行為之約 Covenant ofWorks (Creation)
聖約神學課程 三、行為之約 Covenant of Works (Creation)
作者：Dr. J. Ligon Duncan 譯者：駱鴻銘
如果你有帶聖經，請跟著我打開創世記第一章。我們上週讀過這段經文，我們再讀一次。我們把焦點放在一章24節以下：If you have your
Bibles, I would invite you to open with me to Genesis 1. We read the passage last week, and we will
look at it again. In Genesis 1 we will
focus on verse 24 and following.
上帝說：「地要生出活物來，各從其類；牲畜、昆蟲、野獸，各從其類。」事就這樣成了。於是上帝造出野獸，各從其類；牲畜，各從其類；地上一切昆蟲，各從其類。上帝看著是好的。上帝說：「我們要照著我們的形像、按著我們的樣式造人，使他們管理海裡的魚、空中的鳥、地上的牲畜，和全地，並地上所爬的一切昆蟲。」上帝就照著自己的形像造人，乃是照著他的形像造男造女。上帝就賜福給他們，又對他們說：「要生養眾多，遍滿地面，治理這地，也要管理海裡的魚、空中的鳥，和地上各樣行動的活物。」上帝說：「看哪，我將遍地上一切結種子的菜蔬和一切樹上所結有核的果子全賜給你們作食物。至於地上的走獸和空中的飛鳥，並各樣爬在地上有生命的物，我將青草賜給他們作食物。」事就這樣成了。上帝看著一切所造的都甚好。有晚上，有早晨，是第六日。天地萬物都造齊了。到第七日，上帝造物的工已經完畢，就在第七日歇了他一切的工，安息了。上帝賜福給第七日，定為聖日；因為在這日，上帝歇了他一切創造的工，就安息了。（創一24～二1-3）Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures
after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after
their kind”; and it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth after their
kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground
after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man
in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the
sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth,
and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” And God created man in
His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created
them. And God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply,
and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over
the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on
the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it
shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the
sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given
every green plant for food”; and it was so. And God saw all that He had made,
and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the
sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.
And by the seventh day God completed His work which He had done; and He rested
on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the
seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which
God had created and made.
以上是上帝默示的聖言，願祂加添祝福。讓我們一同禱告：Thus ends this
reading of God’s holy and inspired
Word, may He add His blessing to it. Let’s look to Him now in prayer.
我們的父，我們感謝你賜下你的聖道，當我們開始研讀，專注在包含在聖經裡的聖約，我們禱告求你打開我們的眼睛，好讓我們對你聖道中的真理有清楚的認識，我們會被真理的榮耀所折服、所俘虜，好讓我們能夠向其他人傳遞這個真理。奉耶穌基督的名。阿們。Our Father we thank You for
this Word, and as we begin to study it, concentrating on the truth of the
covenant contained therein, we pray that our eyes would be opened that we would
have a clear understanding of the truth of Your Word, that we would be
captivated by the glory of that truth and that we would be better enabled to
communicate that truth to others. We ask
these things in Jesus’ name. Amen.
一、行為之約的解經基礎
The Exegetical Basis of the Covenant of Works
今天我要開始和各位一起看行為之約的解經基礎。當然，我們會集中來看創世記第一、二章。從某個意義來說，創世記一章1節到創世記二章3節是創世記二章4節到二章17或24節盟約公式的序言。自由派習慣在這裡大做文章，說這裡有兩個互相矛盾的創世記載。我相信我們所有的人都會明白，不可能會有這麼差勁的編輯，偶然地、隨意地把兩個可以互相替代的、彼此矛盾的創世記載並排放在他所編輯的書中；像創世記的編輯者，很明顯是很有才華的人，更不可能這麼作。因此，把這兩個記錄放在一起，是有神學和文學上的理由的。I want to begin today
looking with you at the exegetical basis of the Covenant of Works. And that means of course, concentrating
closely on Genesis 1 and 2. There is a
sense in which Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2: 3 serves as a preface for the
covenantal formulation of Genesis 2:4 – Genesis 2:17 or 24, however you want to
divide it. Liberals used to make much
about these supposedly two alternative and contradictory creational accounts. I trust that all of us understand that nobody
could possibly be so bad an editor, to accidentally, unwittingly put two
creational accounts which were in fact alternative and contradictory side by
side and leave them in the book that he had edited. And certainly no one as talented as the
person who edited Genesis clearly is. So understand that there is a
theological, as well as a literary agenda, for placing these two accounts side
by side.
如同你所看到的，所謂的第一個創世記載，從創一1到創二3，明顯的是把人放在上帝原始創造秩序的脈絡下。然後從創二4開始，是把焦點放在上帝與人的關係本質上。事實上，在創一1～二3所介紹的主題，在創二4被重新討論，加以放大。因此這兩個記載有非常明顯的文學和神學上的關聯。它們被安放在這裡，並不會對我們造成傷害。從神學角度來說，他們不是以一種不負責任的方式被放在這裡的；它們在邏輯上和神學上是互為根基的。And as you see the
first so-called account of creation from Genesis 1:1 running to Genesis 2:3, it
is clear that the focus is to put man in context in God’s original created
order. And then beginning in Genesis 2:4
there will be significantly more concentration on the nature of the
relationship between God and man. In
fact, themes that are introduced in Genesis 1:1 – 2:3 will be taken up again in
Genesis 2:4 and following and amplified.
So there is every sign of literary and theological connection between
these two accounts. They are not placed
here in a haphazard way. They are not
placed here in an irresponsible way theologically. They logically and theologically build on one
another.
當我們看創世記載本身，很明顯這個記載的高潮是在第六天。這不是因為第六天是創造日的最後一天，而是因為在第六天，上帝宣告人要按上帝的形象被造。我們從24節起，讀到了第六天的記載，應該足以讓你們感受到這裡使用的語言的文學氣氛。注意上帝在24節強調的，「地要生出活物來，各從其類」。這是強調生物要按照它們的種類、屬、物種而產生後代。它強調牲畜、昆蟲、野獸會被產生出來，怎麼產生呢？各從其類。會從與牠們最初被造時相似的物種而產生。在25節又強調一次：「於是上帝造出野獸，各從其類；牲畜，各從其類；地上一切昆蟲，各從其類。上帝看著是好的。」因此，上帝原始的創造是好的，但祂是按照種類來創造的。Now having said
that as we look at the creation account itself, it is very apparent that the
culmination of this account is in the sixth day. And that is not just because the sixth day is
the last of the creative days. It is
because in that day, the announcement of the creation of man in the image of
God is made and we read enough of that sixth day account beginning in verse 24
to give you the literary feel for the language that has already been used. Notice what God stresses in verse 24, “let
the earth bring forth creatures after their kind.” So it is stressed that creatures after their
kind, after their genus, after their species are from henceforth and forever
going to be brought forth. It is
stressed that cattle and creeping things and beasts all will be produced.
How? After their kind. In the likeness of the genus in which they
were originally created and then it is stressed again in verse 25: God made the
beasts of the earth after their kind.
The cattle after their kind.
Everything that creeps on the ground after its kind and God saw that it
was good. And so His original creation
is good but He is making things according to their kind.
接著是26節，一個里程碑的宣告，宣告什麼呢？「上帝說：我們要照著我們的形像、按著我們的樣式造人」。你馬上會看到野獸是按照牠們的種類被造，而人是按照上帝的形象被造的。如此，正如一位牧師所說，「我們可以用敬畏的心說，當地上的動物是按照牠們的種類被造時，人卻是按照上帝的種屬被造的」。好，這種說法是很嚇人的，我們不是要強調另一位牧師所說，「從神學上來說，我們是小神」，但是我們要認識到這裡所說的是什麼意思。人與動物屬於完全不同的等級，你馬上就會看到聖經的人類學和世俗演化論的人類學之間，根本的、而且是無法化解的衝突。他們說，我們也是動物界的一員，和動物基本上沒有什麼兩樣。我們只是高度進化的動物而已。聖經絲毫不留情面地直接駁斥了這種看法：「不，人類和動物不是同一種物種。他們是上帝獨特的創造，是為了承載祂的形象而被造的」。我們從24-26節就可以看出人和動物界有著巨大的鴻溝，這個差距是耶和華以祂的話，將它放置在那裡的，人被放在一個被高舉的地位。在此之前所敘述的，都是為了向人類闡釋他在宇宙中的地位。當我們一起看這段經文，從26節以下，我要說清楚，「人是按照上帝形象被造」是什麼意思。然後我們會稍微詳細地解釋人與上帝之間的關係，其本質是什麼。當我們看這段經文時，會深入討論，不過要等到我們看創二4，和後面的經文時才會展開。And then there comes this monumental
announcement in verse 26, and that announcement is what? “Then God said, let us make man in Our image” and you see immediately the contrast between
the beasts being made after their kind and man being made after God’s
image. And so we can remember, some of
us, who heard Nigel Cameron preach back in the spring at First Presbyterian
Church, tremblingly he said, “We may say reverently that whereas the beasts of
the earth are made after their kind, man is of the genus of God.” Now, that is a shocking way of putting it and
we don’t want to stress that in some sort of a Kenneth Hagan way—we are “little
gods” theologically—but recognize what is being said about man here. Man is of an altogether different order and
you see immediately a fundamental and unresolvable clash between a biblical
anthropology and a secular evolutionary anthropology which says we are of the
same basic stuff as the animal world. We
are simply a more highly evolved animal.
