改教家的釋經法：文法、歷史、以基督為中心
The Reformers’ Hermeneutic: Grammatical, Historical, and Christ-Centered
作者：Nathan Pitchford  誠之譯自：
https://www.uniontheology.org/resources/bible/old-testament/the-reformers-hermeneutic-grammatical-historical-and-christ-centred
https://yimawusi.net/2021/04/08/the-reformers-hermeneutic/
 
誠之按：聖經是神的話，基督徒生命的成長要靠認識神的話。如何正確認識神的話呢？要靠「正意分解真道」（提後二15）。大部分當代福音派的學者同意一個「照字面的、文法的、歷史的」解經原則（literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic）。也就是說，除非上下文或文法有所限制，否則當儘量採用經文「正常」的意義（it’s normal sense），並且要考慮作者、書卷與讀者當時的歷史背景，作出詮釋的決定。
 
但下面這篇文章指出，雖然這是從改教家所發展出來的原則，但是當代福音派已經偏離了改教家的本意。改教家所說的這個原則，是指在聖經的每一節經文中發現耶穌基督。他們把整本聖經當成統一的整體，為的是呈現一個故事：神透過基督，救贖墮落的人類。
 
這位作者指出，今日福音派所注重的，「照字面的、文法的、歷史的」解經原則，是已經受到啟蒙主義與其後的開放派（自由派）神學的污染（一個忠心的牧羊人，絕對不會把羊圈的門大方地對外「開放」，美其名為「誠實」，可是今天有許多牧者，卻這樣對待神的教會，把神的羊直接曝露在敵人的攻擊之下，這是何等可怕的事！），強調要用最自然的方式（自然主義者的方式）來閱讀聖經。他提出六點，將這個自然主義的原則和以基督為中心的原則作了對比。
 
我們必須曉得這樣的分別，才不會把舊約當成教導我們如何「作好人」的一本書，或者認為聖經記載舊約人物的故事，主要的目的是為我們提供一些道德榜樣，供我們學習。不！整本聖經都是指向基督的，所以，我們必須在聖經的每一個部分中發現基督，才能真正認識聖經作者所要傳達給我們的信息，生命才能真正的成長。
 
請看譯文：
 
大多數人同意，構成宗教改革的「正式原則」（formal principle；或譯為「形式原則」）非「唯獨聖經」（sola scriptura）莫屬：改教家之所以死心塌地獻身於其他四個「唯獨」（譯按1），是由於他們矢志只受聖經的引導。對聖經的注釋與詮釋，是他們對抗羅馬天主教的腐敗的偉大方法。我們幾乎可以這樣說：這場戰役基本上是一場釋經學的戰鬥。根據這些觀察，我們可以說，標誌著宗教改革開始的最關鍵事件，不是1517年馬丁路德把他的九十五條論綱釘在威登堡教會的大門，而是在此兩年之前，當他拒絕俄利根（Origen）的四重釋經原則（譯按2），而贊成他所謂的「文法-歷史」（grammatical-historical）觀念。 此一詮釋上的決定成為那棵籽粒，使得豐盛的果子隨即如雨後春筍般出現，大規模地恢復了教會歷史先前之教義的純潔。我們可以從中學到很重要的功課：我們不斷歸正的掙扎，以及為從前一次交付聖徒的真道之竭力的維護，基本上是要把所有的教義帶回、接受聖經監督的過程。而為了要確保我們這樣作是合法的，我們必須努力確保我們的解經是健全的。這場戰爭的成敗取決於釋經戰場的成敗。
It is widely recognized that the formal principle underlying the Reformation was nothing other than sola scriptura: the reformers' diehard commitment to the other great solas was an effect arising from their desire to be guided by the scriptures alone. The exegesis and interpretation of the Bible was the one great means by which the war against Roman corruption was waged; which is almost the same thing as saying that the battle was basically a hermeneutical struggle. In light of these observations, one could say that the key event marking the beginning of the Reformation occurred, not in 1517, when Martin Luther nailed his theses to the church door in Wittenberg; but two years prior to that, when he rejected Origen's four-layered hermeneutic in favour of what he called the grammatical-historical sense. This one interpretive decision was the seed-idea from which would soon spring up all the fruits of the most massive recovery of doctrinal purity in the history of the Church. We would do well to learn from this: our ongoing struggle to be always reforming, always contending for the faith which was once delivered to the saints, is essentially a process of bringing every doctrine under the scrutiny of scripture. And in order to have the confidence that we are doing so legitimately, we must give much effort to being hermeneutically sound. Hermeneutics is the battlefield on which the war is won or lost.
 
