033 罗马书 7章18至25 与罪争战的苦
033 罗马书 7章18至25 与罪争战的苦
-
- 孩子:好天使与坏天使在脑海中出现。比喻的问题:出现的不是天使,而是善与恶在我们里面
- 孩子:不信耶稣的人，有没类似挣扎？有，但他们绝对不是为了顺服神而挣扎[1]。
- 小孩，你们若是没有重生。没有办法感受到圣经所讲的。当祷告求你能有信心信耶稣
- 罗 7:18-25
- V18 [2]我知道在我里面，就是在我肉体之中，没有良善，… [3]
- e.g.从圣洁生活的保罗的口而出，是令人惊讶的
- e.g.我们没有一人活的像使徒保罗一样爱主。他却说他肉体之中没有良善
- e.g.你如果觉得自己很好、没有什么罪。你已经被罪蒙蔽了！
- e.g.越是属灵、圣洁的人、反而会明白自己肉体之中没有良善[4]
- 问：为什么信主后的保罗，说他肉体之中没有良善[5]？
- 问：难道身体是邪恶的？Ans 不是指人的身体 ethical realm
- Ans 不是在讲身体是邪恶的。肉体来表达全人（理智、情感、意志）都堕落了
-
- V18… 因为立志行善由得我，行出来却由不得我
- e.g. 这都是我们会经历得到的
- 不可解释：信主后的意志都是百分之百好
- 注：因为我们违背神时，都是我们意志最后的决定
- 心里立志行很多的善。但最后没有行出来
- e.g.全体立志读经计划。 后来大多数都停止了
-
- V19 所以我愿意行的善，我没有去行；我不愿意作的恶，我倒去作了。
注：保罗不是在说每一次都是这样，而是有时经历到如此
问：有谁经历过“我愿意顺服神，最后却没有顺服”？
问：有谁经历过“我不愿意作违背上帝，我倒去作了”？
问：有谁愿意违背上帝的律法？
问：信主拥有新生命。却为何生活的如此矛盾？（V20）
-
- V20 我若作自己不愿意作的事，那就不是我作的，…
- 保罗绝不是在推卸责任，而是他要强调罪住在他里面
-
- V20而是住在我里面的罪作的。[6]
- （6:6）不再作罪的奴仆 （6:14）不再罪的权势之下（6:18）罪里得了释放
- 问：但罪依然躲在哪里？（7:17、7:20）罪继续住在我们里面
- 已然、未然的状态 already and not yet
- e.g.从罪的权势释放了，但依然有残余的罪住在我们里面。
- 不要以为只有自己与罪挣扎的很惨，其他人没有这样的问题！
- e.g.问题出在我们里面：所以，人、环境、遭遇，把我们里面的罪恶显出来。
- e.g.只有就像耶稣一样无罪的人，才能在任何环境、遭遇都按天父心意活
a.p.使徒保罗的一生是圣洁的，他的事奉也都是我们众人的榜样
-
- 保罗却说：他该做的他却不作。他不该作的却又去作。
- 问：到底他做了什么不该作的？或什么没有作？ （e.g.贪婪 7:8）
- 保罗没有告诉我们具体是什么
- 谨慎：任何人都不可把对方偶像化。认为那人是像天使一样完美
- e.g.我从前年轻时把一位牧师当成好像神一样。后来看见他许多软弱
- e.g.挪亚醉酒、亚伯拉罕隐瞒事实、摩西杀人(出2:14)、亚伦造偶像(出32:35)、大卫奸淫
- e.g.保罗与巴拿巴争论(徒15:39)、彼得三次不认主、彼得不敢与外邦人吃饭（加2:13-14）
- 基督徒应当要注目耶稣，不然有一天人会让我们失望，停止跟随耶稣基督。
-
- V22 按着我里面的人来说，我是喜欢上帝的律,
- 信主后,喜欢上帝的律 νόμος (V22这里是律法)[9]
- 不信主 8:7 与神为仇，也不服神的律法
- 我们喜欢圣经，因为我们爱神
- 耶31:33“但那些日子以后，我要与以色列家所立的约是这样（这是耶和华的宣告）：我要把我的律法放在他们里面，写在他们的心里。我要作他们的上帝，他们要作我的子民。
but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
-
- 另有一个律 = 罪的律 [12] like a power, a force that directs or controlling principle
- 有两个律争战 （心中的律 争战 罪的律）
- 问：心中的律指的是什么？
- Ans 心中的律 = 心中神的律 （V22 他心里面喜欢上帝的律法，耶31:33）
- Christian dilemma 基督徒每天的挣扎
- Pic 人好像要被两匹马撕开
- e.g.每天需要舍己、deny yourself
