존칼빈의신학적해석학 Scriptura Sui Ipsius Interpres 원리를사용한 Brevitas et Facilitas 방법론 1) 안명준 ( 조직신학 ) 1. 서론 Schleiermacher를시작으로태동되었던자유주의신학을무너뜨린 20세기의혁명적인최고의신학자 Karl Barth 이후에 2) 과학시대에사는현대인들의이해를돕기위하여실존주의해석학 (existentialist hermeneutic) 을 3) 주창한 R. Bultmann의등장으로신학계는이제성경해석학에많은관심을갖게되었다. 4) 최근까지 Ernst Fuchs, 5) Gerhard Ebeling, 6) Robert Funk 7), James M. Robinson 8), Jürgen Habermas 9), Gadamer 10), 그리고 Paul Ricoeur 11) 와같은학자들에의해서해석 1) 이글은본인의논문 (Brevitas et Facilitas: A Study of a Vital Aspect in the Theological Hermeneutics of John Calvin, Ph.D.diss., Universiteit van Pretoria, 1998) 가운데제 6장의 2편을수정한것임을밝힌다. 1 편에대한참고를위하여안명준, " 칼빈의성서해석학에사용된성령의조명," [ 칼빈신학해설 ] ( 서울 : 대한기독교서회, 1998), 91-105. 2) Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York: Crossroad, 1992), 509. 여기서가다머는바르트의 Der Römerbrief를자유주의신학을비판한최초의혁명적인폭팔로 (the first revolutionary eruption) 또일종의해석학적선언서로본다 (Barth's Romans is a kind of hermeneutical manifesto). Cf. Gerhard Ebeling, "Wort Gottes und Hermeneutik," ZTK 56 (1959): 228. 칼바르트이후에해석학동향을참고하기위해서, James M. Robinson, "Hermeneutic since Barth," in The New Hermeneutic, ed. James M. Robinson and John B. Cobb, Jr. (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1964), 1-77. 3) Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology (New York: Charles Scribner's Son, 1958), 45. 여기서불트만은자신의비신화화를실존주의해석이라부른다 : "... I call de-mythologizing an interpretation, an existentialist interpretation.... de-mythologizing is an hermeneutic mehtod..." 4) 성경해석에관한교의학자인바르트와신약학자인불트만을비교해본다면, 이두학자가성경해석이란성경본문을단순히역사적-언어학적으로분석하는것이상이되어야하고 (biblical interpretaion ought to be more than the purely historical and philological analysis of biblical texts), 또성경해석의제 1차관심으로서성경본문에의해서발생한믿음의응답 (the faith response provoked by these texts) 을강조하는데있어서는일치하였다. 바르트는 Kierkegaard로부터불트만은 Heidegger로부터각각실존주의 (Existentialism) 에영향을받아해석학에사용한점에서공통점이있다. 그러나바르트는성경해석에있어서철학적전제들 (the philosophical presuppositions of biblical interpreation) 을숙고하는것에대해정당한것으로인정하지않은반면에하이데거의실존주의철학에영향을결정적으로받은불트만과그의추종자들은 (the New Hermeneutic) 현대적이며책임성있는성경주석을위하여이것을필수적인기초로보았다. Cf. Werner G. Jeanrond, "Hermeneutics," in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, ed., R. J. Coggins & J. L. Houlden (London: SCM Press, 1990), 284. Gadamer 역시바르트와불트만의차이점을다음과같이말한다. " 나는불트만이역사비평방법을신학적해석에결합시킨점과그가방법론적인자기인식을위하여하이데거의철학에의존점이바르트가불트만의방법으로자신을인정하게못하게하였다 (Truth and Method, 509). 5) Ernst Fuchs, Hermeneutik (Tübingen: Mohr, 1970); Marburger Hermeneutik (Tübingen: Mohr, 1968); Zum hermeneutischen Problem in der Theologie (Tübingen, Mohr, 1959). 6) Gerhard Ebeling, "Hermeneutik," in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Tübingen: Mohr, 1959), 242-62; Introduction to a Theological Theory of Language (London: Collins, 1973); Word and Faith (London: SCM, 1963). 7) Robert W. Funk. "Colloquium on Hermeneutics," TToday 21 (1964): 28-306; Language, Hermeneutic and Word of God (New York: Harper & Row, 1966). 8) James M, Robinson, "The Pre-history of Demythologization," Int 20 (1960): 65-77. 9) Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests (London: Heinemann, 1978); Zur Logik der - 1 -
학연구의열기는중단됨이없이빠르게발전되고있다. 성경해석학은초대교회로부터중세를걸쳐종교개혁시대에이르러그방법론이많은변화를거쳐오늘날에이르렀고, 12) 기독교신학도성경해석의발전과더불어올바르게정통적으로정립되었다. 따라서기독교신학과교회의역사란각시대마다성경을어떻게해석했는지에대한기록이라고부를수있다. 13) 사실상우리가인정하는모든기독교의진리들은이단자들의거짓된교리들에대항한사람들의공헌과잘못된신학교리에대한끊임없는해석논쟁속에서하나님의말씀을올바르게해석하려고노력했던사람들의승리의결과로부터나왔다. 이런관점에서볼때교리와신학의올바른형성은성경을해석하기위한합법적인방법과분리될수없는관계를가지고있다. 14) 성경해석의중요한역할을인정한다면, 칼빈의신학을해석학적관점에서조사 Sozialwissenschaften (Frakfurt: Suhrkamp, 1982). 10) Hans-Georg Gadamer, Kleine Schriften (Tübingen: Mohr, 1967); Philosophical Hermeneutics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976); "On the Scope and Function of Hermeneutical Reflection," Continuum 8 (1970): 77-95; "The Problem of Language in Schleiermacher's Hermeneutics," JTC 7 (1970): 68-95. 11) Paul Ricoeur, The Conflict of Interpretation. Essays in Hermeneutics, ed., Don Ihde (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1974); Interpretation Theory. Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Forth Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1976); "Biblical Hermeneutics," Semeia 4 (1975): 29-148. Paul Ricoeur는해석방법이이해의원수 (an enemy of understanding) 가아니라, 필요한협조자 (an necessary helpmate) 로말한다. 12) 성경해석학의역사를일반적으로다룬글을소개하면다음과같다. Cambridge History of the Bible, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963-70); Jean Daniélou, From Shadows to Reality: Studies in the Biblical Typlogy of the Fathers. Trans., Wulstan Hibberd (London: Burns & Oates, 1960); Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1964); Arthur Skevington Wood, The Principles of Biblical Interpretation: As Enunciated by Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967); Robert M. Grant, A Short History of The Interpretatin of the Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1963); Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1979); D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, Scripture and Truth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983); Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study of Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974). 13) 신학을해석의역사로보는견해는 John F. A. Sawyer, R. A. Piper, 그리고 J. Pelikan 등과같은학자들도일치된의견이다. Cf. Jaroslav Pelikan, Luther the Expositor: Introduction to the Reformer's Exegetical Writngs. Companion Volume to Luther's Works (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 5; Gerhard Ebeling, Kirchengeschichte als Geschichte der Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift (Tübingen: JCB, Mohr, 1947). 14) C. J. Wethmar, "Homologie en hermeneutiek," HTS 44 (1988): 540. Thomas F. Torrance, Divine Meaning: Studies in Patristic Hermeneutics (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995), 6. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., "Legitimate Hermneutics," in A Guide Contemporary Hermeneutics: Major Trends in Biblical Interpretation, ed. Donald K. McKim (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), 111-141. 성경해석과교의신학과의관계에있어서칼빈에경우를이해하기위하여, Felicity Edwards, "The Relation between Biblical Hermeneutics and the Formulation of Dogmtic Theology: An Investigation in the Methodology of John Calvin" (Ph.D. diss., Oxford University, 1968). Cf. Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theoloical Reflection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 49. Cf. Karl Barth, Credo, ed., Robert McAfee Brown (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1962). 177. "The Credo is subject to Scripture, and Dogmatics has therefore to be continually corrected by Exegesis, it comes under its control. So we must now of course acquaint ourselves with what is to be understood by Exegesis. The exegesis which is, if I may use the expression, pre-ordered to Dogmatics must be an - 2 -
하는것은개혁신학의올바른정립을위하여매우중요하다고말할수있다. 이글의목적은칼빈의모든신학적해석학의방법들을열거하는것이아니요, 오히려칼빈의해석방법들가운데가장핵심이라고간주되는 brevitas et facilitas 15) ( 간결하고용이한 ) 방법의근원이 Scriptura sui ipsius interpres 원리에있었다는것을밝히는것이다. 따라서본인은오직성경 (sola Scriptura) 이라는신학적사상을먼저살펴보고다음으로루터는실제로어떻게이원리 (Scriptura sui ipsius interpres) 를성경해석학에사용했는지를취급하고마지막으로칼빈에있어서 Scriptura sui ipsiu interpres 원리가 brevitas et facilitas 방법에어떻게적용되었는지를논술하고자한다. 2. Scriptura Sui Ipsius Interpres Verbum supra ecclesiam. Ecclesia nata est ex Dei verbo. 개혁자들은이런표어들을가지고유형교회인로마카톨릭교회위에성경의우선권을확신하였다. 16) 개혁자들이성경의권위를새롭게강조한것이그들에게로마카톨릭교회의전통과권위에반대하여신학적열쇠를제공하였고, 성경해석의중요한원리들가운데하나를만들어내었다. 칼빈은 sola Scriptura 와 Scriptura sui ipsius interpres 같은슬로건을가지고종교개혁을일으킨개혁자들을따랐다. 17) 그에게있어서 Scriptura sui ipsius interpres 원리는성경해석에있어서매우중요한신학적원리들가운데하나였다. 2.1. Sola Scriptura 개혁자들의신학적원리인 Scriptura sui ipsius interpres는 - " 성경이어떻게개인의양심과교회의생활에서권위있게역할을해야하는지에대한개혁자들의전적인견해를대표하는 " 18) - sola Scriptura와직접적으로관련이되어있다. 오직성경 (sola Scriptura) 이라는표어는개혁자들의강력한무기였다. 19) 이표어를가지고개혁자들은로마카톨릭교회의권위와전통에대해싸웠고, 그것들위에성경의권위를두었다. 20) 이원리 (Scriptura sui ipsius interpres) 는해석이교회의교리에 (ecclesia Scripturae interpres) 종속되지않게했다. 21) 오직성경 (sola Scriptura) 이라는표어는개혁자들의성경 attempt to understand Holy Scripture within the pale of the Church: it must therefore be theological exegesis." 15) 이방법에대한참고로안명준, [ 칼빈의성경해석학 ] ( 서울 : 기독교문서선교회, 1997), 59-108. 