구약의 그리스도 중심적 설교 방법론 연구

김진규 ( Kim Jinkyu ) 한국복음주의신학회 2017 성경과신학 Vol.82 No.-

이 소고의 목적은 그리스도 중심의 구약 설교 방법론을 연구하는데 있다. 본 연구의 방법은 구속사적 성경해석 방법론과 성경신학적 해석 방법론이 근저에 깔려 있고, 지금까지 구약과 신약의 연결을 시도한 다양한 학자들의 연구 결과들을 종합적으로 활용하였다. 설교학자들 중에서 그리스도 중심의 설교를 시도한 시드니 그라이다누스(Sidney Greidanus)와 브라이언 채플(Bryan Chapell)의 이론도 포괄적으로 사용하고 있다. 그리스도 중심의 구약 설교를 위해서 본 연구에서 제안하고 있는 구약과 신약의 메시지의 연결의 방법은 다음과 같다. 약속과 성취의 방식, 모형과 대형의 방식, 구속사 흐름의 방식, 하나님의 섭리의 유사성에 기초한 방식, 주제 연결의 방식, 신약의 구약 인용 방식, 대조적 개념의 방식, 타락과 구속의 방식 등을 사용하고 있다. 본 연구는 예수 그리스도의 인격과 삶과 사역에 대한 신약의 완성된 계시의 관점에서 구약성경에 계시된 본문의 의미를 적극적으로 밝힘으로써 21세기의 독자들에게 메시지를 적용하는데 도움을 줄 것이다. 본 연구는 구약 성경의 정경적 이해뿐만 아니라 그리스도 중심의 설교를 위한 방법론상 정당성을 제공하게 될 것이다. The goal of this study is to propose a methodology of the Christ-centered preaching of the Old Testament. The methods laid behind this study are the methodology of the redemptive-historical interpretation and the biblical- theological interpretation. This study broadly utilizes the results of the studies done by the scholars who attempted to bridge the relationships between the Testaments and also includes the methods of the Christ-centered preaching of the Old Testament proposed by two homileticians Sidney Greidanus and Bryan Chapell. This study proposes the following methods to bridge the two Testaments for the purpose of the Christ-centered preaching: the method of promise-fulfillment, the method of typology, the method of the redemptive history, the method of analogy in God`s providence, the method of the thematic connections, the method of the New Testament uses of the Old Testament, the method of the thematic contrasts, and the method of the fallen condition and the redemption. This study will contribute to making the message of the Old Testament relevant to the readers of the 21st century by illuminating its meaning in light of Christ`s person, life, and ministry. Not only is this research, if acceptable, conducive to the canonical understanding of the Old Testament but also provides the methodological validity for Christ-centered preaching.

