七、William Barclay（1907-1978）
THE MISTAKEN THINKERS Col 1:15-23
(1) THE MISTAKEN THINKERS (Col 1:15-23 continued)
It is one of the facts of the human mind that a man thinks only as much as he has to. It is not until a man finds his faith opposed and attacked that he really begins to think out its implications. It is not until the Church is confronted with some dangerous heresy that she begins to realize the riches of orthodoxy. It is characteristic of Christianity that it can always produce new riches to meet a new situation.
When Paul wrote Colossians, he was not writing in a vacuum. He was writing, as we have already seen in the introduction, to meet a very definite situation. There was a tendency of thought in the early Church called Gnosticism. Its devotees were called Gnostics, which more or less means the intellectual ones. These men were dissatisfied with what they considered the rude simplicity of Christianity and wished to turn it into a philosophy and to align it with the other philosophies which held the field at that time.
The Gnostics began with the basic assumption that matter was altogether evil and spirit altogether good. They further held that matter was eternal and that it was out of this evil matter that the world was created. The Christian, to use the technical phrase, believes in creation out of nothing; the Gnostic believed in creation out of evil matter.
Now God was spirit and if spirit was altogether good and matter essentially evil, it followed, as the Gnostic saw it, that the true God could not touch matter and, therefore, could not himself be the agent of creation. So the Gnostics believed that God put forth a series of emanations, each a little further away from God until at last there was one so distant from God, that it could handle matter and create the world.
The Gnostics went further. As the emanations went further and further from God, they became more and more ignorant of him. And in the very distant emanations there was not only ignorance of God, but also hostility to him. The Gnostics came to the conclusion that the emanation who created the world was both ignorant of and hostile to the true God; and sometimes they identified that emanation with the God of the Old Testament.
This has certain logical consequences.
(i) As the Gnostics saw it, the creator was not God but someone hostile to him; and the world was not God's world but that of a power hostile to him. That is why Paul insists that God did create the world, and that his agent in creation was no ignorant and hostile emanation but Jesus Christ, his Son (Col 1:16).
(ii) As the Gnostics saw it, Jesus Christ was by no means unique. We have seen how they postulated a whole series of emanations between the world and God. They insisted that Jesus was merely one of these emanations. He might stand high in the series; he might even stand highest; but he was only one of many. Paul meets this by insisting that in Jesus Christ all fullness dwells (Col 1:19); that in him there is the fullness of the godhead in bodily form (Col 2:9). One of the supreme objects of Colossians is to insist that Jesus is utterly unique and that in him there is the whole of God.
(iii) As the Gnostics saw it, this had another consequence with regard to Jesus. If matter was altogether evil, it followed that the body was altogether evil. It followed further that he who was the revelation of God, could not have had a real body. He could have been nothing more than a spiritual phantom in bodily form. The Gnostics completely denied the real manhood of Jesus. In their own writings they, for instance, set it down that when Jesus walked, he left no footprints on the ground. That is why Paul uses such startling phraseology in Colossians. He speaks of Jesus reconciling man to God in his body of flesh (Col 1:22); he says that the fullness of the godhead dwelt in him bodily. In opposition to the Gnostics, Paul insisted on the flesh and blood manhood of Jesus.
(iv) The task of man is to find his way to God. As the Gnostics saw it, that way was barred. Between this world and God there was this vast series of emanations. Before the soul could rise to God, it had to get past the barrier of each of these emanations. To pass each barrier special knowledge and special passwords were needed; it was these passwords and that knowledge that the Gnostics claimed to give. This meant two things.
(a) It meant that salvation was intellectual knowledge. To meet that Paul insists that salvation is not knowledge; it is redemption and the forgiveness of sins. The Gnostic teachers held that the so-called simple truths of the gospel were not nearly enough. To find its way to God the soul needed far more than that; it needed the elaborate knowledge and the secret passwords which Gnosticism alone could give. So Paul insists that nothing more is needed than the saving truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
(b) If salvation depended on this elaborate knowledge, it was clearly not for every man but only for the intellectual. So the Gnostics divided mankind into the spiritual and the earthly; and only the spiritual could be truly saved. Full salvation was beyond the scope of the ordinary man. It is with that in mind that Paul wrote the great verse Col 1:28. It was his aim to warn every man and to teach every man, and so to present every man mature in Christ Jesus. Against a salvation possible for only a limited intellectual minority, Paul presents a gospel which is for every man, however simple and unlettered or however wise and learned he may be.