16) John T. McNeill, "the Significance of the Word of God for Calvin," CH 28 (1959): 131. 17) J. I. Packer, "Infallible Scripture and the Role of Hermeneutics," in Scripture and Truth, ed., D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), p. 350. Here he says, "Scripture should be interpreted by Scripture, just as one part of a human teacher's message may and should be interpreted by appeal to the rest.... Scripture must be approached as a single organism of instruction, and we must look always for its internal links and topical parallels, which in fact are there in profusion, waiting to be noticed." 18) J. I. Packer, "Sola Scriptura in History and Today," in God's Inerrant Word, ed. John Warwick Montgomery (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1974), 43. 19) H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, Bd. 1, (Kampen: J, H, Kok, 1928), 449. "Inderdaad hebben de kerken der Hervorming tegenover Rome geen machtiger wapen dan de Schrift." 20) 물론로마카톨릭교회도성경의권위를받아들였지만성경을교회다음에두었다. Cf. C. J. Wethmar, Dogma en Verstaanshorison: 'n Histories-sistematiese ondersoek in verband met die hermeneutiese funksie van die kerklike dogma met besondere verwysing na die teologie van Gerhard Ebeling (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1977), 177. "Die Rooms-Katholieke kerk wil die Skrifgesag aan kie kerk bind deur die uitleg van die Skrif as prerogatief van die kerklike oorlewering daarvan voor te behou. Aan die kerklike tradisie word, ten opsigte van die Heilige Skrif, sowel 'n interpretatiewe as 'n aanvullingsfunksie toegeken." - 3 -
이해에있어서결정적인역할을하였다. 22) J. I. Packer는말하기를 " 개혁자들의기독교에대한이해는 sola Scriptura 원리에의존했다. 즉그견해란성경이이세상에서하나님의유일한말씀으로서교회와양심을위한유일한안내서이며, 하나님과은혜를아는진정한근원이며, 과거와현재에있어서교회의증거와가르침의유일하게자격을갖춘재판자이다." 라고하였다. 23) 개혁자들에게있어서성경이란로마카톨릭교회가성경해석의결정에있어서자신의전통에두었던권위을반대한유일한권위였다. 24) 루터가말한 sola Scriptura 25) 에서오직 (sola ) 이라는말의강한주장은이미성경해석원리를위한힘을- 성경은외부적인표준이나전통에매이지않고그자체가해석자이다 26) - 갖고있었다. 로마카톨릭교회의견해즉성경은교회에서가르치는직분에있는자들에의해서해석되어야한다라는주장은성경은애매하다라는신학적전제에근거하고있었다. 그러나개혁자들은이런견해를거절하였다. 그들은성경은명료하다라는사실에위에자신들의주장을두었다. 27) H. Bavinck는성경의명료성 (the perspicuity of Scripture) 을종교개혁의강력한보루로보았다. 28) 성경은명료성을갖고있기때문에스스로해석할수있는능력을가지고있다. 29) 개혁자들의이러한발견은성경해석의 21) E. P. Groenewald, Die Eksegese van die Nuwe Testament (Pretoria: Universiteit van Pretoria, 1938), 8. 22) Martin Bucer, Common Places of Martin Bucer, trans., and ed. D. F. Wright (Appleford: The Sutton Courtenay Press, 1972), 187. "By what reasoning, then, will these theologians defend the propriety of asserting that `the Church gives Scripture its authority, has power over Scripture, can change Scripture,' etc.? Can it be said that an ambassador imparts authority to his prince's mandate, or to the brief that records it, or that he has power over it, or can change anything in it? It is not rather the case that the brief vindicates the trustworthiness of the ambassador, and that he should be so closely bound to his brief that whatever he says that is not explicitly stated in it, whatever exposition he gives of its implications, must be in complete harmony with its express contents, assuming he intends faithfully to discharge his commission?" He rejected the authority of the Roman church's pope, but rather the work of the Holy Spirit. Cf. Peter Matheson, "Martin Bucer and the Old Church," in Martin Bucer Reforming Church and Community, ed. D. F. Wright (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 5-16. 23) J. I. Packer, "Sola Scriptura in History and Today," 48-9. 24) Klaas Runia, "The Hermeneutics of the Reformers," CTJ 19 (1984): 121-152; Alister McGrath, The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987), 152-174. "The Reformation principle of sola scriptura is rendered either meaningless or unusable without a reliable hermeneutical programme" (152). 