오순절 베드로 설교에서의 구약성서의 역할

강선남(Sun-Nam Kang) 연세대학교 신과대학(연합신학대학원) 2011 신학논단 Vol.66 No.-

This paper examines the individual functions of the quotations, allusions and echoes of the Old Testament in Peter’s Pentecost Speech in Acts 2:14-41, and at the same time investigates their reciprocal relationship among themselves with a synchronic approach. Findings from this study are as follows. First, Peter’s Pentecost Speech contains core elements of gospel proclamation, and a public testimony of the disciples for the first time after Jesus’ resurrection. The speech is also important in that it suggests the subject and theme of all the chapters of Acts. Through the reciprocal and organic relations between those quotations, allusions and echoes, the Old Testament forms an essential part in the speech and is the framework for it. Second, Luke interpreted the texts of the Old Testament in light of Jesus Christ. He proclaimed that the Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled in Jesus’ death, resurrection, ascension, and the pouring out the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Third, although ‘proof from prophesy’ or ‘promise and fulfillment’ of the Old Testament can be said to be the main purpose of the use of the Old Testament in Peter’s Pentecost Speech, their individual function can be different. We have discovered other functions of the Old Testament, such as ‘salvation’ and ‘typology’ as well. Therefore, it is not necessary to define a single function in the use of the Lukan Old Testament. This paper examines the individual functions of the quotations, allusions and echoes of the Old Testament in Peter’s Pentecost Speech in Acts 2:14-41, and at the same time investigates their reciprocal relationship among themselves with a synchronic approach. Findings from this study are as follows. First, Peter’s Pentecost Speech contains core elements of gospel proclamation, and a public testimony of the disciples for the first time after Jesus’ resurrection. The speech is also important in that it suggests the subject and theme of all the chapters of Acts. Through the reciprocal and organic relations between those quotations, allusions and echoes, the Old Testament forms an essential part in the speech and is the framework for it. Second, Luke interpreted the texts of the Old Testament in light of Jesus Christ. He proclaimed that the Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled in Jesus’ death, resurrection, ascension, and the pouring out the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Third, although ‘proof from prophesy’ or ‘promise and fulfillment’ of the Old Testament can be said to be the main purpose of the use of the Old Testament in Peter’s Pentecost Speech, their individual function can be different. We have discovered other functions of the Old Testament, such as ‘salvation’ and ‘typology’ as well. Therefore, it is not necessary to define a single function in the use of the Lukan Old Testament.

코리안 디아스포라 소설의 증오인식과 공존의 가치 연구-조선족과 탈북자 서사를 중심으로

오연옥 한국문학회 2022 韓國文學論叢 Vol.90 No.-

