2019-01-17


行為之約與恩典之約

聖約神學講座系列四行為之約與恩典之約
Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace
作者:Dr. J. Ligon Duncan   譯者:駱鴻銘

如果你有帶聖經,請翻到創世記三章14節,這是上帝的聖言:
If you have your Bibles, please open to Genesis 3:14 as we read God’s Word.

耶和華上帝對蛇說你既做了這事就必受咒詛比一切的牲畜野獸更甚。你必用肚子行走,終身吃土。我又要叫你和女人彼此為仇;你的後裔和女人的後裔也彼此為仇。女人的後裔要傷你的頭;你要傷他的腳跟。又對女人說:我必多多加增你懷胎的苦楚;你生產兒女必多受苦楚。你必戀慕你丈夫;你丈夫必管轄你。又對亞當說:你既聽從妻子的話,吃了我所吩咐你不可吃的那樹上的果子,地必為你的緣故受咒詛;你必終身勞苦才能從地裡得吃的。地必給你長出荊棘和蒺藜來;你也要吃田間的菜蔬。你必汗流滿面才得糊口直到你歸了土因為你是從土而出的。你本是塵土仍要歸於塵土。  And the Lord God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field.  On your belly shall you go, and dust shall you eat all the days of your life.  And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed.  He shall bruise you on the head and you shall bruise him on the heel.”  To the woman, He said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth.  In pain you shall bring forth your children; yet your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.”  Then, to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree which about which I commanded you saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; cursed is the ground because of you.  In toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life.  Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you and you shall eat the plants of the field by the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground.  Because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

阿們。以上是上帝的聖言。讓我們禱告Amen. And thus ends this reading of Gods holy Word, lets pray. 

我們的父我們在你面前俯伏我們知道這些話是給我們的也是給夏娃和亞當的因為我們是在亞當裡、生來是可怒的兒女。我們不只是承繼了從原罪而來的原始的敗壞,我們更承繼了原始的罪責,因為亞當是我們盟約的頭。我們感謝你,主啊,如今在基督裡我們已經得贖、脫離那咒詛,我們如今不在行為之約的律法之下,而是在恩典之約下。當我們思想這些真理時,幫助我們不只是能更好地向你的百姓傳遞這個真理,更盼望我們能在真理中得造就,愛心得以增長,並感謝你偉大的救恩。奉耶穌基督的名。阿們。Our Father, we bow before You, we know that those words are words for us as much as they were for Adam and Eve, for we are in Adam born children of wrath.  We have inherited not only the original corruption flowing from that sin, but we have inherited original culpability because Adam was our federal head.  We thank You, O Lord, that in Christ we have been redeemed from the curse that we were under and we are no longer under that law of the Covenant of Works, but are now under the Covenant of Grace.  Help us this day as we contemplate these things not only that we might be better able to communicate the truth to Your people, but also that we may be built up in the truth, that we might grown in our love and appreciation for Your great redemption.  We ask these things in Jesus’ name.  Amen.

關於行為之約讓我作幾點說明然後我們會接著看亞當在考驗中失敗之後上帝做了什麼。上帝給亞當的考驗特別是和分辨善惡樹的果子有關的。我提過,有些正統的改革宗神學家拒絕接受雙盟約的救贖歷史結構。Let me make a couple of comments about the Covenant of Works before we move on to look at what God did in the aftermath of the failure of Adam in the test of probation, specifically with regard to the tree, the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  I mentioned that there have been a number of orthodox Reformed Theologians who have objected to a bicovenantal structure of redemptive history.

我們提到過有些人不想用行為之約和恩典之約來看上帝與人的關係在救贖歷史中的展開即行為之約是墮落前的約恩典之約是墮落之後的盟約。他們喜歡用恩典之約的單一計劃來涵蓋墮落之前和墮落之後上帝與人的關係。We have mentioned that there are some folks who dont want to look at the unfolding plan of God in relationship to humankind in terms of a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace, the Covenant of Works being Pre-fall, and the Covenant of Grace being Post-fall.  They actually want to talk about this Covenant of Grace as being the overarching plan that structures all of God’s dealing with man both before fall and after the fall.

我今天不打算回應這個看法本身但是我想要回應其中的一種變化組合。慕理仍然希望保留上帝對待人有雙重的結構但是他不想稱行為之約為行為之約。倘若你們有人讀過約翰慕理的課堂講義,在一篇名為「亞當時期的施行」(The Adamic Administration)的文章裡,你會記得他想要把上帝和亞當之間的第一個關係稱為「亞當時期的施行」,而不是行為之約。他舉了四個理由反對行為之約的說法。Now, I am not going to respond to that particular critique today.  But I want to respond to a permutation of it.  Murray wants to still have a two-fold structure of God’s dealing with man, part one and part two.  But he doesn’t want to call the Covenant of Works the Covenant of Works.  If any of you have read John Murray’s class lectures that are found in the second volume of his collected writings, in an article called The Adamic Administration, you will remember that he wants to call this first relationship between God and Adam “The Adamic Administration,” not “The Covenant of Works.”  And there are four reasons he gives for not wanting to call this a Covenant of Works, of why he has a problem with that terminology.

慕理贊成「亞當時期的施行」的理由
Murray’s rational for The Adamic Administration

第一個理由是他認為行為之約的說法貶低了這個關係中的恩典層面。行為之約這個名稱貶低了上帝與墮落前亞當之間恩典的元素。The first reason that he gives for having a problem with this idea is that he says that it downplays the grace of this relationship.  The title, The Covenant of Works, downplays the elements of grace in the relationship between God and Adam before the fall. 

第二他反對這個詞因為「約」這個字沒有出現在這段經文裡。他說既然沒有這個字稱這個關係為盟約就不是一個好主意。Secondly, he objects to the term because he says the term covenant is not found in this passage.  He says the terminology covenant is not found and therefore it is not a good idea to call this relationship a covenant since the terminology is not found. 

第三他說聖經使用「約」這個字表明上帝與人的關係都一貫是指一個救贖性的關係。然而在墮落之前行為之約明顯是指上帝和亞當在救贖之前的關係。
Thirdly, he says that the covenant is a term which, when used in the Scriptures, denotes a relationship between God and man and is uniformly used of a redemptive relationship.  And obviously this is in a sense a pre-redemptive relationship between God and Adam.

最後他主張盟約這個詞在聖經中的用法在描述上帝與人的關係時都帶著一種安全感。在第一堂課,當我們讀希伯來書第六章時也曾經說過,盟約通常都帶著一種確信。上帝的約是要幫助我們明白我們的救恩是可靠的。因此他主張,不能用盟約來描述這個關係,因為盟約代表保證,但亞當卻墮落了。因此他給了四個理由說明這個關係為什麼不能被稱為行為之約。And finally, he suggests that the term covenant, as it is used in the Bible to describe the relationship between God and man, always carries with it a sense of security.  We argued this ourselves when we read from Hebrews 6 on the first day of class and commented on the fact that often covenant is linked with assurance.  God’s covenant is there to help us understand the grounds on which we ought to properly be assured of our salvation.  So he argues, it shouldn’t be used of this relationship because covenant denotes security and Adam fell.  So he gives four reasons why this relationship shouldn’t be thought of as the Covenant of Works. 

我要花一些時間解釋慕理的想法的一些背景知識因為我大概知道他是怎麼想的。我知道這個不是因為我認識慕理而是因為我認識慕理的一個好朋友他們常常在一起討論神學特別是針對這點當慕理在西敏神學院教書後回到蘇格蘭之後。And I want to give you a little inside knowledge of Murrays thinking processes for a few moments, because I have access to that and those folks, perhaps, don’t have access to that. It is not because I knew Murray, but because I do know a man who was a very good friend of Murray and spent a lot of time talking theology, and especially this point, when Murray came back to Scotland after his time of teaching at Westminster Seminary.

我要探討這點也是因為慕理對改革宗群體有很大的影響讓人不太敢談論行為之約和恩典之約。在這個意義上儘管我很崇敬慕理教授但我認為他有點在幫倒忙。因為如果破壞了用雙盟約的角度來理解上帝與人的關係,實際上會讓救恩論的觀念軟弱無力,並且會促進一種「廉價恩典」的傾向。說到這裡,我的目的很清楚,都擺在檯面上了。我盼望你們擁有最強的改革宗救恩論的觀念我不希望你們教導廉價恩典。你們會不斷聽到我強調這個詞。因此這是我為什麼要反對慕理教授的原因。I also want to address this because Murray has had a tremendous impact in the Reformed community in making people a little bit skittish about talking about a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace.  And in that sense, as much as I admire Professor Murray, I think that he has done us a disservice.  Because the breakdown of a bicovenantal understanding of God’s dealing with mankind actually weakens our concept of the Doctrine of Atonement and has a tendency to foster “cheap grace” teaching.  Now, with that, my agenda is right out on the table there.  I want you to have the strongest possible Reformed doctrine for the atonement that you possibly can have, and I do not want you to teach cheap grace to your people.  And you’ll hear me pounding in that direction throughout this particular term.  So this is why I am going to take issue with Professor Murray.

慕理教授的救恩論很弱嗎請讀他寫的《再思救贖奇恩》Redemption Accomplished and Applied),很精彩的書倘若你還沒有看過一定要去看很精彩。我認為慕理是一個前後不一致的聖約神學家。也就是說,他是個聖約神學家,但是他在這點上是不一致的,我認為在一些點上,他是以一個十七世紀古老的蘇格蘭盟約神學家的方式來提出他的神學骨架的。然後,在他心裡有一些矛盾沒有完全解決,因此讓他往「亞當時期的施行」這個方向走去。讓我們一一來拆解他對行為之約的四個疑問。Now did Professor Murray have a weak doctrine of Atonement? Read his Redemption Accomplished and Applied.  What a wonderful book!  And if you have never worked through his teaching on the Doctrine of Atonement, it is wonderful.  I think that Murray was an inconsistent Federalist.  That is, he was a Covenant Theologian, but he was inconsistent at this point and I think at some points he works out of his theological framework like he is a good old fashioned seventeenth century Scottish Covenant Theologian.  And then, he has some little quibbles in the back of his mind which he can’t quite square up with that, which make him go the direction of “The Adamic Administration.”  Let’s take each of these four particular complaints that he has about the Covenant of Works and let’s say a few things about them.   