- 一生要面对罪的争战war ，而敌人是住在我们里面。
- 一些基督徒不明白自己，是有可能有多坏就多坏。
- 罪就伏在门口了；它要缠住你，你却要制伏它。创4:7（神劝该隐，后来该隐却把弟弟杀了）
- e.g.崇拜时被圣灵充满、信心满满。到了晚上或第二天，又回去以前的光景。
- e.g.忧虑、害怕、怨恨、苦毒、恼怒
-
- V25..可见,一方面我自己心里服事【顺服】上帝的律，另一方面我的肉体σάρξ sarx却服事【顺服】罪的律。 I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin
- 保罗感谢神后，总结了自己的经历[17]
- 心里服事上帝的律 vs 肉体σάρξ服事罪的律
- 这里V25肉体σάρξ，最好不要解释成人的身体。
- 因为理性、情感与意志依然有残余的罪的影响。amended 2019
- 保罗使用V25肉体σάρξ，可能只是用来表达那在在我们里面所要面对的张力 amended 2019
- 表达：他的心的最深处deepest longing是爱神的律法、愿意顺服上帝的律
- 明白：为什么爱主的基督徒拥有新生命后，依然可能犯罪。
- a.p.希望我们能建立彼此扶持的心
- 加 6:1 弟兄们，如果有人陷在一些过犯里，你们属灵的人，要用温柔的心使他回转过来，自己却要小心，免得也被引诱。2 你们各人的重担要互相担当，这样就成全了基督的律法。
总结：
-
- 信主之人，心里有神的律法
- 信主之人，都会面对与罪的律的征战
- 信主之人，会因与罪的律征战失败而痛苦
- 感谢上帝，我们是靠主耶稣基督我们得救赎
[1] Freud went so far as to talk about an inner “libido” (filled with primal desires) and a “superego” (the conscience filled with social and familial standards).
[2] Some interpreted saying Rom 7 did not promises victorious note as in Rom8, therefore Rom 7 is referring to an intermediate group of Christians who did not rely on the Spirit. e.g. John Stott，Mounce, R. H. e.g. Stott, J. R. W. says “The resulting defeat is not the law’s fault, for the law is good, although weak. The culprit is sin living in me (17, 20), the power of indwelling sin which the law is powerless to control. Not until Romans 8:9ff. will the apostle bear witness to the indwelling Spirit as alone able to subdue indwelling sin”
e.g. Mounce, R. H. states “Recognition of our inability to live up to our deepest spiritual longings (chap. 7) leads us to cast ourselves upon God’s Spirit for power and victory (chap. 8). Failure to continue in reliance upon the power of the Spirit places us once again in a position inviting defeat.95 Sanctification is a gradual process that repeatedly takes the believer through this recurring sequence of failure through dependency upon self to triumph through the indwelling Spirit.”
