구약 예언서에 나타난 아브라함 상

차준희 한국구약학회 2012 구약논단 Vol.18 No.2

This article analyzes the Abraham related passages in prophetic books of the Old Testament. In the prophetic books of the Old Testament, Abraham is mentioned only seven times. According to the result of analysis, several conclusions are drawn:First of all, the image of Abraham is the product of the exilic and post-exilic period. Abraham is not mentioned in the prophetic books which are written before the exilic period. Following verses are assumed to be written in the post-exilic period: Isaiah 29:22-24; Micah 7:18-20; Jeremiah 33:23-26. Abraham does not appear in the biblical texts which are considered to have been written before the exilic period. It is not by chance that the accounts regarding Abraham are concerned with the exilic and postexilic period, even though the tradition of Abraham itself is old one. Restatement of the father Abraham emerges in the era of crisis, in the dark generation. Secondly, the image of Abraham represented in prophetic books is, in general, the symbol of hope. Especially, Abraham appears to be the hopeful symbol of the land ownership to those who do not own the land(Ezek 33:23-29); Abraham is ‘the symbol of restoration’ to Diasporas who were scattered in the world(Isa 41:8-13); Abraham is ‘the symbol of prosperity of descendants’ to those who do not have descendants(Isa 29:22-24); Abraham is the representative symbol of interceding God’s will for salvation(Mic 7:18-20); Abraham is the exemplary symbol of reinforcing the covenant of David(Jer 33:23-26). In short, it is concluded that Abraham is the foundation of hope. Thirdly, the image of Abraham described in the prophetic books has been reinterpreted in connection with reality. In two out of the seven prophetic books which mention Abraham, Abraham tradition is evaluated negatively. Ezekiel 33:24 and Isaiah 63:16 is the best example showing this. The former shows a critical view about the Abraham tradition which appears in the confession of people who violate the commandment(Torah) and in the context of disputation. On the other hand, throughout the petitionary prayer, the latter shows that Abraham tradition also has a limit in desperate situation which is derived from the sin of mankind. The Abraham tradition is reinterpreted diversely according to the context of the community which uses it. At any rate, Abraham, who is represented in the prophetic books, is the incarnation of God’s promise for the Israelites: the Israelites include not only the people who already became his people, but also the people who would be his people. Furthermore, they encompass those scattered as well as those who would stand together. And Abraham continues to be the promise which, through the mediation of Israel, will be given to the nations in this world. For Abraham, it seemed that to find the evidence of achievement was impossible according to contemporary thoughts of the world. In this doomful situation, putting someone’s faith in God’s will and having a firm trust to him could be a mockery. Or, according to pathologic view point, Abraham’s behaviors could be interpreted as denying ‘the understanding of the reality’ that he had to give up. Nevertheless, Abraham was the person who demonstrated a right attitude toward God’s sincere promise as well as an exemplary witness of God. 이 논문은 구약 예언서에 나타난 아브라함과 관련된 일곱 본문(사 29:22; 41:8; 51:2; 63:16; 렘 33:26; 겔 33:24; 미 7:20)을 분석한다. 이 논문에서 저자는 예언서의 아브라함 상은 포로기-포로기 이후의 산물이고, 위기의 시대에서 비롯된 희망의 표상이고, 예언자의 삶의 자리와 관련하여 재해석되었음을 논증한다.

여성 아브라함들

김재구 한국구약학회 2008 구약논단 Vol.14 No.4

This paper is intended to find out the distinctive characteristics of Abraham's faith, the contributions of his faith throughout Israel's history, and the reflections of his faith on the people after him, especially, on women. And it wants to reveal the history formed by the voice of the faith of the women who possess the Abrahamic images. For this research, one of the literary approaches, the so-called 'intertextua- lity', is employed by which the close relations of the crucial expressions appearing both in Abraham's story and in the two women's stories are compared in word and theme. Abraham's faith is not just for himself. His faith must be alive in the lives of his descendants. Especially, as a response of God's order, the absolute faith of Abraham which, without a murmur, leaves his country, people and father's household and goes to the land where he has never been before paves the way to give a right identity to his kinsmen and a new identity to the pagans. Now the people who actualize the same faith of Abraham deserve the epithet 'a new Abraham' without regard to men or women, and Jews or pagans. Rebekah never falls short of receiving the epithet 'the first female Abraham.' Since Rebekah is one of Abraham's kinswomen, she emphati- cally proclaims through her Abrahamic life toward other kinswomen that to enjoy God's blessings they need to leave their parents and relatives. And they should unite themselves with the people of God in the Promised Land. The life of Ruth means to other pagan women what it is like having the Israelite identity. That means abandoning their own gods and parents, and forgetting their own lands. Now the God of Israel becomes their own God and the people of Israel become their own people. Those who execute these acts are to be reborn as a new Israelite and to be called 'a female Abraham.' And through them, the Abrahamic blessings will come true in their household and, furthermore, they may change the fate of Israel by building the (Davidic) dynasty. These comparisons clearly proclaim the fact that Rebekah and Ruth can co-exist in spite of their ethnic differences. And through this research, it is contended that in the post-exilic period, Israel did not always demand the ethnic-religious exclusivism, but open the door for the possibility of inclusivism toward those who have the Abrahamic faith.

