聖約神學實例說明 羅馬書第五章論亞當和基督是盟約的頭 CovenantTheology Illustrated Romans5 on the Federal Headship of Adam and Christ
作者：Steven M. Baugh Maria Marta翻譯 /駱鴻銘校對：
認識聖約神學Understanding
Covenant Theology
請允許我對聖約神學作一個大膽的斷言：它不是改革宗神學的附屬品—它就是改革宗神學。在美國，聖約神學在20世紀與時代論（Dispensationalism）的爭論，導致許多人狹義地把聖約神學定義爲「非時代論」（Not-Dispensationalism）的神學，結果對許多人而言，聖約神學的範圍被局限在舊約聖經的以色列與新約教會的關係上。但實際上它的範圍要廣泛得多，而且坦率地說，要比這更有趣。Let me make a bold
assertion about Covenant theology: It is not incidental to Reformed theology --
it is Reformed theology. In the United States, the debate with
Dispensationalism in the twentieth century led many to define Covenant theology
more narrowly as "Not-Dispensationalism." Consequently, Covenant
theology's scope for many was narrowed to the relation of Old Testament Israel
with the New Testament church. But it is much more extensive and, frankly, more
interesting than this.
聖約神學就像任何系統神學一樣寬廣，觸及到所有標準的神學要點（主題），因爲它僅僅是把焦點集中在聖經本身盟約的組織原則上的系統神學。十九世紀改革宗神學家和普林斯頓大學教授查理斯•賀智（Charles Hodge）指出以這種方式來看待聖約神學的好處：Covenant theology
is as vast as any systematic theology, touching on all the standard theological
loci (topics), because it is simply systematic theology focused on the Bible's
own organizing principle of covenant. Nineteenth century Reformed theologian
and Princeton professor, Charles Hodge, points out the benefits of this
approach:
既然這[盟約]是聖經所呈現的模式，重要的是我們應該把它保留在神學的範圍內。我們保存聖經真理的唯一保障，是堅持我們所呈現的教義模式盡可能接近聖經的啓示。[注1 ] As
this [covenant] is the Scriptural mode of representation, it is of great
importance that it should be retained in theology. Our only security for
retaining the truths of the Bible, is to adhere to the Scriptures as closely as
possible in our mode of presenting the doctrines therein revealed.1
請注意，對賀智而言，盟約是一個「教義...的呈現模式」，而不只是衆多教義之中的一個。其他神學的結構展示出更為狹隘的興趣，例如，解放神學或女權主義神學，但聖約神學則試圖捕捉整本聖經的神學。Notice that
covenant is a "mode of presenting ... doctrines" for Hodge, not just
one doctrine among many. Other theologies display the structure of more
parochial interests -- for example, liberation theology or feminist theologies
-- but Covenant theology is an attempt to capture the theology of the whole of
Scripture.
這樣，盟約本身不是我們的神學要點（locus，主題），像三位一體、基督論、或者因信稱義等教義那樣。相反，盟約是我們神學的主要組織原則，並且與所有或幾乎所有的要點相關聯。雖然盟約最直接的影響是在救恩論方面（救恩的教義），但它遠遠超過這範圍。例如，三位一體的工作的教義（the economical
doctrine of the Trinity）被經典盟約神學描述為永恒的、三位一體之內的盟約，通常稱為救贖之約（pactum salutis或者，covenant of redemption）。[注2] 聖經本身可以被看作是對立約雙方具有約束力的盟約文件形式（例如，啓廿二18-19）。這甚至還沒有說到基督的位格和工作（即，以馬內利、『上帝與我們同在』——一個盟約的公式）、教會、聖禮等，所有這些都會在聖經的盟約題目內探討。Covenant, then, is
not itself a locus (topic) of our theology like the Trinity, Christology, or
justification. Rather, covenant is a main organizing principle of our theology
and correlates with all -- or nearly all -- the loci. While covenant's most
direct impact is in soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), it extends far
beyond this. For example, the economical doctrine of the Trinity is described
in classic Covenant theology in terms of an eternal, intra-Trinitarian covenant,
commonly called the pactum salutis (or, covenant of redemption).2 The
Scriptures themselves can be seen as having the form of binding covenant
documents (e.g., Rev. 22:18-19). This does not even speak of the doctrines of
the person and work of Christ (i.e., Emmanuel, "God with Us" -- a
covenant formula), the Church, and the Sacraments, which are all addressed
within the biblical rubric of covenant.
因此，聖約神學家會在聖經中沒有明確提到「盟約」這個字的經文裡，看到盟約運作的概念。塑造聖經材料的一些基本神學原則，往往不會被明確地指出來。例如，聖經中沒有明確提到三位一體，但每個正統的基督徒都肯定上帝的三位一體概念塑造了聖經的素材，並由此證明上帝是三位一體的概念。[注3] 我們也可以舉大衛之約為例。在撒母耳記下第七章8-16節（與代上十七1-14平行），當上帝和大衛立約時，「盟約」這個詞並沒有出現，但後來聖經明確稱之為盟約（詩八十九30-36；耶三十三21）。在這些情況中，足以表明定義盟約的一些概念，必然是在一段聖經章節中運作的，我們才能看見盟約在這段經文裡的作用，就像我們處理聖經的許多其它教義那樣。Hence, Covenant
theologians see the concept of covenant operating in scriptural passages where
there are no explicit references to the word "covenant." Fundamental
theological principles often give shape to biblical material without being
explicitly stated. For instance, there are no explicit references to Trinity in
the Bible, but every orthodox Christian affirms that the biblical material is
shaped by -- and thereby attests to -- a Trinitarian concept of God.3 We could
also point to the Davidic covenant. The word "covenant" does not
occur when God makes his covenant with David in 2 Samuel 7:8-16 (parallel in 1
Chron. 17:1-14), but Scripture explicitly calls this a covenant later (Ps.
