약속과 보존 : 존 오웬의 모세 언약론 연구 = Promise and preservation : a study on John Owen's doctrine of the Mosaic covenant

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

For this dissertation I have studied John Owen’s doctrine of the
Mosaic Covenant, specifically in relation with the New Covenant.
The contemporary church has been plagued with a "cheap grace"
syndrome, meaning Grace without the condemnation of the Law. The
reason is due to the collapse of the mechanism device for the
relevant balance between law and gospel, in contrast to the
soteriology of the Reformation in the 16th century.
Because of this many theological groups identify law with gospel
or mix both ideas in various ways, the tendency is to be biased towards neonomism and antinomianism. Specifically, the view of
Dispensationalism, Theonomy, NPP, NCT, FV, Mono-Covenantalism,
Karl Barth etc. are it's tendencies. Evangelism also tends to put
excessive emphasis on the Covenant of Grace to guard against
Dispensationalism. Therefore, the 16th century’s Reformation
soteriology outlined by Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus etc. is
on a shaking foundation.
One reason for these confusions seems to be in Westminster
Confession of Faith(WCF). According to the WCF, since the
corruption of the first Adam, all the covenants are the Covenant of
Grace. Therefore the Mosaic Covenant also belongs to the Covenant
of Grace. However such perspective to view both gospel and law as
the administration of the Covenant of Grace, depending on where
the emphasis is laid, could unintentionally allow to conceive either
nomism or antinomianism. This view also has probability to be
inclined to mono-covenantalism, such regards the Covenant of Grace
as the only unique covenant of all the redemptive history indirectly.
Although John Owen(1616-1683) is referred to as the prince of
the puritans during the 17th century, believed the WCF to weaken
the principles of protestant Reformation soteriology. He understood
the Mosaic Covenant from a different perspective.
Owen borrowed from Luther's distinction between 'the Law and the Gospel' to show the contrast between the old and new covenant
in soteriology. According to Owen, the Mosaic Covenant is
completely another different covenant with the Covenant of Grace.
The Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant have completely
different characters and functions each other in the soteriological
dimension. Unlike the WCF, Owen could not find any soteriological
similarities between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant at
all. While the Covenant of grace is unconditional, the Mosaic
Covenant is a conditional one. If this distinguishing distinction fails,
many problems are revealed to the surface.
At the same time the Mosaic Covenant is not the Covenant of
Works, because all salvation after the Fall is 'only' made through the
Covenant of Grace(Sola Gratia). God's redemptive history after the
proto evangelium in Genesis 3:15 says that God only presented one
way of salvation, not two. Therefore, the Mosaic Covenant is not
also the covenant of works.
If so, how does Owen understand the Mosaic Covenant?
According to Owen, the Mosaic Covenant is the only 'particular'
third covenant that God has ordained solely for the nation of Israel.
The Mosaic Covenant consists of the Covenant of Works(the Ten
Commandments) republished and represented. The promises and
warnings of temporal blessings are deeply related to the preservation of the Israelites' covenantal / national identity in Canaan.
When God entered into a covenant with Abraham, He promised
the birth of the Seed. That is to say Christ, the future descendant of
the seed of Abraham. For this providential purpose, God entered into
a temporary Mosaic Covenant with Israelites. Until the New Covenant
is fulfilled, He controls and preserves Israelites with the law.
Thus the birth of Christ according to God’s promise to Abraham
had to be protected until the accomplishment. In that sense, the
Mosaic Covenant is a kind of realistic national temporal covenant
excluded from soteriological function. Therefore, according to Owen,
the Mosaic Covenant or the Mount Sinai Covenant is neither the
Covenant of Works nor the Covenant of Grace.
It is a kind of National Covenant contracted with Israel. It is a
temporary covenant given to a particular definite region and people
at one point of time in the redemptive history(Heilsgeschichte). This
covenant is essentially irrelevant to eternal salvation and doom of
humankind.
However, the moral laws (the Ten Commandments) republished
in Mosaic Covenant is connected to the New Covenant. The moral
laws are actually engraved in the spirit of covenant contractor with
the New Covenant. Although the Mosaic covenant is a temporary
passing covenant for the nation of Israel, Owen understands the moral law of the Covenant of Moses is still binding on to the
Christians of the New Covenant.
God's law of creation is eternal law. Owen accepts the third use
of the Law according to the tradition of the Reformation. In this
dimension, the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant are in a
consecutive and continuous relationship.
Therefore, the continuity and discontinuity between the Old and
New Testaments exist together. If we regard the Mosaic covenant as
the National Covenant, it is abrogated and discontinuous. However,
from the standpoint of renewal of moral law, it is still effective and
continuous.
Thus, Owen disconnects and connects effectively the Law and
the Gospel, or the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant. Through
this he effectively criticizes the confusion about modern
semi-Pelagianism, mono-covenantalism, and antinomianism.
In conclusion, Owen believes the Mosaic Covenant to be a
republication of the covenant of works. He believes that the Mosaic
covenant is superimposed upon, and organically independent from
the covenant of grace. For Owen, this made the Mosaic covenant
distinct from the new covenant in substance and essence; and not a
mere administration of the covenant of grace. Moreover, Owen’
fundamental distinctio

