聖經中對女人的說法

慕容仰

Feminist liberation theology has without doubt made some important, positive contributions. I can only mention a few of the more notable here. First, feminist theology has called attention to the invaluable role women have played in the church throughout Christian history. Second, feminist theology has rightly pointed to the failure of many men in fulfilling their God-appointed roles of loving their wives as Christ loved the church. If Christian husbands through the centuries had been consistently faithful in following this one injunction, the controversy over gender-based roles in the church could have been avoided (or at least substantially diminished). And third, feminist theology serves as an indictment against the abuse and oppression that women have all too often suffered at the hands of chauvinist men. I consider these contributions important and extremely relevant.

Despite these contributions, however, there are some serious problems that must be addressed. Space limitations regrettably do not allow for a response to each of the passages cited above. I shall therefore limit my critique to a pivotal premise of feminist theology - that is, that female subordination is a result of the Fall, and that in Christ all social hierarchy has been obliterated. If this premise is shown to be in error, then the feminist position on many New Testament passages - including 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 14:33b-36, Galatians 3:28, and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 - is in serious jeopardy.

Feminists appeal to God's judgment against the woman in Genesis 3:16 - "[man] will rule over you" - in their attempt to prove that female subordination was caused by the Fall. A more thorough look at the biblical evidence reveals, however, that this is not the case. Male headship is clearly established in the creation account in Genesis 2 - before the Fall even took place. Man was created first. And the woman was created from Adam's rib to be his helper (Gen. 2:18). Certainly, both male and female were created in God's image and were accorded personal dignity, but God in the creation narrative set them in a nonreversible relation to one another - male in loving headship over the female.

Adam's headship is illustrated in many ways in the creation account. For example, as soon as the woman was created, Adam named the woman: "She shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man" (Gen. 2:23). This is significant, because to name someone or something in ancient times implied having authority over the one named (e.g., Gen. 17:5; 2 Kings 23:34; Dan. 1:7).

It is also highly revealing that when God gave instructions about moral responsibility, He gave these instructions to Adam (Gen. 2:16-17). And after the Fall, God first summoned Adam, not Eve, even though she was the one who had led him into sin. "Adam, where are you?" God said immediately following the Fall (Gen. 3:9). In Romans 5:12, Adam was held solely responsible for the Fall, even though Eve played a significant role.

Certainly one of Adam's failures in the Fall was his abdication of responsibility for leadership. Instead of obeying God and leading his wife, he disobeyed God and followed his wife's lead (by eating the fruit). For this reason, God begins His sentence against Adam, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife" (Gen. 3:17). In the Fall, therefore, God's intended order of authority was reversed. As Gordon Wenham puts it, "Eve listened to the serpent instead of Adam; Adam listened to Eve instead of God."[35]

In view of all this, God's judgment against the woman in Genesis 3:16 cannot be viewed as the source of hierarchical social order. Rather it points to the reality that with the entrance of sin the hierarchical order remains (having been established in Genesis 2), but sin's effect will now be experienced within that order. Hence, God's statement in Genesis 3:16 was simply a divine description of what would occur (male domination and oppression as opposed to loving headship), not a mandate which obedient servants of God should attempt to carry out.

慕容仰

(Gal. 3:28). When Paul says "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female" in Christ (Gal. 3:28), he seems to be alluding to the morning prayer of Jewish men in which they thanked God that they were not born a Gentile, a slave, or a woman.[36] These three classes had severely limited privileges in society.

Contextually, the verses that precede Galatians 3:28 pertain to justification by faith and how a person comes to be included in the blessings promised in the Abrahamic covenant (vv. 15-25). Then, in verse 26, Paul says "you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." For Paul, the term son implies heir (cf. 4:7, 31). "In society these three pairs - none of which were ontologically unequal by creation [that is, they were not unequal in their essence or being as created by God] - are unequally privileged, but in Christ's offer of salvation, Paul argued, there is no distinction. So then, in Galatians 3:26-28, Paul was saying that no kind of person is excluded from the position of being a child of Abraham who has faith in Jesus Christ."[37] That Paul was referring solely to one's position in Christ is evident in the words "sons of God," "Abraham's seed," and "heirs according to the promise." It takes a great leap in logic to say that positional equality must necessitate functional equivalence.

Elimination of gender-based roles is therefore not a legitimate inference from Galatians 3:28. Ontological equality and social hierarchy are not mutually exclusive. The doctrine of the Trinity illustrates this: Jesus is equal to the Father in terms of His being, but He voluntarily submits to the Father's leadership. There is no contradiction in affirming both an equality of being and a functional subordination among the persons in the Godhead. Likewise, there is no contradiction in Paul saying that "there is neither male nor female in Christ" and "wives, submit to your husbands."

The question we must now address (though very briefly) is, How does the hierarchical order established at creation relate to the "female subordination" passages: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, 14:33b-36, and 1 Timothy 2:11-15?

慕容仰

1 Corinthians 4:8-10 tells us that the Corinthians had made much of their newfound freedom in Christ. It is possible that the Christian women in Corinth felt that their new position in Christ was incompatible with wearing a "sign of authority" on their heads in church services when praying or prophesying.

Paul emphasized in chapter 11, however, that the woman's spiritual equality with the man does not in any way do away with the male headship and female subordination established at the Creation. In arguing his case, Paul stated that man "is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man" (1 Cor. 11:7-9). Paul based his argument for female subordination on the order of creation and the purpose of the woman's creation - not on God's declaration to Eve at the Fall. He indicated that the woman brings honor to the man by fulfilling her role of functional subordination, while man brings glory to God by fulfilling the functional role of leader.

