《林慈信-保罗神学补充材料》

1 解经与圣经神学 1．基督徒最起码的操练是「读经」 (Bible reading)；读经的目标是搞清楚﹕《圣经》说什么？ （不是﹕「我对经文的感受如何？」！） 2．若要对《圣经》认真的学习，必须「研经」（Bible study, 查经）；目标是搞清楚﹕每一段 《圣经》教导什么？（例如﹕归纳法查经。）在灵修生活中查经，至少要准备、使用一本可 靠的研读版《圣经》 (study Bible)。英文有多种，例如最新出版的﹕Reformation Study Bible (ESV)；或 The Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible (NIV)等。中文首推﹕更新传道会出版的 《新国际版研读本圣经》（原着﹕ The NIV Study Bible）。 3．若条件许可，可进一步作「解经」 (exegesis, Bible interpretation) 的研究。解经就是从原文（或 让懂原文的学者，教师们帮助我们）、上下文、历史背景等解释经文的意义。历代以来的解 经是建立在一个基本的信念上﹕《圣经》是上帝默示的话，是无误的。（不幸今天很多学者 已经不再坚持这信念）。 4．如何解经？「释经学」(hermeneutics, principles of Bible interpretation) 是解经时要应用的原则。 原则没有「中立」的；不幸许多当代释经学教科 书 关于书的成语关于读书的排比句社区图书漂流公约怎么写关于读书的小报汉书pdf 已不再相信《圣经》的默示，无误等真 理。（见下﹕解经原则没有「中立」。） 5．解经的结果是《圣经》注释 (Bible commentaries)，这方面的学问统称为「《圣经》研究」 (biblical studies)。 6．用解经的方法，遵循释经学的正确原则来预备讲章，结果是「解经讲道」 (expository preaching)。这样的讲道事工是 expound(ing) the Scriptures; Bible exposition；有别于「专题讲 道」；「有感而发」；「时事评论式讲道」；或「灵意解经」等。 7．《圣经》神学 (biblical theology) 是建立在解经的基础上。《圣经》神学问﹕上帝在启示历史的 每一个阶段启示了什么？透过每一个作者启示了什么？ 8．上帝在《圣经》里启示的内容分两大类﹕上帝说了什么？上帝作了什么？即﹕上帝的作为 (deeds) 和上帝的话语 (words)。上帝的作为解释上帝的话语﹕上帝的话语解释上帝的作为。例 如﹕耶稣的五饼二鱼神迹 + 事后宣称﹕我就是生命的粮。耶稣使生下来瞎眼的能看见 + 宣 称﹕我就是世上的光。除此以外，《圣经》里有一些话语（特别是保罗的书信），解释《圣 经》里上帝所说的。 因此﹕「《圣经》神学」在《圣经》里面就已经存在。不是后人加于圣 经以上的猜测。例如﹕保罗是一位非常出色的 思想 教师资格思想品德鉴定表下载浅论红楼梦的主题思想员工思想动态调查问卷论语教育思想学生思想教育讲话稿 家，他的思想非常严密。因此﹕除了他所 写下的各项真理（称义，圣灵的见证，与基督联合，为主受苦，教会的荣耀等）以外，保罗 也解释他不同的教导（教义）之间的关系。保罗的思想是有系统的，虽然他的书信不以神学 （教义）的文体出现，可是他的确是一位「神学家」，意思是﹕保罗自我解释他所教导的。 9．解经的目的是从《圣经》里面找出圣经的教导﹕从《圣经》里面出来，因此解经英文称为 exegesis （ex = 「出来」的意思）。错误的作法﹕是把我们自己的想法读进《圣经》，英文称 此为 eisegesis， eis 是「进去」的意思。 10. 将自己的意思读进《圣经》里乃意味着﹕不论用那一段《圣经》，都可以讲出自己要讲的信 息，都可以预备一篇自己心目中要讲的讲章。 因此《圣经》成为只不过扮演衬托的角色而矣。 2 11. 没有一位解释《圣经》的人是中立的，没有「神学」 (theology-free)的。完全「中立」的解经是 不可能的。我们要认清楚我们对《圣经》的前提 (presuppositions)。 12. 解经与《圣经》神学背后有两个原则（前提， presuppositions）﹕启示历史的渐进性 (progressive revelation)，和启示的统一性 (unity of revelation)。两者同样的重要。 13. 启示的统一性（或﹕以经解经，analogy of Scripture, analogy of faith）的意思是﹕我们预先相 信，《圣经》是不会自相矛盾的。我们要作的是﹕解释《圣经》如何不先后矛盾。 14. 每一位作者的作品也不可能自相矛盾，每一位都是圣灵默示的。 15. 有些《圣经》神学学者不是正统的，不是福音派的。他们不相信《圣经》的无误，只研究某一 个《圣经》时代里，人们相信什么，如何敬拜上帝（虽然学者认为这些信仰都是神话）。 16. 正统的《圣经》神学研究学者包括﹕ Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949) ，普林斯顿神学院教授 (1893- 1932)；着有 Biblical Theology（中译﹕霍志恒，《圣经神学》，天道）；荷兰学者 Heman Ridderbos，着有 Paul: An Outline of His Theology ；等等。 17. Edmund P. Clowey 是 1960-70年代威敏斯特神学院 (Westminster Theological Seminary, www.wts.edu) 院长，大力提倡《圣经》神学。（参 J.I. Packer, Truth and Power，承认 Clowney的重 要性。）Clowney着有几本圣经神学的 书籍﹕ The Church, Preaching and Biblical Theology, Called to the Ministry, The Unveiled Mystery, and Preaching Christ from All of Scripture. 其他在这方面努力 的教授有﹕Harvie M. Conn （宣教学）, Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.（新約神學，系 統神學，） O. Palmer Robertson （舊約神學）。 介绍圣经神学 Introducing Biblical Theology _______________________________________________________________________ 纠正关于圣经神学的十二个误解 1． 