聖約神學不是替代神學
Covenant Theology is Not Replacement Theology
作者：Scott Clark  譯者：誠之
https://heidelblog.net/2013/08/covenant-theology-is-not-replacement-theology/
https://yimawusi.net/2021/07/04/covenant-theology-is-not-replacement-theology/
 
最近有人問我，「聖約神學」是不是所謂的「替代神學」。那些批判改革宗聖約神學的時代論評論者，指控聖約神學的教導，說新約教會已經「取代」（replace）了以色列。其實，這是他們不明白歷史上改革宗的聖約神學。他們把一種更接近時代論的思維方式，加在救贖歷史上，而不是從改革宗神學的角度來看這個問題。
Recently I had a question asking whether “covenant theology” is so-called “replacement theology.” Those dispensational critics of Reformed covenant theology who accuse it of teaching that the New Covenant church has “replaced” Israel do not understand historic Reformed covenant theology. They are imputing to Reformed theology a way of thinking about redemptive history that has more in common with dispensationalism than it does with Reformed theology.
 
首先，「替代」這個用詞本來就不屬於改革宗神學，因為它預設了一種時代論的思維方式，把以色列當成中心。它的假設是，那暫時的、國家性的民族，實際上要成為一種永恆的安排。這種思維方式與創世記三章15節的應許是相反的，那就是將會有一位救主，這個國家性的民族只是達到這個目標的手段，不是目標本身。根據保羅在以弗所書而章11-22節所說，在基督裏那中間隔斷的牆已經被拆毀了。它不能再被重建起來。這兩個民族（猶太人和外邦人）在基督裡已經歸為一體。在所有唯獨靠著恩典，唯獨藉著信心與基督聯合的人當中，不再有猶太人或外邦人的分別了（羅十12；加三28；西三11）。
First, the very category of “replacement” is foreign to Reformed theology because it assumes a dispensational, Israeleo-centric way of thinking. It assumes that the temporary, national people was, in fact, intended to be the permanent arrangement. Such a way of thinking is contrary to the promise in Gen. 3:15. The promise was that there would be a Savior. The national people was only a means to that end, not an end in itself. According to Paul in Ephesians 2:11-22, in Christ the dividing wall has been destroyed. It cannot be rebuilt. The two peoples (Jews and Gentiles) have been made one in Christ. Among those who are united to Christ by grace alone, through faith alone, there is no Jew nor Gentile (Rom. 10:12; Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11).
至少，某些形式的時代論曾暗示，上帝有意使祂與以色列所立的國家性聖約成為永久的約。然而根據聖約神學，摩西之約從來不是永久性的。根據加拉太書第三章（和第四章），摩西之約只是亞伯拉罕之約的附文（codicil）。附文只是添加在原來文件上的，並不會取代原有的文件。但時代論卻把它們弄顛倒了。它把亞伯拉罕之約變成摩西之約的附文。希伯來書第三章說到摩西只是耶穌家裏的一個工人，而時代論卻把耶穌變成了摩西家的工人。
At least some forms of dispensationalism have suggested that God intended the national covenant with Israel to be permanent. According to Reformed theology, the Mosaic covenant was never intended to be permanent. According to Galatians 3 (and chapter 4), the Mosaic covenant was a codicil to the Abrahamic covenant. A codicil is added to an existing document. It doesn’t replace the existing document. Dispensationalism reverses things. It makes the Abrahamic covenant a codicil to the Mosaic. Hebrews 3 says that Moses was a worker in Jesus’ house. Dispensationalism makes Jesus a worker in Moses’ house.
 
其次，從救恩來看，改革宗聖約神學並沒有把以色列和教會並列在一起。對聖約神學來說，教會一直是上帝的以色列，而神的以色列一直就是教會。改革宗聖約神學把舊的約和新的約（old and new covenants）作出區分（林後三章；來七～十章）。它同意這個說法，就是教會是暫時透過一個預表性的、國家性的民族而施行的，但教會從亞當、挪亞、亞伯拉罕起就存在了；在摩西和大衛時期也存在；在基督之下也存在。
Second, with respect to salvation, Reformed covenant theology does not juxtapose Israel and the church. For Reformed theology, the church has always been the Israel of God and the Israel of God has always been the church. Reformed covenant theology distinguishes the old and new covenants (2 Cor. 3; Heb. 7-10). It recognizes that the church was temporarily administered through a typological, national people, but the church has existed since Adam, Noah, and Abraham; and it existed under Moses and David; and it exists under Christ.
 
第三、教會從來就只有一個，雖然在不同的治理方式下，在不同的預表和影子下，而現今是在基督的實體之下，因為信心的對象一直只有一個。耶穌這位彌賽亞一直是預表性的教會信靠的對象（來十一；路廿四；林後三），至今祂仍是信心的對象。
Third, the church has always been one, under various administrations, under types, shadows, and now under the reality in Christ, because the object of faith has always been one. Jesus the Messiah was the object of faith of the typological church (Heb. 11; Luke 24; 2 Cor. 3), and he remains the object of faith.
 
第四、雖然國家性的聖約已經被基督的順服、死與復活廢除了（西二14），但新約教會仍然沒有 「取代」猶太人。保羅說神把外邦人「嫁接」（graft）到神的子民裏（羅十一23）。嫁接不是取代，而是加上。
Fourth, despite the abrogation of the national covenant by the obedience, death, and resurrection of Christ (Col. 2:14), the NT church has not “replaced” the Jews. Paul says that God “grafted” the Gentiles into the people of God. Grafting is not replacement, it is addition.
改革宗神學家一直主張，猶太人會有一次大悔改。有些人稱此為「反猶主義」。這不是反猶主義，這是基督教。耶穌說，「我就是道路，真理，生命。若不是藉著為我，沒有人能到父那裡去。」（約十四6）聲稱耶穌是唯一的道路的替代方案就是普救主義，這不過是在攻擊基督的位格和祂所完成的工作。其他改革宗作者認識到羅馬書第十一章的應許只是指所有選民的救恩（羅二28），而不是指猶太人未來的歸信。無論如何，改革宗神學不是反猶主義的。我們一直盼望並祈求上帝所有的選民，無論是猶太人還是外邦人，都能在基督裏得到救贖，唯獨靠著恩典，唯獨藉著信心。
It has been widely held by Reformed theologians that there will be a great conversion of Jews. Some call this “anti-Semitism.” This isn’t anti-Semitism, it is Christianity. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). The alternative to Jesus’ exclusivist claim is universalism, which is nothing less than an assault on the person and finished work of Christ. Other Reformed writers understand the promises in Rom. 11 to refer only to the salvation of all the elect (Rom. 2:28) rather than to a future conversion of Jews. In any event, Reformed theology is not anti-semitic. We have always hoped and prayed for the salvation, in Christ, sola gratia et sola fide, of all of God’s elect, Jew and Gentile alike.