创世记第一章与今日教会GenesisOne and the Church Today
作者: Robert Godfrey 翻译: 诚之
圣经是以一个全面性的宣告开始的：「起初，上帝创造天地」。这个声明将圣经宗教和其他许多虚假的道理对立起来。这些道理说，世界上有很多的神，而物质是永恒的，或者说这个世界是从进化而来的，不是一个设计者所设计的。基督教对于创造的教义，即总结在创世记第一章第一节的教导，对我们认识上帝、认识人、认识人在这个世界的呼召，以及上帝与人之间的团契相通是非常重要的。
The
Bible begins with the sweeping declaration, "In the beginning God created
the heavens and the earth." This statement sets biblical religion against
many false teachings, among them: that there are many gods, that matter is
eternal or that the world evolved without design or a designer. The Christian
doctrine of creation, summarized in Genesis 1: 1, is critical to our
understanding of God, of man, of man's calling in this world, and of the
fellowship between God and man.
由于这个创造的教义非常重要，加上现代科学对这个教义的攻击，基督徒在过去两百年来非常关注创造论真正的教导，就是合情合理的。有很多人投注许多精力去研究圣经、研究科学，好了解它们各自教导了什么，以及它们各自的教导和另一方有什么关联。作为改革宗的基督徒，我们过去一直正确地坚持说圣经才是我们最终的权威，而人类的科学结论不是。但是我们也一直说，所有的真理都是上帝的真理，最终，对圣经正确的解读，和科学真正的发现，必定是可以兼容并蓄的，是不会彼此矛盾的。
In
light of the importance of the biblical doctrine of creation and because of the
attacks on that doctrine often parading as modern science, it is very
understandable that Christians have been very concerned about the true doctrine
of creation in the last two hundred years. Much energy has gone into the study
of the Bible and of science to understand what each teaches and how each
teaching should be related to the other. As Reformed Christians we have always
rightly insisted that the Bible is our ultimate authority against which the
conclusions of human science must not be set. But we have also always said that
all truth is God's truth and that ultimately a true reading of the Bible and
genuine conclusions of science will be compatible.
在过去的十到十五年（译按：本文写于2001年），有越来越多保守的基督徒——包括改革宗内部和外部——相信，如果要捍卫圣经，要捍卫基督教创造论的教义，就必定会要求我们要如此来解释创世记第一章，即上帝是在六天中创造了世界，而这六天每天都是二十四小时的一天。这当然是教会历史中占绝大多数的一种解读，因此我们大可以正确地称之为传统的解读。但是坚持说我们唯独可以容忍这种看法，则是相当新的观念。这种缺乏宽容的观念，会把最近一些最著名的，也是正统神学家的看法，从改革宗教会中排除出去，包括：赫治（Charles Hodge），华腓德（B. B. Warfield），梅晨（J. Gresham Machen），慕理（John Murray），杨以德（EJ. Young），凯柏（Abraham Kuyper）和巴文克（Herman Bavinck），这还只是其中的少数。他们都不同意今天许多人所坚持的六个二十四小时天的看法。
For the last 10 to 15 years a growing
number of conservative Christians – both within and outside of the Reformed
community - have become convinced that the defense of the Bible and the defense
of the Christian doctrine of creation requires interpreting Genesis one as
teaching creation in six twenty-four hour days. Such an interpretation is
certainly the majority interpretation in the history of the church and so we
can rightly call it the traditional view. But the insistence that it is the
only view that should be tolerated is rather new. Such an intolerant view would
exclude from the Reformed churches some of the most notable and orthodox
theologians of recent times. Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen,
John Murray, EJ. Young, Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck, to name only some;
each dissented in one way or another from the six twenty-four hour view
insisted on today.
