聖約釋經法
The Covenantal Hermeneutic
作者： Keith A. Mathison   譯者：誠之
https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2020/10/the-covenantal-hermeneutic/
https://www.h-land.us/blog/7994e091-0e4e-11eb-bdcc-558086d9b702?fbclid=IwAR0NUH3ME913q_UpBb4WLDgpRkIy0opQstSh3hSgqE2wQBy8vmYdnznqF6o
 
登山寶訓是否可以直接應用在今天的基督徒身上？安息日的誡命是否仍然有效？基督徒是否應該給嬰兒施洗？我們如何回答這些問題以及其他許多問題，取決於我們在打開聖經之前的解經前提。我們都是帶著某種想法來讀聖經的，但問題就出在這裏。如果我們是帶著這些假設來讀聖經，那麼我們當初是從哪里得到這些假設的呢？我們的假設是來自聖經，還是從聖經外引進來的呢？
Is the Sermon on the Mount directly applicable to Christians today? Is the Sabbath commandment still in effect? Should Christians baptize their infants? How we answer these and many other questions depends on the interpretive assumptions we have before we even open the Bible. We all come to the Bible with certain ideas about how it should be read, but herein lies the problem. If we bring these assumptionstoScripture, where did we get them in the first place? Are we deriving our assumptions from Scripture or bringing them in from the outside?
 
在我們談論我們用來解釋聖經的方法和原則時，我們所討論的就是詮釋學（hermeneutics）。我們每個人每天都在練習詮釋學，但我們通常都沒有意識到這一點。如果我們讀的是用我們自己的文化、自己的母語，以及在自己的時代所寫成的作品，我們通常不必再考慮詮釋的規則。例如，如果我們拿起一本以「很久以前......（once upon a time）」開頭的書，我們就知道我們不應該像閱讀百科全書的文章那樣來閱讀它。我們會自動認識到這句開場白是表明這篇文章屬於「童話故事」的類型。我們也熟悉自己文化中對人、地、物的稱呼方式。如果我們讀到一個作者說他去過「大蘋果（the Big Apple）」，我們（美國人）就知道他指的是紐約市，而不是一個巨大的水果。紐約市就是作者用這個比喻的字面意思。
When we talk about the methods and principles we use to interpret the Bible, we are talking about hermeneutics. All of us practice hermeneutics every day, but we are usually unconscious of it. If we are reading works written in our own culture, in our own native language, and in our own time period, we usually don’t have to give a second thought to the rules of interpretation. If we pick up a book that begins with the words once upon a time . . . , for example, we know that we should not read it as we would read an encyclopedia article. We automatically recognize that opening line as an indicator that this writing belongs to the genre of “fairy tale.” We are also familiar with our own culture’s way of referring to people, places, and things. If we are reading an author who says he visited “the Big Apple,” we know he is referring to New York City and not a giant piece of fruit. New York City is what the author literally means by using this figure of speech.
 
但是，當我們拿起一本幾千年前用不同語言寫成的書，會發生什麼事呢？如果我們在一張脆弱的莎草紙卷上看到這本書，上面寫著古代語言的原始字母，我們可能會停下來，意識到在我們準備閱讀它之前，必須先做一些準備工作。我們將不得不學習這種語言。我們將不得不瞭解一些關於它的寫作文化。我們必須瞭解它是什麼類型的文學作品。當我們看到一幅古卷時，我們就會意識到它和現代小說不是同一種東西。但是，如果那個古卷已經被翻譯出來了呢？如果它已經被翻譯出來，並且以現代書籍的形式出版，且有漂亮的皮革封面呢？如果你是和那本書一起長大的，對內容有些熟悉呢？這樣的熟悉感可能會讓你誤以為，我們要用閱讀當代文字作品的文化假設來閱讀這本書。
But what happens when we pick up a book written thousands of years ago in a different language? If we were to see this book on a fragile papyrus scroll with the original letters of the ancient language in which it was written, we might stop and realize that we will have to do some work before we are prepared to read it. We will have to learn the language. We will have to learn something about the culture in which it was written. We will have to find out what genre of literature it is. When we see an ancient scroll, we recognize that it isn’t the same kind of thing as a modern novel. What if that ancient scroll has already been translated, however? What if it has been translated and published in a modern book format with nice leather covers? What if you grew up with that book and were somewhat familiar with the contents? Such familiarity could lull you into thinking that this book is to be read with the same cultural assumptions we bring to contemporary written works.
 
這些都是我們閱讀聖經時必須思考的一些問題。《聖經》是一本由眾多古代書卷集合而成的書籍，最初是用希伯來語、亞蘭語和希臘語寫成的。《舊約》聖經的書卷是由眾多的作者寫成的，他們生活在古近東世界，有自己的習俗和假設。《新約》聖經的書卷則是在羅馬帝國最鼎盛的時期寫成的。這些都不是我們現今生活的世界。如果我們不瞭解聖經中的書籍種類，就很容易誤認其文學體裁，從而導致歷史-語法釋經學（historical-grammatical hermeneutics）的誤用。我們可以忽略這些事情，因為我們的《聖經》已經從古文中翻譯出來了。我們的《聖經》也已經按照我們所繼承的某些釋經學體系來教導我們，我們也這樣來閱讀，其中有些體系比其他體系更忠實於原始文本。知道我們帶著其中的哪一種假設來閱讀聖經，以及為什麼這樣做是很重要的。
These are some of the issues we have to think about when we read the Bible. The Bible is a collection of ancient books, originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The books of the Old Testament were written by numerous authors who lived in the ancient Near Eastern world with its own customs and assumptions. The books of the New Testament were written during the height of the Roman Empire. Those are not the worlds in which we have lived our lives. If we fail to understand the kind of books found in the Bible, we can easily misidentify genres, which leads to a misapplication of historical-grammatical hermeneutics. We can forget these things because our Bibles have already been translated out of the ancient languages. Our Bibles have also already been taught to us and read by us along the lines of certain hermeneutical systems we inherited, and some of these are more faithful to the text than others. Knowing which of these we bring to Scripture and why is important.
 
在過去的一個半世紀裏，有兩種釋經系統，即聖約神學（covenant theology）和時代論（dispensationalism），它們是福音派基督徒中占主導地位的選項。聖約神學在教會教父的著作中是以種子的形式出現的，但它在十六和十七世紀有了重大的發展。它是由於認識到聖經揭示了神以盟約的方式與祂的子民交往而得到發展的。它最基本的教導是：盟約（covenant）是立約雙方或多方之間的正式協議。具體的協議取決於各種因素。每種類型的盟約都涉及一方或雙方的義務。有些盟約還涉及正式的宣誓，有些涉及儀式，有些則有外在的記號。所有的盟約都會使立約當事人之間產生某種關係。
Over the last century and a half, two systems of interpretation, covenant theology and dispensationalism, have been the dominant alternatives among evangelical Christians. Covenant theology was in seed form in the writings of the church fathers, but it saw significant developments during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It grew out of a recognition that the Bible reveals God as dealing with His people by means of covenants. At its most basic, a covenant is a formal arrangement between two or more parties. The specific kind of arrangement depends on various factors. Every type of covenant involves obligations for one or both parties. Some covenants also involve formal oaths, some involve ritual ceremonies, and some have external signs. All covenants effect some kind of relationship between the parties.
 
