作者：Daniel Ragusa 譯者：駱鴻銘
耶穌基督是先知以賽亞所預言的受苦的僕人，祂將祂百姓的罪孽、過犯和罪惡擔在自己身上，好叫他們能與神和好，與神有正確的關係，成為新造的人（直譯：新的創造）。（註1）或者，用保羅的話說，「神使那無罪的，替我們成為罪，好叫我們在他裡面成為神的義」（林後五21；《新譯本》）。（註2）這就是上帝如何使被擄的罪人與祂自己和好，挽回神的震怒，用末世的和平取代神的審判的方法。簡言之，這就是我們為什麼會有一個新創造的原因。Jesus Christ is Isaiah’s prophesied Suffering Servant who took upon himself the iniquities, transgressions and sins of his people as their substitute, so that they might be reconciled to God in right relationship as new creation.[i] Or, in Paul’s words, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (5:21).[ii] Herein is how God reconciles exiled sinners to himself, propitiates wrath and replaces divine judgment with eschatological peace. In short, herein is how there can be new creation.
在這篇文章裏，我們會用保羅在五章17節所宣告的新創造，以及在這兩節經文當中（五18～20），上帝使兩造和好的工作，來思考林後五章21節。In this article we will reflect on 2 Corinthians 5:21 with an eye on the new creation declared by Paul a few verses earlier in 5:17 and God’s work of reconciliation that comes in between (5:18–20).
一、基督「被動的順服」：成為有罪的（林後五21a）The Passive Obedience of Christ: Made to be Sin (2 Cor. 5:21a)
要讓以賽亞所說的恢復的應許得到應驗（或者新創造的和好可以發生），以色列的罪孽、過犯和罪惡必須先被除去。因此，基督代贖的死所獲得的第一件事是保羅所說的：「神使那無罪的，替我們（直譯可作：為我們的緣故[ὑπὲρ[註3]]）成為有罪的」（五21a；《新譯本》）。基督代替性的死是「和好的基礎，或能夠發生的方式......」（註4）。In order for the Isaianic restoration promise to be fulfilled (or reconciliation as new creation to take place), Israel’s iniquities, transgressions and sins had to be removed. So the first thing that Christ’s atoning death achieves is stated by Paul in these terms: “For our sake [ὑπὲρ[iii]] he made him to be sin who knew no sin” (5:21a). The substitutionary death of Christ is “the foundation on which or the way in which … reconciliation takes place.”[iv]
基督「成為有罪的」，是什麼意思呢？很明顯這不是指基督在道德上發生了改變，因此祂變成有罪的。因為如果是這樣，祂的死成為罪人的義，其效力就會遭到破壞。此外，這會和保羅所說的祂是無罪的，還有聖經對於贖罪的教導互相抵觸（比如：來四15）。What does it mean that Christ was made to be sin? It is clear that this does not refer to an ethical change in Christ so that he became sinful. For if this were the case the efficacy of his death to constitute sinners righteous would be compromised. In addition, it would contradict Paul’s statement that he knew no sin, as well as all biblical teaching on the atonement (e.g., Heb. 4:15).
如此，我們最好把這句話理解為是指基督在上帝面前的法律地位發生了改變，使祂要對日積月累的罪孽負責，但是這罪孽不是祂自己積累的，而是其他人積累的，即祂的選民。（註5）魏司堅（G. Vos）說到：「基督成為罪，就是使祂親自要為罪的刑罰負責。」（註6）這意味著在法律上將罪咎歸算給基督。這就需要接下來的句子的說明：「使我們在祂裏面成為神的義」（五21b）。「若基督成為有罪的，好叫我們成為義」，魏司堅說到，「那麼很明顯地，祂成為有罪的是在於藉著歸算而成為不義。而如果這個歸算的結果是死亡，那麼很顯然地，一個法律上的刑罰就是存在的。死亡不過是『歸算』這個觀念的執行而已。」（註8）It seems better to understand it then as a reference to a change in Christ’s legal status before God, making him liable for the guilt accrued not by himself, but others, namely, his elect people.[v] Vos notes, “The use of the word ‘sin’ … generalizes and universalizes the legal identification between Christ and sin.”[vi] For Christ to be made sin is to make him personally responsible for its punishment.[vii] This would imply a legal imputation of the guilt of sin to Christ. This is further demanded by the consequent clause, “so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (5:21b). “If Christ was made sin that we might become righteousness,” remarks Vos, “then obviously He was made sin in the sense of unrighteousness, by imputation. And if the effect of this imputation was death, then obviously there was a legal penalty. The death was but the execution in act of the ideal imputation.”[viii]