And in bold and in direct refutation and confrontation with that kind of
view, the Bible says “No, human beings are not of the same kind, or species or
genus as the animal creation. They are a
unique creation of God, uniquely created by Him to bear His image.” And so you can see even looking at verses 24
and 25 and 26, this chasm that is being put between man and the animal creation
by the Lord in His Word, and the exalted position. So everything has been building to this
moment to explain to man the place that he has in the universe. And so as we look at this passage together,
especially from verse 26 on down, I want to make clear what it means for man to
be made in the image of God. And then we
will move on to explain a little bit in detail about the nature of the relationship
that man has with God. We will get into
a little of that as we look at this passage, but it will be expanded when we
look at Genesis 2:4 and following.
二、創造的律例
The Creation Ordinances
創造的律例（creation ordinance）是什麼意思呢？意思是當上帝原先創造這個世界時，編織到上帝所造萬物裡面的一種模式。（重覆）倘若你讀過約翰慕理的《行為的原則》，慕理提出了七個創造律例。也許最常聽到的是三個律例。我在乎的不是數量，而是希望大家能領會創造律例的這個觀念。What is meant by a
creation ordinance? By a creation
ordinance, we mean a pattern of responsibility woven into the very fabric of
the creation by God as He originally made it.
A pattern of responsibility woven into the very fabric of creation as He
originally created it. If you have read
John Murray’s Principles of Conduct, Murray comes up with seven creation
ordinances. Perhaps most frequently we
hear of three creation ordinances. I am
not so concerned about the numbering as I am of us grasping the concepts of
these creation ordinances.
1. 第一個創造律例是繁殖的律例。創世記一28：「要生養眾多，遍滿地面」。這是在創世記第一章給的第一個創造律例。當然，這和婚姻是直接有關的，等我們到二章23-24節時會看到。很顯然，這個律例對成全後面的工作和統治的使命來說是最基本的。亞當和夏娃是兩個獨立的人，無論他們在尚未墮落時有多大能力，也無法駕馭整個地球。他們必須能夠生養後代，才能制服、指揮上帝所建立的世界。這個律例在創世記第一、二章說明得很清楚，也必須要在彼此承諾的約定，即婚姻中才能表達出來。因此這是一個義務、也是祝福（重覆）。你能想像上帝臨到亞當，然後亞當回答說，「這是我必須要作的嗎？」「是的，這是個義務和祝福。要生養眾多。」你會看到，這是對亞當要有一個家庭的祝福。亞當在他必須要做的工作上，需要兒女來協助。因此，它是作為一個家庭的祝福，是要給他全家的，也是履行工作和統治使命所必須的。1. The first
creation ordinance that we see there is the ordinance of procreation. Genesis 1:28. The ordinance of procreation. “Be
fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.”
This is the first of the creation ordinances given in Genesis 1 and, of
course, it is related directly to marriage as we will see when we finally get
over to Genesis 2:23-24. And it is
obviously essential for the fulfillment of the later mandates of labor and
dominion. Adam and Eve as two isolated individuals,
no matter how powerful in their capacities as unfallen human beings, can’t
subdue the whole of this globe. There
has got to be procreation in order to harness and order the world as God has
established it. And this ordinance, it
is made clear in Genesis 1 and 2, was to be expressed only within the bonds of
mutual commitment, that is, marriage. So
this is an obligation and a blessing. It
is an obligation and a blessing. Can you imagine God coming to Adam, and Adam
responding, “Do I have to?” “Yes. It is an obligation and a blessing. Be fruitful and multiply.” And there again
you see it is a blessing to Adam as a family.
Adam needs sons and daughters to help him in the work that he has to
do. And so it serves as a familial
blessing for his family as a whole, as well as something essential to the
fulfillment of the mandates for labor and dominion.
2. 第二個律例是工作的律例。「遍滿地面，征服、治理這地」。注意這個律例有兩部分：工作的使命，和治理的祝福。他必須要工作，但是上帝設定了被造的萬物，讓次等的生物會懼怕人，尊敬人的地位和權威，而這個統治的使命必然會表現在工作或勞動中，因此，工作是好的。工作是原始創造秩序的一部分。當我們到天上，我們不是躺在舒服的床上或為此而去的。在天上我們會有工作要做，我們原先被造就是要如此。但是不會有折磨，不會有沮喪，不會疲累，而是會有充分發揮我們才能的工作。人的治理會表現在兩方面：從經文可以看到，首先是制服大地，再來是治理動物。2. The second
ordinance that we see, we also see in verse 1:28, and that is the ordinance of
labor. The ordinance of labor. “Fill
the earth and subdue it and rule.” Now notice the two parts of this
ordinance. The mandate is to work. The blessing is that God has given man
rule. He is mandated to work, but God
has set up the creation so that the lower creation fears man, respects his
position of authority, and this dominion mandate expresses itself necessarily in
work or labor and thus, work is good.
Work is part of the original created order. When we go to heaven, we are not going to
heaven either on flowery beds of ease or for flowery beds of ease. There will be work in heaven. That is what we were originally created
for. There will be no toil. There will be no frustration. There will be no tiredness. But there will be fulfilling work. The dominion of man was to be expressed in
two spheres. You see it in this passage,
first in the subduing of the earth and second in the ruling over the animals.
這個工作的律例甚至也隱含在創二1-3的安息日律例當中，因為安息日的律例是做什麼的呢？為工作定出界限。它是要告訴人，你不能老是在工作。但是它也暗示在其他六天工作的義務。因此，人的義務是什麼呢？繁殖、工作。他要把上帝君尊的統治表現出來。在工作中會有什麼祝福呢？不只是工作上的滿足，也在上帝賜予他的統治，讓他治理上帝所造的世界。And let me go on to
say that this labor ordinance was implicit even in the Sabbath ordinance of
Genesis 2:1-3, because what does the Sabbath ordinance do? It puts a limit on labor. It says to man, you can’t work all the
time. But it implies the obligation of
work on the other six days. So, what are
man’s obligations? Procreation. Labor.
He is to express dominion. How is
blessing entailed in his labor? Not only
in the satisfaction of that labor, but also in the dominion that God has given
him, the rule that God has given him over his creation.
3. 然後是安息日的律例。我們在創二3看到這點：「上帝賜福給第七日，定為聖日」。第七日的記號是上帝特殊創造工作的完成。祂的工作在第六日完成了，創造之工已經成就了。這不是說祂今天完全沒有活動。祂繼續施行護理之工，保存、統管祂所造的萬物，但是這個字，「完成」（finished）這個字，摩西也用在出埃及記四十章33節，會幕完工了，還有代下七11，聖殿造成了，以及耶穌在約翰福音十九章33節，救贖完成了。同樣的觀念，同樣的用詞。3. Then, the ordinance of the
Sabbath. We see this in Genesis 2:3:
“God blessed the Sabbath and sanctified it.”
This seventh day is marked by the completion of God’s special created
work; His labor was finished in the first six days. The work of creation as such is done. That doesn’t mean that He is inactive. He continues to work in providence in
preserving and governing His creation, but the same word, finished, is used
here as it is used of Moses finishing the tabernacle in Exodus 40:23, and of
Solomon finishing the temple in II Chronicles 7:11, and of Jesus finishing the
redemption in John 19:33. The same
concept used here—same term.
另外要注意到，歇了的工是指創造的工作。上帝所完成的創造之工，聖經用這些字給印上了印記：「祂歇了」。這裡是暗示祂停止了特殊創造的活動。如同我們說過的，這不是說上帝今天不再活動了，祂繼續滋養宇宙萬物，可以從以下看到。Notice also that
these labors which are rested from are the creational labors. God’s
finished work of creation is sealed with these words, “He rested.” And
what is being implied is cessation from that special creational activity. As we said, that doesn’t mean that God is
inactive; He continues to nurture, and that is seen from the following.
首先，我們可以從主耶穌對安息日的建設性用法裡看出端倪。法利賽人的安息日大致上只是負面的安息日，內容是停止某些活動，而主耶穌的安息日是一個正面積極的安息日，除了敬拜以外，還充滿了憐憫和必要的行動。例如，見約翰福音五章15-17節：耶穌就對他們說：「我父做事直到如今，我也作事。」因此祂是表明，上帝從創造的工作歇止了，但是不代表上帝在安息日完全不活動。這只是說明上帝活動的焦點已經轉變了。First, we see it
from our Lord’s constructive use
of the Sabbath. The Pharisees’ Sabbath
was by and large merely a negative Sabbath entailing cessation from certain
activities, whereas the Lord’s Sabbath was actively a Sabbath of deeds of mercy
and necessity in addition to worship.
For an example, see John 5:15-17: “The man went away, and told the Jews
that it was Jesus who had made him well. And for this reason the Jews were
persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, ‘My Father is working
until now, and I Myself am working.’” So
he indicates that God’s cessation from the creational activity doesn’t mean
that God is utterly inactive on the Sabbath.
It just means that the focus of that activity has changed.
其次，耶穌保存了安息日的創造模式。這個創造模式是什麼呢，就是安息日同時是有福的，也是聖潔的。它是個祝福，也是要被分別為聖的，同時有這兩方面。再次說，這裡我們看到，安息日的創造律例如何同時是義務也是祝福。原始的安息日同時是祝福和義務。注意耶穌在馬可福音二章27-28所說的話：「安息日是為人設立的，人不是為安息日設立的。所以，人子也是安息日的主。」Second, Jesus’ preservation of the creational pattern of the
Sabbath. And what is that creational
pattern, that the Sabbath is both blessed and holy. It is both a blessing and something to be set
apart. Both of those aspects. And once again, here we are seeing how the
creation ordinance of the Sabbath is both an obligation and a blessing. The original Sabbath was both a blessing and
an obligation. Notice Jesus’ words of
it, about it in Mark 2:27-28. “And He
was saying to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the
Sabbath.”
注意這裡所強調的：上帝把安息日賜給人是作為祝福。人不是為安息日而被造的，安息日是為了人的緣故被設立的，是為了他的好處。這是上帝給人的祝福。安息日的另外一方面是什麼呢？所以，人子也是安息日的主。這是主日。我們在那天對主有一個義務，要以敬拜、憐憫和必要的行動來遵行祂的道路，正如祂守安息日一樣。所以我們在耶穌在馬可福音二章對安息日的解釋中，看到這個祝福和守日、祝福和義務、祝福和責任的模式。Notice what is
being stressed there: that man was given the Sabbath as a blessing. Man wasn’t created for the sake of the
Sabbath. The Sabbath was created for the
sake of man. It was for his good. It was a blessing of God to him. And what is the other side of it? So the Son of Man is Lord even of the
Sabbath. It is the Lord’s day. We have an obligation to the Lord that day to
follow in His way with worship, deeds of mercy and necessity, just as He
observed that day. So we see that
pattern of blessing and hallowing, of blessing and obligation, of blessing in
responsibility upheld in Jesus’ explanation of the Sabbath in Mark 2.
最後，我們在創世記看到，又在希伯來書第三章看到的，上帝的安息日是給人的禮物。（重覆）上帝不需要休息，這是耶穌在馬可福音第二章所說的重點。上帝不需要休息。祂歇息是因為你需要休息。因此祂的歇息對祂來說不是必要的。你才需要休息，而祂是出於愛你才歇息的。祂是為你的緣故才歇息的，這是希伯來書三章7節～四章11節所說的。對信徒來說，安息日不只是祝福，也是未來安息的應許。因此安息日是一個為了獲得養分，為了屬靈生命、為了敬拜和服事的日子。Then, finally, as
we saw from Genesis and as we see again in Hebrews 3, God’s Sabbath was a gift
to man. God’s Sabbath was a gift to
man. God didn’t need that rest. That is Jesus’ whole point in Mark 2. God didn’t need the rest. He rested because you needed the rest. So His very resting was not a necessity for
Him. It was something that you needed
that He did out of His love for you. So
He rested for your sakes, and we learn in Hebrews 3:7-4:11 that, for believers,
the Sabbath is not only a blessing, but it is a promise of a rest to come. So
the Sabbath is a day for nurturing, for spiritual life, for worship and
service.
創世記二章3節，我們學習到安息日被上帝分別為聖是因為祂歇了創世之工：「上帝賜福給第七日，定為聖日；因為在這日，上帝歇了祂一切創造的工，就安息了。」 因為祂的歇息（為我們的好處而作的），上帝同時賜福給安息日，也將它分別為聖。賜福的意思是祂讓那些藉著安息、敬拜、服事而將安息日分別為聖的人，可以藉著安息日得著祝福。祂將它分別為聖的意思是，分別出來，尊它為聖，奉獻出來，供作聖潔的用處。In the third verse
of Genesis 2, we learn that the Sabbath is set apart and specially favored by
God because of His rest from creation.
“Then God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it because in it He
rested from all His work which God had created and made.” Because of His resting, which He did for our
benefit, God both favored and hallowed the Sabbath. He blessed it and He made it holy. He blessed it in the sense that He made it an
effectual means of blessing to those who sanctify it by rest, worship and
service. And He sanctified it, in the
sense of making it holy or hallowed, whatever term you want to use, by
consecrating it and setting it apart for a holy use.
朋友們，請記得，那些第一次聽到創世記第一章的人，已經聽到上帝親自對他們說出了十誡。請馬上記下來。那些第一次聽到創世記第一章的人，已經聽到上帝親自對他們說出了十誡。因此當摩西說到創世記二章1-3節時，不是說到什麼新事，他不是在告訴他們，他們以前從來沒有聽過的事。他是在告訴他們，他們已經聽過的，他只是告訴他們，這是從哪裡來的。創世記一章1節～二章3節整個結構是一個為安息日所作的龐大論證。它是要向上帝百姓解釋安息日的來源。而我認為出埃及記強調，安息日特別是在模仿創造（出廿11），這並不會讓人感到驚訝。我們要直等到申命記，才會明白在十誡中所強調的安息日的救贖歷史意義（申五15）。因此，安息日不只是作為救贖的記念（這是我們在申命記裡看到的），更是作為創造的記念。它已經被編織到創造的結構本身裡。這是我們在創一26～二3所看到的第三個律例。
4.
The fourth ordinance that we will look at is the ordinance of marriage. We not only have the ordinance of
procreation, the ordinance of labor, the ordinance of Sabbath, but there is
also the ordinance of marriage. And the
ordinance of marriage is seen in Genesis 2:24-25. And let’s think about that for a few
minutes. It is made clear in Genesis
2:18 that man had social needs even in paradise. Man had social needs even in paradise. He has relational needs, human relational
needs, even in paradise. Genesis 2:18
says, “Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I
will make him a helper suitable for him."
4. 我們要看的第四個創造律例是婚姻的律例。 我們不只是有繁衍的律例、工作的律例、安息日的律例，也有婚姻的律例。婚姻的律例記錄在創二24-25。讓我們花幾分鐘來思考。創世記二18說得很清楚，即使人在樂園中也有社交的需求。即使是在樂園裡，他也有關係上的需要，人類關係的需要。創世記二18節說：「那人獨居不好，我要為他造一個配偶幫助他」。
即使上帝宣告祂所造的一切都甚好，但是上帝卻說，「那人獨居不好」。這是上帝對祂所創造萬物第一次說不好，這是上帝在祂所造的萬物中，唯一說不好的地方。那人獨居不好。順帶一提，你在這節裡也看到教會論的種子。單獨與上帝相通不是上帝的計劃。我們彼此需要，而邀請信徒離開彼此的關係，和對信徒群體的義務，進入與主個別相交的經歷，是忽視了這個人類需要同伴的基本創造需要。
So
even with everything pronounced good, God announces that “it is not good for
man to be alone.” This is the first
thing that has been described in God’s creation as not good. It is the only thing that has been described
in God’s creation that is not good. It
is not good for man to be alone. So,
solitary fellowship with God even in paradise is not God’s plan for us. By the way, you see in that verse the seed
for the doctrine of the church as well.
Solitary fellowship with God is not God’s plan. We need one another and such a plan that
invites believers into individual experiences with the Lord apart from mutual
relations and obligations with the body of believers ignores this basic
creational human need for companionship.
第二、當上帝在創世記二章19-20節呼召亞當為動物命名時，上帝讓亞當更明白他對同伴的需要。我們之前說過，為這些動物命名，證明了人在他所見的萬物中是君王，但是這也提醒亞當，在所有動物中，沒有像他的。他需要一個相配的幫手，一個完美的配偶，彼此作伴。二21-23記載上帝提供了這個需要，以及人感恩地承認上帝對他所做的預備。上帝為亞當創造了一個伴侶，因為他還沒有伴侶。女人是為他造的。夏娃被造要作為亞當的皇冠和榮耀，而男人需要她。夏娃被造時，亞當正在沉睡當中，因此他在這件事上是毫無功勞的。他對女人的貢獻只有上帝所已經賜給他的東西。
Secondly,
as God calls Adam to name the animals in Genesis 2:19-20, God makes Adam more
aware for his need for this companionship.
As we have said before, the naming of those animals demonstrates that
man is the monarch of all he surveys under God, but it also reminds Adam that
there is no one out there for him, like him.
He needs a helper suitable to him, a perfect fit, a support, and an
honored mutual companion. Genesis 2:21-23
record God’s provision for this need, and man’s grateful acknowledgment of that
provision to God. God creates a
companion for Adam because there was none for him before. Woman is made for him. Eve is made to be Adam’s crown and glory and
man stands in need of her. It is perhaps
significant that Adam was asleep when she was created and so he can take no
credit for her creation, for her provision, for nature. He contributed nothing to her, except the
stuff which God had already given to him.
然後在創二23-24，上帝在祂特殊創造的護理中，設立了婚姻的基礎。這裡我們看到婚姻的創造律例。「因此，人要離開父母，與妻子連合，二人成為一體。」摩西和基督都看到上帝為亞當預備夏娃是婚姻的根基。當法利賽人提出離婚的問題，主耶穌在馬可福音十章6-9說得很清楚。他基本上是回到這段經文，告訴他們說：「除非你們了解婚姻是什麼，才有辦法討論離婚。」他是回到創世記第二章的經文。我認為這對我們來說是很重要的，因為在我們要在我們的文化中重新主張婚姻的重要性，我們必須明白婚姻是什麼。它是以這個創造律例為根基的。
And
then in Genesis 2:23-24, God in his special creative providence establishes the
very foundations of marriage. And here
we see the creation ordinance of marriage.
“For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be
joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Now both Moses and Christ then, see this
provision of Eve for Adam as the very foundation of marriage. Jesus makes that clear in Mark 10:6-9 where
He goes right back to this passage when the issue of divorce is brought up by
the Pharisees and He basically says to them, “You can’t even begin to talk
about divorce until you understand marriage first.” And where does he take them? Right back to Genesis 2. And I think that is important for us to
remember because before we are able to reassert marriage in our culture, we
need to understand what it is. It is
grounded in this creational ordinance.
當然，在25節裡，摩西提醒我們，在原始的秩序或關係中是無罪的，因此，是沒有羞恥的。他們雖然赤身露體，彼此都不覺得羞恥。無罪、無羞恥，彼此的關係沒有障礙。與上帝的關係也沒有障礙。需要遮蓋是墮落的結果。因此，這是第四個律例。再說一次，這個關係的祝福是很明顯的。這是個律例，是一個使命，但是這也是個祝福。因此我們看到這點被編織到創世記第一章裡，雖然這個字沒有出現，我們看到一種具有約束力的關係，伴隨著祝福和義務。在創世記一章26-31節中提出義務的同時，也提出了祝福。
And
then of course in verse 25, Moses reminds us that there was no sin in this
original order or relationship, and therefore, there was no shame. They were naked, and they were not ashamed. No sin, no shame, no barriers to
relationships with one another. No
barriers with relationship to God. That
need for covering was a result of the Fall.
And so this is the fourth of the ordinances. And again, the blessing of this relationship
is obvious. It is an ordinance, it is a
mandate, but it is a blessing. And so we
see woven into Genesis 1, though the word is not mentioned, we see a binding
relationship with attendant blessings and obligations. And the blessings are set forth even as the
obligations are being set out in Genesis 1:26-31.
三、盟約的設立
The Covenant Established
以此作為背景、作為前言，我們在創世記二章4-25節看到了盟約關係的建立。首先在4-14節，我要你們看到「行為之約」的祝福被提出來。上帝與人建立的原始盟約有著各種特權。摩西給了我們這些特權的一些抽樣。首先在4-6節，他簡短地提醒我們，在第六天創造之工完成前，世界像什麼樣子。摩西給你一個概述，說明在上帝完成創造的工作之前，原始世界的樣貌、形式、形狀、外觀。他為什麼要這麼作呢？因為他要人體會到，他如今在伊甸樂園所經歷的，和上帝在六日內完成祂的工作之前的世界是不同的。這是上帝賜給人的、巨大的、人所不配得到禮物。上帝提供給亞當的，這個像樂園般的環境是上帝賜給他的禮物。上帝要亞當知道，在祂完工之前，世界是像什麼樣子。這有點像是上帝把亞當帶到樂園說，「亞當啊，我要你明白，這個花園之前並不是這個樣子。兩年以前，它還只是充滿了雜草的地方，但是這是我所完成的工作。當然，甚至比這個還徹底。以前這裡什麼都沒有，然後有了一些雜亂無章的東西。如今，我這位神聖的造物主，將它整理好，填滿它，賜福給它，使它肥沃富饒，然後我把它賜給你。」因此我們在這些經文看到的第一件事是，伊甸樂園是上帝賜給亞當的禮物。這是上帝在這個關係中一開始賜給亞當的祝福。
Now
with that as the background, with that as the preface, we see the establishment
of this covenant relationship in Genesis 2:4-25. First in verses 4-14, I would like you to
see the blessing of the Covenant of Works set forth, the blessings of the Covenant
of Works. God’s original covenant with
man was filled with privileges. And
Moses gives you a sampling of those privileges.
First in verses 4-6, he gives you a brief reminder of what the world was
like before the creation was completed in the sixth days. He gives you a synopsis of what the
primordial world was like, what the form, what the shape, what the visage of
the world was like before God’s completion of it. Why does he do that? Because he wants man to appreciate that the
form of the world which he experienced in the paradise of Eden is not how the
world was before God completed His six days.
It is this enormous, undeserved gift that God has given to man. Even this paradisiacal surrounding that he
has provided with Adam is a gift of God to him.
And God wants Adam to know what the world was like before He finished
working on it. It would be like taking
him into a garden and saying, “Now Adam, I want you to understand this garden
was not always like this. Two years ago,
it was a bed full of weeds, but this is what I have done. And of course it is even more radical than
that. There was nothing here, and then
there was a something here that was disorganized, and now, I, the Divine
Creator, have organized it and filled it and blessed it and made it fruitful
and I have given it to you.” So the first thing that we see in these verses is
that the paradise of Eden was God’s gift to Adam. It was one of the blessings that God gave to
Adam at the very outset of the relationship.
在7-9節，摩西在思想他的起源時，繼續默想著亞當的原始環境。注意這些字眼：「耶和華上帝用地上的塵土造人，將生氣吹在他鼻孔裡，他就成了有靈的活人，名叫亞當。耶和華上帝在東方的伊甸立了一個園子，把所造的人安置在那裡。耶和華上帝使各樣的樹從地裡長出來，可以悅人的眼目，其上的果子好作食物。園子當中又有生命樹和分別善惡的樹。」 因此，人是從地造出來的。上帝把自己的氣息吹到人裡面，使他成為有靈的活人，不會朽壞的人。祂造了一座花園，給人食物。在園中安置了兩棵樹。其中一棵是一個聖禮。我們等一下會談到這點。另一棵樹是一個考驗。因此，再說一次，上帝從塵土造了我們，賜福給我們。
In
verses 7-9, Moses continues to meditate on the original environment of Adam as
he thinks about his origin. Notice those
words, “Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being. The Lord God planted a garden toward the east
in Eden and there He placed the man whom He formed. Out of the ground, the Lord God caused to
grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food. The tree of life in the midst of the garden,
the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”
So man is formed out of the ground.
God breathes into him his own breath and makes him a living soul and
immortal being. He plants a garden. He provides man for food. He places two trees in that garden which are
distinct from all the other trees. One
of these trees is a sacrament. We’ll
talk about it in a moment. The other tree
is a test. So again, God, having created
us from the dirt, blesses us with goodness.
10-14節再度提醒我們這個原始關係的福分。人最初的環境是完美的。有四條河從伊甸流出來，滋潤那園子。這裡也描繪了這地的許多自然資源。我們看到的一幅圖畫，是人原始的環境富含了各種資源，水源，黃金，寶石。因此在創世記第二章的頭幾節經文，尤其是從4節到14節，我們看到的是從這個原始關係而來的祝福。
Then
in verses 10-14, we are reminded again of the blessing of this original
relationship. Man’s original environment
is said to be perfect. We have the
description of the rivers that flowed out of Eden to water it. We have a description of the natural
resources of that land and what we have is a picture of man’s original
environment as extraordinarily rich in resources, water, gold, precious
stones. So in the first verses of
Genesis 2, especially from verse 4 down to verse 14, what we see are the blessings
of this original relationship set forth.
接著，我們在15-17節看到這個盟約關係的責任。「耶和華上帝將那人安置在伊甸園，使他修理，看守。耶和華上帝吩咐他說：『園中各樣樹上的果子，你可以隨意吃，只是分別善惡樹上的果子，你不可吃，因為你吃的日子必定死！』」 因此我要你們看到在樂園裡，上帝與亞當建立了一個特殊的關係。至少有三方面可以看出來：(1) 上帝形象的祝福（創一26-31）；(2) 安息日的預備（創二1-3）；(3) 原始創造中的祝福（創二4-14）。在這幾方面，上帝都顯明祂的俯就，祂的良善，在祂與亞當建立關係中所顯明的降卑與祝福。
Then,
as we continue on from verse 15 down to verse 17, we see the responsibilities
of this covenant relationship. “Then the
Lord God took the man and put him into the Garden of Eden, to cultivate it and
keep it. The Lord God commanded the man
saying, ‘From any tree of the Garden you may eat freely, but from the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat
from it, you shall surely die.’” So I
want you to see here that in paradise, God has entered into a special
relationship with Adam. We see this in
at least three ways. We see it in the
blessing of God’s image in Genesis 1:26-31, we see it in the provision of the
creation Sabbath, in Genesis 2:1-3, and we see it in the blessings of the
original creation given to Adam in Genesis 2:4-14. So in each of those ways, God is showing us
the kind of condescension, the kind of good and blessed condescension that He
is engaged in as He enters into this relationship with Adam.
當然，嚴格來說，這個關係是亞當不配得到。不是亞當有什麼特殊，使得上帝必須要做這件事。但是另外要注意到，亞當本身也沒有什麼缺失。他是被造的，是良善的，是公義的。只因為他是被造的，不代表他就配得到這些祝福。無論如何，上帝把這些祝福賜給了他。
Now
this relationship, of course, is undeserved in the strict sense. And there is nothing about Adam that requires
God to do this. But notice also there is
no demerit in Adam either. There is no
demerit that needs to be overcome in him.
He is created. He is good. He is righteous. Just because he is created, doesn’t mean that
he deserves these blessings. God gives
them to him anyway.
如同我們上週說過的，我們把這類上帝的作為和恩典區分開來，只因為罪當時還不存在。後來當上帝俯就人，顯明這類的良善時，其基礎是恩典。為什麼呢？因為罪已經存在，而恩典是為了制服罪而有的。那時還沒有缺失，沒有罪過需要克服。上帝所作的不是憑靠功德的。亞當不是靠功德獲得這些的。我們用行為之約這個詞，不是說人要賺取這些福分，而是說這個原始的關係並不是為悖逆作預備，倘若人不順服，這些福分就會終止。因此，這個盟約的條件，是亞當能繼續盡他的責任。在創世記二章15-17具體說明了他的責任，也就是不要吃分辨善惡樹上的果子。
As we
said last week, we distinguished that kind of activity of God from grace,
simply because sin is not present here.
Later when he shows this kind of goodness in condescension, it will be
grace-based. Why? Because sin is present and grace is for the
purpose of overcoming sin. There is no
demerit, there is no sin here to overcome.
What God is doing is not merited.
Adam has not merited this. We use
the phrase Covenant of Works, not to say that man earned these blessings, but
to express the fact that this original relationship had no provision for the
continuation of God’s blessings if disobedience occurred. So it was a covenant contingent upon Adam
continuing in his obligations. And here
in Genesis 2:15-17, the specific aspect of his obligation, that is, of not
eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, is brought into sharp
focus.
這不是這個關係中亞當必須要做的唯一一件事。我們已經看到他必須要做的四件事情。他有繁衍的責任，他有工作的責任，他有守安息日為聖誕責任，他有在婚姻的脈絡下繁衍的責任。因此這些事情是已經確立的義務。但是我們在創二17-18看到這個原始關係負面的
Now
that is not the only thing that Adam has to do in this relationship. We have already seen four things that he is
responsible to do. He is responsible for
procreation. He is responsible for
labor. He is responsible to hallow the
Lord’s day and he is responsible to procreate in the context of marriage. So those things are already established as
obligations. But the negative test and
obligation of this original relationship we see here in Genesis 2:17-18. Look at the nature of this relationship.
讓我們拆成幾部分來評論。我們已經說過，首先，這個關係裡有一些諭令。有些是正面的諭令：繁衍，工作，安息日，婚姻。因此，在這個關係裡有一些義務。也有一些禁令。我們可以這樣說：有些是正面的義務——我們應當作的；有些是負面的義務：有些事情是我們不該作的。具體來說，亞當被禁止不可以吃分辨善惡樹上的果子。耶和華說，「分辨善惡樹上的果子，你不可吃」。所以我們有一些諭令，正面的，和負面的諭令。然後說明一些後果。這是刑罰：你吃的日子必定死。因此，我們看到什麼呢？我們看到上帝與亞當建立了一個關係，一個盟約的關係。我們看到這刑罰裡生或死的後果。我們有一個以流血的方式建立的盟約。我們也要說，在這個關係裡隱含了祝福，不只是在諭令裡，也在生命樹裡，因為生命樹會在哪裡重現呢？不只是在以西結書，更是在啟示錄裡。在哪裡呢？在上帝的同在裡，有許多得贖者作同伴。這是為亞當預備的，倘若他能忠心遵行這些義務，就可以得著。
Let’s
break it down for a few moments. We have
already said first of all that there are ordinances in this relationship. There are positive ordinances. Procreation, labor, Sabbath, and
marriage. So there are obligations in
the relationship. There are also
prohibitions in the relationship. We
might put it this way: there are positive obligations—there are things that he
is supposed to do, and there are negative obligations—there are things that he
is not supposed to do. Specifically, he
is prohibited from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The Lord says, “From the tree of knowledge of
good and evil, you shall not eat.” So
you have ordinances. Positive
ordinances. Negative ordinances. And you have a consequence spelled out. There is a penalty given: In the day that you
eat of it, you shall surely die. So what
do we have here? Well, we have a
relationship divinely established between God and Adam. So we have a bond. We have life and death consequences in the
penalty. So we have a bond in
blood. And let me also say that we have
blessings implied in this relationship, not only in the ordinances, but also in
the presence of the tree of life, because that tree of life reappears
where? Not only in Ezekiel, but in
Revelation. And where is it? It is in the presence of God and the company
of the redeemed. And so it is a hint of
what is in store for Adam, if he is faithful in the keeping of the
obligations.
最後，我們有這些盟約的要求，即上帝以主權所設立的諭令和禁令。因此，我們有盟約的各種元素，無論你是否要把它定義為上帝以主權所設立的一個血盟，或定義為伴隨著祝福與責任的具有約束力的關係。盟約關係的各種元素都是存在的，只差沒有出現這個字。好，慕理對這點很不安，因此他不願意用「行為之約」這個詞，不願意用創造之約這個詞，他只願意說這是「亞當時期的施行」（adamic
administration）。我們在後面還會再談這點。不過，讓我和你們分享一些我的猜測，看你們是否明白。倘若約這個字對這個論證這麼重要，為什麼沒有出現呢？尤其我們從羅馬書第五章看到的。好，我們可以思考一下。倘若盟約是古代近東文化的習俗，是在古代近東社會裡發展出來的，作為表達具有約束力的義務和應許的方法，有沒有可能，摩西不想把某個文化習俗中特定的用語，在它還沒有出現在人類文化之前，讀入到這個文化裡？有沒有可能，到挪亞之約的時期，盟約的語言和觀念在古代近東已經為人所知，但是在此之前，這個觀念還沒有長足的發展，以至於摩西，正因為他想要忠於歷史的記載，所以他刻意不用盟約的用語，即使這個詞的觀念從神學上來說，是完全適合用來描述當時的狀況的？在創世記第一到五章沒有出現這個字，是否可以說明，這只是當摩西在重述人生命的篇章時，他對歷史細節非常嚴格、具體而謹慎的見證而已？這只有到我們上了天堂才能問他，因為最終我們無法回答這個問題。但是我認為，倘若我們把盟約看作是古代近東很常見的人類習俗，是很有趣的。我們知道在主前第三、四千禧年時，那是非常普遍的。倘若我們把它視為上帝刻意選擇用來說明祂與祂百姓之間關係本質的一種人類習俗，很合理的推理就是，摩西在這個習俗在人類文化尚未發展出來之前的原始秩序中，會克制自己不使用這個用語。因為當上帝一旦開始使用這個習俗，事情就會發生改變，因為它不像任何人類的協議或關係。但是這個觀念很明顯是存在的，所有的元素都在那裡了。
And
finally, we have these stipulations, these ordinances and prohibitions
sovereignly administered by God. And so
we have all the elements of a covenant, whether you want to define it as a bond
in blood sovereignly administered, or whether you want to define it as a
binding relationship with attendant blessings and responsibilities. All the elements of a covenant are
there. But the word isn’t found. Now this made John Murray very nervous, and
so he didn’t want to talk about a Covenant of
Works. He didn’t want to talk
about Covenant of Creation. He wanted to
talk about this as the Adamic Administration.
I am going to come back and talk about those kind of reservations at a
later point. But let me just share with
you a little bit of speculation and see if you can follow this. Why would the term covenant not be found
here, if it is so important structurally to this argument, especially as seen
in Paul in Romans 5? Well, think about
it for a moment. If a covenant was a
Near Eastern cultural convention, something that grew up in a Near Eastern
society as a way of expressing binding obligations and promises, could it be
that Moses was being careful not to read back the specific terminology of a
cultural convention prior to its appearance in human culture? Could it be that by the time of Noahic
covenants, the language, the concept of that were well known in human culture
in the Near East, but that prior to that, the concept had not fully or
adequately developed and that Moses, precisely because he wants to be so
faithful to the historical accounts that he is giving, refrains from using the
language of covenant although it is entirely appropriate as a concept
theologically to the situation? Could it
be that the fact that we don’t have the word there in Genesis 1-5 is simply a
testimony to Moses’ strict and particular and careful attention to historical
detail in his recounting of the original chapters of the life of man? We will have to ask him when we get to
heaven, because ultimately we can’t give an answer to that question. But I think it may be interesting if we view
the covenant as a human convention that was common in the ancient Near
East. We know it was common in the third
and in the second millennium BC in the Near East. If we view that as a human convention which
God divinely chose to illustrate the nature of His relationship to His people,
it makes sense that Moses would have refrained from using the terminology in
the original order before that convention had been developed in human
culture. Because the minute that God
takes up the convention, things about it change, because it is not like any
other human agreement or relationship.
But the concept is clearly there.
The elements are all there.
四、盟約為什麼很重要
Why is this Covenant
Important?
所有這些的意義是什麼呢？讓我用幾分鐘時間來總結。當我們在這個原始的盟約關係中來看創世記第一、二章時，從神學上來說，這個行為之約的原始關係的意義是什麼呢？我們可以說到六點。首先，創世記第一、二章以最清楚的語言說到造物主與被造物之間的差距。我們從巴比倫神話裡知道，世界的創造經常被描繪為是神明的生產，因此世界被認為是神明的一部分。這是某種泛神論的思想。神在世界裡。世界在神裡。它們是連在一起的。在讀完創世記第一章之後，你必然會認為摩西的腦海裡會有這種泛神論的思想。因為他說首先有上帝，然後祂創造了這個世界。當摩西解釋這個世界是如何產生的，他是怎麼說的呢？上帝說話，世界就產生了。按照字面，世界是上帝的命令（fiat）所產生的。祂定旨其存在。因此不存在這個世界是祂的一部分、祂是世界的一部分這種思想。這是對泛神論直接的攻擊：這種思想認為世界就是神，神就是世界，草木都有神在裡面。
What
is the significance of all this? Well,
let me see if I can summarize this for you for a few minutes. As we look at Genesis 1 and 2 in this
original covenant relationship, what is significant for us theologically about
that original relationship in the Covenant of Works? Well, let me throw out about six things to you
here. First, Genesis 1 and 2 give us in
no uncertain terms a clear picture of the Creator/creature distinction. We know from Babylonian mythology that
creation was often pictured as god birthing the world into being, so that the
world was considered to be somehow part of god.
