我們要照著我們的形像,按著我們的樣式造人

創1 : 26 : “我們要照著我們的形像,按著我們的樣式造人 .”所謂的 “我們” 該作何解? 筆者參考了下列書籍, 並提出筆者的看法.

(1) 證主21世紀聖經新釋 (福音證主協會)
本處是形容神與天使們的話, 也是本章內有其他超自然本體的唯一暗示. 這記載表示 “人” 同時有神和天使的樣式. (在傳統上, 基督徒看 “我們”和 “我們的” 是暗示三位一體的其他位格, 雖然這是一個颇合理的解釋, 但不是本處的首要意思.)
• 創1:27曰: 神就照著自己的形像照人, 乃是照著他的形像造男造女. 這裡很清楚的說是 “自己” 的形像造人, 又怎麼會是神和天使的行像造人? 彼後2:4曰: 就是天使犯了罪, 神也沒有寬容, 曾把他們丟在地獄, 交在黑暗中, 等候審判. 由此可知, 有犯罪的天使, 自然也有沒犯罪的天使. 沒有犯罪的天使又是怎樣的? 從創世記的資料推論, 應像還沒有犯罪的亞當和夏娃. 所以人和天使有共同的形像, 而這個型像就是來自神.
(2) 聖經新國際研讀本 (更心傳道會)
我們........我們的........我們的: 神以創造者和君王的身份, 對祂天庭中的萬軍宣告祂的顛峰作為 (見3:22; 11:7; 賽6:8; 又見王上22:19-23; 伯15:8; 耶23:18).
• 當神要作某事時, 會與先知和天庭中的天使們討論, 這可從王上22:19-23看出:
王上22:19: 米該亞說: “你要聽耶和華的話. 我看見耶和華坐在寶座上, 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右.
22:20 : 耶和華說: “誰去引誘亞哈王上基列的拉末去陣亡呢? 這個就這樣說, 那個就那樣說.
22:21 : 隨後有一個神靈出來, 站在耶和華面前, 說: “我去引誘他.”
22:22 : 耶和華同他說: “你用何法呢?” 他說: “我去, 要在他眾先知口中作謊言的靈. 耶和華說: “這樣, 你必能引誘,. 你去如此行吧!”
22:23 : 現在耶和華使謊言的靈入了你這些先知的口, 並且耶和華已經命定降禍於你”
留意22節耶和華說: “你去如此行吧!” 但在23節, 王上作者卻說是耶和華作的. 這與創1:26的 “我們” 和1:27的 “祂” 異曲同工. 創1:26是神說的話, 創1:27是摩西講的話. 這也就是說, 最後決定還是神本身.
(3) 聖經啟導本 (海天書樓)
26節的 “我們” 是神宣佈祂登峰造極的創造工作的自稱, 代表神的豐富華麗(3:22; 11:7)
• 神用六天創世, 把一切看著是好的 (創1:18; 1:21: 1:25; 1:31), 創1:28最後才創造人. 創1:28曰: 神就賜福給他們, 又對他們說, 要生養眾多, 遍滿地面. 治理這地. 也要管理海裡的魚, 空中的鳥, 和地上各樣行動的活物. 神創造人, 可說是登峰造極的創造. 神指著祂在創造人之前所造的一切, 可代表神的豐富華麗. 但神用 “我們” 宣告, 到底是跟誰說呢? 這裡沒有交代.
(4) 聖經簡釋本 (中國基督教協會) 以賽亞書中, 神也用 “我們” 來指稱 (賽6:8), 神並非獨自在天庭, “智慧” 也參與了神的創造 (箴8:30).
• 此註釋不詳. 所謂 “神並非獨自在天庭”, 是否指天庭是由神和 “智慧” 組成? 箴8:30曰: 那時, 我在他那裡為工師, 日日為他所喜愛, 常常在他面前踴躍. “我” 固然指 “智慧”, 但沒跡像顯示她參與創世工作. “工師” 只是耶和華面前 “踴躍” 和 “喜悅”. 前者是 “踴躍在她為人預備可住之地”, 後者 “喜悅住在人之間(箴8:31). 箴8:22-27只說耶和華創世之前 “就有了我”, “我已被立”, “我已出生”, “我在那裡” 就箴言整本書來看, 作者只是把智慧擬人化. 第九章更把智慧和愚蠢對比. 第1章20節開始敘述智慧在呼喚人, 第2章則說智慧的賞賜. 第2章6節說, 耶和華 “賜人智慧”. 也就是說, 人可得智慧, 並成為 “工師”. 第8章27-29節說神創世, 接下去的30節才說 “智慧” 為 “工師”. 如把此與創1:28對照, “工師” 是神委任管理萬物的人之身份.
(5) 聖經研讀版(環球聖經公會有限公司)
不同學者對這裡使用復數代名詞有各種各樣詮釋. 有人認為是指三位一體. 其他則從文法角度解釋, 視之為若不是用復數來表示威榮, 就是強調神性, 或是表示神對自己說話. 另有人認為這裡是指神與他在天上純潔的宮庭(見賽6:8).
• 三位一體的可能性很小, 因為此說須假設創1:26 是由一個位格或兩個位格對其他位格講話, 並須限定 “我們” 是三而已. 在聖經裡,無法找到支持此觀點的章節. 最接近的是太28:19, 此處指的是 “名” 而非 “體”. 換句話說, 父子聖靈只有一個名, 而非供同擁有一個體. 就算是 “我們(復數)” 是指神的三個位格, 單數的 “形像” “樣式” 是指神的一體, 第27節也應該是, 乃是造 “他們(復數)” 的 “形像(單數)”造男造女. 但聖經卻用單數的 “他” 及單數的 “形像”.
用復數來表示威榮, 強調神性, 或神對自己說話, 但 “我們” 卻顯示有講者, 亦有聽者.
第三個理由可能性最高, 但所引用的賽6:8根本與創1:26, 27節一樣, 証明不了甚麼.
(6) 聖經(思高譯本)
按古猶太人經師解釋, 是指天主和天使, 好似天主同天主商量; 但有些學者主張為 “威嚴復數” 或 “議決復數”. 教父和神學家多以為此復數暗示聖三的奧秘.. 此說若是啟示的演進說是對的 人相似天主是按靈魂説的. 相似天主有理智, 意志和記憶. 論人的肉身, 當天主造亞當時, 已預見作亞當第二基督(羅5:14).
• 此說是暗示三位一體的奧秘, 然後在新約中逐漸啟示神的三個位格, 即父在舊約工作, 子則在新約(四福音)裡工作, 最後是教會在傳教方面動工. 但主張三一論者又指出創1:1 的神(父), 創1:2 .是指聖靈,.創1:3是指子, 三個位格一起創造世界, 這已是明示而非暗示了.
如是“啟示的演進說,” 也就不會有天主教與東正教的 “和子” 的爭論而閙分裂. 筆者較傾於 “教義墮落說”. 關於三一說, 參(5).
人是由靈, 魂, 體組成. 活時還可免強說是三位一體. 但人死後, 體歸回塵土(創3:19), 靈歸於神(34:14), 魂則下陰間(太10:28)或進樂園(路23:43; 彼前1:9). 三者可以分開, 也必定分開. 然而, 三位一體之位格是永恆的, 是不能分開的.
神何止只有理智, 意志, 和記憶. 祂也是愛(約1:16), 公義(帖前1:6), 柔和謙卑(太11:29)等等.
(7) 聖經靈修版(國際聖經協會)
一種觀點認為這是指三位一體的真理, 聖父, 聖子, 聖靈都是靈. 另有觀點認為這樣的表達方式是表示威嚴, 好像西方國家的君主在傳統上也是以復數自稱的. 我們確實知道神的兒子基督和神的靈也參與創造的工作(參伯33:14; 詩104:30; 西1:16)
• 關於三位一體, 參(5)及(6). 必須指出的是, 聖經從未稱子為聖子, 只稱他為我的兒子 (太3:17), 我的愛子(太17:5), 獨生子(約3:16). 這說明子低於父, 不可能與父同等. 父的辈份比子高, 父是前辈, 子是後輩. 若是同等的話, 那他們應是兄弟關係.
其所引用的經文如下:
伯33:4 : 神的靈造我 全能者的氣使我得生.
詩104:30 : 你發出你的靈, 牠們便受造, 你使地面更換為新.
西 1:16 : 因為萬有都是靠他造的, 無論是天上的, 地上的, 能看見
的; 不能看見的. 或是有位的, 主治的, 執政的, 掌權的;
一 概都是藉著他造的, 又是為他造的.
伯33:4 和詩104:30的 “神的靈”, 根據三一論, 是指聖靈(羅8:9). 徒5:9之主的靈, 羅8:9之基督的靈, 徒16:7之耶穌的靈, 太10:20之父的靈, 全都指聖靈. 約4:24說神是個靈, 父是神, 子是神 聖靈是神, 卻不是三位神, 而是一位神. 那父的 “靈”, 子的 “靈” 又叫甚麼呢? 由於三一論不相信 “靈裡的一致”, 故只能推說父子聖靈是以一體來連繫三個位格. 那這一體是以甚麼方式存在呢? 三一論不能自圓其說.
至於西1:16, 我們先看1:15: 愛子是那不能看見之神的像, 是首生的, 在一切被造以先. 當提到 “首生” 時, 時間觀念已存在, 即有 “未生前” 及 “生後” 徒13:33曰: 神已經向我們這作兒女的應驗, 叫耶穌復活了. 正如詩篇第二篇上記著說: 你是我的兒子, 我今日生你. 由此可知, 16節的創造是指著有血有肉的子說的. 保羅的意思是說, 這個能讓人看見並摸到的子, 原是創造萬物的神. 創造萬物的神, 道成肉身, 來到世間, 並不表示在天上已沒有了神. 在天上的為父, 在地上的為子. 此節經文並非說子是一位參與創世工作的另一位格.
(8) 創世記注釋上冊(基督教文藝出版社)
我們稍為論述關於上帝提及自己. 在這裡, 就在這一章裡, 只在這個地方特別用第一人稱眾數的 “我們” 和 “我們的”(但29及30節, 祂又恢復用單數我). 這情形通常隱含基督教三位一體在創造中運行之意(第二位格是創造的道, 一直在發言, 而第三位聖靈則在第二節中), 但是古代希伯來人怎能知道這些東西是甚麼呢? 如今比較常見的, 是把這比作無上的或編輯的 “我們” ---- 但那是歐洲的見解, 而不是希伯來的. 然而, 如果它不能用這兩種解說中任何一種, 那麼它的意思又是甚麼呢?
詩篇第八篇類似的經文, 在這裡再給我們幫助.,其中第五節說上帝賜 “人冠冕”, 也說 “祢叫他比天使(或上帝)微小一點”; 或者像欽定本說, “ 比天使低 一點. 事實上, 希伯來文是伊羅欣(Elohim), 是上帝的正規字眼, 這是研究聖經的人都知道的, 而這字本身是眾數的. 這字一定是早期以色列的祖宗正像鄰邦一樣拜多神, 後來在他們成為一神的信徒時, 殘存下來的. 因為這字等於喚醒他們, 在別人有許多神靈, 分立而又常常爭執時, 對他們卻是只有一位獨神, 而且祂的旨意與目的是一致的.
不過, 在舊約中仍然有幾處地方是眾數的. 其中, 大多數指的是外族神, 正如出埃及記十二章十二節指埃及的多神, 或者在詩篇九十五篇三節: “ 耶和華為大神(伊羅欣), 為大王, 超乎萬神(也是伊羅欣)之上. 甚至第一誡: “除了我以外, 你不可有別的神”(出二十3), 其中的神字, 也是眾數的. 但是很偶然的纔指以色列的上帝有關的神. 一個好例子是詩篇一三八篇一節:“在諸神面前歌頌祢”.
在這些以外, 還要加上幾個稱為 “神的兒子” 所暗示的東西. 例如創世記六章二節(一段以後將給我們困難的經文)及約伯記一章六節與二章一節 ,在這些經文中, “神的眾子” 在上帝面前侍立.
在我們這段經文中, 還保留異教中的另一殘餘的東西. 那就是我們所熟知, 從荷馬來的神靈會議中得來的. 在那會議中, 男神女神不時集合來商討重要事件. 從以色列附近來的亞屈拉哈西斯敘事詩(epic Atrahasis)便是一個例子. 這詩包含米所波大米一個洪水故事.. 它開頭便是神會議, 先是眾神決定創造人類作他們的奴僕 (與本章差異多大啊!)而其後當他們喧嚷吵鬧, 以致眾神夜間不能睡覺時 卻又決定毀滅人類.
但是在希伯來思想中, 這些 “眾神” 是(可能除了剛才提及的創世記第六章二節那使人不安的經文之外)不容許威脅真神的獨一性或威嚴的. 他們並不是 “天使”, 天使是上帝的使者, 好像是較低一級的; 他們也不是舊約其他經文(例如創世記第三章廿四節; 以賽亞書第六章二節)的基路伯和撒拉弗, 他們是上帝的侍衛和護衛者 但是他們的任務並無很大的差別. 他們是希伯來人想像中的主要角色, 不是自己本有權利的人物, 而是上帝的延伸, 帶詩意地足以增強祂的榮耀和聖潔, 保衛祂的超越性而不是向祂挑戰.
對着這背景, 我相信欽定本詩篇八篇五節的 “天使” 比標準修正本的大寫 “上帝” 更為接近標準. 詩人正如創世記第一章的作者一樣, 給人高位, 而且把人描述得高至如天上上帝寶座周圍的神靈. 在這裡, 他----正如創世記第一章第廿六一樣----超出了舊約對人的看法不止一步. 但是他沒有遠至----希伯來人會嗎 ?----直接將 “人” 與那惟一的上帝本身相比. 縱然他 “比上帝微小一點”, 在希伯來人的經驗裡, 他仍然是太近乎上帝.
在本節的 “我們的”, 當然必得用類似的方法解釋. 創世記第一章的作者, 正如我們應當在好幾處注意到的 ,並不慣於用有詩意的詞語去描述上帝. 但是這裡他作了一個例外, 而他所以作這例外的原因並不難找出. 他是在警戒他的讀書, 提防他要論及 “人” 的話的危險性. 於是他故意打開天上宮庭的光景, 而暫時把上帝在祂的天使中隱藏起來. 這麼一來, 他就把祂於 “人” 相隔遠一點, 而準備被他讀者對接着來的奇妙語句, 有適當而均衡的暸解.
當我們考慮創世記第一章廿六節後來所成就的和神學上的價值時, 我們猜想作者的目的並未十分成功. 他怎麼知道他小心磨煉推測的話, 會落在那些對希伯來語的細緻特色毫無感覺的人手上呢?
• 此說法認為人不能與神相比, 所以摩西故意打開天庭光景, 暫時把神及天使隱藏起來, 取而代之的是諸神(詩138:1), 神的兒子(創6:2),及神的眾子(伯1:6; 2:1). 上述三種 “神”, 比天使低一點, 是神的延伸. 問題是 “諸神”, “神的兒子”和 “神的眾子”是誰? 聖經沒有交代. 筆者認為, 詩8:5的關鍵不在於譯為天使或神, 而是此句中的 “他”, 由8:1到8:9, “你”是指神, “他” 是指人. 因此, 人到底比天使高一級(譯為神)或比天使低一級都不是關鍵所在. 如把詩8:5譯為天使或神, 都不會影響 “他” 的意義. 此注釋者把 “他” 當作是神的侍衛和護衛者, 與天使不同, 任務卻與天使並無很大的差別. 這種說法, 未免太過牽強.
(9) The New Jerusalem Bible – Study Edition (Darton, Longman & Todd.
Ltd)
It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God and his
heavenly court (the angels, see 3:5, 22); our text was thus understood by the
Gk version of Ps8:5 (quoted in Beg 2:7). Alternatively, the plural expresses
the majesty and fullness of God’s being; the common names for God in
Hebrew is elohim, a plural form.
• 復數是指天庭裡的天使. 所引用經文以支持此觀點如下:
創3:5 : 因為神知道, 你們吃的日子, 眼睛就明亮了, 你們便如神能知道善惡
3: 22 : 耶和華神說: “那人已經與我們相似, 能知道善惡. 現在恐怕
伸手又摘生命樹的果子吃, 就永遠活著.
創3:5告訴我們墮落天使的存在. 創3:1曰: 耶和華所造的, 惟有蛇
比田野一切的活物更狡猾. 蛇對人說: “神豈是真說不許你們吃園中
所有樹上的果子嗎?” 此節好像墮落的天使與其他活物同時被造, 其實不然. 啟20:3曰:他捉住那龍, 就是古蛇, 又叫魔鬼, 也叫撒但 把牠捆綁一千年. 如以此節與路20:3對比(這時 撒但入了稱為加人
猶大的心, 他本是十二門徒裡的一個), 我們可知道蛇是被造之物 是撒但進蛇中藉以迷惑人.
第3:22 的 “我們” 和1:26節的 “我們” 一樣都是神說的話, 而非該書作者講的話.
詩8:5 你叫他比天使微小一點, 並賜他榮耀尊貴為冠冕.
來1:14 天使豈不都是服役的靈嗎? 奉差遣為那將要承受救恩的人
效力嗎?
從此處, 我們可知天使的存在. 工作是服役與奉差遣的, 受命於神
所以創1:26的 “我們”, 應是指神與天使.
(10) The Jerusalem Bible(Darton, Longman & Todd, Ltd)
It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God
and his heavenly court (the angles, cf. 3:5, 22); our text was thus understood
by the Greek version (followed by Vulg.) of Ps 8:5 (quoted in Heb 2:7). Alternatively, the plural expresses the majesty and fullness of God’s being;
the common name for God in Hebrew is Elohim, a plural form. Thus the way is prepared for the interpretation of the Fathers who saw in this text a hint of the trinity.
• “我們”是指神與天使的討論, 參(9). 如當神說是 “我們 “以示威嚴, 那賽6:8 又該作何解釋呢? 賽6:8曰: “我又聽見主的聲音說, 我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我”. 照此羅輯講, 應是 “我們”可以差遣誰呢? “我們” 暗示三位一體的討論, 參(5), (6)和(7).
(11) Fire Bible Global Study Edition – NIV (Life Publishers)
The use of word “us” (plural) suggests that God has a certain plurality, or multi-faceted nature (cf. Ps 2:7; Isa 48:16). This seems to be an early reference to the trinity, or the existence of God in three distinct but interrelated and unified Persons. The tri-unity (i.e., “three-in-One” nature) of nature does not become clear, however, until the NT (see Mt 3:17, Mk 1:11)
• 關於三位一體的討論, 參(5), (6)和(7). 茲將引用經文下列:
詩 2:7 : 受膏者說: “我要傳聖旨.” 耶和華對我說: “你是我的兒子, 我今日生你.”
賽48:16 你們要就近我來聽這話, 我從起頭並未曾在隱密處外說話.
自從有這事, 我就在那裡. 現在主耶和華差我和他的靈來.
太 3:17 從天上有聲音說: “這是我的愛子, 我所喜悅的.”
可 1:11 又有聲音從天上來, 說: “這是我的愛子, 我喜悅你.”
為了實行救恩計劃, 神暫時 “分為三位”, 才有父子聖靈之分. 一旦救恩完成後, 再也沒有父子聖靈之別, 只有獨一真神. 啟22:3之 “寶座 “, “他 的面” 和 “他的名字”, 都是單數.
(12) The Case For Christ Study Bible – NIV (Zondervan)
God speaks as the Creator King, announcing his crowning work to the member of his heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:18; see also 1 Ki 22:19 – 23; Job 15:8; Jer 23.: 18).
• 此注釋可能性最高. 茲將引用經文列下並論之:
創 : 3:22 耶和華說: “那人已經與我們相似, 能知道善惡. 現在恐怕他伸手又摘生命樹果子吃, 就永遠活著.
下一節(創3:23 耶和華神便打發他出伊甸園去, 耕種他所自出之土.
創3:22 神用 “我們”, 而創3:23只說是”耶和華”而已, 這與創1:26 的 “我們” 與 “他” 相似.
創11:7 : 我們下去, 在那裡變亂他們的口音, 使他們的言語彼此不通.
同樣的, 接下去第八節曰: 於是耶和華使他們從那裡分散全地上, 他們就停工, 不造那城了. 第七節說 “我們”, 第八節卻說是耶和華. 讓我們繼續看下一個引文:
賽 6:8 : 我又聽見主的聲音說: “我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我!”
接下去的第九節 “他” 說: “你去告訴這百姓說, 你們聽是要聽見, 卻不明白. 看是要看見, 卻不曉得.”
第八節用 “我們”, 第九節用的是 “他”. 綜觀上述討論, 所有經文都有一共同點: 當神說話時, 就用 “我們”. 當該書作者指神說話時, 卻用 “他” 或 “耶和華”. 再看看下列經文:
王上 22:9 米該雅說: “你要聽耶和華的話, 我看見耶和華坐在寶座上, 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右.”
22:20: 耶和華說: “誰去引誘亞哈王上基列的拉末陣亡呢?” 這個就這樣說, 那個就那樣說.
22:21: 隨後有一個神靈出來, 站在耶和華面前, 說: “我去引誘他”.
22:22 耶和華問他說: “你用何法呢?” 他說: “我去, 要在他眾先知口中作慌言的靈.” 耶和華說: “這樣, 你必能引誘他, 你如此去行吧!”
22:23: 現在耶和華使慌言的靈入了你這些先知的口, 並且耶和華已經命定降禍與你.
上述經文說明有天庭和天使的存在, 而且神會與天使們討論. 然而, 作最後決定還是在於神. 所以創3:22用 “我們”, 創11:7 也是 “我們”, 賽6:8說 “我們”. 以此推論, 創1:26的 “我們” 應是指神與眾天使討論, 然後神(創3:23和11:8皆用 “耶和華”, 賽6:9用 “他” )才決定並進行所討論的工作.
伯15:8: 你曾聽見神的密旨? 你是將智慧獨自得盡嗎?
耶23:18: 有誰站在耶和華的會中, 得以聽見並會悟他的話呢? 有隨留心聽他的話呢?
上述經文指出, 有一個叫耶和華的會, 在此會中, 而 “天使和先知能或不能領悟或留心聽他的話” 再一次說明的確有天庭的存在. 而神也樂意讓天使和先知在天庭知道他的旨意. 如創18:17曰: 耶和華說: “我所要做的事, 豈可瞞著亞伯拉罕?”
(13) The Learning Bible – NIV (Zondervan Publishing House)
The plural (us, our) may refer to God and the heavenly beings that make up God’s heavenly court (11:7; 1Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:8).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (11)和(12).
(14) Life Application Study Bible – NIV (Tyndale House Publishers)
Why does God use the plural form, “Let us make man in our image?” One view says this is a reference to the Trinity – God the Father, Jesus Christ his son, and the Holy Spirit – all of whom are God. Another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. Kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking of themselves. From Job 33:4 and Psalm 104:30, we do know that God’s spirit was present in the creation. From Colossians 1:16, we know that Christ, God’s Son, was at work in the creation.
• 參(5), (6), (7)和(11).
(15) Quest Study Bible-NIV (Zondervan)
Why did God say, Let us (plural) make man in our image? (1:26) Often king refers to themselves in this way. The Hebrew word for God (Elohim) is plural, perhaps indicating that God was taking counsel with himself. This may also hint at the mystery of the Trinity --- in the unity of God there is plurality. Some think this describes God speaking to his heavenly court of angels.
• 此處提出三個可能性 行 (i) 神自言自語. 這個可能性很小, 因為 “我們” 表示有講者, 亦有聽者. (ii) 三位一體. 參(5) (6) (7) 和(11). (iii) 對天庭的天使說話. 從(1)可知未墮落的天使和未犯罪的人有共同的形像, 而這一個形像來自神. 因此神說話時用 “我們” (創1:26), 摩西寫的創1:27 是用 “他” 因為的確是 “他” 在進行創造工作. 參(12).
(16) Concordia Self-Study Bible-NIV (Zondervan Publishing House)
God speaks as Creator-King, announcing his crowning work to the members
of his heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8; see also 1K 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jer 23:18).
• 同(13).
(17) The Wesley Study Bible-NRSV (Abingdon Press)
Us and our in 1:26, points to the unique centrality of this moment of creation. This is a purposeful and measured action that God does not entrust to anyone else. Like most theologians of his day, Wesley assumes a Trinitarian interpretation of these plurals：“The three persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, consult about it, and concur in it; because man, when he was made, was to be dedicated and devoted to Father, Son and Holy Ghost”.
• 同(14)
(18) The New Interpreter’s Study-Bible-NRSV (Abingdon Press)
The plural us has been variously interpreted as the plural of “majesty” (the royal “we”) and, in Christian theology, as the Trinity. Here, as elsewhere in Genesis (e.g., 11:7), God is addressing the divine council, the assembly of heavenly being believed to assist God in governing the world and communicating with the human race (1 Kgs 22: 19-23; Job 1: 6-7; Jer 23:18, 22).
• 同(13)
(19) The Harper Collins Study Bible-NRSV (Harper One)
The plural seems to refer to the lesser deities of the divine assembly described in other biblical text. (e.g., 1 Kings 22:19-22; Isa 6::8). In the accomplishment of this utterance, however, God acts alone (God created humankind in his image, v.27). The reference to the divine assembly seems to acknowledge its presence but discounts its active participation in creation.
• 此注釋說, 若是神需要和天庭討論, 將會貶低其在創世中的角色. 但從 創3:33, 11:8, 賽6:9 王上22:23, 真正作最後決定及施行的是神.
(20) The Discipleship Study Bible-NRSV (Westminster John Knox Press)
The plural probably refers to the divine council (see Jer. 23:18-23). God here consults with other divine beings; the creation of human kind thus is the result of a dialogical act. God chooses to share the creative process with those who are not God.
• 耶 23:18 有誰站在耶和華的會中得以聽見並會悟他的話呢? 有誰留心聽他的話呢?
此節說明有 “耶和華的會” 的存在.
• 耶 23:19 看哪! 耶和華的忿怒好像暴風, 已經發出, 是暴烈的旋風, 必轉到惡人的上頭.
“惡人”是指16節的假先知
耶23:20 耶和華的怒氣必不轉消, 直到他心中所擬定的成就了, 末
後的日子你們要全然明白.
“他” 是指神, 也就是說, 神所擬定的成就時, “他”會使 “你們” (即先知)明白
耶23:21 我沒有打發那些先知, 他們竟自奔跑. 我沒有對他們竟自預言.
“他們”是指假先知.
耶23:22 他們若是站在我的會中, 就必使我的百姓聽我的話, 又使他們回頭離開惡道和他們所行的惡.
“他們” 指假先知. 由此可知, 假先知也在神的會中.
耶23:23 耶和華說: “我豈為近處的神呢? 不也為遠處的神嗎?”
這表示遠近的先知和天使都可知神的旨意. 為甚麼會知道呢? 因為神樂意把他的旨意告訴他們, 這也包括人(創18:17).
(21) The Orthodox Study Bible-St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint (St Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology
The Holy Trinity also made man. God the Father is speaking to God the Son (John Chrysostom), and he uses the personal pronouns Us and Our. These pronouns indicate three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as noted in 1:1-3.
• 參(5), (6), (7)和(11).
(22) The NET Bible-New English Translation (Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C.)
The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later Trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory. In 2 Sam 24:14, David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court. (see 1 Kgs : 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12, 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings”. If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.
• 茲將Job 1:6-12 及2:16列下:
伯 1:6 有一天, 神的眾子來侍立在那耶和華面前, 撒但也在其中.
1:7 耶和華問撒但說: “你從哪裡來?” 撒但回答說: “我從地上走來走去, 往返而來.”
1:8 耶和華問撒但說: “你曾用心察看我的僕人約伯沒有? 地上再沒有人像他完全正直, 敬畏神, 遠離惡事.
1:9 撒但回答耶和華說: “約伯敬畏神, 豈是無故呢?
1:10 你豈不是四面圈上籬笆圍護他和他的家, 並他一切所有的.
他手所做的, 都蒙你賜福. 他的家產也在地上增多.
1:11 你且伸手毀他一切所有的, 他必當面棄掉你.”
1:12 耶和華對撒但說: “凡他所有的都在你手中, 只是不可伸手
害於他.” 於是撒但從耶和華面前退去.
上述經文有 “神的眾子”和撒但在耶和華面前交談, 再一次證明天庭中有討論這一回事.
伯 2:1 又有一天 ,神的眾子來侍立在耶和華面前, 撒但也來在其中.
2:2 耶和華問撒但說: “你從哪裡來?” 撒但回答說: “我從地上走來走去, 往返而來.”
2:3 耶和華問撒但說: “你曾用心察看我的僕人約伯沒有? 地上再沒有人像他完全正直, 敬畏神, 遠離惡事. 你雖激動我攻擊他, 無故地毀滅他, 他仍然持守他的純正.
2:4 撒但回答耶和華說: “人以皮代皮, 情願捨棄一切所有的 保全性命.
2:5 你且傷他的骨頭和他的肉, 他必當面棄掉你.”
2:6 耶和華對撒但說: “他在你手中, 只要存留他的生命.”
第三節說得很清楚 是撒但(你)激動神(我)攻擊他(約伯). 換句話說, 是神透過與撒但討論而做某事, 而聖經直接說是神做的.
賽 6:1 當烏西雅王崩的那年, 我見主坐在高高的寶座上. 他的衣裳垂下, 遮滿聖殿.
6:2 其上有撒拉弗侍立, 各有六個翅膀, 用兩個翅膀遮臉, 兩個翅膀遮腳, 兩個翅膀飛翔.
6:3 彼此呼喊說: 聖哉! 聖哉! 聖哉! 萬軍之耶和華, 他的榮光充滿全地.
6:4 因呼喊者的聲音, 門檻的根基震動, 殿充滿了煙雲.
6:5 那時我說: 禍哉! 我滅亡了! 因為我是嘴唇不潔的人, 又住在嘴唇不潔的民中. 又因我眼見大君王----萬軍之耶和華.
6:6 有一撒拉弗飛到我跟前, 手裡拿著紅炭, 是用火剪從壇上取下來的.
6:7 將炭沾我的口, 說: “看哪! 這炭沾了你的嘴, 你的罪孽便除掉, 你的罪惡就赦免了.”
6:8 我又聽見主的聲音說: “我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我!”
綜觀上述經文, 可知撒但, 神的眾子, 先知, 天使, 都可能是天庭中的成員. 此注釋亦提出神的眾子在創造時可能扮演的角色, 即讚美神. 如伯38:7曰: 那時, 晨星一同歌唱, 神的眾子也都歡呼! 再如
啟 4:6, 寶座前像一個玻璃海, 如同水晶. 寶座中和寶座周, 四個活物, 前後遍體都滿了眼睛.
4:7 第一個活物像獅子, 第二個像牛犢,第三個臉面像人, 第四個像飛鷹.
4:8 四活物各有六個翅膀, 遍體內外長了眼睛. 他們晝夜不住地說: “ 聖哉! 聖哉! 聖哉! 主是昔在, 今在, 以後永在的全能者.”
4:9 每逢四活物將榮耀, 尊貴, 感謝歸給那坐在寶座上, 活到永永遠遠者的時候,
4:10 那二十四位長老就俯伏在坐寶座的面前敬拜那活到永永遠遠的, 又把他們的冠冕放在寶座前, 說:
4:11 “我們的主, 我們的神, 你是配得榮耀, 尊貴, 權柄的. 因為你創造了萬物. 並且萬物是因你的旨意被創造而有的.
5:11 我又看見聽見, 寶座與活物並長老的周圍有許多天使的聲音, 他們的數目千千萬萬.
5:12 大聲說: “曾被殺的羔羊配得權柄, 豐富, 智慧, 能力, 尊貴, 榮耀, 頌讚的.
由此可知, 在將要審判世界的神的天庭, 包括人(長老)及天使, 而他們是以頌讚來參與神的工作.
(23) The Oxford Study Bible-Revised English Bible (Oxford University Press, Inc.)
The plural us (3:22; 11:7) may be a majestic plural, or else to the minor divine beings thought to surround God, like countries of a human king (1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6).
• 關於神的威嚴 參(5). 關於天庭 , 參(1), (2), (9), (12) 和(22).
(24) 1599 Geneva Bible-The Geneva Bible (Tolle lege Press)
Let us make : signifying, that God taketh counsel with his wisdom and virtue, purposing to make an excellent work above all the rest of his creation.
• 參(3)和(4).
(25) The Essential Study Bible-Contemporary English Version (Penguin
Group)
The plural (we, us) may refer to God and the heavenly beings that make up God’s heavenly court (11:7: Isa 6:8; 1 Kgs 22:19).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22).
(26 ) New Spirit Filled Life Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
God was speaking, not only to what the NT reveals to the rest of the Trinity, but to the entire host of heaven, the angels, as well.
• 關於三位一體 , 參(5), (6)和(7). 關於天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(27) The Billy Graham Training Center Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
From the first chapter of the Bible, God reveals Himself to be “plural”. In this verse, we see all three personalities of God working together during the creation of the world. These three personalities are equal in glory and character, and they share the attributes of God revealed in the Old Testament. They are all eternal-meaning that none was created
• 參(5), (6)和(7)
(28) Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
Let Us make is emphatic. It emphasizes the majesty of the speaker.
Furthermore, the use of plural for God allows for the later revelation of the
Trinity (see 11:7; Matt 28:19).The Us cannot refer to the angles that are
present with God because man is made in the image of God alone, not also
that of angels.
• 參(1), (3), (5), (6)和(7)
(29) ESV Study-ESV (Crossway Bibles)
The text does not specify the identity of the “us” mentioned here. Some have
suggested that God may be addressing the members of his court. Whom the
OT elsewhere calls “sons of God” (e.g., Job 1:6) and the NT calls “angels”, but
a significant objection is that man is not made in the image of angels, nor is
there any indication that angels participated in the creation of human beings.
Many Christian and some Jews have taken “us” to be God Speaking to himself,
since God alone does the making in Gen. 1:27 (cf. 5:1); this would be the first
hint of the trinity in the Bible (cf. 1:2).
• 關於天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22). 關於神的威嚴, 參(5). 三位一體則參(5), (6)和(7).
(30) The Reformation Study Bible-ESV (Ligonier Ministries)
The use of the plural here is variously interpreted. Some view this as an indication of plurality within the divine unity, hinting at the later New Testament revelation of the one God as Father, Son and Spirit. Others explain this usage grammatically --- either as a plural of majesty or as a deliberative plural ( in which God directs the statement to Himself). Finally, some argue that God and his heavenly angelic court are in view.
• 同(29)
(31) The Lutheran Study Bible-ESV (Concordia Publishing House)
While affirming the singularity of God, it is not unusual for the OT to use the plural when speaking of God and his activities. This anticipates the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (though some interpreters understand it to be grammatical device , a plural of majesty of an honorific plural, with no specific theological significance). Irenaeus of Lyons : “with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, The Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks.” Tertullian : If the number of the Trinity also offends you, …with whom did He make man? And to whom did He make him like? (The answer must be), the Son on the one hand, who was one day to put on human nature; and on the other, who was one day to put on human nature; and the other, who was to santify man. With these did He then speak, in the unity of the Trinity, as with His ministers and witnesses. Martin Luther: “Here both appear：’Let Us make’ and ‘He made, in the plural and in singular; thereby Moses clearly and forcibly show us that within and in the very Godhead and the Creating Essence there is one inseparable and eternal plurality.”
• 此觀點認同三一論, 但未引用聖經章節以支持之. 參(5), (6)和(7) 關於三為一體的討論.
(32) The Ryrie NASB Study Bible-NASB (Moody Publishers)
Plurals of majesty.
• 神說 “我們”, 指出有講者及聽者, 不像創1:3 的 “神說”. 此處神只說: “要有光”. 就有了光. 此處並沒用代名詞如 “我”, “我們”, “你”, “你們”, “他”, “他們”, “她” 和 “她們”.
(33) The Transformation Study Bible-NLT (David C. Cook)
The creation of the first man is seen as a very special occasion, for there’s a
“consultation” prior to the event. “Let us make human being in our image”
sounds like that conclusion of a divine deliberation among the persons of the Godhead. God couldn’t have been talking with the angels about his plans because angels weren’t made in God’s image (‘our image”), and angels had nothing to do with the creation of Adam.
• 關於三位一體 參(5), (6)和(7). 關於神的行像, 參(1).
(34) Discover God Study Bible-NLT (Tyndale House Publishers)
God refers to Himself in the plural, saying, “Let Us”. Through history, God has revealed Himself as God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit. God has always existed as these three persons. The New Testament writer Paul the apostle confirmed this truth： “For though (Christ) God created in the heavenly realms and on earth……. Everything was created through Him and for Him”（Colossians 1:16） In describing Jesus, John created everything through Him and nothing was created excerpt through Him” (John 1:2-3).
• 關於西1:15-16, 參(7). 約1:2-3曰:
約1:2 這道太初與神同在.
1:3 萬物是藉著他造的, 沒有一樣不是藉著他造的.
這裡是針對有血有肉的子說的, 並非指神另外有一個位格.

(35) NLT Study Bible-NLT (Tyndale House Publisher)
The plural us has inspired several explanations: (1) the Trinity; (2) the plural denote majesty; (3) a plural to show deliberation with the self; and (4) God speaking with his heavenly court of angels. The concept of the Trinity – one true God who exist eternally in three distinct persons --- was revealed at a latter stage in redemptive history, making it unlikely that the human author intended that here. Hebrew scholars generally dismiss the plural of majesty vies because the grammar does not clearly support it (the plural of majesty has not been demonstrated to be communicated purely through a plural verb). The plural of self-deliberation also lacks evidence; the only clear examples unity (e.g., 2 Sam 24:14). God’s speaking to the heavenly court, however, is well-attested in the OT (see 3:2; 11:7; 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1: 6-12; 2:1-6; 38:7; Ps 89:5-6; Isa 6:1-8; Dan 10:12-13).
• 三一神論 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 神的威嚴, 參(3), (5)和(32). 神的天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22).
(36) Life Application Study Bible-NLT (Tydale House Publishers)
Why does God use the plural form, “Let us make people in our image” ? One vies says this is a reference to the Trinity --- God the Father, Jesus Christ his Son, and the Holy Spirit --- all of whom are God. Another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. Kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking to themselves From Job 33-4 and Psalm 104:30, we do know that God’s Spirit was present in the creation. From Colossians 1:16 we know that Christ, God’s Son, was at work in the creation.
• 三一神論 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 神的天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(37) The Open Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
Unity of the Trinity --- Historically other monotheistic religions have accused Christian of worshiping three Gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Early and medieval Judaism, for instance, just could not conceive of any theological explanation that vindicated Christianity of the change of polytheism.
Christians always have affirmed the great monotheistic statements of the OT (Deut 4:35; 6:4; Is 44:6-20; Zech 14:9). Christian theologians also have wrestled through the centuries with how to express the unity of God’s Being while recognizing distinctions among the tree Persons interacting and fellowshipping within Him. The early church fathers spoke of one divine essence or substance that could not be divided . Within that one essence are three personal distinctions: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No one has improved on that description.
The NT, which teaches the deity of Father (John 6:27), Son (John 1:1; 20:28), and Holy Spirit（Acts 5:3, 4）, also stresses the unity of God (Mark 12:29-32; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; 1 Tim. 2:5). The mystery of the Trinity should remind us that when we contemplate the nature of God we reach the limit of finite human understanding. At the same time, the complexity of human personality, which somehow reflects the divine personality, should cause us not to be surprised by how multifaceted He is.
• 三一論, 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 茲將支持三一論章節下列:
約6:27 不要為那必壞的食物勞力, 要為那存到永生的食物勞力, 就是人子要賜給你們的, 因為人子是神所印證的.
此處只指出子和神, 並非說子是神的其中一個位格.
約 1:1 太初有道, 道與神同在, 道就是神.
約翰的意思是指道成肉身之子, 其實在太初就已經存在了. 神永遠的存在, 這個有血有肉的子原本也是這樣. 使徒們所摸到看到的子, 其實就是神本身. 總之, 1:1是針對子或道本身而言, 而非指神或神的位格.
約20:28 多馬說 我的主 我的神
這裡只說主是神, 根本談不上誰是誰的位格.
徒 5:3 彼得說: “亞拿尼亞, 為甚麼撒但充滿了你的心? 叫你欺哄聖靈, 把田地的價銀私自留下幾份呢?
徒 5:4 田地還沒有賣, 不是你自己的嗎? 既賣了, 價銀不是你作主嗎? 你怎麼心裡起這意念呢? 你不是欺哄人, 是欺哄神了!
徒5:4 的 “神”是否可以解作徒5:3之 “聖靈＂? 到底亞拿尼亞欺哄的, 是聖靈這一位格, 還是擁有三個位格的神? 當聖經用 “神＂ 這個字時, 是指全部三個位格, 還是只指 “父神＂ 或 “聖靈神＂ 或 “子神＂? 或可以指任何一個位格, 或任何兩個位格？ 三一論者必須給 “神＂ 和 “位格＂下定義及解釋兩者之間的關係..
可12:29 耶穌回答說: “第一要緊的就是說, 以色列啊! 你要聽 主--- 我們神是獨一的主.
可12:30: 你要盡心, 盡性, 盡意, 盡力愛主 --- 你的神.
可12:31 : 其次就是說: ‘要愛人如己’, 再沒有比這兩條誡命更大了.”
可12:32 : 那文士對耶穌說: “夫子說, 神是一位, 實在不錯. 除了他以外, 再沒有別的神.
約20:28 多馬說: “我的主! 我的神!” 可12:31之 “你要盡心, 盡性, 盡意, 盡力愛主 ---你的神”, 前者的 “神” 告訴我們 “主” 只是子這一位格的神. 後者的 “神”, 告訴我們 “主” 是三個位格的 “神”. 現在問題來了, “主” 是指神的三個位格, 還是其中一或兩個位格的神? 有沒有指著聖靈為 “主” 的呢? 三一論必須給 “主” 下個定義.
林前8:4 論到吃祭偶像之物, 我們知道偶像在世上算不得甚麼, 也知道神只有一位, 再沒有別的神.
林前8:5 雖有稱為神的, 或在天, 或在地, 就如那許多的神, 許多的主.
林前8:6 然而我們只有一位神, 就是父 --- 萬物都本於他, 我們也歸於他 --- 並有一位主, 就是耶穌基督 --- 萬物都是藉著他有的. 我們也是藉著他有的.
約17:3 認識你 --- 獨一的真神, 並且認識你所差來的耶穌基督, 這就是永生.
提前2:8 因位只有一位神, 在神和人中間, 只有一位中保, 乃是降世為人的基督耶穌.
按照三一論, 三個位格平等, 只是次序不同而已. 但上述經文只有父和子, 缺少了聖靈, 這又該作何解呢? 顯然的, 三一論者東湊西湊, 把幾處經文湊在一起, 以証明三一論. 像(5)所說的, 最接近三一論的經文只有一處: 即太28:19. 但此處只說三位一名, 而非三位一軆.
約3:13曰: 除了從天降下仍舊在天的人子, 沒有人升過天. 這說明父子是原為一的. 因救恩工作, 才有道成肉身, 才有父子聖靈之分. 無論是在天上的父, 降世為人的人子, 或住在人裡面的聖靈, 我們只能說 “他們” 原是一位神, 不能說 “他們” 是三個位格.
(38) The Scofield Study Bible-KJV (Oxford University Press Inc.)
The revealed fact is: that man was made in the “image and likeness” of God. This “image” is found chiefly in man’s tri-unity, and in his moral nature. Man is “spirit and soul and body” (1 Thes. 5:23). “spirit” is that part of man which “knows” (1 Cor. 2:11), and which allies him to the spiritual creation and give him God-consciousness. “soul” in itself implies self-conscious life, as distinguished from plants, which have unconscious life. In that sense animals also have “soul”. But the “soul” of man has a vaster content than “soul” as applied to beast life. It is the seat of his emotions, desires, affections (Psa. 42:1-6). The “heart” is, in scripture usage, nearly synonymous with “soul”. Because the natural man is, in characteristically, the or psychical man, “soul” is often used as synonymous with the individual. The body , separable from spirit and soul and susceptible to death, is nevertheless an integral part of man, as the resurrection shows (John 5:28-29; 1 Cor. 15:47-50; Rev. 20:11-13). It is the seat of the senses (the means by which the spirit and soul have world-consciousness) and or the fallen Adamic nature (Rom 7:23-24).
• 此注釋認同三一論, 並以人之靈, 魂和體的 “形像”來証明神的 “形像” 所引用的經文如下:
帖前 5:23 願賜平安的神親自使你們全然成聖, 又願你們的靈 魂與身子得蒙保守, 在我主耶穌基督降臨的時候, 完全無可指摘.
林前 2:11 除了在人裡頭的靈, 誰知道人的事? 像這樣, 除了神的靈, 也沒有人知道神的事.
創2:17 耶和華神用地上的塵土造人, 將生氣吹在他鼻孔裡, 他就成了有靈的活人, 名叫亞當.
詩 42:1 神啊! 我的心切慕你, 如鹿切慕溪水.
詩 42:2 我的心渴想神, 就是永生神, 我幾時得朝見神呢?
詩 42:3 我晝夜以眼淚當飲食, 人不住地對我說: “你的神在哪裡呢?”
詩 42:4 我從前與眾人同住, 用歡呼稱讚的聲音領他們到神的殿裡, 大家守節. 我追想這事我的心極其悲傷.
詩 42:5 我的心哪! 你為何憂悶? 為何在我裡面煩躁? 應當仰望神, 因他笑臉幫助我.. 我還要稱讚他.
詩 42:6 我的神啊! 我的心在我裡面憂悶. 所以我從約但地, 從黑門嶺, 從米薩山記念你.
林前15:50 弟兄們, 我告訴你們說, 血肉之體不能承受神的國. 必朽壞的不能承受不朽壞的.
啟20:11 我又看見一個白色的大寶座在上面的; 從他面前天地都逃避, 再無可見之處了.
啟20:12 我又看見死了的人, 無論大小, 都站在寶座前. 案卷展開了, 並且另有一卷展開, 就是生命冊. 死了的人都憑著這些案卷所記載的, 照他們所行的受審判.
啟20:13 於是海交出其中的死人, 死亡和陰間也交出其中的死人, 他們都照各人所行的受審判.
羅7:23 但我覺得肢體中另有個律和我心中的律交戰, 把我擄去, 叫我從那肢體中犯罪的律.
羅7:24 我真是苦啊! 誰能就我脫離這取死的身體?
從上述經文, 可知此註釋者証明人有靈, 魂, 體. 但他們是會分開的, 這已違反了三一論所說的永恆性. 下列經文可證之:
創3:19 你必汗滿面才得糊口, 直到你歸了土. 因為你是從土而出的, 你本是塵土, 仍要歸於塵土.
伯34:14 他若專心為己, 將靈和氣收歸自己.
路24:37 他們卻驚慌害怕, 以為所看見的是魂.
路34:39 你們看我的手, 我的腳, 就知道實在是我了. 摸我看看, 魂無骨無肉. 你們看, 我是有的.
太10:28 那殺身體, 不能殺靈魂的, 不要怕他們. 惟有能把身體和靈魂都滅在地狱裡的, 正要怕他.
路16:23 他在陰間受痛苦, 舉目遠遠地望見亞伯拉罕, 又見拉撒路在他懷裡.
路23:43 耶穌對他說: “我實在告訴你, 今日你要同我在樂園裡了.”
彼前1:9 並且得著你們信心的果效, 就是靈魂的救恩.
由此可知, 人死後靈歸神, 體歸塵土, 魂則下陰間或樂園等候審判.
(39) The King James Study Bible –KJV (Thomas Nelson Publisher)
The plural pronoun us it most likely a majestic plural from the standpoint of Hebrew grammar and syntax.
• 神以他的威嚴說話, 自然符合聖經(參謀(3)). 但問題是神講話的對象是誰呢? (參((3)和32))
(40) New Bible Commentary (Inter-Varsity Press)
Here God is pictured talking to the angels, the only allusion to other supernatural beings in this chapter. This remark implies that man is like both God and the angels (Traditionally, Christians have seen us and our to allude legitimate fuller interpretation, it is not the words’ primary meaning).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(41) Key Word Study Bible-KJV (AMG Publishers)
When plural pronouns are used, “Let us make man in our image after our likeness”, does it denote a plural number or the concept of excellence or majesty which may be indicated in such a way in Hebrew? Could God be speaking to the angels; the earth, or nature thus denoting Himself in relation to one of these? Or is this a germinal hint of a distinction the divine personality? One cannot be certain. Until Jesus came, the essential (internal) unity of the Godhead was not understood to a great extent, though it was intimated (is. 48:16).
• 此註釋認同三位一體, 其支持乃賽48:16: 你們要就近來我聽這
話, 我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話. 耶和華差我和他的靈來. 此節不能支持三一論. 因為被差遣的 “我” 是指以賽亞, 也就是說, 這邊只提到 “耶和華” 和 “他的靈”, 沒有跡象顯示子也在那裡.
(42) The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible-NIV (AMG Publishers)
The Hebrews word translated “God” is elohiym [466], a plural noun. In verse 26, it is used with a plural verb (“let us make”) and a plural suffix (“in our image, in our likeness”). In verse 27, however, it is used three times with a singular verb (bara [1343], “created”, the same singular verb which appears in verse 1. The essential internal unity of the Trinity was not understood to a great extent until Jesus came to earth (Jn 1:14, 18; 10:30; 14:9), though it was intimated in the Old Testament (Isa 48:16).
• 此書作者任同三一論, 其引用經文如下:
約1:14 道成了肉身, 住在我們中間, 充充滿滿地有恩典有真理, 我們也見過他的榮光.
此處的重點是 “道成肉身”. 綜觀約1:1-3, 約翰的意思是說這個有血有肉的子或道, 其實就是神. 也就是說, 神降世為子, 神成為有所限制的子, 並非表示天上已沒有神了. 這話是針對道或子而說的, 絕對不是說除了神之外, 還有另一個子的位格.
約1:18 從來沒有人看見神, 只有在父懷裡的獨生子將他表明出來 .
神是靈(約4:24), 故人看不到他. 現在無所不知, 無所不在及無所不能的神, 謙卑降為被時空限制的子, 讓人可以看見. 所以來1:3曰: 他是神榮耀所發的光輝, 是神本體的真像. 這個神的本體, 並非是指神的第二個位格. 約一3:2曰: 親愛的弟兄啊 我們現在是神的兒女. 將來如何, 還未顯明. 但我們知道, 主若顯現, 我們必要像他, 因為必得見他的真體. 這再次証明 “主” 是能看見的神的真體. 這裡沒談到聖靈.
約10:30 我與父原為一.
由於無限的神變為地上有限的 “神人”, 並非表示在天上沒有了神. 在天上的為父, 降在地上的為子. 就這角度來看, 我 (主) 的確與父為一. 這裡也沒談到聖靈..
約14:9 耶穌對他說: “腓力, 我與你們同在這麼久, 你還不認識我嗎 ? 人看見了我, 就是看見了父. 你怎麼說: “將父顯給我們看呢?”
神道成肉身, 我們才能看見神的面貌. 子就是人看得見的神(父). 當時門徒們還不清楚, 以為另外還有個父. 三一論就是陷入此圈套, 把父與子分開, 說是神的兩個位格.
賽48:16 你們要就近我來聽這話: “我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話. 自從有這事, 我就在那裡.” 現在, 主耶和華差遣我和他的靈來.
從 “我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話 自從有這事 我就在那裡”這一句話是第14章的 “耶和華”說的, 而 “現在 主耶和華差遣我和他的靈來”這一句話是以賽亞說的. 也就是說 “我” 是指以賽亞本身.根據三一論, 耶和華的靈是指聖靈, 再加上耶和華本身, 只有兩位而已 ,缺少了子.
(43) The Expositor’s Bible Commentary-Genesis-Leviticus (Zondervan)
There have been many attempts to explain the plural forms: “Let us make [nacaseh] in our image [besalmenu], in our likeness [kidmutenu] . “Westermann, 1:144-45, summarizes the explanations given for the use of plurals under four headings : (1) the plural is a reference to the Trinity; (2) the plural is a reference to God and the heavenly court of angels; (3) the plural is an attempt to avoid the idea of an immediate resemblance on God’s part while setting out to create humankind; (4) the plural is an explanation of deliberation on God’s part while setting out to create humankind.
The singulars in v.27 (besalmo, “in his own image”) and （beselem elohim, “in the image of God”; cf. 5:1） rule out the second explanation (i.e., that the plural refers to a heavenly court of angels), since in the immediate context human are said to be created “in his image”, with no mention made of humans being made in the image of the angels. To this the author adds a further qualification that God humankind “in the image of God”. This seems to be an intentional refutation of the notion that the plurals in v.26 refer to the angels.
The third and fourth explanations are both possible within the context, but neither explanation is specifically supported by the context. It is not convincing to point to 11:7 in support of the notion of deliberation, since the use of the plural in that passage is motivated by the chiastic wordplay between the words nabelah (“let us confuse,” 11:7) and nilbena (“let us make, “ 11:3; see J.P. Fokkemann, Narrative Art in Genesis [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975]). Where we do not find unequivocal deliberation (as in 18:17). It is not the plural that is used but the singular : “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?” As Wetermann has stated, the first explanation is “a dogmatic judgment,” though we could add that it is not a judgment that runs confer to the passage itself. However, if we seek an answer from the immediate context, we should turn to the following verse(s) for additional clues.
In v.27 it is stated twice that humankind was created [bara] “male and female”. The same pattern is found in Genesis 5:1-2: “when God created [bara] man …. He created [bara] them male and female”. The singular “man [adam] is create as a plurality, “male and female” [zakar uneqeba]. In a similar way the one God [waggomen elohim, “And God said] create humanity through an expression of plurality [naaseh adam besalemu, “Let us make man in our image”]. Following this clue, the device plurality of persons expressed in v.26 can be seen as an anticipation of the human plurality of persons reflected in man and woman, thus casting human personal relationship in the role of reflecting God’s own personhood.
Could anything be more obvious than to conclude from this clear indication that the image and likeness of the being created by God signifies existence on conjunction of man and man which is that of male and female, and then to go on to ask against this background in what the original and prototype of the device existence of the Creator consist? (K/ Barth, Church Dogmatics3/1 [New York: Scriber, 1956], 195).
• 此註釋者提出四個可能性 (i)三位一體 ,參(5), (6), (7), (34), (37),
(38 ), (41)和(42). (ii) 天庭中的使者 參(1), (2), (9), (11), (12), (15), (22)和(32). (iii) 神的威嚴和慎重的宣佈, 參(3). (iv)神與人隔離, 參(8). 其支持章節如下:
創5:1 亞當的後代記下面 (當神造人[單數]的日子, 是照著自己的樣式造的,
創5:2 並且造男造女. 在他們(復數)被造的日子, 神賜福給他們, 稱他們為 “人”)
單數的人(亞當), 被造成復數的男女. 所謂的造男造女, 是男先女後. 換句話說, 單數的神造單數的男人, 單數的神造單數的女人. 這也就是說, 單數的神, 創造復數的男女. 所以 1:26可視為神預知要造男造女. 所以摩西以復數的 “我們” 來表示將要創造 復數的男女. 但問題是, “我們要造著我們的形像, 按著我們的樣式造人……”是跟誰說呢? 此解釋只說 “我們”的 來源而已.
(44) Genesis A Commentary (Zondervan)
See also 3:22; 11:7. Various references have been suggested for the “us”. The traditional Christian interpretation, that it represents a plurality within deity, has some textual support and satisfies the Christian theology of the Trinity (John 1:3; Eph. 3:9; Col 1:16: Heb. 1:2). God is a plurality is supported by the mention of the spirit of God in 1:2 and the fact that the image itself is a plurality. This interpretation would also explain the shifts in the text between the singular and plural. The primary difficulty with this view is that the other four uses of the plural pronoun with reference to God (3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8) do not seem to refer to the Trinity. The explanation that satisfies all such uses of the pronoun is that God is addressing the angels or heavenly court (cf. 1 Kings 22:19-22; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1-3; 89:5-6; Isa 6:8; 40:1-6; Dan. 10:12-13; Luke 2:8-14). It seems that in the four occurrence of the pronoun “us” for God, God refers to “us” when human beings are impinging on the heavenly realm and he is deciding their fate. In Gen 3:22, God sees that human beings have grasped the knowledge of good and evil and have become like divine beings. In Genesis 11 the heavenly court comes down to see what the earth-bound are building to attain the heavenly space. In Isa. 6:8, God is clearly addressing the heavenly court, which the prophet in his vision has entered. It is not surprising that God would address the heavenly court, since angels play a prominent role in Scripture (e.g., Gen. ; Job 38:7; 1 Tim 3:16), and there is much commerce in Genesis between the angelic realm and human beings.
• 筆者完全同意此觀點.
(45) The NIV Genesis Application Commentary (Zondervan)
The use of the plural pronouns (“us” and “our”) on verse 26 has occasioned constant discussion among the commentators. The early church fathers considered them a reference to the Trinity, while the rabbis offered various grammatical explanations. In the last century, two other theories have arisen, which explain the plural as a vestige of polytheistic mythology of as a reference to a heavenly court. Thus, there are now three categories of explanation:
(i) Theological : The plurals are explained as an expression of plurality within the Godhead, either specifically of the Trinity or at least as a recognition of the two persons represented by the creator God (elohim) and the Holy Spirit of verse 2.
(ii) Grammatical : The plurals are explained as an expression of grammatical on rhetorical conventions, including self-deliberation, plural of majesty, and grammatically agreement with the plural elohim.
(iii) Cultural : The plurals are explained against the background of ancient Near Eastern culture.
We do not have space to consider each of these in the detail they deserve, but in the methodology and presupposition that lead the interpreter into one category or another. The grammatical is the easiest to dismiss since none of the cited conventions are attested with any consistency in Hebrew. The race instances in which they can be claimed generally have either other possible explanations or characteristics that differentiate them from the usage here.
The theological is probably the most popular in traditional circles, but it suffers when subjected to hermeneutical cross-examination. That is, if we ask what the Hebrew author and audience understood, any explanation assuming plurality in the Godhead is easily eliminated. If the interpreter wishes to bypass the human author with the claim that God’s intention is what is important, there are large obstacles to hurdle. If the divine intention is not conveyed by the human author, where is it conveyed? Certainly if the New Testament told us that the Trinity was referred to in this verse, we would have no trouble accepting that God’s intentions. But it is not enough for the New Testament simply to affirm that there is such a thing as the Trinity. That affirmation does not prove that the Trinity is referred to in Genesis 1:26. Without a specific New Testament, we have no authoritative basis for bypassing the human author.
Further commending the human author is the belief that the Old Testament audience also had an authoritative text being communicated to them. We cannot afford to approach the text with the question, “Which interpretation fits best with my belief?” We must ask what the plurals would have meant to the original audience. That leads us to the cultural category. One of the cultural options taken by interpreters is that the plurals are a vestige of polytheism. Unfortunately, they can only accommodate their view by means of many presuppositions concerning the derived nature of the text and the incompetence of a series of editors. Since most readers, like myself, are not persuaded in the least by those presupposition, we will simply set that option aside.
The other position informed by cultural background, the heavenly court option, is much more defensible in that the concept of a heavenly court can be shown to be current not only in the ancient worldview, but also in the biblical text (The clearest example is found in 1 Kings 22:19-22. Other references include God, usually members of the council assemble before God.) Thus, the belief in such a heavenly court does not need to be imported from general culture (though the evidence for it is extensive and clear); one needs only read the Bible. In the ancient Near East the heavenly court was a divine assembly made up of the chief gods of the pantheon. It was this group that made decisions and decreed destinies. In the Old Testament, the heavenly court is made up of angels, or more specifically, the “sons of God.” All that remains is to consider whether the details of the context are in accord with what we know of God and his heavenly court.
Some have objected that it denigrates God to suggest that he consults with angles about such matter (Isa 40:14). They point out, in addition, that it is contrary to biblical teaching to think of the angels being involved in creation or of people being in the image of angels. Careful reading, however, demonstrates that these objections cannot be sustained. (i) We must distinguish between consulting and discussing. God has no need to either consult or discuss with anyone (as Isa. 40:14 affirms). (ii) It is his prerogative, however, to discuss anything he wants with whomever he chooses (Gen 18:17-19). Such inclusion of the heavenly court in discussion does not in any sense necessitate that angles must than have been used as agents of creation. In Isaiah 6:8 the council’s decision is carried out by Yahweh alone. (iii) Finally, the idea that the image should be referred to as “our” image does not imply that humans are created in the image of angels; it is possible, though not necessary, that angles also share the dive image in their nature. The image of God differentiates people from animals, not from angels.
If them, we are going to link our interpretation to the sense that the Israelite audience would have understood (and methodologically I believe that is essential for maintaining the authority of the text), the heavenly court is the most defensible interpretation and poses no insuperable theological obstacle.
• 同(44).
最後 筆者再引用幾節經文來指出
(i) 天庭的存在
但 7:10 從他面前有火, 像河發出. 事奉他的有千千, 在他面前侍
立的有萬萬. 他坐著要行審判, 案卷都展開了.
詩89:6 在天空誰能比耶和華呢? 神的眾子中, 誰能像耶和華呢?
詩 89:7 他在聖者的會中, 是大有威嚴的神, 比一切在他四圍的
更可畏懼.
歷下 18:18 米該亞說: “你們要聽耶和華的話, 我看見耶和華坐
在寶座上 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右
啟 5:11 我又看見且聽見, 寶座與活物並長老的周圍有許多天使
的聲音, 他們的數目有千千萬萬.
但 4:35 世上所有的居民都算為虛無, 在天上的萬軍和世上的居
民中, 他都憑自己的意旨行事, 無人能攔住他手, 或問他
說, 你做甚麼呢?
(ii) 神使天使或人知其所欲行之事
摩 3:7 主耶和華若不將奧秘指示他的僕人 --- 眾先知, 就一無所
行.
詩 103:7 他使摩西知道他的法則, 叫以色列人曉得他的作為.
創 18:33 耶和華與亞伯拉罕說完了話就走了, 亞伯拉罕也回到
自己的地方去了.
(iii) 天使和人在天庭中讚美神
啟 7:11眾天使都站在寶座和眾長老並四活物的周圍, 在寶座前
面伏於地, 敬拜神.
詩 103:19 耶和華在天上立定寶座, 他的權柄統管萬有.
詩 103:20 聽從他命令, 成全他旨意, 有大能的天使, 都要稱頌耶
和華!
啟 5:13 我又聽見在天上, 地上, 地底下, 滄海裡, 和天地間一切
所有被造之物, 都說 : “但願頌讚, 尊貴, 榮耀, 權柄, 都
歸給坐寶 座的和羔羊, 直到永永遠遠.


