DOWNLOAD (MS-Word document)
The Use of Scripture in Ethics
在倫理學中使用聖經
芬博約翰及芬博保羅著（John
S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg），孔祥烱譯
|
This topic raises two fundamental questions.
First, can Scripture, written at different times and places from our day, be
used at all in contemporary ethics, and if so, how? Second, how is the OT to
be used, if at all, in Christian ethics? |
這個題目引出了兩個基本問題。第一，聖經於不同時間和不同地點寫作，可以應用於今天的倫理嗎？如果可以，要如何應用呢？第二，可以在基督教倫理使用舊約嗎？如果可以，如何使用呢？ |
The Bible and Ethics
|
（A）聖經與倫理學
|
The
Problems
|
（一）問題
|
|
This issue may appear to concern only
non-evangelicals. Typically, they deny that Scripture can be used in ethics, for
they see no single ethical system in Scripture, but rather conflicting
ethical perspectives from the various authors. Moreover, some say we cannot
even be sure about Jesus’ thinking on ethical issues, since we only know
Jesus as presented by the various Gospel writers. Those authors had their own
purposes for what they presented and how they presented it, and they did not
always offer a unified picture of Jesus’ teaching (cf., e.g., Matthew and
Mark on Jesus’ teachings on divorce). |
這個問題似乎只涉及非福音派。他們大多否認聖經可以應用於倫理學，因為他們認為聖經沒有單一的道德系統，而是不同的作者持守不同的道德觀點。此外，有些人說連耶穌對道德問題的思想也不能肯定，因為我們只認識不同福音作者所描述的耶穌；這些作者有自己寫作和如何描述的目的，他們對耶穌的教訓沒有同一的圖畫（例如，比較馬太和馬可記載耶穌對離婚的教訓）。 |
|
Evangelicals often respond that the inspiration
and inerrancy of Scripture guarantee unity in its teachings on every topic,
despite the obvious diversity of perspectives of individual writers. When
properly understood, no contradictions can be found. |
福音派往往回答說，聖經的默示和無誤性保證每一個題目的教導都是一致的，儘管個別作家的觀點有明顯的多樣性。不過，當正確地理解經文時，的確沒有任何矛盾。 |
|
Though evangelicals might think this ends
the matter, it does not. Even granting an evangelical position on Scripture,
can one directly apply every command to modern times? For example, must
someone who believes OT law applies today keep OT dietary laws (Leviticus
11)? Are we required to build a parapet around our roof so no one will fall
off and be killed (Deut 22:8)? As one writer aptly notes, one must
distinguish between biblical ethics and the use of the Bible in ethics. The
Bible presents a perspective on ethics, but that does not mean every biblical
teaching can be applied to modern times without any
modification. The evangelical must decide which rules as stated in Scripture
apply to our own day, and he must know how to decide which apply. The second
task is more difficult, but it is foundational to the first. |
雖然福音派可能會認為這問題已經解決，其實沒有。即使福音派對聖經的立場是對的，問題是：是否每一個命令都可以直接應用在今天呢？例如，相信舊約律法的人在今天是否要遵守舊約飲食法（利11章）呢？我們是否需要在房頂建造欄杆、免得有人跌死（申22:8）呢？正如一位作家恰當地指出，我們必須區別聖經倫理學及在倫理學中應用聖經。聖經提出了對倫理的觀點，但這並不表示每一個聖經的教導都可以不作任何修改而應用於現代。福音派基督徒必須決定哪些聖經規則適用於今天，也必須知道如何決定應用的方法。第二項任務是比較困難，但它是第一項任務的基礎。 |
Hermeneutical
Principles
|
（二）釋經學原則
|
|
Rather than analyze each biblical command
in order to discern which apply to today, we prefer to offer several
principles for determining which commands pertain to our era. Since this is
not a book on hermeneutics, we cannot discuss every principle of
interpretation that applies to this issue, but we want to mention several of
the major ones. These principles must be used in conjunction with one
another. |
我們不會分析如何在今天應用每個聖經命令，我們將提供一些原則，用來確定哪些命令適合我們這個時代。由於這不是一本關於釋經學的書，我們不能討論適用於這個問題的所有原則，但我們要提到幾個主要的原則，這些原則必須互相配合使用。 |
|
First, one must distinguish between
general principles or commands and specific applications of those commands.
“General” and “specific” refer to the nature of the command, not the number
of people the command covers. Is it a broad principle capable of covering
many kinds of instances, or is it a rule covering a very specific type of
occurrence? “Love your neighbor” is a general principle. It does not tell us
how to express that love in a specific situation. It merely demands that
whatever one does must exemplify love. On the other hand, “build a railing on
your roof” commands a specific way to show concern for one’s neighbor in a
particular situation. |
[1] 我們必須區別命令的一般原則和它們的具體應用。「一般」和「具體」並非指該命令所涵蓋的人數，而是指該命令的本質：它是否是一個能夠涵蓋許多種情況的大原則？抑或是一個涵蓋非常特定情況的規則？「愛你的鄰居」是一個普遍原則；但它沒有告訴我們如何在特定的情況表達愛。另一方面，「在你的房頂建造欄杆」的命令，是一個特定的情況下用一個特殊的方式表現對自己的鄰居關心。 |
|
The key point here is that general
principles normally apply to many situations, including those of our own day.
