感謝讚美上帝護理的大能与豐盛的供應。 本網誌內的所有資源純屬學習交流之用。

2021-05-18

 

新約如何引用舊約:以基督的降生為例
The New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament: The Birth of Christ

作者Jeffrey A. Stivason   誠之譯自
http://www.placefortruth.org/blog/new-testaments-use-old-testament-birth-christ
https://yimawusi.net/2021/04/14/the-new-testaments-use-of-the-old-testament-the-birth-of-christ/
 
你是否曾懷疑,馬太為什麼在他福音書的一開始就引用了以賽亞書?(註1)你也許會說,「當然不會懷疑啊!我們已經知道原由了。因這句話證實了童女懷孕和基督的誕生!」是的,但這是唯一的理由嗎?再次,你也許會說,「這理由還不夠嗎?」對此,我可能會想大喊一聲:「我認輸!」。但請容我試著把我們的理解再往前推一步。
Have you ever wondered why Matthew quotes Isaiah in the opening chapter of his Gospel?[1]  Perhaps you would say, "Of course not!  We already know why.  The quote substantiates the virgin conception and birth of Christ!"  Yes, but is that the only reason?  Again, you may claim, "Isn't that reason enough?"  To which I might be tempted to cry, "Uncle!"  But let me take a stab at pressing our understanding a bit further.
 
我們必須穿越時空,回到以賽亞時代,他在漂布者的田間(賽七3;參《新譯本》;和合本作「漂布地的大路」)和亞哈斯王對質(註2)。當那時,亞哈斯王正身陷困境。他不只拒絕加入大馬士革(亞蘭)和以色列用以對抗亞述這個新興勢力的聯軍,更糟的是他竟然妄想與亞述結盟!如今,大馬士革和以色列前來攻打他,要給他一個教訓。但先知以賽亞和亞哈斯王會面,告訴他還有別路可走。他大可不必和大馬士革和以色列聯手,也不必和亞述結盟。他是大衛的子孫。他是那位合神心意者的後裔,和他同一個血脈。上帝會保護他,保守他不受這三者所害!更有甚者,上帝會賜給他一個兆頭來證實祂的話。上帝要他求一個或顯在深處或顯在高處的兆頭;什麼都可以求!但他卻不求。亞哈斯有他自己的理由宣稱自己的敬虔:他不想試探上帝。但真正的理由並非如此。
We need to travel back in time to the day when Isaiah confronted King Ahaz on the highway to Fuller's Field.[2]  On that day, King Ahaz was in trouble.  He had not only refused to join forces with Damascus and Israel against the rising power of Assyria, it was worse, he had sought an alliance with Assyria!  Now, Damascus and Israel were coming to teach him a lesson.  But Isaiah the prophet met King Ahaz to tell him that there was another way.  He did not have to side with Damascus and Israel nor did he have to side with Assyria. He was the Son of David.  He was in the line and lineage of the man after God's own heart.  God would protect him and preserve him from all three!  What is more, God would give him a sign confirming His word.  God invited him to ask for a sign in the highest heavens or the depths of Sheol; ask anything!  But he didn't.  Ahaz claimed piety for his reason; he would not tempt God.  But the raison d'être was a bit different.
 
列王紀下十六章7節記載了這個可怕的事實經文說「亞哈斯差遣使者去見亞述王提革拉毗列色『我是你的僕人、你的兒子。現在亞蘭王和以色列王攻擊我,求你來救我脫離他們的手。』」你看到了嗎?大衛的子孫竟然低聲下氣地說自己是亞述王提革拉毗列色的兒子!亞哈斯不需要從祂的天父而來的兆頭,因為他已經拋棄了上帝的家!他正提出申請,要成為亞述家的養子。
Second Kings 16:7 records the awful truth.  Here is the text.  “So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-Peleser king of Assyria, saying, ‘I am your servant and your son; come up and deliver me from the hand of the king of Aram and from the hand of the king of Israel, who are rising up against me!”  Did you see that?  The Son of David postured himself as the son of Tiglath Pileser, king of Assyria!  Ahaz needed no sign from his heavenly Father because he had forsaken the family of God!  He was petitioning for adoption into the family of Assyria.
 
因此,一如所料,以賽亞嚴厲地作出回應。他提醒亞哈斯不要忘了他的身份。以賽亞說到:「大衛家啊,你們當聽!你們使人厭煩豈算小事,還要使我的神厭煩嗎? 」(賽七13)除了這個斥責之外,以賽亞也宣告上帝將要賜下祂自己的兆頭。倘若亞哈斯不願意作忠心的兒子,那麼祂就會自己差遣一位忠心的兒子。上帝會差遣祂自己的兒子,由童女所生,作為拯救的兆頭。舞台的布幕就此落下,我們直到馬太福音的第一章才又再次看見這個故事的線索。
And so, as you might expect, Isaiah responded sternly.  He reminded this man of his identity, “Listen now, O house of David!  Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well?”  Along with that rebuke Isaiah announced that God would give His own sign.  If Ahaz would not be a faithful son then He would send a faithful son.  God would send His own Son born of a virgin as a sign of deliverance.  Here the curtain drops on history and we don’t pick up the thread of the story again until we open up to the first chapter of Matthew’s gospel.
 
而當我們打開馬太福音時,我們見到馬太是從一份家譜開始他的福音書的。為什麼呢?這是基於一個簡單的理由,他在聖靈引導下,提供了這份家譜,以確立耶穌就是大衛的那位後裔。請讀這份家譜,都是關於大衛的!大衛至少被提到了五次。還有,這份家譜被分成三個段落,每個段落共十四代,都是以大衛為焦點。在這份家譜中處處都看得見大衛的影子,而理由非常正當:馬太要告訴我們,耶穌就是大衛的那個後裔。
And when we turn to Matthew's Gospel we find that he begins with a genealogy.  Why?  For a very simple reason, he, under the Spirit’s superintendence, provided the genealogy in order to establish Jesus as a son of David.  Just read the genealogy.  It’s all about David!  He’s mentioned no less than five times.  What is more, the genealogy is divided up into three sections of fourteen generations each with David as the focal point.  David is everywhere present in the genealogy and for good reason.  Matthew is telling us that Jesus is the son of David.
 
但還不止如此。馬太不要我們錯過這個事實,即這位耶穌不僅僅是大衛的後裔,祂更是上帝的兒子。路加在他的宣稱裏也同樣清楚地表明了這點。在路加福音一章32節裏,天使向馬利亞宣告說,她將要懷胎生子,「祂要為大,稱為至高者的兒子;主神要把祂祖大衛的位給祂。 祂要作雅各家的王,直到永遠;祂的國也沒有窮盡。」 耶穌就是那應許之子,祂的國永無窮盡,而且祂會坐在大衛的王位上,直到永永遠遠。
But that's not all.  This Jesus is not only the Son of David, Matthew does not want us to miss the fact that He is also the Son of God.  Luke is just as pronounced in his claim.  In Luke 1:32, the angel announced this to Mary about her soon to be conceived Son, “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”   Jesus is the promised Son whose kingdom would have no end and He would sit on the throne of David forever.
 
各位兄弟姐妹,亞哈斯未能明白上帝的慈愛和父親般的看顧。他拒絕被算為兒子。但我有一個好消息要報給你們。雖然亞哈斯早已過世,葬在他的墓中,但耶穌基督卻繼續坐在天上父神右邊榮耀的寶座上。祂被升高到至高之處,祂的衣裳垂下,遮滿聖殿。親愛的弟兄姐妹,這位兒子,以馬內利,有充分的能力可以搭救你脫離你的罪惡,並賜給你安慰和平安。
Brothers and sisters, Ahaz failed to see the love and fatherly care of God.  He refused to be counted as a son.  But I have good news.  Though Ahaz is long dead and buried in his tomb, Jesus Christ,  continues to sit on the throne at the right hand of the Father in glory.  He is high and lifted up and the train of His robe fills the temple.  Beloved, this Son, Immanuel, is more than able to deliver you from your sin and give you comfort and peace.
 
註:
馬太福音一章23節。
以賽亞書第七章。
Jeffrey A. Stivason 1955年起就擔任福音執事事奉主。他曾擔任教會植堂者,現在是賓州匹茲堡郊區吉伯松尼亞市的恩典改革宗長老教會的牧師。他也從費城西敏神學院獲得系統神學的哲學博士,現任真理之地(Place for Truth)的執行編輯。
 
[1] Matthew 1:23
[2] Isaiah 7
 
Jeffrey A. Stivason has been serving the Lord as a minister of the gospel since 1995.  He was church planter and now pastor of Grace Reformed Presbyterian Church in Gibsonia, PA. He also holds a Ph.D. in systematic theology from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, PA.  Jeff is the Managing Editor for Place for Truth.

