罗马书第三章

1-8 神对犹太人的特殊恩典

造成这种模糊的主要原因是一连串的对话式问题。保罗是在遵循自己论点的“内在逻辑”时引用并拒绝错误的后果吗？还是他在重复与明确对手的辩论？无论是哪种情况，保罗拒绝的虚假陈述是什么，他捍卫的正确教义又是什么？

保罗拒绝的论点是什么？他捍卫的正确教义又是什么？

传统观点：

1-4主要对象是犹太人，强调上帝在犹太人的悖逆下仍然信实

5-8节转而驳斥假想的反对者（世人）根据第4节论证提出的一个质疑，如果人的罪能够彰显神的公义那神凭什么审判人呢？

现代观点：

1-8节的主要对象都是犹太人

5-8节不是对上帝的普世性公义提出挑战而是肯定上帝对他的子民拥有审判的权力

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (c. God’s Faithfulness and the Judgment of Jews (3:1–8))

The chief cause of the obscurity is the rapid-fire sequence of questions, cast in a dialogical style. Is Paul citing and rejecting false consequences as he follows the “inner logic” of his own argument?464 or is he reproducing a debate with a definite opponent?465 In either case, which points are the false statements Paul rejects and which the correct teaching that he is defending?

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (c. God’s Faithfulness and the Judgment of Jews (3:1–8))

The first, the more traditional model, posits a shift in subjects at v. 5 (or v. 4). In vv. 1–4 (or 1–3), Paul focuses on the Jewish people, affirming the continuing faithfulness of God to them despite their widespread unfaithfulness. The strength of this affirmation, however, leads to another, far broader, question about the ways of God with humankind generally: How is it “right” for God to judge people when their sin magnifies his goodness and glory? On this view, the antecedent of the pronouns p 189 in vv. 5–8 (“our,” “us,” “my”) is “people” or “man”/“woman.”

The other approach, which, while not unknown in the history of exegesis, has become more popular recently, insists that Paul’s focus remains on the Jews throughout the paragraph. Verses 5–8, on this view, do not take up a general objection to the fairness and consistency of God, but affirm the faithfulness of God to Israel or the “right” of God to judge even his own covenant people.

In my view, this second approach is nearer to the truth. Verses 1–4a reject the inference that the judgment under which disobedient Jews stand (2:17–29) means that the Jews have no advantage at all. Rather, Paul insists, they have a great advantage, in possessing the words of God (vv. 1–2). The widespread unfaithfulness of the Jews in no way annuls God’s faithfulness to those words (vv. 3–4a). Then, with the quotation of Ps. 51:4b in v. 4b, Paul’s argument takes a decisive turn.469 Here he shows that God’s faithfulness, or “righteousness,” is manifested even through the sin of his people, for God’s words promise judgment for disobedience as well as blessing for obedience. Verse 5, then, is Paul’s formulation of a Jewish objection to the effect that Jewish sin, since it manifests God’s righteousness, should not be subject to the wrath of God. This inference Paul rejects, simply noting that it is incompatible with the biblical doctrine that God is a just judge (v. 6). The objector repeats his or her objection again, however (v. 7), and adds to it the claim that Paul’s doctrine actually encourages sinning (v. 8a). Paul again curtly rejects this line of reasoning, announcing the justice of God’s condemnation (v. 8b). Taken as a whole, then, the passage both affirms the continuing faithfulness of God to his covenant people and argues that this faithfulness in no way precludes God from judging the Jews. Provoking this discussion is the Jewish tendency to interpret God’s covenant faithfulness solely in terms of his salvific promises. Paul meets that conception with a broader and deeper view of God’s faithfulness—his faithfulness to remain true to his character and to all his words: the promises of cursing for disobedience as well as blessing for obedience.470

The paragraph as a whole, then, while something of an excursus in Paul’s exposition, contributes in important ways to our understanding of Paul’s view of God’s righteousness in its relationship to Israel’s unbelief. In thus allowing the Roman Christians to listen in on this dialogue, Paul warns his mainly Gentile audience that they should not interpret the leveling of distinctions between Jew and Gentile in terms of God’s judgment and salvation as the canceling of all the privileges of Israel. As Rom. 11:11–24 makes clear, Paul knows that the Gentile Christians, in Rome and elsewhere, need to hear this caution.

第 1-4a 节拒绝了这样的推论：不顺服的犹太人所受的审判（2:17-29）意味着犹太人根本没有优势。相反，保罗坚持认为，他们拥有巨大的优势，因为他们拥有上帝的话语（第 1-2 节）。犹太人普遍的不忠绝不会取消上帝对这些话语的忠诚（第 3-4a 节）。然后，在第 4b 节中引用诗篇 51:4b，保罗的论点发生了决定性的转变。469 在这里，他表明上帝的忠诚或“正义”甚至通过他的子民的罪孽表现出来，因为上帝的话语承诺对不顺服的审判以及对顺服的祝福。

1-4节：

v1 反对者：根据2：17-29所论述的犹太人如不顺服也会受审判那身为犹太人就毫无优势

v2-3 保罗：犹太人最大的优势就是神的话语，犹太人会背弃神但神不会背弃他的话

v4 保罗：另外神的公义正是通过他子民的悖逆得到体现，因为神应许对顺服他话语的祝福也应许对不顺服他话语的审判（诗篇51：4）

v4

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (c. God’s Faithfulness and the Judgment of Jews (3:1–8))

The contrast in v. 4a between God’s being “true” and the human being a “liar” restates the contrast between Israel’s unfaithfulness and God’s faithfulness in v. 3. When the OT speaks of God being “true,” it usually means not that he is honest but that he is reliable, or trustworthy; true to his word.506 And, while the promise to which God is true is usually his promise of blessing p 195 for his people, God’s truth is also displayed when he carries out his threat of judgment for disobedience.

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (c. God’s Faithfulness and the Judgment of Jews (3:1–8))

Paul uses his customary introductory formula—“just as it is written”—to introduce a quotation from Ps. 51:4511 that substantiates his point about the reliability and consistency of God: “so that you may be justified in your words, and that you might triumph when you judge.”512

第 4a 节中，上帝是“真实的”，而人类是“骗子”，这对比重申了第 3 节中以色列的不忠和上帝的忠诚之间的对比。当旧约说上帝是“真实的”时，通常不是说他是诚实的，而是说他是可靠的，值得信赖的；信守诺言。506 虽然上帝信守的承诺通常是他对他的子民的祝福，但上帝的真理也体现在他执行对不服从的审判威胁时。

保罗用他惯用的开场白——“正如经上所写的”——来引述诗篇的一段引文。 51:4511 证实了他关于上帝可靠性和一致性的观点：“这样，你们的言语才有理，审判的时候才有胜算。”512

神是真实的：当旧约论及上帝是真实的通常不是说他不说谎而是强调他的信实可靠，守约的特质

5-8节：

v5 反对者：既然犹太人的罪体现了上帝的公义那神就不应该降怒

v6 保罗：神是公义的审判者

v7-8a 反对者：重复反对意见，既然人的虚谎显出神的荣耀为何还审判人呢？

v8b 保罗：上帝的定罪是公正的 （归谬法 Reductio ad absurdum）

因此，第 5 节是保罗对犹太人反对意见的表述，即犹太人的罪孽既然体现了上帝的正义，就不应该受到上帝的愤怒。保罗拒绝了这一推论，只是指出这与上帝是公正审判者的圣经教义不相容（第 6 节）。然而，反对者再次重复了他或她的反对意见（第 7 节），并声称保罗的教义实际上鼓励犯罪（第 8a 节）。保罗再次简明扼要地拒绝了这种推理，宣布上帝的谴责是公正的（第 8b 节）。因此，从整体上看，这段经文既肯定了上帝对他的盟约人民的持续忠诚，也论证了这种忠诚绝不会阻止上帝审判犹太人。引发这场讨论的是犹太人倾向于仅根据上帝的救赎承诺来解释上帝的盟约忠诚。保罗以更广泛、更深刻的视角来看待这一概念，即上帝的信实——他忠实于自己的性格和所有话语：不服从的诅咒和服从的祝福的承诺。470

因此，整个段落虽然是保罗阐述的题外话，但对我们理解保罗对上帝的公义与以色列的不信的关系的看法做出了重要贡献。保罗允许罗马基督徒倾听这场对话，警告他的主要外邦听众，他们不应该将上帝的审判和救赎中犹太人和外邦人之间的区别解释为取消以色列的所有特权。正如罗马书11:11-24所表明的那样，保罗知道罗马和其他地方的外邦基督徒需要听到这种警告。

既肯定了上帝对他的立约人民的信实，也论证了这种信实绝不会阻止上帝的审判

以色列人强调上帝应许中救赎的部分，而保罗强调上帝的信实是忠于他的本性和话语

无论是犹太人还是外邦人都需要明白上帝的审判和救赎是基于他的属性不是人的特权

v7-8

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (c. God’s Faithfulness and the Judgment of Jews (3:1–8))

Paul preaches what he calls “incongruous grace”—grace given without regard to worthiness—and this doctrine inevitably raises questions about justice.561 Why, then, does Paul not answer the objection? A very common suggestion is that Paul does so, but not until Rom. 6—note the similarity between what is said here and 6:1: “should we continue in sin in order that grace might increase?” However, 6:1 is the question of a Christian in light of the abundance of God’s grace; the objection here is posed by a Jew, questioning whether his or her actions really have any meaning in light of Paul’s assertion that even sin leads to God’s glory.562 And Paul’s response in Rom. 6 is not really appropriate to the issue raised here. We must suppose, then, that Paul intends the very absurdity of the objection to imply its dismissal. The viewpoint taken by the Jewish objector, that it would not be right for God to punish his people for their sins, is implied to be fallacious, and, indeed, blasphemous, by the absurd conclusion to which his objection leads.563

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (c. God’s Faithfulness and the Judgment of Jews (3:1–8))

In sum: Paul begins by warning his readers not to draw the wrong conclusion from his invective against Jewish presumption of salvation through circumcision and the law (chap. 2). God is faithful to his promises to Israel; his “righteousness” is steady and dependable. But Paul quickly turns from defense of Israel to further attack, reminding the Roman Christians that God’s faithfulness is ultimately not to Israel but to his own person and promises. God is therefore “righteous” when he punishes his people for their sin as well as when he rewards them for obedience. But this does not mean, Paul concludes, that we should excuse sin simply because it always magnifies God’s righteousness. Such an attitude brings God’s own name into disrepute.

The problem Paul attacks in these verses is not confined to the people of God of his day. All too often we Christians have presumed that God’s grace to us exempts us from any concern about our sin. Particularly is this a danger among Christians who share with me the belief that God sovereignly maintains the regenerate in their salvation till the end. Too easily do we forget that God’s ultimate concern is for his own glory and not for our blessing; that his righteousness is beautifully displayed when he judges as well as when he saves. We want to “stand on the promises”—and this is entirely appropriate. But we must not forget that God promises (in the NT as well as in the OT) to rebuke and chastise his people for sin as well as to bless them out of the abundance of his grace.