創1 : 26 : “我們要照著我們的形像,按著我們的樣式造人 .”所謂的 “我們” 該作何解? 筆者參考了下列書籍, 並提出筆者的看法.

(1) 證主21世紀聖經新釋 (福音證主協會)
本處是形容神與天使們的話, 也是本章內有其他超自然本體的唯一暗示. 這記載表示 “人” 同時有神和天使的樣式. (在傳統上, 基督徒看 “我們”和 “我們的” 是暗示三位一體的其他位格, 雖然這是一個颇合理的解釋, 但不是本處的首要意思.)
• 創1:27曰: 神就照著自己的形像照人, 乃是照著他的形像造男造女. 這裡很清楚的說是 “自己” 的形像造人, 又怎麼會是神和天使的行像造人? 彼後2:4曰: 就是天使犯了罪, 神也沒有寬容, 曾把他們丟在地獄, 交在黑暗中, 等候審判. 由此可知, 有犯罪的天使, 自然也有沒犯罪的天使. 沒有犯罪的天使又是怎樣的? 從創世記的資料推論, 應像還沒有犯罪的亞當和夏娃. 所以人和天使有共同的形像, 而這個型像就是來自神.
(2) 聖經新國際研讀本 (更心傳道會)
我們........我們的........我們的: 神以創造者和君王的身份, 對祂天庭中的萬軍宣告祂的顛峰作為 (見3:22; 11:7; 賽6:8; 又見王上22:19-23; 伯15:8; 耶23:18).
• 當神要作某事時, 會與先知和天庭中的天使們討論, 這可從王上22:19-23看出:
王上22:19: 米該亞說: “你要聽耶和華的話. 我看見耶和華坐在寶座上, 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右.
22:20 : 耶和華說: “誰去引誘亞哈王上基列的拉末去陣亡呢? 這個就這樣說, 那個就那樣說.
22:21 : 隨後有一個神靈出來, 站在耶和華面前, 說: “我去引誘他.”
22:22 : 耶和華同他說: “你用何法呢?” 他說: “我去, 要在他眾先知口中作謊言的靈. 耶和華說: “這樣, 你必能引誘,. 你去如此行吧!”
22:23 : 現在耶和華使謊言的靈入了你這些先知的口, 並且耶和華已經命定降禍於你”
留意22節耶和華說: “你去如此行吧!” 但在23節, 王上作者卻說是耶和華作的. 這與創1:26的 “我們” 和1:27的 “祂” 異曲同工. 創1:26是神說的話, 創1:27是摩西講的話. 這也就是說, 最後決定還是神本身.
(3) 聖經啟導本 (海天書樓)
26節的 “我們” 是神宣佈祂登峰造極的創造工作的自稱, 代表神的豐富華麗(3:22; 11:7)
• 神用六天創世, 把一切看著是好的 (創1:18; 1:21: 1:25; 1:31), 創1:28最後才創造人. 創1:28曰: 神就賜福給他們, 又對他們說, 要生養眾多, 遍滿地面. 治理這地. 也要管理海裡的魚, 空中的鳥, 和地上各樣行動的活物. 神創造人, 可說是登峰造極的創造. 神指著祂在創造人之前所造的一切, 可代表神的豐富華麗. 但神用 “我們” 宣告, 到底是跟誰說呢? 這裡沒有交代.
(4) 聖經簡釋本 (中國基督教協會) 以賽亞書中, 神也用 “我們” 來指稱 (賽6:8), 神並非獨自在天庭, “智慧” 也參與了神的創造 (箴8:30).
• 此註釋不詳. 所謂 “神並非獨自在天庭”, 是否指天庭是由神和 “智慧” 組成? 箴8:30曰: 那時, 我在他那裡為工師, 日日為他所喜愛, 常常在他面前踴躍. “我” 固然指 “智慧”, 但沒跡像顯示她參與創世工作. “工師” 只是耶和華面前 “踴躍” 和 “喜悅”. 前者是 “踴躍在她為人預備可住之地”, 後者 “喜悅住在人之間(箴8:31). 箴8:22-27只說耶和華創世之前 “就有了我”, “我已被立”, “我已出生”, “我在那裡” 就箴言整本書來看, 作者只是把智慧擬人化. 第九章更把智慧和愚蠢對比. 第1章20節開始敘述智慧在呼喚人, 第2章則說智慧的賞賜. 第2章6節說, 耶和華 “賜人智慧”. 也就是說, 人可得智慧, 並成為 “工師”. 第8章27-29節說神創世, 接下去的30節才說 “智慧” 為 “工師”. 如把此與創1:28對照, “工師” 是神委任管理萬物的人之身份.
(5) 聖經研讀版(環球聖經公會有限公司)
不同學者對這裡使用復數代名詞有各種各樣詮釋. 有人認為是指三位一體. 其他則從文法角度解釋, 視之為若不是用復數來表示威榮, 就是強調神性, 或是表示神對自己說話. 另有人認為這裡是指神與他在天上純潔的宮庭(見賽6:8).
• 三位一體的可能性很小, 因為此說須假設創1:26 是由一個位格或兩個位格對其他位格講話, 並須限定 “我們” 是三而已. 在聖經裡,無法找到支持此觀點的章節. 最接近的是太28:19, 此處指的是 “名” 而非 “體”. 換句話說, 父子聖靈只有一個名, 而非供同擁有一個體. 就算是 “我們(復數)” 是指神的三個位格, 單數的 “形像” “樣式” 是指神的一體, 第27節也應該是, 乃是造 “他們(復數)” 的 “形像(單數)”造男造女. 但聖經卻用單數的 “他” 及單數的 “形像”.
用復數來表示威榮, 強調神性, 或神對自己說話, 但 “我們” 卻顯示有講者, 亦有聽者.
第三個理由可能性最高, 但所引用的賽6:8根本與創1:26, 27節一樣, 証明不了甚麼.
(6) 聖經(思高譯本)
按古猶太人經師解釋, 是指天主和天使, 好似天主同天主商量; 但有些學者主張為 “威嚴復數” 或 “議決復數”. 教父和神學家多以為此復數暗示聖三的奧秘.. 此說若是啟示的演進說是對的 人相似天主是按靈魂説的. 相似天主有理智, 意志和記憶. 論人的肉身, 當天主造亞當時, 已預見作亞當第二基督(羅5:14).
• 此說是暗示三位一體的奧秘, 然後在新約中逐漸啟示神的三個位格, 即父在舊約工作, 子則在新約(四福音)裡工作, 最後是教會在傳教方面動工. 但主張三一論者又指出創1:1 的神(父), 創1:2 .是指聖靈,.創1:3是指子, 三個位格一起創造世界, 這已是明示而非暗示了.
如是“啟示的演進說,” 也就不會有天主教與東正教的 “和子” 的爭論而閙分裂. 筆者較傾於 “教義墮落說”. 關於三一說, 參(5).
人是由靈, 魂, 體組成. 活時還可免強說是三位一體. 但人死後, 體歸回塵土(創3:19), 靈歸於神(34:14), 魂則下陰間(太10:28)或進樂園(路23:43; 彼前1:9). 三者可以分開, 也必定分開. 然而, 三位一體之位格是永恆的, 是不能分開的.
神何止只有理智, 意志, 和記憶. 祂也是愛(約1:16), 公義(帖前1:6), 柔和謙卑(太11:29)等等.
(7) 聖經靈修版(國際聖經協會)
一種觀點認為這是指三位一體的真理, 聖父, 聖子, 聖靈都是靈. 另有觀點認為這樣的表達方式是表示威嚴, 好像西方國家的君主在傳統上也是以復數自稱的. 我們確實知道神的兒子基督和神的靈也參與創造的工作(參伯33:14; 詩104:30; 西1:16)
• 關於三位一體, 參(5)及(6). 必須指出的是, 聖經從未稱子為聖子, 只稱他為我的兒子 (太3:17), 我的愛子(太17:5), 獨生子(約3:16). 這說明子低於父, 不可能與父同等. 父的辈份比子高, 父是前辈, 子是後輩. 若是同等的話, 那他們應是兄弟關係.
其所引用的經文如下:
伯33:4 : 神的靈造我 全能者的氣使我得生.
詩104:30 : 你發出你的靈, 牠們便受造, 你使地面更換為新.
西 1:16 : 因為萬有都是靠他造的, 無論是天上的, 地上的, 能看見
的; 不能看見的. 或是有位的, 主治的, 執政的, 掌權的;
一 概都是藉著他造的, 又是為他造的.
伯33:4 和詩104:30的 “神的靈”, 根據三一論, 是指聖靈(羅8:9). 徒5:9之主的靈, 羅8:9之基督的靈, 徒16:7之耶穌的靈, 太10:20之父的靈, 全都指聖靈. 約4:24說神是個靈, 父是神, 子是神 聖靈是神, 卻不是三位神, 而是一位神. 那父的 “靈”, 子的 “靈” 又叫甚麼呢? 由於三一論不相信 “靈裡的一致”, 故只能推說父子聖靈是以一體來連繫三個位格. 那這一體是以甚麼方式存在呢? 三一論不能自圓其說.
至於西1:16, 我們先看1:15: 愛子是那不能看見之神的像, 是首生的, 在一切被造以先. 當提到 “首生” 時, 時間觀念已存在, 即有 “未生前” 及 “生後” 徒13:33曰: 神已經向我們這作兒女的應驗, 叫耶穌復活了. 正如詩篇第二篇上記著說: 你是我的兒子, 我今日生你. 由此可知, 16節的創造是指著有血有肉的子說的. 保羅的意思是說, 這個能讓人看見並摸到的子, 原是創造萬物的神. 創造萬物的神, 道成肉身, 來到世間, 並不表示在天上已沒有了神. 在天上的為父, 在地上的為子. 此節經文並非說子是一位參與創世工作的另一位格.
(8) 創世記注釋上冊(基督教文藝出版社)
我們稍為論述關於上帝提及自己. 在這裡, 就在這一章裡, 只在這個地方特別用第一人稱眾數的 “我們” 和 “我們的”(但29及30節, 祂又恢復用單數我). 這情形通常隱含基督教三位一體在創造中運行之意(第二位格是創造的道, 一直在發言, 而第三位聖靈則在第二節中), 但是古代希伯來人怎能知道這些東西是甚麼呢? 如今比較常見的, 是把這比作無上的或編輯的 “我們” ---- 但那是歐洲的見解, 而不是希伯來的. 然而, 如果它不能用這兩種解說中任何一種, 那麼它的意思又是甚麼呢?
詩篇第八篇類似的經文, 在這裡再給我們幫助.,其中第五節說上帝賜 “人冠冕”, 也說 “祢叫他比天使(或上帝)微小一點”; 或者像欽定本說, “ 比天使低 一點. 事實上, 希伯來文是伊羅欣(Elohim), 是上帝的正規字眼, 這是研究聖經的人都知道的, 而這字本身是眾數的. 這字一定是早期以色列的祖宗正像鄰邦一樣拜多神, 後來在他們成為一神的信徒時, 殘存下來的. 因為這字等於喚醒他們, 在別人有許多神靈, 分立而又常常爭執時, 對他們卻是只有一位獨神, 而且祂的旨意與目的是一致的.
不過, 在舊約中仍然有幾處地方是眾數的. 其中, 大多數指的是外族神, 正如出埃及記十二章十二節指埃及的多神, 或者在詩篇九十五篇三節: “ 耶和華為大神(伊羅欣), 為大王, 超乎萬神(也是伊羅欣)之上. 甚至第一誡: “除了我以外, 你不可有別的神”(出二十3), 其中的神字, 也是眾數的. 但是很偶然的纔指以色列的上帝有關的神. 一個好例子是詩篇一三八篇一節:“在諸神面前歌頌祢”.
在這些以外, 還要加上幾個稱為 “神的兒子” 所暗示的東西. 例如創世記六章二節(一段以後將給我們困難的經文)及約伯記一章六節與二章一節 ,在這些經文中, “神的眾子” 在上帝面前侍立.
在我們這段經文中, 還保留異教中的另一殘餘的東西. 那就是我們所熟知, 從荷馬來的神靈會議中得來的. 在那會議中, 男神女神不時集合來商討重要事件. 從以色列附近來的亞屈拉哈西斯敘事詩(epic Atrahasis)便是一個例子. 這詩包含米所波大米一個洪水故事.. 它開頭便是神會議, 先是眾神決定創造人類作他們的奴僕 (與本章差異多大啊!)而其後當他們喧嚷吵鬧, 以致眾神夜間不能睡覺時 卻又決定毀滅人類.
但是在希伯來思想中, 這些 “眾神” 是(可能除了剛才提及的創世記第六章二節那使人不安的經文之外)不容許威脅真神的獨一性或威嚴的. 他們並不是 “天使”, 天使是上帝的使者, 好像是較低一級的; 他們也不是舊約其他經文(例如創世記第三章廿四節; 以賽亞書第六章二節)的基路伯和撒拉弗, 他們是上帝的侍衛和護衛者 但是他們的任務並無很大的差別. 他們是希伯來人想像中的主要角色, 不是自己本有權利的人物, 而是上帝的延伸, 帶詩意地足以增強祂的榮耀和聖潔, 保衛祂的超越性而不是向祂挑戰.
對着這背景, 我相信欽定本詩篇八篇五節的 “天使” 比標準修正本的大寫 “上帝” 更為接近標準. 詩人正如創世記第一章的作者一樣, 給人高位, 而且把人描述得高至如天上上帝寶座周圍的神靈. 在這裡, 他----正如創世記第一章第廿六一樣----超出了舊約對人的看法不止一步. 但是他沒有遠至----希伯來人會嗎 ?----直接將 “人” 與那惟一的上帝本身相比. 縱然他 “比上帝微小一點”, 在希伯來人的經驗裡, 他仍然是太近乎上帝.
在本節的 “我們的”, 當然必得用類似的方法解釋. 創世記第一章的作者, 正如我們應當在好幾處注意到的 ,並不慣於用有詩意的詞語去描述上帝. 但是這裡他作了一個例外, 而他所以作這例外的原因並不難找出. 他是在警戒他的讀書, 提防他要論及 “人” 的話的危險性. 於是他故意打開天上宮庭的光景, 而暫時把上帝在祂的天使中隱藏起來. 這麼一來, 他就把祂於 “人” 相隔遠一點, 而準備被他讀者對接着來的奇妙語句, 有適當而均衡的暸解.
當我們考慮創世記第一章廿六節後來所成就的和神學上的價值時, 我們猜想作者的目的並未十分成功. 他怎麼知道他小心磨煉推測的話, 會落在那些對希伯來語的細緻特色毫無感覺的人手上呢?
• 此說法認為人不能與神相比, 所以摩西故意打開天庭光景, 暫時把神及天使隱藏起來, 取而代之的是諸神(詩138:1), 神的兒子(創6:2),及神的眾子(伯1:6; 2:1). 上述三種 “神”, 比天使低一點, 是神的延伸. 問題是 “諸神”, “神的兒子”和 “神的眾子”是誰? 聖經沒有交代. 筆者認為, 詩8:5的關鍵不在於譯為天使或神, 而是此句中的 “他”, 由8:1到8:9, “你”是指神, “他” 是指人. 因此, 人到底比天使高一級(譯為神)或比天使低一級都不是關鍵所在. 如把詩8:5譯為天使或神, 都不會影響 “他” 的意義. 此注釋者把 “他” 當作是神的侍衛和護衛者, 與天使不同, 任務卻與天使並無很大的差別. 這種說法, 未免太過牽強.
(9) The New Jerusalem Bible – Study Edition (Darton, Longman & Todd.
Ltd)
It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God and his
heavenly court (the angels, see 3:5, 22); our text was thus understood by the
Gk version of Ps8:5 (quoted in Beg 2:7). Alternatively, the plural expresses
the majesty and fullness of God’s being; the common names for God in
Hebrew is elohim, a plural form.
• 復數是指天庭裡的天使. 所引用經文以支持此觀點如下:
創3:5 : 因為神知道, 你們吃的日子, 眼睛就明亮了, 你們便如神能知道善惡
3: 22 : 耶和華神說: “那人已經與我們相似, 能知道善惡. 現在恐怕
伸手又摘生命樹的果子吃, 就永遠活著.
創3:5告訴我們墮落天使的存在. 創3:1曰: 耶和華所造的, 惟有蛇
比田野一切的活物更狡猾. 蛇對人說: “神豈是真說不許你們吃園中
所有樹上的果子嗎?” 此節好像墮落的天使與其他活物同時被造, 其實不然. 啟20:3曰:他捉住那龍, 就是古蛇, 又叫魔鬼, 也叫撒但 把牠捆綁一千年. 如以此節與路20:3對比(這時 撒但入了稱為加人
猶大的心, 他本是十二門徒裡的一個), 我們可知道蛇是被造之物 是撒但進蛇中藉以迷惑人.
第3:22 的 “我們” 和1:26節的 “我們” 一樣都是神說的話, 而非該書作者講的話.
詩8:5 你叫他比天使微小一點, 並賜他榮耀尊貴為冠冕.
來1:14 天使豈不都是服役的靈嗎? 奉差遣為那將要承受救恩的人
效力嗎?
從此處, 我們可知天使的存在. 工作是服役與奉差遣的, 受命於神
所以創1:26的 “我們”, 應是指神與天使.
(10) The Jerusalem Bible(Darton, Longman & Todd, Ltd)
It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God
and his heavenly court (the angles, cf. 3:5, 22); our text was thus understood
by the Greek version (followed by Vulg.) of Ps 8:5 (quoted in Heb 2:7). Alternatively, the plural expresses the majesty and fullness of God’s being;
the common name for God in Hebrew is Elohim, a plural form. Thus the way is prepared for the interpretation of the Fathers who saw in this text a hint of the trinity.
• “我們”是指神與天使的討論, 參(9). 如當神說是 “我們 “以示威嚴, 那賽6:8 又該作何解釋呢? 賽6:8曰: “我又聽見主的聲音說, 我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我”. 照此羅輯講, 應是 “我們”可以差遣誰呢? “我們” 暗示三位一體的討論, 參(5), (6)和(7).
(11) Fire Bible Global Study Edition – NIV (Life Publishers)
The use of word “us” (plural) suggests that God has a certain plurality, or multi-faceted nature (cf. Ps 2:7; Isa 48:16). This seems to be an early reference to the trinity, or the existence of God in three distinct but interrelated and unified Persons. The tri-unity (i.e., “three-in-One” nature) of nature does not become clear, however, until the NT (see Mt 3:17, Mk 1:11)
• 關於三位一體的討論, 參(5), (6)和(7). 茲將引用經文下列:
詩 2:7 : 受膏者說: “我要傳聖旨.” 耶和華對我說: “你是我的兒子, 我今日生你.”
賽48:16 你們要就近我來聽這話, 我從起頭並未曾在隱密處外說話.
自從有這事, 我就在那裡. 現在主耶和華差我和他的靈來.
太 3:17 從天上有聲音說: “這是我的愛子, 我所喜悅的.”
可 1:11 又有聲音從天上來, 說: “這是我的愛子, 我喜悅你.”
為了實行救恩計劃, 神暫時 “分為三位”, 才有父子聖靈之分. 一旦救恩完成後, 再也沒有父子聖靈之別, 只有獨一真神. 啟22:3之 “寶座 “, “他 的面” 和 “他的名字”, 都是單數.
(12) The Case For Christ Study Bible – NIV (Zondervan)
God speaks as the Creator King, announcing his crowning work to the member of his heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:18; see also 1 Ki 22:19 – 23; Job 15:8; Jer 23.: 18).
• 此注釋可能性最高. 茲將引用經文列下並論之:
創 : 3:22 耶和華說: “那人已經與我們相似, 能知道善惡. 現在恐怕他伸手又摘生命樹果子吃, 就永遠活著.
下一節(創3:23 耶和華神便打發他出伊甸園去, 耕種他所自出之土.
創3:22 神用 “我們”, 而創3:23只說是”耶和華”而已, 這與創1:26 的 “我們” 與 “他” 相似.
創11:7 : 我們下去, 在那裡變亂他們的口音, 使他們的言語彼此不通.
同樣的, 接下去第八節曰: 於是耶和華使他們從那裡分散全地上, 他們就停工, 不造那城了. 第七節說 “我們”, 第八節卻說是耶和華. 讓我們繼續看下一個引文:
賽 6:8 : 我又聽見主的聲音說: “我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我!”
接下去的第九節 “他” 說: “你去告訴這百姓說, 你們聽是要聽見, 卻不明白. 看是要看見, 卻不曉得.”
第八節用 “我們”, 第九節用的是 “他”. 綜觀上述討論, 所有經文都有一共同點: 當神說話時, 就用 “我們”. 當該書作者指神說話時, 卻用 “他” 或 “耶和華”. 再看看下列經文:
王上 22:9 米該雅說: “你要聽耶和華的話, 我看見耶和華坐在寶座上, 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右.”
22:20: 耶和華說: “誰去引誘亞哈王上基列的拉末陣亡呢?” 這個就這樣說, 那個就那樣說.
22:21: 隨後有一個神靈出來, 站在耶和華面前, 說: “我去引誘他”.
22:22 耶和華問他說: “你用何法呢?” 他說: “我去, 要在他眾先知口中作慌言的靈.” 耶和華說: “這樣, 你必能引誘他, 你如此去行吧!”
22:23: 現在耶和華使慌言的靈入了你這些先知的口, 並且耶和華已經命定降禍與你.
上述經文說明有天庭和天使的存在, 而且神會與天使們討論. 然而, 作最後決定還是在於神. 所以創3:22用 “我們”, 創11:7 也是 “我們”, 賽6:8說 “我們”. 以此推論, 創1:26的 “我們” 應是指神與眾天使討論, 然後神(創3:23和11:8皆用 “耶和華”, 賽6:9用 “他” )才決定並進行所討論的工作.
伯15:8: 你曾聽見神的密旨? 你是將智慧獨自得盡嗎?
耶23:18: 有誰站在耶和華的會中, 得以聽見並會悟他的話呢? 有隨留心聽他的話呢?
上述經文指出, 有一個叫耶和華的會, 在此會中, 而 “天使和先知能或不能領悟或留心聽他的話” 再一次說明的確有天庭的存在. 而神也樂意讓天使和先知在天庭知道他的旨意. 如創18:17曰: 耶和華說: “我所要做的事, 豈可瞞著亞伯拉罕?”
(13) The Learning Bible – NIV (Zondervan Publishing House)
The plural (us, our) may refer to God and the heavenly beings that make up God’s heavenly court (11:7; 1Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:8).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (11)和(12).
(14) Life Application Study Bible – NIV (Tyndale House Publishers)
Why does God use the plural form, “Let us make man in our image?” One view says this is a reference to the Trinity – God the Father, Jesus Christ his son, and the Holy Spirit – all of whom are God. Another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. Kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking of themselves. From Job 33:4 and Psalm 104:30, we do know that God’s spirit was present in the creation. From Colossians 1:16, we know that Christ, God’s Son, was at work in the creation.
• 參(5), (6), (7)和(11).
(15) Quest Study Bible-NIV (Zondervan)
Why did God say, Let us (plural) make man in our image? (1:26) Often king refers to themselves in this way. The Hebrew word for God (Elohim) is plural, perhaps indicating that God was taking counsel with himself. This may also hint at the mystery of the Trinity --- in the unity of God there is plurality. Some think this describes God speaking to his heavenly court of angels.
• 此處提出三個可能性 行 (i) 神自言自語. 這個可能性很小, 因為 “我們” 表示有講者, 亦有聽者. (ii) 三位一體. 參(5) (6) (7) 和(11). (iii) 對天庭的天使說話. 從(1)可知未墮落的天使和未犯罪的人有共同的形像, 而這一個形像來自神. 因此神說話時用 “我們” (創1:26), 摩西寫的創1:27 是用 “他” 因為的確是 “他” 在進行創造工作. 參(12).
(16) Concordia Self-Study Bible-NIV (Zondervan Publishing House)
God speaks as Creator-King, announcing his crowning work to the members
of his heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8; see also 1K 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jer 23:18).
• 同(13).
(17) The Wesley Study Bible-NRSV (Abingdon Press)
Us and our in 1:26, points to the unique centrality of this moment of creation. This is a purposeful and measured action that God does not entrust to anyone else. Like most theologians of his day, Wesley assumes a Trinitarian interpretation of these plurals：“The three persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, consult about it, and concur in it; because man, when he was made, was to be dedicated and devoted to Father, Son and Holy Ghost”.
• 同(14)
(18) The New Interpreter’s Study-Bible-NRSV (Abingdon Press)
The plural us has been variously interpreted as the plural of “majesty” (the royal “we”) and, in Christian theology, as the Trinity. Here, as elsewhere in Genesis (e.g., 11:7), God is addressing the divine council, the assembly of heavenly being believed to assist God in governing the world and communicating with the human race (1 Kgs 22: 19-23; Job 1: 6-7; Jer 23:18, 22).
• 同(13)
(19) The Harper Collins Study Bible-NRSV (Harper One)
The plural seems to refer to the lesser deities of the divine assembly described in other biblical text. (e.g., 1 Kings 22:19-22; Isa 6::8). In the accomplishment of this utterance, however, God acts alone (God created humankind in his image, v.27). The reference to the divine assembly seems to acknowledge its presence but discounts its active participation in creation.
• 此注釋說, 若是神需要和天庭討論, 將會貶低其在創世中的角色. 但從 創3:33, 11:8, 賽6:9 王上22:23, 真正作最後決定及施行的是神.
(20) The Discipleship Study Bible-NRSV (Westminster John Knox Press)
The plural probably refers to the divine council (see Jer. 23:18-23). God here consults with other divine beings; the creation of human kind thus is the result of a dialogical act. God chooses to share the creative process with those who are not God.
• 耶 23:18 有誰站在耶和華的會中得以聽見並會悟他的話呢? 有誰留心聽他的話呢?
此節說明有 “耶和華的會” 的存在.
• 耶 23:19 看哪! 耶和華的忿怒好像暴風, 已經發出, 是暴烈的旋風, 必轉到惡人的上頭.
“惡人”是指16節的假先知
耶23:20 耶和華的怒氣必不轉消, 直到他心中所擬定的成就了, 末
後的日子你們要全然明白.
“他” 是指神, 也就是說, 神所擬定的成就時, “他”會使 “你們” (即先知)明白
耶23:21 我沒有打發那些先知, 他們竟自奔跑. 我沒有對他們竟自預言.
“他們”是指假先知.
耶23:22 他們若是站在我的會中, 就必使我的百姓聽我的話, 又使他們回頭離開惡道和他們所行的惡.
“他們” 指假先知. 由此可知, 假先知也在神的會中.
耶23:23 耶和華說: “我豈為近處的神呢? 不也為遠處的神嗎?”
這表示遠近的先知和天使都可知神的旨意. 為甚麼會知道呢? 因為神樂意把他的旨意告訴他們, 這也包括人(創18:17).
(21) The Orthodox Study Bible-St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint (St Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology
The Holy Trinity also made man. God the Father is speaking to God the Son (John Chrysostom), and he uses the personal pronouns Us and Our. These pronouns indicate three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as noted in 1:1-3.
• 參(5), (6), (7)和(11).
(22) The NET Bible-New English Translation (Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C.)
The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later Trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory. In 2 Sam 24:14, David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court. (see 1 Kgs : 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12, 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings”. If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.
• 茲將Job 1:6-12 及2:16列下:
伯 1:6 有一天, 神的眾子來侍立在那耶和華面前, 撒但也在其中.
1:7 耶和華問撒但說: “你從哪裡來?” 撒但回答說: “我從地上走來走去, 往返而來.”
1:8 耶和華問撒但說: “你曾用心察看我的僕人約伯沒有? 地上再沒有人像他完全正直, 敬畏神, 遠離惡事.
1:9 撒但回答耶和華說: “約伯敬畏神, 豈是無故呢?
1:10 你豈不是四面圈上籬笆圍護他和他的家, 並他一切所有的.
他手所做的, 都蒙你賜福. 他的家產也在地上增多.
1:11 你且伸手毀他一切所有的, 他必當面棄掉你.”
1:12 耶和華對撒但說: “凡他所有的都在你手中, 只是不可伸手
害於他.” 於是撒但從耶和華面前退去.
上述經文有 “神的眾子”和撒但在耶和華面前交談, 再一次證明天庭中有討論這一回事.
伯 2:1 又有一天 ,神的眾子來侍立在耶和華面前, 撒但也來在其中.
2:2 耶和華問撒但說: “你從哪裡來?” 撒但回答說: “我從地上走來走去, 往返而來.”
2:3 耶和華問撒但說: “你曾用心察看我的僕人約伯沒有? 地上再沒有人像他完全正直, 敬畏神, 遠離惡事. 你雖激動我攻擊他, 無故地毀滅他, 他仍然持守他的純正.
2:4 撒但回答耶和華說: “人以皮代皮, 情願捨棄一切所有的 保全性命.
2:5 你且傷他的骨頭和他的肉, 他必當面棄掉你.”
2:6 耶和華對撒但說: “他在你手中, 只要存留他的生命.”
第三節說得很清楚 是撒但(你)激動神(我)攻擊他(約伯). 換句話說, 是神透過與撒但討論而做某事, 而聖經直接說是神做的.
賽 6:1 當烏西雅王崩的那年, 我見主坐在高高的寶座上. 他的衣裳垂下, 遮滿聖殿.
6:2 其上有撒拉弗侍立, 各有六個翅膀, 用兩個翅膀遮臉, 兩個翅膀遮腳, 兩個翅膀飛翔.
6:3 彼此呼喊說: 聖哉! 聖哉! 聖哉! 萬軍之耶和華, 他的榮光充滿全地.
6:4 因呼喊者的聲音, 門檻的根基震動, 殿充滿了煙雲.
6:5 那時我說: 禍哉! 我滅亡了! 因為我是嘴唇不潔的人, 又住在嘴唇不潔的民中. 又因我眼見大君王----萬軍之耶和華.
6:6 有一撒拉弗飛到我跟前, 手裡拿著紅炭, 是用火剪從壇上取下來的.
6:7 將炭沾我的口, 說: “看哪! 這炭沾了你的嘴, 你的罪孽便除掉, 你的罪惡就赦免了.”
6:8 我又聽見主的聲音說: “我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我!”
綜觀上述經文, 可知撒但, 神的眾子, 先知, 天使, 都可能是天庭中的成員. 此注釋亦提出神的眾子在創造時可能扮演的角色, 即讚美神. 如伯38:7曰: 那時, 晨星一同歌唱, 神的眾子也都歡呼! 再如
啟 4:6, 寶座前像一個玻璃海, 如同水晶. 寶座中和寶座周, 四個活物, 前後遍體都滿了眼睛.
4:7 第一個活物像獅子, 第二個像牛犢,第三個臉面像人, 第四個像飛鷹.
4:8 四活物各有六個翅膀, 遍體內外長了眼睛. 他們晝夜不住地說: “ 聖哉! 聖哉! 聖哉! 主是昔在, 今在, 以後永在的全能者.”
4:9 每逢四活物將榮耀, 尊貴, 感謝歸給那坐在寶座上, 活到永永遠遠者的時候,
4:10 那二十四位長老就俯伏在坐寶座的面前敬拜那活到永永遠遠的, 又把他們的冠冕放在寶座前, 說:
4:11 “我們的主, 我們的神, 你是配得榮耀, 尊貴, 權柄的. 因為你創造了萬物. 並且萬物是因你的旨意被創造而有的.
5:11 我又看見聽見, 寶座與活物並長老的周圍有許多天使的聲音, 他們的數目千千萬萬.
5:12 大聲說: “曾被殺的羔羊配得權柄, 豐富, 智慧, 能力, 尊貴, 榮耀, 頌讚的.
由此可知, 在將要審判世界的神的天庭, 包括人(長老)及天使, 而他們是以頌讚來參與神的工作.
(23) The Oxford Study Bible-Revised English Bible (Oxford University Press, Inc.)
The plural us (3:22; 11:7) may be a majestic plural, or else to the minor divine beings thought to surround God, like countries of a human king (1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6).
• 關於神的威嚴 參(5). 關於天庭 , 參(1), (2), (9), (12) 和(22).
(24) 1599 Geneva Bible-The Geneva Bible (Tolle lege Press)
Let us make : signifying, that God taketh counsel with his wisdom and virtue, purposing to make an excellent work above all the rest of his creation.
• 參(3)和(4).
(25) The Essential Study Bible-Contemporary English Version (Penguin
Group)
The plural (we, us) may refer to God and the heavenly beings that make up God’s heavenly court (11:7: Isa 6:8; 1 Kgs 22:19).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22).
(26 ) New Spirit Filled Life Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
God was speaking, not only to what the NT reveals to the rest of the Trinity, but to the entire host of heaven, the angels, as well.
• 關於三位一體 , 參(5), (6)和(7). 關於天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(27) The Billy Graham Training Center Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
From the first chapter of the Bible, God reveals Himself to be “plural”. In this verse, we see all three personalities of God working together during the creation of the world. These three personalities are equal in glory and character, and they share the attributes of God revealed in the Old Testament. They are all eternal-meaning that none was created
• 參(5), (6)和(7)
(28) Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
Let Us make is emphatic. It emphasizes the majesty of the speaker.
Furthermore, the use of plural for God allows for the later revelation of the
Trinity (see 11:7; Matt 28:19).The Us cannot refer to the angles that are
present with God because man is made in the image of God alone, not also
that of angels.
• 參(1), (3), (5), (6)和(7)
(29) ESV Study-ESV (Crossway Bibles)
The text does not specify the identity of the “us” mentioned here. Some have
suggested that God may be addressing the members of his court. Whom the
OT elsewhere calls “sons of God” (e.g., Job 1:6) and the NT calls “angels”, but
a significant objection is that man is not made in the image of angels, nor is
there any indication that angels participated in the creation of human beings.
Many Christian and some Jews have taken “us” to be God Speaking to himself,
since God alone does the making in Gen. 1:27 (cf. 5:1); this would be the first
hint of the trinity in the Bible (cf. 1:2).
• 關於天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22). 關於神的威嚴, 參(5). 三位一體則參(5), (6)和(7).
(30) The Reformation Study Bible-ESV (Ligonier Ministries)
The use of the plural here is variously interpreted. Some view this as an indication of plurality within the divine unity, hinting at the later New Testament revelation of the one God as Father, Son and Spirit. Others explain this usage grammatically --- either as a plural of majesty or as a deliberative plural ( in which God directs the statement to Himself). Finally, some argue that God and his heavenly angelic court are in view.
• 同(29)
(31) The Lutheran Study Bible-ESV (Concordia Publishing House)
While affirming the singularity of God, it is not unusual for the OT to use the plural when speaking of God and his activities. This anticipates the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (though some interpreters understand it to be grammatical device , a plural of majesty of an honorific plural, with no specific theological significance). Irenaeus of Lyons : “with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, The Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks.” Tertullian : If the number of the Trinity also offends you, …with whom did He make man? And to whom did He make him like? (The answer must be), the Son on the one hand, who was one day to put on human nature; and on the other, who was one day to put on human nature; and the other, who was to santify man. With these did He then speak, in the unity of the Trinity, as with His ministers and witnesses. Martin Luther: “Here both appear：’Let Us make’ and ‘He made, in the plural and in singular; thereby Moses clearly and forcibly show us that within and in the very Godhead and the Creating Essence there is one inseparable and eternal plurality.”
• 此觀點認同三一論, 但未引用聖經章節以支持之. 參(5), (6)和(7) 關於三為一體的討論.
(32) The Ryrie NASB Study Bible-NASB (Moody Publishers)
Plurals of majesty.
• 神說 “我們”, 指出有講者及聽者, 不像創1:3 的 “神說”. 此處神只說: “要有光”. 就有了光. 此處並沒用代名詞如 “我”, “我們”, “你”, “你們”, “他”, “他們”, “她” 和 “她們”.
(33) The Transformation Study Bible-NLT (David C. Cook)
The creation of the first man is seen as a very special occasion, for there’s a
“consultation” prior to the event. “Let us make human being in our image”
sounds like that conclusion of a divine deliberation among the persons of the Godhead. God couldn’t have been talking with the angels about his plans because angels weren’t made in God’s image (‘our image”), and angels had nothing to do with the creation of Adam.
• 關於三位一體 參(5), (6)和(7). 關於神的行像, 參(1).
(34) Discover God Study Bible-NLT (Tyndale House Publishers)
God refers to Himself in the plural, saying, “Let Us”. Through history, God has revealed Himself as God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit. God has always existed as these three persons. The New Testament writer Paul the apostle confirmed this truth： “For though (Christ) God created in the heavenly realms and on earth……. Everything was created through Him and for Him”（Colossians 1:16） In describing Jesus, John created everything through Him and nothing was created excerpt through Him” (John 1:2-3).
• 關於西1:15-16, 參(7). 約1:2-3曰:
約1:2 這道太初與神同在.
1:3 萬物是藉著他造的, 沒有一樣不是藉著他造的.
這裡是針對有血有肉的子說的, 並非指神另外有一個位格.