 
華腓德對嬰兒洗禮論證的總結
WARFIELD ON “THE ARGUMENT IN A NUTSHELL” FOR INFANT BAPTISM

作者Andy Schreiber   誠之譯自
https://schreiberscribbles.wordpress.com/2018/01/24/warfield-on-the-argument-in-a-nutshell-for-infant-baptism/
https://yimawusi.net/2021/04/15/warfield-on-the-argument-in-a-nutshell-for-infant-baptism/
 
華腓德(Benjamin B. Warfield)將支持嬰兒洗禮的論點總結如下:
Benjamin B. Warfield sums up the argument in favor of infant baptism as follows:
 
「嬰兒洗禮的論證,簡而言之就是:上帝在亞伯拉罕時代建立了祂的教會,並將孩子們納入了教會。除非上帝將他們排除在外,否則他們就必須留在教會裏。聖經沒有說祂將他們排除在外,因此孩童仍然是祂教會的成員,因此有資格享受教會的典禮。在這些典禮中,有一項是洗禮,它在新約時代中的地位與在舊約時代中的割禮相似,因此它要像割禮一樣,理當要賜與孩童。」(《華腓德作品集》第九卷,第408頁)
 “The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established his Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing in similar place in the New Dispensation to circumcision in the Old, is like it to be given to children.” (The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. IX, p.408)
 
華腓德指出的第一件事就是「上帝在亞伯拉罕時代建立了祂的教會並把孩子們納入了教會」。所以理解他的論證的起點和關鍵是對教會和恩典之約有正確的認識。
The first thing that Warfield points out is that “God has established his church in the days of Abraham and put children into it.” And so the starting point and key to understanding his argument is a right understanding of the church and the covenant of grace.
 
在他的《基督與聖約神學》一書中,韋內瑪(Cornelius Venema)用了一整章的篇幅來論述聖約神學和嬰兒洗禮中的實踐。在這一章中,他與華腓德對這一主題的討論進行了互動(引用了上述引用的聲明),對聖約神學進行了簡要的概述,然後展示了這一觀點如何適用於嬰兒洗禮。他在那裏寫道:
In his book, Christ & Covenant Theology, Cornelius Venema includes an entire chapter dealing with Covenant Theology and the practice in infant baptism. In this chapter, he interacts with Warfield’s treatment of the subject (citing the statement quoted above), providing a brief overview of Covenant theology, and then showing how this view applies to infant baptism. There he writes,
 
「正如華腓德正確地認為,改革宗給信徒及其子女施洗的做法,主要是基於對聖經中恩典之約教義的理解。在十六世紀宗教改革家的主要著作中,以及在宗教改革傳統的偉大認信象徵中,反復突出的一個論點就是聖約的論點。兒童和成年信徒一樣,要接受洗禮,因為他們屬於在基督裏的盟約團體」。p. 258
“The Reformed practice of baptizing believers and their children, as Warfield rightly maintained, is largely based upon an understanding of the biblical doctrine of the covenant of grace. In the principal writings of the Reformers of the sixteenth century, and in the great confessional symbols of the Reformed tradition, the one argument for paedobaptism that repeatedly stands out is the covenant argument. Children, like adult believers, are to be baptized because they belong to the covenant community in Christ.” (p.258).
 
然後,韋內瑪繼續用他自己所說的「一系列的步驟,從聖約神學的較一般的和基本的要素,到其關於基督教洗禮的適當領受者的具體含義」(同上),將聖約論點具體化。
Venema then goes on to flesh out the covenant argument in what he himself calls “a series of steps, moving from the more general and basic elements of covenant theology to its specific implications regarding the proper recipients of Christian baptism” (Ibid).
 
他指出,改革宗聖約神學最重要的內容之一是,「在整個救贖歷史中,只有一個恩典之約」(第270頁),此約在內容實質上是一樣的,但在施行方式上有所不同。《威斯敏斯特信仰告白》是這樣說的:
He points out that one of the most important elements of Reformed covenant theology is that there is “one covenant of grace throughout redemptive history” (p.270), the same in substance, but differing in how it is administered. The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it this way:
 
「這約在律法時期與福音時期有不同的執行方式。在律法時期恩典之約是藉著應許、預言、獻祭、割禮、逾越節的羔羊以及傳給猶太人的其他預表禮儀執行這些都是預表那要來的基督在當時這些預表藉著聖靈的運行足夠有效教導選民使選民對所應許的彌賽亞耶穌有信心知道藉著祂才能得著完全的赦罪與永遠的救恩。這約稱為舊約。」(7.5
“This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.” (16.5)
 
另一種說法是,不管是在舊約聖經還是在新約聖經中,救贖的方式都一直只有一種。在《加拉太書》三章7-9,保羅寫道:
Another way of saying this would be to say that there has always been one way of salvation, whether in the Old Testament or in the New. In Galatians 3:7-9, Paul writes,
 
「所以你們要知道那以信為本的人就是亞伯拉罕的子孫。並且聖經既然預先看明神要叫外邦人因信稱義就早已傳福音給亞伯拉罕『萬國都必因你得福。』可見那以信為本的人和有信心的亞伯拉罕一同得福。」
“Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.” (ESV)
 
那些「以信為本」的人(即那些單單信靠基督得救的人)「是亞伯拉罕的子孫」(第7節)。 所有舊約的聖徒都是因著對基督的信心,靠著恩典得救的(弗二8-9),就像我們今天一樣。他們的信心期盼尚未到來的基督;而我們的信心則回顧已經到來的基督。
Those who are “of faith” (i.e. those who trust in Christ alone for salvation) “are the sons of Abraham” (v.7).  All of the Old Testament saints were saved by grace through faith in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), just as we are today. Their faith looked forward to the Christ who was yet to come; while our faith looks back to the Christ who has already come.
 
而神與亞伯拉罕所立的約,甚至包括他嬰孩的後代,他們也要接受那恩典之約之施行的記號和印記,即割禮這個聖禮。創世記十七章9-12節說到:
And God’s covenant with Abraham included even his infant offspring, who were also to receive the sign and seal of that administration of the covenant of grace, that is, the sacrament of circumcision. Genesis 17:9-12 says,
 
神又對亞伯拉罕說:「你和你的後裔必世世代代遵守我的約。你們所有的男子都要受割禮;這就是我與你並你的後裔所立的約,是你們所當遵守的。你們都要受割禮;這是我與你們立約的證據。你們世世代代的男子,無論是家裏生的,是在你後裔之外用銀子從外人買的,生下來第八日,都要受割禮。」
“And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. . . .” (ESV)
 
當你考慮到舊約中耶和華明令要將約的記號和印記(即割禮)施行在嬰兒(8天大的男嬰!)的事實,許多反對嬰兒洗禮的論點就開始在自身的重壓下崩潰了。正如加爾文所言:「因為他們[即批判嬰兒洗禮的人]用以指責嬰兒洗禮的理由,同樣也可適用於割禮。」 (《基督教要義》,4.16.9)。
When you consider the fact that the sign and seal of the covenant (i.e. circumcision) was explicitly commanded by the Lord to be applied to infants (8-day-old male children!) in the Old Testament, many of the arguments against infant baptism begin to crumble under their own weight. As Calvin puts it, “For what will they [i.e. critics of infant baptism] bring forward to impugn infant baptism that may not be turned back against circumcision?” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.16.9).
 
這就是為什麼約翰·慕理寫下以下內容的原因
That is why John Murray writes the following:
 
「再怎麼強調也不過分即如果現在把嬰兒排除在外這種改變意味著對神早先設立的做法的徹底顛覆。所以我們必須問:在舊約聖經或新約聖經中,我們是否找到任何暗示或提示這種倒轉?更尖銳的是,新約聖經是否撤銷或提供任何暗示,要撤銷如此明確授權的原則,即要將嬰兒納入聖約並與聖約的記號和印記有分?」(《基督徒洗禮》,第49頁)
“If infants are excluded now, it cannot be too strongly emphasised [sic] that this change implies a complete reversal of the earlier divinely instituted practice. So we must ask: do we find any hint or intimation of such reversal in either the Old or the New Testament? More pointedly, does the New Testament revoke or does it provide any intimation of revoking so expressly authorised [sic] a principle as that of the inclusion of infants in the covenant and their participation in the covenant sign and seal?” (Christian Baptism, p.49)
 
我們有沒有發現任何這種倒轉的跡象?沒有,我們沒有。所以慕理最後總結說到:
Do we find any hint of such a reversal? No, we do not. And so Murray concludes by saying,
 
「在沒有這類廢止的證據的情況下,我們得出結論,向信徒的幼兒施行聖約的記號和印記是仍然有效的,並有永恆的神聖保證。換句話說,向嬰兒施行此聖約記號的命令並沒有被廢除:因此它仍然有效。」(《基督徒洗禮》,第50頁)
“In the absence of such evidence of repeal we conclude that the administering of the sign and seal of the covenant to the infant seed of believers is still in operation and has perpetual divine warrant. In other words, the command to administer the sign to infants has not been revoked: therefore it is still in force.” (Christian Baptism, p.50)
 
換句話說,舉證的責任實際上在於那些拒絕嬰兒洗禮的人,而不是那些肯定嬰兒洗禮的人。實際上需要在聖經中明確禁止我們給嬰兒施洗,而不是明確命令我們這樣做。
In other words, the burden of proof actually rests upon those who reject infant baptism, not on those who affirm it. There would actually need to be an explicit prohibition in Scripture forbidding us from baptizing infants, rather than an explicit command telling us to do so.
 