이주와 제단쌓기를 통해 본 아브라함의 모습

이사야(Sa-Ya Lee) 연세대학교 신과대학(연합신학대학원) 2010 신학논단 Vol.60 No.-

??Abraham is presented as a symbolic image of faith who followed the commandment of God obediently in the entire Bible not only in the Old Testament. His resolute obedience raises him up to the forefather of faith to all Muslims and Christians not only to Jews, But it is true that Abraham had many traces of unfaith and disobedience together.<br/> ??There are four altar-building stories which Abraham had built in Genesis. It is worthy of notice that obedience and disobedience appear side by side around them, The first two stories appear as the parts of Abraham's journeys to the land of Canaan and each of last two stories appears as the completion of his jorneys after the seperation of Lot from Abraham and as the occurrence of Aqedah itself. Among the four altar-building stories of Abraham, The narrator delineates Abraham's dis-obedience against the commandment of God(Gen, 12:1-8; 12:9-13:4) through the first two stories, and his resolute obedience to the commandment which requests the severance of Abraham's paste(=Lot, Gen, 13:5-8) and the future(=Isaac, Gen. 22), And especially impf ???(Gen, 13:14), active part, ???(Gen, 13:15) and impf ????(Gen, 22:14) show that Abraham is turning from disobedient man to obedient one in the light of the com-manrment of Gen. 12:1-3.<br/> ??Although Abraham is individual person, the narrator presents him theologically as the representative of the (post) exilic community, In God's words that God will make Abraham to be a great nation, the narrator taught the descendants of Abraham to be obedient to the commandments of God because he attributed the disaster of the community to the disobedience to God. So he was looking forward the conversion of the community's circumstance through Abraham's change from disobedient unfaith to obedient faith. ??Abraham is presented as a symbolic image of faith who followed the commandment of God obediently in the entire Bible not only in the Old Testament. His resolute obedience raises him up to the forefather of faith to all Muslims and Christians not only to Jews, But it is true that Abraham had many traces of unfaith and disobedience together.<br/> ??There are four altar-building stories which Abraham had built in Genesis. It is worthy of notice that obedience and disobedience appear side by side around them, The first two stories appear as the parts of Abraham's journeys to the land of Canaan and each of last two stories appears as the completion of his jorneys after the seperation of Lot from Abraham and as the occurrence of Aqedah itself. Among the four altar-building stories of Abraham, The narrator delineates Abraham's dis-obedience against the commandment of God(Gen, 12:1-8; 12:9-13:4) through the first two stories, and his resolute obedience to the commandment which requests the severance of Abraham's paste(=Lot, Gen, 13:5-8) and the future(=Isaac, Gen. 22), And especially impf ???(Gen, 13:14), active part, ???(Gen, 13:15) and impf ????(Gen, 22:14) show that Abraham is turning from disobedient man to obedient one in the light of the com-manrment of Gen. 12:1-3.<br/> ??Although Abraham is individual person, the narrator presents him theologically as the representative of the (post) exilic community, In God's words that God will make Abraham to be a great nation, the narrator taught the descendants of Abraham to be obedient to the commandments of God because he attributed the disaster of the community to the disobedience to God. So he was looking forward the conversion of the community's circumstance through Abraham's change from disobedient unfaith to obedient faith.

