: LBN·»º pËÍmBÃQC BJÂÝA ÀÌf³M ľ

Ä___¦Ê ¼¾B___qÊ ¨n___N¾ S___ZJºA ... J___·ºA S___ZJºA Ah___Æ Ò___»¦ O___§»G *
.ôAfU ÐfÍU ÑUifI ŸËÌÊ ôAfU ÁBÆ ©Ëy˾
.iB·®CÊ WVY ľ ÈÍ® eiÊ B– ÒJ»³ºA ÅB™áAÊ J·ºA fdžA Ò»¦ ½fÌ SZJºA *
f_² È_ÂÝ ÔAißA ¼J³Â ¼I ,ÓCjºA Ÿ BïºB‘ B¾ ¼¶ |®jÂ Û Ah·ÆÊ *
.BÃÌCi °ºB‘ ľ ¼·º PB¾Êj‡A jv¦ Òz³ÂG
ÅD___¶Ê ,´²f___AÊ ¹iB___JA S___ZJºA Ah___Æ Ò___»¦ ΦÜB___I  J___N«¾ Ò___ÂG *
.BÆBnÂC B¾ ôAR¶ Ðl¶j¾ ÐR¶ ôAi˾C ξB¾C ~j¦ ôB§Ìjm ôBðÌjq
.Ñ®j§A Ÿ ÈÍ¿ÃÌÊ SYBJºA Ÿ ¹iBJÌ A *
( 1998/7/9 °ÌËm ÒÃI ÅAjð¾ pËÍmBÃQC )

: ÎIj«ºAÊ Î²jrºA PËÆܺA ”I ôAiAËY SZJºA AhÆ Ÿ Cj²G

Ò_YÊjºA PË_A Ò_ç¾ Ħ pf³A LBN·ºA Àö»¦ B¿¶ ,ôBÂj² ÄÌjr§ºA ¦ ,ÑÍn¶gËQiÝA ÔBIE À»ý§Ì
... A ¨Ã__u Ä__¾ PË__A oÍ__º " : Ñ__ÌfIÝA ÀÃ__ÇU Ÿ A Ä__¦ ½Bv__¯ÂáA ÓC ,Ñ__ÍðˆA È__J»ƒ Ïh__ºA ,Ïf__IÝA
O__»¿¶ AgG Ñ__ÍðˆA " ÅCÊ ,(24 : 2 ,12 : 1 Ñ__¿·Y ) "B__§ºA •G PË_ A ¼__ae oÍ__»IG fn__ Ä__·ºÊ
.(26 : 15 ˶1) "¼ðJÌ ,Êf¦ jaE P˝A " Ä·ºÊ ,(16 _ 5 : 1 ¨Ì) " ôBM˾ WNÃM [ÒNºA ÒÆ]
Ò·º" : ½ËmjºA oºËI À¯I pf³ºA `ÊjºA ½B² B¿¶ ,È®fÇ® ÈN¾BÍ²Ê LjºA PË¾Ê fnƒ B¾CÊ
ÐiB_¯·ºB® .(14 : 2 K_¦) ôB_ÍY ÅBn_ÂáA ij_Ê "oÍ_»IG ÓC ,PË_A ÅBð»_m Ⱥ ÏhºA ¹Ag P˝BI fÍJÌ
O_»N² Ò_NºA ,Ò_‡A PË_ÆܺA Ñ_§ÍJ iBÃI ÑNÕBA ѧÍJðºA ÉhÆ eB„G Ÿ B¿Æ ÑÌjrJºA ѧÍJ𻺠ÔAf¯ºAÊ
ÐB_͇BI À_ À_§ÂC iË_J³ºA Ÿ ÄÌh_ºAÊ ,P˝B_I PË_A Lj_ºA pAe B¾f_æ ,ÈVNÃ_M ÏhºA P˝AÊ BÂBÍða
"_ÇðM" Ÿ ,ôB_Í»ŒG ,Ò_Æ \Ín_A Áe ÐiB_¯·® .ÀÇÍ_® pf_³ºA `ÊjºA Ò÷mÊ ,ÈN¾BͳI ÑÌfIÝA
.ôB§¾ ѾBͳºAÊ fnVNºBI (26 _ 13 : 9 K¦ ) P˝A ľ ÑÌjrJºA ѧÍJðºA
xBv_² Ë_Æ ÑÍðˆA ÈJ»ƒ ÓhºA P˝A ÅC Àö»§Í® ,Òðm˺A iËv§ºA hþ ,Î_Ij«ºA PËÆܺA B¾C
Lj_ºA PË_¾ B¾C !!ÑÍðˆA Ä ×BˆA ¨®fÌ Ò·º ,ÒáA IfNºAÊ ÐeAiáA ľ ½èlþ ½eB¦
½f_I Ñ_I˳¦" ÅB_¶ KÍ»v_ºA PË_¾ ÅÝ ÔAf_®Ê ÐiB_¯¶ Ë_Ç® ,Î_Ij«ºA PË_ÆܺA fæ , KÍ»vºA Ò»¦
È__MifÆC Ïh__ºA ,È__³Y Ò__áA ½f__§ºA Ò®ËNn__Ì" ¸ºh__I Ò__·º Ä__IáA Ò__»¦ LßA Ä__¾ Ñ__ºèlþ ,"Ñ__I˳¦
!!!P˝A ´Í³ZNI ,jQ˺ ÄMiB¾ ½B² B¿¶ " ÎáA Kz«ºA CfÇÍºÊ ,ÑÍðˆA
!?¨JNM WÇþ ÓD®
 ‫ﺑﺤﺚ ﺇﳒﻴﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺁﺑﺎﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻻﻫﻮﺗﻲ‬
‫ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻭﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﳋﻼﺹ‬
‫ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻲ‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﻘﺪﱘ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﻨﻴﺢ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﺎ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﲏ ﺳﻮﻳﻒ‬

‫ﲝﺚ ﻭﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺩ‪ .‬ﻫـﺎﱏ ﻣﻴـﻨﺎ ﻣﻴﺨﺎﺋـﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺃﻏﻨﺴﻄﺲ )ﺃﻱ ﻗــﺎﺭﺉ(‬

‫ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻭﺩﺍﺭﺱ ﲟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻛﺎﻣﱪﻳﺪﭺ ﺍﳒﻠﺘﺮﺍ‬
 ‫ﺍﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻻ ﻣﻮﺕ ‪ ..‬ﻣﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﻻ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ!‬
‫‪ :‬ﺩ‪ .‬ﻫﺎﱐ ﻣﻴﻨﺎ ﻣﻴﺨﺎﺋﻴﻞ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺆﻟﻒ‬
‫ﲡﻬﻴﺰﺍﺕ ﻓﻨﻴﺔ ‪ :‬ﭼﻰ‪ .‬ﺳﻰ‪ .‬ﺳﻨﺘﺮ ‪ -‬ﻣﻴﺪﺍﻥ ﺳﻔﲑ ‪ -‬ﻣﺼﺮ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺕ ‪٢٦٣٥٨٧٩٧ - ٢٦٣٣٨١٣٧‬‬
‫ﺭﻗﻢ ﺍﻹﻳﺪﺍﻉ ‪١٩٩٦/٣٧٤٥ :‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻗﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱃ‪ISBN : 977-19-0430-2 :‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ‪ ٢٠٠٩ :‬ﻡ‬

‫© ﲨﻴﻊ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻊ ﳏﻔﻮﻇﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺆﻟﻒ‬

‫‪Divine Justice website.‬‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﻟﻬﻴﺔ‬

‫‪www.copticorthodox-divinejustice.com‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺑﻪ‪:‬‬
‫‪ _ ١‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺑﺄﻛﻤﻠﻪ ‪ PDF-Files‬ﻟﻠﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨـﺰﻳﻞ ﻭﺍﻹﻫﺪﺍﺀ‬
‫‪ _ ٢‬ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﳏﺎﺿﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺪﻳﻮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪ ٣‬ﺳﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ‪ ١٧ :‬ﻓﻴﺪﻳﻮ ﻛﻠﻴﺐ ‪ ١٠ x‬ﺩﻗﺎﺋﻖ ﻛﻞ ﺟﺰﺀ‪.‬‬
‫ﺳﺎﻋﺘﲔ ﺑﺎﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ‪ ١٢ :‬ﻓﻴﺪﻳﻮ ﻛﻠﻴﺐ ‪ ١٠ x‬ﺩﻗﺎﺋﻖ ﻛﻞ ﺟﺰﺀ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ‪:‬‬

‫‪www.youtube.com‬‬
‫” ‪“ Orthodox Divine Justice‬‬
‫‪ _ ٣‬ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﳏﺎﺿﺮﺍﺕ ﺻﻮﺗﻴﺔ ) ‪ (Audio‬ﳌﺪﺓ ‪ ٤‬ﺳﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻣﺪﺓ ﻛﻞ ﳏﺎﺿﺮﺓ ﺳﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭ‪‬ﺎ ﺣﻮﺍﺭ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪.‬‬
‫‪ _ ٤‬ﻣﻠﺨﺺ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻹﳒﻴﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ )‪ ٤٣‬ﺻﻔﺤﺔ( ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ ‪ The Atonement.‬ﻭﻣﻌﻪ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ ﻣﻠﺨﺺ‬
‫ﰱ ﺻﻔﺤﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻰ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﰉ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻌﺾ ﻣﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺳﺘﺘﻢ ﺇﺿﺎﻓﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﺘﻢ ﺇﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﳏﺎﺿﺮﺍﺕ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻴﺪﻳﻮ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺒﻼ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﲟﺸﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪.‬‬
‫‪ _ ٥‬ﳝﻜﻨﻜﻢ ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻞ ﺁﺭﺍﺀ ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻴﻘﺎﺕ ﻭﺃﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﰱ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﳌﺨﺼﺺ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺍﻟـ ‪ youtube‬ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﺼﻠﻜﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﻨﺼﻨﻊ ﺣﻮﺍﺭﺍ ﳌﺠﺪ ﺍﷲ ﳏﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪.‬‬
 ‫ﻗﺪﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺑﺎ ﺷﻨﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺑﺎ ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ ﻭﺑﻄﺮﻳﺮﻙ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﺯﺓ ﺍﳌﺮﻗﺴﻴﺔ‬

‫‪٣‬‬
٤
‫ﺻﻔﺤﺔ‬

‫‪١١‬‬ ‫‪.......................................................‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻘـﺪﱘ ‪ :‬ﺑﻘﻠﻢ ﺍﳌﺘﻨﻴﺢ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﺎ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻣﻄﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﲏ ﺳﻮﻳﻒ‬

‫‪٢٣‬‬ ‫‪...........................................................................................................................‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻘـﺪﻣﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪٢٥‬‬ ‫‪.........................................................................................................‬‬ ‫ـ ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﻛﺘﺒﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ؟‬
‫‪٣٥‬‬ ‫ـ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴـﺔ ‪ :‬ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻻ ﻣﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﻻ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﻘﻠﻢ ﺍﻷﺏ ﭼﻮﺭﭺ‬
‫ﻓﻠﻮﺭﻭﻓﺴﻜﻲ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﻴﺪ ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ﺳﺎﻧﺖ ﭬﻼﺩﳝﲑ‬
‫‪....................................‬‬

‫‪٣٩‬‬ ‫‪...........................................................................................‬‬ ‫ـ ﲤﻬـــﻴﺪ ‪ :‬ﺍﷲ ﻭﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‬

‫‪٥٩‬‬ ‫‪....................‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﳋﻠﻖ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‬
‫‪٦٢‬‬ ‫ـ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻤﻮﺍ ﺑﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫‪.............................................................‬‬

‫‪٦٤‬‬ ‫‪.........................‬‬ ‫ـ ﺍﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ﻟﻜﺮﺍﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ‬

‫‪٦٦‬‬ ‫‪........................‬‬ ‫ـ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫‪٧٨‬‬ ‫ـ ﻃﻬﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‬
‫‪................................‬‬

‫‪٨١‬‬ ‫‪......................‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ‪ :‬ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ )ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ(‬

‫‪٨١‬‬ ‫‪....................‬‬ ‫ﺃﻭﻻً ‪ :‬ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺇﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫‪١٠١‬‬ ‫‪....................‬‬ ‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ‪ :‬ﺭﺳﻢ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺗﻠﺨﻴﺺ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ‬
‫‪١٠٣‬‬ ‫_ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫‪.............................................................................‬‬

‫‪١٠٧‬‬ ‫_ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻟﻌـﺪﻡ‬

‫‪............................................................................‬‬

‫‪١١٠‬‬ ‫‪........................................................‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬

‫‪١١٢‬‬ ‫‪.....................................................................‬‬‫ـ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻯ‬
‫‪١١٥‬‬ ‫‪........................................................‬‬ ‫ـ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫‪١٢٣‬‬ ‫‪.................‬‬ ‫‪Discipline & Retribution‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘـﺄﺩﻳﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘـﻮﺑﺔ‬
‫‪١٢٨‬‬ ‫‪...............................................‬‬ ‫ـ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ‬
‫‪٥‬‬
‫ﺻﻔﺤﺔ‬
‫‪١٣٠‬‬ ‫‪.................................................................................................‬‬ ‫ـ ﺍﻟﱪﻛﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﳋﺎﻣﺲ‪ :‬ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫‪١٣٦‬‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺏ ﻷﺑﺪﻱ‬
‫‪................................................................................................‬‬

‫‪١٥١‬‬ ‫‪..........................................................‬‬

‫‪١٥٣‬‬ ‫‪..........................................................................‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻗﺺ‬

‫‪١٥٦‬‬ ‫‪..................................................‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ‪ :‬ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺮ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺻﻼﺣﻪ‬
‫‪١٥٧‬‬ ‫‪................................................‬‬ ‫ـ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﰲ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﳌﺰﺍﻣﲑ‬
‫‪١٦٢‬‬ ‫‪.........‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ‪ :‬ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺑﺮﻩ ﰲ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻭﺻﻼﺣﻪ ﻟﻠﺨﻄﺎﺓ‪:‬‬
‫‪١٦٣‬‬ ‫ـ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻋﺸﺮ‬
‫‪.......................................‬‬

‫‪١٦٤‬‬ ‫ـ ﺍﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬

‫‪.............................................................................‬‬

‫‪١٦٤‬‬ ‫ـ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻻﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺎﻝ‬

‫‪........................................................................‬‬

‫‪١٦٧‬‬ ‫ـ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻣﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﱀ‬

‫‪...............................................................‬‬

‫‪١٦٨‬‬ ‫ـ ﻗﺼﺔ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻣﺴﻜﺖ ﰲ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ‬

‫‪........................‬‬

‫‪١٦٨‬‬ ‫ـ ﺍﳌﻮﻋﻈﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﺒﻞ‬

‫‪.....................................................................‬‬

‫‪١٧٠‬‬ ‫ـ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺃﺟﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻮﺕ‬

‫‪.................................................‬‬

‫‪١٧٣‬‬ ‫‪..............‬‬ ‫ـ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﺑﺎﳊﺐ ‪ -‬ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺮﺍﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬

‫‪١٧٦‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ :‬ﻫﻞﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐﺻﻔﺔﻣﻦﺻﻔﺎﺕﺍﷲ؟‬
‫‪١٨٧‬‬ ‫‪...................................‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞﺍﳋﺎﻣﺲ‪ :‬ﻏﻀﺐﺍﷲﻋﻼﺝﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥﰲﻫﺬﻩﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫‪١٨٧‬‬ ‫‪..................‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ‪ :‬ﺍﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓﻋﻨﺪﺍﷲﻟﻴﺴﺖﻣﺜﻞﺍﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓﻋﻨﺪﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫‪١٩١‬‬ ‫‪...........................................‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻊ‪ :‬ﻣﻌﲎﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦﺍﻟﺬﻱﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎﺑﺴﺒﺐﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‬

‫‪٦‬‬
‫ﺻﻔﺤﺔ‬

‫‪١٩٧‬‬ ‫‪.........................‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺬﺑﺎﺋﺢ ﻋﻤﻮ ًﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﺋﻴﺔ‬

‫‪٢٠٠‬‬ ‫‪...................................................‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ‬
‫‪٢٠٢‬‬ ‫‪...........................................‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻣﻦ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻠﻢ‬
‫‪٢٠٨‬‬ ‫‪..............‬‬‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ :‬ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ )ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ(‬
‫‪٢١٤‬‬ ‫ـ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻯ ﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ »ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ« ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻣﻴﺔ‬
‫‪.......................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﳋﺎﻣﺲ‪ :‬ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‬

‫‪٢١٩‬‬ ‫ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ )ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ(‬
‫‪...................................................‬‬

‫‪٢٢٤‬‬ ‫ـ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﺎﻉ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺇﺷﺘﺮﻯ‬

‫‪...................................................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ‪ :‬ﻣﺎ ﻣﻌﲎ‪ :‬ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ »ﺻﺎﺭ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ« ﻭ ُﺟﻌﻞ‬

‫‪٢٢٨‬‬ ‫»ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ«‬
‫‪..............................................................................‬‬