《罗马书》（第二版）（c. 上帝的信实和对犹太人的审判（3:1-8））

保罗宣扬他所谓的“不协调的恩典”——不考虑价值而给予的恩典——这一教义不可避免地引发了对正义的质疑。561 那么，为什么保罗不回答这个反对意见呢？一个非常普遍的建议是保罗这样做了，但直到罗马书第 6 章才回答——请注意这里所说的与 6:1 之间的相似之处：“我们应该继续犯罪，以便恩典可能会增加吗？”然而，6:1 是一个基督徒在上帝恩典丰盛的情况下提出的问题；这里的反对意见是由一个犹太人提出的，质疑他或她的行为是否真的有意义，因为保罗断言即使是罪也会带来上帝的荣耀。562 保罗在罗马书第 6 章中的回答并不真正适合这里提出的问题。那么，我们必须假设，保罗是想通过反对意见的荒谬性来暗示驳回反对意见。犹太反对者认为，上帝不应该因他的子民的罪孽而惩罚他们，这种观点是错误的，事实上，他的反对意见得出的荒谬结论是亵渎神明的。563

《罗马书》（第二版）（c. 上帝的忠诚和对犹太人的审判（3:1-8））

总之：保罗首先警告读者不要从他对犹太人通过割礼和律法获得救赎的假设的谩骂中得出错误的结论（第 2 章）。上帝信守他对以色列的承诺；他的“正义”是坚定而可靠的。但保罗很快就从为以色列辩护转向进一步攻击，提醒罗马基督徒，上帝的忠诚最终不是对以色列，而是对他自己和承诺。因此，当上帝惩罚他的子民的罪孽时，以及当他奖励他们的服从时，他都是“公义的”。但保罗总结说，这并不意味着我们应该原谅罪恶，仅仅因为它总是彰显上帝的公义。这种态度会玷污上帝自己的名声。

保罗在这些经文中攻击的问题并不局限于他那个时代的上帝子民。我们基督徒常常认为，上帝对我们的恩典使我们免于对自己罪孽的任何担忧。这在那些和我一样相信上帝主权地维护再生者直到最后得救的基督徒中尤其危险。我们太容易忘记，上帝最终关心的是他自己的荣耀，而不是我们的祝福；当他审判和拯救时，他的公义得到了完美的展现。我们想要“信守诺言”——这是完全合适的。但是我们不能忘记，上帝承诺（在新约和旧约中）会斥责和惩罚他的子民的罪孽，并以他丰富的恩典祝福他们。

保罗所宣扬的上帝救赎的恩典难免引发人对上帝公义的质疑

而通过之前的论述，上帝的信实是忠于自己的属性

所以他的公义同时体现在他的赐福和惩罚

丁道爾新約聖經註釋--羅馬書 (2.答辯反對意見（三1〜8）)

保羅在此假想，有一個人打斷他的論證，說：「這樣說來，如果只有裏面作猶太人才算數，如果內心的『割禮』才有用，那麼，作猶太人或肉身受到割禮，又有什麼益處？」對這個假設的問題，我們可能以爲保羅會斬釘截鐵地回答：「當然沒有！」但是，他的回答大大出乎我們意料，他說：「凡事大有好處。」作受割禮之國的國民當然有好處。試想，神曾經給我們多少恩典116——別的國家完全無份。若要保羅否定他列祖所傳流的遺產，就太過份了。何況他已經發現，他所獻身的福音，正是他的同胞歷世歷代的盼望。

在以色列先祖所領受的各樣恩典中，保羅認爲最重要的一項，是他們託管「神的聖言」。神將祂旨意與計劃的啓示託付給 p 85 他們，這是何等大的榮幸。但這份至高的榮幸，也帶來極大的責任。若他們不能盡忠所託，就比神沒有啓示的列國更糟糕。

而事實上，以色列人沒有忠於這個託付。這一點也許可以成爲反對保羅的理由，因爲保羅說，作接受聖言之國的國民大有好處。但他回答道，人的不信無法改變神的信實，或破壞祂的計劃。他們的不信只有更鮮明地襯託出祂的眞實：祂的義永遠勝過他們的不義。

接著保羅又對付另一個反對意見。有人可能會說：「若我的不信使神的信實加倍鮮明，若我的不義反倒顯明了祂的義，祂爲什麼還要責怪我呢？我的罪旣然使祂得到益處，爲什麼祂還要施行報應？」保羅認爲這個反對意見太過愚蠢，提起來都慚愧。答案太明顯了：神掌管全宇宙的道德，是世界的審判之主，這是祂不可或缺的屬性；如果祂不報應罪惡，怎麼能執行這個職份呢？

然而，這個假想的反對者仍然堅持己見，又用不同的話來重覆他的辯論：「若和我的愚昧對照，神的眞理可以顯得更光明，我就有助於祂的榮耀；那麼，祂爲什麼還堅持要定我的罪？旣然終極目標——神的榮耀——是對的，爲什麼其手段——我的罪——却是錯的？從目標豈不是可以評定手段的性質嗎？」

保羅說：「其實，這正是有些人說我的福音會造成的結果；可是他們的控吿不僅是揑造的，而且站不住脚，因爲這句話本身自相矛盾。」因信稱義的福音，旣不倚賴「義行」，便很容易招徕這種批評；但是這個批評不難駁斥，因爲這福音同樣强調，稱義之後必須結「義果」117。

丁道爾新約聖經註釋--羅馬書 (2.答辯反對意見（三1〜8）)

8.爲什麼不説，我們可以作惡以成善呢？我們很容易明白，保羅的福音怎麼會被誤解成這個意思。無論是猶太人或是基督徒，只要認爲宗敎的內容主要是律法（不論對「律法」的解釋多寬），必定會下結論說，不靠「律法行爲」稱義的敎訓，低估了律法在人尋求神之事上的地位，因此也貶謫了宗敎與道德。

9-20 人类的罪疚和不义

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (3. The Guilt of All Humanity (3:9–20))

Paul is referring to the comprehensive indictment of humanity in 1:18–2:29, as first the Greek or the Gentile (1:19b–32) and then the Jew (2:1–29) were brought before the divine bar and found wanting. We have, then, in this statement, Paul’s own comment on his purpose in this section of his letter. All people who have not experienced the righteousness of God by faith are “under sin”: that is, they are helpless captives to its power.589 However arrived at, Paul’s understanding that all people, Jews as well as Gentiles, were not just sinners but helpless pawns under sin’s power, distinguished him sharply from his Jewish contemporaries.590 Nothing that Paul has said suggests that there are exceptions to this rule, and nothing shows more clearly the desperate need for the message of the gospel. For the problem with people is not just that they commit sins; their problem is that they are enslaved to sin. What is needed, therefore, is a new power to break in and set people free from sin—a power found in, and only in, the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (3. The Guilt of All Humanity (3:9–20))

Probably Paul is using an implicit “from the greater to the lesser” argument: if Jews, God’s chosen people, cannot be excluded from the scope of sin’s tyranny, then it surely follows that Gentiles, who have no claim on God’s favor, are also guilty.621 We must remember that Paul’s chief purpose throughout Rom. 1:18–3:20 is not to demonstrate that Gentiles are guilty and in need of God’s righteousness—for this could be assumed—but that Jews bear the same burden and have the same need. It is for this reason that, while all people are included in the scope of vv. 19–20, there is particular reference to the Jews and their law.

保罗在 1:18-2:29 中指的是对人类的全面控诉，因为首先是希腊人或外邦人（1:19b-32），然后是犹太​​人（2:1-29）被带到神圣的审判台前，被发现有罪。因此，在这句话中，我们看到了保罗自己对他写这封信的目的的评论。所有没有因信而体验到上帝公义的人都“处于罪恶之下”：也就是说，他们是罪恶力量的无助俘虏。589 无论如何，保罗的理解是，所有人，无论是犹太人还是外邦人，不仅是罪人，而且是罪恶力量下无助的棋子，这使他与他的犹太人同代人截然不同。590 保罗所说的一切都没有表明这条规则有例外，也没有什么比这更清楚地表明对福音信息的迫切需要。因为人的问题不只是他们犯了罪；他们的问题是他们被罪所奴役。因此，我们需要一种新的力量来打破罪恶，将人们从罪恶中解放出来——这种力量存在于耶稣基督的福音中，也只能存在于福音中。

《罗马书》（第二版）（3. 全人类的罪孽（3:9-20））

保罗可能使用了一种隐含的“从大到小”的论点：如果犹太人，上帝的选民，不能被排除在罪恶暴政的范围之外，那么毫无疑问，外邦人，他们没有权利得到上帝的恩宠，也有罪。621 我们必须记住，保罗在罗马书 1:18-3:20 中的主要目的不是证明外邦人有罪并需要上帝的公义——因为这是可以假设的——而是犹太人承担着同样的负担，有同样的需要。正是出于这个原因，虽然 19-20 节的范围包括了所有人，但其中特别提到了犹太人和他们的律法。

人的问题不只是他们犯了罪；他们的问题是他们被罪所奴役

不是因为犯罪人才成为了罪人，而是因为人是罪人所以才会犯罪

没有义人的论述是基于1：19-2：29的前提

如果犹太人拥有律法都无法避免犯罪更何况没有律法的外邦人

丁道爾新約聖經註釋--羅馬書 (D.全人類都犯了罪（三9〜20）)

對方繼續說：「你說作猶太人有好處，那豈不是說，我們猶太人强過那些外邦人嗎？因爲他們不像我們蒙了神特別的恩典。」保羅卻說：「並非如此。我們領受的好處或許比他們多，但是情況卻不比他們好。不錯，他們犯了罪，但是，我們也犯了罪。猶太人和外邦人一樣，在神的審判台前都會被定罪。聖經早已明言了這種狀況。」

保羅在此引了一連串舊約經文爲例，都是綜合論到世人犯罪情況的經文；這段引文將一個已經從各種角度證實的論題，作了最後總結。如詳細查考這些引文，就必須考證其歷史背景；至少有幾處是專指某些罪，而不是泛指全世界的罪。可是他們在此構成的畫面，適足以用來描繪保羅一路增强的論點。如果他假想有人會反對他這樣用這些引文，其理由不是他沒有顧及歷史背景，而是這些經文原來都是指外邦人的，並非指以色列人。他回答道：「不然。這些經文旣來自猶太人的聖經，主要論及的對象就是猶太人。」記在律法上的話（此處指全本希伯來聖經），自然是針對屬律法之人說的。律法顯明了人的過犯，卻沒有給予治療。因此，猶太人與外邦人都當承認，他們的道德已經破產。這兩種人若還有希望，惟一的來源乃是神的憐憫，因爲任何個人或國家都沒有資格向神提出要求。由於罪惡普及天下，靠行爲蒙神悅納之途已經封鎖——吿示牌上大書：「此路不通！」

经文引用：

v10-12 - 诗篇14：1-3, 诗篇53：1-3

v13 - 诗篇5：9

v14 - 诗篇10：7

v15-17 - 以赛亚书59：7-8

v18 - 诗篇36：1

丁道爾新約聖經註釋--羅馬書 (D.全人類都犯了罪（三9〜20）)

10.〜12.「沒有一個義人⋯⋯沒有行善的」，連一個也沒有。」引自詩篇十四1下，2下〜3（詩五十三1下，2下〜3重覆出現）。

13.「他們的喉嚨是敞開的墳墓，他們用舌頭弄詭詐。」引自詩篇五9。

14.「滿口是咒罵苦毒。」引自詩篇十7。

15.〜17.「殺人流血他們的脚飛跑⋯⋯平安的路，他們未曾知道。」引自以賽亞書五十九7〜8。

18.「他們眼中不怕神。」引自詩篇卅六1。

19.律法上的話。此處是指以上所引的經文。但旣然這些經文並不是出自狹義的律法（摩西五經），而是出自詩篇，以及以賽亞書（僅只一處），因此這裏的「律法」必定是泛指整本希伯來聖經。參41等頁。

p 89 20.凡有血氣的，沒有一個因行律法，能在神面前稱義。這段話引自詩篇一四三2，並未逐字引用，而稍予發揮；原文爲：「（求祢不要審問僕人，〔參詩五十一4，本章第4節曾引用〕，因爲）在你面前凡活著的人，沒有一個是義的。」又參加拉太書二16（「人稱義，不是因行律法」），三11（「沒有一個人靠著律法在神面前稱義」）。保羅進一步說明，沒有人能「行律法」在神面前稱義的原因，是因爲律法本是叫人知罪。這個斷語在五20，七7〜11再度重複，並且延伸。

行律法或律法的行为

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (3. The Guilt of All Humanity (3:9–20))

Many interpreters across church history have thought that the phrase might have a restricted sense, referring to the ceremonial aspects of the law of Moses.630 Some early defenders of the “new perspective on Paul” suggested something similar, arguing that the phrase highlighted certain forms of conformity to the law that separated Jews from Gentiles.631 However, most interpreters now agree that the phrase “simply denotes doing what the law requires,” p 217 the law being the Mosaic law, the Torah.632 The debate, then, is not so much about the meaning of the phrase as about its significance.633 Interpreters of Paul, at least since the Reformation, have traditionally put the weight of meaning on “works,” concluding that, while the phrase obviously referred in Paul’s context to deeds done in obedience to the Mosaic law, it ultimately signified works of any kind.634 On this basis this verse, and others like it, were seen to refute the idea that a person could gain a right standing with God by anything that that person did.635

The main alternative to this understanding is associated generally with the new perspective. Advocates of this general approach to Paul tend to give particular attention to what they claim was the apostle’s driving concern: to provide for the inclusion of Gentiles as full members of the new covenant people of God, in the face of Jewish insistence on the special and inviolable status of Israel. p 218 Jewish people in Paul’s day sought to preserve their special status by stressing the need to “do the law,” or observe torah. Particular attention was given to matters in the law that practically distinguished Jews from Gentiles—circumcision, ceremonial observances, keeping food laws, and observing Sabbath. New perspective interpreters argue that this “ethnocentrism” is the matrix within which Paul’s phrase “works of the law” must be understood. The Jewish people insisted on “works of the law” not primarily as a means of establishing a relationship with God (which, in any case, they already enjoyed as members of Israel) but as a means of enforcing their own special status and thereby, in effect, keeping Gentiles out.636 And since the phrase functions in this very specific historical context and since Paul criticizes “works of the law” for this particular reason, it is illegitimate to move from “works of the law” to “good works” in general. It is torah works that Paul criticizes—not works of any other kind.637

Adequate discussion of the issues raised in this last paragraph would burst the bounds of any commentary—although I do try to suggest some basic responses in the excursus after this verse. Suffice to say that, while new perspective advocates are certainly right to argue that traditional interpreters have often neglected the specific historical factors affecting Paul’s teaching about the law, their own proposal represents a reaction too far in the other direction. With respect to the phrase “works of the law,” I make four basic points.

p 219 First, while obedience to the law was indeed stressed as a means of erecting a boundary between Judaism and the Gentiles, it also had great “intrinsic” significance, as the means by which covenant membership, or “righteousness,” was to be maintained and secured on the day of judgment. “Works of the law,” then, could function in this latter context as well as the former. (For discussion of the Jewish context, see the excursus after this verse.)