聖約神學強調創世記一到三章對我們理解全本聖經的重要性。它強調人的墮落所引起的根本性改變。在墮落之前，神按照某種正式的安排與人建立關係的。聖約神學稱這種安排為「行為之約」（covenant of works）或「生命之約」（covenant of life）。墮落之後，為了拯救祂的子民，上帝建立了一種新的安排，盟約神學將它稱為「恩典之約」。當上帝為差遣彌賽亞（基督）做準備時，祂在整個救贖歷史中設立了各種盟約（如亞伯拉罕之約、摩西之約和大衛之約），所有這些盟約都為彌賽亞和新的約（new covenant）的到來奠定了基礎。所有這些盟約都是神在恩典之約（唯靠恩典，唯獨藉著基督的工作）下的總體救贖計劃的一部分（譯按：傳統的聖約神學會稱這些盟約是這個涵蓋一切的恩典之約在救贖歷史不同時期中的“施行或治理方式[administrations]”）。這裏強調的是更正教信徒（Protestant）堅持的事實，即墮落之後，罪人得救的唯一途徑是單單藉著對基督的信心。聖約神學只是宗教改革五大唯獨（five solas）的產物。
Covenant theology emphasizes the importance of Genesis 1–3 for our understanding of all of Scripture. It emphasizes the radical change caused by man’s fall. Before the fall, God related to man according to a certain formal arrangement. Covenant theology speaks of this as the “covenant of works” or “covenant of life.” After the fall, in order to save His people, God established a new arrangement, which covenant theology refers to as the “covenant of grace.” As God prepared for the sending of the Messiah, He established various covenants throughout redemptive history (e.g., the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, and the Davidic covenant), all of which laid the groundwork for the coming of the Messiah and the new covenant. All these covenants were parts of God’s redemptive plan under the one covenant of grace—the one overarching plan of salvation by grace alone through the work of Christ alone. The emphasis here is the Protestant insistence on the fact that after the fall, the only way for sinful man to be saved is by faith alone in Christ alone. Covenant theology is simply an outgrowth of the five solas of the Reformation.
 
一個多世紀以來，時代論一直是福音派中廣泛流行的釋經學體系（譯按：受到倪柝聲弟兄的「聚會所」（或『地方教會Local Church』）神學的影響，這種釋經理論也在華人教會中大行其道）。雖然它最著名的是其獨特的末世論觀點（譯按，即前千禧年論，許多華人教會教導的「災前被提」論），時代論最重要的元素是它區分了上帝的兩群不同的子民，即以色列和教會。
For more than a century, dispensationalism has been a widespread and popular hermeneutical system among evangelicals. Although it is best known for its distinctive eschatological views, dispensationalism’s most important element is its distinction between two separate peoples of God: Israel and the church.
 
由於理解到神對兩群不同的子民有兩個不同的計劃，所以時代論將救贖歷史分為幾個不同的時期或時代。在每一個時代中，神都在考驗人類。在每一個時代中，人都沒有通過考驗，因此開啟了新的時代。大多數時代論者認為有七個不同的時代。目前的時代，即教會時代，是獨一無二的，因為它是救贖歷史中的一個「括號」，在此期間，神把祂的注意力從以色列轉向了教會。時代論者聲稱他們的體系是建立在前後一貫的字面解釋方法（literal method of interpretation）之上的。實際上，這種說法本身是建立在一種非常武斷的字面定義上，而這種定義是有選擇地應用的，沒有考慮到這些古代書籍中的文學類型。
Because of its understanding that God has two distinct plans for two distinct peoples, dispensationalism divides redemptive history into several separate time periods or dispensations. During each of these dispensations, God tests humanity. In each of these dispensations, man fails the test and a new dispensation is inaugurated. Most dispensationalists believe that there are seven distinct dispensations. The present dispensation, the church age, is unique because it is a parenthesis in redemptive history during which God turns His attention from Israel to the church. Dispensationalists claim that their system alone rests on a consistently literal method of interpretation. In reality, the claim itself rests on a very arbitrary definition of literal that is applied selectively and fails to take into account the kind of literature found in these ancient books.
 
這些釋經學體系影響了我們閱讀和解釋聖經的方式。例如，聖約神學認為全本聖經有著更多的連續性。它也拒絕神有兩群不同子民的想法。另一方面，時代論則看到更多的不連續性。它認為，聖經許多地方只適用於以色列，而不適用於今天的基督徒。這從根本上影響了我們讀聖經的方式。這也影響了聖經的講道。我記得我的一位時代論神學院教授對我們班上的同學說，當我們從舊約中講道時，我們應該能夠在猶太人的會堂裏講這篇講道，而不會引發爭議。只有當我們不提耶穌或福音時，才有可能做到這一點。然而，《新約》的作者是這樣處理《舊約》的嗎？當然不是。
These hermeneutical systems affect the way we read and interpret Scripture. Covenant theology, for example, sees much more continuity across all of Scripture. It also rejects the idea that God has two separate peoples. Dispensationalism sees much more discontinuity, on the other hand. It argues that much of Scripture applies only to Israel and not to Christians today. This radically affects the way we read the Bible. It also affects the preaching of the Bible. I recall one of my dispensationalist seminary professors telling our class that when we preach from the Old Testament, we should be able to preach that sermon at a Jewish synagogue without anyone raising an eyebrow. That is only possible if we do not mention Jesus or the gospel. Is that the way the authors of the New Testament dealt with the Old Testament? Certainly not.
 
近幾十年來，一些對舊有的選擇不滿的浸信會神學家提出了其他的選擇，他們認為這些選擇提供了一條介於時代論和聖約神學之間的中間道路。例如，從20世紀80年代和90年代開始，一些時代論者開始倡導「漸進時代論」（progressive dispensationalism）。漸進式時代論比傳統的時代論更看重聖經的連續性。它認為各個時代是漸進發展的，推動著神的計劃。漸進時代論者繼續保持以色列和教會之間的區別，但這種區別不像傳統的時代論那樣激進。
In recent decades, a number of Baptist theologians who were dissatisfied with the older options have offered alternatives that they believe provide a middle way between dispensationalism and covenant theology. Beginning in the 1980s and 1990s, a number of dispensationalists, for example, began advocating “progressive dispensationalism.” Progressive dispensationalism sees more continuity in Scripture than traditional dispensationalism does. It sees the dispensations as progressively developing and advancing God’s plan. Progressive dispensationalists continue to maintain a distinction between Israel and the church, but the distinction is not as radical as one finds in traditional dispensationalism.
 
另一種在一些改革宗浸信會中發現的選擇是「新聖約神學」（New Covenant Theology）。顧名思義，新聖約神學強調的是新的約（new covenant）的嶄新性。支持者以重新評價十誡，特別是安息日的誡命而聞名。他們傾向於質疑或拒絕區分道德律、禮儀律和民事律的用處，特別是質疑安息日誡命是否是上帝永恆不變的道德律的一部分。在那些自稱為「新聖約神學家」的人中，仍然存在許多分歧。有些人否認墮落前有任何行為之約，而有些人則肯定這個教義。有些人否認基督的主動順服。有些人則肯定它。這個體系還在不斷的發展變化當中。
Another alternative that is found in some Reformed Baptist churches is New Covenant Theology. As the name implies, the emphasis is on the newness of the new covenant. Proponents are known for their reevaluation of the Ten Commandments, specifically the Sabbath commandment. They tend to question or reject the usefulness of the distinction between moral, ceremonial, and civil law and specifically question whether the Sabbath commandment is part of the eternal unchanging moral law of God. Many differences remain among those who call themselves “new covenant theologians.” Some deny any covenant of works before the fall, while others affirm it. Some deny Christ’s active obedience. Others affirm it. This system is still evolving.
 
