謝謝你提出這很重要的問題。我想現在還不是我來處理這問題的時機，所以我就簡短提幾句，不多作論述。首先，唐牧師自己知道「基督人性非受造」乃是他的創見，與整個基督教正統對立，所以他自己很小心。那天我跟 David Tong 聯合起來，就是跟他辯論這個，到最後，他承認這問題他還沒想清楚，他也請我將教會歷史上相關的神學文獻整理出來，供他參考，因為我所提到的那些重要基督論著作，他都沒讀過。他也澄清，他的立場並非「基督人性非受造」，而是「基督的人性有沒有可能不是受造的？」，只是對整個教會正統提出疑問，但他自己尚無確定答案。

任何對基督教神學有點粗淺認識的人都知道，自迦克敦會議以來，「基督人性受造」乃所有正統神學家的立場，而少數反對這立場的人，都被定為異端。唐牧師自己也很明白，他的想法偏離整個基督教正統，因此他不敢輕易下定論。莫名其妙的是，很多自認跟隨唐牧師的人，把他提出的一個疑問絕對化，變成了他們的神學立場，甚至以為歷代改革宗正統都主張「基督人性非受造」。這些人完全不明白唐牧師的用意，而他們對於教會歷史上的基督論，連最粗淺的認識都沒有。

我現在先不在這議題上多作發表，等我整理好資料，給唐牧師看過後，看他反應如何，我再作論述。謝謝！

Alex

网上一篇文章说唐牧师领军的“改革宗归正神学”否认‘基督人性是被造’的这个符合基督教正统教义（http://bbs.cgdepot.net/viewthread.php?tid=12062）。想知道你了解的情况是怎么样的？

另外，能否就“基督人性是被造”这个议题多谈一点。

谢谢

John

筆者：
Thanks for the information. It’s very helpful in giving me the opportunity to clarify some points. As I said, the divorce per se does not constitutes legalism. I wrote: “in particular cases such a divorce might have pleased God.” My point was that the Pharisaism lies in the fact that Ezra made the divorce a covenant requirement–I will explain this in view of Murray’s categorization of OT covenants later.

Speaking of Biblical Theology, the chiasm that you pointed out underscores the structural and thus formal centrality of Ezra 9-10, but it says nothing about the content or theological message of the passage.

Narrative critics such as Robert Alter, and commentators who have developed narrative-critical insights of their own such as Bruce Waltke (from a dogmatic viewpoint I completely recognise the theological errors in some of their presuppositions, but that pertains to another discussion), have pointed out that OT authors often use literary structure as a means to convey theological commentary. Chiasm, to give one example that you’ve mentioned, serves to highlight the passage that lies at the centre of the chiastic structure. There are yet other literary structures, such as “parallel commentary” (e.g. the account of Judah in Genesis 38 serving as a commentary on the account of Joseph in the rest of the chapter, and vice versa).

Another form of intra-textual commentary is authorial silence. The Book of Esther is the classic case: the author is completely silent about God, who is not mentioned at all in the entire Book. This silence underscores the theological point that God works providentially through the most ordinary events, and that divine miracles don’t just take place in ways that are beyond the natural order of things.

There is a more prevalent form of silence on the part of the author or the characters in the OT. Robert Alter points out, “When someone’s silence is actually isolated for narration, we may infer that the refusal or avoidance of speech is itself a significant link in the concatenation of the plot” (Art of Biblical Narrative, 100). Such a silence normally conveys disapproval, condemnation, or other forms of negation. For example, the “hiatus of silence” between Genesis 42:1-2 is a confirmation of “Jacob’s charge that his sons were simply standing there” despite the threat of the famine (ibid., 200).

Authorial silence about God’s response to the Israelites in Ezra 9-10 can also be understood as a form of negative silence. The Israelites make a covenant with God, in which they added artificial requirements to the Law of God. Their aim was obviously to please God so that by their repentance they could bring about the restoration of Israel. However, as I pointed out: “Never once does the Author say in Ezra 10 that God was pleased with the man-made covenant. Never once does this text say that God was delighted when the Jews divorced their pagan spouses. Never once does the Bible tell us that God had forgiven these people because of the divorce.”

