古老釋經法的四大原則
Four Principles of Older
Hermeneutics
作者：Richard C.
Barcellos 誠之編譯自：
http://www.rbap.net/four-principles-of-older-hermeneutics/
https://yimawusi.net/2021/02/03/%e5%8f%a4%e8%80%81%e9%87%8b%e7%b6%93%e6%b3%95%e7%9a%84%e5%9b%9b%e5%a4%a7%e5%8e%9f%e5%89%87%ef%bc%88richard-c-barcellos%ef%bc%89/
一、聖靈是聖經唯一無謬誤的詮釋者
1 The Holy Spirit is the Only Infallible
Interpreter of Holy Scripture.
舉例來說，約翰·歐文說道，「聖經唯一獨特的、公眾的、真實的、無謬誤的詮釋者就是聖經的作者自己……即聖靈。」（註1）尼希米·柯西（Nehemiah Coxe）說，「……《舊約》的最佳詮釋者是在《新約》裏對我們說話的聖靈。」（註2）這意思是他們認為聖經對自己的詮釋和應用是無謬誤的，存放在聖經裏的詮釋原則也是無謬誤的。無論聖經用什麼形式（例如：直接引用，暗指，呼應，或者是在《舊約》或《新約》裏的應驗）來註解自己，或使用自己，都是上帝自己的詮釋，因此是上帝對經文應該如何被人領悟的看法。這往往意味著後來的經文會光照先前的經文。這不只是在《新約》對《舊約》的引用時才會發生，也發生在《舊約》自己身上。或者，我們可以這樣說：後來的啟示經常會讓先前啟示中隱藏的事理變得明確（註3）。
As an example of this principle, John Owen says,
“The only unique, public, authentic, and infallible interpreter of Scripture is
none other than the Author of Scripture Himself . . . that is, God the Holy
Spirit.”[1] Nehemiah Coxe says, “. . . the best interpreter of the Old
Testament is the Holy Spirit speaking to us in the new.”[2] This meant that
they saw the Bible’s interpretation and use of itself as infallible and with
interpretive principles embedded in it. When the Bible comments upon, or
utilizes itself in any fashion (e.g., direct quotation, allusion, echo, or
fulfillment in the OT or NT), it is God’s interpretation and, therefore, the
divine understanding of how texts should be understood by men. This often means
that later texts shed interpretive light on earlier texts. This occurs not only
when the New Testament uses the Old Testament, but it occurs in the Old
Testament itself. Or, we could put it this way: subsequent revelation often
makes explicit what is implicit in antecedent revelation.[3]
註：[1] John Owen,
Biblical Theology or The Nature, Origin, Development, and Study of Theological
Truth in Six Books (Pittsburgh, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1994), 797.
[2]
Coxe and Owen, Covenant Theology, 36.
[3]
See Vern S. Poythress, “Biblical Hermeneutics,” in Seeing Christ in all of
Scripture: Hermeneutics at Westminster Theological Seminary, ed. Peter A.
Lillback (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Seminary Press, 2016), 14, where he
says: “The later communications build on the earlier. What is implicit in the
earlier often becomes explicit in the later.”
二、聖經的類比（The Analogy of the
Scriptures [Analogia Scripturae]）
2 The Analogy of the Scriptures (Analogia
Scripturae)
穆勒（Richard A. Muller）如此定義「聖經的類比」：「如果有兩段指著相同教導或事件的經文，要用對比的方法，讓那段清楚的、不模棱兩可的經文，來解釋那段比較不清楚的、比較含糊的經文。」（註1）舉例來說，我們可以用馬太福音來幫助我們明白馬可福音中處理相同主題的經文。這個原則和第一個原則一樣，都顯然預設了聖經是上帝所默示的。
Here is Richard A. Muller’s definition of analogia
Scripturae: “the interpretation of unclear, difficult, or ambiguous passages of
Scripture by comparison with clear and unambiguous passages that refer to the
same teaching or event.”[1] An example of this would be utilizing a passage in
Matthew to help understand a passage dealing with the same subject in Mark.
This principle, as with the first one, obviously presupposes the divine
inspiration of Scripture.
「聖經的類比」這個原則，就具備了信條的地位：「解釋聖經唯一不會有謬誤的原則，就是以經解經。」（1689，倫敦第二信條[2LCF]， 1.9；譯按：同西敏信條，1.9）
The principle of analogia Scripturae gained
confessional status as follows: “The infallible rule of interpretation of
scripture is the scripture itself . . .” (2LCF 1.9).
