作者：傅兰姆（John M. Frame）译者：诚之
改革宗神学家们经常会在圣约（covenant）的中心思想里找到有利于说明圣经统一性的方式。传统上，这些作者在经文中发现到两个主要的圣约，有时被称为工作之约（covenant of works）和恩典之约（covenant of grace）。前者涵盖的是堕落前的时期。在这个工作之约中，上帝提出要给亚当和夏娃一个蒙福的永生（由生命树所象征），条件是他们不能吃分别善恶树上的果子。在亚当犯罪堕落后，上帝展开了恩典之约：一个透过神的弥赛亚的救赎应许，此应许只能靠信心来领受。
Reformed
theologians have commonly found in the covenant motif a helpful way to show
forth the unity of the Bible. Traditionally, these writers have found in
Scripture two major covenants, sometimes called the covenant of works and the
covenant of grace. The former embraces the pre-fall period. In it God offers an
eternal life of blessedness (symbolized by the tree of life) to Adam and Eve on
the condition that they abstain from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil. After the fall into sin, God sets forth the covenant of grace: a
promise of redemption through the divine messiah received through faith alone.
在传统的看法中，这个恩典之约包含了所有堕落后历史上的诸约，包括与亚当、挪亚、亚伯拉罕、摩西、大卫所立的约，以及由耶稣自己的血所立的“新约”—在此以前的诸约都是在等候/期盼这个约。
The
covenant of grace, in turn, encompasses, on the traditional view, all the
post-fall historical covenants including those with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses,
David, and the “New Covenant” effected by the blood of Jesus himself, of which
the earlier covenants are but anticipations.
基于这个认识，整本圣经，虽然乍看之下其内容互异，可以被视为一个神与人立约，而人回应这些约的故事。律法书说明神对祂圣约的百姓所期望的。历史书表明人真正的回应。诗篇包括圣约百姓口中的赞美、哀歌、疑问、祝福与咒诅。智慧书包含了圣约律法在人类问题上的应用。先知书是神对违背圣约的子民的控告（covenant lawsuit），同时是更新圣约的应许。福音书和使徒行传呈现出“新约”的历史，而在使徒书信和启示录中，这历史也适用在信徒和世界历史上。
On
this understanding, the whole Bible, diverse in content as it may appear at
first sight, can be seen as a story of God making covenants and man responding
to them. The books of law show what God expects of his covenant people. The
books of history indicate man’s actual response. The Psalms contain the praise,
the laments, the questionings, the blessings and cursings which should be on
the lips of a covenant people. The wisdom books contain applications of the
covenant law to human problems. The prophets bring God’s covenant lawsuit
against the covenant breakers while at the same time promising covenant
renewal. The Gospels and Acts present the history of the New Covenant, which is
applied to believers and to world history in the epistles and Revelation.
最近，克莱恩（Meredith G. Kline）为我们对圣经圣约的知识做了相当重大的添加。在他的《伟大君王的条约》（Treaty of the Great
King）（註1）中，特别是在他的《圣经权威的结构》（The Structure of
Biblical Authority）（註2）中，他提出圣约与圣经本质的一些重要关系。
Recently,
Meredith G. Kline has made some significant additions to our knowledge of the
nature of biblical covenants. In his Treaty of the Great King1 and especially
in his The Structure of Biblical Authority2 he has noted some important
relations between covenants and the nature of the Bible.
他的看法是，圣经中的“圣约”通常是指一个特殊的文学形式，在古近东是相当常见的，现存有一些圣经之外的例证（特别是来自赫人的文化）。克莱恩说，耶和华与以色列的圣约，是主前第二世纪赫人的“宗主条约”（suzerainty treaties）最接近的类比物。这些是一个大王和一个小王之间的条约，有一个相当标准的形式，包含以下的元素：
His
view is that “covenant” in Scripture often refers to a specific literary form
common in the ancient near east, of which a number of extra-biblical examples
(especially from the Hittite culture) are extant. Covenants between Yahweh and
Israel, says Kline, are most closely analogous to the Hittite “suzerainty
treaties” of the second milennium, B. C. These are treaties between a great
king and a lesser king, and they have a fairly standard form consisting of the
following elements:
A. 大王的名字
B. 历史序言（Historical Prologue）
C. 规条（stipulations）：律法
1. 绝对的忠诚（Exclusive loyalty）= 爱
2. 特殊的要求
D. 奖惩条款（Sanctions）：祝福与咒诅
E. 施行细则（Administration）
A.
Name of the Great King
B.
Historical Prologue
C.
Stipulations (Laws)
1.
Exclusive loyalty (=love)
2.
Specific requirements
D.
Sanctions (Blessings and Curses)
E.
Administration
克莱恩在十诫（出20：1-17）中发现这个文学形式，也辨识出整本申命记是耶和华与以色列的一个宗主条约。
Kline
finds this literary form in the decalogue (Ex. 20:1-17), and he identifies the
Book of Deuteronomy as a whole as a suzerainty treaty between Yahweh and
Israel.
段落A说的很清楚，文件的作者是大王，不是封臣（vassal），条约的规定（provisions）是他自己的意志。所以耶和华在出埃及记20：2宣告：“我是耶和华你的神。”注意以下对神是文件作者（甚至是神所发的）的强调：24：12；31：18；32：15以下；34：1，27以下；32章；申4：13；9：10以下；10：2-4。
Section
A makes clear that the great king, not the vassal, is the author of the
document, and that its provisions are his own will. So Yahweh in Ex. 20:2
announces, “I am Yahweh your God.” Note also the emphasis on the divine
authorship (even divine publication!) of the document in Ex. 24:12, 31:18,
32:15f, 34:1, 27f, 32, Deut. 4:13, 9:10f, 10:2-4.
段落B 表明由宗主授予封臣的好处：“曾将你从埃及地为奴之家领出来。”
Section
B indicates the previous benefits conferred upon the vassal by the suzerain:
“who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.”
段落C说明宗主对封臣回应这些好处的期望：“除了我以外，你不可有别的神”，等等。十诫的第一诫是一个爱的命令；因为“爱”是圣约律法中，用来说明圣约所要求的“专一的圣约忠诚（exclusive covenant
loyalty）的字眼。接下来是许多特定的诫命，详细说明如果要专一对耶和华忠诚，他应该做些什么。
Section
C shows how the suzerain expects the vassal to respond to these benefits: “You
shall have no other gods before me,” etc. The First of the Ten Commandments is
a love commandment; for “love” was the term used for the kind of exclusive
covenant loyalty required in the covenant law. This is followed by various
specific commandments spelling out how one should behave if he is exclusively
loyal to Yahweh.
段落D表明顺服的结果（祝福）或不顺服的结果（咒诅）。在十诫中，这些没有放在分开的段落（在申命记是分开的，见27，28章），而是与其他诫命放在一起，例如，第二诫和第三诫的咒诅，第五诫的祝福。注意一个人在圣约关系中的地位取决于他对成文的圣约文件的顺服或不顺服。
Section
D indicates the consequences of obedience (blessing) or disobedience (curse).
In the decalogue, these are not put into a separate section (although they are
in Deuteronomy: see chapters 27, 28), but are found in and with other
commandments, curses in the Second and Third, blessings in the Fifth. Note that
one’s good standing in the covenant relation depends on his obedience or
disobedience to the written covenant document.
段落E表明圣约是如何施行的。圣约文件的复本要放在宗主和封臣的宗教圣所内（参申31：26），并有定期公开诵读的规定（申31：9-13），以及王朝传承的规定（申31：1-8）。圣约文件要作为见证：不是人对上帝有误的见证，而是上帝控告祂不顺服的百姓无误的见证（申31：26，“见证以色列人的不是”）。再次，我们看到对圣约文件之神圣权柄的强调。
Section
E indicates how the covenant is to be administered. Copies of the covenant
document are to be placed in the religious sanctuaries of suzerain and vassal
(cf. Deut. 31:26), there is provision for periodic public reading (31:9-13),
there are rules of dynastic succession (31:1-8). The covenant document stands
as a witness: not man’s fallible witness concerning God, but God’s infallible
witness against his disobedient people (31:26). Again, the emphasis is on the
divine authority of the document.
在这里我们看到圣经第一次清楚提到由神所授权写下来的文件，这文件的作者是神，因此带有完全的权柄。克莱恩毫不奇怪地在这里发现具有权威的正典，这个观念的起源。以此观之，具有权柄的神成文的话语这个观念，不是从二十世纪的基要主义才开始的，也不是始于17世纪的正统信仰，不是后使徒时期的据教学，或晚期犹太人的律法主义。反而，它已经预藏在神的子民原初的宪法当中，也是整本圣经所假定的立场。
Here
we find the first clear scriptural references to a written document divinely
authored, which because of its divine authorship bears full divine authority.
