行為之約與恩典之約
聖約神學講座系列四：行為之約與恩典之約
Covenant
of Works and Covenant of Grace
作者：Dr. J. Ligon Duncan 譯者：駱鴻銘
如果你有帶聖經，請翻到創世記三章14節，這是上帝的聖言：
If
you have your Bibles, please open to Genesis 3:14 as we read God’s Word.
耶和華上帝對蛇說：你既做了這事，就必受咒詛，比一切的牲畜野獸更甚。你必用肚子行走，終身吃土。我又要叫你和女人彼此為仇；你的後裔和女人的後裔也彼此為仇。女人的後裔要傷你的頭；你要傷他的腳跟。又對女人說：我必多多加增你懷胎的苦楚；你生產兒女必多受苦楚。你必戀慕你丈夫；你丈夫必管轄你。又對亞當說：你既聽從妻子的話，吃了我所吩咐你不可吃的那樹上的果子，地必為你的緣故受咒詛；你必終身勞苦才能從地裡得吃的。地必給你長出荊棘和蒺藜來；你也要吃田間的菜蔬。你必汗流滿面才得糊口，直到你歸了土，因為你是從土而出的。你本是塵土，仍要歸於塵土。 And the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you more
than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field. On your belly shall you go, and dust shall
you eat all the days of your life. And I
will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her
seed. He shall bruise you on the head
and you shall bruise him on the heel.”
To the woman, He said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in
childbirth. In pain you shall bring
forth your children; yet your desire shall be for your husband and he shall
rule over you.” Then, to Adam He said,
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the
tree which about which I commanded you saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;
cursed is the ground because of you. In
toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for
you and you shall eat the plants of the field by the sweat of your face you
shall eat bread till you return to the ground.
Because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall
return.”
阿們。以上是上帝的聖言。讓我們禱告：Amen. And thus ends
this reading of God’s holy Word, let’s pray.
我們的父，我們在你面前俯伏，我們知道這些話是給我們的，也是給夏娃和亞當的，因為我們是在亞當裡、生來是可怒的兒女。我們不只是承繼了從原罪而來的原始的敗壞，我們更承繼了原始的罪責，因為亞當是我們盟約的頭。我們感謝你，主啊，如今在基督裡我們已經得贖、脫離那咒詛，我們如今不在行為之約的律法之下，而是在恩典之約下。當我們思想這些真理時，幫助我們不只是能更好地向你的百姓傳遞這個真理，更盼望我們能在真理中得造就，愛心得以增長，並感謝你偉大的救恩。奉耶穌基督的名。阿們。Our Father, we bow
before You, we know that those words are words for us as much as they were for
Adam and Eve, for we are in Adam born children of wrath. We have inherited not only the original
corruption flowing from that sin, but we have inherited original culpability
because Adam was our federal head. We
thank You, O Lord, that in Christ we have been redeemed from the curse that we
were under and we are no longer under that law of the Covenant of Works, but
are now under the Covenant of Grace.
Help us this day as we contemplate these things not only that we might
be better able to communicate the truth to Your people, but also that we may be
built up in the truth, that we might grown in our love and appreciation for
Your great redemption. We ask these
things in Jesus’ name. Amen.
關於行為之約，讓我作幾點說明，然後我們會接著看，亞當在考驗中失敗之後，上帝做了什麼。上帝給亞當的考驗特別是和分辨善惡樹的果子有關的。我提過，有些正統的改革宗神學家拒絕接受雙盟約的救贖歷史結構。Let me make a
couple of comments about the Covenant of Works before we move on to look at
what God did in the aftermath of the failure of Adam in the test of probation,
specifically with regard to the tree, the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil. I mentioned that there
have been a number of orthodox Reformed Theologians who have objected to a
bicovenantal structure of redemptive history.
我們提到過，有些人不想用行為之約和恩典之約來看上帝與人的關係在救贖歷史中的展開，即行為之約是墮落前的約，恩典之約是墮落之後的盟約。他們喜歡用恩典之約的單一計劃，來涵蓋墮落之前和墮落之後上帝與人的關係。We have mentioned
that there are some folks who don’t want to look at
the unfolding plan of God in relationship to humankind in terms of a Covenant
of Works and a Covenant of Grace, the Covenant of Works being Pre-fall, and the
Covenant of Grace being Post-fall. They
actually want to talk about this Covenant of Grace as being the overarching
plan that structures all of God’s dealing with man both before fall and after
the fall.
我今天不打算回應這個看法本身，但是我想要回應其中的一種變化組合。慕理仍然希望保留上帝對待人有雙重的結構，但是他不想稱行為之約為行為之約。倘若你們有人讀過約翰慕理的課堂講義，在一篇名為「亞當時期的施行」（The Adamic Administration）的文章裡，你會記得他想要把上帝和亞當之間的第一個關係稱為「亞當時期的施行」，而不是行為之約。他舉了四個理由，反對行為之約的說法。Now, I am not going
to respond to that particular critique today.
But I want to respond to a permutation of it. Murray wants to still have a two-fold
structure of God’s dealing with man, part one and part two. But he doesn’t want to call the Covenant of
Works the Covenant of Works. If any of
you have read John Murray’s class lectures that are found in the second volume
of his collected writings, in an article called The Adamic Administration, you
will remember that he wants to call this first relationship between God and
Adam “The Adamic Administration,” not “The Covenant of Works.” And there are four reasons he gives for not
wanting to call this a Covenant of Works, of why he has a problem with that
terminology.
慕理贊成「亞當時期的施行」的理由
Murray’s rational for The
Adamic Administration
第一個理由是他認為行為之約的說法貶低了這個關係中的恩典層面。行為之約這個名稱貶低了上帝與墮落前亞當之間恩典的元素。The first reason
that he gives for having a problem with this idea is that he says that it
downplays the grace of this relationship.
The title, The Covenant of Works, downplays the elements of grace in the
relationship between God and Adam before the fall.
第二，他反對這個詞因為「約」這個字沒有出現在這段經文裡。他說既然沒有這個字，稱這個關係為盟約就不是一個好主意。Secondly, he
objects to the term because he says the term covenant is not found in this
passage. He says the terminology
covenant is not found and therefore it is not a good idea to call this relationship
a covenant since the terminology is not found.
第三，他說，聖經使用「約」這個字表明上帝與人的關係，都一貫是指一個救贖性的關係。然而在墮落之前，行為之約明顯是指上帝和亞當在救贖之前的關係。
Thirdly,
he says that the covenant is a term which, when used in the Scriptures, denotes
a relationship between God and man and is uniformly used of a redemptive
relationship. And obviously this is in a
sense a pre-redemptive relationship between God and Adam.
最後，他主張盟約這個詞在聖經中的用法，在描述上帝與人的關係時，都帶著一種安全感。在第一堂課，當我們讀希伯來書第六章時也曾經說過，盟約通常都帶著一種確信。上帝的約是要幫助我們明白我們的救恩是可靠的。因此他主張，不能用盟約來描述這個關係，因為盟約代表保證，但亞當卻墮落了。因此他給了四個理由說明這個關係為什麼不能被稱為行為之約。And finally, he
suggests that the term covenant, as it is used in the Bible to describe the relationship
between God and man, always carries with it a sense of security. We argued this ourselves when we read from
Hebrews 6 on the first day of class and commented on the fact that often
covenant is linked with assurance. God’s
covenant is there to help us understand the grounds on which we ought to
properly be assured of our salvation. So
he argues, it shouldn’t be used of this relationship because covenant denotes
security and Adam fell. So he gives four
reasons why this relationship shouldn’t be thought of as the Covenant of
Works.
我要花一些時間解釋慕理的想法的一些背景知識，因為我大概知道他是怎麼想的。我知道這個，不是因為我認識慕理，而是因為我認識慕理的一個好朋友，他們常常在一起討論神學，特別是針對這點，當慕理在西敏神學院教書後回到蘇格蘭之後。And I want to give
you a little inside knowledge of Murray’s thinking processes for a few moments, because I have
access to that and those folks, perhaps, don’t have access to that. It is not
because I knew Murray, but because I do know a man who was a very good friend
of Murray and spent a lot of time talking theology, and especially this point,
when Murray came back to Scotland after his time of teaching at Westminster
Seminary.
我要探討這點也是因為慕理對改革宗群體有很大的影響，讓人不太敢談論行為之約和恩典之約。在這個意義上，儘管我很崇敬慕理教授，但我認為他有點在幫倒忙。因為如果破壞了用雙盟約的角度來理解上帝與人的關係，實際上會讓救恩論的觀念軟弱無力，並且會促進一種「廉價恩典」的傾向。說到這裡，我的目的很清楚，都擺在檯面上了。我盼望你們擁有最強的改革宗救恩論的觀念，我不希望你們教導廉價恩典。你們會不斷聽到我強調這個詞。因此，這是我為什麼要反對慕理教授的原因。I also want to
address this because Murray has had a tremendous impact in the Reformed
community in making people a little bit skittish about talking about a Covenant
of Works and a Covenant of Grace. And in
that sense, as much as I admire Professor Murray, I think that he has done us a
disservice. Because the breakdown of a
bicovenantal understanding of God’s dealing with mankind actually weakens our
concept of the Doctrine of Atonement and has a tendency to foster “cheap grace”
teaching. Now, with that, my agenda is
right out on the table there. I want you
to have the strongest possible Reformed doctrine for the atonement that you
possibly can have, and I do not want you to teach cheap grace to your people. And you’ll hear me pounding in that direction
throughout this particular term. So this
is why I am going to take issue with Professor Murray.
