21tv

Category
  Á¦¸ñ : 11¿ù ¹ßÇ¥(Á¾±³´Ù¿øÁÖÀÇ)-ÇÇÅ͹ÙÀ̾îÇϿ콺 ¹Ú»ç



Affirming Christ¡¯s Uniqueness
in the face of Religious Pluralism and Syncretism
by Dr. Peter Beyerhaus

Introduction

In 1991 at the WCC¡¯s Canberra Assembly the Korean feminist theologian Dr. Chun-Hyun Kyung had to deliver the  key note lecture on the Holy Spirit. She used it  to present to the ecumenical delegates a modern kind of Shamanist ritual.  She said that today the Holy Spirit speaks to us through the voices of the ¡°han¡± spirits who cannot find peace because of their tragic fate. This was an event of historic significance. For the fact was that she had been invited officially by the General Secretariat. Moreover her theatrical performance was hailed by a standing ovation of the ecumenical dignitaries from all confessional traditions – except the Eastern Orthodox.  This signalised that by now a syncretistic contextualization of theology  was fully accepted in  large sections of established Christianity. It also signalised a resolute breach with the entire tradition of biblical faith since the days of the Prophets and the Apostles.
Some months later Chung-Hyun Kyung was invited to address also the large rally of German Protestantism, the ¡°Kirchentag¡± (Church Day) in Munich. Feminist theologian Mrs. Elisabeth Moltmann-Wendel commented both events by saying:  ¡°Chung-Hyun Kyung has emerged as a bearer of hope for all women on earth!¡±
These events are no eccentric episodes. They are characteristic for the spiritual climate both in theology and church in which we have to live today. They also show the extreme importance that theologians and church leaders who have a sense of responsibility towards the Bible take up the themes of ¡°syncretism¡± and religious pluralism. They should regard it as the most crucial challenge to biblically orthodox Christianity today. It is not accidental that many theological meetings and publications  treat the uniqueness of Christ in view of other religions as their central theme. This was also the case at the meeting of the Japanese-Korean section of the Asia Theological Association held in Seoul on November 7th, 2003. As a personal note I may add that syncretism and religious pluralism have had a lion¡¯s share in my own theological thinking during the last decades. This was reflected by the title of a ¡°Festschrift¡± dedicated to me on my 70th birthday: ¡°No other Name. The Dialogue with non-Christian Religions¡± . Under the same title in the same year our Theological Convention of Confessing Fellowships in Germany  issued a weighty statement.  which was welcomed by many as a decisive help.

I.  Biblical affirmation of Christ¡¯s Uniqueness
Before we enter into the treatment of religious syncretism and pluralism it is essential to get reassured about the theological contrast to it.  We should remember how the Christian Church from New Testament times until the present age of theological modernism has been eager to maintain the absolutely sovereign position of Jesus Christ as the supreme Lord and only Saviour of the world over against all other claims of divine lordship.
Let us start with the famous confession of Simon Peter in response to Jesus¡¯ question whom his disciples considered him to be. When Peter replied: ¡°You are the Christ, the Son of the living God¡±, he acknowledged Him as the messianic Saviour of Israel as well as the One in whom God Himself is present.  At once Jesus reacted by stating that on this rock he would build His Church. Thereby He made it clear that the Christian Church finds her very identity in upholding the faith in Christ¡¯s divinity and destiny of being the universal mediator of salvation. After Christ¡¯s Ascension Peter affirmed this in his fearless assertion before the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:12): ¡°Salvation is found in no once else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.¡±
Peter did not just state, here, his private conviction. He spoke on commission of his heavenly Lord Himself and on behalf of the entire apostolic Church. This becomes evident in many similar affirmations made by other Apostles, especially John and Paul. John in his Gospel records the famous self-assertion of Jesus (John 14:6): ¡°I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me.¡± Paul affirms (in 1 Cor 1:22f.): ¡°Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks ask for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to whose who are called  ¡¦ the power of God and the wisdom of God.¡±
This divinely inspired elevation of Christ was upheld and dogmatically expanded in the writings of the ancient Church Fathers and the ecumenical Creeds. Let me quote from the Nicene Creed which in a hymnological language adores Jesus Christ: ¡°God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not created, of one substance with the Father ¡¦ ¡°  
In accordance with the biblical witness the universal Church of all confessional traditions affirms the magnificence of Jesus Christ by using a number of terms: Sovereignty, superiority, centrality, absoluteness, universality, exclusiveness etc. Today it has become common to speak about the ¡°uniqueness¡± of Jesus Christ. By this it is meant not just that Jesus is rather different and singular compared with other great religious figures. The term ¡°uniqueness¡± is meant to affirm that Jesus Christ holds a position so extraordinaryly high and significant that He cannot be reached by any other being in the history of religions. No other religion can make a similar claim with regard to its founder or saviour figure, may it be Krishna, Buddha, Confucius or Mohammed.
With regard to Jesus Christ we can speak of a threefold uniqueness that pertains firstly to his person, secondly to his work and thirdly to his relation with his believers.

A. Uniqueness of Christ¡¯s p e r s o n
Jesus Christ is not just a human being. He is that man in whom the eternal Son of God, the third person of the divine Trinity, has become incarnate so that he is equally God and man. He was pre-existent, i.e. from all eternity he lived in a close relationship with God the Father. He became the Mediator both in the acts of creation and salvation. He became man not by a biological act of begetting but by the Holy Spirit overshadowing his virgin mother. Even during Jesus¡¯ earthly  days the fulness of God dwelt in him (Col 2:9). After his resurrection all authority in heaven and on earth was given to the God-man Jesus Christ. As the King of kings He became seated on the heavenly throne at the right hand of the Father. At the end of history Christ will be the universal Judge of all people who ever lived on earth. Then he will rule over God¡¯s fully established  kingdom for ever.

B. Uniqueness of Christ¡¯s w o r k
Already before the creation of the world the pre-existent Christ was destined to be the one Mediator of salvation (1 Tim 2:5). This he became in a unique way: He was to be sacrificed as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). No other religion has a similar belief in a redemption freely given to man. Redemption is not wrought by man acting himself under the assistance of a religious saviour; no, it comes by the Saviour giving his own life for it. Neither does any other religion know of a bodily resurrection of a saviour who thereby is able to impart eternal life upon all who believe in him. The redemption wrought by Jesus is a comprehensive one: It liberates lost human beings from the bondage of sin and demonic captivity and from the power of death. It does so on the basis of reconciling abject men with the Holy God. As a loving Father He now receives them into His fellowship as beloved children. Moreover this redemption will eventually also restore the entire distorted cosmos (Acts 3:21).  

C. Uniqueness of Christ¡¯s  r e l a t i o n  to his believers
Jesus Christ is a unique Saviour by being not just a person of the past and the future. He is not a moral teacher to be followed nor an abstract ideal to be imitated. Neither is he a completely transcendent godhead,  unreachably removed from his followers on earth. No, he promised to  his disciples that he would always be with them in their life and ministry. He would be so by sending to them the Holy Spirit, His own Spirit, who dwells in them and creates a tie of intimate relation with him (John 14:16f).. Jesus became united with his believers both individually and corporately. He is so by being identified with them in the community of the Church who is his body, – he being the head, we the members.  In Holy Communion He feeds us with his body and his blood, thus becoming mysteriously joined with us. He continues his saving work on earth through the  ministry of  his Church, investing his messengers with his own authority. He comforts us in our anxieties and assures us of our eternal communion with him in the Kingdom of the Father.

No other religion gives such a centrality to its founder as the Church does to Jesus Christ, so that apart from him it would be dissolved.  Hinduism could exist without Krishna, who after all is only a myth; Buddhism could practice the way to illumination without Gautama Buddha. Islam could maintain its central affirmation of Allah being the only God apart from Mohammed, who claimed only to confirm the message of the historic prophets before him. Moreover: No other religion ascribes such a comprehensive work of salvation to its founder than that which we Christians owe to Jesus. No religion experiences such a realistic communion with its pioneer as Christianity does with Jesus Christ. – But even if there might appear certain similarities: No religion can verify its claims concerning its founder by such a historically experienced and proven reality like the incarnation of God in Christ and his bodily  resurrection. His resurrection was a unique event in history. Its evidence is given not only by the credibility of its apostolic witnesses. We find this verification in the entire history of Christ¡¯s Church in which He has manifested himself alive and powerful.
Yet this uniqueness of Christ appears not so evident to the world that it would easily approve of it once the claim has been presented. On the contrary, it has always been doubted, disputed if not outright refuted. Peter compares Christ to the corner stone of a building which is precious to those who believe. But it becomes a stumbling stone to those who disobey the Word (1 Pet 2:7f.). Thus right from the beginning the central significance of  Christ has been contested,  and so it is still today. But in contrast to apostolic times His uniqueness is not contested only by outsiders. This happens even within the church, and this at so many places that those who still adhere to it will find  themselves in a minority position.

II. The threefold contest of Christ¡¯s Uniqueness

A. Blunt denial
The most ostentatious way of refusing to bow before Christ¡¯s authority is to plainly deny it. This was the response which Jesus received from most of the Jewish religious leaders in his time. For Jesus radically challenged their own theological convictions on which they based their authority. That made them hostile to him. Consequently they sentenced him to death.
A similar hostile resistance to the universal claim of Christ in modern times is shown by totalitarian ideologies. They do so by persecuting his stauch confessors. Jesus had predicted this fate already during his earthly days (Mt 16:2; John 15:20f.).  

B. Pluralistic relativization
Another more polite way of relatizing the uniqueness of Christ is to concede a relative dignity to him but at the same time to maintain, at the same time, that there are other impressive figures beside him in the history of religions. In this case Jesus becomse one religious genius amongst many others, perhaps one of the greatest. Thus the way to salvation taught by him may be viable to those who follow him, especially when they come from a Christian tradition.  But others are entitled to make their alternative option and find peace and happiness with their objects of adoration. We ought to respect them, it is said, and seek mutual understanding and cooperation with them.
Today this is virtually the position of those Christian scholars who are advocating a ¡°Pluralist Theology of Religions¡± , John Hick  being their outstanding representative.
Today there are  three models of  theologies of religions , the exclusive –  the inclusive and the pluralist. It appears that  the third one is gaining the upper hand amongst them. For this seems to meet both reason and the demands of our time for peaceful coexistence.  

C. Syncretistic undermining
The third way of evading the uniqueness of Christ is post-Christian or pseudo-Christian syncretism. What is meant by the term ¡°syncretism¡± ? In general understanding it means a mixing  of different religions, which is unavoidable wherever different religious cultures come to overlap. The underlying attitude is the assumption that all religions and spiritual experiences derive from the same invisible sources. Names and forms may be different, but they denote the same. Thus they can freely be transferred from one religion to the other. That happened in the Roman empire between the gods and goddesses of the Greek and Roman pantheons: Zeus becomes Jupiter, Poseidon becomes Neptune and Hera becomes Juno.  Likewise in Latin American syncretistic cults like Umbanda  Jesus is identified with the most powerful figure in the Indian and African spirit world. This is the spontaneous or naïve form of practiced syncretism.
But in distinction to the form just described, there is another, sophisticated  form which is consciously planned. It is the attempt to merge different, heterogeneous religions and ideologies with a concrete  purpose. This is being done with the purpose to make them the spiritual basis for a wider unity, often of socio-political character. In this way the Macedonian king and conqueror Alexander the Great (356-323 b.C.) tried to create a synthesis of the various national religions in his conquered territories to knit a spiritual and moral bond for his multi-cultural empire. We may call this planned syncretism.
Planned syncretism can also appear as a strategy of one religion infiltrating  another one in order to conquer it from inside. It does so by assimilating select elements of that rival religion to itself. This happened already at New Testament times when the religious philosophy of Gnosis infiltrated the early Church. It claimed allegiance to Christ but changed his true nature into that of a mythical revealer of  gnostic wisdom . In this way the Gospel was threatened to be perverted into a pseudo-Christian heresy. Here the uniqueness of Christ is betrayed by misusing his name for another concept. Present day syncretism is largely following a neo-gnostic pattern.  
      
