個人釋經   Private Interpretation

作者: 史鮑爾 (R.C. Sproul) 译者: 姚錦榮

摘自《神學入門》《Essential Truths of the Christian Faith》P24 ,更新傳道會出版

宗教改革運動留給後世兩項最大的遺產，就是把聖經釋成普通語言，並允許個人詮釋聖經。馬丁路德曾使得這個問題引起人們高度的關注，當一五二一年天主教在德國的沃木斯城舉行會議，判他為異端邪說時，他在這個沃木斯議會（Diet of Worms) 中這樣宣稱：

「除非聖經和常理指出我是錯的，我不會接受教皇和議會的權威--------因這兩者互相矛盾。我的良知遵從神的話，我不能、也不會違背它；因為違背良知是錯的，也是危險的。願神幫助我，阿們」（註1）

馬丁路德的宣稱，和他日後把聖經譯成當地語言這兩件事，帶來兩種重大的轉變：第一，這使得羅馬天主教會今後不再是詮釋聖經的獨一權威，人們也不再需要受教會解釋的教義擺佈，將教會權柄與神的語語等量齊觀。第二，人們開始能夠自己詮釋聖經。這種轉變的確也引出了不少的問題，它帶出羅馬天主教會所畏懼的另一種極端行為---------就是信徒離開基督教的傳統信仰，個人憑著主觀的看法去詮釋聖經。

主觀主義（subjectivism) 是個人釋經的一大危機。個人釋經絕非指神的兒女有權任意詮釋聖經，釋經的權柄與正確地釋經的責任是並存的。信徒有自由去發掘聖經中的真理，但他們沒有自由去建構一套自己想要的真理。信徒蒙召要明白什麽才是健全而正確的解經原理，並要避免使自己墮進主觀主義的危險中。

學會客觀地認識聖經，並不是說要把聖經退減為一堆冷冰冰、不現實且毫無生氣的素材。在我們把聖經應用到自己生活之前，必須要先按照其上下文了解它的意思。聖經中任何一句話都可以有很多種個人應用的方式，但它只可以有一種正確的解釋。釋經的權利包含了準確地詮釋聖經的責任。聖經不是一個「蠟像」，可任人塑造，由人擺佈，以迎合詮釋者個人的口味。

總結

1 宗教改革運動使教會得到以普通語言釋成的聖經；也使得每一個信徒擁有個人釋經的權利和責任。

2. 教會傳統雖然可以作為信徒的指引，但不可將之視為與聖經具有同等的權威。

3. 個人釋經不可成為主觀主義的藉口。

4. 個人釋經的原則，帶出了信徒尋求聖經正確解釋的責任。

5. 雖然每段經文都可以有很多種不同的應用方式，但每段經文只可以有一種正確的解釋。

思考經文：

尼八8；提後二15；提後三14-17；來一1-4；彼後一20-21

註：1. Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther （Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1978）

9. PRIVATE INTERPRETATION

Two of the great legacies of the Reformation were the principle of private interpretation and the translation of the Bible into the common language of the people. Luther himself brought the issue into sharp focus. When Luther appeared before the Diet of Worms (a council charging him with heresy for his teaching), he declared,

Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other— my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.1

Luther’s declaration, and his subsequent translation of the Bible into his native tongue, did two things. First, it took from the Roman Catholic church its sole right of interpretation. No longer would the people be at the mercy of church doctrine, having to accept tradition or church teaching as an authority equal to God’s Word. Second, it put interpretation in the hands of the people. This change has been more problematic. It has led to the very excesses about which the Roman Catholic church was concerned—subjective interpretations of the text that depart from historic Christian faith.

Subjectivism has been the great danger of private interpretation. Yet the

principle of private interpretation does not mean that God’s people have the right to interpret the Bible in whatever manner they wish. Along with the “right” to interpret Scripture comes the responsibility to interpret it properly. Believers are free to discover the truths of Scripture, but they are not free to fabricate their own truth. Believers are called to understand sound principles of interpretation and to avoid the danger of subjectivism.

In seeking an objective understanding of Scripture we do not thereby

reduce Scripture to something cold, abstract, and lifeless. What we are doing is seeking to understand what the Word says in its context before we go about the equally necessary task of applying it to our lives. A particular statement may have numerous possible personal applications, but it can only have one correct meaning. The right to interpret Scripture carries with it the obligation to interpret it accurately. The Bible is not a “waxed nose” to be shaped and formed to suit the views of the interpreter.

Summary

1. The Reformation gave to the church a translation of the Bible in the

common language, and to each believer, the right and responsibility of

private interpretation of the Bible.