[3] V18-20 重复了V14-17 的概念。
[4] As a man nailed to the cross; he first struggles, and strives, and cries out with great strength and might, but, as his blood and spirits waste, his strivings are faint and seldom, his cries low and hoarse, scarce to be heard;—when a man first sets on a lust or distemper, to deal with it, it struggles with great violence to break loose; it cries with earnestness and impatience to be satisfied and relieved; but when by mortification the blood and spirits of it are let out, it moves seldom and faintly, cries sparingly, and is scarce heard in the heart; it may have sometimes a dying pang, that makes an appearance of great vigour and strength, but it is quickly over, especially if it be kept from considerable success. This the apostle describes, as in the whole chapter, so especially, Rom. 6:6.“Sin,” saith he, “is crucified; it is fastened to the cross.” To what end? “That the body of death may be destroyed,” the power of sin weakened and abolished by little and little, that “henceforth we should not serve sin;” that is, that sin might not incline, impel us with such efficacy as to make us servants to it, as it hath done heretofore. And this is spoken not only with respect to carnal and sensual affections, or desires of worldly things,—not only in respect of the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life,—but also as to the flesh, that is, in the mind and will, in that opposition unto God which is in us by nature. Of what nature soever the troubling distemper be, by what ways soever it make itself out, either by impelling to evil or hindering from that which is good, the rule is the same; and unless this be done effectually, all after-contention will not compass the end aimed at. A man may beat down the bitter fruit from an evil tree until he is weary; whilst the root abides in strength and vigour, the beating down of the present fruit will not hinder it from bringing forth more. This is the folly of some men; they set themselves with all earnestness and diligence against the appearing eruption of lust, but, leaving the principle, and root untouched, perhaps unsearched out, they make but little or no progress in this work of mortification. Owen, J. MORTIFICATION OF SIN IN BELIEVERS
[5] The principle Paul recognizes is that he is a man with two natures. One delights in the Law of God. The other wages war against God’s Law. The Christian is subject to two forces simultaneously and thus lives in a state of tension. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. (Galatians 5:17). Hughes, R. K. In response to this explanation, we must certainly agree that Christians are caught in the tension between the ‘already’ of the kingdom’s inauguration and the ‘not yet’ of its consummation, and that this tension can be painful. Stott, J. R. W.
[6] （重复V17）“不是我作的”保罗不是在推卸责任
[7] Most take it in the sense “principle” (NEB) or “rule” (JB), but others think the law of Moses is meant, as Moffatt, “So this is my experience of the Law …” (cf. RV mg. “I find then in regard of the law …”). Either is possible, but it seems more likely that Paul has in mind the law which he later calls “the law of sin” (v. 23).Morris, L.
[8] Paul sums up with a “law” which has caused some difference of opinion. Most take it in the sense “principle” (NEB) or “rule” (JB), but others think the law of Moses is meant, as Moffatt. Morris, L..
[9] He is contrasting the real Paul, the Paul who is known only in the deep recesses of the man, and who delights in the law of God, with that other Paul who so readily does the sin of which the real Paul does not approve. It is true that the regenerate Paul would abhor that evil, and it is also true that the respectable and intellectual Paul would abominate it. But would the unregenerate delight in the law of God? I doubt it. Morris, L..
On the former view, namely, that “the law” refers to the law of God, the thought would be as follows: “For me willing conformity to the law in order to do the good I find that the evil is present with me”. Hence what he finds is that evil is present notwithstanding his determinate will to the good which the law of God requires. This fits in well with verse 22 in which he defines this determinate will to the good as delight in the law of God after the inward man. And it is also in accord with verse 23 where the opposing law of sin in his members is called “another law” in contrast with the law of God which, up to this point it is maintained, is the only law referred to in the passage. There is, however, no conclusive objection to the other interpretation, namely, that “the law of sin” (vss. 23, 25) is in view here. Murray, J.
21. εὑρίσκω ἄρα τὸν νόμον τῷ θέλοντι ἐμοὶ ποιεῖν τὸ καλόν, ὅτι ἐμοί τὸ κακὸν παράκειται. One of the features which make the last five verses of chapter 7 specially difficult is the repeated use of the word νόμος (in vv. 21–23 and 25b), and it is τὸν νόμον which is the main problem of this verse. Many interpreters, both ancient and modern, have insisted that the reference must be to the OT law, but the various explanations of the verse which have been offered on this assumption are so forced as to be incredible.1 Moreover, since in v. 23 a law different from the law of God is explicitly spoken of, the possibility of explaining τὸν νόμον in v. 21 otherwise than as referring to the OT law is clearly open to us. And the presence of τοῦ θεοῦ after τῷ νόμῳ in v. 22 suggests the probability that νόμος has just been used with a different reference. Some have understood νόμος here in v. 21 in the sense ‘norm’ or ‘principle’. Thus NEB has ‘this principle’, and JB ‘the rule’ (which is explained in a note saying, ‘Lit. “law”, in the sense of regular experience’). But more probable is the view that by τὸν νόμον is meant that law which will be referred to more clearly in v. 23—the ἕτερος νόμος Cranfield, C. E. B.
