Christological Confusion & China’s Reforming Churches

Introduction

介言

Christological confusion has sunk a root into the rich soil of China’s emerging Reformed community. At present, some pastors and others on the mainland believe Christ’s human nature is uncreated and eternal. What is more, some believe this view represents orthodox Reformed Christology. 

对于基督论的错解已经深深的扎根于中国欣欣向荣的改革宗群体这块肥沃的土壤之中。目前，有些牧师并中国大陆的信徒相信基督的人性是非受造并永恒的。除此以外，有些人还相信这就是正统改革宗的基督论。

Confusing Claims About Christ’s Humanity

对与基督人性混乱不清的论点

Turning to the confusion in East Asia, our brother affirms “the Son came into the world to be a human being” and “truly became human.” Becoming human, he explains, is unique to the Son “since the Father and the Spirit never came into the world to be incarnate.” Also, “the Son who became human was originally the Logos, and this Logos became Logos ensarkos, Word-in-flesh.”[1]

让我们转向东亚的混乱局面，我们的弟兄认定「子来到世界成为一个人」并「真正的成为人」。他解释到，成为人乃是子独特的（作为）「因为父与圣灵绝不可能进入世界成为肉身。」并且，「子成为人乃是源自于道，这个道成为了Logos ensarkos，在肉身中的道（Word-in-flesh）」。（1）

It is difficult to know just what becoming human amounts to, however, since he also “claims . . . first, that Christ’s human nature and Christ’s body are uncreated and, second, that Christ’s human nature has existed from all eternity.”[2] On the surface, these two assertions seem impossible to square with the Christology of the ecumenical and Reformed standards cited above (see parts 3 and 4). In defending these statements, he admits they “completely contradict” views held by “the so-called ancient catholic church” and “many of the so-called great Reformers.”[3] Yet, he also suggests “this great controversy is a matter of terminology and definitions” and claims “my terminology is different from the terminology and definitions that others use.”[4]

实在很难断定成为人到底是什么，然而，因为他也「宣称。。。手先，基督的人性并基督的身体是非受造的，其次，基督的人性乃是永存的。」（2）表面上看，那两个宣告看起来在前面所引述之大公教会会议并改革宗的基督论中是无法成立的（参考博文3，4）。为了捍卫这样的论点，他承认它们与「所谓古大公教会」和「许多所谓伟大的改教者」的观点「完全相悖逆（completely contradict）」。（3）然而，他建议「这个大争议乃是术语与定义的问题」并宣称「我的术语与其它人所使用的术语与定义不同。」（4）

First Statement: Human Nature & Humanness

第一个宣告：基督的人性与Humanness

Idiosyncratic uses of long-established theological terms do tend to complicate matters. He attempts to redefine a standard Chinese term for human nature (人性, rénxìng), for example, in order to distinguish between human nature (or humanity) in some broad sense and a special sort of human nature he calls, in English, “man-ness” (and for clarity’s sake I will call humanness).[5]

用一种怪异的方式使用早已约定成俗的神学术语尝试把事情搞得更为复杂。他尝试重新定义一个标准的中文词汇－人性，例如，为的是要在一个更为广义的范围内区分人性并一种他用英文称之为－manness（为了能够清晰表达的缘故，我会将其称之为humanness）的一种特殊的人性。（5）

Humanness, he explains, “is different from the [concept of] human nature . . . inherited from the history of theology and from ancient church tradition;” it is the “formal cause” or “original form of human nature.”[6] As such, humanness refers to the uncreated and eternal “prototype” of humanity that, “before the creation of the world, . . . was already within God.”[7] This original form, he concludes, is the image of God who is Jesus Christ.

他解释到，Humanness「与承袭自教义史和古教会传统之人性（的观念）不同」；它乃是「正式的起因（formal cause）」或「人性的起源（original form of human nature）」。（6）Humanness指的是一种非受造并永恒的人性的「原型（prototype）」，「在创造世界之前。。。就已经在神的里面。」（7）他结论到，这个原始的形式就是神的形像，就是耶稣基督。

Human nature, on the other hand, is what individual humans possess by being created in the likeness of the prototype–in the image of God. Prior to creation, he states, “Christ was already in possession of an original and eternal form of human nature [that is, humanness], and then after he came into the world, he came to possess an incarnate human nature, the nature of a human body.”[8] The Son, then, who is eternally human in one sense (humanness), apparently became human in another sense in the incarnation by assuming a physical human body.

在另一方面，人性乃是各人根据在原型的样式中被创造而拥有的－在神的形像中。在创造之前，他宣称，「基督已经拥有一种原始并永恒的人性形式（就是Humanness），在祂来到世界后，祂的到了一个道所成为的人性（an incarnate human nature），人类身体的性质。」（8）接着，子在一种意义上乃是永远的人，在另一种意义上看起来（apparently）在道成肉身中，藉由取得一个物质的人类身体而成为人。

This vaguely sounds like Origen’s broadly platonic view of the incarnation, which is the subject of the next post.

这个混浊不清的说法听起来就像俄列根式的柏拉图对与道成肉身的看法，这将会是下一个博文的主题。

Notes:

[1] First Recording.

[2] Second Recording.

[3] Second Recording.

[4] First Recording. He returns to this point to open the Third Recording.

[5] First Recording. Since he is obviously speaking about something that pertains to humanity, male and female, rendering his peculiar sense of 人性 (rénxìng) as humanness seems better.

因为他明显的论到了某些附属于人性的东西，男性与女性，认为他所谓人性在Humanness上的特殊意义看起来更为可取。

[6] Original form could also be translated as formal cause. The speaker uses 因 (yīn), which is often translated as cause, but here has the sense of formal cause.

原始形像也可以被翻译为原始起因。讲者使用了「因」这个往往被翻译为原因的字眼，但是在此处的意思当为正式的起因。

[7] Third Recording.

[8] Third Recording.

