C. ON God

C. 上帝

I. Biblical Premises

I. 聖經之中的提論

In our last lesson, we summed up the topic of the prerequisites of Dogmatics - namely Cognizance and Faith – prerequisites that are required for approaching the mystery of God as well as the mystery of mankind’s salvation through Christ. Beginning today, we shall specifically begin to examine the Dogmas of the Faith, starting from the Dogma on God and the Holy Trinity. As you may well understand, it is not only Christians who speak of God. Every religion deals with God. Even atheism deals with God, inasmuch as it reacts negatively to and abolishes, a certain specific perception of God. Although it may seem that atheism at first sight rejects every notion of God, deep down, it is impossible for someone to uphold a rejective theory without identifying it with something. We reject something, when we have somehow related it to something else. Consequently, there is a deep-seated perception of God in our minds, which we wish to reject. It is therefore impossible for anyone to escape from the question pertaining to God, whether a Christian, or a follower of another religion, or even a denier of every notion of God. As I said, he must first make it absolutely clear in his own mind exactly what he is rejecting, before rejecting it. We here are naturally going to tackle the notion of God as it developed and was handed down to the Christian faith and the Church. So, our question is: what is the Christian notion of God? In order to reply to this question, we must first clear the historical field. The Christian faith does not introduce any radically novel concept of God. God Himself participates in the faith of the Judeans of that time; it is the God whom they embraced, and the faith that they embraced, through the Judean community of the Old Testament; the God of Christ is the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob. In order, therefore, to locate the historical roots of the notion of God in Christendom, we must necessarily obtain an answer to the question of what comprised the Hebrew perception of God. A second basic question would be: what kind of modification does this idea undergo, when passing through the faith in the persona of Christ? Because, while Christ does not attempt to introduce a new perception of God and speaks of the same God to Whom the Old Testament refers, nevertheless, when projecting certain assumptions regarding His persona that touch on the meaning of God in a fundamental way, He inevitably modifies, or leads to modification of, the perception of God that Hebrews had, during those times. A third element pertaining to the historical modification of the Dogma on God in Christendom, is that this biblical notion of God - as it appears in the Old Testament, and later transformed in the New Testament on account of the pressure exerted by the faith in the persona of Christ – is eventually interpreted by the Fathers of the Church, on the basis of two elements, which we outlined in the introductory lessons: firstly, the cultural environment during the times of the Fathers, which environment supplies the Fathers with the terminology, the meanings, and everything else that is necessary for one to define Faith theologically; secondly, the experience of the Church, from which the Fathers drew the existential dimensions of the Dogma on God. We must therefore determine what comprises these cultural elements, these experiences, which shaped the Dogma on God during the Patristic era. However, in accordance with the principles that were set out in our lessons, Dogmatics to us is not simply a collection of information and knowledge about what certain people once believed in, or about what they want us to believe today. Dogmatics is an interpretation, an existential interpretation of the Dogmas, therefore, the question that always concerns us and should concern us in every Dogma, is: what is the existential significance of that Dogma for us today? In other words, if this Dogma pertaining to God were to supposedly change in some way, what would the impact be on our existence? Would it have any impact, or would it simply remain the same, and not signal any existential change? Therefore the existential interpretation of a Dogma pertaining to God must concern us, given that it includes the following general points, especially for us today. First of all, it is that which we call a denominational or trans-Christian status, or ecumenical, or ecumenist. We must examine if and where the Orthodox Christian Dogma on God differs from other religions’ and Christian denominations’ ideas on God. Where is the definitive difference? Because one could insist that “we all believe in God”. With the exception of atheism, for which there will always be the question that I posed from the beginning (but anyway, atheism rejects every discussion on God), every other religion makes reference to God. The question is, if our differing from other religions merely has to do with the addition of certain things that the others don’t have. Like the Holy Trinity for example: we all believe in one God, but some don’t believe in the Holy Trinity, therefore, if we add the Dogma of the Holy Trinity to the concept of God, we converge with those Christians. Is that the way it really is? What is the definitive difference in the concept of God, between non-Christians and Christians? For the others, the non-Orthodox, the problem is ever serious. Because basically, all Christians certainly confess the same God, but the differences quite often are so essential with regard to the matter, that one must evaluate them and see how much and at which points these differences affect people – essentially and more so existentially. This is an area that concerns modern man. The other area is that of modern man’s basic existential needs. I have repeatedly said that Dogmatics without any existential interpretation is a dead letter, which will inevitably lead to a marginalizing of theology; unfortunately, this marginalizing has become reality for modern man. And the danger especially in regard to the dogmas is severe. We theologians and even the Church itself have left the dogmas to the specialists: “On the matter of God, you must ask the professor of Dogmatics – I have nothing to do with the subject”, is what the Bishop or the priest or anyone else will say to you. Or, our sermons avoid these dogmatic subjects