约翰慕理《罗马人书注释》卷一_11a (罗3:3-23)下
主讲：林慈信牧师_校对：刘加立弟兄_英文：Cherry姐妹_文字：兰月姐妹
Romans 3，：5 – 8：我们来到罗马书3:5-8（和合本）：
我且照着人的常话说，我们的不义若显出 神的义来，我们可以怎么说呢？ 神降怒，是他不义吗？断乎不是！若是这样， 神怎能审判世界呢？若 神的真实，因我的虚谎越发显出他的荣耀，为什么我还受审判，好像罪人呢？为什么不说，我们可以作恶以成善呢？这是毁谤我们的人说我们有这话。这等人定罪是该当的。
5-8 In verse 5：在第五节，two questions are asked使徒保罗问了两个问题which may most properly be regarded as contemplating an abuse of the doctrine set forth in the preceding verses，最正确的理解是这两个问题，是针对着上面几节所讲的真理的滥用，an abusive effect that这个滥用或者曲解的意思就是if our unbelief of the promises does not make void God’s faithfulness 假如我们不信神的应许没有废除上帝的信实，but renders it more conspicuous：甚至乎让上帝的信实更加明显or，in terms of verse 5，或者用第5节的说法，if the unrighteousness of man serves to exhibit more clearly the righteousness of God，假如人的不义会更加清楚显出上帝的义，and then God would be unrighteous in executing His wrath upon the ungodly. 那么上帝将祂的愤怒倾倒在不敬虔的人身上就是一个不公义的作为了。
For it is plausible and apparently inevitable logic to say因为有人这样想是很可信的、听起来好像无可攻击的逻辑，而且是必然的逻辑that God cannot justly inflict punishment upon the action which is instrumental in the more illustrious display of the truth and righteousness which are His glory. 上帝不可以很正直地惩罚一些人的作为，假如这些作为是有利于更明显地彰显祂的荣耀，也就是祂的真实和祂的公义。上帝不能够这样来惩罚这些人的作为。
The precise terms which Paul uses in verse 5 accentuate the seeming cogency of the argument. 第五节使徒保罗所用的词汇，就特别彰显出这个论证好像很有道理、很可信。How can God manifest His displeasure and inflict wrath upon that which sets off His glory in more conspicuous relief，上帝怎么可能彰显祂的不悦、倾倒祂的愤怒，在一些特别清楚彰显祂荣耀的事情上呢？especially when we consider that the exhibition of His glory must gratify Himself ?我们特别考虑到彰显神的荣耀是非常令上帝满意的。“Let us do evil that good may come” appears to be the unavoidable moral lesson. 所以，好像不能避免的一个道德教训，就是“让我们行恶好叫义来到”。
There does not appear to be good reason for thinking that there is any substantial difference between the false inference or abuse contemplated in the two questions of verse 5 and the two questions of verses 7 and 8. 我们没有什么理由认为在第5节所做的推论的内容与第7节跟第8节两个问题的内容是有所不同的。
The inference proposed in verse 8 is在第8节所暗示的推论是if the truth of God，that is to say，His faithfulness in fulfilling His promises，has been more abundantly exemplified by men’s unbelief and contradiction，and thereby God is glorified，then the agent of this unbelief cannot any longer be regarded as a sinner. 这个推论就是说，假如上帝的真实性，就是上帝信实地成就祂的应许，而上帝的信实成就祂的应许是由人的不信更加丰富地表现出来，人的不信、人与上帝矛盾，让上帝得到荣耀，那么这个不信的当事人就不应该被看为是罪人咯，因为他的不信促进神的荣耀嘛。
When Paul identifies himself with a lie that is given to the promises of God and says “by my lie”：当使徒保罗说“借助我的谎言”，这样子他自我认同于人把上帝的应许当做谎言的时候，this is but a rhetorical way of expressing the thought；这个只不过是使徒保罗在修辞上所用的表述方法；He is not reflecting on his former unbelief：他不是在想到他以前的不信and on the way in which the grace of God abounded in his own case. 也不是想到上帝的恩典如何很丰富地在他身上彰显出来。This would be extraneous to the subject in hand; 假如他是想到他过去的不信的话，就离题了; he is not now dealing with the truth that “where sin abounded grace did much more abound”（Romans 5:20）. 使徒保罗这里不是在讨论“哪里罪更多，恩典就彰显更多”（罗马书5:20）。不是在讨论这个问题。
