這是對的嗎？新約聖經如何使用舊約預言
CAN THAT BE RIGHT? THE USE OF OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
作者：Kevin DeYoung   誠之譯自：
http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/2015/12/08/new-testaments-use-of-old-testament-prophesy/
https://yimawusi.net/2021/06/17/can-that-be-right-the-use-of-old-testament-prophecy-in-the-new-testament/
 
聖誕季節降臨了！這也意味著人們必須重新關注彌賽亞的預言，也就是人們所熟知的歌聲：「必有童女懷孕生子」，「政權要擔在他的肩上」，「伯利恆以法他」等等（譯註：這些是舊約先知以賽亞和彌迦的預言，在許多聖誕歌曲中都可以看見）。這會讓經常去做禮拜的人心頭感到溫馨而自在。
It’s Christmas season and that means renewed attention on Messianic prophecy. Ah, the familiar sounds of “a virgin shall give birth,” “the government shall be upon his shoulders,” and good ole “Bethlehem Ephrathah.” It makes a churchgoer feel all warm and cuddly inside.
 
老實說，也帶著一點點困惑。
And frankly, a bit confused.
 
如果我們夠老實，就會說新約聖經使用舊約聖經的方式似乎有點牽強附會。我的意思是，我們會看到，正如抄寫聖經的猶太文士一樣，彌迦書五章2節是在預告彌賽亞將會誕生在伯利恆（太二1-6），但何西阿真的是在發表有關基督的預言嗎，只因為他提到了「埃及」（何十一1），而耶穌全家剛好逃到了埃及（太二15）？今天如果我們像馬太那樣來解讀聖經，我們一定會被趕出講台，被逐出我們的教會小組，不是嗎？
If we’re honest, the way the New Testament uses the Old Testament seems a little far-fetched. I mean, we can see, just like the scribes did, that Micah 5:2 is a foretelling of the Messiah’s birth in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:1-6), but was Hosea really making a prediction about the Christ just because he happened to mention “Egypt” (Hos. 11:1) and Jesus’ family fled to Egypt (Matt. 2:15)? If we interpreted Scripture like Matthew does, we’d be chased out of our pulpits and small groups, right?
 
新約聖經如何使用舊約聖經是一個很複雜的題目。即使是福音派的學者對什麼是最好的研究方法，也不是在每一點上都有共識（例如這本書[Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament]和卡森[D. A. Carson]的書評 [http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/2008_review_Berding_Lunde.pdf]）。不過，還是有幾個原則、說明和提醒可以幫助我們明白新約使徒看似混亂的使用舊約聖經的方法。
The New Testament’s use of the Old Testament is a complicated subject. Even evangelical scholars don’t agree on all the particulars of the best approach (see for example this book and D.A. Carson’s review). Still, there are several principles, clarifications, and reminders that can help us make sense of the Apostles’ seemingly willy-nilly use of the Old Testament.
 
（以下絕大部分的要點是從穆爾的文章〈『更完整的意義』的問題〉[The Problem of Sensus Plenior]摘要出來的，此文收集在Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon 一書中。該書由卡森和John Woodbridge編輯。Jared Compton在他為Themelios 雜誌寫的文章〈Shared Intentions? Reflections on Inspiration and Interpretation in Light of Scripture’s Dual Authorship〉中，也有許多相同的論點。）
(For the most part, the following points were gleaned from Doug Moo’s chapter “The Problem of Sensus Plenior” in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon [edited by D.A. Carson and John Woodbridge]. Jared Compton makes many of the same points in his fine Themelios piece “Shared Intentions? Reflections on Inspiration and Interpretation in Light of Scripture’s Dual Authorship.”)
 
1. 請牢記新約聖經提到舊約聖經的目的。我們往往認為，每當新約聖經作者引用舊約聖經時，必定是在對舊約聖經的經文進行解釋。但是不存在一條無誤的規則，說新約作者在引用舊約經文時，必須總是給出正確的詮釋。新約作者也許完全沒有試著想要作詮釋。如果有人問我，「你的編輯工作進行得如何了？」而我說，「那是很乏味的工作——律上加律，例上加例」，我並不是想要解釋以賽亞書廿八章10節。我純粹是使用一節我所熟悉的經文的常見用法而已。
1. Keep in mind the NT’s purpose in referencing the OT. We often think every time the OT is referenced it must mean the NT author is trying to exegete the OT passage. But there is no rule of inerrancy which says the NT author must always be attempting to give the correct interpretation of a given passage. The NT author may not be attempting an interpretation at all. If someone asks me, “How is the editing work going” and I say, “It’s tedious–line upon line, precept upon precept” this doesn’t mean I’m trying to exegete Isaiah 28:10. I’m simply employing the familiar language of a familiar passage.
 
