香壇TheAltar of Incense

作者: Iain Duguid     譯者: Maria Marta

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2017/12/the-altar-of-incense/

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106695469993489516884/posts/PKRWb2Hdgba

會幕的許多擺設都有一個實用的目的。 燈台為黑暗籠罩的環境提供光線，桌子是擺放陳設餅的地方。香壇的實際用途是燃燒馨香料，使空氣充滿芳香味。雖然這些擺設都是用純金做的，且裝飾豪華，相當於國王的附屬品，但從許多方面來說，它們都是平常的家具。借著日常的祭祀，所有感官都受到服侍：借著燈台、香壇、陳設餅桌的功用發揮，視覺、嗅覺、味覺的需求都得到滿足，耳朵同時還聽到大祭司聖衣上的鈴聲。 整個事件設計成：為了上帝豐富我們多元的感官體驗------非因上帝擁有像我們那樣的感觀，乃因祂確認祂所賜予我們的每種不同感官的長處。 只有最出色的事物才能足夠好的獻給宇宙的創造者。

除了實際用途和吸引感官之外，會幕的擺設還為上帝的百姓提供象征性的作用。燈台上的七盞燈象征上帝的祝福，它們光照著十二個陳設餅，陳設餅本身代表以色列的十二個支派。燈台本身是一種微型火柱，記念上帝在曠野與祂的百姓同在。伴隨著燈台的火柱，香壇上空形成並騰起一根一致的煙柱。

更重要的是，源於熏香本身的煙霧不斷從祭壇上升起，象征上帝百姓的祈禱不斷上升到主的面前。在帳幕裡，只有祭司們才能獻香，因為他們充當百姓和上帝之間的中保，象征性地將他們的禱告帶到致高者的面前。詩篇一四一篇2節表達了這種觀點，大衛向上帝祈禱：「願我的禱告如香陳列在你面前」。記載在歷代志下廿六章16–21節的事件明顯地違反了這種制度，當烏西雅王試圖越過祭司的抗議，進入聖殿燒香，並代表自己獻上。他長出的大痲風取代了他要尋求的尊貴的地位，麻風病使他不潔凈，從此不能再進入聖殿（廿六16–21）。

香壇也和以色列的祭祀儀式有關。當大祭司因自己所犯的罪，需要獻上贖罪祭時，他要以祭牲的血塗抹香壇的四角，並將其餘的血倒在壇腳（利四3–7）。全體會眾作為一個整體的贖罪祭也需要同樣的祭牲，祭牲的血要抹在香壇的四角上，其餘的血都要倒在燔祭壇腳（13 – 18節）。然而，即使定期獻上這些贖罪祭，也不足以對付人們因罪導致並累積起來的汙穢；為了防止土地變得不合適作神聖的居所，大祭司不得不在一年一度的贖罪日進入至聖所。他拿著輕便的香爐進幔子裡，香爐發出保護性的煙雲，讓他在煙雲的遮掩下，安全地取出潔凈祭牲的血，彈向約櫃上的施恩座的上面、和前面（利十六13 – 18節）。

盡管香是會幕和聖殿敬拜的重要組成部分，但新約崇拜不再需要香。在新聖殿，即教會，舊的祭祀儀式已經被它所象征的眾聖徒的祈禱取代，（參閱啟五8；八3–4）。現在我們不再需要祭司作中保，將我們的禱告祈求帶給上帝，因為我們可以奉基督，我們的大祭司的名靠近上帝。祂不僅是我們的辯護者，更為我們的罪作了贖罪祭（約壹二2）。作為我們真正的大祭司，祂已經把自己的血帶到帳幕和聖殿所指向的在天上的原型，並將它應用於天上的施恩座，從而永遠潔凈祂的子民（來九11–14）。這就是我們能藉著基督，新約中保所灑的血，沒有恐懼，沒有香的煙雲遮掩，安全靠近上帝的原因（十二24）。正如希伯來書作者的總結那樣：「因此，我們既然領受了不能震動的國，就應該感恩，照著　神所喜悅的，用虔誠敬畏的心事奉他」（28節）。願我們每日的感恩禱告，像香一般，上升到上帝的面前。

本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌2017年十二月號  。

The Altar of Incense

by Iain Duguid

Many of the furnishings of the tabernacle had a functional purpose. The lampstand gave light in an otherwise dark enclosure, while the table provided a place on which to put the showbread. Meanwhile, the incense altar served the practical purpose of pleasantly scenting the air. These items were in many respects ordinary pieces of furniture, albeit made out of pure gold and richly ornamented as befitted the furniture of a king. All of the senses were ministered to by the daily priestly ritual: sight, smell, and taste were addressed through the lampstand, the incense altar, and the table of showbread, while hearing was ministered to by the bells on the high priest’s garments. The whole affair was designed as a rich multisensory experience for God—not because He has senses like ours, but as an acknowledgment of the goodness of each of the diverse senses He has given us. Only the very best of everything could possibly be good enough to offer to the Creator of the universe.

In addition to their practical usefulness and sensory attractiveness, the tabernacle furniture also served a multivalent symbolic role for God’s people. The seven lamps on the lampstand symbolized God’s blessing shining out upon the twelves loaves of showbread, which themselves represented the twelve tribes of Israel. The lampstand itself was a kind of miniature pillar of fire, memorializing God’s presence with His people in the wilderness. The incense altar formed a corresponding pillar of smoke to accompany the lampstand’s pillar of fire.

What is more, the smoke from the incense itself, constantly rising from the altar, came to symbolize the prayers of God’s people constantly ascending before the Lord. In the tabernacle, incense could only be offered by the priests, who thus served as mediators between the people and God, symbolically bringing their prayers into the presence of the Most High. This idea is expressed in Psalm 141:2, where David prays to the Lord, “Let my prayer be set before you as incense.” A notable breach in this protocol is recorded in 2 Chronicles, when King Azariah (also known as Uzziah) tried to enter the Holy Place and burn an incense offering on his own behalf, over the protests of the priests. In place of the elevated status he sought, he was struck with leprosy, which made him unclean and therefore unable to enter any part of the temple complex in the future (26:16–21).

The altar of incense was also connected with the sacrificial rituals of Israel. When a sin offering was required because of a failure on the part of the high priest, the blood of the offering was smeared on the horns of the incense altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 4:3–7). A sin offering for the community as a whole required a similar sacrifice, with the blood also being applied to the horns of the incense altar, while the blood was poured out at the less sacred altar of burnt offering (vv. 13–18). However, even these regular sin offerings were not sufficient to deal with the accumulated pollution caused by the people’s sin; in order to prevent the land from becoming unfit for divine habitation, the high priest had to enter the Holy of Holies once a year on the Day of Atonement. He carried with him a portable incense burner that would provide a protective cloud of smoke, under which he could safely take the blood of purification offerings and apply it to the mercy seat on top of the ark of the covenant (Lev. 16:12–13).

Although incense was an essential part of the worship of the tabernacle and temple, it is no longer required for new covenant worship. In the new temple, the church, the old priestly ritual has been replaced by what it symbolized, the prayers of the saints (see Rev. 5:8; 8:3–4). Now we no longer need priestly mediators to bring our prayers and petitions to God, for we may draw near in the name of Christ, our Great High Priest. He is not merely our advocate, however; He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins (1 John 2:2). As our true High Priest, He has taken His own blood into the heavenly archetype toward which the tabernacle and temple pointed and applied it to the heavenly mercy seat, thereby cleansing His people forever (Heb. 9:11–14). This is what enables us to approach God without fear, without a protective canopy of incense, safe through the sprinkled blood of Christ, who is the mediator of the new covenant (12:24). As the writer to the Hebrews sums it up, “Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe” (v. 28). May our thankful prayers rise daily before God like incense.

