1절 카드 ↗
1. And God spoke. I am aware that many agree in reading this verse and the next in connection with each other, and thus making them together the first of the ten commandments. Others taking them separately, consider the affirmation to stand in the place of one entire commandment; but since God neither forbids nor commands anything here, but only comes forth before them in His dignity, to devote the people to Himself, and to claim the authority He deserves, which also He would have extended to the whole Law, I make no doubt but that it is a general preface, whereby He prepares their minds for obedience. And surely it was necessary that, first of all, the right of the legislator should be established, lest what He chose to command should be despised, or contemptuously received. In these words, then, God seeks to procure reverence to Himself, before He prescribes the rule of a holy and righteous life. Moreover, He not merely declares Himself to be Jehovah, the only God to whom men are bound by the right of creation, who has given them their existence, and who preserves their life, nay, who is Himself the life of all; but He adds, that He is the peculiar God of the Israelites; for it was expedient, not only that the people should be alarmed by the majesty of God, but also that they should be gently attracted, so that the law might be more precious than gold and silver, and at the same time “sweeter than honey,” ( Psalms 119:72 ;) for it would not be enough for men to be compelled by servile fear to bear its yoke, unless they were also attracted by its sweetness, and willingly endured it. He afterwards recounts that special blessing, wherewith He had honored the people, and by which He had testified that they were not elected by Him in vain; for their redemption was the sure pledge of their adoption. But, in order to bind them the better to Himself, He reminds them also of their former condition; for Egypt was like a house of bondage, from whence the Israelites were delivered. Wherefore, they were no more their own masters, since God had purchased them unto Himself. This does not indeed literally apply to us; but He has bound us to Himself with a holier tie, by the hand of His only-be-gotten Son; whom Paul teaches to have died, and risen again, “that He might be Lord both of the dead and the living.” ( Romans 14:9 .) So that He is not now the God of one people only, but of all nations, whom He has called into His Church by general adoption. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-3" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-exo-20-001
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
하나님이 말씀하셨다. 많은 이들이 이 절과 다음 절을 함께 읽어 십계명의 첫째 계명으로 삼는다는 것을 알고 있다. 또 어떤 이들은 이를 별개로 보아 그 확언이 한 완전한 계명의 자리에 있는 것으로 여긴다. 그러나 하나님이 여기서 어떤 것을 금하거나 명하시는 것이 아니라, 자신의 위엄 속에 앞에 나서심으로써 백성을 자신에게 헌신시키고 전체 율법에 미쳐야 할 권위를 확보하시는 것이기 때문에, 나는 이것이 순종을 위한 그들의 마음을 준비시키는 일반적인 서언이라고 의심하지 않는다. 참으로 율법을 제정하시는 분의 권리가 먼저 확립되어야 했다. 그렇지 않으면 그분이 명하시고자 하는 것이 경멸되거나 업신여겨 받아들여질 수 있기 때문이다. 따라서 하나님은 거룩하고 의로운 삶의 규칙을 정하시기 전에, 먼저 당신에 대한 경외를 확보하고자 하신다. 그분은 단지 자신이 여호와, 즉 창조의 권리로 인간이 의무를 지는 유일한 하나님이시며, 그들에게 존재를 주시고 그들의 생명을 보존하시며, 아니 모든 것의 생명이신 분임을 선언하시는 것이 아니다. 더 나아가 이스라엘 백성의 특별한 하나님이심을 덧붙이신다. 백성이 그분의 위엄에 의한 두려움만이 아니라 또한 부드럽게 이끌리는 것도 필요했기 때문이다. 율법이 금이나 은보다 더 귀하고 동시에 꿀보다 달기 위해서다. 인간이 노예적 두려움으로 그 멍에를 짊어지는 것만으로는 충분하지 않고, 또한 그 달콤함에 이끌려 기꺼이 받아들여야 한다. 이어서 그분은 자신이 백성을 영예롭게 하신 특별한 복을 열거하시며, 이를 통해 그들이 헛되이 택하심을 받지 않았음을 증언하신다. 그들의 구원이 바로 그들의 입양의 확실한 담보였기 때문이다. 그러나 그들을 더 단단히 자신에게 묶기 위해, 그들의 이전 상태도 상기시키신다. 이집트는 종의 집 같은 것이었고, 이스라엘 백성은 그곳에서 구원받았다. 그러므로 그들은 더 이상 자기 자신의 주인이 아니었다. 하나님이 그들을 당신 자신을 위해 사셨기 때문이다. 이것이 우리에게 문자 그대로 적용되지는 않는다. 그러나 그분은 더욱 거룩한 끈으로, 바울이 가르치듯 살아있는 자와 죽은 자의 주님이 되기 위해 죽으시고 다시 사신 그분의 독생자의 손으로 우리를 자신에게 묶으셨다. 그래서 그분은 이제 한 백성의 하나님이 아니라, 일반적인 입양으로 당신의 교회에 부르신 모든 나라의 하나님이시다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-exo-20-1-1(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
3절 카드 ↗
Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. In this commandment God enjoins that He alone should be worshipped, and requires a worship free from all superstition. For although it seems to be a simple prohibition, yet must we deduce an affirmation from the negative, as will be more apparent from the following words. Therefore does He set Himself before them, in order that the Israelites may look to Him alone; and claims His own just right, in order that it may not be transferred elsewhere. All do not agree in the exposition of the words, for some construe the word פנים , (278) panim, “anger,” as if it were said, “Thou shalt not make to thyself other gods to provoke my anger;” and I admit that the Hebrew word is often used in this sense. The other interpretation, however, seems to me the more correct, “Make not to thyself gods before my face.” Yet still there remains a difference of opinion, for people are not agreed as to the particle על , gnel. Some explain it, “Make not to thyself gods above me, or whom thou mayest prefer to me;” and they quote the passage in Deuteronomy 21:15 , wherein God forbids a man, if he have two wives, and children by both, to transfer the rights of primogeniture to the second before the face of the first-born. But though we admit that a comparison is there made between the elder and the younger, still it would be too frigid an interpretation here to say that God demands nothing more than that other gods should not obtain the higher place; whereas He neither suffers them to be likened to Him, nor even to be joined with Him as companions; (279) for religion is defiled and corrupted as soon as God’s glory is diminished in the very least degree. And we know that when the Israelites worshipped their Baalim, they did not so substitute them in the place of God as to put Him altogether aside, and assign to them the supreme power; nevertheless, this was an intolerable profanation of God’s worship, and moreover an impious transgression of this precept, to choose for themselves patrons in whom some part of the Deity should be lodged; because if God have not alone the pre-eminence, His majesty is so far obscured. I consider,therefore, the genuine sense to be, that the Israelites should not make to themselves any gods, whom they might oppose to the true and only God. For in Hebrew the expression, before the face, generally means over against; therefore God would not have companions obtruded upon Him, and placed as it were in His sight. Meanwhile, it seems probable to me that He alludes to that manifestation of Himself which ought to have retained His people in sincere piety; for true and pure religion was so revealed in the Law, that God’s face in a manner shone forth therein. The case was different with the Gentiles, who, although they might rashly make to themselves false gods, still would not do so before the face of God, which was unknown to them. Let us then understand, after all, that those alone are accounted the legitimate worshippers of God who bid adieu to all figments, and cleave to Him alone. Nor can it be doubted that these words comprehend the inward worship of God, since this commandment differs from the next, whereby external idolatry will be seen to be condemned. It is sufficiently notorious, that men may make to themselves gods in other ways besides in statues, and pictures, and in visible forms. If any should adore the angels instead of God, or should foolishly imagine any other secret divinity, none will deny that he would offend against this Law. God, therefore, calls for the affections of the heart, that He alone may be spiritually worshipped; and the expression “before my face,” may be not inaptly referred to this; because, although their impiety, who secretly turn aside to false worship, and cherish their errors within their own bosoms, may be able to evade the eyes of men, yet their hypocrisy and treachery will not escape the notice of God. Hence, again, it follows, that the one God is not rightly worshipped, unless He be separated from all figments. Wherefore it is not enough to make use of His name, unless all corruptions opposed to His word be laid aside; and thence we arrive at the distinction between true religion and false superstitions; for since God has prescribed to us how He would be worshipped by us, whenever we turn away in the very smallest degree from this rule, we make to ourselves other gods, and degrade Him from His right place. (278) פנים , signifying properly the face or countenance, is sometimes used by metonymy for those passions which shew themselves in the countenance. — W. (279) Addition in Fr., “encore qu’on les estime inferieurs;” even though they be counted his inferiors. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-4" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-exo-20-003
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
네 앞에 다른 신들을 두지 말라. 이 계명에서 하나님은 자신만이 예배받아야 함을 명하시며, 모든 미신에서 자유로운 예배를 요구하신다. 단순한 금지처럼 보이지만, 부정에서 긍정을 끌어내야 한다. 이것은 이어지는 말씀에서 더 분명해질 것이다. 따라서 그분은 이스라엘 백성이 오직 그분만을 바라보도록 당신 자신을 그들 앞에 두시며, 당신의 정당한 권리를 요구하시어 그것이 다른 곳으로 이전되지 않도록 하신다.
'파님'이라는 단어의 해석에 대해 모두가 일치하지는 않는다. 어떤 이들은 이것을 '진노'로 해석하여, 마치 "내 진노를 도발할 다른 신들을 너희에게 만들지 말라"는 의미로 본다. 히브리어 단어가 이런 의미로도 자주 쓰인다는 것은 인정한다. 그러나 내가 보기에 "내 앞에 너희에게 신들을 만들지 말라"는 다른 해석이 더 정확하다. 그러나 여기서도 의견 차이가 있다. '알'이라는 전치사에 대해 어떤 이들은 "내 위에, 즉 나보다 더 좋아할 수도 있는 신들을 만들지 말라"고 설명한다. 어떤 이들은 신명기 21장 15절 — 두 아내와 두 아내 사이의 자녀가 있을 경우, 하나님이 출생의 권리를 장자의 얼굴 앞에서 차자에게 이전하지 말라고 금하신다 — 을 인용한다. 거기서 장자와 차자 사이의 비교가 이루어진다는 것은 인정하지만, 다른 신들이 더 높은 자리를 차지하지 않아야 한다는 것 이상을 요구하지 않는다는 해석은 여기서 너무 미흡하다. 그분은 다른 신들이 그분과 동등하게 되거나 동료로 합류되는 것도 용납하지 않으시기 때문이다. 이스라엘 백성이 바알을 예배했을 때, 그들은 하나님을 완전히 제쳐두고 최고 권력을 바알에게 돌리지는 않았다. 그러나 이것은 하나님 예배의 용납될 수 없는 더럽힘이었다. 그분의 영광이 조금이라도 감소되면 그것으로 충분하기 때문이다. 따라서 나는 진정한 의미가 이것이라고 본다. 이스라엘 백성은 참되고 유일한 하나님을 향해 대립시킬 수 있는 어떤 신도 만들어서는 안 된다는 것이다. 히브리어에서 '얼굴 앞에'라는 표현은 일반적으로 '서로 마주하여'를 뜻한다. 따라서 하나님은 자신의 눈앞에 이를테면 배치될 동료들이 강요되는 것을 원하지 않으신다. 동시에 그분이 자신의 백성을 순수한 경건 안에 붙들어 두었어야 할 당신 자신의 나타나심을 암시하시는 것 같다.
