聽高銘謙博士這三節釋經講座，一路走來，我覺得問題開始由「如何讀經」轉向一個牧者、主日學老師和查經組長不能逃避的問題：我們明白了經文，然後呢？
As I worked through these three lectures on biblical interpretation by Dr. Ko Ming Him, I found that the central question gradually shifted from “How do we read the Bible?” to another question that pastors, Sunday school teachers, and Bible study leaders cannot avoid: Once we understand the text, what comes next?
如果第一步是觀察，第二步是解釋，那麼第三步自然就是應用。但「應用」往往也是整個釋經過程中最容易跳步的地方。我們很容易讀完一段經文，找到一個屬靈道理，然後立即加上一句：「所以今天我們也要……」問題是，這個「所以」究竟如何得出來？為甚麼有些經文我們會直接遵行，有些卻不會？為甚麼「不可殺人」今天仍然有效，但「不可割盡田角」我們沒有照字面實行？為甚麼使徒彼此用聖潔的吻問安，我們今天返教會卻不需要逐個親吻？如果我們不能回答這些問題，那麼很多所謂「應用」，其實只是憑自己的神學傳統、文化習慣，甚至個人喜好，決定哪些經文要聽，哪些不用理會。
If the first step is observation and the second is interpretation, then the third is naturally application. Yet application is also one of the places where we are most likely to skip important steps in the interpretive process. We can easily finish reading a passage, identify a spiritual principle, and immediately add, “Therefore, today we should also…” But how exactly did we arrive at that “therefore”? Why do we obey some biblical commands directly but not others? Why does “You shall not murder” remain binding today, while we do not literally practise the command not to reap to the very edges of our fields? Why did the apostles greet one another with a holy kiss, while we do not go around kissing everyone when we arrive at church? If we cannot answer questions like these, then much of what we call “application” may simply be our theological tradition, cultural habits, or even personal preferences determining which biblical commands we choose to follow and which ones we quietly set aside.
高博士在課堂中用了連串經文讓大家即場判斷：信徒是否應該彼此親嘴問安？是否應該彼此洗腳？女人是否不可教導男人？傳福音是否一定要兩個兩個出去？男人是否不可以留長頭髮？信徒是否應該把所有財產變賣奉獻？「若有人不肯做工，就不可吃飯」又是否可以直接應用？課堂有趣的地方，是大家對不同經文的反應其實很不一致。有些一聽便覺得「當然要遵守」，另一些卻立即覺得「這只是當時的文化」。然而，如果再問一句：「你根據甚麼作出這個判斷？」事情便沒有想像中簡單。我們很多時候不是先建立一套釋經原則，再決定如何應用；剛剛相反，我們早已有一個想接受或不想接受的答案，然後才回頭替自己的答案尋找理由。
In class, Dr. Ko presented a series of biblical passages and asked us to make judgments on the spot. Should Christians greet one another with a kiss? Should we wash one another’s feet? Should women be prohibited from teaching men? Must evangelism always be done two by two? Should men never have long hair? Should Christians sell all their possessions and give away the proceeds? And can the statement, “Anyone unwilling to work should not eat,” be applied directly today? What made the exercise interesting was how inconsistent our instinctive responses were. With some texts, people immediately felt, “Of course we should obey this.” With others, the immediate response was, “That was simply part of their culture.” But once we ask one more question—“On what basis are you making that judgment?”—the matter becomes far less straightforward. Very often, we do not first establish sound interpretive principles and then decide how a passage should be applied. Quite the opposite: we already have an answer we would prefer either to accept or reject, and only afterwards do we begin looking for reasons to justify it.
