约书亚记中的圣战：恐怖的经文？HolyWar in Joshua: Texts of Terror?
作者： Michael S. Horton 译者/校对者:Maria Marta/诚之
特拉维夫（Tel Aviv）大学教授乔治•塔玛琳（George Tamarin），对著上千名以色列学童演讲，讲述了有关「林将军」的故事：在三千年以前，林将军统治中国；他以宗教為藉口进行「种族清洗」，命令对全国的男人、妇女和儿童进行大屠杀。问及他们的反应，在听了塔玛琳教授演讲的孩子们中，只有百分之七的人认為林将军的行為在道德上是可以接受的，而百分之七十五表示反对这种暴力行為。Addressing over a
thousand Israeli school children, University of Tel Aviv professor George
Tamarin told a story of "General Lin." Using religion as a pretext
for "ethnic cleansing," the general, who presided over the Chinese
kingdom three millennia ago, ordered a massacre of men, women, and children
throughout China. When asked for their response, only 7 percent of the children
listening to Professor Tamarin agreed that the general's actions were morally
acceptable, while 75 percent disapproved of such violence.
然而，这故事实际上是出自约书亚记，只是更改了国家的名称和一些人名。但是，当问及约书亚记的战役时，却得出令人惊讶的相反结果：百分之六十六「完全同意」以色列人征服应许之地，而百分之二十六表示反对。塔玛琳教授因此从特拉维夫大学的职位上被解僱。 [注1] This approach points up the
tension over the different ways that the Old Testament's "holy war"
campaigns are to be understood. The interpretation of the book of Joshua is
especially key.
这种态度显明因著对旧约「圣战」战役有不同的理解方式，所必然会產生的张力。对约书亚书记的詮释尤其是关键。This approach
points up the tension over the different ways that the Old Testament's
"holy war" campaigns are to be understood. The interpretation of the
book of Joshua is especially key.
由不同詮释方法所形成的光谱 The Spectrum
of Interpretations
有种说法是，这些「恐怖经文」只是一种用宗教神话所包装的意识形态，乞求上帝满足一个民族的侵略野心。这与我们的现代经验是相吻合的。十字军一边叫喊著「基督是主」（Christus est Dominus），一边劈开「异教徒」的脑壳。毕竟，穆罕默德的追随者们佔据了耶穌曾经走过的「圣地」。基督教世界（Christendom）的王幻想自己是大卫，从上帝的土地上赶走迦南人。教皇乌尔班二世（Pope Urban II）发动了第一次十字军东征，言辞激烈地说：「如果你必得参战，就沐浴在异教徒的血泊中吧！」从这裡，你可看到十六、十七世纪宗教战争的模式：从拉丁美洲的征服者、英国的殖民主义、美国领土扩张的「昭昭天命」（Manifest Destiny），到南非的奴隶贸易等等一系列西方歷史的悲惨篇章。One approach is to
say that these "texts of terror" are simply ideologies wrapping themselves
in religious myths, the invocation of God for a nation's own aggressive ambitions.
This jibes with our modern experience. Crusaders cleaved the skulls of
"infidels" with the cry, "Christus est Dominus" (Christ is
Lord). After all, the followers of Mohammed were occupying the "holy
land" where Jesus once walked. Christendom's kings fancied themselves
David, driving out the Canaanites from God's land. Pope Urban II launched the
First Crusade with the rousing speech, "If you must have war, bathe in the
blood of the infidels." From there you have the pattern for the religious
wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the conquistadors of Latin
America, British colonialism, the "Manifest Destiny" of the United
States and South Africa, the slave trade, and a host of other tragic chapters
in Western history.
在詮释方法的光谱的另一端，是那些今天仍然在求助於这些经文的人。他们相信这些经文至今仍然实际有效，彷彿任何一个国家都可以与上帝立约，并著手进行圣战。如果我们不能说像美国这样的国家，是个「基督教国家」，至少可以说以色列仍然享有与上帝有「最惠国待遇」的地位。以色列地是上帝的，因此，当以色列边界的主权处於危险之中，圣战就是完全正义的。At the other end of
the spectrum are those today who invoke these texts as somehow still in effect,
as if any nation could enter into covenant with God and engage in holy war. If
not a "Christian nation" like the United States, at least Israel
still enjoys this "most favored nation" status with God. The land is
holy, and therefore holy war is entirely justified when the sovereignty of its
borders is in jeopardy.
今天有许多认信的基督徒被这些经文绊倒。我们怎样才能把我们透过耶穌所认识的上帝，和这位发令灭绝男人、女人、儿童、甚至宠物和财產的上帝，视為同一个上帝呢？Many professing Christians today stumble over these
texts. How
can we reconcile the God who commands the extermination of men, women,
children, and even pets and possessions with the God we know in the face of
Jesus Christ?