的確，如果對文法-歷史釋經原則的發現，是構成宗教改革的正式原則，那麼，我們就應該要對路德（和其他改教家）使用這個詞語的真正意涵，具有高度的興趣。如果路德的釋經原則在他當時能如此有效地保存福音的純潔，那麼，以同樣的理由我們可以假定，在今日的福音戰役中，這個原則也會使我們受益。今日絕大多數（如果不是全部）福音派都會肯定地說，他們也努力遵循宗教改革的文法歷史釋經原則——但是他們對這個詞的定義和路德的定義是完全相同的嗎？在眾多的案例上，我們可以說並非如此；因為福音派對舊約的解讀基本上是一種非基督徒式的解讀，特別是其解讀是透過「按照字面」（literal）、文法的、歷史的釋經學原則來支撐的。對路德來說，文法歷史釋經法對經文的解讀只是一種「回到基督」（drives home Christ）的解讀。如同路德曾說過的：「讀經的人必須小心不要犯錯，因為聖經雖然容許自己被人曲解、被人帶領，但人不可根據他自己天然的傾向來帶領，而是要人把聖經帶到它自己的源頭，也就是基督的十字架。如此，他就一定會擊中靶心。」從文法歷史的角度來解讀聖經，也就是把基督作為中心來閱讀，它們是完全一致的。
If it is indeed the case that the recovery of a grammatical-historical hermeneutic was the formal principle underlying the Reformation, then we ought to be highly interested in what exactly Luther (and the other Reformers) intended by the expression. If Luther's hermeneutic was so effective in preserving the purity of the gospel in his day, then we may, with some reason, assume that it would benefit us in the gospel-battles of our day. Most, if not all, evangelicals today would certainly affirm that they are laboring with the grammatical-historical hermeneutic of the Reformation – but do they mean by this term everything that Luther meant by it? In many cases, one would have to assume that they do not; because it is often the case that a basically un-Christian reading of much of the Old Testament in particular is supported by means of a 'literal,' grammatical, historical hermeneutic. For Luther, the grammatical-historical hermeneutic was simply the interpretation of scripture that 'drives home Christ.' As he once expressed it, 'He who would read the Bible must simply take heed that he does not err, for the Scripture may permit itself to be stretched and led, but let no one lead it according to his own inclinations but let him lead it to its source, that is, the cross of Christ. Then he will surely strike the centre.'
To read the scriptures with a grammatical-historical sense is nothing other than to read them with Christ at the centre.
 
當我說，許多福音派對舊約的解讀「基本上是一種非基督徒式的」解讀，我真正的意思是什麼呢？簡單地說，我的意思是他們所採用的釋經原則，並沒有以此為目標：即追溯每一節經文到其最終的參照點——基督的十架。所有的被造界、歷史和現實，都是為了要藉著從創世以來就被殺了的神的羔羊所成就的救贖大工，來顯明和榮耀三一真神。聖經是這樣的一本書：它告訴我們基督並祂釘十字架如何是所有事物的中心。它藉著表明基督的位格和祂的工作，告訴我們神是誰，因為基督已經將那不可見的神完全表明出來了。我們在閱讀每一節經文時，如果不刻意問自己這個問題：「從這節經文中，我怎樣可以更清楚地認識基督？」，那麼，我們就沒有按照路德的文法歷史釋經法的引導，來閱讀經文。
What exactly do I mean when I say that many evangelicals demonstrate 'a basically un-Christian reading of much of the Old Testament'? Simply put, I mean they employ a hermeneutic that does not have as its goal to trace every verse to its ultimate reference point: the cross of Christ. All of creation, history, and reality was designed for the purpose of the unveiling and glorification of the triune God, by means of the work of redemption accomplished by the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The Bible is simply the book that tells us how to see Christ and his cross at the center of everything. It tells us who God is by showing us the person and work of Christ, who alone reveals the invisible God. If we do not intentionally ask ourselves, 'How may I see Christ more clearly by this passage?' in our reading of every verse of scripture, then we are not operating under the guidance of Luther's grammatical-historical hermeneutic.
 
如果我們跟隨改教家的腳步，我們必須明白「按照字面」閱讀經文，並不是以自然主義者的方式（a naturalistic reading）來閱讀。自然主義者的閱讀方式說，有關摩西擊打磐石的記載，只要明白這個歷史事件，就可以領會其意義全部的範疇。按照改教家之「基督中心的字面閱讀方式」則認為，除非我們明白掌管歷史的神如何使用這個歷史事件，來向祂的百姓啟示基督，它對我們來說，就是沒有意義的。
If we would follow in the steps of the reformers, we must realize that a literal reading of scriptures does not mean a naturalistic reading. A naturalistic reading says that the full extent of meaning in the account of Moses striking the rock is apprehended in understanding the historical event. The literal reading, in the Christ-centered sense of the Reformation, recognizes that this historical account is meaningless to us until we understand how the God of history was using it to reveal Christ to his people.
 