III. The biblical struggle with pluralism and syncretism

A. The fight of the OT Prophets
The pluralistic struggle between the self-revelation of  God Yahweh as the supreme, only true God and pagan polytheism begins with the exodus of Israel out of Egypt. God wanted Israel to become His witness to the nations, proclaiming  that He is the Creator of heaven and earth as well as the sovereign Lord who rules the destiny of all peoples. This is enshrined in  the First Commandment of the Decalogue ¡°I am Yahweh, your God ¡¦ ¡°, and in Israel¡¯s central confession (Deuteronomy 6:4): ¡°Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength¡±.  The entire history of the ancient people of God as told in the historical and prophetical writings of the OT has one main theme. It is the record how God again and again tried to impress this truth in their hearts both by reminding them and punishing them. But Israel fatally failed to fulfil this important commission.
God wanted to manifest Himself as a God who is motivated by ¡°holy jealousy¡± (Gerhard von Rad ). His entire plan of creation and salvation was based upon His eternal decree that mankind could attain its true life only by being restored to the sole loyalty to the one God as its maker, protector and redeemer. But Israel – with a few occasional exceptions – did not really heed her commission. Instead she fell into  a twofold  temptation: During the first centuries after entering into the promised land the people sought additional support from  pagan deities of the Canaanites – the god of fertility Baal and the sexual goddess Asherah. Sometimes this was plain polytheism, sometimes it showed the features of syncretism : Yahweh assumed the features of Baal: Although  His name was retained, Yahweh was worshipped in a crude naturalist way, whilst His holy, ethical character fell into oblivion. During the later period the country was invaded by the powerful nations of Assyria and Babylon – occasionally Egypt as well. Now even Israel¡¯s  kings and priests bowed to the pressure to install the worship of their imperial gods in the Temple at Jerusalem. Considering the apparent weakness of Yahweh to protect His people, many Israelites voluntarily indulged in the cult of oriental divinities. The people did not mind the constant scolding of  Yahweh¡¯s faithful prophets. Accordingly these interpreted the final national  disaster both of the Northern kingdom Samaria and the Southern kingdom Judah as their deserved divine punishment (e.g. Jer 29:16-19; 2 Chron 36:11-21).
It was only by her Babylonian captivity that the Jews eventually had grasped their historic lesson.  Judaism since then became mankind¡¯s first really monotheistic  religion.

B. The apostolic warrant of monotheism and christological uniqueness
In NT times the biblical struggle against religious pluralism and syncretism does no longer address itself to the Jewish people. The former error becomes the primary target of the missionary message to the gentiles. This happened in view of the widely prevalent polytheism. The first charge directed to pagan listeners, therefore is to ¡°turn to God from the idols and to serve him as the living and true God.¡± (1 Thess 1:9). Those heathen objects of cult are identified as dark expressions of the power of Satan (Acts 26:18; 1 Cor 10.20). For that reason Paul warned the Corinthians sharply of bringing  Jesus Christ in association with idol worship, lest they provoke the Lord to jealousy (1 Cor 10:21 f;  Cor 6:14.18).  We see that the Apostles consistently follow the anti-syncretistic prophetical line of the OT.
A second addressee of such NT warning against the syncretism are some young churches. It were those who were tempted by the gnostic heresy to distort the faith in Jesus Christ as the incarnation of God Himself. We have already mentioned it in this chapter. But it should be added that Paul, too, was alerted to syncretistic tactics. He warned against the misuse of the very name of Jesus Christ by introducing a completely different concept of saviour and salvation. In 2 Cor 11:2-4 he ¡°jealously¡± (!) warns the congregation of its inclination to be trapped syncretism. He sees in it an actual  repetition of  Eve¡¯s primal seduction by the snake. At this place he mentions three main doctrinal points in which pseudo-Christian syncretism is characterised: another Jesus – a different Spirit – a differentGgospel (cf. Gal 1:6.9). This shows that the NT Apostles anticipated the entire history of the Church¡¯s permanent syncretistic temptation. It is a mortal threat that affects all central points of the Christian faith:  Christology, Pneumatology and Soteriology (the doctrines of Christ, the Holy Spirit and Salvation). This temptation has hardly ever been so extensive and intensive as it is today!    

IV. Contemporary appearances of pluralism and syncretism

1. Pluralistic theology of religions

We  have already mentioned that some influential theologians in the West are pleading for a new Christian concept. This should place all religions of mankind on an equal footing with Christianity.  We also heard the name of its pioneer, the British systematic theologian  John Hicks. He and his friends assume that beyond the variety of particular religions there is an ultimate common ground in the depth of the human soul. Here the devotees of all belief systems could meet in analogous mystic experiences. Their dogmatic articulations may differ, but in nature they are one. The presuppositions of such pluralistic thinking exclude any attempt to voice normative claims for the person of Jesus Christ. He may be regarded as one amongst many religious figures who had some kind of transcendental vision. As all of them, Jesus, too, could still render a spiritual contribution to improve the harmony of the human race. But since all religions are regarded to be equally valid, it does not make a difference which religion we choose. In 1986 Hick invited a group of like-minded friends to a consultation at Claremont in California. The papers read there were published under the title: ¡°The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Towards a Pluralistic Theology of Religions¡±.  The participants left under the impression that a Copernican Revolution had just taken place. They had, to use their own expression, ¡°crossed the Rubicon¡±. By this symbol they referred the borderline that up to then had separated biblical Christianity as the evident subject of Christian theology from religions in general.

2. Pluralistic prayer for peace
On October 26th, 1987 Pope John Paul II. convened a large meeting of the heads not only of all major Christian confessions but also of all other religions.  They assembled in the ancient town of Assisi, where once in history St. Francis had founded his order of preaching monks. Through that meeting John Paul wanted to promote peace amongst all divided nations. His way was to let the representatives of all religions pray for peace at one and the same time and place. Conservative Christians of different confessions, traditionalist Catholics as well , were shocked by that bold move. For they warned the Pope that this would lead to syncretism. I myself also sent a warning letter to him  through the mediation of my former Tuebingen colleague Cardinal Ratzinger. To this charge the Pope let reply by the assertion, that no syncretism was intended. The representatives of the different religions would not pray together, but they would come together in order to pray. By that rather hair-splitting distinction he meant that they would not join in a common liturgy of prayer, read together by all of them.
Yet this explanation could not remove our misgivings. For after all the Pope was chairing a  religious ceremony in which one religious leader after the other stepped forward to offer his prayer to the deity worshipped in his own religion: Brahma, Allah, Jahwej, Manitu, the Bodhisattvas.  Did this not imply, we criticised, that at the final instance all these prayers were effective? Do all of  those different gods have the power to fulfil them;  or were these gods considered to be proper  representatives of the one supreme God? Still Pope John Paul II. was determined to continue the spiritual venture of the first inter-religious prayer meeting at Assisi 1987. He only allowed one adjustment to be made: During the following meetings the spiritual leaders of the different religions did not pray on the same stage; they now did it separately in the specific venues allocated to them.
Nevertheless, ¡°Assisi I¡± meant a historic break-through towards religious pluralism or even syncretism. Christians world-wide henceforth became inclined to think that all religions are ways to the one (and) true God. Now it has become quite common that inter-religious meetings are held where ministers of different religions are united in prayer and listen to readings from their sacred books.

3. WCC¡¯s Program on Dialogue    
Already in  May 1970 the General-Secretariat of the World Council of Churches endorsed the plan to stage a ¡°pilot project¡± starting in the Lebanese town Ajaltoun.  This eventually led to the installation of a new Department in Geneva which became responsible for the Program on Dialogue with Adherents of Living Faiths [i.e. non-Christian religions] and ideologies. At Ajaltoun for the first time representatives from various Christian traditions met on an equal base with those of non-Christian religions. They entered into a so called dialogue in order to discuss common concerns. They also learned  which specific contributions particular religions could make to solve human problems.
The revolutionary new feature at Ajaltoun was that the participants partook in the morning devotions performed in accordance to the different faith systems represented there. Christian theologians did not hesitate to join in ceremonies of other religions held in their temples. Rather they felt deeply enriched. To that experience a new name was given: ¡°sharing in spirituality¡±. From now on such trans-religious venturing became an integral feature of the ecumenical Program on Dialogue and at other ecumenical events as well. We remember the erection of an Indian totem pole by WCC¡¯S leaders at the VI. Assembly at Vancouver in 1983  and the inclusion in the Shamanist ritual performed by Chung-Hyun Kyung  in Canberra 1991. Those were consistent steps forward on the syncretistic avenue opened up in Ajaltoun in 1970. In Canberra a report was received from an inter-religious consultation in Hong Kong, convened on behalf of the WCC Department on Dialogue.  The participants of the Hong Kong consultation called on the Canberra Assembly to promote a ¡°pooling of spiritual resources¡± of all human religions. Only on this basis political  leaders could, they argued,  receive the inner strength to cope with the global problems facing them in social, ecological and other realms.        

4. ¡°New Age¡± religiosity
One striking phenomenon of our time is the fact that in Western countries a new quest for transcendental experiences has emerged . For centuries they had been dominated by a rationalistic world view. In one aspect the era of modernism is being  subsided by a new era of post-modernism. Particularly in the younger generation many people are fed up with a civilization which puts its highest value in consuming material goods. Youngsters show a new interest in that which mysteriously may be hidden beyond our three-dimensional world. Simpler minds may try to make ecstatic encounters, ¡°peak experiences¡± by enjoying hard rock music, engaging in sexual orgies or taking drugs. Others use parapsychological channels and participate in spiritistic séances. More serious minds choose spiritual ways offered by Eastern religions in their various methods of Yoga techniques or transcendental meditation, preferably Zen. Indian gurus , Buddhist bikhus and Islamic sufis direct their mission to Western countries and  gather their own benches of followers.
Various names are given to this movement. Some call it the ¡°new religiosity¡±, others the ¡°quest for spirituality¡±. Yet another term is ¡°esoteric religion¡±. People of such inclination flock together, conduct workshops or organise larger events and expositions where the various offers are demonstrated and can be easily acquired. Some of this emerges rather spontaneously.  But there also such leaders who are busy to knit a world-wide network between groups and individuals. They also supply a common religious ideology for it.
During the 1980s this movement became famous under the ominous name ¡°New Age¡±.  Its spokespersons developed an ingenious strategy calling it the ¡°soft revolution¡±. The sources can be traced to ¡°theosophy¡± and ¡°anthroposophy¡±. These originated during the first decades of the 20th century; they tried to mediate main tenets of Hinduism and Buddhism to Western culture. The New Age movement shares with Hinduism a monistic world view. According to that all reality is basically spiritual, emanating  and returning into an all-embracing oneness. If mankind started to realise its spiritual nature, all contradictions and tensions would be removed. Then, finally, a cosmic harmony will guaranty abiding peace.
The proponents of this movements claim that mankind and all beings are entering the new age  of Aquarius. This by an astrological law will succeed the previous old age of the Pisces,– a  hint at the fish as symbol of Christianity. Thus a modern system of syncretism is promoted which is basically anti-Christian.  But New-Age prophets do not frankly admit that. On the contrary: they try to appease Christians by maintaining that they are presenting true Christianity at a deeper level. It is that spiritual insight which was concealed under the surface of the church¡¯s external forms and transmitted by esoteric circles. Consequently some outstanding New Age pioneers like Alice A. Bailey  (1880-1949) offer a gnostic re-interpretation of the Christian faith. That renders a new type of Christianity which is fully compatible with the New Age philosophy.