altogether, because they are for the “specialists”. Well, this is exactly what marginalizing of dogmas means, and it has occurred, because we do not strive – as I said – for an existential interpretation that will or will not prove that dogmas are a matter of life and death for mankind. We may admit this in a show of piety, but we do not actually show it. We cannot convince anyone. Theology has the duty to try to convince, because it is a matter of life and death to accept this concept of God, and not any other notion about God. On these general observations, we shall now try to initially outline the historical framework within which the Dogma on God appeared - the idea about God within Christendom - and we shall naturally begin from the Bible, from the Biblical framework, because that is where the Christian concept of God appeared. Then we shall proceed to the Patristic framework; we shall see how it is shaped therein, and then we shall interpret it existentially. Christ already believed in the same God in Whom His contemporary Judeans believed. He does not ask the Judeans to change their concept of God. He makes it evident every time He communicates with them, that He participates in the same faith towards the same God – the God of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob, the God of the Fathers of the Old Testament. What, then, were the basic, characteristic elements of this faith, this concept of God, which differentiated it from other, non-Biblical concepts of God? Very briefly, we can locate these elements (the characteristic elements that comprise the definitive difference for the Hebrews and the Old Testament, which, as I said, Christ Himself accepted) in the following: First of all, in the absolute transcendence of God; God exists prior to the world, and we can never relate Him to anything of what we see in the world. It is imperative that we transcend the experience of this world, as opposed to ancient Hellenism and ancient Greek philosophy. We have here a distinct definitive difference, because, to the ancient Hellene, the cosmos was always the place where someone could meet God. Whether their God was a logical, connective force – the one that holds the world together in harmony, in beauty, (given that the word “cosmos” as you know, in Greek has the meaning of harmony, beauty, order) – or a logic that allowed them to explain the cosmos, the ancient Hellene had gone as far as to search for God, within the cosmos. From a Biblical point of view, this was unacceptable. You cannot reach God by studying the cosmos and you cannot tie God, God’s existence, to the existence of the cosmos. Basically, you cannot simultaneously refer to God and the cosmos. You must suppose God to be Someone Who existed before the cosmos, before the existence of the cosmos. Naturally, this is connected to the idea of the creation of the cosmos from nil; in the sense that the cosmos once did not exist, whereas God always existed. The ancient Hellenes could in no way accept this idea. To the ancient Hellene, the cosmos is eternal, even when in the process of being created; in Plato, we have the creation of the cosmos by the Creator-God. This God creates pre-existing ideas, from pre-existing elements, in a pre-existing space. Hence, there is something that is ever-existent, from which the cosmos is made, in the design given to it by God, and God is somehow entangled in this existence. No matter how hard we look for transcendence in the gods of ancient Hellenism, we shall not find it to the absolute degree that we find it in the Old Testament. This, then, is one element. The second one, which explains the absolute transcendence of God and is naturally associated with the first, is that God is not bound by any physical or moral needs; in other words, this is the absolute freedom of God. God’s transcendence rests in His absolute freedom. And again, so that you may see the difference, I will remind you of the idea that the ancient Hellenes - ancient Greek philosophy - had of God. To the tragic poets – mainly Euripides, but also the pre-Socratic thinkers, as well as Heracletus and all the Greek philosophers, the question was posed as to whether the gods were free to do what they wanted. The reply that they gave was a categorical “no”. The gods were bound to do what was correct; they could never act unjustly, nor do anything that would contravene any physical or moral laws. There was a moral and a physical law. Heracletus said that there exists a logic, a “logos” that preserves the continuum of the cosmos in harmony, and if something were to go wrong, the entire cosmos would vanish. That the cosmos does not vanish is precisely because this logical order exists, and the gods must respect this logical order. And within this logical order, the ancient Greeks also placed justice. Basically, Zeus – as you know – married Themis (themis=justice), to evidence precisely that Zeus could not act arbitrarily; that he was checked by Justice. Justice was an important element to the ancient Hellene. The tragic poets most assuredly brought this fact to the surface. Thus, to the ancient Hellene, God cannot act arbitrarily. In the Old Testament, this concept did not apply to the Hebrews’ perception of God. It did not cross a Hebrew’s mind that God could be shackled to goodness, to correctness and to justice as principles that dominated over God Himself, and that they must be respected by God Himself. That is why the Old Testament God acts extremely arbitrarily. The Old Testament is filled with murders, filled with numerous things that do not appear just and proper at first glance, but nevertheless are executed on God’s command; this is because God is not bound to moral principles. Pay special attention to this point, as it is extremely sensitive and difficult to remove from our thoughts, because we are kneaded into the Greek perception of God and we have tied down God, we have subjugated God’s freedom to certain behavioral regulations and regulations of justice, which we have drawn from ethics. But ethics can never abolish God’s freedom, whether according to the Hebrew perception, or to the Christian perception, as we shall see. In any case, while we are on the subject of the definitive difference according to the biblical concept of God, we must stress this: God has absolute freedom, not only towards the cosmos, but also towards principles and ideas.