Of course, you have argued that the author does not say that God punished them or was offended by their actions either. But consider this: in effect, the author is telling us that the Israelites said and did a whole lot of things to try to please God, but God didn’t respond to them at all. Can this lack of response be understood as God’s silent approval of what they said and did? (If I may demonstrate this in a not-so-academic way), imagine if you said and did a whole lot of things in an attempt to please your parents, but they respond with nothing but silence. Could this have been a silent approval? The fact is, the Israelites were expecting something, and God responded by not giving to them what they expected. Would this not be better explained as God’s silent disapproval?

We can delve even deeper into Biblical Theology (which does underlie my writings even though it might not appear explicitly so). Authorial silence on God’s response towards the Israelites in Ezra 9-10, I propose, can be understood in light of canonical intertextuality: this was precisely the period in which God gave Israel her very last prophets in the Old Testament. Interestingly, in Ezra 9-10 the author does not relate the promises and blessings in Haggai and Zechariah whatsoever, nor do the two prophets respond to the man-made covenant in Ezra 9-10. It would be a defensible thesis to say that Ezra 9-10 was the starting point that consequently (and soon) brought about the Period of Silence between the last prophets and John the Baptist–though I do not claim to have done enough research to sustain this thesis.

Now, onto the topic of the covenant. I basically agree with you on the three kinds of covenants in the Old Testament, for I am a reader of Murray as well. Murray’s formulation is one way of stating the matter; I agree with the content of his formulation, but I don’t necessarily use the same categorization (I will explain this later).

In Murray’s formulation, there is, as you pointed out, a third category of covenants, namely, ones that believers make with God. Murray’s observation is of course true. However, this has to be qualified with very careful delimitations. When a man makes a covenant with God, if this covenant is to be valid in the divine-human relation, then, as you said, it has to correspond to a covenant that God has already made with men. The man-to-God covenant can be nothing but a renewal or reconfirmation of a God-to-man covenant. In this sense, then, the man-to-God covenant is not really man-t0-God, nor is it really a different type of a covenant. As we see in Jeremiah 34, the prophet speaks in the voice of God, saying that the Israelites had once repented and made covenants with God–the “covenants that they had made” (verses 15, 18). Surely the Israelites were in one sense–secundum quid–the makers of the covenant. Yet, in verse 18, Yahweh calls this covenant “MY covenant”. The covenant was really God’s! God was simpliciter the one who made the covenant, not the Israelites! The Israelites made the covenant only secundum quid, not simpliciter! All that the Israelites did was to re-establish their allegiance to an already-exiting covenant, and only in this sense was the covenant described as having been made by men. Only under this delimitation is a priest allowed to make a covenant with God, but in this sense, the priest is not really making the covenant, because he is not speaking prophetically about any new revelation, nor is he setting any new terms for or giving any new content to the covenant.

But what did Ezra do? Ezra set new terms and conditions for the covenant. He conjured up new covenantal requirements as a priest, not a prophet. He was making a covenant ex nihilo, rather than renewing the covenant that God had made with Israel! This certainly does not fit into Murray’s third category of OT covenants–which in the first instance is not really a self-standing category at all anyway. Thus I do not think Murray’s categorization of OT covenants can be invoked to justify Ezra’s act of making a covenant with God.

In short, I still think that Ezra’s man-made covenant was the seed of Pharisaism in Second-Temple Judaism.

Speaking of Biblical Theology, the chiasm that you pointed out underscores the structural and thus formal centrality of Ezra 9-10, but it says nothing about the content or theological message of the passage.

Narrative critics such as Robert Alter, and commentators who have developed narrative-critical insights of their own such as Bruce Waltke (from a dogmatic viewpoint I completely recognise the theological errors in some of their presuppositions, but that pertains to another discussion), have pointed out that OT authors often use literary structure as a means to convey theological commentary. Chiasm, to give one example that you’ve mentioned, serves to highlight the passage that lies at the centre of the chiastic structure. There are yet other literary structures, such as “parallel commentary” (e.g. the account of Judah in Genesis 38 serving as a commentary on the account of Joseph in the rest of the chapter, and vice versa).

Another form of intra-textual commentary is authorial silence. The Book of Esther is the classic case: the author is completely silent about God, who is not mentioned at all in the entire Book. This silence underscores the theological point that God works providentially through the most ordinary events, and that divine miracles don’t just take place in ways that are beyond the natural order of things.

