我们很自然就想起这个神学解读，恍如理所当然的答案；读者和译者都几乎本能地如此理解。但近年有人却质疑该否把πνεῦμα译作「灵」。本文旨在探讨这些异议，并探索以其他方式翻译πνεῦμα一词的可能性。

　　现代学术界对这个问题的研究历来展现出神学进路与历史进路之间的张力。二十世纪初，衮克尔（Hermann Gunkel）提出二分法，将保罗书信中的普纽玛从其旧约及希腊化犹太教的根源割裂出来，放进「超自然」与自然二元对立的框架。此举影响深远，因这框架后来由布特曼（Rudolf Bultmann）和盖士曼（Ernst Käsemann）等巨擘进一步发展。他们深具路德宗特色的解读，巩固了一种「灵意」诠释法，强调内在主观的宗教体验。在这个学术流派里，灵就等同于信仰的内在生命，这却往往忽略了其宇宙层面和形体层面。

　　二十世纪末出现了重要的修正，有学者坚持采用较有历史根据的「物理主义」（“physicalist”）解读方式。戴尔‧马丁（Dale Martin）的著作《哥林多身体论》（The Corinthian Body, 1995）具有开创性意义，阐明保罗的听众是如何从整体性的古代宇宙观去理解身体和灵；在这宇宙观里，物质与灵相互交织。其后，恩贝格—佩德森（Troels Engberg-Pedersen）在《使徒保罗的宇宙论与自我》（Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul, 2010）一书主张，该从斯多亚主义（Stoic）的视角解读保罗书信中的「普纽玛」，那是宇宙中具智慧之「气」，是构成并联合万物的。这些研究标志着重大的转向，学者开始认真对待保罗所展现的物质观。这意味着搁下「后笛卡儿」（post-Cartesian）的观念：视「灵」为非物质的个人感受；并且重拾古时的实体理解：视普纽玛为实体物质。对这些学者而言，要重拾这个解读，最关键的钥匙就是斯多亚哲学，因为那是保罗身处的希腊罗马世界的主导思想体系。

普纽玛――斯多亚学派所说的物质？

　　对斯多亚学派而言，普纽玛并非灵魂或非物质存有，而是宇宙性的生命力，是气与火的混合体，具智慧的，渗透万物并构成整个宇宙。它是绳索的张力、植物的生长、人类的理性思维、星辰的构成物质。这普纽玛既神圣又理性，且完全是物质的。它构成存有的层级体系（hierarchy of being），从沉重坚实的岩石到虚无飘渺的神明，物质与神性之间并没有不可逾越的鸿沟。

　　恩贝格—佩德森主张，保罗的听众――无论是犹太人或外邦人――都沉浸于这种思想氛围。当保罗谈论普纽玛，他们就联想起这宇宙性、赋予生命力的物质。因此，将普纽玛惯性地译做无形无体的「圣灵」，实属时代错置，把心灵与身体二元对立的现代观念引入经文；这对保罗来说，是陌生的想法。要正确解读保罗的观点，恩贝格—佩德森认为我们必须按字面意思去理解他这个有关物质的用语：普纽玛是一种东西，可倾流，可饮用，可灌注；它是有形有体的实在，能由内而外转化信徒。

　　从斯多亚物质观的视角去看普纽玛，将彻底重塑我们如何解读那些熟悉的经文。先看哥林多前书十五章44至45节保罗怎样论述复活的身体。此处保罗将死去的「血肉的身体」（σῶμα ψυχικόν）与复活的「灵性的身体」（σῶμα πνευματικόν）作对比，最终震撼地宣言：复活的基督已成为「赐生命的普纽玛」（和合本：「叫人活的灵」）。传统的解读将「灵性的身体」理解为满有荣耀、永不朽坏的身体，是由圣灵引导的，而基督或是拥有圣灵，或是与圣灵同行。然而，恩贝格—佩德森提出新的见解，将这两节经文连系于保罗在上文十五章40至41节有关日月等天体的论述。他认为对保罗而言，「灵性的身体」实际上是由「普纽玛物质」（pneuma-stuff）构成的躯体，这好像斯多亚学派对星辰的理解，他们认为星辰就是由这种精纯、神圣的物质组成。因此，基督作为「末后的亚当」，不仅是领受了圣灵，祂复活的存在形态就是普纽玛。祂成为那赋予生命的物质之源，而这物质终必重构信徒的形体。按此诠释，复活不单是恢复生命，更是转化肉身成为全然崭新、属普纽玛体系的存有形态。

　　第二个例子是罗马书五章5节，保罗写道：「因为所赐给我们的圣灵（pneuma）将神的爱浇灌在我们心里。」（和合本）传统的解读将这句话看成一个美丽的隐喻，描述圣灵赋予我们内在情感的确据，表明我们领受了神的爱。然而，按物质观解读，则可看出更为直接的含义。根据古代医学理论「普纽玛论」（Pneumatism，或译作「气论」），普纽玛是一种透过呼吸进入人体的外界物质，经心脏处理后，由动脉输送到身体各处，调控人的思想和行动。当保罗说普纽玛被「浇灌在我们心里」，描述的也许是真实的生理过程：神圣普纽玛实质地注入信徒的心脏中枢，物理性地改变其体质，使他们能按照神的爱行事。根据这个观点，这个改变同时涉及认知和身体，是整个人内外彻底的转化。

反对意见：两大批判

　　尽管这观点日益受到重视，但其物质观论述却遭到其他顶尖学者批评。巴克礼（John Barclay）及利维森（John Levison）精准地指出了恩贝格—佩德森的观点中的张力。

　　巴克礼指出，恩贝格—佩德森的理论虽然在哲学层面十分精确严密，却忽略了保罗神学的核心：基督事件所带来的彻底、颠覆性的崭新。对保罗而言，普纽玛并非先存的宇宙性物质，仅是从天上传送到地上；它乃基督的复活所释放出来的终末实体，是前所未有的「新创造」（林后五17）。对于哥林多前书第十五章，巴克礼驳斥那明确指称日、月、星辰等「天体」为「灵性的 / 由普纽玛组成的」之说法。他主张保罗的重点，是强调神的能力，能赋予万物各有其形体，而非勾勒斯多亚学派的自然阶梯（scala naturae，即存有的层级体系）。第45节所说的「赐生命的普纽玛」是指复活的大能，而非更高层次的宇宙性物质。巴克礼警告说，若将其简化为斯多亚物理学，则无异于将复活贬低为「对既有宇宙元素的重新组合」。

　　然而，不将「灵性与物质」二元对立的现代概念加诸保罗身上，这点却是重要的。因此，翻译πνεῦμα时，采用音译（「普纽玛」）正好可以是一种手段，让我们暂时搁下自己的神学预设，从而聆听保罗话语的本意。运用这个手段，我们就可以看见保罗是使用了当时最能表达转化力量的用语――一种神圣、转化生命的物质――来描述在基督里的新生命。我们无须因而断言保罗是斯多亚学派信徒，或将普纽玛视为「仅仅」医学上的「气」。这只是表明：保罗运用了这套概念体系来阐述那难以言喻的「崭新性」，那就是巴克礼想要维护的。这「崭新」在于神在基督里成就的救赎行动；但其描述方式，却用了第一世纪当代的物质观念。

　　利维森则赞同普纽玛具有实质性的维度，但批评恩贝格—佩德森运用斯多亚主义的手法有选择性，有时甚至显得牵强，而且忽视保罗的犹太传统观念有更丰富的对应元素。他特别提出两项疑虑：首先，恩贝格—佩德森援引的斯多亚范例，例如宇宙大火（ἔκπυρωσις）或西塞罗（Cicero）对占卜的随笔论述，并不能有力地解释普纽玛在信徒身上持续的转化工作。而且事实上，按照斯多亚学派对启示的描述，例如记述德尔斐城（Delphi）的神谕时，是将普纽玛描绘为地表的蒸气或微风，而非宣讲时在话语中流动的物质。其次，更关键的是，恩贝格—佩德森很少触及犹太经典，而其中所描写的普纽玛是既具实体，又可感知。他列举例子：那降临在众长老身上、使他们能管治百姓的「灵」（民十一25），在但以理里头那使人有智慧的「卓越的灵」（但五12，和合本作「美好的灵性」），以及那催迫以利户吐露智慧之言的「灵」（伯三十二18-20）。死海古卷也描绘一个被灵转化并授予知识的群体。对利维森而言，与抽象的斯多亚物理学相比，这些犹太思想体系才更可能、更直接地是保罗思想的主要背景。