V. The increasing  quest for a One-World Religion

A. The popular level
The Danish missiologist Johannes Aagaard  has proposed the thesis that a new world religion is in the process of emerging. It has its roots in the classic religions, but it has no preference for any of them. Rather its agents select some elements out of them which appear to fit their purposes: Mediums, gurus, prophets, immortality, reincarnation, aura, spiritual masters, Yoga,  karma, new birth, bio-rhythm, tarot cards and astrology.  The new spirituality does not come about by a return to one of the classic religions nor by a Christian revival. It happens by mixing elements of heterogeneous world views, religions and even esotericism, magic and occultism. Some experts call this ¡°city religion¡±: You go out for shopping and pick up from various stores whatever pleases you.  I think that Aagaard is partly right. But he does not realise that the process which he observes is moving on two different levels. He takes notice of the private level, where individuals pick up what appears useful to them, sometimes also jointly in religious interest groups. All this is moving towards a great, seemingly chaotic mixture.
But apart from it there is a movement on a higher level, even more threatening:

B. The ¡°Syncretistic Project¡±.
In his book ¡°Where is the Swedish Church going?¡± (1995)   the Uppsala scholar Folke Olofsson introduced a new term into our theological vocabulary which he calls ¡°The syncretistic project¡±. This concept confirms what W. A. Visser¡¯t Hooft, the first general-secretary of the WCC had discussed in his famous book ¡°No other name¡±. There the Dutch churchman had pointed out the necessity to distinguish between a spontaneous and a systematically planned kind of syncretism. I have referred already to this. Olofsson writes about ideologies in general: ¡°Out of his own man projects his thoughts, dreams, hopes, his ideology into time and space.¡± Likewise in the ¡±syncretistic project¡± individual persons, ideological groups, but even political, cultural and religious organizations  attempt to shape the future state of mankind according to their own visionary models. Thereby they include religions as building stones for that utopian architecture. Olofsson regards the syncretistic project as the most recent in history which is just about to emerge.
But as a matter of fact earlier investigations have uncovered that there has been a similar plan existing for two centuries already. It was forged at the end of the 19th century, contemporary with the French Revolution (1789-92). Its ideological supporters are to be found in Masonic lodges, particularly in the Order of Illuminates that was founded on May 1st,1776 by the Bavarian professor Adam Weishaupt  (1748-1830).  The aim was from the beginning to create a universal new order for mankind. Its spiritual basis was to be be a common unified religion. It should be ruled by a World Government, controlled by leading members of that secret movement, the ¡°Illuminates¡±.
In recent decades a vast literature about the ¡°conspiracy theory¡± has  appeared, either to support or to deny it. Personally I do not belong to those who suspect the activities of Masons wherever a similar idea is proposed. Therefore I am careful not to propagate that theory. But I know that appealing visions, ideas and utopian concepts can gain a strong influence in penetrating culture and motivating political programs. Marxism and Fascism are typical examples of it. Once a visionary concept has been presented with a certain degree of plausibility,  it is going to find supporters who will attempt to translate it into concrete policies. When the historic situation is favourable, it will find far-reaching support. A universal movement can emerge that either puts theory into practice or will end in historic disaster.
In such perspective the ¡°Syncretistic Project¡± appears to be extremely relevant in meeting mankind¡¯s contemporary main problems. For it contains the promise not only to solve the present cultural crisis of meaning. It even may help us to overcome the growing problems of social misery, wars, terrorism and ecological disaster. Therefore it is not astonishing to find that especially philosophers, theologians, churches, Christian movements and even ecumenical organizations promote syncretistic projects. These might  either be of their own conception or offered to them by other influential bodies. Those international figures who promote such prospect are hailed as bearers of hope, sent by God Himself.
This is one unavoidable consequence of the loss of biblical authority in Christianity. Authentic Biblical prophesies concerning the forthcoming Messianic Kingdom are transformed into a semi-religious, basically secular utopia. I just mention a few notorious examples: 1) The jubilant reception of the Dalai Lama at German ¡°Kirchentage¡± (ecclesial mass rallies); 2) the ¡°Project  World Ethos¡± proposed by my Tuebingen colleague Hans Küng as a basis for a forthcoming order for world peace; 3) The programmes on dialogue both of the WCC and the Vatican; 4) the prayer for world peace in the wake of  Assisi 1987; 5) the Conciliar Process for Justice, Peace and Sustenance of Creation, during which a major congress was staged in Seoul March 6-12, 1990 ; 6) the Shamanist ritual performed in Canberra 1991 by Dr. Chung-Hyun Kyung; since then she has been busy openly to promote the  acceptance of syncretism focussed on survival and liberation ; 7) the World Conference of Religions for Peace which regularly has been staging meetings in several parts of the earth.
8) and finally I want to mention the ¡°United Religions Initiative¡± (URI) . It was solemnly promulgated in June 25, 2000 at a meeting in Pittsburgh in the presence of religious and political leaders from 40 countries. Amongst its founders are Mikhail Gorbatchow, UN general-secretary Kofi Annan, and archbishop Desmond Tutu. The aim of the new movement was characterised by its vice-president William Ranklin: ¡°URI has been founded to bring together people from all religions and to create a world, in which nobody needs to die by God or for God.¡± It shall be open for all spiritual expressions. The emblem of the movement is a wreath of 15 religious symbols arranged around the letters URI. One of them is the occult Pentagram, another the empty circle, which shall be filled by all faiths which are going to join us¡±. Hans Küng, who supported the initiative, explained to me in a letter (29th September 2003) the name ¡°United Religions Initiative¡±:  It indicates that  it is meant to be a parallel to the United Nations, with which it wants to cooperate closely. The Vatican had also been invited already in 1996 by the American Anglican bishop William Swing to join URI.  But on behalf of Pope John Paul II. Cardinal Francis Arinze declined, because it promoted ¡°religious syncretism¡±. This impression is confirmed by bishop Swing, the main initiator of URI, himself. He demanded that evangelism and mission should be outlawed world-wide, since it was a work of ¡°fundamentalists¡±.  
The examples listed here, I agree, are different in character, acceptability and seriousness. Neither do I suggest that they all are part of one single system, organisationally connected with each other and centrally controlled. Yet there is much overlapping concerning the persons involved and the sequence of events in the development of each of them. Moreover there is a great similarity of the promoted ideas. I shall try to point out this by stating a number of observations made by myself and by others as well:  
      
VI. Evaluation

1. Six essential observations
My first observation is the astonishing convergence of aiming between the endeavours of all these proposals and organizations, in spite of their confusing variety. Everywhere the target is to get a grasp on the future of mankind by imposing a multi-religious project to coordinate the corresponding efforts.
My second observation is that the assumed religious ¡°pluralism¡± is not really pluralistic but only allegedly so. . For pluralism means an uncoordinated variety and contrast of ideas and practices – each one being tolerated. But in reality the tendency is always to harmonise the various expressions of particular religions. This is done  by tracing a common origin, an inner affinity and predisposition for the same ultimate goal in them.  The common root is found in the mystic subconsciousness of  the human race. In view of the assumed affinity adherents  of different religious traditions are encouraged to exchange their spiritual experiences. In view of the assumed common aspiration they are challenged to synthesize their ultimate concerns and to attach them to a universal humanitarian goal.
My third observation is that in all cases the Christian faith is included into the inter-religious project. More than that: Christianity plays even a central role. For since the religious or philosophical objects are basically secularised biblical prophecies, changed into a this-worldly utopia.
My fourth observation is that leading representatives of church and theology, of ecumenism and mission, do not perceive the perversion of the Christian faith which is imminent in the ¡°syncretistic project¡±. Much worse: Theological avant-gardists and church councils are taking the lead in this enterprise! To biblically orthodox Christians it appears as if a fatal blindfolding had overcome the minds of the responsible ones.
My fifth  observation is that the challenge to get engaged in inter-religious dialogue and cooperation is issued in a mood of growing urgency. This is achieved by pointing out the importance to secure the threatened survival of mankind.  If really world peace and the sustenance of nature are at stake, these highest goods of mankind must be protected by all means. Therefore it is necessary to set aside the particular doctrines and to pull down the dogmatic fences between cultures, religions and ideologies. I vividly remember the favourite song repeated over and over again and danced at during the WCC¡¯s Fifth Assembly at Nairobi in 1975: ¡°¡±Pull down the walls that separate us and unite us in a single body!¡±  
My sixth observation finally comes as a combination of the former five ones. It is the most important for our theme: As we have seen, the syncretistic project is promoted with great urgency. Its chief ideologists insist that all churches and religious communities should participate. Consequently the demand for solidarity is presented with radical force. Conscientious  objectors  to such  request cannot hope for a sympathetic understanding; rather they are met by growing impatience. Thus the principle of tolerance is turning into one of intolerance. It addresses itself particularly to those who uphold the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. It criticises those who are not prepared to relativize the Gospel as one way of salvation amongst others.
Such intolerance may appear in different degrees and various forms. It starts with deriding bible-minded  Christians as ¡°old-fashioned¡±. It moves on to exclude them from the established Christian community and to prevent them from receiving responsible tasks and positions of  authority in the ecclesial hierarchy and in theological faculties. The next step is to denounce conservative believers as fanatical fundamentalists like Islamist Ayatollahs. Their theological convictions are claimed to be politically motivated. They are scolded as ¡°racists¡±. Consequently they will be declared to be enemies of human progress, a menace to peace and human survival.  From here only one final step is left, i.e. violent persecution. This no doubt will break out when religious intolerance is combined with political tyranny.

I do not want to create the impression that these predictions reveal an alarmist mentality that does not shun from grotesque exaggeration. I am quite aware that it is illegitimate to generalise apparent tendencies and occurrences into an established fact or a universal plan shortly to be fully realised. Conditions vary regionally, and processes can be retarded or come to a temporary standstill. Some schemes may dissolve themselves for lack of substance, internal unity and support.
Moreover, there are still counterforces at work. One of them is secularist rationalism and materialism that is alien to religious proposals. Neither is it possible to offer a time table for the syncretistic project, not even for those who are involved in it. One of the main counterforce to religious pluralism are. fundamentalist movements that occur in all main religions, even in Hinduism and Buddhism. The fiercest enemy to a peaceful co-existence and melting of religions is Islam, whose main agents still believe in and work for the universal submission to its ¡°Sharia¡±, the theocratic rule of  the Koran¡¯s Law.
Yet my six observations as presented right now are still valid as such. There is such a syncretistic movement of convergence, no matter at what speed it moves. Moreover - and this is my main argument - it corresponds with biblical prophecy.  

2. The Syncretistic Project in the Light of Biblical Prophecy
In his eschatological speech on the Mount of Olives (Matthew 24 par.) Jesus makes one point perfectly clear: In this present age  world history does not move towards a state of  universal peace and social harmony in obedience to the rule of God. Rather the approaching end is characterised by dismal signs of the time: Wars and rumours of war, nations rising against other nations; natural disasters as famines and earthquakes in various places. This is accompanied or even caused by spiritual disintegration: Seduced by false prophets and christs, many Christians will fall away from the true faith  and betray each other. Moral decadence will cause their love to grow cold. Disobedient mankind, including apostate Christianity, will move towards its ruin. By all this mankind will grow mature for the Day of Judgment, executed by the returning Christ.
But as both Paul and John – the latter in his book of Revelation – point out: The return of Christ will be preceded by a penultimate stage of salvation history: There will emerge a powerful conglomeration of human self-assertion and craving for power. This will show both political and religious features at the same time. The personification of that trend will occur in the emergence of the two apocalyptical beasts, symbols of the expected Antichrist and his False Prophet taught about in Rev 13-19. The reign of the coming Antichrist will be characterised by a unity, a one-world system, which is both fascinating and frightening. It will be a unification of all political, socio-economical and cultural endeavours, including religion as integrating element. This will become acceptable to mankind on account of  two polar aspects: Threatening global disaster on the one side,–  the fulfilment of mankind¡¯s perennial dreams about a golden age of happiness, justice and peace on the other side.
The basic condition that must be achieved to fulfil this prophecy is that mankind is prepared to accept a unity which supersedes all former  cultural and religious divisions. John prophecies that the ten kings of the last time will be of one mind (Greek: mia gnomee; NIV: ¡±they will have one purpose¡±).  Thereby they will be ready to submit their political authority to the Antichrist (Rev 17:13). Some evangelical Bible readers suggest that this will happen in the EU (European Union); but there are other theories as well, e.g. that the whole earth will be divided up in 10 supra-national regions and be controlled by a central global authority.

