A ministry of…

作者: Roger Pascoe, 博士,主席
郵箱: [email protected]

I.加強講解式講道
傳講新約福音，第一部分

在這一期，我要開始探討如何傳講福音故事。約占新約一半的四福音書，集中在耶穌的生活和事工（可1:1；太1:1；徒1:1-2；約20:31）。既然耶穌基督是四福音書的中心，所以我們對福音的理解和傳講也應該以基督為先。

在福音書中，耶穌基督被描述為成全了律法、第二個摩西、先知書預言要來的那位。因此，我們拿起福音書的任何一段，都要先問一下“這一段告訴了我們哪些關於耶穌基督的好消息，他對我們的愛，他的使命，他的苦難，死亡以及復活，他的再來，他對我們和社會的旨意？” (Sidney Greidanus, “Preaching in the Gospels”, 333)

另外，我們也要問，其他角色在福音中的作用是什麼？我認為，不論什麼時候當另一個角色出現在福音書的故事中，都加強或者促進了耶穌的資訊和事工以及我們對他的理解。比如，如果你傳講約6:1-14，安德列和腓力說了什麼和做了什麼來回應耶穌，從故事的角度說是很重要的。因此，為了恰當地理解這個故事，我們需要對此加以解釋。不論怎樣，這個故事的中心在於耶穌是誰以及在這個事件中他如何表現自己。我們得知安德列和腓力並不知道耶穌是誰，因為如果他們知道的話，他們就不會像故事裡說的和做的那樣。這個故事的重要在於既然耶穌是神，（1）他能使石頭變成麵包（給眾人吃）或者（2）他能讓魚嘴裡吐出錢來（去買麵包），或者（3）就像他們所看到的，他能夠增多五個餅和兩條魚來喂飽眾人。對耶穌問題的答案就是，耶穌不需要去買麵包，因為他是造物主。這就是我所說的對這個故事以基督為中心的理解。

就像這個故事，福音故事的主要目的在於記錄作者關於耶穌是神以及他的性格的神學理論，難道這就是作者想教給我們的所有東西嗎？或者，我們能從他們身上學到什麼實用的經驗教訓並應用到我們自己的生活中？我認為次要的角色，比如安德列和腓力在福音故事中扮演了非常重要的角色。他們不但突出了耶穌的生命和事工，而且體現了人的有限、需要、罪和不信實等，尤其在他們和耶穌的關係以及對他的理解上。我們必須小心，不要把這些福音故事僅僅歸結為道德教訓，並且可以肯定的是，作者在敘述這些次要人物的細節時，也想要讓我們從他們身上看到我們自己（我們的不信，有限的理解和對耶穌的不信靠）。在他們身上，我們看到現實生活的例子，我們也像他們一樣，在對耶穌究竟是誰的理解上，經歷屬靈和理論上的波折。雖然這可能並不是福音故事的主要目的，但無疑是重要的一個。

耶穌的事工集中在“宣揚天國的福音”（太4:23；9:35；可1:14-15；路4:43’），一個國度（天國），“臨近你們了”（路1:9,11），“臨到你們了”（太12:28），“近了”（太3:2；1:7）以及“在你們心裡”，因為君王在這裡。同樣地，耶穌也命令他的門徒宣揚同樣的資訊（太10:7;路9:2），也就是他們在福音書中為我們記錄下的資訊。當然，福音的資訊在使徒行轉（參照徒28:31）和使徒書信中也繼續被傳揚。

福音書裡，舊約在長久等候的救贖終於來到了。這個救贖所有的指向和預表（獻祭等）都在基督裡得以實現。福音書將這個最後的、一次獻上就永遠成全的祭放置在歷史的背景下展開，即先知們所預言的資訊和事件在歷史的長河中真實地發生（即成為現實），從舊約最後一個先知（施洗約翰）宣告彌賽亞來了（太3:1），直到耶穌的降生、生活、教導、死亡、復活和升天。現在，我們回過頭來看這些事件，我們傳道的任務就是跨越時間、文化和神學觀點的鴻溝。

A.福音體裁：它的文學風格、結構和特點

“福音”即好消息，關於耶穌基督的好消息（哥前15:1），也是耶穌所宣揚的好消息（可1:14-15）。

1.文學風格。福音的體裁是福音書所獨有的，從某種程度上說，使徒行轉也是—它延續了這個基本的文學風格，記錄了耶穌升天之後基督教會的成長。注意下面的福音書的文學特點…

a)福音是敘事體（簡短故事的集錦）。聖靈選擇了這樣的形式來溝通關於耶穌的資訊，以及耶穌所傳遞的資訊，毫無疑問地使我們能夠進入到故事裡面而不是僅僅學習一系列的歷史事實。因此福音書包含了眼見、味道、聲音、想像。因此每一個福音，都是由一系列短小的故事組成，其中的一些互相聯繫的，共同構成一個主題的一部分。

b)福音是傳記體的，雖然可能不是我們常用的形式。福音是為了傳達以基督為中心的神學歷史。因此它們是關於基督的、神學的、傳記性的。

c) 福音是“佈道性的”（說教的），反應了耶穌和他門徒的教導。

d)福音作者有選擇地選擇他們的歷史材料。每一本福音書都從一個特有的角度，選擇性地敘述耶穌生活和教導的一些事件（並不是記錄每一個事件），以獨特的方式呈現他的生活和事奉。比較福音書對同一事件的不同記載，能夠很好地説明我們理解作者的角度。

e)每一個福音作者的寫作都為了符合他特殊的神學目的。例如，約2:31，約翰的目的是為了傳福音，但不僅僅是傳福音。一個人一旦相信了神的兒子耶穌，他必須活在耶穌裡面，和他一起，也為他而活。因此福音作者記載了這些歷史事實，將它們呈現在我們面前，使我們能夠相信他，也“在他裡面有生命”。

f)每一個福音作者都以他獨特的神學角度講述了耶穌—他的生命、教導和事工。因此，馬太體現了耶穌是彌賽亞以及他的國度。馬可體現了耶穌是一個無瑕疵的、受苦的僕人。路加體現了耶穌是人子（也就是耶穌是完全的人）。約翰體現了耶穌是神的兒子（也就是耶穌的神性）。

因為每一位作者的神學角度不同，因此他們的故事也有不同的起點。馬太以耶穌的家譜和出生開頭；馬可以施洗約翰的資訊起頭（沒有出生的記載）；路加以施洗約翰的出生以及後來耶穌的出生起頭；約翰以耶穌道成肉身之前的存在起頭。

g)福音作者以不同的方式編排他們的素材。每一個福音故事並一定是按時間順序排列的，有的時候是按主題排列。這就解釋了為什麼每個福音書的素材順序是不同的。他們在措辭上也有變化，這反映了一個這樣的事實，即福音故事並非來自像錄音帶一樣的複製，並非是一個詞一個詞複述，而是轉述或者濃縮的。他們也並非記錄耶穌所說或者做的每件事（參考約21:25）。這就說明了為什麼有的時候耶穌的教導是幾個小時，但是所記錄的內容，我們只需要幾分鐘就讀完了。

h) 每本福音書共同的重點都是耶穌生命的最後幾周。這個主題包含了最大比例的素材。比如，在約翰福音中，從12章開始就是關於耶穌生命的最後幾周。因此，我們認為，關於福音書包含哪些內容以及如何安排，是聖靈在帶領福音作者。

i)福音體裁不是照搬舊約，但是確實與舊約有連續性—比如：

(i)救恩歷史的繼續。

(ii)一般來說，舊約和福音書都包含敘事史，比喻，律法、末日災難、神跡等。

(iii)舊約所盼望以及先知所預言的都在基督裡得以實現，福音書將這些記錄了下來。不論怎樣，就題材而言，我認為“福音是一個獨特的體裁”。

2.文學結構和特點。三本福音書（馬太、馬可和路加）被稱為“對觀/符類”（字面意思：一起看，看起來相似）福音，因為他們包含了相似的材料，而約翰福音卻完全不同。

福音是由短小的故事組成的，每一個故事都關於耶穌；有些故事互相聯繫，組成更大的故事；所有的故事組成一個大的故事。因此，當閱讀福音書的時候，問你自己：

a) 這個小故事告訴了我們關於耶穌的什麼？

b)根據上下文的背景，作者在這個更大的故事（也就是這些小故事的集合）裡面告訴了我們什麼？

以路加福音10:25到11:13（參考Duval and Hays, Grasping God’s Word, 248-249）所記錄的一系列小故事為例…

a)路加10:25-37講述了一個想得到永生的律法師的故事。

這一互動的背景開始于律法師對耶穌的提問“我該做什麼才可以得永生？”（10:25），他接著問了第二個問題：“誰是我的鄰舍”（10:29）。耶穌用了一個關於“一個人從耶路撒冷下耶利哥”的比喻（10:30-35），回答了他想要顯明自己有理的第二個問題。

我們從這個故事能夠學到的神學原則是：

(i)我們的鄰舍是任何有需要的人。

(ii)愛鄰舍不受種族、地域、財富以及民族的限制。

b)路加10:38-42記載了耶穌到馬利亞和馬大家裡的故事。

從這個故事中，我們學到的神學原則是，有的時候我們過於忙碌為主做工，卻忽視了與他之間的關係。

c)路加11:1-13記載了因著門徒要求 “求主教導我們禱告”（11:1），耶穌教導如何禱告。我們從這裡能夠學到的神學原則是…

(i)禱告的直接物件是神（父），禱告是對神的敬畏的表達（11:2）。

(ii)禱告包括了請求神供給我們每日的需要，原諒我們的罪債以及請求神保守我們遠離試探（11:3-4）。

(iii)我們可以大膽地禱告（11:5-8）

(iv)禱告是對父神的信靠，我們要求的時候回答我們，尋求的時候引領我們，敲門的時候給我們開門（11:9-10）。

(v)作為一位愛我們的父神，神願意賜予我們禱告的請求（11:11-13）.

