Einige Punkte gilt es zu beachten Brazilian Studio

2026年11月1日星期日

《在起初的故事裡:重新學習作神的子民》- 《創世記》系列:第三十三篇〈當所有人都在說話,誰聽見底拿的聲音?〉

經文:創世記34:1–31(新漢語譯本)

一、雅各剛剛買下土地,女兒卻被人帶走

第三十三章結束時,雅各終於回到迦南。

經文說:「雅各從巴旦.亞蘭平安地來到迦南地示劍城,在城的對面安營。」(33:18)二十多年前,雅各因為欺騙哥哥而離開家鄉。如今,他已經與以掃重逢,帶着妻子、兒女和牲畜回到迦南。那個曾經只有一根杖的雅各,終於在應許之地買下一塊屬於自己的土地。他又在那裏築起一座祭壇,稱它為「伊利.伊羅伊.以色列」,意思是「神-以色列的神」(33:20)。經過多年漂泊,雅各似乎終於可以安頓下來。

值得留意的是,他買地的對象,正是「示劍的父親哈抹的子孫」(33:19)。第三十三章最後,這個家族只是與雅各進行土地交易的人;到了第三十四章,哈抹和他的兒子示劍,卻成為雅各一家另一場危機的中心。

故事開始時,作者把目光轉向雅各的女兒底拿。「利亞給雅各生的女兒底拿出去,要見那地的女子們。」(34:1)底拿上一次出現,已經是第三十章。當時利亞生下一個女兒,給她起名叫底拿(30:21)。此後,雅各如何離開拉班、如何與神摔跤、又如何與以掃重逢,作者都沒有提及她。如今,一家人剛剛在示劍安頓下來,底拿出去見當地的女子們。她可能只是想認識一些朋友,熟悉這個陌生的地方。經文沒有說明她外出的原因,更沒有責備她的行動。

然而,示劍看見了她。

「那地的族長希未人哈抹的兒子示劍看見她,就把她搶去,與她同卧,污辱了她。」(34:2)

作者接連記下示劍的行動:看見、搶去、同卧、污辱。示劍是當地族長的兒子,底拿則來自一個剛剛在這片土地上定居的家庭。這段記載呈現的是示劍對底拿的侵犯。

令人困惑的是,下一節卻說,示劍的心依戀底拿,他愛這個女孩子,又「用說話來打動她的心」(34:3)。《新漢語譯本》的註解指出,這句話直譯是「對這少女的心說話」。示劍甚至要求父親為他安排婚事。他可能真的喜歡底拿,但這份愛慕並不能改變先前所做的事情。他希望得到底拿,卻沒有先尊重她的意願。

示劍曾經對底拿說話,希望打動她的心。至於底拿如何回答,故事沒有告訴我們。

二、示劍想娶底拿,事情卻沒有因此解決

雅各知道女兒受到侵犯時,他的兒子們仍在田野裏牧放牲畜。「雅各就默不作聲,直等他們回來。」(34:5)上一章,雅各終於走在家人前面,親自面對以掃。如今,面對女兒受到傷害,他卻一直等候兒子們回來。這個沉默究竟出於震驚、恐懼,還是希望先與兒子們商量,作者沒有說明。

兒子們回來以後,反應卻截然不同。他們「個個都很憤慨,非常惱火」,因為示劍「在以色列中做了醜事,與雅各的女兒同卧,這樣的事不該做!」(34:7)妹妹受到侵犯,他們無法接受示劍所做的事情。

就在這時,示劍的父親哈抹前來商議婚事。他希望雅各一家答應讓底拿嫁給示劍,又提出讓兩個家族互相通婚,一起在當地生活、買賣和置產。示劍也親自表示,無論雅各一家要求多少聘金和禮物,他都願意支付,只希望能夠娶底拿為妻(34:8–12)。

哈抹似乎認為,這件事可以透過婚姻解決。兩個家族不但能夠化解衝突,還可以建立更密切的關係。示劍也願意付出聘金,顯示自己迎娶底拿的誠意。然而,他們商議的始終是兩個家族如何達成協議,而不是底拿是否願意接受這樁婚事。

更令人意外的是,當雙方正在商議婚事時,底拿仍然留在示劍家中。這一點要到第二十六節,兄弟們把她從示劍家中帶出來時,讀者才清楚知道。

原來,當哈抹與雅各一家商討婚事時,底拿仍然身處示劍家中。

哈抹希望促成婚姻,示劍願意支付聘金,雅各的兒子們則認為妹妹受到羞辱,不能輕易答應。每個人都有自己的考量,卻沒有讓讀者知道底拿自己如何看待這樁婚事。

這種情況在家庭生活中並不罕見。當孩子遇上困難,父母可能急着商量如何處理;當家人受到傷害,親友也很容易立即提出建議。大家都希望事情盡快解決,卻可能忽略了當事人尚未有機會表達自己的想法。

故事中還有一個值得留意的轉變。第二節記載示劍「污辱」底拿;到了第五節,作者卻說雅各聽見女兒受到「玷污」。第十三節再次提到示劍「玷污」底拿,第二十七節更以此作為雅各兒子們擄掠示劍城的理由。「污辱」與「玷污」在希伯來文中是兩個不同的詞。前者描述底拿所遭受的侵犯,後者則涉及污穢與潔淨,也可能牽涉整個家族的身分和尊嚴。¹

起初,作者記下的是示劍如何傷害底拿;隨着事情發展,眾人卻愈來愈關心這件事對家族意味着甚麼。底拿所受到的傷害並沒有消失,只是在一場場談判和爭執之中,故事的焦點漸漸從她身上,轉向了那些認為自己也受到羞辱的人。

三、雅各熟悉的詭計,如今出現在兒子們身上

面對哈抹和示劍提出的婚事,雅各的兒子們終於作出回應。作者卻在記下他們的說話之前,先告訴讀者:「雅各的兒子們卻用詭詐的話回答示劍和他父親哈抹,因為示劍玷污他們的妹妹底拿。」(34:13)

「詭詐」這個詞,對熟悉雅各故事的讀者來說並不陌生。當年,雅各假冒以掃,騙取父親以撒的祝福。以撒後來告訴以掃,他的弟弟用詭計奪去了他的祝福(27:35)。這裏的「詭計」,與第三十四章的「詭詐」,使用同一個希伯來文名詞。後來,雅各也親身經歷過被欺騙的痛苦。他為了迎娶拉結,在拉班家中服侍七年,婚禮之後卻發現新娘原來是利亞。他質問拉班為甚麼欺騙自己(29:25)。

雅各曾經欺騙父親和哥哥,後來又被拉班欺騙。如今,他已經離開拉班,回到迦南,甚至與以掃重逢,但欺騙再次出現在這個家族的故事中。這一次,採取行動的是他的兒子們。

他們告訴哈抹和示劍,不能把妹妹嫁給沒有受割禮的人,因為這對他們是一種羞辱。除非城中所有男子都接受割禮,否則雙方不可能互相通婚。割禮原本是神與亞伯拉罕立約的記號。創世記第十七章記載,神吩咐亞伯拉罕及其後裔世世代代遵守割禮,作為神與他們立約的標誌。如今,雅各的兒子卻把這個記號放進一場欺騙之中。

哈抹和示劍不知道他們真正的打算,只以為接受割禮,便可以與雅各一家通婚。他們甚至來到城門口,勸說城中的男人接受這個要求。為了說服眾人,哈抹和示劍提出了一個十分實際的理由:「他們的牲畜、財產和所有牲口,不就都歸我們了嗎?」(34:23)

原來,哈抹和示劍所看見的,也不只是這樁婚事。他們想到雅各一家所擁有的牲畜和財產,認為與這個家族建立關係,將來可能為自己帶來利益。雅各的兒子們希望藉着割禮設下陷阱,哈抹則以經濟利益說服城中的男人。雙方都同意這項安排,心裏所盤算的事情卻完全不同。

一個原本提醒人記得與神立約的記號,竟然成為欺騙別人的工具。當人太確信自己正在維護正確的事情,有時反而更難察覺,自己所採取的方法是否已經偏離了信仰原本的意義。

四、兄弟把底拿帶出來,卻帶走了更多人

第三天,示劍城的男人仍然因割禮而疼痛,西緬和利未便各自拿刀,進入城中,殺死所有男子,包括哈抹和示劍。經文在記載他們動手時,特別稱他們為「底拿的哥哥」,又說他們「毫無顧忌」地進城(34:25)。作者沒有忘記他們與底拿的關係,也沒有讓讀者忘記,這場暴力是從底拿受到侵犯而開始的。

西緬和利未不只是雅各的兒子,也是底拿的兄弟。當他們得知妹妹受到侵犯,便十分憤怒;如今,他們更親自拿刀進入示劍城,殺死了侵犯妹妹的人。然而,他們所殺的並不只有示劍。

殺死哈抹和示劍以後,作者記下一句話:「之後他們把底拿從示劍家中帶出來,就出去了。」(34:26)直到這裏,我們才清楚知道,底拿一直留在示劍家中。

這裏有一個細緻的呼應。第一節記載底拿「出去」,要見當地的女子們;第二節記載示劍把她「搶去」。到了第二十六節,西緬和利未把底拿從示劍家中「帶出來」,然後「出去」。「搶去」與「帶出來」,原文都使用同一個動詞;而第一節底拿「出去」,與第二十六節兄弟們「出去」,也使用同一個動詞。²

故事開始時,底拿自己出去,卻被示劍搶去;到了這裏,兄弟們終於把她帶出來。

可是,底拿被帶出來之後,暴力並沒有停止。

第二十七節記載,雅各的兒子們來到被殺的人那裏,擄掠整座城,因為「那城的人玷污他們的妹妹」。起初,作者清楚指出侵犯底拿的是示劍;到了這裏,玷污妹妹的責任卻被擴展到整座城的人身上。接着,雅各的兒子們奪走城中的牲畜和財物,又把婦女和孩子擄走。

西緬和利未為妹妹受到侵犯而憤怒,這份憤怒並不難理解。他們不願意讓示劍透過婚姻和聘金,便把先前發生的事情當作已經解決。但當憤怒逐漸變成報復,他們是否仍然知道自己究竟想為妹妹爭取甚麼?

當我們所愛的人受到傷害,尤其看見加害者似乎仍然可以照常生活,我們也可能感到強烈的不平,甚至希望對方承受同樣的痛苦。這份憤怒可以使我們有勇氣面對不公義的事情,卻也可能讓我們逐漸失去分辨。

西緬和利未原本要對付的是示劍,最後卻殺死城中所有男子。其他兄弟又擄掠財物,帶走婦女和孩子。一個女子受到侵犯,最後卻有更多人因這場報復而失去家人、家園與自由。

底拿終於被帶出示劍家。她往後如何面對這一切,故事沒有再說。

五、父親與兒子都在說話,底拿卻沒有留下說話

屠殺過後,雅各終於向西緬和利未提出責備:「你們給我惹禍了,使我在這地的居民中、在迦南人和比利洗人中有了臭名。我人丁稀少,他們要是聚集起來擊殺我,我和我家就都滅絕了。」(34:30)

雅各的擔心有現實的根據。他雖然已經回到迦南,也在示劍附近買下土地,但他的家族人數仍然有限。若周圍的居民因此聯合起來報復,雅各一家很可能無力抵抗。從前雅各害怕以掃帶着四百人前來,曾經把家人和牲畜分成兩隊,希望即使其中一隊遭到攻擊,另一隊仍有機會逃走(32:7–8)。如今,他再次擔心自己的家庭會遭到攻擊。只是這一次,危機不再來自以掃,而是自己的兒子們。

雅各的說話反覆出現「我」:「給我惹禍」、「使我……有了臭名」、「我人丁稀少」、「擊殺我」、「我和我家」。他想到的是這場屠殺可能為整個家族帶來的後果。

面對父親的責備,西緬和利未卻反問:「他怎麼可以像對妓女那樣對待我們的妹妹呢?」(34:31)

雅各擔心家族的存亡,西緬和利未則不能接受妹妹受到羞辱。他們的憤怒有其原因,卻無法解釋為甚麼整座城的男子都需要承受死亡的後果,連婦女和孩子也被擄走。

而且,這句反問也讓我們看見兄弟們如何理解這件事情。他們所關心的不只是底拿受到侵犯,也包括自己的妹妹竟然被人如此對待。底拿是他們的家人,她受到羞辱,他們也感到羞辱。這份憤怒可能出於對妹妹的愛護,卻同時牽涉整個家族的尊嚴。當兩者交織在一起,我們便更難知道,兄弟們究竟有多少是為底拿着想,又有多少是在維護自己不能接受的家族處境。

多年之後,雅各在臨終前再次提起西緬和利未,責備兩人的暴烈,譴責他們在怒氣中殺人(49:5–7)。但第三十四章沒有等到這個後來的評價。作者讓故事停在西緬和利未的質問之中。

結語

第三十四章記載了許多人的說話。示劍對底拿說話,又向父親提出婚事;哈抹與雅各一家商議條件;兄弟們用詭詐的話回應;最後,雅各責備兒子們,西緬和利未則質問父親。每個人都有自己關心的事情,也有自己認為應該採取的行動。但在這些言語、計劃和衝突之中,底拿自己的聲音始終沒有被記錄下來。

這並不代表她從來沒有說話。只是作者沒有讓我們知道,她如何理解自己所經歷的事情。

當一個人受到傷害,周圍的人往往很快便開始討論應該如何處理。家人急着提出建議,領袖需要承擔責任,群體也可能擔心事情帶來的後果。有些行動確實不能延誤,尤其涉及人身安全與法律責任時,更需要及時保護受傷的人。然而,在忙於處理事情的同時,我們是否仍然記得,眼前是一個有自己感受、需要和意願的人?