2. Church tradition, though instructive as a guide, does not have equal

authority with Scripture.

3. Private interpretation is not a license for subjectivism.

4. The principle of private interpretation carries with it the obligation to seek the correct interpretation of the Bible.

5. Though each biblical text may have multiple applications, it has only one correct meaning.

Biblical passages for reflection:

Nehemiah 8:8

2 Timothy 2:15

2 Timothy 3:14-17

Hebrews 1:1-4

2 Peter 1:20-21

基督的受冼THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST

作者: 史鮑爾 (R.C. Sproul) 譯者: 姚錦榮

摘自《神學入門》《Essential Truths of the Christian Faith》P84 ,更新傳道會出版http://www.crmnj.org/

施洗約翰的水禮和耶穌所設立作為新約標記的洗禮，二者間有很密切的關系，這兩種洗禮雖有其連續性，但並不相同。

準確地來說，約翰的洗禮屬於舊約的洗禮，雖然約翰的洗禮記載在新約聖經裏，但耶穌所立的新約是在約翰傳道之後才開始的。這洗禮是神對以色列百姓的一種要求，是一個預備性的洗禮。施洗約翰宣告，神的國近了，他是彌賽亞的開路先鋒；基督將要出現，證明神的國將要臨到，然而以色列百姓卻還未把自己預備好，他們仍是不潔之民。

約翰的洗禮是一個激進的改革，在約翰之前，只有歸化猶太教的外邦人，才需要接受潔凈禮的儀式。而當施洗約翰出現時，神命令猶太人也要悔改，接受洗禮。因此猶太人的宗教領袖視約翰的洗禮為異端、為羞辱，因為約翰把猶太人視作與外邦人一樣，都為不潔。

耶穌卻自願地接受約翰的洗禮，且不顧約翰的反對，堅持如此行。因為耶穌既擔當了彌賽亞的角色，祂便必須遵守以色列神之律法的每一樣要求。耶穌藉著洗禮與自己的百姓認同，為盡諸般的義。

當耶穌下到約但河接受約翰洗禮時，就是耶穌在世傳道的開始。祂不但與自己百姓的罪認同，也為著事奉而被聖靈膏抹。從某個角度來說，這是耶穌的按立典禮，祂正式承擔起基督的職事。

基督一詞乃「受膏者」，耶穌在受洗時被聖靈膏抹，開始擔當彌賽亞的聖職，正如以賽亞書所說的：「主耶和華的靈在我身上，因為耶和華用膏膏我，叫我傳好信息給謙卑的人。」（賽61：1）

總結

1. 約翰的洗禮是彌賽亞來臨前的預備工作。

2. 約翰的洗禮使猶大官長感到羞辱，因為這表明他們都是不潔的。

3. 耶穌不是為自己的罪受洗，而是為了要與祂前來拯救的百姓認同。

4. 耶穌在洗禮中被按立，受膏抹。

思考經文：

賽40：3；太3：13-17；可1：1-5；林後5：21

31. THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST

The rite of water baptism performed by John the Baptist is closely linked to the sacrament of baptism instituted by Jesus as the sign of the new covenant. Though there is a continuity between the two baptisms, they must not be seen as identical.

John’s baptism, properly considered, belongs to the Old Testament. Although we read of it in the New Testament, the New Covenant did not begin until after John’s ministry. It was a requirement God gave to His people, Israel. It was a baptism of preparation. John preached that the kingdom of God was at hand. He was the herald of the Messiah. The nearness of the coming kingdom of God was seen in the imminent appearance of Christ. The Messiah King was about to be made known, but the people of Israel were not ready for Him. They were unprepared. They were unclean.

John’s baptism was a radical innovation. Prior to John, Gentiles converting to Judaism were required to undergo a purification rite of cleansing. With the appearance of John the Baptist, God commanded the Jews also to repent and be washed. The Jewish clergy regarded John’s requirement as heretical and insulting. It meant that John was treating

Jews as if they were as unclean as Gentiles. Jesus willingly submitted to John’s baptism, even insisting upon it (against John’s protests) because in His role as Messiah it was necessary for Jesus to submit to every requirement of God’s law for Israel. In His identification with His people, Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness.

When Jesus entered the Jordan River to be baptized by John, this event marked the beginning of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Here He not only identified Himself with the sin of His people, He was also anointed by the Holy Spirit for ministry. In a sense this was Jesus’ ordination. Here He began His vocation as the Christ.

The term Christ means “anointed one.” Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit at His baptism and began to fulfill the role of Messiah as described by Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, because the LORD has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor” (Isaiah 61:1).

