破解启示录Cracking the Book of Revelation

作者：Dennis E. Johnson  翻译：王一

http://www.wscal.edu/resource-center/cracking-the-book-of-revelation

http://www.reformedbeginner.net/cracking-revelation/

https://plus.google.com/u/2/105106813742373627205/posts/a4Gyacbga21

前千？后千？还是无千？圣经中的千禧年本是一段空前和平的时期，然而讽刺的是这个话题却成了千百年来的神学战场。因为这个神学问题，许多宣教机构拒绝宣教士，许多教会否决了牧师，许多神学院开除了教授。这些矛盾冲突使人们避开使徒约翰的启示录，宁愿停留在其他更清晰安全的区域。然而，圣经这最后一卷书应许上帝必祝福读这卷书的和听这卷书中信息的人（启1:1-3），因此我们不应忽视它。书中奇异的场景是赐给所有上帝的仆人，刚强我们去争战，不是彼此相争，而是去对抗我们真正的仇敌。

Pre-mill? Post-mill? Or A-mill? The subject of the millennium, often portrayed as a period of unprecedented peace, ironically has been a theological battlefield for millennia. Missions agencies have refused missionaries, churches have rejected pastors, and seminaries have dismissed professors for lacking proper millennial credentials. Such conflict might tempt us to shun John’s Revelation visions and prefer Scripture’s clearer, safer waters. However, the Bible’s last book promises to bless both reader and hearer (Rev. 1:1-3) and should not be ignored. Its strange scenes are for all of God’s servants—to fortify us to fight, not each other, but our real enemy.

要想破解启示录的密码，我们必须了解这卷书是如何使用悖论（paradox）和重演（recapitulation）的。启示录让我们瞥见历史面纱背后的真相。事物并非如表面所见：光鲜的苹果其实有毒，乞丐的破衣裹着一位君王。同样，启示录也使用悖论：得胜的雄狮是被杀的羔羊，殉道者为基督被斩首却因此击溃大龙。To crack Revelation’s code we must recognize how it uses paradox and recapitulation. Revelation offers a peek behind the veil of history, enabling us to glimpse unseen realities. Things are not always what they seem—the shiny apple is poisonous, and a beggar’s rags disguise a king. In the same way, Revelation’s pictures speak in paradox: the Lion triumphs as a Lamb slain, and martyrs defeat the dragon by losing their heads for Jesus.

所谓重演就是像体育比赛里的画面重播。电视机前的观众可以从不同摄像机镜头来观看同一粒进球：一个摄像机从中场发动进攻球员的角度来拍摄，另一个助攻手的角度拍，还有一个从射门的球员角度拍，但这不是三个进球，而是从不同角度看同一粒进球。比如，在《启示录》12章里，作者从两个不同的角度来描写与龙战斗的那场争战，龙被打败但还没有完全毁灭。第一个镜头是展现了大红龙无法吞灭妇人属天的婴孩，弥赛亚的母亲逃到旷野去寻找安身之处（1-6节）。第二个镜头是拍摄这条龙从天上被驱逐，禁止他不再控诉信徒。龙气急败坏开始追赶逃到旷野去的弥赛亚的母亲（7-13节）。这两个镜头都是描述基督的救赎工作，他的道成肉身，顺服的一生，受苦，受死，复活最后升天，把这世界的王驱逐出去（约12:31）。这些异象表明无论是借着希律的大屠杀，各样的试探或是罗马的十架酷刑，撒但都无法毁灭我们的勇士君王。撒但无法控诉我们的罪，因为基督的宝血已经一次永远的涂抹了我们的犯罪记录。撒但也无法通过谎言或暴力摧毁上帝的百姓，弥赛亚的母亲在旷野里安然无恙。Recapitulation is the literary counterpart of video replay in sports broadcasting. Television viewers see every touchdown from several perspectives: one camera focused on the quarterback, another on the wide receiver, a third on the running back cutting up the middle—not three touchdowns, but one viewed from different angles. Likewise, Revelation 12, for example, has two different perspectives on the epoch-changing conflict in which the dragon is decisively defeated but not utterly destroyed. The first camera angle shows that the dragon cannot consume the heavenly woman’s child, so Messiah’s mother flees for safety into the desert (vss. 1-6). The second camera angle shows the dragon expelled from heaven, disbarred from accusing believers. In frustration it pursues Messiah’s mother, who flees for safety into the desert (vss. 7-13). These are two perspectives on Christ’s redemptive work—his incarnation, obedience, suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension—expelling the prince of this world (John 12:31). These visions exclaim that Satan could not destroy our Warrior-King, whether it be through Herod’s holocaust, temptation, or Roman cross. He cannot accuse us of sin, for Jesus’ blood cleared our criminal record once-for-all. Nor can Satan destroy God’s people through lies or violence—Messiah’s mother is safe in the desert.

到了《启示录》第20章，我们又看到一个新的视角描述了12章所提到的战役。在20章里，我们又一次看到龙被打败，捆绑起来不再迷惑列国，但它还没有被摧毁。在20章里重复了12:9出现的四个名字“龙，古蛇，魔鬼，撒但”，把这两个异象连接在一起。像在12章那样，在20章里基督的第一次降临所做的工作就是捆绑这条龙，开始了约翰所看见的以一千年作为象征的新时期。这就是说，基督的死，复活与升天开启了千禧年。千禧年不是一个未来的某个时期，而是当下的现实。The millennial vision of chapter 20 gives us an additional “camera angle” of the same battle discussed above in Rev. 12. Here again we see the dragon decisively defeated—bound, prevented from deceiving Gentile nations—but not yet destroyed. His fourfold name, “dragon, ancient serpent, devil, Satan,” is repeated from Rev 12: 9 to reinforce the bond between these two visions. Here, as in chapter 12, it is Christ’s work in his first coming that binds the dragon, launching the era that John sees symbolized as 1,000 years. That is, Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension inaugurated the millennium so that it is not a future hope, but a present reality.

然而，有许多人会反对这种观点。让我们来一同回答这些疑问，这能够帮助我们更加了解《启示录》的含义和其中蕴含的鼓舞：However, the mere suggestion that the millennium has already begun and continues to exist raises objections in many minds. Answering these objections will help us grasp both Revelation’s meaning and its encouragement to us:

第一，难道“一千年”不是1000年吗？有些人认为千禧年不是从基督升天时开始的，否则基督应该在升天后1000年再来！简短的回答是，《启示录》里的数字是象征性的。《启示录》第四章二节和五节提供一个人人都会同意的例子。约翰被上帝的灵提上天，这里是一个灵。在天上他看见七盏等象征着上帝的七个灵。这个灵依旧是一个，但是却被描绘为七个，这要表明的是圣灵完全与父同在天上并且完全与教会同在地上，因为数字七象征着完全或完整。同样，“一千年”不应该从字面来理解，而应该按照象征意义来看。数字1000象征着从基督第一次降临捆绑撒但到他第二次降临最终审判撒但之间有一段非常长的时间。(1) Doesn’t “1,000 years” mean 1,000 years? Some argue that the millennium could not have begun with Christ’s ascension, or else Christ would have returned a mere 1,000 years later! The short answer is that numbers are symbolic in Revelation. Rev. 4:2 and 5 provide an example on which everyone agrees. John is caught up to heaven by “the Spirit”—one Spirit of God. In heaven he sees seven lamps that symbolize God’s seven Spirits. Without ceasing to be one, the Spirit is seen as seven to signal that he is fully present with the Father in heaven and with the church on earth, seven being the number of fullness or completion. Likewise, “one thousand years” should not be taken literally but symbolically. It signifies a very long time between Christ’s binding of Satan at his first coming and his final judgment of Satan at his second coming.

在《启示录》中，基督宣称其中的异象很快便会开始，对于使徒约翰在第一世纪的读者来说，这些事件不是在遥远的未来（1:1,3；22:10；对比但12:1-4）。对于约翰的读者们来说，千禧年是当前的现实。当然，这个“很快”只是一半。千禧年的高潮尚未开始。因为上帝的时间与我们的不同，上帝的“很快”可能我们感觉不是很快。但必须记得，表面上主是迟延，但不是因为他疏忽，而是因为他在忍耐，他在伸手招呼一切选民来信靠他（彼后3:9）。羔羊必先招聚一切名字写在他生命册上的人之后才会再来。同时，基督徒必须做长远打算，并且勇敢的为福音作见证，借此圣灵亲自聚集基督的羊。At both ends of Revelation, Christ insists that its visions concern trends soon to commence, not events removed from John’s first-century readers in some distant future (1:1, 3; 22:10; contrast Dan 12:1-4). The millennium was a present reality for his readers. Yet this “soon-ness” theme is only part of the truth. The culmination of the millennium has yet to occur. Because God’s timing is not ours, God’s “soon” may not feel soon to us. We must recognize that the Lord’s apparent tardiness is not negligence but patience, as he woos all his elect to faith (2 Pet. 3:9). The Lamb will not return until he has gathered everyone whose name is written in his book of life. In the meantime, Christians must dig in for the long haul and boldly bear the gospel testimony by which the Spirit gathers Jesus’ sheep.

