在舊約預表中看見基督Seeing Christ in Old Testament Types
作者：Daniel Ragusa譯者：駱鴻銘
最近威斯敏斯特神學院的教師們發表了一本新書，書名為《在整本聖經中看見基督》。這本書的目的是要幫助人明白聖經裏這個美麗的、以基督為中心的結構，這當然值得大力推薦。Recently the
faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia released a book
entitled Seeing Christ in All of Scripture. The book’s intent is to help people understand the beautiful,
Christ-centered structure of the Bible—certainly something to be commended for.
不過，當我們談到舊約時，承認這個「以基督為中心的結構」，對我們來說往往會是一個挑戰。我們如何在那裏看見基督拯救的大能和恩典呢？其中一個方法是透過「預表論」（typology）。幾年前，我們在「以基督為中心」（Christ the Center）這個廣播節目的一集中，曾經和帕頓博士（Dr. Matthew Patton）討論過這個題目，他闡釋了預表論的預設前提和理由，然後用約雅斤王（王下廿四～廿五）當作基督的預表的一個非常迷人的例子。以下我們會試著總結他所說的其中的一部分，不過，先定義什麼是「預表論」也許會有幫助。Recognizing this “Christ-centered structure,” though, is often a challenge for us when it
comes to the Old Testament. How do we see Christ there in his saving power and
grace? One way is through typology. A few years ago we sat down with Dr.
Matthew Patton in an episode of Christ the Center on this topic. Dr. Patton
elaborated on the presuppositions and rationale for typology and then employed
King Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24-25) as a fascinating example of a type of Christ.
We’ll look to summarize some of what he had to say below, but before we get
there it might be helpful to first define “typology.”
什麼是預表論？What is Typology?
克羅尼在他那本很有用處的書《揭開奧秘——發現舊約中的基督》中，談到了什麼是「預表論」：In his helpful book
on this topic, The Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament,
Edmund Clowney has this to say about “typology”:
舊約給了我們一些預表（type，或譯為表型），預示出新約的應驗（即對範，antitypes，或譯為原型）。預表是一種類比，是聖經獨有的。和所有的類比一樣，預表的對象和預表本身有相同之處，也有相異之處。大衛和基督一樣都被賦予王權──雖然大衛和基督的王權有許多不同之處，他們之間仍有許多共同點，使比較兩者的嘗試顯得很有意義。… [T]he Old
Testament gives us types that foreshadow the New Testament fulfillment [i.e.,
the antitype]. A type is a form of analogy that is distinctive to the Bible.
Like all analogies, a type combines identity and difference. David and Christ
were both given kingly power and rule. In spite of the vast differences between
David’s royalty and Christ’s, there are points of formal identity that make the
comparison meaningful.
而預表的對象和預表本身的差異，使這些聖經中的預表更顯得獨特。上帝在聖經中的應許並不是要回到過去的輝煌時代。「大衛未來的子孫」（參：太一1），不只是另外一個大衛，其實祂比大衛偉大太多了！以致於大衛要稱祂為主（參：詩一一○1）。（註1）Yet it is just this degree of difference that makes
biblical types distinctive. The promises of God in the Bible do not offer a
return to a golden age of the past. David’s Son to come is not simply another
David. Rather, He is so much greater that David can speak of Him as Lord (Ps.
110:1).[1]
用更專門的術語來說，預表論「把過去和現在聯繫起來，這是就歷史上的對應和逐步升級來說的，而在這當中，上帝所預先定旨的事，在後來的、更大的事件中得到了補充。」（註2）因此，「預表」就和人物（例如：摩西和大衛），制度（例如：會幕和獻祭系統）或事件（例如：洪水和出埃及）有關。In more technical
terms, typology relates “the past to the
present in terms of a historical correspondence and escalation in which the
divinely ordered prefigurement finds a complement in the subsequent and greater
event.”[2] Types, then, have to do with persons (e.g., Moses and David),
institutions (e.g., tabernacle and sacrificial system) or events (e.g., the
flood and the Exodus).
預表論預設了什麼？What is Typology Presupposing?