The purpose of this study is to seek a change in South Korean society's perception of Korean-Chinese and North Korean defectors reproduced in modern novels, while promoting the possibility of harmony between them by confirming the production of hatred inherent between Korean-Chinese and North Korean defectors. This study focuses on the hatred, shame, and fear experienced by Korean-Chinese and North Korean defectors in the process of “migration and settlement” among Korean diaspora. In order to form a new perception and discourse on hatred, the pain and hatred experienced by North Korean refugee women following Korean- Chinese women were discussed through Georzo Agamben's concepts of “Homo Sacer” and “Exception Status.” Along with this, the reproduction of Korean diaspora was divided into ‘the migration background of Korean-Chinese women and North Korean defectors’, ‘Homo Sacer, who was thrown into an exceptional state due to migration’, ‘reproduction of hatred after settling down in Korean society’ and confirmed the perception between North Korean and Korean women. The change in Korean society's perception of Korean-Chinese and North Korean defectors is possible with a humanities response that understands the reproduction and meaning of diaspora in novels of Korean writers, Korean-Chinese writers, and North Korean defectors from various angles. Therefore, the overall understanding of the migration experience was promoted for Heo Ryeonsun's A Chinese Bride described from the perspective of the Korean-Chinese, Kim Yoo-kyung's Youth Sonata from the perspective of North Korean defectors, Yoo Kyung-eun's Old Promise from the perspective of Korean. And the position of North Korean defectors and Korean-Chinese looking at each other was confirmed by targeting Korean-Chinese writer Geum-hee's 「Okhwa」 and North Korean defector's 「Seogigol Loban」. I am confident that this study will be a starting point for designing future orientation by promoting the exchange and solidarity of Korean diaspora in Korean society. This will serve as an opportunity to establish the value of coexistence of Korean diaspora in Korean society. 본 연구는 현대소설에 재현된 중국재외한인조선족과 북한이탈주민에 대한 남한 사회의 인식 변화를 모색하는 한편, 조선족과 탈북자 사이에 내재한 증오의 발생 양상을 확인함으로써 이들 간의 화합 가능성을 가늠하는 데에 목적이 있다. 본고는 코리안 디아스포라 중 조선족과 탈북자 사이에 연관된 ‘이주와 정착’ 과정에서 겪은 혐오와 수치심, 공포에 주목한다. 그리고 증오에 대한 새로운 인식과 담론 형성을 위해 조선족 여성에 이어 탈북여성이 겪은 고통과 증오의 담론은 조르조 아감벤의 ‘호모 사케르와 예외공간’과 마사 누스바움의 ‘혐오’ 개념을 통해 논의하였다. 이와 함께, 코리안 디아스포라의 재현 양상을 ‘조선족 여성과 탈북 여성의 이주배경, 이주로 인해 예외상태로 던져진 호모 사케르, 한국사회에서의 정착과 증오의 재생산’으로 구분하여 논의함으로써 이들의 이주과정에 드러난 교차점을 확인하고, 탈북 여성과 조선족 여성 서로 간의 인식양상을 확인한 바이다. 조선족과 탈북자에 대한 한국사회의 인식변화는 조선족 작가, 탈북 작가, 한국 작가의 소설에 나타난 디아스포라의 재현 양상과 의미를 다각도로 이해하는 인문학적 대응으로써 가능하다. 따라서 한국 작가, 조선족 작가, 그리고 탈북 작가의 소설에 나타난 디아스포라의 재현 양상과 의미를 다각도로 이해함으로써 이들의 이주에 대한 교차점과 차이를 확인할 수 있다. 이는 한국에 정착한 조선족과 탈북자의 대립구도 완화에 기여할 뿐만 아니라, 한국사회에서 조선족, 탈북자 간의 왜곡된 정체성 인식 양상을 개진하고 사회통합력을 제고하는 데에 의의가 있다. 따라서 조선족과 탈북자 소재의 서사 재현양상 분석 및 비교를 통해 이들의 정체성을 규명하되, 조선족 작가의 중국색시 , 탈북 작가의 청춘예찬 , 한국 작가의 오래된 약속 을 대상으로 이주 경험에 대한 총체적 이해를 도모하였으며, 조선족 작가의 「옥화」와 탈북 작가의 「서기골 로반」을 대상으로 한국 사회가 탈북자와 조선족을 바라보는 관점과 탈북자와 조선족 서로가 견지해 온 증오의 발생과 인식 양상을 확인하였다. 이는 한국 사회에서 코리안 디아스포라의 공존의 가치를 정립하기 위한 계기가 될 것이다.