Dr. Iain Duguid is professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and founding pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church (ARP) in Glenside, Pa. He is author of Is Jesus in the Old Testament?

金燈台The Lampstand

作者: John D. Currid  譯者:  Maria Marta  

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2017/12/the-lampstand/

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106695469993489516884/posts/cNBEfi9hLda

金燈台是以色列會幕聖所內擺設的三件物件之一。上帝命令為聖所制作燈台的記載出現在出埃及記廿五章31–40節（也參卅七章17–24節）。燈台（lampstand）的希伯來文是menorah，源自一個動詞，其意思是「燃燒」。燈台此名字僅僅強調燈台的實用目的：為會幕聖所內工作的祭司提供光線。

在出埃及記廿五章40節，上帝告訴摩西，燈台要特別制造，要謹慎「照著在山上指示你的樣式去做」。事實上，整個聖所和它所有的擺設都要依照天上提供的樣式或設計圖來製造（9節）。會幕完全仿照某一模型來建造的。它就是天上的原型，即天上聖所的複制品。故此製造燈台的規範細節是上帝在西奈山直接交給摩西的。

燈台由純金制成，燈台的各個部分全部都是用固體金塊錘出來的。燈台的非連接配件，如燈剪和燈花盆，也都是純金做的。燈臺和它的所有配備必需用一「他連得」的純金制造（39節）。根據出埃及記卅八章24–31節的記載，一他連得大約等於三千舍客勒，或介乎五十三至七十九磅。

金燈台的設計：圍繞一條主幹，左右兩邊各伸出三根分支，連主幹共七根支幹。它看起來像一棵樹。事實上，金燈台的設計具有古代近東藝術裏的樹的繪畫的典型風格。在古代近東，繪畫藝術中的樹是生命、繁榮、與生產力的象征。對上帝的百姓而言，聖殿內的燭台具有相同的象征：生命和上帝賜給祂的百姓的祝福。而且燈台還提醒希伯來人那棵特別的樹。

如許多學者承認的那樣，帳幕/聖殿的計劃和設計是為了提醒敬拜者：伊甸園是聖所，亞當是祭司。在伊甸園-聖所的中間是生命樹。燈台不僅是生命樹的象征，更是上帝真正子民的永恒生命的象征。燈台不僅讓人回想起伊甸園的生命樹，而且它也預期啟示錄廿二章所記載的新天新地的生命樹。使徒約翰有一個異象，在新耶路撒冷的伊甸園聖所，有一道明亮如水晶的生命水的河流，從神和羊羔的寶座那裡流出來，經過城裡的街道。河的兩邊有生命樹……每月都結果子；樹葉可以醫治列國。（啟廿二1-2）

值得注意的是，燈台是一座有七個分支的燭台。在希伯來文化裏，數字七通常帶有完全和圓滿的概念，也許此數字指向安息日是上帝創造的圓滿這一觀念。因此，燈台也許是對敬拜者的提醒：上帝在七天創造周將第一道光帶入世界。對希伯來敬拜者而言，燈台不僅指向過去上帝的光闖入世界，而且在會幕的現今應用中，它也指向上帝光照盟約團體這完美之光。

對今天的信徒而言，燈台是敬拜的非必要物件，因為耶穌宣稱：「我是世界的光，跟從我的，必定不在黑暗裡走，卻要得著生命的光。」（約八12） 事實上，耶穌是「那光來到世界，是普照世人的真光。」（一9）    新耶路撒冷將不再需要燈台，因為「這城不需要日月照明，因為有　神的榮耀照明，而羊羔就是城的燈。」（啟一廿23）

最後，上帝在祂的律法中命令亞倫和他的子孫要「從晚上到早晨」料理燈台（出廿七21）。祭司每天都要履行這一職責，使燈常常點著（廿七20）。除了實用用途之外，連續性的燃燒象征上帝無止境的賜給祂的子民生命和光…….特別在耶穌基督的道成肉身和工作當中。

本譯文的聖經經文皆引自《聖經新譯本》

本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌2017年十二月號  。

The Lampstand

by John D. Currid

ne of the three objects to stand in the Holy Place of the tabernacle of Israel was the golden lampstand. God’s command to make a lampstand for the sanctuary appears in Exodus 25:31–40 ( see also 37:17–24). The Hebrew word for “lampstand” is menorah, and it derives from a verb that means “to flame.” The name menorah simply underscores the utilitarian purpose of the lampstand: it is to give light to the priests who work in the Holy Place of the tabernacle.

In Exodus 25:40, God told Moses that the menorah was to be made specially and specifically “after the pattern for them, which is being shown you on the mountain.” In fact, the entire sanctuary and all its furnishings were to be built based on the pattern or blueprint provided from above (see v. 9). The tabernacle in full was to be modeled on something else. It was to be a replica of a celestial archetype, that is, the heavenly sanctuary. So, the very specifications for the menorah were given by God directly to Moses on Mount Sinai.

The lampstand was to be made of pure gold, and all of its various parts were to be hammered out of one solid lump of gold. Unattached equipment for the menorah, such as tongs and trays, were also to be made of pure gold. The lampstand and all its accoutrements together were to be made out of one “talent” of pure gold (v. 39). According to Exodus 38:24–31, the talent equals about three thousand shekels, or between fifty-three and seventy-nine pounds.

The design of the golden lampstand was formed around a central trunk with three branches on each side, thus equaling seven branches in all. It looked like a tree. In fact, its design was typical of stylized trees depicted in ancient Near Eastern art. In the ancient Near East, the tree in art signified life, prosperity, and productivity. For the people of God, the menorah in the temple symbolized the same thing: the life and blessings that God had given to His people. But also, the lampstand was to remind the Hebrew people of a particular tree.

As many scholars have acknowledged, the tabernacle/temple was planned and designed to remind worshipers of the garden in Eden as a sanctuary with Adam as its priest. In the midst of the garden-sanctuary was the tree of life. The menorah was symbolic not only of life, but of eternal life for the true people of God. It not only looked back to the tree of life in the garden, but it also anticipated the tree of life that stands in the new heavens and the new earth in Revelation 22. There, in that Edenic sanctuary of the new Jerusalem, the Apostle John has a vision of

the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life . . . yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. (Rev. 22:1–2)

It is also significant to note that the menorah was a seven-branched candlestick. The number seven in Hebrew culture often carried the idea of completeness and wholeness, and it may be that the number was to point to the concept of Sabbath completion. As such, it may be a reminder of the seven-day creation week in which God brought the first light into the world. For the Hebrew worshiper, the lampstand thus pointed to the past when the light of God broke into the world, and in the tabernacle it had a present application of pointing to the perfect light that God shone on the covenant community.

For the believer today, the menorah is an unnecessary object for worship because Jesus proclaimed, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12). Indeed, Jesus is “the true light, which gives light to everyone” (1:9). And in the new Jerusalem, there will be no need of a menorah because “the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb” (Rev. 21:23).

