上一篇談到，我們怎樣觀看經文，往往會影響我們看見甚麼。高銘謙博士在課堂中進一步把這個閱讀過程推向另一個很重要的層次：當我們看見經文中的資料、結構、重複與比較之後，下一步究竟應該問甚麼？因為釋經並不是把觀察所得逐項列出來便完成。真正的解釋，往往由問題開始。為甚麼作者要在這裏寫這一句？為甚麼要交代這個時間和地點？為甚麼人物會有這樣的反應？這個字在這裏究竟是甚麼意思？這些問題看似簡單，卻決定了我們最後能否真正進入經文的世界。
In the previous article, I reflected on how the way we look at a biblical text often shapes what we are able to see in it. In his lectures, Dr. Ko Ming Him took this process of reading one important step further: once we have noticed the details, structure, repetition, and comparisons within a passage, what should we ask next? Exegesis is not complete simply because we have listed everything we have observed. Genuine interpretation often begins with questions. Why does the author include this sentence here? Why are we given this particular time and place? Why does a character respond in this way? What exactly does this word mean here? These questions may sound simple, but they often determine whether we are able to enter more fully into the world of the text.
我一直很喜歡問問題。這不只是我讀聖經的方法，也是我做學問一向的態度。對我來說，學習最有趣的地方，很多時候不是得到一個答案，而是突然發現一個以前沒有想過的問題。為甚麼同一件事，另一卷書的記載會有所不同？為甚麼作者明明可以略去一個細節，卻偏偏把它寫下來？為甚麼這個人物在最應該說話的時候突然沉默？一個問題打開之後，往往又會帶出另一個問題，而研究的趣味正正在這裏。知識並不是一堆等待我們搬運的資料，而是一個不斷追問、不斷發現，然後重新整理自己理解的過程。因此，高博士這部分的教學，與其說為我提供了一套完全陌生的方法，不如說他以非常清晰而高度邏輯化的釋經脈絡，把「問問題」在釋經中的位置呈現出來，也讓我更清楚看見：問題不是研究前的熱身，而是研究本身的重要部分。
I have always enjoyed asking questions. This is not only how I read the Bible; it is also how I have always approached learning. For me, one of the most interesting moments in study is often not when I find an answer, but when I suddenly discover a question I had never thought to ask. Why does another biblical book describe the same event differently? Why does an author include a detail that could easily have been omitted? Why does a character suddenly fall silent at precisely the moment when we expect him to speak? One question often opens the door to another, and that is part of what makes research so fascinating. Knowledge is not simply a collection of information waiting to be transferred from one person to another. It is a continuing process of questioning, discovery, and then reorganizing what we thought we understood. In that sense, this part of Dr. Ko’s teaching did not so much introduce me to an entirely unfamiliar method as provide a remarkably clear and logical interpretive framework for understanding the role of questions in exegesis. It helped me see more clearly that questions are not merely a warm-up before the real work of research; they are an essential part of the research itself.
高博士在課堂中提出，進入解釋階段時，可以集中處理幾類問題。第一類是「甚麼」：這個字是甚麼意思？這裏所描述的是甚麼事情？經文所說的某個人物、地方或行動究竟指甚麼？第二類是「為甚麼」：作者為甚麼要寫這一句？人物為甚麼作出這個反應？為甚麼經文特別記載某個時間、地點或細節？第三類則是「含義」：這個描述放在整段經文中有甚麼意義？它與其他經文有甚麼關係？作者透過這個安排，要讀者看見甚麼？這幾類問題看起來並不複雜，但真正重要的地方，是問題必須從文本中生出來，而不是由釋經者把自己有興趣的題目強行放進經文。問題可以很深，但深奧不等於準確；一條真正有價值的釋經問題，必須能夠把我們重新帶回文本。
Dr. Ko suggested that, as we move into the interpretive stage, we can focus on several kinds of questions. The first concerns “what”: What does this word mean? What is being described here? What exactly does this person, place, or action refer to? The second concerns “why”: Why does the author write this sentence? Why does this character respond in this way? Why does the text specifically mention this time, place, or detail? The third concerns “significance”: What is the significance of this description within the passage as a whole? How does it relate to other biblical texts? What does the author want the reader to see through this particular arrangement? None of these questions is especially complicated in itself. What matters is that our questions arise from the text rather than being imposed upon it by an interpreter pursuing a topic of personal interest. A question can sound profound without being exegetically precise. A genuinely valuable interpretive question must ultimately lead us back into the text.