‫‪٢٣٩‬‬ ‫‪........................................‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻊ ‪ :‬ﺍﻷﺻﺤﺎﺡ ‪ ٥٣‬ﻣﻦ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ‬

‫‪٢٤٣‬‬ ‫‪..........................‬‬

‫‪٢٤٥‬‬ ‫‪............................................‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﻭﺗﻔﺴﲑ )ﺷﺮﺡ( ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ‬

‫‪٢٤٨‬‬ ‫‪........................................‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ‪ :‬ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‬
‫‪٢٥٣‬‬ ‫‪......‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪:‬‬
‫‪٢٥٣‬‬ ‫‪ -١‬ﻕ‪ .‬ﺇﻏﻨﺎﻃﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻷﻧﻄﺎﻛﻲ‬
‫‪...........................................................................‬‬

‫‪٢٥٤‬‬ ‫‪ -٢‬ﻕ‪ .‬ﭘﻮﻟﻴﻜﺎﺭﭘﻮﺱ‬

‫‪..............................................................................................‬‬

‫‪٢٥٤‬‬ ‫‪ -٣‬ﻕ‪ .‬ﻳﻮﺳﺘﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﻴﺪ‬

‫‪..................................................................................‬‬

‫‪٢٥٥‬‬ ‫‪ -٤‬ﻕ‪ .‬ﺇﻳﺮﻳﻨﺎﺅﺱ‬

‫‪......................................................................................................‬‬

‫‪٢٥٦‬‬ ‫‪ -٥‬ﻕ‪ .‬ﻛﻠﻴﻤﻨﻀﺲ ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻱ‬

‫‪....................................................................‬‬

‫‪٢٥٨‬‬ ‫‪ -٦‬ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺃﻭﺭﳚﺎﻧﺲ‬

‫‪..........................................................................................‬‬

‫‪٧‬‬
‫ﺻﻔﺤﺔ‬
‫‪٢٥٩‬‬ ‫‪ -٧‬ﻕ‪ .‬ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺴﻲ‬
‫‪.............................................................................‬‬

‫‪٢٦.‬‬ ‫‪ -٨‬ﻕ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴـﺮ‬

‫‪................................................................................‬‬

‫‪٢٦٢‬‬ ‫‪ -٩‬ﻕ‪ .‬ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺰﻳﱰﻱ )ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ(‬

‫‪................................................‬‬

‫‪٢٦٦‬‬ ‫‪ -١٠‬ﻕ‪ .‬ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺫﻫﱯ ﺍﻟﻔﻢ‬

‫‪.........................................................................................‬‬

‫‪٢٦٩‬‬ ‫‪ -١١‬ﻕ‪ .‬ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺷﻠﻴﻤﻲ‬

‫‪..............................................................................‬‬

‫‪٢٧٠‬‬ ‫‪ -١٢‬ﻕ‪ .‬ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻱ‬

‫‪..............................................................................‬‬

‫‪٢٧٣‬‬ ‫‪ -١٣‬ﻕ‪ .‬ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻣﺸﻘﻲ‬

‫‪........................................................................................‬‬

‫‪٢٧٥‬‬ ‫‪-١٤‬ﻕ‪.‬ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ‪:‬‬

‫‪...............................................................................‬‬

‫‪٢٧٨‬‬ ‫ـ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ‬

‫‪.....................................‬‬

‫‪٢٨٩‬‬ ‫ـ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ‬

‫‪................................................‬‬

‫‪٣٠٢‬‬ ‫‪ -١٥‬ﻕ‪ .‬ﻣﺎﺭ ﺇﺳﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﱐ‬

‫‪.................................................................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ :‬ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﲔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬

‫‪٣٠٦‬‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪:‬‬
‫‪........................................................................................‬‬

‫‪٣٠٧‬‬ ‫‪-١‬ﺗﺮﺗﻠﻴﺎﻧﻮﺱ‬
‫‪...........................................................................................................‬‬

‫‪٣٠٧‬‬ ‫‪-٢‬ﻕ‪ .‬ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‬

‫‪................................................................................................‬‬

‫‪٣١٣‬‬ ‫‪-٣‬ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺃﺳﻘﻒ ﻛﺎﻧﺘﺮﺑﺮﻱ‬

‫‪..............................................................................‬‬

‫‪٣١٨‬‬ ‫‪-٤‬ﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﻛﻮﻳﲏ‬

‫‪....................................................................................................‬‬

‫‪٣٢٠‬‬ ‫‪-٥‬ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻭﻛﺎﻟﭭﻦ‬

‫‪.........................................................................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﳋﺎﻣﺲ‪ :‬ﳕﺎﺫﺝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‬

‫‪٣٢٥‬‬ ‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪:‬‬
‫‪..........................................................................................‬‬

‫‪٣٢٥‬‬ ‫ﺃﻭﻻً ‪ :‬ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﻤﺺ ﻣﻴﺨﺎﺋﻴﻞ ﻣﻴﻨﺎ‬

‫‪............................‬‬

‫‪٣٢٧‬‬ ‫‪............‬‬ ‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻟﻸﺏ ﻣﱴ ﺍﳌﺴﻜﲔ‬

‫‪٣٣١‬‬ ‫‪.......‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ‪ :‬ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﻳﻦ ﻟﻠﺘﻔﺴﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪٣٣١‬‬ ‫ـ ﻧﺒﺬﺓ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻭﺗﻄﻮﺭﻩ‬
‫‪..................................................‬‬

‫‪٣٣٤‬‬ ‫ـ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻪ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‪:‬‬

‫‪........................................................‬‬

‫‪٣٣٤‬‬ ‫‪ -١‬ﺍﻷﺏ ﭼﻮﻥ ﻣﺎﻳﻨﺪﻭﺭﻑ‬

‫‪........................................................................‬‬

‫‪٨‬‬
‫ﺻﻔﺤﺔ‬
‫‪٣٣٥‬‬ ‫‪ -٢‬ﺍﻷﺏ ﻛﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻮﺱ ﻭﻳﺮ‬
‫‪...........................................................................‬‬

‫‪٣٣٧‬‬ ‫‪ -٣‬ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﺱ ﻳﻨﺎﺭﺍﺱ‬

‫‪................................................................................‬‬

‫‪٣٤١‬‬ ‫‪ -٤‬ﺍﻷﺏ ﺟﱪﻳﺎﻝ ﺩﺍﱄ‬

‫‪..................................................................................‬‬

‫‪٣٤٣‬‬ ‫‪ -٥‬ﻗﺴﻄﻨﻄﲔ ﺗﺴﲑﭘﺎﻧﻠﻴﺲ‬

‫‪........................................................................‬‬

‫‪٣٤٤‬‬ ‫‪-٦‬ﺍﻷﺏ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻴﺪﻳﺲ‬

‫‪..................................................................................‬‬

‫‪٣٤٥‬‬ ‫‪...............................................................‬‬ ‫‪ -٧‬ﺍﻷﺏ ﭼﻮﺭﭺ ﻓﻠﻮﺭﻭﻓﺴﻜﻲ‬

‫‪٣٤٧‬‬ ‫‪ -٨‬ﭼﻮﻥ ﻛﺎﺭﻣﲑﻳﺲ‬
‫‪....................................................................................‬‬

‫‪٣٤٨‬‬ ‫‪ -٩‬ﺗﲑﻧﺮ‬
‫‪...............................................................................................................‬‬

‫‪٣٥٠‬‬ ‫‪ -١٠‬ﭼﲔ ‪ -‬ﻧﻮﻳﻞ ﺑﻴﺰﺍﻧﻜﻮﻥ‬

‫‪..........................................................................‬‬

‫‪٣٥١‬‬ ‫‪ -١١‬ﭬﲑﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ‬

‫‪..............................................................................................‬‬

‫‪٣٥٢‬‬ ‫‪ -١٢‬ﻛﻮﻟﲔ ﺟﺎﻧﺘﻮﻥ‬

‫‪..........................................................................................‬‬

‫‪٣٥٥‬‬ ‫‪ -١٣‬ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﺱ ﻳﻨﺎﺭﺍﺱ‬

‫‪.................................................................................‬‬

‫‪٣٥٧‬‬ ‫‪ -١٤‬ﺍﻷﺏ ﺩﳝﺘﺮﻱ ﺳﺘﺎﻧﻴﻠﻮﻱ‬

‫‪........................................................................‬‬

‫‪٣٦٥‬‬ ‫‪.................................................................................................................‬‬ ‫ﺻﻠﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻭﺱ‬

‫‪٣٧٠‬‬ ‫‪.................................................................................................................................................................‬‬ ‫ﺍﳋﺎﲤﺔ‬

‫‪٣٧٣‬‬ ‫‪..............................................................................................................................‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺟﻊ ‪ - :‬ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬
‫‪٣٧٤‬‬ ‫‪...................................................................................................................................‬‬ ‫‪ -‬ﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ‬

‫‪٣٧٩‬‬ ‫‪...........................................................................................................................................‬‬ ‫ﺃﻳﻘﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﻼﻑ‬

‫‪٩‬‬
١٠
 ‫ﺑﻘﻠﻢ ﺍﳌﺘﻨﻴﺢ ‪ /‬ﺍﻷﻧﺒﺎ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﲏ ﺳﻮﻳﻒ‬

‫ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﲝﺚ »ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ـ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻻ ﻣﻮﺕ‪ ..‬ﻣﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﻻ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ«‬

‫ﻟﻠﺪﻛﺘﻮﺭ ﻫﺎﱐ ﻣﻴﻨﺎ‬

‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪١‬ـ ﺍﻃﻠﻌﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ؛ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ‪:‬‬
‫‪Don’t create god in the image of man‬‬

‫‪٢‬ـ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻣﺘﺴﻊ ﻭﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻭﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻫﺎﻡ ﺟﺪﴽ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻮﰲ ﻫﺪﻓﻪ ﺑﺪﺭﺟﺔ ﺟﻴﺪﺓ ﺟﺪﴽ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﻭﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﱯ ﲟﺎ ﻭﺭﺩ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺠﺞ ﻭﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ‪.‬‬
‫‪٣‬ـ ﱂ ﺃﺻﺤﺢ ﺃﻱ ﺃﺧﻄﺎﺀ ﳓﻮﻳﺔ ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻮﺏ ﻣﲏ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﺧﻄﺎﺀ ﻗﻠﻴﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻻ ﲣﻔﻲ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﺍﳌﻘﺼﻮﺩﺓ‪.‬‬
‫‪٤‬ـ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ »ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﻛﺘﺒﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ« ﺟﺎﺀ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﺗﺼﺎﻝ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﺑﲔ ﻓﻜﺮ‬
‫ﻛﻨﺎﺋﺴﻨﺎ )ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳋﻠﻘﻴﺪﻭﻧﻴﺔ( ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﺟﺎﺀ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺫﻛﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺃﲰﺎﺀ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻭﺃﲰﺎﺀ ﺃﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻭﰲ ﺭﺃﻳﻲ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﻓﻀﻞ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺫﻛﺮﻫﺎ ﺑﺼﺮﺍﺣﺔ‬
‫ﻷ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺗﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺧﻂ ﻭﻣﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﳏﺪﺩﺓ ﳑﺎ ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻳﻌﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﳌﺤﺎﻳﺪﺓ‪.‬‬
‫‪١١‬‬
‫‪٥‬ـ ﺗﻀﻊ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺎﺋﺲ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳋﻠﻘﻴﺪﻭﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻘﻴﺪﻭﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺎﺋﺲ ﺍﳋﻠﻘﻴﺪﻭﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺰﻧﻄﻴﺔ ﱂ ﺗﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺇﻻ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺷﺮ ﻭﺗﻨﻜﺮﻩ ﺍﻵﻥ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﻗﺪ ﻫﺪﺃﺕ ﻛﺜﲑﴽ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻨﺎ‬
‫ﰲ ﳎﻠﺲ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺎﺋﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺴﻤﻴﺘﻬﻢ ‪ ،Chalcedonian Orthodox‬ﻭﳓﻦ‬
‫‪ .Non - Chalcedonean Orthodox Churches‬ﻭﻻ ﺃﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻌﻤﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻟﻴﴼ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻬﻢ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﰲ ﺃﺻﻠﻪ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﲔ ﺍﳌﺤﺪﺛﲔ ﺑﺪﺃﻭﺍ ﳚﺎﻫﺮﻭﻥ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﺑﺘﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻫﻢ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻴﻤﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻧﺸﺄﺕ ﺃﻭﻻً ﰲ ﺍﻻﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺧﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻣﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃ ـ ﰲ ﺧﻠﻔﻴﺔ ﻓﻜﺮﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﻭﻳﺔ ﻟﻸﻣﻮﺭ ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺧﻠﻔﻴﺔ ﻓﻜﺮ‪‬ﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﱂ ﺗﻨﺸﺄ ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﲔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ‬
‫ﺍﻧﻔﺼﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻗﺎﻧﻴﻢ ﻭﻛﻨﺎ ﺳﻌﺪﺍﺀ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻔﻆ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﱐ »ﺃﻗﻨﻮﻡ« ﻭﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ‬
‫ﻛﻴﺎﻥ ‪ entity‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ‪ .person‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﺎﺑﻠﻪ‬
‫‪ = Nomos‬ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﲞﻼﻑ ‪ = hypostatis‬ﺷﺨﺺ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺖ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺃﻗﻨﻮﻡ ﻭﻧﻮﻣﻮﺱ ﻇﻠﺖ ﺣﻴﺔ ﳉﻨﺒﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‬
‫ﻛﺜﲑﴽ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺎﻋﺐ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻱ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺭﺃﻳﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻲ‪ ،‬ﻷﱐ ﺃﻻﺣﻆ‬
‫ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎ‪‬ﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻘﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻇﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻗﺎﻧﻴﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺘﲔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺏ ـ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﻗﺎﻧﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻨﺎﺩﻭﻥ ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺩﺧﻠﺖ ﰲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻛﺘﺒﻨﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻛﺜﲑﴽ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﳊﺐ ﳚﺬﺏ ﻭﻳﺮﺑﻂ‪) ،‬ﻭﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ(‬
‫ﻭﻳﻮﺣﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺗﻘﺮﺏ ﺑﲔ ﺍﺛﻨﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻗﻴﻞ ﰲ ﺁﻳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻣﺜﻞ »ﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺣﺒﺒﺘﲏ ﺑﻪ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺇﻧﺸﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ« ﻓﻬﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ ﺃﻣﻮﺭ ﺇﳍﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺪﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺿﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﺎﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻵﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻭﺍﻻﺑﻦ ﺗﺒﺎﺩﻻ ﻭﺍﲢﺪﺍ ﺑﺎﳌﺤﺒﺔ!! ﺇﱄ ﺁﺧﺮﻩ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﲡﺮﻩ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ‪.‬‬

