10절 카드 ↗
10. And whatsoever make there be of the house of Israel . God here not only condemns to death whosoever shall have polluted themselves by eating of blood, but declares that He will Himself take vengeance on them, though they may escape from the hands of the judges; for He not only prescribes to the judges what it is right for them to do, but asserts for Himself the office of inflicting the punishment. For, if we consider the intention of the Law, is there anything to surprise us in this; for although it be not consistent that the blood of a brute should be compensated for by the death of a man, still we must remember that this mode of instruction (22) was necessary for a rude people, lest they should speedily lapse into barbarism. But, lest they should complain that no use remained for the blood, He reminds them that since it was given for atonement, they would be very ungrateful if they were not content with so great a blessing; and surely, since it was the price they were to pay for appeasing God, this was an employment of it far to be preferred to food. If, then, they desired to exchange into ordinary food the blood, which was destined to the altar for the reconciliation of God, Moses indirectly reproves their ingratitude; for when God took away the right of eating it, He left them something better, which should have abundantly satisfied them. But we have elsewhere (23) seen in what manner blood atones for souls, i e . , in a sacramental manner, upon which it must be observed that what properly belongs to Christ is thus transferred by metonomy to figures and symbols, yet in such a way that the similitude should neither be empty nor inefficacious; for in so far as the fathers apprehended Christ in the external sacrifices , atonement was truly exhibited in them. In this passage also, I do not understand “the strangers” to be all such visitors as may have journeyed amongst them on matters of business, but those who had devoted themselves to the worship of God; for many foreigners, abandoning their superstitions, were circumcised, and it behooved that such as these should be expressly laid under the bonds of the Law, lest, if it had not referred to them, they should have withdrawn themselves from obeying it. This point must, therefore, be briefly adverted to, lest we should suppose that heathen sojourners were prohibited from the eating of blood, whereas they were allowed to buy for food (24) even flesh that had been torn by beasts. Since, however, the Patriarchs before the Law had abstained from blood, and its prohibition had no reference to the First Table or the legal service, hence it came to pass that when the Apostles abrogated the ceremonial law, they did not dare to allow immediately the free eating of blood, lest great scandal should arise from this new and unwonted thing. ( Acts 15:20 .) Wherefore, lest so trifling a matter should cause deadly schisms in the Churches, they commanded the Gentiles not to eat of blood; adding as the reason, that those who were accustomed to read the writings of Moses, would be disturbed at this innovation; yet this was only observed for a short period, as we gather from Paul. (25) It was, not without superstition and misplaced zeal;. retained by some even to the days of Tertullian. (22) “Hanc paedagogiam . ” — Lat . “Ceste doctrine puerile.” — Fr . (23) See on Exodus 12:21 , ante vol. 1 p. 221. (24) See on Deuteronomy 14:21 , ante vol. 2, p. 69. (25) There is no reference here in the Latin, but the Fr . is, “comme il se peut recueillir par ce que Sainct Paul en escrit aux Corinthiens;” as may be gathered from what St. Paul writes respecting it to the Corinthians. In C . ’ s Commentary on the Acts, 15:28, he says, “We know that this law was foredone by Paul, so soon as the tumult and contention was once ended, when he teacheth that nothing is unclean, ( Romans 14:14 ,)and when he granteth liberty to eat all manner of meats, yea, even such as were sacrificed to idols. ( 1 Corinthians 10:25 .)” — C . Society ’ s edit . , vol. 2, p. 79. Tertullian, Apol . , cap . 9, speaks as follows; “Erubescat error vester Christianis, qui ne animalium quidem sanguinem in epulis esculentas habemus, qui propterea quoque suffocatis et morticinis abstinemus, ne quo modo sanguine contaminemur, vel intra viscera sepulto.” See Bingham, book 17 ch. 5 sec. 20 “But on the other hand, because it was the custom of the Catholic Church, almost to the time of St. Austin, to abstain from eating of blood, in compliance with the rule given by the Apostles to the Gentile converts; therefore, by the most ancient laws of the Church, all clergymen were obliged to abstain from it under pain of degradation. This is evident from the Apostolical Canons, and those of Gangra, and the second Council of Orleans, and the Council of Trullo. But as this was looked upon by some only as a temporary injunction, so it appears from St. Austin that it was of no force in the African Church. (Contra Faust., lib. 32, c. 13.) He that would see more about it may consult Curcellaeus, who has written a large dissertation upon the subject.” return to ' Top of Page ' Leviticus Lev 16 Leviticus Lev Leviticus Lev 18 Footnotes: Copyright Statement These files are public domain. Bibliographical Information Calvin, John. "Commentary on Leviticus 17". "Calvin's Commentary on the Bible". https://www.studylight.org/ commentaries/ eng/ cal/ leviticus-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%;marg
Pericope (part_of)
- part_of
pericope/per-lev-17-003
절 (explains)
Source
source-manifest/cal— Calvin's Commentaries (PD)- evidence_grade: T_theological
**10절. 이스라엘 집의 어떤 남자든지.** 여기서 하나님은 피를 먹음으로써 자신을 더럽힌 자는 누구든지 죽음에 처하라고 선고하실 뿐만 아니라, 비록 재판관들의 손을 피하더라도 그분 자신이 친히 그들에게 복수하실 것이라고 선언하신다. 그분은 재판관들에게 행해야 할 것이 무엇인지를 규정하실 뿐만 아니라, 형벌을 가하는 직무를 친히 주장하신다.