Not surprisingly, Kline finds here the origin of the idea of an authoritative
canon. Seen in this way, the concept of an authoritative written word of God
does not begin with twentieth century fundamentalism, nor seventeenth century
orthodoxy, nor medieval scholasticism, nor post-apostolic defensiveness, nor
late Jewish legalism. Rather, it is embedded in the original constitution of the
people of God and is assumed throughout Scripture.
克莱恩相信，最早的圣约文件，即十诫，是神的手亲自写在两块石版上的（出31：18；32：16），这是圣经正典的种子。随着历史的进展，更多的著作被加在圣约文件中（见约14；25以下）。这些文件描绘了以色列回应圣约的历史（创世记到以斯帖记）；圣约仆人的赞美诗，哀歌，疑问（诗篇）；圣约的智慧（约伯书，箴言，传道书，雅歌）。如同我们先前说的，先知书是描绘神的圣约控告，以及更新圣约的应许。克莱恩对新约提供了一个类似的分析，不过，他把新约圣经视为一份针对“新”约的新的、分开的正典。
Kline
holds that the original covenant document, the Ten Commandments, written by the
finger of God (Ex. 31:18, 32:16) on two tables of stone, is the seed of the
biblical canon. Additional writings were added to the covenant document as
history progressed (see Josh. 24:25f). These described the history of Israel’s
response to the covenant (Gen.- Esther), the covenant servant’s praises,
laments, questions (Psalms), covenantal wisdom (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,
Song of Songs). The prophetic books describe, as we saw earlier, God’s covenant
lawsuit and promises of covenant renewal. Kline offers a similar analysis of
the New Testament which, nevertheless, he regards as a new and separate canon
directing a “new” covenant.
这个圣约的正典模式，对我们处理圣经的权威、无误无谬性有极大的帮助。在这个模式上，神是圣经最终的作者，我们作为封臣无权对这个文件说三道四，反而我们只能在我们的思想和生活中臣服于它。
This
covenantal model of canonicity is enormously helpful in dealing with questions
concerning biblical authority, infallibility and inerrancy. On this model, God
is the ultimate author of Scripture,3 and we vassals have no right to find
fault with that document; rather we are to be subject to it in all our thought
and life.
我现在要做的是说明克莱恩的论述对我们理解圣经的统一性也有裨益。现在先让我们假设定莱恶的模式是正确的；质疑的人可以自己去找论证。我们要问的是，这个模型对圣经经文的统一性的涵义是什么。
What
I would like to do now is to show that Kline’s thesis is also helpful to our
understanding of the unity of Scripture. Let us assume for now that Kline’s
model is correct; those who have doubts may pursue his arguments for
themselves. And then let us ask what that model implies with regard to the
unity of the biblical text.
如上所述，条约的形式当然是统一中的差异（diversity-in-unity）。这是一份单一的文件，有单一的目的，在大王的名义下治理其封臣。然而，为了完成此单一的目的，如同我们看到的，必须要有五个段落。这五个段落定义出圣经启示的五种类型：
The
treaty form, as described above, is certainly a diversity-in-unity. It is a
single document, with a single purpose, to govern a vassal people in the name
of a Great King. Yet to accomplish this single purpose, five different sections
are necessary, as we have seen. These five sections define five types of
revelation found within Scripture:
A. 神的名的启示
B. 神在历史中的作为的启示
C. 神的律法的启示
1. 爱
2. 特殊的要求
D. 神继续祝福与咒诅的启示
E. 神在制度规定（institutional provisions）上的启示：圣经，教会，圣礼，管教，等等。
A.
Revelation of the name of God
B.
Revelation of God’s mighty acts in history
C.
Revelation of God’s law
1.
Love
2.
Specific requirements
D.
Revelation of God’s continuing presence to bless and curse
E.
Revelation of God’s institutional provisions: Scripture, church, sacraments,
discipline, etc.
名的启示（A）是圣经中很重要的启示形式。狭义而言，我们可以把神的名当作用来指称祂的各种字眼：耶和华，神（Elohim），上帝（Adon），等等。这些名字是圣经启示很重要的层面。神戏剧化地向亚伯拉罕显现，说：“我是全能的神（El Shaddai），你当在我面前作完全人。”（创17：1）神开始另一个启示的世代，祂在燃烧的荆棘中向摩西宣告祂的名：“我是自有永有的”（出3：14）和耶和华（15节，很明显和动词“to be”有关联；参出6；13）。神行祂大能的作为，好让他们“知道我是耶和华”（出14：18；王上8：43；诗9：10；83：18；91：14；赛43：3；52：6；耶16：21；33：2；摩5：8）。正如“全能神”标志出神与亚伯拉罕的圣约关系，耶和华则标志出神与以色列国家的圣约关系。神行的所有大能的作为都是为了宣告，展示，并推进此圣约的关系。在新约中，神的子民要奉耶稣基督的名受洗（徒2：38），这是我们所信的名（约壹3：23），我们奉此名向神祷告（约16：23以下），也奉此名行所有的事（西3：17）。
Name-revelation
(A) is an important form of revelation in Scripture. In a narrow sense, we may
think of God’s names as the various words used to designate him: Yahweh,
Elohim, Adon, Theos, etc. Those names are an important aspect of scriptural
revelation. Dramatically, God appears to Abram and says “I am God Almighty El
Shaddai; walk before me and be blameless” (Gen. 17:1). Inaugurating another era
of revelation, God comes to Moses in the burning bush and declares his name to
be “I am that I am” (Ex. 3:14) and Yahweh (verse 15, evidently related in some
fashion to the verb “to be;” cf. Chapter 6:1-3). God performs his mighty acts
“that they may know that I am Yahweh,” Ex. 14:18, I Kings 8:43, Psm. 9:10,
83:18, 91:14, Isa. 43:3, 52:6, Jer. 16:21, 33:2, Amos 5:8. As El Shaddai marked
God’s covenant relation with Abraham, so Yahweh marks the covenant relation
between God and the nation Israel. All of God’s mighty acts he performs in
order to proclaim, display, and advance that covenant relation. In the New
Covenant, it is the name of Jesus into which people are to be baptized (Acts
2:38), in which we trust (I John 3:23), through which we are to pray to God
(John 16:23f), and in which we perform all our labors (Col. 3:17).
神的名也具有意义。例如，耶和华，代表神全权统管世界，祂终极的权柄决定人这个智慧生物的准则，祂与其子民的圣约联结（covenant solidarity）与同在。（註4）当神启示自己是耶和华时，强调了祂性格中的这些元素。
God’s
names also have meaning. Yahweh, for instance, connotes God’s sovereign control
over the world, his ultimate authority to determine standards for intelligent
beings, and his covenant solidarity and presence with his people.4 When God
reveals himself as Yahweh, he stresses those elements of his character.
就更广的意义而言，神的“名”（shem或onoma，没有固定的名）是在祂所有的启示之指神自己的方式（参书7：9；结20：9）。就此观点而言，与“神的道”几乎是同义词。赞美神的名，就是赞美祂；羞辱神的名就是羞辱祂。在这些章节中，注意神的名和神自己之间的统一性：出33：19；34：6以下；诗7：17； 9：10；18：49；68：4；74：18；86：12；92：11；赛25：1；26：8；56：6；亚 14：9；玛3：16。
In a
still broader sense, God’s “name” (shem or onoma, without a proper name) is a
way of referring to God himself in all his self-revelation; cf. Josh. 7:9,
Ezek. 20:9. In this respect it is a near synonym of the “word of God.” To
praise the name of God is to praise him; to dishonor the name is to dishonor
him. Note the unity between the name of God and God himself in passages such as
Ex. 33:19, 34:6f, Psm. 7:17, 9:10, 18:49, 68:4, 74:18, 86:12, 92:11, Isa. 25:1,
26:8, 56:6, Zech. 14:9, Mal. 3:16.