These, then, were the great Gnostic doctrines; and all the time we are studying this passage, and indeed the whole letter, we must have them in our mind, for only against them does Paul's language become intelligible and relevant.
(2) WHAT JESUS CHRIST IS IN HIMSELF (Col 1:15-23 continued)
In this passage Paul says two great things about Jesus, both of which are in answer to the Gnostics. The Gnostics had said that Jesus was merely one among many intermediaries and that, however great he might be, he was only a partial revelation of God.
(i) Paul says that Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15). Here he uses a word and a picture which would waken all kinds of memories in the minds of those who heard it. The word is eikon (
(a) The Old Testament and the inter-testamental books have a great deal to say about Wisdom. In Proverbs the great passages on Wisdom are in Prov 2 and Prov 8 . There Wisdom is said to be co-eternal with God and to have been with God when he created the world. Now in the Wis 7:26, eikon (
(b) The Greeks were haunted by the thought of the Logos (
(c) In these connections of the word eikon (
(d) But we come at last to something much simpler than any of these things. And there is no doubt that many of the simpler of Paul's readers would think of this. Even if they knew nothing of the Wisdom Literature and nothing of Philo and nothing of the Genesis story they would know this.
Eikon (
(ii) The other word Paul uses is in Col 1:19. He says that Jesus is the pleroma (
(3) WHAT JESUS CHRIST IS TO CREATION (Col 1:15-23 continued)
We will remember that according to the Gnostics the work of creation was carried out by an inferior god, ignorant of and hostile to the true God. It is Paul's teaching that God's agent in creation is the Son and in this passage he has four things to say of the Son in regard to creation.
(i) He is the firstborn of all creation (Col 1:15). We must be very careful to attach the right meaning to this phrase. As it stands in English it might well mean the Son was the first person to be created, but in Hebrew and Greek thought the word firstborn (prototokos,
(ii) It was by the Son that all things were created (Col 1:16). This is true of things in heaven and things in earth, of things seen and unseen. The Jews themselves, and even more the Gnostics, had a highly-developed system of angels. With the Gnostics that was only to be expected with their long series of intermediaries between man and God. Thrones, lordships, powers and authorities were different grades of angels having their places in different spheres of the seven heavens. Paul dismisses them all with complete indifference. He is in effect saying to the Gnostics, "You give a great place in your thinking to angels. You rate Jesus Christ merely as one of them. So far from that, he created them." Paul lays it down that the agent of God in creation is no inferior, ignorant and hostile secondary god, but the Son himself.
(iii) It was for the Son that all things were created (Col 1:17). The Son is not only the agent of creation, he is also the goat of creation. That is to say, creation was created to be his and that in its worship and its love he might find his honour and his joy.
(iv) Paul uses the strange phrase: "In him all things hold together." This means that not only is the Son the agent of creation in the beginning and the goat of creation in the end, but between the beginning and the end, during time as we know it, it is he who holds the world together. That is to say, all the laws by which this world is order and not chaos are an expression of the mind of the Son. The law of gravity and the rest, the laws by which the universe hangs together, are not only scientific laws but also divine.
So, then, the Son is the beginning of creation, and the end of creation, and the power who holds creation together, the Creator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal of the world.