　　暂且撇开利维森那错将犹太教与希腊罗马世界割裂的二分法（参亨格尔着《犹太教与希腊化》〔Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism〕，该著作的观点已成为学术界共识，即人无法将犹太教与其周遭文化分割），我们仍可顾及利维森的疑虑，同时又保留物质观的洞见。在整个希腊化世界（包括犹太地区），医学毕竟是一种共通的文化语言。像保罗这样的希腊化犹太人，能轻易将犹太观念的ruach（和合本译作「灵」，指神满有能力、赋予生命的气），与当代医学界视普纽玛（pneuma，或译「气」）为赋予活力、具形体的物质这种理解，融合起来。因此，若采纳「医学上」的普纽玛这个观点，就不是选择「希腊文化」而舍弃「犹太文化」，而是指出有一种流通的共同知识，人可藉此用物理的观念来理解犹太神学的概念。这可以回应利维森的批评，给予一个令人满意的解答：保罗笔下普纽玛的物质性，不一定只是源自斯多亚哲学，也可能源于犹太神学与古代地中海世界广泛流行的生物医学概念两者的融合――这与斐罗（Philo）在其著作的做法别无二致。

综论：关键何在？

　　在此我们必须承认，「普纽玛」一词确实可能含有斯多亚主义的意涵。恩贝格—佩德森正确指出，对于第一世纪保罗的听众而言，这词使人想起一种实体的、宇宙性的、能赋予生命的物质。但我们也必须注意恩贝格—佩德森论点的局限：保罗书信中的普纽玛，绝非仅是斯多亚派所说的宇宙性物质。有些经文明确描述普纽玛有具位格的行为：普纽玛「用说不出来的叹息替我们祷告」（罗八26）；「随己意分给各人」（林前十二11）；会「担忧」（弗四30）。这些绝非纯粹实体的「物质」所能做到；这暗示普纽玛是一个具备情感、意志、能与他者建立关系的位格（person）。将普纽玛约化为纯粹斯多亚主义的物质，便忽略了保罗神学中这至关重要的位格层面。

　　因此，对于恩贝格—佩德森的论点，我们需要修正，而非全盘接受。他正确地提醒我们须注意普纽玛的物质层面，但其诠释方式过度强调其与斯多亚主义的延续性，没有充分考虑保罗描述的普纽玛具有位格特质，以及基督事件所带来的彻底崭新。对细心的读者而言，获取最透彻理解的途径，或许正在于持守这种张力：既知道普纽玛在古代语境中有物质的含意，同时承认其在保罗书信中具位格的角色。

认真对待这场辩论

　　在此必须澄清：要从这场讨论中获益，我们无须完全接受恩贝格—佩德森的论点，亦不必断言保罗是斯多亚学派信徒（事实上，恩贝格—佩德森从未如此要求）。身为基督徒的我们，若重视神的话语（在这例子，即保罗实际说的话）就必须保持开放的态度，承认我们对普纽玛的理解可能存在不足，需要修正或深化。恩贝格—佩德森的论点或许并非全然正确，但他提出了一个值得严肃思考的问题：现代文化的预设，是否导致我们忽略了保罗原本想要传达的某些面向？

　　翻译πνεῦμα时，采用音译，正好可以是一种手段，帮助我们认真对待这个问题。这没有强迫我们接受任何特定的结论，却创造出一个空间，让我们可停下来问：「保罗在此使用『普纽玛』一词，究竟是指甚么？」这种好发问的态度，就是力求更忠于圣经的表现，承认神的启示或比我们所理解的更为丰富深邃，并容许圣经文本挑战我们，而非单单用来印证我们自以为已知的观念。

　　值得注意的是，翻译保罗书信中的πνεῦμα时，采用音译，尤其具说服力。因为我们能相当具体地指出谁是保罗的听众（第一世纪希腊罗马世界的犹太人及外邦人社群），以及他所处的历史背景（斯多亚主义和医学理论盛行的时期）。在这特定的历史背景下，保罗的听众对「普纽玛」的理解，远比现代读者更贴近这个词的丰富文化内涵。因此，至少对于保罗书信，翻译时采用音译（「普纽玛」）而不意译作「灵」，更能帮助我们避免时代错置，以及更忠实地领会保罗想要传达的意思。

总结

　　说到底，翻译πνεῦμα时，采用音译，并非懒惰，亦非回避译者的职责；这反而是更深地忠于原文的表现。这激励我们持续探索，让保罗亲自向我们阐明普纽玛的真义。在这段探索过程中，我们不仅更深认识保罗，也更深认识那位透过他向人说话的神。

（翻译：陈秀媚）

Rethinking Pneuma in Paul

When the Apostle Paul wrote πνεῦμα, what did he have in mind? For most modern readers, the answer seems straightforward: human or holy spirit, that is, the Third Person of the Trinity, a divine agent of comfort, conviction, and power. This theological reading is so natural that it feels obvious, and it is almost instinctive to readers and translators. But recently, this translation has been challenged. This article seeks to discuss what those objections are and explore the possibility of translating πνεῦμα differently.

The history of modern scholarship shows a persistent tension between theological and historical approaches. In the early 20th century, Hermann Gunkel proposed dichotomies that separated Pauline pneuma from its Old Testament and Hellenistic Jewish roots and framed it as “supernatural” versus natural. This move proved to be influential as this framework was adopted by important figures like Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Käsemann, whose deeply Lutheran readings further solidified a “spiritualizing” interpretation that prioritized inner, subjective religious experience. In this stream of scholarship, pneuma became synonymous with the inner life of faith, often at the expense of its cosmic and corporeal dimensions.

At the end of the 20th century, a significant corrective emerged, with scholars who insisted on a more historically grounded, “physicalist” reading. Dale Martin's The Corinthian Body (1995) was groundbreaking, showing how Paul's audience understood bodies and spirits within a holistic ancient cosmology where the physical and spiritual were intertwined. Troels Engberg-Pedersen then argued in Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul (2010) for reading Pauline pneuma through a Stoic lens, as the cosmic, intelligent “breath” that constitutes and unifies all matter. These works represent a major shift, taking Paul's materialism seriously. This means setting aside our post-Cartesian idea of “spirit” as a non-material, private feeling, and recovering the ancient, concrete understanding of pneuma as a physical substance. For these scholars, the most helpful key to this recovery is Stoic philosophy, the dominant intellectual framework of Paul's Greco-Roman world.

Why a Stoic, Material Pneuma?

For the Stoics, pneuma is not a ghost or immaterial being. It is the cosmic life-force, an intelligent mixture of air and fire that permeates and structures the universe. It is the tension in a rope, the growth in a plant, the rational mind of a human, and the substance of the stars. This pneuma is divine, rational, and utterly material. It constitutes a hierarchy of being, from dense rocks to rarified gods, with no unbridgeable chasm between the physical and the divine.

Engberg-Pedersen argues that Paul's audiences—Jew and Gentile alike—breathed this intellectual air. When Paul spoke of pneuma, they would have heard echoes of this cosmic, animating substance. The automatic translation of pneuma as a disembodied “Spirit” is therefore an anachronism, importing a modern mind/body dualism that would have been foreign to Paul. To read him correctly, Engberg-Pedersen contends, we must take his physical language literally: pneuma is a stuff that can be poured, drunk, and infused; it transforms the believer from the inside out via a tangible, physiological reality.

　　Viewing pneuma through this Stoic, materialist lens dramatically reshapes how we read familiar passages. Consider first Paul's discussion of the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15:44-45. Here Paul contrasts the “natural body” (σῶμα ψυχικόν) sown in death with the “spiritual body” (σῶμα πνευματικόν) raised in life, culminating in his striking declaration that the risen Christ became a “life-giving pneuma.” The conventional reading understands the “spiritual body” as a glorified, immortal body oriented by the Holy Spirit, with Christ either possessing the Spirit or being accompanied by him. But Engberg-Pedersen offers a different perspective by connecting this passage to Paul's earlier mention of heavenly bodies like the sun and moon in 1 Corinthians 15:40-41. He argues that for Paul, a σῶμα πνευματικόν is a body actually made of pneuma-stuff, analogous to the Stoic understanding of stars as composed of this refined, divine substance. Thus Christ, as the “last Adam,” has not merely received the Spirit; rather, his resurrected mode of existence is pneuma itself. He becomes the source of that life-giving, material substance that will ultimately reconstitute believers. In this reading, resurrection is not merely a restoration of life but a physical transformation into an entirely new, pneumatic order of being.

A second example comes from Romans 5:5, where Paul writes that “God's love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit (pneuma) who has been given to us” (NIV). The conventional reading takes this as a beautiful metaphor for the internal, emotional assurance of God's love provided by the Holy Spirit. But the materialist reading reveals something more literal. Following ancient medical theories known as Pneumatism, pneuma was understood as an external substance drawn into the body through breathing, processed by the heart, and then channeled through the arteries to govern thoughts and actions. When Paul speaks of pneuma being “poured into our hearts,” he may be describing an actual physiological process: the divine pneuma is literally infused into the cardiac centre of the believer, physically altering his/her constitution and enabling him/her to act in accordance with God's love. The change, in this view, is simultaneously cognitive and corporeal—a transformation of the whole person, inside and out.

Scholarly Pushback: Two Major Critiques

While this view is gaining momentum, this materialist thesis has faced criticism from other leading scholars. John Barclay and John Levison pinpoint two major tensions in Engberg-Pedersen's proposal.

