聖經「預表」的本質
The Nature of Biblical “Types”
作者：Fred G. Zaspel
誠之譯自：
https://credomag.com/2013/07/the-warrant-for-typological-interpretation-of-scripture-fred-zaspel-part-2/
https://yimawusi.net/2021/06/07/the-nature-of-biblical-types/
我們上次看到，「預表論」是研究聖經的一種方法，它將舊約聖經中的某些事件、人物和制度理解為對後來在新約聖經中實現的實際情況，在歷史層面和象徵層面上的展望，或預覽、預示。在那篇文章中，我試圖通過調查新約聖經作者（和耶穌）對某些舊約聖經人物、事件和制度的理解，為這種「預表論」的讀經方法建立起合乎聖經的證明，因為它指向或預示了上帝將在我們的主耶穌基督身上和祂的工作中完全成就的工作。
We saw last
time that “typology” is that study of Scripture which understands certain Old
Testament events, persons, and institutions as historical and yet symbolic
anticipations — or previews, prefigurements — of realities later realized in
the New Testament. In that post I sought to establish the Biblical warrant for this
“typological” approach to Scripture simply by surveying the New Testament
writers’ (and Jesus’) understanding of certain Old Testament persons, events,
and institutions as pointing forward or prefiguring a work God will fully
accomplish in the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ.
在這篇文章中，我將試圖盡可能簡要地確定聖經「預表」（type）的性質。我們都看到了在象徵手法（symbolism）中對預表論的濫用，這些象徵手法似乎只能在傳道人豐富的想像力中找到根基。我們在這裏的問題涉及合法和負責任的預表論，也就是真正符合聖經的預表論。
In this post I
will attempt, as briefly as possible, to identify more closely the nature of a Biblical
“type.” We have all seen the abuse of typology in symbolism that seems to find
its grounding only in the fertile imagination of the preacher. Our question
here concerns a legitimate and responsible — that is, a genuinely biblical —
typology.
有些人退回到所謂「安全」的假設，即唯一真正的「預表」是那些在新約聖經中為我們明確指出的預表。這種假設可能讓基督徒感到很安全，但新約聖經作者的做法——他們當然是從耶穌那裏學到的——似乎表明了一種我們必須學習的思維模式。事實上，大衛·貝克（David Baker）和其他一些人明確地強調了這一點——「預表論與其說是聖經規定的一種按照固定的規則運作的解經方法，不如說是一種思考方式」（黑體字是筆者的強調）。也就是說，新約聖經預表論乃是建立這樣的基礎上：對更宏大的聖經故事及其救贖設計，即我們所說的「救贖歷史」的認識，以及對上帝在基督裏達到頂峰的不斷展開的目的的更宏大的聖經模式與歷史模式的認識。這種理解對於負責任的預表論是至關重要的。
Some have
retreated to the “safe” assumption that the only genuine “types” are those
explicitly identified for us as such in the New Testament. This assumption may
feel safe, but the approach of the New Testament writers, which they of course
learned from Jesus, seems to indicate a pattern of thinking that we are to
learn. In fact, David Baker and others have pressed this point exactly — that
“typology is not so much a prescribed method of interpretation which functions
according to fixed rules, so much as it is a way of thinking” (my emphasis).
That is, New Testament typology rests on a recognition of the larger biblical
story and its redemptive design, of “salvation history” as we call it, and of
larger biblical and historical patterns in God’s unfolding purpose that
culminates in Christ. This understanding is essential to responsible typology.
但我們能不能說得更具體呢？在他新出版的《論新約如何使用舊約的手冊》（Handbook on the New
Testament Use of the Old Testament）中，畢爾（Greg Beale）提供了一個定義，這個定義比較能代表基督教學術界更廣泛的共識：
But can we be
more specific? In his new Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old
Testament Greg Beale offers a definition that is fairly representative of the
wider consensus of Christian scholarship:
「預表論是在上帝特殊啟示的歷史框架內，研究關於人物、事件、制度和其他事物等諸般啟示真理之間所具有的類比對應關係；從回溯的角度看，這些真理具有先知預言的性質，其意義也得到了升級。」。
“the study of analogical correspondences among
revealed truths about persons, events, institutions and other things within the
historical framework of God’s special revelation, which, from a retrospective
view, are of a prophetic nature and are escalated in their meaning.”