25) WA 7.95-101 26) Gordon Clarke Chapman Jr., "The Hermeneutics of Hermann Diem: A Renewed Conversation between Existentialist Exegesis and Dogmatic Theology" (Ph.D. diss., Boston University: Boston, 1963), 7-8. H. W. Rossouw, "Calvin's Hermeneutics of Holy Scripture," in Calvinus Reformator, 151-2. "The significance which the sola scriptura had for the Reformation movement can, however, only be adequately grasped if the hermeneutical relevance of the sola is taken into account. Such an understanding of the sola scriptura would at the same time reveal that the Reformers' conception of the exclusive authority of Scripture entailed a new view of the nature of this authority and of the way in which it is actually exercised. For the Reformers the confession of the sola scriptura originated in the context of a dispute which was primarily of a hermeneutical nature; that is, a dispute in which the real issue at stake was the correct interpretation and understanding of the Biblical message." 27) Gottfried W. Locher, Die Zwinglische Reformation im Rahmen der europäischen Kirchengeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 212-3. 성경의명료성에대한연구로 Gregg Robert Allison, "The Protestant Doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture: A Reformulation on the Basis of Biblical Teaching" (Ph.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1995). 28) H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, Bd. 1, 449. 29) Ibid., 450. 성경의명료성과성경의해석에대한관계를위한연구로, Hendrik Willem Rossouw, Klaarheid en Interpretasie. Enkele probleemhistoriese gesigspunte in verband met die leer van die duidelikheid van die Heilige Skrif (Amsterdam: Drukkerij en Uitgeverij Jacob van Campen N. V., 1963), 246-270. Cf. P. C. - 4 -
새로운방법을열었다. 그들은 sola Scriptura 원리를그들의신학적성경해석에적용하였다. 30) 2.2. 루터의방법 성경해석은기독교공동체의신학의형성의중요한역할을해왔다. 이런관점으로부터우리는 Martin Luther의성경해석의중요성를무시할수없다. 31) 만일우리가어떻게루터의이신칭의교리가시작되었는가를스스로질문해본다면우리는그의종교개혁은로마카톨릭교회에대항하여성경에대한그의새로운해석으로부터왔다는것을알수있다. 32) Paul Althaus는루터의성경해석에대해다음과같이말한다. " 그의신학은성경을해석하는것이외에아무것도아니다. 그것의모습은기본적으로주석이다. 그는스콜라적인의미에서조직신학자가아니오중세체제나현대신학의의미에서교의학자도아니다." 33) 그러므로그의신학은기존의로마카톨릭교회의방법이아닌새로운관점으로부터성경을해석하려는시도에의해서형성되었다. 보름회의 (the Diet of Worms) 에서그는자신의양심이하나님의말씀에사로잡혔기때문에교황과종교회의권위를받지않겠다고말하였다. 그는 sola Scriptura를강조하였다. 34) 이표어는성경은자증을하기때문에스스로가해석자이다라는사실을포함하고있다. 루터에있어서 sola Scriptura의강조는 Scriptura sui ipsius interpres원리가되었다. 35) 이방법은 1519년의작품들에나타나고후에계속하여그의성경해석에서중요한역할을하였다. 36) 루터에있어서성경이그자체가해석자라는원리는그가성경의권위와명료성을강조하는것으로부터왔다. 37) 루터는 1519년 7월에에크 (Eck) 와라이프치히논쟁 (Leipzig Potgieter, "Perspicuitas - Vir Wie?" in 'N Woord op sy tyd: 'n Teologiese Feesbundel aangebied aan Professor Johan Heyns ter herdenking van sy sestigste verjaarsdag, eds. C. J. Wethmar and C. J. A. Vos (Pretoria: NG Kerkboekhandel, 1988), 89-96. 30) Gerhard Ebeling, "Word of God and Hermeneutic," in The New Hermeneutic, vol. 2, ed. James M. Robinson and John B. Cobb, Jr. (New York, Harper & Row, 1964), 79. Ebeling은다음과같이지적한다. "Now although the exclusive particle sola scriptura was directed against this Catholic view of tradition, yet the so-called Scripture principle of the Reformers did not really consist in a reduction of the sources of revelation, a quantitatively narrower definition of the norm. Rather the sola Scriptura, as opposed to the hermeneutical sense of the Catholic principle of tradition, was itself already a hermeneutical thesis." G. C. Berkouwer 역시다음과같이말한다. "Nowhere was the relationship between authority and interpretation so clearly expressed as in the Reformation confession of Scripture, which, based on sola Scriptura, offered a perspective on the real relationship between authority and interpretation, and expressed it in its hermeneutical rule: sola scriptura sui ipsius interpres (Sacred Scripture is its own interpreter). G. C. Berkouwer, Holy Scripture (Grand Rapid: Eerdmans: 1975), 127. 31) Gerhard Ebeling, "New Hermeneutics and the Early Luther," ThToday 21 (1964): 34-46. 여기서그는루터의사상안에서일어났던해석적인혁명을강조한다. Karl Bauer, Die Wittenberger Universitätstheologie und die Anfänge der deutschen Reformation (Tübingen: Mohr, 1928), p. 145, emphasizes that Luther became the Reformer through his new hermeneutics: "Aber zum Reformator ist er weder durch seinen Nominalismus, noch durch die Anregungen, die him vom Humanismus kamen, sondern durch seine neue Hermeneutik." 