2. 沿著這些思路，請記得新約聖經常常用舊約聖經來作為表達的工具。新約作者非常熟悉舊約聖經，他們使用舊約聖經的詞彙，一點兒也不奇怪。同樣地，西方人也許會用莎士比亞或聖經的名言，因為這是眾所周知的，但是並沒有要嘗試想要去解釋其上下文或原始的涵義義。
2. Along these lines, remember the NT often uses the OT simply as a vehicle of expression. The NT writers were hugely familiar with the OT. It’s no wonder they employed its vocabulary. In the same way, Westerners might use a line from Shakespeare or the Bible because it is familiar, but without intending to explain its context or original meaning.
 
3. 新約聖經也許是強調某一節經文的意義（significance），而不是想要解釋其原初的意思（original meaning）。例如，穆爾提到保羅在哥林多前書九章9節使用申命記廿五章4節（「牛在場上踹穀的時候，不可籠住他的嘴」)。批判者主張，保羅是抽離了上下文來引用摩西律法，說這節經文是關於應當付錢給牧師。但保羅當然可以從這節經文作出一個合理的推論，並且把它用在自己的文脈裏。
3. The NT may press home the significance of a passage without trying to explain its original meaning. For example, Moo points to Paul’s use of Deuteronomy 25:4 (“You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain”) in 1 Corinthians 9:9. Critics argue that Paul is taking the Law of Moses out of context by saying this passage is about paying ministers. But surely Paul is justified in pulling a fair inference out of the passage and applying it to his own context.
 
4. 我們必須容許人用更廣闊的觀點來看「應驗」的說法。倘若我們明白 plēroō（應驗/成全）的用法不一定必然是「因此，這節經文預言耶穌會作或會說剛才出現的事或話」，有許多麻煩就可以避免。如同穆爾所說，「這個字在新約聖經的用法是用來表明上帝在基督裏這個新的、高峰的啟示，和預備性質的、透過以色列所作的不完整的啟示，在這兩者之間有一個廣闊的救贖歷史關係」（191頁）。換句話說，「應驗」的意思不是說我們所討論的舊約經文是一個直接的預言。因此，耶穌逃到埃及，應驗了何西阿書十一章1節，不是因為何西阿寫作的目的是為了要預言彌賽亞會向南旅行，而是因為耶穌是上帝更偉大的兒子，祂是「新以色列」的具體化身。耶穌是在進行祂自己的出埃及旅程。何西阿並沒有預言這個神聖的家庭要逃往埃及，馬太也不是暗示先知有意這麼作。但是馬太的確看到在何西阿書中所間接提到的以色列出埃及的故事，在基督裏被帶到它更完整的救贖歷史的啟示裏。
4. We must allow for a broader view of “fulfillment” language. A lot of trouble could be avoided if we understood that the use of plēroō (fulfilled) does not have to mean “and so this verse predicted that Jesus would do or say this thing that just happened.” As Moo says, “The word is used in the New Testament to indicate the broad redemptive-historical relationship of the new, climactic revelation of God in Christ to the preparatory, incomplete revelation to and through Israel” (191). In other words, “fulfilled” does not mean the OT text in question is a direct prophecy. Consequently, Jesus flight to Egypt can fulfill Hosea 11:1, not because Hosea ever intended to predict a Messianic trip down south, but because Jesus is God’s greater Son who is the embodiment of a new Israel. Jesus is on an Exodus journey of his own. Hosea did not predict the Holy Family’s flight to Egypt, nor does Matthew suggest the prophet meant to do so. But Matthew does see that the story of Israel’s exodus, alluded to in Hosea, is brought to its full redemptive-historical revelation in Christ.
 
