救贖歷史的「達陣區」經文The Redemptive-Historical EndZone Verse

作者：Nicholas T. Batzig  譯者：駱鴻銘

https://feedingonchrist.com/6989-2/

https://www.facebook.com/peddrluo/posts/10156856970109653?__xts__[0]=68.ARCL6Fm_CHCEAAxrpyC2pSkxza8HwMLt1WYIJtOfKanSNSaM0kFVhYy0fvErCgADnu91s_xjlC8bWBvABBm7PlK-NT4VjFC1u0CUKPEYx_2pqg3YlOKFOHg69057YRNopd18ZId4w7LA&__tn__=-R

對於約翰福音三章16節，有許多人提出了眾多的解釋。我們可以用一種懷舊的心情，將這節經文稱為「達陣區」的經文。下這樣的結論可以說是安全的，因為西方世界大部分宣認自己是基督徒的人，都是有意或無意地與亞米念陣營結盟的。他們堅持認為，這節眾人所愛的經文是在教導我們，神愛每個人，每個個體；因此，父差遣子來，是為每個人、所有的人而死。然而，即使在改革宗神學家當中，對於在這節經文當中，我們的主所說的「世人/世界」（world）這個詞的意思，也提供了各式各樣的解釋。

Legion have been the proposed explanations of John 3:16–what we may nostalgically call, “the end-zone verse.” It is safe to conclude that the better part of professing Christians in the Western world have consciously or unconsciously aligned themselves with the Arminian camp–insisting that this much beloved verse teaches us that God loves each and every individual; and, that, therefore, the Father sent the Son to die for each and every one. Yet, even within the Reformed tradition theologians have offered a variety of explanations concerning the meaning of the word “world” in our Lord’s statement.

上個世代的偉大普林斯頓神學家華腓德（B. B. Warfield）解釋了採用這種看法的人所遇見的主要難題。他寫到：

B.B. Warfield, the great Princetonian theologian of a previous generation, explained what he saw as a large part of the hang up for so many who have adopted this view when he wrote:

「雖然這聽起來很奇怪，沒有錯，有許多——或許是大多數人——用這個偉大的宣告來餵養他們靈魂的人，似乎訓練自己這樣認為，當這節經文出現在他們的耳朵時，至少是在第一刻，他們想到的不是『神的愛』有多偉大——多麼長闊高深，而是『世人（世界）』有多偉大。」

“Strange as it may sound, it is true, that many—perhaps the majority—of those who feed their souls on this great declaration, seem to have trained themselves to think, when it falls upon their ears, in the first instance at least, not so much of how great—how immeasurably great—God’s love is, but rather of how great the world is.”

改革宗神學家針對亞米念主義者的立場，當然已經提出了許多有力的反駁。約翰歐文在他的巨著《基督的死吞滅了死亡》（The Death of Death in the Death of Christ）中，解釋了神學家所謂的「特定救贖（particular redemption）」或「有限贖罪（limited atonement）」（即：神的兒子只為選民捨命）。他寫到：

The Arminian position has, of course, has been solidly refuted by the Reformed. John Owen, in his prodigious work The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, explained the biblical rationale for what theologians have called particular redemption or limited atonement (i.e. the teaching that the Son of God only laid down his life for the elect). He wrote:

「祂用自己的血所買來的是『教會』（徒廿28）；基督所愛，並為之捨命的，要藉著道將之洗淨，成為聖潔，可以獻給自己，作個榮耀的教會的，是祂的『教會』（弗五25～27）。祂為之捨命的，是祂的『羊』（約十15）；要顯在神面前的，也是『我們』（來九24）。在聖經裏，沒有提到中保的工作是為了其他人。看看祂的道成肉身。是因為『兒女』，才既同有血肉之體（來二14）；主耶穌說，是『為他們的緣故』（他們是指：『你所賜給我的人』，約十七24），而不是為所有世人的緣故，祂將『自己分別為聖』（約十七19）；也就是說，使自己成為貢物，那是祂當時手中的工作。看看祂的復活：『耶穌被交給人，是為我們的過犯；復活，是為叫我們稱義』（羅四25）」。看看祂的升天：祂說，『我去』『我父的家裏』『是為你們預備地方』（約十四2）。看看祂永遠的代求。祂能『拯救到底』的，不是那些『靠著祂進到神面前的人』嗎（來七25）？聖經完全沒有提到這個中保工作是為了全部的世人……祂用清楚的話否認作全人類的中保。祂說，我『不為世人祈求，卻為你所賜給我的人祈求』（約十七9）。」（註1）

“It was his ‘church’ which he ‘redeemed with his own blood,’ Acts 20:28; his ‘church’ that ‘he loved and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church,’ Eph. 5:25–27. They were his ‘sheep’ he ‘laid down his life for,’ John 10:15; and ‘appears in heaven for us,’ Heb. 9:24. Not one word of mediating for any other in the Scripture. Look upon his incarnation. It was ‘because the children were partakers of flesh and blood,’ chap. 2:14; not because all the world were so…’For their sakes,’ saith he, (‘those whom You have given me,’) ‘do I sanctify myself,’ John 17:19; that is, to be an oblation, which was the work he had then in hand. Look upon his resurrection: ‘He was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification,’ Rom. 4:25. Look upon his ascension: ‘I go,’ saith he, ‘to my Father and your Father, and that to prepare a place for you,’ John 14:2. Look upon his perpetuated intercession. Is it not to ‘save to the uttermost them that come unto God by him?’ Heb. 7:25. Not one word of this general mediation for all…he denies in plain terms to mediate for all: ‘I pray not,” saith he, “for the world, but for them which thou hast given me,’ John 17:9.”1