요점은 율법에 참된 종교가 완전히 드러났기 때문에, 이를 버리고 그분만을 따르는 자들만이 합법적인 하나님 경배자로 인정된다는 것이다. 이 계명이 하나님의 내적 예배를 포함한다는 것도 분명하다. 이 계명이 외적 우상숭배가 정죄되는 다음 계명과 다르기 때문이다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-exo-20-3-3(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
4절 카드 ↗
4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. In the First Commandment, after He had taught who was the true God, He commanded that He alone should e worshipped; and now He defines what is His Legitimate Worship. Now, since these are two distinct things, we conclude that the commandments are also distinct, in which different things are treated of. The former indeed precedes in order, viz., that believers are to be contented with one God; but it would not be sufficient for us to be instructed to worship him alone, unless we also knew the manner in which He would be worshipped. The sum is, that the worship of God must be spiritual, in order that it may correspond with His nature. For although Moses only speaks of idolatry, yet there is no doubt but that by synecdoche, as in all the rest of the Law, he condemns all fictitious services which men in their ingenuity have invented. For hence have arisen the carnal mixtures whereby God’s worship has been profaned, that they estimate Him according to their own reason, and thus in a manner metamorphose Him. It is necessary, then, to remember what God is, lest we should form any gross or earthly ideas respecting Him. The words simply express that it is wrong (79) for men to seek the presence of God in any visible image, because He cannot be represented to our eyes. The command that they should not make any likeness, either of any thing which is in heaven, or in the earth, or in the waters under the earth, is derived from the evil custom which had everywhere prevailed; for, since superstition is never uniform, but is drawn aside in various directions, some thought that God was represented under the form of fishes, others under that of birds, others in that of brutes; and history especially recounts by what shameless delusions Egypt was led astray. And hence too the vanity of men is declared, since, whithersoever they turn their eyes, they everywhere lay hold of the materials of error, notwithstanding that God’s glory shines on every side, and whatever is seen above or below, invites us to the true God. Since, therefore, men are thus deluded, so as to frame for themselves the materials of error from all things they behold, Moses now elevates them above the whole fabric and elements of the world; for by the things that are “in heaven above,” he designates not only the birds, but the sun, and the moon, and all the stars also; as will soon be seen. He declares, then, that a true image of God is not to be found in all the world; and hence that His glory is defiled, and His truth corrupted by the lie, whenever He is set before our eyes in a visible form. Now we must remark, that there are two parts in the Commandment — the first forbids the erection of a graven image, or any likeness; the second prohibits the transferring of the worship which God claims for Himself alone, to any of these phantoms or delusive shows. Therefore, to devise any image of God, is in itself impious; because by this corruption His Majesty is adulterated, and He is figured to be other than He is. There is no need of refuting the foolish fancy of some, that all sculptures and pictures are here condemned by Moses, for he had no other object than to rescue God’s glory from all the imaginations which tend to corrupt it. And assuredly it is a most gross indecency to make God like a stock or a stone. Some expound the words, “Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven image, which thou mayest adore;” (80) as if it were allowable to make a visible image of God, provided it be not adored; but the expositions which will follow will easily refute their error. Meanwhile, I do not deny that these things are to be taken connectedly, since superstitious worship is hardly ever separated from the preceding error; for as soon as any one has permitted himself to devise an image of God, he immediately falls into false worship. And surely whosoever reverently and soberly feels and thinks about God Himself, is far from this absurdity; nor does any desire or presumption to metamorphose God ever creep in, except when coarse and carnal imaginations occupy our minds. Hence it comes to pass, that those, who frame for themselves gods of corruptible materials, superstitiously adore the work of their own hands. I will then readily allow these two things, which are inseparable, to be joined together; only let us recollect that God is insulted, not only when His worship is transferred to idols, but when we try to represent Him by any outward similitude. (79) “ C’est une folie et perversite .” — Fr . (80) “All such images, or likenesses, are forbidden by this commandment, as are made to be adored and served; according to that which immediately follows, thou shalt not adore them nor serve them. That is, all such as are designed for idols or image-gods, or are worshipped with divine honor. But otherwise, images, pictures or representations, even in the house of God, and in the very sanctuary, so far from being forbidden, are expressly authorized by the Word of God. See Exodus 25:15 ; Numbers 21:8 ; 1 Chronicles 28:18 ; 2 Chronicles 3:10 .” — Note to Douay Version. Dublin, 1825 ; by authority. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-7" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-exo-20-004
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
너는 자신을 위하여 새긴 우상을 만들지 말라. 첫째 계명에서 하나님은 참 하나님이 누구인지를 가르치신 후, 그분만을 예배하라고 명하셨다. 이제 그분은 그분의 합법적인 예배가 무엇인지를 정의하신다. 이 두 가지는 별개의 것이므로, 계명들도 별개라고 결론짓는다. 전자가 순서에서 앞서는데, 즉 신자들은 오직 한 하나님으로 만족해야 한다는 것이다. 그러나 그분만을 예배하라는 가르침을 받더라도, 그분이 예배받으시고자 하는 방식을 알지 못한다면 충분하지 않을 것이다. 요점은 하나님 예배가 그분의 본성에 부응하도록 영적이어야 한다는 것이다. 비록 모세가 우상숭배에 대해서만 말하는 것처럼 보이지만, 의심할 여지 없이 제유법으로, 나머지 율법에서도 마찬가지로, 사람들이 자신들의 기발함으로 고안해 낸 모든 인위적 예배를 정죄하신다. 그래서 하나님의 예배가 더럽혀진 것은 사람들이 자신의 이성으로 그분을 평가하고, 그리하여 어떤 면에서 그분을 변형시켰기 때문이다.
말씀은 단순히 하나님의 현존을 어떤 보이는 형상에서 구하는 것이 잘못임을 표현한다. 왜냐하면 그분은 우리의 눈으로 나타낼 수 없기 때문이다. 하늘에 있는 것이나 땅에 있는 것이나 물 속에 있는 것의 어떤 모양도 만들지 말라는 명령은 어디서나 만연했던 악한 관습에서 비롯된 것이다. 미신은 결코 한 가지가 아니며 여러 방향으로 끌리기 때문에, 어떤 이들은 하나님이 물고기의 형상으로 표현된다고 생각했고, 어떤 이들은 새의 형상으로, 또 어떤 이들은 짐승의 형상으로 생각했다. 특히 역사는 이집트가 얼마나 수치스러운 망상에 빠졌는지를 기록하고 있다. 이로부터 또한 인간의 공허함이 드러난다. 그들은 사방 어디에 눈을 돌려도 오류의 재료를 발견한다. 그럼에도 하나님의 영광은 사방에서 빛나며, 위와 아래에서 보이는 모든 것이 우리를 참 하나님께로 초대한다. 그러므로 인간이 자신이 보는 모든 것에서 오류의 재료를 고안하도록 이렇게 미혹되기 때문에, 모세는 이제 그들을 세계의 모든 구조와 원소들 위로 높이 올린다.
이제 이 계명에 두 부분이 있음을 주목해야 한다. 첫 번째는 새긴 형상이나 어떤 모습도 세우는 것을 금하고, 두 번째는 하나님이 자신에게만 요구하시는 예배를 이러한 환영이나 기만적인 표현들에 이전하는 것을 금한다. 따라서 하나님의 어떤 형상을 고안하는 것 자체가 불경건하다. 이 더럽힘으로 그분의 위엄이 변질되고 그분이 실제와 다른 모습으로 표현되기 때문이다. 어떤 이들의 어리석은 생각 — 모세가 여기서 모든 조각물과 그림을 정죄한다는 것 — 을 논박할 필요는 없다. 그는 하나님의 영광을 더럽히려는 경향이 있는 모든 상상에서 그것을 구출하는 것만을 목적으로 했기 때문이다. 하나님을 나무나 돌과 같이 만드는 것은 가장 터무니없는 불경건이다. 어떤 이들은 "경배할 새긴 우상을 만들지 말라"고 해석하는데, 마치 경배하지만 않으면 하나님의 보이는 형상을 만드는 것이 허용되는 것처럼 한다. 그러나 이어지는 설명들이 그들의 오류를 쉽게 논박할 것이다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-exo-20-4-4(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
7절 카드 ↗
Exodus 20:7 . Thou shalt not take the name. There is a manifest synecdoche in this Commandment; for in order that God may procure for His name its due reverence, He forbids its being taken in vain, especially in oaths. Whence we infer on the other hand an affirmative commandment, that every oath should be a testimony of true piety, whereby the majesty of God Himself should obtain its proper glory. Moreover, it is clear that not only when we swear by God, His name is to be reverently honored, but whenever mention of it is made. Thus in these words He maintains His holiness not only in His word, but also in His works, against all profane contempt of it. We shall soon see that to swear by God’s name is a species or part of religious worship, and this is manifest too from the words of Isaiah 45:23 ; for when he predicts that all nations shall devote themselves to pure religion, he thus speaks, “As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall swear by me.” (308) Now, if the bowing of the knees be a token of adoration, this swearing which is connected with it is equivalent to an acknowledgment that He is God. Since, then, reason dictates that the species is put for the genus, we must see what is to be understood by God’s name, and by the adverb לשוא , leshav. It is silly and childish to restrict this to the name Jehovah, (309) as if God’s majesty were confined to letters or syllables; but, whereas His essence is invisible, His name is set before us as an image, in so far as God manifests Himself to us, and is distinctly made known to us by His own marks, just as men are each by his own name. On this ground Christ teaches that God’s name is comprehended in the heavens, the earth, the temple, the altar, ( Matthew 5:34 ,) because His glory is conspicuous in them. Consequently, God’s name is profaned whenever any detraction is made from His supreme wisdom, infinite power, justice, truth, clemency, and rectitude. If a shorter definition be preferred, let us say that His name is what Paul calls τὸ γνωστόν , “ that which may be known” of Him. ( Romans 1:19 .) God’s name, then, is taken in vain, not only when any one abuses it by perjury, but when it is lightly and disrespectfully adduced in proof of frivolous and trifling matters: I speak with respect to oaths. In this, however, man’s ingratitude is very gross, that when God grants them His name, as if at their entreaty, to put an end to their strifes and to be a pledge of their truth, still it flies promiscuously from their mouths not without manifest disrespect. God will again condemn perjury in the Fifth Commandment of the Second Table, viz., in so far as it offends against and violates charity by injuring our neighbors. The aim and object of this Commandment is different, i.e., that the honor due to God may be unsullied; that we should only speak of Him religiously; that becoming veneration of Him should be maintained among us. The word לשוא , leshau, might indeed be translated “for falsehood,” and in this sense we shall see it used elsewhere; but since it often is equivalent to חנם , chinam, which means gratuitously, or in vain, this exposition seems to be most appropriate. In this, too, fuller and richer instruction is contained, viz., that men should not drag in His name in light matters, as in sport or derision of Him, which cannot be done without insulting and profaning it. And thus the holiness of God’s name, which preserves us in His fear and in true piety, is contrasted with the particle לשוא , leshau. But since nothing is more difficult than to restrain men’s licentiousness in this respect, and to excuse or at least diminish the sin, the slipperiness of the tongue is pleaded, its punishment is here denounced: that if God’s name is rashly exposed to reproach or contempt, He will avenge it. The more hardened, therefore, in their licentiousness they may be, the less will be their impunity; so far is depraved habit from diminishing the guilt. (308) The quotation more nearly accords with the Apostle’s citation in Romans 14:11 , than with the original passage in Isaiah. See Owen’s note in C . ’s Romans, (C. Society’s Edition, p. 503.) (309) “ Au mot Hebrieu, qui nous translatons l’Eternel ;” to the Hebrew word, which we translate the Eternal. — Fr. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-8" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-exo-20-005
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
주 네 하나님의 이름을 망령되게 부르지 말라. 이 계명에는 명백한 제유법이 있다. 하나님이 자신의 이름에 합당한 경외를 확보하기 위해, 특히 맹세에서 그것을 헛되이 부르는 것을 금하신다. 이로부터 반대로 긍정적 계명을 추론한다. 즉 모든 맹세는 참된 경건의 증거가 되어야 하며, 그를 통해 하나님의 위엄이 마땅한 영광을 얻어야 한다는 것이다. 또한 우리가 하나님으로 맹세할 때뿐만 아니라, 언제나 그분의 이름이 언급될 때에 경건히 존귀하게 해야 한다는 것이 명백하다. 이 말씀으로 그분은 당신의 말씀에서뿐 아니라 당신의 행위에서도, 그것에 대한 모든 경멸에 맞서 당신의 거룩함을 지키신다.
이제 하나님의 이름으로 맹세하는 것이 종교적 예배의 한 종류라는 것은 이사야의 말씀에서도 나타난다. "주께서 말씀하시기를, 내가 살아있는 한 모든 무릎이 내 앞에 꿇을 것이요 모든 혀가 내게 맹세하리라." 무릎을 꿇는 것이 경배의 표시라면, 이와 연결된 이 맹세는 그분이 하나님이심을 인정하는 것과 같다. 따라서 이유가 제유법으로 종을 대신할 때, 하나님의 이름으로 이해해야 하는 것과 '레샤브' 부사로 무엇을 이해해야 하는지를 살펴보자. 이것을 오직 여호와라는 이름에만 국한시키는 것은 어리석고 유치한 것이다. 마치 하나님의 위엄이 글자나 음절에 한정되는 것처럼 말이다. 그러나 그분의 본질은 보이지 않으므로, 그분의 이름은 하나님이 자신을 우리에게 나타내시고 자신의 특징들로 분명하게 알려지시는 한 표상으로서 우리 앞에 놓여있다. 마치 각 사람이 자신의 이름으로 알려지듯. 이런 이유로 그리스도는 하늘과 땅과 성전과 제단을 통해 하나님의 이름이 포함된다고 가르치신다. 그분의 영광이 그것들 안에서 분명하기 때문이다. 따라서 하나님의 이름은 그분의 최고 지혜, 무한한 능력, 공의, 진실, 자비, 올바름에서 어떤 손상이 가해질 때마다 더럽혀진다.