註：[1] Richard A.
Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1985, Second printing, September 1986), 33; emphasis added.
三、信仰的類比（The Analogy of
Faith [Analogia Fidei]）
3 The Analogy of Faith (Analogia Fidei)
穆勒如此定義「信仰的類比」：「用經文意義的整體觀念（這是從清楚、不含糊的地方得出的），作為解釋不清楚或意義含糊的經文的根據。和更基本的『聖經的類比』不同的是，信仰的類比預設了聖經的神學意義。」（註1）
Muller defines analogia fidei as follows: the use
of a general sense of the meaning of Scripture, constructed from the clear or
unambiguous loci [i.e., places] . . ., as the basis for interpreting unclear or
ambiguous texts. As distinct from the more basic analogia Scripturae . . ., the
analogia fidei presupposes a sense of the theological meaning of Scripture.[1]
這個原則一直以來沒有被人正確理解。例如，華德·凱瑟（Walter C. Kaiser Jr.）沒有正確區分聖經的類比和信仰的類比之間的差異，提倡他所謂的「（先前）經文的類比」（註2）。在分析信仰的類比時，他說道，「我們在這裏的問題是，究竟信仰的類比對所有的經文來說，是不是一個可以『（神學上的）芝麻開門』的釋經工具。」（註3）在討論他的「（先前）經文的類比」的提議時，凱瑟自信地論到：
This principle has not always been understood
properly. For example, Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. fails to distinguish properly
between analogia Scripturae and analogia fidei and advocates what he calls “The
Analogy of (Antecedent) Scripture.”[2] While analyzing the principle of the
analogy of faith, he says, “Our problem here is whether the analogy of faith is
a hermeneutical tool that is ‘open [theological] sesame’ for every passage of
Scripture.”[3] While discussing his proposal for “The Analogy of (Antecedent)
Scripture,” Kaiser confidently asserts:
「當然絕大多數的註釋家會看到，把我們的神學觀察局限在那些在正確解釋經文的情形下所得出的結論，也局限在在這段經文之前就已經出現的經文，是有智慧、有理智的做法。」（註4）
Surely most interpreters will see the wisdom and
good sense in limiting our theological observations to conclusions drawn from
the text being exegeted and from texts which preceded it in time.[4]
在他的討論的結尾，他說道：
In the conclusion to his discussion, he says:
「不過，在任何情況下，後來的教導都不能在解經上（或任何其他的方法）被用來解釋個別經文的意義或提高個別經文的實用性，而這是我們的研究目標。」（註5）
However, in no case must that later teaching be
used exegetically (or in any other way) to unpack the meaning or to enhance the
usability of the individual text which is the object of our study.[5]
最壞的情況，這是否認教會歷史對信仰類比的理解，最好的情況，也只是對這個原則一個毫無幫助且危險的修正。比如說，這意味著我們不能使用創世記一～三章以外的經文來幫助我們解讀這三章經文。因為在創世記一～三章之前沒有出現其他經文，解經者就無法得知上帝如何使用後來的經文，也無法得知上帝後來的解釋，來幫助我們明白這些章節。這個方法最終會自食惡果，因為當我們思考創世記（或聖經其他書卷）時就會發現，創世記從來沒有要成為孤立的書卷（註6）。還有，聖經自己（舊約和新約）都對先前的經文加以評註，幫助讀者明白這些經文中，上帝的意圖是什麼。凱瑟的方法似乎是在暗示，一段特定經文的解釋必須在彷彿沒有後來聖經經文的情況下來進行。我們必須明白，在某種意義上，我們擁有聖經作者所沒有的優勢——我們擁有已經完成的正典。但是我們也必須明白，聖經對自己的用法（無論何時、無論用什麼方法）都是無謬誤的。若是如此，解經（使用該經文之外的一些工具）就必需參考一切可能有用的工具，包括聖經如何註解自己，無論這個註釋出現在哪裏，或是如何註解的。倘若聖靈是聖經唯一無謬誤的解釋者，解經就理當要使用在創世記以外的經文來幫助我們明白。依我看來，凱瑟的建議似乎是授權給我們去參考有誤的創世記註釋，來幫助我們解讀它，卻拒絕我們可以使用聖經本身（包含了上帝所默示的、無謬誤的註釋）來達到相同的目的。
This is, at worst, a denial of the historic
understanding of analogia fidei and, at best, a very unhelpful and dangerous modification
of the principle. This would mean, for example, that we cannot utilize anything
in the Bible outside of Genesis 1-3 to help us interpret it. Since there is
nothing in the Bible antecedent to Genesis 1-3, interpreters are left with no
subsequent divine use, no subsequent divine explanation of how to understand
those chapters. This method ends up defeating itself when we consider that
Genesis (and all other books of the Bible) was never intended to stand on its
own.[6] As well, the Bible itself (OT and NT) comments on antecedent texts,
helping its readers understand the divine intention of those texts. Kaiser’s
method seems to imply that the exegesis of a given biblical text is to be