當主耶穌以毫不含糊的字眼說明祂來捨命，是要「作多人的贖價」（可十45），祂的身體和血是為「多人」捨的，使罪得赦，就總結了這個觀念。再加上，舊約先知和使徒清楚教導，神已經指定一些人遭永恆的遺棄（箴十六4；羅九22；彼前二8）。如此，使徒約翰在寫這節經文時的意思，是指神拯救了每個人、一切曾經活過的人或將來一切會活著的人，就是匪夷所思的。

Jesus summarized this idea when he stated in no uncertain terms that he came to give his life “a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45) and that his body and blood were given “for many” for the remission of sin. Add to this, the fact that the OT prophets and the Apostles clearly teach that God has appointed some to eternal perdition (Prov. 16:4; Romans 9:22; 1 Peter 2:8). It is unthinkable that the Apostle John would then mean that God savingly loves each and every person who has every lived or who will ever live.

許多人為了回應那些支持亞米念主義者對約翰福音三章16節的解讀，都主張說，約翰在這裏所考慮到的只是選民。他們的邏輯是：若耶穌只為選民而死，那麼神所愛的就只有選民。因此，既然約翰福音三章16節說，「神愛世人，甚至將祂的獨生子賜給他們……」那麼，我們就必須下結論說，「世人」必定是「選民」的縮寫。對我來說，這似乎是一個在邏輯上說得通，但卻是對經文的一種短視的解讀。

Many, in reaction to those who espouse an Arminian reading of John 3:16, have suggested that John only has the elect in view. The logic runs thus: If Jesus only died for the elect, then it is only the elect God loves. Therefore, since John 3:16 says, “God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son…” then we must conclude that the world is shorthand for the elect. This, it seems to me is a logically tenable yet textually shortsighted reading.

那麼，我們應該如何理解約翰福音三章16節的「世人」（世界）呢？在新約聖經裏，「κόσμος (kosmos)」這個詞有好幾種用法。聖經的作者有時候用它來通指「宇宙」（見徒十七24），有時候是指這個物理世界（約十三1；弗一4），有時候是指這個墮落的世界體系及其住民（約十二31，十五18；羅三6；約壹五19），有時候是在救贖歷史意義上的萬民[nations]（約一29，六33；林後五19；約壹二2）。最後的這個說法似乎是最接近約翰福音三章16節前後文的意思。這和那些堅持將它解讀為是指「無一例外的世人」（the world without exception）的人有稍許的不同。應當說，這裏所考慮的，是「沒有分別的世人」（the world without distinction）。這不必然是在教導，耶穌只為選民而死（儘管這和這節經文所教導的，在邏輯上當然是有關的），而是教導父賜下耶穌，是為了要拯救在萬民中一切會信祂的人。神所愛的是萬民，祂也為他們賜下祂的獨生子，作為救恩的途徑。

What then are we to make of the language of the world in John 3:16? There are many ways in which the word κόσμος (kosmos) is used in the NT. The authors of Scripture sometimes use it to refer to the Universe in general (see Acts 17:24), sometimes of the physical world (John 13:1; Eph. 1:4), sometimes of the fallen world system and its inhabitants (John 12:31; 15:18; Romans 3:6; 1 John 5:19), sometimes of the nations in a redemptive historical sense (John 1:29; 6:33; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 John 2:2). It is this latter sense that seems to most closely fit the context of John 3:16. This distinguishes it a bit from those who insist on interpreting it as meaning “the world without exception.” Rather, it is “the world without distinction” that is in view. It is not necessarily teaching that Jesus only died for the elect (though that is certainly logically tied to what it is teaching); rather, it is teaching that Jesus was given by the Father for the salvation of all those among the nations who would come to believe in him. It is the nations that God has loved and for whom He has given His Son as a way of salvation.

耶穌是用杆子上的銅蛇這個預表，來介紹這節經文的，這是從民數記二十一章4～9節取出來的。耶穌知道，這是祂要在十字架上成就之工作的一個預表，因此用銅蛇的故事來教導尼哥底母，舊約和新約的救贖有一種連續性。本質上，耶穌在約翰福音三章15～16節是在教導以下的救贖歷史真理：正如神愛以色列，以至於祂賜給他們一條因信得救的道路（藉著仰望杆子上的銅蛇），同樣，神也愛萬民，並為凡以信心仰望基督並祂釘十字架的人，提供了一條因信得救的道路。藉著這個過渡，也就是從杆子上的銅蛇到十字架上的愛子，以凸顯出救贖歷史的一種轉移與應驗。對我來說，這就是理解救主在約翰福音三章16節的「世人」最好的方法。這個用法和使徒約翰在約翰壹書二章2節的用法，有同樣的含義，他在那裏寫到：「祂為我們（即有信心的猶太人）的罪作了挽回祭，不是單為我們的罪，也是為普天下人的罪（即：來自萬民的信徒）。」在這層意義上，我們可以說，在這兩處經文裏的「世人」，和聖經的教導是一致的。聖經教導，在整個「新約」（New Covenant）時代，神要在萬民中救贖祂的選民，其焦點放在福音無條件的邀約（free offer of the Gospel）。在考慮這節經文的教導時，我再也找不到其他更忠於經文的解讀了。事實上，它完美地通過了球門的門柱，避開了兩邊的錯誤。

