728x90
7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, oI would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if pthe law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, qseizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. rFor apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment sthat promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, tseizing an opportunity through the commandment, udeceived me and through it killed me. 12 So vthe law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version(Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2016), 롬 7:7–12.
하나님의 사람들의 삶 속에 율법의 자리??
율법이 죄냐? 그럴 수 없다. 율법이 아니고는 죄를 알지 못한다. 하지만 죄가 율법을 이용하여 내 속에서 탐심을 이루었다. 율법이 없을때는 죄가 죽은 것이지만 계명이 이르자 죄는 살아나고 나는 죽게 되었다. 그래서 생명에 이르게해야할 그 계명이 나를 죽음에 이르게 하는 것이 된 것이다. 하지만 그렇다고 해서 율법 자체가 악하거나 죄가 아니고, 계명도 거룩하고 의롭고 선한 것이다.
본문 7-25에서 바울은 1인칭 단수형을 사용하고 있다. 이것에 대한 여러 견해가 있는데 첫째는 자기 자신의 자서전적인 표현이라는 것, 둘째는 아담을 대표하는 것, 셋째는 이스라엘, 넷째는 모든 인류를 대표한다는 것이다. 이것에 대한 여러 견해는 아래와 같다 .
- First, there is the question of Paul’s switch to first-person singular forms in this section. There are four different theories regarding the identity of the speaker (see Fitzmyer 1993b; Moo 1996 for more extensive bibliography): (1) autobiographical—Paul is relating his own experience with the law and sin, either as he was growing up or more generally of his life as a whole (Hodge 1950; Dodd 1932; Murray 1968; Bruce 1985; Gundry 1980; Cranfield 1975; Morris 1988; Schreiner 1998); (2) Adam (especially vv. 7–12)—he is speaking of Adam’s experience in the garden (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Michel 1966; R. N. Longenecker 1964:88–95, Garlington 1990c:208–10; Stuhlmacher 1994); (3) Israel—the Irefers to Israel before and after receiving the law, especially her struggle with the law (Chrysostom; M. Black 1973; Käsemann 1980; Wright 1991:197–98; Karlberg 1986; Stott 1994; Seifrid 1992b; Moo 1996; Trudinger 1996); (4) general humanity—this refers not to anyone in particular but to all people who wrestle with God’s demands on them (Dunn 1988a; Fitzmyer 1993b). The second is unlikely because there is no type of Adamic Christology developed here (compare 5:12–21), and there is little evidence that Paul intended the Ito stand for Adam or to depict Adam as under the law. The third is very possible and definitely does fit the centrality of the law in this passage and the Jewish nature of 7:7–25, but it does not quite do justice to the whole passage (see the discussion in the next paragraph). The centrality of the law in chapter 7 does not prove that Paul has Israel in mind because the law is also central in chapter 8 (vv. 2, 3, 4, 7), a passage that no one doubts describes the Christian life. The best is a combination of the first and fourth views. Morris (1988:277) says, “In this chapter he keeps on using the first person singular pronoun though he has not done this since the opening of his letter.… Moreover, words like, ‘What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from the body of this death?’ (v. 24) are impossibly theatrical if they apply to the people, but not to Paul himself.” Yet it is equally unlikely that he is speaking only of himself, for the language broadens out to include all humanity. Therefore it is best to say with others (Cranfield 1975; Morris 1988; Stott 1994; Schreiner 1998) that Paul uses his own experience to describe the basic human situation. Garlington (1990c:199–202) follows Dunn (1988a) in interpreting this section via the doctrine of the two ages, i.e., the contrast between the old and new creations. Paul is being both autobiographical and typical as he describes the plight of all of us.
Grant R. Osborne, Romans, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 173–174.
7-8절) 율법이 죄인가? 그럴 수 없다. 율법으로 말미암지 않고는 우리가 죄를 알지 못한다. 율법에서 '탐내지 말라'라고 말하지 않았다면 우리가 탐심을 알지 못하였을 것이다. 그러나 죄가 계명으로 말미암아 기회를 타서 내안에 모든 종류의 탐심을 만들어 냈다. 율법을 떠나서는 죄는 죽은 것이기 때문이다.
탐심에 대한 금지는 도리어 금지한 것에 대한 욕구를 더하게 했다. 8절에서 죄가 죽었다라는 의미는 죄가 존재하지 않는다라는 의미가 아니라 죄가 활동하지 않고 잠복해 있다라는 의미이다.
- The prohibition against coveting exacerbated the desire for what was forbidden. Sin lies deadmeans that sin was latent rather than nonexistent.
Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2169.
앞서 5절에서 '율법으로 말미암는 죄의 정욕'을 불러 일으킨다라고 했는데 이에 대해서 7절은 그렇다면 율법이 죄인가?라는 질문을 던진다. 그리고 중요한 것은 이러한 질문을 던지는 것을 바울 개인으로 볼것인지, 아담으로 대표되는 인류 전체로 볼 것인지, 이스라엘로 볼 것이지에 대한 다른 견해가 있다.
- The question naturally arises from the claim of v. 5 (“sinful passions aroused by the law”) and the earlier series of negative comments on the law (v. 4; 3:20; 4:15; 5:20; 6:14–15). I … I.From this point to the end of the chapter, Paul uses the first-person singular (“I,” “me”). He is undoubtedly reflecting on (1) his own experience, but in keeping with first-century Jewish ways of thinking, his own experience is bound up with (2) his solidarity as a human being with Adam and his sin and with (3) his own people Israel. These three foci mingle in this passage. In this verse Paul is thinking of his own life but also of the experience of Israel as a whole: it was through the law that the Israelites became “conscious of [their] sin” (3:20).
Douglas J. Moo, “The Letters and Revelation,”in NIV Zondervan Study Bible: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 2304.
8절과 11절에서 사용된 기회라는 단어를 '아포르케'로 교두보라는 의미이다. 적국의 전장에서 전투를 수행하기 위해서 진지를 구축하는 것을 의미한다.
중요한 것은 규칙이 생기면 사람들은 무엇이든지 금지한 것을 행하고 싶어 한다는 것이다. 금지된 과일, 선악과가 더욱 달콤해 보이는 것이다. 인간의 관점에서 법은 후회를 일으키고 반역을 초래하는 제한이라고 실수로 보여집니다. 바울은 창세기에 기록된 아담의 첫번째 죄를 염두에 두었을 것입니다. 율법을 떠나서 죄는 죽었다는 의미에서 그것은 정의되지 않았고 그것은 기술적으로 존재하지 않는 것입니다. 빠르고 직선적인 화살이라고 하더라도 표적이 없으면 표적의 중심을 맞출 수 없습니다.
- Law defines sin. Apart p 164 from law sin exists but cannot be designated as “sin.” Without restriction there is nothing to break. Law provides the opportunity for sin’s nefarious activity.80 Sin seizes the opportunity and arouses within a person through the commandment all manner of evil desire.81 The point is often made that only after a rule is put in place do people want to do whatever it forbids. What Paul was saying, however, goes beyond the psychological observation that stolen fruits are the sweetest. From a human perspective law is mistakenly viewed as a restriction that in turn causes resentment and gives rise to rebellion. Paul may have had the Genesis account of Adam’s first sin in mind. Apart from law sin is dead in the sense that undefined, it technically does not exist (cf. 4:15). No matter how swift and straight the arrow, without a target there can be no bull’s-eye.
Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 163–164.
