رومية ٧:٧
تأمّل عميق بلغةٍ واضحة على هذه الآية. اقرأ الأصحاح
فَمَاذَا نَقُولُ؟ هَلِ النَّامُوسُ خَطِيَّةٌ؟ حَاشَا! بَلْ لَمْ أَعْرِفِ الْخَطِيَّةَ إِلاَّ بِالنَّامُوسِ. فَإِنَّنِي لَمْ أَعْرِفِ الشَّهْوَةَ لَوْ لَمْ يَقُلِ النَّامُوسُ:«لاَ تَشْتَهِ».
التفاسير
مقتطفات جُمعت من تفاسير منشورة لترسيخ القراءة.
What . . . then? Is the law sin? God forbid!--"I have said that when we were in the flesh the law stirred our inward corruption, and was thus the occasion of deadly fruit: Is then the law to blame for this? Far from us be such a thought." Nay--"On the contrary" (as in Rom 8:37; Co1 12:22; Greek). I had not known sin but by the law--It is important to fix what is meant by "sin" here. It certainly is not "the general nature of sin" [ALFORD, &c.], though it be true that this is learned from the law; for such a sense will not suit what is said of it in the following verses, where the meaning is the same as here. The only meaning which suits all that is said of it in this place is "the principle of sin in the heart of fallen man." The sense, then, is this: "It was by means of the law that I came to know what a virulence and strength of sinful propensity I had within me." The existence of this it did not need the law to reveal to him; for even the heathens recognized and wrote of it. But the dreadful nature and desperate power of it the law alone discovered--in the way now to be described. for I had not known lust, except, &c.--Here the same Greek word is unfortunately rendered by three different English ones--"lust"; "covet"; "concupiscence" (Rom 7:8) --which obscures the meaning. By using the word "lust" only, in the wide sense of all "irregular desire," or every outgoing of the heart towards anything forbidden, the sense will best be brought out; thus, "For I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not lust; But sin, taking ('having taken') occasion by the commandment (that one which forbids it), wrought in me all manner of lusting." This gives a deeper view of the tenth commandment than the mere words suggest. The apostle saw in it the prohibition not only…
افتح المصدر ↗To what he had said in the former paragraph, the apostle here raises an objection, which he answers very fully: What shall we say then? Is the law sin? When he had been speaking of the dominion of sin, he had said so much of the influence of the law as a covenant upon that dominion that it might easily be misinterpreted as a reflection upon the law, to prevent which he shows from his own experience the great excellency and usefulness of the law, not as a covenant, but as a guide; and further discovers how sin took occasion by the commandment. Observe in particular, I. The great excellency of the law in itself. Far be it from Paul to reflect upon the law; no, he speaks honourably of it. 1. It is holy, just, and good, Rom 7:12. The law in general is so, and every particular commandment is so. Laws are as the law-makers are. God, the great lawgiver, is holy, just, and good, therefore his law must needs be so. The matter of it is holy: it commands holiness, encourages holiness; it is holy, for it is agreeable to the holy will of God, the original of holiness. It is just, for it is consonant to the rules of equity and right reason: the ways of the Lord are right. It is good in the design of it; it was given for the good of mankind, for the conservation of peace and order in the world. It makes the observers of it good; the intention of it was to better and reform mankind. Wherever there is true grace there is an assent to this - that the law is holy, just, and good. 2. The law is spiritual (Rom 7:14), not only in regard to the effect of it, as it is a means of making us spiritual, but in regard to the extent of it; it reaches our spirits, it lays a restraint upon, and gives a direction to, the motions of the inward man; it is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the he…
افتح المصدر ↗7:7-25 Well then (see study note on 6:1): Paul has just said some rather negative things about the law, and he now explains how God’s law is good in order to guard against any notion that it is evil in itself.
افتح المصدر ↗الشواهد المتقابلة
مقاطع أخرى يربطها المجتمع بهذا المقطع أكثر من غيرها. انقر لتقرأها.
لأَنَّهُ بِأَعْمَالِ النَّامُوسِ كُلُّ ذِي جَسَدٍ لاَ يَتَبَرَّرُ أَمَامَهُ. لأَنَّ بِالنَّامُوسِ مَعْرِفَةَ الْخَطِيَّةِ.
لأَنَّ النَّامُوسَ يُنْشِئُ غَضَبًا، إِذْ حَيْثُ لَيْسَ نَامُوسٌ لَيْسَ أَيْضًا تَعَدٍّ.
لاَ تَشْتَهِ بَيْتَ قَرِيبِكَ. لاَ تَشْتَهِ امْرَأَةَ قَرِيبِكَ، وَلاَ عَبْدَهُ، وَلاَ أَمَتَهُ، وَلاَ ثَوْرَهُ، وَلاَ حِمَارَهُ، وَلاَ شَيْئًا مِمَّا لِقَرِيبِكَ».
أَمَّا شَوْكَةُ الْمَوْتِ فَهِيَ الْخَطِيَّةُ، وَقُوَّةُ الْخَطِيَّةِ هِيَ النَّامُوسُ.
لأَنَّ «لاَ تَزْنِ، لاَ تَقْتُلْ، لاَ تَسْرِقْ، لاَ تَشْهَدْ بِالزُّورِ، لاَ تَشْتَهِ»، وَإِنْ كَانَتْ وَصِيَّةً أُخْرَى، هِيَ مَجْمُوعَةٌ فِي هذِهِ الْكَلِمَةِ:«أَنْ تُحِبَّ قَرِيبَكَ كَنَفْسِكَ».
وَلاَ تَشْتَهِ امْرَأَةَ قَرِيبِكَ، وَلاَ تَشْتَهِ بَيْتَ قَرِيبِكَ وَلاَ حَقْلَهُ وَلاَ عَبْدَهُ وَلاَ أَمَتَهُ وَلاَ ثَوْرَهُ وَلاَ حِمَارَهُ وَلاَ كُلَّ مَا لِقَرِيبِكَ.
وَلكِنَّ الْخَطِيَّةَ وَهِيَ مُتَّخِذَةٌ فُرْصَةً بِالْوَصِيَّةِ أَنْشَأَتْ فِيَّ كُلَّ شَهْوَةٍ. لأَنْ بِدُونِ النَّامُوسِ الْخَطِيَّةُ مَيِّتَةٌ.
لاَ فِي هَوَى شَهْوَةٍ كَالأُمَمِ الَّذِينَ لاَ يَعْرِفُونَ اللهَ.
وَلكِنْ إِنْ كَانَ إِثْمُنَا يُبَيِّنُ بِرَّ اللهِ، فَمَاذَا نَقُولُ؟ أَلَعَلَّ اللهَ الَّذِي يَجْلِبُ الْغَضَبَ ظَالِمٌ؟ أَتَكَلَّمُ بِحَسَبِ الإِنْسَانِ.
وَقَالَ لَهُمُ:«انْظُرُوا وَتَحَفَّظُوا مِنَ الطَّمَعِ، فَإِنَّهُ مَتَى كَانَ لأَحَدٍ كَثِيرٌ فَلَيْسَتْ حَيَاتُهُ مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِ».