保羅新觀

『保羅新觀』的檢討:摘要

NEW PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL (NPP): AN EVALUATION (Highlights)

摘自:在美國正統長老會 (OPC, www.opc.org) 第73次總會中提出的『稱義』委員會報告書。第三段,頁34-55。

翻译: 林慈信牧师

Source: Report on Justification presented to the Seventy-Third General Assembly of the  Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

Section III: “The New Perspective on Paul,” pp. 34-55.    (www.opc.org.)

 

I. 保羅新觀的發展 The Development of NPP.

  1. 史坦度

Krister Stendahl.

路德把中世紀『功勞』的問題讀進了保羅書信 …。

Luther read the anachronistic medieval question of merit back into Romans and Galatians…

  1. 桑德斯。『恩約守法主義』。

E.P. Sanders: Covenantal Nomism

猶太人不關注透過遵守律法賺得救恩!一個人在上帝面前的地位,由盟約設立。

人靠上帝的恩典(揀選)進到約裡;藉順服和贖罪方法維持約中的地位。

Jews were NOT interested to earn salvation through obedience to the Law! “One’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant…” One enters into the covenant by God’s grace (or election), and maintains one’s place in the covenant by obedience and atonement.

  1. 賴特:歷史中的使徒保羅

N.T. Wright: The Apostle of History

『解釋保羅的傳統,揑造了一個假的保羅:他們先揑造了假的猶太教,讓保羅反對它。』

“(Interpreters) manufactured a false Paul by manufacturing a false Judaism for him to oppose.”不要用那些薄弱的,疲倦的,過時的,路德宗爭辯的範疇來理解保羅。

Categories to understand Paul with = NOT the thin, tired, anachronistic, Lutheran categories.

  1. 鄧雅各

James Dunn

  1. 小結

Summary

必須從保羅的歷史處境從新解讀他。Read Paul in light of historical context.

 

II. 保羅新觀的前提:《聖經》論

Prolegomena of NPP (Presuppositions)

  1. 《聖經》的默示

Inspiration of Scripture

要把《新約聖經》當作歷史現象來探討。用歷史鑒别學(historical criticism)的方法。

Explore, seek to understand NT Scriptures as a historical phenomenon.

批判:《新約聖經》是否僅是一份歷史文件?

Critique: Can the NT be explored merely as a historical phenomenon?

一個絕對基本的前提:聖靈默示《新約聖經》的作者!

An absolutely fundamental presupposition is the inspiration of the NT by the Holy Spirit.

賴特對聖靈的工作一字不提。避免正視上帝的默示。

Wright: Not a word about the work of the Holy Spirit. Dodges the issue of inspiration.

 

  1. 《聖經》的權威

Authority of Scripture

[1]賴特在解釋保羅時,過份尊重(訴諸)第一世紀猶太教的權威。

批判:保羅僅引用《舊約聖經》!而從不訴諸第二聖殿時期猶太教(文獻)!

Wright gave too much interpretive weight to 1st century Judaism.

CRITIQUE: Paul never appeals to Second Temple literature, but the OT exclusively.

[2]解釋『律法的行為』時,僅訴諸一個删減過的保羅書信文獻。

When interpreting “works of the law,” appealed to a truncated Pauline corpus.

 

III. 關鍵性名詞的定義

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS 

  1. 『義』

RIGHTEOUSNESS

上帝的義 = 上帝對祂約裡應許的忠誠。信徒的義 = 說明一個人是在上帝的約裡。

Righteousness of God = his active faithfulness to his covenant promises.

Believer’s righteousness: to be righteous means one is in covenant with God.

  1. 『律法的行為』(注:羅328中譯: 『靠遵行律法。』)

WORKS OF THE LAW

『律法的行為』是指作為猶太人與外邦人不同的標誌:割禮,食物和守安息日的規條。

“Works of the law” refer to the Jewish boundary markers: circumcision, dietary laws, Sabbath.

  1. 『稱義』

JUSTIFICATION

稱義是上帝在末世定義,誰是他的子民。不是救贖論,乃是教會論。

Justification “was God’s eschatological definition of who was a member of his people.

  1. 小結

SUMMARY

 

IV. 保羅新觀的『稱義論』

DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION ACCORDING TO NPP.

  1. 『稱義』與『約』有關

COVENANT 

  1. 『稱義』是法庭用詞

JUSTIFICATION IS LAW-COURT LANGUAGE

在上帝的法庭,他的子民必在世界面前申冤(平反),被證實是『對的』(in the right)。

In God’s law-court, his people will be vindicated before the world and shown to be “right.”

  1. 『稱義』與『末世論』有關

ESCHATOLOGY

『稱義』不是指上帝把自己的義歸算 (imputed) 給信徒。

Justification is not about the imputation of God’s righteousness to the believer.

『稱義』是上帝的約民在世界面前被平反(伸冤 vindication)。

Justification is the vindication of the covenant people of God before the world.

  1. 現今的稱義與未來的稱義

PRESENT AND FUTURE JUSTIFICATION

[1]現今的稱義:上帝的子民在目前所得的伸冤 ,根據信心:忠誠順服耶穌的主權。

Present justification – the vindication that the covenant people possess in the present, which is based on their faith in Jesus: faithful submission to his saving lordship.

[2]最後的,將來的稱義:在最後審判之日,在世界面前具體地被宣告是『對的』。

Final justification – declaration of being “in the right” before the world on the day of judgment.

  1. 小結

SUMMARY

 

V. 批判保羅新觀对對一些關鍵性觀念的定義

CRITIQUE OF NPP ON MATTERS OF DEFINITION

  1. 『義』的定義

RIGHTEOUSNESS

『公義』一詞,涵蓋上帝對祂的約民的作為以外的作為。

Righteousness is a term that encompasses God’s activity beyond the covenants with his people.

『義』是否指人是約的成員?新舊約用詞都缺乏證據支持。

Righteousness defined as covenant membership? No lexical evidence to support the claim.

賴氏公開懷疑詞典編者的方法;還說缺乏字典的支持,不成為對他的定義的攔阻。

Wright publicly questions the methodologies of lexicographers; to him, the absence of lexical support for his definition is not an obstacle.

第二聖殿文獻證明,不能支持『義』就是指約成員。

2nd Temple literature doesn’t support claim that “righteousness” = covenant membership.

只要審核幾段經文,就可以看見,賴氏的論點是站不住腳的。

Wright’s argument does not withstand close scrutiny … from a few scriptural texts.

先知書給我們對『義』的定義:『義』是指『(行為)符合某些倫理準則』。

Righteousness defined in the prophets:  adherence or conformity to an ethical standard.

『義』不能只是指上帝的信實,或人對約的忠誠。

Righteousness is not either God’s covenant faithfulness or reciprocating covenant fidelity.

受到保羅新觀影響的『義』的定義,從原文解經來看是缺乏支持的。

The NPP-influenced definition of righteousness is exegetically unsustainable.

  1. 『律法的行為』的定義

WORKS OF THE LAW

聲稱『律法的行為』指割禮,食物規條,守安息日:從原文解經看,是站不住腳的。

“works of the law” = circumcision, food-laws, Sabbath?  Exegetically indefensible.

律法的行為 ,是以色列人試圖藉行為在上帝面前建立自己的義。

The works of the law: Israel sought to establish its own righteousness before God by works.

『律法的行為』一詞,是指遵守摩西律法的行為。

The expression refers to deeds done in obedience to the law of Moses.

在第一世紀猶太教裡,『律法主義』是存在的;這就是保羅駁斥的問題。

Legalism was present in Judaism, and was an issue Paul confronted.

從第二聖殿時期的文獻,不難看見『律法主義』。

Second Temple materials easily demonstrate the presence of legalism.

  1. 『稱義』的定義

JUSTIFICATION

以色列在外邦列國面前伸冤:耶穌,保羅,新約作者是否這樣地理解稱義?

Israel’s vindication before Gentiles.  Did Jesus, Paul, NT authors understand justification this way?

賴特所描述的第一世紀猶太教徒的世界觀,是否那麽劃一?學者質疑。

Scholars doubt the uniform picture of the first-century Jewish worldview as Wright describes it.

賴特的理論—以色列人仍在放逐中,耶穌結束了以色列的放逐 – 經得起考驗嗎?

Can his thesis – Israel still in exile; Jesus brings exile to an end – withstand scrutiny?

我們也質疑:稱義就是在末世時定義,誰是屬約民的人。

Is justification the eschatological definition of who belongs to the covenant people?

若要從『稱義』的教義所訴諸的經文去找出賴特對稱義的理解,則非常牵强。

One has to force Wright’s understanding of justification upon the standard passages of Scripture

to which one might appeal to define justification.

保羅沒有說:信心是一個人是屬於約的標誌。

Paul does not attribute to faith the role of a sign of covenant membership.

一個人屬於新約的標誌不是信心,而是洗禮。

The new covenant boundary marker is not faith, but baptism.

  1. 小結

SUMMARY

 

VI. 批判保羅新觀對『保羅的稱義的教義』的理解。

CRITIQUE OF NPP’S UNDERSTANDING OF PAUL’S DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.

  1. 盟約

COVENANT

賴特怎能輕率地掃除聖約神學?他承認對這題目無知。沒有讀過的東西,怎能不理睬?

How can Wright easily sweep away classic Reformed covenant theology when he has admitted his own ignorance on the subject?  How can one categorically dismiss what he has not read?

保羅是否好像賴特那樣把稱義和約連接起來?

Did Paul couch the doctrine of justification covenantally as Wright argues?

保羅從最廣闊的角度注視上帝如何對待全人類:『行為之約』與『恩典之約』。

Most comprehensively Paul gazes upon the covenant historical realities of God’s dealings with

mankind, not just Israel: the covenants of works and grace.

『保羅說明人類的罪性時,沒有轉到當代的猶太教,而是訴諸《舊約聖經》。』(梅欽)

“It is significant that when, after the conversion Paul seeks testimonies to the universal sinfulness of man, he looks not to contemporary Judaism, but to the Old Testament.”  (Machen)

保羅完全只引用《舊約聖經》,而沒有一處引用第一世紀猶太教的文獻。』(Ellis)

Paul cites the OT exclusively and nowhere cites the literature of first century Judaism. (Ellis)

保羅多次訴諸先前的亞當和第二亞當。保羅視敵人是撒但,罪,和死。

Paul appeals to the first and second Adams … the enemies are Satan, sin, and death.

  1. 法庭用詞

LAW COURT

賴特對『法庭』的理解:『上帝自己被視為法官;作惡的人必至終被審判,受懲罰;上帝忠誠的百姓必被證實為義者。』(賴特,『稱義』,《現代神學詞典》。)

Wright:  in first century Judaism “God himself was the judge; evildoers would finally be judged and punished; God’s faithful people (i.e., Israel, or at least the true Israelites) would be vindicated.” (Wright,  “Justification,” in New Dictionary of Theology, 359.)

賴特否認義的歸算。Wright rejects the the imputation of righteousness in justification.

 

批判:我們質疑『稱義』是上帝的百姓在世界面前得到伸冤。新約所關注的是在上帝的審判台前得到稱義。人若被稱義,則與上帝和好。

第一世紀的猶太教徒認為自己仍在被擄中,這個觀念是非常值得質疑的,證據不足。

CRITIQUE: We seriously question that justification is vindication of the people of God before the world. The NT’s concern is justification before God.  One who is justified has peace with God. Specious claims that first century Judaism considered itself in exile … lack sufficient evidence.

賴特否認『義的歸算』,這項宣稱也非常值得質疑。

Wright’s rejection of imputation: … one should question this assertion.

『義』不能轉移給别人?保羅被稱義的人『受洪恩又蒙所賜之義』!

保羅所說的:『義』是可以從法庭的一個角落,轉送到另一個角落的。

Wright: righteousness is something that cannot be transferred.

Paul: those justified “receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness”!

Paul: righteousness is something that can be passed across the courtroom!

賴特為他否認『義的歸算』提出解經上的支持:缺乏說服力。

Wright’s exegetical support for his rejection of imputation is less than convincing.

『歸算』不是法庭法官典型的做法。但據此理我們豈不須拒絕贖罪是代受刑罰?哪裡會有法官把自己兒子送去為被告領死?賴特注重法庭模式過於《聖經》。

Imputation is uncharacteristic of the judge in the court.  Should we deny that the atonement is penal-substitutionary, because what judge sends his son to die in the place of the defendant?

哪裡會有法官『自己為義,也稱義』,就是稱那些信基督的人為義?這個審判台與宇宙任

何一個法庭都不同:在這地方,聖父差祂的愛子為那些受公義審判而被定罪的人受死。

In what law court is the judge both “just and justifier” as it concerns sinners who place their faith in Christ?  (God’s) tribunal is unlike any other law court in the cosmos – it is where the Father sends his Son to die in the place of the one who rightly stands condemned.  Wright commits a fundamental error in reversing the roles of archetypal and ectypal theology.

所有地上的法庭,都是天上真法庭的副本。副本是抄本,是類比(analogy)。

All earthly courts are analogous to the one true heavenly court.

  1. 末世論

ESCHATOLOGY

末世論不僅是有關『誰屬上帝的子民』這個定義上的問題;稱義不僅是教會論問題。

Eschatology is not simply about defining who belongs to the people of God, or the church.

若沒有基督贖罪大工的施行,就沒有教會。

There is no church apart from the application of Christ’s saving work.

基督乃是末世時代 (the eschatological age) 的泉源與元首。

Christ is the fountain head of the eschatological age.

末世論與稱義的連接點,乃在基督的復活,人類一切救贖性的經驗都來自與基督的復活聯合。這包括『活在新創造的世代裡 』; 這世代是由基督的復活所展開。

The connection between eschatology and justification is the resurrection of Christ. All soteric

experience derives from solidarity in Christ’s resurrection and involves existence in the new creation age, inaugurated by his resurrection.

基督若仍是死的,撒但和罪就得勝了,『舊的世代』 (the old aeon) 的權勢仍沒有粉碎。

If Christ remains dead, Satan and sin are triumphant; the dominion of the old aeon remains.

稱義是與末世論有關,但不是在末世時定義誰是屬上帝的子民。稱義乃是末世時代的介入 ,是來世權能的澆灌,即聖靈能力的澆灌,這都在基督復活時彰顯了,帶來向罪和死的勝利,保證了上帝子民的稱義。

Justification is eschatological, but it is the in-breaking of the eschatological age, the out-pouring of the power of the age to come, the Holy Spirit, manifest in the resurrection of Christ, bringing about victory over sin and death, ensuring the justification of the people of God.

  1. 現今與未來的稱義

PRESENT AND FUTURE JUSTIFICATION

賴特的觀點與昆蘭群體對《哈巴谷書》2:4的解釋比較靠近,離保羅的理解比較遠。

Wright’s view has more in common with the Qumran community on Hab 2:4 than Paul.

《聖經》沒有提到兩次的稱義。沒有第二次的稱義是明顯的。

The absence of a second justification is evident.

只有一次的稱義,它乃是根據基督的大工。

There is one justification and it is grounded upon the finished work of Christ.

賴特的觀點比較像羅馬天主教的觀點。

Regarding future justification, Wright’s view has more in common with the Roman Catholic view.

  1. 小結

SUMMARY

 

VII. 結論:一些最後的觀察

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

下列七點不符合《聖經》,和不符合我們的信仰準則:

The following points are out of accord with Scripture and our doctrinal standards:

  1. 『義』是指作約的成員,而不是道德上的正直。

“Righteousness” defined as covenant membership rather than moral equity.

  1. 『律法的行為』是指以色列身為上帝子民的國籍標誌。

“Works of the law” for justification = boundary markers identifying Israel as God’s people.

  1. 稱義的意思,只是『被伸冤』。

Justification only as vindication.

  1. 有兩種稱義;第二種的(將來的)稱義的根據,與人(現今)藉着信心稱義不同。

A second or future justification that has a different ground from one’s justification by faith.

  1. 把稱義的根據從基督完成的大工賺移到聖靈所作成的,信徒的行為。

Shifting the ground of justification from work of Christ to Spirit-produced works of the believer.

  1. 否認上帝把基督主動的順服和被動的順服賺來的『義』歸算給信祂的人。

Denial of the imputation of the active and / or passive obedience of Christ.