自然主義者研讀雅歌這卷書時，會對這樣的觀察感到滿意：雅歌是述說所羅門和他妻子在婚姻中的福樂；對雅歌這卷書，改教家照字面的閱讀會認識到，它最終要與基督與祂的新婦（也就是教會）在婚姻中的福樂有關。我們可以繼續不斷從舊約中引用層出不窮的例子。
The naturalistic reading of the Song of Solomon is content with the observation that it speaks of the marital-bliss of Solomon and his wife; the literal reading of the reformers recognizes that it has ultimately to do with the marital bliss between Christ and his bride, the Church. And so we could continue, citing example after example from the Old Testament.
 
但是，從改教家到這個時代，一般人對「歷史-文法觀念」這個詞所認知的意義，是如何轉變的呢？簡單地說，是由於學術自由主義（academic liberalism）的興起。改教家是在這樣的一個社會中為真理進行辯護的：這個社會接受超自然的世界，也同樣接受自然的世界。他們沒有必要去證明：聖經是一本屬靈的書，是神所賜下，要教導我們關於屬靈的真理，也就是關於基督與祂的十架的所有真理——這些是每個人都接受的。他們所竭力爭辯的是這樣的一種釋經法：基本上容許人引用任何的經文，只要他能把其中屬靈的意義聯繫起來——如果他背後有教會權柄的支持的話。
But how was it that this shift came about in the commonly perceived meaning of the term 'historical-grammatical sense' from the reformers’ day to our own? In a word: the rise of academic liberalism. The reformers were contending for the truth in a society in which the supernatural world was as definitely accepted as the natural world. They had no need to demonstrate that the Bible was a spiritual book, given by God to teach us spiritual truths, that is, truths about Christ and the cross – everyone accepted that much. They were contending instead with a hermeneutic that essentially allowed one to draw from any text whatever spiritual significance he liked – if he had the authority of the Church behind him.
 
但是啟蒙主義徹底地改換了社會的面貌，從那時起，光是說「按照字面」的釋經是不夠的：人還需要澄清，這個按照字面的釋經法的對象，必須同時是屬靈的，而且其寫作素材必須是以基督為中心的。
But the Enlightenment so radically changed the face of society, that it was soon thereafter no longer sufficient to speak of a 'literal' hermeneutic: one also had to make clear that this literal hermeneutic had as its object a thoroughly spiritual and Christ-centered corpus of writings.
 
啟蒙主義之後的自由派神學家基本的目的，是要貶低超自然的作用；因此，他們對經文的閱讀，強調的是人類的作者，以及人類的歷史背景，完全不考慮這位掌管全地的神。而且，雖然自由派這種徹底的自然主義，已經被許多福音派的學者牢靠地擊敗了，但是其所強調的，似乎已經滲透到文法歷史釋經法本身的觀念之中，甚至直到今天，仍然對許多福音派學者具有持續致命性的影響。
The basic intent of the liberal theologians subsequent to the Enlightenment was to downplay the supernatural; hence, their reading of the scriptures emphasized the human authors and human historical settings entirely apart from the God who was governing all. And, although the thoroughgoing naturalism of the liberals was soundly defeated by many evangelical scholars, some of its emphases seem to have seeped into the very idea of a grammatical-historical hermeneutic, where they continue to exert a deadening influence on much of evangelical scholarship even today.
 
我會這樣主張：現代的照字面的釋經法，有三個具體的方式被啟蒙主義所污染了。首先，盡可能地突出人類的作者（與此同時是對神聖作者的貶低）；其次，釋經學的自然主義化，使得它想要去發現一個自然的人，在自然的處境下接觸到一個文本，如何會立刻明白這個文本；第三，結果是使得聖經被五馬分尸，讀起來不再像是一本統一的、連貫的故事，是關於一個應許的救贖主，如何實際上降臨人類的歷史，完成祂的工作——而更像是一堆鬆散相關的神聖文件，有著各種不同的目的、意圖與主題。
Three specific ways in which, I would contend, the modern conception of a literal hermeneutic has been colored by the Enlightenment, are, first, the maximized emphasis on the human authors of scriptures (together with the corresponding de-emphasis of the divine author); second, the naturalizing of the hermeneutic, so that it intends to discover what a natural man, upon an acquaintance with the natural setting, would immediately understand about a text; and third, the resultant fragmentation of the bible, so that it reads less like one unified, coherent story about a promised Redeemer and how he actually came in human history and accomplished his work – and more like a handful of loosely related sacred documents, with various purposes, intentions, and themes.
 