89:30-36; Jer. 33: 21). In such cases, it is sufficient to show that the
concepts that define covenant are necessarily operating in a passage to see
covenant at work much as we all do with many other doctrines of Scripture.
兩個盟約的架構The Two-Covenant
Schema
聖約神學的必要組成部分是恩典之約和行為之約這雙重盟約的架構。1648年的威斯敏斯特大要理問答（Westminster Larger Catechism，WLC）對這兩個作為支架的盟約有經典的表述。大要理問答至今仍然被普世的改革宗群體所使用，以表達他們的信仰和教導。Integral to all
Covenant theology is the two-covenant schema of the covenant of works and the
covenant of grace. These two overarching covenants are classically expressed in
the Westminster Larger Catechism of 1648 (WLC), which is still used today as an
expression of faith and instruction by Reformed communions worldwide.
20問：上帝對起初受造狀態中的人有什麼護理？Q. 20. What was the
providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created?
答：上帝對起初受造的人有以下的護理：(1) 把他安置在樂園裡，吩咐他修理看守，賜給他吃地上各樣果子的自由；(2) 將萬物都置於他的治理之下，並設立婚姻幫助他；(3) 為他提供與上帝的親密交通；(4) 設立安息日；(5) 又與他立生命之約——以個人的、完全的、持續的順服為條件，生命樹就是此約的記號；(6) 人不可吃分別善惡樹上的果子，否則必受死亡的苦楚。A. The providence of God toward man in the estate in
which he was created, was the placing him in paradise, appointing him to dress it,
giving him liberty to eat of the fruit of the earth; putting the creatures
under his dominion, and ordaining marriage for his help; affording him
communion with himself; instituting the sabbath; entering into a covenant of
life with him, upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience, of
which the tree of life was a pledge; and forbidding to eat of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death [emphasis added].
30問：上帝任憑全人類在罪惡和愁苦中滅亡嗎？Q. 30. Doth God
leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
答：不是。全人類之所以落入罪惡和愁苦中，是因為他們違背了第一個約，即所謂的行為之約；但上帝並沒有任憑他們就此滅亡；相反，惟獨出於祂的慈愛和憐憫，藉著第二個約，即所謂的恩典之約，把祂的選民從其中救拔出來，並帶領他們進入得救的境況。A. God doth not
leave all men to perish in the estate of sin and misery, into which they fell
by the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the covenant of works; but
of his mere love and mercy delivereth his elect out of it, and bringeth them
into an estate of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called the
covenant of grace.
32問：上帝的恩典是如何在第二個約中顯明的？Q. 32. How is the
grace of God manifested in the second covenant [emphasis added]?
答：上帝的恩典顯明在第二個約之中，(1) 在此約裡，上帝白白地向罪人提供了一位中保；使他們靠祂得生命和救恩；但他們必須以信心與中保連結；(2) 又應許賜下聖靈給祂的選民，使他們能生發出這種信心，並賜下其他與救恩相伴的美德；(3) 也使他們能夠虔敬順服，作為真信心和對上帝感恩的憑據，這一切就是祂所命定給他們的得救之路。A. The grace of God
is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth
to sinners a mediator, and life and salvation by him; and requiring faith as
the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all
his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to
enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their
faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to
salvation [emphasis added].
33問：這恩典之約始終是以同一種方式施行的嗎？Q. 33. Was the
covenant of grace always administered after one and the same manner [emphasis
added]?
答：這恩典之約在舊約時代的施行方式與在新約時代的施行並不相同。 [注4] A.
The covenant of grace was not always administered after the same manner, but
the administrations of it under the Old Testament were different from those
under the New [emphasis added].4
教理問答教導，上帝與亞當立了一個行為之約（或生命之約），這個約特別要求亞當個人的順服，違約則受死亡詛咒的懲罰（創二17；三23-24）。[注5] 當亞當破壞了這個約，上帝立刻設立一個「應許之約」（a promissory covenant），威斯敏斯特大要理問答稱之為「第二個約」、「恩典之約」（創三15；弗二12）。這恩典之約在不同的時代以不同的方式施行（如，「從亞當到摩西」；羅五14），但在亞當墮落之後的每一個時代，其實質都同樣集中在盟約的中保身上。[注6] The
catechism teaches that there was a covenant of works (or covenant of life) with
Adam, which required of him, particularly personal obedience sanctioned by the
curse of death (Gen. 2:17; 3:23-24).5 When Adam broke this covenant, God
immediately instituted a promissory covenant, which the WLC calls the
"second covenant," and the "covenant of grace" (Gen. 3:15;
cf. Eph. 2:12). This covenant of grace was administered differently under the
different dispensations (e.g., "from Adam until Moses"; Rom. 5:14),
but its substance was the same in every epoch after Adam's fall in that it
focused on a covenant mediator.6
十七世紀杰出的荷蘭神學家韋修斯（Herman Witsius）準確地表達了行為之約和恩典之約的本質區別：The essential
difference between the covenant of works and covenant of grace is well
expressed by Herman Witsius, a prominent seventeenth century Dutch theologian:
行為之約沒有中保：恩典之約有中保基督耶穌...... 行為之約的條件要求完美的順服，由立約人自己同意並履行。恩典之約提出了相同的條件，要由、或者已由中保來履行。在「人」這方面的代替，構成了這兩個盟約主要和根本的區別。[注7] In
the covenant of works there was no mediator: in that of grace, there is the
mediator Christ Jesus.... In the covenant of works, the condition of perfect
obedience was required, to be performed by man himself, who had consented to
it. In that of grace, the same condition is proposed, as to be, or as already
performed, by a mediator. And this substitution of the person, consists the
principal and essential difference of the covenants.7
請記住，行為之約是把個人義務強加給亞當的一個盟約。他要受盟約的要求和背約的詛咒所約束。然而，無論恩典之約是在基督耶穌來臨之前或之後施行，它的效果是永恆的，舊約和新約聖經裡上帝家裡的人都同蒙恩典之約的恩惠（例如，來三5-6；九15；十一39-40；十三20）----它的本質特徵是中保的代替，和保證人親自履行約的條件，並代表其他人承受背約的咒詛。Keep in mind that the covenant
of works was a covenant imposing personal obligation upon Adam. He was bound to
its stipulations and its curses fell on him for breaking it. Under the covenant
of grace, however -- whether in its administration before the coming of Christ
or after Christ, for its effects are eternal and benefit both the Old Testament
and New Testament household of God together (e.g., Heb. 3:5-6; 9:15; 11:39-40;
13:20) -- the essential character is the substitution of the Mediator and
Guarantor who himself fulfills its terms exactly and takes upon himself the
curses of the broken covenant on behalf of others.