32) A. Skevington Wood, Luther's Principles of Biblical Interpretation (London: The Tyndale Press, 1960), 6. Cf. A. E. McGrath, "Luther," in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, ed. R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houlden (London: SCM Press, 1990), 415. 33) Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, trans., Robert S. Schultz (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 3. 34) David W. Lotz, "Sola Scriptura: Luther on Biblical Authority," Int 35 (1981): 258-73. 35) WA 10.3.238. 36) Ralph A. Bohlmann, Principles of Biblical Interpretation in the Lutheran Confession (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968), 89. Cf. Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, 76-78. 37) Erling T. Teigen, "The Clarity of Scripture and Hermeneutical Principles in the Lutheran - 5 -
Disputation) 에서 38) 성경의권위를강조하였다. 나는거미가물에침투하는것처럼그신학박사 ( 에크 ) 가성경을관통하는것에 유감스럽다. 사실상그는마귀가십자가로부터도망가듯성경으로부터도망간다. 그러므로 교부들에대한 존경과함께나는성경의권위를선택하고나를판단할 사람들에게그것을 권했다. 39) 루터는에라스무스의견해를 - 성경은어두운책이기에교회에서가르치는직책의사람들에의해서해석이필요하다라는- 반대하면서성경의명료성을방어하였다. 40) 루터는자신의교리서들 (Catechisms) 가운데서 Scriptura sui ipsius interpres원리의몇가지의패턴을보여주었다. 41) 3. Scriptura Sui Ipsius Interpres 원리와 Brevitas Et Facilitas 방법론의관계성 Calvin은성경의신학자였기때문에그는자신의신학뿐만아니라자신의해석학울 sola Scriptura라는종교개혁원리에의해서체계화하려고했다. 42) 칼빈의제네바신앙고백서 (The Genevan Confession) 는그가 sola Scriptura 원리를어떻게이해했는지를보여준다. 43) 그가성경만을강하게믿는것은그로하여금성경의해석의신학적원리즉 Scriptura sui ipsius interpres를사용하도록하였다. 이원리는성경관과밀접하게관련되어있다. 칼빈은모든성경은하나님에의해영감되었다는사실을받아들였다. 44) 즉성경의참된저자는인간이아니라하나님이시다. 45) 성경의신적영감에대한칼빈의견해는디모데후서 3장 16절 " 모든성경은하나님의감동으로된것으로 " 의주석에서잘나타난다. 46) 그에게있어서오직성경이란권위적인것이다. 왜냐하면성경이성령에의해구술되었기 Confessions," ConcorThM 46 (1982): 147-166; Bernhard Rothen, Die Klarheit der Schrift, Teil 1: Martin Luther, Die wiederentdeckten Grundlagen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990). 38) Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther: An Introduction to His Life and Work, ed. Robet c. Schultz (Philadelphia:: fortress, 1986), 47-8. Cf. Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation 1483-1521, trans. James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1981), 299-348. 39) WA 2.282, quoted in A. Skevington Wood, Captive to the Word: Martin Luther, Doctor of Sacred Scripture (Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 1969), 70. 40) Hermann Sasse, "Luther and Word of God," in Accent in Luther's Theology, ed Heino O. Kadai (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1967), 67. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston (Westwood: Fleming H. Revell, 1957), 71, 123-132. Cf. WA 18.609, 653. 41) 몇가지를소개하면, 첫번째로루터는이해하는데있어서어려움이없는성경의분명한본문을단순히인용하고, 두번째로성경에있는사건과사람들을포함하는예화를사용하고, 세번째로문맥에의해서본문을해석하고, 네번째로전체성경의의미로부터본문의의미를해석하며, 다섯째로그리스도자신이말씀하셨다는그리스도중심적인해석을한다. 42) John H. Leith, "John Calvin. Theologian of the Bible," Int 25 (1971): 330 43) First we affirm that we desire to follow Scripture alone as rule of faith and religion, without mixing with it any other thing which might be devised by the opinion of men apart from the Word of God, and without wishing to accept for our spiritual government any other doctrine than what is conveyed to us by the same Word without addition or diminution, according to the command of our Lord. The Genevan Confession (1536), in Calvin: Theological Treatises, The Library of Christian Classics, trans., J. K. L. Reid (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954), 26. 44) John Murray, "Calvin's Doctrine of Scripture," in Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 4, Studies in Theology (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), 156-175. 45) Inst. 1.7.1, 74. "Hence the Scriptures obtain full authority among believers only when men regard them as having sprung from heaven, as if there the living words of God were heard." 이말은성경권위의궁극적인증거는성경안에서하나님자신이우리에게말씀하신다라는것이다. - 6 -