‫‪١٢‬‬
‫ﺟـ ـ ﺍﻷﻓﺮﺍﻁ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﻮﺯ‪ .‬ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻋﻨﺪﻫﻢ ﻳﺮﻣﺰ ﻷﻣﻮﺭ! ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻝ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﺍﻷﻭﱄ ﻟﻶﻳﺎﺕ ﺭﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﰲ ﻛﻨﻴﺴﺘﻨﺎ‬
‫ﲡﻌﻞ ﺍﳌﺆﻣﻦ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﴼ ﰲ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻗﺪﻳﺴﻴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺘﻔﺮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺃﻳﻘﻮﻧﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻴﺘﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﻧﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ »ﺻﻮﺭﺓ« ﺑﺪﻻً ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻗﻠﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻓﻼﻥ ﻓﺈ‪‬ﺎ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻳﻘﻮﻧﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻷﻥ ﺍﻷﻳﻘﻮﻧﺔ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺪﺷﻨﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﻌﺠﺰﺍﺕ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻓﻬﻲ‬
‫ﺇﻳﻀﺎﺣﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻢ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻠﻮﻥ ﺃﻳﻘﻮﻧﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﻖ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﴼ ﰲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻴﻤﻬﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﺧﺮﺝ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻫﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳍﻴﻜﻞ ﺇﱄ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺐ ﺣﺎﻣ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺎﺭﺓ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺃﻳﻘﻮﻧﺔ‬
‫ﺧﺮﻭﺝ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺇﱄ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻼﻣﻴﺬ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧﴼ ﻟﻺﳝﺎﻥ ﻓﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻘﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺣﲔ ﺩﻋﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻼﻣﻴﺬ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺘﺒﻌﻮﻩ‪ .‬ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﻛﺜﲑ‪ ،‬ﳚﻌﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﴽ ﻋﻦ ﻏﺎﻟﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺐ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﺧﻼﺹ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﳒﺪﻩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻄﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﺑﻂ ﺍﳌﺆﻣﻦ ﰲ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺖ ﻻ ﺃﻧﻜﺮ ﺃﻥ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﳌﺆﻣﻨﲔ ﻟﻠﻄﻘﻮﺱ ﻳﺒﻌﺪﻫﻢ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﴼ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻻﻧﺪﻣﺎﺝ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻋﻲ‪.‬‬
‫‪Theosis‬‬ ‫ﺩ ـ ﻛﺜﺮﺓ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﳍﻢ ﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﲟﻌﲏ ﺍﻧﺪﻣﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺇﱄ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﳊﺮﰲ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻ ﻳﺼﲑ ﺇﳍﴼ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﰒ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻮﺳﻊ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻳﺪﻳﻮﻟﻮﭼﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﳒﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻧﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺳﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺭﺗﻔﺎﻉ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﱄ ﺍﻷﻟﻮﻫﻴﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺣﺪﺙ ﰲ ﺑﻮﺫﺍ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺑﺮﺍﳘﺎﭬﲑ‪ .‬ﰒ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﻨﻮﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺃﻱ ﺇﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﳜﻠﺺ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺗﺮﻓﻌﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ...‬ﺇﱄ ﻏﲑ ﺫﻟﻚ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﺴﺘﺮﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﱄ ﻭﺿﻌﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻗﻴﺎﻡ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﺑﺈﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺧﻠﻘﻬﺎ ﺑﻨﻔﺨﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻳﺼﻠﺤﻬﺎ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺧﻠﻘﻪ ﺍﺑﻨﴼ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺇﳍﴼ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺴﺘﺮﺩ ﺇﱄ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﳌﺪﻗﻖ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺒﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪٦‬ـ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻧﻐﻤﺔ ﻗﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﺲ ﻭﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺘﻬﻢ‬
‫‪١٣‬‬
‫ﺗﺮﻭﻕ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺍﳊﺠﺞ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﺃﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺭﻱ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺟﻮﺍﻧﺐ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﳋﻼﺻﻲ ﻛﺎﳉﻮﻫﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﱪﻕ ﰲ ﻋﺪﺓ ﺯﻭﺍﻳﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃ ـ ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻋﻘﺎﺑﻴﺔ ‪ .Penal Judgment‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﻮﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﻖ ﺑﺼﻠﺒﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺏ ـ ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﻮﻳﻀﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳉﺮﳝﺔ ﻳﺘﻐﲑ ﺣﺠﻤﻬﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﺘﺪﻱ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﳉﺮﳝﺔ ـ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ ـ ﺿﺪ ﺍﷲ ﻓﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﻣﺴﺎﻭﻳﴼ‬
‫ﷲ ‪ .Penal compensation‬ﻭﻣﺜﻠﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻣﺴﺎﻭﻳﴼ ﻟﻠﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟـ ـ ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻄﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺒﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺨﻄﻴﺌﺔ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻘﺼﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﱂ‬
‫ﳝﺖ ﻟﻴﺪﻓﻊ ﺩﻳﻨﴼ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻟﻴﺨﻠﺺ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻪ ﳏﺎﻓﻈﴼ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻘﻠﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺣﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﻭﻛﺮﺍﻣﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﻀﺎﻝ ﺣﱴ ﲪﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻛﺘﻔﻪ‪ .‬ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﷲ ﺧﻠﻘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﻪ ﻓﻤﱵ ﺳﻘﻂ ﻳﺘﻘﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﻟﻴﻨﻘﺬ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﻴﻪ ﻣﻘﺪﺳﴼ ﺇﻳﺎﻩ ﺑﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺑﺎﺛﴼ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻓﻘﺪﻫﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩ ـ ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﲣﻠﻴﺺ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ .‬ﻓﻜﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻏﻠﺒﺘﻪ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﴼ‬
‫ﻭﺟﺴﺪﴽ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻻﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﻘﺪﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﴼ ﻭﺟﺴﺪﴽ‪ ،‬ﺍﲢﺪﺕ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺣﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻘﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺘﺤﻤﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺁﻻﻡ ﺍﳌﺨﺎﺽ ﺑﺄﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﻻﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫـ ـ ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺍﷲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻴﴼ ﲝﻜﻢ ﳏﺒﺘﻪ ﻟﻠﺨﲑ ﻭﲝﻜﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺗﻔﺮﻉ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﻘﺬﻩ ﻛﻤﺎ ﲤﺘﺪ ﺍﻟﻴﺪ ﻟﺘﺪﻓﻊ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﺷﺮﴽ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻟﺘﺨﻠﺼﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺮ ﻭﻗﻊ ﻓﻴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭ ـ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺇﻧﻌﺎﺵ ﻭﺗﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﻣﺴﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻫﺐ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﻭﺍﳊﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻣﺘﺠﻬﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﺘﻘﺪﺱ ﻭﺗﺘﺠﻪ ﻟﻠﺨﲑ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻧﺮﻓﺾ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﳜﺎﻟﻔﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ ﺑﻞ ﻧﻘﺒﻞ ﺍﻵﺭﺍﺀ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ‬

‫‪١٤‬‬
‫ﺃﻧﻘﻀﻲ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺍﳊﺮﻭﻡ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﳜﺎﻟﻒ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻊ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﻲ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺒﻄﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻌﺼﺐ ﺍﻧﺘﻤﺎﺋﻲ ﺑﻞ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻗﺘﻨﺎﻉ‬
‫ﺑﺄ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻛﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﺍﺕ ﻟﻠﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫‪٧‬ـ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻘﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﻮﺍﻣﺶ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺤﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺃﺭﺟﻮ ﺍﻻﻃﻼﻉ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻏﲑ‬
‫ﺃﱐ ﺃﻋﺮﺽ ﳌﺎ ﻭﺭﺩ ﰲ ﺹ ‪ ١٨٨‬ﲢﺖ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ »ﺧﻼﺻﺔ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ« ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻳﻘﻀﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﳏﺪﻭﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ....‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ‬
‫)ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ( ﻳﻨﻤﻮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﴽ »ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻪ ﺑﺎﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ«‪ .‬ﳓﻦ ﻻ ﻧﺘﺸﺒﻪ ﺑﺎﷲ ﰲ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﰲ ﳕﻮﺫﺝ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻼﰲ‬ ‫ﻼ ﻭﺭﺍﻋﻴﴼ ﻟﻮﺍﻟﺪﺗﻪ ﻭﳎﺎﻣ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﻭﻓﱵ ﻭﻋﺎﻣ ً‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺭﺿﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻋﺎﺵ ﻃﻔ ً‬
‫ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺳﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﻏﲑﻫﺎ ﳕﻮﺫﺟﴼ ﻟﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻨﺎ‪.‬‬

‫ﺃﱐ ﻣﻐﺘﺒﻂ ﺑﺎﻃﻼﻋﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺭﻙ ﻭﺍﳌﺪﻗﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺷﺮﻳﻄﴼ ﺳﺮﻳﻌﴼ‬
‫ﻋﺮﺽ ﺃﻣﺎﻣﻲ ﺃﻣﻮﺭﴽ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﺓ ﻛﺜﲑﴽ ﻣﺎ ﺃﻧﺴﺎﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﺍﷲ ﻳﺒﺎﺭﻙ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻭﻳﻨﻤﻴﻪ‬
‫ﰲ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺘﻪ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻗﻴﻊ‬
‫ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﲏ ﺳﻮﻳﻒ‬
‫‪١٩٩٨/٧/٩‬‬

‫‪١٥‬‬
١٦
١٧
١٨
١٩
٢٠
٢١
 ‫ـ ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﻛﺘﺒﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ؟‬

‫ـ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻻ ﻣﻮﺕ ﻭﻣﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﻻ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻘﻠﻢ ﺍﻷﺏ ﭼﻮﺭﭺ ﻓﻠﻮﺭﻭﻓﺴﻜﻰ‬

‫ـ ﲤﻬﻴﺪ ‪ :‬ﺍﷲ ﻭﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‬

‫ﳓﻦ ﻧﺆﻣﻦ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻫﻮ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﻭﺧﻼﺻﺔ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﺑﺈﺳﻢ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺣﻴًﺎ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﻳﺪﻳﻪ ﻭﺭﺟﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺟﺴﺪﻩ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻭﺍﳌﻔﺴﺮ ﳌﻦ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﳚﻴﺐ ﻋﻦ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻫﻮ ﺍﷲ؟ ﻭﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ؟ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﻭﻫﺪﻑ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ؟ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ؟‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﺇﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻹﺳﻢ »ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ« ﻫﻮ ﻣﻠﺨﺺ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻪ!! ﻓﻬﻮ ﺇﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺈﺑﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻛﺈﺑﻦ ﻟﻶﺏ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ُﻣﺴﺢ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻹﺳﻢ‬
‫ﻳﻀﻢ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﺃﻟﻮﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻳﻀﻢ ﺃﲰﺎﺀ ﺃﻗﺎﻧﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﻓﻴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻭﺛﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺔ‬
‫ﳓﻦ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻧﻜﺘﺐ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﰲ ﺗﺮﺍﺛﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ً‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﱵ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﲨﻴ ًﻌﺎ ﻛﻤﺴﻴﺤﻴﲔ ﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺇﳝﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻨﺎ ﰲ ﻳﻮﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻳﺎﻡ ﻛﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺇﻧﻘﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻣﺲ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﺇﻧﻘﺴﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻓﺈﻧﻘﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ .‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺇﻧﻘﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻣﺲ ﺣﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ‪ Christology‬ﰲ ﳎﻤﻊ ﺧﻠﻘﻴﺪﻭﻧﻴﺔ ‪٤٥١‬ﻡ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺇﻧﻘﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﺸﺮ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻄﻨﻄﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺭﻭﻣﺎ‪ .‬ﰒ ﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻓﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﻘﺴﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺑﲔ ﺭﻭﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻭﺣﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﱴ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻇﻞ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﻭﺍﺣ ًﺪﺍ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﱪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﻘﺎﻭﻱ‬
‫)‪٣٨١ -٣٢٥‬ﻡ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﺳﺎﺩ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺎﺋﺲ؛ ﺣﱴ ﺍﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺈﻧﺒﺜﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ »ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻭﺍﻹﺑﻦ« "‪ "Filioqe‬ﻇﻠﺖ ﻣﻌﺮﻭﻓﺔ ﰲ ﺿﻤﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺎﺋﺲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺇﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﲤﺜﻞ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻧﺮﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺮﺍﺛﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻧﺪﺍﺀ ﺑﺪﺃ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺼﻒ ﻗﺮﻥ‬

‫‪٢٥‬‬
‫ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﳌﻬﺎﺟﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺱ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﺮﻛﻮﺍ ﺑﻼﺩﻫﻢ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻋﻘﺐ‬
‫ﺃﻛﱪ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺇﺿﻄﻬﺎﺩ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﲢﺖ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺜﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻮﻋﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻔﻮﻕ ﻋﺪﺩ ﺿﺤﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﻋﺪﺩ ﺿﺤﺎﻳﺎ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻌﺮﻓﻪ ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﳊﺮﻭﺏ!‬
‫ﻭﺑﺪﺃﺕ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﳌﻬﺎﺟﺮﻳﻦ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﺳﺲ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﻣﺮﺍﻛﺰ ﻟﻸﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﰲ ﺑﺎﺭﻳﺲ ﻭﻧﻴﻮﻳﻮﺭﻙ ﻭﺃﻛﺴﻔﻮﺭﺩ‬
‫ﻭﻏﲑﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺪﺃﺕ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﺗﺼﻞ ﺇﻟﻴﻨﺎ ﰲ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻣﻊ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺜﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺎﺕ ﺃﻭﺭﺑﺎ ﻭﺃﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺇﻧﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺎﺋﺲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﺟﺎﺀﺕ ﺑﻪ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻜﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﳑﺜﻠﺔ ﰲ ﳎﻠﺲ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺎﺋﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌﻲ ﻭﺳﻜﺮﺗﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺭﻭﻣﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺧﺮﺝ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺰﻟﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﺇﺑﺘﺪﺍﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻤﺴﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ‬
‫‪ ،٢٠‬ﻭﻭﺻﻠﺖ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺑﺎﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺼﺮ‪ .‬ﰒ ﺑﺪﺃﺕ‬
‫ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﻇﻬﺮ ﻋﻤﻖ ﻭﲨﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺑﻈﻬﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺃﻭﻝ ﻃﺒﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ » ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺓ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ « ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻓﺘﺤﺖ ﺍﻷﻋﲔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻠﻮﺏ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻨﻮﺯ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﳛﻤﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻖ ﻟﻺﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﻨﺎ ﺇﳕﺎ ﻧﺴﺘﺸﻌﺮﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺘﻮﺭﭼﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﺑﻘﺖ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﻣﻨﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻏﺎﺏ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺣﻔﻈﺖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﻧﻘﻠﺘﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺻﻮﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ!!‬
‫ﻭﱂ ﻳﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﺗﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﺑﻞ ﺗﺪﻓﻖ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺑﺪﺃﺕ ‪‬ﻀﺔ ﺭﻭﺣﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺃﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﻴﺒﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺪ ﺳﺒﻘﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪﺓ ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﻗﻠﻴﻠﺔ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ‪‬ﻀﺔ ﻗﻮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﻣﺪﺍﺭﺱ ﺍﻷﺣﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺭﺍﺋﺪﻫﺎ ﺍﻷﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺣﺒﻴﺐ ﺟﺮﺟﺲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻏﺮﻳﺒًﺎ ﻣﻴﻼﺩ ‪‬ﻀﺔ ﺃﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻭﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒًﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻘﺪ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻛﻨﺎﺋﺲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺔ ﲢﺖ ﺿﻐﻂ ﺭﻭﺣﻲ ﻭﻓﻜﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺟﺎﺀﺕ ﺍﻹﺭﺳﺎﻟﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﺘﻴﺔ ‪‬ﺪﻑ ﺿﻢ ﻛﻨﺎﺋﺲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺇﺻﻄﺪﻣﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺭﺳﺎﻟﻴﺎﺕ ﺑﻘﺎﺩﺓ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺎﺋﺲ ﻭﻧﺸﺄ ﺣﻮﺍﺭ ﻋﻨﻴﻒ ﰲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ‬
‫ﻏﺮﻳﺒًﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﺭﺳﺎﻟﻴﺎﺕ ﺑﻨﺸﺮ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺩﻓﺎﻋﻴﺔ ‪‬ﺎﺟﻢ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻏﺮﻳﺒًﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﻞ ﰒ ﻣﻄﺒﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﻮﺓ ﻭﻏﲑﻫﻢ ﺑﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪.‬‬

‫‪٢٦‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳍﺠﻮﻡ‪ .‬ﻭﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺪﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻫﺎﲨﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﺃ‪‬ﻢ ﻳﺪﻓﻌﻮﻥ ﻛﻨﺎﺋﺲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﺗﺮﺍﺛﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻫﺎﲨﻮﺍ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﺇﻋﺘﻤﺪﻭﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻭﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ! ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳًﺎ ً‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻟﻔﺤﺺ ﺩﻋﺎﻭﻱ ﺍﳌﻬﺎﲨﲔ!! ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻋﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻲ ﰲ ﻣﺼﺮ ‪ :‬ﻟﻠﻘﻤﺺ ﻣﻨﺴﻲ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﻧﺒﺎ ﺇﻳﺴﻴﺬﻭﺭﺱ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺒﻄﺎﺭﻛﺔ‪.....‬‬
‫ﺍﱁ‪ .‬ﻭﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺗﺮﲨﺎﺕ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﰒ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ »ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ« ﻭﳎﻠﺔ »ﻣﺪﺍﺭﺱ ﺍﻷﺣﺪ«‬
‫ﺗﻨﺸﺮ ﺗﺮﲨﺎﺕ ﻭﻣﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﻣﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺳﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺇﺯﺩﺍﺩﺕ ﺍﻹﺗﺼﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﺎﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻲ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺘﻤﻨﺎﻩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺮﺃ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺈﺯﺩﻳﺎﺩ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻘﺮﺃﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺑﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻌﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺒﻘﻲ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺘﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﳏﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺻﺪﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻣﺼﺮ‬
‫ﻭﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻏﺮﻳﺒًﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﻱ ﰲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﺎﺏ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻭﳎﻠﺪﺍﺕ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﳍﻢ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﺗﺴﺘﻌﺎﺭ ﻭﺗﻘﺮﺃ ﻭﺗﺘﺮﺟﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺟﺰﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺩﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﻭﺇﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺑﲔ ﺭﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﺣﺎﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺃﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺻﺪﺭﺕ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺭﺑﻊ ﻗﺮﻥ ﺑﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﺃﻭﺭﺑﻴﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻏﺮﻳﺒﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻋﺎﺷﻮﺍ ﰲ ﺑﻼﺩ ﺍﳌﻬﺠﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻗﺮﺃﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑﻭﻥ‬
‫ﳑﻦ ﺗﻌﻠﻤﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺑﻴﺔ ﲝﻜﻢ ﺍﳌﻬﻨﺔ ﺃﻭ ﲝﻜﻢ ﻇﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﳌﻬﺠﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻼﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺘﻨﻴﺢ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﺎ ﺑﻴﻤﻦ ﺃﰊ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻭﻟﺪﱐ ﺑﺎﳊﻖ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺪﻡ ﱄ ﻭﻟﻜﺜﲑﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﻄﺒﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻄﺮﺍﻥ ﭼﻮﺭﭺ ﺧﻀﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻄﺮﺍﻥ ﺟﺒﻞ ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻔﻜﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﺮﰊ ﺍﻷﺳﺘﺎﺫ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﺸﺠﻊ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻲ ﻟﻘﺮﺍﺋﱵ ﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﻣﻌﻬﺪ‬ ‫ﻛﻮﺳﱵ ﺑﻨﺪﱃ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﺎ ﺑﻴﻤﲔ ً‬
‫ﺳﺎﻧﺖ ﭬﻼﺩﳝﲑ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ )ﻧﻴﻮﻳﻮﺭﻙ(‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﻛﻨﺖ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺮﲨﺖ ﻟﻪ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺘﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻨﺬ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳊﲔ ﺑﺪﺃﺕ ﺃﻛﺘﺸﻒ ﻛﻨﻮﺯ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﻭﺃﻋﺸﻘﻪ‬
‫ﻋﺸ ًﻘﺎ‪ .‬ﰒ ﺑﺎﺭﻛﲏ ﺍﷲ ﲟﺮﺿﻲ‪ ،‬ﲜﻠﻄﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ‪ ،‬ﻗﻠﱠﺖ ﺑﺴﺒﺒﻬﺎ ﻗﺪﺭﰐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﺮﻭﺝ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻷﻣﺴﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻹﺟﺎﺯﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻓﺰﺭﻋﺖ ﺃﻭﺗﺎﺩ ﺧﻴﻤﱵ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺇﻛﺘﺸﻔﺖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﺘﻌﺔ ﻭﺳﻌﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺻﺤﺔ ﺗﻔﻮﻕ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻨﺪﻱ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻣﺮﺿﻲ ﻣﻨﺬ‬

