1절 카드 ↗
The historian returns to the tribe of Manasseh with the view of confirming what we formerly saw with regard to the daughters of Selophead. For though it was a novelty for females to succeed indiscriminately with males, yet as five of them had survived their father, they proved it to be equitable that they should be admitted to a portion, lest while he was innocent he should lie under the reproach of having died childless. God had replied to Moses by his oracle, that in regard to succession they should be counted as one head. They now demand that the decision thus given by the mouth of the Lord shall be carried into effect. As to the name of first-born, still given to Manasseh, it must be understood so as not to be at variance with the prophecy of Jacob; or rather his primogeniture is here in a manner buried, and his dignity restricted to the past. Here, however, it is to be observed, that men are so tenacious and so much devoted to their own interests, that it seldom occurs to them to give others their due. The daughters of Selophead had obtained a portion by a heavenly decree; nor had any one dared to utter a word against it; and yet if they had remained silent no regard would have been paid to them. Therefore, lest the delay should prove injurious to them, they apply to Joshua and Eleazar, and insist that they shall not be deprived of their legitimate succession. No delay is interposed by Joshua to prevent their immediately obtaining what is just, nor is there any murmuring on the part of the people. Hence we infer, that all were disposed to act equitably; but every one is occupied with his own interest, and too apt carelessly to overlook that of others. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-5" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-jos-17-001
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
므낫세 지파를 위하여 제비를 뽑았으니 등. 역사가는 슬로브핫의 딸들에 관해 우리가 전에 본 것을 확인하기 위해 므낫세 지파로 돌아간다. 비록 여자들이 남자들과 무차별적으로 상속을 받는 것이 새로운 것이었지만, 그들 중 다섯이 아버지보다 살아남았으므로, 그들이 몫의 배정을 받는 것이 공정하다는 것을 증명하였다. 그가 무죄함에도 자녀 없이 죽은 수치를 당하지 않도록 하기 위함이었다. 하나님은 모세에게 신탁으로 상속에 관해서는 그들이 한 명으로 계산되어야 한다고 대답하셨다. 그들은 이제 주의 입으로 내려진 그 결정이 실행되어야 한다고 요구한다. 장자라는 이름이 아직도 므낫세에게 주어지는 것은 야곱의 예언과 상충되지 않게 이해되어야 한다. 아니, 그보다 그의 장자권이 말하자면 여기서 묻히고 그의 존엄이 과거로 제한된다. 그러나 여기서 주목해야 할 것은, 사람들이 자신들의 이익에 얼마나 집착하고 헌신하여 다른 이들에게 그들의 마땅한 것을 주는 것이 그들에게는 좀처럼 떠오르지 않는다는 것이다. 슬로브핫의 딸들은 하늘의 명령으로 몫을 얻었다. 누구도 감히 그것에 대해 한마디도 하지 않았다. 그러나 만약 그들이 침묵하였다면 아무런 관심도 받지 못하였을 것이다. 따라서 지체가 그들에게 해롭지 않도록 그들은 여호수아와 엘르아살에게 신청하여 합법적인 상속에서 박탈당하지 않겠다고 고집한다. 여호수아는 그들이 즉시 정당한 것을 얻는 것을 방해하는 어떤 지체도 두지 않으며, 백성 쪽에서도 어떤 불평도 없다. 따라서 우리는 모두가 공정하게 행동할 의향이 있었지만, 각자는 자신의 이익에 몰두하여 다른 사람들의 이익을 너무 쉽게 간과하는 경향이 있다는 것을 추론한다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-jos-17-1-1(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
5절 카드 ↗
5. And there fell ten portions to Manasseh, etc The children of Manasseh are in this passage classed under seven stems. Machir, the first-born, is placed apart; the other six follow. Here the question arises, How was the inheritance divided into ten parts? Some expositors cunningly disguise the difficulty; (155) others, because they are unable to solve it, indulge in the merest trifling. It is certainly very absurd that four portions should be given to five daughters; and it is not a whit more congruous that their share should be doubled because their father was the first-born. It is beyond all controversy, that Gilead, son of Machir, and great-grandfather of the females of whom we are now speaking, chose his settlement in mount Gilead and Bashan. Therefore, seeing