(35) NLT Study Bible-NLT (Tyndale House Publisher)
The plural us has inspired several explanations: (1) the Trinity; (2) the plural denote majesty; (3) a plural to show deliberation with the self; and (4) God speaking with his heavenly court of angels. The concept of the Trinity – one true God who exist eternally in three distinct persons --- was revealed at a latter stage in redemptive history, making it unlikely that the human author intended that here. Hebrew scholars generally dismiss the plural of majesty vies because the grammar does not clearly support it (the plural of majesty has not been demonstrated to be communicated purely through a plural verb). The plural of self-deliberation also lacks evidence; the only clear examples unity (e.g., 2 Sam 24:14). God’s speaking to the heavenly court, however, is well-attested in the OT (see 3:2; 11:7; 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1: 6-12; 2:1-6; 38:7; Ps 89:5-6; Isa 6:1-8; Dan 10:12-13).
• 三一神論 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 神的威嚴, 參(3), (5)和(32). 神的天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22).
(36) Life Application Study Bible-NLT (Tydale House Publishers)
Why does God use the plural form, “Let us make people in our image” ? One vies says this is a reference to the Trinity --- God the Father, Jesus Christ his Son, and the Holy Spirit --- all of whom are God. Another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. Kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking to themselves From Job 33-4 and Psalm 104:30, we do know that God’s Spirit was present in the creation. From Colossians 1:16 we know that Christ, God’s Son, was at work in the creation.
• 三一神論 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 神的天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(37) The Open Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
Unity of the Trinity --- Historically other monotheistic religions have accused Christian of worshiping three Gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Early and medieval Judaism, for instance, just could not conceive of any theological explanation that vindicated Christianity of the change of polytheism.
Christians always have affirmed the great monotheistic statements of the OT (Deut 4:35; 6:4; Is 44:6-20; Zech 14:9). Christian theologians also have wrestled through the centuries with how to express the unity of God’s Being while recognizing distinctions among the tree Persons interacting and fellowshipping within Him. The early church fathers spoke of one divine essence or substance that could not be divided . Within that one essence are three personal distinctions: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No one has improved on that description.
The NT, which teaches the deity of Father (John 6:27), Son (John 1:1; 20:28), and Holy Spirit（Acts 5:3, 4）, also stresses the unity of God (Mark 12:29-32; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; 1 Tim. 2:5). The mystery of the Trinity should remind us that when we contemplate the nature of God we reach the limit of finite human understanding. At the same time, the complexity of human personality, which somehow reflects the divine personality, should cause us not to be surprised by how multifaceted He is.
• 三一論, 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 茲將支持三一論章節下列:
約6:27 不要為那必壞的食物勞力, 要為那存到永生的食物勞力, 就是人子要賜給你們的, 因為人子是神所印證的.
此處只指出子和神, 並非說子是神的其中一個位格.
約 1:1 太初有道, 道與神同在, 道就是神.
約翰的意思是指道成肉身之子, 其實在太初就已經存在了. 神永遠的存在, 這個有血有肉的子原本也是這樣. 使徒們所摸到看到的子, 其實就是神本身. 總之, 1:1是針對子或道本身而言, 而非指神或神的位格.
約20:28 多馬說 我的主 我的神
這裡只說主是神, 根本談不上誰是誰的位格.
徒 5:3 彼得說: “亞拿尼亞, 為甚麼撒但充滿了你的心? 叫你欺哄聖靈, 把田地的價銀私自留下幾份呢?
徒 5:4 田地還沒有賣, 不是你自己的嗎? 既賣了, 價銀不是你作主嗎? 你怎麼心裡起這意念呢? 你不是欺哄人, 是欺哄神了!
徒5:4 的 “神”是否可以解作徒5:3之 “聖靈＂? 到底亞拿尼亞欺哄的, 是聖靈這一位格, 還是擁有三個位格的神? 當聖經用 “神＂ 這個字時, 是指全部三個位格, 還是只指 “父神＂ 或 “聖靈神＂ 或 “子神＂? 或可以指任何一個位格, 或任何兩個位格？ 三一論者必須給 “神＂ 和 “位格＂下定義及解釋兩者之間的關係..
可12:29 耶穌回答說: “第一要緊的就是說, 以色列啊! 你要聽 主--- 我們神是獨一的主.
可12:30: 你要盡心, 盡性, 盡意, 盡力愛主 --- 你的神.
可12:31 : 其次就是說: ‘要愛人如己’, 再沒有比這兩條誡命更大了.”
可12:32 : 那文士對耶穌說: “夫子說, 神是一位, 實在不錯. 除了他以外, 再沒有別的神.
約20:28 多馬說: “我的主! 我的神!” 可12:31之 “你要盡心, 盡性, 盡意, 盡力愛主 ---你的神”, 前者的 “神” 告訴我們 “主” 只是子這一位格的神. 後者的 “神”, 告訴我們 “主” 是三個位格的 “神”. 現在問題來了, “主” 是指神的三個位格, 還是其中一或兩個位格的神? 有沒有指著聖靈為 “主” 的呢? 三一論必須給 “主” 下個定義.
林前8:4 論到吃祭偶像之物, 我們知道偶像在世上算不得甚麼, 也知道神只有一位, 再沒有別的神.
林前8:5 雖有稱為神的, 或在天, 或在地, 就如那許多的神, 許多的主.
林前8:6 然而我們只有一位神, 就是父 --- 萬物都本於他, 我們也歸於他 --- 並有一位主, 就是耶穌基督 --- 萬物都是藉著他有的. 我們也是藉著他有的.
約17:3 認識你 --- 獨一的真神, 並且認識你所差來的耶穌基督, 這就是永生.
提前2:8 因位只有一位神, 在神和人中間, 只有一位中保, 乃是降世為人的基督耶穌.
按照三一論, 三個位格平等, 只是次序不同而已. 但上述經文只有父和子, 缺少了聖靈, 這又該作何解呢? 顯然的, 三一論者東湊西湊, 把幾處經文湊在一起, 以証明三一論. 像(5)所說的, 最接近三一論的經文只有一處: 即太28:19. 但此處只說三位一名, 而非三位一軆.
約3:13曰: 除了從天降下仍舊在天的人子, 沒有人升過天. 這說明父子是原為一的. 因救恩工作, 才有道成肉身, 才有父子聖靈之分. 無論是在天上的父, 降世為人的人子, 或住在人裡面的聖靈, 我們只能說 “他們” 原是一位神, 不能說 “他們” 是三個位格.
(38) The Scofield Study Bible-KJV (Oxford University Press Inc.)
The revealed fact is: that man was made in the “image and likeness” of God. This “image” is found chiefly in man’s tri-unity, and in his moral nature. Man is “spirit and soul and body” (1 Thes. 5:23). “spirit” is that part of man which “knows” (1 Cor. 2:11), and which allies him to the spiritual creation and give him God-consciousness. “soul” in itself implies self-conscious life, as distinguished from plants, which have unconscious life. In that sense animals also have “soul”. But the “soul” of man has a vaster content than “soul” as applied to beast life. It is the seat of his emotions, desires, affections (Psa. 42:1-6). The “heart” is, in scripture usage, nearly synonymous with “soul”. Because the natural man is, in characteristically, the or psychical man, “soul” is often used as synonymous with the individual. The body , separable from spirit and soul and susceptible to death, is nevertheless an integral part of man, as the resurrection shows (John 5:28-29; 1 Cor. 15:47-50; Rev. 20:11-13). It is the seat of the senses (the means by which the spirit and soul have world-consciousness) and or the fallen Adamic nature (Rom 7:23-24).
• 此注釋認同三一論, 並以人之靈, 魂和體的 “形像”來証明神的 “形像” 所引用的經文如下:
帖前 5:23 願賜平安的神親自使你們全然成聖, 又願你們的靈 魂與身子得蒙保守, 在我主耶穌基督降臨的時候, 完全無可指摘.
林前 2:11 除了在人裡頭的靈, 誰知道人的事? 像這樣, 除了神的靈, 也沒有人知道神的事.
創2:17 耶和華神用地上的塵土造人, 將生氣吹在他鼻孔裡, 他就成了有靈的活人, 名叫亞當.
詩 42:1 神啊! 我的心切慕你, 如鹿切慕溪水.
詩 42:2 我的心渴想神, 就是永生神, 我幾時得朝見神呢?
詩 42:3 我晝夜以眼淚當飲食, 人不住地對我說: “你的神在哪裡呢?”
詩 42:4 我從前與眾人同住, 用歡呼稱讚的聲音領他們到神的殿裡, 大家守節. 我追想這事我的心極其悲傷.
詩 42:5 我的心哪! 你為何憂悶? 為何在我裡面煩躁? 應當仰望神, 因他笑臉幫助我.. 我還要稱讚他.
詩 42:6 我的神啊! 我的心在我裡面憂悶. 所以我從約但地, 從黑門嶺, 從米薩山記念你.
林前15:50 弟兄們, 我告訴你們說, 血肉之體不能承受神的國. 必朽壞的不能承受不朽壞的.
啟20:11 我又看見一個白色的大寶座在上面的; 從他面前天地都逃避, 再無可見之處了.
啟20:12 我又看見死了的人, 無論大小, 都站在寶座前. 案卷展開了, 並且另有一卷展開, 就是生命冊. 死了的人都憑著這些案卷所記載的, 照他們所行的受審判.
啟20:13 於是海交出其中的死人, 死亡和陰間也交出其中的死人, 他們都照各人所行的受審判.
羅7:23 但我覺得肢體中另有個律和我心中的律交戰, 把我擄去, 叫我從那肢體中犯罪的律.
羅7:24 我真是苦啊! 誰能就我脫離這取死的身體?
從上述經文, 可知此註釋者証明人有靈, 魂, 體. 但他們是會分開的, 這已違反了三一論所說的永恆性. 下列經文可證之:
創3:19 你必汗滿面才得糊口, 直到你歸了土. 因為你是從土而出的, 你本是塵土, 仍要歸於塵土.
伯34:14 他若專心為己, 將靈和氣收歸自己.
路24:37 他們卻驚慌害怕, 以為所看見的是魂.
路34:39 你們看我的手, 我的腳, 就知道實在是我了. 摸我看看, 魂無骨無肉. 你們看, 我是有的.
太10:28 那殺身體, 不能殺靈魂的, 不要怕他們. 惟有能把身體和靈魂都滅在地狱裡的, 正要怕他.
路16:23 他在陰間受痛苦, 舉目遠遠地望見亞伯拉罕, 又見拉撒路在他懷裡.
路23:43 耶穌對他說: “我實在告訴你, 今日你要同我在樂園裡了.”
彼前1:9 並且得著你們信心的果效, 就是靈魂的救恩.
由此可知, 人死後靈歸神, 體歸塵土, 魂則下陰間或樂園等候審判.
(39) The King James Study Bible –KJV (Thomas Nelson Publisher)
The plural pronoun us it most likely a majestic plural from the standpoint of Hebrew grammar and syntax.
• 神以他的威嚴說話, 自然符合聖經(參謀(3)). 但問題是神講話的對象是誰呢? (參((3)和32))
(40) New Bible Commentary (Inter-Varsity Press)
Here God is pictured talking to the angels, the only allusion to other supernatural beings in this chapter. This remark implies that man is like both God and the angels (Traditionally, Christians have seen us and our to allude legitimate fuller interpretation, it is not the words’ primary meaning).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(41) Key Word Study Bible-KJV (AMG Publishers)
When plural pronouns are used, “Let us make man in our image after our likeness”, does it denote a plural number or the concept of excellence or majesty which may be indicated in such a way in Hebrew? Could God be speaking to the angels; the earth, or nature thus denoting Himself in relation to one of these? Or is this a germinal hint of a distinction the divine personality? One cannot be certain. Until Jesus came, the essential (internal) unity of the Godhead was not understood to a great extent, though it was intimated (is. 48:16).
• 此註釋認同三位一體, 其支持乃賽48:16: 你們要就近來我聽這
話, 我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話. 耶和華差我和他的靈來. 此節不能支持三一論. 因為被差遣的 “我” 是指以賽亞, 也就是說, 這邊只提到 “耶和華” 和 “他的靈”, 沒有跡象顯示子也在那裡.
(42) The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible-NIV (AMG Publishers)
The Hebrews word translated “God” is elohiym [466], a plural noun. In verse 26, it is used with a plural verb (“let us make”) and a plural suffix (“in our image, in our likeness”). In verse 27, however, it is used three times with a singular verb (bara [1343], “created”, the same singular verb which appears in verse 1. The essential internal unity of the Trinity was not understood to a great extent until Jesus came to earth (Jn 1:14, 18; 10:30; 14:9), though it was intimated in the Old Testament (Isa 48:16).
• 此書作者任同三一論, 其引用經文如下:
約1:14 道成了肉身, 住在我們中間, 充充滿滿地有恩典有真理, 我們也見過他的榮光.
此處的重點是 “道成肉身”. 綜觀約1:1-3, 約翰的意思是說這個有血有肉的子或道, 其實就是神. 也就是說, 神降世為子, 神成為有所限制的子, 並非表示天上已沒有神了. 這話是針對道或子而說的, 絕對不是說除了神之外, 還有另一個子的位格.
約1:18 從來沒有人看見神, 只有在父懷裡的獨生子將他表明出來 .
神是靈(約4:24), 故人看不到他. 現在無所不知, 無所不在及無所不能的神, 謙卑降為被時空限制的子, 讓人可以看見. 所以來1:3曰: 他是神榮耀所發的光輝, 是神本體的真像. 這個神的本體, 並非是指神的第二個位格. 約一3:2曰: 親愛的弟兄啊 我們現在是神的兒女. 將來如何, 還未顯明. 但我們知道, 主若顯現, 我們必要像他, 因為必得見他的真體. 這再次証明 “主” 是能看見的神的真體. 這裡沒談到聖靈.
約10:30 我與父原為一.
由於無限的神變為地上有限的 “神人”, 並非表示在天上沒有了神. 在天上的為父, 降在地上的為子. 就這角度來看, 我 (主) 的確與父為一. 這裡也沒談到聖靈..
約14:9 耶穌對他說: “腓力, 我與你們同在這麼久, 你還不認識我嗎 ? 人看見了我, 就是看見了父. 你怎麼說: “將父顯給我們看呢?”
神道成肉身, 我們才能看見神的面貌. 子就是人看得見的神(父). 當時門徒們還不清楚, 以為另外還有個父. 三一論就是陷入此圈套, 把父與子分開, 說是神的兩個位格.
賽48:16 你們要就近我來聽這話: “我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話. 自從有這事, 我就在那裡.” 現在, 主耶和華差遣我和他的靈來.
從 “我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話 自從有這事 我就在那裡”這一句話是第14章的 “耶和華”說的, 而 “現在 主耶和華差遣我和他的靈來”這一句話是以賽亞說的. 也就是說 “我” 是指以賽亞本身.根據三一論, 耶和華的靈是指聖靈, 再加上耶和華本身, 只有兩位而已 ,缺少了子.
(43) The Expositor’s Bible Commentary-Genesis-Leviticus (Zondervan)
There have been many attempts to explain the plural forms: “Let us make [nacaseh] in our image [besalmenu], in our likeness [kidmutenu] . “Westermann, 1:144-45, summarizes the explanations given for the use of plurals under four headings : (1) the plural is a reference to the Trinity; (2) the plural is a reference to God and the heavenly court of angels; (3) the plural is an attempt to avoid the idea of an immediate resemblance on God’s part while setting out to create humankind; (4) the plural is an explanation of deliberation on God’s part while setting out to create humankind.
The singulars in v.27 (besalmo, “in his own image”) and （beselem elohim, “in the image of God”; cf. 5:1） rule out the second explanation (i.e., that the plural refers to a heavenly court of angels), since in the immediate context human are said to be created “in his image”, with no mention made of humans being made in the image of the angels. To this the author adds a further qualification that God humankind “in the image of God”. This seems to be an intentional refutation of the notion that the plurals in v.26 refer to the angels.
The third and fourth explanations are both possible within the context, but neither explanation is specifically supported by the context. It is not convincing to point to 11:7 in support of the notion of deliberation, since the use of the plural in that passage is motivated by the chiastic wordplay between the words nabelah (“let us confuse,” 11:7) and nilbena (“let us make, “ 11:3; see J.P. Fokkemann, Narrative Art in Genesis [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975]). Where we do not find unequivocal deliberation (as in 18:17). It is not the plural that is used but the singular : “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?” As Wetermann has stated, the first explanation is “a dogmatic judgment,” though we could add that it is not a judgment that runs confer to the passage itself. However, if we seek an answer from the immediate context, we should turn to the following verse(s) for additional clues.
In v.27 it is stated twice that humankind was created [bara] “male and female”. The same pattern is found in Genesis 5:1-2: “when God created [bara] man …. He created [bara] them male and female”. The singular “man [adam] is create as a plurality, “male and female” [zakar uneqeba]. In a similar way the one God [waggomen elohim, “And God said] create humanity through an expression of plurality [naaseh adam besalemu, “Let us make man in our image”]. Following this clue, the device plurality of persons expressed in v.26 can be seen as an anticipation of the human plurality of persons reflected in man and woman, thus casting human personal relationship in the role of reflecting God’s own personhood.
Could anything be more obvious than to conclude from this clear indication that the image and likeness of the being created by God signifies existence on conjunction of man and man which is that of male and female, and then to go on to ask against this background in what the original and prototype of the device existence of the Creator consist? (K/ Barth, Church Dogmatics3/1 [New York: Scriber, 1956], 195).
• 此註釋者提出四個可能性 (i)三位一體 ,參(5), (6), (7), (34), (37),
(38 ), (41)和(42). (ii) 天庭中的使者 參(1), (2), (9), (11), (12), (15), (22)和(32). (iii) 神的威嚴和慎重的宣佈, 參(3). (iv)神與人隔離, 參(8). 其支持章節如下:
創5:1 亞當的後代記下面 (當神造人[單數]的日子, 是照著自己的樣式造的,
創5:2 並且造男造女. 在他們(復數)被造的日子, 神賜福給他們, 稱他們為 “人”)
單數的人(亞當), 被造成復數的男女. 所謂的造男造女, 是男先女後. 換句話說, 單數的神造單數的男人, 單數的神造單數的女人. 這也就是說, 單數的神, 創造復數的男女. 所以 1:26可視為神預知要造男造女. 所以摩西以復數的 “我們” 來表示將要創造 復數的男女. 但問題是, “我們要造著我們的形像, 按著我們的樣式造人……”是跟誰說呢? 此解釋只說 “我們”的 來源而已.
(44) Genesis A Commentary (Zondervan)
See also 3:22; 11:7. Various references have been suggested for the “us”. The traditional Christian interpretation, that it represents a plurality within deity, has some textual support and satisfies the Christian theology of the Trinity (John 1:3; Eph. 3:9; Col 1:16: Heb. 1:2). God is a plurality is supported by the mention of the spirit of God in 1:2 and the fact that the image itself is a plurality. This interpretation would also explain the shifts in the text between the singular and plural. The primary difficulty with this view is that the other four uses of the plural pronoun with reference to God (3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8) do not seem to refer to the Trinity. The explanation that satisfies all such uses of the pronoun is that God is addressing the angels or heavenly court (cf. 1 Kings 22:19-22; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1-3; 89:5-6; Isa 6:8; 40:1-6; Dan. 10:12-13; Luke 2:8-14). It seems that in the four occurrence of the pronoun “us” for God, God refers to “us” when human beings are impinging on the heavenly realm and he is deciding their fate. In Gen 3:22, God sees that human beings have grasped the knowledge of good and evil and have become like divine beings. In Genesis 11 the heavenly court comes down to see what the earth-bound are building to attain the heavenly space. In Isa. 6:8, God is clearly addressing the heavenly court, which the prophet in his vision has entered. It is not surprising that God would address the heavenly court, since angels play a prominent role in Scripture (e.g., Gen. ; Job 38:7; 1 Tim 3:16), and there is much commerce in Genesis between the angelic realm and human beings.
• 筆者完全同意此觀點.
(45) The NIV Genesis Application Commentary (Zondervan)
The use of the plural pronouns (“us” and “our”) on verse 26 has occasioned constant discussion among the commentators. The early church fathers considered them a reference to the Trinity, while the rabbis offered various grammatical explanations. In the last century, two other theories have arisen, which explain the plural as a vestige of polytheistic mythology of as a reference to a heavenly court. Thus, there are now three categories of explanation:
(i) Theological : The plurals are explained as an expression of plurality within the Godhead, either specifically of the Trinity or at least as a recognition of the two persons represented by the creator God (elohim) and the Holy Spirit of verse 2.
(ii) Grammatical : The plurals are explained as an expression of grammatical on rhetorical conventions, including self-deliberation, plural of majesty, and grammatically agreement with the plural elohim.
(iii) Cultural : The plurals are explained against the background of ancient Near Eastern culture.
We do not have space to consider each of these in the detail they deserve, but in the methodology and presupposition that lead the interpreter into one category or another. The grammatical is the easiest to dismiss since none of the cited conventions are attested with any consistency in Hebrew. The race instances in which they can be claimed generally have either other possible explanations or characteristics that differentiate them from the usage here.
The theological is probably the most popular in traditional circles, but it suffers when subjected to hermeneutical cross-examination. That is, if we ask what the Hebrew author and audience understood, any explanation assuming plurality in the Godhead is easily eliminated. If the interpreter wishes to bypass the human author with the claim that God’s intention is what is important, there are large obstacles to hurdle. If the divine intention is not conveyed by the human author, where is it conveyed? Certainly if the New Testament told us that the Trinity was referred to in this verse, we would have no trouble accepting that God’s intentions. But it is not enough for the New Testament simply to affirm that there is such a thing as the Trinity. That affirmation does not prove that the Trinity is referred to in Genesis 1:26. Without a specific New Testament, we have no authoritative basis for bypassing the human author.
Further commending the human author is the belief that the Old Testament audience also had an authoritative text being communicated to them. We cannot afford to approach the text with the question, “Which interpretation fits best with my belief?” We must ask what the plurals would have meant to the original audience. That leads us to the cultural category. One of the cultural options taken by interpreters is that the plurals are a vestige of polytheism. Unfortunately, they can only accommodate their view by means of many presuppositions concerning the derived nature of the text and the incompetence of a series of editors. Since most readers, like myself, are not persuaded in the least by those presupposition, we will simply set that option aside.
The other position informed by cultural background, the heavenly court option, is much more defensible in that the concept of a heavenly court can be shown to be current not only in the ancient worldview, but also in the biblical text (The clearest example is found in 1 Kings 22:19-22. Other references include God, usually members of the council assemble before God.) Thus, the belief in such a heavenly court does not need to be imported from general culture (though the evidence for it is extensive and clear); one needs only read the Bible. In the ancient Near East the heavenly court was a divine assembly made up of the chief gods of the pantheon. It was this group that made decisions and decreed destinies. In the Old Testament, the heavenly court is made up of angels, or more specifically, the “sons of God.” All that remains is to consider whether the details of the context are in accord with what we know of God and his heavenly court.
Some have objected that it denigrates God to suggest that he consults with angles about such matter (Isa 40:14). They point out, in addition, that it is contrary to biblical teaching to think of the angels being involved in creation or of people being in the image of angels. Careful reading, however, demonstrates that these objections cannot be sustained. (i) We must distinguish between consulting and discussing. God has no need to either consult or discuss with anyone (as Isa. 40:14 affirms). (ii) It is his prerogative, however, to discuss anything he wants with whomever he chooses (Gen 18:17-19). Such inclusion of the heavenly court in discussion does not in any sense necessitate that angles must than have been used as agents of creation. In Isaiah 6:8 the council’s decision is carried out by Yahweh alone. (iii) Finally, the idea that the image should be referred to as “our” image does not imply that humans are created in the image of angels; it is possible, though not necessary, that angles also share the dive image in their nature. The image of God differentiates people from animals, not from angels.
If them, we are going to link our interpretation to the sense that the Israelite audience would have understood (and methodologically I believe that is essential for maintaining the authority of the text), the heavenly court is the most defensible interpretation and poses no insuperable theological obstacle.
• 同(44).
最後 筆者再引用幾節經文來指出
(i) 天庭的存在
但 7:10 從他面前有火, 像河發出. 事奉他的有千千, 在他面前侍
立的有萬萬. 他坐著要行審判, 案卷都展開了.
詩89:6 在天空誰能比耶和華呢? 神的眾子中, 誰能像耶和華呢?
詩 89:7 他在聖者的會中, 是大有威嚴的神, 比一切在他四圍的
更可畏懼.
歷下 18:18 米該亞說: “你們要聽耶和華的話, 我看見耶和華坐
在寶座上 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右
啟 5:11 我又看見且聽見, 寶座與活物並長老的周圍有許多天使
的聲音, 他們的數目有千千萬萬.
但 4:35 世上所有的居民都算為虛無, 在天上的萬軍和世上的居
民中, 他都憑自己的意旨行事, 無人能攔住他手, 或問他
說, 你做甚麼呢?
(ii) 神使天使或人知其所欲行之事
摩 3:7 主耶和華若不將奧秘指示他的僕人 --- 眾先知, 就一無所
行.
詩 103:7 他使摩西知道他的法則, 叫以色列人曉得他的作為.
創 18:33 耶和華與亞伯拉罕說完了話就走了, 亞伯拉罕也回到
自己的地方去了.
(iii) 天使和人在天庭中讚美神
啟 7:11眾天使都站在寶座和眾長老並四活物的周圍, 在寶座前
面伏於地, 敬拜神.
詩 103:19 耶和華在天上立定寶座, 他的權柄統管萬有.
詩 103:20 聽從他命令, 成全他旨意, 有大能的天使, 都要稱頌耶
和華!
啟 5:13 我又聽見在天上, 地上, 地底下, 滄海裡, 和天地間一切
所有被造之物, 都說 : “但願頌讚, 尊貴, 榮耀, 權柄, 都
歸給坐寶 座的和羔羊, 直到永永遠遠.


創1 : 26 : “我們要照著我們的形像,按著我們的樣式造人 .”所謂的 “我們” 該作何解? 筆者參考了下列書籍, 並提出筆者的看法.

(1) 證主21世紀聖經新釋 (福音證主協會)
本處是形容神與天使們的話, 也是本章內有其他超自然本體的唯一暗示. 這記載表示 “人” 同時有神和天使的樣式. (在傳統上, 基督徒看 “我們”和 “我們的” 是暗示三位一體的其他位格, 雖然這是一個颇合理的解釋, 但不是本處的首要意思.)
• 創1:27曰: 神就照著自己的形像照人, 乃是照著他的形像造男造女. 這裡很清楚的說是 “自己” 的形像造人, 又怎麼會是神和天使的行像造人? 彼後2:4曰: 就是天使犯了罪, 神也沒有寬容, 曾把他們丟在地獄, 交在黑暗中, 等候審判. 由此可知, 有犯罪的天使, 自然也有沒犯罪的天使. 沒有犯罪的天使又是怎樣的? 從創世記的資料推論, 應像還沒有犯罪的亞當和夏娃. 所以人和天使有共同的形像, 而這個型像就是來自神.
(2) 聖經新國際研讀本 (更心傳道會)
我們........我們的........我們的: 神以創造者和君王的身份, 對祂天庭中的萬軍宣告祂的顛峰作為 (見3:22; 11:7; 賽6:8; 又見王上22:19-23; 伯15:8; 耶23:18).
• 當神要作某事時, 會與先知和天庭中的天使們討論, 這可從王上22:19-23看出:
王上22:19: 米該亞說: “你要聽耶和華的話. 我看見耶和華坐在寶座上, 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右.
22:20 : 耶和華說: “誰去引誘亞哈王上基列的拉末去陣亡呢? 這個就這樣說, 那個就那樣說.
22:21 : 隨後有一個神靈出來, 站在耶和華面前, 說: “我去引誘他.”
22:22 : 耶和華同他說: “你用何法呢?” 他說: “我去, 要在他眾先知口中作謊言的靈. 耶和華說: “這樣, 你必能引誘,. 你去如此行吧!”
22:23 : 現在耶和華使謊言的靈入了你這些先知的口, 並且耶和華已經命定降禍於你”
留意22節耶和華說: “你去如此行吧!” 但在23節, 王上作者卻說是耶和華作的. 這與創1:26的 “我們” 和1:27的 “祂” 異曲同工. 創1:26是神說的話, 創1:27是摩西講的話. 這也就是說, 最後決定還是神本身.
(3) 聖經啟導本 (海天書樓)
26節的 “我們” 是神宣佈祂登峰造極的創造工作的自稱, 代表神的豐富華麗(3:22; 11:7)
• 神用六天創世, 把一切看著是好的 (創1:18; 1:21: 1:25; 1:31), 創1:28最後才創造人. 創1:28曰: 神就賜福給他們, 又對他們說, 要生養眾多, 遍滿地面. 治理這地. 也要管理海裡的魚, 空中的鳥, 和地上各樣行動的活物. 神創造人, 可說是登峰造極的創造. 神指著祂在創造人之前所造的一切, 可代表神的豐富華麗. 但神用 “我們” 宣告, 到底是跟誰說呢? 這裡沒有交代.
(4) 聖經簡釋本 (中國基督教協會) 以賽亞書中, 神也用 “我們” 來指稱 (賽6:8), 神並非獨自在天庭, “智慧” 也參與了神的創造 (箴8:30).
• 此註釋不詳. 所謂 “神並非獨自在天庭”, 是否指天庭是由神和 “智慧” 組成? 箴8:30曰: 那時, 我在他那裡為工師, 日日為他所喜愛, 常常在他面前踴躍. “我” 固然指 “智慧”, 但沒跡像顯示她參與創世工作. “工師” 只是耶和華面前 “踴躍” 和 “喜悅”. 前者是 “踴躍在她為人預備可住之地”, 後者 “喜悅住在人之間(箴8:31). 箴8:22-27只說耶和華創世之前 “就有了我”, “我已被立”, “我已出生”, “我在那裡” 就箴言整本書來看, 作者只是把智慧擬人化. 第九章更把智慧和愚蠢對比. 第1章20節開始敘述智慧在呼喚人, 第2章則說智慧的賞賜. 第2章6節說, 耶和華 “賜人智慧”. 也就是說, 人可得智慧, 並成為 “工師”. 第8章27-29節說神創世, 接下去的30節才說 “智慧” 為 “工師”. 如把此與創1:28對照, “工師” 是神委任管理萬物的人之身份.
(5) 聖經研讀版(環球聖經公會有限公司)
不同學者對這裡使用復數代名詞有各種各樣詮釋. 有人認為是指三位一體. 其他則從文法角度解釋, 視之為若不是用復數來表示威榮, 就是強調神性, 或是表示神對自己說話. 另有人認為這裡是指神與他在天上純潔的宮庭(見賽6:8).
• 三位一體的可能性很小, 因為此說須假設創1:26 是由一個位格或兩個位格對其他位格講話, 並須限定 “我們” 是三而已. 在聖經裡,無法找到支持此觀點的章節. 最接近的是太28:19, 此處指的是 “名” 而非 “體”. 換句話說, 父子聖靈只有一個名, 而非供同擁有一個體. 就算是 “我們(復數)” 是指神的三個位格, 單數的 “形像” “樣式” 是指神的一體, 第27節也應該是, 乃是造 “他們(復數)” 的 “形像(單數)”造男造女. 但聖經卻用單數的 “他” 及單數的 “形像”.
用復數來表示威榮, 強調神性, 或神對自己說話, 但 “我們” 卻顯示有講者, 亦有聽者.
第三個理由可能性最高, 但所引用的賽6:8根本與創1:26, 27節一樣, 証明不了甚麼.
(6) 聖經(思高譯本)
按古猶太人經師解釋, 是指天主和天使, 好似天主同天主商量; 但有些學者主張為 “威嚴復數” 或 “議決復數”. 教父和神學家多以為此復數暗示聖三的奧秘.. 此說若是啟示的演進說是對的 人相似天主是按靈魂説的. 相似天主有理智, 意志和記憶. 論人的肉身, 當天主造亞當時, 已預見作亞當第二基督(羅5:14).
• 此說是暗示三位一體的奧秘, 然後在新約中逐漸啟示神的三個位格, 即父在舊約工作, 子則在新約(四福音)裡工作, 最後是教會在傳教方面動工. 但主張三一論者又指出創1:1 的神(父), 創1:2 .是指聖靈,.創1:3是指子, 三個位格一起創造世界, 這已是明示而非暗示了.
如是“啟示的演進說,” 也就不會有天主教與東正教的 “和子” 的爭論而閙分裂. 筆者較傾於 “教義墮落說”. 關於三一說, 參(5).
人是由靈, 魂, 體組成. 活時還可免強說是三位一體. 但人死後, 體歸回塵土(創3:19), 靈歸於神(34:14), 魂則下陰間(太10:28)或進樂園(路23:43; 彼前1:9). 三者可以分開, 也必定分開. 然而, 三位一體之位格是永恆的, 是不能分開的.
神何止只有理智, 意志, 和記憶. 祂也是愛(約1:16), 公義(帖前1:6), 柔和謙卑(太11:29)等等.
(7) 聖經靈修版(國際聖經協會)
一種觀點認為這是指三位一體的真理, 聖父, 聖子, 聖靈都是靈. 另有觀點認為這樣的表達方式是表示威嚴, 好像西方國家的君主在傳統上也是以復數自稱的. 我們確實知道神的兒子基督和神的靈也參與創造的工作(參伯33:14; 詩104:30; 西1:16)
• 關於三位一體, 參(5)及(6). 必須指出的是, 聖經從未稱子為聖子, 只稱他為我的兒子 (太3:17), 我的愛子(太17:5), 獨生子(約3:16). 這說明子低於父, 不可能與父同等. 父的辈份比子高, 父是前辈, 子是後輩. 若是同等的話, 那他們應是兄弟關係.
其所引用的經文如下:
伯33:4 : 神的靈造我 全能者的氣使我得生.
詩104:30 : 你發出你的靈, 牠們便受造, 你使地面更換為新.
西 1:16 : 因為萬有都是靠他造的, 無論是天上的, 地上的, 能看見
的; 不能看見的. 或是有位的, 主治的, 執政的, 掌權的;
一 概都是藉著他造的, 又是為他造的.
伯33:4 和詩104:30的 “神的靈”, 根據三一論, 是指聖靈(羅8:9). 徒5:9之主的靈, 羅8:9之基督的靈, 徒16:7之耶穌的靈, 太10:20之父的靈, 全都指聖靈. 約4:24說神是個靈, 父是神, 子是神 聖靈是神, 卻不是三位神, 而是一位神. 那父的 “靈”, 子的 “靈” 又叫甚麼呢? 由於三一論不相信 “靈裡的一致”, 故只能推說父子聖靈是以一體來連繫三個位格. 那這一體是以甚麼方式存在呢? 三一論不能自圓其說.
至於西1:16, 我們先看1:15: 愛子是那不能看見之神的像, 是首生的, 在一切被造以先. 當提到 “首生” 時, 時間觀念已存在, 即有 “未生前” 及 “生後” 徒13:33曰: 神已經向我們這作兒女的應驗, 叫耶穌復活了. 正如詩篇第二篇上記著說: 你是我的兒子, 我今日生你. 由此可知, 16節的創造是指著有血有肉的子說的. 保羅的意思是說, 這個能讓人看見並摸到的子, 原是創造萬物的神. 創造萬物的神, 道成肉身, 來到世間, 並不表示在天上已沒有了神. 在天上的為父, 在地上的為子. 此節經文並非說子是一位參與創世工作的另一位格.
(8) 創世記注釋上冊(基督教文藝出版社)
我們稍為論述關於上帝提及自己. 在這裡, 就在這一章裡, 只在這個地方特別用第一人稱眾數的 “我們” 和 “我們的”(但29及30節, 祂又恢復用單數我). 這情形通常隱含基督教三位一體在創造中運行之意(第二位格是創造的道, 一直在發言, 而第三位聖靈則在第二節中), 但是古代希伯來人怎能知道這些東西是甚麼呢? 如今比較常見的, 是把這比作無上的或編輯的 “我們” ---- 但那是歐洲的見解, 而不是希伯來的. 然而, 如果它不能用這兩種解說中任何一種, 那麼它的意思又是甚麼呢?
詩篇第八篇類似的經文, 在這裡再給我們幫助.,其中第五節說上帝賜 “人冠冕”, 也說 “祢叫他比天使(或上帝)微小一點”; 或者像欽定本說, “ 比天使低 一點. 事實上, 希伯來文是伊羅欣(Elohim), 是上帝的正規字眼, 這是研究聖經的人都知道的, 而這字本身是眾數的. 這字一定是早期以色列的祖宗正像鄰邦一樣拜多神, 後來在他們成為一神的信徒時, 殘存下來的. 因為這字等於喚醒他們, 在別人有許多神靈, 分立而又常常爭執時, 對他們卻是只有一位獨神, 而且祂的旨意與目的是一致的.
不過, 在舊約中仍然有幾處地方是眾數的. 其中, 大多數指的是外族神, 正如出埃及記十二章十二節指埃及的多神, 或者在詩篇九十五篇三節: “ 耶和華為大神(伊羅欣), 為大王, 超乎萬神(也是伊羅欣)之上. 甚至第一誡: “除了我以外, 你不可有別的神”(出二十3), 其中的神字, 也是眾數的. 但是很偶然的纔指以色列的上帝有關的神. 一個好例子是詩篇一三八篇一節:“在諸神面前歌頌祢”.
在這些以外, 還要加上幾個稱為 “神的兒子” 所暗示的東西. 例如創世記六章二節(一段以後將給我們困難的經文)及約伯記一章六節與二章一節 ,在這些經文中, “神的眾子” 在上帝面前侍立.
在我們這段經文中, 還保留異教中的另一殘餘的東西. 那就是我們所熟知, 從荷馬來的神靈會議中得來的. 在那會議中, 男神女神不時集合來商討重要事件. 從以色列附近來的亞屈拉哈西斯敘事詩(epic Atrahasis)便是一個例子. 這詩包含米所波大米一個洪水故事.. 它開頭便是神會議, 先是眾神決定創造人類作他們的奴僕 (與本章差異多大啊!)而其後當他們喧嚷吵鬧, 以致眾神夜間不能睡覺時 卻又決定毀滅人類.
但是在希伯來思想中, 這些 “眾神” 是(可能除了剛才提及的創世記第六章二節那使人不安的經文之外)不容許威脅真神的獨一性或威嚴的. 他們並不是 “天使”, 天使是上帝的使者, 好像是較低一級的; 他們也不是舊約其他經文(例如創世記第三章廿四節; 以賽亞書第六章二節)的基路伯和撒拉弗, 他們是上帝的侍衛和護衛者 但是他們的任務並無很大的差別. 他們是希伯來人想像中的主要角色, 不是自己本有權利的人物, 而是上帝的延伸, 帶詩意地足以增強祂的榮耀和聖潔, 保衛祂的超越性而不是向祂挑戰.
對着這背景, 我相信欽定本詩篇八篇五節的 “天使” 比標準修正本的大寫 “上帝” 更為接近標準. 詩人正如創世記第一章的作者一樣, 給人高位, 而且把人描述得高至如天上上帝寶座周圍的神靈. 在這裡, 他----正如創世記第一章第廿六一樣----超出了舊約對人的看法不止一步. 但是他沒有遠至----希伯來人會嗎 ?----直接將 “人” 與那惟一的上帝本身相比. 縱然他 “比上帝微小一點”, 在希伯來人的經驗裡, 他仍然是太近乎上帝.
在本節的 “我們的”, 當然必得用類似的方法解釋. 創世記第一章的作者, 正如我們應當在好幾處注意到的 ,並不慣於用有詩意的詞語去描述上帝. 但是這裡他作了一個例外, 而他所以作這例外的原因並不難找出. 他是在警戒他的讀書, 提防他要論及 “人” 的話的危險性. 於是他故意打開天上宮庭的光景, 而暫時把上帝在祂的天使中隱藏起來. 這麼一來, 他就把祂於 “人” 相隔遠一點, 而準備被他讀者對接着來的奇妙語句, 有適當而均衡的暸解.
當我們考慮創世記第一章廿六節後來所成就的和神學上的價值時, 我們猜想作者的目的並未十分成功. 他怎麼知道他小心磨煉推測的話, 會落在那些對希伯來語的細緻特色毫無感覺的人手上呢?
• 此說法認為人不能與神相比, 所以摩西故意打開天庭光景, 暫時把神及天使隱藏起來, 取而代之的是諸神(詩138:1), 神的兒子(創6:2),及神的眾子(伯1:6; 2:1). 上述三種 “神”, 比天使低一點, 是神的延伸. 問題是 “諸神”, “神的兒子”和 “神的眾子”是誰? 聖經沒有交代. 筆者認為, 詩8:5的關鍵不在於譯為天使或神, 而是此句中的 “他”, 由8:1到8:9, “你”是指神, “他” 是指人. 因此, 人到底比天使高一級(譯為神)或比天使低一級都不是關鍵所在. 如把詩8:5譯為天使或神, 都不會影響 “他” 的意義. 此注釋者把 “他” 當作是神的侍衛和護衛者, 與天使不同, 任務卻與天使並無很大的差別. 這種說法, 未免太過牽強.
(9) The New Jerusalem Bible – Study Edition (Darton, Longman & Todd.
Ltd)
It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God and his
heavenly court (the angels, see 3:5, 22); our text was thus understood by the
Gk version of Ps8:5 (quoted in Beg 2:7). Alternatively, the plural expresses
the majesty and fullness of God’s being; the common names for God in
Hebrew is elohim, a plural form.
• 復數是指天庭裡的天使. 所引用經文以支持此觀點如下:
創3:5 : 因為神知道, 你們吃的日子, 眼睛就明亮了, 你們便如神能知道善惡
3: 22 : 耶和華神說: “那人已經與我們相似, 能知道善惡. 現在恐怕
伸手又摘生命樹的果子吃, 就永遠活著.
創3:5告訴我們墮落天使的存在. 創3:1曰: 耶和華所造的, 惟有蛇
比田野一切的活物更狡猾. 蛇對人說: “神豈是真說不許你們吃園中
所有樹上的果子嗎?” 此節好像墮落的天使與其他活物同時被造, 其實不然. 啟20:3曰:他捉住那龍, 就是古蛇, 又叫魔鬼, 也叫撒但 把牠捆綁一千年. 如以此節與路20:3對比(這時 撒但入了稱為加人
猶大的心, 他本是十二門徒裡的一個), 我們可知道蛇是被造之物 是撒但進蛇中藉以迷惑人.
第3:22 的 “我們” 和1:26節的 “我們” 一樣都是神說的話, 而非該書作者講的話.
詩8:5 你叫他比天使微小一點, 並賜他榮耀尊貴為冠冕.
來1:14 天使豈不都是服役的靈嗎? 奉差遣為那將要承受救恩的人
效力嗎?
從此處, 我們可知天使的存在. 工作是服役與奉差遣的, 受命於神
所以創1:26的 “我們”, 應是指神與天使.
(10) The Jerusalem Bible(Darton, Longman & Todd, Ltd)
It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God
and his heavenly court (the angles, cf. 3:5, 22); our text was thus understood
by the Greek version (followed by Vulg.) of Ps 8:5 (quoted in Heb 2:7). Alternatively, the plural expresses the majesty and fullness of God’s being;
the common name for God in Hebrew is Elohim, a plural form. Thus the way is prepared for the interpretation of the Fathers who saw in this text a hint of the trinity.
• “我們”是指神與天使的討論, 參(9). 如當神說是 “我們 “以示威嚴, 那賽6:8 又該作何解釋呢? 賽6:8曰: “我又聽見主的聲音說, 我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我”. 照此羅輯講, 應是 “我們”可以差遣誰呢? “我們” 暗示三位一體的討論, 參(5), (6)和(7).
(11) Fire Bible Global Study Edition – NIV (Life Publishers)
The use of word “us” (plural) suggests that God has a certain plurality, or multi-faceted nature (cf. Ps 2:7; Isa 48:16). This seems to be an early reference to the trinity, or the existence of God in three distinct but interrelated and unified Persons. The tri-unity (i.e., “three-in-One” nature) of nature does not become clear, however, until the NT (see Mt 3:17, Mk 1:11)
• 關於三位一體的討論, 參(5), (6)和(7). 茲將引用經文下列:
詩 2:7 : 受膏者說: “我要傳聖旨.” 耶和華對我說: “你是我的兒子, 我今日生你.”
賽48:16 你們要就近我來聽這話, 我從起頭並未曾在隱密處外說話.
自從有這事, 我就在那裡. 現在主耶和華差我和他的靈來.
太 3:17 從天上有聲音說: “這是我的愛子, 我所喜悅的.”
可 1:11 又有聲音從天上來, 說: “這是我的愛子, 我喜悅你.”
為了實行救恩計劃, 神暫時 “分為三位”, 才有父子聖靈之分. 一旦救恩完成後, 再也沒有父子聖靈之別, 只有獨一真神. 啟22:3之 “寶座 “, “他 的面” 和 “他的名字”, 都是單數.
(12) The Case For Christ Study Bible – NIV (Zondervan)
God speaks as the Creator King, announcing his crowning work to the member of his heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:18; see also 1 Ki 22:19 – 23; Job 15:8; Jer 23.: 18).
• 此注釋可能性最高. 茲將引用經文列下並論之:
創 : 3:22 耶和華說: “那人已經與我們相似, 能知道善惡. 現在恐怕他伸手又摘生命樹果子吃, 就永遠活著.
下一節(創3:23 耶和華神便打發他出伊甸園去, 耕種他所自出之土.
創3:22 神用 “我們”, 而創3:23只說是”耶和華”而已, 這與創1:26 的 “我們” 與 “他” 相似.
創11:7 : 我們下去, 在那裡變亂他們的口音, 使他們的言語彼此不通.
同樣的, 接下去第八節曰: 於是耶和華使他們從那裡分散全地上, 他們就停工, 不造那城了. 第七節說 “我們”, 第八節卻說是耶和華. 讓我們繼續看下一個引文:
賽 6:8 : 我又聽見主的聲音說: “我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我!”
接下去的第九節 “他” 說: “你去告訴這百姓說, 你們聽是要聽見, 卻不明白. 看是要看見, 卻不曉得.”
第八節用 “我們”, 第九節用的是 “他”. 綜觀上述討論, 所有經文都有一共同點: 當神說話時, 就用 “我們”. 當該書作者指神說話時, 卻用 “他” 或 “耶和華”. 再看看下列經文:
王上 22:9 米該雅說: “你要聽耶和華的話, 我看見耶和華坐在寶座上, 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右.”
22:20: 耶和華說: “誰去引誘亞哈王上基列的拉末陣亡呢?” 這個就這樣說, 那個就那樣說.
22:21: 隨後有一個神靈出來, 站在耶和華面前, 說: “我去引誘他”.
22:22 耶和華問他說: “你用何法呢?” 他說: “我去, 要在他眾先知口中作慌言的靈.” 耶和華說: “這樣, 你必能引誘他, 你如此去行吧!”
22:23: 現在耶和華使慌言的靈入了你這些先知的口, 並且耶和華已經命定降禍與你.
上述經文說明有天庭和天使的存在, 而且神會與天使們討論. 然而, 作最後決定還是在於神. 所以創3:22用 “我們”, 創11:7 也是 “我們”, 賽6:8說 “我們”. 以此推論, 創1:26的 “我們” 應是指神與眾天使討論, 然後神(創3:23和11:8皆用 “耶和華”, 賽6:9用 “他” )才決定並進行所討論的工作.
伯15:8: 你曾聽見神的密旨? 你是將智慧獨自得盡嗎?
耶23:18: 有誰站在耶和華的會中, 得以聽見並會悟他的話呢? 有隨留心聽他的話呢?
上述經文指出, 有一個叫耶和華的會, 在此會中, 而 “天使和先知能或不能領悟或留心聽他的話” 再一次說明的確有天庭的存在. 而神也樂意讓天使和先知在天庭知道他的旨意. 如創18:17曰: 耶和華說: “我所要做的事, 豈可瞞著亞伯拉罕?”
(13) The Learning Bible – NIV (Zondervan Publishing House)
The plural (us, our) may refer to God and the heavenly beings that make up God’s heavenly court (11:7; 1Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:8).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (11)和(12).
(14) Life Application Study Bible – NIV (Tyndale House Publishers)
Why does God use the plural form, “Let us make man in our image?” One view says this is a reference to the Trinity – God the Father, Jesus Christ his son, and the Holy Spirit – all of whom are God. Another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. Kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking of themselves. From Job 33:4 and Psalm 104:30, we do know that God’s spirit was present in the creation. From Colossians 1:16, we know that Christ, God’s Son, was at work in the creation.
• 參(5), (6), (7)和(11).
(15) Quest Study Bible-NIV (Zondervan)
Why did God say, Let us (plural) make man in our image? (1:26) Often king refers to themselves in this way. The Hebrew word for God (Elohim) is plural, perhaps indicating that God was taking counsel with himself. This may also hint at the mystery of the Trinity --- in the unity of God there is plurality. Some think this describes God speaking to his heavenly court of angels.
• 此處提出三個可能性 行 (i) 神自言自語. 這個可能性很小, 因為 “我們” 表示有講者, 亦有聽者. (ii) 三位一體. 參(5) (6) (7) 和(11). (iii) 對天庭的天使說話. 從(1)可知未墮落的天使和未犯罪的人有共同的形像, 而這一個形像來自神. 因此神說話時用 “我們” (創1:26), 摩西寫的創1:27 是用 “他” 因為的確是 “他” 在進行創造工作. 參(12).
(16) Concordia Self-Study Bible-NIV (Zondervan Publishing House)
God speaks as Creator-King, announcing his crowning work to the members
of his heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8; see also 1K 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jer 23:18).
• 同(13).
(17) The Wesley Study Bible-NRSV (Abingdon Press)
Us and our in 1:26, points to the unique centrality of this moment of creation. This is a purposeful and measured action that God does not entrust to anyone else. Like most theologians of his day, Wesley assumes a Trinitarian interpretation of these plurals：“The three persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, consult about it, and concur in it; because man, when he was made, was to be dedicated and devoted to Father, Son and Holy Ghost”.
• 同(14)
(18) The New Interpreter’s Study-Bible-NRSV (Abingdon Press)
The plural us has been variously interpreted as the plural of “majesty” (the royal “we”) and, in Christian theology, as the Trinity. Here, as elsewhere in Genesis (e.g., 11:7), God is addressing the divine council, the assembly of heavenly being believed to assist God in governing the world and communicating with the human race (1 Kgs 22: 19-23; Job 1: 6-7; Jer 23:18, 22).
• 同(13)
(19) The Harper Collins Study Bible-NRSV (Harper One)
The plural seems to refer to the lesser deities of the divine assembly described in other biblical text. (e.g., 1 Kings 22:19-22; Isa 6::8). In the accomplishment of this utterance, however, God acts alone (God created humankind in his image, v.27). The reference to the divine assembly seems to acknowledge its presence but discounts its active participation in creation.
• 此注釋說, 若是神需要和天庭討論, 將會貶低其在創世中的角色. 但從 創3:33, 11:8, 賽6:9 王上22:23, 真正作最後決定及施行的是神.
(20) The Discipleship Study Bible-NRSV (Westminster John Knox Press)
The plural probably refers to the divine council (see Jer. 23:18-23). God here consults with other divine beings; the creation of human kind thus is the result of a dialogical act. God chooses to share the creative process with those who are not God.
• 耶 23:18 有誰站在耶和華的會中得以聽見並會悟他的話呢? 有誰留心聽他的話呢?
此節說明有 “耶和華的會” 的存在.
• 耶 23:19 看哪! 耶和華的忿怒好像暴風, 已經發出, 是暴烈的旋風, 必轉到惡人的上頭.
“惡人”是指16節的假先知
耶23:20 耶和華的怒氣必不轉消, 直到他心中所擬定的成就了, 末
後的日子你們要全然明白.
“他” 是指神, 也就是說, 神所擬定的成就時, “他”會使 “你們” (即先知)明白
耶23:21 我沒有打發那些先知, 他們竟自奔跑. 我沒有對他們竟自預言.
“他們”是指假先知.
耶23:22 他們若是站在我的會中, 就必使我的百姓聽我的話, 又使他們回頭離開惡道和他們所行的惡.
“他們” 指假先知. 由此可知, 假先知也在神的會中.
耶23:23 耶和華說: “我豈為近處的神呢? 不也為遠處的神嗎?”
這表示遠近的先知和天使都可知神的旨意. 為甚麼會知道呢? 因為神樂意把他的旨意告訴他們, 這也包括人(創18:17).
(21) The Orthodox Study Bible-St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint (St Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology
The Holy Trinity also made man. God the Father is speaking to God the Son (John Chrysostom), and he uses the personal pronouns Us and Our. These pronouns indicate three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as noted in 1:1-3.
• 參(5), (6), (7)和(11).
(22) The NET Bible-New English Translation (Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C.)
The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later Trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory. In 2 Sam 24:14, David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court. (see 1 Kgs : 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12, 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings”. If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.
• 茲將Job 1:6-12 及2:16列下:
伯 1:6 有一天, 神的眾子來侍立在那耶和華面前, 撒但也在其中.
1:7 耶和華問撒但說: “你從哪裡來?” 撒但回答說: “我從地上走來走去, 往返而來.”
1:8 耶和華問撒但說: “你曾用心察看我的僕人約伯沒有? 地上再沒有人像他完全正直, 敬畏神, 遠離惡事.
1:9 撒但回答耶和華說: “約伯敬畏神, 豈是無故呢?
1:10 你豈不是四面圈上籬笆圍護他和他的家, 並他一切所有的.
他手所做的, 都蒙你賜福. 他的家產也在地上增多.
1:11 你且伸手毀他一切所有的, 他必當面棄掉你.”
1:12 耶和華對撒但說: “凡他所有的都在你手中, 只是不可伸手
害於他.” 於是撒但從耶和華面前退去.
上述經文有 “神的眾子”和撒但在耶和華面前交談, 再一次證明天庭中有討論這一回事.
伯 2:1 又有一天 ,神的眾子來侍立在耶和華面前, 撒但也來在其中.
2:2 耶和華問撒但說: “你從哪裡來?” 撒但回答說: “我從地上走來走去, 往返而來.”
2:3 耶和華問撒但說: “你曾用心察看我的僕人約伯沒有? 地上再沒有人像他完全正直, 敬畏神, 遠離惡事. 你雖激動我攻擊他, 無故地毀滅他, 他仍然持守他的純正.
2:4 撒但回答耶和華說: “人以皮代皮, 情願捨棄一切所有的 保全性命.
2:5 你且傷他的骨頭和他的肉, 他必當面棄掉你.”
2:6 耶和華對撒但說: “他在你手中, 只要存留他的生命.”
第三節說得很清楚 是撒但(你)激動神(我)攻擊他(約伯). 換句話說, 是神透過與撒但討論而做某事, 而聖經直接說是神做的.
賽 6:1 當烏西雅王崩的那年, 我見主坐在高高的寶座上. 他的衣裳垂下, 遮滿聖殿.
6:2 其上有撒拉弗侍立, 各有六個翅膀, 用兩個翅膀遮臉, 兩個翅膀遮腳, 兩個翅膀飛翔.
6:3 彼此呼喊說: 聖哉! 聖哉! 聖哉! 萬軍之耶和華, 他的榮光充滿全地.
6:4 因呼喊者的聲音, 門檻的根基震動, 殿充滿了煙雲.
6:5 那時我說: 禍哉! 我滅亡了! 因為我是嘴唇不潔的人, 又住在嘴唇不潔的民中. 又因我眼見大君王----萬軍之耶和華.
6:6 有一撒拉弗飛到我跟前, 手裡拿著紅炭, 是用火剪從壇上取下來的.
6:7 將炭沾我的口, 說: “看哪! 這炭沾了你的嘴, 你的罪孽便除掉, 你的罪惡就赦免了.”
6:8 我又聽見主的聲音說: “我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我!”
綜觀上述經文, 可知撒但, 神的眾子, 先知, 天使, 都可能是天庭中的成員. 此注釋亦提出神的眾子在創造時可能扮演的角色, 即讚美神. 如伯38:7曰: 那時, 晨星一同歌唱, 神的眾子也都歡呼! 再如
啟 4:6, 寶座前像一個玻璃海, 如同水晶. 寶座中和寶座周, 四個活物, 前後遍體都滿了眼睛.
4:7 第一個活物像獅子, 第二個像牛犢,第三個臉面像人, 第四個像飛鷹.
4:8 四活物各有六個翅膀, 遍體內外長了眼睛. 他們晝夜不住地說: “ 聖哉! 聖哉! 聖哉! 主是昔在, 今在, 以後永在的全能者.”
4:9 每逢四活物將榮耀, 尊貴, 感謝歸給那坐在寶座上, 活到永永遠遠者的時候,
4:10 那二十四位長老就俯伏在坐寶座的面前敬拜那活到永永遠遠的, 又把他們的冠冕放在寶座前, 說:
4:11 “我們的主, 我們的神, 你是配得榮耀, 尊貴, 權柄的. 因為你創造了萬物. 並且萬物是因你的旨意被創造而有的.
5:11 我又看見聽見, 寶座與活物並長老的周圍有許多天使的聲音, 他們的數目千千萬萬.
5:12 大聲說: “曾被殺的羔羊配得權柄, 豐富, 智慧, 能力, 尊貴, 榮耀, 頌讚的.
由此可知, 在將要審判世界的神的天庭, 包括人(長老)及天使, 而他們是以頌讚來參與神的工作.
(23) The Oxford Study Bible-Revised English Bible (Oxford University Press, Inc.)
The plural us (3:22; 11:7) may be a majestic plural, or else to the minor divine beings thought to surround God, like countries of a human king (1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6).
• 關於神的威嚴 參(5). 關於天庭 , 參(1), (2), (9), (12) 和(22).
(24) 1599 Geneva Bible-The Geneva Bible (Tolle lege Press)
Let us make : signifying, that God taketh counsel with his wisdom and virtue, purposing to make an excellent work above all the rest of his creation.
• 參(3)和(4).
(25) The Essential Study Bible-Contemporary English Version (Penguin
Group)
The plural (we, us) may refer to God and the heavenly beings that make up God’s heavenly court (11:7: Isa 6:8; 1 Kgs 22:19).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22).
(26 ) New Spirit Filled Life Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
God was speaking, not only to what the NT reveals to the rest of the Trinity, but to the entire host of heaven, the angels, as well.
• 關於三位一體 , 參(5), (6)和(7). 關於天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(27) The Billy Graham Training Center Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
From the first chapter of the Bible, God reveals Himself to be “plural”. In this verse, we see all three personalities of God working together during the creation of the world. These three personalities are equal in glory and character, and they share the attributes of God revealed in the Old Testament. They are all eternal-meaning that none was created
• 參(5), (6)和(7)
(28) Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
Let Us make is emphatic. It emphasizes the majesty of the speaker.
Furthermore, the use of plural for God allows for the later revelation of the
Trinity (see 11:7; Matt 28:19).The Us cannot refer to the angles that are
present with God because man is made in the image of God alone, not also
that of angels.
• 參(1), (3), (5), (6)和(7)
(29) ESV Study-ESV (Crossway Bibles)
The text does not specify the identity of the “us” mentioned here. Some have
suggested that God may be addressing the members of his court. Whom the
OT elsewhere calls “sons of God” (e.g., Job 1:6) and the NT calls “angels”, but
a significant objection is that man is not made in the image of angels, nor is
there any indication that angels participated in the creation of human beings.
Many Christian and some Jews have taken “us” to be God Speaking to himself,
since God alone does the making in Gen. 1:27 (cf. 5:1); this would be the first
hint of the trinity in the Bible (cf. 1:2).
• 關於天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22). 關於神的威嚴, 參(5). 三位一體則參(5), (6)和(7).
(30) The Reformation Study Bible-ESV (Ligonier Ministries)
The use of the plural here is variously interpreted. Some view this as an indication of plurality within the divine unity, hinting at the later New Testament revelation of the one God as Father, Son and Spirit. Others explain this usage grammatically --- either as a plural of majesty or as a deliberative plural ( in which God directs the statement to Himself). Finally, some argue that God and his heavenly angelic court are in view.
• 同(29)
(31) The Lutheran Study Bible-ESV (Concordia Publishing House)
While affirming the singularity of God, it is not unusual for the OT to use the plural when speaking of God and his activities. This anticipates the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (though some interpreters understand it to be grammatical device , a plural of majesty of an honorific plural, with no specific theological significance). Irenaeus of Lyons : “with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, The Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks.” Tertullian : If the number of the Trinity also offends you, …with whom did He make man? And to whom did He make him like? (The answer must be), the Son on the one hand, who was one day to put on human nature; and on the other, who was one day to put on human nature; and the other, who was to santify man. With these did He then speak, in the unity of the Trinity, as with His ministers and witnesses. Martin Luther: “Here both appear：’Let Us make’ and ‘He made, in the plural and in singular; thereby Moses clearly and forcibly show us that within and in the very Godhead and the Creating Essence there is one inseparable and eternal plurality.”
• 此觀點認同三一論, 但未引用聖經章節以支持之. 參(5), (6)和(7) 關於三為一體的討論.
(32) The Ryrie NASB Study Bible-NASB (Moody Publishers)
Plurals of majesty.
• 神說 “我們”, 指出有講者及聽者, 不像創1:3 的 “神說”. 此處神只說: “要有光”. 就有了光. 此處並沒用代名詞如 “我”, “我們”, “你”, “你們”, “他”, “他們”, “她” 和 “她們”.
(33) The Transformation Study Bible-NLT (David C. Cook)
The creation of the first man is seen as a very special occasion, for there’s a
“consultation” prior to the event. “Let us make human being in our image”
sounds like that conclusion of a divine deliberation among the persons of the Godhead. God couldn’t have been talking with the angels about his plans because angels weren’t made in God’s image (‘our image”), and angels had nothing to do with the creation of Adam.
• 關於三位一體 參(5), (6)和(7). 關於神的行像, 參(1).
(34) Discover God Study Bible-NLT (Tyndale House Publishers)
God refers to Himself in the plural, saying, “Let Us”. Through history, God has revealed Himself as God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit. God has always existed as these three persons. The New Testament writer Paul the apostle confirmed this truth： “For though (Christ) God created in the heavenly realms and on earth……. Everything was created through Him and for Him”（Colossians 1:16） In describing Jesus, John created everything through Him and nothing was created excerpt through Him” (John 1:2-3).
• 關於西1:15-16, 參(7). 約1:2-3曰:
約1:2 這道太初與神同在.
1:3 萬物是藉著他造的, 沒有一樣不是藉著他造的.
這裡是針對有血有肉的子說的, 並非指神另外有一個位格.