答案之一是：这些「恐怖经文」在某种程度上是有用的，前提是要用灵意（allegorized）来解经。这些经文是流亡的犹太人对想像中的过去（an imagined past）所作的解读，是為了激发内心的「圣战」而设计的——以征服所有个体灵魂中的黑暗势力。只有这种註释可以「拯救」这些文本，為道德的热切感赋予能力，以驱除内在的妖魔。例如，贝勒大学的菲利普•詹金斯（Baylor University's Philip Jenkins）在他的书《放下刀剑》（Laying Down the
Sword，HarperOne，2012出版）中就这样主张。One answer is to say that these "texts of
terror" are somehow useful, but only if allegorized. They are later
interpretations by exiled Jews of an imagined past, designed to generate an
internal "jihad"—the conquest of the
dark forces within each individual soul. Only in that exegesis can these texts
be "redeemed" as empowering the moral earnestness to drive out the
demons within. For example, Baylor University's Philip Jenkins argues this case
in his book, Laying Down the Sword (HarperOne, 2012).
在认信的基督徒当中，另一种反应是简单下结论说，在约书亚记裡下圣战命令的旧约上帝，与我们在耶穌基督裡遇见的上帝不是同一位上帝的。拿撒勒学者考尔斯（Nazarene scholar C. S. Cowles）在他的论文中主张这种观点: 「极端不连续的例子」，见《不可怜恤他们：关於上帝和迦南人种族屠杀的四种观点》（Zondervan出版，2003）。极端的詮释似乎是最受欢迎的，尤其是作為美国正在进行的文化战争的一部分，这些詮释有著巨大的政治和宗教的意涵。Another response
among professing Christians is simply to conclude that the God of the Old Testament
who commanded the holy wars of Joshua is different from the God we meet in
Jesus Christ. Nazarene scholar C. S. Cowles argues this view in his essay,
"The Case for Radical Discontinuity" in Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views
on God and Canaanite Genocide (Zondervan, 2003). The extreme interpretations
seem to be the most popular, especially as part of the ongoing culture wars in
the United States, and they have enormous political as well as religious
implications.
在这裡，我的目的是简要地解释為什麼这两种观点——（1）拒绝旧约裡「圣战」的上帝，或（2）援引这些经文作為永恆（甚至包括我们这个时代）的真理——反映了在最根本的层面上，对圣经严重的错误詮释。我想通过以下二个论题证明我的主张。首先，「圣战」的上帝是在基督耶穌裡所啟示出来的三位一体的上帝。其次，这些圣战的经文既不能按灵意来解读，也不能作為「新约」（new covenant）信徒的规范来引用，更谈不上能用在现代的民族国家上。My purpose here is
briefly to explain why both views—(1) rejecting the "holy war" God of
the Old Testament or (2) invoking these texts as timeless truths even for our
own day—reflect a serious misunderstanding of biblical interpretation at the
most fundamental level. I want to argue my case under two theses. First, the
God of "holy war" is the Triune God revealed in Jesus Christ. Second,
these texts of holy war are neither to be allegorized nor invoked as normative
for new covenant believers, much less modern nation-states.
论题一：旧约圣经的上帝是新约圣经的上帝 Thesis 1: The
God of the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament
我们如何能把我们透过耶穌所认识的上帝，和这位发令灭绝男人、女人、儿童，以及他们所有财產的上帝，视為同一位上帝呢？一种选项是：简单得出「我们不能」的结论。要麼是上帝打一开始就没有吩咐这些圣战，要麼是我们只能得出它们与在基督裡所啟示的上帝是互相矛盾的结论。詹金斯（Jenkins），特别因《下一个基督教世界》（Next Christendom）一书而闻名。在他的书《放下刀剑》（Laying Down the Sword）中认為，约书亚记中描述的事件，从来没有真正发生过。这是后来生活在巴比伦的作家，把这些情境想像為呼召这些流亡者征服他们内心恶魔的一种方式。换句话说，这些「恐怖文本」是征服个人属灵弊病的寓言。我的朋友罗杰•奥尔森（Roger Olson）在2012年曾评论他同事的书。 [注2]
奥尔森的主要批评，是说詹金斯不够「以基督為中心」（Christocentric）：How do we reconcile the
God we meet in Jesus Christ with the God who commands the destruction of men,
women, and children—and
all of their possessions? One option is simply to conclude that we can't. Either
God never commanded these holy wars in the first place, or we can only conclude
that they contradict the revelation of God in Christ. Jenkins, known especially
for his book The Next Christendom, argues in Laying Down the Sword that the
events reported in Joshua and elsewhere never really happened. Later writers,
living in Babylon, imagined these scenarios as a way of calling the exiles to
subdue their inner demons. In other words, these "texts of terror"
are allegories for personal conquest of spiritual ills. My friend Roger Olson
reviewed his colleague's book in 2012. (2) Olson's main critique is that
Jenkins is not Christocentric enough:
在我看来，在这方面做得更好的，是《不可怜恤他们：关於上帝和迦南种族屠杀的四种观点》（Show Them No Mercy:
4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide，Zondervan出版，2003）一书中，由拿撒勒学者C. S. 考尔斯（Nazarene scholar C.