好，慕理教授的救恩論很弱嗎？請讀他寫的《再思救贖奇恩》（Redemption
Accomplished and Applied），很精彩的書！倘若你還沒有看過，一定要去看，很精彩。我認為慕理是一個前後不一致的聖約神學家。也就是說，他是個聖約神學家，但是他在這點上是不一致的，我認為在一些點上，他是以一個十七世紀古老的蘇格蘭盟約神學家的方式來提出他的神學骨架的。然後，在他心裡有一些矛盾沒有完全解決，因此讓他往「亞當時期的施行」這個方向走去。讓我們一一來拆解他對行為之約的四個疑問。Now did Professor
Murray have a weak doctrine of Atonement? Read his Redemption Accomplished and
Applied. What a wonderful book! And if you have never worked through his
teaching on the Doctrine of Atonement, it is wonderful. I think that Murray was an inconsistent
Federalist. That is, he was a Covenant
Theologian, but he was inconsistent at this point and I think at some points he
works out of his theological framework like he is a good old fashioned
seventeenth century Scottish Covenant Theologian. And then, he has some little quibbles in the
back of his mind which he can’t quite square up with that, which make him go
the direction of “The Adamic Administration.”
Let’s take each of these four particular complaints that he has about
the Covenant of Works and let’s say a few things about them.
1. 他說的第一個理由是行為之約會貶低上帝與亞當之間關係的恩典層面。我們已經說過，我要斷然地否定亞當和耶和華上帝在墮落之前是一種以恩典為基礎的觀念。恩典在聖經裡從來沒有用來表示一種沒有罪孽存在的關係。恩典總是用來表明上帝與有罪之人之間的關係。因此說上帝與墮落前的亞當之間的關係，是以恩典為基礎的，這是不符合聖經的。亞當墮落之前，上帝不需要克服任何罪過。好，這是否意味著亞當配得到上帝所賜給他的一切？不！這是否意味著亞當是靠自己贏得上帝賜給他的祝福？不！這也不是我們的意思。但是當上帝根據亞當的順服，對亞當做出應許，亞當就可以有確信，上帝會實現這些承諾。1. Now, the first
thing that he said was that it downplays (this terminology downplays) the grace
aspect of the relationship between God and Adam. Now, as we have already said, I want to
flatly deny the idea that the relationship between Adam and the Lord prior to
the fall was a grace-based relationship.
Let me use one of Murray’s own arguments: The terminology of grace is never used in the
Scripture to denote a relationship where no demerit exists. Grace is always used to denote God’s
relationship to those who are already in a position of demerit. And so to talk about God and Adam having a
grace-based relationship is unbiblical.
There is no demerit prior to Adam’s fall for God to overcome. Now does that mean that Adam deserved everything
that the Lord gave him? No. Does that mean that Adam earned the right to
the blessings that God gave to him? No.
That is not what we are getting at either.
But once God has made commitments to Adam based upon Adam’s obedience,
Adam could be secure in God following through those commitments.
這正是為什麼這些事會被老派的聖約神學家稱之為行為之約的原因。換句話說，它是以順服為基礎的。亞當是在一個他所不配得的祝福的關係當中。上帝以祂的良善吸引他到這個關係裡，並且基本上是說，「亞當，當你以順服來行事為人，這個祝福就會是你的，而且不只是這些。」上帝沒有說，「亞當，你現在是在一個沒有祝福的狀態，而你若順服，我會賜給你一個蒙福的狀態。」上帝以祂的良善，把亞當放在一個蒙福的狀態，祂並且說，「你只需要順服，你就不只是會得到這個福分，你還會得到更多。」這是考驗期的測驗（probationary test）所隱含的。亞當，倘若你順服，終有一天你會得到確認，我會把更多祝福賜給你。And that is
precisely why this thing was called by the Old Covenant Theologians, The Covenant of Works. In other words, it was obedience based. Adam was in a relationship of blessing which
he didn’t deserve. God, in
His goodness, has drawn him into that relationship and basically said this:
“Adam, walk in obedience and this blessing will be yours and there will be
more.” It wasn’t, “Adam you’re in a
state of non-blessing and if you will obey, I will bring you into a state of
blessing.” God, in His goodness, plops
Adam into a state of blessing and He says, “Just obey and you will not only
have this blessing, you will have more.”
That is implied in that probationary test. There will come a time, Adam, if you walk in
obedience, I will confirm you in this and I will give you more blessings
yet.
這就是為什麼要使用行為之約這個詞的原因。因此我要反駁慕理教授的論證，因為這是聖經本身對恩典這個詞的用法。因此倘若你要用一個釋經學的論證，他反對行為之約這個詞，在這點上就是失敗的。好，這是否意味著我們說上帝與亞當在墮落前的關係不是一個恩典的關係，我們就是在貶低上帝的恩惠或祂的良善與祝福嗎？不。我們要突出這些事，我們要強調這些事。我們要強調除了上帝的愛之外，世上絕對沒有其他事物可以讓上帝與亞當建立這種關係。That is why the
terminology of Covenant of Works was used.
So I want to rebut Professor Murray’s argument by saying that that is
not how the terminology of grace is used in the Scripture itself. So if you want to use an exegetical argument,
his argument against the terminology against the Covenant of Works fails at
that point. Now, does that mean by saying
that God’s relationship to Adam prior to fall was not a grace relationship, are
we downplaying God’s favor or His goodness or His blessing? No. We want to play up those things. We want to stress those. We want to stress that there was absolutely
nothing in the world that made God enter into that kind of relationship with Adam
but His love.
要建立這種關係，上帝並不需要克服人天生的罪性。我們的信仰告白在這點上是非常正確的。西敏信條第七章第一條說，「上帝與受造者之間的差距大到一個地步，雖然有理性的人都應當以上帝為他的創造主而順服祂，但是他們絕不能從上帝得著什麼作為他們的祝福與賞賜」。注意它所說的。它沒有暗示人有任何罪過，只是說上帝多麼偉大，上帝如此崇高，以至於人不可能期望會與祂建立親密的團契關係，除非祂出於自己的意志，出自祂自己的愛，決定要與人建立關係。而祂的確這麼做了，祂在樂園裡，在這個原始的盟約裡與亞當建立了關係。因此我要反駁慕理的第一個論證，我認為他搞錯了恩典這個詞的含義。God did not have to
overcome innate sinfulness in Adam in order to enter into that
relationship. And our Confession, by the
way, gets this exactly right. In The
Westminster Confession, chapter 7, section 1, it says that “the distance between God and His creatures is
so great that there would no way for His creatures to enjoy the fruition of His
relationship unless He condescended by means of a covenant to enter into a
relationship with them.” And notice what
it does. It doesn’t suggest that there
is any demerit there in man. It simply
suggests that God is so great and God is so exalted that there would be no way
that we could expect the fruition of intimate fellowship and relationship with
Him unless He, of His own volition, and out of His own love, determined to
enter into such a relationship. And that
He did, and He did it in the Garden with Adam in that original covenant. So I want to counteract Murray’s first
argument by saying, I think he has confused terminology there about grace.
好，我們可以爭論恩典和憐憫有什麼不同，我們上週也稍微談到這點。重要的問題是，是否有罪孽存在。這是我的重點。也許可以用不同的詞來說明這點，我也不是說不可以用其他的詞來說明，但是我要說的重點是，我們看到有一種關係是罪孽並不存在的狀況，然後有另一種關係是罪孽存在的狀況，而雙盟約結構的好處就是它把這件事分得很清楚。而假如你廢掉這個雙盟約結構，你說：「只有一大糊的恩典之約」，你在作什麼呢？你貶低了兩種關係之間的差異：一個沒有罪孽存在的關係，和一個需要克服罪過的關係。而這種低估是很嚴重的。Now, you know, we
can quibble about grace as opposed to mercy, or grace in graciousness, and we
even got into a little discussion about that last week. The important issue is, of course, the
presence of demerit. That is my
point. There may be different
terminological ways of getting at this, and I am not saying that there are not
different terminological ways of getting at it, but the main point I want to
make is you have got one relationship in which the demerit of sin does not
exist, and then you have another relationship in which the demerit of sin does
exist, and the beautiful thing about a bicovenantal structure is, it makes this
distinction clear. And if you wipe out
that bicovenantal structure and you say, “It is all just one big glop of a
Covenant of Grace,” what do you do? You
downplay the difference between a relationship in which demerit must be
overcome, and a relationship in which demerit is not present at all. And that is a very serious downplaying.
這就是為什麼說如果你這麼作了，就是在教導廉價恩典。倘若你貶低上帝必須克服罪，和上帝不需要克服罪，兩者之間的差別，就這個事實本身來說，就必然是在教導廉價恩典。這就是為什麼說慕理是前後不一致的，因為他仍然想要這個雙重的結構，只是他不想稱第一個盟約是一個盟約。因此他的結論是有一個亞當時期的施行，以及一個恩典之約。但是對他來說，他仍然有一道分隔的牆，也就是墮落這道牆。And if you do that,
that is why I say, you have to teach cheap grace. You see, if you downplay the difference
between God having to overcome demerit and God not having to overcome demerit,
you by the very virtue of that fact, have to teach cheap grace. That is why I say Murray was not consistent
in that because he still wants to have this double structure. He still wants to have a bicovenantal
structure but just not call the first covenant a covenant. So he ends up with an Adamic Administration
and a Covenant of Grace. But for him, he
still has this wall that is the great divide of the fall.
2. 他的第二個理由是說盟約這個字沒有出現。我們已經部分回答了這個問題，就是聖經裡有些地方明顯是盟約，但是盟約這個字也沒有出現的。再說一遍，我的看法是這是慕理的聖經神學的弱點。慕理深受霍志恆的影響，雖然我們很感謝霍志恆的工作，以及廿世紀初福音派聖經神學學者的工作，我懷疑有時候他們是否有讓解經來規範他們的神學，還有他們沒有看到一些字眼，就懷疑這個觀念是否存在，這種的看法。2. His second
argument is that the word covenant isn’t
there. We have responded to that already
in part, and that response is that there are examples in the Scripture where a
covenant is certainly present but where the terminology is not. And again, in my opinion, this is a reflection
of a little bit of the weakness of biblical theology coming through in
Murray. Murray was very influenced by
Vos. And as much as we appreciate Vos’s
work, and the work of those evangelical biblical theologians at the beginning
of the century, I wonder sometimes if they did not allow the exegesis to
circumscribe their theology, and where they didn’t see certain terminology they
questioned whether concepts were present.