貫穿這些獨立但在神學和主題上有聯繫的小故事的共同線索是“關係”。

a)路10:25-37 愛以及服事那些有需要的人（也就是我們的“鄰舍”），不論他們是誰以及我們對他們有怎樣的偏見。

b).路10:38-42 永遠要把你與耶穌之間的個人關係、對耶穌的全心投入放在宗教活動（事工）之前。

c).路11:1-13 在禱告中與神交流是一個美好的特權，表達了我們對神的愛以及我們依賴於神供應我們每日的需要。

結語

我希望這篇關於福音書講道的介紹性的文章，對你理解“福音體裁—它的文學風格、結構和特點”能夠有幫助。下次我將繼續這個主題，提供一些關於解釋的提示和原則，將幫助你進一步理解和傳講福音故事。

II.加強聖經化領導
“和好的職分，第三部分：神百姓的和好” (哥後. 6:1-6:10)

我們繼續研究保羅寫給哥林多教會的精彩牧養指導。到目前為止，我們已經討論過的這一系列文章如下所列…

哥後2:14-3:3，事工中有信心

哥後4:1-16 真實事奉的本質:

第一部分，資訊的本質，哥後4:1-6(2012夏)

第二部分，事奉的本質，哥後4:7-16(2013夏)

哥後4:16-5:17，事奉的動力

第一部分，我們將來的轉變，哥後4:16-5:9（2013秋）

第二部分，我們在神面前交帳，哥後5:1-13（2014冬）

第三部分，基督舍己的愛，哥後5:14-17（2021春）

哥後5:18-7:16，和好的職分

第一部分：所有人的和好，哥後5:18-21（2021夏）

第二部分，神百姓的和好，哥後6:1-7:16

1.呼籲神的百姓與神和好，哥後6:1-2（2021秋）

2.呼籲神的百姓與神的執事和好（6:3-7:16）.

a)基於一個值得稱讚的事工， 呼籲和好，哥後6:3-10（2021秋和2022冬）

b)基於一個牧養的心，呼籲和好，哥後6:11-7:16（在接下來的版本中）

在本刊的上一期雜誌中（2021秋，41期）我們完成了對哥林多後書6:5的學習，第二部分進行到一半：“基於一個值得稱讚的事工，呼籲和好。”我們注意到，一個事工值得稱讚，因為

(i)忍受身體上的苦難(6:4-5)

(ii)持守道德標準(6:6-7)

(iii) 忍耐矛盾的現實(6:8-10)

上一期中，我們探討了(i)一個值得稱讚的事工忍受身體上的苦難，這次我們要學習…

ii)一個值得稱讚的事工持守道德標準（6:6-7）。道德標準有利於識別和確認一個值得稱讚的“神的事工”（6:4）。保羅的事工在道德上展現了 “…廉潔、知識、恒忍、恩慈、聖靈的感化、無偽的愛心、真實的道理、神的大能、仁義的兵器在左在右”。這些道德標準在適當的例證和支持下，成為值得稱讚的事工和事工的特徵。作為神的執事，使徒保羅克服了各種身體上的苦難（6:4-5），保持道德標準， “在各樣的事工表明自己”（6:4）。

讓我們一起來學習一下這些使事工值得稱讚的道德標準…

“…廉潔”（6:6a）意味著，我們作為神的僕人，堅持和踐行聖潔的生活，以持守我們的道德標準。我們要活得無可指責，在我們的生活中沒有任何事情可以正當地使我們喪失信譽。我們是正直的人。這顯然是使我們的事工值得稱讚的根本。

“…知識”（6:6b）指的是我們的理解，尤其是對屬靈的事的理解，堅固我們的事工。我們道德和行為的標準必須建立在對神真理的理解上。

“…恒忍”（6:6c）。事奉需要很多的耐心，尤其是對那些反對我們，愛辯論卻沒有堅固的聖經基礎的人。保羅在這裡就面對哥林多教會那些批評反對他的人。他深知耐心的考驗。

.“…恩慈”（6:6d）是基督的憐憫、恩典和溫柔。當保羅在身體上遭受反對他的人的苦待時，當他在情感上遭受那些認識他、本應更好地對待他的人的傷害時（比如哥林多教徒），耐心和恩慈無疑使他能夠適當地處理和回應這些問題。有人指出，耐心是被動的，恩慈是主動的(P. Barnett, cited in David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, 308)。難怪這兩個道德品質涵蓋了保羅在任何環境中的表現，不論是面對福音敵對者的反對和逼迫，還是面對神百姓的批評和拒絕。他效仿了耶穌的榜樣，“他被罵不還口，被害不說威嚇的話，只將自己交托那按公義審判人的主”（彼前2:23）。

“…聖靈的感化”（6:6e）。有的人認為這裡指的是人的靈。但相反的是，聖靈常常與聖潔、耐心、恩慈、知識等聯繫起來（參考羅14；17；15:13；哥前12:8；加5:22）。畢竟，是聖靈使我們能夠有這些道德品質。保羅一定是靠著聖靈的大能才具備這些聖靈的果子。

只有“被聖靈充滿”的人才能充分地表現出恰當的道德標準（弗5:18），他們靠著聖靈的能力生活和事奉神。實際上，接下來“真實的道理”、“神的大能”以及“仁義的兵器”進一步說明了保羅在這裡指的是聖靈，他作為神的使者賦予我們能力，使神的執事能夠活出這些行為品質。

“…無偽的愛心”（6:6f）。真實的愛是一個值得稱讚的事工的另一個組成部分。真實的愛是沒有虛假的愛、不偽裝的愛。實際上，保羅心裡可能有一個鮮明的對比，想到哥林多教會對他的愛是虛偽的、有條件的、偶爾的。

“…真實的道理”（6:7a），經文。保羅也有可能指的是所說的真實的話。但是有可能保羅在這裡指的是神的話，神的話就是真理，也闡明真理。

“…神的大能” （6:7b）。正如一個在事奉中持守道德標準的牧師，靠著聖靈的能力，就是“神的大能”，能夠以模範的道德方式行事。我們自己完全沒有能力在事奉上為神活出模範的生命。我們只有被“神的大能”驅使，“靠著聖靈”行事，而不是我們自己的能力，才能做到。（參考羅1:16；15:19；哥前1:18；2:4-5；帖前1:5）

“…仁義的兵器在左在右”（6:7c）。我們不但靠著神賜予的能力來事奉，而且在我們事工的屬靈爭戰中，神保守我們，他賜予我們屬靈的“仁義兵器”。“在左在右”似乎指的是，在任何情況下神都保護我們，不論攻擊從哪而來，不論在什麼情況下攻擊出現，也不論是什麼樣的攻擊，不論我們是面對“榮耀”、“羞辱”、“惡名”、“美名”（6:8）.

因此，保羅就這八個道德標準對比了真正的執事和騙子，也就是批評他的假使徒。福音真正的執事持守他的道德行為和標準，毫不動搖。

所以，一個值得稱讚的事工被人所知，通過它（1）忍受身體上的苦難（6:4-5）；（2）持守道德標準（6:6-7），以及…

(iii)一個值得稱讚的事工忍受矛盾的現實（6:8-10）。在這裡，保羅描述了9個矛盾的狀況，通過這些情況，他堅持不懈，而他的事奉仍然是值得稱讚的。靠著真實的道理，神的大能，以及神仁義的兵器作為他面對攻擊或者防禦的武器，保羅能夠面對任何的環境，不論是真的還是假的，不論是讚美還是反對，不論是鼓勵還是不鼓勵。

“…榮耀、羞辱、惡名、美名”（6:8a）。保羅當然知道，忍受對他本人以及對他事奉的各種不同的評價和報告是什麼滋味。前一分鐘，人們跪倒在地，把他當作神來崇拜；下一分鐘，他們就要用石頭打死他（比如在路司得，徒14:8-9）. 有些報導稱讚他的事工;而其他人則懷疑；有些報導純粹是邪惡和歪曲事實;而有些報導是好的。 但是，無論別人尊崇他或羞辱他，稱讚他或說他壞話，保羅都在事奉中忍耐，因為他要得神的稱讚。

列表繼續，這裡有兩個對立的悖論—也就是別人如何看待他和他實際是什麼樣的人之間的對立…

“…似乎是誘惑人的，卻是誠實的”（8b）。儘管他的敵人認為他是個騙子，儘管哥林多人認為他說的不是真話（比如哥後1:17-20），但實際上保羅用愛心說誠實話。其他人（可能是假使徒）可能認為（和指控）他是個騙子，引導人們走彎曲的道路，但事實上保羅教導的是真實的。因此，不要讓他人的指控妨礙了你的事工。

“…似乎不為人所知，卻是人所共知”（6:9a）。雖然保羅並不爭取名聲或者公眾的讚譽，但毫無疑問他很有名望，雖然可能並非通過直接的接觸。更具體地說，那些與他不親近(或反對他)的人並不真正瞭解他牧養的心和正直的性格。在這個程度上說，他“不為人所知”。而且，他也不是那種輕易表露內心想法和感情的人（像他在使徒書信中一樣）。但是對那些他親身牧養的人來說，他是人所共知的。他的動機，他的資訊，他的道德，他的原則，他生活的方式，他對神的忠誠，他對福音堅定的宣傳都是人所共知的。