误﹕圣经是上帝的话；神学是圣经以外的人为哲学。只查圣经就够了。 正﹕圣经是上帝的启示。圣经中的启示有上帝的话语和作为；有些启示（如保罗书信）是对已启示的 事或话作出解释。这些启示可称为教义，神学。圣经里就有神学（教义）。我们需要认识圣经本身的 教义架构，看出字和字、书卷与书卷、观念与观念、真理与真理之间的关系﹕这就是「神学架构」。 2． 误﹕保罗教导就只是「因信称义」和如何在教会里生活和事奉。知道这些就够了。 正﹕保罗的教导诚然包括因信称义（这是罗马书 1-8章的主题！）。可是保罗的思想包括一些关于历 史、宇宙、上帝整个计划的真理﹕这是圣经中的「历史观」，「宇宙观」，或「末世论」，与「救赎 论」同样重要。 3． 误﹕末世论只是一些关于未来的事情；与「主再来」的真理是同义词。 正﹕末世论包括过去（基督复活，升天），现在（天国彰显在地上），和未来（主再来，有新天新 地，上帝完全掌权）三方面。 4． 误﹕末世论和救恩（救赎论）是两回事。最多，末世论（我们未来的盼望）是救赎论（我们的救恩） 的最后一部份而已。 3 正﹕在保罗的思想中，末世论乃是救赎论的基础和基本架构。若要正确了解保罗的救赎论，必须了解 他的末世论。 5． 误﹕认识末世论，会使基督徒成为禁欲主义者，进修道院去隐居。 正﹕正确认识保罗的末世论，会使我们很现实的面对这个世界﹕我们如何面对自己的最罪，这个充满 罪恶的世界作光作盐？基督徒是正视现实的。 6． 误﹕末世论就是讲基督徒个人未来的命运。 正﹕末世论讲到全人类、整个宇宙的命运；讲一个新的时代 (aion)。 救赎论也是如此﹕上帝使万物更新。 7． 误﹕救赎论（基督救赎的工作）的焦点只是十字架。 正﹕救赎论的焦点是基督的死（十字架）、复活、升天、圣灵降临。这四件事其实是一件事，是宇宙 历史中最重要的事。 8． 误﹕救赎论只是关于基督徒个人的经验。 正﹕上帝的救赎工作是「救属历史」，是关乎整个宇宙的。 9． 误﹕「来世」只是一个「地方」。来世，是一个空间的观念。 正﹕「来世」是空间的观念（地方），也是时间的观念（新的时代）。若把来世只看为「地方」或 「境界」的话，很容易堕入「诺斯底主义」。 10． 误﹕未来的世界，只是将来的事。 正﹕来世（永恒）现在藉着耶稣基督的复活，已经介入了现今，已经开始了。 11． 误﹕「属灵人」好像诺斯底主义者，拥有一些秘密的知识或经验。 正﹕「属灵人」是圣灵掌管的人，既属天，属来世，也在地上，活在今世。 12． 误﹕「奥秘」是一些新的，秘密的知识（资讯）。 正﹕新约的「奥秘」主要不是知识、资料，乃是一件事﹕以前没有启示的，现在启示了！因此，「奥 秘」是一个「公开的秘密」。 关于「与基督联合」，与基督同死，同复活的错误解释 1．天主教，圣礼派的「联合」﹕在圣礼中，基督的死的事件重现，重新发生。 2．基督新教的自由派，受存在主义和巴特的神学的影响﹕与基督联合是超事件的经历。 3．19世纪福音派﹕Keswick Convention 留下来的影响﹕要在基督面前降服，什么都不作。（参﹕ 巴刻，《活在圣灵中》第四章）。 4．灵意解经﹕我已经与基督同死，同复活。没有救赎历史上的根据。 5．Herman Ridderbos，荷兰改革宗解经家﹕基督与在基督里的人 = 一个整体的人格 (corporate personality)。 有误导的嫌疑。 正确的解释 4 1．永恒里的预定。Predestinarian. 2．救赎历史的成就，我们与基督同死，同复活。Redemptive-historical. 3．在基督徒生命的开始（重生）的时候，我们真正的与基督同死，同复活。 Existential- experiential. 介绍圣经神学 Introducing Biblical Theology _______________________________________________________________________ 复活与救赎﹕方法论的考虑 RESURRECTION AND REDEMPTION: METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS (Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology. [formerly: The Centrality of the Resurrection.] Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1987, 19-29.) 霍志恒的《保罗的末世论》的长远价值，不仅在于它对保罗思想基本因素的丰富、深入分 析；更在于书中多次提到作者研究保罗的进路。该书的方法论（或释经学）的重要性（似乎到目前 为止完全被忽略），乃是我们在本章要仔细注意的。 Geerhardus Vos’ Pauline Eschatology is of abiding value not only for its rich and penetrating analysis of the basic elements of Paul’s teaching but also for its variety of instructive statements concerning the way he approaches Paul. This methodological or hermeneutical significance of the book, which so far appears to have been entirely overlooked, is that to which we now will give careful attention. 霍氏研究保罗的进路出自他对保罗的信念﹕保罗「可被称为基督教末世论之父」（页 vi）， 甚至说保罗具有「历史上最伟大处理基督教资料的建构思想家」之思维（页 149）。这类语气的话在 书中出现多次。因为使徒保罗的思想「有一种系统性，使他坚决寻求定论的涵义」（页 60）；也因 他的思想具有「高度的教义性和归纳能力」（页 148），因此我们需要正视保罗的「神学系统」（页 60），他的「真理系统」，和他「对基督教真理的建构」（页 148）。保罗「充满活力的末世论思 想，有整合化，为一个紧凑的神学架构的倾向」（页 61）。解释保罗的学者们对他的评论一般都有 偏差，其中部份理由是因为「保罗身为一位神学思想家，他的思想的严谨远远超过他们」（页 149）。