(William Barclay, Daily Bible Study)
【中譯】
錯誤的思考者，西一15～23（William Barclay，每日研經）
1. 錯誤的思考者（西一15～23，下接）
人類心思諸多的現象之一，就是一個人所想的只和他必須想的一樣多。只有等到一個人發現了他的信仰受到反對和攻擊時，他才真正開始仔細思考它的涵義。直到教會面對一些危險的異端時，她才開始了解正統的豐富。這是基督教的特徵，就是它總能產生新的豐富來應付新的處境。
當保羅寫歌羅西書時，他不是在真空中寫作。我們在簡介裡已經看見了，他所寫的是要應付一個特定的處境。在早期的教會裡有著一個思想的趨勢被稱為諾斯底主義，它的熱中者被稱為諾斯底主義者，這多少意味著他們是智者。這些人並不滿意於他們所認為粗糙簡單的基督教，他們盼望將之轉為哲學而使之與當時風行的其他哲學相連。
諾斯底主義者起源於基本的假設，就是物質是全然邪惡的，而靈是全然美善的。他們進一步持說物質是永遠的，而從這個邪惡的物質造出了世界。用專門的用詞來說，基督徒相信創造是從無而出，而諾斯底主義者相信創造是從邪惡的物質而出。
諾斯底主義者的看法是這樣，既然神是靈，而靈是全然美善的，物質是全然邪惡的，那麼真神必不會接觸到物質，因此祂自己就不是創造的媒介。所以諾斯底主義者相信神發出一系列的分身（emanations，或發散、流出、放射，下同），每一個都與神漸遠，直到至少與神相距甚遠一位，由他來接觸物質並創造世界。
諾斯底主義者走得更遠了，他們說當分身從神不斷往前再往前時，他們就越來越不認識神了。而且這些遙遠的分身不僅使對神無知，也與神相敵。諾斯底主義者最後下了一個結論，就是創造這世界的分身不僅對真神無知，也與之相敵。有時候他們將這分身等同於舊約的神。
這就有些邏輯的結果：
(1)正如諾斯底主義者的看法，創造者非神，而是與之敵對的一位；世界並不是神的世界，而是與之敵對的力量。難怪保羅堅稱神的確創造了世界，而且它創造的媒介不是對祂無知且敵對的分身，而是耶穌基督祂的兒子（西一16）。
(2)正如諾斯底主義者的看法，耶穌基督絕不是獨一無二的。我們已經看過了他們如何設想在世界與神之間一整系列的分身。他們堅稱耶穌不過是分身之一，他可能佔系列中的高位，甚至可能位居最高，但他只是許多（分身）中的一個。對付這個，保羅堅稱一切的豐滿都居住在耶穌基督裡（西一19），神格一切的豐滿都有形有體的居住在他裡面（西二9）。歌羅西書最重要的目的之一，就是堅稱耶穌是全然獨一無二的，在他裡面的是完整的神。
(3)正如諾斯底主義者的看法，關於耶穌有另一個結論，就是若是物質是全然邪惡的，那麼身體也就是全然邪惡的，接著那是神啟示的一位不會有一個真實的身體，他只能有一個具身體形狀的屬靈幻影。諾斯底主義者完全否認耶穌真實的人性。例如，在他們的著作裡，他們斷言當耶穌行走時，地上並不留他的腳印。難怪保羅在歌羅西書裡用了這麼令人震驚的用詞。他說耶穌藉他肉體的受死，使人與神和好（西一27）。他說神格一切的豐滿都有形有體的居住在基督裡。與諾斯底主義者相反的，保羅堅稱耶穌血肉的人性。
(4)人的任務是找到通往神的路，正如諾斯底主義者的看法，那條路是被擋著的。在這世界和神之間有著一系列為數繁多的分身。在靈魂能覺醒回到神那裡之前，它需要通過所有分身所造成的層層障礙。要通過每一障礙需要特別的知識和密碼，而這些密碼和知識是諾斯底主義者才能提供的。這意味著兩件事：
(a)救恩是心智的知識。為了對付這個，保羅堅稱救恩不是知識，而是救贖和罪得赦免。諾斯底派教師認為所謂簡單的福音根本是不夠的。靈魂為了找出回去神的路所需要的遠多於這些，它需要神妙的知識和神祕的密碼，而這些只有諾斯底主義能給。所以保羅堅稱只需要耶穌基督福音拯救的真理。