有時候,真正的聆聽並不需要立即得到答案。對方可能還沒有準備好說話,也可能不知道應該怎樣表達。願意給予時間和空間,不急於替她決定一切,也許正是我們需要學習的事。

第三十四章沒有記載神直接說話。直到下一章,神才再次呼召雅各前往伯特利,並使周圍城邑的人驚恐,沒有人追趕雅各的兒子(35:1、5)。神保護雅各一家免於遭受報復,卻不表示祂認同西緬和利未的暴力。至於神如何看待底拿的遭遇,經文沒有直接交代,我們也不宜替神補上沒有說過的話。

第三十三章最後,雅各在示劍築起一座祭壇,稱它為「伊利.伊羅伊.以色列」——「神-以色列的神」。

第三十四章最後,卻留下西緬和利未的一句質問:

「他怎麼可以像對妓女那樣對待我們的妹妹呢?」(34:31)

一章以祭壇結束,一章以質問結束。雅各已經回到應許之地,也重新確認自己與神的關係,但這個家庭仍然有許多尚未解決的傷害與衝突。

而在所有人的說話之中,底拿自己的聲音,始終沒有被記錄下來。

Antony傳道


註腳

  1. 創世記34:2的「污辱」使用希伯來文動詞 ענה(ʿnh),在這個語境中涉及使人受辱、遭受壓迫;34:5、13、27的「玷污」則使用 טמא(ṭāmēʾ),涉及污穢與潔淨的觀念。在古代社會,這類語言也可能牽涉家族和群體的身分。對34:2事件性質的詮釋,學界存在不同看法。本文根據「搶去、同卧、污辱」的連續描述,以及34:7的明確譴責,將事件理解為性侵犯。參 Lyn M. Bechtel, “What If Dinah Is Not Raped? (Genesis 34),” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 19, no. 62 (1994): 19–36;Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, Word Biblical Commentary 2 (Dallas: Word Books, 1994)。
  2. 創世記34:2的「搶去」與34:26的「帶出來」,原文都使用希伯來文動詞 לקח(lāqaḥ,取、拿);34:1底拿「出去」與34:26兄弟們「出去」,也使用動詞 יצא(yāṣāʾ,出去)。這些詞語形成前後呼應,使敘事具有回環結構。參 Wenham, Genesis 16–50;Bruce K. Waltke with Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001)。
  3. 創世記34:13的「詭詐」與27:35以撒形容雅各欺騙取得祝福時所使用的希伯來文名詞相同,均為 מִרְמָה(mirmâ)。29:25拉班欺騙雅各時使用的動詞 רמה(rāmâ),也與 mirmâ 具有相同詞根。這些用詞上的呼應,使讀者容易聯想到雅各過去的經歷,但不能據此斷言雅各知悉兒子的計劃,或認定兩代人的欺騙具有直接的因果關係。參 Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary;Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995)。
  4. 創世記17:9–14將割禮描述為神與亞伯拉罕及其後裔立約的記號,但創世記34:13–24呈現這個記號如何被不同的人用來達成自己的目的。雅各的兒子以割禮作為欺騙的工具,哈抹則以經濟利益說服城中男子接受割禮。參 Walter Brueggemann, Genesis, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982);Wenham, Genesis 16–50。

2026年10月1日星期四

《誰來接下一棒?》(八)最後,接棒的其實不是「人」| Who Will Take the Baton? — Part 8 In the End, It Is Not a Person Who Takes the Baton

上一篇談到,當我們真的願意把責任交給下一代,最後需要交出去的,可能不只是工作和位置,連「怎樣在他們的時代忠心」這份分辨的責任,也要慢慢交給他們。這一步並不容易,因為它意味著我們需要接受:下一代所建立的教會,未必完全像我們熟悉的教會;他們使用的方法、重視的表達,甚至對一些事情的先後次序,也可能與我們不同。但一路寫到這裡,我也開始覺得,「交棒」這個比喻本身,或許還有一個地方需要再想深一點。

這個系列一直用「接棒」來談教會的傳承。這幅圖畫很容易明白:有人在前面跑了一段路,到了一個時候,把手上的棒交給後面的人,讓他繼續跑下去。它提醒我們,沒有人可以永遠站在同一個位置,每一代都有自己的責任,也需要預備後來的人繼續前行。可是,這個比喻也很容易讓我們產生一個錯覺,好像這一棒原本是在我們手上的,是我們建立了這些事工、牧養了這群人、發展了這間教會,到了某一個時候,再由我們決定把它交給下一代。

但如果再問深一點:

我們真的擁有過這一棒嗎?

服事得愈久,我愈覺得這不是一個容易回答的問題。我們當然知道教會屬於神,這是一個很基本的信仰認知,大概沒有多少教會領袖會反對;但「知道教會屬於神」,和真的在服事裡活出「教會不是我的」,其實可以是兩回事。當你花了很多年建立一個事工,看著它由幾個人慢慢成長;當你陪伴一群弟兄姊妹經歷信仰的高低起跌,參與他們生命裡重要的時刻;當你為一個群體禱告、流淚、承擔衝突,也為它付上很多時間和心力,那份感情一定是真的。甚至有些教會領袖,一生最好的歲月幾乎都放在同一間教會裡,教會今天能夠走到這裡,也的確留下了他們忠心服事的痕跡。

所以,有時候放不下,未必只是因為喜歡權力,也未必只是因為不信任下一代,很多時候恰恰是因為太愛、付出太多,也承擔得太久。我們愈為一件事情付上自己,就愈容易把「受託」慢慢感受成「擁有」。

這種轉變往往很微妙。沒有人會公開說:「這是屬於我的教會。」但我們可能會說:「這個事工是我一手建立的。」「這班人我帶了很多年,我最了解他們。」「以前我們不是這樣做的。」這些說話本身未必有錯,甚至很多時候都是事實。真正需要留意的是,當一件事情與我們的生命連結得愈深,我們便愈難分辨:我現在所守護的,究竟是神交託給我的,還是因為它已經成為了我的一部分,所以我很難想像它有一天不再帶著我的樣子?

保羅寫給哥林多教會的說話,對我來說是一個很重要的提醒。當時哥林多信徒中有人說自己是屬保羅的,有人說自己是屬亞波羅的。這段經文本來處理的,是信徒依附不同領袖所帶來的結黨,保羅並不是在討論今天所說的教會「接班」。但正因如此,他所指出的人與神之間的位置,也反過來提醒所有服事和帶領的人:如果信徒不應把任何領袖放在本來屬於神的位置,領袖自己也不能慢慢把神所託付的群體看成屬於自己的。

面對哥林多人的結黨,保羅問:「亞波羅算甚麼?保羅算甚麼?」然後他說:「我栽種了,亞波羅澆灌了,惟有神使它生長。」(林前3:6)

我很喜歡這節經文的一個地方,就是保羅沒有因為強調神的工作而否定人的工作。

他真的栽種過,亞波羅也真的澆灌過。

保羅不是說:「反正都是神做的,所以我們做甚麼都沒有關係。」人的忠心、付出、恩賜和承擔都是真的,也真的會在神的工作裡留下痕跡。沒有那些願意栽種的人,很多事情不會開始;沒有那些願意澆灌的人,很多生命也不會得到照顧。然而,保羅同時把一條很重要的界線畫得非常清楚:

使它生長的,是神。

再往下讀,保羅說:「因為我們是神的同工;你們是神的田地,神的房屋。」(林前3:9)這裡的區分很重要。保羅和亞波羅是同工,而哥林多教會才是神的田地、神的房屋。也就是說,我們真的參與其中,也真的承擔責任,但我們從來不是主人;我們可以栽種,可以澆灌,可以用很多年建立一些東西,但教會始終是屬神的,生命真正怎樣成長,也始終不是由我們掌握。

如果這是真的,那麼「交棒」最深的功課,可能就不只是學習相信下一代,而是重新學習相信神。如果信任只停在「我終於覺得你夠成熟,所以我可以放心交給你」,那根棒其實仍然好像是我的,只是我終於找到一個我認為合資格的人接手。保羅所說的卻把我們帶到另一個方向:不是我先擁有,然後決定交給誰,而是我們每一個人都只是在神的工作裡,在一段有限的時間中受祂所託。

有人栽種,有人澆灌;有人在一間教會最困難的年代留下來,有人在教會穩定之後慢慢建立制度;有人開拓新的事工,有人整理前人留下來的東西;有人陪伴一代人成長,後來又有人接著陪伴另一代。每一個人的角色都可以很重要,但沒有一個人的角色是永遠的。這也令我想到一個更難面對的問題:如果下一代最後建立出來的教會,不再像我們熟悉的教會,我們仍然能夠為它感恩嗎?

這裡說的當然不是離開福音,也不是不再重視聖經,而只是它不再帶著那麼多我們熟悉的痕跡。它的崇拜可能不同,領導方式可能不同,事工的重心也可能改變;有些我們花很多時間建立的東西,他們可能繼續保留,有些則可能慢慢完成了它在那個時代的任務。到了那個時候,我們心裡真正希望延續的,究竟是神的工作,還是「我的工作」?

我覺得這個問題比「你願不願意放手」更深,因為放手仍然可以只是一個管理上的安排:我退下來,你接上去;我不再負責,你開始負責。但如果我真正承認這是神的工作,我便要接受一件更深的事情:

神可以使用我,也可以在沒有我的情況下繼續工作。

甚至有一天,神所做的事情可能已經不再需要留下很多屬於我的痕跡。

但這個功課其實不只屬於上一代。今天接過責任的人,同樣需要記得:當一個事工、一個群體,甚至整間教會的責任交到我們手上,它也沒有因此變成「我們的」。上一代不是主人,下一代也不是。我們今天可以重新整理前人留下來的東西,可以按著新的處境作出分辨,也可以建立一些上一代從未想過的事工;但如果神給我們足夠的年日,有一天,我們同樣會成為那個需要學習放手的人,而另一代人也會用與我們不同的方式繼續前行。受託者最容易忘記的,也許就是自己仍然只是受託者。

所以,教會的傳承從來不只是兩代人之間的事情。不同世代能夠在同一個故事裡繼續前行,最終不是因為我們擁有一套永遠不變的制度,也不是因為每一代都有一位足以掌握一切的領袖,而是因為神從來沒有停止在祂的教會中工作。聖靈曾經在上一代的處境中呼召人、建立人、賜下恩賜,也仍然會在我們未必熟悉的下一個世代中工作。

這當然不是說,只要是新的方向,就可以輕易稱為聖靈的帶領。教會仍然需要回到聖經,也需要在群體中分辨;上一代所累積的經驗和提醒,也不應因為時代改變便被輕易丟棄。但如果責任感慢慢變成「如果沒有我看著,事情就會出問題」,我們可能已經在不知不覺間承擔了一個從來不屬於我們的位置。傳承需要教導,需要守護,需要分辨,也需要彼此提醒,但最終我們所相信的,不是一套足以保證教會永遠不會犯錯的制度,而是那位仍然在祂的教會中工作的神。

施洗約翰曾經說:「他必須興旺,我必須衰微。」(約3:30)約翰說這句話,原本是指向基督與自己的關係,並不是在談教會的交接,所以我們不需要把它直接變成一套接班原則。但他面對基督時所呈現的姿態,仍然值得每一個服事者學習:當基督被高舉,我便不需要證明自己仍然重要。

我們都希望自己所做的有意義,也希望多年付出的東西不會輕易消失,這並沒有錯。但事奉裡有一種很深的自由,是有一天我們不再需要成為故事的中心。我不需要每一個人都記得這件事是誰開始的,也不需要後來的人用同一種方法繼續,來證明我以前的選擇是對的。即使別人用與我不同的方法,把神交託給教會的使命繼續承擔下去,我仍然可以為此感恩,因為真正重要的從來不是我的名字有沒有留在那裡,而是基督仍然在那裡。

這樣再回頭看「接棒」,也許教會的傳承並不是一群人擁有一根棒,跑完自己的路程,再把它交給下一群人。更準確地說,是一代又一代的人被神邀請,在祂自己的工作裡走其中一段路。在我們以前,已經有人走過,他們禱告過、付出過、犯過錯,也留下很多我們今天仍然享受的恩典;有些人的名字我們知道,有些早已沒有人記得。今天輪到我們走這一段,我們同樣會建立一些東西,也會犯一些錯;有些事情會留下來,有些事情將來會被改變。我們所能做的,是在神交託我們的時間裡盡力忠心,然後在適當的時候,讓另一代人繼續走下去。

到了那一天,我們需要交出去的,也許不只是位置、權力和方法,甚至不只是那根我們一直以為握在手中的棒。最後需要放下的,是「這是我的」這個念頭。

我想,這可能也是傳承裡最深的一種信心。當我知道教會不是我的,我便不需要靠控制它的未來,來證明自己過去的付出有價值;當我知道使它生長的是神,我便可以接受自己可能只是栽種的人,也可能只是其中一個澆灌的人;當我相信神的工作比我的一生更長,也就可以在自己那一段路逐漸完成的時候,看著另一群人繼續向前。

有一天,我們都會離開現在的位置。有人退休,有人搬到另一個地方,有人進入另一個人生階段,也有人只是隨著年月過去,名字慢慢不再被提起。但神的教會仍然會繼續,因為到了最後,我們需要承認一件其實從一開始就是真的事情:

教會從來不是靠我們撐下去的。

我們只是有幸,在神漫長的工作裡,被祂使用,忠心地走過其中一段。

Antony傳道



In the previous article, I reflected on what it means to truly entrust responsibility to the next generation. What we eventually need to hand over may be more than tasks and positions. We may also need to entrust to them the responsibility of discerning what faithfulness should look like in their own time. This is not easy, because it means accepting that the church they build may not look exactly like the church we know. Their methods may be different, the forms of expression they value may differ, and even the priorities they set may not always be the same as ours. But as I have continued writing this series, I have begun to wonder whether the metaphor of “passing the baton” itself needs to be examined a little more deeply.

Throughout this series, I have used the image of a relay to talk about the handing on of what we have received in the church. The picture is easy to understand: someone runs one part of the race, and when the time comes, passes the baton to the person behind so that the race can continue. It reminds us that no one remains in the same place forever. Every generation has its own responsibilities, and every generation needs to prepare those who will continue after them. Yet this metaphor can also create an illusion—that the baton somehow belongs to us in the first place. We built these ministries, shepherded these people, and helped develop this church; then, at some point, we decide to hand what we have built to the next generation.

But if we take the question one step further:

Did we ever really own the baton in the first place?

The longer I serve, the more I realize that this is not an easy question to answer. Of course, we know that the church belongs to God. This is one of the most basic convictions of our faith, and few church leaders would disagree with it. But knowing that the church belongs to God and actually living as though “this church is not mine” can be two very different things. When you have spent years building a ministry and watched it grow from just a few people; when you have walked with brothers and sisters through the highs and lows of faith and shared some of the most important moments of their lives; when you have prayed and wept for a community, carried its conflicts, and invested years of your time and energy in it, that bond is real. Some church leaders have given the best years of their lives to one congregation, and the church as it stands today genuinely bears the marks of their faithful service.

So when people find it difficult to let go, it is not necessarily because they love power, nor simply because they do not trust the next generation. Sometimes it is precisely because they have loved deeply, given so much, and carried the responsibility for so long. The more of ourselves we pour into something, the easier it becomes for what was “entrusted to us” to begin to feel like something we “own.”

The change can be very subtle. Few people would openly say, “This is my church.” But we may say, “I built this ministry from the ground up,” “I have led these people for years; I know them better than anyone,” or “This is not how we used to do things.” None of these statements is necessarily wrong. In many cases, they may simply be true. The deeper question is what happens when something becomes so closely connected to our lives that it becomes difficult to tell the difference between what God has entrusted to us and what has become part of us. Am I protecting what God has entrusted to me, or has it become so much a part of me that I can no longer imagine it one day carrying fewer traces of who I am?

Paul’s words to the church in Corinth offer an important reminder. Some of the Corinthian believers identified themselves with Paul, while others identified themselves with Apollos. The original issue in this passage was the division created by believers attaching themselves to different leaders; Paul was not discussing what we today would call leadership succession. Yet for precisely that reason, the place he gives human leaders in relation to God also speaks back to those of us who serve and lead. If believers must not place any leader in the position that belongs to God, leaders themselves must not slowly come to regard the community God has entrusted to them as their own.

In response to the divisions in Corinth, Paul asks, “What is Apollos? What is Paul?” and then says:

“I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.”
(1 Corinthians 3:6)

What I appreciate about this verse is that Paul does not emphasize God’s work by denying the reality of human work.

Paul really did plant. Apollos really did water.

Paul is not saying, “God does everything, so it does not matter what we do.” Human faithfulness, sacrifice, gifts, and responsibility are real, and they leave real marks within the work of God. Without people willing to plant, many things would never begin. Without people willing to water, many lives would never receive the care they need. Yet Paul also draws a very clear boundary:

It is God who gives the growth.