此外，在行為之約裡，亞當是一個「公眾人物」。更現代的詞語是，亞當是人類「盟約的頭」（federal head）。[注8] 在行為之約裡，亞當作為立約或盟約的頭，他的行為代表祂的整個族類。這在今天也不是完全沒有類比。例如，當美國總統簽署條約時，所有他所代表的公民就受到約束，要維護這個條約。如果總統的官方行動違反條約，整個國家可能要承擔責任。恩典之約的頭是「第二個人」、「末後的亞當」，即主耶穌基督（林前十五47，45）。Furthermore, in the covenant of works, Adam was a "publik
person." The more modern term is that Adam was the "federal
head" of the human race.8 As covenantal or federal head, Adam acted on
behalf of his whole race in the covenant of works. This is not entirely without
analogies today. For example, when the president of the United States signs a
treaty, it binds all the citizens he represents to uphold that treaty. Should
the president break the treaty through his official actions, the whole country
may be accountable. The covenant of grace has as its head, the "second
man," and the "Last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:47, 45), the Lord Jesus
Christ.
羅馬書第五章中的盟約的頭Federal
Headship in Romans 5
讓我們來看看聖約神學如何照明一段特別的經文：羅馬書第五章12至21節。這是在一卷充滿深邃洞見的書卷中更為深奧的段落。這是保羅闡述基督是盟約的頭的重頭戲。認信的路德宗正確地將它視為法庭式稱義的清晰闡述，但聖約神學對這基本的抗羅宗觀點的貢獻是：聖約的聖經結構內的歸算工作。稱義不是抽象的法庭宣告， 保羅也不是在借用希臘羅馬的法學原則，這是和聖經的觀念格格不入的。這裡所說的是聖約的法理，並且要追溯到上帝啟示的開端，事實上，是追溯到亞當本人和亞當的行為之約。Let's see how
Covenant theology illumines a particular passage, Romans 5:12-21, one of the
more profound passages in a book full of profundities. This is the centerpiece
for Paul's exposition of the federal headship of Christ. It is rightly regarded
by confessional Lutherans as a clear exposition of forensic justification, but
what Covenant theology contributes to this essential Protestant viewpoint is
that imputation works within the biblical structure of covenant. Justification
is not forensic in an abstract sort of way. Neither is Paul appropriating
principles from Greco-Roman jurisprudence, which are foreign to the biblical
conceptions. What is working here is covenant jurisprudence and goes back to
the beginnings of God's revelation, indeed, to Adam himself and the Adamic
covenant of works.
這段經文的一開始提到了先前說過的話：「這就如罪是從一人入了世界」。[注9] 有些註釋家把這希臘連接短語（dia touto）譯為「因此」（譯按：新譯本譯為「正好像」），或「出於這個原因」，這就是把保羅在羅馬書五章12至21節所說的，和他從羅馬書第一章18節在此之前說過的所有的話連接起來，特別是他對猶太人和希臘人（對人類全面性的劃分）在上帝的審判之下（如羅三9-20）的控告連接起來。這種連接觀點的依據是，「因此」通常是將先前的想法，作為後面接著要說的某些事的理論根據：例如，「因為他們雖然知道上帝，卻不當作上帝榮耀祂，也不感謝祂。他們的思念變為虛妄，無知的心就昏暗了。所以上帝任憑他們逞著心裡的情慾，行污穢的事，以致彼此玷辱自己的身體。」（羅一21、24）。這裡的連接回答了這個問題：「為什麼上帝任憑他們？」理由是：因為他們卻不當作上帝榮耀祂。 [注10] The passage opens referring to what precedes
it: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world."9 Some commentators
take this Greek conjunctive phrase (dia touto), rendered "therefore"
or "for this reason," as relating what Paul says in Romans 5:12-21 to
all of what he has said from Romans 1:18 up to this point, particularly to his
indictment of both Jews and Greeks (a comprehensive division of mankind) under
the divine condemnation (e.g., Rom. 3:9-20). The basis of this view is that the
"therefore" normally identifies the preceding thoughts as forming the
rationale for something that follows: "For although they knew God, they
neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him.... Therefore God gave them
over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity.... "(Rom.