其中令我印象較深的，是高博士以《出埃及記》十六章作示範。經文記載以色列全會眾到了以琳和西奈中間的汛曠野，時間是「出埃及後第二個月十五日」。一般閱讀時，我們很容易把這些資料視為敘事背景：地點是汛曠野，時間是第二個月十五日，知道了，然後繼續讀。但高博士停下來問：為甚麼作者要告訴我們這個地點？為甚麼要記下這個日期？這些問題未必每一條都立即有答案，甚至未必每一條最後都成為講章內容，但釋經者願意停下來問，閱讀的方向便已經不同。因為我們開始不再把經文中的細節視為理所當然，而是嘗試理解作者為甚麼如此敘述。
One example that particularly stayed with me was Dr. Ko’s treatment of Exodus 16. The chapter tells us that the whole congregation of Israel came to the Wilderness of Sin, between Elim and Sinai, “on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had departed from the land of Egypt.” In ordinary reading, it is easy to treat these details simply as narrative background: the place is the Wilderness of Sin, the date is the fifteenth day of the second month—good to know; now we move on. But Dr. Ko stopped and asked: Why does the author tell us where this happened? Why record the date? Not every question will immediately yield an answer, and not every question will eventually find its way into a sermon. Yet the moment an interpreter is willing to stop and ask, the direction of the reading begins to change. We no longer take the details of the text for granted; we begin trying to understand why the author has chosen to tell the story in this particular way.
接着，以色列人向摩西和亞倫發怨言。他們說：「巴不得我們早死在埃及地、耶和華的手下；那時我們坐在肉鍋旁邊，吃食物得飽。你們卻把我們領到這曠野，要叫這全會眾都餓死啊！」這段經文非常熟悉，我們也很容易迅速總結：「以色列人沒有信心，所以埋怨。」這個理解不能說錯，但高博士沒有停在這個概括，而是留意到經文兩次談及「死」，於是問了一條很簡單的問題：他們認為自己會死在誰的手中？ 在埃及，他們說自己本來可以「死在耶和華的手下」；來到曠野，他們卻指控摩西和亞倫「要叫這全會眾都餓死」。當這兩句話放在一起，經文的張力便開始浮現。他們究竟怎樣理解耶和華？他們是否仍然相信耶和華與他們同行？為甚麼一個剛剛經歷紅海、親眼看見耶和華拯救的群體，轉眼間竟然把埃及描述成一個「坐在肉鍋旁邊，吃食物得飽」的地方？
The Israelites then complain against Moses and Aaron: “If only we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the pots of meat and ate bread to the full! For you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger.” It is a familiar passage, and we can easily summarize it by saying, “The Israelites lacked faith, so they complained.” That is not necessarily wrong, but Dr. Ko did not stop with that generalization. Instead, he noticed that the passage speaks twice about death and asked a very simple question: In whose hands did they think they were going to die? In Egypt, they say they might have “died by the hand of the LORD”; in the wilderness, they accuse Moses and Aaron of bringing the entire community out there to die of hunger. Once these two statements are placed side by side, the tension within the passage begins to emerge. How did they understand the LORD at this point? Did they still believe that the LORD was travelling with them? How could a people who had only recently crossed the Red Sea and witnessed the LORD’s deliverance now describe Egypt as a place where they “sat by the pots of meat and ate bread to the full”?
這樣追問下去，「埋怨」便不再只是一個情緒或道德問題，而開始涉及人的記憶。他們記得埃及的肉鍋，卻忘記埃及的奴役；記得曾經吃飽，卻忘記法老如何苦待他們。他們不是完全失去記憶，而是選擇性地記憶。當眼前的曠野令人不安，過去便被重新美化；昔日捆綁自己的地方，竟然變成值得懷念的地方，而帶領自己離開奴役的神，反而開始變得不可信。我很喜歡這種釋經的推進，因為它不是突然從經文跳到一個漂亮的應用，而是透過問題，一層一層把文本本身的張力揭露出來。當經文真正被打開，應用很多時候並不需要勉強製造，因為我們自然會開始問：人在甚麼時候最容易美化自己的埃及？當現在令人失望，我們是否也會重新編寫自己的過去？
As we continue asking these questions, “complaining” is no longer merely an emotional or moral problem; it becomes a question of memory. They remember Egypt’s pots of meat but forget Egypt’s slavery. They remember having enough to eat but forget how Pharaoh oppressed them. They have not lost their memory altogether; rather, their memory has become selective. When the wilderness of the present becomes frightening, the past is rewritten in more attractive colours. The place that once held them in bondage becomes a place worth longing for, while the God who delivered them from slavery begins to appear untrustworthy. I find this kind of exegetical movement compelling because it does not suddenly leap from the biblical text to an attractive application. Instead, through a series of questions, it gradually uncovers the tensions already present in the text itself. Once the text has genuinely begun to open up, application often does not need to be forced. We naturally begin asking: When are we most likely to romanticize our own Egypt? When the present disappoints us, do we also begin rewriting our past?