This was sort of a Pantheistic notion.
God is in the world. The world is
in god. They are all connected. And you can’t read Genesis 1 and come away
thinking that Moses has a hint of that kind of thinking in the back of his
mind, because first there is God, and then later there is this world. And then as Moses explains how the world
comes into being, what does he say? God
speaks it into being. It is created
literally by divine fiat. He decrees it
into being. So there can be no idea of
this world somehow being part of Him and of Him being somehow part of this
world. This is a direct assault on all
Pantheistic views of God: all views that say that the world is god and god is
the world, god is in those trees, or god is in the grass.
這件事的美妙之處是，它破解了創造的神話。這就是為什麼現代科學是在基督新教對造物主和被造物的區別這個思想的統治下才發生的原因。你不能跑到街上，對樹進行實驗，因為樹裡面可能有神明，或者魔鬼。但是如果世界是上帝造的，祂擁有主權，而人也擁有主權，要加以研究、管理，因此萬物就脫離了神話，可以被研究。我們對它是如何運作了有更多的了解，我們就可以促進萬物的產能。
Now
the beautiful thing about that is it demythologizes the creation. There is a reason why the rise of modern
science occurred under the reign of the Protestant understanding of the
Creator/creature distinction. You can’t
go down the street and experiment on a tree that might be God, or a demon for
that matter. But a creation which God
has brought into being, and over which not only He is sovereign, but man is
sovereign, can be studied and harnessed and so the creation is demythologized
so that it can be studied. We can learn
better how it works, so that we can enhance certain aspects of productivity in
creation.
人對全地要施行統治也是造物主與被造物有別的另一個涵義。再說一遍，倘若我害怕一棵樹有精靈在控制，我大概會盡量繞道，離開那棵樹走，離它遠一點。但是假如我的理解是上帝在掌管祂所造的萬物，那麼我就明白，絕對沒有什麼事情會脫離祂護理性的掌管。你一定會喜歡這個關於一個凱爾特族的宣教士的美麗故事。他抵達一塊法蘭克的土地，那裡的法蘭克人告訴他，「看到那棵橡樹了嗎？」「是的。」「那是索爾神。」「那棵橡樹？」「這是索爾神的樹。那棵樹是索爾神。」「有人有斧頭嗎？」他走到那棵樹前面，把樹砍下來。他在幹什麼呢？他的意思是說：「我才不管你說的是什麼神明在控制這棵樹。我的上帝擁有這棵樹。如果我要，就可以把它砍下來。」但是重點是要說明，上帝的主權掌管祂所造的萬有。被造萬有不是覆蓋著精靈，不受上帝的控制。上帝有至高主權。祂與被造萬物有別。順帶一提，這不代表人可以肆意對待世界。你經常會聽到這種指控，「基督教鼓勵人對生態進行破壞，它鼓勵人去探索環境。」不是這樣。你明白嗎，我們不是主人，我們只是管家，我們只是在上帝的葡萄園工作而已。有一天，主人要回來，我們必須對如何使用祂所造的萬物向祂負責。因此，在基督教對世界的看法的核心元素裡，對環境和生態適度的關心有一套合理的理由，因為這不是我們的家。這是上帝的家。我們只是祂的管家，因此我們最好必須有智慧地來使用。如此，統治不代表剝削。為什麼？我們不是自己的主人。我們要向祂負責。順帶一提，倘若你沒有讀過薛華，薛華在這方面可以給你很多材料。再次說，對我們後現代的文化，這是很好的接觸點，你可以要人們去思考，因為有許多人說，「喔，這是傳統西方人的看法，盎格魯薩克遜白人男性父權的系統，造成了今日世界生態和環境的問題。」你就可以說，「好，我們可以談談這點。讓我解釋基督徒創造的哲學。」
Man’s
exercise of dominion over the earth is another implication of this
Creator-creature distinction. Again, if
I am scared that there might be a demon spirit that is locally controlling an
oak tree outside, I am probably going to cut a wide path around the oak
tree. But when I understand properly
that God is in dominion over His creation, then I recognize that there is
nothing, there is absolutely nothing that is out from under His providential
control. You have to love that beautiful
story about the Celtic missionary who winds up in the land of the Franks, and
the Franks tell him, “See that oak over there?” “Yep.” “That is the oak of Thor.” “That oak?”
“That is the oak of the god Thor.
That one right over there. That
is Thor’s oak.” “Anybody got an
ax?” And he heads right over to it and
he chops it down. What is he doing? He is saying, “I don’t care what god you say
is in charge of that oak. My God owns
that oak. And I will cut it down if I
want to.” But the point was to show the
sovereignty of God over His creation.
Creation is not invested with spirits that are out of control of the
living God. God is sovereign. He is distinct from that creation. By the
way, that doesn’t mean that man is reckless with his treatment of
creation. So often you have heard the
charges, “Oh, Christianity, it encourages horrible ecological practices. It encourages people to exploit the
environment.” Oh no. You see, we are not the owners, we are just
the stewards, we are just working in the vineyard. One day, the Master’s coming back and we are
going to have give account for how we used His creation. And so in the very essence of the Christian
view of creation there is a rationale for appropriate environmental and ecological
concern, because this isn’t our house.
It is His. He has given it to us
as stewards, and so we had better use it wisely and well. So there is not exploitation implied in dominion. Because why?
We are not our own master. We are
accountable to Him. By the way, if you
have not read Schaeffer on this, Schaeffer will give you lots of ammunition in
precisely this area. This is again a
nice point of contact with our postmodern culture where you can engage some
people to think, because there a many people who say, “Oh it is a traditional western,
white Anglo-Saxon male patriarchal system that is responsible for all the
ecological and environmental problems in the world today.” And you can say, “Well let’s talk about that
a little bit. Let me explain to you the
Christian philosophy of creation.”
2. 在創世記第一、二章的原始盟約，還有第二件事要告訴我們。它強調上帝對宇宙或普世的眷顧（重覆）。如同我們先前提過的，這點在挪亞之約裡重新加以強調過，我們以後會再查考。重要的是我們要了解，上帝關心整個創造秩序，不只是人，這是在創世記第一、二章表達的，這會保護我們避免濫用特殊恩典的教義。讓我試著解釋。作為福音派信徒，我們也許相信上帝救贖的恩典只會給那些以信心來接待祂的人。但是作為改革宗的福音派信徒，我們還要加上說，上帝的恩典只會給那些上帝所揀選並呼召的人。但是無論怎麼說，假如你是個福音派人士，你的觀點就是特殊恩典的觀點。你不相信所有的人都會得救。你相信只有信主耶穌基督的人會得救。那麼，是什麼會保護你免於走向極端，否認上帝不關心沒有得贖的被造物，以及無法救贖的被造呢？聖經裡有許多事情會保護你。其中一件是在創世記第一、二章裡，我們清楚看到上帝關心祂所造的萬物。這個普世的意涵，會平衡我們特殊恩典的教義，肯定上帝對人類更廣的關懷。這是怎麼看出來的呢？這些創造諭令對非信徒來說，和對信徒來說，都同樣重要。我們應該努力讓非信徒實踐這些創造諭令。這對他們和社會來說都是祝福，在許多情況下也是接受福音的管道。因此創造諭令不只是給基督徒的。創造諭令是給所有的人的。
2.
There is a second thing that this original covenant in the structure of Genesis
1 and 2 gives us. It emphasizes the
cosmic or universalistic concerns of God.
It emphasizes the cosmic or universalistic concerns of God. Now as we have already mentioned before, that
is reemphasized in the covenant with Noah and we will look at that later. It is important that we understand that God
is concerned with the whole created order, and not just man, as expressed in
Genesis 1 and 2, and this protects us from misusing our particularistic
doctrine of grace. Let me try and
exegete that. As evangelical believers,
we may believe that God’s saving grace is visited only upon those who embrace
Him by faith. Now we may say
additionally, as Reformed evangelical believers, that it is visited only upon
those whom God has chosen, who are called.
But whatever way, if you’re an evangelical, you have a particularistic
view of grace. You don’t believe that
everyone is being saved. You believe
that only those who trust on the Lord Jesus Christ are being redeemed. What protects you from going to the extreme
and denying God’s concern for non-redeemed creation, and for non-redeemable
creation? Well, there are a lot of
things in the Bible that protect you from that.
One of the things that protect you from that is the fact that in Genesis
1 and 2 we see clearly that God is concerned for the totality of His
creation. And the universalistic
implications of Genesis 1 and 2 counterbalance our particularistic doctrine of
grace by affirming God’s broader concerns for humanity. How is that seen? These creation ordinances are just as
important for unbelievers as they are for believers. And we ought to work to see unbelievers
putting these creation ordinances into practice. It will be a blessing to them and to society
and it will in many cases be a gateway to the Gospel. So the creation ordinances are not just for
Christians. Creation ordinances, they
are for everybody.