启示的第二个形式（B）在圣经中也很突出。圣经可以称为神为拯救祂子民的大能作为的故事。无论是称为“神迹”、“奇事”或“大能的作为”，神做了奇妙的工作来拯救祂的百姓，并审判恶人，从创世记6-9章的洪水，到最后的审判。在圣经历史中，把以色列从埃及地拯救出来，以及耶稣基督从死裡复活的大神迹，被赋予了特别重大的角色。基本上，这就是神恩典的信息。它告诉我们神为祂的百姓所做的事，述说祂白白的恩赐。它包括了所谓的救赎历史，但是也包括创造和护理的工作：诗104；136：4，25；145：4-6，12。
The
second form of revelation (B) is also prominent in Scripture. Scripture may be
called the story of God’s mighty deeds performed for the salvation of his
people. Whether called “signs,” “wonders,” or “mighty acts,” God does amazing
works to accomplish the redemption of his people and the judgment of the wicked,
from the flood of Genesis 6-9 to the final judgment. In the biblical history,
especially important roles are given to the deliverance of Israel from Egypt
and to the greatest miracle, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
This is, essentially, the message of God’s grace. It tells us what God has done
for his people; it enumerates his free gifts. It includes all of what is called
redemptive history, but also creation and providence: Psm. 136:4, 25, 145:4-6,
12, Psm. 104.
律法的启示（C）在圣经里也很重要。“妥拉”（Torah）（译按：即西五经）是“旧约”的核心，教导神的准则，是整本旧约圣经一再提起的。在历史书、诗歌、智慧书，和先知书中，上帝呼召祂的百姓回转，遵守祂的诫命。成文的“妥拉”是义人要昼夜思想的律法（诗1：2）；那是“全备、苏醒人心”的律法（诗19：7）。那是神的话，当唱诗篇来赞美（56：4，10；119：161以下，等等）。
Law-revelation
(C) is also important within Scripture. The torah is the heart of the Old Covenant,
giving instruction in God’s standards, which are invoked throughout the Old
Testament. Throughout the historical, poetic, wisdom and prophetic books, God
calls his people back to obey his commandments. The written torah is that law
in which the righteous man meditates day and night (Psm. 1:2); it is the law
which is “perfect, restoring the soul” (Psm. 19:7). It is the word of God to
which praises are sung in Psm. 56:4, 10, 119:161f, etc.
耶稣降临也带来一些诫命，是祂的门徒必须遵守的。虽然要拒绝靠遵守律法来救自己，新约圣经仍然强调我们遵守耶稣诫命的命令（太7：21以下，28以下；可8：21；9：26以下；约8：47；12：47以下；14：15，21，23以下；15：7，10，14；17：6，17；提前6：3；约壹2：3-5；3：22；5：2以下；约贰6；启12：17；14：12）。
Jesus
also comes bringing commandments which his disciples are to obey. Though
rejecting the attempt to save oneself by keeping the law, the New Testament
nevertheless stresses our obligation to keep the commandments of Jesus: Matt.
7:21ff, 28f, Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26ff, 8:21, John 8:47, 12:47ff, 14:15, 21, 23f,
15:7, 10, 14, 17:6, 17, I Tim. 6:3, I John 2:3-5, 3:22, 5:2f, II John 6, Rev.
12:17, 14:12.
奖惩条款的启示（D）也可以在整本圣经中找到。神的圣约是两刄的。忠心守约的人就蒙祝福；不忠心的就受咒诅。许多犹太人误信他们是圣约里的成员，以为他们既然是耶和华的儿女，就可以犯罪而不受惩罚。但是上帝对他们的回应蹂躏和被掳，只保存了忠心的余民。及到时候满足，事情才变得明显，就是只有耶稣才是完美忠心的余民。祂担当了祂百姓的咒诅——为所有被神拣选而与祂联合的人（加3：13；弗1：4）。然而即使在新约之下，也有一些依附到教会的人，之后却证实是没有真正信心而在神拣选的爱之外的人。那些曾面对一些深入的知识却背叛基督的人会接受格外严厉的咒诅（来6：4-6；10：26-31）。圣经的作者从来不会对呈现信与不信的重大后果而感到厌烦：临到神的百姓的奖赏，临到恶人身上的可怕审判。
Sanction
revelation (D) can also be found throughout Scripture. God’s covenants are
two-edged. Those who are faithful to the covenant receive blessings; those who
are not faithful receive curse. Many in Israelfalsely trusted in their covenant
membership, as if being children of Yahweh they could sin with impunity. But
God responded to them with devastation and exile, preserving the faithful
remnant. In time it becomes evident that only Jesus is the perfectly faithful
remnant. He bears the curse for his people– for all who are joined to him by
God’s election (Gal. 3:13, Eph. 1:4). Yet even under the New Covenant there are
those who attach themselves to God’s church who later prove to be devoid of
true faith and outside of God’s electing love. Those receive exceptionally
severe curses as those who rebelled against Christ in the face of intimate
knowledge (Heb. 6:4-6, 10:26-31). Biblical writers never tire of presenting the
enormous consequences of faith or unbelief: the rewards coming to God’s people,
the dreadful judgments upon the wicked.
最后，圣经也关心神的百姓持续的生活，藉著一些安排（E），神的话被保存下来，并应用到每个世代。最早的圣约文件是放在约柜里面，在神的百姓中最神圣之处。如同我们所见，它要不时地公开地诵读。神设立了先知、祭司和君王，根据祂的话来统管祂的子民。在新约中，耶稣应验了这些职事；但是祂也关心祂的教会要建立在一个稳固的根基上（太16：18以下）。祂指定使徒们要记住祂的话（约14：26），而圣灵要传达新的真理（约15：26；16：13）。然后使徒要建立长老和执事的职分（徒6：1以下；提前3：1以下，等等）。
Finally,
Scripture is also concerned with the continuing life of God’s people, with
those arrangements (E) by which the word of God is preserved and applied to
each generation. The original covenant document was placed by the ark of the
covenant, the holiest place among the people of God. It was, as we have seen,
to be read publicly from time to time. God established prophet, priest and king
to rule his people according to his word. In the New Covenant, Jesus fulfills
these offices; but he too is concerned that his church be built on a firm
foundation (Matt. 16:18ff). He appoints the apostles to remember his words
(John 14:26) and to convey new truth from the spirit (John 15:26, 16:13). The
apostles, in turn, establish the offices of elder and deacon (Acts 6:1ff, I
Tim. 3:1ff, etc.)
因此，即使我们对克莱恩的论述有所保留，即圣经在历史上是从原先的圣约文件发展出来的，我们也必须承认，圣约形式的这五个主要元素各自代表了圣经启示一个很重要的面向。
Therefore,
even if we have reservations about Kline’s thesis that the Scripture
historically developed from the original covenant document, we must admit that
the five major elements of the covenant form each represent an important aspect
of biblical revelation.
接下来我们要问主要的问题：这些圣约元素与圣经的统一性究竟有何关系？我的三重回答是：以其遍布性（pervasiveness），互补性（mutual complementarity），以及观点上的关系（perspectival relationship）。让我依序加以展开。
1. 遍布性 1. Pervasiveness
首先，这些圣约主题的每一点，对圣经的每一部分都是非常基本的，从以上的概览就可以看出来。这五种圣约启示的形式，在新旧约圣经，历史书和先知书，福音书和使徒书信，以及启示文学中，都是很自然的。
First,
each of these covenantal themes is fundamental to all parts of Scripture, as
should be evident from the above survey. The five forms of covenantal
revelation are equally at home in Old and New Testaments, in books of history
and books of prophecy, in gospels and epistles, in apocalyptic.
唯一可能出现问题的是智慧文学。当然，神的“名”（A）和“大能的作为”（B）不是这些书卷常见的主题，至少出现的次数不多。然而，箴言书最基本的前提是“敬畏神是智慧的开端”（1：7；参9：10；诗111：10；112：1）。箴言要我们得到的智慧，始于对耶和华保持圣约的忠诚。因此，这种文学形式虽然没有在口头上强调，但是它预设了圣约的关系。当然其教导可以被视为是源自圣约的律法（C）。传道书总结到：敬畏神，遵守祂的诫命，是人当尽的本分（12：13以下），这就呼应了申命记4：6，谨守遵行律法和智慧之间的关系。顺服与悖逆的后果（D）在智慧书中有很好的说明，而这些书卷本身就是结构（E）的一部分，借着它们，圣约的律法从一代传承到下一代（参箴1：8）。（注5）
The
one area where a question might arise is the wisdom literature. Certainly the
“name” (A) and the “mighty acts” (B) of God are not common themes of these
books, at least in so many words. However, the fundamental premise of the Book
of Proverbs is that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (1:7;
cf. 9:10, Psm. 111:10, 112:1). The wisdom to be gained in Proverbs begins with
covenant faithfulness to the Lord. Thus this literature presupposes, though it
does not verbally emphasize, the covenant relationship. Certainly its teaching
can be seen to spring from the covenant law (C). Ecclesiastes concludes that to
fear God and keep his commandments is the whole duty of man (12:13f), thus
echoing the connection between keeping the law and wisdom found in Deut. 4:6.
