預表論解經的根據
The Warrant for Typological Interpretation of Scripture
作者：Fred G. Zaspel  誠之譯自：
https://credomag.com/2013/06/the-warrant-for-typological-interpretation-of-scripture-fred-zaspel/
https://yimawusi.net/2021/06/06/the-warrant-for-typological-interpretation-of-scripture/
 
預表論（Typology；或譯為預表法）是一種研究聖經的方法，它將舊約聖經中的某些事件、人物和制度，理解為是對後來在新約聖經裏得到實現的現實情況，是在歷史層面和象徵層面上的一些展望（anticipations），或者說是預覽、預示。當然，還有一些更好、更具體的定義，但這個定義就足以說明問題了。因此，預表論是我們理解新舊約聖經關係的一個子集（subset）。我們都承認，至少在某種程度上，舊約聖經的特點是應許和應驗，而新約聖經的特點則是應驗。在基督到來之前，強調這種應許和盼望的方式就是通過這些不同的圖景（pictures）或「預表」（type）。
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. There are better and more specific definitions, of course, but this gets the point across simply enough. Typology is, then, a subset of our understanding of the relationship of the Old and New Testaments. We all recognize that on some level, at least, the Old Testament is characterized by promise and fulfillment, and the New Testament, by contrast, is characterized by fulfillment. One way in which this promise and hope was emphasized before the coming of Christ was through these various pictures or “types.”
 
毫無疑問，有一些解經家對聖經的處理是錯誤的——我們該怎麼說呢？「過度想像」？「不負責任」？ 我個人最偏愛的一個錯誤解經例子是一位著名的（而且通常是有幫助的）解經家的聲明，他說在會幕的後牆上，位於中心的木板代表著永恆的安穩！在對這種「不受控制」的方法作出反應時，有些人懷疑整個解經事業是否被誤導了，這是可以理解的。
Without doubt there have been some (mis)interpreters who have been — how shall we say it?  “overly-imaginative”? “irresponsible”? — in their handling of Scripture. My personal favorite is the well-known (and often otherwise helpful) commentator’s declaration that the center board on the back wall of the Tabernacle represents eternal security! Understandably, some wonder, in reaction to this kind of “uncontrolled” approach, if the entire enterprise is mis-guided.
 
因此，我們在這裏的問題是，這種釋經法（預表論解經）的根據是什麼呢？我希望能在接下來的文章中進一步探討這個問題，但在這裏我們所追求的是根基性的，即我們的聖經根據、解經根據是什麼？以下四種方法的思路可能會有幫助。
And so our question here, simply, is What is the warrant for this hermeneutic (typological interpretation)? I hope to pursue further questions in a later post, but here our quest is foundational: what is our biblical / exegetical warrant? The following four lines of approach may be helpful.
 
首先，在新約聖經作者的詞彙中似乎可以找到一些依據。這一點至少需要兩方面的證據。首先，有一些專用語。這裏存在一些爭論，但似乎很難忽視羅馬書五章14節（亞當）中的tupos、希伯來書九章24節（帳幕）中的antitupos和希伯來書九章9節（帳幕）中的parabole的意義。在每一個例子中，受聖靈默示的作者似乎都在以象徵、預示的方式（symbolic-prefiguring way）處理舊約聖經，並據此稱呼這種理解。也許比這個術語更有意義的是一種簡單的觀察，即某些舊約聖經事件在新約聖經中被說成是「應驗了」（fulfilled），例如，以色列從埃及上來（何十一1/太二15）和拉結的眼淚（耶卅一15/太二16-18）。這些事件後來被說成是「應驗了」（與馬太福音對這個詞的用法一致），這就預設了有某種先知預言或預測的意圖。簡而言之，我們的觀點是，新約聖經作者有時會使用各種術語，這些術語至少表明了某種預表論釋經法。
First, it seems there is some grounding in the vocabulary of the New Testament authors. This point entails at least two lines of evidence. First, there are technical designations. There is some debate here, but it seems rather difficult to overlook the significance of tupos in Romans 5:14 (Adam), antitupos in Hebrews 9:24 (tabernacle), and parabole in Hebrews 9:9 (tabernacle). In each of these instances the inspired author seems to be handling the Old Testament in a symbolic-prefiguring way and designating this understanding accordingly. Perhaps more significant than this terminology is the simple observation that certain Old Testament events are said in the New Testament to be “fulfilled” — Israel’s ascent from Egypt (Hos. 11:1 / Mt. 2:15) and Rachel’s tears (Jer. 31:15 / Mt. 2:16-18), for example. That these events are later said to be “fulfilled” (in keeping with Matthew’s use of this term) presupposes a prophetic or predictive intent of some kind. Our point here, briefly, is simply that the New Testament writers on occasion employ various kinds of terminology that identifies at least some kind of typological hermeneutic.
 
