Tin-Chee Lo's Blog

Edited by Tin-chee Lo (T. C. Lo 盧天賜); second edition October 14, 2023

在查考使徒行傳十三章時，有一節經文，「外邦人聽見這話、就歡喜了、讚美　神的道．凡預定得永生的人都信了（v. 48)」，引起熱烈的討論，乃是關注到「預定論」，又稱「揀選論」的教義。「預定」是上帝的思想，「揀選」是上帝的行動。所以，預訂與揀選是一體的兩面。因為預定論是一個有爭議性的問題之一，為了 “以和為貴”，很多教會的牧長，都不願意涉及宣講這一類的難題，以致會友失去了對一些重要真理的理解的機會，因此，我們必須要正視，而非逃避這些問題。

論到預定論，通常人們有兩種極端的反應：第一種是不信者的抗議。他們認為上帝不公平：為什麼祂揀選某人而不揀選我呢？所以他們就否定上帝可信性而離開教會或查經班。然而另一種人是一些虔誠的基督徒，他們尊重聖經的權威和無誤性。當他們面對難題時，便提供了一組「萬能答案」。當你問他上帝為什麼如此如此？他們的答案歸納在三句聰明的短句中：呀！這是「上帝的主權」，或「這是上帝的心意」，或「這是上帝的旨意」。誰能抗議這些終極的答案呢？問題是這些 ”萬能” 答案若果沒有一些導致此結論的中介知識在推理的過程中。他們的答案，儘管無懈可擊，也沒有太大意義，因為他雖然回答了，其實是「答」等於「未答」。那麼支持預定論的中介知識是甚麼呢？最好的知識就是新舊約經文的本身。聖經中有數以百計的經文支持「預定/揀選」的理念。

然而，聖經中也有很少數的經文，如：約翰三章16節，彼得後書三章九節，約翰一書二章二節等，它們在「表面上」看來與預定論「似乎」背道而馳，但在全本聖經神所默示的亮光下, 它們是與一搬平常的領會有差異的，所以我們更需对此深思熟慮。本文暫且不談這些, 只把支持預定論的巨量經文，例舉一些出來，以供讀者參考。

創世紀 (Genesis)

21:12 神對亞伯拉罕說、你不必為這童子和你的使女憂愁、凡撒拉對你說的話、你都該聽從．因為從以撒生的、纔要稱為你的後裔。

出埃及記 (Exodus)

9:16 其實我叫你 (摩西) 存立、是特要向你顯我的大能、並要使我的名傳遍天下。

33:19 耶和華說、我要顯我一切的恩慈、在你面前經過、宣告我的名．我要恩待誰、就恩待誰．要憐憫誰、就憐憫誰。

約書亞記 (Joshua)

11:20 因為耶和華的意思、是要使他們心裡剛硬、來與以色列人爭戰、好叫他們盡被殺滅、不蒙憐憫、正如耶和華所吩咐摩西的。

約伯記 (Job)

23:14 他 (神) 向我 (約伯) 所定的、就必作成．這類的事他還有許多。

詩篇 (Psalms)

33:12 以耶和華為　神的、那國是有福的．他所揀選為自己產業的、那民是有福的。

65:4 你所揀選、使他親近你、住在你院中的、這人便為有福．我們必因你居所、你聖殿的美福知足了。

106:5 使我見你選民的福、樂你國民的樂、與你的產業一同誇耀。

箴言 (Proverbs)

16:4 耶和華所造的、各適其用．就是惡人、也為禍患的日子所造。

16:9 人心籌算自己的道路．惟耶和華指引他的腳步。

以赛亞書 (Isaiah)

44:1 我的僕人雅各、我所揀選的以色列阿、現在你當聽。

46:10 我從起初指明末後的事、從古時言明未成的事、說、我的籌算必立定、凡我所喜悅的、我必成就。

耶利米書 (Jeremiah)

1:5 我未將你造在腹中、我已曉得你、你未出母胎、我已分別你為聖．我已派你作列國的先知。

以西結書 (Ezekiel)

37:1-28 (全章)

37:14 我必將我的靈放在你們裡面、你們就要活了．我將你們安置在本地、你們就知道我耶和華如此說、也如此成就了．這是耶和華說的。

哈該書 (Haggai)

2:23 萬軍之耶和華說、我僕人撒拉鐵的兒子所羅巴伯阿、到那日、我必以你為印、因我揀選了你．這是萬軍之耶和華說的。

瑪拉基書 (Malachi)

1:2 耶和華說、我曾愛你們．你們卻說、你在何事上愛我們呢．耶和華說、以掃不是雅各的哥哥麼．我卻愛雅各、

1:3 惡以掃、使他的山嶺荒涼、把他的地業交給曠野的野狗。

馬太福音 (Matthews)

20:23 耶穌說、我所喝的杯、你們必要喝．只是坐在我的左右、不是我可以賜的．乃是我父為誰預備的、就賜給誰。

22:14因為被召的人多、選上的人少。

25:34 於是王要向那右邊的說、你們這蒙我父賜福的、可來承受那創世以來為你們所預備的國。

馬可福音 (Mark)

4:11 耶穌對他們說、　神國的奧秘、只叫你們知道、若是對外人講、凡事就用比喻．

13:20 若不是主減少那日子、凡有血氣的、總沒有一個得救的．只是為主的選民、他將那日子減少了。

13:22 因為假基督、假先知、將要起來、顯神蹟奇事．倘若能行、就把選民迷惑了。

路加福音 (Luke)

4:26 以利亞並沒有奉差往他們一個人那裡去、只奉差往西頓的撒勒法、一個寡婦那裡去。

4:27 先知以利沙的時候、以色列中有許多長大痲瘋的．但內中除了敘利亞國的乃縵、沒有一個得潔淨的。

8:10 他說、　神國的奧秘、只叫你們知道．至於別人、就用比喻、叫他們看也看不見、聽也聽不明。

10:20 然而不要因鬼服了你們就歡喜．要因你們的名記錄在天上歡喜。

18:7 神的選民、晝夜呼籲他、他縱然為他們忍了多時、豈不終久給他們伸冤麼。

22:22 人子固然要照所預定的去世．但賣人子的人有禍了。

約翰福音 (John)

6:37 凡父所賜給我的人、必到我這裡來．到我這裡來的、我總不丟棄他。
6:39 差我來者的意思、就是他所賜給我的、叫我一個也不失落、在末日卻叫他復活。
6:44 若不是差我來的父吸引人、就沒有能到我這裡來的．到我這裡來的、在末日我要叫他復活。

13:18 我這話不是指著你們眾人說的．我知道我所揀選的是誰．現在要應驗經上的話、說、『同我喫飯的人、用腳踢我。』

15:16 不是你們揀選了我、是我揀選了你們、並且分派你們去結果子、叫你們的果子常存．使你們奉我的名、無論向父求甚麼、他就賜給你們。

15:19 你們若屬世界、世界必愛屬自己的．只因你們不屬世界．乃是我從世界中揀選了你們、所以世界就恨你們。

17:2 正如你曾賜給他權柄、管理凡有血氣的、叫他將永生賜給你所賜給他的人。

17:6 你從世上賜給我的人、我已將你的名顯明與他們．他們本是你的、你將他們賜給我、他們也遵守了你的道。

17:9 我為他們祈求．不為世人祈求、卻為你所賜給我的人祈求、因他們本是你的。

使徒行傳 (Acts)

2:23 他既按著　神的定旨先見、被交與人、你們就藉著無法之人的手、把他釘在十字架上殺了。

2:39 因為這應許是給你們、和你們的兒女、並一切在遠方的人、就是主我們　神所召來的。

4:27 希律和本丟彼拉多、外邦人和以色列民、果然在這城裡聚集、要攻打你所膏的聖僕耶穌、〔僕或作子〕

4:28 成就你手和你意旨所預定必有的事。

13:48 外邦人聽見這話、就歡喜了、讚美　神的道．凡預定得永生的人都信了。

22:14 他又說、我們祖宗的　神、揀選了你、叫你明白他的旨意、又得見那義者、聽他口中所出的聲音。

羅馬書 (Romans)

1:6 其中也有你們這蒙召屬耶穌基督的人。

8:1-39 (全章)

8:28 我們曉得萬事都互相效力、叫愛　神的人得益處、就是按他旨意被召的人。
8:29 因為他預先所知道的人、就預先定下效法他兒子的模樣使他兒子在許多弟兄中作長子．
8:30 預先所定下的人又召他們來．所召來的人、又稱他們為義．所稱為義的人、又叫他們得榮耀。

9:1-33 (全章)

9:11 （雙子還沒有生下來、善惡還沒有作出來、只因要顯明　神揀選人的旨意、不在乎人的行為、乃在乎召人的主）
9:12 神就對利百加說、『將來大的要服事小的。』9:13 正如經上所記、『雅各是我所愛的、以掃是我所惡的。』
9:15 因他對摩西說、『我要憐憫誰、就憐憫誰、要恩待誰、就恩待誰。』
9:16 據此看來、這不在乎那定意的、也不在乎那奔跑的、只在乎發憐憫的　神。

11:1-36 (全章)

11:4 神的回話是怎麼說的呢．他說、『我為自己留下七千人、是未曾向巴力屈膝的。』

11:5 如今也是這樣、照著揀選的恩典還有所留的餘數。

11:6 既是出於恩典、就不在乎行為．不然、恩典就不是恩典了。

11:29 因為　神的恩賜和選召、是沒有後悔的。

哥林多前書 (1 Corinthians)

1:26 弟兄們哪、可見你們蒙召的、按著肉體有智慧的不多、有能力的不多、有尊貴的也不多．
1:27 神卻揀選了世上愚拙的、叫有智慧的羞愧．又揀選了世上軟弱的、叫那強壯的羞愧．

2:7 我們講的、乃是從前所隱藏、　神奧秘的智慧、就是　神在萬世以前、預定使我們得榮耀的．

加拉太書 (Galatians)

1:15 然而那把我從母腹裡分別出來、又施恩召我的　神、

以弗所書 (Ephesians)

1:4 就如　神從創立世界以前、在基督裡揀選了我們、使我們在他面前成為聖潔、無有瑕疵．

1:5 又因愛我們、就按著自己意旨所喜悅的、預定我們、藉著耶穌基督得兒子的名分、

1:9 都是照他自己所預定的美意、叫我們知道他旨意的奧秘、
1:11 我們也在他裡面得了基業、〔得或作成〕這原是那位隨己意行作萬事的、照著他旨意所預定的．
2:8 你們得救是本乎恩、也因著信、這並不是出於自己、乃是　神所賜的．

3:11這是照　神從萬世以前、在我們主基督耶穌裡所定的旨意。

歌羅西書 (Colossians)

3:12 所以你們既是　神的選民、聖潔蒙愛的人、就要存〔原文作穿下同〕憐憫、恩慈、謙虛、溫柔、忍耐的心。

帖撒羅尼迦前書 (1 Thessalonians)

1:4被　神所愛的弟兄阿、我知道你們是蒙揀選的．

帖撒羅尼迦後書 (1 Thessalonians)

2:13 主所愛的弟兄們哪、我們本該常為你們感謝　神．因為他從起初揀選了你們、叫你們因信真道、又被聖靈感動成為聖潔、能以得救。

提摩太前書 (1 Timothy)

5:21 我在　神和基督耶穌並蒙揀選的天使面前囑咐你、要遵守這些話、不可存成見、行事也不可有偏心。

提摩太後書 (2 Timothy)

1:9 神救了我們、以聖召召我們、不是按我們的行為、乃是按他的旨意、和恩典．這恩典是萬古之先、在基督耶穌裡賜給我們的．

2:10 所以我為選民凡事忍耐、叫他們也可以得著那在基督耶穌裡的救恩、和永遠的榮耀。

提多書 (Titus)

1:1 神的僕人、耶穌基督的使徒保羅、憑著　神選民的信心、與敬虔真理的知識、
1:2 盼望那無謊言的　神、在萬古之先所應許的永生、

雅各書 (James)

1:18 他按自己的旨意、用真道生了我們、叫我們在他所造的萬物中、好像初熟的果子。

彼得前書 (1 Peter)

1:2 就是照父　神的先見被揀選、藉著聖靈得成聖潔、以致順服耶穌基督、又蒙他血所灑的人．願恩惠平安、多多的加給你們。

1:20 基督在創世以前、是預先被　神知道的、卻在這末世、纔為你們顯現．

2:9 惟有你們是被揀選的族類、是有君尊的祭司、是聖潔的國度、是屬　神的子民、要叫你們宣揚那召你們出黑暗入奇妙光明者的美德。
2:10 你們從前算不得子民、現在卻作了　神的子民．從前未曾蒙憐恤、現在卻蒙了憐恤。

彼得後書 (2 Peters)

1:10 所以弟兄們、應當更加殷勤、使你們所蒙的恩召和揀選堅定不移．你們若行這幾樣、就永不失腳。

猶大書 (Jude)

1:4 因為有些人偷著進來、就是自古被定受刑罰的、是不虔誠的、將我們　神的恩變作放縱情慾的機會、並且不認獨一的主宰我們〔我們或作和我們〕主耶穌基督。

啟示錄 (Revelation)

13:8 凡住在地上、名字從創世以來、沒有記在被殺之羔羊生命冊上的人、都要拜他 (i.e., 獸) 。

By TC Lo (盧天賜); October 26, 2921

我分享這篇文章的目的, 不是要發表我對這幾節經文有甚麼獨特的心得，乃是去回答一些基督徒向我的提問。

傳道書 (10:1-5) 經文：
1 死蒼蠅、使作香的膏油發出臭氣．這樣、一點愚昧、也能敗壞智慧和尊榮。
2 智慧人的心居右．愚昧人的心居左。
3 並且愚昧人行路、顯出無知．對眾人說、他是愚昧人。
4 掌權者的心、若向你發怒、不要離開你的本位、因為柔和能免大過。
5 我見日光之下、有一件禍患、似乎出於掌權的錯誤、

甚麼問題呢？問題在于对「掌權者」的解釋。
(1) 有人認為「掌權者」是指上帝。
(2) 大多數人(筆者在內）認為「掌權者」是指世上腐敗的領導人。

支持 (1) 的理由是：上帝的是智慧的源頭。上帝是尊榮的源頭。聖經甚至把智慧和尊榮 「人格化」、把智慧和尊榮與上帝等同。也就是説，「上帝就是智慧」， 「上帝就是尊榮」。然而,  這種宣告亦没有錯。

但是照著上帝形像而受造的人類, 他們也有尊榮，也有智慧，當然這些尊榮和智慧都是由上頭來的。我們豈能説大衛王沒有尊榮嗎？ 我們豈能説所羅門王沒有智慧嗎？所不同的是，人的智慧和尊榮是可以被他的罪敗壞的, 正如蒼蠅能使香膏發臭一般。然而聖潔無罪的上帝的智慧和尊榮是絶不能敗壞的。所以能敗壞的智慧和尊榮一定不是上帝的智慧和尊榮。

在英語世界中、不少諺語是出于聖經的。例如「a fly in the ointment」就是出于傳道書10:1,「死蒼蠅、使作香的膏油發出臭氣。」其意是「美中不足」，或更嚴厲些就是指「敗群之馬」或「one bad apple spoils the whole barrel」都有同樣意思。第一節把這两件事連在一起, 這就不難理解到此處的「智慧和尊榮」是指地上的事, 而非指上帝的了。這就明顯地説明了第四節中的「掌權者」乃指着地上的君王，老闆 等有杈勢的人，如果把他硬指是上帝是很困難的。到了第五節，「掌權者」的解釋更是不言而喻了。因為有「在日光之下」這句話作為條件的限制。所以支持 (2) 的解釋應該是更有説服力。

到現在為止，讀者可能認為筆者過于咬文嚼字。這是一種 「標籤式 (labeling)」控告，因為我們對上帝的了解主要是透過聖靈感動而成的聖經的語言。所以語言字句对解經是非常重要的，正如耶穌所説：聖經中一點一劃都不能廢去或更改。在我們日常生活中，在簽合同或立约和處理法律的事務上，豈非字句語言是極其重要嗎？不要忙記, 聖聖是一本「立約的書」，也是一本「律法的書」。這就是為甚麼神學院必須提供希伯來文和希臘文為選修科的原因了。

筆者不認為本文章是一種嚴緊的神學探討，所以把它命名為「閑聊」。

by Tin-chee Lo; October 11, 2021

Peter and Barnabas knew that the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem were unwilling to eat at the same table with Gentiles, so they left the table in order not to offend them, pretending that they were still loyal to Jewish traditions. In fact, Paul had long consensus with the apostles that both Gentiles and Jews became citizens of the kingdom of God because of the redemptive work done on the cross of Jesus. This has nothing to do with observing the Law of Moses or the Jewish tradition.

But Peter and Barnabas, as church leaders, did things that were not in conformity with the truth. They dared not publicly show that the gospel of Christ had already united Jews and Gentiles into One. Not sitting at the table with the Gentiles would be tantamount to denying the truth of oneness that Peter had already been convinced. Before the people from James (i.e., from Jerusalem) arrived, Peter didn’t think there was anything wrong with eating with Gentiles.

Peter, as a leader of the church, publicly gave in to the Jerusalem Jews who were still adhering to the law. This is tantamount to denying the work of Jesus which unites the Jews and Gentiles into one body.

Paul saw that such an approach would endanger the truth of the Gospel. He must correct Peter’s mistakes in front of everyone, otherwise Peter’s action would send a very wrong message to all Christian churches. So Paul openly rebuked Peter.

One would expect Paul would say in this way: “Peter, you are a hypocrite, you have been acting not according to what you believe in order to please men. You are a coward because you did not boldly show your believe to your Jerusalem brothers.” But Paul did not say that, instead he said,

“Cephas, you are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (Galatians 2:14).”

What is going on? When I thought carefully about the short phrases that Paul had used to reproach Cephas, I found that I had great difficulty to understand them. I have asked many Bible-teachers, though their explanations were correct and irrefutable, their explanations don’t seem to be correspondingly consistent with every phrase that Paul said. So, I thought for a long time, and finally came up with the following understanding.

I think Paul is using a literary tool which goes something like this:

• One first makes a clear statement “A” which is not the real message one wishes to convey, but a very clear and understandable one.
• Once “A” is given, a conclusion “B” will immediately and naturally follow even one has not yet express it, or even there is no need to express it because people already get it.

Let’s analyze Paul’s reprimanding language:

“You are a Jew”
Of course Peter is an authentic Jew. Paul even used the title “Cephas” to emphasize this fact.

“yet you live like a Gentile”
Suppose you are not circumcised like the rest of the Jews, and you eat food sacrificed to idols, and so on.

“and not like a Jew”
You don’t even obey the Jewish traditions and the laws of Moses.

“How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”
If so, how can you persuade the Gentiles to become a member of Judaism?

Paul gave a “reasoning process” that everyone can understand. This is the “A” part. Of course, Paul definitely did not want Peter to lead Gentiles to believe in Judaism. This is affirmed by the theological thoughts of the entire book of Galatians in general, and from the context of the “leaving from the eating table” in particular.

Then, what was Paul’s real message?

Paul’s explicit statement “A” in short is: If you are not a loyal Jew, you cannot lead Gentiles to Judaism.

Paul’s implied (or unspoken) message “B” is: In the same way, if you are not a faithful believer to the doctrine that “Christ has demolished the dividing wall between the Jews and the Gentiles”, how can you then evangelize the Gentiles to believe in Christ?

Before Peter knew Jesus, he was a Jewish man, so Paul’s “explicit statement” should be heartily acceptable by him. Therefore, Paul used this statement as a bridge for communication, so that Peter could grasp the “unspoken statement” that Paul really wants to reprimand him. In addition to Galatians 2:14, another biblical example is the dialogue between Nathan and David, recorded in 2 Samuel 12:1:7.

Paul saw that Peter’s action would jeopardize the orthodoxy of the Gospel poisoning the entire church, and it was a matter of great importance, the stake was extremely high, so he must publicly correct Peter’s mistake in front of everybody, making an exception to the steps he had outlined in Matthew 18:15-20.