Time and culture do not so qualify them as to make them irrelevant. Specific rules,
on the other hand, often relate to particular circumstances of a culture
different from our own and thus do not directly apply to us. |
這裏的關鍵是：「一般」原則通常適用於許多情況下，包括今天。時間和文化都不會使他們變成過時。另一方面，「具體」的規則往往涉及一種與我們不同的文化中特定的情況，那麼它就不直接適用於我們。 |
|
All of this may be illustrated by two
examples. First, the command to love our neighbor is general enough to apply
directly to today. A demand to build a railing on the roof is a particular
application for a specific culture of the more general command to love one’s
neighbor. We should not take the specific command to mean that we must
have houses with flat roofs and build a railing around them. However, the
specific command rests on an underlying principle that loving one’s neighbor
means taking measures for his protection. That underlying, more general
principle is applicable to our day. A legitimate application of it today
would be to ensure that our friend wears a seat belt while riding in our car
(an application totally irrelevant to Moses’ day). |
我們可以用兩個例子來說明。[a] 愛我們的鄰居的命令是一般性的，適合直接應用於今天。要求在房頂建造欄杆卻為特定的文化，是愛我們鄰居的特定應用。我們不應該將具體命令推廣，認為我們必須有一間平頂的房子，然後在屋頂建造欄杆。但是，具體命令基於一個基本原則，就是愛自己鄰居的意思是盡力去保護他們。因此，背後普遍的原則今天仍然適用；一個在今天合理的應用，就是確保我們的朋友坐我們的汽車時戴上安全帶（這應用在摩西的時候絕不可能）。 |
|
Consider a second illustration. Biblical injunctions
about stealing are general
enough to cover all times. However, Scripture nowhere explicitly outlaws
videotaping a movie on television and charging others to see it. Nonetheless,
doing so surely violates biblical principles, because it transgresses the
general biblical teaching about stealing what rightly belongs to others. A
rule about charging others to see a videotaped movie is irrelevant for
biblical times, but it is a proper specific application today of an
underlying general principle relevant for all times. |
[b] 聖經有關偷竊的禁令是普遍的，可以涵蓋所有時間。然而，聖經並沒有禁止錄影電視播放的電影，然後向其他人收費才讓他們觀看。然而，這樣做肯定違反聖經的原則，因為它違反了普遍聖經教訓，就是偷竊屬於別人的事物。在聖經的時代，禁止錄影後收費的規則是不存在的，但它卻是一個普遍原則在今天合理的特定應用。 |
|
A second
interpretive principle is that one must interpret the OT or NT command in light
of its own social, political, and religious context. Before one can decide if
and how a biblical rule applies to his day, he must first understand it in
its own day. This may lead one to see that the rule was meant for a specific
situation in another day, rather than being a general rule for all times. |
[2] 第二個釋經學原則是，必須根據舊約或新約當時的社會、政治和宗教背景去解釋聖經。一個人要決定聖經規則是否在今天適用及如何應用，他必須先了解聖經在當日的意思。這可能會導致明白該規則是為了在當日一個特定的情況，而不是對所有時間的普遍原則。 |
|
Third,
one must discover, if possible, the reason for the command. Is the rationale
theological or purely cultural? If the reason for a command is a theological
principle that is always true, it is likely the rule will apply to our day.
If the justification appeals to some point of culture peculiar to biblical
times, the rule will not likely apply beyond those times. Though not all
agree, we believe (and will later argue) that Genesis 9 with its teaching
about capital punishment illustrates the point. Genesis 9 demands capital
punishment, because the killer has taken the life of someone made in God’s
image. God demanded that when that happens, the killer must forfeit his life.
