2018-03-31


苦難與一步一步來Sufferingand One Foot In Front of the Other

作者Shane Lems   譯者:Maria Marta 

你們當中那些知道經過艱苦磨煉意味著什麽的人,也許都明白這些說話:「過一天是一天」、「我只是一步一步來」。磨煉和苦難是生活的泥沼与汙泥,它们使你懈怠,叫你跌倒,妨礙你的日常活動。一切都緩慢不前时,你只需要專注向前邁出的一步。

或許你能在一個月內設置醫院的就診記錄;  或許你努力整理醫療賬單時頭昏腦脹;  或許你祈求上帝抑制你丈夫的痛苦 (如果受苦是祂的旨意) ;  或許你懼怕下一次靜脈注射,或擔憂最近驗血的報告結果。 有時你只祈求幾小時的安睡和解脫。把握當下,過一天算一天! 我認同提摩太•凱勒對「同上帝患難與共」的詳解:

「在苦難中與上帝同行,代表要把上帝當成是上帝來對待,將祂看作是在那𥚃,就在現場。『行走』並不戲劇性,但是有它自己的節奏——它是由穩定、重複的行動所組成,你可以恆定地維持這個行動很長一段時間。上帝在《創世記》十七章第一節並未告訴亞伯拉罕,要『在我面前翻跟鬥」或是『在我面前奔跑』,因為沒有人可以日復一日地維持這種行為。有很多人把屬靈成長想成像是高台跳水。他們說:『我將要把生命獻給主!再給我六個月的時間,我就會變成一個新的人或是新女性!』然而,行走卻不是這樣,行走是日復一日地禱告;日復一日地讀聖經和詩篇;日復一日地順服,與基督徒朋友交談,參加集體崇拜,委身並全面參與教會的生活。它是有節奏的,一而再,再而三的持續。與上帝同行是一個比喻,象徵著緩慢但穩定的進步。」

「所以,在苦難中與上帝同行意味著,一般而言,你不會經歷到從你的問題、悲傷、懼怕當中有某些即刻的解救。但是,如我們將要看到的,會有一個你得著驚喜的時候,有難以言喻、『出人意外的平安』。會有一些日子,某種新的洞見會像一束光照進一間黑屋那麼地臨到你。肯定會有進步,這是行走隱喻中的一部分,但是一般而言,它是一種緩慢而穩定的進步,只有在你堅持著行走本身那個固定而日常的活動時,才會出現。『義人的路好像黎明的光,越照越明,直到日午。』」(箴四18

以上引述摘自《同祢患難與共》Walking with God through Pain and Suffering312,  提摩太.凱勒 (Timothy Keller) /趙剛譯,希望之聲出版社,2017


Suffering and One Foot In Front of the Other
by Reformed Reader

 For those of you who know what it means to go through a very hard trial, you probably understand sayings like this: “One day at a time,” and “I’m just putting one foot in front of the other.”  Trials and suffering are the mud and muck of life that slow you down, trip you up, and clog up your daily activities.  Everything slows down and you just have to focus on taking one more step ahead.

Maybe you could set a state record for hospital visits in one month; maybe you have a pounding headache from trying to sort out medical bills, or maybe you’re praying that God would keep your husband’s suffering down (if it’s His will).  Perhaps you’re dreading the next IV or worrying that your recent blood test will have bad results.  Sometimes you’re simply praying for a few hours of sleep and relief.  It’s just one day at a time!  I like how Tim Keller speaks of walking with God through trials:

“Walking with God through suffering means treating God as God and as there, as present.  Walking is something non-dramatic, rhythmic – it consists of steady, repeated actions you can keep up in a sustained way for a long time.  God did not tell Abraham in Genesis 17:1 to ‘somersault before me’ or even ‘run before me’ because no one can keep such behavior up day in and day out.  There are many people who think of spiritual growth as something like high diving.  They say, ‘I am going to give my life to the Lord! I am going to change all these terrible habits, and I am really going to transform! Give me another six months, and I am going to be a new man or new woman.’ That is not what a walk is.  A walk is day in and day out obeying, talking to Christian friends, and going to corporate worship, committing yourself to and fully participating in the life of the church.  It is rhythmic, on and on and on.  To walk with God is a metaphor that symbolizes slow and steady progress.

…Walking with God through suffering means that, in general, you will not experience some kind of instant deliverance from your questions, your sorrow, your fears.  There can be, as we shall see, times in which you receive a surprising, in explicable ‘peace that passes understanding.’  There will be days in which some new insight comes to you like a ray of light in a dark room.  There will certainly be progress – that is part of the metaphor of walking – but in general it will be slow and steady progress that comes only if you stick to the regular, daily activities of the walking itself.  ‘The path of the righteous is like the [earliest] morning sun, shining ever brighter till the light of full day’ (Prov. 4:18).

Timothy Keller, Walking with God through Pain and Suffering, p. 236-7.

Shane Lems
Hammond, WI


是可憎的,然而又是美麗的Obscene,yet Beautiful

作者: 史普羅(R.C. Sproul)   譯者:  喬蘭山以妲

如果這個星球上有什麼事是太高、太聖潔以至於我們不能理解那就是基督的受難------祂的死以及祂被父神離棄如果不是神的話將它的含義擺在我們面前我們一定完全不敢講起它在這一節𥚃我想將焦點放在聖經對基督十字架之死的解釋上。
If any event that has transpired on this planet is too high and too holy for us to comprehend, it is the passion of Christ—His death, His atonement, and His forsakenness by the Father. We would be totally intimidated to speak of it at all were it not for the fact that God in His Word has set before us the revelation of its meaning. In this section, I want to focus on the biblical interpretation of Christ’s death on the cross.