  1. 過分訴諸第二聖殿時期的猶太教,因而妥協了《聖經》的自我證實性和自我解釋性。

Compromising the self-authenticating and self-interpreting nature of the Scriptures, by giving the literature of Second Temple Judaism undue interpretive weight.


對『保羅新觀』的檢討

NEW PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL (NPP): AN EVALUATION

 

摘自:在美國正統長老會 (OPC, www.opc.org) 第73次總會中提出的『稱義』委員會報告書。第三段,頁34-55。

Source: Report on Justification presented to the Seventy-Third General Assembly of the  Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Committee on Christian Education, Orthodox Presbyterian Church.  Box P, Willow Grove, PA 19090, USA.  Section III: “The New Perspective on Paul,” pp. 34-55.    (www.opc.org.)

 

I. 保羅新觀的發展

The Development of NPP

作為一個學術運動,保羅新觀包含了不同的觀點。不是一個劃一的群體。

NPP = contains a spectrum (variety) of viewpoints.  NPP is not a unified, homogenous movement.

主要的領袖:Key leaders:  Krister Stendahl, E.P. Sanders, N.T. Wright, James D.G. Dunn.

  1. 史坦度

Krister Stendahl

 『西方文化的良心内省』。

The introspective conscience of the West.

1961年對美国國心理學會的演講。

Lecture to American Psychological Association, 1961.

『使徒保羅和西方文化的良心内省』。《哈佛神學期刊》,1963.

Krister Stendal, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” Harvard Theological Review 56 (1963), 199-215.

二十世紀對保羅的解釋,不幸深受馬丁路德的影響。

20th century interpretation of Paul = unduly influenced by legacy of Martin Luther (1483-1546).

中世紀的敬虔傳統的架構和世界觀,深深影響(基督新教)對保羅對信心與行為,律法與福音,猶太人與外邦人等的解釋。

Paul’s statements on: faith and works; law and Gospel; Jews and Gentiles, were read in the worldview/framework of medieval piety.

律法的規定(割禮,食物等)被看為是一般性的宗教律法主義。

Law, Torah incl. specific requirements on circumcision, food restrictions becomes a general principle of legalism in religion.

史坦度的批判:新約學者從個人與罪的掙扎來看保羅(就是路德在16世紀的角度)。

Stendahl’s critique: NT scholars read Paul in terms of the individual’s struggle with sin (as Luther supposedly read Paul in the 16th century).

路德把這些中世紀『功勞』的問題讀進了保羅書信,沒有從保羅的第一世紀處境來讀他。

Luther read the anachronistic medieval question of merit back into Romans and Galatians, rather than read Paul in his first century context.

  1. 桑德斯。『恩約守法主義』

E.P. Sanders: Covenantal Nomism

對猶太教(第二聖殿時期)的研究。

Studies on Judaism (Second Temple Jewish literature).

桑德斯,《保羅與帕勒斯坦猶太教》。1977。

E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977).

打破一直以來基督教的觀點:猶太教是律法主義的宗教,靠行為稱義的宗教。

Destroys general Christian view that: Judaism is a religion of legalism/works righteousness.

桑德斯:猶太人並不關注如何透過遵守律法而賺得救恩!

猶太教的觀點:一個人在上帝面前的地位,是由盟約設立的。盟約的要求是:人要遵行

誡命,作為對約的正確回應;同時,盟約提供對犯罪的贖罪方法。(頁75)

Sanders: Jews were NOT interested to earn salvation through obedience to the Law!

“The view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression.” (p. 75)

律法的本質,和律法在猶太教裡的功能:

Nature of Law and function of Law within Judaism:

[1]上帝揀選了以色列。

God has chosen Israel.

[2]祂給了以色列律法,這意味着:

He has given Israel the law, which implies:

[3]上帝應許:祂必堅持祂的揀選,

God’s promise to maintain the election and

[4]也意味着:上帝要求以色列要遵守律法。

The requirements to obey.

[5]上帝賞賜順服的,懲罰干犯律法的。

God rewards obedience, punishes transgression.

[6]律法也提供贖罪的方法,結果是:

The Law provides for means of atonement, which results in

[7]盟約的關係被维持(或被恢復)。

Maintenance or re-establishment of the covenant relationship.

[8]所有透過遵行律法,使用贖罪方法,和被上帝憐憫而維持在約裡的人,是屬於那些將來得救的人。(桑德斯,《保羅與帕勒斯坦猶太教》,頁422。)

All those who are maintained in the covenant by obedience, atonement, and God’s mercy belong to the group that will be saved. (Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 422.)

桑德斯:人靠上帝的恩典(揀選)進到約裡;藉順服和贖罪方法維持在約中的地位。

Sanders’ view: One enters into the covenant by God’s grace (or election), and maintains one’s place in the covenant by obedience and making use of the means of atonement.

  1. 賴特:歷史中的使徒保羅

N.T. Wright: The Apostle of History

賴特,『歷史中的保羅和信仰中的使徒』。1978。

N.T. Wright, “The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith,” Tyndale Bulletin 29 (1978).

反對一個路德化的保羅。

Objections to a Lutheran-ized Paul.

路德宗的人士,把稱義的教義從歷史抽離了。

Lutherans have divorced doctrine of justification from history.

『解釋保羅的傳統,揑造了一個虚假的保羅:他們先揑造了一個虚假的猶太教,讓保羅去反對它。』

“…the tradition of Pauline interpretation has manufactured a false Paul by manufacturing a false Judaism for him to oppose.”

路德在反對羅馬天主教會時,揑造了一個十六世紀猶太人的假象。

Luther first manufactured a false portrait of the Jews in the 16th cent. in his battle against Rome.

因為宗教改革和現代的概念,被讀進去保羅的世界裡,因此:我們現有的保羅是想像出來的。這個保羅並不是歷史中的保羅,它比較能讓我們認識那些揑造保羅的人。

Because Reformation/modern ideas were projected into Paul’s world, we have a “Paul” of the imagination, who reveals more about his inventors (Luther, et al) than the Paul of history.

我們該用哪些範疇(概念)來理解保羅?不是那些薄弱的,疲倦的,過時的,路德宗爭辯的範疇,而是歷史中的保羅要給我們的範疇。

Categories with which we should understand Paul

= NOT the thin, tired, anachronistic categories of Lutheran polemic,

= categories given to us by the Paul of history himself.


  1. 鄧雅各

James Dunn

 

提出『保羅新觀』的名詞。Coined the term “New Perspective on Paul.”

『保羅新觀』,1983。《耶穌,保羅,與律法:馬可福音和加拉太書的研究》,1990。

James D.G. Dunn, “The New Perspective on Paul,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library 65 (1983), 95-122; Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville, KY:

Westminster John Knox, 1990).

很多人都從保羅與天主教的鬥爭的角度去解讀保羅。

Paul has been read in terms of Luther’s battle with Roman Catholicism.

現在有了桑德斯對第二聖殿時期猶太教的研究,解經者就能『正確地從保羅的處境去看他,從保羅的時代去聆聽祂,讓保羅作保羅。』

In light of Sanders’ work on Second Temple Judaism, interpreters finally could “see Paul properly within his own context, to hear Paul in terms of his own time, to let Paul be himself.” (“New Perspective.”)

  1. 小結

Summary

『保羅新觀』拒絕正統基督教對保羅的解釋,因他們認為這解釋是建立在路德的解釋上。

NPP rejects orthodox Protestant interpretation of Paul, because that interpretation is than supposedly based on Luther’s.

我們不要從路德的有色眼鏡去讀保羅;反之,我們必須從保羅的歷史處境從新解讀他:就是第二聖殿時期猶太教的文獻。

Rather than read Paul through the lens of Luther, we must instead re-read Paul in light of his historical context – the literature of Second Temple Judaism.

這樣我們就能更好地理解保羅的書信,更好的理解書信裡的教義,特别是『稱義』論。

We then will obtain a better understanding of Paul’s epistles and … a better understanding of the doctrines contained there, esp. the doctrine of justification.


II. 保羅新觀的前提:《聖經》論

Prolegomena of NPP (Presuppositions)

  1. 《聖經》的默示

Inspiration of Scripture

『保羅新觀』的學者們欲從第一世紀的歷史處境去解讀《新約聖經》:即從第二聖殿猶太教時期的文獻,從拉比的文獻,《舊約次經》,約瑟夫,和昆蘭文獻來解讀。

NPP’ers desire to explore NT within its first century historical context: Second Temple Judaism literature, rabbinic sources, the Apocrypha, Josephus, and Qumran.

賴特:『我們必須從歷史的演員的世界觀來看世界,這樣才能了解他們,才能完整地了解這戲劇。』《新約聖經與上帝的子民》,1992。頁118。

N.T. Wright: “We are therefore studying human history, in the recognition that the actors in the drama, and hence in a sense the drama itself, can only fully be understood when we learn to see the world through their eyes.” (N.T. Wright, New Testament and the People of God, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992, 118.)

我們若視《新約聖經》為歷史,則須探討第一世紀中,互相競爭的不同世界觀,包括:

愛賽尼派,他們相信他們在一個秘密的新的孟約中有份;

約瑟夫,他相信以色列的上帝已經站在羅馬帝國一邊了;

耶穌,他講了一個葡萄園的故事;

和早期基督徒,他们講了一個上帝的國的故事,這國藉着耶穌已經展開。

(《新約聖經與上帝的子民》,頁41。)

If we are dealing with the Scriptures as history, then one can begin to understand the NT by entering the world of the first century by exploring the … competing worldviews of the time:

Those of the Essenes, who believed they were participating in a secret new covenant;

Of Josephus, who believed that Israel’s God was going over to the Romans;

Of Jesus, who told a story about a vineyard;

And of the early Christians, who told the story of the kingdom of God and its inauguration through Jesus.  (NT and People of God, p. 41.)

要把《新約聖經》當作歷史現象來探討。用歷史鑒别學 (Historical criticism) 的方法。

(譯者注:就是,任何鑒别學不能證實的(簡言之,任何人的理性不能接受的),都不能通過考驗,都不能被接受是歷史事實。)

Explore, seek to understand NT Scriptures as a historical phenomenon.

我們可以透過這個方法來證實真理,即:訂出一個假設,然後嘗試去證實它。

『歷史的知識是真的知識,一種特定的知識。正如所有真的知識一樣,是透過知識論的螺旋(the spiral of epistemology)而獲得的:人類講故事的群體提出一些詢問,然後作出一些暫定的判斷:哪些故事比較成功地回答詢問?然後再與資料(史料)互動,以考驗這些暫定判斷。』(《新約聖經與上帝的子民》,頁109。)

One can verify the truth and validity of the NT through hypothesis-verification method:

“History, then, is real knowledge, of a particular sort.  It is arrived at, like all knowledge, by the spiral of epistemology, in which the story-telling human community launches enquires, forms provisional judgments about which stories are likely to be successful in answering those enquires, and then tests these judgments by further interaction with data.” (NT and the People of God, p. 109.)

OPC批判:《新約聖經》是否僅是一份歷史文件?

Critique (OPC): Can the NT be explored merely as a historical phenomenon?

是否僅是第一世紀眾多文件的一份而已?

Is NT merely one document among the many writings of the first century?

OPC分析:賴特總比布特曼,鮑爾和施特勞斯的對超自然的偏見好一點。

N.T. Wright is better than Rudolf Bultmann (de-mythologization), F.C. Baur and D.F. Strauss

(bias against the supernatural).

OPC回應:是的,我們必須正視《新約聖經》的歷史性與歷史處境。

但是:一個絕對基本的前提是:必須考慮,聖靈默示《新約聖經》的作者!

(Herman Ridderbos, 《救贖歷史與新約聖經》,1988,頁43。)

OPC RESPONSE:  It is essential that any investigator take seriously the historicity and historical context of the NT.  But: An absolutely fundamental presupposition is: accounting for the inspiration of the NT Scriptures by the Holy Spirit. (Herman Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1988, 43.)

賴特,《新約與上帝的子民》:對聖靈的工作;聖靈默示,和聖靈除去因人的罪而對解釋的效果(扭曲),一字不提。(林前2:14-16;林後2:12-17。)

N.T. Wright, New Testament and People of God: Not a word about the work of the Holy Spirit.

Nothing about the inspiration of the NT, nothing about the Holy Spirit’s work in removing the noetic effects of sin to enable the interpreter to comprehend the Scriptures.  (I Cor. 2:14-16; II Cor. 2:12-17.)

賴特避免正視上帝的默示:

『默示是一個簡稱,用來指一種信念,就是:上帝藉着他的靈引導不同的作者和編者,以致他們所編寫出來的書,就是上帝意旨他的子民要得到的。這不是本書的主題,但是我們應該注意到,古代以色列的經卷裡,和早期的基督徒的信念中,假設了某一種的默示。』

(賴特,《最後的話:超越聖經之爭,邁向對聖經權威的新理解》,2005,頁37。)

Wright dodges the issue of inspiration:

“’Inspiration’ is a shorthand way of talking about the belief that by his Spirit God guided the very different writers and editors, so that the books they produced were the books God intended his people to have.  This is not the subject of the present work, but we should note that some kind of divine inspiration was taken for granted in most of the ancient Israelite scriptures themselves, as well as in the beliefs of the early Christians.”

(N.T. Wright, The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture, NY: Harper San Francisco, 2005, 37.)

批判CRITIQUE:聖靈在賴特的研究中,並不扮演任何角色。

Wrights’ investigation of NT is “Spirit-less.”

《聖經》的權威 Authority of Scripture

賴特的兩個錯誤:

Wright committed two errors:

[1]在解釋保羅時,過份尊重(訴諸)第一世紀猶太教的權威。

但是:保羅僅引用《舊約聖經》!而從不訴諸第二聖殿時期猶太教(文獻)!

(梅欽,《保羅宗教的起源》,1925,頁180。)

Gave too much interpretive weight to 1st century Judaism.

CRITIQUE: The apostle Paul arguably never appeals to the literature of Second Temple Judaism but the OT exclusively.  (J. Gresham Machen, The Origins of Paul’s Religion, 1925 (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2002), p. 180.)

[2]解釋『律法的行為』時,僅訴諸一個删減過的保羅書信文獻。

只訴諸那些沒有(學者)爭議的保羅書信(《羅馬書》,《哥林多前》書,《哥林多後書》,《加拉太書》,《腓立比書》。)

When interpreting “works of the law,” appealed to a truncated Pauline corpus: only the “undisputed” epistles of Paul (Romans, I Cor., II Cor., Gal., Phil.).

鄧雅各解釋『律法的行為』時,不用《以弗所書》和教牧書信(鄧認為是後保羅的)。

James Dunn bases his interpretation of the “works of the law” upon the letters of Paul other than Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles.

OPC批判:但是,《以弗所書》和教牧書信裡有些很重要的,與律法與稱義有關的經文:

弗2:8-9;提後1:9;多3:5!

CRITIQUE: Important passages on the law and justification: Eph. 2:8-9; II Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:5!

所以,當保羅新觀學者說:『保羅寫道:』時,他和我們正統改革宗信徒說:『保羅寫道:』,可能是兩碼事。

“When one associated with the NPP states, ‘Paul writes,’ it does not necessarily mean the same thing as when the historic Reformed tradition makes the same statement.

很多時候,和保羅新觀有關的學者只訴諸保羅一部分的著作,這樣就影響到他們如何描述保羅的稱義論了!

Often one associated with the NPP appeals only to some of Paul’s writings, which affects the resulting portrait of Paul’s doctrine of justification!


III. 關鍵性名詞的定義

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS

  1. 『義』

RIGHTEOUSNESS

《羅馬書》1:17上:上帝的義在此(福音裡)顯明。

Romans 1:17a: “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed.”

基督新教(路德,加爾文)的解釋:這『義』是指上帝所歸算的義。

Historically, Luther, Calvin: Righteousness = imputed righteousness.

Kaesemann:上帝的義是指上帝救贖的大能,上帝對祂所創造的世界的忠誠。

Ernst Kaesemann: Righteousness of God = God’s saving power, God’s active faithfulness to his creation.

因此:上帝的義是指上帝的行動,而不是指上帝賜給信徒的恩典(禮物)。

Thus: God’s righteousness = God’s activity, not God’s gift to believer.

