051 罗马书 10章1至4 信基督是靠律法称义的终止
-
- 罗10:1-4
- 上文：以色列人跌倒。因为他们不凭信心 （V32）
- 9:30-31 他们追求律法，以为自己可以靠律法被上帝称义
- 9:32-33 他们拒绝相信主耶稣，所以跌在这磐石上。
-
- V1 弟兄们，我心里切切盼望的，并且为以色列人向上帝祈求的，是要他们得救。
- 保罗讲述自己族人跌倒时（9:2）是大大忧愁，心里常常伤痛
- 保罗为他的族人不断向上帝祈求
- 问：上帝预定拣选，那么保罗祷告有用吗？
- 问：不是已经定下了，那么祷告有用吗？
- 这种理性的推论，不是保罗所接受的，也不是圣经的启示。
- 人的理性是有限的。不是所有理性的推论都是符合真理
- 一些表面上的矛盾，唯有上帝有所有答案
- 保罗信预定拣选，并信人能为他人的救恩祈求
- 极端e.g.一些接受预定拣选，认为祷告了也没有用。
- 极端e.g.一些迫切代祷为人求救恩，但却不接受上帝预定拣选。
- a.p.我们应积极每一天为家人的救恩祷告
-
- V2 我可以为他们作证，他们对上帝有热心，但不是按着真见识；
- 保罗知道犹太人对上帝有热心，因他以前与他们一样[1]
- 保罗以前认为信基督是异端，他为了上帝，逼迫杀害基督徒
- 徒26:9 从前，我也认为应该多方敌对拿撒勒人耶稣的名。10 后来就在耶路撒冷这样作了。我得到了众祭司长授权，把许多圣徒关在监里，并且他们被杀的时候，我也表示同意。11 我在各会堂里多次用刑强迫他们说亵渎的话；我非常愤恨他们，甚至追到国外的城巿去迫害他们。
-
- e.g.宗教与信仰带来的力量是极大。一种可怕的狂热。
- e.g.911恐怖分子飞机撞楼事件，他们认为他们是为上帝作的
- e.g.东方闪电热心，向我传假福音
- 问：基督徒热心好不好？
- 罗12:11 殷勤不可懒惰，心灵要火热，常常服事主；
- 问：那么为什么犹太人热心又错？
- ans因不是按着真见识。热心是必须被真理引导的
- 问：你是否已经冷淡？为何信的是真的反而不热心？
- 问：找出使你对主冷淡的原因。罪？受伤？贪爱世界？事业？
-
- V3 他们既然不明白上帝的义，而又企图建立自己的义，就不服上帝的义了。
- 注：（上下文罗9:30-10:4）上帝的义 相对立 自己的义[2]
- 不是上帝的义，就是自己的义
- 靠自己的义就是拒绝上帝的义
- 问：为什么义是如此重要？
- Ans因唯有义人才能进入天国承受永生
- 所以当他们不明白上帝的义，就靠自己建立义
-
- 犹太人不明白上帝的义，是能透过相信上帝得到
- 他们不明白，不是因为圣经没有记载。（眼睛被蒙蔽 林后4:4）
- 耶23:5 “看哪！日子快到（这是耶和华的宣告），我必给大卫兴起一个公义的苗裔；他必执政为王，行事有智慧，在地上施行公正和公义。6 在他执政的日子，犹大必得救，以色列也必安然居住。人要称他的名字为‘耶和华我们的义’。”
- 耶稣基督 = 上帝是我们的义
- 拒绝主耶稣就是拒绝 ‘耶和华我们的义’
- 犹太人拒绝自己是罪的奴仆(约8:31-41)，他们拒绝主耶稣
- 问：今天你靠自己，还是靠主耶稣成为义人？
- a.p.很多有很好的外在行为，拒绝主耶稣
-
- 太5:20 我告诉你们，你们的义若不胜过经学家和法利赛人的义，就必不能进天国。
- 背景：法利赛人的外在行为可能比我们许多人强
- 经文外表上好像是说，我们的行为要胜过法利赛人。
- 透过使徒们书信的解释。才明白其实主耶稣已否定了人能靠自己在神面前称义！
- 法利赛人努力追求律法，竭力遵行，却还是无法进天国。
- 问: 我们的义要如何能够胜过经学家和法利赛人？
- 为一能胜过的方式，就是透过相信主耶稣，来得到上帝的义
- 太 21:31…耶稣对他们说：“我实在告诉你们：税吏和娼妓比你们先进上帝的国。32约翰来到你们那里，指示你们行义路，你们不信他；税吏和娼妓却信了他。你们看见了之后，还是没有改变心意去信他。
-
- 加 2:16 既然知道人称义不是靠行律法，而是因信耶稣基督，我们也就信了基督耶稣，使我们因信基督称义，不是靠行律法；因为没有人能靠行律法称义。
-
- 腓 3:9 并且得以在他里面，不是有自己因律法而得的义，而是有因信基督而得的义，就是基于信心，从上帝而来的义，
-
- 问：靠律法称义终止了，我们就任意违背上帝的律法吗？
- Ans 断乎不是!（罗3:31、6:15）
- 我们是在恩典中，来遵守律法！grace
- 我们遵守律法，因为我们是上帝所爱的儿女
- 我们是在上帝的爱中，尽力遵守律法！love
- 我们遵守律法，因为我们爱主
- 约 14:15 你们若爱我，就必遵守我的命令。
总结：
-
- 犹太人拒绝主耶稣，他们热心靠自己守律法成为义人
- 对信主耶稣的人，靠律法称义已经终止结束
- Faith in Christ is the end of justification by the law
- 我们遵守神的律法因为我们在恩典中，因为我们爱主！
[1] (腓3:6)
[2] Thus again Paul institutes the antithesis between a God-righteousness and a human righteousness, a righteousness with divine properties in contrast with that derived from human character and works.Murray, J.