Finally, the Lord in His law gave a command to Aaron and his sons to tend to the lampstand “from evening to morning” (Ex. 27:21). This duty was to be done daily by the priests so that the lamp would burn continuously in the tent of meeting (27:20). Apart from the utilitarian usage, the continuous nature of the burning symbolizes God’s everlasting giving of life and light to His people . . . especially in the incarnation and work of Jesus Christ.

Dr. John D. Currid is Carl McMurray Professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, N.C., and senior pastor at Ballantyne Presbyterian Church in Charlotte.

幔子TheCurtain

作者: Benjamin Shaw   譯者: Maria Marta

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2017/12/the-curtain/

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106695469993489516884/posts/K2Sod8Efgme

當初亞當和夏娃在伊甸園裡，活在上帝的面前，與上帝同行。在他們犯罪之後，被驅逐出伊甸園，與上帝的同在分離。基路伯手持旋轉發火燄的劍，把守伊甸園東邊，防止他們回來，迫使他們與上帝的同在分隔。

人可以向上帝獻祭，也可以向祂祈禱。但來到祂面前的道路仍然封閉。基路伯不再是看得見的，但卻仍然站崗守衛。這種分隔已存在数世代人之久。

上帝在西奈山上將法律賜予摩西，這部法律包括建造會幕的說明，和制作幔子或帕子的指令(出廿六30-35)。幔子的目的是分隔聖所和至聖所。聖所裡有燈台、陳設餅桌、香壇。至聖所裡有約櫃，約櫃上有施恩座的蓋住，施恩座的兩端是兩個在上帝的面前守衛的基路伯。這是上帝顯明祂可見的同在的地方，祂從這裏對摩西說話。

將聖所與至聖所隔開的幔子繡有基路伯，象徵著伊甸園東面的基路伯，擋住進入上帝同在的道路。但現在情況有了變化。絕對禁止進入上帝的同在不再那麽絕對了。曾經牢牢關閉的進入上帝同在的大門，現在開了一道裂縫。當然，這道裂縫很細小，但卻是一道真裂縫。一年一度，伴著滾滾冒出的熏香濃煙和祭牲的血，大祭司可以進入至聖所 (利十六)。他可以進入上帝的同在中。

只要受過適當教導的人都會知道這點。每逢七年的最後一年，律法必須在以色列眾人面前宣讀（申卅一9–13）。利未人在作教導工作時都會提到這些事。但對大多數人而言，這種變化似乎是可以忽略的。畢竟，它只影響到大祭司，況且只是一年一次。此外，隨著更多代人的逝去，沒有進一步的條例修改，以顯示任何可以預料的新發展。聖殿建好後，制造了繡有基路伯的新幔子，將至聖所隔開（歷下三14）。此外，聖殿的墻壁都雕刻著基路伯。除了大祭司每年一次進入至聖所外，再沒有人能第二次進入上帝的同在。

但先知預言的時代暗示「進一步改變」將會到來。以賽亞書廿五7節說「他又必在這山上，除滅遮蓋萬民之物和遮蔽萬國蒙臉的帕子。」 遮蓋與帕子非同一個字。然而，主的聖山與人們對主到來的熱切期望的聯系，至少暗示有進一步的改變，一個非常顯著的改變。

緊接著是沈默時期。之後，耶穌在地上事工臨近結束時，在祂死的那一刻，聖所裡的幔子從上到下裂成兩半。 三本對觀福音書（馬太福音、馬可福音、路加福音）都包含這個見證。奇怪、奇異、奇妙的事情發生了。 進入上帝臨在的道路再次打通。對觀福音書提供事實，希伯來書的作者則解釋發生的事件。

首先，我們讀到耶穌親自進入到幔子後面。（來六19）  祂以我們的大祭司的身份進去。作為會幕和聖殿的大祭司，耶穌進了至聖所。然而，這至聖所不僅代表聖殿的至聖所------更是天上真正的至聖所。祂在那裏錨定我們的盼望。

此外，耶穌不像舊約時期的大祭司，暫時進入至聖所。相反，祂只一次進了至聖所(來九11-12)。也就是說，祂為祂的子民一次永遠的進入至聖所，永不離開。 

最後，希伯來書的作者告訴我們，藉著耶穌的血，我們也進入至聖所（十19–20）。聖經告訴我們，幔子代表基督的身體。隨著祂血液的流出，幔子被撕裂。進入上帝同在的道路已經恢復。手持帶火焰的劍，把守道路的基路伯已被撤除。亞當所失去的在基督裡得到恢復。榮耀唯獨歸於上帝。

本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌2017年十二月號  。

The Curtain

by Benjamin Shaw

hen Adam and Eve were in the garden, they were in the direct presence of God. After their transgression, they were driven out, separated from God’s presence. Cherubim with a flaming sword were stationed on the east of the garden to prevent their return and to enforce the separation from God’s presence. Men could sacrifice to God. They could pray to Him. But the way into His presence remained closed. The cherubim, no longer visible, remained on guard. For generations, this separation remained in place.

When Moses was given the law on Mount Sinai, that law included instructions for building the tabernacle. Included were directions for making a curtain or veil (Ex. 26:30–35). The purpose of this curtain was to divide between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place. In the Holy Place were the lampstand, the table for the bread of the presence, and the altar of incense. In the Most Holy Place was the ark of the covenant, covered by the mercy seat, on which were two cherubim guarding the presence of God. This was the place where God made His presence visible and from where He spoke to Moses.

The veil that divided the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place was embroidered with cherubim, representing the cherubim to the east of Eden, keeping mankind away from the presence of God. But a change took place. The absolute prohibition on entering God’s presence now became not so absolute. The door into the presence of God that had been so firmly slammed shut at Eden now opened a crack. It was a very small crack, to be sure, but it was a real crack. Now the high priest, once a year, accompanied by the billowing smoke of incense and the blood of sacrifices, could enter the Most Holy Place (Lev. 16). He could enter the place of God’s presence.

The people would have known about this if they were properly instructed. The law was to be read before the people every seven years (Deut. 31:9–13). The Levites would have mentioned such things in their instructional work among the people. But for most, the change would have seemed negligible. After all, it only affected the high priest, and only once a year. In addition, as more generations passed, there was no further change in the statutes to indicate that any new development could be expected. When the temple was built, a new veil embroidered with cherubim and setting apart the Most Holy Place was made  (2 Chron. 3:14). In addition, the walls of the temple were adorned with cherubim. Except for the high priest, once a year, there was no entering the presence of God.

But the prophetic era hinted that further change would come. Isaiah 25:7 says, “And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations.” The word “covering” is not the same as the word “veil.” However, the connection with the holy mountain of the Lord and the eager expectation of the people for the coming of the Lord at least hint at a further change, a very significant change.

Again, a period of silence ensued. Then, at the very end of Jesus’ ministry, at the very point of His death, the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. This testimony is included in all three of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Something strange, marvelous, and wonderful happened. The way into God’s presence was once again opened. The Synoptic Gospels present the fact, while the author of Hebrews explains what happened.

First, we read that Jesus Himself has gone in behind the veil, the curtain (Heb. 6:19). He has entered as our High Priest. As the High Priest in the tabernacle and the temple, Jesus entered the Most Holy Place. However, it was not just the representative Most Holy Place of the temple—it was the true Most Holy Pace in heaven. There He has gone to anchor our hope.

Further, Jesus did not enter the Most Holy Place temporarily, as did the high priests of the Old Testament period. Instead, He entered once for all (9:11–12). That is, He entered once for all for His people, and He entered permanently, never to exit.