保羅新觀學者:上帝的義 = 上帝對祂約裡的應許的忠誠。『義』就是上帝守約忠誠。

(鄧雅各,《羅馬書1-8章》,1988。頁40-41。)

NPP argues: Righteousness of God denotes his active faithfulness to his covenant promises.

Righteousness is God’s covenant faithfulness.   (James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 38a, Dallas: Word, 1988, pp. 40-41.)

上帝對他的約的忠誠 – 藉着耶穌基督的忠誠 – 對那些以忠誠回應的信徒生效。

(賴特,《聖保羅究竟說了什麽?》,頁109。)

N.T. Wright: “The gospel, [Paul] says, reveals or unveils God’s own righteousness, his covenant faithfulness, which operates through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for the benefit of all those who in turn are faithful.” (Wright, St. Paul, 109.)

信徒的義是指什麽?

What is the believer’s Righteousness?

成為『義人』不是道德上,或法律上的素質;而是一個關係上的事。說明一個人是在上帝的約裡。

To be righteous is not a moral or judicial quality as a relational one; it means that one is in covenant with God.

從第一世紀猶太教看『義』:『義』不是指道德上的完美。是指一些人在約裡,並不是指某些人已經洗脱罪名了。(桑德斯,《保羅與帕勒斯坦猶太教》,頁204-205。)

Sanders: The term “righteousness” in its first century Jewish context did not denote moral perfection.  It was a designation for those who were part of the covenant, and did not denote that a person was totally innocent of wrong-doing.  (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 204-05.)

『義』不是能被上帝接納 (acceptable to God),乃是已被上帝接納 (accepted by God):『義』是指上帝賜給祂的約民的地位。上帝維持(保守)他們在這地位裡。(鄧雅各,《羅馬書1-8章》,頁203。)

Dunn: “to be ‘righteous’ is to be not so much acceptable to God as accepted by God – righteousness as the status which God accorded to his covenant people and in which he sustained them” (Romans 1-8, p. 203).

『亞伯拉罕信上帝,這就算為他的義』《羅馬書》4:3)總的來說,意思就是:上帝看亞伯拉罕的信心,就算是構成他是約裡的成員的(標誌)。

(賴特,《羅馬書》,2002,頁491。)

N.T. Wright: When Paul writes, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:3), “Its overall meaning must then be something like: ‘God counted Abraham’s faith as constituting covenant membership.”

(N.T. Wright, Romans, New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 10, Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon, 2002, p. 491. Cf. N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology.)

小結:保羅新觀的學者們認為:上帝的義就是上帝守約的忠誠(羅1:17),是指一個人是在約裡(羅4:3)。這個人(信徒)應以守約忠誠回應,證明他是約的成員。

Conclusion: NPP scholars’ general view: Righteousness denotes God’s covenant faithfulness (Rom. 1:17), or one’s covenant membership demonstrated by reciprocating faithfulness (Rom. 4:3).

  1. 『律法的行為』

WORKS OF THE LAW

(注:羅3:28中譯:『靠遵行律法。』)

改革宗的理解:『律法的行為』就是猶太人試圖積蓄功勞來賺得稱義。

是律法主義的:用守律法來得救。(中譯:『靠遵行律法。』)

(加爾文,《羅馬書》,頁69-70;賀治,《羅馬書》,頁81。)

Reformed understanding: “works of the law” = Jewish attempt to merit one’s justification.

It refers to something legalistic = using the law to obtain salvation.

(John Calvin, Romans, 69-70; Charles Hodge, Romans, 81.)

桑德斯:猶太教不是一個靠行為得救的宗教!

E.P. Sanders: Judaism is NOT a religion of works righteousness.

我所讀過猶太教文獻,和其他的文獻一樣(有過之而無不及!),沒有自義,自欺欺人,律法主義的痕迹!它們一貫地堅持盟約守法主義(covenantal nomism)的基本架構,上帝的恩典和上帝的吩咐之間,就有了一個健全的關係。猶太人遵守律法上的細節,都是根據他們宗教裡的大原則,因為他們委身於上帝,也是根據子上帝面前的謙卑,因上帝揀選了以色列,至終必救贖以色列。這一切都鼓勵猶太人遵守律法。(《保羅與帕勒斯坦猶太教》,頁427。)

“The frequent Christian charge against Judaism … is not that some individual Jews misunderstood, misapplied and abused their religion, but that Judaism necessarily tends toward petty legalism, self-serving and self-deceiving casuistry, and a mixture of arrogance and a lack of confidence in God.  But the surviving Jewish literature is as free of these characteristics as any I have ever read.  By consistently maintaining the basic framework of covenantal nomism, the gift and demand of God were kept in a healthy relationship with each other, the minutiae of the law were observed on the basis of the large principles of religion and because of commitment to God, and humility before God who chose and would ultimately redeem Israel was encouraged.” (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 427.)

大部分保羅新觀學者:『律法的行為』不是指律法主義(不是指靠遵行律法)。理由:

Most NPP. scholars: “works of the law” do not refer to legalism. Grounds:

[1]一般以色列人的老百姓已經在約裡,不必建立自己得救的憑據。

The common Israelite was already a member of the covenant, and had no need to establish his salvation.

[2]身為約的成員,有上帝恩典的揀選作前提。

Membership in the covenant presupposes God’s gracious election.

那麽,『律法的行為』是指什麽呢?

鄧雅各,賴特:是指作為猶太人的國家標誌(national boundary markers):表明猶太人與外邦人不同的標誌,就是:割禮,食物和守安息日的規條。

What do “works of the law” refer to?

Dunn and Wright: “Works of the law” refer to the Jewish and national boundary markers – which distinguish Jew from Gentile: circumcision, dietary food laws, and Sabbath observance.

鄧雅各引用《聖經》和第二聖殿時期的文獻。

Dunn cites Scripture and Second Temple sources.

利Lev. 11: 1-23

申Deut. 14:3-21

馬卡比一書I Maccabees 1:62-63

但Dan. 1:8-16

托比特書Tobit 1:10-13

朱迪斯書Judith 10:5

朱迪斯書Judith 12:1-20

創Gen. 2:3

申Deut. 5:12-15

出Exod. 20:8-11

賽Isa. 56:6-8

鄧雅各:從路德到布特曼(1884-1976)的解釋都是錯的,他們都把律法的行為與一般的好行為等同。(《新觀》,頁194;諸腳334。鄧引用,批判:布特曼,《新約聖經神學》,卷1,1952,頁554;Herman Ribberbos, 《保羅神學大綱》,1966,頁139。)

Dunn: Traditional Reformational exegesis, begun by Luther and repeated .. by heirs of the Reformation down to Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976), that equates the works of the law with good works in general, is INCORRECT. (“New Perspective,” p. 194, footnote 334.  Dunn cites: Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, vol. 1, London: 1952, 554; Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, 1966; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977, 139.)

注:近年來,鄧雅各改變他的立場。鄧與賴特看法也不完全相同。

NOTE: Dunn has recently modified his position on this point. …

There are differences between Dunn and Wright …

不過:賴特與等在解釋『律法的行為』上,基本上是一致的。

But … Wright is in essential agreement with Dunn’s conclusions concerning the interpretation of the “works of the law.”

(Wright, Climax of the Covenant, 146-47, 161. Wright, What St. Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1997, 120-21.  Wright, Romans, 461, footnote 97.  Dunn, Romans 1-8, 153-60.)

  1. 『稱義』

JUSTIFICATION

賴特:改革宗的稱義觀比較像16,17世紀的教義,不太像從第一世紀看保羅的教導。

Wright: Reformed definition of justification has more in common with 16th and 17th century dogmatics than it does with Paul’s teaching seen within the historical setting in first century Palestine.

在第一世紀,稱義不是論人如何與上帝建立關係。稱義是上帝在末世的定義:這末世是未來的,也是現今的。上帝在末世定義,誰是他的子民。用桑德斯的說法,稱義不是說,『你如何進去』(getting in)或『如何留在裡面』(staying in);而是『你如何辨别誰在裡面』(how you could tell who was in)。不是講救贖論,乃是講教會論。(賴特,《聖保羅究竟說了什麽》,頁119。)

Justification “in the first century was not about how someone might establish a relationship with God. It was about God’s eschatological definition, both future and present, of who was, in fact, a member of his people. In Sanders’ terms, it was not so much about ‘getting in,’ or indeed about ‘staying in,’ as about ‘how you could tell who was in.’  In standard Christian theological language, it wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology, not so much about salvation as about the church.”  (Wright, What St. Paul Really Said, 119.)

在第一世紀,稱義主要是講:上帝如何在外邦眾國中,為以色列伸冤(平反,英文:vindication)。

Justification in the 1st century = primarily about Israel’s vindication before the Gentile nations.

上帝呼召了以色列作祂特别的約民。

God had called Israel to be his special covenant people.

但是,在第一世紀,猶太人卻受羅馬帝國的壓制。

Yet in the 1st century the Jews were under the thumb of Rome.

以色列人雖住在應許之地,卻仍是流放的民族。

Israel was “in exile” even though they were dwelling in the promised land.

上帝什麽時候才為他的子民伸冤(稱義,vindicate/justify)?

When and how, then, would God vindicate (justify) his covenant people?

上帝什麽時候才對外邦人宣告,以色列民是『對的』?

When would he justify them before the nations, indicating that Israel was “in the right”?

當我們為『稱義』作定義時,必須正視這個第一世紀的處境。

When defining justification, one must keep this 1st century context in the forefront.

  1. 小結

SUMMARY

有了這些保羅新觀的定義時,保羅的稱義論必然帶上非常不同的色彩!

Given these NPP-influenced definitions, Paul’s doctrine of justification takes on an entirely different shape from the classical Protestant view set forth in its confessions.

 

IV. 保羅新觀運動裡的『稱義論』

THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION ACCORDING TO THE NPP

OPC 報告書現在集中討論賴特如何建構『保羅的稱義的教義』。

OPC Report now focuses on: NT Wright’s formulations.

保羅新觀的作者們,沒有一位像賴特那樣在改革宗圈子裡帶來重大的影響。

No NPP author is as widely influential in the Reformed community as Wright is.

賴特討論『保羅的稱義的教義』時,指出三個範疇(概念):

When Wright expounds Paul’s doctrine of justification, he identifies 3 categories:

盟約Covenant,

法庭用語Law-court, and

末世論Eschatology.

  1. 『稱義』與『約』有關

COVENANT

賴特:不可從十六,十七世紀聖約神學的角度來解讀保羅的稱義的教義。須從第一世紀猶太教,和上帝給亞伯拉罕的應許來理解。

Wright: One must not read Paul’s teaching on justification in terms of 16th and 17th century covenant theology, but in terms of first century Judaism, and the covenant promises God made to Abraham.

  1. 『稱義』是法庭用詞

JUSTIFICATION IS LAW-COURT LANGUAGE

必須了解,稱義是法庭上的用詞。

One must understand that justification is law-court language.

當上帝把聖約的應許給亞伯拉罕的時候,這是上帝用的方法,來糾正亞當的罪,和平反世界(使世界成為『對的』 putting the world to rights)。

When God made his covenant promise to Abraham, it was God’s way of correcting the sin of Adam and putting the world to rights.

在上帝的法庭,他的子民必在世界面前申冤(平反,vindicate),他的子民必被證實是『對的』(in the right)。

In God’s law-court, his people will be vindicated before the world and shown to be “in the right.”

  1. 『稱義』與『末世論』有關

ESCHATOLOGY

保羅是從末世論來講『稱義』的。

Paul speaks of justification in terms of eschatology.

『稱義』不是什麽抽象的教義系統的一部分,人們藉着它而得救。反之,『稱義』是植根於上帝在耶穌基督裡決定性的作為,藉此上帝透過聖靈搭救宇宙脱離罪,使萬有都服在耶穌的權柄之下。

(賴特,《聖保羅究竟說了什麽?》,頁117-118。)

Justification is not part of some abstract system of doctrine by which people are saved, but is rooted in the decisive action of God in Jesus Christ, whereby he rescues the cosmos from sin through the Holy Spirit, bringing all things under the authority of Jesus.

(Wright, St. Paul, 117-118.)

『稱義』不是指上帝把自己的義歸算(imputed)給信徒。

Justification is not about the imputation of God’s righteousness to the believer.

反之,『稱義』是上帝的約民在世界面前被平反(伸冤 vindication)。

Rather, justification is the vindication of the covenant people of God before the world.

『稱義』是指在不信的世界面前,就是在那些拒絕信靠耶穌基督和壓迫上帝子民的人面前,上帝的子民被證實是『對的』。

Justification is about demonstrating that the people of God are “in the right” before the unbelieving world, those who refused to place their faith in Jesus Christ and oppressed the people of God.

賴特透過總結第一世紀的歷史處境(保羅的稱義的信息是在這個處境中出現的)來證實他對『稱義』的理解:

Wright substantiates his understanding of justification by summarizing the overall first century context in which one finds the NT’s message of justification:

[a]創造主上帝(賴特故意不用大階,用小階 god)呼召以色列民作他的子民;

The creator god [sic] calls Israel to be his people;

[b]目前在被流放中的以色列,將被救贖,恰恰就是因為她是這位上帝(故意不用英文大階)的約民;

Israel, currently in “exile,” is to be redeemed, precisely because she is the covenant people of this god [sic];

[c]目前對約的忠誠是將來被救贖的記號;

Present loyalty to the covenant is the sign of future redemption;

[d]在目前危機的時刻,對約的忠誠收到考驗;

Loyalty to this covenant is being tested at this moment of crisis;

[e]在此時刻,什麽算是『對約忠誠』?什麽算是將來必得救,必被稱義(伸冤),必復活的記號?就是對耶穌基督的信心。

At this moment, what counts as loyalty, and hence what marks out those who will be saved / vindicated / raised to life is [faith in Jesus Christ].

(Wright, People of God, 335.)

賴特:基於這個第一世紀的處境,加拉太教會的問題,不是有誰試圖賺得自己的救贖。

Wright: In the light of this first century context, the problem at Galatia was not that some were trying to merit their salvation.

猶太人,身為上帝的約民,覺得困惑:人如何僅僅憑信心,不憑作為約民的標誌(割禮,守食物的規條,和守安息日),就可以在世界面前被伸冤,被證實是『對的』?

Jews, the covenant people of God, were perplexed as to how one could be justified, or vindicated before the world, on the basis of faith alone, apart from the attendant badges of covenant membership: circumcision, food laws, and the Sabbath.

(Wright, People of God, 241.)

賴特:保羅在《羅馬書》和《加拉太書》的意願,就是要解釋:一個人被宣告為義,即是被宣告是約民,在世界面前被神冤(被證實是『對的』),不是因為他擁有摩西律法(托拉)的標誌,而是因為他有了新的約的標誌,就是:對基督的信心。

Wright: Paul’s desire in Romans and Galatians is to explain that one will be declared righteous, or a member of the covenant and vindicated before the world, not because he possesses the badges of the Torah but because he has the sign of the new covenant, faith in Christ.

鄧:雖不完全在每一項細節上與賴特同意,但是也從第一世紀處境解釋稱義的真義:

Dunn: Though not agreeing with Wright on every point, Dunn explains the nature of justification on this understanding, in its first century historical context:

『上帝稱人為義(接納他們),是藉着信心,不是藉着律法的行為。他不是在責備那些

認為可以靠自己的成就來賺得上帝的恩寵,或以為可以跟據自己所有的好行為,通過上帝最後的審判的人。這項神學上的觀點是正確的,世世代代是重要的。可是,這並不是保羅在這裡所說的。保羅的要點乃是說:上帝接納外邦人,與接納任何人都是一樣的:本乎恩典,藉着信心,就是,透過他們敞開自己,領受上帝願意給他们的(恩典)。換言之,外邦人,身為外邦人,得到上帝的接納:上帝並不要求他們採用猶太人的生活方式,不要求他們轉換他們的國藉或民族。』

“God justifies (accepts) people through faith and not by virtue of works of the law.  He was not hitting at people who thought they could earn God’s goodwill by their achievements, or merit God’s final acquittal on the basis of all their good deeds. That theological insight is true and of lasting importance. But it is not quite what Paul was saying.  Paul’s point was rather that God accepts Gentiles in the same way that he accepts any person – by grace through faith, through their openness to receive what God wishes to give them.  That is to say, God accepts Gentiles as Gentiles, without requiring them to take on a Jewish life-style or change their nationality or race.”