때문이었다. 47) sola Scriptura원리는성령의영감에근거한다. 그러므로성경은하나님의말씀으로그스스로가권위를갖는다. 48) Calvin은 Luther의견해인 Scriptura sui ipsius interpres 원리를따랐다. 49) 차츰이원리를발전시켜자신의해석방법에서사용하였다. 50) 칼빈에게있어서이것은가장중요한신학적원리들가운데하나였다. Wallace는다음과같이말한다. 성경을해석하는임무속에서말씀그자체는항상신학적이든혹은다른것이든지간에우리의전제들을통제하고바로잡도록허용되어야만한다. 칼빈이우리로하여금성경의의미를접근하기위하여신학적인전제들의사용을오직성경앞에둔것은매우중요한것이다. 51) 그에게있어서이원리는성경의참된의미란오직성경안에서발견되는것을의미했다. 52) 이것은 46) "First, he commends the Scripture on account of its authority.... In order to uphold the authority of the Scripture, he declares that it is divinely inspired; for, if it be so, it is beyond all controversy that men ought to receive it with reverence. This is a principle which distinguishes our religion from all others, that we know that God hath spoken to us, and are fully convinced that the prophets did not speak at their own suggestion, but that, being organs of the Holy Spirit, they only uttered what they had been commissioned from heaven to declare. Whoever then wishes to profit in the Scriptures, let him, first of all, lay down this as a settled point, that the Law and the Prophets are not a doctrine delivered according to the will and pleasure of men, but dictated by the Holy Spirit.... Moses and the prophets did not utter at random what we have received from their hand, but, speaking at the suggestion of God, they boldly and fearlessly testified, what was actually true, that it was the mouth of the Lord that spake.... This is the first clause, that we owe to the Scripture the same reverence which we owe God; because it has proceeded from him with it." Comm. on 1 Ti. 3:16, 248-9. 47) 성경의영감론에대한칼빈의견해를참조하기위하여 A. D. R. Polman, "Calvin on the Inspiration of Scripture," in John Calvin: Contemporary Prophet, ed., Jacob T. Hoogstra (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959): 97-112; J. I. Packer, "Calvin's View of Scripture," in God's Inerrant Word, 101-112; R. C. Sproul, "The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit," in Inerrancy, ed., Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980), 337-354; John Murray, "Calvin and the Authority of Scripture," in Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 4, Studies in Theology, 176-190; Douwe Johannes de Groot, Calvijns opvatting over de inspiratie der Heilige Schrift (Zutphen: N.V. Nauta & Co's Drukkerij, 1931); Donald K. McKim, "Calvin's View of Scripture," in Readings in Calvin's Theology, 43-68; Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, "The Inspiration of Scripture in the English Reformers Illuminated by John Calvin," WTJ 23 (1960-1): 140; Werner Krusche, Das Wirken des Heiligen Geistes nach Calvin, 161-84; Leon McDill Allison, "The Doctrine of Scripture in Theology of John Calvin and Francis Turretin" (Th.M. thesis, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1958). 48) Von Hans Helmut Eßer, "Die Lehre vom testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum bei Calvin innerhalb seiner Lehre von der Heiligen Schrift," In Verbindliches Zeugnis: Schriftauslegung-Lehramt-Rezeption, eds. W. Pannenberg und T. Schneider (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 246-258. 49) A. Ganoczy, "Calvin als paulinischer Theologe," in Calvinus Theologus, ed. W. H. Neuser (Neukirchener: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976), 50. 50) C. Schwöbel, "Calvin," in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, 99, "Although the sola scriptura principle points to the common ground in the Reformers' understanding of scripture, this should not disguise the distinctiveness of their respective approaches to the theology of the Word of God and to the practice of biblical interpretation. Calvin's understanding of biblical exegesis is based on Luther's theology of the Word of God and developed against the back-drop of an intimate knowledge of the theory and practice of biblical interpretation of other Reformation theology." 51) Ronald S. Wallace, "Calvin the Expositor," ChrT 18 (1964): 9. - 7 -