Summary

1. John’s baptism was preparation for the coming of the Messiah.

2. John’s baptism was insulting to the Jewish officials because it meant they were “unclean.”

3. Jesus was baptized not for His own sins but to identify with the sinners He came to save.

4. Jesus was ordained or anointed at His baptism.

Biblical passages for reflection:

Isaiah 40:3

Matthew 3:13-17

Mark 1:1-5

2 Corinthians 5:21

神的獨生子耶穌基督 Jesus Christ as only Begotten

作者: 史鮑爾 (R.C. Sproul) 譯者: 姚錦榮

摘自《神學入門》《Essential Truths of the Christian Faith》P81 ,更新傳道會出版http://www.crmnj.org/

聖經稱耶穌為「父獨生子」（約1：14），這句話在教會歷史上曾引起很激烈的辨論。由於耶穌又被稱為「是首生的，在一切被造的以先。」（西1：15；譯者註：此句亦可譯作「在一切被造之上，為首生者。」）於是有人認為，聖經教導我們，耶穌並非擁有神性，祂只是一個被神升為至高的受造物而已。

耶和華見證人會和摩門教都使用這些觀念，來否定基督的神性。主要是因為這兩個教派否認基督的神性，他們才被視為異端，因此不被納入正統基督教的宗派。

第四世紀，當亞流派異端否認三位一體之教義時，基督的神性即是他們爭論的一個重點，而當日亞流派否認基督神性的主要論點，成了今天耶和華見證人會和摩門教的先導。亞流派在主後三二五年的尼西亞大會中，已被定為異端。

按亞流派的論點，譯成所生（begotten）的這個希臘字，原意是「成為」或「開始」；既是所生的，就必定在時間上有一個開始；從時間的角度來說，是有窮盡，這也正是受造者的特征。在一切被造的以先一語，含有在被造界中居最高層次之意，高過天使，但不能超越被造的層次。敬拜受造之物就等於拜偶像，沒有任何天使或受造之物是值得我們敬拜的，因此亞流派認為，將神性歸給耶穌是褻瀆，是違背聖經中的一神論。亞流派認為神只有一位，無論在實存上或在位格上都只是一位。

尼西亞信經（Nicene Creed) 是教會對亞流派異端的回應。這信經承認耶穌是「為父神所生的，而非父神所造的」。教會用這短短的一句話，熱切地強調「所生」一詞並不包括任何被造的意味。

有些歷史學家批評尼西亞大會存有偏見，過度花工夫解釋「所生」這個字和「是首生的，在一切被造的以先」在希臘文中簡單而直接的含意。其實教會並非武斷使用這些簡單的字眼，教會把「非父神所造」的限制語加在「為父神所生」一詞上是有根據的。

第一，教會是由整本聖經對基督本質的教導去理解這些用語。教會相信新約聖經清楚確認基督的神性，並且也反對用一段經文去與其他經文對立。

第二，新約聖經雖是用希臘文寫成的，但其中大部分的思想型態和觀念都含有濃厚的希伯來意義，這些希伯來的觀念不過是藉希臘文為工具表達出來。這事實提醒我們，不要過分地倚重古典希臘文的精細解釋。例如，約翰用一個意義豐富的字眼道（logos) 來形容耶穌，但如果我們過分地將這詞在希臘文所包含的一切意義都應用在耶穌身上，便不恰當了。

第三，新約聖經使用所生這個字的方式是有講究的。約翰福音一章14節稱耶穌為那獨一者（新國際版之譯法）；一章18節稱耶穌為獨生子或那獨一之神（新國際版之譯法），又或作獨生之神。有些有份量的文稿顯示，希臘文原文是那獨生之神。如果人們肯接納那獨生之神這種譯法的話，爭論便解決了。但是如果我們只接受獨生子的譯法，我們還面對一點重要的講究，因耶穌被稱為獨生子（monogenais), 此字之字首的獨（mono-)在希臘文是很強的用語。這乃是說，耶穌的為父所生乃屬獨一無二的，也是絕無僅有的。沒有任何人或物的所生，是像耶穌那樣生的。教會稱基督的永遠生於父懷正是表明這事。子乃是永遠地從父而來，並不是受造物，而是三位一體中的第二位。

希伯來書論到耶穌時，也用了生一字（來1：5）。這卷書可能是新約聖經中提出最崇高的基督論的一卷書，在這方面，只有約翰福音能與它相比。因約翰曾清楚地稱耶穌為神，又稱基督為獨生子。

最後，「是首生的，在一切被造的以先」一語，應該按照第一世紀猶太文化的背景去理解。從這個角度出發，我們可以看到基督是首生的，乃是指基督身為父神的後嗣所具有高升的地位。長子如何承受先祖的產業，照樣，神聖之子的耶穌也承受了父神的國度為其產業。