One additional part of that apocalyptic scenario is played by the Woman that rides on the beast, the Babylonian Harlot (Rev 17-19:10). The interpretation of that figure has always been controversial. Personally I am persuaded by the arguments of those who regard her to be a symbolic presentation of apostate Christianity. That would be composed not only of one large historical confession, traditionally seen in Roman Catholicism.  Yet that would be too one-sided. Rather we are to think of a conglomeration of the apostate sections of all existing churches. They will be enriched by mystical and ritual elements of other religions. Thus that ecclesial conglomeration would be widened to an anti-Christian World Church or even a One-World Religion.  She will be ¡°drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bear the testimony of Jesus¡± (Rev 17:6). That indicates that she - the "Harlot" Church - in close alliance with the antichristian world government will become the direct persecutor of the faithful Church, the eschatological Bride of Christ.
Before the Bridegroom will return to lift up her out of her earthly distress there will be many martyrs in her. They will killed because they have ventured their lives on account of their undaunted confession of the uniqueness of Christ. But  in reality their external defeat will be their victory in the eschatological struggle against Satan and his dark angels (Rev 12:11). ¡°For they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the testimony of their mouth.¡±  

Conclusion

When we apply that vision to our present situation it admonishes us not to fall into resignation in spite of the continuous spread of the spirit of religious pluralism. We have to discern the signs of time even in the ¡°Syncretistic Project¡± and resist it. It does not matter if it eventually might be successful and accepted by the majority of mankind in general and of Christianity in particular.
Rather we should become firm in our biblical insight and not give in one inch.
Yet mere resistance by shutting off ourselves is not enough. Faithful confessors are also motivated at the same time by the love of Jesus. He loved even  a world that hated Him. Filled by His Holy Spirit we want to testify to our fellow men about that new life which we have received from Him. In contrast to treacherous utopias we are to win as many wavering souls as possible to the One who is the real and only hope for the world: Jesus Christ, the universal Lord and Saviour !    



Á¾±³´Ù¿øÁÖÀÇ¿Í È¥ÇÕÁÖÀÇÀÇ ¸éÀü¿¡¼­ ±×¸®½ºµµÀÇ À¯ÀϼºÀ» È®ÁõÇÔ
by Dr. Peter Beyerhaus

µµÀÔ

1991³â WCC ĵ¹ö¶ó´ëȸ¿¡¼­ Çѱ¹¿©¼º½ÅÇÐÀÚÀÎ Á¤Çö°æ ¹Ú»ç´Â ¼º·É¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Áß¿äÇÑ ³»¿ëÀ» °­¿¬ÇÏ¿´´Ù.  ±×³à´Â »þ¸Ó´ÏÁòÀû Á¦ÀÇÀÇ Çö´ëÀû ¿¹¸¦ ¿¡Å¥¸Þ´ÏÄ® ´ëÇ¥Àڵ鿡°Ô º¸¿©ÁÖ¾ú´Ù(Hyun-Kyung CHUNG 1991, pp. 48-50.  Critical reports:  John MILLHEIM 1991.  Odd Sverre HOVE 199,: pp. 68-70.).  ±×³à´Â ¿À´Ã³¯ ¼º·ÉÀº ºñ±ØÀû ¿î¸í ¶§¹®¿¡ ÆòÈ­¸¦ ãÀ» ¼ö ¾ø´Â  »ç¶÷µéÀÇ ¡®ÇÑ¡¯ÀÇ À½¼ºÀ¸·Î ¿ì¸®¿¡°Ô ¸»¾¸ÇϽŴٰí ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÀÌ°ÍÀº ¿ª»çÀûÀ¸·Î Áß¿äÇÑ ÀÏ´ë »ç°ÇÀ̾ú´Ù.  ¿Ö³ÄÇÏ¸é ±×³à°¡ ÃÑȸ»ç¹«±¹¿¡ ÀÇÇØ °ø½ÄÀûÀ¸·Î ÃÊ´ëµÇ¾ú´Ù´Â »ç½Ç ¶§¹®ÀÌ´Ù. ´õ±¸³ª ±×³àÀÇ °ø¿¬±ØÀº µ¿¹æÁ¤±³È¸¸¦ Á¦¿ÜÇÑ ¸ðµç ÀüÅëÀû ½Å¾Ó°í¹é ±×·ìµé·ÎºÎÅÍ ±â¸³¹Ú¼ö¸¦ ¹ÞÀ¸¸ç È£ÆòÀ» ¹Þ¾Ò±â ¶§¹®ÀÌ´Ù( 'Überlegungen orthodoxer Teilnehmer, gerichtet an die Siebte Vollversammlung", in: Bericht aus Canberra (see Note 1 ), pp. 28-282.). ÀÌ »ç½ÇÀº ½ÅÇÐÀÇ È¥ÇÕÁÖÀÇÀû »óȲȭ°¡ ±âÁ¸ ±âµ¶±³°èÀÇ ´Ù¼ö¿¡ ÀÇÇØ ÀüÆøÀûÀ¸·Î ¼ö¿ëµÇ°í ÀÖ´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» µÎµå·¯Áö°Ô ³ªÅ¸³Â´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ ÀÌ »ç½ÇÀº ¼±ÁöÀÚ¿Í »çµµ½Ã´ë ÀÌÈÄ·Î Áö¼ÓµÈ ¼º°æÀû ½Å¾ÓÀÇ ¸ðµç ÀüÅë°ú öÀúÇÏ°Ô ´ÜÀýÇÔÀ» ¸í¹éÈ÷ µå·¯³»¾ú´Ù.
¸î ´Þ ÈÄ Á¤Çö°æ ¹Ú»ç´Â µ¶ÀÏ°³½Å±³ÀÇ Å« ´ëȸ(¹ÀÇî¿¡¼­, "Kirchentag"(±³È¸ÀÇ ³¯))¿¡¼­ ¿¬¼³Çϵµ·Ï ÃÊ´ëµÇ¾ú´Ù.    ¿©¼º½ÅÇÐÀÚÀÎ ¿¤¸®ÀÚºª ¸ôÆ®¸¸ º¥µ¨(Mrs. Elisabeth Moltmann-Wendel)Àº ¡®Á¤Çö°æÀº Áö±¸»óÀÇ ¸ðµç ¿©¼ºµéÀ» À§ÇÑ Èñ¸ÁÀÇ ¿î¹ÝÀÚ·Î ¿ì¸®¿¡°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µ½À´Ï´Ù.¡¯¶ó°í ¸»ÇÔÀ¸·Î½á À§ÀÇ µÎ °¡Áö »ç½ÇÀ» ¾ð±ÞÇÏ¿´´Ù.
ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ »ç°ÇµéÀº ±â±«ÇÑ ¿¡ÇǼҵå´Â ¾Æ´Ï´Ù. ¹Ù·Î ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ »ç°ÇµéÀº ¿ì¸®°¡ ¿À´Ã »ì¾Æ¾ß ÇÏ´Â ±³È¸¿Í ½ÅÇÐ ¸ðµÎÀÇ ¿µÀû ȯ°æÀ» ³ªÅ¸³»°í ÀÖ´Ù. ±×¸®°í ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ÀϵéÀº ¼º°æÀ¸·Î µ¹¾Æ°¡¾ß ÇÒ Ã¥ÀÓ°¨À» ´À³¢´Â ½ÅÇÐÀÚ¿Í ±³È¸ÁöµµÀÚµéÀÌ È¥ÇÕÁÖÀÇ¿Í Á¾±³´Ù¿øÁÖÀǶó´Â ÁÖÁ¦¸¦ ´Ù·ç¾î¾ß ÇÔÀ» ¾öÁßÇÏ°Ô º¸¿©ÁÖ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ±×µéÀº È¥ÇÕÁÖÀÇ¿Í Á¾±³´Ù¿øÁÖÀÇ°¡ ¿À´Ã³¯ ¼º°æÀû Á¤Åë ±âµ¶±³¿¡ °¡Àå ½É´ëÇÑ µµÀüÀÓÀ» °í·ÁÇØ¾ß ÇÑ´Ù. ¸¹Àº ½ÅÇÐȸ¿Í ÃâÆǹ°(Bruce J.NICHOLLS (ed.) 1995.  Ajith FERNANDEZ 1995.)µéÀÌ Áß½ÉÁÖÁ¦·Î ŸÁ¾±³ÀÇ °üÁ¡¿¡¼­ ±×¸®½ºµµÀÇ À¯ÀϼºÀ» ´Ù·ç°í ÀÖ´Â °ÍÀº ¿ì¿¬ÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï´Ù. Áö³­ 2003³â 11¿ù 7ÀÏ ¼­¿ï¿¡¼­ °³ÃÖµÈ ¾Æ½Ã¾Æ½ÅÇÐȸ ùÛìíºÐ°ú ºÐ¾ß¿¡¼­µµ ¸¶Âù°¡Áö¿´´Ù.  °³ÀÎÀûÀÎ ¾ð±ÞÀε¥, ³ª´Â Áö³­ ¼ö½Ê³â µ¿¾È ³ªÀÇ ½ÅÇבּ¸¿¡¼­ È¥ÇÕÁÖÀÇ¿Í Á¾±³´Ù¿øÁÖÀÇ°¡ Å« ºñÁßÀ» Â÷ÁöÇØ¿ÔÀ½À» µ¡ºÙ¿© ¸»ÇÏ°í ½Í´Ù. ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ °ü½ÉÀº ³ªÀÇ 70ȸ »ýÀÏ ±â³äÃàÇÏ ³í¹®ÁýÀÇ Á¦¸ñ ¡°´Ù¸¥ À̸§Àº ¾ø´Ù. ºñ±âµ¶±³½ÅÀÚ¿Í ´ëÈ­¿¡ À־¡±("No other Name. The Dialogue with non-Christian Religions" Thomas SCHIRRMACHER (ed.) 1999.)¿¡µµ ¹Ý¿µµÇ¾ú´Ù.  °°Àº ÇØ¿¡ °°Àº ÁÖÁ¦·Î ¿ì¸® µ¶ÀÏ°í¹é±³È¸ ¿¬ÇÕȸ ½ÅÇÐ Çмúȸ¿¡¼­ ºñÁßÀÖ´Â ¼±¾ð¹®À» ¹ßÇ¥Çߴµ¥(´Ù¸¥ À̸§Àº ¾ø´Ù. No Other name! (Acts 4:12). º¹À½ÀÇ ºû ¾È¿¡¼­ Á¾±³µéÀ» Æò°¡ÇÏ´Â µ¥ À־ÀÇ ½ÅÇÐÀû ¼±¾ð Theological Declaration Concerning the Assessment of the Religions in the Light of the Gospel, (separate print); the German original is published in: DIAKRISIS 1/2000.) °áÁ¤ÀûÀÎ µµ¿òÀÌ µÇ¾ú´Ù¸ç ¸¹Àº »ç¶÷µé¿¡ ÀÇÇØ  È¯¿µ¹Þ¾Ò´Ù.

