언어
챗봇 KG 근거 인용 · draft✕
홈 › 주석[칼빈] › 로마서 › 4장

주석[칼빈] — 로마서 4장 · 아브라함의 믿음

요약
칼빈 주석 · 섹션 22개 · 한국어 번역 있음(한국어 우선) · 본문 보기
아래 주석은 원문(및 번역문) 그대로입니다.
← 3장5장 →

1절 카드 ↗

1. What then, etc. This is a confirmation by example; and it is a very strong one, since all things are alike with regard to the subject and the person; for he was the father of the faithful, to whom we ought all to be conformed; and there is also but one way and not many ways by which righteousness may be obtained by all. In many other things one example would not be sufficient to make a common rule; but as in the person of Abraham there was exhibited a mirror and pattern of righteousness, which belongs in common to the whole Church, rightly does Paul apply what has been written of him alone to the whole body of the Church, and at the same time he gives a check to the Jews, who had nothing more plausible to glory in than that they were the children of Abraham; and they could not have dared to claim to themselves more holiness than what they ascribed to the holy patriarch. Since it is then evident that he was justified freely, his posterity, who claimed a righteousness of their own by the law, ought to have been made silent even through shame. According to the flesh, etc. Between this clause and the word father there is put in Paul’s text the verb ἑυρηκέναι , in this order — “What shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?” On this account, some interpreters think that the question is — “What has Abraham obtained according to the flesh?” If this exposition be approved, the words according to the flesh mean naturally or from himself. It is, however, probable that they are to be connected with the word father. (130) Besides, as we are wont to be more touched by domestic examples, the dignity of their race, in which the Jews took too much pride, is here again expressly mentioned. But some regard this as spoken in contempt, as they are elsewhere called the carnal children of Abraham, being not so spiritually or in a legitimate sense. But I think that it was expressed as a thing peculiar to the Jews; for it was a greater honor to be the children of Abraham by nature and descent, than by mere adoption, provided there was also faith. He then concedes to the Jews a closer bond of union, but only for this end — that he might more deeply impress them that they ought not to depart from the example of their father. (130) So did all the fathers according to [ Pareus ] , and so does the Vulgate. But later commentators have taken the words as they stand, and with good reason, for otherwise the correspondence between this and the following verse would not be apparent. [ Beza ] , [ Hammond ] , and [ Macknight ] take the words in their proper order; and this is what is done by the Syriac and Arabic versions. Κατὰ σάρκα is rendered by [ Grotius ] and [ Macknight ] , “by ( per ) the flesh. Some understand by the word “flesh,” circumcision, as [ Vatablus ] ; others, natural powers, as [ Grotius ] But [ Beza ] and [ Hammond ] think that it is the same as what is meant “by works” in the next verse; and “flesh” evidently has this meaning: it signifies often the performance of what the law requires, the observance not only of ceremonial but also of moral duties. See Galatians 3:3 ; Galatians 6:12 ; and especially Philippians 3:3 ; where Paul gives up “all confidence in the flesh, ” and enumerates, among other things, his strict conformity to the law. — Ed. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-2" class="com-number"

Pericope (part_of)

절 (explains)

bible-text/rom-4-1

Source

1. **그러면 무엇이라 하겠느냐** 등. 이것은 실례(實例)로 확증하는 논증이며, 매우 강력한 것이다. 주제와 인물 모두에서 상황이 동일하기 때문이다. 아브라함은 믿는 자들의 아버지로서 우리 모두가 본받아야 할 분이며, 모든 사람이 의로움을 얻을 수 있는 방법도 여럿이 아니라 오직 하나이다. 많은 다른 경우에서 하나의 실례로 공통된 규칙을 세우기에는 충분하지 않겠지만, 아브라함의 인격 속에는 온 교회에 공통으로 속하는 의로움의 거울과 모범이 나타났으므로, 바울이 그 한 사람에 대해 기록된 것을 교회 전체에 적용한 것은 마땅한 일이다. 동시에 그는 아브라함의 자손이라는 것을 가장 자랑스럽게 여기던 유대인들을 제어한다. 그들은 감히 거룩한 족장에게 귀속시켰던 것 이상의 거룩함을 자신들에게 주장하지 못했을 것이다. 아브라함이 값없이 의롭다 하심을 받았다는 것이 분명한 이상, 율법으로 자신의 의를 주장하던 그의 후손들은 수치를 알아 입을 다물어야 했다.

**육신으로는** 등. 이 절과 "아버지"라는 단어 사이에 바울 본문에는 ἑυρηκέναι(발견하다)라는 동사가 삽입되어 있다. 이 때문에 일부 주석가들은 질문이 "아브라함이 육신으로 무엇을 얻었느냐?"라고 생각한다. 이 해석을 받아들인다면 "육신으로"는 자연적으로 혹은 스스로를 의미하게 된다. 그러나 이 구절은 "아버지"라는 단어와 연결되는 것이 더 자연스럽다. 또한 친근한 실례에 더 깊이 감동되는 우리의 성향을 고려할 때, 유대인들이 지나치게 자랑했던 혈통의 존귀함이 여기서 다시 명시적으로 언급된 것이다. 어떤 이들은 이것이 경멸적으로 말해진 것이라고 보는데, 마치 그들이 다른 곳에서 아브라함의 육신적 자녀들이라 불린 것처럼, 영적으로나 정당한 의미에서가 아니라는 것이다. 그러나 나는 이것이 유대인들에게 특별한 것으로서 표현되었다고 생각한다. 자연과 혈통으로 아브라함의 자녀가 되는 것은, 믿음이 동반된다면, 단순한 입양에 의해서보다 더 큰 영예이다. 따라서 그는 유대인들에게 더 가까운 결합의 유대를 허용하지만, 오직 이 목적을 위해서이다. 곧 그들이 아버지의 본을 떠나서는 안 된다는 것을 더 깊이 각인시키기 위해서이다.

원주석

2절 카드 ↗

2. For if Abraham, etc. This is an incomplete argument, (131) which may be made in this form — “If Abraham was justified by works, he might justly glory: but he had nothing for which he could glory before God; then he was not justified by works.” Thus the clause but not before God, is the minor proposition; and to this must be added the conclusion which I have stated, though it is not expressed by Paul. He calls that glorying when we pretend to have anything of our own to which a reward is supposed to be due at God’s tribunal. Since he takes this away from Abraham, who of us can claim for himself the least particle of merit? (131) Epicheirema; in Greek ἐπιχείρεμα, an attempted but an unfinished process of reasoning. It is not necessary to introduce this sort of syllogism, it being not the character of Scripture nor of any other writing to discuss matters in this form. The word for “glorying” here , καύχημα, is different from that in Romans 3:27 , καύχησις, and means reason, ground, or cause for glorying, and is rendered by [ Grotius ] “ unde laudem speret — whereby he may hope for praise;” and by [ Beza ] and [ Piscator ] “ unde glorietur — whereby he may glory.” To complete the following clause, most repeat the words ἔχει καύχημα — “But he has no ground for glorying before God.” [ Vatablus ] gives another meaning, “But not with regard to God,” that is, with regard to what he has said in his word; and this view is confirmed by what immediately follows, “For what saith the Scripture?” In this case there is nothing understood. That πρὸς θεόν is used in a similar manner, is evident from other passages : τα πρὸς θεόν — “things which pertain to God,” i.e., to God’s work or service. See Hebrews 2:17 ; Hebrews 5:1 . — Ed. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-3" class="com-number"

Pericope (part_of)

절 (explains)

bible-text/rom-4-2

Source

2. **아브라함이 만약** 등. 이것은 불완전한 논증으로, 다음과 같은 형태로 완성할 수 있다. "아브라함이 행위로 의롭다 하심을 받았다면 그는 마땅히 자랑할 수 있을 것이다. 그러나 그는 하나님 앞에서 자랑할 것이 없었다. 그러므로 그는 행위로 의롭다 하심을 받은 것이 아니다." 따라서 **하나님 앞에서는 그렇지 못하다**는 절이 소전제(小前提)이며, 여기에 내가 말한 결론이 추가되어야 하는데, 바울은 그것을 표현하지 않았다. 그는 하나님의 심판대 앞에서 보상을 받을 만하다고 여겨지는 자신의 어떤 것을 주장할 때 자랑한다고 부른다. 이것을 아브라함에게서 빼앗는 이상, 우리 중 누가 조금이라도 공로를 주장할 수 있겠는가?

원주석

3절 카드 ↗

3. For what saith the Scripture? This is a proof of the minor proposition, or of what he assumed, when he denied that Abraham had any ground for glorying: for if Abraham was justified, because he embraced, by faith, the bountiful mercy of God, it follows, that he had nothing to glory in; for he brought nothing of his own, except a confession of his misery, which is a solicitation for mercy. He, indeed, takes it as granted, that the righteousness of faith is the refuge, and, as it were, the asylum of the sinner, who is destitute of works. For if there be any righteousness by the law or by works, it must be in men themselves; but by faith they derive from another what is wanting in themselves; and hence the righteousness of faith is rightly called imputative. The passage, which is quoted, is taken from Genesis 15:6 ; in which the word believe is not to be confined to any particular expression, but it refers to the whole covenant of salvation, and the grace of adoption, which Abraham apprehended by faith. There is, indeed, mentioned there the promise of a future seed; but it was grounded on gratuitous adoption: (132) and it ought to be observed, that salvation without the grace of God is not promised, nor God’s grace without salvation; and again, that we are not called to the grace of God nor to the hope of salvation, without having righteousness offered to us. Taking this view, we cannot but see that those understand not the principles of theology, who think that this testimony recorded by Moses, is drawn aside from its obvious meaning by Paul: for as there is a particular promise there stated, they understand that he acted rightly and faithfully in believing it, and was so far approved by God. But they are in this mistaken; first, because they have not considered that believing extends to the whole context, and ought not to be confined to one clause. But the principal mistake is, that they begin not with the testimony of God’s favor. But God gave this, to make Abraham more assured of his adoption and paternal favor; and included in this was eternal salvation by Christ. Hence Abraham, by believing, embraced nothing but the favor offered to him, being persuaded that it would not be void. Since this was imputed to him for righteousness, it follows, that he was not otherwise just, than as one trusting in God’s goodness, and venturing to hope for all things from him. Moses does not, indeed, tell us what men thought of him, but how he was accounted before the tribunal of God. Abraham then laid hold on the benignity of God offered to him in the promise, through which he understood that righteousness was communicated to him. It is necessary, in order to form an opinion of righteousness, to understand this relation between the promise and faith; for there is in this respect the same connection between God and us, as there is, according to the lawyers, between the giver and the person to whom any thing is given, ( datorem et donatarium — the donor and the donee:) for we can no otherwise attain righteousness, than as it is brought to us, as it were, by the promise of the gospel; and we realize its possession by faith. (133) How to reconcile what James says, which seems somewhat contrary to this view I have already explained, and intend to explain more fully, when I come, if the Lord will permit, to expound that Epistle. Only let us remember this, — that those to whom righteousness is imputed, are justified; since these two things are mentioned by Paul as being the same. We hence conclude that the question is not, what men are in themselves, but how God regards them; not that purity of conscience and integrity of life are to be separated from the gratuitous favor of God; but that when the reason is asked, why God loves us and owns us as just, it is necessary that Christ should come forth as one who clothes us with his own righteousness. (132) The adoption is evidently included in the words, found in the first verse of this chapter, “I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward.” What follows is connected with this, and the promise of a numerous seed arose from what Abraham said respecting an heir. His believing then had an especial regard to the first promise, as the second, respecting his “seed,” was only, as it were, an enlargement of the first, or an addition to it. — Ed. (133) The foregoing observations contain a lucid and a satisfactory view of the character of Abraham’s faith, perfectly consistent with what is said of it by Paul in this chapter, and in the epistle to the Galatians. Some think that the principle of faith was the only thing which the Apostle had in view in referring to Abraham’s faith, and that he had no special regard to the object of justifying faith, that is, Christ. But that Christ was, in a measure, revealed to him, is evident from the account given in Genesis, and from what Christ himself has said, — that Abraham saw his day and rejoiced, John 8:56 . At the same time it was the promise of gratuitous mercy, as Calvin intimates, that formed the most distinctive object of Abraham’s faith, the promise of a free acceptance, without any regard to works. There are two things which the Apostle clearly intended to show, — that imputation of righteousness is an act of gratuitous favor, — and that it is alone by faith. There is some difference in the wording, though not in the meaning, of the sentence from Genesis 15:6 . Paul gives it literally according to the Septuagint. The word “Abraham,” is put in; instead of “Jehovah,” it is “God;” the verb “count,” is made passive, and a preposition is placed before “righteousness.” The Hebrew is this, — “And he believed on Jehovah, and he counted it to him righteousness.” The “it,” no doubt, refers to what is included in the word “believed.” So Paul explains it in Romans 4:9 , where he expressly puts down πίστις, faith. It has been said that this faith of Abraham was not faith in Christ, according to what the context shows in Genesis. And it

Pericope (part_of)

절 (explains)

bible-text/rom-4-3

Source

3. **성경이 무엇이라 하느냐?** 이것은 소전제, 곧 아브라함에게 자랑할 근거가 없다고 부정할 때 가정했던 것의 증명이다. 아브라함이 믿음으로 하나님의 관대한 자비를 받아들였기 때문에 의롭다 하심을 받았다면, 그는 자랑할 것이 없는 것이다. 그는 자기 비참함의 고백 외에는 자신의 것을 아무것도 가져오지 않았으니, 이는 자비를 구하는 청원이다. 그는 믿음의 의가 행위를 결여한 죄인의 피난처요 도피처라는 것을 당연한 것으로 취한다. 율법이나 행위로 어떤 의가 있다면 그것은 사람들 안에 있어야 한다. 그러나 믿음으로 말미암아 그들은 자신들에게 부족한 것을 다른 이로부터 얻는다. 그러므로 믿음의 의는 전가(轉嫁)된 의라 불리는 것이 마땅하다.

