1절 카드 ↗
1. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished (100) Moses summarily repeats that in six days the fabric of the heaven and the earth was completed. The general division of the world is made into these two parts, as has been stated at the commencement of the first chapter. But he now adds, all the host of them, by which he signifies that the world was furnished with all its garniture. This epilogue, moreover, with sufficient clearness entirely refutes the error of those who imagine that the world was formed in a moment; for it declares that all end was only at length put to the work on the sixth day. Instead of host we might not improperly render the term abundance ; (101) for Moses declares that this world was in every sense completed, as if the whole house were well supplied and filled with its furniture. The heavens without the sun, and moon, and stars, would be an empty and dismantled palace: if the earth were destitute of animals, trees, and plants, that barren waste would have the appearance of a poor and deserted house. God, therefore, did not cease from the work of the creation of the world till he had completed it in every part, so that nothing should be wanting to its suitable abundance. (100) The three verses at the commencement of this chapter evidently belong to the first, being a summing up of the preceding history of the creation, and an account of the sabbatical institution on the seventh day. The remark of Dathe is, “ Male capita hoc loco sunt divisa. Tres versus priores ad primum caput sunt referendi .” — Ed . (101) “ Copiam ,” a questionable rendering, surely of the word צבאם . The Septuagint gives the word κόσμος , and the Vulgate, ornatus ; the meaning of both words is “ornaments,” or garniture. The other versions in Walton translate it exercitus, host or army. Fagius, in Poli Synopsi, seems the chief maintainer of Calvin’s interpretation. The words of Poole are, “ Alii, virtus, copia eorum, quia eis declarat Deus (sicutrex copiis suis,) potentiam et sapientiam .” — Ed return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-2" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-gen-2-001
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
모세는 여기서 하늘과 땅의 구조물이 엿새 만에 완성되었다는 사실을 간략하게 되풀이한다. 세상은 첫 번째 장 서두에서 이미 언급했듯이 이 두 부분으로 크게 나뉜다. 그러나 모세는 이제 "그 모든 군대"를 덧붙임으로써, 세상이 그 모든 장식으로 갖추어졌음을 나타낸다. 나아가 이 결어는, 세상이 한순간에 만들어졌다고 상상하는 자들의 오류를 충분히 반박한다. 모든 일에 끝이 난 것은 오직 엿샛날에 이르러서였기 때문이다. "군대" 대신 "충만함"으로 번역해도 무방할 것이다. 모세는 이 세상이 모든 면에서 완성되었음을, 마치 온 집안이 가구로 넉넉히 채워진 것처럼, 선언하기 때문이다. 해와 달과 별이 없는 하늘은 텅 비고 황량한 궁전에 불과하다. 동물과 나무와 식물이 없는 땅은 가난하고 버려진 집처럼 보일 것이다. 그러므로 하나님께서는 세상의 창조 사역을, 그것이 모든 부분에서 완성되어 마땅한 충만함에 아무것도 부족함이 없을 때까지, 멈추지 않으셨다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-gen-2-1-1(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
2절 카드 ↗
2. And he rested on the seventh day The question may not improperly be put, what kind of rest this was. For it is certain that inasmuch as God sustains the world by his power, governs it by his providence, cherishes and even propagates all creatures, he is constantly at work. Therefore that saying of Christ is true, that the Father and he himself had worked from the beginning hitherto, (102) because, if God should but withdraw his hand a little, all things would immediately perish and dissolve into nothing, as is declared in Psalms 104:29 (103) And indeed God is rightly acknowledged as the Creator of heaven and earth only whilst their perpetual preservation is ascribed to him. (104) The solution of the difficulty is well known, that God ceased from all his work, when he desisted from the creation of new kinds of things. But to make the sense clearer, understand that the last touch of God had been put, in order that nothing might be wanting to the perfection of the world. And this is the meaning of the words of Moses, From all his work which he had made ; for he points out the actual state of the work as God would have it to be, as if he had said, then was completed what God had proposed to himself. On the whole, this language is intended merely to express the perfection of the fabric of the world; and therefore we must not infer that God so ceased from his works as to desert them, since they only flourish and subsist in him. Besides, it is to be observed, that in the works of the six days, those things alone are comprehended which tend to the lawful and genuine adorning of the world. It is subsequently that we shall find God saying, Let the earth bring forth thorns and briers, by which he intimates that the appearance of the earth should be different from what it had been in the beginning. But the explanation is at hand; many things which are now seen in the world are rather corruptions of it than any part of its proper furniture. For ever since man declined from his high original, it became necessary that the world should gradually degenerate from its nature. We must come to this conclusion respecting the existence of fleas, caterpillars, and other noxious insects. In all these, I say, there is some deformity of the world, which ought by no means to be regarded as in the order of nature, since it proceeds rather from the sin of man than from the hand of God. Truly these things were created by God, but by God as an avenger. In this place, however, Moses is not considering God as armed for the punishment of the sins of men; but as the Artificer, the Architect, the bountiful Father of a family, who has omitted nothing essential to the perfection of his edifice. At the present time, when we look upon the world corrupted, and as if degenerated from its original creation, let that expression of Paul recur to our mind, that the creature is liable to vanity, not willingly, but through our fault, ( Romans 8:20 ,) and thus let us mourn, being admonished of our just condemnation. (102) John 5:17 . This sentence is omitted in Tymme’s English version. — Ed . (103) “Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled; thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.” (104) The word translated preservation is vegetationem , which means an enlivening or a quickening motion; to explain this the Old English translation here adds, though without authority, “According to this saying of the apostle, In him we live, and move, and have our being.” — Ed . return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-3" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-gen-2-001
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
하나님께서 일곱째 날에 안식하셨다는 말씀에서, 이 안식이 어떤 종류의 것인지 질문이 제기될 수 있다. 하나님께서 자신의 능력으로 세상을 붙드시고, 섭리로 다스리시며, 모든 피조물을 보살피고 번성하게 하시므로, 그분은 끊임없이 일하신다는 것은 분명하다. 그러므로 그리스도의 말씀, 곧 아버지와 자신이 처음부터 지금까지 일하여 오셨다는 말씀은 참되다. 만약 하나님께서 자신의 손을 조금이라도 거두신다면 만물은 즉시 소멸하여 무로 돌아갈 것이기 때문이다(시 104:29). 사실 하나님께서는 하늘과 땅의 영원한 보존이 그분께 귀속될 때에만 마땅히 창조주로 인정받으신다. 이 어려움에 대한 해결책은 잘 알려져 있다. 하나님께서는 새로운 종류의 것들을 창조하는 일을 그치셨을 때 모든 일을 그치신 것이다. 그러나 의미를 더 명확히 하기 위해, 세상의 완전함에 아무것도 부족함이 없도록 하나님의 마지막 손길이 더해졌다는 사실을 이해하라. 이것이 모세의 말씀, 곧 "하나님이 만드신 그 모든 일"의 의미다. 그는 하나님께서 원하셨던 대로의 그 사역의 실제 상태를 가리키는 것이니, 마치 이렇게 말하는 것과 같다. "그때에 하나님께서 자신에게 제안하셨던 것이 완성되었다."
전반적으로 이 표현은 단지 세상 구조물의 완전함을 나타내기 위한 것이다. 그러므로 우리는 하나님께서 자신의 사역을 버리실 정도로 그 일을 그치셨다고 추론해서는 안 된다. 만물은 오직 하나님 안에서 번성하고 존재하기 때문이다. 또한 엿새의 사역 안에는 오직 세상을 합법적이고 진정으로 아름답게 하는 것들만 포함되어 있음을 유의해야 한다. 하나님께서 "땅은 가시덤불과 엉겅퀴를 내라"고 말씀하시는 것은 이후의 일이니, 이로써 그분은 땅의 모습이 처음과는 달라질 것임을 암시하신다. 그러나 해명은 이미 주어져 있다. 오늘날 세상에서 보이는 많은 것들은 세상의 적절한 장식의 일부라기보다는 오히려 그 타락이다. 인간이 자신의 고귀한 기원에서 떠난 이후로 세상도 점차 그 본성에서 타락하지 않을 수 없게 되었다. 벼룩과 애벌레와 그 밖의 해로운 곤충들의 존재에 대해서도 이 결론에 이르러야 한다. 이것들 모두에는 세상의 일종의 흠이 있으며, 이는 결코 자연의 질서에 속하는 것으로 여겨서는 안 된다. 왜냐하면 이것들은 하나님의 손보다는 인간의 죄에서 비롯되었기 때문이다. 참으로 이것들은 하나님께서 창조하셨지만, 심판자로서의 하나님께서 창조하신 것이다. 그러나 이 본문에서 모세는 인간의 죄에 대한 형벌로 무장하신 하나님을 생각하는 것이 아니라, 자신의 건물의 완성에 필수적인 어떤 것도 빠뜨리지 않으신 장인이자 건축가이자 너그러운 가장(家長)으로서의 하나님을 생각하고 있다. 오늘날 우리가 타락하고 처음 창조로부터 퇴보한 것처럼 보이는 세상을 바라볼 때, 바울의 말씀, 곧 피조물이 우리의 잘못으로 인해 자의가 아니라 허무한 데 굴복하였다는 말씀(롬 8:20)이 마음에 떠올라야 한다. 그리하여 우리는 마땅한 정죄를 상기하며 슬퍼해야 한다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-gen-2-2-2(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
3절 카드 ↗
3. And God blessed the seventh day It appears that God is here said to bless according to the manner of men, because they bless him whom they highly extol. Nevertheless, even in this sense, it would not be unsuitable to the character of God; because his blessing sometimes means the favor which he bestows upon his people, as the Hebrews call that man the blessed of God, who, by a certain special favor, has power with God. (See Genesis 24:31 .) Enter thou blessed of God. Thus we may be allowed to describe the day as blessed by him which he has embraced with love, to the end that the excellence and dignity of his works may therein be celebrated. Yet I have no doubt that Moses, by adding the word sanctified, wished immediately to explain what he had said, and thus all ambiguity is removed, because the second word is exegetical of the former. For קדש ( kadesh ,) with the Hebrews, is to separate from the common number. God therefore sanctifies the seventh day, when he renders it illustrious, that by a special law it may be distinguished from the rest. Whence it also appears, that God always had respect to the welfare of men. I have said above, that six days were employed in the formation of the world; not that God, to whom one moment is as a thousand years, had need of this succession of time, but that he might engage us in the consideration of his works. He had the same end in view in the appointment of his own rest , for he set apart a day selected out of the remainder for this special use. Wherefore, that benediction is nothing else than a solemn consecration, by which God claims for himself the meditations and employments of men on the seventh day. This is, indeed, the proper business of the whole life, in which men should daily exercise themselves, to consider the infinite goodness, justice, power, and wisdom of God, in this magnificent theater of heaven and earth. But, lest men should prove less sedulously attentive to it than they ought, every seventh day has been especially selected for the purpose of supplying what was wanting in daily meditation. First, therefore, God rested; then he blessed this rest, that in all ages it might be held sacred among men: or he dedicated every seventh day to rest, that his own example might be a perpetual rule. The design of the institution must be always kept in memory: for God did not command men simply to keep holiday every seventh day, as if he delighted in their indolence; but rather that they, being released from all other business, might the more readily apply their minds to the Creator of the world. Lastly, that is a sacred rest, (105) which withdraws men from the impediments of the world, that it may dedicate them entirely to God. But now, since men are so backward to celebrate the justice, wisdom, and power of God, and to consider his benefits, that even when they are most faithfully admonished they still remain torpid, no slight stimulus is given by God’s own example, and the very precept itself is thereby rendered amiable. For God cannot either more gently allure, or more effectually incite us to obedience, than by inviting and exhorting us to the imitation of himself. Besides, we must know, that this is to be the common employment not of one age or people only, but of the whole human race. Afterwards, in the Law, a new precept concerning the Sabbath was given, which should be peculiar to the Jews, and but for a season; because it was a legal ceremony shadowing forth a spiritual rest, the truth of which was manifested in Christ. Therefore the Lord the more frequently testifies that he had given, in the Sabbath, a symbol of sanctification to his ancient people. (106) Therefore when we hear that the Sabbath was abrogated by the coming of Christ, we must distinguish between what belongs to the perpetual government of human life, and what properly belongs to ancient figures, the use of which was abolished when the truth was fulfilled. Spiritual rest is the mortification of the flesh; so that the sons of God should no longer live unto themselves, or indulge their own inclination. So far as the Sabbath was a figure of this rest, I say, it was but for a season; but inasmuch as it was commanded to men from the beginning that they might employ themselves in the worship of God, it is right that it should continue to the end of the world. Which God created and made (107) Here the Jews, in their usual method, foolishly trifle, saying, that God being anticipated in his work by the last evening, left certain animals imperfect, of which kind are fauns and satyrs, as though he had been one of the ordinary class of artifices who have need of time. Ravings so monstrous prove the authors of them to have been delivered over to a reprobate mind, as a dreadful example of the wrath of God. As to the meaning of Moses, some take it thus: that God created his Works in order to make them, inasmuch as from the time he gave them being, he did not withdraw his hand from their preservation. But this exposition is harsh. Nor do I more willingly subscribe to the opinion of those who refer the word make to man, whom God placed over his works, that he might apply them to use, and in a certain sense perfect them by his industry. I rather think that the perfect form of God’s works is here noted; as if he had said God so created his works that nothing should be wanting to their perfection; or the creation has proceeded to sucks a point, that the work is in all respects perfect. (105) Both in the Amsterdam edition of 1761,a nd Hengstenberg’s, the word is vocatio ; but as the French translation gives reste , and the Old English one rest, there can be little doubt that the original word was vacatio , as the sense of the passage seems to require. — Ed . (106) “ Sanctificationis symbolum .” — “A symbol or sign of santification;” that is, a sign that God had set them apart as a holy and peculiar people to himself. “Moreover, also, I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-gen-2-001
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
하나님께서 일곱째 날을 복되다 하셨다는 말씀에서, 여기서 하나님께서 사람의 방식에 따라 복을 베푸신다고 말씀한다는 것이 드러난다. 사람들은 크게 칭송하는 자를 축복하기 때문이다. 그렇더라도 이 의미가 하나님의 성품에 어울리지 않는 것은 아니다. 그분의 복은 때로 그분이 자기 백성에게 베푸시는 은혜를 의미하기 때문이다. 히브리인들은 어떤 특별한 은혜로 하나님과 함께할 능력을 가진 사람을 "하나님의 복을 받은 자"라고 부른다. 이처럼 우리는 하나님께서 그분의 사역의 탁월함과 존귀함이 그 안에서 찬양받도록 하기 위해 사랑으로 품으신 날을 복된 날로 표현해도 된다. 그러나 모세가 "거룩하게 하셨다"는 말을 덧붙임으로써, 앞서 한 말을 즉시 설명하려 했음을 나는 의심하지 않는다. 이로써 모든 모호함이 제거된다. 두 번째 말이 앞의 말에 대한 주해이기 때문이다. 히브리어에서 "카다쉬"는 보통의 수에서 구별함을 의미한다. 그러므로 하나님께서 일곱째 날을 거룩하게 하신다는 것은, 그것을 빛나게 하여 특별한 법에 의해 나머지와 구별되도록 하신다는 것이다.