「漸進聖約論」（Progressive Covenantalism）則是一種較新的觀點，已經開始贏得一些信徒。這種觀點與「新聖約神學」有一些相似之處，但其支持者明確地肯定了他們所說的神與亞當立的創造之約。他們也一致肯定了基督主動順服的必要性。根據這種觀點，聖經中的諸約逐步揭示了上帝的完整救贖計劃。他們在肯定神與以色列和教會立了不同的盟約的同時，也肯定神的子民只有一個。這種區別的主要意義在於漸進聖約論者肯定，神的舊盟約子民包含了信徒和非信徒，而神的新盟約子民只包含信徒。這就支撐了漸進聖約論者堅持信徒受洗（believer’s baptism）的基礎。
Progressive Covenantalism is a more recent view that has begun to gain some adherents. This view has some similarities with New Covenant Theology, but its proponents clearly affirm what they would call a creation covenant with Adam. They are also unanimous in affirming the necessity of Christ’s active obedience. According to this view, the covenants in Scripture progressively reveal God’s one plan of salvation. While affirming a covenantal distinction between Israel and the church, they affirm that there is only one people of God. The primary import of the distinction is the affirmation among Progressive Covenantalists that the old covenant people of God contained believers and unbelievers and the new covenant people of God contains only believers. This undergirds Progressive Covenantalism’s insistence on believer’s baptism.
 
在研究這些不同的釋經學體系時，必須牢記的主要問題是，它們的主要原則是來自聖經，還是把這些主要原則讀進到聖經裏。我們沒有篇幅去徹底研究每一個系統的每一個爭議點。我的目標是比較卑微的，即讓讀者更意識到他們讀經時所透過的詮釋學鏡片。
The main question that must be kept in mind when examining these various hermeneutical systems is whether they derive their key principles from Scripture or are reading them into Scripture. We do not have the space to thoroughly examine each system on every disputed point. My goal is more modest—namely, to make readers more aware of the hermeneutical lenses through which they are reading Scripture.
 
雖然我們不可能徹底研究每一個有爭議的問題，但我們必須簡單地看一個問題，即以色列和教會的關係。時代論的激進區分是取自聖經還是把這種區分讀進去聖經？《新約》聖經所提供給我們的答案似乎很清楚。例如在羅馬書十一章17到24節中，保羅把神的子民以色列說成是一棵橄欖樹，不信的猶太人的枝子已經被折斷，只剩下真正的以色列人。信主的外邦人的枝子已經被嫁接到這棵已經存在的橄欖樹上，也就是現在的教會。如果不信主的猶太人悔改信靠基督，他們就可以重新被嫁接到這棵橄欖樹上。請注意，橄欖樹只有一棵。如果時代論是真的，保羅的比喻就必須有很大的改變。他必須講到神在舊的橄欖樹（以色列）旁邊種上一棵新的橄欖樹（教會）。神必須從以色列的樹上取下信主的猶太人的枝子，從其他外邦樹上取下信主的枝子，然後把這些枝子嫁接到新的教會樹上。然而，就目前而言，只有一棵好樹，就是真以色列樹。這就是為什麼保羅可以對以弗所大體上是外邦人的教會說，他們過去在以色列的諸約之外（弗二12）；保羅也對加拉太大體上是外邦人的教會說，如果他們是屬基督的，他們就是亞伯拉罕的後裔（加三16，29）。任何假設神的兩群不同子民的釋經學系統，都是把外來的東西帶到了聖經裏。
Although we cannot thoroughly examine every disputed question, we must briefly look at one—the relationship between Israel and the church. Is dispensationalism’s radical distinction taken from Scripture or read into it? The New Testament answer would appear to be clear. In Romans 11:17–24, for example, Paul speaks of the people of God, Israel, as an olive tree from which unbelieving Jewish branches have been broken off, leaving only the true Israel. Believing gentile branches have been grafted into this already existing olive tree that is now the church. If unbelieving Jews repent and trust Christ, they can be grafted back into this olive tree. Note that there is only the one olive tree. If dispensationalism were true, Paul’s analogy would have to change dramatically. He would have to speak of God’s planting a new olive tree (the church) alongside the old olive tree (Israel). God would have to take believing Jewish branches from the Israel tree and believing branches from other gentile trees and graft those branches into the new church tree. As it stands, however, there is only one good tree—the true Israel. This is why Paul can say to the largely gentile church in Ephesus that they used to be separated from the commonwealth of Israel (Eph. 2:12) and to the largely gentile church in Galatia that if they are Christ’s, they are Abraham’s offspring (Gal. 3:16, 29). Any hermeneutical system that posits two separate peoples of God is bringing something foreign to the Bible.
 
聖約釋經法從聖經的前提出發，承認它是何種類型的書，強調它所強調的東西。它認識到神對祂子民的計劃，有一種優美的潛在連續性，同時也認識到在這個計劃中，有合乎聖經的發展和各樣區別。最重要的是，它承認並宣告了耶穌基督完整的福音，以及唯獨靠著恩典、唯獨藉著信心、唯獨在基督裏的唯一救恩之路。
The covenantal hermeneutic begins with the Scripture as it is given, recognizing the kind of book it is and emphasizing what it emphasizes. It recognizes the beautiful underlying continuity of the plan of God for His people while also recognizing the biblical development and distinctions within that plan. Most importantly, it recognizes and proclaims the one gospel of Jesus Christ and the one way of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
 
馬蒂森博士（Keith A. Mathison）是位於佛羅裏達州桑福德的宗教改革聖經學院（Reformation Bible College）的系統神學教授。他是多本著作的作者，包括《主的晚餐》（The Lord's Supper）。

成為改革宗是什麽意思？What Does It Mean to Be Reformed?

作者: Keith A. Mathison   譯者:  Maria Marta

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2018/11/what-does-it-mean-to-be-reformed/

記得在我成為基督徒，並從神學院畢業若幹年之後，有一次回家探親。期間，我遇到一個老鄰居，讀高中時他曾和我一起工作過。他告訴我，他聽說我去了感化學校（或矯正，reform school），並問我現在過得怎麽樣。對不知道何為改革宗學校（reform school）的人而言，它就是一間青少年罪犯矯正工作的機構。他的假設並沒有冒犯我。事實上，當我想起他的看法時，仍覺得很有趣，我幾乎可以肯定，還有一個關於「囚籠階段加爾文主義者」（cage-stage Calvinists）的笑話。我只花了幾分鐘便向我的鄰居解釋了感化學校和改革宗神學院（Reformed seminary）的區別，但我認為他的混淆暗示一個更大、更重要的問題，那就是改革宗（Reformed）一詞在許多基督徒心中的模糊性。

近年來「改革宗」一詞在美國引起廣泛的關注。2006年，在一篇刊於《今日基督教》雜志上被廣泛閱讀的文章中，科林漢森（Collin Hansen）描述福音派運動內部「年輕、躁動的改革宗」領袖的崛起。這些人都反對歷史上多個美國福音派運動中出現的復興的伯拉糾主義、半伯拉糾主義，他們開始向改革宗傳統中的老神學家，諸如約翰·加爾文（John Calvin）、圖倫丁（ Francis Turretin ）、賀治（Charles Hodge）等人學習。「改革宗」一詞的含義也一直是美國更正教最大的宗派------美南浸信會（Southern Baptist Convention）持續爭論的焦點。許多美南浸信會人士拒絕接受改革神學，認為它不利於傳福音和宣教。而另一些人現在確定為改革宗浸信會人士。改革宗浸信會運動的發展驚人，此運動由畢業於美南浸信會神學院的牧師們，和該神學院的教學領袖們推動。

傳統改革宗宗派，如美國長老會、正統長老會，和北美聯合改革宗教會（URCNA）內部的人，有時想知道如何回應這些發展。對這些教會的許多人而言，成為改革宗就是接受特定的改革宗信仰告白，堅持某種敬虔和崇拜。這些教會的一些人認為，「改革宗」一詞若不與改革宗信仰告白聯系在一起，就失去全部意義。