總結

1. 耶穌被稱為父獨生子，又被稱作是首生的，在一切被造的以先，這些名稱在教會歷史上曾引起對基督神性的激烈爭論。

2. 耶和華見證人會和摩門教使用這些詞句來否認基督的神性。

3. 尼西亞信經清楚說明，耶穌是「父所生的，而非父神所造的」。此中細微的分別是新約確認耶穌神性的明證。

4. 耶穌被稱為父神的獨生子，祂的為父所生乃屬獨一無二的，祂不是受造物，而是永恒的獨一者，是三位一體中的第二位。

5. 首生一詞必須按照第一世紀猶太文化背景去理解。耶穌是首生的，在一切被造的以先，這是指衪是父神萬有的承受者。

思考經文：

約1：1-18；西1：15-19；𠂔1：1-14

Jesus Christ as only Begotten

That the Bible refers to Jesus as “the only begotten of the Father” (John1:14) has provoked great controversy in church history. Because Jesus is also called the “firstborn over all creation” (Colossians 1:15), it has been argued that the Bible teaches that Jesus is not divine, but an exalted

creature.

Both Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons deny the deity of Christ by appealing to these concepts. It is chiefly because of their denial of the deity of Christ that these two groups are regarded as sects rather than as bona fide Christian denominations.

The deity of Christ was a crucial issue in the fourth century when the heretic Arius denied the Trinity. Arius’s chief argument against the deity of Christ anticipated the arguments of modern Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. Arius was condemned as a heretic at the Council of Nicea in

A.D. 325.

Arius argued that the Greek word translated begotten means “to happen,” “to become,” “to start to be.” That which is begotten must have a beginning in time. It must be finite with respect to time, which is a sign of creatureliness. To be the “firstborn over all creation” suggests the supreme level of creatureliness, ranking higher than the angels, but it does not rise above the level of creature. To worship a creature is to commit idolatry.

No angel or any other creature is worthy of worship. Arius saw the attributing of deity to Jesus as a blasphemous rejection of biblical monotheism. For Arius God must be regarded as “one,” both in being and in person.

The Nicene Creed reflects the church’s response to the Arian heresy. It confesses that Jesus was “begotten, not made.” In this simple formula the church was zealous to guard against the idea of interpreting the term begotten to mean or to imply creatureliness.

Some historians have faulted the Council of Nicea for engaging in special pleading or mental gymnastics to evade the plain and simple meaning of the Greek word begotten and the phrase “firstborn over all creation.” The church, however, did not flee from the simple meaning of these terms in an arbitrary manner. There was justifiable grounds for fencing their term begotten with the qualifier “not made.”

First, the church was seeking to understand these terms in the total context of the biblical teaching concerning the nature of Christ. Being persuaded that the New Testament clearly ascribes deity to Christ, the church was against setting one part of Scripture against another.

Second, although the New Testament was written in the Greek language, most of the thought forms and concepts are loaded with Hebrew meanings.

The Hebrew concepts are expressed through the vehicle of the Greek language. This fact sounds a warning against leaning too heavily upon tight nuances of classical Greek. Just as John uses the loaded term logos to refer to Jesus, it would be a mistake to fill that term exclusively with the

Greek ideas associated with the use of the word.

Third, the term begotten is used in a qualified way in the New Testament. In John 1:14 Jesus is referred to as the “only begotten.” Again in John 1:18 He is called the “only begotten Son.” There is significant manuscript evidence that suggests that the original Greek read “only begotten God.”

Had that text been accepted the debate would be over. However, if we treat the text as reading “only begotten Son,” we still have a crucial qualifier. Jesus is called the only begotten (monogenais). The prefix monois stronger in Greek than the word only is in English. Jesus is absolutely singular in his begottenness. He is uniquely begotten. No one or nothing else is begotten in the sense Jesus is begotten. That the church can speak of Christ’s eternal begottenness is an attempt to do justice to this. The Son proceeds eternally from the Father, not as a creature, but as the Second Person of the Trinity.

The book of Hebrews, which also refers to Jesus as “begotten” (Hebrews 1:5), is the epistle that gives us perhaps the highest Christology to be found in the New Testament. The only book in the New Testament that rivals Hebrews in this regard is the Gospel of John. It is John who clearly calls Jesus “God.” It is also John who speaks of Christ as the “only begotten.”