이로써 하나님께서 항상 사람의 복지를 염두에 두셨음이 드러난다. 나는 앞서 엿새가 세상을 만드는 데 사용되었다고 했다. 하나님께서—그분에게는 천 년이 하루 같으신 분이므로—이 시간의 순서가 필요해서가 아니라, 우리를 그분의 사역을 숙고하는 데 참여하게 하시려는 것이었다. 그분은 자신의 안식을 명하실 때도 같은 목적을 가지고 계셨으니, 그분의 특별한 사용을 위해 나머지 중에서 한 날을 따로 정하셨다. 그러므로 그 복은 다름 아니라 엄숙한 봉헌이며, 이로써 하나님께서는 일곱째 날의 사람들의 묵상과 행위를 자신의 것으로 주장하신다. 이것은 참으로 온 삶의 본업이니, 사람들은 매일 이 일에 힘써야 한다. 곧 이 장엄한 하늘과 땅의 극장에서 하나님의 무한한 선하심과 의로움과 능력과 지혜를 묵상하는 일이다. 그러나 사람들이 마땅히 그래야 하는 것보다 덜 부지런히 이 일에 주의를 기울이지 않도록, 매 일곱째 날이 특별히 선택되어, 매일의 묵상에 부족한 것을 공급하는 데 쓰인다. 그러므로 먼저 하나님께서 안식하시고, 그 다음에 이 안식을 복되다 하시어, 모든 세대에 걸쳐 사람들에게 거룩하게 지켜지도록 하셨다. 또는 그분의 본보기가 영원한 규범이 되도록, 매 일곱째 날을 안식에 헌정하셨다.
이 제도의 목적을 항상 기억해야 한다. 하나님께서 사람들에게 단순히 매 일곱째 날을 쉬라고 명하신 것은, 그들의 게으름을 기뻐하셨기 때문이 아니다. 오히려 모든 다른 일에서 해방되어 더 쉽게 자신들의 마음을 세상의 창조주께 향하도록 하기 위함이었다. 요컨대 그것은 거룩한 안식이니, 사람들을 세상의 장애물에서 끌어내어 전적으로 하나님께 바치는 안식이다. 그러나 사람들이 하나님의 의로움과 지혜와 능력을 찬양하고 그분의 은혜를 묵상하는 일에 매우 게으르므로, 가장 신실하게 권면을 받을 때조차 여전히 무기력하게 있으므로, 하나님 자신의 본보기와 그 계명 자체가 이로써 사랑스럽게 되었으니 작지 않은 자극이 주어진다.
그 후 율법에서 안식일에 관한 새 계명이 주어졌는데, 이는 유대인들에게만 해당하고 한때만 유효한 것이었다. 그것은 영적인 안식을 예표하는 법적 의식이었고, 그 진리는 그리스도 안에서 드러났다. 그러므로 안식일이 그리스도의 오심으로 폐지되었다고 할 때, 우리는 인간 삶의 영원한 통치에 속하는 것과 진리가 성취될 때 그 사용이 폐지된 고대 예표들에 고유하게 속하는 것을 구별해야 한다. 영적 안식은 육신의 죽임이니, 하나님의 자녀들이 더 이상 자신을 위해 살거나 자신의 기호를 따르지 않는 것이다. 안식일이 이 안식의 예표인 한에서, 나는 그것이 한때만 유효했다고 말한다. 그러나 사람들이 하나님을 예배하는 데 자신을 드리도록 처음부터 명령받은 한에서, 그것은 세상 끝까지 계속되어야 한다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-gen-2-3-3(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
4절 카드 ↗
4. These are the generations (108) The design of Moses was deeply to impress upon our minds the origin of the heaven and the earth, which he designates by the word generation . For there have always been ungrateful and malignant men, who, either by feigning, that the world was eternal or by obliterating the memory of the creations would attempt to obscure the glory of God. Thus the devil, by his guile, turns those away from God who are more ingenious and skillful than others in order that each may become a god unto himself. Wherefore, it is not a superfluous repetition which inculcates the necessary fact, that the world existed only from the time when it was created since such knowledge directs us to its Architect and Author. Under the names of heaven and earth, the whole is, by the figure synecdochee , included. Some of the Hebrews thinks that the essential name of God is here at length expressed by Moses, because his majesty shines forth more clearly in the completed world. (109) (108) A new section of the history of Moses commences at this point; and, from the repetition which occurs of some facts — such as the creation of man — which had been recorded in the preceding chapter, as well as from certain peculiarities of phraseology, many learned men have inferred, that the early portion of the Mosaic history is older than the time of Moses, and that he, under the infallible direction of the Spirit of God, collected and arranged the several fragments of primeval annals in one consistent narrative. One chief argument on which such a conclusion rests is, that from the commencement of the first chapter to the end of the third verse of the second chapter, God is spoken of only under the name of Elohim; from the fourth verse of the second to the end of the third chapter, he is uniformly styled Jehovah Elohim; and in the fourth and fifth chapters, the name of Elohim or of Jehovah stands alone. This, it is argued, could scarcely have occurred without some cause; and the inference has been drawn, that different records had different forms of expression, which Moses did not alter, unless truth required him to do so. See Dathe on the Pentateuch, Professor Bush on Genesis, and Robertson’s Clavis Pentateuchi, where reference will be found to Vitringa and others. Against this view, however, Hengstenberg argues with considerable force, in his Dissertation “on the Names of God in the Pentateuch;” and if some of his reasonings in the use of these names seem too refined for the simplicity of the Holy Scriptures, and for the comprehension of those to whom the Scriptures are chiefly addressed, yet we may discover the germ of very important truths, thought they may be, in some degree, hidden beneath a variety of fanciful developments. By a very careful examination of the passages in which the terms אלהים ( Elohim ), יהוה ( Jehovah ), and יהוה אלהים ( Jehovah Elohim ), occur, he thinks he has ascertained a reason for the use of each in its place, so that, with some exceptions, in which he allows that one term might have been exchanged for the other, the sense of the passage absolutely requires the introduction of the very appellation, and no other, which is there employed. Believing that a theory so general cannot, with all the author’s ingenuity and learning, be applied in every case, we may still admit the importance of the distinction he makes, and may readily allow that these names are intended to present the Divine character under different aspects to our view. For instance, we may suppose that Elohim and Jehovah have different meanings, arising from their derivations; but we are not to infer, that, in reading the Scriptures, we must have this diversity, or any diversity at all, in our view, when we meet with these different names of Deity. “These are the generations.” תולדות , ( toledoth ), “ modo origines ejus rei de qua sermo est, modo posteros eorum de quibus agitur, significat. Priori sensu hoc loco sumitur posteriori , cap. 5:1.” “The term signifies, sometimes, the origin of the thing spoken of, sometimes the posterity of those who are mentioned. It is taken here in the former of those senses; and in chap. 5:1, in the latter.” — Dathe (109) The word יהוה , Jehovah , here first occurs, — that most sacred and incommunicable name of Deity, called tetragrammaton, because it consisted of four letters, which the Jews, through reverence or superstition, refuse to pronounce. The principal meaning of the term is self-existence; which is, in truth, necessary existence, as opposed to that which is derived from, or is dependent upon, another. It has been supposed by some that Moses here introduces this title of Deity by anticipation; because, in Exodus 6:3 , God declares that he had not been previously known by the name of Jehovah. But this, as Dathe forcibly reasons, is to increase difficulties rather than to remove them; for the patriarchs, Abraham and Jacob, are represented as using the name; and God himself, in speaking to them, also makes use of it. The true solution of the passage in Exodus seems to be, that God had not made known to the patriarchs the full import of his name, as he was now about to do. An elaborate investigation of the origin and import of the name יהוה ( Jehovah ,) will be found in the work of Hengstenberg, referred to in the preceding note. He begins with putting aside the notion of an Egyptian origin, which has been put forth with much confidence by those who would trace all the religious peculiarities of the Israelites to their connection with Egypt. He then disposes of the fancied Phoenician pedigree of the name, founded upon spurious fragments ascribed to Sanchoniathon; and concludes the negative part of his argument, by showing that the name was not derived from any heathen source whatever. Consequently, it is to be traced to “a Hebrew etymology.” We need not follow him into the discussion on the right pronunciation of the word, and the use of the vowel points belonging to אדנ ,
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-gen-2-002
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
"이것이 내력이라." 모세의 의도는 하늘과 땅의 기원을 우리의 마음에 깊이 새기는 것이었으며, 그는 이를 "내력"이라는 말로 지칭한다. 왜냐하면 세상이 영원하다고 꾸며내거나, 창조의 기억을 지워 하나님의 영광을 가리려는 배은망덕하고 악의적인 사람들이 항상 있어 왔기 때문이다. 이처럼 마귀는 교활함으로 다른 사람들보다 더 영리하고 능숙한 자들을 하나님에게서 돌아서게 하여, 각자가 자기 자신의 신이 되게 한다. 그러므로 필요한 사실—곧 세상은 창조되었을 때부터만 존재했다는 것—을 강조하는 이 반복은 불필요한 것이 아니다. 이러한 지식이 우리를 그 건축가이자 창조자에게로 인도하기 때문이다. 하늘과 땅이라는 이름 아래, 제유법으로 전체가 포함된다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-gen-2-4-4(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
5절 카드 ↗
5. And every plant This verse is connected with the preceding, and must be read in continuation with it; for he annexes the plants and herbs to the earth, as the garment with which the Lord has adorned it, lest its nakedness should appear as a deformity. The noun שיה ( sicah , (110) ) which we translate plant, sometimes signifies trees, as below, ( Genesis 21:15 (111) ) Therefore, some in this place translate it shrub , to which I have no objection. Yet the word plant is not unsuitable; because in the former place, Moses seems to refer to the genus, and here to the species. (112) But although he has before related that the herbs were created on the third day, yet it is not without reason that here again mention is made of them, in order that we may know that they were then produced, preserved, and propagated, in a manner different from that which we perceive at the present day. For herbs and trees are produced from seed; or grafts are taken from another roots or they grow by putting forth shoots: in all this the industry and the hand of man are engaged. But, at that time, the method was different: God clothed the earth, not in the same manner as now, (for there was no seed, no root, no plant, which might germinate,) but each suddenly sprung into existence at the command of God, and by the power of his word. They possessed durable vigor, so that they might stand by the force of their own nature, and not by that quickening influence which is now perceived, not by the help of rain, not by the irrigation or culture of man; but by the vapor with which God watered the earth. For he excludes these two things, the rain whence the earth derives moisture, that it may retain its native sap; and human culture, which is the assistant of nature. When he says, that God had ‘not yet caused it to rain,’ he at the same time intimates that it is God who opens and shuts the cataracts of heaven, and that rain and drought are in his hand. (110) שיח Frutex, stirps ; a shrub — “ cujus pulluli in summa tellure expatiantur ,” — “whose shoots are spread abroad over the surface of the earth.” — Robertson’s Clavis Pentateuch. — Ed (111) “And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs.” — English version. (112) It seems remarkable that Calvin should himself translate the word “ virgultum ,” and then reason, in his commentary, as if he preferred the word “ planta .” — Ed . return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-7" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-gen-2-002
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
"온갖 들의 초목이." 이 절은 앞 절과 연결되며 함께 읽어야 한다. 모세는 식물과 풀을 땅에 붙여 언급하니, 이는 주님께서 땅이 벗겨져 흉하게 보이지 않도록 그것을 아름답게 입힌 의복과 같다. 우리가 "식물"로 번역하는 명사는 때로 나무를 의미하기도 한다. 그러나 "식물"이라는 말도 적합하지 않은 것은 아니다. 앞의 곳에서 모세는 유(類)를 말하는 것으로, 여기서는 종(種)을 말하는 것으로 보이기 때문이다.
