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.
 

神學入門：基督不能犯罪
Theological Primer: Impeccability
作者：KEVIN DEYOUNG  譯者：誠之
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/theological-primer-impeccability/
https://www.facebook.com/peddrluo/posts/10159105343619653
 
在這個叫做「神學入門」的持續系列中，我時常會加入新的條目。我們的想法是用500字左右的篇幅介紹一些碩大的神學概念。今天，我們將探討的是基督不能犯罪的教義。
From time to time I make new entries into this continuing series called “Theological Primer.” The idea is to present big theological concepts in around 500 words (or sometimes, 1,000 words). Today we will look at the doctrine of Christ’s impeccability.
 
基督不能犯罪的教義指出，基督不僅沒有罪，而且不能犯罪（non posse peccare）。作為上帝道成肉身的兒子，基督面臨著真實的試探，但這些試探在基督身上並不是因為罪的欲望而產生的。基督不僅能夠戰勝試探，而且不能被試探所勝（Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 659）。
The doctrine of impeccability states that Christ was not only sinless, he was unable to sin (non posse peccare). As the incarnate Son of God, Christ faced real temptations, but these temptations did not arise in Christ due to sinful desires. Christ was not only able to overcome temptation, he was unable to be overcome by it (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 659).
 
基督不能犯罪在教會歷史上得到了廣泛的肯定，並得到大多數主要的改革宗系統神學家的辯護。然而，在過去的150年裏，許多神學家拒絕了基督不能犯罪的觀點，反而認為，基督的試探要想成為真正的試探，基督要想同情祂的子民，就必須可能會犯罪。令人驚訝的是，即使是著名的賀治（Charles Hodge，1797-1878）也否認基督的不能犯罪（Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2:457），這可能是他的同代人薛德（W. G. T. Shedd，1820-1894）在他的《教理神學》（Dogmatic Theology）中為該學說提供了特別有力的辯護的原因之一。
Christ’s impeccability has been widely affirmed throughout the history of the church and defended by most of the leading Reformed systematicians. In the last 150 years, however, many theologians have rejected the idea that Christ was unable to sin, arguing instead that peccability is necessary for Christ’s temptations to be genuine and for Christ to sympathize with his people. Surprisingly, even the redoubtable Charles Hodge (1797–1878) denied impeccability (Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2:457), which may be one of the reasons his contemporary W. G. T. Shedd (1820–1894) offered an especially robust defense of the doctrine in his Dogmatic Theology.
 
在為基督的不能犯罪辯護時，薛德提出了三大要點。
In defense of Christ’s impeccability, Shedd makes three broad points.
 
首先，基督的不能犯罪可以從聖經中推導出來。如果耶穌基督昨日、今日，一直到永遠都是一樣的（來十三8），祂的聖潔一定是不變的。一個可變的聖潔並不符合基督的全能性，也不符合基督是我們信仰的創始成終者的事實（來十二2）。基督與第一個亞當不同，祂是一切聖潔的泉源，從祂那裏只能得到生命和光明。如果基督能夠犯罪，那麼根據定義，祂的聖潔就會有變化——祂的順服就會有失敗——即使最後證明基督是信實的。一個可能犯罪的基督是一個只能在事後才可以信任的救主。
First, Christ’s impeccability can be deduced from Scripture. If Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever (Heb. 13:8), he must be unchanging in his holiness. A mutable holiness would be inconsistent with the omnipotence of Christ and irreconcilable with the fact that Christ is the author and finisher of our faith (Heb. 12:2). Christ is unlike the first Adam in that he is the fountain of all holiness, and from him can proceed nothing but life and light. If Christ were able to sin, his holiness would, by definition, be open to change—his obedience open to failure—even if Christ proved in the end to be faithful. A peccable Christ is a Savior who can be trusted only in hindsight.
 
其次，基督的不能犯罪是與祂位格的構成息息相關的。可以肯定的是，基督被聖靈賦予了非凡的恩典，但基督不僅被賦予能力抵擋試探，神的道（divine Logos）的同在，使人無可置疑地肯定基督會抵擋試探。我們決不能認為基督的兩種本性是彼此獨立運作的，好像它們是對立的一方，或者是知與行的兩個源頭，彼此是互相隱藏的。同樣，我們也不能把基督的兩個意志設想為互相對立。有限的人性意志無一例外地完美地順服了無限的神性意志，以致于基督從來沒有經歷過肉體的私欲和聖靈敵對，聖靈也和肉體敵對（加五17；參見《新譯本》）。
Second, Christ’s impeccability is tied to the constitution of his person. To be sure, Christ was empowered by the Spirit with extraordinary grace, but Christ was not only strengthened to resist temptation, the presence of the divine Logos made it infallibly certain that Christ would resist. We must not think that Christ’s two natures operated independently of each other, as if they were rival parties or two sources of knowing and doing veiled one from the other. Likewise, we must not conceive of the two wills of Christ as antagonists. The finite will invariably and perfectly obeyed the infinite, such that Christ never experienced the flesh lusting against the spirit, and the spirit lusting against the flesh (Gal. 5:17).
 
但基督的痛苦、饑餓、憂傷、軟弱和死亡怎麼說呢？這些對神而人者來說怎麼可能呢？如果我們斷定基督是不能犯罪的，是否也必須斷定基督不能受苦呢？當然不是。薛德區分了「有限者的一切無罪的缺陷和局限」和罪人的「可責備的缺陷和局限」。神成為肉身的兒子有責任承受來自人體的軟弱，但沒有來自人性的道德缺陷，或道德缺陷的可能性。
But what about Christ’s pain, hunger, sorrow, weakness, and death? How are these possible for the God-man? If we conclude that Christ is impeccable must we also conclude that Christ was unable to suffer? Surely not. Shedd distinguishes between “all the innocent defects and limitations of the finite” and “the culpable defects and limitations” of sinful man. The en-fleshed Son of God was liable to the weaknesses that come from a human body, but without the moral defects—or possibility of moral defect—that come from a human nature.
 
這第二點的核心是迦克墩聖徒的信念，即無論基督做了什麼，祂都是作為一個不可分割的位格做的。因此，薛德認為，基督犯罪的能力必須根據「祂最強大的本性」來衡量。就像鐵絲本身可以彎曲，但一旦焊接到鐵條上就會變得無法撼動一樣，神人耶穌基督也因人的本性和神的本性的結合而變得不能犯罪（《教理神學》，660-61）。換句話說，雖然基督擁有可能犯罪的人性，但祂是一個不能犯罪的神而人者。
At the heart of this second point is the Chalcedonian conviction that whatever Christ did, he did as one undivided theanthropic person. Consequently, Shedd argues, Christ’s ability to sin must be measured according to “his mightiest nature.” Just as an iron wire by itself can be bent, but once welded to an iron bar is rendered immoveable, so the God-man Jesus Christ is rendered impeccable by the union of the human and divine natures (Dogmatic Theology, 660-61). In other words, while Christ possessed a peccable human nature, he was an impeccable theanthropic person.
 
第三，不能犯罪與試探是一致的。邏各斯（道）取了人性的原因之一，是為了讓邏各斯可以像人一樣受試探，能夠對人表示同情（來二14-18）。如果我們抬高基督的不能犯罪，把祂的可試探性丟在一邊，我們就與聖經脫節了。
Third, impeccability is consistent with temptation. One of the reasons for the assumption of a human nature by the Logos is so that the Logos might be tempted as a man and be able to sympathize with men (Heb. 2:14-18). If we elevate Christ’s impeccability in a way that casts aside his temptability, we are out of step with Scripture.
 
然而，我們決不能把我們的試探與基督的試探絕對等同起來。雅各書一章2節中譯為「試煉」的同一個希臘名詞（peirasmois）在雅各書一章14節中以動詞形式呈現為被試探（peirazetai）。有些試探是從外而來的試煉和苦難——基督一直在忍受這些。但也有一些試探是從內而來的，是罪惡的欲望——這些是基督從未經歷過的。當希伯來書四章15節說基督和我們一樣，凡事都受過試探，只是沒有犯罪，我們應該理解 「沒有」（choris）這個介詞既延伸到試探的結果（和我們不同，基督沒有犯罪），也延伸到試探的性質（和我們不同，基督的試探不是有罪的）。換句話說，我們受到世界、肉體和魔鬼的試探，而基督從來沒有面對來自肉體的試探。或者如歐文（John Owen）所說，基督面對試探的痛苦部分；我們也面對犯罪的部分。
And yet, we must not absolutely equate our temptations with Christ’s temptations. The same Greek noun translated “trials” (peirasmois) in James 1:2 is rendered in verb form as tempted (peirazetai) in James 1:14. Some temptations arise from without as trials and sufferings—these Christ constantly endured. But also, temptations that arise from within as sinful desires—these Christ never experienced. When Hebrews 4:15 says Christ was tempted in every respect as we are, yet without sin, we should understand the preposition “without” (choris) as extending both to the outcome of the temptations (unlike us, Christ did not sin) and also to the nature of the temptations (unlike ours, Christ’s temptations were not sinful). In other words, we are tempted by the world, the flesh, and the Devil, while Christ never faced temptation from the flesh. Or as John Owen put it, Christ faced the suffering part of temptation; we also face the sinning part.
 
基督不能犯罪，並不使祂的試探不那麼真實。戰無不勝的軍隊仍然可以遭到攻擊（《教理神學》，662）。如果有區別的話，那就是基督的試探比我們的試探更強烈，因為祂從不向試探屈服。我們的試探時強時弱，因為我們有時經得起考驗，有時又屈服於考驗。但基督從不屈服，因此，在祂的一生中，試探的經驗只會越來越多。在這一點上，基督能夠同情我們人類的試探經歷，儘管作為神而人者，祂不能屈服於這些試探。
Christ’s inability to sin does not make his temptations less genuine. The army that cannot be conquered can still be attacked (Dogmatic Theology, 662). If anything, Christ’s temptations were more intense than ours because he never gave in to them. Our temptations wax and wane as we sometimes withstand them and sometimes succumb to them. But Christ never gave in, and as such the experience of temptation only mounted throughout his life. In this, Christ is able to sympathize with us in our human experience of temptation, even though as the God-man, he was incapable of giving in to these temptations.

 神学入门：堕落前拣选与堕落后拣选TheologicalPrimer: Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism

作者：Kevin DeYoung  译者：诚之

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/theological-primer-supralapsarianism-and-infralapsarianism/

https://www.facebook.com/peddrluo/posts/10157908070759653

我不时会尝试发布像这样的短文，作为系统神学中某些主题的简要入门。目标是清晰易懂；方法是简洁；不超过500字——从现在开始起算。

From time to time I try to post brief articles like this one as a short primer on some topic in systematic theology. The aim is clarity. The approach is brevity. No more than 500 words—starting now.