율법의 의도를 생각한다면, 이것이 놀랄 만한 것인가? 짐승의 피가 사람의 죽음으로 보상되는 것이 일관성이 없어 보이더라도, 우리는 미개한 백성들이 야만으로 급격히 타락하지 않도록 이러한 교육 방식이 필요했다는 것을 기억해야 한다.
그러나 백성이 피에 아무런 용도가 남지 않았다고 불평하지 않도록, 하나님은 그것이 속죄를 위해 주어졌으므로 그처럼 큰 복으로 만족하지 않는다면 매우 배은망덕한 것이 될 것임을 상기시키신다. 진실로, 그것이 하나님을 달래기 위해 지불해야 할 대가였으므로, 이것은 음식으로 사용하는 것보다 훨씬 더 선호되어야 할 용도였다.
만일 그들이 하나님의 화해를 위해 제단에 드려지도록 정해진 피를 일반 음식으로 바꾸고자 했다면, 모세는 그들의 배은망덕함을 간접적으로 책망하는 것이다. 왜냐하면 하나님이 그것을 먹을 권리를 빼앗으셨을 때, 그들에게 풍성하게 만족을 주었어야 할 더 좋은 것을 남겨주셨기 때문이다.
우리는 다른 곳에서 피가 어떻게 영혼들을 속죄하는지, 즉 성례적 방식으로 속죄한다는 것을 보았다. 여기서 그리스도께 고유하게 속한 것이 은유법으로 예표들과 상징들에 전가되는데, 그 유사성이 공허하거나 효력이 없어서는 안 된다는 것을 주목해야 한다. 왜냐하면 선조들이 외적 제사들 안에서 그리스도를 파악하는 한에서, 속죄는 그것들 안에서 진정으로 드러났기 때문이다.
또한 이 구절에서 "이방인들"을 사업상 그들 가운데서 여행한 모든 방문자들로 이해하지 않는다. 오히려 하나님의 예배에 헌신한 자들을 말하는데, 왜냐하면 많은 외국인들이 자신들의 미신을 버리고 할례를 받았기 때문이다. 이런 사람들은 율법의 구속 아래 명시적으로 놓여야 했으니, 만약 그것이 그들에게 적용되지 않았다면 율법에 복종하는 것을 회피했을 것이기 때문이다.
따라서 이 점은 간략하게 언급되어야 하는데, 이방 거주민들이 피를 먹는 것을 금지받은 것이 아니라 짐승에게 찢긴 고기도 음식으로 살 수 있도록 허용받았다고 생각하지 않도록 하기 위함이다.
그러나 율법 이전의 족장들도 피를 삼갔으며, 그 금지가 제1표나 율법적 예배와는 관계가 없었으므로, 사도들이 예식법을 폐지할 때 스캔들을 야기하지 않도록 즉시 피를 자유롭게 먹는 것을 허용하지 않았다. 이 새롭고 낯선 것으로 인해 큰 스캔들이 일어날 것이었기 때문이다(사도행전 15:20). 그러므로 이처럼 사소한 문제가 교회에 치명적인 분열을 일으키지 않도록, 그들은 이방인들에게 피를 먹지 말 것을 명령하였다. 모세의 글을 읽는 데 익숙한 사람들이 이 혁신에 당혹할 것이라는 이유를 덧붙이면서 말이다. 그러나 이것은 바울에게서 모을 수 있는 것처럼 잠시 동안만 지켜졌다. 그것은 터툴리아누스 시대까지 어떤 사람들에 의해 미신과 잘못 놓인 열심으로 지켜졌다.
원주석
- 번역원본
commentary-section/cal-lev-17-10-10(Calvin, PD) - CC0-1.0 · Sonnet 번역