인용된 구절은 창세기 15장 6절에서 가져온 것이다. 여기서 "믿다"라는 단어는 어떤 특정한 표현에 국한되지 않고, 아브라함이 믿음으로 파악했던 구원의 언약 전체와 입양의 은혜를 가리킨다. 거기에는 미래의 씨에 대한 약속이 언급되어 있지만, 그것은 값없는 입양에 근거한 것이었다. 구원은 하나님의 은혜 없이 약속되지도 않았고, 하나님의 은혜는 구원 없이 약속되지도 않았다는 것을 기억해야 한다. 또한 우리에게 의로움이 제공되지 않고서는 하나님의 은혜나 구원의 소망으로 부름을 받을 수 없다.

원주석

4절 카드 ↗

4. To him indeed who works, etc. It is not he, whom he calls a worker, who is given to good works, to which all the children of God ought to attend, but the person who seeks to merit something by his works: and in a similar way he calls him no worker who depends not on the merit of what he does. He would not, indeed, have the faithful to be idle; but he only forbids them to be mercenaries, so as to demand any thing from God, as though it were justly their due. We have before reminded you, that the question is not here how we are to regulate our life, but how we are to be saved: and he argues from what is contrary, — that God confers not righteousness on us because it is due, but bestows it as a gift. And indeed I agree with Bucer, who proves that the argument is not made to depend on one expression, but on the whole passage, and formed in this manner, “If one merits any thing by his work, what is merited is not freely imputed to him, but rendered to him as his due. Faith is counted for righteousness, not that it procures any merit for us, but because it lays hold on the goodness of God: hence righteousness is not due to us, but freely bestowed.” For as Christ of his own good-will justifies us through faith, Paul always regards this as an evidence of our emptiness; for what do we believe, except that Christ is an expiation to reconcile us to God? The same truth is found in other words in Galatians 3:11 , where it is said, “That no man is justified by the law, it is evident, for the just shall by faith live: but the law is not by faith; but he who doeth these things shall live in them.” Inasmuch, then, as the law promises reward to works, he hence concludes, that the righteousness of faith, which is free, accords not with that which is operative: this could not be were faith to justify by means of works. — We ought carefully to observe these comparisons, by which every merit is entirely done away. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-5" class="com-number"

Pericope (part_of)

절 (explains)

bible-text/rom-4-4

Source

4. **일하는 자에게는** 등. 그가 일하는 자라고 부르는 것은 선한 행위에 헌신하는 사람이 아니다. 하나님의 모든 자녀들은 선한 행위에 힘써야 한다. 오히려 자신의 행위로 무언가를 공로로 취하려는 사람이다. 마찬가지로 그는 자신이 행한 것의 공로에 의존하지 않는 사람을 일하지 않는 자라고 부른다. 그는 믿는 자들을 게으르게 하려는 것이 아니라, 그들이 임금꾼이 되어 마치 정당한 대가인 양 하나님께 무언가를 요구하는 것을 금한다. 우리는 여기서 문제가 어떻게 살아야 하는지가 아니라 어떻게 구원을 받는지라는 것을 상기해야 한다. 그는 반대의 것에서 논증한다. 곧 하나님이 우리에게 의를 주시는 것은 그것이 당연히 우리의 것이기 때문이 아니라 선물로 주시는 것이다. 그리스도께서 자신의 자발적인 뜻으로 믿음을 통해 우리를 의롭다 하시므로, 바울은 이것을 항상 우리의 빈손의 증거로 본다. 우리가 믿는 것이 무엇인가? 그리스도께서 우리를 하나님과 화목하게 하시는 속죄물이라는 것이다.

원주석

5절 카드 ↗

5 . But believes on him, etc. This is a very important sentence, in which he expresses the substance and nature both of faith and of righteousness. He indeed clearly shews that faith brings us righteousness, not because it is a meritorious act, but because it obtains for us the favor of God. (134) Nor does he declare only that God is the giver of righteousness, but he also arraigns us of unrighteousness, in order that the bounty of God may come to aid our necessity: in short, no one will seek the righteousness of faith except he who feels that he is ungodly; for this sentence is to be applied to what is said in this passage, — that faith adorns us with the righteousness of another, which it seeks as a gift from God. And here again, God is said to justify us when he freely forgives sinners, and favors those, with whom he might justly be angry, with his love, that is, when his mercy obliterates our unrighteousness. (134) Some have stumbled at this sentence, — “his faith is counted for righteousness,” and have misapplied it, as though faith were in itself the cause of righteousness, and hence a meritorious act, and not the way and means of attaining righteousness. Condensed sentences will not submit to the rules of logic, but must be interpreted according to the context and explanations elsewhere found. “His faith” means, no doubt, his faith in the Promise, or in God who promises, or in him who, as is said in this verse, “justifies the ungodly:” hence what is believed, or the object of faith, is what is counted for righteousness. This accords with the declarations, — that “man is justified by faith,” Romans 3:28 , and that “the righteousness of God” is “by faith,” Romans 3:22 . If by faith, then faith itself is not that righteousness. “Beware,” says [ Chalmers ] , “of having any such view of faith as will lead you to annex to it the kind of merit, or of claim, or of glorying under the gospel, which are annexed to works under the law. This, in fact, were just animating with a legal spirit the whole phraseology and doctrine of the gospel. It is God who justifies. He drew up the title-deed, and he bestowed the title-deed. It is ours simply to lay hold of it...Any other view of faith than that which excludes boasting must be altogether unscriptural.” — Ed. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-6" class="com-number"

Pericope (part_of)

절 (explains)

bible-text/rom-4-5

Source

5. **하나님을 믿는 자** 등. 이것은 매우 중요한 구절로, 믿음과 의의 본질과 성격 모두를 표현한다. 그는 믿음이 우리에게 의를 가져다주는 것이 공로 있는 행위이기 때문이 아니라 하나님의 은총을 얻기 때문임을 분명히 보여준다. 그는 하나님이 의의 수여자이심을 선언할 뿐만 아니라, 하나님의 선하심이 우리의 필요를 채우러 오시도록 우리를 불의하다고 책망하기도 한다. 간단히 말해서, 자신이 불경건하다는 것을 느끼는 사람만이 믿음의 의를 구할 것이다. 믿음은 우리에게 다른 이의 의를 입혀주는데, 그것을 하나님께 선물로 구하기 때문이다. 여기서도 하나님은 죄인들을 값없이 용서하시고, 마땅히 진노하실 자들을 사랑으로 대하실 때, 곧 그의 자비가 우리의 불의를 지워버릴 때, 우리를 의롭다 하신다고 말씀된다.

원주석

6절 카드 ↗

6. As David also defines, etc. We hence see the sheer sophistry of those who limit the works of the law to ceremonies; for he now simply calls those works, without anything added, which he had before called the works of the law. Since no one can deny that a simple and unrestricted mode of speaking, such as we find here, ought to be understood of every work without any difference, the same view must be held throughout the whole argument. There is indeed nothing less reasonable than to remove from ceremonies only the power of justifying, since Paul excludes all works indefinitely. To the same purpose is the negative clause, — that God justifies men by not imputing sin: and by these words we are taught that righteousness, according to Paul, is nothing else than the remission of sins; and further, that this remission is gratuitous, because it is imputed without works, which the very name of remission indicates; for the creditor who is paid does not remit, but he who spontaneously cancels the debt through mere kindness. Away, then, with those who teach us to redeem pardon for our sins by satisfactions; for Paul borrows an argument from this pardon to prove the gratuitous gift of righteousness. (135) How then is it possible for them to agree with Paul? They say, “We must satisfy by works the justice of God, that we may obtain the pardon of our sins:” but he, on the contrary, reasons thus, — “The righteousness of faith is gratuitous, and without works, because it depends on the remission of sins.” Vicious, no doubt, would be this reasoning, if any works interposed in the remission of sins. Dissipated also, in like manner, by the words of the Prophet, are the puerile fancies of the schoolmen respecting half remission. Their childish fiction is, — that though the fault is remitted, the punishment is still retained by God. But the Prophet not only declares that our sins are covered, that is, removed from the presence of God; but also adds, that they are not imputed. How can it be consistent, that God should punish those sins which he does not impute? Safe then does this most glorious declaration remain to us — “That he is justified by faith, who is cleared before God by a gratuitous remission of his sins.” We may also hence learn, the unceasing perpetuity of gratuitous righteousness through life: for when David, being wearied with the continual anguish of his own conscience, gave utterance to this declaration, he no doubt spoke according to his own experience; and he had now served God for many years. He then had found by experience, after having made great advances, that all are miserable when summoned before God’s tribunal; and he made this avowal, that there is no other way of obtaining blessedness, except the Lord receives us into favor by not imputing our sins. Thus fully refuted also is the romance of those who dream, that the righteousness of faith is but initial, and that the faithful afterwards retain by works the possession of that righteousness which they had first attained by no merits. It invalidates in no degree what Paul says, that works are sometimes imputed for righteousness, and that other kinds of blessedness are mentioned. It is said in Psalms 106:30 , that it was imputed to Phinehas, the Lord’s priest, for righteousness, because he took away reproach from Israel by inflicting punishment on an adulterer and a harlot. It is true, we learn from this passage, that he did a righteous deed; but we know that a person is not justified by one act. What is indeed required is perfect obedience, and complete in all its parts, according to the import of the promise, — “He who shall do these things shall live in them.” ( Deuteronomy 4:1 .) How then was this judgment which he inflicted imputed to him for righteousness? He must no doubt have been previously justified by the grace of God: for they who are already clothed in the righteousness of Christ, have God not only propitious to them, but also to their works, the spots and blemishes of which are covered by the purity of Christ, lest they should come to judgment. As works, infected with no defilements, are alone counted just, it is quite evident that no human work whatever can please God, except through a favor of this kind. But if the righteousness of faith is the only reason why our works are counted just, you see how absurd is the argument, — “That as righteousness is ascribed to works, righteousness is not by faith only.” But I set against them this invincible argument, that all works are to be condemned as those of unrighteousness, except a man be justified solely by faith. The like is said of blessedness: they are pronounced blessed who fear the Lord, who walk in his ways, ( Psalms 128:1 ,) who meditate on his law day and night, ( Psalms 1:2 :) but as no one doeth these things so perfectly as he ought, so as fully to come up to God’s command, all blessedness of this kind is nothing worth, until we be made blessed by being purified and cleansed through the remission of sins, and thus cleansed, that we may become capable of enjoying that blessedness which the Lord promises to his servants for attention to the law and to good works. Hence the righteousness of works is the effect of the righteousness of God, and the blessedness arising from works is the effect of the blessedness which proceeds from the remission of sins. Since the cause ought not and cannot be destroyed by its own effect, absurdly do they act, who strive to subvert the righteousness of faith by works. But some one may say, “Why may we not maintain, on the ground of these testimonies, that man is justified and made blessed by works? for the words of Scripture declare that man is justified and made blessed by works as well as by faith.” Here indeed we must consider the order of causes as well as the dispensation of God’s grace: for inasmuch as whatever is declared, either of the righteousness of works or of the blessedness arising from them, does not exist, until this only

Pericope (part_of)

절 (explains)

bible-text/rom-4-6

Source

6. **다윗도 정의하기를** 등. 율법의 행위를 의식(儀式)으로만 제한하려는 자들의 궤변이 얼마나 교묘한지 여기서 볼 수 있다. 그는 이제 아무것도 덧붙이지 않고 단순히 행위라고 부르는데, 이것은 전에 율법의 행위라고 불렀던 것이다. 여기서처럼 어떤 차이도 없이 모든 행위를 포괄하는 단순하고 무제한적인 표현은, 논증 전체에 걸쳐 동일하게 이해되어야 한다는 것을 아무도 부정할 수 없다.

같은 목적을 위해 부정적 절도 있다. 곧 하나님께서 죄를 전가하지 않음으로 사람들을 의롭다 하신다는 것이다. 이 말씀으로 우리는 바울에 따르면 의로움이란 죄 용서에 다름 아님을 배운다. 더 나아가 이 용서는 행위 없이 전가되므로 값없는 것임을 배운다. "용서"라는 이름 자체가 이를 보여준다. 왜냐하면 갚음을 받은 채권자는 용서하는 것이 아니라, 오직 순전한 인자함으로 자발적으로 빚을 탕감해 주는 자가 용서하기 때문이다. 그러므로 우리의 죄를 보속(補贖)으로 사서 죄 용서를 얻으라고 가르치는 자들은 물러가라. 바울은 값없는 의의 선물을 증명하기 위해 바로 이 용서에서 논증을 빌려오고 있기 때문이다.