　　Barclay argues that Engberg-Pedersen's model, for all its philosophical precision, misses the core of Paul's theology: the radical, disruptive newness of the Christ event. For Paul, the pneuma is not a pre-existing cosmic substance simply transferred from heaven to earth. It is an unprecedented, eschatological entity unleashed by Christ's resurrection, a “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17). Regarding 1 Corinthians 15, Barclay disputes the claim that “heavenly bodies” such as the sun, moon, and stars are explicitly called “pneumatic.” Paul's point, he contends, is God's power to give each its own kind of body, not to outline a Stoic scala naturae or hierarchy of being. The “life-giving pneuma” in verse 45 is the power of resurrection itself, not a higher-grade cosmic material. To reduce it to Stoic physics, Barclay warns, is to turn the resurrection into a mere “reordering of already-existing cosmic elements.”

However, it is important to avoid imposing modern, dualist categories of “spiritual vs. material” onto Paul altogether. As such, to transliterate pneuma is precisely a tool to suspend our theological assumptions long enough to hear Paul on his own terms. Using this tool, we can see that Paul describes the new life in Christ using the best available language of his day for a transformative power, namely, the language of a divine, life-altering substance. This does not require us to claim that Paul was a Stoic or that the pneuma is “just” medical pneuma. It simply asserts that this was the conceptual tool Paul employed to articulate the very ineffable newness that Barclay wants to protect. The “newness” resides in the salvific action of God in Christ; the mechanism of description, however, is the contemporary materialist framework of the first-century world.

　　Levison, for his part, agrees that pneuma has a concrete dimension but charges Engberg-Pedersen with a selective and sometimes strained use of Stoicism, while neglecting the richer parallels in Paul's Jewish heritage. He raises two specific concerns. First, the Stoic models Engberg-Pedersen employs, such as the cosmic conflagration (ἔκπυρωσις) or a passing comment from Cicero on divination, do not convincingly explain the ongoing, transformative work of pneuma in believers. Meanwhile, actual Stoic accounts of inspiration, such as those describing the oracle at Delphi, portray pneuma as a terrestrial vapor or breeze, not as a substance flowing through preached words. Second, and more centrally, Levison points to the dearth of engagement with Jewish texts where pneuma is also depicted as both concrete and cognitive. He cites the “spirit” placed upon the elders to govern (Nm 11:25), the “excellent spirit” of wisdom in Daniel (Dn 5:12), and the spirit that besieges Elihu, forcing out wise speech (Jb 32:18-20). The Dead Sea Scrolls, too, present a community transformed and granted knowledge by the spirit. For Levison, this Jewish matrix provides a more direct and likely foreground for Paul's thinking than an abstracted Stoic physics.

Setting aside Levison's misguided dichotomy of Judaism and the Greco-Roman world (see Hengel's Judaism and Hellenism, which has become a scholarly consensus; one cannot separate Judaism from its surrounding culture), there is a way to honor Levison's concerns while retaining materialist insight. Medicine, after all, was a shared cultural vernacular across the Hellenistic world, including Judea. A Hellenistic Jew like Paul could easily integrate the Jewish concept of ruach (understood as God's powerful, life-giving breath) with contemporary medical understandings of pneuma as an animating bodily substance. To argue for a “medical” pneuma, then, is not to choose “Greek” over “Jewish.” Rather, it is to identify the common intellectual currency through which Jewish theological concepts could be understood in physical terms. This provides a more satisfying answer to Levison's critique: the physicality of pneuma in Paul needs not come exclusively from Stoic philosophy. It could just as plausibly emerge from the synthesis of Jewish theology and the widespread biomedical concepts that permeated the ancient Mediterranean world, not dissimilar from what Philo did in his work.

Synthesis: What Is at Stake?

Here we must acknowledge that pneuma may indeed carry Stoic connotations. Engberg-Pedersen correctly observes that for Paul's first-century audience, the word pneuma would have evoked a material, cosmic, life-giving substance. Yet we must also attend to the limits of Engberg-Pedersen's argument. The pneuma in Paul's letters is not merely Stoic cosmic matter. Certain passages attribute unmistakably personal actions to pneuma: it “intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words” (Rom 8:26 NABS); it “apportions to each one individually as he wills” (1 Cor 12:11 ESV); it can be “grieved” (Eph 4:30). These are not things that a mere material “substance” can do; they imply a person with emotions, will, and relational capacity. To reduce pneuma entirely to Stoic matter is to miss this crucial personal dimension in Paul's theology.

Thus, Engberg-Pedersen's thesis requires correction, not wholesale acceptance. He rightly alerts us to the material dimension of pneuma, but his model overemphasizes Stoic continuity and fails to fully account for the personhood Paul attributes to pneuma and the radical newness introduced by the Christ event. For careful readers, the path to the richest understanding may lie precisely in holding this tension: recognizing the concrete, material connotations of pneuma in its ancient context while also acknowledging its personal role in Paul's letters.

Taking the Debate Seriously

An important clarification is necessary here: we need not fully accept Engberg-Pedersen's thesis, nor must we claim that Paul was a Stoic, in order to benefit from this discussion (in fact, Engberg-Pedersen never made such a claim). As Christians, if we care about God's word, in this case what Paul actually said, we must remain open to the possibility that our understanding of pneuma may be incomplete and need correction or enrichment. Engberg-Pedersen's argument may not be entirely correct, but he has raised a question worth taking seriously: Have our modern cultural assumptions caused us to miss certain dimensions of what Paul originally intended to communicate?

Transliterating pneuma is precisely the tool that helps us take this question seriously. It does not force us to accept any particular conclusion, but rather creates a space where we can pause and ask: “What did Paul mean when he used the word pneuma here?” This questioning is an act of greater faithfulness to Scripture. It acknowledges that God's revelation may be richer and deeper than we have yet understood, and it allows the biblical text to challenge us rather than merely confirming what we already think we know.

It is worth noting that this practice of transliterating pneuma is particularly compelling in the case of Paul's letters. This is because we can identify with reasonable specificity both Paul's audience (communities of Jews and Gentiles in the first-century Greco-Roman world) and his historical context (a period when Stoicism and medical theories were prevalent). In this particular historical setting, Paul's listeners would have understood pneuma in ways far closer to the word's rich cultural connotations than modern readers do. Therefore, at least in the case of Paul's letters, using the transliteration pneuma rather than translating it as “Spirit” can better help us avoid anachronism and more faithfully hear what Paul intended to communicate.

Conclusion

In the end, transliterating pneuma is not an act of laziness or an evasion of the translator's task. It is an expression of deeper faithfulness to the text. It invites us into an ongoing exploration, allowing Paul himself to tell us what his pneuma truly means. In the course of this exploration, we come to know better not only Paul but also the God who spoke through him.

蓝志扬

基督教教育助理教授

Chi-yeung Lam

Assistant Professor of Christian Education

超越「预设」的上帝

　　马大、马利亚需要甚么？

　　约翰福音第十一章记载了拉撒路复活的神迹。经文记载耶稣和门徒来到伯大尼时，拉撒路已经安葬四日，亲友从各地赶来慰问。马大听见耶稣到来，就急忙出村迎接；当马利亚见到耶稣，就俯伏在祂脚前，哭着说：「主啊，你若早在这里，我兄弟必不死。」这句话与马大先前所说的如出一辙，表达了对耶稣「迟来」的遗憾。

　　马大和马利亚深信耶稣能医治重病，但她们的认知却停留在「有限复活」的层面，未曾想过耶稣能够在末日之前，叫一位已死四日、甚至发臭的人复活。她们为耶稣设下时间限制，认为「早到」才有可能，「现在」已经太迟。这种想法某程度上限制了耶稣的能力。

　　马大和马利亚并非没有听闻过死人复活的事迹。旧约里，以利亚和以利沙都曾使死人复活；新约里，耶稣也曾使睚鲁的女儿和拿因城寡妇的儿子复活。作为耶稣的挚友，她们理应知道耶稣拥有超越死亡的大能。然而，当苦难临到自己的家，她们就陷入负面思维，认为「迟来」等于「无可能、无法逆转」。这种反应的确是世人真实的经验。或许，我们在困境中也曾为上帝设限：「如果早一点……」、「如果当时……」，这些想法往往源于我们对上帝持有某种「预设」。

团契与培育韧性

　　拉撒路最终奇妙地复活了，但这神迹毕竟是特例。在现实生活，一般人还是要面对亲友离世后的漫长岁月，以及如何在哀伤中继续生活。

　　「社会情绪选择理论」指出，个人经历了生命的重大事件（如疫情、灾难），心态可能出现显著转变：他们开始将生活焦点转向那些对情感有意义的行为，更多倾向与亲密的亲友互动。这种选择性的社交模式，表面看似缩小了社交圈子，实则强化了情感支援的素质和深度。这观点与信仰群体的经验一致。有深度的团契生活，正是建立心理韧性的重要养分。当我们在教会不只是维持表面的寒暄关系，而是建立生命与生命的真实连结，这种支援系统就能够在风暴中成为我们的避难所。