1. 他說的第一個理由是行為之約會貶低上帝與亞當之間關係的恩典層面。我們已經說過我要斷然地否定亞當和耶和華上帝在墮落之前是一種以恩典為基礎的觀念。恩典在聖經裡從來沒有用來表示一種沒有罪孽存在的關係。恩典總是用來表明上帝與有罪之人之間的關係。因此說上帝與墮落前的亞當之間的關係,是以恩典為基礎的,這是不符合聖經的。亞當墮落之前,上帝不需要克服任何罪過。好,這是否意味著亞當配得到上帝所賜給他的一切?不!這是否意味著亞當是靠自己贏得上帝賜給他的祝福?不!這也不是我們的意思。但是當上帝根據亞當的順服對亞當做出應許亞當就可以有確信上帝會實現這些承諾。1. Now, the first thing that he said was that it downplays (this terminology downplays) the grace aspect of the relationship between God and Adam.  Now, as we have already said, I want to flatly deny the idea that the relationship between Adam and the Lord prior to the fall was a grace-based relationship.  Let me use one of Murray’s own arguments:  The terminology of grace is never used in the Scripture to denote a relationship where no demerit exists.  Grace is always used to denote God’s relationship to those who are already in a position of demerit.  And so to talk about God and Adam having a grace-based relationship is unbiblical.  There is no demerit prior to Adam’s fall for God to overcome.  Now does that mean that Adam deserved everything that the Lord gave him?  No.  Does that mean that Adam earned the right to the blessings that God gave to him?  No. That is not what we are getting at either.  But once God has made commitments to Adam based upon Adam’s obedience, Adam could be secure in God following through those commitments.

這正是為什麼這些事會被老派的聖約神學家稱之為行為之約的原因。換句話說它是以順服為基礎的。亞當是在一個他所不配得的祝福的關係當中。上帝以祂的良善吸引他到這個關係裡,並且基本上是說,「亞當,當你以順服來行事為人,這個祝福就會是你的,而且不只是這些。」上帝沒有說,「亞當,你現在是在一個沒有祝福的狀態,而你若順服,我會賜給你一個蒙福的狀態。」上帝以祂的良善,把亞當放在一個蒙福的狀態,祂並且說,「你只需要順服,你就不只是會得到這個福分,你還會得到更多。」這是考驗期的測驗(probationary test)所隱含的。亞當,倘若你順服,終有一天你會得到確認,我會把更多祝福賜給你。And that is precisely why this thing was called by the Old Covenant Theologians,  The Covenant of Works.  In other words, it was obedience based.  Adam was in a relationship of blessing which he didnt deserve. God, in His goodness, has drawn him into that relationship and basically said this: “Adam, walk in obedience and this blessing will be yours and there will be more.”   It wasn’t, “Adam you’re in a state of non-blessing and if you will obey, I will bring you into a state of blessing.”  God, in His goodness, plops Adam into a state of blessing and He says, “Just obey and you will not only have this blessing, you will have more.”  That is implied in that probationary test.  There will come a time, Adam, if you walk in obedience, I will confirm you in this and I will give you more blessings yet. 

這就是為什麼要使用行為之約這個詞的原因。因此我要反駁慕理教授的論證因為這是聖經本身對恩典這個詞的用法。因此倘若你要用一個釋經學的論證,他反對行為之約這個詞,在這點上就是失敗的。好,這是否意味著我們說上帝與亞當在墮落前的關係不是一個恩典的關係,我們就是在貶低上帝的恩惠或祂的良善與祝福嗎?不。我們要突出這些事,我們要強調這些事。我們要強調除了上帝的愛之外世上絕對沒有其他事物可以讓上帝與亞當建立這種關係。That is why the terminology of Covenant of Works was used.  So I want to rebut Professor Murray’s argument by saying that that is not how the terminology of grace is used in the Scripture itself.  So if you want to use an exegetical argument, his argument against the terminology against the Covenant of Works fails at that point.  Now, does that mean by saying that God’s relationship to Adam prior to fall was not a grace relationship, are we downplaying God’s favor or His goodness or His blessing?  No. We want to play up those things.  We want to stress those.  We want to stress that there was absolutely nothing in the world that made God enter into that kind of relationship with Adam but His love.

要建立這種關係上帝並不需要克服人天生的罪性。我們的信仰告白在這點上是非常正確的。西敏信條第七章第一條說,「上帝與受造者之間的差距大到一個地步,雖然有理性的人都應當以上帝為他的創造主而順服祂,但是他們絕不能從上帝得著什麼作為他們的祝福與賞賜」。注意它所說的。它沒有暗示人有任何罪過,只是說上帝多麼偉大,上帝如此崇高,以至於人不可能期望會與祂建立親密的團契關係,除非祂出於自己的意志,出自祂自己的愛,決定要與人建立關係。而祂的確這麼做了祂在樂園裡在這個原始的盟約裡與亞當建立了關係。因此我要反駁慕理的第一個論證我認為他搞錯了恩典這個詞的含義。God did not have to overcome innate sinfulness in Adam in order to enter into that relationship.  And our Confession, by the way, gets this exactly right.  In The Westminster Confession, chapter 7, section 1, it says that the distance between God and His creatures is so great that there would no way for His creatures to enjoy the fruition of His relationship unless He condescended by means of a covenant to enter into a relationship with them.”  And notice what it does.  It doesn’t suggest that there is any demerit there in man.  It simply suggests that God is so great and God is so exalted that there would be no way that we could expect the fruition of intimate fellowship and relationship with Him unless He, of His own volition, and out of His own love, determined to enter into such a relationship.  And that He did, and He did it in the Garden with Adam in that original covenant.  So I want to counteract Murray’s first argument by saying, I think he has confused terminology there about grace.

我們可以爭論恩典和憐憫有什麼不同我們上週也稍微談到這點。重要的問題是,是否有罪孽存在。這是我的重點。也許可以用不同的詞來說明這點,我也不是說不可以用其他的詞來說明,但是我要說的重點是,我們看到有一種關係是罪孽並不存在的狀況,然後有另一種關係是罪孽存在的狀況,而雙盟約結構的好處就是它把這件事分得很清楚。而假如你廢掉這個雙盟約結構,你說:「只有一大糊的恩典之約」,你在作什麼呢?你貶低了兩種關係之間的差異:一個沒有罪孽存在的關係,和一個需要克服罪過的關係。而這種低估是很嚴重的。Now, you know, we can quibble about grace as opposed to mercy, or grace in graciousness, and we even got into a little discussion about that last week.  The important issue is, of course, the presence of demerit.  That is my point.  There may be different terminological ways of getting at this, and I am not saying that there are not different terminological ways of getting at it, but the main point I want to make is you have got one relationship in which the demerit of sin does not exist, and then you have another relationship in which the demerit of sin does exist, and the beautiful thing about a bicovenantal structure is, it makes this distinction clear.  And if you wipe out that bicovenantal structure and you say, “It is all just one big glop of a Covenant of Grace,” what do you do?  You downplay the difference between a relationship in which demerit must be overcome, and a relationship in which demerit is not present at all.  And that is a very serious downplaying.

這就是為什麼說如果你這麼作了就是在教導廉價恩典。倘若你貶低上帝必須克服罪,和上帝不需要克服罪,兩者之間的差別,就這個事實本身來說,就必然是在教導廉價恩典。這就是為什麼說慕理是前後不一致的,因為他仍然想要這個雙重的結構,只是他不想稱第一個盟約是一個盟約。因此他的結論是有一個亞當時期的施行,以及一個恩典之約。但是對他來說,他仍然有一道分隔的牆,也就是墮落這道牆。And if you do that, that is why I say, you have to teach cheap grace.  You see, if you downplay the difference between God having to overcome demerit and God not having to overcome demerit, you by the very virtue of that fact, have to teach cheap grace.  That is why I say Murray was not consistent in that because he still wants to have this double structure.  He still wants to have a bicovenantal structure but just not call the first covenant a covenant.  So he ends up with an Adamic Administration and a Covenant of Grace.  But for him, he still has this wall that is the great divide of the fall.    

2. 他的第二個理由是說盟約這個字沒有出現。我們已經部分回答了這個問題就是聖經裡有些地方明顯是盟約但是盟約這個字也沒有出現的。再說一遍,我的看法是這是慕理的聖經神學的弱點。慕理深受霍志恆的影響,雖然我們很感謝霍志恆的工作,以及廿世紀初福音派聖經神學學者的工作,我懷疑有時候他們是否有讓解經來規範他們的神學,還有他們沒有看到一些字眼,就懷疑這個觀念是否存在,這種的看法。2. His second argument is that the word covenant isnt there.  We have responded to that already in part, and that response is that there are examples in the Scripture where a covenant is certainly present but where the terminology is not.  And again, in my opinion, this is a reflection of a little bit of the weakness of biblical theology coming through in Murray.  Murray was very influenced by Vos.  And as much as we appreciate Vos’s work, and the work of those evangelical biblical theologians at the beginning of the century, I wonder sometimes if they did not allow the exegesis to circumscribe their theology, and where they didn’t see certain terminology they questioned whether concepts were present.

