“和子”的争议

        我们在此应该简述一下﹐在教会历史上所发生的一件不幸的事﹐它是与《尼西亚信经》有关的﹐那就是将 “和子”的叙述（the filioque clause）加入《尼西亚信经》所引起的争端﹔这争端最终导致了西方（罗马天主教）和东方（包括现今东正教的各个支派﹐如希腊东正教﹑俄国东正教等）基督教在主后1054年的分裂。

         “和子”（filioque）一词是拉丁文﹐意思是 “和从子而出”（and from the Son）。《尼西亚信经》在主后325年的第一个版本和主后381年的第二个版本中﹐都没有这个词﹔这两个版本都只说圣灵是 “从父而出”。但主后589年在佗利多（Toledo﹐在今西班牙）的一个地区性教会会议上﹐把 filioque 一字加上去了﹐以至于这信经就变成说﹐圣灵 “是从父和子而出”。根据约翰福音15: 26和16: 7来看﹐耶稣在那里说﹐祂会差遣圣灵到这世界﹐似乎没有什么理由好反对这个“和子”的叙述﹐如果这话是指圣灵是从父和子在一个时间点（特别是在五旬节）而出的。然而这一句叙述关系到三位一体的本质﹐而且被理解为是指出圣灵和子神之间永远的关系﹐但这关系却是圣经从来没有清楚讨论过的。加了 “和子”这额外一拉丁字的《尼西亚信经》版本逐渐通用起来﹐并在主后1017年得到正式的认可。然而因著教廷的政治和权力斗争﹐使得整个的争议变得复杂化﹐而这个原本十分不起眼的教义﹐就成了导致主后1054年东西方基督教分裂的主要教义问题（其实隐藏在其下的政治问题﹐乃是东方教会与教皇权柄之关系的问题）。这个教义上的争议以及基督教两大支派的分裂﹐迄今仍未得到解决。

        关于这个问题﹐是否有一个正确的立场呢﹖证据的优势（虽然只是些微小的）似乎清楚地有利于西方教会。虽然约翰福音15: 26说到真理的圣灵是从父神而出﹐但这个事实并不否认圣灵也是从子神而出（正如约翰福音14: 26说到﹐父将差遣圣灵﹐而约翰福音16: 7则说﹐子将差遣圣灵）。事实上﹐在约翰福音15: 26耶稣自己说圣灵是 “我要从父那里差……来”的。如果子神与父神一起差遣圣灵到这世界来﹐那么类比起来﹐似乎也可以合宜地说这一点反映了祂们之关系中永远的次序。这方面不是我们可以依据什么明确的经节而坚持的﹐而更多是我们从圣经看到关于祂们和受造界在时间里的关系﹐并进一步藉著类比而去领悟父神﹑子神和圣灵之间永远的关系。不只如此﹐东方教会的表述使子神与圣灵之间有一种不自然的距离﹐这会导致一种可能性﹐那就是即使是在个人的敬拜上﹐都会更多地强调追求奥祕的﹑圣灵感动的经验﹐而忽视也要理性地明白基督是主﹐进而敬拜祂。虽然如此﹐这场争议毕竟是旋绕在这样一个模糊的问题上（这问题的本质是关于子神与圣灵在创世以前的关系）﹐它肯定不应造成教会的分裂。

约翰福音 - 第 14 章 第 26 节
但保惠师，就是父因我的名所要差来的圣灵，他要将一切的事，指教你们，并且要叫你们想起我对你们所说的一切话。

约翰福音 - 第 15 章 第 26 节
但我要从父那里差保惠师来，就是从父出来真理的圣灵。他来了，就要为我作见证。

约翰福音 - 第 16 章 第 7 节
然而我将真情告诉你们。我去是与你们有益的。我若不去，保惠师就不到你们这里来。我若去，就差他来。

Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. ^[1]

16:7 “But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Paraclete will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you” (ἀλλʼ ἐγὼ τὴν ἀλήθειαν λέγω ὑμῖν, συμφέρει ὑμῖν ἵνα ἐγὼ ἀπέλθω. ἐὰν γὰρ μὴ ἀπέλθω, ὁ παράκλητος οὐκ ἐλεύσεται πρὸς ὑμᾶς· ἐὰν δὲ πορευθῶ, πέμψω αὐτὸν πρὸς ὑμᾶς). The third section of the pericope (vv. 7–15) is not only the most informative collection of verses on the Paraclete (保惠师) but may also be the text with the greatest diversity of interpretations. This verse is the turning point of the pericope, connecting all the way back to 15:18 where the hate and persecution of the disciples was first introduced. Jesus transitions here from the persecution the disciples will experience to the Paraclete who will empower them. This is the last of four occurrences of the “Paraclete” in the Gospel and the fullest and climactic depiction of his ministerial office (for an overview, see comments on 14:16). The emphatic statement “I tell you the truth” (ἐγὼ τὴν ἀλήθειαν λέγω ὑμῖν) is probably to be interpreted as equivalent to the authoritative preface Jesus customarily places before significant statements: “Truly, truly, I say to you” (see comments on 1:51). The adjusted preface emphasizes the content of the message to follow.

The foundation of what Jesus is about say to his disciples in vv. 8–15 is rooted in the following statement: “It is to your advantage that I go away” (συμφέρει ὑμῖν ἵνα ἐγὼ ἀπέλθω). The verb “it is better” (συμφέρει), that is, to be “advantageous” or “profitable,” has already occurred in the Gospel when Caiaphas applied his political wisdom to the problem of Jesus (see comments on 11:50; cf. 18:14). By using the same term, Jesus offers his own wisdom to the problem confronting his disciples in the world. Ironically, by the providence of God their solutions overlap in the death and departure of Jesus. The two uses of the term create an exegetical connection between the wisdom of man and the wisdom of God at both the historical and the cosmological strands of the Gospel’s plot.

Jesus has spoken about the necessity of his departure before (cf. 13:33, 36; 14:2–6), but here he connects it directly and with repetitive emphasis to the essential coming of the Paraclete. Two things are made clear. First, the transition from Jesus to the Paraclete is better for the disciples. The transition about which the entire farewell discourse has been addressing portrays the coming of “another Paraclete” as a preferable and even superior state of affairs. The departure of Jesus is not his absence but the magnification of his presence, for the Christian life by the Spirit involves the mutual indwelling and interpenetration of both the Son and the Father (see 14:19–20还有不多的时候，世人不再看见我。你们却看见我。因为我活着，你们也要活着。到那日，你们就知道我在父里面，你们在我里面，我也在你们里面) and a new state of existence between the Trinitarian God and the believer, who is participating already in life that is “eternal” (cf. 20:31).

Second, the departure of Jesus is necessary for the coming of the Paraclete. Jesus makes this clear with the parallel statements (one negative and one positive) that magnify this necessity. The departure of Jesus initiates and provides for the coming of the Paraclete. In a sense, the transition between the Son and the Spirit, this “departure-coming,” forms a unit that can be distinguished (persons of God) but not be separated (purpose of God). For the presence of God with his people, his “tabernacling” (cf. 1:14), also involves and is now accomplished by “another Paraclete,” the Spirit. In what might seem like a paradox, the departure of Jesus therefore becomes the promise and guarantee of his presence.^[2]

^[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jn 16:7). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[2] Klink, E. W., III. (2016). John. (C. E. Arnold, Ed.) (pp. 677–678). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.