048 罗马书9章19至23 蒙怜悯预备得荣耀
048 罗马书9章19至23 蒙怜悯预备得荣耀
-
- 罗9:19-23
- Pic小孩子：你喜欢吃牛肉吗？假设你是养牛的，喂养他们。
- Pic小孩子：牛群中你选了十二只作宠物，其它你卖给人，人把它煮来吃。可以吗？
- Pic小孩子：如果你的牛抗议问你为什么把我们卖了。可以吗？
上文
-
- V2保罗大大忧愁，心里常常伤痛，因祂的同胞犹太人拒绝基督
- 问：上帝曾应许要拯救以色列（犹太人），是不是落了空？
- 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
- 背景：保罗第9章谈拣选的本意，是处理为什么以色列人拒绝基督。
- Pic拣选有两个层面：
- Pic (外在的拣选）历史中的拣选[1]
- Pic永恒的拣选[2]
- Pic V6-18保罗用5处圣经[3]证明不是所有以色列人都是蒙应许拣选
- Pic V17-18 摩西(蒙怜悯)与法老(被刚硬)做例子。
- V18 这样看来，他愿意怜悯谁就怜悯谁，愿意谁刚硬就使谁刚硬。[4]
- 背景：保罗的本意是解释为什么不是所有以色列人都是得救的（罗9:1-6、11:25）。
- a.p.今天我们已蒙了怜悯，上帝把我们刚硬的心拿掉。
- a.p.我们不像法老刚硬自己的心
- a.p.真心相信主耶稣，因是上帝所拣选的 (帖前1:4、帖后2:13、彼前2:9)
-
- 设想：如果你是当时候不信的犹太人：
- 问：你听见保罗用圣经证明“上帝愿意怜悯谁就怜悯谁，愿意谁刚硬就使谁刚硬”你会何回应？
- V19 这样，你会对我说：“那么他为什么责怪人呢？有谁抗拒他的旨意呢？”[5]
- 问：谁能抗拒上帝的旨意？有谁能改变上帝的计划？
- 问：上帝为什么怪责人呢？
- e.g.我的孩子问过我，上帝在永恒中决定的事，有谁能改变呢？
- 问：通常你们如何回答？
- Pic e.g.人回应用的方式是说:上帝不是把我们造成机器人。[6]
- e.g.上帝给人自由意志所以与上帝毫无关系
- e.g.或者重新诠释说,上帝预定是基于上帝预先看见会发生的事
- 能够预知就表明事情已定下。那请问如果不是上帝主宰？那么是谁问是谁定下万事？命运？
- e.g.Pic建筑师为什么能预知建筑物是什么样子？
-
- 问：有谁能抗拒祂的旨意？那么祂为什么怪责人呢？
- 使徒不使用人的方式来回应这难题
- 使徒用上帝是创造者的地位、与全地之主的主权来回应。
- V20 你这个人哪，你是谁[7]，竟敢跟上帝顶嘴【强嘴】呢？…
- 人根本无法与上帝强嘴（顶嘴），人没有资格质问上帝！
- e.g.朋友问：如果有上帝，祂一定是无所不能、不知、不在。
- e.g.朋友问：为什么只有一些人相信？ 为什么神允许亚当犯罪？
- e.g.我问他：你是谁？
- Pic我们是被造的we are only creatures（赛45:9-10、29:16）
- 问：上帝造世界时，有问过你的意见与想法吗？
- 上帝不需向我们交代，祂为什么创造, 祂如何创造
- 上帝不欠我们任何，因为所有的恩典都是祂赐下
- e.g.你喝的水、呼吸的空气是你赚来的吗？
- e.g.一个逆子责问父母，你们为什么要结婚生下我？
- 问：孩子有何资格责问父母？
- 问：为什么上帝不把我造成一头猪，生下来就是被人煮来吃？
- 感谢赞美主：如今因着相信主耶稣，我们成为了上帝的儿女！
-
- V20…被造的怎么可以对造他的说:“你为什么把我做成这个样子呢？”21 陶匠[8]难道没有权用同一团的泥，又做贵重的、又做卑贱的器皿吗？[9]
- 人无法与上帝强嘴
- 保罗使用陶匠的比喻
- Pic问：陶匠有没有权用同一团泥，又做贵重的、又做卑贱的器皿？
- V22 如果上帝有意要显明他的忿怒，彰显他的大能，而多多容忍那可怒、预备遭毁灭的器皿[10]，23为了要使他丰盛的荣耀，彰显在那蒙恩、早已[11]预备要得荣耀的器皿上，这又有什么不可呢？[12]
- 上帝的计划中: 一些是遭毁灭reprobate vs 一些早已预备蒙恩得荣耀 elect
- 保罗问：V23 …这又有什么不可呢？
- 注：原本我们所有人都要因罪灭亡！
- 但上帝在祂的恩典中拣选了我们[13]
- 剩下的是上帝的恩典越过他们
- 他们会像法老一样，按自己的本性刚硬自己，悖逆上帝
- 上帝会多多容忍他们的悖逆，直到他们被审判遭毁灭
- 不能解释成上帝控制法老去犯罪。因上帝不试探任何人（雅1:13）
- 是法老自己心肝乐意自愿去忤逆上帝 voluntarily and willingly
- 提醒：我们是罪人，没有资格质问上帝
- e.g.两个欠下 一亿的，但只有一位被豁免债务。债主有不义吗？
- e.g.2个犯了死罪的死囚，王下旨释放1个。另一个依法死刑。（撒下8:2）
-
- V23 为了要使他丰盛的荣耀，彰显在那蒙恩、早已[14]预备要得荣耀的器皿上 … which he has prepared beforehand for glory
- 蒙恩的最终要得荣耀 (罗8:18、8:30)，早已预备的！
- 我们因相信基督，知道我们是那蒙恩的
- 挑战：你蒙了恩典，你的回应是什么？
- 问：你感恩吗？
- 你明白上帝有多爱你吗？ 不可因遇见苦难就怀疑上帝爱你！
总结：
-
- 罗8:30他预先命定的人,又呼召他们;所召来的人,又称他们为义;所称为义的人,又使他们得荣耀。
[1] 拣选肉身的以色列人为子民
[2] 蒙神拣选的以色列人是心受割礼，会信靠神，接受主耶稣
[3] 不是所有肉身的以色列人都是蒙神应许拣选的。第一证据：亚伯拉罕的孩子：以实玛利与以撒 （V7-9）。第二证据：以撒与利百加的孩子：以扫与雅各 (V10-12)。第三证据：以扫（以东国）与雅阁（以色列国） (V13)。第四证据： 上帝对摩西说的话 (V15) 第五证据：摩西（蒙怜悯）对比法老（被刚硬）（V17-18）