(35) NLT Study Bible-NLT (Tyndale House Publisher)
The plural us has inspired several explanations: (1) the Trinity; (2) the plural denote majesty; (3) a plural to show deliberation with the self; and (4) God speaking with his heavenly court of angels. The concept of the Trinity – one true God who exist eternally in three distinct persons --- was revealed at a latter stage in redemptive history, making it unlikely that the human author intended that here. Hebrew scholars generally dismiss the plural of majesty vies because the grammar does not clearly support it (the plural of majesty has not been demonstrated to be communicated purely through a plural verb). The plural of self-deliberation also lacks evidence; the only clear examples unity (e.g., 2 Sam 24:14). God’s speaking to the heavenly court, however, is well-attested in the OT (see 3:2; 11:7; 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1: 6-12; 2:1-6; 38:7; Ps 89:5-6; Isa 6:1-8; Dan 10:12-13).
• 三一神論 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 神的威嚴, 參(3), (5)和(32). 神的天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22).
(36) Life Application Study Bible-NLT (Tydale House Publishers)
Why does God use the plural form, “Let us make people in our image” ? One vies says this is a reference to the Trinity --- God the Father, Jesus Christ his Son, and the Holy Spirit --- all of whom are God. Another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. Kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking to themselves From Job 33-4 and Psalm 104:30, we do know that God’s Spirit was present in the creation. From Colossians 1:16 we know that Christ, God’s Son, was at work in the creation.
• 三一神論 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 神的天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(37) The Open Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
Unity of the Trinity --- Historically other monotheistic religions have accused Christian of worshiping three Gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Early and medieval Judaism, for instance, just could not conceive of any theological explanation that vindicated Christianity of the change of polytheism.
Christians always have affirmed the great monotheistic statements of the OT (Deut 4:35; 6:4; Is 44:6-20; Zech 14:9). Christian theologians also have wrestled through the centuries with how to express the unity of God’s Being while recognizing distinctions among the tree Persons interacting and fellowshipping within Him. The early church fathers spoke of one divine essence or substance that could not be divided . Within that one essence are three personal distinctions: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No one has improved on that description.
The NT, which teaches the deity of Father (John 6:27), Son (John 1:1; 20:28), and Holy Spirit（Acts 5:3, 4）, also stresses the unity of God (Mark 12:29-32; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; 1 Tim. 2:5). The mystery of the Trinity should remind us that when we contemplate the nature of God we reach the limit of finite human understanding. At the same time, the complexity of human personality, which somehow reflects the divine personality, should cause us not to be surprised by how multifaceted He is.
• 三一論, 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 茲將支持三一論章節下列:
約6:27 不要為那必壞的食物勞力, 要為那存到永生的食物勞力, 就是人子要賜給你們的, 因為人子是神所印證的.
此處只指出子和神, 並非說子是神的其中一個位格.
約 1:1 太初有道, 道與神同在, 道就是神.
約翰的意思是指道成肉身之子, 其實在太初就已經存在了. 神永遠的存在, 這個有血有肉的子原本也是這樣. 使徒們所摸到看到的子, 其實就是神本身. 總之, 1:1是針對子或道本身而言, 而非指神或神的位格.
約20:28 多馬說 我的主 我的神
這裡只說主是神, 根本談不上誰是誰的位格.
徒 5:3 彼得說: “亞拿尼亞, 為甚麼撒但充滿了你的心? 叫你欺哄聖靈, 把田地的價銀私自留下幾份呢?
徒 5:4 田地還沒有賣, 不是你自己的嗎? 既賣了, 價銀不是你作主嗎? 你怎麼心裡起這意念呢? 你不是欺哄人, 是欺哄神了!
徒5:4 的 “神”是否可以解作徒5:3之 “聖靈＂? 到底亞拿尼亞欺哄的, 是聖靈這一位格, 還是擁有三個位格的神? 當聖經用 “神＂ 這個字時, 是指全部三個位格, 還是只指 “父神＂ 或 “聖靈神＂ 或 “子神＂? 或可以指任何一個位格, 或任何兩個位格？ 三一論者必須給 “神＂ 和 “位格＂下定義及解釋兩者之間的關係..
可12:29 耶穌回答說: “第一要緊的就是說, 以色列啊! 你要聽 主--- 我們神是獨一的主.
可12:30: 你要盡心, 盡性, 盡意, 盡力愛主 --- 你的神.
可12:31 : 其次就是說: ‘要愛人如己’, 再沒有比這兩條誡命更大了.”
可12:32 : 那文士對耶穌說: “夫子說, 神是一位, 實在不錯. 除了他以外, 再沒有別的神.
約20:28 多馬說: “我的主! 我的神!” 可12:31之 “你要盡心, 盡性, 盡意, 盡力愛主 ---你的神”, 前者的 “神” 告訴我們 “主” 只是子這一位格的神. 後者的 “神”, 告訴我們 “主” 是三個位格的 “神”. 現在問題來了, “主” 是指神的三個位格, 還是其中一或兩個位格的神? 有沒有指著聖靈為 “主” 的呢? 三一論必須給 “主” 下個定義.
林前8:4 論到吃祭偶像之物, 我們知道偶像在世上算不得甚麼, 也知道神只有一位, 再沒有別的神.
林前8:5 雖有稱為神的, 或在天, 或在地, 就如那許多的神, 許多的主.
林前8:6 然而我們只有一位神, 就是父 --- 萬物都本於他, 我們也歸於他 --- 並有一位主, 就是耶穌基督 --- 萬物都是藉著他有的. 我們也是藉著他有的.
約17:3 認識你 --- 獨一的真神, 並且認識你所差來的耶穌基督, 這就是永生.
提前2:8 因位只有一位神, 在神和人中間, 只有一位中保, 乃是降世為人的基督耶穌.
按照三一論, 三個位格平等, 只是次序不同而已. 但上述經文只有父和子, 缺少了聖靈, 這又該作何解呢? 顯然的, 三一論者東湊西湊, 把幾處經文湊在一起, 以証明三一論. 像(5)所說的, 最接近三一論的經文只有一處: 即太28:19. 但此處只說三位一名, 而非三位一軆.
約3:13曰: 除了從天降下仍舊在天的人子, 沒有人升過天. 這說明父子是原為一的. 因救恩工作, 才有道成肉身, 才有父子聖靈之分. 無論是在天上的父, 降世為人的人子, 或住在人裡面的聖靈, 我們只能說 “他們” 原是一位神, 不能說 “他們” 是三個位格.
(38) The Scofield Study Bible-KJV (Oxford University Press Inc.)
The revealed fact is: that man was made in the “image and likeness” of God. This “image” is found chiefly in man’s tri-unity, and in his moral nature. Man is “spirit and soul and body” (1 Thes. 5:23). “spirit” is that part of man which “knows” (1 Cor. 2:11), and which allies him to the spiritual creation and give him God-consciousness. “soul” in itself implies self-conscious life, as distinguished from plants, which have unconscious life. In that sense animals also have “soul”. But the “soul” of man has a vaster content than “soul” as applied to beast life. It is the seat of his emotions, desires, affections (Psa. 42:1-6). The “heart” is, in scripture usage, nearly synonymous with “soul”. Because the natural man is, in characteristically, the or psychical man, “soul” is often used as synonymous with the individual. The body , separable from spirit and soul and susceptible to death, is nevertheless an integral part of man, as the resurrection shows (John 5:28-29; 1 Cor. 15:47-50; Rev. 20:11-13). It is the seat of the senses (the means by which the spirit and soul have world-consciousness) and or the fallen Adamic nature (Rom 7:23-24).
• 此注釋認同三一論, 並以人之靈, 魂和體的 “形像”來証明神的 “形像” 所引用的經文如下:
帖前 5:23 願賜平安的神親自使你們全然成聖, 又願你們的靈 魂與身子得蒙保守, 在我主耶穌基督降臨的時候, 完全無可指摘.
林前 2:11 除了在人裡頭的靈, 誰知道人的事? 像這樣, 除了神的靈, 也沒有人知道神的事.
創2:17 耶和華神用地上的塵土造人, 將生氣吹在他鼻孔裡, 他就成了有靈的活人, 名叫亞當.
詩 42:1 神啊! 我的心切慕你, 如鹿切慕溪水.
詩 42:2 我的心渴想神, 就是永生神, 我幾時得朝見神呢?
詩 42:3 我晝夜以眼淚當飲食, 人不住地對我說: “你的神在哪裡呢?”
詩 42:4 我從前與眾人同住, 用歡呼稱讚的聲音領他們到神的殿裡, 大家守節. 我追想這事我的心極其悲傷.
詩 42:5 我的心哪! 你為何憂悶? 為何在我裡面煩躁? 應當仰望神, 因他笑臉幫助我.. 我還要稱讚他.
詩 42:6 我的神啊! 我的心在我裡面憂悶. 所以我從約但地, 從黑門嶺, 從米薩山記念你.
林前15:50 弟兄們, 我告訴你們說, 血肉之體不能承受神的國. 必朽壞的不能承受不朽壞的.
啟20:11 我又看見一個白色的大寶座在上面的; 從他面前天地都逃避, 再無可見之處了.
啟20:12 我又看見死了的人, 無論大小, 都站在寶座前. 案卷展開了, 並且另有一卷展開, 就是生命冊. 死了的人都憑著這些案卷所記載的, 照他們所行的受審判.
啟20:13 於是海交出其中的死人, 死亡和陰間也交出其中的死人, 他們都照各人所行的受審判.
羅7:23 但我覺得肢體中另有個律和我心中的律交戰, 把我擄去, 叫我從那肢體中犯罪的律.
羅7:24 我真是苦啊! 誰能就我脫離這取死的身體?
從上述經文, 可知此註釋者証明人有靈, 魂, 體. 但他們是會分開的, 這已違反了三一論所說的永恆性. 下列經文可證之:
創3:19 你必汗滿面才得糊口, 直到你歸了土. 因為你是從土而出的, 你本是塵土, 仍要歸於塵土.
伯34:14 他若專心為己, 將靈和氣收歸自己.
路24:37 他們卻驚慌害怕, 以為所看見的是魂.
路34:39 你們看我的手, 我的腳, 就知道實在是我了. 摸我看看, 魂無骨無肉. 你們看, 我是有的.
太10:28 那殺身體, 不能殺靈魂的, 不要怕他們. 惟有能把身體和靈魂都滅在地狱裡的, 正要怕他.
路16:23 他在陰間受痛苦, 舉目遠遠地望見亞伯拉罕, 又見拉撒路在他懷裡.
路23:43 耶穌對他說: “我實在告訴你, 今日你要同我在樂園裡了.”
彼前1:9 並且得著你們信心的果效, 就是靈魂的救恩.
由此可知, 人死後靈歸神, 體歸塵土, 魂則下陰間或樂園等候審判.
(39) The King James Study Bible –KJV (Thomas Nelson Publisher)
The plural pronoun us it most likely a majestic plural from the standpoint of Hebrew grammar and syntax.
• 神以他的威嚴說話, 自然符合聖經(參謀(3)). 但問題是神講話的對象是誰呢? (參((3)和32))
(40) New Bible Commentary (Inter-Varsity Press)
Here God is pictured talking to the angels, the only allusion to other supernatural beings in this chapter. This remark implies that man is like both God and the angels (Traditionally, Christians have seen us and our to allude legitimate fuller interpretation, it is not the words’ primary meaning).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(41) Key Word Study Bible-KJV (AMG Publishers)
When plural pronouns are used, “Let us make man in our image after our likeness”, does it denote a plural number or the concept of excellence or majesty which may be indicated in such a way in Hebrew? Could God be speaking to the angels; the earth, or nature thus denoting Himself in relation to one of these? Or is this a germinal hint of a distinction the divine personality? One cannot be certain. Until Jesus came, the essential (internal) unity of the Godhead was not understood to a great extent, though it was intimated (is. 48:16).
• 此註釋認同三位一體, 其支持乃賽48:16: 你們要就近來我聽這
話, 我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話. 耶和華差我和他的靈來. 此節不能支持三一論. 因為被差遣的 “我” 是指以賽亞, 也就是說, 這邊只提到 “耶和華” 和 “他的靈”, 沒有跡象顯示子也在那裡.
(42) The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible-NIV (AMG Publishers)
The Hebrews word translated “God” is elohiym [466], a plural noun. In verse 26, it is used with a plural verb (“let us make”) and a plural suffix (“in our image, in our likeness”). In verse 27, however, it is used three times with a singular verb (bara [1343], “created”, the same singular verb which appears in verse 1. The essential internal unity of the Trinity was not understood to a great extent until Jesus came to earth (Jn 1:14, 18; 10:30; 14:9), though it was intimated in the Old Testament (Isa 48:16).
• 此書作者任同三一論, 其引用經文如下:
約1:14 道成了肉身, 住在我們中間, 充充滿滿地有恩典有真理, 我們也見過他的榮光.
此處的重點是 “道成肉身”. 綜觀約1:1-3, 約翰的意思是說這個有血有肉的子或道, 其實就是神. 也就是說, 神降世為子, 神成為有所限制的子, 並非表示天上已沒有神了. 這話是針對道或子而說的, 絕對不是說除了神之外, 還有另一個子的位格.
約1:18 從來沒有人看見神, 只有在父懷裡的獨生子將他表明出來 .
神是靈(約4:24), 故人看不到他. 現在無所不知, 無所不在及無所不能的神, 謙卑降為被時空限制的子, 讓人可以看見. 所以來1:3曰: 他是神榮耀所發的光輝, 是神本體的真像. 這個神的本體, 並非是指神的第二個位格. 約一3:2曰: 親愛的弟兄啊 我們現在是神的兒女. 將來如何, 還未顯明. 但我們知道, 主若顯現, 我們必要像他, 因為必得見他的真體. 這再次証明 “主” 是能看見的神的真體. 這裡沒談到聖靈.
約10:30 我與父原為一.
由於無限的神變為地上有限的 “神人”, 並非表示在天上沒有了神. 在天上的為父, 降在地上的為子. 就這角度來看, 我 (主) 的確與父為一. 這裡也沒談到聖靈..
約14:9 耶穌對他說: “腓力, 我與你們同在這麼久, 你還不認識我嗎 ? 人看見了我, 就是看見了父. 你怎麼說: “將父顯給我們看呢?”
神道成肉身, 我們才能看見神的面貌. 子就是人看得見的神(父). 當時門徒們還不清楚, 以為另外還有個父. 三一論就是陷入此圈套, 把父與子分開, 說是神的兩個位格.
賽48:16 你們要就近我來聽這話: “我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話. 自從有這事, 我就在那裡.” 現在, 主耶和華差遣我和他的靈來.
從 “我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話 自從有這事 我就在那裡”這一句話是第14章的 “耶和華”說的, 而 “現在 主耶和華差遣我和他的靈來”這一句話是以賽亞說的. 也就是說 “我” 是指以賽亞本身.根據三一論, 耶和華的靈是指聖靈, 再加上耶和華本身, 只有兩位而已 ,缺少了子.
(43) The Expositor’s Bible Commentary-Genesis-Leviticus (Zondervan)
There have been many attempts to explain the plural forms: “Let us make [nacaseh] in our image [besalmenu], in our likeness [kidmutenu] . “Westermann, 1:144-45, summarizes the explanations given for the use of plurals under four headings : (1) the plural is a reference to the Trinity; (2) the plural is a reference to God and the heavenly court of angels; (3) the plural is an attempt to avoid the idea of an immediate resemblance on God’s part while setting out to create humankind; (4) the plural is an explanation of deliberation on God’s part while setting out to create humankind.
The singulars in v.27 (besalmo, “in his own image”) and （beselem elohim, “in the image of God”; cf. 5:1） rule out the second explanation (i.e., that the plural refers to a heavenly court of angels), since in the immediate context human are said to be created “in his image”, with no mention made of humans being made in the image of the angels. To this the author adds a further qualification that God humankind “in the image of God”. This seems to be an intentional refutation of the notion that the plurals in v.26 refer to the angels.
The third and fourth explanations are both possible within the context, but neither explanation is specifically supported by the context. It is not convincing to point to 11:7 in support of the notion of deliberation, since the use of the plural in that passage is motivated by the chiastic wordplay between the words nabelah (“let us confuse,” 11:7) and nilbena (“let us make, “ 11:3; see J.P. Fokkemann, Narrative Art in Genesis [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975]). Where we do not find unequivocal deliberation (as in 18:17). It is not the plural that is used but the singular : “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?” As Wetermann has stated, the first explanation is “a dogmatic judgment,” though we could add that it is not a judgment that runs confer to the passage itself. However, if we seek an answer from the immediate context, we should turn to the following verse(s) for additional clues.
In v.27 it is stated twice that humankind was created [bara] “male and female”. The same pattern is found in Genesis 5:1-2: “when God created [bara] man …. He created [bara] them male and female”. The singular “man [adam] is create as a plurality, “male and female” [zakar uneqeba]. In a similar way the one God [waggomen elohim, “And God said] create humanity through an expression of plurality [naaseh adam besalemu, “Let us make man in our image”]. Following this clue, the device plurality of persons expressed in v.26 can be seen as an anticipation of the human plurality of persons reflected in man and woman, thus casting human personal relationship in the role of reflecting God’s own personhood.
Could anything be more obvious than to conclude from this clear indication that the image and likeness of the being created by God signifies existence on conjunction of man and man which is that of male and female, and then to go on to ask against this background in what the original and prototype of the device existence of the Creator consist? (K/ Barth, Church Dogmatics3/1 [New York: Scriber, 1956], 195).
• 此註釋者提出四個可能性 (i)三位一體 ,參(5), (6), (7), (34), (37),
(38 ), (41)和(42). (ii) 天庭中的使者 參(1), (2), (9), (11), (12), (15), (22)和(32). (iii) 神的威嚴和慎重的宣佈, 參(3). (iv)神與人隔離, 參(8). 其支持章節如下:
創5:1 亞當的後代記下面 (當神造人[單數]的日子, 是照著自己的樣式造的,
創5:2 並且造男造女. 在他們(復數)被造的日子, 神賜福給他們, 稱他們為 “人”)
單數的人(亞當), 被造成復數的男女. 所謂的造男造女, 是男先女後. 換句話說, 單數的神造單數的男人, 單數的神造單數的女人. 這也就是說, 單數的神, 創造復數的男女. 所以 1:26可視為神預知要造男造女. 所以摩西以復數的 “我們” 來表示將要創造 復數的男女. 但問題是, “我們要造著我們的形像, 按著我們的樣式造人……”是跟誰說呢? 此解釋只說 “我們”的 來源而已.
(44) Genesis A Commentary (Zondervan)
See also 3:22; 11:7. Various references have been suggested for the “us”. The traditional Christian interpretation, that it represents a plurality within deity, has some textual support and satisfies the Christian theology of the Trinity (John 1:3; Eph. 3:9; Col 1:16: Heb. 1:2). God is a plurality is supported by the mention of the spirit of God in 1:2 and the fact that the image itself is a plurality. This interpretation would also explain the shifts in the text between the singular and plural. The primary difficulty with this view is that the other four uses of the plural pronoun with reference to God (3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8) do not seem to refer to the Trinity. The explanation that satisfies all such uses of the pronoun is that God is addressing the angels or heavenly court (cf. 1 Kings 22:19-22; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1-3; 89:5-6; Isa 6:8; 40:1-6; Dan. 10:12-13; Luke 2:8-14). It seems that in the four occurrence of the pronoun “us” for God, God refers to “us” when human beings are impinging on the heavenly realm and he is deciding their fate. In Gen 3:22, God sees that human beings have grasped the knowledge of good and evil and have become like divine beings. In Genesis 11 the heavenly court comes down to see what the earth-bound are building to attain the heavenly space. In Isa. 6:8, God is clearly addressing the heavenly court, which the prophet in his vision has entered. It is not surprising that God would address the heavenly court, since angels play a prominent role in Scripture (e.g., Gen. ; Job 38:7; 1 Tim 3:16), and there is much commerce in Genesis between the angelic realm and human beings.
• 筆者完全同意此觀點.
(45) The NIV Genesis Application Commentary (Zondervan)
The use of the plural pronouns (“us” and “our”) on verse 26 has occasioned constant discussion among the commentators. The early church fathers considered them a reference to the Trinity, while the rabbis offered various grammatical explanations. In the last century, two other theories have arisen, which explain the plural as a vestige of polytheistic mythology of as a reference to a heavenly court. Thus, there are now three categories of explanation:
(i) Theological : The plurals are explained as an expression of plurality within the Godhead, either specifically of the Trinity or at least as a recognition of the two persons represented by the creator God (elohim) and the Holy Spirit of verse 2.
(ii) Grammatical : The plurals are explained as an expression of grammatical on rhetorical conventions, including self-deliberation, plural of majesty, and grammatically agreement with the plural elohim.
(iii) Cultural : The plurals are explained against the background of ancient Near Eastern culture.
We do not have space to consider each of these in the detail they deserve, but in the methodology and presupposition that lead the interpreter into one category or another. The grammatical is the easiest to dismiss since none of the cited conventions are attested with any consistency in Hebrew. The race instances in which they can be claimed generally have either other possible explanations or characteristics that differentiate them from the usage here.
The theological is probably the most popular in traditional circles, but it suffers when subjected to hermeneutical cross-examination. That is, if we ask what the Hebrew author and audience understood, any explanation assuming plurality in the Godhead is easily eliminated. If the interpreter wishes to bypass the human author with the claim that God’s intention is what is important, there are large obstacles to hurdle. If the divine intention is not conveyed by the human author, where is it conveyed? Certainly if the New Testament told us that the Trinity was referred to in this verse, we would have no trouble accepting that God’s intentions. But it is not enough for the New Testament simply to affirm that there is such a thing as the Trinity. That affirmation does not prove that the Trinity is referred to in Genesis 1:26. Without a specific New Testament, we have no authoritative basis for bypassing the human author.
Further commending the human author is the belief that the Old Testament audience also had an authoritative text being communicated to them. We cannot afford to approach the text with the question, “Which interpretation fits best with my belief?” We must ask what the plurals would have meant to the original audience. That leads us to the cultural category. One of the cultural options taken by interpreters is that the plurals are a vestige of polytheism. Unfortunately, they can only accommodate their view by means of many presuppositions concerning the derived nature of the text and the incompetence of a series of editors. Since most readers, like myself, are not persuaded in the least by those presupposition, we will simply set that option aside.
The other position informed by cultural background, the heavenly court option, is much more defensible in that the concept of a heavenly court can be shown to be current not only in the ancient worldview, but also in the biblical text (The clearest example is found in 1 Kings 22:19-22. Other references include God, usually members of the council assemble before God.) Thus, the belief in such a heavenly court does not need to be imported from general culture (though the evidence for it is extensive and clear); one needs only read the Bible. In the ancient Near East the heavenly court was a divine assembly made up of the chief gods of the pantheon. It was this group that made decisions and decreed destinies. In the Old Testament, the heavenly court is made up of angels, or more specifically, the “sons of God.” All that remains is to consider whether the details of the context are in accord with what we know of God and his heavenly court.
Some have objected that it denigrates God to suggest that he consults with angles about such matter (Isa 40:14). They point out, in addition, that it is contrary to biblical teaching to think of the angels being involved in creation or of people being in the image of angels. Careful reading, however, demonstrates that these objections cannot be sustained. (i) We must distinguish between consulting and discussing. God has no need to either consult or discuss with anyone (as Isa. 40:14 affirms). (ii) It is his prerogative, however, to discuss anything he wants with whomever he chooses (Gen 18:17-19). Such inclusion of the heavenly court in discussion does not in any sense necessitate that angles must than have been used as agents of creation. In Isaiah 6:8 the council’s decision is carried out by Yahweh alone. (iii) Finally, the idea that the image should be referred to as “our” image does not imply that humans are created in the image of angels; it is possible, though not necessary, that angles also share the dive image in their nature. The image of God differentiates people from animals, not from angels.
If them, we are going to link our interpretation to the sense that the Israelite audience would have understood (and methodologically I believe that is essential for maintaining the authority of the text), the heavenly court is the most defensible interpretation and poses no insuperable theological obstacle.
• 同(44).
最後 筆者再引用幾節經文來指出
(i) 天庭的存在
但 7:10 從他面前有火, 像河發出. 事奉他的有千千, 在他面前侍
立的有萬萬. 他坐著要行審判, 案卷都展開了.
詩89:6 在天空誰能比耶和華呢? 神的眾子中, 誰能像耶和華呢?
詩 89:7 他在聖者的會中, 是大有威嚴的神, 比一切在他四圍的
更可畏懼.
歷下 18:18 米該亞說: “你們要聽耶和華的話, 我看見耶和華坐
在寶座上 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右
啟 5:11 我又看見且聽見, 寶座與活物並長老的周圍有許多天使
的聲音, 他們的數目有千千萬萬.
但 4:35 世上所有的居民都算為虛無, 在天上的萬軍和世上的居
民中, 他都憑自己的意旨行事, 無人能攔住他手, 或問他
說, 你做甚麼呢?
(ii) 神使天使或人知其所欲行之事
摩 3:7 主耶和華若不將奧秘指示他的僕人 --- 眾先知, 就一無所
行.
詩 103:7 他使摩西知道他的法則, 叫以色列人曉得他的作為.
創 18:33 耶和華與亞伯拉罕說完了話就走了, 亞伯拉罕也回到
自己的地方去了.
(iii) 天使和人在天庭中讚美神
啟 7:11眾天使都站在寶座和眾長老並四活物的周圍, 在寶座前
面伏於地, 敬拜神.
詩 103:19 耶和華在天上立定寶座, 他的權柄統管萬有.
詩 103:20 聽從他命令, 成全他旨意, 有大能的天使, 都要稱頌耶
和華!
啟 5:13 我又聽見在天上, 地上, 地底下, 滄海裡, 和天地間一切
所有被造之物, 都說 : “但願頌讚, 尊貴, 榮耀, 權柄, 都
歸給坐寶 座的和羔羊, 直到永永遠遠.


創1 : 26 : “我們要照著我們的形像,按著我們的樣式造人 .”所謂的 “我們” 該作何解? 筆者參考了下列書籍, 並提出筆者的看法.

(1) 證主21世紀聖經新釋 (福音證主協會)
本處是形容神與天使們的話, 也是本章內有其他超自然本體的唯一暗示. 這記載表示 “人” 同時有神和天使的樣式. (在傳統上, 基督徒看 “我們”和 “我們的” 是暗示三位一體的其他位格, 雖然這是一個颇合理的解釋, 但不是本處的首要意思.)
• 創1:27曰: 神就照著自己的形像照人, 乃是照著他的形像造男造女. 這裡很清楚的說是 “自己” 的形像造人, 又怎麼會是神和天使的行像造人? 彼後2:4曰: 就是天使犯了罪, 神也沒有寬容, 曾把他們丟在地獄, 交在黑暗中, 等候審判. 由此可知, 有犯罪的天使, 自然也有沒犯罪的天使. 沒有犯罪的天使又是怎樣的? 從創世記的資料推論, 應像還沒有犯罪的亞當和夏娃. 所以人和天使有共同的形像, 而這個型像就是來自神.
(2) 聖經新國際研讀本 (更心傳道會)
我們........我們的........我們的: 神以創造者和君王的身份, 對祂天庭中的萬軍宣告祂的顛峰作為 (見3:22; 11:7; 賽6:8; 又見王上22:19-23; 伯15:8; 耶23:18).
• 當神要作某事時, 會與先知和天庭中的天使們討論, 這可從王上22:19-23看出:
王上22:19: 米該亞說: “你要聽耶和華的話. 我看見耶和華坐在寶座上, 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右.
22:20 : 耶和華說: “誰去引誘亞哈王上基列的拉末去陣亡呢? 這個就這樣說, 那個就那樣說.
22:21 : 隨後有一個神靈出來, 站在耶和華面前, 說: “我去引誘他.”
22:22 : 耶和華同他說: “你用何法呢?” 他說: “我去, 要在他眾先知口中作謊言的靈. 耶和華說: “這樣, 你必能引誘,. 你去如此行吧!”
22:23 : 現在耶和華使謊言的靈入了你這些先知的口, 並且耶和華已經命定降禍於你”
留意22節耶和華說: “你去如此行吧!” 但在23節, 王上作者卻說是耶和華作的. 這與創1:26的 “我們” 和1:27的 “祂” 異曲同工. 創1:26是神說的話, 創1:27是摩西講的話. 這也就是說, 最後決定還是神本身.
(3) 聖經啟導本 (海天書樓)
26節的 “我們” 是神宣佈祂登峰造極的創造工作的自稱, 代表神的豐富華麗(3:22; 11:7)
• 神用六天創世, 把一切看著是好的 (創1:18; 1:21: 1:25; 1:31), 創1:28最後才創造人. 創1:28曰: 神就賜福給他們, 又對他們說, 要生養眾多, 遍滿地面. 治理這地. 也要管理海裡的魚, 空中的鳥, 和地上各樣行動的活物. 神創造人, 可說是登峰造極的創造. 神指著祂在創造人之前所造的一切, 可代表神的豐富華麗. 但神用 “我們” 宣告, 到底是跟誰說呢? 這裡沒有交代.
(4) 聖經簡釋本 (中國基督教協會) 以賽亞書中, 神也用 “我們” 來指稱 (賽6:8), 神並非獨自在天庭, “智慧” 也參與了神的創造 (箴8:30).
• 此註釋不詳. 所謂 “神並非獨自在天庭”, 是否指天庭是由神和 “智慧” 組成? 箴8:30曰: 那時, 我在他那裡為工師, 日日為他所喜愛, 常常在他面前踴躍. “我” 固然指 “智慧”, 但沒跡像顯示她參與創世工作. “工師” 只是耶和華面前 “踴躍” 和 “喜悅”. 前者是 “踴躍在她為人預備可住之地”, 後者 “喜悅住在人之間(箴8:31). 箴8:22-27只說耶和華創世之前 “就有了我”, “我已被立”, “我已出生”, “我在那裡” 就箴言整本書來看, 作者只是把智慧擬人化. 第九章更把智慧和愚蠢對比. 第1章20節開始敘述智慧在呼喚人, 第2章則說智慧的賞賜. 第2章6節說, 耶和華 “賜人智慧”. 也就是說, 人可得智慧, 並成為 “工師”. 第8章27-29節說神創世, 接下去的30節才說 “智慧” 為 “工師”. 如把此與創1:28對照, “工師” 是神委任管理萬物的人之身份.
(5) 聖經研讀版(環球聖經公會有限公司)
不同學者對這裡使用復數代名詞有各種各樣詮釋. 有人認為是指三位一體. 其他則從文法角度解釋, 視之為若不是用復數來表示威榮, 就是強調神性, 或是表示神對自己說話. 另有人認為這裡是指神與他在天上純潔的宮庭(見賽6:8).
• 三位一體的可能性很小, 因為此說須假設創1:26 是由一個位格或兩個位格對其他位格講話, 並須限定 “我們” 是三而已. 在聖經裡,無法找到支持此觀點的章節. 最接近的是太28:19, 此處指的是 “名” 而非 “體”. 換句話說, 父子聖靈只有一個名, 而非供同擁有一個體. 就算是 “我們(復數)” 是指神的三個位格, 單數的 “形像” “樣式” 是指神的一體, 第27節也應該是, 乃是造 “他們(復數)” 的 “形像(單數)”造男造女. 但聖經卻用單數的 “他” 及單數的 “形像”.
用復數來表示威榮, 強調神性, 或神對自己說話, 但 “我們” 卻顯示有講者, 亦有聽者.
第三個理由可能性最高, 但所引用的賽6:8根本與創1:26, 27節一樣, 証明不了甚麼.
(6) 聖經(思高譯本)
按古猶太人經師解釋, 是指天主和天使, 好似天主同天主商量; 但有些學者主張為 “威嚴復數” 或 “議決復數”. 教父和神學家多以為此復數暗示聖三的奧秘.. 此說若是啟示的演進說是對的 人相似天主是按靈魂説的. 相似天主有理智, 意志和記憶. 論人的肉身, 當天主造亞當時, 已預見作亞當第二基督(羅5:14).
• 此說是暗示三位一體的奧秘, 然後在新約中逐漸啟示神的三個位格, 即父在舊約工作, 子則在新約(四福音)裡工作, 最後是教會在傳教方面動工. 但主張三一論者又指出創1:1 的神(父), 創1:2 .是指聖靈,.創1:3是指子, 三個位格一起創造世界, 這已是明示而非暗示了.
如是“啟示的演進說,” 也就不會有天主教與東正教的 “和子” 的爭論而閙分裂. 筆者較傾於 “教義墮落說”. 關於三一說, 參(5).
人是由靈, 魂, 體組成. 活時還可免強說是三位一體. 但人死後, 體歸回塵土(創3:19), 靈歸於神(34:14), 魂則下陰間(太10:28)或進樂園(路23:43; 彼前1:9). 三者可以分開, 也必定分開. 然而, 三位一體之位格是永恆的, 是不能分開的.
神何止只有理智, 意志, 和記憶. 祂也是愛(約1:16), 公義(帖前1:6), 柔和謙卑(太11:29)等等.
(7) 聖經靈修版(國際聖經協會)
一種觀點認為這是指三位一體的真理, 聖父, 聖子, 聖靈都是靈. 另有觀點認為這樣的表達方式是表示威嚴, 好像西方國家的君主在傳統上也是以復數自稱的. 我們確實知道神的兒子基督和神的靈也參與創造的工作(參伯33:14; 詩104:30; 西1:16)
• 關於三位一體, 參(5)及(6). 必須指出的是, 聖經從未稱子為聖子, 只稱他為我的兒子 (太3:17), 我的愛子(太17:5), 獨生子(約3:16). 這說明子低於父, 不可能與父同等. 父的辈份比子高, 父是前辈, 子是後輩. 若是同等的話, 那他們應是兄弟關係.
其所引用的經文如下:
伯33:4 : 神的靈造我 全能者的氣使我得生.
詩104:30 : 你發出你的靈, 牠們便受造, 你使地面更換為新.
西 1:16 : 因為萬有都是靠他造的, 無論是天上的, 地上的, 能看見
的; 不能看見的. 或是有位的, 主治的, 執政的, 掌權的;
一 概都是藉著他造的, 又是為他造的.
伯33:4 和詩104:30的 “神的靈”, 根據三一論, 是指聖靈(羅8:9). 徒5:9之主的靈, 羅8:9之基督的靈, 徒16:7之耶穌的靈, 太10:20之父的靈, 全都指聖靈. 約4:24說神是個靈, 父是神, 子是神 聖靈是神, 卻不是三位神, 而是一位神. 那父的 “靈”, 子的 “靈” 又叫甚麼呢? 由於三一論不相信 “靈裡的一致”, 故只能推說父子聖靈是以一體來連繫三個位格. 那這一體是以甚麼方式存在呢? 三一論不能自圓其說.
至於西1:16, 我們先看1:15: 愛子是那不能看見之神的像, 是首生的, 在一切被造以先. 當提到 “首生” 時, 時間觀念已存在, 即有 “未生前” 及 “生後” 徒13:33曰: 神已經向我們這作兒女的應驗, 叫耶穌復活了. 正如詩篇第二篇上記著說: 你是我的兒子, 我今日生你. 由此可知, 16節的創造是指著有血有肉的子說的. 保羅的意思是說, 這個能讓人看見並摸到的子, 原是創造萬物的神. 創造萬物的神, 道成肉身, 來到世間, 並不表示在天上已沒有了神. 在天上的為父, 在地上的為子. 此節經文並非說子是一位參與創世工作的另一位格.
(8) 創世記注釋上冊(基督教文藝出版社)
我們稍為論述關於上帝提及自己. 在這裡, 就在這一章裡, 只在這個地方特別用第一人稱眾數的 “我們” 和 “我們的”(但29及30節, 祂又恢復用單數我). 這情形通常隱含基督教三位一體在創造中運行之意(第二位格是創造的道, 一直在發言, 而第三位聖靈則在第二節中), 但是古代希伯來人怎能知道這些東西是甚麼呢? 如今比較常見的, 是把這比作無上的或編輯的 “我們” ---- 但那是歐洲的見解, 而不是希伯來的. 然而, 如果它不能用這兩種解說中任何一種, 那麼它的意思又是甚麼呢?
詩篇第八篇類似的經文, 在這裡再給我們幫助.,其中第五節說上帝賜 “人冠冕”, 也說 “祢叫他比天使(或上帝)微小一點”; 或者像欽定本說, “ 比天使低 一點. 事實上, 希伯來文是伊羅欣(Elohim), 是上帝的正規字眼, 這是研究聖經的人都知道的, 而這字本身是眾數的. 這字一定是早期以色列的祖宗正像鄰邦一樣拜多神, 後來在他們成為一神的信徒時, 殘存下來的. 因為這字等於喚醒他們, 在別人有許多神靈, 分立而又常常爭執時, 對他們卻是只有一位獨神, 而且祂的旨意與目的是一致的.
不過, 在舊約中仍然有幾處地方是眾數的. 其中, 大多數指的是外族神, 正如出埃及記十二章十二節指埃及的多神, 或者在詩篇九十五篇三節: “ 耶和華為大神(伊羅欣), 為大王, 超乎萬神(也是伊羅欣)之上. 甚至第一誡: “除了我以外, 你不可有別的神”(出二十3), 其中的神字, 也是眾數的. 但是很偶然的纔指以色列的上帝有關的神. 一個好例子是詩篇一三八篇一節:“在諸神面前歌頌祢”.
在這些以外, 還要加上幾個稱為 “神的兒子” 所暗示的東西. 例如創世記六章二節(一段以後將給我們困難的經文)及約伯記一章六節與二章一節 ,在這些經文中, “神的眾子” 在上帝面前侍立.
在我們這段經文中, 還保留異教中的另一殘餘的東西. 那就是我們所熟知, 從荷馬來的神靈會議中得來的. 在那會議中, 男神女神不時集合來商討重要事件. 從以色列附近來的亞屈拉哈西斯敘事詩(epic Atrahasis)便是一個例子. 這詩包含米所波大米一個洪水故事.. 它開頭便是神會議, 先是眾神決定創造人類作他們的奴僕 (與本章差異多大啊!)而其後當他們喧嚷吵鬧, 以致眾神夜間不能睡覺時 卻又決定毀滅人類.
但是在希伯來思想中, 這些 “眾神” 是(可能除了剛才提及的創世記第六章二節那使人不安的經文之外)不容許威脅真神的獨一性或威嚴的. 他們並不是 “天使”, 天使是上帝的使者, 好像是較低一級的; 他們也不是舊約其他經文(例如創世記第三章廿四節; 以賽亞書第六章二節)的基路伯和撒拉弗, 他們是上帝的侍衛和護衛者 但是他們的任務並無很大的差別. 他們是希伯來人想像中的主要角色, 不是自己本有權利的人物, 而是上帝的延伸, 帶詩意地足以增強祂的榮耀和聖潔, 保衛祂的超越性而不是向祂挑戰.
對着這背景, 我相信欽定本詩篇八篇五節的 “天使” 比標準修正本的大寫 “上帝” 更為接近標準. 詩人正如創世記第一章的作者一樣, 給人高位, 而且把人描述得高至如天上上帝寶座周圍的神靈. 在這裡, 他----正如創世記第一章第廿六一樣----超出了舊約對人的看法不止一步. 但是他沒有遠至----希伯來人會嗎 ?----直接將 “人” 與那惟一的上帝本身相比. 縱然他 “比上帝微小一點”, 在希伯來人的經驗裡, 他仍然是太近乎上帝.
在本節的 “我們的”, 當然必得用類似的方法解釋. 創世記第一章的作者, 正如我們應當在好幾處注意到的 ,並不慣於用有詩意的詞語去描述上帝. 但是這裡他作了一個例外, 而他所以作這例外的原因並不難找出. 他是在警戒他的讀書, 提防他要論及 “人” 的話的危險性. 於是他故意打開天上宮庭的光景, 而暫時把上帝在祂的天使中隱藏起來. 這麼一來, 他就把祂於 “人” 相隔遠一點, 而準備被他讀者對接着來的奇妙語句, 有適當而均衡的暸解.
當我們考慮創世記第一章廿六節後來所成就的和神學上的價值時, 我們猜想作者的目的並未十分成功. 他怎麼知道他小心磨煉推測的話, 會落在那些對希伯來語的細緻特色毫無感覺的人手上呢?
• 此說法認為人不能與神相比, 所以摩西故意打開天庭光景, 暫時把神及天使隱藏起來, 取而代之的是諸神(詩138:1), 神的兒子(創6:2),及神的眾子(伯1:6; 2:1). 上述三種 “神”, 比天使低一點, 是神的延伸. 問題是 “諸神”, “神的兒子”和 “神的眾子”是誰? 聖經沒有交代. 筆者認為, 詩8:5的關鍵不在於譯為天使或神, 而是此句中的 “他”, 由8:1到8:9, “你”是指神, “他” 是指人. 因此, 人到底比天使高一級(譯為神)或比天使低一級都不是關鍵所在. 如把詩8:5譯為天使或神, 都不會影響 “他” 的意義. 此注釋者把 “他” 當作是神的侍衛和護衛者, 與天使不同, 任務卻與天使並無很大的差別. 這種說法, 未免太過牽強.
(9) The New Jerusalem Bible – Study Edition (Darton, Longman & Todd.
Ltd)
It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God and his
heavenly court (the angels, see 3:5, 22); our text was thus understood by the
Gk version of Ps8:5 (quoted in Beg 2:7). Alternatively, the plural expresses
the majesty and fullness of God’s being; the common names for God in
Hebrew is elohim, a plural form.
• 復數是指天庭裡的天使. 所引用經文以支持此觀點如下:
創3:5 : 因為神知道, 你們吃的日子, 眼睛就明亮了, 你們便如神能知道善惡
3: 22 : 耶和華神說: “那人已經與我們相似, 能知道善惡. 現在恐怕
伸手又摘生命樹的果子吃, 就永遠活著.
創3:5告訴我們墮落天使的存在. 創3:1曰: 耶和華所造的, 惟有蛇
比田野一切的活物更狡猾. 蛇對人說: “神豈是真說不許你們吃園中
所有樹上的果子嗎?” 此節好像墮落的天使與其他活物同時被造, 其實不然. 啟20:3曰:他捉住那龍, 就是古蛇, 又叫魔鬼, 也叫撒但 把牠捆綁一千年. 如以此節與路20:3對比(這時 撒但入了稱為加人
猶大的心, 他本是十二門徒裡的一個), 我們可知道蛇是被造之物 是撒但進蛇中藉以迷惑人.
第3:22 的 “我們” 和1:26節的 “我們” 一樣都是神說的話, 而非該書作者講的話.
詩8:5 你叫他比天使微小一點, 並賜他榮耀尊貴為冠冕.
來1:14 天使豈不都是服役的靈嗎? 奉差遣為那將要承受救恩的人
效力嗎?
從此處, 我們可知天使的存在. 工作是服役與奉差遣的, 受命於神
所以創1:26的 “我們”, 應是指神與天使.
(10) The Jerusalem Bible(Darton, Longman & Todd, Ltd)
It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God
and his heavenly court (the angles, cf. 3:5, 22); our text was thus understood
by the Greek version (followed by Vulg.) of Ps 8:5 (quoted in Heb 2:7). Alternatively, the plural expresses the majesty and fullness of God’s being;
the common name for God in Hebrew is Elohim, a plural form. Thus the way is prepared for the interpretation of the Fathers who saw in this text a hint of the trinity.
• “我們”是指神與天使的討論, 參(9). 如當神說是 “我們 “以示威嚴, 那賽6:8 又該作何解釋呢? 賽6:8曰: “我又聽見主的聲音說, 我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我”. 照此羅輯講, 應是 “我們”可以差遣誰呢? “我們” 暗示三位一體的討論, 參(5), (6)和(7).
(11) Fire Bible Global Study Edition – NIV (Life Publishers)
The use of word “us” (plural) suggests that God has a certain plurality, or multi-faceted nature (cf. Ps 2:7; Isa 48:16). This seems to be an early reference to the trinity, or the existence of God in three distinct but interrelated and unified Persons. The tri-unity (i.e., “three-in-One” nature) of nature does not become clear, however, until the NT (see Mt 3:17, Mk 1:11)
• 關於三位一體的討論, 參(5), (6)和(7). 茲將引用經文下列:
詩 2:7 : 受膏者說: “我要傳聖旨.” 耶和華對我說: “你是我的兒子, 我今日生你.”
賽48:16 你們要就近我來聽這話, 我從起頭並未曾在隱密處外說話.
自從有這事, 我就在那裡. 現在主耶和華差我和他的靈來.
太 3:17 從天上有聲音說: “這是我的愛子, 我所喜悅的.”
可 1:11 又有聲音從天上來, 說: “這是我的愛子, 我喜悅你.”
為了實行救恩計劃, 神暫時 “分為三位”, 才有父子聖靈之分. 一旦救恩完成後, 再也沒有父子聖靈之別, 只有獨一真神. 啟22:3之 “寶座 “, “他 的面” 和 “他的名字”, 都是單數.
(12) The Case For Christ Study Bible – NIV (Zondervan)
God speaks as the Creator King, announcing his crowning work to the member of his heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:18; see also 1 Ki 22:19 – 23; Job 15:8; Jer 23.: 18).
• 此注釋可能性最高. 茲將引用經文列下並論之:
創 : 3:22 耶和華說: “那人已經與我們相似, 能知道善惡. 現在恐怕他伸手又摘生命樹果子吃, 就永遠活著.
下一節(創3:23 耶和華神便打發他出伊甸園去, 耕種他所自出之土.
創3:22 神用 “我們”, 而創3:23只說是”耶和華”而已, 這與創1:26 的 “我們” 與 “他” 相似.
創11:7 : 我們下去, 在那裡變亂他們的口音, 使他們的言語彼此不通.
同樣的, 接下去第八節曰: 於是耶和華使他們從那裡分散全地上, 他們就停工, 不造那城了. 第七節說 “我們”, 第八節卻說是耶和華. 讓我們繼續看下一個引文:
賽 6:8 : 我又聽見主的聲音說: “我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我!”
接下去的第九節 “他” 說: “你去告訴這百姓說, 你們聽是要聽見, 卻不明白. 看是要看見, 卻不曉得.”
第八節用 “我們”, 第九節用的是 “他”. 綜觀上述討論, 所有經文都有一共同點: 當神說話時, 就用 “我們”. 當該書作者指神說話時, 卻用 “他” 或 “耶和華”. 再看看下列經文:
王上 22:9 米該雅說: “你要聽耶和華的話, 我看見耶和華坐在寶座上, 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右.”
22:20: 耶和華說: “誰去引誘亞哈王上基列的拉末陣亡呢?” 這個就這樣說, 那個就那樣說.
22:21: 隨後有一個神靈出來, 站在耶和華面前, 說: “我去引誘他”.
22:22 耶和華問他說: “你用何法呢?” 他說: “我去, 要在他眾先知口中作慌言的靈.” 耶和華說: “這樣, 你必能引誘他, 你如此去行吧!”
22:23: 現在耶和華使慌言的靈入了你這些先知的口, 並且耶和華已經命定降禍與你.
上述經文說明有天庭和天使的存在, 而且神會與天使們討論. 然而, 作最後決定還是在於神. 所以創3:22用 “我們”, 創11:7 也是 “我們”, 賽6:8說 “我們”. 以此推論, 創1:26的 “我們” 應是指神與眾天使討論, 然後神(創3:23和11:8皆用 “耶和華”, 賽6:9用 “他” )才決定並進行所討論的工作.
伯15:8: 你曾聽見神的密旨? 你是將智慧獨自得盡嗎?
耶23:18: 有誰站在耶和華的會中, 得以聽見並會悟他的話呢? 有隨留心聽他的話呢?
上述經文指出, 有一個叫耶和華的會, 在此會中, 而 “天使和先知能或不能領悟或留心聽他的話” 再一次說明的確有天庭的存在. 而神也樂意讓天使和先知在天庭知道他的旨意. 如創18:17曰: 耶和華說: “我所要做的事, 豈可瞞著亞伯拉罕?”
(13) The Learning Bible – NIV (Zondervan Publishing House)
The plural (us, our) may refer to God and the heavenly beings that make up God’s heavenly court (11:7; 1Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:8).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (11)和(12).
(14) Life Application Study Bible – NIV (Tyndale House Publishers)
Why does God use the plural form, “Let us make man in our image?” One view says this is a reference to the Trinity – God the Father, Jesus Christ his son, and the Holy Spirit – all of whom are God. Another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. Kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking of themselves. From Job 33:4 and Psalm 104:30, we do know that God’s spirit was present in the creation. From Colossians 1:16, we know that Christ, God’s Son, was at work in the creation.
• 參(5), (6), (7)和(11).
(15) Quest Study Bible-NIV (Zondervan)
Why did God say, Let us (plural) make man in our image? (1:26) Often king refers to themselves in this way. The Hebrew word for God (Elohim) is plural, perhaps indicating that God was taking counsel with himself. This may also hint at the mystery of the Trinity --- in the unity of God there is plurality. Some think this describes God speaking to his heavenly court of angels.
• 此處提出三個可能性 行 (i) 神自言自語. 這個可能性很小, 因為 “我們” 表示有講者, 亦有聽者. (ii) 三位一體. 參(5) (6) (7) 和(11). (iii) 對天庭的天使說話. 從(1)可知未墮落的天使和未犯罪的人有共同的形像, 而這一個形像來自神. 因此神說話時用 “我們” (創1:26), 摩西寫的創1:27 是用 “他” 因為的確是 “他” 在進行創造工作. 參(12).
(16) Concordia Self-Study Bible-NIV (Zondervan Publishing House)
God speaks as Creator-King, announcing his crowning work to the members
of his heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8; see also 1K 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jer 23:18).
• 同(13).
(17) The Wesley Study Bible-NRSV (Abingdon Press)
Us and our in 1:26, points to the unique centrality of this moment of creation. This is a purposeful and measured action that God does not entrust to anyone else. Like most theologians of his day, Wesley assumes a Trinitarian interpretation of these plurals：“The three persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, consult about it, and concur in it; because man, when he was made, was to be dedicated and devoted to Father, Son and Holy Ghost”.
• 同(14)
(18) The New Interpreter’s Study-Bible-NRSV (Abingdon Press)
The plural us has been variously interpreted as the plural of “majesty” (the royal “we”) and, in Christian theology, as the Trinity. Here, as elsewhere in Genesis (e.g., 11:7), God is addressing the divine council, the assembly of heavenly being believed to assist God in governing the world and communicating with the human race (1 Kgs 22: 19-23; Job 1: 6-7; Jer 23:18, 22).
• 同(13)
(19) The Harper Collins Study Bible-NRSV (Harper One)
The plural seems to refer to the lesser deities of the divine assembly described in other biblical text. (e.g., 1 Kings 22:19-22; Isa 6::8). In the accomplishment of this utterance, however, God acts alone (God created humankind in his image, v.27). The reference to the divine assembly seems to acknowledge its presence but discounts its active participation in creation.
• 此注釋說, 若是神需要和天庭討論, 將會貶低其在創世中的角色. 但從 創3:33, 11:8, 賽6:9 王上22:23, 真正作最後決定及施行的是神.
(20) The Discipleship Study Bible-NRSV (Westminster John Knox Press)
The plural probably refers to the divine council (see Jer. 23:18-23). God here consults with other divine beings; the creation of human kind thus is the result of a dialogical act. God chooses to share the creative process with those who are not God.
• 耶 23:18 有誰站在耶和華的會中得以聽見並會悟他的話呢? 有誰留心聽他的話呢?
此節說明有 “耶和華的會” 的存在.
• 耶 23:19 看哪! 耶和華的忿怒好像暴風, 已經發出, 是暴烈的旋風, 必轉到惡人的上頭.
“惡人”是指16節的假先知
耶23:20 耶和華的怒氣必不轉消, 直到他心中所擬定的成就了, 末
後的日子你們要全然明白.
“他” 是指神, 也就是說, 神所擬定的成就時, “他”會使 “你們” (即先知)明白
耶23:21 我沒有打發那些先知, 他們竟自奔跑. 我沒有對他們竟自預言.
“他們”是指假先知.
耶23:22 他們若是站在我的會中, 就必使我的百姓聽我的話, 又使他們回頭離開惡道和他們所行的惡.
“他們” 指假先知. 由此可知, 假先知也在神的會中.
耶23:23 耶和華說: “我豈為近處的神呢? 不也為遠處的神嗎?”
這表示遠近的先知和天使都可知神的旨意. 為甚麼會知道呢? 因為神樂意把他的旨意告訴他們, 這也包括人(創18:17).
(21) The Orthodox Study Bible-St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint (St Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology
The Holy Trinity also made man. God the Father is speaking to God the Son (John Chrysostom), and he uses the personal pronouns Us and Our. These pronouns indicate three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as noted in 1:1-3.
• 參(5), (6), (7)和(11).
(22) The NET Bible-New English Translation (Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C.)
The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later Trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory. In 2 Sam 24:14, David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court. (see 1 Kgs : 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12, 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings”. If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.
• 茲將Job 1:6-12 及2:16列下:
伯 1:6 有一天, 神的眾子來侍立在那耶和華面前, 撒但也在其中.
1:7 耶和華問撒但說: “你從哪裡來?” 撒但回答說: “我從地上走來走去, 往返而來.”
1:8 耶和華問撒但說: “你曾用心察看我的僕人約伯沒有? 地上再沒有人像他完全正直, 敬畏神, 遠離惡事.
1:9 撒但回答耶和華說: “約伯敬畏神, 豈是無故呢?
1:10 你豈不是四面圈上籬笆圍護他和他的家, 並他一切所有的.
他手所做的, 都蒙你賜福. 他的家產也在地上增多.
1:11 你且伸手毀他一切所有的, 他必當面棄掉你.”
1:12 耶和華對撒但說: “凡他所有的都在你手中, 只是不可伸手
害於他.” 於是撒但從耶和華面前退去.
上述經文有 “神的眾子”和撒但在耶和華面前交談, 再一次證明天庭中有討論這一回事.
伯 2:1 又有一天 ,神的眾子來侍立在耶和華面前, 撒但也來在其中.
2:2 耶和華問撒但說: “你從哪裡來?” 撒但回答說: “我從地上走來走去, 往返而來.”
2:3 耶和華問撒但說: “你曾用心察看我的僕人約伯沒有? 地上再沒有人像他完全正直, 敬畏神, 遠離惡事. 你雖激動我攻擊他, 無故地毀滅他, 他仍然持守他的純正.
2:4 撒但回答耶和華說: “人以皮代皮, 情願捨棄一切所有的 保全性命.
2:5 你且傷他的骨頭和他的肉, 他必當面棄掉你.”
2:6 耶和華對撒但說: “他在你手中, 只要存留他的生命.”
第三節說得很清楚 是撒但(你)激動神(我)攻擊他(約伯). 換句話說, 是神透過與撒但討論而做某事, 而聖經直接說是神做的.
賽 6:1 當烏西雅王崩的那年, 我見主坐在高高的寶座上. 他的衣裳垂下, 遮滿聖殿.
6:2 其上有撒拉弗侍立, 各有六個翅膀, 用兩個翅膀遮臉, 兩個翅膀遮腳, 兩個翅膀飛翔.
6:3 彼此呼喊說: 聖哉! 聖哉! 聖哉! 萬軍之耶和華, 他的榮光充滿全地.
6:4 因呼喊者的聲音, 門檻的根基震動, 殿充滿了煙雲.
6:5 那時我說: 禍哉! 我滅亡了! 因為我是嘴唇不潔的人, 又住在嘴唇不潔的民中. 又因我眼見大君王----萬軍之耶和華.
6:6 有一撒拉弗飛到我跟前, 手裡拿著紅炭, 是用火剪從壇上取下來的.
6:7 將炭沾我的口, 說: “看哪! 這炭沾了你的嘴, 你的罪孽便除掉, 你的罪惡就赦免了.”
6:8 我又聽見主的聲音說: “我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我!”
綜觀上述經文, 可知撒但, 神的眾子, 先知, 天使, 都可能是天庭中的成員. 此注釋亦提出神的眾子在創造時可能扮演的角色, 即讚美神. 如伯38:7曰: 那時, 晨星一同歌唱, 神的眾子也都歡呼! 再如
啟 4:6, 寶座前像一個玻璃海, 如同水晶. 寶座中和寶座周, 四個活物, 前後遍體都滿了眼睛.
4:7 第一個活物像獅子, 第二個像牛犢,第三個臉面像人, 第四個像飛鷹.
4:8 四活物各有六個翅膀, 遍體內外長了眼睛. 他們晝夜不住地說: “ 聖哉! 聖哉! 聖哉! 主是昔在, 今在, 以後永在的全能者.”
4:9 每逢四活物將榮耀, 尊貴, 感謝歸給那坐在寶座上, 活到永永遠遠者的時候,
4:10 那二十四位長老就俯伏在坐寶座的面前敬拜那活到永永遠遠的, 又把他們的冠冕放在寶座前, 說:
4:11 “我們的主, 我們的神, 你是配得榮耀, 尊貴, 權柄的. 因為你創造了萬物. 並且萬物是因你的旨意被創造而有的.
5:11 我又看見聽見, 寶座與活物並長老的周圍有許多天使的聲音, 他們的數目千千萬萬.
5:12 大聲說: “曾被殺的羔羊配得權柄, 豐富, 智慧, 能力, 尊貴, 榮耀, 頌讚的.
由此可知, 在將要審判世界的神的天庭, 包括人(長老)及天使, 而他們是以頌讚來參與神的工作.
(23) The Oxford Study Bible-Revised English Bible (Oxford University Press, Inc.)
The plural us (3:22; 11:7) may be a majestic plural, or else to the minor divine beings thought to surround God, like countries of a human king (1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6).
• 關於神的威嚴 參(5). 關於天庭 , 參(1), (2), (9), (12) 和(22).
(24) 1599 Geneva Bible-The Geneva Bible (Tolle lege Press)
Let us make : signifying, that God taketh counsel with his wisdom and virtue, purposing to make an excellent work above all the rest of his creation.
• 參(3)和(4).
(25) The Essential Study Bible-Contemporary English Version (Penguin
Group)
The plural (we, us) may refer to God and the heavenly beings that make up God’s heavenly court (11:7: Isa 6:8; 1 Kgs 22:19).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22).
(26 ) New Spirit Filled Life Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
God was speaking, not only to what the NT reveals to the rest of the Trinity, but to the entire host of heaven, the angels, as well.
• 關於三位一體 , 參(5), (6)和(7). 關於天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(27) The Billy Graham Training Center Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
From the first chapter of the Bible, God reveals Himself to be “plural”. In this verse, we see all three personalities of God working together during the creation of the world. These three personalities are equal in glory and character, and they share the attributes of God revealed in the Old Testament. They are all eternal-meaning that none was created
• 參(5), (6)和(7)
(28) Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
Let Us make is emphatic. It emphasizes the majesty of the speaker.
Furthermore, the use of plural for God allows for the later revelation of the
Trinity (see 11:7; Matt 28:19).The Us cannot refer to the angles that are
present with God because man is made in the image of God alone, not also
that of angels.
• 參(1), (3), (5), (6)和(7)
(29) ESV Study-ESV (Crossway Bibles)
The text does not specify the identity of the “us” mentioned here. Some have
suggested that God may be addressing the members of his court. Whom the
OT elsewhere calls “sons of God” (e.g., Job 1:6) and the NT calls “angels”, but
a significant objection is that man is not made in the image of angels, nor is
there any indication that angels participated in the creation of human beings.
Many Christian and some Jews have taken “us” to be God Speaking to himself,
since God alone does the making in Gen. 1:27 (cf. 5:1); this would be the first
hint of the trinity in the Bible (cf. 1:2).
• 關於天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22). 關於神的威嚴, 參(5). 三位一體則參(5), (6)和(7).
(30) The Reformation Study Bible-ESV (Ligonier Ministries)
The use of the plural here is variously interpreted. Some view this as an indication of plurality within the divine unity, hinting at the later New Testament revelation of the one God as Father, Son and Spirit. Others explain this usage grammatically --- either as a plural of majesty or as a deliberative plural ( in which God directs the statement to Himself). Finally, some argue that God and his heavenly angelic court are in view.
• 同(29)
(31) The Lutheran Study Bible-ESV (Concordia Publishing House)
While affirming the singularity of God, it is not unusual for the OT to use the plural when speaking of God and his activities. This anticipates the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (though some interpreters understand it to be grammatical device , a plural of majesty of an honorific plural, with no specific theological significance). Irenaeus of Lyons : “with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, The Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks.” Tertullian : If the number of the Trinity also offends you, …with whom did He make man? And to whom did He make him like? (The answer must be), the Son on the one hand, who was one day to put on human nature; and on the other, who was one day to put on human nature; and the other, who was to santify man. With these did He then speak, in the unity of the Trinity, as with His ministers and witnesses. Martin Luther: “Here both appear：’Let Us make’ and ‘He made, in the plural and in singular; thereby Moses clearly and forcibly show us that within and in the very Godhead and the Creating Essence there is one inseparable and eternal plurality.”
• 此觀點認同三一論, 但未引用聖經章節以支持之. 參(5), (6)和(7) 關於三為一體的討論.
(32) The Ryrie NASB Study Bible-NASB (Moody Publishers)
Plurals of majesty.
• 神說 “我們”, 指出有講者及聽者, 不像創1:3 的 “神說”. 此處神只說: “要有光”. 就有了光. 此處並沒用代名詞如 “我”, “我們”, “你”, “你們”, “他”, “他們”, “她” 和 “她們”.
(33) The Transformation Study Bible-NLT (David C. Cook)
The creation of the first man is seen as a very special occasion, for there’s a
“consultation” prior to the event. “Let us make human being in our image”
sounds like that conclusion of a divine deliberation among the persons of the Godhead. God couldn’t have been talking with the angels about his plans because angels weren’t made in God’s image (‘our image”), and angels had nothing to do with the creation of Adam.
• 關於三位一體 參(5), (6)和(7). 關於神的行像, 參(1).
(34) Discover God Study Bible-NLT (Tyndale House Publishers)
God refers to Himself in the plural, saying, “Let Us”. Through history, God has revealed Himself as God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit. God has always existed as these three persons. The New Testament writer Paul the apostle confirmed this truth： “For though (Christ) God created in the heavenly realms and on earth……. Everything was created through Him and for Him”（Colossians 1:16） In describing Jesus, John created everything through Him and nothing was created excerpt through Him” (John 1:2-3).
• 關於西1:15-16, 參(7). 約1:2-3曰:
約1:2 這道太初與神同在.
1:3 萬物是藉著他造的, 沒有一樣不是藉著他造的.
這裡是針對有血有肉的子說的, 並非指神另外有一個位格.