那麽，我們如何在這些水域航行?  成為改革宗是什麽意思?  這裏我們必須退一步看，回顧16世紀宗教改革歷史的某些方面。為人所知的宗教改革的目的就是改革現存的教會。今天我們知道導致教會分裂的幾個因素，但本文的著重點與「改革宗」一詞的使用方式有關。在一些情況下，「改革宗」是更正教Protestant)的同義詞。在這種情況下，談論「改革宗教會」就是談論所有與羅馬天主教教皇制度對抗的教會。在另一些情況下，「改革宗」狹義上是指那些有別於路德宗教會的更正教教會，特別在主的晚餐的教義和實踐方面。在這種情況下，「改革宗」是指與慈運理 (Ulrich Zwingli) 、布靈格（Heinrich Bullinger）、布塞珥（Martin Bucer）、沃密格利（Peter Martyr Vermigli）、約翰·加爾文（John Calvin）等人的教導有關聯的教會。

當更正教教會之間的界限開始變成一道墻時，不同的教會就以信仰告白的形式寫下他們的信仰。路德宗和改革宗的標簽現在有更明確的內容。成為路德宗，首先要同意路德宗的認信告白，最初是《奧斯堡信條》(Augsburg Confession，1530)，最後是《協同書》(the Book of Concord 1580年)。成為改革宗就要同意改革宗的認信告白。這些成文的認信告白不勝枚舉，但最持久和最被廣泛使用的是三項聯合信條（Three Forms of Unity）和威斯敏斯特標準(the Westminster Standards)。三項聯合信條包括比利時信條(1561年)、海德堡要理問答(1563) 、多特信經(1619)。威敏斯特準則包括威敏斯特信仰告白(1647)、威敏斯特大要理問答(1648)、威敏斯特小要理問答(1647)。

值得注意的是，在英國，有兩份重要的認信告白是根據威斯敏斯特信仰告白修改而寫成的，其目的是要讓教會擁有一份對教會治理和洗禮不同看法的表述。薩伏伊宣言（Savoy Declaration 1658年) 是公理會根據威敏思特信仰告白所作的修改，而1689年的倫敦浸信會信仰告白 (the 1689 London Baptist Confession)對威敏思特信仰告白的修改則反映出特別浸禮派（Particular Baptists）對教會治理和洗禮的觀點。區別特別浸禮派和普通浸禮派(General Baptists）對本文的著重點很重要，因為這種區別的主要依據是對救恩主權和救恩教義的不同理解。普通浸禮派是阿米念派。17世紀的特別浸禮派堅持多特會議所維護的教義，這些教義後來被稱為加爾文主義的五要點，其概括縮寫為郁金香(TULIP)。特別浸禮派拒絕接受阿米念的救恩論。當代改革宗浸信會是特別浸信會的繼承者。

鑒於這段歷史，成為改革宗是什麽意思?  我認為需要一定程度的寬容與耐心，因為這個問題沒有明確的答案。改革宗有兩種定義，一種更具包容性，另一種更乏包容性，這兩種定義都有著悠久的使用歷史。當我說第一種更具包容性的定義時，我所指的定義包括眾多自認是改革宗的信徒——例如，認信的長老會和改革宗浸信會。當我說第二種更乏包容性的定義時,  我所指的定義包括少數信徒，這些信徒對改革宗一詞的理解基本上只限於具體的信仰告白(三項聯合信條和威斯敏斯特標準)，和特定形式的敬虔和崇拜。

第一種更具包容性的定義集中在更狹窄的教義範圍內，作為成為改革宗之含義的界定。這種定義常被用作大多數人所理解的加爾文主義者的同義詞。第一種定義的重點在於加爾文主義的五點，和揀選、預定的教義。所以，如果一個浸信會信徒相信聖經所教導的全然敗壞（total depravity）、無條件揀選（unconditional election）、限定的救贖. （limited atonement）、不可抗拒的恩典（irresistible grace），聖徒永蒙保守（perseverance of the saints），那麽他很可能使用改革宗浸信會一詞作為自我描述的標簽。

改革宗一詞的第二種更乏包容性的定義集中在三項聯合信條和威斯敏斯特標準所包含的全部教義和實踐。在這個意義上，使用該詞的人理解改革宗的含義遠遠超過救恩論標題所包括的教義。它也包括教會和聖禮等特定教義。例如，它包括嬰兒洗禮。從這個意義上理解和使用改革宗一詞的人相信，談論改革浸信會和談論路德浸信會同樣有意義。

那些其教會追溯其歷史到制定認信界線時期的人，他們有合理的歷史理由，以一種更乏包容性的方式來定義改革宗。例如，我們在多特信經的結論中看到這種定義的證據。在結語部分，多特會議敦促那些想明白成為改革宗是什麽意思的人，去看改革宗教會的認信告白以及會議對認信告白的解釋。這裏，多特會議別提到比利時信條。你想知道成為改革宗是什麽意思嗎?  讀比利時信條，然後讀多特信經。這就是多特會議給出的答案。

另一方面，特別浸禮派和普通浸禮派之間的長期爭論，解釋了為何許多當代浸信會使用改革宗浸信會這一標簽。他們選擇修改已經存在的威斯敏斯特信條，而不是創造一個全新的認信告白，這表明他們明白他們的教義與英國和蘇格蘭長老會有更多的相似之處，而非不同之處。當然，當時也有些長老會，如現在一樣，不同意這種評估，但似乎沒有任何令人信服的理由堅持改革浸信會停止並終止使用改革宗一詞，因為更狹窄定義和更寬廣的定義兩者都已存在幾個世紀了。事實上, 那些認為改革宗一詞應該有更嚴格的定義的人，可能將許多在美國和其他地方的年輕、躁動的基督徒对改革宗救恩論的發現視作一個極好的機會，藉此進一步討論改革神學和實踐的歷史和本質。

與此同時，那些改革宗浸信會信徒可將目前的辯論當作一個機會，藉此來努力明白那些以三項聯合信條和威斯敏斯特標準定義改革宗的人為何這樣做。他們會觀察到，這些信徒看到所有這些教義和實踐之間的相互聯系和統一，它們不允許救恩論與其他教義分隔，避免出現必然的扭曲。

簡而言之，關於改革宗一詞之含義的辯論是一個極好的機會：能讓雙方更深入地挖掘聖經和我們豐富的神學遺產，並實踐這些遺產本身所激發的愛和忍耐。

Dr. Keith A. Mathison is professor of systematic theology at Reformation Bible College in Sanford, Fla. He is author of several books, including From Age to Age.

What Does It Mean to Be Reformed?

by Keith A. Mathison

I remember visiting home once, years after I had become a Christian and after I had graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary. During my visit, I ran into an old neighbor with whom I had worked while in high school. He told me that he had heard that I had gone to reform school and asked how I was doing now. For those who do not know what a “reform school” is, it is a correctional institution for juvenile delinquents. I wasn’t offended by his assumption. In fact, I still find it quite funny when I think about it, and I’m almost certain that there is a joke about “cage-stage Calvinists” somewhere in there. It took only a few minutes to explain to my neighbor the difference between a reform school and a Reformed seminary, but I think his confusion hints at a larger and more significant issue, namely, the ambiguity of the word Reformed in the minds of many Christians.

The word Reformed has gained a good deal of attention in the United States in recent years. In a widely read 2006 Christianity Today article, Collin Hansen described the rise of “Young, Restless, and Reformed” leaders within evangelicalism. These are men and women who have rejected the revivalistic Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism found in so much of historic American evangelicalism and have begun learning from older theologians in the Reformed tradition, men such as John Calvin, Francis Turretin, and Charles Hodge. The meaning of the word Reformed has also been at the center of ongoing debates in the Southern Baptist Convention, America’s largest Protestant denomination. Many Southern Baptists reject Reformed theology, believing it to be inimical to evangelism and missions. Others now identify as Reformed Baptists. The growth of the Reformed Baptist movement has been incredible, and it has been fueled by pastors graduating from Southern Baptist seminaries and by the teaching of leaders within the convention.

Those within traditionally Reformed denominations such as the Presbyterian Church in America, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and the United Reformed Churches in North America are sometimes left wondering how to respond to all of these developments. For many in these churches, to be Reformed is to subscribe to specific Reformed confessions of faith and to adhere to a certain kind of piety and worship. Some in these churches argue that the word Reformed loses all meaning if it is not identified with these Reformed confessions.