he had already obtained an inheritance by privilege without lot, he ought not to have obtained one by lot in the land of Canaan, unless perhaps he settled only a part of his family beyond the Jordan. For Hepher was one of his sons, but not the only one; and likewise the offspring of five other brothers might be distinguished into several heads according to the number of which the allocation by lot might be made. For it is not known in what degree families whose portion fell in the land of Canaan were taken. And all we read here is, that ten lots were east among the sons of Manasseh in addition to the country which they had formerly acquired for themselves beyond the Jordan. It is thus vain to dispute concerning the number, which cannot be ascertained with certainty from the present narrative, because the first thing necessary to be known is the exact number of families to whom the division was common. Nay, it is not impossible that the daughters of Selophead obtained their patrimony there. They are said, indeed, to have dwelt among the brethren of their father; but the place is not given. Be this as it may, I have no doubt that mutual equity was observed, and that after provision was made for others, the land which had been submitted to lot was distributed among ten families whose names are here omitted. (155) Latin, “ Quidam astute hunc scrupulum dissimulant .” French, “ Aucuns y vent a la finesse ne faisans nulle mention de ceste difficulte ;” “Some have recourse to finesse, making no mention of this difficulty.” — Ed. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-11" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-jos-17-001
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
므낫세에게 열 몫이 돌아갔고 등. 므낫세의 자녀들이 이 구절에서 일곱 줄기로 분류된다. 장자 마길은 따로 두고 나머지 여섯이 뒤따른다. 여기서 기업이 어떻게 열 부분으로 나뉘었는지 문제가 제기된다. 어떤 주석자들은 그 어려움을 교묘하게 감춘다. 다른 이들은 해결할 수 없으므로 가장 사소한 쓸데없는 말로 일관한다. 다섯 딸에게 네 몫을 주는 것은 분명히 매우 불합리하다. 그리고 그들의 몫이 아버지가 장자였기 때문에 배가 된다는 것도 전혀 더 적절하지 않다. 길르앗, 곧 마길의 아들이며 우리가 지금 말하는 여자들의 증조부가 길르앗 산지와 바산에 정착지를 선택하였다는 것은 논쟁의 여지가 없다. 따라서 그가 이미 제비 없이 특권으로 기업을 얻었으므로, 그가 자신의 가족의 일부만을 요단 저편에 정착시켰을 경우가 아니라면 가나안 땅에서 제비로 기업을 얻어서는 안 되었다. 왜냐하면 헤벨은 그의 아들 중 하나였으나 유일한 것은 아니었기 때문이다. 그리고 마찬가지로 다른 다섯 형제의 자손들은 배정이 이루어질 수 있는 수에 따라 몇몇 항목으로 구별될 수 있었다. 왜냐하면 가나안 땅에서 몫을 받은 가족들이 어느 정도로 취해졌는지 알 수 없기 때문이다. 그리고 여기서 우리가 읽는 것은 오직, 므낫세 자손들 사이에서 그들이 전에 요단 저편에서 스스로 취득한 나라 외에 열 제비가 뽑혔다는 것이다. 따라서 수에 관해 논쟁하는 것은 헛되니, 현재 이야기에서 확실하게 확인될 수 없기 때문이다. 먼저 알아야 할 것은 분배가 공통이었던 가족들의 정확한 수이기 때문이다. 아니, 슬로브핫의 딸들이 거기서 자신들의 가산을 얻었을 가능성도 배제할 수 없다. 그들이 아버지의 형제들 사이에 거하였다고는 하지만 그 장소는 주어지지 않는다. 어쨌든 나는 상호 공정이 지켜졌으며, 다른 이들을 위해 제공이 이루어진 후 제비에 넘겨진 땅이 이름이 여기서 생략된 열 가족 사이에 나뉘었다는 것을 의심하지 않는다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-jos-17-5-5(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
11절 카드 ↗
11. And Manasseh had in Issachar, etc How they were so mingled as to possess some cities in the lot of Asher and Issachar, while the tribe of Ephraim dwelt between their limits, it is not easy to divine, unless, perhaps, it was perceived that a more commodious habitation would not be liable to many complaints, (156) or, perhaps, after the whole country had become more certainly known, some change was made on principles of equity in the former partition. This, therefore, seems to have been a new acquisition after it was discovered that the children of Manasseh might occupy a wider extent without loss to others. Nor was the habitation given to them a subjugated one, which they might immediately enjoy, but it was an inheritance treasured up in hope, and founded more upon