The matter dealt with in verse 7 is carried on in verse 8第7节所讨论的问题，是在第8节所继续的and the question of the latter is closely attached to the interrogative part of verse 7，而第8节的问题呢，是与第7节的问题部分很密切相连的“Why am I also still judged as a sinner? 为什么我仍然被审判为一个罪人呢？”The essence of verse 8 could then be paraphrased thus：所以我们可以这样意译第8节：“Instead of being judged as a sinner for the lie that we give to God’s promises，why not rather let us do evil that good may come?”“ 既然我们被审判为一个罪人，因为我们认为上帝的应许是谎言，那么为什么我们不反过来行恶好叫善会来到呢？
The immorality implicit in this latter slogan appears to be a necessary inference to be drawn这个最后这句话、这个口号“行恶好叫良善来到”，这个是这一节下半所说的，这个口号暗指着一种非常不道德的心，但这个又好像是必须要做的推论，drawn from the facts stated especially in the preceding verses就是从前面几节所明讲的做出一个很必须的推论呢，and implied throughout：也就是说，这段经文一直在暗示的，就是that the glory of God is made more conspicuous by man’s unbelief and sin. 人的不信跟人的罪呢，是更清楚地彰显上帝的荣耀的。这个是这段经文的确所显示的，所以不如行恶就让荣耀更多喽。The slogan pointedly sets off the underlying assumption with which Paul is dealing from verse 5 onwards. 这种说法，就很尖锐地指出使徒保罗从第五节开始在讨论的人的这些假设、这些狂妄。
The construction of verse 8 may be somewhat irregular第8节的造句可能有点不很整齐(我读一次新译本：为什么不说我们去作恶以成善呢？有人诽谤我们说我们讲过这话，这种人被定罪是理所当然的。)这个句子的构造好像不是很有规则。But the thought is not obscure但使徒保罗的思想一点都不含糊if we recognize that the two clauses “as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say” are parenthetical to the leading drift of the thought，假如我们看到有两个短句都好像括弧一样，与使徒保罗这里主要的思想是做一个括弧的，这两个短句就是 “有人诽谤我们”，第二个就是 “说我们讲过这话”，as has been indicated by the paraphrase given above. 我们在前面曾经意译过这个思想。
The parenthesis，however，throws much light on the passage. 可是，这个括弧就特别让我们明白这段经文的意思的。The apostle is not dealing with a hypothetical situation in these four verses. 在这四节，就是第5到第8节，使徒保罗不是在讨论一个假设性的情况。The antinomian perversion had been laid to Paul’s account. 有人指责使徒保罗，说他是持有一种反律法主义的错误立场。His teaching had been interpreted as giving scope to licentiousness，有人这样解释使徒保罗的教导，说他的教导就导致放荡犯罪，indeed as placing a premium upon it. 甚至乎他的教导是特别重视放纵犯罪的。
未经同意，请勿擅自在其它网站或平台转载和刊登课程的逐字稿；课程的逐字稿的版权归「中华展望」，禁止复印出版等商业用途。
中华网络圣约学院ccnci.org中华展望圣约学院[email protected]（PayPal）
Those who pleaded that this was Paul’s position，or at least a practical effect of his teaching，那 这些人，他们的论点就是这个就是使徒保罗的立场，或者至少是使徒保罗立场所带来的实际后果，could have been those who espoused his doctrine and added to the espousal this distortion–这些人可能是支持而且是传扬保罗的教导的，不过在使徒保罗的教导上，他画蛇添足、加上自己的一些错误–they might have been his alleged friends. 他们可能自称为使徒保罗的朋友。Paul had occasion to deal with this distortion of the doctrine of grace later in his epistle. 使徒保罗有机会会讨论到关乎恩典这个教义的扭曲，这个在罗马书下文看得到（especially chapter 6：特别是第6章）。
But it is far more likely that但是更加可能的是这样子，those in view were his legalistic opponents这些使徒保罗想出来的人，是敌对他的人，他们是律法主义者，who sought to calumniate his teaching by imputing to him this abuse. 他们试图要诽谤使徒保罗的教导，把这种对真理的扭曲归在他身上。It is of little consequence for the interpretation of this passage whether they alleged that this was the apostle’s express teaching or that it was the practical effect of his teaching; 不过这里假如我们这样来解释说这个是他们认为这个是使徒保罗明说的教导，或者是他所教导的实际上的果效，不论是哪一个解释，the terms，“some affirm that we say”当使徒保罗说“有些人说我们说”的时候，would more probably imply the former：所暗示的可能是前者。（就是说有人认为使徒保罗这样教导“我们行恶以致行善”。）