在改革宗傳統裡，我們一直相信聖經所說的全部都是真確的、有權威的，它是我們信仰和生活唯一的準則，不只是它所明確說到，也包括它所暗示、但可以靠有效和必要的推理得出的。這是個非常重要的教義，不止對改革宗信仰重要，對整個基督國度也很重要。例如，倘若你拒絕這種解經法，倘若你拒絕三位一體教義，你就拒絕了正統基督信仰的各種教導。In the Reformed
tradition, we have always believed that everything in Scripture is true and
authoritative and it is our only rule in faith and practice, not only in what
it says explicitly, but what it says implicitly by good and necessary
consequence. That is a very important
doctrine. And not only in the Reformed
faith, but in Christendom. For example, if you reject that hermeneutic, if you
reject the Doctrine of the Trinity, you reject all manner of Orthodox Christian
teaching.
讓我舉個例子。我和一個友人到蘇格蘭，有一段時間我們一起靈修，而我們決定要一起研讀馬太福音。我們決定要各自挑一些主題，並且為馬太福音作大綱，看馬太如何在他的福音書裡呈現這些主題。我挑了幾個主題，基本上是作了一些字義研究，看馬太如何使用這些重覆的字眼。我的朋友有一天說，「你知道我看到馬太強調的其中一個主題是信心的問題，一個人是否接受基督作為彌賽亞的重要性。」我很快作了字義研究，而如果你只是算這個詞出現的次數，信心根本不能算是一個主題，它不是會出現的一個主要類別。我找到的類別，裡面有更多的字，因此有更多的經文。讓我舉個例子。也許我找到的類別是耶穌應驗先知預言的觀念，而你知道馬太重覆出現的語言，就是這應驗了先知所說的。這在馬太出現了將近五十次。他不斷重覆說這句話。因此在馬太福音裡，這是很容易發現到的主題。而信心只被提到大約18次左右。當我第一次聽到我的朋友這樣說，我以為，「嗯，我不確定這是不是一個主題」。但是與我同工的這個朋友是學文學的，他是個會讀書的人，我相信他找到的主題必然在那裡，只是字義研究沒有給他足夠的支持。而我在過去兩年為了講道的緣故重新研究了馬太福音，對彌賽亞的信心的重要性這個主題，真的是馬太福音中非常重要的主題。在馬太福音裡，這是群眾和法利賽人，以及在基督裡的真信徒的分野。這是個重大的主題，雖然信心這個字並沒有出現很多次，馬太不是用這個字來敲你的腦袋的。因此，在聖經裡我們會發現這個觀念一再被重覆使用，雖然這個詞並並沒有出現。而我認為只因為這個詞沒有出現，就說這個觀念不存在，是非常膚淺的。我認為甚至在創世記第一、二章，就上帝與亞當的關係來說，我們甚至可以看到一個盟約的結構，所有的元素都在那裡了。因此，我的看法是，這是慕理所有的論證裡最弱的一點：因為這個詞沒有出現，因此我們就不能說這是個盟約。Let me give you an
example of this. A friend of mine and I,
when we were in Scotland, were doing devotions together for a period of time,
and we decided we would work in the Gospel of Matthew. And each of us was trying to pick up on
themes and do some outlining in the Gospel of Matthew as to major themes that
Matthew presses in his Gospel. And I had
picked up on several of them, basically just going through word studies and
seeing repeated words that Matthew was using on a regular basis. My friend came in one day and he said, “You
know one of the themes I see Matthew pressing here is the issue of faith, the
importance of a person’s personal embrace of Christ as Messiah.” I ran a quick word study on that and
numerically faith was not one of the major categories if you are just counting
words. It was not one of the major
categories that came up. The categories
that I had come up with had far more words in them and hence more verses in
them than his. Let me give you an
example. Maybe I would have come with
the category of the idea of Jesus’ fulfilling prophecy and you know that
repeated language in Matthew and this fulfilled what the prophets said. And that occurs something like 50 times in
Matthew. He hits that over and
over. So that is an easy theme to pick up
in Matthew. And faith was only
mentioned, let’s say 18 times or something like that. And when I first heard my friend say that, I
thought, “Hum, I am not really sure whether that is a major theme.” But my friend who was working with me was a
literature major and he did know how to read and I think what he had actually
picked up on was a theme that was definitely there which was not supported by
word study, but which was definitely there.
And as I have been working back over the last two years in the Gospel of
Matthew for the purpose of preaching, this theme of the importance of faith in
the Messiah, I mean it knocks you over the head in the Gospel of Matthew. It is clearly a significant theme. It is the divide between the crowds and the
Pharisees and the true believers of Christ in the Gospel of Matthew. It is a major theme, even though the term
faith is there, Matthew does not hit you over the head with it. So, over and over in the Scripture we will
find places where the concept will be used, and where the terminology is
not. And I think it is shallow simply to
stop and say well, the terminology is not there, therefore the concept isn’t. I
think we can see even a covenantal structure given at the end of Genesis 1 and
in Genesis 2 in terms of this relationship between God and Adam. All the elements are there. And so that, in my opinion, is Murray’s
weakest argument of all: Terminology is not there, therefore we should refrain
from calling it a covenant.
慕理所受到的影響
Influences on Murray
好，這是內幕獨家消息。當慕理從蘇格蘭回來，Donald
Macleod和慕理談話，說到慕理在聖約神學的問題上，他所受到的一些重大影響。其中之一，慕理深受霍志恆的影響，還有一位名叫Adolph Desmond的人的影響。Desmond是二十世紀初德國一位著名的新約學者，他強烈主張盟約這個字不應該被翻譯為合約或條約，或是一種互相的關係，而應該被翻譯為處置（disposition）或遺命（testament），是單方面的，而不是雙方面的。Desmond這樣做是因為他從與新約同時代的希臘法律文獻中所發現的，而有一段時間，許多新約學者都跟隨Desmond的看法。他的看法後來被推翻了，但是他在廿世紀初葉很有影響力。因此，慕理深受這種單方面的盟約觀念的影響。他發現歷史性的行為之約裡，順服的這個層面，從他的口味來說，雙方面的味道太濃了。因此，你會看到，當慕理在一本稱為《恩典之約》的小冊中定義盟約時，他是以一種單方面的、非常單邊的方式來定義恩典之約的。他是在追隨霍志恆，也追隨Desmond的看法。Now, here is the inside scoop. As
Donald Macleod talked with John Murray when he came back from Scotland, there
were a number of things that had made a major impact on Murray with regard to
Covenant Theology. For one thing, Murray
was impacted by Vos and by a guy named Adolph Desmond. Desmond was a big time German New Testament
scholar at the turn of the twentieth century who had argued very strongly that
Covenant should not be translated as a contract or a treaty or a mutual
relationship, but it ought to be translated as a disposition or a testament,
something that was one-sided as opposed to two-sided. And Desmond did this
because he had uncovered all this literature from Greek legal documents
contemporary to the New Testament and many New Testament scholars followed
Desmond for a period of time. His views
have since then been overturned, but he was very influential in the first part
of the twentieth century. And so Murray
was very influenced by this one-sided idea of covenant. And he found the obediential aspect of the
historic Covenant of Works to be a little two-sided for his taste. So, you will see him, when he defines
covenant in his little tract called The Covenant of Grace, he will define it in
a very one-sided, a very monopluric sort of way. And he is following Vos there and he is
following Desmond.
不過，另一件有趣的事情是，慕理對Macleod表明，他有點受到巴特對行為之約的本質的論證的影響，因此，慕理雖然聲嘶力竭地反對巴特的聖經論和救贖論，然而他在某種程度上還是受到巴特對恩典之約的論證的影響。Macleod在這點上有機會和慕理討論，並且反對這幾點，但是慕理仍然堅持他的異議，而直到今日，西敏神學院仍然不太敢堅持行為之約和恩典之約的骨架。從費城西敏神學院出來的人，你會更多聽到他們說亞當時期的施行，除非他們在西敏時是克萊恩死忠的粉絲。而在慕理的徒子徒孫中，現在是葛富恩，和克萊恩的徒子徒孫中，對這個問題曾經有一場很惡毒的小小的戰爭。在這個問題上有很嚴重的分歧，克萊恩堅持行為之約的說法，慕理對這個說法表示存疑。因此，倘若你看到一篇由西敏出來的加爾文主義者所寫的文章，而你感到有一些爭論，你不知道為什麼會有這樣的論證，也許這是這個特別論證的其中一個來源。But, the other
interesting thing is, is that Murray indicated to Macleod that he had actually
been impacted a bit by Barth’s argumentation on
the nature of the Covenant of Works and so although Murray would have been
stridently in opposition to Barth’s doctrine of the Scripture and his doctrine
of the Atonement, yet he was swayed to a certain extent by some of Barth’s
arguments regarding Covenant of Works.
And Macleod had opportunity to interact with him on that and argue
against those particular points, but Murray held to his objections and to this
day, Westminster Seminary has tended to be a little bit skittish about the
Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace framework. You will hear more guys coming out of Westminster
talking about The Adamic Administration, unless they were big fans of Meredith
Kline when they were there. And there is
a rather nasty little fight that goes on between the descendents of Murray and
now Gaffin, and the descendants of Kline over this whole issue. There has been a pretty significant division
on precisely this issue with Kline insisting on the language of the Covenant of
Works, and with Murray having problems with that language. So if you run across articles by Calvinists
out of the Westminster sphere, and sense that there is an argument going on
that you don’t know why, this may be one of the origins of that particular
argument.