現在對立的悖論轉移到互補的悖論…

“…似乎要死，卻是活著的”（6:9c）。死亡在保羅的事奉中一直都是隨時都有可能發生的現實—這是一種職業危險。這是他所面對的苦難的結果（哥後4:8-10；徒11:24-25；16:19-26）。這也是活在“與基督一同受苦，效仿他的死”這樣的關係中所面對的現實(腓 3:10; 哥後 4:11)。

“似乎受責罰，卻是不至喪命的”（6:9c）。保羅把在事奉中所經受的苦難、反對和逼迫看做是神對他的“管教（和合本譯為“責罰”）”（哥前11:32；來12:6）。 神使他經歷這些試煉，雖然是嚴厲的，卻沒有死。在這段經文中，保羅似乎是在引用這些極端的經歷，說明籍著這些經歷，“值得稱讚的”執事們以他們鮮明的基督式的反應證明了他們是誰。他們把這樣的環境，看做神的管教之手，為要叫他們得益處和成長。

“…似乎憂愁，卻是常常快樂的”（6:10a）。儘管保羅積極地看待生活和事工，但這並不代表他沒有憂愁（比如哥前2:1-3；羅9:2；腓2:27）。但是他能夠在面對憂傷的時候，在基督裡仍然有不可動搖的喜樂。

“…似乎貧窮，卻是叫許多人富足”（6:10b）。保羅靠做帳篷為生。毫無疑問，這樣的工作並不能使他富有。傳講福音也不能使他富有（哥後2:17；4:2；腓4:12）。事實上，他選擇貧窮是為了不負債或者不成為任何人的負擔（哥後11:9；12:6），是為了不使福音受損（徒20:33-35）。但是通過他的事工，他卻使很多人屬靈上富足（哥前4:8；哥後1:6）。

“…似乎一無所有，卻是樣樣都有的”（6:10c）。儘管保羅貧窮，但是他並不是在叫屈。他在基督裡樣樣都有。他是富足的（腓4:12）。

結語

保羅描述一個值得稱讚的事工和執事的目的是為了“免得這職分被人誹謗”（6:3）。值得稱讚的事工能夠承受任何人的審視之光，因為這樣的執事能夠在各種困難和壓迫的環境中表現得令人欽佩，例如忍受身體上的痛苦（6:4-5），持守道德標準（6:6-7），以及忍受矛盾的現實（6:8-10）.。

由此看出，保羅把真誠和值得稱讚的執事與那些不誠實和欺詐的執事做對比。正如一位評論員所說，“保羅認為福音因著那些貪婪、誤會、無知、傲慢、憤怒、粗魯、無情、虛假愛人的執事而受損，他們結交那些他們認為在某些方面對他們有益的人。這樣的執事既沒有聖靈也沒有神的大能”（David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, 310）。

希望我們被這次的學習鼓舞，使我們的事工無可指摘，我們自己行事為人能夠榮耀神。

III. 講道大綱

題目:像基督學習，做有影響力的基督徒，第一部分（太5:13）

主題:有影響力的基督徒是那些為了神的緣故對世界做出改變的人

要點 1:當我們為神而影響世界時，我們完成我們的使命(5:13a)

“你們是世上的鹽”

1a.我們要在這個墮落、走向死亡的世界裡有賜予人生命的影響力。

(i)…通過抵擋罪的侵蝕保守世界

(ii)…通過從罪的感染下淨化世界

1b.我們要在一個不道德和沒有信仰的世界裡成為一個明顯的影響者

(i) …在不失去我們身份的前提下滲透這個世界

(ii) …在不讓人反感的前提下調節世界的口味

要點 2. 如果我們在世上成為對神無用的，我們的使命就失敗了（5:13b）

“鹽若失了味，怎能叫他再鹹呢？以後無用，不過丟在外面，被人殘踏了”

2a.如果我們失去了神在這個世界上對我們的目的，我們就會變得無用

–也就是像鹽一樣“失了味”

2b.如果我們失去了在這個世界上在神裡面的價值，我們就會變得無用

–也就是變得“對什麼都沒有好處”

A ministry of…

Author: Dr. Roger Pascoe, President,
Email: [email protected]

I.加強講解式講道
傳講希伯來詩歌（第二部分）

在上一期的雜誌中（2021夏），我介紹了一些希伯來詩的文學特色。我們討論了…

A.詩篇的類型

B.詩篇修辭的目的和功能

C.希伯來詩修辭的結構

D.希伯來詩的文學手法

…在這裡，我將簡要介紹希伯來詩歌佈道的另外兩個方面…

E.希伯來詩講道方面的應用

一般來說，要確保你解釋和應用每一首詩篇都與它的神學和歷史背景相一致。雖然詩篇作者和神百姓的困境或抱怨一般也可能是我們的困境或抱怨，但我們必須確保不要總試圖把詩篇作者的境況直接轉移到我們自己身上。比如，和詩篇作者不同，我們並非在絕望中等待，期望未來彌賽亞的救贖—從我們在救贖歷史中所處的位置，彌賽亞已經來了。因此，這使我們有了一個不同的視角，即使我們可能與詩篇作者有相似的生活環境。

但不論怎樣，傳講希伯來詩幫助我們的聽眾獲得一些能夠應用於生活不同領域的聖經化的實用的觀點。

1.希伯來詩描述了真實的事件和經歷。比如，大衛犯罪通姦，之後他深刻認識到自己的罪過，良心日夜折磨他（詩51:3）。實際上，有一段時間，當他試圖掩蓋自己的罪時，他表現出來內在的沉默和外在的呻吟的強烈的身心反應（詩32:3-4）。

這些詩篇描述了一個未加掩飾的真實的經歷。雖然你可能沒有犯這樣的罪，但我認為我們可能都因為生活中的罪有過相似的經歷，直到我們坦白，悔改，與神和好，與我們所得罪的人和好。

2.希伯來詩就像詩歌音樂，激發我們從永恆的角度來看我們的生活環境。比如，哈巴穀3:17-19是一個極好的極有詩意的動力，讓我們即使在生命和未來看起來暗淡的時候，仍然在神裡面有希望。

3.希伯來詩激發我們的情感，與作者的個人經歷和回應產生認同。比如， 我們認同在詩篇73中，詩人看到惡人的明顯繁榮，而他自己的處境卻與此相反所產生的困惑。

聖經的詩歌涵蓋了人類情感的所有範圍。當你傳講聖經詩歌的時候，要把這點指出來，因為我們都是有情感的受造物，我們需要知道如何在神面前表達我們對各種生活情況的情感反應。

4.希伯來詩拓展我們的想像力。神創造我們，不但賦予了我們情感，也賦予了我們想像力。當你講聖經詩歌的時候，嘗試閉上你的眼睛，在腦海中恰當地謹慎地重現當時的場景。有三個詩歌特徵，可以在這方面幫助你。

a)確定修辭—他們會幫助你描繪作者的處境。詩篇40:1描述作者的行動，就像其他人描述的那樣，“從泥潭到唱詩班”。從作者的敘述中，可以想像他從絕望的深淵中爬出來，開始歌頌神（參見詩42:1；哀1:14）。能夠看到和理解比喻很重要，比如擬人、明喻、隱喻等。

b)注意語言的直白——它有助於你理解作者的嚴肅性。在耶利米書20章，當耶利米被鎖在枷裡，他回想神對他的應許，要保護他。在20:7-10，作者在絕望中，接著在20:13中，他又充滿了希望，20:14-18中他又再度失望。這種對作者情感變化的坦白表達，有助於我們理解作者生活狀況的嚴重性和他的反應。

c)欣賞語言的豐滿——它向你揭示作者的主題。比如，勸戒以色列人悔改之後（何14:1-3），作者描述了神恢復以色列的全部的過程—他們從悖逆中更新，他們新生命的復興和他們回歸到神面前（何14:4-7）（這就是作者的主題所在）。

5.希伯來詩幫助我們的理解。我們在試圖理解希伯來詩時，要認識到它對各種詩歌文學手法的運用。比如…

a)平行。在上一期的雜誌中，我已經詳細地討論過這個問題（2021夏）。補充一點，閃語詩歌（希伯來語屬於閃語）的本質就是它的平行結構。希伯來詩主要根據回聲的原則—作者喊出來，就會像回聲一樣被重複。例如，詩篇1:5，“當審判的時候惡人必站立不住（喊出）…罪人在義人的會中也是如此（回聲）”。注意“惡人”等同于“罪人”（同義平行）；“審判”與“義人的會“相反”（對立/反義平行）。因此，作者通過詩歌的平行手法，描述了這樣一個真理:當惡人被審判時，他們不會參與到義人的會中。

b)重複。這有幾個例子：

詩篇136，“他的慈愛永遠長存”（在26節的每節中重複出現）。

以賽亞5，“禍哉，那些…”(在第5章8, 11, 18, 20, 21, 22節中重複了6次)，直到“禍哉，我..”達到高潮（6:5）。說其他人禍哉容易，但是也應該包括我們自己。

.阿摩斯4：“你們仍不歸向我，這是耶和華說的”，在第4章6,8,9,10,11中多次重複，最後以警告“…當預備迎接你的神”（4:12）而告終。

c)文字遊戲。耶利米書1:11用一顆杏樹做象徵。杏樹被稱為“守望或覺醒樹”，因為它是春天第一個開花的樹。因此，在文字遊戲中，神說，“我在留意保守（耶1:12）”——“留意保守”與“杏樹”的單詞只有一個字母的差別。每年耶利米看到杏樹開花，而神也仍舊在留意保守來成就他的話。