I.  ±×¸®½ºµµÀÇ À¯Àϼº¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¼º°æÀÇ È®Áõ
Á¾±³È¥ÇÕÁÖÀÇ¿Í ´Ù¿øÁÖÀǸ¦ ´Ù·ç±â¿¡ ¾Õ¼­ ÀÌ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ½ÅÇÐÀû Â÷À̸¦ ÀçÈ®ÀÎÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ ÇʼöÀûÀÌ´Ù. Çϳª´ÔÀÇ Áֱǿ¡ ´ëÇÑ ´Ù¸¥ ¿ä±¸µé¿¡ ¸Â¼­ ±âµ¶±³±³È¸°¡ ½Å¾à½Ã´ëºÎÅÍ ¸ð´õ´ÏÁòÀû ½ÅÇÐÀÌ Áö¹èÇÏ´Â Çö´ë¿¡ À̸£±â±îÁö ¿¹¼ö ±×¸®½ºµµ°¡ ¶Ù¾î³­ ÁÖ¿ä À¯ÀÏÇÑ ±¸¼¼ÁÖ¶ó´Â Àý´ëÀû ÅëÄ¡Àڷμ­ÀÇ À§Ä¡¸¦ À¯ÁöÇϱâ À§ÇØ  ¾î¶»°Ô ³ë·ÂÇØ ¿Ô´ÂÁö¸¦ ±â¾ïÇØ¾ß ÇÑ´Ù.
¿¹¼ö²²¼­ Á¦Àڵ鿡°Ô ÀÚ½ÅÀ» ´©±¸¶ó°í »ý°¢ÇÏ´ÂÁö Áú¹®ÇϽŵ¥ ´ëÇÑ ½Ã¸ó º£µå·ÎÀÇ ´äº¯ÀÎ À¯¸íÇÑ °í¹éÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ ½ÃÀÛÇغ¸ÀÚ. º£µå·Î°¡ ¡°ÁÖ´Â ±×¸®½ºµµ½Ã¿À, »ì¾Æ°è½Å Çϳª´ÔÀÇ ¾ÆµéÀ̽ʴϴÙ.¡± ¶ó°í ´ë´äÇßÀ» ¶§, º£µå·Î´Â ¿¹¼ö´Ô ¾È¿¡¼­ Çϳª´Ô ÀÚ½ÅÀÌ ÇöÁ¸ÇÏ½É »Ó ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ¿¹¼ö´ÔÀÌ À̽º¶ó¿¤ÀÇ ¸Þ½Ã¾Æ ±¸¿øÀÚ½ÉÀ» ÀνÄÇÏ¿´´Ù(Gerhard MAIER 1987, S. 171-191.  Carsten Peter THIEDE 2000, pp. 49-64.  Oskar CULLMANN  31970.).  ¿¹¼ö´ÔÀº Áï½Ã ÀÌ ¹Ý¼®À§¿¡ ¿¹¼ö´ÔÀÇ ±³È¸¸¦ ¼¼¿ì°Ú´Ù°í ¸»¾¸ÇϽÉÀ¸·Î ¹ÝÀÀÇϼ̴Ù. ÀÌ·Î½á ±âµ¶±³±³È¸´Â ±×¸®½ºµµÀÇ ½Å¼º°ú ±¸¿øÀÇ ¿ìÁÖÀû Áߺ¸ÀÚ µÇ½Ã´Â ±×¸®½ºµµÀÇ ¼Ò¸íÀ» ¹Ï´Â ¹ÏÀ½ ¾È¿¡¼­ ±³È¸ÀÇ Á¤Ã¼¼ºÀ» ¹ß°ßÇÔÀ» ¿¹¼ö´ÔÀº ºÐ¸íÈ÷ Çϼ̴Ù.  ¿¹¼ö´ÔÀÇ ½Âõ ÈÄ¿¡ º£µå·Î´Â »êÇìµå¸° ¾Õ¿¡¼­(Çà4:12) ¡°´Ù¸¥ À̷νá´Â ±¸¿øÀ» ¹ÞÀ» ¼ö ¾ø³ª´Ï õÇÏ »ç¶÷ Áß¿¡ ±¸¿øÀ» ¹ÞÀ» ¸¸ÇÑ ´Ù¸¥ À̸§À» ¿ì¸®¿¡°Ô ÁֽŠÀÏÀÌ ¾øÀ½À̶ó(ÀÌÇÏ °³¿ª°³Á¤ÆÇ)¡±°í µÎ·Á¿ò ¾øÀÌ ´Ü¾ðÇÔÀ¸·Î½á ÀÌ »ç½ÇÀ» °ø°íÈ÷ ÇÏ¿´½À´Ï´Ù.
º£µå·Î´Â ¿©±â¼­ ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ °³ÀÎÀû È®½ÅÀ¸·Î¸¸ Áø¼úÇÑ °ÍÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï´Ù. ±×´Â ÇÏ´ÃÀÇ ÁÖ ¹Ù·Î ±×ºÐÀÌ À§ÀÓÇϽŠ¸í·É°ú ¶Ç ¸ðµç »çµµÀû ±³È¸¸¦ ´ë½ÅÇÏ¿© ¿¬¼³ÇÑ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ÀÌ ¼±¾ðÀº ´Ù¸¥ »çµµµé ƯÈ÷ ¿äÇÑ°ú ¹Ù¿ï¿¡ ÀÇÇØ ÀÌ·ç¾îÁø ¿©·¯ À¯»çÇÑ È®Áõ ¾È¿¡¼­ ´õ ºÐ¸íÇØÁø´Ù. ¿äÇÑÀº ¿äÇѺ¹À½¿¡¼­ ¿¹¼ö´ÔÀÌ Àڽſ¡ ´ëÇØ ÇϽŠ±× À¯¸íÇÑ È®ÁõÀ» ±â·ÏÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.  (¿ä 14:6): "³»°¡ °ð ±æ¾î¿ä Áø¸®¿ä »ý¸íÀÌ´Ï ³ª·Î ¸»¹Ì¾ÏÁö ¾Ê°í´Â ¾Æ¹öÁö²²·Î ¿Ã ÀÚ°¡ ¾ø´À´Ï¶ó." ¹Ù¿ïÀº °í¸°µµÀü¼­ 1Àå 22Àý ÀÌÇÏ¿¡¼­ "À¯´ëÀÎÀº Ç¥ÀûÀ» ±¸ÇÏ°í Çï¶óÀÎÀº ÁöÇý¸¦ ãÀ¸³ª ¿ì¸®´Â ½ÊÀÚ°¡¿¡ ¸ø ¹ÚÈù ±×¸®½ºµµ¸¦ ÀüÇÏ´Ï À¯´ëÀο¡°Ô´Â °Å¸®³¢´Â °ÍÀÌ¿ä À̹æÀο¡°Ô´Â ¹Ì·ÃÇÑ °ÍÀ̷εÇ, ¿ÀÁ÷ ºÎ¸£½ÉÀ» ¹ÞÀº Àڵ鿡°Ô´Â  ¡¦ Çϳª´ÔÀÇ ´É·ÂÀÌ¿ä Çϳª´ÔÀÇ ÁöÇý´Ï¶ó."
¿¹¼ö´Ô¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀÌ·± ¿µ°¨µÈ Æò°¡´Â ÁöÁöµÇ¾ú°í Ãʴ뱳ȸ ±³ºÎµéÀÇ ÀúÀÛµé°ú ±³È¸½ÅÁ¶µé ¼Ó¿¡¼­ ±³ÀÇ(±³¸®)ÀûÀ¸·Î È®ÀåµÇ¾ú´Ù.  ¿¹¼ö ±×¸®½ºµµ¸¦ ¹Þµé¾î ³ôÀÌ´Â Âù¾çÀÇ ¸»µéÀÌ °¡µæÇÑ ´ÏÄɾƽÅÁ¶¸¦ ÀοëÇϸé, "Çϳª´Ô¿¡°Ô¼­ ³ª¿Â Çϳª´ÔÀÌ½Ã¿ä ºû¿¡¼­ ³ª¿Â ºûÀÌ¿ä Âü Çϳª´Ô¿¡°Ô¼­ ³ª¿Â Âü Çϳª´ÔÀ̽ʴϴÙ. ±×´Â Çϳª´Ô¿¡°Ô¼­ Ãâ»ýÇÏ¼Ì°í ¸¸µé¾îÁöÁö ¾ÊÀ¸¼Ì½À´Ï´Ù. ±×¸®°í ¾Æ¹öÁö¿Í µ¿ÀÏ º»Áú(homousios)ÀÌ½Ã°í  ¡¦ "  
¼º°æÀÇ Áõ¾ð¿¡ µû¸£¸é ¸ðµç ÀüÅë½Å¾Ó°í¹éÀÇ ³ë¼±¿¡ ÀÖ´Â ¿ìÁÖÀû ±³È¸´Â ´Ù¾çÇÑ ¿ë¾î¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ¿© ¿¹¼ö´ÔÀÇ À§´ëÇÔÀ» Áõ¾ðÇÑ´Ù. ÁÖ±Ç, ¿ì¿ù, Á߽ɼº, ¿ÏÀü, º¸Æí¼º, ¹èŸ¼º µî.  ¿À´Ã³¯ ¿¹¼ö ±×¸®½ºµµÀÇ ¡°À¯Àϼº¡±¿¡ ´ëÇØ ¸»ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº º¸ÆíÈ­µÇ¾ú´Ù. À¯ÀϼºÀ̶ó ÇÔÀº ¿¹¼ö²²¼­ ŸÁ¾±³ÀÇ À§Àεé°ú ºñ±³ÇØ ´Ù¼Ò ´Ù¸£°Å³ª À¯ÀÏÇÏ´Ù´Â Á¤µµ¸¦ ÀǹÌÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï´Ù. ¡°À¯Àϼº¡±À̶õ ¿ë¾î´Â ¿¹¼ö ±×¸®½ºµµ²²¼­ ³Ê¹«³ª Ưº°ÇÏ°Ô ³ôÀ¸½Ã°í ±ÍÁßÇϼż­ Á¾±³»ç¿¡¼­ ´Ù¸¥ ¾î¶² Á¸Àçµµ ¹üÁ¢ÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» È®ÁõÇÏ´Â Àǹ̸¦ °®°í ÀÖ´Ù. ´Ù¸¥ ¾î¶² Á¾±³µµ Å©¸®½´³ª(ÈùµÎ±³), ºÎó, °øÀÚ, ¸ðÇÏ¸ä °°Àº ±× Á¾±³ÀÇ Ã¢½ÃÀÚ³ª ±¸¿øÀÇ Á¸Àç¿¡ °üÇØ ±×¸®½ºµµÀÇ À¯Àϼº¿¡ ÇÊÀûÇÏ´Â ¾î¶² ºñ½ÁÇÑ ¿äûÀ» ÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù.  
¹Ý¸é ¿ì¸®´Â ¿¹¼ö ±×¸®½ºµµ¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­ ù° ±×ÀÇ ÀΰÝ, µÑ° ±×ÀÇ »ç¿ª, ±×¸®°í ¼Â° ±×ÀÇ ½ÅÀÚµé°ú ÀڽŰúÀÇ °ü°è¿¡ ¼ÓÇÏ´Â »ïÁßÀû À¯ÀϼºÀ» ¸»ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù.

A. ±×¸®½ºµµÀÇ ÀΰÝ(person)ÀÇ À¯Àϼº
¿¹¼ö ±×¸®½ºµµ´Â ´ÜÁö Àΰ£ÀÎ °ÍÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï´Ù. ±×ºÐÀº ÀڽŠ¾È¿¡, »ïÀ§ÀÏüÀÇ ¼¼ ¹ø° À§°ÝÀ¸·Î, ¿ÏÀüÇÑ Çϳª´ÔÀÎ µ¿½Ã¿¡ ¿ÏÀüÇÑ »ç¶÷ÀÌ µÇµµ·Ï Çϳª´ÔÀÇ ¿µ¿øÇÑ ¾ÆµéÀÌ ¼ºÀ°½ÅÇϽŠºÐÀÌ´Ù. ±×ºÐÀº ¾Æ¹öÁö Çϳª´Ô°úÀÇ Ä£¹ÐÇÑ °ü°è ¼Ó¿¡¼­ »ç¼Ì´ø ¸ðµç ¿µ¿øÀÇ ½Ã°£¿¡¼­ºÎÅÍ ¼±ÀçÇϼ̴Ù. ±×ºÐÀº âÁ¶»ç¿ª°ú ±¸¿øÀÇ »ç¿ª ¸ðµÎ¿¡¼­ Áߺ¸ÀÚ°¡ µÇ¼Ì´Ù. ±×ºÐÀº »ý¹°ÇÐÀû ÇàÀ§·Î À×ÅÂµÇ¾î »ç¶÷ÀÌ µÈ °ÍÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ¼º·É²²¼­ µ¿Á¤³à ¸¶¸®¾Æ¸¦ µ¤À¸½ÉÀ¸·Î »ç¶÷ÀÌ µÇ¼Ì´Ù. ¿¹¼ö²²¼­ ÀÌ ¶¥¿¡ »ç½Å ³¯ µ¿¾È¿¡ ½Å¼ºÀÇ ¸ðµç Ã游ÀÌ À°Ã¼·Î °ÅÇϼ̴Ù(°ñ 2:9). ºÎÈ° ÈÄ Çϴðú ¶¥ÀÇ ¸ðµç ±Ç¼¼°¡ Çϳª´ÔÀÇ ¾Æµé ¿¹¼ö ±×¸®½ºµµ¿¡°Ô ÁÖ¾îÁ³´Ù. ¿Õµé ÁßÀÇ ¿ÕÀ¸·Î¼­ ±×ºÐÀº ¾Æ¹öÁöÀÇ ¿ìÆí ÇÏ´Ã º¸Á¿¡ ¾ÉÀ¸¼Ì´Ù. Á¾¸»¿¡ ¿¹¼ö´ÔÀº ¶¥À§¿¡ »ì¾Ò´ø ¸ðµç Àΰ£ÀÇ ¿ìÁÖÀû ½ÉÆÇ°üÀÌ µÇ½Ç °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ±×·¯¸é ±×ºÐÀº ¿µ¿øÅä·Ï ¿Ï¼ºµÈ Çϳª´ÔÀÇ ³ª¶ó¸¦ ÅëÄ¡ÇÏ½Ç °ÍÀÌ´Ù.  