heavenly promise than on actual possession. And yet their not gaining possession of those cities is attributed to their fault, because the lot assigning it to them was an indubitable pledge of victory. The reason, therefore, why they could not expel the inhabitants was, because they were not fully persuaded in their minds that God is true, and stifled his agency by their own sluggishness. But another crime still less pardonable was committed when, having it in their power easily to destroy all, they not only were slothful in executing the command of God, but, induced by filthy lucre, (157) they preserved those alive whom God had doomed to destruction. For persons, on whom we impose tribute, we in a manner take under our faith and protection. God had appointed them the ministers of his vengeance, and he supplies them with strength to execute it: they not only delay, but deprive themselves of the liberty of acting rightly. It is not strange, therefore, that God severely punished this perverse heartlessness, by making those nations whom they had pardoned in the face of a clear prohibition, to become like thorns to pierce their eyes and pricks to gall their sides. Here, again, a question arises, How were cities granted to them in the tribe of Asher and Issachar, when the portions of both were as yet unknown? Here, therefore, that which had not yet taken place is related by way of anticipation. Be this as it may, we gather that from ignorance of the localities, single portions were not divided so exactly as not to make it necessary afterwards to correct what had been more or less decided. (158) And we must hold in general, with regard both to the tribe of Ephraim and the others, that many of the cities which they gained were of no account because of the devastation. I doubt not that many ruins here lie buried. On the other hand, we must conclude that in fertile spots, or spots possessed of other advantages, where petty villages only existed, their famous cities were founded. It is certain that Sichem was of sufficient importance to hold both a name and rank, and yet there is no mention of it here. The same is the case with Samaria, which, as is well known, belonged to the same tribe of Ephraim when it was the metropolis of the kingdom of Israel. It is plain, therefore, that each tribe possessed several cities, which are here passed over in silence. (156) Latin, “ Nisi quia forte perspectum est; nec habitatio commodior obnoxia esset multis querimoniis .” French, “ Sinon possible qu’on voulust avoir esgard que s’ils eussent este plus a leur aise, cela eust engendre des complaintes ;” “Unless it be possible that they were pleased to take it into consideration that if they had been more at their ease, that might have engendered complaints.” — Ed. (157) Latin, “ Turpi lucro adduti .” French, “ Sous couleur de quelque gain vilain et infame ;” “Under color of some vile and infamous gain.” — Ed. (158) In the French this section of the commentary stops here, and all that follows in the Latin is omitted. It only amounts, however, to a transposition, as the omitted paragraph is inserted under the section of Joshua 17:14 , at the place indicated by a note. — Ed. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-14" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-jos-17-002
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