‫‪٢٧‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺼﺪﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺑﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﺃﻥ »ﻛﻞ ﻛﺎﺗﺐ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻢ ﳜﺮﺝ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻡ )‪ .(١٩٨٩‬ﻭﺇﻛﺘﺸﻔﺖ ً‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻛﱰﻩ ﺟﺪ ًﺩ ﻭﻋﺘﻘﺎﺀ «‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﰲ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻫﻮ ﲨﺎﻝ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﻫﻢ ﳌﻌﺎﻣﻼﺕ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻣﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻮﺓ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧًﺎ!! ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺘﻴﻖ ﰲ ﻓﻜﺮﻫﻢ ﻭﺃﻗﻮﺍﳍﻢ ﻛﻴﻨﺎﺑﻴﻊ ﺷﻬﺪ ﻻ ﺗﻨﻀﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺨﻤﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺘﻘﺔ ﻣﻔﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﳍﻤﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ » ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﻷﻳﺎﻡ « ﻭ » ﺍﳌﺤﻴﻲ «‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺳﺮﻋﺎﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻌﺮﻓﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﺩﺍﺭﺳﻲ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺃﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺍﻷﺏ ﭼﻮﺭﭺ‬
‫ﻓﻠﻮﺭﻭﭬﺴﻜﻲ )ﻋﻤﻴﺪ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺳﺎﻧﺖ ﭬﻼﺩﳝﲑ( ﻭﺍﻷﺏ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻴﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﺏ ﻣﺎﻳﻨﺪﻭﺭﻑ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﺳﻘﻒ ﻛﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻮﺱ ﻭﻳﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﻛﺎﺭﻣﲑﻳﺲ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﻴﻞ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﺱ‬
‫ﻳﻨﺎﺭﺍﺱ ﻭﭼﻮﻥ ﺳﻴﺰﻳﻮﻻﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺒﻞ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻷﺏ ﭬﻼﺩﳝﲑ ﻟﻮﺳﻜﻲ ﻭﭘﻮﻝ ﺇﻓﺪﻭﻛﻴﻤﻮﻑ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﺏ ﺳﺘﺎﻧﻴﻠﻮﻯ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﻣﺼﺮ ﺗﻌﺮﻓﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺣﺒﻴﺐ ﺟﺮﺟﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺑﺎ ﺷﻨﻮ َﺩﻩ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻤﺺ ﻣﱴ ﺍﳌﺴﻜﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﺏ ﺑﻴﺸﻮﻱ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﺏ ﺗﺎﺩﺭﺱ ﻣﻠﻄﻲ‪ ،‬ﳑﻦ ﺇﻫﺘﻤﻮﺍ‬
‫ﺑﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ؛ ﰒ ﺍﻷﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﻭﻟﻴﻢ ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﻗﻼﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺪﻡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺩﺳﻘﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻞ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻛﺘﻮﺭ ﻧﺼﺤﻲ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﻴﺪ ﻭﺃﺧﻮﺗﻪ ﰲ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻧﺎ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻻ ﺃﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﻀﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﺪﻑ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﺃﺭﺩﺕ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺫﻛﺮ ﺑﻌﺾ ﳑﻦ ﻗﺪﻣﻮﱐ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﱄ ﰲ ﲨﺎﻟﻪ ﻭﻋﻤﻘﻪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻭﻗﺪﻣﻮﻩ ﺇ ﱠ‬

‫ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ‪:‬‬

‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﻭﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﺴﻨﺪﺭ ﴰﻴﻤﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ‪» ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ« ﰒ » ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺘﻮﺭﭼﻴﺔ«‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺻﺪﺭﺕ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﺘﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﻫﻲ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺣﻈﻲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻣﻦ » ﺃﺟﻞ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ « ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﻓﺨﺎﺭﺳﺘﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﲟﻜﺎﻥ ﻣﺮﻣﻮﻕ ﻟﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻚ ﻭﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﺖ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺃﺟﺎﺏ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﻫﺎﻡ‪ :‬ﳌﻦ ﻗﺪﻡ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ؟‬
‫ﻭﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﳉﻮﺍﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺘﻮﺭﭼﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻗﺪﻡ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪،‬‬

‫‪٢٨‬‬
 ‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ » ﲢﺘﺎﺝ « ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺭﺑًﺎ ﻭﻓﺎﺩﻳًﺎ ً‬
‫ﻭﳐﻠﺼﺎ ﻭﻃﻌﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﻭﺣﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺷﺮﺍﺑًﺎ!!‬
‫ﰒ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺁﺧﺮ ‪ :‬ﻭﳌﻦ ﻗﺪﻡ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ؟‬
‫ﻭﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﳉﻮﺍﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪﻣﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻄﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﻭﻣﻮﺍﻫﺒﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺟﺎﺀ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ » ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺘﻮﺭﭼﻴﺔ « ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻷﺏ ﴰﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺃﻧﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﳎﺮﺩ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻟﻴﻄﺮﺡ ﻋﺪﺓ ﺃﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﻫﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﳉﻮﺍﻧﺐ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺔ‬
‫ﰲ ﺗﺮﺍﺛﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﻘﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ ﻧﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﰲ ﺃﻗﺪﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺳﺮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ »ﺳﺮ ﺍﻷﺳﺮﺍﺭ«‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺳﺮ ﺟﺴﺪ ﻭﺩﻡ ﺭﺑﻨﺎ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎﺫﺍ‬
‫ﺗﻌﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺩﻭ ﺍﻹﻓﺨﺎﺭﺳﺘﻴﺎ ﰲ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﺭﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺧﺎﺹ ﻟﻺﻓﺨﺎﺭﺳﺘﻴﺎ‪...‬‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺃﺟﺎﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﺪﺭ ﴰﻴﻤﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺮﻙ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﻝ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻧﻌﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻛﻨﻴﺴﺘﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺎﺋﺲ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺰﻧﻄﻴﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺗﺮﺍﺙ ﻟﻴﺘﻮﺭﭼﻲ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ ،‬ﳛﻤﻞ ﺃﲰﺎﺀ ﻗﺪﻳﺴﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ‪ :‬ﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ‪-‬‬
‫ﻭﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺰﻳﱰﻱ )ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻰ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺳﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﻟﺼﻠﻮﺍﺕ ﻛﻨﻴﺴﺘﻨﺎ ﻭﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﺼﻠﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺎﺋﺲ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺰﻧﻄﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻷﻥ ﺗﻘﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﺑﺄﻧﻨﺎ ﺇﺯﺍﺀ ﺗﺮﺍﺙ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧًﺎ ﺫﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ!!!‬
‫ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺃﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻹﻃﻤﺌﻨﺎﻥ ﺇﱃ ﺻﺤﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺬﻛﺮﻩ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﺴﻨﺪﺭ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺃﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴًﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻭﺭﺩ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺺ ﻭﺑﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺘﻮﺭﭼﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻄﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻟﺪﻱ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻘﺮﺃ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﺴﻨﺪﺭ ﺃﻱ ﺻﻌﻮﺑﺔ ﰲ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﻣﺎ ﺫﻛﺮ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻭﺳﻬﻞ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻷﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺬﻛﺮﻩ ﻭﺭﺩ ﺑﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﰲ ﻋﻈﺎﺕ‬

‫‪٢٩‬‬
‫ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺷﻠﻴﻤﻲ ﻭﻏﲑﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻔﺮﻋﺖ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﻳﺬﻛﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﻷﺏ ﴰﻴﻤﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺣﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ﱂ ﻧﺪﺭﺳﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺳﻬﺎ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻛﺘﺒﻮﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻭﺱ ﻭﻳﻮﻧﺎﻥ ﻭﺃﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎﻥ ﻭﺇﳒﻠﻴﺰ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻭﻟﺪﻭﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻟﻮﺳﻜﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺇﻧﻀﻤﻮﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﺳﻘﻒ ﻛﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻮﺱ ﻭﻳﺮ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﻫﻲ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﻭ ًﻻ ‪ :‬ﻧﺸﺄﺓ ﻭﺗﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﺇﺑﺘﺪﺍﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻭﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻹﺻﻼﺡ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ ﻋﺸﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ‪ :‬ﺇﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻲ ‪ Scholastic Theology‬ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺴﻜﻴﺔ ﻭﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﺮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻦ ﺻﻠﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺘﻮﺭﭼﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﺪﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻛﻞ ﺍﳌﺆﻟﻔﲔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺳﺒﺐ ﻛﻞ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ!! ﻭﳓﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﻧﻌﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻴﻞ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺩﻭﺍﺋﺮ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺭﻑ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺘﺒﺖ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﻭﺣﺼﺮ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺟﻮﺍﻧﺒﻪ ﻭﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺗﻪ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻲ ‪: Scholastic Theology‬‬

‫ﻫﻮ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﻋﻘﻠﻲ ﻧﻈﺮﻱ ﻳﻬﺘﻢ ﺑﺒﺤﺚ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺩ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﻭﻏﲑﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻌﲎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻱ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﺇﳕﺎ ﳚﺪ ﺍﳉﻮﺍﺏ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻓﺮﻭﻋﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﻮ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﻳﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﻟﻜﻲ ﳛﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ!!‬
‫ﻭﺃﺣﺪ ﻣﺆﺳﺴﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﺭﺋﻴﺲ ﺃﺳﺎﻗﻔﺔ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺘﺮﺑﺮﻱ )ﺇﳒﻠﺘﺮﺍ(‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﲑﺓ ‪» :‬ﺃﺅﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻟﻜﻲ ﺃﻓﻬﻢ«‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻣﺄﺧﻮﺫﺓ ﺃﺻ ًﻼ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﳌﻦ ﻳﻘﺮﺃ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻫﻮ ﻓﺮﻉ ﻫﺎﻡ ﻭﻣﻄﻠﻮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻘﻮﻝ ﻏﲑ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻷ‪‬ﺎ ﺗُﻠﺨﺺ ﺃﺧﻄﺎﺭ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪٣٠‬‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﻧﺰﻉ ﺻﻔﺔ » ﺍﻟﺴﺮ « ‪ Mystery‬ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻲ‬
‫ﺟﺎﺋﺰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺧﻀﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺴﺮ ﺇﱃ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﳚﻌﻞ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﺑﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻘﻠﻴﺔ ﻫﻮ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﻠﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﳏﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﻳﻌﻄﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﺩﺭﻙ ﺃﺳﺎﺗﺬﺓ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻚ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﰲ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺳﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺎﺑﻊ ﳎﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺗﻴﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺩﺭﻙ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﺑﺘﻌﺎﺩ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺻﺪﺭﺕ ﺑﺈﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺘﻮﺭﭼﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﻘﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻲ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (٢‬ﲢﻮﻝ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺄﻣﻞ ﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻔﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺄﻣﻞ ﳌﺎ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻺﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﺍﳊﺼﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ‬
‫ﲨﻴﻌﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﺒّﺮ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺍﻷﺏ ﭬﻼﺩﳝﲑ ﻟﻮﺳﻜﻲ ﺑﺈﺳﻢ‬
‫ﺇﳘﺎﻝ ﻣﺎ ﺳﺎﺩ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ً‬
‫‪ ، Apophatic Theology‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﱯ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﻘﻲ ﻋﻘﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﳏﺎﻭﻻﺕ ﺗﺸﺒﻴﻪ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺎﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﻤﺜﺎﻝ ﳌﺎ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ‪ :‬ﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻲ ﺑﻨﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﻋﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻋﻦ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻭﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ‪ .‬ﻭﺟﺎﺀﺕ ﺃﻭﻝ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﺄﻣﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﻻ ﳚﺪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﻋﻴﺐ ﺃﻭ ﻗﺼﻮﺭ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻰ!!! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻗﺎﺭﻧﺎ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﲟﺎ ﻭﺭﺩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﳒﺪ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﻔﺘﺢ ﺑﺎﺏ ﻧﻘﺪ ﻋﻘﻠﻲ ﻭﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻭﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﺃﺧﻼﻗﻲ ً‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﳌﺎ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ!!‪ .‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺳﻘﻮﻁ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﺪﻳﻨًﺎ ﷲ؛‬
‫ﻭﺃﻥ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻲ ﺇﻋﺘﺪﺍﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ‬
‫ﺗﺮﺿﻴﺔ ‪ Satisfaction‬ﷲ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺗﺮﺩ ﻟﻪ ً‬
‫ﺗﻌﻮﻳﻀﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﻫﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳊﻘﺖ ﺑﻜﺮﺍﻣﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻼ ﰲ ﺃﺟﺰﺍﺀ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ(‪ .‬ﻭﳌﺎ ﻋﺠﺰ‬‫ﻭﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ )ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﺪﺭﺱ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺗﻔﺼﻴ ً‬
‫ﲨﻴﻌﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺴﺪﻳﺪ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺩﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ً‬
‫ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﻧﻠﻤﺢ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺄﰐ ‪:‬‬
‫• ﺇﺳﺘﻐﲎ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻋﻦ ﳏﺒﺔ ﺍﷲ ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻻ ﳜﻀﻊ ﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ‪.‬‬
‫• ﺃﳘﻞ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﳌﻠﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺣﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﻭﺍﻷﺟﲑ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﳌﻠﻚ‪.‬‬

