从圣经神学看伊甸园裡的两棵树ABiblical Theology of the Trees of the Garden
作者：Nicholas T. Batzig
译者：骆鸿铭译自：
在圣经记载的一开始，有两棵树佇立在上帝以盟约和人打交道的中心：分别善恶树和生命树。这两棵树远非神话的虚构，而是伊甸园裡真正存在的树——正如伊甸园裡其他的树一样。上帝并未给这两棵树有什麼神奇的法力，好像从它们本身可以对我们的先祖传送出能力（ex opere operato；译按：by the work performed, 意思是：本身就有事效）一样。不是的。上帝把这两棵树分别出来，只是為了要让它们成為象徵，好代表一种它们本身以外的事实。正如洗礼和圣餐一样，这两棵树也是圣礼。它们指向超越它们本身的事实。虽然它们本身没有任何能力可以传递任何东西，然而，上帝已经赋予它们属灵的意义，好叫它们可以表徵出祂和亚当所立的约，并且以这两棵树為印记。我们不能低估它们的重要性。我们只能用第三棵树——十字架，即我们主耶穌基督的死亡之所——来解释。十字架既是分别善恶树，也是生命树。主耶穌恢復了亚当所失去的，包括道德上的正直与生命。请思考以下有关分别善恶树与生命树的圣经神学观点：At the outset of the biblical record, two trees stood
at the center of God’s
covenantal dealing with man–the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the
Tree of Life. Far from being mythological concepts, these trees were–in a very real
sense–just like any other trees in the Garden. God did not invest these trees
with magical power to confer something out of their own resources, ex opere
operato, to our first father; rather He
set them apart to represent a reality beyond themselves and to stand in the
place of that for which they had become symbols. Like baptism and the Lord’s
Supper the two trees were sacramental. They pointed to a reality beyond
themselves. Though they had no power within themselves to confer anything,
nevertheless, God had so invested them with spiritual meaning so that the
covenantal arrangement into which He entered with Adam was signified and sealed
with these trees. Their significance cannot be underestimated. They can only
now be explained in light of a third tree–the cross on which our Lord Jesus
died. The cross is both the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree
of Life. Jesus restores what Adam lost both with regard to moral uprightness
and with regard to life. Consider the following biblical-theological aspects of
the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life:
分别善恶树The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
廿世纪的改革宗神学家范泰尔（Cornelius Van Til）解释了分别善恶树的本质。他写道：Cornelius Van Til helpfully explained the
nature of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil when he wrote:
上帝在许多树中拣选了一棵树，并且「专横地」告诉人不要吃这棵树上的果子。……如果分别善恶树和其他的树在本质上有什麼不同，它就失去了它原本的作用。这棵被拣选的树必须和其他树具有相同的本质，这个诫命才有可能显得「专横」。因為要让超自然看起来是超自然，自然必须看起来是真正的自然。除非我们按照自然的原样来认识自然，否则我们也无法按照超自然的原样来认识超自然。要有真正的例外，首先必须要有规律。（註1）God
chose one tree from among many and “arbitrarily” told man not to eat of it…If the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil had been naturally different from other trees it
could not have served its unique purpose. That the commandment might
appear as purely “arbitrary” the specially chosen tree had to be naturally like
other trees. For the supernatural to appear as supernatural the natural had to
appear as really natural. The supernatural could not be recognized for what it
was unless the natural were also recognized for what it was. There had to be
regularity if there was to be a genuine exception.1
这棵树（分别善恶树）表徵人所可能得到的后果——藉著顺服，或藉著悖逆；它是一个暂时的考验（probation）。霍志恆（Geerhardus Vos）解释到：This tree was a symbolic representation of what man
could attain to, either by obedience or disobedience; it was a probation.
Geerhardus Vos explained:
1. 藉著这棵树可以显明，可以让人清楚知道，人是否会陷入邪恶的状态，还是会在永远不变的良善状态中得到坚立。1. By this tree it
would be made known and brought to light whether man would fall into the state
of evil or would be confirmed in the state of immutable goodness.