S. Cowles）所著的一章:「极端不连续的例子」（The Case for Radical Discontinuity）。考尔斯问道：「我们能够想像[原话]在耶穌裡完全而最终啟示出来的上帝，发出杀戮儿童及婴幼儿的命令吗？在什麼时候？在什麼地方？出於何种原因呢？」（第31页）。他所暗示的答案是「不能」。当然，他接著论证旧约、新约和耶穌之间的连续性，但他在没有為马吉安主义背书的立场下，强调其中的不连续性。Better in that
regard, in my opinion, is the chapter "The Case for Radical
Discontinuity" by Nazarene scholar C. S. Cowles in Show Them No Mercy: 4
Views on God and Canaanite Genocide (Zondervan, 2003). There Cowles asks
"Can we image [sic] the God revealed fully and finally in Jesus ordering
the killing of children and infants? At any time? In any place? For any
reason?" (pg. 31). His implied answer is "no." Of course, he
goes on to argue for continuity between the Old Testament and the New and
Jesus, but he emphasizes discontinuity without endorsing Marcionism.
我已经读了考尔斯的论文，而我认為奥尔森对他阿民念的同事太好了。奥尔森说考尔斯坚持古人的观点，却「没有為马吉安主义背书」。事实上，考尔斯必须说他并不完全站在异端分子一边，即把旧约的上帝视為犹太人所特别恳求的恶魔般的造物主，暗示他是在诡辩。就事实而言，考尔斯确实濒临——如果不是明确跟随的话——马吉安的詮释假设。I've read Cowles's
essay, and I think Olson is being too kind to his fellow Arminian by saying
that he presses the ancient view yet "without endorsing Marcionism."
The fact that Cowles has to say that he doesn't exactly side with the heretic
who identified the God of the Old Testament with the demonic Creator-God of the
Jews suggests special pleading. In point of fact, Cowles does verge on—if not
explicitly follow—the hermeneutical assumptions of Marcion.
旧约与新约之间确实存在著不连续，但马吉安和考尔斯让耶和华和耶穌之间，形成鲜明对立的做法是大错特错的。我理解在这一点上，奥尔森是同情考尔斯的。他一直是在哲学层面批判加尔文主义的，尤其著重在神义论（theodicy，邪恶的问题）方面。他想要一个答案，却对加尔文主义者诉诸於「奥秘」而感到痛心。说到底，他无法相信上帝会颁布似乎与人类正义观念相反的命令。这点甚至在他对旧约上帝（更明智）的批评中也是很清楚的。奥尔森认為，在耶穌基督裡所啟示出来的上帝，根本不可能赞同屠杀明显无辜的迦南人。奥尔森写道：There is indeed discontinuity between old and new
covenants, but Marcion and Cowles are dead wrong in their stark opposition
between Yahweh and Jesus. I understand Olson's sympathy for Cowles at this
point. His critique of Calvinism has always been philosophical—particularly
centered on theodicy (the problem of evil). He wants an answer and is
distressed at the Calvinist recourse to "mystery." The bottom line is
that he cannot believe in a God who would decree things that seem to contradict
human concepts of justice. This is clear even in his (more judicious) critique
of the God of the Old Testament. Olson suggests that the God revealed in Jesus
Christ simply could not have countenanced the slaughter of apparently innocent
people in Canaan. Olson writes:
我不会斩钉截铁地宣佈那些经文的史实性；我会把它们括弧起来说：「我就是不知道如何理解它们」，以及「我无法想像耶穌，即我所敬拜与敬仰的上帝，会命令这些事情」；还有，「我翘首期待能从上帝自己、从耶穌身上，找出我应当如何看待这些经文的方法。」就眼下来说，我只能说，它们不是上帝对我说的话。我不理解它们。它们是黑暗、晦涩、和令人害怕的。我跑向耶穌。那也是路德的做法，但他紧抓著这个信念，就是耶穌背后「隐藏的上帝」，是祂命令屠杀无辜者，并且用魔鬼来执行祂的命令（「魔鬼是上帝的魔鬼！」）。我不相信耶穌背后那位「隐藏的上帝」。我赞同巴特，也肯定耶穌是上帝帮助我们（God for us），当我们默想上帝的属性时，耶穌有我们所需要的一切。I am not going to
declare unequivocally about the historicity of those texts; I will bracket them
out and say "I just don't know what to make of them" and "I
cannot picture Jesus, who is the God I worship and adore, commanding those
things." And "I look forward to finding out from God himself, from
Jesus himself, what I am supposed to think about those texts." For now,
all I can say is, they do not speak God's voice to me. I do not understand
them. They are dark and obscure and frightening. I run to Jesus. That was
Luther's approach, too, but he held onto a "hidden God" behind Jesus
who commanded the slaughter of the innocents and who uses the devil to carry
out his commands ("The devil is God's devil!"). I do not believe in a
"hidden God" behind Jesus. With Barth I affirm that Jesus is God for
us and all we need when contemplating the character of God.