不論何時我們討論一個歷史事件我們都會檢驗事實有時候爭論真實發生的是什麼說的是什麼觀察到的是什麼。然而,我們一致認同事實(或一致不認同之後),仍要面對一個我們所能提出的最重要的問題:這個事件的意義是什麼?
Any time we discuss a historical event, we review the facts, and sometimes we argue about what really took place, what was said, what was observed. However, once we agree on the facts (or agree to disagree), we are still left with the most important question we can ask: What is the meaning of the event?

基督的見證者們跌到在各各地,那些眼見祂被交給羅馬人的人,那些看見祂被釘十字架的人,對這件事有不同的理解。有些人認為他們只是在看一個罪犯受刑;大祭司該亞法說耶穌的死是為了眾百姓的益處,他視耶穌的受難為政治緩和的需要;一個看見耶穌怎麼死的百夫長呼叫到:「這真是神的兒子了!」(太廿七54);彼拉多,與耶穌同釘十字架的兩個強盜------似乎每個人對十字架的含義都有著不同理解。
The people who witnessed Christ stumbling toward Golgotha, who saw Him delivered to the Romans, and who watched His crucifixion, understood the significance of this event in a variety of ways. There were those present who thought that they were viewing the just execution of a criminal. Caiaphas, the high priest, said that Christ’s death was expedient and that He had to die for the good of the nation. He saw the crucifixion as an act of political appeasement. A centurion who watched how Jesus died said, “Truly this was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54). Pontius Pilate, the two thieves who were crucified next to Jesus—everyone, it seems, had a different understanding of what the cross signified.

兩千年來,十字架一直是一個熱門的神學主題。如果我們詳細考察當今各種神學學派與思潮,就會發現對於十字架上真實發生了什麼,存在大量爭競的理論。有些說它是犧牲之愛的最高寫照,另一些說它是存在主義勇氣的至高之舉,仍舊還有些人說它是宇宙性的救贖作為。爭論綿延不休。
The cross has been a favorite theme of theological speculation for two thousand years. If we would peruse the various theological schools of thought today, we would find a multitude of competing theories as to what really happened on the cross. Some say it was the supreme illustration of sacrificial love. Others say it was the supreme act of existential courage, while still others say it was a cosmic act of redemption. The dispute goes on.

然而,我們不僅有聖經對這些事實的記載------主要在福音書中,還有神對這些事件的解釋------主要在使徒書信𥚃。在加拉太書三章13節,保羅討論十字架的意義時,以一節經文總結整章的教導:「基督既為我們受了咒詛,就贖我們脫離律法的咒詛;因為經上記著凡掛在木頭上都是被咒詛的。
However, we have not only the record of the events in the Scriptures, primarily in the Gospels, but we also have God’s interpretation of those events, primarily in the Epistles. In Galatians 3:13, Paul discusses the meaning of the cross, summarizing the entire teaching of the chapter in a single verse: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.’”

咒詛這一概念對於有知識的猶太人而言非常直白易懂,但在我們這個時代卻帶有一種額外之音。對我們來說,「咒詛」這個概念總是摻雜著某種迷信。當我們聽到咒詛這個詞時,我想到的是《寶林歷險記》(The Perils of Pauline)中的油罐哈利,當英雄從他手𥚃救出女英雄時,他說:「咒詛再次失敗」。有些人也許想到行伏都巫術(voodoo)的原始部落,一個作為替身的娃娃被針紮滿,作為對仇敵施加的咒詛。我們也許會想到好萊塢恐怖電影埃及盜墓者𥚃面的文森特·普萊斯和貝拉·盧格思所受的咒詛。在我們今天的時代,咒詛被視為屬於迷信範疇的某種東西。
This curse motif would have been understood clearly by a knowledgeable Jew in the ancient world, but in our day it has a foreign sound to it. To us, the very concept of “curse” smacks of something superstitious. When I hear the word curse, I think of Oil Can Harry in The Perils of Pauline, who says, “Curses, foiled again” when the hero saves the heroine from his clutches. Someone else may think of the behavior of primitive tribes who practice voodoo, in which tiny replica dolls are punctured by pins as a curse is put on an enemy. We may think of the curse of the mummy’s tomb in Hollywood horror movies with Vincent Price and Bela Lugosi. A curse in our day and age is considered something that belongs in the realm of superstition.

在聖經的語境下,咒詛有著完全不同的含義。在舊約中,咒詛指的是神否定性的審判,它是祝福這個詞的反義詞和對立面。咒詛的根源可以追溯到神與以色列立約時在申命記頒布的律法,如果沒有處罰,約就不叫約,約一定具備關於守約的賞賜和背約處罰的條款。神對祂的百姓說:「看哪,我今日將祝福與咒詛的話都陳明在你們面前。 你們若聽從耶和華你們神的誡命,就是我今日所吩咐你們的,就必蒙福。 你們若不聽從耶和華你們神的誡命,偏離我今日所吩咐你們的道,去侍奉你們素來所不認識的別神,就必受禍。」(申十一26-28 咒詛是神對不順服之人施以的審判,因為他們幹犯祂聖潔的律法。
In biblical categories, a curse has quite a different meaning. In the Old Testament, the curse refers to the negative judgment of God. It is the antonym, the opposite, of the word blessing. Its roots go back to accounts of the giving of the law in the book of Deuteronomy when the covenant was established with Israel. There was no covenant without sanctions attached to it, provisions for reward for those who kept the terms of the covenant and punishment for those who violated it. God said to His people, “See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse—the blessing if you obey the commands of the Lord your God that I am giving you today; the curse if you disobey the commands of the Lord your God and turn from the way that I command you today by following other gods which you have not known” (Deut. 11:26–28, NIV). The curse is the judgment of God on disobedience, on violations of His holy law.