The concluding statement ，“whose condemnation is just”这里最后的一句话就是“这等人定罪是该当的”should not be restricted to those who “slanderously reported”他们该当被定罪的人，不限于那些“诽谤”使徒保罗的人，but includes all who are conceived of as giving way to the abuse in question乃是包括了所有让这种扭曲传播出去的人or who regarded it as an inference to be from the apostle’s teaching. 或者认为这种扭曲是从使徒保罗的教导合理推论出来的结果。
The clauses “as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say”，这里两个短句“毁谤我们的人说我们有这话”，英文是这样说的：正如有人毁谤我们，又正如有人说我们说这些话，是不是两个思想，we must not forget are parenthetical我们不要忘记，这两个短句都是一个括弧and the concluding clause is not immediately attached to them这里的结论不是马上跟着来到but to the false reasoning dealt with in the whole passage他的结论是连在那个整段经文的错误的推论，and summed up in the slogan “let us do evil that good may come”. 这个结论与这个口号“让我们行恶好叫成善”与这个口号连接在一起的。
The just condemnation is therefore that executed upon those who turn the truth and faithfulness of God into lasciviousness所以谁是理所当然被定罪的呢？就是那些把上帝的真理和信实转为放荡or who consider that the doctrine Paul is propounding leads to that immoral result. 或者认为使徒保罗在教导的教义是导致这种不道德的结果的。The distortion the apostle is exposing is therefore condemned in the most emphatic terms by this concluding statement. 所以这里最后这句话，就用很强的语气指责使徒保罗所揭露出来的这个扭曲或者是错误。
What then is Paul’s answer to the distortion with which he is dealing in verses 5 to 8? 那么使徒保罗在第5节到第8节所讨论那个扭曲，他的回答是什么呢？We might expect a lengthy argument after the pattern of Paul’s rebuttal of the antinomian bias in chapter 6. 我们会预期使徒保罗好像在第6章一样，用很长的一个论证来回答。This we do not find. 但是我们发现他不是这样做的。We must bear in mind that the distortions in view in the respective passages are not identical though they are similar. 不过我们不要忘记这里第三章5-8还有第六章所处理的扭曲是不同的。
In chapter 6在罗马书第6章，Paul is dealing with the abuse applied to the doctrine of grace，使徒保罗在讨论的是人如何扭曲或者滥用恩典的这个教义，whereas in 3:5-8不过在第3章第5-8节，he is dealing with an assault upon the justice or rectitude of God. 这里是使徒保罗所讨论的是人如何攻击上帝的公义和上帝的正直。“The righteousness of God”（第5节）it’s the attribute of righteousness，就是上帝的公义这个属性，not “the righteousness of God” revealed from faith to faith in the grace of justification. 这里讲的“神的义”就不再是这个称义的恩典里显示出来的“神的义”。（Romans 1:17; 3:21-22; 10:3）。
It is the inherent equity of God这个是上帝本质上的正直and is to be coordinated with truth or the truthfulness of God. 所以要与上帝的真理和真实性相连(参考第五节和第七节)。The abuse with which verses 5 to 8 deals is，therefore，of a different cast，所以在第3章第5到第8节所讨论的这个扭曲或者是滥用是另外一种的滥用，and it is significant that Paul has no lengthy refutation. 很重要的是，使徒保罗没有长篇大论的来驳斥他。The consideration he pits against the distortion is simply：他很简单的这样子做出一方面的考虑来驳斥这个扭曲:“God forbid: 愿神禁止: in that event，how will God judge the world?”（verse 6）：若是如此，上帝又如何审判世界呢？”（第六节）