신정론적 관점에서 본 아케다(the Aqedah): 최종 형태의 본문으로서의 창세기 22장 1-19절 새로 읽기

하계상 한국구약학회 2014 구약논단 Vol.20 No.4

창세기 22:1-19의 아케다는 아브라함 사이클의 다른 장들, 창세기 15-18장뿐만 아니라 특히 창세기 12, 17, 그리고 21장과 밀접한 관계를 갖고 있음이 밝혀졌다. 창세기 12장이 아브라함의 신앙 여정의 시작이고 22장이 그 여정의 절정이라면, 아브라함 사이클의 주된 신학적 주제들이나 사상들의 궤적이 당연히 창세기 22장에 수렴될 것이다. 그러나 유감스럽게도 거의 모든 학자들이 그런 점들을 충분히 반영하여 창세기 22:1-19을 해석하지 못했다. 게다가 아브라함에게 왜 아케다의 경험이 필요했는지 그 이유를 아브라함 사이클에서 찾아보고자 노력한 학자도 거의 없다. 그 결과 아브라함 사이클을 전체적으로 조망하면서 ‘아브라함에게 왜 아케다의 경험이 있어야 했는가?’라는 의문에 대한 답을 제시하는 동시에 아브라함의 인생 여정을 결산하는 의미에서 아케다를 해석한 연구가 전혀 없다. 본 연구는 아브라함의 영적 오디세이와 관련하여 하나님께 던져졌거나 던져질 신정론적 도전으로부터 아케다의 이유와 원인을 아브라함 사이클과 그 관련 본문들에서 찾아 궁극적으로 아케다를 이해하는 것이 그 목적이다. 이 연구는 주로 공시적/문학적 방법에 의해 이루어졌으며, 아케다 자체에 대한 주석은 필요에 따라 부분적으로 간략하게 했다. 이 연구의 결과들은 다음과 같이 요약할 수 있다. 첫째, 아브라함 사이클은 하나님과 아브라함 사이의 언약이 그 중심에 있는 교차대구 구조를 이루고 있으므로, 아케다는 언약과 관련해서 해석되어야 한다. 둘째, 아브라함은 그의 말과 행위들을 통하여 하나님의 언약 약속들, 특히 완전한 보호의 약속과 후사에 대한 약속에 대해 불신을 나타냄으로써 하나님께 대한 전적인 신뢰를 보여주지 못했다. 아브라함은 그의 영적 여행 직후에 있었던 애굽에서의 사건(12:10-20)과 그의 여정의 절정 바로 직전에 있었던 그랄에서의 사건(20:1-18)을 통해 하나님의 완전한 보호의 약속에 대해 불신을 나타냈다. 무엇보다도 아브라함 사이클의 두 초점(창 15장과 17장) 사이에서 사라의 말을 듣고/순종하고 하갈을 아내로 취함으로써(16:2) 후사에 대한 하나님의 약속을 그가 결정적으로 불신하고 있음을 나타냈다. 셋째, 아브라함이 이런 식으로 언약에 불충실함에도 불구하고 하나님은 언약의 약속들을 지키시며 계속해서 그를 보호하시고 구원하시며 심지어 그를 축복하셨다. 외견상의 이 부당한 대우가 아브라함 사이클과 관련해서 하나님께 던져졌거나 던져질 신정론적 도전의 원인이며, 언약에 대한 아브라함의 불충실이 그가 아케다를 경험해야 했던 이유이다. 아케다는, 하나님이 아브라함을 시험하시고 그에게 하나님께 대한 전적인 믿음을 보일 마지막 기회를 주심으로써 그러한 신정론적 도전에 응하시는 하나님의 답변이다. 넷째, 하나님의 말씀을 듣고/순종하고 영적인 순례를 시작했듯이(12:4a), 아브라함은 하나님의 목소리를 들음으로써/순종함으로써 그의 순례의 절정에 이르렀다(22:18b; cf. 26:5a). 그의 결정적인 믿음의 순종에 근거하여 하나님은 아브라함과 언약을 갱신하셨을 뿐만 아니라 이전보다 훨씬 더 광범위하면서도 구체적인 언약의 약속들을 주셨다. 마지막이지만 아주 중요한 것은, 창세기 22:1-19의 아케다는 아브라함의 불신의 죄들을 사랑으로 징계하고 희생 제물로 대속하는 동시에 아브라함의 믿음을 시험하여 그 진정성과 의연함을 드러내는 하나님 ... It has been noted that Gen 22:1-19, the so-called Aqedah, has close relationships with other chapters in the Abraham cycle, not only with Genesis 12, 17, and 21, but also with Genesis 15-18. Genesis 12 is the beginning of Abraham’s spiritual journey and Genesis 22 is its climax, and thus the trajectories of the main theological themes or concepts in the cycle naturally converge in Genesis 22. Unfortunately, however, almost all the scholars have interpreted Genesis 22:1-19, without fully reflecting on such aspects. Besides, there is hardly any scholar who has tried to find out the reason in the cycle why Abraham needed the experience of the Aqedah. As a result, there has never been any research to interpret, in the light of the Abraham cycle as a whole, the Aqedah in terms of the evaluation of his life journey, as well as to answer the question why the Aqedah was a necessity for him. The purpose of this research is to find out in the cycle and its related texts the whys and wherefores of the Aqedah from a theodicean challenge to God, which was (or will be) made concerning Abraham’s spiritual odyssey, and ultimately to understand the Aqedah. The research was done mainly with a synchronic/literary approach, and an exegesis of the Aqedah itself was partially and briefly made, when necessary. The results may be recapitulated as follows:First, the Abraham cycle makes a chiastic structure with the covenant between God and Abraham centered in it, and thus the Aqedah should be interpreted in relation to the covenant. Second, Abraham did not show his full trust in God through his words and actions, which reveal his disbelief in God’s covenant promises, especially the promise of full protection for him and that of his offspring. The incidents in Egypt (12:10-20; right after the start of his spiritual journey) and in Gerar (20:1-18; just before the climax of the journey) show his disbelief in God’s promise of full protection for him. Above all things, the incident of his taking Hagar as a wife by hearing/obeying Sarah (16:2; between the two foci [Gen 15 and 17] of the Abraham cycle) reveals his distrust in God’s promise of his offspring. Third, even though in this way Abraham was not faithful to the covenant, God continued to protect, save, and even bless him by keeping His covenant promises. This apparent injustice must be the cause of a theodicean challenge to God which was (or will be) made in relation to Abraham’s spiritual odyssey, and his unfaithfulness to the covenant was the reason for his experience of the Aqedah. The Aqedah was God’s answer to such a theodicean challenge by testing Abraham and thus giving him the last opportunity to show his full trust in Him. Fourth, just as Abraham started his spiritual journey by hearing/obeying God (Gen 12:4a), so he climaxes the journey by hearing/obeying God’s voice (22:18b; cf. 26:5a). Because of his decisive obedience of faith, God renewed the covenant with Abraham, the promises of which are wider and more specific by far than before (22:15-18). Last but not least, the Aqedah of Genesis 22:1-19 is essentially the story of God, who by testing Abraham revealed the genuineness and fortitude of his faith, and also lovingly disciplined Abraham for his sins of disbelief, redeeming him with a sacrifice.