(b)若是救恩需要依靠這種神妙的知識，顯然它就不是為著每一個人的，而是為著智者。所以諾斯底派把人分為屬靈和屬地的，而只有屬靈的人才能真正得救。完全的拯救遠超凡人的視野所能及。也就是有這一個在保羅的心裡，他才寫出西一28這麼偉大的經文來。他的目的就是要勸戒每一個人，教導每一個人，把每一個人在基督裡成熟的獻上。保羅反對救恩只能為著某些少數的智者，他呈現的福音是為著人人的，無論智愚賢不肖都可以得著。
這些就是諾斯底主義主要的道理，而每次我們讀這些經文，甚且是整卷書信時，我們都要把這些放在心裡，因為只有為著反對這些論調，保羅的話才成為可以理解且富含意義。
2. 耶穌基督之所是為何（西一15～23後續）
在這經文裡保羅說了兩件關於耶穌的大事，而這兩件都是在回答諾斯底派。諾斯底派說無論耶穌多偉大，他只是許多居間中的一個，他只是神的部份啟示。
保羅說耶穌基督是不能看見之神的像（西一15），…Lightfoot點出…可以是代表，若是夠完全，代表可以成為彰顯。當保羅用這個字時，他下的斷言是耶穌是神完全的彰顯。…
3. 耶穌之於造物為何（西一15～23，下接）
我們記得根據諾斯底主義者的說法，創造是出於次等的神祇，對於神是無知的也是敵對的。保羅的教訓則是神創造的媒介是子，並且在這經文裡他說到子與造物的關係有四：
(1)他是一切造物的首生（西一15）。我們必須非常小心地賦予這個詞正確的意思。在英文裡很可能子被領會為是第一個被造的，但在希伯來和希臘文的意思裡，首生（或長子，中文可互用，下同）一字只是非常間接地有著時間的意義。有兩件事必須知道，首生通常是尊榮的一個頭銜。例如，以色列作為一個國家是神的長子（出四22），這意思是以色列這個國家是神所鍾愛的兒子。第二，我們必須知道，長子是彌賽亞的一個頭銜。正如猶太人自己詮釋的，詩八十九27關於彌賽亞的應許是：「我也要立他為長子，為世上最高的君王。」 清楚地，首生一點不是用於時間上的意思，而是特別尊榮的意思。所以當保羅說，子是一切造物的首生時，他的意思是一切造物所擁有最高的尊榮都屬於他。我們若要把時間的意思和尊榮的意思擺在一起，那麼我們可以譯之為「他在一切造物之先被生」。
(2)萬有是藉子而造的（西一16）。…
(3)萬有是為子而造的（西一17）。…
(4)保羅用了奇怪的詞：「萬有在他裡面得以維繫」（另譯）。…
所以，子是造物的起源，是造物的終結，也是造物得以維繫的力量，是世界的創造者、維繫者，也是其最終的目標。
(William Barclay，每日研經)
評論：William Barclay是著名的新約希臘文學者，他對原文的字義、背景、文法、語文學瞭若指掌。他所寫的新約各卷「每日研經」（Daily Bible Study），在英語世界著稱，整套中文譯文由基督教文藝出版社出版，讀者若有興趣不妨買來讀讀。
關於西一15～23，William Barclay把諾斯底主義錯誤的假說、推論、結論和保羅針對他們的駁斥說得非常清楚，使讀者完全掌握其來龍去脈。他的文章清晰、簡單、易懂，讀來全不費力氣。我在這裡只挑出與西一15相關的部份譯出，其他部分就請讀者自己研讀了。這一部分關於「首生」的內容，讀者讀過就應該清楚，不必我在此再贅述。
八、F. F. Bruce（1910 – 1990）
1:15 Christ the Firstborn?
We read in Colossians that Christ is “the firstborn over all creation.” What does this mean? If Christ is eternal, how can he be firstborn? Does this mean that he was simply the first thing that God created?