A few verses later, Paul says, “For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building” (1 Corinthians 3:9). The distinction matters. Paul and Apollos are fellow workers; the Corinthian church is God’s field and God’s building. We genuinely participate in God’s work and genuinely carry responsibility, but we are never the owners. We may plant, we may water, and we may spend many years building something, but the church still belongs to God, and the growth of people’s lives is ultimately not ours to control.

If this is true, then perhaps the deepest lesson in passing the baton is not simply learning to trust the next generation. It is learning again to trust God. If trust goes no further than, “I finally think you are mature enough, so I can feel at ease handing this over to you,” then the baton still seems to belong to me; I have simply found someone whom I consider qualified to take it. Paul’s words point us in a different direction. I do not first own something and then decide whom to give it to. Each of us is simply entrusted with a part in God’s work for a limited season.

Some plant and others water. Some remain through the most difficult years of a church, while others build structures after stability has returned. Some begin new ministries, while others organize and strengthen what earlier generations have left behind. Some walk with one generation as it grows, and later others continue that work with the generation that follows. Every one of these roles may matter deeply, but none of them lasts forever. And that leads me to a harder question: If the church built by the next generation no longer looks like the church we know, can we still give thanks for it?

I am, of course, not talking about abandoning the gospel or no longer taking Scripture seriously. I simply mean that the church may no longer carry as many of the marks that are familiar to us. Its worship may look different, its leadership may function differently, and the focus of its ministries may change. Some things we spent years building may remain; others may gradually complete the purpose they served in a particular time. When that happens, what do we really want to see continue—the work of God, or “my work”?

I think this question goes deeper than simply asking whether we are willing to let go, because letting go can still be nothing more than a management arrangement: I step down, you step in; I am no longer responsible, and now you are. But if I truly believe that this is God’s work, then I must also accept something deeper:

God can use me, and God can continue His work without me.

There may even come a day when what God is doing no longer needs to bear many traces of me at all.

But this is not a lesson only for the older generation. Those who receive responsibility today must remember the same thing. When a ministry, a community, or even the responsibility for an entire church is placed in our hands, it does not therefore become “ours.” The older generation is not the owner, and neither is the next generation. Today we may reorganize what earlier generations have left us, discern what faithfulness requires in a new context, and even build ministries they never imagined. But if God gives us enough years, one day we too will become the generation that needs to learn how to let go, while another generation continues in ways different from ours. Perhaps what a steward most easily forgets is that a steward is still only a steward.

So the handing on of what we have received is never simply a matter between two generations. Different generations are able to continue within the same story not because we possess a system that never changes, nor because every generation produces a leader who has everything under control, but because God has never stopped working in His church. The Holy Spirit called, built up, and gifted people in the circumstances of previous generations, and He continues to work in generations whose world may be unfamiliar to us.

This does not mean that every new direction should automatically be called the leading of the Holy Spirit. The church must still return to Scripture and discern together as a community. Nor should the experience and wisdom accumulated by previous generations simply be discarded because times have changed. But when a sense of responsibility gradually becomes, “If I am not here to keep an eye on things, something will go wrong,” we may have begun, without realizing it, to take on a role that was never ours. The handing on of what we have received requires teaching, guarding, discernment, and reminding one another. But in the end, our confidence is not in a system capable of guaranteeing that the church will never make mistakes. Our confidence is in the God who is still at work in His church.

John the Baptist once said, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). In its original context, John was speaking about Christ and his own relationship to Him, not about leadership succession in the church, so we should not turn his words directly into a formula for passing the baton. Yet the posture he displays before Christ is still worth learning for anyone who serves: when Christ is exalted, I do not need to prove that I am still important.

We all want what we do to matter, and we naturally hope that what we have spent years building will not simply disappear. There is nothing wrong with that. But there is a deep freedom in ministry when the day comes that we no longer need to remain at the centre of the story. I do not need everyone to remember who started something, nor do I need those who come after me to use the same methods in order to prove that the choices I made were right. Even when others carry forward the mission God has entrusted to the church in ways different from mine, I can still give thanks, because what matters most is not whether my name remains, but whether Christ is still there.

Seen this way, perhaps passing the baton is not really about one group owning a baton, running its part of the race, and then handing it to another group. A better picture may be that generation after generation is invited by God to walk one part of the way within His continuing work. Others walked before us. They prayed, sacrificed, made mistakes, and left behind many gifts that we still enjoy today. We know some of their names; others have long been forgotten. Now it is our turn to walk this part of the way. We too will build some things and make some mistakes. Some of what we do will remain, while some will eventually change. Our task is to be faithful during the time God has entrusted to us, and then, when the time comes, to allow another generation to continue the journey.

When that day comes, what we need to release may be more than positions, power, and methods. It may even be more than the baton we have always imagined ourselves holding. In the end, what we need to let go of is the thought: “This is mine.”

Perhaps this is one of the deepest expressions of faith in the handing on of what we have received. When I know that the church is not mine, I do not need to control its future in order to prove that my past service mattered. When I know that God is the one who gives the growth, I can accept that I may be only the one who planted, or only one of those who watered. And when I trust that God’s work is longer than my lifetime, I can watch another generation continue forward as my own part of the journey gradually comes to an end.

One day, all of us will leave the places where we now serve. Some will retire, some will move elsewhere, some will enter a different season of life, and some will simply find, as the years pass, that their names are mentioned less and less. Yet God’s church will continue, because in the end we have to acknowledge something that has been true from the very beginning:

The church never depended on us.

We simply have the privilege of being used by God, faithfully walking one part of the way within His much longer work.

Pastor Antony

2026年9月30日星期三

《誰來接下一棒?》(七)當昨天的方法,開始限制明天 | Who Will Take the Baton? — Part 7 When Yesterday’s Ways Begin to Limit Tomorrow

上一篇談到信任。當上一代願意放手,下一代也願意承擔,我們可能會以為,交棒的問題終於解決了。但當事情真的走到這一步,很快又會碰到另一個問題:我們交給下一代的,究竟是教會的使命,還是連我們完成使命的方法,也一起交給他們?

一間教會走過十年、二十年、三十年,自然會累積很多自己的做法。崇拜怎樣安排、會議怎樣進行、事工要經過甚麼程序、誰可以參與決定……有些寫在章則裡,有些根本沒有寫下來,只是大家做了很多年,慢慢便覺得:「教會就是這樣運作的。」

這些制度和做法本身不一定有問題,很多時候,背後都有一段歷史。今天我們覺得繁複的一個程序,可能是因為教會曾經受過傷;今天看來比較保守的一條界線,也可能是前人經過一些教訓之後才建立起來。所以問題不是簡單地問「舊的要不要留下」,而是:它當初為甚麼存在?今天,它仍然在幫助我們完成甚麼?

問題是,一個方法用得久了,我們很容易忘記它原本只是一個方法。最初是為了解決一個需要,後來變成固定做法;做了很多年,又慢慢變成傳統。甚至有些原本在某個處境下形成的做法,經過多年之後,被賦予愈來愈高的意義,最後被理解成神學立場,或者認為聖經本來就是這樣要求。到了這個地步,任何改變都很容易被理解成對信仰本身的挑戰。

我想,這也是交棒真正困難的地方之一。我們可能真心願意對年輕人說:「好,這個事工交給你。」可是當他接過之後,第一個問題卻是:「可不可以不要照以前的方法做?」我們心裡可能立即緊張起來。到這裡才發現,原來工作可以交出去,方法卻未必那麼容易。

棒交了,跑法仍然只有一種。

這種張力,在教會不同的事奉裡都可能出現,而崇拜大概是其中一個很容易看見的例子。

華人教會過去很重視崇拜的莊重和嚴肅,背後其實有一份值得珍惜的信念:我們來到神面前,是在敬拜那位聖潔、配得敬畏的神。因此,崇拜要認真,事奉不能隨便。這份對神的敬畏,是每一個世代都需要學習的。

但當這份敬畏長期透過某一種嚴肅、克制的方式表達,我們也可能在不知不覺間把兩者連在一起,彷彿少一點表情、少一點個人的流露,站在台上四平八穩,甚至看起來有點「木口木面」,才算莊重。原本用來表達敬畏的一種方式,慢慢變成了我們理解敬畏本身的方式。

今天較年輕的一代未必比較不敬畏神,但他們成長的文化更常談真實、感受、關係和連結。因此,當他們進入一種非常克制、甚至讓人感到台上與台下有距離的崇拜文化時,覺得格格不入並不難理解。問題未必只是有人喜歡傳統崇拜,有人喜歡現代崇拜,而可能是不同世代對「敬畏神應該怎樣被活出來」有不同的文化想像。

所以值得問的不是哪一種崇拜風格比較好,而是:我們要傳承的,究竟是對神的敬畏,還是我們這一代用來表達敬畏的方式?

而這個問題不只出現在外在的形式,也會進入我們對生命和事奉的理解。其中一個很明顯的例子,就是「忠心」。

上一輩信徒當中,很多人真的在很不容易的環境下事奉。工作忙、家庭擔子重、教會人手不足,仍然咬緊牙關守住自己的崗位。很多教會能夠走到今天,的確承載著這些人的付出,這份忠心值得我們尊重。

但我也很常聽見類似的說話:「我們當年背負那麼多,仍然這樣事奉,為甚麼現在這一代這麼捱不得?」

這句說話背後,可能藏著一個沒有說出口的假設:我們當年怎樣付代價,下一代也應該怎樣付代價。

可是,「忠心需要付代價」和「忠心必須重複上一代所付的代價」,並不是同一件事。每一代跟隨基督都需要學習捨己、承擔和忍耐;但不同世代所面對的生活處境、家庭結構和工作文化並不完全相同。如果只用自己走過的路來衡量另一代,很容易便把「跟我們不一樣」理解成「不夠委身」。

當然,這也不能倒過來變成:只要覺得辛苦,就不需要承擔。有些不舒服不是制度出了問題,而是委身本來就有代價;有些壓力也不是應該立即逃避,而是生命在承擔中慢慢長大的過程。

所以真正需要問的,不是哪一代比較捱得,而是:

甚麼是跟隨基督本來就要付的代價,甚麼只是我們那一代已經習慣了的代價?

到了這裡,我們會發現,傳承真正困難的地方,已經不只是方法的新與舊。敬畏是真的,但表達敬畏的方式可以不同;忠心是真的,但不同世代活出忠心的方式也未必完全一樣。如果我們分不開兩者,「忠心」便很容易悄悄變成另一個要求:你最好也像我們一樣。

所以真正要學的,不是怎樣把舊的換成新的,而是怎樣分辨甚麼應該守住,甚麼可以改變。

這樣的分辨並不輕省。聖經當然沒有直接回答今天教會應該採用甚麼崇拜方式、事工模式或行政制度,但它讓我們看見,當信仰進入新的處境,神的子民同樣需要認真分辨:甚麼是必須持守的,甚麼又不應該被額外加上。

使徒行傳十五章就是一個很重要的提醒。當福音開始進入外邦人的世界,有些從猶太來的人認為,外邦人若不按摩西的規矩接受割禮,便不能得救;也有人主張外邦信徒需要受割禮,並遵守摩西的律法(徒15:1、5)。今天的我們很容易知道後來的答案,但對當時的猶太信徒來說,割禮和律法並不是無關痛癢的生活習慣,而是長久以來與他們的群體身份和信仰生活緊密相連的事情。

使徒們沒有簡單地說:「時代不同了,舊的不要了。」他們一起討論,聆聽彼得、保羅和巴拿巴所見證神在外邦人中間的工作,也從聖經重新作出分辨(徒15:6–21)。他們所面對的問題,比今天教會要不要改一個崇拜模式或行政程序重大得多;但這段經文仍然留下了一個重要提醒:當福音進入另一個群體,神的子民需要分辨,哪些是福音本身要求的,哪些不應被加在福音之上。

這當然不能簡單套用到今天每一項教會改革,但它逼使我們面對同一類問題:當信仰進入另一個世代、另一種文化,我們要守住的究竟是甚麼?

我們想傳給下一代的,是對基督的信仰,還是我們最熟悉的聚會方式?是對聖經的忠誠,還是我們一直使用的教學方法?是願意付代價的生命,還是我們這一代習慣的付代價方式?甚至更難分辨的是:我們有沒有把自己對聖經的應用,慢慢當成了聖經本身?

現實當然不會分得這麼乾淨。有些制度承載著重要的價值,例如問責、公平和對人的保護;有些程序看起來麻煩,卻是前人經過教訓之後建立起來的。同樣,新的方法也不會因為「新」就自然比較好。追求效率,可能令我們沒有耐性建立關係;追求彈性,可能連原本的問責一起削弱;重視真實和感受,也需要容許神的話和信仰群體挑戰我們,而不是讓自己的感受成為最後的標準。

所以,下一代需要的不只是改變的空間,也需要知道自己正在承接甚麼。就像上一代對崇拜莊重的堅持,背後可能是在守護對神的敬畏;一些今天看來繁複的程序,也可能是前人付過代價之後留下來的保護。沒有記憶的改變,很容易只剩下追逐新鮮;但只有記憶而沒有重新分辨,昨天的智慧也可能慢慢成為明天的限制。

如果我們真的相信神仍然在下一代中工作,有一天,我們需要交出去的,就不只是工作,也不只是決策的位置,連「怎樣在他們的時代忠心」這份分辨的責任,也要慢慢交給他們。

對我來說,這可能比交出一個職位困難得多。因為職位交出去之後,我仍然可以期待對方照我的方法做;但當分辨的責任也交出去,我便要接受一個可能性:有些我用了很多年的方法,他們最後可能不再使用;有些我很珍惜的形式,他們可能用另一種方式延續。甚至有一天,他們所建立的教會,看起來已經不完全像我們熟悉的教會。

這並不容易接受,但可能正正是交棒最後要面對的一步。

到了那個時候,我們怎樣知道傳承有沒有成功?我想,要看的未必是下一代有沒有把我們留下來的一切完整複製下去,而是當形式改變之後,他們是否仍然愛基督、忠於福音、重視神的話,也願意在自己的世代裡承擔教會的使命。如果這些仍然在,他們走的路與我們不完全一樣,又有甚麼關係呢?

上一代曾經在自己的年代裡尋找怎樣忠心地跟隨神,下一代也需要走這一段路。我們可以留給他們的,除了過去的經驗、走過的路和付過的代價,也應該有一份信任:

相信那位曾經帶領我們的神,也會帶領他們。

Antony傳道

下一篇預告

我們一路都在談怎樣把棒交給下一代。但如果教會從來不屬於任何一代,我們都只是其中一段時間的服事者,那麼:

我們真的擁有過這一棒嗎?

下一篇:

《最後,接棒的其實不是「人」》





In the previous article, I reflected on trust. When one generation is willing to let go and another is willing to take responsibility, we may think that the challenge of passing the baton has finally been resolved. But once we actually reach that point, another question quickly emerges: Are we handing over the church’s mission, or are we handing over our methods of carrying out that mission as well?

A church that has journeyed for ten, twenty, or thirty years will naturally develop its own ways of doing things. How worship is arranged, how meetings are conducted, what procedures ministries are expected to follow, who may take part in making decisions—some of these are written into policies, while others have never been written down at all. We have simply done things a certain way for so long that eventually we begin to think, “This is just how church works.”

There is not necessarily anything wrong with these structures and practices. Very often, there is a history behind them. A procedure that seems complicated to us today may have been introduced because the church was once hurt. A boundary that now appears conservative may have been established because earlier leaders learned something through painful experience. So the question is not simply whether the old should be kept or discarded. Instead, we need to ask: Why did this practice exist in the first place? What is it still helping us accomplish today?

