046罗马书9章6至16 恩典的拣选
046罗马书9章6至16 恩典的拣选
-
- 小孩子：如果你相信主耶稣，不是因为父母是基督徒的缘故。
- 你能信靠主耶稣，是因为上帝拣选你。
- 你的信心是因为神的灵重生你。
- Pic 约 15:16 不是你们拣选了我，而是我拣选了你们，并且分派你们去结果子…
-
- 罗9:6-16
- 上文：保罗大大忧愁，心里常常伤痛，因祂的同胞拒绝基督 （V2）
- 背景：当时许多以色列人以为拒绝相信耶稣也得救。因为他们是上帝拣选的以色列
- 背景：福音指明必须相信耶稣基督才得救恩
- Pic 问：上帝不是拣选以色列吗？
- 问：那么上帝在旧约中应许要拯救以色列，是不是如今落了空？
- V6 当然，这不是说上帝的话落了空，因为出自以色列的，不都是以色列人
- 不是所有的以色列人都是以色列人[1]
-
- Pic拣选有两个层面：
- Pic 拣选肉身的以色列人为子民 （外在的拣选）历史中的拣选
- 凡按肉身是以色列人，都在这拣选范围中
- e.g. 赐他们嗣子的名分、荣耀、众约、律法、各样的应许
- e.g.他们的心是从来没有被上帝割礼/重生 (徒7:51、耶4:4、9:26)
- e.g.他们不会真心相信上帝，他们去拜偶像
- e.g.所以主耶稣降世时，他们拒绝主
-
- Pic永恒的拣选：蒙神拣选的以色列人是心受割礼，会信靠神，接受主耶稣
- e.g.他们被主重生心受割礼
- e.g.他们会真心相信上帝
- e.g. 主耶稣降世时，他们都相信跟随主
- e.g. 真以色列 True Israel也包括信主的外邦人
-
- 保罗提出圣经的依据证明，不是所有以色列人是以色列人
- V7 也不因为他们是亚伯拉罕的后裔，就都成为他的儿女，只有“以撒生的，才可以称为你的后裔”，8 这就是说，肉身生的儿女并不是上帝的儿女，只有凭着应许生的儿女才算是后裔。9 因为所应许的话是这样：“明年这个时候我要来，撒拉必定生一个儿子[2]。”
-
- 证明(1) 亚伯拉罕的孩子：长子以实玛利[3]与以撒
- 但只有“以撒[4]生的，才可以称为亚伯拉罕的后裔” the fact that only the promised ones are descendants of Abraham
- V12 … 撒拉对你说的话，你都要听从；因为以撒生的，才可以称为你的后裔。13 至于这婢女的儿子，我也要使他成为一国，因为他也是你的后裔。
- Pic 以实玛利（肉身的后裔） vs以撒（蒙神应许的后裔）
- a.p. 我们是蒙神应许亚伯拉罕后裔, 所以我们能够相信主耶稣
- a.p. 拒绝相信主耶稣的以色列人，不是蒙神应许的亚伯拉罕后裔
- Pic 加 3:7 所以你们要知道，有信心的人，就是亚伯拉罕的子孙。
-
- V10 不但如此，利百加也是这样：既然从一个人，就是从我们的祖宗以撒怀了孕，11 双生子还没有生下来，善恶也没有行出来（为要坚定上帝拣选人的旨意，12 不是由于行为，而是由于那呼召者），上帝就对她说：“将来大的要服事小的[5]。”13 正如经上所记的：“我爱雅各，却恶以扫。”
-
- V11 …善恶也没有行出来…
- 他们还没出生行善恶，上帝已经拣选了雅各
- a.p. 上帝拣选我们，不是因为我们行为比别人强。
- 违反人的经历。 人往往都是按行为作出选择。
- e.g.你为什么选择爱 A 不选择爱 B?