Second, I am not persuaded that the possible equivalents of the phrase in Paul’s Jewish world suggest the kind of specific sociological function for the phrase that new perspective advocates suggest.

Third, the interchange between “works of the law” and “works” in Romans suggests that we cannot keep these in separate categories. Paul’s claim that “works of the law” cannot justify (3:20, 28) seems to be parallel with his claim that Abraham was not justified by “works” (4:1–8). This general meaning of “works” is clear also in 9:11–12, where Paul specifically unpacks the word in terms of doing “anything good or bad” (see also 11:6).638 We should therefore view “works of the law” as a subset of (rather than separate from) the general category “works.”

Fourth, we would expect “works of the law” here to be something of a summary of the extended discussion of Jewish “doing” in chap. 2. But the context of chap. 2 makes it clear that this “doing” is not restricted to any particular kind of works. In fact, Paul makes clear that the problem with Jewish works is essentially the same as the problem with Gentile works (see vv. 2–3, 22–23, 25, 27).639 Again, this makes it unlikely that the problem with “works of the law” is narrowly Jewish. Rather, the inability of “works of the law” to justify appears to be bound up with a fundamental human problem: universal, enslaving sinfulness (a broad application that, as we have seen, is probably connoted by Paul’s language of “all flesh”). In other words, the “problem” with “works of the law” is not fundamentally that they are “torah works” that maintained p 220 Israel’s privileged position. The problem is that they are “works” that humans under sin’s power (3:9) are unable to produce in adequate measure to secure righteous standing with God. To put it another way, the problem is not with the Jews’ possession of the law but with their failure to perform it.640

I therefore align myself with those many interpreters and theologians who find in Rom. 3:20 a vital anthropological basis for Paul’s gospel: nothing a person does, whatever the object of obedience or the motivation of that obedience, can bring him or her into favor with God.641 It is just at this point that the significance of the meaning we have given “works of the law” emerges so clearly. Any restricted definition of “works of the law” can have the effect of opening the door to the possibility of justification by works—“good” deeds that are done in the right spirit, with God’s enabling grace, or something of the sort. This, we are convinced, would be to misunderstand Paul at a vital point.

The last part of v. 20 supports Paul’s contention in the first part of the verse by setting forth what it is that the law does accomplish (as opposed to that which it cannot accomplish). The law does not justify; rather, “through” it comes “knowledge of sin.” Since “knowledge” in the Bible can sometimes designate personal experience of something (e.g., 2 Cor. 5:21, where Christ is said not to have “known” sin), “knowledge of sin” might mean the actual experience of sinning. However, while Paul will show that the law exists in a fatal nexus with sin and death (7:7–12), he never suggests that the law is itself responsible for sinning.642 “Knowledge of sin,” on the other hand, does not simply mean that the law defines sin; rather, what is meant is that the law gives to people an understanding of “sin” (singular) as a power that holds everyone in bondage and brings guilt and condemnation.643 The law presents people with the demand p 221 of God. In our constant failure to attain the goal of that demand, we recognize ourselves to be sinners and justly condemned for our failures.

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (3. The Guilt of All Humanity (3:9–20))

Paul has shown why in 2:1–3:19: the p 222 law cannot be “done” to the extent necessary to secure justification through that “law” covenant. It is far more likely, then, that this is the ultimate logic undergirding his denial that works of the law can justify here—a logic rooted not (or at least not only) in salvation history, or in concern about social barriers, but, more deeply, in the human condition itself.

This conclusion is sometimes contested on the grounds that the Judaism of Paul’s day believed that the law could, in fact, be “done,” and that if Paul had wanted to contest this widespread view, he would have had to make this point explicitly.645 However, the Jewish assumption that one could “do the law” meant that a person could be regarded as having “kept the law” by following its provisions for sacrifice (and it is possible that this is what Paul means when he claims that, as a Jew, he was “faultless” with respect to the “righteousness based on the law” [Phil. 3:6]). Jews did not believe in what we might call “sinless perfection.”646 What Paul writes in Rom. 1–3 clearly looks at the law in terms of what has sometimes been called its “moral” element. As the comparison with Gentiles makes clear, Paul focuses on the degree to which Jews have obeyed the law’s commands. And, especially in light of the drastic “solution” of a crucified Messiah, Paul radicalizes the “plight” of the Jews, taking a more pessimistic view of Jewish (and human) capacity to follow God than was typical among his fellow Jews.647 In doing so, of course, Paul was following an important strand of teaching in the OT itself, as the persistence and seriousness of Israel’s idolatry and disobedience led to the conclusion that only God’s own gift of a new heart, animated by a fresh gift of his Spirit, could cure the stubborn problem of sin (e.g., Ezek. 36:26–27). Paul says nothing here about the ceremonial law; indeed, he says almost nothing explicitly about it anywhere in his letters. But we can assume that, like the author of the Letter to the Hebrews, Paul considers Christ’s death the “once-for-all” atoning sacrifice—a sacrifice that “cancels” any power in the OT sacrificial system to atone.648

罗马书 3：20 CUV

20 所以凡有血气的，没有一个因行律法能在　神面前称义，因为律法本是叫人知罪。

罗马书 3：20 RCUV (Shangdi)

20 所以，凡血肉之躯没有一个能因律法的行为而在上帝面前称义，因为律法本是要人认识罪。

罗马书（第二版）（3. 全人类的罪孽（3:9-20））

教会历史上的许多解经家都认为这个短语可能具有狭义，指的是摩西律法的礼仪方面。630 一些早期“保罗新观点”的捍卫者提出了类似的观点，认为这个短语强调了某些形式的遵守法律，这些法律将犹太人与外邦人区分开来。631 然而，大多数解经家现在都同意这个短语“只是表示做法律要求的事情”，第 217 页法律是摩西律法，即《托拉》。632 因此，争论的重点不是短语的含义，而是其重要性。633 至少自宗教改革以来，保罗的解经家传统上都把意义的重点放在“工作”上，结论是，虽然这个短语在保罗的语境中显然是指遵守摩西律法的行为，但它最终表示任何种类的工作。634 关于这一点这节经文和其他类似的经文被视为反驳了这样一种观点，即一个人可以通过他所做的任何事情获得与上帝同在的权利。635

狭义（保罗新观）：重点在“律法”，即摩西律法的要求，作为身份特征区分外邦人和犹太人

广义（传统改革）：重点在“工作”，任何试图用工作来得到救恩的努力

这种理解的主要替代方案通常与新观点有关。支持这种对保罗的普遍看法的人往往特别关注他们声称的使徒的首要关注点：在犹太人坚持以色列的特殊和不可侵犯地位的情况下，为将外邦人纳入上帝新约人民的正式成员提供便利。p 218 保罗时代的犹太人试图通过强调“遵守律法”或遵守律法的必要性来维护他们的特殊地位。特别关注律法中实际上将犹太人与外邦人区分开来的问题——割礼、礼仪仪式、遵守饮食法和遵守安息日。新观点解释者认为，这种“民族中心主义”是理解保罗的短语“律法的工作”的母体。犹太人坚持“行律法”主要不是为了与上帝建立关系（无论如何，他们作为以色列人已经享有这种关系），而是为了加强自己的特殊地位，从而实际上将外邦人拒之门外。636 由于这个短语在这个非常特定的历史背景下发挥作用，而且保罗出于这个特殊原因批评“行律法”，因此从“行律法”转向“善行”是不合理的。保罗批评的是律法行为，而不是任何其他行为。637

对最后一段提出的问题进行充分讨论将超出任何评论的范畴——尽管我确实试图在这节经文后的附言中提出一些基本的回应。可以说，虽然新观点的倡​​导者认为传统的解释者经常忽视影响保罗关于律法的教导的具体历史因素，这当然是正确的，但他们自己的提议代表了一种过于偏向另一个方向的反应。关于“律法的工作”这个短语，我提出四个基本观点。

首先，虽然遵守律法确实被强调为在犹太教和外邦人之间建立界限的一种手段，但它也具有重大的“内在”意义，因为它是在审判之日维持和确保盟约成员资格或“正义”的手段。因此，“律法的工作”可以在后一种情况下发挥作用，也可以在前一种情况下发挥作用。（有关犹太背景的讨论，请参阅本节后面的附言。）

其次，我不相信保罗的犹太世界中可能与这个短语等同的词组表明新观点倡导者所建议的那种特定的社会学功能。

第三，“律法的工作”和“工作”在罗马书中的互换表明我们不能将它们放在不同的类别中。保罗声称“行律法”不能使人称义（3:20, 28），这似乎与他声称亚伯拉罕不是因“行为”称义（4:1-8）相呼应。“行为”的一般含义在 9:11-12 中也很明显，保罗在其中特别解释了这个词的含义，即做“任何善或恶”（另见 11:6）。638 因此，我们应该将“行律法”视为“行为”这一一般类别的一个子集（而不是独立于其外）。

第四，我们本以为这里的“律法工作”是对第 2 章中关于犹太人“行为”的扩展讨论的总结。但第 2 章的上下文清楚地表明，这种“行为”并不局限于任何特定的行为。事实上，保罗明确表示，犹太人行为的问题与外邦人行为的问题本质上相同（见第 2-3、22-23、25、27 节）。639 同样，这使得“律法工作”的问题不太可能仅限于犹太人。

相反，“律法工作”无法证明正义似乎与人类的一个基本问题有关：普遍的、奴役性的罪恶（正如我们所见，保罗的“所有肉体”一词可能暗示了这一广泛的应用）。换句话说，“律法工作”的“问题”从根本上来说并不在于它们是维护以色列特权地位的“托拉工作”。问题在于，这些是人类在罪的权势之下（3:9）无法做出的“行为”，无法确保在神面前有正义的地位。换句话说，问题不在于犹太人拥有律法，而在于他们未能履行律法。640

因此，我与许多解释者和神学家站在一起，他们在罗马书 3:20 中找到了保罗福音的重要人类学基础：一个人所做的任何事情，无论服从的对象或服从的动机是什么，都不能使他或她得到神的青睐。641 正是在这一点上，我们赋予“律法的行为”的意义如此清晰地显现出来。任何对“律法的行为”的限制性定义都可能为通过行为称义的可能性打开大门——以正确的精神、上帝的恩典或类似的东西完成的“善”行。我们确信，这会在关键时刻误解保罗。

v20：

律法能够成就什么？让人知罪

律法不能成就什么？让人称义

第 20 节的最后一部分支持了保罗在该节第一部分的论点，即律法能成就什么（而不是不能成就什么）。律法不能使人称义，而是“藉着”律法叫人“知罪”。由于圣经中的“知罪”有时可以指个人对某事的经历（例如，哥林多后书 5:21，其中说基督“不知道”罪），“知罪”可能意味着实际的犯罪经历。然而，虽然保罗会表明律法与罪恶和死亡有着致命的联系（7:7-12），但他从未暗示律法本身要为犯罪负责。642 另一方面，“知罪”并不简单地意味着律法定义了罪；相反，其意思是律法让人们理解“罪”（单数）是一种束缚所有人、带来罪恶和谴责的力量。643 律法向人们提出了上帝的要求。我们不断未能达到这一要求的目标，我们认识到自己是罪人，并因我们的失败而受到公正的谴责。