第二，难道末日大决战不应该是在千禧年之前进行的吗？有些人认为既然大决战是19章，那就必须先于20章出现的千禧年。如果这种观点是正确的话，那么为什么千禧年从基督第一次降临时就已经开始了，而当时大决战还没有开始呢？大决战不是在千禧年之前进行。我们必须记得，《启示录》使用的是重演或重播的手法。第19章给我们的是最终战役的两个镜头其中之一。这一章向我们展现了列国被兽和那假先知迷惑，聚集起来争战以及毁灭性的结局。第二个镜头同样也是这最后一战，记录在启20:7-10，其中清楚描述了在千禧年之后的争战。与第一个镜头相同，我们在这里看到列国被迷惑，聚集起来争战。但是不同于第一个镜头的是，这时的镜头聚焦在撒但身上，他是兽和假先知迷惑行动背后的主谋。他企图从地上消灭为耶稣作见证的教会，但是他最终会失败，并被投入火湖。因此，《启示录》19:19-21和20:7-10这两个镜头视角相互补充，把千禧年之后发生的最终决战完整的展现在读者眼前。(2) Doesn’t the battle at Armageddon come before and not after the millennium? Some argue that the battle at Armageddon (found at the end of Rev. 19) must precede the millennium of Rev. 20. If they are right, how could the millennium begin with Christ’s first coming when the battle at Armageddon has yet to occur?  However, the battle at Armageddon does not come before the millennium. We must keep in mind Revelation’s use of recapitulation or video replay.  Rev. 19 gives us the first of two views of the last battle. It shows us the nations gathered to wage the battle and its disastrous outcome for the beast and false prophet. The second view of the same last battle is found in Rev. 20:7-10 which clearly describes a conflict after the millennium. Just like the first view, we see nations deceived and gathered for the battle. Unlike the first view, this camera angle focuses on Satan, the archenemy behind the activity of the beast and the deception of the false prophet. He tries to erase Jesus’ testifying church from the earth, but he will fail and be thrown into the lake of fire. As a result, the two camera angles of Rev. 19:19-21 and Rev. 20:7-10 allow the reader to see the complete picture of the last battle that occurs at the end of the millennium.

第三，当今世界的现状看起来不像是撒但已经被捆绑的感觉。我们必须记得撒但依旧像一头吼叫的狮子在地上徘徊寻找猎物（彼前5:8）。他知道自己所剩时日不多，就越发在上帝的儿女身上发泄怒气（启12:12, 17）。但是，要特别注意的是，基督捆绑撒但的目的是什么：是使他无法像从前那样迷惑列国。因此，他无法再聚集列国组成全球联盟一举消灭教会。新约圣经里其他地方也证实这一点。因为基督来捆绑了撒但释放了他的俘虏（太12:28-29），上帝的光如今照耀进入列邦的黑暗（太4:15-16）。从前上帝任凭外邦在无知中各行其道，现今不再如此（徒14:15-16; 17:30）。撒但不论如何费尽心力都无法阻止福音传遍地极。(3) World conditions don’t look as if Satan is bound. We must remember that Satan still prowls like a lion seeking prey (1 Pet. 5:8). Knowing that his days are numbered, he vents his rage on God’s children (Rev. 12:12, 17). But note, specifically, what the binding prevents him from doing: he cannot deceive the nations as he once did. Therefore he can no longer assemble the nations into a global coalition to try to snuff out the church. Other New Testament scriptures confirm this. Because Jesus came to bind Satan and release his captives (Matt 12:28-29), God’s light now shines into the Gentiles’ darkness (Matt 4:15-16). Formerly God had left the Gentiles in their ignorance, but no more (Acts 14:15-16; Acts 17:30). In Jesus, the light of the world, Gentile nations behold God’s glory (Luke 2:32; Acts 13:47). Try as he might, Satan cannot prevent the gospel from reaching the ends of the earth.

总结  CONCLUSION

千禧年宣告羔羊已登宝座，龙气数已尽，福音之光刺穿列国的黑暗。当然，要想看到这一切，我们必须透过表面现象，看到真相。民意调查，参加人数统计，文化趋势，选举结果或国家立法这些都无法告诉我们哪一方才是宇宙决战的胜者。这并不奇怪。毕竟，犹大的狮子取得的胜利看起来并不像胜利，而是像罪犯一样屈辱受刑。那个黑暗的午后，撒但似乎占了上风；但是我们的主就是在这样的软弱中驱逐了那位控诉者，捆绑了那条大龙。福音在万民中被传扬正证明了基督的十架的确已经大打破了撒但束缚列国的锁链。福音证明如今就是千年之久的禧年了！The millennium declares that the Lamb is on the throne, the dragon is on its last legs, and the light of the gospel is piercing the nations’ darkness. To see this, of course, we must look past surface appearances. We cannot estimate who is winning the cosmic conflict by opinion polls, attendance statistics, cultural trends, election results, or legislative actions. But that should not surprise us. After all, the triumph of Judah’s Lion did not look like victory, but like the shameful execution of a criminal.  That dark afternoon Satan seemed to have the upper hand; but in such weakness our Champion disbarred the accuser and bound the dragon. The spread of the gospel among all peoples proves that Christ’s cross has indeed broken Satan’s stranglehold on the nations. Gospel witness proves that the millennium is now.

因此，《启示录》给今天教会的宣教事工极大的鼓舞。既然耶稣已经捆绑了壮士，我们可以信心满怀的投身到宣讲福音的工作中去，使福音传到地极。我们生活在基督升天与再临之间的时代，这期间上帝驱逐了那曾经吞灭列国的黑暗。耶稣正在使用为他作见证并受苦的教会，“从各国，各族，各民，各方言”招聚一大群人永远歌唱“救恩归与坐宝座的我们的上帝，并归与羔羊。”（启7:9-10）Therefore, the book of Revelation gives great encouragement to missionaries and the church’s work of missions. Since Jesus has bound the strongman, we can throw ourselves confidently into gospel witness to the ends of the earth.  We inhabit the age between Jesus’ ascension and his return, the age in which God dispels the darkness that once engulfed the nations. Through his witnessing and suffering church, Jesus assembles a crowd “from every nation, tribe, people and language” to sing forever: “Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.”

创世记第一章与今日教会   Genesis One and the Church Today

 作者: Robert Godfrey    翻译: 骆鸿铭

http://wscal.edu/resource-center/resource/genesis-one-and-the-church-today

http://www.crtsbooks.net/blog/post/2014/02/08/%E5%89%B5%E4%B8%96%E8%A8%98%E7%AC%AC%E4%B8%80%E7%AB%A0%E8%88%87%E4%BB%8A%E6%97%A5%E6%95%99%E6%9C%83%EF%BC%88Robert-Godfrey%EF%BC%89.aspx

圣经是以一个全面性的宣告开始的：「起初，上帝创造天地」。这个声明将圣经宗教和其他许多虚假的道理对立起来。这些道理说，世界上有很多的神，而物质是永恒的，或者说这个世界是从进化而来的，不是一个设计者所设计的。基督教对于创造的教义，即总结在创世记第一章第一节的教导，对我们认识上帝、认识人、认识人在这个世界的呼召，以及上帝与人之间的团契相通是非常重要的。

The Bible begins with the sweeping declaration, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This statement sets biblical religion against many false teachings, among them: that there are many gods, that matter is eternal or that the world evolved without design or a designer. The Christian doctrine of creation, summarized in Genesis 1: 1, is critical to our understanding of God, of man, of man's calling in this world, and of the fellowship between God and man.

由于这个创造的教义非常重要，加上现代科学对这个教义的攻击，基督徒在过去两百年来非常关注创造论真正的教导，就是合情合理的。有很多人投注许多精力去研究圣经、研究科学，好了解它们各自教导了什么，以及它们各自的教导和另一方有什么关联。作为改革宗的基督徒，我们过去一直正确地坚持说圣经才是我们最终的权威，而人类的科学结论不是。但是我们也一直说，所有的真理都是上帝的真理，最终，对圣经正确的解读，和科学真正的发现，必定是可以兼容并蓄的，是不会彼此矛盾的。

In light of the importance of the biblical doctrine of creation and because of the attacks on that doctrine often parading as modern science, it is very understandable that Christians have been very concerned about the true doctrine of creation in the last two hundred years. Much energy has gone into the study of the Bible and of science to understand what each teaches and how each teaching should be related to the other. As Reformed Christians we have always rightly insisted that the Bible is our ultimate authority against which the conclusions of human science must not be set. But we have also always said that all truth is God's truth and that ultimately a true reading of the Bible and genuine conclusions of science will be compatible.