Finally, the phrase “firstborn over all creation” must be understood from the background of first-century Jewish culture. From this vantage point we can see that the term firstborn refers to Christ’s exalted status as the heir of the Father. Just as the firstborn son usually received the patriarchal inheritance, so Jesus as the divine Son receives the Father’s kingdom as His inheritance.

Summary

1. That Jesus is called “the only begotten of the Father” and “firstborn over all creation” has sparked controversy in church history over the deity of Christ.

2. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons use these passages to deny the deity of Christ.

3. The Nicene Creed clearly spelled out that Jesus was “begotten, not made.” This careful distinction was a reflection of the New Testament’s affirmation of Christ’s deity.

4. Jesus is called “the only begotten” of the Father. Jesus is uniquely begotten of the Father, not as a creature, but as the eternal Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity.

5. The term firstborn must be understood from a first-century Jewish background. Jesus is the “firstborn over all creation” in the sense that He is the heir of all that belongs to the Father.

Biblical passages for reflection:

John 1:1-18

Colossians 1:15-19

Hebrews 1:1-14

耶穌為童女所生   The Virgin Birth

作者: 史鮑爾 (R.C. Sproul) 譯者: 姚錦榮

摘自《神學入門》《Essential Truths of the Christian Faith》P77 ,更新傳道會出版http://www.crmnj.org/

耶穌為童女所生的教義，指出耶穌的出生是神跡性受孕的結果：童女馬利亞靠著聖靈的能力，無需為人父者，懷了一嬰孩。基督這神跡性的誕生，正證明了祂擁有與眾不同的本質。祂由女子所生，這說明了祂具有人性，是我們中間的一份子，但又和我們不完全相同，我們是帶著原罪出生，但基督沒有原罪。

耶穌為童女所生一事也和基督的神性有關。雖然神也可以循別的方法進入世界，但這神跡卻顯明了基督的神性。天使迦百列向馬利亞的宣告，顯明了這一點，當天使告訴馬利亞，她將要生子時，馬利亞十分困惑地對天使說：「我沒有出嫁，怎麽有這事呢？」（路1：34)

迦百列對馬利亞的回答，使我們對童女生子一事有了更確切的理解：「聖靈要臨到你身上，至高者的能力要蔭庇你，因此所要生的聖者必稱為神的兒子」（路1：35)，接著，天使又說：「因為出於神的話，沒有一句不帶能力的。」（路1：37)

現代科學化的人工受孕，是非神跡式的一種受孕方式。一般來說，除了人工受孕外，一個胎兒的成形，只要透過正常普通的肉體關系就會發生，這是很平常的事。如果一位女子未與男子發生性交而受孕，這不但違反了生物現象，而且顯然違反了自然定律。

馬利亞的孩子不是單由馬利亞而生的，孩子的「父親」是聖靈。路加福音說到，聖靈臨到馬利亞身上，祂的能力蔭庇她，這正回應了聖靈在創世時借著運行而成就的工作，也說明了這個嬰孩的出生是特別的，祂的父親是神自己。

通常不相信耶穌為童女所生的人，也不會相信耶穌是真神的兒子，因此之故，耶穌為童女所生可視為一個分水嶺的教義，將正統信仰的基督徒與不信耶穌覆活與救贖的人，分離開來。

總結

1．聖經清楚且毫不含糊地教導童女生子的教義。

2．耶穌從女子所生的事實顯明耶穌的人性，和耶穌是新的亞當和第二個亞當。

3．耶穌並非從具人性的父親所生，這顯明了祂擁有神兒子的神性本質。

4．不相信耶穌為童女所生的人，通常也不會相信聖經中超自然或神跡性的成分。

思考經文：

賽7：10-16；太1：23；羅1：3-4：林前15：45：-49；加4：4

The Virgin Birth

The doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Jesus holds that Jesus' birth was the result of a miraculous conception whereby the Virgin Mary conceived a baby in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit, without a human father. Christ's miraculous birth tells us much about his nature. That He was born of woman demonstrates that He was indeed human and became one of us. Christ's humanity, however, was not precisely the same as our own. We are born with original sin, Christ was not.

The Virgin Birth also relates to the deity of Christ. While it is certainly possible for Deity to enter the world in a manner other than a virgin birth, the miracle of his birth points to Christ's divinity. The announcement of the angel Gabriel to Mary underscores this point. When he told Mary she would have a son, Mary was perplexed: "How can this be, since I do not know a man?" (Luke 1:34).

Gabriel's answer to Mary is of decisive significance for our understanding of the Virgin Birth: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). Moments later the angel added, "For with God nothing will be impossible" (Luke 1:37).