1:21, 24). The connection here answers the question, "Why did God give
them over? The rationale: because they refused to glorify him."10
儘管上述在羅馬書五章12節中，關於「因此」的看法有點價值，但是我相信保羅實際上是以他獨一無二的方式，更狹窄地把羅馬書5章12至21節與之前他所一直強調的重點連接起來。這個重點是保羅福音的根本要點：基督在我們還軟弱的時候（五6）、還作罪人的時候（五8）、還作仇敵的時候（五10），就代替我們而死。基督的死不是因為我們是義人，因此，配得在祂的審判台前無罪釋放（參考五7），祂也不是只有在我們得到更新之後才為我們死。我們應該從這個「代替我們」的說法產生出一個問題來----就如保羅的反問----怎麼可能會有這種交換呢？基督怎能代替別人死呢？「他們[倚仗財貨的人]沒有一個能把他的兄弟贖回，或把他的贖價交給上帝，因為他生命的贖價非常昂貴，只好永遠放棄」（詩篇四十九7-8；新譯本）。[注11] Although
the preceding view on the "therefore" in Romans 5:12 has some merit,
I believe that Paul, in his own inimitable way, is actually connecting Romans
5:12-21 more narrowly to one point that he had been stressing in the
immediately preceding passage. It is a fundamental point of the Pauline Gospel:
that Christ died on our behalf while we were weak and helpless (5:6), guilty
sinners (5:8), and God's rebellious enemies (5:10). Christ hardly died because
we were personally righteous and, therefore, deserving of acquittal at his
judgment seat (cf. 5:7), nor did he die only after our renovation. The question
should arise in our minds from this "on our behalf" -- as it does in
Paul's -- how can there be this kind of exchange? How can Christ die in the
place of someone else? "No man can redeem the life of another or give to
God a ransom for him -- the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever
enough" (Ps. 49:7-8).11
那麼，當沒有人可以為別人做到這點時，基督如何能獻出自己的生命來換取我們的生命呢？耶穌基督怎能作為我們的代替者呢？這是羅馬書第五章6至11節的主題，在羅馬書第五章12至21節重提這問題，並作了回答，12節中的「因此」將它們連了起來：基督代替我們而死，因此，我們必須看到，這種交換的運作正如在亞當裡......所以也在基督裡。在聖經神學中，這種替代是盟約代表的行動，或用聖經的詞語，是「中保」、「新約的保證」（來七22[和合本譯為新約的「中保」]，八6，九15，十二24；參提前二5）。How is it then that
Christ could give his life in exchange for ours when no one else can do this
for another? How can Jesus Christ act as our Substitute? This is the thread in
Romans 5:6-11, which Romans 5:12-21 picks up and answers, and the
"therefore" in verse 12 makes the connection: Christ died on our
behalf, therefore, we must see that the workings of this exchange is just as in
Adam ... so also in Christ. In biblical theology, this substitution is the act
of a federal representative, or using biblical terms, a "Mediator" or
"Guarantor of the new covenant" (Heb. 7:22; 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; cf. 1
Tim. 2:5).
那麼，什麼是基督為我們作成這個偉大交換的確實依據呢？在羅馬書第五章12至21節，保羅通過將基督介紹為是末後的亞當（林前十五45）而作了回答， 簡要總結在其他的書信裡：「一個人替眾人死了，眾人就都死了。祂替眾人死了，為的是要使活著的人不再為自己活著，卻為那替他們死而復活的主而活。」（林後五14-15；新譯本）。但一個人如何能替眾人死的呢？保羅回答：「死既藉著一人而來，死人復活也藉著一人而來。在亞當裡眾人都死了，照樣，在基督裡眾人也都要復活」（林前十五21-22；新譯本）。這樣，他的回答就是：基督作為盟約的代表，在某種方式上類同於亞當（也假定此類同在某些方式上失效了，這是他在羅馬書第五章15至17節提到的）。這是問題的實質，與保羅著作的其他地方相比，在羅馬書第五章，他對這問題作了更詳細的論述。What then is the
precise basis for this great exchange of Christ for us? Paul answers in Romans
5:12-21 by introducing Christ as the Last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), summarized
briefly in other letters: "[O]ne died for all, and therefore all died. And
he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but
for him who died for them and was raised again" (2 Cor. 5:14-15). But how
can one die for all? Paul's answer: "For since death came through a man,
the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die,
so in Christ all will be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:21-22). His answer then is
that Christ functions as covenant representative in a way analogous with Adam
(granting certain ways in which the analogy breaks down, which he mentions in
Romans 5:15-17). This is the substance of the issue and the answer that Paul
provides in a little more detail in Romans 5:12-21 than elsewhere in his
writings.
亞當與基督比較The Adam -- Christ
Comparison
當你讀完羅馬書第五章12至21節，你會清楚看到，保羅的主題是亞當與基督的比較。他在12節引入了這個比較，「正好像藉著一個人」，但他隨後在比較的半途中岔開，對救贖歷史上有關盟約律法和歸算的運作，做出一些重要的資格限定的聲明（13-14節）。[注12] 有些釋經家不相信保羅在12節中斷了基督與亞當的對比，而是錯誤地認為保羅是把亞當和我們----亞當「所有的」後裔和「眾多的」後裔作比較。 就其純粹的形式來說，這是伯拉糾主義者的教導：「只要人們像亞當一樣犯罪，他們同樣會死」[注13] 換言之，正如亞當犯了罪，所以我們眾人也都會犯罪。亞當在這個架構裡，僅僅象徵我們所有的人，而死之所以會臨到全人類，只因為我們所有的人都親自犯了罪。When you read
through Romans 5:12-21, it is clear that Paul's main topic is the Adam-Christ
comparison. He introduces the comparison in verse 12, "just as through one
man," but then breaks off in mid-comparison to make some important
qualifying statements about the workings of covenant law and imputation in
redemptive history (vv. 13-14).12 Some interpreters do not believe that Paul
breaks off his comparison of Adam with Christ in verse 12 and instead
mistakenly think that Paul is comparing Adam with us, the "all" and
"the many" descendants of Adam. In its pure form, this is a Pelagian
teaching: "As long as people sin as Adam sinned, they likewise
die."13 In other words, just as Adam sinned, so also we all sin. Adam
stands in this schema as merely a symbol for Everyman and death comes to us all
only because we all personally sin.
