[转载]圣经中真的有“恩典之约”吗？（Lee Irons）

“恩典之约”是改革宗圣约神学对圣经的约的一个架构性总结。在改革宗圈子外，总是有人质疑这是不是改革宗人士的一个“发明”，经文并不支持这样的看法。下面是一位改革宗人士的回答： 

圣经中真的有“恩典之约”吗？ 
The covenant of grace 
By Lee Irons 
诚之译 
原文出处：http://www.upper-register.com/blog/?p=251 


许多对圣约神学持批评态度的人——例如，时代论者（包括古典时代论和渐进时代论者），和新圣约神学家（New Covenant Theologians，NCT）——论证说：改革宗对“恩典之约”（the covenant of grace）的看法，是一个抽象的神学观念，缺乏足够的圣经基础。这个论证一开始看来，似乎很有道理：圣经虽然的确详尽说到了一系列很重要的圣约（例如，挪亚之约，亚伯拉罕之约，摩西之约，大卫之约，以及新约），这是事实；然而，有一群称自己为“圣约神学家”的人，他们口中最重要的圣约，却不是在圣经中详尽提到的几个最重要的圣约。 

然而，经过仔细审查，这个论证就变得华而不实了，因为“恩典之约”只是一个缩写，用来描述亚伯拉罕之约（及其前身）和基督的血所立的新约，它们之间应许与应验的关系。绝大多数批判圣约神学的人（至少是渐进时代论者与NCT的人），都应该能看出这层关系：亚伯拉罕之约（保罗称之为“应许”），与新约有一层有机的关联，不只是在耶利米书31章所应许的，而是在历史中藉著基督的死所实现了的，也在最后的晚餐中，藉由祂的话所被纪念的：“这是我的血所立的新约”。 

当然，很重要的是要认识到，亚伯拉罕之约有它的前身，是在创世记3：15，堕落之后，女人的后裔要打破蛇的头的应许，接着是创世记6：18的（救赎性的）挪亚之约，直到这些猜谜式的关于“后裔”的应许，被带到一个更正式的约的制定中，也就是在亚伯拉罕生命中各次的立约事件，以及之后与以撒、雅各的约的更新当中。这些可以被总括起来，贴上一个标签：“应许”（the promise）。这个应许在我们称之为“亚伯拉罕之约”中，得到最清楚的表明。 

除了亚伯拉罕之约的前身外，我们也必须注意它在族长时期之后的发展，也就是，要查考出埃及记及之后发生的事。在创世记这卷书中所清楚发布的这个应许，有两个应验的阶段，占据了从出埃及记到约翰的启示录的整个救赎历史： 

(a) 最初之预表与影子（type and shadow）的应验：出埃及，征服应许之地，确立神治的以色列王国，所罗门圣殿之宗教崇拜中心，等等，以及 
(b) 最终实际的应验：基督第一次与第二次降临（要留意已临、未临的模式），最初的应验只是最终的应验的一个典型代表（typical representation，或译为预表性的代表）。

因此在这个两个阶段，或两个层级的应验中，最初的应验本身也是应许的一部分，因为以色列在地上所有的各种神治制度（圣洁的子民，圣地，圣殿——都是在神所膏立的王与祭司的王权统治之下），是那将要来的更宏伟的子民/土地/圣殿/君王/祭司的图像。这个最初的应验是局部的，过渡性的，是被罪所玷污的，也在背道与被掳中结束了——看起来是个悲惨的故事。然而它却具有真实的正面价值，因为最初的应验是那将要来的更伟大的应验的一个预嚐（foretaste）。它是注定会失败的，因为它不是那实体。它的失败，为旧约先知的事工设下了背景。旧约先知环顾以色列国的遭难，说到那将要来的更荣耀的一日，以及那更荣耀的约（例如，耶利米书31章）。 

“恩典之约”，只是一个缩写，是在一个单一的神学标签下，用一个单一的约的统一单元来加以总结，抢先预告了那应许，以及其两阶段的应验。如此，它就带着存在于本身的不利条件，如同所有的缩写标签一样，会暂时模糊了它所代表之细节的丰富纹理。但只要我们记得这个事实，就是恩典之约在历史上是从创世记3；15开始展开，到亚伯拉罕之约，到应许之地最初的预表性应验，再到最后在基督里末世性（新约）的应验，我们就不需要惧怕标签的本身。事实上，这正是它的长处，因为它帮助我们瞥见救赎历史之有机的连续。 

所以，刚开始时，“恩典之约”看起来似乎是圣约神学家所发明出来的一个约，好配合进他们的系统中，但实际上它是稳固地奠基于圣经实际记载的圣约，而从一个更高的神学抽象观念层面来审查的。 

也许你在原则上反对这样的神学抽象观念。好吧，圣经本身包含许多这样的抽象观念。甚至“亚伯拉罕之约”也是一个神学抽象观念，但它是圣经本身所得出的。你可以问一个问题，来明白这点：亚伯拉罕之约是什么时候立的？是在创世记12章亚伯拉罕最初得到的呼召？还是在创世记15章，立约的仪式上？还是在创世记17章，神给亚伯拉罕割礼的记号时？但是亚伯拉罕的儿子以撒和他的孙子雅各得到应许的更新之时？很有趣地，创世记15章立约的仪式（见18节，“当那日，耶和华与亚伯兰立约”），详尽地与17章割礼之约做出区别（见17：2，“我就与你立约”。参考使徒行传7：8，“割礼的约”）。然而，圣经却说到：“耶和华要坚定他向你列祖亚伯拉罕、以撒、雅各起誓所应许的话。”（申命记6：5；参考创世记26：3；路1：73）如果我们跟随聖灵自己在经文中立下的榜样， 我們必須不只是進行分析（加以區分），我們也必須综合判断（看每件事是如何相关的）。除非我们拒绝看到圣经中各个圣约的应许与应验之有机结构，我们说有一个单一的“恩典之约”，应该是没有问题的。这个恩典之约是从创世记3：15，延伸到基督宝血所立的新约。 

