of Christ upon ethics. It is not mistaken to think that both created order and the Ten Commandments remain normative for Christians, nor to see, as others have done, a correlation between the Ten Commandments and the order of creation (see p. 242). Grudem is right on both fronts, I believe. What he does not sufficiently recognise, however, is the part of Christian ethics that is not in the Decalogue: the revelation of the kingdom of God and the way it determines Christian appropriation of the law and the created order. This lacuna is evident in the way, throughout the book, New Testament emphases that ought to be central in any Christian ethic play a strangely minor role: where, in this ethics, is the call to forgive? Where are the beatitudes? Where, indeed, is the command to love? Rom. 13.8–10 appears in order to validate Christian interest in the Ten Commandments and to help us think about debt, but not to tell us that ‘love is the fulfilling of the law’ (see pp. 257, 1045–47). Grudem’s discussion of self-defence (ch. 20) illustrates this marginalisation of the distinctive, Christological features of Christian ethics. Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 5:38-39 is dismissed on the basis that the slap on the cheek referred to here is one of insult, not a violent attack. This exegetical strategy brushes aside the first part of Jesus’ teaching, including its reference to the Old Testament law of returns. Grudem has already argued that Jesus’ teaching in this part of the Sermon on the Mount is not a challenge to the Old Testament as such, but only to its misinterpretation (pp. 231–32). Perhaps this is right. The problem, however, is that it minimises the way in which Jesus is setting out a strikingly new moral stance. The radical nature of Jesus’ teaching here is entirely muted in Grudem’s argument. The weight of the discussion is carried by Prov. 25:26. It is instructive to compare Grudem, at this point, with another Christian thinker who recognised the connection between the Decalogue and the created order—Thomas Aquinas (see e.g. Summa Theologiae I-II 98.5). Whereas for Grudem their correspondence is only evidence for the Decalogue’s continuing validity for Christians, for Aquinas this correspondence also indicates the Decalogue’s limitations for Christian ethics. Something more perfect than the ‘old law’ is needed, because something more than nature is needed: the ‘new law’, which teaches us the way of redemption in Christ, and which can be found within the ‘old law’ only implicitly. The problem with Grudem’s Christian Ethics is not simply that a particular moral and political outlook looms too large in it, but that this outlook has not yet been sufficiently subjected to the discipline of the gospel. The shape of this problem should prompt selfreflection even from those who do not share many of Grudem’s basic assumptions, and especially from those who do.

中文翻译：

---

书评：Christian B. Miller，性格差距：我们有多好？

基督论伦理。认为受造秩序和十诫仍然是基督徒的规范，也没有像其他人那样认为十诫和创造秩序之间存在关联（见第 242 页）。我相信 Grudem 在这两个方面都是正确的。然而，他没有充分认识到十诫中没有的基督教伦理部分：天国的启示以及它决定基督教对法律和受造秩序的占有的方式。这个漏洞很明显，在整本书中，新约圣经的强调在任何基督教伦理中都应该是核心，却扮演了一个奇怪的次要角色：在这种伦理中，哪里是宽恕的呼召？八福在哪里？事实上，爱的命令在哪里？只读存储器。13. 第 8-10 章的出现是为了证实基督徒对十诫的兴趣并帮助我们思考债务，而不是告诉我们“爱是律法的成全”（见第 257、1045-47 页）。Grudem 对自卫的讨论（第 20 章）说明了这种对基督教伦理独特的、基督学特征的边缘化。耶稣在马特的教导。5:38-39 被驳回，因为这里提到的脸颊上的耳光是一种侮辱，而不是暴力攻击。这种解经策略忽略了耶稣教导的第一部分，包括它对旧约回归律法的提及。Grudem 已经论证过，耶稣在登山宝训这一部分的教导并不是对旧约本身的挑战，而只是对它的误解（第 231-32 页）。或许这是对的。然而问题是，是它最大限度地减少了耶稣提出一个惊人的新道德立场的方式。耶稣在这里教导的激进性质在格鲁登的论点中完全被忽略了。讨论的权重由 Prov 承担。25:26。在这一点上，将 Grudem 与另一位认识到十诫与受造秩序之间的联系的基督教思想家——托马斯·阿奎那（Thomas Aquinas，参见 Summa Theologiae I-II 98.5）进行比较是有益的。对于 Grudem 而言，他们的通信只是证明十诫对基督徒持续有效的证据，而对阿奎那而言，这种通信也表明十诫对基督教伦理的局限性。需要比“旧律法”更完美的东西，因为需要比自然更完美的东西：“新律法”，它教导我们在基督里救赎的道路，并且只能隐含地在“旧法律”中找到。Grudem 的基督教伦理学的问题不仅在于它过于突出特定的道德和政治观点，而且这种观点还没有充分服从福音的纪律。即使是那些不同意 Grudem 的许多基本假设的人，尤其是那些同意的人，这个问题的形式也应该促使他们进行自我反思。