고려-몽골 관계사 연구 시각의 검토-고려-몽골 관계사에 대한 공시적, 통시적 접근-

이익주 한국중세사학회 2009 한국중세사연구 Vol.0 No.27

By historians, the latter half of the 13th century, and the early half of the 14th, are usually referred to as the era in which the Koreans suffered Yuan empire’s intervention in Goryeo dynasty’s governing. Yuan empire allowed(or agreed to) the existence of the Goryeo state, so in order to acknowledge such fact, the term ‘intervention’ would be more appropriate than other words such as ‘ruling’ or ‘occupation’. Yet the nature of such term ‘intervention’ should be examined further, in terms of the relationship that was achieved between the Goryeo dynasty and the Yuan empire. In order to do that, in this article such relationship is viewed from both a historical view, and a periodic view. Most of the studies of the Goryeo-Mongol relationship have acknowledged the fact that Goryeo managed to retain a rather unique and even peculiar status inside the Mongol imperial order. It was basically because Goryeo was able to maintain its existence as a dynasty even in the face of the Mongolian empire, and what enabled Goryeo to do so had already been in place since the days when Goryeo negotiated peace with the Mongol troops. Because Goryeo continued to be a sovereign state, the relationship between Goryeo and Mongol should be construed as a relationship between sovereign states. And in that regard, I find it difficult to agree with either the old opinions that viewed Goryeo as a mere part(the Jeongdong Haengseong provincial government) of the Yuan empire, or the rather recent ones that view Goryeo as only a ‘feudal’ realm bestowed to the son-in-law of the Yuan emperor. Yet the matter of explaining the relationship between Goryeo and Mongol as an international one leaves one more issue to be addressed, and that is whether it would be possible to consider such relationship as a general form of a traditional tributary-appointment relationship that had always existed between Korea and China. And that issue is directly related to another cause, which urges us to review our past perspective that considered the history of Mongol as a mere part of a larger Chinese history, and not as its own. But at the same time, the ‘Yuan’ empire that was established by Emperor Qubilai featured distinct characteristics of a Chinese realm that we can easily recognize, and we should also remember the fact that the Goryeo people in the past always recognized their relationship with ‘Yuan’ as a traditional tributary-appointment relationship. So, we can say that the Goryeo-Mongol relationship was based upon a tributary-appointment relationship(which needed Goryeo to sustain its sovereign status), with a variation composed of periodic interventions which took the form of either marital engagements between the royal families of both states or Yuan’s blatant intervention in Goryeo politics. Some people might question the validity of recognizing the Goryeo-Mongol relationship as a traditional tributary-appointment relationship when there were also a variety of incidents reported in which Goryeo’s independence was either breached or damaged by Yuan’s initiatives. So in this article, other relationships between Korea and China that are now generally believed to have been tributary-appointment relationships, such as the Goguryeo-North Wi relationship of the 5th century, Silla-Dang relationship of the 7th and 8th centuries, Goryeo-Khitan relationship in the 10th and 11th centuries, and Joseon-Qing relationship of the 17th century, are examined to provide references. The results show that although tributary-appointment relationships displayed a wide range of diversity by cases, it should suffice to label a relationship so, when there were tributary actions and appointment procedures involved. We can define a tributary-appointment relationship as a relationship formed between (sovereign) states, which both realized and recognized the unequal nature of their relationship, and exchanged tributes and appointments with each other. And... By historians, the latter half of the 13th century, and the early half of the 14th, are usually referred to as the era in which the Koreans suffered Yuan empire’s intervention in Goryeo dynasty’s governing. Yuan empire allowed(or agreed to) the existence of the Goryeo state, so in order to acknowledge such fact, the term ‘intervention’ would be more appropriate than other words such as ‘ruling’ or ‘occupation’. Yet the nature of such term ‘intervention’ should be examined further, in terms of the relationship that was achieved between the Goryeo dynasty and the Yuan empire. In order to do that, in this article such relationship is viewed from both a historical view, and a periodic view. Most of the studies of the Goryeo-Mongol relationship have acknowledged the fact that Goryeo managed to retain a rather unique and even peculiar status inside the Mongol imperial order. It was basically because Goryeo was able to maintain its existence as a dynasty even in the face of the Mongolian empire, and what enabled Goryeo to do so had already been in place since the days when Goryeo negotiated peace with the Mongol troops. Because Goryeo continued to be a sovereign state, the relationship between Goryeo and Mongol should be construed as a relationship between sovereign states. And in that regard, I find it difficult to agree with either the old opinions that viewed Goryeo as a mere part(the Jeongdong Haengseong provincial government) of the Yuan empire, or the rather recent ones that view Goryeo as only a ‘feudal’ realm bestowed to the son-in-law of the Yuan emperor. Yet the matter of explaining the relationship between Goryeo and Mongol as an international one leaves one more issue to be addressed, and that is whether it would be possible to consider such relationship as a general form of a traditional tributary-appointment relationship that had always existed between Korea and China. And that issue is directly related to another cause, which urges us to review our past perspective that considered the history of Mongol as a mere part of a larger Chinese history, and not as its own. But at the same time, the ‘Yuan’ empire that was established by Emperor Qubilai featured distinct characteristics of a Chinese realm that we can easily recognize, and we should also remember the fact that the Goryeo people in the past always recognized their relationship with ‘Yuan’ as a traditional tributary-appointment relationship. So, we can say that the Goryeo-Mongol relationship was based upon a tributary-appointment relationship(which needed Goryeo to sustain its sovereign status), with a variation composed of periodic interventions which took the form of either marital engagements between the royal families of both states or Yuan’s blatant intervention in Goryeo politics. Some people might question the validity of recognizing the Goryeo-Mongol relationship as a traditional tributary-appointment relationship when there were also a variety of incidents reported in which Goryeo’s independence was either breached or damaged by Yuan’s initiatives. So in this article, other relationships between Korea and China that are now generally believed to have been tributary-appointment relationships, such as the Goguryeo-North Wi relationship of the 5th century, Silla-Dang relationship of the 7th and 8th centuries, Goryeo-Khitan relationship in the 10th and 11th centuries, and Joseon-Qing relationship of the 17th century, are examined to provide references. The results show that although tributary-appointment relationships displayed a wide range of diversity by cases, it should suffice to label a relationship so, when there were tributary actions and appointment procedures involved. We can define a tributary-appointment relationship as a relationship formed between (sovereign) states, which both realized and recognized the unequal nature of their relationship, and exchanged tributes and appointments with each other. And by ...