新約為什麼是更美的應許
New Covenant Promise

作者Peter Y. Lee  誠之編譯自:”Jeremiah, in A Biblical Theological Introduction to the Old Testament: New Covenant Promise, pp. 294-96
https://yimawusi.net/2021/04/23/new-covenant-promise/
 
新約的應許
 
可以說,《耶利米書》最著名的是卅一章31-34節中對「新約」的預言。新約聖經中多次引用這段經文(來八8-12,九15,十二24;參路廿二20;林前十一25;林後三6)。希伯來書八章8-12節特別有幫助,因為它認為新的約比舊的約更美,因耶穌是來自一個更美的祭司等次(即麥基洗德;參詩一一〇4;來七1-28)的更美的大祭司。因此,備受期待的「新約」時代是被聖靈充滿的教會職事的時代。耶利米書卅一章273133節中提到的「以色列家」和「猶大家」(參卅3-4)是先知預言的慣用語的例子,舊約的術語被用來表達新約的現實——在這裏是教會。
 
耶利米把神在西奈山與以色列先祖所立的舊約,和新約作了對比。「舊的約」雖然是一個完好的約,卻是不穩定的,因為其效用取決於以色列人是否遵行(耶卅一32[18]。這個新的約在內容上與舊的約沒有什麼不同,因為舊的約和新的約的律法幾乎是完全相同的。因此,新的約比舊的約更美,並不是因為新的約沒有律法,從而使得反律法主義的生活形態能言之成理。它和舊的約的道德律法是一樣的。它們之間的差異在於百姓內心的更新轉化,好叫他們如今可以效法主所賜的良善律法。這是一個有重大意義的問題。若摩西之約的軟弱無力乃是肇因於它乃是取決於一群頑梗硬心百姓的順服,因此,若他們只是回到同一個盟約協議(covenantal arrangement)中,這種榮耀的恢復究竟有什麼好處呢?若這種協議曾經失敗,它就必定會重蹈覆轍,因為根本的問題並沒有得到解決。一個新的約是必要的;「新的約」是必要的。新的約之所以比舊的約更美,是因為它解決了舊約秩序所沒有對付、無法對付、也未曾想要對付的一些爭議。
 
新的約與舊的約有三點不同(卅一33-34)。首先,它不是寫在石板上,而是寫在百姓的心上;因此,他們要持守神的律法(卅一33)。這個應許是暗指申命記卅6,以及主在「使人的心受割禮」(將心裏的污穢除掉)方面的工作。耶利米用不同的圖象捕捉到了同樣的神學現實,即內心的轉變。他看到的不是一顆「受割禮」的心,而是一顆刻上神的律法的心。由於神的律法現在已經內化在信徒個人的心裏,而不再是刻在外在的堅硬石頭上,所以它「離你甚近」(申卅14a)。不僅如此,「它就在你口中,在你心裏」;這種內化的目的是「使你可以遵行」(申卅14b)。因此,在新的約中,誡命對你來說並不是難行的,也不是離你遠的」(申卅11)。我們不必到天上或越過深淵去找回符合這命令的能力,因為彌賽亞的「枝條」已經從天而降,臨在我們中間,並從墳墓中復活,因此成為律法的總歸/總結(羅十46-7;參申卅11-13)。
 
從前的聖約秩序是一個好的禮物,因為從它那裏,我們認識了罪(羅三20;加三19)。然而,以色列人所需要的是一顆新的心,能「使你們順從我的律例,謹守遵行我的典章」(結卅六27;參申四30)。摩西法典不能做到這一點。因此,以色列和猶大悖逆耶和華,被擄到外邦。在新的約中仍然有順服的呼召,但這種順服現在是信徒所領受的約的祝福。請注意,在這段經文中,主是唯一的代理人。「我要……另立新約」(耶卅一31);「我要將我的律法放在他們裏面」;「寫在他們心上」(卅一33)。這種由上帝發起的心靈轉變,標誌著兩種聖約施行的實質區別。使徒保羅在羅馬書八章3-4節中總結了這種律法內化的優越性,「律法既因肉體軟弱,有所不能行的,神就差遣自己的兒子,成為罪身的形狀,作了贖罪祭,在肉體中定了罪案,使律法的義成就在我們這不隨從肉體、只隨從聖靈的人身上。」
 
其次,他們將不再需要教師,因為他們從最小的到最大的都將認識耶和華(耶卅一34a)。這個祝福從第一個祝福中合理地流瀉出來。如果百姓內心有了耶和華的律法,使他們能效法它,他們就會對耶和華有更多的瞭解,因為律法反映了耶和華的道德品格。舊約法典的外在定位阻礙了百姓真正地「認識耶和華」——也就是對耶和華作為他們的主和救贖主的身份有一個深刻的、聖約的、親密的理解。同樣,律法的目的也不是為了做到這一點。然而,在新的約的背景下,主是轉變人心的那一位,使百姓現在渴望「認識耶和華」–即愛祂,從而渴望遵守祂神聖的誡命。根據申命記六章4-10節,擺在一家之主面前的任務是將這種順服教導給下一代。未能做到這一點,在之前的眾先知當中是一個悲慘的見證(見士二9-11;撒上三13,八3)。這樣的任務是艱巨的,回想起來,在那個立約的背景下是不可能的。新的約的妙處在於,主已經更新了祂子民的心,因此他們不再需要被教導。上帝的子民,從最小的到最大的,都有這樣的知識,知道祂是他們的救主。
 
第三個也是最後一個使新的約與舊的約不同的祝福,就是耶和華必「赦免他們的罪孽」,「不再記念他們的罪惡」(卅一34b)的應許。耶和華之所以能這樣做,是因為彌賽亞式的祭司-君王一次成全的獻祭。從那些被擄者的角度來看,這些話是非凡的祝福和希望。他們多年來一直被耶利米的講道所連番轟擊,向他們表明他們的罪行,他們違背盟約的罪過,他們拒絕獨一的永生神,而去敬拜偶像,而這些偶像根本就不是神。在被擄當中,承受著罪的後果時,他們領受了一句話,說這些罪會因信靠耶和華而得到赦免。很難過分強調這個預言會給古代聽眾帶來何等的喜樂狂喜。它對我們今天的人也有同樣的影響。
 
註:
 
18. 希伯來書第八章對新舊約之間的關係提供了聖靈默示的評論。請注意,在第八章8節中,希伯來書的作者說神指責「他們」(見《新譯本》),指的是舊約群體的成員;他沒有說神指責「它」(即舊的約)。(譯按:「因為他們不恆心守我的約」,9節)

  

 
耶穌是否因信得生在祂的行為之約中)?
Did Jesus live by faith (in his Covenant of Works)?

作者Mark Jones2014915   誠之譯自
https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/did-jesus-live-by-faith-in-his.php
https://yimawusi.net/2021/04/27/did-jesus-live-by-faith/
 
「義人必因信得生」(誠之按:羅一17
"The Just [One] Shall Live by Faith"
 
聯盟這裏的高層對我很不滿意。我把我關於行為之約的文章發在了一個不能最大化置頂觀看的日子。我很抱歉。這種情況再也不會發生了。這是我的懺悔:上一篇文章的「第二部」。
The top men here at the Alliance are not happy with me. I posted my piece on the covenant of works on a day that does not maximize top viewing. My apologies. It will never happen again. Here is my penance: a "Part Deux" to the previous post.
 
耶穌是否像亞當一樣,靠信心而活?耶穌是否像亞當一樣,依靠聖靈來順從神的律法?
Did Jesus, like Adam, live by faith? Did Jesus, like Adam, depend upon the Holy Spirit in order to obey the law of God?
 
這些都是值得回答的問題。
These are questions that deserve answers.
 
一些喜歡說亞當和耶穌是「被置於行為之約之下」的人(像我一樣),需要考慮到聖經中的證據,即耶穌以多種形式得到了神的幫助。祂的順服就只是:祂的順服。但即使祂所作的順服是祂的行動,但能力/幫助卻來自上帝(這就是「行動-能力(act-power)」的區別)。
Some who like to speak of Adam and Jesus being "placed under a covenant of works" (as I do) need to reckon with the Scriptural evidence that Jesus received help from God in many forms. His obedience was just that: his obedience. But even though the obedience rendered were his acts, the power/assistance came from God (this is the "act-power" distinction).
 
我正在寫一本名叫《認識耶穌》的書,這本書將更詳細地記錄耶穌確實是靠著聖靈的能力,藉著信心而活,因為祂代替我們完美地遵行了律法。
I am in the middle of writing a book called "Knowing Jesus," which will document in more detail the fact that Jesus did in indeed live by faith in the power of the Spirit as he perfectly obeyed the law in our place.
 
據我所知,改革宗神學家一般都不難作出這個假設,即耶穌是靠著信心生活,並依靠聖靈來順從聖父的旨意。
Reformed theologians have generally - as far as I am aware - not had trouble positing that Jesus lived by faith and depended upon the Holy Spirit to obey the will of the Father.
 
弟兄們,我們不是路德宗信徒(好吧,我不是)。
Brothers, we are not Lutherans (well, I am not).
 