這個律法地位的改變不是由於祂自己的罪，因為祂是無罪的。相反，如同以賽亞的受苦的僕人，祂「誠然擔當我們的憂患，背負我們的痛苦」（賽五十三4）,耶穌使祂百姓的罪歸算給祂，好叫祂雖然是無罪的，卻可以在法律上受控告，並承擔罪的刑罰。因此，保羅心中想到的是一個刑罰性的（penal）、代理性的（vicarious）、代替性的（substitutionary）死，基督在其中為祂百姓的罪受死，在法律上把罪歸算給祂。加爾文註解說：「從某個角度來說，祂取了我們的地位，好叫祂可以在我們的牢房裏成為罪犯，被當作罪人來對待，不是因為祂自己的罪行，而是為了其他人的罪行，而由於祂是純淨的、免於一切的過犯，就可以忍受我們應得的刑罰——不是祂應得的。」（註9）This legal status change was not owing to his own sin for he knew no sin. Rather, like the Isaianic Suffering Servant who “surely … has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows,” Jesus had the sin of his people imputed to him, so that while sinless he could be legally charged with the punishment for sin. Paul has in mind then a penal, vicarious, substitutionary death wherein Christ suffered for the sin of his people legally imputed to him. Calvin comments, “[H]e assumed in a manner our place, that he might be a criminal in our room, and might be dealt with as a sinner, not for his own offences, but for those of others, inasmuch as he was pure and exempt from every fault, and might endure the punishment that was due to us—not to himself.”[ix]
更具體來說，如果以上所說以賽亞書的背景可以得到證實，保羅大概就是想到這位代表性的、背負罪的受苦僕人（賽五十二13～五十三12）。（註10）因此，基督成為有罪的，就是使祂成為贖罪祭，作祂百姓的代替品，帶來罪在法律上的後果（參：林前五7，十一25；弗五2）。有些人徹底拒絕基督是贖罪祭的這個觀念，雖然這節經文裏法律地位發生改變仍然是站得住腳的。（註11）不過，我們必須維護這個挽回祭的本質，因為保羅在這裏就是把它解釋為一個替代性的，贖罪的獻祭（參：羅八3；加三13）。神賦予這個能使兩造和好的交換，一種明確的代理性質。（註12）More specifically, if the above Isaianic background is sustained, Paul probably has in mind the vicarious, sin-bearing of the Suffering Servant (Isa. 52:13–53:12).[x] For Christ to be made sin then is for him to be constituted a guilt offering, incurring the legal ramifications of sin as a substitute for his people (cf. 1 Cor. 5:7; 11:25; Eph. 5:2). This notion of Christ being a guilt or sin offering is outright rejected by some, though the legal status change taking place here is still upheld.[xi] Nevertheless, the propitiatory nature of it must be maintained and is here expounded by Paul as a substitutionary, atoning sacrifice (cf. Rom. 8:3; Gal. 3:13). The reconciling transaction is given an explicit vicarious character.[xii]
芮德博（Ridderbos）正確地提到，任何想要貶損基督死亡的代替性和代理性本質的努力，都「錯待了保羅福音最根本的部分」（註13）。簡而言之，基督藉著歸算而成為有罪的,就為罪負上全部的責任，被視為罪，被控有罪，也償付罪的刑罰。（註14）「神使那無罪的，替我們成為有罪的。」Ridderbos rightly notes that any effort to detract from the substitutionary and vicarious nature of Christ’s death “readily does wrong to the most fundamental segments of Paul’s gospel.”[xiii] To put it tersely, Christ by being made sin by imputation took full responsibility for it, was identified with it, charged with it and paid its penalty.[xiv] “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin.”
二、基督「主動的順服」：成為神的義（林後五21b）The Active Obedience of Christ: Made to be the Righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21b)
儘管在和好裏除去百姓的罪孽、過犯和罪惡是靠著將信徒的罪歸算給基督，基督在法律上成為他們的代替品，在十字架上背負罪人的罪，積極地將罪人與神聯合在一起，更新罪人仍然是有必要的。這兩點就構成了一個新創造（新造的人）。（註15）「神使那無罪的，替我們成為罪，好叫我們在他裡面成為神的義」（五21）。這節經文含有救恩論和末世論的旨趣。While the removal of the iniquity, transgression and sin of God’s people in reconciliation is achieved by the imputation of the believer’s sin to Christ who then legally bore it on the cross as his or her substitute, there is also the need for a positive reuniting and renewing of sinful people with God. Both of these together amount to a new creation.[xv] Thus, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (5:21). This carries with it a soteriological and eschatological thrust.