作為現代的宗教改革者，我們的任務是重新去發現文法歷史釋經法中，以基督為中心的元素。如果我們容讓唯獨聖經帶領我們到唯獨基督那裏，那麼，我們就必須矢志對抗當代的敗壞，也就是對改教家最重要的傳奇之一——按照字面的釋經法——的敗壞。為了這個目的，我提出下面六個理由，解釋為什麼說任何釋經法如果沒有把基督視為每一節經文的中心，就沒有正確地對待改教家的世界觀：
Our task as modern reformers has much to do with the recovery of the Christ-centered element of the grammatical-historical hermeneutic. If we would let our sola scriptura lead us to solus christus, then we must be willing to battle against the modern corruption of one of the reformers' most precious legacies – a literal hermeneutic. To that end, I would submit the following six reasons why any hermeneutic which does not see Christ at the center of every verse of scripture does not do justice to the Reformed worldview.
 
1. 自然主義者的意圖是讓人類作者擁有實際的優先權，因此，他們的釋經法很有效地否認了神才是聖經最終極作者的地位。
1. A naturalistic hermeneutic effectively denies God's ultimate authorship of the bible, by giving practical precedence to human authorial intent.
 
2. 自然主義者的釋經法削減了預表法的意義，而預表法經常是神在聖經中所說的故事之內在固有的意義（例如，見加拉太書四21-23）。
2. A naturalistic hermeneutic undercuts the typological significance that often inheres in the one story that God is telling in the bible (see Galatians 4:21-31, for example).
 
3. 自然主義者的釋經法不會認同保羅所作的斷言，認為一個自然人無法認識聖靈在聖經中所教導的屬靈的事——亦即，關於耶穌基督並祂釘十字架的事（林前第二章）。
3. A naturalistic hermeneutic does not allow for Paul's assertion that a natural man cannot know the spiritual things which the Holy Spirit teaches in the Bible – that is, the things about Jesus Christ and him crucified (I Corinthians 2).
 
4. 自然主義者的釋經法與新約作者與使徒在詮釋舊約（比較彼得在使徒行傳第二章的講道，保羅在羅馬書第四章和加拉太書第四章的詮釋，雅各在使徒行傳第15章耶路撒冷會議中，引用阿摩司書第九章，以及希伯來書所使用的許多舊約經文，等等）時，所展示的明確榜樣，是相違背的。
4. A naturalistic hermeneutic is at odds with the clear example of the New Testament authors and apostles as they interpret the Old Testament (cf. Peter's sermon in Acts 2, Paul's interpretations in Romans 4 and Galatians 4, James' citing of Amos 9 during the Jerusalem council of Acts 15, the various Old Testament usages in Hebrews, etc.).
 
5. 對宗教改革之「信心的類比」（analogy of faith）（譯按3）的原則，自然主義者的釋經法不容許人加以完全應用。它堅持，每句經文必須「按照它自己的意思」（on its own terms）來加以閱讀。
5. A naturalistic hermeneutic disallows a fully-orbed operation of the analogy of faith principle of the Reformation, by its insistence that every text demands a reading 'on its own terms'.
 
6. 自然主義者的釋經法並不容許每件事都以基督為最終的參照點，而這是與以弗所書一10，歌羅西書一16-18，以及基督自己在約翰福音五39、路加福音廿四25-27所說的直接抵觸的。
6. A naturalistic hermeneutic does not allow for everything to have its ultimate reference point in Christ, and is in direct opposition to Ephesians 1:10, Colossians 1:16-18, and Christ's own teachings in John 5:39, Luke 24:25-27.
 
譯注：
 
1. 宗教改革有五大唯獨信念，除了唯獨聖經外，還有唯獨信心，唯獨基督，唯獨恩典，以及唯獨歸榮耀給神。
 
2.四重釋經法（quadriga）是中世紀發展出來的釋經理論。這種方法認為聖經經文有四重含義：字面意義（literal），托寓意義（allegorical，與基督徒的信心/教義有關），倫理意義（moral/tropological，與基督徒的愛有關），以及奧秘的意義（anagogical，與未來的盼望有關）。當時的教會認為，由於經文非字面的意義不是一般人可以看得出來的，因此只有教會才能解釋聖經。
 
3.「信心的類比（或信仰的類比）：即聖經信仰真理的內在統一性（coherence），聖經經文決不會有與信仰條文有衝突。