‫‪٣١‬‬
‫• ﺟﺎﺀ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺑﺘﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻟﻠﺨﻄﻴﺔ ﻫﻮ ﻭﻟﻴﺪ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺍﻹﻗﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﰊ )ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ( ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺩﺭﺳﻮﺍ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ‪.‬‬
‫• ﺃﺧﻀﻊ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺘﺢ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻟﻺﳝﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﺸﺄ ﻭﳕﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﰲ ﺃﻭﺭﺑﺎ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﺗﺼﺎﻋﺪ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻹﳊﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﰊ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺑﺪﺃﺕ ﻣﻨﺬ ﻋﺼﺮ‬
‫ﻣﺮﻳﺮﺍ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻬﻀﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻧﻘ ًﺪﺍ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻃﺒﻌﺎ ﻳﱪﺯ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﻫﺎﻡ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﲡﻨﺒﻪ‪ :‬ﻫﻞ ﺳﻮﻑ ﳓﻔﻆ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺴﺮﺏ ﺇﻟﻴﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ‬ ‫ً‬
‫ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﺭﺳﺎﻟﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻧﻌﺎﱐ ﳓﻦ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ ﳑﺎ ﻋﺎﻧﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺃﻭﺭﺑﺎ؟! ﺃﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﲡﻨﺐ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﻟﻜﻴﻤﺎ ﻧﻌﻮﺩ ﻭﻧﺸﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻨﺎﺑﻴﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﺒﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻞ ﻭﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﺆﺳﺲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﳊﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﻧﻴﺔ؟‬
‫ﺇﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻳﻨﺎﺑﻴﻊ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﻜﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻴﺘﻮﺭﭼﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﳜﻠﻖ ﺍﻹﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﺑﺘﻌﺎﺩ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺴﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳍﺎ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺃﻣﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻻ ﳒﺪﻫﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﺩﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ‬
‫ﻭﻣﺒﺎﺩﺅﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﻔﻲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻼﺓ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺇﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻌﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺭﺍﺀﻩ ﺑﺄﺩﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺑﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﻚ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻼﺓ‪ .‬ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﻛﻮﻳﲏ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪﻳﺴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺗﻼﻣﻴﺬﻩ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﺎﻥ ﺑﺄﺭﺳﻄﻮ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺭﺍﻫﺒًﺎ ً‬
‫ﻧﺎﺳﻜﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺻﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻭﻗﺴﻮﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﺃﺳﻬﻞ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﻧﺬﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺮﻫﺒﻨﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻓﺮﻭﺽ ﻭﻃﺎﻋﺔ ﻋﻤﻴﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻳﻔﺮﺿﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺭﻭﺍﻓﺪ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ؛ ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻣﻘﺪﺳﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﺴﻨﺪﺭ ﴰﻴﻤﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﻋﺠﺰ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻛﻮﻳﲏ ﻋﻦ ﺇﻗﺘﺒﺎﺱ ﻧﺺ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺘﻮﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻲ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻲ ﻻ ﻳﻬﺘﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻼﺓ ﻭﻻ ﺑﺎﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻨﺸﺄ ﻟﻴﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻧﺸﺄ ﺩﻓﺎ ًﻋﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﻭﻣﻌﻀﻼﺕ ﻓﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻗﺼﻮﻱ ﰲ‬

‫‪٣٢‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﻻ ﲣﺺ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻛﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﲣﺺ‬
‫ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﻛﺪﻳﺎﻧﺔ ﺳﺎﺋﺪﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺑﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﻟﻠﺪﻳﺎﻧﺔ ﻛﺒﲑ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﻓﺎﻷﻭﱄ ﲢﺮﺹ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺴﻚ‬
‫ﻭﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﺮﺍﺭ ﻭﺇﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺳﺔ ﻭﺇﺭﺷﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﻋﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻓﺘﺤﺮﺹ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻓﺎﻉ ﻭﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺤﺼﻦ ﰲ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻰ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻲ ﻫﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻻ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺸﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺟﻮﻫﺮﻩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﳒﻴﻞ ّ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﺋﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﳌﺆﱂ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﺴﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻚ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﺒﻘﺖ ﺃﻭ ﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻴﻂ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﳍﺎ ﻧﺼﻴﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﻛﻮﻳﲎ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻇﻠﺖ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﻜﻴﺔ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻛﺎﺩﳝﻴﺔ ﻭﺣﱴ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻹﺻﻼﺡ‬
‫ﱂ ﺗﻐﲑ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﻷ‪‬ﺎ ﺇﳕﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺪﻭﺭ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻹﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺧﺘﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺃﻗﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ﺃﺭﺩﺕ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻛﺘﺐ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﻗﻠﱯ ﺭﺟﺎﺀ ﺃﻗﺪﻣﻪ ﻟﻠﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ‪:‬‬

‫ﺃﻭﻻ ﹰ ‪ :‬ﻻﺑﺪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻟﻴﺘﻮﺭﭼﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻟﺸﺮﺡ‬

‫ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﻭﻟﻜﻲ ﲤﺪﻧﺎ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻮﺍﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﻟﻺﳝﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻰ‪ .‬ﻓﺼﻠﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﻤﺤﺼﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﲤﺤﺺ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻵﺭﺍﺀ‪.‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧ ﹰﻴﺎ ‪ :‬ﻻ ﻳﺠﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺼﻠﻲ ﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻭﺱ ﻭﻣﺤﺒﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺛﻢ ﻧﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻏﺮﻳﺒﺔ ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻗﺺ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﶈﺒﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪٣٣‬‬
٣٤
 ‫]÷√‪<ÌÈ7˝]<Ì÷]Ç‬‬
‫ﺣــﻴﺎﺓ ﻻ ﻣــﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻐﻔـﺮﺓ ﻻ ﻋﻘﻮﺑـﺔ‬

‫ﺑﻘﻠﻢ ﺍﻷﺏ ﭼﻮﺭﭺ ﻓﻠﻮﺭﻭﭬﺴﻜﻲ‬

‫ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﲜﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻫﺎﺭﭬﺎﺭﺩ‬
‫ﻭﻋﻤﻴﺪ ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ﺳﺎﻧﺖ ﭬﻼﺩﳝﲑ ﺑﻨﻴﻮﻳﻮﺭﻙ‬
‫)*(‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ‪ :‬ﺍﳋﻠــﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﻔـــﺪﺍﺀ‬

‫ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﺎﺯﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺗﻔﻮﻕ ﻛﻞ ﻭﺻﻒ ﻭﻗﺪﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﱂ ﲢﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻭﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺮ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﻙ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻷﻟﻔﺎﻅ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻭﺭﺩﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻣﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻗﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺣﺎﻭﻟﻪ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ ﻏﲑ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﲔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻦ ﻳﻔﻴﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺍﳊﻘﻮﻗﻲ ﻫﻮ ﻻ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻋﻦ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻫﺖ ﺍﻟﻠــﻮﻥ!!‬
‫] ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﰲ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺇﻧﺘﺸﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ‬
‫ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮ ﻣﻊ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺍﻹﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﱵ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻘﺘﻀﺎﻩ ﺃﻥ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ً‬
‫ﻟﺘﺴﺪﻳﺪ ﺗﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻫﻴﻨﺖ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ؛ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺤﻤ ًﻼ ﻏﻀﺐ ﻭﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻬﺔ ﺿﺪ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻔﺪﻱ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺻﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻻً ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺣﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺪﺑﲑﻩ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﻛﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺇﳍﻴﺔ ﺗﺴﺪﺩ ﷲ ﲦﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺃﺳﻘﻒ ﻛﺎﻧﺘﺮﺑﺮﻱ‬
‫ﻃﻮﺭﻩ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻹﻛﻮﻳﲏ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﻭﺭﺛﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺑﺘﻄﺮﻑ ﺃﺷﺪ ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻭﻛﺎﻟﭭﻦ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ّ‬
‫ﺳﻨﺪﺭﺱ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻠﻪ ﺗﻔﺼﻴﻼً[‪.‬‬
‫‪(*) Creation and Redemption, pp. 100-104.‬‬

‫‪٣٥‬‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﻭﺣﱴ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺑﻜﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﺳﺮ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪.‬‬
‫ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻧﻮ ًﻋﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﺀ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﻠﻴﻢ‪ :‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺷﺮﺡ ﺳﺒﺐ ﻭﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻭﻣﺘﻮﺍﺻﻠﺔ‪ .‬ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺇﺫﻥ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻒ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻫﺮﺓ؟ ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‪...‬؟! ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﺴﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﺳﻠﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺘﺼﺮﺍ ﻏﺎﻟﺒًﺎ ﺣﱴ ﰲ ﺃﺣﻠﻚ ﺃﻭﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺬﻟﺔ!!‬
‫ً‬
‫ﻻ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺣﱴ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻣﻌﲏ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ .‬ﻓﻜﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﺩﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﻋﻔﺎﺀ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﺻﻒ ﺳﺮ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﺧﲑًﺍ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﺑﺎﻷﱂ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ :‬ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺃﻭ ﻧﻘﺒﻞ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﻗﺼﺎﺹ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﰲ ﺁﻻﻡ ﻭﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺗﺄﱂ ﻭﻣﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﺎﺩﻱ ‪...‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ )ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ‬‫)‪ (٢‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ً‬
‫ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ‪ (١٦‬ﻭﻻ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻳﻠﺔ )ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺃﺳﻘﻒ ﻛﺎﻧﺘﺮﺑﺮﻱ‬
‫‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ‪ (١١‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻴﲔ ‪ Scholastics‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ؛ ﻟﻘﺪ‬
‫ﺃﺧﺬ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻳﺴﻌﻲ ﻷﺫﻳﺔ ﺃﻱ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ!!‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﺘﺄﱂ ﻭﳛﺰﻥ ﻵﻻﻣﻨﺎ ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻳﺆﳌﻨﺎ ﻫﻮ )ﺑﺘﺪﺑﲑﻩ ﻭﺇﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ(؟ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻠﻘﻲ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﺑﺈﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﳌﻮﺕ ﺟﺰﺍﺋﻲ )ﻋﻘﻮﰊ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻭﺱ؟ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺃﺟﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﻘﻂ ﰲ ﳎﺎﻝ ﻭﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻣﺪﺑﺮﻩ؟!‬
‫ﻫﻞ ﺣ ًﻘﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻳﻘﻴﺪ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻞ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺐ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳًﺎ ﻹﻋﻼﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻓﺮ؟! ﺇﳕﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﰲ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻭﰲ ﺇﺧﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ‪،Kenosis‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻌﺮﺍﺽ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ!‬
‫ﺭﲟﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﲡﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺧﻠﻘﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻗﻂ‪ ،‬ﺑﺈﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺒﺪﻭ‬
‫ﺃﺑﺴﻂ ﻭﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺭﲪﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‪ ،‬ﻟﻠﻐﺮﺍﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻣﻞﺀ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﳛﻔﻆ ﻟﻨﺎ‬

‫‪٣٦‬‬
‫ﻼ ﻣﺆﳌًﺎ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻳﻄﺎﻟﺒﻨﺎ ﲟﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﺎﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﳑﺎ ﻧﻈﻨﻪ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﲪ ً‬
‫ﺣﺮﻳﺘﻨﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ! ] ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺇﻟﻐﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺇﳍﻲ‪ ،‬ﻳﻠﻐﻲ ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ [‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻻﺑﺪ ﻭﺃﻥ ﳛﺪﺙ ﲟﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺇﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﷲ ﰲ‬
‫ﻼ ﻭﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺛﻘﻴﻠﺔ‪.‬‬‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻ ﺗﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﺇﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﺒﺪﻭ ﻟﻨﺎ ﲪ ً‬
‫ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻟﻠﺼﻌﻮﺩ ﳓﻮ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻧﺎ‪ :‬ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ!! ﺃﻻ ﺗﺮﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻼ ﲪﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﻧﺎﱐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺳﺠﲔ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﺍﳌﻜﺘﻔﻲ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ؟! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‬ ‫ﻓﻌ ً‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﻤﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﺣﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻤﻲ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﺳﺄﻟﻨﺎ ‪ :‬ﺇﱃ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻳﺮﻣﺰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ؟ ﻗﻠﻨﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺭﻣ ًﺰﺍ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﻝ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺭﻣﺰ ﻟﻠﺤﺐ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﻳﻠﺨﺺ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺎﺅﻻﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫» ﳌﻦ ﺳﻔﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻔﻚ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺳﻔﻚ؟!‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﻗﻠﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻓﻈﻴﻊ‪ ،‬ﻫﻞ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺍﻟﻠﺺ ﻓﺪﻳﺔ؟!‪...‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﻗﺪ ﺩﻓﻊ ﻟﻶﺏ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﺃﺳﺄﻝ ﺃﻭﻻً‪ :‬ﻛﻴﻒ؟ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻵﺏ‬
‫ﱂ ﳝﺴﻜﻨﺎ ﻛﺮﻫﻴﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﳌﺎﺫﺍ ُﺳ ﱠﺮ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺑﺪﻡ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ‬
‫ﺫﺑﺢ ﺇﺳﺤﻖ ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻗﺪﻣﻪ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﳏﺮﻗﺔ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺑﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻜﺒﺶ؟‬
‫ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻃﻠﺒﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻛﺎﻥ ﰲ‬
‫ﺃﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ً‬
‫ﺇﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺗﺪﺑﲑﻩ‪ :‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺪﺱ ﺑﺈﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﷲ )ﻧﺎﺳﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ(؛ ﻭﺍﷲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﳜﻠﺼﻨﺎ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﻐﻠﺐ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺒﺪ ﺑﻘﻮﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻫﻮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﺩﻧﺎ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ‪«.‬‬
‫ﺑﻜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﻩ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺃﺳﻠﻮﺏ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ] ﲝﺴﺐ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻜﻴﻞ ﺟﺰﺍﺀ ﻣﺴﺎﻭﻳًﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺷﺮﺍ؛ ﺃﻣﺎ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﺑﻼ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﻭﻻ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻮﻋﻴﺔ ﻷﻱ ﻋﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﺧﲑًﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻡ ً‬
‫ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺎﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ![‬
‫‪٣٧‬‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻳﻔﺴﺮ ﺑﻔﻜﺮﺓ » ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺴﻨﺎ ﺑﺒﺸﺮﻳﺘﻪ « )ﺃﻱ ﺑﺈﲢﺎﺩ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﳓﻦ‪ :‬ﻣﻦ ﳊﻤﻪ ﻭﻋﻈﺎﻣﻪ ‪ -‬ﺇﻑ ‪.(٣٠ :٥‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻏﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﳊﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻫﻮ ﳏﻮ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺘﻬﺎ‪ ...‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻐﻠﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﰲ ﺍﻵﻻﻡ‬
‫ﻭﲢﻤﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻫﻨﺎ ﻧﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻤﻖ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻛﻴﺎﻧﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﻠﺒﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ‬
‫ﳎﺮﺩ ﺗﱪﻳﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺗﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻣﺒﻬﻤﺔ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﺴﺮ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ‬
‫ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ )ﻭﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻪ(‪.‬‬

‫• ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻲ ﻻ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻋﻦ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻫﺖ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻥ‪...‬‬
‫• ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺃﻭ ﻧﻘﺒﻞ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺃﻱ ﻗﺼﺎﺹ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺁﻻﻡ ﻭﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ ...‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺣﻤﻞ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲡﻠﺒﻪ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺪﻭﺱ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻗﺒﻞ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺇﻟﻬﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺣﻲ ﺧﻴﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪...‬‬
‫• ﺇﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﺘﺄﻟﻢ ﻭﻳﺤﺰﻥ ﻵﻻﻣﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻳﺆﳌﻨﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺘﺪﺑﻴﺮﻩ؟‬
‫ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻠﻘﻲ ﺑﺎﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﳌﻮﺕ ﺟﺰﺍﺋﻲ ﻭﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻭﺱ؟‬
‫• ﻛﻴﻒ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺟﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻓﻘﻂ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ ﻭﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺪﺑﺮﻩ؟‬
‫• ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻫﻮ »ﺁﺧﺮ ﻋﺪﻭ ﻳﺒﻄﻞ« )‪١‬ﻛﻮ ‪(٢٦ :١٥‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫـﻮ ﻣﺪﺑـﺮﻩ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺍﻏـﺐ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻔﺼـﻞ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘـﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺤﺒﺘﻪ؟!!!‬

‫‪٣٨‬‬
 ‫‪God and‬‬
‫‪Anthropomorphic Language‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﳜﺘﻠﻔﺎﻥ ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﻧﺮﺍﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻔﺤﺎﺕ ﺑﻌﺾ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺿﻮﺀ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺴﲔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﺃﻭﻝ ﻣﺎ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻨﺎﻗﺸﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﲟﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﻭﳎﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﻭﻏﲑﻫﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻣﺎﺭ ﺇﺳﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﱐ‪:‬‬
‫ﺗﺪﻉ ﺍﷲ ﻋﺎﺩﻻً‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ ﻻ ﺗﻌﻠﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﻚ‪.‬‬
‫»ﻻ ُ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻦ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ؟! ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺻﺎﱀ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﻭﻏﲑ ﺍﻷﺗﻘﻴﺎﺀ«!!‬
‫)‪(Christos Yannaras - Elements of Faith -, T&T Clark, p.83‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺍﳌﻤﻠﻮﺀ ﺭﻗﺔ ﻭﺣﺒًﺎ ﰲ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﻟﻪ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺘﺠﻬﺎ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‬
‫‪(Mystic Treatises of Isaac of Nineve, translation by A.J.‬‬
‫)‪Wensinck, :1923 - g Pt I, pp. 59, 128, 136, 241‬‬

‫» ﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺎ ﻧﺘﺨﻴﻞ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﺓ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﻟﻪ ﺃﻱ ﺻﻠﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻛﺮﻳﻪ ﺑﺎﳌﺮﺓ ﻟﻨﺎ ‪ :‬ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻋﺎﻗﻞ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺑﺎﳌﺮﺓ ﻭﳝﻜﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺼﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﻨﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ً‬

