這樣對嗎？新約聖經如何使用舊約預言CAN THAT BE RIGHT? THE USE OFOLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

作者：Kevin DeYoung    譯者：駱鴻銘

http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/2015/12/08/new-testaments-use-of-old-testament-prophesy/

http://www.crtsbooks.net/blog/post/2015/12/11/THE_USE_OF_OT_PROPHECY_IN_THE_NT.aspx

聖誕季節降臨了！這也意味著人們必須重新關注彌賽亞的預言，也就是人們所熟知的歌聲：「必有童女懷孕生子」，「政權要擔在他的肩上」，「伯利恆以法他」等等（譯註：這是舊約先知以賽亞和彌迦的預言，在許多聖誕歌曲中都可以看見）。這會讓經常去做禮拜的人心頭感到溫馨而自在。

It’s Christmas season and that means renewed attention on Messianic prophecy. Ah, the familiar sounds of “a virgin shall give birth,” “the government shall be upon his shoulders,” and good ole “Bethlehem Ephrathah.” It makes a churchgoer feel all warm and cuddly inside.

老實說，也帶著一點困惑。

And frankly, a bit confused.

如果我們夠老實，就會說新約聖經使用舊約聖經的方式似乎有點牽強附會。我的意思是，我們會看到，正如抄寫聖經的猶太文士一樣，彌迦書五章2節是在預告彌賽亞將要誕生在伯利恆（太二1-6），但是何西阿真的是在發表有關基督的預言嗎，只因為他提到了「埃及」（何十一1），而耶穌全家剛好逃到了埃及（太二15）？如果我們像馬太一樣來解讀聖經，我們一定會被趕出我們的講台，被逐出我們的教會小組，不是嗎？

If we’re honest, the way the New Testament uses the Old Testament seems a little far-fetched. I mean, we can see, just like the scribes did, that Micah 5:2 is a foretelling of the Messiah’s birth in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:1-6), but was Hosea really making a prediction about the Christ just because he happened to mention “Egypt” (Hos. 11:1) and Jesus’ family fled to Egypt (Matt. 2:15)? If we interpreted Scripture like Matthew does, we’d be chased out of our pulpits and small groups, right?

新約聖經如何使用舊約聖經是一個很複雜的題目。即使是福音派的學者對什麼是最好的研究方法，也不是在每一點上都有共識（例如這本書和卡森[D. A. Carson]的書評）。不過，還是有幾個原則、說明和提醒可以幫助我們明白新約使徒看似混亂的使用舊約聖經的方法。

The New Testament’s use of the Old Testament is a complicated subject. Even evangelical scholars don’t agree on all the particulars of the best approach (see for example this book and D.A. Carson’s review). Still, there are several principles, clarifications, and reminders that can help us make sense of the Apostles’ seemingly willy-nilly use of the Old Testament.

（以下絕大部分的要點是從穆爾的文章〈『更完整的意義』的問題〉[The Problem of Sensus Plenior]摘要出來的，此文收集在Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon 一書中。該書由卡森和John Woodbridge編輯。Jared Compton在他為Themelios 雜誌寫的文章〈Shared Intentions? Reflections on Inspiration and Interpretation in Light of Scripture’s Dual Authorship〉中，也有許多同樣的論點。）

(For the most part, the following points were gleaned from Doug Moo’s chapter “The Problem of Sensus Plenior” in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon [edited by D.A. Carson and John Woodbridge]. Jared Compton makes many of the same points in his fine Themelios piece “Shared Intentions? Reflections on Inspiration and Interpretation in Light of Scripture’s Dual Authorship.”)

1. 請牢記新約提到舊約的目的。我們往往認為，每當新約作者引用舊約時，必定是在對舊約的經文進行解釋。但是不存在一條無誤的規則，說新約作者在引用舊約經文時，必須總是給出正確的詮釋。新約作者也許完全沒有嘗試想要作詮釋。如果有人問我，「你的編輯工作進行得如何了？」而我說，「那是很乏味的工作——律上加律，例上加例」，我並不是想要解釋以賽亞書廿八章10節。我純粹是使用一節我熟悉經文的熟悉用法而已。

1. Keep in mind the NT’s purpose in referencing the OT. We often think every time the OT is referenced it must mean the NT author is trying to exegete the OT passage. But there is no rule of inerrancy which says the NT author must always be attempting to give the correct interpretation of a given passage. The NT author may not be attempting an interpretation at all. If someone asks me, “How is the editing work going” and I say, “It’s tedious–line upon line, precept upon precept” this doesn’t mean I’m trying to exegete Isaiah 28:10. I’m simply employing the familiar language of a familiar passage.

2. 沿著這些思路，請記得新約常常用舊約來作為措辭的一種工具。新約作者非常熟悉舊約，他們使用舊約的詞彙，一點兒也不奇怪。同樣地，西方人也許會用莎士比亞或聖經的名言，因為這是眾所周知的，但是並沒有要嘗試去解釋其上下文或原始的意義。

2. Along these lines, remember the NT often uses the OT simply as a vehicle of expression. The NT writers were hugely familiar with the OT. It’s no wonder they employed its vocabulary. In the same way, Westerners might use a line from Shakespeare or the Bible because it is familiar, but without intending to explain its context or original meaning.

3. 新約也許是強調一節經文的意義，而不是想要解釋其原初的意思。例如。穆爾提到保羅在哥林多前書九章9節使用申命記廿五章4節（「牛在場上踹穀的時候，不可籠住他的嘴」)。批判者主張，保羅是抽離了上下文來引用摩西律法，說這節經文是關於要付錢給牧師。但是保羅當然可以從這節經文作出一個合理的推論，並且把它用在自己的文脈裏。

3. The NT may press home the significance of a passage without trying to explain its original meaning. For example, Moo points to Paul’s use of Deuteronomy 25:4 (“You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain”) in 1 Corinthians 9:9. Critics argue that Paul is taking the Law of Moses out of context by saying this passage is about paying ministers. But surely Paul is justified in pulling a fair inference out of the passage and applying it to his own context.