这个新的缺乏宽容的立场，很有趣地，似乎与1930年代基要主义的纠纷，有许多平行的元素。在面对自由主义非常真实的威胁中，许多基要主义者相信，只有一个教义可以作为信仰是否正统的试金石，以及作为对抗现代主义坚不可摧的堡垒，那就是前千禧年的教义。许多持无千禧年派观念的正统的基督徒，被指控为是自由派，因为他们放弃了圣经的「字面」解经。因此，今天有些人似乎认为，六个廿四小时天的观念，可以保护圣经的权威，也保护字面方式诠释圣经的这个思路。然而当我们面对这个时代对圣经信仰真正的攻击时，我们万万不可防卫过当。我们必须努力保持平衡，同时拒绝人类理性的狂妄宣称，也要拒绝这个退回到反智主义的诱惑。
The
new intolerance seems interestingly parallel to elements of the fundamentalist
controversy in the 1930s. In the face of the very real threat of liberalism,
many fundamentalists came to believe that the one biblical doctrine that could
be a litmus test of orthodoxy and an impenetrable bulwark against modernism was
the doctrine of pre-millennialism. Many orthodox Christians who were
a-millennial were accused of liberalism because they had abandoned a
"literal" interpretation of the Bible. So today some seem to believe
that the idea of creation in six twenty-four hour days will protect the
authority of the Bible and a literal approach to the interpretation of the
Scriptures. But we must not become too defensive in the face of the very real
attacks on biblical religion that we face in our time. We must seek to remain
balanced rejecting both the pretentious claims of human reason and the
temptation to retreat into anti-intellectualism.
我们要清楚说明到底什么是圣经的字面解释。圣经的字面解释是指作者透过文本的文字所想要表达的意思。它和灵意化（spiritualizing）的解读是对立的。灵意化的解读是指要在作者完全不知道的、隐藏起来的意义中，找到文本的意思。举例来说，以赛亚在以赛亚书五十九章提到耶和华的膀臂。这节经文是不是像摩门教对这节经文字面的理解，认为上帝真的有一个物质的身体，有一个物质的膀臂呢？不是！这节经文的字面意义，也就是以赛亚所要表达的意思是，膀臂是上帝能力的象征。
We
need to be very clear what a literal interpretation of the Bible actually is.
The literal interpretation is the meaning intended by the author and carried by
the words of the text. It stands in contrast to a spiritualizing
interpretation, which finds the meaning of the text in a hidden significance
entirely unknown to the author. As an example think of Isaiah's reference to
the arm of the Lord in Isaiah 59. Is the literal understanding of that text the
Mormon understanding, that God actually has a physical body and also a physical
arm? No! The literal meaning of the text, which Isaiah intended, is that the
arm is a metaphor for the power of God.
因此，当我们来到创世记第一章时，什么是六天创造的字面意义呢？一个值得赞赏的解读是：这里的天是廿四小时天。但是诚实的解经必须承认到，这个观点是有问题的。首先，我们怎么和创世记二章4节来调和，「创造天地的来历，在耶和华造天地的『日子』（in the day）乃是这样。」如果「日」的意思永远只能是指「日」，而这个意思是很明显的，那么圣经就是矛盾的。究竟是创世记二章4节的日子，还是创世记第一章中的「天」，是字面意义的「天」？究竟上帝是在一天内创造的，还是在六天内创造的？
So
when we come to Genesis one, what is the literal meaning of the six days of
creation? One interpretation that has much to commend it is that the days are
twenty-four hour days. But honest exegesis must recognize that there are
problems with this view. First, how do we harmonize such a view with Genesis
2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were
created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven" (NASB). If
day always means day, and the meaning is obvious, then there is a contradiction
in the Bible. Is the day of Gen. 2:4 or the day of Gen. 1 the literal day? Did
God create in one day or six days?