在某个层面上，奥尔森的直觉是对的：独一的真神是在耶穌基督裡啟示出来的。在另一个层面上，他是错的——使罗伯贝尔（Rob Bell）写《爱赢了》（Love Wins）的逻辑，也潜伏在他自己的论证之中。换句话说，对耶穌基督的误解导致了这种错误的选择。On one level,
Olson's instincts are right: The only true God is the one revealed in Jesus
Christ. On another level, he is wrong—and
the logic that leads to Rob Bell's Love Wins lurks behind his own argument. In
other words, it's a misunderstanding of Jesus Christ that leads to such a false
choice.
宣告耶穌為「上帝的羔羊，除去世人罪孽的」（约一29）的施洗约翰，正是他补充说「斧子已经放在树根上」。如果亚伯拉罕和约书亚血缘的后裔不「结果子」——即相信基督為弥赛亚（路三7-9；太三12-13），就要被丢在上帝愤怒的火裡。旧约律法是明确的：上帝不是以色列的吉祥物。土地不是以色列的，而是上帝的。「地不可永卖，因為地是我的；你们在我面前是客旅，是寄居的。」（利廿五23）。耶穌的一些比喻只能在这种背景下来理解。It was John the
Baptist—the one who
announced Jesus as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the
world" (John 1:29)—who added that "the ax is already laid to the root
of the tree," with the ethnic descendants of Abraham and Joshua consigned
to the flames of God's wrath if they do not "bear fruit"—namely,
trust in Christ as the Messiah (Luke 3:7-9; Matt. 3:12-13). The old covenant
law is clear: God is not Israel's mascot. The land is not Israel's, but God's.
"You are but tenants in my land," Yahweh declares (Lev. 25:23). A
number of Jesus' parables can only be understood against this backdrop.
没有任何一个民族会写下这个故事。如果人民不忠心，就像被上帝从祂的人民面前赶出的国家一样，也将要从上帝的土地上被赶出去。上帝不是他们「种族清洗」意识形态的暗号。「许多閒杂人」离开埃及（译按：出十二38），而这都是為了忠於圣约的上帝。任何通过割礼加入以色列行列的人，都是神治政体（theocracy）的一部分，不忠心的以色列人会遭受处决（如亚干）。最终以色列人记录了自己因违反圣约的条款而被逐出那地的故事。这故事和「种族清洗」或种族灭绝无关，而是与儿童献祭、残暴的战士和不公正的压迫者佔据上帝土地的事实有关。现在是把蛇驱逐出上帝花园的时候。这裡的悲剧不是圣战，而是以色列人的三心二意和没有完全履行这命令。像亚当一样，他们没能把蛇赶出去。像亚当一样，他们允许蛇去引诱人去事奉别的、不是上帝的神明。「他们却如亚当背约」（何六7）。No
nation would write this story. If it is unfaithful, it too will be driven from
God's land like the nations whom God has driven out from before his people. He is not the
ideological cipher for their "ethnic cleansing." A "mixed
multitude" left Egypt and it's all about fidelity to the God of the
covenant. Anyone who joins himself to Israel by circumcision is part of the
theocracy, while unfaithful Israelites are executed (like Achan), and
eventually Israel records its own expulsion from the land for violating the
terms of the covenant. It has nothing to do with "ethnic cleansing"
or genocide, but with the fact that child-sacrificing, violent warriors, and
unjust oppressors are squatters on God's land. It is time for the serpent to be
driven from God's garden. The tragedy is not the holy wars, but Israel's
half-hearted and incomplete fulfillment of this command. Like Adam, they failed
to drive out the serpent. Like Adam, they allowed the serpent to seduce the
people to serve other gods who are not gods: "Like Adam, they broke my
covenant" (Hos. 6:7).