Jesus introduces this verse with the typology of the serpent on the pole–which he drew out of Numbers 21:4-9. Knowing that this was a type of the work that he would accomplish on the cross, Jesus taught Nicodemus about the continuity of redemption in the Old and New Testament by appeal to the bronze serpent. In essence, Jesus taught the following redemptive-historical truth in John 3:15-16: Just as God loved Israel so that he offered them a way of salvation by faith (by means of looking at the serpent on the pole) so God has loved the nations and offers a way of salvation by faith to everyone who will look believingly on Christ and him crucified. There is a redemptive-historical shift and fulfillment highlighted in the transition from the serpent on the pole to the Son on the cross. This, it seems to me, is the best way to understand the Savior’s use of the word world in John 3:16. It is used there in the same sense in which the Apostle John used it in 1 John 2:2, when he wrote: “He himself is the propitiation for our (i.e. believingJews) sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world (i.e. believers from among the nations). In this sense, we can say that world in these two places are in keeping with the Scripture’s teaching on the redemption of the elect from among the nations throughout all of the New Covenant era–only with a focus on the free offer of the Gospel. I find no more textually faithful reading to adopt when considering the teaching of this verse. It fact, it sails perfectly through the goal posts, avoiding error on both sides.

註1：Owen, J. (n.d.). The works of John Owen. (W. H. Goold, Ed.) (Vol. 10, pp. 189–190). Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

既是義人又是罪人Simuliustus et peccator

作者：Kelly M. Kapic  譯者：駱鴻銘

http://www.ligonier.org/…/articles/simul-iustus-et-peccator/

https://www.facebook.com/peddrluo/posts/10156846557709653

為什麼我們會做某件事？學者們努力想要認識人性，特別是神學家所說的罪性。罪是從哪裡來的？我們為什麼會犯罪？2002年，華勒（James Waller） 寫了一本嚴謹的心理學著作：《成為邪惡：普通人如何變成集體屠殺的劊子手？》（Becoming Evil : How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing）華勒的研究最吸引人的地方，是他挑戰一個流行的假設，即「異常的邪惡」（extraordinary evil）一定只會從社會或人群中的病態產生出來。這種對極端邪惡的尋常看法，對我們這些「正常人」來說，的確有安慰的效果，因為它向我們保證，我們絕對不會參與這種可怕的罪行——畢竟，我們沒有那麼壞。但是瓦勒的研究卻讓我們感到不安，因為他證明，「異常邪惡」實際上是從「普通人」——像你我一樣的人——當中生出來的。

Why do we do the things we do? Scholars struggle to understand human nature and, in particular, what theologians call sin. Where does it come from and why do we do it? In 2002, James Waller produced a careful work of psychology called Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing. What is fascinating about Waller’s study is that he challenges the common assumption that “extraordinary evil” must arise only from some abnormality within a people or society. Such a common view of extreme evil is a comfort to those of us who are “normal,” as it reassures us that we would never participate in such horrific events — we are not that bad. Yet what is so unsettling about Waller’s study is that he shows “extraordinary evil” actually arises from “ordinary people” — people like you and me.

這個異常邪惡和尋常邪惡的現實，不斷在腦海裡攪擾我們，讓我們難以回答，又揮之不去。著名的社會心理學家辛巴杜（Philip Zimbardo）最近的一本書：《路西華效應：認識好人是怎麼變成惡人的》（Lucifer Effect : Understanding How Good People Turn Evil）（2007）就強調，令人反感的行為，其根本的問題來自環境：腐蝕我們的，是充滿敵意或「酸性」的情況。辛巴杜強調在一個人的塑造過程中，生活背景所扮演的角色非常重要。這是對的，但是他貶低了我們的罪性，說那只是外在環境的影響，卻是大錯特錯的。

The reality of extraordinary and ordinary evil remains a nagging problem, not easily answered and not easily ignored. Famed social psychologist Philip Zimbardo recently wrote The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil (2007), emphasizing that the fundamental problem that leads us into offensive actions is environmental: what corrupts us is the hostile or acidic situations in which we find ourselves. Zimbardo is right to highlight the significance of context in shaping a person, but he is wrong when he reduces our proclivity for evil to influences from external situations.

出問題的不只是「外在」的環境，而是我們的內心。聖經舊約先知耶利米探索人的內心，嚴肅地宣告說：「人心比萬物都詭詐，壞到極處，誰能識透呢？」（耶十七9）同樣，使徒雅各並沒有把誘惑或罪怪到上帝頭上，而是結論到，「但各人被試探，乃是被自己的私慾牽引誘惑的」（雅一14）。但是我們為什麼會想要害人，為什麼會如此仇視上帝、與上帝為敵呢？我們的心到底出了什麼問題？

Something is wrong not simply “out there” but within us. Jeremiah probed the human heart and soberly declared, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jer 17:9). Similarly, the apostle James did not blame God for our temptations or sin but concluded, “Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire” (James 1:14). But why do we have desires that can be so hurtful to others and so contrary to God? What is wrong with our hearts?

早期教會在認識人的本性的爭辯中，沒有比伯拉糾和奧古斯丁之間的辯論更重要的了。

In the early church’s struggle to understand human nature, no debate became more significant than that between Pelagius and Augustine.