另外，在阿摩斯書8:1中，神向先知指示了一筐無花果。這是夏天最後的果實。因此，神說，“結局到了”（8:2）. 我們大多數人讀舊約，讀的都是我們自己語言的翻譯版本，使得我們很難看出裡面的文字遊戲。

d)比喻。詩篇1把一個敬虔的人比作“一棵樹栽在溪水旁”（節3）與不敬虔的人就像“糠秕被風吹散”（節4）形成對比。因此通過使用明喻，形成鮮明的對比—敬虔的人，道德和屬靈的狀況穩定、強勁、不可搖動，而不敬虔的人，道德和屬靈狀況不穩定，不斷變化，不結果子（參考賽17:12-13）。

f) 離合。離合詩是用字母表中的字母組成一個單詞或短語的作品。這種文學手法就像一種記憶系統。這些聖經離合詩中最有名的可能是詩篇第119篇。該詩篇中，希伯來字母表的22個字母分別作為每8節經文的開頭字母。同樣，耶利米哀歌也是離合形式組成的。

6.希伯來詩幫助我們…

a)記住神的話—比如走、坐、站（詩1）

b)默想神的話——“耶和華是我的牧者”

c)管理神的話，比如一篇講道（例如詩篇23），或者一系列講道（比如上行詩120-134）或者每種類型詩篇的一個。

7.希伯來詩提供了說明，通過…

a)引用聖經的作者來說明某一點——比如“就像詩篇作者說的…”或者“就像雅歌說的…”

b)解釋一個形象、象徵符號或圖畫—比如詩篇23:1，“耶和華是我的牧者”。

c)把一句經文應用到其他經文。比如詩篇107:29應用于馬太8:23-27。

8.希伯來詩為我們提供了模仿的模式，比如…

a)坦白罪（比如詩篇51）

b)信靠神（如詩篇27:3）

c)頌贊神的榮耀——比如…

詩篇19:1-6，創造中神的榮耀

詩篇106，歷史中神的榮耀

彌迦書7:18-19，救贖中神的榮耀

F.傳講詩歌作品的兩個有用的提示

如果你做一系列詩篇的講道，對詩篇的類型、背景、結構和神學作一個介紹性的講道是很有用的。接著，當你準備你的講道時…

1. 找出段落中概括歸納的經文，一句關鍵的經文總結或者確立了整個段落的立意。比如詩篇73，詩人把不敬畏神的人的生活和自己生活的相比較，不能夠理解為什麼惡人享平安，“…等我進了神的聖所，思想他們的結局”（73:16-17）。當他認識到神是至高無上的主宰時，一切都變得清晰起來。神會審判惡人。

你可以在約伯身上看到同樣的情況。他抱怨說，在創造中可以看見神的能力，但是他的話聽起來很模糊，他的行為難以理解（伯26）。但後來約伯意識到，只有親自聽到上帝的話語，才能正確理解神的作為。當然，也正是這樣，當神在旋風中對他說話時，他才最終理解了神在他生命中的作為(38:1)。

2.尋找一段話的神學重點。我們從聖經的詩歌中學到了很多神學知識。因此，我們需要找到這本書以及這本書一個具體段落的神學觀點。接著，我們的工作要將神學觀點和生活實際聯繫起來。就像Graeme Goldsworthy指出，“因此，詩篇反映了神的救贖以及人類的失敗…有些詩篇再現救贖歷史，有些詩篇簡單地頌贊神的偉大，也有些在困苦中呼求神，渴望救贖” (Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, 196-197)。

如果你想從詩歌中傳講神學，往往需要傳講某個神學主題，這就要利用其它的經文來補充你要講的某個特定段落，比如，詩歌提出了生活中的重大問題並且表達了抱怨，但是他們通常並不會給出一個確定的、持久的答案。約伯確實從神那裡得到了答案，但卻是不完全的答案。說“約伯你要相信我的主權”是一回事，的確如此，我們要相信神，但是我們需要一個更具體的答案。為此，我們作為傳道人，必須求助於先知書和新約，在那裡我們能夠找到關於生命的意義和目的、人類經歷中明顯存在的不公正以及神的主權掌管這一切的確定的神學理論。在那裡我們找到尋索生命意義的答案，找到了從我們的境況中得以救贖的答案，即為“救世主”的到來

II.加強聖經領導
“和好的職分，第二部分：神百姓的和好（哥後6:1-7:16）”

1. 呼籲神的百姓與神和好（6:1-2）。“我們與神同工的，也勸你們，不可徒受他的恩典”（6:1）。我們和好的職分不但直接服事于非信徒，也服事神的百姓（參照第十頁的評論）。經歷了發生在他們教會的敗壞之後（參照哥前），哥林多人確實需要與神和好。在服事中，我們是“神的同工”（哥前3:9），是“與神同工的”（哥後6:1a）。這是神的事工，我們與他同工，是他的使者，他的代言人，他的代表。

因此，我們不但向世界傳和好的資訊，也將和好的資訊傳給神的百姓。我們呼籲世人“與神和好”，因為他們與神之間的關係是破裂和遠離的—他們從來沒有與神和好過。而“我們也勸你們（哥林多信徒），‛不要徒受他的恩典′”（6:1b）。他們曾經“受過”神的恩典—也就是他們因著在基督裡的恩典已經與神和好。但是很明顯他們的生活並不像一個與神和好的人。就好像他們“徒受”了神的恩典——也就是他們看起來或者他們的行為並不像是已經與神和好的呢。

怎麼可能徒受神的恩典？難道保羅在暗示他們從來就沒有真正地與神和好過，他們所宣稱的信仰是不真實的？並非如此，在保羅的心裡，他從來沒有懷疑過他們是真正的信徒。

難道保羅在說他們曾經得救而現在又失去了救恩？不是，因為這與新約信徒永遠得救的明確教導相違背（比如腓1:6；彼前1:5；約10:27-30）。

難道保羅仍然是在對“世人”說話（哥後5:19），而不是對信徒？不，這句話中的用詞（哥後6:1）顯示保羅勸說的是與上一段不同的聽眾，因為（a）他現在說的是“你們”而不是“他們”（參考5:19）；（b）“也”說明他現在說的，是他剛剛對其他人說過的，（c）“徒受神的恩典”所指的一定是那些已經信了的人——不是世人，他們還沒有“受過神恩典”的“”，更別說“徒受”。

.那麼，保羅在這裡為什麼說不要“徒受神的恩典”。我想是因為他們的行為和理論存在問題。就他們的行為而言，很顯然是屬世的—他們紛爭，以淫亂為傲，在法庭彼此告狀，離婚等等。這一切都會引起對他們信仰是否真實的質疑。就他們的理論而言，哥林多人似乎正接受一個敗壞的福音（哥後11;3-4;參考加1;6-9）。這導致保羅質疑他們信仰的真實，他們為自己而活，而不是“為替他們死而復活的主活”（哥後5:15）。這一定會導致福音在他們的生活中失去影響和見證。他們的行為就像“草木、禾秸”.而不是“金、銀、寶石”（哥前3:10-15）。這導致福音在他們的實際生活中沒有功效。

因為哥林多人的行為和理論，使徒保羅似乎在質疑他們信仰的真實。因此，他勸哥林多教會的人行事要與那些“領受神之恩的人”一致，使他們的信心不至成為虛空、徒然，不能結果子；使他們不至與他們宣稱的信仰違背；不至離開先前從保羅所聽見所接受的；使他們不至被證明像夏娃一樣被撒旦誘惑，失去“那向基督所存純一清潔的心”（哥後11:3）。

我們很容易把神的恩典變成放縱肉體的情欲、淫蕩，從而使我們的信心不結果子、成為空虛、缺乏果效、能力和實質。我們很容易說相信基督的福音，行事卻與之相反。我想當我們允許罪在我們生活中存在時，我們每個人在某種程度上都會時不時犯這樣的錯誤。但是“我們若認自己的罪，神是信實的，是公義的，必要赦免我們的罪，洗淨我們一切的不義”（約一1:9），使我們不活在這樣的罪裡，不使它成為我們的特徵，以至於我們不使神的恩典成為無用和虛空，沒有影響，只是空話，沒有現實。

” 作為提醒，保羅說，“因為他說′在悅納的時候，我應允了你；在拯救的日子，我搭救了你‛”（6:2）。通過引用以賽亞書，保羅提醒哥林多教會的人，神設定了一個得救的日子，福音被傳給他們；一個“悅納的時候”，神垂聽並幫助他們；當保羅，神的使者，向他們宣講福音的那個時候，當他們回應和好的資訊，“接受神的恩典”的那個時候。

“現在正是悅納的時候”。“現在”意味著恩典的當下，就是他們積極地回應先知以賽亞的呼召的時候（參考賽49:8）。“現在”是“主悅納的時候”（路4:18-19；參考賽49:8-9；61:1-2）。這不是“蒙昧無知的時候”（徒17:30）神並不監察，而是神所定的日子，“吩咐各處的人都要悔改”（徒17:30）。這是悅納的時候，因為神已經預定——“及至日期滿足，神就差遣他的兒子…”（加4:4）.這就是為什麼這是主悅納的時候，因為基督已經來了，福音的豐滿已經向我們顯明。

“現在正是拯救的日子”。這是神在基督裡恩典的時候，呼召人悔改並相信福音。所以，不要忘記你得救的那天。那是神所預定的一天，你生命中重要的一天。我們應該永遠記住神在基督裡為我們所做的以及按著神意旨所決定的，它在我們生命中成為實際的那一天。因此，不要活得像徒受神的恩典一樣。這才是重點！

