728x90

31 When the Lord saw that Leah was whated, xhe opened her womb, but Rachel was barren. 32 And Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben,3 for she said, “Because the Lord yhas looked upon my affliction; for now my husband will love me.” 33 She conceived again and bore a son, and said, “Because the Lord has heard that I am hated, he has given me this son also.” And she called his name Simeon.4 34 Again she conceived and bore a son, and said, “Now this time my husband will be zattached to me, because I have borne him three sons.” Therefore his name was called Levi.5 35 And she conceived again and bore a son, and said, “This time I will praise the Lord.” Therefore she called his name aJudah.6 Then she ceased bearing.

w Deut. 21:15

x [ch. 30:22]

3 Reuben means See, a son

y ch. 31:42; Ex. 3:7; 4:31; Deut. 26:7

4 Simeon sounds like the Hebrew for heard

z [Num. 18:2, 4]

5 Levi sounds like the Hebrew for attached

a Matt. 1:2; [ch. 49:8]

6 Judah sounds like the Hebrew for praise

 The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), 창 29:31–35.

 

 

31절) 여호와께서 레아가 야곱에게 사랑받지 못함을 보시고 레아의 태를 여셨지만 라헬은 자녀가 없었다. 

야곱은 레아보다 라헬을 더욱 사랑했다.(18절) 이러한 상황은 레아를 고통스럽게 했을 것이다. 이 상황속에서 여호와께서 레아의 사랑받지 못함, 레아가 미움을 받는 것, 고통스러워 하는 것을 보셨다. 이것을 보시고 하나님께서는 레아의 태를 여심으로 그녀로 하여금 아이를 가지게 하셨다. 

반면에 사랑받던 라헬은 자녀가 없었다. 

하나님께서는 모든 생명의 주관자로 태를 여시기도 하고 태를 닫으심으로 당신이 창조주이심을 드러내신다. 

하나님께서는 앞서 아비멜렉 집안의 태를 여셨다(20:17-18). 

앞서 하나님께서는 맏아들 에서가 아니라 둘째 야곱을 선택하셨다. 이제 남편의 사랑을 받는 라헬이 아니라 사랑받지 못한 레아를 선택하셨다. 

태의 히브리어는 ‘레헴’인데 이는 라헬을 세 자음중 처음 두 자음이 동일한데 열린 것은 라헬의 태가 아니라 레아의 태였다. 

 

It is he, not Laban, who observes that Leah is unloved. The Hebrew word is śenûʾá, literally, “hated.”5 The preceding verse has defined what hate means: “Jacob loved Rachel, not Leah.” “Hate” is used here as it is in Deut. 21:15 and Matt. 6:24. The use of śenûʾá also shows that in Hebrew a word, especially a verb, “may be used to describe not merely its own actions, but also the omission or prevention of an opposite action.”6

As Yahweh chose the second-born over the firstborn (i.e., the unlikely one) in Jacob’s and Esau’s case, he now chooses the unloved Leah over the loved Rachel (i.e., the unlikely one). He permits Leah, the hated one, to mother first. This is the second instance of womb opening Yahweh has brought about, the first being that of the Philistine women in Abimelech’s kingdom (20:17–18). There may be some irony in the fact that the first two of three consonants in “womb” (reḥem) and “Rachel” (rāḥēl) are the same. But it is not Rachel’s reḥem that is opened—it is Leah’s.

5 On the use of the tradition in Genesis about Jacob’s two wives, one loved, one unloved, in the formulation of the law in Deut. 21:15–17 (“If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other hated …”), see C. Carmichael, The Laws of Deuteronomy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1974), pp. 58–62.

6 See R. Gordis, “Some Hitherto Unrecognized Meanings of the Verb SHUB, JBL 52 (1933) 153–54.

 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18–50, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 265–266.

 

32-35절) 레아의 아들들

32) 첫째 아들 르우벤 : '보라 아들이다'. 레아는 이 아이의 이름에 주님께서 나의 고통을 살피시고 나에게 아이를 주셨다라는 의미를 부여했다. 

르우벤의 경우에 먼저 이름을 이야기하고 그 이름의 의미를 설명했다면 나머지 세 아들의 경우에는 먼저 레아가 설명을 하고 나서 그 이름을 말한다. 

