對摩西之約的一些看法
Some
thoughts on the Mosaic Covenant
作者：Scott Swain（RTS, 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7～21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（創十七7～8）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（約一16～17）。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；參：卅1～10），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；同廿一18～23）。
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（羅五12～21）。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。」（羅八3～4）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