‫‪٣٩‬‬
‫ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻳﺘﺼﺮﻑ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻭﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮ‬
‫ﻳُﻌﻠﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ!! ﳎﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻮﻗﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻛﺮﻳﻪ‪ ..‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﲡﺪﻳﻒ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻈﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻜﺮﻩ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﺮﻓﺾ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﺎﻃﲔ؛ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺨﻴﻞ ﺃﻱ ﺿﻌﻒ ﺃﻭ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻸﻫﻮﺍﺀ ]ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ[‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺁﺧﺮ ﳛﺘﻤﻞ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ﺑﺼﺪﺩ ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺀ ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﻟﻠﺨﲑ ﺃﻭ ﻟﻠﺸﺮ‪ ...‬ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﳌﺬﻫﻞ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﺩﻧﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻫﺶ ﳓﻮ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﳍﺆﻻﺀ‪،‬‬
‫ﺧﺎﺭﺟﺎ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﺃﻋﻤﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺛﻴﻮﺩﻭﺭ ﻭﺩﻳﻮﺩﻭﺭ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻵﺭﺍﺀ ﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﻄﺮﺡ‬
‫ﺗﻔﻜﲑﻧﺎ ﻛﻞ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻃﻔﻮﱄ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﳑﺎ ﻳﺸﺮﺣﻪ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺪﺧﻠﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﻫﻮﺍﺀ ﰲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻟﻮﻥ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﺘﻐﲑ ﺑﺎﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﻭﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ‪...‬‬
‫ﻟﻴﺲ ﻷﻥ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻫﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﺎ ﺷﺎﺑﻪ ﺗﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻨﺘﺨﻴﻞ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻫﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﳎﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻟﻔﺎﻅ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺓ ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻘﻮﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﺗﺪﺭﳚﻴًﺎ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺣﻜﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻣﻘﺪﺱ ﻟﻸﺳﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﺨﻔﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻭﺣﺪﻳﺜﻪ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻻ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺣﺮﻓﻴﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺘﺒﺖ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ً ،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﳐﻔﻲ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻲ ﳌﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺏ‪،‬‬
‫ﲨﻴﻌﺎ‪«...‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﺷﺪﻧﺎ ً‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻋﻦ » ﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﷲ « ﻟﻠﺪﻛﺘﻮﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﺗﺎﻭﺿﺮﻭﺱ‪ ،‬ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﰊ ﺑﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﺷﺮﺣﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻣﺎﺭ ﺇﺳﺤﻖ‪ ،‬ﻛﺘﺐ ﰲ ﺹ ‪: ٥٩ -٥٥‬‬
‫» ﺇﻥ ﺻــﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻲ ﺗﻌﺒﲑﺍﺗﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻧﻨﺴﺒﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﻌﺠﺰ‬
‫ﻼ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉـــﻮﻫﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﳏﺪﻭﺩﻳﺔ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﻨﺎ‬ ‫ﻋﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﻭﺻ ًﻔﺎ ﻛﺎﻣ ً‬
‫ﻋﻨﺼﺮﺍ‬
‫ﻭﻋﻘﻮﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺻــــﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﷲ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺍﻡ ً‬
‫ﺑﺸﺮﻳًﺎ ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﺣﺎﻭﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳔﻠﺺ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺇﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍ ﻟﻠﻀﻌﻒ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﻭﳌﺤﺪﻭﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻳﻘﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻳﻨﺴﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﷲ ﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﻭﻋﻮﺍﻃﻒ ﳑﺎ ﳒﺪﻩ ﰲ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﺃﻱ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻪ ﻳﺪ ﻭﻋﲔ ﻭﺃﺫﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧًﺎ ﻳﺮﺿﻲ ﻭﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧًﺎ ﻳﻐﻀﺐ!!‬
‫ﻭﺑﻼ ﺷﻚ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺍﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺒﻌﺪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻛﻞ ﺻﻔﺔ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ‬

‫‪٤٠‬‬
‫ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﻟﻪ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧًﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﳚﺐ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻻ ﺗﻘﻮﺩﻧﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺭﺳﻢ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﷲ ﻟﻴﻔﻌﻞ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﻌﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪...‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﻨﺎ ﻧﻨﺴﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﷲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺣﱴ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺑﻘﺪﺭ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻨﺎ ﳚﺐ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻤﺎ ﺗﺪﻝ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻤﺎ ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻨﻪ ﻭﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﺇﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺿﻌﲔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺃﺫﻫﺎﻧﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﺴﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻣﻮﺭ ﺣﺴﻴﺔ ﳛﻤﻞ ﻣﻌﲏ ﺭﻣﺰﻳًﺎ ﻭﺭﻭﺣﻴًﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻔﻲ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻳﺔ‪«.‬‬

‫ﻛﻴﻒ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﻛﺎﺳﻴﺎﻥ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﺎ ﲰﻊ‬
‫ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﱪﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﺪ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﻛﺎﺳﻴﺎﻥ ﺣﻮﺍﱄ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ٣٦٠‬ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪ Dacia‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻵﻥ ﰲ ﲨﻬﻮﺭﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻴﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺳﻴﻢ ﴰﺎﺳﴼ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺫﻫﱯ ﺍﻟﻔﻢ ﺣﻮﺍﱄ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ .٤٠٠‬ﺯﺍﺭ‬
‫ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﻛﺎﺳﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﺳﻘﻴﻂ ﻭﺃﺩﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﻴﺪ ﻭﺭﻫﺒﺎﻧﻴﺎﺕ ﻓﻠﺴﻄﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺃﻭﻝ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﻫﺒﺎﱐ ﻭﻫﻮ »ﻣﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺃﻭ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﻋﻼﺝ ﺍﻟﺮﺫﺍﺋﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﱪﻱ« ﻭﻋﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺎﻻﺳﻢ »ﺍﳌﺨﺘﺼﺮ« ‪ institutes‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ )ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﳌﺆﺳﺴﺎﺕ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻧﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﰲ ﻋـﺪﺓ ﻃﺒﻌـﺎﺕ ﰲ ﳎﻤﻮﻋـﺔ ﺍﻵﺑـﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻼﺗﲔ ﻭﺗُﺮﺟـﻢ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳـﺔ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ١٨٨٨‬ﻭﺃﺧﲑﴽ ﺻﺪﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻌﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ‬
‫ﻧﺸـﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﻷﺏ ‪ Boniface Ramsey‬ﰲ ﺳﻠﺴـﻠﺔ ‪Ancient Christian Writers‬‬
‫ﳎﻠﺪ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪ ٥٨‬ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ٢٠٠٠‬ﻭﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ ﻫﻲ ‪ The Newman Press‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ﻗﺪﻡ ﻛﺎﺳﻴﺎﻥ ﺧﻼﺻﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﲢﺖ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ‪ .‬ﻭﺳﻮﻑ‬
‫ﻳﻼﺣﻆ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﺃﻥ ﻛﺎﺳﻴﺎﻥ ﻳﺼﻒ ﺇﻧﻔﻌﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﻀـﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺨﻂ ﺑﺄ‪‬ﺎ ﲡﺪﻳﻒ‬
‫ﺷﻨﻴﻊ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺭﻭﺟﻌﺖ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻼﺗﻴﲏ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ‬
‫ﺻﻔﺤﺎﺕ ‪ ١٩١‬ـ ‪.١٩٥‬‬
‫ﺇﺳﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻛﺎﺳﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻌﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻭﻗﺪ ﻭﺿﻌﻨﺎ ﺣﺮﻑ »ﺱ« ﻟﻠﺪﻻﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﺺ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‪.‬‬
‫‪٤١‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﳚﺐ ﰲ ﺍﳉﻬﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﻗﻠﻊ ﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺗﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺬﻭﺭﻩ ﰲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺑﻘﻲ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮ ﰲ ﻗﻠﻮﺑﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻇﻠﻤﺖ ﻋﻘﻮﻟﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻓﻘﺪﺕ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﻗﺪﺭ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻳﺼﻴﺐ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻤﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺑﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﺿﺎﺭﺓ ﲡﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻴﻠﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻼ ﻧﻘﺪﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺋﺐ ﰲ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻳﺘﻌﺬﺭ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﻤﻲ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻻ ﻧﻘﺪﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺜﺒﺖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻧﻘﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺏ »ﻋﻴﲏ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻌﻜﺮﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ«‬
‫)ﻣﺰ ‪.(٢٩ :٣١‬‬
‫)‪ (٢‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﳝﺪﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻛﺤﻜﻤﺎﺀ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﻟﻦ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﺣﻜﻤﺎﺀ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻻﺯﻣﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺏ »ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻳﺴﻜﻦ ﻣﺴﺘﺮﳛﴼ ﰲ ﺻﺪﺭ ﺍﻷﲪﻖ« )ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ‪:٧‬‬
‫‪ ١٠‬ﺱ(‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺮﺿﻨﺎ ﻷﻥ ﻧﻔﻘﺪ ﻣﲑﺍﺙ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ‬
‫ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﺃﺳﺮﺍﺭﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻇﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﰎ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺏ »ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻳﺪﻣﺮ ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺎﺀ‪) «.‬ﺃﻣﺜﺎﻝ ‪١ :١٥‬‬
‫ﺱ(‪ .‬ﻭﳛﺮﻣﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ »ﺑﺮ ﺍﷲ« ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻧﻔﻘﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ )ﺍﻹﻓﺮﺍﺯ( ﻭﻣﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻮﺍ ﻋﻨﺎ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻗﺪﻳﺴﲔ ﻭﻛﺎﻣﻠﲔ ﺇﻻ‬
‫ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺏ »ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻ ﻳﺼﻨﻊ ﺑﺮ ﺍﷲ‪) «.‬ﻳﻊ ‪.(٢٠ :١‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪:‬‬
‫ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺗﱪﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺗﻞ ﻟﻠﻨﻔﺲ‪ ،‬ﺑﺄﺩﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻔﺴﺮﻭ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﴽ ﻏﲑ ﺳﺎﺋﻎ‪ .‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺿﺎﺭﴽ‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻏﻀﺒﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺧﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﳜﻄﺌﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻳﺴﺨﻂ ﻭﻳﻐﻀﺐ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻻ ﻳﺮﻳﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﻩ ﺃﻭ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻳﺮﻓﻀﻮﻧﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻘﺪﻣﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﺎﺭ »ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﺇﺷﺘﻌﻞ ﺳﺨﻄﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺷﻌﺒﻪ« )ﻣﺰ ‪ (٤٠ :١٠٦‬ﺃﻭ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺼﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ »ﻳﺎﺭﺏ ﻻ ﺗﻮﲞﲏ‬
‫ﺑﻐﻀﺒﻚ ﻭﻻ ﺗﺆﺩﺑﲏ ﺑﺴﺨﻄﻚ« )ﻣﺰ ‪ (١ :٦‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺃ‪‬ﻢ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ‬
‫ﳛﺎﻭﻟﻮﻥ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺻﺮﺍﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻭﺗﱪﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺇﳕﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﺩﻭﻥ ﻏﲑﻫﻢ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺴﻚ ﺑﺮﺫﻳﻠﺔ ﺿﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﳝﺰﺟﻮﻥ ﺿﻼﻝ ﺷﻬﻮﺓ ﺟﺴﺪﺍﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻨﻘـﺎﺀ ﺍﷲ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺤﺪﻭﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﻛﻞ ﻧﻘﺎﺀ‪.‬‬

‫‪٤٢‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬‬
‫ﳓﻦ ﻧﻘﻊ ﰲ ﺧﻄﺄ ﻛﺒﲑ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺣﺎﻭﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﺮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺳﺔ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﴽ ﺣﺮﻓﻴﴼ ﻧﺎﺑﻌﴼ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﺍﱐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻨﺎﻡ‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﻗﻴﻞ »ﻻ ﻳﻨﻌﺲ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻨﺎﻡ« )ﻣﺰ ‪ (٤ :١٢١‬ﻓﺎﷲ ﻻ ﻳﻨﺎﻡ ﺭﻏﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﻴﻞ »ﻗﻢ‬
‫ﻳﺎﺭﺏ ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺗﻨﺎﻡ« )ﻣﺰ ‪ (٢٣ :٤٤‬ﺃﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻭﳚﻠﺲ »ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﻗﺪﻣﻲ« )ﻣﺰ ‪١ :٦٦‬ﺱ( ﺃﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﺴﻜﺮ ﻭﻳﺸﺮﺏ‬ ‫ﻛﺮﺳﻲ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻣﻮﻃﺊ ّ‬ ‫ّ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻤﺮ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻗﻴﻞ »ﻗﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻞ ﻭﻣﺜﻞ ﺟﺒﺎﺭ ﺳﻜﺮ ﲞﻤﺮ« )ﻣﺮ ‪:٧٨‬‬
‫‪ ٦٥‬ﺱ( ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﻧﻌﺮﻑ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ »ﻟﻪ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺳﺎﻛﻨﴼ ﰲ ﻧﻮﺭ ﻻ ﻳﺪﱐ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻪ« )‪١‬ﺗﻴﻤﻮ ‪ .(١٦ :٦‬ﻭﻟﺴﺖ ﺃﺭﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺃﲢﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ‬
‫ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﳉﻬﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺴﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺴﺐ ﷲ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺳﺔ ﻭﺃﻳﻀﴼ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﺴﺐ‬
‫ﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﺟﺴﺪﻳﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﺃﺱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﻧﻒ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﲔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻴﺪﻳﻦ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﺭﺍﻋﲔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﺻﺎﺑﻊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺒﻄﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺪﻣﲔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻓﻬﻤﻨﺎ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﳊﺮﰲ ﺍﳊﺴﻲ ﻓﺈﻧﻨﺎ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﻨﺘﻬﻲ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﺟﺴﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﻟﻪ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﺎﺩﻱ ﳏﺴﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﺎﺷﺎ ﻟﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻧﺼﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮﺓ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪:‬‬
‫)ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺸـﺮﺡ ﻛﺎﺳﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻱ ﻟﻸﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺴﻮﺑﺔ‬
‫ﷲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺍﺕ ‪ ١‬ـ ‪ ٢‬ﻳﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﺷﺮﺣﻪ ﻟﻠﻐﻀﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺨﻂ‪(:‬‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻭﺻﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﺧﺬﻧﺎﻫﺎ ﲟﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﳊﺮﰲ‪ ،‬ﲢﻮﻟﺖ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﲡـﺪﻳﻒ ﺷﻨﻴﻊ ‪ .horrible sacrilege‬ﻷﻥ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﺎﺭ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺇﻻ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻧﺼﻒ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ‪ :‬ﻏﲑ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻏﲑ ﻣﻮﺻﻮﻑ‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﻴﻂ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﺮﻛﺐ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺇﻧﻔﻌﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺴﺨﻂ ﻓﻼ‬ ‫ﻏﲑ ّ‬
‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻨﺴﺐ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻐﲑ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻘﻮﻁ ﰲ ﲡﺪﻳﻒ ﻓﻈﻴﻊ‬
‫‪.monstrous basphemy‬‬
‫)‪ (٢‬ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﻘﺮﺃ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻏﻀﺐ ﻭﺳﺨﻂ ﻓﺈﻧﻨﺎ ﻻ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻜﺮ ﰲ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺇﻧﻔﻌﺎﻻﺕ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺔ )ﻫﻨﺎ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻛﺎﺳﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﺭﻑ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺍﻹﻧﻔﻌﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮﺓ‬
‫‪.(anthropopathos‬‬