3. 第三，原始的盟約表達出上帝與尚未墮落、在墮落之前的人的關係，而這個關係不是憑靠恩典的。我們先前提過這點。我的意思是什麼呢？我的意思不是說我們在原始的創造中配得到上帝所賜給我們的一切。重點不在這裡。我的意思不是我們在原始的創造中，賺得了上帝所賜給我們的一切。不過，我的意思的確是因為，當上帝起初創造我們時，我們並不是與祂疏遠的，這個原始的關係是自然的，不需要一個中保。我的意思是，除非兩造之間有衝突，才需要中間人。有疏離，有衝突，才需要中保。
3.
Third, this original covenant expresses a relationship between God and
unfallen, pre-fallen man, which is not by grace. We mentioned this earlier. What do I mean by that? I don’t mean that we deserved all the things
that God gave us in the original creation.
That is not the point. I don’t
mean that we earned all the things that God gave us in the original
creation. I do mean, however, that
because we were not estranged from God as He originally created us, that this
original relationship was natural and without a mediator. I mean, you only need a mediator if there is
a fight. You only need a mediator if
there is estrangement. You only need a
mediator if two sides are at odds.
這為什麼很重要？這對我們明白卡爾巴特對盟約神學的批判為什麼是失敗的，非常重要。很不幸，今天許多福音派人士在這點上重拾巴特的觀點，把它們加到他們自己的聖約神學裡。因此我深切地盼望你們明白巴特的錯誤。巴特想要論證的是，上帝與人所有的關係都是憑靠恩典的，上帝對待所有的人都是通過基督，因此，基督的中保不是墮落後的職分或功能。這是一個永恆的功能，是在人類的經驗之前就有的。你聽到巴特在說什麼嗎？他是說從一開始，上帝就是通過基督與人建立關係的。他基本上是說，這是因為人是有限的。不幸的，你看到這是把有限和有罪混為一談。我們在下面會談到這點，但是我要先把它介紹出來。
Now
why is that significant? It is going to
be very important for you to understand that this is the point at which Karl
Barth’s critique of Covenant Theology fails most dramatically. And unfortunately many evangelicals have
picked up on some of Barth’s ideas at this point and have imported them
unwittingly into their own Covenant Theology, so I am quite keen for you to
understand how Barth errs here. Barth
wants to argue that all, all of God’s dealings with man are by grace, and that
all of God’s dealings with man are through Christ, and that Christ’s mediation
is therefore not a post-fall office or function. It is an eternal function that occurs prior
to the fall in human experience. You
hear what Barth is saying there? He is
saying that from the very beginning God had to relate to man by grace and
through Christ. And he basically says
that the reason was because of the finiteness of man. And unfortunately you see here a category
confusion between finiteness and sin.
Now we are going to talk about this in the next point. But I want to introduce it here.
基本上（倘若我當著他的面說，巴特教授肯定會跳腳，他會竄上跳下地否認，但是假如你給我足夠的時間，我認為我可以加以證明），巴特說人和上帝最根本的問題不是罪，而是他是個人。按照我的看法，以及教會兩千年來的看法認為，這不是聖經對人與上帝關係基本問題的看法。注意到上帝在樂園中以一種沒有中保的方式和人互動、和人建立關係並沒有什麼問題。亞當認識上帝，上帝對亞當說話。他們在樂園裡同行。其中有盟約的要求，義務，關係，祝福，上帝與亞當建立關係，聖經並沒有暗示存在任何問題。但是巴特想要說，是我們的被造性使我們與上帝隔絕了。
Basically
(and Professor Barth would be bouncing off the ceiling if I said this in his
presence, and he would deny it up and down, but I think I could prove it to you
if you gave me enough time), Barth says that man’s fundamental problem in
relating to God is not sin, it is that he is man. And in my opinion, and in the historic
opinion of the church for two thousand years, that is not the Bible’s view of
man’s basic problem in relationship to God.
Notice that God has no problem interacting and interrelating to Adam in
an unmediated way in the Garden. Adam
understands Him. God talks to him. They walk together in the Garden in the cool
of the day. There are stipulations,
obligations, relationships, blessings, and no hint of a problem of God entering
into a relationship with Adam. But Barth
wants to say that it is our very creatureliness that separates us from God.
讓我很小心地說另一件事。加爾文涉足過這個觀念。他說我們總是需要一位中保，不只是因為我們是有罪的，也因為我們在我們的有限中，是遠遠低於上帝的。他會訴諸以賽亞書第六章的經文，以及圍繞在寶座旁邊的天使。他們遮著臉，作什麼呢？他們呼喊說：「聖哉、聖哉、聖哉」。好，他們有罪嗎？沒有。但是他們仍然在上帝面前遮著臉。他舉這個例子來說明。但是加爾文的用法和巴特的用法不同。巴特會把自己的神學無限推廣到加爾文身上，但是他和加爾文在這點上的看法是南轅北轍的。但是我要你們明白，這是巴特對聖約神學的批判的關鍵部分。他不喜歡行為之約和聖約神學，或者自然之約和恩典之約的觀念，因為他希望人與上帝的關係全是出於恩典。
Now
let me say one other thing to be very careful of. Calvin dabbles with this idea. He dabbles with the idea that we always need
a mediator, not just because we are sinful, but because we are so vastly
inferior to God in our finiteness. And
he would appeal to passages like Isaiah 6 and the angels, the beings that
surround the throne are doing what?
Veiling themselves as they cry, “Holy, holy, holy.” Now, were they sinful? No.
But they still had to veil themselves in the presence of God. And he will sort of take that and run with
that. But Calvin doesn’t use this
concept like Barth will use it. Now
Barth will go back and he will read all of his theology into Calvin, but he is
miles away from what Calvin was trying to do with this point. But I want you to understand that this is a
key part of Barth’s critique of Covenant Theology. He does not like the idea of a Covenant of
Works and a Covenant of Grace, or a Covenant of Nature and a Covenant of Grace,
because he wants grace to be the only way that God relates to man.
在這點上，巴特主要的錯誤是輕忽了罪。你看到，摩西寫創世記第一、二章，是為創世記第三章作預備的。他要我們明白，在人類墮落前，事情並不是像我們現在這樣。自從創世記第三章之後，事情完全改觀了，上帝與我們建立關係的方法，其本質也有徹底的不同。而倘若你說，從一開始就只有恩典之約，而不是有行為之約和恩典之約，我們就很難公平地對待創世記第三章，和人的原罪的重要性。
Barth’s
major error with this is that it underemphasizes sin. You see, Genesis 3 is where Moses is going
when he writes Genesis 1 and 2. He wants
you to understand that things then were not like they are now. And things are like they are now because of
what happens in Genesis 3, and therefore the very nature of the way that God
relates to us has to be different. And I
do not think that there is any way that you can do justice to the significance
of Genesis 3 and man’s original sin if you say that there has always simply
been one Covenant of Grace from the very beginning, and there is not a Covenant
of Works and a Covenant of Grace.
我們在這裡是為一個所謂的「雙盟約結構」作辯護，有別於創造和救贖的「單盟約結構」。創造和救贖的雙盟約結構說，有行為之約和恩典之約，或自然之約與恩典之約。在犯罪之前是自然之約，因此不需要有中保，上帝也毋須提供一個中保或挽回祭，來和人建立關係。不過，在人類墮落之後，上帝出於恩典，為人類提供了一個中保，上帝的公義得到滿足，這個盟約也由基督來成全了，好讓我們可以經歷到盟約的祝福。因此，我們有行為之約和恩典之約，但是巴特說只有一個永恆的恩典之約。
What
we are beginning here is an argument for what is called a bicovenantal
structure as opposed to a monocovenantal structure of creation and
redemption. The bicovenantal structure
of creation and redemption says there is a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of
Grace, or a Covenant of Nature, and a Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Nature is prior to sin and
therefore it does not have to be mediated and God does not have to provide a
mediator or propitiation in order to enter into relationship with man. Whereas, after the fall of man, a mediator is
provided out of the graciousness of God, sin is satisfied, and the covenant is
fulfilled by Christ in order that we may experience the blessings of the covenant. So you have the Covenant of Works and the
Covenant of Grace, but what Barth ends up with is an eternal Covenant of Grace.
順帶一提，這也是Herman Hoeksema的看法，其他許多極端加爾文主義者也是這麼認為。因此，巴特和某些極端加爾文主義者之間有連貫性。事實上，在某種意義上，巴特是最後的極端加爾文主義，我會稱他是個極端墮落後揀選論者。倘若你想要和我一起討論，我可以解釋我在這裡所說的是什麼意思。但是這個單一盟約觀是說，只有一個永恆的恩典之約，甚至在墮落之前就存在了。但是這個看法必然會貶低罪的重要性，並且把人的有限性當成是問題，而不是把罪當作主要的問題。
And
by the way, this is the same thing that Herman Hoeksema comes up with, and it
is the same thing that many other types of hyper-Calvinists have come up
with. So there is continuity between
Barth and certain hyper-Calvinists. In
fact, there is a sense in which Barth is the ultimate hyper-Calvinist. In fact, I would call Bart a
hypersuperlapsarian. And if you want to
get into that with me someday, I can explain what I am talking about
there. But this monocovenantal view that
says that there has been this eternal Covenant of Grace and that it was in
place even before the fall, cannot help but downplay sin and see finiteness as
our problem, not sin.