By TC Lo (盧天赐); October 9, 2021

彼得和巴拿巴知道那些從耶路撒冷來的猶太基督徒不願意和外邦人同桌吃飯，為了不冒犯他們就離席，假裝自己仍然忠於猶太人的傳統。其實保羅早與使徒們有了共識，外邦人與猶太人都是因耶穌十字架的救恩而成為神國度的子民，這與遵守摩西律法或猶太教規無關。但彼得和巴拿巴作為教會領袖作了不合真理的事，不敢公開的表明基督福音已使猶太人和外邦人合而為一，不與外邦人一同坐席就等於否定了彼得原本所確信的真理。從雅各那裡來的人未到之先，彼得並不認為與外邦人吃飯有何不妥，他雖是猶太人卻是自由的隨外邦人行事，與外邦人沒有什麼分別。彼得作為教會領袖竟然公開的向堅守律法的人退讓，這等於是在勉強外邦人要先接受猶太傳統才能彼此交通。保羅看見這樣的作法會危害關於救恩的真理，他必須在眾人面前指正彼得所犯的錯誤，否則就會向所有基督教會傳出錯誤的信息。現在我們看看保羅指責彼得所用的語言。

「但我一看見他們行的不正、與福音的真理不合、就在眾人面前對磯法說、你既是猶太人、若隨外邦人行事、不隨猶太人行事、怎麼還勉強外邦人隨猶太人呢。」(Galatians 2:14)

令我驚奇的是，保羅並沒有提到彼得的做法是假冒為善，也沒有指責彼得缺乏勇氣在外邦人和從耶路撒冷來的猶太人面前為福音的真理作見證，而彼得的確如是，但保羅卻沒有直言。當我仔細思想保羅對磯法所指責的每一句話，我發現我有很大的困難去理解它。我請教了很多屬靈的長者, 他們給我的解釋都是正確的，而且是正確到無可駁斥的程度。然而, 他們的解釋似乎不能完全與保羅以上所講的每一個短句 (phrases) 相對應。我思考了很久，得到了以下的理解。

我想保羅是用「歇後語」的文學手法來表達他對彼得的嚴斥。甚麼是「歇後語」？歇後語就是：先説出一件事實，然後歇一下，才説 (其至不必説) 接下來真正要表達的想法。例如：

「老鼠過街」•••<歇了一會兒，然後才説>•••「人人喊打」。

「老鼠過街」是一件事實的陳述。「人人喊打」才是真正要表達的信息。這信息甚至清楚到不言而喻。

那麼保羅夠竟説了甚麼？
「但我一看見他們行的不正、與福音的真理不合、就在眾人面前對磯法說、你既是猶太人、若隨外邦人行事、不隨猶太人行事、怎麼還勉強外邦人隨猶太人呢。(加2:14)」

讓我們分柝一下：

「你既是猶太人」。彼得當然是道地的猶太人。保羅甚至用 ”磯法” 的稱呼去強調這個事實。

「若隨外邦人行事」。假設你也跟外邦人一樣不守割禮，吃祭過偶像的食物，等等。

「不隨猶太人行事」。你甚至不守猶太人的傳統和摩西的律法。

「怎麼還勉強外邦人隨猶太人呢」。那麽你又如何能説服外邦人加入猷太教呢？

保羅將一個大家可以明白的「推理過程」説出來。當然，保羅絕不是要彼得帶領外邦人信奉猶太教。這是從「吃飯的事件」的上下文，與整本加拉太書的神學思想所肯定出來的結論。

那麼，保羅的歇後語要表達甚麼信息？

保羅的「明言」是：如果你不是一個忠誠的猶太教人，你就不可能帶領外邦人歸信猶太教。

保羅的「暗語」是：同理，如果你不是一個忠誠地相信「人得救乃是上帝的恩典而不是基于守律法」，你又如何帶領外邦人歸信基督呢？

彼得在未認識耶穌之前，他是猶太教人，所以保羅的「明言」是他身同感受地能接受的。因此，保羅以這種說法作為交通的橋樑，使他能體會到保羅真正要表達的「暗語」。除了加拉太書2:14 外，聖經的另一個例子是拿單和大衞的對話，記載在撒母耳記下12:1:7。

彼得是教會領袖，他竟不敢公開的表明基督福音已經使猶太人和外邦人合而為一 了。儘管彼得真的明白福音的真理，然而他的行動卻送出一個他「不是忠誠地相信人得救乃是上帝的恩典」的錯誤信息。

保羅看見這個信息會危害整個教會的正統性，事關重大，所以他必須在眾人面前公開指正彼得所犯的錯誤，破例地不用他在「馬太18:15-20」中挽回弟兄的步驟。

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜); September 7, 2021

「神愛世人、甚至將他的獨生子賜給他們、叫一切信他的、不至滅亡、反得永生。」(約3:16) 這金句中的 “世人”, 大部份人認為是指地球上每一個人， 但也有學者和神學家認為是特指蒙上帝揀選的子民，哪個説法是對的呢？我想答案取決於我們如何理解 “神愛世人” 中的 ”愛” 字。

第一種透視：“世人” 是指世界上所有的人。 這説法使「“愛” 是指 “愛仇敵的” 的愛」成為必然。 因為世人，無一例外，都犯了罪，虧缺了上帝的榮耀，所以我們世人都是與上帝為敵的，但上帝是一位「愛仇敵的上帝」，耶穌甚至命令我們要愛我們的敵人。慈愛的天父以 “一搬性的普遍恩典” 無條件地降下雨水和空氣來維持世上所有罪人的生命，祂賜予罪人所居住的美麗大地， 和供給所有罪人可欣賞的壯麗宇宙， 但儘管這種恩情大愛再美妙，我們都注定走向滅亡，無一人例外。這種絕望的結局，使我們每個人都感嘆到 “若不出生在這個世界上还好”。

然而，約翰福音 3:16 節繼續說，“甚至將他的獨生子賜給他們”，叫世人中的一部份人不至滅亡、反得永生”，這是上帝表示父愛的作為； 但不要把「神聖的父愛」與「愛仇敵的愛」混淆，前者是專向選民顯示的。

對於這個特定蒙揀選的群體，上帝賜給他們“信心”作禮物。 因著這個禮物，這群人就能夠，也將必會 “信靠上帝”，從而實現了 “信他的人不至滅亡，反得永生” 的應許。 有了這種理解，我們可以從另一個角度來理解約翰福音 3:16的「神愛世人」。

第二種透視：鑒於約翰福音 3:16 是對救恩持特別的關注，並且在整本約翰福音論到上帝與選民的關係的大背景下，我們可以斷言約翰福音 3:16 中的 “世人” ， 在這個意識上，應該是專指 “蒙召作兒女的選民”。 因此，“愛” 這個詞也必須是專指天父對兒女的愛，而不是第一種視角中所提到的「愛仇敵」的愛。 伴隨著這種神聖的父愛，父神將他的獨生子單單賜給了選民，因為只有選民才能接受這種父愛，就好像只有自己的孩子才能享有父母親甜蜜的愛一樣；上帝又賜給選民信心作禮物，作為一種恩典的手段，以確保他們擁有永生。世上所有最佳的工程設計，都是不會浪費材料的，所以我們可以説，耶穌基督的寶血, 在救贖方面，是單單為衪預定得救的兒女而流，而不是為「所有人」而流的。

這一句話是根據「揀選論 (predestination)」而作出的宣告。我們不能不承認揀選論是一個非常難明白的教義，但我們也不能否定揀選論是㳽漫整本聖經的神學觀念：

https://hocl.org/blogs/tincheelo/?p=2091

那麼，我們必須問另外一個問題：究竟耶穌基督的寶血對不被揀選的人，雖然沒有其救贖的意義，有沒有其它的意義呢？答案是「有」。

首先，我們知道世人都犯了罪，虧缺了神的榮耀，沒有一個義人，連一個也沒有。罪人的工價乃是死。亞當夏娃犯罪之後，他們的靈命就立刻死了，但他們肉身的生命仍然繼續一段時候，這個緩刑全是上帝的恩典。今天，如果一個人一出身就馬上夭折，上帝絕沒有不公義的地方。但是如果上帝讓他繼續活下去一段時間，這個就更表明是上帝的恩典了。在這段存活的時間中，他們可以享受陽光，空氣，美食，欣賞大自然，研究學問，寫詩作曲，幫助窮人，甚至可以獲得諾貝爾獎金。這一切豈不是上帝給他們白白的普遍恩典嗎? 儘管人是白白地接受，但恩典不是廉價的東西，它要求施恩者付出代價。這個代價就連接上基督的寶血了。

但要注意的是：不論是「上帝對以神為敵的罪人」所施的恩典，或是「上帝對選民施于父愛」的恩典，都是出于耶穌基督的寶血。換句話說，基督的寶血是為世上每一個人而流。

還有一個具更少爭議性的透視是：「上帝愛世人」中的世人是指世上的每一「類」人：不論是貧，富，聰明，愚笨，高貴，卑賤，膚色等，都包括在內。 它不是指沒有例外地每一「個」人。這個解釋也可應用在提多書（2:11)，「因為　神救眾人的恩典、已經顯明出來。」此句中的「眾人 (all men)」是指每一「類」人， 而不是指 “沒有例外地” 的每一「個」人。[註]

基督徒不應該質疑上帝揀選的智慧，而應該以敬虔的心作為對祂那 “無價之寶的救恩禮物” 作出感謝的回應。我們可以這樣說：對「普遍恩典論」者來說，“世人” 一詞是指地球上的每一個人，而對應的 “愛” 是指上帝對「以神為敵的罪人」的關愛，作為祂對有罪的人類的普遍恩典。對「特殊恩典論」者來說，“世人” 是特指蒙揀選的子民，從而所對應的 “愛” 是指上帝對祂的兒女的親密父愛，也就是神聖救贖的父愛，就像耶穌對選民 (門徒) 所說的那種愛，祂說，“我以天父愛我的那種愛, 來愛你們。” 這是出於神對選民的特殊恩典。

[註] 在此「世人」的原文意思是相當廣泛的。「愛」是用 agapao； 一搬人認為這是「專指」上帝對人的愛，其實它的意思也是相當廣泛的。「底馬貪愛現今的世界 (提後4:10) 」中的「愛」也是用 agapao。這 兩詞 的廣泛性，讓約翰三章十六節的多樣性解釋成為可能。聖經的原文可在以下網頁查到。

https://bible.fhl.net/new/read.php?id=26122&VERSION1=unv&TABFLAG=1&strongflag=1

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜); September 7, 2021

“For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

Most people say, the word “world” here means all the people on this earth. But some scholars say, the word “world” here refers only to the elect.

Q: which camp is right?
A: I believe both are right, depending on how you understand the word “loved”.

The phrase “For God so love the world” in John 3:16 can be perceived in two different angles. Let us explore.

The First perspective
The word “world” refers to ALL PEOPLE on the planet earth. This must follow that the world “love” refers to the enemy-loving love. For we ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. And there is no righteous, not even one. So we ALL are in enmity with God. But God loves even enemies. Jesus even command us to love our enemies. Clearly, this kind of enemy-loving love must be different from that which parent love their children much less Heavenly Father loves His chosen ones.

God unconditionally loves all of us out of His common grace. He gives rain and air to sustain sinners’ lives, and the beautiful earth in which they live and the magnificent universe for all sinners to enjoy. Notwithstanding how wonderful this enmity-love is, all of us are doomed to perish without exception. We cannot help but exclaim that it would be better off for each one of us not to have been born into this world.

Then, John 3:16 continues, “that He gave his one and only Son” to mankind to make possible that some of this ALL will be saved. This is God’s act of love. But this is not the kind of enemy-loving love, this is the Fatherly-love shown not to all but to the elect only. To this particular group. God gives them faith as gift. With this gift, this group of people can and will believe in God, and as a result, the phrase, “that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” can be actualized. With this understanding, it comes the second way of understanding for John 3:16.

The Second perspective
Given that John 3:16 focusses on redemption in particular, and that in the grand context of Gospel John in general, we can say that the word “world” in John 3:16 should properly be referred to the elect exclusively. It must then follows that the word “love” must refer to the Fatherly love and not the enemy-loving love mentioned in the First Perspective. Out of this divine love, Father-God gave His one and only Son to the elect exclusively and the accompanying God-given gift of faith as a means of grace to make sure that they have eternal life.

Understanding the distinction among different kinds of love and the basis of the doctrine of predestination, one can gain a deeper insight of this familiar verse, John 3:16. Christians should therefore not question God’s wisdom of election but offer their thanksgiving to Him as a proper response to His priceless gift of salvation.

Conclusion
• For those who advocate the generality, the word “world” means all people on earth, and the word “love” refers to the enemy-loving love given by God as His common grace to the sinful mankind.
• For those who advocate the particularity, the word “world” refers to the elect, and the word “love” refers to the Fatherly-redemptive love, the kind of love as Jesus said to His beloved disciples, “I have loved you with the love which my Father loves me.”

Therefore, these two perspectives of John 3:16 are two sides of the same coin without contradicting one another–if explained properly.

Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜); June 9, 2021

熱心傳福音愛靈魂的基督徒經常都會想起尋道者 (seekers) 的需要。每當有新朋友來到查經班時, 帶領者建議説，「我們今天本來計劃要查的利未記是否適合新朋友呢？不如我們今天不查經而改為一些輕鬆的福音性話題，如談談 ”屬靈四律” 等, 不是更好嗎? 」無疑, 帶領人的出發點都是好的, 因為他們恐怕新朋友對難懂的聖經沒有興趣, 下次就不來了。但如果每次當有新人來訪, 我們的查經計劃便因遷就不同的对象而反覆更改，那麼, 有心學習聖經的參予者便因「清談福音」的緣故而受規損了; 查經班也慢慢失去其方向。

但我懷疑這種「移動靶子(moving target)」的做法是否妥當。這種想法的背後似乎假設查經對不信者是困難的事，而淺談福音卻是容易的事。但事實上, 「談福音-論得救」並非易事, 因為福音包括很廣泛的神學大問題，如三位一體的觀念，人類的罪性， 道成肉身，耶穌的復活，重生，信心，因信稱羲，雙重歸算論等, 都不是三言兩語就可以發揮其説服力的。相反地, 我却認為對未信主的朋友解釋救恩論是很困難的事。因為救恩論取決於我們對罪的觀點：我們是相信亞當的後裔只是被罪破壞了完美呢? 還是他們巳經絕望地死在罪惡過犯中呢！我們是相信一個人的得救是上帝無條件的揀選呢？還是上帝預先知道誰將會接受福音而去作出選擇呢？更有些人認為上帝單單救那些「盡己力而為」的人。這些都是龐大的神學問題，絕非「輕鬆地」可以用清談的方式解釋得清楚。然而，救恩論卻取決于這些問題的答案。筆者認為不信者對基督教的入門最好從認識上帝的屬性談起， 我們若不認識上帝是怎樣一位上帝，我們又怎能愛祂和順服祂呢？

上帝給人類的啓示是漸進的，啓示以舊約為始而潛移默化地進入到新約，因此, 或許我們可以籠統說地説「舊約比新約更容易了解」。而這説法與我們一搬的「先讀新約，後讀舊約」的想法不同。奧古斯丁説得對，「新約隱藏在舊約；舊約顕露于新約。」所以不要有「新約更適合新朋友」的錯誤觀念。我認為無論新約或舊約都同樣有效地作學習聖經的起步點。聖經也沒有暗示，在學習上，有任何層次先後的觀念。

其實整本舊約都是關注到神的屬性， 包括我們不願意接受的「上帝的震怒」的屬性，但我們因怕「嚇跑新人」而迴避不談。帶領人的責任就是忠心分解聖言。在聚會中，有時基督徒是有可能會冒犯新人的。例如有一次查經聚會中，一位姊妹帶了一個新朋友來訪。當天晚上帶領的弟兄講到福音書中耶穌所教訓的「要背負自己的十字架。」那位新朋友事後非常生氣，向帶她來的那位姊妹發牢騷，「我生活中已經有太多麻煩了, 還要來到你們的團契聽到這些另人失望的訊息, 我以後不來了。」帶新朋友來的姊妹也非常不高興, 認為帶領的弟兄對新朋友缺乏敏感性; 聖經的確是會冒犯人的。但葛培禮牧師講得好，「如果冐犯不能避免，那就讓上帝的話去冐犯人吧，但切勿不要因我們的態度冐犯了別人。」

嚴格來說, 未得救的人是不會, 也不可能會明白聖經的，所以他們聽不懂聖經是正常的。但聖靈上帝有時會隨己意給人恩典, 藉著某一段，甚至某一節經文開啟他們的心竅，給他們一個當頭棒喝，使他豁然開朗, 明白真道。但這不是可以預先計劃的，乃全是聖靈的工作。

我們常常以為尋道者 (seeker) 就是一些熱心尋找上帝的人。其實只有上帝才會尋找人, 一個未重生的墮落人， 是絶不會尋找上帝的。耶穌明顯地指出, 「人子來，是為了尋找並拯救迷失的人 （路加19:10）。」。當我們自己以為正在尋找上帝的時候，其實上帝已經在我們不知不覺中首先尋找了我們。所以我們不必對尋道者過份敏感，因為他們是上帝帶來的。只要我們小心，不要做一些拒絕別人或使人气馁的事就好了。聖靈會在他們身上作奇妙的工作。

另外一件事是, 帶領人必需相信聖經是無誤的，相信它不但無誤，也不能會誤。聖經是上帝的話語，是聖言，聖言是帶著能力的。所以我們不要以為在聖言以外可以找到使人信服真道的方法。我自己是辯道者。辯道不在乎說服別人, 也不在乎贏得辯論, 最終目的是要贏得靈魂。說服力在於聖靈。辯道乃是將阻擋十字架視線上的障礙物移走, 使人看見具有說服力的十字架。其實辯道的操練最大的受益人乃是辯道者的本身。首先他要尊主基督為聖, 然後為了向人解釋心中盼望的緣由、便常作準備、並且以溫柔敬畏的心回答各人的問題 (彼前3:15)。這個過程必能增加辯道者自己對主的信心, 包括深信「沒有一句上帝的話是不帶著能力的。」以下是一些例子。

我的神學思想，深受巳故的史鮑爾 (R.C. Sproul) 牧師的影響。他的得救經歷也是因聖經話語的刺銳力而促使的。他進大學後的第一個禮拜內, 有一天他與一位比他高班的高才生談話，這位學長與他談起 「與耶穌建立個人關係」 的話題。他們的對話是一般的閒談而非正式的福音演說, 但那人談到聖經具有超越的智慧時，不知為何, 引用了半句朦朧模糊的經文: 「…樹若向南倒，或向北倒，樹倒在何處，就存在何處 (傳道書: 11:3b)」。突然間, 他好像意識到自己像死樹一般, 動也不動地躺在那裏, 且正在腐爛中。他看到自己的生活何等墮落, 慢慢地腐爛衰退。 在這思想下, 史鮑爾進入房間, 雙膝跪下, 在床邊禱告, 求神赦罪, 他遇見了耶穌, 得着生命, 彷彿朽爛的靈魂從森林的地底被抬舉起來。事後，史鮑爾說, 「這半句經文猶如當頭棒喝, 正中我心中的要害。」誰能想到這半節舊約經文，讀起來非常尋常，卻能改變一個人的生命! 這就見證了上帝的話語確是帶着使人重生的能力。

才华洋溢的奧古斯丁，年輕時生活放荡不羁，母親日夜為他流淚禱告，但徒勞無功。有一天他在米兰寓所的花园中散步，圣灵催逼他回头，他的心灵呼喊著：「要等到何时呢？何不就在此刻，结束我污秽的过去？」这时他恰巧听到邻家儿童大聲齊唱疊句：「拿起書来读，拿起書来读 (Tolle lege, tolle lege)」當時，他的視線落在一本巳經打開的聖經上，這本聖經剛好打開到新約羅馬書 13:13-14，上面寫著：「行事為人要端正、好像行在白晝．不可荒宴醉酒．不可好色邪蕩．不可爭競嫉妒。總要披戴主耶穌基督、不要為肉體安排、去放縱私慾。」特別是當他讀到「不可荒宴醉酒．不可好色邪蕩」時，上帝的話語刺透他內心的軟弱之處, 聖靈当時便使他活過來。自此以后，奧古斯丁便归向上帝，並于次年受洗。這個中世紀的故事, 再次見證了上帝的話語確能帶着使人悔改的能力的。

數世紀後, 馬丁路得被類似的方式喚醒過來。 路得深深地在神的公義上掙扎, 他承認他甚至偶爾會恨惡這個教義。但當他讀到奧古斯丁對羅馬書 1:17 的註釋時, 突然頓悟到福音的真諦, 就是 「義人必因信得生。」 這一句短短的聖經促使馬丁路得展開了偉大的宗教改革運動, 其影響力波及至如今。再次見證了上帝的話語確是帶着改變人類歷史的能力。

有一位具有宣教熱情的姊妹被国际威克理夫圣经翻译中心 (現在巳經改名 Wycliffe Global Alliance) 派到一個未開發的部落去傳福音。這族人沒有文字，他們只有口頭上的交流。這位姊妹首先為他們從口語設計一套文字，然後用這些文字去翻譯聖經。她選了馬太福音第一章作為事工的始點。當她看到耶穌基督的家譜時，為了節省時間, 她便把家譜這一段省略，直接進入馬太福音的核心。經過長年累月的工夫，翻譯工作終於告成, 她便把稿件送到遠方付印。數月後, 很多印好的聖經幅本運回來了。可是村民對聖經一點興趣都沒有，他們所關注的，乃是那部運輸聖經的大卡車。這位宣教姊妹心被壓碎了。但她堅持不懈，決定把家譜也加進去，重新付印。當她把修正版交給酋長時，酋長看後就信了耶穌。不但如此，很快地全族的土人都信了耶穌。這位姊妹驚喜地問酋長為什麼會這樣發生呢？酋長回答說, 「原來你們的聖經中的耶穌是真人真事的記載，祂是有家譜記錄的，不像我們所想像的神話傳說，因為家譜對我們來說，是真人真事的記錄, 所以耶穌是真實的人物。我們看到祂的生平，就信了。」 你能想像到基督徒都認為沉悶的家譜却能使一些未開發的士人信耶穌嗎？我們再次證實了神的話語是帶着超自然的能力。聖靈可以用任何一句經文使人歸正。

結論：聖經是神的話語, 它具有超自然的能力。儘管有時聖經的話語可能會冒犯別人，但上帝卻可以用任何一節聖經，照着他聰明的旨意，在我們想不到的情況下, 拯救任何一個人。我們無需過分刻意改變查經計劃去「適應」新朋友。我們只要忠心分解聖經，聖靈上帝就會工作。我們必須高舉聖經權威。但在教会历史中却有些激進人仕，認為除了聖經之外，我們不應該聽牧師，執長，或屬靈弟兄子妹的話；別人的書籍也無需閱讀。這不是「唯獨聖經」教義的真正意思。我不反對「屬靈四律」，它是一套很棒的福音簡介，令人在很短時間內畧知福音的一二。但在沒有正統神學的根基上，我們若過份地照字面或用己意去解釋它，那就可能會冐「今日的 ”差之毫釐” 造成日後的 ”謬以千里” 」之險。我個人喜歡藉著經文，向未信者多講解一些神的屬性。因為若對上帝不認識，我們又怎能愛祂和順服祂呢? 盼望弟兄姊妹，首先尊主為大，然後常作準備，把自己得救的緣由，以溫柔敬畏的心向別人解釋他們的問題，這是合乎聖經的傳福音方式。

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天赐); May 6, 2021

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/israel-at-mount-sinai/

最近我讀到上面的那篇文章，其上沒有標上作者的名字，我推測是 R.C. Sproul (斯鮑爾) 所寫的。我把此文章的頭一段意思寫成中文，如下：

「以色列人離開埃及后五十天，上帝將他們帶到西奈，與他們立約，並將祂的律法交給了祂的子民。 重要的是要在逾越節 (離開埈及的那一天) 後第五十天就是日後所設立的五旬節的盛宴。這裡我們看到新約與舊約的一個對比。就是: 基督死後 (耶穌是在逾越節被釘十字架) 五十天就是五旬節, 聖靈傾倒在使徒和門徒身上。 在此我们看到古希伯來人被羔羊的血所救贖的事实，成為基督寶血救贖人類的預表。然而，正是就在那一個五旬，上帝製定了他們賴以生存的律法，特別是十誡。 今天的基督徒被上帝羔羊的血所救，就得到了基督的聖靈，使他們有能力遵守法律。」

我以前沒有想過上帝頒布十誡給摩西是在以色列人出埈及后第五十天, 並且那天正是日後律法所指的五旬節 (Pentecost)。我對這資料感到新鮮。我開始查考聖經，但卻找不到這資料。突然我依稀想起巳故的滕近輝牧師多年前在紐約靈命進修會也提過類似的事。花些功夫後我找到了。他寫道：

「主耶穌升天前，吩咐門徒要在耶路撒冷等候所應許的聖靈。他們就等候禱告了十天之久。為什麼九天不夠，要等到十天？第十天是五旬節，聖靈就降臨。為什麼到五旬節聖靈才降臨？當時在以色列人的觀念中，五旬節是神把律法賜給他們。現在神揀選這個時候，乃是充分證明聖靈代替了律法。我們不再在律法之下，乃是在賜生命之聖靈的恩典之下。神是藉著聖靈而給我們恩典。《啟示錄中的生命與事奉》

我堅信聖經無誤，也不能誤。但屬靈偉人是會有錯的。既然聖經沒有講，我大有理由忽略他們對此事的看法。但從另一觀點來看，我若不願站在巨人的肩膀上，我就永遠看得不遠。所以我先接受他們的看法，然後再作更深的考證。

儘管「五十天」的屬靈意義是否絕對，然而「何時到達西乃山」却是一個合理的問題。 Google 幫助我找到 (至少) 下面的一節聖經作根據：

「以色列人出埃及地以後、滿了三個月的那一天、就來到西乃的曠野。(出埃及記19:1)」

可是一搬对「滿了三個月」的領會是 30 乘 3, 即 90 天，這與 50 天差得太遠了！但當我看到數種英文版本時，難題便獲得了紓解。其中一英文版本寫道:

「In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai. (KJV Exodus 19:1)」

英文版的「In the third month」一詞, 不是「到了整整三個月後」之意，而是指「到了第三個月。」

• 第一年的第一個月的十四日是歷史上第一個逾越節，以色列人離埈及後行了16日的路程便進入了第二個月。(參看出埈及記 12:6-14）
• 在第二個月內，以色列人整整走了30天 (猶太曆月是沒有 31 天的)。所以到第二個月過後，以色列人巳走了46 (=16+30) 天的路程, 便進入第三個月了。
• 第四十七天, 就是第三個月的第一天，以色列人到了西乃的曠野，正如（出19:1) 所說的。
• 他們開始預備朝見耶和華(出19:2-10)。
• 「到第三天 (47+3=50) 要預備好了、因為第三天耶和華要在眾百姓眼前降臨在西乃山上。(出19:11)」

如果我們把舊約的「出埃及至西乃山」與新約的「復活至五旬節」作出屬靈的對比，兩者的時距都是50天。但新約的 50天卻有兩部份：頭 40天是耶穌復活後留在地上，目的是要向門徒顕現，使他們能作主復活的見證人。四十天過後, 在祂升天之前，耶穌囑咐門徒留在耶路撒冷等待聖靈的降臨。聖經沒有明説要等多久。但答案是 十天，正如滕近輝牧師在上述的解釋一搬。

By Tin-chee (TC) Lo (盧天赐)； December 22, 2020

匠 人 所 棄 的 石 頭 、 已 作 了 房 角 的 頭 塊 石 頭 (The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone) (1 Peter 2:7)

就建築而言，房角石在傳統上是第一塊基石，而其他所有石材的安置都是以它為參照點。 房角石標記著房屋的正確地理位置和方向, 並而此定位是建築師在建造房屋前預先決定的。
房角石一詞是什麼意思？ 在詞典中可找出以下的關鍵字眼：

骨幹，核心，基岩，試金石，中心裝飾品，柱石，中流中柱，制輪楔，基礎 ，命脈，支撐，中心，角，本質，元素，支點，錨點，塊，傑作，癥結。 簡而言之，房角石是指極其重要，必不可缺的東西。耶穌作為主要的房角石基，確保了我們整個救恩體系(靈宮)的穩定。 耶穌昨日, 今日, 和永遠都是唯一的創始成終者。 以賽亞書28:16 説：

「所以主耶和華如此說、看哪、我在錫安放一塊石頭、作為根基、是試驗過的石頭、是穩固根基、寶貴的房角石、信靠的人必不著急。」

在《新約》中，耶穌在建造靈宮 (教會) 中的作用的主要意義, 在某種程度上，不是根基。 祂乃是建造根基的藍圖。《新約》說，除了在基督耶穌中奠定 (藍圖) 的根基以外，沒有任何「自作主張」的根基可以把靈宫建立起來，但是耶穌不是根基, 祂是房角石 (see Note in th English version below)，他比根基更重要。 房角石標出教會 (靈宮) 的位置和方向。 如果方向和定位錯了，那麼, 根基越牢固，越宏偉，它造成的損害就越大。 許多異端教會在組織力量和財務資源方面都有很強大基礎，但是他們的方向走錯了，導致更多人誤入歧途。 感謝神，這些建設在錯誤根基上的大廈，終必 (在末日) 被剪除。那麼，耶穌基督的教會的根基是什麼呢？ 當新約談到建築靈宮時，它說的是「先知和使徒是它的根基 (Eph. 2:20)。」 先知和使徒們給了我們上帝的道，上帝的啓示，和上帝的預言 (特別是末世的預言) 作為建造教會靈宮的基礎。這樣的靈宮必永遠長存。

正如詩人在舊約中說的（詩11：3），“根基若毀壞、義人還能作甚麼呢？” 教會的正統性取決於根基，而根基正確功能的發揮取決於房角石。 聖誕節的嬰孩耶穌就是那房角石。此房角石留給我們只有兩個選擇：那些相信耶穌基督的人將成為永生神的活石； 那些拒絕耶穌的人會絆倒在房角石上而因此滅亡, 神沒有給予我們中間地帶。

2020 Christmas Reflection

 “Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the Cornerstone.” (1 Peter 2:7)

In relation to architecture, a cornerstone (or capstone) is traditionally the first stone laid for a structure, with all other stones laid in reference. A cornerstone marks the geographical location by orienting a building in a specific direction pre-determined by the builder.

What is another word for Cornerstone? Dictionary yields the following keywords: backbone, centerpiece, bedrock, touchstone, centerpiece, pillar, mainstay, lynchpin, core, basis, lifeblood, Underpinning, heart, corner, essence, element, fulcrum, anchor, block, masterpiece, fundamental, crux…

In short, the cornerstone is an extremely important element.

As the Chief Cornerstone, Jesus ensures the stability of the whole system of our salvation. Jesus was and is the only plan of salvation. Isaiah 28:16, “Therefore this says the Lord God: ‘Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, for a sure foundation, the one who trusts will never be dismayed'”. Peter was referring to this text as source.

In the New Testament, the primary sense of the role of Jesus in the building is not that of the foundation. The New Testament says that no foundation can be laid except that which is laid in Christ Jesus, but Jesus is not the foundation. He is more important than the foundation. The cornerstone sets forth the location and orientation of the church. If the direction and orientation is wrong, the firmer the foundation, the bigger the damage it would incur. Many heretic churches have very strong foundation in terms of the strength of their organization and financial resources, but their directions are wrongheaded, leading  more people to go astray. Now, then, what is the foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ? When the New Testament speaks of the spiritual building, the Church, it speaks of the foundation as being the Prophets and Apostles. These servants of God serving as God’s mouthpieces, gave us the Word of God, which is established as the foundation of the whole edifice.

As the Psalmist said (Ps. 11:3) in the Old Testament, “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”. The Church depends on the foundation, and the foundation depends on the Cornerstone. This Cornerstone of Christmas leaves us only two choices: You believe in Jesus Christ to become the living stones unto eternal life. Or you reject Jesus Christ and stumble over the Cornerstone and perish.

Note:

R.C. Sproul writes in his article “The Church’s One Foundation“:

The foundation, Paul tells us, consists of the prophets and the Apostles (Eph. 2:18-21). In Revelation 21, we read of the magnificent vision of the New Jerusalem, the heavenly city that comes down from above. Verse 14 tells us that “the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” Even the heavenly Jerusalem is based upon the foundation of the apostles. Historically, the Christian church is, in its very essence, Apostolic. The term Apostle comes from the Greek word apostolos, which means “one who is sent.” In the ancient Greek culture, an apostolos was first of all a messenger, an ambassador, or an emissary. But he wasn’t just a page. He was an emissary who was authorized by the king to represent the king in his absence, and he bore the king’s authority. The first Apostle in the New Testament was actually Jesus, for He was sent by His Father into the world. 

by: T.C. Lo 盧天賜 (November 4, 2020)

The entire Bible contains 66 books, of which the Old Testament has 39 books and the New Testament 27 books. An arithmetic acrostic “3×9=27” may be helpful for us to remember these two numbers.

The Book of Isaiah is one of the Old Testament books that the Lord Jesus loved to quote. When the Lord first came out to preach, He quoted the book of Isaiah (see Luke 4:17).

What’s interesting is that the Book of Isaiah happens to have 66 chapters. The first 39 chapters concern with sin and judgment whereas the latter 27 chapters lay weight on the grace and glory of God and the hope of God’s children. Such loosely division of Isaiah seemingly mirrors the two images of God derived from His very character: His stern face reflects His holiness, judgment, and wrath upon mankind; and His benevolent face associated with His love, forgiveness, and grace toward His children.

Cursory reading of the Bible by some people could easily lead them to draw a misguided conclusion that the God of the Old Testament (the Father God) is stern and the God of the New Testament (God’s Son, Jesus) is benevolent.

The God of the Old Testament (specifically referring to the Father) is a violent God, He poured out wrath upon us. No small amount of cases of mass killings of people, apparently at God’s behest, are recorded in the O.T. Examples abound:

• The Flood (Genesis 6-8)
• The cities of the plain, including Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18-19)
• The Egyptian firstborn sons during the Passover (Exodus 11-12)
• The Canaanites under Moses and Joshua (Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21)
• The Amalekites annihilated by Saul (1 Samuel).
• etc.

On the contrary, the God of the New Testament (especially referring to God’s Son, Jesus) is the God of love and grace. In the Gospel, we see our Lord Jesus went about doing good. He was an itinerant preacher to accomplish His merciful designs, He frequently visited large and populous places, and places of public resort. Numerous examples support the claim of His kindness.

• Jesus opened the eyes of the blind; He gave hearing to the deaf; and He raised the dead (Matthew 11:5).
• Jesus did good to the souls of men. The ignorant were instructed by Him in the essential doctrines and duties of religion (Matthew 5:1, 2; Luke 19:47; John 8:2). He strengthened the weak and wavering, and comforted mourning penitents (Matthew 5:4; Matthew 11:28). Lord Jesus instructed His disciples to “put your sword back in its place” (Matthew 26:52). Jesus also instructed us to love and pray for our enemies.

Jesus’ benevolence is remarkable. Human beings may occasionally be charitable but their charity is not without impure motive. In contrary, the intentions of Jesus in doing good were pure and perfect. He was moved by the transcendent goodness of His nature to acts of kindness. Jesus persevered in doing good. He was never weary of it.

Because of this, a popular but severely distorted concept has developed. People believe that it is the Son, not the Father, who alone extremely identifies Himself with our fallen state. In our needs, the Son stands on our side and acts as our mediator to calm the Father’s anger. While the Father is ready to punish us and send us to hell, the Son intercedes, “Punish me! Let me bear your anger.”

This concept creates tension that divides the Godhead. It also seems that the Father has His own agenda and the Son asks the Father to change His mind. This view leads to a certain widespread and prevalent belief: the Son is more loving, patient, and compassionate than the Father. Unthoughtful reading of the Bible does give people this impression.

In this sense, Christians seem to have a tendency to be a “Unitarians” supporter of the Son. Although we still learn, devote, and worship the Father, we do these in terms of etiquette and fear of Him, at the core, we completely ignore Him. This is obviously a very wrong theological view.

It can be seen that if we regard impressions or feelings as truth, it can easily produce an undesirable butterfly effect (The butterfly flutters here, but a few days later it causes a tornado hundreds of miles away). These seemingly indifferent matter can greatly distort theological orthodoxy.

But the Old Testament such as in Psalm 145:8 it clearly says, “The Lord (God, the Father) is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.” Isn’t the Father same in temperament as the Son Jesus?

The New Testament John 3:15 says, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Who sent this loving Jesus into the world to save us? The answer is, of course, God the Father! Can we say that the Father is not loving?

On the other hand, Jesus did at times express righteous indignation throughout His earthly ministry:

One commentator says, Jesus clearly displayed anger during His earthly life. The primary example is His response to those who were making a profit by exchanging money and selling animals at the temple (Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-18; John 2:13-22).

On another occasion, Jesus asked the religious leaders if it was okay to heal a person on the Sabbath day. When they would not answer, we are told, “he looked around at them with anger” (Mark 3:5) before healing a man. His harshness centered on the attitudes of religious teachers who claimed to know the Law yet cared more about themselves than whether a person was healed. So yes, Jesus was angry at times, yet did not sin (Hebrews 4:15).

Therefore, advocating “strict-Father and merciful Son” is a wrongheaded dichotomy. The disposition or the character of the Old Testament Father and of the New Testament Jesus is the same. They are of the one Triune God who is in and of themselves harmonious, tension-free, and should serve as a model for us of ideal relationships.

I Posted this earlier in Chinese:

“嚴父慈子” 的錯誤神學

This question came up again in recent Bible study group, so I elaborate and enhance the content and rewrite it in English here.

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天赐)； September 24, 2020

每當查考雅各書2:14-26時，聖經學生都很自然地發出一個問題：保羅的「因信稱義」與雅各的「因行為稱義」有矛盾嗎? 聖經老師給了一個簡單且正碓的答案: 「聖經當然沒有矛盾，雅各是指 “真信心是用好行為去證明其真實性。」 我們是否就停在這裡呢？有沒有一個更透徹的理解? 我想我們是可以有更深一層的理解的。

當我們查考或默想聖經時，對某些詞彙的意義, 要獲得充分的了解是很大的問題。十三世紀的神學家阿奎那 (Thomas Aquinas) 遇到同樣的挑戰。當他在穆斯林相對主義者面前捍衛基督教時，他意識到語言的三種用法的區分是很重要 (Ref. 1)。

單義的 (Univocal)
「這幅油畫是好作品」和「這本書是一本好書」。這裡兩句話中的「好」字是單義的，因為它們的含義是相同，都是具有單一的意思, 就是描述一種藝術與文學的美好的品質。

異義的 (Equivocal)
「這篇道講得好」和「我的小狗是好狗」。前者是指這篇道「清晰, 正統, 切題」。後者是指「小狗聼話, 可愛, 清潔」。同一個「好」字，意思完全不同。還有一個例子：中文的「愛」字 或 英文的「love」是屬於「異義」的, 因為用同一個字來表達四種不同的愛是會產生混亂的。但希臘文可解決這個問題, 它把這個異義詞轉變成四個希臘的單義字以作區別：
• Storge—保護的愛，如描述父母的愛。
• Phileo—兄弟般的愛。 熱愛友誼。 費城 (Philadelphia), 意即兄弟之愛的城市。
• Eros— 性愛, 夫妻的愛, 或浪漫的愛情。
• Agape— 屬靈的愛。 純真的愛。 反映了上帝堅定的愛。(Note)

比喻的(Analogical)
當我想到世上的父親對我那麼好時，我就開始領會到那天上的父親真是好。前者的「好」我可體驗，後者的「好」深奧莫測，但透過比喻, 我可以增加對天父的認識。［注意, 對那些在童年時被父親虐待過的人，這比喻就用不上了。所以, 用比喻來交通是有其背景的限制的。］

除語言外，背景及對聼眾的了解也很重要。講道家Robinson 在他的書中 (Ref. 2) 指出，「溝通」意味著「意義的匯合 (Communication means “a meeting of meanings)」。無論是講員穿過大会堂向聼眾們発表演説，或作家向數世紀之後的讀者傳達訊息，若要溝通能生效，發訊者與受訊者必須有共享的共同事物：言語，文化，世界觀，交流的形式等。以解經為例，這就好像一位講解員將他的椅子拉到聖經作者坐的地方, 試圖努力回到作者當時的的聖經世界來明白其訊息。现在以區別雅各與保羅的「信心觀」為例説明之。

當我們坐在保羅的椅子，我們看到他書桌上寫給眾教會的書信 (羅馬書, 加拉太書, 以弗所書等), 便體驗到他是寫給當時的「律法主義者 (legalists)」。他們忘記了保羅所教導的福音，認為人得救是在乎守律法—這不是福音, 所以保羅稱之為「另一種福音」。為了矯正他們的錯誤，保羅在羅馬書中表達他的救恩論，寫道:「我們既因信稱義、就藉著我們的主耶穌基督、得與神相和 (Romans 5:1)」， 這只是其中一经文。簡言之，保羅的神學宣告是「一個人乃是單憑信心而稱義, 行為不是稱義的條件 (a man is justified by faith apart from work)。」

當我們坐在雅各的椅子，我們看到他書桌上寫給眾教會的書信 (雅各書), 便體会到他是寫給當時的「反律法主義者 (antinomians）」。此等人以為既然得救本乎恩，耶穌亦有無限的赦免，那麼又何必遵守律法呢？為了矯正他們的錯誤，雅各強調「人稱義是因著行為、不是單因著信 (James 2:24)」。簡言之, 雅各的神學宣告是「一個人是通過行為而不是僅僅通過信心而稱義 (a man is justified by works and not by faith alone)。

在這兩個宣告中, 它們都各自出現了三個詞：“稱義”, “信心” 和 “行為”。 如果這三個詞，每一個都對應地具相同的意義 (i.e., univocal)，那麼我們就有問題了。 一位聖經作者説「因信稱義」而另位聖經作者説「因行為稱義」, 聖經豈非自相矛盾乎?  然而, 當我們堅信聖經是無誤, 也不能誤 (the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible) 的教義，我們只能得出這樣的結論, 就是這三個詞，一定不是每個都對應地具相同意義的。它們一定是各有其所指 的意思(equivocal)。讓我們分別看看這三個字：

稱義 (Justified): Equivocal
• 對保羅來說，這意味著 “得救(saved), 被宣告為義 (declared righteous)”。
• 對雅各來說，它的意思是 “證明 (vindicated)，認證 (authenticated)，表明 (demonstrated)”。

行為 (Work): Equivocal
• 對保羅來說，這意味著 “法律的工作 (works of the law)”。
• 對雅各來說，這意味著 “信心的產物 (the product of faith)”。

信心 (faith): Univocal
這裡一定是指 “得救的信心” 而不是指「成聖的信心」。如果是指後者，那就沒有甚麼爭論需要在此解釋了，因為保羅也同意「 我們若是靠聖靈得生、就當靠聖靈行事 (Gal. 5:25)。」行事就是得救後的工作。然而雅各在此所講的信心，也可以把「成聖的信心」包括在內。
• 雅各心目中的信心，是指一種「能產生好行為的信心 (James 2:17)」。
• 要了解保羅心目中所指的信心，就要先了解保羅的救贖觀  (Soteriology)。保羅所獲得的啓示是：人是巳經死在罪惡過犯中，絕無任何道德能力和心靈的傾向去認識神, 去愛神。藉著神那难以置信的的恩典，衪使那些在創世以前巳被預定得救的人，從死亡中活過來。這個「活過來」就意味著重生，是完完全全, 百分之一百, 神的作為，人毫無貢献。對一個重生的人，神就賜他信心作禮物，使他用新造的性情和意志願意接受耶穌為他的主和救主。所以，在邏輯上和神學上，重生先於信心，但在時間上是同時的。一個重生的人是一個新造的人，這個新人在性情上是喜愛上帝，甘心願作榮神益人的事。所以一個真正被聖靈重生的人的信心是具有內在行善能力的信心。因此, 保羅心目中的信心，也是「能產生好行為的信心」 。因此，保羅和雅各的「信心」是「同義」的。可見雅各與保羅的神學是沒有矛盾的。

Note:
論到 Agape, 里程 (馮秉誠) 在他的 <聖經的詮釋> 中寫道: 我們常常被教導說, 阿嘎佩 (我喜歡香港或台灣人的翻譯, 把 Agape 譯作 “愛加倍”) 是指神那不變的 (unchanging), 崇高的 (sublime) 愛。但是, 不知讀者是否知道, 在新約聖經中, “底馬貪愛現今的世界 (提後 4:10)” 和先知巴蘭 “貪愛不義之工價 (彼後 2:15)” 中的 “貪愛” 所用的詞卻是 Agape, 而在約翰福音中, 天父對聖子及信徒的愛有時卻用費勒歐 (phileo)。 聖經也用Hesed 來描述神的愛；英文譯作 lovingkindness (Ref. 3)。可見明白字句並非易事。

References:

1. “Defending Your Faith” by RC Sproul; pp. 67-68.
2. “Biblical Preaching—The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages” by Haddon W. Robinson; p. 23.
3. “聖經的詮釋” by里程; p. 4.

By T.C. Lo (盧天賜); September 11, 2020

這是保羅在第三次宣教之旅 (Acts 18:22 to Acts 21:19) 的回程中所發生的事。

保羅在米利都向從以弗所下來的众長老説了這句話:

Acts 20:22「現在我往耶路撒冷去、心甚迫切、〔原文作心被捆綁〕不知道在那裡要遇見甚麼事。」

「心甚迫切」英文是「compelled by the Spirit」。透過聖靈的催逼，保羅雖然深知捆綁在眼前，他仍決定「往耶路撒冷去」, 可見保羅並沒有不順服聖靈的旨意。「催逼 (compelled)」是指神的明顕旨意，不用人去推測。這種清晰的聖靈感動，在保羅的事工中常出現這種情況。參考「馬其頓的異象」(16:6–10)。

聖靈的旨意，往往不是單向一人啓示，乃是多方多次地表明，以作明顕的見證。整個福音的啓示是如此，甚至整本聖經的啓示也是如此 (Hebrew 1:1)。
Acts 20:
(v. 23) 但知道聖靈在各城裡向我指證、說、有捆鎖與患難等待我。
(v. 24) 我卻不以性命為念、也不看為寶貴、只要行完我的路程、成就我從主耶穌所領受的職事、證明　神恩惠的福音。

這兩節經文更肯定保羅是明知大難當頭，仍堅持聖靈的指引，決定往聖路撒冷去。我們在這裡看出保羅那種願意犧牲的順服。「在各城裡向我指證」。説明不只一次，不只一個地方，聖靈都明確多方多次指出「捆鎖與患難」是在耶京等待著保羅。

Acts 21:
(v. 11) 「到了我們這裡、就拿保羅的腰帶、捆上自己的手腳、說、聖靈說、猶太人在耶路撒冷、要如此捆綁這腰帶的主人、把他交在外邦人手裡。」

這是在回耶路撒冷的回程中，到了該撒利亞所發生的事， 論到一位從猶太下來的先知，亞迦布，所說的話。他用演戲的方式，預言保羅的被捕。聖靈並沒有向這些人勸告保羅關乎「去」與「不去」耶路撒冷的旨示。

Acts 21:
(v. 12)「我們和那本地的人、聽見這話、都苦勸保羅不要上耶路撒冷去。」
「我們」也包括使徒行傳的作者路加，他和當地的人巳從聖靈獲得了消息。但是「苦勸保羅不要上耶路撒冷去」不是聖靈給他們的命令，而是他們對所獲得的消息，作出人情友善的回應。

Acts 21
(v. 4)「找著了門徒、就在那裡住了七天．他們被聖靈感動、對保羅說、不要上耶路撒冷去。」
保羅來到推羅 (撒迦利亞的前一站) 遇到這班弟兄，他們也「被聖靈感動」， 獲知耶京將要發生的事，他們便以「人的感情」勸保羅「不要上耶路撒冷去」。跟據 (21:12) 的解釋，這一定不是聖靈的命令。但也有一個可能性，就是他們「以為」這是神的命令。所以這裡教導我們不要单单把自己的「感受」作為了解神的旨意的根據。使徒彼得也犯過同樣的錯誤，勸耶穌不要上十字架, 结果被主斥责 (太16:21-23）。所以我們不能單憑人的感覺去確定神的旨意。

[Summary in English at the end]

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜); April 17, 2020

在熱心傳福音的人們中有一個非常受歡迎的寓道故事:「失落的人類被視為是無法游泳的溺水者。 他經過數次的浮浮沉沉掙扎，知道如果他再次沈下去，他便會溺死。 他唯一的希望就是上帝丟給他一個救生圈。 仁慈的上帝真的拋出了救生索，索端係着一個救生圈， 並且精確地扔到溺者伸手所及的邊緣。 該溺者惟一要做的事情就是抓住這個救生圈。 只要他決定抓住救生圈，上帝就會把他拖上岸, 他就得救了。但如果他拒絕救生圈，他肯定會滅亡。」