The consequences of obedience and disobedience (D) are well illustrated in the
wisdom books, and these books are themselves part of the structure (E) by which
the covenant law is passed down and applied from generation to generation (cf.
Prov. 1:8).5
如此，对圣约的意识贯穿着圣经。这五个主题把圣经串在一起，圣经的每一部分也都在推进这些主题。虽然圣经在作者、风格和特定的兴趣上是多元的，它所有的部分却靠着对圣约的强烈兴趣而连成一气。
Thus
the covenant consciousness pervades the Scriptures. Each of the five themes
ties Scripture together, as each part of the Bible seeks to advance that theme.
Despite Scripture’s diversity of authorship, style, and specific interest, all
parts of it are united by its strong covenant interest.
2. 互补性2. Complementarity
然而，这些主题之间如果彼此不是连成一气的，圣约主题的遍布性就无助于圣经的统一性。这五个圣约元素是否是互补的，还是它们给我们看到关于神、祂的工作、救恩，和信徒生活不同的概念？
The
pervasiveness of these covenant themes, however, would not be conducive to the
unity of Scripture if the themes themselves were inconsistent with one another.
Are the five elements of the covenant complementary, or do they present to us
different concepts of God, of his works, of salvation, of the believer’s life?
在圣约模式内，没有明显的张力。耶和华的名（A）就是行大能工作（B）者的名，祂赐下律法（C），执行奖惩（D），设立制度（E）。历史序言的大能工作给我们遵行律法所要求之忠诚的强烈动机，以及严格奖惩的理由。律法本身必须要有牙齿，所以奖惩是必要的。除非有制度地保存、教导、强制执行律法，否则我们不能说人是在律法“之下”。因此，圣约不同的部分是互相坚固的。
Within
the covenant model, there is no evident tension. The name of the Lord (A) is
the name of the one who performs the mighty works (B), lays down the law (C),
executes the sanctions (D), establishes the institutions (E). The mighty works
of the historical prologue present a strong motivation for the loyalty demanded
in the law and a reason for the severity of the sanctions. The law itself must
have teeth; thus it requires sanctions. And a people cannot truly be “under”
law unless there are institutional ways in which the law can be preserved,
taught, enforced. Thus the different parts of the covenant reinforce one
another.
这些圣约元素的一致性，和现代神学的许多形式中所呈现的圣经图像大相径庭。很典型的，自由派神学的各学派在圣经中找到许多不协调的元素，无法整合或嵌合到一个单一的神学系统内。因此神学家就认为，他被迫要选择一些主题，用在他自己的神学当中，而丢弃（或不去强调）其他的主题。在这个过程中，某种程度的专断是必要的，虽然这些神学家很典型地会宣称，他们已经选择了经文本身最重要的主题。然而，在这些神学家当中，对要肯定哪些主题、丢弃哪些主题，要以哪些主题为中心、哪些主题要转移到边缘，却有很大的分歧。因此，在我们的时代中，有许多这个或那个“的神学”：神的道的神学，危机神学，个人相遇的神学，历史神学，爱的神学，盼望神学，存在神学，过程神学等等。所有这些都诉诸圣经的某些面向，坚持说其他面向要不是应该要忽略，就是应该要缩减。思考下面的一些例子：
The
consistency of these covenant elements is sharply at odds with the picture of
Scripture found in many forms of modern theology. Typically, the various
schools of liberal theology find in the Bible many discordant elements, which
cannot be reconciled or fit together in a single theological system. Thus the
theologian thinks he is forced to choose some of those motifs to use in his own
theology and to discard (or de-emphasize) others. There is necessarily a
certain arbitrariness in this procedure, though of course these theologians
typically claim that they have chosen those motifs most fundamental to
Scripture itself. Yet among these theologians there is wide disparity over
which themes are affirmed and which ones discarded, which ones are considered
central and which ones are relegated to the periphery. Thus we have had in our
time a great number of “theologies of” this or that: the word of God, crisis,
personal encounter, history, love, hope, being, process, etc. Each of these
appeals to some aspect of Scripture, maintaining that other aspects are either
to be ignored or to be minimized. Consider some examples:
a. 位格与命题：在现代神学中，特别是马丁?布伯（Martin Buber）（注6）和艾米尔?布伦纳（Emil Brunner）（注7）的人格主义（personalism），在位格的启示和命题或资讯的启示之间，通常会有尖锐的对立。如同约翰?贝利（John Baillie）说的，在新约圣经中，“启示的内容不是一套资讯或教义。（而是……）所启示的是神自己。”（注8）我们当然不能怀疑神透过圣经启示祂自己为一个位格。（注9）但是我们必须在位格的启示和命题的启示间作选择吗？承认第一点，就必须否认第二点吗？贝利假定情况就是如此。（注10）
(a)
Person and Proposition: In modern theology, especially the personalism of
Martin Buber6 and Emil Brunner7 there is often a sharp opposition between the
revelation of a person and the revelation of propositions or information. As
John Baillie puts it, in the New Testament, “the content of revelation is not a
body of information or of doctrine. (Rather…) what is revealed is God
Himself.”8 We certainly cannot doubt that God through Scripture reveals himself
as a person.9 But must we choose between person-revelation and propositional
revelation? Granting the first, must we deny the second? Baillie assumes that
we do.10
然而，圣约形式所呈现的，是一个启示模式，同时是非常个人化的，也是非常命题式的。基本上，神启示祂的名，就相当于祂自己。祂是整个条约的作者，透过这些书页启示祂自己。透过启示祂过去的祝福和未来的应许，祂向那些忠心的人传递祂的爱。祂亲密地对祂的百姓说话（注11），应许祂会亲自祝福、惩罚、管教祂的百姓。
The
covenant form, however, presents us with a model of revelation which is both
highly personal and highly propositional. God reveals his name, which is
virtually equivalent to himself. He authors the entire treaty, revealing
himself throughout its pages. He communicates love, by revealing his past
blessings and by promising future ones to those who are faithful. He speaks
intimately to his people.11 He promises that he will be personally involved
with his people to bless, to punish and to chastize.
与此同时，圣约也是命题性的。它是一个包含了字词和句子的文件。它对神子民的作用是法律的章程，要在一代一代间保存、传递（申6：4以下；犹3）。它的信息包括神的名，祂大能的作为，祂对我们生活的旨意，祂的奖惩，以及祂设立的制度。
At
the same time, the covenant is propositional. It is a document containing words
and sentences. It functions as a legal constitution for God’s people. It is to
be kept, passed on, from generation to generation (Deut. 6:4ff, Jude 3). It contains
information as to God’s name, his mighty deeds, his will for our lives, his
sanctions and his established institutions.
根据圣约模式，证明的责任就落在现代神学家的身上，要请他们告诉我们，为什么我们必须把位格的启示和命题的启示作如此尖锐的对立。或许他们必须承认，他们的神学建构只是对“历史批判”学术之要求的投降书，让学者可以自由地找圣经命题的茬，不容许圣经透出任何“位格-启示”的亮光。但这样做就是对上帝对人类思维的要求的反叛（林后10：5）。（注12）
In
the light of the covenant model, surely the burden of proof is on the modern
theologian to tell us why we must place personal and propositional revelation
in sharp opposition to one another. Or perhaps they should admit that their
theological construction is simply a capitulation to the demands of
“historical-critical” scholarship, setting the scholar free to find fault with
biblical propositions as long as some vague “person-revelation” still shines
through. But to do that is to rebel against God’s requirements for human
thinking (II Cor. 10:5).12
立场前后比较一致的是恩尼斯特?莱特（G. Ernest Wright），（注16）他提出上帝只在事件中，透过信心眼睛的诠释来启示自己。同样，是事件而不是命题，是对比。然而，雅各?巴尔（James Barr），他当然不是同情基要主义的人，反驳莱特的论述，说在圣经叙事中，神不只是在祂的作为中启示自己，也借着直接向人说话启示自己。（注17）巴尔又说，我们也许会像现代人一样希望拒绝这样的观念，就是神直接对人说话；但是老实说，我们不应该假装说圣经本身没有这种想法。
Somewhat
more consistent was the proposal of G. Ernest Wright16 that God reveals himself
only in events interpreted through the eyes of faith. Events, not propositions;
again, that was the contrast. James Barr, however, certainly a man with no
sympathies for fundamentalism, refuted Wright’s thesis with the obvious point
that in the scriptural narrative God reveals himself not only by doing things
but also by speaking directly to man.17 Barr added that we may wish, as modern
people, to reject the idea of direct speech from God to man; but in all honesty
we should not pretend that that idea is absent from the Bible itself.