So, how do we navigate these waters? What does it mean to be Reformed? Here we need to take a step back and look at some aspects of the history of the sixteenth-century Reformation. The purpose of what has become known as the Reformation was to reform the existing church. Several factors led to the ecclesiastical division we know today, but the key point for our purposes has to do with the way that the word Reformed was used. In some cases, it was used synonymously with the word Protestant. In such cases, to speak of “Reformed churches” was to speak of all of those churches in conflict with the Roman Catholic papacy. In other cases, the word Reformed was used in a narrower sense to refer to those Protestant churches that differed with the Lutheran churches, particularly over the doctrine and practice of the Lord’s Supper. The word Reformed in these instances referred to churches associated with the teachings of men such as Huldrych Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, Martin Bucer, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and John Calvin.

As the lines in the sand between the Protestant churches began to become walls, the various churches wrote their beliefs in their confessions of faith. The labels Lutheran and Reformed now had a more definitive content. To be Lutheran was to subscribe to the Lutheran confessions, initially the Augsburg Confession (1530) and ultimately the Book of Concord (1580). To be Reformed was to subscribe to one of the Reformed confessions. Numerous such confessions were written, but those that gained the longest lasting and most widespread use are the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards. The Three Forms of Unity include the Belgic Confession (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), and the Canons of Dort (1619). The Westminster Standards include the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), the Westminster Larger Catechism (1648), and the Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647).

Significantly, in England, two important confessions were written that modified the Westminster Confession in order to have a confession that expressed different views of church government and baptism. The Savoy Declaration (1658) was a Congregationalist modification of the Westminster Confession, and the 1689 London Baptist Confession was a modification that reflected the views of Particular Baptists on church government and baptism. The distinction between Particular Baptists and General Baptists is important for our purposes because this was a distinction primarily based on different understandings of soteriology or the doctrine of salvation. General Baptists were Arminian. The Particular Baptists of the seventeenth century adhered to the doctrines upheld by the Synod of Dort, doctrines that have since become known as the five points of Calvinism and that are summarized in the acronym TULIP. They rejected Arminian soteriology. Contemporary Reformed Baptists are the heirs of the Particular Baptists.

Given this history, what does it mean to be Reformed? I think a measure of charity and patience is required, because the question does not have a clear-cut answer. The word has a more inclusive definition as well as a less inclusive definition, and both definitions have a long history of use. When I speak of a more inclusive definition of the word Reformed, I mean a definition that includes a larger number of believers who profess to be Reformed—confessional Presbyterians as well as Reformed Baptists, for example. When I speak of a less inclusive definition of the word Reformed, I mean a definition that includes a smaller number of believers—those who understand the word Reformed to be restricted essentially to specific confessions of faith (the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards) and to specific forms of piety and worship.

The more inclusive definition of the word Reformed focuses on a narrower range of doctrines as defining what it means to be Reformed. This more inclusive definition of Reformed is usually synonymous with what most people understand by the word Calvinist. It is focused on the five points of Calvinism and the doctrines of election and predestination. So, if one is a Baptist who believes that the Bible teaches total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints, election, and predestination, then he likely uses the term Reformed Baptist as a self-descriptive label.

The less inclusive definition of the word Reformed focuses on the whole range of doctrine and practice contained in the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards. Those who use the word in this sense understand the word Reformed to include far more than the doctrines considered under the heading of soteriology. It includes particular doctrines of the church and sacraments as well. It includes infant baptism, for example. Those who understand and use the word Reformed in this sense believe it makes as much sense to speak of a Reformed Baptist as it would to speak of a Lutheran Baptist.

Those whose churches trace their history back to the time during which confessional lines were being drawn have a legitimate historical reason to define the word Reformed in a less inclusive way. We see evidence for such a definition, for example, in the conclusion to the Canons of Dort. In this concluding section, the Synod of Dort urges those who want to understand what it means to be Reformed to go to the confessions of the Reformed churches and to the synod’s explanation of that confession’s teaching. The synod here is referring specifically to the Belgic Confession. Do you want to know what it means to be Reformed? Read the Belgic Confession and then read the Canons of Dort. That is the answer that the synod gives here.

On the other hand, the long history of the debate between Particular Baptists and General Baptists explains why many contemporary Baptists use the label Reformed Baptist. Their choice to modify the already existing Westminster Confession rather than to create an entirely new confession indicates that they understood their doctrine to have more similarities to than differences from that of the English and Scottish Presbyterians. Of course, there were Presbyterians then, just as there are now, who disagreed with this assessment, but there doesn’t seem to be any compelling reason to insist that Reformed Baptists cease and desist in their use of the word since both narrower and broader definitions have existed for centuries. In fact, those who believe that the word Reformed should have a more restrictive definition could view the discovery of Reformed soteriology by many young and restless Christians in the United States and elsewhere as a wonderful opportunity for further discussion on the history and nature of Reformed theology and practice.

At the same time, those who are Reformed Baptists could use the present debate as an opportunity to try to understand why those who define the word Reformed in terms of the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards do so. They could observe that these believers see an interconnectedness between and unity among all of these doctrines and practices that do not allow soteriology to be separated from the remaining doctrines without inevitable distortion.

In short, the debate over the meaning of the word Reformed is a wonderful opportunity for those on both sides to dig deeper into Scripture and into the riches of our theological heritage while exercising the charity and patience encouraged by that heritage itself.

 耶穌和以色列：一個盟約還是兩個盟約？Jesusand Israel: One Covenant or Two?

作者: Keith Mathison   譯者/校對者:Maria Marta /駱鴻銘

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/jesus-and-israel-one-covenant-or-two/

http://www.crtsbooks.net/blog/post/2015/03/16/%E8%80%B6%E7%A9%8C%E5%92%8C%E4%BB%A5%E8%89%B2%E5%88%97%EF%BC%9A%E4%B8%80%E5%80%8B%E7%9B%9F%E7%B4%84%E9%82%84%E6%98%AF%E5%85%A9%E5%80%8B%E7%9B%9F%E7%B4%84%EF%BC%9F.aspx

全世界每年出版發行數以千計的基督教書籍。在這些書籍當中，通常只有一小部分是值得閱讀的。而在這值得閱讀的小部分當中，只有極少數是值得反複閱讀的。大衛·霍瓦達（David Holwerda）著的《耶穌與以色列：一個盟約還是兩個盟約？》（Jesus & Israel: One Covenant or Two?）是這極少數的幾本書之一。霍瓦達這本書的首要寫作目的， 是從改革宗和盟約的角度，來檢查應許與應驗這聖經主題。爲了全面地處理這個重要的主題，書中每一章都致力於探討一個爲耶穌與以色列的關係提供綫索的具體議題。例如，這些議題包括聖殿、土地、和法律等。另外，從盟約角度對這些議題的剖析，也爲與時下流行的時代論的應許與應驗觀， 提供了非常有幫助的對照，雖然這一點不是本書明確聲明的目的。

Every year, thousands of Christian books are published worldwide. Of those thousands, there are usually only a small handful that are worth reading. Of those that are worth reading, there are only a few that are worth reading repeatedly. David Holwerda’s Jesus & Israel: One Covenant or Two? is one of those rare few. The basic purpose of Holwerda’s book is to examine the topic of promise and fulfillment in Scripture from a Reformed, covenantal perspective. In order to thoroughly deal with this significant topic, each chapter of the book is devoted to addressing one specific issue that sheds light on the relationship between Jesus and Israel. The topics that are addressed include, for example, the temple, the land, and the law. Though not an explicitly stated purpose of the book, the examination of these issues from a covenantal perspective also provides a very helpful contrast with the popular dispensationalist ideas of promise and fulfillment.