伯拉糾主義者對羅馬書第五章12節的理解，有幾個原因是不成立的，其中最重要的是因為保羅在經文中所說的。在12節，保羅沒有說「正好像亞當…… 所以全人類也……」，這個說法就是在說明某個比較的下半部（例如羅五18-19、21，六4；林前十一12；加四29；弗五29；西三13；等等）。相反，在12節翻譯成「於是」（in this way/ NIV ）的語詞，是在介紹亞當犯的罪對「所有人」帶來的結果，而不是比較的一部分。保羅不是把「一人」與「眾人」作比較，而是斷言亞當的罪本身就是所有人的罪。[注14] The
Pelagian reading of Romans 5:12 fails for several reasons, most importantly,
because of what Paul says in the passage. Paul does not say "just as Adam
... so also everyone ..." in verse 12, which would indicate the second
half of a comparison (as in Rom. 5:18-19, 21; 6:4; 1 Cor. 11:12; Gal. 4:29;
Eph. 5:29; Col. 3:13; etc.). Instead, the words rendered "and in this
way" (NIV) in verse 12 introduce the result of Adam's sin for "all
men" not part of a comparison. Paul is not comparing the "one
man" with "all men," but asserting that Adam's sin was itself
the sin of all people.14
此外，伯拉糾主義者對12節的解釋必然會忽視這段經文的其它句子。在15至21節保羅一再表示，他不是把我們與亞當作比較，而是把基督與亞當作比較，我們的死亡原因不是我們的罪，而是亞當的罪。如果你讀整段經文，就明白保羅是毫不含糊的。例如：「罪藉著一個人入了世界...... 所以死就臨到全人類......因著那一人的過犯，眾人都死了...... 因為審判是由一人而來，以致定罪...... 因著那一人的過犯，死就因那一人而掌權...... 因一次的過犯，全人類都被定罪...... 因著那一人的悖逆，眾人就被列為罪人」（12、15-19節；新譯本） 。Furthermore, the
Pelagian interpretation of verse 12 must ignore other verses in the passage.
Paul repeatedly shows in verses 15-21 that he is not comparing us with Adam,
but Christ with Adam and that the cause of our death was not our trespass, but
Adam's. Paul is not ambiguous if you read the whole passage. For instance:
"Sin entered the world through one man ... in this way death came to all
men ... the many died by the trespass of the one man ... judgment followed one
sin and brought condemnation ... by the trespass of the one man, death reigned
through that one man ...the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men
... through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners"
(vv. 12, 15-19; NIV).
最後，保羅明確地否認了亞當的罪與我們的罪的比較：「死就掌權了...... 甚至那些不像亞當那樣犯罪的人，也在死的權下」（14節）。[注15] 違背律法就是罪（約壹三4），但我們的罪無法與亞當的罪作比較，因為他是全人類盟約的代表，在他裡面，所有的人都墮落了，而我們不是盟約的代表。And finally, Paul
explicitly denies the comparison of Adam's sin with our sin (I paraphrase):
"death reigned ... even over those who did not sin in the same way that
Adam did, by breaking a curse-sanctioned commandment" (v. 14).15 All sin
is law-breaking (1 John 3:4), but our sin is not comparable with Adam's because
he was the federal representative of the whole race in whom all fell, and we
are not.
亞當是盟約的代表Adam
as Federal Representative
在羅馬書第五章14節保羅仔細區分了「犯罪」（sin）和「過犯」（transgression）這兩個詞，這和盟約的解讀直接有關。那些從亞當到摩西時期死去的人的確都犯了罪（14節；參創六5、11-12），但它並不像亞當的過犯，因為亞當是在行為之約下，因不順服而受詛咒的懲罰：「你不可吃，因為你吃的日子必定死！」這就是墮落前的亞當時期和墮落之後的不同——這兩個時期的聖約安排是不同的。[注16] Paul
carefully distinguishes between "sin" and "transgression"
in Romans 5:14, which directly relates to a covenantal reading. Those who died
from Adam until Moses did sin (v. 14; cf. e.g., Gen. 6:5, 11-12), but it was
not like the transgression of Adam, because Adam was under a covenant of works
sanctioned by a curse for disobedience: "In the day you eat of that tree
you will die." That is the distinction between the pre-Fall Adamic period
and afterward -- the covenantal arrangement was different.16
行為之約要求亞當要有個人的順服，個人有義務遵行上帝所有寫在他心裡的律法，因為他是按上帝形象被造的（羅二14-15）；他也要遵行不能吃那棵樹上果子作為試驗的特殊誡命。藉著創造的次序，亞當自然地成為他族類的頭（林前十一8-9；提前二13），但藉著頒布不順服者受詛咒的誡命，上帝顯明亞當是整個族類特殊的盟約代表。對猶太聽眾而言，發布一個以死亡作為獎懲的誡命，等同於發布一個盟約：「因為自古以來的盟約是：你必定死；」（德訓篇14:17；主前二世紀）。[注17] This
covenant with Adam demanded of him personal obedience and personally obligated
him to keep all of God's holy law written on his heart as a creature made in
the divine image (cf. Rom 2:14-15) and the special probationary commandment not
to eat of the one tree. Adam was already the natural head of the race by the