[注 1] 5 Vos’ approach to Paul is controlled by his conviction that Paul can “justly be called the father of Christian eschatology” (p. vi) and even that Paul’s is “the genius of the greatest constructive mind ever at work on the data of Christianity” (p. 149). Statements with a similar tone can be multiplied. Because the apostle’s mind “had by nature a certain systematic bent, which made him pursue with great resoluteness the consequences of given premises” (p. 60), and because it was “highly doctrinal and synthetic” (p. 148), one must think in terms of Paul’s “theological system” (p. 60), his “system of truth,” his “construction of Christian truth” (p. 148). Paul’s “energetic eschatological thinking tended toward consolidation in an orb of compact theological structure” (p. 61). The facile one-sidedness of which all too many of his interpreters have been guilty results in part “because Paul’s mind as a theological thinker was far more exacting than theirs …” (p. 149). [1] [1] Cf. Biblical Theology, p. 17: “The Gospel having a precise, doctrinal structure, the doctrinally-gifted Paul was the fit organ for expressing this, because his gifts had been conferred and cultivated in advance with a view to it.” (This volume, which first appeared in 1948, is a reworking of class lectures given at Princeton Theological Seminary, prior to Vos’s retirement in 1932.) 总的来说，这些话给读者留下深刻的印象，特别是两个因素﹕（1）霍氏深深欣赏保罗的独特 性，特别是他身为一个思想家的才干。霍氏在保罗思想的性质方面做了一些反省。（2）霍氏指出保 罗和解释保罗者之间的连续性。两者都关心「基督教的资料」 (data)。基督教对于末世论的反省，以 保罗作开始，保罗是「末世论之父」。还有多方面看出，保罗和解释保罗者的连续性，在于两者都 是从事「神学」。我们若说，霍氏认为使徒保罗和他在经营同一种企业，并不过分。他这样说的同 时，当然没有妥协圣经的统一性，上帝是圣经的作者和圣经的权威。 Taken together, these statements make an unmistakable impression. In particular, two factors stand out. (1) They reflect a deep appreciation of the distinctiveness and individuality of Paul, specifically his capacity as a thinker. The nature of Paul’s mind is reflected upon in some detail. (2) They show a definite sense of continuity between Paul and his interpreter. Both have a common interest: the “data of Christianity.” Christian eschatological reflection has Paul as its initiator, its “father.” Moreover, the nature of this continuity, its specifically “theological” character, is indicated in a variety of ways. In short, it is not going too far to say that Vos approaches the apostle as one with whom he is involved in a common theological enterprise. And he does this without any sense of incompatibility with a conviction of the unity and divine origin and authority of Scripture. 霍氏的进路，于凯伯拒绝「圣经神学」的说法，成了强烈的对照。[注 2] 这对我们有重要的启 迪，因为凯伯在「神学百科」方面的思想，肯定影响了改革宗神学的方法论，一直到今天。 