這本書第一章的標題是：「二十世紀的耶穌和以色列」。在這一章中，霍瓦達問了一個關鍵的問題：「一般人應該如何書寫或談論納粹大屠殺之後的耶穌和以色列？」（6頁）。他指出一個事實，自從第二次世界大戰之後，基督徒在處理與以色列有關的議題上，變得更加困難，因爲「當代教會覺得愧對現代以色列國」（6頁）。霍瓦達說，許多學者試圖減輕這種內疚感，並透過粉飾基督的獨特宣稱來促進與猶太教代表的對話。在承認教會在過去幾個世紀以來，不論在言論、行動上都犯了反猶太人的罪的同時，霍瓦達也正確地拒絕這些自由派基督徒的主張，並指出只要基督信仰放棄了耶穌是彌賽亞的宣稱，它就放棄了本身的信仰。緊接著這章必要的前言，霍瓦達繼續概括出書中餘下各章將會提出並回答的主要問題：

The first chapter of the book is titled “Jesus and Israel in the Twentieth Century.” In this chapter, Holwerda asks a crucial question: “How should one write or speak about Jesus and Israel after the Holocaust?” (p. 6). He notes the fact that it has become more difficult since World War II for Christians to deal with issues related to Israel because “the contemporary Church encounters modern Israel with a guilty conscience” (p. 6). Holwerda observes that many scholars have sought to alleviate this guilt and foster dialogue with representatives of Judaism by glossing over the unique claims of Christ. While acknowledging that the Church has been guilty of anti-semitic words and actions in past centuries, Holwerda rightly rejects the claims of these liberal Christians, pointing out that Christianity simply cannot give up the claim that Jesus is the Messiah without giving up Christianity itself. Following this necessary introductory chapter, Holwerda proceeds to outline the main questions that will be asked and answered in the remaining chapters of the book:

耶穌是誰？

耶穌與以色列、舊約及其律法、舊約及其應許有什麼關系？

耶穌與論及聖殿、土地、和耶路撒冷的應許有什麼關係？

猶太人和外邦人對耶穌有什麼想法？Who is Jesus?

What is His relationship to Israel and the Old Testament with its law and its promises?

What is His relationship to the promises concerning the temple, the land, and Jerusalem?

What should Jews and Gentiles think of Him?

本書的第二章，霍瓦達探討了最基本的問題：「誰是以色列人？」這一章為本書的其餘部分奠定了基礎，因為這問題的答案將會極大地影響所有預言的解釋。霍瓦達在第二章中使用巨大的篇幅來查考馬太福音，因為這卷福音書對「誰是以色列人？」這問題，尤其提供了詳盡的回答。通過對馬太福音中的幾段經文清晰而引人入勝的查考，霍瓦達作出耶穌是真以色列的結論。例如，在家譜的開頭，馬太把耶穌、亞伯拉罕、大衛聯繫起來，目的是為了證明賜予亞伯拉罕和大衛的祝福，正在透過、並且在耶穌裡得到應驗。耶穌是亞伯拉罕的真兒子，大衛的真兒子。耶穌是代表一個群體（以色列）的「法人代表」（corporate person），祂是在祂裡面的這群體代表的具體化身（34頁）。

In chapter two, Holwerda deals with the most basic question: “Who is Israel?” This chapter lays the foundation for the remainder of the book because the answer to this question dramatically affects the interpretation of all prophecy. Holwerda devotes the bulk of chapter two to an examination of the Gospel of Matthew because this Gospel in particular is an extended answer to the question: “Who is Israel?” Through a careful and fascinating look at various passages in Matthew, Holwerda concludes that Jesus is the true Israel. In the opening genealogy, for example, Matthew links Jesus to Abraham and David in order to show that the promises of blessing given to Abraham and David are now being fulfilled in and through Jesus, the true Son of Abraham and the true Son of David. Jesus is a “corporate person” who represents a group of people (Israel) and in whom that group of people is representatively embodied (p. 34).

「誰是以色列人？」馬太的答案也藉著他的地理參考資料表明出來。以色列過去所發生的事情，預表耶穌的位格與生命。在嬰兒時受到生命威脅，逃到埃及，在曠野受試探等所有事件，都與以色列的歷史平行。正如霍瓦達指出的，承認這一事實，有助於解釋馬太福音使用何西阿書第十一章1節（參太二14以下）的預言。如果查看何西阿書第十一章的整個背景，可以看出，放逐並不是上帝對以色列的蓋棺論定。上帝應許祂會通過新的出埃及來創造新的子民。馬太使用這個與耶穌有關的預言來表明，這個期待已久的新出埃及，隨著基督的到來已經開始了（40頁）。

Matthew’s answer to the question, “Who is Israel?” is also indicated through his geographical references. What happened to Israel in the past provides types of the person and life of Jesus. The threat to his life as an infant, the flight to Egypt, and the time in the wilderness all parallel events in the history of Israel. As Holwerda notes, the recognition of this fact helps to explain Matthew’s use of such prophesies as Hosea 11:1 (cf. Matt. 2:14ff.). If the entire context of Hosea 11 is examined, it can be seen that exile for Israel was not God’s final word. God promised a new exodus by means of which He would create His new people. Matthew’s use of this prophecy in connection with Jesus shows that this long awaited new exodus has begun with His coming (p. 40).

馬太福音三章17節，十七章5節也記錄了上帝從天上說的話。在兩節經文中，上帝說：「這是我的愛子，我所喜悅的。」這語言反映了以賽亞書四十二章1節的經文，上帝應許要將祂的靈賜給祂的僕人，使祂能夠完成彌賽亞的工作，並把救恩帶給全世界。馬太福音記載耶穌受洗時從天上傳來的這些話。根據霍瓦達的見解，這些話意味著「耶穌受洗」故事的目的， 是為了宣告耶穌是上帝的受膏僕人（43頁）。在以賽亞書中，僕人「既是以色列人，又是代表以色列更新以色列的人」（43頁）。耶穌是完成原初指派給以色列的角色的那一位——作列國的光。

Matthew also records the words God speaks from heaven in 3:17 and 17:5. In both passages, God says, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” The language reflects Isaiah 42:1, a passage in which God promises to place His Spirit on His servant to enable Him to complete His messianic work and bring salvation to the world. Matthew records these words from heaven at Jesus’ baptism. What this means, according to Holwerda, is that the “story of Jesus’ baptism is intended to proclaim Jesus as God’s anointed servant (p. 43). In Isaiah, the servant is “both Israel and the one who by representing Israel renews Israel” (p. 43). Jesus is the One who fulfills the role originally assigned to the nation of Israel - to be a light to the nations.

耶穌作為真以色列的身分引出一個重要的問題。如果耶穌代替舊約的以色列，那麼這個國家的身分是什麼？如霍瓦達注意到，「離開了上帝賜予祂百姓的信心，就不能堅稱繼續擁有這些應許」（54頁）。馬太福音第十一至十三章表明了這一點，這二章詳細說明了背約和不忠的後果。那麼， 誰是以色列呢？霍瓦達解釋這答案。

The identity of Jesus as the true Israel raises an important question. If He has taken the place of the Old Testament nation of Israel, what is the status of this nation? As Holwerda observes, “Continued possession of promises cannot be maintained apart from the faith that God gives to His people” (p. 54). This is indicated in Matthew in chapters 11-13 where the consequences of covenant breaking and faithlessness are spelled out. Who, then is Israel? Holwerda explains the answer.