Aside from artificial insemination, which is a modern, non-miraculous variation on conception, nothing is more regular or commonplace in nature than the normal causal relationship for the conception of a baby. For a woman to become pregnant who has not had sexual intercourse with a man is not only biologically extraordinary, it is clearly against the laws of nature.

But Mary's child was not generated by Mary, herself. The "father" of the baby is the Holy Spirit. The language of the Spirit's coming upon Mary and "overshadowing" her echoes the descriptive account of the Holy Spirit's work in the original creation of the world. It reveals that this baby will be a special creation with His father being God Himself.

Those who do not believe in the Virgin Birth usually do not believe that Jesus is the true Son of God. Thus, the Virgin Birth is a watershed doctrine, separating orthodox Christians from those who do not believe in the Resurrection and Atonement.

1.         The Bible plainly and unambiguously teaches the Virgin Birth.

2.         The birth of Jesus from a woman points to His humanity and His appearance as the new or second Adam.

3.         That Jesus was born apart from human fatherhood points to His divine nature as the Son of God.

4.         The denial of the Virgin Birth is usually linked to the denial of the supernatural or miraculous elements of Scripture.

基督的無罪   The Sinlessness of Christ

作者: 史鮑爾 (R.C. Sproul) 譯者: 姚錦榮

摘自《神學入門》《Essential Truths of the Christian Faith》P77 ,更新傳道會出版http://www.crmnj.org/

論到基督的無罪，我們其實是針對基督的人性說的，因我們沒有必要證明基督的神性是無罪的，因為按定義說，神性是不可能犯罪，也是不會犯罪的。基督無罪的教義從來也沒有引起過任何基本性的爭論，甚至連歷史上最愚蠢的異端，也不會否定基督的無罪。

基督的無罪並不單是為了要成為我們的榜樣；對我們的救恩而言，這一點也是基要和必須的。基督若不是「無瑕疵的羔羊」，祂不但不能為任何人取得救恩，連祂本身也需要一位救主。基督在十字架上所擔當多重的罪，需要一個完全的祭物，此祭物須由一位無罪的人來成就。

基督的無罪有消極和積極兩方面的意義。消極方面來說，是指基督全然不犯罪：祂沒有違背任何神聖的律法，祂一絲不茍地遵守神所吩咐的一切話。祂雖然無罪，卻遵守猶太的律法，受割禮、受洗禮、甚至獻上祭物。積極方面來說，則是指基督非常樂意順從律法：祂戮力遵行父神的旨意，聖經記載，祂為父的殿心裏焦急，如同火燒（約2：17），並且祂的食物就是遵行父神的旨意（約4：34）。

有一段有關基督無罪的經文很難解釋，那就是希伯來書四章15節：「因為我們的大祭司並不是不能同情我們的軟弱，他像我們一樣，也曾在各方面受過試探，只是他沒有犯罪。」如果基督與我們一樣，也受過試探，祂怎麽能夠算是無罪的呢？尤其當我們讀到雅各書一章14至15節：「各人被試探，乃是被自己的私慾牽引、誘惑的。私慾既懷了胎，就生出罪來；罪既長成，就生出死來。」這個問題就變得更大了。

雅各形容有一種試探是由我們裏面罪的私欲引起的，這私欲的本質就是罪。如果耶穌也像我們一樣地受試探，這好像是說，耶穌也有罪欲，但這也正是希伯來書論及衪有資格赦罪的原因------「只是他沒有犯罪」。不錯耶穌有欲望，但不是犯罪的欲望。當祂受撒旦試探的時候，引誘是從外面來的，是撒旦誘惑耶穌在禁食時吃東西。耶穌確實有肉身的饑餓，祂想吃食物，但饑餓本身並不是罪。耶穌與人人相同的一奌是，耶穌也會想吃，但耶穌與人人不同的是，祂一心一意順服父神，祂沒有犯罪的欲望。

因為耶穌沒有罪，所以祂有資格成為我們的罪成為完美的祭物。但我們的救恩需要救贖的兩面：耶穌不單必須作我們的代替者，為我們的罪接受刑罰；同時祂也必須完全地滿足神的律法要求，為我們得著領受聖約下祝福所必須有的功德。耶穌不單死了：完美的代替不完美的，無罪的代替有罪的；同時，祂也活出了我們的救恩所需要的完美順服的生活。

總結

1. 基督的無罪是我們救恩所不可少的必要條件。

2. 耶穌以無瑕疵之羔羊的身分完成了救贖。

3. 基督所受的試探，不是因罪欲引起的。

4. 耶穌藉著完全順服，使我們得著得救所需的義。

思考經文：

太3：15；羅5：18-21；林後5：21；來7：26；彼前3：18

The Sinlessness of Christ

When we speak of Christ's sinlessness we generally refer to His humanity. It is unnecessary to plead the sinlessness of Christ's deity, as deity by our definition cannot and does not sin. The doctrine of Christ's sinlessness has been free of any fundamental controversy. Even the most crass heretics in history have not denied this of Christ.

