為救贖之約辯護Defending the covenant of redemption
作者：Scott Swain 譯者：駱鴻銘
救贖之約的教義（亦稱 pactum salutis，或「和平之約」）是一個優美的教義。它關注的是這個永恆的籌算：神聖的三位一體上帝為了耶穌基督的榮耀，將祂三位一體的生命，藉著耶穌基督為中保，傳通給蒙揀選的罪人。更完整的說法是：The doctrine of the
covenant of redemption (also known as "the pactum salutis" and
"the counsel of peace") is a beautiful doctrine. It concerns the
eternal purpose of the blessed Trinity to communicate the bliss of his triune
life to elect sinners through the mediation of Jesus Christ for the glory of
Jesus Christ. More fully stated:
這是介於聖父和聖子之間的協議，包含了聖父的旨意，為要賜下祂的愛子作為 lytrōtēn （救贖主，和祂奧秘身體的元首），以及聖子的旨意，為要獻出自己作為保證人，好叫祂身體的肢體可以得著救贖（ lytrōtēn ）。因此聖經告訴我們，聖父在救恩計劃裏規定聖子要順服以至於死，並因此應許要賜給祂萬名以上的名作為獎賞，好叫祂可以在榮耀中成為選民的元首；聖子要獻出自己，遵行聖父的旨意，且承諾要忠心地、持續不斷地執行所要求於祂的責任，並重新確保所應許給祂的國度和榮耀。The pact between
the Father and the Son contains the will of the Father giving his Son as
lytrōtēn (Redeemer and head of his mystical body) and the will of the Son
offering himself as sponsor for his members to work out redemption
(apolytrōsin). For thus the Scriptures represent to us the Father in the
economy of salvation as stipulating the obedience of the Son even unto death,
and for it promising in return a name above every name that he might be the
head of the elect in glory; the Son as offering himself to do the Father's
will, promising a faithful and constant performance of the duty required of him
and restipulating the kingdom and glory promised to him.
以上是杜仁田（Francis Turretin）的話。Thus Francis
Turretin.
這個救贖之約的教義，曾經是改革宗神學所教導的、有關基督與救恩的主要特色之一，如今卻不再廣受接納，即使是在改革宗神學家之間。根據羅伯森（O. Palmer Robertson）的說法：「要具體地論及一個三位一體之間的『聖約』（covenant），說聖父和聖子之間在創世以前有彼此同意的聖約條款和條件，是超出了經文的證據，是不得體的。」Once one of the
central features of Reformed teaching about Christ and salvation, the doctrine
of the pactum salutis no longer enjoys wide acceptance today, even among
Reformed theologians. According to O. Palmer Robertson, "To speak
concretely of an intertrinitarian 'covenant' with terms and conditions between
Father and Son mutually endorsed before the foundation of the world is to
extend the bounds of scriptural evidence beyond propriety." The doctrine,
in other words, lacks sufficient biblical warrant.
巴特（Karl Barth）從一個稍微不同的角度出發，如此問道：「我們真的能把三一真神的第一和第二位格視為兩個法理上的主體，祂們能作交易，並且彼此立約嗎？」Robert Letham果斷並強烈地回答了這個問題：「把三位一體裏的三個位格之間的關係，描繪為一種聖約關係，或者確認祂們之間有必要訂立盟約性的安排——甚至是條約，就是為異端大開方便之門。三位一體上帝的旨意只有一個；三位一體的工作是不可見的。那些提倡這個教義的人動機雖然是好的，但是用聖約的條件來解釋聖三一的三個位格之間的關係，是偏離了古典三位一體的正統教義。」根據這個批判，救贖之約的教義蘊含了三神論的觀念，因此會危害到正統的三位一體信仰。Coming from a
slightly different angle, Karl Barth asks, "Can we really think of the
first and second persons of the triune Godhead as two distinct subjects and
therefore as two legal subjects who can have dealings and enter into
obligations one with another?" Robert Letham's response to this question
is decisive and severe: "to describe the relations of the three persons in
the Trinity as a covenant, or to affirm that there as a need for them to enter
into covenantal--even contractual--arrangements is to open the door to heresy.