더 짧은 정의를 선호한다면, 그의 이름은 바울이 '그분에 대해 알 수 있는 것'이라 부른 것이라 하겠다. 하나님의 이름은 어떤 사람이 맹세를 통해 그것을 남용할 때만이 아니라, 가볍고 경솔한 일들의 증거로 분명한 불경함 없이 가볍게 사용될 때에도 헛되이 사용되는 것이다. 내가 말하는 것은 맹세에 관한 것이다. 그러나 하나님이 다툼을 끝내고 진실의 담보가 되도록 자신의 이름을 그들의 요청에 응해 거의 주신 때에도, 분명한 경멸 없이 그것이 그들의 입에서 무분별하게 나오는 것은 인간의 배은망덕이 매우 심한 것이다.
'레샤브'라는 단어는 '거짓을 위해'로도 번역될 수 있으며, 이런 의미로 다른 곳에서도 쓰임을 볼 것이다. 그러나 그것이 종종 '히남', 즉 무상으로 또는 헛되이와 동일하기 때문에, 이 해석이 가장 적합해 보인다. 이 안에 더 풍성하고 풍요로운 교훈이 담겨 있다. 즉 사람들이 가벼운 일에서, 마치 그분을 가지고 놀거나 비웃듯이 그분의 이름을 끌어들이지 않아야 한다는 것이다. 이것은 그 이름을 모욕하고 더럽히지 않고서는 행해질 수 없다. 이렇게 하나님의 이름의 거룩함 — 그것은 우리를 그분의 경외와 참된 경건 안에 보존한다 — 이 '레샤브'라는 부사와 대비된다. 그러나 이 문제에서 사람들의 방종을 억제하는 것보다 더 어려운 것이 없기 때문에, 그 죄를 변명하거나 적어도 줄이려 할 때 혀의 미끄러움이 주장된다. 그 처벌이 여기서 선언된다. 하나님의 이름이 경솔하게 비난이나 경멸에 노출되면 그분이 복수하실 것이라는 것이다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-exo-20-7-7(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
8절 카드 ↗
Exodus 20:8 . Remember the Sabbath-day. The object of this Commandment is that believers should exercise themselves in the worship of God; for we know how prone men are to fall into indifference, unless they have some props to lean on or some stimulants to arouse them in maintaining their care and zeal for religion. Under the Second Commandment we have already indeed made some remarks on the outward profession of piety, and under the First also brief mention has been made of some festivals, inasmuch as in the passover and the offering of the first-fruits the people devoted themselves to God, as if by a solemn repetition of the covenant. Many also of the ceremonies which we have explained had an affinity to the Sabbath. Yet it is not without good cause that God has appointed a special place to the Sabbath as well as to the other festivals; and although there is a connection between the observance of the Sabbath and the tabernacle with its sacrifices, and the priesthood itself, still it was advisedly done that the festivals should be separately appointed, that by their aid the people might be the more encouraged to maintain the unity of the faith and to preserve the harmony of the Church. Meanwhile, the mutual connection between the sanctuary and the Sabbath is evident from what has been already said. God indeed would have it to be a notable symbol of distinction between the Jews and heathen nations. Whence, too, the devil, in order to asperse pure and holy religion with infamy, has often traduced the Jewish Sabbath through froward tongues. But the better to shew what there is peculiar in this Commandment, and what is its difference from the First, we must remember the spiritual substance of the type; for not only did God prescribe certain days for the holding of assemblies, in which the people might give attention to sacrifices, prayers, and the celebration of His praise; but He placed before their eyes as the perfection of sanctity that they should all cease from their works. Surely God has no delight in idleness and sloth, and therefore there was no importance in the simple cessation of the labors of their hands and feet; nay, it would have been a childish superstition to rest with no other view than to occupy their repose in the service of God. (329) Wherefore, lest we should make any mistake in the meaning of this Commandment, it is well to remember its analogy and conformity with the thing it signifies; i.e., that the Jews might know that their lives could not be approved by God unless, by ceasing from their own works, they should divest themselves of their reason, counsels, and all the feelings and affections of the flesh. For they were not forbidden without exception from the performance of every work, since they were required both to circumcise their children, and to bring the victims into the court, and to offer them in sacrifice on that day; but they were only called away from their own works, that, as if dead to themselves and to the world, they might wholly devote themselves to God. Wherefore, since God declares elsewhere by Moses, and again by Ezekiel, that the Sabbath is a sign between Him and the Jews that He sanctifies them, ( Ezekiel 31:13 ; Ezekiel 20:12 ,) we must see what is the sum of this sanctification, viz., the death of the flesh, when men deny themselves and renounce their earthly nature, so that they may be ruled and guided by the Spirit of God. Although this is sufficiently plain, still it will be worth while to confirm it by further statements. And first of all, that this was a ceremonial precept, Paul clearly teaches, calling it a shadow of these things, the body of which is only Christ. ( Colossians 2:17 .) But if the outward rest was nothing but a ceremony, the substance of which must be sought in Christ, it now remains to be considered how Christ actually exhibited what was then prefigured; and this the same Apostle declares, when he states that “our old man is crucified with Christ,” and that we are buried with Him, that His resurrection may be to us newness of life. ( Romans 6:4 .) It is to be gathered without doubt from many passages, that the keeping of the Sabbath was a serious matter, since God inculcates no other commandment more frequently, nor more strictly requires obedience to any; and again, when He complains that He is despised, and that the Jews have fallen into extreme ungodliness, He simply says that His “Sabbaths are polluted,” as if religion principally consisted in their observance. ( Jeremiah 17:24 ; Ezekiel 20:21 .) Moreover, if there had not been some peculiar excellency in the Sabbath, (330) it might have appeared to be an act of atrocious injustice to command a man to be put to death for cutting wood upon it. ( Numbers 15:32 .) Wherefore it must be concluded that the substance of the Sabbath, which Paul declares to be in Christ, must have been no ordinary good thing. Nor does its excellency require much eulogium, since spiritual rest is nothing else than the truly desirable and blessed death of man, which contains in it the life of God, even as Paul glories that he is as it were dead, because Christ liveth in him. ( Galatians 2:20 .) The Apostle in the epistle to the Hebrews argues more subtilely, that true rest is brought to us by the Gospel, and that it is rejected by unbelievers, ( Hebrews 4:3 ;) for although he mixes up some allegorical matter with it, he still retains the genuine reason of the Commandment, viz., that we should rest from our works “even as God from His.” ( Hebrews 4:10 .) On this ground Isaiah, when he reproves the hypocrites for insisting only on the external ceremony of rest, accuses them of “finding their own pleasure” on the Sabbath, ( Isaiah 58:13 ;) as much as to say, that the legitimate use of the Sabbath must be supposed to be self-renunciation, since he is in fact accounted to cease from his works who is not led by his own will nor indulges his own wishes, but who suffers himself to be directed by the S
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-exo-20-006
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
안식일을 기억하여 거룩하게 지키라. 이 계명의 목적은 신자들이 하나님 예배의 훈련을 받는 것이다. 인간이 자신들의 경건에 대한 관심과 열심을 유지하는 데 의지할 지지물이나 자극이 없으면 얼마나 무관심에 빠지기 쉬운지를 우리는 알고 있다. 둘째 계명에서 우리는 이미 경건의 외적 표현에 관해 언급했으며, 첫째 계명에서도 어떤 절기들에 관해 간략히 언급했다. 즉 유월절과 첫 열매의 봉헌에서 백성이 마치 언약의 엄숙한 갱신처럼 하나님께 헌신했다는 것이다. 또한 우리가 설명한 많은 의식들이 안식일과 유사성을 가졌다. 그러나 하나님이 다른 절기들뿐만 아니라 안식일에도 특별한 자리를 정하셨다는 것은 이유가 없지 않다. 안식일의 준수와 제물과 제사장직 자체와의 연관성은 이미 말한 것에서 분명하지만, 절기들이 별도로 정해진 것은 그것들의 도움으로 백성이 믿음의 하나됨을 유지하고 교회의 화목을 보존하도록 더 권면받기 위해서다.
이 계명이 첫째 계명과 어떤 점에서 다른지를 더 잘 보여주기 위해, 유형의 영적 실질을 기억해야 한다. 하나님은 사람들이 희생제사와 기도와 찬양의 찬미에 주의를 기울일 수 있도록 집회를 위한 특정한 날들을 정하셨을 뿐만 아니라, 거룩함의 완성으로서 그들 모두가 자신의 일을 쉬는 것을 그들 앞에 두셨다. 하나님은 확실히 게으름과 나태함을 기뻐하시지 않는다. 따라서 단순히 손발을 멈추는 것에는 어떤 중요성도 없었다. 아니, 다른 의도 없이 하나님을 섬기는 데 자신의 안식을 사용할 생각으로 쉬는 것은 유치한 미신이었을 것이다. 그러므로 이 계명의 의미에서 어떤 실수도 하지 않으려면, 그것이 나타내는 것과의 유비와 일치를 기억하는 것이 좋다. 즉 유대인들은 자신의 일을 그침으로써 이성, 계획, 육체의 모든 감각과 애착을 벗어버리지 않으면 자신들의 삶이 하나님께 승인될 수 없다는 것을 알아야 했다는 것이다. 그들은 예외 없이 모든 일을 수행하는 것이 금지된 것이 아니었다. 그날에 아이들에게 할례를 행하고 희생물을 뜰에 들이고 제사를 드리는 것이 요구되었기 때문이다. 다만 자신들의 일에서, 마치 자신과 세상에 대해 죽은 것처럼, 자신들을 전적으로 하나님께 헌신하도록 불려났을 뿐이다.