（博文五结束）

Second Statement: Platonic Dualism

第二个宣告：柏拉图的二元论

As noted at the end of the previous post (see part 5), his discussion of the incarnation under the distinction between human nature and humanness vaguely sounds like Origen (or Isaac Watts). Origin believed in the pre-existence of human souls and taught a two-stage incarnation of the Son, the first consisting of his union with the un-fallen human soul of Jesus from the beginning of creation and the second a union with a human body in Mary’s womb. The prior union of the Son with a human soul is why, he reasons, “throughout the whole of Scripture, not only is the divine nature spoken of in human words, but the human nature is adorned by appellations of divine dignity.”[1]

如同我们在前一篇博文末尾所注意到的，他含糊不清的在人性与humanness 得分别下对于道成肉身的讨论听起来跟俄列根差不多（或如同Issac Watts）。俄列根相信基督魂的先存性并教导子的成为肉身由两个步骤，第一个步骤包括祂在创造万有前与耶稣未堕落的魂的联合，第二个步骤则是在马里亚的腹中与一个人类的身体联合。子与一个人类魂的联合就是他争辩到「圣经从始至终不仅仅是神性在人类的话语中说话，也是人性获得神性的尊荣为装饰。

Our speaker makes similar claims, drawing the same conclusion about the biblical witness to humanity’s “dignity and glory” prior to the incarnation.[2] Though he does not endorse the pre-existence of the human soul, his notion of humanness as the original, pre-existing form of the humanity later embodied in Jesus of Nazareth and prototype of all created humans comes close. Traditionally, the human soul (anima) is conceived as the form of the human body (forma corporis). Most Reformed theologians adopted a broadly Aristotelian interpretation of this, in which the form (soul, in this case) only properly exists in the particular thing formed (the embodied human).[3] Like Origen, however, our speaker embraces a version of Platonic dualism in which forms really exist independent of the thing formed:

我们的讲员也作出了类似的宣告，得出了圣经见证人类在道成肉身前的「尊荣与荣耀」同样的结论。虽然他并没有采取人类魂先存的说法，他认为humanness 作为人性原始，并先存的形式，之后才附身于拿撒勒人耶稣中，并作为接下来所有被造人类之原型的观点。跟传统，人类魂（anima）被认为是人类身体（forma corporis）的形式。大部分的改革宗学者采取了亚里士多德式的诠释，就是唯有当某种事物被形成后（被附身的身体），形式（在这里指得是魂）才得以存在。然而，我们的讲者就像俄列根一样，采取了柏拉图式的二元论观点，形式得以独立的存在于形成的事物之外：

Humanness is the essence within human beings, the essence by virtue of which human beings are human. This human essence has existed from all eternity, and is something within God’s being that he intended to use as the gene for his creation of humankind. It is the image of God; it is the ontological being of Christ [4]

Humanness 是人类中的素质，人类透过这个素质的美德而成为人。这个人类的素之在永恒中就已经存在，也是在神之中的某种事物，神可以用来作为人类创造的基因。它就是神的形像；是基督本体的存在。

In other words, the original, pre-existing form of humanity (humanness) is not just an idea in God’s mind but an actually existing thing, which he, unlike Origen, declares eternal and locates within God’s being.

换句话说，原始先存的人类形式（Humanness）并不单单是一种在神思想中的观念，而是一个真实存在的东西，这使得他就如同俄列根一样，宣告在神的存有里面有一种永恒的东西。

The implication of this for understanding the unique moment of the incarnation in Mary’s womb is taken up in the next post.

这个观念将会应用在下一个论及在玛利亚腹中道成肉身的那一剎那之博文中。

Notes:

[1] Origen, De Principiis, 2.6.3-5. See also Isaac Watts, “The Glory of Christ as God-man” in The Works of the Rev. Isaac Watts, vol. 6 (Leeds: Edward Baines, 1813), pp. 484-670, and the discussion of this work in Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), pp. 423-28.

[2] First Recording

[3] Ordinarily, form and matter are considered inseparable in this tradition. The separation of soul from body in death is a temporary, abnormal state.

[4] First Recording

（博文六结束）

Third Statement: Incarnation as the Assumption of a Body (Alone?)

Despite his apparent anthropological dualism, our brother does not actually affirm a two-stage incarnation (or refer to humanness as his soul). Origen believed Christ’s human soul was un-fallen and pre-existent but also created and assumed by the Son at the beginning of creation. But here, Christ’s humanness is said to be uncreated and eternal, not something assumed but “something within God’s being.”

So, there is only one incarnational moment, which involves the assumption of a physical human body by the one who is already human without the incarnation. Thus, in explaining the meaning of “Logos ensarkos, Word-in-flesh,” he declares this:

所以，只有一个道成肉身的时刻，包括透过一个不是道成肉身的人类而取了一个物质的人类身体。不错，为了解释‘Logos ensarkos，道在肉身中，’他宣称：

About this “flesh”, the Bible has made three important statements: (1) “the Father has prepared a body for me”; (2) the Son Himself took the form of a slave, thus inheriting a physical body from Mary; (3) the Virgin conceived and gave birth by the Holy Spirit, so God came to dwell among us–Immanuel.

关于这个‘肉身’，圣经有三个很重要的宣告：（1）‘父为我预备了一个身体；（2）子自己取了肉身的养生，因此从玛利亚继承了一个物质身体；（3）童女怀孕并借由圣灵诞生，以至于神临及我们并住在我们中间————以马内利。

He proceeds to explain from these three points why he is unwilling to call Christ’s body (or flesh) created, which we will return to in part 10. The point here is to observe the apparent reduction of the incarnation to just the assumption of a physical human body. Again, in his words, “Christ was already in possession of an original and eternal form of human nature, and then after he came into the world, he came to possess an incarnate human nature, the nature of a human body.”[1]

This statement could be read as reducing not just the incarnation, but created human nature to possessing a human body or some property we acquire “by virtue of having a body.” He denies this, however, and prefers to say “a human being is human because there is human nature [in the sense of humanness] within him or her.”[2] As already observed (see part 5), “humanness is the essence within human beings, the essence by virtue of which human beings are human.”[3] But, according to him, the Son already possessed this from eternity and thus was a human being in precisely this sense. So, the Son did not assume human nature in the sense of humanness or become fully human when conceived in Mary’s womb, but acquired just “the nature of a human body.”

By insisting on the pre-existence of Christ’s humanness, he arrests this view from collapsing into a Word-flesh or Apollinarian Christology. Although these statements suggest a broadly Apollinarian view of what the Son assumed in the incarnation, the speaker insists that the incarnate Son “has a [human] body, a soul, affection, reason, and a will just like us.”[4] It is unclear whether his human soul is identical with his humanness prior to the incarnation (asarkos) or only as embodied (ensarkos), but humanness seems to refer to the spiritual (intellectual and volitional) aspect of Christ’s human nature, and thus his humanity includes both body and soul, including the intellectual aspect denied by Apollinarians.[5]

Avoiding Apollinarianism, however, is little consolation.