믿음의 법과 아브라함(롬 3:21-4:25) -믿음과 아브라함 주제가 함의하는 바울의 신학적 논리-

이진섭 한국신학정보연구원 2009 Canon&Culture Vol.3 No.2

It is commonly accepted that Romans 4 substantiates the contents of 3:21-31. The stance which reads Cristou/ as objective genitive(3:22) generally identifies Abraham’s justification by faith(Romans 4) with the Christian’s justification by faith in Christ and so it views Abraham’s faith as a prototype of (Christ-)believers’ faith. On the other hand, the subjective-genitive stance on pi,stij Cristou/(3:22) regards Abraham’s pi,stij as a prefiguration of Christ’s faithfulness. However, neither of these two suggestions is easy to accept. The objective-genitive stance does not successfully overcome the difficulty that in Romans 4 Abraham is presented as believing in God, not Christ, whereas the subjective-genitive stance has a fundamental difficulty in correlating Abraham’s pi,stij with Christ’s faithfulness. This inadequacy leads to another explanation for the occurrence of Abraham. Abraham appears not mainly because of the theme of justification by faith but mainly because of the representativeness of Abraham for Jews and Gentiles alike. Consequently, this stance tends to connect the Abraham example in Romans 4 to the theme of Jews and Gentiles in 3:21-31 rather than to the pi,st-word theme in 3:21-31. However, the pi,st-word theme is too prevalent and prominent to be treated as a subsidiary topic in both 3:21-31 and 4:1-25. In this respect, we argue that the new understanding of ‘the law of faith’ in 3:27 solves the problems. Paul thinks that pi,stij Cristou/ formula in 3:22a means ‘the faithfulness of Christ’ and refers to ‘the eschatological event of Christ.’ Consequently, 3:22 explains the principle that through the Christ-event the believing people appear and, accordingly, the righteousness of God has been disclosed. 3:21-26 explains that on the basis of the Christ-event all who believe are justified and, then, 3:27 declares it as the faith-law. Moreover, in order to substantiate this faith-law, Paul also demonstrates Abraham’s justification by faith not only because Abraham is the representative of all(both Jews and Gentiles) who believe, but also because Abraham’s justification (consequently the justification of all believers) is the sign that the faith-law has been in operation. Thus, the new understanding of ‘the law of faith’ in 3:27 resolves several difficulties concerning the reason for the appearance of the Abraham example in Romans 4 and, furthermore, explains well the logical flow of Paul’s theological argument regarding the pi,st-word theme in 3:21-4:25. The fact that Abraham believes in God and is justified, according to Paul, is ultimately due to the Christ-event. 로마서 4장이 3:21-31의 내용을 확고히 하고 있다는 점은 통상적으로 받아들여진다. 보통 4장에서 아브라함 등장 이유를 3:22a에 있는 pi,stij Cristou/ 형식과 관련해 생각한다. Cristou/를 목적격적 소유격으로 읽는 입장은 일반적으로 아브라함의 믿음을 ‘예수 믿는 그리스도인의 믿음’에 대한 원형으로 보아왔고, 주격적 소유격으로 읽는 입장은 아브라함의 pi,stij를 주로 ‘그리스도의 신실함’에 대한 선례로 생각해왔다. 그러나 이 두 입장의 제안은 둘 다 쉽게 받아들이기 힘들다. 목적격적 소유격 입장은 4장에서 아브라함이 (그리스도를 믿기보다) 하나님을 믿는다고 제시된 점을 충분히 극복하지 못했고, 주격적 소유격 입장은 아브라함의 pi,stij를 그리스도의 신실함과 연관시키는 데 근본적인 어려움을 갖고 있기 때문이다. 이런 어려움으로 새로운 설명이 부각된다. 아브라함은 칭의 주제 때문에 등장한 것이 아니라, 유대인과 이방인의 동등성 주제 때문에 등장했다고 보는 것이다. 이 입장은 로마서 4장의 아브라함 예를 3:21-31에 있는 pi,st& 단어 주제보다 유대인-이방인 주제와 연결시키려는 경향이 있다. 하지만 pi,st& 단어 주제가 3:21-31과 4:1-25에 두드러져서 부차적으로 취급되기 어렵다는 문제가 제기된다. 