creation order (1 Cor. 11:8-9; 1 Tim. 2:13), but by issuing the commandment
sanctioned by a curse for disobedience, God was displaying Adam as a special
federal representative of the whole race. To a Jewish audience, the issuing of
a death-sanctioned commandment was tantamount to the issuing of a covenant:
"For the covenant from of old is 'You will surely die'" (Wisdom of
Ben Sirach 14:17; II cent. b.c.; emphasis added).17
亞當是基督的預表Adam
as Type of Christ
在羅馬書第五章14節保羅深刻地說明了基督與亞當之間的關係，當保羅說亞當「正是要來的那一位的預表[希臘文是typos]」時，他大可以說亞當是「基督的一個模式[pattern]」，因為這正是他的意思。但是，保羅是以一種微妙的方式，將這點啟示出來的，即當亞當被設立為他的族類的盟約代表時，基督早已被考慮在內了：亞當是「將要來的『末後』亞當的模式」，這位末後的亞當被命定在未來要作為萬事的頭。[注18] 換言之，雖然亞當在時間上是首先的，上帝的計劃卻早已將基督是新約的元首考慮在內了。這個關聯使得保羅把亞當的過犯與基督順服的行為和他們個別的結果作比較，顯得入情入理。Paul profoundly
shows the interrelationship of Christ with Adam in Romans 5:14 when he says
that Adam "was a pattern [Greek typos] of the one to come." Paul
could have said that Adam was a "pattern of Christ," since this is
what he means. Instead, he reveals in a subtle way that Christ was already in
view when Adam was set up as federal representative of his race: Adam was a
"pattern for the [Last] Adam to come" who was destined to serve as
the head over all things in the future.18 In other words, though Adam was first
in time, Christ's headship in the new covenant was already in view in God's
counsel. This is the link that validates Paul's comparing Adam's transgression
with Christ's act of obedience and their respective outcomes.
到目前為止，我們已經集中討論行為之約、與亞當有關的族類，以及保羅如何把亞當和基督相互聯繫起來，但要強調的是，在這裡保羅的首要目的是什麼----一如既往！----是無法抗拒的榮耀恩典（即15-17節的要點）。亞當和基督之間的比較突出強調一個事實，亞當對盟約的悖逆（19節）的真正後果是眾人都被定罪（18節），因為在司法上眾人都因亞當的悖逆被列為罪人（19節）， 類似地，基督對盟約的順服（19節）也帶來真正的結果。在基督裡，新造的盟約子民（弗二14-18）在司法上被列為義人（19節）----即使他們本身不是義人（羅五7；參彼前三18）----和，因此，他們乃是藉著保證人（譯按：surety，參來七22）與中保對盟約的順服而稱義。所有拒絕基督的人，必須自己承擔全部的義務，個人必須遵守全部的律法（特別是加拉太書第五章2-3節）。然而，在亞當裡，他們已經被「永遠的約」審判了（賽廿四5-6）。So far we've focused on the
covenant of works and the Adamic connection with the race and how Paul
interrelates Adam and Christ, but it should be emphasized that Paul's
overriding purpose here -- as always! -- is the overwhelming glory of grace
(i.e., the point of vv. 15-17). The comparison between Adam and Christ
underscores the fact that if Adam's covenant disobedience (v. 19) had real
consequences leading to condemnation (v. 18) because all were judicially
constituted sinners by the transgression of Adam (v. 19), then in an analogous
fashion Christ's covenant obedience (v. 19) had real consequences, too. In
Christ, the newly recreated covenant people (Eph. 2:14-18) are judicially
constituted righteous (v. 19) -- even though they are not righteous in
themselves (Rom. 5:7; cf. 1 Pet. 3:18) -- and, therefore, they are justified by
the covenant obedience of their Surety and Mediator. All who reject Christ,
must themselves bear the full obligation to keep the whole law personally
(especially Gal. 5:2-3). Yet in Adam they are already condemned by the
"eternal covenant" (Isa. 24:5-6).
鑒於上帝律法始終隱藏著這種咒詛的威脅（如申廿七15-26； 加三10-14），舊約先知就展望著罪得赦免，以及與上帝永恆相交的新約（例如，耶三十一31以下；結十六61-63；亞九11）。隨著基督的來臨，上帝如今顯明了應驗新約應許的司法基礎：祂道成肉身的兒子的生命交換祂百性的生命，否則他們就要因著亞當的過犯以及自己的罪，受到無情的律法之約的詛咒（羅三25-26；加三13；林後五21；來九14-15）。舊約恩典之約的所有初步表現顯示出一個基本事實：因著一人，眾人就承受應許的產業。挪亞之約把挪亞全家從洪水的審判中拯救出來（創六18；來十一7）；因為上帝與亞伯拉罕所立的約，以色列人接受巴勒斯坦這預表性的產業（如出三6-7；利廿六42）；當非尼哈領受了上帝的「平安之約」，他的後裔得到永遠擔當祭司職分的恩澤（民廿五12-13）。大衛之約的後嗣承受作為上帝兒子的特殊待遇（撒下七8-16；參啟廿一7）。[注19] Given that this threatened curse of God's
law is ever in the background (e.g., Deut. 27:15-26; Gal. 3:10-14), the Old
Testament prophets looked ahead to forgiveness of sins and eternal communion
with God in the new covenant (e.g., Jer. 31:31ff.; Ezek. 16:61-63; Zech. 9:11).