B. ±×¸®½ºµµÀÇ »ç¿ª(work)ÀÇ À¯Àϼº
ÀÌ¹Ì Ã¢¼¼ ÀüºÎÅÍ ¼±ÀçÇϽŠ±×¸®½ºµµ´Â ±¸¿øÀÇ Áߺ¸ÀÚ µÇ½Ãµµ·Ï ¿¹Á¤µÇ¼Ì´Ù(µõÀü 2:5). À¯ÀϹ«ÀÌÇÑ ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î ±×·¸°Ô µÇ¼Ì´Ù.  ¼¼»óÀÇ Á˸¦ ¾øÀÌÇϱâ À§ÇØ Çϳª´ÔÀÇ ¾î¸°¾çÀ¸·Î Èñ»ýµÇµµ·Ï µÇ¾î ÀÖ¾ú´Ù(¿ä 1:29). ´Ù¸¥ ¾î¶² Á¾±³µµ Àΰ£¿¡°Ô °ª¾øÀÌ ÁÖ¾îÁø ±¸¼ÓÀ» ¹Ï´Â ºñ½ÁÇÑ ¹ÏÀ½À» °®°í ÀÖÁö ¾Ê´Ù. ±¸¼ÓÀº Á¾±³Àû ±¸¿øÀÚÀÇ µµ¿ò ¾Æ·¡¼­ Àΰ£ÀÇ Çൿ¿¡ ÀÇÇØ ÀÌ·ç¾îÁöÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù. ¾Æ´Ï´Ù. Àΰ£À» À§ÇØ ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ »ý¸íÀ» ÁֽŠ±¸¿øÀÚ¿¡ ÀÇÇØ ¿Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ´Ù¸¥ ¾î¶² Á¾±³µµ ±¸¼¼ÁÖÀÇ À°Ã¼Àû ºÎÈ°°ú ±×·Î ¸»¹Ì¾Ï¾Æ ±×¸¦ ¹Ï´Â ¸ðµÎ À§¿¡ ºÎ¿©µÇ°Ô µÈ ¿µ¿øÇÑ »ý¸íÀ» °áÄÚ ¾ËÁö ¸øÇÑ´Ù. ¿¹¼ö´Ô¿¡ ÀÇÇØ ÀÌ·ç¾îÁø ±¸¼ÓÀº ÀÌÇØÇϱ⠽¬¿î °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ±¸¼ÓÀº ÁËÀÇ ¼Ó¹Ú°ú »ç´ÜÀÇ ¾ï¾ÐÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ ±×¸®°í Á×À½ÀÇ ±Ç¼¼¿¡·ÎºÎÅÍ ÀÒ¾î¹ö¸° Àηù¸¦ ÀÚÀ¯·Ó°Ô ÇÑ´Ù.  ±×°ÍÀº ¼º·É´Ô°ú ºñõÇÑ Àλýµé°úÀÇ È­ÇØÀÇ ±âÃÊ À§¿¡¼­ ±×·¸°Ô ÇÑ´Ù. »ç¶ûÇÏ´Â ¾Æ¹öÁö·Î¼­ Çϳª´ÔÀº ÀÌÁ¦ ±×µéÀ» »ç¶û¹Þ´Â ¾Æµéµé·Î ±×ÀÇ ±³Á¦ ¼ÓÀ¸·Î ¹Þ¾ÆµéÀ̽ŴÙ.  ´õ ³ª¾Æ°¡ ÀÌ ±¸¼ÓÀº °á±¹ Àϱ׷¯Áø Àü ¿ìÁÖ±îÁöµµ ȸº¹½Ãų °ÍÀÌ´Ù(Acts 3:21).  

C. ±×ÀÇ ½ÅÀڵ鿡 ´ëÇÑ ±×¸®½ºµµÀÇ °ü°è(relation)ÀÇ À¯Àϼº
¿¹¼ö ±×¸®½ºµµ´Â ´ÜÁö °ú°Å³ª ¹Ì·¡ÀÇ ÇÑ Àι°·Î Á¸ÀçÇÏ´Â ¾î¶² À¯ÀÏÇÑ ±¸¼¼ÁÖ°¡ ¾Æ´Ï´Ù. ±×ºÐÀº ¸ð¹æµÇ¾î¾ß ÇÏ´Â Ãß»óÀûÀÎ ¸ðµ¨À̳ª µû¶ó¾ß µÉ µµ´ö¼±»ýÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ ¶¥À§ÀÇ ÃßÁ¾ÀÚµé·ÎºÎÅÍ ³Ê¹«³ª ¸Ö¸® ¶³¾îÁ®¼­ ¿ÏÀüÈ÷ ÃÊ¿ùÇϽŠ½Åµµ ¾Æ´Ï´Ù. ±×ºÐÀº Á¦ÀÚµéÀÇ »î°ú »ç¿ª¿¡¼­ ±×µé°ú Ç×»ó ÇÔ²² ÀÖ°Ú´Ù°í ¾à¼ÓÇϼ̴Ù. ±×ºÐÀº Á¦Àڵ鿡°Ô ¼º·É Áï Á¦ÀÚµé ¾È¿¡ °ÅÇϽðí ÀڽŰú Ä£¹ÐÇÑ °ü°è¸¦ âÁ¶ÇϽô ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ ¿µÀ» º¸³»½ÉÀ¸·Î ±×·¸°Ô Çϼ̴Ù(¿ä 14:16f). ¿¹¼ö´ÔÀº ½ÅÀÚµé°ú °³ÀÎÀûÀ¸·Î ¶Ç ÁýÇÕÀûÀ¸·Î ¿¬ÇյǼ̴Ù. ±×ÀÇ ¸öÀ̸ç, ÀÚ½ÅÀÌ ¸Ó¸®°¡ µÇ½Ã¸ç, ¿ì¸®°¡ ±¸¼º¿øÀÌ µÇ´Â ±³È¸ °øµ¿Ã¼·Î ÀνĵǽÉÀ¸·Î ¿¬ÇÕÇÏ°í °è½Å´Ù. °Å·èÇÑ °øµ¿Ã¼ ¾È¿¡¼­ ÁÖ´ÔÀº ±×ÀÇ »ì°ú ÇÇ·Î ¿ì¸®¸¦ ¸ÔÀ̽ŴÙ. ±×·³À¸·Î ¿ì¸®¿Í ½Åºñ·Î¿î ¿¬ÇÕÀ» ÀÌ·ç½Å´Ù. ÁÖ´ÔÀº ±×ÀÇ ±³È¸ÀÇ »ç¿ª°ú ÁÖ´ÔÀÇ ±ÇÀ§·Î ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ Àü·ÉµéÀ» º¸³»½ÉÀ¸·Î ±×ÀÇ ±¸¿ø»ç¿ªÀ» Áö¼ÓÇϽŴÙ. ±×ºÐÀº ¿ì¸®ÀÇ ¿°·Áµé¿¡ ´ëÇØ ¿ì¸®¸¦ À§·ÎÇϽðí, ¾Æ¹öÁöÀÇ ³ª¶ó¿¡¼­ ±×¿Í ÇÔ²² ´©¸± ¿µ¿øÇÑ °øµ¿Ã¼¸¦ ¿ì¸®¿¡°Ô º¸ÁõÇϽŴÙ.

¾î¶² ´Ù¸¥ Á¾±³µµ ±³È¸°¡ ¿¹¼ö ±×¸®½ºµµ¿¡°Ô ÁÖ´Â °Í°ú °°Àº Á߽ɼºÀ» â½ÃÀÚ¿¡°Ô ÁÖÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù. ¿¹¼ö¿¡°Ô¼­ ºÐ¸®µÇ¸é ±³È¸´Â ÇØüµÇ°í ¸» °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ÈùµÎ±³´Â °á±¹ ½ÅÈ­ ÀÏ»ÓÀÎ Å©¸®½´³ª ¾øÀ̵µ Á¸ÀçÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. ºÒ±³µµ °íŸ¸¶ ¼®°¡¸ð´Ï ¾øÀ̵µ µæµµ¸¦ À§ÇÑ ±æÀ» ¼ö·ÃÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. À̽½¶÷µµ Àڽź¸´Ù ¾Õ¼± ¿ª»ç»óÀÇ ¼±ÁöÀÚµéÀÇ ¿¹¾ðÀ» ÆÇ´ÜÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â À§Ä¡¿¡ ÀÖ´Â ¸ðÇϸä°ú ºÐ¸®µÇ¾îµµ ¾Ë¶ó¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Á߽ɼºÀÌ À¯ÁöµÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. »Ó¸¸ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó  ´Ù¸¥ ¾î¶² Á¾±³µµ ¿ì¸® ±âµ¶±³ÀÎÀÌ ¿¹¼öÀÇ °ø·Î·Î µ¹¸®´Â °Í ÀÌ»óÀ¸·Î ±¸¿øÀÇ ÀÌÇØ°¡´ÉÇÑ »ç¿ªÀ» ±× â½ÃÀÚ¿¡°Ô µ¹¸®´Â °æ¿ì´Â ¾ø´Ù. ´Ù¸¥ ¾î¶² Á¾±³µµ ±âµ¶±³°¡ ¿¹¼ö ±×¸®½ºµµ¿¡°Ô ÇÏ´Â °Íó·³ ±× â½ÃÀÚ¿Í ±×·¸°Ô ½ÇÁ¦ÀûÀÎ ¿¬ÇÕÀ» °æÇèÇÏÁö ¸øÇÑ´Ù. ºñ·Ï ¾î¶² À¯»çÁ¡µéÀÌ ³ªÅ¸³ª´Â °Í °°´õ¶óµµ, ´Ù¸¥ ¾î¶² Á¾±³µµ ±×¸®½ºµµ ¾È¿¡¼­ Çϳª´ÔÀÇ ¼ºÀ°½ÅÇϽÉÀ̳ª ±×ÀÇ À°Ã¼ÀÇ ºÎÈ°°ú °°ÀÌ ¿ª»çÀûÀ¸·Î  °æÇèµÇ°í ½ÇÁ¦ÀûÀ¸·Î ÀÔÁõµÈ °Í°ú °°ÀÌ, ±× â½ÃÀÚ¿¡ ´ëÇØ ÁÖÀåÇÏ°í ÀÔÁõÇÏÁö ¸øÇÑ´Ù. ¿¹¼öÀÇ ºÎÈ°Àº ¿ª»ç»ó À¯ÀÏÇÑ »ç°ÇÀÌ´Ù. ±× Áõ°Å´Â »çµµÀû Áõ¾ðµéÀÇ ½Å·Ú¼º¿¡ ÀÇÇؼ­¸¸ÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ¿¹¼ö²²¼­ ¸í¹éÇÏ°Ô »ì¾Æ ´É·ÂÀ» ÇàÇϽô ¸ðµç ±³È¸ ¾È¿¡¼­µµ ±× Áõ°ÅµéÀ» ¹ß°ßÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù.
±×·¯³ª ¿©ÀüÈ÷ ±×¸®½ºµµÀÇ À¯ÀϼºÀº ÀÏ´Ü ÀÌÀÇ°¡ Á¦±âµÉ ¶§ ¼Õ½±°Ô Áõ¸íµÉ ¼ö ÀÖÀ» ¸¸Å­ ±×·¸°Ô ºÐ¸íÇÏ°Ô ³ªÅ¸³ªÁö´Â ¾Ê´Â´Ù. ¹Ý´ë·Î °è¼ÓÇؼ­ ÀÇ½É µÇ¾îÁ³°í, ³íÀï µÇ¾îÁ³´Ù. º£µå·Î´Â ±×¸®½ºµµ¸¦ ¹Ï´Â Àڵ鿡°Ô º¸¹è·Î¿î °Ç¹°ÀÇ ¸ðÅüÀ̵¹¿¡ ºñÀ¯ÇÑ´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ¸»¾¸¿¡ ºÒ¼øÁ¾ÇÏ´Â Àڵ鿡°Ô´Â °ÅÄ¡´Â µ¹ÀÌ µÈ´Ù(º¦Àü 2:7f.). ±×·¡¼­ ±×¸®½ºµµÀÇ Á߽ɼºÀº óÀ½ºÎÅÍ ³íÀïµÇ¸ç Áö±Ý±îÁöµµ ¿©ÀüÈ÷ ±×·¸´Ù.  ±×·¯³ª Áö±ÝÀº »çµµ½Ã´ë¿Í´Â ´ëÁ¶ÀûÀ¸·Î ±×ÀÇ À¯ÀϼºÀÌ ¿ÜºÎÀο¡ ÀÇÇؼ­¸¸ Àǽɹ޴ °ÍÀº ¾Æ´Ï´Ù. ±³È¸ ¾È¿¡¼­µµ ÀϾ°í ÀÖÀ¸¸ç, À¯ÀϼºÀ» °í¼öÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â »ç¶÷µéÀº ¿©·¯ ¸é¿¡¼­ ÀڽŵéÀÌ ¼Ò¼ö ¿­¼¼¿¡ ³õ¿©ÀÖÀ½À» ¹ß°ßÇÒ °ÍÀÌ´Ù.  