‫‪٤٣‬‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻜﺮ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﻠﻴﻖ ﺑﺎﷲ ﺍﳊﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﻧﻔﻌﺎﻻﺕ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺑﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺃﺧﺮﻱ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﺍﻩ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺎﻛﻢ ﻭﻳﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮﺓ‬
‫ﻭﻳﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﺎﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﻫﻨﺎ ﻳﻮﺻﻒ ﲟﻔﺮﺩﺍﺕ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺗﻮﻟﺪ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﺍﳋﻮﻑ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻮﻑ ﳛﺎﻛﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺿﺪ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (٣‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺬﻛﺮ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﻮﺩﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﻮﻑ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻐﻀﺒﻮﻥ ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﺗﺘﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺧﻮﻓﴼ ﻣﻦ ﻏﻀﺐ‬
‫ﻫﺆﻻﺀ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺓ ﺍﳌﺸﻬﻮﺭﻳﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺭﻡ‪ ،‬ﳜﺎﻑ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﻷ‪‬ﻢ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﻥ ﺃ‪‬ﻢ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﻮﻗﻌﻮﻥ ‪‬ﻢ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺻﺎﺭﻣﺔ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻳﺰﺭﻉ ﺍﳋﻮﻑ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺪﻡ ﰲ ﻗﻠﻮﺏ ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻟﻮﻥ ﻻ ﳛﻜﻤﻮﻥ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺼﺪﺭﻭﻥ ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻣﴼ ﲢﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﲑ‬
‫ﺇﻧﻔﻌﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﻧﻔﻌﺎﻻﺕ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻭﺟﺪﺕ ﻓﻴﻬﻢ ﲡﻌﻠﻬﻢ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺠﺰﻭﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺇﺻﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺓ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺫﻧﻮ‪‬ﻢ ﻭﺧﻮﻓﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ‪،‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﻮﻗﻌﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﳛﺎﻛﻤﻮﻥ ﻭﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺷﻌﻮﺭﻫﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﻧﺐ ﳜﺎﻓﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻀــﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺩﻋﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﻌﺘﺪﻟﲔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺻﺪﻭﺭ ﺃﻱ ﺣﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺷﺮﻳﺮ ﳚﻌﻞ ﺍﳌﺬﻧﺐ ﻳﺸﻌﺮ ﺑﺴﺨﻂ ﻭﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺼﻒ‬
‫ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺎﻗﺒﻪ ﺇﻻ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻏﻀﺐ ﻭﺳﺨﻂ‪.‬‬
‫ﻧﺴﺘﻨﺘﺞ ﳑﺎ ﺳﺒﻖ ﺃﻥ ﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ » ﺗﻔﺎﻋﻠﻪ « ﻣﻊ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻤﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺗﻜﺒﲑ ﻭﺗﻀﺨﻴﻢ ﻟﺼﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮﻩ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻗﺪ ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﺴﻴﺊ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ﺑﻨﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻗﻄﻌﴼ ﻳﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺃﺏ ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺳﻠﺒﻴﴼ ﲡﺎﻩ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻔﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﺳﺄﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺼـﺮﻑ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺮﻱ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺀﻩ ﻳﻨﺘﺤﺮﻭﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﺎﺭﺍﺩ‪‬ﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﻏﻀﺒﻪ ﻭﺭﻓﻀﻪ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ‬
‫ﻳﻐﺎﺭ ﲟﺤﺒﺘﻪ ﻭﺭﲪﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﺘﺮﻙ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺀﻩ ﻟﻠﻬﻼﻙ ﻭﻟﻠﺸﺮ ﺍﳌﺪﻣﺮ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺃﺟﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴـﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﺴﻠﻤﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻌﺎﻗﺪ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻣﺼـﺪﺭ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﳊﺐ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺎﻋﻞ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﳚﺐ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﻩ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ »ﺍﳌﺘﻐﲑ«‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭ »ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺗﻞ«‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﺘﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺴﻘﻂ ﺍﷲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﲢﺖ ﺳﻄﻮ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ‬

‫‪٤٤‬‬
‫ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺇﻻّ ﺍﳋﻀﻮﻉ ﳍﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧﴼ ﻣﻘﻴﺪﴽ ﺑﻘﻮﺍﻧﻴﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﻴﺔ!!! ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻧﻌﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻔﺎﻋﻞ ﺍﷲ‪» ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺘﺮﻳﻪ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﻭﻻ ﻇﻞ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ« )ﻳﻊ ‪ (١٣ :١‬ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺎﻋﻞ ﻳﻨﺸﻲﺀ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﲑ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ..‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‬
‫ﰲ ﻛﻤﺎﻝ ﻋﻤﻘﻬﺎ‪ ...‬ﻣﻦ ﻟﻪ ﺃﺫﻧﺎﻥ ﻟﻠﺴﻤﻊ ﻭﻗﻠﺐ ﻟﻠﻤﺤﺒﺔ ﻓﻠﻴﺴﻤﻊ ﻭﻟﻴﺤﺐ‪ .‬ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻮﻗﻈﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻏﻔﻠﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻻ ﻳﺼﻴﺐ ﺍﷲ ﰲ‬
‫ﺷﺨﺼﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﺎﺷﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﻛﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻹﻧﺰﻋﺎﺝ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﻏﻀﺒﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻋﻼﻥ ﳏﺒﺘﻪ ﻭﻏﲑﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺭﺁﻧﺎ ﳔﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺣﺒﻴﺒﴼ ﻟﻨﺎ )ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ ‪ (١٦ :١‬ﺑﺪﻻً ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻧﻘﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺿﺪ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ‪ ،‬ﺇﳕﺎ‬
‫ﺿﺪ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﳛـﺮﺭﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﲏ ﻓﻚ ﺭﺑﺎﻃﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺻﻼﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ‪.‬‬
‫»ﺍﷲ ﺻﺎﺭﻡ ﺟﺪﺍﹰ‪ ،‬ﺿﺪ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪«.‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻧﻄﻮﻧﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ )ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﻮﻛﺎﻟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ‪١٥٠‬‬
‫ﺹ ‪ (٣٥٢‬ﻗﻮ ًﻻ ﺭﺍﺋﻌﴼ ﻳﺴﺘﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻋﻤﻖ‪:‬‬
‫»ﺍﷲ ﺧﻴّﺮ ﻭﺟﻮﺍﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﳜﻀﻊ ﻟﻸﻫﻮﺍﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺘﻐﲑ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻔﻜﺮ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻳﺆﻣﻦ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺘﻐﲑ ﻭﻳﺴﺄﻝ‪ :‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺑﻘﻮﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻔﺮﺡ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻷﺑﺮﺍﺭ ﻭﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺭﲪﺘﻪ ﳌﻦ ﻳﻜﺮﻣﻮﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﳛﺠﺐ ﻭﺟﻬﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻐﻀﺐ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺓ؟ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﻔﺮﺡ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻐﻀﺐ )ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ(‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺡ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻮﺍﻃﻒ ﻭﺃﻫﻮﺍﺀ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﷲ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺗﺴﺘﻤﻴﻠﻪ ﻭﺗﻐﺮﻳﻪ ﻋﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻜﺮﻣﻮﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﺴﻌﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺘﻊ‬
‫)ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ(‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﺼﺢ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﻳﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﺑﺎﳌﺘﻌﺔ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺇﳚﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺳﻠﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻐﲑﺓ‪ .‬ﺍﷲ ﺻﺎﱀ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻓﻘﻂ ﳝﻨﺢ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﻋﻄﻴﺔ ﺻﺎﳊﺔ )ﻳﻊ ‪ (١٧ :١‬ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻭﺍﻷﺫﻱ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ‬
‫ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻐﲑ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﳓﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﺑﻘﻴﻨﺎ ﺻﺎﳊﲔ‪ ،‬ﲟﺸﺎ‪‬ﺘﻨﺎ ﷲ‪ ،‬ﺻﺮﻧﺎ ﻣﺘﺤﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﻌﻪ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ‬
‫ﺻﺮﻧﺎ ﺃﺷﺮﺍﺭﴽ ﺑﻌﺪﻡ ﻣﺸﺎ‪‬ﺘﻨﺎ ﷲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻧﻨﻔﺼﻞ ﻋﻨﻪ‪ .‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻋﺸﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺀ ﷲ‪.‬‬
‫ﳓﻦ ﻧﻠﺘﺼﻖ ﺑﺎﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺇﻥ ﺻﺮﻧﺎ ﺃﺷﺮﺍﺭﴽ ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻧﺼﲑ ً‬

‫‪٤٥‬‬
‫ﻟﻴﺲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﻏﻀﻮﺏ ﰲ ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ‬
‫ﲢﺠﺐ ﻧﻮﺭ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﻄﻊ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﳓﻦ ﻧﻌﺮﺽ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﺸﻴﺎﻃﲔ‬
‫ﻟﻴﻌﺬﺑﻮﻧﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻼﺓ ﻭﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ ﻧﺘﻮﺏ ﻭﻧﺘﺨﻠﺺ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺇﺳﺘﻤﻠﻨﺎ ﺍﷲ ﳓﻮﻧﺎ ﻭﺃﺟﱪﻧﺎﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﲑ )ﰲ‬
‫ﻋﻮﺍﻃﻔﻪ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﺑﻌﻮﺩﺗﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺷﻔﻴﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻭﺭﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻧﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺑﺼﻼﺡ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﺇﻧﻨﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻗﻠﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﴽ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﻤﻦ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺲ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﺠﺐ‬
‫ﻧﻮﺭﻫﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﻲ‪« .‬‬
‫‪(The Philokalia, translated from Greek by G. Palmer, P. Sherrard,‬‬
‫)‪Kallistos Ware, 1984, Faber & Faber, London. Vol 1, p. 352‬‬

‫ﻓﺎﷲ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‪ » :‬ﻷﻥ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻱ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻛﻢ ﻭﻻ ﻃﺮﻗﻜﻢ ﻃﺮﻗﻲ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻋﻠﺖ ﻃﺮﻗﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻗﻜﻢ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻱ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻛﻢ « )ﺇﺵ ‪ .(٩-٨ :٥٥‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺇﻥ ﲢﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺭﲪﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻭﳏﺒﺘﻪ ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻧﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﻋﺪﻝ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﺇﺧﺘﻼﻓًﺎ ﺟﺬﺭﻳًﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻣﺎﺭ ﺇﺳﺤﻖ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ » ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮ «‬
‫ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺗﺸﺒﻪ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻧﺒﺘﻌﺪ ﻋﻦ » ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻠﺒﺲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ« ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﳜﺎﻃﺐ ﻋﻘﻮﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﺤﺪﻭﺩﺓ ﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﻗﺼﺺ ﻭﳕﺎﺫﺝ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﷲ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﳑﻴﺖ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺪﺑﺮ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﻭﻣﺮﻳﺪﻫﺎ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻣﺎﺭ ﺍﺳﺤﻖ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻘﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺑﺄﻱ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺪﻳﻒ ﺑﻌﻴﻨﻪ!!! ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﺪﺑﺮ ﺍﻷﺫﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻘﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻓﻜﺮ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻛﺜﲑًﺍ ﻭﻛﺘﺒﻮﺍ ‪ -‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﺎﺭ ﺇﺳﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﱐ ‪ -‬ﺗﻔﺴﲑﺍﺕ ﻟﻴﻌﻠﻨﻮﺍ‬
‫ﻟﻨﺎ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻧﺪﺭﺱ ﻭﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺪﺑﺮ‬
‫ﻧـﻮﺭﺍ ﺁﺑﺎﺋﻴﹱﺎ ﰲ ﻫـﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺤﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ!! ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﺮﻯ ﻭﻧﻘـﺮﺃ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻴﻠﺔ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺫﻟﻚ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﳚﺪﺭ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺍﻵﻥ‪ ،‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﲰﺢ ﺍﷲ ﳌﻦ ﻛﺘﺒﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻠﻮﺍ‬
‫ﻋﻨﻪ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﺜﻞ ‪:‬‬

‫‪٤٦‬‬
‫» ﻓﺤﺰﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺄﺳﻒ ﰲ ﻗﻠﺒﻪ‪ .‬ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‬
‫ﺃﳏﻮ ﻋﻦ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺧﻠﻘﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻊ ‪‬ﺎﺋﻢ ﻭﺩﺑﺎﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭﻃﻴﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻷﱐ ﺣﺰﻧﺖ ﺃﱐ ﻋﻤﻠﺘﻬﻢ ‪ ...‬ﻓﻬﺎ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻣﻬﻠﻜﻬﻢ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ «‬
‫)ﺗﻚ ‪(٣-٦ :٦‬‬
‫» ﺍﷲ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﻭﻳﻨﺪﻡ ﻭﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﻋﻦ ﲪﻮ ﻏﻀﺒﻪ ‪ ...‬ﻧﺪﻡ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺗﻜﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﻨﻌﻪ ‪‬ﻢ ﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﺼﻨﻌﻪ « )ﻳﻮﻧﺎﻥ ‪(١٠ -٩ :٣‬‬
‫ﻭﳓﻦ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ‪ ،‬ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺇﻫﻼﻙ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﺑﻞ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻧﺎﺭﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ﱂ‬
‫ﻳﺮﺟﻌﻪ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺳﺄﻟﻪ ﺗﻠﻤﻴﺬﻳﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﱰﻝ ً‬
‫ﻳﻘﺒﻠﻮﻩ » ﻓﺘﻔﻨﻴﻬﻢ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺇﻳﻠﻴﺎ«‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘﻔﺖ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ »ﻭﺍﻧﺘﻬﺮﳘﺎ ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ‪ :‬ﻟﺴﺘﻤﺎ ﺗﻌﻠﻤﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺃﻱ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺃﻧﺘﻤﺎ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﱂ ﻳﺄﺕ ﻟﻴﻬﻠﻚ ﺃﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺑﻞ ﻟﻴﺨﻠﺺ«‬
‫)ﻟﻮ ‪.(٥٦ -٥٥ :٩‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﻗﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺎﺅﻝ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻄﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﻛﺘﻮﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﺗﺎﻭﺿﺮﻭﺱ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ » ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ « ﺹ ‪.٣٨ ،٣٧‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘـﺪﺱ ﻻ ﻳﻠﻐﻲ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ )ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﺃﺳﻔﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ( ﻭﻻ ﻳﻔﻘﺪﻫﺎ ﺣﺮﻳّﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﻋﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ )ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺫﻫﱯ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻢ(‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﻳﺮﻓﻌﻬﺎ ﻭﻳﻨﻬﻀﻬﺎ‪ ...‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻛﺎﺗﺐ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ‬
‫ﻟﻐﺘﻪ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﻭﻳﻌﱪ ﻭﻓﻘًﺎ ﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑﻩ ﻭﺃﺳﻠﻮﺑﻪ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﳑﺎ ﻳﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﻻ ﻳﻠﻐﻲ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺄﺛﺮﺍ ﺑﺜﻘﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻭﺑﻴﺌﺘﻪ‪ ...،‬ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﺑﺎﳊﺮﻓﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ‪ .‬ﻓﻔﻲ ﻗﺼﺔ‬
‫ً‬
‫ﻋﻤﺎﺩ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻣﱵ ﺃﻥ ﺻﻮﺗًﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺑﲏ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺮﺭﺕ )ﻣﺖ ‪ (١٧ :٣‬ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻝ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻟﻮﻗﺎ‪ :‬ﺃﻧﺖ ﺇﺑﲏ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺮﺭﺕ )ﻟﻮ ‪:٣‬‬
‫‪ .(٢٢‬ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺫﻛﺮﻭﻩ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻠﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪:‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﻣﺖ ‪ » ٣٧ :٢٧‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﻣﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩ «‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﻣﺮ ‪ » ٢٦ :١٥‬ﻣﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩ «‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﻟﻮ ‪ » ٣٨ :٢٣‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩ «‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﻳﻮ ‪ » ١٩ :١٩‬ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺻﺮﻱ ﻣﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩ «‪«.‬‬

‫‪٤٧‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﷲ ﻳﻮﺣﻲ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﻭﻳﺸﺮﺣﻪ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺇﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﻭﺛﻘﺎﻓﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺑﻴﺌﺘﻪ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﻣﻔﺮﺩﺍﺕ ﻟﻐﺘﻪ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺒﲑ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ .‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻳﻮﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮﻩ ﻫﻮ ً‬
‫» ﻣﻌﺼﻮﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ « ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﻗﺼﺪ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻭﻑ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﳌﺜﻞ ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭ ﻋﻦ ﺇﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﰲ ﺫﻛﺮ ﻧﺺ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺫﻟﻚ‪.‬‬
‫ﺷﺮﺍ‪ ،‬ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺟﻬﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﺼﻨﻊ ً‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﻩ ﻭﺇﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﺋﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺭﺛﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺷﺮ ﻳﺪﺑﺮﻩ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ!!‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﻧﺮﻯ ﻭﻧﺴﻤﻊ ﺑﻜﻮﺍﺭﺙ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﲢﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺗﻨﺸﻲﺀ ﺍﻟﺰﻻﺯﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﱪﺍﻛﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﳍﻮﺍﺀ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺮﻙ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻷﻋﺎﺻﲑ‪ .‬ﻭﻧﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﺃﻣﻮﺭ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﳊﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻧﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻧﻘﻤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻗﺮﺃﻧﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺢ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﻢ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻐﻀﺐ ﻭﻳﺪﻣﺮ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺑﺘﺬﻛﺮ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﻣﺎﺭ ﺇﺳﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﱐ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻧﻄﻮﻧﻴﻮﺱ‬
‫ﻣﻠﺨﺼﺎ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻴﻢ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﻭﺷﺮﺡ ﺩ‪ .‬ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﺗﺎﻭﺿﺮﻭﺱ ً‬
‫ﻭﻫﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﺱ ﻳﻨﺎﺭﺍﺱ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ‪Elements of‬‬
‫ﺁﺧﺮﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻭﺗﻔﺴﲑﻫﺎ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺺ ﻭﺍﻷﺣﺪﺍﺙ‬ ‫ﻣﻠﺨﺼﺎ ً‬
‫‪ً Faith, p. 84‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﻋﻜﺲ ﻣﺎ ﺃﻇﻬﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﺷﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻵﺏ‪ ،‬ﺃﻳﻘﻮﻧﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﺳﻢ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻩ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻭﺻﻒ ﺍﻷﺳﻘﻒ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﻛﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻮﺱ ﻭﻳﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﻳﻨﺎﺭﺍﺱ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ُ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻔﻜﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻪ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ »ﻧﺒﻮﻳﺔ« ﰲ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ )ﻛﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻮﺱ ﻭﻳﺮ ﺃﺳﻘﻒ‬
‫ﻭﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﲜﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺃﻛﺴﻔﻮﺭﺩ ( ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺗﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻌﻤﻠﺔ ] ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ[‬
‫ﰲ ﻭﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺑﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲢﺎﻭﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺇﻋﻼﻧﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺳﻘﻮﻁ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﻘﻮﻁ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎ ﻭﻗﺒﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺗﺸﻮﻳﻪ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﺳﻘﻄﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ً‬
‫ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ‪ -‬ﲟﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ‬
‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺧﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲢﻘﻖ ﻫﺪﻑ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﺗﺸﻮﻳﻪ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﺮﺏ‬