這也讓我想到一些華人講道常見的問題。有些講章處理經文的方法，是很快把一段經文整理成三點：「第一，不要埋怨；第二，要有信心；第三，要倚靠神。」三點式本身當然沒有問題，我自己也很重視講章結構；問題在於，這三點究竟是不是從經文的解釋過程中引伸出來。有時所謂三點，只是把一段經文切成三部分：第一段提出一個道理，第二段提出另一個道理，第三段再加一個應用，於是講章完成了。然而，經文中真正困難和有張力的問題可能完全沒有處理。為甚麼人物有這個反應？為甚麼作者這樣安排？兩句說話之間明明存在張力，應該如何理解？如果這些問題沒有被處理，講章即使結構清楚，也可能只是把經文重新排列一次。
This also made me think about a pattern that sometimes appears in Chinese preaching. Some sermons move very quickly from a biblical passage to three points: “First, do not complain. Second, have faith. Third, trust God.” There is nothing inherently wrong with a three-point sermon; I place considerable value on clear sermon structure myself. The real question is whether those three points have actually emerged from the process of interpreting the text. Sometimes the so-called three points amount to little more than dividing a passage into three sections: the first section produces one principle, the second produces another, and the third provides an application. The sermon is then considered complete. Yet the genuinely difficult and tension-filled questions within the passage may never have been addressed. Why does the character respond this way? Why has the author arranged the material like this? If there is an obvious tension between two statements, how are we supposed to understand it? When such questions remain unexplored, even a clearly structured sermon may amount to little more than a rearrangement of the biblical material.
所以有些講章，我聽完之後會一頭霧水；另一些甚至講了幾句，我的思想已經開始飄走。我不完全認為這只是現代人專注力下降的問題。當然，今天人的閱讀和聆聽習慣確實改變了，但作為講員，我有時也會反問：我們所講的內容，是否真的值得人繼續聽？如果一篇講章沒有一個真正需要處理的問題，只是不斷堆砌背景、資料和結論，聽眾其實很難知道整篇講章究竟要帶他去哪裏。沒有問題，就沒有張力；沒有張力，資料便只是一堆資料。資料可以全部正確，甚至非常學術，但正確的資料並不自然等於一篇好的講道。
That is why there are sermons I finish listening to and still find myself wondering what they were really about. With others, after only a few minutes, I can already feel my attention beginning to drift. I do not think this can be explained simply by saying that people today have shorter attention spans. Certainly, patterns of reading and listening have changed. But as preachers, perhaps we also need to ask ourselves whether what we are saying is actually worth continuing to listen to. If a sermon has no genuine question that needs to be explored, but simply accumulates background information, facts, and conclusions, listeners will find it difficult to know where the sermon is taking them. Without a question, there is no tension; without tension, information remains just information. Every fact may be correct, and the material may even be impressively scholarly, but accurate information does not automatically make a good sermon.
另一個我經常留意到的現象，是有些講章很喜歡提出原文。講員說：「這個字在希伯來文是……」、「原來希臘文真正的意思是……」，會眾立即感覺好像進入了一個很深奧的世界。但我有時聽完仍然會問：為甚麼我要知道這個原文？這個字究竟解決了經文哪一個問題？它如何改變我對整段經文的理解？如果一個希伯來字或希臘字不能幫助我們澄清語義、處理文本中的張力、揭示結構或說明重要的神學關係，那麼把它搬上講台，很多時候只是展示講員的研究過程，而沒有真正完成解釋。就好像廚師把所有材料逐件放在桌上，詳細介紹產地和成分，最後卻沒有把它們煮成一道菜。原文研究當然重要，但研究的深度不應以講員說了多少希伯來文來衡量，而應看這些研究是否真正幫助我們更準確地理解經文。
Another tendency I often notice is the eagerness to introduce the biblical languages into sermons. A preacher says, “This word in Hebrew is…” or “What the Greek really means is…,” and the congregation immediately feels as though it has entered a much deeper level of biblical study. Yet I sometimes find myself asking afterwards: Why did I need to know that Hebrew or Greek word? What problem in the text did it actually resolve? How did it change my understanding of the passage as a whole? If a Hebrew or Greek term does not help clarify the meaning, address a textual tension, reveal an important structure, or explain a significant theological relationship, bringing it into the pulpit may simply display the preacher’s research process without actually accomplishing the task of interpretation. It is rather like a chef placing every ingredient on the table, carefully explaining where each one came from and what it contains, but never actually cooking the meal. Study of the biblical languages is certainly important. But the depth of our research should not be measured by how much Hebrew or Greek appears in the sermon; it should be measured by whether that research has genuinely helped us understand the text more accurately.