conducted as if no subsequent biblical texts exist. We must realize that, in
one sense, we have an advantage that the biblical writers did not have—we have
a completed canon. But we must also realize that the Bible’s use of itself
(whenever and however this occurs) is infallible. If this is so, then the
exegete, using tools outside of the biblical text under consideration, ought to
consult all possible useful tools, which includes how the Bible comments upon
itself no matter where or how it does so. If the Holy Spirit is the only
infallible interpreter of Holy Scripture, then certainly exegetes ought to
utilize biblical texts outside of Genesis to aid in the understanding of it. It
seems to me that Kaiser’s proposal would give warrant for exegetes to consult
fallible commentaries on Genesis to aid in its interpretation, but deny the use
of the Bible itself (which contains inspired and infallible commentary) to that
same end.
一個正確理解並使用信仰類比的例子是辨識創世記第三章裏出現的蛇。我們可以用十足的把握說，那蛇就是魔鬼，即撒但。我們知道這點是因為上帝透過後來的經文告訴了我們。啟示錄十二章9節說：「大龍就是那古蛇，名叫魔鬼，又叫撒但，是迷惑普天下的。」二十章2節說：「他捉住那龍，就是古蛇，又叫魔鬼，也叫撒但」。因此，根據信仰的類比，我們可以確定創世記第三章的蛇就是魔鬼，即撒但。
An example of the proper understanding and use of
the analogy of faith would be identifying the serpent of Genesis 3. We can say
with utter certainty that the serpent is the devil and Satan. We know this
because God tells us via subsequent Scripture in Revelation 12:9, “And the
great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and
Satan” and 20:2, “And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is
the devil and Satan.” So, according to the analogy of faith, we can affirm that
the serpent of Genesis 3 is the devil and Satan.
那受聖靈默示的、無謬誤的信仰準則就是整本聖經，每一部分的經文都必須根據經文整體的神學來理解。這會保證當我們在看經文個別的樹木時，不會丟掉經文的整個神學森林。這會讓我們避免用經文彙編的方式來研究神學，把字義研究作為解釋聖經的唯一目的，並依靠使用同樣字詞的經文，從中得出神學結論。這些方法往往沒有根據經文出現背景的各個階層（即短句，字句，句子，段落，書卷，作者，《新約》還是《舊約》，整部正典）來考慮經文（或字詞）的意義。信仰類比的原則也向我們保證，當我們想要明白聖經的任何經文時（例如，創世記第一～三章），在釋經過程中，聖經的所有經文都是可以引用的。或者我們可以這樣說：每一節經文的語境都是全部的聖經經文。
The inspired and infallible rule of faith is the
whole of Scripture, whose textual parts must be understood in light of its
textual-theological whole. This insures that the theological forest is not lost
for the individual textual trees. It should keep us from doing theology concordance-style,
doing word-studies as an end-all to interpretation, and counting texts that use
the same words and drawing theological conclusions from it. These methods often
do not consider the meaning of the text (or word) under investigation in light
of the various levels of context (i.e., phrase, clause, sentence, pericope,
book, author, testament, canon) in which it occurs. The principle of the
analogy of faith also warrants that, when we are seeking to understand any text
of Scripture (e.g., Gen. 1-3), all texts of Scripture are fair game in the
interpretive process. Or it could be stated this way: the context of every
biblical text is all biblical texts.
「信仰的類比」這個原則，如此得到了信條的地位：
The principle of analogia fidei gained confessional
status as follows:
「解釋聖經唯一不會有謬誤的原則，就是以經解經。所以，當我們對任何一處聖經的真實完整意義（每處聖經都只有一個含義，而沒有多種含義）有疑問時，就當查考聖經其他比較清楚的經文，以明白其真義。」（1689，倫敦第二信條[2LCF]，
1.9；譯按：同西敏信條，1.9）
The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture
is the scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true
and full sense of any scripture, (which is not manifold, but one,) it must be
searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. (2LCF 1.9)
註：[1] Muller,
Dictionary, 33.