正如巴文克所指出的,羅馬天主教和路德宗的神學家「在某種意義上是一致的,他們都把耶穌的人性提升到為其設定的界限之上,並把耶穌的人性發展和祂的降卑狀態都消融成僅僅是作作樣子」(譯按:RD,III.6,#357, p. 257)。換句話說,他們不認為聖靈的作用和基督的信心生活具有真正的地位。
As Bavinck notes, both Roman Catholic and Lutheran theologians "agree in the sense that both elevate the human nature above the boundaries set for it and dissolve into mere appearance both the human development of Jesus and the state of his humiliation." In other words, they don't really have any place for the role of the Spirit and Christ's life of faith.
 
然而,另一方面,古德溫、歐文、特瑞金、巴文克、魏司堅和其他無數的改革宗神學家都肯定,我們可以說耶穌在地上的事奉期間,在祂搬到天上眼見的範圍之前,都是靠信心而活的。
On the other hand, however, Goodwin, Owen, Turretin, Bavinck, Vos, and countless other Reformed theologians all affirmed that we may speak of Jesus living by faith during his ministry on earth before he moved to the realm of sight in heaven.
 
巴文克聲稱,對亞當和基督來說,信心 「無非是緊緊抓住上帝的話語和應許的行動」。他補充說,改革宗神學家為這樣的觀點辯護:耶穌是地上的朝聖客,「不是一個全面的認識者」,「祂是憑著信心和盼望而行,而不是憑著眼見」。耶穌的信心由知識、同意和信賴組成的(見特瑞金,第十三論題,第12問)。
Bavinck claimed that faith for Adam and Christ was "nothing other than the act of clinging to the word and promises of God." He adds that Reformed theologians have defended the view that Jesus was a pilgrim on earth, "not a comprehensive knower," and "that he walked by faith and hope, not by sight." Jesus' faith consisted of knowledge, assent, and trust (see Turretin, 13th topic, 12th question).
 
此外古德溫在他那篇精彩的論文「基督出發」Christ Set Forth的開場白是這樣說的
Moreover, Goodwin opened up his remarkable treatise, "Christ Set Forth," with the following words:
 
「基督和我們一樣都是因信得生……在某種意義上,祂和我們一樣,有著稱義的信心。」
"That Christ lived by faith as well as we do...in some sense he had a faith for justification like us."
 
然而,按照古德溫的說法,基督並不像我們一樣依靠別人的義。祂不像我們那樣為自己找一個中保。
However, he did not rely on another's righteousness like we do, according to Goodwin. He did not have a mediator for himself as we do.
 
我們為什麼必須肯定這個真理,有重要的基督論、救恩論、釋經學和教牧的原因。我現在並不打算一一談及。但即使是走馬看花地讀聖經,我們也沒有什麼選擇,只能把信心(和盼望)歸給那人,就是基督耶穌(見希伯來書和詩篇)。畢竟,無論我們從基督那裏得到什麼恩典,祂都必須先在自己身上卓越地擁有,包括信心(「祂是先鋒」)。
There are important Christological, soteriological, exegetical, and pastoral reasons why we must affirm this truth. I don't intend to get into all of them now. But even a casual reading of the Scriptures leaves us with little option but to ascribe faith (and hope) to the man, Christ Jesus (see Hebrews and the Psalms). After all, whatever grace we receive from Christ, he must possess it preeminently in himself, including faith ("he is the pioneer").
 
然而,還有一些東西需要考慮,即:基督的恩典。
However, something else needs to be considered, namely: Christ's graces.
 
耶穌過去是,現在也是卓越的屬靈人。基督的順服——所有的順服——都是在聖靈的能力裏完成的。因此,聖靈是「神子自己一切神聖作為的直接操作者,甚至作用在祂自己的人性上。無論神的兒子在人性中、藉著人性、或在人性上做什麼,祂都是藉著聖靈做的,聖靈就是他的靈」(歐文)。
Jesus was and is the man of the Spirit, par excellence. Christ's obedience - all of it - was done in the power of the Spirit. Thus, the Holy Spirit is the "immediate operator of all divine acts of the Son himself, even on his own human nature. Whatever the Son of God wrought in, by, or upon the human nature, he did it by the Holy Ghost, who is his Spirit" (Owen).
 
所以,按照歐文的說法:
So, according to Owen:
 
基督的人性是「聖潔的,並根據其接受的程度,被恩典所充滿。」聖靈賦予耶穌一切的恩典。為什麼這一點如此關鍵?
Christ's human nature was "sanctified, and filled with grace according to the measure of its receptivity." The Holy Spirit endowed Jesus with all grace. Why is this so crucial?
 
「因為即便靈魂、心智、意志、情感的自然能力,是受造成純潔、無罪、無玷污的,——它們不能以其他方式被上帝立即創造出來,——然而,這還不足以使任何有理性的受造物向上帝而活;就連全然聖潔的耶穌基督也不行。(譯按:意思是耶穌也必須倚靠聖靈的恩典)」(誠之按:《聖靈論》,book II, chapter 4
"For let the natural faculties of the soul, mind, will, and affections, be created pure, innocent, undefiled, - as they cannot be otherwise created immediately by God, - yet there is not enough to enable any rational creature to live to God; much less was it all that was in Jesus Christ."
 
對亞當來說是這樣,對基督來說也是如此。兩者之間是平行的。他們的順服不是「赤裸裸」的順服,彷彿他們天然的能力就足夠了,因為他們是無罪的。不!不是這樣的!
This is true for Adam; this is true for Christ. The parallel stands between the two. Their obedience was not "naked" obedience, as if their natural faculties were sufficient because they were sinless. No!
 
正如巴文克所指出的
As Bavinck notes,
 
「在這一點上,重要的是要注意到,聖靈對基督人性的這種活動絕對不是獨立存在的。雖然它乃是從受孕就開始了,但並沒有停在這裏。它貫穿了祂的一生,甚至一直延續到高升的狀態。總的來說,這種活動的必要性已經可以從以下事實中推斷出來:聖靈是所有受造物生命的創造者,特別是人類的宗教道德生命。如果沒有聖靈的內住,真正具有上帝形象的人甚至連片刻都無法想像……如果一般人除非靠著聖靈,否則就無法與上帝相交,那麼這一點就更適用於基督的人性了。」
"At this point it is important to note that this activity of the Holy Spirit with respect to Christ's human nature absolutely does not stand by itself. Though it began with the conception, it did not stop there. It continued throughout his entire life, even right into the state of exaltation. Generally speaking, the necessity of this activity can be inferred already from the fact that the Holy Spirit is the author of all creaturely life and specifically of the religious-ethical life in humans. The true human who bears God's image is inconceivable even for a moment without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.... If humans in general cannot have communion with God except by the Holy Spirit, then this applies even more powerfully to Christ's human nature."
 
如此,亞當是否賺得了或配得(merit,或譯為有功於;下同)聖靈的內住?或者說這是一個額外附加的禮物?神對亞當是否是滿有恩典的,賜給他聖靈來協助他順服?
So, did Adam earn or merit the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Or was it a superadded gift? Was God gracious to Adam by giving him the Holy Spirit to assist him in his obedience?
 
回到亞當的行為之約,我們可以肯定亞當是被置於行為之約之下。我們可以正確地認為,亞當必須完全順服神,才能(ex pacto,按照約定) 「賺取」或「配得[merit]」他的獎賞。但在我看來,這並不意味著,我們也不能肯定神在通過賜給亞當聖靈來幫助他(即額外附加的恩賜),好叫亞當能在他順服的生活中享受與神的交通的這件事上,是滿有恩典的。
Returning to the covenant of works for Adam, we can affirm that Adam was placed under a covenant of works. We may rightly argue that Adam had to perfectly obey God in order to "earn" or "merit" (ex pacto) his reward. But that does not mean, it seems to me, that we cannot also affirm that God was gracious in assisting Adam (i.e., superadded gift) by giving him the Holy Spirit so that Adam could enjoy communion with God in the context of his obedient life.
 
第二個亞當,即耶穌基督,擁有無限量的聖靈,就我而言,祂是有史以來最偉大的信徒。
The Second Adam, Jesus Christ, possessed the Spirit in greater measure and was, as far as I am concerned, the greatest believer who ever lived.
 
因此,魏司堅在對比保羅的著作和希伯來書時說:「在這些其他著作中,基督是信心的對象,是罪人信賴的對象,而在這裏,救主被描述為自己在行使信心,祂實際上是一個完美的、理想的信徒。」
Thus, Vos, in contrasting Paul's writings with Hebrews, remarks: "while in these other writings Christ is the object of faith, the One towards whom the sinner's trust is directed, here the Saviour is described as himself exercising faith, in fact as the one perfect, ideal believer."
 
馬克·瓊斯牧師計劃回去寫《認識耶穌》,因為他需要一份豐厚的合同來支付一雙新的足球鞋、緊身牛仔褲和蘇格蘭威士忌拉加夫林(Lagavulin)的費用。
Pastor Mark Jones plans to get back to writing "Knowing Jesus," because he needs a big contract to pay for a new pair of soccer boots, skinny jeans, and Lagavulin (all to be enjoyed at once, somehow).
 