（博文七结束）

Fourth Statement: The Recast Image of God

第四个宣告：重新塑造神的形像

Recast by the concept of Christ’s eternal humanness (see part 5), the image of God is no longer just about the way humans were originally created in God’s likeness but now also about how humanity’s original form eternally exists “within God’s being.” He reasons that “the image of God is Christ and therefore Christ in eternity is the original form of human nature.”[1] Turning the imago Dei on its head, he proceeds from the claim that “humanness is the essence of Christ and . . . Christ is the image of God” to the conclusion that “this image contains within it the original form of the essence of human nature. Perhaps,” he proposes, “this could be called the ‘Un-known humanity of God in Christ’.”[2]

重新塑造基督永恒之humanness的观念（参考第五篇博文），神的形像不再是关于人性原来根据神的样式被造的方式，如今也与人性原有的形式如何永远的存在于‘神的存有（within God’s being）’中。他辩称“神的形像就是基督，因此基督在永恒中就是人性原始的形式。”回到imago Dei，他进一步宣称“humanness是基督的素质，并且。。。基督是神的形像”，并结论说，“这个形像内部包括人性素质的原始形式。或许，”他继续说，“就就能被称作在基督里，无法为人所知的神的人性（Unknown humanity of God in Christ）。”

Orthodox Reformed theologians sometimes speak of Christ as the essential image of God (imago essentialis) in the sense that, as the Son, he is co-essential with the Father. When they do, however, they carefully distinguish this sense of the divine image from the sense in which humans are created in God’s image (imago accidentalis), and deny that humans possess the essential image of God.[3]

正统改革宗神学家有时候论到基督为神素质的形像（imago essentialis），在这个意义上，祂也与父同质。当他们这样说的时候，他们很小心的区分神的形像的意义，并在神的形像（imago accidentalis）中被造的人性，并否认人类永远神素质的形像。

As the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ in some sense makes the invisible God visible. Hence he is “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15) and “the exact imprint of his nature” (Heb 1:3) in a way that surpasses anything that could be said of mere humans. Only the incarnate Son bears the essential image and it cannot be transmitted, lost, or damaged anymore than he could be duplicated or fail to be the second person of the Trinity.

作为成为肉身的神，耶稣基督从某个意义而言使得看不见的神成为看的见的。因此，祂就是“看不见之神的形像”（歌罗西一15）和“祂本质的印像”（希伯来一3），超过人性的方方面面。唯有成为肉身的子背负了素质的形像，这个形像不能改变，事情，或损失，祂也不能被复制或不能继续成为三位一体的第二个位格。

The image of God in mere humans, however, is a natural gift originally given to Adam at creation. From him, it has been passed on to the whole race and, in the fall, was also severely damaged and partly lost. The damage was done to the intrinsic aspect of the divine image, which is how humans are, like God, spiritual beings with intellect, will, and affections. Though damaged, these faculties survive the fall and in this sense humans continue to bear the divine image. The extrinsic aspect of the divine image, which is how Adam and Eve, also like God, were originally righteous, holy, and pure, was lost in the fall.

然而，神的形像在人类中是一种与生俱来的恩典，首先在创造中被赐给亚当。这个形像从亚当被赐给整个人类，在堕落中，被严重的破坏，甚至失去了一部分。这破坏是在神形像的内在部分，这就是人类如何成为一个像神的属灵存有，带着理性，意志并情感。虽然这个形像被破坏了，那些官能仍然存留下来，并在这个意义上，人类无法继续背负神的形像。神形像的外在部分，就是亚当和下午如何像神一样，原来是正义的，圣洁的，并纯洁的，都在堕落中失去一切。

To confuse the Son’s essential image with the image of God given humanity is to confuse the divine and human natures. Our speaker is aware of the danger:

混乱子素质的形像和赐给人类神的形像，就是混乱了神性与人性。我们的演说者警觉到这个危险：

Here, I do not intend to confuse Christ’s human and divine natures. What I mean is that Christ’s human nature [or humanness], which is the original form by which human nature is created, is within him.[4]

我并不是要在这里混乱基督的人性与神性。我的意思是基督的人性[或humanness]，就是用来创造人性的原始形式，就是在他里面。

The statements on the image of God above, however, fail to maintain any distinction between the essential image of God in Christ as the divine Son and the divine image given to humanity as a gift. Consequently, they fail to prevent this kind of confusion between the divine and human natures. On the contrary, by tracing the imago Dei in humans back through “the ontological being of Christ” to “God’s being,” this sort of confusion seems unavoidable.

然而，上述对于神形像的描述并没有维持作为神的儿子之神在基督里素质的形像和作为恩典赐给人类的神圣形像间的分别。这就导致，它们无法避免混合神性与人性。相反的，将人类中的imago Dei从“基督本体的存有（the ontological being of Christ）”回朔自“神的存有（God’s being）”，无法避免这种混乱。

Notes:

[1] First Recording

[2] Second Recording. The phrase “Unknown humanity of God in Christ” is originally given in English by the speaker and thus not translated, and for that reason offset here in quotation marks

第二段录音。“在基督里，无法为人所知的神的人性（Unknown humanity of God in Christ）”是讲者使用的英文句子，因此并没有被翻译，因着这缘故，在此做出解释。

[3] This sense of the imago essentialis should not be confused with, for example, G. C. Berkouwer’s use of that term in Man the Image of God: Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), pp. 38-41, to refer to the constitutive aspect of the image of God in humanity. Note also that Lutheran theologians draw a similar distinction between the substantial image of God (imago substantialis) uniquely in Christ as the divine Son and the accidental image (imago accidentalis) originally in Adam.