“Law,” as here used, must mean something like operating rule or governing principle. Hendriksen, W., & Kistemaker, S. J
[10] There is, however, no warrant for supposing that the contrast between the “mind” and the “flesh” in verse 25 is that between “mind” and “body”. “Flesh” in Paul’s usage, when used with ethical purport (as obviously here), applies to the operations of what we call the mind as well as to those of the body. “Flesh”, ethically conceived, does not have its seat in the body and does not take its origin from the body as contrasted with the mind or spirit of man. We may not, therefore, try to find the meaning of “the inward man” of verse 22 in any metaphysical distinction between body and spirit, mind and matter. “The inward man” in this case must be interpreted in terms of this context, a context ethically complexioned from beginning to end. Murray, J.
The “members” in which the law of sin is said to reside will have to be taken in the sense of the same term in 6:13, 19. If the thought is focused on our physical members, as appeared necessary in the earlier instances, we are not to suppose that “the law of sin” springs from or has its seat in the physical. It would merely indicate, as has been maintained already, that the apostle brings to the forefront the concrete and overt ways in which the law of sin expresses itself and that our physical members cannot be divorced from the operation of the law of sin. Our captivity to the law of sin is evidenced by the fact that our physical members are the agents and instruments of the power which sin wields over us. But again we are reminded, as in 6:13, that, however significant may be our physical members, the captivity resulting is not that merely of our members but that of our persons—“bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members”.Murray, J.
[11] 保罗以前是自以为义，认为按律法是无可指摘（腓3:6）重生后的保罗才面对这种情景
[12] Both are said to be in our members and it would scarcely be possible to distinguish them. “The law of sin” should be taken, therefore, as defining for us that in which this other law consists. The law of sin is the law that proceeds from sin and which sin propounds. It is contrasted with the law of God and must be antithetical to it in every particular. Hence the apostle says, “warring against the law of my mind”. The law of the mind is not strictly parallel to the other law, “the law of sin”; the law of the mind is not the law that proceeds from and is propounded by the mind. It is rather the law of God as the law that regulates the mind and which the mind serves (cf. vs. 25)..Murray, J.
This law should be seen as the same as the law of sin, for it is highly unlikely that Paul thinks of two different hostile laws at work within his being. Law will be used in the sense “principle” or “rule of action”, though with the nuance that there is some element of compulsion (he is made prisoner). Morris, L.
[13] we must observe, that this conflict, of which the Apostle speaks, does not exist in man before he is renewed by the Spirit of God: for man, left to his own nature, is wholly borne along by his lusts without any resistance; for though the ungodly are tormented by the stings of conscience, and cannot take such delight in their vices, but that they have some taste of bitterness; yet you cannot hence conclude, either that evil is hated, or that good is loved by them; only the Lord permits them to be thus tormented, in order to show to them in a measure his judgment but not to imbue them either with the love of righteousness or with the hatred of sin. John Calvin
[14] The “heart-rending cry” cannot therefore be construed as one of despair; it must never be dissociated from the sequel of confident hope. Murray, J.
[15] But in the context it is better to see the word as referring to the physical body, which is characterized by death (cf. 6:12; 8:11). It is itself mortal, and it is that in which sin operates and so brings death to us. Morris, L.
[16] That it parallels 1 Cor. 15:57, where the hope of the resurrection is beyond question, is not by any means an unreasonable supposition. Murray, J.
[17] 注: 不能解释成：保罗的（善的）“心里”mind 是与（邪恶）身体敌对的。• 其实两律的争战都是在我们的心里 mind 发生的。其实全人：理智、情感、意志，都是被残余的罪影响。保罗可能只是使用肉体一词来表达那与心中爱神的律的相反状态。