고려후기 상반된 질서의 공존과 그 역사적 의미

이종서 서울대학교 규장각한국학연구원 2015 한국문화 Vol.72 No.-

During the so-called ‘Yuan Intervention period,’ two contradictory orders were coexisting throughout the entire Goryeo society. One was an aspiration to preserve Goryeo traditions, based upon the legendary agreement that had reportedly been reached between Goryeo king Weonjong and Yuan Emperor Qubilai. The other was a determination to negate the indigenous nature of Goryeo culture, including the social stratification platform, in favor of an entirely new system. This kind of situation was brought on by Yuan empire’s apparent dominative position and Goryeo’s subsequent embracement of Yuan culture and philosophy, which would have undoubtedly inspired some Goryeo people to change or modify the culture and order they had previously enjoyed. As a result, even after the Yuan empire was gone, the Goryeo people came to consider all the institutions and practices left by Yuan as part of many options that they could base their operations on, and also found themselves torn between different choices to approach a single situation. Goryeo was facing a task of creating a balance and forming a compromise, but was not able to see to it to the very end, so the task was handed over to the newly born Joseon dynasty.

Christocentricity and Appropriation in Calvin's Exposition of Daniel

VanGemeren, William A. 횃불트리니티신학대학원대학교 2016 Torch Trinity Journal Vol.19 No.2

이제현의 현실 인식 및 외교 논리 검토 -『익재난고』의 「사찬」과 상서(上書)를 중심으로-

한누리 한국중세사학회 2022 한국중세사연구 Vol.- No.68

The figure examined here is Yi Je-hyeon(李齊賢, 1287~1367), who was a renowned scholar and a governmental official from the 14th century. Many of his accomplishments are known to have been rooted in his Neo-Confucian expertise, but the focus of this article is to examine his view of the world as a politician and a diplomat. He was, as his colleagues also were, forced in a situation where he must be aware of the international order and Goryeo’s position in it, while not forgetting his own identity as a traditional Goryeo citizen. Understanding that dilemma is the primary objective of this work. In his letters to the Yuan Imperial government, Yi Je-hyeon always emphasized the fact that Goryeo and Yuan had enjoyed a long and close relationship. He did so to daringly urge Yuan to be aware of how Yuan as an Empire was supposed to treat Goryeo, a much smaller entity on the Korean peninsula. But he was also careful not to offend Yuan unnecessarily, and that shows in his treatment of past Goryeo records. He downsized and toned down certain remarks left by his ancestors, who believed in Goryeo’s own regional-centric nature. At the same time, Yi Je-hyeon also not hesitated to make some radical demands to Yuan, as shown in his communiques to the Imperial court. In order to make sure Yuan would grant Goryeo’s requests and allow Goryeo traditions remain intact, he not only cited past Emperor Qubilai’s ‘Old promises,’ with which the late Emperor expressed his will not to alter Goryeo’s past conventions, but employed other political notions as well. For example, he quoted the legacy of former Mongol leaders who preceded Qubilai, and even recalled the traditional Chinese way (from the Dang period) of regulating Northeast Asian regions (“Gimi”), to persuade Yuan authorities. Yi Je-hyeon’s efforts to respond to situations developing on the international stage, and to protect Goryeo traditions, interests and agendas, reveal the complicated nature of the position Goryeo was put in at the time, and Yi’s dilemma to navigate through it. Hopefully by further exploring Yi Je-hyeon’s mind, we would gain understanding of how things were for the Goryeo people in the 13th and 14th centuries. 