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12：29-31；罗13：9）。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）中——以眼还眼，以命还命（出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33：5），祂的宝座也是以同样的方式建立的（诗99：4）。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8：20~9：17）。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4:23-24；6:1-4）。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8：21），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18：19）。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26：34，29：21）。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26：5）。
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25：55）。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21：2-6；利25：35-46）；以色列人可以在战场上夺取妇女作为掠物和妻子（申20：14）。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4：8）。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8：15）。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51：36；诗79：10；94：1）。
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22：3、15），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23：5-6），祂必将公理传给以色列和外邦（赛42：1）。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8：13）。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3：13-14；19：8），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3：26）。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。