因此，高博士引用 Daniel Doriani 的應用原則，嘗試為這個問題建立較清楚的判斷框架。簡單來說，如果一個命令或原則在聖經中持續出現，沒有被其他經文推翻，而且涉及明確的道德或神學議題，又在不同處境中反覆被確認，那麼我們便有充分理由視它為具有持續性的原則，可以帶到今天。例如十誡中不可殺人、不可姦淫，以及愛神愛人的命令，都不是只在某一個特殊群體或文化處境中出現；這些教導貫穿聖經，也在新約中再次被確認。因此，我們不能簡單地說：「那是古代人的文化，今天不同了。」
Dr. Ko therefore drew on Daniel Doriani’s principles of application in order to provide a clearer framework for making such judgments. Put simply, if a command or principle appears consistently throughout Scripture, is not overturned elsewhere, addresses an explicit moral or theological concern, and is repeatedly affirmed across different contexts, then we have good reason to regard it as an enduring principle that continues to apply today. The prohibitions against murder and adultery in the Ten Commandments, for example, together with the commands to love God and love our neighbour, do not appear only within one particular community or cultural setting. These teachings run throughout Scripture and are reaffirmed in the New Testament. We cannot therefore dismiss them simply by saying, “That belonged to an ancient culture; things are different today.”
相反，有些命令後來在救贖歷史中明確地被改變，甚至被取代，那麼我們便不能把它直接搬到今天。高博士以食物條例和獻祭制度為例。舊約對潔淨與不潔淨食物有清楚規定，但到了《使徒行傳》第十章，彼得所見的異象，以及新約整體對潔淨觀念的發展，使我們不能再按照舊約食物條例建立今天基督徒的餐單。同樣，舊約的獻祭制度並不是因為現代人嫌麻煩，所以停止實行，而是因為基督一次獻上自己，已經完成了獻祭制度所指向的救贖工作。換言之，不直接應用某段經文，不代表我們不重視聖經；真正的問題是，我們有沒有按照整本聖經和救贖歷史的發展理解它。
By contrast, some commands are explicitly changed or superseded within the unfolding history of redemption, and these cannot simply be carried directly into the present. Dr. Ko used the food laws and sacrificial system as examples. The Old Testament contains clear regulations concerning clean and unclean foods, but by the time we reach Peter’s vision in Acts 10, together with the New Testament’s broader development of the concept of purity, we can no longer use the Old Testament food laws to construct a menu for Christians today. In the same way, the Old Testament sacrificial system did not cease because modern people found it inconvenient. It ceased because Christ, in offering himself once for all, accomplished the redemptive work toward which the sacrificial system pointed. In other words, choosing not to apply a biblical command directly does not mean that we take Scripture less seriously. The real question is whether we have understood that command within the whole canon and the unfolding history of redemption.
另一類則更複雜，就是經文的命令明顯帶有特定文化和社會處境，但背後的神學原則仍然可以轉移到今天。高博士以《利未記》不可割盡田角為例。以色列人收割田地時，不可把田角全部割盡，掉在地上的穗子也不可拾回，因為這些要留給窮人和寄居者。《路得記》中，路得能夠在波阿斯的田間拾取麥穗，正正讓我們看見這套制度如何在以色列社會中運作。今天大部分香港或加拿大城市教會的信徒根本沒有農田，如果講員站在台上要求大家「今年收割時不要割盡田角」，當然十分荒謬。但這並不表示《利未記》的教導與我們無關。田地的文化處境不能直接轉移，為窮人和寄居者保留生存空間的原則卻仍然存在。 問題於是變成：今天一個基督徒如何在自己的收入、資源和生活安排中，刻意留下「田角」？我們是否把所有資源都用盡在自己身上，還是有意識地保留一部分，使有需要的人可以得着幫助？
A more complex category involves commands that clearly reflect a particular cultural and social setting, while the theological principle behind them remains transferable to the present. Dr. Ko used the command in Leviticus not to reap to the very edges of one’s field. When Israelites harvested their land, they were not to reap the field completely, nor were they to gather every fallen head of grain, because these were to be left for the poor and the resident alien. In the book of Ruth, Ruth’s ability to glean in Boaz’s field allows us to see how this provision functioned within Israelite society. Most Christians in urban churches in Hong Kong or Canada today do not own farmland. If a preacher stood in the pulpit and told everyone, “When you harvest this year, make sure you do not reap the edges of your fields,” the application would obviously be absurd. But that does not mean the teaching of Leviticus has nothing to do with us. The agricultural form cannot simply be transferred into our cultural setting, but the principle of preserving economic space for the poor and the vulnerable remains. The question therefore becomes: What might it mean for a Christian today intentionally to leave “the edges of the field” within our income, resources, and way of life? Do we consume everything we have on ourselves, or do we deliberately leave a margin so that those in need can receive help?