5. 同樣地，有些舊約聖經經文在預表的層面已經得著應驗了。這和靈意解經不同。靈意解經是脫離經文尋找意義，而預表法則是根據經文來尋找一個進一步的、[在救贖歷史裏]得到發展的意義（見穆爾，195頁）。耶穌的受難可以被視為大衛在詩篇二十二篇發自內心的吶喊的應驗，這不是因為大衛以為他是在預告彌賽亞的死亡，而是因為大衛身為君王，而且是所應許的彌賽亞的先驅，是基督的預表，他的哀求預示了大衛更偉大的子孫最後的被棄。
5. Similarly, some OT passages are fulfilled typologically. This is different than allegory. And allegory looks for meaning behind the text where typology finds a developed meaning that is rooted in the text (see Moo 195). Jesus’ passion can be seen as a fulfillment of David’s heart cry in Psalm 22 not because David thought he was predicting the death of the Messiah, but because David, as the king and as the promised progenitor of the Messiah, was a type of Christ whose cries anticipated the final dereliction of David’s greater son.
 
6. 舊約先知預言充滿了這些例子，有近期的應驗，也有遠處的應驗。例如以賽亞書四十章，是有關從巴比倫歸回的安慰。但是後來我們看到它也是關於施洗約翰的話，他會為彌賽亞預備道路（可一2-3）。許多先知見證都間接地期待一個未來的、更完整的、經常是末世性的應驗。以賽亞也許不知道他所說關於童女生子的話是彌賽亞的預言，但是這意思不是說，當他知道這是關於彌賽亞的，他會感到驚奇。以色列一直在等候那永恆的國度和最終的救贖主。我認為先知明白他們是為他們那個時代在作預言（和預告），但也可能作為對未來的預言（和預告）。
6. OT prophecy is full of examples where there is a near and far fulfillment. Isaiah 40, for example, was a word of comfort about the return from Babylon, but later we see it also was a word about John the Baptist who would prepare the way for the Messiah (Mark 1:2-3). Much of the prophetic witness implicitly anticipates a future, fuller, often eschatological fulfillment. Isaiah may not have known that his words about the virgin were Messianic, but this does not mean he’d be surprised to know they were. Israel was always waiting for the everlasting kingdom and the final Deliverer. I think the prophets understood that what they foretold (and forth-told) was for their day, but it could be for the future as well.
 
另外兩個問題
Two Other Questions
 
當然，以上的原則會引發兩個麻煩的問題：
Of course, the foregoing principles raise two thorny questions:
 
1) 舊約作者是否會說一些他們不明白的事？換句話說，我們從新約聖經裏所得知的一些舊約經文的涵義，是舊約聖經作者自己都不知道的？一些非常優秀的學者如凱瑟（Walter Kaiser）極力地主張，毫無疑問地，舊約經文含有雙重的涵義或更完整的意義。儘管凱瑟堅持說，如果我們注意原始的脈絡和神學的背景，許多有問題的經文都可以「得到解決」，這確實是正確的。但我同意穆爾和其他學者的說法，他們主張，「有些地方，新約聖經將更多可以合理推論出來的涵義歸給舊約聖經，而這些涵義不是人類作者所知的」（201頁）。
1) Did the OT authors say more than they knew? That is, is there a meaning in some OT texts that we know by the NT but would have been unknown to the authors? Excellent scholars like Walter Kaiser have argued strenuously that there can be no double meanings or fuller meanings in the OT text. While Kaiser is certainly right to insist that many problem passages can be “solved” by paying careful attention to the original context and the theological background, I agree with Moo and others who argue, “There are places where the New Testament attributes to Old Testament text more meaning than it can be legitimately inferred the human author was aware of” (201).
 
這是否意味著我們必然會成為「釋經學的虛無主義」（hermeneutical nihilism）？我不認為如此。首先，聖經的每個詮釋都必須受聖經的管制。現今許多學者主張一種「正典進路」，來明白新約聖經如何使用舊約聖經。聖經是一部完整的文獻。在某種意義上，舊約聖經是一本不完整的、尚未完成的書籍。然而一旦整本書寫成了，我們就能更清楚前面的部分，也明白一些作者在一個「尚未結束」的世代裏也許會錯失的一些事情。其次，我們必須牢記，這些並不會貶低作者的意圖。新約聖經作者並沒有在舊約聖經中找出原始作者從未想到過的含義。也許這些人間作者不清楚他們所說的話的完整意義，但是不要忘了，還有一位神聖作者。在聖靈的默示下，新約作者能夠理解作者的意圖，而這些意圖可能並不為舊約聖經的人間作者所完全瞭解。新約聖經並沒有去找出一個捏造的涵義，只是（也偶爾）找到對寫作團隊中的一半人來說不那麼明顯的意義。
Does this mean we are doomed to “hermeneutical nihilism?” I don’t think so. First, every interpretation of Scripture must be constrained by Scripture. Many scholars now argue for “a canonical approach” to understanding the NT use of the OT. The Bible is a literary whole. In some sense, the OT is an incomplete, unfinished book. But once the whole is complete, we are able to make better sense of earlier parts and see things that the authors at an “unfinished” time may have missed. Second, we must remember that none of this undermines authorial intent. The NT authors did not find meanings in the OT the original authors never intended. Perhaps the human authors were unaware of the fullness of their words, but do not forget there is also a Divine author. Under the inspiration of the Spirit, the NT writers were able to understand the authorial intent that may not have been fully known to the OT human authors. The NT does not find a meaning that isn’t there, only (and on occasion) a meaning that was not obvious to one half of the writing team.
 