[4] We tend to approach this in a different way from Paul, for we tend to think of the eternal destiny of the individual. We must bear in mind throughout this section that Paul is not dealing with that subject. He is dealing with the failure of Israel as a whole to respond to the Messiah over against the fact that the church was largely Gentile. He is saying that God works his purpose out by such means as choosing Isaac and rejecting Ishmael, choosing Jacob and rejecting Esau, or hardening Pharaoh. He is arguing that Israel’s present hardening does not defeat God’s purpose, but rather that it is God’s means of bringing the gospel to the Gentiles. This may have an application to individuals, but Paul does not spell it out. He makes his point that God has always worked out his purpose. It is a purpose of mercy, though it may be attained by hardening some people. Morris, L.
The objection is the common one, inevitably encountered when dealing with reprobation. How can God blame us when we are the victims of his irresistible decree? Murray, J.
[5] He argues that they are illegitimate questions, questions that the creature has no right to ask of the Creator. Morris, L.
[6] Free will defense is not used by Paul in defense. Frame did accurate points out that even our minds and emotions are under providence of God as portrayed in scripture
[7] So here, when dealing with the determinate will of God, we have an ultimate on which we may not interrogate him nor speak back when he has uttered his verdict. Who are we to dispute his government?Murray, J.
[8] The Old Testament makes use of the potter-clay motif several times (e.g., Isa. 29:15–16; 45:8–10; 64:8–9; Jer. 18:1–6; it is seen also in Wis. 15:7–8, a passage with many resemblances to the present one). Sometimes the thought is that the potter has complete authority to do what he wants with his clay, often that a marred vessel can be remade with the same clay into a satisfactory utensil, and sometimes, as here, that the clay has no right to answer back to the potter. Morris, L.
[9] Cranfield well brings out the thrust of Paul’s argument with his comment: “It is because, whether one is Moses or Pharaoh, member of the believing Church or member of still unbelieving Israel, one is this man, the object of God’s mercy, that one has no right to answer God back.” Paul is not saying that there is no answer to the question; he is saying that the question is illegitimate. Man is not in a position to ask it.Morris, L.(personal: Paul seems to have already given the reason why some are hardened in verse 21-22 to show his wrath and make known his power to the reprobates and to show his mercy onto the elect.