《罗马书》（第二版）（3. 全人类的罪孽（3：9-20））

保罗在 2：1-3：19 中说明了原因：律法不能“完成”到通过“律法”契约获得正当理由所需的程度。因此，更有可能的是，这是他否认律法可以在这里证明的最终逻辑——这种逻辑的根源不是（或至少不仅仅是）救赎历史，也不是对社会障碍的担忧，而是更深层次地，在人类状况本身。

这一结论有时会受到质疑，理由是保罗时代的犹太教认为律法实际上可以“被执行”，如果保罗想反驳这种普遍的观点，他就必须明确提出这一点。645 然而，犹太人认为一个人可以“遵守律法”，这意味着一个人可以通过遵守律法的献祭规定而被视为“遵守了律法”（当保罗声称，作为一名犹太人，他在“基于律法的正义”方面是“无可指责的”时，他可能就是这个意思 [腓立比书 3:6]）。犹太人不相信我们所谓的“无罪的完美”。646 保罗在罗马书 1-3 章中所写的，清楚地从有时被称为“道德”元素的角度来看待律法。正如与外邦人的比较所表明的那样，保罗关注的是犹太人遵守律法命令的程度。而且，尤其是考虑到弥赛亚被钉十字架这一激烈的“解决方案”，保罗将犹太人的“困境”极端化，对犹太人（和人类）追随上帝的能力持比他的犹太同胞更悲观的看法。647 当然，保罗这样做是遵循了旧约本身的一个重要教义，因为以色列的偶像崇拜和不顺服的持续性和严重性导致了这样的结论：只有上帝赐予的新心，由他的灵的新鲜礼物激励，才能治愈顽固的罪的问题（例如，以西结书 36:26-27）。保罗在这里没有提到礼仪法；事实上，他几乎没有在他的书信中明确提到这一点。但我们可以假设，就像《希伯来书》的作者一样，保罗认为基督的死是“一次永远的”赎罪牺牲——一种“取消”旧约祭祀制度中任何赎罪力量的牺牲。648

保罗新观 - 圣约律法主义

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (3. The Guilt of All Humanity (3:9–20))

Foundational to the Jewish view of salvation is the covenant that God entered into with the people Israel. God has chosen Israel, and Jews in Paul’s day believed that that original gracious choice was the basis for their salvation. Viewed from this perspective, Jews did not have to do the law to be saved; they were already saved. They obeyed the law, rather, to maintain their covenantal status. As Sanders put it, Jews did not do the law to “get in” (which would be legalism) but to “stay in” (“nomism”).

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (3. The Guilt of All Humanity (3:9–20))

His polemic against the law or “works of the law” was directed against the tendency of the Jews to confine salvation to their own nation. It is ethnic exclusivism, not personal legalism, that Paul finds wrong with Judaism.

Paul is concerned to show how the gospel manifests God’s covenant faithfulness and how that covenant faithfulness expands to include Gentiles on an equal footing with Jews.

《罗马书》（第二版）（3. 全人类的罪孽（3:9-20））

犹太人对救赎的看法的基础是上帝与以色列人民订立的契约。上帝选择了以色列，保罗时代的犹太人相信，最初的仁慈选择是他们得救的基础。从这个角度来看，犹太人不必遵守律法才能得救；他们已经得救了。他们遵守律法，是为了保持他们的契约地位。正如桑德斯所说，犹太人遵守律法不是为了“进入”（这将是律法主义），而是为了“留在律法主义”中（“律法主义”）。

他对律法或“律法工作”的争论是针对犹太人将救赎局限于自己国家的倾向。保罗认为犹太教的错误在于种族排他主义，而不是个人律法主义。

保罗关心的是表明福音如何体现上帝的盟约忠诚，以及这种盟约忠诚如何扩展到包括与犹太人平等的外邦人。

犹太人对于救赎的理解是基于上帝和以色列人的立约

立约是得救的确据，所以是出于上帝的恩典

遵行律法不是为了得救而是保持自己立约的地位

关键问题不是执行律法而是拥有律法

保罗反对的不是犹太人的律法主义而是福音是如何让外邦人也能够接受上帝的恩典

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (3. The Guilt of All Humanity (3:9–20))

The new perspective approach tends to stress continuity in the story of Israel as it has been extended into the messianic era—hence, for instance, Paul’s discussion of the law and the works it calls for have no relevance beyond Israel and her experience. However, a strong case can be made for the idea that Paul, without ignoring ways in which Israel’s experience is unique, also sees Israel’s experience with the law as paradigmatic. That is, Israel’s particular history with torah has implications and significance for all human beings in their own struggle with “law” and its consequences.

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (3. The Guilt of All Humanity (3:9–20))

“works of the law,” while referring to Israel’s doing of the law, also signify the experience of all humans with respect to their own “doing,” or works

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (3. The Guilt of All Humanity (3:9–20))

Any faith that emphasizes obedience, as Judaism undoubtedly did, is likely to produce some adherents who, perhaps through misunderstanding or lack of education, turn their obedience into a meritorious service that they think God must reward. Christianity, with considerably less emphasis on law, certainly produces such adherents; is it not likely that, as the NT suggests, first-century Judaism did also?

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (3. The Guilt of All Humanity (3:9–20))

But first-century Judaism, on Sanders’s own showing, also believed that, if one “got in” by grace, one “stayed in” by obedience. What mattered on the day of judgment, therefore—and what ultimately separated Jew from Jew—was the quality and consistency of obedience to the law. To put it another way, in an undoubtedly overly simple dichotomy, we must distinguish between election (by God’s grace) and salvation (by God’s grace plus works of obedience to torah). In practice, then, Jews were saved through a combination of grace and works—what we appropriately can label syngergism.689 And it is just this synergism that Paul seems to be attacking p 236 in a number of passages, including Rom. 3:20. Paul is not denying that Jews stressed the foundational importance of God’s elective grace for their identity. What he is denying is that obedience to the law is the necessary and adequate means by which that election can be confirmed and remain valid for God’s ultimate verdict of justification. This, of course, is just the point he has made at length in chap. 2: real Jewish covenant privileges (3:1–2) have no value when the law is not obeyed.

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (3. The Guilt of All Humanity (3:9–20))

Paul’s focus on Jewish experience with the law, here and elsewhere, is natural, granted the course of salvation history and the particular issues in his ministry and the church in Rome. But Paul, we are convinced, often views Jewish experience with the law as symptomatic of larger and more fundamental human issues. If the Jewish people, given God’s own law and the blessings of his presence and work among them, could not secure their status with God by doing it, how much less can any other human being have the power to please God by one’s works. “Works of the law” are inadequate not because they are “works of the law” but, ultimately, because they are “works.” This clearly removes the matter from the purely salvation-historical realm to the broader realm of anthropology. No person can gain a standing with God through works because no one is able to perform works to the degree needed to secure such a standing. This human inability to meet the demands of God is what lies at the heart of Rom. 3. On this point, at least, the Reformers understood Paul correctly.695

对保罗新观的批判

根据犹太人在一世纪的有限文献来代表普遍民间信仰状态有待商榷

以色列在律法之下的经历可以看为世人的典范

“律法的工作”虽然指的是以色列人所遵守的律法，但也可以表示所有人类在救赎上的自我努力

如果一个人因恩典而“进入”，因顺服而“留下”，势必会导致人看重遵守律法的行为

新视角方法倾向于强调以色列故事的连续性，因为它已经延伸到弥赛亚时代——因此，例如，保罗对律法及其要求的行为的讨论与以色列及其经历无关。然而，有充分的理由证明，保罗在不忽视以色列经历的独特性的情况下，也将以色列在律法方面的经历视为典范。也就​​是说，以色列与托拉的特殊历史对所有人类在与“律法”及其后果的斗争中都具有影响和意义。

罗马书（第二版）（3. 全人类的罪孽（3:9-20））

“律法的工作”虽然指的是以色列人遵守律法，但也表示所有人类对自己“所做”或工作的经历

罗马书（第二版）（3. 全人类的罪孽（3:9-20））

任何强调服从的信仰，正如犹太教无疑所做的那样，都可能产生一些信徒，他们可能由于误解或缺乏教育，将他们的服从变成了他们认为上帝必须奖励的功德服务。基督教对律法的重视程度要低得多，当然也产生了这样的信徒；正如新约所暗示的那样，一世纪的犹太教是否也有可能产生这样的信徒？

《罗马书》（第二版）（3. 全人类的罪孽（3:9-20））

但桑德斯自己也表明，一世纪的犹太教也相信，如果一个人因恩典而“进入”，那么他就会因服从而“留在”犹太教中。因此，在审判之日，最重要的是——最终将犹太人与犹太人区分开来的是——服从律法的质量和一致性。换句话说，在无疑过于简单的二分法中，我们必须区分选举（上帝的恩典）和救赎（上帝的恩典加上服从律法的行为）。因此，在实践中，犹太人是通过恩典和行为的结合而得救的——我们可以恰当地称之为协同作用。689 保罗似乎在罗马书 3:20 等许多章节中攻击的正是这种协同作用。保罗并没有否认犹太人强调上帝的选举恩典对他们身份的基础重要性。他所否认的是，遵守律法是确认选举并保持其有效性的必要和充分手段，以符合上帝最终的正义裁决。当然，这正是他在第二章中详细阐述的观点：如果不遵守律法，真正的犹太契约特权（3:1-2）就没有价值。

《罗马书》（第二版）（3. 全人类的罪孽（3:9-20））

保罗在这里和其他地方关注犹太人对律法的经验，这是很自然的，因为救赎历史的进程以及他传道和罗马教会中的具体问题。但我们相信，保罗经常将犹太人对律法的经验视为更大、更根本的人类问题的征兆。如果犹太人在上帝自己的律法和祂在他们中间的同在和工作的祝福下，都无法通过这样做来确保他们在上帝面前的地位，那么其他人又怎么可能有能力通过自己的行为取悦上帝呢。 “律法的行为”之所以不充分，并不是因为它们是“律法的行为”，而归根结底，因为它们是“行为”。这显然将问题从纯粹的救赎历史领域转移到了更广泛的人类学领域。没有人可以通过行为获得与上帝同在的地位，因为没有人能够做出足以获得这种地位的行为。人类无法满足上帝的要求，这正是罗马书 3 的核心。至少在这一点上，改革者正确地理解了保罗。695

21-31 神的义借着耶稣显明

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (B. Justification by Faith (3:21–4:25))

Romans 1:18–3:20, while important in its own right, is nevertheless preliminary to the main point that Paul wants to establish in this part of his letter: the availability of God’s righteousness to all who respond in faith. This “good news,” announced in 1:17, is now elaborated. The essential points are packed into 3:21–26, a passage that Luther called “the chief point, and the very central place of the Epistle, and of the whole Bible.”696 The remainder of the section p 238 develops one major element of this extraordinarily dense passage: faith as the only basis for justification. In 3:27–31, Paul highlights the exclusivity of faith (3:28) as he makes a number of points clearly directed to a Jewish viewpoint: faith excludes all boasting (3:27), provides for the inclusion of the Gentiles (3:29–30), and complements rather than nullifies the law (3:31). In chap. 4, each of these points is reiterated with respect to Abraham, as other elements are also drawn into the picture: the place of circumcision, the cruciality of grace, the promise, and the nature of faith. From this emphasis, we can surmise that Paul was well aware of the point at which his gospel was most often (and not only in Galatia) attacked and wanted to demonstrate as clearly as possible that faith was both the necessary and necessarily exclusive response of human beings to God’s work of redemption.

We may, then, view 3:27–31 as the initial statement of the theme, with chap. 4 as its elucidation and elaboration.