在改革宗傳統裡我們一直相信聖經所說的全部都是真確的、有權威的它是我們信仰和生活唯一的準則不只是它所明確說到也包括它所暗示、但可以靠有效和必要的推理得出的。這是個非常重要的教義,不止對改革宗信仰重要,對整個基督國度也很重要。例如,倘若你拒絕這種解經法,倘若你拒絕三位一體教義,你就拒絕了正統基督信仰的各種教導。In the Reformed tradition, we have always believed that everything in Scripture is true and authoritative and it is our only rule in faith and practice, not only in what it says explicitly, but what it says implicitly by good and necessary consequence.  That is a very important doctrine.  And not only in the Reformed faith, but in Christendom. For example, if you reject that hermeneutic, if you reject the Doctrine of the Trinity, you reject all manner of Orthodox Christian teaching.

讓我舉個例子。我和一個友人到蘇格蘭有一段時間我們一起靈修而我們決定要一起研讀馬太福音。我們決定要各自挑一些主題,並且為馬太福音作大綱,看馬太如何在他的福音書裡呈現這些主題。我挑了幾個主題,基本上是作了一些字義研究,看馬太如何使用這些重覆的字眼。我的朋友有一天說,「你知道我看到馬太強調的其中一個主題是信心的問題,一個人是否接受基督作為彌賽亞的重要性。」我很快作了字義研究,而如果你只是算這個詞出現的次數,信心根本不能算是一個主題,它不是會出現的一個主要類別。我找到的類別,裡面有更多的字,因此有更多的經文。讓我舉個例子。也許我找到的類別是耶穌應驗先知預言的觀念,而你知道馬太重覆出現的語言,就是這應驗了先知所說的。這在馬太出現了將近五十次。他不斷重覆說這句話。因此在馬太福音裡,這是很容易發現到的主題。而信心只被提到大約18次左右。當我第一次聽到我的朋友這樣說,我以為,「嗯,我不確定這是不是一個主題」。但是與我同工的這個朋友是學文學的,他是個會讀書的人,我相信他找到的主題必然在那裡,只是字義研究沒有給他足夠的支持。而我在過去兩年為了講道的緣故重新研究了馬太福音,對彌賽亞的信心的重要性這個主題,真的是馬太福音中非常重要的主題。在馬太福音裡,這是群眾和法利賽人,以及在基督裡的真信徒的分野。這是個重大的主題,雖然信心這個字並沒有出現很多次,馬太不是用這個字來敲你的腦袋的。因此,在聖經裡我們會發現這個觀念一再被重覆使用,雖然這個詞並並沒有出現。而我認為只因為這個詞沒有出現,就說這個觀念不存在,是非常膚淺的。我認為甚至在創世記第一、二章,就上帝與亞當的關係來說,我們甚至可以看到一個盟約的結構,所有的元素都在那裡了。因此,我的看法是,這是慕理所有的論證裡最弱的一點:因為這個詞沒有出現,因此我們就不能說這是個盟約。Let me give you an example of this.  A friend of mine and I, when we were in Scotland, were doing devotions together for a period of time, and we decided we would work in the Gospel of Matthew.  And each of us was trying to pick up on themes and do some outlining in the Gospel of Matthew as to major themes that Matthew presses in his Gospel.  And I had picked up on several of them, basically just going through word studies and seeing repeated words that Matthew was using on a regular basis.  My friend came in one day and he said, “You know one of the themes I see Matthew pressing here is the issue of faith, the importance of a person’s personal embrace of Christ as Messiah.”  I ran a quick word study on that and numerically faith was not one of the major categories if you are just counting words.  It was not one of the major categories that came up.  The categories that I had come up with had far more words in them and hence more verses in them than his.   Let me give you an example.  Maybe I would have come with the category of the idea of Jesus’ fulfilling prophecy and you know that repeated language in Matthew and this fulfilled what the prophets said.  And that occurs something like 50 times in Matthew.  He hits that over and over.  So that is an easy theme to pick up in Matthew.  And faith was only mentioned, let’s say 18 times or something like that.  And when I first heard my friend say that, I thought, “Hum, I am not really sure whether that is a major theme.”  But my friend who was working with me was a literature major and he did know how to read and I think what he had actually picked up on was a theme that was definitely there which was not supported by word study, but which was definitely there.  And as I have been working back over the last two years in the Gospel of Matthew for the purpose of preaching, this theme of the importance of faith in the Messiah, I mean it knocks you over the head in the Gospel of Matthew.  It is clearly a significant theme.  It is the divide between the crowds and the Pharisees and the true believers of Christ in the Gospel of Matthew.  It is a major theme, even though the term faith is there, Matthew does not hit you over the head with it.  So, over and over in the Scripture we will find places where the concept will be used, and where the terminology is not.  And I think it is shallow simply to stop and say well, the terminology is not there, therefore the concept isn’t. I think we can see even a covenantal structure given at the end of Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2 in terms of this relationship between God and Adam.  All the elements are there.  And so that, in my opinion, is Murray’s weakest argument of all: Terminology is not there, therefore we should refrain from calling it a covenant. 

慕理所受到的影響
Influences on Murray

這是內幕獨家消息。當慕理從蘇格蘭回來,Donald Macleod和慕理談話,說到慕理在聖約神學的問題上,他所受到的一些重大影響。其中之一,慕理深受霍志恆的影響,還有一位名叫Adolph Desmond的人的影響。Desmond是二十世紀初德國一位著名的新約學者,他強烈主張盟約這個字不應該被翻譯為合約或條約,或是一種互相的關係,而應該被翻譯為處置(disposition)或遺命(testament),是單方面的,而不是雙方面的。Desmond這樣做是因為他從與新約同時代的希臘法律文獻中所發現的,而有一段時間,許多新約學者都跟隨Desmond的看法。他的看法後來被推翻了,但是他在廿世紀初葉很有影響力。因此,慕理深受這種單方面的盟約觀念的影響。他發現歷史性的行為之約裡,順服的這個層面,從他的口味來說,雙方面的味道太濃了。因此,你會看到,當慕理在一本稱為《恩典之約》的小冊中定義盟約時,他是以一種單方面的、非常單邊的方式來定義恩典之約的。他是在追隨霍志恆也追隨Desmond的看法。Now, here is the inside scoop.  As Donald Macleod talked with John Murray when he came back from Scotland, there were a number of things that had made a major impact on Murray with regard to Covenant Theology.  For one thing, Murray was impacted by Vos and by a guy named Adolph Desmond.  Desmond was a big time German New Testament scholar at the turn of the twentieth century who had argued very strongly that Covenant should not be translated as a contract or a treaty or a mutual relationship, but it ought to be translated as a disposition or a testament, something that was one-sided as opposed to two-sided. And Desmond did this because he had uncovered all this literature from Greek legal documents contemporary to the New Testament and many New Testament scholars followed Desmond for a period of time.  His views have since then been overturned, but he was very influential in the first part of the twentieth century.  And so Murray was very influenced by this one-sided idea of covenant.  And he found the obediential aspect of the historic Covenant of Works to be a little two-sided for his taste.  So, you will see him, when he defines covenant in his little tract called The Covenant of Grace, he will define it in a very one-sided, a very monopluric sort of way.  And he is following Vos there and he is following Desmond.

不過另一件有趣的事情是慕理對Macleod表明他有點受到巴特對行為之約的本質的論證的影響因此慕理雖然聲嘶力竭地反對巴特的聖經論和救贖論然而他在某種程度上還是受到巴特對恩典之約的論證的影響。Macleod在這點上有機會和慕理討論,並且反對這幾點,但是慕理仍然堅持他的異議,而直到今日,西敏神學院仍然不太敢堅持行為之約和恩典之約的骨架。從費城西敏神學院出來的人,你會更多聽到他們說亞當時期的施行,除非他們在西敏時是克萊恩死忠的粉絲。而在慕理的徒子徒孫中,現在是葛富恩,和克萊恩的徒子徒孫中,對這個問題曾經有一場很惡毒的小小的戰爭。在這個問題上有很嚴重的分歧,克萊恩堅持行為之約的說法,慕理對這個說法表示存疑。因此,倘若你看到一篇由西敏出來的加爾文主義者所寫的文章,而你感到有一些爭論,你不知道為什麼會有這樣的論證,也許這是這個特別論證的其中一個來源。But, the other interesting thing is, is that Murray indicated to Macleod that he had actually been impacted a bit by Barths argumentation on the nature of the Covenant of Works and so although Murray would have been stridently in opposition to Barth’s doctrine of the Scripture and his doctrine of the Atonement, yet he was swayed to a certain extent by some of Barth’s arguments regarding Covenant of Works.  And Macleod had opportunity to interact with him on that and argue against those particular points, but Murray held to his objections and to this day, Westminster Seminary has tended to be a little bit skittish about the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace framework.  You will hear more guys coming out of Westminster talking about The Adamic Administration, unless they were big fans of Meredith Kline when they were there.  And there is a rather nasty little fight that goes on between the descendents of Murray and now Gaffin, and the descendants of Kline over this whole issue.  There has been a pretty significant division on precisely this issue with Kline insisting on the language of the Covenant of Works, and with Murray having problems with that language.  So if you run across articles by Calvinists out of the Westminster sphere, and sense that there is an argument going on that you don’t know why, this may be one of the origins of that particular argument.