 

對摩西之約的一些看法
Some thoughts on the Mosaic Covenant

作者Scott SwainRTS, Orlando 系統神學教授帖子最後有他的三個聖約神學教學影片
 誠之譯自
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/09/some-thoughts-on-the-mosaic-co.php
https://yimawusi.net/2021/04/28/some-thoughts-on-the-mosaic-covenant/
 
我讀完了Mark Jones最近關於行為之約的兩個帖子(見這裏和這裏),很有收穫;一直以來,我從他對這個題目的其他著作裏也獲益良多。在論到行為之約(上帝與亞當在伊甸園裏所立的約)和摩西之約(上帝在西奈山與以色列人所立的約)之間的關係時,神學上的清晰以及對歷史的認知都是非常必要的。誠然,按照我的看法,要正確地把摩西之約放在上帝開展祂聖約治理的過程中,是聖約神學裏最困難、也最複雜的挑戰。如同Anthony Burges曾經觀察到的,這是一個「有學問的人」也會發現自己像「亞伯拉罕的公羊,兩角扣在稠密的小樹中」的地方。由於這些議題本身的複雜性,我們必須避免一些簡化的解釋。
I have read with profit Mark Jones's recent posts on the covenant of works (see here and here), having benefited from his other writings on this topic as well. Such theological clarity and historical awareness are much to be appreciated when it comes to the relationship between the covenant of works, made with Adam in the Garden, and the Mosaic Covenant, made with Israel at Sinai. Indeed, in my opinion, properly locating the Mosaic Covenant within God's unfolding covenantal economy presents the most difficult and complex challenge in covenant theology. As Anthony Burgess once observed, it is a place where many "learned men" have found themselves "like Abraham's Ram, hung in a bush of briars and brambles by the head." Given the intrinsic complexity of the issues, simplistic explanations are to be eschewed.
 
雖然對這個題目的簡化解釋是不可取的,然而對那些有責任要在每個禮拜用上帝的話牧養上帝子民的人來說,實在有必要以一種簡明而非簡化的方式,總結這些複雜的議題。存著這樣的信念,我要簡短地描繪三個重點,來思想摩西之約在上帝為祂子民所展開的計劃裏究竟居於什麼地位。我主張,如果把這三點放在一起來考量,它們可以給這個複雜的題目提供一個合乎聖經、也滿足神學和教牧需要的方向。
Though simplistic explanations of this topic are not desirable, there is a need, especially among those responsible for ministering the Word of God to the people of God on a weekly basis, to summarize complex issues in a simple, though not simplistic, way. With this in mind, I want to briefly sketch three points for thinking about the place of the Mosaic Covenant within God's unfolding plan for his people. I suggest that, taken together, these three points provide an orientation to this complex topic that is biblically, theologically, and pastorally satisfying.
 
一、摩西之約是恩典之約的一種施行方式。我明白當前辯論「重新頒布」(republication)的雙方都會同意這點,因此我要提出一些說明。我們說摩西之約是恩典之約的一種施行方式的意思,是肯定摩西時期的施行,無論是在形式和結構上,都展現出合乎恩典之約其他施行方式(如亞伯拉罕之約、大衛之約、新約)的模式,它並非遵循行為之約中所展示出來的模式。
(1)The Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace. I realize that folks on both sides of contemporary "republication" debates would affirm this point, so some qualification is in order. In saying that the Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace, I am affirming that the Mosaic administration, in form and structure, fits the pattern exhibited in other administrations of the covenant of grace (e.g., Abrahamic, Davidic, New covenants) and that, in form and structure,  it does not follow the pattern exhibited in the covenant of works.
 
耶和華與以色列人在西奈山所立的聖約是在救贖主和得贖者之間所立的。上帝滿有恩典的拯救行動,成為祂對以色列人所發出的命令,以及祂要求以色列人忠誠的救贖基礎(出十九4,廿2)。確實,由於出埃及事件標誌著上帝的應許——在創世記十五章721節所作的自我咒詛——的應驗,我們就應該把以色列人在出埃及記十九章8節和廿四章3節向耶和華所起的「忠誠誓言」,當作一個證據,證明摩西之約乃是實現了亞伯拉罕之約,而不是與亞伯拉罕之約不同類的盟約。應許要作亞伯拉罕和他後裔的上帝(創十七78)的那位,最終使「祂的百姓」誕生了(參見:出一7,六7):祂起誓要作他們的上帝,因此他們也要起誓作祂的子民。西奈山之約和亞伯拉罕之約並不是不同類的盟約。它是亞伯拉罕之約的應驗和目標:透過單方面對以色列列祖的應許所開啟的盟約關係,如今在救贖主和祂得贖的百姓雙方之間的承諾裏實現了。
The covenant between Yahweh and Israel at Sinai is a covenant between redeemer and redeemed. God's gracious act of deliverance provides the redemptive foundation of the commands he issues to Israel and of the allegiance he requires from Israel (Exod 19.4; 20.2). Indeed, because the events of the exodus mark the fulfillment of God's promise, made under self-maledictory oath in Genesis 15.7-21, we should understand Israel's "pledge of allegiance" to Yahweh in Exodus 19.8 and 24.3, not as evidence that the Mosaic Covenant is a different type of covenant from the Abrahamic Covenant, but rather as evidence that the Mosaic Covenant is the realization of the Abrahamic Covenant. The one who promised to be God to Abraham and his descendants (Gen 17.7, 8) at last has brought "his people" into being (see Exod 1.7; 6.7): and as he has pledged to be their God, so they now pledge to be his people. The Sinai arrangement is not a different type of covenant from that of Abraham. It is the fulfillment and goal of the Abrahamic Covenant: the covenant relationship initiated through unilateral promise to the patriarchs is now realized in bilateral commitment between redeemer and his redeemed people.
 
二、摩西之約是與基督有關的、恩典之約的暫時施行。儘管摩西之約是亞伯拉罕之約最初的應驗,是以色列對她的丈夫耶和華所說的「我願意」,但這不是亞伯拉罕之約最終的應驗。摩西之約是恩典之約暫時的施行,是命定要歸於無有的(來八13)。律法是上帝所賜的美善恩賜之一,但是它注定要被上帝在耶穌基督裏、並藉著耶穌基督之更大的恩典,即新約的恩典所取代(約一1617)。摩西之約作為亞伯拉罕之約的初步應驗,與新約具備了一種暫時性的、影子式的關係,新約才是亞伯拉罕之約那最終的、永遠長存的應驗(西二17)。
(2) The Mosaic Covenant is a temporal administration of the covenant of grace in relation to Christ. While the Mosaic Covenant is the initial fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant, Israel's "I do" in relation to Yahweh her husband, it is not the final fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant was a temporary administration of the covenant of grace, destined to be made obsolete (Heb 8.13). The Law was one of God's good gifts, but it was a gift destined for replacement by God's greater gift in and through Jesus Christ (John 1.16-17), the gift of the New Covenant. As the initial fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant thus bears a temporary, shadowy relationship to the New Covenant, which is the final, everlasting fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (Col 2.17).
 
三、摩西之約是與肉身有關的、恩典之約的軟弱施行方式。摩西之約之所以只是恩典之約的一個暫時的施行,和它是恩典之約的一個軟弱施行的狀態有關。其「瑕疵」(來七7-8)是在哪裏呢?正如我在前面所論證的,並不在於其結構和形式。摩西之約的軟弱是在於其立約的其中一方:摩西之約乃是「因肉體而軟弱」(羅八3)。因為摩西之約是寫在石版上的,而不是寫在肉心上的,最終,它就只能曝露出與上帝立約之墮落人類的背叛,也定罪他們。它是帶來死亡的屬死之職事(見:林後三~四章)。
(3) The Mosaic Covenant is a weak administration of the covenant of grace in relation to the flesh. The reason that the Mosaic Covenant was only a temporary administration of the covenant of grace is related to its status as a weak administration of the covenant of grace. Where does its "fault" lie (Heb 8.7-8)? Not in its structure and form, I contend (see above). The weakness of the Mosaic Covenant lies in one of its parties: the Mosaic Covenant was "weakened by the flesh" (Rom 8.3). Because the Mosaic Covenant was written on tablets of stone and not on hearts of flesh, it was ultimately only capable of exposing and condemning the treachery of God's fallen human covenant partners. It was a ministry of death leading to death (see 2 Cor 3-4).
 
這當然不是要忽略舊約聖經的教導,在摩西之約下聖靈也有在發揮作用(賽六十三10-11;該二5):與時代論的時期劃分相反的,在舊的約和新的約之下,聖靈工作的對比是相對的,不是絕對的。然而,舊約聖經也教導我們,相對於上帝在新的約中的工作,上帝的子民大部分都欠缺所需的恩典來領受摩西之約,並且無法以一種討神喜悅的方式對這個滿有恩典的盟約作出回應(申廿九4;參:卅110),也因此他們注定從一開始就要落在摩西之約的咒詛之下(申卅一27;同廿一1823)。
This of course is not to ignore Old Testament teaching that the Spirit was operative under the Mosaic Covenant (Isa 63.10-11; Haggai 2.5): contrary to Dispensationalist schematizations, the contrast between the Spirit's work under the Old and New Covenants is relative, not absolute. Nevertheless, the Old Testament also teaches us that, relative to God's work in the New Covenant, God's people were largely deprived of the grace required to receive and respond to the (gracious) Mosaic Covenant in a manner that was pleasing to God (Deut 29.4; cf. 30.1-10) and therefore that they were doomed to fall under that covenant's curse from the beginning (Deut 31.27 with 21.18-23).
 