《罗马书》（第二版）（B. 因信称义（3:21–4:25））

罗马书 1:18–3:20 本身很重要，但它却是保罗想要在这封信中确立的要点的前提：上帝的公义适用于所有以信仰回应的人。这个在 1:17 中宣布的“好消息”现在得到了详细阐述。要点集中在 3:21–26 中，路德称这段经文为“使徒书信和整本圣经的重点和中心位置”。696 本节的其余部分第 238 页阐述了这段极其密集的经文的一个主要元素：信仰是称义的唯一基础。在 3:27-31 中，保罗强调了信仰的排他性（3:28），因为他提出了一些明显针对犹太人的观点的观点：信仰排除一切自夸（3:27），为包容外邦人提供了条件（3:29-30），并且补充而不是废除法律（3:31）。在第 4 章中，这些观点中的每一个都针对亚伯拉罕进行了重申，因为其他元素也被纳入其中：割礼的位置、恩典的关键性、承诺和信仰的本质。从这一强调中，我们可以推测，保罗很清楚他的福音最常受到攻击的地方（不仅仅是在加拉太），并且想要尽可能清楚地表明信仰是人类对上帝救赎工作的必要和必然排他性的回应。因此，我们可以将 3:27-31 视为主题的初始陈述，第 4 章则将其视为主题的初始陈述。 4作为其阐明和阐述。

21-26

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (1. Justification and the Righteousness of God (3:21–26))

In a passage that is loaded with key theological terms, the phrase “righteousness of God” (dikaiosynē theou) stands out. It occurs four times (vv. 21, 22, 25, 26 [“his righteousness” in the last two]), while the related verb “justify” (dikaioō) is found twice (vv. 24, 26) and the adjective “just” (dikaios) once (v. 26). After a section in which the need for this righteousness has been demonstrated in detail (1:18–3:20), Paul is now prepared to explain how the righteousness of God—his commitment to put his people in the right—can be accessed by sinful human beings in the gospel (1:16–17). The passage falls into four parts.699 In the first, Paul reiterates the revelation of God’s righteousness and relates it to the OT (v. 21; see 1:17). The second section focuses on the way in which all human beings, equal in their sin, have equal access also to God’s righteousness through faith (vv. 22–23). The source of God’s righteousness in the gracious provision of Christ as an atoning sacrifice is the theme of the third part of the passage (vv. 24–25a). Finally, Paul shows how the atonement not only provides for the justification of sinners but also demonstrates the “just-ness” of God throughout the process (vv. 25b–26). In making this last point, we are presuming that “righteousness of God,” which refers in vv. 21–22 to the “communicative” aspect of that righteousness, refers in vv. 25–26 to the more “attributive” aspect of that righteousness.

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (1. Justification and the Righteousness of God (3:21–26))

but now” marks the shift in Paul’s focus from the old era of sin’s domination to the new era of salvation.707 This contrast between two eras in salvation history is one of Paul’s most basic theological conceptions, providing the framework for many of his key ideas. Rom. 1:18–3:20 has sketched the spiritual state of those who belong to the old era: justly condemned, helpless in the power of sin, powerless to escape God’s wrath. “But now” God has intervened to inaugurate a new era, and all who respond in faith—not only after the cross, but, as Rom. 4 will show, before it also—will be transferred into it from the old era. No wonder Lloyd-Jones can exclaim, “there are no more wonderful words in the whole of Scripture than just these two words ‘But now.’ ”

As “the wrath of God” dominated the old era (1:18), so “the righteousness of God” dominates the new. “Righteousness of God” has the same meaning here as in Rom. 1:17: God’s “experienced attribute” of faithful commitment to his nature and promises.

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (1. Justification and the Righteousness of God (3:21–26))

Paul’s purpose is to announce the way in which God’s righteousness has been manifest rather than to contrast two kinds of righteousness.

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (1. Justification and the Righteousness of God (3:21–26))

as Paul will show in chap. 4, nothing really “new” about this: justification has always been by faith, apart from the law. Furthermore, it is not the manner in which God’s righteousness is received that Paul is talking about here, but the manner in which it is manifested—the divine side of this “process” by which people are made right with God. This phrase, then, reiterates the salvation-historical shift denoted by “but now.” In the new era inaugurated by Christ’s death God has acted to deliver and vindicate his people “apart from” the law.

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (1. Justification and the Righteousness of God (3:21–26))

But Paul hastens to balance this discontinuity in salvation history with a reminder of its continuity. While God’s justifying activity in the new age takes part outside the confines of the Old Covenant, the OT as a whole anticipates and predicts this new work of God: God’s righteousness is “witnessed to716 by the law and the prophets.”717

罗马书（第二版）（1. 称义和上帝的正义（3:21-26））

在充满关键神学术语的一段经文中，“上帝的正义”（dikaiosynē theou）这个短语脱颖而出。它出现了四次（第 21、22、25、26 节 [最后两个是“他的正义”]），而相关的动词“称义”（dikaioō）出现了两次（第 24、26 节），形容词“公正”（dikaios）出现了一次（第 26 节）。在详细阐述了这种正义的必要性之后（1:18-3:20），保罗现在准备解释上帝的正义——他致力于让他的子民走上正义——如何在福音中被有罪的人类所接受（1:16-17）。这段经文分为四个部分。699 在第一部分中，保罗重申了上帝公义的启示，并将其与旧约联系起来（第 21 节；见 1:17）。第二部分着眼于所有人类，尽管他们犯了相同的罪，但也可以通过信仰平等地获得上帝的公义（第 22-23 节）。上帝公义的根源在于基督作为赎罪祭的仁慈供应，这是这段经文第三部分的主题（第 24-25a 节）。最后，保罗展示了赎罪不仅为罪人提供了正义，而且在整个过程中展示了上帝的“公正”（第 25b-26 节）。在说明最后一点时，我们假设“上帝的公义”在第 21-22 节中指的是这种公义的“交流”方面，在第 25 节中指的是。 25–26 更“归因”于正义的方面。

罗马书（第二版）（1. 称义和上帝的正义（3:21–26））

但现在”标志着保罗的关注点从罪恶统治的旧时代转向救赎的新时代。707 救赎历史中两个时代的对比是保罗最基本的神学概念之一，为他的许多关键思想提供了框架。罗马书 1:18–3:20 勾勒出了属于旧时代的人的精神状态：被公正地定罪，在罪恶的力量下无助，无力逃脱上帝的愤怒。“但现在”上帝已经介入，开启了一个新时代，所有以信仰回应的人——不仅是在十字架之后，而且正如罗马书 4 所示，在十字架之前——都将从旧时代转移到新时代。难怪琼斯会惊呼，“整本圣经中没有比‘但现在’这两个词更美妙的词了。”

神的义

v21 保罗重申了上帝公义的启示，并将其与旧约联系起来

v22-23 全人类，尽管他们犯了相同的罪，但也可以通过信心平等地获得上帝的公义

v24-25 上帝公义的根源在于基督作为赎罪祭的恩典

v26 保罗展示了赎罪不仅为罪人提供了称义的可能，且在整个过程中展现了上帝的公义

正如“上帝的愤怒”主宰着旧时代（1:18），“上帝的公义”主宰着新时代。“上帝的公义”在这里与罗马书 1:17 中的含义相同：上帝忠实地信守他的本性和承诺的“经验属性”。

罗马书（第二版）（1. 称义和上帝的公义（3:21-26））

保罗的目的是宣布上帝的公义是如何显现的，而不是对比两种公义。

罗马书（第二版）（1. 称义和上帝的公义（3:21-26））

正如保罗将在第 1 章中展示的那样。 4，这其实没有什么“新”的：称义一直是靠信心，而不是靠律法。此外，保罗在这里谈论的不是接受上帝公义的方式，而是它表现的方式——人们与上帝和好这一“过程”的神圣一面。这句话重申了“但现在”所表示的救赎历史转变。在基督之死开启的新时代，上帝采取行动，在律法之外拯救和辩护他的子民。

《罗马书》（第二版）（1. 称义和上帝的公义（3:21-26））

但保罗急于平衡救赎历史中的这种不连续性，并提醒人们它的连续性。虽然上帝在新时代的正义活动超出了旧约的范围，但旧约作为一个整体预见并预言了上帝的这一新工作：上帝的公义“被律法和先知所见证716”。717

耶稣的信实还是人的信心？

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (1. Justification and the Righteousness of God (3:21–26))

The combination of “faith” with various forms of the name of Christ in the genitive has generated a great deal of discussion and debate in the last thirty years.720 A rather neutral English scan of the phrase would be “Jesus Christ faith,” and the obvious question is p 244 how exactly “Jesus Christ” qualifies “faith.” When we add to this syntactical uncertainty the lexical uncertainty about the meaning of pistis—“faith” or “faithfulness,” it is claimed, are both options—the situation becomes quite complicated.721 The traditional view, reflected in most English translations, is that the genitive Iēsou Christou is objective, yielding the sense “faith in Jesus Christ.” On this view, Paul claims that human believing “in” or “toward” Christ is the means by which God’s righteousness is appropriated. However, a view that has grown quickly in popularity over the last decades is that the genitive is subjective. On this view, Paul is saying that God’s righteousness is experienced “through the faith or faithfulness exhibited by Jesus Christ” (note NET and CEB).722 Advocates of this view note how this interpretation would result in an attractive balance between the divine and human elements in experiencing God’s righteousness: it is achieved by means of Christ’s own faithfulness and appropriated by human believing (“for all who believe”). Moreover, it is argued, this reading provides a better “fit” with the manifestation of God’s righteousness. For if, as we have argued, God’s righteousness is to some extent his own “enacted attribute,” it makes better sense to see that mediated by Christ’s own faith/faithfulness than by human believing. Further support for the “faith/faithfulness of Christ” involves grammatical arguments that this reading of the construction is the most natural.723

We readily acknowledge that the subjective genitive interpretation has much to be said for it. We also do not think that the decision about this phrase makes as much difference as some have claimed it does: Paul clearly stresses p 245 that God’s righteousness is achieved through Christ’s “obedience” (Rom. 5:19), and Paul could very well be making that point here.724 It is also important to stress that an objective and subjective genitive are not the only options. We could also understand the relationship in a less defined sense, Paul simply associating faith with Christ in an unspecified way.725 Nevertheless, we think the “objective genitive” understanding of the phrase makes better sense. Many of the lexical, syntactical, historical, and contextual arguments end up in a standoff.726 What we think is the decisive point is the comparison between the noun plus genitive construction that we find here and the constructions using the cognate verb: for in the case of the verb, all uncertainty disappears: nouns are always clearly subjects or objects. In the case of “faith” language in Paul, then, the situation is pretty clear: Paul often makes believers the subject of the verb “believe” (pisteuō), but he never clearly makes Christ the subject of the verb.727 In Paul, Christians “believe”; but Christ does not (at the linguistic level, of course). This semantic pattern should determine how we should interpret the ambiguous genitive in this construction here and elsewhere.728 We also think p 246 that the relationship between chaps. 3 and 4 points in this direction. The latter chapter obviously stresses Abraham’s believing as crucial in his justification. But this argument suggests that it is human believing that has also been the focus of chap. 3. To be sure, this does not mean that every occurrence of “faith” in chap. 3 must refer to human believing. But it does tilt the balance of probability in that direction.