我覺得這個例子很好，因為它讓人看見「應用」不是在講章最後加三條功課。真正的應用，其實仍然是釋經。釋經者首先要辨認經文在原來處境中的要求，再問這個要求背後反映甚麼神學原則，然後處理古代世界與今天世界之間的距離，最後才思考這個原則如何在另一個文化處境中具體實踐。中間任何一步跳過，應用都可能出問題。若跳過原來處境，我們容易斷章取義；若跳過神學原則，我們容易把古代文化直接複製；若跳過今天的處境，我們最後只會得到一句永遠正確、卻沒有甚麼實際作用的結論：「所以我們要愛神愛人。」
I think this is an especially helpful example because it shows that “application” is not simply adding three practical lessons at the end of a sermon. Genuine application is still part of the work of exegesis. The interpreter must first identify what the text required in its original setting, then ask what theological principle that requirement expresses, then address the distance between the ancient world and our own, and only then consider how that principle might take concrete form in another cultural setting. If we skip any of these steps, our application can easily go wrong. If we ignore the original context, we risk taking the text out of context. If we bypass the theological principle, we may simply reproduce an ancient cultural practice. If we fail to engage our present context, we may end up with a conclusion that is always true but practically useless: “Therefore, we should love God and love others.”
課堂亦談到一個更具爭議性的例子，就是保羅所說「我不許女人講道，也不許她轄管男人」。高博士的處理方向，是先問這個命令是否在整本聖經中毫無例外地出現。如果聖經其他地方確實出現女性承擔先知、教導或領導角色的例子，那麼釋經者便不能假設這句說話是一條完全脫離處境、適用於所有時代和所有教會的普遍命令，而必須進一步研究書信所面對的教會處境。高博士提到戶勒大等例子，指出聖經本身存在女性向男性傳達神諭的場景。這不代表單憑一個例子便可以解決所有女性事奉的神學爭議，而是說：當聖經內部出現需要解釋的資料時，釋經者不能假裝它不存在。 我頗欣賞這種處理方法，因為真正的釋經不是急於證明自己的立場，而是願意讓所有經文證據坐在同一張桌上。當資料之間出現張力，我們的責任不是把不方便的經文收起來，而是繼續問問題。
The class also considered a more controversial example: Paul’s statement, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.” Dr. Ko’s approach was first to ask whether this command appears throughout Scripture without exception. If other parts of Scripture do in fact portray women exercising prophetic, teaching, or leadership roles, then the interpreter cannot simply assume that this statement is a universal command detached from its context and binding in precisely the same form upon every church in every age. Instead, we must investigate more carefully the situation being addressed in the letter. Dr. Ko referred to examples such as Huldah, noting that Scripture itself contains scenes in which women communicate the word of God to men. That does not mean that one example by itself settles every theological debate surrounding women in ministry. It does mean, however, that when Scripture itself presents evidence requiring explanation, interpreters cannot simply pretend that evidence is not there. I appreciate this approach because genuine exegesis should not begin by trying to prove our preferred position. It should be willing to allow all the biblical evidence to sit at the same table. When tensions emerge within that evidence, our responsibility is not to hide the inconvenient texts but to keep asking questions.