Haddon Robinson在《合乎聖經的講道》中提出講章的「Big Idea」，其中一個重要觀念，就是一篇講章需要處理一個可以清楚表達的中心思想。Robinson以「subject」與「complement」幫助講員思考：作者究竟在談甚麼？作者對這個主題說了甚麼？這與高博士課堂中強調「問問題」的方向，在我看來有一個很自然的連結，也是對我重新的提醒。講員不能只是問：「這段經文可以分成哪三點？」而要先追問：「作者究竟在處理甚麼問題？經文對這個問題作出了甚麼回答？」當這個核心沒有弄清楚，三點、四點甚至七點，都只可能是資料的排列；但當核心問題被抓住，講章的結構才真正有方向。
In Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages, Haddon Robinson develops the concept of the sermon’s “Big Idea.” One of his central insights is that a sermon needs a clearly identifiable controlling idea. Robinson’s categories of “subject” and “complement” help the preacher ask: What exactly is the author talking about? And what is the author saying about that subject? I see a natural connection between this and Dr. Ko’s emphasis on asking questions, and it has served as a helpful reminder for me. The preacher cannot simply ask, “How can I divide this passage into three points?” We first need to ask, “What issue is the author actually addressing, and what answer does the text give to that issue?” Unless that centre has been identified, three points, four points, or even seven points may amount to little more than an arrangement of information. But once the central question has been grasped, the structure of the sermon begins to have a genuine direction.
我愈來愈覺得，真正有學問的人，不一定是把一個問題講得愈來愈深奧。很多時候剛剛相反：他曾經進入問題的複雜性，知道當中有哪些歧路、爭議和困難，最後卻能夠用清楚的語言，把核心問題呈現出來。淺白並不等於膚淺。一句「他們為甚麼懷念埃及？」小學生也聽得懂，但要真正回答這條問題，背後可能涉及《出埃及記》的敘事結構、曠野傳統、以色列人的記憶，以及經文如何重新描述埃及。研究的深度不需要全部倒在聽眾身上；研究的作用，是幫助講員問出更準確的問題，再帶領會眾一步一步走進經文。
I increasingly find that genuine scholarship is not necessarily demonstrated by making a question sound more and more complicated. Often, the opposite is true. A good scholar has entered deeply into the complexity of an issue, understands its possible paths, debates, and difficulties, and yet is finally able to express the central question in clear language. Simplicity is not the same as shallowness. A child can understand the question, “Why did they long for Egypt?” Yet answering that question well may require careful attention to the narrative structure of Exodus, the wilderness tradition, Israel’s memory, and the way the text reconstructs their perception of Egypt. The full weight of our research does not need to be unloaded onto the congregation. The purpose of research is to help the preacher ask more precise questions and then lead the congregation, step by step, more deeply into the text.