如此說來，在一個負責任的預表論中，會有：(1) 類比的對應性——一些明顯的連接點或目的的共同性；(2) 歷史性——不是寓言或猶太人的釋經法米大示（midrash）或純粹的想像；(3) 展望——真正的預示和期望，在預表本身中顯明出來的一種「指向未來」的特性；(4) 回顧——回溯和更充分的觀察，「這就是了」；以及(5) 升級——一種強化，其中對範（antitype；即預表的實體）被視為比預表「更大、更美」。
In a
responsible typology, then, there is 1) analogical correspondence — some
obvious point of connection or commonality of purpose; 2) historicity — not
allegory or midrash or pure imagination; 3) anticipation — a genuine
foreshadowing and expectation, a “pointing forwardness” that is evident in the
type itself; 4) retrospection — a looking back and fuller observation that
“this is that”; and 5) escalation — a heightening in which the antitype is seen
as “greater and better” than the type.
預表論所涉及的困難源自於新約聖經有時是以更加「出人意料」的方式來理解舊約聖經的。例如，馬太如何得知何西阿書十一章1節——「我從埃及召出我的兒子來」——是在預示並「應驗」了嬰兒耶穌與約瑟和馬利亞一起從埃及上來的（太二15）？他怎麼知道拉結的眼淚（耶卅一15）是在伯利恒、在對無辜者的屠殺中得到「應驗」的（太二17-18）？
The difficulty
involved in the typology stems from the more “surprising” ways in which the New
Testament writers sometimes understand the Old Testament. For example, how did
Matthew see that Hosea 11:1 — “Out of Egypt I have called my son” — was
anticipatory of and “fulfilled” in the infant Jesus’ ascent from Egypt with
Joseph and Mary (Matt. 2:15)? And how did he know that Rachel’s tears (Jer.
31:15) were “fulfilled” in the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem (Matt.
2:17-18)?
在我們對馬太過於苛刻，判斷他不負責任之前，有一些考慮我們應該牢記在心。首先，我們必須認識到，使徒們確信他們是在按照聖經應該被處理的方式來處理經文。事實上，他們堅持認為他們對舊約聖經的用法應該被證明是有說服力的，而且是確鑿的，就像他們對猶太人所作的護教一樣。此外，我們應該假定，使徒們實際上是在負責任地處理經文。當然，我們的默示教義要求這樣做，而且使徒作為我們教師的很大一部分作用是告訴我們應該如何理解舊約聖經。然而（問題就在這裏），至少有時新約聖經作者似乎比舊約聖經作者本人在某段舊約經文中看到更多的內容。當然，在我們給使徒們的釋經學打「D」的分數之前，我們應該首先努力向他們學習。他們究竟是如何把舊約經文視為對未來的預測的（prospective）？是什麼因素使它們為我們提供了「更完整」的意義（“fuller” meaning）？
Before we are
too hard on Matthew and judge him irresponsible, there are some considerations
we should bear in mind. First, we must recognize that the apostles were
convinced that they were handling Scripture as it ought to be handled. In fact,
they insisted that their use of the Old Testament should prove convincing and
conclusive, as in their apologetic to the Jews. Moreover, we should assume that
the apostles were in fact handling Scripture responsibly. Surely our doctrine
of inspiration requires this, and surely a large part of the apostles’ role as
our teachers is to show us how to understand the Old Testament. And yet (and
here’s the rub) at least sometimes the New Testament writers seem to see more
in a given Old Testament passage than the Old Testament writer himself.