在我們上一次的課堂中，我們總結了教義學的最基本的主題 -- 也就是，意識和信仰。 為了能了解到上帝以及他經由基督以拯救人類之事的這些迷題，這些基本的主題是所必需的先決條件。從今天開始，我們將特別地開始思考信仰的教義。 我們將從關於上帝以及三位一體的教義開始。 你當然已知道，不是只有基督徒們才講到神的。每個宗教都是關於神的。即使是無神論也是關於神的，儘管它只是反應到和想要廢除掉某些關於神的理解。雖然無神論似乎是在拒絕任何關於神的 想法，事實上，一個人是不可能完全贊 同一個拒絕性的理論而又不 同時將它與其他的一些東西連接上。我們拒絕了某件東西，即使我們在某種程度上已把它與其他的某些東西相聯繫上了。所以，在我們的頭腦中， 有某個我們想要拒絕的、却又是根深蒂固的關於上帝的理解。因此，想要完全逃離開關於上帝的問題，這是不可能的，無論你是一個基督徒，或是另一家宗教的教徒，或是一個想要拒絕任何關於上帝的想法的人。我說過，在一人拒絕某物之前，他必須首先在他自己的頭腦中搞清楚到底他想要拒絕的是什麼。 自然的，我們在這裡是關心於那個發展在以及傳至於基督教的信仰和教會中的關於上帝的理解。因此，我們的問題是：基督教所有的關於神的想法是甚麼？為了能回答這個問題，我們首先必須弄清楚那個歷史性的領域。基督教的信仰在基本上並没有提出任何新的關於神的概念。上帝他自己參與了猶太人在那時的信仰；那是他們經由舊約聖經中的猶太人的社會團體所接受的上帝及 信仰；基督的上帝是阿伯拉罕的上帝，是雅各的上帝，是依薩克 (Issac) 的上帝。 因此，為了能够在基督教中找到神的概念之歷史性的根，我們必須回答， 希伯來人是如何理解神的。 在此第二個基本的問題則是：在它通過對基督之人格的信仰之後，這個概念有經受過甚麼樣的變化？因為，即使基督並未嘗試著介紹出一個關於上帝的新的看法，而只講到舊約聖經中的同樣的上帝，然而，當他在預想一些在基本的方面上與上帝的意義有關的假設的時候，他不可避免地修改到（或導致這種修改） 希伯來人在那個時期所有的關於上帝的看法。 在基督教裡所有的關於上帝的教條之歷史性的更改的第三個要素則是，在聖經中所有的關於上帝的概念 （它首先是在舊約聖經中出現的，然後因為對基督之人格的信仰所施加的壓力之故，在新約聖經中有了改變 ）最終皆有被教父們重新解釋，而這是在那兩個我們在最初的課堂中已略述過的要素的基礎上：首先，在教父時代的文化環境，而這個環境供應给教父們一些固定的術語，意義，以及任何其他的對於為信仰做出神學性的定義這事來說是必要的東西；其次則是教會的經驗，從其中，教父們提取出關於上帝的教條等等的存在性的面度。我們因此必須了解到這些在教父時代期間曾經塑造出關於上帝的教條的文化要素的内容以及經驗等等。 但是，若是我們依照我們在先前的課堂中已作出的原則來說，教義學對我們來說並不只是一套收集了關於某些人在某某時曾相信的東西、或是他們今天想要我們相信的東西的訊息和知識。教義學是對教條等等所作出的存在性的詮釋，因此，我們在每個教義中所擔心的、或者應該擔心的問題，則是：那個教義在今天所會有的存在性的意義是甚麼呢？換句話說，如果這個關於上帝的教義在某些方面上是該改變的，這對我們的存有將會有甚麼樣的影響？他是會有某些影響的呢，還是一切皆只會保持原狀，而没有任何存在性的變化？因此，關於上帝的教義之存在性的詮釋即是我們應該擔心的問題，如果它包括以下的總要的要點的話 （尤其是在今日）。 首先，那是我們所謂的宗派性的 (denominational)，或是總跨基督教派性的 (trans-Christian) 狀況，也就是，泛基督教主義性的 (ecumenical, ecumenist)。