在圣约模式上，神的行动和神的话语并不是对立的。两者的存在在条约形式中是和谐的。整份文件都是由上帝的话组成的。但是在这些话中，有述说上帝大能作为的话语。这些上帝行动的记载，在莱特的看法中，不是人类诠释他们经验的绊倒人的尝试（比较彼后1：20）；而是上帝自己对祂所行的描述与解释。现代人也许会和巴尔一样，拒绝这种神自己解释的可能性；但是这样做就拒绝了一位全权的神，能够在自己所造的世界中，随己意行作万事这个观念本身了。
On
the covenantal model, there is no opposition between God’s acts and God’s
words. Both exist harmoniously in the treaty form. The whole document consists
of God’s words. But among those words are words which tell of God’s mighty
acts. These accounts of God’s acts are not, as on Wright’s view, the stumbling
attempts of human beings to interpret their experiences (cf. II Pet. 1:20);
they are rather God’s own descriptions and interpretations of what he has done.
Modern man may, like Barr, resist the possibility of such divinely formulated
interpretation; but in doing so he resists the very notion of a sovereign God
who can do what he wishes in and with his creation.
c. 恩典与律法：不只是在现代自由派神学家中，也在整个基督教历史中，对恩典和律法确实的关系一直有争论。因为新约中有一些对律法的负面表述，神学中有一种倾向是极端地把恩典和律法对立起来，甚至要移除律法在基督徒生活中的积极作用。（注18）在我的看法中，这种倾向，藉着人的绝对自主（autonomy）——现代哲学家和文学作者所表达的——在现代得到了加强。甚至在福音派人士中，关于救恩是否牵涉到人委身顺服耶稣为主，或这种委身是在得救之后一段时间，也就是在人成为“门徒”时才发生的，现在也有相当多的争议。
(c)
Grace and Law: Not only among modern liberal theologians, but also throughout
the history of Christianity there has been disagreement over the precise
relation between grace and law. Because of certain expressions in the New Testament
referring negatively to law, there has been a tendency in theology to radically
oppose grace and law, even to remove law from any positive function in the
Christian life.18 This tendency has in my view been reinforced in the modern
period by the craving for absolute autonomy expressed by modern philosophers
and literary writers. Even among evangelicals there is now a substantial
controversy as to whether salvation involves a commitment to obey Jesus as
Lord, or whether such a commitment takes place some time after salvation, at
the point when one becomes a “disciple.”
正统改革宗神学在传统上会避免在其他传统（例如，路德宗和时代论）内所发现的恩典和律法的尖锐对立。在承认救恩是靠神的恩典、不靠人任何的善工的同时，改革宗神学也不避讳说基督徒生活的一开始，我们有责任（其实，是特权）根据神的律法来生活。此即唯独恩典能使人得救，但使人得救的恩典却从来不是孤立的（比较雅各书2：14-26）。（It is grace alone that saves, but the grace that saves is never alone.）
Orthodox
Reformed theology has traditionally avoided the sharp opposition between grace
and law found in other traditions (e.g. Lutheran, Dispensationalist). While
acknowledging that salvation is by the grace of God and not by any good works
of man, Reformed theology has had no trouble saying that from the beginning of
the Christian life we are obligated (indeed, privileged) to live according to
God’s law. It is grace alone that saves, but the grace that saves is never
alone (cf. James 2:14-26).
圣约模式确认了改革宗对恩典与律法之关系的理解。上帝在段落B中宣告这个恩典。这是人所不配的好处。祂不是因为以色列比其他民族人数更多而拣选他们，而是单单因为祂爱他们（申7：7；参4：37，10：15）。但是与此同时，以色列从她存在的一开始就要遵行神的律法（C）。同样地，耶稣说得很清楚，虽然救恩是父神白白的礼物（约6：65），神从一开始就期望信徒要顺服祂（14：21-24），所以遵守祂的话就是忠诚守约的测验。也的确，顺服耶稣会带来更多的恩典，更多的祝福（D）。恩典和律法是和谐的。它们只有在当人想要靠他自己的工作得救时，才会彼此对立。
The
covenant model vindicates this Reformed understanding of the relation between
grace and law. God proclaims his grace in section (B). This is unmerited favor.
He did not choose Israel because they were more numerous than other peoples,
but simply because he loved them (Deut. 7:7; cf. 4:37, 10:15). But at the same
time, Israel from the very beginning of its existence is to obey God’s law (C).
Similarly, Jesus makes clear that although salvation is by the free gift of the
Father (John 6:65), believers are expected from the very beginning to obey him
(14:21-24), so that keeping his words is the test of covenant faithfulness.
And, indeed, obeying Jesus brings more grace, more blessing (D). Grace and law
are harmonious. They become antagonistic only when someone tries to save
himself by his own works.
的确，圣约的恩典信息（B）已经被理解为是神的话（A）。在这里，主权和救恩在先前并不是分开的，是耶和华成就了救恩（参拿2：9）。只有耶和华才有必要的权柄和能力可以拯救祂的百姓。承认信靠神的拯救，就是同时承认祂是耶和华，是主。同样地，在罗马书10：9，10，承认耶稣复活，和从心里相信“耶稣是主”是分不开的。
Indeed,
the covenant message of grace (B) is already understood to be the word of the
Lord (A). There is no separation here between Lordship and salvation. It is the
Lord who accomplishes salvation (Cf. Jonah 2:9). Only the Lord has the
requisite authority and power to save his people. To confess trust in God’s
salvation is at the same time to acknowledge him as Yahweh, the Lord. Similarly
in Rom. 10:9, 10, confession of Jesus’ resurrection is inseparable from the
heart belief that “Jesus is Lord.”
d. 爱与律法：现代神学中，爱与律法的对立要至少回溯到施莱马赫。（注19）艾米尔?布伦纳（注20）和约瑟夫?弗雷契（Joseph Fletcher）（注21）是我们这个世纪中著名的神学伦理学家，他们鼓吹一种不需要神律法标准的爱的伦理。当然圣经把爱放在第一位，作为分辨基督徒的标记（约13：35）；但是（与现代神学家相反的）在圣经中，爱的命令是律法的一部分。（注22）而耶稣一再重复说，如果我们爱祂，就会遵守祂的诫命（约14：15，21，23-24；15：7，10，14；参约壹2：3-6；5：2-3；约贰6）
(d)
Love and Law: The antagonism in modern theology between love and law goes back
at least to Schleiermacher.19 Emil Brunner20 and Joseph Fletcher21 are among
many well-known theological ethicists of our own century who have urged an
ethic of love without any absolute divine legal standards. Surely Scripture
puts love in first place as the distinguishing mark of the Christian (John
13:35). But (modern theologians to the contrary) in Scripture the love mandate
is part of the law.22 And Jesus says over and over that if we love him we will
keep his commandments (John 14:15, 21, 23f, 15:7, 10, 14; cf. I John 2:3-6,
5:2f, II John 6).
现代神学家太快假设说，既然爱和律法不完全相同，我们就必须在基督徒生活中让其中之一成为优先。他们假设说这两者到了某一点必定会发生冲突。但是我们为什么必须作此假设？这基本上不是无神论者的假设吗？因为如果神是存在的，祂当然能够创造一个世界，是让爱和律法都支配相同的伦理。
Modern
theologians assume too readily that since love and law are not perfectly
synonymous, one must take precedence over the other in the Christian life. They
assume that the two must conflict with one another at some point. But why
should we make that assumption? Is that not a fundamentally atheistic
assumption? For if God exists, he is certainly able to create a world in which
love and law both dictate precisely the same ethic.
这种假设会完全被圣约模式所否定。爱的诫命是首要的规条（C，1），而我们通常以为的“律法”（C，2）是接续在第一个规条之后。它们同时在规条的整体之内，表明它们不应该被视为是彼此对立的。的确，我们从这个结构安排中所领受的信息就是：爱是整体，而律法是细则。爱是那全心的、我们所亏欠于我们伟大君王的绝对忠诚，而详细的规条向我们显明此圣约的忠诚其实际、详细的表现。如果我们专一地爱神，那么，我们就不会敬拜偶像，妄称祂的名，等等。细节阐述了爱的意义，而不是呈现另一种我们也许会也许不会想要选择的伦理。
Such
assumptions are radically negated by the covenant model. The love command is
the first stipulation (C, 1), while what we normally think of as “law” (C, 2)
follows that first stipulation. They are together in the body of stipulations,
indicating that they are not to be considered antagonistic toward one another.