II. ±×¸®½ºµµÀÇ À¯Àϼº¿¡ ´ëÇÑ »ïÁßÀû ³íÀï

A. µ¤¾î³õ°í ºÎÀÎÇÔ
±×¸®½ºµµÀÇ ±ÇÀ§ ¾Õ¿¡ °æ¹èÇϱ⸦ °ÅºÎÇÏ´Â °¡Àå È­·ÁÇÑ ¹æ½ÄÀº ±×°ÍÀ» ºÐ¸íÇÏ°Ô °ÅºÎÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ÀÌ°ÍÀº ¿¹¼ö²²¼­ ´ç½Ã ´ëºÎºÐÀÇ À¯´ëÁ¾±³ÁöµµÀÚµé·ÎºÎÅÍ ¹ÞÀº ¹ÝÀÀÀÌ´Ù. ¿Ö³ÄÇÏ¸é ¿¹¼ö´ÔÀº ±×µéÀÌ ÀڽŵéÀÇ ±ÇÀ§¸¦ ºÎ¿©ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â ±×µéÀÇ ½ÅÇÐÀû È®½Å¿¡ ±ÞÁøÀûÀ¸·Î µµÀüÇϼ̱⠶§¹®ÀÌ´Ù. ÀÌ°ÍÀº ±×µéÀÌ ¿¹¼ö´ÔÀ» ´ëÀûÇÏ°Ô ¸¸µé¾ú´Ù. °á±¹ ±×µéÀº ¿¹¼ö´Ô¿¡°Ô »çÇüÀ» ¾ðµµÇß´Ù.
¿äÁò ½Ã´ë¿¡ ±×¸®½ºµµÀÇ ¿ìÁÖÀû ¿äû(¼Ò¸í)¿¡ ºñ½ÁÇÏ°Ô ´ëÀûÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ ÀüüÁÖÀÇ À̵¥¿Ã·Î±â¿¡¼­ º¸ÀδÙ. ±×µéÀº ½Å¾Ó°í¹éÀÚµéÀ» Ç̹ÚÇÔÀ¸·Î½á ´ëÀûÇÑ´Ù. ¿¹¼ö´ÔÀº ±×°¡ ÀÌ ¶¥¿¡ °è½Ç ¶§¿¡ ÀÌ¹Ì ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ÀϵéÀ» ¿¹¾ðÇϼ̴Ù(¸¶ 16:2; ¿ä 15:20f.).  

B. ´Ù¿øÁÖÀÇÀû »ó´ëÁÖÀÇ
±×¸®½ºµµÀÇ À¯Àϼº¿¡ ¿¬°áÇÏ´Â ´Ù¸¥ º¸´Ù ¿Â°ÇÇÑ ¹æ¹ýÀº ±×¸®½ºµµ¿¡°Ô »ó´ëÀûÀÎ À§¾öÀ» ºÎ¿©ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ±×·¯³ª µ¿½Ã¿¡ Á¾±³»ç¿¡¼­ ±×¸®½ºµµ ¿Ü¿¡µµ ´Ù¸¥ ³î¶ó¿î Àι°µéÀÌ ÀÖÀ½À» ÀÎÁ¤ÇÑ´Ù. ÀÌ °æ¿ì¿¡ ¿¹¼ö´ÔÀº ´Ù¸¥ ¸¹Àº Á¾±³ »çÀÌ¿¡¼­ ½Å¾ÓÀû õÀç·Î ¾Æ¸¶ °¡Àå À§´ëÇÑ ÇÑ »ç¶÷ÀÌ µÈ´Ù. ±×·¸°Ô µÇ¸é ±×¸®½ºµµ¿¡ ÀÇÇØ °¡¸£ÃÄÁö´Â ±¸¿øÀÇ ±æÀº ¿¹¼ö¸¦ µû¸£´Â ƯÈ÷ ±âµ¶±³ ÀüÅëÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ ¿Â »ç¶÷µé¿¡°Ô´Â ½ÇÇö°¡´ÉÇÑ °ÍÀÌ µÉ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ´Ù¸¥ »ç¶÷µéÀº ´Ù¸¥ ´ë¾ÈµéÀ» ¸¸µé¾î ¸í¸íµÇ°í ±×µéÀÇ °æ¹èÀÇ ´ë»óÀ» ÅëÇØ ÆòÈ­¿Í ÇູÀ» ã´Â´Ù. ¿ì¸®´Â ±×µéÀ» Á¸°æÇؾßÇϸç, ÀÌ°ÍÀº ±×µé°ú »óÈ£ ÀÌÇØÇÏ°í Çù·ÂÇØ¾ß ÇÔÀ» ÀǹÌÇÑ´Ù.
ÀÌ°ÍÀº ¿À´Ã³¯ »ç½Ç»ó ¡°´Ù¿øÁÖÀÇ ½ÅÇаú ½Å¾Óµé¡±À» ¿ËÈ£ÇÏ´Â ±âµ¶±³ÇÐÀÚµéÀÇ ÀÔÀåÀÌ´Ù(John HICK (ed.) 1987. P. SCHMIDT-LEUKEL 1993,  pp. 354-360.). Á¸ Èø½º( John HICK (ed.) 1977.)´Â ±×µéÀÇ ÁÖ ´ëº¯ÀÚÀÌ´Ù.
¿À´Ã³¯ Á¾±³½ÅÇп¡´Â 3´ë ¸ðµ¨ÀÌ Àִµ¥(Peter BEYERHAUS 1996c, pp. 134-140.), ¹èŸÀû ¸ðµ¨, Æ÷°ýÀû ¸ðµ¨, ´Ù¿øÁÖÀÇÀû ¸ðµ¨ÀÌ´Ù. ¼¼ ¹ø° ¸ðµ¨ÀÌ ±× Áß¿¡¼­ ¿ìÀ§¸¦ Á¡ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ¿Ö³ÄÇϸé ÀÌ ¸ðµ¨ÀÌ ÆòÈ­·Î¿î °øÁ¸À» À§ÇÑ ¿ì¸®½Ã´ëÀÇ ¿ä±¸¿Í ÀÌÇØ ¸ðµÎ¿¡ ºÎÇյDZ⠶§¹®ÀÌ´Ù.