罗马书（第二版）（1. 称义和上帝的公义（3:21-26））

在过去的三十年中，“信仰”与基督名字的各种形式的属格组合引起了大量的讨论和争论。720 一个相当中性的英语短语应该是“耶稣基督信仰”，而显而易见的问题是“耶稣基督”究竟如何限定“信仰”。当我们将这种句法不确定性与 pistis 含义的词汇不确定性（据称“信仰”或“忠诚”都是选项）结合起来时，情况就变得相当复杂了。721 传统观点反映在大多数英文翻译中，即属格 Iēsou Christou 是客观的，其含义是“对耶稣基督的信仰”。根据这种观点，保罗声称人类“相信”或“朝向”基督是上帝公义被赋予的手段。然而，在过去几十年中，一种迅速流行起来的观点认为属格是主观的。根据这种观点，保罗说上帝的公义是“通过耶稣基督表现出的信仰或忠诚”来体验的（注意 NET 和 CEB）。722 支持这种观点的人指出，这种解释将导致在体验上帝的公义时，神和人的因素之间形成一种有吸引力的平衡：它是通过基督自己的忠诚实现的，并通过人类的信仰（“为所有相信的人”）来获得的。此外，有人认为，这种解读更“符合”上帝公义的表现。因为，如果正如我们所论证的那样，上帝的公义在某种程度上是他自己“制定的属性”，那么将其视为由基督自己的信仰/忠诚而不是人类信仰所介导的更有意义。对“基督的信仰/忠诚”的进一步支持涉及语法论证，即这种结构的解读是最自然的。723

我们欣然承认，主观属格解释有很多可取之处。我们也不认为对这个短语的决定会像某些人声称的那样产生很大影响：保罗明确强调，上帝的公义是通过基督的“服从”实现的（罗马书 5:19），保罗很可能在这里就是在强调这一点。724 强调客观属格和主观属格并不是唯一的选择也很重要。我们也可以从不太明确的意义上理解这种关系，保罗只是以一种不明确的方式将信仰与基督联系起来。725 尽管如此，我们认为对这个短语的“客观属格”理解更有意义。许多词汇、句法、历史和语境的争论最终陷入僵局。726 我们认为决定性的一点是，我们在这里发现的名词加属格结构与使用同源动词的结构之间的比较：因为在动词的情况下，所有的不确定性都消失了：名词总是明确地是主语或宾语。那么，在保罗的“信仰”语言中，情况就很清楚了：保罗经常将信徒作为动词“相信”（pisteuō）的主语，但他从未明确地将基督作为动词的主语。727 在保罗书中，基督徒“相信”；但基督不相信（当然是在语言层面上）。这种语义模式应该决定我们应如何解释这里和其他地方这种结构中模糊的属格。728 我们还认为第 3 章和第 4 章之间的关系指向这个方向。后一章显然强调亚伯拉罕的信仰是他称义的关键。但这一论点表明，人类信仰也是第 3 章的重点。当然，这并不意味着第 3 章中出现的每一次“信仰”都一定是指人类信仰。但它确实将可能性的天平向那个方向倾斜。

πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ，名词，所有格，

信（πίστεως ，信心，信仰，信實，可靠性，許諾，誓約，盟約，憑據，誓約，信賴，信服，所信的事，信仰的內涵，信仰的教義）

耶稣的信实（现代）：强调客观，神的作为

对耶稣的信靠（传统）：强调主观，人的行动

22 那就是：神的義藉著對耶穌基督的信仰a，臨到所有信的人，並沒有分別。

a羅馬書 3:22 藉著對耶穌基督的信仰——或譯作「由於耶穌基督的信實」。

中文标准译本

22 就是　神的義，因信耶穌基督a加給一切信的人。這並沒有分別，

a3．22 「因信耶穌基督」或譯「藉耶穌基督的信」。

和合本修订版

犯罪

罗马书 3：23 CUV

23 因为世人都犯了罪，亏缺了　神的荣耀；

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (1. Justification and the Righteousness of God (3:21–26))

“Glory” in the Bible characteristically refers to the magnificent presence of the Lord, and the eternal state was often pictured as a time when God’s people would experience and have a part in that “glory” (e.g., Isa. 35:2; Rom. 8:18; Phil. 3:21; 2 Thess. 2:14).734 And just as this sharing in God’s “glory” involves conformity to the “image of Christ” (Rom. 8:29–30; Phil. 3:21), so the absence of glory involves a declension from (though not removal of735) the “image of God” in which human beings were first made. “The future glory may be regarded as the restoration of the lost, original glory.”736 Paul, then, is indicating that all people fail to exhibit that “being-like-God” for which they were created; and the present tense of the verb, in combination with Rom. 8, shows that even Christians “fall short” of that goal until they are transformed in the last day by God.737

罪射不中靶心不是指射偏，而是没有射到

荣耀是指上帝的形象，荣耀的缺失或者偏离指的是人偏离了最初被造的时候上帝的形象

罗马书（第二版）（1. 称义和上帝的公义（3:21-26））

圣经中的“荣耀”通常是指主的宏伟存在，而永恒状态经常被描绘成上帝的子民将体验并参与这种“荣耀”的时刻（例如，以赛亚书 35:2；罗马书 8:18；腓立比书 3:21；帖撒罗尼迦后书 2:14）。734 正如分享上帝的“荣耀”涉及符合“基督的形象”（罗马书 8:29-30；腓立比书 3:21），荣耀的缺失也涉及偏离（但不是消除735）人类最初被造时的“上帝形象”。 “未来的荣耀可以看作是失去的原始荣耀的恢复。”736 保罗指出，所有人都未能表现出他们被创造时所具有的“像上帝”的特征；动词的现在时态与罗马书第 8 章相结合，表明即使是基督徒也“达不到”这一目标，直到他们在最后一天被上帝改变。737

称义

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (1. Justification and the Righteousness of God (3:21–26))

Paul uses the verb “justify” (dikaioō) for the first time in Romans to depict his distinctive understanding of Christian salvation (cf. 2:13). As Paul uses it in these contexts, the verb “justify” means not “to make righteous” (in an ethical sense) nor simply “to treat as righteous” (though one is really not righteous), but “to declare righteous.” No “legal fiction,” but a legal reality of the utmost significance, “to be justified” means to be acquitted by God from all “charges” that could be brought against a person because of his or her sins.741 This judicial verdict, for which one had to wait until the last judgment according to Jewish theology, is according to Paul rendered the moment a person believes. The act of justification is therefore properly “eschatological,” as the ultimate verdict regarding a person’s standing with God is brought back into our present reality.

Characteristic also of Paul’s theology is his emphasis on the gift character of this justifying verdict; we are “justified freely742 by his grace.”743 “Grace” is p 249 one of Paul’s most significant theological terms.744 He uses it typically not to describe a quality of God but the way in which God has acted in Christ: unconstrained by anything beyond his own will.745 God’s justifying verdict is totally unmerited. People have done, and can do, nothing to earn it. This belief is a “theological axiom” for Paul and is the basis for his conviction that justification can never be attained through works, or the law (Rom. 4:3–5, 13–16; 11:6), but only through faith.746 Once this is recognized, the connection between v. 22a and v. 24 is clarified; that justification is a matter of grace on God’s side means that it must be a matter of faith on the human side.

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (1. Justification and the Righteousness of God (3:21–26))

The sins “committed beforehand” will not, then, be sins committed before conversion, or baptism,803 but before the new age of salvation. This does not mean that God failed to punish or “overlooked” sins committed before Christ; nor does it mean that God did not really “forgive” sins under the Old Covenant.804 Paul’s meaning is rather that God “postponed” p 261 the full penalty due sins in the Old Covenant, allowing sinners to stand before him without their having provided an adequate “satisfaction” of the demands of his holy justice (see Heb. 10:4).

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (1. Justification and the Righteousness of God (3:21–26))

Paul’s point is that God can maintain his righteous character (“his righteousness” in vv. 25 and 26) even while he acts to justify sinful people (“God’s righteousness” in vv. 21 and 22) because Christ, p 263 in his propitiatory sacrifice, provides full satisfaction of the demands of God’s impartial, invariable justice.

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (1. Justification and the Righteousness of God (3:21–26))

First, justification in Paul is forensic. While transformation of life must and inevitably does follow forensic justification, the former is not a part of the latter. Second, justification is about our relationship with God, not with other human beings. Again, justification must result in renewed relationships with p 264 others and bear fruit in the removal of enmity among races, nations, socioeconomic groups, and so on. But Paul’s justification teaching is about the removal of the more important and fundamental enmity: between sinful humans and a just and holy God.

罗马书（第二版）（1. 称义和上帝的正义（3:21-26））

保罗在罗马书中首次使用动词“称义”（dikaioō）来描述他对基督教救赎的独特理解（参见 2:13）。保罗在这些语境中使用它时，动词“称义”的意思不是“使之正义”（在道德意义上），也不是简单地“视为正义”（尽管一个人实际上并不正义），而是“宣布正义”。不是“法律虚构”，而是极其重要的法律现实，“称义”意味着上帝宣告一个人因其罪而可能被指控的所有“指控”无罪。741 根据犹太神学，这一司法裁决必须等到最后审判，而根据保罗的说法，这一裁决是在一个人相信的那一刻做出的。因此，正当行为是“末世论的”，因为关于一个人与上帝关系的最终裁决被带回到我们现在的现实中。

保罗神学的另一个特点是他强调这种正当裁决的礼物性质；我们“因他的恩典而白白称义”。743“恩典”是保罗最重要的神学术语之一。744他通常用它来描述上帝的品质，而不是描述上帝在基督里的行为方式：不受任何超越他自己意志的事物的约束。745上帝的正当裁决完全是无功而返的。人们没有做任何事，也不能做任何事来获得它。这种信念是保罗的“神学公理​​”，也是他坚信称义永远不能通过行为或律法获得的基础（罗马书 4:3-5、13-16；11:6），而只能通过信仰获得。746 一旦认识到这一点，第 22a 节和第 24 节之间的联系就变得清晰了；称义是上帝恩典的问题，这意味着它必须是人类信仰的问题。

《罗马书》（第二版）（1. 称义和上帝的公义（3:21-26））

“事先犯下的”罪不是皈依或洗礼之前犯下的罪，803 而是新救恩时代之前犯下的罪。这并不意味着上帝没有惩罚或“忽视”基督之前犯下的罪；也不意味着上帝没有真正“宽恕”旧约下的罪孽。804 保罗的意思是，上帝“推迟”了旧约中罪孽应受的全部惩罚，让罪人站在他面前，而没有充分“满足”他神圣正义的要求（见希伯来书 10:4）。

罗马书（第二版）（1. 称义和上帝的公义（3:21-26））

保罗的观点是，上帝可以保持他的公义品格（第 25 和 26 节中的“他的公义”），即使他采取行动为有罪的人辩护（第 21 和 22 节中的“上帝的公义”），因为基督在他的赎罪祭中，完全满足了上帝公正、不变的正义的要求。

罗马书（第二版）（1. 称义和上帝的公义（3:21-26））

首先，保罗的称义是法医的。虽然生活的转变必须且不可避免地遵循法医的称义，但前者不是后者的一部分。其次，称义与我们与上帝的关系有关，而不是与其他人的关系。同样，称义必须导致与他人的关系更新，并在消除种族、国家、社会经济群体等之间的敌意方面取得成果。但保罗的称义教导是关于消除更重要和更根本的敌意：有罪的人类与公正圣洁的上帝之间的敌意。

称义的意思不是道德意义上的纠正，也不是简单的看为义，而是被宣告为义，具有法律效应

称义强调的是外在，附加的义而非本身具有的义

基督的赎罪祭完全的满足了上帝公义的要求

称义仅限于我们和上帝之间的关系

行为的转变是称义的结果而非前提

救赎

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (1. Justification and the Righteousness of God (3:21–26))

But the Greco-Roman use of redemption language suggests that the word has a further important nuance: the liberation or deliverance involved comes through payment of a price. In Paul’s day, “redemption” often referred to a transaction whereby prisoners of war, condemned criminals, and (especially) slaves were able to purchase their freedom.750 We think it likely that Paul is using the word with this connotation, presenting Christ’s death as a “ransom,” a “payment” that takes the place of that penalty for sins “owed” by all people to God.751 God, in Christ, pays the price necessary to “redeem” his p 251 people from their slavery to sin (see “under sin’s power” in 3:9).752 If we ask further the question “To whom was the ‘ransom’ paid?” it is not clear that we need to answer it. The usage of the word makes it clear that there need be no specific person who “receives” the “payment.” It is unlikely that we are to think of Christ’s death as a payment made to Satan by God, a view that became very popular in the first centuries of the Christian church. A more biblical answer, and one that might be implied by v. 25, would be that God, the judge who must render just verdicts, is the recipient of the ransom. If so, an equal emphasis must be placed on the fact that God is also the originator of the liberating process.