4. 我們必須容許人用更廣闊的觀點來看「應驗」的說法。倘若我們明白 plēroō（應驗/成全）的用法不一定必然是「因此，這節經文預言耶穌會作或會說剛才出現的事或話」，有許多麻煩就可以避免。如同穆爾所說，「這個字在新約聖經的用法是用來表明上帝在基督裏這個新的、高峰的啟示，和預備性質的、透過以色列所作的不完整的啟示，在這兩者之間有一個廣闊的救贖歷史關係」（191頁）。換句話說，「應驗」的意思不是說我們所討論的舊約經文是一個直接的預言。因此，耶穌逃到埃及，應驗了何西阿書十一章1節，不是因為何西阿寫作的目的是為了要預言彌賽亞會向南旅行，而是因為耶穌是上帝更偉大的兒子，祂是新以色列的具體化身。耶穌是在進行祂自己的出埃及旅程。何西阿並沒有預言這個神聖的家庭要逃往埃及，馬太也不是暗示先知有意這麼作。但是馬太的確看到在何西阿書中所間接提到的以色列出埃及的故事，在基督裏被帶到它更完整的救贖歷史的啟示裏。

4. We must allow for a broader view of “fulfillment” language. A lot of trouble could be avoided if we understood that the use of plēroō (fulfilled) does not have to mean “and so this verse predicted that Jesus would do or say this thing that just happened.” As Moo says, “The word is used in the New Testament to indicate the broad redemptive-historical relationship of the new, climactic revelation of God in Christ to the preparatory, incomplete revelation to and through Israel” (191). In other words, “fulfilled” does not mean the OT text in question is a direct prophecy. Consequently, Jesus flight to Egypt can fulfill Hosea 11:1, not because Hosea ever intended to predict a Messianic trip down south, but because Jesus is God’s greater Son who is the embodiment of a new Israel. Jesus is on an Exodus journey of his own. Hosea did not predict the Holy Family’s flight to Egypt, nor does Matthew suggest the prophet meant to do so. But Matthew does see that the story of Israel’s exodus, alluded to in Hosea, is brought to its full redemptive-historical revelation in Christ.

5. 同樣地，有些舊約經文在預表的層面已經得著應驗了。這和靈意解經不同。靈意解經是在經文背後尋找意義，而預表法是根據經文來尋找一個進一步的、[在救贖歷史裏]得到發展的意義（見穆爾，195頁）。耶穌的受難可以被視為大衛在詩篇二十二篇發自內心的吶喊的應驗，這不是因為大衛以為他是在預告彌賽亞的死亡，而是因為大衛身為君王，而且是所應許的彌賽亞的先驅，是基督的預表，他的哀求預示了大衛更偉大的子孫最後的被棄。

5. Similarly, some OT passages are fulfilled typologically. This is different than allegory. And allegory looks for meaning behind the text where typology finds a developed meaning that is rooted in the text (see Moo 195). Jesus’ passion can be seen as a fulfillment of David’s heart cry in Psalm 22 not because David thought he was predicting the death of the Messiah, but because David, as the king and as the promised progenitor of the Messiah, was a type of Christ whose cries anticipated the final dereliction of David’s greater son.

6. 舊約先知預言充滿了這些例子，有近期的應驗，也有遠程的應驗。例如以賽亞書四十章，是有關從巴比倫歸回的安慰。但是後來我們看到它也是關於施洗約翰的話，他會為彌賽亞預備道路（可一2-3）。許多先知見證都間接地期待一個未來的、更完整的、經常是末世性的應驗。以賽亞也許不知道他所說關於童女的話是彌賽亞的預言，但是這意思不是說，當他知道這是關於彌賽亞的，他會感到驚奇。以色列一直在等候那永恆的國度和最後的救贖主。我認為先知明白他們是為他們那個時代在作預言（和預告），但是也可能作為對未來的預言（和預告）。

6. OT prophecy is full of examples where there is a near and far fulfillment. Isaiah 40, for example, was a word of comfort about the return from Babylon, but later we see it also was a word about John the Baptist who would prepare the way for the Messiah (Mark 1:2-3). Much of the prophetic witness implicitly anticipates a future, fuller, often eschatological fulfillment. Isaiah may not have known that his words about the virgin were Messianic, but this does not mean he’d be surprised to know they were. Israel was always waiting for the everlasting kingdom and the final Deliverer. I think the prophets understood that what they foretold (and forth-told) was for their day, but it could be for the future as well.

另外兩個問題

Two Other Questions

當然，以上的原則會引發兩個麻煩的問題：

Of course, the foregoing principles raise two thorny questions:

1) 舊約作者是否會說一些他們不明白的事？換句話說，我們從新約裏所得知的一些舊約經文的涵義，是舊約作者自己都不知道的？一些非常優秀的學者如凱瑟（Walter Kaiser）極力地主張，毫無疑問地，舊約經文含有雙重的涵義或更完整的意義。儘管凱瑟堅持說，如果我們注意原始的脈絡和神學的背景，許多有問題的經文都可以「得到解決」，這確實是正確的。但是我同意穆爾和其他學者的說法，他們主張，「有些地方，新約聖經將更多可以合理推論出來的涵義歸給舊約聖經，而這些涵義不是人類作者所知的」（201頁）。

1) Did the OT authors say more than they knew? That is, is there a meaning in some OT texts that we know by the NT but would have been unknown to the authors? Excellent scholars like Walter Kaiser have argued strenuously that there can be no double meanings or fuller meanings in the OT text. While Kaiser is certainly right to insist that many problem passages can be “solved” by paying careful attention to the original context and the theological background, I agree with Moo and others who argue, “There are places where the New Testament attributes to Old Testament text more meaning than it can be legitimately inferred the human author was aware of” (201).