以色列的律法是圣战的剑，首先刺向以色列人民自己（书五2-9），甚至是刺向约书亚（13-15节）。一旦佔有上帝的圣地，没有人是安全的。在其中的一切不是得拯救就是遭灭亡。这是最后审判的伏笔。The law of Israel
is a sword of holy war drawn first toward the people of Israel themselves
(Josh. 5:2-9), then even toward Joshua (vv. 13-15). No one is safe once
occupying God's holy land. Everything is devoted to salvation or destruction.
It's a foreshadowing of the Last Judgment.
有关第一道论题，这就是我想简短提出的要点：「罪的工价乃是死」（罗六23）。佔领上帝土地的异教徒应当受死。事实上，几些世纪以来，上帝在亚伯拉罕的日子和彻底大清除（创十五16）之前的征服之间，耐心地等待。我们不需要详述这些令人髮指的罪恶——偶像崇拜、孩童献祭、残酷的暴力和不公平事件等等。我们所需要知道的是，如果我们佔有那地，我们也应得到死亡的惩罚。论断上帝的命令為不公义，暴露出我们无能力接受上帝对圣洁和无罪的严肃要求。And this is the
main point I want to make briefly concerning this first thesis: "The wages
of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23). The pagan occupiers of God's land deserved
death. In fact, God waited patiently all of these centuries between Abraham's
day and the conquest before the thorough housecleaning (Gen. 15:16). We need
not rehearse the heinous sins—idolatry, child sacrifice, cruel violence, and
injustice. All we need to know is that if we were occupying that land, we too
would deserve death. To judge God's command as unrighteous is to reveal an
inability to accept the seriousness of God's holiness and our sin.
耶穌比圣经裡的任何人都更多地谈论到地狱。祂宣告一项普世的「圣战」，绵羊和山羊将被分开（太廿五）。在末日，上帝的仇敌将一致反对耶和华和祂的弥赛亚，但是当圣子出现在荣耀中时，他们会哭求让巖石倒在他们身上，并且压碎他们，以躲避「羔羊的忿怒」了（啟六14-17）。任何对约书亚所领导的那些有明确对象、局部的「圣战」有意见的人，必要对耶穌基督有更大的意见。祂会再来「审判活人和死人」——包括外邦人和犹太人、男人、妇女和儿童。在这一天不会有任何怜悯，耶穌与祂的圣徒们会在那场结束所有战争的战事中再来。Jesus talked about
hell more than anyone else in the Bible. He announced a universal "holy
war," where the sheep and goats will be separated (Matt. 25). The enemies
of God will be arrayed against the Lord and against his Messiah on the last
day, but when the Son appears in glory they will cry for the rocks to fall on
them and crush them rather than face "the wrath of the Lamb" (Rev.
6:14-17). Anyone who has trouble with the very targeted and limited "holy
wars" under Joshua will have greater trouble with Jesus Christ. He will
come again "to judge the living and the dead"—Gentiles and Jews, men,
women and children. There will be no mercy in that day as Jesus comes with his
saints in the war to end all wars.
约书亚记是即将上映的影片的预览。与耶穌基督的普世审判相比较，这是一场仁慈宽容、有限的战役。然而，我们绝不能略过耀眼的歷史事实：「上帝在基督裡，叫世人与自己和好，不将他们的过犯归到他们身上，并且将这和好的道理託付了我们。」（林后五19）。这位伟大的君王亲身让祂自己的剑刺进祂的肋旁，担当了我们的罪，祂的身体是圣洁的土地；在那裡，恶人惟独藉著信会被称义、得以成圣，并且要得永恆的荣耀。The book of Joshua
is a preview of coming attractions. It was a mercifully limited campaign
compared with the universal judgment of Jesus Christ, the greater Joshua. And
yet, we must not skip over the glaring fact of history: "That in Christ
God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against
them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5:19).
The Great King received his own sword into his side, bore our guilt, and his
body is the holy land where the wicked are justified, sanctified, and glorified
forever through faith alone.