的確,我們必須承認上帝的律法——在其全部的立約形式當中——注定要以這種方式在墮落人類的處境下發揮作用,即只有在基督裏(律法置人於死的刑罰獲得實現之處),律法才能發揮其教導得贖者的正當功能;這些得贖者是基督透過聖靈成全了上帝的律法而從死裏復活的(加二19;羅八4以下)。
And indeed we must confess that God's law--in all of its covenantal forms--is destined to function this way in relation to fallen human beings: only in Christ, where the law's death-dealing sentence is realized, can the law have its proper function of instructing the redeemed, who are raised in and with Christ through the Spirit to fulfill God's law (Gal 2.19; Rom 8.4ff).
 
正如先前所說的,只有把這三點合在一起看,才能成為聖經對摩西之約的教導的一個有效總結。否認其中任何一點,都會帶來嚴重的問題。
As noted above, it is only taken together that these three points may function as an effective summary of biblical teaching about the Mosaic Covenant. Denying any one of them, however, leads to serious problems.
 
按照我的判斷,否認第一點,會破壞合乎聖經的講道。倘若我們不把摩西之約視為恩典之約的一種施行方式,我們就會受到誘惑,會把舊約聖經解讀為是以色列國未能成為第二亞當的長篇故事——但上帝並沒有要以色列國成為第二亞當(羅五1221)。因此,我們就不會欣賞以色列的作用是成為一個榜樣(肯定是一個負面榜樣),說明在恩典之約裏活出與基督聯合的生活是什麼樣子,我們也剝奪自己領受舊約聖經教導的一個重要層面的機會(提後三16~17)。
Denying the first point, in my judgment, damages biblical preaching. If we do not see the Mosaic Covenant as an administration of the covenant of grace, then we will be tempted to read the Old Testament as one long story of Israel's failure to be the one they were never commissioned to be: the Second Adam (Rom 5.12-21). And, thus, we will fail to appreciate how Israel functions as an (to be sure, often negative) example of what it means to live in union with Christ within the covenant of grace (see 1 Cor 10.1-5; Heb 3.7-4.11), depriving ourselves of a significant dimension of Old Testament teaching (2 Tim 3.16-17).  
 
否認第二點就會成為猶太化的基督徒。儘管不會有太多基督徒會犯這個錯誤,但是在使徒時代,保羅主要的對手就是這些人,他們歡迎把外邦人納入上帝的子民之內,作為末日已經臨到的一個記號,但是卻未能體會到外邦人被納入的,因為他們相信摩西之約所提供的,是實現上帝對亞伯拉罕、以撒、雅各的應許的最後施行方式,而不是倒數第二個施行方式。保羅在加拉太書第三~四章的論述主要就是和駁斥這個錯誤有關。
Denying the second point amounts to Judaizing. Though few Christians would commit this mistake today, many of Paul's chief opponents in the apostolic era were those who welcomed the inclusion of Gentiles within the people of God as a sign that the latter days had dawned but who failed to appreciate the terms of Gentile inclusion because they believed that the Mosaic Covenant provided the ultimate rather than the penultimate administration for realizing the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Paul's argument in Galatians 3-4 is largely concerned with refuting this error.
 
否認第三點會導致律法主義。肯定第一點卻不同時肯定第三點會導致嚴重的神學和教牧問題,而我們這些沒有被「重新頒布」的論證說服的人,必須重新承認這個事實。倘若我們所作的只是肯定上帝的律法有多好,其作用只是給得贖的百姓作為感恩的途徑,而倘若我們未能承認並闡釋亞當的後裔在上帝良善律法面前有多麼危險,我們就是在欺騙人,讓人無法遵行律法或自欺以為自己遵行了律法。我們必須明確表態:屬肉體的人不能得上帝的喜悅(羅八8)。
Denying the third point leads to legalism. Affirming the first point without affirming the third point can lead to serious theological and pastoral problems, and those of us not convinced by "republication" arguments need to acknowledge this fact. If all we do is affirm how good God's law is, how it functions as a means of gratitude for God's redeemed people, and so forth, and if we fail to acknowledge and expound the anthropological predicament of Adam's children before God's good law, then we are setting people up either for failure or self-deception in relation to the law. We must be clear: "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom 8.8).
 
此外,我們必須明確說明,上帝解決這個困境的方法不是一個完全以恩典為架構的盟約。上帝對這個問題的解決方案是祂兒子的道成肉身、受死和高升,以及將復活的基督的靈澆灌下來:「律法既因肉體軟弱,有所不能行的,上帝就差遣自己的兒子,成為罪身的形狀,作了贖罪祭,在肉體中定了罪案, 使律法的義成就在我們這不隨從肉體、只隨從聖靈的人身上。」(羅八34)恩典之約——在其所有的施行方式中——是因為其中保,才成為恩典之約的。
Moreover, we must be clear that God's solution to this predicament is not a graciously structured covenant. God's solution to this problem is the incarnation, death, and exaltation of his Son, and the outpouring of the Spirit of the risen Christ: "For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" (Rom 8.3-4). The covenant of grace--in any and every one of its administrations--is only a covenant of grace because of the mediator of the covenant of grace.
 
後記:我明白這個題目在改革宗和長老會教會中是一個燙手的爭議,我把這個辯論中兩邊的人,都當作是好弟兄、好牧師。有鑑於這個議題的複雜性,以及改革宗傳統在這個題目上所呈現出來的歷史多樣性,我確實盼望這是個雙方可以用愛心清楚辯論的議題,畢竟他們都是從上帝在基督裏的律法中學會把刀打成犁頭,把槍打成鐮刀的人(賽二2-4)。
Postscript: I realize that this topic is a source of heated controversy in Reformed and Presbyterian churches today, and I count as brothers and ministers in good standing folks on both sides of the debate. Given the complexity of this issue, as well as the diversity exhibited historically across the Reformed tradition on this topic, I do hope it is an issue that can be debated with clarity and charity by those who have learned from God's law in Christ to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks (Isa 2.2-4).
 
這裏有一個作者教導聖約神學的影片:
Teaching Women to Teach
Covenant Theology as the Interpretive Backdrop of Scripture
Lesson 1/3 https://youtu.be/Z9HBfZiy5Tk
Lesson 2/3 https://youtu.be/61NU8_wr5tE
Lesson 3/3 https://youtu.be/EBxR2X7XwB8

 
書介:《按部就班:平信徒如何得到神的指引》
Step by Step: Divine Guidance for Ordinary Christians (Resources for Christian Lives),  P&R, 1999  By James C. Petty   
https://www.amazon.com/Step-Guidance-Ordinary-Christians-Resources/dp/0875526039
作者Raymond Cannata 牧師Redeemer Presbyterian Church of New Orleans  誠之獲作者授權翻譯
https://yimawusi.net/2021/04/15/divine-guidance-for-ordinary-christians/
 
「神對我一生的旨意是什麼?」作為跟從耶穌的人,我們渴望有一個清楚的答案,這也是本書討論的起點。雖然在某種程度上,答案是清楚的:「神的旨意就是要你們成為聖潔」(帖前四3),但是要把這麼廣泛、概括性的陳述,應用在我們生活具體實際的決定時,卻是極具挑戰的,甚至會令我們感到困惑。我們在一些重大決定,諸如與誰結婚,上什麼大學,從事哪個行業,或者加入什麼樣的教會,如何得到神的引導呢?還有每天的閑雜瑣事,諸如選擇襯衫,打什麼領帶,在哪裡享用午餐,以及怎樣利用我的修閑時間,又怎麼說呢?我們如何讓聖經中所顯明的神的旨意和日常生活中的決定,發生關聯呢?本書就是為了回答這些問題的。作者將本書的十八章分成四部分:神的引導的應許,認識神的引導,經歷神的引導,以及尋求神的引導。前三個部分將「引導的神學」(the theology of guidance)加以展開(11頁),而第四部分是個案研究,說明如何運用七個步驟做出明智的決定。
 
第一部分:神的引導的應許
 
第一章(「神會引導我們嗎?」)討論從神而來的引導的必要性,特別是在現今世界中,做決定是很複雜的。這是個非常實際的問題,瞭解神的旨意絕不只是純粹的理論探討。「當我們尋求神的引導時,我們不是像個學生安穩地坐在圖書館,思索人生的重大問題……我們更像個飛行員,試著讓一架滿載乘客的商務客機著陸。對一個飛行員來說,即使是最好的飛行員,最迫切需要的是瞭解當時的方位、氣候、能見度,以及當地的空中交通狀況。想到與控制塔台的通信也許不可能、不可預測、不清楚,不只是會令人感到不安,簡直就是一部恐怖電影的題材……我們與人的關係,我們的工作、健康與安全,有可能因一個錯誤的決定而受到影響」(18頁)。家庭、職場、經濟和我們的文化道德風尚上的改變,都強調引導有其必要性。雖然已有許多基督徒領袖和作者提到這個議題(作者在他的研究中評論了三十五本有關神的引導的書),大多數人是「用非神學的方法,討論他們的問題。也就是說,他們的書並未提供聖經的嚴謹研究,也沒有深度地觸及更廣的神學原則。」(26頁)。作者顯然有意填補此神學空白,且不忘同時處理這些實際的問題。
 