我不知道神学词典中是否还有其他两个词会像「堕落前拣选」（supralapsarianism）和「堕落后拣选」（infralapsarianism）这样。它们听起来非常深奥而且是无可救药的精英主义者，就像他们可能会关心有多少天使可以在别针的头上跳舞，如果那个别针放在一块岩石上，上帝制造了如此沉重的东西，甚至他都无法抬起它。第一年的神学院学生喜欢把这些条款当作一个不那么微妙的提醒他们在神学院。当他们想要证明神学是多么不切实际的时候，某些类型的牧师会围绕这些词语进行折腾。 Parishoners听到这些话，只是畏缩。

I’m not aware of any two words in the theological lexicon quite like supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. They sound dreadfully esoteric and hopelessly elitist, like they might be concerned with how many angels can dance on the head of a pin if that pin were resting upon a rock which God made so heavy not even he could lift it. First year seminary students love to throw out the terms as a not so subtle reminder they are in seminary. Pastors of a certain ilk toss around the words when they want to demonstrate how impractical theology can be. Parishoners hear the words and just cringe.

那么这一切又是什么呢？

So what is this all about?

改革宗神学家经常争论上帝谕旨某些事情发生的顺序。这个争论不是关于这些谕旨的时间顺序。毕竟，我们谈的是上帝在永恒的过去所作的决定。时间不是问题的关键。相反，这个辩论是关于谕旨的逻辑顺序。在上帝的心中，上帝作第一、第二、第三个决定是什么，以此类推？

Reformed theologians have often argued about the order in which God decreed certain things to happen. The debate is not over the temporal order of the decrees. After all, we are talking about what God has determined in eternity past. Time is not the issue. Instead, the debate is about the logical order of the decrees. In the mind of God, which decisions did God make first, second, third, and so on?

具体来说，在逻辑上哪个在先：是拣选/遗弃的谕旨在先，还是创造世界并允许堕落的谕旨在先？堕落前拣选论（Supralapsarianism）的supra，意思是：“在......之上”或“之前”，而lapsum的意思是“堕落”、这个立场认为。上帝拯救的谕旨，在逻辑上先于祂创造世界并允许堕落的谕旨（即：拣选创造堕落）。另一方面，堕落后拣选论（Infralapsarianism）坚持认为，上帝拯救的谕旨，在逻辑上是在祂创造与堕落的谕旨之后（infra的意思是“在下面”或 “在后面”）。（即：创造堕落拣选）。在改革宗神学中，这两个立场都得到了很好的证明，尽管堕落后拣选论会更为常见。

Specifically, which is logically prior: the decree of election and reprobation, or the decree to create the world and permit the fall? Supralapsarianism—supra meaning “above” or “before” and lapsum meaning “fall”—is the position which holds that God’s decree to save is logically prior to his decree to create the world and permit the fall. Infralapsarianism, on the other hand, insists that God’s decree to save is logically after his decrees related to creation and fall (infra meaning “below” or “after”). Both positions are well attested in Reformed theology, though infralapsarianism would be more common.

整个辩论似乎与我们完全无关，但在将这些术语视为愚蠢的神学院把戏之前，我们应该理解我们对谕旨秩序的理解可能会影响（或者反映）我们对上帝的理解。

The whole debate may seem utterly irrelevant, but before dismissing the terms as a silly seminary schtick, we should appreciate how our understanding of the order of the decrees may influence (or perhaps reflect) our understanding of God.

堕落前拣选的立场强调上帝的高度主权。在双子（雅各、以扫）做好事或坏事之前，主就爱雅各并恨以扫（罗九11）。所以，堕落前拣选论者认为，上帝必然首先定意要预定某些人得永生、某些人得永死。然后祂定意要创造这个世界并且预定人堕落，以便使祂在拣选和遗弃上的荣耀可以得到实现。

The supra position underscores the high sovereignty of God. Before the twins had done anything good or bad, the Lord loved Jacob and hated Esau (Romans 9:11). So, argues the supralapsarian, God must have first purposed to ordain some for life and some for death. Then he purposed to create the word and ordain a fall so that the glory in election and reprobation might be realized.

对比之下，堕落后拣选的立场突出了上帝的怜悯。堕落后拣选论认为，罗马书九章11节提到的只是关于功德的一个陈述 ——任何儿子都不比另一个儿子更值得救赎——而且与上帝的谕旨无关。此外，罗马书九章14节把拣选描述为上帝怜悯谁就怜悯谁。上帝拯救的谕旨必须遵循祂允许堕落的谕旨，否则怜悯怎能算是怜悯呢？

By contrast, the infra position highlights the mercy of God. The reference in Romans 9:11, infralapsarians argue, is simply a statement about merit—neither son was more deserving of salvation than the other—and has nothing to do with the decrees. Besides, Romans 9:14 describes election as God having mercy on whom he will have mercy. God’s decree to save must follow his decree to permit the fall, or how else would mercy be mercy?