论题二：没有任何的现代国家——包括以色列（更不用说美国）可以发动圣战 Thesis 2: No Modern Nation—Including Israel (Much less the U. S.) Can
Engage in Holy War
这并不意味著，我们可以為现代民族国家、包括以色列的战争，引用旧约圣战作為实在的根据，连教会也不可以用世俗的剑来卫卫福音。世上没有一个与上帝立约的国家：既不是以色列，英国，也不是美国。「基督教世界」（Christendom）是圣经詮释的一个严重错误。没有任何一个国家能够再次和上帝在歷史中的救赎目的连成一气。教会不是地缘政治的国家，它没有军队。它要作為為基督作见证的受迫害者，而不是作為地上之城的胜利统治者，向世上的君王提出诉求。This does not mean
we can invoke the old covenant holy wars as a literal basis for modern
nation-states, including Israel. Not even the church can use the temporal sword
to defend the gospel. There are no nations in covenant with God: whether
Israel, Britain, or the United States. "Christendom" is a serious
error of biblical interpretation. No nation will ever again be identified with
God's saving purposes in history. The church is not geopolitical. It has no
military. It appeals to rulers as persecuted witnesses to Christ, not as
victorious rulers of the earthly cities.
今天，没有一个国家是与上帝立约的，连现代的以色列国也不是。甚至连正统犹太教都强调，现代以色列国不是旧约神治政体的復兴。除非重建圣殿和献祭制度，在耶路撒冷重新恢復敬拜仪式，并且把非犹太人完全排除在外，否则就不会有神治政体的復兴。然而，耶穌和使徒清楚教导这旧约已经「废弃了（和合本译為：「旧了」」（来八6、13）。这就是為什麼我们乃是生活在「新约」（new
covenant）时代的原因。此时此刻，在两个世代之间——也就是在基督两次降临之间；祂第一次来是降卑和救赎，第二次来是审判和最终拯救——圣灵把从每个从各国而来的人，把他们和那真以色列，耶穌基督，联合在一起。所有在「在基督裡」的人，无论是犹太人或外邦人，如今都是活著的，要被联合成一个新人；而所有在「亚当」裡的人，都是死的。No nation is in
covenant with God today, not even the modern nation of Israel. Even Orthodox
Jews emphasize that the modern state of Israel is not the revival of the old
covenant theocracy. Not until there is a revived cult in Jerusalem, with a
rebuilt temple and its sacrificial system, and the total exclusion of non-Jews,
will there be a revived theocracy. However, Jesus and the apostles clearly
teach that this old covenant is "obsolete" (Heb. 8:6, 13). That is
why we are living in the new covenant era. In this time between the times—that
is, the intermission between the two advents of Christ, first coming in
humility and salvation, and the second time in judgment and final
deliverance—the Spirit unites to Christ people from every nation to the true
Israel, Jesus Christ. All who are "in Christ" are alive, united into
one new person, whether Jew or Gentile; all who are "in Adam" are
dead, whether Jew or Gentile.
当然，这意味著，以色列的圣战不可能「重演」。这些旧约事件是那些将要到来之事的预表和影儿：
（一）福音的属灵争战，要继续征服不信者和灵性的盲目。这场战事会涵盖世上的犹太人和外邦人，还有，
（二）耶穌基督和祂的圣徒们回来的最后征服。基督已经把蛇从花园中赶出去，并打破牠的头。在新创造的范围内，不会再有「不洁净的」（啟廿一27）。
were
types and shadowing pictures of yet further events to come:
(a)
The spiritual warfare of the gospel conquering the unbelief and spiritual
blindness that covers the world for Jews and Gentiles alike, and
(b)
The final conquest of Jesus Christ with his saints at his return. Christ has
driven out the serpent from the garden and crushed his head. In the new
creation there will be "nothing that defiles" in its precincts (Rev.
21:27).
但如今「上帝降雨给义人，也给不义的人。」（太五44-45
）在登山宝训的讲道（其用意是与摩西在摩押平原颁布法律作对比）裡，耶穌宣佈，我们正生活在普遍恩典的时代。所有的土地都是共享的，也因此所有的战争都是共同的。这种区分乃是「正义战争理论」（just war theory）的根据，如同奥古斯丁特别阐明的。不会再有圣战，因為不再会有圣地了。儘管几个世纪以来基督教世界（Christendom）和时代主义福音派人士（dispensationalist evangelicals）的宣传小册子如此受欢迎，但是以色列的土地不是「圣地」，而是共同的土地。针对以色列的领土完整，无论提出什麼论证，都和圣经的法律或预言无关。然而，无论上帝对犹太人还保有什麼宝贵的目的（根据罗马书九到十一章，这应得到确认），以色列是一个世俗的国家。1948年以色列国的建国，不是圣经预言的应验。先知所期待的「新约」，一直是上帝对亚伯拉罕的应许的应验。一个全世界的家庭藉著信靠祂的后裔——耶穌基督，与上帝联合。But for now,
"God sends the rain on the just and the unjust alike" (Matt. 5:44-45).