為了建立起這些預表上的關聯，我們對聖經的本質和作者必須作一些預設。聖經是上帝所默示的（提後三16），意思是它們有一個基本的合一性，以上帝為它們的作者。基於這個理由，整本聖經正典對詮釋聖經來說都是很重要的。帕頓博士正確地說道：「為了瞭解個別的經文，必須去瞭解整本正典。」In order to make
these typological connections, we presuppose something about the nature and
authorship of Scripture. The Scriptures are divinely inspired by God (2 Tim.
3:16), which means they have a fundamental unity with God as their author. For
this reason the entire canon of Scripture is so crucial for interpretation. Dr.
Patton rightly states, “It’s a whole canon pursuit to understand any individual
text.”
只有新約聖經明確說明的預表才是有效的預表嗎？Does a Type have to
be Explicitly Stated in the New Testament to be Valid?
帕頓博士基於兩個理由，回答了這個問題：不是。Dr. Patton answers
this question, No. And he does so for two reasons.
首先，我們必須問，我們理解聖經的方法是打哪兒來的？是不是從聖經本身而來的？倘若我們想要瞭解如何讀舊約聖經，那麼我們就必須看新約作者讀舊約的方法。克羅尼博士曾經很有智慧地說到：「新約聖經是在數學練習題書本的後面，奇數題的問題解答」。通過使用其方法，我們就可以用同樣的方法來解答偶數題的問題。First, we need to
ask where are we getting our method for understanding the Scriptures, if not
from the Scriptures themselves? If we want to understand how to read the Old
Testament then we need to look to the method of the New Testament authors. Dr.
Clowney once wisely remarked, “The New Testament is the answers in the back of
the book to the odd number problems.” By using its method, then, we can answer
the even number problems in the same way.
其次，帕頓博士表明，把新約讀回到舊約（用新約的觀點來讀舊約）並不是一種「讀入」（eisegesis）的解經方式（把一些原來沒有的觀念讀入你所閱讀的經文裏）。既然新約和舊約聖經基本上是同一位作者所寫的，把新約觀念帶回到舊約裏，或者用新約的亮光來照明舊約，就不是一種入侵。Second, Dr. Patton
makes the point that it’s not eisegesis
(reading something into the text) to read the New Testament into the Old as
though it were something foreign that you were reading back into it. Since the
New and the Old Testament have fundamentally the same author, it’s not an
intrusion to bring the New back into the Old or to have the New shed light on
the Old.
霍志恆（Geerhardus Vos）一定會同意以上的這個結論，他曾經說到：Geerhardus Vos
would agree with this conclusion:
我們不能單單因為新約作者從來沒有把某種特質視為是預表性的，就證明了這種特質缺乏預表的價值。在這方面，預表和預言是一致的。新約聖經多次要我們注意某些預言的應驗，有時候連我們都沒有注意到它們是預言。然而這點並不會攔阻我們從事預言的研究，並且在新約聖經中尋找其他預言的應驗。新約作者所提出的預表的例子，本身並沒有什麼特殊之處。如果只接受新約作者提到的預表才算是預表，我們對預表就不會有一個完整及連貫一致的認識。（註3）The mere fact that no writer in the New
Testament refers to a certain trait as typical, affords no proof of its lacking
typical significance. Types in this respect stand on a line with prophecies.
The New Testament in numerous cases calls our attention to the fulfillment of
certain prophecies, sometimes of such a nature that perhaps we might not have
discerned them to be prophecies. And yet we are not restrained by this from
searching the field of prophecy and looking in the New Testament for other
cases of fulfillment. … The instances of typology vouched for by the New
Testament writers have nothing peculiar to themselves. To recognize only them
would lead to serious incompleteness and incoherency in the result.[3]
約雅斤是基督的一個預表King Jehoiachin as a Type of
Christ
約雅斤在耶路撒冷作王只有三個月，之後他就被擄到巴比倫了（王下廿四6以下）。他沒有作任何抵抗，只是單純地把自己交付給舊約聖經所說的「地獄」，即被擄。根據耶利米的記載，他是帶著咒詛而去的。在列王紀的最後一章裏，約雅斤再次出現，這次是以受巴比倫王恩待的面貌出現的。他從監獄被釋放出來，巴比倫王賜給他新的外袍，並且終其一生都在巴比倫王面前吃飯——部分地恢復了他的地位（王下廿五27-30）。Jehoiachin reigned only three
months in Jerusalem before he was carried away in exile to Babylon (2 Kings
24:6ff). He didn’t put up any resistance, but simply consigned himself to Old
Testament “hell,” that is, exile. According to Jeremiah, he goes bearing a
curse over him. In the next and final chapter of 1-2 Kings, Jehoiachin
reappears as one who is graciously dealt with by the king of Babylon. He’s
released from prison, given new garments to wear and for the remainder of his
life dines at the king’s table—a partial restoration has taken place (2 Kings
25:27-30).