在过去的十到十五年（译按：本文写于2001年），有越来越多保守的基督徒——包括改革宗内部和外部——相信，如果要捍卫圣经，要捍卫基督教创造论的教义，就必定会要求我们要如此来解释创世记第一章，即上帝是在六天中创造了世界，而这六天每天都是二十四小时的一天。这当然是教会历史中占绝大多数的一种解读，因此我们大可以正确地称之为传统的解读。但是坚持说我们唯独可以容忍这种看法，则是相当新的观念。这种缺乏宽容的观念，会把最近一些最著名的，也是正统神学家的看法，从改革宗教会中排除出去，包括：赫治（Charles Hodge），华腓德（B. B. Warfield），梅晨（J. Gresham Machen），慕理（John Murray），杨以德（EJ. Young），凯柏（Abraham Kuyper）和巴文克（Herman Bavinck），这还只是其中的少数。他们都不同意今天许多人所坚持的六个二十四小时天的看法。

For the last 10 to 15 years a growing number of conservative Christians – both within and outside of the Reformed community - have become convinced that the defense of the Bible and the defense of the Christian doctrine of creation requires interpreting Genesis one as teaching creation in six twenty-four hour days. Such an interpretation is certainly the majority interpretation in the history of the church and so we can rightly call it the traditional view. But the insistence that it is the only view that should be tolerated is rather new. Such an intolerant view would exclude from the Reformed churches some of the most notable and orthodox theologians of recent times. Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, John Murray, EJ. Young, Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck, to name only some; each dissented in one way or another from the six twenty-four hour view insisted on today.

这个新的缺乏宽容的立场，很有趣地，似乎与1930年代基要主义的纠纷，有许多平行的元素。在面对自由主义非常真实的威胁中，许多基要主义者相信，只有一个教义可以作为信仰是否正统的试金石，以及作为对抗现代主义坚不可摧的堡垒，那就是前千禧年的教义。许多持无千禧年派观念的正统的基督徒，被指控为是自由派，因为他们放弃了圣经的「字面」解经。因此，今天有些人似乎认为，六个廿四小时天的观念，可以保护圣经的权威，也保护字面方式诠释圣经的这个思路。然而当我们面对这个时代对圣经信仰真正的攻击时，我们万万不可防卫过当。我们必须努力保持平衡，同时拒绝人类理性的狂妄宣称，也要拒绝这个退回到反智主义的诱惑。

The new intolerance seems interestingly parallel to elements of the fundamentalist controversy in the 1930s. In the face of the very real threat of liberalism, many fundamentalists came to believe that the one biblical doctrine that could be a litmus test of orthodoxy and an impenetrable bulwark against modernism was the doctrine of pre-millennialism. Many orthodox Christians who were a-millennial were accused of liberalism because they had abandoned a "literal" interpretation of the Bible. So today some seem to believe that the idea of creation in six twenty-four hour days will protect the authority of the Bible and a literal approach to the interpretation of the Scriptures. But we must not become too defensive in the face of the very real attacks on biblical religion that we face in our time. We must seek to remain balanced rejecting both the pretentious claims of human reason and the temptation to retreat into anti-intellectualism.

我们要清楚说明到底什么是圣经的字面解释。圣经的字面解释是指作者透过文本的文字所想要表达的意思。它和灵意化（spiritualizing）的解读是对立的。灵意化的解读是指要在作者完全不知道的、隐藏起来的意义中，找到文本的意思。举例来说，以赛亚在以赛亚书五十九章提到耶和华的膀臂。这节经文是不是像摩门教对这节经文字面的理解，认为上帝真的有一个物质的身体，有一个物质的膀臂呢？不是！这节经文的字面意义，也就是以赛亚所要表达的意思是，膀臂是上帝能力的象征。

We need to be very clear what a literal interpretation of the Bible actually is. The literal interpretation is the meaning intended by the author and carried by the words of the text. It stands in contrast to a spiritualizing interpretation, which finds the meaning of the text in a hidden significance entirely unknown to the author. As an example think of Isaiah's reference to the arm of the Lord in Isaiah 59. Is the literal understanding of that text the Mormon understanding, that God actually has a physical body and also a physical arm? No! The literal meaning of the text, which Isaiah intended, is that the arm is a metaphor for the power of God.

因此，当我们来到创世记第一章时，什么是六天创造的字面意义呢？一个值得赞赏的解读是：这里的天是廿四小时天。但是诚实的解经必须承认到，这个观点是有问题的。首先，我们怎么和创世记二章4节来调和，「创造天地的来历，在耶和华造天地的『日子』（in the day）乃是这样。」如果「日」的意思永远只能是指「日」，而这个意思是很明显的，那么圣经就是矛盾的。究竟是创世记二章4节的日子，还是创世记第一章中的「天」，是字面意义的「天」？究竟上帝是在一天内创造的，还是在六天内创造的？

So when we come to Genesis one, what is the literal meaning of the six days of creation? One interpretation that has much to commend it is that the days are twenty-four hour days. But honest exegesis must recognize that there are problems with this view. First, how do we harmonize such a view with Genesis 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven" (NASB). If day always means day, and the meaning is obvious, then there is a contradiction in the Bible. Is the day of Gen. 2:4 or the day of Gen. 1 the literal day? Did God create in one day or six days?

其次，我们应该思考创世记第一章中关于光的问题。在整本圣经其他的地方，都假设光体（日、月、星辰）的光是光的来源。启示录廿二章5节暗示，在世界的末日，有一件新事会发生，到那时，光只会从主自己那里来，再也没有其他的光源：「不再有黑夜；他们也不用灯光、日光，因为主神要光照他们。」在创世记里，第一天的光是上帝透过祂话语的能力所造的。这个光不可能是某种从神的本体而来的、不是被造出来的光照，因为那是个被造的光。但是第一天没有告诉我们，这个光实际的来源是什么。第四天的确告诉我们，这光的实际来源是这些光体。这是不是有可能，或甚至是很有可能，单单从圣经内在的证据看来，第一天和第四天是用不同的角度在描写创造光的同一个行动呢？

Second, we should consider the matter of light in Genesis one. Throughout the rest of the Bible the assumption is that the lights (sun, moon, and stars) are the source of light. Rev. 22:5 implies that something very new occurs at the end of time when light no longer has any source except the Lord himself: "There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light." Now the light of day one in Genesis is created by God through the word of his power. That light cannot be some uncreated illumination from the being of God because it is a created light. But day one does not tell us what the physical source of that light is. Day four does tell us that the physical source of light is the lights. Is it not possible, or even likely, then from the internal evidence of the Bible alone that days one and four are describing the same act of creating light from different perspectives?

第三，当创世记第二章2节告诉我们，上帝在第七天歇了祂一切创造的工，安息了，字面的意思是指上帝累倒了，必须休息以恢复体力吗？而倘若上帝不觉得累，只是说自己在休息，好教导我们要休息，是不是有可能，祂是在说祂工作了六天，好教导我们也要工作六天呢？我们不能把圣经里的上帝变成希腊神话里的天神宙斯，只是一个按照我们形象所造的，在天空里的巨大人物。我们毋宁必须一起仔细地研读圣经，好完全地解答这些问题。

Third, when Gen. 2:2 tells us that God rested on the seventh day, does the literal interpretation mean that God was tired out and had to recuperate? And if God was not tired and only presented himself as resting to teach us to rest, is it possible that he presented himself as working over six days to teach us to work six days? We must not turn the God of the Bible into Zeus, a big man in the sky made in our image. Rather we must together study the Bible carefully and answer such questions as these fully.

既然传统的看法不像护卫这个看法的人所宣称的那么明显，那么无懈可击，难道我们不应该有某种程度的宽容，容许对创世记的不同解读呢？如果我们都同意圣经是无误的，即创世记是真实的历史，上帝的确从无有中造出了万有，人不是演化的产物，而是上帝从地上的尘土直接创造出来的，难道这不就足以安全地守护教会正统了吗？倘若我们同意，我们必须通过用经文来比较经文的方法，以寻求经文的字面（真实）意义，以及作者想要表达的意思，难道我们不就是在保护解读圣经的健全原则吗？如果我们在这么多的方面有共识，我们就应该也会同意巴文克这个饶有智慧的说法：

Since the traditional view is not so obvious and unproblematic as its defenders like to claim, should we not allow a measure of toleration for different interpretations of Genesis one? If we all agree that the Bible is inerrant, that Genesis is real history, that God created all things out of nothing, that man is not a product of evolution, but an immediate creation of God from the dust of the earth, is that not enough to safeguard the orthodoxy of the church? If we agree that we must seek the literal sense of the test and the meaning the author intended by comparing Scripture with Scripture, have we not protected sound principles of biblical interpretation? If we are agreed about so much, we should also agree with Bavinck's wise statement:

「大地是在这些日子里成形、成为人类的居所，对这些日子的看法也类似。无论何时，人们对这个问题都有不同的看法，托马斯正确地确认这点，就是对于信心来说不是绝对必要的事情，可以容许有各种看法。奥古斯丁相信上帝在一瞬间同时创造出万物，因此创世记第一章所说的，启示给我们知道的日子，不是时间方面的，而只是一种松散的次序，让我们知道创造之工的各个部分与其他部分之间的关联。他警告信徒，不要偏执于圣经没有明确说明的事情，以至于当有更明确的亮光照亮某段经文时，我们宁可为捍卫自己的看法而发光，而不为经文的意义来争辩。」

 "Something similar is true of the days in which the earth was formed and made into an abode for humans. At all times people have entertained different opinions on that matter, and Thomas rightly affirms that in the things which do not belong to the necessity of faith various opinions are permitted. Augustine believed that God created all things simultaneously in a single instant, so that the days of which Genesis 1 speaks make known to us not the temporal but only the causal order in which the parts of the work of creation stand to each other. And in obscure matters, he warned believers against taking such a firm stand in favor of a certain interpretation of Scripture that, when a clearer light should dawn over a passage, we would rather shine in defending our own opinion than fight for the meaning of Holy Scripture."