其次，我们应该思考创世记第一章中关于光的问题。在整本圣经其他的地方，都假设光体（日、月、星辰）的光是光的来源。启示录廿二章5节暗示，在世界的末日，有一件新事会发生，到那时，光只会从主自己那里来，再也没有其他的光源：「不再有黑夜；他们也不用灯光、日光，因为主神要光照他们。」在创世记里，第一天的光是上帝透过祂话语的能力所造的。这个光不可能是某种从神的本体而来的、不是被造出来的光照，因为那是个被造的光。但是第一天没有告诉我们，这个光实际的来源是什么。第四天的确告诉我们，这光的实际来源是这些光体。这是不是有可能，或甚至是很有可能，单单从圣经内在的证据看来，第一天和第四天是用不同的角度在描写创造光的同一个行动呢？
Second,
we should consider the matter of light in Genesis one. Throughout the rest of
the Bible the assumption is that the lights (sun, moon, and stars) are the
source of light. Rev. 22:5 implies that something very new occurs at the end of
time when light no longer has any source except the Lord himself: "There
will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of
the sun, for the Lord God will give them light." Now the light of day one
in Genesis is created by God through the word of his power. That light cannot
be some uncreated illumination from the being of God because it is a created
light. But day one does not tell us what the physical source of that light is.
Day four does tell us that the physical source of light is the lights. Is it
not possible, or even likely, then from the internal evidence of the Bible
alone that days one and four are describing the same act of creating light from
different perspectives?
第三，当创世记第二章2节告诉我们，上帝在第七天歇了祂一切创造的工，安息了，字面的意思是指上帝累倒了，必须休息以恢复体力吗？而倘若上帝不觉得累，只是说自己在休息，好教导我们要休息，是不是有可能，祂是在说祂工作了六天，好教导我们也要工作六天呢？我们不能把圣经里的上帝变成希腊神话里的天神宙斯，只是一个按照我们形象所造的，在天空里的巨大人物。我们毋宁必须一起仔细地研读圣经，好完全地解答这些问题。
Third,
when Gen. 2:2 tells us that God rested on the seventh day, does the literal
interpretation mean that God was tired out and had to recuperate? And if God
was not tired and only presented himself as resting to teach us to rest, is it
possible that he presented himself as working over six days to teach us to work
six days? We must not turn the God of the Bible into Zeus, a big man in the sky
made in our image. Rather we must together study the Bible carefully and answer
such questions as these fully.
既然传统的看法不像护卫这个看法的人所宣称的那么明显，那么无懈可击，难道我们不应该有某种程度的宽容，容许对创世记的不同解读呢？如果我们都同意圣经是无误的，即创世记是真实的历史，上帝的确从无有中造出了万有，人不是演化的产物，而是上帝从地上的尘土直接创造出来的，难道这不就足以安全地守护教会正统了吗？倘若我们同意，我们必须通过用经文来比较经文的方法，以寻求经文的字面（真实）意义，以及作者想要表达的意思，难道我们不就是在保护解读圣经的健全原则吗？如果我们在这么多的方面有共识，我们就应该也会同意巴文克这个饶有智慧的说法：
Since
the traditional view is not so obvious and unproblematic as its defenders like
to claim, should we not allow a measure of toleration for different
interpretations of Genesis one? If we all agree that the Bible is inerrant,
that Genesis is real history, that God created all things out of nothing, that
man is not a product of evolution, but an immediate creation of God from the
dust of the earth, is that not enough to safeguard the orthodoxy of the church?
If we agree that we must seek the literal sense of the test and the meaning the
author intended by comparing Scripture with Scripture, have we not protected sound
principles of biblical interpretation? If we are agreed about so much, we
should also agree with Bavinck's wise statement:
「大地是在这些日子里成形、成为人类的居所，对这些日子的看法也类似。无论何时，人们对这个问题都有不同的看法，托马斯正确地确认这点，就是对于信心来说不是绝对必要的事情，可以容许有各种看法。奥古斯丁相信上帝在一瞬间同时创造出万物，因此创世记第一章所说的，启示给我们知道的日子，不是时间方面的，而只是一种松散的次序，让我们知道创造之工的各个部分与其他部分之间的关联。他警告信徒，不要偏执于圣经没有明确说明的事情，以至于当有更明确的亮光照亮某段经文时，我们宁可为捍卫自己的看法而发光，而不为经文的意义来争辩。」
"Something similar is true of the days in
which the earth was formed and made into an abode for humans. At all times
people have entertained different opinions on that matter, and Thomas rightly
affirms that in the things which do not belong to the necessity of faith
various opinions are permitted. Augustine believed that God created all things
simultaneously in a single instant, so that the days of which Genesis 1 speaks
make known to us not the temporal but only the causal order in which the parts
of the work of creation stand to each other. And in obscure matters, he warned
believers against taking such a firm stand in favor of a certain interpretation
of Scripture that, when a clearer light should dawn over a passage, we would
rather shine in defending our own opinion than fight for the meaning of Holy
Scripture."