肇始之約——羅伯森
The Covenant of Commencement Robertson

罪論The Doctrine of Sin

在說完慕理反對行為之約的一些看法後我們要看來慕理所謂的肇始之約Covenant of Commencement),也就是在人類墮落之後上帝與人設立的盟約。在我們看恩典之約的啟動之前,讓我們看看創世記第三章裡面談到的關於罪的教義。創世記三章1-13節對我們明白福音是絕對必要的,因為倘若我們不明白什麼是罪、我們的罪責,我們就無法明白或接受恩典。對我來說,在創世記三章1-13節裡,至少教導我們關於罪的三件事情。在1-5節裡,我們看到撒但和女人之間的對話。這是撒但對夏娃的誘惑。而女人對這個誘惑者的回答,其本質就說明罪的定義就是背叛。這裡所描繪的罪,就是一幅悖逆的圖畫。我們可以從許多方面來描寫罪。倘若你們上過一些神學課,你們會看到保羅用許多字來形容罪。在這裡是一幅悖逆的圖畫,而蛇是作為撒但的工具。在這裡,沒有把罪呈現為是一種獨立自存的事物,不是一直存在於世界裡的,一直是與善同等、同樣永恆的事物。在這段經文裡罪被描寫為進入到這個世界裡的事物。Now, having said a few words about Murrays objection to the Covenant of Works, I would like to look at the Covenant of Commencement, as Robertson calls it, God’s inauguration of the Covenant of Grace after the fall.   And before we look at that inauguration of the Covenant of Grace, let’s just say a few things about the Doctrine of Sin as it is found in the first thirteen verses of Genesis 3.  Genesis 3:1-13 is absolutely essential to our understanding of the Gospel, because without an understanding of sin, and our culpability, we cannot understand or embrace grace.  It seems to me that at least three things are taught to us about sin in Genesis 3:1-13.  In the first five verses, we have this conversation between Satan and the woman.  It constitutes his temptation of her.  And the very nature of the woman’s response to the tempter indicates to us that sin is being defined for us here as rebellion.  The picture of sin here is a picture of rebellion.  There are lots of legitimate ways of describing sin.  Many of you, if you have been through Knox Chamblin’s classes on Paul, will have heard the various terminologies that Paul will use for sin.  He has various different terms and images that he will use for sin.  Here the image is rebellion.  The serpent serves as the tool of Satan in the passage.  Sin is not presented as something that is self-existent, something that is always been in the world, something that is co-equal and co-eternal with good.  Sin is depicted in this passage as something that comes into the world.

在這整個記載裡都強調了上帝的主權例如經文提醒我們連蛇都是上帝所造的。注意這段經文的語句:「耶和華上帝所造的,惟有蛇比田野一切的活物更狡猾。」因此,即便當你在閱讀摩西所寫的這些早期篇章中,也許會擔心害怕,摩西所描述的上帝似乎沒有在掌權,但是我們還是可以看到一些蛛絲馬跡,巧妙地說明了上帝絕對的主權。在這個段落裡你也許會懷疑,「假使上帝在掌權,撒但為什麼可以像這樣長驅直入上帝所造的萬物當中?」到後來,當該隱犯罪,你也會懷疑,「上帝的反應怎麼會是這樣?」或者在創世記第三章末了,「耶和華上帝說:『那人已經與我們相似,能知道善惡,現在恐怕他伸手又摘生命樹的果子吃,就永遠活著。』耶和華上帝便打發他出伊甸園去,耕種他所出之土。」你會這樣想,「上帝是否在說明,人可以做一些上帝無法控制的事情呢?」你可以可以到巴別塔的故事,看到上帝打斷這個過程,並且說:「看哪,他們成為一樣的人民,都是一樣的言語,如今既做起這事來,以後他們所要做的事就沒有不成就的了。我們下去在那裡變亂他們的口音使他們的言語彼此不通。」聽起來似乎上帝有時候也管不動人。Now Gods sovereignty is stressed throughout the account by reminding us, for instance, that even the Lord made the serpent.  Notice the phraseology of the passage, “The serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.”  So, even though you may fear when you are reading some of these early narratives by Moses that Moses is depicting a God who isn’t quite in control, there are ever so clever indications throughout of the absolute sovereignty of God.  In this narrative you may be wondering, “What in the world is Satan doing interfacing with God’s creation like this if God’s in control?”  And then later, when Cain sins, you may be wondering, “Why does God react like He does?”  Or at the end of Genesis 3, when God says, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us knowing good and evil, now lest he stretch out his hand and take from the tree of life and eat and live forever, let Us drive him from the Garden.”  You may feel like, “Well, is God indicating that man can do something that He wouldn’t be able to control?”  And you can go to the story of the Tower of Babel and see God disrupting that process and saying, “We have got to go down and intervene lest they build a building to the skies.”  And it sounds like God is something less than sovereignly in control.
但是當我們更仔細看摩西實際上是給我們一些很美妙、很精巧的神學幽默。舉個例子,看巴別塔的情況,摩西告訴我們,他們用什麼造巴別塔?有人記得嗎?磚塊,灰泥。摩西知道什麼是磚塊,他曾經監督希伯來人造磚頭。他會告訴你用磚頭和灰泥當建築材料會是什麼樣子。他親眼看過百姓必須不用草來造磚。他知道這是什麼意義。而在摩西的時代,磚是比石頭要劣等的建築材料。因此當摩西告訴我們他們想用磚和灰泥建造一座通天塔這有點是在嘲笑說「哈哈哈他們想幹啥啊But upon closer examination, Moses is actually providing some pretty, sometimes some clever, theological humor.  To give you an example on the Tower of Babel scenario, what does Moses tell you that they were building the tower out of?  Anybody remember?  Bricks and mortar.  Now Moses knew a little bit about bricks, didn’t he?  He had supervised the making of a few bricks in his day, okay.  He could tell you about bricks and mortar as a building material.  Okay.  He had seen a people have to make brick without straw.  He knew what the significance of that was.  And in Moses’ world, bricks were an inferior building material to stone.  So when Moses tells you that they were going to build a tower to the sky out of bricks and mortar, it is kind of like, “Ha, ha, ha, they are going to do what?”

再說一次除此之外這裡的觀念不是說他們真的要造一座通天塔而是類似金字塔ziggurat的形式就像考古學家在當時的世界所挖掘出來的一些偉大的建築一樣。因此經文裡有一些微妙的地方說明摩西沒有絲毫的擔心,害怕上帝會失去祂對局勢的控制。在這段經文中到處都可以看到人的敗壞,蛇、撒但,這個上帝最重大的敵人也一樣,牠比上帝所造的一切活物都更狡猾。因此耶和華上帝在這段經文中是完全掌權的。Now again, on top of that you know that the idea was not that they were literally going to build a tower into heaven, but this was going to be in the form of a ziggurat, just like some of the great structures that archeologists have unearthed in that world there today.  So there are subtle things in the text to let you know that Moses didn’t have the slightest fear that God was somehow going to lose control of this situation.  The fallacious man is shown at every point, and even so in this passage, Satan, the great enemy of God, the serpent, who is craftier than any beast which the Lord God has made.  So the Lord God is in complete control in this passage.

但是那誘惑者含沙射影地反對耶和華而不是用論證的方式。創世記三章1牠問夏娃的問題目的不是要質疑上帝是否真的說過祂說過的話。「上帝豈是真說,不許你們吃園中所有樹上的果子嗎?」對夏娃的問題目的是要引誘她質疑上帝的判斷。請注意,撒但讓上帝的禁止令看起來比它實際上要嚴苛。想想世界也是這麼對待基督徒的:「你知道,基督信仰不讓你擁有任何樂趣。」這是這類論證的主旨。我的意思是,這類論證把上帝描繪成一個暴君,不讓人作任何的事。祂不許你吃園中任何的果子。因此,這個禁制令、這個限制,就被誇大了。而牠的問題,「上帝豈是真說」,目的不是要對夏娃說「上帝真的說了這些話?」而是要說:「難道祂這麼不講理,竟然作出這種限制?」牠是在邀請夏娃質疑上帝的判斷。牠要夏娃作什麼呢?質疑上帝、審判上帝。這就是悖逆的精髓——讓你忘記你是上帝所造的,你如今可以背叛上帝,審判上帝。But the tempter begins with an insinuation against the Lord rather than an argument.  The question that he puts initially to the woman in Genesis 3:1 is not meant to query whether God had said what He has said.  “Has God said you may not eat from any tree of the Garden?”  The question is put to the woman in order to entice her to question God’s judgment.  Notice, Satan makes God’s prohibition harsher than it is.  Think how often the world does this to Christians.  You know Christianity doesn’t let you do anything fun.  That is sort of the thrust of this particular argument.  I mean God doesn’t let you do anything.  He is not going to let you eat from any of the trees in the Garden.  So the prohibition, the restriction, is overstated at that point.  And his question, “Has God said” is not saying to Eve, “Did God say that?”  It is saying, “Is He so unreasonable as to have made that kind of restrictive prohibition?”  He is inviting Eve to question God’s judgment.  He is inviting Eve to do what?  To stand in judgment over the Lord.  And that is the essence of rebellion—where you forget that God made you and now you stand in rebellion over the Lord.