Indeed, the message we receive from the structural arrangement is that love is
the general, law the particular. Love is that whole-souled, exclusive loyalty
we owe to our Great King, while the detailed stipulations show us the
practical, detailed outworkings of that covenant loyalty. If we love God
exclusively, then we will not worship idols, take his name in vain, etc. The
details spell out the meaning of love, rather than presenting an alternative
ethic which we may or may not wish to choose.
e. 救赎焦点和全面的应用：近几年有不少关于圣经的“目的”（purpose），以及这些目的如何影响圣经的可靠性，无误性和足够性的文字。（注23）现代人主张，圣经的目的是呈现救赎的信息，不是对教导科学、历史或哲学等有兴趣。因此，可以容许圣经历史的细节有错误，例如，那些不影响圣经可靠性，只是要给我们救赎信息的部分。
(e)
Redemptive Focus and Comprehensive Application: Much has been written in recent
years about the “purpose” of Scripture and how that purpose affects the
reliability, inerrancy, sufficiency of Scripture.23 Many have argued that the
purpose of Scripture is to present a message of redemption and therefore not to
teach us anything of interest to (e.g.) science, history, or philosophy as
such. Therefore if there are errors in the details of biblical history, e.g.,
those do not affect the reliability of Scripture which is only to give us a
redemptive message.
这个议题也和主张圣经宣讲的主题应该主要是或只是“救赎历史”（而不是道德原则，为圣经可靠性做护教性辩护，等等）的人有关。
This
issue is also relevant to those who maintain that “redemptive history” should
be the chief or only subject-matter of biblical preaching, as opposed to
ethical principles, apologetic defenses of biblical reliability, etc.
毫无疑问地，圣约的主旨是救赎。历史序言（B）是救赎的信息。它述说神从罪和死的领域中救赎祂百姓的恩典。但是宣扬圣约不只是让子民知道这些救赎的事实。不，宣扬圣约是宣扬它的全部：恩典的信息，以及对此恩典感恩的责任（C），顺服与不顺服的后果（D），以及神在地上设立的制度、社会的结构（E）。此外，这些责任是全面性的：爱的诫命需要彻底地重新调整生活的方向，以至于万事都是为神的荣耀而行（申6：4以下；参林前10：31；罗14：23；西3：17，24）。这包括生活的所有面向，包括历史，科学，哲学。人类所有的工作必须出于信心而作，要信奉神在祂的话语中告诉我们的，以之为预设前提。
There
is no doubt that the covenant is redemptive in its thrust. The historical
prologue (B) is a message of redemption. It tells of God’s grace in redeeming
his people from the realm of sin and death. But to proclaim the covenant is not
merely to inform people of those redemptive facts. Rather, to proclaim the
covenant is to proclaim it in toto: the message of grace together with the
obligations which constitute our thanksgiving for grace (C), the consequences
of obedience and disobedience (D) and the institutional, social structure which
God has planted on earth (E). Further, those obligations are comprehensive: the
love commandment requires a radical re-orientation of life so that all things
are done to God’s glory (Deut. 6:4f; cf. I Cor. 10:31, Rom. 14:23, Col. 3:17,
24). That includes all aspects of life including history, science, philosophy.
All human work must be done out of faith, presupposing, embracing all that God
has told us in his word.
所以，圣约是有关救赎的，但不是狭义的救赎，不是禁止神在某些议题上对我们说话。比起对救赎的强调，圣约更重视的是宣告神是主（A）。而以神为主绝对是全面性的。
So
the covenant is redemptive, but not in any narrow sense; not in any sense that
forbids God to speak to us on certain subjects. Even more fundamental to the
covenant than the emphasis on redemption is the declaration of God’s Lordship
(A). And that Lordship is absolutely comprehensive.
我要对以下相关的问题提出类似的回应：启示是由“事件”或“超越时间的真理”组成的（见上面b）。“神是主”本身当然是永恒的；但是把神的主权应用到我们的处境，当然要以我们的历史为条件。我们与神的关系取决于我们在历史中曾经如何回应祂；进一步的启示也总是预设这些事件。祂的圣约律法会反映祂永恒的性格；但是律法也要把神永恒的性格和神的百姓具体的情况联系在一起。虽然神的是不变的，具体地应用神的律法，的确会随处境的改变而改变。
I
would offer a similar response to the related question of whether revelation
consists of “events” or of “timeless truths” (see also (b) above). God’s
Lordship itself is certainly eternal; but the application of that Lordship to
our situation is of course conditioned on our history. Our relation to God
depends on how in history we have responded to him; and further revelation
always presupposes these events. His covenant law is a reflection of his
eternal character; but it also relates that eternal character to the concrete
situation of God’s people. And although God is changeless, the specific
applications of his law do change from one situation to another.
f. 审判与祝福：19世纪自由主义一致贬低神的审判的观念。巴特和布伦纳把审判的讨论恢复到中心的地位（魏斯[Johannes Weiss]和史怀哲[Schweitzer]的末世论学派，与晚近的盼望与解放神学的神学家也同样这样做了，只是以不同的方式）。但是即使这个最近的神学也把审判视为只是象征（symbol，或译为符号），或是一个被恩典所完全或大部分克服了的事件。
(f)
Judgment and Blessing: Nineteenth century liberalism uniformly disparaged the
idea of divine judgment. Barth and Brunner restored the discussion of judgment
to centrality (as did, in a different way, the consistent eschatological school
of Weiss and Schweitzer and the recent theologians of hope and liberation). But
even this more recent theology regards judgment either as a mere symbol or as
an event fully or largely overcome by grace.
当然，我们都会觉得奇怪，一位爱的上帝为何会把人送到地狱去。偶尔重新思考这个问题是对的。圣约结构提醒我们的是：神同时是一位公义和赐福的神，两者都不能妥协。如果我们无法完全理解恩典和惩罚如何能并存，我们必须以信心来接受，信靠神比我们更有智慧，知道什么是真正的公义，以及怜悯到底是什么。
We
all wonder, of course, how a God of love can send people to Hell. It is not
wrong to rethink this matter from time to time. What the covenant structure
reminds us is that God is a God of both justice and blessing and that neither
of these is to be compromised. If we do not understand completely how grace and
retribution can coexist, we must accept both on faith, trusting that God knows
better than we what is truly just and what constitutes mercy.
g. 神的话和人的回应：已经有很多人写到关于启示和人对启示的回应的事。自从施莱马赫以来，大多数神学家都说若没有人类的回应，启示是不存在的，因为只有人的回应，才有真正的沟通。的确，此回应必须出于信心，否则就是没有正确地领受此沟通。既然根据这些神学家的说法，启示是非命题性的，他们就把启示定义为唤醒信心的事件。
(g)
God’s Word and Man’s Response: Much has been written about the relation between
revelation and the human response to revelation. Most theologians since
Schleiermacher have said that revelation does not exist without human response,
for only when man responds is there true communication. Indeed, that response
must be one of faith, or else the communication has not been properly received.
Since revelation according to these theologians is nonpropositional, it is
virtually defined by them as that event in which faith is aroused.
保守派反驳说，在圣经本身，“启示”有不同的意义。当然，其中一种意义是启示无法与回应分割开来；圣经把这种“启示”定义为“光照”（illumination），例如：加1：16；弗1：17；腓3：15，我相信还包括太11：25-27。然而，这与“启示”是不同的，例如：罗1：18。在那里，启示恰恰被定义为不需要信心，以至于使人无可推诿。再者，以其末世性的涵义，在圣经中，“启示”不是神与人类沟通之唯一或标准的用语。更常见的如“神的话”，适用在公众书成的文件，以及神与先知的沟通，从来没有（就我所知）被用来指内在的光照。这个论证更明显可以用在如“律法”、“典章”、“见证”等等。
Conservatives
have objected that in Scripture itself “revelation” is used in various senses.
Certainly there is one sense in which revelation is inseparable from response;
that is the sense in which revelation is defined as individual illumination, as
in Gal. 1:16, Eph. 1:17, Phil. 3:15, and, I believe, also in Matt. 11:25-27.
However, this is not the same sense in which “revelation” is used, e.g., in
Rom. 1:18; for there revelation is given precisely to those without faith so as
to leave them without excuse. Further, “revelation,” with its apocalyptic
connotations is not the only, or the standard term used for divine-human
communication in Scripture. Much more common is the phrase “word of God” which,
of course, applies to publicly written documents as well as to divine
communication with prophets, and which never (so far as I can see) refers to
inward illumination. Even more obviously does this argument apply to terms like
“law,” “statutes,” “testimonies,” etc.