Certainly, before we give the apostles a “D” in hermeneutics we should first
seek to learn from them. How did they see Old Testament passages as
prospective? What consideration(s) warranted the “fuller” meaning they give us?
誠然，在必要的時候，我願意簡單地訴諸於使徒的默示，然後就撒手不管了。偶爾，新舊約聖經的神聖作者會給新約聖經作者一個「更完整的意義」。但我認為這種情況很少（見穆爾[Doug Moo]，「完整意義的問題」[“The Problem of Sensus Plenior”]），而且這不應該是我們首先求助的。只要有可能，我們應該學習使徒的釋經學本身。
Admittedly,
when necessary, I am willing simply to appeal to the apostles’ inspiration and
let that be that. There may be on occasion a “fuller sense” given the New
Testament author by the divine Author of both Testaments. But I think these
instances are few (see Doug Moo, “The Problem of Sensus Plenior”), and it
should not be our first recourse. When at all possible we should learn the
apostolic hermeneutic itself.
答案很大一部分是在以下考慮的組合中找到的。首先，使徒們把舊約聖經理解為一本不完整的書，只有在耶穌身上才能達到其高潮——「應驗」（fulfillment）。在這個意義上，舊約聖經作為一個整體是展望性的，也是前瞻性的。更重要的是，他們理解這種期待感是由涵蓋整本聖經的神的諸般應許所形成的——如創三15，創十二和十五章，以及撒下七7——這些應許主導了猶太教和舊約聖經的整個宗教展望。此外，正如我們上次所看到的，他們在舊約聖經本身中觀察到的某些重複的模式，「預測」或預示著上帝在未來將如何行動。看到這種偉大的向前推進的運動，以及所有這些軌跡不可避免地在基督身上達到高潮（參見林後一20），使徒們已經學會（從耶穌本人那裏！）從基督論的角度來思考問題。他們深信舊約聖經是關於耶穌的——無論是就其本身而言還是就耶穌本人的見證而言（約五46；路廿四27、44等）——因此他們不能不在全部經文中看見耶穌。
A large part of
the answer is found in a mix of the following considerations. First, the
apostles understood the Old Testament as an incomplete book that reaches its
climax — “fulfillment” — only in Jesus. In this sense the Old Testament as a
whole was anticipatory and prospective. More importantly, they understood this
sense of expectation as shaped by over-arching divine promises — such as
Genesis 3:15, Genesis 12 and 15, and 2 Samuel 7 — that dominated the whole
religious outlook of Judaism and the Old Testament. Further, as we saw last
time, they observed in the Old Testament itself certain repeated patterns that
“predict” or prefigure how God will act in the future. And seeing this great
forward-movement and all these trajectories that inevitably culminate in Christ
(cf. 2 Cor. 1:20), the apostles had learned — from Jesus himself! — to think
Christologically. They were so deeply convinced that the Old Testament was
about Jesus — both on its own terms and on the testimony of Jesus himself (John
5:46; Luke 24:27, 44, etc.) — that they could not fail to see him throughout
the text.
然而，這不僅僅是狂熱的想像力在起作用而已。預表論可能是「一種思維方式」，但它不止於此。它是一種有原則的思考方式。它是在追溯（回顧性的），但它在追溯的同時，也留意到耶穌帶來了舊約聖經中實際展望的東西（前瞻性的）。
And yet it was
not simply zealous imaginations at work. Typology may be “a way of thinking,”
but it is more than that. It is a principled way of thinking. It is looking
back (retrospective), but it is also looking back and noticing that Jesus
brings about what was actually anticipated in the Old Testament (prospective).