2. 藉著这棵树，本来对人类来说只是在观念上的邪恶，可以成為一种实际的知识。或者，因為他还维持在一个未曾堕落的状态，藉著胜过诱惑，仍然可以得到更清楚的洞见，认识到邪恶的本质就是违背上帝的律法和漠视上帝主权的能力，因而同样可以对永恆不变的道德良善有著最高等的知识。（註2）2. By this tree man, who for the present knew
evil only as an idea, could be led to the practical knowledge of evil. Or also
because he, remaining unfallen, would still, by means of temptation overcome,
gain clearer insight into the essence of evil as transgression of God’s law and
disregard of His sovereign power, and likewise would attain the highest
knowledge of immutable moral goodness.2
霍志恆在其他地方解释了撒但如何试图要歪曲分别善恶树的意义。他写到：Vos explained elsewhere how Satan sought to pervert the meaning of the
Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil when he wrote:
我们必须把这棵树真正的目的，和那诱惑人的撒但在创世记三章5节所赋予它的解释区分开来。撒但的解释有两重涵义：首先，这棵树本身具有魔法的能力，可以传递善与恶的知识。这是把这整件事情的水平，从敬虔和道德的层次，降低到异教魔法的领域。其次，撒但是从嫉妒的动机来解释这个禁止令的……再次说，上帝在创世记三章22节所说的，是在暗指诱惑者所作的这个欺骗人的解释。那是一个反讽。（註3）From
the true conception of the purpose of the tree we must distinguish the
interpretation placed upon it by the tempter according to Gen. 3.5. This carries a
twofold implication: first that the tree has in itself, magically, the power of
conferring knowledge of good and evil. This lowers the plane of the whole
transaction from the religious and moral to the pagan-magical sphere. And
secondly, Satan explains the prohibition from the motive of envy. … Again, the
divine statement in Gen. 3.22 alludes to this deceitful representation of the
tempter. It is ironical.2
正如霍志恆所说的，亚当的确获得了善恶的知识，然而，他是从成為邪恶的立场而得到的，并且因為是与他所行的邪恶成為对比，才记得什麼是良善。他是从邪恶这边，经歷到善恶的亲身知识。倘若我们以创世记一到三章作為起点，然后思考人蒙召要作判断的所有时机（即：在各种处境中决定什麼是善恶），我们很快会发现到，在人天然的状态裡，他总是倾向於选择邪恶，而不是良善。当耶和华藉著先知耶利米来评判以色列人的作為时，这是祂的结论：「耶和华说：我的百性愚顽，不认识我；他们是愚昧无知的儿女，有智慧行恶，没有知识行善。」（耶四22）稍后，主说到以色列人，他们「乃是恶上加恶，并不认识我。这是耶和华说的」（耶九22）。人所缺乏的良善的知识，就是认识耶和华的知识。先知书裡有许多类似的经文，说到耶和华控告人，包括祂的百姓以色列，从来没有学会行善。当然，我们知道，这是因為即使是在旧盟约裡的有形教会，仍然有许多人的心没有得到重生。当我们接近那第二棵分别善恶树——即十字架，我们的主耶穌代替我们而死的地方——时，就看到他们所行的邪恶之路的顶峰。Adam did indeed
attain to the knowledge of good and evil, but, as Vos noted, he attained it
from the standpoint of becoming evil and remembering the good in contrast to
the evil he performed. He gained the experiential knowledge of good and evil
from the evil side. If we make Genesis 1-3 our starting point, and then
consider all the occasions in which man is called to make judgments (i.e. to
decided between good and evil in each and every situation) we soon discover
that he is always prone to choose the evil over the good in his natural state.
When the LORD comes to assess Israel’s actions through the prophet Jeremiah
this is what He concludes: ” For My people are foolish, they have not known Me.
They are silly children, and they have no understanding. They are wise to do
evil, But to do good they have no knowledge (Jeremiah 4:22). A little later on
the Lord says of Israel, “‘they proceed from evil to evil, And they do not know
Me,’ says the LORD.”
It was knowledge of the LORD that was the knowledge of good that men lack.
There are many similar verses in the prophets, in which the LORD brings the
charge that men, including His people Israel, had not learned how to do good.
Of course,
we know that this is because even within the visible church of the Old Covenant
most did not have regenerate hearts. We see the culmination of their evil ways
as we approach the second tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, namely, the
cross on which our Lord Jesus died in our place.