原文： 
Many critics of covenant theology — e.g., Dispensationalists (both classical and progressive) and New Covenant Theologians (NCT) – argue that the Reformed concept of “the covenant of grace” is a theological abstraction lacking a clear biblical basis. The argument is at first plausible: given the fact that the Bible does explicitly speak of a series of significant covenants (e.g., the Noahic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, the Davidic covenant, and the new covenant) it is striking that a group of people would call themselves “covenant theologians” and yet their most important covenant is not one of the covenants explicitly referred to in the Scriptures! 

And yet, on closer inspection, this argument turns out to be specious, since “the covenant of grace” is merely short-hand for the promise-fulfillment relationship between the Abrahamic covenant (and its antecedents) and the new covenant in Christ’s blood. Most critics of covenant theology (at least progressive Dispensationalists and NCTs) should be able to see that relationship: the Abrahamic covenant (what Paul refers to as “the promise”) is organically related to the new covenant, not only as promised in Jeremiah 31 but as historically realized by Christ’s death and memorialized in his words, “This is the new covenant in my blood,” at the Last Supper. 

It is important to recognize, of course, that the Abrahamic covenant had its antecedents, beginning with the post-fall promise of the serpent-crushing Seed in Genesis 3:15, continuing with the (redemptive) Noahic covenant of Genesis 6:18, to the point where these enigmatic promises concerning “the seed” are brought to a more formal covenant enactment in the various covenant-making episodes in Abraham’s life and their subsequent renewal with Isaac and Jacob. All of this can be wrapped up under the label “the promise,” which finds its clearest OT manifestation in what we call the Abrahamic covenant. 

In addition to the antecedents of the Abrahamic covenant, we must also take care to see its subsequent developments even after the patriarchal age, that is, looking at Exodus and beyond. The promise so carefully enunciated in the book of Genesis unfolds in two stages of fulfillment that occupy the entirety of redemptive history from the book of Exodus to the Revelation of John: 

(a) the initial fulfillment in type and shadow at the time of the exodus, the conquest of the land, and the establishment of the theocratic nation of Israel with its sacred cultic focus in Solomon’s temple, and 

(b) the ultimate fulfillment in reality in the first and second comings of Christ (note the already/not-yet pattern), of which the initial fulfillment was but a typical representation. 

Because of this two-stage or two-level fulfillment, the initial fulfillment is itself part of the promise, for all of Israel’s earthly theocratic institutions (holy people, holy land, holy temple — all under the regal authority of God’s anointed kings and priests) are pictures of the greater people/land/temple/king/priest to come. The initial fulfillment is partial, transitory, scarred by sin and ends in apostasy and exile — a seemingly sad tale. Yet it is really a positive thing, for the initial fulfillment is a foretaste of the greater fulfillment to come. Its failure is inevitable, since it is not the reality. And its failure sets the backdrop for the ministry of the prophets who, while surveying the wreckage of national Israel, spoke of yet more glorious day and yet more glorious covenant (e.g., Jer 31). 

The term “the covenant of grace” is merely shorthand that scoops up both the promise and its two-stage fulfillment under a single theological label to refer to it all as a single covenantal unity. As such, it carries with it an inherent drawback, as do all short-hand labels, of temporarily obscuring the rich texture of the details for which it stands. But as long as we remember the fact that the covenant of grace unfolded historically from Gen 3:15 to the Abrahamic promise to the initial typological fulfillment in the land to the final eschatological fulfillment in Christ (the new covenant), there is no need to be afraid of the label per se. In fact, this is precisely its strength, for it helps us to see at a glance the organic continuity of redemptive history. 

So at first “the covenant of grace” may seem to be a covenant invented by covenant theologians to fit their system, but in reality it is firmly grounded in the actual covenants recorded in Scripture but looked at from a higher level of theological abstraction. 

Perhaps you object to such theological abstractions in principle. Well, the Bible itself engages in such abstractions. Even the term “the Abrahamic covenant” is a theological abstraction, but it is one that the Bible itself makes. You can see this by asking, When was the Abrahamic covenant made? At Abram’s initial call in Gen 12? At the covenant ratification ceremony in Gen 15? When God gave Abraham the sign of circumcision in Gen 17? When the promise was renewed with Abraham’s son Isaac and his grandson Jacob? Interestingly, the covenant ratification ceremony of Gen 15 (see v 18: “On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram”) is explicitly distinguished from the covenant of circumcision in Gen 17 (see v 2: “I will establish my covenant between me and you;” cp. Acts 7:8). And yet the Bible speaks of “the oath [singular] which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (Deut 9:5; cp. Gen 26:3; Luke 1:73). 

Following the example of the Holy Spirit himself speaking in Scripture, we must not only be analytic (making distinctions), we must also be synthetic (seeing how things relate). Unless we refuse to see the organic promise-fulfillment structure of the biblical covenants, we will have no problem speaking of a single “covenant of grace” that stretches from Gen 3:15 to the new covenant in Christ’s blood.