肇始之約——羅伯森
The Covenant of Commencement – Robertson
罪論The Doctrine of Sin
好，在說完慕理反對行為之約的一些看法後，我們要看來慕理所謂的肇始之約（Covenant of
Commencement），也就是在人類墮落之後上帝與人設立的盟約。在我們看恩典之約的啟動之前，讓我們看看創世記第三章裡面談到的關於罪的教義。創世記三章1-13節對我們明白福音是絕對必要的，因為倘若我們不明白什麼是罪、我們的罪責，我們就無法明白或接受恩典。對我來說，在創世記三章1-13節裡，至少教導我們關於罪的三件事情。在1-5節裡，我們看到撒但和女人之間的對話。這是撒但對夏娃的誘惑。而女人對這個誘惑者的回答，其本質就說明罪的定義就是背叛。這裡所描繪的罪，就是一幅悖逆的圖畫。我們可以從許多方面來描寫罪。倘若你們上過一些神學課，你們會看到保羅用許多字來形容罪。在這裡是一幅悖逆的圖畫，而蛇是作為撒但的工具。在這裡，沒有把罪呈現為是一種獨立自存的事物，不是一直存在於世界裡的，一直是與善同等、同樣永恆的事物。在這段經文裡，罪被描寫為進入到這個世界裡的事物。Now, having said a
few words about Murray’s objection to the
Covenant of Works, I would like to look at the Covenant of Commencement, as
Robertson calls it, God’s inauguration of the Covenant of Grace after the
fall. And before we look at that
inauguration of the Covenant of Grace, let’s just say a few things about the
Doctrine of Sin as it is found in the first thirteen verses of Genesis 3. Genesis 3:1-13 is absolutely essential to our
understanding of the Gospel, because without an understanding of sin, and our
culpability, we cannot understand or embrace grace. It seems to me that at least three things are
taught to us about sin in Genesis 3:1-13.
In the first five verses, we have this conversation between Satan and
the woman. It constitutes his temptation
of her. And the very nature of the
woman’s response to the tempter indicates to us that sin is being defined for
us here as rebellion. The picture of sin
here is a picture of rebellion. There
are lots of legitimate ways of describing sin.
Many of you, if you have been through Knox Chamblin’s classes on Paul,
will have heard the various terminologies that Paul will use for sin. He has various different terms and images
that he will use for sin. Here the image
is rebellion. The serpent serves as the
tool of Satan in the passage. Sin is not
presented as something that is self-existent, something that is always been in
the world, something that is co-equal and co-eternal with good. Sin is depicted in this passage as something
that comes into the world.
在這整個記載裡都強調了上帝的主權，例如，經文提醒我們，連蛇都是上帝所造的。注意這段經文的語句：「耶和華上帝所造的，惟有蛇比田野一切的活物更狡猾。」因此，即便當你在閱讀摩西所寫的這些早期篇章中，也許會擔心害怕，摩西所描述的上帝似乎沒有在掌權，但是我們還是可以看到一些蛛絲馬跡，巧妙地說明了上帝絕對的主權。在這個段落裡你也許會懷疑，「假使上帝在掌權，撒但為什麼可以像這樣長驅直入上帝所造的萬物當中？」到後來，當該隱犯罪，你也會懷疑，「上帝的反應怎麼會是這樣？」或者在創世記第三章末了，「耶和華上帝說：『那人已經與我們相似，能知道善惡，現在恐怕他伸手又摘生命樹的果子吃，就永遠活著。』耶和華上帝便打發他出伊甸園去，耕種他所出之土。」你會這樣想，「上帝是否在說明，人可以做一些上帝無法控制的事情呢？」你可以可以到巴別塔的故事，看到上帝打斷這個過程，並且說：「看哪，他們成為一樣的人民，都是一樣的言語，如今既做起這事來，以後他們所要做的事就沒有不成就的了。我們下去，在那裡變亂他們的口音，使他們的言語彼此不通。」聽起來似乎上帝有時候也管不動人。Now God’s sovereignty is stressed throughout the
account by reminding us, for instance, that even the Lord made the serpent. Notice the phraseology of the passage, “The
serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had
made.” So, even though you may fear when
you are reading some of these early narratives by Moses that Moses is depicting
a God who isn’t quite in control, there are ever so clever indications
throughout of the absolute sovereignty of God.
In this narrative you may be wondering, “What in the world is Satan
doing interfacing with God’s creation like this if God’s in control?” And then later, when Cain sins, you may be
wondering, “Why does God react like He does?”
Or at the end of Genesis 3, when God says, “Behold, the man has become
like one of Us knowing good and evil, now lest he stretch out his hand and take
from the tree of life and eat and live forever, let Us drive him from the
Garden.” You may feel like, “Well, is
God indicating that man can do something that He wouldn’t be able to
control?” And you can go to the story of
the Tower of Babel and see God disrupting that process and saying, “We have got
to go down and intervene lest they build a building to the skies.” And it sounds like God is something less than
sovereignly in control.
但是當我們更仔細看，摩西實際上是給我們一些很美妙、很精巧的神學幽默。舉個例子，看巴別塔的情況，摩西告訴我們，他們用什麼造巴別塔？有人記得嗎？磚塊，灰泥。摩西知道什麼是磚塊，他曾經監督希伯來人造磚頭。他會告訴你用磚頭和灰泥當建築材料會是什麼樣子。他親眼看過百姓必須不用草來造磚。他知道這是什麼意義。而在摩西的時代，磚是比石頭要劣等的建築材料。因此當摩西告訴我們，他們想用磚和灰泥建造一座通天塔，這有點是在嘲笑說：「哈哈哈，他們想幹啥啊？」But upon closer
examination, Moses is actually providing some pretty, sometimes some clever,
theological humor. To give you an
example on the Tower of Babel scenario, what does Moses tell you that they were
building the tower out of? Anybody
remember? Bricks and mortar. Now Moses knew a little bit about bricks,
didn’t he? He had supervised the making
of a few bricks in his day, okay. He
could tell you about bricks and mortar as a building material. Okay.
He had seen a people have to make brick without straw. He knew what the significance of that
was. And in Moses’ world, bricks were an
inferior building material to stone. So
when Moses tells you that they were going to build a tower to the sky out of
bricks and mortar, it is kind of like, “Ha, ha, ha, they are going to do what?”
再說一次，除此之外，這裡的觀念不是說他們真的要造一座通天塔，而是類似金字塔ziggurat的形式，就像考古學家在當時的世界所挖掘出來的一些偉大的建築一樣。因此經文裡有一些微妙的地方說明摩西沒有絲毫的擔心，害怕上帝會失去祂對局勢的控制。在這段經文中到處都可以看到人的敗壞，蛇、撒但，這個上帝最重大的敵人也一樣，牠比上帝所造的一切活物都更狡猾。因此，耶和華上帝在這段經文中是完全掌權的。Now again, on top
of that you know that the idea was not that they were literally going to build
a tower into heaven, but this was going to be in the form of a ziggurat, just
like some of the great structures that archeologists have unearthed in that
world there today. So there are subtle
things in the text to let you know that Moses didn’t have the slightest fear that
God was somehow going to lose control of this situation. The fallacious man is shown at every point,
and even so in this passage, Satan, the great enemy of God, the serpent, who is
craftier than any beast which the Lord God has made. So the Lord God is in complete control in
this passage.
但是那誘惑者含沙射影地反對耶和華，而不是用論證的方式。創世記三章1節，牠問夏娃的問題，目的不是要質疑上帝是否真的說過祂說過的話。「上帝豈是真說，不許你們吃園中所有樹上的果子嗎？」對夏娃的問題目的是要引誘她質疑上帝的判斷。請注意，撒但讓上帝的禁止令看起來比它實際上要嚴苛。想想世界也是這麼對待基督徒的：「你知道，基督信仰不讓你擁有任何樂趣。」這是這類論證的主旨。我的意思是，這類論證把上帝描繪成一個暴君，不讓人作任何的事。祂不許你吃園中任何的果子。因此，這個禁制令、這個限制，就被誇大了。而牠的問題，「上帝豈是真說」，目的不是要對夏娃說「上帝真的說了這些話？」而是要說：「難道祂這麼不講理，竟然作出這種限制？」牠是在邀請夏娃質疑上帝的判斷。牠要夏娃作什麼呢？質疑上帝、審判上帝。這就是悖逆的精髓——讓你忘記你是上帝所造的，你如今可以背叛上帝，審判上帝。But the tempter
begins with an insinuation against the Lord rather than an argument. The question that he puts initially to the
woman in Genesis 3:1 is not meant to query whether God had said what He has
said. “Has God said you may not eat from
any tree of the Garden?” The question is
put to the woman in order to entice her to question God’s judgment. Notice, Satan makes God’s prohibition harsher
than it is. Think how often the world
does this to Christians. You know
Christianity doesn’t let you do anything fun.
That is sort of the thrust of this particular argument. I mean God doesn’t let you do anything. He is not going to let you eat from any of
the trees in the Garden. So the
prohibition, the restriction, is overstated at that point. And his question, “Has God said” is not
saying to Eve, “Did God say that?” It is
saying, “Is He so unreasonable as to have made that kind of restrictive
prohibition?” He is inviting Eve to
question God’s judgment. He is inviting
Eve to do what? To stand in judgment
over the Lord. And that is the essence
of rebellion—where you forget that God made you and now you stand in rebellion
over the Lord.