伯拉糾是個很熱情的人，他顯然是對他周圍死氣沉沉的道德態度感到失望，所以強調守正不阿的道德行為的重要性。在此過程中，他反對「原罪」的觀念。原罪的意思是，當亞當和夏娃犯罪之後，他們的行動從根本上影響到他們之後所有的人。墮落之後，所有的人生來都帶有犯罪的衝動，使他們遠離神。伯拉糾不同意這種說法。他相信我們生來不是有罪的，但是若我們的意志薄弱，屈服於外在的誘惑時，我們就會犯罪。我們每個人生來都具有與亞當夏娃同樣的能力（在他們對蛇的誘惑讓步之前），並沒有受到罪的污染。雖然原罪是不存在的，但是伯拉糾的確承認人們會犯罪，所以，耶穌仍然有其必要。

Zealous Pelagius, apparently frustrated by the lackadaisical ethical attitudes he saw around him, stressed the importance of unbending moral behavior. In the process, he argued against the idea of what we call “original sin” — when Adam and Eve sinned, their actions fundamentally affected all who would follow. After this fall, people are born with sinful impulses that turn them away from God. Pelagius disagreed. He believed that we are not born sinful, but we sin when we show inadequate willpower and give in to seductive situations. Like Adam and Eve before they gave into the deceptive sounds of the serpent, each of us begins life with the ability to remain untainted by sin. While there is no original sin, Pelagius did admit that people do sin, and thus Jesus is still needed.

伯拉糾主張，在我們受洗歸入基督之時，我們之前所有的罪都獲得了赦免，回到一個純淨的狀態。神呼召受洗的信徒要跟隨耶穌完美的道德榜樣。理論上來說，伯拉糾看法的意思是：人有可能活出完美無罪的生命，只要他們不斷做出正確的抉擇。如同一位早期教會的歷史學家John Anthony McGuckin所寫的，「伯拉糾以為，如果一個門徒堅持嚴格的紀律和禱告，他就會達到一個穩定的狀態，在這個狀態中，連犯罪的慾望都會消失。這種情況稱為『禁慾中的無情』（ascetic passionlessness），即『無欲』（apatheia）」。基督徒可以這樣完美活著，甚至不受罪的誘惑。這不是太棒了嗎？這不是大有盼望，甚至激勵人心嗎？

By our baptism into Christ, Pelagius argued, all of our previous sins were forgiven, returning us to a clean slate. Baptized believers are called then to follow Jesus’ perfect moral example. Theoretically, Pelagius’ view meant that it is possible for people to live perfectly, without sin, as long as they always make the right choices. As John Anthony McGuckin, an early church historian, writes, “Pelagius thought that if a disciple persevered in strong discipline and prayer he or she would reach a state of stability where even the desire for sin would fade away, a condition of ascetic passionlessness (apatheia).” A Christian could live perfectly, no longer even tempted by sin. Doesn’t that sound good? Doesn’t that sound promising, maybe even inspiring?

伯拉糾的著作被送到奧古斯丁主教那裡。奧古斯丁原本不願意被捲入一個他不想參與的爭論之中，特別是伯拉糾被人視為是很敬虔的人，而奧古斯丁還有很多需要作的事。但是當奧古斯丁仔細閱讀，發現伯拉糾如何低估了罪的嚴重性之後，他馬上發現這是個非常嚴重、會給教牧工作帶來災難的觀點。奧古斯丁相信，他必須作出回應，別無選擇。

Pelagius’ writings were sent to Bishop Augustine. The bishop found himself reluctantly drawn into a debate he wished to avoid, especially since Pelagius was known as a pious man and Augustine had plenty of other things to worry about. But once Augustine carefully read how Pelagius downplayed the gravity of sin, he immediately anticipated just how problematic and pastorally disastrous these views were. Augustine believed he had no choice but to respond.

奧古斯丁用了許多經文，特別是保羅的書信，來證明我們若忽略罪的廣泛性和深入性，就會製造出許多我們意想不到的問題。他擔心的不只是罪如何讓非基督徒仍然留在神的審判之下，他也要我們認真地評估殘留在信徒身上的罪。換句話說，伯拉糾教導最大的問題之一，是對貫穿在信徒一生只與罪的真正掙扎，沒有一個令人滿意的解釋。難道你我真的只是不夠努力嗎？奧古斯丁不認為如此；他一再強調神自始至終的恩典。

Saturated in Scripture, and especially the epistles of Paul, Augustine argued that ignoring the extensiveness and intensiveness of sin creates unexpected problems. He was not worried just about how sin keeps non- Christians under God’s judgment, but he also called for sober assessment of the sin that remains in believers. In other words, one of the biggest problems with Pelagius’ teachings was that he had no satisfying explanation for the real continuing struggle that believers have with sin in their lives. Is it really that you and I are just not trying hard enough? Augustine knew otherwise; he consistently stressed God’s grace, from first to last.

我們的問題不只是時常犯罪而已；而是我們根本就是浸泡在罪中，生在罪孽裡，在榮耀的這一邊永遠無法完全脫離它的影響。奧古斯丁把幾段經文串起來，來說明這點：「看啊，我是在罪孽裡生的，在我母親懷胎的時候就有了罪。」（詩五一5；參伯十四4）「誰能說，我潔淨了我的心，我脫淨了我的罪？」（箴廿9）「我們既因信稱義，就藉著我們的主耶穌基督得與神相和。我們又藉著他，因信得進入現在所站的這恩典中，並且歡歡喜喜盼望神的榮耀。」（羅五1-2）「原來我們在許多事上都有過失」（雅三2）奧古斯丁甚至引用偉大的聖經學者耶柔米來支持他關於原罪的論點：「因為沒有人是無罪的，即使他的一生僅有短短的一天。」

Our problem is not just that we sin every now and then; our problem is that we are soaked in sin, are born into it, and are never completely free from its presence this side of glory. Augustine made this point by stringing together just a sampling of biblical texts: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:5; see Job 14:4); “Who can say, “I have made my heart pure; I am clean from my sin?” (Prov. 20:9); “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12); “For we all stumble in many ways” (James 3:2). Augustine even quoted the great biblical scholar Jerome to support his point about original sin: “For no one is without sin, even if his life has but a single day.”