這是否意味著我們必然會成為「釋經學的虛無主義」（hermeneutical nihilism）？我不認為如此。首先，聖經的每個詮釋都必須受聖經的節制。現今許多學者主張一種「正典的進路」，來明白新約如何使用舊約。聖經是一部完整的文獻。在某種意義上，舊約是一本不完整的、尚未完成的書籍。但是一旦整本書完成了，我們就能更清楚先前的部分，也明白一些作者在一個「尚未結束」的世代裏也許會錯失的一些事情。其次，我們必須牢記，這些並不會貶低作者的意圖。新約作者並沒有從舊約原始的作者身上找出他們永遠不想要的意義。也許這些人類作者不清楚他們所說的話的完整意義，但是不要忘了，還有一位神聖作者。在聖靈的默示下，新約作者能夠明白作者的意圖，而這是舊約的人類作者也許不完全明白的。新約聖經並沒有去找出一個捏造的涵義，而是（也偶爾）找到對一半的作者群來說，不那麼明顯的涵義。

Does this mean we are doomed to “hermeneutical nihilism?” I don’t think so. First, every interpretation of Scripture must be constrained by Scripture. Many scholars now argue for “a canonical approach” to understanding the NT use of the OT. The Bible is a literary whole. In some sense, the OT is an incomplete, unfinished book. But once the whole is complete, we are able to make better sense of earlier parts and see things that the authors at an “unfinished” time may have missed. Second, we must remember that none of this undermines authorial intent. The NT authors did not find meanings in the OT the original authors never intended. Perhaps the human authors were unaware of the fullness of their words, but do not forget there is also a Divine author. Under the inspiration of the Spirit, the NT writers were able to understand the authorial intent that may not have been fully known to the OT human authors. The NT does not find a meaning that isn’t there, only (and on occasion) a meaning that was not obvious to one half of the writing team.

2）第二個由這個討論所提出的問題是，我們是否可以效法新約作者有時會使用的解經法。我同意穆爾的看法，很堅定地說：「要看情況」。一方面，我們沒有聖靈的默示，可以用同樣的方式明白上帝的心意。因此對於在經文中找到「更完整」的意義要非常小心。另一方面，我們應該用同樣的態度來閱讀聖經，即有充分的神學、救恩歷史的知識，從整本正典的角度來讀聖經，這是我們在新約引用舊約所使用的方法上所看到的（穆爾，206，210頁）。

2) The second question raised by this discussion is whether we can imitate the hermeneutic employed at times by the NT writers. With Moo, I would give a firm “that depends.” On the one hand, we do not have the Spirit’s inspiration to know the mind of God in the same way. So we should be extremely cautious about finding “fuller” meanings in the text. On the other hand, we should read the Bible with same theologically informed, salvation-historical, whole canon approach that we see employed in the NT use of the OT (Moo 206, 210).

所學到的功課

Lessons Learned

從以上討論所學到的實用功課是，我們應該避免一種過分簡化的思路，來看舊約-新約的應驗。有時候我們會以善良的護教和傳福音的動機，指出舊約聖經對基督的預言，然後列出所有新約應驗的清單。這裏含有一些真理。但是倘若我們把事情當作是：「這是預言；而這是預言的實現」，我們必然會讓人感到困惑，甚至會使人懷疑先知的見證，而不是相信先知的見證。新約裏所引用的所有先知預言都是真的，也真的得著應驗了，但這比起我們有時候會承認的更加複雜（實際上也是更加榮耀）。

One of the practical lessons from all this is that we should avoid a simplistic approach to OT-NT fulfillment. Sometimes with good apologetic and evangelistic motives we will point to all the OT prophecies about Christ and then run down a list of all the NT fulfillments. There is truth here, but if we set things up as “here’s the prediction; here’s the prediction come true” we are bound to confuse people. We may even cause people to doubt the prophetic witness rather than trust it. All the prophecies cited in the NT are true and truly fulfilled, but it’s all a bit more complicated (and actually more glorious) than we sometimes let on.

另一個功課是我們對除了使用一副適當的文法歷史鏡片之外，再加上一副神學的鏡片來解讀聖經，不必感到不好意思。這不是靈意解經，也不是用理性來尋找隱藏的屬靈意義，就像超級瑪利歐尋找他的蘑菇一樣。不過，這意思的確是說我們應該和新約作者一樣，用整本聖經的角度來讀聖經。我們應該在所有的經文裏看見耶穌。我們必須根據開頭來讀結尾，也用結尾來讀開頭。最重要的，我們可以頌讚說，耶穌是舊約所未完全預示出來的、那完整的應驗。單是這點，就會讓聖誕節的故事變得更完整、更豐富，也更有深意。

The other lesson is that we need not be embarrassed to use a strong theological lens on top of our appropriate grammatical-historical lens. This is not an invitation to allegory or a reason to search for hidden spiritual meanings like Super Mario finds his mushrooms. But it does mean we should, like the NT writers did, read the Bible across the whole Bible. We should see Jesus in all of Scripture. We should read the end in the light of the beginning and the beginning in view of the end. Above all, we can celebrate that Jesus is the perfect fulfillment of all that was imperfectly prefigured in the OT. This alone will make a fuller, deeper, richer Christmas story.

关于十诫，你当知道的十件事10 Things You Should KnowAbout the Ten Commandments

作者: Kevin DeYoung  译者: Duncan Liang

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/xMUQa0cmFxA5A8eYxKXVOA

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/10-things-ten-commandments/

1. 摩西从来没有把它们实际说成是“十诫”。

1. Moses never actually refers to them as the “ten commandments.”

出埃及记20:1-2引入了圣经其中最出名的一段——实际上全世界宗教文学其中最重要的一段——十诫。但奇怪的是，圣经从未把它们称为十诫。

Exodus 20:1–2 introduces one of the most famous sections in the Bible—indeed, one of the most important pieces of religious literature in the whole world—the Ten Commandments. Oddly enough, they’re never actually called the Ten Commandments.

这在旧约圣经出现了三次（出34:28；申4:13；10:4）的希伯来文，按字面意思就是“十言”，因此人常常把出埃及记20章称为十诫（Decalogue），deka希腊文是“十”的意思，logos的意思是“话”。这些是神在西乃山上给以色列人的十言——我要论证说，是神要我们所有人都遵从的十句话。

The Hebrew expression, which occurs three times in the Old Testament (Ex. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4), literally means “ten words.” This is why Exodus 20 is often referred to as the Decalogue, deka being the Greek word for “ten” and logos meaning “word.” These are the Ten Words that God gave the Israelites at Mount Sinai—and, I would argue, the Ten Words that God wants all of us to follow.

2. 十诫让我们看到神是谁。

2. They show us who God is.

律法表明了颁布律法的神的心肠和品格，在我们说，“我才不在乎律法，”或我们想到要做什么，不要做什么就生气之前，我们必须认真思考这一点。十诫不仅让我们看到神要什么，十诫还让我们看到神是一位怎样的神。十诫表明了关于神的尊荣，祂的价值和祂的威严的事。十诫告诉我们神看重什么。我们藐视律法，就不可能不藐视那位颁布律法的神。

The law is an expression of the Lawgiver’s heart and character. We must think about that before we say, “I don’t care for laws,” or before we bristle at the thought of do’s and don’ts. The commandments not only show us what God wants; they show us what God is like. They say something about his honor, his worth, and his majesty. They tell us what matters to God. We can’t disdain the law without disrespecting the Lawgiver.