The difficulty is that when a method has been used for long enough, we can easily forget that it was once simply a method. Something may begin as a response to a particular need, then become an established practice, and eventually a tradition. Sometimes, a practice that developed within a particular context gradually takes on greater significance until it is understood as a theological position, or even as something Scripture itself requires. At that point, any attempt to change it can easily be understood as a challenge to the faith itself.

I think this is one of the real difficulties of passing the baton. We may sincerely say to a younger leader, “All right, this ministry is yours now.” But what happens when the first thing they ask is, “Can I do this differently?” Suddenly, we may become uneasy. Only then do we realize that the ministry can be handed over, while the method may not be so easy to let go of.

The baton has been passed, but there is still only one acceptable way to run.

This tension can appear in many areas of church ministry, and worship is probably one of the easiest places to see it.

Chinese churches have traditionally placed great value on solemnity and formality in worship. Behind this lies a conviction worth treasuring: when we come before God, we are worshipping the One who is holy and worthy of our reverence. Worship therefore deserves to be taken seriously, and serving God should never be treated casually. Every generation needs to learn this reverence for God.

Yet when reverence has been expressed for a long time through a particular kind of seriousness and restraint, the two can gradually become inseparable in our minds. We may begin to assume that being solemn means showing less emotion, expressing less of ourselves, standing on the platform in a composed and restrained manner—even appearing somewhat stone-faced. Before long, one particular way of expressing reverence becomes our understanding of reverence itself.

A younger generation is not necessarily less reverent toward God, but they have grown up in a culture that speaks much more about authenticity, emotion, relationships, and connection. When they enter a worship culture that is highly restrained, or one in which there seems to be a distance between those on the platform and those in the congregation, it is not difficult to understand why they may feel out of place. The issue may not simply be that one generation prefers traditional worship while another prefers contemporary worship. Different generations may carry different cultural imaginations of what it looks like to live out reverence for God.

So perhaps the more important question is not which style of worship is better, but this:

Are we trying to pass on reverence for God, or the particular way our generation has learned to express that reverence?

And this question does not arise only in outward forms. It also reaches into how we understand Christian life and ministry. One obvious example is what we mean by “faithfulness.”

Many believers from an older generation really did serve under very difficult circumstances. Their jobs were demanding, their family responsibilities were heavy, and their churches often had very few people available to serve. Yet they gritted their teeth and remained faithful in their ministries. Many churches are able to stand where they are today because of the sacrifices of people like these, and their faithfulness deserves our respect.

But I also often hear a question like this: “We carried so much in those days and still kept serving. Why does this generation seem unable to endure the same kind of hardship?”

Behind that question may be an assumption that is rarely spoken aloud:

If this is how we paid the cost, the next generation should pay the cost in the same way.

But “faithfulness is costly” and “faithfulness requires the next generation to bear the same costs we bore” are not the same thing.

Every generation of Christians must learn self-denial, perseverance, and responsibility. These things do not disappear simply because the times have changed. Yet different generations also live within different working cultures, family structures, and social realities. If we use only our own experience as the measure of another generation, it becomes very easy to interpret “different from us” as “less committed.”

At the same time, we cannot simply reverse the argument and say that whenever something feels difficult, we should no longer have to carry it. Not every discomfort means that a system is unhealthy. Commitment is costly, and some pressures are part of how we grow as we learn to take responsibility.

So the real question is not which generation is better at enduring hardship. The harder question is:

What costs truly belong to following Christ, and what costs are simply the ones our generation became accustomed to bearing?

At this point, we begin to see that the challenge of passing on what we have received is deeper than choosing between old and new methods. Reverence is real, but the way reverence is expressed can differ. Faithfulness is real, but different generations may not live out faithfulness in exactly the same way. If we cannot distinguish between these things, “faithfulness” can quietly become another expectation:

You should be more like us.

What we need to learn, then, is not simply how to replace old things with new ones, but how to discern what must be preserved and what may change.

That kind of discernment is not easy. Scripture does not directly tell us which worship style, ministry model, or administrative structure a church should use today. But Scripture does show us that when faith enters a new context, God’s people need to discern carefully what must be held onto and what must not be added as an extra requirement.

Acts 15 offers an important reminder. As the gospel began to enter the Gentile world, some people from Judea taught that unless the Gentiles were circumcised according to the custom of Moses, they could not be saved. Others argued that Gentile believers should be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses (Acts 15:1, 5).

From where we stand today, the answer may seem obvious. But for Jewish believers at the time, circumcision and the law were not insignificant customs. They were deeply connected to their communal identity and their life of faith.

The apostles did not simply say, “Times have changed. Let’s get rid of the old ways.” They discussed the matter together. They listened to Peter, Paul, and Barnabas as they testified to what God was doing among the Gentiles, and they returned to Scripture as they discerned the way forward (Acts 15:6–21).

The issue they were facing was far more significant than whether a church today should change a worship format or an administrative procedure. Yet this passage still reminds us that, as the gospel entered another people and culture, the church had to discern what the gospel itself required and what should not be added on top of it.

Acts 15 cannot simply be applied to every discussion about change in the church today. But it does force us to face a similar kind of question:

When the faith enters another generation and another cultural context, what exactly are we called to preserve?

Are we passing on faith in Christ, or our most familiar ways of gathering? Are we passing on faithfulness to Scripture, or the teaching methods we have always used? Are we passing on a willingness to bear the cost of discipleship, or the particular ways our generation learned to bear that cost?

And perhaps the more difficult question is this:

Have we slowly begun to treat our application of Scripture as though it were Scripture itself?

Of course, reality is rarely so easy to separate. Some structures carry important values such as accountability, fairness, and the protection of people. Some procedures that seem cumbersome today were established because earlier generations learned painful lessons.

At the same time, a new method is not automatically better simply because it is new. Efficiency may help us accomplish things more quickly, but it can also make us impatient with the slow work of building relationships. Flexibility may remove unnecessary procedures, but it can also weaken accountability. A greater emphasis on authenticity and feelings may help people connect more deeply, but our feelings must still remain open to the challenge of Scripture and the community of faith rather than becoming the final standard.

The next generation therefore needs more than freedom to change things. They also need to understand what they are receiving. An older generation’s concern for solemnity in worship may have been an attempt to preserve reverence for God. A procedure that seems unnecessarily complicated today may represent a safeguard that someone else paid a price to establish.

Change without memory can easily become little more than a pursuit of novelty. But memory without fresh discernment can allow yesterday’s wisdom to become tomorrow’s limitation.

If we truly believe that God is still at work in the next generation, then one day we will need to hand over more than tasks and positions of responsibility. We will also need gradually to entrust them with the responsibility of discerning what faithfulness to God looks like in their own time.

For me, this may be much harder than giving up a position. I can hand someone a title and still expect them to do everything the way I would have done it. But when I entrust them with the responsibility to discern, I must accept the possibility that some methods I have used for many years may no longer be used. Some forms that I deeply value may be carried forward in a different way. There may even come a day when the church they build no longer looks entirely like the church I have known.

That is not easy to accept. But perhaps this is one of the final things we must face if we are truly going to pass the baton.

When that day comes, how will we know whether we have succeeded in handing on what we received? Perhaps the measure is not whether the next generation has perfectly reproduced everything we left behind, but whether, even when the forms have changed, they still love Christ, remain faithful to the gospel, take the Word of God seriously, and are willing to carry the mission of the church in their own generation.

If those things remain, does it really matter if the road they take looks somewhat different from ours?

Previous generations had to discover what it meant to follow God faithfully in their own time. The next generation will have to make that journey as well. Along with our experience, the roads we have travelled, and the costs we have borne, perhaps there is one more thing we can leave them:

The trust that the God who led us will also lead them.

Pastor Antony

Coming Next

Throughout this series, we have been asking how we can pass the baton to the next generation. But if the church has never belonged to any one generation, and all of us are simply serving for one part of its journey, then perhaps there is an even deeper question:

Did we ever really own the baton in the first place?

Next:

Who Will Take the Baton? — Part 8

In the End, It Is Not a Person Who Takes the Baton

2026年9月28日星期一

《誰來接下一棒?》(六)為甚麼交棒這麼困難?|Who Will Take the Baton? — Part 6 Why Is Passing the Baton So Difficult?

 
上一篇談到,參與並不等於交託。教會可以讓年輕一代參與很多事奉,也可以給他們不同的崗位和機會,但真正走到傳承這一步,始終離不開信任:我們是否願意讓另一個人真正承擔,甚至接受他所走的路未必與自己完全一樣?

但「信任」兩個字說起來容易,真正建立起來卻比想像中困難。這些年來,我在不同教會裡觀察,發現其中一個原因,是不同世代對「怎樣才算成熟」、「怎樣才值得信任」,本來就可能有很不一樣的理解。我們在不同的年代成長,接受不同的教育,面對不同的社會環境,連理解委身、責任、權威和關係的方式也不完全一樣。當這些差異沒有被看見,我們很容易用自己的成長經驗衡量另一代,最後把「他跟我不一樣」,理解成「他還不夠成熟」。

對不少上一代信徒來說,委身往往從忠誠和承擔開始。以前教會缺人,就有人補上;事奉辛苦,也不會輕易離開;遇上困難,第一個反應往往不是自己喜不喜歡,而是這件事情有沒有人需要做。尤其對第一代參與建立教會的人來說,教會就是這樣一點一滴走過來的。他們經歷過資源不足、人手不足,甚至沒有自己的地方聚會,很多事情都是一邊做、一邊學、一邊承擔。正是這種委身,撐起了許多教會最初的歲月:聚會建立起來了,事工發展起來了,一個又一個家庭被牧養,下一代也在其中長大。這些都是真實而寶貴的果子。因此,他們也很自然地從自己的經驗去判斷一個人是否可靠:你願不願意留下來?事情交給你,你會不會做好?遇到困難,你還會不會繼續承擔?對他們來說,信任從來不是一句說話,而是經過日子證明出來的。

可是,今天較年輕的一代成長的世界已經很不一樣。他們未必比較不願意承擔,只是往往會在承擔之前多問一些問題:為甚麼要這樣做?這件事有甚麼意義?我的想法有沒有被聽見?如果我有不同意見,這個群體容不容得下?我在這裡只是多一雙幫忙的手,還是真的被視為群體的一部分?對他們來說,關係、意義、參與感和被尊重,本身就是委身的一部分。於是,一個不易察覺的落差出現了:上一代往往希望先看見你的承擔,才慢慢給你信任;下一代卻可能需要先感受到自己被信任,才願意更深地承擔。

兩邊其實都不是沒有道理。

但兩邊都在等。

上一代在等:「讓我再看看你是否成熟一點。」

下一代也在等:「讓我先看看你是否真的相信我。」

於是,上一代覺得自己明明已經給了很多機會,下一代卻可能有另一種感受:「你給我的都是幫手的機會,但甚麼時候才容許我一起思考、一起決定?」反過來,下一代希望得到更多信任,上一代卻仍然在等待一些更具體的東西:「當責任真的交到你手上,我能不能放心?」大家都希望教會有下一代,只是彼此所等待的東西並不一樣。

而當我們習慣用自己的標準衡量另一代,這種差異很容易在「修正」裡表現出來。

教會當然需要修正。信仰需要分辨,神學也有不能隨意模糊的界線;一個人的理解有偏差,群體有責任提醒。我自己也很重視神學上的準確。問題是,我們修正一個人的時候,究竟想把他帶到哪裡?有時候,一個年輕人提出新的事工構想,我們第一時間便看見當中的漏洞;有人第一次帶敬拜、分享信息,甚至參與一個重要決定,我們很快便留意到哪些地方處理得不夠好。尤其牽涉神學,我們更加容易緊張,害怕一句說話講得不準確,便會把人帶錯方向。這份謹慎有它的價值,但我有時也會問自己:我這麼快指出問題,究竟是為了幫助一個人成長,還是因為事情留在自己熟悉的範圍裡,我才比較安心?

我想,大部分教會其實同時都有「修正」和「建立」,分別只在於我們習慣先做哪一樣,以及修正之後還有沒有下一步。我曾經見過一位剛開始參與事奉的人,上台帶領敬拜之後,一下台,傳道人便立即跟他分享剛才有哪些地方可以改善。那些意見未必有錯,傳道人大概也是希望幫助他下一次做得更好。可是,那位事奉者聽完之後,很快便走進洗手間哭起來。

那一幕我一直記得。後來回想,問題未必在於那些意見應不應該說,而是我們有沒有先看見站在面前的那個人。 對一個經驗豐富的帶領者來說,剛才可能只是一場需要檢討的敬拜;但對一個剛開始事奉的人來說,他可能花了很多勇氣才第一次站上台,整個過程已經承受著很大的心理壓力。當我們只看見「這次做得好不好」,便很容易忽略「這個人現在正在經歷甚麼」。也許同樣的提醒,晚一點再說;也許在指出不足之前,先問一句:「你剛才感覺怎樣?」整個經驗便可能很不一樣。建立人並不是不修正,而是知道甚麼時候說、怎樣說,也知道在事情之外,先看見人。

其實聖經裡也有這種張力。

馬可曾經在第一次宣教旅程中途離開,到了保羅和巴拿巴準備再次出發時,保羅不願意再帶他同行,巴拿巴卻堅持把馬可帶上,最後二人甚至因此分開(徒15:36–40)。我不想簡單判斷誰對誰錯,因為保羅的顧慮並非沒有理由;宣教旅程需要可以一同承擔的人。但巴拿巴所做的另一件事也很值得留意:面對一個曾經失敗的人,他仍然願意再陪他走一段。

故事沒有停在使徒行傳十五章。後來我們在歌羅西書看見保羅吩咐教會接待馬可(西4:10),在腓利門書又把馬可列在自己的同工之中(門24);到了提摩太後書,保羅更特別吩咐提摩太把馬可帶來,因為他在服事上對自己有用(提後4:11)。聖經沒有交代這些年間究竟發生了甚麼,我們也不需要把馬可後來的成長全部歸功於巴拿巴。但經文讓我們看見,一個曾經在關鍵時刻離開的人,並沒有永遠停留在那一次失敗裡。多年以後,他再次出現在保羅身旁,成為同工,也成為一個能夠承擔的人。

建立人,有時就是不急著把一個人某一次的不足,變成我們對他的最後判決。

但建立從來不是一個人的事。信任也不是上一代單方面給予、下一代只需要等待領受的東西。當別人第一次把一個事工交到自己手上,年輕一代也需要學習:答應了的事情,是否願意認真完成?進度有變化,會不會主動交代,而不是等別人追問?受到提醒甚至批評時,能不能先聽清楚,再表達自己的想法?有不同意見,不代表不需要學習聆聽;希望自己的聲音被尊重,也不代表每一個想法都必須被採納。上一代很多時候並不是要求下一代甚麼都懂,他們需要看見的,是當責任真的交到另一個人手上,他願意為自己的選擇和結果負責。這份對責任的看重,本身也是上一代留給教會很寶貴的東西。

上一代需要學習放手,下一代也需要學習承擔放手之後所帶來的重量。

所以第一步未必需要很大。可能只是讓一個年輕領袖不再只負責執行,而是真的參與一次決定;可能是把一個小小的事工交給他,事前講清楚界線,然後容許結果不完全如自己預期;也可能是在一次失敗之後,不急著把責任收回來,而是一起坐下來看看發生了甚麼,下一次可以怎樣走。信任不是毫無界線地把所有事情一次過交出去,它是在一次又一次真實的承擔裡建立起來的。

保羅在提摩太後書2:2所描繪的,也正是一幅不斷交託的圖畫:他把自己所領受的交給提摩太,提摩太又要交給那些忠心、能夠教導別人的人。傳承不是把真理守在某一代人手裡,而是讓被建立的人,有一天也能承擔建立別人的責任。這也留下了一個值得我們反覆思想的問題:

我們辨別和守護真理的方式,有沒有同時建立那些將來要繼續辨別和守護真理的人?