다윗의 말씀이 흩어버리는 것은 만족(滿足)에 관한 신학자들의 유치한 허구이기도 하다. 그들의 유치한 꾸며냄은 이렇다. 허물은 용서받지만 형벌은 여전히 하나님께 남아있다는 것이다. 그러나 선지자는 우리의 죄가 덮인다, 곧 하나님의 눈앞에서 제거된다고 선언할 뿐만 아니라, 전가되지 않는다고도 덧붙인다. 하나님이 전가하지 않는 죄를 형벌하신다는 것이 어떻게 일관될 수 있겠는가? 그러므로 이 가장 영광스러운 선언은 우리에게 안전하게 남아있다. "하나님 앞에서 그 죄가 값없이 용서됨으로 의롭다 하심을 받는 자가 복이 있다."

원주석

9절 카드 ↗

9-10. As circumcision and uncircumcision are alone mentioned, some unwisely conclude, that the only question is, that righteousness is not attained by the ceremonies of the law. But we ought to consider what sort of men were those with whom Paul was reasoning; for we know that hypocrites, whilst they generally boast of meritorious works, do yet disguise themselves in outward masks. The Jews also had a peculiar way of their own, by which they departed, through a gross abuse of the law, from true and genuine righteousness. Paul had said, that no one is blessed but he whom God reconciles to himself by a gratuitous pardon; it hence follows, that all are accursed, whose works come to judgment. Now then this principle is to be held, that men are justified, not by their own worthiness, but by the mercy of God. But still, this is not enough, except remission of sins precedes all works, and of these the first was circumcision, which initiated the Jewish people into the service of God. He therefore proceeds to demonstrate this also. We must ever bear in mind, that circumcision is here mentioned as the initial work, so to speak, of the righteousness of the law: for the Jews gloried not in it as the symbol of God’s favor, but as a meritorious observance of the law: and on this account it was that they regarded themselves better than others, as though they possessed a higher excellency before God. We now see that the dispute is not about one rite, but that under one thing is included every work of the law; that is, every work to which reward can be due. Circumcision then was especially mentioned, because it was the basis of the righteousness of the law. But Paul maintains the contrary, and thus reasons: “If Abraham’s righteousness was the remission of sins, (which he safely takes as granted,) and if Abraham attained this before circumcision, it then follows that remission of sins is not given for preceding merits.” You see that the argument rests on the order of causes and effects; for the cause is always before its effect; and righteousness was possessed by Abraham before he had circumcision. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-11" class="com-number"

Pericope (part_of)

절 (explains)

bible-text/rom-4-9

Source

9-10. 할례와 무할례만이 언급되어 있기 때문에, 어떤 이들은 성급하게 여기서 문제가 되는 것은 의가 율법의 의식으로 얻어지지 않는다는 것뿐이라고 결론짓는다. 그러나 바울이 논증하고 있던 상대방이 어떤 사람들인지 생각해야 한다. 위선자들은 일반적으로 공로 있는 행위를 자랑하면서도 외적인 가면을 쓰고 있다는 것을 우리는 알고 있다. 유대인들도 율법을 크게 남용함으로써 진정하고 참된 의에서 떠나는 그들만의 독특한 방식이 있었다. 바울은 하나님이 값없는 용서로 자신과 화목하게 하시는 자만이 복 있다고 말했다. 그러므로 그 행위들이 심판에 이르게 되는 모든 자는 저주 아래 있다. 이제 이 원칙이 지켜져야 한다. 곧 사람들은 자신의 가치에 의해서가 아니라 하나님의 자비로 의롭다 하심을 받는다는 것이다. 그러나 이것만으로는 충분하지 않다. 모든 행위보다 죄 용서가 먼저 와야 하고, 이것들 중 첫 번째는 유대 백성을 하나님 섬기는 일로 입교시킨 할례였다. 그러므로 그는 이것을 더 증명하러 나아간다.

할례가 율법의 의의 입교 행위로서 언급된다는 것을 항상 기억해야 한다. 유대인들은 할례를 하나님의 은총의 표징으로서가 아니라 율법의 공로 있는 준수로서 자랑했기 때문이다. 이런 이유로 그들은 자신들이 하나님 앞에서 더 높은 탁월함을 소유한 것처럼 다른 이들보다 자신들을 더 낫게 여겼다. 따라서 논쟁은 한 의식에 관한 것이 아니라, 하나의 것 아래 율법의 모든 행위, 곧 보상이 돌아올 수 있는 모든 행위가 포함되어 있음을 알 수 있다. 할례는 율법의 의의 기초로서 특별히 언급된 것이다. 바울은 이에 반대하여 이렇게 논증한다. "아브라함의 의가 죄 용서였다면 (이것은 당연한 것으로 안전하게 취한다), 그리고 아브라함이 할례 이전에 이것을 얻었다면, 죄 용서는 앞선 공로로 주어지는 것이 아니다." 논증이 원인과 결과의 순서에 달려 있음을 알 수 있다. 원인은 항상 그 결과보다 앞서며, 의는 아브라함이 할례를 받기 전에 소유되었다.

원주석

11절 카드 ↗

11. And he received the sign, etc. In order to anticipate an objection, he shows that circumcision was not unprofitable and superfluous, though it could not justify; but it had another very remarkable use, it had the office of sealing, and as it were of ratifying the righteousness of faith. And yet he intimates at the same time, by stating what its object was, that it was not the cause of righteousness, it indeed tended to confirm the righteousness of faith, and that already obtained in uncircumcision. He then derogates or takes away nothing from it. We have indeed here a remarkable passage with regard to the general benefits of sacraments. According to the testimony of Paul, they are seals by which the promises of God are in a manner imprinted on our hearts, ( Dei promissiones cordibus nostris quodammodo imprimuntur ,) and the certainty of grace confirmed ( sancitur gratœ certitudo ) And though by themselves they profit nothing, yet God has designed them to be the instruments ( instrumenta ) of his grace; and he effects by the secret grace of his Spirit, that they should not be without benefit in the elect. And though they are dead and unprofitable symbols to the reprobate, they yet ever retain their import and character ( vim suam et naturam : ) for though our unbelief may deprive them of their effect, yet it cannot weaken or extinguish the truth of God. Hence it remains a fixed principle, that sacred symbols are testimonies, by which God seals his grace on our hearts. As to the symbol of circumcision, this especially is to be said, that a twofold grace was represented by it. God had promised to Abraham a blessed seed, from whom salvation was to be expected by the whole world. On this depended the promise — “I will be to thee a God.” ( Genesis 17:7 .) Then a gratuitous reconciliation with God was included in that symbol: and for this reason it was necessary that the faithful should look forward to the promised seed. On the other hand, God requires integrity and holiness of life; he indicated by the symbol how this could be attained, that is, by cutting off in man whatever is born of the flesh, for his whole nature had become vicious. He therefore reminded Abraham by the external sign, that he was spiritually to cut off the corruption of the flesh; and to this Moses has also alluded in Deuteronomy 10:16 . And to show that it was not the work of man, but of God, he commanded tender infants to be circumcised, who, on account of their age, could not have performed such a command. Moses has indeed expressly mentioned spiritual circumcision as the work of divine power, as you will find in Deuteronomy 30:6 , where he says, “The Lord will circumcise thine heart:” and the Prophets afterwards declared the same thing much more clearly. As there are two points in baptism now, so there were formerly in circumcision; for it was a symbol of a new life, and also of the remission of sins. But the fact as to Abraham himself, that righteousness preceded circumcision, is not always the case in sacraments, as it is evident from the case of Isaac and his posterity: but God intended to give such an instance once at the beginning, that no one might ascribe salvation to external signs. (137) That he might be the father, etc. Mark how the circumcision of Abraham confirms our faith with regard to gratuitous righteousness; for it was the sealing of the righteousness of faith, that righteousness might also be imputed to us who believe. And thus Paul, by a remarkable dexterity makes to recoil on his opponents what they might have adduced as an objection: for since the truth and import ( veritas et vis ) of circumcision were found in an uncircumcised state, there was no ground for the Jews to elevate themselves so much above the Gentiles. But as a doubt might arise, whether it behoves us, after the example of Abraham, to confirm also the same righteousness by the sign of circumcision, how came the Apostle to make this omission? Even because he thought that the question was sufficiently settled by the drift of his argument: for as this truth had been admitted, that circumcision availed only to seal the grace of God, it follows, that it is now of no benefit to us, who have a sign instituted in its place by our Lord. As then there is no necessity now for circumcision, where baptism is, he was not disposed to contend unnecessarily for that respecting which there was no doubt, that is, why the righteousness of faith was not sealed to the Gentiles in the same way as it was to Abraham. To believe in uncircumcision means, that the Gentiles, being satisfied with their own condition, did not introduce the seal of circumcision: and so the proposition δια , by is put for εν , in (138) (137) The word “sign” in this passage , σημεῖον, seems not to mean an outward token of something inward, but a mark, circumcision itself, which was imprinted, as it were, as a mark in the flesh. So [ Macknight ] renders it, “The mark of circumcision.” That circumcision was a sign or a symbol of what was spiritual, is evident: but this is not what is taught here. Circumcision is expressly called “a token,” or a sign, in Genesis 17:11 ; but it is said to have been “a token of the covenant,” that is, a proof and an evidence of it. The design of circumcision is expressed by the next word , σφραγίδα — seal. This sometimes signified the instrument, 1 Kings 21:8 ; and sometimes the impression, Revelation 5:1 : and the impression was used for various purposes, — to close up a document, to secure a thing, and also to confirm an agreement. It is taken here in the latter sense; circumcision was a “seal,” a confirmation, an evidence, a proof, or a pledge, “of the righteousness” obtained “by faith.” We meet not with any distinct statement of this kind in Genesis: it is what the Apostle had gathered, and rightly gathered, from the account given us of what took place between God and Abraham. — Ed. (138) See a similar instance in Romans 2:27 . — Ed. return to ' T

Pericope (part_of)

절 (explains)

bible-text/rom-4-11

Source

11. **그가 표를 받은 것은** 등. 반론을 미리 차단하기 위해 그는 할례가 의롭다 할 수는 없지만 그렇다고 무익하고 불필요한 것이 아님을 보여준다. 할례는 또 다른 매우 주목할 만한 용도가 있으니, 봉인(封印)의 직무, 곧 믿음의 의를 비준(批准)하는 직무이다. 동시에 그는 그 목적을 말함으로써 할례가 의의 원인이 아님을 암시한다. 할례는 이미 무할례 상태에서 얻어진 믿음의 의를 확증하는 경향이 있었다. 그러므로 그는 할례에서 아무것도 빼앗거나 제거하지 않는다.

여기 성례 일반의 유익에 관한 주목할 만한 구절이 있다. 바울의 증언에 따르면 성례는 하나님의 약속들이 어떤 방식으로 우리 마음에 각인되고 은혜의 확실성이 비준되는 인(印)이다. 그것들은 그 자체로는 아무 유익이 없지만, 하나님은 그것들을 자신의 은혜의 도구로 지정하셨다. 그는 성령의 은밀한 은혜로 택한 자들에게 유익이 없지 않게 하신다. 비록 성례들이 버림받은 자들에게는 죽은 무익한 표징들이지만, 그것들은 여전히 자신의 가치와 성격을 보유한다. 우리의 불신이 그 효과를 빼앗을 수 있어도, 하나님의 진리를 약화시키거나 소멸시킬 수는 없다. 따라서 거룩한 표징들은 하나님이 우리 마음에 자신의 은혜를 봉인하시는 증거물이라는 확고한 원칙이 남는다.

할례의 표징에 관해서는 특히 이렇게 말해야 한다. 이중적인 은혜가 그것으로 표현되었다. 하나님은 아브라함에게 복된 씨를 약속하셨는데, 이 씨로부터 온 세상이 구원을 기대해야 했다. 이것에 "나는 너의 하나님이 되리라"는 약속이 달려있었다(창 17:7). 그러므로 값없는 하나님과의 화목이 그 표징 안에 포함되어 있었고, 이런 이유로 믿는 자들은 약속된 씨를 앙망할 필요가 있었다. 한편으로 하나님은 생명의 완전함과 거룩함을 요구하신다. 그는 그 표징으로 이것이 어떻게 얻어질 수 있는지를 나타내셨다. 곧 사람 안에서 육신에서 난 것을 잘라버림으로써이다. 왜냐하면 그의 전 본성이 부패하게 되었기 때문이다. 그러므로 그는 외적인 표징으로 아브라함에게 영적으로 육신의 부패를 잘라버려야 함을 상기시키셨다. 모세도 신명기 10장 16절에서 이것을 암시했다. 이것이 사람의 일이 아니라 하나님의 일임을 보이기 위해, 이 명령을 행할 나이가 안 되는 어린 아기들에게 할례를 명하셨다. 실로 모세는 영적 할례를 하나님의 능력의 역사로 명시적으로 언급했는데, 신명기 30장 6절에서 "주 너의 하나님이 네 마음을 할례하시리라"고 말씀하신 것에서 볼 수 있다. 선지자들도 후에 이것을 훨씬 더 분명하게 선언했다.

