칼빈과 바르트 동정녀 탄생 이해 비교 (John Calvin’s to that of Karl Barth’s Understanding of the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국개혁신학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국개혁신학 / 41권 / 8 ~ 46페이지
· 저자명 : 권호덕

초록

본 논문의 주된 관심사는 칼빈과 바르트가 예수 그리스도의 성육신을 어떻게 이해했나 하는 것이다. 이 논문은 예수 그리스도는 “타락 후 아담”의 몸을 취하셨는가? 아니면 “타락 이전”의 몸을 취하셨는가에 대한 질문에 대한 답을 얻으려고 한다. 칼빈의 그리스도에 대한 이해는 그의 동정녀 탄생에 대한 이해로부터 시작한다. 문제는 동정녀 탄생에 대한 칼빈의 이해가 그의 저서 『기독교 강요』와 성경주석에서 일치하는 관점을 제공하지 않는다는 것이다. 칼빈의 다양한 후예들이 예수 그리스도의 동정녀 탄생에 대하여 두 가지 서로 다른 입장을 표명한 것은 매우 주목할 만하다. 칼빈이 『기독교 강요』 II. 13. 4에서 한 발언과 『기독교 강요』 IV. 16. 18 그리고 그의 모든 주석에서 한 발언이 일치하지 않는다. 말하자면 칼빈의 가르침 속에 모순이 있는 셈이다. 『기독교 강요』 II. 13. 4에 열거된 칼빈의 주장을 기초로 동정녀 탄생을 논한 후예들은 배타적이고 다른 가르침에 대해 정죄하는 성향을 형성한 것 같다. 이들이 칼빈의 이런 부분에 관심을 집중시킨 것은 그들의 의식 구조 속에 이미 그런 사고방식의 틀을 형성하고 있었기 때문인 것으로 풀이된다. 반면에 『기독교 강요』 IV. 16. 18과 성경주석에 근거하여 해석하는 사람들은 ‘육신’이 무엇을 의미하는지를 규명하는 일에 집념하고 나아가 문화변혁적인 성향을 가지는 것 같다. 바르트도 예수께서 우리의 구원 사역을 위해 타락 후 아담의 몸을 취했다고 해석한다. 이런 점에서 그는 개혁 신학자의 계열에 서 있다. 그러면 왜 이 주제가 우리의 관심의 대상이 될 수 있을까? 성육신론에 대한 바른 이해는 바른 구원 방법을 설명해 준다. 구원문제에 있어서 가장 걸림돌이 되는 것은 바로 범죄의 주체가 되는 ‘육신’ 내지 ‘육’이다. 타락 후 아담의 몸을 취한 예수 그리스도는 이 육신 속에 있는 죄를 처리하는 구원의 장치로서 오셨음을 명확하게 보여준다. 이런 이해는 성도들로 하여금 구체적인 구원 방법을 생각하게 만들어 성화를 돕는다.

영어초록

The Church Fathers, who fought against Docetism, simply drew the attention to the incarnation of the Word. However, there was a lack of emphasis on what kind of body the Word has assumed. In times of the Reformation, one began to be concerned about this question in relation to the question of Salvation.
The main point of this thesis is the understanding of Calvin and K. Barth on the Incarnation of Christ. This thesis is trying to get an answer for the question whether Jesus Christ had taken the body of Adam before the Fall or the body after the Fall.
The Reformed Churches, especially the Korean Churches of the conservative denomination are very much influenced by Calvin that analyzing Calvin's Christology is necessary in order to understand the cultural type and life style of this church more in depth. Calvin's Christology begins with his understanding on the Virgin Birth of Christ. It is very problematic that Calvin is inconsistent in his understanding of the Virgin Birth both in his Institutes Christian Religion II,13,4, IV,16,18 and his Commentaries. It is notable that Calvin's various theological descendents are divided into two stances over the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. We can certainly see a contradiction in Calvin's teaching.
The disciples of Calvin who argue for the Virgin Birth of Christ based on Institutes Christian Religion II,13,4, have an exclusive disposition and a tendency to condemn the teaching of others. They prefer this utterance to another because of their thinking pattern which is formed based on the teaching of Calvin. On the other hand those who argue based on IV,16,18 and his commentaries try to explain what flesh is and have a disposition to cultural reform.