祷告与生命韧性

　　一項針對美國慢性病患者長達六年的追蹤研究，揭示了禱告與生存韌性的關聯。^* 一项针对美国慢性病患者长达六年的追踪研究，揭示了祷告与生存韧性的关联。^* 在控制多项变数后，研究发现每日作私祷的病人，六年后的生存率显著高于不常祈祷者。虽然其中确切的机制仍需深入研究，但研究人员推断，祷告带来的「希望感」是关键因素。当信徒在祷告中持续将难以掌控的事情（如病情）交托给上帝，这重复的肯定和交托，能够带来心灵的平安和释放。从生理层面看，这有助减少压力荷尔蒙的分泌，降低对健康的负面影响。这正提醒我们，祷告不仅是属灵的操练，也是全人健康的根基。在祷告里，我们承认自己的有限，并且同时经历上帝的无限和同在。

眼动治疗

　　除了团契和祷告，现代心理学也提出一些建立情绪韧性的实用方法，例如「眼动身心重建法」（Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing，简称EMDR），中文简称「眼动治疗」。若在二十年前谈论眼动治疗，或许会引起误解，因为治疗时，治疗师的手指在患者眼前左右移动，看起来有些像民间宗教的施法。然而，这套疗法的起源其实非常生活化：创始人夏皮罗（Francine Shapiro）在公园散步时，无意间发现当眼睛随着景物左右规律运动后，自己的负面情绪竟明显减少了。随后，她展开多年的临床测试，而这套治疗方法也逐渐获得医学界肯定。这给我们一个实用的启发：当你发现自己陷入负面情绪，甚至像马大和马利亚那样被哀伤笼罩，就不妨效法夏皮罗，到公园散散步，让眼睛自然地左右转动，看看两旁的风景。这简单的动作对舒缓情绪应该有所帮助。（当然，若发现情绪问题越来越严重，就务必寻求专业的医疗或心理辅导。）

　　「韧性」一词近年备受关注，在中国内地誉为2025年的关键词。这反映不少人正身处不确定的外在环境，内心焦虑不安，甚至影响个人生活及群体协作。我们心底里渴望自己不受制于环境，能够继续向前迈进。回顾拉撒路的故事，马大和马利亚见证了超越她们想象的神迹。愿我们在团契生活和个人祷告的操练中，能够建立身心灵的韧性。

____________________________________________

^* Gail Ironson and Salman Shaheen Ahmad, “Frequency of Private Prayer Predicts Survival Over 6 Years in a Nationwide U.S. Sample ofIndividuals with a Chronic Illness,” Journal of Religion and Health 63.4 (August 2024): 2910-2923〔网上文章〕；取自Springer Nature Link网页（https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-023-01870-z）；浏览于2026年3月1日。

God is beyond Our “Assumptions”

What did Martha and Mary need?

John 11 records the miracle of Lazarus' resurrection. By the time Jesus and His disciples arrived in Bethany, Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days, and relatives and friends had gathered to offer their condolences. When Martha heard of Jesus' coming, she hurried out of the village to meet Him. When Mary saw Jesus, she fell at His feet and wept, saying, ’Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.’ These words echoed Martha's earlier statement, expressing sorrow over what seemed to be Jesus' “delayed arrival.”

Martha and Mary were convinced that Jesus could heal serious illnesses, though their understanding of resurrection was limited. They never imagined that Jesus could raise someone before the last day, even one who had been dead for four days and whose body had already begun to decay. They assumed there was a time limit to His power, believing healing was possible only if He had arrived “early,” and that “now” was already too late. In this way, their thinking reveals they perceived Jesus' power to be restricted in this way.

However, Martha and Mary were familiar with the stories of resurrection. In the Old Testament, Elijah and Elisha raise the dead; in the New Testament, Jesus raises Jairus' daughter and the widow's son at Nain. As close friends of Jesus, they surely knew that He possessed power over death. However, when suffering struck their own family, in their grief, they fell into a negative mindset, believing that ’delayed“ meant ”impossible“ or ”irreversible.“ That is a very human response. Perhaps, in our own struggles, we too assume limits to God: ”If only it happened sooner …“ or ”If only we had acted back then …“ These thoughts often stem from certain ”assumptions“ we hold about God.

Fellowship and Resilience

Lazarus was miraculously raised from the dead, but after all, this event is an exception. In everyday life, most people must endure the long years that follow the loss of loved ones and seek ways to continue despite their grief.

The Socioemotional Selectivity Theory (SST) suggests that when individuals encounter major life events—such as a pandemic or natural disaster—their mindset may undergo a significant shift: they refocus on emotionally meaningful behaviors and tend to deepen ties with close friends and family. While this selective social pattern may appear to narrow one's social circle, it actually enhances the quality and depth of emotional support. This dynamic closely parallels the experience of faith communities. A meaningful fellowship life is precisely what nourishes psychological resilience. When we go beyond superficial small talk and build genuine, heart-to-heart connections in church, this support system becomes our refuge in the storm of life.

Prayer and Resilience

A six-year longitudinal study of patients with chronic illnesses in the United States revealed a positive link between prayer and resilience. ^* After controlling for a range of variables, the study found that patients who engaged in daily private prayer had a significantly higher survival rate than those who prayed less frequently. Although the mechanism requires further investigation, researchers suggested that the “sense of hope” derived from prayer may play a key role. When believers consistently entrust matters beyond their control—such as illness—to God in prayer, this repeated affirmation and entrustment foster peace and consolation. Physiologically, such practices help lower stress hormone levels, thereby reducing negative health impacts. This reminds us that prayer is not only a spiritual discipline but also the foundation of holistic well-being. In prayer, we admit our own limits while simultaneously experiencing God's infinite power and presence.

Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing

In addition to fellowship and prayer, modern psychology has developed practical methods for fostering emotional resilience, such as Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR). If we talked about EMDR twenty years ago, it might be misunderstood, because during the therapy, the therapist moves his or her fingers back and forth in front of the patient's eyes, somewhat like a ritual performed in folk religions. Yet its origins are simple: its founder, Francine Shapiro, was once taking a walk in the park when she accidentally discovered that as her eyes moved rhythmically from side to side, her negative emotions noticeably diminished. She subsequently conducted years of clinical trials, and this therapeutic approach has gradually gained recognition in the medical community. This offers us a practical insight: when you feel stuck in negative emotions—or even overwhelmed by grief, as Martha and Mary were—you might follow Shapiro's example and take a walk in the park, allowing your eyes to move naturally from side to side as you observe the scenery. Such a simple act may help ease your emotions. (Of course, if distress becomes severe, seek professional medical or psychological counseling.)

The term “resilience” has gained significant attention in recent years and topped the list of buzzwords of 2025 in mainland China. This reflects the reality that many people are navigating uncertain external environments, experiencing anxiety and unease that may impact both their personal lives and collective cooperation. Deep down, we long to break free from circumstantial constraints and continue moving forward. Reflecting on the story of Lazarus, Martha, and Mary, we find a miracle beyond their imaginations. May we cultivate resilience in mind, body, and spirit through fellowship and personal prayer, finding strength in God together.

____________________________________________

^* Gail Ironson and Salman Shaheen Ahmad, “Frequency of Private Prayer Predicts Survival Over 6 Years in a Nationwide U.S. Sample ofIndividuals with a Chronic Illness,” Journal of Religion and Health 63.4 (August 2024): 2910-2923 [article online]; available from Springer Nature Link website (https: //doi.org/10.1007/s10943-023-01870-z); accessed 1 March 2026.

璩理

基督教思想助理教授

Curie Qu

Assistant Professor of Christian Thought

三类苦罪

　　每当世界发生重大灾难，信仰群体中就常常有人再次提出神正论（Theodicy，或作：神义论）来反复讨论。由于受灾情影响，这类讨论往往夹杂着强烈的情绪，难以保持平静和理性。当今时代，信息流通异常迅速，只要稍有不慎，信徒的一些表述就可能触发受灾群体及公众的敏感情绪。所以我们反思、讨论这些问题时，先要祷告，求神赐给我们同情的心、智慧的脑、谨慎的口。

　　在神的创造秩序中，可以识别出三类主要的苦罪：（1）道德罪恶：人类滥用自由意志而犯下的罪行，如屠杀、偷窃、背叛等；（2）自然灾难：人类即使采取了最好的预防措施，也无法避免的灾祸，如地震、火灾、车祸等；（3）生命苦痛：无论是源于人为还是自然因素，不幸总会降临在一些人身上，如丧亲之痛、身体残疾、情绪抑郁等。这三类苦罪当然不是截然分开，而是彼此重迭，互相交织。

信仰挑战

　　这些苦罪真实存在，往往触动我们信仰的根基。信徒和非信徒都有可能从这三个角度挑战基督教信仰：（1）逻辑问题：陈述一「神是全能和全善的」与陈述二「苦罪存在」，在逻辑上不相容；（2）实证问题：苦罪的存在就是否定神存在的证据──要么神不存在，要么神不是全能或全善；（3）实存问题：撇下纯理性的争论，我们事实上被各种苦难缠绕，叫人叹息：「这没意义啊！」、「这不应该发生啊！至少不应该发生在我身上！」