第二章提到「神如何引導我們?」並比較「關於神如何引導我們的三個主要學派」(29頁)。
 
20世紀最普遍的觀點認為:「神對每個基督徒的人生有一個具體明確的計劃。神的引導就包括認清那個計劃」(29頁)。這個計劃是通過仔細觀察「環境、屬靈的感動、內在的聲音、個人心思的平安,以及他人之勸戒的組合」(30)來辨識的。雖然神主權的旨意必然包括我們生活的細節,這個觀點的提倡者「嵌入一個隱藏的前提──如果有這樣的計劃,神要我們知道它,也會啟示給那些尋求的人,[而且]神對每個人生命中主權的計劃,是為了給個人作為引導的來源與模式」(30-31頁)。我們可以知道這個計劃,如果「我們的日常生活狀況……與內在聖靈的感動以及神的話一致的話」(31頁,引述F. B. 邁爾)。
 
第二個觀點,「傳統靈恩派觀點」,與第一個觀點類似,但主張「神直接、口頭地與個人、家庭和教會對話,讓他們知道祂對他們的計劃」(32頁)。
 
相對於這些看法,第三種觀點被稱為「智慧的觀點」(33頁)。此觀點認為「雖然神對每個基督徒有一個獨特的計劃,但這個計劃是絕對隱密的」,而且「神的引導與辨識這個隱密的計劃,並且用它來作出決定無關。」(33頁)。這個智慧的觀點主張,神給我們對事物的洞察力(insight),好讓我們用神啟發的智慧來作決定。
 
第三章(「神的引導與神的應許」),作者問到:「創造天地的全能上帝,真的應許為祂的被造物提供引導嗎?(37頁)。他提醒我們:「我們的宇宙如此浩瀚,每個銀河系(許多都含有億萬的星球)只相當於地球上的一粒沙土」(38頁)如此浩瀚宇宙的創造者,怎麼可能會關心我們生活中的閑雜瑣事呢?
 
然而,聖經的回答(詩篇八3-4)是:神的確眷顧我們!並且神的確為我們提供個人的引導。作者在這裏很小心去避免二個極端。一方面,我們不應該像異教徒一樣,「神化」神的旨意。然而,作者強調,「神不只是啟示祂一般性的心意,然後隨我們自然與其聯結,或實用性地計算最有益的結果」(41頁)。神的確會親自為信徒提供引導。第三章的其餘部分,暫時迴避討論神在這方面是怎麼做的,而是集中討論聖經怎樣描述神在救贖歷史各個不同的階段(猶太民族的祖先,律法之下,詩篇和先知書,福音書中,和五旬節以後),如何引導和帶領祂的子民。在本章的結尾處,作者對羅馬書十二2作了一個簡短的評論,作者暗示這是他要走的方向:「瞭解神的旨意是心意更新變化的結果……神的確對我們維持一個觀點,就是要去察驗和分辨神的旨意。這種知識不是幸運簽餅,而是一種教育(48-49頁)。
 
第二部分:認識神的引導
 
「神的引導和神的計劃」是第四章的標題,它對準聖經上神的眷護(Gods providence)的教義。
 
作者引用古典改革宗神學對神的旨意的兩個面向的區分:神的計劃──或祂「定旨的旨意」(decretive will),與神的誡命──或祂「誡命的旨意」(preceptive will)(56頁,參考查爾斯•賀治)。聖經常常使用「神的旨意」這個詞,提到祂主權的計劃。涵蓋的經文包括弗一511;雅四15;羅十五32;與彼前三17。對信徒而言,神的主權的真理是令人鼓舞的,因為它向我們保證:(1)「神確實對你的生命中有一個特定的計劃,(2)你人生的每個事件和選擇,都不可抗拒地、且主權地在每個細節中實現出來(59頁),也就是說,你不可能錯過它!「對在基督裏的人來說,只有一個計劃,就是計劃A」(59)。沒有計劃B。作者考察了聖經對神的主權的教導,論證神對環境(太十2931;創五十20)、好人,義人、歹人和政客(箴廿一1;羅九17;徒二23),以及救恩與審判(弗一5;約十五16;約六3739;羅八28-30)的掌管。
 
在整個考察中,他謹慎提醒我們神的主權的真理,在信徒的生命中應如何起到謙卑和敬拜的作用,而不是要給我們一個不負責任的藉口。他也主張,神的知識是參透一切的,「這種未來的知識,為了我們自己的好處,並沒有給予我們……這些資訊會傷害我們。我們無法處理這麼毒的東西(71頁)。我們不可能在下決定前認清不可測的神的主權計劃,我們也不應該嘗試。我們必須作的,反而是「努力找出適用於我們處境的聖經原則」(75-76頁)。我們必須搜集做出智慧決定的必要資訊,然後作出決定;此決定會被我們對神的眷護的認識所強化。神的眷護就像「我們作決定的護欄。我們在巨大的生活中奔馳,經常要面對各種轉折與崎嶇。然而,我們可以有信心,神已經為我們設立了生活的界限。儘管我們會面對許多危險,也會做出許多愚蠢的決定,祂還是會用祂的雙手,小心地托住我們。要到天上,我們才會知道,我們有多少次碰撞到神計劃的護欄,也被祂恩典的心意所保護。」(77頁)。
 
聖經也使用「神的旨意」來指神的誡命。因此,第五章談論「神的引導和神的道」。神的道德旨意已經啟示在聖經中,期望我們遵行。作者引用了許多經文,包括帖前四3;彼前二15;太六10,與約四34。他強調聖經的全備性,說到:「祂的道(聖經)是完全的,充分的,好讓神的每個兒女完全有能力,完成他們的信仰與生活(88頁)。為回答那些主張「在聖經之外(並不與聖經有矛盾),神透過一些諸如生動的影像、異夢、特殊的環境,以及主觀的平安感,啟示祂的具體旨意」的人(90頁),作者論證到,這些「是神的眷護的工作,而不是祂旨意的啟示」。「雖然他們本身不構成神的引導,但它們提供神的引導的處境」(90頁)。惟獨聖經才啟示了神的旨意的準則。我們所需要的,不是新的啟示,而是將神在聖經所啟示的祂的旨意,應用在我們自己具體生活情境的智慧。
 
第六章 察驗「神的引導和『神對個人的旨意』」。此概念在一般基督徒的教導上,是被當作「『神完美的旨意』或『神旨意的中心』或『神特定的旨意』」(96頁)。如果神的道德旨意被視為一個圓靶,「神對個人的旨意則被視為圓靶的中心。那是我們在神的引導所要發現(擊中)的「旨意」。如果我們偏離圓靶的正中,但仍擊中圓靶的目標區域,我們並沒有犯罪──但是我們錯過了神為我們所預備的最好的」(97頁)。
 
作者堅定地認為這個觀念是不符合聖經的,並且對此提出許多質疑,它至少驅使信徒遠離聖經,而去追求難以捉摸的中心。有些人訴諸於布置「『羊毛』(士六36-40)作為神化神旨意的手段」(101頁),或「倚靠預感、印象、環境、直覺的感覺、打開的門,和其它不可靠的方法,來辨識神的旨意」(102頁)。所有這些錯誤的道路,會使我們不再在我們的生活中,智慧地應用聖經。
 
我們應該把焦點放在神所啟示的旨意上,包括「所禁止的事的範圍」──在各種情況下,所有的罪都必須「禁戒」,以及「神積極之誡命的應用範圍」──這需要智慧和辨識力,以理出優先順序(103頁)。本章繼續考量必須應用神啟示的旨意的五個生活領域──金錢、才能、時間、婚姻和飲食,以及報酬,作者引用大量的經文,如林後八~九章,羅十二3-8,彼前四10-12,弗五15-18,林前七章,羅十四,以及林前八~九章。
 
本章通過回顧耶穌最基本的誡命「彼此相愛」的純一性,以及為什麼「人生的全部是這個誡命的外顯」來總結(116頁)。雖然有些信徒,也許在一開始會對這種缺乏針對性的看法感到失望,他們更喜歡直接了當,要神在和誰結婚,從事什麼職業,等等,給他們直接的引導,然而,作者向我們保證,「神渴望在這些事情上引導我們……是透過幫助我們建立與基督、祂的旨意,祂的國度的聯繫」。他也提醒我們,「如果我們不瞭解這種聯繫與我們生活處境的相關性,我們就還未真正地瞭解我們的處境[以及]我們大概還未準備好接受任何其它的『引導』」(116頁)。
 
第七章(「神的引導和基督徒的自由」)把討論加以延伸,考量另一個領域,是我們必須把神啟示的旨意加以應用的──基督徒的自由。我們怎麼知道什麼情況是屬於這個範圍呢?是靠遵循「排除的過程」。如果聖經沒有禁止一個決定,也不受聖經智慧性應用的管制(關係到神積極的誡命),「那麼,我們就知道它屬於一個更大的決策範圍,所有的選擇在神的眼中是看為好的、合理的、正確的。」「在這個區域中,神給我們很大的自由,讓我們根據自己的喜好,安排我們的生活」(122頁)。這應該讓信徒從「確定他們所做的每個選擇是『照著神的旨意』,這個以恐懼所驅動的需要」中得到釋放。那態度本身是不合乎神的旨意的!」(124頁)。
 