我们也许该问问巴文克，哪些事情是属于信心所必须的？在教会必要的教义，以及可以有某种程度的差异的教义之间，我们要如何划下界限呢？信仰告白陈述的是我们都同意的教义。基于这个理由，我们称信仰告白是我们合一的形式（forms of unity）。它们在基要真理上把我们联合在一起。在它们沉默不语的地方，教会就应当容忍各种不同的看法。
We might ask of Bavinck, what things do
belong to the necessity of faith? How can we draw the line between the doctrines
the church must require and doctrines where we can have a measure of
difference? The answer to that question is the confessions of the church
present that dividing line. The confessions state those doctrines that we all
agree on together. For that reason we call our confessions our forms of unity.
They unite us in the essentials of the truth. Where they are silent, the church
should tolerate a variety of views.
在改革宗教会的历史上，由于一些区会曾经想要把宗派之外的看法强加在教会身上，因而造成了严重的伤害。无论是Klaas Schilder，还是Herman Hoeksema，我的看法是他们的教导都不应该被改革宗区会定罪（这些人的看法也不应该被强加在教会身上！）。我们应当极力维护我们信仰告白的教导，而对一些我们的信仰告白没有说得很清楚的地方，可以容许有不同看法的空间。这种认信主义（confessionalism）特别应该是联合改革宗教会（United Reformed Churches）的特征。这些教会所以联合在一起，是出于一个信念，就是他们之前所属的区会，曾经把一些不合圣经，以及非信仰告白的看法和做法，强加在教会身上。联合改革宗教会的《教会秩序手册》（Church Order）写作的目的就是为了防止任何形式的区会暴力，以确保一个非中央集权的教会生活。请留意，URC所承担的教会合一任务，是努力使那些「证明它们自己是忠于三项联合信条所总结的圣经教导的教会」（《教会秩序手册》，第34条）加入这个宗派。这不是要求在所有圣经的教导上都要达成共识，而是对那些总结在信仰告白里的圣经教导要达成共识。使我们联合在一起的，不是教会的政治力量，而是信仰告白。当我们看到那些曾经批评区会滥权的人，如今却主张要利用区会来将新的教义强加在教会身上，是很奇怪也很可悲的。
In
the history of the Reformed churches serious harm has been done to our unity by
synodical efforts to impose extra-confessional views on the churches. In my
opinion neither the distinctive teachings of Klaas Schilder nor those of Herman
Hoeksema should have been condemned by Reformed synods. (Nor should the views
of those men be imposed on the churches!) Rather we ought to uphold vigorously
the teachings of our confessions and allow latitude for disagreements on issues
not clearly spoken to by our confessions. Such confessionalism should be the
hallmark of the United Reformed Churches in particular. That federation of
churches was born out of a conviction that the synod of their former connection
had imposed unbiblical and unconfessional views and practices on the churches.
The Church Order of the United Reformed Churches was written to prevent any
form of synodical tyranny and to insure a quite decentralized church life.
Notice that the ecumenical task of the URC is to pursue churches that
"demonstrate faithful allegiance to Scripture as summarized in the Three
Forms of Unity" (Church Order article 34). It is not agreement in all that
the Bible teaches which is required, but agreement on those teachings of the
Bible summarized in the confessions. The confessions, not ecclesiastical power
politics, are to unite us. It is strange and sad to see some of those who most
criticized the abuse of synodical power, now suggesting that synods be used to impose
new doctrines upon the church.