我曾有幸教過的最聰明的高中生，如今是一位敬虔的妻子和母親，在田納西州納什維爾的一家教會擔任職員。當她剛到聖路易士時，她的父親剛被調到聖路易士一家最大的電話公司。他們以前是在一家偏自由派的長老教會聚會。他們偶然發現我們PCA的教會。父親不喜歡我們教會，但是孩子們喜歡，媽媽也喜歡，因此他們有點像是求父親就在我們教會安定下來。和南茜的互動總是非常具有挑戰性，因為她很聰明，也非常敏銳。而當我們在處理地獄的教義時，這對她來說不是可以不帶感情、光是知識層面的話題，地獄是很真實的。我絕對不會忘記她的眼神，在一個星期三晚上，她終於明白，我真的相信有地獄，而且有人會下地獄。你知道，她關心我，我也關心她，然後她說，「我真的不敢相信你竟然會相信這個」。當晚我們徹夜長談，討論地獄為什麼是可能的——倘若上帝是慈愛的，為什麼還會有地獄。一位慈愛的上帝為什麼會創造出像這樣的地方？祂怎麼會把人送入地獄？順帶一提，南茜向我證明了，問題不是出在人怎麼想。很多時候人們會鑽牛角尖，爭論人是怎麼到地獄的（即：預定和自由意志）。這是小兒科的問題。真正的問題是地獄。人們怎麼會到地獄的，有誰在乎呢？地獄才是真正的問題。而南茜以她的聰慧，像隻鬥牛犬一樣，追著這個問題不放。我們大戰了三百回合。老實說，她讓我棄械投降。我使出看家本領，想和她辯論。她知道我有很強的聖經根據，但是她就是無法接受這個真理，因為這個真理會讓她非常痛苦。她就是轉不過這個彎來。最後我告訴她，我說，「南茜，妳是個罪人嗎？」「是的，我是個罪人。」「妳是否有時候會作一些讓妳的父母、朋友傷心的事？妳是否會做錯事？」「是的，我會。」「妳同意上帝有時候會不公平，不夠仁慈？」「是的，絕對會。」然後我說，「我問妳，上帝是否曾經虧待妳？」「噢，不，當然沒有。」「上帝是否曾經對妳不公平？」「哦，不，從來不曾。」「妳相信上帝是良善的？」「絕對，我相信上帝良善的。」然後我說：「好，我問你：妳所說的實際上是這樣，妳，南茜，承認妳是罪人，而妳擔心上帝會做錯事情？」她暫停了一會兒，然後說，「我想這就是我的意思。」我說，「南茜，妳會傷害別人，妳承認上帝從來沒有傷害過妳，也不曾做過錯事，祂也從來沒有不公平，妳只是擔心在這件事上，祂也許會犯規？這是不是妳的意思？」「我猜這就是我的意思。」我說，「這有點好笑，不是嗎？我們這兩個罪人擔心完美的上帝會做錯事？」在她真誠的問題背後（我要你們知道，我不是在貶低這個問題的誠意），隱藏著悖逆。因為她認定她比上帝更有愛心、更關心人。但是她沒有，你沒有，我也沒有。她認為自己比全能者更有同情心，擔心上帝在祂說過的話裡缺乏愛心，她以為如果換她掌權就不會這樣。One of the
brightest high school students that I ever had the privilege of working with,
is now a godly wife and mother of an active church officer in Nashville, Tennessee.
When she first came to St. Louis, her father had been transferred with a major
telephone company into St. Louis and they had been going to relatively moderate
to liberal kinds of Presbyterian churches. They accidentally stumbled into our
PCA church and the father really didn’t like the church, but the kids loved it,
and the mom loved it and so they sort of begged Dad to settle in and come to
our church. But interacting with Nancy
was always a challenge because she was very intelligent and she was very
sensitive. And when we were tackling the
doctrine of Hell, you know, it wasn’t something detached and intellectual for
her. It was real. And I will never forget the look in her eyes,
that Wednesday night when it dawned on her that I really believed that there
was a hell and that there were people there.
And you know, she cared about me, and I cared about her, and she said,
“I just can’t believe that you believe that.”
And we engaged in a long discussion that night about how there could be
a hell—how could there be a hell, if there is a loving God. How could a loving God create a place like
that? And how could He send people to be
there? And by the way, it was Nancy who
drove the point home to me that the problem is not what people often think it
is. So often people lock into the problem of how people get to hell, (aka “Predestination versus free will”). That is
kid stuff. The problem is hell. Who cares how somebody gets there? The problem is the fact that it is there and
that there are people in it. That is the
real problem. And Nancy, she had locked
onto that with her sharp mind, just like a bulldog and wouldn’t let go. And we went round and round. And frankly, she had me baffled. I had run out of all my apologetic bag of
tricks in terms of trying to argue this point with her. She knew that I had a strong biblical
presentation of the truth, but she couldn’t accept that truth because the pain
of that truth was so great to her. She
just couldn’t get her head around it.
And finally I said to her, I said, “Nancy, are you a sinner?” “Yes, I am a sinner.” “And you do things that hurt your parents and
hurt your friends from time to time? You
do wrong things?” “Yes, I do.” “And you are unfair sometimes and you are
unkind and you agree with that?” “Yes,
absolutely I do.” And I said, “Let me
ask you this: Has God ever done anything wrong to you?” “Oh, no, of course not.” “Has He ever been unfair to you?” “No, never.” “And you believe that God is
good?” “Absolutely. I believe God is good.” And I said, “Well, let me ask you this: So
what you are saying is really this, that you, Nancy, who admit that you are
sinner, you are worried that God is going to do something wrong here?” And she stopped for few minutes and she said,
“Now I guess that is what I am saying.”
I said, “You Nancy, who hurt people, who admit to me that God has never
hurt you and never done wrong and He has never been unfair, you’re just a
little afraid that He might be a bit out of line on this particular thing? Isn’t that what you are saying?” “I guess that is what I am saying.” I said, “That is kind of ridiculous, isn’t
it? That you and me, sinners, worry that
the perfect God might do something wrong?”
Now in the sincerity of her question, and I want you to hear, I am not
downplaying the sincerity of that question, there was hidden rebellion. Because she had decided that she was more
caring, more loving, more concerned about people than God. And she is not, and you are not, and I am
not. But she had lifted her sense of
compassion above the Almighty’s and she was concerned that something that God
had said in His Word was less compassionate than she would be if she were in
charge.
而這是悖逆的本質，撒但就是用這點來引誘夏娃的，祂要她朝這個方向走。夏娃一開始回答還有模有樣，我們在第2節看到，她說：「園中樹上的果子，我們可以吃。」她是在反駁撒但。她說：「園中樹上的果子，我們可以吃，惟有園當中那棵樹上的果子，上帝曾說：『你們不可吃，也不可摸，免得你們死。」因此她一開始是反對撒但。她拒絕這種暗示說上帝做了什麼愚蠢或不公平、缺少愛心的事。And that is the
essence of rebellion and that was what Satan was trying to tempt Eve with; that
was the direction that he wanted her to go.
And Eve answers pretty well initially, you’ll see there in verse 2, she
says, “From the fruit of the tree, we may eat.”
So she contradicts him. She says,
”No, we can eat from the fruit of the trees from the Garden, but from the fruit
of the tree in the middle of the Garden, God says, you shall not eat it or
touch it, or you will die.” So she
starts off by contradicting the serpent.
She rejects the implication that God has done something that is not very
wise or fair or good.
但是請注意她已經開始根據撒但的說法來回答。她犯了兩個錯誤。首先，注意到她自行添加了一些話。她說，上帝說他們不能摸樹上的果子。但是就我們所知，這不是上帝在創世記第2章給亞當的禁令。有鑑於這段經文用字的精簡，我們可以假設摩西有一些特別的理由，把這個報導包含在經文當中。換句話說，倘若她只是把一個縮減後的記載加以擴充，我們會懷疑摩西為什麼會這樣記載，好和先前的記載加以比較。But notice how she
already has begun to answer on Satan’s
own terms. Two mistakes she makes. First of all, notice that she adds words to
the response. She says, she indicates
that God had said we are not to touch the fruit, and of course that was not
part of the proscription that had been given to Adam in Genesis 2, as far as we
know. And given the economy of words in
these passages, we may assume that Moses had some specific reason for including
that particular report. In other word,
if she were just simply expanding on a shortened account that had previously
been given, one wonders why Moses would have included that in order to contrast
with the previous account that had been given.
其次，注意到她給了一個錯誤的順服的理由。她說：「你們不可吃，也不可摸，免得你們死。」這是表明她順服的動機不是為上帝的榮耀，而是避免死亡。因此，我們已經看到這裡有點裂痕。Secondly, notice
she gives a wrong motive for obedience. She says, “You shall not eat from it, or touch it, lest you die.” So
there is an indication here that the motivation is rather than keeping this
command for God’s glory, keeping lest we die.
So, we already see a crack in the dike here.
「雖然不信的人吵吵嚷嚷，他們說話的方式不值得我們生氣，因為這就是摩西所形容的古蛇說話的方式。當亞當和夏娃明知道所有的動物都是上帝所賜、要臣服於他們的，他們卻甘心情願被他們自己的奴僕引導走上歪路，背叛上帝，人忘恩負義的卑鄙也因此更加顯明。每當他們看見世上的動物，他們應該同時想到上帝的至高主權和無比的良善。但是相反地，當他們看見蛇，看見這背離造物主的背道者，他們不止沒有懲罰牠，反而違反了一切律法的秩序，讓自己臣服在牠之下，參與在同樣的背道中。還有什麼比這極度的敗壞更讓人羞辱的？這就是我對蛇的理解，是真實的，不像有些人把蛇理解為只是比喻。」“Though the impious make a noise, there is
nothing justly to offend us in the mode of speaking as a serpent by which Moses
describes Satan. Add to this the
baseness of human ingratitude is more clearly hence perceived, that when Adam
and Eve knew that all animals were given by the hand of God into subjection to
them, yet they suffered themselves to be lead away by one of their own slaves
into rebellion against God. As often as
they beheld one of the animals, which were in the world, they ought to have been
reminded by that both of the supreme authority and the singular goodness of
God. But on the contrary when they saw
the serpent and apostate from his Creator, not only did they neglect to punish
it, but in violation of all lawful order, they subjected and devoted themselves
to it as participators in the same apostasy.
What can be imagined more dishonorable than this extreme depravity? And
thus I understand the name of the serpent, not allegorically as some foolishly
do, but in its genuine sense.”
因此，這是加爾文對用寓意來解釋蛇的回應。這是個好問題。我只是想簡短提一下，因為上堂課結束時有人問到這個問題。And so that is
Calvin’s response to the
allegorical interpretation of the serpent.
That was a good question. I just wanted to mention that briefly since
someone had asked about that at the end of class.
上帝對蛇的咒詛
God’s
curse on the serpent
上帝對蛇的咒詛出現在創三15。我們已經說過，在這個咒詛中，隱含了對人類的祝福，因為上帝把敵意放在撒但和女人中間，是要在女人和她靈魂的敵人直接製造分裂。事實上，在創三15這個女人的後裔和蛇的後裔的教義裡，我們看見預定論的種子。順道一提，這個主題會貫穿整本創世記，保羅在加拉太書也重拾這個主題，特別是關於亞伯拉罕的後裔。不過，在這段經文裡，從創三15開始，我們看到預定論的種子。我們清楚看到上帝把世界分成兩個陣營，女人的後裔和蛇的後裔，我們看到上帝採取主動拯救女人。因此我們有了揀選論的種子。按照我們本性，我們是與上帝為敵的，但是按著祂的旨意，祂改變我們的本性，我們才能與撒但為敵。因此，這個敵意是罪人所擁有的最寶貴的敵意。The curse of the
Lord against the serpent in Genesis 3:15.