(35) NLT Study Bible-NLT (Tyndale House Publisher)
The plural us has inspired several explanations: (1) the Trinity; (2) the plural denote majesty; (3) a plural to show deliberation with the self; and (4) God speaking with his heavenly court of angels. The concept of the Trinity – one true God who exist eternally in three distinct persons --- was revealed at a latter stage in redemptive history, making it unlikely that the human author intended that here. Hebrew scholars generally dismiss the plural of majesty vies because the grammar does not clearly support it (the plural of majesty has not been demonstrated to be communicated purely through a plural verb). The plural of self-deliberation also lacks evidence; the only clear examples unity (e.g., 2 Sam 24:14). God’s speaking to the heavenly court, however, is well-attested in the OT (see 3:2; 11:7; 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1: 6-12; 2:1-6; 38:7; Ps 89:5-6; Isa 6:1-8; Dan 10:12-13).
• 三一神論 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 神的威嚴, 參(3), (5)和(32). 神的天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22).
(36) Life Application Study Bible-NLT (Tydale House Publishers)
Why does God use the plural form, “Let us make people in our image” ? One vies says this is a reference to the Trinity --- God the Father, Jesus Christ his Son, and the Holy Spirit --- all of whom are God. Another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. Kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking to themselves From Job 33-4 and Psalm 104:30, we do know that God’s Spirit was present in the creation. From Colossians 1:16 we know that Christ, God’s Son, was at work in the creation.
• 三一神論 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 神的天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(37) The Open Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
Unity of the Trinity --- Historically other monotheistic religions have accused Christian of worshiping three Gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Early and medieval Judaism, for instance, just could not conceive of any theological explanation that vindicated Christianity of the change of polytheism.
Christians always have affirmed the great monotheistic statements of the OT (Deut 4:35; 6:4; Is 44:6-20; Zech 14:9). Christian theologians also have wrestled through the centuries with how to express the unity of God’s Being while recognizing distinctions among the tree Persons interacting and fellowshipping within Him. The early church fathers spoke of one divine essence or substance that could not be divided . Within that one essence are three personal distinctions: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No one has improved on that description.
The NT, which teaches the deity of Father (John 6:27), Son (John 1:1; 20:28), and Holy Spirit（Acts 5:3, 4）, also stresses the unity of God (Mark 12:29-32; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; 1 Tim. 2:5). The mystery of the Trinity should remind us that when we contemplate the nature of God we reach the limit of finite human understanding. At the same time, the complexity of human personality, which somehow reflects the divine personality, should cause us not to be surprised by how multifaceted He is.
• 三一論, 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 茲將支持三一論章節下列:
約6:27 不要為那必壞的食物勞力, 要為那存到永生的食物勞力, 就是人子要賜給你們的, 因為人子是神所印證的.
此處只指出子和神, 並非說子是神的其中一個位格.
約 1:1 太初有道, 道與神同在, 道就是神.
約翰的意思是指道成肉身之子, 其實在太初就已經存在了. 神永遠的存在, 這個有血有肉的子原本也是這樣. 使徒們所摸到看到的子, 其實就是神本身. 總之, 1:1是針對子或道本身而言, 而非指神或神的位格.
約20:28 多馬說 我的主 我的神
這裡只說主是神, 根本談不上誰是誰的位格.
徒 5:3 彼得說: “亞拿尼亞, 為甚麼撒但充滿了你的心? 叫你欺哄聖靈, 把田地的價銀私自留下幾份呢?
徒 5:4 田地還沒有賣, 不是你自己的嗎? 既賣了, 價銀不是你作主嗎? 你怎麼心裡起這意念呢? 你不是欺哄人, 是欺哄神了!
徒5:4 的 “神”是否可以解作徒5:3之 “聖靈＂? 到底亞拿尼亞欺哄的, 是聖靈這一位格, 還是擁有三個位格的神? 當聖經用 “神＂ 這個字時, 是指全部三個位格, 還是只指 “父神＂ 或 “聖靈神＂ 或 “子神＂? 或可以指任何一個位格, 或任何兩個位格？ 三一論者必須給 “神＂ 和 “位格＂下定義及解釋兩者之間的關係..
可12:29 耶穌回答說: “第一要緊的就是說, 以色列啊! 你要聽 主--- 我們神是獨一的主.
可12:30: 你要盡心, 盡性, 盡意, 盡力愛主 --- 你的神.
可12:31 : 其次就是說: ‘要愛人如己’, 再沒有比這兩條誡命更大了.”
可12:32 : 那文士對耶穌說: “夫子說, 神是一位, 實在不錯. 除了他以外, 再沒有別的神.
約20:28 多馬說: “我的主! 我的神!” 可12:31之 “你要盡心, 盡性, 盡意, 盡力愛主 ---你的神”, 前者的 “神” 告訴我們 “主” 只是子這一位格的神. 後者的 “神”, 告訴我們 “主” 是三個位格的 “神”. 現在問題來了, “主” 是指神的三個位格, 還是其中一或兩個位格的神? 有沒有指著聖靈為 “主” 的呢? 三一論必須給 “主” 下個定義.
林前8:4 論到吃祭偶像之物, 我們知道偶像在世上算不得甚麼, 也知道神只有一位, 再沒有別的神.
林前8:5 雖有稱為神的, 或在天, 或在地, 就如那許多的神, 許多的主.
林前8:6 然而我們只有一位神, 就是父 --- 萬物都本於他, 我們也歸於他 --- 並有一位主, 就是耶穌基督 --- 萬物都是藉著他有的. 我們也是藉著他有的.
約17:3 認識你 --- 獨一的真神, 並且認識你所差來的耶穌基督, 這就是永生.
提前2:8 因位只有一位神, 在神和人中間, 只有一位中保, 乃是降世為人的基督耶穌.
按照三一論, 三個位格平等, 只是次序不同而已. 但上述經文只有父和子, 缺少了聖靈, 這又該作何解呢? 顯然的, 三一論者東湊西湊, 把幾處經文湊在一起, 以証明三一論. 像(5)所說的, 最接近三一論的經文只有一處: 即太28:19. 但此處只說三位一名, 而非三位一軆.
約3:13曰: 除了從天降下仍舊在天的人子, 沒有人升過天. 這說明父子是原為一的. 因救恩工作, 才有道成肉身, 才有父子聖靈之分. 無論是在天上的父, 降世為人的人子, 或住在人裡面的聖靈, 我們只能說 “他們” 原是一位神, 不能說 “他們” 是三個位格.
(38) The Scofield Study Bible-KJV (Oxford University Press Inc.)
The revealed fact is: that man was made in the “image and likeness” of God. This “image” is found chiefly in man’s tri-unity, and in his moral nature. Man is “spirit and soul and body” (1 Thes. 5:23). “spirit” is that part of man which “knows” (1 Cor. 2:11), and which allies him to the spiritual creation and give him God-consciousness. “soul” in itself implies self-conscious life, as distinguished from plants, which have unconscious life. In that sense animals also have “soul”. But the “soul” of man has a vaster content than “soul” as applied to beast life. It is the seat of his emotions, desires, affections (Psa. 42:1-6). The “heart” is, in scripture usage, nearly synonymous with “soul”. Because the natural man is, in characteristically, the or psychical man, “soul” is often used as synonymous with the individual. The body , separable from spirit and soul and susceptible to death, is nevertheless an integral part of man, as the resurrection shows (John 5:28-29; 1 Cor. 15:47-50; Rev. 20:11-13). It is the seat of the senses (the means by which the spirit and soul have world-consciousness) and or the fallen Adamic nature (Rom 7:23-24).
• 此注釋認同三一論, 並以人之靈, 魂和體的 “形像”來証明神的 “形像” 所引用的經文如下:
帖前 5:23 願賜平安的神親自使你們全然成聖, 又願你們的靈 魂與身子得蒙保守, 在我主耶穌基督降臨的時候, 完全無可指摘.
林前 2:11 除了在人裡頭的靈, 誰知道人的事? 像這樣, 除了神的靈, 也沒有人知道神的事.
創2:17 耶和華神用地上的塵土造人, 將生氣吹在他鼻孔裡, 他就成了有靈的活人, 名叫亞當.
詩 42:1 神啊! 我的心切慕你, 如鹿切慕溪水.
詩 42:2 我的心渴想神, 就是永生神, 我幾時得朝見神呢?
詩 42:3 我晝夜以眼淚當飲食, 人不住地對我說: “你的神在哪裡呢?”
詩 42:4 我從前與眾人同住, 用歡呼稱讚的聲音領他們到神的殿裡, 大家守節. 我追想這事我的心極其悲傷.
詩 42:5 我的心哪! 你為何憂悶? 為何在我裡面煩躁? 應當仰望神, 因他笑臉幫助我.. 我還要稱讚他.
詩 42:6 我的神啊! 我的心在我裡面憂悶. 所以我從約但地, 從黑門嶺, 從米薩山記念你.
林前15:50 弟兄們, 我告訴你們說, 血肉之體不能承受神的國. 必朽壞的不能承受不朽壞的.
啟20:11 我又看見一個白色的大寶座在上面的; 從他面前天地都逃避, 再無可見之處了.
啟20:12 我又看見死了的人, 無論大小, 都站在寶座前. 案卷展開了, 並且另有一卷展開, 就是生命冊. 死了的人都憑著這些案卷所記載的, 照他們所行的受審判.
啟20:13 於是海交出其中的死人, 死亡和陰間也交出其中的死人, 他們都照各人所行的受審判.
羅7:23 但我覺得肢體中另有個律和我心中的律交戰, 把我擄去, 叫我從那肢體中犯罪的律.
羅7:24 我真是苦啊! 誰能就我脫離這取死的身體?
從上述經文, 可知此註釋者証明人有靈, 魂, 體. 但他們是會分開的, 這已違反了三一論所說的永恆性. 下列經文可證之:
創3:19 你必汗滿面才得糊口, 直到你歸了土. 因為你是從土而出的, 你本是塵土, 仍要歸於塵土.
伯34:14 他若專心為己, 將靈和氣收歸自己.
路24:37 他們卻驚慌害怕, 以為所看見的是魂.
路34:39 你們看我的手, 我的腳, 就知道實在是我了. 摸我看看, 魂無骨無肉. 你們看, 我是有的.
太10:28 那殺身體, 不能殺靈魂的, 不要怕他們. 惟有能把身體和靈魂都滅在地狱裡的, 正要怕他.
路16:23 他在陰間受痛苦, 舉目遠遠地望見亞伯拉罕, 又見拉撒路在他懷裡.
路23:43 耶穌對他說: “我實在告訴你, 今日你要同我在樂園裡了.”
彼前1:9 並且得著你們信心的果效, 就是靈魂的救恩.
由此可知, 人死後靈歸神, 體歸塵土, 魂則下陰間或樂園等候審判.
(39) The King James Study Bible –KJV (Thomas Nelson Publisher)
The plural pronoun us it most likely a majestic plural from the standpoint of Hebrew grammar and syntax.
• 神以他的威嚴說話, 自然符合聖經(參謀(3)). 但問題是神講話的對象是誰呢? (參((3)和32))
(40) New Bible Commentary (Inter-Varsity Press)
Here God is pictured talking to the angels, the only allusion to other supernatural beings in this chapter. This remark implies that man is like both God and the angels (Traditionally, Christians have seen us and our to allude legitimate fuller interpretation, it is not the words’ primary meaning).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(41) Key Word Study Bible-KJV (AMG Publishers)
When plural pronouns are used, “Let us make man in our image after our likeness”, does it denote a plural number or the concept of excellence or majesty which may be indicated in such a way in Hebrew? Could God be speaking to the angels; the earth, or nature thus denoting Himself in relation to one of these? Or is this a germinal hint of a distinction the divine personality? One cannot be certain. Until Jesus came, the essential (internal) unity of the Godhead was not understood to a great extent, though it was intimated (is. 48:16).
• 此註釋認同三位一體, 其支持乃賽48:16: 你們要就近來我聽這
話, 我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話. 耶和華差我和他的靈來. 此節不能支持三一論. 因為被差遣的 “我” 是指以賽亞, 也就是說, 這邊只提到 “耶和華” 和 “他的靈”, 沒有跡象顯示子也在那裡.
(42) The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible-NIV (AMG Publishers)
The Hebrews word translated “God” is elohiym [466], a plural noun. In verse 26, it is used with a plural verb (“let us make”) and a plural suffix (“in our image, in our likeness”). In verse 27, however, it is used three times with a singular verb (bara [1343], “created”, the same singular verb which appears in verse 1. The essential internal unity of the Trinity was not understood to a great extent until Jesus came to earth (Jn 1:14, 18; 10:30; 14:9), though it was intimated in the Old Testament (Isa 48:16).
• 此書作者任同三一論, 其引用經文如下:
約1:14 道成了肉身, 住在我們中間, 充充滿滿地有恩典有真理, 我們也見過他的榮光.
此處的重點是 “道成肉身”. 綜觀約1:1-3, 約翰的意思是說這個有血有肉的子或道, 其實就是神. 也就是說, 神降世為子, 神成為有所限制的子, 並非表示天上已沒有神了. 這話是針對道或子而說的, 絕對不是說除了神之外, 還有另一個子的位格.
約1:18 從來沒有人看見神, 只有在父懷裡的獨生子將他表明出來 .
神是靈(約4:24), 故人看不到他. 現在無所不知, 無所不在及無所不能的神, 謙卑降為被時空限制的子, 讓人可以看見. 所以來1:3曰: 他是神榮耀所發的光輝, 是神本體的真像. 這個神的本體, 並非是指神的第二個位格. 約一3:2曰: 親愛的弟兄啊 我們現在是神的兒女. 將來如何, 還未顯明. 但我們知道, 主若顯現, 我們必要像他, 因為必得見他的真體. 這再次証明 “主” 是能看見的神的真體. 這裡沒談到聖靈.
約10:30 我與父原為一.
由於無限的神變為地上有限的 “神人”, 並非表示在天上沒有了神. 在天上的為父, 降在地上的為子. 就這角度來看, 我 (主) 的確與父為一. 這裡也沒談到聖靈..
約14:9 耶穌對他說: “腓力, 我與你們同在這麼久, 你還不認識我嗎 ? 人看見了我, 就是看見了父. 你怎麼說: “將父顯給我們看呢?”
神道成肉身, 我們才能看見神的面貌. 子就是人看得見的神(父). 當時門徒們還不清楚, 以為另外還有個父. 三一論就是陷入此圈套, 把父與子分開, 說是神的兩個位格.
賽48:16 你們要就近我來聽這話: “我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話. 自從有這事, 我就在那裡.” 現在, 主耶和華差遣我和他的靈來.
從 “我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話 自從有這事 我就在那裡”這一句話是第14章的 “耶和華”說的, 而 “現在 主耶和華差遣我和他的靈來”這一句話是以賽亞說的. 也就是說 “我” 是指以賽亞本身.根據三一論, 耶和華的靈是指聖靈, 再加上耶和華本身, 只有兩位而已 ,缺少了子.
(43) The Expositor’s Bible Commentary-Genesis-Leviticus (Zondervan)
There have been many attempts to explain the plural forms: “Let us make [nacaseh] in our image [besalmenu], in our likeness [kidmutenu] . “Westermann, 1:144-45, summarizes the explanations given for the use of plurals under four headings : (1) the plural is a reference to the Trinity; (2) the plural is a reference to God and the heavenly court of angels; (3) the plural is an attempt to avoid the idea of an immediate resemblance on God’s part while setting out to create humankind; (4) the plural is an explanation of deliberation on God’s part while setting out to create humankind.
The singulars in v.27 (besalmo, “in his own image”) and （beselem elohim, “in the image of God”; cf. 5:1） rule out the second explanation (i.e., that the plural refers to a heavenly court of angels), since in the immediate context human are said to be created “in his image”, with no mention made of humans being made in the image of the angels. To this the author adds a further qualification that God humankind “in the image of God”. This seems to be an intentional refutation of the notion that the plurals in v.26 refer to the angels.
The third and fourth explanations are both possible within the context, but neither explanation is specifically supported by the context. It is not convincing to point to 11:7 in support of the notion of deliberation, since the use of the plural in that passage is motivated by the chiastic wordplay between the words nabelah (“let us confuse,” 11:7) and nilbena (“let us make, “ 11:3; see J.P. Fokkemann, Narrative Art in Genesis [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975]). Where we do not find unequivocal deliberation (as in 18:17). It is not the plural that is used but the singular : “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?” As Wetermann has stated, the first explanation is “a dogmatic judgment,” though we could add that it is not a judgment that runs confer to the passage itself. However, if we seek an answer from the immediate context, we should turn to the following verse(s) for additional clues.
In v.27 it is stated twice that humankind was created [bara] “male and female”. The same pattern is found in Genesis 5:1-2: “when God created [bara] man …. He created [bara] them male and female”. The singular “man [adam] is create as a plurality, “male and female” [zakar uneqeba]. In a similar way the one God [waggomen elohim, “And God said] create humanity through an expression of plurality [naaseh adam besalemu, “Let us make man in our image”]. Following this clue, the device plurality of persons expressed in v.26 can be seen as an anticipation of the human plurality of persons reflected in man and woman, thus casting human personal relationship in the role of reflecting God’s own personhood.
Could anything be more obvious than to conclude from this clear indication that the image and likeness of the being created by God signifies existence on conjunction of man and man which is that of male and female, and then to go on to ask against this background in what the original and prototype of the device existence of the Creator consist? (K/ Barth, Church Dogmatics3/1 [New York: Scriber, 1956], 195).
• 此註釋者提出四個可能性 (i)三位一體 ,參(5), (6), (7), (34), (37),
(38 ), (41)和(42). (ii) 天庭中的使者 參(1), (2), (9), (11), (12), (15), (22)和(32). (iii) 神的威嚴和慎重的宣佈, 參(3). (iv)神與人隔離, 參(8). 其支持章節如下:
創5:1 亞當的後代記下面 (當神造人[單數]的日子, 是照著自己的樣式造的,
創5:2 並且造男造女. 在他們(復數)被造的日子, 神賜福給他們, 稱他們為 “人”)
單數的人(亞當), 被造成復數的男女. 所謂的造男造女, 是男先女後. 換句話說, 單數的神造單數的男人, 單數的神造單數的女人. 這也就是說, 單數的神, 創造復數的男女. 所以 1:26可視為神預知要造男造女. 所以摩西以復數的 “我們” 來表示將要創造 復數的男女. 但問題是, “我們要造著我們的形像, 按著我們的樣式造人……”是跟誰說呢? 此解釋只說 “我們”的 來源而已.
(44) Genesis A Commentary (Zondervan)
See also 3:22; 11:7. Various references have been suggested for the “us”. The traditional Christian interpretation, that it represents a plurality within deity, has some textual support and satisfies the Christian theology of the Trinity (John 1:3; Eph. 3:9; Col 1:16: Heb. 1:2). God is a plurality is supported by the mention of the spirit of God in 1:2 and the fact that the image itself is a plurality. This interpretation would also explain the shifts in the text between the singular and plural. The primary difficulty with this view is that the other four uses of the plural pronoun with reference to God (3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8) do not seem to refer to the Trinity. The explanation that satisfies all such uses of the pronoun is that God is addressing the angels or heavenly court (cf. 1 Kings 22:19-22; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1-3; 89:5-6; Isa 6:8; 40:1-6; Dan. 10:12-13; Luke 2:8-14). It seems that in the four occurrence of the pronoun “us” for God, God refers to “us” when human beings are impinging on the heavenly realm and he is deciding their fate. In Gen 3:22, God sees that human beings have grasped the knowledge of good and evil and have become like divine beings. In Genesis 11 the heavenly court comes down to see what the earth-bound are building to attain the heavenly space. In Isa. 6:8, God is clearly addressing the heavenly court, which the prophet in his vision has entered. It is not surprising that God would address the heavenly court, since angels play a prominent role in Scripture (e.g., Gen. ; Job 38:7; 1 Tim 3:16), and there is much commerce in Genesis between the angelic realm and human beings.
• 筆者完全同意此觀點.
(45) The NIV Genesis Application Commentary (Zondervan)
The use of the plural pronouns (“us” and “our”) on verse 26 has occasioned constant discussion among the commentators. The early church fathers considered them a reference to the Trinity, while the rabbis offered various grammatical explanations. In the last century, two other theories have arisen, which explain the plural as a vestige of polytheistic mythology of as a reference to a heavenly court. Thus, there are now three categories of explanation:
(i) Theological : The plurals are explained as an expression of plurality within the Godhead, either specifically of the Trinity or at least as a recognition of the two persons represented by the creator God (elohim) and the Holy Spirit of verse 2.
(ii) Grammatical : The plurals are explained as an expression of grammatical on rhetorical conventions, including self-deliberation, plural of majesty, and grammatically agreement with the plural elohim.
(iii) Cultural : The plurals are explained against the background of ancient Near Eastern culture.
We do not have space to consider each of these in the detail they deserve, but in the methodology and presupposition that lead the interpreter into one category or another. The grammatical is the easiest to dismiss since none of the cited conventions are attested with any consistency in Hebrew. The race instances in which they can be claimed generally have either other possible explanations or characteristics that differentiate them from the usage here.
The theological is probably the most popular in traditional circles, but it suffers when subjected to hermeneutical cross-examination. That is, if we ask what the Hebrew author and audience understood, any explanation assuming plurality in the Godhead is easily eliminated. If the interpreter wishes to bypass the human author with the claim that God’s intention is what is important, there are large obstacles to hurdle. If the divine intention is not conveyed by the human author, where is it conveyed? Certainly if the New Testament told us that the Trinity was referred to in this verse, we would have no trouble accepting that God’s intentions. But it is not enough for the New Testament simply to affirm that there is such a thing as the Trinity. That affirmation does not prove that the Trinity is referred to in Genesis 1:26. Without a specific New Testament, we have no authoritative basis for bypassing the human author.
Further commending the human author is the belief that the Old Testament audience also had an authoritative text being communicated to them. We cannot afford to approach the text with the question, “Which interpretation fits best with my belief?” We must ask what the plurals would have meant to the original audience. That leads us to the cultural category. One of the cultural options taken by interpreters is that the plurals are a vestige of polytheism. Unfortunately, they can only accommodate their view by means of many presuppositions concerning the derived nature of the text and the incompetence of a series of editors. Since most readers, like myself, are not persuaded in the least by those presupposition, we will simply set that option aside.
The other position informed by cultural background, the heavenly court option, is much more defensible in that the concept of a heavenly court can be shown to be current not only in the ancient worldview, but also in the biblical text (The clearest example is found in 1 Kings 22:19-22. Other references include God, usually members of the council assemble before God.) Thus, the belief in such a heavenly court does not need to be imported from general culture (though the evidence for it is extensive and clear); one needs only read the Bible. In the ancient Near East the heavenly court was a divine assembly made up of the chief gods of the pantheon. It was this group that made decisions and decreed destinies. In the Old Testament, the heavenly court is made up of angels, or more specifically, the “sons of God.” All that remains is to consider whether the details of the context are in accord with what we know of God and his heavenly court.
Some have objected that it denigrates God to suggest that he consults with angles about such matter (Isa 40:14). They point out, in addition, that it is contrary to biblical teaching to think of the angels being involved in creation or of people being in the image of angels. Careful reading, however, demonstrates that these objections cannot be sustained. (i) We must distinguish between consulting and discussing. God has no need to either consult or discuss with anyone (as Isa. 40:14 affirms). (ii) It is his prerogative, however, to discuss anything he wants with whomever he chooses (Gen 18:17-19). Such inclusion of the heavenly court in discussion does not in any sense necessitate that angles must than have been used as agents of creation. In Isaiah 6:8 the council’s decision is carried out by Yahweh alone. (iii) Finally, the idea that the image should be referred to as “our” image does not imply that humans are created in the image of angels; it is possible, though not necessary, that angles also share the dive image in their nature. The image of God differentiates people from animals, not from angels.
If them, we are going to link our interpretation to the sense that the Israelite audience would have understood (and methodologically I believe that is essential for maintaining the authority of the text), the heavenly court is the most defensible interpretation and poses no insuperable theological obstacle.
• 同(44).
最後 筆者再引用幾節經文來指出
(i) 天庭的存在
但 7:10 從他面前有火, 像河發出. 事奉他的有千千, 在他面前侍
立的有萬萬. 他坐著要行審判, 案卷都展開了.
詩89:6 在天空誰能比耶和華呢? 神的眾子中, 誰能像耶和華呢?
詩 89:7 他在聖者的會中, 是大有威嚴的神, 比一切在他四圍的
更可畏懼.
歷下 18:18 米該亞說: “你們要聽耶和華的話, 我看見耶和華坐
在寶座上 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右
啟 5:11 我又看見且聽見, 寶座與活物並長老的周圍有許多天使
的聲音, 他們的數目有千千萬萬.
但 4:35 世上所有的居民都算為虛無, 在天上的萬軍和世上的居
民中, 他都憑自己的意旨行事, 無人能攔住他手, 或問他
說, 你做甚麼呢?
(ii) 神使天使或人知其所欲行之事
摩 3:7 主耶和華若不將奧秘指示他的僕人 --- 眾先知, 就一無所
行.
詩 103:7 他使摩西知道他的法則, 叫以色列人曉得他的作為.
創 18:33 耶和華與亞伯拉罕說完了話就走了, 亞伯拉罕也回到
自己的地方去了.
(iii) 天使和人在天庭中讚美神
啟 7:11眾天使都站在寶座和眾長老並四活物的周圍, 在寶座前
面伏於地, 敬拜神.
詩 103:19 耶和華在天上立定寶座, 他的權柄統管萬有.
詩 103:20 聽從他命令, 成全他旨意, 有大能的天使, 都要稱頌耶
和華!
啟 5:13 我又聽見在天上, 地上, 地底下, 滄海裡, 和天地間一切
所有被造之物, 都說 : “但願頌讚, 尊貴, 榮耀, 權柄, 都
歸給坐寶 座的和羔羊, 直到永永遠遠.


創1 : 26 : “我們要照著我們的形像,按著我們的樣式造人 .”所謂的 “我們” 該作何解? 筆者參考了下列書籍, 並提出筆者的看法.