我曾有幸教過的最聰明的高中生如今是一位敬虔的妻子和母親在田納西州納什維爾的一家教會擔任職員。當她剛到聖路易士時,她的父親剛被調到聖路易士一家最大的電話公司。他們以前是在一家偏自由派的長老教會聚會。他們偶然發現我們PCA的教會。父親不喜歡我們教會,但是孩子們喜歡,媽媽也喜歡,因此他們有點像是求父親就在我們教會安定下來。和南茜的互動總是非常具有挑戰性,因為她很聰明,也非常敏銳。而當我們在處理地獄的教義時,這對她來說不是可以不帶感情、光是知識層面的話題,地獄是很真實的。我絕對不會忘記她的眼神,在一個星期三晚上,她終於明白,我真的相信有地獄,而且有人會下地獄。你知道,她關心我,我也關心她,然後她說,「我真的不敢相信你竟然會相信這個」。當晚我們徹夜長談,討論地獄為什麼是可能的——倘若上帝是慈愛的,為什麼還會有地獄。一位慈愛的上帝為什麼會創造出像這樣的地方?祂怎麼會把人送入地獄?順帶一提,南茜向我證明了,問題不是出在人怎麼想。很多時候人們會鑽牛角尖,爭論人是怎麼到地獄的(即:預定和自由意志)。這是小兒科的問題。真正的問題是地獄。人們怎麼會到地獄的,有誰在乎呢?地獄才是真正的問題。而南茜以她的聰慧,像隻鬥牛犬一樣,追著這個問題不放。我們大戰了三百回合。老實說,她讓我棄械投降。我使出看家本領,想和她辯論。她知道我有很強的聖經根據,但是她就是無法接受這個真理,因為這個真理會讓她非常痛苦。她就是轉不過這個彎來。最後我告訴她,我說,「南茜,妳是個罪人嗎?」「是的,我是個罪人。」「妳是否有時候會作一些讓妳的父母、朋友傷心的事?妳是否會做錯事?」「是的,我會。」「妳同意上帝有時候會不公平,不夠仁慈?」「是的,絕對會。」然後我說,「我問妳,上帝是否曾經虧待妳?」「噢,不,當然沒有。」「上帝是否曾經對妳不公平?」「哦,不,從來不曾。」「妳相信上帝是良善的?」「絕對,我相信上帝良善的。」然後我說:「好,我問你:妳所說的實際上是這樣,妳,南茜,承認妳是罪人,而妳擔心上帝會做錯事情?」她暫停了一會兒,然後說,「我想這就是我的意思。」我說,「南茜,妳會傷害別人,妳承認上帝從來沒有傷害過妳,也不曾做過錯事,祂也從來沒有不公平,妳只是擔心在這件事上,祂也許會犯規?這是不是妳的意思?」「我猜這就是我的意思。」我說,「這有點好笑,不是嗎?我們這兩個罪人擔心完美的上帝會做錯事?」在她真誠的問題背後(我要你們知道,我不是在貶低這個問題的誠意),隱藏著悖逆。因為她認定她比上帝更有愛心、更關心人。但是她沒有,你沒有,我也沒有。她認為自己比全能者更有同情心,擔心上帝在祂說過的話裡缺乏愛心,她以為如果換她掌權就不會這樣。One of the brightest high school students that I ever had the privilege of working with, is now a godly wife and mother of an active church officer in Nashville, Tennessee. When she first came to St. Louis, her father had been transferred with a major telephone company into St. Louis and they had been going to relatively moderate to liberal kinds of Presbyterian churches. They accidentally stumbled into our PCA church and the father really didn’t like the church, but the kids loved it, and the mom loved it and so they sort of begged Dad to settle in and come to our church.  But interacting with Nancy was always a challenge because she was very intelligent and she was very sensitive.  And when we were tackling the doctrine of Hell, you know, it wasn’t something detached and intellectual for her.  It was real.  And I will never forget the look in her eyes, that Wednesday night when it dawned on her that I really believed that there was a hell and that there were people there.  And you know, she cared about me, and I cared about her, and she said, “I just can’t believe that you believe that.”  And we engaged in a long discussion that night about how there could be a hell—how could there be a hell, if there is a loving God.  How could a loving God create a place like that?  And how could He send people to be there?  And by the way, it was Nancy who drove the point home to me that the problem is not what people often think it is. So often people lock into the problem of how people get to hell, (aka  “Predestination versus free will”). That is kid stuff.  The problem is hell.  Who cares how somebody gets there?  The problem is the fact that it is there and that there are people in it.  That is the real problem.  And Nancy, she had locked onto that with her sharp mind, just like a bulldog and wouldn’t let go.  And we went round and round.  And frankly, she had me baffled.  I had run out of all my apologetic bag of tricks in terms of trying to argue this point with her.  She knew that I had a strong biblical presentation of the truth, but she couldn’t accept that truth because the pain of that truth was so great to her.  She just couldn’t get her head around it.  And finally I said to her, I said, “Nancy, are you a sinner?”  “Yes, I am a sinner.”  “And you do things that hurt your parents and hurt your friends from time to time?  You do wrong things?”  “Yes, I do.”  “And you are unfair sometimes and you are unkind and you agree with that?”  “Yes, absolutely I do.”  And I said, “Let me ask you this: Has God ever done anything wrong to you?”  “Oh, no, of course not.”  “Has He ever been unfair to you?”  “No, never.” “And you believe that God is good?”  “Absolutely.  I believe God is good.”  And I said, “Well, let me ask you this: So what you are saying is really this, that you, Nancy, who admit that you are sinner, you are worried that God is going to do something wrong here?”  And she stopped for few minutes and she said, “Now I guess that is what I am saying.”  I said, “You Nancy, who hurt people, who admit to me that God has never hurt you and never done wrong and He has never been unfair, you’re just a little afraid that He might be a bit out of line on this particular thing?  Isn’t that what you are saying?”  “I guess that is what I am saying.”  I said, “That is kind of ridiculous, isn’t it?  That you and me, sinners, worry that the perfect God might do something wrong?”  Now in the sincerity of her question, and I want you to hear, I am not downplaying the sincerity of that question, there was hidden rebellion.  Because she had decided that she was more caring, more loving, more concerned about people than God.  And she is not, and you are not, and I am not.  But she had lifted her sense of compassion above the Almighty’s and she was concerned that something that God had said in His Word was less compassionate than she would be if she were in charge.

而這是悖逆的本質撒但就是用這點來引誘夏娃的祂要她朝這個方向走。夏娃一開始回答還有模有樣,我們在第2節看到,她說:「園中樹上的果子,我們可以吃。」她是在反駁撒但。她說:「園中樹上的果子,我們可以吃,惟有園當中那棵樹上的果子,上帝曾說:『你們不可吃,也不可摸,免得你們死。」因此她一開始是反對撒但。她拒絕這種暗示說上帝做了什麼愚蠢或不公平、缺少愛心的事。And that is the essence of rebellion and that was what Satan was trying to tempt Eve with; that was the direction that he wanted her to go.  And Eve answers pretty well initially, you’ll see there in verse 2, she says, “From the fruit of the tree, we may eat.”  So she contradicts him.  She says, ”No, we can eat from the fruit of the trees from the Garden, but from the fruit of the tree in the middle of the Garden, God says, you shall not eat it or touch it, or you will die.”  So she starts off by contradicting the serpent.  She rejects the implication that God has done something that is not very wise or fair or good.

但是請注意她已經開始根據撒但的說法來回答。她犯了兩個錯誤。首先注意到她自行添加了一些話。她說,上帝說他們不能摸樹上的果子。但是就我們所知,這不是上帝在創世記第2章給亞當的禁令。有鑑於這段經文用字的精簡,我們可以假設摩西有一些特別的理由,把這個報導包含在經文當中。換句話說,倘若她只是把一個縮減後的記載加以擴充,我們會懷疑摩西為什麼會這樣記載,好和先前的記載加以比較。But notice how she already has begun to answer on Satans own terms.  Two mistakes she makes.  First of all, notice that she adds words to the response.  She says, she indicates that God had said we are not to touch the fruit, and of course that was not part of the proscription that had been given to Adam in Genesis 2, as far as we know.  And given the economy of words in these passages, we may assume that Moses had some specific reason for including that particular report.  In other word, if she were just simply expanding on a shortened account that had previously been given, one wonders why Moses would have included that in order to contrast with the previous account that had been given.

其次注意到她給了一個錯誤的順服的理由。她說「你們不可吃也不可摸免得你們死。」這是表明她順服的動機不是為上帝的榮耀,而是避免死亡。因此,我們已經看到這裡有點裂痕。Secondly, notice she gives a wrong motive for obedience. She says, You shall not eat from it, or touch it, lest you die.  So there is an indication here that the motivation is rather than keeping this command for God’s glory, keeping lest we die.  So, we already see a crack in the dike here.

「雖然不信的人吵吵嚷嚷他們說話的方式不值得我們生氣因為這就是摩西所形容的古蛇說話的方式。當亞當和夏娃明知道所有的動物都是上帝所賜、要臣服於他們的,他們卻甘心情願被他們自己的奴僕引導走上歪路,背叛上帝,人忘恩負義的卑鄙也因此更加顯明。每當他們看見世上的動物,他們應該同時想到上帝的至高主權和無比的良善。但是相反地,當他們看見蛇,看見這背離造物主的背道者,他們不止沒有懲罰牠,反而違反了一切律法的秩序,讓自己臣服在牠之下,參與在同樣的背道中。還有什麼比這極度的敗壞更讓人羞辱的這就是我對蛇的理解是真實的不像有些人把蛇理解為只是比喻。」Though the impious make a noise, there is nothing justly to offend us in the mode of speaking as a serpent by which Moses describes Satan.  Add to this the baseness of human ingratitude is more clearly hence perceived, that when Adam and Eve knew that all animals were given by the hand of God into subjection to them, yet they suffered themselves to be lead away by one of their own slaves into rebellion against God.  As often as they beheld one of the animals, which were in the world, they ought to have been reminded by that both of the supreme authority and the singular goodness of God.  But on the contrary when they saw the serpent and apostate from his Creator, not only did they neglect to punish it, but in violation of all lawful order, they subjected and devoted themselves to it as participators in the same apostasy.  What can be imagined more dishonorable than this extreme depravity? And thus I understand the name of the serpent, not allegorically as some foolishly do, but in its genuine sense.”

因此這是加爾文對用寓意來解釋蛇的回應。這是個好問題。我只是想簡短提一下因為上堂課結束時有人問到這個問題。And so that is Calvins response to the allegorical interpretation of the serpent.  That was a good question. I just wanted to mention that briefly since someone had asked about that at the end of class.   