在這個基督徒自由的範圍內,我們可以確信,神會以祂的眷護來幫助我們──「我們可以稱之為引導,小寫的引導,不是神的引導」(126頁)。但除了在動機的範圍內,所談到的聖經的引導之外(例如:林前十31),在這些問題上的決定,要留待信徒自己的選擇。
 
第三部分:經歷神的引導
 
第八章「神的引導與神的智慧」,通過再一次重申「這本書的中心思想是,屬靈的辨識力(discernment)是認識神對我們的生命,及特定處境之旨意的關鍵……本書的目的是要指出,我們對神的引導的需要,聖經對此的回答,會歸結到一個涵義非常豐富的字:『智慧』」(135頁)。為了表明聖經對此論點清楚的依據,作者思考「新約中五個關鍵的章節,是教導我們如何明白神的旨意的(136):歌羅西書一9-10,腓利比書一9-11,羅馬書十二1-2,以弗所書五15-17,以及雅各書一5-7
 
作者將智慧定義為:「明白神的誡命,並且把神的誡命應用在各種處境,以及人身上的道德技巧」(144頁)。從神而來的智慧「比所有預言或直接默示的啟示,更加地神奇和超自然」,因為,在賜人智慧時,「神用祂的優先順序,祂的敏感、祂的工作事項,和祂的愛,逐漸地更新變化罪人的思維,好讓我們能像他自己一樣來思想」(149頁),這種智慧的方式,遠比其他嘗試辯明神旨意的方法,更為優越。作者認為其它的方法不僅有誤,而且是有害的。實際上,「有些人說神是以心裏的感動,活潑的想法,內在的聲音、異夢,不尋常的環境,以及『羊毛法』來引導他們,已經將聖經一再強調的,要我們獲取神的智慧和辨識力的需要,排擠在外」(152頁)。
 
第九章(「經歷神的引導」)換個實用的角度,提出「六種堪稱為神的引導的經歷」(155頁)。「首先,聖靈藉著把我們的心專注在以具體的行動,來關愛和事奉特定的人,來引導我們」(155頁)。「其次,神通過幫助我們辨識優先順序引導我們」(157頁)。「神透過屬靈的辨識力來引導我們的第三種個方式,是透過道德和屬靈的悟性」(158頁)。「神給人屬靈辨識力的第四種方式是幫助我們知道該說些什麼」(161頁)。「第五,我們可以藉著『靠聖靈帶領』經歷神的引導(162頁)。「第六種與神的引導相關的,是圍繞在神學家所稱的『聖靈內在的見證』」(163頁)。作者從聖經中展開這些觀點,並提供有用的例證和應用。
 
神的眷護(Gods Providence)的教義在第十章「神的眷護:神引導的左手」再度被提出。本章是有用的,不僅在重新強調神的主權對生活事物的掌管,而且特別在幫助信徒找出在神眷護的範圍中,更多的影響我們決策的主觀因素上,有很大的助益,而這些主觀因素要受聖經中神啟示的旨意所衡量。「本著智慧尋求神的引導的方法──而不是設法保護我們的生活免受印象、預感、異夢和環境的影響──允許我們充分地享受它們。我們使用它們作為神對我們的眷護,而不作為啟示或屬靈的引導。關鍵的差異是不把它們作為神引導的手段。它們應該被作為它們本來所是的來看待,即:神眷護的工作」(173-174頁)。換句話說,異常的情境、個人的感覺、印象和異夢,既不應該盲目跟從,也不該完全忽視。相反地,「我們應該衡量這些材料,正如我們也會衡量任何從朋友,新聞報告或者一通電話,所得來的想法一樣。」(174頁)並且我們衡量一切的標準是神在祂的話語中所啟示的旨意。
 
如果神是透過智慧的方式引導我們,我們應該關心的下一步便是「如何變得有智慧」(第十一章)。得到智慧的過程,神為我們規劃了五個步驟。「要變得有智慧,我們必須:(1) 認識神,被祂改造, (2) 立志越來越分別為聖給神,(3) 殷勤、持之以恆地尋求智慧,(4) 從智慧人那裏學習,並且(5) 參與神要我們每天不斷要作的決定」(186頁)。這些步驟主要是從箴言書中發展出來的,與此同時,也與耶穌基督的智慧息息相關(林前一30;西二2)。
 
第四部分:尋求神的引導
 
本書的第四部分闡述了「合乎聖經決策的七要素」,是用一個「案例研究,DonGlenda的故事,舉例說明在特定、真實的生活情境中如何作出智慧的決定」(187頁)。此案例研究是根據一個真實的故事,但也包含從其它真實案件而來的元素,以涵蓋更廣的議題,而這些議題是來自真實生活中的決定。」(187頁)這個過程的第一步是「分別為聖」(第十二章)。簡而言之,「要讓神引導,我們必須屬於神」(193頁)。本章從反思羅十二1-2開始。「獻上自己,是指我們不再效法這個世界的動機和目標,而是用神給我們的新的志向與生活方式,來取代舊的(193頁)。這意味著神的國必須成為我們作決定時最優先的考量(太六33),而不是自我實現。當我們把我們的信仰和動機交託給主,我們就被更新變化,而能察驗神「善良、純全、可喜悅的旨意」。
 
第二步是搜集「資訊」(第十三章)。作者提供聖經中「搜集資訊」的例子,並且囑咐我們要「親眼目睹那個我們必須信靠神,做出決定的情境」(201頁)。這不僅牽涉到認識自己(羅十二3),也牽涉到「找出關鍵的問題」,而這些問題在任何特定情境下,都是需要回答的(202頁)。然後是第三步:「祈求」(第十四章)。「在聖經中,聖靈清楚地顯明,我們受邀向神呼求祂的的引導」(213頁)。對用智慧的方法做決定的思路來說,禱告是至關重要的,「因為智慧和洞察力不會因我們發命令就會到來」(216)。雖然禱告得到回應,是禱告最主要的好處,但當我們禱告時,可以得到透視,培養堅忍的心,並在創意上成長。「神的參與常常會驅除眼光狹隘的障礙,是由[我們的]恐懼所產生的」(216頁)
 
「諮詢」(第十五章)或參考他人的意見是下一個步驟。作者引用箴言的許多經節,來說明尋求諮詢的重要性,並且說明這個模式如何延續到新約使徒和初期信徒的生活中。雖然在我們的文化中,男人對拒絕參考他人的意見,是很普遍的,但是我們還是需要他人的忠告。「如果我們要對我們做的決定有信心,我們需要別人的建議,因為大多數愚蠢的決定,在愚蠢的人看來,都是「很清楚的」,並且,「在一些令我們困惑的決定上,我們也需要別人的建議,因為我們自己都還不清楚」(223頁)。
 
諮詢必須和默想神的話(第十六章)一起配合,對默想神的話的人,神的應許是亨通(書一8-9)。我們不應該把默想誤認為是憂慮或對情境的幻想,也不該「停滯在默想或決定的思考階段,猶豫再三,遲遲沒有結論」(233頁)。然而,要做出明智的決定,仔細考量是基本的步驟,除非是緊急狀況,我們沒有時間默想。在那些情況下,「我們的準備和默想必須事先完成,或者就乾脆不要。」(231頁)。
 
第六步是「下決定」(第十七章)。我們可能在感覺還沒準備好的時候,就因時間所限,被迫要作決定。而「作決定有可能使我們冒犯錯的風險,然而,每當我們讓這個想法控制我們的順服時,我們就是在事奉自已,而不是在事奉神」(241頁)。這並不意味著我們就應該魯莽行事──「僅僅為了下決定而做出棘手的決定,並沒有什麼好處」(242頁)。而且,「當一個決定還不是很成熟,且神已在此事上給我們額外的時間,我們就必須學習耐心地等待,並尋求關鍵的智慧或資訊」(242頁)。第十八章(標題是「期望」)問到:「做為基督徒,我們對我們所作的決定能有什麼期望?」(251頁)。首先,我們可以確信,「神的眷護使萬事(包括我們的決定)互相效力」(251頁)。如果我們用禱告的心,使我們自己能與神國度的工作保持一致,我們也能確信,我們的生命會結出榮耀神的果子。DonGlenda的故事進展,貫穿在這七章的下半當中,以實際而有趣的細節,給我們很好的榜樣,讓我們看到如何應用這些原則在我們自己的生活中。本書結尾有一個有用的附錄,評估我們的優先順序。
 
這是我讀的「改變生命的對策」系列的第五本書,由基督徒輔導和教育基金會的人員所寫。如同這系列其它的書一樣,《按部就班》這本書同時富含教義與實際的幫助──這種腳踏實地的教牧神學,是今日教會迫切需要的。到目前為止我讀過的有關引導方面的書,它無疑是最好的。在這個主題上,很難想像能找到比它更平衡的處理。我熱烈地把這本優秀的書籍推薦給諸位!