顯示具有 Zach Keele 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 Zach Keele 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2020-09-06


从圣经神学看公义A Biblical Theology of Justice

作者Zach Keele   译者/校对Julia Liu/骆鸿铭

不管你喜不喜欢,我们现在的生活都难逃潮流的影响。智能手机会用各种热搜话题对我们进行轰炸,小至钢琴上的小猫,大至伊拉克的无人机袭击。许多热搜话题的持续时间就像雪花落在温暖的挡风玻璃上一样,迅速地博取了眼球后又化为乌有。然而,其中有一种趋势却象青少年一样发旺:公义(justice)。公义的话题不仅每周跻身推特榜单前几,从塑料吸管到阿拉伯之春,公义的话题已发展到包括这些问题。每个人都关心公义,生活的方方面面都必须是公平的。
Like it or not, our present lives cannot escape what is trending. Whether it is a kitten on a piano or a drone strike in Iraq, our smartphones bombard us with trends. Many of these last as long as a snowflake on a warm windshield, tickling us briefly only to melt away. One of these trends, however, has thrived into its teenage years: justice. Not only does the topic of justice top the Twitter lists every week, but justice has grown to embrace issues from plastic straws to the Arab Spring. Everyone cares about justice, and every aspect of life must be just.

然而,当我们阅读博客和收听播客时,不禁要问(从彼拉多的问题中衍生出来):”什么是公义?” 人们对大众所普遍喜爱的众说纷纭。为了便于讨论,右派把左派说的 “公正”称为 “不公正”,反之亦然——我们国家内部的分歧在教会中也是根深蒂固的。在自称忠于圣经的福音派基督徒中,对于什么是公义似乎没有共识。因此最好问一问圣经中关于公义的说法。圣经如何定义公义?正是为了此目的,我们将勾勒出关于公义的圣经神学(biblical theology of justice);如我们所见,这不是一个简单的任务。
Yet, as we consume the blogs and podcasts, one cannot help but ask (to spin off of Pilate’s question), “What is justice?” What is universally loved is widely debated. For ease of discussion, what the Left calls “just,” the Right calls “unjust” and vice versa—and the divisions within our country are also well entrenched in the church. Among evangelical Christians, who profess loyalty to Scripture, little agreement over what justice is seems to exist. It is good, therefore, to ask what the Bible says about justice. How does Scripture define justice? More precisely for our purposes, we will outline a biblical theology of justice; and as we will see, it’s not an easy task.

如同许多圣经主题一样,从结局来开始讨论是大有裨益的:定睛在天国的荣耀上,标示主是如何把我们带入祂永恒的福乐之中的。事实上,在《启示录》最后几页里,有关公义的几个特性真的深深吸引着我们。首先,只有在 “最后的日子”(final day)和“来世”(age to come)才会迎来最终和完美的公义。主以祂的智慧,略过了这个时代难以计数的不公和恶行,但祂的耐心会在永恒之日结束。这公义包括了地狱的永火和为基督的子民报仇伸冤。根据圣经,所有在这个时代寻求和执行的公义都是不完美的、补救性的。例如,对谋杀唯一公正的补偿就是复活,基督再来时,我们期待的就是这种复活。
As it is with many biblical themes, it is helpful to begin with the end: to gaze on the glory of heaven and mark how the Lord brings us into his never-ending bliss. Indeed, several features grab us from the closing pages of Revelation with respect to justice. First, final and perfect justice is ushered in only by the “final day” and the “age to come.” In his wisdom, the Lord overlooks a plethora of injustices and wickedness in this age, but his patience ends on the day of eternity. This justice includes the perpetual fires of hell and the avenging of all wrongs for Christ’s people. According to Scripture, all justice sought and performed in this age is imperfect and remedial. For example, the only just restitution for murder is resurrection, which we anticipate when Christ returns.

其次,这最终的公义只能由全智和荣耀的基督来执行。只有羔羊的智慧才能执行最后的判决。圣徒可以与基督一同审判,但这公义是全然属于基督的。
Second, the performance of this ultimate justice can be executed only by the all-wise and glorified Christ. The wisdom of the Lamb alone can perform final justice. The saints may share in this with Christ, but the justice is all Christ’s.

第三,最后审判的某一方面已然在历史上成就在基督的赎罪中了。基督在十字架为自己的百姓满足了公义的要求,好叫信徒们从他们应得的审判得到拯救。当罪人从审判中得救,怜悯为我们在基督里胜过公义,这就是圣经中关于公义的福音瑰宝。在这一点上,福音与公义形成了鲜明的衬托和对比。按公平来说,我们都被定了罪;但在基督里,我们却唯独靠恩典称义。
Third, one aspect of this final justice has already taken place in history in the atonement of Christ. The cross is where Christ satisfied justice for his own, so that believers are saved from the justice they deserve. This is the gospel gem of justice in Scripture, when sinners are delivered from justice and mercy triumphs over justice for us in Christ. In this, the gospel is set over against and contrasted with justice. By justice, we are all condemned; but in Christ, we are justified by grace alone.

然而,当我们从《创世记》到《启示录》追溯公义的轨迹时,需要注意有三大警惕信号。第一,在圣经对公义的讨论中,我们往往会陷入时代错置(anachronisms)的谬误。在没有事实证据的情况下,我们对圣经人物或思想的推测充其量只是猜测,但更多的时候只是傲慢的自我欺骗。自以为是的时代错置广泛影响到公平、权利、理想等问题,而受影响的这些都是公义的一部分。我们必须谦卑地约束自己,谨慎地区分经文的实际含义和我们现代人假设的含义。
Yet, as we trace the trajectory of justice from Genesis to Revelation, three preliminary caution signs need to be posted. The first is that within our biblical discussions about justice, we tend to fall into the chronic error of anachronisms. Without factual evidence, our surmises about biblical characters or ideas are at best guesses, but more often are merely arrogant self-impositions. These self-imposed anachronisms pervasively affect the issues of fairness, rights, and the ideal, which are all part of justice. With patient work, we must humbly chasten ourselves to distinguish between what Scripture actually means and what we as moderns assume it to mean.

第二个需要警惕的是我们在关于公义的写作中往往会选择性地引用经文佐证(selective proof-texting)。也就是说,我们挑选喜欢的圣经经文,而忽略那些不符合我们观点的经文。许多正义论更多是作者的观点或主张,而不是圣经。要处理这个难题,两种恩典是必要的。首先,身为罪人,我们的自我定位不断引导我们走向这个错误,以至无人能够幸免。第二,圣经是一部极为多样化的文献。因此,想要协调圣经中关于公义的所有数据,是一项极其艰巨的工作——最后的荣耀还未来到的时候,这几乎是不可能的。这就是我们为什么要有适当的目标,用合乎圣经的神学方法来处理公义这个问题的原因。
The second caution lies in the selective proof-texting that is another trend in our current writings on justice. That is, we pick the Bible verses we like, and we ignore the passages that do not fit nicely into our viewpoint. Many theories of justice resemble more their author’s opinion or agenda than the Bible. Two mercies must handle this problem. One, as sinners, our self-orientation constantly steers us toward this error, and none of us are immune. Two, the Bible is a wildly diverse document; therefore, trying to harmonize all the data of Scripture on justice is an extremely difficult endeavor—if not impossible on this side of glory. This is why our approach to justice is biblically theological, with quite modest goals.

第三个处理公义与圣经问题的危险是我们在当代的期望。我们常常希望圣经完全按照我们的喜好来回答我们迫切的问题。同样地,我们目前关于公义的讨论也充斥着异常兴奋的论战。在激烈的辩论中,我们要求圣经完全认可我们的立场,并明确谴责我们对手的立场。我们目前的讨论揭露出我们对简化的新闻插播和话题的偏爱。然而更多的时候,圣经的数据并不轻易支持这种分歧的任何一方,而圣经关于公义的内容毫无疑问是非常复杂的。智慧短少,公义难寻,而公义对人来正是最难以捉摸的美德。正如《箴言》的训诫给我们留下的深刻印象,想要拥有智慧就不得不先承认 “我不知道”。因此,我们来一起承认,我们并不真正了解什么是公义。
The third danger in dealing with the issues of justice and Scripture is our modern expectations. We often want Scripture to answer our pressing problems completely and in the manner of our preferences. Similarly, our current discussions on justice are juiced up with polemical steroids. In the heat of debate, we demand Scripture to fully endorse our positions and explicitly condemn our opponents’ positions. Our present discussions reveal a penchant for simplistic sound bites and talking points. Yet more often than not, the data of Scripture do not easily support either side of the partisan divide, and the Bible is unapologetically complex about justice. Without wisdom, there is no justice, and wisdom is a most elusive virtue for humans. As the discipline of Proverbs so well impresses upon us, there is no learning without first saying, “I do not know.” So, we begin our brief time together admitting that we do not really know what justice is.

在找出这三种危险之后,我们现在有了更好的装备去诚实地研究上帝话语中关于公义的神圣篇章。我们可以谦卑地搁置我们个人的议题和期望;我们可以更清楚地意识到我们现代的预设与圣经的古代世界是何等的不同,这样我们就不会把不合时宜的标准强加给圣经。
With these three dangers spotlighted, we are now better equipped to study honestly what the sacred pages of God’s word say about justice. We can humbly hold at bay our personal agendas and expectations; and we can be more aware of how different our modern presuppositions are from the ancient world of the Bible, so that we do not impose anachronistic standards on Holy Writ.

公义与律法
Justice and Law

虽然这听起来可能过于简化,但公义的第一个关键要素是律法。当我们质疑什么是公义的,圣经中的律法定义了这一点。再仔细一看,这只会给我们今天带来更多的问题。那不公正的律法呢?我们都能指出不合理的现代法律。而且,各国的律法从过去到现在都在改变;甚至在圣经中,某些特定的律法也在改变。
While it may sound overly simplistic, the first defining ingredient in justice is the law. When we question what is just, it is the law that defines this in Scripture. On second glance, this only creates more problems for us today. What about unjust laws? We can all point to modern legislation that would not pass the justice smell test. Moreover, laws are in flux from country to country, from past to present; even within the Bible specific laws change.

圣经清楚表明,公义是由上帝的律法所定义的,而这律法的核心是上帝不变的道德律,概括起来就是两条爱的诫命:爱神和爱你的邻舍(《西敏小要理问答》41-42;可1229-31;罗139)。爱的律法构成了公义的稳定基础。然而在一个堕落的世界里,爱的律法只涵盖了公义的一部分——即所谓的 “基本正义”(primary justice)。你应友好地对待你的邻舍,主动地给予他们应得的尊重。基本正义既包括主动的 “行善”和也包括 “不伤害”。然而道德金律(Golden Rule),即爱你的邻居,只是公义的其中一面。
Scripture is clear that justice is defined by God’s law and that the core of this law is the Lord’s unchanging moral law, which is summarily comprehended in the two laws of love: Love God and love your neighbor (WSC 41–42; Mark 12:29–31; Rom. 13:9). The love-laws form the stable foundation of justice. Yet, in a fallen world, the love-laws cover only part of justice—what is called “primary justice.” This is the positive treatment of your neighbors in which you proactively render to them the respect they are due. It covers both the active “performing good” and “doing no harm.” The Golden Rule (loving your neighbor), however, is only one side of the justice coin.

公义的另一面是矫正性正义rectifying justice),即对违法行为的补救措施。与矫正正义密切相关的是报应性正义retributive justice):对不法行为或犯罪行为施加惩罚。在圣经中矫正性正义和报应性正义浓缩在同态复仇法lex talionis——以眼还眼以命还命21:23-25。同态复仇法规定了公义就是对违法者要求补救和进行惩罚,且罪罚必须对等。有趣的是,同态复仇法(lex talionis)这词组合了字面上和隐喻的含义。对于谋杀罪,死刑是字面上的应用。然而在摩西的治理下,人身伤害通常不会用相等的伤害来补偿,而是采用经济赔偿的方式(出21:18-19)。此外,同态复仇法的景象构成了旧约历史中上帝所施行的诗意的公义(poetic justice)的背景(见译注)。结论是,将同态复仇法应用于特定的犯罪行为往往不是件容易的事,古时的应用往往会错误地触动我们当代的感性。事实上,我们对摩西律法和士师如何执行同态复仇法还摸不着头绪。
The other side is rectifying justice, which is the imposition of remedies for the violations of justice. Closely related to rectifying justice is retributive justice: the infliction of punishment for a wrongful or criminal act. In Scripture, rectifying and retributive justice are condensed in the lex talionis—eye for an eye, life for a life (Exod. 21:23–25). The lex talionis stipulates that justice requires remedies and punishments on lawbreakers and that these penalties should be proportional. Yet, the lex talionis is an interesting mix of the literal and the metaphorical. For murder, capital punishment was a literal application. Bodily injuries, however, were not generally repaid with matching injuries under Moses; instead, financial restitution could be employed (Exod. 21:18–19). Furthermore, the lex talionis imagery forms the background for much of God’s poetic justice administered in the history of the Old Testament. The takeaway is that applying the lex talionis to any particular crime is not always easily done, and ancient applications tend to rub our modern sensibilities the wrong way. In fact, we are at a loss in places to figure out precisely how Mosaic legislation and judges carried out the lex talionis.

尽管如此,就律法而言,道德金律和同态复仇法是圣经中公义基因的一部分。然而,以上两个方面仍没有详尽阐述公义的概念。人权和社会公义(和平)的理想是圣经里面公义更广义上的关键要素。
Nevertheless, in terms of law, the Golden Rule and the lex talionis are part of the DNA of justice in Scripture. This two-sided coin, however, does not exhaust the concept of justice. Human rights and the ideal of a righteous society (peace) are key elements in the broader scope of biblical justice.

作为公义的基础,律法必须要深深扎根。道德律要在两条爱的诫命中方能理解。我们目前关于公义的辩论常常表现得好像只有“爱你的邻居”这一条诫命。这是可以理解的,因为讨论的焦点是基督徒在多元社会中的角色。然而在圣经中,最高的公义是爱上帝。历史上最恶劣的重罪是什么?是人类悖逆独一圣洁永在的三一上帝而崇拜偶像。当然,两条爱的诫命是不能分开的,但圣经把上帝置于首要地位。当代反对地狱的论点正是在这一点上逾越了这个界限。他们会说,如果上帝施加永远的惩罚,祂就不可能是公正的。但正是为了正义,惩罚必须是永恒的,不然才是违背了同态复仇法,违背了永活的真神。
The law as the basis for justice must be taken deeper. The moral law is comprehended in the two laws of love. Our current debates about justice often act as if there is only one—love your neighbor. This is understandable as the conversation focuses on a Christian’s role in a pluralistic society. Yet in Scripture, the crowning justice is love for God. What is the most heinous felony perpetrated in history? It is humanity’s idolatrous bigotry against the one holy and infinite Triune God. Sure, the two love-laws cannot be separated, but Scripture gives the priority to God. Modern arguments against hell transgress at this very point. They will say God cannot be just if he inflicts an everlasting punishment. But it is precisely for justice that the punishment must be eternal, for it was against the Everlasting One—lex talionis.

最后一个关于律法所定义的公义的基本观点是,爱的道德律并不能使政府或社会的司法系统发挥作用。爱需要更多的律法来定义什么是爱;因此,十诫规定了正当的爱是什么样的:不偷盗、不奸淫等等。然而,对于一个公正的社会来说,还需要更多的信息。严格说来,十诫的形式并没有法院的司法功能,因为没有加上对违背行为予以惩处的条例。整个摩西的立法都是应用十诫来实现以色列的公正社会。但我们如何爱我们的邻舍呢?当我们查考圣经中的各种律法时,我们看到其中体现的多样性。在圣经的历史中,律法是变化的;而且在许多方面,圣经的律法难以理解,也远远称不上详尽无遗。然而,将圣经律法转到现代的司法体系,是一项棘手的工作。
The final preliminary point about justice as defined by the law is that the moral love-laws do not make a functional judicial system for any government or society. Love needs more laws to define what it means to love; hence, the Decalogue specifies what proper love looks like: not stealing, not committing adultery, and so on. And yet, more information is necessary for a just society. Strictly speaking, the form of the Decalogue is not judicially functional for the court, because no sanctions are attached for disobedience. The whole Mosaic legislation applies the Decalogue for a just society in Israel. But how do we love our neighbor? As we examine the various laws of Scripture, we see diversity reflected in them. The laws change across the history of the Bible; and at many points, the laws of Scripture are difficult to understand and far from exhaustive. Moving from the laws of Scripture to a modern system of justice, however, is a sticky endeavor.

公义与公平
Justice and Righteousness

要想了解圣经里关于公义的神学,也就是公义在圣经里的地位和定义,我们必须从伊甸园到锡安上帝的救赎故事中来观察。我们会用两个因素来描绘公义。首先,上帝很自然地用了圣约神学的方式来组织圣经和祂的计划。事实上,由于圣约是上帝不断展开的国度的宪法,所以圣约就是我们理解公义的司法管辖语境。上帝通过圣约来施行祂的公义。
The biblical theology of justice—its place and definition—is observed in the Lord’s redemptive story from Eden to Zion. We will map justice using two factors. First, covenant theology is the natural way God has structured Scripture and his plan. In fact, as covenant is the constitution of God’s unfolding kingdom, so covenant is the jurisdictional context within which to understand justice. The Lord administers his justice through covenant.