- 上帝没告诉拣选我们的原因 （弗1:5、9）
- 上帝只是告诉我们，被拣选不是因为我们有任何行为
- 亚米念神学：上帝的拣选是因为祂预先看见我们的信心的行为
- V12 不是由于行为，而是由于那呼召者…
- a.p. unconditional election 无条件的拣选
-
- V13 正如经上所记的：“我爱雅各，wù恶μισεω[9]以扫。”
- 保罗引用 玛1:2-5
- 第三个圣经依据（讲述以东 与 以色列）
- 玛1:2 耶和华说：“我爱你们。”你们却说：“你怎样爱了我们呢？”耶和华说：“以扫不是雅各的哥哥吗？我却爱雅各，3 恶以扫。我使以扫的山地荒凉，把他的产业给了旷野的豺狼。
-
- V14 既是这样，我们可以说什么呢？上帝不公平吗？绝对不会【断乎没有】！
- 问：上帝为什么没有任何不公义呢？
- 如果按公义，所有人（无论以东或以色列）都要因罪恶灭亡
- 但上帝出于祂的主权，怜悯恩待祂要怜悯的
- 保罗提出第四个圣经依据：
- V15因为他对摩西说:“我要怜悯谁，就怜悯谁；我要恩待谁，就恩待谁。”
- 出 33:18 摩西说：「求你显出你的荣耀给我看。」19 耶和华说：「我要显我一切的恩慈，在你面前经过，宣告我的名。我要恩待谁就恩待谁；要怜悯谁就怜悯谁」；
-
- a.p. 不在乎我们的意念、不在乎我们所行的。
- 主向我们彰显祂的荣耀来相信主耶稣，是出于祂恩典！
- 亚米念神学的缺点之一：就是他们认为上帝拣选他们是因为上帝预先看见他们有信心的行为
- 问题是如果是因我们信心的行为。那么我们就有可夸了
- 保罗一再强调“既不是出于人意，也不是由于人为”
- 弗2:8 你们得救是本乎恩，也因著信；这并不是出於自己，乃是神所赐的；9 也不是出於行为，免得有人自夸。
-
- 如果你真心相信主耶稣。你就是蒙神应许、蒙神拣选的
- 因为神爱你，祂会赐你足够恩典度过今世所有的苦难
[1] God’s word has not failed because those to whom that word was directed were not simply physical Israel. “Not all those who are of Israel, these are Israel.” His compatriots were in error in holding that the promise of God applied to the whole of physical Israel. Paul is denying that it was ever intended to apply in this fashion. If descent from Abraham was what mattered, then the Ishmaelites and Edom were in the same position as Israel. But “Israel” was not ethnic Israel.Morris, L.
[2] 创18:10
[3] This does not mean that Ishmael and Esau were necessarily excluded from the covenant; it was God’s command that they receive circumcision, the sign of the covenant (Gen. 17:9–13; cf. vv. 23, 26) Morris, L.
[4] Isaac must here be taken of the person and not collectively. Thought is focused on the choice of Isaac in contrast with Ishmael: the proposition to be demonstrated is that natural descent does not make children in the sense of true children, children to whom the promise belongs. Murray, J.
[5] It is election to privilege that is in mind, not eternal salvation. Moreover, it seems clear that Paul intends a reference to nations rather than individuals (though Murray strongly defends a reference to individuals as well as to nations). The words quoted say specifically that the elder will serve the younger, but Esau did not in fact serve Jacob, though the Edomites in time came to serve the Israelites. We must also bear in mind that the oracle Paul quotes has earlier said, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated” (Gen. 25:23). The argument concerns Israel as a whole and its place in the purpose of God.Morris, L.
[6] 10–13 In these verses appeal is made to another instance of the same kind of differentiation in patriarchal history. The thesis being established, it must be remembered, is that not by natural descent did the descendants of Abraham become partakers of God’s covenant grace and promises. This was proven in Abraham’s own sons in the differentiation between Isaac and Ishmael. But it was not only in Abraham’s sons that this discrimination appeared; it enters also into Isaac’s own family. Murray, J.
[7]创25:22 (ASV)And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, wherefore do I live? And she went to inquire of Jehovah.
(ESV)The children struggled together within her, and she said, “If it is thus, why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the LORD.
(LEB)And the children in her womb jostled each other, and she said, “If it is going to be like this, why be pregnant?” And she went to inquire of Yahweh.