그러므로 하나님이 다른 곳에서 모세를 통해, 또 에스겔을 통해 안식일이 그분과 유대인들 사이에 자신이 그들을 거룩하게 함의 표징이라고 선언하실 때, 이 거룩함의 총괄이 무엇인지를 보아야 한다. 즉 육체의 죽음이다. 사람들이 자신을 부인하고 땅적인 본성을 버릴 때 하나님의 성령에 의해 지배되고 인도될 수 있는 것이다. 이것이 충분히 분명하지만, 추가 진술로 확인하는 것이 가치 있을 것이다. 무엇보다도 이것이 의식적 규정이었음을 바울이 분명히 가르친다. 그는 그것을 "그리스도가 몸이신 것들의 그림자"라고 부른다. 그러나 외적인 안식이 그리스도 안에서만 추구되어야 하는 실질을 가진 의식에 불과하다면, 이제 그리스도가 예표된 것을 어떻게 실제로 보이셨는지를 고려해야 한다. 바울이 "우리의 옛 사람이 그리스도와 함께 십자가에 못 박혔다"고 하고, "우리가 그와 함께 장사되었다"고 할 때, 그의 부활이 우리에게 새 생명이 되게 하기 위함이라고 선언할 때 이것이 드러난다. 안식일을 지키는 것이 중요한 문제였다는 것을 많은 구절에서 의심할 여지 없이 알 수 있다. 하나님이 어떤 다른 계명도 이것보다 더 자주 강조하지 않으시고, 어떤 것에 대해서도 더 엄격하게 순종을 요구하지 않으시기 때문이다. 또한 그분이 자신이 무시당했다고 불평하시고 유대인들이 극도의 불경건함에 빠졌다고 하실 때, 단순히 "내 안식일이 더럽혀졌다"고 하신다. 마치 종교가 주로 그것의 준수에 있는 것처럼. 또한 안식일에 나무를 자르는 사람에게 죽음을 명하는 것이 잔인한 불의처럼 보이지 않으려면, 안식일에 어떤 특별한 탁월함이 있어야 했다. 따라서 바울이 그리스도 안에 있다고 선언하는 안식일의 실질은 특별한 좋은 것이었음이 결론되어야 한다. 그것의 탁월함은 많은 찬사가 필요 없다. 영적인 안식은 다름 아닌 진정으로 바람직하고 복된 인간의 죽음이기 때문이다. 그것은 하나님의 생명을 담고 있다. 바울이 그리스도가 그 안에 사시기 때문에 죽은 것 같다고 영광스러워하는 것처럼.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-exo-20-8-8(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
10절 카드 ↗
10. Thou shalt not do any work. That is, whatever could have been finished yesterday, or postponed till to-morrow. (For instance, (333) ) it was not lawful for judges to give a hearing to two litigants; but if any one had violently assaulted his neighbor, it was allowable to prevent the injury, and to give relief to the unoffending person; because the necessity of the case admitted of no delay. It was not lawful to cook food for your guests; but if an ox or an ass had fallen into a pit it was to be taken out, because aid would have been too late on the morrow. For this reason Christ. declares that “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath,” ( Mark 2:27 ,) since God does not require more than was useful or necessary for keeping the people in the exercise of piety. Thus it would have been wicked to send out an ox to pasture; but if an ox that tossed had got out, it was right to bring it back to its stall, lest it should kill or injure those whom it met. Thy man-servant and thy maid-servant. Although it is added in Deuteronomy that God had respect to equity, when He commands a relaxation from labor to be given to the men and maid-servants, and the Israelites are called upon to remember that they were once servants, that they may be more disposed to act humanely, still we must bear in mind what I have stated, that the direct object here was the honoring of the One God. We know that the whole race of Abraham were consecrated to God, and that their servants were a kind of adjunct to them, so that they were circumcised in common with themselves. And assuredly it is very absurd that a man should encourage a profane contempt of God in the family over which he presides, and in which he would be recognised as master. The case of “strangers” was different, who were obliged to rest on the Sabbath, although they remained uncircumcised; for he does not only refer to the foreigners, who had subscribed to the Law, but also to the uncircumcised. If any should object that they were improperly made partakers of the sacred sign whereby God had bound His elect people to Himself, the reply is easy, that this was not done for their sakes, but lest anything opposed to the Sabbath should happen beneath the eyes of the Israelites; as we may understand more clearly from the case of the oxen and asses. Surely God would never have required spiritual service of brute animals; yet He ordained their repose as a lesson, so that wherever the Israelites turned their eyes, they might be incited to the observation of the Sabbath. Nor can we wonder at this, when in the general mournings which were appointed for the deprecation of God’s wrath, a fast was imposed upon the brutes, that wretched men being admonished by the sight, might feel the burden of their guilt the more, and by their voluntary serf-accusation might prevent the judgment of God, and might be seriously dissatisfied with themselves on account of those sins, whose punishment they saw to be imposed to a certain degree upon innocent animals. Besides, if the very least liberty had been conceded to them, they would have done many things to evade the Law in their days of rest, by employing strangers and the cattle in their work. (333) Added from Fr. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-11" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-exo-20-006
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
너는 아무 일도 하지 말라. 즉 어제 끝낼 수 있었거나 내일까지 미룰 수 있는 것은 무엇이든지. 예를 들어, 재판관이 두 소송 당사자의 말을 들어주는 것은 합법적이지 않았다. 그러나 어떤 사람이 이웃에게 폭력으로 공격했다면, 그 해를 막고 침해받지 않은 사람에게 구호를 제공하는 것은 허용되었다. 사례의 필요성이 지체를 허용하지 않기 때문이다. 손님을 위해 음식을 요리하는 것은 합법적이지 않았다. 그러나 황소나 나귀가 구덩이에 빠졌다면 꺼내야 했다. 내일이면 도움이 너무 늦을 것이기 때문이다. 이런 이유로 그리스도는 "안식일이 사람을 위하여 있는 것이요 사람이 안식일을 위하여 있는 것이 아니다"라고 선언하신다. 하나님은 백성을 경건의 훈련 안에서 유지하는 데 유익하거나 필요한 것 이상을 요구하지 않으시기 때문이다. 따라서 황소를 목장으로 내보내는 것은 악했을 것이지만, 들이받는 황소가 도망쳤다면 그것을 우리로 데려오는 것은 옳았다. 그것이 만나는 사람들을 죽이거나 해치지 않도록 하기 위해서다.
네 남종이나 네 여종이나. 신명기에서는 하나님이 남녀 종들에게 휴식을 허락하라고 명하실 때 공평함을 존중하셨음이 덧붙여진다. 그리고 이스라엘 백성은 그들이 한때 종이었음을 기억하여 더 인도적으로 행동하도록 촉구받는다. 그러나 내가 진술한 것, 즉 여기서 직접적인 목적이 유일하신 하나님을 존귀히 여기는 것이었음을 기억해야 한다. 우리는 아브라함의 모든 자손이 하나님께 구별되었으며, 그들의 종들이 그들과 함께 할례를 받아 그들에게 일종의 부속물이었음을 안다. 따라서 가장이 자신이 주관하는 가정에서 하나님에 대한 경멸을 조장하는 것은 매우 불합리하다. '이방인들'의 경우는 달랐다. 그들이 할례를 받지 않았어도 안식일에는 쉬어야 했기 때문이다. 그는 율법에 동의한 외국인뿐 아니라 할례받지 않은 자도 언급한다. 그들이 이스라엘 백성의 눈앞에서 안식일에 반하는 일이 일어나지 않도록 하기 위해서였다. 황소와 나귀의 경우에서 더 분명히 이해할 수 있다. 하나님은 결코 집승들에게 영적 봉사를 요구하지 않으셨을 것이다. 그러나 그분은 이스라엘 백성이 어디로 눈을 돌리든지 안식일을 지키도록 자극을 받도록 그들의 안식을 규정하셨다. 하나님의 진노를 막기 위해 정해진 일반적인 애도에서 짐승들에게도 금식이 부과된 것도 놀라운 것이 아니다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-exo-20-10-10(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
11절 카드 ↗
11. For in six days the Lord made. From this passage it may be probably conjectured that the hallowing of the Sabbath was prior to the Law; and undoubtedly what Moses has before narrated, that they were forbidden to gather the manna on the seventh day, seems to have had its origin from a well-known and received custom; whilst it is not credible that the Observance of the Sabbath was omitted, when God revealed the rite of sacrifice to the holy (Fathers. (334) ) But what in the depravity of human nature was altogether extinct among heathen nations, and almost obsolete with the race of Abraham, God renewed in His Law: that the Sabbath should be honored by holy and inviolable observance; and this the impure dogs (335) accounted to be amongst the disgraces of the Jewish nation. (334) Added from Fr. (335) “ Les payens, comme chiens mastins ;” the heathen, like dogs. — Fr . return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-12" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-exo-20-006
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
여호와가 엿새 동안 만드셨다. 이 구절에서 안식일의 거룩함이 율법보다 앞선 것임이 합리적으로 추측된다. 또한 모세가 이전에 기록한 것, 즉 일곱째 날에 만나를 모으는 것이 금지되었다는 것도 잘 알려진 관습에서 비롯된 것으로 보인다. 한편 거룩한 조상들에게 하나님이 희생제사의 의식을 계시하셨을 때 안식일의 준수가 생략되었을 것이라고 믿기 어렵다. 그러나 하나님은 이방 민족들 사이에서는 완전히 소멸되고 아브라함의 자손들 사이에서도 거의 쓸모없게 된 것을 당신의 율법으로 새롭게 하셨다. 즉 안식일이 거룩하고 침해할 수 없는 준수로 존귀히 여겨져야 한다는 것이다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-exo-20-11-11(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
12절 카드 ↗
I am not ignorant that the Tables of the Law are usually divided in a different manner; (1) for those, who make only one of the first two Commandments, are obliged finally to mangle the last. Thus the prohibition of God to covet either our neighbor’s wife or his house, is foolishly separated into two parts, whereas it is quite clear that only one thing is treated of, as we gather from the words of Paul, who quotes them as a single Commandment. ( Romans 7:7 .) There is, however, no need of a lengthened discussion here, since the fact itself explains how one error has grown out of another; for, when they had improperly hidden the Second Commandment under the First, and consequently did not find the right number, they were forced to divide into two parts what was one and indivisible. A frivolous reason is assigned by Augustine why they comprised the First Table in three commandments, viz., that believers might learn to worship God in the Trinity, and thus to adore one God in three persons. By inconsiderately trifling with such subtleties, they have exposed God’s law to the mockeries of the ungodly. Josephus (2) indeed rightly enumerates the Commandments themselves in their proper order, but improperly attributes five Commandments to each Table; as if God had had regard to arithmetic rather than to instruct His people separately in the duties of charity, after having laid down for them the rules of piety. For up to this point the rule of rightly serving God has been delivered, i . e . , the First Table embraces a summary of piety; and now the Law will begin to show how men ought to live with each other, otherwise one Table would have been enough, nor would God have divided his Law without a purpose. But whereas piety (3) and justice comprise the perfect rule for the direction of our lives, it was necessary to distinguish these two parts, that the people might understand the object of the Law, of which we shall again speak hereafter. Exodus 20:12 . Honor thy father Although charity (as being “the bond of perfectness,” Colossians 3:14 ) contains the sum of the Second Table, still, mutual obligation does not prevent either parents or others, who are in authority, from retaining their proper position. Nay, human society cannot be maintained in its integrity, unless children modestly submit themselves to their parents, and unless those, who are set over others by God’s ordinance, are even reverently honored. But inasmuch as the reverence which children pay to their parents is accounted a sort of piety, some have therefore foolishly placed this precept in the First Table. Nor are they supported in this by Paul, though he does not enumerate this Commandment, where he collects the sum of the Second Table, ( Romans 13:9 ;) for he does this designedly, because he is there expressly teaching that obedience is to be paid to the authority of kings and magistrates. Christ, however, puts an end to the whole controversy, where, among the precepts of the Second Table, He enumerates this, that children should honor their parents. ( Matthew 19:19 .) The name of the mothers is expressly introduced , lest their sex should render them contemptible to their male children. It will be now well to ascertain what is the force of the word “honor,” not as to its grammatical meaning, (for כבד , cabad , is nothing else but to pay due honor to God, and to men who are in authority,) but as to its essential signification. Surely, since God would not have His servants comply with external ceremonies only, it cannot be doubted but that all the duties of piety towards parents are here comprised, to which children are laid under obligation by natural reason itself; and these may be reduced to three heads, i e . , that they should regard them with reverence; that they should obediently comply with their commands, and allow themselves to be governed by them; and that they should endeavor to repay what they owe to them, and thus heartily devote to them themselves and their services. Since, therefore, the name of Father is a sacred one, and is transferred to men by the peculiar goodness of God, the dishonoring of parents redounds to the dishonor of God Himself, nor can any one despise his father without being guilty of an offense against God, ( sacrilegium .) If any should object that there are many ungodly and wicked fathers whom their children cannot regard with honor without destroying the distinction between good and evil, the reply is easy, that the perpetual law of nature is not subverted by the sins of men; and therefore, however unworthy of honor a father may be, that he still retains, inasmuch as he is a father, his right over his children, provided it does not in anywise derogate from the judgment of God; for it is too absurd to think of absolving under any pretext the sins which are condemned by His Law; nay, it would be a base profanation to misuse the name of father for the covering of sins. In condemning, therefore, the vices of a father, a truly pious son will subscribe to God’s Law; and still, whatsoever he may be, will acknowledge that he is to be honored, as being the father given him by God. Obedience comes next, which is also circumscribed by certain limits. Paul is a faithful interpreter of this Commandment, where he bids “children obey their parents.” ( Ephesians 6:1 ; Colossians 3:20 .) Honor, therefore, comprises subjection; so that he who shakes off the yoke of his father, and does not allow himself to be governed by his authority, is justly said to despise his father; and it will more clearly appear from other passages, that those who are not obedient to their parents are deemed to despise them. Still, the power of a father is so limited as that God, on whom all relationships depend, should have the rule over fathers as well as children; for parents govern their children only under the supreme authority of God. Paul, therefore, does not simply exhort children to obey their parents, but adds the restriction,
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-exo-20-007
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
나는 율법의 두 표가 흔히 다르게 구분됨을 모른다고 하지 않는다. 처음 두 계명을 하나로 만드는 사람들은 마침내 마지막 것을 왜곡할 수밖에 없기 때문이다. 이렇게 해서 이웃의 아내나 집을 탐내지 말라는 하나님의 금지가 어리석게도 두 부분으로 나뉘는데, 한 가지 것만을 다루고 있음이 분명하다. 이것은 바울이 그것들을 단일 계명으로 인용하는 말씀에서도 알 수 있다. 그러나 이에 대한 긴 논의는 필요 없다. 사실 자체가 어떻게 한 오류에서 다른 오류가 생겨났는지를 설명해 주기 때문이다. 그들이 부당하게 둘째 계명을 첫째 아래 감추고 따라서 올바른 수를 찾지 못했기 때문에, 하나이고 나눌 수 없는 것을 두 부분으로 나눌 수밖에 없었다.