我們必須調查一下，在哪個方面上，東正教所持有的關於上帝的教義是不同於其他的基督教派的教義或是其他的宗教所持有的對神的看法。於此，最极端的差異是在哪裡？因為， 每一者皆能堅持「我們都是相信神的」。除了無神論外 （但是它總是會有我在一開始時就提出的問題；無論如何，無神論是拒絕討論任何關於上帝之事的），每一個宗教皆提及到上帝。問題是，我們之不同於其他宗教，那是不是只是因為我們加上了一些其他宗教所沒有的東西。例如，三位一體之論：我們大家都是相信同一個上帝的，但是某些教派並不相信三位一體之事，因此，如果我們把三位一體之性的教條加在我們已有的關於上帝的概念之上，我們則會跟那些基督徒們會合在一起。事實可真是如此？在非基督徒和基督徒之間所有的、在關於上帝的概念這方面上的、最終的差異到底是甚麼？對其他的、非東正教的教徒們來說，這個問題是很嚴重的。因為，在基本上，所有的基督徒皆承認著同樣的上帝，但是在他們之間所有的差異經常是如此之大的，至使我們必須好好評估一下，以便明白這些差異在哪兒以及多少地影響到某某人 -- 不但是在本質上來說，但也是在存在性的方面上。 這是現代人所關心的第一個主題。另外一個主題則是， 現代人的基本的存在性的需求。我已重複地說過，没有存在性的詮釋的教義學是一本死書，它不可避免地將會導致於神學之被排斥；很不幸的，這種排斥在現代已成為一個事實。而在關於教義這方面上，這個危險已是特别嚴重的了。神學家們，甚至連教會本身，都將教義留給了專家來作：「關於上帝這回事呢，你必須問教義學的教授 -- 我與這個主題沒有任何的關係」，這是主教或是牧師或是任何其他人會對你說的。要不然，我們的說教則完全地去避免著這些教義學的主題，因為它們是屬於「專家們」的問題的。這就是教義學之被排斥的意思，而這之所以會發生的原因呢，則是因為我們並未去努力尋求能够證明教義對人類來說是有生死關系的重要性的存在性的詮釋。我們在表現我們的虔誠的時候，會承認這點，但是我們其實並不去表現它。我們不能够說服任何人。神學有責任去說服人們，因為接受或是不接受這種關於上帝的概念， 這是有生死關系的，而其他的那些關於上帝的概念却不是如此。在這些總要的觀察到的要點的基礎上，我們將嘗試著略述一下關於上帝的教義在其中所出現的歷史性的結構 -- 在基督教之中所有的關於上帝的想法 -- 並且我們很自然地將從聖經的結構開始，因為基督教所持有的關於上帝的概念是在那裡出現的。然後我們將繼續於教父們的結構；我們將看到這個概念是如何在那裡被塑造出的，然後我們將以存在性的方式解釋它。 基督已經是相信著他的當代的猶太人所相信的同樣的神。他並没有請求猶太人們更換他們對上帝已持有的概念。每當他與他們聯絡時，他即明顯地表示出，他是參與著對同樣的神所作出的同樣的信仰 -- 阿伯拉罕的神，雅各的神，依薩克的神，舊約聖經中的父親們的神。那麼，這個信仰 （這個區分於其他的非聖經的關於神的概念的、基督徒的對於上帝的看法）的基本要素到底是甚麼呢？ 我們能夠非常簡要地在以下所列出的事物之中找到這些要素（也就是代表著希伯來人和舊約聖經之中所有的概念之差異的、基督自己已接受的、 特别要素）： 首先，上帝之絕對的超越性；上帝是在世界創作之前即存在的， 而我們不能夠將他與我們在世界中所看 到的任何東西相聯繫上。我們一定得超越出我們對這個世界的體驗 （這是與古代的希臘文化精神和哲學相對的）。我們在這裡有一個特 别的差異，因為，對古代的希臘人來說， 這個世界（宇宙：cosmos） 就是人們能够會見神的地方。