The term “firstborn” appears 107 times in the NIV, but only two passages create difficulties, this one and Hebrews 1:6: “And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’” Most of the other passages are in the Old Testament and refer to firstborn children of human beings. Two passages refer to Jesus as Mary’s firstborn (Lk 2:7, 23), which is like the normal Old Testament use. Two refer to Christ as the firstborn from the dead (Rev 1:5) or the firstborn of many siblings (Rom 8:29).
Colossians 1:15–20 is a poem (or at least poetic prose) about Christ, which many scholars believe to be a hymn of the early church. This poem appears to revolve around the first word of the Hebrew Bible, “in the beginning” (one word in Hebrew), which contains within it the words for “first” and “head.” The poem divides into two sections. In the first (Col 1:15–17) Christ is presented as the source of creation. In the second section (Col 1:18–20) he is presented as the source of new creation or redemption. Even a quick reading will reveal that the two sections are rough parallels of each other, like two stanzas of a hymn.
In the first stanza Christ is presented as the visible presence (“image”) of the invisible God and the agent of the whole of creation. What is more, he sustains creation. Likewise in the second stanza he is presented as the One through whom reconciliation came to humankind. He is therefore the source of the church, the One who brought it into being. In both cases Christ stands apart. He is not part of the creation, but the One who made it. He is not part of the church, but the One who brought her into being. It is clear in this passage that Christ is being viewed as God (Col 1:15, 19), exercising the creative and redemptive prerogatives of God.
How, then, can Paul use “firstborn” language? Generally in the Old Testament “firstborn” means the son who was born first (daughters were not counted if there was a son born after them). That child had a leading place in the family and normally took over as head of the family upon his father’s death. However, even in the Old Testament this is more a right conferred by the father than a place in the birth order. For example, in Genesis 25:29–34 Esau can sell his birthright, his place as the firstborn, to Jacob, although this sale was apparently not recognized by their father, for Jacob later has to trick Isaac into giving him Esau’s blessing as the firstborn (Gen 27:19). A generation later Jacob makes it clear that it is not the son born first (Reuben) whom he considers to have the rights of the firstborn, but Joseph, the one born to his favorite wife. He demonstrates this by having a special garment made for his heir designate (Gen 37:3–4). In this case a younger son is designated as firstborn, arousing the jealousy of the others, especially when he exercises his designated leadership. Even later Joseph brings his own sons to Jacob, who puts the one born second before the one born first (Gen 48:13–20). Again “firstborn” will not mean the one born first, but the one who will be the leader or the greatest. Even when talking about literal families, then, “firstborn” can indicate a favorite son rather than the one born first. So in Micah 6:7 and Zechariah 12:10 the “firstborn” is the most loved child, the one the parent is most loath to give up.
In Exodus 4:22 we find another meaning of “firstborn” when God calls Israel his “firstborn son.” This is taken up in Jeremiah 31:9. In neither of these passages (nor anywhere else in the Old Testament) is there even a hint that God in some way gave birth to Israel. What he is saying is that he has designated this nation as his number one nation, the one closest to his heart. To injure this nation is to injure God and to feel the consequences. The symbolic consequence in Exodus is that Pharaoh loses his own literal firstborn son. Thus we see that a nation put in the number one place can also be called a “firstborn.”
Finally, in Psalm 89:27 we discover that the Davidic king will be appointed God’s “firstborn.” Again there is no hint that God actually has a hand in this man’s procreation. What is meant is that God symbolically adopts him and places him in the number one position in his family. “Firstborn” is thus the place of honor and leadership which the Davidic king is said to occupy.
Now we see why a poetic person steeped in the Old Testament might use the term “firstborn.” He was already thinking in terms of “heads” and “beginnings” or, in other words, of the number one place in the universe and in redemption. Drawing on the language of Psalm 89:27, he points to Christ as the one who is number one in God’s family, God’s designated “heir” and the ruler next to God. Of course it is also true, as the poem points out, that Christ was before any other parts of creation, although the use is still metaphorical, for a firstborn son does not procreate the rest of the family, while Jesus is said to create all that is created.
The term “firstborn” is flexible enough that it can also be used of Christ as the firstborn from the dead, for he is the first to rise to unending life (although others before him were raised from the dead to temporal life) and also the chief or leader of all those who will rise from the dead.