네 아버지와 어머니를 공경하라. 비록 자선이 완전함의 끈으로서 두 번째 표의 총괄이지만, 상호 의무가 부모나 권위의 자리에 있는 다른 이들이 자신의 적합한 위치를 유지하는 것을 방해하지는 않는다. 아니, 자녀들이 부모에게 겸손히 복종하지 않고, 하나님의 규례로 권위에 있는 자들이 경건히 존귀히 여겨지지 않으면, 인간 사회는 그 온전함을 유지할 수 없다. 자녀들이 부모에게 드리는 경외가 일종의 경건으로 여겨지기 때문에, 어떤 이들은 이 규정을 첫째 표에 어리석게도 넣었다. 바울이 둘째 표의 총괄을 수집하는 곳에서 이 계명을 열거하지 않는다고 그들의 주장이 지지되는 것도 아니다. 그는 왕들과 관원들의 권위에 대한 순종을 명백하게 가르치고 있기 때문에 의도적으로 그렇게 하는 것이다. 그러나 그리스도는 둘째 표의 계명들 가운데 자녀가 부모를 공경해야 한다는 이것을 열거하심으로써 모든 논쟁을 끝내신다.
어머니의 이름이 명시적으로 도입된 것은 성별이 남자 자녀들에게 그들을 멸시하게 만들지 않도록 하기 위함이다. 이제 '공경'이라는 단어의 의미를 확인하는 것이 좋다. 히브리어 '카바드'는 하나님과 권위에 있는 사람들에게 마땅한 경의를 드리는 것 이상은 아니지만, 그 본질적인 의미에 관해서는 그렇다. 하나님은 자신의 종들이 외적 의식만을 준수하는 것을 원하지 않으시므로, 자연적 이성 자체가 자녀들에게 부과하는 부모에 대한 경건의 모든 의무가 여기에 포함된다는 것은 의심할 여지가 없다. 이것은 세 가지 주제로 요약될 수 있다. 즉 그들이 경외심으로 부모를 대해야 한다는 것, 그들의 명령에 순종하고 그들의 통치를 받아야 한다는 것, 그리고 그들에게 진 빚을 갚으려 노력하며 그리하여 자신과 자신의 봉사를 마음으로 그들에게 헌신해야 한다는 것이다.
따라서 아버지의 이름이 신성하고 하나님의 독특한 선하심으로 인간에게 옮겨진 것이므로, 부모를 불경히 대하는 것은 하나님 자신의 불명예로 귀결된다. 만약 불경건하고 악한 많은 아버지들이 있어 그들을 공경하면 선과 악의 구분이 없어진다고 반박하면, 대답은 쉽다. 인간의 죄로 본성의 영구적인 법이 무효가 되지 않는다는 것이다. 따라서 아무리 공경받을 자격이 없더라도, 아버지인 한 그는 하나님의 판단을 어떤 식으로도 해치지 않는 한 그의 자녀들에 대한 권리를 유지한다. 따라서 아버지의 악덕을 정죄할 때, 참으로 경건한 아들은 하나님의 율법에 동의할 것이다. 그러나 그가 어떤 사람이든 하나님이 자신에게 주신 아버지로서 존귀히 여겨야 함을 인정할 것이다.
순종이 다음으로 온다. 이것도 어떤 한계 안에 제한되어 있다. 바울이 이 계명을 신실하게 해석하는 곳에서 "자녀들아 주 안에서 부모에게 순종하라"고 한다. 따라서 공경은 복종을 포함한다. 아버지의 멍에를 벗어버리고 그의 권위에 의해 통치받기를 허용하지 않는 자는 마땅히 아버지를 멸시한다고 말해진다. 그러나 아버지의 권한은 하나님이 모든 관계 위에 통치하셔야 한다는 점에서 제한된다. 부모는 하나님의 최고 권위 아래 자녀들을 통치하기 때문이다. 바울은 자녀들에게 단순히 부모에게 순종하라고 하지 않고 "주 안에서"라는 제한을 덧붙인다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-exo-20-12-12(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
13절 카드 ↗
The sum of this Commandment is, that we should not unjustly do violence to any one. In order, however, that God may the better restrain us from all injury of others, He propounds one particular form of it, from which men’s natural sense is abhorrent; for we all detest murder, so as to recoil from those whose hands are polluted with blood, as if they carried contagion with them. Undoubtedly God would have the remains of His image, which still shine forth in men, to continue in some estimation, so that all might feel that every homicide is an offense against Him, ( sacrilegium .) He does not, indeed, here express the reason, whereby He elsewhere deters men from murder, i e . , by asserting that thus His image is violated, ( Genesis 9:6 ;) yet, however precisely and authoritatively He may speak as a Legislator, He would still have us consider, what might naturally occur to everybody’s mind, such as the statement of Isaiah 58:7 , that man is our “own flesh.” In order, then, that believers may more diligently beware of inflicting injuries, He condemns a crime, which all spontaneously confess to be insufferable. It will, however, more clearly appear hereafter, that under the word kill is included by synecdoche all violence, smiting, and aggression. Besides, another principle is also to be remembered, that in negative precepts, as they are called, the opposite affirmation is also to be understood; else it would not be by any means consistent, that a person would satisfy God’s Law by merely abstaining from doing injury to others. Suppose, for example, that one of a cowardly disposition, and not daring to assail even a child, should not move a finger to injure his neighbors, would he therefore have discharged the duties of humanity as regards the Sixth Commandment? Nay, natural common sense demands more than that we should abstain from wrongdoing. And, not to say more on this point, it will plainly appear from the summary of the Second Table, that God not only forbids us to be murderers, but also prescribes that every one should study faithfully to defend the life of his neighbor, and practically to declare that it is dear to him; for in that summary no mere negative phrase is used, but the words expressly set forth that our neighbors are to be loved. It is unquestionable, then, that of those whom God there commands to be loved, He here commends the lives to our care. There are, consequently, two parts in the Commandment, — first , that we should not vex, or oppress, or be at enmity with any; and, secondly , that we should not only live at peace with men, without exciting quarrels, but also should aid, as far as we can, the miserable who are unjustly oppressed, and should endeavor to resist the wicked, lest they should injure men as they list. Christ, therefore, in expounding the genuine sense of the Law, not only pronounces those transgressors who have committed murder, but also that “he shall be in danger of the judgment who is angry with his brother without a cause; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire.” ( Matthew 5:22 .) For He does not there, as some have ignorantly supposed, frame t~ new law, as if to east blame upon His Father; but shows the folly and perversity of those interpreters of the Law who only insist on the external appearance, and husk of things, as is vulgarly said; since the doctrine of God must rather be estimated from a due consideration of. His nature. Before earthly judges, if a man have carried a weapon for the purpose of killing a man, he is found guilty of violence; and God, who is a spiritual Lawgiver, goes even further. With Him, therefore, anger is accounted murder; yea, inasmuch as He pierces even to the most secret feelings, He holds even concealed hatred to be murder; for so we must understand John’s words, “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer,” ( 1 John 3:15 ;) i.e., hatred conceived in the heart is sufficient for his condemnation, although it may not openly appear. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-14" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-exo-20-008
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
이 계명의 총괄은 우리가 어떤 사람에게도 부당하게 폭력을 가해서는 안 된다는 것이다. 그러나 하나님이 다른 모든 상해로부터 우리를 더 잘 억제하기 위해, 사람들의 자연적 감각이 혐오하는 특별한 형태를 제안하신다. 우리 모두는 살인을 혐오하며, 피로 더럽혀진 자들을 마치 전염을 옮기는 것처럼 피한다. 의심할 여지 없이 하나님은 여전히 인간 안에 빛나는 자신의 형상의 흔적이 어느 정도 존중받기를 원하셔서, 모든 이가 모든 살인이 그분에 대한 죄임을 느끼게 하신다. 물론 그분은 다른 곳에서 살인을 억제하는 이유 — 즉 그분의 형상이 위반된다는 것 — 를 여기서 명시적으로 표현하지 않으신다. 그러나 그분이 입법자로서 아무리 엄격하게 말씀하시더라도, 모두가 자연스럽게 생각하는 것 — 이사야의 말처럼 인간이 우리 자신의 살이라는 것 — 을 고려하게 하실 것이다. 따라서 신자들이 상해를 가하는 것을 더 주의하게 하기 위해, 그분은 모두가 자발적으로 용납할 수 없다고 고백하는 범죄를 정죄하신다. '죽이다'라는 말 아래 제유법으로 모든 폭력, 구타, 공격이 포함된다는 것이 나중에 더 분명해질 것이다. 또한 이른바 부정적 계명에 긍정적 확언도 이해되어야 한다는 다른 원칙도 기억해야 한다. 그렇지 않으면 단순히 다른 이에게 해를 끼치지 않음으로써 하나님의 율법을 만족시킬 수 있다는 것이 어떤 식으로도 일관되지 않을 것이기 때문이다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-exo-20-13-13(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
14절 카드 ↗
Although one kind of impurity is alone referred to, it is sufficiently plain, from the principle laid down, that believers are generally exhorted to chastity; for, if the Law be a perfect rule of holy living, it would be more than absurd to give a license for fornication, adultery alone being excepted. Furthermore, it is incontrovertible that God will by no means approve or excuse before this tribunal, what the common sense of mankind declares to be obscene; for, although lewdness has everywhere been rampant in every age, still the opinion could never be utterly extinguished, that fornication is a scandal and a sin. Unquestionably what Paul teaches has been prevalently received from the beginning, that a good life consists of three parts, soberness, righteousness, and godliness, ( Titus 2:12 ;) and the soberness which he commands differs not from chastity. Besides, when Christ or the Apostles are treating of a perfect life, they always refer believers to the Law; for, as it had been said of old by Moses, “This is the way, walk ye in it;” (59) Christ confirms this, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,” ( Matthew 19:17 ;) and Paul corroborates it, “He that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law,” ( Romans 13:8 ,) whilst they constantly pronounce a curse against all fornicators. It is not worth while to quote the particular passages in which they do so. Now, if Christ and the Apostles, who are the best interpreters of the Law, declare that God’s Law is violated no less by fornication than by theft, we assuredly infer, that in this Commandment the whole genus is comprehended under a single species . Wherefore, those have done nothing but betray their disgraceful ignorance, who have sought to be praised for their acuteness on the score of their ridiculous subtlety, when they admitted that fornication is indeed condemned with sufficient clearness and frequency in the New Testament, but not in the Law. For, if they had reasoned justly, inasmuch as God is declared to have blessed marriage, it must at once be concluded, on the contrary, that the connection of male and female, except in marriage, is accursed. This is the argument of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where he contrasts two opposite things; “Marriage (he says) is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” ( Hebrews 13:4 .) So also, when God forbids the priest to marry a harlot, ( Leviticus 21:14 ,) the manifest impropriety of fornication is declared; and, if it was unlawful for the daughters of Israel to be harlots, ( Deuteronomy 23:17 ,) the same reasoning applies necessarily to males. Nor has Hosea taken that reproof from anywhere else but the Law? “Whoredom and wine take away the heart.” ( Hosea 4:11 .) Thus, when the Prophets metaphorically condemn the corruptions of their nation, they do not always use the same; word as Moses here does, נפ , naaph , but compare them to fornications, whereas, if fornication were lawful in itself, this metaphor would be altogether inappropriate. Hosea was commanded to take a harlot for a wife, ( Hosea 1:2 ;) no mention is made of adultery, and still the shame and baseness of the people is thus condemned. Who, then, would say that fornication is free from sin, since God brands it with no ordinary mark of ignominy? But if any should pertinaciously contest this, let him accuse Paul of error, who bears witness that an example is set before us in the Law, that we should. not “commit fornication as some of them committed, and fell in one day three-and-twenty thousand.” ( Numbers 25:9 ; 1 Corinthians 10:8 .) Surely, if they had not transgressed the Law, so horrible a vengeance would not have overwhelmed them. If any should object that the crime of idolatry was mixed up with it., still the declaration of Paul remains untouched, that God was the avenger of fornication in this infliction of punishment, which would not accord, unless it were a transgression of the Law. And in truth, where, as recorded by Luke, ( Acts 15:20 ,) the Apostles in their decree prohibit fornication amongst the Gentiles, the reason is at the same time added, that “Moses is read in the synagogues.” Now, if it were not a vice opposed to the Law, no offense would have hence arisen. We have already explained why, under this word adultery, every impure lust was condemned. We know how unbridled was the licentiousness of the Gentiles; for, although God never suffered all shame to be extinguished together with their purity, still respect for what was right was in a manner stifled, so that they evaded the grossness of the sin by ribaldry and scurrilous jests. At any rate, the doctrine of Paul was by no means understood, that those who indulge in whoredom “sin against their own body.” ( 1 Corinthians 6:18 .) Since, then, the minds of all men were stupified by indulgence, it was needful to arouse them by declaring the atrocity of the sin, that they might learn to beware of all pollution. Nor are unbridled lusts only here condemned, but God instructs His people to cherish modesty and chastity. The sum is, that those who desire to approve themselves to God, should be pure “from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit,” ( 2 Corinthians 7:1 ;) nor can we doubt but that Paul in these words would interpret the law, as he elsewhere exhorts, “that everyone should possess his vessel in sanctification and honor; not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God.” ( 1 Thessalonians 4:4 .) (59) The quotation is not from the writings of Moses, but an accommodation from Isaiah 30:21 . return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-15" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-exo-20-009