(James D.G. Dunn and Alan M. Suggate, The Justice of God: A fresh look at the old doctrine of justification by faith.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993, 27-28.)

似乎對賴特和鄧雅各來說,稱義並不是救贖論的事,而是教會論的事:稱義不是論到人如何得救,而是論到我們如何辨别一個上帝約民裡的成員。

It appears that: for Wright and Dunn, justification is not about soteriology, but ecclesiology: justification by faith is not about how one gets saved, but rather how one can identify a member of the covenant people of God.

(Wright, Paul, 119.)

  1. 現今的稱義與未來的稱義

PRESENT AND FUTURE JUSTIFICATION

賴特:稱義分兩個層面:

Wright: There is a twofold division of justification:

[1]現今的稱義就是:上帝的子民在目前所得的伸冤 ,這是根據他們對耶穌的信心。信心的意思是:忠誠順服耶穌的救贖主權。現今的稱義,也指出誰在末日會被稱義(伸冤)。

Present justification – the vindication that the covenant people possess in the present, which is based on their faith in Jesus, understood as faithful submission to his saving lordship, and indicates who will be vindicated on the final day.

[2]最後的,將來的稱義:在最後審判之日,在世界面前具體地被宣告是『對的』。

Final or future justification – the actual declaration of being “in the right” before the world on the day of judgment.

(Wright, Paul, 132.)

不過須注意:賴特認為稱義的根據,從現今的稱義走向最後的稱義的進程中會顯明。

One should note, however, that for Wright, the ground for justification becomes clear in the progress from present to final justification.

當賴氏為《羅馬書》8:3-4作注釋時稱道:『這裡講到的是將來的審判,末日的審判,就是保羅在第2:1-16節所描述的那日。那日的審判(稱義)與現今的審判(稱義)是相配的,是來自保羅講到的,聖靈引領的生命(雖然這生命並沒有功勞,並不能賺得末日的稱義)。

Commenting on Rom. 8:3-4, Wright argues that: “What is spoken of here is the future verdict, that of the last day, the “day” Paul describes in 2:1-6.  That verdict will correspond to the present one, and will follow from (though not, in that sense, be earned or merited by), the Spirit-led life of which Paul now speaks.”

(Wright, Romans, 580.)

  1. 小結

SUMMARY

當我們總結賴氏和鄧氏筆下的『保羅的稱義的教義』時,我們必須注意,它是圍繞着教會論的軸心的。

When we summarize Paul’s doctrine of justification as it comes from the pen of Wright, and similarly from Dunn, we must recognize that it rotates upon the axis of ecclesiology.

稱義是宣告:誰在現今屬於上帝的約民,誰是義(對)的,誰是約的成員?就是那些有信心作為標誌,而不是那些有割禮,遵守食物規條,和守安息人等標誌的人。

Justification is the declaration of who belongs to the covenant people of God in the present, those who are righteous or members of the covenant, who are marked out by faith, not works of the law like circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath.

稱義也是在現今預期,將來在末日會發生什麽事。

It is also the anticipation in the present of what will happen in the future at the final day.

現今的稱義是根據信心。信心的意思是:忠誠順服。這就預期將來的稱義;將來的稱義乃是根據聖靈在信徒生命中所產生的行為。

Present justification is on the basis of faith understood as faithful obedience which anticipates future justification on the basis of the Spirit-produced works of the believer.

從這個總結我們也可以看見,對『律法的行為』,『義』,和『稱義』的定義,如何影響對『稱義的教義』的理解。

One can also see from this summary how the definitions of the three terms of works of the law, righteousness, and justification affect one’s understanding of the doctrine of justification.


V. 批判保羅新觀对對一些關鍵性觀念的定義

CRITIQUE OF THE NEW PERSPECTIVES ON PAUL ON MATTERS OF DEFINITION.

 我們對保羅新觀的批判,從批判他們對字詞的定義開始。

In our critique of the NPP, then, we will begin with matters of definition. 

  1. 『義』的定義

RIGHTEOUSNESS

有些經文,從上下文來看『義』的定義,的確富有挑戰性。

There are some contexts where the definition of the term (righteousness) is genuinely a challenging exegetical question, such as:

例如:《羅馬書》1:17上。

The perennial question of the objective vs. the subjective genitive in Roans 1:17a, “for in it the righteousness of God is revealed.”

可是,改革宗群體中確實有大多数解經家對解釋《羅馬書》1:17的共識。

This is not to say, however, that there is not a majority view within the Reformed community regarding the interpretation of Romans 1:17a.

(摘譯:羅1:17上是指上帝歸算給信徒的義,而不是指上帝的屬性或素質。)

(Foonote 157: Historically the majority of historic Protestant and Reformed interpreters on the question of Rom 1:17a have sided with the objective genitive, or more specifically the genitive of source – the righteousness is that which God imputes to the believer rather than a quality or attribute of God.

K.L. Onesti and M.T. Brauch, “Righteousness, Righteousness of God,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, eds. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid.  Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1993.  833.

例如:See, e.g.

加爾文Calvin, Romans, 27-28;

馬丁路德Luther, Romans, 9;

多特會議批準的《聖經》注釋Theodore Haak, ed., The Dutch Annotations Upon the Whole Bible: Ordered and Appointed by the Synod of Dort, 1618 and published by Authority, 1637.  London, 1657, ad loc.

Peter Martyr Vermigli, Commentary on Romans.  London: 1558, ad loc.

John Downame, Annotations Upon All the Books of the Old and New Testaments.  London, 1657, ad loc.

墨蘭頓Philip Melanchthon, Commentary on Romans, trans. Fred Kramer.  St. Louis: Concordia, 1992, 70.

關於《羅馬書》1:17的這種解釋,可以追索到教父:屈梭多模(金嗓子)。

Rom. 1:17a as an objective genitive goes as far back as St. Chrysostom, whom Vermigli … cites.

See John Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans, NPNF, vol. 11, ed. Philip Schaff, 1889.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.  349.

威敏斯特會議:在某些經文,『上帝的義』是指上帝實現祂所有的應許;即是指上帝的信實和憐憫。

At the same time, however, the Westminster divines in their Annotations acknowledge that sometimes the phrase, righteousness of God, “is the accomplishment of all his promises; for so is the righteousness of God sometimes taken for his faithfulness and mercy (Rom. 3:26).”

(摘譯注腳完畢。End of footnote 157.)

是的,認為《羅馬書》1:17上是指上帝的守約信實,不一定影響對『稱義』的理解。

One might be able to interpret Rom. 1:17a as God’s covenant faithfulness without necessarily affecting his understanding of justification.

駁斥:上帝對在盟約以外的人,即對非信徒,是否公義? …

Arguing that Rom. 1:17a refers to God’s covenant faithfulness, however, raises questions regarding God’s righteousness towards those who are outside the covenant.  In other words, is not God righteous towards unbelievers as well as those within the covenant?

Mark Seifrid近年來的研究,挑戰鄧氏與賴氏對『約』和『義』之間的關係的看法 …

There is also the recent research of Mark Seifrid, which challenges the coordination of the ideas of covenant and righteousness as Dunn and Wright attempt to do.

(Mark A. Seifrid, “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures ad Early Judaism,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism (hereafter: JVN), 2 vols., eds. D.A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001, vol. 1, pp. 415-442.)

『公義』一詞,涵蓋上帝對祂的約民的作為以外的作為。

Righteousness is a term that encompasses God’s activity beyond the covenants with his people.

(摘譯:)Seifrid雖然沒有考慮到上帝傳造之約,但是他的論點總的來說提出這個問題:上帝對約以外的人,是否公義?

There are elements of Seifrid’s argument that fail to account for the covenant of works, or creation covenant, though his overall argument raises an important question, namely:

Is God righteous towards those who are outside the covenant?

當我們問,個人的『義』的定義是什麽時,問題就顯的更加尖銳了。

Where the question of the definition of righteousness becomes more acute, however, is the matter of righteousness as it is applied to the individual.

問題:一個人的『義』的定義,是否就是他是約的成員?

Question: Can righteousness be defined as covenant membership?

首先:舊約與新約的用詞都缺乏證據說明,『義』就是『是約的成員』的意思。

First: There is no lexical evidence in either the OT or NT to support the claim that righteousness means “covenant membership.”

略譯:報告書引述了多本希伯來文,希臘文字典,詞典 …

(Footnote 159: Francis Brown, et a., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. Edward Robinson, 1907; Oxford, Clarendon, 1976.  841-842.

  1. Laird Harris, et al., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Chicago: Moody, 1980, 751-755.

 

  1. Johannes Botterweck, et al., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 12, trans. Douglas W. Scott, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003, 239-264.

Walter Bauer, et al, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2nd ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979, 196-197.

H.G. Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, rev. ed., Oxford: Clarendon, 1966, 429.

Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 2, trans. Geoffrey Bromiley, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964, 192-210.)(略譯注腳完畢。End Footnote 159.)

賴氏卻公開說,他懷疑字典(詞典)的編者的方法;還說,缺乏字典的支持,並不成為對他的『義』的定義的攔阻。

Wright, however, has publicly stated that he questions the methodologies of lexicographers and that the absence of lexical support for his definition of righteousness is not an obstacle.

Seifrid 卻從第二聖殿文獻中證明,不能支持『義』就是指約成員。

Seifrid has nevertheless demonstrated from the literature of the Second Temple that the claim that “righteousness” is a term that refers to covenant membership cannot be supported.

例證 e.g.:

《西拉書》Sirach 9:16

《西拉書》Sirach 34:18-19

《西拉書》Sirach 35:5-6

《所羅門詩篇》Psalms of Solomon 2:34-35

《所羅門詩篇》Psalms of Solomon 3:1-12

《所羅門智慧書》Wisdom 2:12-24

《所羅門智慧書》Wisdom 3:1-19

《托比特書》Tobit 4:17

(Seifrid, “Righteousness Language,” 439-440; see also idem, “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language Against Its Hellenistic Background, in JVN vol. 2, p. 65, footnote 90.)

再者,只要審核幾段經文,就可以看見,賴氏的論點是站不住腳的。

Additionally, Wright’s argument does not withstand close scrutiny in a brief reconnaissance of a few scriptural texts.

例如:亞伯拉罕與上帝討價還價,求上帝不要毁滅所多瑪,城内可能有五十個義人?

For example: When Abraham negotiates with God to spare Sodom, he tries to convince God to spare the city on the pretense that there might be fifty righteous men within its confines.

亞伯拉罕對照了義人和惡人。

Abraham contrasts the righteous with the wicked.

《創世記》Gen. 18:24-25.

在救贖歷史的這階段,唯一與上帝立約的,就是亞伯拉罕和他的家人。

因此,住在所多瑪的人,不可能是約的成員。(《彼得後書》2:7)

Yet, at this point in redemptive history the only ones in covenant with God are Abraham and his household (Gen. 15), so the righteous supposedly dwelling in Sodom could not be members of the covenant, as Wright contends (2 Peter 2:7).

正如:上帝用洪水審判時,祂保存了義人挪亞一家,惡人都受審判而滅亡。(《創世記》6:9, 12-13)

Just as in the flood judgment, righteous Noah was spared while the wicked were swept away in judgment. (Gen. 6:9, 12-13)

因此,『義』不可能是指作為約的成員。

Righteousness, therefore, cannot mean covenant membership.

先知書給我們對『義』的扎實定義:

We see righteousness substantively defined, for example, in the prophets:

《以西結書》18:5-9:

“If a man is righteous and does what is just and right – if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman in her time of menstrual impurity, does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, does not lend at interest or take any profit, withholds his hand from injustice, executes true justice between man and man, walks in my statutes, and keeps my rules by acting faithfully – he is righteous; he shall surely live, declares the Lord God.”  (Ezek. 18:5-9).

事實上,這段《以西結書》證明,『義』不是指作為約的成員,而是指『(行為)符合某些倫理準則』。

In fact, this quotation from Ezekiel demonstrates that righteousness is not covenant membership, but rather adherence or conformity to an ethical standard.

這就是《舊約聖經》的背景,幫助我們理解『義』在《新約聖經》的意義。

It is this OT background and understanding of righteousness that informs the use of the term in the NT.

這就是為什麽保羅在《羅馬書》4:3講的,有那麽的震撼性:亞伯拉罕被算為義,是藉着信心,不是靠自己的道德行為。

This is what makes Paul’s statements regarding Abraham so stunning, namely, Abraham is counted righteous by faith, not on the basis of his moral conduct (Rom. 4:3).

因此:雖然『義』往往以『約』為架構,但是不能只是指上帝的信實,或人對約的忠誠。

Hence, righteousness, while often within a covenant context, is not to be identified with either God’s covenant faithfulness or reciprocating covenant fidelity.

受到保羅新觀影響的『義』的定義,從原文解經來看是缺乏支持的。

The NPP-influenced definition of righteousness is exegetically unsustainable.

  1. 『律法的行為』的定義

WORKS OF THE LAW

『律法的行為』的定義:鄧氏等人的定義,太過狭窄了。

When it comes to the definition of the phrase “works of the law,” proponents of the NPP such as Dunn initially defined the term too narrowly.

聲稱『律法的行為』指割禮,食物規條,守安息日:從原文解經看,是站不住腳的。

It is exegetically indefensible to maintain that “works of the law” refers only to circumcision, food-laws, and Sabbath observance.

『律法的行為』誠然包括這三件事,但是并不限於它們。

While “works of the law” certainly includes these three things, they are not restricted to them.

有很明顯的證據:(《加拉太書》3:10;参考《申命記》27:26)。

This conclusion is evident, for example, when Paul explains that,

“All who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them” (Gal. 3:10; cf. Deut. 27:26).

但是,賴氏卻堅持,保羅引用了《申命記》27:26,不是指個人的犯罪,乃是指整個国家的犯罪,流放,和歸回:

『這裡所想到的不是,一個人犯罪時會發生什麽事,而是整個國家不守住整個律法時會發生什麽事。』

Nevertheless, Wright contends that Paul’s quotation of Deut. 27:26 refers not to the sin of individuals but to the pattern of national sin, exile, and restoration:
“What is envisaged is not so much the question of what happens when this or that individual sins, but the question of what happens when the nation as a whole fails to keep the Torah as a whole.”  (Wright, Climax, 146.)

OPC 報告書駁斥:若是如此,保羅為什麽不在他的論據中提出以色列國家性的罪?

Yet, one must ask, if Wright is correct:

Why does Paul not bring forth examples of Israel’s national sin in his argument in Galatians?

反之,保羅提到的是亞伯拉罕和撒拉的罪 ,用血氣的努力守住上帝的應許…。《加拉太書》4:22-31。

Instead, Paul brings forth the example of Abraham and Sarah, who try to lay hold of the promises of the covenant by their sinful efforts (Gal. 4:22-31).

不單如此,《申命記》27:26的上下文告訴我們,以色列民要守所有的誡命(《申命記》26:18;27:1)意思是,《申命記》12-26章的律法的全部。

Moreover, the very context of Deut. 27:26 itself tells us that the people were “to keep all his commandments” (Deut. 26:18, 27:1), meaning the whole body of laws in Deut. 12-26.

(報告書引述三本《申命記》的學術注釋…。)

(See: J.G. McConville, Deuteronomy, AOTC, Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2002, 388, 394.

Duane L. Christiansen, Deuteronomy 21:10 – 34:12, WBC (Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 2002, 653, 655.

Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, JPSTC, Philadelphia: JPS, 1996, 248.)

學者Das說:保羅在《加拉太書》3:10講到律法的行為,又引用《申命記》27:26時,就說明保羅是指律法的整體,包括私下的行為…。

A.Andrew Das notes in this regard that,

“When Paul uses the phrase ‘works of the law’ in Gal. 3:10 and cites Deut. 27:26 (in a composite quote drawing on other statements in Deut. 27-30), the Deuteronomy context indicates that Paul has in mind the law in its entirety, including actions done in private.”

(A.Andrew Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant, Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001, 158.)

保羅新觀運動裡一位主要的學者(鄧雅各),也支持這個結論。

This conclusion has also recently drawn support from one of the chief scholars associated with the NPP.

鄧氏的改觀:他起初是『開荒牛』,宣稱『律法的行為』須從猶太人的民族性自我認識的角度去理解。

Dunn originally pioneered much of the exegetical ground work for the case on the ethnocentric understanding of the phrase, works of the law.