我們可以透過觀察咒詛是如何與它的反面相對來更完全地理解咒詛的含義。有福(blessed)這個詞在希伯來文中常常有著明確的定義,在舊約中,人與神的團契在伊甸園𥚃被打破以後,人仍然可以與神有著近似的關係,但有一點絕對的禁止,那就是沒有人可以見神的面。面對面見神這一幸福特權。只留給我們救恩終極、完全的實現,這是我們擁有的盼望,有朝一日我們可以直接瞻仰神的面。我們仍舊處在這一禁令下:「人見我的面不能存活」(出卅20)。然而,猶太人一直有這樣的盼望,希望有一日這一對墮落之人的處罰可以除去。希伯來文的祝福是這樣的:
The meaning of the curse may be grasped more fully by viewing it in contrast with its opposite. The word blessed is often defined in Hebrew terms quite concretely. In the Old Testament, after fellowship with God was violated in Eden, people could still have a proximate relationship with God, but there was one absolute prohibition. No one was allowed to look into the face of God. That privilege, the beatific vision, was reserved for the final fulfillment of our redemption. This is the hope that we have, that someday we will be able to gaze unveiled directly into the face of God. We are still under the mandate, “man shall not see [God] and live” (Ex. 33:20). It was always the Jewish hope, however, that someday this punishment for the fall of man would be removed. The Hebrew benediction illustrates this:

「願耶和華賜福給你,保護你!願耶和華使他的臉光照你,賜恩給你!願耶和華向你仰臉,賜你平安!民六24-26
The Lord bless you and keep you; The Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; The Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace. (Num. 6:24–26)

這是希伯來文的平行文體三句話說的是同一件事願神賜福給你願神使祂的臉光照你願神向你仰臉以色列人確切無疑地理解蒙福的含義蒙福就是能夠見神的面人只能在相對程度上享受祝福人離終極的面對面關係越近人就越蒙福。相反,人離與神面對面的關係越遠,咒詛就越大。因此對比之下,舊約中神的咒詛指的是從神面前徹底被逐出,處在完成的咒詛下,甚至遠遠瞥一眼神的面都不可能。處在完全的咒詛下,甚至連雅威的臉發出的萬丈光輝中一縷光線的折射都不可能見到。被咒詛就是進入絕對的黑暗之地,完全遠離神的面。
This is an example of Hebrew parallelism. Each of the three stanzas says the same thing: May the Lord bless; may the Lord make His face shine; may the Lord lift up His countenance upon you. The Israelite understood blessedness concretely: to be blessed was to be able to behold the face of God. One could enjoy the blessing only in relative degrees: the closer one got to the ultimate face-to-face relationship, the more blessed he was. Conversely, the farther removed from that face-to-face relationship, the greater the curse. So by contrast, in the Old Testament the curse of God involved being removed from His presence altogether. The full curse precluded a glimpse, even at a distance, of the light of His countenance. It forbade even the refracted glory of one ray of the beaming light radiating from the face of Yahweh. To be cursed was to enter the place of absolute darkness outside the presence of God.

這一象徵貫穿整個以色列史,延伸到猶太人的敬拜中。它被應用在會幕的位置上,聚會的會幕象徵著神住在祂百姓中間的應許,神命令十二支派的人按指定的位置支搭帳篷,環繞著社群的中心,就是會幕,雅威的居所。只有大祭司才能進入會幕的中心至聖所,而且一年才有一次,就是在贖罪日。即便到那時,他也只能在漫長的沐浴和潔淨禮之後才能進入至聖所。神住在祂的百姓中間,但是他們不能進入會幕的至聖所,即那象徵神居所的地方。
This symbolism was carried out through the history of Israel and extended to the liturgy of the Jewish people. It applied to the position of the tabernacle, the tent of meeting, which was designed to symbolize the promise that God would be in the midst of His people. God ordained that the people would pitch their tents by tribes in such a way that they were gathered around the central point of the community, where stood the tabernacle, the dwelling place of Yahweh. Only the high priest was permitted to enter into the midst of the tabernacle, the Holy of Holies, and only once a year, on the Day of Atonement. Even then, he could enter the sacred place only after lengthy ablutions and cleansing rites. God was in the midst of His people, but they could not enter the inner sanctum of the tabernacle, which symbolized His dwelling place.

贖罪日的敬拜儀式涉及兩個動物一只羊和一只替罪羊祭司將羔羊為百姓的罪獻上祭壇又取來替罪羊將自己的手按在其上象徵著民族的罪歸到羊的背上。替罪羊立刻被放到曠野,即那荒無人煙之地,到完全遠離神面的外面的黑暗中去。替罪羊受到了咒詛,被從活人之地剪除,從神的面驅逐。
On the Day of Atonement, two animals were involved in the liturgical ceremonies, a lamb and a scapegoat. The priest sacrificed the lamb on the altar for the sins of the people. The priest also took the scapegoat and placed his hands on it, symbolizing the transfer of the sins of the nation to the back of the goat. Immediately the scapegoat was driven outside the camp into the wilderness, that barren place of remote desolation—to the outer darkness away from any proximity to the presence of God. The scapegoat received the curse. He was cut off from the land of the living, cut off from the presence of God.