令我們著迷的是，他那個時代的每位大先知都對以色列人說，「倘若你要認識上帝子民的未來，你必須看約雅斤。」在以西結書十七章裏，一條嫩枝——象徵約雅斤——從香柏樹的樹梢被擰去，被上帝帶到錫安山，而長成佳美的香柏樹。就以西結而言，大衛譜系的未來必要通過這個隱秘的人物——約雅斤——來延續。這個看似矛盾的悖論是先知信息的中心，這位身上籠罩著咒詛的被擄君王，會是上帝子民的未來。帕頓博士說，「只有受過審判，才能成為復興的後嗣。」這也是耶利米信息的核心。事實上，在以色列人被擄之前，耶利米也沒有什麼嘉言能對以色列人說。就在約雅斤被擄之後不久，耶利米書廿四章的記載，說到極好的無花果，這是象徵那些被擄的人，然而他們卻會有一個極為美好的未來，因為上帝會以極大的恩典復興他們。What is fascinating
about him though is that each of the major prophets of his day say to Israel, “If you want to know the future of the people of
God, then you need to look to Jehoiachin.” In Ezekiel 17 a sprig is taken from
the top of a cedar—a symbol of Jehoiachin—which God brings to Mt. Zion where it
grows into this noble cedar. So as far as Ezekiel is concerned the future of
the Davidic line is through this cryptic figure, Jehoiachin. The paradox that
this exiled king with a curse looming over him would be the future is at the
heart of the prophet’s message. Dr. Patton says, “Only once you have gone
through judgment can you become an heir of restoration.” This too is at the
heart of Jeremiah’s message. In fact, Jeremiah has no good words to speak to
Israel until after they have been exiled. Right after Jehoiachin is exiled, Jeremiah
24 is penned which speaks of the good figs, which symbolize those who have gone
through exile and yet have a future because God will graciously restore them.
然後我們來到新約，基督自己這樣說：「基督這樣受害，又進入祂的榮耀，豈不是應當的嗎？」（路廿四2-26）當然是應當的！你可以在約雅斤身上看到這點。他首先經歷了盟約咒詛（被擄）的懲罰，然後繼續以基督的一個預表的身份，成為上帝子民的未來。這個救贖歷史的模式（尤其是在君王的意義上存活下來）乃是指向耶穌的，祂必須先上十字架，承受咒詛。基於這個理由，彼得的反駁——「這事必不臨到你身上」（太十六22）——就是來自撒但的。因為若基督不上十字架，就會徹底破壞完整的救贖歷史，而接下來的復興與伴隨而來的祝福，就會被封閉起來，沒有人可以得到。以色列歷史中沒有其他的王像約雅斤一樣，如此清晰地顯明這個「榮耀之前必須受苦」或「復興之前必須受審判」的模式。約雅斤正是基督的一個預表。We then come to the
New Testament and the rhetorical words of Christ himself, “Was it not necessary that the Christ should
suffer these things and enter into his glory?” (Luke 24:25-26). Of course it was! And one place you
could’ve gone to learn this was Jehoiachin. He first undergoes the punishment
of the curse of the covenant (exile) and then goes on to become the future as a
type of Christ. This redemptive-historical pattern (especially as it is lived
out in a kingly sense) points forward to Jesus who must go to the cross and
suffer the curse first. For this reason Peter’s rebuke—”this shall never happen
to you” (Matt. 16:22)—is satanic. For Christ not to go would rip apart the very
fabric of redemptive-history and the subsequent restoration and accompanying
blessings would remain locked and inaccessible. No other king in Israel’s
history so clearly shows this pattern of “suffering unto glory” or “judgment
unto restoration” like Jehoiachin, a type of Christ.
註：
[1]
Edmund Clowney, The Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament,
14-15.
[2]
Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, gen. ed. Kevin J.
Vanhoozer, 823.
[3]
Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, 146.