이런 국면에서 필자는 3:27의 ‘믿음의 법’에 대한 새로운 이해가 문제를 해결한다고 주장한다. 바울은 3:22 pi,stij Cristou/ 형식으로 ‘그리스도의 신실함’이란 뜻을 부여했고 그것이 ‘그리스도 사건 전체’를 가리키도록 했다. 따라서 3:22은 그리스도 사건으로 말미암아 믿는 사람들이 등장하여 하나님의 의로우심이 나타나게 하는 원리를 말한다. 3:21-26은 그리스도의 사건에 기초하여 모든 믿는 사람들이 등장하여 의롭다함 받는다는 점을 설명하고 3:27은 그 원리를 ‘믿음의 법’이라고 선언한다. 바울은 이 믿음의 법을 확증하기 위하여 아브라함이 믿음으로 의롭다 여겨진 것을 설명한다. 아브라함이 믿는 모든 사람(유대인과 이방인)의 대표일 뿐 아니라 아브라함의 의롭다함이 믿음의 법이 실현되고 있다는 표시이기 때문이다. 결국 ‘믿음의 법’에 대한 새로운 이해는 아브라함 등장 이유의 여러 어려움을 해결해 주고, 더 나아가 3:21-4:25의 pi,st& 단어 주제에 반영된 신학적 논리 흐름을 잘 설명해 준다. 바울은 아브라함이 하나님을 믿고 의롭다 여겨진 것이 궁극적으로는 그리스도의 사건 때문이라고 생각하고 있다.

'아브라함의 자손' - 한 유대적 개념의 기독교화 과정 -

유은걸 한국구약학회 2008 구약논단 Vol.14 No.4

The aim of this essay is to explore the process how the Jewish concept 'son of Abraham' underwent a so-called 'Christianization' in the primi- tive Christianity. The terminology 'sons of Abraham' denotes originally Jews and conveys an ethnic meaning; but it came to refer to Christians as well: 'those who believe in Christ become children of Abraham.' Our concern is to answer the following questions: To whom does this Christian reception go back? What were the issues which are respon- sible for this theological variation? A careful survey of New Testament literature leads us to assume that the origin of the Christian understanding could hardly be traced back to any New Testament writers other than Paul, although we cannot definitely confirm this hypothesis by means of 'Traditionsgeschichte'. We need now to turn to Paul's letters, in order to establish our exegetical view on this matter. It is often maintained that Abraham's sonship provides Paul with a major soteriological concept, which can be deduced mainly from the reading of Rom 4, but we should still ask whether Gal 3 also offers the same line of thought. To facilitate our task, it is advisable to assume what Paul had preached to his Christians, before he wrote to them. We call it 'protokerygma' which converted e. g. Galatians to the Christian belief. The protokerygma is presupposed in the letter, but is not directly accessible to us. If we examine carefully whether Paul used the model of Abraham in the protokerygma, we can answer rather in the negative: the sonship of Abraham was an argument of the opponents and Paul tried to take advantage of the Abraham motif as a counter-example for the justification through faith. This is why Paul contrasts the sonship of Abraham with that of God, which played an important role in the protokerygma. He reluctantly accepts the title 'children of Abraham', in so far as it can be combined with faith (cf. Gal 3:7, 29). To do this, Paul interprets the blessing of Abraham in fact as the justification of Gentiles. The negative view on the sonship of Abraham undergoes a significant change, when Paul proposes Abraham as the forefather of both believing Jews and Gentiles. It was out of the question if Jews are sons of Abraham in the Galatian debate, but Paul needs to state in Romans more precisely how they can be affiliated to Abraham in the Pauline sense (cf. Rom 4:16), whom the apostle once acknowledged as forefa- ther of Gentile Christians. In short, we can draw our conclusion that it is highly plausible that the Christian reception of Abraham's sonship goes back to Paul's Jewish opponents but it was theologically established by him.