最终，我肯定多特信经（第一项教义，第6、7条）中所教导的堕落后拣选论的立场。但我也同意那些提醒人不要在一个涉及到猜测的问题上过于教条化的人。这场辩论并非微不足道，但也不必为它赴汤蹈火。

In the end, I affirm the infralapsarian position taught in the Canons of Dort (First Head of Doctrine, Articles 6, 7). But I also agree with those who caution against being overly dogmatic on a matter that involves some speculation. The debate is not insignificant, but neither is it a hill to die on.

帶領會眾禱告的十三個訣竅13TIPS FOR LEADING THE CONGREGATION IN PRAYER

作者：Kevin DeYoung    譯者：駱鴻銘

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2015/05/07/13-tips-for-leading-the-congregation-in-prayer/

https://akowcm.wordpress.com/2015/05/10/%E5%B8%B6%E9%A0%98%E6%9C%83%E7%9C%BE%E7%A6%B1%E5%91%8A%E7%9A%84%E5%8D%81%E4%B8%89%E5%80%8B%E8%A8%A3%E7%AB%85/#more-360

1. 作好準備。有些傳統使用古代的禱告詞。其他則依賴即席的禱告。兩者各領風騷。但是我相信我們的會眾最需要的是深思熟慮的禱告詞。這些禱告詞也許不是用來唸的，但是必須在事前仔細斟酌。公眾禱告之所以常常令人感到無趣，是因為沒有用心思考。禱告者沒有經過訓練，也沒有下過功夫。花一兩個小時準備一篇長的教牧禱告並不算太長。

2. 自由地使用固定的格式。學習清教徒的《異象之谷》（The Valley of Vision ）或老奧利芬（Hughes Oliphant Old）的《帶領禱告》（Leading in Prayer）或聖公會的公禱書（Book of Common Prayer），但是用他們的禱告詞來配合你自己的目的。《十二使徒遺訓》（Didache）在為聖餐定下固定的禱告詞後，也允許「牧師隨己意獻上感恩」。

3. 用聖經禱告。不要只是求上帝我們所要的。讓祂教導我們什麼是我們應該要的。

4. 不要加註腳。司布真說：「在禱告裡沒有必要用『你古時的僕人』這個標題，把經過選擇的聖經經文串在一起，然後說，這是引用自大衛，但以理，約伯，保羅，彼得，以及等等。」主已經知道誰說過什麼，因此不必在你的禱告詞裡再跟祂說一次。

5. 把講道留給講章。不要在禱告裡勸勉。不要解釋經文。不要解釋複雜的神學。司布真說：「長禱既不是由重覆、也不是由不必要的解釋所組成的，上帝不需要這些解釋；否則禱告就會淪為十足的講道，以至於禱告和講道就沒有分別了，只除了在禱告裡，牧師是閉著眼，而在講道裡，牧師是睜著眼而已。在禱告裡沒有必要朗誦威敏思特會議的要理問答。」

6. 分享會眾生活的部分細節，但不是全部。對需要特別關心的羊，好牧人經常會提到他們的名字。但是不要試著涵蓋過去三個月所有的衝突，或者在你的禱告中偷偷地宣布青少年退修會（「主啊，請與我們的青少年朋友同在，他們要在本週五下午五點，帶著他們的聖經和睡袋……」）。再一次引用司布真：「如同我先前說過的，沒有必要把公眾禱告變成本週大事的公佈欄，或者是會眾出生、死亡、結婚的花名冊，而是牧師的愛心應該提到的，發生在會眾生活當中的一般活動*。」

7. 讓你的禱告使人很容易效法。禱告的目標是造就人（林前十四17）。所以不要造太長的句子，不要太花俏，太華麗。如果你把禱告詞寫出來，要寫給耳朵聽，而不是寫給眼睛看。另一方面，也不要用容易使人分心的口語，例如，「主啊，你很可愛（you’re so sweet）。」

8. 盡可能簡短。寧可過短，也不要過長。在多數北美的教會裡，五分鐘就足夠了。如果你很有經驗，把你的會眾訓練得很好，七到十分鐘也是可能的。

9. 請記得你是和其他人一起，也是代表其他人禱告。使用「我們」和「我們的」（和主禱文一樣）。這不是承認你個人的罪或講述你個人經歷的時候。

10. 組織好你的禱告。確定好思路和方向。不要囉嗦。把握好速度。比較合理的是從內到外，首先為會眾所關心的禱告，然後到這個群體以外，到普世教會，到全世界。

11. 留意一些不自覺的口語動作。例如：過度加重嘴唇的發音（如p），舔嘴唇，嘆氣，嗯，不動腦地重覆上帝的尊名，沒必要地使用「只是」，「像這樣」，或過度依賴「我們禱告」，或「我們會禱告」這類的詞語，而不是單純地禱告。

12. 表達適當的敬畏、自信和情感。禱告要當真，把上帝當上帝，當作祂真的在聆聽。

13.  禱告前先禱告。當你作準備時要祈求上帝的幫助。當你上前禱告時，求祂賜你謙卑和恩典。

* 譯按：原作者抄錯了一個字，把movements抄成moments。

13 TIPS FOR LEADING THE CONGREGATION IN PRAYER

By Kevin DeYoung

1. Prepare. Some traditions use set prayers. Others rely on extemporaneous prayers. Both have their place. But I believe what our congregations need most are studied prayers. These prayers may or may not be read, but will be thought through ahead of time. Public prayer is often boring because little thought is put into it. There’s no training for it, no effort put it into it. An hour or two is not too long to spend in preparing a long, pastoral prayer.