The will of the Trinity is one; the works of the Trinity are indivisible. For
all the good intentions of those who proposed it, the construal of the
relations of the three persons of the Trinity in covenantal terms is a
departure from classic Trinitarian orthodoxy." The doctrine of the
covenant of redemption, according to this criticism, entails tritheism and
thereby compromises an orthodox trinitarian confession.
在接下來的幾天，我計劃要從《基督徒教義學》（ Christian
Dogmatics，預定2016年五月出版）這本書裏，貼出兩段摘要。救贖之約是否是一個不符合聖經的教義？救贖之約是否會危害正統的三一神論？如同你所期待的，對這兩個罪狀的指控，我的回答都是：「不會」。In coming days, I
plan to post two excerpts from Christian Dogmatics that address these two
criticisms. Is the covenant of redemption an unbiblical doctrine? Does the
covenant of redemption compromise orthodox trinitarianism? As you might expect,
my response will be negative on both counts.
這篇貼文是探討當代對救贖之約的教義的反對，系列文章（三篇）的第二篇。第一篇請見此。以下是摘自Michael Allen與 Scott R. Swain 所著的Christian
Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic (Baker Academic, a
division of Baker Publishing Group, forthcoming 2016)。The present post is the second in a three part
series addressing contemporary objections to the doctrine of the covenant of
redemption (for part one, see here). What follows is adapted from Michael Allen
and Scott R. Swain, ed., Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church
Catholic (Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, forthcoming
2016). Used by permission.
在我們討論救贖之約的聖經基礎之前，我們必須思考兩個潛在而必須避免的陷阱。一方面是過度詮釋的陷阱。根據約翰歐文（John Owen），我們必須「小心避免所有的好奇心，或徒勞地嘗試要顯得比寫下來的文字更聰明」。另一方面是詮釋不足的陷阱。再次根據歐文，我們必須「殷勤研讀，並宣告和照明聖經裏所已經啟示的」，「到頭來我們應該要在知識上成長，以便堅固我們的信心和順服。」在前面導言的帖子裏，我提到當代對這個教義的批評，例如羅伯森所相信的，認為這個教義「超出了經文的證據，是不得體的。」十七世紀提倡這個教義的人也許會責怪現代的批評者，說他們沒有避開這個詮釋不足的陷阱，不像當時的人所相信的，這個教義是「聖經……明確宣告的。」有鑑於在改革宗詮釋家當中所存在的、有關這個教義之聖經基礎的爭議，教義學有關救贖之約的任務，就不只是指出這個教義是從哪些聖經經文出來的，更是要盡可能闡述聖經的推理模式，看這個教義是如何出現的。Before addressing
the biblical bases of the covenant of redemption, we must consider two
potential pitfalls that are to be avoided. On the one hand, there is the
pitfall of overinterpretation. According to John Owen, we must "carefully
avoid all curiosity, or vain attempts to be wise above what is written."
On the other hand, there is the pitfall of underinterpretation. Again,
according to Owen, we must "study with sober diligence to declare and give
light unto what is revealed" in the scriptures concerning this doctrine,
"to the end that we should so increase in knowledge as to be established
in faith and obedience." In my introductory post, I noted that
contemporary critics of the doctrine such as Robertson believe that it extends
"the bounds of scriptural evidence beyond propriety." Seventeenth
century proponents of the doctrine would likely charge modern critics with
failing to avoid the pitfall of underinterpretation, convinced as they were
that the doctrine is "expressly declared ... in the Scripture." Given
the controversy that exists among Reformed interpreters regarding the
doctrine's biblical bases, the task of dogmatics in relation to the covenant of
redemption is not simply to indicate the biblical texts from which this doctrine
arises but also to explicate, as far as possible, the pattern of biblical
reasoning by which it emerges.