모세가 앞서 풀들이 셋째 날에 창조되었다고 이미 이야기했음에도 불구하고, 여기서 다시 그것들이 언급되는 것은 이유가 없지 않다. 우리가 그것들이 오늘날 우리가 보는 방식과는 다른 방식으로 그때에 생산되고 보존되고 번식되었음을 알게 하기 위함이다. 오늘날 풀과 나무는 씨앗에서 자라거나, 다른 뿌리에서 접수를 하거나, 싹을 내밀며 자란다. 이 모든 것에 사람의 수고와 손이 관여한다. 그러나 그때에는 방법이 달랐다. 하나님께서 땅에 옷을 입히셨는데, 지금과 같은 방식으로가 아니라(씨앗도, 뿌리도, 싹틀 식물도 없었으니), 각각이 하나님의 명령과 그 말씀의 능력으로 갑자기 존재하게 되었다. 그것들은 지속적인 활력을 가지고 있어서, 지금 감지되는 것과 같은 생명력에 의해서도 아니고, 비의 도움으로도 아니고, 사람의 물주기나 경작으로도 아니고, 오직 하나님께서 땅을 적시신 수증기에 의해 자신들의 본성의 힘으로 설 수 있었다. 모세는 두 가지, 곧 땅이 그 본래의 수분을 유지하도록 습기를 주는 비와, 자연을 돕는 사람의 경작을 배제한다. 그가 "하나님께서 아직 비를 내리지 않으셨다"고 말할 때, 동시에 하나님께서 하늘의 수문을 열고 닫으시며, 비와 가뭄이 그분의 손에 있음을 암시한다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-gen-2-5-5(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
7절 카드 ↗
7. And the Lord God formed man He now explains what he had before omitted in the creation of man, that his body was taken out of the earth. He had said that he was formed after the image of God. This is incomparably the highest nobility; and, lest men should use it as an occasion of pride, their first origin is placed immediately before them; whence they may learn that this advantage was adventitious; for Moses relates that man had been, in the beginning, dust of the earth. Let foolish men now go and boast of the excellency of their nature! Concerning other animals, it had before been said, Let the earth produce every living creature; (113) but, on the other hand, the body of Adam is formed of clay, and destitute of sense; to the end that no one should exult beyond measure in his flesh. He must be excessively stupid who does not hence learn humility. That which is afterwards added from another quarter, lays us under just so much obligation to God. Nevertheless, he, at the same time, designed to distinguish man by some mark of excellence from brute animals: for these arose out of the earth in a moment; but the peculiar dignity of man is shown in this, that he was gradually formed. For why did not God command him immediately to spring alive out of the earth, unless that, by a special privilege, he might outshine all the creatures which the earth produced? And breathed into his nostrils (114) Whatever the greater part of the ancients might think, I do not hesitate to subscribe to the opinion of those who explain this passage of the animal life of man; and thus I expound what they call the vital spirits by the word breath . Should any one object, that if so, no distinction would be made between man and other living creatures, since here Moses relates only what is common alike to all: I answer, though here mention is made only of the lower faculty of the soul, which imparts breath to the body, and gives it vigor and motion: this does not prevent the human soul from having its proper rank, and therefore it ought to be distinguished from others. (115) Moses first speaks of the breath; he then adds, that a soul was given to man by which he might live, and be endued with sense and motion. Now we know that the powers of the human mind are many and various. Wherefore, there is nothing absurd in supposing that Moses here alludes only to one of them; but omits the intellectual part, of which mention has been made in the first chapter. Three gradations, indeed, are to be noted in the creation of man; that his dead body was formed out of the dust of the earth; that it was endued with a soul, whence it should receive vital motion; and that on this soul God engraved his own image, to which immortality is annexed. Man became a living soul (116) I take נפש ( nepesh ,) for the very essence of the soul: but the epithet living suits only the present place, and does not embrace generally the powers of the soul. For Moses intended nothing more than to explain the animating of the clayey figure, whereby it came to pass that man began to live. Paul makes an antithesis between this living soul and the quickening spirit which Christ confers upon the faithful, ( 1 Corinthians 15:45 ,) for no other purpose than to teach us that the state of man was not perfected in the person of Adam; but it is a peculiar benefit conferred by Christ, that we may be renewed to a life which is celestial , whereas before the fall of Adams man’s life was only earthly, seeing it had no firm and settled constancy. (113) “ Omnem animam viventum ,” — “every living soul.” The word is applied here, and frequently in the Holy Scriptures, to describe only the sensitive and animal life, that by which a created being breathes; and thus distinguishes the animal from the vegetative life. — Ed . (114) “ Inspiraverat in faciem .” (115) “ Non tamen obstare quin gradum suum obtineat anima, ideoque seorsum poni debuerit .” (116) “ Factus est in animam viventem .” return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-8" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-gen-2-002
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
"주 하나님께서 흙으로 사람을 지으셨다." 이제 그분은 사람의 창조에서 앞서 빠뜨린 것, 곧 그의 몸이 흙에서 취해졌다는 것을 설명하신다. 그분은 이미 사람이 하나님의 형상을 따라 지음 받았다고 하셨다. 이것은 비할 데 없이 가장 높은 귀함이다. 그러나 사람들이 이것을 교만의 기회로 삼지 않도록, 그들의 첫 기원이 즉시 그들 앞에 놓인다. 이로써 그들은 이 특권이 외부에서 온 것임을 알 수 있다. 모세는 사람이 처음에 땅의 티끌이었다고 밝힌다. 어리석은 사람들은 이제 가서 자신들 본성의 탁월함을 자랑하라! 다른 동물들에 대해서는 앞서 "땅은 모든 생물을 내라"고 하셨지만, 반면에 아담의 몸은 흙으로 만들어지고 감각이 없다. 누구도 육신 안에서 지나치게 뽐내지 않도록 하기 위함이다. 이로부터 겸손을 배우지 못하는 자는 극히 어리석은 자다.
이후에 다른 근원에서 더해진 것은 우리를 하나님께 그만큼 빚지게 한다. 그럼에도 그분은 동시에 사람을 어떤 탁월함의 표시로 짐승과 구별하려 하셨다. 짐승들은 땅에서 순식간에 생겨났지만, 사람의 특별한 존귀함은 그가 점진적으로 만들어졌다는 데서 나타난다. 왜 하나님께서 그에게 즉시 땅에서 살아 솟아나도록 명하지 않으셨겠는가? 특별한 특권으로 땅이 낸 모든 피조물을 그가 능가하도록 하기 위함이 아닌가?
"그 코에 생기를 불어넣으셨다." 고대인들 대다수가 무엇을 생각했든 간에, 나는 이 구절을 사람의 동물적 생명에 대한 것으로 해석하는 이들의 의견에 주저 없이 동의한다. 이처럼 나는 그들이 생기(vital spirits)라고 부르는 것을 "숨"이라는 말로 해석한다. 혹자는 이렇게 하면 사람과 다른 생물 사이에 아무런 구분이 없다고 반론할 수 있다. 여기서 모세는 모든 생물에게 공통된 것만을 이야기하기 때문이다. 나는 이렇게 답한다. 비록 여기서는 몸에 호흡을 주고 생기와 운동을 부여하는 영혼의 낮은 능력만이 언급되고 있지만, 그렇다고 해서 인간의 영혼이 그 고유한 지위를 갖지 못하게 되지는 않는다. 따라서 그것은 다른 것들과 구별되어야 한다. 모세는 먼저 숨에 대해 말하고, 이어서 사람에게 영혼이 주어져 생명과 감각과 운동을 갖게 되었다고 덧붙인다. 이제 우리는 인간 정신의 능력이 다양하다는 것을 안다. 그러므로 모세가 여기서 그 가운데 하나만 암시하면서 첫 번째 장에서 이미 언급된 지적인 부분은 생략했다고 가정하는 데 아무런 불합리함이 없다.
사람의 창조에서 세 가지 단계가 주목되어야 한다. 곧 그의 죽은 몸이 땅의 흙으로 만들어졌고, 그것이 영혼을 부여받아 생명의 움직임을 갖게 되었으며, 이 영혼에 하나님께서 자신의 형상을 새기셨는데 이에 불멸이 수반된다는 것이다. 사람은 살아있는 영혼이 되었다. 나는 "네페쉬"를 영혼의 바로 그 본질로 이해한다. 그러나 "살아있는"이라는 수식어는 오직 현재의 자리에만 맞는 것으로, 영혼의 능력들을 일반적으로 다 포괄하지는 않는다. 모세가 의도한 것은 흙으로 만든 형상이 생기를 얻어 사람이 살기 시작하게 된 것 이상이 아니기 때문이다. 바울은 이 살아있는 영혼과 그리스도께서 신실한 자들에게 주시는 살려주는 영을 대비시키는데(고전 15:45), 이는 사람의 상태가 아담 안에서 완성되지 않았음을 가르치기 위함이다. 우리가 하늘에 속한 삶으로 새롭게 되는 것은 그리스도께서 베푸시는 특별한 은혜다. 아담의 타락 이전에 사람의 삶은 오직 땅에 속한 것으로, 굳고 안정된 영속성이 없었기 때문이다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-gen-2-7-7(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
8절 카드 ↗
8. And the Lord God planted (117) Moses now adds the condition and rule of living which were given to man. And, first, he narrates in what part of the world he was placed, and what a happy and pleasant habitation was allotted to him. Moses says, that God had planted accommodating himself, by a simple and uncultivated style, to the capacity of the vulgar. For since the majesty of God, as it really is, cannot be expressed, the Scripture is wont to describe it according to the manner of men. God, then, had planted Paradise in a place which he had especially embellished with every variety of delights, with abounding fruits and with all other most excellent gifts. For this reason it is called a garden, on account of the elegance of its situation, and the beauty of its form. The ancient interpreter has not improperly translated it Paradise; (118) because the Hebrews call the more highly cultivated gardens פרדסים ( Pardaisim , (119) ) and Xenophon pronounces the word to be Persian, when he treats of the magnificent and sumptuous gardens of kings. That region which the Lord assigned to Adam, as the firstborn of mankind, was one selected out of the whole world. In Eden That Jerome improperly translates this, from the beginning, (120) is very obvious: because Moses afterwards says, that Cain dwelt in the southern region of this place. Moreover it is to be observed, that when he describes paradise as in the east, he speaks in reference to the Jews, for he directs his discourse to his own people. Hence we infer, in the first place, that there was a certain region assigned by God to the first man, in which he might have his home. I state this expressly, because there have been authors who would extend this garden over all regions of the world. Truly, I confess, that if the earth had not been cursed on account of the sin of man, the whole — as it had been blessed from the beginning — would have remained the fairest scene both of fruitfulness and of delight; that it would have been, in short, not dissimilar to Paradise, when compared with that scene of deformity which we now behold. But when Moses here describes particularly the situation of the region, they absurdly transfer what Moses said of a certain particular place to the whole world. It is not indeed doubtful (as I just now hinted) that God would choose the most fertile and pleasant place, the first-fruits (so to speak) of the earth, as his gift to Adam, whom he had dignified with the honor of primogeniture among men, in token of his special favor. Again, we infer, that this garden was situated on the earth, not as some dream in the air; for unless it had been a region of our world, it would not have been placed opposite to Judea, towards the east. We must, however, entirely reject the allegories of Origin, and of others like him, which Satan, with the deepest subtlety, has endeavored to introduce into the Church, for the purpose of rendering the doctrine of Scripture ambiguous and destitute of all certainty and firmness. It may be, indeed, that some, impelled by a supposed necessity, have resorted to an allegorical sense, because they never found in the world such a place as is described by Moses: but we see that the greater part, through a foolish affectation of subtleties, have been too much addicted to allegories. As it concerns the present passage, they speculate in vain, and to no purpose, by departing from the literal sense. For Moses has no other design than to teach man that he was formed by God, with this condition, that he should have dominion over the earth, from which he might gather fruit, and thus learn by daily experience that the world was subject unto him. What advantage is it to fly in the air, and to leave the earth, where God has given proof of his benevolence towards the human race? But some one may say, that to interpret this of celestial bliss is more skillful. I answer, since the eternal inheritance of man is in heaven, it is truly right that we should tend thither; yet must we fix our foot on earth long enough to enable us to consider the abode which God requires man to use for a time. For we are now conversant with that history which teaches us that Adam was, by Divine appointment, an inhabitant of the earth, in order that he might, in passing through his earthly life, meditate on heavenly glory; and that he had been bountifully enriched by the Lord with innumerable benefits, from the enjoyment of which he might infer the paternal benevolence of God. Moses, also, will hereafter subjoin that he was commanded to cultivate the fields and permitted to eat certain fruits: all which things neither suit the circle of the moon, nor the aerial regions. But although we have said, that the situation of Paradise lay between the rising of the sun and Judea, yet something more definite may be required respecting that region. They who contend that it was in the vicinity of Mesopotamia, rely on reasons not to be despised; because it is probable that the sons of Eden were contiguous to the river Tigris. But as the description of it by Moses will immediately follow, it is better to defer the consideration of it to that place. The ancient interpreter has fallen into a mistake in translating the proper name Eden by the word pleasure. (121) I do not indeed deny that the place was so called from its delights; but it is easy to infer that the name was imposed upon the place to distinguish it from others. (117) “ Plantaverat quoque Dominus .” — “The Lord had also planted.” (118) “ Paradisum .” — Vulgate . (119) פרדס Baumgarten , Park, etc. “ Wahrschenlich aus der Persichen Sprache, wo es die Lustparks der Koenige bezeichnet .” — “Orchard, Park, etc. — probably from the Persian, where it signifies the pleasure — parks of kings.” — Gesenius (120) “ Plantaverat autem Dominus Deus Paradisum voluptatis a principio .” — “But the Lord God had planted a paradise from the beginning.” — Vulgate . (121) The Hebrew word עדן signifies pleasure, delight, l
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-gen-2-002
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
"주 하나님께서 동쪽에 에덴이라는 동산을 창설하셨다." 이제 모세는 사람에게 주어진 생활의 조건과 규범을 덧붙인다. 먼저 그는 세상의 어느 부분에 사람이 자리 잡았는지, 그리고 그에게 어떤 행복하고 쾌적한 거처가 주어졌는지를 이야기한다. 모세는 하나님께서 동산을 창설하셨다고 하는데, 평범하고 세련되지 않은 문체로 대중의 이해 수준에 자신을 맞추고 있다. 하나님의 위엄은 실제 그 자체로는 표현될 수 없으므로, 성경은 그것을 사람들의 방식에 따라 묘사하곤 한다. 그러므로 하나님께서는 에덴에 동산을 창설하셨는데, 온갖 종류의 기쁨과 풍성한 열매와 그 밖의 모든 가장 탁월한 선물로 특별히 아름답게 꾸미신 곳이었다. 이런 이유로 그 우아한 위치와 아름다운 형태 때문에 "동산"이라고 불린다.