因此，比如說，何西阿宣告了以色列未來的復興。以色列的罪和叛逆不會是他們最終的結局。將來還會有被擄，但也會有歸回。所有這些都是用埃及、曠野和出埃及的方式描述的。將會有一個新的埃及和一個新的悖逆的曠野經歷，但也會有新的出埃及。再加上以色列是上帝的「兒子」這一事實——又是一個基督論的主題——不久之後，你就必須把所有的點聯繫起來，看到一個促使你找到耶穌的模式。在這一切當中，馬太對何西阿十一章1節的看法（二15）就似乎並不那麼遙不可及了。可以肯定的是，馬太是在用耶穌形狀的鏡片「回頭看（回溯）」。但何西阿書中也有「向前看（展望）」的內容。
So for example,
Hosea proclaims Israel’s future restoration. Israel’s sin and rebellion will
not be their final end. There will be exile again, but there will be
restoration also. And all this is described in terms of Egypt, wilderness, and
exodus. There will be a new Egypt and a new wilderness experience for
rebellion, and yet a new exodus also. Add to this the fact that Israel is God’s
“son” — yet another Christological theme — and it isn’t long before you have to
connect all the dots and see a pattern that drives you to Jesus. Within all
this, Matthew’s take (2:15) on Hosea 11:1 does not seem such a long reach after
all. Matthew is “looking back” with Jesus-shaped lenses, to be sure. But there
is in Hosea a “looking ahead” also.
另一個例子是，我們知道申命記十八章15節起，直接提到了耶穌是一個「新摩西」。所以約書亞也被當作一個新的摩西。那麼，把約書亞也看作是耶穌的「預表」似乎也只是一小步而已（參看太一21）。約書亞也是在基督身上達到頂峰的模式的一部分。
As another
example, we know that Deuteronomy 18:15ff speaks directly of Jesus as a “new
Moses.” So also Joshua is treated as a new Moses. It would seem but a small
step, then, to see Joshua also as a “type” of Jesus (cf. Matt. 1:21). He also
is part of that pattern that culminates in Christ.
創世記第九章的經文將挪亞描繪為一種新的亞當，將正在出現的新世界描繪為是一個新的伊甸園，等等。對亞當的命令（創一28）在關於挪亞、亞伯拉罕、以撒和雅各的敍事中都得到了呼應。但是，他們當然像亞當一樣都失敗了。然而，創世記一章28節的回聲繼續在整本舊約聖經中被我們聽見，然後到了在這一切當中的某個時刻，我們不得不認為這種模式是對一個永遠不會失敗的新亞當的期盼和展望。
The text of
Genesis 9 famously presents Noah as a kind of new Adam, the emerging new world
as a new Eden, and so on. And the commands to Adam (Gen. 1:28) are echoed in
the narratives about Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But of course like Adam
all failed. Yet the echoes of Genesis 1:28 continue to be heard throughout the
Old Testament, and at some point in it all we have to think that this pattern
is anticipatory and prospective of a New Adam who will not fail.
因此，在學習舊約聖經中會幕和聖殿的細節時，我們開始注意到與伊甸園的相似之處，然後在先知書中再次注意到一個即將到來的新聖殿。這種模式似乎是明確無誤的，它建立了一個只有在耶穌身上才能實現的期望。當然，這有回顧的方面，但也有展望的方面。
So also, when
learning the details of the Old Testament Tabernacle and Temple, at some point
we begin to notice similarities with Eden, and then again in the Prophets of a
new Temple to come. The pattern seems unmistakable, and it establishes an
expectation that can be realized only in Jesus. There is a retrospective
aspect, of course, but a prospective one also.
或者說，從我們的角度回望過去，在希伯來書九～十章中，作者反思了舊約信徒年復一年地遵守獻祭。在某些時候，有思想的人不得不問到：「如果這些獻祭必須不斷重複，那麼它們究竟有什麼價值呢？」這就是說，獻祭系統本身有一些東西是前瞻性的，從它本身指向更偉大的東西，但尚未實現。
Or, looking
back from our standpoint, in Hebrews 9-10 the author reflects on the Old
Testament believer observing the sacrifices year after year. At some point the
thinking person has to ask, “Of what value are these sacrifices if they have to
be repeated?” That is to say, there is something in the sacrificial system
itself that is prospective, pointing away from itself to something greater but
not yet realized.