(James D.G. Dunn, “Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Gal. 3:10-14)”, New Testament Studies 31 (1985), 523-542;

Idem, Jesus, Paul and the Law, 215-236, esp. pp. 216-217.)

他的論點受到批判之後,鄧氏承認,『律法的行為』當然是指律法所吩咐的一切事:指『恩約守法主義』的全部。

In response to criticisms of his initial argument, Dunn has conceded that “ ‘the works of the law,’ does, of course, refer to all or whatever the law requires, covenantal nomisim as a whole.”

(Dunn, Theology of Paul, 358.; Cf. Peter T. O’Brien, “Was Paul a Covenantal Nomist?” in JVN vol. 2, 278.)

反之,賴特仍然堅持鄧氏原本的立場。

By contrast, Wright still appears to maintain Dunn’s original position [see Wright, Last Word, 54-55].)

鄧氏雖然承認這一點,但是並沒有改變他的觀點:『律法的行為』主要指國籍標誌。

Nevertheless, despite this concession, he does not appear to have modified his argument that the works of the law primarily deal with boundary marker issues.

報告書回應:

OPC RESPONSE:

律法的行為的意義,遠遠超過國籍標誌,雖然它們的確扮演國籍標誌的角色。(《加拉太書》2:16;《羅馬書》3:27-30。)

The works of the law are far more than national boundary markers, though they do

a boundary marking function (Gal. 2:16; Rom. 3:27-30).

可是,是以色列人試圖藉行為在上帝面前建立自己的義。(《羅馬書》9:30-10:3)

It was Israel, however, that sought to establish its own righteousness before God by works (Rom. 9:30-10:3).

因此,『律法的行為』一詞,是指遵守摩西律法的行為:所包括的不僅是割禮,食物的規條和守安息日,也包括不殺人,不姦淫,不偷盗,不拜偶像等。

The expression, therefore, refers to deeds done in obedience to the law of Moses, which would include not only circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath observance, but also abstaining from murder, adultery, theft, and idolatry.

故此,『律法的行為』指民族性的特質,也指道德(生活)上的特質。

The works of the law, consequently, refer both to ethnic and ethical distinctives.

我們可以從瀏覽《舊約次經》,就是新舊約之間,非聖靈默示的歷史書卷,得到這結論。它們堅持遵守所有律法的重要性,不僅堅持律法的國籍標誌功能。

One can substantiate this conclusion, for example, by a perusal of the Apocrypha, the uninspired

Jewish inter-testamental historical books, and its insistence upon the importance of the entirely of the law and not just its ethnic-boundary functions.

例如:施捨可以救自己脱離黑暗或免受審判(《托比特書》4:6-10),貞潔的太監將得恩寵(《所羅門智慧書》3:14),孝敬父母能為自己贖罪(《西拉書》3:3-4),遵守律法而積蓄財寶能救自己脱離災難(《西拉書》29:11-12),亞伯拉罕以遵守律法來對上帝向他立的約『禮尚往來』(《西拉書》44:20-21)等…

One finds the following examples where almsgiving delivers from darkness (Tobit 4:6-10), or judgment, the sexually pure eunuch is shown favor (Wisdom 3:14), one can atone for sins by honoring one’s parents (Sirach 3:3-4), laying up treasures according to the law can deliver one from disaster (Sirach 29:11-12), and that Abraham’s observance of the law was the quid pro quo for God’s covenant with him (Sirach 44:20-21)…

還有其他的例證,顯示遵守律法遠遠超過國籍標誌的功能。

There are other such examples that demonstrate that observance of the law clearly went beyond boundary marker functions.

《以斯得拉一書》1 Esdras 8:7

《以斯得拉二書》2 Esdras 8:29-34

《托比特書)Tobit 1:3

《西拉書》Sirach 3:14, 30

《西拉書》Sirach 14:20-15:1

《西拉書》Sirach 15:15-17

《西拉書》Sirach 19:20-21

《西拉書》Sirach 28:7

《西拉書》Sirach 29:1, 9, 11-12

《西拉書》Sirach 33:23-24

《馬卡比一書》1 Maccabees 1:43-64

《馬卡比一書》1 Maccabees 2:21

《馬卡比一書》1 Maccabees 13:48

《馬卡比一書》1 Maccabees 14:14-15

《馬卡比二書》2 Maccabees 12:39-45

基於這些證據,我們必須作這樣的結論:保羅說到『律法的行為』時,是指人嘗試靠自己順服律法來造成自己的義,而不是指所謂的國家標誌(boundary marker)。

Given this evidence, one must conclude that when Paul uses the phrase “works of the law,” he has in mind the attempt to create one’s own righteousness by obedience to the law, not its supposed boundary-marker function.

(For further argumentation see Fesko, “Wright on the Works of the Law,” 67-83.)

換言之,不論桑氏,鄧氏,賴氏如何繼續堅持,我們必須說明:在第一世紀猶太教裡,『律法主義』是存在的;這就是保羅好幾次駁斥的問題。

In other words, contrary to the protestations of Sanders, Dunn, Wright, et al., legalism was present in first century Judaism, and was an issue Paul confronted on numerous occasions.

《羅馬書》Rom. 3:20

《加拉太書》Gal. 3:10

《以弗所書》Eph. 2:8-9

《提多書》Titus 3:5

事實上,若審核第二聖殿時期的文獻,就不難看見,關於個人稱義的『律法主義』。

In fact, an examination of certain Second Temple materials will easily demonstrate the presence of legalism as it pertains to one’s justification.

《馬卡比一書》1 Maccabees 2:52

《西拉書》Sirach 44:19-21

《禧年書》Jubilees 16:28

《禧年書》Jubilees 24:10-11

昆蘭文獻4QMMT

『亞伯拉罕在他的主面前所作的一切都是完全的,透過他的義,一生令(主?)喜悦。』(《禧年書》23:10)

The author of Jubilees, for example, states that “Abraham was perfect in all of his actions with the lord and was pleasing through righteousness all the days of his life.” (Jubilees 23:10)

可是,保羅卻說,亞伯拉罕是『不敬畏上帝的』。(《羅馬書》4:5)

Paul, however, says that Abraham was “ungodly” (Rom. 4:5).

同樣的,在昆蘭文獻詮釋《哈巴谷書》2:4『義人必因他的信得生』時,這『是關乎猶大之家所有遵守律法的人,上帝必搭救他們脱離審判之家,因為他們所受的苦難,也因為他們信靠公義的教師』。(1QpHab 8:1-3)

Similarly, one finds in the Qumran interpretation of Hab. 2:4, “the righteous shall live by his faith,” that “this concerns all those who observe the Law in the House of Judah, whom God will deliver from the House of Judgment because of their suffering and because of their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness.”  (1QpHab 8:1-3).

(Translation from Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 1962, New York: Penguin Books, 1997).

這種的解釋與保羅的解釋相反。保羅强調,稱義唯獨藉信心,排除了遵守律法或受苦。(《羅馬書》1:17;3:20-22。)

This interpretation runs contrary to Paul’s, who emphasizes faith alone to the exclusion of the observance of the law or suffering in justification (Rom. 1:17; 3:20-22).

  1. 『稱義』的定義

JUSTIFICATION

保羅新觀的學者們,主要透過以色列在外邦列國面前伸冤(平反)來為《新約聖經》的稱義論作定義。

Those associated with the NPP define the NT teaching on justification primarily in terms of Israel’s vindication before the Gentile nations.

這種對稱義論的理解,其中的一個基礎是對第一世紀猶太教的理解;更重要的是,究竟耶穌,保羅,和《新約聖經》的其他作者是否這樣地理解稱義?

Foundational to this understanding of justification is one’s understanding of first century Judaism and, more importantly, whether Jesus, Paul, and the other authors of the NT understand justification in this matter.

首先:賴特所描述的第一世紀猶太教徒的世界觀是否那麽劃一,受到學者的質疑。

First: there has been a significant question raised regarding the uniform picture of the first-century Jewish worldview as Wright describes it.

(略譯:注腳171,引用了幾處學術著作)

(Footnote 171: Mark A Seifrid, Christ, our Righteousness: Paul’s theology of justification, NSBT (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity, 2000, 21-25.)

Idem, “Unrighteous by Faith: Apostolic Proclamation in Rom. 1:18-3:20,” in JVN vol. 2, pp. 119, n. 33, 123.

Craig A. Evans, “Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel,” in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. Cary C. Newman (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1999, 77-100;

Richard B Hays, “Adam, Israel, Christ:  The Question of Covenant in the Theology of Romans: A response to Leander E. Keck and N.T. Wright,” in Pauline Theology, vol. E, Romans, eds. David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 68-86;

Douglas J. Moo, “Israel and the Law in Rom 5-11: Interaction with the New Perspective,” in JVN 2, 201-205;

Peter T. O’Brien, “Was Paul a Covenantal Nomist,” in JVN 2, 285-86;

Bruce W. Longnecker, The Triumph of Abraham’s God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998, 137-138;

Steven M. Bryan, Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgment and Restoration, Cambridge: CUP, 2002, 12-20;

Seyoon Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002, 136-141.  End of footnote 171.)

(注腳171完畢。)

重點是:賴特的理論—以色列人仍在放逐中,耶穌結束了以色列的放逐 – 經得起考驗嗎?

Specifically, is his thesis of Israel in exile and that Jesus brings it to an end one that can withstand scrutiny?

第一世紀的文獻有證據指出,很多猶太人相信他們已經從被擄(放逐)歸回,這歸回在基督降臨之前早已開始(《巴錄書》4:36;5:5-9)。《朱迪斯書》也論到放逐的結束:

There is evidence from first century literature, for example, that points to the idea that Jews believed that the return from exile was already in progress long before the advent of Christ (Baruch 4:36; 5:5-9).  The book of Judith also speaks about the end of exile:

17  當他們不犯罪得罪他們的上帝他們就興旺,因為那為恨惡罪孽的上帝與他們同在。

18  當他們偏離上帝指定他們的道路時,他們就多次戰敗,被領到異邦之地。他們上帝的聖殿完全毁滅,他們的仇敵佔領了他們的城镇。

19  但現在他們歸回到他們的上帝面前,也從被分散居住之地歸回,也佔領了耶路撒冷,就是他們聖殿的所在地;他們也佔領了山地,因為那裡無人居住。

17  As long as they did not sin against their God they prospered, for the God who hates iniquity is with them.

18  But when they departed from the way he had prescribed for them, they were utterly defeated in many battles and were led away captive to a foreign land.  The temple of their God was razed to the ground, and their towns were occupied by their enemies.

19  But now they have returned to their God, and have come back from the places where they were scattered, and have occupied Jerusalem, where their sanctuary is, and have settled in the hill country, because it was uninhabited

(《朱迪斯書》Judith 5:17-19; 参考同書also see 4:1-5。)

Seifrid根據这這些和其他的證據作這樣的結論:

『因此,保羅時期的猶太人是否好像賴特的理論所要求我們相信的,意識到他們仍然是被放逐的?一點不清楚。』再者,當我們查考保羅講到他信主之前的生活時(《腓立比書》3:4-6),保羅是否覺得他是一個屬於受苦,被放逐的國家的人?他是否等待在外邦列國面前獲得伸冤?這方面,保羅一字不提。

Based upon this and other evidence Seifrid concludes that, “it is not all clear, therefore, that there was a widespread sense among Jews of Paul’s day that Israel remained in exile in the way that this theory demands.” Moreover, when one surveys Paul’s statements about his pre-conversion life (Phil. 3:4-6), he mentions nothing that leads us to believe that he was part of a nation suffering in exile and looking for vindication before the Gentile nations.” (Seifrid, Christ, 23-25.)

我們也必須質疑這概念:稱義就是在末世時定義,誰是屬約民的人。

One must also challenge the notion that justification is the eschatological definition of who belongs to the covenant people.

我們已經看見,賴特認為稱義不是屬救贖論,乃是屬教會論的事;不是論到得救,乃是論到教會。

As we have seen, Wright contends that justification is not so much about soteriology as it is about ecclesiology, not so much about salvation as about the church.

但是,若要從『稱義』的教義所訴諸的經文去找出賴特對稱義的理解,則非常牽强。

Yet, one has to force Wright’s understanding of justification upon the standard passages of Scripture to which one might appeal to define justification.

首先,當保羅說:『亞伯拉罕信上帝,這就算為他的義』(《羅馬書》4:3)時,賴特堅持『義』是指『作為約的成員』。

First, when Paul states that “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:3), Wright argues that righteousness means covenant membership.  (Wright, Romans, 490-91.)

可是我們在上文已經看出,若說『稱義』的定義就是『作為約的成員』,從解經來看是沒有根據的。

As we have seen above, however, defining righteousness as covenant membership is exegetically indefensible.

賴特也堅持,當亞伯拉罕信上帝時,他的信心就是他作為約民的成員的徽章。

Wright similarly contends that when Abraham believed God his faith was a badge of his covenant membership. (Wright, Romans, 492.)

OPC 批判:

OPC Response:

不錯,約的成員肯定對基督有信心,但保羅並沒有說,信心扮演一個人是屬於約的標誌的角色。

While members of the covenant certainly possess faith in Christ, Paul does not attribute to faith the role of a sign of covenant membership.

一個人屬於新約的標誌不是信心(這是賴特所堅持的),而是洗禮;洗禮取代了割禮。

The new covenant boundary marker is not faith, as Wright contends, but baptism, which has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11-12).

(See J.V. Fesko, “N.T. Wright and the Sign of the Covenant,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 25 (2005), 30-39.)

其次,上帝的子民從來就有信心,不論約的記號是隔禮還是洗禮;這是《羅馬書》4:11 和《希伯來書》第11章清楚說明的。

Second, God’s people have always possessed faith, regardless of the covenant signs of circumcision or baptism, as Rom. 4:11 and Heb. 11 make abundantly clear.

因此,賴特試圖從教會論(而不從救贖論)的角度來解釋《羅馬書》4:1-8,意即:『義』就是作約的成員,而不是歸算基督的順服;後者是傳統的解讀。賴特的嘗試,從兩個角度來看,都是失敗的。

Wright’s attempts, therefore, to read Romans 4:1-8 in terms of ecclesiology rather than soteriology, that is, that righteousness is covenant membership rather than the imputed obedience of Christ, as it has traditionally been read, fail on at least these two fronts.

稱義『是上帝的作為,出於祂白白的恩典, 由此而赦免我們一切的罪,並悅納我們為義人,這僅是基督的義歸於我們,且惟獨用信心才能接受的。』(《威敏斯特小要理問答》,33)。

Justification is “an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone” (WSC 33).

我們將在本報告書下文仔細探索『稱義的教義』的本質。

We will explore the nature of the doctrine of justification in greater detail below.

  1. 小結

SUMMARY

我們建立好字詞定義的根基——『義』,『律法的行為』,和『稱義』——就可以繼續前進,批判保羅新觀對『稱義的教義』本身的理解。

With these matters of definition established, namely righteousness, works of the law, and justification, we may move forward to critique the NPP’s understanding of justification proper.

我們開始看到,『稱義的教義』很大的成分(雖然不是全部)在乎對這些關鍵性的名詞的定義的理解。

We are beginning to see that the doctrine of justification largely, though not exclusively, hinges upon the proper definition of these key terms.

『義』若是指約的成員,『律法的行為』若是指上帝子民的老舊的成員徽章,那麽保羅新觀是對的:『稱義』是指誰是上帝的子民的定義。

If righteousness is covenant membership, and works of the law are its old badges of membership for the people of God, then the NPP is correct – justification is about the definition of who belongs to the people of God.

可是,『義』是指『符合一個道德標準』,『律法的行為』是猶太人或外邦人對遵守這標準的努力,意思是:遵守律法;因此:『稱義』是關乎救贖論的。

If, however, righteousness is adherence to a moral standard, and works of the law are the attempt by Jew or Gentile to adhere to that moral standard, that is, the law, by obedience, then justification is about soteriology.

我們已經指出足夠的解經證據,來拒絕保羅新觀對關鍵性名詞的定義;這對他們的『稱義的教義』的可信性,有很大的影響。不過,我們還是需要前進,逐步批判他們對『稱義的教義』的理解。

We have seen enough exegetical evidence to reject the NPP’s understanding of its key definitions, which will have an impact upon the tenability of its doctrine of justification.  Let us, nevertheless, move forward so we may critique its understanding of the doctrine of justification.