Since Scripture teaches that all people are created in God’s image, it seems
clear that capital punishment for murder must always be appropriate. |
[3] 第三個原則是，如果可能的話，必須尋找命令的原因。是神學的原因，抑或是純粹文化的原因？如果命令的原因是一個神學原則，永遠是正確的，那麼規則可能適用於今天。如果命令的理由訴諸於聖經時代文化的一些特點，則規則可能不適用於過後的時代。雖然不是所有人同意，但我們認為創世記第九章關於死刑的教訓可以說明這一點。創世記第九章要求執行死刑，因為殺人者奪取了照着神形象創造的人的生命。神要求：當這種情況發生，殺人者必須放棄他的生命。由於聖經教導我們，所有人都照着神的形象創造，似乎很清楚的，對謀殺用死刑的判處必定是適當的。 |
|
Fourth,
one should decide how modern society relates to OT law altogether. Since we
live during what may be called the NT era, NT principles pertain to today,
but what about OT law, especially Mosaic Law? The question of the relevance
of OT law for our day must be decided before one can decide how biblical
ethics in general relate to our day. To that issue we now turn directly. |
[4] 第四個原則是，要決定如何將舊約律法連繫到現代社會。由於我們生活在所謂「新約時代」，新約的原則適合今天，但舊約律法（特別是摩西律法）又如何？我們必須要決定這個關於舊約律法在今天的應用之後，才可以決定一般聖經倫理如何在今天應用，我們現在要討論這個問題。 |
Old Testament Law and the New Testament Era
|
（B）舊約律法與新約時代
|
Continuity
Positions
|
（一）延續論
|
|
These are views that see OT law continuing into the NT era. Some such
as Greg Bahnsen say all of OT law applies today. Jesus came to fulfill it, not
abolish it; none of it is irrelevant. Bahnsen’s basic hermeneutical principle
for handling OT law is that unless Scripture shows change with respect to OT
law, NT era believers should assume it is still in force. For Bahnsen this
means the moral law still applies, but it can be divided into two parts
(general precepts of morality and specific applications of more general
norms, i.e., case laws). General precepts apply without alteration, whereas
one is not bound to keep case laws as worded (e.g., rules about railing one’s
roof), but is responsible only to obey the underlying principle. |
延續論就是認為舊約律法延續到新約時代。有些人（如巴森Greg Bahnsen）說所有舊約律法適用於今天。耶穌來是成全它，不是廢除它，全部在今天都適用。巴森在處理舊約律法的基本釋經學原則是，除非聖經顯示舊約律法需要改變，否則新約信徒應該假定它仍然有效。對於巴森，道德律法仍然適用，但它可以分為兩部份，就是一般道德戒律，和普遍的規範的具體應用（即個案律法）。一般戒律沒有改變而需要應用，而個案律法不需要照字面遵守（例如，屋頂欄杆的規則），只負責遵守基本原則。 |
|
As to ceremonial law, Bahnsen argues that the ritual ordinances of the
OT typified Christ and his sacrifice. “Christ does not abrogate their meaning
and intention; rather, He makes their old manner of observation irrelevant,
for circumstances have radically changed.” Those circumstances center on the
once-for-all death of Christ. That death does not abolish OT ceremonial law
but only reminds us that God in Christ has fulfilled the requirements of that
law. Hence, observing it as in OT times is outmoded. |
至於禮儀法，巴森認為，舊約的禮儀條例代表基督和祂的犧牲。「基督並沒有廢除其含義和意圖，相反，祂使古老的服從方式過時，因為環境已徹底改變。」環境的改變就是基督一次為所有人的死亡。這死亡沒有取消舊約律法，只不過它提醒我們，神藉基督已經成全律法的要求。因此，像在舊約時代一樣服從律法是已經過時。 |
|
As to civil
law, Bahnsen appeals to the Reformation notion of the three uses of the law.
The second use is to drive sinners to Christ, and the third is to guide
regenerated believers in living the Christian life. The first use of the law
is known as its political use, its use in controlling government and society
to curb the ungodliness of mankind. Bahnsen argues that even in OT times the
political use of the law was relevant to Gentiles, though they did not live
under the Jewish theocracy. As to NT teaching, Bahnsen appeals to Romans 13
as teaching three principles also found in the OT: (1) rulers are not to be
resisted, because God has appointed them; (2) rulers are avengers of divine
wrath; and (3) “so rulers must deter evil by ruling according to God’s law.”
Since both Testaments agree on these points, the political use of the law
applies today. |
至於民事法，巴森呼籲繼承改革時代的概念，就是律法有三個用途。第二個用途是驅使罪人歸向基督，第三個用途是引導重生的信徒有基督化的生活。律法的第一個用途稱為政治用途，就是用它來控制政府和社會，遏制人類的罪行。巴森認為，即使在舊約時代，律法的政治用途仍適合外邦人，雖然他們不生活在猶太人的神權政制下。至於新約教訓，巴森引用羅馬書第13章教導與舊約相同的三個原則：（1）不應違抗統治者，因為神已委任他們，（2）統治者是神聖忿怒的報復者，（3）「因此，統治者必須根據神的法律阻止邪惡。」由於兩約都在這些問題上同意，律法的政治用途仍適用於今天。 |
|
A second
more moderate continuity position holds that while OT law generally applies today,
one must adjust it in view of changes in time. For example, we no longer live
in a theocracy, so civil law does not apply, and the OT sacrificial system no
longer applies today because of Christ’s sacrifice. Nonetheless, there is
basic continuity between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. The former
generally applies today, even if one cannot always predict exactly how some
laws (e.g., laws about fasting and dietary rules) apply. |
第二個較溫和的延續論認為，雖然舊約律法一般適用於今天，我們必須鑑於時代轉變而調整它。例如，我們不再生活在一個神權政制，所以民事法不再適用，舊約祭祀系統亦因基督的犧牲而不再適用於今天。雖然如此，摩西的律法和基督的律法有基本的連續性。前者一般適用於今天，即使不能預測一些律法如何實際應用（如禁食的律法和飲食的規則）。 |
Discontinuity
Positions
|
（二）間斷論
|
|
These
views see more discontinuity than continuity between OT law and the NT era. One
view (a moderate discontinuity view) holds that Christ fulfills OT law.