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
한 가지 종류의 불순함만 언급되지만, 신자들이 일반적으로 정결함을 권면받는다는 것은 확립된 원칙에서 충분히 분명하다. 율법이 거룩한 삶의 완전한 규칙이라면, 간음만을 제외하고 음행을 허용한다는 것은 더 없이 불합리하다. 또한 간음을 제외하고 음행이 그 자체로 죄가 아니라고 하면 바울을 잘못 비난하는 것이 된다. 그는 그것이 율법에 의해 정죄된다고 증언하기 때문이다. 율법이 완전한 삶의 규칙으로 확립되었고 그리스도와 사도들이 그것에 늘 신자들을 돌려보낸다면, 이 계명에서 모든 불순한 정욕이 제유법으로 하나의 종류 아래 정죄된다는 것은 의심할 여지가 없다. 이미 이 말 '간음' 아래 모든 불결한 정욕이 정죄됨을 우리는 설명했다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-exo-20-14-14(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
15절 카드 ↗
Since charity is the end of the Law, we must seek the definition of theft from thence. This, then, is the rule of charity, that every one’s rights should be safely preserved, and that none should do to another what he would not have done to himself. It follows, therefore, that not only are those thieves who secretly steal the property of others, but those also who seek for gain from the loss of others, accumulate wealth by unlawful practices, and are more devoted to their private advantage than to equity. Thus, rapine is comprehended under the head of theft, since there is no difference between a man’s robbing his neighbor by fraud or force. But, in order that God may the better withhold His people from all fraudulent injustice, He uses the word theft, which all naturally abhor as disgraceful. For we know under how many coverings men bury their misdeeds; and not only so, but also how they convert them into praise by false pretexts. Craft and low cunning is called prudence; and he is spoken of as provident and circumspect who cleverly overreaches others, who takes in the simple, and insidiously oppresses the poor. Since, therefore, the world boasts of vices as if they were virtues, and thus all freely excuse themselves in sin, God wipes away all this gloss, when tie pronounces all unjust means of gain to be so many thefts. Nor let us be surprised that this decision should be given by the divine tribunal, when the philosophers deliver nearly the same doctrine. We must bear in mind also, that an affirmative precept, as it is called, is connected with the prohibition; because, even if we abstain from all wrong-doing, we do not therefore satisfy God, who has laid mankind under mutual obligation to each other, that they may seek to benefit, care for, and succor their neighbors. Wherefore He undoubtedly inculcates liberality and kindness, and the other duties, whereby human society is maintained; and hence, in order that we may not be condemned as thieves by God, we must endeavor, as far as possible, that every one should safely keep what he possesses, and that our neighbor’s advantage should be promoted no less than our own. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-16" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-exo-20-010
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
자선이 율법의 목적이므로, 도둑질의 정의를 거기서 구해야 한다. 자선의 규칙은 각자의 권리가 안전하게 보존되어야 하며, 아무도 자신이 받고 싶지 않은 것을 다른 사람에게 해서는 안 된다는 것이다. 따라서 은밀히 다른 사람의 재산을 훔치는 자들뿐만 아니라, 다른 사람의 손실로 이득을 추구하고, 불법적인 방법으로 부를 쌓으며, 공평보다 자신의 개인적 이익에 더 헌신하는 자들도 도둑들임이 따라온다. 따라서 인간이 사기로 이웃을 강탈하는 것과 강제로 하는 것 사이에 차이가 없으므로, 약탈은 도둑질의 범주에 포함된다. 그러나 하나님이 당신의 백성을 모든 사기적 불의에서 더 잘 억제하기 위해, 모든 사람이 수치스러운 것으로 자연스럽게 혐오하는 도둑질이라는 단어를 사용하신다. 우리는 인간들이 자신의 악행을 얼마나 많은 가림막 아래 묻는지를, 또 그것들을 허위 구실로 칭찬으로 어떻게 바꾸는지를 안다. 교활함과 저열한 약삭빠름은 신중함이라 불린다. 다른 이들을 영리하게 앞서 나가고 단순한 자들을 속이며 교묘하게 가난한 자들을 억압하는 자는 선견지명이 있고 신중한 자로 말해진다. 따라서 세상이 마치 덕인 것처럼 악덕을 자랑하고 모두가 죄 안에서 자신을 자유롭게 용서하므로, 하나님은 이 모든 광택을 닦아버리신다. 그는 모든 부당한 이득 수단이 도둑질이라고 선언하신다. 또한 이른바 긍정적 명령도 금지와 연결되어 있음을 기억해야 한다. 불의로부터 삼가더라도 그것으로 하나님을 만족시키지 못한다. 그분은 서로를 돕고 돌보며 이웃을 구하도록 인류에게 상호 의무를 부여하셨기 때문이다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-exo-20-15-15(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
16절 카드 ↗
G od here makes a provision for every man’s character and good name, lest any should be undeservedly weighed down by calumnies and false accusations. The same synecdoche exists here, which I have pointed out in the previous Commandments, for God comprises many things under a single head. With reference to the words, inasmuch as עד , gned , properly means a witness, it may be literally translated, “Thou shalt not answer a false witness against thy neighbor,” but then the particle as must be supplied. The Hebrews poorly translate it in the vocative case, Thou shalt not speak, O false witness, etc. (165) Although God seems only to prescribe that no one, for the purpose of injuring the innocent, should go into court, and publicly testify against him, yet it is plain that the faithful are prohibited from all false accusations, and not only such as are circulated in the streets, but those which are stirred in private houses and secret corners. For it would be absurd, when God has already shewn that men’s fortunes are cared for by Him, that He should neglect their reputation, which is much more precious. In whatever way, therefore, we injure our neighbors by unjustly defaming them, we are accounted false witnesses before God. We must now pass on from the prohibitive to the affirmative precept: for it will not be enough for us to restrain our tongues from speaking evil, unless we are also kind and equitable towards our neighbors, and candid interpreters of their acts and words, and do not suffer them, as far as in us lies, to be burdened with false reproaches. Besides, God does not only forbid us to invent accusations against the innocent, but also to give currency to reproaches and sinister reports in malevolence or hatred. Such a person may perhaps deserve his ill-name, and we may truly lay such or such an accusation to his charge; but if the reproach be the ebullition of our anger, or the accusation proceed from ill-will, it will be vain for us to allege in excuse that we have advanced nothing but, what is true. For when Solomon says that “love covereth many sins;” whereas “hatred brings reproaches to light,” (166) ( Proverbs 10:12 ;) he signifies, as a faithful expositor of this precept, that we are only free from falsehood when the reputation of our neighbors suffers no damage from us; for, if the indulgence of evil-speaking violates charity, it is opposed to the Law of God. In short, we must conclude that by these words a restraint is laid on all virulence of language which tends to bring disgrace on our brethren; and on all petulance also, whereby their good name suffers injury; and on all detractions, which flow from malice, or envy, and rivalry, or any other improper feeling. We must also go further, and not be suspicious or too curious in observing the defects of others; for such eager inquisitiveness betrays malevolence, or at any rate an evil disposition. For, if love is not suspicious, he who condemns his neighbor either falsely, or upon trifling surmises, or who holds him in light esteem, is undoubtedly a transgressor of this Commandment. Consequently, we must close our ears against false and evil speaking; since he is just as injurious to his brother who eagerly listens to sinister reports respecting him, as he who exercises his tongue in maligning him. The necessity of this instruction let each man estimate by his own disposition; for scarcely one in a hundred will be found who will be as kind in sparing the character of others, as he himself desires to be pardoned for manifest vices; nay, slander is often praised under the pretext of zeal and conscientiousness. Hence it happens that this vice insinuates itself even among the saints, creeping in under the name of virtue. Moreover, the volubility of the tongue causes us to think it a light transgression to inflict a deadly and disgraceful wound on our brother, to whom, nevertheless, his good name is of more importance than his life. The sum is, that we should manifest our charity no less by candor, and by abstaining from slander, than by the performance of other duties. (165) Addition in Fr . , “Or revenons a la substance.” (166) “Hatred stirreth up strifes; but love covereth all sins.” — A . V . The latter clause, in C . ’ s quotation, is probably rather intended to be the necessary converse of the latter part of the proverb than a paraphrastic rendering of the first, which it does not appear that the words will bear. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-17" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-exo-20-011
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
하나님은 여기서 모든 사람의 인격과 좋은 이름을 보호하신다. 어떤 사람도 중상모략과 거짓 고발로 부당하게 억눌리지 않도록 하기 위함이다. 이전 계명들에서 지적한 것과 같은 제유법이 여기서도 있다. 하나님은 한 가지 주제 아래 많은 것을 포함하신다. 말씀에 관해, '에드'는 히브리어로 증인을 의미하므로, 문자 그대로 "이웃에게 거짓 증인으로 대답하지 말라"고 번역할 수 있다. 하나님이 결백한 자를 해치기 위해 법정에 가서 공개적으로 증언하는 것만을 금하시는 것처럼 보이지만, 신자들이 모든 거짓 고발에서 금지되었음이 분명하다. 법정에서의 것뿐만 아니라 거리에서 퍼지는 것과 집과 비밀 장소에서 일어나는 것도 마찬가지다. 하나님이 이미 인간의 재물을 돌보신다고 보여주셨는데, 그보다 훨씬 더 귀한 그들의 명성을 무시하신다는 것은 불합리할 것이기 때문이다.
따라서 우리가 부당하게 이웃을 비방함으로써 해를 끼치는 방식은 무엇이든, 하나님 앞에서 거짓 증인으로 여겨진다. 이제 금지에서 긍정적 명령으로 넘어가야 한다. 악한 말을 자제하는 것만으로는 충분하지 않기 때문이다. 이웃에게 친절하고 공평하며, 그들의 행동과 말을 호의로 해석하는 사람이 되어야 하며, 그들이 거짓 비방으로 부당하게 짐을 지는 한 우리가 막아야 한다. 또한 하나님은 결백한 자에게 고발을 꾸며내는 것만 금하시는 것이 아니라, 악의나 증오로 비난과 불쾌한 보고를 퍼뜨리는 것도 금하신다. 그런 사람이 어쩌면 나쁜 평판을 받아 마땅할 수도 있고, 이런저런 고발을 그에게 제기할 수 있을 것이다. 그러나 비난이 분노의 열기에서 나왔거나 고발이 악의에서 비롯되었다면, 우리가 진실 외에는 아무것도 말하지 않았다고 변명하는 것은 헛수고다.