So Paul is using the language about a firstborn son metaphorically, as the Old Testament does. Jesus is not presented as a creation of God or as a child of God born through some goddess (as was common in pagan mythology), but as the chief of God’s family, whether the old family of creation or the new family of redemption. He is before it. He is the cause of the family. He is the leader of the whole family. In every way he is first. Yet he is not part of the creation, nor even one of the redeemed, for he is the image of God and the One in whom all the fullness of God dwelt.
(Manfred Brauch, F.F. Bruce, Peter Davids, Walter Kaiser Jr., Hard Sayings of the Bible, Page 651. Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity, 1997, c1996.)
【中譯】
西一15基督是首生者？
我們讀到歌羅西書說基督是「一切造物的首生」，這是甚麼意思呢？如果基督是永遠的，那麼何以他是首「生」的？這意思是不是他不過是神造物的第一個呢？
…西一15～20是關於基督的一首詩（或至少是詩體散文），許多學者相信這是早期教會的一首詩歌。…這首詩章分為二部份，第一部份（西一15～17）呈現基督是造物的來源，第二部份（西一18～20）呈現基督是新造或救贖的來源。…像一首詩歌的兩節。
在第一節，基督被呈現為不能看見之神看得見的同在（「像」）和整個創造的媒介，並且他維繫著創造。同樣的在第二節，他被呈現為帶給人類（與神）和好的那一位，因此他是教會的來源，使之產生的那一位。在這二個情況裡，基督都是分別出來的。他不是造物的一部分，而是創造的那一位；他不是教會的一部分，而是使之產生的那一位。清楚的，在這個段落裡，基督被稱為神（西一15，19），運用了神創造和救贖的特權。
為甚麼保羅能使用「長子」（首生）的語言呢？通常在舊約聖經裡，「長子」意思是第一個出生的兒子（只要女兒的後面有兒子出生，她們就不被計算）。這個兒子在家裡有領導的地位，而且通常父親死後就由他接續作家裡的頭。然而，即便在舊約，這更是父親所賞賜的特權，甚於其出生次序裡的地位。例如創二十五29～34，以掃能出賣他長子的名分、長子的地位給雅各，雖然這個交易顯然不被他們的父親所認同，因為後來雅各要欺騙以撒才能得到給以掃長子的祝福（創二十七19）。過了一代，雅各清楚表明，不是他認為的第一個出生的（流便）就得長子的名分，而是他所愛的妻子生的約瑟（得了）。他表明這事，是藉著他給指定繼承人做了一件特別的衣服（創三十七3～4）。在這個案例裡，一個較年幼的兒子被指定為長子，這激起別人的忌妒，特別是當他運用他被指定的領導權時。甚至後來約瑟領自己的孩子到雅各的面前時，他立了第二個出生的在第一個出生的之上（創四十八13～20）。再次，「長子」不表示就是第一個出生的，而是作領袖的或是最大的那一位。即便那時論及真正的家庭，「長子」可以表明最疼愛的一個兒子，過於那一個頭生的。所以在彌六7和亞十二10，「長子」是最摯愛的兒子，是父母最不願意獻上的。