Leah’s firstborn is Reuben. She apparently makes a wordplay using two clauses which supply a popular or folk etymology for Reuben. In Yahweh has seen my distress (Heb. rāʾá YHWH beʿonyî) one detects, rather far apart, the consonants r-b-n. In the clause my husband will love me (Heb. yeʾĕhāḇanî) the cluster b-n may be identified with the b-n sequence in Reuben. By itself Reuben (Heb. reʾûḇēn) makes perfectly good sense: “See, a son!”7 In this light, the phrases from Leah’s mouth after Reuben’s birth may be read as affirmations by Leah, not as etymological explanations.

The first part of Leah’s statement is correct: Yahweh has seen my distress. The same noun was used for Hagar’s situation: “Yahweh has given heed to your distress” (16:11). In both instances one wife/concubine (Leah/Hagar) plays a subordinate role to another wife (Rachel/Sarah). The result of Yahweh’s involvement in the plight is that the subordinate woman gives birth to a child. Both times the name given to the child is followed by a phrase that highlights a verb in the child’s name: Yahweh has seen; Yahweh has given heed. Leah’s second phrase—my husband will love me—is not as accurate. Leah is not the last woman to discover that her pregnancy is not a guarantee of a spouse’s support and love.

Reuben’s birth differs from the following three births in one respect. In the other three the name is given to the child after Leah makes a comment. In Reuben’s case the name is given to the child before she makes a comment.8 Is this a way of highlighting Reuben as the firstborn? Here is the firstborn (Leah) mothering the firstborn (Reuben).

7 For the literal and interpreted meaning of Jacob’s sons, see M. Calloway, Sing, O Barren One: A Study in Comparative Midrash, SBLDS 91 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1986), p. 27.

8 Both B. O. Long (Problem of Etiological Narrative) and J. Fichtner (“Die etymologische Atiologie in der Namengebung der geschichtlichen Bucher des Alten Testaments,” VT 6 [1956] 372–96) distinguish between etiologies in which the name precedes the etiology (Form I), and those in which the name follows the etiology (Form II). All the etiologies in 29:31–35 are Form I: (1) the act of naming is narrated in the historical tense by the use of waw-conversive prefix form of the verb qārāʾ; (2) the etymological explanation with affix verb form follows the name giving itself. Thus v. 32 has (1) “and she named him” (wattiqrāʾ), and (2) “for she said” (kî ʾāme). What distinguishes vv. 33–35 from v. 32 is that in the former a short statement providing the motivation for the name (e.g., v. 33, “now that Yahweh has heard that I was unloved”) precedes (1) and contains a wordplay. Vv. 33 and 34 come close to Form II because of the presence of ʿal kēn, the formula introducing Form II etiologies (on which see Long, Problem of Etiological Narrative, pp. 54–55).

 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18–50, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 266–267.

 

33절) 둘째 아들 시므온 : ‘들으심', 주님께서 내가 남편의 사랑을 받지 못함을 들으심으로 이 아들을 주셨다. 

33  The name of the second child, Simeon (Heb. šimʿôn), is connected with the verb has heard (Heb. šāmaʿ). As with Reuben’s birth, Simeon’s birth is linked with an unsavory experience, followed by a happy rectification of that chagrin. In naming the child Leah focuses not on an unpleasant circumstance but on Yahweh who overcame that circumstance. She will not name her first child “My distress,” nor will she name the second child “Unloved one.”

First (v. 31), Yahweh “saw” that Leah was unloved. Leah now says that Yahweh heard that she was unloved. Heard from whom? Or does “hear” mean “take heed to, take action on”? There is a bold contrast between the use of “love” in v. 32 (ʾāhaḇ) and unloved (śenûʾá) in v. 33. Reuben’s birth has not caused a change in Jacob’s feelings about Leah. Interestingly, Jacob takes no part in naming the children.

 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18–50, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 267–268.

 

34절) 셋째 아들 레위 : ‘매임, 연합’, 내가 남편을 위해서 아들을 셋이나 나았으니 남편이 나와 연합할 것이다.

34  Leah names her third child Levi (Heb. lēwî), for she hopes that her husband will attach himself (Heb. yillāweh)9 to her. She has not yet given up on Jacob. Jacob is giving his seed to Leah, but he is not giving his affection to her. One wonders why, given her fecundity, Jacob continues to cohabit with Leah, since he does not love her. He could continue to be married to her without continuing to cohabit with her. The last phrase in v. 35, she ceased bearing, may mean that Jacob ceased from sexual activity with Leah, but only after the birth of the fourth child, and then resumed again (according to 30:16ff.).