**믿는 자들의 조상이 되게 하려 하심이니** 등. 아브라함의 할례가 값없는 의에 관한 우리의 믿음을 어떻게 확증하는지 보라. 그것은 믿음의 의의 봉인이었는데, 이는 의가 믿는 우리에게도 전가되기 위해서였다.

원주석

12절 카드 ↗

12. To them who are not, etc. The verb, are , is in this place to be taken for, “are deemed to be:” for he touches the carnal descendants of Abraham, who, having nothing but outward circumcision, confidently gloried in it. The other thing, which was the chief matter, they neglected; for the faith of Abraham, by which alone he obtained salvation, they did not imitate. It hence appears, how carefully he distinguished between faith and the sacrament; not only that no one might be satisfied with the one without the other, as though it were sufficient for justifying; but also that faith alone might be set forth as accomplishing everything: for while he allows the circumcised Jews to be justified, he expressly makes this exception — provided in true faith they followed the example of Abraham; for why does he mention faith while in uncircumcision, except to show, that it is alone sufficient, without the aid of anything else? Let us then beware, lest any of us, by halving things, blend together the two modes of justification. What we have stated disproves also the scholastic dogma respecting the difference between the sacraments of the Old and those of the New Testament; for they deny the power of justifying to the former, and assign it to the latter. But if Paul reasons correctly, when he argues that circumcision does not justify, because Abraham was justified by faith, the same reason holds good for us, while we deny that men are justified by baptism, inasmuch as they are justified by the same faith with that of Abraham. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-13" class="com-number"

Pericope (part_of)

절 (explains)

bible-text/rom-4-12

Source

12. **할례에서 난 자들에게뿐 아니라** 등. 여기서 "있다"는 동사는 "여겨진다"는 뜻으로 취해야 한다. 그는 외적인 할례 외에 아무것도 없으면서 그것을 자신 있게 자랑하는 아브라함의 육신적 자손들을 지적하기 때문이다. 그들이 소홀히 여겼던 또 다른 것, 즉 아브라함이 오직 그것으로만 구원을 얻은 믿음을 그들은 본받지 않았다. 그러므로 그가 믿음과 성례를 얼마나 조심스럽게 구별했는지 분명히 드러난다. 이는 어느 하나만으로 만족하는 사람이 없도록 하기 위해서일 뿐만 아니라, 믿음만이 모든 것을 이룬다는 것을 보이기 위해서이다. 그가 할례받지 않은 상태의 믿음을 언급하는 이유가 무엇이겠는가? 믿음만으로도 다른 어떤 것의 도움 없이 충분하다는 것을 보이기 위해서이다.

원주석

13절 카드 ↗

13. For the promise, etc. He now more clearly sets the law and faith in opposition, the one to the other, which he had before in some measure done; and this ought to be carefully observed: for if faith borrows nothing from the law in order to justify, we hence understand, that it has respect to nothing else but to the mercy of God. And further, the romance of those who would have this to have been said of ceremonies, may be easily disproved; for if works contributed anything towards justification, it ought not to have been said, through the written law, but rather, through the law of nature. But Paul does not oppose spiritual holiness of life to ceremonies, but faith and its righteousness. The meaning then is, that heirship was promised to Abraham, not because he deserved it by keeping the law, but because he had obtained righteousness by faith. And doubtless (as Paul will presently show) consciences can then only enjoy solid peace, when they know that what is not justly due is freely given them. (139) Hence also it follows, that this benefit, the reason for which applies equally to both, belongs to the Gentiles no less than to the Jews; for if the salvation of men is based on the goodness of God alone, they check and hinder its course, as much as they can, who exclude from it the Gentiles. That he should be the heir of the world, (140) etc. Since he now speaks of eternal salvation, the Apostle seems to have somewhat unseasonably led his readers to the world; but he includes generally under this word world, the restoration which was expected through Christ. The chief thing was indeed the restoration of life; it was yet necessary that the fallen state of the whole world should be repaired. The Apostle, in Hebrews 1:2 , calls Christ the heir of all the good things of God; for the adoption which we obtain through his favor restores to us the possession of the inheritance which we lost in Adam; and as under the type of the land of Canaan, not only the hope of a heavenly life was exhibited to Abraham, but also the full and complete blessing of God, the Apostle rightly teaches us, that the dominion of the world was promised to him. Some taste of this the godly have in the present life; for how much soever they may at times be oppressed with want, yet as they partake with a peaceable conscience of those things which God has created for their use, and as they enjoy through his mercy and good-will his earthly benefits no otherwise than as pledges and earnests of eternal life, their poverty does in no degree prevent them from acknowledging heaven, and the earth, and the sea, as their own possessions. Though the ungodly swallow up the riches of the world, they can yet call nothing as their own; but they rather snatch them as it were by stealth; for they possess them under the curse of God. It is indeed a great comfort to the godly in their poverty, that though they fare slenderly, they yet steal nothing of what belongs to another, but receive their lawful allowance from the hand of their celestial Father, until they enter on the full possession of their inheritance, when all creatures shall be made subservient to their glory; for both heaven and earth shall be renewed for this end, — that according to their measure they may contribute to render glorious the kingdom of God. (139) Critics have differed as to the disjunctive ἤ, or, “or to his seed.” Some think it is put for καὶ, and: but [ Pareus ] thinks that it has a special meaning, intended to anticipate an objection. The Jews might have said, “If the case with Abraham is as stated, it is not so with his seed who received the law.” Yes, says Paul, there is no difference, “The promise to Abraham, or to his seed, to whom the law was actually given, was not by the law.” [ Hammond ] renders the whole verse more literally than in our version, — “The promise to Abraham or to his seed, that he should be the heir of the world, was not by the law, but through the righteousness of faith.” — Ed. (140) There is in Genesis no expression conveyed in these words; but the probability is, that he intended to express in another form what he distinctly quotes in Romans 4:17 , “I have made thee a father of many nations.” The word “father,” in this case, has been commonly understood to mean a leader, a pattern, a model, an exemplar, a forerunner, as Abraham was the first believer justified by faith, of whom there is an express record. But the idea seems to be somewhat different. He was a father as the first possessor of an inheritance which was to descend to all his children. The inheritance was given him by grace through faith; it was to descend, as it were, to all his lawful posterity, to all his legitimate seed, that is, to all who possessed the like faith with himself. He is therefore called the father of many nations, because many nations would become his legitimate heirs by becoming believers; and in the same sense must be regarded the expression here, “the heir of the world;” he was the representative of all the believing world, and made an heir of an inheritance which was to come to the world in general, to the believing Jews and to the believing Gentiles. He was the heir, the first possessor, of what was to descend to the world without any difference. He was the heir of the world in the same sense as he was “the father of all who believe,” as he is said to have been in verse eleventh. The inheritance was doubtless eternal life or the heavenly kingdom, the country above, of which the land of Canaan was a type and a pledge. See Hebrews 11:12 . — Ed. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-14" class="com-number"

Pericope (part_of)

절 (explains)

bible-text/rom-4-13

Source

13. **아브라함에게 한 약속이나** 등. 이제 그는 율법과 믿음을 더 명확하게 대립시키는데, 전에도 어느 정도 그렇게 했다. 이것은 주의 깊게 관찰해야 한다. 믿음이 의롭다 하기 위해 율법에서 아무것도 빌리지 않는다면, 그것은 오직 하나님의 자비만을 바라본다는 것을 이해하게 된다. 더 나아가 율법의 의식에만 이것이 말해졌다고 하려는 자들의 허구는 쉽게 논박된다. 행위가 의롭다 함에 조금이라도 기여했다면 "기록된 율법으로"가 아니라 "자연의 법으로"라고 했어야 했다. 그러나 바울은 영적 삶의 거룩함을 의식에 대립시키는 것이 아니라, 믿음과 그 의를 대립시킨다. 그러므로 그 의미는 유업이 아브라함에게 약속된 것은 그가 율법을 지킴으로 그것을 공로로 얻었기 때문이 아니라, 믿음으로 의를 얻었기 때문이라는 것이다.

**그가 세상의 상속자가 되리라는 약속** 등. 그가 이제 영원한 구원에 대해 말하는데, 사도가 세상으로 독자들을 이끄는 것은 다소 때 이른 것처럼 보인다. 그러나 그는 이 단어 아래 그리스도를 통해 기대되는 회복을 일반적으로 포함시킨다. 주된 것은 실로 생명의 회복이었다. 그러나 전 세상의 타락한 상태도 수리될 필요가 있었다. 히브리서 1장 2절에서 사도는 그리스도를 하나님의 모든 선한 것들의 상속자라고 부른다. 그의 은총으로 얻는 입양은 우리가 아담 안에서 잃어버린 유업의 소유를 우리에게 회복시키기 때문이다. 가나안 땅의 그림자 아래 아브라함에게 단순히 하늘 생명의 소망만이 아니라 하나님의 완전하고 충만한 복이 나타났기 때문에, 사도는 세상의 주권이 그에게 약속되었다고 가르치는 것이 정당하다.

원주석

14절 카드 ↗

14. For if they who are of the law, etc. He takes his argument from what is impossible or absurd, that the favor which Abraham obtained from God, was not promised to him through any legal agreement, or through any regard to works; for if this condition had been interposed — that God would favor those only with adoption who deserved, or who performed the law, no one could have dared to feel confident that it belonged to him: for who is there so conscious of so much perfection that he can feel assured that the inheritance is due to him through the righteousness of the law? Void then would faith be made; for an impossible condition would not only hold the minds of men in suspense and anxiety, but fill them also with fear and trembling: and thus the fulfillment of the promises would be rendered void; for they avail nothing but when received by faith. If our adversaries had ears to hear this one reason, the contest between us might easily be settled. The Apostle assumes it as a thing indubitable, that the promises would by no means be effectual except they were received with full assurance of mind. But what would be the case if the salvation of men was based on the keeping of the law? consciences would have no certainty, but would be harassed with perpetual inquietude, and at length sink in despair; and the promise itself, the fulfillment of which depended on what is impossible, would also vanish away without producing any fruit. Away then with those who teach the common people to seek salvation for themselves by works, seeing that Paul declares expressly, that the promise is abolished if we depend on works. But it is especially necessary that this should be known, — that when there is a reliance on works, faith is reduced to nothing. And hence we also learn what faith is, and what sort of righteousness ought that of works to be, in which men may safely trust. The Apostle teaches us, that faith perishes, except the soul rests on the goodness of God. Faith then is not a naked knowledge either of God or of his truth; nor is it a simple persuasion that God is, that his word is the truth; but a sure knowledge of God’s mercy, which is received from the gospel, and brings peace of conscience with regard to God, and rest to the mind. The sum of the matter then is this, — that if salvation depends on the keeping of the law, the soul can entertain no confidence respecting it, yea, that all the promises offered to us by God will become void: we must thus become wretched and lost, if we are sent back to works to find out the cause or the certainty of salvation. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-15" class="com-number"

Pericope (part_of)

절 (explains)

bible-text/rom-4-14

Source

14. **만약 율법에 속한 자들이** 등. 그는 불가능한 것 또는 불합리한 것으로부터 논증한다. 아브라함이 하나님께 받은 은총은 어떤 법적 계약이나 행위에 대한 보상으로 그에게 약속된 것이 아니다. 만약 이 조건이 삽입되었다면 — 즉 하나님이 공로가 있는 자들 또는 율법을 이행한 자들만을 입양의 은총으로 호의 베푸신다면 — 아무도 감히 그것이 자신에게 속한다고 확신하지 못했을 것이다. 율법의 의로 유업이 자신에게 당연히 돌아온다고 확신할 만큼 완전함을 의식하는 사람이 누가 있겠는가? 그러면 믿음은 헛되이 될 것이다. 불가능한 조건은 사람들의 마음을 불안과 두려움에 사로잡힐 뿐만 아니라, 약속의 성취도 헛되게 하기 때문이다. 약속들은 믿음으로 받을 때에만 유익하다.

우리의 대적들이 이 하나의 이유를 들으려 한다면 우리 사이의 논쟁은 쉽게 해결될 것이다. 사도는 약속들이 온전한 확신으로 받아들여지지 않으면 결코 효력이 없다는 것을 의심할 수 없는 것으로 전제한다. 그러나 사람의 구원이 율법을 지킴에 달려 있다면 어떻게 되겠는가? 양심은 확실성을 가질 수 없고, 끊임없는 불안으로 괴로워하다가 결국 절망에 빠질 것이다. 그리고 그 성취가 불가능한 것에 달려 있는 약속 자체도 아무 열매 없이 사라질 것이다. 그러므로 바울이 행위에 의존하면 약속은 폐기된다고 명시적으로 선언하는데, 행위로 구원을 찾으라고 백성에게 가르치는 자들은 물러가라.