這也是我聽完整個講座後其中一個很深的感受。今天很多聖經爭論，其實不是因為大家不愛聖經，而是我們太快認為自己已經知道經文的答案。保守的人可能很快說：「聖經明明這樣寫。」較進步的人則可能很快說：「那只是當時的文化。」兩邊的說法有時都快得驚人。「聖經明明這樣寫」不等於已經完成釋經；「那只是文化」同樣不是一個萬能答案。真正困難的工作，是解釋為甚麼這一句具有跨文化的持續性，而另一句的具體形式不能直接轉移；我們的判斷有甚麼文本、正典和神學根據。這些工作很慢，也沒有一句口號那麼痛快，但我相信這才是認真對待聖經。
This was also one of the strongest impressions I took away from the lectures as a whole. Many contemporary debates about the Bible do not arise because people do not care about Scripture, but because we are too quick to assume that we already know what Scripture says. A conservative reader may quickly respond, “But the Bible clearly says this.” A more progressive reader may just as quickly say, “That was only their culture.” Sometimes both answers come with remarkable speed. But “the Bible clearly says this” does not mean that the work of interpretation has been completed, and “that was only cultural” is no more adequate as a universal solution. The difficult work is explaining why one command has continuing cross-cultural force while the concrete form of another cannot simply be transferred, and identifying the textual, canonical, and theological grounds for that judgment. This work is slow and far less satisfying than a slogan, but I believe this is what it means to take Scripture seriously.
由釋經進入查經帶領，高博士把這個過程進一步轉化成問題設計。他區分了封閉性、限制性和開放性的問題。封閉性問題通常只有一個正確答案，例如「誰離開那地方？」限制性問題則可能有數個正確答案，例如列出耶穌十二門徒的名字。這兩類問題的主要作用，是帶領組員觀察經文。因此，一個九十分鐘的查經，高博士甚至會預備十多條至二十條這類問題。它們不一定需要長時間討論，有些可能數秒便回答完，但作用是一步一步把組員的眼睛帶到文本的重要細節。組長不是立即告訴大家「這段經文有三個重點」，而是透過問題，讓組員自己看見那些重點如何從經文中浮現。
Moving from exegesis into the actual leading of Bible studies, Dr. Ko translated this process into the design of questions. He distinguished among closed, limited, and open questions. A closed question usually has one correct answer—for example, “Who left that place?” A limited question may have several correct answers—for example, asking participants to name Jesus’ twelve disciples. The primary function of these first two kinds of questions is to guide participants in observing the text. For a ninety-minute Bible study, Dr. Ko may prepare anywhere from a dozen to twenty such questions. They do not necessarily require lengthy discussion; some may take only a few seconds to answer. Their purpose is to direct the participants’ attention, step by step, toward significant details in the text. Rather than immediately announcing, “This passage has three main points,” the leader uses questions to help participants discover for themselves how those points emerge from the text.
真正需要時間討論的，反而是開放性問題。高博士把它再分為解釋性和應用性。解釋性問題可能問：「為甚麼先知在自己的家鄉不受尊敬？」經文本身未必立即提供一個簡單答案，因此組員可以提出不同理解，彼此討論。組長在這裏的角色不是主持一場「聖經答案競猜比賽」，每個人答完便宣判對錯，而是聆聽、歸納、追問，再把討論帶回文本。至於應用性問題，則把經文的核心信息帶到個人生命。例如，當經文揭示人可能因為過度熟悉而失去對耶穌的接待和信靠，組長可以問：「對你來說，這段經文有甚麼提醒？」不同組員的答案自然不同。有人可能想到自己事奉多年後的麻木，有人想到讀經已變成習慣，有人則察覺自己對初信時的單純有所失落。這類問題沒有一個標準答案，因為它所處理的已經是神的話如何進入不同人的生命。
The questions that genuinely require time for discussion are the open ones. Dr. Ko further divided these into interpretive questions and application questions. An interpretive question might ask, “Why is a prophet not honoured in his own country?” The text may not provide a simple answer immediately, so participants can offer different interpretations and discuss them together. The leader’s role is not to host a kind of “Bible answer quiz,” listening to each response and then declaring it right or wrong. Rather, the leader listens, summarizes, asks further questions, and continually brings the discussion back to the text. Application questions, meanwhile, bring the central message of the passage into personal life. If a text reveals, for example, that excessive familiarity can lead people to lose their openness and trust toward Jesus, the leader might ask, “What does this passage challenge you to consider in your own life?” Different participants will naturally respond differently. One may recognize a growing numbness after many years of ministry. Another may realize that Bible reading has become little more than routine. Someone else may become aware of having lost some of the simplicity and openness that characterized their early faith. There is no single standard answer to this kind of question because we are now considering how the Word of God enters the lives of different people.