第二圣经中的惯用语 公义与公平”,勾勒了伟大的救赎计划中公义的主题。这个惯用语实际上回荡在整个古代近东地区。整个美索不达米亚的人们普遍认为为了这片土地及其国民的理想福祉神灵拣选国王来秉公行义。同样在以色列,公义与公平也意味着崇高的、神圣的理想。耶和华喜爱仁义公平(诗335),祂的宝座也是以同样的方式建立的(诗994)。这个理想包括了以色列所有的社会公义,包括解救受压迫者和惩罚恶人(注1),这种公义和公正的最终结果是和平。当然,耶和华通过中保管理祂的国度;通过效法上帝,被呼召的圣约的中保去秉公行义。
Second, the biblical idiom “justice and righteousness” charts the motif of justice within the great plan of salvation. This idiom actually echoed across the ancient Near East. Throughout Mesopotamia, it was generally held that the deity elected the king to administer justice and righteousness for the ideal well-being of the land and its citizens. Similarly in Israel, justice and righteousness imply the sublime, divine ideal. The Lord loves justice and righteousness (Ps. 33:5), and his throne is established with the same (Ps. 99:4). This ideal embraced all of social justice in Israel, including deliverance to the oppressed and the punishment of the wicked.1 The ultimate fruit of this righteousness and justice is peace. Of course, the Lord administered his kingdom through mediators; so by imaging God, the mediators of the covenant were called to do righteousness and justice.

亚当和夏娃 起初
Adam and Eve: In the Beginning



 “一切都甚好”,这是上帝对祂按照自己的形像塑造的第一对夫妇的判断,祂的形像包括仁义、圣洁和知识(弗4:24;西3:10)。《诗篇》第八篇进一步描述亚当和夏娃是以君尊的荣耀和尊贵来妆饰的(诗篇8:6)。夏娃和亚当是伊甸园中的皇后和君王,他们是上帝施行公正公义的副摄政(vice-regents),但这公义是什么样子呢?他们的公义履行了哪些律法?在最初的创造之约中,有几个基本原则。
“It was very good.” This was God’s judgment on his fashioning the first couple after his image, which consisted in true righteousness, holiness, and knowledge (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). Psalm 8 further describes Adam and Eve as adorned with royal glory and majesty (Ps. 8:6). Queen Eve and King Adam were God’s vice-regents to execute justice and righteousness, but what did this justice look like? What laws did their righteousness perform? Several essential principles are enshrined in the original covenant of creation.

第一,人类的价值和平等地位高高在上。所有的人,无论男女,都是按照上帝的形像平等地造出来的。公义禁止劣等性别的概念。同样,由于全人类都源自于夏娃和亚当,所以没有劣等或优等的种族。公义禁止种族主义发出的恶臭。此外,上帝通过创造,赋予了人类的生命权。将此应用于男女两性,会很有益处。按现代标准,这种平等要求功能和次序完全一致。不过,上帝并不是以这种方式来解决平等问题的,因为亚当是盟约之首(罗5:12;林前15:22),而夏娃被塑造为亚当的帮手(创2:18)。当代认为平等就必须消除所有等级秩序的想法,这并不符合上帝的作为。另一方面,在《创世记》一章28节的管理和治理中,夏娃是平等的一方,这段经文排除了维多利亚时代的性别角色观作经文佐证的可能。事实上,除了基本的领导者和帮助者的身份之外,《创世记》对基督徒的婚姻应该像什么样子并未透露太多细节。
First, the value and equality of humans stands tall. All humans, male and female, are equally made in God’s image. Justice prohibits an inferior gender. Likewise, as all humanity hails from Eve and Adam, there are no inferior or master races. Justice outlaws the foul smells of racism. Moreover, by God’s creation, he granted the human right to life. Yet, it is helpful to apply this to both genders. By modern standards, such equality demands sameness in function and order. The Lord, though, does not work out the equality in this manner, as Adam is the federal head of the covenant (Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22) and Eve was fashioned as Adam’s helpmeet (Gen. 2:18). The current idea that equality must remove any hierarchical order does not fit with what God did. On the other side, Eve is an equal party in the ruling and subduing in Genesis 1:28, which excludes the passage from being a proof-text for Victorian gender roles. Indeed, besides a basic headship and helpmeet, Genesis imparts very little detail on what a Christian marriage should look like.

其次,《创世记》确立了婚姻关系和纯洁。在生养众多的过程中,男人和女人要紧紧连合成为一体,这是禁止通奸的创造性基础。然而,从一个更全面的公义体系来看,这里没有明确规定再婚、离婚和近亲结婚。我们需要更多的律法来澄清。
Second, Genesis establishes the marriage relationship and purity. In their fruitfulness, man and woman are to cling together to become one, which is the creational foundation for the prohibition of adultery. Yet, in terms of a more full-orbed system of justice, nothing here explicitly addresses remarriage, divorce, or consanguinity. We need more laws to clarify.

最后亚当和夏娃蒙召来管理和治理。问题是这个管理和治理应该是什么样子这对圣洁的夫妇当然知道但经文并没有为我们解释——这就是危险所在。我们倾向于用自己的观点来粉饰这种管理。因此,你可以发现鼓吹自由市场的自由主义者和生态社会主义者都声称《创世记》一章28节是他们的佐证经文。他们其中有正确的吗?还是两者都是现代对古老文本的强行解读?
Finally, Adam and Eve were called to rule and subdue. The question is, what should this ruling and subduing look like? Surely, the holy couple knew, but the inspired text does not explain it for us—and this is the danger. Our tendency is to color such ruling with our own opinions. Thus you can find libertarian free-market and socialist environmental positions claiming Genesis 1:28 as their own proof-text. Is one correct? Or are they both modern impositions on an ancient text?

虽然从创造之约中可以分析出更多关于公义的细节,但这只是开始。作为上帝的臣仆,亚当和夏娃本将秉公行义。然而这公义是由一些律法和原则组成的骨骼框架。我们行公义的责任需要更多的“血肉”。那么,让我们看看圣经在这些骨骼上增加了什么“血肉”。
Although more details about justice can be assessed from the covenant of creation, these are a sufficient starting point. As God’s vassals, Adam and Eve were to perform justice and righteousness. Yet this justice consists of a few skeletal laws and principles. Our duty to do justice needs more meat. So let’s see what flesh Scripture adds to these bones.

挪亚:公义的彩虹
Noah: The Righteous Rainbow

下一个约是挪亚之约或 “普遍恩典 “之约(创820~917)。由于罪遍满了全地,现在发挥主导作用的是公义的矫正面。洪水本身就是上帝对人类的背道和堕落的报应性公义,尤其针对血腥暴力和一夫多妻制度(创4:23-246:1-4)。因此同态复仇法与挪亚之约(创9:6)相比,占据了更高地位,同态复仇法的使用在多个层面上值得我们注意。
The next covenant is the Noahic or the “common grace” covenant (Gen. 8:20–9:17). With sin now covering the globe, the rectifying side of justice gets a leading role. The flood itself was God’s retributive justice for human apostasy and depravity, expressed particularly in bloody violence and polygamy (Gen. 4:23–24; 6:1–4). Therefore, the lex talionis gets pride of place with the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9:6), and the use of the lex talionis grabs our attention on several levels.

首先,同态复仇法通过一个动机从句(motive clause)连接这个画面:”凡流人血的,他的血也必被人所流,因为上帝造人是照自己的形像造的。”(创9:6)。最好将动机从句(”因为……”)应用于前面的整个律法。形像包含价值,当生命权被剥夺时,死刑应当被执行;上帝的形像赋予人执行死刑的司法权力。这种比例正义(proportional justice )肯定了人的生命权,也肯定了人执行矫正性正义的权力。
To begin with, the lex talionis is linked to the image by a motive clause: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Gen. 9:6). It is best to apply the motive clause (“for . . . ”) to the whole preceding law. The image contains value, and its right to life (when taken) requires capital punishment; the image imparts to man judicial authority to administer execution. This proportional justice affirms the human right to life and the authority for humans to carry out rectifying justice.

尽管这种法律和原则很有帮助,但也相当有限。对于不同程度的谋杀,并没有任何提示。那意外杀人或过失杀人呢?这正是摩西在《民数记》第三十五章提出的规范,但挪亚之约这里没有明确提及。其次,这条律法只涵盖谋杀,没有给出触及财产、伪证或税收的立法。虽然从《创世记》1-2章延续了婚姻的生养众多的观念,但从创9:1开始,就没有管理和治理的命令了。最后,挪亚之约公开地赐给背道者性命(创821),这在伊甸园和天堂都是不能容忍的。“普遍恩典”突出了上帝的恩典,让罪人、未信者和信徒都有生命的权利。理所当然地,我们在此约中找到了宗教多元主义的基础(WCF 23:3)。然而,就发展公义的理论而言,在履行这里的原则时必须小心谨慎,实事求是,以免我们在圣经文本的方寸之地构筑人类观点的高楼大厦。
Nonetheless, as helpful as this law and principle are, they are quite limited. There is no hint about different degrees of murder. What about accidental killings or manslaughter? It is this very specification that is set forth under Moses in Numbers 35, but nothing is explicitly mentioned here. Next, this law covers only murder; no legislation is given that touches on property, perjury, or taxes. While the idea of the  fruitfulness of marriage continues from Genesis 1–2, the command to rule and subdue is missing from 9:1. Finally, the covenant overtly grants life to apostates (8:21), which is not tolerated in Eden or in heaven. “Common grace” highlights God’s grace to allow sinners, unbelievers, and believers alike the right to life. Rightfully, we find the foundation of religious pluralism in this covenant (WCF 23:3). Yet in terms of developing a theory of justice, honesty demands that filling out the principles here requires care, so that we do not construct a mansion of human opinion on a square foot of biblical text.