원주석

15절 카드 ↗

15. For the law causeth wrath, etc. This is a confirmation of the last verse, derived from the contrary effect of the law; for as the law generates nothing but vengeance, it cannot bring grace. It can indeed show to the good and the perfect the way of life: but as it prescribes to the sinful and corrupt what they ought to do, and supplies them with no power for doing, it exhibits them as guilty before the tribunal of God. For such is the viciousness of our nature, that the more we are taught what is right and just, the more openly is our iniquity discovered, and especially our contumacy, and thus a heavier judgment is incurred. By wrath , understand God’s judgment, which meaning it has everywhere. They who explain it of the wrath of the sinner, excited by the law, inasmuch as he hates and execrates the Lawgiver, whom he finds to be opposed to his lusts, say what is ingenious, but not suitable to this passage; for Paul meant no other thing, than that condemnation only is what is brought on us all by the law, as it is evident from the common use of the expression, and also from the reason which he immediately adds. Where there is no law , etc. This is the proof, by which he confirms what he had said; for it would have been difficult to see how God’s wrath is kindled against us through the law, unless it had been made more apparent. And the reason is, that as the knowledge of God’s justice is discovered by the law, the less excuse we have, and hence the more grievously we offend against God; for they who despise the known will of God, justly deserve to sustain a heavier punishment, than those who offend through ignorance. But the Apostle speaks not of the mere transgression of what is right, from which no man is exempt; but he calls that a transgression, when man, having been taught what pleases and displeases God, knowingly and willfully passes over the boundaries fixed by God’s word; or, in other words, transgression here is not a mere act of sin, but a willful determination to violate what is right. (141) The particle, οὖ , where, which I take as an adverb, some consider to be a relative, of which; but the former reading is the most suitable, and the most commonly received. Whichever reading you may follow, the meaning will be the same, — that he who is not instructed by the written law, when he sins, is not guilty of so great a transgression, as he is who knowingly breaks and transgresses the law of God. (141) It is better to take this sentence, “Where there is no law, there is no transgression,” according to its obvious meaning; as it comports better with the former clause. The reasoning seems to be this, — “The promise is by faith, and not by the law; for the law brings wrath or condemnation: but where there is no law, there is no transgression to occasion wrath.” The same idea is essentially conveyed in verse Romans 4:16 , where it is said, that the promise is sure, because it is through faith and by grace. Had it been by the law, there would have been transgression and wrath, and hence the loss of the promise. This verse is connected with the Romans 4:13 rather than with the 14 th . It contains another reason, besides what Romans 4:14 gives, in confirmation of what is said in Romans 4:13 . Hence [ Macknight ] renders γὰρ, in this verse, “farther,” which renders the connection more evident. “Where no law is, there is no transgression, and therefore no wrath or punishment; but where law is, there is transgression, wrath, and punishment.” — [ Pareus ] return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-16" class="com-number"

Pericope (part_of)

절 (explains)

bible-text/rom-4-15

Source

15. **율법은 진노를 이루게 하나니** 등. 이것은 앞 절의 확증으로, 율법의 반대적 효과에서 가져온 것이다. 율법은 복수(復讐) 외에 아무것도 낳지 않으므로 은혜를 가져올 수 없다. 율법은 선하고 완전한 자에게는 생명의 길을 보여줄 수 있다. 그러나 죄 있고 부패한 자들에게는 그들이 행해야 할 것을 규정하면서도 행할 힘을 공급하지 않기 때문에, 하나님의 심판대 앞에서 그들을 죄 있는 자로 드러낸다. 우리 본성의 사악함이 이러하여, 옳고 바른 것을 더 많이 배울수록 우리의 불의, 특히 강퍅함이 더 명백하게 드러나고, 그래서 더 무거운 심판을 받게 된다. **진노**란 하나님의 심판을 뜻하며, 어디서나 그런 의미를 가진다.

**율법이 없는 곳에는** 등. 이것은 그가 방금 말한 것을 확증하는 증명이다. 율법으로 말미암아 하나님의 진노가 어떻게 우리에게 임하는지, 더 명백하게 드러내지 않으면 보기 어려웠을 것이기 때문이다. 하나님의 의의 지식이 율법으로 발견될수록 우리의 변명의 여지가 줄고, 그러므로 하나님께 더 심하게 범죄한다. 알고 있는 하나님의 뜻을 멸시하는 자들은 무지로 범하는 자들보다 더 무거운 형벌을 당연히 받아야 하기 때문이다. 그러나 사도는 아무도 면제될 수 없는 단순한 옳은 것의 범죄에 대해 말하는 것이 아니다. 그는 사람이 하나님을 기쁘시게 하는 것과 불쾌하게 하는 것을 배운 뒤에 알면서도 의도적으로 하나님의 말씀이 정한 경계를 넘어갈 때 그것을 범죄라고 부른다. 즉 여기서 범죄는 단순한 죄의 행위가 아니라 옳은 것을 의도적으로 침범하려는 결의이다.

원주석

16절 카드 ↗

16. It is therefore of faith, etc. This is the winding up of the argument; and you may summarily include the whole of it in this statement, — “If the heirship of salvation comes to us by works, then faith in it vanishes, the promise of it is abolished; but it is necessary that both these should be sure and certain; hence it comes to us by faith, so that its stability being based on the goodness of God alone, may be secured.” See how the Apostle, regarding faith as a thing firm and certain, considers hesitancy and doubt as unbelief, by which faith is abolished, and the promise abrogated. And yet this doubting is what the schoolmen call a moral conjecture, and which, alas! they substitute for faith. That it might be by grace , etc. Here, in the first place, the Apostle shows, that nothing is set before faith but mere grace; and this, as they commonly say, is its object: for were it to look on merits, absurdly would Paul infer, that whatever it obtains for us is gratuitous. I will repeat this again in other words, — “If grace be everything that we obtain by faith, then every regard for works is laid in the dust.” But what next follows more fully removes all ambiguity, — that the promise then only stands firm, when it recumbs on grace: for by this expression Paul confirms this truth, that as long as men depend on works, they are harassed with doubts; for they deprive themselves of what the promises contain. Hence, also, we may easily learn, that grace is not to be taken, as some imagine, for the gift of regeneration, but for a gratuitous favor: for as regeneration is never perfect, it can never suffice to pacify souls, nor of itself can it make the promise certain. Not to that only which is of the law, etc. Though these words mean in another place those who, being absurd zealots of the law, bind themselves to its yoke, and boast of their confidence in it, yet here they mean simply the Jewish nation, to whom the law of the Lord had been delivered. For Paul teaches us in another passage, that all who remain bound to the dominion of the law, are subject to a curse; it is then certain that they are excluded from the participation of grace. He does not then call them the servants of the law, who, adhering to the righteousness of works, renounce Christ; but they were those Jews who had been brought up in the law, and yet professed the name of Christ. But that the sentence may be made clearer, let it be worded thus, — “Not to those only who are of the law, but to all who imitate the faith of Abraham, though they had not the law before.” Who is the father of us all, etc. The relative has the meaning of a causative particle; for he meant to prove, that the Gentiles were become partakers of this grace, inasmuch as by the same oracle, by which the heirship was conferred on Abraham and his seed, were the Gentiles also constituted his seed: for he is said to have been made the father, not of one nation, but of many nations; by which was presignified the future extension of grace, then confined to Israel alone. For except the promised blessing had been extended to them, they could not have been counted as the offspring of Abraham. The past tense of the verb, according to the common usage of Scripture, denotes the certainty of the Divine counsel; for though nothing then was less apparent, yet as God had thus decreed, he is rightly said to have been made the father of many nations. Let the testimony of Moses be included in a parenthesis, that this clause, “Who is the father of us all,” may be connected with the other, “before God,” etc.: for it was necessary to explain also what that relationship was, that the Jews might not glory too much in their carnal descent. Hence he says, “He is our father before God; ” which means the same as though he had said, “He is our spiritual father;” for he had this privilege, not from his own flesh, but from the promise of God (142) (142) It appears from [ Pareus ] and [ Hammond ], that some of the Fathers such as [ Chrysostom ], and [ Theophylact ], regarded κατέναντι in the sense of ὁμοίως, like , and have rendered the passage, “like God, in whom he believed;” that is, that as God is not partial, but the Father of all, so Abraham was. But this meaning is not consistent with the import of κατέναντι, nor with the context. The preposition is found in four other places, Mark 11:2 ; Mark 12:41 ; Mark 13:3 ; Luke 19:30 , and invariably means before , or, over against . The Septuagint use it in Numbers 25:4 , in the sense of before , κατέναντι τοῦ ἡλίου — “before the sun,” not “ against the sun” as in our version; for the word in Hebrew is נגד , Coram , in conspectu . The context also requires this meaning: Abraham was a father of many nations before God, or, in the view or estimation of God, and not in the view or estimation of men, because God, as it is said at the end of the verse, regards things which are not, as though they were. Hence Abraham was already in God’s view, according to his purpose, the father of many nations. The collocation of the words is said by [ Wolfius ] to be an instance of Atticism, the word θεοῦ, being separated from its preposition: and οὗ is put for ᾧ by the grammatical law of attraction; and [ Stuart ] brings three similar instances of the relative being regulated by the case of its noun, though preceding it in the sentence, Mark 6:16 , Acts 21:16 ; and Romans 6:17 return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-17" class="com-number"

Pericope (part_of)

절 (explains)

bible-text/rom-4-16

Source

16. **그러므로 믿음으로 말미암아** 등. 이것은 논증의 결론이다. 요약하면 이렇다. "구원의 유업이 행위로 우리에게 온다면 그것에 대한 믿음은 사라지고 그 약속은 폐기된다. 그러나 이 둘은 확실하고 견고해야 한다. 그러므로 그것은 믿음으로 오며, 그 견고함이 오직 하나님의 선하심에 근거하도록 보장된다." 사도가 믿음을 확실하고 견고한 것으로 여기면서 주저함과 의심을 믿음을 폐기하고 약속을 철폐하는 불신으로 간주한다는 것을 보라. 그런데도 신학자들이 도덕적 추측이라고 부르는 이 의심을 — 아! — 그들은 믿음 대신 내세우고 있다.

**은혜로 말미암게 하려 함이라** 등. 여기서 사도는 먼저 믿음 앞에 놓인 것이 순전한 은혜뿐임을 보인다. 그들이 흔히 말하듯, 이것이 믿음의 대상이다. 믿음이 공로를 바라본다면 바울이 믿음으로 얻는 것이 무엇이든 값없이 주어진다고 추론하는 것은 불합리하기 때문이다. 이것을 다른 말로 다시 반복하겠다. "믿음으로 얻는 모든 것이 은혜라면, 행위에 대한 모든 고려는 쓸려나간다." 그러나 바로 뒤에 오는 것이 모든 모호함을 더욱 충분히 제거한다. 약속은 은혜에 기댈 때에만 확고히 선다. 이 표현으로 바울은 사람들이 행위에 의존하는 한 의심으로 괴로워한다는 진리를 확증한다. 그들이 약속이 담고 있는 것을 스스로 빼앗기 때문이다.

**율법에 속한 자에게만 아니라** 등. 이 단어들은 다른 곳에서 율법을 열렬히 고집하며 율법의 멍에에 자신을 묶고 율법을 신뢰하는 것을 자랑하는 자들을 의미하지만, 여기서는 단순히 주의 율법이 주어진 유대 민족을 의미한다. 바울은 다른 구절에서 율법의 지배에 묶여 있는 모든 자들이 저주 아래 있다고 가르친다. 그러므로 그들은 은혜 참여에서 제외된 것이 확실하다. 그러므로 그는 행위의 의를 고집하여 그리스도를 포기한 율법의 종들이 아니라, 율법 안에서 양육되었으면서도 그리스도의 이름을 고백하는 유대인들을 부르는 것이다.

**모든 사람의 조상이라 함과 같으니** 등. 관계사는 인과적 불변화사의 의미를 지닌다. 왜냐하면 그는 이방인들이 이 은혜의 참여자가 되었음을 증명하려 했기 때문이다. 유업이 아브라함과 그의 씨에게 주어진 동일한 신탁으로 이방인들도 그의 씨로 세워졌기 때문이다. 그는 한 민족만이 아니라 많은 민족의 아버지가 되었다고 말씀된다. 이로써 당시 이스라엘에만 국한되었던 은혜의 미래 확장이 예고되었다. 약속된 복이 그들에게도 확장되지 않았다면 그들은 아브라함의 자손으로 여겨질 수 없었을 것이다.

