A Study of Prolambanō and Ekdechomai from a Socio-Historical-Cultural Context: 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 Revisited

조호형 한국신학정보연구원 2016 Canon&Culture Vol.10 No.1

Given the difficulty of translating from a source language to a receptor one, the Italian maxim which reads, Traduttore traditor (A translator is a traitor), may be right. The gist of the maxim is not that a translator intentionally becomes a traitor, but that a translator unintentionally becomes a traitor. In that sense, it is the unavoidable betrayal caused by the nature that language intrinsically possesses. Realizing such a difficulty of translation, I believe that a translation can be made rather accurately on the basis of understanding the linguistic and cultural context of a source language. The paper investigates possible translations of the two verbs in 1 Corinthians 11 in light of the cultural context along with the lexical analysis: προλαμβάνω (v. 21) and ἐκδέχομαι (v. 33). The two terms occur relatively close to one another that the translation of the former influences that of the latter. Admittedly, the main versions of the Bible (in both English and Korean) render the former into “take before” and the latter “wait for” in a temporal sense. It is more probable, however, that the two should be translated in light of cultural circumstances in those days: the former signifies “consume” (or devour), the latter “accept.” The newly proposed translation of the two would make readers comprehend why Paul lays emphasis on one spiritual community and what he exhorts the Corinthian members to do in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. After identifying the points at issue between the present translations and another possible translations, the next section examines the identification of the problem in the Corinthian church. The following section explores the two verbs in light of the archeological and linguistic considerations. The last section illuminates 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 on the basis of another possible translations.

새 언약 공동체의 현현(顯現): 고린도전서의 “새 언약”(ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη)에 대한 고찰