耶穌，亞伯拉罕不折不扣的後裔，祂本身是猶太人，是上帝愛的對象以色列。祂蒙上帝揀選， 以完全順服，成全律法和先知（太 五17），履行全部的義作回應（太三15）。因為耶穌是以色列的法人代表，所以現在上帝承認，所有那些以信心回應，順服上帝，遵行上帝在耶穌基督裡啟示的旨意的人為以色列。當然，首先作出回應的人實際上是猶太人。耶穌譴責以色列並不是無一例外地指所有的猶太人， 而是針對那些不信的猶太人。跟隨耶穌的人群所受到的審判，與耶穌對以色列領袖所宣告的激進審判是不一樣的。因為耶穌憐憫眾人是「沒有牧人的羊」， 並且祂對門徒宣告，「莊稼多，工人少」（太九36-38）。只要群眾不拒絕耶穌，成為耶穌門徒之可能性的大門，仍舊保持敞開。猶太人會接受以色列的定義，和應許將會在耶穌裡得著應驗的啟示嗎？他們會承認上帝的同在，和天國在耶穌的位格和事工中到來嗎？他們會明白天國的奧秘嗎？這在過去是，並將繼續是決定以色列身分的唯一問題：不是關乎血統而是憑著信心，不是取決於人的成就，而是上帝白白所賜的禮物，上帝的呼召和揀選，承認耶穌是亞伯拉罕的兒子，大衛的兒子，和上帝的兒子。（56-57頁）

（56-57页）Jesus, a literal descendant of Abraham, himself a Jew, is the Israel who is the object of God’s love. He is chosen by God and responds in perfect obedience, fulfilling the law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17) and all righteousness (3:15). Since Jesus is the corporate representative of Israel, God now recognizes as Israel all who respond in faith and obedience to the presence and will of God revealed in Jesus. Of course, the first to so respond are in fact Jews. Jesus’ condemnation of Israel is not a blanket condemnation of all Jews but only of those who do not believe. The crowds that follow him do not receive from him the same radical judgment as is pronounced on the leaders of the nation. Instead, Jesus has compassion on the crowds as “sheep without a shepherd” and declares to his disciples that the harvest is plentiful (Matthew 9:36-38). So long as they do not reject Jesus, the possibility of becoming Jesus’ disciples remains open to the people. Will they accept the definition of Israel and the fulfillment of the promises revealed in Jesus? Will they acknowledge the presence of God and the arrival of the kingdom in the person and ministry of Jesus? Will they comprehend the mystery of the kingdom? That was and continues to be the only question that decides the identity of Israel: Not ancestry but faith, not human achievement but God’s gift, calling and election, acknowledged in Jesus, son of Abraham, son of David, Son of God (pp. 56-57)

霍瓦達在書第三章討論聖殿，他問道， 預言是否要求在耶路撒冷先前聖殿的位置上，必須重建石頭造的聖殿。在仔細研究舊約歷史和聖殿的應許之後，他評論道耶穌的事工應驗了所有聖殿的象徵。耶穌是上帝真正的聖殿，那些在基督裡的人是聖殿的組成部分（參看林前三16以下；林後六16～七1；弗二20-22）。

In chapter three, Holwerda discusses the temple, asking whether prophecy requires the rebuilding of a temple of stone on the site of the previous temples in Jerusalem. After carefully examining the history of the Old Testament temples and the temple promises, he observes that Jesus’ ministry fulfills all that the temple symbolized. Jesus is the true temple of God, and those who are in Christ are part of this temple (cf. 1 Cor. 3:16ff.; 2 Cor. 6:16-7:1; Eph. 2:20-22).

這本書第四章致力於查考土地的應許這極具爭議的議題。霍瓦達指出，儘管土地的應許是不可撤回的，但卻是有條件的。以色列不能聲稱她對土地的「擁有權」。土地屬於上帝，即使以色列得地為業， 但是土地仍然屬於上帝（利廿五23）。以色列只有藉著遵守盟約，才能繼續擁有上帝所賜的土地（申四25以下）。如同霍瓦達所說，「違反盟約的規定，卻保持對土地的擁有權，是完全不可能的」（92頁）。「聖地不能容忍邪惡的百姓，那地會把以色列吐出去，像吐出在他們以前的各民族一樣。」（利十八28）（93頁）。在以色列的過去，因為偶像崇拜（何九1-3）和欺壓寡婦、孤兒、寄居者、和窮人（亞七8-14）等緣故， 她被上帝趕出那地（何九1-3）。為了保持對土地的擁有，上帝的子民要聖潔，甚至像祂那樣聖潔（95頁）。新約表明土地的應許現在是普世性質的。上帝的子民不再專注於特定的巴勒斯坦土地。現在這應許的範圍包括整個地球（參羅四13；弗六2）。此外，新約聖經指出，應許的繼承人不再是特定的以色列民族， 而是基督和所有信靠祂的人（加三16、29）。霍瓦達指出：

Chapter four is devoted to the highly controversial issue of the land promises. Holwerda points out that while the land promises are irrevocable, they are also conditional. Israel cannot claim that she has a “right” to the land. The land belongs to God and remains His even when Israel possesses it (cf. Lev. 25:23). Israel may only continue to possess God’s gift of the land by keeping the covenant (Deut. 4:25ff.). As Holwerda observes, “maintianing possession of the land while violating the stipulations of the covenant is utterly impossible” (p. 92). ” A holy land cannot tolerate an unholy people and it will vomit Israel out when Israel defiles the land just as it vomited out the wicked nations before Israel entered the land (Lev. 18:28)” (p. 93). In Israel’s past, she was driven out of the land by God for idolatry (Hos. 9:1-3) and for oppressing widows, orphans, foreigners, and the poor (Zech. 7:8-14). In order to maintain possession of the land, God’s people must be holy even as He is holy (p. 95). The New Testament indicates that the land promises have now been universalized. They are no longer focused on the particular land of Palestine. They now include the whole earth (cf. Rom. 4:13; Eph. 6:2). In addition, the New Testament points out that the heir of the promises is no longer the particular nation of Israel but Christ and all who are in Him by faith (Gal. 3:16, 29). Holwerda notes:

繼承土地的條件只有在耶穌裡得到滿足，因為祂是上帝居住的聖殿，新約把耶路撒冷設置在耶穌那兒。耶穌在天上，所以耶路撒冷也在天上。藉著信靠基督，天國的公民被建立，因此教會的成員，基督的身體，也是天國的公民。無論是教會、還是新耶路撒冷都被稱為基督的新婦，這表明教會的成員，和天國的公民是一樣的（林後十一2；啟廿二2、9，廿二17）（111頁）。

The conditions for inheriting the land are fulfilled only in Jesus and since He is the temple where God dwells, the New Testament locates Jerusalem where Jesus is. Jesus is in heaven and so is Jerusalem. Claims to citizenship are established by faith in Christ, and hence the members of the Church, the body of Christ, are also citizens of that city. Both the Church and the new Jerusalem are called the bride of Christ, indicating that the members of the Church and the citizens of that city are the same (2 Corinthians 11:2; Revelation 22:2, 9; 22:17) (p. 111).

在這本書第五章， 霍瓦達轉向討論律法的問題。當耶穌來的時候，律法會怎樣呢？千百年來基督徒已經表述了各種不同的答案。耶穌自己說，「不要以為我來是要廢除律法和先知；我來不是要廢除，而是要完成。」（太五17；新譯本）耶穌來完成先知所未能完成的工作，耶穌來是要完成律法的命令。這種「完成」是什麼意思？霍瓦達提供一個有幫助的解釋。

Holwerda turns to the question of the law in chapter five. What happens to the law when Jesus comes? Christians have suggested a number of widely differing answers over the centuries. Jesus Himself says, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:17). Jesus came to fulfill the Prophets, and He came to fulfill the law. What does this “fulfillment” mean? Holwerda offers a helpful explanation.