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (1. Justification and the Righteousness of God (3:21–26))

While the persons of God the Father and God the Son must be kept distinct as we consider the process of redemption, it is a serious error to sever the two with respect to the will for redemption, as if the loving Christ had to take the initiative in placating the angry Father. God’s love and wrath meet in the atonement, and neither can be denied or compromised if the full meaning of that event is to be properly appreciated. “Our own justification before God rests on the solid reality that p 252 the fulfilling of God’s justice in Christ was at the same time the fulfilling of his love for us.”754

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (1. Justification and the Righteousness of God (3:21–26))

“The prime doer in Christ’s cross was God. Christ was God reconciling. He was God doing the very best for man, and not man doing his very best for God.

罗马书（第二版）（1. 称义和神的公义（3:21-26））

但希腊罗马人对救赎语言的使用表明该词具有进一步的重要细微差别：所涉及的解放或解脱是通过付出代价来实现的。在保罗时代，“救赎”通常指战俘、死刑犯和（尤其是）奴隶能够购买自由的交易。750 我们认为保罗很可能使用具有这种内涵的词，将基督的死描述为“赎金”，一种“付款”，代替所有人“欠”上帝的罪的惩罚。751 上帝在基督里付出了必要的代价来“救赎”他的人民脱离罪恶的奴役（见 3:9 中的“在罪恶的权势之下”）。752 如果我们进一步问“赎金”付给了谁？”我们是否需要回答这个问题还不清楚。这个词的用法清楚地表明，不需要有特定的人“接受”这笔“报酬”。我们不太可能把基督之死看作是上帝对撒旦的报酬，这种观点在基督教会的最初几个世纪非常流行。一个更符合圣经的答案，也是第 25 节可能暗示的答案，是上帝，这位必须做出公正判决的法官，是赎金的接受者。如果是这样，那么必须同样强调上帝也是解放过程的发起者。

罗马书（第二版）（1. 称义和上帝的公义（3:21-26））

虽然当我们考虑救赎过程时，必须将父神和子神分开，但就救赎意愿而言，将两者分开是一个严重的错误，就好像慈爱的基督必须主动安抚愤怒的父神。上帝的爱与愤怒在赎罪中相遇，如果要正确理解这一事件的全部意义，那么两者都不能否认或妥协。“我们在上帝面前的称义基于一个坚实的现实，即基督在基督身上实现上帝的正义同时也实现了他对我们的爱。”754

“基督十字架上的首要行动者是上帝。基督是和解的上帝。他是上帝为人类尽力，而不是人类为上帝尽力。

救赎通常是表达通过支付代价来换取奴隶的自由

基督的死成为一种赎价替所有人偿还因罪所欠下的债务

救赎是父神和子神的合作而非对立

上帝的爱和忿怒在十字架上相遇

在高天真神宝座前

Because the sinless Savior died

皆因救主为我而死，

My sinful soul is counted free

污秽灵魂得着释放；

For God the Just is satisfied

神的公义得到满足，

To look on Him and pardon me

藉祂爱子我得宽恕。

To look on Him and pardon me

藉祂爱子我得宽恕。

不再定罪, 心中除尽忧愁; 我拥有主並他所有. 主內生活让他居首, 穿起义袍圣洁无垢; 坦然无惧到宝座前, 藉主救赎, 获得冠冕.

丁道爾新約聖經註釋--羅馬書 (A.神的預備（三21〜31）)

但是現在有一條蒙神悅納的新路已經開啓，與遵行律法之途截然不同。這一條路並不是我們自己新發明的，舊約——就是律法和先知——早已爲它提出充份的見證。這條路就是信靠耶穌基督之路，它向一切相信的人開放，猶太人和外邦人都一樣。我們已經看明，這兩種人並沒有分別，因爲猶太人和外邦人都犯了罪，虧缺了神的榮耀，沒有達到神創造他們的初衷。但是藉著這條新路，猶太人和外邦人都能與神重建正確的關係，有蒙祂悅納的確據，並得着祂的赦免。由於基督已完成救贖之工，靠著神的恩典，他們能白白領受這一切。神已將基督擺在我們眼前，祂犧牲之死贖淸了我們的罪，除去了我們反叛神所招致的報應。基督爲我們成就了一切，我們可以憑信心據爲己有。

因此，這是神彰顯祂的義的途徑——祂證實了祂自己的性情，同時又將義加於罪人身上。所以，神能對世人百般容忍，在 p 90 基督來臨之前寬容他們所犯的罪，不施盡刑罰；祂施憐憫的原因，是爲要在現今的世代彰顯祂的義。神向我們證明，祂能赦免信仰耶穌的人，宣判他們無罪，而同時又持守自己的義。

旣是如此，誰還有權誇口呢？靠個人義行誇口的一切基礎，都被瓦解了；不是因著律法所定規的行爲，乃是因著信心的原則。猶太人和外邦人旣同樣因神的恩典稱義，不是靠自己的功德，就沒有人能說：「我靠自己的努力得到這一切。」保羅結論說，世人在神面前乃因信稱義，與律法的要求無關。若惟有遵行猶太人的律法，才蒙神悅納，那麼，神就只是猶太人的神了。但是祂不僅是猶太人的神，也是外邦人的神，因爲福音爲這兩種人開了同一條稱義的路。神接納猶太人，是因著他們的信心；祂接納外邦人也基於同一原理。

對保羅而言，人類惟獨區分爲猶太人和外邦人兩類。他自己生爲猶太人，所受的敎育讓他視非猶太人爲陷在黑暗中的罪人，不認識神的律法——即蒙神悅納惟一的可能途徑。誠然，在古代世界，猶太人與外邦人之間，有一道無法跨越的鴻溝。在今天，我們可能認爲另外一些鴻溝更深邃——如種族、國籍、階級、膚色等，這些問題的解決困難，對我們而言，比猶太人和外邦人之間的區分，要嚴重得多。可是，保羅的論證對古今的各樣鴻溝同樣有效：無論東方、西方，黑人、白人，都沒有區別，所有的人在需要神白白的憐憫一事上，完全平等；而蒙受憐憫的條件也完全相同。

丁道爾新約聖經註釋--羅馬書 (A.神的預備（三21〜31）)

路得用這段話來形容罪得赦免一事。他說，這個問題惟有神才能解決120。因爲罪人雖然亟需解決之道，卻措手無策：這正是他的問題，他自己需要得着赦免。保羅在這裏所吿訴我們的，就是：神的恩典已經妥善地解決了這個問題；祂以基督爲解答，成爲赦罪的方法，及我們蒙悅納的保障。對罪人惟一的要求，就是要他們憑信心領受神恩典的預備。

然而，或許有人會問，神的律法豈不是被信心的原則棄廢了？保羅說，絕不是這麼回事。因著信心的原則，律法得以堅立，罪受到審判，義得着證明，舊約聖經因而得着成全。以下他便要說明這一點。

丁道爾新約聖經註釋--羅馬書 (A.神的預備（三21〜31）)

23.世人都犯了罪。五12末了也用了同樣的字(pantes … hēmarton),然而，那裏是指世人都有份於「人類第一次的悖逆」；這裏的意思則是，所有世人，每一個人，都犯 p 92 了罪。

廨缺了神的榮耀。人當初是按神的形像而造，分享了神的榮耀；但犯罪之後，那份榮耀便喪失了。以賽亞書四十三7說：「是我爲自己的榮耀創造的」（其上下文是指「凡稱爲我名下的人」），這句話被用來指全人類。參哥林多前書十一7。信徒等候在未來的世代「分享神的榮耀」（五2，按英譯）。

24.蒙神的恩典⋯⋯就白白的稱義。保羅在沒有成爲基督徒之前，期望努力持守神的律法，以致來日立於神審判座前之時，能被他稱爲義人。但是如今律法之外的義，卻將程序顚倒過來：神宣吿信徒爲義人，是在他們還未起步之時，而不是在終點站。若祂在他們起步時已稱他們爲義，就不是靠他們還沒有作的行爲了。相反的，這種稱義是「神白白的恩典，祂藉此赦免我們的一切罪，視我們爲義人，而接納我們」121。

論到我們蒙神「接納」，若是知道自己乃因祂白白的恩典而稱義，比起靠「遵行律法」而稱義的期望，不知要好多少倍！如果按照後者，我永遠無法肯定自己是否及格，我的行爲是否夠良善，足以通過神的標準。即使我已經盡力而爲（問題是，我無法持之以恆），我怎麼能肯定我的最佳表現達到了神的要求？我也許可以這樣期望，但卻永遠不能肯定。然而，如果神單憑祂的恩典向我預先保證，祂已經悅納我，而我也歡然擁抱祂的保證，那麼，我便能不斷遵守祂的旨意，不再老是擔心是否遵行得夠好。其實，到頭來我仍然是一個「無用的僕人」，但是我知道我所信的是誰：

p 93 「祂以兒女之份待我，

我便不再懼怕。」

丁道爾新約聖經註釋--羅馬書 (A.神的預備（三21〜31）)

因基督耶稣的救贖。救贖(apolytrosis)或作贖價，是買奴隸，使他獲自由122。此處保羅的用語也有舊約的背景，就是神向以色列所施的憐憫，包括脫離埃及爲奴之地（出十五13，詩七十七15，七十八35），以及後來從巴比倫歸回（賽四十一14，四十三1）。神稱相信之人爲義的恩典，已經由基督救贖之功彰顯出來了。

赎罪祭

丁道爾新約聖經註釋--羅馬書 (A.神的預備（三21〜31）)

25.神設立耶穌作挽回祭，是憑著耶琢的血，藉著人的信。「憑著祂的血」和「藉著人的信」（直譯：「藉著信」，是兩個獨立的附加說明語，修飾「挽回祭」。主要的字是「挽回祭」，hilasterion。這個希臘字型可以視爲hilasterios（「贖罪者」，「贖罪的犧牲者」）的陽性、單數、受格，與‘whom’一致（譯註：英文爲Whom God put forward as an expiation）；亦可以視爲中性（「贖罪的方法」，「贖罪之處」）。七十士譯本對這個字（中性）最普遍的用法，是以它來譯希伯來文的ka ppōreth（贖罪或塗抹罪的地方），意指至聖所內在約櫃以上的金板，或稱「施恩座」（摩西五經中出現廿餘次）。在以西結書四十三14，17，20（五次），此字是用來翻譯希伯來文的aZārâ,即以西結聖殿中燔祭祭壇的「磴台」。

hilasterion與動詞hilaskomai相關，在異敎的希臘世界中，意義爲「和解」或「晤償」，但七十士譯本用來指希伯來文的Kipper（「贖罪」）以及其同源字，包括Kapporeth（「施恩座」）。英文新約聖經舊的版本，用動詞“propitiate”和名詞“propitiation”來翻譯這些字，但是現在都已不用，理由是這些英文字眼帶有和解或安撫的意味124。RSV（見上述英文）， p 95 NEB（「神設計以祂作贖罪(expiating sin)的方法，藉著祂犧牲的死，因信發生功效」），與GNB（「神將祂擺上，藉著祂的死，祂成了凡相信祂之人赦罪的途徑」），都避免用這些字。但是若hilaskomai, hilasterion,以及其同源字，能夠從聖經的背景重新定義，那麼，英文的“propitiate”和“propitiation”等字，旣是長期以來所使用的，也應該同樣可以有按照聖經而賦與意義。不論如何，這裏的意思不會造成誤會，因保羅所堅持的是，這個hilasterion是神所預備的，而不是罪人預備的。舊約同樣認爲，這件事是神的恩典採取主動：「活物的生命是在血中；我把這血賜給你們，可以在壇上爲你們的生命贖罪；因血裏有生命，所以能贖罪」（利十七11）。這一類舊約經文，進一步解釋了保羅何以在本節中用「憑著祂的血」一詞；而NEB將它解爲「因著祂犧牲的死」，理由也在此。

所以，基督的死是神除去祂子民之罪的方法——不是象徵性的，好像利未記十六章以施恩座爲預表；乃是「眞實的」。其「眞實」有兩層意義：罪不僅從信徒的良心挪去，不再成爲他們背負不起的重擔，也同樣從神的眼前挪去了。希伯來書的作者也將基督的犧牲，與神在耶利米書中對新約的預言相提並論：「我⋯⋯不再記念他們的罪愆」（來八12，引自耶卅一34）。