9 lāwâ (Niphal), “to attach,” followed by the preposition ʾim refers to attachment between equals (Ps. 83:9 [Eng. 8]); followed by the preposition ʾel or ʿal, it refers to attachment between nonequals, with one subordinated to the other (Num. 18:2, 4; Isa. 14:1; 56:3; Jer. 50:5; Zech. 2:15 [Eng. 11]). Interestingly, Leah uses lāwâ ʾel.

 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18–50, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 268.

 

35절) 넷째 아들 유다 : ‘찬양’, 내가 이제는 여호와를 찬송하리로다.

35  Only with the birth of her fourth son does Leah say nothing about her lamentable situation. She names this child Judah (Heb. yehûḏá), and says I will praise [ʾôḏeh] Yahweh. W. F. Albright understood Judah as a Hophal jussive of yāḏá, with the divine-name element -ʾel (El) represented by the ending. Thus Judah (perhaps originally Jehudael or Jehudeel) means “may God be praised.”10 Similarly, A. R. Millard suggests that the name is an abbreviation for Jehudjah (“may Yah be praised”), which is the explanation offered in v. 35.11

The birth of these last two sons is not without import. Levi, we remember, is the ancestor of the Levitical priests. Moses and Aaron are sons of Levites. From Judah issues the principal line of the monarchy. Two of the major OT institutions—priesthood and kingship—have their origin in an unwanted and unplanned marriage.

10 W. F. Albright, “The Names ‘Israel’ and ‘Judah’ with an Excursus on the Etymology of Todah and Torah, JBL 46 (1927) 168–78. According to him yehûḏâ was probably abbreviated from an original yehûḏeʾēl. He accounts for the ending on yehûḏâ by arguing that the qāmeṣ “is simply the pretonic lengthening of the traditional short a vowel, which originated in the influence of the weak largyngeal ʾalef upon the preceding šewă, giving it an a coloring.… When hypocoristica were formed from composite names of this type, the clipped imperfects retained the a coloring, which was lengthened to qāmeṣ under the tone” (pp. 173–74).

11 See A. R. Millard, “The Meaning of the Name Judah,” ZAW 86 (1974) 216–18. For support Millard appeals to the alternative ways of writing other personal names that end in and that clearly refer to the same person: mîḵâ (2 Chr. 34:20) with mîḵāyâ (2 K. 22:12).

 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18–50, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 268.

 

레아의 첫째 아들은 르우벤, 둘째는 시므온으로 하나님께서 약자들에 대한 섭리를 가장 잘 드러내는 보다와 듣다라는 단어에 근거한 이름을 지어주고 있다. 레아는 야곱의 사랑을 받지는 못했지만 하나님이 향한 믿음과 신앙은 아주 강했다. 자신의 태를 여신 분이 바로 하나님이심을 그녀는 분명히 알았고 그 이름을 지을때마다 여호와 하나님에 대한 그의 신앙을 고백하고 있다. 

야곱은 레아로 인해서 자신이 7년이나 더 라반에게 매여 노동을 해야했던 것에 대해서 미움을 표했을 것이다. 레아는 자신이 첫째 부인이었지만 공공연하게 사랑받지 못했고 부당한 처사를 당했을 것이다. 그런 레아의 상황을 하나님게서 보고, 들으심으로 그의 인생에 개입하신다. 그의 태를 여신 것이다. 레아는 자신에게 아이가 생김으로 인해서 남편이 자신을 사랑해줄 것을 기대했지만 그렇지 못했던 것 같다. 애정없는 부부관계만이 있었고 넷째 유다를 낳고 나서 레아는 이제 자신의 시선을 하나님께 돌리고 여호와만은 찬송하겠다라는 마음으로 이름을 유다라고 부른다. 

35절 마지막은 레아의 출산이 멈추었다라고 표현한다. 아이 넷을 낳고 불임상태가 되었다라고도 볼 수 있지만 이후의 합환채 사건을 볼때 더이상 야곱이 레아와 잠자리를 하지 않았다라고 볼 수도 있다. 