Vos’ approach stands in sharp contrast to Abraham Kuyper’s rejection of the expression “biblical theology.” [2] This contrast is instructive because the latter’s work on theological encyclopaedia has had a decisive influence in shaping Reformed theological method, an influence which continues, at least indirectly, to the present. [2] Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid, 3:166-180. 我们或许认为，凯伯反对「圣经神学」，主要是因为一些历史上的因素﹕他在回应理性主义 的神学，后者明显地用「圣经神学」的旗帜来反对圣经的权威。这因素固然重要 [注 3]，可是我们若 仔细地查究，可以看出有更深的理由。 At a first glance Kuyper’s objections appear to be primarily historical in character, based on reaction to rationalistic theology which masqueraded its thinly-veiled attacks on the authority of Scripture under the slogan, “biblical theology.” This factor certainly is important (3), but close examination shows that his rejection has a much deeper basis. 6 [3] Ibid., pp. 169f., pp. 401-404. 霍志恒反对使用「圣经神学」的最主要原因，乃是他认为圣经是「神学的原料」 (principium theologiae) 的观念。 圣经本身不是神学，圣经是在神学背后的。[注 4] 圣经的作者不可称为神学家 （页 176），因为若没有神学之先的「教义」 (dogma)，神学是不可能存在的；而教义乃是（有组织 的）教会生活的产品。[注 5]因此霍氏强调圣经与圣经作者们，及教义和教会神学家两者之间原则上 的断层。圣经本身并不含有教义，圣经乃是教会「建造」教义所用的原料 (material)。[注 6] 圣经的启 示乃用「东方的象征式，审美式的文笔」写出的；要当充满「辩证清晰性」的「西方思想」整理过 圣经的材料之后，神学才出现。[注 7] Nothing less than the way in which Kuyper understands Scripture as the principium theologiae prohibits his use of the expression “biblical theology.” Scripture itself is not theology but underlies it. [4] The biblical writers must not be called theologians (p. 176), because theology is unthinkable apart from previously formed dogmas, and dogma is a product of the life of the (institutional) church. [5] Thus stress is placed exclusively upon the disjunction, the discontinuity in principle, between Scripture and the biblical writers on the one hand, and the dogmas and theologians of the church on the other. The Bible itself contains no dogmas but rather the “material” out of which the church “constructs” dogma. [6] The biblical revelation is given in the “stylized, symbolic-aesthetic language of the East;” only when the “Western mind” with its penchant for “dialectical clarity” goes to work on the biblical material does theology come into being. [7] [4] Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid, 3;167: “If Holy Scripture is the principium of theology, then theology only begins when Holy Scripture is there” (Kuyper’s italics). [5] Ibid., p. 169: “Dogmatics is unthinkable unless dogma has previously formed, and dogma is as such a fruit of the life-process of the church” (Kuyper’s italics); cf. pp. 395ff. [6] Ibid.: “There are no dogmas in Holy Scripture, only the material from which the church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has to construct dogmas”; p. 404: “… and Scripture does not provide us with dogmas themselves, but with the material from which the chuch has to build dogmas”; cf. pp. 355ff. [7] Ibid., p. 168: “Revelation is given to us in Holy Scripture, wrapped in the symbolic-aesthetic language of the East. Its content is now transferred out of the oriental world into that western consciousness which attempts to bring the general human consciousness to dialectical clarity; and only where this transition takes place does theology originate”; cf. vol. II, pp. 247f. 