But the trouble is that man is not a pot; he will ask, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ and he will not be bludgeoned into silence.” Such positions imply that the creature is in a position to call God to account and to judge him by human standards and by the limited insight humans can bring to a complex problem. They overlook the fact that the sinner is out of his league when he takes on God (to use very human language). Again, they ignore the fact that the Creator constantly does things which the creature does not and cannot understand. And they overlook the main point that Paul is making, that God, like the potter, is alone responsible for the final purpose. Morris, L.
In Calvin’s words: “Why, then, did he not make use of this short answer, but assign the highest place to the will of God, so that it alone should be sufficient for us, rather than any other cause? If the objection that God reprobates or elects according to His will those whom He does not honour with His favour, or towards whom He shows unmerited love—if this objection had been false, Paul would not have omitted to refute it. Murray, J. (1968).
It must be borne in mind, however, that Paul is not now dealing with God’s sovereign rights over men as men but over men as sinners. He is answering the objection occasioned by the sovereign discrimination stated in verse 18 in reference to mercy and hardening. These, it must be repeated, presuppose sin and ill-desert. It would be exegetically indefensible to abstract verse 21 and its teaching from these presupposed conditions. Murray, J..
[10] Commentators are divided as to whether we should understand this to mean “although he willed” (Black, Denney, etc.) or “because he willed” (Robinson, Cranfield, etc.). The former way of taking it will signify that, although he willed to show wrath, God endured the vessels of wrath with much longsuffering. The latter will mean that, because he willed to show both wrath and mercy, God endured the vessels.… Either way of understanding the words is quite possible, but perhaps there is more to be said for the second, for in this passage Paul seems to be saying that God is working out a single purpose of mercy and this is to be discerned in his wrath as well as his longsuffering.100 God willed to reveal his mercy, but also his wrath; he lets sinners be in no doubt as to the consequences of sin. Morris, L.
These “vessels of wrath”, Paul says, are prepared106 for destruction, but he does not say how they became so fitted and widely differing views are held. Thus some think the people fitted themselves for this fate (Wesley; Griffith Thomas; some think that the participle is middle and that it has this force); some think God fitted them for it (Murray; so Hodge, though he rejects a supralapsarian view); some see Satan as responsible (Lenski; Hendriksen, “themselves—in cooperation with Satan!”). The difference in construction from the next verse (the passive over against the active, the participle against the indicative, the absence here of anything equivalent to the prefix for “before”) makes it probable that we should not think of God as doing this. Rather the people did it themselves, perhaps, as Hendriksen thinks, with some help from Satan. Paul does not describe destruction, but clearly it stands for the ultimate loss. Morris, L.
Vessels of wrath” and “vessels of mercy” are best regarded in terms of verse 21 Murray, J.
Hence what God did in the case of Pharaoh illustrates what is more broadly applied to vessels of wrath in verse 21. Pharaoh was raised up and hardened, in the sense explained above, for the purpose of demonstrating God’s power and publishing his name in all the earth. If we interject the term “forbearance”, we must say it was exercised in this case in order that God’s great power might be displayed. From this consideration, namely, that of the parallel, there appears to be a compelling reason to subordinate the longsuffering of verse 22 to the purpose of showing his wrath and making his power known. If we bear in mind the determinate purpose of God upon which the accent falls and that those embraced in this purpose are vessels of wrath and therefore viewed as deserving of wrath to the uttermost, the “much longsuffering” exercised towards them is not deprived of its real character as such. It is only because God is forbearing that he delays the infliction of the full measure of ill-desert. Furthermore, the apostle has in view the unbelief of Israel and the longsuffering with which God endures their unbelief. Murray, J.
[11] It is true that Paul does not say that God prepared them for destruction as he does in the corresponding words respecting the vessels of mercy that “he afore prepared” them unto glory. It may be that he purposely refrained from making God the subject.Murray, J
[12] 目的：上帝彰显祂的公义的忿怒、大能; 上帝彰显祂的荣耀，一部分蒙恩，最终要得荣耀
[13] Strength of Infralapsarian arguments
[14] It is true that Paul does not say that God prepared them for destruction as he does in the corresponding words respecting the vessels of mercy that “he afore prepared” them unto glory. It may be that he purposely refrained from making God the subject. Murray,J