這故事説出神極大的作為和恩典 (99.99%), 而人只付出微不足道 (0.01%) 的努力, 就可獲得救恩。而且也論到人的自由意志和責任，非常精闢。故事雖動人，也似乎很另人信服, 但它不附合聖經的教導，問題出于那 0.01%人的努力。現正讓我們先看看聖經怎樣説。在此只選兩節 (See Appendix)：
• 「當我們死在過犯中的時候、便叫我們與基督一同活過來．（你們得救是本乎恩）(以弗所書2:5)」
• 「你們得救是本乎恩、也因著信、這並不是出於自己、乃是　神所賜的．(以弗所書2:8)」

這兩處的經文告訴我們: 我們生下來有原罪 (original sin）, 所以我們都是罪人。聖經也説, 罪的工價乃是死, 所以天然人在屬靈上是死人，死在罪惡過犯當中。既是死人，就不會, 也不可能, 愛慕和明白屬靈的事。因此，神對祂的選民(被神揀選的人) 要做的第一件事就是, 先把他們救活, 這就稱為「重生」, 就是有屬靈的生命。人有了屬靈的生命之後，便能作出合理正當的決擇。首先, 他看到以前看不到的, 就是自己有罪, 開始知道需要救主的赦免。神就賜給他們信心作禮物，憑著這個禮物，透過救主耶穌在十字架上已經成就了的救恩，我們就得救了。這就是得救的過程。

根據這個觀念,有具大的聖經根据 (Refer. 6), 讓我把上面的故事改編如下：

「失落的人類被視為是不憧游泳的溺水者。 他經過數次的浮浮沉沉掙扎，終於溺死了。 但上帝揀選他，憐憫他，恩待他，就使他復活過來。以前昏暗的理性現正清醒了。他知道他需要救主。他唯一的希望就是上帝丟給他一個救生圈。 仁慈的上帝真的拋出了祂早就預備好了的救生索，索端係着一個救生圈， 並且精確地扔到了溺者伸手所及的邊緣。 該溺者惟一要做的事情就是相信這是唯一的生路, 便用他更新過的自由意志, 抓住這個救生圈。上帝就把他拖上岸, 他就得救了。他那更新過的頭腦是清醒的，不是像以前的昏暗, 用他更新過的自由意志，作出明智的決定, 所以他絕不會拒絕救生圈，他肯定會伸手抓住它, 使獲救在握。」

現在我們用神學的語言，重述上面一段話： 神學家 R.C. Sproul 在他的書 (Ref. 1) 中寫道: “重生不是人信心所結的果子, 重生是在信心之先, 它是信心的必要條件。我們天然的意志是不會傾慕重生的, 不願也不可能與聖靈同工, 使重生得以實現 (p.162)”. 所以, “未重生的人不會有揀選基督的意願 (p.155)。” 如果重生完全是神的工作, 那麽神要重生誰呢? 這就牽涉到預定論了。Sproul 又指出: “神的預定是根據神的揀選, 而不是人的揀選(p.154)。” 因此, “救恩屬於神, 也出於神 (p.152)。” 當一個人被重生時，神就賜給他信心作禮物, 藉著這個信心，我們就被稱義了。稱義就是：我們雖然沒有內在的義 (intrinsic righteousness)，但神卻把基督的義「算為」我們的意，我們在法律的立場上，便是「義人」了。這就是神學上的「歸算」論 (doctrine of imputation)。同時在另一方面，我們內在的罪也「歸算」給耶穌，使本來無罪(sinless) 的耶穌成了擔當我們的罪的代罪羔羊。這兩個觀念, 合起來, 在神學上被統稱為「雙重的歸算 (double imputation)」, 是聖經中重要的教義 (doctrine)之一。

當我們說 “重生先於信心 (regeneration precedes faith”，這不是指時間上的先後問題, 乃是指因果的 (或邏輯上的) 次序問題。在時間上, 重生與獲得信心是同時發生的, 重生是神把祂自己的生命的種子放在我們裡面, 是我們永生的始點。 所以人一旦重生, 他就得救了。 這個微弱的生命, 不為人所見, 甚至自己開始時也不一定能察覺, 但當這微小的信心漸漸長大 (神人同工的結果), 外在的表現便慢慢顯明了。所以從人來看, 重生與得救好似是有一段時間, 其實是同時發生。一個剛剛重生的人, 甚至也會拒絕外在的呼召 (external calling), 因為 “人可以聽到福音的外在呼召而拒絕之, 但是神內在的呼召(internal calling) 永遠有效 (p.160)。” 總括上述, 我們可以用下圖來表明救恩的邏輯:

• 「重生=》信心=》稱義=》成聖 =》得榮」 (p.163)
• 「重生=》信心=》稱義」 是因果次序, 三者全是神的工作，是同時發生在一刻。
• 「稱義」, 我們巳説過, 完全是神的工作。
• 「成聖 (sanctification)」是神人合作的過程，人是以善行表明他巳重生、這是一生之久的功夫。雖然人要參與, 但也是神的恩典。因為我們「既靠聖靈得生，就必靠聖靈行事。」
• 「得榮耀」是最後的步驟。到我們離世那一天, 我們也不能完全聖潔。神就賜祂的兒女一個最後且最大的恩典, 使他全然成聖。人若不聖潔就不能見神的面, 那刻，靠著這榮耀的恩典，我們便可以與主面對面了。所以保羅説，我若離世，是「好得無比」, 但若神留我在世上， 我就盡己力傳福音，作基督復活的見證人。
• 「稱義=》成聖=》得榮」是時間的次序, 是有先後的。

說到這裡，我們並非沒有難題，其中一個是：既然救恩是基於神的揀選, 那麼人的責任何在?

這樣是千古難題。D.A Carson 介紹一個所謂 “並立共處 (Compatibilism)” 的觀念 (Ref. 2) 。R.C. Sproul 也詳論此題目 (Ref. 3) 。李定武牧把它譯為「同步發生論」(Ref. 4) 。其重點就是, 聖經無論在整体上, 或有時在特定文本 (specific text) 上, 預先假設了两項無可否定的真確提議 (propositions):

• 神是絕對全權 (absolute sovereign), 但祂的全權並無削減人的責任。
• 人有道德上的責任—但人必需對自己的言行負責。然而更甚的是, 我們對責任的忠心與否，絕不會成為神的 “揀選的旨意” 的依賴的條件 (never functions so as to make God absolutely contingent)。

基督徒都同意上述兩點。但兩者的關係卻無法「完完全全」去了解到人的頭腦認為非常滿意的程度, 這是因為有大量的 “未知數 (unknowns)” 神沒有向我們啓示, 我們無法用人的邏輯把這两提議連貫到完全滿足我們思想的程度。雖然我們暫時無法完全明白 “並立共處” 如何成為真實, 但經文却不斷地內證其真實性。馮秉誠指出, 在追求答案前, 我們必需站在正確的立塲上去解經 (Ref. 5 ), 就是確信聖經是神的啟示, 是無誤, 是前後一致, 是沒有矛盾的。基於此立塲, 我們可斷言這两前題是相輔相成的, 是沒有抵觸的, 是沒有不合邏輯的。正如物理學家相信「光是粒子」也同時相信它是「波浪」一樣合邏輯。 今天, 我們重生得救的人, 只有存感恩的心, 竭力傳福音, 知道 “我今日成了何等的人，都是蒙神的恩才成的 (林前 15:10),” 我們自己知道在重生得救的事上, 是一無可誇的。

最後, 我們要問：既然救恩是基於神的揀選, 那麼我們為甚麼要傳福音?

神命定任何事情所要達到的最終目的，祂也同時命定要達到此目的的方法。這就等於重述祂有至高無上的主權。在救贖的事上也是如此。人得救乃完全本乎神揀選的恩典也藉著人的信。既是揀選，人的信心就一定不是人自發的，墮落人類也無法從自己產生得救的信心，所以得救的信心必然是神所賜的禮物。但神如何把這信心的禮物送給人呢？這是一個方法的問題。但如果方法也是神所命定，那麼我們就要問，「神所命定的方法是甚麼？」聖經給了我們一個明確的答案：「信道是從聽道來的、聽道是從基督的話來的。(Romans 10:17) 」要人聼道，就必須有人傳道，所以傳福音是必要的。所以，傳福音是把神那「信心的禮物」送到神所揀選的人們。但我們不知道誰是選民，所以我們把這禮物送給所有人，其餘的事神會負責。 這裏我們再次看到「神的全權」與「人的責任」的互動。「神人同工」是整本聖經不斷提到的真理，也說明了聖經中的神是一位願意與人建立關係的神。還有，傳福音是順服的表現，是討神喜悅的方法，因為這是耶穌的命令。所以我們不能因為神的揀選就忽畧了自己傳福音的責任。

Appendix
每個人信了耶穌後, 遲早到會遇到 “豫定論與自由意志” 的挑戰。 我自己對這難題都巳久思不得其解。在沉思中有一天我似乎悟到一點線索。雖然不算是一個完滿的答案, 但至少對我自己而言, 問題的重擔巳大大減輕了。 面對這世紀難題, 容我我借助一些物理現象來嘗試解釋。

近代物理學家認為物質 (如電子, 光子) 同時具有两種形態: 波浪性質和粒子性質. 既是波浪又怎會是粒子呢? 科學家迄今也不能解釋。在某些種實驗 (雙縫干擾 double slits experiment of interference) 中, 一直被人認為是粒子的電子的確以波動形式出現。但在另一個實驗中 (愛因斯坦的光電効應), 一直被人認為是波浪的光線居然以粒子形式 (photon) 出現。沒有人能解釋, 但它們既能解釋絕大部分的物理現象，而且可以精確地應用在科技中，科學家却毫無問題地接受两者皆真 (wave-particle duality) 的結論。

沿著同樣的思路, 我們可以說, 在這世界的實驗室內, 我們的確知道自己是有自由意智去行事的, 我們可以自主地作任何决定, 你能否認嗎? 但在天上的實驗室內, 神的確能施行祂的主權, 祂說, “我要憐憫誰, 就憐憫誰; 我要恩待誰, 就恩待誰.” 我們不盡知天上的實驗室內的事, 只有神知道. 但神知道我們這世界的實驗室內的事. 既然我們在這世界的實驗裏的確經歷到自己自由意志的真實性, 我們就必須對我們的决定負責. 致於在天上實驗室內的事, 我們不能完全知道, 這就是神 “不可捉摸 (Deuteronomy 29:29)” 的一面. 只要我們在存在上和實際上的確可以為自己作任何的决定, 對神那一邊的事明白與否, 在後果方面, 便不重要了, 因為我們在審判枱前是要對自己在這個地球的實驗室內 (即今生) 的决定向神交代, 不能以 “豫定論” 作藉口推罪歸神。

References:

1. “Essential Truth of the Christian Faith” by R.C. Sproul; pp. 152-155, 162-163.
2. “How Long, O Lord?” by D.A. Carson; pp. 179-201.
3. “The Invisible Hand—Do all things really work for good?” by R.C. Sproul; pp. 94-96.
4. “後現代潮流中的 <心意更新>” by 李定武; pp. 61-62.
5. “聖經詮釋”, 里程 (a.k.a. 馮秉誠); pp. 63-66.
6. https://hocl.org/blogs/tincheelo/?p=2091″

Appendix:

以下是五處聖經經文，指出人類是死於罪惡過犯當中：

1. 羅馬書 6:23：「因為罪的工價乃是死；惟有神的恩賜，在我們的主基督耶穌裡，乃是永生。」
2. 以弗所書 2:1：「你們死在過犯罪惡之中，他叫你們活過來。」
3. 以弗所書 2:5：「就是我們在過犯中死了的時候，他叫我們與基督一同活過來。（你們得救是本乎恩）」
4. 歌羅西書 2:13：「你們死在過犯，和未受割禮的情形之中，神赦免了你們一切過犯，便叫你們與基督一同活過來。」
5. 提摩太前書 5:6：「但那貪戀奢華的，正在活著的時候就是死了。」

這些經文指出，罪惡過犯導致了屬靈上的死亡，但藉著基督的救贖，我們可以得到永生。

Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so

In Christian circles, there is a popular illustration: “A man who cannot swim is thrown into the ocean due to shipwreck. He struggled up and down on the surface of the ocean several times, knowing that if he is to sink down one more time, he will surely die. His only hope is that God may throw him a lifebuoy ring. The loving and merciful God indeed throws a rope at him, with a ring attached to the end of it precisely positions it within the drowning person’s reach. The only thing this man must do is to grab the lifebuoy ring. As long as he grabs it, God will drag him ashore and he is saved. But if he refuses to take such a simple action, he will surely perish.”

This story tells of God’s great work and grace (99.99%), and man can receive salvation with only a negligible amount of effort (0.01%) on his part. It also alluded to man’s free-will and responsibility. Although the story is clever and seemingly logical, it lacks conformity to the teaching of the Bible. The problem lies in that 0.01% human work. Though insignificant quantitatively, it makes a huge qualitative difference in theology. Let us look at the Bible text selected for this discussion:

「But because of His great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions–it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:4-5, 8).」

The text in front of us tells that we all are born sinners. Because the wages of sin is death, so we all are spiritually dead in our sins and transgression. A spiritually dead person will not, and cannot love God and understand spiritual things, he is born to reject God. Therefore, the first thing God must do to this spiritually dead person is to “make him alive with Christ.” This is called Regeneration (or born again). Once alive, this person can and will make right decision as far as salvation is concerned. First, he sees something that he could not see before, that he is a sinner; and immediately he begins to long for the Savior who can forgive his sins. God then gives him a saving-faith as a free gift, a gift not from man, but solely from God. With this gift, through the work of Jesus Christ done on the cross, he is saved.

Based on this biblical concept, let me adapt the above story as follows:

“A lost person is regarded as a swimmer who has been drowned and thoroughly dead already. But God shows mercy on him, treats him gracefully, and does something unthinkable: God brings him back to life. In this man’s previous life, his thinking was futile and his heart was foolish and darkened in every spiritual matter including salvation. But now, He has a renewed life and is able to know and love spiritual things. He realizes that he is in great danger and his only hope is that God would throw him a lifebuoy ring. The merciful God does exactly that by throwing a floating device at his proximity. And he, with a renewed and sober mind, he will never reject God’s offer, but makes a right decision by grabbing the life-saving ring and he is saved forever.”

(English edition at the end)

By T.C. Lo (盧天賜); April 10, 2020 (Good Friday)

在這受難節和復活節期間，我們必需問：「耶穌究竟是誰？」這個問題是每個基督徒都要正視的。反對基督教的人仕或無神論者也盡其攻擊的能事去回應這個問題, 他們經過「研究」後説，耶穌只是一個道德家，是猶太拉比 (老師), 是聖賢, 是偶像破壞者, 是烏合之眾的煽動人, 或是甚麼都可以只要祂不是神。不管我們的答案如何，如果我們的答案與耶穌的自我意識 (self-consciousness) 不同，都是不正確的答案。耶穌一早就知道這個問題的關鍵性，所以他問十二門個徒説：「人說我人子是誰。他們說、有人說是施洗的約翰．有人說是以利亞．又有人說是耶利米、或是先知裡的一位。耶穌說、你們說我是誰。西門彼得回答說、你是基督、是永生　神的兒子。耶穌對他說、西門巴約拿、你是有福的．因為這不是屬血肉的指示你的、乃是我在天上的父指示的。(約翰福音16:13-17）」

耶穌與穆罕默德 (Mohammed) 之不同不僅在生活行為上, 更重要的是他們對自己被呼召的意義是否明白。當穆罕默德宣稱他獲得屬靈啟示後, 他甚感困惑, 不知意義何在。他需要別人告訴他這是神的聲音。但耶穌明確知道衪是誰並知道衪從那裏來。以下是, 根据聖經, 耶穌對自已的地位有明確認識 (self-understanding) 的證據 (Ref. 1)：

(1) 耶穌以 “人子” 自稱

• 這名稱衪應用在自己身上在四福音中出現 82 次之多, 包括被認為是最早成書的馬可福音 (14 次) 在內.
• 批評家認為這是衪承認人性的宣稱, 但學者一致認為耶穌是參照 (約主前600年) 但以理 (7:13-14) 的用法: 人子被迎接到全能者的面前, 帶着權柄, 榮耀, 與能力, 並接受萬民的敬拜, 衪有審判的權柄, 衪的國永存不衰。 所以宣告自己是人子就等於宣告自己的神性。
  • (v. 13) 我在夜間的異象中觀看，見有一位像人子的，駕著天雲而來，被領到亙古常在者面前 ；
  • (v. 14) 得了權柄、榮耀、國度，使各方、各國、各族的人都事奉他。他的權柄是永遠的，不能廢去，他的國必不敗壞。”
• 更奇妙的是, 耶穌自稱人子的頭銜都與將來的榮耀與即將來臨的受苦與死亡有關。 主是教導門徒對盼望以久的彌賽亞的新認識: 受苦在榮耀之先。
  • 正如人子來，不是要受人的服事，乃是要服事人，並且要捨命，作多人的贖價。”(太20:28).
  • 耶穌說完了這一切的話，就對門徒說：“你們知道，過兩天是逾越節，人子將要被交給人，釘在十字架上。” (太26:1-2)
  • 耶穌說：“我是。你們必看見人子坐在那權能者的右邊，駕著天上的雲降臨。” (可14:62)
  • 我又告訴你們，凡在人面前認我的，人子在　神的使者面前也必認他；在人面前不認我的，人子在　神的使者面前也必不認他。(路12:8-9)
  • 並且因為他是人子，就賜給他行審判的權柄。(約5:27)

(2) 耶穌用 “我是” 的說法來宣稱自己的神性

• 你們的祖宗亞伯拉罕歡歡喜喜地仰望我的日子，既看見了，就快樂。”猶太人說：“你還沒有五十歲，豈見過亞伯拉罕呢？”耶穌說：“我實實在在地告訴你們：還沒有亞伯拉罕就有了我。”於是他們拿石頭要打他，耶穌卻躲藏，從殿裡出去了。(約8:58)。 英: “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
• 這個 “我是” 乃由神在荊棘叢中對摩西所說衪的名字: 神對摩西說：“我是自有永有的 (I AM WHO I AM).” 又說：“你要對以色列人這樣說：‘那自有的打發我到你們這裡來。’ (出3:14) 耶穌自稱是 “自有永有” 後群眾拿石頭要打死衪, 視衪褻瀆神。

(3) 耶穌以赦罪的權柄表明衪是神

• 可 (2:5): 耶穌對癱子說：“小子，你的罪赦了.” 只有神才有資格和有意義地說這種話。
• 因為罪, 就算是得罪人, 是首要地得罪了神和衪的律法。所以我们都需要赦免。
• 耶穌先行後教, 但衪從未向父求赦免, 因祂是無罪。

(4) 耶穌認識衪在神國的地位

• 甚至由衪的揀選十二位門徒, 我們可看到耶穌也作超越性的宣告。
• 根据 Ben Witherington III (Ref. 2), “如果十二門徒代表更新的以色列 (renewed Israel), 那麽耶穌的位置何在” 他問道: “他不會只是以色列的一部份? 他不會只是被救贖群體的一部份? 他是塑造這群體的—-正如上帝在舊約中塑造衪的百姓並設立以色列的十二支派。這是耶穌如何想到自己的地位的一些線索。”

(5) 耶穌的教導方法

• 關於耶穌的自我認識的另一線索是與衪的教導方法有關.耶穌教訓人時常用以下一句話作起點, “我實實在在的告訴你 Amen I say to you,” (John 出現25次)。 這是非常有革命性的. 作家 Witherington 繼續解釋下去: 在猶太教, 你需要两個見證人作證詞, 但耶穌對真理作見證只單憑衪自己的話。
  • 耶穌回答說：“我實實在在地告訴你：人若不重生，就不能見　神的國。”(約3:3)。
  • 我實實在在地告訴你們：一粒麥子不落在地裡死了，仍舊是一粒；若是死了，就結出許多子粒來。愛惜自己生命的，就失喪生命；在這世上恨惡自己生命的，就要保守生命到永生。(約12:24)
  • 到那日，你們甚麼也就不問我了。我實實在在地告訴你們：你們若向父求甚麼，他必因我的名賜給你們。(約16:23)
• 他的教導不基於其他權威, 而只憑自已的權柄說話。這裡我們看到有一個人物, 他把自已視為具有比舊約先知更高的權柄. 衪相信自己具有不只是屬神的啟示, 正如大衛一樣, 更具有從神而來的指揮聖言的能力和權柄。

(6) 耶穌稱上帝為父

• 耶穌常用亞蘭文術語 “阿爸, 父” 來稱呼上帝。 這正反照衪與父神最親密的關係: 他說：“阿爸，父啊！在你凡事都能，求你將這杯撤去；然而，不要從我的意思，只要從你的意思。”(可14:36)
• 這種稱呼是與古猶太教格格不入的. 虔誠的猶太人避免稱神的名, 唯恐他們會稱錯衪的名字。
• Witherington 博士作下觀察: “阿爸, 父 Abba, Father (Rom.8:15)” 的意義, 就是耶穌是這以前達不到的密切關係的創始者. 問題是甚麽人才能與神開創這新的與約有關的關係?
  • 因為凡被　神的靈引導的，都是　神的兒子。你們所受的不是奴僕的心，仍舊害怕；所受的乃是兒子的心，因此我們呼叫：“阿爸，父！”(羅8:14-15)。
  • 你們既為兒子，　神就差他兒子的靈進入我們的心，呼叫：“阿爸，父。(加4:6)
• 耶穌說只有透過與衪的關係才有可能作稱神為 “阿爸, 父” 的禱告. 這就明確地說明衪是如何看待自已了。

(7) 耶穌接受敬拜

• 耶穌另一個自我認識的指標是復活以後與多馬的相遇 (約 20)。 耶穌邀請多馬親自檢查衪實在是從死裡復活的證據. 多馬在 28 節宣告, “我的主，我的神！” 廿九節: 耶穌對他說: “你因看見了我才信，那沒有看見就信的有福了!”
• 耶穌的回答透露了他的真相. 除非耶穌是神, 否則這就是達到褻瀆神的頂點, 因為衪不但沒有指責多馬, 且明知故意地接受多馬的敬拜。
• 耶穌選擇接授多馬的敬拜明顯地指出衪自己相信衪就是神, 所以值得如此被崇敬。同樣地, 對耶穌的問題, “你們說我是誰？” 西門彼得回答道, “你是基督，是永生神的兒子。” (太16:15-17)。 耶穌不但沒有改正西門彼得的回答, 反而證實他的回答是從神而來的啟示。

(8) 耶穌明確地指出永生之道

• 耶穌清楚地知道人們永恒的歸宿決定於他們是否相信衪。 約翰福音: “你們若不信我是基督，必要死在罪中 (8:24 b)。”
• 路加福音 12:8-9 說, “我又告訴你們，凡在人面前認我的，人子在神的使者面前也必認他; 在人面前不認我的，人子在神的使者面前也必不認他。”
• 這些經文的含意是: 無疑地, 如果耶穌是神的兒子, 這種宣告只能被認為是最狹窄和討厭的教條主義的武斷。

(9) 耶穌與父神原為一

• 另一處公然的斷言記在約翰福音 (10:30)。 耶穌無保留地公開宣佈說, “衪與父原為一。”
• 毫無疑問地聽眾必明白耶穌正在說衪與父是同一本質的。
• 立即地, 他們拿石頭打衪, 因他們以為衪 “說僭妄的話” 並說, “你是個人, 反將自己當作神。” (v.33)

(10) 耶穌知道自已能行神蹟

• 另一個與耶穌身分有關的因素應被權衡, 就是衪自己知道衪能行神蹟. 這是耶穌自已相信衪的身分的一個重要評估。
• 耶穌強調衪的技藝是神國來臨的預示. 路加 (11:20) 說, “我若靠著神的能力趕鬼, 這就是神的國臨到你們了。” 作家 Ben Witherington 觀察: “雖然聖經多處記載有許多人也能行神蹟, 但他們不確定能力從何而來。
• 但耶穌知道患痲瘋病者得醫治, 死人復活是因為自己有神的能力, 所以衪並沒有把自己單視為一位 “行異能的大師” 之一, 因耶穌確知, “衪是裡面有神的應許, 並透過衪才能把那應許實現出來的那一位。” 可見這就不是一個對衪自己的超越性的模糊宣告了. 先知以賽亞 (35章) 指出, 神蹟是彌賽亞鑑定衪自己身分的方法之一。
  • 那時，瞎子的眼必睜開，聾子的耳必開通；(V.5)
  • 那時，瘸子必跳躍像鹿，啞巴的舌頭必能歌唱；在曠野必有水發出，在沙漠必有河湧流。(V.6)

(11) 耶穌知道自已有神性 (三個 “無所不”)

由門徒對衪的認識和衪自己的宣告便知道耶穌有神的屬性。

• 門徒約翰在 (約 16:30) 寫道, “現在我們曉得你凡事都知道 (無所不知 omniscience)，也不用人問你，因此我們信你是從神出來的。”
• 耶穌承認約翰的話並自己說: “天上地下所有的權柄 (無所不能 omnipotence) 都賜給我了。”
• 所以，你們要去，使萬民作我的門徒，奉父、子、聖靈的名給他們施洗。凡我所吩咐你們的，都教訓他們遵守，我就常與你們同在 (無所不在 omnipresence)，直到世界的末了 (太 28:18-20)。”

一個關鍵性的問題

耶穌的申明是非常清楚了. 但這裏有一個關鍵性的問題: 我們如何知道耶穌的申明是真確? 答案至少可聚焦在下列數方面的真實性: 衪由童女所生, 衪從死裡復活, 衪能行神蹟, 古代彌賽亞預言之應驗, 衪的無罪性, 和衪奇妙地插入人類的歷史當中等獨特性。

References: 

1. “Who Made God?” by Ravi Zacharias and Norman Geisler; pp. 81-86.
2. Ben Witherington is the author of “The Christology of Jesus”。

Christological self-understanding

(T.C. Lo April 10, 2020)

During this Good Friday and Easter week, we must ask: “Who is Jesus?” Every Christian must face this question squarely. Those who are against Christianity or atheists also put out their all-out effort to deny the divinity of Christ. After their “research”, they have found Jesus merely a moralist, a Jewish rabbi (teacher), a sage, an idol destroyer, or an instigator of the mob, or anything but God. If our answers are different from Jesus’ self-consciousness (self-understanding), they would be all incorrect answers.