2. Use forms with freedom. Learn from The Valley of Vision or Hughes Oliphant Old or the Book of Common Prayer. But suit their prayers to your own purposes. The Didache, after laying down set prayers for Communion, also allows “the prophets to give thanks however they wish.”

3. Pray Scripture. Don’t just ask God for what we want. Let him teach us what we should want.

4. Don’t footnote. Spurgeon: “It is not necessary in prayer to string a selection of texts of Scripture together, and quote David, and Daniel, and Job, and Paul, and Peter, and every other body, under the title of ‘thy servant of old.'” The Lord already knows who said everything so don’t tell him again in your prayers.

5. Leave the preaching for the sermon. Don’t exhort. Don’t explain texts. Don’t unpack complex theology. Spurgeon again: “Long prayers either consist of repetitions, or else of unnecessary explanations which God does not require; or else they degenerate into downright preachings, so that there is no difference between the praying and the preaching, except that in the one the minister has his eyes shut, and in the other he keeps them open. It is not necessary in prayer to rehearse the Westminster Assembly’s Catechism.”

6. Share some details of congregational life, but not all. A good shepherd will often mention by name various sheep that need special care. But don’t try to cover every engagement in the last three months or surreptitiously announce the youth retreat in your prayer (“Lord, be with our young people gathering this Friday at 5:00pm with their Bibles and a sleeping bag…”). Spurgeon one more time: “As I have said before, there is no need to make the public prayer a gazette of the week’s events, or a register of the births, deaths, and marriages of your people, but the general moments that have taken place in the congregation should be noted by the minister’s careful heart.”

7. Pray so that others can follow you easily. The goal is edification (1 Cor. 14:17). So don’t let your sentences get too long, too flowery, too ornate. If you write out your prayers, write for the ear not for the eye. On the other hand, don’t use distracting colloquialisms like, “Lord, you’re so sweet.”

8. Keep it relatively brief. Better to be too short than too long. Five minutes is plenty in most North American churches. Seven to ten minutes is possible if you are experienced and have trained your people well.

9. Remember you are praying with and on behalf of others. Use “we” and “our” (like in the Lord’s Prayer). This is not the time to confess your personal sins or recount your personal experiences.

10. Order your prayer. Make sure there is a flow and direction. Don’t get too wordy. Keep a good pace. It often makes sense to work from the inside out, praying first for concerns of the congregation and then moving out to the community, the global church, and the world.

11. Beware of verbal ticks. For example: popping your p’s, smacking your lips, sighing, ums, mindless repetition of the divine name, unnecessary use of the word “just” and “like,” an over-reliance on the phrase “we pray” or “we would pray” instead of simply praying.

12. Show proper reverence, confidence, and emotion. Pray like you mean it, like God is God, and as if he really hears us.

13. Pray before you pray. Ask God for help as you prepare. Ask him for humility and grace as you go up to pray.

何西阿說了什麼？HOSEA SAY WHAT?

作者：Kevin DeYoung  譯者：駱鴻銘

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2014/12/04/hosea-say-what/

http://www.crtsbooks.net/blog/post/2014/12/05/%E4%BD%95%E8%A5%BF%E9%98%BF%E8%AA%AA%E4%BA%86%E4%BB%80%E9%BA%BC%EF%BC%9F%EF%BC%88Kevin-DeYoung%EF%BC%89.aspx

他們去後，有主的使者向約瑟夢中顯現，說：「起來！帶著小孩子同他母親逃往埃及，住在那裡，等我吩咐你；因為希律必尋找小孩子，要除滅他。」約瑟就起來，夜間帶著小孩子和他母親往埃及去，住在那裡，直到希律死了。這是要應驗主藉先知所說的話，說：「我從埃及召出我的兒子來。」（太二13-15）

Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.” (Matthew 2:13-15)

一直以來，最後的這節經文引起了許多的錯愕。這個神聖家庭逃到了埃及，而這竟然是應驗了何西阿所提到的以色列的出埃及？從表面上看，馬太似乎是用最不可能的關聯性，把先知的一些點連成了線。

That last verse has caused plenty of consternation over the years.  The Holy Family goes to Egypt, and this somehow fulfills Hosea’s reference to Israel’s exodus? It looks like Matthew is connecting the prophetic dots by the slimmest of connections.

何西阿書十一章1-4節是這麼記載的：

Here’s what we read in Hosea 11:1-4:

以色列年幼的時候，我愛他，就從埃及召出我的兒子來。先知越發招呼他們，他們越發走開，向諸巴力獻祭，給雕刻的偶像燒香。我原教導以法蓮行走，用膀臂抱著他們，他們卻不知道是我醫治他們。我用慈繩愛索牽引他們；我待他們如人放鬆牛的兩腮夾板，把糧食放在他們面前。

When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more they were called, the more they went away; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols. Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk; I took them up by their arms, but they did not know that I healed them. I led them with cords of kindness, with the bands of love, and I became to them as one who eases the yoke on their jaws, and I bent down to them and fed them.