罪的問題深不見底，而且非常個人化。我們都作過令自己懊悔，讓自己感到羞恥的事。我們都有類似的記憶，從店裡偷了一塊糖，或在怒氣中對我們的孩子或其他人大聲嚷嚷。這些行為都是錯的、是可悲的。但是令我們更感到不安的是見到罪惡那黑暗的魔掌，如何深入到我們整個的內心世界中。

The problem of sin is deep and personal. We each have done things we regret, things we feel bad about. We remember stealing a piece of candy from a store or yelling in anger at our children or someone else. These actions are wrong and lamentable. But what can be even more disturbing is to begin to see the dark hand of sin shot through all of our internal world. In the quiet, in the dark, we begin to wonder about ourselves.

我經常和大學生相處，有時會看到他們第一次認識到自己的罪是多麼深，到一個地步，連他們自己都感到害怕。如果被問及，他們都會承認自己是罪人，但是多數的人仍然認為自己基本上是個好人。然後，當事情發生了，他們開始認識到自己內心的複雜：他們震驚於自己竟然會如此嫉妒，成癮的力量如此之大，他們如何操弄一些狀況來利用人，以及他們的心如何控告別人，甚至控告自己。他們猛然醒悟——一定是有什麼地方出錯了，扭曲了他們的心。當他們開始認識到，即使是最純淨的愛心也往往混雜著許多錯誤的動機和黑暗的私慾，這往往會令他們癱瘓。最好的辦法似乎是忽略這個事實，睜一隻眼、閉一隻眼。但這真是好辦法嗎？

Working with college students, I sometimes watch them see the depth of their own sin for the first time, and in many cases it frightens them. They would all confess they are sinners if asked, but in truth, most of them view themselves as basically good. Then something happens. They begin to learn the complexity of their own hearts: they are surprised by how jealous they can be, how powerful addictions can form, how manipulatively they work situations and use people, and how accusatory their hearts can be, not just about others, but toward themselves. At some point it hits them — there is something terribly wrong, something bent about their hearts. They often become paralyzed as they begin to see that even their purest love grows out of mixed motives and darkened desires. It seems better to ignore this reality, to never fully see it. But is that better?

真正認識自己的罪，是很痛苦的。我們會納悶，罪在我們的生命中，為何仍然如此暴虐，它會製造痛苦，破壞關係。正如胡克瑪（Anthony Hoekema）觀察到的，我們面對罪的雙重問題：它帶來的「罪名」（guilt；或譯為「罪咎」，也就是犯罪的後果：被定罪），以及它所製造的「污染」。雖然基督徒在基督裡已經被稱義，且被基督的愛和憐憫所充滿（從罪咎中得釋放），但我們仍然需要與罪的現實（它持續的污染）不斷地較力。一旦我們明白我們內心的黑暗，我們最不需要、也最不能幫助我們的，就是讓別人告訴我們，你須要更努力，而這正是伯拉糾提供的解答。無論我們多麼努力，罪仍然還會留在那裡。對基督徒來說，不斷在困擾我們的，就是犯罪的傾向在我們得救之後並沒有馬上消失。我們仍然活在原罪的悲劇底下，它不僅影響我們每天，更是每一刻的生活。

When our sin is revealed to us, it is painful. We wonder why sin remains such a violent presence in our lives, creating pain and relational destruction. As Anthony Hoekema observed, we face two issues with sin: the guilt it brings and the pollution it creates. While Christians are justified in Christ and soaked in His love and mercy (freed from sin’s guilt), we continue to wrestle with the ongoing realities of sin (its abiding pollution). Once we do see the darkness of our own hearts, the last thing we need, the last thing that seems to be helpful, is to be told, as Pelagius tells us, to try harder. We have tried, but sin remains. For Christians, part of what can be so troubling is that our sinful impulses do not simply disappear once we are saved. We still live in light of the tragedy of original sin, and it affects us not only every day, but every moment.

無怪乎與罪妥協會讓我們覺得羞恥——它會讓我們承認一些我們不想承認的事。我們並不是「好人」。出錯的不只是這個世界，更是我們自己。罪不只影響到我們的意志，更是影響到我們的心思，我們的情感，甚至我們的身體。但矛盾的是，唯有認識到我們是被罪所捆綁，我們才能歌頌在基督裡所得的自由。

No wonder we find it humiliating to come to terms with our sin — it makes us confess things about ourselves that none of us really wants to admit. We are not “good people.” Something is wrong, not just in this world, but within us. Sin has affected not just our wills but our minds, our emotions, even our bodies. But paradoxically, only when we see our slavery to sin can we celebrate our liberty in Christ.