我们也许该问问巴文克，哪些事情是属于信心所必须的？在教会必要的教义，以及可以有某种程度的差异的教义之间，我们要如何划下界限呢？信仰告白陈述的是我们都同意的教义。基于这个理由，我们称信仰告白是我们合一的形式（forms of unity）。它们在基要真理上把我们联合在一起。在它们沉默不语的地方，教会就应当容忍各种不同的看法。

We might ask of Bavinck, what things do belong to the necessity of faith? How can we draw the line between the doctrines the church must require and doctrines where we can have a measure of difference? The answer to that question is the confessions of the church present that dividing line. The confessions state those doctrines that we all agree on together. For that reason we call our confessions our forms of unity. They unite us in the essentials of the truth. Where they are silent, the church should tolerate a variety of views.

在改革宗教会的历史上，由于一些区会曾经想要把宗派之外的看法强加在教会身上，因而造成了严重的伤害。无论是Klaas Schilder，还是Herman Hoeksema，我的看法是他们的教导都不应该被改革宗区会定罪（这些人的看法也不应该被强加在教会身上！）。我们应当极力维护我们信仰告白的教导，而对一些我们的信仰告白没有说得很清楚的地方，可以容许有不同看法的空间。这种认信主义（confessionalism）特别应该是联合改革宗教会（United Reformed Churches）的特征。这些教会所以联合在一起，是出于一个信念，就是他们之前所属的区会，曾经把一些不合圣经，以及非信仰告白的看法和做法，强加在教会身上。联合改革宗教会的《教会秩序手册》（Church Order）写作的目的就是为了防止任何形式的区会暴力，以确保一个非中央集权的教会生活。请留意，URC所承担的教会合一任务，是努力使那些「证明它们自己是忠于三项联合信条所总结的圣经教导的教会」（《教会秩序手册》，第34条）加入这个宗派。这不是要求在所有圣经的教导上都要达成共识，而是对那些总结在信仰告白里的圣经教导要达成共识。使我们联合在一起的，不是教会的政治力量，而是信仰告白。当我们看到那些曾经批评区会滥权的人，如今却主张要利用区会来将新的教义强加在教会身上，是很奇怪也很可悲的。

In the history of the Reformed churches serious harm has been done to our unity by synodical efforts to impose extra-confessional views on the churches. In my opinion neither the distinctive teachings of Klaas Schilder nor those of Herman Hoeksema should have been condemned by Reformed synods. (Nor should the views of those men be imposed on the churches!) Rather we ought to uphold vigorously the teachings of our confessions and allow latitude for disagreements on issues not clearly spoken to by our confessions. Such confessionalism should be the hallmark of the United Reformed Churches in particular. That federation of churches was born out of a conviction that the synod of their former connection had imposed unbiblical and unconfessional views and practices on the churches. The Church Order of the United Reformed Churches was written to prevent any form of synodical tyranny and to insure a quite decentralized church life. Notice that the ecumenical task of the URC is to pursue churches that "demonstrate faithful allegiance to Scripture as summarized in the Three Forms of Unity" (Church Order article 34). It is not agreement in all that the Bible teaches which is required, but agreement on those teachings of the Bible summarized in the confessions. The confessions, not ecclesiastical power politics, are to unite us. It is strange and sad to see some of those who most criticized the abuse of synodical power, now suggesting that synods be used to impose new doctrines upon the church.

这些教会的信仰告白不是藏在博物馆里的文物，只能为我们祖先的信仰作见证。它们是这些教会活生生的见证。如果弟兄姐妹确信一个教义必须加在教会的信仰立场上，就让他们以正当的方式来修正我们的信仰告白。让教会仔细地研究这个问题，好确信我们的确比我们的先贤要来得聪明。

The confessions of our churches are not museum pieces testifying only to what our forefathers believed. They are the living testimony of the churches. If brothers are convinced that a doctrine needs to be added to the confessional position of the church, let them act in a proper way to amend our confessions. Let the church study the matter with care and be sure that we are in fact wiser than those who came before us.

与此同时，让我们以兄弟之谊一同研究圣经，热切地寻求上帝的心意。让我们不要傲慢自大，甚至连彼此倾听都不愿意。让我们效法伯克富树立的好榜样。在他的系统神学里，他极力地排斥Noortzij教授所提出的对创世记第一章的某种画景论解释（framework interpretation）。他的做法是，首先对这个他所不同意的立场作一个彻底的回顾；其次，为他自己的传统解读提出经过缜密思考的论证；然后第三，他从来没有暗示Noortzij教授不是弟兄，他的看法不能被容忍。在我们的讨论中，有关创世记第一章里的「日」，我们也必须记得，创世记第一章的主要目的不是要教导我们地球的年龄，或上帝花了多长时间来创造。创世记第一章的主要目的是要教导我们，上帝的尊荣、权能、智慧，以及祂所赐给人的特性和责任。上帝教导我们，人作为唯一按照祂的形象所造的被造物，必须在每周中工作六天，并且用一天休息，以便与上帝有特别的团契相通。

In the meantime let us study the Scriptures together as brothers, earnestly seeking the mind of God. Let us not be arrogant, unwilling even to listen to one another. Let us follow the good example of Louis Berkhof. In hi s Systematic Theology he vigorously rejected the particular framework interpretation of Genesis one proposed by Professor Noortzij. But in doing so, he first of all presented a thorough knowledge of the position with which he was disagreeing, second, presented a carefully considered argument for his own traditional interpretation, and third, never suggested that Prof. Noortzij was not a brother whose views should be tolerated. We need also to remember in the midst of our discussions about days, that the main purpose of Genesis one is not to teach us the age of the earth or the length of time that God took to create. The main purpose is to teach us the splendor, power and wisdom of our God and the character and responsibilities which he has given to man. God teaches us that we, as the only creatures made in his image, must work for God for six· days each week and must rest in order to have special fellowship with him one day a week.

这的确很讽刺，有些人坚持廿四小时天，却拒绝基督徒安息日的圣经教导。我们必须追求所有创世记第一章所要教导给我们的，但是在这个过程中，我们必须在神的话面前保持一个谦卑、受教的态度。正如加尔文在他对创世记的研究中所说的：「任何人以哲学家的身分来论证世界这个工艺品，都是徒劳无功的。除非他们首先因着福音的宣讲而谦卑下来，并且学会把他们所有的理性智慧降服在十字架的愚拙（林前一21）面前。我的看法是，无论是在天上或在地上，除非基督在祂自己的学校中教导我们，我们找不到任何东西可以提升我们，让我们来到上帝的面前。」

It is ironic indeed that some insist on twenty-four hour days, but reject the biblical teaching of a Christian Sabbath. We must pursue all that Genesis one has to teach us, but in the process we must remain humble and teachable before the Word of God. As John Calvin wrote in his study of Genesis: "It is in vain for any to reason as philosophers on the workmanship of the world, except those who, having been first humbled by the preaching of the Gospel, have learned to submit the whole of their intellectual wisdom (as Paul expresses it) to the foolishness of the cross" (I Cor. 1:21). Nothing shall we find, I say, above or below, which can raise us up to God, until Christ shall have instructed us in his own school.”

本文最早刊载在2001年一月号的Christian Renewal杂志（http://www.crmag.com/）。

Previously published in Christian Renewal, January 29, 2001

圣灵来了，就要在罪、在义、在审判各方面指证世人的罪Andwhen he comes, he will convict  the worldconcerning sin and righteousness and judgment

作者:  卡森（D.A.Carson ）   翻译:  潘秋松

摘录自《约翰福音》（The Gospel According To John ）p831-835卡森（D.A.Carson ）著 美国麦种传道会出版

在与新约圣经其他用法的共通之处上， elenchō（希腊文 ）（《和合》「自己责备自己」）意指在个人的意识上「指证（世人 ）有罪」，也就是说，不是在最后大审判时在上帝面前为世人客观的罪过提出所持的论据，而是羞辱世人，并使他们信服自己是有罪的，从而呼召他们悔改。这样，介词peri （希腊文 ）「为」引出世人犯了罪过之处：他们的罪，他们的义，和他们的审判。第9～11节的hoti 「因为」子句是表原因，每一个句子都为保惠师之所以参与这指证有罪的工作提供一个理由。

这样一来，意义如下：耶稣怎样指出世人所作的是恶（七7，十五22),而迫使世人壁垒分明（十五20），保惠师也照样继续这个工作。事实上，衪最常这么做乃是藉著门徒的见证（十五26、27  ）;  祂这么做始终是与耶稣基督福音的真理有关,   因为祂的目的就是要荣耀耶稣基督（十六14  ）。藉著这个「离去」,  就是祂的死  /得高举,   耶稣履行了祂差遣圣灵之前必须的条件;   而保惠师的赐下是如此重要,  以致必须将耶稣的「离去」视为对门徒有益的（第6 7节）。保惠师来了,  祂就要延续耶稣的事奉,  其方式是门徒无法预见的。尤其是,  祂向世人指证他们的罪、 他们的义、和他们的审判。