그럼에도 바울은 율법과 죄 사이의 관계를 매우 조심스럽게 규정해야 합니다. 그래서 그는 이와 연관된 두가지 거짓 요구에 응답함으로 율법은 죄가 아니지만 죄와 여전히 연관이 있음을 보여줍니다. 1) 일반적으로 그는 율법을 떠나사 죄가 무엇인지 아는 것은 불가능하다고 말합니다. 여기서 안다라는 의미는 지적인 앎이 아니라 경험적인 앎을 말합니다. 사람들은 죄가 무엇인지 정확히 깨닫지 못하지만 율법을 통해서 그것에 참여하게 됩니다. 2) 구체적으로 말하자면 바울은 10계명중에 탐심이라는 하나의 죄의 예를 듭니다. 율법이 "탐심하지 말라"라고 규정할 때, 바울은 그의 죄를 의식하게 되었을 뿐마ㄴ 아니라 그것에 더욱 끌리게 되었습니다. 어떤 이들은 이것을 성욕으로 좁히기도 하지만 이는 거의 모든 종류의 죄악된 용망을 포함합니다. 사실상 탐욕은 십계명과 유대교의 토라의 핵심으로 널리 간주되었습니다.
- Paul responds with his characteristic indeed(“certainly not”; see 3:4, 6, 31; 6:2, 15), showing his abhorrence at the very thought. Still, he must clarify the connection between the law and sin very carefully. So he responds to this false charge in two related ways, showing that while the law is not sin, it is still related to sin. (1) Generally, he says he would never have known what sin wasapart from the law. Here knownis experiential and not just intellectual. People do not just realize what sin is but actually come to participate in it through the law (as stated in 7:5). (2) Specifically, Paul then turns to a single example of sin from the tenth commandment, coveting. When the law specified, “Thou shalt not covet” (Ex 20:17; Deut 5:21), Paul not only became conscious of his sin but was more attracted to it. While some narrow this to sexual lust, it almost certainly encompasses all types of sinful desires. In fact, covetousness was widely regarded as the core of the Ten Commandments and of the Torah in Judaism (cf. 4 Maccabees 2:6; Jas 1:15; so Cranfield 1975; Fitzmyer 1993b).
Grant R. Osborne, Romans, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 175.
9절) 율법을 깨닫지 못했을 때에는 내가 살았는데 계명이 이르자 죄는 살아나고 나는 죽었다.
이것이 바울의 주관적인 경험인지 아니면 아담과 관련된 것인지는 분명하지는 않다. 아담과 관계된 것이라면 그가 하나님 앞에서 죄를 짓기 전의 하나님과의 관계임을 의미한다. 탐심에 대한 금지는 도리어 죄에 대한 욕구를 증폭시켰고 죄는 사망에 이르게 했다.
- If the verse relates to Paul, he is speaking of his subjective experience. If it relates to Adam, it refers to his relationship with God before he sinned. The prohibition against coveting stimulated the desire to sin, and sin in turn led to death.
Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2169.
- Paul may be reflecting on (1) his own state of relative “innocence” in childhood or before he came truly to understand what the law was requiring of him; (2) his solidarity with Adam, who was, indeed, “alive” before he disobeyed God’s commandment about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17; 3:1–7); or (3) his solidarity with the Israelites, who experienced a kind of “death” (v. 10) when God’s law came and branded them clearly as sinners (3:20; 4:15; 5:13–14).
Douglas J. Moo, “The Letters and Revelation,”in NIV Zondervan Study Bible: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 2304.
율법을 깨닫지 못했을 때가 언제인가? 율법에서는 13세 이전에는 이러한 책임이 없다라고 한다. 또는 율법을 받기 전의 인간의 상태를 의미하기도 한다. 바울의 경우에 다메섹 도상에서 주님을 만나고 회심하기 이전을 의미할 수도 있다 .