(1) 證主21世紀聖經新釋 (福音證主協會)
本處是形容神與天使們的話, 也是本章內有其他超自然本體的唯一暗示. 這記載表示 “人” 同時有神和天使的樣式. (在傳統上, 基督徒看 “我們”和 “我們的” 是暗示三位一體的其他位格, 雖然這是一個颇合理的解釋, 但不是本處的首要意思.)
• 創1:27曰: 神就照著自己的形像照人, 乃是照著他的形像造男造女. 這裡很清楚的說是 “自己” 的形像造人, 又怎麼會是神和天使的行像造人? 彼後2:4曰: 就是天使犯了罪, 神也沒有寬容, 曾把他們丟在地獄, 交在黑暗中, 等候審判. 由此可知, 有犯罪的天使, 自然也有沒犯罪的天使. 沒有犯罪的天使又是怎樣的? 從創世記的資料推論, 應像還沒有犯罪的亞當和夏娃. 所以人和天使有共同的形像, 而這個型像就是來自神.
(2) 聖經新國際研讀本 (更心傳道會)
我們........我們的........我們的: 神以創造者和君王的身份, 對祂天庭中的萬軍宣告祂的顛峰作為 (見3:22; 11:7; 賽6:8; 又見王上22:19-23; 伯15:8; 耶23:18).
• 當神要作某事時, 會與先知和天庭中的天使們討論, 這可從王上22:19-23看出:
王上22:19: 米該亞說: “你要聽耶和華的話. 我看見耶和華坐在寶座上, 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右.
22:20 : 耶和華說: “誰去引誘亞哈王上基列的拉末去陣亡呢? 這個就這樣說, 那個就那樣說.
22:21 : 隨後有一個神靈出來, 站在耶和華面前, 說: “我去引誘他.”
22:22 : 耶和華同他說: “你用何法呢?” 他說: “我去, 要在他眾先知口中作謊言的靈. 耶和華說: “這樣, 你必能引誘,. 你去如此行吧!”
22:23 : 現在耶和華使謊言的靈入了你這些先知的口, 並且耶和華已經命定降禍於你”
留意22節耶和華說: “你去如此行吧!” 但在23節, 王上作者卻說是耶和華作的. 這與創1:26的 “我們” 和1:27的 “祂” 異曲同工. 創1:26是神說的話, 創1:27是摩西講的話. 這也就是說, 最後決定還是神本身.
(3) 聖經啟導本 (海天書樓)
26節的 “我們” 是神宣佈祂登峰造極的創造工作的自稱, 代表神的豐富華麗(3:22; 11:7)
• 神用六天創世, 把一切看著是好的 (創1:18; 1:21: 1:25; 1:31), 創1:28最後才創造人. 創1:28曰: 神就賜福給他們, 又對他們說, 要生養眾多, 遍滿地面. 治理這地. 也要管理海裡的魚, 空中的鳥, 和地上各樣行動的活物. 神創造人, 可說是登峰造極的創造. 神指著祂在創造人之前所造的一切, 可代表神的豐富華麗. 但神用 “我們” 宣告, 到底是跟誰說呢? 這裡沒有交代.
(4) 聖經簡釋本 (中國基督教協會) 以賽亞書中, 神也用 “我們” 來指稱 (賽6:8), 神並非獨自在天庭, “智慧” 也參與了神的創造 (箴8:30).
• 此註釋不詳. 所謂 “神並非獨自在天庭”, 是否指天庭是由神和 “智慧” 組成? 箴8:30曰: 那時, 我在他那裡為工師, 日日為他所喜愛, 常常在他面前踴躍. “我” 固然指 “智慧”, 但沒跡像顯示她參與創世工作. “工師” 只是耶和華面前 “踴躍” 和 “喜悅”. 前者是 “踴躍在她為人預備可住之地”, 後者 “喜悅住在人之間(箴8:31). 箴8:22-27只說耶和華創世之前 “就有了我”, “我已被立”, “我已出生”, “我在那裡” 就箴言整本書來看, 作者只是把智慧擬人化. 第九章更把智慧和愚蠢對比. 第1章20節開始敘述智慧在呼喚人, 第2章則說智慧的賞賜. 第2章6節說, 耶和華 “賜人智慧”. 也就是說, 人可得智慧, 並成為 “工師”. 第8章27-29節說神創世, 接下去的30節才說 “智慧” 為 “工師”. 如把此與創1:28對照, “工師” 是神委任管理萬物的人之身份.
(5) 聖經研讀版(環球聖經公會有限公司)
不同學者對這裡使用復數代名詞有各種各樣詮釋. 有人認為是指三位一體. 其他則從文法角度解釋, 視之為若不是用復數來表示威榮, 就是強調神性, 或是表示神對自己說話. 另有人認為這裡是指神與他在天上純潔的宮庭(見賽6:8).
• 三位一體的可能性很小, 因為此說須假設創1:26 是由一個位格或兩個位格對其他位格講話, 並須限定 “我們” 是三而已. 在聖經裡,無法找到支持此觀點的章節. 最接近的是太28:19, 此處指的是 “名” 而非 “體”. 換句話說, 父子聖靈只有一個名, 而非供同擁有一個體. 就算是 “我們(復數)” 是指神的三個位格, 單數的 “形像” “樣式” 是指神的一體, 第27節也應該是, 乃是造 “他們(復數)” 的 “形像(單數)”造男造女. 但聖經卻用單數的 “他” 及單數的 “形像”.
用復數來表示威榮, 強調神性, 或神對自己說話, 但 “我們” 卻顯示有講者, 亦有聽者.
第三個理由可能性最高, 但所引用的賽6:8根本與創1:26, 27節一樣, 証明不了甚麼.
(6) 聖經(思高譯本)
按古猶太人經師解釋, 是指天主和天使, 好似天主同天主商量; 但有些學者主張為 “威嚴復數” 或 “議決復數”. 教父和神學家多以為此復數暗示聖三的奧秘.. 此說若是啟示的演進說是對的 人相似天主是按靈魂説的. 相似天主有理智, 意志和記憶. 論人的肉身, 當天主造亞當時, 已預見作亞當第二基督(羅5:14).
• 此說是暗示三位一體的奧秘, 然後在新約中逐漸啟示神的三個位格, 即父在舊約工作, 子則在新約(四福音)裡工作, 最後是教會在傳教方面動工. 但主張三一論者又指出創1:1 的神(父), 創1:2 .是指聖靈,.創1:3是指子, 三個位格一起創造世界, 這已是明示而非暗示了.
如是“啟示的演進說,” 也就不會有天主教與東正教的 “和子” 的爭論而閙分裂. 筆者較傾於 “教義墮落說”. 關於三一說, 參(5).
人是由靈, 魂, 體組成. 活時還可免強說是三位一體. 但人死後, 體歸回塵土(創3:19), 靈歸於神(34:14), 魂則下陰間(太10:28)或進樂園(路23:43; 彼前1:9). 三者可以分開, 也必定分開. 然而, 三位一體之位格是永恆的, 是不能分開的.
神何止只有理智, 意志, 和記憶. 祂也是愛(約1:16), 公義(帖前1:6), 柔和謙卑(太11:29)等等.
(7) 聖經靈修版(國際聖經協會)
一種觀點認為這是指三位一體的真理, 聖父, 聖子, 聖靈都是靈. 另有觀點認為這樣的表達方式是表示威嚴, 好像西方國家的君主在傳統上也是以復數自稱的. 我們確實知道神的兒子基督和神的靈也參與創造的工作(參伯33:14; 詩104:30; 西1:16)
• 關於三位一體, 參(5)及(6). 必須指出的是, 聖經從未稱子為聖子, 只稱他為我的兒子 (太3:17), 我的愛子(太17:5), 獨生子(約3:16). 這說明子低於父, 不可能與父同等. 父的辈份比子高, 父是前辈, 子是後輩. 若是同等的話, 那他們應是兄弟關係.
其所引用的經文如下:
伯33:4 : 神的靈造我 全能者的氣使我得生.
詩104:30 : 你發出你的靈, 牠們便受造, 你使地面更換為新.
西 1:16 : 因為萬有都是靠他造的, 無論是天上的, 地上的, 能看見
的; 不能看見的. 或是有位的, 主治的, 執政的, 掌權的;
一 概都是藉著他造的, 又是為他造的.
伯33:4 和詩104:30的 “神的靈”, 根據三一論, 是指聖靈(羅8:9). 徒5:9之主的靈, 羅8:9之基督的靈, 徒16:7之耶穌的靈, 太10:20之父的靈, 全都指聖靈. 約4:24說神是個靈, 父是神, 子是神 聖靈是神, 卻不是三位神, 而是一位神. 那父的 “靈”, 子的 “靈” 又叫甚麼呢? 由於三一論不相信 “靈裡的一致”, 故只能推說父子聖靈是以一體來連繫三個位格. 那這一體是以甚麼方式存在呢? 三一論不能自圓其說.
至於西1:16, 我們先看1:15: 愛子是那不能看見之神的像, 是首生的, 在一切被造以先. 當提到 “首生” 時, 時間觀念已存在, 即有 “未生前” 及 “生後” 徒13:33曰: 神已經向我們這作兒女的應驗, 叫耶穌復活了. 正如詩篇第二篇上記著說: 你是我的兒子, 我今日生你. 由此可知, 16節的創造是指著有血有肉的子說的. 保羅的意思是說, 這個能讓人看見並摸到的子, 原是創造萬物的神. 創造萬物的神, 道成肉身, 來到世間, 並不表示在天上已沒有了神. 在天上的為父, 在地上的為子. 此節經文並非說子是一位參與創世工作的另一位格.
(8) 創世記注釋上冊(基督教文藝出版社)
我們稍為論述關於上帝提及自己. 在這裡, 就在這一章裡, 只在這個地方特別用第一人稱眾數的 “我們” 和 “我們的”(但29及30節, 祂又恢復用單數我). 這情形通常隱含基督教三位一體在創造中運行之意(第二位格是創造的道, 一直在發言, 而第三位聖靈則在第二節中), 但是古代希伯來人怎能知道這些東西是甚麼呢? 如今比較常見的, 是把這比作無上的或編輯的 “我們” ---- 但那是歐洲的見解, 而不是希伯來的. 然而, 如果它不能用這兩種解說中任何一種, 那麼它的意思又是甚麼呢?
詩篇第八篇類似的經文, 在這裡再給我們幫助.,其中第五節說上帝賜 “人冠冕”, 也說 “祢叫他比天使(或上帝)微小一點”; 或者像欽定本說, “ 比天使低 一點. 事實上, 希伯來文是伊羅欣(Elohim), 是上帝的正規字眼, 這是研究聖經的人都知道的, 而這字本身是眾數的. 這字一定是早期以色列的祖宗正像鄰邦一樣拜多神, 後來在他們成為一神的信徒時, 殘存下來的. 因為這字等於喚醒他們, 在別人有許多神靈, 分立而又常常爭執時, 對他們卻是只有一位獨神, 而且祂的旨意與目的是一致的.
不過, 在舊約中仍然有幾處地方是眾數的. 其中, 大多數指的是外族神, 正如出埃及記十二章十二節指埃及的多神, 或者在詩篇九十五篇三節: “ 耶和華為大神(伊羅欣), 為大王, 超乎萬神(也是伊羅欣)之上. 甚至第一誡: “除了我以外, 你不可有別的神”(出二十3), 其中的神字, 也是眾數的. 但是很偶然的纔指以色列的上帝有關的神. 一個好例子是詩篇一三八篇一節:“在諸神面前歌頌祢”.
在這些以外, 還要加上幾個稱為 “神的兒子” 所暗示的東西. 例如創世記六章二節(一段以後將給我們困難的經文)及約伯記一章六節與二章一節 ,在這些經文中, “神的眾子” 在上帝面前侍立.
在我們這段經文中, 還保留異教中的另一殘餘的東西. 那就是我們所熟知, 從荷馬來的神靈會議中得來的. 在那會議中, 男神女神不時集合來商討重要事件. 從以色列附近來的亞屈拉哈西斯敘事詩(epic Atrahasis)便是一個例子. 這詩包含米所波大米一個洪水故事.. 它開頭便是神會議, 先是眾神決定創造人類作他們的奴僕 (與本章差異多大啊!)而其後當他們喧嚷吵鬧, 以致眾神夜間不能睡覺時 卻又決定毀滅人類.
但是在希伯來思想中, 這些 “眾神” 是(可能除了剛才提及的創世記第六章二節那使人不安的經文之外)不容許威脅真神的獨一性或威嚴的. 他們並不是 “天使”, 天使是上帝的使者, 好像是較低一級的; 他們也不是舊約其他經文(例如創世記第三章廿四節; 以賽亞書第六章二節)的基路伯和撒拉弗, 他們是上帝的侍衛和護衛者 但是他們的任務並無很大的差別. 他們是希伯來人想像中的主要角色, 不是自己本有權利的人物, 而是上帝的延伸, 帶詩意地足以增強祂的榮耀和聖潔, 保衛祂的超越性而不是向祂挑戰.
對着這背景, 我相信欽定本詩篇八篇五節的 “天使” 比標準修正本的大寫 “上帝” 更為接近標準. 詩人正如創世記第一章的作者一樣, 給人高位, 而且把人描述得高至如天上上帝寶座周圍的神靈. 在這裡, 他----正如創世記第一章第廿六一樣----超出了舊約對人的看法不止一步. 但是他沒有遠至----希伯來人會嗎 ?----直接將 “人” 與那惟一的上帝本身相比. 縱然他 “比上帝微小一點”, 在希伯來人的經驗裡, 他仍然是太近乎上帝.
在本節的 “我們的”, 當然必得用類似的方法解釋. 創世記第一章的作者, 正如我們應當在好幾處注意到的 ,並不慣於用有詩意的詞語去描述上帝. 但是這裡他作了一個例外, 而他所以作這例外的原因並不難找出. 他是在警戒他的讀書, 提防他要論及 “人” 的話的危險性. 於是他故意打開天上宮庭的光景, 而暫時把上帝在祂的天使中隱藏起來. 這麼一來, 他就把祂於 “人” 相隔遠一點, 而準備被他讀者對接着來的奇妙語句, 有適當而均衡的暸解.
當我們考慮創世記第一章廿六節後來所成就的和神學上的價值時, 我們猜想作者的目的並未十分成功. 他怎麼知道他小心磨煉推測的話, 會落在那些對希伯來語的細緻特色毫無感覺的人手上呢?
• 此說法認為人不能與神相比, 所以摩西故意打開天庭光景, 暫時把神及天使隱藏起來, 取而代之的是諸神(詩138:1), 神的兒子(創6:2),及神的眾子(伯1:6; 2:1). 上述三種 “神”, 比天使低一點, 是神的延伸. 問題是 “諸神”, “神的兒子”和 “神的眾子”是誰? 聖經沒有交代. 筆者認為, 詩8:5的關鍵不在於譯為天使或神, 而是此句中的 “他”, 由8:1到8:9, “你”是指神, “他” 是指人. 因此, 人到底比天使高一級(譯為神)或比天使低一級都不是關鍵所在. 如把詩8:5譯為天使或神, 都不會影響 “他” 的意義. 此注釋者把 “他” 當作是神的侍衛和護衛者, 與天使不同, 任務卻與天使並無很大的差別. 這種說法, 未免太過牽強.
(9) The New Jerusalem Bible – Study Edition (Darton, Longman & Todd.
Ltd)
It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God and his
heavenly court (the angels, see 3:5, 22); our text was thus understood by the
Gk version of Ps8:5 (quoted in Beg 2:7). Alternatively, the plural expresses
the majesty and fullness of God’s being; the common names for God in
Hebrew is elohim, a plural form.
• 復數是指天庭裡的天使. 所引用經文以支持此觀點如下:
創3:5 : 因為神知道, 你們吃的日子, 眼睛就明亮了, 你們便如神能知道善惡
3: 22 : 耶和華神說: “那人已經與我們相似, 能知道善惡. 現在恐怕
伸手又摘生命樹的果子吃, 就永遠活著.
創3:5告訴我們墮落天使的存在. 創3:1曰: 耶和華所造的, 惟有蛇
比田野一切的活物更狡猾. 蛇對人說: “神豈是真說不許你們吃園中
所有樹上的果子嗎?” 此節好像墮落的天使與其他活物同時被造, 其實不然. 啟20:3曰:他捉住那龍, 就是古蛇, 又叫魔鬼, 也叫撒但 把牠捆綁一千年. 如以此節與路20:3對比(這時 撒但入了稱為加人
猶大的心, 他本是十二門徒裡的一個), 我們可知道蛇是被造之物 是撒但進蛇中藉以迷惑人.
第3:22 的 “我們” 和1:26節的 “我們” 一樣都是神說的話, 而非該書作者講的話.
詩8:5 你叫他比天使微小一點, 並賜他榮耀尊貴為冠冕.
來1:14 天使豈不都是服役的靈嗎? 奉差遣為那將要承受救恩的人
效力嗎?
從此處, 我們可知天使的存在. 工作是服役與奉差遣的, 受命於神
所以創1:26的 “我們”, 應是指神與天使.
(10) The Jerusalem Bible(Darton, Longman & Todd, Ltd)
It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God
and his heavenly court (the angles, cf. 3:5, 22); our text was thus understood
by the Greek version (followed by Vulg.) of Ps 8:5 (quoted in Heb 2:7). Alternatively, the plural expresses the majesty and fullness of God’s being;
the common name for God in Hebrew is Elohim, a plural form. Thus the way is prepared for the interpretation of the Fathers who saw in this text a hint of the trinity.
• “我們”是指神與天使的討論, 參(9). 如當神說是 “我們 “以示威嚴, 那賽6:8 又該作何解釋呢? 賽6:8曰: “我又聽見主的聲音說, 我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我”. 照此羅輯講, 應是 “我們”可以差遣誰呢? “我們” 暗示三位一體的討論, 參(5), (6)和(7).
(11) Fire Bible Global Study Edition – NIV (Life Publishers)
The use of word “us” (plural) suggests that God has a certain plurality, or multi-faceted nature (cf. Ps 2:7; Isa 48:16). This seems to be an early reference to the trinity, or the existence of God in three distinct but interrelated and unified Persons. The tri-unity (i.e., “three-in-One” nature) of nature does not become clear, however, until the NT (see Mt 3:17, Mk 1:11)
• 關於三位一體的討論, 參(5), (6)和(7). 茲將引用經文下列:
詩 2:7 : 受膏者說: “我要傳聖旨.” 耶和華對我說: “你是我的兒子, 我今日生你.”
賽48:16 你們要就近我來聽這話, 我從起頭並未曾在隱密處外說話.
自從有這事, 我就在那裡. 現在主耶和華差我和他的靈來.
太 3:17 從天上有聲音說: “這是我的愛子, 我所喜悅的.”
可 1:11 又有聲音從天上來, 說: “這是我的愛子, 我喜悅你.”
為了實行救恩計劃, 神暫時 “分為三位”, 才有父子聖靈之分. 一旦救恩完成後, 再也沒有父子聖靈之別, 只有獨一真神. 啟22:3之 “寶座 “, “他 的面” 和 “他的名字”, 都是單數.
(12) The Case For Christ Study Bible – NIV (Zondervan)
God speaks as the Creator King, announcing his crowning work to the member of his heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:18; see also 1 Ki 22:19 – 23; Job 15:8; Jer 23.: 18).
• 此注釋可能性最高. 茲將引用經文列下並論之:
創 : 3:22 耶和華說: “那人已經與我們相似, 能知道善惡. 現在恐怕他伸手又摘生命樹果子吃, 就永遠活著.
下一節(創3:23 耶和華神便打發他出伊甸園去, 耕種他所自出之土.
創3:22 神用 “我們”, 而創3:23只說是”耶和華”而已, 這與創1:26 的 “我們” 與 “他” 相似.
創11:7 : 我們下去, 在那裡變亂他們的口音, 使他們的言語彼此不通.
同樣的, 接下去第八節曰: 於是耶和華使他們從那裡分散全地上, 他們就停工, 不造那城了. 第七節說 “我們”, 第八節卻說是耶和華. 讓我們繼續看下一個引文:
賽 6:8 : 我又聽見主的聲音說: “我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我!”
接下去的第九節 “他” 說: “你去告訴這百姓說, 你們聽是要聽見, 卻不明白. 看是要看見, 卻不曉得.”
第八節用 “我們”, 第九節用的是 “他”. 綜觀上述討論, 所有經文都有一共同點: 當神說話時, 就用 “我們”. 當該書作者指神說話時, 卻用 “他” 或 “耶和華”. 再看看下列經文:
王上 22:9 米該雅說: “你要聽耶和華的話, 我看見耶和華坐在寶座上, 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右.”
22:20: 耶和華說: “誰去引誘亞哈王上基列的拉末陣亡呢?” 這個就這樣說, 那個就那樣說.
22:21: 隨後有一個神靈出來, 站在耶和華面前, 說: “我去引誘他”.
22:22 耶和華問他說: “你用何法呢?” 他說: “我去, 要在他眾先知口中作慌言的靈.” 耶和華說: “這樣, 你必能引誘他, 你如此去行吧!”
22:23: 現在耶和華使慌言的靈入了你這些先知的口, 並且耶和華已經命定降禍與你.
上述經文說明有天庭和天使的存在, 而且神會與天使們討論. 然而, 作最後決定還是在於神. 所以創3:22用 “我們”, 創11:7 也是 “我們”, 賽6:8說 “我們”. 以此推論, 創1:26的 “我們” 應是指神與眾天使討論, 然後神(創3:23和11:8皆用 “耶和華”, 賽6:9用 “他” )才決定並進行所討論的工作.
伯15:8: 你曾聽見神的密旨? 你是將智慧獨自得盡嗎?
耶23:18: 有誰站在耶和華的會中, 得以聽見並會悟他的話呢? 有隨留心聽他的話呢?
上述經文指出, 有一個叫耶和華的會, 在此會中, 而 “天使和先知能或不能領悟或留心聽他的話” 再一次說明的確有天庭的存在. 而神也樂意讓天使和先知在天庭知道他的旨意. 如創18:17曰: 耶和華說: “我所要做的事, 豈可瞞著亞伯拉罕?”
(13) The Learning Bible – NIV (Zondervan Publishing House)
The plural (us, our) may refer to God and the heavenly beings that make up God’s heavenly court (11:7; 1Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:8).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (11)和(12).
(14) Life Application Study Bible – NIV (Tyndale House Publishers)
Why does God use the plural form, “Let us make man in our image?” One view says this is a reference to the Trinity – God the Father, Jesus Christ his son, and the Holy Spirit – all of whom are God. Another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. Kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking of themselves. From Job 33:4 and Psalm 104:30, we do know that God’s spirit was present in the creation. From Colossians 1:16, we know that Christ, God’s Son, was at work in the creation.
• 參(5), (6), (7)和(11).
(15) Quest Study Bible-NIV (Zondervan)
Why did God say, Let us (plural) make man in our image? (1:26) Often king refers to themselves in this way. The Hebrew word for God (Elohim) is plural, perhaps indicating that God was taking counsel with himself. This may also hint at the mystery of the Trinity --- in the unity of God there is plurality. Some think this describes God speaking to his heavenly court of angels.
• 此處提出三個可能性 行 (i) 神自言自語. 這個可能性很小, 因為 “我們” 表示有講者, 亦有聽者. (ii) 三位一體. 參(5) (6) (7) 和(11). (iii) 對天庭的天使說話. 從(1)可知未墮落的天使和未犯罪的人有共同的形像, 而這一個形像來自神. 因此神說話時用 “我們” (創1:26), 摩西寫的創1:27 是用 “他” 因為的確是 “他” 在進行創造工作. 參(12).
(16) Concordia Self-Study Bible-NIV (Zondervan Publishing House)
God speaks as Creator-King, announcing his crowning work to the members
of his heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8; see also 1K 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jer 23:18).
• 同(13).
(17) The Wesley Study Bible-NRSV (Abingdon Press)
Us and our in 1:26, points to the unique centrality of this moment of creation. This is a purposeful and measured action that God does not entrust to anyone else. Like most theologians of his day, Wesley assumes a Trinitarian interpretation of these plurals：“The three persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, consult about it, and concur in it; because man, when he was made, was to be dedicated and devoted to Father, Son and Holy Ghost”.
• 同(14)
(18) The New Interpreter’s Study-Bible-NRSV (Abingdon Press)
The plural us has been variously interpreted as the plural of “majesty” (the royal “we”) and, in Christian theology, as the Trinity. Here, as elsewhere in Genesis (e.g., 11:7), God is addressing the divine council, the assembly of heavenly being believed to assist God in governing the world and communicating with the human race (1 Kgs 22: 19-23; Job 1: 6-7; Jer 23:18, 22).
• 同(13)
(19) The Harper Collins Study Bible-NRSV (Harper One)
The plural seems to refer to the lesser deities of the divine assembly described in other biblical text. (e.g., 1 Kings 22:19-22; Isa 6::8). In the accomplishment of this utterance, however, God acts alone (God created humankind in his image, v.27). The reference to the divine assembly seems to acknowledge its presence but discounts its active participation in creation.
• 此注釋說, 若是神需要和天庭討論, 將會貶低其在創世中的角色. 但從 創3:33, 11:8, 賽6:9 王上22:23, 真正作最後決定及施行的是神.
(20) The Discipleship Study Bible-NRSV (Westminster John Knox Press)
The plural probably refers to the divine council (see Jer. 23:18-23). God here consults with other divine beings; the creation of human kind thus is the result of a dialogical act. God chooses to share the creative process with those who are not God.
• 耶 23:18 有誰站在耶和華的會中得以聽見並會悟他的話呢? 有誰留心聽他的話呢?
此節說明有 “耶和華的會” 的存在.
• 耶 23:19 看哪! 耶和華的忿怒好像暴風, 已經發出, 是暴烈的旋風, 必轉到惡人的上頭.
“惡人”是指16節的假先知
耶23:20 耶和華的怒氣必不轉消, 直到他心中所擬定的成就了, 末
後的日子你們要全然明白.
“他” 是指神, 也就是說, 神所擬定的成就時, “他”會使 “你們” (即先知)明白
耶23:21 我沒有打發那些先知, 他們竟自奔跑. 我沒有對他們竟自預言.
“他們”是指假先知.
耶23:22 他們若是站在我的會中, 就必使我的百姓聽我的話, 又使他們回頭離開惡道和他們所行的惡.
“他們” 指假先知. 由此可知, 假先知也在神的會中.
耶23:23 耶和華說: “我豈為近處的神呢? 不也為遠處的神嗎?”
這表示遠近的先知和天使都可知神的旨意. 為甚麼會知道呢? 因為神樂意把他的旨意告訴他們, 這也包括人(創18:17).
(21) The Orthodox Study Bible-St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint (St Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology
The Holy Trinity also made man. God the Father is speaking to God the Son (John Chrysostom), and he uses the personal pronouns Us and Our. These pronouns indicate three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as noted in 1:1-3.
• 參(5), (6), (7)和(11).
(22) The NET Bible-New English Translation (Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C.)
The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later Trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory. In 2 Sam 24:14, David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court. (see 1 Kgs : 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12, 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings”. If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.
• 茲將Job 1:6-12 及2:16列下:
伯 1:6 有一天, 神的眾子來侍立在那耶和華面前, 撒但也在其中.
1:7 耶和華問撒但說: “你從哪裡來?” 撒但回答說: “我從地上走來走去, 往返而來.”
1:8 耶和華問撒但說: “你曾用心察看我的僕人約伯沒有? 地上再沒有人像他完全正直, 敬畏神, 遠離惡事.
1:9 撒但回答耶和華說: “約伯敬畏神, 豈是無故呢?
1:10 你豈不是四面圈上籬笆圍護他和他的家, 並他一切所有的.
他手所做的, 都蒙你賜福. 他的家產也在地上增多.
1:11 你且伸手毀他一切所有的, 他必當面棄掉你.”
1:12 耶和華對撒但說: “凡他所有的都在你手中, 只是不可伸手
害於他.” 於是撒但從耶和華面前退去.
上述經文有 “神的眾子”和撒但在耶和華面前交談, 再一次證明天庭中有討論這一回事.
伯 2:1 又有一天 ,神的眾子來侍立在耶和華面前, 撒但也來在其中.
2:2 耶和華問撒但說: “你從哪裡來?” 撒但回答說: “我從地上走來走去, 往返而來.”
2:3 耶和華問撒但說: “你曾用心察看我的僕人約伯沒有? 地上再沒有人像他完全正直, 敬畏神, 遠離惡事. 你雖激動我攻擊他, 無故地毀滅他, 他仍然持守他的純正.
2:4 撒但回答耶和華說: “人以皮代皮, 情願捨棄一切所有的 保全性命.
2:5 你且傷他的骨頭和他的肉, 他必當面棄掉你.”
2:6 耶和華對撒但說: “他在你手中, 只要存留他的生命.”
第三節說得很清楚 是撒但(你)激動神(我)攻擊他(約伯). 換句話說, 是神透過與撒但討論而做某事, 而聖經直接說是神做的.
賽 6:1 當烏西雅王崩的那年, 我見主坐在高高的寶座上. 他的衣裳垂下, 遮滿聖殿.
6:2 其上有撒拉弗侍立, 各有六個翅膀, 用兩個翅膀遮臉, 兩個翅膀遮腳, 兩個翅膀飛翔.
6:3 彼此呼喊說: 聖哉! 聖哉! 聖哉! 萬軍之耶和華, 他的榮光充滿全地.
6:4 因呼喊者的聲音, 門檻的根基震動, 殿充滿了煙雲.
6:5 那時我說: 禍哉! 我滅亡了! 因為我是嘴唇不潔的人, 又住在嘴唇不潔的民中. 又因我眼見大君王----萬軍之耶和華.
6:6 有一撒拉弗飛到我跟前, 手裡拿著紅炭, 是用火剪從壇上取下來的.
6:7 將炭沾我的口, 說: “看哪! 這炭沾了你的嘴, 你的罪孽便除掉, 你的罪惡就赦免了.”
6:8 我又聽見主的聲音說: “我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我!”
綜觀上述經文, 可知撒但, 神的眾子, 先知, 天使, 都可能是天庭中的成員. 此注釋亦提出神的眾子在創造時可能扮演的角色, 即讚美神. 如伯38:7曰: 那時, 晨星一同歌唱, 神的眾子也都歡呼! 再如
啟 4:6, 寶座前像一個玻璃海, 如同水晶. 寶座中和寶座周, 四個活物, 前後遍體都滿了眼睛.
4:7 第一個活物像獅子, 第二個像牛犢,第三個臉面像人, 第四個像飛鷹.
4:8 四活物各有六個翅膀, 遍體內外長了眼睛. 他們晝夜不住地說: “ 聖哉! 聖哉! 聖哉! 主是昔在, 今在, 以後永在的全能者.”
4:9 每逢四活物將榮耀, 尊貴, 感謝歸給那坐在寶座上, 活到永永遠遠者的時候,
4:10 那二十四位長老就俯伏在坐寶座的面前敬拜那活到永永遠遠的, 又把他們的冠冕放在寶座前, 說:
4:11 “我們的主, 我們的神, 你是配得榮耀, 尊貴, 權柄的. 因為你創造了萬物. 並且萬物是因你的旨意被創造而有的.
5:11 我又看見聽見, 寶座與活物並長老的周圍有許多天使的聲音, 他們的數目千千萬萬.
5:12 大聲說: “曾被殺的羔羊配得權柄, 豐富, 智慧, 能力, 尊貴, 榮耀, 頌讚的.
由此可知, 在將要審判世界的神的天庭, 包括人(長老)及天使, 而他們是以頌讚來參與神的工作.
(23) The Oxford Study Bible-Revised English Bible (Oxford University Press, Inc.)
The plural us (3:22; 11:7) may be a majestic plural, or else to the minor divine beings thought to surround God, like countries of a human king (1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6).
• 關於神的威嚴 參(5). 關於天庭 , 參(1), (2), (9), (12) 和(22).
(24) 1599 Geneva Bible-The Geneva Bible (Tolle lege Press)
Let us make : signifying, that God taketh counsel with his wisdom and virtue, purposing to make an excellent work above all the rest of his creation.
• 參(3)和(4).
(25) The Essential Study Bible-Contemporary English Version (Penguin
Group)
The plural (we, us) may refer to God and the heavenly beings that make up God’s heavenly court (11:7: Isa 6:8; 1 Kgs 22:19).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22).
(26 ) New Spirit Filled Life Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
God was speaking, not only to what the NT reveals to the rest of the Trinity, but to the entire host of heaven, the angels, as well.
• 關於三位一體 , 參(5), (6)和(7). 關於天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(27) The Billy Graham Training Center Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
From the first chapter of the Bible, God reveals Himself to be “plural”. In this verse, we see all three personalities of God working together during the creation of the world. These three personalities are equal in glory and character, and they share the attributes of God revealed in the Old Testament. They are all eternal-meaning that none was created
• 參(5), (6)和(7)
(28) Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
Let Us make is emphatic. It emphasizes the majesty of the speaker.
Furthermore, the use of plural for God allows for the later revelation of the
Trinity (see 11:7; Matt 28:19).The Us cannot refer to the angles that are
present with God because man is made in the image of God alone, not also
that of angels.
• 參(1), (3), (5), (6)和(7)
(29) ESV Study-ESV (Crossway Bibles)
The text does not specify the identity of the “us” mentioned here. Some have
suggested that God may be addressing the members of his court. Whom the
OT elsewhere calls “sons of God” (e.g., Job 1:6) and the NT calls “angels”, but
a significant objection is that man is not made in the image of angels, nor is
there any indication that angels participated in the creation of human beings.
Many Christian and some Jews have taken “us” to be God Speaking to himself,
since God alone does the making in Gen. 1:27 (cf. 5:1); this would be the first
hint of the trinity in the Bible (cf. 1:2).
• 關於天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22). 關於神的威嚴, 參(5). 三位一體則參(5), (6)和(7).
(30) The Reformation Study Bible-ESV (Ligonier Ministries)
The use of the plural here is variously interpreted. Some view this as an indication of plurality within the divine unity, hinting at the later New Testament revelation of the one God as Father, Son and Spirit. Others explain this usage grammatically --- either as a plural of majesty or as a deliberative plural ( in which God directs the statement to Himself). Finally, some argue that God and his heavenly angelic court are in view.
• 同(29)
(31) The Lutheran Study Bible-ESV (Concordia Publishing House)
While affirming the singularity of God, it is not unusual for the OT to use the plural when speaking of God and his activities. This anticipates the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (though some interpreters understand it to be grammatical device , a plural of majesty of an honorific plural, with no specific theological significance). Irenaeus of Lyons : “with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, The Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks.” Tertullian : If the number of the Trinity also offends you, …with whom did He make man? And to whom did He make him like? (The answer must be), the Son on the one hand, who was one day to put on human nature; and on the other, who was one day to put on human nature; and the other, who was to santify man. With these did He then speak, in the unity of the Trinity, as with His ministers and witnesses. Martin Luther: “Here both appear：’Let Us make’ and ‘He made, in the plural and in singular; thereby Moses clearly and forcibly show us that within and in the very Godhead and the Creating Essence there is one inseparable and eternal plurality.”
• 此觀點認同三一論, 但未引用聖經章節以支持之. 參(5), (6)和(7) 關於三為一體的討論.
(32) The Ryrie NASB Study Bible-NASB (Moody Publishers)
Plurals of majesty.
• 神說 “我們”, 指出有講者及聽者, 不像創1:3 的 “神說”. 此處神只說: “要有光”. 就有了光. 此處並沒用代名詞如 “我”, “我們”, “你”, “你們”, “他”, “他們”, “她” 和 “她們”.
(33) The Transformation Study Bible-NLT (David C. Cook)
The creation of the first man is seen as a very special occasion, for there’s a
“consultation” prior to the event. “Let us make human being in our image”
sounds like that conclusion of a divine deliberation among the persons of the Godhead. God couldn’t have been talking with the angels about his plans because angels weren’t made in God’s image (‘our image”), and angels had nothing to do with the creation of Adam.
• 關於三位一體 參(5), (6)和(7). 關於神的行像, 參(1).
(34) Discover God Study Bible-NLT (Tyndale House Publishers)
God refers to Himself in the plural, saying, “Let Us”. Through history, God has revealed Himself as God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit. God has always existed as these three persons. The New Testament writer Paul the apostle confirmed this truth： “For though (Christ) God created in the heavenly realms and on earth……. Everything was created through Him and for Him”（Colossians 1:16） In describing Jesus, John created everything through Him and nothing was created excerpt through Him” (John 1:2-3).
• 關於西1:15-16, 參(7). 約1:2-3曰:
約1:2 這道太初與神同在.
1:3 萬物是藉著他造的, 沒有一樣不是藉著他造的.
這裡是針對有血有肉的子說的, 並非指神另外有一個位格.

(35) NLT Study Bible-NLT (Tyndale House Publisher)
The plural us has inspired several explanations: (1) the Trinity; (2) the plural denote majesty; (3) a plural to show deliberation with the self; and (4) God speaking with his heavenly court of angels. The concept of the Trinity – one true God who exist eternally in three distinct persons --- was revealed at a latter stage in redemptive history, making it unlikely that the human author intended that here. Hebrew scholars generally dismiss the plural of majesty vies because the grammar does not clearly support it (the plural of majesty has not been demonstrated to be communicated purely through a plural verb). The plural of self-deliberation also lacks evidence; the only clear examples unity (e.g., 2 Sam 24:14). God’s speaking to the heavenly court, however, is well-attested in the OT (see 3:2; 11:7; 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1: 6-12; 2:1-6; 38:7; Ps 89:5-6; Isa 6:1-8; Dan 10:12-13).
• 三一神論 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 神的威嚴, 參(3), (5)和(32). 神的天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22).
(36) Life Application Study Bible-NLT (Tydale House Publishers)
Why does God use the plural form, “Let us make people in our image” ? One vies says this is a reference to the Trinity --- God the Father, Jesus Christ his Son, and the Holy Spirit --- all of whom are God. Another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. Kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking to themselves From Job 33-4 and Psalm 104:30, we do know that God’s Spirit was present in the creation. From Colossians 1:16 we know that Christ, God’s Son, was at work in the creation.
• 三一神論 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 神的天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(37) The Open Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
Unity of the Trinity --- Historically other monotheistic religions have accused Christian of worshiping three Gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Early and medieval Judaism, for instance, just could not conceive of any theological explanation that vindicated Christianity of the change of polytheism.
Christians always have affirmed the great monotheistic statements of the OT (Deut 4:35; 6:4; Is 44:6-20; Zech 14:9). Christian theologians also have wrestled through the centuries with how to express the unity of God’s Being while recognizing distinctions among the tree Persons interacting and fellowshipping within Him. The early church fathers spoke of one divine essence or substance that could not be divided . Within that one essence are three personal distinctions: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No one has improved on that description.
The NT, which teaches the deity of Father (John 6:27), Son (John 1:1; 20:28), and Holy Spirit（Acts 5:3, 4）, also stresses the unity of God (Mark 12:29-32; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; 1 Tim. 2:5). The mystery of the Trinity should remind us that when we contemplate the nature of God we reach the limit of finite human understanding. At the same time, the complexity of human personality, which somehow reflects the divine personality, should cause us not to be surprised by how multifaceted He is.
• 三一論, 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 茲將支持三一論章節下列:
約6:27 不要為那必壞的食物勞力, 要為那存到永生的食物勞力, 就是人子要賜給你們的, 因為人子是神所印證的.
此處只指出子和神, 並非說子是神的其中一個位格.
約 1:1 太初有道, 道與神同在, 道就是神.
約翰的意思是指道成肉身之子, 其實在太初就已經存在了. 神永遠的存在, 這個有血有肉的子原本也是這樣. 使徒們所摸到看到的子, 其實就是神本身. 總之, 1:1是針對子或道本身而言, 而非指神或神的位格.
約20:28 多馬說 我的主 我的神
這裡只說主是神, 根本談不上誰是誰的位格.
徒 5:3 彼得說: “亞拿尼亞, 為甚麼撒但充滿了你的心? 叫你欺哄聖靈, 把田地的價銀私自留下幾份呢?
徒 5:4 田地還沒有賣, 不是你自己的嗎? 既賣了, 價銀不是你作主嗎? 你怎麼心裡起這意念呢? 你不是欺哄人, 是欺哄神了!
徒5:4 的 “神”是否可以解作徒5:3之 “聖靈＂? 到底亞拿尼亞欺哄的, 是聖靈這一位格, 還是擁有三個位格的神? 當聖經用 “神＂ 這個字時, 是指全部三個位格, 還是只指 “父神＂ 或 “聖靈神＂ 或 “子神＂? 或可以指任何一個位格, 或任何兩個位格？ 三一論者必須給 “神＂ 和 “位格＂下定義及解釋兩者之間的關係..
可12:29 耶穌回答說: “第一要緊的就是說, 以色列啊! 你要聽 主--- 我們神是獨一的主.
可12:30: 你要盡心, 盡性, 盡意, 盡力愛主 --- 你的神.
可12:31 : 其次就是說: ‘要愛人如己’, 再沒有比這兩條誡命更大了.”
可12:32 : 那文士對耶穌說: “夫子說, 神是一位, 實在不錯. 除了他以外, 再沒有別的神.
約20:28 多馬說: “我的主! 我的神!” 可12:31之 “你要盡心, 盡性, 盡意, 盡力愛主 ---你的神”, 前者的 “神” 告訴我們 “主” 只是子這一位格的神. 後者的 “神”, 告訴我們 “主” 是三個位格的 “神”. 現在問題來了, “主” 是指神的三個位格, 還是其中一或兩個位格的神? 有沒有指著聖靈為 “主” 的呢? 三一論必須給 “主” 下個定義.
林前8:4 論到吃祭偶像之物, 我們知道偶像在世上算不得甚麼, 也知道神只有一位, 再沒有別的神.
林前8:5 雖有稱為神的, 或在天, 或在地, 就如那許多的神, 許多的主.
林前8:6 然而我們只有一位神, 就是父 --- 萬物都本於他, 我們也歸於他 --- 並有一位主, 就是耶穌基督 --- 萬物都是藉著他有的. 我們也是藉著他有的.
約17:3 認識你 --- 獨一的真神, 並且認識你所差來的耶穌基督, 這就是永生.
提前2:8 因位只有一位神, 在神和人中間, 只有一位中保, 乃是降世為人的基督耶穌.
按照三一論, 三個位格平等, 只是次序不同而已. 但上述經文只有父和子, 缺少了聖靈, 這又該作何解呢? 顯然的, 三一論者東湊西湊, 把幾處經文湊在一起, 以証明三一論. 像(5)所說的, 最接近三一論的經文只有一處: 即太28:19. 但此處只說三位一名, 而非三位一軆.
約3:13曰: 除了從天降下仍舊在天的人子, 沒有人升過天. 這說明父子是原為一的. 因救恩工作, 才有道成肉身, 才有父子聖靈之分. 無論是在天上的父, 降世為人的人子, 或住在人裡面的聖靈, 我們只能說 “他們” 原是一位神, 不能說 “他們” 是三個位格.
(38) The Scofield Study Bible-KJV (Oxford University Press Inc.)
The revealed fact is: that man was made in the “image and likeness” of God. This “image” is found chiefly in man’s tri-unity, and in his moral nature. Man is “spirit and soul and body” (1 Thes. 5:23). “spirit” is that part of man which “knows” (1 Cor. 2:11), and which allies him to the spiritual creation and give him God-consciousness. “soul” in itself implies self-conscious life, as distinguished from plants, which have unconscious life. In that sense animals also have “soul”. But the “soul” of man has a vaster content than “soul” as applied to beast life. It is the seat of his emotions, desires, affections (Psa. 42:1-6). The “heart” is, in scripture usage, nearly synonymous with “soul”. Because the natural man is, in characteristically, the or psychical man, “soul” is often used as synonymous with the individual. The body , separable from spirit and soul and susceptible to death, is nevertheless an integral part of man, as the resurrection shows (John 5:28-29; 1 Cor. 15:47-50; Rev. 20:11-13). It is the seat of the senses (the means by which the spirit and soul have world-consciousness) and or the fallen Adamic nature (Rom 7:23-24).
• 此注釋認同三一論, 並以人之靈, 魂和體的 “形像”來証明神的 “形像” 所引用的經文如下:
帖前 5:23 願賜平安的神親自使你們全然成聖, 又願你們的靈 魂與身子得蒙保守, 在我主耶穌基督降臨的時候, 完全無可指摘.
林前 2:11 除了在人裡頭的靈, 誰知道人的事? 像這樣, 除了神的靈, 也沒有人知道神的事.
創2:17 耶和華神用地上的塵土造人, 將生氣吹在他鼻孔裡, 他就成了有靈的活人, 名叫亞當.
詩 42:1 神啊! 我的心切慕你, 如鹿切慕溪水.
詩 42:2 我的心渴想神, 就是永生神, 我幾時得朝見神呢?
詩 42:3 我晝夜以眼淚當飲食, 人不住地對我說: “你的神在哪裡呢?”
詩 42:4 我從前與眾人同住, 用歡呼稱讚的聲音領他們到神的殿裡, 大家守節. 我追想這事我的心極其悲傷.
詩 42:5 我的心哪! 你為何憂悶? 為何在我裡面煩躁? 應當仰望神, 因他笑臉幫助我.. 我還要稱讚他.
詩 42:6 我的神啊! 我的心在我裡面憂悶. 所以我從約但地, 從黑門嶺, 從米薩山記念你.
林前15:50 弟兄們, 我告訴你們說, 血肉之體不能承受神的國. 必朽壞的不能承受不朽壞的.
啟20:11 我又看見一個白色的大寶座在上面的; 從他面前天地都逃避, 再無可見之處了.
啟20:12 我又看見死了的人, 無論大小, 都站在寶座前. 案卷展開了, 並且另有一卷展開, 就是生命冊. 死了的人都憑著這些案卷所記載的, 照他們所行的受審判.
啟20:13 於是海交出其中的死人, 死亡和陰間也交出其中的死人, 他們都照各人所行的受審判.
羅7:23 但我覺得肢體中另有個律和我心中的律交戰, 把我擄去, 叫我從那肢體中犯罪的律.
羅7:24 我真是苦啊! 誰能就我脫離這取死的身體?
從上述經文, 可知此註釋者証明人有靈, 魂, 體. 但他們是會分開的, 這已違反了三一論所說的永恆性. 下列經文可證之:
創3:19 你必汗滿面才得糊口, 直到你歸了土. 因為你是從土而出的, 你本是塵土, 仍要歸於塵土.
伯34:14 他若專心為己, 將靈和氣收歸自己.
路24:37 他們卻驚慌害怕, 以為所看見的是魂.
路34:39 你們看我的手, 我的腳, 就知道實在是我了. 摸我看看, 魂無骨無肉. 你們看, 我是有的.
太10:28 那殺身體, 不能殺靈魂的, 不要怕他們. 惟有能把身體和靈魂都滅在地狱裡的, 正要怕他.
路16:23 他在陰間受痛苦, 舉目遠遠地望見亞伯拉罕, 又見拉撒路在他懷裡.
路23:43 耶穌對他說: “我實在告訴你, 今日你要同我在樂園裡了.”
彼前1:9 並且得著你們信心的果效, 就是靈魂的救恩.
由此可知, 人死後靈歸神, 體歸塵土, 魂則下陰間或樂園等候審判.
(39) The King James Study Bible –KJV (Thomas Nelson Publisher)
The plural pronoun us it most likely a majestic plural from the standpoint of Hebrew grammar and syntax.
• 神以他的威嚴說話, 自然符合聖經(參謀(3)). 但問題是神講話的對象是誰呢? (參((3)和32))
(40) New Bible Commentary (Inter-Varsity Press)
Here God is pictured talking to the angels, the only allusion to other supernatural beings in this chapter. This remark implies that man is like both God and the angels (Traditionally, Christians have seen us and our to allude legitimate fuller interpretation, it is not the words’ primary meaning).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(41) Key Word Study Bible-KJV (AMG Publishers)
When plural pronouns are used, “Let us make man in our image after our likeness”, does it denote a plural number or the concept of excellence or majesty which may be indicated in such a way in Hebrew? Could God be speaking to the angels; the earth, or nature thus denoting Himself in relation to one of these? Or is this a germinal hint of a distinction the divine personality? One cannot be certain. Until Jesus came, the essential (internal) unity of the Godhead was not understood to a great extent, though it was intimated (is. 48:16).
• 此註釋認同三位一體, 其支持乃賽48:16: 你們要就近來我聽這
話, 我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話. 耶和華差我和他的靈來. 此節不能支持三一論. 因為被差遣的 “我” 是指以賽亞, 也就是說, 這邊只提到 “耶和華” 和 “他的靈”, 沒有跡象顯示子也在那裡.
(42) The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible-NIV (AMG Publishers)
The Hebrews word translated “God” is elohiym [466], a plural noun. In verse 26, it is used with a plural verb (“let us make”) and a plural suffix (“in our image, in our likeness”). In verse 27, however, it is used three times with a singular verb (bara [1343], “created”, the same singular verb which appears in verse 1. The essential internal unity of the Trinity was not understood to a great extent until Jesus came to earth (Jn 1:14, 18; 10:30; 14:9), though it was intimated in the Old Testament (Isa 48:16).
• 此書作者任同三一論, 其引用經文如下:
約1:14 道成了肉身, 住在我們中間, 充充滿滿地有恩典有真理, 我們也見過他的榮光.
此處的重點是 “道成肉身”. 綜觀約1:1-3, 約翰的意思是說這個有血有肉的子或道, 其實就是神. 也就是說, 神降世為子, 神成為有所限制的子, 並非表示天上已沒有神了. 這話是針對道或子而說的, 絕對不是說除了神之外, 還有另一個子的位格.
約1:18 從來沒有人看見神, 只有在父懷裡的獨生子將他表明出來 .
神是靈(約4:24), 故人看不到他. 現在無所不知, 無所不在及無所不能的神, 謙卑降為被時空限制的子, 讓人可以看見. 所以來1:3曰: 他是神榮耀所發的光輝, 是神本體的真像. 這個神的本體, 並非是指神的第二個位格. 約一3:2曰: 親愛的弟兄啊 我們現在是神的兒女. 將來如何, 還未顯明. 但我們知道, 主若顯現, 我們必要像他, 因為必得見他的真體. 這再次証明 “主” 是能看見的神的真體. 這裡沒談到聖靈.
約10:30 我與父原為一.
由於無限的神變為地上有限的 “神人”, 並非表示在天上沒有了神. 在天上的為父, 降在地上的為子. 就這角度來看, 我 (主) 的確與父為一. 這裡也沒談到聖靈..
約14:9 耶穌對他說: “腓力, 我與你們同在這麼久, 你還不認識我嗎 ? 人看見了我, 就是看見了父. 你怎麼說: “將父顯給我們看呢?”
神道成肉身, 我們才能看見神的面貌. 子就是人看得見的神(父). 當時門徒們還不清楚, 以為另外還有個父. 三一論就是陷入此圈套, 把父與子分開, 說是神的兩個位格.
賽48:16 你們要就近我來聽這話: “我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話. 自從有這事, 我就在那裡.” 現在, 主耶和華差遣我和他的靈來.
從 “我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話 自從有這事 我就在那裡”這一句話是第14章的 “耶和華”說的, 而 “現在 主耶和華差遣我和他的靈來”這一句話是以賽亞說的. 也就是說 “我” 是指以賽亞本身.根據三一論, 耶和華的靈是指聖靈, 再加上耶和華本身, 只有兩位而已 ,缺少了子.
(43) The Expositor’s Bible Commentary-Genesis-Leviticus (Zondervan)
There have been many attempts to explain the plural forms: “Let us make [nacaseh] in our image [besalmenu], in our likeness [kidmutenu] . “Westermann, 1:144-45, summarizes the explanations given for the use of plurals under four headings : (1) the plural is a reference to the Trinity; (2) the plural is a reference to God and the heavenly court of angels; (3) the plural is an attempt to avoid the idea of an immediate resemblance on God’s part while setting out to create humankind; (4) the plural is an explanation of deliberation on God’s part while setting out to create humankind.
The singulars in v.27 (besalmo, “in his own image”) and （beselem elohim, “in the image of God”; cf. 5:1） rule out the second explanation (i.e., that the plural refers to a heavenly court of angels), since in the immediate context human are said to be created “in his image”, with no mention made of humans being made in the image of the angels. To this the author adds a further qualification that God humankind “in the image of God”. This seems to be an intentional refutation of the notion that the plurals in v.26 refer to the angels.
The third and fourth explanations are both possible within the context, but neither explanation is specifically supported by the context. It is not convincing to point to 11:7 in support of the notion of deliberation, since the use of the plural in that passage is motivated by the chiastic wordplay between the words nabelah (“let us confuse,” 11:7) and nilbena (“let us make, “ 11:3; see J.P. Fokkemann, Narrative Art in Genesis [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975]). Where we do not find unequivocal deliberation (as in 18:17). It is not the plural that is used but the singular : “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?” As Wetermann has stated, the first explanation is “a dogmatic judgment,” though we could add that it is not a judgment that runs confer to the passage itself. However, if we seek an answer from the immediate context, we should turn to the following verse(s) for additional clues.
In v.27 it is stated twice that humankind was created [bara] “male and female”. The same pattern is found in Genesis 5:1-2: “when God created [bara] man …. He created [bara] them male and female”. The singular “man [adam] is create as a plurality, “male and female” [zakar uneqeba]. In a similar way the one God [waggomen elohim, “And God said] create humanity through an expression of plurality [naaseh adam besalemu, “Let us make man in our image”]. Following this clue, the device plurality of persons expressed in v.26 can be seen as an anticipation of the human plurality of persons reflected in man and woman, thus casting human personal relationship in the role of reflecting God’s own personhood.
Could anything be more obvious than to conclude from this clear indication that the image and likeness of the being created by God signifies existence on conjunction of man and man which is that of male and female, and then to go on to ask against this background in what the original and prototype of the device existence of the Creator consist? (K/ Barth, Church Dogmatics3/1 [New York: Scriber, 1956], 195).
• 此註釋者提出四個可能性 (i)三位一體 ,參(5), (6), (7), (34), (37),
(38 ), (41)和(42). (ii) 天庭中的使者 參(1), (2), (9), (11), (12), (15), (22)和(32). (iii) 神的威嚴和慎重的宣佈, 參(3). (iv)神與人隔離, 參(8). 其支持章節如下:
創5:1 亞當的後代記下面 (當神造人[單數]的日子, 是照著自己的樣式造的,
創5:2 並且造男造女. 在他們(復數)被造的日子, 神賜福給他們, 稱他們為 “人”)
單數的人(亞當), 被造成復數的男女. 所謂的造男造女, 是男先女後. 換句話說, 單數的神造單數的男人, 單數的神造單數的女人. 這也就是說, 單數的神, 創造復數的男女. 所以 1:26可視為神預知要造男造女. 所以摩西以復數的 “我們” 來表示將要創造 復數的男女. 但問題是, “我們要造著我們的形像, 按著我們的樣式造人……”是跟誰說呢? 此解釋只說 “我們”的 來源而已.
(44) Genesis A Commentary (Zondervan)
See also 3:22; 11:7. Various references have been suggested for the “us”. The traditional Christian interpretation, that it represents a plurality within deity, has some textual support and satisfies the Christian theology of the Trinity (John 1:3; Eph. 3:9; Col 1:16: Heb. 1:2). God is a plurality is supported by the mention of the spirit of God in 1:2 and the fact that the image itself is a plurality. This interpretation would also explain the shifts in the text between the singular and plural. The primary difficulty with this view is that the other four uses of the plural pronoun with reference to God (3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8) do not seem to refer to the Trinity. The explanation that satisfies all such uses of the pronoun is that God is addressing the angels or heavenly court (cf. 1 Kings 22:19-22; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1-3; 89:5-6; Isa 6:8; 40:1-6; Dan. 10:12-13; Luke 2:8-14). It seems that in the four occurrence of the pronoun “us” for God, God refers to “us” when human beings are impinging on the heavenly realm and he is deciding their fate. In Gen 3:22, God sees that human beings have grasped the knowledge of good and evil and have become like divine beings. In Genesis 11 the heavenly court comes down to see what the earth-bound are building to attain the heavenly space. In Isa. 6:8, God is clearly addressing the heavenly court, which the prophet in his vision has entered. It is not surprising that God would address the heavenly court, since angels play a prominent role in Scripture (e.g., Gen. ; Job 38:7; 1 Tim 3:16), and there is much commerce in Genesis between the angelic realm and human beings.
• 筆者完全同意此觀點.
(45) The NIV Genesis Application Commentary (Zondervan)
The use of the plural pronouns (“us” and “our”) on verse 26 has occasioned constant discussion among the commentators. The early church fathers considered them a reference to the Trinity, while the rabbis offered various grammatical explanations. In the last century, two other theories have arisen, which explain the plural as a vestige of polytheistic mythology of as a reference to a heavenly court. Thus, there are now three categories of explanation:
(i) Theological : The plurals are explained as an expression of plurality within the Godhead, either specifically of the Trinity or at least as a recognition of the two persons represented by the creator God (elohim) and the Holy Spirit of verse 2.
(ii) Grammatical : The plurals are explained as an expression of grammatical on rhetorical conventions, including self-deliberation, plural of majesty, and grammatically agreement with the plural elohim.
(iii) Cultural : The plurals are explained against the background of ancient Near Eastern culture.
We do not have space to consider each of these in the detail they deserve, but in the methodology and presupposition that lead the interpreter into one category or another. The grammatical is the easiest to dismiss since none of the cited conventions are attested with any consistency in Hebrew. The race instances in which they can be claimed generally have either other possible explanations or characteristics that differentiate them from the usage here.
The theological is probably the most popular in traditional circles, but it suffers when subjected to hermeneutical cross-examination. That is, if we ask what the Hebrew author and audience understood, any explanation assuming plurality in the Godhead is easily eliminated. If the interpreter wishes to bypass the human author with the claim that God’s intention is what is important, there are large obstacles to hurdle. If the divine intention is not conveyed by the human author, where is it conveyed? Certainly if the New Testament told us that the Trinity was referred to in this verse, we would have no trouble accepting that God’s intentions. But it is not enough for the New Testament simply to affirm that there is such a thing as the Trinity. That affirmation does not prove that the Trinity is referred to in Genesis 1:26. Without a specific New Testament, we have no authoritative basis for bypassing the human author.
Further commending the human author is the belief that the Old Testament audience also had an authoritative text being communicated to them. We cannot afford to approach the text with the question, “Which interpretation fits best with my belief?” We must ask what the plurals would have meant to the original audience. That leads us to the cultural category. One of the cultural options taken by interpreters is that the plurals are a vestige of polytheism. Unfortunately, they can only accommodate their view by means of many presuppositions concerning the derived nature of the text and the incompetence of a series of editors. Since most readers, like myself, are not persuaded in the least by those presupposition, we will simply set that option aside.
The other position informed by cultural background, the heavenly court option, is much more defensible in that the concept of a heavenly court can be shown to be current not only in the ancient worldview, but also in the biblical text (The clearest example is found in 1 Kings 22:19-22. Other references include God, usually members of the council assemble before God.) Thus, the belief in such a heavenly court does not need to be imported from general culture (though the evidence for it is extensive and clear); one needs only read the Bible. In the ancient Near East the heavenly court was a divine assembly made up of the chief gods of the pantheon. It was this group that made decisions and decreed destinies. In the Old Testament, the heavenly court is made up of angels, or more specifically, the “sons of God.” All that remains is to consider whether the details of the context are in accord with what we know of God and his heavenly court.
Some have objected that it denigrates God to suggest that he consults with angles about such matter (Isa 40:14). They point out, in addition, that it is contrary to biblical teaching to think of the angels being involved in creation or of people being in the image of angels. Careful reading, however, demonstrates that these objections cannot be sustained. (i) We must distinguish between consulting and discussing. God has no need to either consult or discuss with anyone (as Isa. 40:14 affirms). (ii) It is his prerogative, however, to discuss anything he wants with whomever he chooses (Gen 18:17-19). Such inclusion of the heavenly court in discussion does not in any sense necessitate that angles must than have been used as agents of creation. In Isaiah 6:8 the council’s decision is carried out by Yahweh alone. (iii) Finally, the idea that the image should be referred to as “our” image does not imply that humans are created in the image of angels; it is possible, though not necessary, that angles also share the dive image in their nature. The image of God differentiates people from animals, not from angels.
If them, we are going to link our interpretation to the sense that the Israelite audience would have understood (and methodologically I believe that is essential for maintaining the authority of the text), the heavenly court is the most defensible interpretation and poses no insuperable theological obstacle.
• 同(44).
最後 筆者再引用幾節經文來指出
(i) 天庭的存在
但 7:10 從他面前有火, 像河發出. 事奉他的有千千, 在他面前侍
立的有萬萬. 他坐著要行審判, 案卷都展開了.
詩89:6 在天空誰能比耶和華呢? 神的眾子中, 誰能像耶和華呢?
詩 89:7 他在聖者的會中, 是大有威嚴的神, 比一切在他四圍的
更可畏懼.
歷下 18:18 米該亞說: “你們要聽耶和華的話, 我看見耶和華坐
在寶座上 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右
啟 5:11 我又看見且聽見, 寶座與活物並長老的周圍有許多天使
的聲音, 他們的數目有千千萬萬.
但 4:35 世上所有的居民都算為虛無, 在天上的萬軍和世上的居
民中, 他都憑自己的意旨行事, 無人能攔住他手, 或問他
說, 你做甚麼呢?
(ii) 神使天使或人知其所欲行之事
摩 3:7 主耶和華若不將奧秘指示他的僕人 --- 眾先知, 就一無所
行.
詩 103:7 他使摩西知道他的法則, 叫以色列人曉得他的作為.
創 18:33 耶和華與亞伯拉罕說完了話就走了, 亞伯拉罕也回到
自己的地方去了.
(iii) 天使和人在天庭中讚美神
啟 7:11眾天使都站在寶座和眾長老並四活物的周圍, 在寶座前
面伏於地, 敬拜神.
詩 103:19 耶和華在天上立定寶座, 他的權柄統管萬有.
詩 103:20 聽從他命令, 成全他旨意, 有大能的天使, 都要稱頌耶
和華!
啟 5:13 我又聽見在天上, 地上, 地底下, 滄海裡, 和天地間一切
所有被造之物, 都說 : “但願頌讚, 尊貴, 榮耀, 權柄, 都
歸給坐寶 座的和羔羊, 直到永永遠遠.