It might seem that this consideration begs the question. 我们可能认为这里是一个循环论证。For of what avail is it to affirm that God will judge the world if the question is how can God be just in executing judgment if His righteousness is commended by unrighteousness? 因为假如我们好像保罗这样子的宣告：上帝必审判世界，这样的回答有什么用呢？一个问题就是：上帝怎么可能很公正地来审判，假如我们的不义是推动祂的义的呢？怎么可以用“上帝就是公义的审判官”来回答呢？Categorical assertion of the thing to be proved is no argument！因为你绝对地在声称一次本来你要证明的事情，这个不是一个论证！This，however，is what we discover in this instance. 但是这里我们发现使徒保罗就是这样做的。
Paul appeals to the fact of universal judgment and he does not proceed to prove it. 使徒保罗就诉诸于世界必受审判这个事实，他没有进一步证明它。He accepted it as an ultimate datum of revelation，使徒保罗接受、接纳这个是上帝启示的一件事，and he confronts the objections of verse 5 with this fact. 他就让那个在第五节反对他在教导着人类要正视这个事实：上帝必然要审判世界。About the certainty of God’s judgment there can be no dispute. 人不可能怀疑上帝必然实行审判的。Once the judgment is accepted as a certainty，而一旦我们接受神的审判是一个现实，then all such objections as implied in verses 5，7，8 fall to the ground. 我们真的接纳神的审判的话，那么第5，7，8节这些反对的理由都泡汤了。
The apostle’s answer in this case illustrates what must always be true when we’re dealing with the ultimate facts of revelation. 使徒保罗这样回答就指出当我们处理着上帝启示的至终的事实的时候，什么是必然是真实的呢？These facts are ultimate这些事实是至终的and argument must be content with categorical affirmation. 而论证的时候只能够做绝对的宣称，或者肯定就够了。The answer to objections is proclamation. 对人的问题的回答就是宣告真理。
There is one further expression in this passage that needs explanation–还有另外这一段里面的一个表述需要解释的——“I speak as a man”（verse 5）：第五节“我且照着人的常话说”，新译本“我且照着人的见解来说”。Paul is not to be interpreted as contrasting what he says now as a mere man with what on other occasions he says as an apostle or Christian. 我们不可以这样来理解使徒保罗，使徒保罗不是在说现在我是以凡人的身份讲话，有别于等下在另外一个场合我以使徒的身份讲话，或者我以基督徒的身份讲话，不是的，不是这个意思。(He is writing as an apostle他是以使徒的身份在写作 .漏讲）
The thought is that使徒保罗的思想是in asking the foregoing questions当他在问上面的问题的时候，he is accommodating himself to the human mode of interrogation and reasoning. 他是迁就人、用人所用的提问或者推理的方法。In reality the questions are impertinent and out of place. 事实上这些问题是离题的、是不应该在使徒保罗的论证上占一席地地位的。
For God’s justice is not something that may be called into question.因为人是不可以怀疑上帝的公义的。And we may only utter these questions as voicing those that arise in the human mind and then only for the purpose of intimating the recoil of abhorrence from the very suggestion that God might be unjust. 我们提出这些问题，只不过是提出有些人在思想上会问这个问题，然后，为了我们要表达我们多么憎恨这个含义，所以我们会问一些问题，这个含义就是上帝可能是不公义的。
This is exactly what Paul does; 使徒保罗恰恰就是做这件事; he adds immediately the formula：他马上就加上他这个方程式(参考第四节) of emphatic negation，是很强的否认了“God forbid!” “愿神禁止”。The holiness and righteousness of God do not allow for calling His rectitude into question上帝是圣洁的、是公义的，不容许人怀疑祂的正直or for any suggestion of His iniquity. 也不可以怀疑或者质问祂是否不正直。It is that fundamental datum that Paul’s apologetic expression，“I speak as a man”underlines. 使徒保罗说 “我以常人的话来说”的意思就是为了这个基本的真理。It is for the purpose of repudiating the suggestion that he voices the question. 就是因为他要驳斥这些问题，所以他提出这些问题来。
提示：逐字稿文字只限于个人和教会私下学习交流，目的是造就教会和教会负责带领、讲道的同工们；未经同意，请勿擅自在其它网站或平台转载和刊登课程的逐字稿；课程的逐字稿和图片的版权归「中华展望」，禁止复印出版等商业用途。当文字和录音不符时，以录音为准。愿上帝赐福文字编辑和校对的肢体来雅正！若是有修改的地方、奉献支持或是其他任何问题请使用以下邮件方式联系我们。中华网络圣约学院ccnci.org中华展望圣约学院 [email protected]（PayPal）