還可以繼續往下說，但我想說的是，當使徒們在舊約聖經中「看見」耶穌時，這不僅僅是一種過於狂熱的想像力在起作用，而是一種深刻的信念，即舊約聖經歷史有意在耶穌身上達到高潮，這種展望的感覺是建立在其結構和敍事中的。
This could go
on, but my point here is simply that when the apostles “saw” Jesus in the Old
Testament, it was not merely an overly zealous imagination at work but a deep
conviction that Old Testament history intentionally culminates in Jesus and
that this sense of anticipation is built in to its structure and narrative.
所有這些都有助於我們確定負責任的預表論的性質。它是一種思維方式，但它不是純粹的想像力。它是一種由思想結構和模式引導的思維，幾個世紀以來，這些結構和模式一直在建立和「充實」（可一15），直到在主耶穌基督裏達到豐滿（加四4）（參看西二16-17）。
And all this
helps us to identify the nature of responsible typology. It is a way of
thinking, but it is not purely imaginative. It is a thinking guided by the
structures and patterns of thought that have for centuries been building and
“filling up” (Mk. 1:15) until the fulness (Gal. 4:4) is reached in the Lord
Jesus Christ (cf. Col. 2:16-17).
普林斯頓神學院舊約弗里奇（Charles Fritsch）對此做了很好的總結：
Charles Fritsch
summarizes it well:
「因此，預表論不在於收集新舊約聖經之間所有的相似之處，而是在於理解潛在的救贖和啟示的過程，這過程是從舊約聖經開始的，而在新約聖經中得到了應驗」。[1]
“Thus typology is not a matter of collecting
all of the resemblances between the Old and New Testaments, but rather of
understanding the underlying redemptive and revelational process which begins
in the Old Testament and finds its fulfillment in the New.”
卡森（Don Carson）也寫了類似的話：
Don Carson
writes similarly:
新約聖經作者堅持認為，只有當完整的啟示在歷史上展開時，舊約聖經才能正確地得到解釋（例如，加三6-14）。從釋經學的角度來看，這不是一種創新。舊約聖經作者們已經從早期的救贖歷史中汲取教訓，這些教訓在那段歷史中很難[完全]察覺，但回頭來看就會明白（例如，詩篇七十八篇中的亞薩；參見馬太福音十三35）。舊約聖經的盼望在耶穌基督身上得到應驗時，馬太也是這樣解經的。因此，我們可以合法地談論一個「更完整的意義」（fuller meaning），這不是任何一個文本所能完全提供的。但我們所訴諸的，不是一些隱藏的神的知識，而是到那時為止的啟示模式——一個尚未充分被辨識出來的模式。因此，新的啟示可能真的是新的，但同時又能與舊的啟示進行對照。
The NT writers
insist that the OT can be rightly interpreted only if the entire revelation is
kept in perspective as it is historically unfolded (e.g., Gal. 3:6-14).
Hermeneutically this is not an innovation. OT writers drew lessons out of
earlier salvation history, lessons difficult to [completely] perceive while
that history was being lived, but lessons that retrospect would clarify (e.g.,
Asaph in Ps. 78; cf. on Matt 13:35). Matthew does the same in the context of
the fulfillment of OT hopes in Jesus Christ. We may therefore legitimately
speak of a “fuller meaning” than any one text provides. But the appeal should be
made, not to some hidden divine knowledge, but to the pattern of revelation up
to that time – a pattern not yet adequately discerned. The new revelation may
therefore be truly new, yet at the same time capable of being checked against
the old.
因此，預表論是一種藝術，也是一種科學。它是「一種思考方式」。但它並不缺乏解經學或釋經學的控制，正如 「預期的」要素（“prospective”
element）所確保的那樣。
Typology, then,
is something of an art as well as a science. It is “a way of thinking.” But it
is not without exegetical or hermeneutical control, as the “prospective”
element ensures.
註1: http://www.bible-researcher.com/fritsch.html