因此我们必须看出凯伯不单在名称上，而是在观念上拒绝「圣经神学」；因为「圣经，教 会，教义，神学」[注 8] 的次序，和它们之间的断层。不错，他赞成圣经神学的工作内容﹕关注圣经 的历史性。他哀叹教义学 loco probantis（断章取义）的研经法，并期望透过「启示历史」的研究， 对认识圣经有真的进展。[注 9] It is essential to see, then, that in terms of the sequence: Scripture, church, dogma, dogmatics (theology), [8] and because of the way the stress on discontinuity is distributed, Kuyper rejects biblical theology not only in name but in concept. To be sure, he does go on to approve the material interest of biblical theology, namely, its concern with the historical character of the Bible. He laments the shortcomings of the loca probantia method of dogmatics in this respect, and looks for real progress in biblical understanding to result from a study of the historia revelationis. [9] [8] Just how determinative and clearly defined this pattern of distinctions is in Kuyper’s thinking appears from the fact that it furnishes the designations for three of the four major subdivisions of special encyclopaedia: De Bibliologische, De Ecclesiologische and De Dogmatologische (which includes dogmatics). [9] Encyclopaedie, 3:170ff. 7 上面虽是简单介绍，可是我们已能看出霍志恒和凯伯在重点和进路上是截然不同的；他们采 取了相反的作法。（一）凯伯的作法，好像将所有圣经的作者们「铲平」来对待。 在「神学百科」 的范围里完全不考虑他们之间的分别。 其实感觉上，凯伯的进路是朝相反方向的。[注 10] 霍志恒虽 然也有考虑到保罗思想的「系统性」和「高度教义性和综纳能力」[注 11]，可是凯伯认为使徒保罗和 其他圣经的作者都用「东方象征式，审美式的文笔」来写作。[注 12] （二）凯伯只强调圣经作者和 后来教会历史上神学着作之间的断层。 因此霍氏形容保罗为一位「神学家」，也常提到保罗的「神 学系统」，这种 表 关于同志近三年现实表现材料材料类招标技术评分表图表与交易pdf视力表打印pdf用图表说话 pdf 达方法是凯伯原则上不容许的。 Even from these brief sketches it is not difficult to recognize a decided difference in emphasis and approach between Vos and Kuyper. In fact, the stress of the one is precisely the opposite of the other. (1) Kuyper’s construction is characterized by a “leveling” treatment of the biblical authors. In the sphere of encyclopaedia no attempt is made to take into account their respective differences. In fact, it seems there is an implicit tendency in the opposite direction. [10] While Vos thinks in terms of the “systematic bent” and the “highly doctrinal and synthetic” quality of Paul’s mind, [11] for Kuyper, the apostle, along with the other biblical writers, speaks the “stylized, symbolic-aesthetic language of the East.” [12] (2) Kuyper stresses exclusively the discontinuity between the biblical writers and the theological activity of subsequent Christian generations. Accordingly, Vos’s description of Paul as a specifically “theological” thinker and his repeated references to the apostle’s “theological system” are modes of expression forbidden to Kuyper in principle. [10] Ibid., p. 176: “Certainly