祂向世人指证他们的罪 ,  是因为（hoti ）构成世人的这些人不相信耶稣（第9节   ）。他们如果确实相信耶稣,  就会相信祂论及他们罪过的这个陈述而转向衪。事实上  他们的不信所带来的不单是定罪（三18、 36  ）,也是故事忽略他们的需要。 世人的不信不单确保他们得不著生命,  也确保他们他们不能明白自己走在死亡中,   需要生命。  尽管世人不信,  圣灵仍然显明世人的罪;  祂指证世人的罪 , 是因为他们不相信耶稣。  所以 ,圣灵的这个指证有罪的工作是满有恩典的 ;  要帯领世上的人认识自己的需要 , 因而转向耶稣 , 从而不再是「世人」。

祂向世人指证他们的义,  是因为（hoti ）耶稣往父那里去（第10节 ）。可能有人抗议说:  提及指证世人的义根本是散布奇怪的想法。然而,  非常明显的 , 它在句法上是与「罪」平行 ,  这是理解elenchō peri（《和合》「自己责备自己」）最直接了当的方式（上文的讨论）。事实上,  这是第四卷福音书中唯一出现dikaiosynè   （「义」 ）字之处,  必须由上下文来确定它精确的意义。

约翰肯定可以偶尔把他最喜爱的字用在负面含有意上;  虽然「相信」通常是件好事,   却十分可能是以假乱真的（二23 -25 ,   八31起）。约翰喜欢引用或间接提及以赛亚书,   而以赛亚书六十四章5节（《七十士译本》六十四6  ）确立了:  以赛亚时代之人所有的dikaiosynè   （「义」 ）,  都像是染了经血的衣服《吕译》）。

在第四巻福音书里面,  这样解读「义」是非常合适的。 例如 , 圣殿是犹太人敬拜的焦点与义,  却必须洁净,   而且无论如何都因耶稣的身体而黯然失色（二13 - 23 ）。 法利赛人严格遵守安息日的条例,    而耶稣却因医治一位瘫痪三十八年的人而被定罪（五16   ）。有许多宗教上的「义」（纵使没有使用这个字）: 领袖拥有摩西的律法;   但可悲的是他们竞试图杀害耶稣（七19   ）。 一些法利赛人确实相信了 ,  却拒绝 认自己的信心,   因为害怕被赶出会堂（十二42- 43  ）所以,  保惠师将会指证世人的义 , 在主题上岂不是合适吗？在新约圣经中肯定还有其它经文,   显示出世人的dikaiosynè是绝对不足够的（如: 太五20 ; 罗十3 ;  腓三6- 9;  多三5  ）。

保惠师之所以向世人指证他们的义的理由 , 是因为耶稣往父那里去。  正如我们所说的 , 耶稣在与世人有关的最惊人的角色之一,   就是揭露他们矫饰的空洞,   就是籍著祂的光暴露世人本质上的黑暗（三19 -21 , 七7 十五22 、24  ）但现在,  耶稣就要离去了 ;   这指证世人有罪的工作将如何延续？ 是由保惠师延续的 ,  衪在世人当中显明这个指证有罪的工作,  显然是因为耶稣不再继续在此地 承担这个工作。毫无疑问地，这种指证世人有罪的工作， 主要是由跟随耶稣的人向世人说明的 ,  这些门徒从圣灵得著能力,   活出越来越象耶稣的生活,  以致世人留意到他们的影响力 ,  正如耶稣自己在世人面前活出祂的生命一样。

 

因此,  基督徒如果顺服「新命令」, 「所有的人」都会知道他们是耶稣的门徒（十三35;  参:约壹四12 ）。第10节改用第二人称: 「因我往父那里去,  你们就不再见我  」, 而不是预期中的他们 ,  理由可能就是因为圣灵的这个工作是籍著门徒完全的。重点是:  耶稣是典范,  是行为的楷模,   是必须效法的「主」。 既然圣灵如此加添力量给他们 , 「将受于我的告诉你们」（第15节）, 他们就可以继续跟随耶稣,   从而向世人指证他们空洞的义。

最后, 保惠师向世人指证他们的审判,  是因为（hoti ）这世界的王（参: 十二31的诠解） 受了审判（第11节）。圣灵向世人指证的审判 , 是他们多方面的灵命盲目,  最主要是表现在对待耶稣上。 稍早,  耶稣曾经劝告世人「不可按外貌断定是非 总要按公平断定是非」（七24  ）。 耶稣的审判是公义（dikaia, 五30  ）而真实的（八16  ）。世人的审判 / 判断压根儿就是错误的 ,  而且在道德上是邪恶的。现在,  保惠师向世人指证他们错误的判断,  因为就在耶稣迫在眉?的得胜中，这世界的王被定罪。所有错误的判断，都跟那位从起初就说谎的脱不了关系,  我们如果模仿他的价值观,   也就是他的儿女（八42- 47  ）。如果他因十字架的得胜而被定罪,  那些随从他的劣迹而行的人更会被暴露出来。 这样的错误判断需要被指证为有罪,  是更为急切的;  世界已经被定罪（三 36 ）,  而且极其需要知道自己的命运。

羅馬書三章21-23節註釋

摘錄自《羅馬書註釋》The Epistle to the Romans,  約翰慕理（John Murray）著/林慈信譯

http://www.madisonccc.org/Elibrary/materials%20for%20E-library/Readings%20035%20to%20039.htm

https://plus.google.com/u/0/105106813742373627205/posts/JEmMwgB9P21

Excerpt from: John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 3:21-23a

 羅馬書3:21-23

 21  但如今上帝的義在律法以外已經顯明出來，有律法和先知為證。

22  就是上帝的義，因信耶穌基督，加給一切相信的人，並沒有分別。

23  因為世人都犯了罪，虧缺了上帝的榮耀。

「現在」 - 時間上的意思；連續性與改變﹕

“NOW” HAS TEMPORAL FORCE; CONTINUITY AND CHANGE:

保羅不單強調靠律法的行為稱義和沒有律法的稱義（後者指沒有律法的行為的稱義）之間的對照。他也同時強調後者的顯明﹕不靠律法（律法以外）的稱義，在耶穌基督的啟示顯明了。「現在」是與過去對照﹕這個「上帝的義」現在被顯明了；完全敞開，讓人能看見。… 保羅在這裏並不意味著﹕不靠律法（律法以外）的稱義現在是第一次被啟示；先前的時期，人類只知道靠律法的行為稱義。事實完全相反。保羅為了避免把兩者對立起來，他明言提醒我們，這個「上帝的義」，現在顯明的義，是有律法和先知見證的。保羅在這裏，好像在其他事上，都竭力堅持新舊約之間的連續性 (continuity)。可是，舊約與新約在「顯明」 (manifestation) 上卻有空前的改變﹕這與新舊約之間的連續性是一致的。因此，我們可以承認「現在」是指時間方面的，而同時不損害兩種關係（兩種的稱義）的對照，或新舊約兩個時期之間的連續性。（頁108-109）

Paul is emphasizing not only the contrast between justification through the works of the law and justification without the law, that is, without works of law, but he is also emphasizing the manifestation of the latter which came with the revelation of Jesus Christ.  Now, in contrast with the past, this righteousness of God is manifested; it has come to lie open to full view …  This does not mean for Paul that justification without the law was now for the first time revealed and that in the earlier period all that men knew was justification by works of the law.  It is far otherwise.  To obviate any such discrepancy between the past and the present Paul expressly reminds us that this righteousness of God now manifested was witnessed by the law and the prophets.  He is jealous to maintain in this matter as in other respects the continuity between the two Testaments.  But consistently with this continuity there can still be distinct emphasis upon the momentous change in the New Testament in respect of manifestation.  The temporal force of the “now” can therefore be recognized without impairing either the contrast of relations or the continuity of the two periods contrasted. (108-109)

律法的行為在稱義上完全沒有貢獻

WORKS OF THE LAW CONTRIBUTES NOTHING TO JUSTIFICATION

當保羅說「律法以外」 (without the law) 時，我們不可沖淡這種「絕對否定」的語氣。羅馬書這段的主題是上帝稱義的「義」；這「義」是律法以外的，保羅的宣告是毫無保留，毫不猶疑的。這裏意味著說﹕在上帝稱義的事上，律法的行為，不論是為稱義預備，從旁協助，或屬它之下，都毫無貢獻。這裏的用字，和字詞在句裏的地位，都說明這事實。保羅在羅馬書中不斷的爭辯，也支持這點。若忽略這方面的強調，就忽略整卷羅馬書的中心信息。若在這點上猶疑，等於歪曲本書明顯地、貫徹地宣告的真理。（頁109）

When Paul says “without the law” the absoluteness of this negation must not be toned down.  He means this without any reservation or equivocation in reference to the justifying righteousness which is the theme of this part of the epistle.  This implies that in justification there is no contribution, preparatory, accessory, or subsidiary, that is given by works of law.  This fact is set forth here both by the expression itself and by its emphatic position in the sentence.  And it is borne out by the sustained polemic of the epistle as a whole.  To overlook this accent is to miss the central message of the epistle.  To equivocate here is to distort what could not be more plainly and consistently stated.