주님께서 인류의 맏이인 아담에게 할당하신 지역은 온 세상에서 선별된 곳이었다. "에덴"에서: 모세가 이것을 "처음부터"로 잘못 번역했다는 것은 매우 분명하다. 모세가 나중에 가인이 이 곳의 남쪽 지역에 살았다고 하기 때문이다. 더욱이 그가 동산을 동쪽에 있다고 묘사할 때, 유대인들의 관점에서 말한다는 것을 주목해야 한다. 그는 자기 백성에게 이야기하고 있기 때문이다.
모세의 의도는 단지 사람이 하나님에 의해 땅을 다스리는 조건으로 지음 받았다는 것을 가르치는 것이다. 그 땅에서 그는 열매를 거두어, 세상이 자신에게 복종한다는 것을 날마다 경험으로 배울 수 있었다. 그러나 우리가 에덴동산의 위치가 해 돋는 곳과 유대 사이에 있다고 했지만, 그 지역에 대해 더 구체적인 것이 요구될 수 있다. 그것이 메소포타미아 근방에 있었다고 주장하는 이들은 무시할 수 없는 이유에 근거한다. 에덴의 자손들이 티그리스 강에 인접해 있었을 가능성이 크기 때문이다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-gen-2-8-8(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
9절 카드 ↗
9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow The production here spoken of belongs to the third day of the creation. But Moses expressly declares the place to have been richly replenished with every kind of fruitful trees, that there might be a full and happy abundance of all things. This was purposely done by the Lord, to the end that the cupidity of man might have the less excuse if, instead of being contented with such remarkable affluence, sweetness, and variety, it should (as really happened) precipitate itself against the commandment of God. The Holy Spirit also designedly relates by Moses the greatness of Adam’s happiness, in order that his vile intemperance might the more clearly appear, which such superfluity was unable to restrain from breaking forth upon the forbidden fruit. And certainly it was shameful ingratitude, that he could not rest in a state so happy and desirable: truly, that was more than brutal lust which bounty so great was not able to satisfy. No corner of the earth was then barren, nor was there even any which was not exceedingly rich and fertile: but that benediction of God, which was elsewhere comparatively moderate, had in this place poured itself wonderfully forth. For not only was there an abundant supply of food, but with it was added sweetness for the gratification of the palate, and beauty to feast the eyes. Therefore, from such benignant indulgence, it is more than sufficiently evident, how inexplicable had been the cupidity of man. The tree of life also It is uncertain whether he means only two individual trees, or two kinds of trees. Either opinion is probable, but the point is by no means worthy of contention; since it is of little or no concern to us, which of the two is maintained. There is more importance in the epithets, which were applied to each tree from its effect, and that not by the will of man but of God. (122) He gave the tree of life its name, not because it could confer on man that life with which he had been previously endued, but in order that it might be a symbol and memorial of the life which he had received from God. For we know it to be by no means unusual that God should give to us the attestation of his grace by external symbols. (123) He does not indeed transfer his power into outward signs; but by them he stretches out his hand to us, because, without assistance, we cannot ascend to him. He intended, therefore, that man, as often as he tasted the fruit of that tree, should remember whence he received his life, in order that he might acknowledge that he lives not by his own power, but by the kindness of God alone; and that life is not (as they commonly speak) an intrinsic good, but proceeds from God. Finally, in that tree there was a visible testimony to the declaration, that ‘in God we are, and live, and move.’ But if Adams hitherto innocent, and of an upright nature, had need of monitory signs to lead him to the knowledge of divine grace, how much more necessary are signs now, in this great imbecility of our nature, since we have fallen from the true light? Yet I am not dissatisfied with what has been handed down by some of the fathers, as Augustine and Eucherius, that the tree of life was a figure of Christ, inasmuch as he is the Eternal Word of God: it could not indeed be otherwise a symbol of life, than by representing him in figure. For we must maintain what is declared in the first chapter of John ( John 1:1 ,) that the life of all things was included in the Word, but especially the life of men, which is conjoined with reason and intelligence. Wherefore, by this sign, Adam was admonished, that he could claim nothing for himself as if it were his own, in order that he might depend wholly upon the Son of God, and might not seek life anywhere but in him. But if he, at the time when he possessed life in safety, had it only as deposited in the word of God, and could not otherwise retain it, than by acknowledging that it was received from Him, whence may we recover it, after it has been lost? Let us know, therefore, that when we have departed from Christ, nothing remains for us but death. I know that certain writers restrict the meaning of the expression here used to corporeal life. They suppose such a power of quickening the body to have been in the tree, that it should never languish through age; but I say, they omit what is the chief thing in life, namely, the grace of intelligence; for we must always consider for what end man was formed, and what rule of living was prescribed to him. Certainly, for him to live, was not simply to have a body fresh and lively, but also to excel in the endowments of the soul. Concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil, we must hold, that it was prohibited to man, not because God would have him to stray like a sheep, without judgment and without choice; but that he might not seek to be wiser than became him, nor by trusting to his own understanding, cast off the yoke of God, and constitute himself an arbiter and judge of good and evil. His sin proceeded from an evil conscience; whence it follows, that a judgment had been given him, by which he might discriminate between virtues and vices. Nor could what Moses relates be otherwise true, namely, that he was created in the image of God; since the image of God comprises in itself the knowledge of him who is the chief good. Thoroughly insane, therefore, and monsters of men are the libertines, who pretend that we are restored to a state of innocence, when each is carried away by his own lust without judgment. We now understand what is meant by abstaining from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; namely, that Adam might not, in attempting one thing or another, rely upon his own prudence; but that, cleaving to God alone, he might become wise only by his obedience. Knowledge is here, therefore, taken disparagingly, in a bad sense, for that wretched experience which man, when he departed from the only fountain of perfect wisdom, began
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-gen-2-002
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
"주 하나님께서 땅에서 보기에 아름답고 먹기에 좋은 모든 나무를 자라게 하셨다." 여기서 말하는 생산은 창조의 셋째 날에 속한다. 그러나 모세는 그 장소가 온갖 종류의 열매 나무로 풍성하게 채워져 있었음을 명시적으로 선언한다. 모든 것이 충만하고 행복한 풍요함이 있도록 하기 위함이었다. 이것은 주님께서 의도적으로 행하신 것이니, 사람의 탐욕이 이토록 놀라운 풍성함과 달콤함과 다양함에 만족하지 않고 하나님의 계명을 거슬러 달려들어도(실제로 그렇게 되었지만) 변명의 여지가 적도록 하기 위함이었다. 성령께서 또한 의도적으로 모세를 통해 아담의 행복의 위대함을 기록하신 것은, 그의 비열한 방종이 더욱 분명히 드러나도록 하기 위함이다. 그토록 큰 풍성함도 그가 금지된 열매에 대한 돌진을 억제하지 못했으니 말이다. 참으로 이토록 행복하고 바람직한 상태에 안식하지 못했다는 것은 수치스러운 배은망덕이었다. 참으로 그토록 큰 풍성함도 채울 수 없었던 것은 짐승적인 욕망 이상이었다.
"생명나무도." 그가 단지 두 그루의 나무를 의미하는지, 아니면 두 종류의 나무를 의미하는지는 불분명하다. 더 중요한 것은 각 나무에 그 효과에서 비롯된 이름들이며, 이는 사람의 의지가 아니라 하나님의 의지로 그렇게 되었다. 하나님께서 생명나무에 그 이름을 주신 것은, 그것이 사람이 이미 부여받은 생명을 더해줄 수 있어서가 아니라, 그것이 하나님에게서 받은 생명의 상징과 기념이 되도록 하기 위함이었다. 하나님께서 외적인 상징으로 우리에게 자신의 은혜를 보증해 주신다는 것은 결코 이례적인 일이 아님을 우리는 안다. 그분은 자신의 능력을 외적인 표징에 이전하지 않으시지만, 표징으로 우리에게 손을 내미신다. 도움 없이는 우리가 그분께 오를 수 없기 때문이다. 그러므로 그분은 아담이 그 나무의 열매를 먹을 때마다 자신이 생명을 어디서 받았는지 기억하도록 하려 하셨다. 이는 그가 자신의 능력이 아니라 오직 하나님의 선하심으로 사는 것임을, 그리고 생명은 내재적인 선이 아니라 하나님에게서 온다는 것을 인정하도록 하기 위함이었다. 마지막으로, 그 나무에는 "우리가 하나님 안에서 살고 움직이며 존재한다"는 선언의 눈에 보이는 증거가 있었다.
그러나 아직 죄 없고 올바른 본성을 가진 아담도 하나님의 은혜를 아는 데로 이끄는 교훈적인 표징이 필요했다면, 우리가 참된 빛에서 떨어진 지금 이 자연의 큰 허약함 가운데서 표징이 얼마나 더 필요하겠는가? 그럼에도 아우구스티누스와 에우케리우스 같은 일부 교부들이 전해준 것, 곧 생명나무가 그리스도의 예표였다는 것(그분은 영원한 하나님의 말씀이시므로)에 나는 만족하지 못한다고 할 수 없다. 그것은 그분을 예표로 나타내지 않고는 생명의 상징이 될 수 없었을 것이다.