Because of that fact of salvation history, one cannot assume that all OT law
is operative precisely as it was in the OT era prior to Christ’s coming. The
NT elucidates the implications of Christ’s coming for the believer’s relation
to God’s law. In particular, the NT teaches that believers are bound to the
Law of Christ as set forth in the NT. There is great overlap with OT
injunctions, but of necessity, many OT commands no longer apply today. |
間斷論認為舊約律法和新約時代之間的間斷性超過延續性。一個溫和的間斷論觀點認為基督已經成全舊約律法；由於救恩歷史的事實，我們不能假定所有舊約律法在今天仍然執行，和基督來臨之前的舊約時代完全一樣。新約闡明了基督的來臨如何影響信徒與神律法的關係。新約特別教導信徒被約束在新約所記載基督律法下。新約的律法和舊約禁令當然有很多重覆，但也有許多舊約命令不再適用於今天。 |
|
A final more
radical discontinuity view is that Christ terminates not only Mosaic Law but
all law. This view sounds antinomian but is not, for the Christian is not
left to do whatever he wants. Instead, he is to follow the direct leading of
the Spirit. Practically speaking, this means that the believer usually obeys
biblical precepts, but that is so because the Holy Spirit would not
contradict Scripture’s demands. The key point, however, is that the believer
is not bound to any specific code but rather to the direct leading of the
Holy Spirit. While we know of no proponents of this exact position, it seems
to be a logical extension of the general discontinuity approach. |
最後，一個較激進的間斷論觀點是：基督不單終止了摩西的律法，也終止了所有律法。這種觀點聽起來像是無規範主義，但實際卻不是，因為基督徒並不可作任何他想作的；相反，他直接順服聖靈的帶領。實際的意思是信徒通常服從聖經的戒律，因為聖靈不會違背聖經的需求。但關鍵的是信徒不受任何法例所束縛，而直接由聖靈引導。雖然我們不認識對這觀點的支持者，但這是普遍間斷論邏輯性的延伸。 |
Authors’
Position
|
（三）本書作者的立場
|
|
We hold a
moderate discontinuity position somewhat like the one described. We begin by seeking
a principle that tells us how to relate the two Testaments. Typically, there
have been two different principles theologians and exegetes have suggested.
The first says that unless the NT repeats an OT law, it is no longer in
force. A second approach says that if God has said something once (the OT),
it is still in force (specifically in the NT era) unless the NT either
explicitly or implicitly cancels it. Though it might seem that the first
principle fits better with a discontinuity position and the second better
with a continuity position, in actuality the former principle is the one most
frequently used by continuity proponents, and the latter is more typical of
discontinuity defenders. Of course, continuity and discontinuity defenders
are reading the same two Testaments, so in theory at least, one should get
the same answer about how OT law relates to the NT era, regardless of which
of these two general principles for relating the Testaments one chooses. |
我們持守一個溫和間斷論，跟上面所描述的相似。我們以尋求一個原則作開始，就是將聖經的新舊約聯繫。神學家和解經學家通常建議兩個不同的原則。第一個認為除非新約重複舊約律法，否則它不再有效。第二個原則認為如果神已經說了一次（在舊約），則它仍然有效（特別在新約時代），除非新約明示或暗示取消它。第一個原則好像與間斷論吻合，而第二個原則好像與延續論吻合，但實際上，延續論支持者通常使用第一個原則，而間斷論支持者通常使用第二個原則。當然，延續論與間斷論的支持者都閱讀相同的新舊約聖經，所以至少在理論上，有關舊約律法如何與新約時代相連，不論應用任何普遍原則，每個人都應該得到同樣的答案。 |
|
As to our
position, we believe that if God has said something once, it is still in
force unless he later explicitly or implicitly cancels it. In the NT we see
neither OT ceremonial nor OT civil law in force. Christ’s once-for-all
sacrifice ended the need for the ceremonial law, including the elaborate
sacrificial system of the Mosaic Code, and the book of Hebrews makes that
very clear. One result of the abolishment of Mosaic ceremonial law is that
the NT teaches that Jews and Gentiles are on equal footing spiritually before
God and one another (Eph 2:1-15). |
