思齊姐妹，樓下有人用『反三位一體』的大棒，要把人願意『奉主耶穌基督的名受洗』的一點『軟弱的信心』都要消滅乾淨，我感到很可惜。我在這裡將自己三年前從一位正統神學家那裡收的一份信件翻譯一下。你會看到我的標題是什麼意思。我的翻譯中，我會將trinity這個詞譯為『三合一』，而不是『三一真神』，因為trinity這個詞裡既沒有『真』，也沒有『神』（感謝神），所以我就要照樣譯出來。至於triurianGod之類的詞我就譯為『三而一神』。原件的英文附在後面，你可以對照。原件所引的正統派的資料，我能不譯就不譯，你自己去查。我會在譯文中插一些我自己的回應。

> I have examined all the passages with reference to "baptism" -- esp.
> the verb "baptize" -- in the NT. The result is as follows:

我查考了新約中所有有關『洗（浸）』（特別是作為動詞的）經文。結論如下：

> I. The references to baptism in the 4 Gospels are not relevant to the
> matter at issue. The passages that concern us are in Acts and Paul's
> Letters.

一、引證四福音書中提到的受浸經文來討論這個問題不切合。我們要考慮的是使徒行傳和保羅書信。

> II. According to Luke's historical narrative in Acts, when the
> apostles baptized converts, they always baptised them "in the name of
> Jesus Christ / the Lord Jesus". In this respect, Luke used 3 kinds of
> expressions:

二、根據路加在使徒行傳中的歷史敘述，當使徒們給新信徒施浸時，他們總是『奉耶穌基督／主耶穌的名』。對此，路加用了三種表達：

> 1. baptize in (epi) the name of the Jesus Christ:
> Acts 2.38 (Peter's statement at the Pentecost preaching)
> 2. baptize in (eis) the name of the Lord Jesus:
> 8.16: the Samaritans were baptized by Philip;
> 19.5: Paul baptized the "disciples" of John (cf. 19.3);
> 3. baptize in (en) the name of the Jesus Christ:
> 10.48: Peter baptized Cornelius and his relatives
（南鄉哥：不譯）

> III. In Paul's letters, we find that Paul used only one Greek form:
> baptize into (eis)

三、在保羅的書信中，我們發現保羅只用了一個希臘詞的形式：受浸歸入。

> 1. we have been baptized into (eis) Christ Jesus / into His death (Rom
> 6.3)
> 2. you have been baptized into (eis) Christ (Gal 3.27)
> 3. were you baptized in (eis) the name of Paul? (1 Cor 1.13) 4. no one
> can say that you were baptized in (eis) my name (1 Cor 1.15).
（南鄉哥：不譯）

> From all these we can see clear evidence of the apostles' teaching
> and practice in the early church: the baptism of the converts was always
> carried out "in the name of Jesus."

從這些地方我們可以看到清楚的使徒的教訓與初期教會的作法：對新信徒的施浸總是『奉耶穌的名』進行的。

> IV. The problem now is how to explain Matt 28.19, Jesus commanded the
> disciples to baptize people "in the name of the Father and of the Son
> and of the Holy Spirit"? This is a problem that has been debated by
> scholars, but we need not enter into the debate. It suffices here to
> mention some main points.

四、問題是如何解釋馬太福音２８章１９節【南鄉哥：不妨強解】，耶穌命令門徒『奉父子聖靈的名』給人施浸？這是一個一直被學者辯論的問題，但我們在這裡不需要捲入這個辯論【南鄉哥：我們不靠辯論神學來吃飯】。提出下面幾個主要點就足夠了：

> A. Some scholars question the authenticity of this passage (Matthew
> 28.18-20) and hold that the baptism in the name of the Trinity was the
> rite established by the church and read back onto the lips of Jesus.
> But this view is rightly rejected by evangelical scholars [see the
> discussions of Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Grand
> Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 747-48; and D. A. Carson, Matthew, in F. E.
> Gaebelein (ed.), Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids:
> Zondervan, 1984), 597-99].