為了領會基督之死的意義,我們必須轉向新約聖經。約翰以這話開始約翰福音:「太初有道,道與神同在,道就是神。」世紀以來三位一體的奧秘困擾著我們的理性,我們知道在某種意義上聖父與聖子是一,祂們又有分別,祂們處在獨特的關係中。約翰以一個詞解釋那關係:同在;道與神同在。實際上,約翰是在說聖父與聖子有著面對面的關係,正是父禁止於猶太人的那種關係。舊約的猶太人可以到會幕𥚃與神「同在」(希臘文sun, 指著位於一群人中間),但是沒有人可以面對面地與神同在(希臘文pros, 指面對面意義上的同在)。
In order to grasp the significance of this action as it relates to Christ’s death, we must turn to the New Testament. John begins his Gospel by writing, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The mystery of the Trinity has puzzled our minds for centuries. We know that there is a sense in which the Father and the Son are one, yet they are to be distinguished, and they exist in a unique relationship. The relationship, as John explained it, is described by the word with. The Word was with God. Literally, John was saying that Father and Son have a face-to-face relationship, precisely the type of relationship Jews were denied with the Father. The Old Testament Jew could go into the tabernacle and be “with” (Greek sun, meaning “with” in the sense of present in a group) God, but no one could ever be face to face with (Greek pros, meaning “with” in a face-to-face sense) God.

耶穌與父神的關係代表著終極意義上的蒙福,這關係的缺失代表著咒詛的本質------我們查看十字架的受難時,牢記這一點很重要。當我們讀到耶穌受難的敘事時,有些事顯得特別特出。舊約教導我們,祂自己的百姓將祂交給外邦人,就是那些聖約之外的外族人。耶穌在猶太權柄前受審之後,被送到羅馬人那裏受審。祂沒有被以猶太人的方式處死------以石頭打死,因為那時的歷史環境排除了這個選項,如果死刑是羅馬官員宣判,那麼就必須由羅馬政府執行,因此也就必須按羅馬的處刑方式。耶穌是在營外死在外邦人手中,這一事實意義重大:祂的死是在耶路撒冷以外,衪被帶到各各地。所有這一切的活動編織在一起,都是指向替罪羊承受咒詛這一圖景的重演。
When we examine the crucifixion, it is important for us to remember that Jesus’ relationship with the Father represents the ultimate in blessedness and that its absence was the essence of the curse. When we read the narrative of the passion of Jesus, certain things stand out. The Old Testament teaches us that His own people delivered Him to the Gentiles, to strangers and foreigners to the covenant. After His trial before the Jewish authorities, He was sent to the Romans for judgment. He was not executed by the Jewish method of stoning, for the circumstances of world history at that time precluded that option. When capital punishment was exercised under the Roman occupation, it had to be done by the Roman courts, so execution had to be by the Roman method of crucifixion. It is significant that Jesus was killed at the hands of the Gentiles outside the camp. His death took place outside the city of Jerusalem; He was taken to Golgotha. All of these activities, when woven together, indicate the reenactment of the drama of the scapegoat who received the curse.

保羅告訴我們,在申命記律法中,凡是掛在木頭上的都是被神咒詛的,這個咒詛並不一定加諸在那些被石頭打死的人身上。耶穌被掛在木頭上,立時滿足了舊約對神審判描述的所有細節,新約將耶穌的死視為隔離之舉,甚過視為勇氣或愛之舉,盡管祂的死也可以描繪這些事物,當然,這也是一件宇宙性的事件,是代贖的死,是為了我們的泳緣故傾倒在基督身上的咒詛。
Paul tells us that in the Deuteronomic law, the curse of God is on anyone who hangs from a tree, a curse not necessarily given to those who suffer death by stoning. Jesus hangs on a tree, fulfilling in minute detail all of the Old Testament provisions for the execution of divine judgment. The New Testament sees the death of Jesus as more than an isolated act or illustration of courage or love, though His death may illustrate those things. Rather, it is a cosmic event, an atoning death; it is a curse that is poured out on Christ for us.

瑞士神學家Karl Barth)說整個新約最重要的詞就是希臘小詞huper huper 這個詞的意思很簡單:「在……的位置上」。耶穌的死是在我們的位置上,祂為了你我承擔律法的咒詛,耶穌自己以多種方式表達這一點:「我為羊捨命……沒有人奪我的命去,是我自己捨的。」(約十1518):「因為人子來並不是要受人的服侍,乃是要服侍人,並且要捨命做多人的贖價。」(可十45)這些新約經文強調了替代的概念。
The Swiss theologian Karl Barth said that the most important word in the whole New Testament is the little Greek word huper. The word huper means simply “in behalf of.” The death of Jesus is in behalf of us. He takes the curse of the law for me and for you. Jesus Himself said it in many different ways: “I lay down my life for the sheep … No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (John 10:15, 18); “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45, NIV). These New Testament images underscore the concept of substitution.