很明顯，何西阿（他代表上帝發言）是在叫人回想出埃及的事。他是在記念以色列還只是個在幼年期的國家時，上帝拯救他們脫離了埃及的奴役。「多年以前，藉著摩西和十災，以及所有的神蹟奇事，我從埃及召出我的兒子以色列，脫離了為奴之家」，這是何西阿書十一章的重點。

Clearly, Hosea (speaking for the Lord) is harkening back to the Exodus. He is remembering when Israel was just a little toddler of a nation, and God delivered them out of bondage in Egypt. “Many years ago, by Moses and the plagues and all that, I called my son Israel out of Egypt, out of the house of slavery”–that’s what Hosea 11 is about.

但是請再一次看馬太福音。「我從埃及召出我的兒子」，這裡是指上帝把耶穌藏在埃及，以逃避希律王殺嬰的命令，然後當希律王過世，就召喚祂從埃及地返回。這似乎與何西阿所說的毫無關聯。馬太怎能說這趟到埃及的逃亡，應驗了先知何西阿的話，而當這兩個事件之間唯一的聯繫不過是埃及這個字而已呢？這怎麼可能是舊約聖經預言的應驗呢？何西阿說了什麼呢？

But look again at Matthew. “Out of Egypt I called my son” here refers to God hiding Jesus away in Egypt to avoid Herod’s decree and then calling him back from Egypt when Herod is dead. This seems to be unrelated to anything Hosea was talking about. How can Matthew say this flight to Egypt fulfilled the words of the prophet Hosea when the two events seem connected by no more than the word Egypt? How can this possibly be a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy? Hosea say what?

那些主張馬太是在玩聖經預言的自由聯想的遊戲的人——「耶穌從埃及出來；而先知書裡提到了離開埃及；就讓我們把這兩件事放在一起吧」——並沒有仔細查看馬太在他的福音書裡是如何使用舊約聖經的。比起其他的福音書作者，馬太用了很大的篇幅來證明耶穌的降生、生平、死亡，都是牢牢地建立在舊約聖經的基礎上的。耶穌是由童女所生（應驗了以賽亞書七章14節）。祂生在伯利恆（應驗了彌迦書五章1-2節）。希律王要追殺祂（應驗了耶利米書三十一章15節）。在祂之前，有施行約翰為祂預備道路（應驗了以賽亞書四十章3節）。祂醫治各樣病症（應驗了以賽亞書五十三章4節）。祂透過比喻說話（應驗了詩篇七十八篇2節）。祂騎在驢駒上來到耶路撒冷（應驗了撒迦利亞書九章9節）。馬太在使用舊約聖經時，有他特別的用意。因此他引用何西阿書十一章必定不是隨隨便便把埃及這個字連在一起的。

Those who suggest Matthew is playing free association with Biblical prophecy–“Jesus came out of Egypt; here’s something in the prophets about coming out of Egypt; let’s put these two things together”–haven’t looked closely at how Matthew uses the Old Testament in his Gospel. More than any gospel writer, Matthew goes to great lengths to show that Jesus’ birth, life, and death, are rooted firmly in the Old Testament. Jesus was born of a virgin (fulfilling Isaiah 7:14). He was born in Bethlehem (fulfilling Micah 5:1-2). He was sought out to be killed by Herod (fulfilling Jeremiah 31:15). He was preceded by John preparing the way (fulfilling Isaiah 40:3). He healed diseases (fulfilling Isaiah 53:4). He spoke through parables (fulfilling Psalm 78:2). He came to Jerusalem riding on a donkey (fulfilling Zechariah 9:9). Matthew is very deliberate with his use of the Old Testament. So his citing of Hosea 11 must be more than just a loosey-goosey connection with the word Egypt.

耶穌是真以色列

Jesus as the True Israel

要了解馬太的目的的第一個步驟是更仔細地查考「應驗」這個字。這是希臘文的plēroō，在馬太福音裡是一個十分重要的字，在這卷書裡一共出現了15次（1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 3:15; 4:14; 5:17; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 13:48; 21:4; 23:32; 26:54; 26:56）。它最基本的意思是填補、填滿。有時候它有特定的意思，指舊約聖經預言彌賽亞的降生地是伯利恆，而事實上，耶穌就降生在伯利恆。就這樣，這就是應驗。但是應驗的意思可以比這個更廣。它的意思可以是指耶穌把聖經帶到了它們原先要達到的目標，向以色列、也是透過以色列的不完整的啟示，已經完成了。

The first step toward understanding Matthew’s purpose is to look more carefully at the word “fulfill.” It’s the Greek word plēroō, and it is a very important word in Matthew, occurring 15 times in the book (1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 3:15; 4:14; 5:17; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 13:48; 21:4; 23:32; 26:54; 26:56). Most basically, it means to fill up. Sometimes this means very specifically that the Old Testament predicted the Messiah’s birthplace would be in Bethlehem and Jesus was, in fact, born in Bethlehem. There you go. That’s fulfillment. But fulfillment can be broader than that. It can also mean that Jesus brings the Scriptures to their intended goal, that the incomplete revelation to and through Israel has been brought to completion.