救贖之約的教義是跟著聖經關於聖父在永恆裏指派聖子的教導而來的，這個指派是藉著聖約，以聖子作為中保。新約聖經將聖子道成肉身的工作描繪為是祂從聖父所領受的工作（例如：可十二1-2；約四34，五30，六38；加四4；來十5-10），聖子也被指派擔任一個職位，在不同的地方被描述為要承擔「耶和華的僕人」的頭銜和功能（例如：太十二18），並承擔祭司、君王和先知的職分，要作耶和華的「受膏者」（例如：徒二34-36，三22-26；來五5-6）。保羅宣告說，上帝的兒子「照我們父上帝的旨意，為我們的罪捨己」（加一4）。此外，上帝的兒子不像先知和使徒，他們是從他們的母腹就被分別出來要擔任他們的職位（耶一5；加一15），而上帝的兒子卻是從永恆就被分別出來要承擔祂的職位：祂是「父所分別為聖、又差到世間來的」（約十36），以及「在創世以前是預先被上帝知道的」（彼前一20）。上帝在基督耶穌裏揀選了我們（弗一4），是按照「祂的旨意和恩典；這恩典是萬古之先，在基督耶穌裏賜給我們的」（提後一9）。巴文克總結新約聖經在這方面的教導說，「將基督的工作設想為是在行使一項職分，就是把這個工作和永恆的計劃關聯在一起。祂背負彌賽亞、基督、受膏者之名，因為祂從永恆就被聖父所預定，而在時候滿足的時候就被祂通過聖靈所膏立。」The doctrine of the
pactum salutis follows from biblical teaching regarding the Father's eternal
appointment of the Son, by way of covenant, to serve as mediator. The New
Testament portrays the Son's incarnate work as a mission he received from the
Father (e.g., Mark 12.1-12; John 4.34; 5.30; 6.38; Gal 4.4; Heb 10.5-10) and as
an appointment to an office, variously described under the title and functions
of "servant of the Lord" (e.g., Matt 12.18) and under the priestly,
kingly, and prophetic functions of the Lord's "anointed" (e.g., Acts
2.34-36; 3.22-26; Heb 5.5-6). The Son of God "gave himself for our
sins," Paul declares, "according to the will of our God and
Father" (Gal 1.4). Furthermore, unlike prophets and apostles, who are
consecrated to their offices from their mothers' wombs (Jer 1.5; Gal 1.15), the
Son of God is consecrated to his office from eternity: he is one "whom the
Father consecrated and sent into the world" (John 10.36) and the lamb
"foreknown before the foundation of the world" (1 Pet 1.20). God
chose us in Christ Jesus (Eph 1.4) in accordance with "his own purpose and
grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began" (2 Tim
1.9). Herman Bavinck summarizes New Testament teaching in this regard, "To
conceive of the work of Christ as the exercise of an office is to relate that
work to the eternal counsel. He bears the name Messiah, Christ, the Anointed,
because he has been ordained of the Father from eternity and has in time been
anointed by him with the Holy Spirit."
這都說得通，也是極佳的說明。但是我們憑什麼理由可以說聖子在永恆裏接受彌賽亞的指派是「通過聖約」（per modum foederis）發生的呢？當然，描寫聖子在永恆裏被指派要完成祂道成肉身工作（例如：約十36；弗一4-5；提後一9；彼前一20）的經文並沒有包含那種聖約的語言，會促使我們得出這個結論。因此，是否有聖經的根據可以得出救贖之約這個教義呢？布雷克（Wilhelmus à Brakel）的回應很有啟發性：「倘若我們主要考察的是這個聖約是如何執行的，而不是考量它是從那個諭旨出來的，會比較容易瞭解這件事……主在這個時間狀態下執行此聖約的方式，和祂在永恆裏定旨這個聖約的方式是前後一致的。」換句話說，雖然聖經經文相對謹慎地不使用聖約的術語來論及聖子在永恆裏接受聖父的指派，但是經文相當自由地以聖約的術語和語言，論及聖子在歷史上執行這項指派。當這些經文和其他聖經有關聖子接受彌賽亞的指派的永恆本質的教導配合起來，就構成了救贖之約這個教義足夠的聖經理據。This is well and
good. But by what warrants may we say that the Son's eternal messianic
appointment occurs per modum foederis, "by way of covenant"?