We have said here that in this curse there is implicit blessing for
mankind, because for God to put enmity between Satan and the woman is to drive
a wedge between the woman and the enemy of her soul. And in fact, we have the seed form here in
this doctrine of the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent in Genesis
3:15—by the way that theme will run throughout the book of Genesis and be
picked up by Paul in Galatians, especially with regard to the seed of
Abraham—but in this passage, beginning here in Genesis 3:15, we have the seed
of the doctrine of predestination. We
have God clearly dividing the world into two camps, the seed of the woman and
the seed of the serpent, and we have God taking initiative for the woman in her
salvation. So you have the seed of the
doctrine of election. By our nature, we
are at enmity with God, but by His will, He changes our nature so that we are
at enmity with Satan. And so this enmity
is the most wonderful enmity that there can be for a sinner.
好，在創世記三章15節，這個敵意有三重。仔細看這段經文。首先，上帝說，「你（指蛇）和女人彼此為仇」。因此，這是撒但和女人之間的敵意。首先是個人層面的敵意，在撒但和女人之間。Now, the enmity is
on three fronts in Genesis 3:15. Look
closely at the passage. First, God says,
“between you and the woman,” speaking to the serpent. So it is between
Satan and the woman; there is an individual enmity to begin with between Satan
and the woman.
為什麼耶和華一開始要先讓蛇和女人彼此為敵呢？首先，因為女人是最先被誘惑的。因此上帝在對這個誘惑進行補救時要從她開始。她最先受誘惑犯罪，因此上帝從她開始進行補救。其次，因為這個敵意建立起女人在救贖中要扮演的角色。（重覆）通過她，罪的大門向世界敞開了。但如今她在救恩中要扮演一個角色：她要懷胎生下那救恩的後裔。Why does the Lord
begin by establishing enmity between the serpent and the woman? Well, first, because the woman was the first
seduced. So He begins with her in the
remedy to the seduction. She was first
seduced into sin and so God immediately begins His remedy with her. Second, because this enmity establishes the
role that the woman will have in redemption.
It establishes the role that the woman will have in redemption. By her, the door of sin was opened into the
world. But now she will have a role in
salvation. That is, the woman will be
the bearer of the seed. And the seed,
eventually Jesus, will be the source of salvation. So even as she was the door of sin into this
world, so also, she will be the bearer of the seed of salvation.
注意這第二層的敵意，後裔之間的敵意：女人的後裔和蛇的後裔。這是衝突的擴大。這不只是撒但和夏娃個人層面的衝突，而是他們後裔之間的衝突。Notice the second
level of enmity, the enmity between the seeds: the seed of the woman and the
seed of the serpent. So this is an expansion of the conflict. There is not just individual conflict between
Satan and Eve, but between their seeds.
好，誰是那女人的後裔？是指誰呢？夏娃是該隱的母親，也是亞伯的母親。因此，這個後裔是指誰呢？很顯然不是指所有的人類。女人的後裔不是指所有從夏娃而生的人。當我們到創世記四章8節時，這就變得非常清楚了。約翰在約翰壹書三章12節明確告訴我們，該隱是屬那惡者的。因此，雖然該隱從血緣來說是夏娃後裔，但是靈性上，他是屬於蛇的後裔。Now, who is the
woman’s seed? To whom is that referring? Eve was the mother of Cain, just as well as
she was the mother of Abel, so who is this seed referring to? It does not refer to all mankind
clearly. Clearly. The seed of the woman is not every human
being descended from Eve. That is made
clear as soon as we get to Genesis 4:8.
And John tells us explicitly in I John 3:12 that Cain was of the evil
one. So though Cain was physically the
son of Eve, yet spiritually, he was of the seed of the serpent.
這再度提醒我們，家世不是恩典的保證。他或許是生在了亞當和夏娃的家庭裡，但是他卻是屬於蛇的後裔。因此，當我們說女人的後裔時，不是指全人類，因為在創世記第四章，我們已經在夏娃的後裔裡發現那屬於惡者的人。因此，這是指誰呢？這是指上帝在永恆裡已經設定要讓他們與撒但為仇的那些女人的後裔。我們馬上會舉一些例子。Now that again
reminds us that family lineage is no guarantee of grace. He may have been in the physical family of
Adam and Eve, but yet he was of the seed of the serpent. So when we refer to the woman’s seed, it
can’t mean all mankind because immediately in Genesis 4, we come upon one of
her descendants who is of the evil one.
So, who does it refer to? It
refers to the descendants of the woman in whom God sets enmity against
Satan. It refers to all of the
descendants of the woman in whom God sets enmity against Satan. And we will look at some examples of this in
just a few minutes.
誰是撒但的後裔？好，所有上帝沒有讓他們與撒但為敵的人。摩西從創世記第四章到第十一章及後來的經文，給了一連串的名字。Who is Satan’s seed? Well, all those in
whom God did not set enmity with Satan.
And Moses gives you a string of them from Genesis 4 through Genesis 11
and further.
最後一件事，在我們查考創世記裡這個後裔的主題之前，先看一個例子。如果你看創世記三章15節第三個敵意的層面，你會看到『他』會傷你的頭，而你要傷牠的腳跟。這是你（撒但）和他（女人單一的後裔）之間的衝突。One last thing, before we look
at an example of this theme of the seeds in Genesis. If you look at the third front of enmity in
Genesis 3:15, you will see this phrase, it or he, shall bruise your head and
you shall bruise his heal. And notice
here that the conflict is again individual.
The conflict between you, Satan, and it, or he, the singular seed of the
woman.
因此，這是兩個代表，一個代表所有在地獄裡心剛硬的人，另一個代表上帝拯救的人，他們會進行肉搏戰。因此救贖歷史就是從上帝所創造的敵意開始的，其高峰在撒但和那單一的後裔，即基督的衝突。保羅在加拉太書三章16節說，那後裔就是基督。So two representatives, one representing all the
hardened hosts of hell, the other representing the redeemed hosts of God,
engage in hand-to-hand combat. And so
the history of redemption is the history of God-originated enmity culminating
in the conflict between Satan and the singular seed who is Christ, Paul says in
Galatians 3:16.
兩個後裔之間的衝突的展開，在摩西所記錄的創世記四章到十一章的時期，就可以看到。你會在創世記四章1-17節，該隱的人生中；在創世記四章19-24節，拉麥的人生；在創世記六章1-6節，挪亞同時代的人當中，看到撒但的後裔。你應該還記得這個句子：「人在地上罪惡很大，終日所思想的盡都是惡。」這是在描寫挪亞同時代的人。如此，你再次看到寧錄，在創世記十章8-10節，創世記十一章1-9節，在建造巴別塔這件事上看到撒但後裔的踪影。所以，你看到這個主題的發展。該隱的家系是邪惡的。And the development
of this conflict between the two seeds can be seen in the period recorded by
Moses in Genesis 4 – 11. You can see the
seed of Satan in the life of Cain in Genesis 4:1-17. You can see it in the life of Lamech in
Genesis 4:19-24. You can see it in the
description of Noah’s contemporaries in Genesis 6:1-6, and you remember the
phrase, “and every intention of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil
continually.” That is the description of
Noah’s contemporaries. Then again you
can see it in Nimrod, the man hunter, in Genesis 10:8-10 and then you can see
it in Genesis 11:1-9 in the builders of the Tower of Babel. So you see this theme developing there. Those who follow in the line of Cain in
wickedness.
另一方面，我們可以在創四到十一章裡女人的後裔身上，看到女人的後裔和上帝的恩典。在創四25-26，我們看到塞特是這個恩典譜系其中的一個成員，在他的影響下，人們開始呼求耶和華的名，開始集體的敬拜。我們在創五22-24看到敬虔的以諾，在五28-29節看到敬虔的拉麥，即挪亞的父親。然後我們在六8-9、22看到挪亞自己，他是女人的後裔的一部分。因此當我們說創三15是第一次福音的宣講（protoevangelium），不只是一廂情願，只是早期教會註釋家的靈意解經。很明顯，我們在創三15看到了福音的種子。馬太亨利這樣說到：「因為相信這個應許，我們有理由認為，人類的第一對祖先和族長們，在洪水之前就被稱義了」。因此在女人和撒但，以及她的後裔和撒但的後裔之間建立敵意的這件事上，我們看到福音和上帝的揀選的根源。On the other hand,
we can see the seed of the woman and God’s grace on the seed of the woman in Genesis 4-11. In Genesis 4:25-26, we see Seth as one who is
in the line of grace and under whose influence people began to call out upon
the Lord and corporately worship. We see
the godly Enoch in Genesis 5:22-24, we see the godly Lamech in Genesis 5:28-29,
father to Noah. And we see Noah himself in
Genesis 6:8-9, and verse 22 as part of the seed of the woman. So when we refer to Genesis 3:15 as the first
giving of the Gospel, as the protoevangelium, that is not just wishful thinking
by allegorizing early church interpreters.
Clearly here, we have in Genesis 3:15, the very seed of the Gospel. Matthew Henry says this; “For by faith in
this promise, we have reason to think our first parents and the patriarchs
before the flood were justified.” And so
in this establishment of enmity between the woman and Satan and between her
seed and his seed, we see the very root of the Gospel and of divine election.
因此，這場戰爭是生命和恩典明確的證據。從教牧的觀點來說，這是值得我們記住的。我們會有許多基督徒朋友，也許包括我們，有時候會有消沉的時候，因為我們生命裡的罪的緣故，有外來的磨難。然而對內在的罪有正確的哀傷和關切不是屬靈死亡的跡象，而是屬靈生命的記號。只有當我試圖否認我有罪需要對付時，我才是真正有問題的時候，而不是當我持續感到要和罪爭戰而因此傷心時。這是屬靈生命的記號。而這是源自上帝所設立的敵意這個現實。這種戰爭是生命與恩典實在的證據。倘若我們可以和罪和平相處，或拒絕悔改的信息，就是靈魂生病的跡象，是死亡的記號。So this warfare is
the very evidence of life and grace.