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ서론 …………………………………………………………………………… 1
• A. 문제의 제기 ································································· 1
• B. 오웬 연구의 목적, 방법 및 범위 ······································· 13
• 1. 연구의 목적 ······························································· 13
• 2. 오웬의 모세 언약론 연구사 ··········································· 16
• 3. 연구방법 및 범위 ························································ 24
• Ⅱ 모세 언약의 역사적 이해 ··················································· 28
• A. 모세 언약의 역사적 이해 ················································ 28
• 1. 모세 언약에 대한 16세기의 이해 ···································· 28
• a. 루터의 ‘율법-복음’ 구분 ········································· 30
• b. 칼빈의 모세 언약 이해 ··········································· 34
• c. 루터와 칼빈의 견해 비교 ········································ 38
• 2. 모세 언약에 대한 17세기의 이해 ···································· 40
• a. WCF : 17세기 청교도의 표준적 이해 ························ 43
• b. 튜레틴 : 모세 언약의 은혜 언약적 이해 ····················· 44
• c. 헤르만 위시우스 : 모세 언약의 행위 언약적 이해 ········· 46
• d. 존 캐머론 : 제3의 언약인 모세 언약 ························· 49
• e. 요약 및 평가 ······················································· 53
• B. 현대의 율법 논쟁 ·························································· 54
• 1. 율법과 연관된 현대의 신학적 문제들 ······························ 55
• a. 율법과 복음의 분리 및 동일시(all or nothing) ············ 55
• 1) 세대주의(dispensationalism) ································· 55
• 2) 신율주의(Theonomy) ··········································· 59
• 3) 새 언약 신학운동(New Covenant Theology Movement) 61
• b. 율법과 복음의 혼합 ··············································· 64
• 1) 칼 바르트 ·························································· 64
• 2) 바울에 관한 새 관점(New Perspectives on Paul) ······ 67
• 3) 노만 쉐퍼드(Norman Shepherd)와 페더럴 비전(FV) ··· 71
• 2. 복음주의 내부의 모세 언약 성격 논쟁 ·························· 74
• 3. 요약 및 평가 ····························································· 80
• Ⅲ 오웬의 언약신학 ······························································· 83
• A. 오웬의 생애와 신학 ······················································· 83
• 1. 존 오웬의 생애 (John Owen, 1616-1683) ························ 87
• 2. 히브리서 주석 저술의 역사적 배경 ································· 91
• 3. 오웬의 신학방법론 ······················································ 95
• B. 오웬의 언약신학의 구조 ·················································· 99
• 1. 언약신학의 발전과 통일성 ············································· 99
• 2. 17세기 청교도 언약신학의 특징 ····································· 106
• 3. 오웬의 언약신학 구조 ·················································· 109
• a. 구속 언약(The Covenant of Redemption) ················ 111
• b. 행위 언약(The Covenant of Works) ························ 117
• c. 은혜 언약(The covenant of Grace) ························· 122
• d. 모세 언약(The Mosaic covenant) ··························· 126
• e. 오웬의 언약신학에 대한 평가 ··································· 127
• Ⅳ. 오웬의 모세 언약론 연구(1) : 행위 및 은혜 언약과의 관계 ······· 130
• A. 예비적 고찰··································································· 131
• 1. 사보이 선언과 모세 언약 ·············································· 131
• 2. 구속사와 모세 언약 ····················································· 135
• a. 타락 이후의 구속사 ··············································· 136
• b. 아담에서 노아까지 ······················