亚伯拉罕: 一个天路客
Abraham: A Pilgrim People

随着亚伯拉罕之约的颁布,公义的框架开始有了一定的分量。在这里,”公正和公义”这个惯用语第一次出现,因为上帝宣称亚伯拉罕将命令他的后裔 “遵守我的道,秉公行义”(创1819)。亚当未能做到的公正和公义,将通过亚伯拉罕的后裔来实现。
With the Abrahamic covenant, the skeleton of justice begins to gain some weight. Here the idiom of “justice and righteousness” makes its first appearance, as the Lord declares that Abraham will command his posterity “to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice” (Gen. 18:19). What the justice and righteousness of Adam failed to do will be fulfilled through the line of Abraham.

然而,亚伯拉罕的公义却很奇怪。他与同父异母妹妹的婚姻是被《利未记》18:9所禁止的。雅各与两姐妹的结合也被《利未记》18:18所禁止。雅各和以扫实行一夫多妻制(创26342921)。亚伯拉罕与婢女夏甲同房,雅各与辟拉和悉帕同房,这些都符合通奸的条件。因与夏甲同房,亚伯拉罕的信心遭人诟病,但经文并没有审判他的淫乱。不仅如此,所有的族长及妻子都是奴隶主。雅各是个一夫多妻者,也是个奴隶主,他的孩子是由他的女仆所生的。我们现代的正义感对此深恶痛绝,这当然言之成理。但上帝却夸奖亚伯拉罕说:”他听从我的话,遵守我的吩咐和我的命令、律例、法度”(创265)。
Yet, the justice of Abraham is strange. His marriage to his half-sister is outlawed by Leviticus 18:9. Jacob’s union to two sisters is also forbidden by Leviticus 18:18. Jacob and Esau practice polygamy (Gen. 26:34; 29:21). Abraham sleeps with the handmaiden Hagar, and Jacob with Bilhah and Zilpah, which qualify as adultery. Abraham’s faith is criticized for going to Hagar, but the text does not judge his sexual purity. Not only that but all the patriarchs and their wives hold slaves. Jacob is a polygamist and a slave owner, who fathers children by his maids. These are deeply offensive to our modern sense of justice and rightly so. But the Lord compliments Abraham by saying, “He kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes and my laws” (Gen. 26:5).

那么,亚伯拉罕的 “公义 “阐明了建立公义神学并非易事。亚伯拉罕也说明了上帝施行公义,并不是乌托邦式的,而是暂时的、相对的、有耐心的。上帝仁慈地包容了亚伯拉罕所处的更广泛的文化环境,允许他有这样的婚姻和奴仆。在我们的头脑因为自义而趾高气扬之前,上帝究竟忽略了散布在我们世界的哪些罪了呢?
The “justice” of Abraham, then, elucidates how building a theology of justice is no easy task. Abraham also demonstrates how the Lord’s administration of justice is not utopian but provisional, relative, and patient. The Lord mercifully accommodated the broader culture of Abraham in allowing him such marriages and servants. Before our heads swell with self-righteousness, what widespread sins of our world does the Lord overlook?

摩西:理想的公义?
Moses: Ideal Justice?

如果在亚伯拉罕之约下的公义是不完全的、不理想的,那么摩西之约肯定会涂上公义的乌托邦色彩,这也是为什么我们现代的讨论经常到摩西之约的神治国度(theocracy)里去寻找公义的解经基础。诸如 “解放”、”平等”、”济弱扶倾”等词汇,被誉为圣经中公正社会的理想。虽然这些词汇在摩西律法中都有,但我们需要反思它们的定义。今天,”解放”(liberation)意味着没有奴隶制、同工同酬。”平等”(equality)意味着财富和阶级的对等,一个没有阶级的社会。”济弱扶倾”(preference for the poor)将贫穷定义为本质上的一种压迫,而将穷人定义为更有道德的或更可信的。我并不是在批判这些观念;作为现代的产物,我倾向于这种观念。但问题是,这些观念是否一定符合圣经。
If justice under Abraham was partial and not ideal, then surely the Mosaic covenant will paint the utopian colors of justice, which is why our modern discussions regularly reach to the Mosaic theocracy for its exegetical foundation. Terms such as “liberation,” “equality,” and “preferential option for the poor” are heralded as the biblical ideal of a just society. Although these words are found in Moses, we need to reflect on their definitions. Today, “liberation” connotes no slavery and equal pay. “Equality” implies sameness in wealth and class, a classless society. “Preference for the poor” defines poverty as inherently oppressive and the poor as more virtuous or authentic. I am not being critical of these ideas; as a product of modernity, I lean toward such ideas. The issue here, however, is whether these ideas are necessarily biblical.

上帝确实救赎以色列人脱离奴隶制,免除了他们的奴役。不过,得到这种自由的结果是,以色列人成了耶和华的仆人(利2555)。奴役以色列同胞是被禁止的,但以色列人可以买卖外族人,并且将外族人当成奴隶,传承给他们的子孙(出212-6;利2535-46);以色列人可以在战场上夺取妇女作为掠物和妻子(申2014)。虽然我们今天认为这种行为是种族主义,但在摩西时代,上帝并不这样认为。
The Lord did redeem Israel from slavery and grant them relief from oppression. The result of this freedom, though, was that Israel became the slaves of the Lord (Lev. 25:55). Slavery of fellow Israelites was forbidden, but the Israelites could buy, sell, and pass on foreigners as slaves to their children (Exod. 21:2–6; Lev. 25:45–36); and Israel was allowed to take women in battle as plunder and as wives (Deut. 20:14). While we today deem such practices as racist, God did not under Moses.

在土地分配中,每个以色列男性都成为地主,但禁止寄居者永久拥有财产。公民身份只授予以色列人,寄居者是二等人。国王、祭司、长老和平民是以色列人固定的阶层。正如雷蒙德·韦斯特布鲁克(Raymond Westbrook)所说:”在古代近东地区,所谓的社会公义就是指维护等级社会的现状”,在以色列也不例外(注2),穷人被凸显为施行公义的特殊对象。但旧约评估贫穷的来源有很多,包括压迫、懒惰、神的惩罚和厄运。穷人会受到神的保护(箴19:17),但贫穷并不是一个罕见的盟约诅咒。
In the land allotment, every Israelite male became a landowner, but sojourners were forbidden from permanently owning property. Citizenship was granted only to Israelites, and sojourners were second-class. Kings, priests, elders, and laity were consistent classes in Israel. As Raymond Westbrook states, “Social justice was regarded in the ancient Near East as the preservation of the status quo” of the hierarchal society, and it was not different in Israel.2 The poor were highlighted as special objects of justice. But the Old Testament evaluates poverty as arising out of many sources: oppression, laziness, divine punishment, and bad luck. The poor were under God’s protection (Prov. 19:17), but poverty was not an infrequent curse of the covenant.

尽管有这些公义的怪异形式,但上帝一再坚持,祂的公正和公义的宏大计划将通过摩西之约实现。正如摩西之约所说,万国要为以色列人这样公义的律例典章而惊叹(申48)。历史的最高峰随着大卫来到,关于他的记载是:”大卫向众民秉公行义”(撒下815)。在这里,大卫被涂上了田园诗般的色彩——他是真正的王。摩西律法体现了完美的义,而大卫就是秉公行义的王。然而此时需要强调两个基本概念。
Despite these strange forms of justice, the Lord insists over and over again that his grand plan for justice and righteousness will come through the Mosaic covenant. As it says, the nations will marvel at the righteous judgments and laws of Israel (Deut. 4:8). The historical high point comes with David, about whom it is written, “David performed justice and righteousness for all his people” (2 Sam. 8:15). Here, David is painted in idyllic colors—he is the true king. The Mosaic Law embodies perfect righteousness, and David is the king performing this justice and righteousness. Yet two essential concepts need to be highlighted at this point.