上帝對蛇的咒詛
 Gods curse on the serpent

上帝對蛇的咒詛出現在創三15。我們已經說過在這個咒詛中隱含了對人類的祝福因為上帝把敵意放在撒但和女人中間是要在女人和她靈魂的敵人直接製造分裂。事實上,在創三15這個女人的後裔和蛇的後裔的教義裡,我們看見預定論的種子。順道一提,這個主題會貫穿整本創世記,保羅在加拉太書也重拾這個主題,特別是關於亞伯拉罕的後裔。不過,在這段經文裡,從創三15開始,我們看到預定論的種子。我們清楚看到上帝把世界分成兩個陣營,女人的後裔和蛇的後裔,我們看到上帝採取主動拯救女人。因此我們有了揀選論的種子。按照我們本性,我們是與上帝為敵的,但是按著祂的旨意,祂改變我們的本性,我們才能與撒但為敵。因此這個敵意是罪人所擁有的最寶貴的敵意。The curse of the Lord against the serpent in Genesis 3:15.  We have said here that in this curse there is implicit blessing for mankind, because for God to put enmity between Satan and the woman is to drive a wedge between the woman and the enemy of her soul.  And in fact, we have the seed form here in this doctrine of the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent in Genesis 3:15—by the way that theme will run throughout the book of Genesis and be picked up by Paul in Galatians, especially with regard to the seed of Abraham—but in this passage, beginning here in Genesis 3:15, we have the seed of the doctrine of predestination.  We have God clearly dividing the world into two camps, the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, and we have God taking initiative for the woman in her salvation.  So you have the seed of the doctrine of election.  By our nature, we are at enmity with God, but by His will, He changes our nature so that we are at enmity with Satan.  And so this enmity is the most wonderful enmity that there can be for a sinner.

在創世記三章15這個敵意有三重。仔細看這段經文。首先,上帝說,「你(指蛇)和女人彼此為仇」。因此,這是撒但和女人之間的敵意。首先是個人層面的敵意,在撒但和女人之間。Now, the enmity is on three fronts in Genesis 3:15.  Look closely at the passage.  First, God says, between you and the woman, speaking to the serpent. So it is between Satan and the woman; there is an individual enmity to begin with between Satan and the woman.

為什麼耶和華一開始要先讓蛇和女人彼此為敵呢首先因為女人是最先被誘惑的。因此上帝在對這個誘惑進行補救時要從她開始。她最先受誘惑犯罪,因此上帝從她開始進行補救。其次,因為這個敵意建立起女人在救贖中要扮演的角色。(重覆)通過她,罪的大門向世界敞開了。但如今她在救恩中要扮演一個角色:她要懷胎生下那救恩的後裔。Why does the Lord begin by establishing enmity between the serpent and the woman?  Well, first, because the woman was the first seduced.  So He begins with her in the remedy to the seduction.  She was first seduced into sin and so God immediately begins His remedy with her.  Second, because this enmity establishes the role that the woman will have in redemption.  It establishes the role that the woman will have in redemption.  By her, the door of sin was opened into the world.  But now she will have a role in salvation.  That is, the woman will be the bearer of the seed.  And the seed, eventually Jesus, will be the source of salvation.  So even as she was the door of sin into this world, so also, she will be the bearer of the seed of salvation.

注意這第二層的敵意後裔之間的敵意女人的後裔和蛇的後裔。這是衝突的擴大。這不只是撒但和夏娃個人層面的衝突,而是他們後裔之間的衝突。Notice the second level of enmity, the enmity between the seeds: the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. So this is an expansion of the conflict.  There is not just individual conflict between Satan and Eve, but between their seeds.

誰是那女人的後裔是指誰呢夏娃是該隱的母親也是亞伯的母親。因此,這個後裔是指誰呢?很顯然不是指所有的人類。女人的後裔不是指所有從夏娃而生的人。當我們到創世記四章8節時,這就變得非常清楚了。約翰在約翰壹書三章12節明確告訴我們,該隱是屬那惡者的。因此,雖然該隱從血緣來說是夏娃後裔,但是靈性上,他是屬於蛇的後裔。Now, who is the womans seed?  To whom is that referring?  Eve was the mother of Cain, just as well as she was the mother of Abel, so who is this seed referring to?  It does not refer to all mankind clearly.  Clearly.  The seed of the woman is not every human being descended from Eve.  That is made clear as soon as we get to Genesis 4:8.  And John tells us explicitly in I John 3:12 that Cain was of the evil one.  So though Cain was physically the son of Eve, yet spiritually, he was of the seed of the serpent.

這再度提醒我們家世不是恩典的保證。他或許是生在了亞當和夏娃的家庭裡但是他卻是屬於蛇的後裔。因此,當我們說女人的後裔時,不是指全人類,因為在創世記第四章,我們已經在夏娃的後裔裡發現那屬於惡者的人。因此這是指誰呢這是指上帝在永恆裡已經設定要讓他們與撒但為仇的那些女人的後裔。我們馬上會舉一些例子。Now that again reminds us that family lineage is no guarantee of grace.  He may have been in the physical family of Adam and Eve, but yet he was of the seed of the serpent.  So when we refer to the woman’s seed, it can’t mean all mankind because immediately in Genesis 4, we come upon one of her descendants who is of the evil one.  So, who does it refer to?  It refers to the descendants of the woman in whom God sets enmity against Satan.  It refers to all of the descendants of the woman in whom God sets enmity against Satan.  And we will look at some examples of this in just a few minutes. 

誰是撒但的後裔所有上帝沒有讓他們與撒但為敵的人。摩西從創世記第四章到第十一章及後來的經文,給了一連串的名字。Who is Satans seed?  Well, all those in whom God did not set enmity with Satan.  And Moses gives you a string of them from Genesis 4 through Genesis 11 and further.

最後一件事在我們查考創世記裡這個後裔的主題之前先看一個例子。如果你看創世記三章15節第三個敵意的層面,你會看到『他』會傷你的頭,而你要傷牠的腳跟。這是你撒但和他女人單一的後裔之間的衝突。One last thing, before we look at an example of this theme of the seeds in Genesis.  If you look at the third front of enmity in Genesis 3:15, you will see this phrase, it or he, shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heal.  And notice here that the conflict is again individual.  The conflict between you, Satan, and it, or he, the singular seed of the woman.

因此這是兩個代表一個代表所有在地獄裡心剛硬的人另一個代表上帝拯救的人他們會進行肉搏戰。因此救贖歷史就是從上帝所創造的敵意開始的,其高峰在撒但和那單一的後裔,即基督的衝突。保羅在加拉太書三章16節說那後裔就是基督。So two representatives, one representing all the hardened hosts of hell, the other representing the redeemed hosts of God, engage in hand-to-hand combat.  And so the history of redemption is the history of God-originated enmity culminating in the conflict between Satan and the singular seed who is Christ, Paul says in Galatians 3:16.

兩個後裔之間的衝突的展開在摩西所記錄的創世記四章到十一章的時期就可以看到。你會在創世記四章1-17節,該隱的人生中;在創世記四章19-24節,拉麥的人生;在創世記六章1-6節,挪亞同時代的人當中,看到撒但的後裔。你應該還記得這個句子:「人在地上罪惡很大,終日所思想的盡都是惡。」這是在描寫挪亞同時代的人。如此,你再次看到寧錄,在創世記十章8-10節,創世記十一章1-9節,在建造巴別塔這件事上看到撒但後裔的踪影。所以你看到這個主題的發展。該隱的家系是邪惡的。And the development of this conflict between the two seeds can be seen in the period recorded by Moses in Genesis 4 – 11.  You can see the seed of Satan in the life of Cain in Genesis 4:1-17.  You can see it in the life of Lamech in Genesis 4:19-24.  You can see it in the description of Noah’s contemporaries in Genesis 6:1-6, and you remember the phrase, “and every intention of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.”  That is the description of Noah’s contemporaries.  Then again you can see it in Nimrod, the man hunter, in Genesis 10:8-10 and then you can see it in Genesis 11:1-9 in the builders of the Tower of Babel.  So you see this theme developing there.  Those who follow in the line of Cain in wickedness.

另一方面我們可以在創四到十一章裡女人的後裔身上看到女人的後裔和上帝的恩典。在創四25-26,我們看到塞特是這個恩典譜系其中的一個成員,在他的影響下,人們開始呼求耶和華的名,開始集體的敬拜。我們在創五22-24看到敬虔的以諾,在五28-29節看到敬虔的拉麥,即挪亞的父親。然後我們在六8-922看到挪亞自己,他是女人的後裔的一部分。因此當我們說創三15是第一次福音的宣講(protoevangelium),不只是一廂情願,只是早期教會註釋家的靈意解經。很明顯,我們在創三15看到了福音的種子。馬太亨利這樣說到:「因為相信這個應許,我們有理由認為,人類的第一對祖先和族長們,在洪水之前就被稱義了」。因此在女人和撒但,以及她的後裔和撒但的後裔之間建立敵意的這件事上,我們看到福音和上帝的揀選的根源。On the other hand, we can see the seed of the woman and Gods grace on the seed of the woman in Genesis 4-11.  In Genesis 4:25-26, we see Seth as one who is in the line of grace and under whose influence people began to call out upon the Lord and corporately worship.  We see the godly Enoch in Genesis 5:22-24, we see the godly Lamech in Genesis 5:28-29, father to Noah.  And we see Noah himself in Genesis 6:8-9, and verse 22 as part of the seed of the woman.  So when we refer to Genesis 3:15 as the first giving of the Gospel, as the protoevangelium, that is not just wishful thinking by allegorizing early church interpreters.  Clearly here, we have in Genesis 3:15, the very seed of the Gospel.  Matthew Henry says this; “For by faith in this promise, we have reason to think our first parents and the patriarchs before the flood were justified.”  And so in this establishment of enmity between the woman and Satan and between her seed and his seed, we see the very root of the Gospel and of divine election.