므낫세가 잇사갈과 아셀 중에서 등. 그들이 아셀과 잇사갈의 제비에서 어떤 성읍들을 소유할 만큼 어떻게 그처럼 섞였는지, 에브라임 지파가 그 경계 사이에 거하면서, 짐작하기 쉽지 않다. 아마도 더 편리한 거처가 많은 불평에 시달리지 않을 것이라고 간파되었기 때문이었거나, 아마도 전체 나라가 더 확실하게 알려진 후 이전 분배에서 공정성의 원칙으로 어떤 변경이 이루어졌기 때문이었을 것이다. 따라서 이것은 므낫세 자녀들이 다른 이들에게 손해 없이 더 넓은 범위를 점령할 수 있음이 발견된 후의 새로운 취득인 것처럼 보인다. 그들에게 주어진 거처는 그들이 즉시 누릴 수 있는 정복된 것이 아니라, 소망 속에 보존되고 실제 점령보다 하늘의 약속에 더 기반한 기업이었다. 그러나 그들이 그 성읍들을 점령하지 못한 것은 그들의 잘못으로 돌려지니, 그것들을 그들에게 배정한 제비가 의심할 여지 없는 승리의 보증이었기 때문이다. 따라서 그들이 주민들을 쫓아낼 수 없었던 이유는, 그들이 하나님이 참되시다고 마음에 충분히 확신하지 못하고 자신들의 게으름으로 그의 역사를 억눌렀기 때문이다. 그러나 훨씬 더 용서받을 수 없는 다른 범죄가 저질러졌다. 그들이 쉽게 모두를 멸망시킬 수 있었음에도 하나님의 명령을 집행하는 데 게을렀을 뿐 아니라, 더러운 이익에 이끌려 하나님이 멸망으로 정하신 자들을 살려두었다. 우리가 조공을 부과하는 자들은 말하자면 우리의 믿음과 보호 아래 두는 것이기 때문이다. 하나님은 그들을 자신의 복수의 집행자로 임명하고 그것을 집행하기 위한 힘을 공급하셨다. 그들은 지연시킬 뿐 아니라, 스스로 올바르게 행동할 자유를 박탈하였다. 따라서 하나님이 명확한 금지에도 그들이 용서한 그 나라들이 그들의 눈을 찌르는 가시와 옆구리를 찌르는 찌르개 같이 되게 하심으로써 이 사악한 냉담함을 엄중하게 벌하신 것은 이상하지 않다. 여기서 또 다른 문제가 제기된다. 두 지파의 몫이 아직 알려지지 않은 상태에서 어떻게 아셀과 잇사갈 지파에서 성읍들이 그들에게 허락되었는가? 따라서 여기서 아직 일어나지 않은 것이 예기하여 이야기된다. 어쨌든 우리는 그 지역들에 대한 무지로 인해 단일 몫들이 나중에 더 많거나 적게 결정된 것을 수정할 필요가 없을 만큼 정확하게 나뉘지 않았다는 것을 수집한다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-jos-17-11-11(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
14절 카드 ↗
14. And the children of Joseph spoke unto Joshua, etc Although they clothe their complaint with some color of excuse, yet they dishonestly disguise the fact, that more was comprehended in one lot than was proper for one tribe. I know not, however, whether or not the lot was cast indefinitely for the sons of Joseph: it certainly does not seem congruous that it should be so. Joshua and the other dividers were not unaware that Ephraim and Manasseh formed two heads, or two stems: and it has repeatedly been said before that the land was divided into ten tribes, which number was not accurate, unless the tribe of Manasseh was considered distinct from that of Ephraim. It is certain, therefore, that they had not fallen into such a gross blunder as to throw the two names into one lot. Now, to conceal two tribes under the name of Joseph, in order to defraud them of half their right, would have been intolerable injustice. We may add, that the domain of each was distinctly explained and described by its proper boundaries. (159) We are therefore led to conclude, that when the lots were cast for the two tribes, the admirable counsel of God arranged that the brothers, who had a common father, should be contiguous and neighbors to each other. It is unworthy in them, therefore, to complain and plead that only one inheritance had been given to them, because Joshua had neither such heartlessness nor so much malice as to defraud them of a clear right either through thoughtlessness or envy. (160) But herein lay the falsehood of their complaint concerning narrow boundaries, that they counted all that was yet to be acquired by warlike prowess as nothing; as if the lot had assigned portions to the other tribes only in subjugated territory. Joshua, accordingly, in a single sentence, refutes and disposes of their plea, and retorts upon them a charge by which they were trying to throw obloquy upon him. If your resources and your numbers are so great, why, he asks, do you not make an inroad on the enemy, whose country has been given to you? Nor will the event disappoint you, if, trusting to the promise of God, you boldly proceed to the inheritance which he has bestowed upon you. We see how, although proper provision had been made for them, they were so blinded by sloth as to complain that they were straitened for room, because they were unwilling to move their finger to seek the full possession of their inheritance. Wherefore, this passage teaches us, that if at any time we think less is performed for us than is