In view of this, Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 11:2-11 may be summarized as follows: (1) Man is the head of the woman, just as Christ is the head of the church, and as God is the head of Christ. (2) Thus, every woman who prays or prophesies in church must do so in a way that preserves the hierarchical social order given by the Creator, and this is to be accomplished by wearing a "sign of authority" on her head.

慕容仰

1 Cor. 14:33b-36). How do we relate 1 Corinthians 11, in which Paul allows for women praying and prophesying in the church, with chapter 14, in which Paul commands women to be silent in church? We noted earlier that many feminists say Paul in chapter 14 was merely forbidding disorderly chatter. Seen in this light, Paul was not prohibiting orderly preaching by women.

This interpretation, however, does not fit the context. Paul instructed women to remain silent because they were women, not because they were engaged in idle chatter or were disorderly. In order to be subordinate, Paul said, women must be silent - just as the law says. Scholars differ as to what passage(s) Paul may have been referring to with the word "law,"[38] but that is beside the point. The important factor is that Paul was clearly using this word in reference to Scripture - whether he was speaking of the Mosaic law (Rom. 7:22, 25; 1 Cor. 9:9) or to the Old Testament as a whole (Rom. 3:10-19; 1 Cor. 14:21).

Paul's appeal to the law therefore shows that he was not simply repeating something he had learned from rabbinic literature, but was teaching something backed by God's Word. That Paul cites the law shows that his argument for the silence of women in church was theological and universal, not sociological or cultural.

慕容仰

Another passage in which Paul calls for the silence of women in church is 1 Timothy 2:11-14: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

Paul here builds his argument for female subordination on the order of creation and the order of the Fall. Paul's reasoning is something like this: "Adam was created first as the head; Eve was created second and she fell first; therefore, women are under some restriction." More is involved here than mere chronological priority. Paul saw the priority in time as indicative of the headship of the male, to which the woman, the "helper suitable for him" (Gen. 2:18), should respond.

We gain insight about Paul's prohibition by noting that teachers in New Testament times exercised substantial authority over learners.[39] Teaching doctrine in church was therefore reserved for those men whom God placed in authority to represent Him in spiritual matters. Women are not allowed to teach a church congregation, Paul indicated, for this - by the very nature of teaching - would place them in spiritual authority over men.

How, then, does Paul's command to silence relate to his allowance of women prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11? In 1 Corinthians 11 the women were speaking divine utterances, whereas in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 they were not. Women who spoke under divine control and who were appropriately attired were not exercising their own authority over men and so were not in violation of Paul's injunctions in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2.

I recognize that the question of how to harmonize 1 Timothy 2:11-15, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, and 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 has been answered variously by scholars. In my understanding of Paul's theology, it would seem that though women are completely equal with men in their standing before God, they are forbidden to be in a functional position of ecclesiastical authority over men, teaching them in a congregational setting. This implies neither the superiority of the male nor the inferiority of the female. Paul's theology simply reflects the creation order established by God in which man was appointed to function as spiritual head.

Women are not prohibited, however, from teaching men on an individual basis - as apparently Priscilla, with her husband Aquila, taught Apollos (Acts 18:26). (Priscilla was evidently teaching under the headship of Aquila, to whom the authority belonged.) Nor are women forbidden to prophesy in a respectful and submissive manner (1 Cor. 11:5-6). Nor are women forbidden to personally address fellow believers, male and female, to their "edification, exhortation, and comfort" (1 Cor. 14:3). Nor are women forbidden to teach women (Titus 2:3-4) or children (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14), or take part in other fruitful ministries (e.g., Rom. 16:3, 6, 12). In short, women are privileged to serve God in many different ways within the authority structure He designed.

We gain perspective on this issue by recognizing that the biblical world view is based on the assumption that a personal God sovereignly designed an ordered universe to function in a particular way. Crucial to this world view is the concept of authority. Romans 13:1 tells us that God is the source not simply of all authority but of the very concept of authority. "That the universe should be ordered around a series of over/under hierarchical relationships is His idea, a part of His original design. He delegates His authority according to His own pleasure to those whom He places in appropriate positions and it is to Him that His creatures submit when they acknowledge that authority."[40]

Within that authority structure, both men and women are given the privilege of serving Him - but in different ways. Simply because Scripture says women can't teach men in a position of authority does not mean that their ministries are unimportant. To Paul, all ministries were significant: "The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I don't need you.' And the head cannot say to the feet, 'I don't need you.' On the contrary, parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor" (1 Cor. 12:21-23a).

So, should women be involved in ministry in the church? Absolutely! "That women are gifted for and called to service in the church is plain," said J. I. Packer, "and gifted persons are gifts that the churches must properly value and fully use."[41] However, as Packer also notes, this call to service (according to Scripture) is not to involve ecclesiastical authority over men.

慕容仰

It is deplorable that so many men throughout history have misused and abused God's ordained authority structure by oppressing and dominating women - sometimes justifying their actions by misapplications of the passages discussed in this article. Such misapplications must be condemned as a gross (and sinful) distortion of God's original design for man and woman.

In an enlightening essay, John Piper said that manhood and womanhood are the beautiful handiwork of a good and loving God. Indeed, God "designed our differences and they are profound. They are not mere physiological prerequisites for sexual union. They go to the root of our personhood."[42]

Addressing the need for a return to biblical masculinity and femininity, Piper suggests that "at the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man's different relationships. At the heart of mature femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman's different relationships."[43]

This call for a return to biblical masculinity and femininity led Elisabeth Elliot to comment that "true liberation comes with humble submission to God's original design."[44] Indeed, the noblest achievement of any human being - male or female - is to discover God's design and fulfill it. Let this be our goal.

