作者: Michael Horton 译者/校对者: Maria Marta / Yi
Wang
眾所周知，「改革宗」神学正是「圣约」神学。但是，还有一个问题：我们该支持哪种圣约神学。迄今為止，在改革宗神学歷史上被问得最多的就是，上帝在西奈山下与以色列民所立的约到底是不是把在亚当裡与全人类所立的行為之约重新颁佈出来（re-publication ）或者说重新更新了一次（renewal）。儘管大家都讚同行為之约和恩典之约的分别，但是在摩西之约的问题上还有分歧。上帝是否要求以色列像亚当一样满足一个行為之约，好靠著顺服得以在地上存活？
歷史上许多伟大的改革宗神学家（例如卢洛克，帕金斯，约翰欧文，魏特修，一直到贺智）都同意这一点，但同时也谨慎地指出上帝对以色列国的应许分為两种：一种是暂时的、有条件的，一种是永远的、无条件的。在创世纪十五章裡，是上帝单方面向亚伯拉罕起誓，承诺把土地赐给他的后裔，并且要通过他的后嗣祝福万国。然而在西奈山，是百姓起誓承诺要遵守上帝的律法（「我们都要遵行」），这不是进入上帝预表安息的土地（因為这是恩典），而是在地上存活并且得到上帝的祝福（「在耶和华你上帝所赐你的地上，得以长久」）。按这种解释，得到土地是有条件的。作為西奈之约的一部份, 整个以色列的神权政体（theocracy）是暂时的——用新约的话来说，那是「以后要来的美好事物的影子」。这个约从来不是救恩的目的, 只是主将要赐下救恩的预表。此约也证实了以色列人和亚当一样不忠。 「他们却如亚当背约」（何六7）
所有这些坏消息都是為了耶利米书三十一章31至34节的好消息。关键就在於耶利米宣告说新约将不同与以色列撕毁的西奈之约。即便是在申命记裡，我们依旧无法达到要求：心行割礼、完全遵行上帝的命令、保守自己和家人承受地土。不过以色列的歷史至少证实了在亚当裡的人类到底是什麼样：上帝的诫命就算刻在石版上，我们仍旧悖逆。连以色列也是「在亚当裡」，在诅咒之下无法顺服上帝美善的律法。堕落后上帝承诺亚当的是新约，这个约在亚伯拉罕之约、大卫之约中被重新立定，它不像西奈之约。新约的祝福根本不取决於我们的顺服，而完全基於上帝的恩典：是祂把律法刻在我们的心上。这样，律法不再从外面谴责我们, 而且成為我们内在的渴求；祂要做我们的上帝，我们要做祂的子民——这又是上帝单方面的承诺。新约没有给我们下命令（例如「你该认识耶和华」），但在新约裡的人都认识主，因為祂啟示自己作為他们的救主。其实，第34节清楚表明了这些基本原则：「我要赦免他们的罪孽，不再记念他们的罪恶。」 赦免是其他一切的根基。当上帝完全除去他们的罪债时，祂也要赐给新约子民一颗新的心，使他们与自己建立新的关係，这一切在律法裡是永远不可能成就的。
问题不在於律法。律法本是好的，问题是我们不好。律法能下命令，但无法给我们完成命令的能力；律法能够告诉我们必须做什麼；但无法帮助我们完成这些事。律法能够宣告我们有罪，但无法赦免我们。
一旦律法的要求被满足，福音和律法便协力合作，不仅赐给我们恩典，也规范了我们如何过一个爱上帝和邻舍的基督徒生活。我们这些曾死在罪孽过犯之中的人, 如今活了过来。因為基督成全了律法，替我们承受了审判，「涂抹了那写在规条上反对我们、与我们為敌的字句，并且把这字句从我们中间拿去」，「钉在十字架上」（西二14，新译本）。於是我们受洗归入基督的死和復活，如今便「穿上了新人」了（西三1-17 ）。耶利米书三十一章早已指明，新约之所以能產生果效是根据基督已经成就的事实（indicatives），而非基於我们要完成的命令（imperatives）；是因為基於福音，而非基於律法; 是因為基於应许，而非基於行為。请注意，我并没有说新约一丁点命令或律法都没有，我只是说新约不是「基於」律法。因為我们在律法裡无法完成的事，上帝已经在基督裡完成了。基督不仅替我们代罪，更替我们成就了一切的义。因著他，上帝不仅赦免了我们，更把我们看作是在思想、言语、行為上都完全满足上帝旨意的人。
这样，改革宗神学就把经典的圣约神学发扬光大了，其实就是保罗的观点。圣约神学坚决认同律法是有效的，但同时也表明必须有一位完全遵行律法的人，我们才能真正得著赦免、称义、更新并成圣。正因為基督作為末后的亚当，作為忠心的以色列，成功地遵行了律法，我们才得以进入上帝的安息——这安息不再只是预表（迦南），而是亚伯拉罕、以撒、雅各、摩西、大卫所共同盼望的永恆的安息。耶穌基督设立了新约，旧约已经过去（来八13）。上帝的同在已经不局限於一个民族或一块土地，而是在基督的身体裡，不仅有犹太信徒，也有外邦信徒。基督的教会是「被拣选的族类，是有君尊的祭司，是圣洁的国度，是属神的子民，要叫你们宣扬那召你们出黑暗入奇妙光明者的美德」（彼前二9）。
那麼，今天在教会里摩西的身份又怎麼样呢？改革宗神学的传统坚持相信道德律法（即十诫）仍然有效，只是旧约的礼仪律法和民事律法，连同旧约本身已经过去了。上帝不再与任何一个国家立约来预表未来国度。西奈之约是行為之约，以色列在死亡的痛苦裡承诺自己将遵守约上的一切话。而我们则承受上帝在恩典之约裡的应许。因為基督已经為我们完全满足了工作之约的要求，所以我们得到恩典之约裡一切的永恆应许。毕竟，只有这个新约的子民才真正能够开始这种生活，与诗人同口承认：「主啊，我何等爱慕你的律法！」