2）第二個由這個討論所提出的問題是，我們是否可以效法新約作者有時會使用的解經法。我同意穆爾的看法，很堅定地說：「要看情況」。一方面，我們沒有聖靈的默示，可以用同樣的方式明白上帝的心意，因此對於在經文中找到「更完整」的意義要非常小心。另一方面，我們應該用同樣的態度來閱讀聖經，即有充分的神學、救恩歷史的知識，從整本正典的角度來讀聖經，這是我們在新約聖經引用舊約聖經所使用的方法上所看到的（穆爾，206、210頁）。
2) The second question raised by this discussion is whether we can imitate the hermeneutic employed at times by the NT writers. With Moo, I would give a firm “that depends.” On the one hand, we do not have the Spirit’s inspiration to know the mind of God in the same way. So we should be extremely cautious about finding “fuller” meanings in the text. On the other hand, we should read the Bible with same theologically informed, salvation-historical, whole canon approach that we see employed in the NT use of the OT (Moo 206, 210).
 
學到的功課
Lessons Learned
 
從以上討論所學到的實用功課是，我們應該避免一種過分簡化的思路，來看舊約聖經-新約聖經的應驗。有時候我們會以善良的護教和傳福音的動機，指出舊約聖經對基督的預言，然後列出所有新約聖經應驗的清單。這裏含有一些真理。但若我們把事情當作是：「這是預言；而這是預言的實現」，我們必然會讓人感到困惑，甚至會使人懷疑先知的見證，而不是相信先知的見證。新約聖經裏所引用的所有先知預言都是真的，也真的得著應驗了，但這比起我們有時候會承認的更加複雜（實際上也是更加榮耀）。
One of the practical lessons from all this is that we should avoid a simplistic approach to OT-NT fulfillment. Sometimes with good apologetic and evangelistic motives we will point to all the OT prophecies about Christ and then run down a list of all the NT fulfillments. There is truth here, but if we set things up as “here’s the prediction; here’s the prediction come true” we are bound to confuse people. We may even cause people to doubt the prophetic witness rather than trust it. All the prophecies cited in the NT are true and truly fulfilled, but it’s all a bit more complicated (and actually more glorious) than we sometimes let on.
 
另一個功課是我們對除了使用一副適當的文法歷史鏡片之外，再加上一副神學的鏡片來解讀聖經，不必感到不好意思。這不是靈意解經，也不是用理性來尋找隱藏的屬靈意義，就像超級瑪利歐尋找他的蘑菇一樣。不過，這意思的確是說我們應該和新約聖經作者一樣，用整本聖經的角度來讀聖經。我們應該在所有的經文裏看見耶穌。我們必須根據開頭來讀結尾，也用結尾來讀開頭。最重要的，我們可以頌讚說，耶穌是舊約所未完全預示出來的、那完整的應驗。單是這點，就會讓聖誕節的故事變得更完整、更豐富，也更有深意。
The other lesson is that we need not be embarrassed to use a strong theological lens on top of our appropriate grammatical-historical lens. This is not an invitation to allegory or a reason to search for hidden spiritual meanings like Super Mario finds his mushrooms. But it does mean we should, like the NT writers did, read the Bible across the whole Bible. We should see Jesus in all of Scripture. We should read the end in the light of the beginning and the beginning in view of the end. Above all, we can celebrate that Jesus is the perfect fulfillment of all that was imperfectly prefigured in the OT. This alone will make a fuller, deeper, richer Christmas story.