[8] The thesis that Paul is dealing merely with the election of Israel collectively and applying the clause in question only to this feature of redemptive history would not meet the precise situation. The question posed for the apostle is: how can the covenant promise of God be regarded as inviolate when the mass of those who belong to Israel, who are comprised in the elect nation in terms of the Old Testament passages cited above (Deut. 4:37 et al.), have remained in unbelief and come short of the covenant promises? His answer would fail if it were simply an appeal to the collective, inclusive, theocratic election of Israel. Such a reply would be no more than appeal to the fact that his kinsmen were Israelites and thus no more than a statement of the fact which, in view of their unbelief, created the problem. Paul’s answer is not the collective election of Israel but rather “they are not all Israel, who are of Israel”. And this means, in terms of the stage of discussion at which we have now arrived, “they are not all elect, who are of elect Israel”. As we found above, there is the distinction between Israel and the true Israel, between children and true children, between the seed and the true seed. In such a distinction resides Paul’s answer to Israel’s unbelief. So now the same kind of distinction must be carried through to the problem as it pertains to the collective, theocratic election of Israel. In terms of the debate we are now considering we should have to distinguish between the elect of Israel and elect Israel. The conclusion, therefore, is that when Paul says “the purpose of God according to election” he is speaking of the electing purpose of God in a discriminating, differentiating sense that cannot apply to all who were embraced in the theocratic election. This is to say the clause in question must have a restrictive sense equivalent to “Israel” as distinguished from “of Israel” in verse 6.
In 11:5, 7 the same term for election is again used: “a remnant according to the election of grace” (11:5); “the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened” (11:7). The apostle is dealing with the remnant of ethnic Israel who had obtained the righteousness of faith. Hence the “remnant” and “the election” are those conceived of as possessors and heirs of salvation. The election, therefore, is one that has saving associations and implications in the strictest sense and must be distinguished from the election that belonged to Israel as a whole. It is this concept of election that accords with the requirements of Paul’s argument in 9:11 and its context. Since it appears without question in 11:5, 7, we have this additional confirmation derived from Paul’s own usage in the general context to which 9:11 belongs. Murray, J.
[9] 路 14:26 「人到我这里来，若不爱我胜过爱（爱我胜过爱：原文作恨μισεω）自己的父母、妻子、儿女、弟兄、姐妹，和自己的性命，就不能作我的门徒。 （意思爱的更少）
It has been maintained that the word “hate” means “to love less, to regard and treat with less favour”.26 Appeal can be made to various passages where this meaning holds (cf. Gen. 29:32, 33; Deut. 21:15; Matt. 6:24; 10:37, 38; Luke 14:26; John 12:25).27 It would have to be admitted that this meaning would provide for the differentiation which must be posited. Without embarking on the question of God’s love for the reprobate, this view would imply that Esau was not the object of that love which God exercised toward Jacob, namely, the specific distinguishing love which alone would account for the differentiation. The text, it must be said, could not mean anything less than this. Esau could not be the object of the love borne to Jacob for, if so, all distinction would be obliterated, and what the text clearly indicates is the radical distinction……the mere absence of love or favour hardly explains the visitations of judgment mentioned: “Esau I hated, and made his mountains a desolation, and gave his heritage to the jackals of the wilderness” (vs. 3); “they shall build, but I will throw down; and men shall call them the border of wickedness, and the people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever” (vs. 4). These judgments surely imply disfavour. The indignation is a positive judgment, not merely the absence of blessing. … … We must, therefore, recognize that there is in God a holy hate that cannot be defined in terms of not loving or loving less. Furthermore, we may not tone down the reality or intensity of this hate by speaking of it as “anthropopathic” or by saying that it “refers not so much to the emotion as to the effect”. Murray, J.
But it is perhaps more likely that like Calvin we should understand the expression in the sense “reject” over against “accept”. He explains the passage thus: “I chose Jacob and rejected Esau, induced to this course by my mercy alone, and not by any worthiness in his works.… I had rejected the Edomites.… Morris, L.
[10] Why was there this differentiation between Israel and Edom? It was because there was differentiation between Jacob and Esau. It would be as indefensible to dissociate the fortunes of the respective peoples from the differentiation in the individuals as it would be to dissociate the differentiation of the individuals from the destinies of the nations proceeding from them. Murray, J.
[11] the differentiation which belongs to Israel as a whole in virtue of the theocratic election does not meet the question the apostle encounters in this whole passage, namely, the unbelief of the mass of ethnic Israel. Murray, J.
[12] the force is increased when we take into account the particular occasion on which it was spoken. The favour shown to Moses is hereby certified to proceed from God’s sovereign mercy. Even Moses and with him God’s people can lay no claim to any favour; it is altogether a matter of God’s free choice and bestowment.Murray, J..
[13] Paul’s argument is that God’s faithfulness to his covenant is not to be judged by the extent to which those physically descended from Abraham are partakers of salvation. God’s faithfulness is vindicated by the fact that the covenant promise contemplates those who had been sovereignly chosen by God to be possessors and heirs of his covenant grace. Murray, J.