3. 十诫使我们与世界分别。

3. They set us apart from the world.

我们这些基督徒是有君尊的祭司，是圣洁的国度（彼前2:9）。我们必须预备好，让自己不从众，与众不同，遵守世人不理解的规矩。当然我们并不总是我们理应成为的圣洁子民，但这是神呼召我们，要我们成为的人。这是我们的为人。我们是神的百姓，被神分别开来，按神的方式生活。

As Christians, we’re a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (1 Pet. 2:9). We must be prepared to stand alone, to look different, and to have rules the world doesn’t understand. Of course, we aren’t always the holy people we should be, but that’s what he has called us to be. That’s who we are. We’re God’s people, set apart to live according to God’s ways.

4. 十诫并不剥夺，而是赋予我们自由。

4. They don’t strip our freedom, but instead provide it.

我们太过经常把十诫看作是对我们的约束，仿佛神的行事之道要让我们成为奴隶，不让我们实现梦想，发挥潜能。我们忘记了，神要给我们丰盛的生命（约10:10），真自由（约8:32）。约翰一书5:3告诉我们，祂的律法不是难守的。

We too often think of the Ten Commandments as constraining us—as if God’s ways will keep us in servitude and from realizing our dreams and reaching our potential. We forget that God means to give us abundant life (John 10:10) and true freedom (John 8:32). His laws, 1 John 5:3 tells us, aren’t burdensome.

神并不是企图用繁文缛节压垮我们。十诫并不是监狱的铁栏杆，而是交通法规。也许世上有一些无政府主义者，他们认为没有交通法规，世界会变得更美好。我们一些人开车，仿佛真是这样！但如果你在红灯面前变得不耐烦，企图走捷径而闯祸的时候，难道你不会高兴看到我们还有一些法律和秩序吗？人停下来，人开步走。人开车经过学校的时候会减速。他们停下来等校巴经过。没有法律，你连开车去杂货店都做不到。如果你在山口的急转弯处开车，你是否会咒诅那些拦阻你一头扎进深渊的防撞栏？不会。某人花了许多钱安装这些防撞栏，是为我们的好处，让我们可以自由安全旅行。

God isn’t trying to crush us with red tape and regulations. The Ten Commandments aren’t prison bars, but traffic laws. Maybe there are some anarchists out there who think, The world would be a better place without any traffic laws. A few of us drive as if that were so! But even if you get impatient when you’re at a red light, try to zoom through the yellow, and turn left on a stale pink—overall, aren’t you glad that there is some semblance of law and order? People stop and go. People slow down when driving by schools. They stop for school buses. You wouldn’t be able to drive your car to the grocery store without laws. When you drive on a switchback on a mountain pass, do you curse the guard rails that keep you from plunging to an untimely death? No, someone put them there at great expense, and for our good, that we may travel about freely and safely.

十诫并不是教人如何出埃及的指示。十诫是给一群得自由的百姓，让他们继续得自由的规则。

The Ten Commandments aren’t instructions on how to get out of Egypt. They are rules for a free people to stay free.

5. 神颁布十诫，并不是要让我们可以赚取拯救。

5. They were not given so that we could earn our salvation.

一些人把基督教信仰看成是：神有规矩，如果我依照这些规矩行，神就要爱我，救我。这并不是出埃及记故事里发生的事。以色列人是受压迫的百姓，神说：“我听了你们的呼求，我要救你们，因为我爱你们。你们得救，得自由，得饶恕的时候，我要给你们一种新的生活方式。”

Some people view Christianity as: God has rules, and if I follow the rules, God will love me and save me. That’s not what happened in the story of the exodus. The Israelites were an oppressed people, and God said, “I hear your cry. I will save you because I love you. And when you are saved, free, and forgiven, I’m going to give you a new way to live.”

拯救并不是对顺服的奖赏；拯救是顺服的理由。耶稣不是说：“如果你们遵守我的命令，我就要爱你们。”不是的，他首先洗门徒的脚，然后说：“你们若爱我，就必遵守我的命令。”（约14:15）我们做这一切，只是因为祂首先为我们做了一些事情。

Salvation isn’t the reward for obedience; salvation is the reason for obedience. Jesus doesn’t say, “If you obey my commandments, I will love you.” Instead, he first washes the feet of the disciples and then says, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). All of our doing is only because of what he has first done for us.

6. 十诫比我们的直觉或文化准则更可靠。

6. They are more trustworthy than our intuition or cultural code.

我们生活在一个充满矛盾的时代，许多人说：“对错由你自己定，”然而同样这一群人会责备其他人违反任何他们认定的命令。作为一种文化，我们在性方面可能相当自由开放，但关乎性解放革命的道德诉求，我们绝对是基要主义者。从前咒诅人的话，可能不再让我们觉得害臊，但现在有其他话——冒犯人的藐视和侮辱话——会快快让人变得不再是有礼貌的同伴。我们仍然是有一种道德准则的社会。

We live in a paradoxical age where many will say, “Right and wrong is what you decide for yourself,” and yet these same people will rebuke others for violating any number of assumed commands. As a culture, we may be quite free and liberal when it comes to sex, but we can be absolutely fundamentalist when it comes to the moral claims of the sexual revolution. The old swear words may not scandalize us any longer, but now there are other words—offensive slurs and insults—that will quickly put someone out of polite company. We’re still a society with a moral code.

但圣经说敬畏耶和华是智慧的开端（箴9:10）。要明白道德教训，方法并不是聆听你自己内心说话，而是聆听神说话。如果我们要知道何为对错，如果我们要知道如何活出美好生活，如果我们要知道如何生活，给我们的朋友和邻居带来祝福，我们按神的方式做事，这就是有智慧了，这意味着认真留意十诫。

But the Bible says the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Prov. 9:10). The way to find moral instruction isn’t by listening to your gut but by listening to God. If we want to know right from wrong, if we want to know how to live the good life, if we want to know how to live in a way that blesses our friends and neighbors, we’d be wise to do things God’s way, which means paying careful attention to the Ten Commandments.