Certainly texts that describe the Son's eternal appointment to his incarnate
mission (e.g., John 10.36 Eph 1.4-5; 2 Tim 1.9; 1 Pet 1.20) do not contain the
kind of covenantal language that would compel us to draw this conclusion.
Whence, then, is biblical warrant for the pactum salutis derived? Wilhelmus à
Brakel's response is instructive: "It will be easier to comprehend this
matter if we primarily consider the execution of this covenant rather than the
decree from which it proceeds... [T]he manner in which the Lord executes it in
this time state is consistent with the manner in which he eternally decreed
it." In other words, though the scriptures are relatively reticent to
speak of the Son's eternal appointment by the Father in covenantal terms, the
scriptures speak quite liberally about the Son's historical execution of that
appointment in covenantal terms and this language, when coupled with other
biblical teaching about the eternal nature of the Son's messianic appointment,
constitutes sufficient biblical warrant for the doctrine of the covenant of
redemption.
新約聖經對基督論的論述所採用的兩種模式證實了布雷克的觀察。首先，新約聖經說到在一些場合耶穌同時是天父聖約應許的接受者和中保。在路加福音廿二章29節，耶穌說：「我將國賜給你們，正如我父賜給我一樣」。同樣地，在使徒行傳二章33節，升天的基督被描述為是「從父受了所應許的聖靈」的那位，要將應許的聖靈澆灌給祂的百姓。此外，在加拉太書三章16-29節，耶穌被描述為上帝對亞伯拉罕所作的應許的後裔，信徒在祂裏面，也藉著祂成為相同的聖約應許的後裔。上帝的應許在耶穌裏都是「是的」，因為祂既是天父所應許的聖約祝福的後裔，也是這個聖約祝福的中保（林後一20-22）。Two patterns of New
Testament of christological discourse confirm Brakel's observation. First, the
New Testament speaks on a number of occasions of Jesus as one who is both
recipient and mediator of the Father's covenant promises. In Luke 22.29, Jesus
says, "I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom."
Similarly, in Acts 2.33, the ascended Jesus is described as one who has
"received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit" in order to
pour out the promised Spirit to his people. Furthermore, in Galatians 3.16-29,
Jesus is described as the heir of the promises God made to Abraham and, thus,
as the one in and through whom believers become heirs of the same covenant
promises. Jesus is the one in whom all of God's promises are "yes"
because he is at once the heir and the mediator of the Father's promised
covenant blessings (2 Cor 1.20-22).
其次，通過「位格性的釋經」（prosopological
exegesis）」新約聖經一再運用舊約聖經的聖約語言，來描繪聖父和聖子之間，有關聖子的彌賽亞工作和賞賜的對話。希伯來書第一章使用撒母耳記下第七章、詩篇第一篇，和詩篇一一〇的聖約語言來描述聖父賜給聖子的聖約尊榮。因此，天父宣告說：「你是我的兒子，我今日生你」（來一5，引用詩二7），「我要作他的父，他要作我的子」（來一5，引用撒下七14），以及「你坐在我的右邊，等我使你仇敵作你的腳凳」（來一13，引用詩一一〇1）。此外，當希伯來書接著論證到，諸如這些舊約聖經經文，在基督顯現的光照下來閱讀，證明了基督被指派為大祭司不是通過自我高舉而發生的（來五5-6），而是通過一個誓言：「主起了誓，決不後悔：『你是永遠為祭司』。」（來七21）聖子在永恆裏被永遠指派為我們的大祭司，而祂隨後坐在父神的右邊，是根植於一個永恆而不可撤回的聖約誓言。當我們繼續考慮到詩篇一一〇篇是新約聖經所引用最多的舊約經文，聖子彌賽亞的使命和賞賜的聖約基礎，就變得不可避免了。Second, by means of
"prosopological exegesis," the New Testament repeatedly employs Old
Testament covenant language to portray the mutual dialogue between the Father
and the Son regarding the latter's messianic mission and reward. Hebrews 1 uses
the covenantal language of 2 Samuel 7, Psalm 1, and Psalm 110 to describe the
covenantal honor bestowed by the Father upon the Son. Thus, the Father
declares: "You are my Son, today I have begotten you" (Heb 1.5 citing
Ps 2.7), "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son,"
(Heb 1.5 citing 2 Sam 7.14), and "Sit at my right hand until I make your
enemies a footstool for your feet" (Heb 1.13 citing Ps 110.1). Moreover,
as Hebrews goes on to argue, Old Testament texts such as these, read in the
light of Christ's appearing, demonstrate that Christ's appointment as high
priest did not occur through self-exaltation (Heb 5.5-6) but through an oath:
"The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever'"
(Heb 7.21). The Son's eternal and irrevocable appointment to be our great high
priest, and his ensuing enthronement at the Father's right hand, is rooted in
an eternal and irrevocable covenant oath. When we further consider that Psalm
110 is the most commonly cited Old Testament text in the New Testament, the
covenantal nature of the Son's messianic mission and reward becomes
unavoidable.