　　对于来自逻辑和实证方面的挑战，萊布尼茲（G. W. Leibniz）的主张是，我们的现实世界，尽管有苦难存在，仍然是「可能的世界中最美好的一个」。神作为全知、全能且全善的存有，创造这个世界是出于最好的意图。这个世界中存在邪恶和苦难，也是为了实现更大的善或更长远的目的。黑格尔（G. W. F. Hegel）也有类似的观点，认为苦难是实现更高之善的必要条件。莱布尼兹和黑格尔的回应，是采取一种超然、远离现实灾难、纯理性的进路。这样的回应在理性上也许能够成立，但是对于现实处境中正在受苦的人群来说，将其所有苦难「合理化」，却可能同时是将具体的苦难抽象化，甚至是「虚无化」。仍受灾情困扰的人恐怕要反问：难道我现在的困难，就是神要达至最大美善的「必要代价」或「必要手段」？我只是神必胜的大棋局中一枚可以弃掉的棋子吗？

苦难就是苦难

　　「天道远，人道迩」。如果对逻辑和实证方面的回应显得太遥远（它们并非不重要，只是不一定切合受苦者的具体处境），那么我们不妨从第三个角度着手，即从现实的生存处境来正视实实在在的苦难。从受苦者的视角出发，首先就不能如前两个角度那样将苦难问题抽象化，即从苦难的笼统概念出发，在理论思维层面论证其必然性；而是要正视、认真看待真实的苦难，就苦难本身来对待苦难。其次，就是不要为每一个真实的苦难勉强找一个看似「属灵正确」的合理解释：「这是神要你放下一切，单单仰望祂」、「在伤痛中，你会更真实地经历神的恩典和眷顾」。有些苦难可能就是无意义的、全然负面的。我们不知它为何发生，为何发生在某人身上。如果一定要强作解人，为每个具体的苦难找出合理的解释，就很容易犯上约伯三友那样的错误。我们可以与哀哭的人同哀哭，也可以和伤痛的人分享约伯记，或作家杏林子（刘侠）、布道家兼激励演说家力克‧胡哲（Nick Vujicic）的生命故事。这或可帮助他们，安慰他们。当然，这也可能不行，因为别人的苦难故事和自己亲历的苦难，两者始终还有很大的距离。

承受与盼望

　　马丁路德晚年失去心爱的十三岁女儿，他说：「这感觉很奇怪，我知道她在天父那里，一切都很好，却又忍不住悲伤。」他还引用马太福音二十六章41节，感叹自己「心灵固然愿意，肉体却软弱了」。因为我们肉身软弱，在苦难中可能会质疑神，对神恼怒，祷告时说不出感谢赞美的言语，这也是人之常情──我们本来都是如此软弱的。但是另一方面，我们也应该看到：这些将残的灯火，压伤的芦苇，只要还没有熄灭，没有折断，生活就还要继续下去，信心就还要重拾；就算有些灯火真的熄灭了，有些芦苇真的折断了，那也不是最终的结局──在道路的尽头，有曾经从死里复活的主，在那里等待我们回到永恒的天家。

Three Kinds of Suffering

Whenever a major disaster occurs, faith communities often engage in renewed discussions of theodicy. Under the weight of disaster, such discussions tend to become emotionally charged, making it difficult to maintain a calm and rational spirit. In today's world, information spreads with unprecedented speed. Even the slightest misstep in a believer's words can provoke strong emotions among disaster victims and the public. Therefore, as we reflect on and discuss these issues, we must first pray, asking God to grant us compassionate hearts, wise minds, and cautious tongues.

In God's creation order, three major categories of suffering can be identified: (1) moral evils: sins committed by humans through the misuse of their free will, such as murder, theft, and betrayal; (2) natural disasters: calamities that cannot be avoided even with the best preventive measures, such as earthquakes, fires, and traffic accidents; (3) the sorrows of life: whether stemming from human or natural causes, misfortune inevitably befalls some people, such as bereavement, physical disabilities, and depression. These three categories of suffering are, of course, not strictly separate but overlap and intertwine.

Challenges to Christian Faith

Suffering and these evils are a reality that often shakes the very foundations of our faith. Both believers and non-believers may challenge the Christian faith from these three perspectives: (1) the logical problem: statement 1, “God is omnipotent and perfectly good,” and statement 2, “Evil exists,” are logically incompatible; (2) the evidential problem: the existence of evil serves as evidence against God's existence—either God does not exist, or God is not omnipotent or perfectly good; (3) the existential problem: setting aside purely rational arguments, we are in fact beset by various forms of suffering, leading us to exclaim, “This is meaningless!” or “This shouldn't be happening! At least, it shouldn't be happening to me!”

In response to the challenges from the logic and evidential problems, GW Leibniz argues that the actual world, despite the existence of suffering, is still “the best of all possible worlds.” As an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being, God created this world with the best intentions. The existence of evil and suffering in this world serves to realize a greater good or a long-term purpose. GWF Hegel holds a similar view, arguing that suffering is a necessary condition for the realization of a higher good. Both Leibniz and Hegel adopted a detached, purely rational approach that distanced themselves from the realities of disaster. While such responses may be valid on rational grounds, for those suffering in real life, “rationalizing” may abstract—or even “nullify”—their concrete experience of suffering. Those still plagued by disaster may well ask: Is my current hardship merely the “necessary cost” or “necessary means” for God to achieve the greatest good? Am I simply a disposable pawn in God's grand chess game that He will win in the end?

Seeing Suffering as Suffering

As an old Chinese saying goes, “the way of heaven is distant, but the way of humans is near.” If responses to the logic and evidential problems seem too abstract (not that they are unimportant, but that they may not fully address the circumstances of sufferers), we might approach the issue from a third perspective: viewing the concrete suffering as lived reality. From the perspective of those who suffer, we must first avoid abstracting the problem of suffering as the previous two approaches tend to do—starting with a general concept of suffering and arguing theoretically for its inevitability. Instead, we must face and take real suffering seriously, addressing suffering on its own terms. Second, we must not force a seemingly “spiritually correct” explanation onto every real suffering: “God wants you to let go of everything and look to Him alone,” or “In your pain, you will experience God's grace and care more deeply.” Some suffering may simply be gratuitous. We do not know why it occurs, nor why it afflicts a particular person. If we insist on assuming the role of an all-knowing interpreter who must find a rational explanation for every instance of suffering, we risk repeating the error made by Job's three friends. In fact, we can mourn with those who mourn. We can share with the grieving people the story of Job, or the life stories of the writer Xing Linzi (Liu Xia) and the evangelist and motivational speaker Nick Vujicic. This may help them and bring them comfort. Of course, it may not work because there is always a deep divide between accounts of others' suffering and the suffering one endures firsthand.

Endurance and Hope

When Martin Luther lost his beloved thirteen-year-old daughter in his later years, he said, “It's strange to know that she is surely at peace and that she is well off there, very well off, and yet to grieve so much!” He also quoted Matthew 26:41, lamenting, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Because our flesh is weak, we may question God in the midst of suffering, grow angry with Him, and find ourselves unable to utter words of thanksgiving and praise in prayer. This is only human—we are all inherently weak in this way. But on the other hand, we must also recognize this: As long as the smoldering wicks have not yet been quenched and the bruised reeds have not been broken, life must go on, and faith must be restored. Even if some wicks have indeed been extinguished, and some reeds have truly been broken, that is not the end—at the end of the road, the Lord who has risen from the dead awaits us there, ready to welcome us into our eternal heavenly home.

吴国杰

副院长（教务）、基督教思想（教会历史）教授

Nathan Ng

Vice President (Academic Affairs)
Professor of Christian Thought (Church History)

灾难中的初期教会

　　基督宗教从开始即面对大大小小不同的压迫和灾难。自从罗马皇帝尼禄（Nero，公元37-68年）纵火焚城并嫁祸给基督徒以后，教会便成为罗马帝国打压的非法组织。仅是坚持相信基督，就足可判以死罪。第二世纪初，巡抚小皮里纽（Pliny the Younger，公元61-113年）致信皇帝他雅努（Trajan，公元53-117年），请示如何处置基督徒，说：「在我面前有人被告发是基督徒，我就采取这些行动：我先问他们是不是基督徒；若他们承认，我就再问两三次，并以刑罚来威吓他们；若他们仍然坚持，我就下令将他们处决。」¹ 他雅努回复，指皮里纽「已采取正确的路向」，但提醒他：「人若否认自己是基督徒，务必严加验证，确定他们是敬拜我们的诸神」。²