对这点的混淆来自普遍的无知，以及对圣约模式的忽视。因为在圣约中，神的启示和人的回应有很清楚的关系。神是圣约文件的作者，也把自己视为如此（A）。历史，律法，奖惩条例和施行的典章都出于这位作者之手。但是圣约要求封臣的回应（D），而此回应的本质会带来咒诅或祝福。再者，在确认圣约的过程中，封臣会起誓，同意条约的条件（参申27：12～28：68）。而未来的圣约会记录祝福和咒诅的奖惩是如何执行的，以作为“新约”的序言。
The
confusions over this point are linked to the widespread ignorance and neglect
of the covenantal model. For within the covenant there is a clear relation
between divine revelation and human response. God is the author of the covenant
document and identifies himself as such (A). The history, laws, sanctions and
administrative ordinances are by his authorship. But the covenant requires a
response by the vassals (D), and the nature of that response will lead to curse
or blessing. Further, in the ratification of the covenant, the vassal takes an
oath, agreeing to the treaty conditions (cf. Deut. 27:12-28:68). And future
covenants will record the enacting of blessing and curse sanctions as prologue
to the New Covenant.
在圣经中，这是神的启示与人的回应最基本的关系。当然，正如圣约的咒诅奖惩是由耶稣代替神的选民担当了，同样，选民也接受了一种特殊的启示：激发信心的圣灵的沟通。所有这些事情的发生，都要靠神的恩典。因此，在圣约中，有一类以上的启示。所有能阅读或聆听的人，都能拥有圣约文件的实际刊物。但是只有神以恩典使他与基督联合的人，才能拥有内在的光照。
Such
is the fundamental relation, in Scripture, between divine revelation and human
response. Of course, just as the curse sanctions of the covenant are borne by
Jesus on behalf of God’s elect, so the elect also receive a special kind of
revelation: a communication of the spirit eliciting faith. All of this happens
by God’s grace. Thus there is more than one kind of revelation within the
covenant. The actual publication of the covenant document is available to all
who can read or hear. But inward illumination is only for those whom God has
united to Christ by grace.
h. 历史与末世：从施莱马赫和魏斯的时代以来（他们论述耶稣的信息全部是关于末世的），许多人尝试去理解历史与圣经中的末世论的关系。基督信仰在什么程度上是针对一次即过的过去事件，又在什么程度上是针对未来的？在盼望神学（注24）、解放神学（注25）和潘能博（Wolfhart Pannenberg）的新黑格尔神学（注26）名义下，“未来导向”的神学近来很受人欢迎。早期的存在主义神学家，例如布特曼（Rudolf Bultmann），以一种“对未来开放”的方式来呈现福音，似乎是期待最近的发展。
(h)
History and Eschatology: Since the time of Schweitzer and Weiss, who argued
that Jesus’ message was wholly eschatological, many have sought to understand
the relation of history to eschatology in Scripture. To what extent is
Christian faith oriented toward once-for-all past events, and to what extent is
it oriented toward the future? “Future-oriented” theology has been highly
popular recently, under the names of the theology of hope,24 liberation
theology,25 and in the neo-Hegelian theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg.26 The
earlier existential theologians, such as Rudolf Bultmann, presented the gospel
as a kind of “openness to the future,” somewhat anticipating the more recent
developments.
然而，在圣约的结构当中，对过去和未来的关注并未暗示有任何的张力。过去的事件对使圣约成为现在的样式是必要的条件（B）。的确，耶和华的圣约仆人总是以带着对在过去历史中所赐下的恩典的感恩来回顾。然而，也存在于圣约之现在（C）和未来（D）的焦点内。现在，我们注目在神的律法上，知道祂要我们如何生活。我们盼望神圣约奖惩工作的完成，也期望在未来能靠神自己施洗的安排，继续领受圣约。圣约里未来的焦点与过去的焦点并无冲突。相反地，过去的事件是神未来工作的基础。
In
the covenant structure, however, there is no hint of any tension between
concerns with past and future. Past events are the necessary conditions for
bringing the covenant into being (B). Indeed, the covenant servant of Yahweh
always looks back with thankfulness on the grace given in past history. Yet
there are also in the covenant present (C) and future (D, E) foci. In the
present, we look to God’s law to know how he wants us to live. We look forward
to the outworking of God’s covenant sanctions, and we expect in the future to
have continued access to the covenant by God’s own administrative arrangements.
The future focus within the covenant does not conflict with the focus on the
past. On the contrary, the past events are the foundation for God’s future working.
而圣约未来的走向并不像布特曼“开放的未来”，或布特曼和潘能格不确定的未来一样，是模糊不清的。神告诉我们，为我们预备一些奥秘的空间，未来所要发生的事。我们可以充满自信地，以一种在布特曼的神学当中所无法期望的，来盼望神的未来。
And
the future orientation of the covenant is not vague in the way that Bultmann’s
“open future” is, or as the unspecified futures of Moltmann and Pannenberg. God
tells us, making some allowances for mystery, what is going to happen. We can
confidently look forward to God’s future in a way in which we certainly cannot
look forward to Bultmann’s.
i. 神的主权和人的责任：圣约模式并不是万能的，我不认为它给我们任何全新的洞见，解释主权/责任的问题。然而，它的确对那些坚持说上帝的计划是会变的，要依赖人的决定的神学家（特别是那些属于“过程”传统的），是有话说的。如同我们所见（特别是上述的g），圣约模式的确非常强调人的责任，但是也强调神的主权，祂看自己为主，单方面地设立了圣约的道德观，祂宣告未来所要发生的事。可以确定的是，圣约的奖惩（D）是取决于人是以顺服还是以不顺服来回应。但是神的计划在这二者当中，都已经确定了。神不需要为了处理一些祂在事前没有看到的可能性，来制作新的计划。
(i)
Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: The covenant model cannot do
everything, and I don’t think that it leads to any radically new insights into
the sovereignty/responsibility question. However, it does speak to those
theologians (especially of the “process” tradition) who would insist that God’s
plans are changeable and dependent upon man’s decisions. The covenant model
does, as we’ve seen (esp. (g) above), put a great emphasis on man’s
responsibility, but also on the sovereignty of God who identifies himself as
Lord, who unilaterally establishes the covenant morality, who declares what
will happen in the future. To be sure, the covenant sanctions (D) are dependent
upon whether man responds in obedience or disobedience. But the divine plan is
fully set in either case. God will not have to make new plans in order to deal
with some unforeseen possibility.
j. 自然与圣经：不像在许多神学系统中，自然和圣经是两个互相竞争的启示来源，神在圣约中是以自然的控制者出现的，祂设立了自然的方向。因此自然会按圣约文件所说的，它将会如何的方式来表现。它会确认书成的圣约，从来不会与它矛盾。而只有那些透过圣约文件的“镜片”（加尔文的说法）来看自然的人，能正确看待自然。如此，圣约称被造界（天、地），连同主要的见证，即圣约文件本身（申31：14-29），为见证（申4：26，30；30：19；31：28；32：1）。参罗马书8：19-22。
(j)
Nature and Scripture: Far from nature and Scripture being two competing sources
of revelation as in much theology, God appears in the covenant as the
controller of nature, the one who establishes its course. Nature therefore
behaves as the covenant document says it will. It confirms, but never
contradicts, the written covenant. And only those who see nature through the
“spectacles” (Calvin) of the covenant document see nature aright. Thus the covenant
calls the created world (“heaven and earth”) as witnesses (Deut. 4:26, 30:19,
31:28, 32:1) together with the chief witness which is the covenant document
itself (Deut. 31:14-29). Cf.Rom. 8:19-22.
如此，我们见到圣约以许多方式展现了圣经启示差异中的统一（unity-in-difference）的许多层面。神学没有必要去假定有不统一，然后去挑选它所偏好的元素。不，如此作就是忽略或违反了圣经文体最基本的结构原则。
We
have seen, then, many ways in which the covenant model displays the
unity-in-difference of various aspects of scriptural revelation. It is not
necessary for theology to posit disunity and then to pick and choose what
elements it prefers. Rather, to do so is to ignore or violate the basic
structural principle of the biblical genre.
3. 观点之间的关系Perspectival
Relationship
圣约结构显明圣经的统一性的第三种方式，是借着其元素之间，彼此“观点上”（perspectival）的关系。
A
third way in which the covenant structure shows the unity of Scripture is by
the “perspectival” relation of its elements to one another.