Ａ、有些學者對太２８：１８到２０節的真實性提出懷疑，認為奉『三合一』【南鄉哥：將『三合一』來代表『父子聖靈』，還說不是褻瀆？還說是為了『簡化』？至少在中文裡，『三合一』這個詞較『父子聖靈』只省了一個字。所有中國教會也許有福了，不需要省這個字】的名施浸是教會後來建立的作法，而反過來把它塞進耶穌的嘴裡。但這種觀點被福音派學者正確地駁回了（見討論、、、）。

> B. Evangelical exegetes have observed:
> 1. in Matt 28.18-20, Matthew was summarizing the gist of Jesus'
> teaching; in other words, "there is no evidence we have Jesus'
> ipsissima verba here" [Carson, Matthew, 598; so also R. T. France,
> Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 415, and Morris, Matthew,
> 747].

Ｂ、福音派的解經提出：
１、在馬太福音２８章１８到２０節，馬太是在總結耶穌教導的主旨【南鄉哥：所以不是原話？】；換句話說，『沒有證據顯示我們這裡讀到的是耶穌的原話』（參考資料、、、）【南鄉哥：果然！可是，這豈不怪哉，馬太福音裡面有哪一話是耶穌的『原話』？】

> 2. accordingly, "the church did not regard the command of Jesus here
> as a baptismal formula, a liturgical form the ignoring of which was a
> breach of canon law. E. Riggenback (Der Trinitarische Taubefehl Matt.
> 28:19 [Gersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1901) points out that as late as the
> Didache, baptism in the name of Jesus and baptism in the name of the
> Trinity coexist side by side: the church was not bound by precise
> "formulas" and felt no embarrassment at a multiplicity of them,
> precisely because Jesus' instruction, which may not have been in these
> precise words, was not regarded as a binding formula." (Carson,
> Matthew, 598; similarly Morris, Matthew, 747-48).

２、這樣，『教會並沒有將耶穌的命令看成是施浸的公式，完全照字面的形式到這樣地步以致於忽略它會破壞正統教理。』（參考、、、）【南鄉哥：請自查字典自譯上句】瑞根拜克指出，晚至『十二使徒遺訓』流行的世代【南鄉哥：這是背道的假道開始爬進教會的年代】，『奉耶穌名』與『奉三合一名』施浸的情形是並存的：教會不覺得非按某形式施浸，也不以有多種受浸形式而恥，這正是因為耶穌的指令的原文不是這樣，所以他的這指令不被認為是非照此不可的』。【南鄉哥：邪惡在這裡露出破綻－－－如果耶穌的『原話』果然如此，那這些學者將會證明初期教會（使徒們）是違背了耶穌的命令！在這樣的邏輯下，『奉三合一的名』是『出於信心』、『遵主命令』，而奉主耶穌基督的名是『信心軟弱』！】

>3. The preposition (baptizing) "into (eis)" in Matt 20.19
> suggests a "coming-into-relationship-with or a
> coming-under-the-Lordship-of" (Carson, Matthew, 597).

３、馬太提到的『受洗歸入』的意思，是『進入與、、的一個關係』，或說『歸入、、的主權之下』。

> I must say that I also think that Matt 28.18-20 records the words of
> Jesus, although, in stating my own view on this issue (point 3), I
> tentatively followed scholars to use the word "summarized." Why did I
> use this word? I asked myself. Perhaps I was unconsciously
> influenced by the Synoptic problem -- when I compared the accounts of
> Luke 24.44-49 and Matt 28.18-20, I was not sure which reflects the
> precise words of Jesus in giving the commission to disciples. Well,
> this is another thorny issue which will demand hard thinking!

我必須說我也以為馬太記錄的是耶穌的原話，只是在我前面表述的時候，我按着其他學者的『總結式』的思路。我為什麼用『總結式』這個詞？我問我自己。也許我無意中被所謂『符類福音問題』所影響－－－當我比較路加２４：４４－４９與馬太２８：１８－２０時，我不是確信到底耶穌給出大使命的原話是什麼。這個，又是另外一個棘手的問題，需要艱苦的思考。【南鄉哥：可憐！】

> 4. The Trinitarian idea in this passage goes back to Jesus Himself,
> and the followers of Jesus also thought of God as trinune -- e.g., Rom
> 8.11; 2 Cor 13.14; Gal. 4.6; Eph 4.4-6; 2 Thess 2.13, etc.
> (Carson, Matthew, 598; Morris, Matthew, 748).