　　君士坦丁大帝（Constantine the Great，公元 272-337年）于公元313年颁布《米兰谕旨》（Edictum Mediolanense）之前的二百多年里，基督徒遭受无数残酷的迫害。有的被集体钉死在十字架上，有的当作火把焚烧，有的在斗兽场给狮子咬死，有孩童被披上兽皮给狂犬撕咬。皇帝奥热流（Marcus Aurelius，公元121-180年）煽动暴民攻击教会；在他执政期间，基督徒「承受狂燥暴徒惯常对待其仇敌和对手的那各种羞辱」。³ 皇帝德修（Decius，公元201-252年）要求全国人民皆要向罗马的神祇「献祭、奠酒，并要品尝祭肉」，以此证明自己，违者要遭受酷刑。⁴ 皇帝戴克里先（Diocletian，公元245-311年）更下令「铲平教会，焚烧圣经」。面对无惧死亡的基督徒，他「监禁各地的教会领袖，然后用尽一切方法强迫他们献祭」，意图藉此摧毁信徒群体的信心。⁵

早期教父的提醒

　　从现存的早期教父著作可见，遭受长时间残酷迫害、陷在苦难中的初期教会并没有生出苦毒怨恨或灰心丧志；相反，信徒常从属灵角度积极面对，信靠基督，盼望将来的荣耀。这些教父对灾祸苦难的言训教导，可以归纳成以下三方面的提醒：

1. 上主在灾难中同在，给受苦的圣徒带来安慰：就如罗马长老希坡律陀（Hippolytus，约公元170-235年）所说，逼迫灾难乃源自敌基督对圣徒的攻击，然而信徒可仰望「上主从天上显现」。⁶ 这种显现可以让圣徒化危为机――或得着能力忍受痛苦，或殉道后得见主面。
2. 死亡不是生命的终结，而是暂且安息的美好时刻：特土良（Tertullian，约公元155-220年）解释马太福音六章6节时，指「内室」预表坟墓，那些在敌基督终极猛烈攻击下离世的人，可以在其中安息片时。⁷ 因此，圣徒无须惧怕苦难和死亡；离世与主同在反而值得向往。
3. 在灾难中坚忍到底的圣徒，可以得着荣耀的冠冕：爱任纽（Irenaeus，约公元125-202年）解释马太福音二十四章21节所描述的大灾难时，明言「这是义人最后的试验，得胜的可得不朽的冠冕」。⁸ 故此，圣徒应当惧怕的不是灾难，而是在信仰上因逼迫而软弱跌倒，从此失去属天的福分。

按照以上理解，圣徒可存喜乐的心积极面对各种逼迫灾难，就如使徒教父著作《黑马牧人书》（Pastor Hermae）所说：「那些在将要来临的大灾难中坚忍的人应当欢喜快乐」。⁹ 他们重视将来天上永恒的属灵生命，远多于地上短暂的肉身生命；这原则正是他们从主耶稣基督受苦受死的榜样中学习得来的。

　　今日世上也有许多苦难，有的是人明显因信仰而遭受的，这时教父的教导能给信徒适切的鼓励，但也有的是不易分辨其因由。国际间，战争导致灾民死伤无数，流离失所；地区内，人祸致使亲人生死相隔，家园尽毁。这些痛苦都是实在的，令人哀叹。无论如何，早期教父的教导也提醒信徒：切勿将眼目仅放在短暂的今世，当以属灵的眼光注视永恒的将来；相信灾难只是短暂的试炼，基督是我们随时的帮助。肉身受苦甚至受死并不可怕，只要在灾难中坚忍到底，就能得着属天荣耀的奖赏。

____________________________________________

¹ Pliny the Younger, Epistulae 10.96.
² Pliny the Younger, Epistulae 10.97.
³ Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 5.1.
⁴ George Milligan, Greek Papyri (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912), no. 48.
⁵ Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 8.2.
⁶ Hippolytus, Commentariorum in Danielem 2.7.
⁷ Tertullian, De Carne Christi 4.27.
⁸ Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 5.29.1.
⁹ Pastor Hermae, vision 2.2.

The Early Church in Tribulation

From its inception, Christianity faced oppression and tribulation of varying degrees. After the Roman Emperor Nero (37-68 AD) set fire to Rome and put the blame on the Christians, the Church became an outlawed organization under the Roman Empire. At that time, merely having faith in Christ was sufficient grounds for a death sentence. In the early second century, the governor Pliny the Younger (61-113 AD) wrote to Emperor Trajan (53-117 AD) for guidance on how to deal with Christians, saying, “For the moment this is the line I have taken with all persons brought before me on the charge of being Christians. I have asked them in person if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution.” ¹ Trajan responded, affirming that Pliny “had followed the right course of procedure,” while cautioning him: “in the case of anyone who denies that he is a Christian … make it clear that he is not by worshipping our gods.” ²

For over two centuries before Emperor Constantine the Great (272-337 AD) issued the Edictum Mediolanense in 313 AD, Christians endured countless brutal persecutions. Some were crucified en masse, burned, or torn apart by lions in the arena. Even children were clad in animal skins and devoured by rabid dogs. Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD) incited mobs to attack the Church. During his reign, Christians “endured every kind of disgrace that frenzied mobs habitually inflicted upon their enemies and adversaries.” ³ Emperor Decius (201-252 AD) demanded that all citizens must “offer sacrifices, pour libations, and partake of the sacrificial meat” to the Roman gods as proof of their allegiance, threatening torture for those who refused. ⁴ Emperor Diocletian (245-311 AD) went further, ordering churches to be “leveled to the ground and the Scriptures burned.” To subdue Christians who feared no death, he “imprisoned church leaders throughout the empire and employed every means to force them to sacrifice,” aiming to shatter the faith of the Christian community. ⁵

Exhortations from the Early Church Fathers

It is evident from the extant writings of the early Church Fathers that the early Church, enduring prolonged brutal persecution and suffering, did not give rise to bitterness, resentment, or despair. On the contrary, believers consistently confronted adversity from a spiritual perspective, placing their trust in Christ and looking forward to future glory. The teachings of these Fathers regarding tribulation and suffering can be summarized in the following three exhortations:

1. The Lord is present in tribulation, bringing comfort to suffering saints: as the presbyter Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235 AD) stated, persecution and tribulation stem from the Antichrist's assault upon the saints, yet believers may look to “the Lord appearing from heaven.” ⁶ This manifestation enables the saints to turn adversity into victory—either gaining strength to endure suffering or beholding the Lord's face after martyrdom.
2. Death is not the end of life, but a beautiful moment of temporary rest: Tertullian (c. 155-220 AD) explained Matthew 6:6, noting that “your room” symbolizes the grave, where those who depart during the fierce final assault of the Antichrist may rest for a time. ⁷ Therefore, saints need not fear suffering or death; departing to be with the Lord is something to be longed for.
3. The saints who endure to the end in tribulation shall receive the crown of glory: Irenaeus (c. 125-202 AD), interpreting the great tribulation described in Matthew 24:21, explicitly states, “This is the final trial of the righteous, and those who overcome shall receive the crown of immortality.” ⁸ Therefore, what saints should fear is not tribulation itself, but rather any weakening or falling away in their faith due to persecution, causing them to lose their portion of heavenly blessings.

According to this understanding, saints can face all kinds of persecution and tribulations with joyful hearts, as stated in the Apostolic Father's work Pastor Hermae: “Happy are you who endure the great tribulation that is at hand.” ⁹ They valued the eternal spiritual life in heaven far more than the fleeting physical life on earth. This principle is what they learned from the suffering and death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Today, the world is filled with suffering. There are afflictions that we endure clearly for the sake of faith, and in such cases, the teachings of the Church Fathers offer believers fitting encouragement. Yet, for some cases of suffering, it is harder to discern the meaning. Internationally, wars claim countless lives and leave countless displaced; locally, human-made disasters tear families apart and lay waste to homes. These sufferings are real and cause deep lamentation. Nevertheless, the early Church Fathers reminded believers: do not fix your eyes solely on this fleeting world; instead, gaze with spiritual vision toward the eternal future, believing that tribulations are but temporary trials, and Christ is our ever-present help. Physical suffering, even death, need not be dreaded. By persevering to the end amid tribulations, one will receive the heavenly reward of glory.

____________________________________________

¹ Pliny the Younger, Epistulae 10.96.
² Pliny the Younger, Epistulae 10.97.
³ Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 5.1.
⁴ George Milligan, Greek Papyri (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912), no. 48.
⁵ Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 8.2.
⁶ Hippolytus, Commentariorum in Danielem 2.7.
⁷ Tertullian, De Carne Christi 4.27.
⁸ Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 5.29.1.
⁹ Pastor Hermae, vision 2.2.