Finally, the author of Hebrews tells us that we, too, enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus (10:19–20). We are also told that the curtain represented the body of Christ. With the shedding of His blood, that curtain was torn. The way into the presence of God has been restored. The guarding cherubim with the flashing sword have been removed. What was lost in Adam has been regained in Christ. Soli Deo gloria.

Dr. Benjamin Shaw is academic dean and associate professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Greenville, S.C. He is a contributor to Did God Create in Six Days?

銅濯盆TheBronze Basin

作者: Justin E. Estrada  譯者:  Maria Marta  

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2017/12/the-bronze-basin/

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106695469993489516884/posts/XpkkxyPsgdm

當以色列敬拜者進入會幕和聖殿的庭院，各種景象、聲音、氣味便襲面而來。祭司在上帝面前事奉，要忙碌不停地活動，參與者對這毋容置疑的事實一定心有感觸：執行獻祭制度是繁瑣雜亂的事。罪破壞人與上帝的關系，帶來道德上的汙穢，祭師聖衣和身體上的血與汙垢的混合便是罪的汙穢的生動象征。

然而以色列的聖者在庭院中央設置了一些器皿，亞倫和他的後裔借著這些器皿在儀式上的得到潔凈，並將他們自己分別出來，因為他們要代表以色列參與人類生存最基本和最重要的構成部分：敬拜。這些器皿就是會幕的銅濯盆和聖殿的銅海。

出埃及記記錄了有關建造銅濯盆的稀疏細節（出卅十17–21）。主耶和華委任摩西用銅制造器皿及其支撐架，但祂沒有規定濯盆的尺寸。相反，祂強調濯盆的位置和用途：置於前庭內會幕和祭壇中間，供亞倫和他的子孫在進入帳幕或在祭壇上服事前清洗手腳用。

上帝的警告如下：「他們要洗手洗腳，免得死」 (21節)。這項禁令顯示濯盆的主要目的。祭壇和會幕是重要的連接-----祭師藉著它們，整個以色列民族藉著他們的中保(中間人)------進入聖潔的上帝的同在當中。上帝臨在，人只有兩種選擇：因玷汙死亡，或藉著潔凈敬拜。藉著水的洗滌，主耶和華提供了讓祭師能在儀式上得潔凈的可再次使用的器皿，好叫他們能夠在祂面前事奉。

雖然銅濯盆的形狀作了改變，目的是與錫安山聖殿的榮耀相稱，但作為儀式凈化器皿的主要功能仍未改變。按照啟示給大衛的指令 (歷上廿八19) ，所羅門鑄造了一個巨大的濯盆：熔海。這個熔海超過七英尺深，直徑十五英尺，容納一萬加侖水，銅海的邊緣「形狀像百合花」，邊緣以下有兩行匏瓜圍繞著 (王上七23-26)。銅海由四組銅牛，每一組三頭支撐，銅牛分別面向北，西，南，東方向。

再一次，聖經作者的注意力更少集中在細節上，更多的集中在象征意義和目的上。耶和華「榮耀聖潔，可頌可畏」，像一只野牛(民廿四8) 踐踏所有屬肉體和形而上學的敵人，在錫安建立祂在地上的避難所(出十五13，17)，並為祂的敬拜制訂條例。當見證人驚嘆熔海所代表的上帝聖潔的大能和純潔時，無數人必定與大衛在詩篇十五中的說話產生共鳴：「耶和華啊，誰能寄居你的帳幕？誰能住在你的聖山？」 (1節)

大衛對自己的問題的回答-----「就是行為正直，做事公義，心裡說實話的人」 (第2節)-------表明銅濯盆的功能超過普通清洗。它們預示一個更大的事實：進入上帝的同在要求道德純潔。主耶和華為亞倫和他的後裔的事奉所預備的潔凈儀式，能使他們分別為聖，但卻不能除凈他們的罪。相反，他們不斷的清洗強調了他們的汙穢，他們無法克服汙穢，而上帝用忍耐的心寬容他們的罪(羅三25)， 直到祂差派另一位像麥基洗德那樣的大祭司，即「聖潔、沒有邪惡、沒有玷汙、從罪人中分別出來」的那一位，來處理汙穢 (來七26) 。這位沒有瑕疵的大祭司，耶穌，為教會捨己，為的是要用水藉著道把教會洗淨，成為聖潔，可以作榮耀的教會歸給自己，甚麼汙點皺紋等也沒有，而是聖潔沒有瑕疵的。（弗五25-27)

一勞永逸的洁凈-----洗禮所表徵的-----表現在：敗壞的罪人悔改自己的罪，憑信心接受上帝在耶穌裡應驗的，和在祂的聖言裡宣告的應許，並與祂聯合。藉著這種聯合，信徒打破舊的生活方式，開始一個成聖的過程，漸漸呈現出他們救主的品格，救主確保成聖過程的完成、並為他們預備一個永遠與聖潔的上帝同在的地方。

本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌2017年十二月號  。

The Bronze Basin

by Justin E. Estrada

s Israelite worshipers entered the courtyards of the tabernacle and the temple, various sights, sounds, and smells assaulted them. Out of the constant activity of the priests as they ministered before the Lord, an unmistakable reality must have struck the participants: the institution of sacrifice was a messy enterprise. Sin had created a breach in mankind’s relationship with God and brought moral defilement, symbolized vividly in the intermingling of blood and dirt on the priests’ garments and bodies.

Yet, in the midst of the courtyards, the Holy One of Israel stationed instruments by which Aaron and his descendants might ceremonially cleanse and consecrate themselves as they represented Israel in the most fundamental and important component of human existence: worship. These vessels were the bronze basin of the tabernacle and the molten sea of the temple.

The book of Exodus records sparse details concerning the construction of the bronze basin (Ex. 30:17–21). The Lord commissions Moses to manufacture the vessel and its stand from bronze, but He does not prescribe dimensions for the basin. Instead, He emphasizes its location and function: in a vestibule between the tabernacle and the altar, to be used by Aaron and his sons for washing their hands and feet before entering the tent or ministering at the altar.

A warning follows: “They shall wash their hands and their feet, so that they may not die” (v. 21). This injunction reveals the primary purpose of the basin. The altar and the tent of meeting serve as the nexus through which the priests—and by virtue of their mediation, the entirety of Israel—enter into the presence of a holy God. In His presence, only two options emerge: death from defilement or worship through purity. Through the washing of water, the Lord provided renewable means by which the priests could undergo ritual purification so that they might minister in His presence.

While the form of the bronze basin underwent alterations befitting the glory of the temple on Mount Zion, its primary function as a means for ritual purification remained unchanged. Following instructions revealed to David (1 Chron. 28:19), Solomon cast a monumental bronze structure: the molten sea. A basin more than seven feet deep, with a diameter of fifteen feet, and holding more than ten thousand gallons of water, this receptacle featured a brim “like the flower of a lily” and two encircling rows of gourds (1 Kings 7:23–26). Four sets of three bronze oxen each supported the sea, each set facing toward a different direction of the compass.

The biblical authors again focus less on details and more on symbolism and purpose. Like a wild ox (Num. 24:8), the Lord, “majestic in holiness,” had trampled all physical and metaphysical enemies, established His terrestrial sanctuary on Zion (Ex. 15:13, 17), and prescribed regulations for His worship. As witnesses marveled at the power and purity of God’s holiness represented by the molten sea, many people must have echoed David’s words from Psalm 15: “O Lord, who shall sojourn in your tent? Who shall dwell on your holy hill?” (v. 1).