關於先知書，儘管馬太所呈現的某些預言的應驗方式可能非常複雜，但是耶穌的聲明是不難理解的。預言的應驗只是意味著先知的話所應許的現實，會成為人類歷史上的真實事件。那麼什麼是律法的成全呢？顯然， 同樣地當法律所清楚表達的公義在人類歷史上成為現實時， 律法便成全了。在以色列生活的具體情況下，律法是公義將會覆蓋地球表面的一種表達。因此，法律的成全就是法律所清楚表述的公義必然在歷史上成為現實。讓這件事實現，就是耶穌的使命的目的和成就。

With regard to the prophets, Jesus’ announcement is not so difficult to understand, even though Matthew’s own presentation of the fulfillment of certain prophecies may be very complex. Fulfillment of prophecies means simply that the reality promised in the prophetic word becomes an actual event in human history. What then is the fulfillment of the law? Obviously this fulfillment happens when the righteousness articulated in the law similarly becomes reality in human history. The law is an articulation, under the specific circumstances in which Israel lived, of the righteousness that will cover the face of the earth. Therefore, fulfillment of the law entails a realization in history of the righteousness articulated in the law. To bring that about was the intention and achievement of Jesus’ mission.

這本書第六章，霍瓦達提出猶太人的以色列（Jewish Israel）的未來這個問題。如果所有的應許都要藉著耶穌得著應驗，那麼猶太人的以色列，他們未來的地位是什麼呢？通過查考保羅在羅馬第九至十一章所回答的問題， 霍瓦達討論的這個問題。霍瓦達指出，保羅從兩個角度來解決猶太人的以色列的未來這個問題。首先，保羅指出，上帝並沒有拒絕祂的百姓，因為即使是現在仍然有相信的餘民。餘民現在已經得救了，但其餘的人成了頑梗不化的人（羅十一7）。然而，根據保羅的觀點，即使這個臨到以色列其餘的人的審判，仍然不是最終的審判。他們失足，但不是倒下去（羅十一11以下）。這一切都是上帝救贖計劃的一部分。反而因為他們的頑固，救恩就臨到外邦人。外邦人得救會導致他們奮發，最終消除以色列剩下那部分人的頑梗不化。根據霍瓦達的觀點，在羅馬書第十一章26節「全以色列」是指「猶太人的以色列在末世的豐滿」（170頁）。這不僅僅是指幾個世紀以來的猶太餘民的總和。「餘民為其餘的人帶來了盼望」（176頁）。

In chapter six, Holwerda raises the question of a future for Jewish Israel. If Jesus is the One through whom all of the promises are fulfilled, then what possible place could there be for Jewish Israel? Holwerda addresses this question by examining Paul’s answer to the question in Romans 9-11. Holwerda points out that Paul approaches the problem of Jewish Israel from two-angles. First, Paul points out that God has not rejected His people because even now there is a believing remnant. The remnant is now being saved, but the rest have been hardened (Rom. 11:7). Yet, according to Paul, even this judgment upon the rest of Israel is not final. They have stumbled, but they have not fallen (Rom. 11:11ff.). All of this is been part of God’s redemptive plan. Israel’s hardening led to salvation for the Gentiles. The salvation of the Gentiles will lead to jealousy and ultimately a removal of the hardening on the part of the rest of Israel. According to Holwerda, “all Israel” in Romans 11:26, “refers to Jewish Israel in its eschatological fullness” (p. 170). It is not merely the sum total of the Jewish remnant over the centuries. ‘The remnant holds out hope for the rest” (p. 176).

霍瓦達的書有很多優點。幾乎每一頁都提供了聖經解釋的洞見。不強調每句話的意思，而要凸顯本書最有用的部分，這樣的做法幾乎是徒勞的。舊約的應許在耶穌身上得到應驗是霍瓦達查考的中心，這種查考是對四處蔓延的時代論解經的一副解毒劑，時代論的解經實際上忽略了基督是「亞伯拉罕真正的後裔」這事實（加三16）。霍瓦達特別出色地概括了保羅在羅馬書第十一章的主張。本書不但深具洞見，而且文筆清晰精簡。本書為經驗豐富的學者提供許多探索的途徑，本書亦是學生和認真的平信徒明白真理的捷徑。在當今保守的基督教學者當中，與土地、律法、聖殿有關的應許是聖經注釋中一些最具爭議的焦點，因此，霍瓦達所選擇的主題對釋經特別有幫助。

The strength’s of Holwerda’s book are many. It offers insight into the meaning of Scripture on virtually every page. It is almost futile to underline the most helpful parts of the book without underlining every sentence. His examination of the centrality of Jesus in the fulfillment of the Old Covenant promises is a crucial antidote to the rampant dispensationalist hermeneutic that virtually bypasses consideration of Christ as the true “seed of Abraham” (Gal. 3:16). His outline of Paul’s argument in Romans 11 is also particularly good. The book is not only extremely insightful, it is also very clearly written. While offering numerous avenues of exploration for seasoned scholars, it is also readily accessible to students and serious laymen. Holwerda’s choice of topics is also particularly helpful since the promises related to the land, the law, and the temple are some of the most disputed points of biblical interpretation among conservative Christian scholars today.

我認為書中只有一個議題應該更明確和徹底地討論， 這議題就是教會應該對現代以色列國持什麼態度。因為今天許多基督徒把在1948年成立的現代以色列國，視為聖經預言的直接實現，並且這種信念使許多基督徒幾乎毫無保留地支持現代以色列政府，所以查看霍瓦達如何把此書所概述出來原則應用在這議題上，對我們會很有幫助。

There is only one issue that I believe should have been addressed more explicitly and thoroughly in the book and that is what the attitude of the Church toward the modern state of Israel should be. Since many Christians today see the formation of the modern state of Israel in 1948 as a direct fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and since this belief leads many Christians to give virtually unqualified support to the modern Israeli government, it would have been helpful to see how Holwerda would have applied the principles outlined in his book to this issue.

例如，現代猶太人一直都不相信耶穌， 難道他們仍然是應許地真正的繼承人嗎？即使以色列聲稱不必信靠耶穌基督，她仍然可以擁有應許的土地，但是她能聲稱脫離舊盟約的規定，而仍然擁有應許之地嗎？如果舊約的以色列因違反這些規定，被土地吐出來，難道現代的以色列國犯了她祖先所犯的同樣的罪----拒絕承認上帝，欺壓寡婦、孤兒、寄居者等，上帝不會也把她吐出去嗎？當阿拉伯基督徒投訴，自從1967以來，他們在被以色列軍隊所佔領的領土裡，不斷受到人權的侵犯時，西方教會應該如何回應呢？

Are modern Jews, for example, still the true heirs of the land promise regardless of their continued unbelief in Jesus Christ? Even if Israel has a claim to the land promises apart from faith in Jesus Christ, does she have a claim to the land promises apart from the Old Covenant stipulations attached to those promises? If Old Testament Israel was thrust out of the land for violating these stipulations, could the modern state of Israel also be thrust out of the land by God if she commits the same sins her ancestors committed—refusal to acknowledge God, oppression of widows, orphans, foreigners, etc.? How should the Western Church respond when Arab Christians in the territories occupied by the armies of Israel since 1967 complain of continual human rights abuses?

這些都是重要的問題，霍瓦達書中所概述的原則，對我們解決這些難題可以提供一些幫助。我不知道為什麼霍瓦達沒有處理這個重要的問題，尤其是因為他專用第一章整章來檢查教會與現代猶太人從納粹大屠殺以來的互動。然而，除了這小小的批評之外，我強烈推薦霍瓦達這本書《耶穌與以色列：一個盟約還是兩個盟約？》，給尋求更好地理解聖經應許與應驗這主題的人。

These are important questions, and the principles outlined in Holwerda’s book could provide some help as we grapple with them. I am not sure why Holwerda did not deal with this important question, especially since he devoted the entire first chapter of the book to an examination of the Church’s interaction with modern Jews since the Holocaust. However, in spite of this one minor criticism, I strongly recommend Holwerda’s Jesus & Israel to all who seek a better understanding of the nature of biblical promises and their fulfillment.

 Keith Mathison博士是Reformation Bible College學院系統神學教授。