“和子”的爭議

        我們在此應該簡述一下﹐在教會歷史上所發生的一件不幸的事﹐它是與《尼西亞信經》有關的﹐那就是將 “和子”的敘述（the filioque clause）加入《尼西亞信經》所引起的爭端﹔這爭端最終導致了西方（羅馬天主教）和東方（包括現今東正教的各個支派﹐如希臘東正教﹑俄國東正教等）基督教在主後1054年的分裂。

         “和子”（filioque）一詞是拉丁文﹐意思是 “和從子而出”（and from the Son）。《尼西亞信經》在主後325年的第一個版本和主後381年的第二個版本中﹐都沒有這個詞﹔這兩個版本都只說聖靈是 “從父而出”。但主後589年在佗利多（Toledo﹐在今西班牙）的一個地區性教會會議上﹐把 filioque 一字加上去了﹐以至於這信經就變成說﹐聖靈 “是從父和子而出”。根據約翰福音15: 26和16: 7來看﹐耶穌在那裡說﹐祂會差遣聖靈到這世界﹐似乎沒有什麼理由好反對這個“和子”的敘述﹐如果這話是指聖靈是從父和子在一個時間點（特別是在五旬節）而出的。然而這一句敘述關繫到三位一體的本質﹐而且被理解為是指出聖靈和子神之間永遠的關係﹐但這關係卻是聖經從來沒有清楚討論過的。加了 “和子”這額外一拉丁字的《尼西亞信經》版本逐漸通用起來﹐並在主後1017年得到正式的認可。然而因著教廷的政治和權力鬥爭﹐使得整個的爭議變得複雜化﹐而這個原本十分不起眼的教義﹐就成了導致主後1054年東西方基督教分裂的主要教義問題（其實隱藏在其下的政治問題﹐乃是東方教會與教皇權柄之關係的問題）。這個教義上的爭議以及基督教兩大支派的分裂﹐迄今仍未得到解決。

        關於這個問題﹐是否有一個正確的立場呢﹖證據的優勢（雖然只是些微小的）似乎清楚地有利於西方教會。雖然約翰福音15: 26說到真理的聖靈是從父神而出﹐但這個事實並不否認聖靈也是從子神而出（正如約翰福音14: 26說到﹐父將差遣聖靈﹐而約翰福音16: 7則說﹐子將差遣聖靈）。事實上﹐在約翰福音15: 26耶穌自己說聖靈是 “我要從父那裡差……來”的。如果子神與父神一起差遣聖靈到這世界來﹐那麼類比起來﹐似乎也可以合宜地說這一點反映了祂們之關係中永遠的次序。這方面不是我們可以依據什麼明確的經節而堅持的﹐而更多是我們從聖經看到關於祂們和受造界在時間裡的關係﹐並進一步藉著類比而去領悟父神﹑子神和聖靈之間永遠的關係。不只如此﹐東方教會的表述使子神與聖靈之間有一種不自然的距離﹐這會導致一種可能性﹐那就是即使是在個人的敬拜上﹐都會更多地強調追求奧祕的﹑聖靈感動的經驗﹐而忽視也要理性地明白基督是主﹐進而敬拜祂。雖然如此﹐這場爭議畢竟是旋繞在這樣一個模糊的問題上（這問題的本質是關於子神與聖靈在創世以前的關係）﹐它肯定不應造成教會的分裂。

約翰福音 - 第 14 章 第 26 節
但保惠師，就是父因我的名所要差來的聖靈，他要將一切的事，指教你們，並且要叫你們想起我對你們所說的一切話。

約翰福音 - 第 15 章 第 26 節
但我要從父那裡差保惠師來，就是從父出來真理的聖靈。他來了，就要為我作見證。

約翰福音 - 第 16 章 第 7 節
然而我將真情告訴你們。我去是與你們有益的。我若不去，保惠師就不到你們這裡來。我若去，就差他來。

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 (保惠師) 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還有不多的時候，世人不再看見我。你們卻看見我。因為我活着，你們也要活着。到那日，你們就知道我在父裡面，你們在我裡面，我也在你們裡面) 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.