第一个概念可以在所罗门身上清楚地看到。当上帝答应所罗门的愿望时,祂表扬所罗门,因为他所求的是一个明辨的心,以施行公义。当所罗门单求智慧可以听讼时,他明确指出一个基本的圣经原则:对于公义来说,单单有律法还是不够的,还需要智慧。上帝要求我们用智慧将律法应用于生活中各种层出不穷的道德情境。这就是我们从亚当、挪亚和亚伯拉罕身上看到的。从框架上,原则和律法都需要我们善用智慧来应用。即便是摩西律法中最详尽的条例,也需要智慧来应用。
The first is clearly seen with Solomon. When God granted Solomon a wish, he praised Solomon for asking for an understanding mind to do justice. When Solomon asked for wisdom to do justice and righteousness, he put his finger on an essential biblical principle: the law is not enough for justice—wisdom is required. The Lord mandates wisdom to apply the law to the endless diversity of moral situations in life. This is what we have seen from Adam, Noah, and Abraham. The skeletal principles and laws demand wisdom from us to apply. It was the same even with the most extensive legislation of Moses.

第二个概念特别出现在希伯来文的 “复仇”(nqm)一词上。这种复仇是在公义崩溃的情况下,当受到冤屈的人不可能得到公义的时候,才会呼吁这种复仇。受害者没有合法的途径来洗刷冤情,个人伸冤是被禁止的(申32:35),所以个人或国家可以祈求上帝为他伸冤。在法律有限、智慧缺乏的情况下,上帝应许了祂的子民,祂会替他们伸冤报仇(耶5136;诗7910941)。
The second concept appears particularly with the Hebrew word for “vengeance” (nqm). This vengeance was appealed to in the breakdown of justice, when it was humanly impossible for a wronged human to obtain justice. For victims, there was no lawful way to redress their wrongs, and personal retaliation was prohibited (Deut. 32:35), so the individual or nation could pray to God to exact vengeance. Within the limits of laws, in the absence of wisdom, the Lord promised his people that he would execute vengeance on their behalf (Jer. 51:36; Ps. 79:10; 94:1).

我们当然知道摩西律法产生的果效:大卫家的君王未能施行公正和公义(耶22315),他们的智慧也落空了。然后,上帝用公正和公义的意象,应许了一位更伟大的新王。祂将在前人失败的地方取得成功,祂的名字将被称为 “耶和华——我们的义”(耶235-6),祂必将公理传给以色列和外邦(赛421)。上帝的公正和公义的计划将在耶稣基督里达到高潮。
We, of course, know the outcome of the Mosaic endeavor: the Davidic kings failed to perform justice and righteousness (Jer. 22:3, 15), and their wisdom fell short. The Lord then promised a new and greater king, using the imagery of justice and righteousness. He will succeed where all failed before him, his name will be called “Yahweh is our righteousness” (Jer. 23:5–6), and he will bring justice to Israel and to the nations (Isa. 42:1). The Lord’s plan for justice and righteousness will reach its zenith in Jesus Christ.

那位义者
The Righteous One

带着以赛亚所传被掳得释放、和宣告自由的应许,耶稣基督要在新约中施行公义。然而考虑到旧约的期望,我们不得不承认,耶稣似乎并未达到这个标准。在社会公义方面,耶稣几乎可说是一事无成。祂医治了几个仆人,但祂没有给任何人自由之身(太813)。祂没有把任何人从监狱里释放出来;事实上,祂让施洗约翰留在监狱里等死。耶稣没有帮助任何人找到工作,更没有帮助他们在社会阶层上晋升。相反,祂呼吁人们变卖他们的财产。耶稣和约翰当然劝告人们要正直(路313-14198),停止欺压。但想想这个对比:在耶稣传道之前约二十年,一个叫犹大的革命家宣称罗马的税收制比奴隶制好不到哪儿去,并呼吁人们不要交税(弗拉维奥·约瑟夫斯,犹太古史18.4)。然而,耶稣只是断言:”凯撒的物当归给凯撒”(太22:21)。对奋锐党(Zealots)来说,税吏不是正当的职业,但耶稣不这样看。我们现代对于公义的许多观念,不管是左派还是右派,看起来都很像士绅化(gentrification)。在这一点上,耶稣也不作此想。
Adorned with the promises of Isaiah of releasing the captives and proclaiming freedom, Jesus Christ was going to perform justice and righteousness in the new covenant. Yet given the expectations of the Old Testament, we have to admit that Jesus does not quite measure up. In terms of societal justice, Jesus did little to nothing. He healed a few servants, but he did not grant a single one freedom (Matt. 8:13). He did not free anyone from prison; in fact, he left John the Baptist there to die. Jesus did not help anyone get hired for a job or move them up the social ladder. Instead, he called for people to sell their possessions. Jesus and John certainly exhorted the people to be righteous (Luke 3:13–14; 19:8) and to cease exploitation. But consider this contrast: about twenty years before Jesus’ ministry, a revolutionary named Judas proclaimed that Roman taxation was no better than slavery and called on people not to pay (Jos. Ant. 18.4).  Jesus, however, simply asserted, “Render to Caesar” (Matt. 22:21). For the Zealots, being a tax collector was an illegitimate vocation, but not for Jesus. Many of our modern ideas of justice, on the Left or on the Right, look a good deal like gentrification. This, Jesus was not.

此外,使徒将耶稣的事工应用到教会,这对我们也帮助不大。保罗和彼得都叫人要顺服,要交税给罗马,这助长了国家资助的偶像崇拜。保罗并没有要求基督徒奴隶主释放他们的奴隶;教会的圣职也只给男人承膺。毫无疑问,使徒们坚信福音改变了生命,使我们结出仁义的果实。但几乎没有证据表明,保罗期望我们的顺服能彻底改变罗马的现状。
Moreover, the apostles’ application of Jesus’ ministry to the church does not help us much. Both Paul and Peter called for obedience and for taxes to go to Rome, which facilitated state-funded idolatry. Paul did not demand that Christian slave owners free their slaves; and the positions of church officers were reserved for men alone. Without a doubt, the apostles robustly believed that the gospel changes lives and makes us fruitful in righteousness and justice. But there is little evidence that Paul expected our obedience to revolutionize the Roman status quo.

那么,耶稣究竟行了什么公义呢?是在十字架上。基督的赎罪满足了上帝的公义,为我们对上帝的背逆,付上了最不公义的代价。保罗说得再清楚不过了,”好在今时显明祂的义,使人知道祂自己为义,也称信耶稣的人为义 。”(罗326)。基督成全了义,使我们这些不敬虔的人可以因信称义,从而成为蒙怜悯之子。因为基督满足了上帝的忿怒,所以我们不是按照律法受到应得的待遇,而是蒙恩得到了我们不配得的救赎。福音就是天父不按律法待我们,反而按怜悯待我们。
So what justice did Jesus clearly perform? It was on the cross. Christ’s atonement satisfied justice and paid the penalty for the supreme injustice: our rebellion against God. Paul could not say it more clearly, “It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26). Christ fulfilled justice so that we, the ungodly, might be justified through faith and so become heirs of mercy. Because Christ satisfied wrath, we are not treated according to the law as we deserve, but we graciously receive the salvation that we do not deserve. The gospel is about the Father treating us not by the law but by mercy.

那么,接下来基督的公义行为是什么呢?保罗又说:上帝“已经定了日子,要藉着祂所设立的人按公义审判天下,并且叫祂从死里复活,给万人作可信的凭据”(徒17: 31)。在最后那日,羔羊的烈怒要降临,祂的审判是公正而真实的。随着基督最后的公义和公平到来,福音怜悯的时代将停止。从新约圣经看公义,将来的完满成全(Consummation)才是我们的盼望。
What, then, is the next act of Christ’s justice? Again Paul: God “has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed” (Acts 17:31). On the final day, the wrath of the Lamb will come, and his judgment will be just and true. This season of gospel mercy will cease with Christ’s final justice and righteousness. When the New Testament considers justice, its hope has eyes only for the Consummation.

我们现在的处境如何呢?作为教会,我们的使命是传扬福音是白白的恩典,也就是胜过审判的怜悯。我们宣扬的怜悯与同态复仇法(lex talionis)是相反的。作为个人,圣经用道德律基本的、框架性的原则来装备我们,它呼召我们到智慧那里。在智慧中,我们与基督的合一可以有各式各样的应用。当我们努力在生活中、在世上秉公行义时,我们确实意识到我们的智慧是多么软弱和有限。当我们倾尽全力却仍功亏一篑时,当世界因我们的基督信仰而憎恨我们时,恩典会抬升我们的目光,远离这个转瞬即逝的时代,定睛在荣耀上,并祷告说:”主耶稣啊,我愿你来。”因为到那时,也只有到那时,我们才能在天上的圣洁平安中享受基督公义的丰盛。
Where does that leave us? As the church, we are commissioned to herald the free gospel of grace—a mercy that triumphs over justice. We proclaim mercy as the opposite of the lex talionis. As individuals, Scripture arms us with the fundamental but skeletal principles of the moral law, and it calls us to wisdom. In wisdom, there is diversity of application within our unity in Christ. Indeed, as we struggle to apply justice and righteousness across our lives and world, we realize just how weak and limited is our wisdom. As our best efforts fall short, as the world hates us for our faith in Christ, grace lifts our eyes away from this ephemeral age to gaze on glory and pray, “Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly.” For then, and only then, will we enjoy the fullness of Christ’s justice and righteousness in the holy peace of heaven.