所以，首先，保羅“呼籲神的百姓與神和好”（6:1-2）。接著他…

2. 呼籲神的百姓與神的執事和好（6:3-7:16）。哥林多教會的人不但需要與神和好，證明他們沒有“徒受神的恩典”，而且他們需要與保羅，那個將神恩典的福音傳給他們的人和好。保羅最大的稱讚就是他事奉上的真實（參考2:17；4:2）。所以，首先，基於他值得稱讚的事工，他呼籲他們與他和好，提醒他們他值得效仿的生命，他的生命使得他的事工和本人值得認可。 其次，他呼籲他們與他和好，因為他牧養的心腸，提醒他們他對他們的關心、奉獻和體貼。

a)基於一個值得稱讚的事工，呼籲和好（6:3-10）。“我們凡事都不叫人有妨礙，免得這職分被人譭謗，反倒在各樣事上表明自己是神的用人…”（6:3-4a）

如果哥林多教會的人生活和思想的方式與福音相違背，那麼他們受了誰的恩典；如果他們因為錯誤的原因與保羅疏遠，那麼他們必須思考這個將福音傳給他們的人的生命和事工。如果一個福音執事不能活出一個模範的生命，他對聽眾的呼籲就沒有任何意義（6:1-2）。如果這個執事本人不真實，那麼與神的百姓和好就沒有可能。實際上，這個真誠的執事不想讓他裡面的任何東西攔阻或者減損神的工作。神的執事必須“凡事都不叫人有妨礙”，免得妨礙神的百姓與他和好。“我們凡事都不叫人有妨礙，免得這職分被人譭謗”（6:3）。

如果一個神的執事不能夠活出一個蒙神喜悅的生命（顯示“神的恩”在他裡面是真實的，而不是徒然的生命），那麼他如此勸人有什麼益處呢？如果一個執事的生命和事工不真實（也就是不值得信賴，虛假），那麼他勸神的百姓與自己和好又有什麼益處呢？

因此，保羅說，“我們與神同工的，也勸你們，‛不可徒受神的恩典′…我們凡事都不叫人有妨礙…反倒在各樣事上表明自己是神的用人”（6:1-4a）。保羅想要向哥林多人強調，他對他們的期望，在他自己身上首先是真實的。他在凡事上都沒有成為人在福音上絆跌，沒有成為別人惱怒或詆毀福音的理由。這並不是說從來沒有人會惱怒他說的，因為基督真實的執事所傳講的往往是“會冒犯人的”，因為它會打到人失敗的地方，軟弱的地方、不一致的地方，它會刺痛人的良心，它會包含他們不愛聽的內容。

相反，“在各樣事上表明自己是神的用人”。為了使聽到福音的人不在他身上找到任何妨礙他們接受福音的地方，這個執事個人的生命（行為、言語、態度、關係等）必須與他所傳講的和好的資訊完全一致。

你的個人生命和見證也在各個方面都肯定你的事工嗎？ 你的佈道很容易被一個錯誤的詞、一種不恰當的關係、值得質疑的道德行為、不恰當的幽默、虛偽等所抵消。你很容易就成為這樣的人“有敬虔的外貌，卻背了敬虔的實質”（提後3:5）.

一個值得稱讚的事工克服各種各樣的環境，比如（i）身體上遭遇（6:4c-5）,( ii)道德標準（6:6-7b）以及（iii）矛盾的現實（6:8-10）。

(i)身體上的遭遇在這裡主要指“許多的忍耐、患難、窮乏、困苦、鞭打、監禁、擾亂、勤勞、警醒、不食”（6:4b-5）。不論環境如何（參考哥後4:8-11），保羅恒心忍耐，“如同看見那不能看見的主”（來11:27）.他追求的目標是“要得神在基督耶穌裡那從上頭來召我所要得的獎賞”（腓3:14）。他的眼目定睛在最終的目標和他所服侍的那位，而不是定睛在人或者環境上。他的眼目不動搖。

我們這些事奉的人一定都知道事奉所需要的“許多的忍耐”，情感的需求、環境的考驗、屬靈的攻擊、關係的斷裂、體力的要求等。面對那麼多的苦難、反對和困境，這就是保羅的事奉值得稱讚的地方。

當我們忍受身體上的遭遇時，我們的事奉是值得稱讚的（6:4b-5）。身體上的遭遇有三個方面——身體上的苦難，環境中反對和身體需要的匱乏。對艱難處境的忍耐是值得稱讚的，也是一個執事真實的證明，因為如果不是真心的，誰會忍受這樣的痛苦。

身體上的遭遇被描述為“患難，窮乏和困苦”（6:4b）。這三連詞用三個相互關聯的詞來描述一般事奉中會遇到的苦難

“患難”意味著不僅僅是簡單的麻煩。它似乎是各種痛苦的總稱。Vine將患難定義為由於環境的壓力或者人的反對而遭受的痛苦（帖前3:4；帖後1:6,7）。它似乎有一種末世論的含義（太24:9）。Vine說，它指的是“從外面臨到他們的”（W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of N.T. Words, 30, 31）。它似乎與痛苦，困苦，災難密切相關。

保羅的“患難”記載在使徒行傳裡（比如14:22；20:23；參考提後3:11），他在書信裡常常對他們提到（比如羅8:35-36；哥後1:4,8；2:4；4:8,17；8:2,13：帖前3:3）。他的患難是“基督患難”的延伸，保羅因此得到安慰（西1:24）。這就是事奉生活的一部分（提後4:5）。耶穌警告過“在世上你們有苦難”（約16:33），在事奉中正是這樣。

“艱難（和合本譯作“窮乏”）”指臨到我們的危險和難處，而“困苦”意味著你被逼到一個狹窄的地步，不能脫離。所以身體上的遭遇包括身體上的苦難，也包括…

環境中的反對指的是“挨打(和合本譯作“鞭打”)、監禁、擾亂…”（6:5a）。這三個詞集中描寫在敵對我們的人手裡我們會遭受的不正當待遇—因迫害、暴力和敵對而受的苦。很明顯， “挨打”包括鞭打或拳打，保羅遭受過很多。“監禁”是因誣告而受苦—尤其是，因為福音的緣故被扔在監獄裡（參考徒16:24；24:23-27；28:16,20）。“擾亂”指的是騷亂和眾人襲擊之類的，就像我們在使徒行轉中經常會看到的（參考徒13:45；14:19；17:5；18:12-17；19:29；21:30；22:22-23；23:10’）。

所以因為事奉受苦包括身體上的苦難，環境中的反對，以及…

身體需求的匱乏指“…勤勞、警醒、不食”（6:5b）。這最後三個詞描述了一個人全身心投入事工，在艱苦的環境中（比如陌生、國外）因過度勞累、沒有足夠的休息和飲食而遭受的身體上的後果。“勤勞”指的是沒有休息，因為長時間艱難的工作而心力交瘁（參考帖前2:9）。“警醒”很顯然指的沒有睡眠，可能因為保羅必須睡的地方（比如船上），或者因為他對人們的關切，或者因為他的工作量（參考哥後11:27），尤其是像保羅這樣做雙份工作的人。“不食”指的是沒有食物和營養，可能因為他的工作量太大沒有時間吃或者因為他買不起食物（參考哥前4:11-12；哥後11:27）。

所以，事奉是一個要求很多忍耐的工作，因為時不時地，我們會或者必須忍受各種不同的身體上的遭遇，比如身體上的苦難，環境的反對和身體需求的匱乏。在下一期的雜誌中，我會繼續這個討論。

III. 講道大綱

題目: 像耶穌學習, 第二部分, 承認他的身份 (太 16:13-23)

主題:當我們認識基督的時候，我們必須做好準備來承認他是誰以及他都做了什麼

要點 1:耶穌問了一個關於他身份的問題(16:13-20)

1a) “人說我是誰？”（16:13-14）

1b) “你們說我是誰？” (16:15-20)

-彼得的偉大認識(16:16)

-耶穌的偉大啟示(16:17-20)

要點 2:耶穌預言他的受難（16:21-23）

2a)彼得勸阻耶穌(16:22)

2b)耶穌斥責彼得(16:23

We noticed in the last sermon in this series (Ex. 3:1-10) that Moses encountered God in a miraculous experience at the burning bush, a bush that was on fire but which did not burn up. The theological principle that we derived from that passage was that God appears to ordinary people in ordinary circumstances and reveals to them the extraordinary.

While Moses’ encounter with God revealed God to Moses in an awe-inspiring and life-changing way, Moses’ response to God was anything but exemplary. One wonders if Moses’ experiences up to that point somehow colored his worldview. After spending 40 years in Pharaoh’s palace and another 40 years looking after sheep in the back part of the desert, perhaps he had lost hope of ever being used by God. After all, he had tried once to intervene on behalf of one of his Hebrew brothers and been utterly rejected (Ex. 2:11-15). Even though he still knew his Hebrew identity, 40 years under the influence of the royal household and Egyptian culture could easily have caused him to forget the godly example of his faithful mother and his covenant relationship with the God of Israel. And another 40 years tending sheep could certainly cause him to lose his sense of purpose and conclude that this would be his lot for the rest of his life. That would certainly be understandable, wouldn’t it?

But, though Moses seems to have forgotten God, God had not forgotten Moses. In fact, in the eternal purposes of God, God had sovereignly chosen to use Moses in a very special way in His service, and the previous 80 years were years of preparation for this moment.

The passage we are studying today is a continuation of Moses’ encounter with God at the burning bush, specifically dealing with Moses’ response to God’s call to lead His people out of their misery in Egypt to “a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey” (Ex. 3:7-8). What we are going to learn in this passage is what Moses didn’t know, that when God calls us, he equips us perfectly for the commission that He gives us. That’s the theological principle in this passage. This is an important lesson because Moses didn’t get it. In fact, he is overwhelmed with the task and the obstacles that he thought he would face. Indeed, at a human level, what God was calling Moses to do was overwhelming, exceedingly daunting, plain scary. And so, in response to God’s commission in 3:10, Moses offers a series of objections (3:11-4:12) leading up to an outright refusal, which is met with God’s gracious provision (4:13-17). Notice firstly that…

I. Our Objections Do Not Obstruct God’s Purposes (3:11-4:12)

Moses presents four objections to God, four reasons why he could not accept God’s call and commission, all of which have to do with his sense of personal insufficiency.