Imago essentialis的意思不应当被误解为，例如，G. C. Berkouwer对于在人中神的形像（in Man the Image of God）这个词的使用方式：Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), pp. 38-41，被用来意指神的形像在人性中的构成方面。我们要注意，路德会的神学家也在唯有在作为神儿子之基督中才有的，神素质的形像（imago substantialis）与原先出现在亚当里面的那个意外性的形像（accidental image，imago accidentalis）间做出类似的分别

[4] Second Recording

（博文八结束）

Fifth Statement: Merely Functional Likeness

第五个宣告：仅仅是功能上的相似

Ironically, holding a univocal view of God’s image (see part 8) leads our speaker to insist that Christ’s human nature “is fundamentally different from us who have been created.”[1] This is a startling departure from the Chalcedonian tradition’s confession that the incarnate Son is “consubstantial with us according to the manhood [and] in all things like unto us, without sin” (see part 3)

讽刺的是，我们的讲员因为坚持神形像只具有单一意义的观点（参考第八部分），使得他坚称基督的人性‘从根本上与我们这些被造的人不同（is fundamentally different from us who have been created）’。这是令人吃惊的脱离迦克顿传统的信仰宣告，就是成为肉身的子“根据人性，与我们同质，[并]在各方面与我们一样，除了罪以外”（参考第三部分。）

If there is only one kind of divine image and that image is the eternal Son and is also the essence of humanity then it follows that the eternal Son must be eternally human in some sense–the sense of his eternal humanness. As he puts it,

如果只有一种神圣的形像，并那个形像就是永恒的子，也是人类的素质，那么，这就导致永恒的子在某种意义上—就是祂永恒的humanness的意义上—必然就是永恒的人。就像他所说的，

Jesus Christ possesses God’s image, [while] we were created after God’s image. Therefore, Christ himself is the image, which is the gene of human nature. Well, within Christ is the original form of human nature, or original human nature. This is something that is not created. This is what I mean. So, I believe that Christ’s human nature is uncreated and pre-existent within God.[2]

在我们是根据神的形像被造的同时，耶稣基督拥有神的形像。故此，基督自己就是那个形像，也就是人性的基因。所以，在基督里面有一种人性生机的形式，或生机的人性。这是某种非受造的东西。这也就是我的意思。所以，我相信基督的人性是非受造的（uncreated）并先存（pre-existent）在神中。

And again,

他又说，

Since humankind was created in this image, humankind is said to have been created in the image of God, that is, created in Christ’s likeness. Now, since humankind was created in Christ’s likeness, Christ must have pre-existed before the creation of all human beings. The “humanness in Christ” has always pre-existed within Christ. This is what I mean to express.[3]

因为人性是根据这个形像被造，人类在神的形像中被称作是被造的，就是说，在基督的样式中被造。如今，因为人类在基督的样式中被造，基督必然在所有人类的被造前就已经存在。“基督里面的humanness”在基督里总是先存的。这就是我要表达的意思。

So, Christ is the original human, we are the copies created in the likeness of his humanness: “we reflect Him, he is the prototype.”[4]

因此，基督是原始的人，我们是以复制的方式在祂的humanness的样式中被造：“我们反射祂，祂是原型。”

Because his human nature is uncreated and pre-existent we cannot say he is like us in every way except sin–or conversely, that we are just like him. We must instead conclude that his “humanness is not very similar to what is traditionally referred to as humanity or human nature” and that, even as incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, he is only “like unto us in many things.”[5] Even “his body is entirely different from ours.”[6]

因为祂的人性是非受造并先存的，我们就不能说祂在各方面像我们一样，除了罪以外—或，从另一个角度说，我们就像祂一样。我们必须结论到，祂的“humanness并不是像传统所谓的人性或人类的性质”，并且，即便在拿撒勒人耶稣中成为肉身，祂也仅仅“在许多方面像我们”。即便“祂的身体也完全与我们的身体不一样。”

Directly addressing the Chalcedonian claim Christ is like us in every way except sin, he asks,
Is he like unto us in all these things? He is a human being, so, just like us, he could grow hungry, thirsty, and physically weary; he would sleep; he experienced many of the things that we experience.[7]

直接论到迦克顿所宣称的，基督在各方面，除了罪以外，与我们一样的时候，他问到，难道祂在所有的那些事上与我们一样吗？他是一个人，所有也就像我们，祂会饥饿，渴，身体疲倦；祂也会睡觉；祂也经历许多我们经历过的事物。

But the many ways he is like us may relate only to a range of bodily functions and corresponding experiences:

然而祂在许多方面与我们一样，这指的是一系列与身体有关的功用并相关的经历：

His body is entirely different from ours, because our bodies have been created. . . . Jesus Christ’s body was neither created from dust, nor from the union of a man and a woman, . . . so his body is certainly different from ours. Different, yet, he truly became human, and he had to possess all the functions of the kind of bodies that we have, so he would sleep, he would be tired, he would grow hungry, he would be thirsty, etc. The functions of his body were “like unto us in all things.”[8]

祂的身体完全与我们不同，因为我们的身体是被造的。。。耶稣基督的身体既不是从尘土被造的，也不是从男人与女人的结合而来的，。。。所以祂的身体必然与我们的身体不同。虽然不同，祂真正的成为一个人，祂也拥有我们身体的各种功用，所以祂要睡觉，他会疲倦，祂会接，祂会口渴，等等。祂身体的功用那是“在凡事上与我们一样。”

Although Jesus is necessarily like us in his bodily functions, embodied experience alone falls short of being consubstantial with the rest of humanity. Functional somatic similarity, if you will, is not enough to secure the kind of identification with humanity the Chalcedonian tradition, not to mention author of Hebrews, maintains is necessary “for our salvation.” As the maxim laid down by Gregory of Nazianzus declares, “that which was not assumed is not healed.”[9]

虽然，耶稣必须在祂身体的功用上与我们一样，仅仅只有身体的经验根本不足以成为与其他的人类同质（consubstantial ）。如果你原因，肉体功用的相似根本不足以保证迦克顿传统中那种与人类的相同，更别说希伯来书的作者坚称“为了我们的救恩”的需要。就如同拿先斯的贵格利所宣称的，“祂所没有取得的就不会被医治。（that which was not assumed is not healed.）”

Notes:

[1] First Recording

[2] Third Recording

[3] First Recording

[4] First Recording

[5] First Recording

[6] Third Recording

[7] Second Recording

[8] Third Recording

[9] Letter to Cledonius (Ep. 101), p. 5

（博文九结束）

Sixth Statement: An Uncreated Body

第六个宣告：一个非受造的身体

The Belgic Confession insists the eternal Son became fully human and that “the human nature” he assumed did not lose “its properties, but remained a creature, having beginning of days, being a finite nature, and retaining all the properties of a real body” (see part 4) Our brother in Asia, however, denies that the human nature of Jesus is created. We have already observed his peculiar claims regarding the eternal humanness of the Son (see part 5), but he also denies the body of Christ was created.