Jesus knew the seriousness of this question early in His ministry, so he asked the Twelve: Who do people say the Son of Man is? They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” Jesus turned to His followers, “But what about you?” he asked: “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. (Matthew 16:13-17). Jesus’ reply reflected He knew who He was. Christological self-understanding is a very crucial doctrine in Christianity.

Jesus and Mohammed were markedly different not just in the way they lived, what was more important was whether they understood the meaning of being called. When Muhammad claimed that he received spiritual revelation from Allah, he was very confused and did not know what it meant. He needed someone to tell him that this was the voice of God. But Jesus did clearly know who He was and from where He came. The following are evidence that Jesus has always a clear understanding of his own identity.

Jesus Himself claimed to be “the Son of Man”

• This title has been used by Jesus over 82 times in the Gospels, in particular, 14 times in Mark which are considered to be the earliest book among the four books.
• Critics consider that the use of this title was Jesus’ recognition of His humanity. But most scholars agree that Jesus was referencing to the vision of Daniel (7: 13-14) reported 600 years before His earthly ministry:
  • “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. ” (Daniel 7:13)
  • He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” (Daniel 7:14)
• Jesus is 100% man and 100% God. Quite clear, the title “Son of Man” touches His divine nature rather than human nature according to Daniel.
• Even more amazing is the fact that Jesus’ self-proclaimed title “Son of Man” is mostly messianic, relating to His upcoming suffering and death and the ensuing glory. The Lord is teaching the disciples a new understanding of the long-awaited Messiah: suffering precedes glory.
  • just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mt. 20:28)
  • When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples,“As you know, the Passover is two days away—and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.” (Mt. 26:1-2)
  • “I am,”said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Mark 14:62)
  • “I tell you, whoever publicly acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before the angels of God.But whoever disowns me before others will be disowned before the angels of God. (Luke 12:8-9)
  • And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man. (John 5:27)

Jesus uses “I Am” to declare His divinity

 John 8:56-59 says,

(v. 56) Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

(v. 57) “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

(v. 58) “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

(v. 59) At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

• This “I am” is what God said to Moses in the bush.「God said to Moses, “I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelite: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” （ 3:14)」
• After Jesus claimed to be that “I am,” the masses took stones to kill him, and regarded him as blasphemous because the Jewish people knew what “I am” meant.

Jesus’ authority to forgive sins shows that He is God

When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” (Mk. 2:5)

• Only God is qualified to meaningfully speak such words.
• If you have sinned against people, you have not just offended people, you have also offended God. So you ought to ask for forgiveness not just from the offended party, you must also ask God to forgive you.
• Jesus always taught his disciples by example. He commands believer to love one another, so He loves us first. Only when he taught his disciples to repent, he would never ask His father for forgiveness because he was sinless.

Jesus knew His standing in the kingdom of God

• Even by His selection of twelve disciples, we can see that Jesus also made transcendent announcements.
• According to Ben Witherington III (note) who asked, “If the twelve disciples represent the renewed Israel, then what is Jesus’ position?” He was in effect asking: “Will he not just be part of Israel? Will He not just be redeemed Part of the group? Witherington answered his own question by saying, “He shaped this group—just as God shaped His people in the Old Testament and established twelve tribes of Israel.” These are some clues about how Jesus thought of his status with respect to the Kingdom of God. ” (Note: Ben Witherington III is the author of “The Christology of Jesus”.)

Jesus’ teaching method

Another clue to Jesus’ self-understanding is related to His teaching method. When Jesus taught, he often used the following phrase as a starting point, “Truly, truly, I tell you,” (John appears 25 times). This is very revolutionary. Writer Witherington continues to explain: In Judaism, you need two witnesses to give testimony, but Jesus only witnesses the truth based on his own words.

• Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”(John 3:3)
• Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. (John 12:24)
• In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you. (John 16:23)

His teachings are not based on other authorities, but only on his own when He speaks. Here we see a Person who considers himself to have the authority higher than of all the Old Testament prophets. He believes that he has revelation not only belongs to God, like David had, he has the power and authority of the Word from God more than David had.

Jesus calls God the Father

• Jesus used the Aramaic term “Abba, Father” to refer to God. This reflects his closest relationship with God the Father: He said: “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” (Mark 14:36)
• This name is incompatible with ancient Judaism. The devout Jews would avoid calling God ’s name, lest they might call him wrong.
• Witherington made this observation: “Abba, Father (Rom. 8:15)” means that Jesus was the creator of a close relationship that was not possible before. The question is who can establish this new relationship with God in the context of the covenant?
  • For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” (Romans 8:14-15).
  • Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” (Galatians 4:6).
  • Jesus said that it is only through our relationship with Him that makes our relationship with God possible that we may cry to God, “Abba, Father.” This clearly shows how Jesus views himself.

Jesus accepts worship

• Another indicator of Jesus’ self-knowledge was his encounter with Thomas after his resurrection (John 20). Jesus invited Thomas to personally examine the evidence that He was indeed resurrected from the dead. Thomas declared in verse 28, “My Lord and my God!” Verse 29: Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
• Jesus’ answer reveals His identity. Unless Jesus is God, Thomas’s declaration would have reached the apex of blasphemy. The fact that Jesus did not blame Thomas for calling Him Lord, but accepted His worship deliberately, is an indication that Jesus knows Who He is.
• Jesus’ choice to accept Thomas’s worship clearly indicated that He believed that He was God, so he deserves to be so revered. Similarly, the question to Jesus,” Who do you say I am? “Simon Peter replied,” You are Christ, the Son of the living God. ”(Matthew 16: 15-17). Instead of correcting Simon Peter ’s answer, Jesus confirmed that his answer was a revelation from God through the Holy Spirit.

Jesus clearly pointed out the way to eternal life

• Jesus clearly knows that people’s eternal destination depends on whether they believe in Him. The Gospel of John says: “I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins” (John 8:24).
• Luke says, “I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God” (Luke 12:8-9).
• The implication of these verses is: Undoubtedly, had Jesus not been the Son of God, such a declaration would have been considered as the narrowest and hateful subjective dogmatism.

Jesus and the Father are One

• Another blatant assertion is recorded in the Gospel of John (10:30). Jesus declared publicly without reservation: “I and the Father are one.”
• There is no doubt that the audience will understand that Jesus is saying that He and the Father are of the same nature.
• Immediately, the Jews threw stones at Him, because they thought that He spoke blasphemy arrogantly. They shouted out loud, “You, a mere man, claim to be God?” (v. 33)

Jesus knew He can perform miracles

• Another factor related to Jesus’ identity should be weighed. He knows that he can perform miracles. This is an important assessment of Jesus’ belief in His identity.
• Jesus emphasized that his skills were a sign of the coming of the kingdom of God. Luke (11:20) said, “But if I drive out demons by the finger (or power) of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.” Author Ben Witherington observed: “Although there are many places in the Bible where many people could perform miracles, but they were not sure where their power comes from.
• But Jesus knew that people with leprosy would be healed, and the dead were resurrected because he had the power of God, so He did not see Himself as one of the “masters of magic,” because Jesus knew that He is the one who has God’s promises in Him and only through Him, those promises can be fulfilled. It can be seen that this is not a vague declaration of his own transcendence. Prophet Isaiah (Chapter 35) points out that miracles are signs to authenticate Jesus’ Messiahship.

“Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy. Water will gush forth in the wilderness and streams in the desert” (Isaiah 35:5-6)”

 Jesus knew that he had the divine nature (three “Omnis”)

Based on the disciples’ knowledge of Him and His own declaration, we are certain that Jesus himself knows that He is God.

• The disciples said, “Now we can see that you know all things (omniscience) and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.” (John 16:30)
• Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority (omnipotence) in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28:18).
• “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely, I am with you always (omnipresence), to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:19-20).

A Crucial Question

Jesus’ statement is very clear. But here is a key question: How do we know that Jesus’ statement is true? The answer can focus on at least the following aspects of facts: He was born of a virgin, He is raised from the dead, He can perform miracles, the fulfillment of the ancient Messiah prophecy, His sinlessness, and His wonderful involvement into the history of mankind—history is ultimately “His Story.”

By Tin-chee Lo (TC); March 17, 2020

Forgiveness is a virtue in Jewish culture. Rabbi teaches you to forgive those who offend you up to three times. Peter was a Jew, and he certainly knew this. One day, he came to Jesus and asked, “How many times should I forgive my brother?” Without waiting for Jesus’ reply, Peter immediately asked another question, “Can it be seven times?” The second question is actually Peter’s answer to his first question. The way Peter asked in this manner was not that he longed to hear Jesus’ answer, but that he expected Jesus would praise his magnanimity. Knowing his heart, Jesus asserted, “Not seven times, but seventy times seven times.” This does not mean that Jesus was toying with a number game by setting a limit of 490 times. What Jesus said was that there is no upper limit for forgiving others. Forgiving others is a basic way of life as a disciple, one of the characteristics of the people of heaven. To reinforce this idea, Jesus made the following parable to his disciples: Read Matt. 18: 23-35.

The first part of this parable says that a servant owed the king an astronomical debt, which he could not pay in his lifetime. His only way was to ask for mercy from the king. The king moved his compassion, tore up the debt paper to pieces. The servant became a free man, no longer burdened by debt, and his family was free too.

We can easily and rightly relate this story to the gospel message. The king represents the Heavenly Father. All who are under the rule of the king are servants, not king’s slaves. It is impossible for a slave to owe that much debt to the king as described in the parable. The servant in the story may be a court official in the palace. He must have a special access to the resources of the king’s treasury. Because the kingdom represents the kingdom of God, we can say that this person is a Christian. Before and even after his conversion, he owed his Heavenly Father an unplayable debt. The only way to get rid of this debt is forgiveness from God the Father. There is no other way (vv. 21-27).

Religions in the world teach that when you commit a sin, you can do a good deed to nullify it. This is impossible, because in the king’s eyes, a servant’s good deeds are nothing more than a tattered garment, dirty and useless. The servant in the story pleaded with the king (asking for forgiveness), and the king cancelled his debt. This is truly due to the king’s mercy and grace; he is not obligated to do that, but he did it. This is a story of salvation in Jesus Christ. This is the gospel.

The second part of the metaphor tells that that servant was so indifferent to the king’s kindness just shown upon him. Gripped by his ingratitude, he implemented a strict measure against his companion, who owed him a debt, but a much lesser debt. It is true that the debt that his companion owed him was not small, but it was far less than the debt that he originally owed to the king (vv. 28-30). When other servants saw it, they became so angry that they told the king (v. 31). The king was furious and resurrected the man’s original debt position and took him back to prison (vv. 32-34). Leaving aside whether these servants’ actions are reasonable. Here is a reflection for myself: Have I ever invoked criticism from coworkers or family members because I did not forgive others? This is a thought-provoking self-examination. Now, let’s discuss the way the king punished this hard hearted servant.

If the king’s forgiveness represents salvation, wouldn’t the king’s acts of sending him back to jail, dealing with him severe punishment, and restoring his indebtedness represent the loss of this man’s salvation? Imaginative people immediately thought of this re-imprisonment incident as a “purgatory” experience believed in Catholicism, but this association has no biblical basis. So how do we understand this passage (vv. 32-34)? First of all, we need to know that this is a metaphor or parable, pointing especially to the kingdom of heaven. The principle of interpreting metaphors should be: Don’t “excessively” stick to details; pay attention to the main purpose of the metaphor; more importantly, the interpretation must comply with basic doctrine. Here several Bible doctrines are in view.

* Doctrine of the “perseverance of the saints,” that is, saved once, saved forever. “I (Jesus) give them (Jesus’ sheep, the elected) eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand (John 10:28).”

* Doctrine of the “thoroughness of God’s forgiveness”, based on God’s faithfulness and immutability. “For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us” (Psalm: 103:11-12). God’s forgiveness is complete.

Jesus called this servant a “wicked servant” (v. 32). 「The Chinese Bible translated as “wicked slave”」This is an emphatic term. The Bible reserves this title for those who do not believe in God. No true believer would do such an unkind thing to his brethren. So this “unforgiving person” must be someone who has never accepted the gospel. It is not possible that this person got the salvation and later lost it. A true believer would not lose his or her eternal life. So he has never been regenerated. Therefore, the purpose of this parable is to challenge the authenticity of disciples’ salvation. A man who is truly regenerated will never do such a great deal of ingratitude. In another parable Jesus said: “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit (Mt 7:18).” As the quality of the tree can be recognized from its fruit, this man’s lostness can also be recognized. In our daily life, we should be very careful not to judge who is saved and who is not. We don’t know because we cannot read people’s heart, only God can. But we can be sure that this servant described in the second part of the story is unsaved. His eternal state is made clear by the fact that he was handed over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed, and we know that he could never pay back the debt (v. 34). If the prison represents hell, he is in eternal damnation.

We must now ask: Why does the first half of the story say that this man is a true believer in Christ pardoned by God, and the second half of the story says that he is unsaved? Ah! Here we see the wisdom of Jesus. Jesus deliberately presents us a horrible hypothetical situation to make an important contrast: If the behavior of this evil slave is so unbelievable, it is equally unbelievable for Christians, who have been pardoned by God for a lifetime, and refused to forgive others.

Since forgiveness is the distinct characteristic of the citizens of the kingdom of heaven, should we offer “unilaterally forgive” to anyone who wrongs us ? This problem may stem from our misunderstanding of one phrase uttered by Jesus while He was hung on the cross. Jesus cried to the Father, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing (Lk 23:34).” Is unilateral pardon a command of Jesus?

The answer is “No”. The Bible’s consistently teaches that repentance precedes forgiveness. The word “them” in Jesus’ words does not refer to ALL people, but only to those who saw the righteousness of Jesus and were illuminated by the Holy Spirit and then repented in their hearts. The crucified robber next to Jesus was one of them. If “they” represents ALL people, it becomes universalism rather than the gospel.

On the other hand, the answer may also be “Yes”. Because there are some minor offenses which we should forgive unilaterally, whether the offender apologizes to you or not. As Peter said, “love covers over a multitude of sins (1 Pt 4:8).” Why do you get bothered if someone owe you only five dollars? Why do you feel annoyed when people give you only a little bit trouble? Put these trivial things behind you and simply forgive them unilaterally without demanding their apology. You will feel better with a forgiving spirit.

Serious offenses, however, must be dealt with. The Word of God shows us how:
“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector (Mt. 18: 15-16).” The purity of the church is important; one bad apple can spoil the whole barrel. All these steps are necessary and are done with one purpose: to restore this brother back to the right track with Christ-like love. If all offenses are treated with “unilateral pardon,” then the above-mentioned disciplinary process taught by the Bible is meaningless.

The gist of the whole parable is this: Forgiveness is unlimited, it is a Christian life style, and it is the character of the people of heaven. Although unilateral forgiveness is not a Bible requirement, we should be ready to forgive those who will repent anytime, anywhere. If we do not forgive others for their sins, although our salvation will not be lost, we are risking “God refuses to forgive us.” Lastly, let us remember, we need to be forgiven too.

By T.C. Lo (盧天賜); February 21. 2020

基督教的聖餐禮拜是以頌讀經文為開始。最常讀的經文是哥林多前書第11章。但這不是唯一可用到的經文。除哥林多前書外，還有路加福音第22章，這也是非常普遍的。此外，馬太, 馬可和約翰福音書都有與聖餐相關的經文。偶然也有牧師採用出埈及記所記載的第一次逾越節的經文 (出12:1-11)。但如果我問, 「在這許多的經文中，那一段是比較更適合于聖餐呢?」那麼我們就要作一些比較，幫助我們在這課題上有更多認識。首先我們以哥林多前書的經典式本文 (classical text) 先作思考。

哥林多前書 (11:23-29)

23我當日傳給你們的、原是從主領受的、就是主耶穌被賣的那一夜、拿起餅來、

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,

24祝謝了、就擘開、說、這是我的身體、為你們捨的．〔捨有古卷作擘開〕你們應當如此行 (Repetition)、為的是記念我 。

and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

25飯後、也照樣拿起杯來、說、這杯是用我的血所立的新約．你們每逢喝的時候、要如此行、為的是記念我 。

In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

26你們每逢喫這餅、喝這杯 、是表明 主的死、直等到他來 。

For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27所以無論何人、不按理喫 主的餅、喝主的杯、就是干犯主的身主的血了。

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

28人應當自己省察 、然後喫這餅、喝這杯。

A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.

29因為人喫喝、若不分辨是主的身體、就是喫喝自己的罪了。

For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

在這段哥林多前書的經文中，我們看到聖餐的八個要素：

• 現在
  • Benediction (祝謝)
  • Commemoration (為的是記念主)
  • communion (為你們捨的; 喫這餅、喝這杯; 是用主的血所立的新約)
  • Consecration (無論何人；按理與干犯；分別為聖)
  • Examination (自我省察)
• 过去 (回顧)
  • Proclamation (表明主的死)
• 將來
  • Anticipation (直等到主的再來)
• 今生
  • Repetition (應當如此行; 每蓬)

路加22:13-20也是常用的聖餐經文。

13他們去了、所遇見的、正如耶穌所說的．他們就預備了逾越節的筵席。

They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.

14時候到了、耶穌坐席、使徒也和他同坐。

When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table.

15耶穌對他們說、我很願意在受害以先、和你們喫這逾越節的筵席。

And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.

16我告訴你們、我不再喫這筵席、直到成就在　神的國裡。

For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”

17耶穌接過杯來、祝謝了 (benediction)、說、你們拿這個、大家分著喝。

After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you.

18我告訴你們、從今以後、我不再喝這葡萄汁、直等　神的國來到。

For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

19又拿起餅來祝謝了、就擘開遞給他們、說、這是我的身體、為你們捨的．你們也應當如此行 、為的是記念。

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

20飯後也照樣拿起杯來、說、這杯是用我血所立的新約、是為你們流出來的。

In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

路加的經文基本上也包括了上述的大部分要素。但它提供一些不同的資料或提示。

• 新約時代的第一個聖餐是由耶穌在祂與門徒共享最後一次逾越節晩宴時設立的。
• 這聖餐是建立在 (約3500年前) 舊約第一個逾越節筵席的历史基礎上, 因為那一次的晚餐正是在慶祝傳統逾越節的晚宴中進行。(See verse 13)
• 這裡並沒有提到用餐時「人應該自己省察」。
• 如果哥林多前書是以实践為重点, 那麽路加福音便是以救贖史为重点。

這段經文還有一個特色：如果我們只讀第十七至十九節，我們看到次序的顛倒，就是「先杯後餅」。但如果你只讀十九節至廿節，次序又回復到傳統的「先餅後杯」。最可能的解釋是，在舊約的逾越節晚餐中，他們喝禮儀式的酒至少有兩三次之多，甚至四次。今天猶太人有「逾越節家宴 (Seder)」，他們在餐中喝四杯 (次) 酒, 同時也吃未發酵過的薄飯 (matzo)。吃餅也不是一次就吃完，他們把擘開的餅留一半作飯後點心用(dessert)。家主在進餐時講故事給晚輩聼，並解釋其意義。這晩餐是在逾越節期間的第一或第二個晚上舉行的。筆者在紐約時，為了增廣見聞，也曾參加過猶太社區的Seder. 更有趣的是，他們還保留一張無人坐的椅子，似乎是在等待以利亞先知的隨時光臨。

馬太26:26-30 也是聖餐經文之一， 但比較簡短, 少被人所用。

26他們喫的時候、耶穌拿起餅來、祝福、就擘開、遞給門徒、說、你們拿著喫．這是我的身體。

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

27又拿起杯來、祝謝了、遞給他們、說、你們都喝這個．

Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.