NOTES
1 Flavius Josephus, Against Apion (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1974), 622.

2 H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munchen, 1893), 2:495; cited by Werner Neuer, Man and Woman in Christian Perspective (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1990), 93.

3 M. Aboth 1.5; cited by Neuer, 93.

4 R. Nicole, "Women, Biblical Concept of," Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 1177.

5 Paul King Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975), 142.

6 A. Duane Litfin, "Theological Issues in Contemporary Feminism," in Walvoord: A Tribute, ed. Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982), 334.

7 Ibid.

8 I am indebted to Litfin for this observation: 349-50.

9 Kenneth L. Woodward, "Feminism and the Churches," Newsweek, 13 Feb. 1989, 61.

10 Mary Daly, The Church and the Second Sex (New York: Harper & Row, 1968).

11 Richard Quebedeaux, The Worldly Evangelicals (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), 122.

12 Quoted in Phyllis E. Alsdurf, "Evangelical Feminists: Ministry Is the Issue," Christianity Today, 21 July 1978, 47.

13 E. Margaret Howe, "The Positive Case for the Ordination of Women," in Perspectives on Evangelical Theology, eds. Kenneth S. Kantzer and Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), 268.

14 The Post American (1972); in Richard Quebedeaux, The Young Evangelicals (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1974), 114.

15 Gretchen Hull, Equal to Serve: Women and Men in the Church and Home (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1987), 115.

16 Aida Besanion Spencer, Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985), 45.

17 Virginia Mollenkott, "What is True Biblical Feminism?" Christian Life, Sept. 1977, 73.

18 Ibid., 72.

19 Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles: A Guide for the Study of Female Roles in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), 56.

20 E. Margaret Howe, Women and Church Leadership (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), 139.

21 Richard and Joyce Boldrey, Chauvinist or Feminist? Paul's View of Women (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), 33.

22 Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty, All We're Meant to Be (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1974), 72.

23 John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1990), 494.

24 Elizabeth Clark and Herbert Richardson, eds., Women and Religion: A Feminist Source Book of Christian Thought (New York: Harper & Row, 1977), 20.

25 Scanzoni and Hardesty, 18-19.

26 Virginia R. Mollenkott, Women, Men, and the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1977), 104.

27 Wayne Grudem, Appendix 1: "The Meaning of Kephale ('Head')," in Piper and Grudem, 425.

28 Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of Paul (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 139.

29 Herbert and Fern Miles, Husband-Wife Equality (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1978), 31.

30 Grudem, 425-68.

31 Howe, "The Positive Case for the Ordination of Women," 273.

32 Ibid.

33 Scanzoni and Hardesty, 71.

34 Mary A. Kassian, Women, Creation, and the Fall (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1990), 116.

35 G. J. Wenham, "The Ordination of Women: Why Is It So Divisive?" The Churchman 92 (1978), 316.

36 S. Lewis Johnson, "Role Distinctions in the Church," in Piper and Grudem, 158.

37 H. Wayne House, "Neither Male nor Female in Christ Jesus," Bibliotheca Sacra, January-March 1988, 54.

38 See H. Wayne House, "The Speaking of Women and the Prohibition of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra, July-September 1988, 301-318.

39 Ibid., 314.

40 A. Duane Litfin, "Evangelical Feminism: Why Traditionalists Reject It," Bibliotheca Sacra, July-September 1979, 267.

41 J. I. Packer, "Let's Stop Making Women Presbyters," Christianity Today, 11 Feb. 1991, 21.

42 John Piper, What's the Difference (Wheaton, IL: The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 1989), 8-9.

43 Ibid., 12.

44 Ibid., 3.

Glossary
chauvinist: A person who in a prejudiced way believes in the superiority of his or her group. A "male chauvinist" is a sexist who assumes an innate male supremacy in most important areas of activity.

feminist: Broadly speaking, a person - female or male - that advocates equal rights, equal status, and equal opportunity for women in a male-dominated world; a person who favors the abolishment of gender-based roles in society, the home, and church.

hermeneutic: A method of interpreting Scripture. "Hermeneutics" is that branch of theology that prescribes rules and guidelines by which the Bible should be interpreted.

inclusive language: language that eliminates or greatly reduces male-centered terms in an attempt to be more "inclusive" of both genders.

慕容仰

Answered by Doug Groothuis

An obstacle hinders many souls from trusting in Jesus as their hope for this life and the next. Many modern women have felt the anguish of being treated as second-class citizens in a man's world. They have been stereotyped and marginalized by men who fail to see their real abilities and understand their real desires. Because many women have been discriminated against unfairly because of their gender, they justifiably complain of the sting of sexism.

Christians should be sensitive to these problems, since God calls us to respect everyone equally on the basis of the truth that we are all created in the image of God (Genesis 1:28), to love our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew 19:19), and to recognize our unity and equality in Christ (Galatians 3:26-29). Yet sadly, many women see the Bible itself as justifying the mistreatment of half the human race. A few years ago I wrote an essay for a campus newspaper that responded to an editorial by a young goddess worshiper named Lia Salciccia. The woman's article was provocatively titled, "Christianity Fails to Honor Women,"1 and represented the thinking of scores of people who reject the gospel because they believe the Bible is sexist.