C. È¥ÇÕÁÖÀÇÀû ħ½Ä
±×¸®½ºµµÀÇ À¯ÀϼºÀ» ÇÇÇÏ´Â ¼¼ ¹ø° ¹æ¹ýÀº Èıâ±âµ¶±³ ¶Ç´Â À¯»ç±âµ¶±³ È¥ÇÕÁÖÀÇÀÌ´Ù. "È¥ÇÕÁÖÀÇ"¶ó´Â ¿ë¾î´Â(S. HARTMAN 1969.  A. Scott MOREAU in EDWM 2000, pp. 924 f.) ÀϹÝÀû ÀÌÇØ¿¡¼­ ÀÌ°ÍÀº ´Ù¸¥ Á¾±³µéÀ» È¥ÇÕÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ» ÀǹÌÇÑ´Ù(ÀÌ ´Ü¾î´Â ±×¸®½º¾î¿¡¼­ ³ª¿Â °Í °°´Ù. 'synkerannymi" = to mix. ´Ù¸¥ À̵éÀº Crete ¼¶¿¡¼­ ³ª¿Â °ÍÀ¸·Î º»´Ù. Å©·¹Å¸»ç¶÷µéÀº ¿ÜºÎÀÇ °øµ¿ÀÇ ÀûÀ» ÂѾƳ»±â À§ÇØ ÀϽÃÀûÀ¸·Î ¿¬ÇÕÇÏ¿© ºÎÁ·°£ÀÇ ºÐÀïÀ» Àؾî¹ö¸®´Â ½À°üÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù.). ÀÌ·± Çö»óÀº ´Ù¸¥ Á¾±³ ¹®È­°¡ °ãÄ¡°Ô µÇ´Â ¸ðµç °÷¿¡¼­ ÇÇÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù.  ±âº»ÀûÀΠŵµ´Â ¸ðµç Á¾±³Àû ¿µÀû üÇèµéÀº °°Àº º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê´Â ¿øõ¿¡¼­ºÎÅÍ ³ª¿Â´Ù°í °¡Á¤ÇÑ´Ù. À̸§°ú ÇüÅ´ ´Ù¸¦Áö ¸ô¶óµµ ¶È°°Àº °ÍÀ» Ç¥½ÃÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ±×·¡¼­ ±×µéÀº ÀÚÀ¯·Ó°Ô ÇÑ Á¾±³¿¡¼­ ´Ù¸¥ Á¾±³·Î ¿Å°Ü´Ù´Ò ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ·± ÀÏÀº ±×¸®½º¿Í ·Î¸¶ÀÇ ÆÇÅ׿ ½ÅÀüÀÇ ³²½Åµé°ú ¿©½ÅµéÀ» ¼¶±â´Â ·Î¸¶Á¦±¹¿¡¼­µµ ÀϾ´Ù. Á¦¿ì½º°¡ ÁêÇÇÅÍ°¡ µÇ°í, Æ÷¼¼À̵·ÀÌ ³ÜÃóÀÌ µÇ°í, Çì¶ó°¡  Áֳ밡 µÈ´Ù(Nathan  SÖDERBLOM (ed.) 1931,  pp. 300-302.   Hans CANCIC et. al. (ed.) 200,: p. 210.). ¸¶Âù°¡Áö·Î ¶óƾ ¾Æ¸Þ¸®Ä«¿¡¼­ ¿ò¹Ý´Ù(¹ø¿ªÀÚ ÁÖ -ºê¶óÁúÀÇ ¾ÆÇÁ¸®Ä« Åä¼Ó½Å¾Ó ¼º°ÝÀÌ °­ÇÑ ½É·ÉÁÖÀÇÀû ½ÀÇÕÁ¾±³(ã§ùêðóÎç)ÀÇ ÃÑĪ. ¿ò¹Ý´Ù¶õ ¿ø·¡ Àǻ硤ÁÖÀÇ(ñ±ì¢)¡¤Á¦»ç(ð®ÞÉ)¶ó´Â ¶æÀÌ´Ù.)°°Àº È¥ÇÕÁÖÀÇÀû Á¦ÀÇ°¡ µå·ÁÁø´Ù(L. WEINGÄRTNER 1969.). ¿¹¼ö´ÔÀº Àεð¾ÈÀ̳ª ¾ÆÇÁ¸®Ä«ÀÇ ¿µÀû ¼¼°è¿¡¼­ °¡Àå °­·ÂÇÑ Á¸Àç·Î ÀνĵȴÙ. ÀÌ·± °ÍµéÀÌ ½ÇÁ¦ ÇàÇØÁö°í Àִ ȥÇÕÁÖÀÇÀÇ °¡Àå ÀÚ¿¬½º·´°í ¼Ò¹ÚÇÑ ÇüÅÂÀÌ´Ù.
±×·¯³ª ¹æ±Ý ¼³¸íµÈ ÇüÅÂ¿Í Â÷À̳ª´Â ÀÎÀ§ÀûÀ¸·Î ¼³°èµÈ Á¤±³ÇÑ ÇüÅ°¡ ÀÖ´Ù. ±×°ÍÀº ±¸Ã¼Àû ¸ñÀûÀ» °®°í ´Ù¸¥ ÀÌÁúÀÇ Á¾±³¿Í À̵¥¿Ã·Î±âµéÀ» ÇÕº´ÇÏ·Á´Â ½ÃµµÀÌ´Ù. Á¾Á¾ »çȸÁ¤Ä¡ÀûÀÎ Àι°·Î¼­ º¸´Ù ³ÐÀº ÅëÀϼºÀÇ ¿µÀû ±âÃʸ¦ ¸¸µé·Á´Â ¸ñÀûÀ¸·Î ÀÌ·ç¾îÁø´Ù. ³ë»ó¿¡¼­ ¸¶Äɵµ³Ä ¿Õ°ú Á¤º¹ÀÚ ¾Ë·º»ê´õ ´ë¿ÕÀº(356-323 b.C.) ±×ÀÇ ´Ù¹®È­Á¦±¹ÀÇ ¿µÀû µµ´öÀû °á¼ÓÀ» Â¥¸ÂÃß±âÀ§ÇØ Á¦±¹¿µÅä¾ÈÀÇ ´Ù¸¥ ±¹°¡Á¾±³µéÀÇ ÅëÇÕü¸¦ ¸¸µå·Á°í ½ÃµµÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¿ì¸®´Â ÀÌ°ÍÀ» ÀǵµÀûÀΠȥÇÕÁÖÀǶó°í ºÒ·¯µµ ÁÁÀ» °ÍÀÌ´Ù.
ÀǵµÀû È¥ÇÕÁÖÀÇ´Â ³»ºÎ·ÎºÎÅÍ Å¸ Á¾±³¸¦ Á¤º¹Çϱâ À§ÇØ ´Ù¸¥ Á¾±³¿¡ ħÅõÇÏ·Á´Â ¾î¶² ÇÑ Á¾±³ÀÇ Àü·«À¸·Î¼­µµ ³ªÅ¸³¯ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ°ÍÀº ÀڽŠ¾È¿¡ ´Ù¸¥ °æÀïÀû Á¾±³ÀÇ ¼±º°µÈ ¿ä¼ÒµéÀ» Èí¼öÇÔÀ¸·Î ÀÌ·ç¾îÁø´Ù.  ÀÌ´Â ¿µÁöÁÖÀÇ Á¾±³Ã¶ÇÐÀÌ Ãʴ뱳ȸ ¾È¿¡ ½º¸çµé·Á°í ÇßÀ» ¶§ ÀÌ¹Ì ½Å¾à½Ã´ë¿¡ ÀϾ´Ù. ¿µÁöÁÖÀÇ´Â ±×¸®½ºµµ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Ã漺À» ´ÙÁüÇÏÁö¸¸ ±×¸®½ºµµÀÇ º»·¡ÀÇ ¸ð½ÀÀ» ¿µÁö¶ó´Â °¡°øÀÇ °è½ÃÀÚÀÇ ¸ð½ÀÀ¸·Î ¹Ù²Ù¾ú´Ù(F. BORSCH 1970.  R. M. GRANT 21969.  Hans JONAS 21963.).  ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ¹æ½ÄÀ¸·Î º¹À½Àº  °ÅÁþµÈ ±âµ¶±³ ÀÌ´ÜÀ¸·Î ºñƲ¾îÁú À§ÇùÀ» ¹Þ¾Ò´Ù.  ¿©±â¼­ ±×¸®½ºµµÀÇ À¯ÀϼºÀº ±×ÀÇ À̸§À» ´Ù¸¥ °³³äÀ¸·Î ¿À¿ëÇÔÀ¸·Î½á ºÎÀεǾú´Ù. ¿À´Ã³¯ È¥ÇÕÁÖÀÇ´Â ´ëü·Î ½Å-¿µÁöÁÖÀÇÀÇ ÇüŸ¦ µû¸£°í ÀÖ´Ù.
      
III. ´Ù¿øÁÖÀÇ¿Í È¥ÇÕÁÖÀÇ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¼º°æÀÇ ÅõÀï

A. ±¸¾à ¿¹¾ðÀÚµéÀÇ ÀüÅõ
ÁöÁ¸ÇϽðí À¯ÀÏÇϽŠÂü Çϳª´ÔÀ¸·Î¼­ ¿©È£¿Í Çϳª´ÔÀÇ ÀÚ±â°è½Ã¿Í À̱³Àû ´Ù½Å±³ »çÀÌÀÇ ´Ù¿øÁÖÀÇ ÅõÀïÀº À̽º¶ó¿¤ÀÇ Ãâ¾Ö±Á°ú ÇÔ²² ½ÃÀ۵ȴÙ. Çϳª´ÔÀº À̽º¶ó¿¤ÀÌ Çϳª´ÔÀÇ Ã¢Á¶ÁÖÀ̽ɰú Àü ÀλýÀÇ ¿î¸íÀ» ÁÖ°üÇϽô ÅëÄ¡ÀÚÀ̽ÉÀ» ¼±Æ÷ÇÏ´Â ¿­¹æÀÇ ÁõÀÎÀÌ µÇ±â¸¦ ¿øÇϼ̴Ù. ÀÌ´Â ½Ê°è¸íÀÇ Ã¹ °è¸í "³ª´Â ¿©È£¿Í ³ÊÀÇ Çϳª´ÔÀÌ¸ç ¡¦ "¿¡ ±×¸®°í À̽º¶ó¿¤ÀÇ Á᫐ °í¹é(½Å¸í±â 6:4,5)ÀÎ "À̽º¶ó¿¤¾Æ µéÀ¸¶ó ¿ì¸® Çϳª´Ô ¿©È£¿Í´Â ¿ÀÁ÷ À¯ÀÏÇÑ ¿©È£¿ÍÀÌ½Ã´Ï ³Ê´Â ¸¶À½À» ´ÙÇÏ°í ¶æÀ» ´ÙÇÏ°í ÈûÀ» ´ÙÇÏ¿© ³× Çϳª´Ô ¿©È£¿Í¸¦ »ç¶ûÇ϶ó"¿¡ Àß ³ªÅ¸³ª°í ÀÖ´Ù. ±¸¾àÀÇ ¿ª»ç¼­¿Í ¿¹¾ð¼­¿¡ ¾ð±ÞµÇ´Â °í´ë Çϳª´ÔÀÇ »ç¶÷µéÀÇ ¸ðµç ¿ª»ç´Â ÇϳªÀÇ ÁÖÁ¦¸¦ °¡Áö°í ÀÖ´Ù. ¿ª»ç¼­¿Í ¿¹¾ð¼­´Â ¾î¶»°Ô Çϳª´Ô²²¼­ ¹Ýº¹ÀûÀ¸·Î ±Ç¸éÇÏ½Ã¸ç ¶§·Î´Â ¡°èÇϽø鼭 ±×µéÀÇ ¸¶À½¿¡ ÀÌ Áø¸®¸¦ °¨È­½ÃÅ°·Á°í ³ë·ÂÇϼ̴ÂÁö¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ±â·ÏÀÌ´Ù.
Çϳª´ÔÀº ÀÚ½ÅÀ» ¡°°Å·èÇÑ ÁúÅõ¡±·Î ¿òÁ÷À̽ô Çϳª´ÔÀ¸·Î µå·¯³»±â¸¦ ¿øÇϼ̴Ù(Gerhard von Rad G. von RAD  51969: Vol. II, pp. 216-225: 'The First Commandment and Jahwes holy jealousy'.). Çϳª´ÔÀÇ Ã¢Á¶¿Í ±¸¿øÀÇ Àü °èȹÀº ÇÑ Çϳª´ÔÀ» âÁ¶ÀÚ¿ä º¸È£ÀÚ¿ä ±¸¼ÓÀÚ·Î ¿©±â¸ç ¿ÂÀüÇÑ Ã漺À» µ¹¸²À¸·Î Àηù°¡ ÁøÁ¤ÇÑ »îÀ» ¿µÀ§ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù´Â Çϳª´ÔÀÇ ¿µ¿øÇÑ ¹ý·É¿¡ ±âÃÊ






¹øÈ£
Á¦¸ñ
±Û¾´ÀÌ
µî·ÏÀÏ
Á¶È¸
1016  10¿ùÀÀ´ä(Çѱ¹±³È¸¿Í ¿©¼º¾È¼ö)-±èÁ¤¿ì ±³¼ö      ÇѺ¹Çù 2004/10/08 8964
1015  Çѱ¹º¹À½ÁÖÀÇÇùÀÇȸ 11¿ù ¿ù·Êȸ ¾È³»      ÇѺ¹Çù 2004/10/25 9544
 11¿ù ¹ßÇ¥(Á¾±³´Ù¿øÁÖÀÇ)-ÇÇÅ͹ÙÀ̾îÇϿ콺 ¹Ú»ç      ÇѺ¹Çù 2004/11/12 16653
1013  11¿ùÀÀ´ä(Á¾±³´Ù¿øÁÖÀÇ)-¹ÚÁ¾È­ ¸ñ»ç      ÇѺ¹Çù 2004/11/12 9245
1012  11¿ùÀÀ´ä(Á¾±³´Ù¿øÁÖÀÇ)-°­½Â»ï ¸ñ»ç      ÇѺ¹Çù 2004/11/12 9146
1011  <¾Ë¸²>12¿ù ÇѺ¹Çù¿ù·Êȸ-³ª±×³×·Î ¿À½Å ¿¹¼ö´Ô      ÇѺ¹Çù 2004/11/24 9570
1010  12¿ù¹ßÇ¥(³ª±×³×·Î ¿À½Å ¿¹¼ö´Ô)-ÀÓ¸íÈñ ¸ñ»ç      ÇѺ¹Çù 2004/12/10 9456
1009  12¿ù¹ßÇ¥(³ª±×³×·Î ¿À½Å ¿¹¼ö´Ô)-À̼±Èñ ¸ñ»ç      ÇѺ¹Çù 2004/12/10 8610
1008  12¿ù¹ßÇ¥(³ª±×³×·Î ¿À½Å ¿¹¼ö´Ô)-±è¼øÇÑ°£»ç      ÇѺ¹Çù 2004/12/10 8385
1007  12¿ùÀÀ´ä(³ª±×³×·Î ¿À½Å ¿¹¼ö´Ô)-ÀÌÁ¤ÀÍ ¸ñ»ç      ÇѺ¹Çù 2004/12/10 8991

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] 9 [10]..[110] [´ÙÀ½ 10 °³]

 
 
 
  ÇѺ¹Çù ¼º¸í¼­
[ÇѺ¹Çù] 2020³â 5¿ù ¹ßÇ¥
21TV À¯Åõºêä³Î ¿ÀÇÂÇÏ´Ù....
¿µ»ó ¼­ºñ½º°¡ ¾÷±×·¹À̵å ...
°¡À»À» ¿©´Â ¼ºÀü²É²ÈÀÌ ¼¼...