說到底，只有當我們謙卑地，以毫不妥協的真誠，承認罪真正的本質，我們最終才能在敬畏和驚奇中，仰望十架。「因為罪的工價乃是死；惟有神的恩賜，在我們的主基督耶穌裡，乃是永生。」（羅六23）奧古斯丁的結論是，我們對罪的看法，不只對人的天性的討論，而是最終要討論到耶穌基督和祂的死。十字架的意義不只是要讓我們「得救」，而是在實際上，它要不斷掌管並引導神兒女的生命。這意味著我們不只是靠恩典得救，我們的一生，也依然要倚靠恩典。一方面，是的，我們是有罪的。但是在另一方面，我們注目那浩大、至愛、全然有效的基督的工作。這改變了一切。我們活在這樣的矛盾中，正如奧古斯丁修會的修士馬丁•路德所正確領悟到的：基督徒既是被稱義的人，同時又是罪人（simul iustus et peccator）。如此，雖然我們繼續不斷與罪爭鬥，但是當我們不斷仰望十架，繼續前行時，我們也找到盼望與安慰。」

In the end, it is only when we humbly, and with unflinching honesty, come to recognize the true nature of sin that we can finally look, in awe and wonder, at the cross. “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). Augustine concluded that our view of sin is not just a discussion about human nature, but ultimately it is a discussion about Jesus Christ and His death. The cross was not significant simply in order to get us “saved,” but its reality continues to govern and guide the life of God’s children. This means that not only are we saved by grace, but we remain dependent on grace for our whole lives. On the one hand, yes, there is our sin. But on the other, we behold the great, loving, and allsufficient work of Christ. And that changes everything. We live in the paradox that the Augustinian monk Martin Luther so rightly understood: Christians are simultaneously justified and still sinners (simul iustus et peccator). In this way, while we continue to struggle with sin, we also find hope and comfort as we lift our eyes to the cross and keep walking.

Dr. Kelly M. Kapic 是位於喬治亞州瞭望山（Lookout Mountain）的聖約學院（Covenant College）的神學研究教授。他的著作有：Communion with God : the Divine and the Human in the Theology of John Owen。

摘編自TableTalk雜誌2010年5月號

提摩太前書5:9- 16  學習敬虔，制勝懶惰

聖經歸正教會 主日證道08/26/2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwQzKkCJcE0

https://plus.google.com/u/0/105106813742373627205/posts/YXvjgkk9a3W

前言：使徒保羅在提前5:1-2教導如何規勸教會中的老幼男女，在5:3-8說明要尊敬那真為寡婦的，他們活出敬虔生活的榜樣：注目仰望神，恆切禱告，不愛宴樂。寡婦的兒女與孫兒女要學習行孝報答親恩，討神喜悅。這是操練敬虔的起點。然後在5:9-16，保羅說明教會要救濟那真無倚靠的寡婦，以及如何教導年輕寡婦過敬虔生活。

1. 教會如何照顧真實的寡婦

(1) 教會要將那真無依靠的寡婦，登記在正式名冊上，負責照顧他的各方面需要，供養他們(徒6:1)。這是執事的工作之一，需要執事的妻子或女同工(包括寡婦)協助，例如多加照顧教會的眾寡婦(徒9:36-42)，他復活之後繼續事奉行善。

(2) 要登錄在敬虔寡婦名冊上的人，必須有三方面的條件：年紀到六十歲，從來只作一個丈夫的妻子，又有行善的好名聲being witnessed by good works。準則是年紀老elderly需要照顧，心態是faithful貞潔忠誠(對照3:2)，處境中活出godly美好善行見證。

(3) 教會供養名冊上的寡婦是老年婦人，可以教導少年婦人敬虔生活(多2:3-5)。顯然，在聖殿居住的亞拿是美好的典範(路2:37)。

2. 行善的美好見證，包括四點所行的：

(1) 養育兒女brought up children，養育自己的兒女(2:15)，也可能包括養育他人的兒女；

(2) 接待遠人 received strangers (3:2)，幫補聖徒，款待遠道而來的信徒(羅12:13)，特別是傳福音的宣教士(約貳5-8)；

(3) 洗聖徒的腳washed the feet of saints，謙卑服事(撒上25:41；路7:44)，遵行主的榜樣與命令(約13:5，12，14-17)；

(4) 救濟遭難的人relieved (helped) those in distress，救助心靈身體苦難，受逼迫的信徒(帖前3:4；帖後1:6-7)。

(5) 總之，這寡婦是「竭力行各樣善事devoted oneself to, followed after every good work」，行善在好事上富足(6:18)，留心行善(多3:8)。這是因為遵行聖經，聖經預備屬神的人行各樣的善事(提後3:16-17)。這些敬虔的寡婦真是遵照聖經，活出敬虔的生活的榜樣。

3. 至於年輕的寡婦

(1)「就可以辭他refuse younger widows」是指不許登記在名冊上。因為登入名冊的寡婦，六十歲以上過了再婚的年齡，許願過獨身操練敬虔，由教會供養，並參與教導年輕婦女的聖工。如果寡婦是年輕，就不合適登記在名冊上，

(2) 年輕寡婦若是自己禁止不住do not exercise self-control，與其慾火攻心，不如嫁娶為妙better to remarry than to burn(林前7:8)；有性方面的需要並非犯罪，寡婦想要再婚是可以的，只是要嫁在主裡面的人，雖然守節是更有福氣(林前7:39-40)。

(3)「他們的情慾發動違背基督的時候」，此複合動詞說到違背主基督的情慾作祟，就想要嫁人，因此招致定罪。再婚不是定罪的原因，原因是違背主基督，失去向主所存純一清潔的心(林後11:2-3)。

(4)「他們被定罪，是因廢棄了當初所許的願their first pledge (faith)」他們丟棄了起初的信，所許的獨身守寡誓願(為要專心事奉主的教會)。可能有人甚至嫁給主外的人，所以招致審判。所以保羅寧願年輕的寡婦再嫁主內弟兄。