因此這場戰爭是生命和恩典明確的證據。從教牧的觀點來說這是值得我們記住的。我們會有許多基督徒朋友,也許包括我們,有時候會有消沉的時候,因為我們生命裡的罪的緣故,有外來的磨難。然而對內在的罪有正確的哀傷和關切不是屬靈死亡的跡象,而是屬靈生命的記號。只有當我試圖否認我有罪需要對付時,我才是真正有問題的時候,而不是當我持續感到要和罪爭戰而因此傷心時。這是屬靈生命的記號。而這是源自上帝所設立的敵意這個現實。這種戰爭是生命與恩典實在的證據。倘若我們可以和罪和平相處,或拒絕悔改的信息,就是靈魂生病的跡象,是死亡的記號。So this warfare is the very evidence of life and grace.  That is very important for us to remember, pastorally speaking.  We will have many Christian friends, perhaps ourselves, who will be depressed from time to time, because of the eternal turmoil we have because of sin in our lives.  And yet an appropriate sorrow and concern over indwelling sin is not a sign of spiritual death.  It is a sign of spiritual life.  It is when I am trying to deny that I have sin to deal with that I am in trouble, not when I am grieving over the continual fight against sin.  That is a sign of spiritual life.  And that flows from the reality of this enmity that God has established.  This kind of warfare is the very evidence of life and grace.  If we can be at peace with sin, or reject the message of repentance, that is the sign of soul sickness.  That is the sign of death.

請留意到這教會歷史上撒但在教會裡面的工具他們呼喚我們作什麼呢要和世界和平共處。我們明白這不是我們要作的呼召。教會蒙召要對世界說「不」,不是因為教會恨世界,我們必須了解這點。這和我們之前問過的一個問題是吻合的。當我們開始說到「我們和他們」——即女人的後裔和蛇的後裔之間的分隔——難道這不會造成對那些按照上帝形象被造卻尚未得贖的人建立起一種不正確的仇恨的態度嗎如果是這樣我們怎樣和他們建立關係呢And notice how often in the history of the church, the call of those who are the tool of Satan within the church is to do what?  To make peace with the world.  We see that is not our call to make.  The church is called to say “No” to the world, not because it hates the world, understand that.  This feeds into a good question that was asked earlier.  When we start talking about the “us and them”—the divide between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent—doesn’t that lead into an attitude that builds an improper hatred for those who are created in the image of God and yet not redeemed, and as such, how do we relate to them?

教會必須對世界說「不」教會必須拒絕和世界和平共處才能拯救世界。因此,除非你已經對世界說「不」,否則你就不能對教會說「是」。除非你願意說:「為了你的好處,我不會把那些會毀滅你的事情告訴你」時,你才能說,「我是真的愛你」。因此,當你說,「哦,是的,我愛你,你就去作那些會讓你下地獄的事吧」,你並不是在愛他,正如你不會告訴一個酗酒的人,「我這麼愛你,所以我去替你買酒」一樣。這不是愛心。因此,教會必須對世界說「不」,以便教會可以對世界說「是」。我們必須以上帝所設立的這個敵意為前提才能宣揚和平的福音。The church must say “No” to the world; the church must refuse to be at peace with the world in order to love the world.  So you can’t say “yes” to the church until you have first said “no” to the world.  You can’t say, “I love you truly,” until you have been willing to say, “I will not tell you that what will destroy you is good for you.”  So you are not loving a person when you say, “Oh yes, I love you and you just go right on in that behavior which will land you in hell,” anymore that you could tell a friend who is an alcoholic, “I love you so much that I am going to buy booze for you.”  That is not loving.  So the church must say “no” to the world in order that it can say, “yes” to the world.  There must be that divine enmity in order that we can preach the Gospel of peace.

因此上帝設立這個敵意的目的不是為了要讓我們對尚未得贖的人建立起不正當的仇恨。這個敵意的目的是要讓我們看到以下這些正當的區分:恩典和定罪、義的和不義的、靠著恩典得救的罪人和尚未當他們的罪的主人的罪人。要讓教會對世界有話可說,這道牆就必須存在。倘若我們和他們沒有不同,我們對他們就對他們沒有用處,幫不上忙。因此這個區別是必要的,這不是為了讓我們可以搥胸頓足,洋洋得意,像法利賽人一樣驕傲,而是要讓我們可以說:我們明白你們現在的處境,我們以前也是這樣,但是靠著上帝的恩典,我們已經脫離了,而我們知道上帝的恩典也可以改變你的人生。而倘若你不悔轉,你會自食罪惡的惡果。因此這個區別不是為了讓自己感覺良好,而是讓我們去幫助其他人。如果教會和世界之間沒有敵意,教會對世界就沒有什麼話好說了。So the enmity is not there so that we can build an improper hatred towards unredeemed human beings.  The enmity is there so that we see that proper distinction between grace and condemnation, between righteousness and unrighteousness, between sinners saved by grace and sinners who have not yet owned their sin.  That barrier must stay there in order for the church to have anything to say to the world.  If we are no different than they are, then I have nothing to say to them of use or of help.  So the distinction must be there, not so that we can beat our breasts and feel really smug and proud like the Pharisee, but the distinction must be there so that we can say we understand the circumstance that you are in, we have been there ourselves, but by God’s grace we have been brought from that and we know that God’s grace can change your life as well.  And if you will not turn you will face the consequence of the sin.  So the distinction is there not so that we can feel really good about ourselves, but so that we truly have something to offer to someone else.  If we are no different from them, it is all the same.  If there is no enmity between the church and the world, the church has nothing to say to the world.

重新確認創造諭令
The Creation Ordinances Reaffirmed

在看過上帝與亞當和夏娃之伊甸園特別設立的盟約之後讓我對第三章剩下的部分作一點說明16-24節。首先,請注意原始的創造諭令,即在樂園裡的盟約條例,在女人和男人的咒詛中被重新確認了。在三章16節,對女人的咒詛是:「我必多多加增你懷胎的苦楚;你生產兒女必多受苦楚。你必戀慕你丈夫;你丈夫必管轄你。」注意這裡,生養眾多的創造諭令仍然是有效的,而我們現在是在恩典之約裡了。墮落已經發生,但生養眾多仍然是命令。很重要的是在這裡我們要知道,生產不是咒詛,雖然我們有時候會有這種感覺。生育、養育孩童並不是咒詛。如今伴隨這件事而來的哀傷才是咒詛。馬太亨利說到,「養育兒女會帶來許多令人傷心的事,因為這不只包括要辛勤工作,更包括生育之前的痛苦,以及哺乳的辛勞,以及之後的操勞。在這些辛苦之後,倘若孩童變壞,變得愚蠢,就遠比懷胎時更加沉重了。」因此伴隨著生養眾多、養育孩童的責任的傷心,就是咒詛。養育孩童是祝福,生產是祝福。這是從上帝而來的祝福。聖經的立場一直是這樣。但是如今因為人的墮落,這件事就會有讓人傷腦筋的層面,而這是先前沒有的。Now, having looked at that particular inauguration of God’s covenant in the Garden with Adam and Eve, let me make just a few comments on the remainder of the chapter, verses 16-24.  First of all, notice how the original Creation Ordinances, the ordinances of the covenant in the Garden, are reaffirmed in the curse of both the woman and the man.  In Genesis 16, the curse of the woman is, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children, yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Notice here that that creation ordinance of procreation is still in force.  And we are in the Covenant of Grace now.  The Fall has occurred, but procreation is still a mandate.  It is very important for us to understand that childbearing is not the curse there, as much as it may feel like it sometime.  Childbearing and child rearing is not the curse.  The grief associated with it now is the curse.  Matthew Henry says this, “The sorrows of childbearing are multiplied, for they include not only the travailing throws, but the indisposition before and the nursing toils and vexations afterwards.  And after all if the children prove wicked and foolish, they are more than ever heaviness to her that bore them.”  So the sorrows attendant with the obligation of procreation and child rearing, that is the curse.  Child rearing is the blessing.  The childbearing is a blessing.  It is a blessing from God.  It is always represented that way in the Scripture.  But now, because of the Fall, there will be vexing aspects to that that were never present prior.

注意這個句子「你丈夫必管轄你」。雖然在創造秩序裡在丈夫、妻子的關係裡已經有盟約的元首和等級制度這句話所暗示的是因為罪的緣故在婚姻關係裡會有不和諧的元素存在女人會有不正當的控制慾望而男人則會產生不當的對臣服的反應。因此,我們在這裡再次看到在創造中,婚姻裡的「頭」的秩序。但是濫用婚姻生活裡的這個秩序,是墮落所造成的。我們可以公平地說,所有婚姻裡的困難都可以追溯到這個起源。我們對婚姻的委身要求我們要清楚這個動態,並且在我們的心中,要有意識地去戰勝它。撒但攻擊這點並不會出乎我們的意料之外。
Notice also the phrase, “he will rule over you.”  Now though there was already headship and hierarchy in the created order, in the husband-wife relationship, the implication is here that there will be as a result of sin an element of discord in the marital relationship, and that even as the woman may have inappropriate desires of control, the man may have inappropriate responses of subjection.  So we see again here the order of headship in the marriage part of creation.  But the abuse of that order in marital life is a function of the Fall.  And it is not unfair to say that every marital difficulty can be traced to this point of origin.  And our commitment to marriage requires us to be aware of that dynamic and to combat it consciously in our own minds.  And it is not surprising that Satan attacks here at this point. 

好,在亞當的咒詛裡,我們看到另一個創造諭令獲得確認:工作或治理的諭令。在17-19節,我們看到上帝對亞當的咒詛。注意到這個咒詛中的憐憫。上帝沒有直接咒詛亞當。注意這個語言:「地必為你的緣故受咒詛」。因為亞當的罪,一個可怕而全面的刑罰進入到世界和亞當所處的環境裡。亞當的刑罰包含下面三個層面:
Now in the curse to Adam, we see another of the Creation Ordinances confirmed.  That ordinance of labor or of dominion.  In verses 17 – 19 we see God’s curse to Adam.  And notice the mercy of this curse.  Adam is not cursed directly.  Notice the language, “cursed is the ground because of you.”  A terrible and pervasive sentence is passed on to the world and his environment because of Adam’s sin.  And Adam’s punishment included three distinct aspects. 

1. 要終生勞苦(字面翻譯是痛苦或重擔)。他要勞苦工作才能從地裡得吃的。再次注意到,工作的創造諭令仍然持續。工作不是咒詛;勞苦工作才是咒詛。
1.First, toil in his labor (pain or heaviness is the literal translation of the word there).  Pain or heaviness in his labor in the ground.  Notice again, the creation ordinance of labor continues.  The creation ordinance of labor continues.  Labor is not the curse; toil in labor is the curse.