尾注

1. Moshe Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 25–44.

2. Raymond Westbrook, A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, vol.1 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 160.

译注:在文学作品中,诗意的正义(poetic justice)是一种理想的正义形式,通过命运的反讽,使好人得到奖励,坏人受到惩罚。这是一种强烈的文学观点,认为一切文学形式都必须传达道德教训。因此,作家运用诗意的正义来符合道德原则。


2017-04-11

作者:  Michael G. Brawn Zach Keele    译者: 王一、  骆鸿铭
摘录自《神圣盟约 ―圣约神学初探》 Sacred Bond: Covenant Theology Explored,第三章,pp73-92,  改革宗出版社 , 台北, 2015

二十世纪著名作家兼牛津大学教授托尔金(J.R.R.Tolkien)曾发明一个新词,用来形容特定的故事情节,即发生某些特殊事件而使人从灾难转向希望。他称这类的故事为“颠覆灾难”(eucatastrophe)他取“catastrophe”这个词来形容一种毁灭性的、可怕的处境,然后再加上希腊文字首“eu”,而这字首的意思是“美好的”。所以,“颠覆灾难”的故事情节就是:主角们看似陷入全然绝望的地步,但突然在最后转变成美好的结局。托尔金的史诗着作《魔戒》三部曲,就是这样的故事。虽然邪恶魔王索伦的黑暗势力遍布中土大陆,他的胜利也看似垂手可得,但他却突然被小哈比人佛罗多打败;虽然佛罗多在摧毁魔戒的任务中,曾可悲地陷入试探,想将魔戒据为己有。佛罗多说:“我现在决定放弃我的任务,我不管了,魔戒是我的!”虽然一切希望看似尽都破灭,但魔戒和索伦最终仍难逃毁灭的命运(这要感谢咕噜那不受控制的贪婪)。结果,中土大陆获得了拯救。

同样地,我们也可以用“颠覆灾难”来形容创世记一至三章的情节。创世记前三章描述了真实的历史事件,而高峰就在于圣约之主遭到冒犯,要审判祂仆人亚当在行为之约里的悖逆。然而,神出乎意料地应许赐下第二位亚当,来完成第一位亚当未完成的任务,并藉此带领祂百姓得着生命树和蒙福景况,因这本是他们受造的目的。因此,神的应许所散发的希望之光,照亮了亚当的灾难所带来的黑暗与绝望。虽然亚当和他妻子试图与魔鬼立约,并因此被赶出伊甸园,但他却收到一份意外的应许,这应许突然把他的景况转变成美好且肯定的胜利。由于神是公义的,祂必须审判亚当和人类的罪。但祂也因着恩典而应许使女人的后裔和撒但的后裔彼此为仇。祂应许女人的一位后裔将会击败古蛇并粉碎牠的头。

这件事发生在创世记三章15节,其中包含了“最初的福”(protevangelium),也就是圣经第一次宣告将由基督成就的救赎与福音。由于亚当违背了第一个约(行为之约),神就设立第二个约(恩典之约)。


什么是恩典之约?

恩典之约是所有信徒藉以得救的约。它始于创世记三章15节,神在那里应许要派一位救主降临,然后此约贯穿整个救赎历史,直到基督第二次降临。虽然在救赎历史的不同时期,恩典之约有不同的执行方式,但其本质在各时期从未改变。换句话说,不论是在旧约或新约圣经里,神拯救罪人的方式始终如一:唯独本乎祂的恩典、唯独因着信心、唯独倚靠基督。基督是恩典之约的唯一中保,祂将救赎历史各时期的神子民整合成一群人。

在族长(即塞特、挪亚、亚伯拉罕、以撒、雅各)和以色列人的时代,恩典之约是藉着预表和影像(即实体的象征)来执行,信徒在那时信靠的是神要差遣弥赛亚降临的应许。然而,在新约(new covenant)里,恩典之约是以更完整的方式执行,信徒在此时信靠的是那位曾活过、死过、又从死里复活的弥赛亚。

神在救赎之约里的永恒救恩计划,在历史上是由恩典之约的面貌呈现出来。我们在第一章谈过,救赎之约是神的三个位格在永恒中所立的约,并透过基督的主动顺服和赎罪性的死亡而在时空中得以成就。对基督来说,救赎之约是一种行为之约。正如神与第一位亚当立下行为之约,祂与第二位亚当(基督)所立的也是行为之约。基督在此约底下的顺服,是福音和恩典之约的根基。基本上,恩典之约就是透过基督成就救赎之约,而将祂赚得的益处施行在罪人身上。在恩典之约里,因着基督的顺服,神带领祂子民与祂相交,并应许他们:“我要作你们的神,你们要作我的子民。”神的应许不是基于他们的顺服,而是基于基督的顺服。正因为基督的顺服行为,我们才能领受恩典。“因一人的悖逆,众人成为罪人;照样,因一人的顺从,众人也成为义了。”(罗五19

如同行为之约,恩典之约也是神与人之间所立的约。不过,这两个约有个重大的区别,即恩典之约有一位中保介于神和祂立约对象之间,而行为之约则没有中保。这位中保就是基督(提前二5)。这使得这两个约的性质彼此大不相同。正如第二章所提到的,行为之约的基础是律法,且要求完全、亲自的顺服。行为之约的条件是:“你若遵行,就必因此活着”(参利十八5;加三12)。另一方面,恩典之约是基于神应许要拯救罪人。恩典之约的条件是:“当信主耶稣,你就必得救”(参徒十六31;罗十6-13;加二16)。在恩典之约里,神宣告罪人是无罪和公义的,而这是基于基督的义归算在他们身上,他们唯独藉着信心领受这一切。图二说明了行为之约与恩典之约的区别。

传统的时代论说,神为两群子民(即以色列和教会)预备了两套救恩计划。但圣经的教导不是如此,圣经说神在整个救赎历史里只为一群子民预备一套救恩计划。这套救恩计划在历史上的展现就是恩典之约。

因此,我们可以如此定义:恩典之约是神与信徒及他们儿女所立的约,神在其中应许凡信靠基督的人都可得救,因基督藉着在救赎之约里的顺服为他们赢得救恩。


圣经对此有何教导?

如同“救赎之约”和“行为之约”这两个词,“恩典之约”这个词也没有在圣经里出现过。然而,圣经的确清楚教导这项教义:神在历史中立下约定,要透过中保耶稣基督而将恩典赐给祂的子民。

创世记三章15-24节。虽然恩典之约的更完整展现是神与亚伯拉罕所立的约(创十二、十五、十七章),而且是在两个重要阶段(即旧约和新约)陆续实现,但此约的“根源”应许是出现在创世记三章15节的最初福音里。正如克莱恩(Meredith Kline)所说:“创世记第三章有关审判的叙述,不仅终止了伊甸园里的原始圣约秩序,同时也记载恩典之约开创了新的救赎秩序。”若要明白这一点,只需去检视神的应许在这段经文里的四个特点:第一祂终止了撒但和女人之间的罪恶之约;第二,祂使蛇的后裔与女人的后裔彼此为仇;第三,祂应许赐下一位弥赛亚来审判蛇;第四,亚当对这个应许的回应。

第一,神终止了撒但和女人之间的罪恶之约。耶和华对蛇说:“我又要叫你和女人彼此为仇。”神宣告祂绝不允许魔鬼与男人及女人的约继续下去,而人类堕落时发生的事基本上就是与魔鬼立约。当蛇试探女人时(创三1-6),牠挑战神与人立约的规定,叫人怀疑神的良善和信实。“神岂是真说不许你们吃园中所有树上的果子吗?……你们不一定死。”牠试图破坏神国度的计划,不让具有神形像的人得着荣耀。牠看到神设立亚当为行为之约里的臣仆,所以就抢先使亚当远离生命树,好阻止他得到永恒的福份。牠知道若能使亚当违背行为之约,公义的神就必定会按照约中的规定来审判他。起初,蛇的阴谋似乎奏效了。牠设法说服女人(接着轮到亚当)去怀疑神,并使女人与牠结盟。然而,亚当堕落之后,神没有允许这罪恶的关系继续下去。祂使蛇和女人彼此为仇。由于原来的行为之约遭到破坏,神就透过一个新的约来使人类与祂和好。魔鬼没有想到,神早已计划要差遣第二位亚当来完成祂国度的计划。