That is very important for us to remember, pastorally speaking. We will have many Christian friends, perhaps
ourselves, who will be depressed from time to time, because of the eternal
turmoil we have because of sin in our lives.
And yet an appropriate sorrow and concern over indwelling sin is not a
sign of spiritual death. It is a sign of
spiritual life. It is when I am trying
to deny that I have sin to deal with that I am in trouble, not when I am
grieving over the continual fight against sin.
That is a sign of spiritual life.
And that flows from the reality of this enmity that God has established. This kind of warfare is the very evidence of
life and grace. If we can be at peace
with sin, or reject the message of repentance, that is the sign of soul
sickness. That is the sign of death.
請留意到這教會歷史上，撒但在教會裡面的工具，他們呼喚我們作什麼呢？要和世界和平共處。我們明白這不是我們要作的呼召。教會蒙召要對世界說「不」，不是因為教會恨世界，我們必須了解這點。這和我們之前問過的一個問題是吻合的。當我們開始說到「我們和他們」——即女人的後裔和蛇的後裔之間的分隔——時，難道這不會造成對那些按照上帝形象被造卻尚未得贖的人建立起一種不正確的仇恨的態度嗎？如果是這樣，我們怎樣和他們建立關係呢？And notice how often in the history of the
church, the call of those who are the tool of Satan within the church is to do
what? To make peace with the world. We see that is not our call to make. The church is called to say “No” to the
world, not because it hates the world, understand that. This feeds into a good question that was
asked earlier. When we start talking
about the “us and them”—the divide between the seed of the woman and the seed
of the serpent—doesn’t that lead into an attitude that builds an improper
hatred for those who are created in the image of God and yet not redeemed, and
as such, how do we relate to them?
教會必須對世界說「不」；教會必須拒絕和世界和平共處，才能拯救世界。因此，除非你已經對世界說「不」，否則你就不能對教會說「是」。除非你願意說：「為了你的好處，我不會把那些會毀滅你的事情告訴你」時，你才能說，「我是真的愛你」。因此，當你說，「哦，是的，我愛你，你就去作那些會讓你下地獄的事吧」，你並不是在愛他，正如你不會告訴一個酗酒的人，「我這麼愛你，所以我去替你買酒」一樣。這不是愛心。因此，教會必須對世界說「不」，以便教會可以對世界說「是」。我們必須以上帝所設立的這個敵意為前提，才能宣揚和平的福音。The church must say
“No” to the world; the church must refuse to be at peace with the world in
order to love the world. So you can’t
say “yes” to the church until you have first said “no” to the world. You can’t say, “I love you truly,” until you
have been willing to say, “I will not tell you that what will destroy you is
good for you.” So you are not loving a
person when you say, “Oh yes, I love you and you just go right on in that
behavior which will land you in hell,” anymore that you could tell a friend who
is an alcoholic, “I love you so much that I am going to buy booze for you.” That is not loving. So the church must say “no” to the world in
order that it can say, “yes” to the world.
There must be that divine enmity in order that we can preach the Gospel
of peace.
因此，上帝設立這個敵意的目的，不是為了要讓我們對尚未得贖的人建立起不正當的仇恨。這個敵意的目的是要讓我們看到以下這些正當的區分：恩典和定罪、義的和不義的、靠著恩典得救的罪人和尚未當他們的罪的主人的罪人。要讓教會對世界有話可說，這道牆就必須存在。倘若我們和他們沒有不同，我們對他們就對他們沒有用處，幫不上忙。因此這個區別是必要的，這不是為了讓我們可以搥胸頓足，洋洋得意，像法利賽人一樣驕傲，而是要讓我們可以說：我們明白你們現在的處境，我們以前也是這樣，但是靠著上帝的恩典，我們已經脫離了，而我們知道上帝的恩典也可以改變你的人生。而倘若你不悔轉，你會自食罪惡的惡果。因此這個區別不是為了讓自己感覺良好，而是讓我們去幫助其他人。如果教會和世界之間沒有敵意，教會對世界就沒有什麼話好說了。So the enmity is
not there so that we can build an improper hatred towards unredeemed human
beings. The enmity is there so that we
see that proper distinction between grace and condemnation, between
righteousness and unrighteousness, between sinners saved by grace and sinners
who have not yet owned their sin. That
barrier must stay there in order for the church to have anything to say to the
world. If we are no different than they
are, then I have nothing to say to them of use or of help. So the distinction must be there, not so that
we can beat our breasts and feel really smug and proud like the Pharisee, but
the distinction must be there so that we can say we understand the circumstance
that you are in, we have been there ourselves, but by God’s grace we have been
brought from that and we know that God’s grace can change your life as
well. And if you will not turn you will
face the consequence of the sin. So the
distinction is there not so that we can feel really good about ourselves, but
so that we truly have something to offer to someone else. If we are no different from them, it is all
the same. If there is no enmity between
the church and the world, the church has nothing to say to the world.
重新確認創造諭令
The Creation Ordinances
Reaffirmed
在看過上帝與亞當和夏娃之伊甸園特別設立的盟約之後，讓我對第三章剩下的部分作一點說明：16-24節。首先，請注意原始的創造諭令，即在樂園裡的盟約條例，在女人和男人的咒詛中被重新確認了。在三章16節，對女人的咒詛是：「我必多多加增你懷胎的苦楚；你生產兒女必多受苦楚。你必戀慕你丈夫；你丈夫必管轄你。」注意這裡，生養眾多的創造諭令仍然是有效的，而我們現在是在恩典之約裡了。墮落已經發生，但生養眾多仍然是命令。很重要的是在這裡我們要知道，生產不是咒詛，雖然我們有時候會有這種感覺。生育、養育孩童並不是咒詛。如今伴隨這件事而來的哀傷才是咒詛。馬太亨利說到，「養育兒女會帶來許多令人傷心的事，因為這不只包括要辛勤工作，更包括生育之前的痛苦，以及哺乳的辛勞，以及之後的操勞。在這些辛苦之後，倘若孩童變壞，變得愚蠢，就遠比懷胎時更加沉重了。」因此伴隨著生養眾多、養育孩童的責任的傷心，就是咒詛。養育孩童是祝福，生產是祝福。這是從上帝而來的祝福。聖經的立場一直是這樣。但是如今因為人的墮落，這件事就會有讓人傷腦筋的層面，而這是先前沒有的。Now, having looked
at that particular inauguration of God’s covenant in the Garden with Adam and
Eve, let me make just a few comments on the remainder of the chapter, verses
16-24. First of all, notice how the
original Creation Ordinances, the ordinances of the covenant in the Garden, are
reaffirmed in the curse of both the woman and the man. In Genesis 16, the curse of the woman is, “I
will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth
children, yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
Notice here that that creation ordinance of procreation is still in force. And we are in the Covenant of Grace now. The Fall has occurred, but procreation is
still a mandate. It is very important
for us to understand that childbearing is not the curse there, as much as it
may feel like it sometime. Childbearing
and child rearing is not the curse. The
grief associated with it now is the curse.
Matthew Henry says this, “The sorrows of childbearing are multiplied,
for they include not only the travailing throws, but the indisposition before
and the nursing toils and vexations afterwards.
And after all if the children prove wicked and foolish, they are more
than ever heaviness to her that bore them.”
So the sorrows attendant with the obligation of procreation and child
rearing, that is the curse. Child
rearing is the blessing. The
childbearing is a blessing. It is a
blessing from God. It is always
represented that way in the Scripture.
But now, because of the Fall, there will be vexing aspects to that that
were never present prior.
注意這個句子，「你丈夫必管轄你」。雖然在創造秩序裡，在丈夫、妻子的關係裡已經有盟約的元首和等級制度，這句話所暗示的是因為罪的緣故，在婚姻關係裡會有不和諧的元素存在，女人會有不正當的控制慾望，而男人則會產生不當的對臣服的反應。因此，我們在這裡再次看到在創造中，婚姻裡的「頭」的秩序。但是濫用婚姻生活裡的這個秩序，是墮落所造成的。我們可以公平地說，所有婚姻裡的困難都可以追溯到這個起源。我們對婚姻的委身要求我們要清楚這個動態，並且在我們的心中，要有意識地去戰勝它。撒但攻擊這點並不會出乎我們的意料之外。
Notice
also the phrase, “he will rule over you.”
Now though there was already headship and hierarchy in the created
order, in the husband-wife relationship, the implication is here that there
will be as a result of sin an element of discord in the marital relationship,
and that even as the woman may have inappropriate desires of control, the man
may have inappropriate responses of subjection.
So we see again here the order of headship in the marriage part of
creation. But the abuse of that order in
marital life is a function of the Fall.
And it is not unfair to say that every marital difficulty can be traced
to this point of origin. And our
commitment to marriage requires us to be aware of that dynamic and to combat it
consciously in our own minds. And it is
not surprising that Satan attacks here at this point.
好，在亞當的咒詛裡，我們看到另一個創造諭令獲得確認：工作或治理的諭令。在17-19節，我們看到上帝對亞當的咒詛。注意到這個咒詛中的憐憫。上帝沒有直接咒詛亞當。注意這個語言：「地必為你的緣故受咒詛」。因為亞當的罪，一個可怕而全面的刑罰進入到世界和亞當所處的環境裡。亞當的刑罰包含下面三個層面：
Now
in the curse to Adam, we see another of the Creation Ordinances confirmed. That ordinance of labor or of dominion. In verses 17 – 19 we see God’s curse to Adam. And notice the mercy of this curse. Adam is not cursed directly. Notice the language, “cursed is the ground
because of you.” A terrible and
pervasive sentence is passed on to the world and his environment because of
Adam’s sin. And Adam’s punishment included three distinct
aspects.