至於我們的立場，我們相信如果神曾經一次說了什麼，除非神後來明顯地或者隱含地取消它，否則它仍然有效。在新約，我們認為舊約禮儀法和舊約民事法並沒有效力。基督一次為所有人的犧牲結束了禮儀法的需要，包括摩西律法中詳盡的獻祭制度，這在希伯來書說得很清楚。廢除摩西禮儀法的一個結果是，新約教導猶太人和外邦人在神面前和彼此間有屬靈的平等（弗2:1-15）。 |
|
As for
civil law, we believe the NT at the very least implicitly teaches that it no
longer applies. The apostle Paul tells Christians in Rome to submit to those
who have governmental control over them (Rom 13:1ff). Likewise, the apostle
Peter tells his readers who are spread across the Roman Empire that they are
to submit to their rulers (1 Pet 2:13-17). At the time Paul and Peter wrote
these books, the government in authority was the Roman Empire. No Christian
would ever “accuse” the Roman Empire of being a theocracy in the OT sense of
a theocracy, nor was it run by OT civil law. Paul and Peter knew that, and
yet they told Christians to submit to their political leaders. Doesn’t this
at least implicitly suggest that life in Jesus’ day and under the Roman
Empire was not a theocracy of the sort we find in Israel in the OT? Such a
conclusion seems hard to escape, and nothing in the NT suggests that after
the rule of Rome a theocracy, governed by OT civil law, would be reinstated.
Hence we believe that the NT in the way presented cancels the civil portion
of the Mosaic Law. |
在民事法上，我們相信新約至少暗示我們，民事法已不再適用。保羅告訴羅馬的基督徒服從控制他們的政府（羅13:1）；同樣，使徒彼得告訴遍布羅馬帝國的讀者，要服從他們的統治者（彼前2:13-17）。當保羅和彼得寫這些書信時，當權的政府是羅馬帝國；沒有基督徒會「控訴」羅馬帝國以舊約所形容的神權政制統治，也沒有被舊約民事法統治；保羅和彼得都知道這現實，但仍然告訴基督徒去服從他們的政治領導人。這豈不是暗示耶穌的時代和羅馬帝國並不是以色列在舊約的神權政制嗎？這樣的結論似乎很難拒絕，而新約亦沒有說到在羅馬統治後會有以舊約民事法統治的神權政制再出現。因此，我們認為，新約取消摩西的律法中的民事法。 |
|
If all or
even most of OT law continues into the NT, as continuity proponents claim,
then why do these same proponents admit that some parts no longer apply? One
can say ceremonial law, for example, still applies though OT methods of
observing it are irrelevant, and one can say OT law still applies, but the
event of Christ transforms it in the NT era. However, when we hear such
claims, we really wonder how it makes sense to say it is the same or identical
law in the NT as in the OT. Is it not merely playing word games to call
it the same law? |
如果像延續論支持者所說，舊約律法的全部或大部份延續至新約，那麼為他們卻同時承認有一些已不再適用呢？例如，一個人可以說禮儀法仍然適用，但舊約守禮的方式不再適用；也可以說舊約律法仍然適用，但基督在新約時代的出現改造了它。然而，當我們聽到這樣的說法，我們真不明白怎可以說新約律法和舊約律法是相同的呢？說它們是相同的律法不是玩文字遊戲嗎？ |
|
Even more
perplexing is trying to discover hermeneutical principles that explain how to
transform OT ceremonial laws, for example, into NT precepts. Let us illustrate.
By what hermeneutical rules does one decide that OT fasting is “transformed”
by Christ’s coming but remains fasting in the NT, whereas dietary laws are
transformed in the NT into a need to be separate from the things of the
world? Those who make such interpretive decisions neither delineate nor
defend the hermeneutical rules they use to arrive at their conclusions. One
wonders what those rules could possibly be. |
更令人費解的是試圖以釋經學的原則去解釋舊約禮儀法如何被改造成為新約戒律。讓我們舉例說明。延續論支持者認為舊約禁食已被基督的來臨改造，但禁食在新約仍然存在；另一方面，舊約飲食戒律亦被改造，但在新約卻解釋成和世界的事分離；這不同的解釋又基於哪一條釋經學的原則呢？作這樣解釋的人沒有列出用什麼原則達到他們的結論，也沒有保衛這樣的決定。究竟是用了哪一條原則呢？ |
|
There is
a further problem with believing that we are under Mosaic Law in the NT era.
As some have argued, the Mosaic Law cannot be detached from the Mosaic Covenant
or vice versa. They are part and parcel of one another. If this is so, then
to say the Mosaic Code is still in force today is also to say the Mosaic
Covenant is binding for today. However, continuity oriented thinkers
traditionally say the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 governs the church.