원주석

17절 카드 ↗

17. Whom he believed, who quickens the dead , etc. In this circuitous form is expressed the very substance of Abraham’s faith, that by his example an opening might be made for the Gentiles. He had indeed to attain, in a wonderful way, the promise which he had heard from the Lord’s mouth, since there was then no token of it. A seed was promised to him as though he was in vigor and strength; but he was as it were dead. It was hence necessary for him to raise up his thoughts to the power of God, by which the dead are quickened. It was therefore not strange that the Gentiles, who were barren and dead, should be introduced into the same society. He then who denies them to be capable of grace, does wrong to Abraham, whose faith was sustained by this thought, — that it matters not whether he was dead or not who is called by the Lord; to whom it is an easy thing, even by a word, to raise the dead through his own power. We have here also a type and a pattern of the call of us all, by which our beginning is set before our eyes, not as to our first birth, but as to the hope of future life, — that when we are called by the Lord we emerge from nothing; for whatever we may seem to be we have not, no, not a spark of anything good, which can render us fit for the kingdom of God. That we may indeed on the other hand be in a suitable state to hear the call of God, we must be altogether dead in ourselves. The character of the divine calling is, that they who are dead are raised by the Lord, that they who are nothing begin to be something through his power. The word call ought not to be confined to preaching, but it is to be taken, according to the usage of Scripture, for raising up; and it is intended to set forth more fully the power of God, who raises up, as it were by a nod only, whom he wills. (143) (143) The idea of commanding to existence, or of effecting, is given by many Commentators to the word καλοῦντος; but this seems not necessary. The simple notion of calling, naming, regarding, or representing, is more consistent with the passage, and with the construction of the sentence: and the various modes of rendering it, which critics have proposed, have arisen from not taking the word in its most obvious meaning. “The literal version is, and who calls things not existing as existing ,” — και καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα. The reference is evidently to the declaration, “I have made thee the father of many nations.” This had then no real existence; but God represents it as having an existence already. Far-fetched meanings are sometimes adopted, when the plainest and the most obvious is passed by. — Ed. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-18" class="com-number"

Pericope (part_of)

절 (explains)

bible-text/rom-4-17

Source

17. **그가 믿은 바 하나님은 죽은 자를 살리시는** 등. 이 우회적인 표현으로 아브라함 믿음의 본질 자체가 표현되어 있다. 이는 그의 실례로 이방인들에게 길을 열기 위해서이다. 그는 주의 입에서 들은 약속을 경이로운 방식으로 얻어야 했는데, 당시에는 그 표징이 아무것도 없었기 때문이다. 씨가 그에게 약속되었는데 마치 그가 정력과 힘이 왕성한 것처럼 약속되었으나, 그는 이미 죽은 것과 같았다. 그러므로 그는 죽은 자를 살리시는 하나님의 능력으로 생각을 높여야 했다. 그러므로 황폐하고 죽어있던 이방인들이 같은 무리에 들어온 것은 이상한 일이 아니다. 이방인들이 은혜를 받을 수 없다고 부정하는 자는 아브라함에게 잘못을 저지르는 것이다. 아브라함의 믿음은 이 생각으로 지탱되었다. 주께서 부르시는 자가 죽었느냐 아니냐는 중요하지 않다. 주께서는 자신의 능력으로 말씀만으로도 죽은 자를 살리시는 것이 쉽다.

우리 모두의 부르심의 유형과 모범도 여기 있다. 우리의 첫 출생이 아니라 미래 생명의 소망에 관한 우리의 시작이 눈앞에 나타나 있다. 곧 주께서 우리를 부르실 때 우리는 무(無)에서 나타난다는 것이다. 어떻게 보이든 우리에게는 우리를 하나님 나라에 합당하게 할 수 있는 선한 것의 불꽃조차 없다. 반면에 우리가 하나님의 부르심을 들을 적합한 상태가 되려면 우리는 우리 자신 안에서 완전히 죽어야 한다. 하나님의 부르심의 성격은 이렇다. 죽은 자를 주께서 살리시고, 아무것도 아닌 자들이 그의 능력으로 무언가가 되기 시작한다. **부르다**는 단어는 설교에 국한되어서는 안 되며, 일으키다는 뜻으로 성경의 관용적 용법에 따라 취해야 한다. 이것은 단지 고갯짓만으로도 그 뜻하시는 자를 일으키시는 하나님의 능력을 더 충분히 드러내기 위한 것이다.

원주석

18절 카드 ↗

18. Who against hope , etc. If we thus read, the sense is, that when there was no probable reason, yea, when all things were against him, he yet continued to believe. And, doubtless, there is nothing more injurious to faith than to fasten our minds to our eyes, that we may from what we see, seek a reason for our hope. We may also read, “above hope,” and perhaps more suitably; as though he had said that by his faith he far surpassed all that he could conceive; for except faith flies upward on celestial wings so as to look down on all the perceptions of the flesh as on things far below, it will stick fast in the mud of the world. But Paul uses the word hope twice in this verse: in the first instance, he means a probable evidence for hoping, such as can be derived from nature and carnal reason; in the second he refers to faith given by God; (145) for when he had no ground for hoping he yet in hope relied on the promise of God; and he thought it a sufficient reason for hoping, that the Lord had promised, however incredible the thing was in itself. According to what had been said, etc. So have I preferred to render it, that it may be applied to the time of Abraham; for Paul meant to say, that Abraham, when many temptations were drawing him to despair, that he might not fail, turned his thoughts to what had been promised to him, “Thy seed shall equal the stars of heaven and the sands of the sea;” but he resignedly adduced this quotation incomplete, in order to stimulate us to read the Scriptures. The Apostles, indeed, at all times, in quoting the Scriptures, took a scrupulous care to rouse us to a more diligent reading of them. (145) This is a striking instance of the latitude of meaning which some words have in Scripture. Here hope, in the first instance, means the ground of hope; and in the second, the object of hope. So faith, in Romans 4:5 , and in other places, must be considered as including its object, the gracious promise of God; for otherwise it will be a meritorious act, the very thing which the Apostle throughout repudiates with regard to man’s justification. Faith, as it lays hold on God’s promise of free acceptance and forgiveness, can alone, in the very nature of things, be imputed for righteousness: it is not indispensably necessary that the way, or medium, or the meritorious cause of acceptance and forgiveness, should be clearly known and distinctly seen; the gracious promise of God is enough, so that faith may become a justifying faith. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-19" class="com-number"

Pericope (part_of)

절 (explains)

bible-text/rom-4-18

Source

18. **그가 바랄 수 없는 중에** 등. 이렇게 읽는다면 그 의미는 개연적인 이유가 전혀 없을 때, 심지어 모든 것이 그를 반대할 때에도 그는 계속 믿었다는 것이다. 참으로 믿음에 가장 해로운 것은 우리가 희망할 이유를 눈앞에 보이는 것에서 찾도록 우리의 마음을 눈에 고정시키는 것이다. "소망을 넘어"로 읽는 것도 가능하며, 아마도 더 적절할 것이다. 마치 그가 자신이 생각할 수 있는 모든 것을 믿음으로 훨씬 능가했다는 것처럼 말이다. 믿음이 하늘 날개로 높이 날아오르지 않고 육신의 모든 지각을 아득히 아래에 있는 것으로 내려다보지 않는다면, 세상의 진창에 빠져버릴 것이다.

바울은 이 절에서 소망이라는 단어를 두 번 쓴다. 첫 번째는 자연과 육신적 이성에서 이끌어낼 수 있는 희망의 개연적 근거를 의미한다. 두 번째는 하나님이 주신 믿음을 가리킨다. 희망의 근거가 없는데도 그는 희망으로 하나님의 약속에 의지했다. 그는 사물이 그 자체로 아무리 믿기 어렵더라도 주께서 약속하셨다는 것을 희망의 충분한 이유로 여겼다.

**기록된 바와 같이** 등. 나는 이것을 아브라함의 시대에 적용하기 위해 이렇게 번역하기를 선호했다. 바울은 절망으로 이끄는 많은 유혹이 있었을 때에, 아브라함이 실패하지 않으려고 자신에게 약속된 것으로 생각을 돌렸다고 말하려 했기 때문이다. "네 씨가 하늘의 별과 바닷가의 모래와 같이 될 것이라." 그러나 그는 우리를 성경을 더 부지런히 읽도록 자극하기 위해 이 인용을 불완전하게 물러섰다.

원주석

19절 카드 ↗

19. In faith , etc. If you prefer to omit one of the negatives you may render it thus, “Being weak in faith, he considered not his own body,” etc.; but this makes no sense. He indeed shows now more fully what might have hindered, yea, and wholly turned Abraham aside from receiving the promise. A seed from Sarah was promised to him at a time when he was not by nature fit for generating, nor Sarah for conceiving. Whatever he could see as to himself was opposed to the accomplishment of the promise. Hence, that he might yield to the truth of God, he withdrew his mind from those things which presented themselves to his own view, and as it were forgot himself. You are not however to think, that he had no regard whatever to his own body, now dead, since Scripture testifies to the contrary; for he reasoned thus with himself, “Shall a child be born to a man an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, who is ninety, bear a son?” But as he laid aside the consideration of all this, and resigned his own judgment to the Lord, the Apostle says, that he considered not , etc.; and truly it was a greater effort to withdraw his thoughts from what of itself met his eyes, than if such a thing came into his mind. And that the body of Abraham was become through age incapable of generating, at the time he received the Lord’s blessing, is quite evident from this passage, and also from Genesis 17:17 , so that the opinion of [ Augustine ] is by no means to be admitted, who says somewhere, that the impediment was in Sarah alone. Nor ought the absurdity of the objection to influence us, by which he was induced to have recourse to this solution; for he thought it inconsistent to suppose that Abraham in his hundredth year was incapable of generating, as he had afterwards many children. But by this very thing God rendered his power more visible, inasmuch as he, who was before like a dry and barren tree, was so invigorated by the celestial blessing, that he not only begot Isaac, but, as though he was restored to the vigor of age, he had afterwards strength to beget others. But some one may object and say, that it is not beyond the course of nature that a man should beget children at that age. Though I allow that such a thing is not a prodigy, it is yet very little short of a miracle. And then, think with how many toils, sorrows, wanderings, distresses, had that holy man been exercised all his life; and it must be confessed, that he was no more debilitated by age, than worn out and exhausted by toils. And lastly, his body is not called barren simply but comparatively; for it was not probable that he, who was unfit for begetting in the flower and vigor of age, should begin only now when nature had decayed. The expression, being not weak in faith, take in this sense — that he vacillated not, nor fluctuated, as we usually do under difficult circumstances. There is indeed a twofold weakness of faith — one is that which, by succumbing to trying adversities, occasions a falling away from the supporting power of God — the other arises from imperfection, but does not extinguish faith itself: for the mind is never so illuminated, but that many relics of ignorance remain; the heart is never so strengthened, but that much doubting cleaves to it. Hence with these vices of the flesh, ignorance and doubt, the faithful have a continual conflict, and in this conflict their faith is often dreadfully shaken and distressed, but at length it comes forth victorious; so that they may be said to be strong even in weakness. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-20" class="com-number"

Pericope (part_of)

절 (explains)

bible-text/rom-4-19

Source

19. **믿음이 약해지지 아니하여** 등. 부정사 하나를 생략하면 이렇게 번역할 수도 있다. "믿음이 약해져서 자기 몸이... 죽은 것 같음을 생각지 아니하고" 등. 그러나 이것은 의미가 맞지 않는다. 그는 이제 아브라함이 약속을 받는 것을 방해하고 완전히 돌려세울 수 있었던 것들을 더 충분히 보여준다. 씨가 그에게 약속되었을 때 그는 본래 생산할 능력이 없었고 사라도 잉태할 능력이 없었다. 그가 자신에 관해 볼 수 있는 것은 모두 약속의 성취에 반대되었다. 그러므로 하나님의 진리에 복종하기 위해 그는 자신의 눈에 나타나는 것들로부터 마음을 거두었고 말하자면 자기 자신을 잊었다. 그렇다고 그가 이미 죽은 것과 같은 자기 몸에 대해 전혀 주의를 기울이지 않았다고 생각해서는 안 된다. 성경이 이에 반대로 증언하기 때문이다. 그는 이렇게 스스로 생각했다. "백 세 된 사람이 어찌 자식을 낳을 수 있으랴? 구십 세 된 사라가 어찌 생산할 수 있으랴?" 그러나 이 모든 것을 옆에 두고 자신의 판단을 주께 맡겼으므로, 사도는 그가 **생각지 아니하였다**고 말한다. 스스로 눈에 띄는 것에 생각을 집중하지 않는 것이, 그런 것이 마음에 오지 않는 것보다 더 큰 노력이었다.