(5)「並且at the same time他們又習慣懶惰learn to be idle」信徒蒙召殷勤事奉主，懶惰是我們的致命傷(羅12:11)，「挨家閒遊，不但是懶惰，又說長道短gossips好管閒事busybodies，說些不當說的話」(利19:16)，懶惰帶來的惡果有二：說閒話，管閒事(帖後3:11；彼前4:15)，說些不當說的話the things not proper 不正當，虛浮，世俗虛談，荒渺的話(1:6-7；4:7；6:3-4，20)，與假教師相去不遠，有些也成為假教師的掠物(提後3:6-7)。

(6)「所以，我願意年輕的寡婦嫁人，生養兒女，治理家務，不給敵人辱罵的把柄」，年輕寡婦若不能謹守節制，則應當再嫁主裡的人，過敬虔的家庭生活。如此就不給惡者留地步，不給敵人有把柄(原意是base for operations，機會，羅7:8，11；林後11:12；加5:13)有機可乘。信徒必須無可指責(2:2:3:6；5:8；6:1)。可悲的是，「已經有轉去隨從撒但的」(4:1-2；2:14；林後11:3)。

結論：

1.「信主的婦女，若家中有寡婦，自己就當救濟他們」，婦女信徒更是要照顧自己家中的寡婦，活出敬虔生活的見證，學著行孝，報答親恩(5:4，8)，不可習慣懶惰。姊妹們應效法革來氏(林前1:11)，呂底亞(徒16:14)。

2.「不可累著教會，好使教會能救濟那真(無倚靠的)寡婦」，每個信徒家庭照顧自己的寡婦，教會就不會擔負過重的擔子，就能救濟無家人照顧的真敬虔寡婦。

3. 我們當從年長寡婦的敬虔榜樣，學習行孝，殷勤不可懶惰；當以年輕寡婦的情慾作為鑑戒，不可習慣懶惰，不務屬靈的正業，不可違背主基督，背了真道(5:8，11)，不可失去起初的信，廢棄當初獻身事奉主的志願。

4. 應當注目仰望主耶穌，他在神的全家盡忠(來3:6:12:2)，我們當跟隨他的腳蹤行(彼前2:21)，靠主恩典竭力行各樣善事，在好事上富足(弗2:10)。

問題討論:

1. 寡婦要登記在教會的名冊上，要符合哪些條件? 原因何在? 他們可以參加那些聖工事奉? 年輕的寡婦不可以登記在教會的寡婦名冊上，原因有哪些?

2.「有行善的好名聲」善行的見證包括有哪些? 如何才能竭力行各樣善事?

3. 寡婦再嫁是可以的，然而守節更有福氣，經文根據何在? 寡婦若是再嫁，有一必須遵守的條件，是甚麼?

4. 年輕寡婦容易遭受的試探是什麼? 他們被定罪的原因是甚麼? 違背當初所許的願，這是指甚麼?

5. 如何防範「習慣(學習)懶惰」? 為何說學習懶惰是敬虔生活的大敵? 會帶來的惡果有哪些? 如何防範「說閒話，管閒事」? 要學習什麼? (2:7；5:4)

6. 聖經中有哪些寡婦，是我們學習的敬虔榜樣? 主耶穌自己是敬虔生活事奉的真正典範，他在神的全家盡忠，我們必須如何，才真是他的家(教會)? 這與操練敬虔有何關聯(4:8-10；來3:6)?

提摩太前書 5:1-8活出福音

聖經歸正教會 主日證道08/19/2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8Ktt-avIqM

https://plus.google.com/u/0/105106813742373627205/posts/9gzkkxpqjAt

前言：使徒保羅在4:11-16說明要根據聖經來教導勸勉純正教義，以「留心－專心－恆心」操練敬虔的生活。然後，吩咐提摩太在「言，行，愛，信，潔」如何作敬虔的榜樣，帶領信徒都活出福音。5:1-2勸勉如何對待教會中的信徒，依照年齡與性別，給予適當的尊重。

1. 如何規勸老幼男女  5:1-2

(1)「不可嚴責老年人older man」不可嚴厲責備老年弟兄，「只要勸他如同父親」，牧者同工必須根據聖經規勸老年會友(提後3:16)，然而不可以嚴厲用詞斥責。因為我們在主裡是一家人，是神家裡的人(3:15；弗2:19-20)。

(2)「勸exhort」勸勉(4:13；6:2；參考1:3；2:1)是聖靈的工作(約16:7-11)，透過聖經的傳講，在人心中光照勸化安慰。牧者的教導，弟兄姊妹彼此教導，互相勸誡，是保惠師的工具，所以我們不可消滅他的感動，也不可叫他擔憂(帖前5:19；弗4:30)。

(3)「勸老年人…少年人…老年婦人…少年婦人」都是根據「家庭」原則，「如同父親…弟兄…母親…姊妹」，提摩太要像對待自己家人一樣，對待教會中各類的會友(例如羅16:13)，尊重他們服事他們，這乃是作在主的身上(太25:40)。

(4)「總要清清潔潔的with all purity」(4:12)，在處理各類人際關係上，都要全然聖潔(羅16:16)，特別是對待少年婦人。我們要逃避少年人的私慾，勝過情慾試探(對照假教師與受其迷惑的婦女，5:11；提後3:6-7)

(5) 固然「不可叫人小看你年輕」，也必須尊敬長輩，待人有禮。關於如何對待長輩，晚輩，平輩，請見西敏大要理問答127-132問。

2. 對三類信徒的指導原則    5:3 - 6:2

(1) 在2:1 – 3:13中，保羅教導男人，女人，監督，執事等各類信徒的指導原則，如今在5:3起，論到三類信徒，教導如何帶領他們過敬虔生活，活出福音。先是論到「寡婦」(5:3-16)，再論「長老」(5:17-25)，最後論「僕人」(6:1-2)。