또한중세의 4중적의미를거절하고문자적해석을수반한다. 칼빈이 Scriptura sui ipsius interpres 원리를어떻게사용했는지보자. 칼빈해석의장점은그가하나의본문을해석할때가능한다른본문들의도움을갖고해석을했다라는것이다. 예를들면칼빈은로마서 9장 5절을해석할때구약에있는 5개의다른본문을가지고그본문을해석했다. 53) 첫번째로칼빈은성경의다른본문에나타난동일한의미에비추어서하나의본문을해석했다. 이것은그가사용한일반적인방법이었다. 이사야 34장 8절에있는 מירבא 이란단어를해석할때그는시편 50편 13절에서강하고힘있는사람을의미한다고은유적으로말한다. 54) 또로마서 1장 13절 " 형제들아내가여러번너희에게가고자한것을너희가모르기를원치아니하노니이는너희중에서도다른이방인중에서와같이열매를맺게하려함이로되지금까지길이막혔도다 " 의해석에서 Scriptura sui ipsius interpres 원리를사용한다. 칼빈은요한복음 15장 16절을가지고로마서 1장 13절을해석하였다. 칼빈은다음과같이말한다. " 그는 ( 바울 ) 의심의여지없이열매에대하여말한다. 그것을모집하기위하여주님께서사도들을보냈었다. ' 너희가나를택한것이아니요내가너희를택하여세웠나니이는너희로가서과실을맺게하고또너희과실이항상있게하여내이름으로아버지께무엇을구하든지다받게하려함이니라 ' ( 요 15:16)" 55) 이사야 18장 2절 " 곧시초부터두려움이되며강성하여대적을밟는백성에게로가라하도다 " 의말씀을신명기 28장 37절과예례미아 18장 16절의말씀을가지고해석한다. 이사야는그것을두려움이라고불렀는데, 엄청난재앙이이스라엘을파괴시켜그것을보는자들이두려워서떨었기때문이다. 나는다음과같은해석에동의하지않는다. 즉여호와께서그들가운데행한표적과기적을모든사람들에게두려움의대상으로이스라엘이되게했다고관련시켜서보는것이다. 왜냐하면그암시는오히려모세오경가운데의 ' 여호와께서너를끌어가시는모든민족중에서네가놀램과속담과비방거리가될것이라 ( 신 28:37)' 는구절과관련되는것이기때문이다. 마찬가지로다른곳에서는 ' 놀랍고도모욕거리가되게하리니 ' 라고기록되어있다 ( 렘 18:16, 19:8, 25:9, 13, 18). 그러므로이사야가의미하는것은이들이쳐다보기에너무두려워서모든사람으로하여금놀라움이가득하게할민족이라는뜻이다. 그리고우리는이런내용이미리예언되었으며, 또한유대인들에게일어났다는것을안다. 56) 이런원리를가지고칼빈은기독교의교리을포함하는본문을해석했다. 예를들면선택과같은교리를말하는본문에서그는본문을왜곡시켜교리적으로해석하지않고오히려독자들로하여금그주제와관련된다른본문들을참고하라고추천한다. 57) 두번째로칼빈은애매한본문을분명한본문을가지고해석했다. 예를들면이사야 17장 9절 " 그날에그견고한성읍들이옛적에이스라엘자손앞에서버린바된수풀속의처소와작은산꼭대기의처소같아서황폐하리니 " 에있는 ' 버린바된 ' 이란말을해석할때칼빈은이원리를사용하였다. " 이본문은선지자들이따른모세의작품들에의하여더욱분명하게될것이다. 왜냐하면약속을할때모세는이런표현양식을사용한다. 너희가운데한사람이천명을쫓을것이요 ( 레 26:8, 수 23:10), 반대로경고를할때도한사람이너희들의천명을쫓을것이라고말한다 ( 신 52) P. C. Potgieter, "Calvin as Scriptural Theologian," in Calvinus Reformator: His Contribution to Theology, Church and Society (Potchefstroom: Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, 1982), 129. 53) Comm. on Rom. 9:5, 341. 54) Comm. on Isa. 34:8, 51. 55) Comm. on Rom. 1:13, 59. 56) Comm. on Isa. 18:2, 37. 57) Comm. on Rom. 8:29, 316. - 8 -
32:30)." 58) 이원리를사용함으로써칼빈은다른사람들의해석보다도자신의해석을더건전하게할수있었다. 이사야 45장 8절의주석에서는스콜라신학자들이하나님의주권과통치의개념을잘못이해했기때문에이본문을잘못해석했음을지적하고, 자신은애매한이본문을좀더의미가분명한출 1:11과 2:23을가지고해석했음을말한다. 59) Scriptura sui ipsius interpres 원리는 brevitas et facilitas 방법과밀접한관련을갖고있다. 간결하고용이한방법 (brevitas et facilitas) 이란단순성과자연성 (simplicity and naturalness) 을갖고본문의의미를찾는것이기때문에해석자가 Scriptura sui ipsius interpres 원리를사용하는것은매우중요하다. 칼빈은이원리를가지고본문의단순하고자연스런의미를정확하게발견하였다. 우리가단순하고자연스런견해를발견할때마다, 본문의의미는명료하게되는것을알수있다. 예를들면이사야 34:11의 ' 공허의추 ' 를해석할때잘나타난다. 어떤사람들은 ' 공허의추 ' 라는구절을반대적인의미로보아서그것을유대인들에게적용하지만나는더욱더단순한견해를택하는데그것을모든선행의진술들처럼에돔사람들로본다. 이것이이사야의자연스런의미인것을분명하게하는것은그후에오래살았던선지자말라기의동일한말씀을우리가보기때문이다. 그본문은이예언을동의한것으로간주될수있다. " 에돔은말하기를우리가무너뜨림을당하였으나황폐된곳을다시쌓으리라하거니와나만국의여호와는이르노라그들은쌓을지라도나는헐리라사람들이그들을일컬어악한지경이라할것이요여호와의영영한진로를받은백성이라할것이며너희는묵도하고이르기를여호와께서는이스라엘에지경밖에서크시다하리라 ( 말 1:4, 5)." 이사야가희미하게말한것을말라기가더욱더명료하게설명하고있다. 60) 칼빈은또주장하기를한본문의해석은성경전체나혹은전체문맥으로부터명료해질수있다고한다. 61) 예를들면이사야 56:3 에서이방인에대한해석을할때다음과같이말한다. " 성경전체로부터너무나도분명한것처럼이방인들은전적으로하나님의나라로부터닫혀있었다." 62) 칼빈은하나의본문은다른본문을비교함으로그본문을이해하는데도움이된다고믿었다. 이방법은어려운해석적인문제을해결하는데도움이된다. 63) 세번째로칼빈은저자의표현과성경의일반적인사용법 (the expression of the author and the common usage of Scripture) 을이용하여 64) Scriptura sui ipsius interpres 원리를적용한다. 이사야 37장 32절 " 이는남은자가예루살렘에서나오며피하는자가시온에서나올것임이라만군으여호와의열심히이를이루시리다 " 을해석할때이사야 9장 7절에서이미이사야의저자가사용했던표현의도움을가지고본문을설명한다. " 같은표현방식은유사한경우에그가사용하였다." 65) 그는우리가저자의일상언어 (ordinary language) 을고려할것을주장한다. " 나는전자의의미가문맥과선지자의일상언어에더욱더잘어울리는것으로생각한다. 우리는선지자들의문체를잘알기위해서그들에게독특했던표현의형태들을조심스럽게관찰해야한다." 66) 에스겔 3장 3절 " 내가먹으니그것이내입에서달기가물같더라 " 의주석에서예레미아가 15장 16절에도동일한표현을사용한 58) Comm. on Isa 17:9, 28. 59) Comm. on Isa. 45:8, 403. 60) Comm. on Isa. 34:11, 53. 61) Comm. on Isa. 5:20, 186. "Through some limit this statement to judges, yet if it be carefully examined, we shall easily learn from the whole context that it is general." Cf. Comm. on Rom. 5:5, 192. "I do not refer this only to the last sentence, but to the whole of the preceding passage." 62) Comm. on Isa. 56:3, 179. 63) Inst. 4.16.23, 1346. 64) Comm. on Rom. 4:17, 175. 65) Comm. on Isa. 37:32, 141. 66) Comm. on Isa. 62:2, 323. - 9 -