7. 教会最重要的教训是扎根在十诫之上。

7. The church’s most important instruction has been based on them.

在历史上，教会让十诫处在它教导，特别是教导儿童和刚信主之人事工的核心位置。好几个世纪以来，教理问答的训练是建立在三件事之上：使徒信经，主祷文和十诫。

The church has historically put the Ten Commandments at the center of its teaching ministry, especially for children and new believers. For centuries, catechetical instruction was based on three things: the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments.

换言之，过去当人问：“我们如何进行门训？我们如何教孩子学圣经？刚信主的基督徒对基督教信仰要有什么认识？”他们的回答总是包括强调十诫。

In other words, when people asked, “How do we do discipleship? How do we teach our kids about the Bible? What do new Christians need to know about Christianity?” their answers always included an emphasis on the Ten Commandments.

8. 十诫对于我们认识其余的旧约圣经律法来说至关重要。

8. They are critical to our understanding of the rest of the Old Testament law.

确实圣经并没有用黑色字体标注出十诫，但我们却不应低估它们在古代以色列的特别地位。十诫出于神，当时祂面对面向百姓说话（申5:1-5），它们来自西乃山，当时有火、云、幽暗和大声（申5:22-27）。出埃及记20章是以色列生活当中一种按字面和按属灵意义的高潮。难怪放在约柜里的，除了吗哪和亚伦的杖还有法版（来9:4）。

While it’s true that the Bible doesn’t say to print the Ten Commandments in boldface, we shouldn’t undersell their special stature in ancient Israel. They came from God as he spoke to the people face-to-face (Deut. 5:1–5), and they came from Mount Sinai amid fire, cloud, thick darkness, and a loud voice (Deut. 5:22–27). Exodus 20 marks a literal and spiritual high point in the life of Israel. It’s no wonder the tablets of the law, along with the manna and Aaron’s staff, were placed inside the ark of the covenant (Heb. 9:4)

旧约圣经当中还有更多的道德律，但这前十条是其余的根基。十诫就像以色列的宪法，接着的是法规条例。

There are many more laws in the Old Testament. But these first ten are foundational for the rest. The Ten Commandments are like the constitution for Israel, and what follows are the regulatory statutes.

9. 十诫是新约圣经伦理的中心。

9. They are central to the ethics of the New Testament.

例如，请思想马可福音10:17。那位有钱的少年官到耶稣这里来问：“我当作什么事，才可以承受永生？”耶稣对他说：“诫命是你晓得的。”然后祂列举了第二块法版上的律法，与我们的邻舍有关的诫命：“不可杀人，不可奸淫，不可偷盗，不可作假见证，不可亏负人，当孝敬父母。”

Think of Mark 10:17, for example. This is where the rich young ruler comes to Jesus and asks, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus says to him, “You know the commandments.” Then he lists the second table of the law, the commandments that relate to our neighbors: “Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother” (v. 19).

耶稣并不是定下一条赚取永生的道路。我们从这故事余下的地方知道，耶稣是首先让这少年人沾沾自喜，然后让他措手不及，因他明显没有顺服的一条诫命，就是耶稣跳过没有讲到的——不可贪婪（20-22节）。但值得留意的是，当耶稣要直截了当概括我们对邻舍当尽的本分，祂是直接去讲十诫。

Jesus isn’t laying out a path for earning eternal life. We know from the rest of the story that Jesus is setting the young man up for a fall, because the one command he obviously hasn’t obeyed is the one command Jesus skips—do not covet (vv. 20–22). But it is noteworthy that when Jesus has to give a convenient summary of our neighborly duties, he goes straight to the Ten Commandments.

10. 十诫对今天的基督徒仍然具有现实意义。

10. They are still relevant for Christians today.

我们能完全完美遵守诫命吗？不能。它们起的作用，是不是让我们看到我们的罪，把我们带到十字架面前？绝对是。但诫命也向我们指示生活之道，让我们看到如何爱邻舍，如何尽心尽意爱神。

Can we keep the commandments fully or perfectly? No. Do they serve to show us our sin and lead us to the cross? Absolutely. But the commandments also show us the way to live, the way to love our neighbor, and the way to love God with all our heart and soul.

我们仍需要神在西乃山上颁布的十言。因着基督到来，它们是否在某些方面已经改变？肯定是的——转变，但并没有被唾弃。除非我们在基督里、通过基督遵守，仰望基督那超越一切的伟大，否则我们就不能正确遵守十诫。作为在基督里新造的人，律法不仅是我们的本分，也是我们所喜悦的。如果我们要按基督配得的，按祂心所愿的来爱祂，我们就要遵守祂的命令（约14:15）。

We still need the Ten Words handed down at Sinai. Have they been changed in some respects by the coming of Christ? For sure—transformed but not trashed. We can no longer keep the Ten Commandments rightly unless we keep them in Christ, through Christ, and with a view to the all-surpassing greatness of Christ. As new creations in Christ, the law is not only our duty but also our delight. If we want to love Christ as he deserves and as he desires, we will keep his commandments (John 14:15).

社會正義是一個福音議題嗎？Is Social Justice a GospelIssue?

作者：Kevin DeYoung   譯者: 駱鴻銘

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/social-justice-gospel-issue/

https://www.facebook.com/peddrluo/posts/10156929324374653?__xts__[0]=68.ARA0uOpV3LNnMvGo2T8A6VPLZQd5gNB_jl52pJWfgsLffbsLESjIEVXBimddVRjrvMsCJHJOSfsHRzpDIp4yFYfaXXJnHFoV8lk5W06kVL1vMJn31Oy2W7h04PmlOUiITdDCL2PNfmvIrOz4UUu0VDJmcn752_JNXuNAVg8oJQKWYb_WcicdYRY&__tn__=-R

https://plus.google.com/u/0/105106813742373627205/posts/Zne2Dc2DYgA

對這篇文章標題所提出的問題有一個直截了當的答案：看情況。

There is a simple, straightforward answer to the question posed in the title of this post: it depends.

社會正義是一個福音議題嗎？這取決於我們所謂的「社會正義」，和我們所說的「福音議題」究竟是什麼意思。

Is social justice a gospel issue? That depends on what we mean by “social justice” and what we mean by “gospel issue.”