조호형 한국개혁신학회 2020 한국개혁신학 Vol.67 No.-

The “covenant” is one of the important themes in the Bible. However, because of infrequency of the expression “covenant” (διαθήκη) in the case of Paul’s epistles, scholars often ask, “Is the covenant thought really important to Paul?” Due to the limitations of the paper’s space, this issue cannot be dealt with in detail, but after briefly showing some scholars’ opinions on this subject, I establish the premise that its meaning should be examined in each context in which διαθήκη appears. The goal of this study is to find the implication of διαθήκη in 1 Corinthians 11:25. To this end, above all, I investigate several words such as συνέρχομαι, ἐσθίω, and πίνω repeatedly appearing in 11:17-34 and illuminate the serious incident among the Corinthians in light of the Greco-Roman house structures (triclinium and atrium). Then, I reveal that rich and poor believers in the Corinthian community gathered together at the same time and place for the Lord’s Supper, and there were “divisions” and “factions” in the meeting that scarcely commend them. Although this case originated from the cultural customs of the time, for Paul, it was beyond the custom and a serious thing that should not happen in the spiritual community. To solve the serious crisis in the church, he reminds the Corinthians of Jesus Christ’s words at the bread and cup rituals celebrated at the Lord’s Supper. He also reveals that their gatherings are a new covenant community formed by Jesus’ death. Taking notice of the new covenant at 11:25 as the fulfillment of the new covenant mentioned at Jeremiah 31:31-34, I disclose that it implies the Holy Spirit who dwells within each of the Corinthians. For Paul, in spite of the fact that they had to live according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they had split the community regardless of the identity of the new covenant people. Paul encourages the Corinthian church to be restored as a new covenant community: first, they must rightly discern what the spiritual community is (κρί word group). Second, they should not eat (προλαμβάνω) foods of different quantity and quality in different places, and rather welcome and accept (ἐκδέχομαι) each other. With reasonable results above, I come to a conclusion that “new covenant” in 1 Corinthians implies: first, it is promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and fulfilled by the death of Jesus Christ. Second, it is different from the old covenant, Sinai. Third, it is related to the Holy Spirit dwelling in believers. 성경에서 “언약” 사상은 중요한 주제 중 하나이다. 그러나 바울 서신의 경우, “언약”(‘디아떼케,’ διαθήκη)이라는 표현이 자주 등장하지 않기 때문에, 학자들은 ‘과연 언약 사상이 바울에게 중요한 신학적 주제였는지’ 흥미로운 질문을 던지곤 한다. 논문 지면의 한계 때문에, 이 문제를 자세하게 다룰 수 없지만, 이 주제에 얽힌 학자들의 이견(異見)을 간략하게 보여준 이후, ‘디아떼케’가 등장하는 문맥 안에서 그 의미를 살펴야 한다는 전제를 설정한다. 이 전제 위에서, 본 논문은 고린도전서 11:25에 등장하는 “디아떼케”가 함축하는 의미를 고찰한다. 이를 위해, 무엇보다도 이 표현이 속한 11:17-34에서 반복적으로 등장하는 단어들인 ‘쉬네르코마이’(συνέρχομαι)와 ‘에스띠오’(ἐσθίω), 그리고 ‘피노’(πίνω)를 살펴보고, 그 당시의 그리스-로마의 가옥(triclinium과 atrium) 안에서 부유한 신자들과 가난한 신자들이 주의 만찬을 위해 같은 시간과 장소에 모여, 도저히 칭찬할 수 없는 “분쟁”과 “파당”이 일어났음을 필자는 밝힌다. 비록 이 사건이 그 당시의 문화적인 관습에서 기인한 것이라고 할지라도, 이 사건은 관습 이상의 내용, 즉 영적인 공동체 안에서 일어나서는 안 되는 심각한 일이었다. 바울은 교회의 심각한 위기를 해결하기 위해, 주의 만찬을 기념하는 떡과 잔 의식에서 예수 그리스도가 하신 말씀을 상기시키면서, 이들의 모임은 예수의 죽음에 의해 맺어진 새 언약 공동체임을 드러낸다. 필자는 11:25의 새 언약이 예레미야 31:31-34에 언급된 새 언약의 성취이며, 고린도 교인들 각자 안에 내주한 성령을 암시한다고 주장한다. 더 나아가, 이들이 성령의 인도함을 따라 합당하게 행동해야 했음에도 불구하고, 새 언약 백성의 정체성에 적합하지 않은 모습으로 공동체를 분열시켰음을 필자는 드러낸다. 이러한 상황에서 고린도 교인들의 모임이 새 언약 공동체로 회복되기 위해, 바울은 두 가지를 권면하고 있음을 필자는 설명한다. 첫째, 이들은 영적인 공동체가 무엇인지 옳게 분별해야 한다(‘크리’[κρί-] 어군). 둘째, 이들은 양과 질이 다른 음식을 각기 다른 곳에서 먹지 말고(‘프로람바노,’ προλαμβάνω), 서로 환영하며 받아들여야 한다(‘에크데코마이,’ ἐκδέχομαι). 이렇게 고찰함으로써, 결론적으로 고린도전서의 “새 언약”의 함축적인 의미는 옛 언약인 시내산 언약과 전혀 다른 것이며, 또한 예레미야 31:31-34에서 약속되고 예수 그리스도의 죽음에 의해 성취된 것이며, 신자들 안에 내주한 성령과 관련되어 있음을 필자는 주장한다.

“하나님의 법”(롬 7:22, 25; 8:7)에 대한 또 다른 이해

조호형 (재)대한성서공회 성경번역연구소 2022 성경원문연구 Vol.- No.51

In Paul’s epistles, νόμος is usually translated as a codified “law” such as the “law of Moses” or the “Old Testament”. If one interprets the sentence in which this word is used only with its fixed meaning, he or she may have a limited understanding without any choice. Indeed, with regard to today’s situation in which such an understanding is dominant, W. Bauer, J. P. Louw, and E. A. Nida criticize attempts to confine the meaning of νόμος to only the written law. Pondering the situation associated with the word, I explore in this study the meaning of the “law of God” (7:22, 25; 8:7) in Romans. By examining some translations of this phrase and the various opinions of scholars, I reveal that the most important difference in understanding this phrase stems from the word νόμος; translations consistently allude it to a codified “law”, and many scholars appear to limit its meaning to the law of Moses. Although some scholars translate it as “principle”, they do not take the contextual situation into account, and do not adequately disclose the meaning of the phrase. I give several examples of its meanings in history. By exposing its various meanings, I draw on the presupposition that when a word has multiple meanings, it must be revealed within the surrounding context to uncover the meaning of the word. In addition, showing that Paul uses a wordplay with νόμος in Romans, I lexically and grammatically maintain that θεοῦ in the phrase is a subjective genitive, and νόμος is a “principle”. In 7:14-25 where the phrase appears twice, there is a matter of scholarly debate as to whether it was Paul’s pre-Christian experience or his Christian experience. Still, I recognize it as a Christian experience, investigating how the “inner being” (7:22) and “mind” (7:25) relate to “the law of God.” Importantly, the “inner being” and “mind” represent the inside of a believer, and the law of God resides within the believer. In 8:1-17, the phrase occurs once with “flesh” (8:7). Considering that “flesh” and “Spirit” are opposites in the paragraph. The phrase signifies a “principle” essential to the life of a believer. Scrutinizing this phrase in context in this way, I show, in the light of Paul’s eschatology in Romans that “the law of God” implies the eschatological tension/conflict in believers. On the basis of these findings, I argue that the law of God is a “God-given principle”, that is, “the Holy Spirit”.