28因為這是我立約的血、為多人流出來、使罪得赦。

This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

29但我告訴你們、從今以後、我不再喝這葡萄汁、直到我在我父的國裡、同你們喝新的那日子。

I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

30他們唱了詩、就出來往橄欖山去。

When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

馬太福音不但提到基督的血是立新約的記號，也説及它的功用，就是「使罪得赦」。這裡也提到「我父的國」和「喝新的日子」。詞語充滿彌賽的 (messianic) 意味。

約翰福音 6:53-57

53耶穌說、我實實在在的告訴你們、你們若不喫人子的肉、不喝人子的血、就沒有生命在你們裡面。

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

54喫我肉喝我血的人就有永生．在末日我要叫他復活。

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

55我的肉真是可喫的、我的血真是可喝的。

For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

56喫我肉喝我血的人、常在我裡面、我也常在他裡面。

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

57永活的父怎樣差我來、我又因父活著、照樣、喫我肉的人、也要因我活著。

Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

58這就是從天上降下來的糧．喫這糧的人、就永遠活著、不像你們的祖宗喫過嗎哪、還是死了。
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”

天主教憑著這段經文堅持「變體論的教義 (doctrine of transubstantiation)」。他們認為當神父祝謝了這些元素 (Eucharistic elements) 後，這些餅便真真正正變成基督的肉，這些葡萄汁便真真正正變成基督的血了。但基督教不同意這説法，我們相信飲食只是一種代表, 絶無轉換之意。

最近 Covid-19 病毒流行，從中國的武漢起波及全球。世人開始對防疫十分重視。在教會的聖餐禮拜中，分餅杯的執事同工，帶上手套，餅和杯都是用巳消毒過的包裝保護，為了免除病毒傳染的可能性。這是非常明智的措施。但我不知道天主教的做法如何？如果他們真的相信餅杯的的確確是基督的血肉，那就大可不用防備了，難道基督的寶血會有毒死人的可能性嗎？

如果聖經是上帝啓示的道(revealed Word of God)，那麼基督就是上帝生命的道 (living Word of God)，兩者均來自超自然的源頭。吃基督的肉，飲基督的血，乃代表我們應勤讀聖經更要活出祂的誡命。這就是擘餅聚會的最終目標。

結論

現在我們要回答這個問題：在那麽多的經文中，那一段經文比較適用于教會的聖餐儀式? 我想上述的任何一段都適合，只要主禮者把聖餐的意義解釋清楚就好了。如果在聖餐禮儀中不時輪流使用不同的經文，或許會幫助基督徒會友對聖經獲得更全面的認識並增加新鮮感。但哥林多前書十一章有一㸃與眾不同，就是它把「自我省察」的要素加上去。或許我們覺得加與不加也無傷大雅，但保羅卻把這要素視為極其重要。我們讀經時通常只讀到第廿九節為止，但如果我們多讀一節，就察覺到它的嚴重性：

(v. 30) 「因此、在你們中間有好些軟弱的、與患病的、死的也不少。〔死原文作睡〕

That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 」

當時的教會,若信徒忽畧自省，可能會導致疾病，甚至死亡。在恩典時代的今天，可能沒有患病及身亡之憂, 但聖經的話顯示了忽畧「自省」的嚴重後果。

另一個問題是：至於「先吃後飲」還是「先飲後吃」? 筆者認為都無所謂。但教會兩千多年傳統都是 「先吃後飲」, 那又何必標奇立異呢？改變傳統做法會導致參與者分心而忘記了聖餐的意義。

By T.C. Lo; November 16, 2018

Inasmuch as original sin is a mystery (Ref. 1), the literal meaning of the record in Genesis (3 : 6-7) is easy to understand. God gave our First Ancestors one and only “restriction” which said “…but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die (Genesis 2:17).” Then they were tempted by the devil. Sadly, they succumbed to it as described below:

Genesis 3:

(V. 6) When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
(V. 7) Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

These two Bible verses seem to have no major difficulties on the surface, but after taking a second glance, they are not without perplexity in the understanding of the meaning of nakedness.

• The first understanding is that Adam and Eve were actually naked prior to their disobedience against God, but they were not aware of their naked condition until after they had sinned.
• Another possible interpretation is that Adam and Eve were not naked at all before their disobedience. They were only changed into the state of nakedness after committing the act of disobedience and they immediately recognized such changes.

The author believes that the first speculation is unlikely. If they didn’t even know their condition of nakedness – such a simple thing – how could they have the intelligibility to understand God’s injunction set for them? How could they freely have conducted meaningful communication with God? As “creatures with a living soul” made in the image of God, how could they have such a large deficiency in their self-understanding?

The second argument is more conceivable because, first, the Bible time and time again talks about that people in the eternal state have some kind of glorious covering to drape over their bodies. But after the Fall, Adam and Eve discovered that the special kind of covering was gone. I believe that our First Ancestors were in this “eternal state” before they had committed the original sin. Now, let’s consider a few verses to sustain the covered-bodies argument:

(Matt 22:11-12)
(V. 11) But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes.

(V. 12) ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ The man was speechless.

Here the “wedding clothes” represent the righteousness of Christ. This “glorious clothing” function to conceal the unholiness of the elected.

(Rev 21:2)
I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.

The bride represents the church. She is not naked but wears beautifully decorated clothes.

Quite clearly, this kind of covering for the bodies is a kind of beautiful and glorious draping. On the Mount of transfiguration, the clothes Jesus, and even Moses and Elijah, wore were as white as the light, representing unspeakably glory. (Matthew 17:2)

So we can imagine that Adam and Eve had some glorious covering when they were in the state of innocence.

On the contrary, in hell, people are believed to be naked as implied by the following verse.

「Death is naked before God; Destruction (Abaddon) lies uncovered. (Job 26:6) 」

In the case of the underworld, the great artist Michelangelo painted on fresco in the Sistine Chapel, The Last Judgment, which has such an imaginative depiction.

Once Adam and Eve sinned, their eyes were opened; they could clearly see the thorns in other’s eye (but they couldn’t see the big beams in their own eyes). So when they were interrogated by God, they repeatedly shirked the responsibilities and blamed on others. Their iniquities in front of God had made them unfit to wear the glorious clothes which God took away from them. Adam and Eve then keenly realized that they were naked.

They took the leaves of the fig tree and made skirts for themselves in order to cover their shame. Why were they shameful to be naked? Adam and Eve were husband and wife before the Fall, and they were still married after the Fall. At that time, there were only two of them. Why did they feel shameful of their nakedness? I think their “shame” is not because they saw each other naked, but because of their own sin.

The sin itself, no matter how you feel about it, is an objective shame; but when you are remorseful of your sin, the objective sin becomes a subjective guilt feeling. This guilt was the source of the shame for Adam and Eve. Not only did they lose the beautiful covering, but they also exposed their shame, because an uncovered body was shameful.

I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see (Rev. 3:18).

The subjective guilt feeling of Adam and Eve indicated their repentance based on which salvation came upon them.

The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. (Genesis 3:21)

The leather is taken from the dead animal that represents a sin offering. It foreshadowed Jesus as a priest who offered Himself as also the sacrifice. People cannot save themselves. Here we see that salvation is solely from God and is the work of Christ’s grace wrought on the cross. It is important to note that Jesus was also naked on the cross to bear the shame of our sins.

The ESV Study Bible also takes this view: “Crucifixion, performed naked and in public, and inflicting prolonged pain on the victim, was intended to cause shame as well as death” (comment on Hebrews 12:2).

Open nakedness in public is a manifestation of shame to the utmost.

The nature of a fallen man is not to rely on God, but to rely on his own abilities to solve his problem. Therefore, in consternation, the First Couple quickly used the leaves of fig tree to make clothes for themselves. When God walked in the garden and called them, they were very afraid, and they hid in the trees and did not dare to face God—this is a showing of shame. When the cool breeze blew over, the skirts of leaves were neither able to keep them warm nor completely covered their shamefulness. The self-help policy of the people is hopelessly in vain. But God has abundant grace, and He actively extends the hand of redemption to His children.

Now let us hark back to what God did for Adam and Eve before the Fall: God first gave Adam a partner and set up the holy matrimony for them. (Genesis 2:22-25):

(V. 22) Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

(V. 23) The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman, ‘ for she was taken out of man.”

(V. 24) For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

(V. 25) The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

The words in verse 25 are the description of Adam and Eve’s condition in the context of marriage before they sinned. Obviously, the “nakedness” here refers to the exclusive intimate relationship between husband and wife. Because of the demand of exclusivity, it follows to mean that they are not running naked in their ordinary daily life. In the sacred marriage, “nakedness” is meant to be a gift from God to fulfill God’s purpose for them: “To multiply and fill the earth,” so they were not ashamed of the God-ordained purpose. Here again, we see that nakedness could be realized in their mind and their eyes were bright to be conscious of their nakedness—no need to wait until they have sinned The nakedness within the marriage is exclusive, which points to the need of clothing in public life. We all need clothing now and glorious covering in eternity.

I hope this article may inspire readers to think about some of the so-called simple verses and discover the Bible’s inexhaustible treasure. This kind of reflection brings a new sense of awe in our faith in God.

(Ref. 1) //www.hocl.org/blogs/tincheelo/?p=742

By Tin-chee (TC) Lo (盧天賜); November 15, 2019

盡管原罪是一個奧秘 (Ref. 1)，創世記第三章 (3: 6-7) 的字面記載也算是容易明白的。上帝賜給始祖一條「唯一的禁令」，就是：「不可吃分別善惡樹的果子。」後來他們卻受魔鬼的引誘而被屈服了。

(V. 6) 於是女人 (夏娃) 見那棵樹的果子好作食物、也悅人的眼目、且是可喜愛的、能使人有智慧、就摘下果子來喫了．又給他丈夫 (亞當)、他丈夫也喫了。
(V. 7) 他們二人的眼睛就明亮了、纔知道自己是赤身露體、便拿無花果樹的葉子、為自己編作裙子。

這兩節經文表面看來好像沒有多大的問題，但經過進深的思考後, 發現它們並非沒有難明之處。問題在于對「赤身露體」的領會。

• 第一種領會是：亞當與夏娃在犯罪之前真的是赤身露體，但是他們卻不知道，直至犯罪之後才知道自己原是裸體的。
• 另一種領會是：亞當與夏娃在犯罪前並不是真的赤身露體，只是犯罪後才改變成赤身露體，而自己察覺到這樣的改變。

筆者認為第一種説法不太可能。如果他們連自己有沒有赤身露體—那麼簡單的事—都不知道，他們又怎能有足夠的智力去理解神給他們的禁令呢？他們又如何能夠與神自如地進行有意義的交談呢？一個照著神的形象受造的「有靈的活人」不可能在智能上有如此大的缺欠。

第二種説法的可能性較大，因為聖經中一次又一次地論到人在永恆狀態 (eternal state)中是有某一種遮蓋身體的東西的，但在人犯罪之後，便發覺那一種「特殊的遮體物」不見了。始祖在未犯罪前是可以被視為處于這「永恆狀態」的。現在考慮數處經文：

(v. 11)「王進來觀看賓客、見那裡有一個沒有穿禮服的。
(v. 12) 就對他說、朋友、你到這裡來、怎麼不穿禮服呢。那人無言可答。」(太22:11-12)

這裡的「禮服」是代表基督的義，是用來遮羞的榮美「衣服」。

「我又看見聖城新耶路撒冷由　神那裡從天而降、預備好了、就如新婦妝飾整 (beautifully dressed), 等候丈夫。」(啓21:2)

新婦代表教會，她不是赤身露體的，而是穿上美麗地飾整過的衣服的。

再次強調，這種遮蓋身體的東西是一種榮美的复盖物。在登山變像中，耶穌 (甚至連摩西和以利亞) 的衣裳是潔白如光，極度榮耀的 (太40:2) 所以我們可推想到亞當和夏娃在未犯罪前是有某些榮耀的「衣服」遮蔽他們的身體的。

相反地，在地獄中，人是赤身露体的。
「在　神面前陰間顯露、滅亡 (Destruction “Abaddon”) 也不得遮掩。(伯26:6) 」

論到陰間的情況，米開朗基羅 (Michelangelo) 的西斯廷教堂 (Sistine Chapel) 壁畫《最後的審判》(fresco The Last fresco The Last Judgment Judgment) 就有這樣的想像式描述。

一旦始祖犯了罪後，他們的眼睛明亮起來，清楚地看到別人眼中的刺 (但看不到自己眼中的木梁)。所以當他們被神審問時，總是把責任推到別人身上。他們在神面前的規欠，使他們不配穿著那榮耀的的衣服，神就把它脫落下來，亞當和夏娃那時就真的意識到他們是赤身露體了。他們便拿無花果樹的葉子、為自己編作裙子，為自己遮羞。為什麼赤身露體是羞恥呢? 亞當與夏娃在墮落前是夫妻，在墮落後仍是夫妻, 當時只有他們倆人，為什麼他們因彼此赤身露體感到「羞恥」呢？我想他們的「羞恥感」不是因為他們看到對方的赤祼，而是出於自己的罪的緣故。罪的本身, 不管你對它的感覺如何，就是一種客觀的罪疚 (objective shame) ；但當你對罪產生悔意時, 客觀的罪疚就變成主觀的內疚 (subjective guilt feeling) 了。這個內疚就是亞當與夏娃感到羞恥的來源。他們不但失去榮美的衣服，而且羞恥也顯露出來，因為赤身露體的本身就是羞恥的。

「 我勸你向我買火煉的金子、叫你富足．又買白衣穿上、叫你赤身的羞恥不露出來．又買眼藥擦你的眼睛、使你能看見。( 啓3:18)」

亞當與夏娃的內疚感，就表明了他們的悔改。救恩就臨到他們身上。

(v. 21) 「耶和華　神為亞當和他妻子用皮子作衣服、給他們穿。」 (創3:21)

皮衣是從死的動物取下來的。它代表贖罪祭。預表耶穌是祭司，祂也是祭物。人不能自救。在此處，我們便看到救恩唯獨是出于神，是祂恩典的作為。論到基督被釘十架的情景, 約翰福音 19:23-24 寫道:

(v.23) 兵丁既然將耶穌釘在十字架上、就拿他的衣服分為四分、每兵一分．又拿他的裡衣．這件裡衣、原來沒有縫兒、是上下一片織成的。(v. 24) 他們就彼此說、我們不要撕開、只要拈鬮、看誰得著．這要應驗經上的話說、『他們分了我的外衣、為我的裡衣拈鬮。』兵丁果然作了這事。

因罪人極盡其羞辱之能事，所以我相信耶穌是完完全全赤赤裸裸地擔當我們罪孽的羞恥。ESV (English Standard Version) 聖經研讀本持這種觀點： “在裸體和公開場合被釘十字架，給受害者造成長期痛苦，旨在造成恥辱甚至死亡” （對希伯來書12：2評論）。

公開式的裸體就是羞辱的表現。墮落人類的天性是不依靠神，單靠自己的方法去解決問題。因此，他們在徬徨之間，趕快用無花果樹的葉子作衣服蔽體。當神在園中行走，呼喚他們的時候，他們十分害怕，便躲藏在樹叢中，不敢面對上帝—這是羞恥的表現。涼風一吹來，樹葉編作的裙子，既不保暖，也不能完全遮羞。人的自救方策，於事無濟。但神有豐盛的恩典，祂主動地伸出救贖的手, 為亞當和他妻子用皮子作衣服。現在我們回到始祖在犯罪之前神為他們所作的事：賜給亞當一位伴侶，並為他們設立婚姻。

(v. 22) 耶和華　神就用那人身上所取的肋骨、造成一個女人、領他到那人跟前。
(v. 23) 那人說、這是我骨中的骨、肉中的肉、可以稱他為女人、因為他是從男人身上取出來的。
(v. 24) 因此、人要離開父母、與妻子連合、二人成為一體。
(v. 25) 當時夫妻二人、赤身露體、並不羞恥。(創 世記 2章)

第25 節的話是亞當和夏娃在他們尙未犯罪前神為他們設立婚姻之後所説的。明顯地，這裡的「赤身露體」是指夫妻的親密關係，是有排外性的 (exclusivity)， 所以不是指在平常生活中他們是公開祼體的。在神聖的婚姻內，「赤身露體」是神給人的禮物，是為了成全神對他們的旨意：「要生養眾多、遍滿地面」，所以他們並不感到羞恥。這裡再次説到赤身露體是他們可以在頭腦上意識到的，並非要等到犯罪後，眼睛明亮了才能夠意識到。婚姻中的赤身露體既是有排外性，犯罪前也如是, 這就説明他們在公眾的生活中，不是赤祼，乃是有衣著的。

啟示錄:19:7-8， “我們要歡喜快樂，將榮耀歸給他，因為羔羊婚娶的時候到了，新婦也自己預備好了。就蒙恩得穿光明潔白的細麻衣。”

亞當和夏娃對裸體的可恥發現，意味著他們失去了原來那榮耀的長袍，這是筆者對創世記第三章 (3: 6-7) 的神學推理。 今天我們正在尋找我們脆弱的愛慾，我們的私處, 也將在新耶路撒冷, 被上帝的尊嚴和公義所覆蓋。

(Ref. 1) https://hocl.org/blogs/tincheelo/?p=742

By Tin-Chee Lo (盧天賜); May 30, 2019

甚麼是「神的主權 (The Sovereignty of God)」

「神的主權」又稱「神的全權」。「全」是指全部的範圍 (scope)，「權」是指至高無上的權柄。全權是神的屬性之一，指受造界中每一件事物神有至高無上的權柄和地位。千萬光年以外的一粒原子都在神掌控之下 (Ref. 1) ；天上的麻雀祂都看顧；我們的頭髮祂都數過, 每一個意外，苦難，天災人禍, 都在神的掌控中。。神的全權是一個不證自明的常識，因為如果神沒有至高無上的權柄，祂就不是神。盡管常識能使我們了解這一㸃，更重要的是聖經有許許多多的經節支持這個教義：

• 聖經第一章第一節，開宗明義地指出， 「起初　神創造天地」。「起初」指宇宙的存在是有個開始的，不是亞里士多得的「無始無終」說。神的創造是從無變有，祂的創造是絶不依賴在祂以外的任何東西。神在創造上是至高無上的。

• 從詩人在詩篇中的讚嘆，我們看到他們多次對神的主權認同：「耶和華本為大，祂是大王–超乎萬神之上（Ps 95:3)。」又多次說，「祂是萬王之王，萬主之主，衪坐著為王 (Ps 9:7)」。我們的領會是「王」和「主」都是高尙的地位。神不但有榮耀的地位，祂有無與倫比的權柄 (c.f. 英國女皇僅有地位但沒有權柄) 。

• 地上的國權是耶和華的．他是管理萬國的。世上沒有一個執政掌權者不在神的命定之内，他們都是受制于神。(Ps 22:28; Ps 2)

• 到了新約，保羅用修詞學的方式的問法去讓讀者自己回答：「有誰能抗拒衪的旨意？」(Rm 9:19)

• 保羅論到為我們預備基業的神是「那位隨己意行作萬事的」神 (Eph 1:11)。祂的己意不取決於別人的意見。

• 神的主權是完全自主的，「祂要恩待誰，就恩待誰；祂要憐憫誰就憐憫誰 (Ex 33:18; Rm 9:14)」。

• 祂要揀選誰，就揀選誰。我們是泥土，祂是兠匠。祂豈不能隨祂的旨意「從一團泥裡拿一塊作成貴重的器皿、又拿一塊作成卑賤的器皿麼？」 (Rm 9:21) 」這是另一個修詞學的表達。

如果我做每一件事，其結果都是神巳經命定了，而且達成所命定的目標的途徑也是神自己命定的。如果我作任何決定，都巳在神的掌控中，我就不需要負任何責任嗎? 這是宿命論的想法，而不是聖經的教導。

甚麼是「宿命論 (Fatalism)」

宿命論是一種悲觀晢學，認為一切事物都由「命運 (fate)」去決定，人是無能為力的。尼采是十九世紀末的悲觀哲學家, 他是宿命論的提倡者。宿命論的思維使人在沒有掙扎的情況下接受失敗的結局。所以它也可被稱之為失敗主義 (defeatism)。命運大至來説是指一種飄渺虛無且無位格 (nonpersonal) 的一種抽象東西。 宿命論的實踐就是不負責任，認為結局是早巳命定的天意，我還能作些什麼？

伊斯蘭教非常重視他們那獨一受拜的「安拉或真主 Allah」的至高無上的地位和旨令，穆斯林，即伊斯蘭教的信徒，只信奉真主為自己的主。命運雖是無位格，但高度宗教色彩的伊斯蘭教也把它涉及到神聖的一邊，所以我們可説伊斯蘭教是一個近乎宿命論的宗教。

伊斯蘭教徒到麥加朝覲，這是每年一次全世界穆斯林最大規模的聚會，也是伊斯蘭教的五功 (Five Pillars) 之一 (Ref. 2)，就是回教成年的男人, 若健康和經濟都許可, 都要做一次的聖禮。在朝覲那一週，上百萬朝覲者同時在麥加聚集，並進行一系列的儀式：每個人逆時針方向繞行卡巴天房 (Kaaba) 七次，這個黑色的立方形建築物，也是世上所有穆斯林祈禱時所要對準的焦點。在這人山人海的地㸃和時刻，我們很難想像到意外不會發生。2015年九月十一日 (與 “911” 巧合！) 在穆斯林的一個神聖禮拜五中，一個巨型的起重機倒塌在人群中，做成四百人受傷，118人死亡。當局要求進行調查，然而在這高度宗教的國家，操作起重機的枝術人員找到簡單的出路，他們對新聞界簡單地説，「所發生的事情是超出人類的力量所能防範，這是真主的作為。」宿命論可以成為不負責任的藉口。値得讚揚的是，沙特政府當局並未接受這一解釋。他們馬上停止該建築公司的運作，下令進行週查，發現該公司並不遵守安全規則又違反機械製造商的操作說明。最後，公司被停牌，並向受害者家屬提供賠償。

這不是第一次的意外。于1990年，在同一地點有1426位朝聖者被人群踩踏死亡，主因是人太多缺乏通風。沙特王説，「這是真主安拉的旨意，這是命運。」 (Ref. 3)

基督教不是宿命論

儘管基督徒對神的全權抱著崇高的看法，但基督徒拒絕宿命論。因為聖經極其強調人是要對自己的行動，想法和決擇負責。聖經吩咐我們要切切悔攺，常常禱告，不斷謝恩，努力行善，思念上面的事。耶穌升天前賜下大使命，並囑咐門徒說, 「凡我所吩咐你們的，都要教訓他們遵守。」這些都是基督徒對主的吩咐的責任。

懶惰是宿命論的特色之一，但聖經視懶惰為罪，並說不做工的人就不準他們吃飯 (2 Th 3:10)。箴言教導我們，「懶惰人哪，你去察看 (勤勞的) 螞蟻，就得智慧 (Prov 6:6)。」我們不是靠行為得救，我們得救乃本乎恩。但得救之後，工作是很重要的; 將來奬賞的審判也是以我們的行為作根據。保羅對腓立比教會說，你們要「作成你們得救的功夫 (Phil 2:12)。」其意是當我們得救後要以工作來表示我們的積極和充實的生活，同時也是對神順服的表達。上帝以創造之工彰顯祂的榮耀 (Ps 90:1-2), 同時，我們應以上帝所堅立我們的手所作的工去榮耀祂 （Ps. 90:17)。這是詩篇的對偶句子(Chiasm)。

矛盾還是一致?