선악을 알게 하는 나무에 대해서는, 그것이 사람에게 금지된 것은 하나님께서 그가 판단도 선택도 없이 양처럼 방황하기를 원하셨기 때문이 아니라, 그가 자신에게 합당한 것보다 더 지혜롭게 되려 하지 않도록, 그리고 자신의 이해를 믿음으로써 하나님의 멍에를 내던지고 선과 악의 심판자와 재판관이 되지 않도록 하기 위함이었다는 것을 알아야 한다. 그의 죄는 악한 양심에서 나왔으니, 이로부터 그에게 덕과 악 사이를 분별하는 판단이 주어져 있었다는 것이 따라 나온다. 이제 우리는 선악을 알게 하는 나무의 열매를 먹지 말라는 것이 무엇을 의미하는지 안다. 곧 아담이 이것저것을 시도하면서 자신의 사려에 의지하지 않도록, 오직 하나님께 매달려 그분에게 순종함으로써만 지혜롭게 되도록 하는 것이다. 따라서 여기서 지식은 경멸적으로, 나쁜 의미로 사용된다. 사람이 완전한 지혜의 유일한 샘에서 떠난 후 얻기 시작한 비참한 경험이 바로 그것이다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-gen-2-9-9(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
10절 카드 ↗
10. And a river went out Moses says that one river flowed to water the garden, which afterwards would divide itself into four heads. It is sufficiently agreed among all, that two of these heads are the Euphrates and the Tigris; for no one disputes that הידקל ( Hiddekel ) is the Tigris. But there is a great controversy respecting the other two. Many think, that Pison and Gihon are the Ganges and the Nile; the error, however, of these men is abundantly refuted by the distance of the positions of these rivers. Persons are not wanting who fly across even to the Danube; as if indeed the habitation of one man stretched itself from the most remote part of Asia to the extremity of Europe. But since many other celebrated rivers flow by the region of which we are speaking, there is greater probability in the opinion of those who believe that two of these rivers are pointed out, although their names are now obsolete. Be this as it may, the difficulty is not yet solved. For Moses divides the one river which flowed by the garden into four heads. Yet it appears, that the fountains of the Euphrates and the Tigris were far distant from each other. From this difficulty, some would free themselves by saying, that the surface of the globe may have been changed by the deluge; and, therefore, they imagine it might have happened that the courses of the rivers were disturbed and changed, and their springs transferred elsewhere; a solution which appears to me by no means to be accepted. For although I acknowledge that the earth, from the time that it was accursed, became reduced from its native beauty to a state of wretched defilement, and to a garb of mourning, and afterwards was further laid waste in many places by the deluge; still, I assert, it was the same earth which had been created in the beginning. Add to this, that Moses (in my judgment) accommodated his topography to the capacity of his age. Yet nothing is accomplished, unless we find that place where the Tigris and Euphrates proceed from one river. Observe, first, that no mention is made of a spring or fountain, but only that it is said, there was one river. But the four heads I understand to mean, both the beginnings from which the rivers are produced, and the mouths (125) by which they discharge themselves into the sea. Now the Euphrates was formerly so joined by confluence with the Tigris, that it might justly be said, one river was divided into four heads; especially if what is manifest to all be conceded, that Moses does not speak acutely, nor in a philosophical manner, but popularly, so that every one least informed may understand him. Thus, in the first chapter, he called the sun and moon two great luminaries; not because the moon exceeded other planets in magnitude, but because, to common observation, it seemed greater. Add further, that he seems to remove all doubt when he says, that the river had four heads, because it was divided from that place. What does this mean, except that the channels were divided, out of one confluent stream, either above or below Paradise? I will now submit a plan to view, that the readers may understand where I think Paradise was placed by Moses. (126) Pliny indeed relates, in his Sixth Book, that the Euphrates was so stopped in its course by the Orcheni, that it could not flow into the sea, except through the Tigris. (127) And Pomponius Mela, in his Third Book, denies that it flowed by any given outlet, as other rivers, but says that it failed in its course. Nearchus, however, (whom Alexander had made commander of his fleet, and who, under his sanction, had navigated all these regions,) reckons the distance from the mouth of the Euphrates to Babylon, three thousand three hundred stadia. (128) But he places the mouths of the Tigris at the entrance of Susiana; in which region, returning from that long and memorable voyage, he met the king with his fleet, as Adrian relates in his Eighth Book of the Exploits of Alexander. This statement Strabo also confirms by his testimony in his Fifteenth Book. Nevertheless, wherever the Euphrates either submerges or mingles its stream, it is certain, that it and the Tigris, below the point of their confluence, are again divided. Adrian, however, in his Seventh Book, writes that not one channel only of the Euphrates runs into the Tigris, but also many rivers and ditches, because waters naturally descend from higher to lower ground. With respect to the confluence, which I have noted in the plate, the opinion of some was, that it had been effected be the labor of the Praefect Cobaris, lest the Euphrates, by its precipitate course, should injure Babylon. But he speaks of it as of a doubtful matter. It is more credible, that men, by art and industry, followed the guidance of Nature in forming ditches, when they saw the Euphrates any where flowing of its own accord from the higher ground into the Tigris. Moreover, if confidence is placed in Pomponius Mela, Semiramis conducted the Tigris and Euphrates into Mesopotamia, which was previously dry; a thing by no means credible. There is more truth in the statement of Strabo, — a diligent and attentive writer, — in his Eleventh Book, that at Babylon these two rivers unite: and then, that each is carried separately, in its own bed, into the Red Sea. (129) He understands that junction to have taken place above Babylon, not far from the town Massica, as we read in the Fifth Book of Pliny. Thence one river flows through Babylon, the other glides by Seleucia, two of the most celebrated and opulent cities. If we admit this confluence, by which the Euphrates was mixed with the Tigris, to have been natural, and to have existed from the beginning, all absurdity is removed. If there is anywhere under heaven a region preeminent in beauty, in the abundance of all kinds of fruit, in fertility, in delicacies, and in other gifts, that is the region which writers most celebrate. Wherefore, the eulogies with which Moses commends Paradise are such as properl
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-gen-2-002
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
"강이 에덴에서 흘러나와." 모세는 하나의 강이 동산에 물을 대기 위해 흐르다가 이후에 네 근원으로 나뉘었다고 한다. 이 가운데 둘이 유프라테스와 티그리스라는 것은 모든 이들 사이에서 충분히 의견이 일치한다. 힛데겔이 티그리스임을 아무도 다투지 않기 때문이다. 그러나 나머지 둘에 대해서는 큰 논쟁이 있다. 많은 이들은 비손과 기혼이 갠지스와 나일이라고 생각하지만, 이 사람들의 오류는 이 강들의 위치가 너무 멀리 떨어져 있다는 것으로 충분히 반박된다.
모세는 동산을 지나 흐르던 하나의 강을 네 근원으로 나눈다. 그러나 유프라테스와 티그리스의 발원지가 서로 멀리 떨어져 있었다는 것은 분명하다. 이 어려움에서 벗어나려고, 어떤 이들은 지구의 표면이 홍수로 변했을 수 있다고 말한다. 그리하여 강들의 흐름이 교란되어 바뀌고 발원지가 다른 곳으로 옮겨갔을 수 있다고 상상한다. 이 해결책은 내게 전혀 받아들여지지 않는다. 비록 나는 땅이 저주를 받은 때부터 그 본래의 아름다움이 비참한 오염의 상태와 슬픔의 겉모습으로 줄어들었고, 이후에 여러 곳에서 홍수에 의해 더 황폐해졌다는 것을 인정한다. 그럼에도 나는 그것이 처음에 창조된 것과 같은 땅이었다고 주장한다.
이제 유프라테스는 예전에 티그리스와 합류함으로써 하나의 강이 네 근원으로 나뉘었다고 정당하게 말할 수 있었다. 특히 모세가 예리하게도 철학적으로도 아니고 대중적으로 말하므로 가장 무식한 사람도 그를 이해할 수 있다는 것이 모든 이에게 명백하다면 더욱 그렇다. 이 합류가 자연적이었고 처음부터 존재했다는 것을 인정한다면 모든 불합리함이 제거된다. 하늘 아래 어딘가 아름다움에서, 온갖 종류의 과일의 풍성함에서, 비옥함에서, 진미에서, 그 밖의 선물들에서 탁월한 지역이 있다면, 작가들이 가장 찬미하는 것이 바로 그 지역이다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-gen-2-10-10(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
15절 카드 ↗
15. And the Lord God took the man Moses now adds, that the earth was given to man, with this condition, that he should occupy himself in its cultivation. Whence it follows that men were created to employ themselves in some work, and not to lie down in inactivity and idleness. This labor, truly, was pleasant, and full of delight, entirely exempt from all trouble and weariness; since however God ordained that man should be exercised in the culture of the ground, he condemned in his person, all indolent repose. Wherefore, nothing is more contrary to the order of nature, than to consume life in eating, drinking, and sleeping, while in the meantime we propose nothing to ourselves to do. Moses adds, that the custody of the garden was given in charge to Adam, to show that we possess the things which God has committed to our hands, on the condition, that being content with a frugal and moderate use of them, we should take care of what shall remain. Let him who possesses a field, so partake of its yearly fruits, that he may not suffer the ground to be injured by his negligence; but let him endeavor to hand it down to posterity as he received it, or even better cultivated. Let him so feed on its fruits that he neither dissipates it by luxury, nor permits to be marred or ruined by neglect. Moreover, that this economy, and this diligence, with respect to those good things which God has given us to enjoy, may flourish among us; let every one regard himself as the steward of God in all things which he possesses. Then he will neither conduct himself dissolutely, nor corrupt by abuse those things which God requires to be preserved. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-16" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-gen-2-002
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
"주 하나님께서 사람을 이끌어 에덴동산에 두셨다." 이제 모세는 땅이 사람에게, 그가 그것을 가꾸는 일에 자신을 수고하는 조건으로 주어졌다는 것을 덧붙인다. 이로써 사람들은 어떤 일에 종사하기 위해 창조되었고, 무위도식하며 게으름 속에 눕는 것은 아니라는 것이 따라 나온다. 이 수고는 참으로 즐겁고 기쁨이 가득한 것으로, 모든 어려움과 고단함에서 완전히 벗어난 것이었다. 그렇지만 하나님께서 사람이 땅을 가꾸는 일에 힘쓰도록 정하셨으므로, 그의 몸 안에서 모든 게으른 안일을 정죄하셨다. 그러므로 먹고 마시고 자는 것에 삶을 소비하면서 그 사이에 해야 할 일을 아무것도 제안하지 않는 것보다 자연의 질서에 더 어긋나는 것은 없다.