高博士亦提醒，開放性問題不宜太多。一個查經如果問十條「請分享你的看法」，結果往往不是深入，而是疲累。解釋性問題可能只有兩三條，應用性問題甚至只有一兩條，但必須對準整次查經的目標。這一點很重要，因為問題不是愈多愈好，也不是愈有創意愈好。組長首先要知道：我希望這群人透過這段經文看見甚麼？ 如果一條問題只能帶來有趣的爭論，卻把整個小組帶離經文的核心，那麼即使大家討論得非常熱烈，也未必是一條好的查經問題。
Dr. Ko also cautioned against using too many open questions. A Bible study that asks ten versions of “What do you think?” is more likely to produce exhaustion than depth. There may be only two or three interpretive questions and perhaps only one or two application questions, but they must be carefully aligned with the purpose of the study. This is important because more questions do not necessarily make a better study, nor does greater creativity necessarily produce better questions. The leader must first know: What do I hope this group will see through this passage? If a question generates an interesting debate but carries the entire group away from the central concern of the text, then no matter how lively the discussion becomes, it may not be a good Bible study question.
這令我想到自己多年來預備查經和講章的一個掙扎與突破。我很重視內容，也很容易在研究過程中找到很多有趣的資料。問題是，研究者覺得有趣的東西，不等於全部都需要交給聽眾，起初講道時，我就常犯這類錯誤，以至被教會領袖批評我像想向人顯示我很有學問。高博士在課堂中提到，有些學生預備五千字，甚至七千字的內容，最後根本不可能在指定時間內完成；除非像機關槍一樣不停說，否則只有刪減。其實講章也是一樣。預備時讀了十本書，不代表十本書的內容都要出現在講章；找到七個很精彩的觀察，也不代表七個都要講。很多研究最後沒有直接出現在講台上，但它並沒有浪費，因為正是這些研究使講員知道甚麼最重要，也知道自己為甚麼選擇只講其中一部分。
This reminded me of one of the struggles—and eventual breakthroughs—in my own years of preparing Bible studies and sermons. I care deeply about content, and I can very easily find large amounts of interesting material during research. The problem is that not everything a researcher finds interesting needs to be handed to the listener. When I first began preaching, I often made precisely this mistake, to the point that church leaders criticized me for sounding as though I was trying to show people how much I knew. Dr. Ko mentioned in class that some students prepare five thousand or even seven thousand words of material and then discover that there is simply no way to present it within the assigned time. Unless they speak like a machine gun, they have no choice but to cut. The same is true of preaching. Reading ten books in preparation does not mean that material from all ten books needs to appear in the sermon. Discovering seven fascinating observations does not mean that all seven need to be preached. Much of our research may never appear directly in the pulpit, but that does not make it wasted work. It is precisely that research which enables the preacher to know what matters most—and to understand why some material should be included while other material should be left behind.
