To view the English translation, please scroll down to the bottom.
大希律王（公元前73年至公元4年）是羅馬帝國在猶太行省耶路撒冷任命的代理王，也是一位有名的大暴君（參部落格：嬰兒大屠殺）。他一聽說有一位新生的未來猶太人國王在伯利恆誕生了，馬上受到威脅，唯恐被篡位。於是暗暗的召了東方博士來，想從他們身上詢問出這一位未來的猶太王誕生地點。表面上希律王宣稱要去膜拜他，但實際上他暗中在策劃要如何趁著嬰兒耶穌未長大之前，先把他滅絕了。為了要保護耶穌，馬太福音2：13-15記載 “一位主的使者在夢中向約瑟顯現，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。」”
這段經節除了描述耶穌家人帶他逃離希律王的惡掌之外，馬太福音作者也借用這個故事告訴讀者，其實這個事件並不意外，因為在希伯來聖經（註：或作舊約聖經，參部落格：舊約聖經=希伯來聖經=塔納赫？）早就有先知預言：「我從埃及召出我的兒子來。」當然，馬太福音在這裡所指的“兒子”就是耶穌 ──神的兒子，也就是救世主彌賽亞。
乍看之下，這句被引用的經節確實跟耶穌逃到埃及的故事完全吻合。但是如果認真查看何西阿書11章1節，它整段經文是：「以色列年幼的時候，我愛他，就從埃及召出我的兒子。」從這裡可以清楚的看到，其實馬太福音作者只引用了這經節的後半部，完全省略了頭一部分。如果再仔細閱讀前半節，會發覺其實這個“兒子”是上帝對以色列人的稱呼，和彌賽亞完全無關。再者，這個“兒子”並沒有逃離他的出生地進入埃及；相反的，他是從埃及地被召「出來」。簡言之，這節的要旨是上帝將他的“兒子”──以色列人，從囚禁和壓迫中的埃及地解救出來。
更重要的是，先知在這段何西阿書的下一節經文有更詳細的陳述。他說那些從埃及被召出來的人得罪了上帝：「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。」（何西阿書 11：2）。 如果以“11：2是11：1的延續，被召出來的兒子是耶穌”的講法來推論，這段經文豈不等於在預言耶穌是“得罪了上帝的罪人”了嗎？
如果馬太福音的作者認為引用整段經文可以幫助讀者清楚看到上下文，不是對支持他論點更有利嗎？為什麼他不如此做呢？是不是因為如果他把整段經文都引用進去，他就無法聲稱彌賽亞的降臨與他逃往埃及都是先知書早已應驗的了？所以到底什麼地方出了差錯？是錯在馬太福音作者斷章取義、任意刪改原文嗎？或是他有另一套詮釋方法？是錯在基督徒不用心去查看引用文的來源、背景及上下文嗎？是錯在基督徒選擇視而不見嗎？是錯在教會牧者在教導的時候，刻意迴避正視這兩段經文明顯衝突呢？還是因為讀聖經應該只看它的整體的意義，不應該雞蛋裡挑骨頭呢？
對這段經節的解釋見仁見智，但一個真正想了解真理的人，不會去尋找一個符合他已經相信的經文解釋。 他會想知道希伯來聖經的原文是怎麼寫的。 因此當讀者察覺到馬太福音所引用的經節和何西阿書的原意不同時，是否應該繼續沉浸在同一套習以為常的定型公式？還是要跳出框架，去查考那些不符合他已經相信的經文解釋，做進一步的思考跟探查。
Refuge for Baby Jesus
King Herod the Great (73 BCE to 4 CE) was appointed by the Roman Empire as the ruler of the Jewish province in Jerusalem. He was also a notorious tyrant (see my blog post: Baby Massacre). When he heard about the birth of the future Jewish king in Bethlehem, he felt immediately threatened, fearing a challenge to his rule. He secretly summoned the Magi from the East, hoping to learn the birthplace of this future Jewish king from them. On the surface, Herod claimed he wanted to worship the child, but in reality, he was planning on eliminating baby Jesus before he grew up. To protect Jesus, Matthew 2:13-15 records: “…an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son."
This passage not only describes how Jesus' family fled from the cruelty of King Herod but also serves as a message from the author of the Gospel of Matthew to the readers. It emphasizes that this event was not unexpected because it had been prophesied in the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament; Please refer to my blog post: What is the Difference between the Old Testament, the Tanakh, and the Hebrew Bible?) with the quote, "Out of Egypt I called my son." Of course, in this context, the "son" referred to by the Gospel of Matthew is Jesus—the Son of God and the Messiah, the Savior.
At first glance, this quoted verse appears to align perfectly with the story of Jesus' escape to Egypt. However, upon closer examination of Hosea 11:1, the entire passage reads: "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." A careful look reveals that the author of Matthew only quoted the latter part of this verse while omitting the first part. If you read the first half, it becomes evident that the "son" referred to here is a designation for the people of Israel and has no connection to the Messiah. Furthermore, this "son" did not escape from his place of birth into Egypt; rather, he was called "out" of Egypt. In essence, the essence of this verse is that God rescued His "son" - the people of Israel - from the captivity and oppression of Egypt.
What's more, in the following verse of this passage in Hosea, there is a more detailed statement. The prophet says that those who were called out of Egypt provoked God: "But the more they were called, the more they went away from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images." (Hosea 11:2) If one were to argue that "11:2 is a continuation of 11:1, and the called-out son is Jesus," wouldn't this passage imply that Jesus is a "sinner who provoked God"?
If the author of the Gospel of Matthew believed that quoting the entire passage could help readers see the context more clearly, wouldn't it be more advantageous to support his argument? Why didn't he do so? Was it because if he included the entire passage, he could not claim that the Messiah's arrival and escape to Egypt had already been prophesied in the book of Hosea? So, where does the error lie? Is it an error on the part of the author of the Gospel of Matthew for selective use of scripture or altering the original text? Or does he have another method of interpretation? Is it an error on the part of Christians for not diligently examining the sources, background, and context of the quoted text? Is it an error on the part of Christians for choosing to turn a blind eye? Is it an error on the part of church pastors who, during their teachings, deliberately avoid addressing these apparent conflicts in the two passages? Or is it because reading the Bible should focus on its overall message, without nitpicking details?
Interpretations of this passage may vary, but a person genuinely seeking the truth wouldn't search for an interpretation that merely aligns with their preexisting beliefs. They would want to understand how the original Hebrew Bible text was written. Therefore, when readers realize that the verse quoted in Matthew differs from the original meaning in Hosea, the question arises: should they continue to immerse themselves in the same familiar pattern of interpretation, or should they step out of that framework, examining interpretations that don't necessarily conform to their existing beliefs, and engage in further reflection and exploration?
Comentarios