这些教会的信仰告白不是藏在博物馆里的文物，只能为我们祖先的信仰作见证。它们是这些教会活生生的见证。如果弟兄姐妹确信一个教义必须加在教会的信仰立场上，就让他们以正当的方式来修正我们的信仰告白。让教会仔细地研究这个问题，好确信我们的确比我们的先贤要来得聪明。
The
confessions of our churches are not museum pieces testifying only to what our
forefathers believed. They are the living testimony of the churches. If
brothers are convinced that a doctrine needs to be added to the confessional
position of the church, let them act in a proper way to amend our confessions.
Let the church study the matter with care and be sure that we are in fact wiser
than those who came before us.
与此同时，让我们以兄弟之谊一同研究圣经，热切地寻求上帝的心意。让我们不要傲慢自大，甚至连彼此倾听都不愿意。让我们效法伯克富树立的好榜样。在他的系统神学里，他极力地排斥Noortzij教授所提出的对创世记第一章的某种画景论解释（framework interpretation）。他的做法是，首先对这个他所不同意的立场作一个彻底的回顾；其次，为他自己的传统解读提出经过缜密思考的论证；然后第三，他从来没有暗示Noortzij教授不是弟兄，他的看法不能被容忍。在我们的讨论中，有关创世记第一章里的「日」，我们也必须记得，创世记第一章的主要目的不是要教导我们地球的年龄，或上帝花了多长时间来创造。创世记第一章的主要目的是要教导我们，上帝的尊荣、权能、智慧，以及祂所赐给人的特性和责任。上帝教导我们，人作为唯一按照祂的形象所造的被造物，必须在每周中工作六天，并且用一天休息，以便与上帝有特别的团契相通。
In
the meantime let us study the Scriptures together as brothers, earnestly
seeking the mind of God. Let us not be arrogant, unwilling even to listen to
one another. Let us follow the good example of Louis Berkhof. In hi s
Systematic Theology he vigorously rejected the particular framework
interpretation of Genesis one proposed by Professor Noortzij. But in doing so,
he first of all presented a thorough knowledge of the position with which he
was disagreeing, second, presented a carefully considered argument for his own
traditional interpretation, and third, never suggested that Prof. Noortzij was
not a brother whose views should be tolerated. We need also to remember in the
midst of our discussions about days, that the main purpose of Genesis one is
not to teach us the age of the earth or the length of time that God took to
create. The main purpose is to teach us the splendor, power and wisdom of our
God and the character and responsibilities which he has given to man. God
teaches us that we, as the only creatures made in his image, must work for God
for six• days each week and must rest in order to have special fellowship with
him one day a week.
这的确很讽刺，有些人坚持廿四小时天，却拒绝基督徒安息日的圣经教导。我们必须追求所有创世记第一章所要教导给我们的，但是在这个过程中，我们必须在神的话面前保持一个谦卑、受教的态度。正如加尔文在他对创世记的研究中所说的：「任何人以哲学家的身分来论证世界这个工艺品，都是徒劳无功的。除非他们首先因着福音的宣讲而谦卑下来，并且学会把他们所有的理性智慧降服在十字架的愚拙（林前一21）面前。我的看法是，无论是在天上或在地上，除非基督在祂自己的学校中教导我们，我们找不到任何东西可以提升我们，让我们来到上帝的面前。」
It is
ironic indeed that some insist on twenty-four hour days, but reject the
biblical teaching of a Christian Sabbath. We must pursue all that Genesis one
has to teach us, but in the process we must remain humble and teachable before
the Word of God. As John Calvin wrote in his study of Genesis: "It is in
vain for any to reason as philosophers on the workmanship of the world, except
those who, having been first humbled by the preaching of the Gospel, have
learned to submit the whole of their intellectual wisdom (as Paul expresses it)
to the foolishness of the cross" (I Cor. 1:21). Nothing shall we find, I
say, above or below, which can raise us up to God, until Christ shall have
instructed us in his own school.”
Previously
published in Christian Renewal, January 29, 2001