出四22當神稱以色列為祂的「長子」時，我們發現「長子」的另一個意思，而這個意思被用在耶三十一9。在這些經文（或舊約其他經文）裡，我們根本找不到任何暗示說神生了以色列。祂所說的乃是，祂把這個國家標出為第一的國家，為最貼近祂心的。而傷害這個國家就等於傷害神，並會感受到其重要性。在出埃及記裡這象徵性的重要地位，使法老失去了他真正的長子。因此我們看見，一個國家被置於首位也可以稱之為「長子」。
最後，在詩八十九27我們發現大衛統緒的王要被立為神的「長子」。再次，這裡也沒有暗示這個人的出生與神有關。這裡的意思乃是神象徵性的收養他並置他於家庭中的首位。因此「長子」是大衛統緒的王所擁有的尊榮地位和領導權。
現在我們就知道，為甚麼一個沈浸在舊約的詩人會用「長子」一詞了。他早已一直想著「頭」、「起源」等詞，或換言之，他早已一直想著在宇宙中和救贖裡首位的詞。他引用詩八十九27的語言，指出基督是神家中的首位，神標出的「後嗣」和在神旁邊的統治者。當然這也是真的，正如這首詩所指出的，就是基督是在任何其他造物之先，雖然用法是隱喻的，因為一個長子並不生出家中其餘的成員，但耶穌卻是創造所有的造物。
「長子」一詞是極富彈性的，它可以用於基督作為從死人中的首生者，因為他是第一個從死復活且活到永遠的（雖然有其他在他之前的人也從死裡復活，卻是暫時活著），也是所有將來從死裡復活者的首領或領袖。
所以保羅所用關於長子的語言是隱喻的，正如舊約那樣。耶穌不是被呈現為神的一個造物，或神藉某些女神所生的一個兒子（正如外邦神話中常見的），而是神家的首領，或是在創造的舊家，或是在救贖的新家。他在它之前。他是這個家的起因。他是整個家的領袖。在每一面他都是第一。然而他不是受造的一部分，也不是蒙救贖中的一個，因為他是神的像，且是神一切的豐滿都居住在他裡面的那一位。
評論：
一、本文是摘自「聖經難解之言」（Hard Sayings of the Bible），該書著者都是赫赫有名的學者。例如，F. F. Bruce在二十世紀聖經學者中的份量就如同十九世紀的 J.B. Lightfoot，他們合著一書，表示其正確性與公認性。所以他們的斷案是眾所公認，眾所信服的。像Bruce這樣的學者對聖經是非常熟稔，無論是原文、字義、字源、文法、聖經主線啟示、時代背景、史地、人文…他都是瞭如指掌。若有人根據西一15的「首生」一字斷定基督是「神造物中的一個，且是第一個，或是第一項」，他是永遠不會服氣的！因為根據他那扎實的聖經基礎，不可能會同意這樣的說法。這樣的錯誤解經只能欺騙年幼無知的信徒，也只有執迷不悟、不願深究的人會繼續教導。碰到這樣錯誤的說法，像Bruce這樣的聖經教師絕不會坐壁上觀，他一定會跳出來反對。
二、論到「長子」，文中已經點出：「即便在舊約，這更是父親所賞賜的特權，甚於其出生次序裡的地位。」又說「長子」：「不表示就是第一個出生的，而是作領袖的或是最大的那一位。」然後他說，即便在舊約的時代，當論到真正的家庭時，「長子」一詞「可以表明最疼愛的一個兒子，過於那一個頭生的。」
本文認為西一15的作者之所以會用「長子」一詞，乃是說明他是「一個沈浸在舊約的詩人。」他在心中老早就一直想著「頭」、「起源」這類的用詞和他所帶著的豐富、特殊的意義，也就是說，「他早已一直想著在宇宙中和救贖裡首位的詞。」然後當他下筆的時候，不是另造「首造」的一個新詞來用，而是用了舊約已有的「首生」（或「長子」）一詞，以表明基督的超越、居先、居上、統治、主宰的身份和地位。本文說：「正如這首詩所指出的，就是基督是在任何其他造物之先，雖然用法是隱喻的，因為一個長子並不生出家中其餘的成員，但耶穌卻是創造所有的造物。」
這個詞不僅用於團體的以色列國，表明她是神所心愛，列於地上所有萬國之上，也用於個人，如大衛和他所預表的基督身上。「長子」一詞如何用於大衛身上，而與其出生次序無關，只表明他為神所愛，從萬人中被分別出來，作為居先、領袖；照樣「長子」（「首生」）亦用於基督身上，而與其被造全然無關，乃表明他在萬有之先、之上，居領導地位！本文說： 「在每一面他都是第一。然而他不是受造的一部分，也不是蒙救贖中的一個，因為他是神的像，且是神一切的豐滿都居住在他裡面的那一位。」誠哉斯言！
（未完待續）20090101
No comments:
Post a Comment