這也是為甚麼我一直覺得，做學問其實是一件很有趣的事。每問一條好的問題，都像在牆上發現一道裂縫；沿着裂縫追下去，可能發現後面原來還有一個很大的空間。知識的興趣，很多時候就是這樣產生的。不是因為老師知道很多，而是因為他讓你突然想知道：「為甚麼？」如果我們作為牧者和教師，自己都不懂得問問題，只懂得把一堆資料搬出來，我們很容易把聖經變得沉悶。更嚴重的是，我們可能以為自己正在忠於聖經，實際上卻只是把知識的重擔放在別人身上。資料愈多，會眾愈覺得聖經或信仰遙不可及；術語愈多，他們愈相信只有牧者和神學生才讀得懂。這種教導方式，某程度上與法利賽人的問題沒有太大分別：不是沒有知識，而是所傳遞的知識沒有把人帶近神的話，反而把人推得更遠。
This is also why I have always found serious study genuinely enjoyable. Every good question is like discovering a crack in a wall. Follow that crack far enough, and you may discover that an entire room lies behind it. Much of the fascination of learning begins in exactly this way. It is not simply that a teacher knows a great deal, but that the teacher causes you suddenly to want to know, “Why?” If we as pastors and teachers do not know how to ask questions ourselves and can only present large amounts of information, we can easily make the Bible seem dull. More seriously, we may imagine that we are being faithful to Scripture when in reality we are simply placing the burden of our knowledge on other people. The more information we provide, the more inaccessible Scripture and Christian faith may begin to feel; the more technical terminology we use, the more people may come to believe that only pastors and seminary students can really understand the Bible. To some extent, this kind of teaching begins to resemble the problem of the Pharisees: the problem is not the absence of knowledge, but that the knowledge being communicated does not bring people closer to the Word of God and may instead push them further away.
在第一天講座最後的提問時間，我就只問了高博士一條簡單問題。我提到，過去曾有老師提醒我們，不要把太多原文搬上講台；那麼，應該如何理解原文研究與講道之間的關係？高博士的回應很實際。他的意思並不是叫傳道人不要研究原文，相反，釋經者應該做足研究。問題是，我們是否需要把整個研究過程搬上講台。如果原文真的影響經文的理解，當然可以講；但講員需要先把研究消化，再用會眾能夠明白的方式說出來。重點從來不是讓會眾知道你查過希伯來文或希臘文，而是原文研究有沒有真正幫助他們明白經文。
During the question period at the end of the first day, I asked Dr. Ko only one simple question. I mentioned that one of my former teachers had cautioned us against bringing too much Hebrew and Greek into the pulpit, and I asked how we should understand the relationship between study of the biblical languages and preaching. Dr. Ko’s response was very practical. He was certainly not suggesting that pastors should avoid studying the original languages. On the contrary, interpreters should do the necessary research thoroughly. The question is whether the entire research process needs to be brought into the pulpit. If an issue in the original language genuinely affects our understanding of the passage, then of course it may be worth mentioning. But the preacher must first digest the research and then communicate its significance in language the congregation can understand. The point is never to make people aware that you have consulted the Hebrew or Greek. The point is whether your work in the original languages has actually helped them understand the biblical text.
我很認同這個方向。講員當然是聖靈所使用的媒介。這並不表示我們可以離開經文，任意分享自己的故事；但同樣，也不是把幾本釋經書的內容整理、翻譯，再搬上講台，就等於忠於聖經。講員研究經文，被經文質問，在自己的生命中與神的話相遇，然後再把自己所理解的真理向群體宣講。經文沒有改變，但神使用的是一個真實的人，向一群真實的人說話。如果講道最後只剩下一本會說話的釋經書，我其實不奇怪信徒會覺得聖經枯燥乏味。
I strongly agree with this direction. The preacher is, of course, an instrument used by the Holy Spirit. That does not mean we are free to leave the biblical text behind and simply tell our own stories. But neither does faithfulness to Scripture mean summarizing several commentaries, translating their contents, and carrying the resulting material into the pulpit. The preacher studies the text, allows the text to question him, encounters the Word of God within his own life, and then proclaims to the community the truth he has come to understand. The biblical text has not changed, but God uses a real person to speak to real people. If preaching finally becomes little more than a commentary that has learned how to speak, I am not surprised when Christians begin to find the Bible dry and uninteresting.
所以，這部分課堂對我而言，與其說是學會了「問問題」，不如說是再次確認一件我一直相信的事：好的研究，往往從好的問題開始；好的釋經，是讓問題不斷受經文約束；而好的講道，則是把經文所處理的問題，重新帶到人的生命面前。問題不需要故意問得深奧，但必須問得準確。
So for me, this part of the lectures was not so much about learning how to “ask questions” as it was about reaffirming something I have long believed: good research often begins with good questions; good exegesis allows those questions to be continually disciplined by the text; and good preaching brings the questions addressed by the biblical text back before the lives of real people. Our questions do not need to sound deliberately sophisticated, but they do need to be precise.
因為當問題問對了，經文蘊藏的真理真的會慢慢被打開。
Because when we ask the right questions, the truth held within the text really does begin, little by little, to open up.
Pastor Antony
沒有留言 :
發佈留言