[2]
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward An Exegetical Theology (1981; reprint, Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, Sixth printing, January 1987), 134ff.
[3]
Kaiser, Toward An Exegetical Theology, 135; bracketed word original.
[4]
Kaiser, Toward An Exegetical Theology, 137.
[5]
Kaiser, Toward An Exegetical Theology, 140; emphasis original.
[6]
The OT is not an end itself; it is heading somewhere and demands answers to
various issues left unfulfilled. It sets the stage for God’s future acts of
redemption and assumes that God will follow his redemptive acts with
corresponding redemptive-revelational words. The OT cannot stand on its own; it
is an open-ended book and must be interpreted as such. The NT provides the rest
of the story. See Dennis E. Johnson, Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All
the Scriptures (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2007), 160, n. 51, where
he takes Kaiser to task for claiming that the OT can stand on its own. In
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament: A Guide
for the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 27, he claims: “The Old Testament
can stand on its own, for it has done so both in the pre-Christian and the
early Christian centuries.” Johnson replies: “As will be argued in Chapter 6,
the preacher to the Hebrews saw in the Old Testament Scriptures themselves
various indications that the Old Testament and its institutions could not
‘stand on their own[‘] but testified to a better, more ‘perfect’ order to
come.” Johnson’s book is highly recommended. Reading and interpreting the OT on
its own is like reading the Gospels without the Epistles, the Epistles without
the Gospels, the Prophets without the Pentateuch, the Pentateuch without the
Prophets, and the NT without the OT. Kaiser’s position seems to entail reading
and interpreting the OT without the New. If this is the case, it would give the
appearance of over-emphasizing the human authorial element of Holy Scripture.
The apostle Peter informs us, concerning the writing prophets of the OT: “It
was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these
things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the
gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long
to look” (1 Pet. 1:12). The prophets wrote with a future-oriented messianic
consciousness. What they predicted happened when our Lord came and the NT
interprets our Lord in light of the OT.
四、聖經的要旨（The Scope of the
Scriptures [Scopus Scripturae] ）
4 The
Scope of the Scriptures (Scopus Scripturae)
「以基督為中心」（Christ-centered and
Christocentric）這類的語詞，在我們這個時代經常被人使用。但是這些語詞是什麼意思呢？拉丁文片語Scopus Scripturae（即經文的要旨），精準地涵蓋了這些語詞所指向的概念，即整本聖經所關心的目標或目的，這是老式的稱呼這個概念的方法。這個概念也在威斯敏斯特信仰告白，倫敦第二信條[2LCF]中得到了信條的地位。在這兩個信條的第一章第5條論及聖經時說到，「……整體的要旨（將一切榮耀歸給上帝）……」。
Terms such as
Christ-centered and Christocentric are used often in our day. But what do they
mean? The older way of naming the concept these terms point to, the target or
end to which the entirety of the Bible tends, is encapsulated by the Latin
phrase scopus Scripturae (i.e.,
the scope of the Scriptures). This concept gained confessional status in the
WCF, the SD, and the 2LCF in 1.5, which, speaking of Holy Scripture, say, “. .
. the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God) . . .”
宗教改革和後宗教改革的改革宗神學家是以兩種意義來理解「要旨」（scope）這個詞的。狹義的意義，即一段經文的要旨，其基本的旨趣；但是還有較廣的含義，即所有經文所關切的目標或靶心。（註1）我們的焦點也會放在這第二個含義上。
Reformation and
post-Reformation Reformed theologians understood scope in two senses. It had a
narrow sense—i.e., the scope of a given text or passage, its basic thrust—but
it also had a wider sense—i.e., the target or bull’s eye to which all of
Scripture tends.[1] It is to this second sense that we will give our
attention.
這裏所謂的要旨，是指整本正典啟示的中心或標的，是整本聖經所指向的。無論這是什麼，都必須成為我們解釋聖經的任何一部分和所有部分的條件。對十七世紀的聖約神學家來說，聖經的主旨是道成肉身的神的兒子的救贖工作中所顯出的上帝的榮耀。（註2）他們對聖經主旨的結論，本身就是從聖經而來的，而不是從外頭帶到聖經裏頭的前提預設，而它也掌控了接下來的所有解釋。
Scope, in the sense
intended here, refers to the center or target of the entire canonical revelation;
it is that to which the entire Bible points. And whatever that is, it must
condition our interpretation of any and every part of Scripture. For the
federal or covenant theologians of the seventeenth century, the scope of
Scripture was the glory of God in the redemptive work of the incarnate Son of
God.[2] Their view of the scope of Scripture was itself
a conclusion from Scripture, not a presupposition brought to it, and it
conditioned all subsequent interpretation.