(109)

「律法以外」的律法不指舊約聖經或時期，乃指律法的行為

APART FROM LAW: LAW=WORKS OF LAW, NOT OLD TESTAMENT BIBLE (canon)  OR PERIOD (Dispensation)

「律法以外」的「律法」不是指律法正典（canon, 聖經），頁不是指上帝救贖計劃的律法時期 (dispensation)。這裏不是說﹕上帝的義現在的顯明，是與舊約聖經分隔，或於舊約時期分隔的。保羅說的剛好相反﹕「有律法與先知為證」，意思是說，律法與先知為這「義」作見證。「在律法以外」中的「律法」的意思是「律法的行為」（見20節，中文聖經譯作「行律法」）；這裏的意思就是﹕律法吩咐我們、激勵我們作出行為，都不能對我們的稱義作什麼貢獻。這裏正好教導我們認清，使徒保羅很自如地使用「律法」這字，每次的定義不一樣。完全不靠律法、在律法以外的「義」（這裏「律法」是一種的意思），卻是律法（這裏「律法」是另外一種意思）所宣告的。從一種意義來說，律法所宣告的，與「稱義」相反，可是從另外一種意義來說，律法宣告上帝的稱義。因此我們看見，每次使徒保羅用「律」一字的時候，我們必須認清他在那裏的意思是什麼；不可隨便以為每次「律」的定義和涵義都是一樣的。解經因在忽略了這方面的變化，因此受了損害。

這裏在同一節裏，保羅用「律法」所指的意思都不一樣。（頁109-110）

The expression, “without the law” is not to be understood in the canonical sense nor in the sense of dispensation.  It is not said that the righteousness of God now manifested was apart from the Old Testament viewed either as canon or as period.  Paul says the opposite – “it was witnessed by the law and the prophets” in the sense that the law and the prophets bore witness to it.  In the expression “apart from the law” the term “law” is used in the sense of “works of law” (vs. 20) and the thought is simply that law as commandment or as constraining to and producing works contributes nothing to our justification.  We have here an instructive example of the ease with which the apostle can turn from one denotation of the word “law” to another.  The righteousness that is unreservedly without law in one sense of the word “law” is, nevertheless, witnessed to and therefore proclaimed by the law in another sense of that term.  Law in one sense pronounces the opposite of justification, the law in another sense preaches justification.  This illustrates the necessity in each case of determining the precise sense in which the term “law” is used by the apostle and we must not suppose that the term has always the same denotation and connotation.  Exposition has suffered from failure to recognize this variation.  Here the variation is exemplified in two consecutive clauses.   (109-110)

「因信」﹕基督是信的對象 (object)，不是主體 (subject)

THROUGH FAITH: CHRIST IS OBJECT, NOT SUBJECT

22節中「上帝的義」所指的，與21節和1﹕17所指的「義」是同一個「義」。

「因信耶穌基督加給一切相信的人」與1﹕17「這義是本於信，以至於信」有同樣的意思。讀者可以參考該處的注釋。可是我們要注意，1﹕17所暗示的一些因素，在這裏明顯地突出。使徒保羅謹慎地指出，這「信」乃是「信耶穌基督」 (faith in Jesus Christ, 中文直譯﹕「在耶穌基督裏的信」) 。我們其實不需要解釋﹕耶穌基督乃是信心的對象、客體 (object)，而不是這裏所指「信心」的主體（耶穌不是拿出「信心」的那位）。若以為保羅在這裏指一個以耶穌基督為模範的「信心」，是違背使徒保羅所有的教訓；若說我們是靠耶穌自己的信心，即耶穌自己拿出的「信心」稱義，則與保羅的教導差的更遠。雖然，若說「耶穌的誠信在以經解經的原則看，並不完全離題」，並不完全無理，可是，在這節或在1﹕17這樣解釋「信」，毫無支持的理由。請讀者參考這方面的附注（頁363ff）。（頁110-111）

 “The righteousness of God” of verse 22 is the same as that of verse 21 and 1:17 and the words “through faith of Jesus Christ unto all who believe” have the same force as “from faith to faith” of 1:17.  To the exposition at that point the reader is again referred.  It is necessary, however, to note the additional elements, implied in 1:17, but set forth here overtly.  The apostle is careful to define this faith as faith in Jesus Christ.  It is hardly necessary to show that Jesus Christ is the object and not the subject of the faith spoken of.  It would be alien to the whole teaching of the apostle to suppose that what he has in mind is a faith that is patterned after the faith which Jesus himself exemplified, far less that we are justified by Jesus’ own faith, that is to say, by the faith which he exercised.  Although the notion that the faithfulness of Christ is in view would not be contrary to the analogy of Scripture in general, yet there is not good warrant for this interpretation here any more than in 1:17.  The reader is again referred to the appendix on this subject (pp. 363 ff.).

(110-111)

耶穌基督->基督的位格，成就救贖的歷史（救贖，挽回祭，滿足公義），和祂的職份﹕救主，救贖主，主宰

“JESUS CHRIST” ->HIS PERSON, THE HISTORY OF HIS

ACCOMPLISHMENT (REDEMPTION, PROPITIATION, VINDICATION OF

JUSTICE), AND HIS OFFICES: SAVIOR, REDEEMER, LORD

保羅說到耶穌基督是信心的對象時，他突出了一些前面章節所沒有明說的事。這個與「稱義」有密切關係的「信心」，並不是對上帝的籠統的「信」，更不可能是一個沒有內容、不被理性了解的「信心」。信心乃是指向基督的；這裏提到「耶穌基督」，充分流露了耶穌的位格，祂工作的整個歷史，和祂所有的職分。這位使人稱義的信心的對象，是羅1﹕3，4說的「耶穌基督」；從3﹕21，22來看，「信心」有效地使我們與「上帝的義」發生關係。因為基督所成就的大工，祂成為我們信心恰當的對象；在下面幾節，保羅為基督所成就的事工作出定義﹕就是救贖，挽回祭，和滿足上帝的公義。「耶穌基督」，我們信心的對象，指祂身為我們的救贖主，挽回祭的有效性。祂是我們信心的焦點，因為祂是我們的救贖主，祂是我們的主。（頁111）

In representing Jesus Christ as the object of faith the apostle brings to the forefront a consideration which had not been expressly stated so far in this epistle.  The faith that is brought into relation to justification is not a general faith in God; far less is it faith without well-defined and intelligible content.  It is faith directed to Christ, and when he is denominated “Jesus Christ” these titles are redolent of all that Jesus was and is personally, historically, officially.  It is Jesus Christ in terms of Romans 1;3, 4 who is the object of justifying faith.  In terms of verse 21, 22, it is this faith that places us in effectual relation to the righteousness of God.  In the succeeding verses the apostle defines the accomplishment of Christ by which he is constituted the appropriate object of this faith, an accomplishment defined as redemption, propitiation, and the vindication of justice.  It is Jesus Christ in the efficacy that belongs to him as redeemer and propitiator who is the proper object of faith.  Faith is focused upon him in the specific character that is his as Saviour, Redeemer, and Lord.  (111)

（續）(cont’d)

羅馬書 三章23b-24節

23 因為世人都犯了罪，虧缺了上帝的榮耀。

24  如今卻蒙上帝的恩典，因基督耶穌的救贖，就白白的稱義。

既然「因信耶穌基督」（藉著信靠耶穌基督）有這樣的涵義，我們可以問﹕為什麼保羅再說﹕「加給一切相信的人」？我們承認，確定這裏的意思並不容易。不過最合理的解釋是（見上，1﹕17）﹕上帝的義不只是藉著信心（信靠耶穌基督）在人生命中發生效力；更是在所有信的人身上生效。信心在成就這件事（譯注﹕成就上帝的義）上大有果效；無論信靠耶穌的人是誰，都必定有效。使徒保羅一再強調這項真理，並沒有多此一舉。他在上文已經證明，所有人類，不論是猶太人或外邦人，都在罪（的權勢）之下，沒有分別﹕眾人都服在上帝的審判與懲罰之下。福音的榮耀乃是﹕當信心發生效用的時候，上帝並不偏待人，一律以恩慈對待人。上帝沒有歧視任何一類信徒；祂的義臨到所有信耶穌的人，沒有分別。

 In view of these implications of the expression “through the faith of Jesus Christ’ we may wonder why there is the addition, “unto all who believe.”  It is admitted that it is difficult to arrive at certainly respecting the precise thought intended.  But the most reasonable interpretation would appear to be (cf. comments on 1:17) that not only is the righteousness of God brought into effectual relation to men through faith in Christ but it is brought into this effectual relation to all believers.[16]   Faith is not only effectual to this end; it is invariably effective whoever the person believing is.  It was not superfluous for the apostle to emphasize this truth.  He had proved that all, both Jews and Gentiles, were under sin.  In respect of the penal judgment of God there is no difference.  The glory of the gospel is that there is no discrimination in the favourable judgment of God when faith comes into operation.  There is no discrimination among believers – the righteousness of God comes upon them all without distinction.