each one of these men lived in a religious thought-world, and this thought-world is use din revelation, used even with the individual variations which more than one of them discloses; but in the history of revelation both this religious thought-world and these individual variations do service only as the canvas on which the Holy Spirit embroiders; and not that canvas but the embroidery itself is that which constitutes revelation and with which we should be concerned.” [11] Cf. Biblical Theology, p. 16: “The didactic, dialectic mentality of Paul …” [12] It is difficult to see how anyone who has read the letters of Paul could make such a generalization. Apparently Kuyper’s encyclopaedic interests have at this point blinded him to what he himself recognizes elsewhere: “What makes the letters of Paul so difficult is that there the mystical-oriental and western-didactical streams flow into each other” (Dictaten Docmatiek, vol. I, part 2, p. 54); “Paul is a more acute thinker than James …” (Encyclopaedie, 2:241). 这两种观念在重要的层面上都水火不相容。哪一个是正确的观念？凯伯的立场代表了典型改 革宗传统的态度，特别在如何看待保罗的解释和神学建构的关系上。 可是，有一系列的考虑使我们 认为，霍志恒的作法才是对待保罗 -- 一位圣经作者，一位上帝启示的工具 -- 的正确作法。[注 13] These two points of view are mutually exclusive in key respects. Which, if either, is correct? Kuyper’s position may represent the characteristically Reformed attitude, particularly concerning the relationship between the interpretation of Paul and dogmatic formulation. Nevertheless, a variety of considerations points to Vos’s approach as the proper way to deal with Paul as a biblical writer, that is, as an instrument of revelation. [13] [13] In discussing these here, attention for the most part will have to be limited to initiating and sketching lines of argument without fully expanding upon them. Many related questions, in themselves important, must be bypassed completely. 圣经的启示与历史有关。圣经乃是启示历史的 记录 混凝土 养护记录下载土方回填监理旁站记录免费下载集备记录下载集备记录下载集备记录下载 ，包括圣经自己形成的历史。 分析这段历 史（这是凯伯所欢迎的）乃显明启示是多层面的，包括上帝的作为和话语。 上帝透过救赎（作为） 和启示（话语）来自我启示﹕祂透过祂所作的，和祂所说的来启示。 我们越来越看见两者之间的有 机关系。启示从来不是孤立的，一定直接或间接与救赎有关。上帝的说话一定与祂的作为有关。 若 8 说救赎乃是上帝赐启示的原因或目标，这并不过分。[注 14] 我们若认为启示是可以孤立看待，或 启示只提供自显真理 (self-evident truths) 的话，结果必然是一种不符合圣经的半诺斯底主义的启示 观。[注 15] 因此，上帝的启示必然是祂救赎作为的见证 (authentication) 或解释 (interpretation)。 通 常，救赎的宣称和救赎的解释，同一位圣经作者（或同一个启示的器皿）中都可以找到，不过，通 常某一方面比较明显。[注 16] Biblical revelation has an historical interest. Scripture is a record of the history of revelation, which includes its own production. Analysis of this history – analysis welcomed by Kuyper himself – has made increasingly clear that revelation is a differentiated phenomenon, coming as acts or words. God reveals himself both in redemption and revelation, in what he does as well as in what he says. The organic relationship between these two facets has also become more and more evident. Revelation never stands by itself, but is always concerned either explicitly or implicitly with redemptive accomplishment. God’s speech is invariably related to his actions. It is not going too far to say that redemption is the raison d’etre of revelation.