In this sermon, which intentionally contrasts with Moses' delivery of the law
on the plains of Moab, Jesus announces that we are living in an era of common
grace. All lands are common and therefore all wars are common. This distinction
is the basis for "just war theory," as Augustine especially
articulated it. There is no holy war, because there is no holy land. Despite
the brochures that centuries of Christendom and dispensationalist evangelicals
have made so popular, the land of Israel is not "the Holy Land," but
common land. Whatever arguments may be made for the integrity of an Israeli
state today, they have nothing do with biblical law or prophecy. However
precious God's purposes remain for the Jewish people (which should be affirmed
based on Romans 9-11), Israel is a common nation. There is nothing in the
establishment of the nation of Israel in 1948 that fulfills biblical prophecy.
The new covenant anticipated by the prophets was always a fulfillment of the
promise made to Abraham of a worldwide family united to the Father by faith in
his Seed—Jesus Christ.
现在我们生活在王国扩张的兴旺时期，这不是通过对一个特定民族所进行的直接干预，而是通过福音的传讲征服世上的万国。这是「拯救的日子」，而不是审判的日子。但将来必有审判的日子，即主耶和华的日子，那时基督要再来，审判活人和死人。Now we are living
in a productive period of the kingdom's expansion, not through God's direct
intervention through a particular nation, but by the conquest of the nations
through the preaching of the gospel. It is "the day of salvation,"
not of judgment. But there is a day of judgment, the Day of the Lord, when
Christ returns to judge the living and the dead.
观念的整合 Bringing it All Together
当我们试图找出今天伊斯兰教的「圣战」和圣经概念之间的一些对等之处时，以下是我们的底线。首先，前者没有歷史的观念或不同盟约的区分。具体来说，他们对恩典之约在旧约与新约不同的施行方式，并未加以区分。因此，根据伊斯兰教，「圣战」一词在今天及每一个时代都可以被援引。Here is the bottom
line when trying to find some equivalence between Islam's "holy wars"
today and the Bible's concept. First, the former has no sense of history or a
distinction in covenants. Particularly, there is no distinction between the way
in which the covenant of grace is administered differently in old and new
covenants. Therefore, "holy war" is invoked today as in every era,
according to Islam.
耶穌很明确地宣佈「政权的更替」：从以摩西作為中保的盟约，到以亚伯拉罕你更伟大的后裔（耶穌基督），以祂作為中保的盟约的替换（特别见马太福音第五章）。所以，当穆斯林进行圣战或伊斯兰圣战（jihad），他们是完全符合他们宗教典籍的规范的。而当基督徒这麼作（他们也这麼作了），他们却是在忽略耶穌。旧约和新约的上帝是同一位上帝；实际上在改换更替的是从预表（影儿）到应验（现实）的过渡转换。Jesus very clearly
announced "regime change" from the covenant mediated by Moses to the
one that he mediates as Abraham's greater seed (see esp. Matt. 5). So when
Muslims practice holy war or jihad, they are consistent with their normative
texts. When Christians do so, as they have, they are ignoring Jesus. The God of
the Old and New Testaments is the same; it is the transition from promise
(type) to fulfillment (reality) that changes.
由基督的顺服和中保角色所确保的永恆应许，对那些信靠基督的罪人仍然是有效的。这是保罗在加拉太书第三到第四章中，对比「两约」——律法和应许、地上的耶路撒冷和天上的耶路撒冷时，所提出的要点。这也是整本希伯来书中，一个熟悉的对比（例如，来十一16，十二18-24）。基督是忠心的僕人和中保，新约「原是凭更美之应许立的。」（来八6）The
everlasting promise, secured by Christ's obedience and mediation, remains
secure for all transgressors who trust in Christ. This is the point of Paul's
contrast in Galatians 3-4 between "two covenants"—the law and the
promise, and the earthly Jerusalem and the heavenly Jerusalem. It is also a
familiar contrast throughout the Epistle to the Hebrews (e.g., Heb. 11:16;
12:18-24). With Christ as the faithful servant and mediator, the new covenant "is
enacted on better promises" (Heb. 8:6).
没有对比就无法区别。这种区别不於在旧约中吩咐约书亚发动圣战的上帝，和新约中在耶穌基督裡為人所知的上帝之间的区别。There are
distinctions without antitheses. The distinction is not between the God of the
Old Testament who commanded Joshua's holy wars and the God of the New Testament
known in Jesus Christ.
我们该如何回应？How Do We Respond?