以馬可福音一章14-15節為例，「約翰下監以後，耶穌來到加利利，宣傳神的福音，說：『日期滿了，神的國近了。你們當悔改，信福音！』」當耶穌說，「日期滿了（應驗了）」，祂的意思不是「聖經的一個特定預測如今實現了」，而是說：「隨著我的宣講福音，日期就得到滿足了，上帝的國度已經來了。舊約聖經也達到其頂峰。」同樣，我不認為馬太認為耶穌逃到埃及是何西阿書十一章1節的預測。但是我的確相信馬太認為耶穌逃到埃及，並且從埃及返回，是應驗了何西阿書十一章1節。

Take Mark 1:14-15, for example. “Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.'” When Jesus said “the time is fulfilled,” he did not mean “right now a specific prediction of Scripture is coming to pass.” He meant, “with my preaching of the gospel, the time has been filled up and the kingdom is here. The Old Testament is reaching its climax.” Likewise, I don’t believe Matthew thought Jesus’ flight to Egypt was predicted in Hosea 11:1. But I do believe that Matthew thought Jesus’ flight to and return from Egypt was filling up Hosea 11:1.

因此，在馬太福音二章15節裡，耶穌究竟填滿了，或應驗了什麼呢？耶穌，如同馬太正確地理解到的處境，是救贖歷史對以色列國的計劃的填補。換言之，馬太可以宣稱何西阿書這段論到以色列出埃及的的經文，在耶穌裡應驗了，是因為耶穌是以色列的化身。

So what exactly is Jesus fulfilling, or filling up in Matthew 2:15? Jesus, as Matthew correctly understands the situation, is filling up the redemptive historical purposes of the nation. In other words, Matthew can claim that this Hosea passage, which talks about the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt, is fulfilled in Jesus, because Jesus is the embodiment of Israel.

馬太回顧過往，並且看到以色列國歷史和彌賽亞的歷史之間有一個類比性的對應關係。馬太引用何西阿書十一章1節不是新約作者武斷解經的一個例子，剛好相反，馬太是回顧過去，並且仔細地在這個國家的歷史和耶穌生平中歷史性的事件之間，得出了一些類比。（請參考：Tracy L. Howard, “The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15,” Biliotheca Sacra 143:325）

Matthew looked back and saw an analogical correspondence between the history of the nation Israel and the history of the Messiah…the Hosea 11:1 quotation by Matthew is not an example of arbitrary exegesis on the part of a New Testament writer. On the contrary Matthew looked back and carefully drew analogies between the events of the nation’s history and the historical incidents in the life of Jesus (Tracy L. Howard, “The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15,” Biliotheca Sacra 143:325).

在馬太福音裡，耶穌被視為是真正的、忠心的以色列。馬太是在重述以色列最著名的故事，但是他把耶穌作為主角，放在這個歷史的中心。耶穌是新以色列。

In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus is cast as the true and faithful Israel. Matthew is retelling Israel’s well known story, but he’s putting Jesus right in the middle as the main character in the story. Jesus is the new Israel.

第一章是從耶穌的家譜開始的。

 Chapter one starts with the genealogy of Jesus. 

馬太福音的頭幾個字（希臘文）是「biblos geneseos Iesou Christou」，一本關於耶穌基督的起頭的書。這為什麼很重要呢？好，因為這個字，geneseos，是genesis（創世記）這個字的一個形式。創世記是聖經的第一卷書。我不認為馬太是想要騙人，但是他確實知道聖經的第一卷書，並且明白當他用「耶穌的創世記」來開始他的福音書時，他至少是強烈地暗示，耶穌基督的故事為上帝的百姓標記出一個新的開始。這個故事正在從頭來過。這個主張有聖經第一卷書的另一段平行經文的支持。創世記被分割成十個「toledoth」的段落。在創世記我們會讀到十次「這是……的後代（toledoth）……」有趣的是，這些「後代」的段落，在幾個地方被七十士譯本翻譯為「 biblos geneseos」（創二4，五1），這也進一步指向這個方向，就是馬太把耶穌理解為是以色列這個國家的一個新的世代，一個新的譜系，一個新的開始。

The very first words, in Greek, are “biblos geneseos Iesou Christou“–a book of the beginning of Jesus Christ. Now why is that significant? Well, because that word geneseos is a form of the word genesis, as in the first book the Bible. I don’t think Matthew is trying to be tricky here, but surely he knew the first book of the Bible and realized that when he begins his gospel with “a book of the genesis of Jesus” he is, at least, strongly suggesting that this story of Jesus Christ marks a new beginning for the people of God. The story is starting over. This suggestion is supported by another parallel with the first book of the Bible. Genesis is broken up into ten toledoth sections. Ten times in the book of Genesis, we read “these are the generations (toledoth) of…” Interestingly enough, these toledoth sections are, in a couple of places, translated into the Greek Septuagint with biblos geneseos (Gen. 2:4; 5:1), which further points in the direction that Matthew understood Jesus to be a new generation, a new genealogy, a new beginning for the nation of Israel.

耶穌不只是新的創世記，祂的一生也是新出埃及記的化身。

 Not only is Jesus the new Genesis, his life embodies the new Exodus.

在耶穌降生後不久，祂在匆忙之間被帶到一個安全之地，以逃避一個嫉妒的王的怒氣，這個王下令所有剛出生的男孩的都要被殺害。聖經還有其他地方也發生過這種事，在哪裡呢？出埃及記第一章。法老王害怕希伯來人，因此他下令所有的男嬰都要被丢到尼羅河裡。但是摩西倖免遇難，因為他的母親把他藏在河裡的一個籃子裡。同樣，耶穌在希律王的命令下也倖免遇難，因為他的母親把祂藏到了埃及。

 Shortly after Jesus’ birth, he was rushed away to safety to avoid the wrath of a jealous king who had ordered all the young boys to be killed. Where else does this happen in the Bible? Exodus 1. Pharaoh fears the Hebrews and so he orders that every baby boy be thrown into the Nile. But Moses was spared because his mother hid him in a basket in the river. Likewise, Jesus was spared Herod’s decree because his mother hid him in Egypt.