모세는 또한 동산의 관리가 아담에게 맡겨졌다고 덧붙이는데, 이는 우리가 하나님께서 우리 손에 맡기신 것들을 검소하고 절제된 사용으로 만족하면서 남는 것을 돌보는 조건으로 그것들을 소유한다는 것을 보여주기 위함이다. 밭을 소유한 자는 그 해마다의 열매를 취하되, 자신의 태만으로 땅이 손상되지 않도록 해야 한다. 오히려 자신이 받은 것보다 더 잘 경작된 상태로, 아니 최소한 같은 상태로 후손에게 물려주려고 힘써야 한다. 그가 그 열매로 먹되, 사치로 낭비하지도 않고 태만으로 망가지거나 망가지도록 허용하지도 않도록 해야 한다. 더 나아가 하나님께서 우리가 즐기도록 주신 좋은 것들에 대한 이 절약과 부지런함이 우리 사이에서 번성하도록, 각 사람이 자신이 소유한 모든 것에서 자신을 하나님의 청지기로 여겨야 한다. 그러면 그는 방종하게 행동하지도 않고, 하나님께서 보존되기를 요구하시는 것들을 남용으로 훼손하지도 않을 것이다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-gen-2-15-15(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
16절 카드 ↗
16. And the Lord God commanded Moses now teaches, that man was the governor of the world, with this exception, that he should, nevertheless, be subject to God. A law is imposed upon him in token of his subjection; for it would have made no difference to God, if he had eaten indiscriminately of any fruit he pleased. Therefore the prohibition of one tree was a test of obedience. And in this mode, God designed that the whole human race should be accustomed from the beginning to reverence his Deity; as, doubtless, it was necessary that man, adorned and enriched with so many excellent gifts, should be held under restraint, lest he should break forth into licentiousness. There was, indeed, another special reason, to which we have before alluded, lest Adam should desire to be wise above measure; but this is to be kept in mind as God’s general design, that he would have men subject to his authority. Therefore, abstinence from the fruit of one tree was a kind of first lesson in obedience, that man might know he had a Director and Lord of his life, on whose will he ought to depend, and in whose commands he ought to acquiesce. And this, truly, is the only rule of living well and rationally, that men should exercise themselves in obeying God. It seems, however, to some as if this did not accord with the judgment of Paul, when he teaches, that the law was not made for the righteous, ( 1 Timothy 1:9 .) For if it be so, then, when Adam was yet innocent and upright, he had no need of a law. But the solution is ready. For Paul is not there writing controversially; but from the common practice of life, he declares, that they who freely run, do not require to be compelled by the necessity of law; as it is said, in the common proverb, that ‘Good laws spring from bad manners.’ In the meantime, he does not deny that God, from the beginning, imposed a law upon man, for the purpose of maintaining the right due to himself. Should any one bring, as an objection, another statement of Paul, where he asserts that the “law is the minister of death,” ( 2 Corinthians 3:7 ,) I answer, it is so accidentally, and from the corruption of our nature. But at the time of which we speak, a precept was given to man, whence he might know that God ruled over him. These minute things, however I lightly pass over. What I have before said, since it is of far greater moment, is to be frequently recalled to memory, namely, that our life will then be rightly ordered, if we obey God, and if his will be the regulator of all our affections. Of every tree To the end that Adam might the more willingly comply, God commends his own liberality. ‘Behold,’ he says, ‘I deliver into thy hand whatever fruits the earth may produce, whatever fruits every kind of tree may yield: from this immense profusion and variety I except only one tree.’ Then, by denouncing punishment, he strikes terror, for the purpose of confirming the authority of the law. So much the greater, then, is the wickedness of man, whom neither that kind commemoration of the gifts of God, nor the dread of punishment, was able to retain in his duty. But it is asked, what kind of death God means in this place? It appears to me, that the definition of this death is to be sought from its opposite; we must, I say, remember from what kind of life man fell. He was, in every respect, happy; his life, therefore, had alike respect to his body and his soul, since in his soul a right judgment and a proper government of the affections prevailed, there also life reigned; in his body there was no defect, wherefore he was wholly free from death. His earthly life truly would have been temporal; yet he would have passed into heaven without death, and without injury. Death, therefore, is now a terror to us; first, because there is a kind of annihilation, as it respects the body; then, because the soul feels the curse of God. We must also see what is the cause of death, namely alienation from God. Thence it follows, that under the name of death is comprehended all those miseries in which Adam involved himself by his defection; for as soon as he revolted from God, the fountain of life, he was cast down from his former state, in order that he might perceive the life of man without God to be wretched and lost, and therefore differing nothing from death. Hence the condition of man after his sin is not improperly called both the privation of life, and death. The miseries and evils both of soul and body, with which man is beset so long as he is on earth, are a kind of entrance into death, till death itself entirely absorbs him; for the Scripture everywhere calls those dead who, being oppressed by the tyranny of sin and Satan, breath nothing but their own destruction. Wherefore the question is superfluous, how it was that God threatened death to Adam on the day in which he should touch the fruit, when he long deferred the punishment? For then was Adam consigned to death, and death began its reign in him, until supervening grace should bring a remedy. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-18" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-gen-2-002
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
"주 하나님께서 사람에게 명하셨다." 이제 모세는 사람이 세상의 통치자였지만, 그럼에도 하나님께 복종해야 했다는 것을 가르친다. 그의 복종의 표시로 법이 그에게 부과된다. 그 나무가 어떤 것이든 마음대로 먹었더라도 하나님께는 아무 차이가 없었을 것이기 때문이다. 그러므로 한 나무의 금지는 순종의 시험이었다. 이런 방식으로 하나님께서는 처음부터 온 인류가 그분의 신성을 경외하는 데 익숙하도록 하려 하셨다. 참으로 이토록 많은 탁월한 선물로 장식되고 풍성하게 된 사람이 방종으로 날뛰지 않도록 억제되는 것이 필요했다.
하나님의 일반적인 의도—그분은 사람들이 자신의 권위에 복종하기를 원하신다—는 항상 마음에 두어야 한다. 그러므로 한 나무의 열매를 삼가는 것은 순종에 있어서 일종의 첫 번째 교훈이었다. 이로써 사람은 자신에게 삶의 감독자와 주님이 계시고, 그분의 뜻에 의존하며 그분의 계명에 따라야 한다는 것을 알게 된다. 이것이 참으로 잘 살고 이성적으로 살기 위한 유일한 규범이니, 사람들이 하나님께 순종하는 일에 자신을 단련하는 것이다.
그러나 이 본문에서 하나님께서 어떤 종류의 죽음을 의미하시는지 물음이 제기된다. 내게는 이 죽음의 정의가 그 반대에서 찾아져야 한다고 생각된다. 다시 말해, 우리는 사람이 어떤 종류의 삶에서 떨어졌는지 기억해야 한다. 그는 모든 면에서 행복했다. 그의 생명은 따라서 몸과 영혼 모두를 포함했다. 영혼 안에서 올바른 판단과 감정의 적절한 다스림이 지배했으므로, 거기서도 생명이 지배했다. 몸에는 아무런 결함이 없었으므로, 그는 죽음에서 완전히 자유로웠다. 그의 땅에서의 삶은 참으로 시간적이었을 것이지만, 그는 죽음 없이, 손상 없이 하늘로 건너갔을 것이다. 그러므로 죽음은 이제 우리에게 두려움이다. 첫째로는 몸에 관한 한 일종의 소멸이 있기 때문이고, 다음으로는 영혼이 하나님의 저주를 느끼기 때문이다.
또한 죽음의 원인이 무엇인지, 곧 하나님으로부터의 소외임을 보아야 한다. 이로부터 아담이 자신의 배반으로 휘말린 모든 비참함이 죽음이라는 이름 아래 포함된다는 것이 따라 나온다. 그가 생명의 근원이신 하나님을 떠난 즉시, 그는 이전의 상태에서 내던져졌다. 하나님 없는 사람의 삶이 비참하고 파멸되어 있어서 죽음과 조금도 다를 바 없다는 것을 그가 깨닫도록 하기 위함이었다. 그러므로 죄를 지은 이후의 사람의 상태가 생명의 박탈과 죽음 모두로 적절히 불리는 것이다. 사람이 땅에 있는 동안 그를 에워싸는 영혼과 몸의 비참함과 악들은 일종의 죽음으로의 입구이며, 죽음이 그를 완전히 삼킬 때까지 그러하다. 성경이 죄와 사탄의 폭정에 억눌려 자신들의 파멸 외에는 아무것도 호흡하지 않는 자들을 죽은 자들이라고 도처에서 부르기 때문이다.
"온갖 나무의 열매는 네가 임의로 먹되." 아담이 더 기꺼이 따르도록, 하나님께서 자신의 관대함을 칭찬하신다. "보라, 땅이 맺을 수 있는 열매가 무엇이든, 모든 종류의 나무가 낼 수 있는 열매가 무엇이든, 내가 그것을 네 손에 맡긴다. 이 엄청난 풍성함과 다양함에서 나는 오직 한 나무만 예외로 한다." 이어서 형벌을 선언함으로써 공포를 주어 법의 권위를 확립하신다. 그러므로 하나님의 선물들에 대한 그 친절한 기억도, 형벌에 대한 두려움도 그를 의무 안에 붙들어 두지 못했던 사람의 사악함은 그만큼 더 크다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-gen-2-16-16(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
18절 카드 ↗
18. It is not good that the man should be alone (136) Moses now explains the design of God in creating the woman; namely, that there should be human beings on the earth who might cultivate mutual society between themselves. Yet a doubt may arise whether this design ought to be extended to progeny, for the words simply mean that since it was not expedient for man to be alone, a wife must be created, who might be his helper. I, however, take the meaning to be this, that God begins, indeed, at the first step of human society, yet designs to include others, each in its proper place. The commencement, therefore, involves a general principle, that man was formed to be a social animal. (137) Now, the human race could not exist without the woman; and, therefore, in the conjunction of human beings, that sacred bond is especially conspicuous, by which the husband and the wife are combined in one body, and one soul; as nature itself taught Plato, and others of the sounder class of philosophers, to speak. But although God pronounced, concerning Adam, that it would not be profitable for him to be alone, yet I do not restrict the declaration to his person alone, but rather regard it as a common law of man’s vocation, so that every one ought to receive it as said to himself, that solitude is not good, excepting only him whom God exempts as by a special privilege. Many think that celibacy conduces to their advantage, (138) and therefore, abstain from marriage, lest they should be miserable. Not only have heathen writers defined that to be a happy life which is passed without a wife, but the first book of Jerome, against Jovinian, is stuffed with petulant reproaches, by which he attempts to render hallowed wedlock both hateful and infamous. To these wicked suggestions of Satan let the faithful learn to oppose this declaration of God, by which he ordains the conjugal life for man, not to his destruction, but to his salvation. I will make him an help It may be inquired, why this is not said in the plural number, Let us make , as before in the creation of man. Some suppose that a distinction between the two sexes is in this manner marked, and that it is thus shown how much the man excels the woman. But I am better satisfied with an interpretation which, though not altogether contrary, is yet different; namely, since in the person of the man the human race had been created, the common dignity of our whole nature was without distinction, honored with one eulogy, when it was said, Let us make man; nor was it necessary to be repeated in creating the woman, who was nothing else than an accession to the man. Certainly, it cannot be denied, that the woman also, though in the second degree, was created in the image of God; whence it follows, that what was said in the creation of the man belongs to the female sex. Now, since God assigns the woman as a help to the man, he not only prescribes to wives the rule of their vocation to instruct them in their duty, but he also pronounces that marriage will really prove to men the best support of life. We may therefore conclude, that the order of nature implies that the woman should be the helper of the man. The vulgar proverb, indeed, is, that she is a necessary evil; but the voice of God is rather to be heard, which declares that woman is given as a companion and an associate to the man, to assist him to live well. I confess, indeed, that in this corrupt state of mankind, the blessing of God, which is here described, is neither perceived nor flourishes; but the cause of the evil must be considered, namely, that the order of nature, which God had appointed, has been inverted by us. For if the integrity of man had remained to this day such as it was from the beginning, that divine institution would be clearly discerned, and the sweetest harmony would reign in marriage; because the husband would look up with reverence to God; the woman in this would be a faithful assistant to him; and both, with one consent, would cultivate a holy, as well as friendly and peaceful intercourse. Now, it has happened by our fault, and by the corruption of nature, that this happiness of marriage has, in a great measure, perished, or, at least, is mixed and infected with many inconveniences. Hence arise strifes, troubles, sorrows, dissensions, and a boundless sea of evils; and hence it follows, that men are often disturbed by their wives, and suffer through them many discouragements. Still, marriage was not capable of being so far vitiated by the depravity of men, that the blessing which God has once sanctioned by his word should be utterly abolished and extinguished. Therefore, amidst many inconveniences of marriage, which are the fruits of degenerate nature, some residue of divine good remains; as in the fire apparently smothered, some sparks still glitter. On this main point hangs another, that women, being instructed in their duty of helping their husbands, should study to keep this divinely appointed order. It is also the part of men to consider what they owe in return to the other half of their kind, for the obligation of both sexes is mutual, and on this condition is the woman assigned as a help to the man, that he may fill the place of her head and leader. One thing more is to be noted, that, when the woman is here called the help of the man, no allusion is made to that necessity to which we are reduced since the fall of Adam; for the woman was ordained to be the man’s helper, even although he had stood in his integrity. But now, since the depravity of appetite also requires a remedy, we have from God a double benefit: but the latter is accidental. Meet for him (139) In the Hebrew it is כנגדו ( kenegedo ,) “as if opposite to,” or “over against him.” כ ( Caph ) in that language is a note of similitude. But although some of the Rabbies think it is here put as an affirmative, yet I take it in its general sense, as though it were said that she is a kind of counterpart, ( ἀντίστοικον , or ἀντίσ
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-gen-2-003
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
"사람이 혼자 있는 것이 좋지 않다." 이제 모세는 여자를 창조하시는 하나님의 의도를 설명한다. 곧 사람들이 서로 간에 공동 사회를 가꿀 수 있도록 땅 위에 인류가 있어야 한다는 것이다. 그러나 이 의도가 자손에게도 미쳐야 하는지에 대해 의문이 생길 수 있다. 말씀의 단순한 의미는 사람이 혼자 있는 것이 적절하지 않으므로 그의 돕는 자가 될 아내가 창조되어야 한다는 것이기 때문이다. 그러나 나는 그 의미를 이렇게 이해한다. 하나님께서는 인간 사회의 첫 번째 단계에서 시작하시지만, 다른 것들도 각자의 자리에 포함하려 하신다. 따라서 이 시작은 일반 원칙을 포함한다. 곧 사람은 사회적 동물로 만들어졌다는 것이다. 이제 여자 없이는 인류가 존재할 수 없다. 그러므로 인간의 연합에서, 남편과 아내가 하나의 몸과 하나의 영혼으로 결합되는 그 거룩한 유대가 특히 드러난다. 자연 자체가 플라톤과 더 건전한 부류의 다른 철학자들로 하여금 이렇게 말하도록 가르쳤다.
그러나 하나님께서 아담에 대해 그가 혼자 있는 것이 유익하지 않다고 선언하셨음에도, 나는 이 선언을 그의 개인에게만 제한하지 않고, 그것을 오히려 사람의 소명에 관한 공통 법칙으로 여긴다. 그리하여 모든 사람이 특별한 특권으로 하나님께서 면제하신 자 외에는, 그 말씀이 자신에게 하신 것으로 받아야 한다. 즉 고독은 좋지 않다는 것이다. 많은 이들은 독신이 자신들에게 유익하다고 생각하여, 비참해질까 두려워 결혼을 삼간다. 이교도 작가들만이 아내 없이 보내는 삶을 행복한 삶으로 규정한 것이 아니라, 요비니아누스를 반박한 첫 번째 책에서 히에로니무스는 거룩한 혼인을 증오스럽고 불명예스럽게 만들려는 방자한 비방으로 가득하다. 신실한 자들은 마귀의 이 사악한 암시들에 이 하나님의 선언을 대립시키기를 배워야 한다. 하나님께서 사람을 위해 부부의 삶을 정하신 것은 그의 파멸이 아니라 그의 구원을 위한 것임을 선언하시는 이 말씀을 말이다.