ὁ κανών οὗτος Reconsidered : Another Look at Galatians 6:16

조호형 Presbyterian General Assembly Theological Seminary 2022 CHONGSHIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL Vol.27 No.-

Compared to Paul’s other epistles, the benediction of peace at the close of Galatians is unusual in that there are no greetings in it. In addition, the conditional trait of the benediction is quite bizarre. He states in Galatians 6:16, “And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” Precisely, peace and mercy are not available to all Galatians. The sense of ὁ κανών οὗτος in the benediction raises questions as to what it refers to in the concluding part. The main goal of this paper is to discover the meaning of this expression within its context. To this end, I first inspect some Greek dictionaries and several translations to find the connotations of κανών, along with scholars’views on the phrase. Second, I seek to set the phrase in the context of the closing part. Undoubtedly, the closing is pertinent to the main issues in the book of Galatians: the false teachers, the flesh, the law, and circumcision in a negative sense and ὁ κανών οὗτος in a positive one. Third, I explore how στοιχέω used together with ὁ κανών οὗτος is involved with a way or a principle of life in the New Testament(Acts 21:24; Rom 4:12; Gal 5:25; Phil 3:16). In this respect, the phrase is an expression related to the principle of life. Fourth, I shed light on the phrase in relation to the crucifixion as the decisive event bringing about a new age in 6:14-15 and the whole letter. Finally, the phrase ὁ κανών οὗτος is the principle of the new age inaugurated by the crucifixion of Christ. The expression is the principle necessary for people in harmony with the Spirit for the new era.