Several charges are often leveled against the God of the Bible. Many non-Christian feminists claim that the God of the Bible is male. If God is male, then men are more like God than women. Therefore, men have a God-like authority over women in a way analogous to God's authority over his creation. This devalues and disempowers women who, because of their gender, will never have the privileged status of men. Salciccia wonders how Christian women put up with it. "Do they enjoy following a religion governed by a book that says they are inferior?" she asks. "When these woman pray to God is it a man's face that they see?"2 Some feminists also complain that since the Incarnation of God occurred in the form of a man, Jesus, this God cannot properly relate to women's experience. Because of these problems with Christianity, they say, women must turn to a feminine understanding of the divine, the Goddess. Hence the bumper-sticker: "Thank Goddess."

Goddess religion takes many forms. Generally speaking, it rejects male- dominated religious practices and centers on ancient pagan practices that revere the earth and its energies, often drawing on unreliable prehistoric sources to fashion a suitable spirituality for women today.3 Goddess religion rejects the notion of God as a distant Creator who sends his male emissary (Jesus) to the world. Instead it worships the Goddess as the divine power and presence that permeates the universe. Salciccia says, "If I can choose my own deity. . . . I will choose one I can relate to, one which is reflected by all living things, including my very female self."4 The goddess, however, is not a personal deity. Despite the references to "She" and "Mother," this deity is really nothing more than an impersonal force, principle, or source that is embedded in nature. The goddess is more of a metaphorical or poetic idea than a literal or actual being.

In rebutting these charges against the God of the Bible, I will highlight several points that pertain to Jesus.5 Those drawn to the goddess must come to terms with the real Jesus, not a sexist caricature. First, the God of the Bible is not male in any sense. God is not a sexual being. Jesus taught that God is spirit (John 4:24) and not one who brings things into existence through procreation. God is not to be represented as either a male or a female (Exodus 20:4; Deuteronomy 4:16). The Bible does refer to God as our Father, but as theologian Alister McGrath explains: To speak of God as father is to say that the role of the father in ancient Israel allows us insights into the nature of God, not that God is a male human being. Neither male or female sexuality is to be attributed to God. Indeed, sexuality is an attribute of the created order that cannot be assumed to correspond directly to any such polarity within the creator God himself.6

Scripture refers to God as "he" and Jesus called God his Father, not to emphasize masculinity against femininity, but to highlight that God is a personal and powerful being. Unlike the idea of the goddess, the biblical God is a knowing, willing, holy, and loving personal agent who reveals himself in the Bible and through becoming a human being in Jesus Christ. In the cultures to which the Bible originally came, men had more authority than women. Although the Bible does not sanction sexism or the marginalization of women, it used the terms and concepts that would best communicate God's position of prestige, and his role as our protector and provider.

Nevertheless, the Bible uses feminine imagery when it speaks of God as giving birth to Israel (Deuteronomy 32:18) and the Christian (James 1:18). Jesus said he longed to gather rebellious Israel to himself as a mother hen gathers her chicks (Matthew 23:37-39). These kinds of metaphors reveal that although God is not a sexual being, he possesses all the qualities that we appreciate in both men and women, because God is the giver of every good and perfect gift (James 1:17).

Second, Jesus did not set up a male-dominated religious system in which women would be permanently subjugated. He surprised his followers by teaching theology to women in private and in public (John 4:7-27; 11:21-27, Luke 10:38-42) at a time when women were excluded from such affairs. Although he esteemed the family, Jesus stipulated that a woman's principal purpose in life is not reducible to motherhood and domestic work but is found in knowing and following God's will (Luke 10:38-42; 11:27-28). Jesus also appeared to Mary after his resurrection and appointed her as a witness to his world-changing event--in a time when the witness of a woman was not respected (John 20:17-18; Matthew 28:5-10). His model of leadership was based on mutual service and sacrifice, not hierarchical authority structures: "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles LORD it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave--just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:25-28).

In addition, in the early church women served as prophets (Acts 2:17-18; 21:9) and teachers (Acts 18:24-28). Paul clearly articulated the equality of believers when he said, "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, and you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:26-28).7

Third, the incarnation of God in Jesus does not imply that God is male or that God excludes or devalues women. For God to manifest himself in person as a human being, he would have to be either a male or a female. He could not be both simultaneously. However, the most important fact about Jesus was not his maleness (although maleness enabled him to gain respect in ancient, patriarchal Jewish culture), but his holy humanity and identification with the entire human race. As McGrath says, "The fact that Jesus was male, the fact that he was a Jew...all these are secondary to the fact that God took upon himself human nature, thereby lending it new dignity and meaning."8 Jesus understands us all from the inside out: "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15). Although Jesus lived in perfect harmony with the Father and the Holy Spirit, when he joined the human family he knew what it was like to suffer and feel pain, even as we do. During the day of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him (Hebrews 5:7-9).

Those who gravitate toward the goddess because of the problems they perceive with the God of the Bible should realize that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world, including the sins that men commit against women. Jesus neither endorses nor excuses any sin, but calls everyone to repent of sin and accept him as her Savior, Master, and Friend (John 15:15). An impersonal principle, power, or presence romantically called the goddess can be no one's friend, let alone their Savior. Despite the sentimental use of feminine language, one cannot relate personally to an impersonal power.

While goddess religion is speculatively reconstructed from the dark recesses of prehistory, the drama of Jesus is enshrined in datable, space-time, human history. God has a human face, the visage of Jesus. His story has spoken to countless millions of women and men worldwide for the last two thousand years--and continues to speak to us today.

慕容仰

但又沒有時間一口氣做許多回應，
所以給我一點點時間好嗎？

и稱
?狦?ゼ痷タр俱セ竧竒?Ч
??螟?非絋蝶粂

?璶耞彻?竡?┪???琌
?セぃ?瞶秆㏕い痷瞶

ベ?琌??ぃ?秆?