원주석

20절 카드 ↗

20. Nor did he through unbelief make an inquiry , etc. Though I do not follow the old version, nor [ Erasmus ], yet my rendering is not given without reason. The Apostle seems to have had this in view, — That Abraham did not try to find out, by weighing the matter in the balance of unbelief, whether the Lord was able to perform what he had promised. What is properly to inquire or to search into anything, is to examine it through diffidence or mistrust, and to be unwilling to admit what appears not credible, without thoroughly sifting it. (146) He indeed asked, how it could come to pass, but that was the asking of one astonished; as the case was with the virgin Mary, when she inquired of the angel how could that be which he had announced; and there are other similar instances. The saints then, when a message is brought them respecting the works of God, the greatness of which exceeds their comprehension, do indeed burst forth into expressions of wonder; but from this wonder they soon pass on to lay hold on the power of God: on the contrary, the wicked, when they examine a message, scoff at and reject it as a fable. Such, as you will find, was the case with the Jews, when they asked Christ how he could give his flesh to be eaten. For this reason it was, that Abraham was not reproved when he laughed and asked, how could a child be born to a man an hundred years old, and to a woman of ninety; for in his astonishment he fully admitted the power of God’s word. On the other hand, a similar laughter and inquiry on the part of Sarah were not without reproof, because she regarded not the promise as valid. If these things be applied to our present subject, it will be evident, that the justification of Abraham had no other beginning than that of the Gentiles. Hence the Jews reproach their own father, if they exclaim against the call of the Gentiles as a thing unreasonable. Let us also remember, that the condition of us all is the same with that of Abraham. All things around us are in opposition to the promises of God: He promises immortality; we are surrounded with mortality and corruption: He declares that he counts us just; we are covered with sins: He testifies that he is propitious and kind to us; outward judgments threaten his wrath. What then is to be done? We must with closed eyes pass by ourselves and all things connected with us, that nothing may hinder or prevent us from believing that God is true. But he was strengthened , etc. This is of the same import with a former clause, when it is said, that he was not weak in faith. It is the same as though he had said, that he overcame unbelief by the constancy and firmness of faith. (147) No one indeed comes forth a conqueror from this contest, but he who borrows weapons and strength from the word of God. From what he adds, giving glory to God , it must be observed, that no greater honor can be given to God, than by faith to seal his truth; as, on the other hand, no greater dishonor can be done to him, than to refuse his offered favor, or to discredit his word. It is hence the chief thing in honoring God, obediently to embrace his promises: and true religion begins with faith. (146) The verb is διεκρίθη, which Calvin renders “ disquisivit .” The most common meaning of the verb is to hesitate, to doubt: it has the sense of exploring and examining, in the active voice, as in 1 Corinthians 11:31 , but not in the passive — See Matthew 21:21 , Mark 11:23 , Acts 10:20 . The version of [ Pareus ] is, “ non disceptavit — he disputed not,” and also of [ Macknight ] But the fathers, and many moderns, such as [ Beza ], [ Hammond ], [ Stuart ], and others, have rendered the sentence, “He doubted not:” [ Phavorinus ] says, as quoted by [ Poole ], that διακρίνεσθαι, is to doubt, to hesitate, to dispute, to distrust, ( diffidere .) — Ed. (147) “Doubt,” says [ Pareus ], has two arguments — will God do this? and can God do this? Faith has also two arguments — God will do it, because He has promised; and he can do it, because He is omnipotent.” return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-21" class="com-number"

Pericope (part_of)

절 (explains)

bible-text/rom-4-20

Source

20. **믿음이 없어 하나님의 약속을 의심치 않고** 등. 내가 옛 번역도 에라스무스도 따르지 않았지만, 내 번역에는 이유가 없지 않다. 사도는 아브라함이 불신과 불신앙의 저울질로 주께서 약속하신 것을 행하실 수 있는지 없는지를 따지려 하지 않았다는 것을 염두에 두었다. 어떤 것을 엄밀히 묻거나 조사한다는 것은 의심이나 불신으로 그것을 검토하고, 충분히 따지기 전에는 믿기 어려운 것을 인정하지 않으려 하는 것이다. 그는 실로 이것이 어떻게 될 수 있는지 물었으나, 그것은 놀라워하는 자의 물음이었다. 마리아 동정녀가 천사가 전한 것이 어떻게 될 수 있는지 물었을 때와 같은 것이다. 성도들은 하나님의 역사에 대한 소식을 받을 때, 그 위대함이 이해를 초월한다면 놀라움에 터져 나오는 표현을 한다. 그러나 이 놀라움에서 곧 하나님의 능력을 붙잡는 데로 나아간다. 반대로 악인들은 소식을 검토할 때 그것을 우화로 조롱하고 거부한다.

아브라함이 웃으면서 백 세 된 사람에게 어찌 자식이 날 수 있으며 구십 세 된 여인이 어찌 생산할 수 있으랴고 물었을 때 책망받지 않은 것은 이 때문이다. 그의 놀라움 속에서 그는 하나님 말씀의 능력을 온전히 인정했다. 반면 사라의 비슷한 웃음과 물음은 책망 없이 넘어가지 않았다. 약속이 유효하다고 여기지 않았기 때문이다.

이것들을 현재 주제에 적용한다면, 아브라함의 의롭다 하심이 이방인들의 것과 다른 시작을 가지지 않았음이 분명하다. 그러므로 이방인들의 부르심을 불합리한 것으로 외치는 유대인들은 자신들의 아버지를 꾸짖는 것이다.

**그가 믿음으로 강하여져서** 등. 이것은 믿음이 약하지 않다고 말한 앞 절과 같은 의미이다. 그는 믿음의 항상함과 견고함으로 불신앙을 이겼다는 것과 같다. 이 싸움에서 승자로 나오는 사람은 아무도 없다. 오직 하나님의 말씀에서 무기와 힘을 빌리는 자만이 그렇다.

그가 덧붙이는 것, **하나님께 영광을 돌리고**에서, 하나님께 더 큰 영예를 드릴 수 있는 것은 없고, 오직 믿음으로 그의 진리를 봉인하는 것뿐임을 알아야 한다. 반면 그에게 더 큰 수치는 없으니, 그분이 제공하는 은총을 거부하거나 그분의 말씀을 신뢰하지 않는 것이다. 그러므로 하나님을 경외하는 데 있어 주요한 것은 그의 약속들을 순종하여 받아들이는 것이다. 참된 경건은 믿음에서 시작된다.

원주석

21절 카드 ↗

21. That what he had promised , etc. As all men acknowledge God’s power, Paul seems to say nothing very extraordinary of the faith of Abraham; but experience proves, that nothing is more uncommon, or more difficult, than to ascribe to God’s power the honor which it deserves. There is in deed no obstacle, however small and insignificant, by which the flesh imagines the hand of God is restrained from working. Hence it is, that in the slightest trials, the promises of God slide away from us. When there is no contest, it is true, no one, as I have said, denies that God can do all things; but as soon as anything comes in the way to impede the course of God’s promise, we cast down God’s power from its eminence. Hence, that it may obtain from us its right and its honor, when a contest comes, we ought to determine thus, — That it is no less sufficient to overcome the obstacles of the world, than the strong rays of the sun are to dissipate the mists. We are indeed wont ever to excuse ourselves, that we derogate nothing from God’s power, whenever we hesitate respecting his promises, and we commonly say, “The thought, that God promises more in his word than he can perform, (which would be a falsehood and blasphemy against him,) is by no means the cause of our hesitation; but that it is the defect which we feel in ourselves.” But we do not sufficiently exalt the power of God, unless we think it to be greater than our weakness. Faith then ought not to regard our weakness, misery, and defects, but to fix wholly its attention on the power of God alone; for if it depends on our righteousness or worthiness, it can never ascend to the consideration of God’s power. And it is a proof of the unbelief, of which he had before spoken, when we mete the Lord’s power with our own measure. For faith does not think that God can do all things, while it leaves him sitting still, but when, on the contrary, it regards his power in continual exercise, and applies it, especially, to the accomplishment of his word: for the hand of God is ever ready to execute whatever he has declared by his mouth. It seems strange to me, that [ Erasmus ] approved of the relative in the masculine gender; for though the sense is not changed, we may yet come nearer to the Greek words of Paul. The verb, I know, is passive; (148) but the abruptness may be lessened by a little change. (148) The verb is , ἐπήγγελται, used here, and perhaps in one other place, Hebrews 12:26 , in an active sense. It is usually found, in the sense of promising, in the middle voice, as in Mark 14:11 ; Acts 7:5 ; Hebrews 6:13 , etc. It is an anomaly that is to be met with sometimes in Greek authors. — Ed. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-22" class="com-number"

Pericope (part_of)

절 (explains)

bible-text/rom-4-21

Source

21. **그 약속하신 것을** 등. 모든 사람이 하나님의 능력을 인정하므로, 바울이 아브라함의 믿음에 대해 매우 특별한 것을 말하는 것처럼 보이지 않는다. 그러나 경험이 증명하는 것은, 하나님의 능력에 합당한 영예를 돌리는 것이 얼마나 드물고 어려운 일인가 하는 것이다. 아무리 작고 사소한 장애물이라도 육신은 그것이 하나님의 손이 역사하시는 것을 막는다고 상상한다. 그러므로 가장 가벼운 시험에서도 하나님의 약속들이 우리에게서 미끄러져 나간다. 싸움이 없을 때는 그렇지 않다. 내가 말한 대로 아무도 하나님이 모든 것을 하실 수 있다는 것을 부정하지 않는다. 그러나 하나님의 약속의 과정을 방해하는 무언가가 찾아오는 즉시, 우리는 하나님의 능력을 그 탁월함에서 내려버린다. 그러므로 하나님의 능력이 우리에게 합당한 권리와 영예를 얻으려면, 싸움이 올 때 이렇게 결정해야 한다. 곧 그 능력은 세상의 장애물을 극복하기에 태양의 강한 광선이 안개를 흩어버리는 것 못지않게 충분하다고 말이다.

우리는 하나님의 약속에 관해 주저할 때마다 하나님의 능력에서 아무것도 빼앗지 않는다고 언제나 스스로 변명한다. 하나님이 자신의 말씀 안에서 행하실 수 있는 것 이상을 약속하신다는 생각은 그에 대한 거짓말이요 모독이니, 이것이 우리의 주저함의 원인이 아니라고 흔히 말한다. 오히려 우리 자신 안에서 느끼는 결함이 원인이라고 한다. 그러나 하나님의 능력이 우리의 나약함보다 더 크다고 여기지 않는다면 그 능력을 충분히 높이는 것이 아니다. 그러므로 믿음은 우리의 나약함, 비참함, 결함을 바라보아서는 안 되며, 오직 하나님의 능력만을 전적으로 주목해야 한다. 믿음이 우리의 의나 가치에 의존한다면 결코 하나님의 능력에 대한 고찰에 이를 수 없다. 주의 능력을 우리 자신의 기준으로 재는 것은, 그가 전에 말한 불신의 증거이다.

믿음은 하나님이 모든 것을 하실 수 있다는 것을 생각하되 그를 가만히 앉아있게 내버려 두는 것이 아니다. 반대로 그의 능력을 끊임없이 행사되는 것으로 보고, 특히 그의 말씀의 성취에 적용한다. 하나님의 손은 그의 입으로 선언하신 것을 무엇이든 이루실 준비가 항상 되어 있기 때문이다.

원주석

22절 카드 ↗

22. And it was therefore imputed , (149) etc. It becomes now more clear, how and in what manner faith brought righteousness to Abraham; and that was, because he, leaning on God’s word, rejected not the promised favor. And this connection of faith with the word ought to be well understood and carefully remembered; for faith can bring us nothing more than what it receives from the word. Hence he does not become immediately just, who is imbued only with a general and confused idea that God is true, except he reposes on the promise of his favor. (149) As in a former instance in Romans 4:3 , there is no nominative case to this verb: it is supplied by the sentence. This is the case not unfrequently in languages, such as Greek and Hebrew, in which the person is included in the verb itself. There is no nominative in the Welsh version, and there seems to be no need of it, (lang. we) Amhyny y cyvrivwyd iddo yn gyviawnder “It is most true, as Paul says to the Romans, that by faith Abraham was justified, and not by obedience : but it is just as true what he says to the Hebrews, that it was by faith that Abraham obeyed.” — [ Chalmers ]. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-23" class="com-number"

Pericope (part_of)

절 (explains)

bible-text/rom-4-22

Source

22. **그러므로 이것이 그에게 의로 여겨졌느니라** 등. 이제 믿음이 아브라함에게 의를 어떻게 그리고 어떤 방식으로 가져왔는지가 더 명확해진다. 그는 하나님의 말씀에 기대어 약속된 은총을 거부하지 않았기 때문이다. 말씀과 믿음의 이 연결은 잘 이해하고 주의 깊게 기억해야 한다. 믿음은 말씀에서 받는 것 이상을 가져다줄 수 없기 때문이다. 그러므로 하나님이 참되시다는 일반적이고 막연한 생각만으로 즉시 의롭게 되는 것이 아니다. 그의 은총의 약속에 의지해야 한다.