due, we ought carefully to shake off all delays, and not rashly throw upon others the blame which is inherent in ourselves. (159) The omitted paragraph of the section of Joshua 17:11 is inserted here. — Ed. (160) It is impossible, of course, to make any suppositions at variance with the honor and integrity of Joshua, and it must therefore be held that in whatever manner the lot was taken for the children of Joseph, the strictest equity was observed. Is it necessary, however, to adopt one of the two alternatives, — either that separate lots were taken for Ephraim and Manasseh, or that Joshua deceived them? Though they counted as two tribes, they had only one patriarch for their ancestor, and it may therefore have been most expedient that, as they were brethren, their settlements should be adjacent to each other. This might, perhaps, have been obtained by taking separate lots, for we have already seen, on several occasions, how the lot, though apparently fortuitous, was providentially controlled, so as to give results at once confirmatory of ancient predictions, and conducive to the public good; and we may therefore presume that even if separate lots had been taken, the result might be still have been to place the two kindred tribes in juxtaposition. But this was only problematical, and the only way of placing the matter beyond doubt was to make one lot serve for both. And there was no necessary injustice in this, since, as has been repeatedly observed, the lot only fixed the locality, without determining its precise limits, and thus left it open to enlarge or curtail them according to the extent of the population. If injustice had been done to the children of Joseph, it would not have been merely because they had been placed in one lot, but because this lot, though really intended for two tribes, had been left as small as if it had been intended only for one. The unreasonableness and dishonesty of the complaint, therefore, lay, according to this view, in their insisting on the fact that only one lot had been taken, and at the same time keeping out of view the other equally important fact, that in fixing its boundaries due allowance had been made for their numbers, and distinct settlements of sufficient magnitude given to each. That only one lot had been taken is strongly confirmed by the whole tenor of the narrative: First, When the children distinctly put the question to Joshua, “Why has thou given me but one lot and one portion to inherit?” he does not silence them at once by answering that the assertion which they thus broadly made in the form of a question was not true. On the contrary, the indirectness of his answer seems to imply that the truth of the assertion could not be denied. Secondly, The narrative in Joshua 16:0 , in describing the allocations of Ephraim and Manasseh, speak of them as forming only one lot. Thus, it is said, ( Joshua 16:1 ,) “The lot of the children of Joseph fell from Jordan by Jericho, unto the water of Jericho on the east;” and ( Joshua 16:4 .) “So the children of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, took their inheritance.” — Ed. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-16" class="com-number"
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-jos-17-003
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