With the coming of Christ, God has now displayed the judicial basis for the
fulfillment of the new covenant promises: the exchange of his incarnate Son's
life for the life of his people who would otherwise fall under the inexorable
curse of his covenant law for the transgression of Adam as well as for their
own sins (Rom. 3:25-26; Gal. 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 9:14-15). And all of the
preliminary manifestations of the covenant of grace under the Old Testament
displayed this primary fact: that by the one the many receive the promised
inheritance. The covenant with Noah brought deliverance from the flood-judgment
to his whole household (Gen. 6:18; Heb. 11:7); the Israelites received the
typological inheritance of Palestine because of God's covenant with Abraham
(e.g., Exod. 3:6-7; Lev. 26:42); when Phinehas received God's "covenant of
peace" his descendants benefited with a perpetual priesthood (Num.
25:12-13) and the heirs of the Davidic covenant inherited special treatment as
sons of God (2 Sam. 7:8-16; cf. Rev. 21:7).19
賜給非尼哈的「平安之約」是特別有趣的事件，因為後來在詩篇第一百零六篇作了解釋，「平安之約」等同於接受義的歸算：「那就『算為他』的義，世世代代直到永遠。」（詩一〇六31）。亞伯蘭因信被算為他的義，也使用了相同的詞（創十五6），這顯示在聖經中盟約與歸算之間有一種有機的關聯，保羅在羅馬書第五章12至21節就是發展了這種觀點。The "covenant of peace" extended to Phinehas is particularly
interesting because it is later interpreted in Psalm 106 as being tantamount to
receiving imputed righteousness: "This was credited to him as
righteousness for endless generations to come" (Ps. 106:31; emphasis
added). These are the same terms used of Abraham who was credited as righteous
by faith (Gen. 15:6) and shows the organic connection of thought between
imputation and covenant in the Bible that Paul is developing in Romans 5:12-21.
盟約的重要性The Importance of
Covenant
盟約是整本聖經的結構。聖經中盟約這個基本架構一旦變得清晰，上帝與亞當兒女的關係的所有模式，便在聖經中展開，成為一幅豐富多彩的錦繡，將聖經的內容統一起來。Covenant is the
fabric of the whole Bible. Once this fundamental schema of covenant in the
Scriptures comes clear, all the patterns of God's relations with the sons and
daughters of Adam unfolds into a rich tapestry unifying the Scriptures.
在羅馬書第五章12至21節我們已經看到，在行為之約裡亞當是代表他的族類的盟約代表。一些神學家公然反對這種對保羅教導的理解，因為它「違反了公義的全部意義」。[注20] 但是，如果我們要用我們的「公義感」作為終極標準來判斷聖經的真理，那麼我們不也同樣否認所有盟約的歸算嗎？如果罪不是從一人歸給眾人，反之，它也不能從眾人歸給個人。在這種方法下，我們怎麼能宣稱「祂被掛在木頭上，親身擔當了我們的罪」、「義的代替不義的」（彼前二24，三18； 參照賽第五十三章）呢？這不也違反我們的正義感嗎？倘若我們的罪不歸算給基督，那麼祂的義也就不能成為我們的義（如，林前一30；林後五21）。然後，我們全部的人都與基督隔絕，個人有義務（如亞當）去遵守上帝所有的律法 （加五2-3）。We have seen that Adam in Romans 5:12-21 was the
federal representative of his race under the covenant of works. Some
theologians reject this understanding of Paul's teaching outright, because it
"violates all sense of justice."20 But if we are to use our
"sense of justice" as an ultimate criterion for judging the truths of
Scripture, then shouldn't we deny all covenant imputation as well? If sin
cannot be imputed from one to many, conversely it cannot be imputed from many
to one. Under this method, how can we maintain that "He himself bore our
sins in his body on the tree" "the righteous for the
unrighteous" (1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18; cf. Isa. 53)? Shouldn't this violate our
sense of justice, too? And if our sins were not imputed to Christ, neither can
his righteousness become ours (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21). Then we would
all be cut off from Christ and personally obligated (as was Adam), to keep all
of God's holy law ourselves (Gal. 5:2-3 again).
與這可怕的前途相反，聖約神學提供了對新教因信稱義這基本真理的經典洞見的重述：唯獨靠著恩典和唯獨藉著信心，領受基督的義的歸算。只有藉著盟約才能作成這種歸算，因為盟約是上帝使用的法庭手段，信實地將祂的福分賜給恩典之約的後嗣。亞當的詛咒不是聖經中盟約的結論。這是在羅馬書第五章12至21節中讓保羅激動，也讓聖約神學家激動的話：In contrast to this grim prospect, Covenant theology
offers a fresh restatement of classic Protestant insights into the essential
truths of justification as the imputed righteousness of Christ by grace alone
and received by faith alone. What makes imputation work is covenant, for
covenant is the forensic instrument by which God faithfully extends his
blessings to the heirs of the covenant of grace. The curse on Adam was not the
last word on covenant in the Bible. This is what excites Paul in Romans 5:12-21
and what excites covenant theologians as well:
上帝的恩典和這一人耶穌基督在恩典裡的賞賜，對眾人就更加豐盛了（15節）…… 恩賞卻由許多過犯而來，以致稱義（16節）……那些蒙豐富的恩典並且得公義為賞賜的，就更要因這一位耶穌基督在生命中掌權了（17節） ……照樣，因一次的義行，全人類都被稱義得生命了（18節）……照樣，因著這一人的順服，眾人也被列為義人了（19節） ……照樣，恩典也藉著義掌權，使人藉著我們的主耶穌基督進入永生（21節；新譯本）。God's grace and the gift that
came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many (v. 15)
... the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification (v. 16) ...
those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of
righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ (v. 17) ... the
result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all
men (v. 18) ... through the obedience of the one man the many will be made
righteous (v. 19) ... grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal
life through Jesus Christ our Lord (v. 21; NIV).