인류학적인 차원에서 바라본, καινη κτισιζ(갈 6:15)에 대한 또 다른 이해

조호형 개혁신학회 2020 개혁논총 Vol.52 No.-

To translate from one language to another one is one of the difficult things. A word or a phrase in a source language is rarely put into a receptor one as it is. A translator at a crossroads of “translation” and “betrayal” would confront inevitable differences between two languages. In that sense, he or she should be careful of the unavoidable “betrayal” and disclose a sense of a word or a phrase in the context of writing and those days to which it belongs. This study aims to reveal the meaning of καινη κτισιζ in Galatians 6:15. For this, I ex- amine various understandings on καινη κτισιζ from Korean and English ver- sions, some famous Greek dictionaries, and biblical scholars, presenting that a key point of the phrase is on whether it is understood in a cosmological or anthropological sense. In particular, inspecting κτισιζ with various nuances rather than καινη, with a fixed sense in Greek biblical literature, I unveil that κτισιζ refers to the action of creation itself, “human beings,” or “universe” including or excluding human beings as the result of creation. From doing this, I lay the foundation of the fact that a word or a phrase is determined in the context to which it belongs. Then, I manifest the meaning of καινη κτισιζ in the context of Galatians: first, realizing the crisis in the Galatian church where the false teachers distorted the gospel, Paul highlights the concept of “already” in his eschatology to reveal their real status. In 6:11-18, in which serves as summarizing the whole of the Galatians, Paul presents the reality of the false teachers. He also stresses that even though the Galatians were swayed by the teachers, they are true believers who are “new creatures.” Furthermore, he evinces in 6:14-15 that two opposites supporting the old universe are nothing important, but a new status only matters. In addition, exploring the same structure of 5:6 and 6:15, I analogize that καινη κτισιζ refers to a “new being” who belongs to the new era. I also discover that κτισιζ signifies a “human creature” rather than “creation” because κτισιζ already implies newness, and thus καινη, play a key role in signifying “new” as a modifier of κτισιζ. By investigating these, finally, I draw a conclusion that καινη κτισιζ in Galatians 6:15 refers to a “new creature” that is, a converted Christian. 한 언어에서 다른 언어로 번역하는 것은 어려운 작업이다. 원천 언어로 된 내용을 있는 그대로 수용 언어에 모두 담아낼 수 없다. 이처럼, 번역자는 “번역”과 “반역”의 갈림길에서 두 언어의 불가피한 차이를 직면해야 한다. 이런 의미에서, 번역자는 의도치 않게, 일어날 수 있는 반역에 유의해야 하며, 원천 언어로 기록된 글의문맥적인 정황과 그 당시의 상황에서 단어나 구의 의미를 드러내야 한다. 이 두 갈림길을 인식하면서, 본 논문에서 필자는 갈라디아서 6장 15절에 나타난 ‘카이네 크티시스’(καινη κτισιζ)의 의미를 발견한다. 필자는 ‘카이네 크티시스’에 대한 여러 번역과 헬라어 사전, 그리고 학자들의 의견을 살펴보면서, 이 구가 우주론적인차원 또는 인류학적인 차원, 이 둘 중에서 이해되고 있음을 제시한다. 특히, 필자는고정적인 의미를 지닌 ‘카이네’(καινη )보다도 여러 의미를 지닌 ‘크티시스’(κτισιζ)를 헬라어 성경 문헌에서 조사하면서, 이 단어가 “창조”의 행위 자체나“창조”의 결과로서 “인간” 피조물이나 “인간”을 포함하거나 배제된 “우주” 전체를의미할 수 있다고 드러내고, 동시에 어떤 단어는 관련된 문맥 안에서 그 의미가 결정된다는 것을 보여준다. 그런 다음, ‘카이네 크티시스’의 의미를 찾기 위하여, 필자가 밝힌 갈라디아서의문맥적인 정황은 다음과 같다. 먼저, 바울은 거짓 교사들이 교인들에게 왜곡된 복음을 선전함으로써 발생한 교회의 위기를 실감하면서, 교인들은 이미 새 시대의 백성이라는 정체성을 드러내기 위해 “이미”(already)의 종말론을 강조한다. 그런 다음, ‘카이네 크티시스’가 속해 있으며 편지 전체를 요약하는 6장 11-18절에서, 바울이 거짓 교사들의 실체를 더욱 드러냄과 동시에 이들에 의해 흔들리는 교인들이 진정한 신자, 즉 새로운 피조물임을 강조한다. 또한, 6장 14-15절에서 옛 세상을 지탱한 두 개의 대상(Opposites)이 아니라 새롭게 창조된 존재만이 중요하다고 바울은밝힌다. 더욱더, 필자는 5장 6절과 6장 15절이 같은 구조를 비교 분석하면서, ‘카이네 크티시스’는 새 시대에 속한 인간 피조물을 가리킨다는 것을 유추한다. 마지막으로, ‘크티시스’와 이 단어를 수식하는 ‘카이네’의 조합을 살펴보면서, 만약 ‘크티시스’가 “창조”로 이해된다면, 이것은 이미 새로움의 의미를 포함하기 때문에 설득력이 부족하다는 것을 필자는 주장한다. 필자는 ‘크티시스’가 창조라는 의미보다도 “인간” 피조물로 이해해야만 ‘카이네’(“새로운”)의 의미가 더욱 부각된다는 것을 주장한다. 이렇게 고찰함으로써, 필자는 갈라디아서 6장 15절에 나타난 ‘카이네 크티시스’는 “새로운 (인간) 피조물” 즉, 회심한 “신자”로 이해되어야 한다고 결론을 내린다.