比利时信条坚持永恒的子成为完全的人，并祂所取得的“人性”并不会失去“其特质，而仍然为被造之物，有开始之日，为一有限的本质，并保持一个真实身体所有的特征”（参考第四部分）。然而，我们在亚洲的弟兄否认耶稣的人性是被造的。我们已经看见他特立独行的关于子永恒humannesss的宣称（参考第五部分），但是，他也否定基督的身体是被造的。

Suggesting that there are only two biblical accounts of how a human being may be created–either from the dust as Adam and Eve or through sexual intercourse as the rest of the race–he concludes that since neither applies to Jesus we cannot say that his body has been created:

只有两处圣经的记载，记载了人性如何被造—或者是如同亚当和夏娃一样从尘土被造，或像其他的人一样透过性交—他结论到，因着这两种方式都不能应用在耶稣身上，我们就不能说祂的身体是被造的：

Is it permissible or appropriate for us to apply the word “created” to matters relating to the Son’s body? Personally, I think I am not very willing to use this word, because the Son is the Creator–the Son’s origin has existed from all eternity, eternity past, and what it means for the Son to have “become” flesh upon the incarnation is a mystery[1]

我们是不是可以，或适合的把用在物质的“被造（created）”这个词用在子的身体上呢？我个人认为，我不会非常想要使用这个词，因为子是造物主—子的起源乃是从永远开始，已过的永远，这意味着子“成为”的肉身是一个奥秘。

More strongly, he writes that the claim that “the Lord Jesus is not only the Creator but is also created and partakes in that which is created” is “greatly problematic.”[2]

他更强烈的写下一个宣告，就是“主耶稣不仅仅是创造主，也是被造的并有份于被造的”，这个说法“大有问题”。

Jesus is [the Creator]. If his body is created, then his whole body is self-created, and he entered into that which he himself created. Then, in the final analysis, is a portion of him a partaker of creation or does a portion of creation partake of him? You have turned him upside down! . . . The Bible never mentions Jesus having a created portion; this is the heresy of Arianism, the heresy of Gnosticism, the heresy of Witness Lee that has come to harm the church.[3]

耶稣是[造物主]。如果他的身体耶稣被造的，那么祂整个身体就是自己造的，就是说祂进入了祂自己的创造。那么，根据最终的分析，他的一部分是被造的有份者，还是祂的一部分有份于被造？你把祂搞反了！。。。圣经从未提到耶稣有被造的一部分；这是亚流主义的异端，诺斯底主义的异端，李常受的异端，危害了教会。

And again,

并且，

Within Jesus Christ there is no created portion. He is the Creator, he is worthy to receive worship and eternal praise. . . . Jesus Christ is not created; in the person of Christ, there is no created portion, even within his human nature and flesh, he is still God revealing himself to man by his boundless power within the scope of flesh, and is [thereby] our savior[4]

在耶稣基督里没有被造的部分。祂是创造主，配的的敬拜并永远的称颂。。。耶稣基督不是被造的；在基督的位格里面没有被造的部分，即便祂的人性和肉身，祂仍然是神借由自己无穷的大能在肉身的范畴中，向人启示的自己，这就是我们的救主。

The Chalcedonian tradition, however, is not in danger of slipping into Arian, Gnostic, or any other error by insisting the human nature of Christ is finite and created.

然而，迦克顿传统并不会因为坚持基督的人性是有限并被造的，而有滑入亚流派或诺斯底主义，亦或是其他的错误的危险。

The mention of Witness Lee, Watchman Nee’s disciple and successor, may be telling. Still living in 1991, when these last comments were first published, our speaker may have been distancing himself from Lee’s teachings. Any allowance one might make for polemical overstatement, however, is undermined by his continued defense of this same position over twenty years later:

当最后一个宣告公布的时候，倪柝声的门徒并继承人李常受仍然在世，我们的讲员可能想要把自己和李的教训区隔开来。然而，任何容许这个争论性并夸张的宣告之人都忽视了他在接下来的二十年中不断地捍卫这个立场：

Now, was Jesus’ body created or not? I say No. What I mean is that His body is entirely different from ours, because our bodies have been created . . . Jesus Christ’s body was neither created from dust, nor from the union of a man and a woman. His body was not created in either of these two ways, so His body is certainly different from ours[5]

基督的身体是被造的吗？我说不是。我的意思是，祂的身体完全与我们不同，因为我们的身体是被造的。。。。耶稣基督的身体既不是从尘土被造，也不是从男人和女人的结合而来。祂的身体都不是透过这两种方式被造，所以祂的身体肯定与我们不同。

His commitment to this peculiar view–that Christ’s body is uncreated–is entrenched, but perhaps not incorrigibly so.

他坚持这种怪异的观点—就是基督的身体是非受造的—是根深蒂固的，或许并非无法矫正。

Importantly, our speaker does not claim Christ’s body is eternal or has a heavenly origin. It is not clear what other options exist, but he does not explicitly advocate the sort of heavenly flesh Christology we encounter in the radical reformer Casper Schwenckfeld, whose view took root among the Melchiorites and Mennonites, or the contemporary theologian Stephen Webb.[6] Yet he takes exception to the very idea that there is any “created portion” within Jesus Christ, the Creator, and this seems to leave no other option but an eternal and in that sense heavenly source of Christ’s body. Rather than affirm as much, however, he prefers to declare the origin of Christ’s body an impenetrable mystery.

重要的是，我们的讲员并没有宣称基督的身体是永远的，或有一种属天的起源。我们并不清楚是否还有别的选项，但是他么并没有刻意提出某种具有属天肉身的基督论，如同我们在极端改革者士闵克非（Casper Schwenckfeld）身上看见的意义，他的观点根植在Melchiorites与门诺派（Mennonites）间，已经近代神学家Stephen Webb。但是他提到了在耶稣基督，创造者里面是否有任何“被造的部分（created portion）”的观念，

In an apparent effort to protect the glory of Christ as the Creator he guts the incarnation of the greater glory of God’s gracious condescension to sinners in Jesus Christ. The incarnation is an offense to humanity’s fallen and constantly overreaching reason, Kierkegaard observed. Every Christological heresy can be understood as an attempt to dodge this offense–the apparent absurdity of the incarnation to finite reason. Offended by the creatureliness of the eternal Son incarnate, our speaker may be in real danger of denying the reality of the “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:5-6).