這帖是討論當代對救贖之約的教義的反對的系列文章的第三篇（第一篇和第二篇，請見這裏和這裏）。以下內容摘自Michael Allen and
Scott R. Swain編輯的Christian
Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic (Baker Academic, a
division of Baker Publishing Group, forthcoming 2016)。經授權使用。The present post is the third
in a three part series addressing contemporary objections to the doctrine of
the covenant of redemption (for parts one and two, see here and here). What
follows is adapted from Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain, ed., Christian
Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic (Baker Academic, a
division of Baker Publishing Group, forthcoming 2016). Used by permission.
如同我在第一篇提到的，一些最近的改革宗神學家擔心救贖之約有可能會侵蝕正統三一論的根基。因此，巴特問到，「我們真的能把三一真神的第一和第二位格視為兩個法理上的主體，祂們能作交易，並且彼此立約嗎？」Robert Letham提供了他所認為的對這個問題必然的答案：「把三一上帝裏面的三位格的關係描述為一種聖約的關係，或確認祂們有必要彼此進入一種盟約——甚至是合約——的安排，就是為異端大開方便之門。三一上帝的旨意只有一；三一上帝的作為是不可分割的。那些提倡這種思想的人雖然動機是好的，但是用盟約的詞彙來建構三一上帝三位格間的關係，是偏離了古典的三一神論的正統。」這是很嚴重的指控！我們如何回應呢？As I noted in my
first post, some recent Reformed theologians worry that the covenant of
redemption potentially undermines orthodox trinitarianism. Thus, Karl Barth
asks, "Can we really think of the first and second persons of the triune
Godhead as two distinct subjects and therefore as two legal subjects who can
have dealings and enter into obligations one with another?" Robert Letham
offers what he deems the inevitable answer to this question: "to describe
the relations of the three persons in the Trinity as a covenant, or to affirm
that there as a need for them to enter into covenantal--even
contractual--arrangements is to open the door to heresy. The will of the
Trinity is one; the works of the Trinity are indivisible. For all the good
intentions of those who proposed it, the construal of the relations of the
three persons of the Trinity in covenantal terms is a departure from classic
Trinitarian orthodoxy." This is quite a charge! How should we respond?