什麼是社會正義？

What Is Social Justice?

我以前曾經寫到，社會正義是一個含糊的術語，對某些人來說是毫無爭論餘地的，但對其他人來說，卻會令人起疑。對一些基督徒來說，如果你不關心社會正義，那麼你就一定不關心種族主義、墮胎、性侵犯、性別不平等，或神的形象（imago dei）本身。相反，如果你在其他基督徒周圍為社會正義說好話，他們可能會認為你熱愛森林，討厭警察。這個語詞都沒有共同的涵義，或者至少沒有眾人一致同意的準確定義。

I’ve written before that social justice is a nebulous term, unassailable to some and arousing suspicion in others. For some Christians, if you aren’t into social justice, then you must not care about racism or abortion or sexual assault or inequality or the imago dei itself. Conversely, if you put in a good word for social justice around other Christians, they may assume you hug trees and hate police officers. The term has no shared meaning, or at least no precise definition we all agree on.

據我們所知，「社會正義」一詞可以追溯到十九世紀四〇年代，一位名叫塔帕雷利（Luigi Taparelli，1793-1862）的耶穌會哲學家首次使用這個詞。塔帕雷利是教皇權威和保守派天主教徒的堅定支持者，他認為社會不平等不是對正義的侵犯，而是正義的副產品，他認為這是對憲政體制的合理安排。塔帕雷利對「社會正義」這個詞的用法，與這個詞在當代日常對話中的用法，幾乎沒有類似之處。

As far as we know, the term “social justice” dates to the 1840s when it was first used by a Jesuit philosopher named Luigi Taparelli (1793-1862). Taparelli was a strong supporter of papal authority and a conservative Catholic who argued that social inequality is not a violation of justice but a byproduct of justice, which he understood to be the right ordering of constitutional arrangements. Taparelli’s use of “social justice” bears little resemblance to how the term is used in common conversation today.

在我們評估社會正義與福音之間的關聯之前，我們必須知道前者的涵義。如果「社會正義」的內涵包括提出具體政策，基督徒應該（或不應該）支持某個候選人，並就經濟、種族分歧、大規模監禁（mass incarceration）、移民改革，以及許多其他有爭議的議題得出明確的結論，那麼我們對於要把像社會正義這種在政治上具有規範意義的東西，和像福音這種具有普世救贖意義的東西關聯在一起，就應該要非常謹慎。

Before we can evaluate the connection between social justice and the gospel, we have to know what we mean by the former. If “social justice” entails specific policy proposals, certain candidates Christians should (or shouldn’t) support, and definite conclusions about economic and racial disparities, mass incarceration, immigration reform, and a host of other debatable topics, then we ought to be extremely cautious about linking something as politically prescriptive as social justice with something as universally salvific as the gospel.

當然，基督徒可以（也應該）對政策建案、候選人和任何有爭議的主題，按照聖經來建立我們的信念。我永遠不會想要把基督徒公民和基督徒思想排除在當今最棘手的問題之外。有些論點確實比其他論點更強。但我們必須區分好的和壞的論點，也要分辨基督徒的和非基督徒的立場。在右派這邊，我有時會聽見，如果你關心墮胎（按照聖經，這是一種罪），你就必須支持川普；而在左派這邊，我聽說如果你關心種族主義（按照聖經，這也是一種罪）你就永遠不可支持川普。儘管我對我們總統必然有我自己的看法，但教會不能僭越上帝所賦予的權力和權柄，來捆綁其成員的良心。最誠實的一些基督徒在一些立場或結論上，可以有不同的看法。

Of course, Christians can (and should) have biblically informed convictions about policy proposals, candidates, and any number of controversial subjects. I would never wish to shut out Christian citizens and Christian thinking from the thorniest problems of our day. Some arguments are better than others. But we must distinguish between good and bad arguments and Christian and non-Christians positions. On the right, I sometimes hear that if you care about abortion (which, according to the Bible, is a sin) you must support Trump, while from the left, I hear that if you care about racism (which, according to the Bible, is also a sin) you must never support Trump. While I certainly have my opinions about our President, the church must not go beyond its God-given authority and power in binding the consciences of her members to positions or conclusions that honest Christians can disagree on.

我對「社會正義」一詞，也對這個詞所蘊含的涵義，有我自己的擔憂。但是，如果我們追問一種更少受到文化控制和更符合聖經的理解呢？幾年前，我仔細研讀了聖經中主要幾段與正義有關的經文：利未記十九章、廿五章，以賽亞書第一章、五十八章，耶利米書廿二章，阿摩司書第五章，彌迦書六8，馬太福音廿五31～46，和路加福音第四章。我所得出的那不太令人興奮的結論是，我們不應該誇大或低估聖經對正義的看法。一方面，聖經記載了很多關於上帝眷顧窮人、被壓迫者、弱勢群體的事。也有很多警告，反對以殘忍和無禮的態度來對待無依無靠的人。另一方面，正義作為聖經的一個範疇，並不是說凡是我們認為對世界有益的事就一定是符合正義的。行公義意味著要遵守法治，表現公平，履行你的承諾，不偷竊，不詐騙，不收受賄賂，也不占弱者的便宜，只因為他們不知道如何阻止你，或沒有任何的人際關係來阻止你。

I have my concerns with the term “social justice” and with all that it connotes. But what if we press for a less culturally controlled and more biblically defined understanding? Several years ago, I worked my way through the major justice passages in the Bible: Leviticus 19, Leviticus 25, Isaiah 1, Isaiah 58, Jeremiah 22, Amos 5, Micah 6:8, Matthew 25:31-46, and Luke 4.  My less-than-exciting conclusion was that we should not oversell or undersell what the Bible says about justice. On the one hand, there is a lot in the Bible about God’s care for the poor, the oppressed, and the vulnerable. There are also plenty of warnings against treating the helpless with cruelty and disrespect. On the other hand, justice, as a biblical category, is not synonymous with anything and everything we feel would be good for the world. Doing justice means following the rule of law, showing impartiality, paying what you promised, not stealing, not swindling, not taking bribes, and not taking advantage of the weak because they are too uninformed or unconnected to stop you.