The sinlessness of Christ does not merely serve as an example to us. It is fundamental and necessary for our salvation. Had Christ not been the "lamb without blemish" He not only could not have secured anyone's salvation, but would have needed a savior Himself. The multiple sins Christ bore on the cross required a perfect sacrifice. That sacrifice had to be made by one who was sinless.

Christ's sinlessness had negative and positive aspects to it. Negatively, Christ was completely free of any transgression. He broke none of God's holy law. He scrupulously obeyed whatsoever God commanded. Despite His sinlessness, Christ even obeyed Jewish law, submitting to circumcision, baptism, and perhaps even the system of animal sacrifice. Positively, Christ was eager to obey the law; He was committed to doing the will of His Father. It was said of Him that zeal for His Father's house consumed Him (John 2:17) and that His meat was to do the will of His Father (John 4:34).

One difficulty concerning the sinlessness of Christ is related to Hebrews 4:15: "For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin." If Christ was tempted as we are, how could He have been sinless? The problem becomes even greater when we read James 1:14-15: "But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death."

James describes a kind of temptation that arises from sinful desires within us. These desires are already sinful in nature. If Jesus was tempted as we are tempted it would seem to suggest that He had sinful desires. Yet this is precisely the point of the qualifier "yet without sin" in the book of Hebrews. Jesus had desires. But he had no sinful desires. When He was tempted by Satan the assault came from the outside. It was an external temptation. Satan tried to entice Jesus to eat during His period of fasting. Jesus surely had physical hunger; He had a desire for food. Yet there was no sin in being hungry. All things being equal, Jesus wanted to eat. But all things were not equal. Jesus was committed to obeying the will of the Father. He had no desire to sin.

It was by His sinlessness that Jesus qualified Himself as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. However, our salvation requires two aspects of redemption. It was not only necessary for Jesus to be our substitute and receive the punishment due for our sins; He also had to fulfill the law of God perfectly to secure the merit necessary for us to receive the blessings of God's covenant. Jesus not only died as the perfect for the imperfect, the sinless for the sinful, but He lived the life of perfect obedience required for our salvation.

1.         The sinlessness of Christ is necessary for our salvation.

2.         Jesus made atonement as the Lamb without blemish.

3.         Christ was not tempted by sinful desires.

4.         By His perfect obedience Jesus supplied the righteousness (merit) we require to be saved.

基督的人性 The Humanity of Christ

作者: 史鮑爾 (R.C. Sproul) 譯者: 姚錦榮

摘自《神學入門》《Essential Truths of the Christian Faith》P75 ,更新傳道會出版http://www.crmnj.org/

神的兒子取了真正的人性，這是具有歷史性之基督教中一項極重要的教義。主後四五一年的迦克墩大會，肯定了耶穌是真人也是真神，並肯定了基督的神人二性是不可混合、不可混淆、不可分離、不可分裂的，而且這兩種本性都有其特有的屬性。

耶穌具有真正人性的教義主要曾遭到兩方面的攻擊。初期教會必須與幻影派（docetism)的異端對抗，此派認為耶穌並沒有真正的肉身，或真正的人性，他們說耶穌只是「好像」擁有身體，但實施上祂只是一個幽靈。使徒約翰針對此說，強烈地指明那些否認耶穌真正具有肉身的，就是敵基督。

初期教會所需要對抗的另一個異端是基督一性論派（monophysite), 此派認為耶穌並非擁有神人二性，而只有一性；此性既非真正的神性，也非真正的人性，而是一種神人混合的本性，即所謂的神人一體（the-anthropism)。基督一性論派的異端主㢳，基督不是具有神性化的人性，就是具有人性化的神性。

基督一性論派的異端在每個時代都有，它以不易察覺的方式危害教會。此說的傾向是讓人相信耶穌的神性呑蝕了祂的人性，並以此說來消除耶穌的人性所帶給祂的真正限制。

我們必須能區分基督的二性，卻又能不將它們分離。例如，當耶穌饑餓時，這是祂的人性，而不是神性的表現，祂身上的神性和人性都是確實存在的。又如，神人基督在十字架上死了，這並不是說神在十字架上被消滅了；雖然基督的神人二性在衪升天後仍是聯合的，但我們必須區分祂與我們同在時所具有的二種本性。就祂的人性而言，今天基督不再與我們同在，但是衪卻以祂的神性未曾與我們須臾分離。