VI. 批判保羅新觀對『保羅的稱義的教義』的理解

CRITIQUE OF THE NEW PERSPECTIVES ON PAUL AND ITS UNDERSTANDING OF PAUL’S DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.

當我們為保羅新觀對保羅的稱義的教義作初步的歷史縱覽的時候,我們的焦點是賴特(雖然不排除其他學者)。

In our initial survey of the NPP’s understanding of Paul’s doctrine of justification we focused largely, though not exclusively, upon N.T. Wright.

我們看見,賴特指出三個主要的範疇,是與保羅思想中的『稱義』有關的:約,法庭,和末世論。

Wright, as we saw, identifies three major categories that he sees connected with justification in Paul: covenant, law-court, and eschatology.

我們更看見,賴特把稱義分為現今的和將來的兩個範疇。

Moreover, we also saw that Wright divides justification into present and future categories.

我們先來檢視賴特提出的三個範疇。

We should first survey the three categories that Wright proposes.

  1. 盟約

COVENANT

賴特正確地堅稱,對保羅來說,稱義與『約』有關。可是,他對約内涵的理解是錯的。

Wright is correct to state that justification for Paul is covenantal.  He is incorrect, however, in his understanding of the substance of the covenant.

賴氏堅持,我們不可認為『約』這概念就是十六,十七世紀的聖約神學;『約』乃是第一世紀猶太教的世界觀。

Wright insists that one must understand by the category of covenant not the sixteenth and seventeenth century covenant theology but the worldview of first century Judaism.

(注腳176。我們懷疑,賴特怎能這麽輕率地就掃除經典改革宗的聖約神學,因為他承認,對這題目無知。一個人沒有讀過的東西,怎能絕對不理睬?)

(Footnote 176. See Wright, Climax, p. 17.  One wonders how Wright can so easily sweep away classic Reformed covenant theology when he has admitted his own ignorance on the subject (see Wright, Fresh Perspective, 13).  How can one categorically dismiss what he has not read?)

換言之,以色列在等候上帝來實現他對亞伯拉罕所應許的,約中的應許。上帝透過呼召亞伯拉罕已呼召了以色列,他們要作上帝的約民,統治列國,重新為世界伸張公義(put the world to rights)。 … 我們肯定不要否認,亞伯拉罕在救贖歷史上所扮演的重要角色。保羅稱上帝的子民為『亞伯拉罕的兒子(後裔)』(《加拉太書》3:7)。

In other words, Israel was looking for the fulfillment of the covenant promises that God made to Abraham. God had called Israel through the call to Abraham, they were to be his covenant people, rule the nations, and put the world to rights.  (Wright, People of God, 335.)  One surely does not want to deny the vital role that Abraham plays in redemptive history; Paul calls the people of God “sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7).

但是,我們必須質問:保羅是否好像賴特那樣把稱義和約連接起來?

Yet, one must ask whether Paul, for example, couches the doctrine of justification covenantally as Wright argues.

保羅是否從第一世紀的猶太教處境的所謂『對約的理解』來講述稱義的教義?還是另有一個更廣闊的『約』的處境?

Does Paul articulate the doctrine of justification in the context of the so-called covenantal understanding of first century Judaism, or is there a broader covenantal context?

當然,答案是:保羅從一個更廣的『約』的處境來看稱義。

The answer, of course, is that Paul sees justification in a broader covenantal context.

『約』並不僅與亞伯拉罕設立;保羅也不讓他的讀者們僅僅注視以色列和第一世紀歷史之間的課題。

The covenant does not simply extend to Abraham, nor does Paul fix the reader’s gaze upon issues that center upon Israel’s relationship to first century history.

反之,保羅從最廣闊,涵蓋萬物的角度,讓他的讀者們注視上帝如何對待全人類,而不僅僅如何對待以色列。上帝透過首先的亞當和末後的亞當來處理人類:這就是『約』的歷史現實。威敏斯特會議稱它們為『行為之約』與『恩典之約』。

Rather, most comprehensively Paul fixes the reader’s gaze upon the covenant historical realities of God’s dealings with mankind, not just Israel, in the first and last Adams, dealings that the Westminster divines have called the covenants of works and grace.

保羅的視野比第一世紀以色列廣闊的多:證據在:保羅累積了哪些證據來支持他的論點?

Paul’s outlook is much broader than first century Israel, which is manifest in the evidence that Paul marshals to make his case.

梅欽說:『很重要的是,當保羅歸主之後,要找證據說明全人類的罪性時,他並沒有轉到當代的猶太教,而是訴諸《舊約聖經》。在這一點上,正如在其他事上,保羅的思想並不是建立在後來的發展,而是建立在(舊約)先知書和詩篇的信仰上。』(《保羅的宗教的起源》,頁180。)

  1. Gresham Machen observes, for example, “It is significant that when, after the conversion Paul seeks testimonies to the universal sinfulness of man, he looks not to contemporary Judaism, but to the Old Testament. At this point, as elsewhere, Paulinism is based not upon later developments but upon the religion of the Prophets and the Psalms.” (Machen, Origin of Paul’s Religion, 180.)

我們可以很公允的說:保羅完全只引用《舊約聖經》,而沒有一處引用第一世紀猶太教的文獻。』(Ellis)

It is fair to say that Paul cites the OT exclusively and nowhere cites the literature of first century Judaism.

(Ellis, Paul’s Use of the OT, 10-37; see also Ridderbos, Redemptive History, 17.)

不但如此,我們從保羅多次訴諸先前的亞當和第二亞當(羅5:12-19;林前15:22, 45)可以清楚看出,保羅並沒有視什麽第一世紀的敵人(如:羅馬帝國)為威脅;相反地,敵人乃是撒但,罪,和死(創3:15;参考羅16:20;林前15:54-58)。是第一亞當使世界服在撒但,罪和死的權勢之下;而是第二亞當把百姓從這三重不聖潔聯盟的統治領出,帶進上帝的國度(西1:13-14)。

Additionally, as is evident from Paul’s repeated appeals to the first and second Adams (Rom. 5:12-19; I Cor. 15:22, 45), Paul does not see any first century enemy, such as the Roman Empire, as the great threat but instead the enemies are Satan, sin, and death (Gen. 3:15; cf. Rom. 16:20; I Cor. 15:54-58).  It was the first Adam who brought the world under the dominion of Satan, sin, an death, and it is the second Adam who brings people out from under the dominion of this unholy triumvirate and into the kingdom of God (Col. 1:13-14).

歷代改革宗教會都將從『行為之約』的神學架構去理解這些概念,即:第一亞當在行為上的失敗;恩典之約;和第二亞當忠誠的行為(順服)。(参考:《威敏斯特信仰告白》第七章;《威敏斯特大要理問答》第20, 30-35問;《威敏斯特小要理問答》第12, 20問)。因此我們在表面上與賴特同意說,稱義是與盟約有關。但是從内容來看我們必須不同意賴特的說法,因為《新約聖經》是從人違背了行為之約,和基督透過恩典之約成全了行為之約來教導稱義的。至於保羅是否對第一世紀的議題有興趣,我們可以同意Earle Ellis的看法:『保羅若是他時代的一份子,他的時代就是彌賽亞的時代,是彌賽亞的是自己和復活的時代,是彌賽亞啟示了《聖經》的真義的時代。保羅是基督的門徒,不是迦瑪略的門生。』

Historically, within the Reformed tradition these biblical categories have been placed under the theological constructs of the covenant of works, the failed work of the first Adam, and the covenant of grace, the faithful work of the second Adam (WCF 7; WLC 20, 30-35; WSC 12, 20).  Therefore, we can formally agree with Wright that justification is covenantal.  We must, however, disagree with him materially because the NT sees justification in terms of the broken covenant of works and the work of Christ through the covenant of grace.  We can agree with Earle Ellis on the question of whether Paul was interested in first century questions, “If he was a ‘child of his times,’ they were for Paul the times of the Messiah, His Cross, and resurrection, and His revelation of the true meaning of Scripture.  Paul was a disciple of Chris not of Gamaliel.”

(Ellis, Paul’s Use of the OT, 83.)

  1. 法庭用詞

LAW COURT

賴特解釋稱義時,正確地堅持稱義是法律上,或法庭裡的用語。我們再次在表面上與賴特同意,但是在内涵上必須與賴特分道揚镳。

In Wright’s understanding of justification he correctly argues that justification is forensic or law-court language. Again, we are in formal agreement with such an assessment but must register significant material disagreement.

賴特對『法庭』的理解有兩個重要的要素:(一)審判的『方向』,和(二)審判的本質。例如,賴特認為在第一世紀猶太教,『上帝自己被視為法官;作惡的人(即:外邦人,和叛道的猶太人)必至終被審判,受懲罰;上帝忠誠的百姓(即:以色列人,至少是真以色列人)必被證實為義者。』(賴特,『稱義』,《現代神學詞典》,台北:校園出版社。)

There are two elements that feature in Wright’s understanding of the law-court: (1) its orientation, and (2) its nature. Wright argues, for example, that in first century Judaism “God himself was seen as the judge; evildoers (i.e., the Gentiles, and renegade Jews) would finally be judged and punished; God’s faithful people (i.e., Israel, or at least the true Israelites) would be vindicated.”

(Wright, Saint Paul, 118; also idem, “Justification,” in New Dictionary of Theology, eds. Sinclair Ferguson, David F. Wright, and J.I. Packer (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity, 1988), 359.)

賴特既然以這個角度來理解猶太人的法庭,他也否認稱義裡有義的歸算。他這樣來論說法庭裡的被告者與控方:

With this understanding of the Jewish law-court, Wright also rejects the idea of the imputation of righteousness in justification.  Wright states concerning the defendant and the plaintiff,

根據法庭的專業用語,『義』的意思是,對控方和被告兩者來說,當法庭支持他們的時候,他們有的地位。就是這樣,不多也不少。 … 我們若用法庭的用語,那麽,若說法官把自己的義歸算,贈送,或當作遺產留給控方或被告,是完全說不通的。『義』不是一個物件,物質或氣體,可以從法庭一個角落送到另一個角落。

Within the technical language of the law court, ‘righteous’ means, for these two persons, the status they have when the court finds in their favor.  Nothing more, nothing less. …  If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant.  Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. (Wright, Saint Paul, 98.)

這兩項宣稱,就是:(一)關於審判的取向,和(二)否認義的歸算,基本上有違與歷代改革宗對稱義這個層面的理解。

These two assertions concerning the direction of the law court and the rejection of imputation are fundamentally at odds with the historical Reformed understanding of this aspect of justification.

 

OPC的批判:

OPC CRITIQUE:

首先,我們必須質疑『稱義是上帝的百姓在世界面前得到伸冤』這概念。《新約聖經》並沒有把法庭審判的方向面向世界。保羅所關注的是在上帝的審判台前得到稱義:『所以凡有血氣的,沒有一個因行律法能在上帝面前稱義,因為律法本是叫人知罪』(羅3:20;参考加3:11)。根據保羅的教導,人若被稱義,則與上帝和好:『我們既因信稱義,就藉着我們的主耶穌基督得與上帝相和』(羅5:1)。『在世界面前得到伸冤』的根據是:第一世紀的猶太教徒認為自己仍在被擄中,而這個觀念是非常值得質疑的,證據不足,在新約研究學術群體中已有來自各方的多次批判。

First, one must seriously question the idea that justification is about the vindication of the people of God before the world.  The NT does not represent the law court facing the world but rather Paul’s concern is seeking justification before the tribunal of God: “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20; cf. Gal. 3:11). According to Paul the one who has been justified has peace with God: “Therefore, since we have bene justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1). The element of vindication before the world is also based on the specious claims that first century Judaism considered itself in exile, an idea lacking sufficient evidence that has been criticized from multiple corners of the NT guild.

第二,賴特否認『義的歸算』是根據猶太人的法庭的模式,這項宣稱也非常值得質疑。Seifrid這樣解釋:

Second, regarding Wright’s rejection of imputation based on the Jewish law court model, one should again question this assertion. Seifrid explains:

在這一點上,賴特自己的『猶太人法庭』的模式,就帶自己走錯路了。賴氏似乎沒有留意有關經文,就建構他的法庭模式。保羅在《羅馬書》1:17宣告,上帝顯示祂的義時反映了《詩篇》98:1-3,他這樣做是根據《聖經》一直來的說法。《聖經》處處宣稱,以色列期待上帝有一天必設立祂的公義。這『義』在本質上是一項給世人的禮物。賴特的『法庭』的抽象模式同樣地忽視了基督的十字架和復活;根據保羅,基督的死與復活構成他的福音裡所宣告的,稱義的元素;這就是所謂的『法庭』。

At this point Wright is led astray by his model of the ‘Jewish law court,’ which he seems to have created without much attention to the relevant biblical texts.  When Paul echoes Psalm 98:1-3 in his announcement of the revelation of God’s righteousness in Rom. 1:17, he takes up the biblical tradition which expressed Israel’s hope for the establishment of God’s justice.  By its very nature such justice is a gift to the world.  Wright’s abstract model of the ‘court’ likewise overlooks Christ’s cross and resurrection which, according to Paul, constitutes the justifying element – the ‘law-court’ so to speak – announced in his gospel.

(Seifrid, “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language,” 66-67.)

根據這思路,賴特若說的對,『義』若是不能轉移給别人,保羅說那些被稱義的人『受洪

恩又蒙所賜之義』(羅5:17;参考:弗2, 8),又是什麽意思?其實保羅所說的與賴特

相反:保羅認為,『義』是可以從法庭的一個角落,轉送到另一個角落的。

Along these lines, if Wright is correct in his assertion that righteousness is something that cannot be transferred, then what does Paul mean when he writes that those who are justified “receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness” (Rom. 5:17; cf. Eph. 2:8)?  Paul, contrary to Wright, thinks that righteousness is something that can be passed across the courtroom.

有人可能會反駁說:賴特不接受義的歸算,不僅根據他抽象的法庭模式,至終是根據他對一些關鍵性經文的理解,例如:《哥林多後書》5:21。

Some might counter that Wright’s rejection of imputation is not solely based upon his abstract model of the law court but ultimately upon his understanding of key biblical texts, such as 2 Cor. 5:21.

OPC回應:

OPC RESPONSE:

 

賴特雖然為他否認『義的歸算』提出解經上的支持,但是缺乏說服力。賴特對『義』這個名詞的定義,在在影響他對《哥林多後書》5:21怪異的解釋。

While Wright has put forth exegetical support for his rejection of imputation, it is less than convincing. Wright’s definition of the term righteousness, for example, colors his rather idiosyncratic exegesis of 2 Cor. 5:21.

(注腳184,引用多本《哥林多後書》學術性注釋。)

(Footnote 184. For more responsible exegesis of 2 Cor. 5:21 see:

C.K. Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC, Peabody: Hendrikson, 1973), 179;

M.D. Hooker, “Interchange in Christ,” Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1971), 349;

Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 455-56, n. 207;

G.K. Beale, “The Old Testament Background of Reconciliation in 2 Cor 5-7 and its Bearing on the Literary Problem of 2 Cor 6:14-7:1,” New Testament Studies 35 (1989), 559-560;

Similarly, Seyoon Kim, “2 Cor 5:11-21 and the Origins of Paul’s Conception of Reconciliation,” Novum Testamentum 39 (1997), 376, 380, 383.)

(注腳184完。)

賴特堅稱,當保羅說『上帝使那無罪(不知罪)的,替我們成為罪,好叫我們在祂裡面成為上帝的義』時(林後5:21),『成為上帝的義』意即『成為上帝的守約忠誠』。

He argues that when Paul writes, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God,” the phrase, “become the righteousness of God,” means “become the covenant faithfulness of God.”

(N.T. Wright, “On Becoming the Righteousness of God: 2 Cor 5:21,” in Pauline Theology, vol. 2, 1 and 2 Corinthians, ed. David M. Hay (Atlanta: SBL, 2002), 200-08.)

賴特對『義』的定義(義就是守約忠誠)若是錯誤(而我們已經證明是錯誤),那麽他對《哥林多後書》5:21的解釋就站不住了。

If Wright’s definition of righteousness as covenant faithfulness is in error, which we have demonstrated above that it is, then his interpretation of 2 Cor 5:21 fails.