이슬람에서 아브라함 신앙에 대한 성경신학적 평가

최원진 ( Choi Weon Jin ) 한국복음주의선교신학회 2019 복음과 선교 Vol.47 No.-

Unlike other religions in the world, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are monotheistic religions that believe in one God. They also claim Abraham as their ‘father’ and the model of their faith. Islam especially emphasizes Abraham’s obedience to God so that they focus on the representative model of Islamic faith. Muslims also claim that Abraham faith has been inherited to Ishmael and to Muhammad. They trace Islamic faith’s roots back to Abraham, and believe that Islam is the last religion which has inherited his faith. Allah had revealed his words perfectly, but they were distorted or altered throughout the history, As a result, God has revealed again his message through Muhammad, the last prophet. So, Muhammad’s mission is to return to the religion of Abraham. Abraham was not of the idolaters who has never worshiped idols. In this paper, the researcher attempts to study the foundation of Abraham’s faith appearing in the Quran, and to explore its problems. For the purpose, this paper will focus on Abraham’s family and his burnt-offering event. Abraham is a spiritual father for all Muslims. When Allah commanded Abraham to sacrifice his beloved son as a burnt-offering, he obeyed without hesitation. Muslims believe that such Abraham’s faith is more important than anything else. However, the issue is that the son sacrificed as a burnt-offering was Ishmael, not Issac, according to the Quran. Thus, the most important person in the Islam’s monotheistic faith is Abraham and his elder brother Ishmael. Muslims believe that Muhammad recovered Abraham’s faith. In this paper, the researcher will points out that there are numerous errors in Islamic interpretation of the Bible. If studying the Quran and the Bible comparatively, it must be clarified that the Islam’s claims has no historical and biblical basis. Islamic faith that Abraham is the model of monotheistic faith and it is inherited to Ishmael, Mosses, David, Jesus, and finally to Muhammad, is an unfounded allegation. The researcher assures that Islam is a religion which is created by Muhammad. As a result, Islam and Christianity have no same origin and faith, even though there are some similarities on Abraham faith.

믿음의 법과 아브라함(롬 3:21-4:25)