使我們成為神的義，就是使我們成為一個新造的人，在基督裏與上帝和好，進入到一個末世的狀態。那些本來是上帝震怒對象的人，正當地被逐出祂的同在，不得再次進入，這乃是根據神無法容忍罪的聖潔（註16），在基督裡，藉著祂的死與復活，已經在法律上和客觀上成為神的義。因此，藉著基督的復活，一個正面的狀態，也就是憑著基督主動的順服所獲得的義，已經歸算給信徒，因為我們是在祂裏面的神的義。For us to become the righteousness of God is for us to be constituted a new creation, reconciled to God into an eschatological state in Christ. Those who once were objects of God’s wrath, rightfully banished from his presence and closed off from re-entering, according to the holiness of God which cannot condone sin,[xvi] have in Christ by means of his death and resurrection been legally and objectively constituted the righteousness of God. There is therefore a positive status imputed to the believer through Christ’s resurrection, namely, the righteousness obtained by Christ in his active obedience, for we are the righteousness of God in him.
總而言之，要讓基督死與復活的工作對那些在基督裏的人具有一種末世性的影響，有兩件事必須發生。首先，信徒的罪必須被歸算給基督，使祂在法律上能代表他們、成為他們的代替品，在他們的位置上接受懲罰，這就是祂被動的順服。其次，祂的主動順服必須被歸算給信徒，好叫他們可以成為神的義。（註17）In summary, for the work of Christ in his death and resurrection to have an eschatological impact on those who are in Christ, two things must occur. First, the believers’ sin must be imputed to Christ rendering him legally liable to receive the punishment on their behalf, as their substitute, in their place, which is his passive obedience. Second, his active obedience must be imputed to believers so that they might be constituted the righteousness of God.[xvii]
和好是客觀的、法律上的Reconciliation as Objective and Legal
在法律上使基督成為罪，而信徒在基督裏成為神的義，這件事本身會帶來一種救贖歷史已經成全的客觀狀態，和稱義類似。用Barnett的話說，「它指向赦罪，即定罪的倒轉。如此，對那些『在基督裏』與上帝立約、委身上帝的人，這就是那客觀的、法庭上的神的『義』，上帝使基督『成為有罪的』。」（註18）同樣，芮德博寫到：The legal rendering of Christ as sin and the believer in Christ as the righteousness of God carries with it an objective status as a redemptive-historical accomplishment, similar to justification. In the words of Barnett, “[It] points to forgiveness, the reversal of condemnation. Here, then, is the objective, forensic ‘justification’ of God to those who are covenantally dedicated to God ‘in Christ,’ whom God ‘made sin.’”[xviii] Likewise, Ridderbos writes,
「和好」不只出現在一處，與稱義是平行的、相當的......「稱人為義」是宗教的-法庭的概念，是保羅的宣講，其高度典型化的基本末世性結構，「和好」......在神學說法裏則具有更一般性的、涵義較廣的意義。它乃是源自公共-社會的範疇（參：林前七11），並大致論及兩個團體之間正常關係的恢復。（註19）[Reconciliation] appears in more than one place as the parallel and equivalent of justification. … Whereas ‘to justify’ is a religious-forensic concept that is highly typical of the basic eschatological structure of Paul’s preaching, ‘reconciliation’ … has a more general, less qualified meaning in theological parlance. It originates from the social-societal sphere (cf. 1 Cor. 7:11), and speaks in general of the restoration of the right relationship between two parties.[xix]
有趣的是，魏司堅說到，「客觀的和好出現在基督的死亡當中；其主觀的結果是稱義。」（註20）Interestingly Vos states, “The objective reconciliation took place in the death of Christ; its subjective result is justification.”[xx]
和好不只是在於下面兩點，即除去人在神面前的罪咎（或「客觀的法律上的障礙」[註21]），以及人的罪沒有歸算給他，而「最重要的，是在於有效地使末世性的和平成為稱義的果子（羅五1），為有份於新創造、新事而預備道路，和平是救恩全方位的狀態。」（註22）。總之，和好同時是整個基督徒生活的基礎和總結。在和好當中，上帝不僅僅恢復了一個原本破裂的關係，更在這個關係的恢復當中，驅策他們進入到末世性的新創造裏。Reconciliation consists not only in the removal of man’s guilt (or “objective legal obstacles”[xxi]) before God and of his sin not being imputed to him, but “it consists above all in the effecting eschatological peace as the fruit of justification (Rom. 5:1), and thus prepares the way to receiving a share in the new creation, the new things, peace as the all-embracing condition of salvation.”[xxii] In short, reconciliation is both the foundation and summation of the whole Christian life. In reconciliation, God does not merely restore a broken relationship, but also in this restoration propels them into the eschatological new creation.