西湖安静

pigpig1985 于 25-6-2004 05:58 PM  说 :
我想
如果你未真正把整本聖經看完
已很難以準確評語

如要斷章取義，或自以為是
根本不能理解固中真理

矛盾是因為不了解吧

pigpig兄您好，如果您认为对于这些疑问是因为“没有真正将整本圣经看完”而产生的误解，那么能不能请您针对这个主题发表您读了圣经后的想法呢？也算是帮助我们非基督徒多认识圣经，而不会有在您看来“断章取义”的可能。

慕容仰

－專訪莫特曼於徒賓根

王貞文

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

編者按：以「盼望神學」著稱於世的當代神學家莫特曼，在接受作者訪問時表示，其夫人女性神學的觀點相當程度地開闊了他男性觀點的神學，二人並透過對話而有所成長，進而致力於挑戰傳統男尊女卑的觀念，以尋求更為整全的人性，乃至神學的思考。

與太太一起做神學
王：今天我們想請問您一些關於您生平的事，特別是婦女神學.....

莫：我太太的婦女神學？

王：是的，您的太太伊莉沙白所從事的婦女神學工作對您的影響。您的太太是您的神學對話伙伴，您們之間的神學對話是非常令人羨慕的。您認為在這樣的對話中，什麼最美好？

莫：當我太太開始以婦女觀點做她的神學時，我才看清我自己的神學思考是有限的、男性中心的。她的女性觀點補足了我男性觀點的缺失。 一個很好的例子是關於耶穌受難的讀法。我總是這樣讀：耶穌被捉拿，門徒都離開祂逃走了。我心中的圖像，耶穌是全然孤獨、被棄了，耶穌是孤單地死去。我忽略了那些婦女，跟隨祂直到各各他；是太太提醒了我。你看，這樣一來，我那有限的男性視野就開闊了；女性的觀點對我幫助很大。

王：這個視野是在《被釘十字架的上帝》之前或之後打開的？

莫：之後。在《被釘十字架的上帝》中，還是有許多糟糕的男性片面觀點。我太太約從1970年開始以女性觀點思考神學，我從那時起，學到不少東西。在一個團體中，男女的平等是很重要的。基督教團體更是如此。 我們曾一起帶查經，討論男女在基督教團體中的地位。我們挑戰傳統男尊女卑的觀念，尋找整全的人。我太太使我們注意到，上帝不是孤獨、與人隔絕的，上帝是在關係中。「關係」不是上帝，但祂在關係中。

王：您們一起寫博士論文、一起牧會嗎？

莫：不。我太太比我還早拿到博士學位，但她跟著我去牧會，她沒有牧會，而是生了孩子。

王：為什麼您們二位的博士論文都是研究改革宗的神學？這和伊莉沙白出身於認信教會傳統有關嗎？

莫：這完全是因為我們的論文指導教授 Otto Weber屬於改革宗的緣故。他給我們題目，我們在布來梅牧會時，正好也在改革宗的教會牧會。我太太是認信教會的，但不是改革宗那一派。（註１）我自己出身自由主義的「共濟會」家庭，並沒有受到教會傳統的薰陶。

王：那對您很重要的「與上帝角力的雅各」的經驗，常與您的太太談起嗎？

莫：我們總是互相閱讀對方寫的東西，然後一起討論。她知道我的思考過程。

王：她怎麼看這個對您來說很重要的轉捩點？

莫：這是我自己的故事。我經歷了戰俘營的生活，在黑暗絕望中與上帝角力，那是我個人信仰的「起源」。我太太的經驗是非常不同的。她的家庭很基督教化，在納粹時期站在認信教會的一邊，她不需要一個由不信到信的轉捩點，她有她自己的故事。

王：您們也一起發掘有意思的神學理念。我特別感到好奇的，是您們對奧廷格（Friedrich Christoph Oetinger ，1702-1782）神學的重新發現。

莫：這是我太太在做婦女神學時，由心理分析的書中唸到的。她在尋求神學的「肉身性」(Leiblichkeit)，而奧廷格有句著名的話說：「所有上帝之道將於肉身中完成」。我那時，在七○年代末期，也一直在神學傳統中尋找著一道成肉身的神學，於是我注意到他針對笛卡兒所寫的一本書《Theologia ex idea vitae deducta 》（由生命觀念產生的神學）。 另外，他使我們注意到一個在Bad Teinach 教堂的神秘主義的圖版，他是第一個把這個所謂的「安東尼亞公主圖版」加以詮釋的人。在這個教堂裡，我太太發現了女性觀點的中世紀神秘主義傳統，在這個充滿隱喻的圖畫裡，甚至有一「女性的三位一體」。（註２） 我們並不能完全接受奧廷格的神學。他有一些很奇怪的觀念，他相信有鬼魂，會在半夜到Wurmlingen （在Tuebingen 西邊五公里處）山上的小教堂，對著鬼魂講道。他是千禧年論者，等候世界末日的來到。這是符騰堡地區的千禧年論，是我不大能接受的一種傳統。 奧廷格對我來說，重要的是透過他，打破只有重視精神 我思故我在 的思考方式，而去「發現」感官與肉體 我在我的肉身中。