David’s response to his own question—“He who walks blamelessly and does what is right and speaks truth in his heart” (v. 2)—demonstrates that the basin offered more than ordinary rinsing. They signaled a greater reality: entry into God’s presence demanded moral purity. The Lord’s provision of a purification ritual consecrated Aaron and his descendants for service but did not purge them of their sin. On the contrary, their constant washing emphasized their defilement, their inability to overcome it, and God’s forbearance of punishment for their sins (Rom. 3:25) until the time when He would commission another high priest in the likeness of Melchizedek, one “holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners” (Heb. 7:26), to deal with defilement. This blameless High Priest, Jesus,

gave himself up for her [the church], that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. (Eph. 5:25–27)

The once-and-for-all washing—signified by baptism—occurs as defiled sinners repent of their sins, in faith receive God’s promises fulfilled in Jesus and proclaimed in His Word, and become joined to Him. Through this union, believers break with their old lives and begin a process of sanctification in which they take on the qualities of their Savior, who will ensure its completion and a place for them forever in the presence of a holy God.

Justin E. Estrada is a former associate editor of Tabletalk magazine. He has degrees from the University of Pennsylvania, Reformed Theological Seminary (Jackson), and the University of Oxford.

基督徒必須相信童女生子嗎？MustChristians Believe in the Virgin Birth?

作者: Albert Mohler    翻譯: Maria Marta

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/must-christians-believe-virgin-birth/

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106695469993489516884/posts/iFwYP3UqGoz

12月25日轉瞬而至，世俗媒體肯定再一次將興趣轉到童女生子這議題上。每年聖誕節，各地新聞周刊和各種主編都會異口同聲地哀嘆：太多美國人相信這種不科學、超自然的教義。對一些人而言，相信耶穌基督是童女所生，無異於證實自己的理智模糊不清。《紐約時報》的一位作家坦白地慨嘆：「童女生子的信仰反映了隨著時間的推移，美國基督教變得更智力低下和更加神秘的狀況。」

相信童女生子導致基督徒「智力低下」嗎？ 我們承擔著一項站不住腳的教義嗎？ 一個真基督徒可以否認童女生子，又或者這項教義是聖經啟示給我們的福音的一個重要構成部分嗎？

在歷史批判出現，和隨後不可避免的聖經權威被削弱之後,   童女生子是首批被質疑，後又遭拒絕的教義之一。批評者聲稱，既然這項教義「只」在四本福音書中的兩本裡教導，那麼它必定是選擇性的。他們論證,  使徒保羅在他的使徒行傳裡的講道中沒有提及童女生子，因此他一定不相信它。除此之外，批評家們還論證這項教義正是這樣的超自然。現代異教徒，如已退休的聖公會主教謝爾比朋（John Shelby Spong）論證這項教義只不過是早期教會聲稱基督的神性的證據。比朋告訴我們，童女生子是「神話的開頭」與復活的「神話的結局」相呼應而已。但願比朋之說是一個神話。

現在，甚至一些修正主義福音派學者（revisionist evangelicals）也聲稱，相信童女生子是不必要的。他們論證，神跡具有永恒的意義，但這一項教義的歷史真相是不重要的。

成為基督徒,  必須相信童女生子嗎？可以想像，有人可能來到基督的面前，相信基督是救主，但還沒有了解基督是童女所生的聖經教導。一個新信徒還未清楚認識基督信仰的整體架構而已。但真正的問題是：一個曾经知道聖經教導的基督徒，可以拒絕童女生子嗎？答案必然是否定的。 

馬太福音告訴我們，馬利亞和約瑟「還沒有成親」，馬利亞「就從聖靈懷了孕」（太一18）。馬太福音對此的解釋是，以賽亞的應許得著應驗：「必有童女懷孕生子，他的名要叫以馬內利」,   翻譯出來是「神與我們同在」的意思（太一23，賽九6-7）。

路加福音甚至提供更具體的細節，顯示一位到訪的天使向馬利亞解釋, 她雖然是童女，但將懷有神聖的兒子：「聖靈要臨到你，至高者的能力要覆庇你，因此那將要出生的聖者，必稱為　神的兒子。」（路一35）

那怕只有一段聖經段落教導童女生子，亦足以讓所有基督徒有相信的義務。我們沒有權利以聖經中童女生子的重覆次數來衡量聖經教導的真實性。我們不能聲稱相信聖經是上帝的聖言，一轉過身，就懷疑它的教導。

埃裏克（Millard Erickson）的說明非常精辟「盡管聖經斷言童女生子的事實,   但我們若不堅持這一事實,   我們便妥協了聖經的權威，原則上我們沒有理由為何要堅持其他的教導。因此，拒絕童女生子所產生的影響遠遠超出教義本身的範圍。」

的確影響深遠。倘若耶穌不是童女所生，誰是祂的父親？沒有答案會讓福音完整無缺。童女生子解釋基督如何成為即神又人，祂如何是無罪的，和整個救贖之工是上帝恩慈的行動。倘若耶穌不是童女所生，祂就有一個人類父親。倘若耶穌不是童女所生，聖經便在教導謊言。

福音派神學家兼院長卡爾（Carl F. H. Henry）论证,   童女生子是「絕對必要的，道成肉身的歷史迹象不僅類比道成肉身的神性和人性，而且也顯明上帝拯救工作的本質、目的, 和意義。」  說得好，信得穩固。

國家新聞雜志和報紙最世俗的編輯可能發現，美國基督徒當中的智力遲鈍的證據，就是相信童女生子。但童女生子是教會的信仰，建立在上帝完美的聖言之上，被古往今來的真教會珍愛。那些否認童女生子的人承認其他教義只是憑一時的興致，因為他們已經放棄聖經的權威。他們削弱了基督的本性,   廢棄了道成肉身的信仰。

基督徒務必面對一個事實，即否認童女生子就是否認耶穌是基督。為我們的罪受死的救主不是別人，正是聖靈感孕,  由童貞女所生的嬰孩。童女生子不是因為聖經教義而得以站立，它是聖經關於基督的位格和工作的啟示缺不能削減的一部分。福音站立或跌倒,  全憑這教義。

我們務必要知道：所有找到救恩的人都是藉著耶穌基督贖罪的工作得救。少於這真理就不是基督信仰，不管它自我宣稱什麼。一個基督徒不會否認童女生子。

本譯文所引用的經文均出自聖經新譯本。

本文原刊于Tabletalk雜誌。 

Must Christians Believe in the Virgin Birth?

FROM Albert Mohler With December 25 fast approaching, the secular media are sure to turn their interest once again to the virgin birth. Every Christmas, weekly news magazines and various editorialists engage in a collective gasp that so many Americans could believe such an unscientific, supernatural doctrine. For some, the belief that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin is nothing less than evidence of intellectual dimness. One writer for the New York Times put the lament plainly: “The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time.”

Does belief in the virgin birth make Christians “less intellectual?” Are we saddled with an untenable doctrine? Can a true Christian deny the virgin birth, or is the doctrine an essential component of the Gospel revealed to us in Scripture?