 

하나님께서는 남편의 사랑을 받지 못했던 레아를 보기고, 그녀의 고통을 들으시고 그에게 사랑을 베푸신다. 그녀의 태에서 훗날 메시야를 탄생시킬 유다 지파가, 하나님을 섬기는 레위지파가 시작되었다. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

728x90
Mary Anoints Jesus at Bethany
12 Six days before ithe Passover, jJesus therefore came to Bethany, kwhere Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. So they gave a dinner for him there. lMartha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at table. mMary therefore took a pound1 of expensive ointment made from pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii2 and ngiven to the poor?” He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and nhaving charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it. Jesus said, “Leave her alone, so that she may keep it3 for the day of my burial. For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.”

 The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), 요 12:1–8.

본문의 이야기는 공관복음에도 등장하는 내용이다. 이런 내용은 오병이어의 기적, 성정 청결 기사, 세례요한의 이야기등이 있다. 
The fact that the story of the anointing appears in all four Gospels confirms its significance to the overall presentation of the good news. Given the general independence of John from the stories in the Synoptics, this fact is certainly worthy of note, especially since up to this point about all that is parallel in John with the three other Gospels has been the story of the feeding of the five thousand. Perhaps one could add the temple cleansing (if one allows for it to be placed at a different point from the Synoptics) and the story of John the Baptist (if one allows for a different role of the Baptizer in this book).
 Gerald L. Borchert, John 12–21, vol. 25B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), 31.

1-2절) 유월절 엿새 전에 베다니에 도착하신 주님, 유월절이 금요일 저녁에 시작되니까 토요일에 도착하셨다. 
Regarding the Passover, cf. 11:55 and note on 2:13. Six days before the Passover most likely refers to Saturday, since the Passover began Friday evening at sundown.
 Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2047.
본문의 장소에 대해서 공관 복음서는 다른 정보를 제공한다. 마태와 마가는 문둥병자 시몬의 집으로, 누가는 바리새인 시몬으로 기록한다. 
Moreover, whereas Bethany (likely to be in Judea) is mentioned in connection with the anointing in Matthew, Mark, and John, the setting in Luke, although not mentioned, would appear to be in Galilee since that was where Jesus was reportedly doing his early ministry at the time (cf. Luke 7:11 for Nain and 8:1, 22 villages and the sea of Galilee). Furthermore, the particular site of the reception is said in Matthew and Mark to be the house of Simon the leper while in Luke it is the home of a Pharisee named Simon (Luke 7:40).
 Gerald L. Borchert, John 12–21, vol. 25B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), 32.
날자도 요한은 유월절 6일전으로, 마태와 마가는 이틀전으로 설명한다. 
Furthermore, in John the event is placed chronologically six days before Passover (12:1), whereas in Matthew (26:2) and Mark (14:1) it is recounted following a meeting of the Jewish leaders two days before Passover.7 The Lukan dating is hard to coordinate with either of these dates.
7 Blomberg writes that Matthew and Mark “relocate this passage topically, because of the symbolism of preparing Jesus for his burial, sandwiching the narrative between a reference to the later plot of the Jewish leaders to arrest Jesus and Judas’ arrangement to betray him” (ibid.).
 Gerald L. Borchert, John 12–21, vol. 25B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), 32.
또한 본문의 마리아에 대한 묘사도 상이하다. 누가는 죄를 지은 한 여자(눅 7:37)로 묘사한다. 눅 8:2에 일곱 귀신이 나간 막달라 마리아와 나사로의 동생 마리아를 같은 여인으로 본다면 가능하다. 하지만 이 두 여인이 다른 여인이라면 향유를 붓는 사건은 두번에 걸쳐서 일어난 것이 된다. 
In addition, the woman who anointed Jesus is described by Luke (7:37) as a sinner and contrasted with the self-righteous Pharisee who organized the meal; but there is no such description in Matthew and Mark, and the woman remains virtually unidentified beyond the deed she did. John, on the other hand, identifies her as “Mary” (12:3), whom we assume to be the Mary of John 11, the sister of Lazarus and Martha. It is the particular Lukan designation of the woman as a sinner, however, that in the past has led to speculations that Mary of Bethany must have been a sinful woman and usually that she should be identified with Mary Magdalene, out of whom Jesus cast seven demons (Luke 8:2). But such speculation is merely a later construct of a Tatian-type mentality, and it is important to remember that even Luke, who categorizes Mary Magdalene in such a way, does not identify her with the sister of Lazarus and Martha (Luke 10:39–42).8
8 In his article on “Mary” E. H. Palmer warns against such synthesizing of identifications (rev. ed. ISBE 3.268). Cf. also the interesting comments of D. and F. Stagg in Women in the World of Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 117–21 and 238–39.
 Gerald L. Borchert, John 12–21, vol. 25B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), 33.