這樣解釋可從上文得到支持﹕「並沒有分別﹕因為世人都犯了罪，虧缺了上帝的榮耀。」正如眾人都是罪人，同樣地，所有信的人都因著上帝的恩典白白稱義。因此，這句話裏的兩部份，有兩方面的思想。「因信耶穌基督」強調﹕上帝的義要發生效用，使人稱義，只有透過信靠基督。「加給一切相信的人」強調﹕有信心的時候，上帝的義一定發生效用。

This interpretation receives confirmation from the immediately succeeding clauses: “for there is no difference: for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”   As all are sinners, so all believers are justified freely by God’s grace.  There are thus two distinct shades of thought in the two elements of the clause.  “Through faith of Jesus Christ” stresses the fact that it is only through faith in Christ that this righteousness of God is operative unto justification.  “Unto all who believe” stresses the fact that this righteousness is always operative when there is faith.

「因為世人都犯了罪」，視每一個人的罪為「過去歷史的事實」 （Meyer 注釋）。這裏動詞的時間性，可是指人類罪性的每一個層面；因此我們沒有理由認為這句話只是是指亞當的罪，和後人在他的罪中的參與（參﹕羅5﹕12）。使徒保羅要指出的乃是﹕人類雖然在使自己的罪性和後果越發複雜上因人而異，可是所有的人都在「罪人」的範圍裏，沒有例外，也沒有被偏待（參﹕3﹕9-10）。

 The clause, “all have sinned” (vs. 23), views the sin of every man “as a historical fact of the past” (Meyer, ad loc.).   The tense used is one that can do service for every aspect from which the sinfulness of the human race may be viewed, and it would not be defensible to restrict the reference to the sin of Adam and the involvement of posterity therein (cf. 5:12).  The interest of the apostle here is to affirm that, whatever differences may obtain among members of the race in respect of the aggravations by which sinfulness is intensified, all without exception or discrimination are in the category of sinners (cf. vss. 9, 10).

與此句配搭的「虧缺了上帝的榮耀」的意思並不明顯；有幾個可能性。這個動詞的意思是﹕「缺乏」、「沒有」、「貧乏」（參﹕太19﹕20； 路15﹕14；林前1﹕7；8﹕8；12﹕24；腓4﹕12）。所指的是一種狀況，不是一項行動，雖然這種狀況可能從某一個行動（或缺乏這行動）而來；若有這行動，則可以補救這種狀況。困擾解經家的是﹕我們所虧缺的榮耀（就是我們在這方面貧乏）是指什麼？有四個可能。（一）在歸榮耀給上帝，榮耀他，作稱讚他榮耀的事上失敗（這種用法參﹕路17﹕18； 徒12﹕23； 羅4﹕20；林前10﹕31；林後4﹕15；8﹕19；腓1﹕11； 2﹕11；帖前2﹕6； 啟4﹕9，11；11﹕13；14﹕7；16﹕9）。（二）領不到上帝所此的榮耀、尊貴、讚賞（參﹕約5﹕41，44；8﹕50；12﹕43；羅2﹕7，10；來3﹕3；彼前1﹕7；彼後1﹕17）（三）在反映上帝的榮耀，效法他的形象上有虧欠（參﹕林前11﹕7；林後3﹕18；8﹕23）。（四）得不到在基督再來時，上帝賜祂子民的最後榮耀（參﹕羅5﹕2；8﹕18，21；林前2﹕7；15﹕43；林後4﹕17；西1﹕27；3﹕4；帖後2﹕14；提後2﹕10；來2﹕10；彼前5﹕1，4）。

The import of the coordinate clause, “and come short of the glory of God” is not immediately apparent; there are several possibilities.  The verb means “to lack,” “to want,” “to be destitute of” (cf. Matt. 19:20; Luke 15:14; I Cor. 1:7; 8:8; 12:24; Phil. 4:12).  It refers to a condition, not to an action, though, of course, the condition may arise from the absence of action which would have remedied or prevented the condition.  The question that raises some difficulty and on which commentators differ is: what is the glory of God of which we come short and are destitute?  There are four possibilities: (1) to fail to render to God the glory, to fail to glorify him or do what is to the praise of his glory (cf. for this use of the word “glory” Luke 17:18; Acts 12:23; Rom. 4:20; I Cor. 10:31; II Cor. 4:15; 8:19; Phil. 1:11; 2:11; I Thess. 2:6; Rev. 4:9, 11; 11:13; 14:7; 16:9); (2) to fail of receiving the glory, honour, or approbation which God bestows (cf. John 5:41, 44; 8:50; 12:43; Rom. 2:7, 10; Heb. 3:3; I Pet. 1:7; II Pet. 1:17); (3) to come short of reflecting the glory of God, that is, of conformity to his image (cf. I Cor. 11:7; II Cor. 3:18; 8:23); (4) to fail of the consummated glory that will be dispensed to the people of God at the coming of Christ (cf. Rom. 5:2; 8:18, 21; I Cor. 2:7; 15:43; II Cor. 4:17; Col. 1:27; 3:4; II Thess. 2:14; II Tim. 2:10; Heb. 2:10; I Pet. 5:1, 4). 

新約聖經裏沒有與這句話相同或類似的說法；問題就顯得更加困難了。四種

解釋都有各自的理由。我們只能在考慮所有因素之後，提出第三種解釋比較合理。

 The difficulty is not a little accentuated by the fact that there is no precise parallel to this expression in the New Testament and a good case might be made for each of the four interpretations.  One can only indicate a slight balance of considerations in favour of interpretation (3).

（一）保羅用的動詞是現在式，形容一種狀態。因此我們應推論，保羅在這裏想到人類因罪的事實而陷入的狀況；這與「世人都犯了罪」相對稱。這樣考慮，減低了第四種解釋的說服力。（二）保羅的意思若根據第一種解釋，他大可以另加一個字，如「歸」(giving)榮耀；這的確是新約聖經，特別是保羅書信的作法。或者他可以加  “unto” 一字，這樣 “unto the glory of God” （歸榮耀給上帝）就很清楚（參第一種解釋的經文）。（三）雖然根據新約的用法，「上帝的榮耀」可指從上帝而來的榮耀（參﹕約12﹕43），可是比較清楚表達這意思的方法是「從上帝來的榮耀」 (glory from God)。（四）保羅典型的作法是，將救贖為我們得來的福份，和罪帶來的後果對照，如﹕我們被改變，成為上帝的樣式（林後3﹕18）。而形容我們目前的狀況，沒有比「虧缺榮耀」的貧乏更貼切、更生動。我們沒有反映上帝的完美 (perfection)、祂的榮耀；我們在這方面的完美性非常貧乏。

 (a) Paul uses the present tense of a verb which is descriptive of a state or condition.  We should infer therefore that he is reflecting on a present condition of all men arising from the fact of sin; it is coordinate with the fact that all have sinned.  This consideration would tend to make (4) less tenable.  (b) If (1) were intended by the apostle it is reasonable to suppose that he would have inserted some other term such as that of “giving” glory to God after the pattern of the usage of the New Testament in general and of him in particular, or he would have used the preposition “unto” and have adapted the whole expression so as to read “unto the glory of God”, as in passages cited above under (1).  (c) Although the phrase “the glory of God” could, in terms of New Testament usage, be applied to the praise that comes from God (cf. John 12:43), yet the more perspicuous in this regard would be “glory from God”.[17]   (d) It is quite Pauline to represent that which redemption secures, in contrast with that which sin has brought, as transformation into the image of God (cf. II Cor. 3:18).  In describing our present condition nothing would be more pertinent or descriptive than to define it in terms of our destitution in this regard.  We are destitute of that perfection which is the reflection of the divine perfection and therefore of the glory of God.