The doctrine of the virgin birth was among the first to be questioned and then rejected after the rise of historical criticism and the undermining of biblical authority that inevitably followed. Critics claimed that since the doctrine is taught in “only” two of the four Gospels, it must be optional. The apostle Paul, they argued, did not mention it in his sermons in Acts, so he must not have believed it. Besides, the critics argued, the doctrine is just so supernatural. Modern heretics like retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong argue the doctrine was just evidence of the early church’s over-claiming of Christ’s deity. It is, Spong tells us, the “entrance myth” to go with the resurrection, the “exit myth.” If only Spong were a myth.

Now, even some revisionist evangelicals claim that belief in the virgin birth is unnecessary. The meaning of the miracle is enduring, they argue, but the historical truth of the doctrine is not important.

Must one believe in the virgin birth to be a Christian? It is conceivable that someone might come to Christ and trust Christ as Savior without yet learning the Bible teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. A new believer is not yet aware of the full structure of Christian truth. The real question is this: Can a Christian, once aware of the Bible’s teaching, reject the virgin birth? The answer must be no.

Matthew tells us that before Mary and Joseph “came together,” Mary “was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 1:18). This, Matthew explains, fulfilled what Isaiah promised: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name ‘Immanuel,’ which translated means ‘God with Us’” (Matt. 1:23, Isaiah 9:6-7).

Luke provides even greater detail, revealing Mary was visited by an angel who explained that she, though a virgin, would bear the divine child: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy child shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35).

Even if the virgin birth was taught by only one biblical passage, that would be sufficient to obligate all Christians to the belief. We have no right to weigh the truthfulness of biblical teachings by their repetition in Scripture. We cannot claim to believe the Bible is the Word of God and then turn around and cast suspicion on its teaching.

Millard Erickson states this well: “If we do not hold to the virgin birth despite the fact that the Bible asserts it, then we have compromised the authority of the Bible and there is in principle no reason why we should hold to its other teachings. Thus, rejecting the virgin birth has implications reaching far beyond the doctrine itself.”

Implications, indeed. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, who was His father? There is no answer that will leave the Gospel intact. The virgin birth explains how Christ could be both God and man, how He was without sin, and that the entire work of salvation is God’s gracious act. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, He had a human father. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, the Bible teaches a lie.

Carl F. H. Henry, the dean of evangelical theologians, argues that the virgin birth is the “essential, historical indication of the Incarnation, bearing not only an analogy to the divine and human natures of the Incarnate, but also bringing out the nature, purpose, and bearing of this work of God to salvation.” Well said, and well believed.

The secularist editors of the nation’s news magazines and newspapers may find belief in the virgin birth to be evidence of intellectual backwardness among American Christians. But this is the faith of the church, established in God’s perfect Word, and cherished by the true church throughout the ages. Those who deny the virgin birth affirm other doctrines only by force of whim, for they have already surrendered the authority of Scripture. They have undermined Christ’s nature and nullified the incarnation.

Christians must face the fact that a denial of the virgin birth is a denial of Jesus as the Christ. The Savior who died for our sins was none other than the baby who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of a virgin. The virgin birth does not stand alone as a biblical doctrine, it is an irreducible part of the biblical revelation about the person and work of Jesus Christ. With it, the Gospel stands or falls.

This much we know: All those who find salvation will be saved by the atoning work of Jesus the Christ, the virgin-born Savior. Anything less than this is just not Christianity, whatever it may call itself. A Christian will not deny the virgin birth.

This post was originally published in Tabletalk magazine.

论婴儿洗礼的合法性

本文摘译自赫尔曼 巴文克的《改革宗教义神学》第四卷《圣灵，教会和新造》

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/hrH6VReAg14WkRhp-N54EA

https://plus.google.com/u/3/105106813742373627205/posts/5EJC7Ppfrqi

婴儿洗礼的合法性唯独取决于圣经如何看待信徒的儿女，并因此希望我们如何看待他们。如果圣经以同样的方式论及这些孩子和成人信徒，那么施行婴儿洗礼的责任就已被确立了。因为我们给予成人的，我们也不能禁止不给予孩子。因此，与成人洗礼的情形相比，我们对于婴儿洗礼的情形所要求的既不能多也不能少。根据圣经，对于成人洗礼的情形，当某人告白了自己的信仰，我们就认为也必须认为这人符合了条件。我们绝不能完全确定受洗者不是假冒为善而非法领受了圣礼，我们没有权利判断。“教会不判断人内心的隐情”。这对于婴儿洗礼的情形也是真实的。那些想拥有绝对确定性的人永远都不能施行圣礼了。问题仅仅是：我们将信徒之孩子视为信徒的确定性与将做信仰告白之成人视为信徒的确定性是否相同。我们不需要也不可苛求别的或者更强的确定性。圣经对于上面所提出的问题给出了清晰的答案。

1

首先，新约圣经没有明确提及婴儿洗礼，我们对于这一事实不必吃惊。这一事实可以解释为：在新约开始的时代，成人的洗礼是常规，而婴儿的洗礼（如果确实施行了）则是特例。这是一个基督教会刚刚被建立、因犹太教徒和异教徒归信基督而扩展的时期。这种转变在洗礼中非常准确清楚地反映了出来。因此，成人洗礼是最初的洗礼；婴儿洗礼是引申出来的；前者不应服于后者，但后者应服于前者。婴儿洗礼不因其未被圣经明确提及而丧失其合法性，也不像天主教所主张的那样需要传统来支持。因为通过合理推断从圣经中引申出的真理与圣经中明确陈述的真理具有同样的约束力。这是教会在侍奉神的话、生活操练和教义的发展中每时每刻所行的。教会从不停留于字据，而是在圣灵的引导下，从圣经引申出相关的结论和应用，如此才使教会的生活和发展成为可能，并使之得到栽培。从成人洗礼引申到婴儿洗礼时，教会也是如此做的。圣经指出了洗礼可以且必须被施行时的一般准则，教会则在生活的处境中具体地应用此准则。圣经不必在某处言及婴儿可以受洗。当圣经看待婴儿与看待达到告白信仰程度的成人的方式一样时，圣经说得已经足够了，且圣经从未提及为基督徒父母所生的成人儿女施洗。

2

在旧约，割礼施行在出生第八天的男婴身上。根据西2：11-12，这个割礼被洗礼取代了。无论如何，尽管歌罗西信徒是外邦基督徒，但他们和犹太人一样被割礼了。他们受割礼了，并不是人手所作的肉身的割礼，而是脱去肉体情欲和整个犯罪本性的割礼。靠着基督本身因罪经历死亡这样的割礼，当他们在洗礼中与基督同埋葬同复活时，他们在基督里接受了割礼。基督的死是对罪的完全脱离和彻底胜利，因此完全实现了割礼的意义，通过基督的死，旧约的割礼已被废止，并在洗礼中实现了它所代表的。因此，洗礼超越割礼，不是在本质上，而是在程度上。割礼向前指向基督的死；洗礼向后指向基督的死。基督的死终止了前者，开启了后者。然而，如果作为恩典之约印记的割礼必须施行在孩子身上，同样的原则更适用于洗礼，因为洗礼在恩典上不是比割礼更穷乏，而是比割礼更丰盛。旧约的这个圣礼只能施行在男人身上，而新约的这个圣礼也施行在女人身上，这表明了洗礼在恩典上更丰盛。甚至反对婴儿洗礼者也在这方面意识到洗礼更丰盛的恩典。对于人类而言，我们知道罪带有肉体的特征。罪在肉体中显露自己且在肉体中运行，尤其在生育器官中展现它的势力。割礼使人注意到这个事实，正如生完孩子之妇女的不洁所表明的。但基督的死是真正的割礼，通过基督的死，基督除掉了所有罪，也把粘于生育的罪除掉了。基督使女人处于和祂独立的关系中。祂使女人与男人一样充足地分享祂的恩典。在基督里不再有男女的分别，所以两者在洗礼中与基督一同埋葬，复活进入新的生命。最后，新约圣礼更丰盛的恩典也在如下的事实中显而易见：旧约的割礼直到孩子出生第八天才可以施行（在此之前他们还处于母亲的不洁中），而新约时代孩子有权在他们出生之时受洗，因为从他们刚出现的那一刻他们就与基督的恩典有份。