我们可以把圣经分成几个部分，每一部分反映一种特定的圣经结构。神的名的启示（A）可以包括如出3：14；6：1以下；33：19以下；34：6-7；赛40：25以下；41：1-4；玛3：6；约8：58等等经节。历史序言（B）包括旧约的历史书，以及新约的福音书。（注意A和B的类别已经重复了）。律法（C）包括旧约的妥拉（摩西五经），登山宝训（太5-7），及圣经其余伦理的部分。奖惩条款（D）包括诗篇、箴言和其他书卷中的经节，特别是先知和启示文学。治理（E）会在摩西五经，马太福音18章和教牧书信中的经文中找到。
It is
possible to divide Scripture into various parts, each reflecting a particular
element of the covenant structure. The revelation of the Name (A) would include
passages like Ex. 3:14, 6:1ff, 33:19ff, 34:6f, Isa. 40:25ff, 41:1-4, Mal. 3:6,
John 8:58, etc. The Historical Prologue (B) would consist of the historical
books of the O. T. and the Gospels of the N. T. (But notice that categories (A)
and (B) already overlap.) The Law (C) would include the O. T. torah, the Sermon
on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) and other ethical portions of Scripture. The Sanctions
(D) would include some passages in Psalms and Proverbs and other books,
particularly prophecy and apocalyptic. Administration (E) would also be found
in the Penteteuch, in passages like Matt. 18 and the Pastoral Epistles.
但是当你深入思考，以下的想法就会出现：除了认识全部的圣经之外，我们无法真正认识神的名（A）。如此，整本圣经，就是神的名的启示。历史也一样。神的百姓完整的历史，包括神赐给他们的律法、诗歌、智慧书、先知和塑造他们思想的启示文学。律法也一样，要应用神的律法，需要认识我们的历史处境。要认识神要求我们什么，必须认识我们处在救赎历史的何处。奖惩条例和施行也一样。
But
when you think more deeply about it, the following thought occurs: One cannot
really get a full understanding of the Name of God (A) except by understanding
the totality of Scripture. The whole Bible, then, is the revelation of the
divine Name. Same for history. The full history of God’s people includes the
laws God gave them, the poetic, wisdom, prophetic and apocalyptic literature
that molded their thinking. Similarly for law; for the application of God’s
laws requires an understanding of our historical circumstances. To know what
God requires of us, we must know where we are in the history of redemption.
Same for sanctions and administration.
所以，整本圣经就是神的名的启示；它是历史；是律法；是奖惩；是施行。圣约的每个元素都是看整本圣经的一种方式。每一个元素都包括了其他所有的元素。
So
the whole Bible is a revelation of God’s name; it is all history; it is all
law; it is all sanctions; it is all administration. Each element of the
covenant is a way of looking at the whole Bible. Each element includes all the
others.
重点是圣约的各种元素不是同义词。历史和律法不是一回事，等等。但是对我们来说，认识历史和认识律法是相同的。如果我们忽略其他部分，我们就无法充分理解并使用神另一部分的启示。当然，我们是一点一点学习的，如果这是在圣灵的引导下，一种持续学习过程的一部分。但是神学家经常会犯一些大错，就是把圣经人为地切割成一些断片，然后孤立地去告发这些断片。
The
point is not that the various elements of the covenant are synonymous. History
is not synonymous with law, etc. But for us, understanding history is the same
as understanding law. We cannot understand and use one part of God’s revelation
adequately if we neglect others. Of course, we do learn by bits and pieces, and
the most fragmentary knowledge of God’s book is better than nothing, if it is
part of a process of continuing study under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
But theologians often make serious blunders by arbitrarily chopping the
Scriptures into segments and reporting on those segments in isolation.
我认为这种各个圣约元素“观点上的关系”，是对圣经多元中的统一进一步的见证。像现代神学家这样，喜欢让这些元素彼此对立，就是错过了一些非常重要的东西。
I
think that this “perspectival relation” of the various covenant elements is a
further testimony to the unity-in-diversity of Scripture. To pit these elements
against one another as modern theologians like to do is to miss something very
important.
这个圣约模式会启发我们，以其他“观点上”的方式来看经文。例如，考虑神的启示是否是“命题的真理”的讨论。我会说，“命题的真理”是对圣经的一种看法；但是圣经也包含问题，命令，诗歌，等等。然而，要了解神所给我们的命题式的信息，我们必须研读整本圣经——命令，问题和诗歌。所以就一定的意义来说，圣经是命题。但是整本圣经也是命令（它对我们有所要求），问题（它征求答案），诗歌（它与我们更深的自我交战）。
This
covenantal model may suggest other “perspectival” ways of looking at the text.
For instance, consider the discussion over whether God’s revelation is
“propositional truth.” I would say that “propositional truth” is one perspective
on Scripture; but Scripture also contains questions, imperatives, poetry, etc.
Yet, to understand the propositional message God gives to us, we must study the
whole Bible– commands, questions and poetry as well. So in a sense the whole
Bible is propositional. But the whole Bible is also command (it demands
something of us), question (it solicits an answer), poetry (it engages our
deepest selves).
结论 Conclusion
在这些各种的方式中，圣约模式帮助我们把圣经看为一个统一体，虽然在不同的作者，不同的书卷中，肯定有差异。三位一体的神已经以多元中的统一，赐下祂的启示。如此，祂在其多重的应用中，向我们显明祂话语中的统一性（“我是主”）。神的话真的是丰富的。如果对小孩来说，它是够简单的，它也包含了足以挑战最聪明的学者的深度。而对所有的信徒来说，它提出了一个可靠的，清楚的，统一的对我们主权的神的表达。
In
all these sorts of ways, the covenant model helps us to view Scripture as a
unity, amid the undoubted differences among its authors and books. God the three-in-one
has given his revelation to us as a unity-in-diversity. Thus he manifests the
unity of his speech to us (“I am the Lord”) in all its manifold applications.
Truly the word of God is rich. If it is simple enough for little children, it
also contains depths challenging to the brightest scholars. And for all
believers it sets forth a reliable, clear, unified expression of our sovereign
God.
注：
[1]
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.
[2]
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.
[3]
But meaningful human participation in the production of Scripture is by no
means excluded; see Ex. 34:27f in comparison with verse 1.
[4]
See my Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1987), 15ff. I expect to argue these points in more detail in my
forthcoming Doctrine of God.
[5]
Compare Kline's larger discussion of the wisdom literature in Structure, 64-67.
[6] I
and Thou (N. Y.: Scribner's, 1958).
[7]
Especially in Truth As Encounter (Phila.: Westminster Press, 1964).
[8]
Baillie, The Idea of Revelation in Recent Thought (N. Y.: Columbia University
Press, 1964), 60.
[9]
However, F. Gerald Downing argues in Has Christianity a Revelation? (London:
SCM Press, 1964) that this is not the case, that we cannot say that God in
Scripture reveals "himself." Downing's argument is not cogent in my
opinion, but it is interesting in that it shows how one can, with some
plausibility, argue for theological choices quite different from those of
Buber, Brunner and Baillie.
[10]
So far as I can tell, he offers no argument to prove that the
person/proposition distinction is an exclusive disjunction. Brunner does,
saying information about one of the parties detracts from the personal
character of a relationship. But I find that utterly implausible.
[11]
In the decalogue, God addresses Israel as if the nation were one person: thou!
[12]
See my Doctrine of the Knowledge of God.
[13]
whose concept of "event" is, however, quite idiosyncratic.
[14]
Op. cit., 62-82.
[15]
Gordon Kaufman, in his Systematic Theology: A Historicist Perspective (N. Y.:
Scribner's, 1968) actually describes Christ as a "person-event," but
that idea remains as obscure in his thought as in Baillie's. See my review of
Kaufman's book in the Westminster Theological Journal 32:1 (November, 1969),
119-124.
[16]
Wright, God Who Acts (London: SCM Press, 1952); Wright and Reginald H. Fuller,
The Book of the Acts of God (Garden City: Doubleday, 1957).
[17]
Barr, Old and New in Interpretation (London: SCM Press, 1966).
[18]
This sort of controversy may have existed during the New Testament period
itself; certainly it was a major element in the second century controversy over
the views of Marcion.
[19]
Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith (N. Y.: Harper and Row, 1963).
[20]
Brunner, The Divine Imperative (Phila.: Westminster Press, 1947).
[21]
Fletcher, Situation Ethics (Phila.: Westminster Press, 1966).
[22]
When Jesus cites the two great commandments of loving God and neighbor, he
quotes Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18 from the Mosaic law (Matt. 22:37-40).
[23]
Some examples: G. C. Berkouwer, Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975),
Dewey Beegle, The Inspiration of Scripture(Phila.: Westminster Press, 1963),
Jack Rogers and Donald McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible
(San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1979).
[24]
J. Moltmann, The Theology of Hope (N. Y.: Harper, 1967).
[25]
As in G. Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books,
1973).
[26]
E. g. his Jesus, God and Man (Phila.: Westminster Press, 1968).