[3] In the history of the exegesis of this verse support has generally been distributed between three main possible interpretations of τέλος: (i) fulfilment; (ii) goal; (iii) termination. The Fathers seem generally to have tended toward a combination of (i) and (ii) Cranfield, C. E. B.
[4] Moo and ffBruce accepts a combination of goal and termination.
[5] In the history of the exegesis of this verse support has generally been distributed between three main possible interpretations of τέλος: (i) fulfilment; (ii) goal; (iii) termination. The Fathers seem generally to have tended toward a combination of (i) and (ii) Cranfield, C. E. B.
[6] The word completion, seems not to me unsuitable in this place; and Erasmus has rendered it perfection: but as the other reading is almost universally approved, and is not inappropriate, readers, for my part, may retain it. ….. We have then here a remarkable passage, which proves that the law in all its parts had a reference to Christ; and hence no one can rightly understand it, who does not continually level
at this mark. Calvin on Romans 10:4
[7] Luther, referring to Paul’s use of Deut 30 in this chapter, says: ‘It is as if he wanted to give us an impressive proof of the fact that the whole Scripture, if one contemplates it inwardly, deals everywhere with Christ, even though in so far as it is a sign and a shadow, it may outwardly sound differently. This is why he says: “Christ is the end of the law” (Rom. 10:4); in other words: every word in the Bible points to Christ. Cranfield, C. E. B.
[8] So we conclude that τέλος should be understood in sense (ii): Christ is the goal, the aim, the intention, the real meaning and substance of the law—apart from Him it cannot be properly understood at all. Cranfield, C. E. B..
(cransfield oppose the option that telos refers to termination ) But, in view of such passages as 7:12, 14a; 8:4; 13:8–10, and of the categorical statement in 3:31, and also of the fact that Paul again and again appeals to the Pentateuch in support of his arguments (specially suggestive is the fact that he does so in vv. 6–10 of this chapter), we regard (iii) [termination] and also all attempted combinations of (iii) with (i)[fufillment] and/or (ii)[goal] as altogether improbable. (It is, of course, true that there are a number of passages in the Pauline epistles which are often understood to mean that the law has been abolished by Christ, and if this view of them could be shown to be likely, it would indeed lend support to the choice of interpretation (iii) here; but we are convinced that there is no statement in any of Paul’s epistles which, rightly understood, implies that Christ has abolished the law.Cranfield, C. E. B.
[9] Since verse 4 refers to Christ, as the law’s goal, in the sense explained, it would seem to be logical, in the present case, to refer to Christ also in the next verse. Hendriksen, W., & Kistemaker, S. J.
[10] Lower context (10:6-8)where law of Moses used to point to righteousness by faith
[11] Though the word “end” can express aim or purpose, preponderantly, and particularly in Paul, it means termination, denoting a terminal point (cf. Matt. 10:22; 24:6, 14; Mark 3:26; Luke 1:33; John 13:1; Rom. 6:21; 1 Cor. 1:8; 15:24; 2 Cor. 1:13; 3:13; 11:15; Phil. 3:19; Heb. 6:11; 7:3; 1 Pet. 4:7).Murray, J.
[12] It is true that Christ is the fulfilment of the law. It is true that Christ is the goal of the law. But here Paul is saying that Christ is the end of the law… But here Paul is saying rather that Christ is the end to law as a way of attaining righteousness. This does not mean the abolishing of the law, for Paul claims that he is establishing it (3:31), and he claims value for it (e.g., 7:7).Morris, L.
[13] Christ has abolished the law, ἵνα δικαιωθῇ πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐπʼ αὐτῷ, in in order that every believer may attain righteousness, which is unattainable by the law. The law is abolished by Christ, not as a rule of life, but as a covenant prescribing the condition of life. The way in which this idea is arrived at, however, may be variously explained. 1. The preposition (εἰς) rendered for, may be rendered as to, as it relates to. ‘Christ is the end of the law, as it relates to righteousness.’ 2. It may be understood of the effect or result, and be resolved into the verbal construction with that, or so that; ‘Christ is the end, &c., that righteousness is to every believer; or so that every believer is justified.’ 3. It may point out the end or object. ‘Christ has abolished the law in order that every one that believes, &c.’ The last is the correct explanation. The Jews, then, did not submit to the righteousness of God, that is, to the righteousness which he had provided, for they did not submit to Christ, who is the end of the law. He has abolished the law, in order that every one that believes may be justified.Hodge, C.
[14] Likewise, we suggest, Paul is implying that Christ is the “end” of the law (he brings its era to a close) and its “goal” (he is what the law anticipated and pointed toward). The English word “end” perfectly captures this nuance; but, if it is thought that it implies too temporal a meaning, we might also use the words “culmination,” “consummation,” or “climax.” Moo, D. J.
[15] Cease relying on the law for justification
[16] It needs to be noted immediately, however, that a qualification is added: “to every one that believeth”. This qualification implies that only for the believer is Christ the end of the law for righteousness. Murray, J.
[17] goal can be for all but terminate only for those who believe
[18] （上下文罗9:30-10:4）上帝的义 相对立 自己的义。借着信得到上帝的义 相对立 靠律法建立自己的义。信的人就不再需要依靠律法或行为。