因此，為簡單起見，讓我們把聖經中的「社會正義」定義為「公平對待人，為公平的制度和結構努力，並看顧弱者和弱勢群體。」如果這就是我們的意思，那麼，社會正義是一個福音議題嗎？

So for simplicity sake, let’s take biblical “social justice” to mean something like “treating people equitably, working for systems and structures that are fair, and looking out for the weak and the vulnerable.” If that’s what we mean, is social justice a gospel issue?

什麼是福音議題？

What Is a Gospel Issue?

再次，我們必須定義我們的用語。如果「福音議題」意味著我們將好行為走私到「唯獨信心」的等式中，那麼很顯然，社會正義並不是福音議題。我們不是為了拯救自己，而救助弟兄中最小的一個。

Again, we have to define our terms. If “gospel issue” means we are smuggling good works into the sola fide side of the equation, then clearly social justice is not a gospel issue. We don’t save the least of the these in order to save ourselves.

同樣，如果「福音議題」的意思是「與宣告基督被釘十字架同等重要」，那麼問題的答案必須再次是：否。只有一件事是最重要的，根據保羅在哥林多前書十五章中的說法，就是基督照聖經所說，為我們的罪死了，並在第三天復活的信息。

Likewise, if “gospel issue” means “as important as the proclamation of Christ crucified” then the answer must again be no. There is only one thing that can be of first importance, and that, according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, is the message that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures and was raised on the third day.

我會更進一步說：「福音議題」不應該是「你必須對我所熱衷的一切都充滿熱情」的簡寫。它也不應該是「建造國度」或「轉化文化」這兩個概念的同義詞。出於同樣的原因，傳教士必須小心，以免他們讓美國有線電視新聞網（CNN）和福克斯新聞（Fox News），更不用說Twitter和Facebook，為他們每週的講道事奉設定議程。如果我們這個時代的牧師任憑他對文化的關切，排擠掉他對重生、悔改、稱義的宣講，那麼這不會是在教會歷史中，「福音」（指文化福音）第一次變得比真正的福音更具社會性的時候。

I’ll go even further: “gospel issue” should not be shorthand for “you must be passionate about all the same things I’m passionate about.” Nor should it be synonymous with notions of “building the kingdom” or “transforming the culture.” By the same token, preachers must be careful lest they allow CNN and Fox News, not to mention Twitter and Facebook, to set the agenda for their weekly pulpit ministry. If pastors in our day let cultural concerns crowd out the preaching of new birth, repentance, and justification by faith alone, it wouldn’t be the first time in the church’s history that the “gospel” became more social than gospel.

然而，「福音議題」所指的，並不是這些事。倘若「福音議題」的意思是：「那些被福音所拯救的人所必須關注的」，或「『與福音保持同步』的真正意義，其中的一個層面」，或「若缺乏這些事實，你很可能沒有真正相信福音」，那麼社會正義肯定是一個福音議題。按照聖經的定義，社會正義是愛鄰舍如己的基本要件。這是遵守十誡第二塊石版的一部分。這是行「善」——也就是上帝所預備叫我們行的——的一部分（弗二10）。

And yet, “gospel issue” need not mean any of these things. If “gospel issue” means “a necessary concern of those who have been saved by the gospel” or “one aspect of what it means to keep in step with the gospel” or “realities without which you may not be truly believing the gospel,” then social justice is certainly a gospel issue. When biblically defined, social justice is part and parcel of loving our neighbor as ourselves. It’s part of keeping the second table of the Decalogue. It’s part of doing the good works God has prepared in advance for us to walk in (Eph. 2:10).

總結

Conclusion

正如在眾多的爭議中，我們必須更快地定義我們的用詞，而不是定義我們的對手。毫無疑問，其中有值得探索和揭露的真正分歧。但其中也可能有比一些人最初想像的更為一致的看法。

As in so many controversies, we must be quicker to define our terms than to define our opponents. No doubt, there are real disagreements worth exploring and exposing. But there also may be more agreement than some might initially imagine.

根據我們的定義，社會正義和福音可能相距甚遠，或它們也可以非常靠近，就如：愛神的，就必遵守祂的命令（約十四15）。

Depending on our definitions, social justice and the gospel may be miles apart, or they may be as close as loving God by obeying his commands (John 14:15).

牧者的憂慮PastoralAnxiety

作者: Kevin DeYoung    譯者:   Maria Marta 

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/pastoral-anxiety/

https://plus.google.com/u/1/106695469993489516884/posts/7F2afzf7bmK

在我成為牧師之前，哥林多後書十一章28節對我來說似乎總是一節奇怪的經文。保羅在這裡一口氣說出他為耶穌自始至終所受的痛打------勞碌辛苦，多次不得睡覺，又飢又渴，多次缺糧，赤身挨冷（23-27節）。 然後作為畫龍點睛，保羅提到一個更大的磨煉：「除了這些外面的事，還有為眾教會掛心的事天天壓在我身上」（28節）。這就是偉大的使徒，他甘心樂意為他牧養的人付上一切，將這一切都看為喜樂（十二15），他好像憂愁，卻是常常喜樂（六10）。這就是保羅，面對每種想象得到的對抗，卻學會了知足（腓四11），並且毫無憂慮（四6）。在此他亦承認，盡管他忍受了一切，但仍然為所有的教會感到焦慮。

自從我成為牧師以來，我在這節經文找到不同尋常的安慰。倒不是說我完成了保羅所完成的，或經歷了他所遭遇的，而是說每一位認真的牧師都會感受到為教會肩負的這種重擔。 保羅要肩負幾間教會的重擔。教會裡充滿內訌和誹謗。會眾容忍錯誤的教導。他們一方面傾向於律法主義，另一方面又陷入混亂。 一些教會成員將微不足道的事化作極其重要，而其他一些人則太願意在基督信仰的基本真理上妥協。保羅愛這些教會，他們爭鬥的重壓壓在他身上，比沈船或監禁更沈重。

在進一步講述之前，讓我明確一點：我認為牧師不是唯一負擔重压的人。 從很多方面說來，我們擁有世上最好的工作。要做大多數日子裏所做的事，我當然感到極其蒙恩。 我沒有興趣比較牧師職事與其他職業的困難。 我所要做的是鼓勵牧師們繼續打那美好的仗，並鼓勵會眾繼續鼓勵他們的牧師。