(2) 寡婦是初代教會要特別照顧的，要「尊敬honor」那真為寡婦的(5:3)。長老是教會的領袖職分，更要「加倍的敬奉double  honor」(5:17)。僕人當以為自己的主人配受「十分的恭敬all honor」(6:1)。

3. 尊敬那真為寡婦的    5:3

(1) 聖約子民團體要特別照顧寡婦，在舊約律法中特別指示不可忽略他們(出22:22；申24:17，19-21)，詩篇68:5；146:9說主是孤兒寡婦的保護與伸冤者(箴15:25)。先知書也多次警告不可欺壓寡婦，要保護他們(賽1:17；耶22:3；亞7:10；瑪3:5)。

(2) 初代教會認真照顧會友中的寡婦，設立執事專門負責救濟照顧寡婦與其他貧困者(徒6:1-6；9:36-41)。雅各書1:27說，真實的敬虔「那清潔沒有玷污」的虔誠」是照顧在患難中的孤兒寡婦。所以提前5:16說教會要救濟那真無倚靠的寡婦。

4. 報答親恩，看顧親屬    5:4-8

(1)「尊敬」那真為寡婦的，與第五誡命「孝敬」父母，是同義詞。「若寡婦有兒女或有孫子孫女，便叫他們在自己家中學著行孝learn first to show piety to their own household」，學習操練敬虔(2:2；3:16:4:7-8)，是從自己家中，向自己家人開始。信徒兒女應當孝敬自己的父母，特別是寡母需要照顧。

(2)「報答親恩to return requitals to their parents」是指行孝奉養父母，回報所虧負的恩情，「因為這在神面前是可悅納的pleasing, acceptable before God」(2:3)。「當孝敬父母」是第一條帶應許的誡命(出20:12；弗6:1-3)。

(3) 誰是真為寡婦的？「獨居無靠having been left alone」，「仰賴神has set hope on God」(我們的盼望在乎神，4:10)並且「晝夜不住的祈求禱告continue in the petitions and prayers night and day」，例如亞拿(路2:36-37)，切求的寡婦(路18:1)，奉獻兩個小錢的寡婦(可12:41-42，對照侵佔寡婦家產的文士法利賽人，12:38)。

(4) 真正過敬虔生活的寡婦，活出提前2:9-15「常存信心愛心，又聖潔自守」的見證，作為屬靈婦女的榜樣。他們不會貪愛世俗好宴樂(雅5:5)，「但那好宴樂的寡婦，正活著的時候，也是死的has died while living」，他們按名是活的，其實靈命已經死了(啟3:1)，與屬靈生命是隔絕的(弗4:18)。

(5)「這些事你要囑咐他們，叫他們無可指責」囑咐command, charge是嚴肅用詞(1:3，5，18；4:11；5:21；6:13；提後4:1)。他們是指寡婦與家人，以及眾信徒，都要無可指責(2:2；3:2；5:14；6:1)。這是敬虔操練的目的。

(6)「人若不看顧親屬provide for his own」，就是背了真道has denied the faith」這是背了敬虔的實意(提後3:5)，信徒要互相擔當彼此的重擔，看顧親人是敬虔生活的操練起點(加6:2，10；雅2:14-17)。「比不信的人還不好，不看顧自己家裡的人，更是如此and especially his family」，不信的人因為有律法的功用刻在心中，有些仍會看顧家人親屬；信主的人若不看顧家人，則如何向不信的人作福音的見證呢？ 

結論：

1.信徒看顧親屬的四個原因：報答親恩，討主喜悅，不違背真道，減輕教會負擔(16節)。這是操練敬虔的基本實行，活出福音，見證主是看顧孤兒寡婦的神。

2. 初代教會照顧寡婦的飯食，多加美好的榜樣，照顧眾寡婦(徒9:36-41)。敬虔的寡婦成為榜樣，提醒我們敬虔生活金三角：注目仰賴神(準則)，恆切禱告(處境)，不好宴樂(心態)，以免我們靈命枯竭死亡。

3. 主自己的榜樣，照顧寡婦，叫拿因城寡婦的兒子復活，受死之前託付母親給約翰(路7:11-12；約19:26:27)。我們要跟隨主的腳蹤行，照顧貧困無靠的弟兄姊妹，因是為主而作且作在主身上(太25:40)。憐恤人的人有福了(他們已經先蒙主的憐恤)，也必繼續蒙憐恤(太5:7)。

問題討論：

1. 我們應當如何規勸教會中的老幼男女？「總要清清潔潔的」是什麼意思？

2. 「要尊敬那真為寡婦的」，原因為何？誰是真為寡婦的？如何去尊敬呢？從舊約到初代教會有何範例見證？你從多加身上學到什麼功課？

3. 寡婦若有兒女或孫子女，他們應當先在自己家中行孝照顧，原因有哪四方面？

4. 敬虔的寡婦有哪些特徵？他們如何成為信徒的榜樣？為何說「那好宴樂的寡婦，正活著的時候也是死的」？這如何警惕我們？

5.「人若不看顧親屬，就是背了真道」，看顧是什麼意思？為何不看顧，就等於是背了真道？信徒有時會墮落到比非信徒還差，原因何在？

6. 主耶穌自己給我們照顧寡婦的榜樣，有哪些？我們當如何憐恤人？這與以主基督為中心的敬虔生活，有何密切關連？請分享你的心得。