第二,神使蛇的后裔与女人的后裔彼此为仇。神应许将为自己预备一群子民,使他们有别于魔鬼的后裔,并且有一天会拯救他们脱离魔鬼的凶恶攻击。希伯来文的“后裔”一词在创世记里极为重要,从第十二章到五十章至少出现37次。这表明神信守祂的应许,要从世界和魔鬼的后裔中间召聚出信徒及他们的儿女。这群体遍布整个救赎历史直到新约,不是由相同血缘的人所组成,而是由相信神应许的人所组成。正如保罗对外邦基督徒说的话:“如果你们属于基督,就是亚伯拉罕的后裔,是按照应许承受产业的了。”(加三29,新译本)因此,创世记三章15节也显明神第一次建立祂的教会。

第三,神应许赐下一位弥赛亚来审判蛇,执行第一位亚当没有完成的工作:“他要伤你的头,你要伤他的脚跟。”神的应许从集体的后裔转移到单一的后裔。“后裔”这个词可以指亲生的孩子(创四25,十五3)、一位隔代的子孙,或一大群子孙。在创世记三章15节里,我们看到这个词同时有单一和集体的意思,而这说明神不只会从女人的后裔里聚集一群子民,使他们成为属神的圣约群体,祂同时也会从女人的后裔里带出一位击败古蛇的得胜后裔。

23-24节进一步阐明第一位亚当的失职,即他没有尽责地执行对蛇的审判。这两节经文提到神解除了亚当的祭司职分,把保护这神圣园子的任务交给拿火焰剑的基路伯。第二章15节说:“耶和华神把那人安置在伊甸园,使他修理看守。”为了最终能得着生命树的奖赏,亚当必须持续服从约里的这些责任。他不只是照顾园子的园丁,更是保护园子的守护者。伊甸园是神的圣殿和居所,保护这园子不受玷污是亚当的祭司职责之一。因此,早在他吃禁果之前,就已经在行为之约里失败了。当他允许妻子与魔鬼结盟时,就已经失败了。他在那时原本应该运用他的祭司权柄,并执行对蛇的审判。结果,“耶和华神便打发他出伊甸园去,耕种他所自出之土。于是把他赶出去了。又在伊甸园的东边安设基路伯和四面转动发火焰的剑,要把守生命树的道路。”(创三23-24)堕落后的亚当还会继续“耕种”或“照料”土地(这土地已被咒诅并长出荆棘了),来作为他日常生活的责任。但神撤销了亚当“保护”园子的神圣责任并将这责任交给基路伯,因为他没有尽到祭司职责来保护伊甸园不受玷污。若神的选民最终要得到生命树的奖赏,她就必须派一位新的亚当来审判蛇,而这正是祂在创世记三章15节所应许的:“女人的后裔要伤你的头。”

整个救赎历史的展开,都围绕着神所应许的这位得胜后裔。在整本旧约圣经里,神的子民都盼望他们的弥赛亚来击溃撒但,并使他们胜过牠的后裔。圣经在许多地方重复这个得胜的概念。例如大卫战胜歌利亚的事迹就是其中之一(参撒上十七章)。在这着名的记载里,以色列人和非利士人之间的战争后来变成这两位战士单挑,他们以盟约元首的身份代表各自的百姓。若大卫击败歌利亚,非利士人都将成为以色列人的奴隶,反之亦然。当大卫击败歌利亚时(甚至割下他的头),他就预表他的后裔基督将击败撒但,并为祂的百姓获得胜利。

这正是为何基督在展开地上的事工时,就“被圣灵引到旷野,受魔鬼的试探”(太四1)。如同第一位亚当,耶稣也受到魔鬼的试探,牠试图引诱耶稣与牠立约(太四1-11)。但跟第一位亚当不同的是,耶稣没有屈服于这些试探,而是持续忠心顺从祂跟父神所立的约。祂甚至斥责魔鬼,用审判式的命令驱赶牠:“撒但退去吧!因为经上记着说:‘当拜主你的神,单要事奉祂。’”(太四10)这位得胜后裔没有重蹈第一位亚当的覆辙,成功通过了考验。

但基督若要胜过撒但,也必须经历十字架的苦难。就像神在创世记三章15节应许的:“女人的后裔要伤你的头,你要伤他的脚跟。”这位得胜后裔必须亲自尝过死味,才能拯救祂百姓脱离死亡的权势。正如希伯来书所说:“儿女既同有血肉之体,祂也照样亲自成了血肉之体,特要藉着死,败坏那掌死权的,就是魔鬼。并要释放那些一生因怕死而为奴仆的人。祂并不救拔天使,乃是救拔亚伯拉罕的后裔。”(来二14-16)我们的得胜者来到世上,不仅以第二位亚当的身份尽诸般的义,过一个主动顺服的生活,同时也以受苦仆人的身份,替女人的后裔承受咒诅。若基督不承受神因他们的罪所发的烈怒,就无法为祂百姓赎罪,也无法按照创世记三章15节的应许,对撒但执行审判。因此,基督是透过顺服的生命和赎罪性的死亡,践踏了那条古蛇的头。

第四,亚当用信心回应神的应许,而神用被宰杀之动物的皮做衣服给亚当和夏娃穿。请注意,夏娃这个名字一直等到创世记三章15节的应许之后才出现。在此之前,她一直被称为“女人”,因为她是从男人身上取出来的(参创二23)。但到了三章20节,我们看到:“亚当给他妻子起名叫夏娃,因为她是众生之母。”亚当的这个想法是从哪来的呢?正是从神的应许来的,神应许要透过恩典之约里的得胜后裔来翻转人类面临的死亡咒诅。亚当和夏娃用真信心回应了这个应许(亚当给妻子取名为夏娃就证明了这一点),他们也因此得称为义。然后,神除去他们用无花果树叶编成的衣服,他们想遮盖自己的羞耻,但这衣服根本无法在神的圣洁与公义前为他们提供任何保护。神反而用动物皮做衣服给他们穿,而这动物当然必须经历死亡。他们身体上的赤裸本身并不邪恶,而是象征他们灵性上的赤裸。他们之前试图躲避神的这件事,表明亚当违背了行为之约,而他们自己的良心在谴责他们。然而,因着他们信靠神的应许,神就提供衣服给他们穿,好叫他们不再感到罪恶与羞耻。

创世记三章15节不只预言基督的降临,同时也是整个恩典之约的根源应许,而圣经的其余部分就是从这个约逐渐展开的。

创世记一至十一章。这些章节显明神信实地保守女人的后裔,不论是塞特的出生(创四章),亚当的后代延续到挪亚(创五章),在大洪水中保护挪亚的血脉(创六至九章),挪亚的后代延续到闪(创十章),闪的后代延续到亚伯拉罕(创十一章)。创世记一到十一章是以概述的方式提供一部古代史。一旦我们来到第十二章,亚伯拉罕登场后,镜头便放慢速度了。神呼召亚伯拉罕出吾珥,并与他立了恩典之约。创世记第五章和十一章的家谱,将创世记三章15节的根源应许和亚伯拉罕连结了起来。

这个连结对恩典之约极为重要,因为创世记十二至十七章所显明的亚伯拉罕之约(我们将在第五章讨论这个约),是有关恩典之约的主要启示。神在创世记三章15节首次作出恩典之约的应许,然后在亚伯拉罕之约里扩充这个应许,即应许赐给他一群后裔和一片土地。这些应许分成两阶段实现:第一阶段的实现是旧约(摩西之约)里的以色列民(后裔)和迦南地(土地),第二阶段的实现则是新约里的基督教会(后裔)和新天新地(土地)。亚伯拉罕之约跟它在新约里的实现有——种强烈的连续性,也因此表明这个恩典之约的一致性。就像荷顿所言,亚伯拉罕之约“为永远继承天上的耶路撒冷设立基础”,而(四百年后的)摩西之约则“为暂时继承地的耶路撒冷设立条件”,好预先指向神在基督里的统治。

回响在救赎历史中的圣约公式。总结来说,恩典之约的精华就是神的这个应许:“我要作你们的神,你们要作我的子民。”这个应许回荡在整个救赎历史当中。当神指定割礼作为立约的记号时,祂向亚伯拉罕作出这个应许(创十七7);过了四百年,当神带领亚伯拉罕肉身的后裔脱离埃及的奴役时,祂也向他们作出同样的应许(出六7);当神规定他们要藉着顺服西奈之约而承受福份时,祂再次向他们作出这个应许(利廿六11-12);当以色列民在几个世纪不断违背西奈之约以后,神还是作出这个应许,这次是跟祂所应许的新约连在一起(耶卅一33;参结卅四23-24,卅七26-27);同样的应许也出现在新约里,而保罗把这应许应用在所有信徒身上,包括犹太人和外邦人(林后六16);最后,我们在启示录结尾也听见这个应许,那里记载使徒约翰在异象里看见将来的新天新地(启廿一2-3)。因此,神在这个恩典之约里的应许从创世记贯穿到启示录,显示出此约在救赎历史里的连续性与一致性。


改革宗神学对此有何教导?