Objection 1: His lack of confidence (3:11-12). “But Moses said to God, ‘Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh, and bring the children of Israel out of Egypt?’” (3:11). No longer is Moses the bold, strong 40 year old man in Egypt, who could kill an Egyptian slave master singlehandedly. The last 40 years in the wilderness have erased his confidence. He had suffered a serious demotion from royalty to one of Egypt’s most-wanted assassins, from a prince to pauper. So, we can understand how, after all these years of tending sheep in the desert with no prospects of any change on the horizon, Moses could have a serious sense of personal inferiority. That’s understandable, isn’t it?

But what Moses didn’t know is that God had His eye on him all the time. God had chosen him for a task greater than anything he could have imagined. Indeed, the last 40 years tending sheep were not wasted. On the contrary, they had taught him much about leadership, for sheep are renowned for (1) their crowd mentality; (2) for wandering away, completely unaware of dangers that may lurk ahead of them; and (3) for their complete dependence on the shepherd to guard them and provide nourishment for them. If he could lead sheep, then he could certainly lead people. If he could lead the sheep around the Midian desert and find them food to eat and water to drink and protect them from wild animals, then would he not be able to do the same for the Israelites? Did he not possess the leadership skills and experience to quite easily lead that vast population out of Egypt to the promised land of Canaan?

Moses’ objection sounds more like an expression of deep humility, doesn’t it? “Who am I to lead the Israelites out of Egypt? Surely there are others better qualified and more skilled than I.” But this isn’t about humility, this is about a lack of confidence, not lack of confidence in self but lack of confidence in God. After all, God had seemingly abandoned Moses just when he was intervening to use his strength and position to advance the plight of God’s people. If He had abandoned him then, could he trust Him for the future, especially a future that would be fraught with tremendous obstacles, including Pharoah himself?

Yes, Moses could trust God for the future and for everything that he needed. God replies, “I will be with you” (3:12a). That’s all Moses needed – God’s presence with him. The expression “be with you” indicates intimacy, presence, guidance, provision, protection. In other words, everything that Moses would need, God would provide. This was the same expression of encouragement that Jesus gave to his disciples just before he ascended back to heaven and before they would face tremendous tests of their newfound faith: “Remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20).

Furthermore, if God’s promise of his presence was not be enough to give comfort and confidence to Moses, God grants him a further assurance and promise by way of a sign: “And this will be a sign to you that I am the one who sent you: when you bring the people out of Egypt, you will worship God at this mountain” (Ex. 3:12b). Signs in Scripture often serve to affirm the authenticity of a person and / or to confirm what God had promised. God is telling Moses that when he and the Israelites leave Egypt, they will return to this very same mountain in the Midian desert where Moses is having this conversation with God, and that will be the sign that proves beyond any doubt that (1) God has acted on their behalf and (2) that Moses’ leadership is divinely appointed. God is saying to Moses, “There, that’s a concrete promise that will prove My word is true. You can take it to the bank!”

We all have doubts from time to time about our ability to serve God or why God called us to serve him in a particular way or place. Like Moses we might well ask sometimes, “Who am I?” Indeed, I ask that myself quite frequently, not because I lack the confidence that God will enable me to do what He has called me to do, but because I am utterly dumbfounded as to why God would deign to use me in this ministry at all. Who am I? Let us constantly wonder at the grace of God in using us in any way He chooses, but let us not doubt the power and provision of God to get the job done. Serving God is not our ministry – it’s His. I love Hudson Taylor’s motto and have quoted it often: “Depend on it. God’s work done God’s way will never lack God’s supply.”

You would think God’s gracious promise would be enough to satisfy Moses’ doubts, wouldn’t you? But no, Moses has another objection…

Objection 2: His lack of knowledge of God (3:13-22). “If I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your ancestors has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what should I tell them?” (3:13). In other words, if the Israelites challenged Moses’ authority and integrity by testing Moses’ personal knowledge of God, what was he going to say? He had to know the correct answer or his authority would be instantly in doubt. And well they might challenge him, knowing who he had been and what he had done. They would understandably be suspicious of him, given his track record. And if he didn’t answer correctly their hypothetical question as to God’s identity, they certainly would not follow him.

It seems that the hypothetical test that Moses is anticipating concerns three issues: (1) his personal knowledge of Israel’s God; (2) his authority to act as Israel’s leader; and (3) Israel’s relationship with God. As to the first issue, the question seems to be, is Moses himself a true follower of the God of Israel or had he abandoned God in favour of the pagan god’s of Egypt? In other words, exactly what God is Moses speaking on behalf of; who had authorized him for this mission and position? Was it the One true, covenant God of Israel - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - or was it some other god that they did not know or recognize or trust?

As to the second issue, the question seems to be, was Moses usurping his authority again, just as he had when he killed the Egyptian slave master? To act in someone’s “name” is another way of saying, “Who is your authority for saying or doing this?” The answer to this question would be a critical test of Moses’ authenticity and credibility. But, in posing this hypothetical question that he may be asked by the Israelites, at least Moses recognizes that his only legitimate authority for this commission must come from God. He could not act on his own authority or self-will, as he had done previously.

As to the third issue, perhaps Moses was also concerned about the spirituality of the Israelites themselves. Perhaps, after 400 years of slavery in Egypt, they themselves had long forgotten the God of their fathers.

The sad thing is that Moses’ objection here seems to indicate that he himself did not know God, could not identify him, did not even know His name. And this after just having been told by God from the burning bush exactly who He is. “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (3:6). How much greater identification did Moses need?

To be fair to Moses, though, we too often face circumstances in which we make the excuse that we cannot speak for God because we lack sufficient knowledge of God and his Word. So, we are afraid to open our mouths lest we say the wrong thing or don’t have the right answer. Or, perhaps you are afraid to speak for God because you don’t know God.

It seems that God replies to Moses, “Don’t worry about asking me who you are (3:11), Moses, you just need to know who I am - ‘I AM WHO I AM’”(3:14). There is no higher or greater authority than the LORD himself. The one true God cannot be compared to anyone else. He is the uncreated One. The incomprehensible One. The incomparable One. The inexplicable One. The unchangeable One. He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He is not shaped by outside forces or circumstances. He is not influenced by, nor dependent on, nor obligated to anything or anybody. He is self-existing, self-dependent, and self-determined. He is the great I AM – the One with no beginning and no ending, the eternal One, the ever-present One, the One who was and is and is to come. This, then, is the One in whose name Moses would approach and lead the Israelites. “So, tell them that, Moses.” And “Say this to the Israelites: The LORD, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever; this is how I am to be remembered in every generation” (Ex. 3:15).

Thus, not only could Moses respond appropriately to the Israelites’ question, but he could add a wonderful promise from God - “I have promised that I will bring you up from the misery of Egypt to the land of the Canaanites…a land flowing with milk and honey” (3:17). In the name of the God of Israel, Moses could hold out to them the promise of deliverance from slavery in Egypt. That surely would persuade them to follow and trust Moses. No one else could possibly offer them that hope.

So, two objections dealt with – his lack of confidence (3:11-12) and his lack of knowledge of God (3:13-22). Surely that is sufficient to give Moses the confidence and the knowledge he needs to face the Israelites. But no, he has another objection…

Objection 3: His lack of credibility with the people (4:1-9). “What if they don’t believe me and will not obey me but say, ‘The Lord did not appear to you’?” (4:1). Now it’s not a matter of the Israelites questioning who had sent him, but whether they would believe him and obey him. Now it’s a matter of personal credibility. Well, he certainly had cause to wonder if they would believe him. Again, his track record wasn’t that great. Yes, he had attempted to protect the Hebrew slave who was being mistreated by the slave master, but then he had disappeared for 40 years. Where had he been? Who was he now? Would he abandon them again?

This time, God graciously gives him three miraculous signs by which he could prove his credibility and convince them that he had been sent to them by God. First, his miraculous rod - when he threw it to the ground, it became a serpent and when he took hold of it again it became a rod again (4:2-5). Second, his hand - when he put it into his cloak, it became leprous and when he put it into his cloak again it was restored to perfect health (4:6-7). Third, water from the river Nile - when he poured it on dry land it would become blood (4:9).

Amazingly, even these miraculous signs were not enough to assuage Moses’ doubts and fears and objections. There was one more…

Objection 4. His lack of oral ability (4:10-12). “But Moses replied to the Lord, ‘Please, Lord, I have never been eloquent - either in the past or recently or since you have been speaking to your servant – because my mouth and my tongue are sluggish’” (4:10). This is everyone’s biggest fear, I think, when called upon to speak publicly for God. Public speaking is, after all, a daunting task at the best of times. How much more so when called upon to speak to a multitude as vas t as the Israelites and to Pharoah, the very man who had hunted for Moses to kill him and from whom Moses had fled so many years ago. But, once more, God graciously and patiently provides comfort and assurance, saying, “¹¹ Who placed a mouth on humans? Who makes a person mute or deaf, seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord? ¹² Now go! I will help you speak and I will teach you what to say” (4:11-12). The Creator himself is surely able to empower us to speak for him and to give us the right words to say at the right time (cf. Lk. 12:12). This is God’s promise and assurance to Moses.