在耶穌離開埃及之後，我們馬上看到祂在約旦河受洗，在馬太第三章。

 Following right on the heels of Jesus’ exodus out of Egypt, we come to his baptism in the Jordan in Matthew 3.

再次，我不認為馬太是想要用密碼來說話，也不是在編造一些故事，而是要安排這些材料，讓這些材料能重述以色列的故事，因為耶穌如今要作為新以色列。因此，正如以色列人離開埃及，經過紅海（根據林前十章2節，在海裡受洗），耶穌也離開埃及，並且在祂受洗時在約旦河水裡經過。

 Again, I don’t think Matthew is trying to speak in secret code, and he certainly isn’t making the stories up, but he has arranged the material in such a way as to retell Israel’s story, with Jesus now as the true Israel. So just like the Israelites left Egypt and then passed through the Red Sea (baptized into the sea according 1 Cor. 10:2), Jesus too leaves Egypt and passes through the waters in his baptism.

只是為了再指出一個平行，請想想以色列經過紅海之後發生了什麼事。

 Just to point out one more parallel, think what happens to the Israelites after they pass through the Red Sea. 

他們最終來到了曠野，在那裡漂流了四十年。而耶穌在馬太福音第四章，在祂受洗之後到了哪裡呢？祂也在禁食了四十個晝夜後，被聖靈引導到曠野，準備接受魔鬼的試探。

They wind up in the desert where they wander for forty years. And where is Jesus in Matthew 4 after his baptism? He is in the desert about to be tempted after having fasted for forty days and forty nights.

馬太很明顯是要把耶穌描繪成要應驗以色列的故事，並且把這個故事帶到最高潮。馬太不認為何西阿書十一章1節是一個直接的預言，預言耶穌和祂一家要到埃及。何西阿也沒有這個意思。這段經文是關於以色列離開埃及，以及她後來的偶像敬拜和屬靈的姦淫。馬太明白這點。他不是要賦予何西阿書十一章一個奇特的新意義。但是他的確在何西阿的話中，看到一些關於彌賽亞的事。耶穌必要成為那被召出埃及的忠心的兒子，填補第一個不忠心的兒子、以色列所缺欠的。從祂的創世記到出埃及，到祂在約旦河中的洗禮，到祂四十天在曠野，耶穌叫自己與盟約的百姓認同。祂就是以色列的化身。

Matthew clearly wants to portray Jesus as fulfilling Israel’s history and bringing it to a climax. Matthew didn’t think Hosea 11:1 was a direct prophecy about Jesus and his family going to Egypt. And Hosea didn’t mean it as such. The passage is about Israel’s Exodus out of Egypt and about her subsequent idolatries and adulteries. Matthew understood that. He wasn’t trying to give Hosea 11 a fanciful new meaning. But he did see something Messianic in Hosea’s words. Jesus would be the faithful Son called out of Egypt, filling up what was lacking in the first faithless son, Israel. From his genesis to his exodus to his baptism in the Jordan to his forty days in the wilderness, Jesus was identifying himself with the covenant people. He was the embodiment of Israel.

這是我的愛子，我所喜悅的

With Him He Was Well Pleased

因此，當耶穌為了躲避希律王，逃到了埃及，就把救贖工作帶到了高潮。這個救贖工作是從以色列出埃及開始的，而在耶穌的出埃及中完成了。這就是為什麼馬太可以說，「這是要應驗主藉先知所說的話」的原因。首先的以色列，上帝的長子，違背了盟約，配受上帝的怒氣，而當上帝看見祂的獨生子耶穌基督，祂在馬太福音三章17節說，「這是我的愛子，我所喜悅的。」

And so when Jesus fled Herod and went to Egypt, it brought to a climax the work of deliverance that began in the Exodus of Israel and was now coming to completion in the Exodus of Jesus. That’s why Matthew can say “this was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet.” But whereas the first Israel, God’s son, broke the covenant and deserved God’s wrath, when God beholds his only begotten Son Jesus Christ, he says in Matthew 3:17, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

這遠遠不是亂點鴛鴦譜的先知預言的應驗，馬太第二章的話填滿了何西阿書十一章的話，這是新約神學一個非常紮實的例子。這段經文很有份量地說到了耶穌基督的位格：祂是那位來到世上，要完成所有以色列被造要執行的工作。所有的屬靈姦淫和偶像崇拜，以及悖逆和偏行己路，都會在真以色列耶穌基督身上得到改正。上帝差遣祂的愛子，親自完成了祂的百姓靠自己無法完成的事。這是何西阿書十一章得到應驗的意義，也是以馬內利，上帝與我們同在的真正意義。

Far from being a barely connected prophetic fulfillment, this word from Hosea 11 filled up in Matthew 2, is a robust piece of New Testament theology. This text says something weighty about the person of Jesus Christ: he is the one who came to complete all that Israel was designed to perform. All the adulteries and idolatries and rebellion and waywardness that characterized Israel would be recast in the true Israel Jesus Christ. God sent his Son to do himself what his people could not do for themselves. This is the meaning of fulfillment of Hosea 11 and the true meaning of Immanuel, God with us.