Jeremiah 31 clearly distinguishes the New Covenant from the Mosaic Covenant. |
相信新約時代的人仍然在摩西律法之下有另一個問題。正如有人辯說摩西律法不能和摩西的協約分開，它們兩者是同一個包裹。如果說摩西律法在今天仍然有效，那麼也是說摩西的協約在今天仍然有效。然而，延續論支持者一向說耶利米書31章的新協約已經在教會實行，但耶利米書的協約卻和摩西的協約不同。 |
|
All of
this raises the following dilemma for continuity positions: if the Mosaic
Code is part and parcel of the Mosaic Covenant and inseparable from it, then
to say we are under the Mosaic Code is to say we are under the Mosaic
Covenant. But to hold that contradicts the belief that NT believers are
governed by the New Covenant. It is inconsistent to say the church is
governed by the New Covenant when it comes to salvation, but by the Mosaic
Code (and Covenant) when it comes to law. A discontinuity position avoids
this problem by claiming that the church is governed by the New Covenant as
to salvation and by the NT Law of Christ as to law. |
所有這些難題對延續論都提出了難題：如果摩西律法和摩西的協約是同一個包裹而不能分開，說我們在摩西律法之下，是否是說我們仍然在摩西的協約之下呢？但這樣說是違反了新約信徒在新協約之下的信仰。說教會在救恩方面是在新協約之下，在律法方面卻在摩西律法（和摩西協約）之下，這是不一致的。間斷論就可以避免了這個問題，而主張教會在救恩方面是在新協約之下，在律法方面也在新約基督的律法之下。 |
|
But
aren’t continuity proponents still right about Mosaic Law applying to us
today at least because many of the moral precepts of the Mosaic Code are repeated
in the NT? Specifically, those holding a continuity position on the law often
raise Matt 5:17-19 as evidence that the Mosaic Law is in force today. What do
discontinuity defenders do with this passage, and what do they do with OT
moral law? A detailed treatment of Matt 5:17-19 is beyond the scope of this
chapter, but suffice it to say that the crucial issue is the meaning of
“fulfill.” As many claim, the word does not mean “annul” but “bring to
completion.” However, to say the OT points to Christ who brings OT law to
completion is not to say the OT still applies just as it did during the OT
era. Rather, it means it must be interpreted and applied in light of its
fulfillment by Christ. That means we must view it through Christ’s teaching
and ministry. That teaching comes both from his mouth and from the mouths of
his apostles (John 14; 15; 16). What do they teach? As already noted, they
teach that various aspects of Mosaic Law no longer apply today. |
但是，延續論支持者說：既然新約重複了很多摩西律法中的道德戒律，這不就是摩西律法仍然適用於我們嗎？他們特別提出太5:17-19作為証據說摩西律法在今天仍然生效。間斷論支持者怎樣解釋這段聖經呢？要將舊約的道德法則放在哪裏？詳細解釋太5:17-19是超出了本章的範圍，但說關鍵問題在「成全」的意思。正如許多人聲稱，這個詞並非解釋為「取消」，而是「完成」。不過，說舊約指向成全舊約律法的基督，並不等於舊約仍然像在舊約時代一樣適用。相反，它的意思是舊約必須在基督已成全律法的光下解釋和應用，也就是我們要透過基督的教導和事工來看它，就是基督親口的教導和祂使徒的教導（約 14至16章）。他們教導什麼呢？就是摩西律法在各個方面已經不再適用於今天。 |
|
In
addition, the apostle Paul teaches in various passages that the Mosaic Law as
a whole has ended. Though the meaning of these passages is debated by
continuity and discontinuity proponents, we believe they do entail that
Mosaic Law has ended. In particular, we are thinking of passages such as Rom
10:4, Gal 3:21-25, Gal 5:18, and 1 Cor 9:20-21. As to Rom 10:4 in particular,
recent studies show that it is unlikely Paul means only that Christ
ends the law in the sense of termination. Rather, the primary notion is
culmination, completion, reaching the goal of the law. However, as others
note, it is dubious that the verse in no sense speaks of termination. Having
reached its goal, it need no longer continue. Here again the teaching reminds
us of Christ’s comments in Matt 5:17ff. Christ is the law’s fulfillment. He
does not abolish it, but its application must always be viewed in light of
its fulfillment in Christ. We believe verses like these warrant concluding
that believers are no longer subject to the Mosaic code of law. However, that
does not mean they are without law altogether; they have the Law of Christ. |