重要的是要知道，提倡救贖之約這個教義的神學家早就承認並回答了關於三神論的異議。例如，對於這個問題：有鑑於上帝的旨意是合一的，我們怎能說「天父的旨意和聖子的旨意在立定此約的事情上，祂們的確是一致的」，約翰·歐文的回答是：It is important to
observe that proponents of the doctrine of the pactum salutis long ago
acknowledged and answered the tritheistic objection. So, for example, to the
question of how it can be said "that the will of the Father and the will
of the Son did concur distinctly in the making of this covenant," given
the unity of God's will, John Owen responds:
這就是三個位格在其神性本質的合一上的區分：祂們是以自然和必要的行動來對待彼此——也就是說，祂們互諒互愛，等等。祂們彼此認識，彼此相愛。祂們以不同的方式存在（subsist distinctly），因此在那些屬於外部運行（external operation）的工作上，祂們也有不同的行動……在這事上，上帝在聖父特殊行動上的旨意就是聖父的旨意，而關於上帝在聖子所作的事情上的旨意就是聖子的旨意；這不是說有許多不同的旨意，而是說同一個旨意，應用在聖父和聖子的位格上時，可以有不同的作為。[S]uch is the distinction
of the persons in the unity of the divine essence, as that they act in natural
and essential acts reciprocally one towards another,--namely, in understanding,
love, and the like; they know and
mutually love each other. And as they subsist distinctly, so they also act
distinctly in those works which are of external operation... The will of God as
to the peculiar actings of the Father in this matter is the will of the Father,
and the will of God with regard unto the peculiar actings of the Son is the
will of the Son; not by a distinction of sundry wills, but by the distinct
application of the same will unto its distinct acts in the persons of the
Father and the Son.
布雷克以類似的方式談到這個問題：Wilhelmus à Brakel addresses
the issue in similar fashion:
既然聖父和聖子在本質上是一，因此只有一個旨意，一個目標，那麼在祂們兩者之間怎麼可能會有一個盟約的交易，是必須有兩個旨意共同參與的呢？難道我們不是把神格裏的位格過度的切割嗎？對這個問題，我的回答是：就位格而言，聖父不是聖子，聖子不是聖父。從這點來考量，上帝的旨意可以從兩個視角來看。聖父的旨意是要藉著第二位格作為保證（surety）來救贖；而聖子的旨意是要藉著祂自己成為保證來救贖。Since the Father
and the Son are one in essence and thus have one will and one objective, how
can there possibly be a covenant transaction between the two, as such a
transaction requires the mutual involvement of two wills? Are we then not
separating the persons of the Godhead too much? To this I reply that as far as
personhood is concerned the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the
Father. From this consideration the one divine will can be viewed from a
twofold perspective. It is the Father's will to redeem by the agency of the
second person as surety, and it is the will of the Son to redeem by his own
agency as surety.
換句話說，當我們討論救贖之約和上帝旨意之間的關係時，若我們想要欣賞這個教義作為正統三一論的例子的重要地位，我們必須考慮的就不只是上帝旨意的統一性和不可分割性，也必須考慮這個旨意是以三位格的方式存在的。 In other words,
when it comes to the relationship between the pactum salutis and the divine
will, we must consider not only that will's unity and indivisibility, we must
also consider that will's tripersonal manner of subsistence if we are to
appreciate the doctrine's status as an instance of orthodox trinitarian
reasoning.
因此，救贖之約的教義並不是要破壞正統三一神學的根基，而是應該要被視為把正統三一神論的原則應用在上帝永恆諭旨的這個要點上。因為聖子與聖父同本質，上帝的救贖旨意就不能只限定在聖父身上；聖子也必須成為上帝救贖旨意的主導者（the agent）。此外，因為聖子在祂位格的存在方式上乃是在永恆裏從父所出，因此祂旨意的位格模式（his personal manner
of willing）也是從聖父所出。聖子在救贖之約裏的旨意是順服於聖父，因此是對祂身為上帝永恆的愛子，與聖父同本質，順服於天父的忠實表達。Far from
undermining orthodox trinitarian theology, therefore, the doctrine of the
covenant of redemption should be seen as an application of orthodox trinitarian
principles to the locus of God's eternal decree. Because the Son is
consubstantial with the Father, God's redemptive will cannot be limited to the
Father; the Son too must the agent of God's redemptive will. Moreover, because
the Son eternally proceeds from the Father in his personal manner of
subsisting, so too does his personal manner of willing proceed from the Father.
The Son's willing submission to the Father in the pactum salutis is thus a
faithful expression of his divine filial identity as the consubstantial,
eternally begotten Son of God.