점을갖고그본문을해석했다. 67) 칼빈은모세나선지자들의표현이간결하고단순하며쉬운문체로쓰였다는사실에서자신의간결하고용이한방법이 (brevitas et facilitas) 성경을말하는방법과같은맥락을하고있음을자주말한다. 즉성경의수사학적인스타일은자신의간결성과용이성에일치하고있음을강조한다.. 칼빈은성경의일반적인사용법을언급함으로써하나의본문을해석했다. Puckett 역시주장하기를칼빈은단어의통상적사용법을언급함으로써본문을해석했다고했다. " 종종칼빈은구약에있는단어의통상적사용법에호소함으로써번역을정당화했다." 68) 호세아 9장 14절 " 여호와여저희에게주소서무엇을주시려나이까청컨대배지못하는태아와젖없는유방을주시옵소서 " 의주석에서칼빈은다른사람들이선지자들의의도를이해하지못했기때문에그들의견해를거절하였다. " 그리스도는말하기를예루살렘의마지막파멸이올때수태못하는자들이복이있다고하였다 ( 눅 23:29). 이것은성경의일반적인용법으로부터취한것으로그런본문들은선지자들의글에서많이나타난다." 69) 다른해석자들이자신들의강요된해석으로약점을갖는다고지적하면서칼빈은성경에자주사용된표현의형태를언급한다. 이사야 37장 7절의해석에서이런방법을보여준다. 70) 칼빈의간결하고용이한방법 (brevitas et facilitas) 은강요된해석에반대하여성경해석의보호자처럼의도되었다. 성경의일반적인용법을사용하여성경을해석하는방법은해석자로하여금본문의의미를왜곡하는것을보호한다. Scriptura sui ipsius interpres 원리는 brevitas et facilitas 방법과불가불의관계를갖고있다. 칼빈은강요되지않고의미에적절한단순한해석은성경에사용된언어의형태와밀접하게관련되어있고주장하였다. 71) 소돔과고모라의이름에대한해석에서칼빈은선지자들에의하여채택된일반적인어법에비추어해석을했다. 72) 성경의일반적인용법에따라서칼빈은성경의다른저자들에의하여사용된같은단어의도움을갖고하나의본문을해석했다. 73) 그는또한독자들로하여금성경의통상적인구를주목할것을제안한다. 74) 칼빈은성경에있는언어의통상적인용법이 Scriptura sui ipsius interpres 원리를위한열쇠로믿는다. 75) 칼빈은좋은해석이란성경에서통상적인것을사용하는것으로인정한다. 76) 단어의의미를정확하게정의하기위하여칼빈은성경의통상적인용법을언급한다. 이사야 33장 11절 " 너희가겨를잉태하고짚을해산할것이며너희의호흡은불이되어너희를삼킬것이며 " 에나타난단어잉태를다음과같이해석한다. " 인간의설계와노력을의미하기위하여잉태라는단어를사용하는것이성경의 67) Comm. on Eze. 3:3, 130. 68) David L. Puckett, John Calvin's Exegesis of the Old Testament (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 62. 69) Comm. on Hos. 9:14, 341. 70) Comm. on Isa. 37:7, 113. 71) Comm. on Dan. 9:3, 142. "With regard to the present passage, I simply understand it to mean, he raised his face towards God. That I might inquire, says he, by supplication and prayers. Some translate, that I might seek supplication and prayer. Either is equally suitable to the sense, but the former version is less forced, because the Prophet sought God by supplication and prayers. And this form of speech is common enough in Scripture, as we are said to seek God when we testify our hope of his performing what he has promised." 72) Comm. on Jer. 49:18, 86. 73) Comm. on Rom. 5:4, 191. 74) Comm. on Rom. 7:5, 249. Cf Comm. on Isa. 65:6, 384, Comm. on Jer. 36:8, 334. 75) Comm. on Rom. 8:17, 302. 76) Comm. on Isa. 44:18, 376-7. "Here some interpreters supply the word "God", and others supply the words "false prophets," and say that the people were blind, because the false prophets led them astray; for they would never have plunge into such disgraceful errors if they had not been deceived by the impostures of those men, their eyes being dazzled by wicked doctrines. Others do not approve of either of these significations, and it might also refer to the devil. But as a different exposition is more customary in Scripture, I rather adopted, namely, that God hath blinded them by a righteous judgment; if it be not thought preferable to view it as referring to themselves, because they voluntarily shut both their minds and their eyes; in which case there would be a change of number, which frequently occurs among Hebrew writers. I have stated, however, what I prefer; and it is exceedingly customary among Hebrew writers, when they speak of God, not to mention his name." - 10 -
통상적인것이다 ( 욥 15:35, 시 7:14, 사 26:17, 59:4). 그은유는임산부로부터취하여왔다." 77) 단어의의미를정확하게알지못함으로인해본문에대한많은해석들이대두될때칼빈은성경에서일반적으로발견되는의미에일치하는해석을선택하였다. 78) 칼빈은이사야 58장 8절 " 네빛이아침같이비췰것이며 " 을해석할때이원리를사용하였다. " 빛이란단어는번영을의미하고, 어두움이란단어는비참하고괴로운인생을의미한다고하면서, 이런표현의용법은성경에자주나타난다." 79) 칼빈은주장하기를어떤해석들은자연스럽지못하고저자의스타일에적절하지않고, 선지서들가운데나타나는통상적인표현의용법에어울리지않는다고했다. 80) 칼빈에따르면에스겔과바울은성경의경계선을넘지않았던좋은해석자들의모범이다. 81) 칼빈은성경이가는곳에가고성경이멈추는곳에멈추기를시도했다. 칼빈은 Scriptura sui ipsius interpres 원리에의해서성경을해석하는데최선을다했다. 결론 개혁자들의중요한원리인 sola Scriptura는그들의신학뿐만이아니라성경해석까지도올바른방향으로인도하였다. 이원리는성경의권위뿐만아니라성경을해석하는중심적인열쇠를주었다. 성경해석적인관점에서로마카톨릭교회와대항하여성경의명료성에대한강조는개혁자들로하여금 Scriptura sui ipsius interpres 원리를제공해주었다. 칼빈은 brevitas et facilitas 방법이 Scriptura sui ipsius interpres 원리로부터기원했음을확신했다. 따라서우리는여기서중요한교훈을얻을수있다. 칼빈은자신의대표적인신학적해석방법으로 brevitas et facilitas 방법을성경의방법속에서찾았다는것이다. 자신의방법이성경에근거한확증으로부터그는자신의사용하는그방법의정당성을가지고과감하게자신의해석방법으로사용하였다. 이런사실로부터해석방법론뿐만이아니라신학의방법론도성경자체의고유한속성과방법에그뿌리를두어야할것을보여준다. 물론철학적이며세상의학문적방법론을전적으로배제하는것은아니다. 성경의이해를위하여긍정적인사용이검토되어야함에도불구하고신학적인방법이란오직신학그자체의방법을뜻하지않고그것이성경에기초를두고있어야함을인식하게된다. ( 이글은한국인터넷신학연구소에서발행한 안명준교수의칼빈자료 CD에있던글을퍼온글입니다.) 77) Comm. on Isa. 33:11, 22. 78) Comm. on Isa. 52:15, 108. 79) Comm. on Isa. 58:8, 235. 80) Comm. on Isa. 60:21, 299. 81) Comm. on Eze. 1:25-26, 102. - 11 -