공관복음서와 요한복음의 본 기사를 하나로 볼려면 이 잔치를 주관한 사람은 시몬이라는 인물로 나사로와 가까운 인물일 것이다. 요한은 마치 나사로가 이 잔치의 주인인 것 처럼 기록하고 있다.

3절) 예수의 발에 비싼 향유, 순전한 나드 한 근을 붓고 머리털로 그의 발을 씻음, 공관복음의 기록에서는 옥합에 가져와 예수의 머리에 부었다고 기록되어 있다. 한근(327.45 그램)으로 300데나리온이나 되는 비싼 향유이다. 
Specifically, Mark and Matthew report an anointing of Jesus’ head whereas Luke and John speak of the anointing of his feet (Matt 26:7; Mark 14:3; Luke 7:38; John 12:3).
 Gerald L. Borchert, John 12–21, vol. 25B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), 32.
머리카락으로 발을 씻는 행동은 매우 특별한 행동으로 주님께 대한 전적인 존경과 헌신을 의미한다. 여기에서 마리아가 주님의 죽음을 직접적으로 인식했는지는 명확하지 않다. 
The Synoptics indicate that the perfume was kept in an alabaster jar (Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3). It is recorded here that Mary anointed the feet of Jesus, while Matt. 26:7 and Mark 14:3 mention that she anointed Jesus’ “head.” Considering the large quantity of ointment, Mary apparently anointed both Jesus’ head and his feet. Attending to the feet was the work of servants (cf. John 1:27; 13:5), so Mary’s actions show humility and devotion. Her wiping of Jesus’ feet with her hair is also remarkable, since Jewish women rarely unbound their hair in public. Mary’s action indicates an expression of intense personal devotion to Christ, but no hint of immoral thoughts or conduct should be read into her actions.
 Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2047.

4-7절) 제자들의 반응과 이에 대한 평가
요한은 유다에 대해서 그의 복음서를 통해서 매우 부정적으로 평가한다. 
The story in John, however, makes a slightly different point. It certainly picks up the burial symbolism (12:7), but it refocuses the picture from the misunderstanding of the disciples to Judas, who was not merely mistaken. In this story John makes it plain that Judas was not an unfortunate, misguided person. He was inherently an evil thief who had no concern for the poor (12:6). Thus John would never agree with some modern portrayals of Judas as a tragic hero who merely misunderstood Jesus. For John, Judas was a devil-man (diabolos; 6:70), a receiver of Satan (13:27), and the son of doom or destruction (17:12). For John, he was the unforgivable betrayer (hōparadidous) who stood with the enemies of Jesus (18:5; cf. paradidonai; 12:5). For a discussion of Iscariot, see my comments at 6:71.
 Gerald L. Borchert, John 12–21, vol. 25B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), 36.

가룟 유다는 이렇게 허비하느니 300데나리온을 가난한 자에게 주는 것이 더 낫지 않느냐고 말한다. 하지만 이것에 대해서 요한은 가난한 자를 생각하는 것 처럼 보이지만 유다는 도적으로 돈 궤를 맡아서 이를 도적질 할려고 하고 있다라고 평가하고 있다. 주님은 마치 비이성적이고 매우 낭비적으로 보이는 이 여인의 행동을 칭창하시며 나의 죽음, 장사할 날을 준비하고 있다고 말한다. 결국 요한은 이 사건을 통해서 왕으로 오신 주님의 죽음을 예비하고 있는 것이다. 

8절) 이 여인의 행동과 유다의 반응에 대해서 주님은 ‘가난한 자들은 항상 있지만 나는 항상 너희와 있지 않다’라고 말씀하신다. 이는 가난한 자를 돕는 것이 잘못되었거나 우선순위가 떨어진다라는 것이 아니라 임박한 주님의 죽음의 중요성을 말씀하고 계신 것이다. 


+ Recent posts