註：
[i] The transition into right relationship is to enter the new creation. In the words of Beale, “To be propelled into the eschatological new creation is to enter into peaceful relations with the Creator. … [R]econciliation is a facet of the larger diamond of the new creation. Nevertheless, the point is that they are of a piece with one another and are organically linked” (Beale, New Testament Biblical Theology, 537).
[ii] The difficulty in relating 5:21 with the preceding is that it is asyndetic, so that “it stands as an impressively absolute statement” (Barnett, Corinthians, 312). Nevertheless, Paul has already spoken of the death and resurrection of Christ in 5:15, which with 5:21 seems to form a possible inclusio. Barnett rightly considers this passage as effectively the foundation of 5:16–21 (p. 315). Vos writes that this verse “constitutes the essence of the reconciliation” (“The Pauline Conception of Reconciliation,” 364).
[iii] Vos argues that ὑπὲρ (“for the sake/benefit of”) here, as well as in 5:14, has the full force of ἀντὶ (“in the place of”; cf. Matt. 20:28; Mk. 10:45). “What Christ did as priest,” writes Vos, “He did as the substitutionary Surety of believers, and, precisely for that reason, did before God and not toward man” (Reformed Dogmatics, Volume Three: Christology, 100).
[iv] Ridderbos, Paul, 186.
[v] Vos, “The Pauline Conception of Reconciliation,” 364.
[vi] Vos, “The Pauline Conception of Reconciliation,” 364; emphasis mine.
[vii] Vos captures it well, “To make someone to be sin … does not mean to actually change him into a sinful being or to transmit the blemishes of sin to him but simply to make him personally responsible for the penal consequences of sin. The same thing is meant by the term ‘imputation.’ It occurs with respect to both the penal guilt that the sinner himself has accrued and the guilt transferred to him from someone else” (Reformed Dogmatics, 3:112).
[viii] Vos, “The Pauline Conception of Reconciliation,” 365; see also idem., Reformed Dogmatics, 3:106–7; Donald Macleod, Christ Crucified: Understanding the Atonement, 155: “The idea of imputation underlies the whole passage.”
[ix] Calvin, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 242.
[x] Cf. Barnett, Corinthians, 313; George H. Guthrie, 2 Corinthians, 313–15; Calvin, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 242: “It is the guilt, on account of which we are arraigned at the bar of God. As, however the curse of the individual was of old cast upon the victim, so Christ’s condemnation was our absolution, and with his stripes we are healed (Isaiah liii. 5).”
[xi] The following reject the notion of Christ being a guilt offering: Robert Letham, The Work of Christ, 134; John R. De Witt, “The Nature of the Atonement: Reconciliation,” in Atonement, ed. Gabriel N. E. Fluhrer (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2010), 26. De Witt will however go on to say, “The Father legally made him liable for the punishment of sin. He consigned his own Son to darkness and separation from his presence. It was as though he, the spotless Lamb of God, were responsible for the sin of the world. … [T]he Father stripped the Son of his own holiness and perfection and made him wear the rags of our unholiness and imperfection. He stood in the place of the condemned and the guilty” (pp. 26–27). This seems to compute with an understanding of Jesus as the sin-bearing Suffering Servant of Isaiah, which is closely related, if not paralleled, with the guilt offering, though of course Christ is not a passive animal with no say in the matter, but a willing Son who lays down his own life for the sake of his people.
[xii] Vos, “The Pauline Conception of Reconciliation,” 364.
[xiii] Ridderbos, Paul, 190.
[xiv] Macleod, Christ Crucified, 155.
[xv] Beale, NTBT, 535.
[xvi] Cf. Macleod, Christ Crucified, 151–53. Calvin writes, “For so long as God imputes to us our sins, He must of necessity regard us with abhorrence; for he cannot be friendly or propitious to sinners” (Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 237). God’s act of reconciliation, then, includes the non-imputing of our sins to us and the imputing of them to Christ who bears the legal punishment for them in his suffering and death as our substitutionary sacrifice. All of this effects a right relationship of peace where there once was judgment and condemnation (Eph. 2:14–17; Col. 1:20).
[xvii] “Treating the sinless Christ as a sinner was the means by which treating sinners as sinless was made possible” (Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:106).
[xviii] Barnett, Corinthians, 315.
[xix] Ridderbos, Paul, 182.
[xx] Vos, “The Pauline Conception of Reconciliation,” 363.
[xxi] Vos, “The Pauline Conception of Reconciliation,” 364.
[xxii] Ridderbos, Paul, 185; Similarly Vos: “God reconciled the world … by a non-imputing of sin, by removing the legal demands that He had against the world, and doing this in Christ” (Reformed Dogmatics, 3:96).