1. Calvin's understanding of the Virgin Birth of Christi in his works.
The Church Fathers, who fought against Docetism, simply drew the attention to the incarnation of the Word. However, there was a lack of emphasis on what kind of body the Word has assumed. In times of the Reformation, one began to be concerned about this question in relation to the question of Salvation.
The main point of this thesis is the understanding of Calvin and K. Barth on the Incarnation of Christ. This thesis is trying to get an answer for the question whether Jesus Christ had taken the body of Adam before the Fall or the body after the Fall. The Reformed Churches, especially the Korean Churches of the conservative denomination are very much influenced by Calvin that analyzing Calvin's Christology is necessary in order to understand the cultural type and life style of this church more in depth. Calvin's Christology begins with his understanding on the Virgin Birth of Christ. It is very problematic that Calvin is inconsistent in his understanding of the Virgin Birth both in his Institutes Christian Religion II,13,4, IV,16,18 and his Commentaries. It is notable that Calvin's various theological descendents are divided into two stances over the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. We can certainly see a contradiction in Calvin's teaching.
The disciples of Calvin who argue for the Virgin Birth of Christ based on Institutes Christian Religion II,13,4, have an exclusive disposition and a tendency to condemn the teaching of others'. They prefer this utterance to another because of their thinking pattern which is formed based on the teaching of Calvin. On the other hand those who argue based on IV,16,18 and his commentaries try to explain what flesh is and have a disposition to cultural reform.
Institutes of the Christian Religion(1536): Calvin who alludes to Jesus Christ's taking on the body after the Fall illuminates here Jesus Christ as a apparatus for Redemption which eliminates the sin-system.
Institutes Christian Religion(1559): In this part Calvin expresses a contradiction concerning the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. Calvin states in Institutes Christian Religion II,13,4 that Jesus Christ came to the world with the body before the Fall. Because of that, the Roman Catholic Church criticized the Reformed church drawing upon Calvin. On the other hand he speaks in Institutes Christian Religion IV,16,18 that Jesus Christ came with the body after the Fall.
Calvin's Commentaries: Calvin interprets in his commentaries on the Gospels, on Paul's letters, on Hebrew(Heb. 2:14; 4:15) that Jesus Christ came with the body after the Fall. Nontheless Calvin tries not to damage the divine nature of Christ.
-In the Geneva catechism Calvin states two contradictory opinion. It means that Calvin is inconsistent in the Incarnation, particularly in the body of Jesus Christ at his Works. But as a whole Calvin inclines to ‘the body after the Fall.’Those who have a dualistic thinking pattern would incline to the opinion that Jesus Christ took on ‘the body before fall’, if they read Calvin's understanding of the Virgin Birth of Christ. Those who have a relative thinking pattern would incline to the opinion that Jesus Christ took on ‘the body after the Fall’. It means that the doctrine of Incarnation exposes the interpreter's way of thinking. Understanding of the body of the Saviour determines their lifestyle and fruit of life.








2. Calvin's theological descendantsIt is interesting that Calvin's theological descendants are divided in two branches. The one interprets the Incarnation of the Word based on Institutes Christian Religion II,13,4, and the other is based on Institutes Christian Religion IV,16,18.
Those who interpret the body of Jesus Christ based on Institutes Christian Religion II,13,4 are puritans as William Perkins(1558-1602), Herman Witsius(1636-1708), Thomas Watson (1636-1686) and Charles Hodge. B.B. Warfield and G. Machen did not make a subject of discussion.
To those who interpret the body of Jesus Christ based on Institutes Christian Religion IV,16,18 the second Hevetic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, Scotland Confession, Westminster Confession. Francis Turretin who gives the most appropriate interpretation of this doctrine taught Systematic Theology in Geneva Academy for 30 years. In addition H. F. Kohlbruügge, Joh. Wichelhaus, E. Böhl, A. Kuyper, and Herman Bavinck belong to this category as well. John Murray gives a lucid explanation of this matter.
K. Barth interprets in his KD that Jesus took on the body after the Fall for our Salvation.
Why can this theological issue become the center of our attention? Firstly, the right understanding of the Incarnation leads us to the right understanding of Salvation. The biggest hurdle to Salvation is the flesh as the main body of the sin. Jesus Christ who took on the body after the Fall shows that he came to the world as an instrument for Salvation, to condemn the sin in the flesh. This understanding lets christians consider the concrete way to Biblical holiness.
Secondly, if we realize that Jesus Christ assumed the nature, in which the disobedience was committed, to make satisfaction in the same, and to bear the punishment of sin by his most bitter passion and death, we can be deeply grateful to God and Jesus. Adam became flesh through disobedience, but Jesus Christ became flesh for us.
Thirdly, this knowledge examines a theologian's way of thinking. Those who understand the sin not relatively, but ontologically can not approve Jesus Christ's body after the all. The Reformation Theology differentiates itself from the Roman Catholic Church by its relative understanding of sin and salvation while the Roman Catholic church understands them ontologically.
Forthly, this theme is important for us, because the knowledge of Jesus Christ has a great influence on the Christian's way of life. Even if Jesus who took on flesh after the Fall, never yielded to the demand of flesh and was obedient to the Law through the Holy Spirit, we can be so. According to the Bible, the secret of Christians' successful religious life consists not in the ontological method, in which divine ability is infused into the body but in the relative method, in which we maintain the state of faith-relation to God through the union with Christ. Regretfully Korean Christians are accustomed to the ontological method.

참고자료

· 없음