在一种为了保卫基督作为创造主之荣耀的努力中，他将神带着恩典屈就于人之道成肉身的荣耀置于耶稣基督里面。道成肉身是对于人类堕落的冒犯，并且是过分衍伸的推理，这是Kierkegaard的观察。每一个基督论的异端都能够被理解为会被这种冒犯—有限的理性所视为道成肉身的荒谬性。我们的讲员被永远的子成为肉身中的被造性（creatureliness）所触怒，而可能落入否认“一位神人间的中保，耶稣基督，祂将自己赐下作为万人的赎价”（提前二56）这个实际的危险之中。

Notes:

[1] First Recording.

[2] This is translated from Q&A XIII of his 1991 booklet on Christology, published in Chinese by his ministry organization.

这是根据他1991年基督论小册子问答XIII的翻译，由他职事以中文出版。

[3] Booklet, Q&AXIII, 1991. Arianism broadly refers to a family of Christologies that view the Son as a created being, denying he is consubstantial with the Father (and also with humanity, ordinarily). Gnostic Christologies are often docetic–one way or another God only seemed to be human. Here, however, the speaker almost certainly has in mind the common gnostic belief that creation is the work of a lesser being–a demiurge–which may or may not be associated with the Son. As for Witness Lee, the allusion is more difficult to identify, but a summary of his unusual view of the incarnation is given in his booklet, All-Inclusive Spirit of Christ (Los Angeles: Living Stream Ministry,1969):

1991基督论小册，问答XIII。亚流主义普遍被用来指一个种类的基督论，视子为一个被造之物，否定祂与父同质（包括常人）。诺斯底基督论往往是幻影说—不管怎样，神仅仅看起来是人。在此，讲员肯定想的是诺斯底普遍所相信的，就是被造之物是一种较为低等的作品—a demiurge—可能会，也可能不会被当做子。对于李常受，我们较难分辨他暗示的，但是真道他的小册子，基督保罗万有的灵 (Los Angeles: Living Stream Ministry,1969)中关于道成肉身观点的总结：

Take a cup of plain water and mix it with tea. Now the water is more than just water. Originally, it was water, but now it is water mingled with tea. Before Christ was incarnated, He was God alone, but after His incarnation He is God mingled with man. In Him is not only the divine nature but also the human nature, the human essence, the human element. He is God, He is the Father, He is the Son, He is the Spirit, and He is man. He is so rich!

拿一杯白开水与茶混在一起。现在水就不仅仅只是水了。它原来是水，但现在是水与茶调和。基督在道成肉身前，祂只是神，但是在祂的道成肉身后，祂是神与人调和。在祂里面不仅仅只有神性，也有人性，人的素质，人的元素。祂是神，祂是父，祂是子，祂是圣灵，祂也是人。祂是那么丰富！

Note both the mingling metaphor and incarnation of both Father and Spirit with the Son in Jesus Christ. Whether these are Lee’s actual views or just imprecise and confusing ways of expressing himself is debated.

当注意调和的隐喻并父和圣灵与子在耶稣基督里面成为肉身。这是否是李的真实观点，或只是一种不准确并令人困惑的说法仍值得商讨。

[4] Booklet, Q&A XIII, 1991.

[5] Third Recording, in which he also says “I have examined the Christology that I have taught, namely, the printed book Christology that I mentioned, as well as my recently published book, The Eternal Christ and Jesus of History. As I carefully examined them, I believe that my basic view remains unchanged.”

第三卷录音，他在其中也说，“我已经检视过我教导的基督论，就是，我提到已经出版的基督论，以及我近期出版的书，永远的基督与历史的耶稣。当我小心的检视他们的时候，我相信我的基本观点仍然不变。”

[6] Schwenkfeld eventually published his views in the Great Confession of the Glory of Christ (1541). Webb’s work, Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics of Matter (Oxford, 2012), is intended to be a theological bridge between Christianity and Mormonism, but to my knowledge has not been used by any supporters by orthodox believers on either bank of that divide.

Schwenkfeld 最终在对基督荣耀的伟大认信（the Great Confession of the Glory of Christ）(1541)中出版了他的观点。Webb的作品，耶稣基督，永远的神：属天的肉身和物质的形而上学（Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics of Matter）（Oxford, 2012），尝试建构一座在基督教与摩门主义间的神学桥梁，但是就我所知道的，正统信徒从未引用过他，分割线那边的人也一样。

（博文十结束）

Seventh Statement: The “Unknown Humanity of God in Christ”

第七个宣告：“神在基督里不为人知的人性”

“Until recent times,” Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen observes, “the idea of the pre-existence of the human nature [of Christ] was not only not affirmed but at times considered to be dangerous or even heretical.”[1] This did not prevent the ever-provocative Karl Barth from contriving such a Christology, however. First hinted at in his Church Dogmatics, he later argued before the Swiss Reformed Ministers’ Association that the humanity of God in Christ must have a central place in evangelical theology. Admitting that he and his cobelligerents had “moved [this perspective on God] from the center to the periphery, from the emphasized principle clause to the less emphasized subordinate clause” in their polemic against theological liberalism, he now considered its recovery an urgent task.[2] Since then a number of other theologians have played suit. Among them are Wilhelm Vischer, Donald Bloesch, Robert Jenson, Thomas Senor, and the already noted Webb.[3] Apparently, our brother in Asia should be added to this list.

Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen观察到，“直到近期，[基督]人性先存的观念不仅仅被否定，也被认为是危险的，甚至异端性的。”这并无法阻止极具挑衅性的巴特发明那样的基督论。他首先在他的教会教义（Church Dogmatics）中暗示这个观念，随后又在瑞士改革宗教牧协会（the Swiss Reformed Ministers’ Association）前辩称神在基督里的人性必须在福音派神学中占有中央的地位。他承认在他们与神学上的自由主义争辩的时候，他与他的交战国都“将[这种神观]从中央移到外围，从主要强调的条款辩称较为不强调的次要条款”，他如今认为恢复原有的观点乃是重中之重。从那个时候开始，有许多其他的神学家都在玩弄这个把戏。包括Wilhelm Vischer, Donald Bloesch, Robert Jenson, Thomas Senor，以及已经提过的Webb。看起来，我们在亚洲的弟兄也应当被加到这个清单中。

Although he does not cite any sources for his statements (other than a few dubiously translated or interpreted places in Scripture), his language sometimes seems lifted right out of Barth’s several discussions, including his claim that the eternal humanness of Christ is the uncreated “prototype” of humanity and “could be called the ‘Un-known humanity of God in Christ’.”[4] Here, for example, is Barth’s discussing the creation of humans:

虽然他没有为他的宣告引用任何来源（出了少数对于圣经的暧昧翻译和或诠释外），他的语言有时候看起来正像巴特的某些讨论，包括他所宣称基督永恒的humanness是非受造的人类“原型（prototype）”，并“可以被称作‘甚至基督中未知的人性’”。在此，例如把他对于人性被造的讨论：

There is a real pre-existence of man… namely, a pre-existence in the counsel of God, and to that extent, in God Himself, i.e., in the Son of God, in so far as the Son is the uncreated prototype of the humanity which is to be linked with God… As God Himself is mirrored in this image, He creates man [5]

真有一个先存的人。。。就是，在神的会议中一个先有的存有，从那个程度而言，在神的自己里面，例如，在神的儿子里面，在这个范围内，子是人类非受造的原型，并与神相关。。。作为神自己在这个形像中的反射，祂创造了人。

On the humanity of God, Barth declares “it is precisely God’s deity which, rightly understood, includes his humanity” and that “His deity encloses humanity in itself.” Humanity, he argues, is hidden within the divine being but revealed through Jesus Christ: “In Him the fact is once for all established that God does not exist without man.” Again, “in the mirror of this humanity of Jesus Christ the humanity of God enclosed in His deity reveals itself.” [6]

置于神的人性，巴特宣称“它正是神的神性，若我们正确的理解，包含了祂的人性”，并且“祂的神性在自身中包覆了祂的人性。”他争论说，人性隐藏在神的存在中，但透过耶稣基督被启示出来：“在祂里面一次永远的建立了一个事实，就是神的存在不能缺少人。”并且，“在耶稣基督的人性这个镜子中，被包覆在祂的神性中的神的人性启示了自己。”

Barth understands that “the statement regarding God’s humanity, the Immanuel, to which we have advanced… from the Christological center, cannot but have the most far-reaching consequences.”[7] But the consequences are determined by the details of the particular view one advances. Despite the similarity of language, Barth and our brother in Asia arrive at their respective views on the pre-existence of Christ’s humanity from distinct starting points and, in the end, hold distinct positions–the latter’s even more exotic than the former’s.

巴特理解说“关于神人性的宣告，以马内利，就是我们。。。从以基督论为中心发展出来的，必然会产生极其深远的影响。”但是其影响取决于发展者本身的特殊视角。撇开类似的语言，巴特和我们在亚洲的弟兄虽然出发点不同，但都做出了于基督人性先存的观点，至终却有不同的立场—后者的立场比前者更为怪异。

This is not the place to enter into a comparative study of Barth’s view of Christ’s pre-existent humanity and the variety of this species taking root in China today. But, as Barth correctly notes, any statement regarding the humanity of God in Christ will have profound consequences, some of which, as Kärkkäinen observes, have long been considered dangerous to the understanding of Scripture captured in the Chalcedonian definition set down in 451.

这里并不是一个深入比较研究巴特对于基督先存人性的看法并在中国生根的这一类看法。但是，如同巴特正确指出的，任何关于神在基督里面之人性的宣告都会造成深远的影响，某些就如同Kärkkäinen所察觉到的，在教会历史中早已经根据451年定案的迦克顿定义对于经文的理解，而被认定是危险的。

Notes:

[1] Kärkkäinen, Christ and Reconciliation: A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), pp. 184-85.

Kärkkäinen，基督与和好：一个对对多元化世界具有建设性的基督教神(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), pp. 184-85

[2] His 1956 address to the Swiss Reformed Ministers’ Association was entitled “The Humanity of God” and subsequently translated into English and published in Karl Barth, The Humanity of God (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1960), pp. 37-65. See also Barth’s Christocentric discussion of election in Church Dogmatics II/2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1957), pp. 95-194 (especially p. 145), and of the creation of “real man” in Church Dogmatics III/2 (1960), p. 155.

他在1956年对瑞士改革宗教牧协会（the Swiss Reformed Ministers’ Association）的演讲题目是“神的人性”，随后被翻译为英文，并在巴特的神的人性中被出版(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1960), pp. 37-65。参考巴特对于以基督为中心的讨论，教会教义 II/2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1957), pp. 95-194(特别是 p. 145)，已经在教会教义III/2 中关于“真正之人（real man）的创造，(1960), p. 155。

[3] See, for example, Wilhelm Vischer, The Witness of the Old Testament to Christ, trans. A. B. Crabtree (London: Lutterworth, 1949); Donald G. Bloesch, Jesus Christ: Savior & Lord (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), pp. 132-43; Robert W. Jenson, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), especially pp. 125-45; and Thomas D. Senor, “Incarnation and Trinity” in Reason for the Hope Within, ed. by Michael Murray (Grad Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 238-59, especially 241-52. Bloesch also names Klaas Runia and Ray Anderson as proponents, p. 137. Like Matt Slick, President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, who states “Jesus is uncreated” several times in his article on “Jesus” available at https://carm.org/cut-jesus, it is difficult to know Runia and Anderson intended to assert the uncreated humanity of Christ or were just speaking loosely about his pre-existence as the Son. After Barth, Jenson’s views have attracted the most attention, including sharp critiques by Simon Gathercole, “Pre-existence and the Freedom of the Son in Creation and Redemption: An Exposition in Dialogue with Robert Jenson,” International Journal of Systematic Theology, 7.1 (January 2005), pp. 38-51, and Oliver D. Crisp, “Robert Jensen on the Pre-existence of Christ,” Modern Theology 23:1 (January 2007), pp. 27-45, the latter concluding Jenson’s view is “simply incoherent,” p. 42.