(注腳186:改革宗傳統一直以來都從『義的歸算』的角度來理解稱義,這是關鍵性的因素。例如:加爾文,多特會議,《威敏斯特信仰告白》的聖經注釋等。)

(Footnote 186: The Reformed tradition has hinged its understanding of justification upon the doctrine of imputation.  See, e.g., John Calvin, 2 Corinthians and Timothy, Titus & Philemon, CNTC, trans. T.A. Smail, eds. David W. Torrance and T.F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 81-82. In the commentary produced by the Synod of Dort we read: “For him that knew no sin [that is, who was free from all sin, 1 Pet 2:22] has he made sin for us [that is, a sacrifice for sin as Lev 7.2. Or sin by imputing our sins; as he is also said to have been made a curse  Gal 3:13] that we might become righteousness of God [that is, righteousness before God. Or that the righteousness of God might be imputed to us, Rom 4:4-5] in him. [namely, Christ, in respect that we are in him, and his righteousness is imputed unto us, Rom 8:1]”  (Annotations, ad loc.). Likewise, the commentary produced by the Westminster assembly states, “That is, a sacrifice for sin, or he has imputed the sins of the world to Christ (who was most righteous and innocent himself) and has put upon him all the punishment and malediction due to us. That all the faithful may be reputed before God as holy and perfect as righteousness itself, by virtue of Christ’s righteousness, which is given to them by God, and only is able to stand in his judgment. … In Christ, in regard that we are in him, and that his righteousness is imputed to us.  No nostra, nec in nobis Ita Hieronym” (Annotations, ad loc.). )

有關《羅馬書》5:12-19,就是對『義的歸算』最重要的經文,賴特的論點是:『保羅把亞當和基督平衡來看,他强調原始的罪因為某種原因牵連了後來的人類(若持這觀點,並不一定同時對罪的傳遞的方式,支持某一個理論)。』

Concerning Rom. 5:12-19, the locus classicus for the doctrine of imputation, Wright argues that “Paul’s parallel between Adam and Christ, emphasizing the primal sin as somehow involving all subsequent humanity (it is not necessary, to hold this view, to espouse along with it any particular theory of the mode by which sin is then transmitted).”

(Wright, Romans, 526; cf. Cornelius P. Venema, “N.T. Wright on Romans 5:12-21 and Justification,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 16 (2005), 29-81.)

但是我們必須提出一個問題:那麽,保羅若對罪的傳遞的方法並不關注,為什麽要設立亞當與基督的平衡模式?保羅根據什麽來說,當亞當犯罪時,眾人都犯了罪?亞當其人如何服在死的權勢之下,是不難理解的:因他犯了罪。但是死,為什麽傳及全人類呢?保羅清楚的寫道:『因為眾人都犯了罪』(羅5:12)。

Yet, one must ask, why then does Paul set up the parallel between Adam and Christ if he is not interested in the manner of transmission of sin?  How can Paul say that when Adam sinned, all sinned? There is little trouble in understanding how Adam is subject to death: he sinned.  But why does death spread to mankind?  Paul answers quite succinctly, “Because all sinned.”

保羅毫不含糊地宣稱:因為亞當一人的罪,死的權勢臨到全人類。這在12節非常明顯。我們若比較『罪是從一人入了世界』和18節『一次的過犯』和19節『一人的悖逆』,就清楚看到。(参考:約翰慕理,《羅馬人書注釋》。)

Paul with unmistakable clarity asserts that the universal reign of death rests upon the sin of the one man Adam.  This is evident in v. 12 when we compare, “sin came into the world through one man,” and what v. 18 calls, “one trespass,” and v. 19 calls, “one man’s disobedience.”

(John Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 19-20.)

與賴特的解釋相反的是:保羅想到的是亞當原始的罪,是與全人類的罪有别的。正如保羅在《哥林多後書》5:21設立一個平衡模式,他在《羅馬書》第五章也作同樣的平衡:亞當的罪與基督的義的平衡:『與亞當的罪的歸算平衡的,就是基督的義的歸算。或用保羅自己的說法:因為亞當一人悖逆『成為罪人』,與透過基督的義『成為義』平衡。』(慕理,《亞當的罪的歸算》。)

Contra Wright, there is no question that Paul has in mind the primal sin of Adam distinct from the sins of mankind.  Rather, as in 2 Cor 5:21, Paul sets up a parallel, this time between the sin of Adam and the obedience of Christ: “The parallel to the imputation of Adam’s sin is the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.  Or to use Paul’s own terms, being ‘constituted sinners’ through the disobedience of Adam is parallel to being ‘constituted righteous’ through the obedience of Christ.”
(Murray, Imputation, 76.)

因為賴特試圖反對保羅對『歸算』的理解,似乎產生了兩個新的問題。

In Wright’s attempts to reject this understanding of imputation in Paul, he seems to have created two major problems.

首先,賴特若堅持保羅並沒有想到罪是如何傳遞,那麽賴氏不僅否認保羅教導基督的義歸算給信徒們,他也否認保羅教導亞當的罪歸算了給全人類。

First, if Wright argues that Paul does not have the manner of the transmission of sin in view, then Wright does not merely deny that Paul teaches the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer but also that he does not teach the imputation of Adam’s sin to all of mankind.

第二,賴特不接受『歸算』的概念,因為這不符合他的『猶太人法庭』的模式:法官是不會把任何事物傳給或送给控方或被告的。

Second, Wright rejects the idea of imputation because it does not fit the model of the Jewish law court – the judge does not communicate or impart anything to the plaintiff or defendant.

但是,這種理解沒有看到稱義的榮耀,也看不到保羅更廣的救贖論。

Yet, this understanding fails to see the grandeur of justification and more broadly our redemption as taught by Paul.

不錯,我們想到自己的稱義時,的確會想到『法庭』這概念。但是賴特的論點卻越界了。賴特拒絕相信『歸算』,是因為這不是法庭上法官典型的做法。但是,根據這理由,我們豈不是須要拒絕保羅教導的,贖罪是代受刑罰?哪裡會有法官,把自己的兒子送去為被告領死?賴特注重自己的法庭模式,過於注重《聖經》。怎麽說?

Yes, the law court is certainly in view when one considers his doctrine of justification, but Wright’s argumentation proves too much.  Wright objects to imputation on the grounds that such conduct is uncharacteristic of the judge in the law court.  On these grounds we would also have to deny that Paul teaches that the atonement is penal-substitutionary in nature, because what judge ever sends his own son to die in the place of the defendant?  Wright gives his model of the law court greater weight than the actual statements of Scripture.  How so?

哪裡會有一個法庭,不論猶太人的或不是猶太人的,法官『自己為義,也稱義』,就是稱那些信基督的人為義(羅3:26)?不錯,稱義是法庭的觀念,但是這個審判台與宇宙任何一個法庭都不同:在這地方,聖父差祂的愛子為那些受公義審判而被定罪的人受死。賴特竭力要反對保羅的『歸算』觀念,但是他忽略了這些重要的主題,就是:地上的法庭與天上的法庭的不同。因此他誤解了保羅福音的核心意義。不但如此,他把原本(archetype)與副本(ectypal)倒過來處理,這是一個神學方法的基本錯誤。

In what law court, Jewish or not, is the judge both “just and justifier” as it concerns sinners who place their faith in Christ (Rom 3.26)? Yes, justification is a law court concept, but the tribunal is unlike any other law court in the cosmos – it is the place where the Father sends his Son to die in the place of the one who rightly stands condemned. In all of Wright’s efforts to deny imputation in Paul, he seems to miss these important themes, namely the discontinuities between the earthly and heavenly law courts, and so misunderstands the heart of Paul’s gospel. Moreover, he commits a fundamental theological error in reversing the roles of archetypal and ectypal theology.

(注腳190:這是歷代改革宗的神學原則。)

Footnote 190: For the history of this long-standing theological principle in Reformed theology see Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, Prolegomena to Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 225-37; William J. Van Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology: Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in Seventeenth-Century Reformed Thought,” Westminster Theological Journal 64/2 (2002), 319-36.  Calvin, though not in form, uses this concept, see Institutes 1.10.2; see also Michael S. Horton, Lord and Servant: A Covenant Christology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox), 16-18.)

所有地上的法庭,都是天上真法庭的副本。副本是抄本,是類比(analogy),它不能指導我們知道原本的樣方式。副本是反映原本的。

All earthly courts are analogous to the one true heavenly court.  The ectype, the copy or analogy, does not inform the archetype, or pattern, but reflects it.

  1. 末世論

ESCHATOLOGY

那麽,我們要如何回應最後的概念,就是『末世論與稱義』?

What about the last category, namely eschatology and justification?

賴特正確地堅稱,稱義是末世的,因為上帝稱人為義,是實現了祂對亞伯拉罕和祂約民的應許,這是他們長久等待的。賴氏的錯誤乃在:把稱義與『誰在末世屬於上帝約民』這概念連接起來。

Wright has correctly argued that justification is eschatological, in that it is the fulfillment of the long awaited covenant promises to Abraham and the covenant people of God.  Where Wright goes astray, however, is in tying justification to the eschatological definition of who belongs to the covenant people of God. (Wright, “Justification,” 359.)

可是末世論不僅是有關『誰屬上帝的子民』這個定義上的問題;換言之,稱義不僅是教會論的問題。

Eschatology, however, is not simply about defining who belongs to the people of God, or the church, ecclesiology.

若沒有基督贖罪大工的施行,就沒有教會。

There is no church apart from the application of Christ’s saving work.

或說,若沒有末後亞當的工作,就沒有教會論。

Or, there is no ecclesiology apart from the work of the last, or eschatological, Adam.

我們可以從(保羅的)兩個亞當所代表的『救贖歷史的兩個世代架構』(the two-age structure of redemptive history) 清楚看出。

This is evident, for example, in the two-age structure of redemptive history characterized by the two Adams.

當保羅說:『經上也是這樣記着說:首先的人亞當成了有靈的活人;末後的亞當成了叫恩活的靈』(林前15:45),就是講到這一點。

Paul dwells upon this point when he writes, “Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit” (1 Cor 15:45). (Modified ESV.)

霍志恒 (1862-1949) 論到這節經文說:

Concerning this verse Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949) observes:

不過,最重要的是在45節,基督被稱為『末後的亞當』,那裡的『末後』完全要從末世論的意義來理解;因為這位『末後的亞當』是復活的泉源(22-23節),是『叫人活的靈』,是『出於天』,是『屬天的』(47-49節),這些都是指最後天上的境況和屬天的條件(如信徒在復活後所穿上的(身體的)獨特形象等)。

Most significant of all, however, is the designation of Christ as the ‘eschatos Adam’ vs 45, where ‘last’ is entirely steeped in eschatological meaning, for this ‘last Adam’ is the fountain-head of the resurrection, vss. 22, 23, a ‘quickening Spirit,’ ‘of heaven’ and ‘heavenly,’ vss. 47-49, all this referring to the final celestial state and the conditions pertaining thereto, such as the peculiar kind of (bodily) image to be borne by believers after their resurrection.

(Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (1930; Phillispburg: P&R, 1994), 10.)

因此,基督乃是末世時代 (the eschatological age) 的泉源與元首。

Christ, therefore, is the fountain head of the eschatological age.

末世論與稱義的連接點,乃在基督的復活清楚呈現,因為人類一切救贖性的經驗都來自與基督的復活聯合,這包括『活在新創造的世代裡』的經驗(existence in the new creation age);而這世代是由基督的復活所展開。最明顯的一處就在《羅馬書》4:25。保羅說:基督『被交給人,是為我們的過犯;復活,是為叫我們稱義。』信徒的稱義從基督的復活流出,這是一個末世事件,因為基督乃是那偉大的復活豐收的初熟的果子(林前15:20-28;参但12:1-2)。

Where the connection between eschatology and justification clearly emerges is with the resurrection of Christ, in that all soteric experience derives from solidarity in Christ’s resurrection and involves existence in the new creation age, inaugurated by his resurrection.

This is no more evident than when Paul writes that Christ “was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Rom. 4:25).  The believer’s justification flows form Christ’s resurrection, which is an eschatological event, as Christ is the firstfruits of the great resurrection harvest (1 Cor. 15:20-28; cf. Dan. 12:1-2). (Vos, Pauline Eschatology, 151.)

但是對於《羅馬書》4:25,賴特仍要用他的『稱義 — 教會論』强解經文。賴氏寫道:『忠誠的耶穌若藉着復活被顯明是彌賽亞,復活也原則上宣告,所有屬於耶穌的人,就是所有以信心回應上帝在基督裡顯明的信實的人,他們就是上帝向亞伯拉罕所應許,那真正盟約家庭的成員。』(賴氏羅馬書注釋。)

Concerning Rom. 4:25, though, Wright still tries to force his justification-ecclesiology connection upon the text. Wright states, “If faithful Jesus is demonstrated to be Messiah by the resurrection, the resurrection also declares in principle that all those who belong to Jesus, all those who respond in faith to God’s faithfulness revealed in him, are themselves part of the true covenant family promised to Abraham.” (Wright, Romans, 504.)

但是保羅不像賴特那樣作『稱義 — 教會論』的連接。保羅直接地作了『復活 — 救贖論』的連接:『基督若沒有復活,你們的信便是徒然,你們仍在罪裡』(林前15:17)。

Yet, Paul does not make the same connection as Wright.  Paul explicitly makes the resurrection-soteriology connection: “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17).

因此,按照保羅的思路,基督若仍是死的,撒但和罪就得勝了,或更廣義的來看,『舊的世代』(the old aeon)的權勢仍沒有粉碎。

Therefore, to Paul’s way of thinking, as long as Christ remains dead, Satan and sin are triumphant, or, more broadly, the dominion of the old aeon remains unbroken.

因此,稱義是與末世論有關,這點沒錯;但是不想賴特那樣想。稱義不是在末世時定義水是屬上帝的子民;稱義乃是末世時代的介入(the in-breaking of the eschatological age),是來世權能的澆灌(the out-pouring of the power of the age to come),即聖靈能力的澆灌,這都在基督復活時彰顯了,帶來向罪和死的勝利,保證了上帝子民的稱以。基督已經復活了;因此基督的子民不活在他們的罪中,因為聖父上帝已經接納了祂愛子代表祂的子民所獻上的祭。

So, yes, justification is eschatological, but not in the way that Wright explains. It is not an eschatological definition of the people of God but the in-breaking of the eschatological age, the out-pouring of the power of the age to come, the Holy Spirit, manifest in the resurrection of Christ, bringing about the victory over sin and death, ensuring the justification of the people of God.  Christ has been raised and therefore his people are no longer in their sin because God the Father has accepted the sacrifice of his Son on their behalf.

  1. 現今與未來的稱義

PRESENT AND FUTURE JUSTIFICATION

這是我們要探索的最後一個課題:現今的稱義和未來的稱義。我們在上文已看到,賴特的稱義觀其中一個特點就是,他把稱義分為『現今的』和『未來的』兩個範疇。我們再來看賴氏在為《羅馬書》8:3-4作注釋時怎麽說:『這裡說到的是未來的,末日的宣判,就是保羅在2:1-16提到的那日子。這宣判與現今的宣判是相配的,雖然不是由現今的宣判所賺的(現今的宣判沒有為未來的宣判賺得什麽功勞);未來宣判的根據,乃是保羅現在提到的,聖靈所引導的生活。』

There is the last issue that we must explore, namely the question of present and future justification.  As we saw above, one of the features of Wright’s understanding of justification is that he divides it into present and future categories.  Once again, commenting on Rom. 8:3-4, Wright argues: “What is spoken of here is the future verdict, that of the last day, the ‘day’ Paul described in 2:1-16.  That verdict will correspond to the present one, and will follow from (though not, in that sense, be earned or merited by), the Spirit-led life of which Paul now speaks.” (Wright, Romans, 580.)

賴特在另一處寫道:『因信稱義的整個意義就是:它是現在就發生的事(羅3:26),這又是對將來,最後,必要宣告的判決的期待;未來的宣判,是根據現在的生活。』

Elsewhere he writes:  “The whole point about ‘justification by faith’ is that it is something which happens in the present time (Rom. 3:26) as a proper anticipation of the eventual judgment which will be announced, on the basis of the whole life led, in the future (Rom. 2:1-16).” (Wright, Fresh Perspective, 57.)