在宗教改革时期,改教家们发展出行为之约和恩典之的区别,藉此来捍卫福音,抵挡中世纪教会的错误教导。罗马天主教普遍认为称义不是一次性的法律行动,即神将基督的顺服和公义归算在信徒身上:他们反而说称义是一种在信徒生活中的渐进过程,靠着注入恩典来不断改变信徒的道德。这种教导源于一个信念,即神只能称那些真正公义的人为义。罗马天主教在天特会议所作的区分。前者只是一半的功劳,不是真正配得神的恩典;它是基于神的慷慨,而领受跟信徒善行同等与相称的恩典。另一方面,后者正式采纳这种教导,也因此混淆了律法与福音,搞乱了称义与成圣的教义。为了回应这个错谬,第16-17世纪的改教家们诉诸于圣约神学,并且特别强调行为之约与恩典之约的不同。他们这么做是为了表明圣经清楚区分律法与福音,而且得救的方法在旧约和新约里是一样的:唯独本乎恩典、唯独因着信心、唯独倚靠基督,而媒介就是这个前后一致的恩典之约。

我们在第二章提过,《海德堡要理问答》的作者乌尔西努和俄利维亚努,曾教导行为之约与恩典之约的区别。欧洲各国的改革宗神学家们也如此教导,例如苏格兰人卢洛克(Robert Rollock1555-98)、英格兰人帕金斯(William Perkins1558-1602)、德国人博(Amandus Polanus.1561-1610)和瑞士人荷列比乌(Johannes Wollebius1586-1629)等等。到了1640年代,西敏大会正式将这种区别编入信条及要理问答里。例如,《西敏信条》第七章说:

2.神与人立的第一个约是行为之约,神在此约中应许赐生命给亚当,并透过他将生命赐给他的后裔,条件是人要完全地、亲自地顺服神。

3.人因着堕落,使自己无法藉行为之约得到生命,神就自愿立第二个约,通常称为恩典之约。在这约里,祂透过耶稣基督将生命与救恩白白赐给罪人,要求他们相信基督而得救,并应许将圣灵赐给一切预定得永生的人,使他们愿意并能够相信祂。

《西敏大要理问答》(Westminster Larger Catechism)将这种区别表达得更为简单易懂:

30问:神任凭全人类在罪恶和愁苦中灭亡吗?
答:全人类因违背第一个约(通常称为行为之约)而落入罪恶和愁苦中,但神没有任凭所有人在这种景况中灭亡;相反地,祂出于自己的慈爱和怜悯,藉着第二个约(通常称为恩典之约)而将祂的选民救拔出来,带领他们进入得救的景况。
 接下来,此要理问答指出信心是恩典之约的唯一条件:

32问:神的恩典如何在第二个约中显明?
答:神的恩典以此方式显明在第二个约里:神白白地向罪人提供了一位中保,使他们靠祂得生命和救恩;并要求以信心作为与中保联合的条件。祂应许赐下圣灵给祂的选民,在他们里面产生这种信心,并得着其他所有救赎恩典;又使他们能够顺服,好证明他们真的相信和感谢神,并作为祂所指定的得救之路。

这里清楚提到,就连作为条件的“信心”也是神所赐的(弗二8-9),而这信心(连同赐给信徒的所有救赎益处)唯独是靠着基督的功劳为我们赚取的。

如同《海德堡要理问答》(HCQ.19)和《比利时信条》(BC Article17)一样,《西敏信条》与《西敏大要理问答》也教导恩典之约始于创世记三章15节的最初福音,并贯穿整个救赎历史直到最终成全之时(参WCF7.5-6WLC33-34)。恩典之约在不同时期有不同的执行,方式,但其本质在亚当堕落后的各时期都一样,这是因为此约只有一位中保。

此外,改革宗各信条还教导恩典之约是与信徒及他们儿女所立的,因为这是神在旧约圣经和新约圣经里的设计(HCQ.74BC34WCF28.4WLC166)。有关恩典之约在历史中的执行,我们必须知道,有形的圣约团体(或教会)的成员不只限于选民。在最终成全之前,恩典之约里既包括雅各,也包括以扫;换句话说,既包括真心相信神的应许的人,也包括那些拒绝这应许的人。不过,信徒的儿女是包含在这有形的圣约团体里,并且有别于非信徒的儿女。我们在第五章讨论亚伯拉罕之约时,会再进一步说明这点。


为何这项教义对基督徒生活很重要?

恩典之约对基督徒生活很重要的原因有以下几点。首先,这教义表明我们不再处于行为之约底下,也因此不再基于遵守律法来维系跟神的关系。在恩典之约里,神应许要基于祂儿子(第二位亚当)的义而接纳我们为义。换句话说,神的恩典之约使我们专注于唯独因信称义的教义。行为之约(律法)是说:“你若遵行,就必因此活着”,恩典之约(福音)则是说:“基督为你做到了。”这使我们一生可以站在坚固的根基上,这根基就是神因着基督的缘故而接纳我们。身为基督徒,我们最大的喜乐和安慰就在于这件事:尽管我们仍在跟罪恶和悖逆奋斗,但神已经接纳我们了!明白神因着基督而爱我们,这种认知会使我们的良心与情绪避免像坐云霄飞车一样大起大落。随着恩典之约强调基督的位格与工作,我们就可得知自己不再处于行为之约底下。

第二,恩典之约教导我们,整本圣经都在讲一件事:神透过耶稣基督而为自己救赎一群百姓。正如克罗尼(Edmund Clowney)所说:“人们可能知道圣经中许多的故事,却不知道这一个圣经故事。”

郝威廉(William How)认为圣经是一个“装满真理宝石的金箱子”,但其实圣经不只是如此;圣经不只是一堆深奥的预言、智慧,诗歌、神谕、史料和建筑蓝图。圣经其实有它的故事情节,它是一个逐渐展开的剧本,随着以色列的历史推进。但这个故事的开端比以色列更早,而且并不像是一本以色列史。圣经几乎不赞美以色列人,反而常常谴责他们。显出神最严厉的审判也是公义的。圣经的故事是神的故事,它是关于神把悖逆之人从愚昧、过犯、败坏中拯救出来的故事。

恩典之约所讲的是神的救赎故事;它贯穿了从创世记到启示录逐渐展开的剧本。此约表明圣经其实是关于一个故事的一本书,而故事舞台就是真实的人类历史。若没看见恩典之约提供的这幅蓝图,我们就很容易以为圣经不过是一本关于道德行为或自我改善的手册。我们会倾向认为圣经是一本道德故事集(类似伊索寓言),或是要靠现今事件来加以解释的一本预言手册。然而,恩典之约藉着强调圣经的重点和主轴,来保护我们不陷入这些圈套。它把圣经整合在一起,并将每个故事放在关于基督的广阔故事背景下,祂是创世记三章15节所应许的那位,在时候满足时来到世上,并且有一天将要再来。当我们阅读神的话语并寻求更认识祂时,必须明白这些对我们极为重要的事。

第三,恩典之约提醒我们,我们在今生是客旅和寄居的人,故事的大结局还没有来到。身为基督徒,我们有时会以为自己的生活应该免于世上的麻烦和混乱。我们容易因为自己是基督徒,就认为自己可以拥有正常生活,不用遭受苦难和失望(或至少比较不受这些事影响)。但事实是,直到最终成全之前,根本没有所谓的“正常生活”。在《绝命终结者》(Tombstone)这部电影里,有一幕场景将这点描述得十分贴切。在影片结尾时,厄普警长(Wyatt Earp)去探望即将过世的好友哈勒第(Doc Holliday),哈勒第说自己曾深爱过一个女人,但她最后成了修女。哈勒第说:“我这辈子什么都不想要,只想要她。”他接着问这位好友:“厄普,你最想要什么?”经历了多年的痛苦与心碎,这时的厄普愤世嫉俗地回答说:“我只想过个正常的生活。”哈勒第有点惊讶地说:“厄普,这世上根本没有正常的生活,有的就只是生活而已。”大部分看过这电影的人,都会对这句话感同身受,因为世上没有免于苦难的正常生活,只有混乱和高低起伏的生活。因着始祖的堕落和悖逆,正常生活早在创世记第三章就消失了。恩典之约所表明的是客旅的生活(许多信靠神应许的“罪人——圣徒”)他们的一连串事迹也说明这点。恩典之约并未应许说,我们在这堕落世界里的生活,会比其他人的生活更顺利,但它的确应许有个荣耀结局在等着我们。恩典之约向我们指出属天的目标,这目标是第一位亚当从未达到的,但第二位亚当已为我们确保了。恩典之约告诉我们,今生是暂时的,那最好的时代尚未来到。