有時候,接棒的人其實已經在我們中間,欠缺的只是足夠的信任,讓彼此可以在真實的承擔裡繼續成長。

一個群體的成熟,不只表現在它有多大的能力辨別錯誤,也表現在它有沒有能力建立仍然未成熟的人。

兩個世代不需要先變得一樣,才可以一起走下去。我們可以在差異裡學習聆聽,在還未完全放心的時候,仍然給對方一點空間。有人犯錯,也不急著用一次失敗決定他的將來。

當這些事情開始發生,我們所建立的,就不只是下一批事奉人員,而是一個可以繼續傳承下去的群體。

Antony傳道


下一篇預告

不過,信任仍然只處理了其中一部分問題。當我們願意讓另一代真正承擔,下一個問題便是:他們是否仍然只能按照我們留下來的方式承擔?

今天教會所使用的制度、程序和事奉模式,都有它們形成的原因,也曾經承載一代人的服事。但當處境改變,我們需要多問一句:

「它今天仍然在幫助我們完成甚麼?」

下一篇:

《當昨天的方法,開始限制明天》


In the previous article, I reflected on how participation is not the same as entrusting. A church can involve younger people in many areas of ministry and give them different roles and opportunities. But when we move toward genuine succession, trust remains indispensable: Are we willing to let another person truly take responsibility, even if the path they take may not look exactly like ours?

“Trust” is easy to talk about, but much harder to build than we may imagine. Over the years, as I have observed different churches, I have come to see one reason for this: different generations may have very different understandings of what it means to be mature and what makes someone worthy of trust. We grew up in different times, received different kinds of education, and faced different social environments. Even the ways we understand commitment, responsibility, authority, and relationships may not be the same. When these differences go unnoticed, it is easy to measure another generation by the experiences that shaped us, until “They are different from me” quietly becomes “They are not mature enough yet.”

For many believers of an older generation, commitment often begins with loyalty and responsibility. When the church needed someone, people stepped in. When ministry became difficult, they did not easily walk away. When challenges arose, the first question was often not whether they enjoyed what they were doing, but whether someone needed to do it. This was especially true for first-generation believers who helped found churches. They lived through seasons when resources were scarce, workers were few, and sometimes there was not even a permanent place to gather. Much of what they did was learned along the way—serving, learning, and taking responsibility at the same time.

It was precisely this kind of commitment that sustained many churches through their early years. Congregations were established, ministries developed, families were cared for, and the next generation grew up within them. These are real and precious fruits. It is therefore natural that many from that generation assess a person’s reliability through the lens of their own experience: Will you stay? If something is entrusted to you, will you follow through? When things become difficult, will you continue to carry the responsibility? For them, trust has never been merely something spoken. It is something proven over time.

But the world in which a younger generation has grown up is very different. They may not be less willing to take responsibility, but before doing so they are often more likely to ask certain questions: Why are we doing this? What is the purpose? Will my ideas be heard? If I disagree, is there room for me in this community? Am I here simply as another pair of helping hands, or am I genuinely regarded as part of the community?

For them, relationships, meaning, participation, and being respected are themselves part of commitment.

And so a subtle gap begins to appear:

The older generation often wants to see you carry responsibility before gradually extending trust. The younger generation may need to experience trust before they are willing to commit more deeply.

Neither side is without reason.

But both sides are waiting.

The older generation is waiting: “Let me see whether you become a little more mature.”

The younger generation is also waiting: “Let me see whether you really trust me.”

As a result, the older generation may feel that they have already provided plenty of opportunities, while the younger generation may experience those same opportunities very differently: “You give me opportunities to help, but when will I be allowed to think with you and take part in making decisions?”

In the other direction, younger people may hope to receive greater trust, while the older generation is still waiting to see something more concrete: “When responsibility is truly placed in your hands, will I be able to feel at ease?”

Everyone wants the church to have another generation. They are simply waiting for different things from one another.

And when we become accustomed to measuring another generation by our own standards, these differences often reveal themselves in the way we “correct” people.

Of course, the church needs correction. Faith requires discernment, and theology has boundaries that cannot simply be blurred. When someone’s understanding is mistaken, the community has a responsibility to respond. I myself care deeply about theological accuracy.

The question is: When we correct someone, where are we trying to lead them?

Sometimes a younger person proposes a new ministry idea, and the first thing we notice is the flaws in it. Someone leads worship for the first time, shares a message, or takes part in an important decision, and we quickly notice what could have been handled better. When theology is involved, we may become even more cautious, afraid that one imprecise statement could lead people in the wrong direction.

There is value in that caution. But sometimes I also have to ask myself: When I am so quick to point out what is wrong, am I trying to help someone grow—or do I simply feel safer when things remain within the boundaries of what I already know?

I think most churches actually practise both correction and building people. The difference is often which one we tend to do first, and whether there is another step after the correction.

I once saw someone who had only recently begun serving lead worship. As soon as the worship ended and the person stepped down from the platform, a pastor immediately began sharing feedback on what could be improved. The comments were not necessarily wrong. The pastor was probably trying to help the person do better the next time.

But soon afterward, that person went into the washroom and cried.

I have never forgotten that moment.

Looking back, the issue may not have been whether those comments should have been made. The deeper question was whether we had first seen the person standing in front of us.

For an experienced leader, what had just happened might simply have been a worship service that needed to be reviewed. But for someone just beginning to serve, it may have taken enormous courage simply to stand on the platform for the first time. The whole experience may already have carried significant emotional pressure.

When all we see is, “How well did this person do this time?” it becomes very easy to miss another question: “What is this person experiencing right now?”

Perhaps the same feedback could have been given a little later. Perhaps before pointing out what needed improvement, we could first have asked, “How did you feel just now?” The entire experience might have been different.

Building people does not mean avoiding correction. It means knowing when to speak, how to speak, and how to see the person beyond the task.

We can see a similar tension in Scripture.

Mark had left Paul and Barnabas partway through their first missionary journey. When Paul and Barnabas later prepared to set out again, Paul did not want to take Mark with them again, while Barnabas insisted on bringing him. Their disagreement became so sharp that they eventually parted ways (Acts 15:36–40).

I do not want to reduce the story to a simple judgment about who was right and who was wrong. Paul’s concern was not unreasonable. A missionary journey required people who could be relied upon to carry the work together. But there is something else worth noticing in what Barnabas did: when faced with someone who had failed before, he was still willing to walk another stretch of the road with him.

And the story does not end in Acts 15.

Later, in Colossians, we find Paul instructing the church to welcome Mark (Col. 4:10). In Philemon, Mark is listed among Paul’s fellow workers (Philem. 24). By the time we reach 2 Timothy, Paul specifically asks Timothy to bring Mark with him because Mark is useful to him in ministry (2 Tim. 4:11).

Scripture does not tell us exactly what happened during those intervening years, and we do not need to attribute all of Mark’s later growth to Barnabas. But the biblical record does allow us to see this much: a person who once walked away at a crucial moment was not forever defined by that one failure. Years later, Mark appears again alongside Paul—as a fellow worker and as someone capable of carrying responsibility.

Sometimes building a person means not rushing to turn one shortcoming into our final verdict on that person.

But building people is never a solo effort. Trust is not something the older generation simply gives while the younger generation waits to receive it.

When a ministry is entrusted to them for the first time, younger people also have things to learn. If they have agreed to do something, will they take it seriously and follow through? If circumstances change, will they communicate proactively rather than waiting to be chased for an update? When they receive correction or even criticism, can they first listen carefully before explaining their own perspective?

Having a different opinion does not remove the need to listen. Wanting one’s voice to be respected does not mean that every idea offered must be accepted.

Often, the older generation is not expecting younger people to know everything. What they need to see is that when responsibility is genuinely placed in another person’s hands, that person is willing to take responsibility for their choices and for the outcome. This seriousness about responsibility is itself something precious that the older generation has left to the church.

The older generation needs to learn to let go. The younger generation needs to learn to carry the weight that comes once the older generation lets go.

The first step, then, does not need to be a large one. It may simply mean allowing a younger leader not only to carry out a decision, but genuinely to participate in making one. It may mean entrusting a small ministry to someone, making the boundaries clear beforehand, and then allowing the result to look somewhat different from what we expected. Or after a failure, rather than immediately taking the responsibility back, it may mean sitting down together to understand what happened and how to move forward next time.

Trust does not mean handing everything over at once without boundaries. It is built through repeated experiences of real responsibility.

The picture Paul gives us in 2 Timothy 2:2 is also one of continuing entrustment. What Paul had received was passed on to Timothy, and Timothy in turn was to entrust it to faithful people who would be able to teach others also.

Succession is not about keeping the truth safely in the hands of one generation. It is about building people who will one day be able to take responsibility for building others.

And that leaves us with a question worth returning to again and again:

Does the way we discern and guard the truth also build the people who will one day need to discern and guard that truth after us?

Sometimes the people who will take the baton are already among us. What may still be missing is enough trust for both generations to continue growing through real responsibility.

The maturity of a community is shown not only in how well it can identify what is wrong, but also in whether it knows how to build people who are not yet mature.

Two generations do not need to become the same before they can walk together. We can learn to listen across our differences. Even before we feel completely confident, we can still give one another some room. And when someone makes a mistake, we need not rush to let one failure decide their future.

When these things begin to happen, we are building more than the next group of people to fill ministry roles.

We are building a community in which what has been received can continue to be handed on.

Pastor Antony

Coming Next

Trust, however, addresses only part of the problem. Once we are willing to let another generation genuinely take responsibility, another question emerges:

Are they still expected to carry that responsibility only in the ways we have left behind?

The structures, procedures, and ministry models our churches use today all came into being for particular reasons, and they have carried the service of a previous generation. But when the context changes, we need to ask one more question:

“What is this still helping us accomplish today?”

Next:

Who Will Take the Baton? — Part 7

When Yesterday’s Ways Begin to Limit Tomorrow

2026年9月27日星期日

《在起初的故事裡:重新學習作神的子民》- 《創世記》系列:第三十二篇〈當雅各終於看見以掃的面〉

經文:創世記33:1–20(新漢語譯本)

一、雅各終於走到所有人的前面

創世記第三十二章結束時,天已經亮了。經文說:「當雅各經過毗努伊勒的時候,太陽照在他身上。他一瘸一拐,因為大腿脫了臼。」(32:31)就在前一夜,雅各還獨自留在雅博渡口,與那個身份未明的人摔跤直到天亮。他求對方祝福自己,卻先被問:「你叫甚麼名字?」他回答:「雅各。」那人便說:「你的名字不要再叫雅各,要叫以色列。」(32:27–28)雅各離開毗努伊勒的時候,身上多了一個新的名字,也留下了一道不能隱藏的傷痕。

以掃仍然在前面。

第三十二章用了很長的篇幅預備這場相遇。雅各派出使者,把自己的家人和牲畜分成兩隊,向神呼求,又把一批又一批的禮物送到自己前面,希望平息哥哥的怒氣。他甚至已經在心裏想好:「我要用我前面送去的獻禮,遮蓋他面上的怒氣,然後我才見他的面,或許他會抬起面接納我。」(32:20)

到了第三十三章,這場拖延了二十年的相遇終於來到:「雅各舉目觀看,看啊,以掃來了!同他一起的還有四百個人!」(33:1)二十年前曾經說要殺他的哥哥真的來了,那四百個人也真的來了。前一章由使者帶回來的消息,如今就在雅各眼前。

雅各仍然作出安排。他「把孩子分開,給了利亞、拉結和兩個婢女」,又「安排婢女和她們的孩子在前面,利亞和她的孩子在後面,拉結和約瑟在最後」(33:1–2)。經過毗努伊勒的一夜,他仍然是那個會安排的人;拉結和約瑟仍然被放在最後,經文也沒有說他從此不再害怕。

到了第三節,雅各的位置卻改變了:「他自己,在他們前面過去,七次伏地跪拜,直到靠近他的哥哥。」(33:3)

「在前面」這幾個字,在前一章已經反覆出現。雅各曾經吩咐僕人:「你們要在我前面過去。」(32:16)他又要僕人告訴以掃:「看啊,他就在我們後面!」(32:18)到了最後,「獻禮在他前面過去」(32:21)。使者、牲畜和禮物一直走在前面,雅各自己留在後面。如今經文卻說:「他自己,在他們前面過去。」¹

經文沒有解釋這個改變是否直接來自昨夜的經歷,也沒有把雅各描寫成從此無所畏懼的人。他仍然不知道以掃會怎樣對待自己,大腿的傷也沒有消失。只是這一次,他沒有再讓禮物和僕人代替自己走在最前面,而是親自走向那個二十年沒有再見的哥哥。

二、雅各預備面對哥哥的怒氣,以掃卻跑來擁抱他

雅各走在家人的前面,「七次伏地跪拜,直到靠近他的哥哥」(33:3)。這個動作延續了他在第三十二章對以掃的態度:他一直稱以掃為「我主」,稱自己為「僕人」(32:4、18),如今真正走到哥哥面前,又接連七次伏地跪拜。當年以撒給雅各的祝福卻曾經說:「願萬民服侍你,萬族向你下拜;願你作你兄弟的主。」(27:29)二十年後,兩兄弟再次相見,首先伏地下拜的卻是雅各。

經文接着只用一節,就把第三十二章累積下來的緊張打開:「以掃跑來迎接他,抱住他,又伏在他頸項上親吻他。他們都哭了。」(33:4)

這與二十年前兩兄弟分開時的情景相距很遠。當時,以掃知道父親已經祝福雅各,「就怨恨雅各」,甚至在心裏說:「為我父親居喪的日子近了,到時我要殺我的弟弟雅各。」(27:41)利百加知道以後,立即叫雅各逃走。雅各所知道的以掃,就停在那一天:哥哥因為失去祝福而怨恨他,甚至打算殺他。

二十年後,以掃真的帶着四百個人來到,經文卻沒有寫他拔刀,也沒有寫那四百個人包圍雅各。他跑過去迎接弟弟,抱住他,伏在他的頸項上親吻他,然後兩個人一起哭了。²

經文沒有補上這二十年的空白。我們不知道以掃的怒氣在甚麼時候消退,也不知道他心裏曾經經歷過甚麼轉變。這場相遇甚至沒有留下「我原諒你」或「對不起」之類的說話。故事只是把27:41與33:4放在雅各漫長的離家與歸程兩端:當年以掃說要殺他,如今以掃跑來抱住他。

雅各為這一刻準備了很久。他分隊、禱告、送禮,又反覆思想怎樣才能在哥哥眼前蒙恩;但真正相遇時,最先發生的並不是他預備好的說話,而是以掃的擁抱。直到這時,雅各才真正知道,那張一直不敢想像再次看見的臉,如今會怎樣看着他。

三、「我看見你的面,就像看見神的面一樣」

擁抱過後,以掃才開始留意雅各身邊的人。他「舉目看見婦女和孩子」,便問:「這些是你的甚麼人?」雅各回答:「這些孩子是神恩賜給你僕人的。」(33:5)

這個回答與雅各前一夜的禱告連在一起。他曾經向神承認:「我曾憑一根杖過這約旦河,如今我卻成了兩隊。」(32:10)如今站在以掃面前,他沒有把眼前的家庭說成自己二十年來努力換回來的成果,只說:「這些孩子是神恩賜給你僕人的。」接着,兩個婢女和她們的孩子、利亞和她的孩子、約瑟和拉結,也逐一進前來下拜(33:6–7)。

以掃隨後問起自己一路遇見的牲畜:「我遇見的這所有牲畜,是甚麼意思?」雅各回答:「為要在我主眼前蒙恩。」(33:8)早在派出使者時,雅各已經吩咐說,派人來告訴以掃,是「為要在你眼前蒙恩」(32:5)。如今真正站在哥哥面前,他仍然說出同樣的話。他所作的安排和送出的禮物,都指向同一個問題:以掃會不會接納他?