3

旧约将孩子视为圣约（covenant）中的参与者，割礼并不是是此看法唯一的证据。这种看法紧紧伴随着圣约的整体性观念。毕竟，圣约与拣选有区别，原因在于圣约展现了拣选是如何以一个具有有机性和历史性的途径实现的。圣约绝不是仅仅与一个人立的，而且也是在这个人里同时与这人的后代立的。圣约绝不是仅仅在抽象的层面上包含信徒本人，而是包含生存于现实历史中的他们，因此也包含属于他们的一切。圣约不仅接纳了他们个人，也接纳了他们作为父亲或母亲的身份，以及他们的家庭、财物、地位及权柄等等。

特别地，儿女被视为是与他们联系在一起的。父母和儿女在罪和愁苦上有一种联合。但与这种联合相比，神也确立了父母和孩子在恩典及祝福上的联合。儿女是从主而来的祝福和产业（诗篇127：3）。他们总是与他们的父母一起被数算和接纳。他们兴盛是在一起（出20：6；申1：36，39；4：40；5：29；12：25，28）。他们侍奉主是在一起（申6：2；30：2；31：12-13；书24：15；耶32：39；结37：25；亚10：9）。父母必须把神的律例和典章传递给孩子（出10：2；12：24，26；申4：9-10，40；6：7；11：19；29：29；书4：6，21；22：24-27）。神的圣约及圣约中的恩惠与福分因从子孙传到子孙、从这代传到下代而长存（创9：12；17：7，9；出3：15；12：17；16：32；申7：9；诗篇105：8等等）。尽管恩典不是自动继承的，但作为通则恩典是沿着族谱而赐下的。“对于信徒的婴儿来说，他们对救恩最先和最重要的进入恰恰是他们由信主的父母而生这一事实。”（T.Beza）

4

这观点延续到新约中。像约翰一样，基督带着“你们当悔改，信福音”的信息而出现。祂受了约翰的洗礼，因而公开传扬：虽然犹太人受了割礼，他们仍需要悔改和赦免。差异逐渐变得如此巨大以至于耶稣对犹太人不再有所期待，犹太人反过来拒绝了祂并把祂钉在十字架上。尽管如此，耶稣仍然继续将他们的儿女视为圣约的后裔（太18：2；19：13；21：15-16；可10：13；路9：48；18：15）。祂把他们叫到自己身边，拥抱他们，按手在他们身上，为他们祝福，告诉他们天国是他们的，把他们作为成人的榜样，警告后者不要使他们跌倒，并且说他们的使者照顾他们，将他们的颂赞视为成全了预言：神从婴孩的口中建立了能力，使恨祂的人闭口无言，从他们的口中完全了赞美的话。

5

使徒们继续同样的观点。与以色列所立的恩典之约，在本质上保持不变，虽然它在施行上改变了。教会（ekklhsia）代替了旧约的以色列。教会就是神的百姓，神是教会的神和父（太1：21；路1：17；徒3：25；罗9：25-26；11：16-21；林后6：16-18；加3：14-29；弗2：12-13；多2：14；来8：8-10；彼前2：9；启21：3）。因此，和旧约的情况一样，今天信徒的儿女也被接纳在神子民之列。毕竟，新约的教会不是个人的集合，而是一个有机体、一个身体、一个殿，同样作为一个族类，取代了以色列。既然原来橄榄树上的几根枝子被折下来，那么，他们作为野橄榄枝子被嫁接到同样的橄榄树干上，一同得着根的肥汁（罗11：16-17）。因此，时常整个家庭皈依基督教。这个家庭本身是神的一个单元，一个有机的整体，同享祝福或同受咒诅。耶稣的门徒将平安带入他们所进入的家庭（路10：5），且当撒该相信时，耶稣亲口说救恩临到了他的家（路19：9）。使徒们不仅在殿中教导，也不停地在百姓的家中宣讲基督的福音（徒5：42；20：20）。和家长一起，整个家庭得救（徒11：14；16：31）。整个家庭相信且受洗（16：15，34；18：8；林前1：16）。

诚然，没有证据证明婴儿洗礼早先为使徒们施行，但我们也不能因圣经没有记载此事就得出相反的结论。由婴儿洗礼的早期介绍、婴儿洗礼从起初被看作常识以及奥利金的见证推断，婴儿洗礼可能甚至很有可能早已是使徒所施行的。此外，彼得说神要做信徒和他们后代的神这个旧约的应许传递到新约时期（徒2：39）。诚然，这首先应用到犹太人身上，当彼得“一切在远方的人”时，他才提到外邦人。但这不改变这个事实：归信基督的犹太人不仅为他们自己也为他们的儿女接受了圣约的应许。根据整个新约圣经，成为信徒的外邦人享有同样的特权，在每一个方面都不次于犹太人中的信徒。根据保罗（林前7：14），父母双方只要有一个信徒，这个家庭的儿女都是圣洁的。如果这种情况发生了，信主的一方不可以认为自己不能继续这个婚姻。正相反，由于夫妻一方的信仰，整个婚姻，甚至另一方都是圣洁的。保罗辩论说“否则，此婚姻下的儿女就不洁净了，但如今他们是圣洁的”，以此为论据证实这点。由此可知，“父母双方只要有一个信徒，这个家庭的儿女都是圣洁的”这个观点就是已经确立的，普遍接受的，所以才作为一个论据。父母有一方是信主的家庭的孩子被纳入教会，是根据信主的一方，即使信主的一方是妇女也是如此。在这样一个家庭中，是基督教信仰为它定下了基调。基督教信仰是整个家庭被判断的准则。信仰是最重要的条件，遮掩了不足轻重的条件。

保罗在这里提及的圣洁不能被看作主观的和内在的圣洁，而是作为一种客观的、神权治理的圣洁，因为否则的话，儿女（丈夫）就不再因信主之母亲（妻子）的缘故是圣洁的，而是因他们自己的缘故是圣洁的。保罗在这里并不是关心婴儿洗礼，也不是为婴儿洗礼找根据。他唯一的关注是证明基督教信仰并不取消生活的自然法则，而是巩固并圣化它们。然而，这节经文对婴儿洗礼是重要的，因为它教导我们整个家庭都是根据信主一方的信仰而被看待的。信主的人不仅自己蒙召侍奉主，也要用自己所有的一切以及自己的全家侍奉主。因为这个缘故，信主之人的儿女被使徒们看作主里的基督徒儿女而劝诫（徒26：22；弗6：1；西3：20；提后3：15；约壹2：13）。还有，最小的要认识主（来8：11；启11：18；19：5），且在主的宝座前有他们的位置（启20：12）。圣经从未提及中立的养育——这种中立的养育试图让孩子在较大的年龄做出一个完全自由和独立的抉择（Council of Trent, sess,VII,”De bapt.,” ch.14）。信徒的儿女既不是外邦人，也不是魔鬼的儿女仍需要在他们的洗礼中被洁净——如罗马天主教和路德宗所持的观点，而是圣约的儿女，所应许给他们的和给成人的是一样多。他们被纳入圣约中，是圣洁的，不是本性的（伯14：4；诗篇51：5；约3：6；弗2：3），而是因为圣约的缘故。