保羅每天都感到來自教會的壓力，對此我並不感到驚奇。他的工作似乎從未松懈過。他要寫書信，要去訪問，也要為耶路撒冷的聖徒收集捐款。他必須派人到處奔走，並遠距離管理眾教會的事務。他必須回應無數的批評，而這些批評往往自相矛盾。有些人認為他太苛刻。其他人則說他太軟弱。他的教會內有些人是禁慾者，認為保羅是世俗的。其他人則放蕩不羈，認為保羅的道德要求太高。他們質疑保羅的資格。他們將他與原初的使徒作負面的比較。他們將他比作假使徒，沒有一點說服力。他們不喜歡他的講道風格。他們不喜歡他的紀律。有些日子，他們只是不再喜歡保羅。這一切都是針對這個人：他把他們帶到基督的面前，像父親一樣愛他們，拒收他們的錢財，為他們的屬靈益處甘冒生命危險。難怪對保羅而言，沒有負擔比照顧上帝子民的負擔更沈重的了。

詢問任何一個認真對待他的工作的牧師，他都會告訴你他在事工中感到的壓力-------人處於危機，人離開，人到來，人對他失望，人使他失望。在牧養工作中，牧師要努力擠出時間學習、祈禱、準備、與家庭相處。他努力提升自己，培訓新領袖，滿足預算要求，深入了解宣教士，聲援重要的計劃，提供深入淺出的崇拜和證道，回應新想法，聆聽會眾的關注，作好準備幫助遇到困難的人。

大多數牧師對他們可以做的所有其他事情都有負擔：多傳福音，多關心貧困的人，多宣教，多處理全球關注的問題，多解決社會關注的問題。有些牧師讀到這裏，他們想知道教會對他們的講道是否有回應；領導層對他們的領導是否作出回應；會眾是否會像他們多次聽到的教會那樣成長。最重要的是，每一個牧師都有自己個人的傷痛，自己個人的錯誤，以及自己那需要照顧的屬靈健康。我們都是軟弱的人。

但我們深受鼓舞。上帝揀選了世上愚笨的，使那些有智慧的羞愧（林前一章27）。上帝的恩典是夠你用的；祂的能力是在人的軟弱上顯得完全（林後十二9）。為基督的緣故，就以軟弱、淩辱、急難、逼迫、困苦為可喜樂的。因你什麼時候軟弱，什麼時候就剛強了（10節）。保羅有壓力。你也有壓力。但上帝能處理壓力。當你不能的時候，上帝仍看是好的。

註:  所有聖經經文皆引自《圣經新譯本》  。

本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌。

Pastoral Anxiety

FROM Kevin DeYoung

Second Corinthians 11:28 always seemed like a strange verse to me — until I became a pastor. Here’s Paul, rattling off all the ways he’s been beat up for Jesus — imprisonments, lashes, rods, stonings, shipwrecks, drifting at sea, sleepless nights, hunger and thirst, cold and exposure, danger from everyone everywhere (vv. 23–27). And then, as the cherry on top, Paul mentions one more trial: “apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches” (v. 28). This is the mighty apostle, the one who counted it a joy to “spend and be spent” for his people (12:15), the one who was sorrowful yet always rejoicing (6:10). This is the Paul who faced every imaginable opposition and yet learned to be content (Phil. 4:11) and anxious about nothing (4:6). And here he is admitting that even with everything else he’s endured, he still feels anxiety for all the churches.

Ever since I became a pastor, I have found unusual comfort in this verse. It’s not that I have accomplished what Paul accomplished or suffered what he suffered, but every earnest minister feels this burden for the church. And Paul had several churches to burden him. The churches were full of infighting and backbiting. They put up with false teaching. They were prone to legalism on one end and complete chaos on the other. Some of the church members were making insignificant matters too important, while others were too willing to compromise on Christian essentials. Paul loved these churches, and their struggles burdened him more than shipwreck or imprisonment.

Before I go any further, let me be clear: I don’t think pastors are the only ones with burdens. In many ways, we have the best job in the whole world. I certainly feel exceedingly thankful to do what I do on most days. I have no interest in comparing the difficulty of pastoral ministry with the difficulties of other vocations. All I want to do is to encourage pastors to keep fighting the good fight and encourage congregations to keep encouraging their pastors.

I’m not surprised Paul felt daily pressure for the churches. His work never seemed to let up. He had letters to write, visits to make, and a collection to gather for the saints in Jerusalem. He had to send people here and there, and manage the affairs of his churches from a distance. He had to respond to myriad criticisms, often conflicting criticisms. Some people thought he was too harsh. Others said he was too weak. Some people in his churches were ascetics and thought Paul was worldly. Others were licentious and thought Paul was too ethically demanding. They questioned his credentials. They compared him negatively to the original apostles. They thought him lame compared to the false apostles. They didn’t like his preaching style. They didn’t like his discipline. On some days, they just didn’t like Paul anymore. All this for the man who led them to Christ, loved them like a father, refused their money, and risked his neck for their spiritual good. No wonder there was no weight for Paul like the weight of caring for God’s people.

Ask any pastor who really takes his work seriously and he will tell you of the pressures he feels in ministry — people in crisis, people leaving, people coming, people disappointed by him, people disappointing to him. In the midst of this work, the pastor is trying to find time for study, prayer, preparation, and family. He’s trying to improve himself, train up new leaders, meet the budget, get to know a few missionaries, champion important programs, provide for deep, accessible worship and preaching, be responsive to new ideas, listen to new concerns, and be ready to help when people are in trouble.

And most pastors feel a burden for all the other things they could be doing: more evangelism, more for the poor, more for missions, more to address global concerns, and more to address social concerns. There are pastors reading this who wonder if the church is still responsive to their preaching; if the leadership will ever be responsive to their leading; and if the congregation will ever grow like the churches they hear so much about. On top of all this, every pastor has his own personal hurts, his own personal mistakes, and his own spiritual health to attend to. We are all weak.

But be encouraged. God uses weak things to shame the strong (1 Cor. 1:27). His grace is sufficient for you; His power is made perfect in weakness (2 Cor. 12:9). For the sake of Christ, then, be content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when you are weak, then you are strong (v. 10). Paul had pressure. You have pressure, too. But God can handle the pressure. And He looks good when you can’t.

This post was originally published in Tabletalk magazine.