其次，預表論解經的根據也有賴於耶穌的權柄，祂經常將自己與舊約聖經中以某種方式預示祂的某些事件相提並論。例如，祂將自己與雅各的天梯（約一51）、聖殿（約二19）、摩西的銅蛇（約三14-15）、曠野中的嗎哪（約六30-35）等相提並論。當然，關於預表的本質和本身，以及耶穌對聖經的解釋，我們還有很多東西需要學習的，但這已經足以證明耶穌本人為某種預表論釋經法提供了某種的根據。
Our warrant for typological interpretation rests also on the authority of Jesus, who frequently identified himself with some Old Testament event that foreshadowed him in some way. For example, he identified himself with Jacob’s ladder (Jn. 1:51), the Temple (Jn. 2:19), Moses’ brass serpent (Jn. 3:14-15), the manna in the wilderness (Jn. 6:30-35), and so on. There is much more to learn about the nature and identity of types and about Jesus’ interpretation of Scripture, of course, but this is sufficient already to demonstrate that Jesus himself provides warrant for some kind of typological hermeneutic.
 
第三，使徒們也依樣畫葫蘆。例如，士兵們沒有打斷耶穌的腿這一事實，被使徒約翰理解為逾越節羔羊之象徵的「應驗」（約十九36；參見出十二46和民九12）。保羅同樣把耶穌的死說成是逾越節羔羊的死（林前五7），在其他地方他把我們的主說成是另一個亞當（羅五14）。希伯來書說祂是更美的摩西，更美的祭司，更美的祭物，以及新的麥基洗德。等等，不一而足。很明顯，被聖靈默示的新約作者實踐了某種預表論的解經。
The apostles, in turn, followed in step. For example, the fact that the soldiers did not break the legs of Jesus is understood by the apostle John as “fulfillment” of the Passover lamb symbolism (Jn. 19:36; cf. Ex.12:46 and Num. 9:12). Paul likewise speaks of Jesus’ death as the death of the Passover lamb (1 Cor. 5:7), and elsewhere he speaks of our Lord as another Adam (Rom 5:14). Hebrews speaks of him as the better Moses, the better priest, the better sacrifice, and the new Melchizedek. And so on it goes. Quite obviously, the inspired writers of the New Testament practices some kind of typological interpretation.
 
在我們進一步討論之前，我們應該停下來問問，使徒們究竟是從哪裏學會以這種方式來閱讀聖經的？當然，我們必須認為他們是從耶穌那裏學到的（參看路廿四27, 44以下）。
Before we go further we should pause to ask, Where did the apostles learn to read the Scripture in this way? Of course, we have to think they learned it from Jesus (cf. Lk.24:27, 44ff).
 
但也許答案不僅僅如此。畢竟，耶穌是在哪裏學會像這樣來讀聖經的呢？
But perhaps there is more to the answer than just that. After all, where did Jesus learn to read the Scriptures like this?
 
我們的第四條證據，為預表論解經提供擔保的，簡單地說，就是舊約聖經本身。我不會在這裏長篇大論，但重要的是要看到，這種解讀舊約聖經的方法對使徒、甚至對耶穌來說都不是破天荒的。舊約聖經本身已經有明顯的預表論結構和模式。
Our fourth line of evidence, providing warrant for typological interpretation, is, simply, the Old Testament itself. I will not draw this out at length here, but it is important to see that this way of reading the Old Testament was not entirely new with the apostles or even with Jesus. There are typological structures and patterns already evident in the Old Testament itself.
 