Law
and Gospel
by
Michael Horton
As
has already been pointed out in this issue, “Reformed” theology just is
“covenant” theology. However, that doesn’t necessarily settle the question as
to what kind of covenant theology is being espoused. By far the question that
has been taken up the most in the history of Reformed theology is whether the
covenant that Israel made with God at Sinai is a re-publication or renewal of
the covenant of works made with humanity in Adam. Agreeing on the covenant of
works/covenant of grace scheme, Reformed pastors and theologians nevertheless
differed over the question of the Mosaic covenant. Was Israel, like Adam,
expected to fulfill a covenant of works and at least remain in the land on the
basis of its own obedience?
Answering
that question with a “yes,” many of the great Reformed thinkers of the past
(such as Rollock, Perkins, Owen, Witsius, all the way to Charles Hodge)
carefully pointed out that the promises made to the nation of Israel were of
two types: temporal and conditional on one hand, and everlasting and
unconditional on the other. In Genesis 15, God unilaterally swears to Abraham
that He will give to his descendants a land and that He will bless the whole
world through his seed. Yet at Mount Sinai, the people swear an oath to keep
God’s law (“All this we will do”), and this is the condition not for entering God’s
typological land of rest (since that was already a gift) but for remaining in
the land and securing God’s blessing (“that you may live long in the land the
Lord your God is giving you”). On this interpretation, the land-promise is
conditional. The entire theocracy that God commands as part of this covenant at
Sinai is provisional — to use the language of the New Testament (Hebrews), “a
shadow of things to come.” It was never intended to bring salvation but only to
serve as a type of the salvation that the Lord Himself would bring. Walking in
Adam’s shoes, Israel also proves unfaithful. “Like Adam, they transgressed the
covenant” (Hos. 6:7).