此外，使徒保羅在不同的經文教導說，摩西的律法作為一個整體已經結束。雖然這些經文的意思仍然為延續論和間斷論的支持者所辯論，但我們相信經文教導摩西律法已經結束，特別在羅10:4；加3:21-25；加5:18和林前9:20-21。在羅10:4，最近的研究表明，保羅說基督總結了律法，意思不可能單單是終止，其主要的概念是達致頂點、完成、達到律法的目標。然而，有人說這節聖經含糊地沒有說到終止；不過，既然已達到其目標，它不再需要繼續下去。這裏再次提醒我們，基督在太5:17及以下一段說到基督是律法的成全；祂並沒有廢除它，但應用時需要常常放在基督成全律法的事實下。我們相信這些經文教導信徒說不再在摩西律法之下。不過，這並不是說他們完全沒有律法，他們有的是基督的律法。 |
|
Some will
strongly object that Mosaic Law cannot be abrogated, for it is God’s law, and
since God doesn’t change, his law doesn’t change. However, this confuses
applicability of a particular expression of God’s law (a particular code,
like the Mosaic) with God’s enduring ethical principles. The latter never
change, because they are grounded in God’s unchanging nature. But that does
not mean those norms forever find expression in only one code of law, the
Mosaic Code. Nor does it mean one has no divine law unless he has the Mosaic
Code. On the contrary, in 1 Cor 9:20-21 and especially Rom 2:12, 14-15 Paul
teaches that all people at all times have a form of God’s law “written in
their hearts” even if they do not have the Mosaic Code. Moreover, prior to
the Mosaic Code, law was in the world. The book of Genesis shows that prior
to the giving of the Mosaic Law people had some expression of God’s law. If
all this is true, why must this particular expression of God’s law, the
Mosaic Code, be so crucial? |
有些人會強烈反對廢止摩西律法，因為它是神的法律，而神不改變，祂的法律也不會改變。但是，這是混淆了神的法律一種特定表達方式的適用性（一個特定的律法，如摩西律法）和神永恆的道德原則。後者永遠不會改變，因為它們基於神不變的本性。但是，這並不表示這些規範永遠只在一個律例（像摩西的律法）中表達；也不表示除了摩西律法外就沒有神聖的法律。相反地，在林前9:20-21，特別在羅2:12,14-15，保羅教導我們，所有人在任何時候都有神的法律「寫在他們的心中」，即使他們沒有摩西律法。此外，在摩西律法之前，世界已經有法律。創世記記錄在頒佈摩西律法之前已經有神的法律的表達。如果這是真的，為什麼摩西律法這個特殊表達方式才是如此重要？ |
|
In our day,
non-believers are not under the Mosaic Code, but they still have a sense of
God’s law. Are they not like the Gentiles described in Rom 2:14-15? Are they
not accountable to the law of God written in their hearts, even if they have
never heard of the Mosaic Law? As for believers, passages such as 1 Cor 9:21
and Gal 6:2 teach that they are under the Law of Christ. We do not believe
there is a vast divergence between the Law of Christ and the law written in
men’s hearts any more than we think there is a great difference between the
ethical norms of the Mosaic Code, the law written in men’s hearts, and the
Law of Christ. The same God is author of all three, and the norms in each are
grounded in his character. |
在我們的時代，非信徒不在摩西律法之下，但是他們仍然感覺到神的律法。他們不就像羅2:14-15所描述的外邦人嗎？即使他們從來沒有聽見過摩西律法，他們不也在他們的心中向神的律法負責嗎？至於信徒，林前9:21和加6:2等經文教導，他們在基督的律法之下。我們不相信基督的律法和在人心中的律法有巨大的分別；同樣，摩西律法的倫理規範、在人心中的律法、基督的律法也沒有大的分別。同一個神是這三個的作者，所有規範都基於祂的性格。 |
|
From the
preceding we conclude that rejecting the Mosaic Code as binding today is not antinomianism.
Whether one has only the law written in his heart or is under the Law of
Christ, he is still accountable to some expression of divine law. Certain
ethical principles are grounded in God’s nature and will always apply, though
they find expression at different times in different codes. Just as driving
laws for two U.S. states may contain many of the same laws and yet represent
two separate codes (one for each state), so moral rules reflected in the Law
of Moses and the Law of Christ have much overlap while coming from two
distinct codes. |
從前面的討論，我們的結論是：否定摩西律法在今天仍具約束力並不是無規範主義。不管是寫在心裏的法律，或在基督的律法下，人仍然要向神聖的法律負責。一些倫理原則是基於神的本性，它們是永遠適用的，但可以在不同的時代用不同的法典表達。正如在兩個國家的駕車法律可能包含許多相同的法則，但有兩種不同的法典，故此摩西的律法和基督的律法中的道德律有很多重疊，但卻來自兩個不同的法典。 |
|
A position
like this seems the best way to avoid the dilemmas raised by having to
specify hermeneutics for deciding which parts of OT law apply today and which
do not and which parts are transformed in the NT era and what they become.