6

所有这一切更令人叹服，因为恩典——尤其在新约施行时期——远比罪丰盛（罗5：12-21）。如果拒绝婴儿洗礼仅仅因为圣经中没有明确的吩咐，应该宽容地对此加以责备。但通常而言，拒绝婴儿洗礼完全是与其它的原因紧密关联的，且源于对恩典的限制和对基督教大公性的不认同。重洗派（除非它否认原罪且认为重生对于婴儿而言是不必要的）因为孩子尚未达到对神创造时已立定之律法和诫命形成判断力的年龄，就为婴儿时期的恩典设了界限。然而，恩典没有界限。在旧约时期，恩典在一定意义上限制在以色列民族内，但在这个民族中恩典是尽可能广阔地延伸。在新约中所有的界限包括民族、国家、性别和年龄都完全抹去了。不再有男人和女人，犹太人和希腊人，婴儿和老年人的区别，在基督里都是新的创造。天父爱世人：基督是整个世界的挽回祭，也为婴儿流出了祂的血；并且，将耶稣感孕在玛利亚腹中的圣灵在耶利米和约翰开始存在的那一刻也赐给了他们（诗篇22：9-10），圣灵可以到达每一个心灵，在这方面不因年龄或年幼而被拦阻。正如婴儿是在他们不知情时就已在亚当里被定罪了，同样他们也是在不知情时，在基督里被接入恩典中。虽然他们不能实际地（actually）相信基督，但他们可以被重生并由此领受相信的能力。

7

所有这些因素证明了婴儿洗礼的合法性及其责任。因为如果信徒的儿女必须按照圣经所教导我们看待他们的那样被看待，那么，根据神设立的洗礼，他们和做出信仰告白的成人一样，甚至比成人更有资格领受这一圣礼。当然，对于这两种情况，我们都不能获得绝对的确定性。我们对教会老年信徒内心的判断不会比对婴儿内心的判断更准确。对于只能从外面进行判断的我们来说，唯一能做的是宽松的判断（a judgment of charity）。根据这样的判断，我们将做出信仰告白的人视为信徒并给他们施行圣礼。根据同样的判断，我们将信徒的婴儿本身看作信徒，因为他们是在与他们的父母一起被纳入恩典之约中。就受洗的人而论，婴儿是真信徒的可能性甚至比成人的可能性更大。因为不但洗礼意义的弱化、教会惩戒的忽视、传统沉闷的气势潜入浸礼的教会，与潜入施行婴儿洗礼的教会同样容易，而且几乎一半人在他们尚未达到有分辨力的年龄就死了（二十世纪前未成年人死亡率比今天高很多，译注）。就所有这些死去的孩子而论，从他们被纳入恩典之约这个方面来说，他们不能故意拒绝圣经中从主而来的应许。如果他们在还没有能力拒绝之前就死了，“敬虔的父母不应该怀疑他们儿女的蒙选和救恩。”（Canons of Dort, I,17）甚至就那些成年的孩子而论，如果他们没有公然背道，根据基督教会中必须实行的宽松判断（judgment of charity），我们可以且必须相信他们是得救的。正是从信徒的儿女中，教会——真正信仰基督之人的聚集持续地被建立。

8

然而，在这点上，我们不可忘记对于婴儿的判断并不比对于成人的判断更宽松。这并不是确定每个受洗之人救恩的无谬宣告，而只是圣经告诉我们在教会实际生活中当遵行的一个原则。洗礼的根基不是某人重生了为前提，甚至洗礼中本身也不是重生，而仅是神的恩典之约。洗礼绝不取决于牧师主观上如何看待将受洗之人的属灵状态。无论牧师自己是否确信受洗者信仰的真实性，他都不可以按照自己的看法行事，而是根基神启示的旨意和祂话语的准则而行。而且，经常发生的事实是受洗之人后来被证实没有走在圣约的路上，我们对此事实不能视而不见。圣经和经历都告诉我们：从以色列生的并不都是以色列人，麦子中有糠秕，在神的家里不仅有金器银器，也有瓦器。因此，受洗者中重生者远少于受洗礼者。我们甚至不能证明被拣选之人总是在洗礼之前的年幼时重生了，或在出生之前重生了。神在赐予祂的恩典上是自由的，也能够让人在多年后享受他们洗礼的功效。因此，在基督教会，总有宣扬福音、重生、信心和悔改的空间。众先知、施洗约翰和耶稣都是带着同样的信息就近他们的百姓——这百姓毕竟属于神自己的产业。同样，使徒们侍奉神的话语，不仅将隐藏的信仰生命表达出来；他们传扬它，也作为重生的种子和使信心产生功效的管道。

9

还有，洗礼的本质不依赖于它在生命中的功效。正如真信心是与海德堡教理问答[主日七，问答21]中所描述的一致，纵然生活的实际显出了对它的偏离和扭曲；同样，洗礼是也只能是圣经所教导我们关于它的那样。真实的、本质性的基督教洗礼是施予相信之人的洗礼。尽管洗礼如同外在呼召一样，对于不相信的人依然产生许多祝福，但它真正的益处和丰满的力量只能被相信之人领受。客观上，如同圣道一样，洗礼依然保持不变。那些在信心中接受圣道并因此也在信心中接受洗礼的人真实地得到了神在洗礼中的应许。神自己仍然是信实的，将救恩赐予凡相信之人。但信心却不是每个人都有的。最终，洗礼的益处只为那些被拣选因而在神所定之时归信之人所领受。无论天主教还是抗罗宗，路德宗还是改革宗，都必须承认这样的结果。奥古斯丁说：“圣礼只在那些被拣选的人身上才产生圣礼所表征的功效”，经院主义也认同这一点。蒙拣选的人得着了；其他的人成了顽梗不化的。“唯独那应许的儿女才是亚伯拉罕的后裔”[罗9：8]。

10

与成人一样，洗礼对于婴儿的益处是：赦罪，重生和被接纳入基督的教会。这些益处并不仅仅是在洗礼中才首先赐下，而是已经为那些按神旨意受洗的人在信心中所领受了。圣礼所赐予的恩典也都是在圣道中所应许并透过信心领受的恩典。圣礼和圣道都指向同样的恩典，由于圣礼是以另一种方式和形态表明这些恩典，所以圣礼按照神赋予它的能力印证并坚固信心。这样的原则也适用于婴儿。正如他们在不知情时能够被圣灵重生并赋予相信的能力，同样，他们在不知情时也能够在此能力上被同一位圣灵坚固。就像在许多方面一样，有种奥秘的一体性在圣礼和信心中运行。正如光线和眼睛彼此联系、互相扶持，同样，信心从圣礼中获得益处的程度取决于信心的强弱，并且信心也在同样的程度上由圣礼印证和加强。因此，就成熟的信徒而论，圣礼非但没有逐渐成为次要，反而更加有价值。信心的眼睛看到圣礼更美丽、更荣耀地永远彰显着神恩典的丰盛。就每个信徒和全教会而论，圣礼是所领受恩典的证据，神之信实的记号，祷告中恳求的根基，信仰的支柱，并激励新的顺服。