원주석

23절 카드 ↗

23. Now it was not written, etc. A proof from example is not always valid, of which I have before reminded you; lest this should be questioned, Paul expressly affirms, that in the person of Abraham was exhibited an example of a common righteousness, which belongs equally to all. We are, by this passage, reminded of the duty of seeking profit from the examples recorded in Scripture. That history is the teacher of what life ought to be, is what heathens have with truth said; but as it is handed down by them, no one can derive from it sound instruction. Scripture alone justly claims to itself an office of this kind. For in the first place it prescribes general rules, by which we may test every other history, so as to render it serviceable to us: and in the second place, it clearly points out what things are to be followed, and what things are to be avoided. But as to doctrine, which it especially teaches, it possesses this peculiarity, — that it clearly reveals the providence of God, his justice and goodness towards his own people, and his judgments on the wicked. What then is recorded of Abraham is by Paul denied to have been written only for his sake; for the subject is not what belongs to the special call of one or of any particular person; but that way of obtaining righteousness is described, which is ever the same with regard to all; and it is what belonged to the common father of the faithful, on whom the eyes of all ought to be fixed. If then we would make a right and proper use of sacred histories, we must remember so to use them as to draw from them sound doctrine. They instruct us, in some parts, how to frame our life; in others, how to strengthen faith; and then, how we are to be stirred up to serve the Lord. In forming our life, the example of the saints may be useful; and we may learn from them sobriety, chastity, love, patience, moderation, contempt of the world, and other virtues. What will serve to confirm faith is the help which God ever gave them, the protection which brought comfort in adversities, and the paternal care which he ever exercised over them. The judgments of God, and the punishments inflicted on the wicked, will also aid us, provided they fill us with that fear which imbues the heart with reverence and devotion. But by saying, not on his account only, he seems to intimate, that it was written partly for his sake. Hence some think, that what Abraham obtained by faith was commemorated to his praise, because the Lord will have his servants to be forever remembered, according to what Solomon says, that their name will be blessed. ( Proverbs 10:7 .) But what if you take the words, not on his account only , in a simpler form, as though it were some singular privilege, not fit to be made an example of, but yet suitable to teach us, who must be justified in the same manner? This certainly would be a more appropriate sense. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-24" class="com-number"

Pericope (part_of)

절 (explains)

bible-text/rom-4-23

Source

23. **기록된 것은** 등. 실례로부터의 증명이 항상 유효한 것은 아니라는 것, 이것에 대해 나는 전에 상기시켰다. 이것이 의문시되지 않도록 바울은 아브라함의 인격 속에 모든 사람에게 똑같이 속하는 공통적 의의 실례가 나타났다고 명시적으로 단언한다. 이 구절로 우리는 성경에 기록된 실례들에서 유익을 구해야 하는 의무를 상기받는다. 역사는 삶이 어때야 하는지의 교사라고 이방인들도 옳게 말했다. 그러나 그들에 의해 전해지는 것에서는 아무도 건전한 교훈을 이끌어낼 수 없다. 성경만이 정당하게 이런 직무를 주장한다. 첫째로 성경은 다른 모든 역사를 우리에게 유용하게 만들 수 있는 일반적인 규칙들을 규정한다. 둘째로 성경은 따라야 할 것과 피해야 할 것을 분명하게 지적한다. 그러나 교리에 관해서는, 특별히 가르치는 것으로서, 이 특성을 지닌다. 곧 하나님의 섭리, 그분이 자신의 백성에게 가지시는 의와 선하심, 그리고 악인들에 대한 그의 심판들을 분명히 계시한다.

그러므로 바울은 아브라함에 관해 기록된 것이 그만을 위해 기록된 것이 아니라고 부정한다. 왜냐하면 한 사람이나 특정한 사람의 특별한 부르심에 속하는 것이 주제가 아니기 때문이다. 오히려 모든 사람에 관해 항상 동일한 의를 얻는 방식이 묘사되어 있다. 모든 사람의 눈이 고정되어야 할 신실한 자들의 공통적 아버지에게 속하는 것이다. 그러므로 성경 역사들을 옳고 바르게 사용하려면, 그것들에서 건전한 교리를 이끌어내면서 사용해야 한다는 것을 기억해야 한다.

원주석

24절 카드 ↗

24. Who believe on him , etc. I have already reminded you of the design of those periphrastic expressions: Paul introduced them, that he might, according to what the passages may require, describe in various ways the real character of faith — of which the resurrection of Christ is not the smallest part; for it is the ground of our hope as to eternal life. Had he said only, that we believe in God, it could not have been so readily learnt how this could serve to obtain righteousness; but when Christ comes forth and presents to us in his own resurrection a sure pledge of life, it then appears evident from what fountain the imputation of righteousness flows. return to ' Top of Page ' <a name="verse-25" class="com-number"

Pericope (part_of)

절 (explains)

bible-text/rom-4-24

Source

24. **하나님을 믿는 우리에게도** 등. 이 우회적 표현들의 목적에 대해 나는 이미 상기시켰다. 바울은 각 구절이 요구하는 것에 따라 믿음의 실제 성격을 다양한 방식으로 묘사하기 위해 그것들을 도입했다. 그리스도의 부활은 그 가운데 가장 작은 부분이 아니다. 부활은 영원한 생명에 대한 우리 소망의 근거이기 때문이다. 그가 단순히 우리가 하나님을 믿는다고 말했다면, 이것이 어떻게 의를 얻는 데 기여할 수 있는지 쉽게 알기 어려웠을 것이다. 그러나 그리스도께서 나타나셔서 자신의 부활 안에서 생명의 확실한 보증을 우리에게 보여주실 때, 의의 전가가 어떤 원천에서 흘러나오는지 분명히 드러난다.

원주석

25절 카드 ↗

25. Who was delivered for our offences , (150) etc. He expands and illustrates more at large the doctrine to which I have just referred. It indeed greatly concerns us, not only to have our minds directed to Christ, but also to have it distinctly made known how he attained salvation for us. And though Scripture, when it treats of our salvation, dwells especially on the death of Christ, yet the Apostle now proceeds farther: for as his purpose was more explicitly to set forth the cause of our salvation, he mentions its two parts; and says, first, that our sins were expiated by the death of Christ, — and secondly, that by his resurrection was obtained our righteousness. But the meaning is, that when we possess the benefit of Christ’s death and resurrection, there is nothing wanting to the completion of perfect righteousness. By separating his death from his resurrection, he no doubt accommodates what he says to our ignorance; for it is also true that righteousness has been obtained for us by that obedience of Christ, which he exhibited in his death, as the Apostle himself teaches us in the following chapter. But as Christ, by rising from the dead, made known how much he had effected by his death, this distinction is calculated to teach us that our salvation was begun by the sacrifice, by which our sins were expiated, and was at length completed by his resurrection: for the beginning of righteousness is to be reconciled to God, and its completion is to attain life by having death abolished. Paul then means, that satisfaction for our sins was given on the cross: for it was necessary, in order that Christ might restore us to the Father’s favor, that our sins should be abolished by him; which could not have been done had he not on their account suffered the punishment, which we were not equal to endure. Hence Isaiah says, that the chastisement of our peace was upon him. ( Isaiah 53:5 .) But he says that he was delivered, and not, that he died; for expiation depended on the eternal goodwill of God, who purposed to be in this way pacified. And was raised again for our justification. As it would not have been enough for Christ to undergo the wrath and judgment of God, and to endure the curse due to our sins, without his coming forth a conqueror, and without being received into celestial glory, that by his intercession he might reconcile God to us, the efficacy of justification is ascribed to his resurrection, by which death was overcome; not that the sacrifice of the cross, by which we are reconciled to God, contributes nothing towards our justification, but that the completeness of his favor appears more clear by his coming to life again. (151) But I cannot assent to those who refer this second clause to newness of life; for of that the Apostle has not begun to speak; and further, it is certain that both clauses refer to the same thing. For if justification means renovation, then that he died for our sins must be taken in the same sense, as signifying that he acquired for us grace to mortify the flesh; which no one admits. Then, as he is said to have died for our sins, because he delivered us from the evil of death by suffering death as a punishment for our sins; so he is now said to have been raised for our justification, because he fully restored life to us by his resurrection: for he was first smitten by the hand of God, that in the person of the sinner he might sustain the misery of sin; and then he was raised to life, that he might freely grant to his people righteousness and life. (152) He therefore still speaks of imputative justification; and this will be confirmed by what immediately follows in the next chapter. (150) It is διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμων, “for our offenses,” and διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμων, “for our justification.” The preposition διὰ, has here clearly two meanings: the first signifies the reason why, and the second, the end for which. How is this to be known? By the character of the sentence, and by what is taught elsewhere. For , to which [ Johnson ] attaches forty meanings, is commonly understood here as having a different sense, and this is sufficiently indicated by what is connected with it. But in case a doubt arises, we have only to consult other passages in which the subject is handled. Take the first instance — “for our offenses.” There are those who say that διὰ here means because of , or, on account of; and this, in order to evade the idea of a propitiation. The preposition, no doubt, has this sense; but is this its sense here? If the sentence itself be deemed insufficient to determine the question, (though to a plain reader it is,) let us see what is said elsewhere of Christ’s death in connection with our sins or offenses. He himself said, that he came “to give his life a ransom ( λύτρον — a redeeming price) for many,” Matthew 20:28 . It is said, that he “gave himself a ransom ( ἀντίλυτρον — a redeeming price for another) for all,” 1 Timothy 2:6 . It is expressly declared, that “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many,” Hebrews 9:28 . And more to the purpose still, if possible, is the testimony of John, when he says that Christ “is the propitiation ( ἱλασμός — expiation) for our sins,” 1 John 2:2 . Now, can it be that we can give any other meaning to the text, than that God delivered his Son as a sacrifice for our offenses? This is the doctrine of Scripture throughout. — Ed. (151) Christ is said here to have been raised from the dead by God , as well as delivered into death. “However much of the import of this,” says [ Chalmers ], “may have escaped the notice of an ordinary reader, it is pregnant with meaning of the weightiest importance. You know that when the prison door is opened to a criminal, and that by the very authority which lodged him there, it envinces that the debt of his transgression has been rendered, and that he stands aquitted of all it’s penalties. It was not for his own, but for our offenses that Jesus was delivered unto the death, and that his

Pericope (part_of)

절 (explains)

bible-text/rom-4-25

Source

25. **예수는 우리의 범죄함을 위하여 내어줌이 되고** 등. 그는 방금 언급한 교리를 더 충분하고 넓게 펼치고 설명한다. 우리가 어떻게 구원을 얻었는지 더 명시적으로 제시하는 것이 그의 목적이었으므로, 우리 구원의 두 부분을 언급한다. 첫째는 우리의 죄가 그리스도의 죽음으로 속죄되었다는 것이다. 둘째는 그의 부활로 우리의 의가 얻어졌다는 것이다. 그 의미는 그리스도의 죽음과 부활의 혜택을 소유할 때 완전한 의를 완성하는 데 아무것도 부족함이 없다는 것이다.

그의 죽음을 부활과 분리함으로써 그는 의심의 여지 없이 우리의 무지에 자신을 맞춘다. 그리스도께서 죽음에서 보이신 순종으로도 우리를 위한 의가 얻어졌다는 것도 사실이다. 사도 자신이 다음 장에서 그렇게 가르친다. 그러나 그리스도께서 부활하심으로 자신의 죽음으로 얼마나 큰 것을 이루셨는지를 알게 하셨으므로, 이 구별은 우리 구원이 우리 죄를 속죄한 희생으로 시작되어 죽음이 폐기된 그의 부활로 마침내 완성되었다는 것을 가르치는 데 유용하다. 의의 시작은 하나님과 화목하는 것이고 그 완성은 죽음을 폐기함으로써 생명을 얻는 것이기 때문이다.

그러므로 바울은 십자가에서 우리 죄를 위한 보속(補贖)이 드려졌다는 것을 의미한다. 그리스도께서 우리를 아버지의 은총으로 회복시키시려면 우리 죄가 그에 의해 제거되어야 했기 때문이다. 우리가 감당할 수 없었던 형벌을 그가 그 대신 받지 않으셨다면 그렇게 되지 않았을 것이다. 그러므로 이사야는 우리의 평화를 위한 징계가 그에게 있었다고 말한다(사 53:5). 그러나 사도는 그가 죽었다고 말하지 않고 **내어줌이 되었다**고 말한다. 속죄는 우리를 이 방식으로 화목시키기로 작정하신 하나님의 영원한 뜻에 달려 있었기 때문이다.

**우리를 의롭다 하시기 위하여 살아나셨느니라.** 그리스도께서 하나님의 진노와 심판을 당하시고 우리 죄로 인한 저주를 받으시는 것만으로는 충분하지 않았을 것이다. 그가 정복자로서 나타나시고 하늘의 영광으로 받아들여져야 했다. 그래야만 그의 중보로 하나님을 우리와 화목시키실 수 있기 때문이다. 따라서 의롭다 하심의 효력은 죽음을 이기신 그의 부활에 귀속된다. 우리를 하나님과 화목시킨 십자가의 희생이 우리를 의롭다 하는 데 아무것도 기여하지 않는다는 것이 아니다. 다만 그가 다시 살아나심으로 그의 은총의 완전함이 더 분명하게 나타난다는 것이다.

그러나 어떤 이들이 이 두 번째 절을 새 삶에 관한 것으로 해석하는 데 동의할 수 없다. 사도가 아직 거기에 대해 말하기 시작하지 않았기 때문이다. 더 나아가 두 절이 모두 동일한 것을 가리킨다는 것이 확실하다. 의롭다 하심이 새롭게 됨을 의미한다면, 그가 우리 죄를 위해 죽으셨다는 것도 같은 의미, 곧 그가 육신을 죽이는 은혜를 우리를 위해 얻으셨다는 것으로 취해야 할 것이다. 아무도 그것을 인정하지 않는다. 그러므로 그가 우리 죄의 비참함을 죄인의 인격으로 당하시기 위해 하나님의 손에 먼저 치이셨다가, 그의 백성에게 의와 생명을 값없이 허락하시기 위해 생명으로 일으켜지셨다. 따라서 그는 여전히 전가(轉嫁)된 의롭다 하심에 대해 말하고 있다. 이것은 다음 장에서 즉시 이어지는 것으로 확증될 것이다.

원주석

← 3장5장 →
바이블위키 biblewiki.net · PD/CC0 · status:draft (verified 승격은 사람만) · 요약은 구조 정보만 제공하며 본문 원문을 왜곡하지 않습니다 · Karpathy LLM Wiki 패턴