- There was a time, said Paul, when he was “alive apart from law” (v. 9). Some see here a reference to the time prior to his bar mitzvahwhen, at the age of thirteen, he assumed moral responsibility for his conduct before the law. Others take it in a general sense of all people before the giving of the law.82 Paul probably referred to his preconversion days before he had grasped the full scope and power of the law’s demands.83 He was, so to speak, “alive.”84 But now he understood from experience the power of sin to use the law for its own advantage. The commandment “came home to [Paul]” (Moffatt), and sin “sprang into life” (TCNT).85 With the coming of law, sin revived. Paul realized that p 165 apart from Christ he was condemned to death.86 He discovered that although the commandment was designed to bring life (Lev 18:5; Luke 10:25–28), it turned out to be a sentence to death (Rom 7:10). How did this happen? Sin deceived him (v. 11). The deceptive nature of sin runs throughout Scripture from the account of the fall (Gen 3:13) to the final days of human history (2 Thess 2:9–10).87 Elsewhere Paul counseled us to be aware of the schemes of Satan (2 Cor 2:11). Although defeated by Jesus’ death on the cross, Satan continues his wicked and deceptive plans, trying to subvert the best interests of God’s people. Paul pointed out that Satan’s ploy has been to convert an instrument intended for life (the law) into an instrument of death.
Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 164–165.
12절) 율법은 거룩하고 계명도 거룩하고 의롭고 선하다.
율법은 선하지만 여전히 악을 일으킨다. 10-11절에서 그 죽음이 그 계명을 통해서 왔다. 계명은 그 자체로 선함에도 불구하고 악에 사용되어 죽음을 이으킨다. 바울은 죽음을 일으키는 두가지를 말한다. 죄가 바고 그 실제적인 이유이고 율법은 그 수단적 이유이다. "세상을 향한 하나님의 신적인 계획에서 율법이 주장하는 기능은 마침내 하나님에 대항하는 죄의 악마적 성품의 가면이 벗겨질 때 성취되었습니다. 아담 이후의 세상과 각 개인의 상태는 하나님께 정면으로 대적하는 악마적 성경을 가지고 있습니다 "
- The twofold thrust in verses 7–12* (the law is good but still stimulates evil) produces a key question: Did that which is good, then, become death to me?It would be easy to conclude that the law, though good (v. 12), meant death. This in a sense restates the question of verse 7, Is the law sin?by asking further, Is the law death? In fact, verses 10–11 come close to saying just that, that death came through the commandment.With his characteristic Certainly not!(see v. 7) Paul forcefully dispels this erroneous thought. The villain is not the law but sin, which used the law as its agent in producing death. Once again (as in v. 11) the law is the instrument (through what was good)used by sin to produce death. In a sense Paul is laying down a twofold model of that which produces death—sin is the actual basis, and the law is the instrumental basis. So the blame for producing death falls squarely on sin. There are two divine purposes regarding sin here. First, God wants to “reveal” (the meaning of recognize) to everyone the true nature of sin. As neb says, its “true character” is “exposed.” Second, God uses the commandmentto prove to all that sin is utterly sinful,a strong idiom that means it is shown to be “exceedingly sinful” or “completely evil.” Through the law, the depth of its perversity is finally realized. Sin is recognizednot only to be sin but to be extremely so. In other words, it is absolutely opposed to God and opposed by God. This shows the law to be good,in that it exposes the deep underside of sin. Grundmann says it well (1964: 311, from Morris 1988): “The function which we assert the law to have in the divine plan for the world is finally achieved when sin is unmasked in its demonic character as utter enmity against God. The state of the world and each individual since Adam has a demonic character as directed against God.”
Grant R. Osborne, Romans, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 179–180.
'성경묵상 > 로마서' 카테고리의 다른 글
| 롬 7:21-25 하나님의 법과 죄의 법 (0) | 2018.04.25 |
|---|---|
| 롬 7:13-20 하나님의 사람에게 율법의 위치 (0) | 2018.04.23 |
| 롬 7:1-6 얽매였던 것에 대하여 죽음 (0) | 2018.04.19 |
| 롬 6:20-23 그러나 이제는 (0) | 2018.04.18 |
| 롬 6:15-19 의의 종인가 죄의 종인가 (0) | 2018.04.16 |