他的故事

我第一次見到他時 ，覺得他很內向。 一群朋友在一起聊天， 大家有說有笑， 只有他一個人靜靜地坐在那兒， 一句話也沒說。 過後和朋友幾次相聚， 他給我的印象還是一樣， 就是那麼靜， 一聲也不發。 後來 見到一個與他非常熟悉的朋友， 一問之下， 原來他背後有着這樣的故事。
他出生于槟城 ，原籍福建惠安 。他祖父祖母原是中國人， 因逃避戰亂而遷至馬來半島。 據說他祖父祖母源自富有家庭， 因一路往南逃躲避戰亂，所有的家產也幾乎給耗盡了。
他父親企圖奮鬥創一番事業， 唯人算不如天算， 經過幾年的努力， 生意每況愈下， 如今已面臨關閉的厄運。 他母親來自富有家庭， 根本沒經歷過人生的坎坷路途。 如今家庭經濟陷入困境， 一時不知所措。 他父母面對此困境時， 除了怨天尤人， 就把一切希望放在他身上， 期望他將來能出人頭地， 幹一番大事業， 或成為一個專業人士。 就這樣的， 他只知道兩件事， 一是讀好書， 二是順從父母。
他上小學時， 因對家人不滿的情緒， 把它轉移至學校發洩了。 在家中， 他是一個乖孩子； 在學校， 卻是一個壞學生， 時常遭到老師的懲罰。 他小學六年的生涯就是這樣渡過的。
上中學後， 因他所讀的是名校， 個個都是成績非常好的學生。 相比之下， 他的成績就遜色得多了。 平時同學們瞧不起他的眼光， 校長和老師們的冷眼相待， 深深的烙印在他心中。
就這樣又過了六年， 中學生涯也結束了。 他勉強升上先修班， 轉入另一間學校就讀。 此時別人一聽到他是從名校轉來的， 甚麼學會的主席要職， 都要給他提名競選。 他終於嘗到當好學生的滋味了。 在家他是一個好孩子， 如今在校他也是一位好學生。 他從此更加努力讀書， 希望將來能出人頭地， 讓別人永遠看得起他。 他終於認清自己的目標； 這一目標， 也是他父母對他的期望。 他盡最大的能力朝這目標奮鬥。
終於， 政府考試成績放榜了。 他的成績出人意外的好， 連他父母也感到意外。 在申請大學時， 他選了一個最熱門的科系---會計系。 至于他是否對此系有興趣， 他自己也不清楚。 他只知道， 將來畢業後， 再加上幾年的工作經驗， 他就會成為一個專業人士。 他這一選擇， 不止有 “錢” 途， 也符合他父母對他的希望， 他的目標就快達到了。
一九九三年， 他畢業了。 一踏入社會工作， 才發覺到世界是那麼不完美。 同事們的勾心鬥角， 永遠不會止息。 單憑他這一張文憑， 要在這五花八門的社會立足， 還嫌不夠。 更甚的是， 他發覺到自己的興趣根本不在於這一行。 每天對着數目字的報告， 都給他看到眼花了。
他開始思索， 他讀書的目的是甚麼？ 是否因他小學和中學時時常被人看不起， 才努力把書讀好？ 是否要成為父母眼中的好孩子， 而選上他沒興趣的科系來讀？ 他的人生目標是甚麼？ 他一直在尋找答案。 難道他一生都是為了恢復他家族昔日腰纏萬貫的身份？
朋友們又見面了。 我看到他靜靜的坐在那邊， 若有所思似的。 我在想， 他是否還在尋找他人生的目標， 還在思索他的問題？ 或者是他的人生經歷， 家庭背景， 造成他這樣的孤僻？ 我走過去， 坐在他旁邊， 試圖找個話題， 好打破他的沉默。 沒想到， 他還是不出聲， 臉上只露出一個笑容來回應我。 我感覺到他那一笑， 不是內心喜樂所勾起的。 我覺得那是一個苦笑,一個無可奈何的笑容。

基督教初期世俗文獻佐證

早在18世紀，英國政治家Viscount Bolingbroke 就暗指耶穌可能從來沒有存在過。1791年 Volney在他的名著“帝國的廢墟”(Ruins of Empire) 中提出同樣的問題。 德國史學家 Ferdinand Christian 把耶穌描繪成神話虛構的人物。
筆者在此文中無意撰寫一篇護教文， 只想列出非基督徒著述關於基督教的資料。. 對於有關書籍作者的資料， 除非另有註明， 則一律引自《不列顛百科全書國際中文版》(中國大百科全書出版社)。 茲將所摘取資料列下∶
(1) 約瑟夫斯 Josephus， Flavius (公元37/38 – 約公元100)。 原名Joseph Ben Matthias， 猶太教士， 學者和歷史學家。 出生於耶路撒冷一個高級教士家庭， 成為法利赛人的一員， 出使羅馬時對羅馬的文化和軍事力量留下深刻的印象。 公元 66 – 公元70年， 猶太人反羅馬人起義中， 他終於加入羅馬一方。 他在韋斯巴蘭， 提圖斯和圖密善等皇帝的官廷， 都受到歡迎，. 寫了頗有價值的歷史著作。. 他的 《猶太戰爭史》 (公元79年), 對公元66 – 70年的大起義作了詳盡敘述， 對羅馬軍隊的戰術及戰略着墨甚多。. 《上古猶太史》 (公元93年)是他最偉大的著作， 追述了猶太教的歷史， 從猶太人的起源一直記錄到起義。 在 《對抗阿皮翁》 一書中， 他為保護猶太教而攻擊希臘文化。
在約瑟夫的 《 猶太古史》， 本文採用的是《約瑟夫著作精選》(北
京大學出版社)的資料。 在其文中， 有這樣的一段話∶
此時有一位智者，名叫耶穌。 他有佳美 行為， 並因自己的德行
而著稱。 在猶太人及其他民族中， 有許多人跟從耶穌， 做了他
的門徒。. 彼拉多將他定罪， 並把他釘死在十字架上。然而，那
些已經成為耶穌門徒的人， 並沒有因此而背棄自己門徒的身
份。他們宣稱說， 耶穌被釘死在十字架上的第三天向他們顯
現， 耶穌已經復活了。因此， 耶穌可能就是那位彌賽亞， 眾先
知已經就他做出了奇妙的預言。 而且那些因耶穌基督而得名的
基督徒們， 迄今為此，仍然還沒有消失。.此書譯者註角如下∶
這一記載是約瑟夫著作中最為著名的內容， 也是最有爭議
的內容. 《 猶太古史》18:63的標準文本如下∶
關於活在這一時代的耶穌， 他乃是一位智者 --- 假如確實
要將他稱為人的話。 因為他行了許多超乎尋常的事， 並
且他是那些凡樂意接受真理之人的教師。 他贏得了許多
猶太人及希臘人的尊重。 他是那位彌賽亞。 當他被我們
中間的重要人物控告並被彼拉多定罪釘死在十字架上
後， 從前熱愛他的人之所以沒有止息他的愛， 乃是因為

他在第三天復活之後向他們顯現， 因為神的先知已對這
些事及有關他的無事做了預言。 那些因他而得名的基督
徒， 直到現在還仍未消 失.。
盡管這段文字用詞是如此清晰， 正如優西比烏所寫的一樣(公元324
年)，. 但是學者們卻長期懷疑這是經基督徒篡改的赝品，
因為約瑟夫不可能相信耶穌是那位彌賽亞， 或者是相信他的復活而仍
是一位非基督徒的猶太人，但他確是這樣。 在1972年， 耶路撒冷希
伯來大學的斯庫羅摩潘恩(Shome Pines)教授， 宣佈他發現了一份10
世紀的莫爾凱特(Melkite)的歷史學家亞迦毗烏(Agapius)的阿拉伯文抄
本。 在這一抄本中， 約瑟夫的這段記載 乃是用一種適用於猶太人的
方式表述的。. 這段文字洽洽是與前面學者們的意見相呼應，即對約
瑟夫原來記載的內容作了修改， 變為上述這段文字的樣子。 然而，
最終的評判並非轉掌握在亞迦比毗烏的手中。 潘恩跟據這些充分的理
由， 得出這段文字確實存在於約瑟夫的記載之中。
我們來看另一英譯本 --- Josephus The Complete Work (Thomas
Nelson Publishers)∶
Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise men, if it be lawfull to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works --- a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among at us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribes of Christian, so name from him, are not extinct at this day.
據《重審耶穌》(海天書樓)， Edwin M. Yamachi 博士的看法∶
關於此事， 學術
界經歷過三個浪潮∶: (一)初期基督徒認為這應該是對耶穌和他的復活一個奇妙且完全可靠的証明。 (二) 18世紀歐洲啟矇蒙運動的時代， 整段文字至少為某些學者所懷疑。 (三)在猶太和基督徒學者之間有個共識， 那段文字， 整個說來是可靠的， 雖然可能有些後來插入的文字。例如， 文章第一句 寫道∶ “大約在這個時候， 出現了一位耶穌， 一個明智的人 ”。 基督徒應該不會稱耶穌為 “一個明智的人 ”， 所以這句話應是約瑟夫所寫的。 但下一句話， “如果你真能說他是人的話“暗示耶穌不只是人而已， 應是加插的文字。 文章繼續寫道∶ “應為他施行了使人驚訝的事， 並教導接受真理的人， 且贏得了猶太人和希臘人的心“，這似乎與約瑟夫在別的地方用字彙十分符合，故是出自他的手筆。 接著談到耶穌的受審和被釘， 過後們徒仍然愛他， 這也是真的。 不過接下去的一句話∶: “祂在死後第三天復活， 向他們顯現， 正如先知預言祂的復活， 以及許許多多有關祂的神蹟奇事 “， 應是加插的一句。最後一句話， 即“那些因他而得名的基督徒， 直到現在還仍未消失“， 也應是約瑟夫所寫的。
總結是約瑟夫的大意是∶: 耶穌是一個有智慧的宗教領袖， 並有好多跟隨者，盡管他被彼拉多在某些猶太人領袖的慫恿下釘死于十字架上， 以刪掉插入的詞句 文句就能一氣咳呵成 ∶
這時出現了一位名叫耶穌的智者，他行了很多奇事， 又是喜歡追求真理之人的導師。 他吸引了很多猶太人和外邦人來跟從他。 但彼拉多聽信我們一些領袖的建議而把他釘十字架。 那些由一開始便愛他的人，並沒有離棄他。那群以他的名字自居的基督徒黨派，至今還沒有絕跡。
除此之外，約瑟夫也在 《猶太古史》 中提到耶穌的兄弟雅各， 其文如下∶
因為品行如此， 小亞拿認為 ，現在非斯都死了， 而阿爾比諾
又正在路上， 這對他來說真是一合適的機會。 於是小亞拿
便召集最高議會的審判官開會， 將稱為基督的耶穌的兄弟雅各及其他人帶到他們面前。 小亞拿指控他們違反了律法 ，並命令將他們交付給人用石頭打死。
“將稱為基督的” 指的是耶穌， 同時也暗示出約瑟夫不相信耶穌為基
督。 因 此，此段話應是約瑟夫所寫的。 如果他相信耶穌的話， 他大可寫 “將那耶穌
基督的兄弟雅各“
(2) 塔西陀 Tacitus ( 公元56? – 120?)， 拉丁語為Publius Cornelius Tacitus。 羅馬演說家和高級官員， 學習過修辭學， 從一個低級的地方行政官員開始其政途， 最終成為亞洲總督， 當時最高的省及行政長官(112 – 113年)。 公元98年， 他寫了 《阿格里科拉傳》 和 《日耳曼尼亞志》。 前者是一本記錄他的岳父 不列顛總督事跡的傳記， 後者描寫的則是萊茵河上的羅馬邊境的居民。 他關於羅馬歷史的著作， 包括描寫帝國自公元69 – 96年間的《歷史》和後來寫成的描寫帝國自公元14 – 18年間羅馬帝國的 《編年史》。 後者有力地評價分析了他在 《歷史》 一書中所描述的羅馬政治自由的衰落。 兩部書都僅有部份尚存。 塔西陀或許是最偉大的歷史學家和最偉大的以拉丁文寫作的散文家之一。
在《編年史》(台灣商務印書館股份有限公司)15∶44如此說∶
以上就是在人謀慮所及的範圍內所作的預防措施， 繼而又設法採取
平息神怒的措施。 於是人們便向比拉預言請示， 根據預言書的指 示 ，對武爾卡努斯 ，凯列司和普洛西爾皮娜舉行公開的祈禱。 優諾也受到已婚的主婦們的慰解。地點起初是在卡披托島姆神殿， 後來是在離羅馬最近的一個沿海地點。 在那里人們把海水汲上來， 用於噴灑神願和女神的神像。 所有有夫之婦都要參加禮宴和整夜不眠， 但不居是人為措施 ，不拘是皇帝的慷慨增賜， 還是各種平息神的措施， 都不能使傳到外面去的醜聞平息下去， 更不能使人們不相信這次大火是故 意放起來的。因此尼祿為了闢謠， 便找一類人作替身的罪犯， 用各種殘 酷之極的手段懲罰他們。 這些人都因作惡多端而受到憎惡， 群眾則把這些人稱為基督徒。 他們的創始人基督， 在提貝里烏斯當政時期便被皇帝的代理官彭提烏斯彼拉图斯處死了。 這種有害的迷信雖一時受到抑制， 但是不僅是在猶太 即這一災害的發源地， 而且在首都本城(世界上所有可怕的或可恥的事情都集中在這里， 並且十分猖獗)，再度流行起來。起初 尼祿把那些自己承認為基督徒的人都逮捕起來， 繼而跟據他們的揭發， 又有大量的人被判了罪。 這與其說是因為他們放火， 不如説是由於他們對人類的憎恨。 他們在臨死時還遭到先訕笑。 他們被披上了野兽的皮，然後被狗撕裂而死， 或是他們被釘上十字架。在天黑一 候就被點着，當作黑夜照明的鐙火。 尼祿把自己的花園提供出來作為遊覽之所。 他還在他的竸技場舉行比賽， 他自己則穿著驭者的服裝，混在人群里或是站在他的馬車上。 儘管基督徒的罪行完全當得起這種殘酷的懲罰， 但他們依舊引起人們的憐憫， 因為他們覺得他們不是為着國家的利益 而是犧牲於一個人的残暴手段之下的。
(3) Lucian of Samosata 撒摩撒他的路迦諾 (約公元130 – 180後)。 希臘語作Lucianos，. 拉丁語Lucianes。 古希臘修辭專家， 小冊子作家和讽刺作家。 年輕時在小亞細亞西部旅行期間接受希臘文化教育， 後來成為一個受歡迎的演說家， 之後轉上寫作。 他的作品充滿辛辣讽刺的智慧， 對當時的文學， 哲學和智識分子階層的虛偽和愚蠢作了巧妙而深刻的批判。 在 《卡隆》，《 冥間對話》，《 真時歷史》 和 《尼格里努斯》等作品里， 他對人類的幾乎每個方面都作了諷刺。 他在文學評論方面最好的作品是 《怎樣寫歷史》。
關於他的資料 則摘自Lucian Selected Dialogues（Oxford University
Press Inc.,New York）。
在其中一篇題為The Death of Peregrinus， 他如此寫到∶
That was when he learnt the remarkable wisdom of the Christian, by
getting to know their priests and scribes in Palestine, And –
naturally – in a short time he made them look like children, being
himself prophet, fraternity-leader, convener of synagogues, all in one
person. Some of their books he interpreted and expounded, and many
he wrote himself; they honored him as a god, employed him as a
lawgiver, and entitled him a protector, though naturally coming after
him whom they still worship --- the man who was crucified in
Palestine for introducing this new cult into the world.
Then to be sure Proteus was arrested for his activity and put in prison,
and this in itself won him no little reputation for his subsequent
career, and the miracle-working and thirst for renown that possessed
him. Well, the Christian regarded his imprisonment as a disaster and
did everything they could to rescue him. Then, when this proved
impossible, they showed every other form of care towards him, not
just casually but in real earnest. From early dawn you could see
elderly widows and orphan children waiting by the prison, while
officials of the Christian even bribed the guards and slept inside with
him. Again, elaborate meals were taken in, their sacred books were
read to him, and our excellent Peregrinus, which was still his name,
was called by the “the new Socrates”. Indeed, people arrived even
from the cities of Asia, sent by the Christians and paid for out of
their joy funds, in order to help, defend, and encourage the man. They
move with extraordinary swiftness when any such corporate action is
undertaken, and at a moment’s, notice they spend their all. Well, at
that time too they sent a lot of money to Peregrinus on the occasion
of his imprisonment, fromwhich he derived no small income. The
book fools have persuaded themselves above all that they are
immortal and will live forever, from which it follows that they
despise death and many of them willingly undergo imprisonment.
Moreover, their first lawgiver taught them that they are all brothers of
one another, when once they have sinned by denying the Greek gods,
and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living
according to his laws. So they despise all things equally and regard
them as common property, accepting such teaching without any sort
of clear proof. Accordingly, if any quack or trickster, who can press
his advantage, comes among them, he can acquire great wealth in a
very short time by imposing on simple-minded people.
另一段則如此說到∶So he went forth a second time on his wanderings, being adequately funded by the Christians, and under their patronage he lived in clover. For a time he supported himself like that; but then he managed to transgress even one of their laws --- I think he was seen eating some food forbidden among them --- and as he was no longer accepted by them and in dire straits, he thought he’d better recant and demand his property back from the city. He submitted a formal request and expected he would recovered it by the emperor’s orders. But then the city made counter --- representations, and he lost his
claim and was told to stick to what he had once for all decided under
compulsion from nobody.
(4) Pliny the Younger (公元61/62 --- 113?)。 拉丁語作Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus。 古羅馬作家和行政官， 普林尼(老)的侄子。 曾當過律師並任公職， 包括執政官， 軍事首領和元老院的財務官。 他以9卷出版于公元100 --- 109年的私人信札集出名。 這種特別細心寫成的信札在當時是富人的一種風尚， 但普林尼將其演變為一種藝術形式。他的信札包括文學的， 社會的和民主的不同主題。 寫時都經過認真推敲， 詳細描繪了羅馬帝國全盛時期的社會與各人生活。
有關資料摘自The Letters of Pliny the Younger(Bibliobazaar)一書， 是
作者致函給他雅奴(Trajan)如下∶
It is my invariable rule, Sir, t o refer to you in all matters where I feel
doubtful; for who is more capable of removing my scruples, or
informing my ignorance. Having never been present at any trials
concerning those who profess Christianity. I am unacquainted not
only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their
punishment, but now far it is proper to enter into an examination
concerning them. Whether, therefore, any difference is usually made
with respect to ages, or no distinction is to be observed between the
young and the adult; whether repentance entitles them to a pardon; of
if a man has been once a Christian, it avail nothing to desist from his
error; whether the very profession of Christianity; unattended with
any criminal act, or only the crimes themselves inherent in the
profession are perishable; on all these point I am in great doubt. In
the meanwhile, the method I have observed towards those who have
been brought before me as Christians is this: I asked them whether
they were Christians; if they admitted it, I repeated the question
twice, and threatened them with punishment; if they persisted, I
ordered them to be at once punished; for I was persuade, whatever the
nature of their opinions might be, a contumacious and inflexible
obstinacy certainly deserved correction. There were others also
brought before me possessed with the same infatuation, but being
Roman citizens, I directed them to be sent to Rome. But this crime
spreading (as is usually the case) while it was actually under
prosecution, several instances of the same nature occurred. An
anonymous information was laid before me containing a charge
against several persons, who upon examination denied they were
Christians, or had ever been so. There repeated after me an
invocation to the gods, and offered religious rites with wine and
incense before your statue (which for that purpose I had
ordered to be brought together with those of the gods), and even
reviled the name of Christ.whereas there is no forcing, it is said,
those who are really Christians into any of these compliances: I
thought it proper, therefore, to discharge them. Some among these
who were accused by a witness in person at first confessed themselves
Christians, but immediately after denied it; the rest owned indeed
that they had been of that number formerly, but had now (same above
three, others more, and a few above twenty years ago) renounced that
error. They all worshipped your statue and the images of the gods,
uttering imprecations at the same time against the name of Christ.
They affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they
met on a stated day before it was light, and addressed a form of prayer
to Christ, as to a divinity, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not
for the purposes of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud,
theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when
they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their
custom to separate, and then reassemble, to eat in common a harmless
meal. From the custom, however, they desisted after the publication of
my edict, by which, according to your commands, I forbade the
meeting of any assemblies. After receiving this account, I judge it so
much the more necessary to endeavor to extort the real truth, by
putting two female slave to the torture, who were said to officiate’ in
their religious rites; but all I could discover was evidence of an absurd
and extravagant superstition, I deemed it expedient, therefore to
adjourn all further proceedings, in order to consult you. For it appears
to be a matter highly deserving your consideration, more especially as
great numbers must be involved in the danger of these prosecution,
which have already extended, and are still likely to extend, to persons
of all ranks and ages, and even of box sexes. In fear, this contagious
superstition is not confined to the cities only, but has spread its
infection among the neighbouring villages and country. Nevetheless, it
still seems possible to retrain it progress. The temples, at least, which
were once almost deserted, begin now to be frequented; and the sacred
rites, after a long intermission, are again revived; while there is a
general demand for the victims, which till lately found very few
purchasers. From all this it is easy to conjecture what numbers might
be reclaimed if a general pardon were granted to these who shall
repent of their error.
他雅奴 (Trajan) 的回涵則如下:
You have adopted the right course, my dearest Secundtis, in
investigating the charges against the Christians who were brought
before you. It is not possible to lay down any general rule for all such
cases. Do not go out of your way to look for them, if indeed they
should brought before you, and the crime is proved, they must be
punished; with the restriction, however, that were the party denies he is
a Christian, and shall make it evident that he is not, by invoking our
gods, let him (notwithstanding any former suspicion) be pardoned upon
his repentance. Anonymous information ought not to be received in any
sort of prosecution. It is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and is
quite foreign to the spirit or our age.

(5) 蘇埃托尼烏斯 Suetonius (69? --- 122年以後)。 拉丁語作Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus， 羅馬傳紀作家和文物收藏家。 出身騎士階層， 他的作品包括一部簡短的文學人物傳記 ，《名人論》， 現今人們所知有關古羅馬著名作家生平的情況幾乎全出自該書。 《 諸凱撒生平》 是他的另一部重要作品， 記錄了最初11位皇帝生活的流言傳聞， 生動描寫了羅馬社會生活和頹廢的領導人， 這些資料主宰了人們對該段歷史的看法 一直到現代通過非文學證據的考證才得已修正。
茲將The Twelve Caesars (Penguin Group)的資料下列∶
It now became illegal for non-citizens to adopt the names of Roman
families, and any who usurped the rights of Roman citizens were
executed on the slopes of the Esquiline Hill. Tiberius had transferred
the provinces of Achaia and Macedonia to his own jurisdiction;
Claudius restored them to the Senate. He deprived the Lycians of self-
governance to punish their love of savage vendettas, but restored that
of the Rhodians to express his pleasure at their recent moral
improvement. In granting the Trojans, as founders of the Roman race,
perpetual exemption from tribute, he supported his act by reading aloud
an ancient letter written in Greek to King Seleucus from the Senate and
People of Rome, with a promise of loyal friendship on condition that
Seleucus should ‘keep their Trojan kinsfolk free from all imposts’.
Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the
instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city. When the
German envoys first visited the theatre, they were seated among the
common people, but, noticing the Parthian and Armenian envoys
seated with the Senators in the orchestra, went to join them – were they
not just as brave and nobly born? Claudius admired their simple
confidence and let them remain there. Augustus had been content to
prohibit any Roman citizen in Gaul from taking parting in the savage
and terrible Druidic cult; Claudius abolished it altogether. On the other
hand, he attempted to transfer the Eleusinian Mysteries from Athens to
Rome, and had the ruined temple of Venus on Mount Eryx in Sicily
restored at the expense of the public treasury. Whenever he concluded
a treaty with foreign rulers, he sacrificed a sow in the Forum, using the
ancient formula of the Fetial priest. Yet all these acts, and others like
them – indeed, one might say everything that Claudius did throughout
his reign – were dictated by his wives and freedmen: he practically
always obeyed their whims rather than his own judgement.
(6) Mara Bar-Serapion ,資料摘自Wilipedia.. A stoic philosopher from Syria, is by some believed to be the provider of one of the earliest non-Jewish, non-Christian references to Jesus. His letter, first edited in the nineteenth century by William Cureton, has been dated to sometime after 73 A.D., some 40 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. It could though have been written as late as in the third century. Writing from prison to encourage his son to pursue wisdom, he uses examples of Socrates, Pythagoras and a “wise king” who was executed by the Jews.
What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to
death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their
crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning
Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What
advantage did Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was
just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly
avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the
Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and
driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates
did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato.
Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera.
Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching
which he had given.
The British Museum preserves the text of this letter, which can be
interpreted as giving early evidence of a historical Jewish king fitting the
description of Jesus. Skeptics of Christianity, particularly to the historicity
of Jesus, argue that Bar-Serapion does not explicitly mention him by name
like Socrates and Pythagoras. In their estimation, this leaves doubt as to
the actual identity of this “wise king”. Historians and Christian apologists,
however, argue that the allusion to a “wise king”, specifically a Jew who
was Biblical references to Jesus as “King of the Jews” (Mt. 2:2; 27:11,
29,37; Mk. 15:2, 9, 12, 18, 26; Lk. 23:3, 37, 38, 51: Jn. 18:33, 36, 39: 19:3,
12, 14, 19, 21), as well as the chronology for the dates of the Crucifixion
(A.D.30), the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), and
immediate dispersion of the Jews, which are clearly mentioned by Bar-
Serapion.
(7) Babylonian Talmud (Evidence for Christianity; Nelson Reference & Electronic).
(a) The Crucifixion. In the Babylonian Talmud we read : “ It has been taught : On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for forty days (saying): ‘He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.’ But not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of Passover” (Sanhedrin 43a; cf. t. Sanh. 10:11; y. Sanh. 7:12; Tg. Esther 7:9). Another version of this text says, “Yeshu the Nazarene.”
“Yeshu” translates through Greek to English as “Jesus”, and the
reference to him being a Nazarene makes the link to Jesus Christ even
stronger.
Moreover, the word “hanged” is another way of referring to crucifixion
(see Luke 23:39; Gal. 3:13). “The Talmud,” writes the Jewish scholar
Joseph Klausner, “speaks of hanging in place of crucifixion, since this
horrible Roman form of death was only known to Jewish scholars from
Roman trials, and not from the Jewish legal system. Even Paul the
Apostle (Gal. iii.23) expounds the passage ‘for a curse of
God is that which is hanged’ (Deut. xxi. 23) as applicable to Jesus”
(Klausner, JN,28).
Also the reference that this crucifixion occurred “ on the eve of
Passover “ agrees with John 19:14 (phrase also found in b. Sanh. 67a; y.
Sanh. 7:16).
Therefore, this text clearly affirms the historicity of Jesus and His death.
It also affirms that the Jewish authorities were involved in the
sentencing, but it tries to justify their actions. In a backhanded way it
even attests to Jesus’ miracles(see also b. Sanh. 107b; t. Sabb. 11:15; b.
Sabb. 104b.; b. Sota 47a), but it attempts to explain them away as the
work of a sorcerer or magician, a response mentioned by the Gospel
writes (Mark 3:22; Matt. 9:34; 12:24) (Klausner, JN, 23).
Following this Jewish text appears a comment by the late third-century
Ammora, ‘Ulla, which states: “Would you believe that any defense
would have been so zealously sought for him? He was a deceiver, and
the All-merciful says: ‘You shall not spare him, neither shall you
conceal him.’ It was different with Jesus, for he was near to the
kingship .” This phrase --- “near to the kingship” --- may refer to Jesus’
genealogical descent from Israel’s King David, or it may denote Pilate’s
washing his hands before turning Jesus over to scourging and
crucifixion. (b) Jesus and His Disciples. In a later Talmudic passage on Jesus’
crucifixion comes a passage that asserts that “Yeshu had five
disciples –-- Mattai, Nakkai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah” (b. Sanh. 107b).
While “Mattai” may be a reference to Matthew, no one is sure that the
other names can be identified in the Gospel accounts. The claim that
Jesus had five disciples “could be explained by the fact that other
teachers in the Talmud, viz. Yohanan ben Zakkai and Akiba, are also
described as having five disciples or students” (McDowell/Wilson,
HWAU, 65). At any rate, one thing is sure: this text makes it clear that
the Jewish tradition accepts the fact that the rabbi Jesus did have
followers.
(c) Virgin Born? In the Talmud, the titles “Ben Pandera (or ‘Ben Pantere’)”
and “Jeshu ben Pandera” are used of Jesus. Many scholars say pandera
is a play on words, a travesty on the Greek word for virgin, which is
parthenos. The Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner says, “The Jews
constantly heard that the Christians (the majority of whom spoke Greek
from the earliest times) called Jesus by the name ‘Son of the
Virgin,’……and so, in mockery, they called him Ben ha-Pantera, i.e.,
‘son of the leopard’” (Klausner, JN, 23).
In another passage, the Babylonian Talmud states, “R. Shimeon ben
Azzai said [concerning Jesus]: ‘I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem
wherein was recorded, Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress’” (b.
Yebamoth 49a; m. Yebam. 4:13). In yet another passage we find, “His
mother was Miriam, a women’s hairdresser. As they say…..’this one
strayed from her husband’” (b. Sabb. 104b). In still another passage we
are told that Mary, “who was the descendant of princes and governors,
played the harlot with carpenters” (b. Sanh. 106a). This passage is, of
course, an attempted explanation for the Christian confession of Jesus’
virgin birth (see also b.Sabb.104b). “Princes and governors” may refer
to some of the names in Luke’s genealogy, which some of the church
fathers assigned as Mary’s ancestors back to King David (cf.
“Jesus…was near to kingship” in b. Sanh. 43a). The allusion to
“carpenters” is an obvious reference to Joseph (see also b. Sabb. 104b).
The argument goes like this: If Joseph was not Jesus’ father, then Mary
was impregnated by another man; therefore she was an adulteress and
Jesus was an illegitimate son. The New Testament records that the
scribes and Pharisees indirectly leveled this charge at Jesus (John 8:41).
Although the New Testament affirms that this charge is baseless, the
accusation does confirm that the Christian account of Jesus’ miraculous
birth was an early claim of the church that required a response. And
notice, the response did not include a denial of Jesus’ existence --- only
a different interpretation of His conception. As Klausner observes,
“Current editions of the Mishnah add: ‘To support the words of R.
Yehoshua’ (who, in the same Mishnah, says: What is a bastard?
Everyone whose parents are liable to death by the Beth Din). That Jesus
is here referred to seems to be beyond doubt” (Klausner, JN, 35).
(8) 有一點令筆者無法理解。 有一位作者名為Hendrik Willem Van Loon
(1882 – 1944)， 寫了一本書， 名為The Story of Mankind。 書中一篇 The Story of Joshua of Nazareth, whom the Greeks called Jesus, 如此寫道 (下文摘自 Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library):
In the autumn of the year of the city 783 (which would be 62 A.D., in our way of counting time) Ǽsculapius Cultellus, a Roman physician, wrote to his nephew who was with the army in Syria as follows:
My dear Nephew,
A few days ago I was called in to prescribe for a sick man named
Paul. He appeared to be a Roman citizen of Jewish parentage,
well educated and of agreeable manners. I had been told that he
was here in connection with a law-suit, an appeal from one of our
provincial courts, Caesarea or some such place in the eastern
Mediterranean. He had been described to me as a “wild and
violent” fellow who had been making speeches against the
People and against the Law. I found him very intelligent and of
great honesty.
A friend of mine who used to be with the army in Asia Minor
tells me that he heard something about him in Ephesus where he
was preaching sermons about a strange new God. I asked my
patient if this were true and whether he had told the people to
rebel against the will of our beloved Emperor. Paul answered me
that the Kingdom of which he had spoken was not of this world
and he added many strange utterance which I did not understand,
but which were probably due to his fever.
His personality made a great impression upon me and I was sorry
to hear that he was killed on the Ostian Road a few days ago.
Therefore I am writing this letter to you. When next you visit
Jerusalem, I want you to find out something about my friend Paul
and the strange Jewish prophet, who seems to have been his
teacher. Our slaves are getting much excited about this so-called
Messiah, and a few of them , who openly talked of the new
kingdom (whatever that means) have been crucified. I would like
to know the truth about all these rumours and I am
Your devoted Uncle,
Ǽsculapius Cultellus.
Six weeks later, Gladius Ensa, the nephew, a captain of the VII Gallic
Infantry, answered as follows:
My dear Uncle, I received your letter and I have obeyed your
instructions.Two weeks ago our brigade was sent to Jerusalem.
There have been several revolutions during the last century and
there is not much left of the old city. We have been here now for a
month and tomorrow we shall continue our march to Petra, where
there has been trouble with some of the Arab tribes.
I shall use this evening to answer your questions, but pray do not
expect a detailed report.
I have talked with most of the older men in this city but few have
been able to give me any definite information. A few days ago a
pedler came to the camp. I bought some of his olives and I asked
him whether he had ever heard of the famous Messiah who was
killed when he was young. He said that he remembered it very
clearly, because his father had taken him to Golgotha (a hill just
outside the city) to see the execution, and to show him what became
of the enemies of the laws of the people of Judea. He gave me
the address of one Joseph, who had been a personal friend of the
Messiah and told me that I had better go and see him if I wanted to
know more. This morning I went to call on Joseph. He was quite an
old man. He had been a fisherman on one of the fresh-water lakes.
His memory was clear, and from him at last I got a fairly definite
account of what had happened during the troublesome days before I
was born.
Tiberius, our great and glorious emperor, was on the throne, and an officer
of the name of Pontius Pilatus was governor of Judea and Samaria. Joseph
knew little about this Pilatus. He seemed to have been an honest enough
official who left a decent reputation as procurator of the province. In the
year 755 or 756 (Joseph had forgotten when) Pilatus was called to
Jerusalem on account of a riot. A certain young man (the son of a carpenter
of Nazareth) was said to be planning a revolution against the Roman
government. Strangely enough our own intelligence officers, who are
usually well informed, appear to have heard nothing about it, and when they
investigated the matter they reported that the carpenter was an excellent
citizen and that there was no reason to proceed against him. But the old-
fashioned leaders of the Jewish faith, according to Joseph, were much upset.
They greatly disliked his popularity with the masses of the poorer Hebrews.
The “Nazarene” (so they told Pilatus) had publicly claimed that a Greek or
a Roman or even a Philistine, who tried to live a decent and honourable life,
was quite as good as a Jew who spent his days studying the ancient laws of
Moses. Pilatus does not seemed to have been impressed by this argument,
but when the crowds around the temple threatened to lynch Jesus, and kill
all his followers, he decided to take the carpenter into custody to save his
life.
He does not appear to have understood the real nature of the quarrel.
Whenever he asked the Jewish priests to explain their grievances, they
shouted “heresy” and “treason” and got terribly excited. Finally, so Joseph
told me, Pilatus sent for Joshua (that was the name of the Nazarene, but the
Greeks who live in this part of the world always refer to him as Jesus) to
examine him personally. He talked to him for several hours. He asked him
about the “dangerous doctrines” which he was said to have preached on the
shores of the sea of Galilee. But Jesus answered that he never referred to
politics. He was not so much interested in the bodies of men as in Man’s
soul. He wanted all people to regard their neighbours as their brothers and
to love one single God, who was the father of all living beings.
Pilatus, who seems to have been well versed in the doctrines of the Stoics
and the other Greek philosophers, does not appear to have discovered
anything seditious in the talk of Jesus. According to my informant he made
another attempt to save the life of the kindly prophet. He kept putting the
execution off. Meanwhile the Jewish people, lashed into fury by their
priests, got frantic with rage. There had been many riots in Jerusalem before
this and there were only a few Roman soldiers within calling distance.
Reports were being sent to the Roman authorities in Caesarea that Pilatus
had “fallen a victim to the teachings of the Nazarene.” Petitions were being
circulated all through the city to have Pilatus recalled, because he was an
enemy of foreign subjects. To save the country from civil war, Pilatus
finally sacrificed his prisoner, Joshua, who behaved with great dignity and
who forgave all those who hated him. He was crucified amidst the howls
and the laughter of the Jerusalem mob.
That is what Joseph told me, with tears running down his old cheeks. I gave
him a gold piece when I left him, but he refused it and asked me to hand it
to one poorer than himself. I also asked him a few questions about your
friend Paul. He had known him slightly. He seems to have been a tent
maker who gave up his profession that he might preach the words of a
loving and forgiving God, who was so very different from that Jehovah of
whom the Jewish priests are telling us all the time. Afterwards, Paul
appears to have travelled much in Asia Minor and in Greece, telling the
slaves that they were all children of one loving Father and that happiness
awaits all, both rich and poor, who have tried to live honest lives and have
done good to those who were suffering and miserable.
I hope that I have answered your questions to your satisfaction. The whole
story seems very harmless to me as far as the safety of the state is
concerned. But then, we Roman never have been able to understand the
people of this province. I am sorry that they have killed your friend Paul. I
wish that I were at home again, and I am, as ever,
Your dutiful nephew,
GLADIUS ENSA.
如果上述一文屬真， 那可是一個有力的証明。 但筆者查考了4本護教學的書，即:
(a) Holman Quick Source Guide To Christian Apologetiices (Holman Reference, Nashville, Tennessee)；
(b) Charts of Apologetics and Christian Evidend (Zondervan)；
(c) Evidence for Christianity (Nelson Reference & Electronic) and
(d) 新鐵証待判 (福音証主恊會)，
全都沒有此紀錄。 如讀書有這方面的資料， 希望能和筆者分享。 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　(9) 最後還有關於非基督徒留下來的文章如下∶
(a) 本丟彼拉多夫人寄法勒維亞的一封信
(b) 比拉多向該撒提庇留奏明處死耶穌的事
(c) 迦瑪列給猶太人高等參議院的報告書
(d) 麥勒柯爾給猶太高等參議院的報告書
(e) 大祭司該亞法向猶太高等參議院遞交處死耶穌的申辯書記
(f) 大祭司該亞法的第二封申辯護書
(g) 希律遞交羅馬國議院的辯護書
(h) 希律安提帕特向羅馬國議院辯護他在伯利恆城所作的事
(i) 希律安提帕特向羅馬國議院辯護他殺害施洗約翰的事
　如讀者要進一步暸解這些書信， 可參考 《新約聖經流傳史略》 (拾珍出版
社)和《新約聖經六合一譯本 》(拾珍出版社)。

評"真耶穌教會的聖靈論"一文

對於 “真耶穌教會的聖靈論(書名為聖靈古今論----中華福音神學院出版社)一文之看法, 筆者有不同的意見, 茲將述之如下. 唯在提出筆者看法之前, 必須澄清一點. 以下所談的一切, 純粹是筆者的看法. 筆者並非也無權代表 “真耶穌教會” 或 “謝順道先生”發言, 筆者的看法也可能與他們不同.
該文如此說: 所不同於形態神格唯一論的是, 真耶穌教會更強調的是靈里的一致, 即聖靈才是三位中共通, 真實的一位. 子原來就是父(約14:9), 祂與父原為一(約10:30), 為要拯救人類而肉身顯現(約1:14;太1:18-21; 提前3:16). 聖靈是神的靈, 與父和子原為一, 並不是三位一體中 “第三位神聖的我”. 真耶穌教會若改稱為真聖靈教會更名符其實, 因為無論神學或實際治會而言, 其皆著重聖靈論過於基督論文.
首先談 “真耶穌教會更強調的是聖靈里的一致”. 就神觀來講, 真耶穌教會強調的有三: (1) 聖經的主題; (2) 靈里的一致; (3) 聖靈超越時空; 並非只強調第二點而已.
所謂 “聖靈才是真實的位”, 這就回到第一點, 即聖經的主題. 在未創世及救贖工作未開始時, 神是獨一的. 在創世人類墮後的舊約里, 獨一真神, 即耶和華(創2:9), 神的靈(創1:1), 我的靈(出31:16), 耶和華的靈 (撒上10:6)及靈(王下2:9) 計劃救贖人類, 從多神崇拜引入獨一真神崇拜, 並在新約實現救恩. 從子降生開始 才有三位之分, 即父子聖靈.
神為了救贖人類, 親自道成肉身, 來到人間, 但這並不表示在天上已沒有神了(約3:13). 在天上的為父, 子則 “出生” 在地上, 並且有一個名字(不是很多名),是神自己的名字, 與人一模一樣. 這位降生在地上的 “神人” 被称為子, 人子及獨生子. 聖經從未稱子為聖子. 這也間接指出子比父低, 雖然祂本是天上的神. 聖靈則輔助子, 引領子經過試探(太4:1); (可1:12), 加強主的力量(路4:1), 引導使徒們明白一切真理(約16:13).
當主死而復活升天後, 因為救恩工作尙未完成, 故子坐在父的右邊(再一次暗示父比子大), 為我們代求(羅8:34). 聖靈則住在我們里面, 加強我們的信心, 結出聖靈的果子(加5:22-23).
當救恩完成後, 三位又回到創世前的獨一身份. 這可從啟22:1, 3, 4 看出. 現引KJV今文如下:
Rev 22:1: And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the THRONE of God and of the Lamb.
Rev 22:3 And there shall no more curse, but the THRONE of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and HIS servants shall serve him.
Rev 22:4 They shall see HIS FACE, and HIS NAME shall be on their foreheads.
此時羔羊與坐寶座的沒有分別. 只有一個Thorne, His face 和 His name, 皆為單數.
筆者認為, 三位一體的根本問題是, 是否有三位靈? 而這一體又是以甚麼形式存在? 體和每一個位格的關係又是甚麼?
該文說, 面對聖經中所描述聖父, 聖子(筆者註:聖經從未稱子為聖子), 聖靈分開, 獨立的表現與作為, 謝先生的書幾乎都提及. 可惜真耶穌教會向來不注重解經與神學.
筆者也讀過謝先生的聖靈論. 聖靈論是關於聖靈的著述 ,不是探討神觀. 因為聖靈也牽涉到神觀, 才會在這里做簡易的著述. 同一本聖經, 得出不同的神觀, 就被認為不注重解經與神學. 既是這樣, 那他們所推論出來的三位一體神觀與真耶穌教會不同. 是否同樣可說他們不注重解經與神學?
該文說, 其說明有時語焉不詳, 或前後矛盾, 或根本不解釋. 壁如子在世時向父禱告, 耶穌也說, 父是比我大的(約14:28). 父子雖然是同一位靈, 但自耶穌降生為人子之後, 直到完成救恩之前, 父子確有大小的分別. 既說父即子即聖靈 卻又說父子有大小高低之別. 又說 “按著顯現的次序說 祂(父)是耶穌基督的根源.”
筆者認為, 神既謙卑降下生為人子, 成為 “神人”. 聖經用 “差遣” 來形容子的降生. 既是 “差遣”, 又怎會大過或同等於差遣(約5:31)祂的父呢? 就人類的語言來說, 父是長輩, 子是晚輩. 晚輩豈能大過長輩呢? 難道是真神用錯了詞語!?
若只是次序問題, 那祂門的關係不應是父子, 而是哥哥與弟弟的關係. 因為兩者都是同輩份, 但次序不同. 哥哥在前, 弟弟在後.
神本是一位, 為了救恩的緣故, 親自降生為有血有肉的子, 但卻沒有失去神性, 因祂原本就是神, 是從天上來的. 所以說 “父是耶穌基督的根源” 這句話並沒錯.
父是沒有肉身的. 因為祂取了獨一真神的職務. 子是肉身的 “神人”, 聖靈則住在信徒里面, 加添信徒的能力及信心, 三者根本不同, 直到救恩完成後, 才可說父即子及聖靈. 這在上文已解釋過.
該文說, 又壁如耶穌受洗時, 聖靈彷彿鴿子降下, 天上有聲音說, 這是我的愛子, 我所喜悅的(太3:16-17). 在這段經文中, 我們看到了父子聖靈同時顯現, 因而認為神似乎有三位. 其實父子聖靈在靈里是一致的. 神永遠是獨一無二的聖靈. 祂的靈雖是一整體, 卻可以降生為子, 又從天上賜給祂聖靈, 而且向祂說話. 至於同一位神為何分開敘述, 分別行動, 卻未解釋. 明顯的, 真耶穌教會強調共同的神性或共享的本體, 都是極寶貴的真理. 但只強調神的獨一性而莫視三位位格的獨立性 區分性與互動性, 該教會需面對更多的解經難題, 或說, 他們需更多的奧秘來搪塞.
筆者認為, 此時救恩計劃已開始進行. 也就是說, 獨一真神已轉為父子聖靈. 他們的區分就很明顯. 父與聖靈雖職務有別, 但皆無所不在, 無所不知及無所不能. 只有 “神人” 子,才沒有上述的能力.
約12:49曰: 因為我沒有憑著自己講, 惟有差我來的父已經給我命令, 叫我說
甚 麼, 講甚麼.
約12:15曰: 我也知道他的命令就是永生. 故此, 我所講的話正是照着父對我
的.
上述經文 已很清楚指出父與子的工作 , 父的 “代理人”是子.
約14:21曰: 有了我的命令又遵守的, 這人是愛我的. 愛我的必蒙我父愛他, 我
也要愛他, 並且向他顯現.
此經文說明為何父說 “這是我的愛子, 我所喜悅的”.其目的是要人知道他是父的愛子. 路加3:21-22, 馬可1:9, 馬太3:16都記載此事, 以把此話留給他人及後人知曉.
至於聖靈的降臨, 約1:33-34說得很清楚: 我先前不認識他, 只是那差我來用水施洗的, 對我說: “你看見聖靈降下來, 住在誰身上, 誰就是用聖靈施洗的”. 我看見了. 就證明這是神的兒子.
據筆者所知, 接下來的三位位格的獨立性, 區分性與互動性, 應是與三位一體論沒有分別. 唯一分別的是, 三位一體是永恆的. 而真耶穌教會的 “三位一靈” 卻是暫時的. 救恩工作完成後, 再沒有三位的分別, 只有一位獨一真神.
該文説, 而在20世紀, 我亦聽見真耶穌教會將此教義用在三位一體上, 把基督神人兩性的間接相通, 轉換為父子聖靈三個位格至通與一致性. 換言之, 道成肉身的耶穌. 其實也就是父神自己. 因此, 祂既可從天降下, 卻又仍舊在天. 其把傳統教義套在自創的 “靈里一致”的一位一体教義上, 可謂空前絕後, 史無前例, 令我歎為觀止.
筆者認為, 三為一體神觀也一樣, 把 “一體”轉換為父子聖靈三個位格的互通與一致性. 在整本聖經, 根本找不到如此的解釋, 這是早期教父們所 “發明” 出來的.
亦如早前所說, 自子降生開始, 就有了三位之分. 這三位固然有位格, 但卻不能說是三個位格. 救恩完成後, 再也沒有三位之分, 只有一位獨一真神. 當然, 這獨一真神也有其位格. 但不管是 “三位”時期或 “獨一”時期, 我們只能說 “祂”或 “祂們”都有位格, 卻不能用數學方式來說明 “祂”或 “祂們”有幾個位格. 舉個例子, 有兩個人領受聖靈, 我們不能說聖靈有兩個位格, 分別住在兩人中或各自有一半聖靈之位格住在他們當中. 我們只能說, 一個有位格的聖靈, 完完全全住在第一個人當中. 也完完全全住在第二個人裡.
子也一樣, 祂在父右邊為我們代求, 同一時有一百個人禱告, 子也有能力把這一百個禱告傳之於父, 而父也能受之. 我們卻不能說子和父擁有一百個位格, 各自聽取一個禱告. 聖經告訴我們, 從舊約的耶和華至新約的父子聖靈都有位格, 但從未說 “祂”或 “祂們”有幾個位格. 父子聖靈皆有位格, 這可從聖經看出. 但所謂的 “一體” 的神, 各自擁有父子聖靈的 “三”位位格, 這在聖經里卻是找不到的. 我們須嚴謹看待聖經的每一章每一節, 不能超越聖經所說的.
該文說, 按謝順道的說法, 耶穌基督與父神不同, 有大小之別. 可是骨子里都是同一靈, 因此他們還是一位. 於是, 神在肉顯現, 根本是一神分飾三角色的結果.
按該文作者的羅輯, 是否可說耶穌基督與父神外表不同, 有大小之別. 可是骨子里, 因為他們都是同 “一體”, 因此他們還是同一位, 根本是一神分飾三角色的結果. 相信該作者不會認同. 很遺憾的, 這幾句話顯然針對某人或某教會說的, 而非以事對事評論.
還有, 子這個位格在道成肉身之後, 是否已不在天上了? 若是, 是否表示三個可以分開而獨立存在? 若是的話, 那 “體”和每一個位格的關係是甚麼? 若子降下又在天的話 (約3:13), 是否表示神的 “一體”, 把三個位格連繫起來? 這又回到老問題, 即 “一體”根本沒在聖經出現過.
該文說, 除非真耶穌教會有意漠視道成肉身的真實性,
筆者再次強調, 道成肉身非指子就是父. 因為 “子”已經有了肉體, 受到時空限制, 成為 “神人”, 即擁有完全的神性與人性.
該文說 壁如說父, 子 ,聖靈之間 “生”(約1:14, 18, 3:16; 西1:15; 來1:5), “差遣” (約14:26; 16:5,7)的關係. 謝順道先生也留意耶穌在神的右邊的經文(可16:19; 徒7:55-56; 羅8:34; 來10:12), 可惜未絲毫答辯, 一副以不變應萬變的姿態.
首先談 “生”這個問題. 當我們談到 “生”時, 時間觀念已介入世界. 也就是說 有未生前, 出生及出生後, 聖經從沒用過 “永遠的出生”來等同與 “生”. 所謂永遠, 即無時間的永恆. 所謂的出生, 卻是有時間的介入. 兩者互相矛盾, 不可混為一談.
現在讓我們看看該文所列出的經文:
約1:14 : 道成了肉身, 住在我們中間, 充充滿滿地有恩典有真理, 我們也見過
的榮光 正是父獨生子的榮光.
約1:18 : 從來沒有人看見神, 只有在父懷裡的獨生子將他表明出來.
約3:16 : 神愛世人, 甚至將他的獨生子賜給他們, 叫一切信他的, 不至滅亡, 反
得永生.
這裡的獨生子, 即是由聖靈懷孕透過瑪莉亞而生的. 既然是獨生子, 就表示將來不會再有另一子賜給我們. 神是靈(約4:26), 為了救贖人類, 心甘情愿謙卑自己的身份成為人. 也只有成為人, 人類才能一睹神的面貌. 這不是另一個能讓人看見的位格或神.
西1:15 : 愛子是那看不見的神的面貌, 是首生的, 在一切被造以先.
所謂首生, 其意是把子與其他出生的人分別出來, 並告訴我們, 這位有血有肉的子, 原本就是創世的獨一真神, 在一切被造以先.
來1:5 : 所有的天使, 神從來未對哪一個說, 你是我的兒子, 我今日生你? 又指著哪一個說, 我要作他的父, 他要作我的兒子 ?
“所有的天使”已說明神的創造已經開始了. 神接著說 “你是我的兒子 我今日生你’, 暗示極有可能子的出生是在創造天使之後的一段時間.
約16:5 : 現今我往差我來的父那裡去. 你們中間並沒有人問我, 你往哪裡去.
獨一真神, 變成道成肉身, 就是所謂的 “差”, 這並沒有甚麼不對.
約16:7 : 然而 我將真情告訴你們, 我去是與你們有益的. 我若不去, 保惠師就
不到你們這裡來, 我若去, 就差他來.
這句話是針對使徒說的, 也就是指五旬節聖靈的降臨.
讓我們看看下列經文:
路1:15 : 他在主前將要為大, 淡酒濃酒都不喝, 從母腹裡就被聖靈充滿了.
子被聖靈充滿 並不是在受洗時.
路2:25 : 在耶路撒冷有一個人, 名叫西面. 這人又公義又虔誠, 素長盼望以色
列的安慰者來到, 又有聖靈在他身上.
從施洗約翰至五旬節聖靈降臨前, 這是過渡時期, 故有聖靈住在某些人身上. 在五旬節聖靈降靈後, 也有一些信徒未受聖靈. 下列經文可證之:
徒8:16 : 因為聖靈還沒有降臨在他們一個人身上, 他們只奉主耶穌的名受洗.
徒10:44 : 彼得還說話的時候, 聖靈降在一切聽道的人身上.
徒19:6 : 保羅按手在他們身上, 聖靈便降臨在他們身上, 他們就說方言, 又說
預言
因此, 從聖靈降臨的角度來看, 所謂的 “差遣” 並不是絕對的. 不是人人自動得到. 也暗示聖靈可能停止降臨, 再看看下列經文.
啟3:16 : 你既如溫水, 也不冷也不熱 . 所以我必從我口中把你吐出去.
啟3:19 : 凡我所疼愛的, 我就責備管教他. 所以你要發熱心, 也要悔改.
啟3:22 : 聖靈向眾教會所說的, 凡有耳的, 就應當聽.
主對老底嘉教會說, 如不悔改, 就把她從口中吐出去. 至於使徒後期教父的教義是否腐敗, 在後文關於教會歷史及教義發展史的簡述中會談到.
該文說, 難道說神自己坐在右邊, 耶穌在十字架上最後的呼喊: 我的神, 我的神, 為什麼離棄我? 所有耶穌向父神的禱告, 如 “父啊, 救我脫離這時候(約12:27)”, 均需解釋作自言自語, 自己稱為父為子. 如此畫蛇添足, 讀經變成打誑猜謎, 使人更加混亂.
筆者再解釋一次, 父和子不同. 在創世子降世時的獨一真神, 取了父的工作. 在地上工作的是子, 即獨一真神降生為子的時候. 在父與子中間調和的兩者工作, 及住在信徒中間的, 就是被父與子所差遣的聖靈. 此時獨一真身已分為 “三位不同的神”, 僅由靈繫三者之間. 故擁有肉身的神人, 才能向父禱告. 與三位一體不同的地方, 除了是三位一體是永恆之外, 三位也是靠一體來聯繫調和 “他”或 “他們”的工作. 如以神的一體的角度來看, 問題也一樣存在, 即神自己離棄自己, 自己稱自己為父為子(因為父子同是一體之神).
該文說, 再者, 若說人看見我就是看見了父……..我在父里面 父在我里面(約14:9-10)解釋為父即子. 那麼基督徒是否也可沿用, 你們要長在我裡面 我也長你們裡面(約15:14), 而說耶穌即我, 我即耶穌.
神是靈, 就好像人的靈魂一樣, 人是看不見的. 神為了救贖人類, 以人的面貌來, 所以希: 1:3說 子是神本體的真相. 也因此, 子才有資格說, 人看見了我, 就是看見了父. 因我們無法看到父, 只能看到父的 “代表”子, 就以這個角度來看, 子的確是父. 所以賽9:6曰: 因有一嬰孩為我們而生, 他名稱為奇妙策士, 全能的神, 永在的父, 和平的君. 這就牽涉到 “靈裡的一致”. “我們” 猶如在海中的甁子, 水在甁子裡, 又被還海水淹蓋着. 詩篇8:15曰: 你叫他比天使小一點, 並賜他榮耀尊貴為冠冕. 所以 我們雖然有聖靈住在我們當中, 再怎麼大也不能和子相比. 就如海中的瓶子, 裡面充滿水, 但再怎麼多, 也比不上海洋的多.
三位一體論對約15:14的解釋如何? 你們要常在我裡面的 “我”, 是否也在聖靈裡面? 到底在五旬節時, 是不是 “我”和聖靈一起降下, 住在門徒當中? 因為三位一體論不相信 “靈裡的一致”, 只相信三個位格一體之神. 若是一體住在我們當中, 即表示三個位格住在我們當中. 那使徒行傳在五旬節只領受聖靈(徒2:1-4)一事又該作何解釋?
該文說, 甚者, 謝引用 “我與他們同在的時候, 因你所賜給我的名保守了他們”, (約17:12)的日譯本和英譯本 “我在你的名裡保守了他們”, 竟倉促草率地下結論: 可見父的名就是耶穌. 此節正確的解讀毋寧是指, 耶穌求父神以他的名(by His name), 憑祂的大能保守門徒(參詩54:1), 或耶穌求父神保守門徒在祂的名裡面(in His name), 使門徒忠誠於神的本性, 忠誠於神所啟示的道(參約17:18). 無論是哪種翻譯或解釋, 都與 “父的名就是耶穌”沾不上邊.
據筆者所知, 真耶穌教會是以約17:11為根據指出 “父的名是耶穌”, 而非約17:12. 無論如何, 讓我們來看看有關經文:
約17:12 : 我與他們同在的時候, 因你所賜給我的名保守了他們. 其中除了滅
亡之子 沒有一個滅亡的 好叫經上的話得應驗
從此文中, 所強調的是 “名” 而非 “他們”. 由於藉着此 “名”, 他們才得以保守.
詩54:1 : 神啊 ! 求你以你的名救我, 憑你的大能為我伸冤.
詩的上半斷強調的是 “名”, 因這個 “名”可以救 “我”. 至於下半斷, “憑你的大 能” 固然是重點, 但所要求的是伸冤. 這與子的 “名”保守 “他們”相去太遠了.
啟6:10 : 大聲喊着說: 聖潔真實的主啊! 你不審判住在地上的人, 給我們伸流
血的冤 要等到幾時呢
上述經文, 明顯指出伸冤是在神末日的審判中, 更何況此詩是指大衛無故被掃羅王追殺時說的.
耶穌求父神保守門徒在祂裡面(in His name), 使門徒忠誠於神的本性 忠誠於神所啟示的道(參約17:18), 重點還是 “名”. 換句話說 忠誠於神的本性及所啟示的道 是由父保守所致. 而父神又是以祂的 “名”來保守門徒.
所以 筆者認為 “名”很重要. 而如果這 “名”是指 “耶穌”的話, 更非同小可. 讓我們看看下列經文:
太12:21 : 外邦人都要仰望它的 “名”.
太28:19 : 所以, 你們要去, 使萬民作我的門徒, 奉父, 子, 聖靈的 “名”給他們施
洗.
約14:26 : 但保惠師, 就是父因我的 “名”所要差來的聖靈. 他要將一切的事指
教你, 並且要叫你們想起我對你們所說的話.
約16:23 : 我實實在在地告訴你們, 你們若向父求甚麼, 他必因我的 “名”賜給
你.
約 17:6: 你從世上賜給我的人, 我已將你的 “名”顯明與他們. 他們本是你的 .
你將他們賜給我, 我們也遵守了你的道.
約 17:11 : 從今以後, 我不在世上, 他們卻在世上, 我往你那裡去. 聖父啊! 求你
因你所賜給我的 “名”保守他們, 叫他們合一, 像我們一樣.
約17:12 : 我與他們同在的時候, 因你賜給我的 “名”保守了他們, 我也護衛了
他們. 其中除了那滅亡之子, 沒有一個滅亡的.
約20:31 : 但記這些事, 要叫你們信耶穌是基督, 是神的兒子. 並且叫你們信了
他, 就可因他的 “名”得生命.
徒3:16 : 我們因信他的 “名” , 他的 “名”便叫你們所看見所認識的這人健壯
了. 正是他所賜的心, 叫這在你們眾人面前全然好了.
徒4:10 : 你們眾人和以色列百姓都當知道, 站在你們面前的這人得痊癒是因
你們所釘十字架, 神叫他從死裡復活的拿撒勒人耶穌基督的 “名”.
徒4:12 : 除他以外, 別無拯救. 因為在天下人間 沒有賜下別的 “名”, 我們可以
靠著得救.
徒8:12 : 及至他們信了腓力所傳神的福音和耶穌的 “名”, 連帶男女都受了洗.
徒10:43 : 眾天使也為他作見證說: 凡信他的人必因他的 “名”得蒙赦罪.
徒19:5 : 他們聽見這話, 就奉主耶穌的 “名”受洗.
徒19:17 : 凡住在以弗所的, 無論是猶太人, 是希臘人, 都知道此事, 也都懼怕
主的 “名”從此就尊大了.
羅1:5 : 我們從他受了恩惠並使徒的職份. 在萬國之中叫人為他的 “名”信服真
道.
羅10:13 : 因為凡求告主 “名”的 就必得救.
林前1:2 : 寫信給在哥林多神的教會, 就是在基督耶穌裡成聖, 蒙召作聖徒的,
以及所有各處求告我 耶穌基督的 “名”的人,
林前1:10 : 弟兄們, 我藉我們主耶穌基督的 “名”勸你們都說一樣的話.
林前6:11 : 你們中間也有人從前是這樣, 但如今你們奉主耶穌基督的 “名”,
並藉著我們神的靈, 已經洗淨, 成聖 稱義了.
弗5:20 : 凡事奉我們主耶穌基督的 “名”, 常常感謝神.
腓2:9 : 所以, 神將他升為至高, 又賜給他那超乎萬名之上的 “名”.
腓2:10 : 叫一切在天上的, 地上的, 和地底下的, 因耶穌的 “名”無不屈膝.
提後 2:19 : 然而, 神堅固的根基立住了. 上面有這印記說, 主認識誰是他的人
又說, 凡稱呼主 “名”的人, 總要離開不義.
來1:4 : 他所承受的 “名”, 既比天使的名更尊, 就遠超過天使.
來6:10 : 因為神並非不公義, 竟忘記你們所作的工和你們為他 “名”所顯示的
愛心, 就是先前伺候聖徒, 如今還是伺候.
來13:15 : 我們應該靠着耶穌, 常常以頌讚為祭獻給神, 這就是那承認主 “名”
之人嘴唇的果子.
彼前4:14 你們若為基督的 “名”受辱罵, 便是有福的. 因為神榮耀的靈常住在
你們身上.
彼前4:16 : 若為作基督徒受苦, 卻不要羞恥, 倒要因這 “名”, 歸榮耀給神.
約一2:12 : 小子們哪! 我寫信給你們, 因為你們的罪藉著主 “名”得了赦免.
約一3:23 : 神的命令, 就是叫我們信他兒子耶穌基督的 “名”, 且照他所賜給
我們的命令彼此相愛.
啟2:13 : 你也能忍耐, 曾為我的 “名”勞苦, 並不乏倦.
啟3:12 : 得勝的, 我要叫他在我神殿中作柱子. 他也必不再從那裡出去. 我又
要將我神城的名(這城就是從天上 從我那裡降下來的新耶路撒冷),
並我的新 “名”, 都寫在他身上.
啟11:18 : 外邦發怒, 你的忿怒也臨到了. 審判死人的時候也到了. 你的僕人
眾先知和眾聖徒, 凡敬畏你 “名”的人, 連大帶小, 得賞賜的時候到了.
你敗壞那敗壞世界之人的時候也就到了.
啟14:1 : 我又觀看, 見羔羊站在錫安山, 同他又有十四萬四千人, 都有他的
“名” 和他父的 “名”寫在額上.
啟15:4 : 主啊! 誰敢不敬畏你, 不將榮耀歸於你的 “名”呢? 因為獨有你是聖的
萬民都要來你面前敬拜, 因你公義的作為已經顯出來了.
啟19:13 : 他穿着溅了血的衣服, 他的 “名”稱為神之道.
啟19:16 : 在他衣服和大腿上有 “名”寫著說, 萬王之王 萬主之主.
啟22:4 : 也要見他的面, 他的 “名”字必寫在他們的額上.
很明顯的, 大多數的 “名” 是指 “耶穌”. 而門徒行神蹟, 頌讚, 甚至洗禮, 都是以這個 “名”進行的, 說明此 “名”是大有能力的. 那父, 子, 聖靈是否同一個名呢? 讓我們看看約17:11的不同中英文版本:
(1) 美國施約瑟新譯
今我不復在世, 惟彼在世 ,而我歸爾 聖父歟! 爾所賜我之人, 願以爾名保之, 使之為一, 如父與我然.
(2) 和合本
從今以後, 我不在世上, 他們卻在世上, 我往你那裡去. 聖父啊 ! 求你因你所賜給我的名保守他們, 叫他們合而為一, 像我們一樣.