There is a more prevalent form of silence on the part of the author or the characters in the OT. Robert Alter points out, “When someone’s silence is actually isolated for narration, we may infer that the refusal or avoidance of speech is itself a significant link in the concatenation of the plot” (Art of Biblical Narrative, 100). Such a silence normally conveys disapproval, condemnation, or other forms of negation. For example, the “hiatus of silence” between Genesis 42:1-2 is a confirmation of “Jacob’s charge that his sons were simply standing there” despite the threat of the famine (ibid., 200).

Authorial silence about God’s response to the Israelites in Ezra 9-10 can also be understood as a form of negative silence. The Israelites make a covenant with God, in which they added artificial requirements to the Law of God. Their aim was obviously to please God so that by their repentance they could bring about the restoration of Israel. However, as I pointed out: “Never once does the Author say in Ezra 10 that God was pleased with the man-made covenant. Never once does this text say that God was delighted when the Jews divorced their pagan spouses. Never once does the Bible tell us that God had forgiven these people because of the divorce.”

Of course, you have argued that the author does not say that God punished them or was offended by their actions either. But consider this: in effect, the author is telling us that the Israelites said and did a whole lot of things to try to please God, but God didn’t respond to them at all. Can this lack of response be understood as God’s silent approval of what they said and did? (If I may demonstrate this in a not-so-academic way), imagine if you said and did a whole lot of things in an attempt to please your parents, but they respond with nothing but silence. Could this have been a silent approval? The fact is, the Israelites were expecting something, and God responded by not giving to them what they expected. Would this not be better explained as God’s silent disapproval?

We can delve even deeper into Biblical Theology (which does underlie my writings even though it might not appear explicitly so). Authorial silence on God’s response towards the Israelites in Ezra 9-10, I propose, can be understood in light of canonical intertextuality: this was precisely the period in which God gave Israel her very last prophets in the Old Testament. Interestingly, in Ezra 9-10 the author does not relate the promises and blessings in Haggai and Zechariah whatsoever, nor do the two prophets respond to the man-made covenant in Ezra 9-10. It would be a defensible thesis to say that Ezra 9-10 was the starting point that consequently (and soon) brought about the Period of Silence between the last prophets and John the Baptist–though I do not claim to have done enough research to sustain this thesis.

Now, onto the topic of the covenant. I basically agree with you on the three kinds of covenants in the Old Testament, for I am a reader of Murray as well. Murray’s formulation is one way of stating the matter; I agree with the content of his formulation, but I don’t necessarily use the same categorization (I will explain this later).

In Murray’s formulation, there is, as you pointed out, a third category of covenants, namely, ones that believers make with God. Murray’s observation is of course true. However, this has to be qualified with very careful delimitations. When a man makes a covenant with God, if this covenant is to be valid in the divine-human relation, then, as you said, it has to correspond to a covenant that God has already made with men. The man-to-God covenant can be nothing but a renewal or reconfirmation of a God-to-man covenant. In this sense, then, the man-to-God covenant is not really man-t0-God, nor is it really a different type of a covenant. As we see in Jeremiah 34, the prophet speaks in the voice of God, saying that the Israelites had once repented and made covenants with God–the “covenants that they had made” (verses 15, 18). Surely the Israelites were in one sense–secundum quid–the makers of the covenant. Yet, in verse 18, Yahweh calls this covenant “MY covenant”. The covenant was really God’s! God was simpliciter the one who made the covenant, not the Israelites! The Israelites made the covenant only secundum quid, not simpliciter! All that the Israelites did was to re-establish their allegiance to an already-exiting covenant, and only in this sense was the covenant described as having been made by men. Only under this delimitation is a priest allowed to make a covenant with God, but in this sense, the priest is not really making the covenant, because he is not speaking prophetically about any new revelation, nor is he setting any new terms for or giving any new content to the covenant.

But what did Ezra do? Ezra set new terms and conditions for the covenant. He conjured up new covenantal requirements as a priest, not a prophet. He was making a covenant ex nihilo, rather than renewing the covenant that God had made with Israel! This certainly does not fit into Murray’s third category of OT covenants–which in the first instance is not really a self-standing category at all anyway. Thus I do not think Murray’s categorization of OT covenants can be invoked to justify Ezra’s act of making a covenant with God.

In short, I still think that Ezra’s man-made covenant was the seed of Pharisaism in Second-Temple Judaism.