在主耶穌被卖、并且被带到人间的审判官面前的那一夜，在祂解释，祂总是在公开的场合教导——这证明了祂的正直——之后，其中的一个差役用手掌打他。耶穌对他说：「我若说的不是，你可以指证那不是；我若说的是，你為什麼打我呢？」（约十八23）主耶穌是在说明，分别善恶的知识一直在发挥作用，而很明显地，当人在做与良善有关的决定时，每次都会不理性地选择邪恶。祂是所有真正善恶知识的源头。祂拒绝邪恶，选择良善。祂完成了第一个亚当所未能完成的。在我们的脑海裡，这应该是很明显的，即耶穌是那唯一的良善，正如祂是唯一的道路、真理、生命一样。所有与耶穌有关的事都涉及到良善和真理。但是这也正是使人心的邪恶彻底浮现到表面来的原因。再也没有比十字架更好的例子了。On the night when our Lord was betrayed and brought
before earthly judges, He was struck by one of the soldiers after He explained
that He always taught publically–thus
vindicating His uprightness. To the soldier that struck Him Jesus replied, “If I
have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if good, why do you strike Me
(John 18:23)?” Jesus was
showing that the knowledge of good and evil is always active and that it is
evident that men will irrationally choose evil every time they make a decision
in relation to the good. He is the source of all true experiential knowledge of
good and evil. He rejected the evil and chose the good. He did what the first Adam
failed to do. Now it should be evident in our minds that Jesus is the Good,
just as He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Everything that involves Jesus
involves the Good and the True. But this is precisely what causes the evil in
man’s heart to surface so radically. There is no greater example of this than
at the cross.
十字架变成了那棵分别善恶的「树」（彼前二24；和合本译為「木头」）。在加略山上，犹太人和罗马人（代表所有的世人）做出了最邪恶的决定。他们喊叫说：「钉祂十字架！钉祂十字架！」从他们的脸上，那位神圣的判官显明了一个被邪恶所蒙蔽的世界，以及祂对这等邪恶的判决。但是就在那裡，那位没有罪的，為我们成為罪，好叫我们可以在祂裡面成為上帝的义（译按：林后五21）。约瑟的话从来不曾如此响亮：「从前你们的意思是要害我，但上帝的意思原是好的」（创五十20）。The cross becomes the “tree”
(1 Peter 2:24) of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. At Calvary the Jews and
Romans (representative of all men) make the ultimate decision for evil. In the
face of their crying, “Crucify Him, crucify Him,” the Divine judge shows to a
world blinded by evil, His verdict on that evil. But it is there that the One
who did no evil was made sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness
of God in Him. The words of Joseph never rang so loudly, “You meant it for
evil, but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20).
被掛在树上的那位，恢復了良善的知识——对那些信靠祂的人而言——即亚当选择邪恶时所失去的。上帝已经选择要翻转这种情况，藉由被掛在树上的那位，在拥有祂形象的人身上，甚至包括我们的主耶穌基督，要恢復亚当所失去的一切。没有其他的树可以如此完整地彰显出善与恶的知识。这是最终的考验。如今，我们要如何回应上帝关於这棵树的吩咐，是唯一要紧的事。The One who hung on
the tree restores the knowledge of the Good–to all those who trust in Him–that Adam lost by
choosing the evil. God has chosen to reverse, in His image bearers, all that
Adam lost by means of the One who hung on this tree, even our Lord Jesus
Christ. There is no other tree that so fully manifests the knowledge of good
and evil. This is the final probation. What we do with God’s command concerning
this tree is the only thing that matters now.
生命树The Tree of Life
生命树也是圣礼——象徵人可以进入到的永生。人倘若遵行了与分别善恶树有关的考验，就可以进入到这个永生裡。亚当，上帝的儿子（路三38），因為吃了分别善恶树上的果子，因此弃绝了我们吃生命树上果子的权利。基督，那第二个亚当，藉由被掛在受咒诅的树上，赐给我们来到生命树前面的管道。傅格森（Sinclair Ferguson）的解释很有帮助。他解释了第一个亚当和他所吃的那棵树上的果子之间的关係，以及第二个亚当和祂所吃的那棵树上的果子（从属灵的意义来说）之间的关係。他说到：The tree of Life was also sacramental–symbolizing
something of the eternal life that man could have entered into if he had obeyed
with regard to the testing of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam, the son of
God (Luke 3:38), forfeited our right to the Tree of Life by taking the fruit of
the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Christ, the second Adam, gives us
access to the Tree of Life by hanging on the cursed tree. Sinclair Ferguson
helpfully explains the relationship between the first Adam–and the Tree from
which he ate–and the second Adam–and the Tree from which He ate
(spiritually)–when he said:
耶穌在客西马尼园受到试探，使得祂祷告说：「倘若可行，求你叫这杯离开我。然而，不要照我的意思，只要照你的意思」，祂说这话的本质是什麼呢？这是完全圣洁的渴望。任何其他的渴望都是污秽的，不敬虔的。為什麼呢？因為一个圣洁的人从来不会有想要经歷被上帝弃绝的希望、渴望，或筹算。在我们主耶穌神圣的人性中，祂从来不会想要处在这样的境地中，使祂要喊叫：「我的上帝，我的上帝，為什麼离弃我？」What was the nature of Jesus’ temptation in the Garden that made Him say, “Let this
cup pass from Me–that’s My desire”? That was a perfectly holy desire. Any other
desire would have been an unholy and godless desire. Why? Because a holy man
can never have any wish or desire or purpose to experience a sense of divine
desolation. It was not within our Lord Jesus’ holy humanity to ever desire to
be in a position where He would cry out, “My God, I am forsaken by You. Why?”