갈라디아서 1:6-7에 나타난 “다른”에 대한 재고 — ἕτερον과 ἄλλο에 대한 이해 —

조호형 (재)대한성서공회 성경번역연구소 2023 성경원문연구 Vol.- No.53

This paper examines the meaning of ἕτερον and ἄλλο in the phrase ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο (Gal 1:6-7). To be precise, these two adjectives have different nuances: ἕτερον implies a different entity of a disparate kind and ἄλλο a different entity of the same kind. Yet, there is a divergence of opinion on whether the difference in meaning between the two is or not: scholars, dictionaries, and translations. Interestingly, it seems that Korean versions almost consistently disagree about the difference. The two words occur in the New Testament without distinction (Mat 16:14; 1Co 12:8-9; 15:39-40; 2Co 11:4). On the contrary, there is a clear difference in nuance between the two (Act 2:4; 7:23; Joh 18:16; Heb 11:35). Considering the cases of the New Testament, the meaning of the two should be determined in light of the context surrounding these words. Recognizing that the meaning of each word must be examined in context, I explore first of 1:6-7 to which the two words belong. Syntactically, the relative pronoun clause becomes nothing more than emphasis due to redundancy if the distinction between the two is not acknowledged. Rather, I affirm these two expressions as a rhetorical device of self-correction; ἄλλο is used as a specific explanation of the preceding ἕτερον in terms of the different nuances. Then, I expound on 1:6-7 within in light of 1:6-10. Paul drops a hint of the situation of the Galatian believers in verse 6 that they are trying to follow the ἕτερον gospel. In verse 7, it is mentioned that the ἕτερον gospel is not the gospel of his co-workers for Paul. In addition, I reveal that the semantic distinction between ἕτερον and ἄλλο plays a major role in reaching 1:8-9, which corresponds to pathos. Lastly, I recognize that 1:6-7 belongs to a rebuke section of 1:6-10 that replaces the thanksgiving one which has three functions: pastoring, exhortation, and foreshadowing. Especially, its foreshadowing function evinces that ἕτερον and ἄλλο are connected to the main body of Galatians along with their two different meanings. In this manner, I deduce the conclusion that ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο should be translated as a totally different gospel that is not another gospel [of coworkers] by delving into the contextual situation around the two adjectives and considering their different nuances.

A case of clinically-amyopathic dermatomyositis initially presenting as tenosynovitis of the hand

조호형,이주현,김정곤 대한내과학회 2023 대한내과학회 추계학술대회 Vol.2023 No.2

바울서신에 나타난 “하나님 나라”의 대체 용어에 대한 고찰: ‘엔 크리스토’(ἐν Χριστῷ)에 대한 재고(再考)

조호형 한국복음주의신약학회 2023 신약연구 Vol.22 No.3

본 논문은 공관복음서와 달리 바울서신에 “하나님 나라” 용어가급격하게 감소하는 것과 관련하여 그 이유를 고찰한다. 많은 학자는바울서신에서 “왜 이 용어가 감소하는지,” 이 현상에 대한 여러 이유를 제시한다. 몇몇 학자는 이 용어가 유대인에게 익숙하였기 때문에, 바울은 편지의 수신자 대부분이 이방인임을 고려하여 그 용어를 사용하지 않았다고 주장한다. 그러나 만약 그렇다면, 유대인 신자들에게 더더욱 친숙한 율법과 언약 문제들이 왜 나타나는지 이해하기 어렵다. 다른 학자는 그 당시 로마 제국의 상황에서 바울이 “하나님나라” 용어를 사용하는 것이 어려웠을 것이라고 주장한다. 그러나사도행전에서 바울은 전혀 반대의 모습으로 묘사되며(17:7; 28:23, 30-31), 그가 사용한 ‘퀴리오스’라는 표현을 고려했을 때, 정치적인상황을 모면하려고 하지 않았다. 또 다른 학자들은 편지의 수신자들이 “하나님 나라”를 이미 실현된 종말론으로 오해할 것에 대하여 바울이 우려했다고 주장한다(고전 4:8; 딤후 2:18). 그러나 아이러니하게도, 가장 오해할 수 있었던 고린도 서신에 “하나님 나라” 용어의빈도수가 높다. 이 학자 부류의 주장과 달리, 던(James D. G. Dunn) 은 공관복음서와 바울서신에 나타난 ‘바실레이아’와 ‘디카이오쉬네’ 및 ‘프뉴마’의 빈도수를 비교한 다음, “하나님 나라” 용어는 성령으로 대체되었다고 주장한다. 대체 용어에 대한 던의 시도는 합리적이지만, 몇몇 구절에 “하나님 나라”와 성령이 함께 등장한다는 것을고려한다면(롬 14:17; 고전 6:9-11), 성령은 대체 용어라기보다 “하나님 나라”의 특징에 해당한다. 필자는 이 용어가 바울서신의 수신자에게 보편적으로 통용된 용어였음을 발견하면서, “하나님 나라”에 암시된 “영역”과 “통치” 의미가 들어 있는 ‘엔 크리스토’가 대체 용어로서 가장 적합하다는 것을 제안한다. 필자는 기본적으로 공간의 의미를 지닌 전치사 ‘엔’과 그리스도의 구속과 권위를 나타내는 ‘크리스토’의 조합인, ‘엔 크리스토’가 그리스도를 통한 하나님의 통치와 영역을 나타내고 있음을 드러낸다. This paper investigates the reason for the rapid decrease of “the kingdom of God” in the Pauline epistles, unlike the Synoptic Gospels. Many scholars suggest several reasons for this phenomenon, “why the term is diminished” in Paul’s letters. Some argue that Paul did not use the term familiar only to Jews, given that most of his recipients were Gentiles. But if that is the case, it becomes difficult to understand why the Mosaic Law and Covenant issues, all the more familiar to Jewish believers, appear in his letters. Others argue that it would have been difficult for Paul to use the term “kingdom of God” in the context of the Roman Empire at the time. In Acts, however, Paul is portrayed in the opposite way (17:7; 28:23, 30-31), and considering the expression “Kyrios” he used, he did not try to escape the political situation. Still, others claim that Paul was concerned that his recipients might misunderstand the kingdom of God in terms of an already realized eschatology (1 Cor. 4:8; 2 Tim. 2:18). Ironically, however, the frequency of the term “kingdom of God” is high in the letters for the Corinthian church, which was most probable to misunderstood. Unlike the opinions of scholars above, James D. G. Dunn compares the frequencies of βασι λεία, δικαιοσύνη, and πνεῦμα in the synoptic gospels and Paul’s epistles, and then concludes that the kingdom of God has been replaced by the Holy Spirit. Dunn’s attempt is reasonable, but given the kingdom of God and the Spirit appear together in some passages (Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 6:9-11), the latter is characteristic of the former. While arguing that the kingdom of God was a current term for the recipients of Paul’s epistles, I suggest that ἐν Χριστῷ, which contains the meanings of “realm” and “reign” implied in the kingdom of God, is the most suitable alternative term. I reveal that ἐν Χριστῷ, which is a combination of ἐν, a preposition meaning space, and Χριστῷ, which represents the redemption and authority of Christ, represents God’s reign and realm through Christ.