神的全權乃指宇宙中所有事情的發生和它們發展的過程和結果都是三位一體真神通過商議所產生的旨意。這些旨意必會照神所命定的方策完成，它是絶不會失敗的; 而且其成功不取決於在祂以外的任何東西。神也命定達到結果所經過的方法。祂的方法是：神喜歡 “透過” 人的工作去完成祂的旨意。人因此就有真正的義務對自己的行動和決定負責。

我在台大讀書時，有一位哲學系室友告訴我，他的教授李敖告訴學生説，「猶大的功勞最大，因為沒有他，耶穌的救恩是無法完成的。」當時我尙未信主，聽起來不但感到新鮮，而且也頗覺得有道理。後來信主後才知道李敖的見解並非新事，老早巳有人説過了。但聖經告訴我們，猶大從未得救, 沒有經歷重生, 是犯了大罪的。盡管他在救恩上扮演重要角色，也不过是上帝的器皿, 他還是要對他所作所為負責。耶穌説,此人比不活在世上還好。神的主權與人的責任不是矛盾的，而是互補的。

使徒行傳論到猶大賣耶穌的事，説，「他 (耶穌) 既按著神的定旨先見 (神的全權)， 被交與人 (指猶太人和官長)，你們就藉無法人(猶大) 的手，把祂釘在十字架上殺了 (Act 2:23)。」神的救贖計劃早在創世以前已經命定了，猶大只是神手中所命定的工具。猶大既被稱為無法之人，他就有過無功了。

如何把神的全權和人的責任放在一起？

神既在每一件事上保持祂的主權甚至到一個程度使每一件事情的發展都完全依照祂的旨意和途徑進行, 而同時，人又要對他們的行動和決定負責。這兩件事怎樣放在一起呢？這就是神學上的「同步發生論」的教義 (Ref. 4)。要回答這個問題首先我們必須區別神旨意的兩方面。這區別是根據申命記 (29:29) 的話：

「隱祕的事、是屬耶和華我們　神的、惟有明顯的事、是永遠屬我們和我們子孫的、好叫我們遵行這律法上的一切話。」

這𥚃我們看到神隱藏的旨意和顕明的旨意。

• 神隱藏的旨意: 神不讓我們知道的。這個隱藏可能是永遠的，也可能是暫時的，直至事情發生為止才知道。神既不願我們知道，我們就不要侵犯祂的私隱權。因它是不關乎我們的。這個隱藏的旨意是神對未來的計劃和命定，是無人能攔截的，是必定能成就的。這也是神的不變性 (immutability)—因神不會更改衪所命定的。神為何要隱藏一些東西？我想：

• 神沒有必要甚麼事都告訴我們, 就好像父母不一定把所有的事都告訴子女。

• 就算祂告訴我們，我們也無法明白，因我們都是有罪有限的人。我記得我女兒很小的時候，讀聖經讀到喇合妓女的故事，她問，「爸爸，甚麼是妓女?」我也不記得如何回答她了! 但我靈感一觸，就敷衍地對她說，”妓女就是壞女人結婚”, 不知她明白多少！

• 祂不告訴我們都是為我們的好處 (例如，我們在那一天離世? 神沒有説)。

• 神顕明的旨意—是神願意我們知道的。首先，神願意我們知道祂是誰，所以祂把祂的屬性清楚地啓示給我們。我們怎能愛一位我們不知道的神呢？其次，顕明的旨意大部分與教訓有關。教訓是我們討神喜悅的指導原則。例如：

• 神要我們盡心，盡性，盡意，盡力去愛祂 (Mk 12:30-31)

• 神要我們知道除衪以外，不可有別的神 (Ex 20:3)。

• 凡耶穌所吩咐的, 我們都要遵守 (Mt 28:20); 這就鼓勵我們要勤讀經了。

顕明的旨意的目標是好叫我們遵守這律法上的一切話，好讓我們知道如何討祂的喜悅。明白隱藏的旨意與顕明的旨意的區別對我們有很多好處：讓我們知道誰在掌管我們不知道的明天，我們便不會過分擔憂。相信神的命定是良善的和聖潔的，我們可以在患難中有盼望, 有喜樂, 有倚靠。良善和聖潔是祂的屬性。如果神只有全權而沒有良善，那是更可怕的情形。

耶穌在升天前對們徒所說的話，巳把神的兩種旨令區別出來：

• 隱藏的旨令：人不能知道的。只有全權的神才知道。
「(們徒) 聚集的時候、問耶穌說、主阿、你復興以色列國、就在這時候嗎? 耶穌對他們說、父憑著自己的權柄、所定的時候日期、不是你們可以知道的。」(Acts 1:6-7)

• 明顕的旨令：是命令，是教訓，是人的責任。
「但聖靈降臨在你們身上、你們就必得著能力．並要在耶路撒冷、猶太全地、和撒瑪利亞、直到地極、作我的見證。」 (Acts 1:8)

實例說明：使徒行傳21至28章 (Ref. 5)

使徒行傳最後八章述及保羅由耶路撒冷往羅馬的旅行。雖然保羅是以囚犯身份被解交往羅馬，但有學者稱此次行程為「保羅第四次宣教之旅」。因為保羅所到之處都撒下福音的種子, 宣講耶穌基督, 甚至向君王傳道。從這行程中，特別是第廿七章的船難, 我們可以看到 “神的主權與人的責任的關係”。下面是船難發生前的一些時序背景：

• 保羅在耶路撒冷與雅各和其他長老會面 (21:18-28)。

• 保羅在耶路撒冷放膽傳福音遭受猶太人折磨 (21:27-40)。

• 保羅公開為耶穌復活作見證遭受鞭打並受審判 (22:21-30)。

• 保羅被護送到凱撒利亞港 (23:1-35)。

• 保羅被押到巡撫腓力斯 (24)。

• 保羅上訴

新上任的非斯都，要求要見羅馬王帝 (25)。這是羅馬公民的權利。

• 保羅站在亞基帕王面前見證耶穌 (26)。

• 非斯都決定把保羅送住意大利的羅馬去 (27:1-2)。

使徒行傳27:13-44 詳細地記錄保羅往意大利的整個船程。他們從該撒利亞起航，沿著以色列海岸北上，再沿著土耳其南岸向西行到了每拉，在那地方百夫長遇上一隻名亞力山太的船，他們便往克里特島 (Crete) 去。船上有船長，水手，百夫長，囚犯，和保羅共 276人 (Acts 27:37)。一上船便遇上巨風，船就沿著革哩底的南岸向東行，到了非尼基港，保羅見議船就停在這𥚃過冬，否則船，貨，和性命都難保。

神定意保羅往羅馬 (Acts 23:11)。但人的想法是: 如果船沈了，保羅便喪命，豈非神的旨意會落空嗎？

然而，船長和百夫長都不同意保羅，因為保羅只不過是個囚犯，也沒有航海經驗，所以他便無話可説。船就繼續往前行，果然照保羅所預料，狂風大浪不停地催逼，全船的人都害怕，且斷定「得救的指望就都絶了 (27:20)」。宿命主義者便坐以待斃，認為這是天意，做甚麼也沒有用。但保羅並不這樣想，他鼓勵全船的人應盡人的責任，挽救危局。保羅還勸他們說，「你們放心。你們的性命、一個也不失喪、惟獨失喪這船。因我所屬所事奉的　神、他的使者昨夜站在我旁邊說：”保羅、不要害怕、你必定站在該撒面前．並且與你同船的人、　神都賜給你了」。 保羅深信神的全權，知道結局被操縱在神那特定的旨意中。因此他繼續强調説，「所以眾位可以放心、我信　神他怎樣對我說、事情也要怎樣成就 (27:22-25)」。保羅知道事情一定會完滿結束，但他並沒說, “甚麼都不要做了!” 保羅並沒有這樣想。他卻鼓勵每人各盡其職，做些遇船難時所應該做的事：

• 「用䌫索捆綁船底 (17:17)」以防船身爆裂。

• 「把貨物拋在海𥚃；把船上的器具拋棄 (17:18-19)」以減輕船的負荷。

• 禁食的時間巳過去，「保羅勸眾人都吃飯，説：你們懸望忍餓不吃甚麼，巳經十四天了。」吃飯才有能量去應付危機。

• 他們也用儀器探測海的深䔐 (17:28), 以便知道情況。

保羅深信這些都是人的責任，盡管神巳命定此次船難必無人喪命，但保羅 “真正地認為” 這些行動是保存性命的重要策略。

但有經驗的水手都知道如果留在船上，必定死亡，所以他們「想要逃出船，便把救生小船放在大海中 (27:30)。」如果他們的策略成功，神的旨意便落空了, 因為神的旨意是要全船的人都往羅馬, 一個也不失喪 (Acts 27:22)。但「保羅對百夫長和兵丁說、這些人若不等在船上、你們必不能得救。於是百夫長命令兵丁砍斷小船的繩子、由他飄去 (27:31-32)。」沒有救生艇, 水手也只能留在船上和保羅及其他囚犯在一起。在海難時, 水手非常重要; 今次百夫長聼從保羅的話 (c.f. 27:11)。

兵丁的職責是看守囚犯，如有逃離者，兵丁必受嚴重的處罰。兵丁出了一個主意、要「把囚犯殺了、恐怕有洑水脫逃的。但「百夫長要救保羅、不准他們任意而行 (27:42-43)。船終于在米利大島擱了淺 (Acts 28:1)，這樣、眾人都得了救上了岸 (27:44) 」，準確地成全了全權的神的法令旨意。

我們看到神不但命定事情的結局，也命定達成結局的過程的方法。神借著人的手去保證祂的旨意必得完成。如果兵丁真的殺了他們，神的旨意便落空。現在我們看到神全權的法令旨意與人的責任拉上關係：如人的作為符合神的旨意, 人必蒙神的喜悅，如人的計謀與神的命定背道而馳，他也無法破壞神所命定的結局, 但自己却要面对審判。

神的主權與人的自由意志

神的主權命定一切，是否代表人的自由意志沒有地位？ 你有沒有玩過拼圖板 (jigsaw puzzle pieces) 的遊戲？當我開始排列拼圖板時, 我通常由角落開始, 一步一步向內發展, 很快我便會構成一片似乎成功的圖案。突然間, 我發現中間地帶有一些機會, 我便從那裏又發展另一片新的領域. 很快地, 一片一片不連接在一起的圖案散佈在尚未完成的畫面上。現在重點就在這兒: 如果這些巳排列好的拼圖板的的確處在它們應有的位置上, 遲早這幅拼圖是會被連接成功的。但如果這些巳排列好的拼圖板其中只有一片不是在它應有命定的位置上, 這幅拼圖是絕不會拼合成功的, 因為不連貫性遲早會被顯露出來, 所以那些看來暫時局部的成功, 不能保證全盤的成功。

這幅拼圖的最終樣式早以由拼圖的設計者命定，拼圖者無法改變它。然而玩拼圖的人的確有他的自由意志和責任去砌合畫面。如果所放下的某片圖板是符合設計者的原意，它會留在那裡。如果它的位置不符合設計者的法令旨意，遲早它必被迫挪移。除了拼圖的最終樣式是設計者的命定外，玩拼圖的方式也是設計者的命定，這就是指玩此遊戲的規則：每塊拼圖板與拼圖板之間一定要天衣無縫，沒有一塊是例外。

• 這個拼圖板可以代表基督徒的生命。我們每天所做的一切就相當于把拼圖板一塊一塊地用神賜給我們的自由意志放進圖板。凡是神命定中的東西必被保留，凡不是神命定中的東西，透過神出于愛的管教，必被挪移。

• 這個拼圖板可以代表基督徒的歷史觀。無神論者認為歷史是無意義，無目的的循環。今天發生的事以前發生過，以後也必再會發生。另一看法是一種存在主意式的歷史觀，認為意義取決於行動。每個人都試圖找出自己的途徑，在無目的的大海洋中發表「個人主義」。但聖經的歷史觀是線性的，是有方向的，有目的的，照著神所命定的目標和方法邁進，走向啓示錄所指示的終點，所以基督徒基本上應是樂觀的。每一塊拼圖板都看到人的自由意志和神的指印在其中。神是歷史 (His-Story) 的主宰，當整個拼圖完成後，我們發現原來基督是整個歷史的中心人物。我們一切的活動，不知不覺地，都與傳福音有關。我們是活在一個「已然」和「未然」的張力中。「現世」和「來世」是有連續性的。我們的傳福音和推進基督教文化是有意義的。(Ref. 6)

• 這個拼圖板可以幫助指出無神論者的不協調性。基督徒不同意宏觀進化論 (即猴子可進化成人類)，但我們千萬不要說進化論「所有」的東西都錯。進化論對生物學的貢獻也是非常大是的，但它在整個系統和格構上是大錯特錯的，我們必須區別這一點。換句話說，它有很多「局部的成功」我們可以學習，但它卻沒有「整體的成功。」舉凡 「寒武纪爆炸 (Cambrian explosion) 」的困惑，或 「化石証據」的不足等, 都是因為拼圖板放在不對的位置上所引起的不連贯性。

神的主權與揀選的救贖

耶穌對尼哥底母説，「我對你們說地上的事，你們尚且不信，若說天上的事，如何能信呢？(Jn 3:12) 」首先讓我們看看地上的一件事，就是地上的生命是怎樣來的。神在父親無數的精子中只選一條, 又再在母親無數的卵子中只選一粒。兩者結合便成了一個生命，這個生命就是你我地上生命的開始。請問你對你自己的生命的存在有甚麼貢獻? 答案是: 一點貢獻都沒有。我們的存在完全是神的揀選。如果肉身的生命的形成完全是神的㨂選，那麼屬靈的生命豈不應更是神的揀選嗎？所以我們對我們的重生 (屬天的生命) 也是亳無貢獻的。「重生」完全是出于神恩典的揀選，得救完全是本乎恩。聖經內用很多的經節支「預定論 (Doctrine of Predestination) 」, 我們雖不完全了解，但它至少也算是通得過我們的思維的。如果人的得救是神的揀選，而神的揀選是絶不會落空，那麼傳福音的意義何在？

神命定任何事情所要達到的最終目的，祂也同時命定要達到此目的的方法。這就等於重述祂有至高無上的主權。在救贖的事上, 也是如此。人得救乃完全本乎神揀選的恩典也藉著人的信。既是揀選，人的信心就一定不是人自發的，墮落人類也無法從自己產生得救的信心，所以得救的信心必然是神所賜的禮物。但神如何把這信心的禮物送給人呢？這是一個方法的問題。但如果方法也是神所命定，那麼我們就要問，「神所命定的方法是甚麼？」聖經給了我們一個明確的答案：「信道是從聽道來的、聽道是從基督的話來的。(Rm 10:17) 」要人聼道，就必須有人傳道，所以傳福音是必要的。傳甚麼道呢？道不單單是個人的見證，道是基督的話, 就是福音。這裏我們再次看到「神的全權」與「人的責任」的互動。「神人同工」是整本聖經不斷提到的真理，也說明了聖經中的神是一位願意與人建立關係的神。還有，傳福音是順服的表現，是討神喜悅的方法，因為這是耶穌的命令。所以我們不能因為神的揀選就忽畧了自己的責任。

結論

神的全權是不證自明的真理，更是具有聖經強烈支持的教義。神主權的命定不會消除人的責任，也不消除人的自由意志，而且人是要向神負上道德的責任。神人同工是聖經一貫的教導。區別神隱藏的旨意和明顕的旨意是理解神的至高無上的主權和人的責任的關鍵。了解神是歷史的主可以幫助我們在整個大使命中的角色。有位護教學者説得好：「神給我們足夠的證據，使我們可以靠著理性去踏出信心的第一步。但神也保留一些理性無法介入的領域，使我們可以全然用信心去依靠祂，信賴祂，和委身於祂。(Ref. 7) 」這是信心與理性互動的最佳說明。

References:

1. On the sovereignty of God, R.C. Sproul said frequently in his podcast, “there is no maverick molecule in the universe that is outside of God’s power and control.”

2. 伊斯蘭教的五大支柱: A. Declaration Faith (声明信仰); B. Obligatory Prayer (義務祈禱); C. Compulsory giving (強制給予); D. Fasting in the month of Ramadan (齋月禁食); E. Pilgrimage to Mecca (麥加朝聖).

3. Various google searches and fact-checks on this particular news.

4. “The Invisible Hand—Do all things really work for good?” by R.C. Sproul; pp. 94-96 and “後現代潮流中的 <心意更新>” by 李定武; pp. 61-62.

5. “God’s Control and Our Responsibility” by Guy M. Richard; (TableTalk October 2018); pp. 9-11.

6. “The Bible and the Future” by Anthony A. Hoekema; pp. 23-40.

7. “The Real Face of Atheism” by Ravi Zacharias. On page 113, RZ comments on the interplay between faith and reason, “God has put enough into the world to make faith in him a most reasonable thing, and he has left enough to make it impossible to live by sheer reason or observation alone.”

By Tin-Chee Lo (盧天賜); February 9, 2019

經文：馬太福音18:21-35
21 那 時 ， 彼 得 進 前 來 ， 對 耶 穌 說 ： 主 阿 ， 我 弟 兄 得 罪 我 ， 我 當 饒 恕 他 幾 次 呢 ？ 到 七 次 可 以 麼 ？
22 耶 穌 說 ： 我 對 你 說 ， 不 是 到 七 次 ， 乃 是 到 七 十 個 七 次 。
23 天 國 好 像 一 個 王 要 和 他 僕 人 算 賬 。
24 才 算 的 時 候 ， 有 人 帶 了 一 個 欠 一 千 萬 銀 子 的 來 。
25 因 為 他 沒 有 甚 麼 償 還 之 物 ， 主 人 吩 咐 把 他 和 他 妻 子 兒 女 ， 並 一 切 所 有 的 都 賣 了 償 還 。
26 那 僕 人 就 俯 伏 拜 他 ， 說 ： 主 阿 ， 寬 容 我 ， 將 來 我 都 要 還 清 。
27 那 僕 人 的 主 人 就 動 了 慈 心 ， 把 他 釋 放 了 ， 並 且 免 了 他 的 債 。
28 那 僕 人 出 來 ， 遇 見 他 的 一 個 同 伴 欠 他 十 兩 銀 子 ， 便 揪 著 他 ， 掐 住 他 的 喉 嚨 ， 說 ： 你 把 所 欠 的 還 我 ！
29 他 的 同 伴 就 俯 伏 央 求 他 ， 說 ： 寬 容 我 罷 ， 將 來 我 必 還 清 。
30 他 不 肯 ， 竟 去 把 他 下 在 監 裡 ， 等 他 還 了 所 欠 的 債 。
31 眾 同 伴 看 見 他 所 做 的 事 就 甚 憂 愁 ， 去 把 這 事 都 告 訴 了 主 人 。
32 於 是 主 人 叫 了 他 來 ， 對 他 說 ： 你 這 惡 奴 才 ！ 你 央 求 我 ， 我 就 把 你 所 欠 的 都 免 了 ，
33 你 不 應 當 憐 恤 你 的 同 伴 ， 像 我 憐 恤 你 麼 ？
34 主 人 就 大 怒 ， 把 他 交 給 掌 刑 的 ， 等 他 還 清 了 所 欠 的 債 。
35 你 們 各 人 若 不 從 心 裡 饒 恕 你 的 弟 兄 ， 我 天 父 也 要 這 樣 待 你 們 了 。

在猶太人的文化中，寬恕是一項美德。拉比的教導是要你原諒那得罪你的人三次之多。彼得是猶太人，他當然知道這個道理。有一天，他來到耶穌面前問道：「主阿，我當饒怒人幾次呢？ 到七次夠嗎？」彼得以為主一定會稱許他的宽宏大量。誰知耶穌説，「不是到七次，乃是到七十個七次。」

這不意味著耶穌設定了490次犯罪的限制。耶穌乃是說，寛恕別人是沒有上限的。原諒別人乃是作門徒的一種基本生活方式，是天國子民的特徵之一。為了強化這個觀念，耶稣向門徒作了以下的比喻：請看太18:23-35

這比喻的開始説到一個僕人欠了國王一堆天文數字的債，一生無法償還。他唯一的方法就是向王求憐憫。王就動了慈心，便把欠單撕掉，僕人便變成無債一身輕的自由人，他的家人也獲自由了。

我們很容易地和正確地把這段故事與福音拉上關係。國王代表父神。所有在國王統治下的人都是王的僕人，不是奴隸。奴隸絕不可能會欠國王那麼多債的。故事中的僕人可能是國中的高官，他有特杈接觸到國庫的資源。因為這個王國代表神的國，我們可以説他是基督徒。在他重生之前，甚至重生之後，他欠了天父一筆不能償還的罪債。唯一能擺脫這債務就是父神的赦免。除此之外，別無它法 (vv. 21-27) 。 世上宗教的教導認為當你犯了一項罪，你可以做一件善事與它抵銷。這是不可能的，因為在王的眼中，僕人的善行只不過像一件破爛的衣服，一無是處。故事中的僕人向王呼求 (悔改)，王就把他的債項一筆勾消。這真是一位有憐憫，有恩典的王。所以王的赦免代表耶穌基督的救恩。

比喻的下一段説到此僕人並沒有被王的宏恩感動，反而對欠他債的同伴施行嚴厲的方策。同伴欠他的債也不是小數量，只是遠遠少于他原本欠王的債 (vv. 28-30) 。其他的僕人們看見了，便怒氣沖天，將事稟告于王 (v. 31) 。王便大怒，恢復了那人負債的地位，並把他押回監獄去 (vv. 32-34) 。

這些僕人們的做法是否合理，我們暫且不談。但這裏給我自己一個反思：我有沒有因我不原諒別人而遭遇到同工或家人的非議? 這是一個發人心省的問題。現在我們思考一下王對此僕人的處理方法。

如果王的赦免代表救恩，那豈不是王把他再送回監獄，用嚴刑處置他，並恢复他的負債状态，就代表他的救恩失落了嗎? 想像力豐富的人馬上把這次重新入獄的事件連想到天主教的「練獄 (purgatory)」，但這是沒有聖經根據的。那麼我們怎樣去理解這段經文 (vv. 32-34) 呢?