４、這節經文中德三而一的概念源起於耶穌自己，而耶穌的跟隨者們也認為神是三而一的。【南鄉哥：但願這句對許多人是個安慰與安全。】

> V. My view on this matter:
> 1. It is not surprising that Jesus should spoke of the Father, the
> Son, and the Holy Spirit in Matt 28.18-20, for during His ministry He
> had already spoken of the close relationship between the Father, the
> Son, and the Holy Spirit; and now as He gave final instructions to
> the disciples before His ascension, it is natural for Jesus to command
> them to preach the gospel and to lead people into close relationship
> with the Triune God.

五、我對這個問題的看法：
１、耶穌在此提到父子聖靈並不奇怪，因為在他的事工時期，他已經談到父子聖靈之間密切的關係；從而，當他即將升天的時候，他命令他們傳福音，將人帶入與三而一神密切的關係之中。

> 2. From my own examination of Luke's historical narrative in Acts and
> the relevant passages in Paul's Letters (I & II above), I agree with
> Carson that "the early church did not regard the command of Jesus here
> as a baptismal formula, a liturgical form the ignoring of which was a
> breach of canon law." The reason is quite simple: if the Lord Jesus
> had commanded the apostles to baptize people in the name of the
> Trinity, they would certainly have observed it closely, just as they
> had observed the Lord's Supper in the way He had commanded.

２、從我對路加在使徒行傳的歷史敘述與保羅書信中的相關經節的考查，我同意卡爾生說的：『初期教會並沒有將耶穌的命令看成是施浸的公式，完全照字面的形式到這樣地步以致於忽略它會破壞正統教理。』原因很簡單：如果耶穌真的命令他們用『三合一』這名給人施浸，則使徒必會照章辦事，正如他們按主的原話來守主餐一樣。【南鄉哥：可憐！以消滅聖經的絕無謬誤來強解。』

> 3. However, the practice of the church after the apostolic period to
> baptize pepole in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
> Holy Spirit has not violated the ????ural idea, for it is also based
> on the teaching of Jesus as summarized by Matthew in Matt 28.18-20 and
> is consistent with the apostles' concepts of the Trinity as expressed
> in Paul's Letters.

３、然而，使徒時代之後，教會用父子聖靈的名施浸的作法，並未違背了聖經的觀點，因為這是基於耶穌在馬太福音２８章的教訓【南鄉哥：注意神學家在這裡的邏輯應用，顯出他是一個思維嚴謹的人】，並且與保羅書信中表達的三合一的概念是一致的。

【南鄉哥：注意這段，我需要特別解說一下。先是，他說因為使徒從耶穌聽的原話並不是『奉父子聖靈的名施洗』，所以使徒實際上按『耶穌基督的名』施洗；接着，他說教會為了表達正確的神學，開始按『不是原話』的『三合一』的名來施洗。－－這樣，耶穌的『大使命』原文是什麼，天知道了！並且，教會後來對使徒，作出了一個改進式的糾正！誰要是不信在正統的神學家中間不存在『強解聖經』的事的話，這裡為提供一個實例。我們網上的受過正統神學訓練的人們，不必羞答答的，出來澄清一下吧：是不是你們的『老師們』就是這樣教你們的？】

> 4. Since the Lord Jesus is the a member of the Trinity, there is no
> difference in baptizing people in the name of Jesus and baptizing
> people in the name of the Trinity.

４、由於主耶穌是三合一的一個成員【南鄉哥：我想哭！】，所以人奉耶穌的名或是奉三合一的名受洗，都沒有區別。

【南鄉哥：我對這位神學家，保持着我作為基督徒對我弟兄的正確的態度－－尊重，接納。但是、、、。就說到這裡吧！我對這個專題的討論到此結束，不再爭論。願神祝福！】