4. 這帶領我們到這個原始關係的重要性的第四點。若我們仔細研究創世記第以、二、三章，我們可以認識到有限性（finiteness）和罪的差別。例如，亞當的有限性其中一個層面是，他需要有人類的同伴，這是創二18所說的，上帝說那人獨居不好。但是注意到，亞當並不會因此受責怪。上帝沒有說，你獨居不好，因此在沒有中保的情形下，我無法和你建立關係。不。創世記二章18節不是這樣的。在創世記二章1-3節，因為人的有限，需要休息，因此上帝為他預備了安息日。他不是為安息日造的，安息日是為他造的。為什麼？因為他是有限的。但是這不是用來反對他的。不，不。這是個祝福。他是上帝造的，沒有墮落，他是無罪的。但是他的體質需要安息日的安息。他也需要配偶。因此，罪和有限不是同一回事。
4.
So, that moves us on to the fourth significance of this original relationship
that we have been describing. By a close
study of Genesis 1, 2 and 3, we are enabled to recognize the difference between
finiteness and sin. For instance, one
aspect of Adam’s finiteness was his need for human companionship expressed in
Genesis 2:18, when God says it is not good for man to be alone. But notice that Adam is not held culpable for
that. And God doesn’t say, it is not
good for you to be alone, therefore I can have nothing to do with you without a
mediator. No. That is not what happens in Genesis
2:18. Man is recognized to need rest
because of his finiteness in Genesis 2:1-3 and so a Sabbath is made for
him. He is not made for the Sabbath, but
a Sabbath is made for him. Why? Because
he is finite. But is that held against
him? No.
No. It is a blessing. He is divinely created, unfallen, he is
sinless. But his constitution needs a
Sabbath rest. And it needs a woman. And so sin and finiteness are not the same
thing.
讓我換一個說法。有時候你會聽到這樣的一句話：「人非聖賢，孰能無過」（To err is human, to
forgive, divine）。我明白當人們說這句話時是什麼意思。但是我要說的重點是，人並非一定會犯錯，犯錯是因為人的墮落。犯錯是在墮落之中。當我們犯錯時，並不是標準的人。「錯誤」是一個被濫用的詞。當我們犯罪時，我們不是標準的人，我們是標準地在墮落之中。倘若犯罪是人性的本質，這不只是的上帝原始的的創造產生真正的難題，也讓我懷疑天堂會是什麼樣子。犯罪並不會讓我更有人性，它只會讓我失去人性。上帝原先造我們的時候並不是這樣的。而說「人基本的問題在於他是有限的，而上帝是無限的，這是無法跨越的鴻溝，我們甚至無法設想祂，因為祂太偉大、太無限了，而我們是如此有限」，是錯過了創世記第三章整個的重點。巴特神學一再把有限性和有罪混為一談。再說一遍，我認為我可以證明這個事實。巴特的問題不在於罪，而在於人。他基本上是說，「你知道你的問題是什麼嗎？你的問題是你不是上帝。你的問題在於你不是無限的。」這不是聖經說的，我們所擁有的問題。亞當是有限的。上帝沒有因此嘲笑他。問題出在亞當悖逆上帝。罪是問題的根源，悖逆才是問題所在，而不是人的有限。我們在榮耀中仍然是有限的。
Let
me put this in another way. Sometimes
you hear this phrase said: “To err is human, to forgive, divine.” I know what they are getting at when they say
that. But the point I want to bring
across is that to err is not human, to err is fallen. To err is fallen. We are not being quintessentially human when
we make mistakes. Mistakes is an
overused word. We are not being
quintessentially human when we sin, we are being quintessentially fallen. If sin is of the essence of humanness, not
only does that raise real problems for God’s original creation, but it makes me
wonder what heaven is going to be like.
Sin does not make me more human.
It makes me less human. It is not
how God originally created me. And to
say, “Man’s basic problem resides in the fact that he is finite and God is
infinite and this chasm cannot be crossed, we cannot even conceive Him because
he is so majestic, so infinite and we are so finite,” is to miss the whole
point of Genesis 3. And Barthian
theology over and over confuses finiteness and sin. Again, I think I could argue the case. Barth’s problem was not with sin; it was with
man. He basically says, “You know what
your problem is? Your problem is that
you’re not God. Your problem is that you
are not infinite.” And that is not the
problem the Bible says that we have.
Adam was finite. God did not mock
him for that. The problem was that Adam
rebelled. Sin is the problem. Rebellion is the problem. Not finiteness. We are going to be finite in glory.
5. 第五，原始的盟約說得很清楚，物質不是邪惡的。原始的盟約明白地說，物質不是邪惡的。上帝創造了世界，稱它是好的。物質和事物不是邪惡的。人如何使用才是問題。因此，倘若你對原始的創造有正確的觀念，救恩就不應當被視為脫離物質，或逃離身體，進入純粹的靈體，這是從第一世紀以來諾斯底主義的教導。不，救恩從聖經的觀念來看，牽涉到整個的人，身體、靈魂，因為身體被造時是好的。很重要的是，如今坐在宇宙寶座上的是升天的主耶穌基督的人性肉身，祂永遠是完全的神，完全的人。地上的塵土坐在榮耀的寶座上。
5. Fifthly, this original covenant makes it
clear that matter is not evil. This
original covenant makes it clear that matter is not evil. God created the world and God called it
good. Matter and things are not
evil. People’s use of them is. So, if you have proper understanding of the
original creation, salvation is not viewed as an escape from matter, or an
escape from the body into a pure spirit, as you get in all the manifestations
of Gnostic teachings from the first century until today. No, salvation in the biblical sense will
involve the whole man, body, and soul, because that body was created good. Now it is very significant that right now on
the throne of the universe, human flesh sits, in the ascended Lord Jesus Christ
who is forever fully God and fully man.
The dust of the earth sits on the throne of glory.
6. 第六，也是最後，當我們研究這個原始的盟約，我們看到人是按照上帝的形象被造的，即使是在墮落之後，仍然持有這個形象，無論它被罪抹除到什麼程度。因此對人的尊重，就是對那些按照上帝的形象被造的，就是確定的；所有的人在上帝面前都有平等的地位，都有相同的責任，都是上帝所創造的世界的管家。因此，種族主義、性別歧視，在基督教世界觀裡是不存在的；而人權也只有在一個基督教世界觀裡才能存在，因為一個物質主義的進化論者，只能從無理性的行為來論證。這就是為什麼達爾文主義成為十九世紀英格蘭最主要哲學的原因。因為適者生存不是典型的反古典主義的論證，而是一個標準的論證，這個論證說：「我能證明我為什麼比你優越；我進化得比你快。因此，我有權利照我的意志來對待你。」因此，一個物質主義的進化論達爾文主義者，只能從純粹無理智的意志的行動來為基本人權、人性基本尊嚴來辯護。人權，或任何權利，只能被包含在盟約祝福與義務的範疇內，人權是盟約關係的祝福。順帶一提，它們不是無限的，也無法不斷複製。它們是特定的，有限的，但是它們是存在的。今天只有基督徒能給出足夠的論證。
6.
Sixthly, and finally, as we study this original covenant, we see that man is
created in the image of God and, even after the fall, continues to bear that
image, no matter how effaced it is by sin.
And thus respect for human beings, as those who are created in the image
of God, is established; the equal status and responsibility of all men before
God as His stewards of creation is established.
Racism and sexism is therefore banished under a Christian worldview, but
only under a Christian worldview, since a materialist evolutionist can only
argue for human rights by a sheer act of irrationality. There is a reason why Darwinism became a
dominant philosophy in nineteenth century England. Because survival of the fittest, far from
being a quintessentially anticlassicist argument, is a quintessential class
argument which says, “I can give you a reason why I am superior to you; I out
evolved you. And therefore I have the
right to do with you what I will.” So a
materialist evolutionist Darwinist can only argue for basic human rights and
human dignity by a sheer irrational act of the will. Only a Christian can provide an adequate
foundation for appropriate view of human rights. You notice that human rights, or rights at
all, are really contained under the category of the covenant in that realm of
blessings and obligations. And rights
fall under the blessing of the covenant relationship. They are not infinite, by the way, and they
cannot be forever multiplied. They are
specific and limited, but they are there.
And we are the only ones who can give an adequate argument for that
today.
我們要在這裡暫停下來。我們會回來看創造、盟約、行為之約，對科學和神學這整個問題所隱含的意義。因為在過去的一百五十年，無疑地，對基督信仰主要的攻擊是來自世俗的科學主義。它推崇自己，認為自己可以取代歷史性的基督信仰的世界觀，並且說歷史性的基督信仰是無理性的，在一個科學的世界觀裡是站不住腳的，因此我們必須要拒絕。關於這點，我會花一點時間再作一兩個評論，然後我們會繼續下去。讓我們禱告。
Now
we will stop right there and we will come back and look at a few more
implications of the Creation, the Covenant, the Covenant of Works, with regard
to this whole issue of science and theology, because there is no question that
for the last 150 years the major assault on Christianity has come from secular
scientism which puts itself forward as a replacement worldview to historic
Christianity and says that historic Christianity is irrational and is untenable
in a scientific world, and therefore it must be rejected. And I want to make one or two more comments
about that and then we will continue on. Let’s pray.