梁俊豪

新约副教授

Bernard Leung

Associate Professor of New Testament

对受苦者的两种反应

　　看到别人受苦，我们通常有两种反应：第一，与大多数人一样，我们心生同情，为别人的不幸感到难过，因而关心他们的福祉；第二，部分人能够理解受苦者的观点，并且体会他们的感受，产生共鸣。当媒体广泛报导灾难情况，我们自然对受害者产生第一种反应，这份同情推动我们关心、慰问或施予援助（例如捐款）给受苦者，期望减轻他们的苦楚。然而，我们所做的，是否真正能够帮助他们？这是十分值得探讨的问题。过度慰问可能带给受苦者压力；重复谈论灾难，也可能对他们造成二次伤害。在这种出于同情的行动，我们时常担演施予者的角色，站在安全界线之后，向受助者伸出援手，但彼此的观点和立场却可能并不相同。当媒体减少报导，我们对受苦者的诉求和处境逐渐缺乏了解，对他们的关注和同情也就逐渐减退，甚至可能以自己的标准去判断他们的感受。

　　第二种反应对我们来说比较陌生，需要我们设身处地，采纳受苦者的观点，对他们的苦况感同身受。放下自我观点，深度代入受苦者的角度和情感世界，最能肯定他们的感受，并展现我们最真摰的人性和团结。但要达到这种程度的共鸣，对大部分人来说，甚至对接受过专业训练的辅导人员来说，都是相当耗费精力。若果期间忽视了彼此之间的界线，还有可能使自己陷入抑郁状态或出现心理创伤。

「记得」与「感同身受」

　　然而，新约圣经希伯来书的作者却呼吁信徒要以近似第二种反应的态度，对待那些因信仰的缘故遭受迫害的人：「也要记得那些受虐待的人，感同身受」（十三3，环球圣经译本，下同）。 「要记得」是承接上半节的吩咐：「你们要记得那些坐牢的人」，不只是意识上记忆起，也不只是言语上表达关注，而是用实际行动，持续不断地（这吩咐是现在时态的）帮助他们。同样，「感同身受」与上半节「好像跟他们一起坐牢一样」平行，其原文是ὡς καὶ αὐτοὶ ὄντες ἐν σώματι，和合本修订版和新汉语译本译作「好像你们也亲身受到虐待一样」。原文的ἐν σώματι（「在身体上」）表达彻底认同受苦者，其基础是我们同有脆弱的身体和人性，彼此有特殊的结连。

　　这种人性的结连，在基督的救赎工作中显露无遗。希伯来书二章11节指出神之子作为大祭司，与那称为弟兄的子民「同是出于一个源头」。子民既然「同有血肉之体」，拥有脆弱的人性，基督也分享这人性，「照样成为血肉之体」（二14），「在各方面与他的弟兄们相同」（二17），包括「经过试探，受了苦」（二18），「帮助那些正在受试探的人」，以达成大祭司为人民赎罪之职。

　　希伯来书作者更形容大祭司能够「同情我们的种种软弱」（四15）。 「同情」（συνπαθῆσαι，或译「体恤」）不只是心理上的感受，更是分享软弱人性的经验，亲身「在各方面都受过试探，像我们一样」。基督作为大祭司，不是高高在上地可怜、同情我们因人性软弱、落入试探而不能自救的苦况，而是选择「在各方面」与我们「相同」（二17），即使要经历与我们一样的脆弱。这就是完全参与我们的人性软弱，与我们结连。

　　我们能否「记得」受苦者，感同身受，在于我们有没有学像基督，放下自己的身分、观点或自以为与别不同之处，承认、体现并接受自己与受苦者有同样脆弱的人性。人性的软弱之一，是逃避苦楚，包括逃避自己的和别人的苦楚。然而，无视别人之苦，以种种理由划清界线，割断彼此间的结连，这无疑等于认为自己的人性比别人的更高贵、更神性、更有特权受到保护。要感同身受，与受苦者结连，就要像基督与我们结连一样。这样我们的同行和帮助才有意义。

Two Responses to Those Who Suffer

When we witness others suffering, we typically have two reactions: First, most people feel sympathy, grieving for their misfortune and thus caring about their well-being; second, some individuals can understand the sufferer's perspective, empathize with their feelings, and resonate with them. When disasters receive extensive media coverage, we naturally experience the first reaction toward the victims. This sympathy drives us to offer care, condolences, or aid (such as donations) to those suffering, hoping to alleviate their pain. However, does what we do truly help them? This is a question well worth exploring. Excessive expressions of condolences may place undue pressure on those suffering. Repeated discussion of the disaster may also cause secondary trauma. In these acts of sympathy, we often assume the role of benefactors, extending aid from a safe distance. Yet, our perspectives and positions may differ significantly from theirs. As media coverage diminishes, our understanding of the victims' needs and conditions gradually fades. Our attention and sympathy wane, and we may even judge their feelings based on our own yardsticks.

The second type of response is less familiar to us, requiring us to put ourselves in their shoes, adopt the perspective of those suffering, and empathize deeply with their plight. Setting aside our own views and deeply immersing ourselves in the sufferer's perspective and emotional world best affirms their feelings and demonstrates our most genuine humanity and solidarity. However, such deep resonance is quite exhausting for most people—even professionally trained counselors. If boundaries are neglected during the process, it may even plunge one into depression or psychological distress.

“Remember” and “Since You Also Are in the Body”

Nonetheless, the Epistle of Hebrews urges believers to adopt an attitude akin to the second response toward those persecuted for their faith: “… and [remember] those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body” (13:3b ESV). The verb “remember” is in the present tense in Greek; accordingly, NIV renders it as “Continue to remember …” The command denotes more than mere mental recollection or a verbal expression of concern, but a call to take concrete action to provide ongoing assistance to those in tragedy. This command to continue remembering those who are mistreated is grounded in the recognition that “you also are in the body,” indicating that all share in the weakness of bodily existence. This common humanity thus becomes the basis for solidarity with those who suffer.

This solidarity with others is fully revealed in Christ's redemptive work. Hebrews 2:11 states that the Son of God, as the High Priest, and the people who are called His brothers and sisters “all have one source.” Since the people “share in flesh and blood,” possessing fragile human nature, Christ likewise shared this humanity and “partook of the same things” (2:14), “to be made like his brothers in every respect” (2:17), having “suffered when tempted,” “to help those who are being tempted” (2:18), thereby fulfilling the high priest's role of atoning for the people.

The author of Hebrews further describes the High Priest as one who is capable of “[sympathizing] with our weaknesses” (4:15). “To sympathize” (συνπαθῆσαι, NIV renders as “to empathize”) is not merely an emotional response, but a shared experience of human frailties, having been “in every respect … tempted as we are” (4:15). Christ, as the High Priest, does not stand aloof in a position of superiority, merely pitying with our plight as those who, in human frailty, fall into temptation and are unable to deliver themselves. Instead, He chose to be “made like [us] in every respect” (2:17), even to the point of experiencing the same frailties. This means full participation in our human weaknesses as an expression of solidarity with us.

　　Whether we can “remember” those who suffer and feel their pain as our own depends on whether we have learned to be like Christ—laying aside our own status, perspectives, or perceived differences, to acknowledge, embody, and accept that we share the same fragile humanity as those who are suffering. One weakness of human nature is the tendency to flee from pain—our own and that of others. However, to disregard the suffering of others by erecting boundaries through various justifications and severing the bonds that connect us amounts to the implicit claim that one's own humanity is more noble, more divine, and more entitled to protection than that of others. To share in the experience of others and to be joined with those who suffer, one must identify with them in the same way that Christ identifies with us. Only then does our companionship and aid hold meaning.

黄福光

副院长（学术）、旧约教授

Fook-kong Wong

Vice-President (Research)
Professor of Old Testament

为何灾祸临到？

　　当不幸的事情发生，不少人会问「为什么？」。其实许多时候，导致事情发生的直接成因，是我们知道的。根据世界卫生组织的数据，截至2026年1月25日，合共7,110,188人死于新冠肺炎（COVID-19）。¹ 距离我们更近的大埔宏福苑火灾，官方死亡人数达168人。这两场灾难都对香港巿民造成深远的影响，但其起因并非我们不知晓。新冠疫情是由新型冠状病毒SARS-CoV-2引起，而大埔火灾已查明多项肇因，当中没有一项是神秘莫测或无法理解的。

　　那么，为何我们即使知道灾难的直接成因，仍要追问为什么呢？想必是因为我们不单想知道灾祸的起因，更渴望明白其深层意义。换言之，我们想知道为甚么神容许――甚或促使――灾祸发生。在圣经里，神透过天使、先知、异象或梦境传达祂的旨意，也向人显现，亲自传递祂的话语，一点也不含糊。然而，这些事件非人所能掌控――在圣经里如此，今天更是如此。因此，对于现今的灾难，我们不能寄望从这些途径获得解释。

　　不过，我们现有的圣经，是既易取得且具权威的资料来源，对灾祸为何发生提供许多解释。原因包括邪灵的攻击（例如：约伯记）、人类的罪性（例如：士十九～二十一）、相关人士的愚昧决定（箴十14，十四16），以及神的审判（申二十八15-68）。传道书九章12节指出，危及生命的灾祸（原文作「恶时」）可以在毫无预警之下忽然临到任何人；也就是说，在这堕落的世界，灾难是常态，无需多加解释。从较正面的角度看，神容许某些灾祸发生，可能是藉此教导或训练我们学义（申八1-3；彼前一6-7），或这是我们蒙召为神国所受的苦（太五10-12）。这些全都是合理的答案，但问题是我们未必能够辨明，对于某个处境，哪个才是正确的解答。即使我们以为明白，也可能弄错了。约伯的朋友便是如此，以为自己知道答案，谁知是看错了。