第24節Verse 24

解經家對24節上的造句感到困惑。「（被）稱義」的分詞 (participle) 如何與上文關聯？答案並不明顯。最有理的觀點是﹕22節下和23節﹕「並沒有分別﹕因為眾人都犯了罪，虧缺了上帝的榮耀」是整段思路的一個括弧。至於造句和作者原意，「被稱義」 (being justified) 就與22節上連起來﹕「就是上帝的義，因信耶穌基督加給一切相信的人」。我們須提出﹕整卷羅馬書中，「稱義」這動詞，也就是整卷書的主題，是在本節第一次直接地、正面地被使用。他在上文纔為主題（上帝的義）訂了定義﹕上帝的義，乃是藉著信靠耶穌基督生效的。現在保羅再解釋﹕這「稱義」是出於上帝的恩典，白白賜下。因此「稱義」分詞 (being justified) 背後有兩個理念﹕（一）「上帝的義」是我們的稱義，與「律法的行為不可能成就稱義」成了強烈的對照（20節）。（二）「稱義」是因為（蒙）上帝恩典白白所賜的。造種造句法比較不尋常，不過也沒有帶來什太大困難。就算我們不接受，22節下和23節是一個括弧，也不應該因造句而感到困難。因為「被稱義」 (being justified) 也與「並沒有分別，因為世人都犯了罪，虧缺了上帝的榮耀」有關。我們上面已經看到，罪性的普遍性（人類都是罪人）影響另外一件事實﹕信耶穌的人並沒有分別﹕他們都是「上帝的義」的受惠者。因此保羅為「稱義」這個主題清楚訂下定義的時候，除了說明「稱義」是什麼以外，再強調稱義是「白白」得來、是「蒙上帝的恩典」，是非常合宜的。換言之，22節下、23節與上文的關係非常密切，與下文也非常有關；24節接著22節上，說明定義，再加發揮。

Verse 24.  Commentators have encountered difficulty with the construction at the beginning of verse 24.  The participle “being justified” does not appear to stand in relation to what precedes in a way that is easily intelligible.  The most tenable view is that of those interpreters who regard what immediately precedes in verses 22b, 23, “for there is no difference: for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”, as parenthetical to that which is the main subject of this paragraph.  As regards construction and intent, therefore, “being justified” is to be construed in direct sequence with “a righteousness of God through faith of Jesus Christ, unto all who believe” (vs. 22a).  It is perhaps not irrelevant to observe that this is the first time in this epistle that Paul uses this verb directly and positively in reference to what is the leading theme of this epistle.[18]  He had just defined his theme in terms of the righteousness of God operative through faith in Christ and now he is giving explication in express terms of justification freely by the grace of God.  These two thoughts, namely, that this righteousness of God is our justification in contrast with the impossibility of the works of the law (vs. 20) and that this justification is the free gift of God by grace are sufficient ground for the defining participle, “being justified.”  And there is no reason for hesitating at what may appear to us as unusual construction.  Even if we do not allow that the immediately preceding clauses are parenthetical to the main thought of this passage – a position that has much to commend it – there should be no difficulty with the construction.  For the fact that there is no difference and that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God has close bearing upon the thought expressed in the participle “being justified.”  As we have found already, the fact of universal sinfulness bears directly upon the other fact that there is no discrimination among believers – they all are beneficiaries of the righteousness of God.  So now in defining this theme in the express terms of justification the universality of sin is equally pertinent to the freeness and graciousness of justification as well as to that which justification itself connotes.  In other words, verses 22b, 23 stand in the most significant relation both to what precedes and to what follows and verse 24 resumes the theme of verse 22a in terms that define and expand the latter.

「蒙上帝的恩典」 與「白白地」合起來的效果，是強調﹕上帝稱義的作為，人完全不能用功勞賺回來。上帝作為的白白、主權性，乃是20節所宣稱的﹕「凡有血氣的，沒有一個因行律法能在神面前稱義」正面的對稱。保羅的「稱義的教義」裏最重要的因素乃是﹕上帝稱義的作為完全不被人性 (anything we are) 或人的行為 (anything we do)左右﹕我們所作的不可能影響上帝、推動祂稱人為義。我們所是、我們所作的不單不能影響上帝稱義，我們裏面的一切，剛好導致相反的判斷﹕在上帝面前全人類都 被定罪（參3﹕9，19）。因此，上帝稱義的作為的動機，解釋，和一切決定因素，都來自上帝自己的本性和祂的作為；祂所作的，盡都出自祂白白的，主權的恩典。人若試圖獻陳任何功德來賺得稱義，就完全違背保羅「稱義的教義」，完全違背他的福音。基督福音的榮耀就是﹕福音是白白恩典的福音。

 The combination of the terms “freely” and “by his grace” has the effect of emphasizing the completely unmerited character of God’s justifying act.  The free and sovereign graciousness of the act is the positive complement to that which had been asserted in verse 20 that “from the works of the law no flesh will be justified” in God’s sight.  No element in Paul’s doctrine of justification is more central than this – God’s justifying act is not constrained to any extent or degree by anything that we are or do which could be esteemed as predisposing God to this act.  And not only is it the case that nothing in us or done by us constrains to this act, but all that is ours compels the opposite judgment – the whole world is brought in guilty before God (cf. vvs. 9, 19).  This action on God’s part derives its whole motivation, explanation, and determination from what God himself is and does in the exercise of free and sovereign grace.  Merit of any kind on the part of man, when brought into relation to justification, contradicts the first article of the Pauline doctrine and therefore of his gospel.  It is the glory of the gospel of Christ that it is one of free grace.

我們必須正視稱義是白白的、完全是恩典；這「恩典」的真理是自顯的、自我解釋的。可是我們也不要忽略上下文，和上下文帶來的教訓。稱義是來自恩典，但這並不排除恩典透過什麼方法 (medium) 運作。保羅馬上加一句﹕「因基督耶穌的救贖」，就是這個意思。稱義是藉著救贖的方法，說明「稱義的恩典」的兩件事﹕（一）稱義是透過怎樣的重價買來的。（二）救贖是重價買來，並不違背稱義的「恩典性」；其實更顯出這「恩典性」。「因恩典稱義」和「藉救贖稱義」這樣優美的配搭，正好糾正了錯誤的論調﹕「稱義若是白白的，其中就不可能有任何代價；若是用代價買回來的，就不可能是白白的。」不；兩者都是！重價使白白的恩典顯的更偉大！稱義，是藉著基督耶穌的救贖而來的；不是透過我們所付的任何代價；乃是藉著基督所付的重價，好叫白白的恩典流出，使不虔的人得稱為義。

 The accent placed here on the freeness and graciousness of the justifying act must be noted on its own account.  But a contextual consideration and the lessons derived from it must not be overlooked.  The accent upon free grace does not eliminate the medium through which this free grace has come into operation.  That is the lesson of what Paul immediately adds: “through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.”  This mediation shows two things in reference to the grace of justification: (1) the costly price at which this justification was procured; (2) the price at which it was procured does not negate but enhances the gracious character of the act.  How eloquent is this collocation of justification by grace and justification through redemption in the correction of all argument to the effect that if justification is free it cannot be through price and if through price it cannot be free.  It is both, and the price magnifies the marvel of the free grace.  Justification is through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; it is not through any price of ours; it is the costly price that Christ paid in order that free grace might flow unto the justification of the ungodly.

「救贖」最根本的意思，是用贖價買贖 (ransom)。我們不可能將新約聖經「救贖」的教義約化為「釋放」而已。主耶穌的話（太20﹕28；路10﹕45）明顯地指買贖的贖價，與祂自己捨命﹕後者是祂「寶血」的同義詞。祂的寶血就是這救贖的贖價。保羅在這裏和他書信其他地方所用的「救贖」一字，也是這個意思。（參﹕弗1﹕7；多2﹕14；還有末世性的救贖，參﹕羅8﹕23；林前1﹕30；弗1﹕14；4﹕30；其他新約的作者，參﹕路1﹕68；2﹕38；24﹕41；來9﹕12，15；彼前1﹕18。）保羅另外用一個字（加3﹕13；4﹕4；參；林前6﹕20；彼後2﹕1；啟5﹕9；14﹕3，4）也是同義。因此，「因基督耶穌的救贖」就是藉基督流血、捨命所付的買贖代價；我們不可能刪除這意義的任何部份。再者，我們必須注意保羅心目中的救贖是永遠「住在」基督裏的；是「在基督耶穌裏的救贖」。救贖不只是我們在基督裏所擁有的（弗1﹕7），救贖，是基督生上所彰顯的。基督是救贖的「道成肉身」 (embodiment)。基督不單成就了救恩；救贖住在救贖主裏，一切救贖的功勞（virtue）和功效 (efficacy) 都在基督裏。這樣理解救贖，纔能顯出上帝白白、恩典的稱義，是藉著什麼方法施行。

The root meaning of “redemption” is to ransom by the payment of a price.  It is impossible to reduce the New Testament concept of redemption to the mere notion of liberation.  Our Lord’s saying (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45) is expressly in terms of substitutive ransom and the giving of his life, which in the New Testament is the same as the shedding of his blood, the price of this redemption.  It is this same concept that appears in the term Paul uses here as also elsewhere in other epistles (cf. Eph. 1:7; Titus 2:14 and in an eschatological sense in Rom. 8:23; I Cor. 1:30; Eph. 1:14; 4:30; see also in other New Testament writers Luke 1:68; 2:38; 24:41; Heb. 9;12, 15; I Pet. 1:18).  Another term used by Paul (Gal. 3:13; 4:5; cf. also I Cor. 6:20; II Pet. 2:1; Rev. 5:9; 14:3, 4) conveys the same thought.  Hence “the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” cannot be reduced to lower terms than the ransom secured by Christ in the shedding of his blood and the giving of his life.[19]  It should be noted in addition that the apostle conceives of this redemption as something that has its permanent and abiding tenancy in Christ; it is “the redemption that is in Christ Jesus”.  The redemption is not simply that which we have in Christ (Eph. 1:7) but it is the redemption of which Christ is the embodiment.  Redemption has not only been wrought by Christ but in the Redeemer this redemption resides in its unabbreviated virtue and efficacy.  And it is redemption thus conceived that provides the mediacy through which justification by God’s free grace is applied.