舉幾個例子來說明我的觀點。伊甸園有時被稱為是新創造的展望，即樂園（賽十一6-9）。挪亞似乎是作為一個「新」亞當出現的，有望能在亞當失敗的地方取得成功（創九1-2，7；參見一26-28，二15-17）。當然他失敗了，這就為另一個亞當打開了希望。這個新亞當是亞伯拉罕嗎？當他失敗時，是否還有另一個亞當會成功？出埃及記經常被視為是對另一次更偉大的拯救的展望（賽十一15-16，四十三16-21，四十八20-21，五十一9-11，五十二11-12；耶十六14-15）。約書亞在某些方面被認為是新摩西。因此，當約書亞死後，是否還能期盼另一個摩西（申十八15起）？以色列的會幕和所羅門的聖殿似乎是由伊甸園預示的，並以伊甸園為模式，但卻預示著上帝與祂子民同在的更偉大的實現（以西結書四十～四十八章）。安息日和以色列人在土地上的「安息」預示著更大的「安息」即將到來（詩九十五18）。摩西（申十八15起）、麥基洗德（詩一一〇）和大衛（詩八十九；賽十一1；等等）等人都期待著更偉大的先知、祭司和君王的到來；諸如此類。所有這些都是在舊約聖經本身的敍事中的預示或象徵性的展望，它們為後來的解經家提供了一個釋經學結構。
A few examples will illustrate my point. The garden of Eden is sometimes referred to as prospective of the new creation, paradise (Is. 11:6-9). Noah seems to be presented as a “new” Adam, hopefully to succeed where Adam failed (Gen. 9:1-2, 7; cf. 1:26-28; 2:15-17). Of course he failed, which leaves open the prospect for yet another Adam. Could it be Abraham? And when he fails, is there another Adam to come who will succeed? The exodus is frequently held out as prospective of another and greater deliverance to come (Is.11:15-16; 43:16-21; 48:20-21; 51:9-11; 52:11-12; Jer.16:14-15). Joshua is presented in some ways as a new Moses. So when Joshua dies, is there hope for yet another Moses (Dt. 18:15ff)? Israel’s Tabernacle and Solomon’s Temple seem to be anticipated by and patterned after the garden of Eden and yet prospective of a greater realization of God’s presence with his people (Ezek. 40-48). The Sabbath and Israel’s “rest” in the land were prospective of a greater “rest” to come (Ps. 95:18). Individuals such as Moses (Dt. 18:15ff), Melchizedek (Ps. 110), and David (Ps. 89; Is. 11:1; etc.) all anticipate a greater Prophet, Priest, and King to come. And so on. All these are prefigurements or symbolic anticipations within the narrative of the Old Testament itself, and they go a long way toward providing a hermeneutical structure for later interpreters.
 
在這方面，我應該再提一個因素，這是一種更大的考量，對舊約聖經的預表論釋經有啟發作用，那就是籠罩著舊約聖經中的盟約和應許的背景。上帝已經做出了重要的應許（例如，創三15），最著名的是對亞伯拉罕（創十二1-3）和大衛（參二7）的應許，這些應許不依不饒地將我們的注意力集中在基督身上。在這個背景下，舊約聖經象徵性的展望確實得到了更多的光照。
I should mention one further factor in this connection, a larger consideration that sheds light on the typological interpretation of the Old Testament, and that is the overshadowing context of covenant and promise that dominates the Old Testament. God had made important promises (e.g., Gen. 3:15), most famously to Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3) and David (2 Sam. 7), which relentlessly rivet our attention on Christ. Seen within this context, the Old Testament’s symbolic anticipations are given much more light indeed.
 
簡而言之，重點是在整本舊約聖經中，這個展望的音符被「內置」到了各種人物、事件和制度的敍事中。對舊約聖經作者來說，歷史就是啟示——對未來的啟示。
The point, simply, is that throughout the Old Testament, the note of anticipation is “built in” to the narrative of various persons, events, and institutions. For the Old Testament writers, history is revelation — revelation about the future.
 
因此，對於耶穌和新約聖經的作者來說，這種釋經學結構已經擺在那裏了。是的，他們的解釋更詳細，他們也進一步指出了在舊約聖經中沒有明確被視為預言的具體「應驗」。而且我們還沒有對一種合法的「預表」給出精確的定義，也沒有確定一種負責任的預表論所需要的各種因素，而這些因素將會使我們往往過於狂熱的想像力受到管制。但我們已經可以看到，嵌入在舊約聖經本身的模式和結構，已經提供了一個背景，在這個背景下，耶穌和使徒們對聖經的解釋被證明是令人信服的。他們堅持認為，這就是閱讀聖經的唯一方式，我們必須這樣來讀經。
And so for Jesus and the New Testament writers, this hermeneutical structure was already in place. Yes, they were more detailed, and they pointed out further specific “fulfillments” that are not explicitly seen as predictive in the Old Testament. And we have yet to give precise definition of a legitimate “type” or identify the various factors that are necessary to a responsible typology that will keep our often overly-zealous imaginations in check. But we can see already that the patterns and structures embedded in the Old Testament itself provide a context in which Jesus’ and the apostles’ handling of Scripture was shown to be convincing. This, they insisted, is the way we must read Scripture.
 
作者Fred G. Zaspel（阿姆斯特丹自由大學博士）是賓夕法尼亞州弗蘭科尼亞的改革宗浸信會的牧師之一。他也是《書籍概覽》網站的執行編輯和南方浸信會神學院的神學兼職教授。他的著作包括《華腓德的神學》和《華腓德論基督徒生活》等。