我曾作過一次關於新舊約的演講,演講中間,當我說到耶穌基督的死時,一個人從房間後面跳起來,變得非常憤怒,從房間後面大喊道;「那太粗鄙可憎了!」驚訝之後,我重整思緒回答到:「這是我聽過的描述十字架最好的兩個形容詞。」
I once delivered a public lecture on the relationship between the old and new covenants. In the middle of my lecture, a man jumped up in the back of the room. He became outraged when I suggested that Jesus Christ’s death was an atoning death, a substitutionary death on behalf of other people. He shouted from the back of the room, “That’s primitive and obscene!” After I got over my surprise and collected my thoughts, I replied, “Those are the two best descriptive words I have heard to characterize the cross.

還有什麼更粗鄙呢如此血腥的法令它所包含的所有劇情與慣例都引起粗鄙禁忌的聯想。它是如此簡單,以至於連最沒文化、思維最簡單的人都能理解。神為我們提供了一條並不僅僅局限於智力精英的救贖之路,相反,它是如此愚昧,如此殘忍,以至於最粗鄙的人都能理解;同時又是如此莊嚴,以至於最聰明的神學家也感到驚愕。
What could be more primitive? A bloody enactment like this, with all the drama and ritual, is reminiscent of primitive taboos. It is so simple that even the most uneducated, the most simpleminded person, can understand it. God provides a way of redemption for us that is not limited to an intellectual elite but is so crass, so crude, that the primitive person can comprehend it, and, at the same time, so sublime that it brings consternation to the most brilliant theologians.

我尤其喜歡第二個詞,可憎。它是最適合的詞,因為基督的十字架是人類歷史上最可憎的事件。耶穌基督成了一個可憎之物,祂在十字架上的時刻,全世界的罪都被歸到衪身上。就好像被歸到替罪羊身上一樣。殺人犯的可憎,妓女的可憎,綁匪的可憎,誹謗者的可憎,所有那些嚴重得罪人的可憎之罪,在那一刻都歸到一個人身上。一旦基督接受這一點祂就成了罪的化身成了可憎的絕對樣本。
I particularly liked the second word, obscene. It is a most appropriate word because the cross of Christ was the most obscene event in human history. Jesus Christ became an obscenity. The moment that He was on the cross, the sin of the world was imputed to Him as it was to the scapegoat. The obscenity of the murderer, the obscenity of the prostitute, the obscenity of the kidnapper, the obscenity of the slanderer, the obscenity of all those sins, as they violate people in this world, were at one moment focused on one man. Once Christ embraced that, He became the incarnation of sin, the absolute paragon of obscenity.

在某種意義上十字架的基督是世界歷史上最骯髒可恥的人在祂自己以及在祂裡面衪則是全無瑕疵的羔羊------無罪、完美、威嚴。然而藉著歸算,人類暴行的所有骯臟都歸到祂一個人身上。
There is a sense in which Christ on the cross was the most filthy and grotesque person in the history of the world. In and of Himself, He was a lamb without blemish—sinless, perfect, and majestic. But by imputation, all of the ugliness of human violence was concentrated on His person.

一旦罪歸在耶穌身上,神就咀詛了祂。當律法的咒詛被傾倒耶穌身上時,衪經歷了人類編年史上從未有過的痛苦。我曾聽過有關十字架酷刑的講道,包括手如何被釘釘子,掛在十字架上,以及十字架的那些殘酷的方方面面。我相信它們都是真實的,十字架的確是一種殘酷的死刑,但是世界歷史上千千萬萬的人經歷過十字架酷刑的痛苦,但只有一個人體會過神完全的咒詛之苦。當祂體會這種痛苦時,祂呼喊道:「我的神,我的神,為什麼離棄我?」(可十五34)。有些人說祂只是在引用詩篇廿二篇,有些人則說祂被痛苦折磨得失去理智,不知道發生了什麼。然後神的確離棄了祂,那是代贖的重心所在,沒有離棄就沒有咒詛。在時間和空間的那個交匯點上神向衪的兒子轉過身。
Once sin was concentrated on Jesus, God cursed Him. When the curse of the law was poured out on Jesus, He experienced pain that had never been suffered in the annals of history. I have heard graphic sermons about the excruciating pain of the nails in the hands, of hanging on a cross, and of the torturous dimensions of crucifixion. I am sure that they are all accurate and that it was a dreadful way to be executed, but thousands of people in world history have undergone the excruciating pain of crucifixion. Only one man has ever felt the pain of the fullness of the unmitigated curse of God on Him. When He felt it, He cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34, NIV). Some say He did that simply to quote Psalm 22. Others say He was disoriented by His pain and didn’t understand what was happening. God certainly did forsake Him. That is the whole point of the atonement. Without forsakenness, there is no curse. God, at that moment in space and time, turned His back on His Son.

耶穌享有與父神同在(pros) 關係的親密在那一刻破裂了(在祂的人性中)。在那一刻,神連光也遮蔽了,聖經告訴我們,世界被黑暗籠罩,神自己見證了那一刻的哀慟。耶穌被離棄了,祂被咒詛,並且祂感受到了。受難(passion)這個詞的意思是「感覺」(feeling), 在被離棄的時刻𥚃,我懷疑祂是否還能感受到手𥚃的釘子和額上的荊棘。祂從父面前被剪除。這是可憎的,然而又是美麗的,因為因著它,我們有一日可以享受以色列完全的祝福,我們將沒有遮掩地瞻仰神榮耀的面光。
The intimacy of the pros relationship that Jesus experienced with the Father was ruptured (in His human nature). At that moment God turned out the lights. The Bible tells us that the world was encompassed with darkness, God Himself bearing witness to the trauma of the hour. Jesus was forsaken, He was cursed, and He felt it. The word passion means “feeling.” In the midst of His forsakenness, I doubt He was even aware of the nails in His hands or the thorns in His brow. He was cut off from the Father. It was obscene, yet it was beautiful, because by it we can someday experience the fullness of the benediction of Israel. We will look unveiled into the light of the countenance of God.