1. 要終生勞苦（字面翻譯是痛苦或重擔）。他要勞苦工作才能從地裡得吃的。再次注意到，工作的創造諭令仍然持續。工作不是咒詛；勞苦工作才是咒詛。
1.First,
toil in his labor (pain or heaviness is the literal translation of the word
there). Pain or heaviness in his labor
in the ground. Notice again, the
creation ordinance of labor continues.
The creation ordinance of labor continues. Labor is not the curse; toil in labor is the
curse.
2. 其次，他工作的成果會有缺陷。他不只是需要勞苦才能得到收穫，他工作的成果也會有缺陷。上帝在18節說：「地必給你長出荊棘和蒺藜來」。這和耶穌在馬太福音所說的是平行的，不是嗎？耶穌說到和天國相比，「地上有蟲子咬，能鏽壞，也有賊挖窟窿來偷」。這和荊棘與蒺藜的觀念是一致的。注意Derek Kidner怎麼說到荊棘和蒺藜：「荊棘和蒺藜是尚未被馴服的大自然正在擴張的有力跡象。在舊約裡，它們標記出人的自暴自棄和上帝的審判」。他也說到倘若沒有墮落，人的工作會是什麼樣。注意看這個句子，看它會給你什麼啟發：「耶穌基督所行的對自然界的神蹟給我們一些啟發，讓我們稍微明白人在上帝之下所施行的對環境的控制是什麼樣子。」很值得思考。
2.Secondly,
the fruits of his labor will be impaired.
Not only would there be toil and producing a yield, but there would be
an impairment of the fruits of his labor.
“Thorns and thistles will grow for you,” God says in verse 18. This parallels Jesus’ statements in Matthew,
does it not, where He speaks about a place where “moth and rust corrupts and
thieves break in,” in contrast to the kingdom of heaven. This is the same idea here with the thorns
and thistles. Listen to what Derek
Kidner says about thorns and thistles: “Thorns and thistles are eloquent signs
of nature untamed and encroaching. In
the Old Testament they marked the scenes of man’s self defeat and God’s
judgment.” He also has a wonderful and
suggestive word about what man’s labor would have been like apart from the
fall. Listen to this sentence and see if
it doesn’t bring ideas to mind: “The nature miracles of Jesus give us some idea
of the control which man under God may have exercised over his
environment.” Think about that.
3. 亞當的刑罰的三個層面：無法從地上的重擔獲得安息。它們會荼毒亞當的一生。死亡是亞當最後的刑罰。亞當一生要勞苦才得糊口，直到他歸於塵土。再次說，這顯明上帝對亞當的恩典，因為上帝沒有立即施行死刑。但是在給女人和男人的咒詛或定罪中，都顯明了上帝的恩典和憐憫。即使在祂的刑罰中，也再次強調了創造諭令與附加在這些諭令上的祝福。這和給撒但的刑罰形成了對比。
3.The third aspect of Adam’s
punishment: No earthly rest from
burdens. They will plague him all the
days of his life. Only at the very end of Adam’s sentence is death mentioned.
You will eat bread until you return to the ground. And again, that is evidence of God’s grace to
Adam in delaying the immediate execution of the sentence of physical
death. But in both the curse or the
condemnations handed out to woman and to man, God’s grace and mercy are
manifest. Even in His punishment, there is a reemphasis on the creation
ordinances and the blessings that are attached to them, in contrast to Satan’s
sentence. Any questions about that so
far?
問：恩典之約是雙方面的嗎？
Question:
The Covenant of Grace as bilateral
答：行為之約和其雙方面層面的重要性，在恩典之約裡，基督在代表我們的工作中，起了實在的作用。基督代表我們的工作。和在亞當裡的工作一樣，具有非常強烈的雙方面的元素。事實上，你可以論證說，比起上帝要求亞當要完成的事，基督必須完成更多的。舉個例子，基督生在一個已經有禮儀律法的世界，而亞當不是。因此基督不只必須遵守在行為之約下的自然律，更要完成如重擔一般的禮儀律。此外，祂必須要在一個墮落的世界裡完成。還有，祂必須臣服在一個可以說是配不上祂的尊貴的一種關係和身份之下。因此，在恩典之約和行為之約裡，這種平行的雙邊關係的美，在於它凸顯了基督代表我們的角色。好，從我的看法來說，你知道這就是開始變得不對稱的地方，因為恩典之約裡所要求你的順服，和要求基督的順服是不同的。恩典之約的美，在於基督已經代表我們成全了這個順服的層面，因此我們的順服和祂的順服相比，是不同類別和等級的。
A.
The importance of the Covenant of Works and the bilateral aspects of that come
to play in Christ’s work on our behalf in the Covenant of Grace. And clearly there is just as strong a
bilateral element to Christ’s work on our behalf as there is in Adam. In fact
you can make a case that Christ has to do much more than Adam was asked to
do. For one thing, Christ was born in a
world where there was already a ceremonial law, and Adam was not. And so Christ not only had to obey the laws
of nature under the Covenant of Works, but the ceremonial code which was a burdensome
code. In addition, He had to do it in a
fallen world. And in addition, He had to
subject Himself to a type and station of relationship which was, as it were,
beneath His dignity. So the beauty of
that bilateral relation paralleling in both Covenant of Grace and Covenant of
Works is that it highlights Christ’s role on our behalf. Now, from our standpoint, you know that is
where it becomes asymmetrical because the obediential element of the Covenant
of Grace is not the same for you and me as it was for Christ. The beauty of the Covenant of Grace is Christ
is fulfilling that obediential aspect on our behalf and so our obedience is of
a different kind and order than His. That is a good question.
問：我想知道，當我們看第二章是如何結束的，對亞當的咒詛是怎麼結束的，我們看到在那裡，在行為之約裡，對亞當沒有救贖的性質。我們在那裡看到是他作為我們盟約的頭，只帶來死亡。我們是否應該這樣說，上帝必須給我們一個新的盟約的頭，因為藉著他，上帝給他的咒詛是會歸於塵土，因此所有的人在亞當裡都要死亡。我們是否要把這點和我們有一個新的頭聯繫起來？亞當的職責已經被解除了。
Question:
“I just wondered as we are looking at how chapter two ends, how the curse ends
for Adam, is the significance that we are seeing in the two covenants in the
fact that the redemptive quality is not seen with Adam. All we see is that in him as our federal head
leads to death, should we be making a strong connection that now that the
woman, a new federal head must be given to us because through him, the way his
curse is ended, it is just you shall return to dust, so in Adam as we go
through Genesis they die. Are we
supposed to be connecting that in the fact that we have a new, somebody new has
to step into the scene? Adam has been relieved of duty.”
答：是的，很明顯，在亞當裡沒有一個新的代表的應許，而你要歸回塵土的最後結果，是從語意上對這點的強調。但是關於亞當和夏娃的一個後裔，在創三15節就很明顯了。在第四章開始和結尾都很清楚表明，夏娃已經開始在盼望這個後裔。夏娃首先是盼望亞伯，然後是塞特。她在猜想誰是那後裔。因此，我會同意，關於亞當最後的話提醒我們，他無法同時作為兩個盟約、這兩種關係的中保，你必須到別處尋找中保。
A: Yes. Clearly the promise of, you know, of a
new representative is not vested in Adam and the finality of that and you shall
return to dust may be part of the rhetorical emphasis of that. But it is clearly there in Genesis 3:15 with
regard to a descendant or a child of Adam and Eve. And there is indication in both at the
beginning and the ending of Genesis 4 that Eve was already looking for that,
first in Abel, and then later in Seth.
And wondering is this the one who is the seed? So, I would agree with that, that the
terminal language about Adam reminds you that he can’t serve that role as a
dual mediator for both these relations, you have got to be looking somewhere
else.
問：羅伯森說到死亡和無花果葉、衣服。這是某種獻祭嗎？
Question: “Robertson speaks of death and the fig leaves
and clothing. Is that a vague reference
to some type of sacrifice?”
答：我認為不必把皮衣當作某些盟約的獻祭儀式剩下的東西。我認為這是很明顯的，再說一遍，當我們提到為什麼在創六18之前，沒有明確提到盟約的用語，也許是這些儀式的傳統在當時還沒有建立。儀式傳統不是這個關係的核心。它們是用來確認的，而當舊約聖經繼續進展時，就聖禮論來說，它們自然會開始發展出它們自己的重要性。但是，我甚至不認為在訂立盟約時，要試著去找死亡的某種儀式層面。很明顯，正如違背行為之約時會帶來死亡，我們在創世記裡就可以看到，當人從恩典之約中被剪除時會發生什麼事。你會在創世記第四章看到，然後你會在這裡再次看到：當以實瑪利離開亞伯拉罕的家時，以實瑪利往哪裡走呢？是在創世記第廿一章吧？你會看到同樣的語句，他們離開，朝東走。因此，你會看到至少有三處，你會以為是應許的家系，但是卻離棄了盟約。以掃，以實瑪利，該隱，屬靈的死亡從一開始就很明顯。
A: Oh, I don’t think you have to try and make
the garments some sort of leftovers from
a covenant sacrifice or something like that.
I think it is very clear, again as we discuss why covenant terminology
isn’t used prior, the explicit covenant terminology isn’t used prior to Genesis
6:18, it may have been that some of those ritual conventions were simply not
contemporaneous to that time. The ritual
conventions are not of the essence to describe the relationship. They are confirming and they certainly
develop their own significance in terms of the Doctrine of the Sacraments as
the Old Testament goes on. But, I don’t
even think you have to try and find some sort of ritual aspect of death at the
inauguration of the covenant. Clearly,
just as death was implied in the breaking of the Covenant of Works, we’re going
to see what happens when one cuts themselves off from the Covenant of Grace
even in the book of Genesis. You will
see it in the language of Genesis 4 and then you will see it again: where does
Ishmael take his leave from Abraham’s family?
Is it Genesis 18, or is it later?
Anyway, you will see the same language, they went and they dwelled to
the east of their brethren and so you will see on at least three occasions,
sons, in the physical line which you might think of as the line of promise, you
will see them take leave of the covenant.
With Esau, and in Ishmael, and in Cain, and so the death implication,
the spiritual death implications are clearly there for the Covenant of Grace
from the beginning.