"내가 그를 돕는 배필을 지어주겠다." 이것이 왜 앞서 사람의 창조에서처럼 복수로 "우리가 만들자"고 하지 않는지 물을 수 있다. 어떤 이들은 두 성별 사이의 구분이 이런 방식으로 표시되고, 이로써 남자가 여자보다 얼마나 탁월한지 드러난다고 생각한다. 그러나 나는 비록 전혀 다른 것은 아니지만 다른 해석을 더 좋아한다. 곧 사람의 몸 안에서 인류가 창조되었으므로, 우리 본성 전체의 공통적인 존귀함이 "사람을 만들자"고 했을 때 구별 없이 하나의 찬사로 영예롭게 되었다. 여자를 창조할 때 그것을 반복할 필요가 없었으니, 그녀는 사람에 대한 부가물에 불과하기 때문이다.
이제 하나님께서 여자를 남자의 돕는 자로 주시므로, 그분은 아내들에게 그들의 소명 규범을 지시하여 의무를 가르칠 뿐만 아니라, 결혼이 남자에게 참으로 삶에서 가장 좋은 지지물임을 선언하신다. 그러므로 우리는 자연의 질서가 여자가 남자의 돕는 자가 되어야 함을 의미한다고 결론 내릴 수 있다. 통속적인 속담에는 여자가 필요악이라고 하지만, 오히려 하나님의 음성을 들어야 한다. 그분은 여자가 남자에게 동반자와 협력자로 주어졌으며, 잘 사는 것을 돕기 위함이라고 선언하신다. 나는 참으로 인류의 이 타락한 상태에서 여기 묘사된 하나님의 복이 인식되지도 번성하지도 않는다는 것을 인정한다. 그러나 그 악의 원인을 생각해야 한다. 곧 하나님께서 정하신 자연의 질서가 우리에 의해 뒤집어졌다는 것이다. 사람의 완전함이 처음과 같이 오늘날까지 남아 있었다면, 그 신적 제도가 분명히 인식되고 결혼에서 가장 달콤한 조화가 지배할 것이다. 이제 우리의 잘못으로, 그리고 본성의 타락으로 이 결혼의 행복이 크게 사라지거나 적어도 많은 불편함과 섞이고 오염되었다. 그러나 결혼은 남자들의 타락으로 인해 하나님께서 한때 자신의 말씀으로 거룩하게 하신 복이 완전히 폐지되고 소멸될 정도까지 악화될 수는 없었다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-gen-2-18-18(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
19절 카드 ↗
19. And out of the ground the Lord God formed, etc (144) This is a more ample exposition of the preceding sentence, for he says that, of all the animals, when they had been placed in order, not one was found which might be conferred upon and adapted to Adam; nor was there such affinity of nature, that Adam could choose for himself a companion for life out of any one species. Nor did this occur through ignorance, for each species had passed in review before Adam, and he had imposed names upon them, not rashly but from certain knowledge; yet there was no just proportion between him and them. Therefore, unless a wife had been given him of the same kind with himself, he would have remained destitute of a suitable and proper help. Moreover, what is here said of God’s bringing the animals to Adam (145) signifies nothing else than that he endued them with the disposition to obedience, so that they would voluntarily offer themselves to the man, in order that he, having closely inspected them, might distinguish them by appropriate names, agreeing with the nature of each. This gentleness towards man would have remained also in wild beasts, if Adam, by his defection from God, had not lost the authority he had before received. But now, from the time in which he began to be rebellious against God, he experienced the ferocity of brute animals against himself; for some are tamed with difficulty, others always remain unsubdued, and some, even of their own accord, inspire us with terror by their fierceness. Yet some remains of their former subjection continue to the present time, as we shall see in the second verse of the ninth chapter ( Genesis 9:2 .) Besides, it is to be remarked that Moses speaks only of those animals which approach the nearest to man, for the fishes live as in another world. As to the names which Adam imposed, I do not doubt that each of them was founded on the best reason; but their use, with many other good things, has become obsolete. (144) “ Formaverat autem Deus ,” — “God had formed,” plainly referring to what had already taken place. The Hebrew language has not the same distinction of times in its verbs which is common to more modern tongues.” — Ed . (145) “ Porro istud adducere Dei .” return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-21" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-gen-2-003
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
"주 하나님께서 흙으로 모든 들짐승과 모든 새를 지으셨다." 이것은 앞의 문장에 대한 더 충분한 설명이다. 모세는 모든 동물들이 질서에 따라 배열된 후, 아담에게 드릴 수 있는 것, 즉 그에게 합당하고 적합한 동물이 하나도 발견되지 않았다고 한다. 또한 아담이 어느 한 종에서 삶의 동반자를 선택할 수 있을 만한 본성의 친근함도 없었다. 이것이 무지에서 비롯된 것이 아니었다. 각 종이 아담 앞을 지나갔고, 그가 그것들에게 이름을 붙였는데, 무작위가 아니라 확실한 지식으로 붙였지만, 그와 그것들 사이에 적절한 비례가 없었다. 그러므로 같은 종류의 아내가 그에게 주어지지 않았다면, 그는 적합하고 합당한 도움 없이 남아 있었을 것이다.
더 나아가 하나님께서 동물들을 아담에게 이끌어오셨다는 말씀은, 하나님께서 그것들에게 순종의 성향을 부여하여 자발적으로 사람에게 나아가도록 하셨다는 것 외에 다른 의미가 없다. 그리하여 아담이 그것들을 면밀히 살펴보고 각각의 본성에 맞는 적절한 이름으로 구별할 수 있도록 하기 위함이었다. 이 사람을 향한 온순함은 아담이 하나님을 저버려 이전에 받은 권위를 잃어버리지 않았다면 야생 짐승들에게도 남아 있었을 것이다. 그러나 이제, 그가 하나님께 반항하기 시작한 때부터, 짐승들의 거칠음을 자신에 대해 경험했다. 어떤 것들은 길들이기 어렵고, 어떤 것들은 항상 제어되지 않으며, 어떤 것들은 자신의 사나움으로 스스로 우리에게 두려움을 준다. 그러나 이전 복종의 일부 흔적들이 지금까지 계속된다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-gen-2-19-19(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
21절 카드 ↗
21. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall, etc. Although to profane persons this method of forming woman may seem ridiculous, and some of these may say that Moses is dealing in fables, yet to us the wonderful providence of God here shines forth; for, to the end that the conjunction of the human race might be the more sacred he purposed that both males and females should spring from one and the same origin. Therefore he created human nature in the person of Adam, and thence formed Eve, that the woman should be only a portion of the whole human race. This is the import of the words of Moses which we have had before, ( Genesis 1:28 ,) “God created man... he made them male and female.” In this manner Adam was taught to recognize himself in his wife, as in a mirror; and Eve, in her turn, to submit herself willingly to her husband, as being taken out of him. But if the two sexes had proceeded from different sources, there would have been occasion either of mutual contempt, or envy, or contentions. And against what do perverse men here object? ‘The narration does not seem credible, since it is at variance with custom.’ As if, indeed, such an objection would have more color than one raised against the usual mode of the production of mankind, if the latter were not known by use and experience. (146) But they object that either the rib which was taken from Adam had been superfluous, or that his body had been mutilated by the absence of the rib. To either of these it may be answered, that they find out a great absurdity. If, however, we should say that the rib out of which he would form another body had been prepared previously by the Creator of the world, I find nothing in this answer which is not in accordance with Divine Providence. Yet I am more in favor of a different conjecture, namely, that something was taken from Adam, in order that he might embrace, with greater benevolence, a part of himself. He lost, therefore, one of his ribs; but, instead of it, a far richer reward was granted him, since he obtained a faithful associate of life; for he now saw himself, who had before been imperfect, rendered complete in his wife. (147) And in this we see a true resemblance of our union with the Son of God; for he became weak that he might have members of his body endued with strength. In the meantime, it is to be noted, that Adam had been plunged in a sleep so profound, that he felt no pain; and further, that neither had the rupture been violent, nor was any want perceived of the lost rib, because God so filled up the vacuity with flesh, that his strength remained unimpaired; only the hardness of bone was removed. Moses also designedly used the word built , (148) to teach us that in the person of the woman the human race was at length complete, which had before been like a building just begun. Others refer the expression to the domestic economy, as if Moses would say that legitimate family order was then instituted, which does not differ widely from the former exposition. (146) “ Ex putrido semine quotidie gigni homines .” (147) “ Quum se integrum vidit in uxore, qui prius tantum dimidius erat .” (148) “ Et aedificavit Jehova Deus costam quam tulerat ex Adam, in mulierem .” — And Jehovah God built the rib which he had taken out of Adam into a woman. ויבן , from בנה , to build. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-22" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-gen-2-003
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
"주 하나님께서 아담을 깊이 잠들게 하셨다." 비록 속된 사람들에게 여자를 만드는 이 방법이 우스꽝스럽게 보일 수 있고, 그들 중 일부는 모세가 우화를 다루고 있다고 할 수 있지만, 우리에게는 여기서 하나님의 놀라운 섭리가 빛난다. 인류의 연합이 더 거룩하도록, 하나님께서는 남성과 여성 모두가 하나의 같은 기원에서 나오도록 하려 하셨다. 그러므로 그분은 아담의 몸 안에서 인간 본성을 창조하시고, 거기서 하와를 지으셨다. 여자는 온 인류의 한 부분이 되도록 하기 위함이었다. 이것이 우리가 앞에서 본 모세의 말씀의 의미다. "하나님께서 사람을 창조하시되... 남자와 여자로 만드셨다." 이런 방식으로 아담은 마치 거울에서처럼 자신의 아내 안에서 자신을 인식하도록 가르침을 받았다. 하와는 자기 차례에 자신이 그에게서 취해졌으므로 기꺼이 남편에게 복종하도록 가르침을 받았다. 그러나 두 성별이 다른 근원에서 나왔다면, 상호적인 경멸이나 시기나 다툼의 빌미가 있었을 것이다.
그러나 나는 다른 추측을 더 좋아한다. 곧 아담에게서 무언가가 취해진 것은, 그가 자신의 일부를 더 큰 사랑으로 품을 수 있도록 하기 위함이었다. 그러므로 그는 갈비뼈 하나를 잃었지만, 대신 훨씬 더 풍성한 보상이 주어졌다. 그는 이제 신실한 삶의 동반자를 얻었기 때문이다. 그는 이제 전에는 불완전했던 자신이 아내 안에서 완전하게 된 것을 보았다. 그리고 여기서 우리는 하나님의 아들과의 우리의 연합에 대한 참된 유사성을 본다. 그분은 그분의 몸의 지체들이 힘을 부여받도록 하기 위해 약하게 되셨기 때문이다. 한편 아담이 아무런 고통도 느끼지 않을 만큼 깊은 잠에 빠졌다는 것, 그리고 그 손상이 폭력적이지 않았으며 잃어버린 갈비뼈로 인한 어떤 결핍도 느끼지 않았다는 것을 주목해야 한다. 하나님께서 그 공백을 살로 채우심으로 그의 힘이 손상되지 않도록 하셨기 때문이다. 오직 뼈의 단단함만이 제거되었을 뿐이다.