(3) 恢復本
我不在世上, 他們卻在世上, 我往你那裡去. 聖父啊 ! 求你在你的名, 就是你所賜給我的名裡 保守他們, 使他們成為一, 像我們一樣.
(4) 現代中文譯本
我現在到你那裡去, 不再留在世上保守你所賜給我的那些人,他們卻在世上. 聖父啊 !求你藉着你的名, 就是你賜給我的名, 保守他們(有古卷作: 求你藉着你的名的權力, 保守你所賜給我的那些人),.使他們合而為一, 如同你和我是合一的.
(5) 委辦譯本
今而後, 我不在世, 此人在世, 而我歸爾, 聖父歟! 爾所賜我之人保之, 俾信爾名, 使之為一, 如父與我然.
(6) 新經全集
從今以後, 我不在世上了, 他們卻仍在世界上. 我往你那裡去. 聖父呀 ! 請因你的名 保全你所賜給我的 , 使他們合而為一, 如我們一樣.
(7) 簡明聖經
我將離開世上, 到您那裡,去 但他們將留在這裡. 神聖的父親 ! 求您用您名字的力量-----也就是您所賜給我的名字的力量-----保護他們 , 好讓他們合而為一, 就像我們合而為一那樣 .
(8) 新普及譯本
現在我要離開這世界, 到你那裡去, 他們卻仍要留在這個世界上. 聖父啊 ! 你已把你的名賜給我, 求你用這名的大能保護他們 , 好叫我們合而為一, 像你和我一樣(有些抄本為: 你已把這些[門徒們]賜給我).
(9) 當代聖經
現在我要到你那裡去, 他們仍然留在世上. 因此, 聖父啊 !求你為自己的緣故 親自保守他們 , 使他們像我們那樣合而為一.
(10) 中文標準譯本
今後我不在這世界了, 而他們在這世界上, 我卻要到你那裡去. 聖父啊 ! 願你奉你的名, 就是奉你賜給我的名保守他們 , 使他們合而為一, 就像我們那樣 .
(11) 呂振中譯本
今後我不再在世界上了, 他們卻在世界上, 而我要往你去了. 聖父啊 ! 求你用你的名保守你所給了我的人(有古卷作: 求你用你所給了我的名保守他們), 使他們都合而為一, 正如我們一樣.
(12) 思高譯本
從今以後, 我不在世界上了, 但他們仍在世界上, 我卻到你那裡去. 聖父啊 ! 求你因你的名, 保全那些你所賜給我的人, 使他們合而為一, 正如我們一樣.
(13) 牧靈聖經
我不再留與人間 他們仍留在世上 我將回到你那裡去 聖父 請用你的名 就是你賜給我的名 保全他們 好使他們團結為一 如同我們一樣

(14) 聖經標準本
從今以後, 我不在世上, 他們卻在世上, 我往你那裡去. 聖父啊 !求你因你所賜給我的名保守他們 , 叫他們合而為一, 像我們一樣.
(15) 蕭靜山譯本
以後我不在世界上了, 他們卻在世界上, 我往你那裡去. 聖父啊 ! 你所給我的, 求你因你的名字 保守他們 , 使他們合成一個 , 如同我們一樣.
(16) 朱寶惠譯本
我不在這世上了, 他們還在世上, 我回到你那裡去. 求聖父以你所賜給我的名份 保護他們 ,使他們合而為一, 像我們一樣.
(17) 李山甫 申自天 狄守仁 蕭舜華四人譯本
我不再在世界上了, 他們卻還在世上, 我要回到你那裡去. 聖父啊 ! 求你以你的名衛護你所託付給我的人 , 使他們合一, 如同我們一樣.
(18) 陸亨理譯本
從今以後, 我不在世上, 但他們卻在世上, 我且往你那里去. 聖父啊 ! 求你因你所賜給我的名保守他們 , 叫他們合而為一 , 像我們一樣.
(19) 新約聖經(1959譯本)
從今以後, 我不在世界了, 他們卻仍在世界上, 我往你那裡去. 聖父啊 ! 請用你的名 保全你所賜給我的, 使他們合為一, 如我們一樣.
(20) 新譯四福音
我不再在世上, 他們卻在世上, 我歸來就你了. 聖父, 因你的名(註: 原文本意[依賴你給我的名]: 即耶穌為神), 求你保守(註:原文tereo, 有看守 遵守等意義) 你託給我的人, 使他們正如我們合而為一.
(21) 聖經新譯本
我不再在這世上, 他們卻在這世上, 我要到你那裡去. 聖父啊 !求你因你賜給我的名 保守他們 ,使他們合而為一, 好像我們一樣.
綜觀以上不同中文譯本, 其翻譯大致可分為三種: 第一是求父以父的名保守信徒, 這必須假設父與子不同名, 也就是說, 父與子各有各的名字. 這樣的假設很可能引至多神論. 而且父的名不可能是父, 子的名也不可能是子. 第二是求父所給予子的名保守信徒, 這留下兩個問題, 父的名是甚麼? 所給于子的名是甚麼? 第三是求父的名, 也就是父賜給子的名, 來保守信徒, 這也就是說, 父與子是同名.
現在讓我們來看看不同的英譯本:
(1) Authorized (King James) Version
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
(2) New King James Version
Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one, as we are.
(3) The KJ3 Literal Translation Bible
And no longer am I in the world, yet these are in the world; and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the ones whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.

(4) The 21st Century King James Version
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to Thee. Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as We are.
(5) Third Millennium Bible
And now I am no more in the world, bur these are in the world, and I come to Thee. Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as we are.
(6) The Evidence Bible
And now I am no more in the world, gut these are in the world, and I come to you. Holy Father, keep through your own name those whom you have given me, that they may be one, as we are.
(7) The Interlinear Bible
And I no longer am in the world, yet these are in the world; and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name; those whom You gave Me, that they may be one as We are.
(8) New International Version
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name-----the name you gave me-----so that they may be one as we are one.
(9) Today’s New International Version
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I
am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of (keep
them faithful to) your name, the name you gave me, so that they may
one as we are one.
(10) New International Reader’s Version
I will not remain in the world any longer. But they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them safe by the power of your name. It is the name you gave me. Keep them safe so they can be one, just as you and I are one.
(11) Darby Translation
And I am no longer in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to
thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that hey may be one as we are.
(12) The Orthodox New Testament
And I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to Thee. Holy Father, keep in Thy name those whom Thou hast given Me, in order that they may be one, even as We.
(13) The Message
For I’m no longer going to be visible in the world; they’ll continue in the
world, while I return to you. Holy Father, guard them as the pursue this
life. That you conferred as a gift through me, so they can be one heart and mind. As we are one heart and mind.



(14) The Modern Language Bible
My presence in the world is over, but these are in the world while I am coming to Thee. Holy Father, preserve in Thy name those whom Thou hast given Me, so that they may be one as We are.
(15) Tyndale’s New Testament
And now am I no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy father keep in thine own name, them which thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
(16) New Century Version
I am coming to you; I will not stay in the world any longer. But they are still in the world. Holy Father, keep them safe by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they will be one, just as you and I are one.
(17) The Plain English Bible
I am not in the world anymore, but my apostles are in the world. I am
coming to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which
You have given me. May they be united, as We are.
(18) Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible
And no longer am I in the world, and they(thee) are in the world. And I unto thee am coming. Holy Father! Keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we.
(19) James Moffatt Translation
I am to be in the world no longer, but they are to be in the world; I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them by the power or thy Name which thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are/
(20) New Life Version
I am no longer in the world. I am coming to You. But these are still in the
world. Holy Father, keep those You have given to Me in the power of Your name. Then they will be one, even as we are One.
(21) English Standard Version
And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given to me, that they may be one, even as we are one.
(22) Revised Standard Version
And now I am no more in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.
(23) New Revised Standard Version
And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one.

(24) The New English Bible
I am to stay no longer in the world, but they are still in the world, and I am on my way to thee. Holy Father, protect by the power of your name those whom thou hast given me (or keep in loyalty to thee those whom thou hast given me; some witnesses read protect them by the power of thy name which thou hast given me), that they may be one, as we are one.
(25) Revised English Bible
I am no longer in the world; they are still in the world, but I am coming to
you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you
have given me, that they may be one, as we are one.
(26) 1599 Geneva Bible
` And now am I no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I
come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy Name, even them whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are.
(27) International Children Bible
Now I am coming to you. I will not stay in the world now. But these men are still in the world. Holy Father, keep them safe. Keep the safe by the power of your name (the name you gave me), so that they will be one, the same as you and I are one.
(28) The Expanded Bible
I am coming to you; I will not stay in the world any longer. But they are still in the world. Holy Father, keep them safe by the power of (or keep them loyal) your name , the name you gave me, so that they will be one, just as you and I are one.
(29) Douay-Rheims
And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to
thee. Holy Father, keep them safe in thy name whom thou hast given me:
that they may be one, as we also are.
(30) Jerusalem Bible
I am not in the world any longer, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep those you have given me true your name ((keep those in your name whom (variant reading which) you have given me) so that they may be one like us.
(31) The New Jerusalem Bible
I am no longer in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep
those you have given me true (variant (keep those in your name (variant which) you have given me),so that they may be one like us.
(32) Christian Community Bible
I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world whereas I am going to you. Holy Father, keep them in your Name (that you have given me), so that they may be one, just ass we are.
(33) The Amplified Bible
And now I am no more in the world, but these are still in the world, and I
am coming to You. Holy Father, keep in Your Name in the knowledge of Yourself those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.

(34) The International English Bible Translation
I am not in the world anymore, but my apostles are in the world. I am
coming to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which
You have given me. May they be united, as we are.
(35) Holman Christian Standard Bible
I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, protect them by Your name that you have given Me, so that they may be one as We are one.
(36) The Contemporary English Version
Holy Father, I am no longer in the world. I am coming to you, but my
followers are still in the world. So keep them safe by the power of the
name that you have given me. Then they will be one with each other, just
as you and I are one.
(37) The Voice
I will no longer be physically present in this world. As I return to be with You, holy Father, remain with them through Your name, the name You have given Me. May they be one even as We are one.
(38) Good News Translation (Today’s English Version)
And now I am coming to you; I am no longer in the world, but they are in
the world. Holy Father! Keep them safe by the power of your name, the name you gave me (some manuscripts have By the power of your name, keep safe those you have given me), so that they may be one just as you and I are one.
(39) The Clear Word
In just a little while, I’ll be leaving this world, but they’ll still be here. Soon I’ll be seeing you, but they’ll be left alone. Holy Father, please protect these men whom you’ve given to me, so that they may honor you by being one, just as you and I are one.
(40) God’s Word
I won’t be in the world much longer, but they are in the world, and I’m coming back to you. Holy Father, keep them safe by the power of your name, the name that you gave me, so that their unity may be like ours.
(41) The New American Bible
And now I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, while
I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given to me, so that they may be one just as we are.
(42) Complete Jewish Bible
Now I am no longer in the world. They are in the world, but I am coming
to you. Holy Father, guard them by the power of your name which you have given to me, so that they may be one, just as we are.
(43) The Living Bible
Now I am leaving the world, and leaving them behind, and coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your own care-----all those you have given me-----so that they will be united just as we are, with none missing.


(44) New Living Translation
Now I am departing the world; I am leaving them behind and coming to you. Holy Father, keep them and care for them-----all those have given me-----so that they will be united just as we are.
(45) New American Standard Bible
I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You Have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.
(46) Analytical – Literal Translation
And I am no longer in the world, yet these are in the world, and I am
coming to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, which you have
given to me, so that they shall be one just as We are.
(47) Young’s Literal Translation
And no more am I in the world, and these are in the world, and I come unto Thee. Holy Father, keep them in Thy name, whom Thou hast given to me, that they may be one as we;
(48) American Standard Version
And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are.
(49) Easy-to-Read Version
Now I am coming to you. I will not stay in the world, but these followers of mine are still in the world. Holy Father, keep them safe by the power of your name-----the name you gave me. Then they will be one, just as you and I are one.
(50) New English Translation
I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them safe in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one.
(51) The Orthodox Study Bible
Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to
You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You Have given Me(NU-Text and M-Text read keep them through Your name which You have given Me), that they may be one as We are
(52) Holy Bible From The Ancient Eastern Text
Here after I am not in the world, but these are in the world; and I am coming to thee. O holy Father, protect them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are.
和中文翻譯一樣, 英文翻譯大致可分為三種: 第一種是以父的名that 保守信徒. 此譯法顯然是讓讀者自己決定其意. That 可以譯為whom或which. 這個that也可指前面的them 或name. 如果讀者認為 that 就是whom的話, 那只有一個選擇. 即that 是指them而非name. 第二種是 所用的that 是指父所給予子的名. 第三是父的名就是子的名, 其意為 “就是你賜給我的你的名”..
那原文又是怎樣呢? 筆者不懂原文, 只能以Strong編號來查考. 所用的是下列兩本工具書:

(1) The Interlinear Bible – Greek English (Received Text)
And no(3756) longer(2089) am(1510) I in(1722) the worlds(2889), and these(3778) in(1722) the world(2889) are(1526), and I(1473) to(4314) you(4571) come(2064). Father(3962) Holy(40), keep(5083) them(846) in(1722) the name(3686) of you(4675), whom(3739) You gave(1325) to Me(3427) that(2443) may be(5600) one(1520), as(2531) we(2249).
(2) Word Study Greek English New Testament (United Bible Societies 3rd Edition
And(2532) no longer(3765) I am(1510) in(1722) the world(2889), and(2532) themselves(846) in(1722) the world(2889) are(1510), and(2504) I to(4314) you(1473) come(2064). Father(3962) holy(40), keep(5083) them(846) in(1722) the name(3686) of you(1473) that(3739) you have given(1325) to me(1473), that(2443) they might be(1510) one(1520) just as(2531) we(1473).
從三本Strong編著字典 即The Complete Word Study Dictionary – New Testament, The Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible及The New Strong’s Dictionary of Bible Words, (3739)字義完全一樣, 即who, which, what和that.
筆者比較認同第三種, 即子名就是父的名. 兩者的名相同, 雖然父是靈, 子是有肉身的 “神人” .其理由有三:
(1) 獨一真神降世為人, 祂不可能取兩個名字. 一個名是在天上的, 一個名卻是在地上. 如是這樣, 便給人覺得有兩位神. 以此推論, 聖靈也應該是同名.
(2) 太28:19 曰: 所以, 你們要去, 使萬民作我的門徒, 奉父, 子, 聖靈的名給他們施洗. 但在使徒行傳(2:38; 10:48; 19:5)裡, 都是奉主耶穌的名受洗. 由此可知, 父子聖靈皆有同一名字, 因為 “祂們” 本為一, 這也證明聖靈與父子同名.
那耶和華呢? 出6:2曰: 神晓諭摩西說: 我是耶和華, 我從前向亞伯拉罕, 以撒, 雅各顯現為全能的神, 至於我名耶和華, 他們未曾知道. 創15:2 曰: 亞伯蘭說, 主耶和華啊, 我既無子, 你還賜我甚麼呢? 並且要承受我家業的是大馬士革人以利以謝. 從此處可知, 耶和華若是神的名, 亞伯拉罕早已知道了. 耶和華的意思為自有永有, 即永恆的神.
(3) 啟22:3-4 曰: 以後再沒有咒詛, 在城裡有神和羔羊的寶座. 他的僕人都要事奉他, 也要見他的面. 他的名字必寫在他們的額上. 這裡的名字是單數, 表明羔羊和神只有一個名字.
該文說, 按正統教會的說法 “我與父原為一”, 是指在永恆的本體論 (ontological), 父子聖靈同為一體, 同榮共尊. 而 “父比我大”, 是指聖子的位格在歷史上次序的功能部署上 (economic) 次於父.
以本體論來證明父子聖靈為一體, 但聖經說得很清楚, 是 “我與父原為一”而非 “我與父原為一體”. 同樣的, 以 “與歷史次序的功能部署上” 來証明 “父比我大”, 其實不應該是 “父比我大”, 而是 “父比我先”. 像早前所說的, 如是次序的話, 那祂們的關係應是兄弟的關係, 即哥哥在前, 弟弟在後. 所謂的 ontological 和 economic, 都是人自己所發明的, 在聖經裡找不到的. 這些詞語的出現, 純粹是為了支持三位一體而設的.
三位一體論說神只有一位, 且是全能的. 祂又有三個位格, 每一個位格又是全能的. 那不等於說神的體(擁有三個全能的位格)比起祂的每一個位格更全能?
該文說, 因此, 永恆中同享尊榮的聖三位進入歷史範疇時, 有先後高低次序. 父生子, 父子差遣聖靈. 三而一 與一而三的並存, 皆是真實而永恆的.
聖經是記錄從創世到末日的歷史, 並沒有提到創世前及末日後神的情況. 唯一提到的是, 祂是獨一, 永恆, 有位格的全能者. 啟22:13是一個很好的例子: 我是阿拉法, 我是俄梅戛. 我是首先的, 我是末後的. 我是初, 我是終.
約1:1-3是針對這個有血有肉的子, 指出祂原是永恆的. 所以聖經沒說 , 太初有神, 神與道同在, 神就是道. 這神太初與道同在. 萬物是藉著他(神)造的, 沒有一樣不是藉著他(神)造的.
三位一體論所主張的永恆的三個位格, 是在聖經記錄, 特別是新約所推演出來的. 在新約, 他們看到有 “三＂個 “位格”的神, 卻又不能否認舊約的神是獨一的. 結果就出現三位一體, 並就此斷定在永恆中也是一樣. 這樣的說法, 未免太過倉促草率. 筆者.只能說, 三位一體論已經超出聖經範疇.
就好像前述關於位格一樣, 全能的神可以 “以不同職份與位格”, 同時進行某些工作, 但我們卻不能說神有好幾個位格或神有好幾位, 這就牽涉到 “靈裡的一致”, 所以 正當的說法是獨一真神在進行救贖工作.
該文指出, 按照第一波靈恩運動的說法, 真耶穌教會將聖靈分兩期. 早雨 (early rain) 聖靈於五旬節降下, 建立教會, 進行撒種的工作. 晚雨 (later rain) 聖靈起初降在美國, 後來在中國建設末世教會, 完成收穫工作. 使徒時代是聖靈工作最活潑的時期, 教會一切活動都以祂為核心. 但第二, 第三世紀以後, 隨著教會的墮落, 聖靈卻漸漸離開, 以致完全停降了. 之後, 教會既因沒有聖靈而喪失基督的生命, 便日漸俗化, 與世界沒有分別.
在基督教教義史(也是中華福音神學院出版社----- 2002年10月初伴版)這樣評論 “使徒時代教父的基督教概念”: 從一開始, 教會使徒持有基督教全部真理, 這是由於使徒的雙重遺產: (1) 有關基督的口頭見證, 成為起初建造教會的唯一根基; (2) 出自聖靈默示的福音性, 和使徒的著作, 為教會的進一步發展提供了權威性, 無誤的準則. 然而, 使徒後期的教會顯然的並未觸及這雙重見證中所宣講的真理的深度. 雖然擁有使徒這些口頭與著作的見證, 使徒後期教父卻未完全地把握使徒的用意, 反而常混淆福音最特性之處. 比方說, 當福音被傳講成為新律法, 好行為常被視為得救的條件, 而 “惟有靠恩典得救, 信心與捨赦罪” 的真理就被虧蝕, 弄得晦暗不清了. 他們和新約作者顯著的不同點是在性質上, 而不是在程度上, 但也為傳道者與使徒的著作乃是出於神作了見證.
對於這種神學上的 “退化” 情形的解釋就是, 持有全部的真理, 並不等於人對啟示的真理也全然瞭解和明確清楚的表達方式, 這就顯明了基督教教義發展過程中, 人為的影響因素. 此外, 這個時期裡, 新曰正典獨特的宗教權威還沒有被所有的人認定. 當其他一些不同的著作得到與新約正典相等的權威地位時, 並非所有新約正典書卷都已普遍地被接受. 甚至一些使徒後期教父的作品, 如黑馬牧人書, 巴拿巴書, 革利免與坡旅甲書信等, 也有一段時間享有準正典全威的地位, 在教會聚會中被宣讀, 直到第二世紀末, 才不再被視為與正典書卷同等權威. 另外也應記得, 基督教信仰在本質上是崭新的. 它進入了一個性質完全不同的世界裡, 尤其是對外邦基督徒們, 很難一下子就全然明白眾使徒所宣講的福音真理.
筆者認為, 若不是聖靈停降的話, 也不會有人為因素的影響, 上述情形就不會發生. 在福音書局裡, 我們通常會找到一本書-----神學教義發展史. 為什麼會有發展使呢? 真理不是不改變的嗎? 弗4:13-14曰: 等到我們眾人在真道上同歸於一, 認識神的兒子, 得以長大成人, 滿有基督的身量, 使我們不再作小孩子, 中了人的詭計和欺騙的法術, 被一切異教之風搖動. 飄來飄去, 就隨從各樣的異端.. 猶3曰: 親愛的弟兄啊, 我想盡心寫信給你們, 論我們同得救恩的時候, 就不得不寫信勸你們, 要為從前一次交付聖徒的真道竭力地爭辯.
就像舊約一樣, 真神為了施行某些事, 暫時住在或感動某人或保守某事. 過後又因某些原因而離開. 下面三個例子可証明之:
(1) 士14:19 : 耶和華的靈大大感動參孫, 他就下到亞實基倫, 擊殺了三十個人,
奪了他們的衣裳, 將衣裳給了猜出謎語的人, 參孫發怒 就上父
家去了.
士16:20 : 大利拉說, 參孫哪, 非利士人拿你來了. 參孫從睡中醒來, 心裡說,
我要像前幾次出去活動身體, 他卻不知道耶和華已經離開他了.
(2) 撒上10:6 : 耶和華的靈必大大感動你, 你就與他們一同受感動說話, 你要
變為新人.
撒上16:14 : 耶和華的靈離開掃羅, 有惡魔從耶和華那裡來擾亂他.
(3) 撒上16:13 : 撒母耳就用角裡的膏油, 在他諸兄中膏了他. 從這日起, 耶和
華的靈就大大感動大衛, 撒母耳起身回拉瑪去了.
筆者也引用不同教派的書, 因為有一些書的確有聖靈的動工. 但值得留意的是 , 大家都引用聖經的話語, 卻得出不同的結論. 同樣一本聖經, 為何有不同的見解?
筆者不接受 “教義拒變說”. 這論點認為教會在主耶穌最終啟示時就有真理, 直至主再來之日, 這些教義不能改變的. 但像前述, 使徒相繼去世後, 所謂的真理已被爭論不休, 而分成不同派別. 就神觀來說, 已分成好幾派: 有三位一體論(Trinitarian), 能力的神格唯一論(Dynamistic Monarchianism), 嗣子論(Adoptionist), 行態論的神格唯一論 (Modalistic Monarchianism), 次位論者(Subordinationist),神體一位論(Unitarian),撒伯流主義(Sabellianism), 三神論(Tritheism), 伊便尼派(Ebionites) , 幻影派 (Docetists) 和亞流派(Arians), 亞波里拿流派(Apollinarians), 涅斯多留派(Nestorians)和歐迪奇派(Eutychians).
筆者也不認同 “教義進展論說”. 此說真神的啟示是逐漸的, 教義發展是必須的. 但神賜給我們一本聖經後, 這一本聖經, 以前現在以後都不會隨着時間而改變. 有人說, 有兩種真理, 一種是絕對真理, 不會隨着時間改變. 另一種是相對真理, 即隨着時代而改變. 據中文百科大辭典(旺文社), 真理是指知識和其本身實存的情形相一致或不違背於邏輯學法則的, 亦指不變的道理. 既是不改變的, 又何來 “相對” 的 “真理” 呢? 有人說, 三位一體論是逐漸啟示的, 但這卻違反了真理的第一個定義, 即不合乎邏輯.
筆者認為, “教義腐化說”最妥當. 為什麼? 理由很簡單, 如果教義沒腐化, 就不需要馬丁路德, 慈運理和加爾文來改教, 也就不會出現抗議宗或新教了. 為何會腐化? 因為沒有聖靈的同在!
縱觀教會歷史, 真是一齣悲劇. 起初有諾斯底派, 孟他努主義, 馬吉安主義, 諾窪天主義(Novatianisits) 和多納徒派(Donatists). 接下來就有亞流與亞他那修關於神觀的爭論, 還有图像意義爭論和 “和子” 的爭論. 後者導致教會第一次大分裂, 時為1054年7月16日, 分裂為西方天主教和東方東正教. 第二次大分裂為馬丁路得與天主教之間, 導火線為贖罪卷. 這些分出來的, 又因對聖經見解不同而分裂成更多的教派.
其中最著名的是馬丁路德與慈運理關於聖餐的爭論. 後有加爾文與Hesshusen (基督教教義史第298頁----中華福音神學院出版社) 關於預定論的爭論. 單單預定論就有兩種說法: 第一是墮落前預定說(supra-lapsarianism), 第二是墮落後預定說(infra-lapsarianism). 亞米紐斯對無條件的預定論表示懷疑, 而斷定人有自由, 這與加爾文主義格格不入. 於是劇烈的爭辯發生與亞米紐斯及那主張無條件的預定論的大學同事哥馬拉斯(Franz Gomarus)之間. 再者, 約翰衛斯理是屬於亞米紐斯派, 與他同工的則是威特腓德的加爾文派, 最後兩人分道揚鑣. 還有 20世紀的靈恩派與非靈恩派之對敵等等, 教會因不同觀點一而再, 再而三的分裂, 這難道是聖靈的同在與所結的果子?
除此之外, 教會也訴諸武力來解決問題. 首先是天主教的十字軍東征, 其中包括兒童十字軍. 天主教所成立的異端裁判所, 更是令人不齒. 加爾文也像天主教裁判所一樣對付重洗派, 對於反對三位一體的人更甚. 其中最 “成功” 的例子是對付塞爾维特. 不列顛簡明百科全書對塞爾维特的介紹如下
Servetus, Michael (1511? – 1553), 西班牙醫學家, 神學家. 他的觀點即疏遠了天主教徒, 又疏遠了新教教徒. 其開端是1531年發表的 “論三位一體的謬論誤”. 他在該書中攻擊三位一體, 其最重要的著作是 “聖帕吉尼譯的聖書(1542)”, 以其預言的理論聞名. 在另一些著作中, 他也質疑洗禮的有效性, 並對尼西亞信經提出批判. 後遭到加爾文的迫害, 在日內瓦被判為異端, 並被燒死在火柱上. 他對醫學做出的顯著貢獻, 在於他准確地描述了血液的心肺循環(1553).
還有血腥瑪利統治時天主教的復甦, 1572年之聖巴多羅買日的大屠殺, 1618 – 1648年的三十年戰爭等等. 這難道是有聖靈的同在嗎? 當然, 筆者不排除在整個教會歷史中, 聖靈曾感動某人或保守某事.
該文指出 “真”耶穌教會名稱本身就具排他性. 他們相信耶穌的身體只有一個. 既然從使徒代起, 地上成千上萬的教會走迷了, 真耶穌教會就負起匡正各教會弊病的責任. 馬丁路得改教後, 新教就分裂成許多教派, 在分裂的混亂狀態下, “沒有聖靈的啟示和引導”, 擅自曲解聖經的正意. 以出於世智的神學, 代替了原始的純正的福音. 以人意的統制, 代替了聖靈的治理. 真耶穌教會除了與各宗派不同, 也與五尋旬節系統的各教派劃清界限. 真耶穌教會使命, 就是更正各教派的錯誤, 並領導五旬節系統的教會, 促進聖靈里的和一.
據筆者所知, 真耶穌教會的 “教會” 是指信徒, 耶穌在中間為中保, 藉着耶穌, 我們才可以達到真實的那一位. 其意如約一 5:20 所說的: 我們也知道 神的兒子已經來到, 且將智慧賜給我們, 使我們認識那位真實的. 我們也在那位真實的裡面, 就是在他兒子耶穌基督裡面. 這是真神, 也是永生. “我們” 指教會, “神的兒子” 指耶穌 “, 那位真實的”即父神.
筆者認為 ,名字不重要, 最重要的是真理, 而非一般教會所說的愛心. 啟2:4曰: 然而有一件事我要責備你, 就是你把起初的愛心離去了. 為何主耶穌要如此責備以弗所教會? 雖然以弗所教會沒有愛心, 但她還是主的教會, 祂要管教她. 老底嘉教會也一樣, 只有責備 沒有稱讚, 但主耶穌要他們回改. 就如啟3:19說: 凡我所疼愛的, 我必責備管教他. 所以你要發熱心, 也要回改. 既然屬於主的教會, 就表示她們有真理. 約14:6 曰: 耶穌說, 我就是道路 , 真理, 生命. 若不藉著我, 沒有人能到父那裡去.
筆者並非說愛心不重要. 只要有真理, 才有神的同在, 才是神的教會. 如果只有真理而沒有愛心, 神必管教. 相反的, 只有愛心而沒有真理, 她就不屬於基督. 很多其他宗教團體非常有愛心, 卻沒有真理, 他們是屬於基督的嗎?
該文指出, 這種眾醉我獨醒的表態, 反映其自義的心裡. 華神的學生表示, 如果真耶穌教會如此鄙視第二, 三世紀以後的教會, 因為他們完全沒有聖靈的同在, 那麼就應該把聖經也廢棄不用. 因為我們所遵循依從的聖經, 是第三, 四世紀以後, 由聖靈引導保守才編纂而成的. 真耶穌教會很多信仰與傳統教會或其他教派大同小異, 這些信仰當初還是由真耶穌教會所排斥的傳統教會, 付了極大的代價才傳承下來. 她憑甚麼認定只有她獨享聖靈的同在? 謝先生的大作中也引用了初代許多教父或其他宗派神學家的著述言論, 豈非自相矛盾?
真耶穌教會與其他教會的教義相同, 這也沒甚麼好大驚小怪. 因為大家都用同樣一本聖經. 壁如說, 聖經說要洗禮, 筆者認為真耶穌教會不會因為要和其他教會不同而反對洗禮. 重點是所傳的是否是全備的福音. 例如馬丁路得認為洗禮可洗去我們的罪, 但今天大多數教會都持相反觀點. 到底那一種觀點才對? 這才是關鍵所在. 還有, 如在今天說洗禮能洗去我們的罪, 肯定會被視為異端. 那馬丁路得是異端嗎? 相信大家都會否認. 對於聖餐, 馬丁路得也有不同的看法, 但相信大家都不會因此而指責他是異端. 這雙重標準, 豈非自相矛盾?
關於新約聖經的來源, 我們先談舊約. 雖然我們不信猶太教, 但我們卻接受他們的聖經為舊約. 這本猶太人聖經, 是于公元90年左右在雅麥尼亞(Jamnia)開會所決定的. 既然猶太人不信耶穌, 那是否也有聖靈住在他們當中? 筆者相信, 這只是聖靈的感動及引導而已 , 並非真正有聖靈住在他們當中.
再來談七十士譯本. 新約所引用舊約聖經時, 大都來自此譯本. 但猶太人卻也把舊約次經翻譯包括在內, 這難道又是聖靈的同在所致? 很顯然的, 他們只是被聖靈感動引導而已, 人為因素也加插裡面, 聖靈並沒有住在他們裡面.
關於新約成書的資料, 筆者採用 “基督教會史(北京大學出版社)” 和 “基督教二千年(海天書樓)” 這兩本書. 據筆者所得資料顯示, 在公元100年裡, 新約不同部份在這個時期寫成, 但沒結集, 也未界定為聖經. 早期基督徒作家(例如 波利普和伊格納修)從福音書和保羅書信中引文, 同時也從其他基督徒作品和口傳資料中引文. 保羅書信在1世紀晚期被收集起來, 馬太福音, 馬可福音和路加福音于150年被收集在一起. 此外, 大量引用次經的教父是羅馬的革利免和亞歷山太的革利免. 這再一次顯示沒有聖靈的同在. 不然, 次經不會大量的被引用.
公元200年期間, 羅馬教會使用的新約-----穆拉多利經目, 所收集的經書如下: 四福音書, 使徒行傳, 羅馬書, 哥林多前書, 哥林多後書, 加拉太書, 以弗所書, 腓立比書, 歌羅西書, 帖撒羅尼前書, 帖撒羅尼加後書, 提摩太前書, 提摩太後書,腓立門書, 提多書, 雅各書, 約翰一書, 約翰二書, 猶大書, 約翰的啟示錄, 彼得的啟示錄, 所羅門的智慧書. 私下崇拜使用, 但不用於公開崇拜的經卷為黑馬牧人書.
與我們今日的新約相比, 缺少了希伯來書, 彼得前書, 彼得後書, 約翰三書. 多出來的是彼得的啟示錄, 所羅門的智慧書及黑馬牧人書.
公元250年, 俄利根所用的新約如下: 四福音書, 使徒行傳, 羅馬書, 哥林多前書, 哥林多後書, 加拉太書, 以弗所書, 腓立比書, 歌羅西書, 帖撒羅尼前書, 帖撒羅尼後書, 提摩太前書, 提摩太後書, 提多書, 腓利門書, 彼得一書, 約翰一書, 約翰的啟示錄. 有爭議的經卷為希伯來書, 雅各書, 彼得二書, 約翰三書, 猶大書, 黑馬牧人書, 巴拿巴書, 十二使徒遺訓, 希伯來福音.
如與穆拉多利經目比較, 先前列入正典雅各書, 猶大書和約翰二書被刪除. 這顯示雖然有聖靈的的引導, 但人為獨自編集的成份更多. 如果是逐漸啟示的話, 早已列入正典的書卷, 應該不會被刪除. 聖靈不可能啟示此某卷書為正典後, 又改為有爭議的經卷.
公元300年, 優西比烏所使用的新約與俄利根的相同. 不過, 對約翰啟示錄的作者存疑. 有爭議但為人熟知的經卷為雅各書, 彼得二書, 約翰二書, 約翰三書和猶大書. 被排除的經卷為黑馬牧人書, 巴拿巴書, 希伯來書, 彼得啟示路和十二使徒遺訓. 值得一提的是, 原本為私下崇拜而非用於公共崇拜的黑馬牧人書, 此時也被排斥. 這再一次証明人為因素挾雜於聖靈引導中, 也間接証明並沒有聖靈的同在.
公元400年, 由迦太基公會會議確定的西部教會的新約, 已與我們今日的新約相同. 也就是說, 大約從公元400年起, 新約書卷不再改變. 這是神特別對聖經的保守. 不可與聖靈同在相提並論. 為何如此說? 極強調因信稱義的馬丁路得, 對雅各書提出質疑, 但聖經沒因此改變. 1546-1563年的天特會議, 天主教正式接受次經為正典, 這議案亦為梵諦岡第一次會議(1870)接納. 但我們的新舊約並未受其影響, 仍然是66卷. 1946年 在埃及勞梭(Luxor)以北三十哩發現的尼哈瑪地(Nag Hammadi)藏書. 都與新約有關, 但並未收入新約. 1947-56年間在死海西北昆蘭曠野之山洞的古代文獻, 包括論禮儀的, 被列為次經的, 以及啟示文學等等, 都沒有改變我們的聖經. 現今有一本摩門經, 但我們的聖經並沒把它收入為聖經的一部份. 有些教會自己翻譯聖經, 與我們的經文不同, 但我們的聖經仍然沒受到其影響. 最近所發現的猶大福音, 對於收入新約聖經, 根本沒有考慮的餘地, 雖然有很多學者說, 聖經要從此改寫! 這都表明有聖靈的保守, 人為因素影響已徹底被排斥了.
就神學來講,很多神學體系被提出來, 但都不能代替聖經. 其中有自然神學(Natural Theology), 自由派神學(Liberal Theology). 存在主義神學(Existential Theology), 新正統派神學(Neo-orthodox Theology), 解放神學(Liberation Theology), 黑人神學(Black Theology), 當代婦女神學的模式(Contemporary Feminist Theological Models), 希望神學(The Theology of Hope), 世俗化神學(The Theology of Secularization), 形式批判(Form Criticism), 破除神話 (Demythologization), 存有之神學(The theology of Being). 基要主義(Fundamentalism), 新基要主義(Neo-Fundamentalism),啟示神學(Apocalyptic Theology), 自然神論(Deism), 新自由神學(Neo-Liberalism), 神死神學(God-is-dead Theology), 福音派(Evangelicalism), 新福音派神學(Neo-Evangelicalism)和過程神學(Process Theology). 尤其是神死神學, 聖經並沒有隨之 “死亡”.
就哲學角度來看, 很多主義被提出來,但都曇花一現. 其中有理性主義, 經驗論, 決定論, 唯心論, 唯物論, 辯證唯物論和邏輯實證論, 還有馬克斯的共產主義 達爾文的進化論, 尼采所宣佈 “神死了”的哲學, 以及新紀元運動. 這都未對聖經照成影響, 聖經不但沒隨着潮流的變化而改變 , 卻仍舊是世上最暢銷的一本書. 這亦表示聖經蒙神的保持,人為因素以不復存在.
有聖靈引導而編成並蒙神保守的新約, 我們固然接受. 但筆者要強調的是, 有聖靈引導感動, 並非表示聖靈降臨與永遠同在. 晚雨聖靈的降臨, 才是賜給祂真正的羊群的聖靈. 聖靈保守聖經, 就好像舊約的大衛王一樣, 終身蒙神保守, 是特地針對某時某事某人.
現在來談談馬可波羅旅游中國一事. 據 “話說中國文明史” (天津古籍出版社)介紹, 馬可波羅是舉世聞名的旅行家, 為中西方文化交流做出了巨大貢獻, 在中意兩國關係史上豎起了一座豐碑. 他那 “馬可波羅游記”一書, 在中外歷史上產生了很大影響. 曾經在航運, 商貿, 旅游等方面, 為西方來華人士提供了很大方便, 具有重要價值.
不過, 在史學界, 馬可波羅到底有沒有到過中國, 一直爭論不休. 懷疑者提出四個理由: (1) 在中國史書中 沒有查到一件可供參考的馬可波羅的資料; (2) “游記” 中 很多地方存在可疑的統計資料; (3) 對中國最具特色的文化產物-----茶, 漢字和印刷術, “游記”中隻字未提; (4) “游記”中的對中國地名用的是波斯叫法, 說明他可能只到過中亞的依斯蘭國家.
據 “馬可波羅到過中國嗎?”一書者弗郎西絲伍德(吳芳思-Frances Wood), 她傾向于認為馬可波羅可能沒有到比他家鄉在黑海沿岸和君士坦丁堡的貿易站還要遠得多的地方. 而且, 無論是意大利冰淇淋, 還是中國餃子都不是他的功勞. 但這不是說 “游記” 不再是有價值資料來源. 如果對 “游記” 的內容加於審慎的利用, 它仍然具有重要意義. 而且可以被看作是在14世紀開始流行的那一類世界地理書籍的一個范本.
歷史學家對於此事深入探討, 其目的不是要否定 “游記”的價值, 而是要找出真相. 同樣的, 一些人敢對教會傳統或歷史提出疑問, 其目的是要尋求真理, 尤其是在教派特別多的今日.
筆者接受 “教義腐化說” 及 “聖靈停降論”, 並不是要否定尼西亞會議, 馬丁路德的改教或愛德華滋(Jonathan Edwards)之大覺醒運動等等. 筆者相信這些都有聖靈的感動, 引導及保守. 只是真神有祂自己的時候, 時間一到, 便降下聖靈給祂的羊群. 如有人看法與筆者不同, 筆者也尊重他的見解, 筆者絕對不會指對方為極端或異端, 甚至做出人身攻擊.
最後與大家共勉一節經文, 即路1:3 : 這些事我既從起頭都詳細考察了, 就定意要按次序寫給你.