高博士最後談到應用的具體程度。他用一個很生活化的例子：如果一個人說「這星期我要節制飲食」，這個應用其實很模糊。甚麼叫節制？少吃一點是多少？甚麼時候實行？相反，如果他說：「這個星期我不吃熱浪薯片」，至少已經具體得多。應用需要具體、可實行，也要切合現實。若有人為了減肥說：「我這星期完全不吃不喝」，當然非常具體，但並不可行。因此，一個好的應用不能只停在「我要更愛神」、「我要更有信心」、「我要努力讀經」。這些說話神學上全部正確，但生命很難知道下一步應該做甚麼。
Finally, Dr. Ko discussed how specific an application should be. He used a very ordinary example: if someone says, “This week I am going to practise self-control in my eating,” the application remains quite vague. What does self-control mean? How much less will you eat? When will you do it? By contrast, if the person says, “This week I will not eat Hot Wave potato chips,” the application has at least become much more concrete. Application needs to be specific, actionable, and realistic. If someone trying to lose weight says, “This week I will not eat or drink anything at all,” that is certainly specific, but it is hardly workable. In the same way, good application cannot stop at statements such as, “I need to love God more,” “I need to have more faith,” or “I need to read the Bible more faithfully.” All of these statements are theologically correct, but they give our lives very little indication of what the next step should actually be.
我覺得這也是不少講章最可惜的地方。前面用了三十分鐘解釋經文，最後五分鐘突然說：「所以弟兄姊妹，我們要更愛主、更有信心、更努力傳福音。」問題不是這些應用錯，而是它們幾乎可以放在任何一篇講章最後。如果我把經文由《出埃及記》十六章換成《約翰福音》十五章，應用仍然完全一樣，那麼我便要問：這個應用真的是從這段經文長出來的嗎？ 《出埃及記》十六章若揭露的是人在曠野中如何選擇性地記憶，應用便應該處理我的記憶如何塑造我對神的信任；如果《約翰福音》第四章處理的是「接待耶穌」與「不接待耶穌」，應用便應該讓人重新思想自己如何回應耶穌。好的應用不是在經文後面貼上一句屬靈口號，而是讓經文原來的問題，進入今天人的生命。
I think this is also one of the great missed opportunities in many sermons. A preacher may spend thirty minutes explaining the text and then suddenly conclude with five minutes of, “Therefore, brothers and sisters, we need to love the Lord more, have greater faith, and work harder at evangelism.” The problem is not that these applications are wrong. The problem is that they could be attached to almost any sermon. If I can replace Exodus 16 with John 15 and leave the application entirely unchanged, then I need to ask whether that application has actually grown out of this particular text. If Exodus 16 exposes the way people selectively remember the past in the wilderness, then the application should address how my memory shapes my trust in God. If John 4 is concerned with “receiving Jesus” and “not receiving Jesus,” then the application should invite people to reconsider how they themselves respond to Jesus. Good application does not attach a spiritual slogan to the end of a biblical passage; it allows the original issue of the text to enter the lives of people today.
講座最後亦談到小組組長的角色。我頗喜歡高博士其中一個提醒：材料是死的，人是活的。 組長預備了二十條問題，不代表二十條一定要全部問完；預備了一段很精彩的資料，也不代表今晚無論如何都要講。如果組員在一個重要問題上有很深的分享，組長需要懂得停留；如果討論離題，則需要在適當時間把大家帶回來。這是一種藝術，也是一種牧養判斷。查經不是完成教材，更不是組長展示自己預備得多充分。組長要建立一個彼此信任的環境，讓人敢於說話，也要保護小組的方向，不讓討論變成神學高手比武。高博士形容有些小組好像不同門派的武林高手，各自搬出自己的理論較量；大家可能講得很精彩，生命卻沒有因此被建立。
Toward the end of the lectures, Dr. Ko also spoke about the role of the small-group leader. I particularly appreciated one of his reminders: materials are static; people are alive. Preparing twenty questions does not mean that all twenty must be asked. Preparing an excellent piece of background material does not mean that it must somehow be presented that evening. If participants begin sharing deeply around an important question, the leader needs to know when to stay there. If the discussion drifts off course, the leader needs to know when and how to bring everyone back. This is an art, but it is also an exercise of pastoral judgment. Bible study is not about completing the study guide, nor is it an opportunity for the leader to demonstrate how thoroughly prepared they are. The leader needs to create an environment of trust in which people feel safe enough to speak, while also protecting the direction of the group so that discussion does not become a competition among theological experts. Dr. Ko described some groups as resembling martial arts masters from different schools, each bringing out their own theories to compete with the others. The discussion may sound impressive, yet no one’s life is actually being built up.