在客西马尼园，因著耶穌灵魂的圣洁，迫使祂向父神说：「我不要那棵树」。祂这样做是為了解除亚当和夏娃在伊甸园裡所作的——因為在伊甸园裡的那棵树是用相同的词汇来描述的——与其他树完全没有两样。倘若你经过那棵树，上面不会有弯曲的枝子写著：「我很丑，不要吃我。」树上的果子也不会说：「我很可怕；不要吃我。」去读创世记第三章开头，你会看到圣经是以和其他树同样的方式来描写这棵树的。因此，不是这棵树本身有什麼特别，使亚当可以说：「噢，我不想要这棵树」。The holiness of the
soul of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane was compelled to say to the Father,
“Not that tree;” and in doing so He was undoing what Adam and Eve, in the
Garden of Eden, did–because the tree in the Garden of Eden is described in
exactly the same terms as any other tree–there’s no other difference. If you
had walked past that tree there was no crooked branches saying, “I’m ugly;
don’t touch me.” There would have been
nothing about the fruit saying “I’m horrible; don’t eat me.” Just read the
opening of Genesis 3 you’ll see that tree is described in terms of its nature
exactly the same way as every other tree is described. So there was nothing in
that tree itself that make Adam say, “Oh, I don’t want that tree.”
亚当蒙召要做的，是说：「那棵树本身没有什麼理由会让我说我不想要吃它，只除了上帝说过『不要吃它』以外。因此，在这点上，我必须俯伏在上帝面前，并且说：『我信靠祢』，即使我裡面所有的冲动都告诉我，『这棵树的果子看起来绝对是很甜美的』。」这是很明显的，因為上帝不会骗人，明明看起来很好吃，但是吃起来却有剧毒……因此，彷彿是说，在人类歷史这个奇怪光谱的另一端，耶穌是在面对另一棵树，而这整棵树——和伊甸园的那棵树来对比——都在对人说：「你不会想要得到我」，而祂的天父说：「我要你吃这树上的果子，你要这麼作，单纯是因為我是你的父亲，我吩咐你要用这种方式来拯救世上的男女。因此，耶穌啊，喝完这杯吧！」这整件事的奇妙之处在於（希伯来书继续说到那些哭喊和眼泪），耶穌吃了加略山的树的苦果，饮尽它最后的苦渣。这就是保罗為什麼会说：「祂存心顺服，以至於死，且死在十字架上」的原因。（註4）What Adam was called to do was to say, “There is no reason in that tree itself for me
to say I do not want it–except God has said,
“Don’t touch it.” And so, at this point, I have to bow before God and say, “I
trust you” even though everything in me says, “That tree looks absolutely
delicious.” That’s actually obvious because God would not deceive a human being
by making a tree that looked delicious and yet tasted poisonous…And so, as it
were, on the other end of this strange spectrum of human history Jesus is
facing another tree, and everything about that tree–in contrast with the tree
in the Garden of Eden–is saying “You do not want me,” and His Father is saying,
“That’s the tree whose fruit I want you to eat, and to do it simply because I’m
Your Father, and I’m commanding You to save men and women in this way–So Jesus,
take the cup.” And the wonder of it all is (and Hebrews goes on to speak about
those loud cryings and tears), is that He took the bitter fruit of Calvary’s
tree and consumed its last bitter dregs. That’s why Paul said, “He became
obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.3
傅格森如此继续展开这个论点：Ferguson continues
to develop this in the following way:
新约圣经对这个事实没有太多著墨，即伊甸园的那棵树，和基督被钉在十字架上的那棵树之间是有关联的。圣经只说到，因為在这棵树上所发生的事，人只要来到这棵树的面前，咒诅就会落在耶穌身上；然后，在旧约圣经裡内置了这样的律法，即被掛在树上的就是被上帝咒诅的——保罗在加拉太书三章3节具体说到这点……是要表明，「耶穌没有被人用石头打死不是偶然的」。基督是如何死的，具有巨大的神圣意义。这解释了祂為何会被钉死在十字架上，而不是以其他方式受死…… The New Testament doesn’t make much of the fact that there is a connectedness
between the tree in the Garden of Eden and the tree on which Christ was
crucified except that we do have Man coming to the tree and the curse falling
upon Him because of what happens at the tree; and then there is, inbuilt into
the Old Testament law, that the man who hangs on a tree is accursed of God–and