比方說，威廉·阿穆斯（William Ames）說，「《舊約》和《新約》可以被化約為這兩個主要的標題：舊約應許基督要來，而新約證實祂已經來了。」（註3）同樣，約翰·歐文說，「基督……是整本聖經的主要目的……」（註4）他在其他地方則繼續說到：
William Ames, for
example, said, “The Old and New Testaments are reducible to these two primary
heads. The Old promises Christ to come and the New testifies that he has come.”[3] Likewise, John Owen said, “Christ is . . . the
principal end of the whole of Scripture . . .”[4] He continues elsewhere:
「在我們讀聖經時，這個原則必須時時刻刻留在我們的腦海裏，也就是說，基督的位格和祂的職分的啟示與教義，是先知和使徒所有其他教訓的基礎，以建造教會，是他們心之所向……同樣，是我們的主耶穌基督自己也充分說明的，路廿四26-27、45-46。撇開這方面的考慮，聖經並不像它們所假裝的那樣，即在教會的救贖中啟示上帝的榮耀……」（註5）
This principle is always to be retained in our
minds in reading of the Scripture,—namely, that the revelation and doctrine of
the person of Christ and his office, is the foundation whereon all other
instructions of the prophets and apostles for the edification of the church are
built, and whereunto they are resolved . . . So our Lord Jesus Christ himself
at large makes it manifest, Luke xxiv. 26, 27, 45, 46. Lay aside the consideration
hereof, and the Scriptures are no such thing as they pretend unto,—namely, a
revelation of the glory of God in the salvation of the church . . .[5]
柯西（Coxe）說道，「……要在聖經中尋求上帝的心意，我們應當問與基督有關的問題。」（註6）
Coxe
said, “. . . in all our search after the
mind of God in the Holy Scriptures we are to manage our inquiries with
reference to Christ.”[6]
他們以基督為中心來解釋聖經的原則是從聖經本身而來的，也是「唯獨聖經」在釋經學上的一種應用。換句話說，他們將聖經的權威視為延伸到我們如何解釋聖經上。或者可以這樣說：他們認為聖經的權威延伸到了聖經的解釋上。（註7）
Their
Christocentric interpretation of the Bible was a principle derived from the
Bible itself, and an application of sola Scriptura to the issue of
hermeneutics. In other words, they viewed the Bible’s authority as extending to
how we interpret the Bible. Or it could be stated this way: they saw the
authority of Scripture extending to the interpretation of Scripture.[7]
註：[1] See the
discussion in Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise
and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, Volume Two – Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2003 [Second Edition]), 206-23, where he discusses these distinctions. See also
James M. Renihan, “Theology on Target: The Scope of the Whole (which is to give
all glory to God),” RBTR II:2 (July 2005): 36-52; Richard C. Barcellos, “Scopus
Scripturae: John Owen, Nehemiah Coxe, our Lord Jesus Christ, and a Few Early
Disciples on Christ as the Scope of Scripture,” Journal of the Institute of
Reformed Baptist Studies [JIRBS] (2015): 5-24; and Stephen J. Casselli, Divine
Rule Maintained: Anthony Burgess, Covenant Theology, and the Place of the Law
in Reformed Scholasticism (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016), 102-07.
[2]
See my forthcoming The Doxological Trajectory of Scripture: God Getting Glory
for Himself through what He does in His Son — An Exegetical and Theological
Case Study, Chapter 5, “Christ as Scopus Scripturae — John Owen and Nehemiah
Coxe on Christ as the Scope of Scripture for the Glory of God.”
[3]
William Ames, The Marrow of Theology (Durham, NC: The Labyrinth Press, 1983),
1.38.5 (202).
[4]
John Owen, The Works of John Owen, 23 vols., ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh:
The Banner of Truth Trust, 1987 edition), 1:74.
[5]
Owen, Works, 1:314-15.
[6]
Coxe and Owen, Covenant Theology, 33.
[7]
See Poythress, “Biblical Hermeneutics,” 11, where he says: “We use the Bible to
derive hermeneutical principles. Then we use hermeneutics to interpret the Bible.”