以掃回答:「我兄弟啊,我本身已擁有很多了,你的歸你自己吧!」(33:9)雅各一直稱以掃為「我主」,又稱自己為「僕人」;以掃開口時,卻稱他為「我兄弟」。

雅各於是再說:「請不要這樣,如果我能在你眼前蒙恩,就請從我手中收下獻禮。因為我看見你的面,就像看見神的面一樣,而且你接納了我。」(33:10)

這一句把第三十二章留下來的「面」重新帶回故事中央。昨夜以前,雅各仍然盤算:「我要用我前面送去的獻禮,遮蓋他面上的怒氣,然後我才見他的面,或許他會抬起面接納我。」(32:20)後來,他在雅博渡口與那人摔跤,並為那地方起名叫「毗努伊勒」,因為:「我面對面見到神,還能保住我的性命。」(32:30)如今到了33:10,雅各終於真的看見以掃的面,並且說:「我看見你的面,就像看見神的面一樣,而且你接納了我。」³

經文沒有把以掃等同於神,雅各這句話也不必被推到那麼遠。從32:20到33:10,那個「或許」終於有了答案。雅各原本只能盼望,以掃「或許」會接納自己;如今他已經可以當面對哥哥說:「你接納了我。」二十年前,雅各因為以掃的怒氣逃離父家;二十年後,他再次站在哥哥面前,曾經不敢面對的那張臉,如今成了他所說「像看見神的面一樣」的臉。

四、雅各把「祝福」帶到以掃面前

以掃已經清楚說:「我兄弟啊,我本身已擁有很多了,你的歸你自己吧!」(33:9)雅各卻沒有因此把禮物收回。到了第十一節,他換了一個字來稱呼自己帶來的東西:「請收下我帶給你的祝福吧!因為神恩待我,因為我已擁有一切。」(33:11)

前面雅各一直把這批牲畜稱為「獻禮」,到了這裏卻稱它為「祝福」。希伯來文 בְּרָכָה(berāḵâ)本身也可以用來指送給別人的饋贈,因此單憑這個字,不能斷定雅各有意把27章的祝福「歸還」給以掃。不過,對雅各和以掃的故事來說,「祝福」這個字已經帶着二十年前的重量。⁴

兩兄弟關係的破裂,正是圍繞「祝福」發生。雅各穿上以掃的衣服,用山羊羔皮包着自己的手和頸項,走到年老眼瞎的父親面前。當以撒問:「我兒,你是誰?」雅各回答:「我是你的長子以掃。」(27:18–19)等到以掃回來,以撒只能告訴他:「你的弟弟已經用詭計來,把你的祝福奪去了。」(27:35)以掃因此放聲痛哭,也因這個祝福怨恨雅各(27:38、41)。

如今,那個二十年前從以掃那裏「奪去祝福」的雅各,再次站在哥哥面前,說的卻是:「請收下我帶給你的祝福吧!」

在27章與33章之間,還有雅博渡口的那一夜。當時雅各抓住那個人說:「我不讓你走,除非你祝福我!」(32:26)這一次,他沒有再使用以掃的名字;當那人問:「你叫甚麼名字?」他回答:「雅各」,隨後領受新的名字,那人也「就在那裏祝福雅各」(32:27–29)。到了33:11,站在以掃面前的雅各,已經不只是那個曾經從哥哥手中取得祝福的人。他剛剛在神面前再次領受祝福,如今卻堅持要哥哥從自己手中收下「祝福」。

雅各給出的理由也與從前不同:「因為神恩待我,因為我已擁有一切。」(33:11)這句話沒有證明雅各從此不再計算,後面的故事也不容我們把他的改變說得太完全。但至少在這場相遇中,他把所擁有的一切放在「神恩待我」之下。二十年前,他用盡方法要取得祝福;如今,他把自己所有的拿出來,極力勸以掃收下。

最後,以掃收下了。

五、兄弟各自上路,雅各回到迦南

如果故事在第十一節結束,這很容易成為一個完整的兄弟和好故事:兩個分開二十年的兄弟相擁流淚,以掃也收下雅各帶來的禮物。可是創世記還用了九節經文,交代兩兄弟相見以後各自走向哪裏。

以掃說:「讓我們起程走吧,讓我走在你前面!」(33:12)雅各沒有跟上,只解釋孩子還幼小,羊群和牛群也需要慢慢前行,因此請以掃先走:「我好慢慢引領,按我前面家畜的步伐,以及孩子的步伐,直到我來到西珥我主那裏。」(33:14)以掃又提出留下幾個人給他,雅各再次婉拒,只說:「這為了甚麼呢?願我在我主眼前蒙恩。」(33:15)

最後,「以掃在那天沿着通往西珥的路回去了。雅各卻起行往疏割去」(33:16–17)。

經文沒有解釋雅各為甚麼沒有按照自己所說的前往西珥,也沒有交代這次相遇以後,兩兄弟究竟維持着怎樣的關係。因此,第33章的重逢不宜被說成二十年的裂痕從此完全消失。經文直接描寫了以掃的擁抱和兩人的眼淚,雅各也親口說:「你接納了我」(33:10);但故事沒有讓他們從此走在同一條路上。以掃去了西珥,雅各去了疏割,故事也繼續跟着雅各前行。

到了第十八節,經文用一句十分平靜的說話記下他的下一段路程:「雅各從巴旦.亞蘭平安地來到迦南地示劍城,在城的對面安營。」(33:18)

新漢語譯本把這裏的 שָׁלֵם(šālēm)譯作「平安地」。若按這個讀法,很自然令人想起二十年前伯特利的那個晚上。當時雅各曾向神許願:「如果神與我同在,在我所走的這條路上守護我,給我食物吃,衣服穿,使我平平安安回到我父家,上主就必作我的神。」(28:20–21)兩處的希伯來文形式並不相同,卻出自同一字根;另一方面,33:18的 שָׁלֵם 也可以理解為地名「沙冷」,所以這個呼應仍然需要留有餘地。⁵

無論33:18的 שָׁלֵם 如何理解,雅各已經回到迦南。後來他再次前往伯特利時,自己也這樣回望一路的經歷:「我要在那裏為神築一座祭壇;我遭難的日子,他應允了我,在我所行的路上與我同在。」(35:3)這句話與二十年前他在伯特利所求「如果神與我同在,在我所走的這條路上守護我」(28:20),形成另一個前後呼應。

雅各隨後「用一百塊銀子從示劍的父親哈抹的子孫手中,買下他搭帳棚的那塊田地」(33:19),又「在那裏立起一座祭壇,稱它為伊利.伊羅伊.以色列」(33:20)。這一章開始時,雅各抬頭看見的是以掃和四百個人;到了最後,經文留下的是一座祭壇。那個在雅博渡口剛剛領受「以色列」這個名字的人,如今在迦南築起祭壇,稱它為「伊利.伊羅伊.以色列」——神,以色列的神。

故事沒有在這座祭壇旁停住太久。下一章仍然發生在示劍,等待這個家庭的是另一場危機。雅各已經回到迦南,但回到應許之地,並不表示往後的道路從此平靜。

結語

雅各離開毗努伊勒時,第三十二章留下了一個尚未完成的畫面:他已經面對面見了神,卻仍然未曾看見以掃的面。他不知道哥哥的怒氣是否已經消退,也不知道那四百個人會帶來甚麼,只能帶着新的名字和一條瘸腿,繼續向前走。

到了第三十三章,雅各終於看見了那張臉。他原本為這一刻預備了許多東西:使者、禮物、牲畜、說話和次序。他曾經希望用獻禮「遮蓋」以掃面上的怒氣,然後才去見他的面;可是當兩兄弟真正相遇,以掃跑來抱住他,伏在他的頸項上親吻他。那個在32:20仍然只是「或許」會接納他的哥哥,如今已經站在他面前,而雅各也終於可以說:「我看見你的面,就像看見神的面一樣,而且你接納了我。」(33:10)

這場相遇也把二十年前的「祝福」重新帶回兩兄弟之間。當年雅各假冒以掃,從父親那裏取得祝福;到了雅博渡口,他以自己的名字站在神面前,再次領受祝福;如今,他站在以掃面前,卻請哥哥收下自己帶來的「祝福」。經文沒有說過去因此被取消,也沒有把兩兄弟重新寫成從此一起生活的人。以掃往西珥,雅各往疏割,兩個人的道路仍然分開。

雅各也繼續他的歸程。二十年前,他離開迦南時,曾在伯特利求神在路上與他同在、守護他;二十年後,他重新站在迦南,在示劍搭起帳棚,買下那塊田地,並築起祭壇。到了後來再次返回伯特利時,他也會親口回望這段歲月,說神「在我所行的路上與我同在」(35:3)。

這段回家的故事最後停在一座祭壇前。那個曾經用哥哥的名字取得祝福的人,如今帶着神給他的名字回到迦南。二十年前,他離開父家時叫雅各;如今,祭壇的名字裏已經出現了神給他的名字:

「伊利.伊羅伊.以色列。」

神,以色列的神。

讀到這裏,我們或許也會想起一些自己一直不願意面對的人和事。有些關係因為誤解或傷害而疏遠,有些事情雖然已經過去多年,心裏卻仍然放不下。我們可能像雅各一樣,反覆想像對方會有甚麼反應,預備好各種說話,甚至希望先安排好一切,才有勇氣走到對方面前。

但雅各的故事也讓我們思考:究竟要等到甚麼時候,我們才願意面對那些一直逃避的事情?如果對方沒有像以掃那樣張開雙臂,我們又是否仍然願意學習誠實地面對過去?

雅各與以掃的相遇,沒有保證每段破裂的關係都能得到同樣的結果。兩兄弟最終仍然各走各路。然而,雅各至少不再需要躲在僕人和禮物後面。他帶着一條瘸腿走向哥哥,也帶着這道傷痕繼續前行。

Antony傳道

註腳

¹ 創世記33:3特別指出雅各「在他們前面過去」,與32章反覆出現的「前面/後面」形成敘事上的對照。32:16雅各吩咐僕人和牲畜「在我前面過去」,32:18又讓僕人告訴以掃雅各「就在我們後面」,32:21再次說「獻禮在他前面過去」;到了33:3,雅各自己走到家人前面。經文沒有直接解釋這個位置轉變是否源於毗努伊勒的經歷,因此本文只把它視為前後兩章的敘事呼應,而不進一步推論雅各已經完全不再懼怕。參 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, Word Biblical Commentary 2 (Dallas: Word Books, 1994);Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995)。

² 馬所拉文本在創世記33:4「親吻他」(וַיִּשָּׁקֵהוּ, wayyiššāqēhû)一詞上保留特殊點記(puncta extraordinaria)。後來的猶太釋經傳統曾由此討論以掃親吻雅各時的動機,相關討論見 Genesis Rabbah 78:9及Rashi對創世記33:4的註釋。本文不以後來的釋經傳統反推人物內心,只按現有敘事的直接描寫閱讀:以掃跑來迎接雅各、抱住他、親吻他,兩人哭泣;到了33:10,雅各也親口說:「你接納了我。」參 Wenham, Genesis 16–50。

³ 創世記32:20、32:30與33:10以「面」(פָּנִים, pānîm)形成連續的字詞線索。32:20雅各盼望藉獻禮平息以掃的怒氣,然後「見他的面」,並盼望得到接納;32:30他在毗努伊勒宣告自己「面對面見到神」而仍然存活;到了33:10,他終於對以掃說:「我看見你的面,就像看見神的面一樣,而且你接納了我。」這幾處的用詞使32章的毗努伊勒經歷與33章兄弟相見彼此連接。參 Wenham, Genesis 16–50;Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary, vol. 1, The Five Books of Moses (New York: W. W. Norton, 2019)。

⁴ 創世記33:10的「獻禮」使用 מִנְחָה(minḥâ),33:11則改用 בְּרָכָה(berāḵâ)。後者通常譯作「祝福」,但在希伯來聖經中也可以用於饋贈(參撒上25:27;王下5:15),因此單憑33:11的用詞,不能證明雅各正在「歸還」27章的族長祝福。不過,בְּרָכָה正是27章雅各與以掃衝突中的核心詞語:27:35記載以撒告訴以掃,雅各「把你的祝福奪去了」;32:26–29又記載雅各求祝福並在雅博渡口領受祝福;到了33:11,他請以掃收下「我帶給你的祝福」。值得說明的是,《新漢語譯本》為33:1–20所加的段落標題是「雅各歸還以掃祝福」,但段落標題屬譯本編者所加,並非希伯來經文本身的一部分,也反映了對這段經文的一種理解。本文只把27、32、33章「祝福」的反覆出現理解為敘事上的字詞呼應,而不把33:11理解為族長祝福在法律或神學意義上的歸還或逆轉。參 Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50;Wenham, Genesis 16–50;Bruce K. Waltke with Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001)。

⁵ 創世記33:18的 שָׁלֵם(šālēm)存在不同理解。新漢語譯本及不少現代譯本按副詞意義譯作「平安地/安全地」,另有譯本及註釋把它理解為地名「沙冷」(Salem)。若採「平安地」的讀法,這裏可以與28:20–21雅各在伯特利盼望「平平安安」(בְּשָׁלוֹם, bəšālôm)回到父家的說話互相參照;兩處並非相同詞形,但出自同一 שׁ־ל־ם 字根,因此本文只把它視為可能的字詞與敘事呼應。至於神在雅各歸程中的同在,35:3提供了更直接的回顧:「在我所行的路上與我同在」,與28:20「如果神與我同在,在我所走的這條路上守護我」彼此呼應。33:20的新漢語譯本把 אֵל אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל(ʾEl ʾElohe Yisraʾel)處理為祭壇名稱「伊利.伊羅伊.以色列」;其句法及命名方式仍有不同理解,因此本文按新漢語譯本的譯法敘述,而不以此單獨證明28:21的許願已在33:20完全實現。參 Wenham, Genesis 16–50;Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50;Waltke and Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary。

2026年8月23日星期日

《在起初的故事裡:重新學習作神的子民》- 《創世記》系列:第三十一篇〈真正要面對的是誰?〉

經文:創世記32:1–32(新漢語譯本)