The Second Use of a hamartia and dikaiosune theou in 2 Corinthians 5:21 Revisited

조호형 (재)대한성서공회 성경원문연구소 2016 성경원문연구 Vol.- No.38

Unlike the Corinthians who had a worldly, fleshly perspective and lived their lives according to such standards, Paul had a different perspective and lived a life based on spiritual standards. In Christ, God reconciled Paul to himself, and as an ambassador, Paul accomplished his task to reconcile the world to God (5:19-20). 2 Corinthians 5:21 shows the content of “the word of reconciliation” that brought about reconciliation in the relationship between God and Paul himself, and between God and the world. It is a marvelous verse in the Scriptures. Despite its beauty, scholars debate the second use of hamartia and dikaiosune theou in the verse. As a matter of fact, the two terms are the most controversial ones in 2 Corinthians and even the New Testament. In this paper, I investigate the meanings of the second use of hamartian and dikaiosune theou. First, having identified the structure of verse 21, I examine two grammatical issues: 1) Even though the subject in the second part of verse 21 is “we,” it is appropriate to consider “God” as an implied subject because the actual subject of the second part is not an active agent but a passive one who receives something given or acted by God through (or in) Christ’s redemptive works. 2) The second use of hamartian in the first part is parallel to dikaiosune theou in the second part. Second, in defense of objections raised against the sense of a sin offering, I argue that the second use of hamartian has the sense of a sin offering in the context of 5:17-20 and in light of the book of Isaiah that God sends His own son, Jesus Christ, as a sin offering and condemns sin in the flesh. Third, I explore the meaning of dikaiosune theou in interaction with N. T. Wright who interprets hemeis in verse 21 and opposes imputed righteousness. In particular, I focus on his two ways of interpreting 2 Corinthians 5:21: hemeis as the main key to understanding the phrase dikaiosune theou and the sense of imputed righteousness which does not appear in 5:21. On the basis of the above arguments, I argue in this paper that the second use of hamartian has the sense of both Christ’s identification and a sin offering, and that dikaiosune theou signifies both imputation and God’s action in Christ.

그리스도의 부활과 죽은 자의 부활: 고린도전서 15장에 대한 주석학적 고찰

조호형 신학지남사 2024 신학지남 Vol.91 No.1