我們一旦證實，基督獻上自己的功效是神的恩典主動促成的，就沒有理由排除hilasterion可以包括「轉移神的忿怒」之意，只要有上下文爲證，便可以如此解釋。而在羅馬書三25， p 96 上下文的確證明，hilastērion一字在此處的含意，可以包括轉移神的忿怒。保羅在一18曾說：「神的忿怒（NEB作：「神的報應」）從天上顯明在一切不虔不義的人身上」；這個「忿怒」要怎樣才能除去呢？神在基督裏所預備的hilasterion,不但除去了不虔不義，同時也轉移了報應，否則在道德世界中，這種態度和行爲必會遭報。

hilasterion在這裏的意思，大可以解爲對象或地點——施恩座，只不過這樣來論耶穌，似乎稍嫌不美。約櫃是在巴比倫流放時期失踪的，在那之前，每年的贖罪日典禮中，全國性的贖罪祭獻上之處，便是約櫃以上的施恩座（利十六15〜16）。保羅「吿訴我們，從前賜給猶太人的預表，已經在基督裏彰顯出其實體」（見加爾文註釋）125。

曼森認爲，新舊hilastērion的對照，可由「神的設立」幾個字表明出來。舊的hilastērion隱藏在分別聖所與至聖所的幕後，惟有大祭司在贖罪日才能進入幕內，親眼目睹。但在基督裏，卜施恩座不再留在至聖所的隱密處，而被帶進混亂、艱苦的世界，立在敵對、藐視、漠然的大衆面前126。」這段支持「施恩座」譯法的話，十分動人。但是「施恩座」在換喩的筆法中，可以等於「贖罪祭」，而將hilastērion譯爲「贖罪祭」恐怕是最恰當。換句話說，基督是神所「設立」，或「設計」（如NEB的譯法，是取中性的proetheto另一個意義）的贖罪祭。

丁道爾新約聖經註釋--羅馬書 (A.神的預備（三21〜31）)

憑著祂的血一詞，是指基督犧牲之死，成爲獨一有效的贖罪途徑（參五8〜9：「惟有基督在我們還作罪人的時候爲我們死。⋯⋯現在我們旣靠著祂的血稱義，就更要藉著祂免去神的忿怒」）。

因此，爲了要闡揚神在基督裏全備的恩典，保羅運用了法庭 p 97 （「稱義」），奴隸市場（「救贖」），與獻祭（「挽回祭」「贖罪祭」）等等辭彙。赦罪、釋放、贖罪，由於神主動、白白的賜與，已經擺在世人眼前，只要相信便可擁有。而這種信心在神眼中並不視爲有功德的行爲；這種信心是對神單純、打開心門的態度，相信祂的話，存著感恩領受祂的恩典。

要顯明神的義，因爲祂用忍耐的心，寬容人先時所犯的罪。亦即，「要顯明，神寬恕從前世代一就是祂容忍的時期——人所犯的罪，並沒有不義。」基督所完成的救贖之工，對在祂以前與以後的人同樣有效。祂的救贖對全人類都有效；正如一位稍後的新約作者寫道：「祂爲我們的罪作了挽回祭（用hilasmos—字，與hilasterion同源），不是單爲我們的罪，也是爲普天下人的罪」（約壹二2）。保羅對雅典人也有類似的說法，將基督之前的世代稱爲神容忍的時期：「世人蒙昧無知的時候（期），神並不監察，如今卻⋯⋯」（徒十七30）。雖然現代人對神義論的問題，不像保羅時代那麼關注，但是一個法官若寬恕罪人，就和將無辜之人定罪一樣，都是不公正的裁決（參四5註釋，101頁）。

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (1. Justification and the Righteousness of God (3:21–26))

What Paul means by designating Christ a hilastērion has been the subject of considerable debate.759 When the use of hilastērion760 in the Bible is considered, a strong case can be made for taking the word as a reference to the OT “mercy seat,”761 the cover over the ark where Yahweh appeared (Lev. 16:2), and on which sacrificial blood was poured. The word refers to this object in p 253 its one other NT occurrence (Heb. 9:5), as well as in 21 of its 27 LXX occurrences.762 Particularly significant are the several occurrences of the word in the description in Lev. 16 of the “Day of Atonement” ritual. According to this text, the high priest is to enter the “Holy of Holies” once a year and sprinkle on the mercy seat (= LXX hilastērion) the blood of a sacrificial victim, thereby “making atonement.”763 In the OT and Jewish tradition, this “mercy seat” came to be applied generally to the place of atonement.764 By referring to Christ as this “mercy seat,” then, Paul would be inviting us to view Christ as the New Covenant equivalent, or antitype, to this Old Covenant “place of atonement,” and, derivatively, to the ritual of atonement itself. What in the OT was hidden from public view behind the veil has now been “publicly displayed” as the OT ritual is fulfilled and brought to an end in Christ’s “once-for-all” sacrifice.

罗马书（第二版）（1. 称义和上帝的公义（3:21-26））

保罗将基督称为 hilastērion 的含义一直是备受争议的话题。759 当考虑 hilastērion760 在圣经中的用法时，可以有力地证明该词是指旧约中的“施恩座”，761 即耶和华出现（利未记 16:2）并倾倒祭祀鲜血的约柜盖。该词在新约中的另一个出现（希伯来书 9:5）以及 27 个 LXX 出现中的 21 个中都提到了这个物体。762 特别重要的是，该词在利未记 16 中对“赎罪日”仪式的描述中多次出现。根据这段经文，大祭司每年要进入“至圣所”一次，将祭祀牺牲者的血洒在施恩座（= LXX hilastērion）上，从而“赎罪”。763 在旧约和犹太传统中，这个“施恩座”通常指赎罪的地方。764 因此，通过将基督称为这个“施恩座”，保罗将邀请我们将基督视为新约中这个旧约“赎罪的地方”的对应物或原型，以及赎罪仪式本身。旧约中隐藏在幔子后面不为公众所知的东西现在已经“公开展示”，因为旧约仪式在基督“一劳永逸”的牺牲中得以实现和结束。

27-31

丁道爾新約聖經註釋--羅馬書 (A.神的預備（三21〜31）)

使人知道祂自己爲義，也稱信耶稣的人爲義。基督獻上己，使神的義得以證實，也使相信的罪人得以稱義。因爲基督的身份非常獨特，旣向人代表神，又向神代表人。祂代表人，就承擔了人的罪一切的刑罰；祂代表神，便將神的赦罪之恩賞賜給人。這段話呼應了以賽亞書四十五21（「公義的神，又是救主」），及撒迦利亞書九9（七十士譯本作：「公義的，拯救的」）129。

28.不在乎連行律法。保羅並不是說，不需要遵行律法；他乃是說，即使勉力遵行，也不能被神稱義。他是要堵住那些人的口，使他們不能再說：「我總是盡最大的努力⋯⋯我力求行爲端正⋯⋯我履行律法的要求，神還會再苛求什麼呢？」

路德（正如俄利根等早期敎父）爲强調「不在乎遵行律法」，在人稱義是因著信這句話中加上「惟獨」：「人稱義不在乎遵行律法，而惟獨因著信。130」因爲「加添」了神的話，他遭人批評，但他卻反唇相譏。其實，他的確將保羅的意思準確地表達了出來：神在恩典中所賜下的義的地位，人只能單靠信心取 p 99 得，不能靠遵行律法，或其他幻想的稱義方式。人若瞭解這一點，就會發現自己毫無誇口的餘地；因爲他們默想救恩之路，便必須承認，這條路「惟靠恩典，惟賴信心；榮耀惟獨歸神」。

然而，雖然從這個角度而言，稱義是惟賴信心，但是「稱義的信心卻不是單獨存在的」；正如保羅在加拉太書五6說：「使人生發仁愛的信心」——而這種愛在實際生活中的表現，羅馬書十二1至十五13列出了細節。但這個角度屬於論證的後半部；目前最重要的，是堅持：人領受神稱義的恩典，是靠信心，不是靠行爲。

31.更是堅固律法。如果保羅是用希伯來文寫，他很可能會用動詞qiyyem一字。拉比用這個字聲稱亞伯拉罕「成就了律法」。保羅很可能聯想到這類主張，因此他下面繼續辯明，亞伯拉罕的確成就了律法，或「堅固」了律法，但是，根據聖經的見證，他堅固律法的方式，是憑信心領受神所賜的義131。

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (a. “By Faith Alone”: Initial Statement (3:27–31))

Paul moves quickly through several implications of and arguments for justification by faith. He begins by showing how justification by faith excludes any possibility of boasting on the part of Jews (vv. 27–28). The next two verses provide further reason for accepting the principle that justification must be by faith with no admixture of “works of the law”; only so can God truly be the God of Gentiles as well as Jews. Finally, in v. 31, Paul responds briefly to a Jewish objection to his stress on faith; no, he argues, faith does not nullify but “establishes” the law—enables it to be truly fulfilled.

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (a. “By Faith Alone”: Initial Statement (3:27–31))

The root issue here, then, is not salvation-historical, but anthropological. It is not only Jewish pride in a covenant relationship with God, but pride in accomplishments, the tendency to think that their obedience to the law constituted some kind of claim on God, that Paul rejects.832 This is wrong because p 268 justification can come only by faith: not only now that Christ has been revealed (vv. 21–24)—although this makes it even clearer—but in the past also (chap. 4). This is not to say, either, that all Jews were prone to such a boastful attitude. Certainly, the centrality of the law in the Jewish religion made Jews susceptible to such a tendency; but all people, being fallen, exhibit the same tendency: Greeks, boasting in their wisdom (see 1 Cor. 1:19–31); Americans, boasting in their “American way of life”; and all too many Christians, boasting in their “good deeds” instead of in the grace of God.

The Letter to the Romans (Second Edition) (a. “By Faith Alone”: Initial Statement (3:27–31))

The brevity of Paul’s assertion and the lack of any immediate explanation make a decision difficult. But the stress on faith as establishing the law suggests that Paul’s focus might be on law as fulfilled in and through our faith in Christ. In 8:4, Paul will argue that those who are in Christ and who “walk according to the Spirit” have the law fulfilled “in them,” in the sense that their relationship to Christ by faith fully meets the demands of God’s law. While we cannot be certain, it is likely that Paul means essentially p 277 the same thing here: that Christian faith, far from shunting aside the demands of the law, provides (and for the first time!) the complete fulfillment of God’s demand in his law.

罗马书（第二版）（a.“唯独因信”：初始声明（3:27-31））

保罗快速阐述了因信称义的几个含义和论据。他首先展示了因信称义如何排除了犹太人任何自夸的可能性（第 27-28 节）。接下来的两节经文进一步提供了接受这一原则的理由，即称义必须靠信仰，不能掺杂“律法的行为”；只有这样，上帝才能真正成为外邦人和犹太人的上帝。最后，在第 31 节中，保罗简短地回应了犹太人对他强调信仰的反对意见；不，他认为，信仰不会废除法律，而是“确立”法律——使法律真正得以实现。

罗马书（第二版）（a.“唯独因信”：初始声明（3:27-31））

因此，这里的根本问题不是救赎历史，而是人类学。保罗反对的不仅是犹太人对与上帝的盟约关系的骄傲，还有他们对成就的骄傲，即认为他们对律法的服从构成了对上帝的某种要求的倾向。832 这是错误的，因为称义只能通过信仰来实现：不仅在基督已经显现之后（第 21-24 节）——尽管这使这一点更加清楚——而且在过去也是如此（第 4 章）。这并不是说所有犹太人都倾向于这种自夸的态度。当然，律法在犹太教中的核心地位使犹太人容易受到这种倾向的影响；但所有堕落的人都表现出同样的倾向：希腊人以他们的智慧为荣（见哥林多前书 1:19-31）；美国人以他们的“美国生活方式”为荣；太多的基督徒以他们的“善行”而不是上帝的恩典为荣。罗马书（第二版）（a.“唯独凭信心”：初始声明（3:27-31））

保罗的断言简短，缺乏任何直接的解释，使得做出决定变得困难。但强调信心是建立律法的，这表明保罗的重点可能是律法在我们对基督的信仰中和通过我们对基督的信仰而实现的。在 8:4 中，保罗将论证那些在基督里并“按照圣灵行事”的人“在他们身上”实现了律法，从某种意义上说，他们通过信仰与基督的关系完全满足了上帝律法的要求。虽然我们不能确定，但​​保罗在这里的意思很可能是相同的：基督教信仰非但没有回避律法的要求，反而（第一次！）完全满足了上帝在他的律法中的要求。