요점은 형제의 명예에 해를 끼치는 경향이 있는 모든 독설, 그들의 좋은 이름을 손상시키는 경향이 있는 모든 방자함, 그리고 악의나 질투와 경쟁심이나 그 밖의 부적절한 감정에서 흘러나오는 모든 험담이 이 말씀으로 억제된다는 것이다. 또한 다른 사람들의 결점을 관찰하는 데 너무 의심스럽거나 호기심 있지 않아야 한다. 그런 지나친 호기심은 악의나 적어도 나쁜 성향을 드러내기 때문이다. 따라서 이 계명의 필요성을 각자 자신의 성향으로 평가하게 하라. 자신이 명백한 악덕으로 용서받기를 바라는 것처럼 다른 이들의 인격을 아끼는 데 親切한 사람은 백 명 중에 하나도 찾기 어려울 것이다. 아니, 경우에 따라 열심과 양심이라는 구실로 험담이 칭찬받기도 한다. 따라서 이 악덕이 성인들 사이에서도 덕의 이름으로 스며드는 것이다. 더욱이 혀의 변덕스러움은 우리가 형제에게 치명적이고 수치스러운 상처를 입히는 것을 가벼운 죄로 여기게 만들지만, 그럼에도 그에게 좋은 이름이 생명보다 더 소중하다. 요점은 우리가 자선을 다른 의무들을 수행함으로써뿐만 아니라, 솔직함과 중상으로부터의 자제로도 나타내야 한다는 것이다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-exo-20-16-16(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
17절 카드 ↗
Exodus 20:17 . Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife . There is no question but that this Commandment extends also to those that have preceded it. God had already sufficiently forbidden us to set our hearts on the property of others, to attempt the seduction of their wives, or to seek for gain at another’s loss and inconvenience. Now whilst He enumerates oxen and asses, and all other things as well as their wives and servants, it is very clear that His precept is directed to the same things, but in a different way, viz., in order to restrain all ungodly desires either of fornication or theft. The question, however, occurs, — since it has been said before that, agreeably to the nature of the Lawgiver, the inward purity of the heart is everywhere required, and therefore, that under the head of adultery, not only are all filthy acts prohibited, but secret unchastity also; and under the head of theft, all unlawful appetite for gain, — why does God now forbid in His people the lust for theft and fornication? For it seems to be a superfluous repetition which would be very absurd in ten short precepts, wherein God has embraced the whole rule of life, so that their very brevity might render it, easy, and the better attract their readers to learn them. Still, on the other hand, it must be remembered that, although it was God’s design, by the whole Law, to arouse men’s feelings to sincere obedience of it, yet such is their hypocrisy and indifference, that it was necessary to stimulate them more sharply, and to press them more closely, lest they should seek for subterfuges under pretense of the obscurity of the doctrine. For if they had only heard, Thou shalt not kill, nor commit fornication, nor steal, they might have supposed that their duty would have been fully performed by mere outward observance. It was not then in vain that God, after having treated of piety and justice, should give a separate admonition, that they were not only to abstain from evil doing, but also, that what He had previously commanded should be performed with the sincere affection of the heart. Hence Paul gathers from this Commandment, that the whole “Law is spiritual,” ( Romans 7:7 and 14,) because God, by His condemnation of lust, sufficiently shewed that He not only imposed obedience on our hands and feet, but also put restraint upon our minds, lest they should desire to do what is unlawful. Paul confesses, too, that whereas he before slept in easy self-deceit, he was awakened by this single word; for since he was blameless in the eyes of men, he was persuaded that he was righteous before God: He says that he was once alive, as if the Law were absent or dead, because, being puffed up with confidence in his righteousness, he expected salvation by his works; but, when he perceived what the Commandment, Thou shalt not covet, meant, the dead Law was raised as it were to life, and he died, i e . , he was convinced he was a transgressor, and saw the sure curse overhanging him. Nor did he perceive himself to be guilty of one or two sins, but then, at length, he was shaken out of his torpor, when he recognized that all the evil desires, of which he was conscious, must be accounted for before God, whereas he had before been satisfied with the mere outward appearance of virtue. We now perceive, therefore, that there is nothing inappropriate in the general condemnation of concupiscence by a distinct commandment; for after God has broadly and popularly laid down rules for moral integrity, at length He ascends to the fountain itself, and at the same time points out with His finger, as it were, the root from which all evil and corrupt fruits spring forth. It must here be added that something more is expressed by the words coveting and wishing for, or desiring, than a desiderium formatum , as it is commonly called; for the flesh often tempts us to wish for this or that, so that the evil concupiscence betrays itself, although consent may not yet be added. Since, therefore, the sin (171) of the will had been already condemned, God now proceeds further, and puts a restraint upon evil desires before they prevail. (172) James points out these progressive steps, where he says that lust conceives before it begets sin; and then “sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death,” ( James 1:15 ,) for the begetting of which he speaks, is not only in the external act but in the will itself, before it has assented to the temptation. I admit, indeed, that the corrupt thoughts which arise spontaneously, and so also vanish before they affect the mind, do not come into account before God; yet, although we do not actually acquiesce in the evil desire, still, if it affects us pleasantly, it is sufficient to render us guilty. In order that this may be understood better, all temptations are, as it were, so many fans; if they hurry us on into consent, the fire is lighted; but, if they only awaken the heart to corrupt desires, concupiscence betrays itself in these sparks, although it neither acquires its full warmth nor breaks forth into a flame. Concupiscence, therefore, is never without desire ( affectu ,) although the will may not altogether yield. Hence it appears what entire perfection of righteousness we must bring in order to satisfy the Law, since not only are we commanded not to will anything, except what is right and pleasing to God, but also that no impure desire should affect our hearts. Nor would Paul have laid such great stress upon this precept if the Law condemned no concupiscence except that which takes such hold on the mind of man as to exercise dominion over it; for the sin of the will must ever be condemned even by heathen philosophers, nay, and by earthly legislators also; but he says that the Law, by resisting concupiscence, makes sin to “become exceeding sinful.” ( Romans 7:13 .) Now, it is not credible that, at the time in which he confesses that he knew not what concupiscence was, he was so senseless and stupid as to think no harm
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-exo-20-012
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
네 이웃의 아내를 탐내지 말라. 이 계명이 앞선 계명들로도 확장됨에는 의심이 없다. 하나님은 다른 사람의 재산에 마음을 두는 것, 그들의 아내를 유혹하려 하는 것, 다른 사람의 손실과 불편으로 이득을 추구하는 것을 이미 충분히 금하셨다. 이제 황소와 나귀와 다른 모든 것들뿐만 아니라 아내와 종들도 열거하심으로써, 그분의 명령이 같은 것들을 향하지만 다른 방식으로 — 즉 음행이나 도둑질의 모든 불경건한 욕망을 억제하기 위해 — 임을 매우 분명하다.
그러나 문제가 생긴다. 입법자의 본성에 따라 내면의 순결이 어디서나 요구되고, 따라서 간음이라는 주제 아래 모든 불결한 행위뿐만 아니라 은밀한 음탕함도 금지되었으며, 도둑질이라는 주제 아래 이득에 대한 모든 불법적인 욕구도 금지되었다면 — 왜 하나님은 이제 자신의 백성 안에서 도둑질과 음행에 대한 정욕을 금하시는가? 십 개의 짧은 계명 안에서 — 그것들의 간결함이 배우기 쉽게 하고 독자들을 더 잘 유인하기 위해 — 전체 삶의 규칙을 포괄하셨는데, 그 반복이 매우 불합리해 보이기 때문이다.
그러나 한편으로는 비록 하나님의 의도가 율법 전체를 통해 진정한 순종에 인간의 감정을 일깨우는 것이었지만, 그들의 위선과 태만이 너무 커서 더 예리하게 자극하고 더 바짝 압박하는 것이 필요했음을 기억해야 한다. 만약 그들이 단지 "살인하지 말라, 간음하지 말라, 도둑질하지 말라"만 들었다면, 단순한 외적 준수만으로 의무를 충분히 다했다고 생각했을 것이다. 따라서 하나님이 경건과 공의를 다루신 후, 그들이 악행을 삼가는 것만이 아니라, 자신이 전에 명하신 것을 진심으로 행해야 함을 별도로 권고하신 것은 헛되지 않다. 이로부터 바울이 이 계명에서 "율법이 영적이다"라고 결론짓는다. 왜냐하면 하나님은 정욕을 정죄함으로써, 당신이 우리 손과 발에만 순종을 부과하신 것이 아니라 우리 마음에도 억제를 두셨음을 충분히 보이셨기 때문이다. 즉 그것들이 불법적인 것을 원하지 않도록. 바울은 이전에 쉬운 자기 기만 속에서 잠들었다가, 이 단 하나의 말씀에 의해 깨어났다고 고백하기도 한다. 그는 사람들의 눈에 흠이 없었으므로 하나님 앞에서 의롭다고 설득되었다. 그런데 탐내지 말라는 계명이 무엇을 의미하는지를 지각했을 때, 죽은 율법이 마치 생기를 얻은 것처럼 소생했고, 그는 죽었다. 즉 자신이 범죄자임을 확신하고 확실한 저주가 그 위에 드리워져 있음을 보았다. 그리고 하나, 둘의 죄만 깨달은 것이 아니라, 그때 비로소 자신이 의식하는 모든 악한 욕망들이 하나님 앞에서 책임이 있어야 함을 알았을 때, 자신이 도취되어 있던 상태에서 흔들렸다. 그전에는 단순히 외면적인 덕의 외양에 만족했기 때문이다.
이제 정욕 금지가 별도의 계명으로 일반적인 정죄를 받는 것이 부적절하지 않다는 것을 안다. 하나님은 도덕적 온전함을 위한 규칙을 넓게 그리고 통속적으로 말씀하신 후, 마침내 그 근원으로 올라가시며 동시에 마치 손가락으로 모든 악하고 부패한 열매가 나오는 뿌리를 가리키신다. 또한 '탐내다'와 '바라다' 또는 '원하다'라는 말이, 흔히 말하는 '형성된 욕망'보다 더 많은 것을 표현한다는 것도 여기에 덧붙여야 한다. 육체는 종종 이것저것을 원하도록 우리를 유혹하므로, 악한 탐욕이 드러나지만 아직 동의가 더해지지 않을 수 있다. 따라서 의지의 죄가 이미 정죄되었으므로, 하나님은 더 나아가 악한 욕망들이 우세해지기 전에 억제하신다.