본 논문은 고려후기의 대표적인 관료이자 문인이었던 이제현(李齊賢, 1287~1367)의 현실인식과 외교논리를 살펴보는 것을 목표로 한다. 이제현의 여러 업적은 그의 성리학적 면모를 반영하는 것으로 평가되지만, 본 논문에서는 현실정치인이자 외교관으로서 그의 인식을 규명하는 데 초점을 맞추었다. 이를 통해 당시 원제국 중심의 국제질서 및 고려의 위치를 인지하되 고려의 정체성도 잊지 말아야 했던 지식인의 고뇌가 현실 및 외교 현장에 어떻게 반영되었는지 이해할 수 있을 것이다. 이제현은 양국의 관계가 시간에 흐름에 따라 돈독해져 갔음을 강조하는 가운데, 특히 그가 제후국 고려의 입장에서 고려의 이전 역사 기술들을 인용하며 일부 표현을 조정하는 모습이 포착된다. 이는 일종의 ‘자기검열’로써 천자-제후의 수직적 관계를 인정 및 유지하는 한편으로 그를 넘어서는 위협에 빌미를 제공하지 않으려는 현실적인 조치라 할 수 있다. 반면 이제현은 고려의 요구사항 관철 및 토속 보전 등을 위해 매우 과감한 외교 논리를 설파하기도 했는데, 기존의 ‘세조구제론’ 인용에 그치지 않고 한반도에 대한 중국의 전통적 ‘기미지배’ 방식을 환기하거나 몽골 선황제들의 유훈을 언급하는 등 쿠빌라이를 넘어서는 권위까지 호출·소환했음이 흥미롭다. 국제 정세에 기민하게 반응하고 그 속에서 고려의 입지를 보장, 국속을 보전하려는 이제현의 노력은 13~14세기 특수상황에서 빚어진 고려인들의 중층적이고도 양가적인 인식을 대변한다고 할 수 있다. 이렇듯 이제현을 비롯해 고려후기 인물들을 검토하는 것은 당대인들의 인식 일반에 더욱 접근할 수 있는 계기를 제공할 것이다.

Trends and Prospects: Historical Studies on Koryŏ-Mongol Relationship in the 13-14th centuries

이익주 한국학중앙연구원 한국학중앙연구원 2016 THE REVIEW OF KOREAN STUDIES Vol.19 No.2

The purpose of this paper is to review major achievements in historical studies of Koryŏ-Mongol relationship in the 13-14th centuries made by Korean researchers so far, and explore the proper way the researchers should take in the future. The trend of historical studies on Koryŏ-Mongol relationship in Korea can be divided into three following periodical categories: (1) The period during 1960s-80s when the emphasis on nationalistic historical consciousness was rampant in the overall Korean history academic world, (2) the period from the late 1980s to 1990s when criticism on the bias embedded in the nationalistic interpretation of history was raised, and the effort to understand the history of Koryŏ-Mongol (Yüan) relationship in structural perspective was made, and (3) the period since 2000 when the researchers tried to explain Koryŏ-Mongol (Yüan) relationship in the most objective way by actively adopting the results of researches on Mongol history made both in Korea and in overseas. Among those categories, as “the effort to understand the relationship in structural perspective” was made to eliminate the subjective elements in the nationalistic perspective, the first two categories can be defined as “rise and fall of the nationalistic perspective,” and the third period can be defined as “the appearance of the approaches in world historical perspective” which tried to understand the nature of the relationship in the world order centered around the Mongol Empire in the 13-14th centuries. This paper examined the overall trends in historical studies made on Koryŏ-Mongol (Yüan) relationship inside Korea since the 1960s, and categorized them into two groups: studies which employed a structural perspective, and those whose notion were based upon global historical orders. Also added are a few comments on recent studies made since 2000 in the conclusion.