Paul picks that up…in Galatians 3:13 to say quite specifically “It’s not
accidental that Jesus was not stoned to death.” There is a huge divine
significance in the manner in which He died. That’s another exposition of why
it is that He dies by crucifixion and not by any other way…
如此，这其中的平行处乃是根植於保罗在罗马书五章12-21节的观念——我认為这是腓立比书二章5-11节背后的观念——即第一个亚当是悖逆的；第二个亚当是顺服的。第一个亚当努力要争取与上帝同等的地位；第二个亚当，祂本与上帝同等，却不坚持自己具有特殊的地位，反而倒空自己，取了奴僕的形象——以人的形式出现——祂死了，不仅死了，更是特别死在十字架上。（註5）That parallel then is rooted in the notion of
Paul in Romans 5:12-21–I think it lies
behind Philippians 2:5-11–that the first Adam is disobedient; the second Adam
is obedient. The first Adam grasps at equality with God; the second Adam who
possesses equality with God doesn’t count it a thing to be made a special
consideration for Himself but humbles Himself, takes the form of a
servant–being found in human form–He dies, and not just dies, but specifically
dies the death of the cross.4
清教徒神学家华森（Thomas Watson）总结了这整件事，他对比了亚当「拿起、吃了」上帝吩咐他不要吃的那棵树上的果子，而基督也「拿起、吃了」上帝吩咐祂要吃的那树上的果子。基督如今在祂所设立的主餐中，吩咐祂的子民要「拿起、吃了」这棵树上的果子。十字架，就这个词真正的意义来说，对那些吃了它的果子的人而言，就是真正的「生命树」。基督使生命的果子可以產生出来，好叫我们可以藉著选择那良善的（即：基督），并且拒绝邪恶，而亲身经歷到、学习到善恶的知识。在荣耀之中，所有信靠基督的人，要藉著吃喝祂而永远吃那生命树上的果子（啟二7，廿二2）。我们会恢復对於善恶的知识，好叫我们可以从此选择那良善的，而拒绝邪恶。愿我们都可以藉著信心在基督裡被上帝寻著，好叫我们的知识是与第一个亚当因為吃了上帝吩咐他不要吃的那棵树上的果子所带给我们的知识完全相反的知识，也让我们可以认识到如今我们可以拿起来吃的生命树上的果子的祝福。The Purtian, Thomas
Watson, summed up the whole matter by drawing a contrast between Adam “taking and eating” from the tree of which he was commanded not to eat,
and Christ “taking and eating” from the tree of which he was commanded to eat.
Christ now commands His people to “take and eat” from this tree in the
institution of the Supper. The cross is, in the truest sense of the word, “The
Tree of Life” for those who eat of its fruit. Christ has caused the fruit of
life to be born that we might experientially learn the knowledge of Good and
Evil by choosing the good (i.e. Christ) and rejecting the evil. In glory, all
those who have trusted in Christ will eat of the Tree of Life forever by
feeding on Him forever (Rev. 2:7; 22:2). We will have the Knowledge of Good and
Evil restored perfectly so that we will every choose the good and reject the
evil. May we be found in Christ by faith so that we may know the reversal of
all that the first Adam brought upon us by taking from the tree of which God
commanded him not to eat, and that we might know the blessing of now being able
to take and eat of the Tree of Life.
註：
1. An
excerpt taken from Cornelius Van Til’s article, “Nature and Scripture,” in The
Infallible Word.
2.
Geerhardus Vos (2012–2014). Reformed Dogmatics. (A. Godbehere, R. van Ijken, D.
van der Kraan, H. Boonstra, J. Pater, & A. Janssen, Trans., R. B. Gaffin,
Ed.) (Vol. 2, pp. 28–29). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
3.
Vos, Geerhardus Biblical Theology
(1948), pp. 27-33.
4.
Sinclair Ferguson “Why the God-Man?” from the 2011 Ligonier Ministries National
Conference (at the 53:33 mark)
5.
Ferguson “Q & A” from 2011 Ligonier Ministries National Conference
(beginning at the 31:34 mark).