王：這與您們來到符騰堡地區有無關聯？

莫：完全沒有！你去問問這些符騰堡的當地人，有幾個認得奧廷格？十九世紀以來的符騰堡敬虔主義運動，早已和過去那充滿對上帝國期望的敬虔主義傳統隔絕了。符騰堡地區的信仰傳統對我產生影響的是布倫哈特(Blumhardt)（註３）。布倫哈特父子對上帝國的盼望與實踐，讓我印象深刻。我很願意認同他們。克里斯多福˙布倫哈特對人肉身部份的重視、對大自然的親近，及對上帝國的盼望，與我的神學很有相關。我很愛唸他的講道集，那是我的靈修用書呢！

（1994年4月1日訪於徒賓根；作者現於德國進修。本文將收入曾念粵編寫之《莫特曼心靈世界》一書中，雅歌出版社預計1998年6月出版。）


訪者附註：
1. 認信教會有兩個「大會」(Synode)，巴門大會有比較濃的改革宗色彩，受巴特的影響深刻，在柏林的達連大會，最重要的人物是尼慕勒牧師。伊莉沙白在柏林的認信教會氛圍中成長，決心唸神學。

2.這個默想用的圖版乃由符騰堡的公主安東尼亞(1613-1679)所捐贈。畫的內容是聖經裡的婦女們和她們的故事，她們成螺旋狀排列，通往天上的基督。這是一幅非常豐富的畫，結合了基督教與猶太教神秘主義的因素，又充滿了女性特有的想像力，說明著人在靈性中的成熟過程，與人的靈魂成為「基督的新娘」之旅程。

3.布倫哈特父子在十九世紀符騰堡地區進行了一個特別的上帝國運動。父親布倫哈特(Johann Christoph Blumhardt)在一個窮困小村Moettlingen牧會時，經歷了一場與黑暗勢力（惡靈）的鬥爭，以「耶穌是勝利者」的禱詞，將鬼由一位受苦的女性身上趕出。自此，他開放自己的家，收容一切身體心靈需要幫助的人。1852年，他為了這個工作買下一個水療中心Bad Boll。他的兒子Christoph Blumhardt也是牧師，在Bad Boll繼續做收容人、治療人身心的工作。由對上帝國的熱情，小布倫哈特發展他的「宗教社會主義」，並捨去牧師頭銜，加入社會民主黨參政。巴特在他的《新教神學》一書中，特別用一章來討論老布倫哈特的神學，認為他在理性化的時代，帶領人們認識了一個不能用理性去理解的黑暗力量的存在。

謙益 于 17-4-2004 12:18 AM  说 :
聖經對於男女的不平等是明明白白地提倡。"女人要沉靜學道，一味的順服。我不許
女人講道，也不許他轄管男人，只要沉靜。因為先造的是亞當，後造的是夏娃。且不
是亞當被引誘，乃是女人被引誘，陷在罪裏。 ...

举双手双脚赞成！！这里还有一些其他证据！！



上帝啊，你是不是瞎了眼啊？

请看看一些圣经里对女人的谬论！！

-“因为夏娃被诱惑，所以女人应当顺从丈夫”(提摩太前书二章十一至四节)。由神话所造成的事实，多么使人痛苦啊！！

-“女人可以被捕虏，虐待，然后再把她赶出门去”(申命记二一章一零至四节)。没有一个文明人，能够忍受这种侮辱。

-“教会怎样顺服基督，妻子也要怎样凡事顺服丈夫”(以弗所书五章二四节)。

-“你们作妻子的，当顺服自己的丈夫”(歌罗西书四章十八节)。

-“你必恋慕你丈夫，你丈夫必管辖你”(创世记三章十六节)。

-请再读民数记三十章；哥林多前书十一章三至七节及十四章三四至三五节；彼得前书三章一节，耶稣曾向他母亲说：“妇人，我与你有什么相干？”(约翰二章四节)。

-丈夫可以休了他的妻子，如果他不喜悦他的话(申命记二四章一节)。但是妻子不能跟她的丈夫离婚。这种思想，真叫人笑死那些大长老们！

可想而知，圣经是在教“人人平等”呢？还是在教导一些已经退化了不知多少年的“奴隶思想”。那个耶和华的“博爱”去了哪里？难道他只爱与他同一性别的男人，而女人就应受到这样的鄙视吗？上帝啊，你是不是瞎了眼啊？

PiggyPigPig

果然是火药味相当重的论坛。。。 而且是公说公有理，婆说婆有理。。。 第一次来的我有点怕怕了。。。

请再读民数记三十章；哥林多前书十一章三至七节及十四章三四至三五节；彼得前书三章一节，耶稣曾向他母亲说：“妇人，我与你有什么相干？”(约翰二章四节)。

这句话是真的吗？？ 如果是真的话，那耶稣也太不孝了吧！！ 连自己的母亲都不能尊敬的人（？） 可以感化世人吗？？？

wilderness

PiggyPigPig 于 10-11-2004 11:41 PM  说 :
果然是火药味相当重的论坛。。。 而且是公说公有理，婆说婆有理。。。 第一次来的我有点怕怕了。。。





这句话是真的吗？？ 如果是真的话，那耶稣也太不孝了吧！！ 连自己的母亲都不能尊敬的人（？） 可 ...