Those problems (and others we have mentioned) that confront continuity
positions are avoided by holding that none of OT law applies today, for
believers are under the Law of Christ. Moreover, since the Law of Christ is
quite similar to OT laws of morality (including those in the Mosaic Code) in
regard to its main ethical norms, nothing of significance is really lost. |
這觀點似乎是避免矛盾的最好方法，它可以避免指定用釋經學去決定舊約哪些律法適用於今天、哪些不適用、哪些已經在新約時代改造和改變成什麼；我們就可以避免延續論所要面對的這些問題（以及上面已經提到的其他問題），而主張舊約律法不再適用於今天，因為信徒在基督的律法之下。此外，由於基督的律法和舊約道德法律（包括摩西律法）在主要的倫理規範上非常相似，舊約最重要的部份也沒有因此失去。 |
|
Does the
preceding mean the OT is useless for Christian ethics? We think not. Where
the content of the Mosaic Law, for example, and the Law of Christ overlap,
appeal to the OT is proper. In fact, appeal to the OT may give a fuller
explanation of a moral principle and God’s reasoning for it than one finds in
the NT. For example, while we believe Rom 13:1-7 warrants capital punishment,
we believe Gen 9:5-6 gives a much clearer statement of why God enjoins it. |
上面的觀點是否表示舊約對基督教倫理就沒有作用呢？我們認為不是。例如，當摩西律法和基督的律法重疊時，引用舊約是正確的。其實，引用舊約可以對道德原則和神的理由帶來更全面的解釋，比單單引用新約更完滿。例如，雖然我們相信羅13:1-7支持死刑，但創9:5-6帶來更清晰的解釋，說明神為什麼命令它。 |
|
Second,
even when OT and NT law do not exactly overlap, the OT can be very
instructive in setting forth God’s underlying attitude toward an ethical
issue. For example, nowhere in the NT does one find the specific regulations
of Exod 21:22-25 that protect pregnant women and their unborn children. Those
ordinances are part of the Mosaic Code but are not part of the NT Law of
Christ. On the other hand, as we shall argue when discussing abortion, proper
understanding of that passage shows it to be one of the strongest passages in
Scripture defending the rights of pregnant women and unborn children. Given
that fact, it seems proper to appeal to it as indicating God’s attitude
toward any kind of harm to the unborn, including abortion. Since nothing in
the NT suggests that God’s attitude toward the unborn has changed, the OT
passage is relevant for determining God’s attitude toward the unborn and for
demanding protection of them. |
其次，即使舊約和新約法律並不完全重疊，舊約可以是非常有啟發性地列明神對倫理問題的基本態度。例如，新約沒有像出埃及記21:22-25保護孕婦及其未出生的孩子的具體條例。這些條例是摩西律法的一部分，但不屬於新約的基督律法。另一方面，我們討論墮胎問題時，可以辯說，對這段聖經正確的認識表明它是聖經內最有力地捍衛孕婦和未出生孩子的權利的一段。因此，引用它來表明神對任何損害胎兒（包括墮胎）的態度。由於新約沒有任何地方表明神對胎兒的態度有轉變，舊約聖經就可以用來確定神對胎兒的態度，而要求要保護他們。 |
|
In
discussing the use of Scripture in Christian ethics, James Gustafson outlines
various ways Scripture may give guidance in regard to contemporary ethical problems.
We think at least three of his suggestions are helpful in answering how the
OT is useful in Christian ethics. Gustafson says judgments can be made about
contemporary situations on the basis of: (1) specific commands of Scripture
about what is right and wrong; (2) moral ideals (such as love and peace)
found in Scripture; and (3) analogies between biblical situations where moral
pronouncements are made and contemporary situations. So long as one joins
these items with the two principles stated above (the norms in both codes
must overlap or the OT must show God’s underlying perspective on an issue
even if the specific OT regulation is not in the Law of Christ), we believe
one who holds that believers are under the Law of Christ and not the Mosaic
Law has a good set of rules of procedure for using the OT in Christian
ethics. |
古斯塔森（James Gustafson）討論在基督教倫理中使用聖經時，概述聖經如何指導今天倫理問題的各種方式。我們認為他最少有三個建議可以幫助解答對在基督教倫理中如何應用舊約。古斯塔森說，對當代情況的判斷可以基於：（1）聖經特定的命令，說明什麼是正確與錯誤；（2）在聖經中找到的道德理想（如愛與和平）；（3）聖經對當日情況的道德聲明和今天情況的類比。只要我們用前面所說的兩個原則（兩個律法的規範必須重疊，或是舊約必須表明神對一個問題的基本觀點，即使特定的舊約條例並不在基督律法之內）和這些項目聯在一起；我們相信，一個認為信徒在基督律法之下卻不在摩西律法之下的人，亦有一組良好的規則在基督教倫理內使用舊約。 |
|
|
|
==============================
DOWNLOAD (MS-Word document)
|
SOURCE:
John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg (2010): Ethics for a brave new world, second edition (Wheaton, IL:
Crossway), 40-49 (excerpt from chapter 1). |
Old
Testament Law and the New Testament Era