参考，例如，Wilhelm Vischer, 旧约对基督的见证（The Witness of the Old Testament to Christ），A. B. Crabtree译 (London: Lutterworth, 1949)；Donald G. Bloesch, 耶稣基督：救主与主（Jesus Christ: Savior & Lord） (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), pp. 132-43；Robert W. Jenson, 系统神学卷一（Systematic Theology, vol. 1） (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 特别是pp. 125-45;并Thomas D. Senor, “道成肉身与三位一体（Incarnation and Trinity）”，希望的缘由（Reason for the Hope Within）, Michael Murray编辑 (Grad Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 238-59,特别是241-52。Bloesch也点名Klaas Runia和Ray Anderson为先行者, p. 137。就像Matt Slick，基督教护教并研究职事总裁与创立人，他在一篇名为“耶稣”（https://carm.org/cut-jesus）的文章中多次提到“耶稣是非受造的”，很难知道Runia和Anderson是否想要坚称基督非受造的人性，亦或是以不严格的方式论到祂作为子的先存。Jenson跟随巴特的观点，而变得非常引人注目，包括Simon Gathercole对他的尖锐批判, “子在创造并救赎中的先存与自由：阐述与Robert Jenson的对话（Pre-existence and the Freedom of the Son in Creation and Redemption: An Exposition in Dialogue with Robert Jenson）,” International Journal of Systematic Theology, 7.1 (January 2005), pp.38-51, and Oliver D. Crisp, “Robert Jenson论基督的先存（Robert Jensen on the Pre-existence of Christ）,” Modern Theology 23:1 (January 2007), pp. 27-45,后者结论到Jenson的观点“仅仅是语无伦次”，p. 42.

[4] Second Recording.

[5] Church Dogmatics III/2, p. 155.

[6] Barth, Humanity of God, pp. 46, 49, 50, and 51, respectively (emphasis original). It is worth noting that the Barth’s language regarding the humanity of God has spread far beyond just those who affirm Christ’s humanity is pre-existent. Take, for example, the title to James Torrance’s festschrift, Christ in our Place: The Humanity of God in Christ for the Reconciliation of the World: Essays presented to James Torrance (Eugene: Pickwick, 1989) or the language of Jürgen Moltmann in many passages of The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993).

巴特，神的人性, pp. 46, 49, 50, and 5。我们要注意巴特关于神人性的语言已经超越了肯定基督的人性为先存。例如，James Torrance的纪念文集，在我们立场的基督：神在基督里为了与世界和好的人性：献给James Torrance的论文（ Christ in our Place: The Humanity of God in Christ for the Reconciliation of the World: Essays presented to James Torrance）(Eugene: Pickwick, 1989)，或莫特曼许多在被钉死的神：基督的十字架作为基督教神学的基础与批判（The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology）(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993)中许多段落的用语。

[7] Barth, Humanity of God, p. 52.

（博文十一结束）

Conclusion

结论

There may be ways to construe the supposed pre-existent humanity of Christ without transgressing Chalcedonian orthodoxy–Klaas Runia certainly thought Barth achieved this.[1] For this reason, among others, Reformed theologians have generally treated this view as objectionable but not, by itself, heretical.[2] Even though some of the statements reviewed in this essay are difficult to square with Chalcedon and obviously incompatible with the Reformed standards cited above, my concern here is not assessing this man’s views but addressing the Christological confusion his statements are causing within Reformed circles on the mainland of China (and beyond).

可能有许多建构一个假设性的，关于基督人性先存性的方法，而不会触犯迦克顿的正统—Klaas Runia肯定认为巴特达到了这个目的。因着这个缘故，其他的改革宗神学家一般而言视这种观点为当被反对的，而其本身并不是异端性的。即便这篇文章所检视的某些宣告很难被当做与迦克顿一致，并明显的与前述改革宗的标准不相容，我在此的顾虑并不是要评估这个人的观点，而是要强调他的论点在中国大陆（以及其他地区）的改革宗圈子中所造成的基督论错解。

Perhaps these statements do not accurately represent his views. They are imprecisely stated, somewhat speculative, and not clearly argued from Scripture. There are also layers of language involved here and at least two years has passed since these recordings were made–enough time for him to have already changed his mind.

那些宣告或许并不能准确的代表他的看法。它们都是不严谨，甚至是冒进的，不能明确的从圣经找到支持。此处牵扯到不同层次的语言，从那些录音带被录制至今已经两年——足够的时间让他改变他的想法。

Whatever the case may be, these statements are circulating throughout mainland China, influencing believers who are just discovering the Reformed tradition, and causing enough Christological confusion to warrant our concern. Anyone who develops their Christological views around these “two claims, . . . first, that Christ’s human nature and Christ’s body are uncreated; and, second, that Christ’s human nature has existed from all eternity,” seems certain to stray from the Chalcedonian Christology the orthodox Reformed standards consistently maintain. Jesus Christ is not a bodily manifestation of an eternal humanness hidden within God; God-incarnate is not just similar to us with respect to a range of bodily functions but consubstantial with us–just like us in every way except sin; and there is no such thing as an uncreated physical body.

不论事实真相什么，那些宣告在中国大陆流传，影响了那些刚刚发现改革宗传统的信徒，并造成了足够的基督论错解，引起了我们的关注。任何想要发展他们的基督论观点围绕“两个宣告。。。第一，基督的人性与基督的身体是非受造的；并，第二，基督的人性在永恒中就存在”发展基督论观点的人，看起来肯定都会从迦克顿基督论，就是正统改革宗一直维持的正统标准中偏离出去。耶稣基督不是一个隐藏在神里面之永恒humanness的身体显现(bodily manifestation)；神—成为肉身（God-incarnate）不仅仅在身体的功能上与我们相近，而是与我们同质（consubstntial）—在各方面与我们一样，除了罪以外；根本不存在什么非受造的物质身体。

Though the divine and eternal Son assuming a fully human nature, body and soul, created and finite just like ours, is a scandal, it is the glorious scandal of God’s saving grace in Jesus Christ, necessary for us and our salvation.

虽然神圣并永恒的子取了一个完全的人性，身体与魂，被造并与我们一样有限，是一个丑闻，它是一个神在耶稣基督里面救赎恩典的荣耀丑闻，为了我们的救赎，是需要的。

Notes:

[1] Klaas Runia, The Present-Day Christological Debate (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1984), pp. 16-21.

[2] An interesting example of this is Hodge, Systematic Theology, pp. 421-28, who treats the views of Swendenborg and Watts on this point as merely objectionable and describes the latter as undoubtedly “a devout worshiper of our Lord Jesus Christ,” p. 423.

一个有意思的例子是Hodge的系统神学, pp. 421-28，他在这个题目上仅仅将Swendenborg和Watts视为当被反对，并将毫不犹豫的后者描述为“委身于我们主耶稣基督的敬拜者（a devout worshiper of our Lord Jesus Christ）”，-See more at: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/02/christological-confusion-china-11.php#sthash.kXtj0ga3.dpuf

（博文十二结束）