이진섭(Jin Seob Lee) 한국신학정보연구원 2009 Canon&Culture Vol.4 No.2

로마서 4장이 3:21-31의 내용을 확고히 하고 있다는 점은 통상적으로 받아들여진다. 보통 4장에서 아브라함 등장 이유를 3:22a에 있는 π?στι? Χριστου 형식과 관련해 생각한다. Χριστου를 목적격적 소유격으로 읽는 입장은 일반적으로 아브라함의 믿음을 ‘예수 믿는 그리스도인의 믿음’에 대한 원형으로 보아왔고, 주격적 소유격으로 읽는 입장은 아브라함의 π?στι?를 주로 ‘그리스도의 신실함’에 대한 선례로 생각해 왔다. 그러나 이 두 입장의 제안은 둘 다 쉽게 받아들이기 힘들다. 목적격적 소유격 입장은 4장에서 아브라함이 (그리스도를 믿기보다) 하나님을 믿는다고 제시된 점을 충분히 극복하지 못했고, 주격적 소유격 입장은 아브라함의 π?στι?를 그리스도의 신실함과 연관시키는 데 근본적인 어려움을 갖고 있기 때문이다. 이런 어려움으로 새로운 설명이 부각된 다. 아브라함은 칭의 주제 때문에 등장한 것이 아니라, 유대인과 이방인의 동등성 주제 때문에 등장했다고 보는 것이다. 이 입장은 로마서 4장의 아브라함 예를 3:21-31에 있는 π?στ- 단어 주제보다 유대인-이방인 주제와 연결시키려는 경향이 있다. 하지만 π?στ- 단어 주제가 3:21-31과 4:1-25에 두드러져서 부차적으로 취급되기 어렵다는 문제가 제기된다. 이런 국면에서 필자는 3:27의 ‘믿음의 법’에 대한 새로운 이해가 문제를 해결한다고 주장한다. 바울은 3:22 π?στι? Χριστου 형식으로 ‘그리스도의 신실함’이란 뜻을 부여했고 그것이 ‘그리스도 사건 전체’를 가리키도록 했다. 따라서 3:22은 그리스도 사건으로 말미암아 믿는 사람들이 등장하여 하나님의 의로우심이 나타나게 하는 원리를 말한다. 3:21-26은 그리스도의 사건에 기초하여 모든 믿는 사람들이 등장하여 의롭다함 받는다는 점을 설명하고 3:27은 그 원리를 ‘믿음의 법’이라고 선언한다. 바울은 이 믿음의 법을 확증하기 위하여 아브라함이 믿음으로 의롭다 여겨진 것을 설명한다. 아브라함이 믿는 모든 사람(유대인과 이방인)의 대표일 뿐 아니라 아브라함의 의롭다함이 믿음의 법이 실현되고 있다는 표시이기 때문이다. 결국 ‘믿음의 법’에 대한 새로운 이해는 아브라함 등장 이유의 여러 어려움을 해결해 주고, 더 나아가 3:21-4:25의 π?στ- 단어 주제에 반영된 신학적 논리 흐름을 잘 설명해 준다. 바울은 아브라함이 하나님을 믿고 의롭다 여겨진 것이 궁극적으로는 그리스도의 사건 때문이라고 생각하고 있다. It is commonly accepted that Romans 4 substantiates the contents of 3:21-31. The stance which reads Χριστου as objective genitive(3:22) generally identifies Abraham’ justification by faith(Romans 4) with the Christian’ justification by faith in Christ and so it views Abraham’ faith as a prototype of (Christ-)believers’ faith. On the other hand, the subjective-genitive stance on π?στι? Χριστου(3:22) regards Abraham’ π?στι? as a prefiguration of Christ’ faithfulness. However, neither of these two suggestions is easy to accept. The objective-genitive stance does not successfully overcome the difficulty that in Romans 4 Abraham is presented as believing in God, not Christ, whereas the subjective-genitive stance has a fundamental difficulty in correlating Abraham’s pi,stij with Christ’ faithfulness. This inadequacy leads to another explanation for the occurrence of Abraham. Abraham appears not mainly because of the theme of justification by faith but mainly because of the representativeness of Abraham for Jews and Gentiles alike. Consequently, this stance tends to connect the Abraham example in Romans 4 to the theme of Jews and Gentiles in 3:21-31 rather than to the π?στ-word theme in 3:21-31. However, the π?στ-word theme is too prevalent and prominent to be treated as a subsidiary topic in both 3:21-31 and 4:1-25. In this respect, we argue that the new understanding of ‘he law of faith’ in 3:27 solves the problems. Paul thinks that π?στι? Χριστου formula in 3:22a means ‘he faithfulness of Christ’ and refers to ‘he eschatological event of Christ.’ Consequently, 3:22 explains the principle that through the Christ-event the believing people appear and, accordingly, the righteousness of God has been disclosed. 3:21-26 explains that on the basis of the Christ-event all who believe are justified and, then, 3:27 declares it as the faith-law. Moreover, in order to substantiate this faith-law, Paul also demonstrates Abraham’ justification by faith not only because Abraham is the representative of all(both Jews and Gentiles) who believe, but also because Abraham’ justification (consequently the justification of all believers) is the sign that the faith-law has been in operation. Thus, the new understanding of ‘he law of faith’ in 3:27 resolves several difficulties concerning the reason for the appearance of the Abraham example in Romans 4 and, furthermore, explains well the logical flow of Paul’ theological argument regarding the π?στ-word theme in 3:21-4:25. The fact that Abraham believes in God and is justified, according to Paul, is ultimately due to the Christ-event.