基督的人性與我們的人性相仿。衪為我們的緣故成為人，並進入我們的處境中，作我們的救贖主。祂成為我們的替代，自己背負我們的罪惡，好站在我們的地位受苦。祂代表我們滿足神的律法。

救贖是雙向的交換：我們的罪歸在耶穌身上，耶穌的義則歸在我們身上。耶穌因我們不完全的人性而受到審判，我們則因耶穌完全的人性而領受祝福。具人性的耶穌，受到所有人類共同有的限制，只是祂沒有犯罪。具人性的耶穌並不是無所不知的，當時的祂雖然擁有真正而確實的知識，但這知識不是無限的。有一些事是祂自己也不知道的，例如，祂就不知道自己再來的日子、時刻。但具神性的耶穌卻是無所不知的，衪的知識也是無限的。

身為人子，耶穌受到時空的限制。就像其他人一樣，衪不可能同時出現在不同的地方；祂會流汗，會覺得餓，會流淚，會感受痛苦，會死亡。在這些方面，祂與我們是一樣的。

總結

1. 耶穌具有真正的人性，這人性與祂的神性完美地結合在祂身上。

2. 「幻影派」認為，耶穌沒有一個真正的肉身。

3. 「基督一性論派」的異端把基督的人性神性化，且認為基督的神性吞蝕了祂的人性。

4. 基督的人性是祂與我們認同的基礎。

5. 基督擔當了我們的罪，又將衪的義歸給我們。

6. 基督的人性使祂受到一般人性所帶來的限制，只是衪沒有犯罪。

思考經文

約1：1-14；加4：4；腓2：5-11；來2：14-18；來4：15

The Humanity of Christ

That God the Son took upon Himself a real human nature is a crucial doctrine of historic Christianity. The great ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 affirmed that Jesus is truly man and truly God and that the two natures of Christ are so united as to be without mixture, confusion, separation, or division, each nature retaining its own attributes.

The true humanity of Jesus has been assaulted chiefly in two ways. The early church had to combat the heresy of docetism, which taught that Jesus did not have a real physical body or a true human nature. They argued that Jesus only "seemed" to have a body but in reality was a phantom sort of being. Over against this, John strongly declared that those who denied that Jesus came truly in the flesh are of the Antichrist.

The other major heresy the church rejected was the monophysite heresy. This heresy argued that Jesus did not have two natures, but one. This single nature was neither truly divine nor truly human but a mixture of the two. It was called a "theanthropic" nature. The mono-physite heresy involves either a deified human nature or a humanized divine nature.

Subtle forms of the monophysite heresy threaten the church in every generation. The tendency is toward allowing the human nature to be swallowed up by the divine nature in such a way as to remove the real limitations of Jesus' humanity.

We must distinguish between the two natures of Jesus without separating them. When Jesus hungers, for example, we see that as a manifestation of the human nature, not the divine. What is said of the divine nature or of the human nature may be affirmed of the person. On the cross for example, Christ, the God-man, died. This, however, is not to say that God perished on the cross. Though the two natures remain united after Christ's ascension, we must still distinguish the natures regarding the mode of His presence with us. Concerning His human nature, Christ is no longer present with us. However, in His divine nature, Christ is never absent from us.

Christ's humanity was like ours. He became a man "for our sakes." He entered into our situation to act as our Redeemer. He became our substitute, taking upon Himself our sins in order to suffer in our place. He also became our champion, fulfilling the law of God on our behalf.

In redemption there is a twofold exchange. Our sins are imparted to Jesus. His righteousness is imparted to us. He receives the judgment due to our imperfect humanity, while we receive the blessing due to His perfect humanity. In His humanity Jesus had the same limitations common to all human beings, except that He was without sin. In His human nature He was not omniscient. His knowledge, though true and accurate as far as it went, was not infinite. There were things He did not know such as the day and the hour of His return to earth. Of course in His divine nature He is omniscient and His knowledge is without limit.

As a human being Jesus was restricted by time and space. Like all human beings He could not be in more than one place at the same time. He sweated. He hungered. He wept. He endured pain. He was mortal, capable of suffering death. In all these respects He was like us.

1.         Jesus had a true human nature that was perfectly united with His divine nature.

2.         Docetism said that Jesus did not have a real physical body.

3.         The monophysite heresy involves the deification of the human nature by which His humanity is eclipsed by His deity.

4.         Christ's humanity is the basis of His identification with us.

5.         Jesus took our sins upon Himself and imparts His righteousness to us.

6.         Jesus' human nature had the limitations of normal humanity, except that He was without sin.