So, our objections do not obstruct God’s purposes. And notice secondly…

II. Our Refusals Do Not Restrict God’s Grace (4:13-17)

By this time, you would think that Moses would have been convinced by God’s grace and patience, and by God’s provision for his weaknesses and fears in response to his objections. But did all of that satisfy Moses? Did it give him the courage and confidence he needed? Did he willingly submit and say, “Here am I, send me?” No! If you can believe it, after all God’s gracious assurances, promises, and miraculous signs, Moses said, “Please, Lord, send someone else” (4:13). After all his objections and God’s responses, Moses refused to go and be used by God. He says, “Send someone else. I’m not going.”

I wonder how often we, perhaps unwittingly, refuse God’s call on our lives. God wants to use us and assures us of his presence and power for his service, and yet we refuse. Now it’s not about fears or doubts or excuses. Now it’s about outright refusal. This is not an emotional response when faced with a frightening prospect. No, this is a volitional response, an emphatic refusal to obey God. But notice that…

When we refuse God’s call to serve, He provides us with assistance. “Then the Lord’s anger burned against Moses” (4:14a). Even though God is, understandably, angry with Moses for all his objections (3:11-4:12), yet He still offers Moses a way to overcome his fourth objection concerning his lack of oral ability: “^14b Isn’t Aaron the Levite your brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, he is on his way now to meet you. He will rejoice when he sees you. ¹⁵ You will speak with him and tell him what to say. I will help both you and him to speak and will teach you both what to do. ¹⁶ He will speak to the people for you. He will serve as a mouth for you, and you will serve as God to him” (4:14-16).

Though we may overstep the mark, we can never overstep God’s grace. When Moses objects to serving God because he lacks oral ability, then God graciously provides Aaron to act as Moses’ spokesperson. Moses would receive God’s word, pass it on to his brother Aaron, and Aaron would communicate it to the Israelites. God has responded to all Moses’ objections and he has swept aside Moses’ refusal. Now he must go and the staff in his hand would be a reminder and assurance of God’s presence with him and that God can and will do miraculous things through him.

When we refuse God’s call to serve, He provides us with assistance. And…

When we refuse God’s call to serve, He provides us with confidence. God says to Moses: “And take this staff in your hand that you will perform the signs with” (4:17). Moses would have two sources of comfort and confidence as he takes on this huge task that God has assigned to him. First, he has his brothers would will be his spokesperson (4:14-16). Second, he has his staff (rod) which will be his source of power (4:17). He felt inadequate and weak, as we all do from time to time, but God is greater than our fears. Indeed, it is in those very times when God emboldens us for His service.

Don’t you just marvel sometimes at the amazing grace of God? Isn’t it just thoroughly astounding how God meets our needs and responds to our weaknesses in order that we can have the inestimable privilege of serving Him? Don’t you just wonder sometimes why? Why would God bother with me? Have you ever wondered why God would not just choose someone else rather than put up with your fears and refusals? Well, it’s because God has chosen to use imperfect vessels to achieve his purposes. As the apostle Paul says, “Now we have treasure in clay jars, so that this extraordinary power may be from God and not from us” (1 Cor. 4:7). Through frail, failing, feeble, and finite human beings, God brings glory to himself.

You see, God does not call us to serve him without first teaching us our weakness and then equipping us appropriately for the task. The apostle Paul was acutely aware of his own weakness: “But he (the Lord) said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is perfected in weakness.’” (2 Cor. 12:9a). This promise and assurance renewed Paul’s courage to press on and to be content with his situation: “^9b Therefore I will most gladly boast all the more about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may reside in me. ¹⁰ So I take pleasure in weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and in difficulties, for the sake of Christ. For when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor. 12:9b-10). That is a wonderful state to be in – content in our circumstances and strong in our weakness.

There were many other servants of God who were empowered by God to serve him despite feeling their own weakness. David, who, after defeating the giant Goliath, was driven out of the royal household, hunted like an animal by Saul, and lived in exile before being elevated to become king of Israel. Elijah also experienced utter weakness when he had to drink water from a brook and was fed by ravens, all before God used him mightily.

I suppose when we are called by God to serve him, a feeling of weakness and inability is natural and even necessary, asking like Moses, “Who am I?” Or, as the apostle Paul asked, “Who is adequate for these things?” (2 Cor. 2:16). But it doesn’t stop there. Our feeling of inadequacy is not an excuse. Rather, we need to rest in God’s comfort, be confident in God’s assurance, and move forward in God’s power, understanding that the issue is not about who I am, but about who God is, the great “I AM.” Again as the apostle Paul put it, “It is not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5). That’s the point!

Final Remarks

Is it not true, that we are, in so many ways, like Moses. We have the same weakness of faith. We have the same fears about serving the Lord. We have the same objections and excuses for not responding to God’s call. We have the sae questions about God’s commission. Like Moses, we are prone to settle for far less than God calls us to. It seems that Moses would have preferred to stay as a shepherd of sheep rather than a shepherd of God’s people. I suppose in many ways that would have been a simpler life. I can understand why Moses was fearful of God’s call to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, from the known to the unknown. But what a blessing he would have missed if he had refused to obey God. Think of all the wonderful manifestations of God’s power Moses would have missed – the plagues, the Red Sea crossing, the manna in the wilderness, the water from the rock, the brazen serpent.

When God calls us He often pushes us out of our comfort zone into new places, new activities, new responsibilities. By nature we shrink back from such radical changes in our lives, preferring instead to stay in familiar places, with familiar activities, and familiar responsibilities. It’s a bit like taking a new job, isn’t it? Those first few weeks can be so threatening, so uncomfortable that we often feel like turning back. But as with Moses, so with us, God never fails to give us all that we need – courage, material resources, wisdom, discernment, vision, helpers, confidence in Him rather than ourselves, and even the words we need to say at just the right time.

I have experienced this many times in my life. For example, in 2012 I was teaching pastors in Burkina Faso, West Africa. My colleague there showed me a piece of land on which he believed God wanted him to build a Christian school. When I saw it I couldn’t believe that it was possible or would ever come to anything because it was in a rural area with no houses in sight. And besides, why and how would God use me for such a project. My ministry is teaching pastors, most of whom have not had the opportunity to get formal theological education. So, when my colleague first suggested this project to me, I pulled back. I didn’t see how starting a Christian school had anything to do with my teaching pastors. In addition, I didn’t know how to raise the funds for such a project. Anyway, somewhat reluctantly, I agreed to come back to Canada, make his vision known, and see where it would go. Frankly, I didn’t expect it to go anywhere. I thought that my colleague’s idea was good but not one that I could participate in.

Well, that was then and this is now. Through the encouragement of others and the prompting of the Holy Spirit I came to the conclusion that my colleague’s vision and my partnership with him in it were from the Lord. The result today is the Gampela Christian Education Centre that includes a school with about 400 students, a preschool with over 300 students, a church, a medical clinic, a vocational training school for young adults, and a pastoral training centre!

Through this ministry opportunity I have witnessed God work in marvelous ways, all of which I would have missed if I had not been prompted by God and encouraged by friends to help with that ministry. Perhaps you have had the same experience. When God first opened a door of opportunity for you to serve Him, you couldn’t see any future in it, or you felt inadequate or just plain scared. But when you began the journey, you experienced God’s incontrovertible activity, leading you, providing for you, achieving His purposes that you couldn’t see before.

It seems that God does not unfold to us his intentions in five year plans. We need to learn to “walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). I have been trying to learn that lesson throughout my adult life and probably will continue to learn it to the end, when our faith will be replaced by sight and earth exchanged for heaven. “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror” writes the apostle Paul, “but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, as I am fully known” (1 Cor. 13:12).

Finally, let us take courage that despite our past failures, weaknesses, and lack of faith, God prepares us for future service that is beyond anything we could ask or think. That might mean time in the desert tending sheep, but that isn’t wasted time. That is the time when our prior hurts, rejection, self-will, and failures recede from view, and we receive training for what is needed for the future. Tending sheep in the desert might not seem like training for leading God’s people out of Egypt, but it surely was. Moses learned from sheep how to move them along from place to place, what food and water they needed and where to find it, how to respond to their animal objections, how to stop them from going astray, and how to protect them from harm and danger. And after 40 years of training, God called Moses to a task that was humanly impossible, but perfectly possible by God. May we learn these lessons and trust God for anything He calls us to.

(neuter noun, used once in the New Testament [Phil 3:8])

This essay is a basic diachronic word study on a rare term, found only once in the New Testament, in Phil 3:8. The NET Bible renders this verse as follows: “More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things—indeed, I regard them as dung!–that I may gain Christ…”

Most other modern English versions have ‘rubbish’ (ESV, NRSV, NKJV, NIV, NAB, REB) or ‘garbage’ (TEV, NJB, TNIV) for the term. At issue is more than whether slang is used in the NT; the sense of Paul’s view of is former life—his life apart from Christ—is involved. If mere ‘rubbish’ is the force, then a sense of worthlessness is in view; if ‘dung’ is the force, then both worthlessness and revulsion is in view.

Rather than be fully explicit, this study will address the meaning in more genteel terms and use asterisks where the more sophisticated (or perhaps less sophisticated!) can supply the appropriate letters.

Range of Meaning

This word is used primarily for excrement, especially human excrement; secondarily for rubbish, dirt, leavings, etc. It is a NT hapax legomenon (Phil 3:8).