야고보는 이 점진적 단계들을 지적하는데, 그는 정욕이 죄를 낳기 전에 잉태한다고 한다. 그가 말하는 낳음은 외적 행위에서뿐만 아니라 유혹에 동의하기 전 의지 자체에서도 있다. 자연스럽게 일어났다가 마음에 영향을 주기 전에 사라지는 부패한 생각들은 하나님 앞에서 책임을 지지 않는다는 것은 인정한다. 그러나 우리가 실제로 악한 욕망에 동의하지 않더라도, 만약 그것이 우리를 즐겁게 한다면, 그것은 우리를 유죄하게 만들기에 충분하다. 이것이 더 잘 이해되도록, 모든 유혹들은 말하자면 부채꼴과 같다. 만약 그것들이 동의로 우리를 몰아간다면 불이 붙은 것이다. 그러나 단지 마음을 부패한 욕망으로 깨운다면, 비록 완전히 따뜻해지거나 화염으로 타오르지 않더라도 탐욕이 이 불꽃 속에서 드러나는 것이다. 따라서 탐욕은 결코 어떤 애착이나 감정 없이 있지 않지만, 의지가 완전히 굴복하지 않을 수도 있다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-exo-20-17-17(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
24절 카드 ↗
24. An altar of earth thou shalt make. This precept differs from the other, which I have just explained; because although it refers to the choice of a place, (111) yet the mention of a place is omitted, and it only touches upon the material and form of the altar. God, therefore, commands that an altar should be built to Him, either of earth or of a heap of stones, which had not been artificially polished. But I understand this of the altars, which either in the desert or elsewhere should be built, before the choice of the perpetual place had been manifested to them. God would have them built of earth, that they might fall down of themselves, and that no trace of them might remain after the departure of the people; but if stones were used, He forbade their being fitted together in a permanent structure, but would have them thrown rough and unpolished into a heap, lest their appearance should entice posterity to superstition. I am surprised that commentators (112) should here put themselves to the pains of inventing allegories; since God had no other object than to remove stumbling-blocks, whereby the Israelites might be turned away from the sanctuary; for we know how antiquity, and the example of our forefathers, is apt to attract the minds of the vulgar. If anything in the shape of an altar had remained, immediately religious notions would have been associated with it, that, God could nowhere be more solemnly or better worshipped, than in the place already dedicated of old by their fathers. Thus degenerate modes of worship would have sprung up, and the dignity of the sanctuary would have been brought into contempt. Wherefore this evil is anticipated when He forbids altars to be built which might exist for any length of time; and only allows them to be adapted for present use, being made of earth, or of an unfashioned heap of stones. As to “the sacrifices of prosperities,". I have elsewhere stated why I so translate the word שלומים , shelumim, (113) which signifies all prosperous and happy results; for the rendering of others, viz., peaceful things, ( pacifica ) , is very unsuitable. The latter part of the verse, “ in all places, where I record my name, I will come unto thee, ” has been ignorantly perverted by commentators, and hence has afforded a ground of error; for they have read it in connection with the former part, as if God had forbidden such an altar to be made in Mount Sion also; whereas He rather anticipates a doubt, which might have otherwise perplexed the minds of the people; Will not God be favorable to us where He heard the prayers of our fathers? He replies, I say, to this by the promise, that they will pray to Him well and duly, if they only obey His command, and seek no other place except that which He shall choose. On this score it is said, that wheresoever it shall please God that sacrifices should be offered, there He will descend to you, to be favorable unto you. (111) “ D’autant qu’il ne traitte pas expressement du lieu mais de la matiere, et forme de l’autel ;” because it does not treat expressly of the place, but of the matter and form of the altar. — Fr . (112) In the Gloss. Ord , there is an exposition from Gregory, that “to make an altar of earth is to found our hopes upon the Incarnation of Christ; for our offering is then accepted by God, when our humility bases our works upon faith in the incarnation of our Lord;” and from Isidore, that “ hewn stones are those who break the unity of the Church, and sever themselves from the society of their brethren. These Christ does not receive into His body, which the construction of the altar represents," etc. (113) שלמיך A.V., peace-offerings. C. says rightly that the word שלומים comprehends every kind of prosperity and happy result; but the word in the text is the pl. of שלם . — W. See Note on Numbers 10:10 , ante, p. 105. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-26" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-exo-20-014
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
흙으로 제단을 만들라. 이 명령은 방금 설명한 것과 다르다. 장소의 선택에 관계하지만, 장소에 대한 언급은 없고 제단의 재료와 형태에 대해서만 다룬다. 하나님은 제단이 흙이나 인공적으로 다듬지 않은 돌 무더기로 만들어져야 한다고 명하신다. 나는 이것이 광야에서나 영원한 장소의 선택이 그들에게 드러나기 전 어딘가에 세워질 제단들에 대한 것이라고 이해한다. 하나님은 그것들이 흙으로 만들어지기를 원하셨는데, 그것들이 저절로 무너지고 백성이 떠난 후에는 그 흔적이 남지 않도록 하기 위해서다. 돌이 사용된다면 영구적인 구조로 함께 맞추는 것이 금지되었고, 미래 세대를 미신으로 유혹할 수 있도록 거칠고 가공되지 않은 돌들을 그냥 쌓아올려야 했다.
주석가들이 여기서 우화를 만드는 수고를 한다는 것이 놀랍다. 하나님의 다른 목적은 없었다. 즉 이스라엘 백성이 성소에서 돌이키게 할 걸림돌들을 제거하는 것이었다. 우리는 고대와 조상의 예가 일반 대중의 마음을 끌어당기는 경향이 있다는 것을 알고 있기 때문이다. 제단의 모양이 남아있다면, 즉시 종교적 개념들이 그것과 연관될 것이다. 즉 하나님이 이전에 조상들에 의해 봉헌된 장소보다 더 엄숙히 또는 더 잘 예배받을 수 없다는 것이다. 이렇게 타락한 예배 방식이 생겨나고 성소의 존엄성이 경멸에 빠질 것이다. 따라서 오래 존재할 수 있는 제단을 세우는 것을 금하심으로써 이 악이 예방된다. 다만 흙이나 다듬지 않은 돌 무더기로 현재 용도를 위해 만들어진 것만 허용하신다.
"번영의 제사"에 관해, 나는 히브리어 '셸루밈'을 이렇게 번역한 이유를 다른 곳에서 말했다. 이 단어는 모든 번성하고 행복한 결과를 의미하기 때문이다.
"내가 내 이름을 기념하게 하는 모든 곳에서 네게로 나아가 복을 주리라"는 후반부가 주석가들에 의해 잘못 왜곡되어 오류의 근거가 되었다. 그들은 이것을 앞 부분과 연결하여 읽었는데, 마치 하나님이 시온산에서도 그런 제단을 만드는 것을 금하신 것처럼 했다. 그러나 그분은 오히려 사람들의 마음을 괴롭혔을 의심을 미리 막으신다. "하나님이 우리 조상의 기도를 들으신 곳에서 우리에게 호의를 베풀지 않으실 것인가?" 나는 하나님이 이에 대해 다음 약속으로 대답하신다고 한다. 즉 그들이 그분의 명령에 순종하고 그분이 선택하실 장소 외에 다른 곳을 구하지 않는다면, 그들은 그분에게 잘 그리고 합당하게 기도할 것이라는 것이다. 이런 이유로 하나님이 제사를 드리는 것을 기뻐하시는 곳은 어디서나 그분이 그들에게로 내려오사 그들에게 은혜를 베푸실 것이라고 한다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-exo-20-24-24(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
26절 카드 ↗
26. Neither shalt thou go up. When God had prescribed modesty to the priests in their whole life, and in their private actions, no wonder that He should require especial care of decency and propriety in the performance of their sacred duties. He had indeed already desired that the priests should wear drawers or breeches when they went into the sanctuary; yet not content with this symbol of purity, He forbids them to ascend the altar by steps, lest haply the drawers themselves should be seen; since the dignity and sanctity of sacred things would thus be impaired. By all means, therefore, He would induce the Israelites to conduct themselves most purely and most chastely in the exercises of religion. return to ' Top of Page ' Exodus Exo 19 Exodus Exo Exodus Exo 21 Footnotes: Copyright Statement These files are public domain. Bibliographical Information Calvin, John. "Commentary on Exodus 20". "Calvin's Commentary on the Bible". https://www.studylight.org/ commentaries/ eng/ cal/ exodus-20.html. 1840-57. terms of use • privacy policy • • rights and permissions • contact sl • about sl • link to sl To report dead links, typos, or html errors or suggestions about making these resources more useful use the convenient contact form StudyLight.org © 2001-2026 Powered by Light speed Technology Ads Free Profile .sub-menu{font-size:12px;padding:10px 0;max-width:1260px;width:100%;background-color:#f7f7f7;color:#6b6b6b;border-bottom:5px solid #6b6b6b;display:flex;flex-direction:column;flex-wrap:nowrap;position:absolute;z-index:9998} .sub-menu .menu-group{width:100%;margin:0 5px 0;padding:0 5px 0;border-right:1px solid #6b6b6b} .sub-menu .menu-group-spacer{display:none} .sub-menu .menu-name{font-size:15px;font-weight:bold;color:#deac27} .sub-menu .menu-name a{color:#deac27} .sub-menu .menu-ul li a{color:#6b6b6b;} .sub-menu .menu-ul li:hover{color:#DD8000} .search-button{background-color:#6b6b6b;color:#fff;border:1px solid #6b6b6b;-webkit-appearance:square-button;padding:0 5px;font-size:13px} .int-search-div{display:flex;flex-direction:row;margin-top:10px;flex-wrap:nowrap;width:100%} .int-search-div .int-s-query{border:1px solid #dadada;font-size:13px;padding:0 5px 0;margin-right:5px;width:30%;height:30px;flex:1 1 100%} .int-search-div .int-s-button{width:50px;margin-right:10px;height:30px;flex:0 0 50px} .int-selections-div{display:flex;flex-direction:row;flex-wrap:nowrap;width:100%;margin-bottom:20px} .int-selections-div .int-s-section{border:1px solid #dadada;color:#6b6b6b;font-size:13px;margin:5px 5px 0 0;width:70px;height:30px;flex:1 1 50%} .int-selections-div .int-s-translation{border:1px solid #dadada;color:#6b6b6b;font-size:13px;margin-top:5px;padding:2px;width:40%;height:30px;flex:1 1 40%} .lex-search-div{display:flex;flex-direction:row;flex-wrap:nowrap;width:100%} .lex-search-div .lex-s-query{border:1px solid #dadada;width:95%;height:30px;font-size:13px;padding:5px;margin-right:5px} .lex-search-div .lex-s-range{border:1px solid #dadada;color:#6b6b6b;height:30px;font-size:13px;margin-right:5px;width:100px} .lex-search-languages{width:95%;font-size:11px;display:flex;flex-direction:row;flex-wrap:nowrap;justify-content:flex-start;margin-top:5px} .ill-quo-div{display:flex;flex-direction:row;flex-wrap:wrap;width:100%;margin-top:10px} .ill-quo-s-query{font-size:15px;color:#6b6b6b;padding:0 10px 0;border:1px solid #dadada;height:30px;width:100px;margin-right:5px;flex:1 1 auto} .ill-quo-s-select{border:1px solid #dadada;color:#6b6b6b;padding:5px;height:30px;margin-right:5px} .clickable{cursor:pointer} ia, qa{cursor:pointer;margin:0 4px; line-height:25px} @media only screen and (max-width: 899px) { .sub-menu{height:65%;overflow:scroll} .sub-menu .menu-group, .sub-menu .menu-group:first-child{border-right:0} .sub-menu .part2{margin-top:-24px} .sub-menu .menu-group .menu-ul{width:100%;display:flex;flex-direction:row;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:flex-start} .sub-menu .menu-group .menu-ul li{list-style:disc;list-style-position:outside;padding:0 15px 5px 0;flex-grow:0;flex-basis:50%} } @media only screen and (min-width: 900px) { .sub-menu{flex-direction:row;flex-wrap:nowrap;justify-content:space-between} .sub-menu .part2{padding-top:18px;margin-top:0} .sub-menu .menu-group:last-child{border-right:0} .sub-menu .menu-group-spacer {border-right:1px solid #6b6b6b;padding:5px 0} .sub-menu .menu-ul{width:100%} .sub-menu .menu-ul li{list-style:disc;list-style-position:outside;padding:0 15px 5px 0} .lex-search-div{width:95%} .lex-search-div .lex-s-range{width:70px} } Bible Commentaries (144) Verse‑by‑Verse Commentary Burton Coffman Commentaries Adam Clarke Commentary Albert Barnes' Notes John Gill's Exposition Complete List of 144 Bible Concordances (6) Thompson Chain Reference Nave's Topical Bible The Topical Concordances Torrey's Topical Textbook Scofield Reference Index Treasury of Scripture Knowledge Bible Dictionaries (26) Vine's Expository Dictionary Holman Bible Dictionary Baker's Evangelical Dictionary King James Dictionary Smith's Bible Dictionary Complete List of 26 Bible Encyclopedias (7) Int Standard Bible Encyclopedia The Nuttall Encyclopedia The 1901 Jewish Encylopedia The Catholic Encyclopedia Kitto's Bible Cyclopedia Complete List of 7 Interlinear Study Bible Hebrew Old Testament Greek Old and New Testament Strong's Interlinear Search Whole Bible ---------------- Old Testament New Testament ---------------- Books of Law Books of History Books of Wisdom Major Prophets Minor Prophets The Gospels Pauline Epistles General Epistles Apocalyptic Books NASB KJV HCS ESV BSB WEB Bible Lexicons (3) Old Testament/ New Testament Greek Old Testament Hebrew New Testament Aramaic Translated As Begins With Containing Ends With Exact matching Greek Hebrew Aramaic Original Language Studies (4) Bill Klein's "Greek Thoughts" Charles Loder's "Hebrew Thoughts" Benjamin Shaw's "Aramaic Thoughts" KJ Went's "Difficult Sayings" Additional Lexical Resources Berry's NT Synonyms Girdlestone's OT Synonyms Trench's NT Synonyms Gesen
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-exo-20-014
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
너는 계단으로 내 제단에 올라가지 말라. 하나님은 사제들에게 자신들의 전 삶과 사적인 행동에서 겸손을 요구하셨으므로, 그들의 신성한 의무를 수행할 때 단정함과 예의 바름을 특별히 요구하신 것은 당연하다. 그분은 이미 제사장들이 성소에 들어갈 때 속바지나 반바지를 입어야 한다고 하셨지만, 이 순결의 표징만으로는 충분하지 않으시고 계단으로 제단에 오르는 것을 금하신다. 계단 자체가 혹시 보이게 될까 두렵기 때문이다. 그리하여 모든 수단을 다하여 이스라엘 백성이 종교 훈련에서 가장 순결하고 가장 단정하게 행하도록 이끄셨다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-exo-20-26-26(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역