2. 其次,他工作的成果會有缺陷。他不只是需要勞苦才能得到收穫,他工作的成果也會有缺陷。上帝在18節說:「地必給你長出荊棘和蒺藜來」。這和耶穌在馬太福音所說的是平行的,不是嗎?耶穌說到和天國相比,「地上有蟲子咬,能鏽壞,也有賊挖窟窿來偷」。這和荊棘與蒺藜的觀念是一致的。注意Derek Kidner怎麼說到荊棘和蒺藜:「荊棘和蒺藜是尚未被馴服的大自然正在擴張的有力跡象。在舊約裡,它們標記出人的自暴自棄和上帝的審判」。他也說到倘若沒有墮落,人的工作會是什麼樣。注意看這個句子,看它會給你什麼啟發:「耶穌基督所行的對自然界的神蹟給我們一些啟發,讓我們稍微明白人在上帝之下所施行的對環境的控制是什麼樣子。」很值得思考。
2.Secondly, the fruits of his labor will be impaired.  Not only would there be toil and producing a yield, but there would be an impairment of the fruits of his labor.  “Thorns and thistles will grow for you,” God says in verse 18.  This parallels Jesus’ statements in Matthew, does it not, where He speaks about a place where “moth and rust corrupts and thieves break in,” in contrast to the kingdom of heaven.  This is the same idea here with the thorns and thistles.  Listen to what Derek Kidner says about thorns and thistles: “Thorns and thistles are eloquent signs of nature untamed and encroaching.  In the Old Testament they marked the scenes of man’s self defeat and God’s judgment.”  He also has a wonderful and suggestive word about what man’s labor would have been like apart from the fall.  Listen to this sentence and see if it doesn’t bring ideas to mind: “The nature miracles of Jesus give us some idea of the control which man under God may have exercised over his environment.”  Think about that.

3. 亞當的刑罰的三個層面:無法從地上的重擔獲得安息。它們會荼毒亞當的一生。死亡是亞當最後的刑罰。亞當一生要勞苦才得糊口,直到他歸於塵土。再次說,這顯明上帝對亞當的恩典,因為上帝沒有立即施行死刑。但是在給女人和男人的咒詛或定罪中,都顯明了上帝的恩典和憐憫。即使在祂的刑罰中,也再次強調了創造諭令與附加在這些諭令上的祝福。這和給撒但的刑罰形成了對比。
 3.The third aspect of Adam’s punishment:  No earthly rest from burdens.  They will plague him all the days of his life. Only at the very end of Adam’s sentence is death mentioned. You will eat bread until you return to the ground.  And again, that is evidence of God’s grace to Adam in delaying the immediate execution of the sentence of physical death.  But in both the curse or the condemnations handed out to woman and to man, God’s grace and mercy are manifest. Even in His punishment, there is a reemphasis on the creation ordinances and the blessings that are attached to them, in contrast to Satan’s sentence.  Any questions about that so far?  

問:恩典之約是雙方面的嗎?
Question: The Covenant of Grace as bilateral

答:行為之約和其雙方面層面的重要性,在恩典之約裡,基督在代表我們的工作中,起了實在的作用。基督代表我們的工作。和在亞當裡的工作一樣,具有非常強烈的雙方面的元素。事實上,你可以論證說,比起上帝要求亞當要完成的事,基督必須完成更多的。舉個例子,基督生在一個已經有禮儀律法的世界,而亞當不是。因此基督不只必須遵守在行為之約下的自然律,更要完成如重擔一般的禮儀律。此外,祂必須要在一個墮落的世界裡完成。還有,祂必須臣服在一個可以說是配不上祂的尊貴的一種關係和身份之下。因此,在恩典之約和行為之約裡,這種平行的雙邊關係的美,在於它凸顯了基督代表我們的角色。好,從我的看法來說,你知道這就是開始變得不對稱的地方,因為恩典之約裡所要求你的順服,和要求基督的順服是不同的。恩典之約的美,在於基督已經代表我們成全了這個順服的層面,因此我們的順服和祂的順服相比,是不同類別和等級的。
A. The importance of the Covenant of Works and the bilateral aspects of that come to play in Christ’s work on our behalf in the Covenant of Grace.  And clearly there is just as strong a bilateral element to Christ’s work on our behalf as there is in Adam. In fact you can make a case that Christ has to do much more than Adam was asked to do.  For one thing, Christ was born in a world where there was already a ceremonial law, and Adam was not.  And so Christ not only had to obey the laws of nature under the Covenant of Works, but the ceremonial code which was a burdensome code.  In addition, He had to do it in a fallen world.  And in addition, He had to subject Himself to a type and station of relationship which was, as it were, beneath His dignity.  So the beauty of that bilateral relation paralleling in both Covenant of Grace and Covenant of Works is that it highlights Christ’s role on our behalf.  Now, from our standpoint, you know that is where it becomes asymmetrical because the obediential element of the Covenant of Grace is not the same for you and me as it was for Christ.  The beauty of the Covenant of Grace is Christ is fulfilling that obediential aspect on our behalf and so our obedience is of a different kind and order than His.  That is a good question.

問:我想知道,當我們看第二章是如何結束的,對亞當的咒詛是怎麼結束的,我們看到在那裡,在行為之約裡,對亞當沒有救贖的性質。我們在那裡看到是他作為我們盟約的頭,只帶來死亡。我們是否應該這樣說,上帝必須給我們一個新的盟約的頭,因為藉著他,上帝給他的咒詛是會歸於塵土,因此所有的人在亞當裡都要死亡。我們是否要把這點和我們有一個新的頭聯繫起來?亞當的職責已經被解除了。
Question: “I just wondered as we are looking at how chapter two ends, how the curse ends for Adam, is the significance that we are seeing in the two covenants in the fact that the redemptive quality is not seen with Adam.  All we see is that in him as our federal head leads to death, should we be making a strong connection that now that the woman, a new federal head must be given to us because through him, the way his curse is ended, it is just you shall return to dust, so in Adam as we go through Genesis they die.  Are we supposed to be connecting that in the fact that we have a new, somebody new has to step into the scene?  Adam has been relieved of duty.”

答:是的,很明顯,在亞當裡沒有一個新的代表的應許,而你要歸回塵土的最後結果,是從語意上對這點的強調。但是關於亞當和夏娃的一個後裔,在創三15節就很明顯了。在第四章開始和結尾都很清楚表明,夏娃已經開始在盼望這個後裔。夏娃首先是盼望亞伯,然後是塞特。她在猜想誰是那後裔。因此,我會同意,關於亞當最後的話提醒我們,他無法同時作為兩個盟約、這兩種關係的中保,你必須到別處尋找中保。
A:  Yes. Clearly the promise of, you know, of a new representative is not vested in Adam and the finality of that and you shall return to dust may be part of the rhetorical emphasis of that.  But it is clearly there in Genesis 3:15 with regard to a descendant or a child of Adam and Eve.  And there is indication in both at the beginning and the ending of Genesis 4 that Eve was already looking for that, first in Abel, and then later in Seth.  And wondering is this the one who is the seed?  So, I would agree with that, that the terminal language about Adam reminds you that he can’t serve that role as a dual mediator for both these relations, you have got to be looking somewhere else.

問:羅伯森說到死亡和無花果葉、衣服。這是某種獻祭嗎?
Question:  “Robertson speaks of death and the fig leaves and clothing.  Is that a vague reference to some type of sacrifice?”

答:我認為不必把皮衣當作某些盟約的獻祭儀式剩下的東西。我認為這是很明顯的,再說一遍,當我們提到為什麼在創六18之前,沒有明確提到盟約的用語,也許是這些儀式的傳統在當時還沒有建立。儀式傳統不是這個關係的核心。它們是用來確認的,而當舊約聖經繼續進展時,就聖禮論來說,它們自然會開始發展出它們自己的重要性。但是,我甚至不認為在訂立盟約時,要試著去找死亡的某種儀式層面。很明顯,正如違背行為之約時會帶來死亡,我們在創世記裡就可以看到,當人從恩典之約中被剪除時會發生什麼事。你會在創世記第四章看到,然後你會在這裡再次看到:當以實瑪利離開亞伯拉罕的家時,以實瑪利往哪裡走呢?是在創世記第廿一章吧?你會看到同樣的語句,他們離開,朝東走。因此,你會看到至少有三處,你會以為是應許的家系,但是卻離棄了盟約。以掃,以實瑪利,該隱,屬靈的死亡從一開始就很明顯。
A:  Oh, I don’t think you have to try and make the garments some sort of  leftovers from a covenant sacrifice or something like that.  I think it is very clear, again as we discuss why covenant terminology isn’t used prior, the explicit covenant terminology isn’t used prior to Genesis 6:18, it may have been that some of those ritual conventions were simply not contemporaneous to that time.  The ritual conventions are not of the essence to describe the relationship.  They are confirming and they certainly develop their own significance in terms of the Doctrine of the Sacraments as the Old Testament goes on.  But, I don’t even think you have to try and find some sort of ritual aspect of death at the inauguration of the covenant.  Clearly, just as death was implied in the breaking of the Covenant of Works, we’re going to see what happens when one cuts themselves off from the Covenant of Grace even in the book of Genesis.  You will see it in the language of Genesis 4 and then you will see it again: where does Ishmael take his leave from Abraham’s family?  Is it Genesis 18, or is it later?  Anyway, you will see the same language, they went and they dwelled to the east of their brethren and so you will see on at least three occasions, sons, in the physical line which you might think of as the line of promise, you will see them take leave of the covenant.  With Esau, and in Ishmael, and in Cain, and so the death implication, the spiritual death implications are clearly there for the Covenant of Grace from the beginning.