Editors'
note: Some of the New Testament texts have been translated from the Greek by
the author.
注腳：
______________________________________
1 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981 [repr.]), 2:355.
2 Cf., for example, Ps. 110:4; Gal. 3:18-20;
John 17. Not all covenant theologians today believe that the Scriptures teach
an intra-Trinitarian pactum, but it is a classic doctrine held by such notable
theologians as Oecolampadius, Olevianus, Cocceius, Owen, Witsius, C. Hodge,
Bavinck, and Berkhof, to name a few.
3 The
argument against Covenant theology's method is like questioning an analysis of
the U.S. Constitution as being shaped by "democracy" or, more
accurately, "republicanism," because neither of these words appears
in the Constitution. No one doubts the importance of these concepts for shaping
the Constitution, even though the words do not appear.
4 Other questions and answers in the WLC
relating to Covenant theology are: 22, 31-32, 34-36, 57, 79, 97, 101, 162-66,
174-76; and cf. the related Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), especially
chapters VII and XIX.
5 The biblical notion of covenant involves a
bond, which has been solemnly secured, usually with stipulations fleshing out
the nature of the relationship and sanctions to be imposed should one party
breach the relationship. Modern Old Testament scholars have confirmed that
personal obligation is sometimes a central significance of
"covenant"; e.g., M. Weinfeld: "[B]erith[Hebrew for
"covenant"] implies first and foremost the notion of 'imposition,'
'liability,' or 'obligation'" (TDOT, 2:255).
6 Modern covenant theologians are not alone in
reading Romans 5 as teaching an Adamic covenant. The idea is clearly taught by
the great fifth century church father, Augustine (City of God, 16:27).
Augustine uses the Latin word testamentum for "covenant," but this
was the normal Vulgate word used for Hebrew and Greek "covenant"
(hence Old Testament and NewTestament, not simply "last will and
testament" as it sounds in modern English, but covenant). The nearly
synonymous Latin words for "covenant," foedus and pactum (treaty,
compact), became more common in later theological writings. I am not sure how
fully Augustine integrated this covenantal viewpoint of Adam into the rest of
his anthropology, but he is clearly part of the ancestry of modern Covenant
theology in his reading of Romans 5 and the Adamic covenant.
7 Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants
between God and Man: Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity, 2 vols.
(Escondido: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1990; repr. of 1822 translation),
1:49. Witsius is an excellent example of a classic covenant theologian; another
is Francis Turretin in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology (G. Giger trans.; J.
Dennison, ed.; Phillipsburg: P&R, 1994), 2:169-269.
8 The term "federal" simply means
"covenantal" being derived from foedus, a Latin term for
"covenant."
9 I will be using either the New International
Version or my own translation.
10 See Rom. 4:16 and 13:6 for some other places
where the conjunctive phrase dia touto is also used.
11 If I seem to have belabored a simple point
here, it is because perplexing sections of Paul's writings are often greatly
illumined after working to get a clear view of what question Paul is trying to
answer. Otherwise, his profoundly connected arguments may seem disjointed and
rambling. They are not!
12 Paul indicates that he is resuming the
broken off comparison in verse 18 by saying in effect, "so then (back to
the point) ..." and then repeating the substance of the comparison of
verse 12.
13 Pelagius, Pelagius's Commentary on St Paul's
Epistle to the Romans, T. de Bruyn, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 92.
14 Paul's teaching on Adam is in line with
common Jewish interpretations of the period: "And you laid upon him [Adam]
one commandment of yours; but he transgressed it, and immediately you appointed
death for him and for his descendants" (4 Ezra 3:7); "O Adam, what
have you done? For though it was you who sinned, the fall was not yours alone,
but ours also who are your descendants" (4 Ezra 7:48 [118]); "For when
Adam sinned and death was decreed against those who were to be born, the
multitude of those who would be born was numbered" (2 Baruch 23:4).
15
More literally verse 14 reads: "death reigned ... even over those who did
not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam." The NIV reads:
"death reigned ... even over those who did not sin by breaking a
command" (v. 14).
16 For more on the phrase "from Adam until
Moses" see especially Meredith G. Kline, "Gospel until the Law: Rom.
5:13-14 and the Old Testament," Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 34 (1991), 433-46.
17 This is just part of the rationale for
reading the Adamic arrangement as a covenantal phenomenon. See also, for
instance, Hosea 6:7: "Like Adam, they have broken the covenant"
(NIV), which clearly implies an Adamic covenant. This reading has been
challenged by some through the years, but a good analysis is still: B. B.
Warfield, "Hosea VI. 7: Adam or Man?" inSelected Shorter Writings of
Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. 1 (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1970), 116-29.
18 Cf. Col. 1:18-20. The Greek translated
"the one to come" can also be rendered "the future one" or
"the destined one" depending on context. The same form is used for
"future things" as opposed to "present things" (Rom. 8:38;
1 Cor. 3:22), and is used in two interesting passages (Col. 2:17 and 1 Tim.
1:16), which parallel Romans 5:14 grammatically.
19
For other examples of curse and blessing flowing from one to many, see: Gen.
9:25-27; 19:12, 16, 26; Num. 16:32; Josh. 6:22-25; 7:24-26; 2 Sam. 12:13-14; and
Lam. 5:7.
20 H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology (Kansas
City: Beacon Hill Press, 1958), 2:116-17.
本文原刊於《現代宗教改革》（Modern Reformation）雜誌，2000年第四期六月/八月號，總第九期，16-23頁。
Issue:
"Through One Man Sin, Through One Man Righteousness" July/August 2000
Vol. 9 No. 4 Page number(s): 16-23