This excerpt is from Who Is Jesus? by R.C. Sproul. Download all 28 Crucial Questions ebooks for free here.



基督徒:反叛應受死Christians:Rebels Deserving Death

Shane Lems摘錄  Maria Marta譯第一段

我讀過薛華(Francis Schaeffer)的好幾本著作,而這本更受歡的《前車可鑒》(How Should We Then Live?),我只讀到中間,還沒完成,但到目前為止我已非常享受它的閱讀过程。在開頭第一章,薛華談到羅馬帝國在教會早期幾個世紀對基督徒的迫害。他的見解精辟透徹;  也是對今天基督徒的教誨!

「羅馬是很殘酷的。羅馬的圓形競技場也許是當時殘酷風氣最佳的寫照。觀眾坐在競技場的石階上,觀看角斗士比賽和將基督徒拋向野獸的情形。我們不要忘記基督徒被殺的原因,他們不是為了崇拜耶穌被殺的。當時有許多不同的宗教充斥羅馬帝國,其中一種是祭祀太陽神米特拉(Mithras)的,這種宗教源于波斯的祆教(Zoroastrianism), 于主前六十七年傳到羅馬。在羅馬統治的地方內,誰也不理會別人崇拜甚麼,只要不妨礙國家團結就可以了。而羅馬的國家團結是以崇拜凱撤為中心的,基督徒被殺害,是因為他們是「反叛者」,同時,他們漸漸被猶太人的會堂拒絕,跟著又失去了凱撤猶統賦予猶太人的特權,基督徒所受的逼害便變本加厲了。

當時基督徒『反叛』的真相,我們可以從兩方面來說明。首先,他們敬拜耶穌為上帝,而且只崇奉這一位無限的、有位格的上帝,這是所有羅馬皇帝都不能容忍的。第三世紀及戴克理先(Diocletian284-305)在位期間,社會上愈來愈多較高層的人物成為基督徒,他們的崇拜變成國家統一的威脅。本來,如果他們同時崇奉耶穌和愷撒,便可保無恙,但他們拒絕把這兩種信仰結合在一起,他們所崇拜的上帝是借舊約聖經、基督及後來逐漸寫成的新約聖經來啟示自己的上帝.他們只奉他為唯一的上帝,不容任何東西混雜,並且視其他所有的神為假神。

第二方面,任何極權政府或獨裁國家,都不能容忍人民用一種絕對的東西來判斷他的國家和國家的行政的。藉著神的啟示,基督徒得到了反叛『絕對』(absolute)。基督徒因有這絕對的、普遍的標準,就用來判斷個人的道德,而且也用來判斷他們的國家,所以他們被視為羅馬極權政府的敵人,要給野兽果腹。」

摘自《前車可鑑──西方思想文化的興衰》How Should We Then Live? ----The Rise And Decline Of Western Thought And Culture 20頁,薛華(Francis August Schaeffer)著/梁祖永、梁壽華、姚錦燊、劉灝明譯,宣道出版社,2015年五版。

Christians: Rebels Deserving Death (Schaeffer)
by Reformed Reader

 Although I have read several books by Francis Schaeffer, I haven’t read one of his more popular ones called How Should We Then Live?  I’m around the halfway point and so far I’m enjoying it.  Right near the beginning, Schaeffer talked about Roman persecution of Christians in the early centuries of the church.  I like how he explained it; there are lessons here for Christians today!

“Rome was cruel, and its cruelty can perhaps be best pictured by the events which took place in the arena in Rome itself.  People seated above the arena floor watched gladiator contests and Christians thrown to the beasts.  Let us not forget why the Christians were killed.  They were not killed because they worshiped Jesus.  Various religions covered the whole Roman world.  One such was the cult of Mithras, a popular Persian form of Zoroastrianism which had reached Rome by 67 B.C.  Nobody cared who worshiped whom so long as the worshiper did not disrupt the unity of the state, centered in the formal worship of Caesar.  The reason the Christians were killed was because they were rebels.  This was especially so after their growing rejection by the Jewish synagogues lost for them the immunity granted to the Jews since Julius Caesar’s time.”

“We may express the nature of their rebellion in two ways, both of which are true.  First, we can say they worshiped Jesus as God and they worshiped the infinite-personal God only.  The Caesars would not tolerate this worshiping of the one God only.  It was counted as treason.  Thus their worship became a special threat to the unity of the state during the third century and during the reign of Diocletian (284-305), when people of the higher classes began to become Christians in larger numbers.  If they had worshiped Jesus and Caesar, they would have gone unharmed, but they rejected all forms of syncretism.  They worshiped the God who had revealed himself in the Old Testament, through Christ, and in the New Testament which had gradually been written.  And they worshiped him as the only God.  They allowed no mixture: All other gods were seen as false gods.”

“We can also express in a second way why the Christians were killed: No totalitarian authority nor authoritarian state can tolerate those who have an absolute by which to judge that state and its actions.  The Christians had that absolute in God’s revelation.  Because the Christians had an absolute, universal standard by which to judge not only personal morals but the state, they were counted as enemies of totalitarian Rome and were thrown to beasts.”

Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? p.25-6.

Shane Lems
Hammond, WI


「因為知道我們的舊人與祂同釘十字架。」(羅六6

摘自《羅馬人書註釋》Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans138约翰·加尔文John Calvin/趙中輝、宋華忠譯改革宗出版有限公司2013六版。

「舊人」之所以被稱為「舊」乃是如同「舊約」之於「新約」人未曾重生之前就是舊人但他若已重生舊的本性就會漸漸地被處死。保羅在此所說的舊人,乃是指我們從母腹中就已有的本性不能叫我們承受神的國度。所以舊人必須按照新人逐漸長大的過程而被處死。保羅說:「舊人」已經與基督同釘十字架,藉著十字架的能力,舊人才會被治死。保羅在此明明地提到十字架,為要使我們看到惟一能克服自己的根源,是在基督的死上有分。有些解經家認為,保羅在此用「同釘」而不是用「同死」,是因著舊人還活著,在某些方面仍是非常活躍;我不同意此種看法。他們的道理是對的,但以此來詮釋本節經文,就不適合。下面所論的罪身,並不是指肉血之體,乃是指罪的整體;對於一個只有自己本性的人,他整個人都是罪。使我們不再作罪的奴僕,這句話也指出罪身被毀除的目的。這裏也可以說:只有要我們仍是亞當的後裔,我們就不過是人,就完全在罪的轄制之下,我們就能行的不過是犯罪。但我們若被接枝在基督裏面,我們就從這可憐的狀態中被拯救了出來;然而並不是說:我們就能立刻完全不犯罪了;卻是說:我們至終必勝過這內心的戰爭。

因為已死的人是脫離了罪。我們若是與基督同死,就信必與他同活。因為知道,基督既從死裡復活,就不再死,死也不再做他的主了。他死是向罪死了,只有一次;他活是向神活著。這樣,你們向罪也當看自己是死的;向神,在基督耶穌裡,卻當看自己是活的。」(7-11節)138頁。(附註從略)


「因知道我們的舊人與祂同釘十字架。」(羅六6

《馬丁路德羅馬書講義》Luther: Lectures On Romans,馬丁路德(Martin Luther)著/李春旺譯,中華信義神學院出版社,260頁,

作為亞當后裔的人是「舊的」,不要因著本性,而是由他本性中的缺點。因為他的本性是善的,但其缺點是惡的。我們用「舊人」這個字,不僅僅是關乎一個人可以作的血氣的工作,主要論到他作對的事,智慧地處理自己,使自己忙於各樣屬靈的好處,是的,也跟他愛上帝和敬拜上帝的事實有關。在他裏面的「舊人」叫他在這一切事上利用上帝,以至於他能享受祂的恩賜。只有恩典能糾正他這種浮濫的乖張(在聖經中它被稱為彎曲、罪惡和不正的),使他正直。傳1:15說「彎曲的不能變直。」這樣說不但是由于彎曲之人的頑梗,主要是因為在人裏面,從継承而來的這缺點,和因為在他自出生就有的毒素,傳到他本性深處,以至於他自私的傾向,甚至在上帝裏面只尋求自己和自己的東西。詩72:14則說:「祂要救贖他們的靈魂,脫離斯壓和強暴。」簡言之,這個邪惡是無底的,無人知道它的深度,在聖經中,上帝的憐憫所除去的,不是那個邪惡本身,而僅僅是愛邪惡之心。詩11:5也說「喜愛強暴的人,的裹恨惡。」詩32:6又說:「為此」(即指邪惡)凡虔誠人都當禱告祢」,即因為祂恨惡邪惡。這一切都在福音書中以那個被撒但俘虜了十八年的婦人之彎曲為象徵,正如救主所言(路13:11)。(附註從略)


怎么理解基督受死时我们还没出生,但我们却蒙拯救,而且我們的舊人與祂同釘十字架?

摘自《聖靈降臨──從新約看聖靈的恩賜》Perspectives on Pentecost: Studies in New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit,葛富恩 (Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.)/林體安譯,改革宗出版有限公司,2014二版。

耶穌賜下聖靈給整個教會和每位基督徒。藉著賜下聖靈,基督親自來到我們當中,並住在我們𥚃面;藉著賜下聖靈,基督使我們成聖並引導我們;藉著賜下聖靈,我們可以叫「阿爸,父!」。聖靈的賜下對每位基督徒的得救來說,是不可或缺的。當耶穌基督在地上服事時,祂應許要差聖靈來,同時也應許不撇下我們為孤兒,祂必到我們這裡來,而五旬節就是這些應許的實現。聖靈乃是基督的靈,基督透過祂的靈來到祂百姓當中。教會也在五旬節那一天成了基督的身體。(8頁)
……

在教會𥚃,被高舉之基督的工作和聖靈的工作,是完全合一且一致的。聖靈的工作並不是附加在基督工作之上,也不是某種有獨立活動範圍的工作,為要超越或補足基督所成就的事。聖靈的工作不是添加在基督所確保的基本救恩上的額外好處。反之,聖靈的降臨不單使我們知道基督曾經活在世上並且做過一些事,同時也使我們明白身為末世生命源頭的基督,現今仍然住在教會中,並在教會𥚃動工。如今基督藉著聖靈,並在聖靈𥚃彰顯祂的同在。聖靈是一種顯明的奧袐,表示基督永遠與教會同在。