因此賴特相信,現今的稱義乃是(上帝)因為信徒順復基督為主所作的宣告,而他未來的稱義是在末日所作的宣告,那是根據聖靈引導信徒所活出的生活。

Wright believes, then, that present justification is a declaration in view of one’s obedience submission to Jesus as Lord, whereas his future justification is the declaration on the final day which is based upon the Spirit-led life of the believer.

因此賴特所堅持的是:我們現今稱義的根據是對基督的信心;而我們未來稱義的根據,則是聖靈使信徒所作出的(好)行為。若有人懷疑這是否賴特真正的想法,他自己所說的話可以清楚證明。賴氏論到保羅在最後審判是的盼望的根據是,這樣宣稱:

Wright argues, therefore, that the ground of one’s present justification is faith in Christ whereas the ground of one’s future justification is the believer’s Spirit-produced works.  If anyone is in doubt that this is Wright’s view his own words clearly demonstrate it.  Writing on Paul’s ground of hope at the final judgment, Wright states:

這就是保羅為什麽展望未來時詢問(我們也可能同樣地問):上帝在末日會說什麽?祂在那日拿起的冠冕,祂的喜樂不是耶穌捨命的功勞,乃是祂所種植的教會,就是那些堅持為福音盡忠的信徒們。從起初的信心到末後復活之路(而我們必須記得,復活包涵拯救,從死中被救)乃是聖靈所引導的,聖潔,忠誠,受苦的服事。

This is why, when Paul looks ahead to the future and asks, as well one might, what god [sic] will say on the last day, he holds up as his joy and crown, not the merits and death of Jesus, but the churches he has planted who remain faithful to the gospel.  The path from initial faith to final resurrection (and resurrection we must remind ourselves, constitutes rescue, that is salvation, from death itself) lies through holy and faithful Spirit-led service, including suffering.

(Wright, Fresh Perspective, 148).

賴特的觀點,好像與昆蘭群體對《哈巴谷書》2:4的解釋比較靠近,離保羅的理解比較遠(参考:1QpHab 8:1-3;羅1:17, 3:28)。

Wright’s view seems to have more in common with the Qumran community on Hab 2:4 than Paul (cf. 1 QpHab 8:1-3; Rom 1:17; 3:28).

對於現今的與未來的稱義,鄧雅各也持類似的觀點。

Dunn holds to a similar view regarding present and future justification.

(Dunn, Romans 1-8, 104-05; idem, Theology of Paul, 467, 488.)

OPC的回應:

OPC’S RESPONSE:

《聖經》沒有提到兩次的稱義。譬如:保羅說:『現在我們…靠着祂的血稱義』(羅5:9上)。保羅用了dikaiwqentej這字的aorist 的分詞和『現在』副詞,就指出,稱義是一件已經成就的事。

The Scriptures do not speak of two justifications.  For example, Paul writes that “we have now been justified by his blood” (Rom 5:9a). Paul’s use of an aorist participle dikaiwqentej and the adverb nun indicate that justification is an accomplished reality.

(Thomas Schreiner, Romans, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 262-63.)

保羅從來沒有說過,以後還有第二次的稱義。

Nowhere does Paul state that there is a second justification to follow.

沒有第二次的稱義是明顯的,因為保羅在《羅馬書》5:10接着說:『因為我們作仇敵的時候,且藉着上帝的兒子的死,得與上帝和好;既已和好,就更要因祂的生得救了』。

The absence of a second justification is evident when Paul goes on to state that, “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life” (Rom. 5:10).

Douglas Moo 指出第9-10節的平衡:

Douglas Moo points out the parallel between vv. 9 and 10:

v. 9 v. 10
我們現在藉祂的血稱義

We have now been justified by his blood

因為我們作仇敵的時候,因為上帝兒子的死與上帝和好

If while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,

(更加)

Much more

(更加)我們現在既然與上帝和好

how much More, now that we are reconciled,

我們必因祂從上帝的忿怒得拯救。

Shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God

我們必因祂的生得救。

Shall we be saved by his life

這兩節的平衡清楚顯出,稱義是現今的事實,是上帝向信基督的罪人的宣告。『現在』一詞特别指出,那些罪得赦免的人,在今生持續享有『義』(just)的地位。話說回來,保羅在第9-10節的確提到未來,但他不用『稱義』一詞,而是說『更要…得救』。

This parallel reveals that justification is a present reality pronounced over the sinner who believes in Christ.  The “now” adds the fine distinction of the continuing “just” status of those who are acquitted.  Now in vv. 9-10 there is a future element of which Paul speaks, but he does not use the term “justified” but rather the phrase, “shall we be saved.”

保羅用了未來被動式的動詞,swsqhsomeqa(將被救),顯明我們的救贖,我們的救恩,是有一個未來的層面的,而不是說,有一個未來的,第二次的稱義。

Paul’s use of the future passive verb, swsqhsomeqa, reveals that there is a future aspect of our redemption, or our salvation, not that there is a future or second justification.

(Moo, Romans, 310-11.)

正如Joseph Fitzmeyer指出:『有一個必稱義更大的恩寵,要在將必到來的,末世(末日)的救贖向基督徒顯明。』他接着說:『稱義是在救贖之下,而救贖是已經開始的工程,但要進入最後的完成(consummated),或說,將會有最完滿的表現(10:9, 13; 11:14, 16);但是那最後的完成,是保證必來臨的。』

As Joseph Fitzmeyer observes, “A favor still greater than justification itself will be manifested to the Christian in the eschatological salvation that is to come.”  He goes on to state that, “Justification is subordinated to salvation, and the latter is regarded as something begun but still to be consummated or brought to its full expression (10:9, 13; 11:14, 16); yet that consummation is guaranteed.”

(Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, Romans, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 400.)

我們從《羅馬書》5:9-10清楚看間,只有一次的稱義,它乃是根據基督的大工。歷代改革宗教會都見證這『一次的稱義』,可從改革宗的不同信條看出。

(例如:《比利時信仰告白》,第23行;《海德堡要理問答》,第27, 278, 56, 59, 61問;《瑞士信仰告白》,第15章;《多特信經》,第2章,第3條,第4項否認;《威敏斯特信仰告白》第11章;《威敏斯特小要理問答》第33問;《威敏斯特大要理問答》第69-71問。)

Clearly we see from Rom. 5:9-10 that there is one justification and it is grounded upon the work of Christ.  That there is one justification has been upheld by the historic Reformed witness, which is manifest in the creeds of the Reformed church.

(See, e.g., the Belgic Confession, chapter 23; Heidelberg Catechism 1, 37, 38, 56, 59, 61; Second Helvetic Confession chapter 15;  Canons of Dort, chapter 2, art. 3; rej. 4; WCF 11; WSC 33; WLC 69-71.)

我們教會的信條沒有說有第二次的稱義,而是說在末日的審判,上帝會公開承認我們:

問:在審判之日,義人會承受什麼?

答:在審判之日,義人會,

(1)被提到雲中(帖前4:17);

(2)到基督面前,坐在祂的右邊,當眾被承認,宣告無罪
(太25:33;10:32);

(3)與基督一同審判被棄的天使和世人(林前6:2-3);

(4)被接入天堂(太25:34, 46);

(5)完全、永遠地脫離所有的罪和痛苦(弗5:27;啟14:13);

(6)被無法想像的喜樂充滿(詩16:11);

(7)在身體和靈魂上都達於完全的聖潔和幸福,與無數的聖徒和聖天使在一起
(來12:22, 23)

(8)特別是直接得見父上帝、主耶穌基督和聖靈,得此為樂,直到永遠(約壹3:2;林前13:12;帖前4:17-18)。這就是無形教會的成員,在復活和審判之日,在榮耀裡與基督所享有的完美 的交通。』

(《威敏斯特大要理問答》,第90問;参考:《威敏斯特小要理問答》第38問)。

Our doctrinal standards do not speak of a second justification but rather in terms of an open acknowledgement and acquittal on the day of judgment: “What shall be done to the righteous at the day of judgment?  A. At the day of judgment, the righteous, being caught up to Christ in the clouds, shall be set on his right hand, and there openly acknowledged and acquitted” (WLC 90; emphasis; cf. WSC 38).

John Flavel為《威敏斯特小要理問答》作了注釋(從略)。

Note how John Flavel (c. 1630-91) explains WSC 38 and how justification relates to the final judgment: “How does Christ’s acquittance now, differ from that at judgment?  A.  They differ in respect to publicness; this is secret in the believer’s bosom, and that open before men and angels.”

(John Flavel, An Exposition of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism, in The Works of John Flavel, 6 vols. (1820; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1997), 6.214.)

所以改革宗教會承認,我們將來的救贖會包括上帝在復活和最後審判時的宣告,公開承認我們稱義,與我們現今稱義的隱藏實是有别;這樣說是公允的。但是改革宗的教會並不承認有兩次不同的稱義。

So, it is fair to say that the Reformed church has recognized that our future salvation will include the declaration at the resurrection and final judgment that openly confirms our justification, in distinct from its secret reality in the present.   But the Reformed church does not affirm that there are two separate justifications.

(See John Owen, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, in Works, vol. 5, ed. William Goold (1850-53; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1998), 159-60.)

歷代羅馬天主教會也否認有第二次的稱義,不僅因為是違背《聖經》,也違背天主教會的稱義論:天主教會教導,第一個稱義是藉着信基督,在洗禮時就靠洗禮得到了(conferred in baptism ex opere operato);第二個稱義是根據信徒的成聖。

The Roman church has historically rejected notions of a second justification not only because the idea is unscriptural but in contrast to the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification: Rome teaches that the first justification is by faith in Christ and is conferred in baptism ex opere operato, the second justification is based upon the believer’s sanctification.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liguori: Liguori Publications, 1994), 482, section 1192.)

這種教導從天特會議的決定反映出來:

『他們既然被稱義… ,因為遵守上帝和教會的誡命,因為信心與好行為一同合作,就在他們從基督領受的義上增長,就進一步更加的被稱義了』。

This teaching is reflected in the decrees of the Council of Trent:

“Having, therefore, been thus justified … they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified.”

(Council of Trent, Session 6, chap. 10, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 2 (1931; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 99.)

換言之,第二次的稱義就是宣告,一個人具體是義人,因為他的信心與好行為一同合作。從這個背景,我們可以清楚看出,改革宗的教會為什麽抗拒這個『兩次稱義』的概念。

In other words, the second justification is the declaration that a person is actually righteous, based upon one’s faith cooperating with good works. Against this backdrop we can see why the Reformed church has rejected the idea of two justifications.

基於以上的考慮,我們的結論是,賴特對未來的稱義的理解(即:NPP對未來的稱義的理解)是與《聖經》的稱義論相反的,也有别於歷代改革宗群體的理解。其實,說到未來的稱義,賴特的觀點比較像羅馬天主教的觀點,多於像歷代改革宗的觀點,因為他認為未來稱義的根據,是信徒因為聖靈而做出的好行為。

In view of these considerations, we may conclude that Wright’s NPP understanding of future justification is antithetical to Scripture and at odds with the historic witness of the Reformed community.  In fact, regarding future justification, Wright’s view has more in common with the Roman Catholic view than it does with the historic Reformed view because his view of future justification is based upon the Spirit-produced works of the believer.


  1. 小結

SUMMARY

我們看出,賴特說稱義是與盟約有關,與法律有關,和與末世論有關,這是正確的。雖然使用這些範疇(概念)外表看來是對的,但是從内容看來,他是錯的。稱義是與盟約有關,不是從第一世紀猶太教的意義來看,而是從應驗了第一次福音的應許(創3:15)和成全了行為之約(就是亞當所違背的約)的意義來理解。

We have seen that Wright is correct to say that justification is covenantal, forensic, and eschatological.  Though he is formally correct with the use of these categories, he is materially incorrect.  Justification is covenantal, not in the sense of first century Judaism but in terms of the fulfillment of the first gospel promise (Gen 3:15) and the broken covenant of works.

稱義是與法律有關,但是審判是從上帝的寶座的角度去理解,不是從世界的角度。

Justification is forensic but judgment is oriented toward the throne of God, not the world.

還有,稱義是與末世論有關,不是因為稱義為上帝的子民做了末世的定義,而是因為末世(the eschaton)已經介入世界,因此上帝的子民的救贖已經來到。

And justification is eschatological, not as the ecclesiological definition of the people of God, but rather as the in-breaking of the eschaton with the salvation of God’s people.

最後,《聖經》從來沒有提到第二次的稱義,不論是將來的稱義,或說稱義的根據是信徒因為聖靈而作出的好行為。稱義的根據,唯獨是基督已經完成的大工。

Lastly, the Scriptures neither speak of a second justification in the future nor place the ground of justification in the believer’s Spirit-produced works but in the finished work of Christ alone.


VII. 結論:一些最後的觀察

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

我們的結論和麥葛夫的一樣;『桑得斯和賴特若是對的,那麽馬丁路德就搞錯了。』

In our critique of the NPP, on should come to the same conclusion that Alister McGrath has reached:

“If Sanders or Wright is correct, Martin Luther is wrong.”

(Alister McGrath, “Reality, Symbol and History: Theological Reflections on N.T. Wright’s Portrayl of Jesus,” in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. Carey C. Newman. Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity, 1999. 169.)

我們這份對保羅新觀的縱覽清楚指出,麥葛夫的話是正確的。

The truth of McGrath’s statement has been demonstrated in this survey.

我們雖然可以欣賞保羅新觀的一些層面,但是保羅新觀的一些要素與《聖經》所教導的教義(真理)不合。

While one may appreciate aspects of the NPP, there are certain elements that are incompatible with the system of doctrine contained in the Scriptures.

是的,我們可以說,改革宗的釋經家有時會靠一種對保羅時期猶太教的扭曲的形象,而沒有謹慎分析一手資料,因而欣賞保羅新觀。

One might argue, for example, that Reformed interpreters have sometimes relied upon a caricature of the Judaism of Paul’s day, rather than a careful analysis of primary sources, and in this respect appreciate the NPP.

但是,若說『義』就是作為約的成員;若說保羅所駁斥的『律法的行為』就是民族或國籍的標誌(這些都是桑得斯,鄧雅各,和賴特多多少少堅持的),結果就是將『稱義的教義』置於與傳統完全不同的架構去理解。

To say, however, that righteousness is covenant membership, and that the works of the law Paul opposes for justification are ethnic or national markers, conclusions that Sanders, Dunn, and Wright hold in one form or another, has the effect of locating the doctrine of justification within an entirely different matrix from that in which it has been traditionally understood.

因此,麥葛夫說的對:桑德斯或賴特若是對的,那麽馬丁路德,加爾文,和歷史上改革宗對『稱義的教義』的理解就是錯的。

McGrath is therefore accurate:

If Sanders or Wright is correct, then, Luther, Calvin, and the historic Reformed understanding of the doctrine of justification is incorrect.

這個概括性的結論的意思是:下列七點不符合《聖經》,和不符合我們的信仰準則(《威敏

斯特信仰告白》和大,小要裡問答):

This general conclusion means that the following points are out of accord with Scripture and our doctrinal standards:

  1. 『義』是指作約的成員,而不是道德上的正直或符合一個道德的標準。

“Righteousness” defined as covenant membership rather than moral equity, or adherence to a moral standard.

  1. 『律法的行為』是指以色列身為上帝子民的國籍標誌。

“Works of the law” for justification understood as boundary markers identifying Israel as God’s covenant people.

  1. 稱義的意思,只是『被伸冤』。

Justification only as vindication.

  1. 有兩種稱義;第二種的(將來的)稱義的根據,與人(現今)藉着信心稱義不同。

A second or future justification that has a different ground from one’s justification by faith.

  1. 把稱義的根據從基督完成的大工賺移到聖靈所作成的,信徒的行為。

Shifting the ground of justification from the finished work of Christ to the Spirit-produced works of the believer.

  1. 否認上帝把基督主動的順服和被動的順服賺來的『義』歸算給信祂的人。

Denial of the imputation of the active and / or passive obedience of Christ.

  1. 過分,不正當地尊重(訴諸)第二聖殿時期的猶太教,因而妥協了《聖經》的自我證實性和自我解釋性。
Compromising the self-authenticating and self-interpreting nature of the Scriptures, by giving the literature of Second Temple Judaism undue interpretive weight.