各花入各眼，大家憑良心．．．

Atrous

先感谢wilderness把此文章“挖了”出来。

这帖是我最动心的帖子(内容姑且不论)，

先是谦益兄把把“材”堆了起来，
在经几位仁兄(如fcthow，weesoon，treylee，nanako，betty，单纯的人，previa，khanming，等 )点了火，
peter兄赶了过来，想把材推开，谦益兄不肯，两人过招了。相持不下间，两人定下了决斗的时间地点准备再次华山论剑。
海神兄则对两人的招式不甚了解，不敢冒然出手。
隔岸观火“煽风”人，(如，Liszt，babyland，讨论，naughty-boy，WLR，texion，god_you，蓝天梦，kmlu，，等)份份下注，江湖腥风血雨。

第三部第一章(page 3)，另一高手西湖坛主出场了，带来无数宝典出招，就在二人联手下，peter兄被迫闭关修练，静待良机。

第四部 (page 4)，功力冲破第十八重天的peter兄再次出手，但在谦益兄与西湖坛主双剑合璧下，也讨不了便宜，暂以下风之势打成平手。又遭海神兄，堕落天使，eddie，豬頭，pure_evil在peter兄背后插刀，孤掌难鸣，peter兄再次闭关。清风大师尝试园场，唯不被领情。

第五部，peter兄闭关修练间，其师兄慕容老师登场，招式中中西合并，招招见血，以龙卷暴风之势连出十九招 (十九贴)，谦益兄与西湖坛主不及反应，暂以守为攻，不变应万变。
招式中以扣分增加功力著名见称者DBKl出手护航，反守为攻，以攻应攻，完全不理慕容老师如何出招，准备同归与尽。

欲知后来如何，请看下回分解。

我只是来顶一下的，请轻松的看此帖，纾缓纾缓。

Atrous 于 26-12-2004 12:40 PM  说 :
先感谢wilderness把此文章“挖了”出来。

这帖是我最动心的帖子(内容姑且不论)，

先是谦益兄把把“材”堆了起来，
在经几位仁兄(如fcthow，weesoon，treylee，nanako，betty，单纯的人，previa，khanming， ...

说的好。。。。，几时写武侠小说啊？精彩精彩。。

慕容仰

祂不是以兒子的身份回應瑪利亞的要求的，祂是以神子的身份對人間的一個婦女說：

“母親（“母親”原文作“婦人”），我跟你有甚麼關係呢？我的時候還沒有到。”
他母親告訴僕人說：“他吩咐你們甚麼，就作甚麼。”

所以瑪利亞因為從一開始就知道她所生的不是“完全的自己的兒子”（參路加福音第二章）就不以耶穌的話為忤了。

接下來如果你認真且細心閱讀路加福音，你就會看見耶穌按手醫治彼得的岳母，醫治寡婦的死兒子，赦免妓女等當時猶太人拉比完全不做的事，最後祂在十字架上還交代自己的門徒約翰幫忙照顧自己的母親呢，這在在顯明耶穌沒有重男輕女，真正重男輕女的是耶穌的不肖徒子徒孫，有一天我重男輕女，你也可以說我是墮落了，並且要求我悔改。因為這不是人類社會給你的權柄，是從起初就造男造女的上帝給的權柄。

我很鼓勵我的太太讀女性神學，而上帝沒有因此懲罰我，這說明了祂原本的心意就是要人男女平等的生存生活。

另，摩西的律法是在真實的社會時空產生的，上帝雖然在十誡中給了以色列人大原則，但上帝總不成不斷的去一個又一個提醒那些變心的猶太男人悔改吧。

上帝當然可以這樣做的，正如當我看見一個比我太太漂亮的女人我就過份欣賞時，聖靈會提醒我守行，但如果人要在聖靈的提醒後仍然違抗上帝，上帝卻不會馬上出手，因為上帝仍然要給人自由活動的空間並給人機會TRY AND ERROR。

豬頭 于 24-6-2004 21:58  说 :

咦，你这句话很象是基督教徒最擅用50招理的第32招，就是推卸责任，答不到就叫别人想。

呵呵呵，猪头先觉果然大智若愚，老身佩服。
不过相信猪头先觉你没有误解老身的意思吧？

呵呵呵。Atrous先觉描述得很传神生动，老身顶你。

慕容仰

我（指陳韻琳）在前文（指思考《達文西密碼》的文章）中有提到，「達文西密碼」會熱賣，當然隱含著它反應某種時代趨勢。很多研究當代文化趨勢的學者，都看出二十世紀後半期以來，有一股宗教復興的熱潮，這宗教復興的熱潮又以新興宗教的興起與流行，最為明顯。

「達文西密碼」中，至少呈現出苦修式信仰、基要主義式信仰、開放式信仰、 人文主義式信仰、秘教式信仰、歷史文化信仰、神聖女性（女神）信仰，而最後又以：「你看看四周，藝術、音樂和書籍裡都在述說她的故事，與日俱增。世局動盪，我們開始察覺到人類歷史的危機….以及自我毀滅的危機。我們開始感覺到有恢復神聖女性崇拜的必要。」（p.505）作結，意味著作者最終期待復興女神信仰。

女神信仰非常容易跟秘教式信仰結合，因為女性一向以來就有跟大自然結合、成為大地之母的連帶關係，這其實正是新興宗教的內容。（註七）

因此歸根就底，這部作品是部預設宗教立場的作品、也是女性主義作品，儘管它呈現了各種信仰方式，作者最終導引到新興宗教的女神崇拜，這可以說是女性主義的最強烈主張了，因為女性主義者一向以來就把父權文化關連到父神崇拜，也視父神信仰帶出來的文化體系為壓迫女性的元兇，因此徹底的否認聖經。

說到這裡，我們又要回到諾斯底主義了。因為以聖經中紀錄的耶穌對女性的言行，相較於當時代歧視女性視女性為奴的文化，耶穌根本就是個女性的解放者，在他的言行中沒有任何貶損女性的含意，他跟女性的關係也打破了當時的羅馬歧視女性的文化，何以教會到後來會出現貶抑女性的文化呢？