로마서 4장에 나타난 아브라함의 믿음

김명일(Myong Il Kim) 고신대학교 개혁주의학술원 2020 갱신과 부흥 Vol.25 No.-

일부 학자들은 로마서 3:22절의 그리스도의 믿음과 로마서 4:3의 아브라함의 믿음을 언약적인 신실성으로 이해한다. 이러한 관점에서, 바울의 초점은 로마서 4장에서 바울의 초점은 아브라함의 믿음보다는 아브라함의 언약적 관점에서 조상이다. 로마서 3:21-4:25에서 바울의 사고의 흐름은 법정적이 아니라 언약적이다. 그리스도의 신실성을 따르는 아브라함의 신실성은 하나님의 언약적인 신실성을 기초로 한다. 하나님의 언약적 신실성을 하나님의 의로 이해한다. 즉, 법정적인 이신칭의는 바울의 논증에서 중요하지 않다. 이신칭의와 관련된 아브라함의 신실성이라는 사고는 종교개혁자들의 솔라 피데에 반대한다. 마틴 루터는 다음과 같이 주장한다. “아브라함은 하나님을 믿었으며, 행위 없는 바로 그 믿음은 하나님 앞에 의로 여겨졌다. 그러므로 이것을 통해서 하나님 앞에 의롭게 된다. 그러므로 이것은 행위를 하는 사람의 문제가 아니라 믿음을 의로 여기는 하나님의 문제이다.” 일부 현대 학자들은 하나님에 대한 아브라함의 신실성을 강조하지만, 바울의 강조점은 하나님을 믿음이다. 필자는 이 소논문에서 로마서 4:3의 아브라함의 믿음은 일부학자들과의 견해와 다르게 이신칭의와 연관된 하나님을 믿는 믿음이라는 것을 밝히려고 한다. 첫째, 아브라함은 예수 그리스도를 믿음으로 의롭게 되는 불경건한 자들의 칭의를 대표한다. 그들의 믿음은 언약적으로 신실한 행위를 포함할 수 있는 아브라함의 신실함과는 다르다. 왜냐하면 불경건한 자들은 모세언약에서 배제되었기 때문이다. 둘째, 로마서 4:3에서 인용된 아브라함의 믿음의 성격은 주 여호와에 대한 믿음이지 언약적 신실성은 아니다. Some scholars contend that faith of Christ in Romans 3:22 and the faith of Abraham in Romans 4:3 are covenantal faithfulness. Paul’s focuses Abraham’s covenantal relationship in Romans 4:3.The flow of Paul’s thought in Romans 3:21-4:25 is covenantal rather than forensic. Abraham’s faithfulness following Christ’ faithfulness is based on God’s covenantal faithfulness, which is God’s righteousness. The forensic justification by faith is not pivotal in Paul’s argument. This thought, Abraham’s faithfulness, concerning justification by faith is opposed to Reformers’ sola fide. Martin Luther asserts, “Abraham believed God, and it, this very believing even without works, was reckoned to him, by God, as righteousness, so that through this he should be righteous before God. And thus it is not a matter of him who works but of God who accepts his faith as righteousness.” Paul’s emphasis is believing in God, while some contemporary scholars emphasize the faithfulness of Abraham. In this article, I will first examine Abraham’s faith in Romans 4:3 against contemporary scholars who assert that this verse refers to Abraham’s faithfulness. First, Abraham represents justification of the ungodly who are justified by their faith in Jesus Christ. Their faith does not correspond to Abraham’s faithfulness in terms of the covenantal relationship, since the ungodly are excluded from the Mosaic covenant. Second, the nature of Abraham’s faith in Genesis 15:6 which is quoted in Romans 4:3 is believing in the Lord rather than his covenantal faithfulness.

아브라함의 역사적 정체성 논의 연구

천사무엘 한국구약학회 2009 구약논단 Vol.15 No.2

The purpose of this article is to deal with Abraham's historical identity presented by recent scholars who have studied his story in the Book of Genesis through archaeology and historical criticism. To do so, it critically reviews their presentations which have been discussed for the last 60 years. First of all, in the perspective of Palestine archaeology, Abraham was placed in the early second millenium, B.C.E. by W. F. Albright and N. Glueck, in the 19th-16th century B.C.E. by R. de Vaux and J. Bright, in the period of Amarna (15th-14th century B.C.E.) by C. H. Gordon and O. Eissfeldt, or in the early Iron Age (1200-1000 B.C.E.) by B. Mazar and P. K. McCarter, Jr. However, their views were criticized by T. L. Thompson and J. Van Seters, who argued that Abraham's story in the Book of Genesis included anachronism such as Philistines and camels, and later traditions. It means that ‘historical Abraham’ cannot be reconstructed by archaeological data. In the perspective of historical criticism, Yahwist's Abraham was presented as the intermediator of promise, but it has been discussed whether J was in the 10th century B.C.E. or exilic period. Priestly writer's Abraham was also presented as a model of the faithful or righteous in the exilic or post-exilic Jewish community, but it has been discussed whether P was in the Babylonian Period or Persian. In spite of these previous studies, the historicity of Abraham still remains unsolved, because it is difficult to deny Abraham as a historical figure. Abraham presented by J or P should be also reconsidered with each writer's socio-historical situation, which needs a study of Abraham described in other Pentateuchal books and prophetic ones. It means that the study of Abraham is related with other texts in the Old Testament as well as the story of Abraham in the Book of Genesis. 본 연구는 지난 60여 년 동안 토론되어 온 아브라함의 역사적 정체성에 대한 주요 연구들을 비판적으로 검토하면서 앞으로의 연구 방향을 고찰해 보는 것이다. 이를 위해 학자들이 제시한 역사적 아브라함의 가능한 연대를 시대별로 구분하여 살펴보고 앞으로의 연구 과제가 무엇인지 살펴본다.