一、故事沒有急於讓雅各見以掃

創世記第三十一章結束時,雅各終於離開拉班。二十年前,他孤身離開迦南,逃到哈蘭;二十年後,他帶着妻子、兒女、僕人和多年累積的家業,重新踏上回家的路。拉班已經留在身後,但另一段二十年前尚未處理的關係,卻正在前面等待着他。

那個人,就是以掃。

雅各當年離開父家,並不是一次普通的遠行。因為欺騙父親,奪取了原本屬於哥哥的祝福,以掃便懷恨在心,甚至說:「為我父親居喪的日子近了,到時我要殺我的弟弟雅各。」(27:41)利百加知道以後,便催促雅各逃到拉班那裏,「等你哥哥的怒氣消退」(27:44)。可是,二十年過去,故事一直沒有告訴雅各,也沒有告訴讀者,以掃的怒氣究竟有沒有真正消退。

如今,雅各真的回來了。

從故事的發展來看,創世記第三十二章似乎應該立即處理這場拖延了二十年的兄弟重逢。雅各能不能真正回到父家,仍然取決於前面那個曾經想要殺他的哥哥。神在伯特利曾經應許:「看哪,我與你同在,我必守護你,無論你往哪裏去,我都要領你回到這土地。因為我決不離棄你,直到我成就了我對你所說的。」(28:15)到了第三十一章,神又吩咐他:「你要回你先祖之地和你親族那裏去,我必與你同在。」(31:3)雅各已經離開哈蘭,回家的路也愈來愈接近終點;只是,真正踏進父家以前,他仍然必須經過以掃。

可是,第三十二章開始時,故事首先出現的並不是以掃。

「雅各走在自己的路上,神的使者遇見他。」(32:1)

這一句來得十分突然。經文沒有交代這些使者從哪裏來,也沒有記錄他們說過甚麼,只說雅各看見他們,便說:「這是神的營!」於是給那地方起名叫「瑪哈念」(32:2)。「瑪哈念」帶有「兩個營」的意思。雅各還沒有遇見以掃的隊伍,卻先看見神的營;他還不知道哥哥究竟會以甚麼姿態迎接自己,神的使者已經先在路上遇見他。¹

這一幕自然令人想起二十年前的伯特利。當年雅各離開父家,獨自走向哈蘭,在路上夢見神的使者在梯子上上去下來(28:12);如今,他結束哈蘭的歲月,重新走向應許之地,神的使者又一次出現在他的路上。二十年前,雅各在逃亡的路上遇見神;二十年後,他在回家的路上仍然先遇見神。

經文沒有讓神的使者說話,也沒有立即解釋這次相遇的意義。第三節開始,故事很快便轉向另一批「使者」:「雅各派使者在他之前往西珥地以東的田野去,到他哥哥以掃那裏。」(32:3)神的使者先來遇見雅各,雅各隨後又派自己的使者去見以掃;兩組使者先後出現,故事也慢慢把兩個方向放在讀者面前。

雅各正在走向以掃。可是,故事一開始已經讓讀者知道,在他真正見到哥哥以前,另一位早已經在路上等着他。

二、雅各以為自己真正要面對的是以掃

雅各派出的使者帶着一段經過仔細安排的說話:「你們要這樣對我主以掃說:『你的僕人雅各這樣說:我在拉班那裏寄居,一直拖延到現在。我有牛、驢、羊群、男僕和婢女。我派人來告訴我主,為要在你眼前蒙恩。』」(32:4–5)

這段說話與二十年前的故事形成很強烈的對照。當年,以撒曾經祝福雅各:「願萬民服侍你,萬族向你下拜;願你作你兄弟的主。」(27:29)可是,如今雅各尚未真正見到以掃,已經稱哥哥為「我主」,又稱自己為「你的僕人」。他沒有向以掃重提長子的名分,也沒有提起父親昔日的祝福,只說自己在拉班那裏寄居多年,如今帶着家業回來,希望「在你眼前蒙恩」。

使者回來以後,只帶回一句沒有任何解釋的消息:「我們到了你哥哥以掃那裏。他正前來迎接你,同他一起的還有四百個人。」(32:6)

經文沒有說以掃為甚麼帶着四百人,也沒有讓使者判斷他的態度究竟是善意還是敵意。故事只把這個數字放在雅各面前,讓二十年前那段尚未解決的記憶重新浮現。以掃留在他記憶中的最後一句話,是要殺他;如今,那個哥哥正帶着四百個人迎面而來。

「雅各就非常害怕,並且擔憂。」(32:7)

接着,雅各開始安排。他把與自己一起的人、羊群、牛群和駱駝分成兩隊,說:「如果以掃來擊殺這一隊,那剩下的一隊還可以逃脫。」(32:8)第二節才剛提到「瑪哈念」──神的「兩個營」;到了第七節,雅各也把自己所有的分成「兩隊」。故事並沒有明說兩者之間有甚麼關係,卻把相近的「營」的圖像放在一起:雅各剛剛看見神的營,如今面對以掃的消息,首先想到的仍然是如何安排自己的營。²

但這一次,雅各沒有只停留在自己的安排。他開始禱告:「我祖父亞伯拉罕的神,我父親以撒的神,上主啊!你曾對我說:『回到你的地、你的親族那裏去,我要厚待你。』」(32:9)

這段禱告幾乎全部建立在神曾經說過的話之上。雅各先提起神的命令:「你曾對我說……」;到了禱告結束時,他又再次抓住神的應許:「你自己曾說:『我一定厚待你,使你的後裔好像海邊的沙,多得無法數算。』」(32:12)他之所以站在這條路上,不是因為自己突然決定回家,而是因為神曾經吩咐他回來;如今,以掃就在前面,他所能抓住的,仍然是神曾經說過的話。

在這兩句「你曾對我說」之間,雅各第一次這樣回望自己的生命:「我是微小的,不配得到你施給你僕人的一切慈愛和信實。我曾憑一根杖過這約旦河,如今我卻成了兩隊。」(32:10)

二十年的生命,被濃縮在一根杖和兩隊人之間。當年離開迦南時,他甚麼都沒有,只有手中的一根杖;如今再次站在約旦河東,他已經有妻子、兒女、僕人和龐大的家業。第三十一章裏,雅各重新述說這二十年,開始明白自己所得的一切不是單靠自己的方法,而是神一直保守;到了第三十二章,當這一切忽然可能再次失去,他更進一步承認:「我是微小的,不配得到你施給你僕人的一切慈愛和信實。」這裏的「慈愛和信實」,把焦點從雅各二十年間得到多少,重新放回神如何信守自己的應許。³

可是,雅各仍然害怕。他沒有因為看見過神的使者,也沒有因為記得神的應許,便掩飾自己真正的恐懼:「求你救我脫離我哥哥的手──以掃的手,因為我懼怕他,恐怕他來擊殺我,連母帶子都不放過。」(32:11)

所以,禱告以後,雅各又繼續安排。他從自己的家業中取出大量牲畜送給以掃:二百隻母山羊、二十隻公山羊、二百隻母綿羊、二十隻公綿羊、三十匹哺乳的駱駝連同幼崽、四十頭母牛、十頭公牛、二十匹母驢和十匹公驢(32:13–15)。這些牲畜不是一次過送出去,而是一群一群分開,彼此保持距離(32:16)。每一批僕人遇見以掃,都要重複同一句說話:「是你僕人雅各的,這獻禮是送給我主以掃的。看啊,他就在我們後面!」(32:18)於是,一批又一批的禮物走在前面,僕人和牲畜也走在前面,雅各卻一直留在後面。

經文甚至讓讀者聽見雅各心裏真正的盤算:「我要用我前面送去的獻禮,遮蓋他面上的怒氣,然後我才見他的面,或許他會抬起面接納我。」(32:20)

這一句話不但交代了雅各送禮的目的,也悄悄把整章另一條重要的線帶了出來──「面」。雅各現在最關心的是以掃的面。他想先用禮物「遮蓋他面上的怒氣」,然後才去「見他的面」,盼望哥哥最後願意「抬起面接納」自己。對雅各來說,這一夜最大的問題,似乎就是明天能不能平安地看見以掃的面。

可是,故事沒有立即讓他見以掃。在真正見到哥哥的面以前,雅各還要先「面對面」見另一位。

三、故事沒有讓雅各先遇見以掃

「於是獻禮在他前面過去,那晚他在營中過夜。」(32:21)到這裏,雅各似乎已經把自己能做的事情都安排好了。禮物已經送出去,僕人知道應該怎樣回答,以掃也正在前來。按照故事一路建立的張力,下一幕似乎就應該是兩兄弟相見。

可是,經文再次把這場重逢延後。

「晚上雅各起來,帶着他的兩個妻子、兩個婢女和十一個孩子,過了雅博渡口。雅各帶着他們,讓他們過了河谷,讓他所擁有的都過去,只剩雅各獨自一人。」(32:22–24)

這幾節經文寫得十分安靜。妻子過去了,孩子過去了,就連「他所擁有的」也全部過去了。二十年前,雅各離開迦南時只有一根杖;二十年後,他帶着龐大的家庭和家業回來。可是到了雅博渡口,故事卻把這二十年所得的一切都送到河的另一邊,最後只留下雅各自己。

「只剩雅各獨自一人。」

這一句話把故事帶到一個很特別的位置。從第三十二章開始,雅各一直在安排別人走在自己前面:先是使者,然後是禮物,再來是一群一群的牲畜;到了雅博渡口,連妻子、兒女和所有財物也先過去了。明天他仍然要面對以掃,但在真正踏進那場重逢以前,故事先把他帶到一個沒有妻子、沒有兒女、沒有僕人,也沒有財物可以放在自己前面的地方。

就在這時,經文突然說:「有一個人來跟他摔跤,直到天亮。」(32:24)

這個人的出現,與第一節神的使者出現一樣突然。經文沒有先介紹他的身份,也沒有交代他從哪裏來,只說「有一個人」在黑夜中與雅各摔跤。讀者原本一直等待以掃出場,故事卻沒有讓雅各先見到哥哥;那個真正進入黑夜、與他近身角力的人,反而是一個身份未明的人。

經文起初甚至沒有告訴讀者這個人就是神。直到後來,那人對雅各說:「你的名字不要再叫雅各,要叫以色列,因為你與神與人角力,都能夠得勝。」(32:28)故事才開始揭開這場角力的真正性質。到了摔跤結束以後,雅各自己更為那地方起名叫「毗努伊勒」,說:「因為我面對面見到神,還能保住我的性命。」(32:30)

讀者到這裏才明白,那個在黑夜中與雅各角力的,原來不是以掃,而是神。

從第三節開始,雅各一直以為最大的問題是以掃。他要知道哥哥是否仍然懷恨,要想辦法保存自己的家人,也要預備怎樣平息哥哥的怒氣。可是到了雅博渡口,故事把所有人和所有東西都移到另一邊,留下的只有雅各自己。

他一直預備怎樣面對以掃。

神卻先來面對雅各。

四、雅各求的是祝福,神卻先問他的名字

「有一個人來跟他摔跤,直到天亮。」(32:24)經文沒有詳細描寫摔跤的過程,也沒有告訴讀者兩人如何攻守,只說這場角力一直延續到天亮。接着,那人「見自己不能勝他,就碰了一下他的大腿窩。於是雅各的大腿窩在跟他摔跤的時候脫了臼。」(32:25)

這裏有一個很奇怪的張力。一方面,經文說那人「不能勝他」;另一方面,他只需要「碰了一下」雅各的大腿窩,便足以使他脫臼。故事沒有把雅各描寫成一個力量足以勝過神的人,反而讓讀者看見,這個一生都在抓住、爭取、角力的人,原來可以在一瞬間失去自己一直倚靠的力量。

天快亮時,那人說:「讓我走吧,天亮了!」雅各卻回答:「我不讓你走,除非你祝福我!」(32:26)

「祝福」這個字,在雅各的故事裏從來不是陌生的。從年輕開始,他便一直追求祝福。他從以掃手中取得長子的名分,又藉着欺騙從父親那裏取得祝福;後來到了哈蘭,他仍然不斷為自己的家庭和家業爭取。可是到了雅博渡口,雅各再次要求祝福時,故事卻把他帶回二十年前另一場取得祝福的經歷。

那人沒有立即祝福他,反而先問:「你叫甚麼名字?」(32:27)

二十年前,以撒也曾經問過一個非常相似的問題:「我兒,你是誰?」(27:18)當時,雅各為了取得祝福,回答:「我是你的長子以掃。」(27:19)那一次,他必須隱藏自己的名字,成為另一個人,才可以得到自己想要的祝福。

二十年後,他再次站在祝福面前。

「你叫甚麼名字?」

這一次,他沒有再說自己是別人。

「他說:『雅各。』」(32:27)

經文沒有解釋雅各回答這個名字時心裏在想甚麼,但兩個場景放在一起,已經足以讓讀者看見其中的分別。二十年前,他要成為「以掃」才敢站在父親面前取得祝福;二十年後,他再次求祝福,卻以自己的名字站在神面前。就在他回答「雅各」以後,那人才說:「你的名字不要再叫雅各,要叫以色列,因為你與神與人角力,都能夠得勝。」(32:28)⁵

新的名字不是雅各為自己取得的,而是神給他的。

而且,這個新名字是在他的大腿已經脫臼以後才得到的。雅各所得的「得勝」因此十分特別。他沒有毫髮無傷地勝過對方,也沒有靠自己的力量迫使神屈服;相反,他得着新的名字時,身上已經留下了一個不能靠自己消除的傷痕。他得到了祝福,卻同時失去了原來行走的力量。

雅各隨後問:「請你告訴我你的名字。」那人卻回答:「為甚麼問我的名字呢?」然後「就在那裏祝福雅各。」(32:29)

雅各沒有得到對方的名字,卻得到了他一直尋求的祝福。二十年前,他知道父親是誰,卻要隱藏自己是誰才取得祝福;到了這一夜,他不知道對方的名字,卻在說出自己就是「雅各」之後,從神那裏領受了一個新的名字。

直到這裏,故事才讓人看見,真正需要在這一夜被處理的,並不只是以掃對雅各的態度,而是雅各自己究竟要以怎樣的身份繼續走前面的路。

五、太陽升起了,雅各卻一瘸一拐地前行

摔跤結束以後,雅各為那地方起名叫「毗努伊勒」,說:「因為我面對面見到神,還能保住我的性命。」(32:30)

這一句話把前面關於「面」的線索重新連在一起。雅各原本擔心的是以掃的面。他希望用禮物「遮蓋他面上的怒氣」,然後「見他的面」,盼望以掃最後願意「抬起面接納」自己(32:20)。可是,在真正見到以掃以前,雅各已經先「面對面見到神」。⁴

他一直在安排如何改變以掃的面,故事卻先把他帶到神的面前。

經文接着說:「當雅各經過毗努伊勒的時候,太陽照在他身上。他一瘸一拐,因為大腿脫了臼。」(32:31)

這個畫面也讓人想起伯特利。二十年前,雅各逃離父家,來到伯特利時,「太陽已經落了」(28:11);如今,經過二十年的哈蘭歲月,又在雅博渡口度過這一夜,經文卻說:「太陽照在他身上。」(32:31)經文沒有解釋這兩個時間描寫是否帶有特別的象徵意義,只是放在雅各整段離家與歸家的故事中,當年的日落與如今的日出,自然形成一個值得留意的對照。

只是,太陽升起時,雅各一瘸一拐。

神沒有把昨晚的一切痕跡抹去。雅各得到祝福,也得到新的名字,但他的大腿仍然脫臼。那個一直善於計算、安排和抓住一切的雅各,現在每走一步,都要帶着這一夜留下的記號。

經文最後甚至把這個傷痕帶進以色列後來的記憶:「因此,以色列人直到今天都不吃大腿窩的筋,就是髖骨上面的筋,因為那人碰了雅各的大腿窩,就是髖骨上的筋。」(32:32)原本發生在雅博渡口的一場私人經歷,到了故事最後卻成為以色列群體記念的一部分。雅各身上的傷沒有因為天亮而消失,反而成為這一夜曾經發生過甚麼的記號。

第三十二章就在這裏停下來。經文沒有在這一章交代兄弟重逢的結果,也沒有告訴我們以掃的四百人最後會做甚麼。它只讓讀者看見,經過這一夜以後,雅各身上多了一個新的名字,也多了一道不能抹去的傷痕。

結語

創世記第三十二章開始時,雅各幾乎把所有注意力都放在以掃身上。他派出使者,將家人和牲畜分成兩隊,向神呼求,又預備一批又一批的禮物。二十年前留下的事情終於追上來了,他不知道哥哥是否仍然懷恨,也不知道那四百個人會帶來甚麼,只能盡力為即將發生的相遇作好準備。

可是,故事沒有立即讓雅各見到以掃。

當妻子、兒女和所有財物都過了河,只剩雅各獨自一人時,神卻在黑夜中與他相遇。雅各原本擔心的是以掃會怎樣對待自己,但在這一夜,他再次被問到自己的名字。二十年前,他為了取得祝福,曾經在父親面前說自己是以掃;如今,他回答:「雅各。」神就在這裏給了他一個新的名字——以色列。

讀到這裏,我們或許也會想起自己生命中一些不願意面對的事情。可能是一段緊張的關係、一個尚未解決的衝突,或是一個遲遲不敢作出的決定。我們反覆思考應該怎樣處理,預備好不同的說話,甚至希望把所有可能發生的情況都安排妥當,才有勇氣繼續往前走。

但在忙於處理眼前的事情時,我們有沒有留意,自己為甚麼如此害怕?我們真正擔心失去的是甚麼?有沒有一些過去形成的習慣,讓我們即使知道神與自己同在,仍然很難放下對事情的控制?