[14] An unbiblical, quasi-gnostic notion of revelation inevitably results when it is considered by itself or as providing self-evident general truths. [15] Consequently, revelation is either authentication or interpretation of God’s redemptive action. Usually both description and explanation can be found in a given biblical writer or instrument of revelation, although in each instance one element will be more prominent than the other. [16] [14] Vos’s is still among the best discussions of this and related points (Biblical Theology, pp. 14f., 24, 124, 324ff.) [15] Ibid., p. 24: “Revelation is so interwoven with redemption that, unless allowed to consider the latter, it would be suspended in the air.” [16] The basic structure of the New Testament canon reflects this distinction: gospels(attestation)/ epistles (interpretation). That this pattern is intentional or constitutive is confirmed by the shape of Marcion’s canon: edited Gospel of Luke / the Epistles of Paul with the exception of the pastorals. (For a brief presentation of the evidence favoring the position that Marcion’s canon is molded according to the church’s and not vice versa, cf. T. Zahn, Grundriss der Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1904), pp. 28f. The recent recovery of the Gospel of Truth in extant form strengthens this position.) As indicated above, the distinction between attestation an dinterpretation may not be applied in a rigid fashion, as if the Gospels contain no interpretation and the Epistles no authentication. Such a construction would obviously fail to do justice to the teaching of Jesus. Still, the fundamental perspective from which the New Testament is an organic whole (i.e., canon) is that Jesus (including his teaching) and the apostles (particularly their letters) are related as “the great fact to be expounded” and “the subsequent interpretation of this fact” (Vos, Biblical Theology, pp. 324f.). 毫无疑问地，在保罗的作品中「解释」层面比较典型。他在讲道与书信中的关注，差不多全 是解释「救赎历史」﹕救赎历史在基督的死和复活上达到了高峰。保罗认为基督在启示历史中的地 位，是受到某一个「救赎历史处境」的影响。这是对了解保罗的思想是非常重要的视角。我们必须 体会这一点和它所带来的涵义，才能看清他在启示上所扮演的角色的重要性。 In the case of Paul, there is no doubt that the aspect of interpretation is more characteristic. The almost exclusive concern of his writing and preaching is expounding, “exegeting” the history of redemption as it has reached its climax in the death and resurrection of Christ. In Paul’s perspective, Christ’s place in the history of revelation is conditioned by and exponential of a specific redemptive-historical context. This is a decisively important perspective for understand