由此看來,大使命的最後兩句話;「我就常與你們同在,直到世界的末了」(太廿八20),不單是指基督因著祂的神性而無所不在,同時也(或許主要)是指聖靈的同在與作為。在這𥚃說話的「我」,正是「叫人活的靈」,亦即得榮耀的人子,祂將要透過聖靈的能力而降臨,並與教會同在。(28頁)(附註從略)


自私與婚姻Selfishness and Marriage

作者/譯者Shane Lems/ Maria Marta

我讀了提摩太•凱勒(Timothy Keller) 所著的《婚姻解密》The Meaning of Marriage這本深度與智慧兼並的著作已經有一段時間了。我頗欣賞他對我們文化中自私的婚姻觀的剖析。 今天,許多人看待婚姻和浪漫的關系,都是從自我的角度考慮-----他們從中得到什麽。 事實證明,這種自私實際上是許多婚姻(包括基督徒和非基督徒)內的主要問題:

「在今天的西方文化𥚃,你決定結婚的原因是,你覺得被另一個人吸引,你覺得他或她很美妙,但一兩年之後(或如所常見的那樣,在一兩個月之後),有三件事情常常發生。首先,你開始發現這位美好的人多麼自私。其次,你發現這位美好的人也經歷了同樣的事,因為他或她開始告訴你,你多麼的自私。第三,雖然你承認這點的一部份,但你的結論是,配偶的自私比你自己的問題更大。若你覺得曾經生活艱苦、經歷過很多傷痛,那麼這種感受將會更加強烈。你在心𥚃說:『好吧,我是不該那麼多做——但你不理解我。』受傷讓我們淡化自己的自私,而那正是很多已婚夫婦,在過了相對不長的時間之後,就出現的狀況。」

然後凱勒指出,這個時候至少有兩條路可走。首先,你可以決定傷口和傷痛比你的自我中心更根本。你認為假若你的配偶看不到你的傷口並且盡力幫助你,那就沒戲唱了。由於雙方停火和不再談論問題,這段婚姻可能會結束,或者可能繼續下去,但感情距離卻疏遠了。

另一條路徑----更好的路徑----「就是下決心視自己的自我中心為更根本的問題,然後以比起對待配偶問題,更嚴肅的方式去看待它。」

「為什麼呢?因為只有你才能完全觸及自己的自私,也只有你才要為它負起全責。所以每位配偶都應該認真看待聖經,應該做出『捨已』的委身。你應該停止為自私找藉口,應該在它一顯露的時候就把它根除,而且不管你配偶會怎樣做,你都應該如此。若配偶雙方的每個人都說:『我會把我的自我中心,當成婚姻中的主要問題來處理。』你們就有希望得著真正美好的婚姻。」

當然,這樣做是以福音為依據的:耶穌走上十字架,並非出於自私,而是出於無私,為罪人捨己。 我們越明白基督如何以這種方式恩慈地服事我們,我們就能更寬厚地對待我們的配偶------而不是我們自己。

以上引述摘自《婚姻解密:以上帝的智慧來面對委身的複雜性》
The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of Commitment with the Wisdom of GodTimothy Keller, Kathy Keller/趙剛譯,74頁,希望之聲文化有限公司,2015


Selfishness and Marriage (Keller)
by Reformed Reader

 It’s been awhile since I’ve read a book on marriage with the depth and wisdom of Tim Keller’s The Meaning of Marriage.  I appreciate how he talks about our culture’s selfish view of marriage.  Today, many people think of marriage and romantic relationships in terms of self – what they get out of it.  Turns out that this selfishness is actually the major problem in many marriages (Christian and non-Christian):

“In Western culture today, you decide to get married because you feel an attraction to the other person.  You think he or she is wonderful.  But a year or two later – or, just as often, a month or two – three things usually happen.  First, you begin to find out how selfish this wonderful person is.  Second, you discover that the wonderful person has been going through a similar experience and he or she begins to tell you how selfish you are.  And third, though you acknowledge it in part, you concede that your spouse’s selfishness is more problematic than your own.  This is especially true if you feel that you’ve had a hard life and have experienced a lot of hurt.  You say silently, ‘Ok, I shouldn’t do that – but you don’t understand me.’  The woundedness makes us minimize our own selfishness.  And that’s the point at which many married couples arrive after a relatively brief period of time.”

Keller then notes that at this point there are two paths to take.  The first is deciding that your hurt and woundedness is more fundamental than your selfishness.  You believe that if your spouse does not see your wounds and try to help you, it’s not going to work.  The marriage could then end, or it could go on with emotional distance growing due to a cease-fire and not talking about the problems.

Another path – the better one – is “to determine to see your own selfishness as a fundamental problem and to treat it more seriously than you do your spouse’s.”

Why? Only you have complete access to your own selfishness, and only you have complete responsibility for it.  So each spouse should take the Bible seriously, should make a commitment to ‘give yourself up.’ You should stop making excuses for selfishness, you should begin to root it out as it’s revealed to you, and you should do so regardless of what your spouse is doing.  If two spouses each say, ‘I’m going to treat my self-centeredness as the main problem in the marriage,’ you have the prospect of a truly great marriage.”

Of course, this is based on the gospel: Jesus went to the cross not out of selfishness, but out of selflessness, to give his life for sinners.  The more we understand how Christ graciously served us this way, the more we will be able to graciously serve our spouses, not our selves.

The above quotes are found on pages 63-64 of Keller’s The Meaning of Marriage.

Shane Lems