首先，我們要知道這是一個比喻，特別是一個天國的比𣈥。解釋比喻的原則是：不可「過度」區泥細節；要注重整個比喻的主旨；更重要的是：所有的解釋必須服在教義 (doctrine) 之下。聖經教義包括:

• 聖徒的堅忍, 即「一次得救永遠得救」（約十：27～28）
• 切㡳的赦免 (基于神的信實與不變性）。「東離西有多遠、他叫我們的過犯、離我們也有多遠(詩 103:12)。」

耶穌稱這僕人為「惡奴 (wicked servant)」(v. 32)。這是一個非常強烈的字眼。聖經保留這個稱號給不信神的人。沒有真正的信徒會做出這樣無恩情的事。所以這個「不原諒人的人」一定是從未得過福音的人。絶不是他得了福音，後來又失落。因此，耶穌這比喻的意圖是要挑戰門徒對自己得救的真實性。一個真真正正重生的人絶不會做出如此大的忘恩背義的事。這就好像耶穌所講的另一個比喻：好樹結好果子，壞樹結壞果子，從它的果子便可認出樹的品質了。所以我們可肯定這人是未得救的。這人的「不得救」就是他被交給掌刑者 (v. 34) 的原因了。

我們要再問：為甚麽故事的上半塲説這人是被神赦免的基督門徒，而故事的下半塲又説他是從未得救的人呢？呀！我們在此看到耶穌的智慧。耶穌是刻意呈現一個可怕的假設情境。如果這惡奴的行為是難以置信，那麼一輩子蒙神赦免的基督徒作出拒絕原諒別人的事，也同樣地難以置信。

既然饒恕是天國子民的品格的重要部分，那麼我們是否只做「單方赦免 (unilaterally forgive)」呢？這個問題可能是源於對耶穌的「十架七言」中一句話的誤解。耶穌説：「父阿，赦免他們，因為他們所作的，他們不曉得。」單方赦免是耶穌的旨令嗎？

答案是「不」。聖經一貫的教導是先悔改，後赦免。耶穌那句話中的「他們」非指所有人，乃是指那些看到耶穌義人受苦而被聖靈激動然後悔改的人，十架旁邊的那強盜是一例也。如果「他們」是代表所有的人，那就變成普救論 (universalism) 而不是福音了。

答案也可是「是」。現在我們可以用救贖的神學來看看寬恕的問題，我們每一個人都是死在過犯罪惡當中，所以我們一生下來便是罪的奴僕。我們沒有自由也沒有意願和能力去選擇上帝。但上帝先用恩典揀選我們，聖靈叫被揀選者先活過來 (弗2:1), 我們便重生了; 然後上帝賜給我們一棵得救的信心，當我們在新的生命中，更新過的自由意志讓我們醒悟過來，知道自己是一個罪人，我們便用更新過的心靈，向上帝悔改，並用上帝給我們的信心禮物，藉著基督救贖之功，便因信而稱義了。從這個神學觀點來看，我們可以說，上帝那單方面的赦免是在我們悔改之先。換句話說，不是因為我們先悔改，然後上帝才寬恕我們。但在人際關係的層面上，情況就有所不同。如果某人得罪了我，我向他說,「我原諒了。」那人不但不因你的單向的寬恕而謝謝你，他反帶著怒氣回答說, 「我根本沒有冒犯你，你為什麼要原諒我呢？我不需要的的原諒。」在這種情況下，單方面的饒恕，就沒有太大意義了。雖然如此，基督徒還是應該隨時隨地存著一個單方饒恕的心態，等待機會挽回這個得罪你的人。其实如果你真有這種心態, 那就可視為一種 “屬灵的單向” 了。

再者, 有些輕微的冐犯，我們就應該不用分析地作出單向式地原諒別人，不管他有無向你道歉。正如彼得所説，「愛能遮掩許多的罪。」人欠你五塊錢，又何必計較呢？人給你小小烦恼，又何必計較呢？把它們遮掩在腦後便算了, 這樣对你的心灵健康也有帮助。嚴重的罪一定要對付。先是私下與犯罪者交通，若他不聼，便帶幾位弟兄同去，再不聼，便把他交給教會，再不聼，教會便要把他趕出去，視他如外邦人，但心中還是希望他有一天歸正。如果甚麼過犯都以「單邊赦免」待之，那麼上述的紀律程序便毫無意義了。

整個比喻的主旨：寛恕是無上限，是基督徒的生活形態，是天國子民的品格。單方赦免雖不是聖經的要求，但我們是隨時隨地準備好去原諒那些肯悔改的人。如果我們不原諒別人的過犯，雖然我們的救恩不會失落，但我們卻是冒了「神拒絕寛恕我們」之險。

By Tin-chee Lo, August 6, 2018

Many people say that the death of a person is like “the snuff of a candle,” suggesting an annihilation of life into nothingness. But the Bible rejects this philosophical viewpoint. Christian believes that after death, the body begins to decay, but the soul continues to exist uninterrupted until the day of resurrection when the soul, being in union with the resurrected body, will face the Great Judgment. The righteous are ushered into the “New Heaven and the New Earth” and they will be with the Lord forever. The wicked are sent to the “Lake of Fire” and they are tormented without end. This is our macro understanding of human destiny. The period from death to resurrection is what theologians called “the intermediate state” (Ref. 1). We can’t find detailed and direct information about this state-of-being from the Bible, but it doesn’t mean that we are totally ignorant about it. We can get a glimpse of it from several Bible verses.

Paul in Philippians 1 :23 says, “I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far.”

“To depart” refers to the death of the flesh and the entrance into this “intermediate state.” “I desire” means Paul’s yearning for something. What is this thing? It is “with Christ.” Here we see the continuity of the existence of the soul. Paul believes that the soul without the body turns out to be a state of “better by far.” This “better by far” means a conscious, meaningful existence, not a kind of comatose state of “soul-sleeping” until the resurrection. From all of Paul’s letters, he learned that he was passionate about knowing Christ. Although he knew Christ and was with Christ when he was alive on earth, he would know him far better and have a closer relationship with Him after his death. This is the meaning implied by “better by far.”

Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 says, “Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. We live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.”

“At home in the body” refers to the times when Paul was living in this world. The verb “prefer” signifies a desire or longing. “Away from the body” indicates the possibility of the soul in the absence of the body. “At home with the Lord” means that the soul after the death of the body continues to exist and recognize the presence of the Lord by his side. “Being confident” shows that death is not a horrible thing, because it has no power to separate the soul from the Lord. Paul believed he would be all the more with the Lord and have the blessed hope of resurrection.

Apart from Paul, Apostle John in Revelation 6:9-10 testifies as saying, “When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, ‘How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?’”

The souls of these slain people will certainly not be in a mode of sleep, because they could scream out loud, “Lord, how long will it wait?” Their sense of justice has not disappeared or diminished because of their martyrdom.

Concerning the Intermediate State, the Bible uses many terms to describe it: Heaven, Paradise, Hell, Prison, Hades, Sheol. Now we have gained some basic understanding of the “intermediate state”, but this does not mean that there are free from difficulties. Consider two Bible passages:

• In response to the repentant theft, Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Like 23:43).
• Peter said, “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,
through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:18-19).”

From the context, we are quite sure that Jesus went to preach to the lost souls in prison after His death but before His resurrection. But the verb “preached” doesn’t mean “evangelized” but “proclaimed” (Ref. 2, 3). Jesus went to the land of the dead (prison) and proclaimed as a herald the news of victory over Satan’s schemes set all along to frustrate God’s plan of salvation—that is the words of proclamation uttered by Jesus on the cross before He died: “It is done!”.

Since Jesus went to paradise immediately after his death, how could he also go to the prison right away? One possible explanation: There is a beautiful and blissful room in the prison, called paradise, so Jesus could go to the paradise and to the prison at the same time.

After the resurrection of Jesus, however, the paradise was moved out from the prison to a place called heaven. So today when the people who believe in the Lord die, their souls are immediately ushered into heaven to be with the Lord. When their bodies will later be resurrected, their souls, clothed with the glorious resurrected bodies, will be led into the New Heaven and New Earth, forever and ever with the Lord in eternity.

The idea of “paradise relocation” may sound a bit weird, but Bible scholar, Hebrew and Greek expert, Gleason Archer, seems to agree with this idea (Ref. 3); he believes that the purpose of Jesus’ going to prison after His death is to release those who died in faith in the Old Testament time, and then at the first Easter, these faithful souls of O.T. will be moved out into heaven. It implies that all the people of the Old Testament era went to what Peter called the prison (same as the Hebrew’s Sheol or the Greek’s Hades), regardless whether they are good or evil.

In the midst of excruciating pain, Jesus on the cross shouted out, “My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). The Father was silent, because Jesus, in the night before, had already received the answer when He prayed in the garden of Gethsemane.

This “forsakenness” is by no means to say that Jesus had lost his divine nature during this critical moment, or loss of His status as a Person in the Trinity. He is always God, always divine. Otherwise, how could He bear our sins if He had ceased to be God at that critical moment when we desperately needed Him to be God the most?

Therefore, “abandonment” means that during that time, the Holy Father, who has always been in harmony and in perfect unity with His Son, could no longer stand on the same position of His Son because Jesus, the Son of God, had become sin by bearing the iniquities of mankind. But the relationship between the Holy Father and the Son has never been broken (Ref. 4)

The author of this article believes that “paradise relocation” is an unnecessary interpretive method to reconcile apparent conflict between two scriptural passages. Jesus is forever God without interruption, and one of God’s attributes is omnipresence. Because of that, He could well be in paradise and in the underworld at the same time.

While Jesus’ body remained in the grave until His bodily resurrection on the third day, Jesus’ soul went to the realm of the dead to proclaim victory. Furthermore, the revelation of the Bible is progressive; in the Old Testament era, the concept of heaven and hell wasn’t clear, all they knew was when a person died, they all went to Sheol (what Peter called, prison), regardless whether they were righteousness or wicked or not. In the Old Testament time, when the righteous man Jacob saw his youngest son Benjamin was forced to leave home with his brothers for Egypt, Jacob grieved deeply and said to his sons, “…If harm comes to this boy on the journey you are taking, you will bring my gray head down to the grave in sorrow (Genesis 16:19-31).”

When it comes to the New Testament time, we see that the righteous and the wicked, after they die, go to different places as we are confirmed in one of Jesus’ parables: the rich man (the unrighteous) was in hell in torment while the beggar Lazarus (the righteous) was in Abraham’s side in comfort.

To Christians, death is not the wages we must paid for our sins because Christ had already paid in full for our sins on the cross. Death is a source of blessing. The “last enemy” had already been defeated by Christ’s resurrection. Therefore, our most dreaded opponent—death—has become for us the servant who opens the door to heavenly bliss. Death for the Christian is therefore not the end but a glorious new beginning. For this, we may take comfort and rejoice.

Hoekema wrote (Ref. 1, p.274), “The Bible teaches that believers will go to heaven when they die. That they will be happy during the intermediate state between death and resurrection is clearly taught in the Scripture. But their happiness will be provisional and incomplete. For the completion of the happiness they await the resurrection of the body and the new earth which God will create as the culmination of His redemptive work.”

References:

1. “The Bible and the Future” by Anthony A. Hoekema; pages 92-108.
2. “The top 100 questions” by Richard Bewes; page 273.
3. “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties” by Gleason L. Archer; page 423.
4. “Now, That’s a Good Question!” by R.C. Sproul; pages 50-51.

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜) August 6, 2018

很多人説, 「人死如燈滅」，意即「死」就是一了百了，不再存在。但聖經拒絕這種哲學思想。基督徒相信人死後，身體開始朽壞，但那沒有身體的靈魂繼續無間斷地存在，直至有一天復活，那時帶著復活身體的靈魂將受審判。義人被歡迎到新天新地的世界去，與主永遠同在；惡人被送到火湖那𥚃去，永遠受苦。這是我們對歸宿的宏觀認識。從死亡到復活這段時間，神學家 (Note 1) 稱為「中間狀態 (intermediate state) 」。聖經对「中間狀態」有不同的名詞: 「天堂」, 「樂園」, 「地獄」, 「監獄」, 「陰間」, 但不是「新天新地」和「火湖」。我們從聖經中找不到關乎此狀態的詳細和直接資料，但並非表示我們對此一無所知。我們可以從數處經文中獲得精釆的啓示。

保羅在腓立比書1:23 說：「我正在兩難之間、情願離世與基督同在．因為這是好得無比的。」
「離世」指肉身的死亡，進入這個「中間狀態。「情願」表示他生前對某事情的嚮往。這事情是甚麼呢？就是「與基督同在」。這裡，我們看到靈魂存在的連續性。保羅認為沒有身體的靈魂是處於一個「好得無比」的狀態。這個「好得無比」就意味著一個有知覺，有意識的存在，而並非一些人所認為的「靈魂昏迷」狀態，直到復活時才醒醒過來。從所有保羅的書信中，得知他是充滿熱情地去認識基督。雖然當他在世時，他巳認識基督並與基督同在，但死後他更能認識祂並與祂有更密切的相交，這就是「好得無比」所暗示的意義。

保羅在哥林多後書5:6-8 說：「6 所以我們時常坦然無懼、並且曉得我們住在身內便與主相離。7 因我們行事為人、是憑著信心、不是憑著眼見。8 我們坦然無懼、是更願意離開身體與主同住。」
「在身內」指在世活著的時候。「更願意」表示一種偏好。「離開身體」說明身體缺席的存在的可能性。「與主同住」說明身體死後的靈魂繼續存在並意識到主在他旁邊。「坦然無懼」表明死亡並非一件可怕的事，因為死後仍與主同在並有復活的盼望。

除了保羅外，使徒約翰在啓示錄 6:9-10 作見證說：「9 揭開第五印的時候、我看見在祭壇底下、有為　神的道、並為作見證、被殺之人的靈魂。10 大聲喊著說、聖潔真實的主阿、你不審判住在地上的人給我們伸流血的冤、要等到幾時呢。」

這些被殺之人的靈魂肯定不會處于睡眠狀態中，因為他們能喊叫出「主阿，要等到幾時呢？」而且他們的正義感並沒有因死亡而消失。

現在我們對「中間狀態」巳有基本認識，但這並不代表其中沒有難題。耶穌在十架上對那悔改的犯人說, 「今日你要同我在樂園裡了 (路 23:43) 。」但彼前 3:18b-19 記載, 「按著肉體說，他被治死；按著靈性說，他復活了。他藉這靈曾去傳道給那些在監獄裡的靈聽」 。從上下文, 我們頗有把握相信耶穌在死後但在復活前曾到監獄 (死人之地) 向失落的灵魂傳道。 (Note 2: 不是傳福音, 乃是宣告得勝 to proclaim as a herald, 就是那 “成了” 的消息。)
既然耶穌死後馬上去樂園, 衪又怎能馬上又去監獄呢? 有一解釋是: 可怕的監獄裏面有一個美麗幸福的房間, 叫樂園, 所以耶穌可以去樂園又同時去地獄。 到耶穌復活升天後, 樂園便搬出來, 移到天上, 稱為天堂 (Note 3)。 所以今天信主的人死了, 他們的靈魂馬上到天堂, 與主同在, 待末日身體復活, 然後進入新天新地的永世裏。 樂園搬家, 聽來有點古怪, 但聖經學者, 希伯來文和希胆文專家, Gleason Archer 似乎同意這說法 (Note 4); 認為耶穌到監獄的目的是釋放那些舊約時代有信心的死者, 然後在第一個復活節的那一天遷移到天堂。 暗示所有舊約時代的人死後都去陰間 (希伯來文的Sheol 或希臘文的 Hades), 亦即彼得所說的監獄，不分善惡。

在極度痛苦中, 十架上的耶穌放聲喊叫, 「我的神！我的神！為甚麼離棄我？」 (太27:46). 父神沉默不語, 因為耶穌在前一晚客西馬尼園中巳有答案。 這個 「離棄」 不代表耶穌在這段時間失去神性, 或失去三位一體中的位格, 衪永遠是神, 否則衪在重要的時刻—-也就是「衪必需是神」的時刻—-又怎能担當我們的罪呢? 所以 「離棄」的意思是在那段時間裏, 一向與衪和諧協調的父神, 因耶穌身上背負世人的罪的緣故, 不能再和衪站在同一立塲上；但聖父與耶穌之間的父子關係始終從未終斷過。 (Note 5)

筆者認為「樂園搬家」是不必要的經文調和方法。 耶穌既無間斷地是神, 而神其中一種屬性是「無所不在」。既是無所不在, 衪便可以同時在樂園和在監獄 (隂間) 了。耶穌的身體仍在墳墓裡直至第三天身體復活為止, 所以往陰間的耶穌是耶穌的靈魂。 所以耶穌是經过 [死=>中間状態=>復活=>國度] 的模式，因此祂成為我们的模式。再者, 聖經的啟示是漸進的, 在舊約時代, 天堂和地獄的觀念尚未明晰, 不論義人或惡人死了, 他們所知道的, 就是往墳墓 (死人之地) 那裏去。 所以義人雅各見幼子便雅憫被帶走時, 便說, 「那便是你們使我白髮蒼蒼、悲悲慘慘地下陰間 (Sheol or Hades) 去了 (創42:38)。」及至新約, 我們才確實明白義人和惡人所去的地方是不同的: 拉撒路在亞伯拉罕懷裡得安慰, 而財主在陰間受痛苦 (路16:19-31)。

對基督徒而言，死亡不是我們必須為我們的罪付出的工價，因為基督已經在十字架上全額支付了我們的罪債。死亡是祝福的源泉。基督的複活已經擊敗了 “最後的敵人”。因此，我們最可怕的對手 — 死亡 — 對我們來說已成為打開天堂幸福之門的僕人。因此，基督徒的死不是結束，而是一個光榮的新開端。為此，我們可以得安慰並歡欣鼓舞。聖經教導說，信徒死後會馬上去天堂。此外, 聖經並清楚地指出信徒在死亡後和復活前的中間狀態中是快樂和幸福的。但他們的快樂和幸福將是暫時的和不完整的。終極的快樂和幸福，要等待到他們帶著復活的身體進到上帝所創造的新天新地才能現實， 那時就是神救贖工作達到的最高潮。(Note 1)

Note 1: “The Bible and the Future” by Anthony A. Hoekema。

Note 2: “The top 100 questions” by Richard Bewes; page 273 。

Note 3: 黄錦祥牧師在 MHCCC 之證道, “活人的神”; April 6, 2008。

Note 4: “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties” by Gleason L. Archer; page 423。

Note 5: ““Now, That’s a Good Question!” by R.C. Sproul; pages 50-51。

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天赐)；November 17，2017

When I first became a Christian, I attended a church deeply influenced by what I then knew as the “Little Flock (小群)”. I was tremendously benefited by those God-fearing brothers and sisters. I grew into an ardent love for the Bible and for Jesus. But later on, a few of them presented me a very radical idea by saying “Christian should read ONLY the Bible; any other books of men concerning spiritual matters are worldly even those books are written by Christians.” I was confused. Someone even went so far as to say that reading any books and periodicals outside the Bible, such as TIME magazine, is not spiritual—this was utterly incomprehensible and unpractical. It was at this point that I began to protest. One day, I heard from Rev. Stephen Tong’s (唐崇榮牧師) sermon in which he argued, “If these brothers are so spiritual and they possess so much subjective spiritual enlightenment to be able to say reading anything outside the Bible is wrong, they should write down their findings to benefit others.” Tong continued, “however, the trouble is that when they actually write down their thoughts, it becomes men’ writing. Should you read their works?” Pastor Tong’s argument rescued me from spiritual entanglement. I came to realize that this radical assertion was self-defeating. I could borrow courage from Rev. Tong and became more vocal against this unorthodoxy idea in church. The church gradually moved toward Biblical evangelicalism by inviting (we didn’t have full time pastor at that time) preachers of sound doctrines to correct the error.

This year of 2017, we are commemorating the 500th year after the Reformation. The legacy left with us by Martin Luther was the “Five Solas” (Ref. 1)
 Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura)
 Faith Alone (Sola Fide)
 Grace Alone (Sola Gratia)
 Christ Alone (Sola Christus)
 God’s Glory Alone (Sola Deo Gloria)

Among them, the “Sola Scriptura”—Scripture Alone (唯獨聖經)—may still today be misconstrued by few as “Read Only the Bible and Nothing Else (只讀聖經)”. The proponents of this idea consider studying all other literatures outside the Bible as “unnecessary” or “unspiritual”. In truth, the belief of “sola Scriptura” means to maintain that the Bible and the Bible alone has supreme authority over our faith, our salvation and our lives. It does not mean that we should consider all theological references and commentaries outside the Bible are unnecessary. The principle of “Sola Scriptura” also recognizes and accepts other important theological resources such as traditions, reasoning and experiences found in Christian books and literatures. This kind of resources are not to “supplant (取代)” the content of the Bible but to “complement (補助)” our understanding of the content of the Bible. In other words, believers, especially seminarians, should study not just the Bible but acquire a broader reading such as good commentaries and systematic theologies in order to comprehensively understand the Bible text.

Accompanying with this wrong concept of “Exclusive Reading” of the Bible, is another wrong concept of “Read Scripture only Individually (自讀聖經)” which is an emphasis on personal spiritual illumination upon an individual’s self-reading of the Bible while ignoring or even rejecting other Christians’ comprehension or views of the Bible text. Some leaders of the Bible study groups go so far as to believe that illumination from the Bible is the ONLY thing they need; this may stem from their worries that other people’s thought gained from reading commentaries and theological books during the course of teaching preparation may negatively “precondition” their minds and hence “pollute” and influence of their acceptance of their subjective illumination directly from their own reading of the Scripture (Ref. 2). This again is self-defeating. Because the very act of teaching is not a self-study but an attempt to transfer your understanding into other people’s mind which is exactly what you don’t want them to do. What is more, the various opinions on certain Bible difficulties may lead people to be at a loss. Such a “worry” or “helplessness” (or maybe “pride”) leads to the emphasis of this isolating Bible study attitude. This mindset overestimates one’s “subjective spiritual insight and illumination (從聖靈來的心得和光照)” and underestimates other people’s earnest and thoughtful pondering of their quest for the understanding of the Bible. Although individual study and seeking comprehension of the Bible firsthand are crucially important，when we correctly understand the meaning of “Sola Scriptura”, it should encourage collective corporate Bible study (與信徒共同學習明白聖經) under the premise of doing it within the community of faith (churches or cell-groups).

「Sola Scriptura」does not teach “Read Nothing but the Scripture” nor encourage “Reading of Scripture in Isolation”. it is a principle which also demands us in the community of faith to diligently read, investigate, teach and preach the Bible using biblical and theological resources under the Spirit-given ability and discernment and illumination so as to achieve the unity of faith and maturity in the knowledge of God (Eph.3:16-19; 4:1-3).

Another assertion is worthy of mentioning: “The Bible is the ONLY book which contains Truth”. The problem with this statement is in the word ONLY. This statement is clearly a partial truth. Indeed, the Bible is indisputably 100 % true; but this is not to say that outside the Bible there is no truth. It does mean that when the truth outside the Bible conflicts with the truth in the Bible, then the Bible is true and the extra-biblical “truth” is no truth —this is what we refer to as the “Authority of the Bible”. Francis A. Schaeffer was right when he said, “All Truth is God’s Truth” (Ref. 3). God is the supreme Author of Truth. All that is true not only flows from Him, but it also reflects His character. The ancient theologians understood that all truth is God’s truth and that all truth “meets at the top.”

References:

(1) Link: https://hocl.org/blogs/tincheelo/?p=1641
(2) Comments from 池峪鋒教授 on Reformation
(3) A phrase “All Truth is God’s Truth” was coined by Francis A. Schaeffer.  Also, “Truth is God and God is truth” by Mohanas Karamchand Gandhi.