요셉 자손이 여호수아에게 말하여 이르되 등. 비록 그들이 어느 정도의 변명의 색으로 불평을 꾸미지만, 그들은 한 제비에 한 지파에 합당한 것보다 더 많이 포함되었다는 사실을 불성실하게 감춘다. 그러나 나는 요셉 자손들을 위해 막연하게 제비를 뽑았는지 아닌지 모르겠다. 그것이 그럴듯하지 않은 것은 분명하다. 여호수아와 다른 분배자들은 에브라임과 므낫세가 두 머리 혹은 두 줄기를 이루었다는 것을 모르지 않았다. 그리고 전에 땅이 열 지파로 나뉘었다고 여러 번 말하였는데, 므낫세 지파가 에브라임의 것과 구별되어 계산되지 않으면 그 수가 정확하지 않을 것이다. 따라서 그들이 두 이름을 한 제비에 넣는 그처럼 심한 실수를 하였을 리 없다. 이제 요셉이라는 이름 아래 두 지파를 감추어 절반의 권리를 속이는 것은 참을 수 없는 불의였을 것이다. 우리는 또한 각자의 영역이 고유한 경계로 명확히 설명되고 서술되었다고 덧붙일 수 있다. 따라서 우리는 두 지파를 위해 제비를 뽑았을 때 하나님의 놀라운 뜻이 공동의 아버지를 가진 형제들이 서로 인접하고 이웃이 되도록 배열하였다는 결론에 이르게 된다. 따라서 그들이 자신들에게 하나의 기업만 주어졌다고 불평하고 주장하는 것은 옳지 않으니, 여호수아는 경솔함이나 시기심으로 명백한 권리를 그들에게서 빼앗을 만큼 냉담하거나 악의가 없었기 때문이다. 그러나 좁은 경계에 대한 그들의 불평의 거짓됨은 여기 있었다. 그들은 전쟁의 용기로 아직 취득해야 할 모든 것을 아무것도 아닌 것으로 계산하였다. 마치 제비가 다른 지파들에게는 이미 정복된 영토에서만 몫을 배정하였다는 것처럼. 따라서 여호수아는 한 마디로 그들의 변명을 논박하고 처리하며, 그들이 자신에게 오명을 씌우려는 비난으로 되돌려 응수한다. 만약 그대들의 자원과 수가 그처럼 크다면, 왜 그대들에게 주어진 나라의 원수에게 쳐들어가지 않는가? 만약 하나님의 약속을 신뢰하여 대담하게 그가 그대들에게 베푸신 기업으로 나아간다면, 그 결과가 그대들을 실망시키지 않을 것이다. 비록 그들을 위해 적절한 제공이 이루어졌지만, 기업의 완전한 점령을 구하기 위해 손가락 하나도 움직이기를 꺼리므로 공간이 좁다고 불평할 만큼 게으름에 얼마나 눈이 멀었는지 우리는 본다. 따라서 이 구절은 우리에게, 만약 어떤 때에 우리에게 마땅한 것보다 적게 이루어진다고 생각한다면 모든 지체를 신중하게 떨쳐버려야 하며, 우리 자신 안에 있는 잘못을 경솔하게 다른 이들에게 돌리지 말아야 함을 가르친다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-jos-17-14-14(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역
16절 카드 ↗
16. And the children of Joseph said, etc It is too apparent that they were thinking only of themselves, because they quibble as much as they can, in order to avoid following the suggestion of Joshua, than which, however, nothing was more reasonable. They object, that the mountain is rugged and little better than a desert, and therefore, though it were added to them, they would derive very little benefit from it. In regard to the plain, which was cultivated and fertile, they object that they are shut out and debarred from it because of the formidable array of the enemy. Accordingly, they make mention of their iron chariots, as if they had not already learned by experience that the Lord was able, without any difficulty, to trample down both horses and chariots. Joshua, however, by a simple and right-hearted answer, administers due castigation, as well to their avarice as their effeminacy and torpor. If the forest, as it now stands, is not sufficiently productive, cut down the trees and convert it into good fields; provided you are not sparing of your labor, you will have no reason to be dissatisfied with your habitation. Iron chariots, moreover, cannot prevent the Lord from performing what he has promised to you. The inheritance is yours; do only your part by entering with due confidence on the possession of it. return to ' Top of Page ' Joshua Jos 16 Joshua Jos Joshua Jos 18 Footnotes: Copyright Statement These files are public domain. Bibliographical Information Calvin, John. "Commentary on Joshua 17". "Calvin's Commentary on the Bible". https://www.studylight.org/ commentaries/ eng/ cal/ joshua-17.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 Testame
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-jos-17-003
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
요셉 자손이 이르되 등. 그들이 오직 자신들만 생각하고 있었음이 너무 분명하니, 여호수아의 제안을 따르지 않기 위해 가능한 한 많이 궤변을 부리기 때문이다. 그러나 그보다 더 합리적인 것은 없었다. 그들은 그 산지가 거칠고 황무지보다 낫지 않아, 그것이 자신들에게 더해지더라도 유익이 거의 없을 것이라고 반론한다. 경작되고 비옥한 평야에 관해서는, 원수의 무시무시한 진열 때문에 거기서 차단되고 막혀 있다고 반론한다. 따라서 그들은 철 병거를 언급하는데, 마치 이미 주께서 말과 병거를 아무런 어려움 없이 짓밟을 수 있다는 것을 경험으로 배우지 않은 것처럼. 그러나 여호수아는 단순하고 진심 어린 대답으로 그들의 탐욕에도, 나약함과 무기력함에도 마땅한 징계를 내린다. 만약 그 숲이 지금 상태로 충분히 생산적이지 않다면, 나무들을 베어 좋은 밭으로 만들라. 수고를 아끼지 않는다면 거처에 불만스러울 이유가 없을 것이다. 더 나아가, 철 병거도 주께서 그대들에게 약속하신 것을 이루는 것을 막을 수 없다. 기업은 그대들의 것이다. 오직 합당한 확신으로 그 점령에 나아가는 그대들의 역할을 다하라.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-jos-17-16-16(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역