All
of this bad news sets us up for the good news in Jeremiah 31:31–34. Crucial
especially in Jeremiah’s announcement is the fact that this new covenant will
not be like the Sinai covenant, which Israel broke. Even in Deuteronomy, we are
confronted with the impossible demand to circumcise our own hearts, to fulfill
God’s commands, and to preserve ourselves and our families in the land.
However, Israel’s history proves what we already knew about humanity in Adam:
Even with God’s commands written on tablets, we are transgressors. Even Israel
is “in Adam,” under a curse, unable to bring about that obedience that God’s good
law requires. The new covenant, like the promise to Adam after the fall,
renewed in the covenants with Abraham and David, is not like the Sinai
covenant. The blessings of the new covenant do not depend on our obedience, but
on God’s grace: He will put His Law within us, so that it will not only be an
external command that condemns us but an inward longing of our heart; He will
be our God and we will be His people — yet another one-sided promise on God’s
part. Instead of always giving imperatives (like “Know the Lord”), in the new
covenant people will know the Lord because He has revealed Himself as their
Savior. In fact, the basis for all of this is clear in verse 34: “For I will
forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” Forgiveness is
the basis for everything else. Once God completely clears their debt, the heirs
of this new covenant will be given the new hearts and a new relationship to God
that could never be accomplished under the Law.
The
Law is good, but we are not. The Law commands, but cannot give. It tells us
what must be done, but helping us get it done is simply not in the Law’s job
description. It condemns us for violation, but cannot exercise clemency for
violators.
But
once the Law’s legitimate claim against us is satisfied, the gospel and the law
conspire together to give us both grace and direction for our Christian life,
in relation to God and our neighbors. Having fulfilled the Law as well as
having borne its wrath in our place, “canceling the record of debt that stood
against us with its legal demands” by “nailing it to the cross” (Col. 2:14), we
who were dead in sins are now made alive. Baptized into Christ’s death and
resurrection, we now “put on” the “new self” (Col. 3:1–17). As Jeremiah 31 made
so clear already, the new covenant is effective because it rests on
indicatives, not imperatives; on gospel, not law; on promises, not commands.
Notice that I didn’t say the new covenant dispenses with imperatives, laws, or
commands, but merely that it is not based on them. God has done in Christ what
the Law could not do in us. In Christ, God not only finds the perfect
substitute for our sins but the fulfiller of all righteousness on our behalf.
We are not only forgiven, but are accounted as those who have perfectly fulfilled
God’s moral will in thought, word, and deed.
In
this way, the classic covenant theology that is promoted by Reformed theology
shares Paul’s concern simultaneously to uphold the Law and yet demonstrate that
this can only be done if there is a way for us to be forgiven, justified,
renewed, and sanctified on the basis of another’s Law-keeping. Because of
Christ’s success as the second Adam and faithful Israel, we can enter God’s
rest — this time, not the typological rest, in Canaan, but the everlasting rest
to which it pointed and for which Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and David all
longed. Once the new covenant arrived in the person of Christ, the old covenant
became obsolete (Heb. 8:13). Having served its function of leading Israel to
Christ, the sacred status once applied to the nation and its land is now
applied to the body of Christ, consisting of Jewish and Gentile believers
together. This church constitutes “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy
nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies
of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9).
What
then are we to say about Moses’ status in the church today? Reformed theology
has traditionally insisted that the moral law (that is, the Ten Commandments)
remains in force, while the ceremonial and civil laws of the old covenant are
now obsolete along with that covenant itself. No other nation was brought into
a covenant relation with God as a typological witness to His coming kingdom.
While the Sinai covenant is itself a covenant of works, where Israel promises
to do everything it says on pain of death, we inherit God’s promises in a
covenant of grace. And precisely because Christ has fulfilled the covenant of
works for us, we can inherit all of the everlasting promises in a covenant of
grace. Only the heirs of that covenant, after all, are able to begin in this
life to say with the Psalmist, “How I love your law, O Lord!”