Peter Brown 在「The Body and Society—Men,Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity」一書中，透過文化歷史研究，指出女性地位低落跟諾斯底 主義滲入基督教信仰是有關的。（註八）

儘管尼西亞會議中教父們竭力阻擋諾斯底主義，但諾斯底主義靈肉二元論還是進到了基督教信仰中。在耶穌的教訓中，人的墮落是全人、從靈到肉的墮落，拯救也是全人的拯救；當人被救恩拯救，神國就已經在人心中生發，全新的生命已經開始。

諾斯底主義滲入後，教會界開始視肉身為惡、視世界為惡，靈肉二元對立之下，苦修主義、與世隔絕的修道院應運而生，性成為罪惡，而女人會引誘男人，所以是墮落的，婚姻是次等人的選擇。當然可以想見，最後守獨身會成為貞潔的象徵，處女成為聖女。

新教改革者包括馬丁路德，很多人從修道院走出，改革內容之一，就是廢棄守獨身即是持守聖潔的觀點，他們鼓勵婚姻，這最重大的意義就是將靈肉二元對立觀點放棄了，這使現世真實的人生包括婚姻，都可以彰顯聖潔。這就是為什麼新教與天主教相較之下，新教顯得開放的多。

基督教女性主義的回應

過往壓迫女性的教會文化，教會非但不該否認，而且得要正視，並透過女性主義神學來矯正。

現在在基督教當中，已出現很多的女性主義神學家，他們在研究中坦承教會文化長久以對女性的壓抑、將女性視為次等，這些神學家們重新從女性的角度來審視聖經、詮釋聖經，從聖經四福音中耶穌的言行，找到耶穌解放婦女的例子。

以新教神學家E.M.Wendel為例，他在其作品「女性主義神學景觀」中，是以耶穌和核心來建構女性主義神學的，包括耶穌如何看待女性，女性用怎樣的女性特質跟耶穌建立愛的關係，Agape之愛中的女性特點，耶穌的女性特質，以及「因信稱義」對女性自愛應當會產生的影響。Wendel還用中古以來的聖像學研究，來看信徒心中上帝與耶穌的女性特質。（註九）

也就是說，在基督教女性主義神學家的神學研究中，是不需要透過否認聖經、將耶穌降低成為人、或以抹大拉馬利亞女性譜系、或以大地之母來塑造女神；反而是重返耶穌言行，以女性視野重新詮釋耶穌、並找到耶穌的「母性性格」來重新定位女性跟男性的關係。

人類的墮落，是男與女一齊的墮落，墮落導致男性轄制女性、女性戀慕男性；男性得終生勞力糊口、女性得受生育之苦，這種墮落是男與女一齊發生，因此，拯救也是一齊發生的。在耶穌救恩的新創造底下，男與女的關係被更新了，男人要用耶穌捨己之愛愛自己的妻子，妻子對丈夫不再是為奴的懼怕，而是神聖盟約中的敬重。

正因為這種新創造完全翻轉被咒詛的舊文化，所以耶穌是以死終結過去，以復活帶出全新的開始，這正是救恩的含意、也是以耶穌為男女關係的核心的含意。 （註十）

（轉貼）

bigfish

{達文西密碼 / reading }


昨天看完最近時報大力推銷的《達文西密碼》．說真的，是本讓人有些失望的小說．看到一半之後的我，是抱著已經看了所以要看完的心情，而繼續下去的．




本來在閱讀前面三分之一的時候，我很喜歡這本書，也有想一直看下去的情緒．剛開始，我覺得故事很新鮮，尤其是談論女神崇拜和黃金比例的部份，很吸引人．但之後的劇情就有些弱了．總讓我覺得，作者刻意地營造緊張氣氛．有效，但是也減弱了故事的深度．到了中間後半，整個故事最爭議性的部份出現，才讓又增加了可看性．



整本書看完之後，給我一種像看完一部標準好萊塢電影的感覺．整個故事的賣點在於爭議性的主題，和為了主題而刻意衍生的關連性．給人震撼的感覺，但是仔細想想的話，少了些合理性．尤其是這個關鍵性的謎題與聖經有關，教會在其中又扮演惡勢力，更引起了話題性．可是不斷地將有名的畫作和宗教（或是異教）符號扯上關連，讓就連對西洋美術史和基督教歷史不是很了解的我，都覺得有些太誇張了．看到後來有總好像什麼都硬要扯上「神聖女性」的感覺．

但是就小說迷來說，，我對作者所持的觀點還是抱著正面的態度．畢竟，這是一本小說，而他利用有名的藝術品來支持他的論點，不但有趣，也讓人思考另一種可能．更重要的是，他讓我去搜尋了書中提到的作品，也增加了一般人對繪畫及建築物的歷史興趣．在閱讀和研究的過程中，還挺有趣的．（真正的宗教歷史家和美術史專家，不知道是該哭還是該笑阿？）

整本書讓我最失望的是角色和情感的描寫．看到後來，總覺得場景和角色的情緒好像不斷重複．男女主角的互動實在很像主流電影的故事，不用看到最後都猜的出來．看似合理，但是我希望看到更有深度的角色與情感描寫．（在此點上，我大力推薦宮部美幸小說．不論是《模仿犯》還是《魔術的耳語》，在角色和情感描寫上，我都認為是上乘的作品．）


總而言之，這是一本算中上的娛樂小說．而且，對無論是支持達文西密碼論調或是反其論調的人來說，這更是本行銷地很好的小說．

[ Last edited by bigfish on 11-1-2005 at 12:45 PM ]