雅各並沒有在這一夜得到關於以掃的答案。天亮以後,他仍然需要走向哥哥,也仍然不知道哥哥會如何回應他。神沒有替他避開這場相遇,卻在他繼續上路以前,先讓他經歷了一場改變。

而這場改變並不只是得到一個新的名字。

經文說:「當雅各經過毗努伊勒的時候,太陽照在他身上。他一瘸一拐,因為大腿脫了臼。」(32:31)

那個一直善於安排、爭取和抓住一切的雅各,如今每走一步,都會感受到這一夜留下的傷痕。他領受了祝福,卻沒有因此變得更加強壯;他得到新的名字,也沒有立即得到一條沒有困難的道路。

有時候,我們盼望神改變的是眼前的處境,但神的工作也可能發生在我們自己身上。當我們不得不承認自己的有限,重新看見一直倚靠的是甚麼,也許才開始明白,信靠神並不等於能夠掌握往後的一切。

第三十二章最後,雅各仍然沒有見到以掃。

他帶着新的名字,也帶着一條瘸腿,繼續向前走。

Antony傳道

註腳

¹ 創世記32:1–2「神的使者」再次出現,與28:12伯特利的經歷形成重要的敘事呼應:雅各離開迦南時看見神的使者,如今返回應許之地時再次遇見神的使者。「瑪哈念」(מַחֲנַיִם, maḥănayim)一般理解為「兩個營」或「雙營」,使這個場景同時帶有神同在與「營」的意象。參 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, Word Biblical Commentary 2 (Dallas: Word Books, 1994);Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).

² 「瑪哈念」與32:7的「兩隊」在希伯來文中具有相同的「營」(מַחֲנֶה, maḥăneh)字根。故事先讓雅各看見神的營,隨後又描寫他因懼怕以掃,把與自己一起的人和牲畜分成兩營。本文把兩者理解為敘事上的字詞呼應,而不進一步假定經文沒有明說的象徵意義。參 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50;Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50.

³ 創世記32:9–12的禱告以神過去的命令和應許作為首尾:雅各先說「你曾對我說」(32:9),最後再說「你自己曾說」(32:12)。中間的「慈愛和信實」分別對應希伯來文 חֶסֶד (ḥesed) 和 אֱמֶת (ʾemet),把雅各由「一根杖」到「兩隊」的轉變放在神持續的恩待與信實之下。參 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50;Bruce K. Waltke with Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001).

⁴ 創世記32:20密集使用「面」(פָּנִים, pānîm)的相關表達:雅各希望藉獻禮平息/「遮蓋」以掃的面,然後見他的面,盼望得到接納;到了32:30,雅各把相遇之地稱為「毗努伊勒」(פְּנוּאֵל, Penuel),並說自己「面對面見到神」。這個「面」的字詞線索還會延續到33:10雅各真正與以掃相見的場景。參 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50;Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary, vol. 1, The Five Books of Moses (New York: W. W. Norton, 2019).

⁵ 32:27「你叫甚麼名字?」與27:18以撒所問「我兒,你是誰?」形成值得注意的敘事呼應。二十年前,雅各為取得祝福而回答「我是你的長子以掃」(27:19);到了雅博渡口,他再次要求祝福時,卻回答自己的名字「雅各」,隨後才領受「以色列」這個新名字。32:25–28同時把「得勝」與大腿脫臼並置,使雅各的得勝不能簡化為以力量擊敗神:他堅持直到領受祝福,卻也從此帶着傷痕前行。參 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50;Bruce K. Waltke with Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary.

2026年8月6日星期四

《建立健康的小組,Building Healthy Small Groups》 第六課 Session 6 |小組的四個週期 The Four Phases of a Small Group

第六課|小組的四個週期

Session 6 | The Four Phases of a Small Group

核心思想|Big Idea

小組好比一個生命體,有起有落,但當我們願意跟隨神,小組可以不斷成長、成熟,甚至成為祝福別人的群體。

A small group is like a living organism. It has seasons of growth and struggle, but as we faithfully follow God, it can continually mature and become a blessing to others.

「惟用愛心說誠實話,凡事長進,連於元首基督。」(以弗所書 4:15–16)

"Speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of Him who is the head, that is, Christ." (Ephesians 4:15–16, NIV)


引言|Introduction

過去五課,我們一起思想成熟門徒的生命,也學習按著不同人的屬靈旅程彼此同行,建立真誠的關係和信任,並透過 Welcome、Worship、Word 和 Work,一起建立健康的小組。然而,即使是一個健康的小組,也不會一直停留在同一個階段。

正如一個人由嬰孩成長至成熟,小組同樣會經歷不同的季節:由最初彼此陌生,到漸漸建立關係,也可能經歷衝突和調整,最後成熟到能夠彼此扶持、向外拓展,甚至差派組員建立新的小組。

若我們不了解小組會經歷這些自然的季節,很容易在關係出現張力時感到灰心,甚至誤以為小組已經失敗。但當我們明白這是成長必經的過程,我們便能以信心和耐心,陪伴小組走過每一個階段。

In the previous five sessions, we explored the life of a mature disciple, learned to walk alongside people at different stages of their spiritual journey, cultivated authentic relationships and trust, and discovered the Four W's of a healthy small group. Yet even a healthy group does not remain in the same season forever.

Just as a person grows from infancy to maturity, a small group also moves through different seasons—from initial unfamiliarity, to deepening relationships, through seasons of conflict and adjustment, and eventually to a maturity where members support one another, reach outward, and even send people out to start new groups.

Without understanding these natural seasons, we may grow discouraged when tension arises, mistaking it for failure. But when we recognise this as a normal part of growth, we can walk through each stage with faith and patience.


請看看這張圖|Looking at the Diagram

這張圖描繪了小組生命成長的四個階段,每一個階段,都有神想我們學習的功課。

第一階段:認識探索期。這是小組剛剛建立的時期。組員彼此還在認識、探索,最重要的功課,是建立根基,也建立一種讓人感到安全的氣氛,使每一位組員都願意敞開自己。

第二階段:衝突變遷期。當關係漸漸加深,彼此的期望也會提升,衝突開始浮現。這並不代表小組失敗,反而是關係邁向成熟必經的過程。這個階段最重要的,是願意調整方向、增加信任,讓衝突成為彼此更深認識的機會,而不是關係破裂的原因。

第三階段:合群外展期。經過衝突與調整,小組的關係漸漸穩固,彼此願意支持、一起服侍、向外擴展。這是小組最甜蜜、最有活力的階段——成員彼此坦誠交往,互相支持,也開始把目光從小組內部,轉向小組以外需要福音的人。

第四階段:倍增更新期。小組進一步成熟,開始再次突破,甚至差派組員建立新的小組,讓更多人有機會經歷屬靈家庭的生活。這個階段的小組,不再只滿足於自己的需要,而是願意外展服侍、開新境界,祝福更多的人。

This diagram describes four stages in the life of a small group, each carrying its own lessons from God.

Stage One: Exploration Phase. This is when a group is newly formed. Members are still getting to know one another. The most important task is to build a foundation of safety, so that everyone feels free to open up.

Stage Two: Transition Phase. As relationships deepen, expectations rise, and conflict begins to surface. This does not mean the group has failed—it is a necessary part of growing toward maturity. The key task in this stage is to adjust direction and deepen trust, allowing conflict to become an opportunity for deeper understanding rather than a cause for division.

Stage Three: Expansion Phase. Having worked through conflict and adjustment, the group's relationships become stronger. Members support one another, serve together, and begin reaching outward. This is often the most vibrant season—marked by open communication, mutual support, and a shift from focusing inward to reaching those beyond the group who need the gospel.

Stage Four: Multiplication and Renewal Phase. The group matures further, breaking through to new levels of growth, and may even send members out to begin new groups so that more people can experience spiritual family. A group in this stage is no longer content to meet only its own needs; it actively serves, expands, and blesses many others.


若偏離使命,小組也會走向衰退|When a Group Drifts from Its Mission, It Can Also Decline

這張圖的衰退期,也誠實地提醒我們:小組若不持續跟隨神的帶領,同樣可能停滯,甚至衰退。

當小組失去真實,關係漸漸變淡,大家只想維持表面和諧;當小組開始向內保護,拒絕改變與突破,成長便會停止;當服侍減少,只滿足自己的需要,小組便會失去對外的吸引力;當新人不來,成員流失,小組便會漸漸失去活力;當氣氛沉悶,熱情和愛心冷卻,小組便會失去起初的甘甜;最終,若這些警號一直被忽略,小組便可能解散——生命停滯,見證消失。

這些徵兆並不是要使我們懼怕,而是提醒我們及早警覺。健康的小組不是永遠不會面對挑戰,而是願意誠實面對這些警號,重新回到神面前,回應祂的帶領。

This diagram’s decline phase also honestly reminds us that a group which drifts from its mission can stagnate or even decline.

When a group loses authenticity, relationships grow cold and members merely try to keep the peace. When a group turns inward for protection, resisting change and breakthrough, growth stops. When service decreases, and the group only seeks to satisfy its own needs, it loses its appeal to others. When no new people come, members eventually leave. When the atmosphere grows dull, passion fades and love grows cold. Finally, if these warning signs are ignored, a group may disband—its life stagnates, and its witness disappears.

These warning signs are not meant to instil fear but to help us stay alert. A healthy small group is not one that never faces challenges, but one that is willing to honestly face these warning signs and return to God, responding afresh to His leading.


神使群體漸漸成長|God Grows His People Together

聖經形容教會是一個身體,也是一個不斷成長的群體。保羅提醒信徒,當我們「用愛心說誠實話」,整個身體便會在基督裡一同成長,並且彼此建立。(弗4:15–16)

因此,小組的目標,不是停留在合群外展期的高峰不動,也不是害怕經歷衝突變遷期的張力,而是願意平衡活出相交、成長、事奉、佈道、敬拜的生命,緊緊跟隨神的使命,持續彼此相愛、服侍、外展,讓小組能夠經歷高峰、突破高峰,避免走向衰退。

Scripture describes the church as a body that grows together. Paul reminds believers that as we "speak the truth in love," the whole body matures in Christ and builds itself up in love. (Ephesians 4:15–16)

The goal of a small group, therefore, is not to remain fixed at the peak of the Expansion Phase, nor to fear the tension of the Transition Phase. Rather, it is to live a balanced life of fellowship, growth, service, mission, and worship—staying close to God's mission, continuing to love, serve, and reach outward, so the group may experience peaks, breakthroughs, and avoid the path of decline.


結語|Conclusion

一個健康的小組,不會一直停留在同一個階段,也不需要與其他小組比較速度。神會按著不同群體的需要,帶領他們經歷不同的成長歷程。

小組不是為了長久存在,而是為了讓生命成熟,並被差遣祝福更多的人。無論小組正在認識探索期,還是已經進入倍增更新期,我們真正需要關心的,不是走得有多快,而是是否願意忠心回應神在這個階段的帶領。

六課的學習雖然告一段落,但建立健康小組的旅程才剛剛開始。願神繼續帶領我們,在每一個季節忠心跟隨祂,也讓我們所屬的小組,成為一個彼此牧養、彼此建立、一起見證基督的屬靈群體。

A healthy small group does not remain in the same season forever, nor does it need to compare its pace with other groups. God leads each community according to its unique needs.

Small groups are not meant to last forever, but to see lives mature and be sent out to bless more people. Whether a group is in the Exploration Phase or the Multiplication and Renewal Phase, our greatest concern is not how quickly it progresses, but whether it is faithfully responding to God's leading in this season.

Although this series comes to an end, the journey of building healthy small groups has only just begun. May God continue to lead us faithfully through every season, so that our small groups become communities where believers shepherd one another, build one another up, and bear witness to Christ together.


Reflection|反思

回顧過去一段時間,你認為你們的小組目前正處於認識探索期、衝突變遷期、合群外展期,還是倍增更新期?你觀察到哪些具體的跡象?

Looking back, which stage best describes your small group right now—Exploration, Transition, Expansion, or Multiplication and Renewal? What specific signs led you to that conclusion?

Discussion|討論

在「為何會衰退」的六個警號中(失去真實、向內保護、服侍減少、新人不來、氣氛沉悶、最終解散),你認為你們小組目前最需要警惕的是哪一個?作為組員,你可以如何幫助小組避免走向這個警號?

Among the six warning signs of decline (loss of authenticity, turning inward, less service, no newcomers, a dull atmosphere, eventual disbandment), which one do you think your group most needs to guard against? As a member, how can you help prevent your group from drifting in that direction?

Practice|實踐

與組員一起禱告,並為未來三個月訂立一項共同成長的目標,幫助小組從目前的階段,忠心邁向下一步——例如:若在衝突變遷期,可以約定一次坦誠溝通的機會;若在合群外展期,可以計劃一次共同服侍或外展行動;若已在倍增更新期,可以開始禱告和裝備,預備差派組員建立新的小組。

Pray together as a small group and set one shared goal for the next three months to help your group faithfully move toward its next step—for example, if you are in the Transition Phase, plan a time for honest conversation; if in the Expansion Phase, plan a shared act of service or outreach; if already in the Multiplication and Renewal Phase, begin praying and preparing to send members out to start a new group.

Antony傳道