這一點，我作為牧者特別有感受與試探。教導聖經與傳遞資料從來不是同一件事。我們可以完成一份教材，可以把二十條問題全部問完，可以準時結束，甚至可以讓組員覺得「今晚學了很多」，但這仍然不等於一個群體真正被神的話建立。高博士提醒組長要為組員祈禱，要認識他們，要建立信任，也要以服侍人的態度帶領查經。這些說話聽起來不像高深的釋經學，卻把整個課程重新帶回一個很重要的位置：釋經最終不是一種智力遊戲，而是服侍神的群體。
As a pastor, I feel both the weight and the temptation of this particularly strongly. Teaching Scripture and transferring information have never been the same thing. We can complete a study guide, ask all twenty questions, finish exactly on time, and even leave participants feeling that they “learned a lot tonight,” yet none of this necessarily means that a community has actually been built up by the Word of God. Dr. Ko reminded leaders to pray for their group members, to know them, to build trust, and to lead Bible study with the posture of someone serving others. None of this sounds like sophisticated biblical scholarship, yet it brings the whole course back to something essential: exegesis is ultimately not an intellectual game; it is an act of serving the people of God.
回看這三節課堂，我覺得高銘謙博士最鮮明的地方，仍然是他高度邏輯化的釋經脈絡。他不斷問：你根據甚麼？這個答案從哪裏來？經文有沒有這樣說？為甚麼這個原則可以轉移到今天？你的問題如何帶向查經目標？表面上，這是一套很理性的閱讀方式；但愈走到最後，我反而愈看見這種嚴謹背後所要求的，是一種對經文的克制。不要太快把自己的答案放進去，不要太快跳到應用，也不要因為自己預備了很多，便急着把所有東西交給別人。
Looking back over these three lectures, what remains most distinctive to me about Dr. Ko Ming Him’s approach is the highly logical structure of his exegetical method. Again and again, he asks: What is your basis for saying that? Where did this answer come from? Does the text actually say this? Why can this principle be carried into the present? How does your question serve the purpose of the Bible study? On the surface, this is a highly rational way of reading Scripture. Yet the further the process develops, the more I see that the discipline beneath this rigour is really a form of restraint before the text. Do not insert your own answer too quickly. Do not rush into application. And do not assume that because you have prepared a great deal, everyone else needs to hear everything you have prepared.
我們需要做足研究，卻不需要展示所有研究；需要認真解釋，卻不是把釋經書搬上講台；需要帶出應用，卻不能把自己的答案變成所有人的標準答案。
We need to do the research thoroughly without displaying all of our research. We need to interpret carefully without carrying the commentary into the pulpit. We need to lead people toward application without turning our own answers into the required answers for everyone else.
或許，好的釋經與教導，最終都在學習同一件事：讓經文說得比我們更多，也讓自己說得比預備時更少。
Perhaps good exegesis and good teaching are ultimately learning the same discipline: allowing the text to say more than we do, and allowing ourselves to say less than we prepared to say.
而當經文真正被打開，我們的責任不是替每一個人完成生命的答案，而是帶他們走到神的話面前，讓他們開始聽見，這段經文正在向自己說甚麼。
And when the text truly begins to open up, our responsibility is not to complete the answer to life for everyone else. It is to bring people before the Word of God, so that they can begin to hear what this text is saying to them.
Pastor Antony
沒有留言 :
發佈留言