모세가 또한 의도적으로 "지으셨다"는 말을 사용한 것은, 여자의 몸 안에서 인류가 마침내 완성되었음을 가르치기 위함이다. 전에는 이제 막 시작된 건물과 같았다. 어떤 이들은 이 표현을 가정 경제에 관한 것으로 이해하여, 모세가 그때에 합법적인 가정 질서가 확립되었다고 말하는 것으로 해석한다. 이는 앞의 해석과 크게 다르지 않다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-gen-2-21-21(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
22절 카드 ↗
22. And brought her, etc Moses now relates that marriage was divinely instituted, which is especially useful to be known; for since Adam did not take a wife to himself at his own will, but received her as offered and appropriated to him by God, the sanctity of marriage hence more clearly appears, because we recognize God as its Author. The more Satan has endeavored to dishonor marriage, the more should we vindicate it from all reproach and abuse, that it may receive its due reverence. Thence it will follow that the children of God may embrace a conjugal life with a good and tranquil conscience, and husbands and wives may live together in chastity and honor. The artifice of Satan in attempting the defamation of marriage was twofold: first, that by means of the odium attached to it he might introduce the pestilential law of celibacy; and, secondly, that married persons might indulge themselves in whatever license they pleased. Therefore, by showing the dignity of marriage, we must remove superstition, lest it should in the slightest degree hinder the faithful from chastely using the lawful and pure ordinance of God; and further, we must oppose the lasciviousness of the flesh, in order that men may live modestly with their wives. But if no other reason influenced us, yet this alone ought to be abundantly sufficient, that unless we think and speak honorably of marriage, reproach is attached to its Author and Patron, for such God is here described as being by Moses. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-23" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-gen-2-003
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
"데려오셨다." 이제 모세는 결혼이 신적으로 제정되었다는 것을 이야기한다. 이것은 특히 알려질 필요가 있다. 아담이 자신의 뜻에 따라 아내를 취한 것이 아니라, 하나님께서 제안하시고 그에게 할당해 주신 아내를 받았기 때문이다. 이로써 결혼의 거룩함이 더 분명히 드러나니, 우리가 하나님을 그 창시자로 인식하기 때문이다. 마귀가 결혼을 불명예스럽게 하려 더 힘쓸수록, 우리는 더욱 결혼을 모든 비방과 남용에서 지켜내어 그것이 마땅한 존경을 받도록 해야 한다. 그로부터 하나님의 자녀들이 좋고 평온한 양심으로 결혼 생활을 받아들일 수 있을 것이고, 남편과 아내들이 순결과 존귀함으로 함께 살 수 있을 것이다.
결혼을 비방하려는 사탄의 술책은 두 가지였다. 첫째로는 결혼에 부착된 혐오감으로 독신에 관한 해로운 법을 도입하려는 것이었고, 둘째로는 결혼한 자들이 원하는 모든 방종을 즐기도록 하는 것이었다. 그러므로 결혼의 존귀함을 보여줌으로써 우리는 미신을 제거해야 한다. 그리하여 그것이 신실한 자들이 하나님의 합법적이고 순결한 규범을 거룩하게 사용하는 것을 조금이라도 방해하지 않도록 해야 한다. 더 나아가 육신의 음란함을 거슬러야 하니, 사람들이 자신들의 아내와 절제 있게 살 수 있도록 하기 위함이다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-gen-2-22-22(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
23절 카드 ↗
23. And Adam said, etc It is demanded whence Adam derived this knowledge since he was at that time buried in deep sleep. If we say that his quickness of perception was then such as to enable him by conjecture to form a judgment, the solution would be weak. But we ought not to doubt that God would make the whole course of the affair manifest to him, either by secret revelation or by his word; for it was not from any necessity on God’s part that He borrowed from man the rib out of which he might form the woman; but he designed that they should be more closely joined together by this bonds which could not have been effected unless he had informed them of the fact. Moses does not indeed explain by what means God gave them this information; yet unless we would make the work of God superfluous, we must conclude that its Author revealed both the fact itself and the method and design of its accomplishment. The deep sleep was sent upon Adam, not to hide from him the origin of his wife, but to exempt him from pain and trouble, until he should receive a compensation so excellent for the loss of his rib. This is now bone of, etc (149) In using the expression הפעם ( hac vice ,) Adam indicates that something had been wanting to him; as if he had said, Now at length I have obtained a suitable companion, who is part of the substance of my flesh, and in whom I behold, as it were, another self. And he gives to his wife a name taken from that of man, (150) that by this testimony and this mark he might transmit a perpetual memorial of the wisdom of God. A deficiency in the Latin language has compelled the ancient interpreter to render אשה ( ishah ,) by the word virago . It is, however, to be remarked, that the Hebrew term means nothing else than the female of the man. (149) “ Hac vice os est ex ossibus meis .” זאת הפעם , ( zot haphaam .) These words are rendered in the English version by “This now,” which very feebly and imperfectly expresses the sense of the original; nor does the version of Calvin, “At this turn,” give the true emphasis of the words. It is perhaps scarcely possible to do so without a paraphrase. The two words of the original are both intended to be emphatic. “This living creature ( זאת ) which at the present time ( הפעם , hac vice ) passes before me, is the companion which I need, for it is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” — Vide Dathe in loco. — Ed (150) “ Nomen uxori a viro imponit .” אשה , ( ishah ,) from איש , ( ish ,) which is the Hebrew word man with a feminine termination; as if we should say, “She shall be called manness, because she was taken out of the man.” Calvin uses the word virissa ; Dathe, after Le Clerc, the word vira ; and though neither of them are strictly classical, yet are they far preferable to the term virago in the Vulgate, which Calvin justly rejects, and which means a woman of masculine character. The English word woman is a contraction of womb-man. — Ed return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-24" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-gen-2-003
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
"아담이 말했다." 이때 아담이 깊은 잠에 빠져 있었으므로 그가 어디서 이 지식을 얻었는지 물음이 제기된다. 만약 우리가 그의 예리한 이해력이 추측으로 판단을 내릴 수 있었다고 말한다면, 그 해결책은 약할 것이다. 그러나 우리는 하나님께서 비밀 계시나 말씀으로 그 일 전체를 그에게 알려주셨을 것이라는 것을 의심해서는 안 된다. 하나님께서 여자를 만들기 위해 사람에게서 갈비뼈를 빌리실 필요가 없으셨기 때문이다. 그분은 그들이 이 유대로 더 긴밀하게 연합되도록 하려 하셨으니, 그분이 그 사실을 그들에게 알리지 않으셨다면 이루어지지 못했을 것이다.
"이는 내 뼈 중의 뼈요." 아담은 이 표현을 사용하면서 자신에게 무언가가 부족했음을 나타낸다. 마치 이렇게 말하는 것과 같다. "나는 이제 마침내 내 살의 본질의 일부이고 내가 다른 자아를 보는 것처럼 여기는 적합한 동반자를 얻었다." 그리고 그는 남자의 이름에서 취한 이름을 아내에게 주니, 이 증언과 표시로 하나님의 지혜에 대한 영원한 기념을 전하기 위함이었다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-gen-2-23-23(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
24절 카드 ↗
24. Therefore shall a man leave It is doubted whether Moses here introduces God as speaking, or continues the discourse of Adam, or, indeed, has added this, in virtue of his office as teacher, in his own person. (151) The last of these is that which I most approve. Therefore, after he has related historically what God had done, he also demonstrates the end of the divine institution. The sum of the whole is, that among the offices pertaining to human society, this is the principal, and as it were the most sacred, that a man should cleave unto his wife. And he amplifies this by a superadded comparison, that the husband ought to prefer his wife to his father. But the father is said to be left not because marriage severs sons from their fathers, or dispenses with other ties of nature, for in this way God would be acting contrary to himself. While, however, the piety of the son towards his father is to be most assiduously cultivated and ought in itself to be deemed inviolable and sacred, yet Moses so speaks of marriage as to show that it is less lawful to desert a wife than parents. Therefore, they who, for slight causes, rashly allow of divorces, violate, in one single particular, all the laws of nature, and reduce them to nothing. If we should make it a point of conscience not to separate a father from his son, it is a still greater wickedness to dissolve the bond which God has preferred to all others. They shall be one flesh (152) Although the ancient Latin interpreter has translated the passage ‘in one flesh,’ yet the Greek interpreters have expressed it more forcibly: ‘They two shall be into one flesh,’ and thus Christ cites the place in Matthew 19:5 . But though here no mention is made of two , yet there is no ambiguity in the sense; for Moses had not said that God has assigned many wives, but only one to one man; and in the general direction given, he had put the wife in the singular number. It remains, therefore, that the conjugal bond subsists between two persons only, whence it easily appears, that nothing is less accordant with the divine institution than polygamy. Now, when Christ, in censuring the voluntary divorces of the Jews, adduces as his reason for doing it, that ‘it was not so in the beginning,’ ( Matthew 19:5 ,) he certainly commands this institution to be observed as a perpetual rule of conduct. To the same point also Malachi recalls the Jews of his own time: ‘Did he not make them one from the beginning? and yet the Spirit was abounding in him.’ (153) ( Malachi 2:15 .) Wherefore, there is no doubt that polygamy is a corruption of legitimate marriage. (151) See Le Clerc on this verse, who takes the same view as Calvin. (152) “ Erunt in carnem unam .” — “ In carne una .” — Vulgate. Εἰς σάρκα μίαν . — Sept. (153) “ Spiritus abundans in eo erat ” The word abundans has in English the force of superabounding. — Ed return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-25" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-gen-2-003
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
"그러므로 남자가 부모를 떠나." 여기서 모세가 말하는 하나님인지, 아담의 말을 이어가는 것인지, 아니면 교사로서의 직책으로 자신의 이름으로 덧붙인 것인지 논의된다. 마지막 것이 내가 가장 찬성하는 것이다. 그러므로 하나님께서 행하신 것을 역사적으로 이야기한 후, 그는 또한 신적 제도의 목적을 보여준다. 전체의 요점은, 인간 사회에 속하는 의무들 가운데 이것이 주되고 가장 거룩한 것이라는 것이다. 곧 남자가 아내에게 매달려야 한다는 것이다. 그는 이것을 추가 비교로 강조한다. 남편은 아내를 아버지보다 더 소중히 여겨야 한다는 것이다.
그러나 아버지를 떠난다고 함은 결혼이 아들들을 아버지에게서 분리하거나 자연의 다른 유대를 면제해 주기 때문이 아니다. 그렇게 되면 하나님께서 자신에 반하여 행동하시는 것이 된다. 그러나 아버지에 대한 아들의 효도가 가장 열심히 가꾸어지고 본질적으로 불가침하고 거룩한 것으로 여겨져야 함에도, 모세는 아내를 버리는 것이 부모를 버리는 것보다 더 불법적이라는 것을 보여주도록 결혼에 대해 말한다. 그러므로 경솔한 이유로 무분별하게 이혼을 허용하는 자들은 한 가지 특정한 점에서 자연의 모든 법칙들을 위반하고 무효로 만드는 것이다.
"둘이 한 몸이 될 것이다." 비록 옛 라틴어 번역자는 이 구절을 "한 몸 안에"로 번역했지만, 그리스어 번역자들은 더 강력하게 표현했다. "그 둘이 한 몸이 될 것이다"라고. 이와 같이 그리스도께서 마태복음 19:5에서 이 구절을 인용하신다. 따라서 부부의 유대는 오직 두 사람 사이에만 존재하며, 이로부터 일부다처제가 신적 제도와 가장 맞지 않는다는 것이 쉽게 드러난다. 이제 그리스도께서 유대인들의 자발적인 이혼을 비난하시며 그 이유로 "처음에 그렇지 않았다"고 하실 때(마 19:5), 그분은 분명히 이 제도가 영원한 행동 규범으로 지켜지도록 명하시는 것이다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-gen-2-24-24(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
25절 카드 ↗
25. They were both naked That the nakedness of men should be deemed indecorous and unsightly, while that of cattle has nothing disgraceful, seems little to agree with the dignity of human nature. We cannot behold a naked man without a sense of shame; yet at the sight of an ass, a dog, or an ox, no such feeling will be produced. Moreover, every one is ashamed of his own nakedness, even though other witnesses may not be present. Where then is that dignity in which we excel? The cause of this sense of shame, to which we are now alluding, Moses will show in the next chapter. He now esteems it enough to say, that in our uncorrupted nature, there was nothing but what was honorable; whence it follows, that whatsoever is opprobrious in us, must be imputed to our own fault, since our parents had nothing in themselves which was unbecoming until they were defiled with sin. return to ' Top of Page ' Genesis Gen 1 Genesis Gen Genesis Gen 3 Footnotes: Copyright Statement These files are public domain. Bibliographical Information Calvin, John. "Commentary on Genesis 2". "Calvin's Commentary on the Bible". https://www.studylight.org/ commentaries/ eng/ cal/ genesis-2.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 Thought
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-gen-2-003
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
"둘 다 벌거벗었다." 사람의 벌거벗음은 부끄럽고 보기 흉한 것으로 여겨지지만, 짐승들의 벌거벗음에는 부끄러운 것이 전혀 없다는 것은 인간 본성의 존귀함과 조화를 이루지 않는 것처럼 보인다. 우리는 벌거벗은 사람을 부끄러움 없이 볼 수 없지만, 당나귀나 개나 소를 볼 때는 그런 감정이 생기지 않는다. 더 나아가 다른 증인들이 없어도 각 사람은 자신의 벌거벗음을 부끄러워한다. 그렇다면 우리가 탁월한 존귀함은 어디 있는가? 우리가 지금 언급하고 있는 이 부끄러움의 원인을 모세는 다음 장에서 보여줄 것이다. 그는 지금은 타락하지 않은 우리의 본성에는 존귀한 것 외에 아무것도 없었다는 것으로 충분하다고 여긴다. 이로부터 우리에게 수치스러운 것은 무엇이든 우리 자신의 잘못으로 돌려야 한다는 것이 따라 나온다. 우리 조상들은 죄로 더럽혀지기 전까지 자신들 안에 어울리지 않는 것이 아무것도 없었기 때문이다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-gen-2-25-25(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역