1. Dung, (Human) Excrement

(especially in the plural, as in Phil 3:8); or with a stronger emotive connotation (and the concomitant shock value), crap, s**t. NT: Phil 3:8* (debatable; may belong under definition 2); Other: Plu. 2.352d; Alex. Aphr. Pr. 1.18; Aret. SD 1.15; Artemid. Onirocr. 1.67; 2.14; Str. 14.1.37; J. BJ 5.571; 5.13.7; PFay. 119.7 (i/ii AD).¹

Illustrations:

Josephus’ description of the conditions within the walls of Jerusalem during the final siege of the Romans in the Jewish War (66-73 CE) is intended to evoke the strongest reaction by his readers (Josephus, Jewish War 5.571):

. . . the corpses of the lower classes thrown out through the gates amounted in all to 600,000; of the rest it was impossible to discover the number. They added that, when strength failed them to carry out the poor, they piled the bodies in the largest mansions and shut them up; also that a measure of corn had been sold for a talent, and that later when it was no longer possible to gather herbs, the city being all walled in, some were reduced to such straits that they searched the sewers and for old cow dung and ate the offal therefrom, and what once would have disgusted them to look at had now become food.

In Strabo’s description of the rebuilt Smyrna, he lauds the plans and efforts of Antigonus, Lysimachus, and the citizens, noting however one glaring flaw (Strabo, Geography 14.1.37):

But there is one error, not a small one, in the work of the engineers, that when they paved the streets they did not give them underground drainage; instead, excrement covers the surface, and particularly during rains, when the cast-off filth is discharged upon the streets.

Proportionately, the word seems to have occurred in the papyri and other non-literary documents far more frequently than in the literature. A good illustration is found in Papyrus Fayum 119.7 (c. 100 CE) in which Gemellus informs his son that the donkey driver has bought “a little bundle and rotten hay, the whole of which is decayed so that it is like crap.”

2. Rubbish, Dirt, Scraps, Leavings

NT: Phil 3:8* (debatable; may belong under definition 1); Other: Jul. Or. 5.179c; PCairZen 494.16 (iii BC); PSI 3.184.7 (plural, AD 292); Sirach 27.4; PRyl 2.149.22 (AD 39-40).

Illustrations:

In Sirach 27:4 the word bears emotive force, though it is not as dramatic as a vulgar rendering would suggest: “As when one sifts with a sieve, the refuse remains; so also the filth of man in his speech.”

But even in the first century CE the word was used occasionally with no shock value connotations. For example, in the collection of the Rylands Papyri 2.149.22 (39-40 CE) the writer speaks of animals grazing “on the gleanings of my vegetable-seed crop.” Thus “gleanings” or “table scraps” is a legitimate (though admittedly rare) nuance in use during the time of Paul.²

By the fourth century CE, the shock value of the term seems to have worn off, so much so that it is even seen as a proper name—cf. P. Oxy. 1.43, verso iii.25 (295 CE). Nevertheless, Chrysostom can refer to σκύβαλον as bearing the meaning of “manure” in Phil 3:8, but he seems unaware of its emotive force—even arguing that there is some value in manure! (Cf. Chrysostom’s commentary on Philippians, MPG 62:263-265, where he mentions the word twelve times).

As well, in the fourth century CE, the emperor Julian can use the term to describe the earth, though with intent to evoke some sense of disgust by way of contrast (Julian, Orations 179C):

But is not this Logos Attis, who not long ago was out of his senses, but now through his castration is called wise? Yes, he was out of his senses because he preferred matter and presides over generation, but he is wise because he adorned and transformed this refuse [our earth] with such beauty as no human art or cunning could imitate.

Related Terms³

Words from the σκυβαλ- root:

• σκυβαλίζειν: to regard as dung, to treat contemptuously (D.H. Orat.Vett 1)
• σκυβαλεύειν (a derivative from σκυβαλίζειν): to regard as dung, to treat contemptuously (Schol. on Luc. Nec. 17)
• σκυβαλικός: scorned, filthy (Timocr. 1.6)
• σκυβαλώδης: waste, dung-like (Anon. Londinensis 29.39)
• σκυβαλισμός: contemptuous rejection; table crumbs (Polyb. 30.19.12; Ps.-Phocyclides 156)

Terms not from the σκυβαλ- root:

• κοπρός: excrement, manure—especially as used in animal husbandry (i.e., not as a vulgar term) (Od. 9.329; Hdt. 3.22; Thphr. HP 2.7.4)
• σκῶρ: dung, excrement (Ar. Ra. 146; Stratt. 9)
• περίττωμα, περίσσωμα: excrement—apparently used as a medical term in particular (Arist. GA 724b26, HA 511b9; Epicur. Fr. 293; Meno Iatr. 4.35)
• χέζω: to empty one’s bowels, to ease oneself (Stratt. 51; Id. Ach. 1170)

Summary

That σκύβαλον took on the nuance of a vulgar expression with emotive connotations (thus, roughly equivalent to the English “crap, s**t”) is probable in light of the following considerations: (1) its paucity of usage in Greek literature (“Only with hesitation does literature seem to have adopted it from popular speech” says Lang in TDNT 7:445);⁴ (2) it is used frequently in emotionally charged contexts (as are its verbal cognates) in which the author wishes to invoke revulsion in his audience; (3) there is evidence that there were other, more common and more acceptable terms referring to the same thing (in particular, the agricultural term κοπρός and the medical term περίσσωμα);⁵ (4) diachronically, the shock value of the term seems to have worn off through the centuries; and (5) a natural transfer of the literal to a metaphorical usage, in which disgust, revulsion, or worthlessness are still in view, argues for this meaning as well.⁶ Nevertheless, that its shock value was not fully what “s**t” would be is suggested in the fact that in the Hellenistic period (c. 330 BCE-330 CE) the word was also used on occasion for “gleanings” or “table scraps.”

Authorial Usage

The usage of this term in Phil 3:8 has been taken in two different ways (each with two variations of their own):

1. (Human) excrement

a. dung (without strong shock value)

b. crap, s**t (with strong shock value)

2. non-excrement

a. rubbish, refuse

b. table scraps, leavings

Some scholars feel that σκύβαλον in Phil 3:8 means “table scraps,” pointing to the connection with “dogs” in 3:2 (so Lightfoot [1881 commentary, p. 149]). But not only is the connection somewhat distant, and overly subtle, but the absolute negation of any value to the apostle’s former life outside of Christ would seem to require something stronger than “table scraps.” For this reason, others have suggested that “rubbish” is the best gloss for our term (so, apparently, Beare [116], and several modern translations). As Lang points out, however, “To the degree that the Law is used in self-justification, it serves the flesh and is not just worthless but noxious and even abhorrent. The two elements in σκύβαλον, namely, worthlessness and filth, are best expressed by a term like ‘dung’” (TDNT 7:447).

Moises Silva, whose expertise in lexical studies is well known, sees emotive connotations wedded to the word in Phil 3:8 (Philippians, 180):

And yet the apostle goes even further: what he once regarded highly he now finds revolting. There is no need to downplay the meaning of skybala with such equivalents as “rubbish” (NASB, NIV); while such a meaning is attested (cf. Sir. 27:4—the Greek term could be used of various kinds of filth), a specific reference to excrement is not uncommon and the KJV rendering “dung” is both appropriate and probable.

Silva goes on to say that the gloss “crap” would certainly communicate worthlessness, but is probably not strong enough to communicate revulsion (ibid., n. 20). He thus leaves the question of appropriate translation to the reader’s imagination.

Besides the reasons we have given for seeing shock value in the word (under “Summary” mentioned earlier), there is one other reason why the intertwined notion of worthlessness and revulsion seems to be related to human excrement. The context of Phil 3:1-8 is both polemical in tone and contrasting flesh vs. spirit in content. As Lightfoot pointed out, v. 2 refers to Paul’s opponents as “dogs.” But it does more than that—it also refers to them as “the mutilation.” This term is a play on words with “circumcision” (v. 3) and is only euphemistically translated as “those who mutilate the flesh.” The etymology of both words reveals the apostle’s true intent: “circumcision” (περιτομή) is made up of two roots which suggest “cutting around” while “mutiliation” (κατατομή) is made up of two roots which suggest “cutting down” or “cutting off.”⁷ Thus Paul is accusing his opponents of botching the job of circumcision so badly that the victim is left with mutilated genitalia. There is strong shock value in the apostle’s words here.

This statement is followed immediately by a diatribe on the lack of value of the flesh. Thrice in vv. 3-4 is “flesh” explicitly mentioned; it is further implied in references to circumcision (vv. 2, 3, 5). In this section Paul is essentially arguing that if his opponents could claim that the flesh had some value, he would be in a better position to do so. Yet he himself acknowledges that the flesh and his former life as a devout Jew are worthless; he counts them as nothing (v. 8). The crescendo of his argument is at the end of v. 8 where he says “indeed, I regard them as σκύβαλα that I might gain Christ.” Having said this, he launches into a positive presentation of his new life in Christ. If σκύβαλα is translated “s**t” (or the like), a word picture is effectively made: this is all that the “flesh” can produce—and it is both worthless and revolting. That the apostle is not above using graphic and shocking terms has already been demonstrated in vv. 2-3. The reason for the shocking statement in v. 8, then, may well be to wake up his audience to the real danger of his opponents’ views. It is not insignificant that there is precedent for the apostle’s white-hot anger over a false gospel being couched in not-so-delicate terms: his letter to the “foolish Galatians” is replete with such evocative language.

Conclusion

In Phil 3:8, the best translation of σκύβαλα seems clearly to be from the first group of definitions. The term conveys both revulsion and worthlessness in this context. In hellenistic Greek it seems to stand somewhere between “crap” and “s**t.” However, due to English sensibilities, and considering the readership (Christians), a softer term such as “dung” is most appropriate. The NET Bible, along with a few other translations, grasp the connotations here, while most modern translations only see the term as implying worthlessness. But Paul’s view of his former life is odious to him, as ours should be to us. The best translation, therefore, is one that picks up both worthlessness and revulsion, and probably a certain shock value.