约书亚记所记载的征服一直被基督教帝国（Christian empires）和一些国家所援引作為根据；作為反应，也被批评為与我们在耶穌基督裡遇见的上帝是不相容的。我们该如何回应呢？The conquest recounted in Joshua has been
invoked by Christian empires and nations and, in reaction, criticized as
incompatible with the God we meet in Jesus Christ. How do we respond?
首先，既然根据上帝的公义标準，所有的人都已经被判处死刑了（创二17与罗一18～三20），真正的奇蹟是上帝竟然命令这样一个有限的圣战。其次，耶和华对以色列和祂毁灭的异教徒城市（利十八28；申十三5，十七7；书七11-12；玛四6）所持的是同样的标準（具有相同的警告）。第三，唯独在旧约之下，教会才是一个地缘政治的国家。耶和华是国家的直接掌权者，祂的日常供给与普遍恩典可能通过非凡的奇蹟而暂时中止；圣战是耶和华发动的，不是以色列或教会可以随意援引的（例如，见创四十九5-8和代上廿二 8）。First, since according to God's righteous
standard all people are sentenced to death (Gen. 2:17 with Rom. 1:18-3:20), the
real wonder is that God commanded such a limited holy war. Second, Yahweh holds
Israel to the same standard (with the same threats) by which he destroyed the
pagan cities (Lev. 18:28; Deut. 13:5; 17:7; Josh. 7:11-12; Mal. 4:6). Third,
exclusively under the old covenant was the church also a geopolitical nation.
With Yahweh as the direct head of state, his ordinary providence and common
grace may be suspended by extraordinary miracles; holy war is Yahweh's to wage,
not Israel's or the church's to invoke at will (for example, see Gen. 49:5-8
and 1 Chron. 22:8).
為了应验对亚伯拉罕的应许，就是会有一个在基督裡的普世家庭，新约教会与所有地缘政治国家是截然不同的。上帝的普遍恩典涵盖了信徒和非信徒（太五43-48），耶穌肯定凯撒的政治权威甚至在犹大地之上（可十二17；参罗十三1-7）。在国度的这个阶段，基督通过祂的话语和圣灵（弗六12-17），在救赎恩典中，征服世界（不只是迦南）。In fulfillment of
the Abrahamic promise of a worldwide family in Christ, the new covenant church is
distinct from all geopolitical states. God's common grace encompasses believers
and unbelievers alike (Matt. 5:43-48), and Jesus affirms Caesar's political
authority even over Judea (Mark 12:17; cf. Rom. 13:1-7). In this phase of his
kingdom, Christ conquers the earth (not just Canaan) in saving grace by his
Word and Spirit (Eph. 6:12-17).
和约书亚打发十二个探子到耶利哥一样，十二使徒也被差派出去宣讲基督国度的福音。然而，耶穌责备雅各和约翰，他们想对拒绝信息的撒玛利亚村庄执行圣战（路九51-56）。耶穌同样指示七十二个门徒，给他们「践踏蛇的权柄」，用宣讲的方式，而不是靠武力去履行使命（路十到十二）。然而，正是撒但和牠的嘍囉大军——躲藏在地上敌人背后的真正仇敌——牠们的头最终会被粉碎（路十17-20；参照罗十六20）。耶穌应许说，「我要建造我的教会，阴间的权柄，不能胜过她（「权柄」原文作「门」）。」（太十六18 b，加上黑体强调）。Like the twelve spies Joshua sent into Jericho, the
twelve apostles were sent to preach the gospel of Christ's kingdom. Yet Jesus rebuked
James and John for wanting to execute holy war on a Samaritan village that
rejected the message (Luke 9:51-56). Jesus similarly instructs the seventy-two
to fulfill their mission by preaching, not by force (Luke 10-12), giving them
"authority to tread on serpents." However, it is Satan and his
demonic hosts—the real enemy behind the earthly enemies—whose heads are finally
crushed (Luke 10:17-20; cf. Rom. 16:20). Jesus promises, "I will build my
church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18b,
emphasis added).
然而，当基督再来，祂要和作為祂军队的圣徒，一同审判全地（林前六2）。任何对约书亚记有意见（错误詮释以至错误引用）的人，将会对耶穌基督有更大的疑虑，因為祂承诺要带来全地的审判：一场结束所有战争的战争（太三11-12，廿四27～廿五46；啟十七1～廿15）。Yet when Christ
returns, it will be to judge the whole earth, together with his saints as his
army (1 Cor. 6:2). Anyone who has trouble with Joshua will have even greater
qualms about Jesus Christ, since he promises to bring global judgment: the war
to end all wars (Matt. 3:11-12; 24:27-25:46; Rev. 17:1-20:15).
注脚:
Holy
War in Joshua: Texts of Terror?Holy War in Joshua: Texts of Terror?