探寻灾难的意义

　　我认为探寻灾难的意义时，该先调查直接的肇因，因为这也许就是意义所在。举例说，若有人犯罪、犯法或做了愚昧的事，招致灾祸（甚至祸及他人），他就应该为自己的罪恶、过犯或愚昧而悔改，不用寻求更深层的意义。此举对于防止灾难重演，十分重要。但假如直接肇因并不明确，强作解释则会适得其反，无助于阻止灾难重演。况且，将过失归咎于无辜者，亦有欠公允。

　　至此，我们须再谈谈约伯的朋友。他们的神学观点没有出错――神奖赏遵行祂话语的人，惩罚违背者，这观念可见于圣经（例如：申二十八；士三7-8）。但他们的错误是把这个神学观点套用在约伯身上。应用错误比诠释错误更难纠正，因为这是个主观判断。尽管圣经为灾祸和苦难提供许多解释，但要判断对于某个处境，哪个解释（如有）方为正确，并非易事。正如伽达默尔（Hans-Georg Gadamer）引述康德（Immanuel Kant）说：「没有任何规则规范我们合理地运用规则。」² 我们没有另一本圣经教我们如何运用圣经。这提醒我们：即使诠释正确，在应用时仍可能出错。正因如此，研读圣经不仅关乎历史资讯、文法分析和神学知识，还需要圣灵引导和辨识能力，才能将真理正确地应用于生活。

另一种应对方式

　　面对灾难，路得记中的路得和波阿斯，采用了另一种应对方式。有别于约伯的朋友，路得没有试图解释拿俄米为何失去丈夫和两个儿子，而是选择陪伴她返回伯利恒，悉心照顾她。同样，波阿斯也没有尝试解释悲剧为何发生在拿俄米和路得身上，而是协助她们获取粮食，后来更成为她们的「亲属赎者」（kinsman redeemer）。我们无法解释灾祸，并不表示我们就无能为力。相反，我们仍可以做很多实事去帮助受灾者。

　　那么，我们应该探求灾难的深层意义吗？我想对大部分人而言，这意思是从中可以汲取甚么属灵教训。这涉及主观的领受。即使我们不是亲身经历灾难，也可以从中领悟属灵的功课；若亲历其中，就更不用说了。不过，如果是指另一层面，意思是我们能否在灾难中辨识神的旨意，那就应当谨慎了。举例说，是否因为这世代邪恶，所以神藉新冠病毒来惩罚世界？抑或这是基督再来之前的阵痛预兆（可十三8）？两者皆有可能，但我们无法肯定。因此，我们不应把这些解释当作真理去教导人。与其提出无法确定的解释，不如切实遵行申命记二十九章29节的教训：「隐秘的事是属耶和华──我们神的，惟有明显的事是永远属我们和我们子孙的，好叫我们遵行这律法上的一切话。」同样，神容许或促使灾祸发生，当中的旨意也许隐而不显；但祂吩咐我们帮助有需要的人，这旨意已清楚显明了。

____________________________________________

¹ “Number of COVID-19 deaths reported to WHO”〔网上资料〕；取自世界卫生组织（World Health Organization）网页（https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/deaths）；浏览于2026年2月13日。
² Hans-Georg Gadamer, Reason in the Age of Science, trans. Grederick G. Lawrence (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998), 121.

（翻译：陈秀媚）

Why Does It Happen?

It is not uncommon for people to ask, “Why?” when something bad happens. Actually, in many cases, the immediate causes are known. According to the World Health Organization, as of January 25, 2026, 7,110,188 people have died from COVID-19. ¹ Closer to home, the official figure of people who died in the Wang Fuk Court fire is 168. Both disasters impact Hong Kong residents deeply, but their causes are not unknown. The COVID-19 pandemic was caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Quite a number of causes for the fire at Tai Po have been identified, and none of them is mysterious or unfathomable.

So, why do we ask why even when we know the immediate cause of a disaster? I think the reason is that we want to know the deeper meaning of a disaster rather than just the cause. In other words, we want to know why God allowed or even caused it to happen. In the Bible, God communicates his will through angels, prophets, visions, or dreams. He may also appear to convey his words. So, there was no ambiguity. Nevertheless, these events are beyond human control; this was the case in the Bible and is certainly the case today. Thus, we cannot depend on them to explain why a disaster happens today.

A readily accessible and authoritative source of information is the Bible, which gives us quite a lot of explanations about why disasters happen. They include attacks by evil spirits (eg, Job), the sinfulness of humanity (eg, Jgs 19-21), foolish decisions of people involved (Prv 10:14; 14:16), and judgment of God (Dt 28:15-68). Ecclesiastes 9:12 states that a life-threatening disaster (lit. “evil time”) may befall anyone suddenly without warning. That is, disaster is a norm in this fallen world and may require no further explanation. More positively, some disasters may be permitted as a means of teaching or training us in righteousness (Dt 8:1-3; 1 Pt 1:6-7). We may also be called to suffer for the sake of God's Kingdom (Mt 5:10-12). They are all legitimate answers, but the problem is that we may not know which of these is the correct answer in a specific situation. Moreover, we may be mistaken even if we think we know. This was the case with Job's friends. They thought they knew, but they were wrong.

The Meaning of a Disaster

　　I think that in searching for the meaning of a disaster, we should begin with the immediate cause since it may also be the meaning. For example, if a person commits a sin, a crime, or something foolish that brings a disaster on himself (and perhaps on others), he should repent of his sin, crime, or foolishness. There is no need to look for a deeper meaning. This step is important to prevent the disaster from happening again. However, if the immediate cause is not obvious, forcing an explanation is counterproductive. It won't prevent the disaster from recurring. Moreover, it is unjust to blame an innocent person for wrongdoing.

This brings us back to Job's friends. Their theology was not wrong. The notion that God rewards those who keep his words but punishes those who disobey is found in the Bible (eg, Dt 28; Jgs 3:7-8). It was their application of that theology to Job that was wrong. Wrong application is more difficult to correct than wrong interpretation because it is a subjective decision. Although the Bible offers many explanations for disasters and suffering, it is not easy to decide which of these explanations (if any) is correct in a specific situation. As Hans-Georg Gadamer, quoting Immanuel Kant, says, “There are no rules governing the reasonable use of rules.” ² We don't have another Bible to teach us how to use the Bible. This warns us that even when our interpretation is correct, we may still make a mistake in application. This is why Bible study is not just concerned about historical information, grammatical analyses, and theological knowledge. We also need the guidance of the Holy Spirit and discernment to appropriate it correctly in our lives.

Another Approach

Another approach to disaster was taken by Ruth and Boaz in the Book of Ruth. Unlike Job's friends, Ruth did not try to explain the reason Naomi lost her husband and sons. Instead, she accompanied Naomi back to Bethlehem to take care of her. Similarly, Boaz did not try to explain the tragedy that befell Naomi and Ruth. Instead, he helped them get food and later became their kinsman redeemer. Just because we cannot give an explanation for a disaster does not mean we can do nothing. On the contrary, we can do many practical things to help the victims.

So, should we attempt to find deeper meanings in a disaster? I think that for most people, it means whether there are any spiritual lessons we can learn from it. This is a subjective perception. There is no reason why we cannot learn spiritual lessons from a disaster, even if we are not personally involved; more so, if we are personally involved. At another level, if the question is whether we can discern God's will in the disaster, we should be wary. Was God punishing this world through COVID-19 because of its wickedness? Or was it the birth pangs heralding the Second Coming of Christ (Mk 13:8)? They are both possible, but we can't be sure. Therefore, we should not teach them as truths. Instead of offering uncertain explanations, we do well to heed the teachings of Deuteronomy 29:29, which says, “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (ESV). Similarly, God's will in allowing or causing a disaster to happen may be hidden from us, but his will for us to help those in need is clearly manifested.

____________________________________________

¹ “Number of COVID-19 Deaths Reported to WHO” [data online]; available form World Health Organization website (https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/deaths); accessed 13 February 2026.
² Hans-Georg Gadamer, Reason in the Age of Science, trans. Grederick G. Lawrence (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998), 121.

时代纷乱，灾难频仍，基督徒该如何面对？圣经或神学对我们有什么提醒或安慰？我们邀请了多位老师从不同的角度探讨这些问题。

In an age marked by turmoil and disaster, how should Christians respond? What counsel and consolation does God's Word and theology give us? To explore these questions from diverse perspectives, we have invited some of our faculty members to share their reflections.

时间是神创造的吗？——再思奥古斯丁论时间的起源

时间在自然科学和宗教思想里都是一个极其重要的议题。「时间」不仅吸引科学家和宗教思想家的关注，也决定了我们普通人看待万物的方式。

在《忏悔录》中，奥古斯丁将时间内置于神的创造秩序，其思想成为后世探讨物理时间和心理时间的重要思想资源。

本讲座将当代理论物理及心理学的时间理论追溯到奥古斯丁的时间起源论，尝试实现一种新的神学文本诠释上的「视域融合」。

报名请按此

报名请按此

Please refer to the Chinese page.