不論他們的神是一種邏輯性的聯繫 力量（你已知道，cosmos「宇宙」這字在古希臘文中有和諧、美麗、道理、制度的意思） 還是一種允許他們解釋宇宙 (cosmos) 的邏輯性，古代的希臘人皆是在宇宙之中去搜尋神的。 從聖經的觀點來看，這是無法接受的。你是不能以研究宇宙來找到神的，你是不能將神以及神的存有與宇宙的存有相聯繫上的。在基本來說，你是不能同時提到神和宇宙的。你必須設定上帝是在宇宙存有之前就存在的。當然，這是與從無創造宇宙的那個想法有關系的：在以前，宇宙還沒有存在，但是上帝向來是存在的。古 希臘人是 一點也不能接受這個想法的。 對古代的希臘人來說，宇宙是永恒的，即使是在它被創造的過程中， 它也是永恒的；柏拉圖曾提到過創建神創造宇宙之事。這個神在已經存在的空間内，以已經存在的元素，制作出已經存在的理形 (ideas)。因此，宇宙是從已經存在的東西中造出來的，並且是依照给予神的設計的，而神在某種方面上是糾纏於這些之中的。無論我們怎麼樣在古希臘的神中去尋找它們的超越性，我們是绝對找不 到我們在舊約聖經中所發現的那種絕對性的超越性。這即是第一個要素。 這第二個要素則能够解釋上帝之絕對性的超越性，並且它自然地是與第一個要素有關聯的。那就是， 上帝是不被任何物質性的或者是道德性的需求所束縛的；換句話說，上帝是有絕對性的自由的。上帝的超越性是依靠於他的絕對性的自由性的。以便能使你看見其間之差異，我想提醒你一下古代的希臘哲學家對神所持有的看法。對悲劇的詩人們來說 （主要是指 Euripides，但是也是指蘇格拉底之前的思想家，以及 Heraclitus 和所有其他的希臘哲學家），重要的問題則是，神是否能够自由地作他們想要作的事。他們所給的回答向來是「不」。神是必定得做對的事情的；他們不能够作不公正的事，或是做任何違反物質或是道德法律的事。物質和道德的法律是存在的。Heracletus 說過， 在宇宙中有一種邏輯，一種「語詞」 (Logos) ， 以便维持宇宙的統一和和諧；如果某事出了差錯，整個宇宙則會消失。宇宙之不消失，那就是因為這個邏輯的治理之故，而神是必須尊重這個邏輯的治理的。在這個邏輯的治理之內，古代的希臘人也安放了正義之理。在基本上， 宙斯 (Zeus) -- 你已知道 -- 跟 Themis 結婚（themis = 正義），這就準確地證明了 Zeus 是並不能夠任意地行事的；他是被正義之理所束縛的。正義對於古代的希臘人來說是一個很重要的要素。悲劇的詩人們必須一直表現出這個事實。因此，對古代的希臘人來說，神是不能够任意地行事的。 在舊約聖經中，這個概念並沒有適用於希伯來人的對上帝的理解。對希伯來人來說，上帝是不能被正義和對錯所控制的，好比這些原則能够支配上帝自己， 而上帝一定得尊重它們一般。那就是為甚麼在舊約聖經中上帝是非常任意地行事的。舊約聖經充滿了謀殺以及其他乍看之下是不公正的事情，然而這些事情是由上帝自己所執行的；這是因為上帝是不被綁束於道德的原則之上的。你得特別地關注這點，這在實際上是非常敏感的、很難從我們的想法中除去的要點，因為我們已被希臘人對神的理解所捏制住，並且已將上帝繫住，我們已讓從道德規範中所取出的正義和行為的規矩等等征服了上帝的自由性。但是道德規範绝不能夠廢除上帝的自由，無論這是根據希伯來人的理解，或是根據基督教的理解，我們將明白這點。無論如何，既然我們是正在研究聖經所有的關於上帝的概念之最終的差異的這個主題，我們就必須強調這點：上帝是有絕對的自由的，不論是對宇宙來說，還是對原則和概念來說。