‫‪٤٨‬‬
 ‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﻭﺍﻷﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﺘﻤﺮ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺃﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ » ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ « ﺗﻨﻈﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﺮﺏ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻋﺪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﻈﺮ‬
‫ﺇﻧﻘﺴﺎﻡ ﻭﲤﺮﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺷﻖ ﻭﺣﻔﺮ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳍﻮﺓ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯ ) ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﻳﺒﻘﻲ ﻛﻤﺠﺎﺯ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﻲ( ﻫﻲ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻣﻮﺟﻬﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﺇﱃ ﺷﻌﺐ ﻏﻠﻴﻆ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻗﺒﺔ ﻭﻋﻨﻴﺪ‪ .‬ﻟﻐﺔ ﺗﺸﺮﺡ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﺄﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﻭﺻﻮﺭ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻔﻬﻤﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻼ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺇﻟﻪ ﻏﻀﻮﺏ ﻳﺴﻌﻲ‬‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻗﻂ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻣﺴﺘﻌﻤ ً‬
‫ﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻴﺲ ﲟﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﻛﺎﻟﺒﺸﺮ ]ﺇﳕﺎ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﺎﳋﲑ ﻭﻳﻨﺘﻘﻢ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ‪‬ﺒﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ!![‪ .‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺇﺣﺘﺮﺍﻣﻪ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ ﻟﻠﺤﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻧﺘﺎﺋﺠﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﻹﺯﺍﻟﺔ ﲦﺎﺭ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌُﱠﺮﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺇﻥ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻓﺴﻮﻑ ﻳﺰﻳﻞ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﲟﺎ ﳛﻤﻠﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺯﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ً‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﳏﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺗﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻟﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﻋﻘﺎﺏ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻟﻨﻔﺴـﻪ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺧﻼﺻﺎ ‪ -‬ﺃﻧﺎ ﺍﺧﺘﻄﻔﺖ ﱄ‬
‫ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺧﻼﺻﻲ ] ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ ‪ :‬ﺣﻮﻟﺖ ﱄ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ً‬
‫ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﰐ ‪ -‬ﻭﺗﺮﻛﺖ ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺳﻚ ﺑﺮﺃﻳﻲ!! [‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﻤﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﻫﻮ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻗﺒﻮﻟﻪ ﰲ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﺆﳍﺔ ﻛﻞ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ‬
‫ﲤﺮﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﻴﺤﻮﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺣﺐ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﻭﻱ«‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﻥ‪ ،‬ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺣﺘﻤﺘﻬﺎ ﺳﺬﺍﺟﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﺪﻡ‬
‫ﻗﺪﺭﺗﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺳﺘﻴﻌﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺳﺮﺍﺭ ﺣﺐ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻭﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﱂ ﻳﺄﺧﺬﻭﺍ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻛﺘﺐ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﲟﺄﺧﺬ ﺣﺮﰲ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺧﺎﺹ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻛﻴﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻭﺍﺟﺐ ﻭﺿﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ﻗﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻞ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺃﻣﻮﺭ ﺭﻣﺰﻳﺔ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‪.‬‬

‫‪٤٩‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧًﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻋﻦ ﻣﻠﻜﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﺍ‬
‫ﺃﻣﻮﺭﺍ ﲢﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺐ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻟﻨﺎ ً‬
‫ﻟﺼﻌﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﲝﺮﻓﻴﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻭﺭﳚﺎﻧﺲ ﻭﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺫﻫﱯ ﺍﻟﻔﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻌﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺃﻭﺭﳚﺎﻧﺲ ﻗﺼﺔ ﺍﳋﻠﻖ ﰲ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻮﻳﻦ ﺷﺮﺣﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻣﻮﺭﺍ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻋـﻦ ﻛﻮﻥ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺼﺔ ﺣﺮﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ ﻗﺼﺔ ﺗﺸﺮﺡ ً‬
‫ﻫــﻮ ﺍﳋﺎﻟــﻖ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌـﺪﻡ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﺟـﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻮﻳﻦ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺣﺮﻓﻴًﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﺃﻭﺭﳚﺎﻧﺲ )‪Forster & Marston,‬‬
‫‪: (Reason & Faith , p. 206, 231‬‬
‫» ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺫﻛﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﺗﺴﺎﺀﻝ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻝ ‪ -‬ﺑﺴﻬﻮﻟﺔ‬
‫‪ -‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﺃﻳﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﴰﺲ ﻭﻻ ﻗﻤﺮ ﻭﻻ ﳒﻮﻡ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﺣﱴ ﲰﺎﺀ ﻷ‪‬ﺎ ﺧﻠﻘﺖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ؟!!‬
‫ﻓﺮﺩﻭﺳﺎ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﻭ َﻣ ْﻦ ﻣِﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﺨﻒ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﺭﺟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﺪﻕ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺡ ﻳﺰﺭﻉ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻕ ﻋﺪﻥ‪ ...‬ﺃﻭ ‪ ...‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﺘﻤﺸﻲ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﺀ‪ ...‬ﻻ ﺃﺷﻚ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺃﺣ ًﺪﺍ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﳜﻄﺊ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﺮﺡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﺳﺮﺍ ًﺭﺍ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻻ ﺗﺪﺭﻙ ﺇﻻ ﺑﺄﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺭﻣﺰﻱ«‪.‬‬
‫» ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﱪﻳﺔ ﺁﺩﻡ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻷﺟﺰﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺁﺩﻡ ﻛﺸﺨﺺ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻣﻮﺳﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ‪ ...‬ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ً‬
‫ﺷﺨﺼﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻔﺮ ًﺩﺍ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺍﳉﻨﺲ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﻛﻠﻪ «‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺫﻫﱯ ﺍﻟﻔﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺿﻠﻊ ﺁﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﻣﺰ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‬
‫ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﻭﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻳﺔ ‪(Reason & Faith - p. 205) :‬‬

‫» ﻻ ﺗﺄﺧﺬﻭﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻓﺴﺮﻭﺍ ﻋﻤﻖ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ‬

‫ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ ﺍﳌﺤﺪﻭﺩ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﳓﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺳﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻔﻮﻕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻒ؟«‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺃﻧﻪ‪ » :‬ﺍﻟﻜﺮﻣﺔ « ‪ -‬ﻭ » ﺣﺠﺮ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻭﻳﺔ« ‪-‬‬
‫ﺣﺠﺮﺍ!!! ﺇﳕﺎ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻭ» ﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﳋﺮﺍﻑ «‪ ...‬ﺍﱁ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺷﺠﺮﺓ ﻭﻻ ﺑﺎﺑًﺎ ﻭﻻ ً‬
‫‪٥٠‬‬
‫ﺗﺸﺮﺡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻌﺠﺰ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻭﺻﻔﻪ‪ .‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻓﺎﺭﻕ ﺑﲔ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ »ﺣﻖ‬
‫ﺣﺮﰲ« ”‪ ، “exact‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ »ﺣﻖ ﻏﲑ ﺣﺮﰲ« ‪ : “True” but not exact‬ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ُﻭﻟِﺪ‬
‫ﻭﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﻗﺎﻡ ﻭﺻﻌﺪ‪ ..‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺣﻖ ﺣﺮﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻲ؛ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﻣﺔ ﻭﺣﺠﺮ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻭﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﳋﺮﺍﻑ‪ ...‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺣﻖ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻏﲑ ﺣﺮﰲ‪َ .‬ﻭ ُﻭ ِﺻ َﻒ ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺏ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‬
‫ﻭﻛﱪﻳﺖ « ‪ -‬ﻭ »ﺷﻌﻮﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﺑﺢ « ‪ -‬ﻭ » ﺩﻳﻦ ﻻ‬ ‫ٌ‬ ‫ﻧﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺑﺄﻧﻪ » ﻇﻠﻤﺔ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ « ‪ -‬ﻭ » ٌ‬
‫ﻳﻨﺘﻬﻲ« ﺇﻻ ﺑﺪﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺲ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ‪ -‬ﻭ » ﺩﻭﺩ ﻻ ﳝﻮﺕ ﻭﻧﺎﺭ ﻻ ﺗﻄﻔﺄ « ‪ ...‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻭﺻﺎﻑ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺎﳌﻨﺎ ﻟﺸﺮﺡ ﻣﺎ ﱂ ﺗﺴﻤﻊ ﺑﻪ ﺃﺫﻥ ﻭﱂ ﺗﺮ ﻋﲔ ﻭﻟﻦ ﳜﻄﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺑﺸﺮ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻋﺬﺍﺏ ﺍﳊﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ؛ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻫﻲ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ) ﻳﻮ ‪ .(٣ :١٧‬ﻓﺈﻥ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻭﺱ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﺗﻪ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ‬
‫ﺃﻧﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﻋﺬﺍﺑﺎﺕ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺷﺮﺣﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﰲ ﺣﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﻋﺬﺍﺑﻪ ﺃﺳﻮﺃ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻱ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﻌﺮﻓﻪ ﰲ ﻋﺎﳌﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺮﺃﻧﺎ ﰲ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﻣﺎﺭ ﺇﺳﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﱐ ﻭﻣﺎ ﺗﺒﻌﻪ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ » ﻋﻮﺍﻃﻒ« ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻭ » ﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮﻩ « ﻫﻲ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﻌﻮﺍﻃﻒ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﺸﺎﻋﺮ ﺗﺴﺘﻠﺰﻡ ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ »ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ «؛ ﺣﱴ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻓﻼﻧًﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺣﺰﻳﻨًﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ » ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴّﺮ « ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﺳﻌﻴ ًﺪﺍ‪ .‬ﺃﻭ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺎﺩﺋًﺎ ﻭﺻﺎﺭ ﻏﺎﺿﺒًﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﳌﺸﺎﻋﺮ ً‬
‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻳﻌﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ » ﻟﻴﺲ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﻭﻻ ﻇﻞ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ « )ﻳﻊ ‪ (١٧ :١‬ﻭﻻ ﺯﻣﻦ!! ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻋﻦ » ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻘﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻣﻮﺭﺍ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻴﻆ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺪﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻒ « ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﳎﺎﺯﻱ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻓﻴﻪ ً‬
‫ﺑﺮﻏﺒﺘﻪ ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺮﻙ ﳓﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﻧﻌﻮﺩ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳊﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻴﻌﻠﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺷﺮﻧﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺼﻨﻊ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻐﲑًﺍ‪ ...‬ﺣﺎﺷﺎ‪ .‬ﺍﷲ ﻳﻐﲑﻧﺎ ﳓﻦ ﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﺘﻐﲑ‪.‬‬
‫»ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﷲ« ﻣﻮﺟﻪ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺣﺒﻴﺒﻪ‪».‬ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﷲ« ﻫﻮ »ﻏﲑﺗﻪ«‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﳔﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺣﺒﻴﺒًﺎ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻻً ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ!‬
‫ﻓﺎﷲ ﻻ ﻳُﺠﺮﺑﻪ ﻭﻳﻬﺰﻩ ﺷﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺼﺮﻑ ﻭﻳﺘﺤﺮﻙ » ﺑﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ « ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﳛﺮﻛﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻴﻔﺔ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺷﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻ ﻳﻨﻘﺺ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻻ ﳚﺮﺣﻪ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺆﺛﺮ‬
‫ﺷﻌﻮﺭﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﺍﺣﺔ ﰲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﳛﺮﻛﻪ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺆﺛﺮ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻻ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﺍﷲ ً‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﳛﺮﻛﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺳﻔﻠﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ‪ .‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺡ ﻭﺍﳊﺰﻥ‬

‫‪٥١‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺷﺨﺼﻪ » ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺘﺮﻳﻪ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﻭﻻ ﻇﻞ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ « ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻌﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﳋﲑ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﺟﻴﺪ ﻭﺣﺴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻷﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ُﻣﻀﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺧﺎﻃﺐ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﺃﻳﻮﺏ ﻗﺎﺋ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﻟﻪ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺇﻥ ﺃﺧﻄﺄﺕ ﻓﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﻓﻌﻠﺖ ﺑﻪ )ﺃﻱ ﺑﺎﷲ( ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺜﺮﺕ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﻴﻚ ﻓﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﻋﻤﻠﺖ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺭﺍ ﻓﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﺃﻋﻄﻴﺘﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺪﻙ‪ .‬ﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﻣﺜﻠﻚ ﺷﺮﻙ‬
‫ﻟﻪ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺖ ً‬
‫ﻭﻹﺑﻦ ﺁﺩﻡ ﺑﺮﻙ« )ﺃﻳﻮﺏ ‪.(٨-٦ :٣٥‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﰲ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻻ ﳚﺮﺏ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﷲ‬
‫ً‬
‫ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﻛﻞ ﻋﻄﻴﺔ ﺧﲑﺓ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻧﺘﺎﺝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﳌﻼﺯﻡ ﻟﻪ‪ » ،‬ﺷﻮﻛﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ «‪) ،‬ﻳﻊ ‪:(١٧ -١٣ :١‬‬
‫ﳎﺮﺏ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻭﺭ‪،‬‬‫» ﻻ ﻳﻘﻞ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺇﺫﺍ ُﺟﺮﺏ ﺇﱐ ﺃﺟﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻏﲑ ﱠ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﻻ ﳚﺮﺏ ﺃﺣ ًﺪﺍ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻳُﺠﺮﺏ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺍﳒﺬﺏ ﻭﺍﳔﺪﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻬﻮﺗﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﰒ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﻮﺓ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺣﺒﻠﺖ ﺗﻠﺪ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﻤﻠﺖ ﺗﻨﺘﺞ ﻣﻮﺗًﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻻ ﺗﻀﻠﻮﺍ ﻳﺎ ﺃﺧﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﺣﺒﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﻛﻞ ﻋﻄﻴﺔ ﺻﺎﳊﺔ ﻭﻛﻞ ﻣﻮﻫﺒﺔ ﺗﺎﻣﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻮﻕ‬
‫ﻧﺎﺯﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﰊ ﺍﻷﻧﻮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﻭﻻ ﻇﻞ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ «‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺔ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺎﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮﺍ ﻻ‬
‫ً‬ ‫» ﻻ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ « ﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﻭﻻ ﻷﺣﺪ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺳﻌﻴ ًﺪﺍ ﻛﺎﻣ ً‬
‫ﻼ‬
‫ﻳﻨﻘﺺ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﳍﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﻠﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﲑ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻃﻔﻲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ‬
‫ﺗﻠﺰﻣﻪ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﻻ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﻠﻨﻘﻤﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﰲ ﻏﻀﺒﻬﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺔ ﰲ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﳘﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﺫﺍ ﲢﺮﻙ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺘﺤﺮﻙ ﺑﺪﺍﻓﻊ‬
‫» ﺍﻻﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ « ﺇﱃ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺃﺿﺎﻋﻪ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﱂ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺳﻨﺮﻯ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﻠﻴﻖ ﺑﺎﷲ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻄﻠﻖ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﻻ ﻳﻬﺘﺰ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻨﻘﺺ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﻻ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ‪ :‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﻋﺪﻝ » ﻣﻌﻄﺎﺋﻲ « ﻓﻘﻂ ﺃﻱ ﻋ ّﻄﺎﺀ ﻭﺇﳚﺎﰊ ﺑﺴﺨﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻗﻞ ﺍﳋﲑ ﻭﺇﻧﻌﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﺇﻧﻌﺪﻡ ﺍﳊﺐ‬ ‫ﻋﺪﻝ ﻳﻬﺪﻱ ﺍﳋﲑ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻳﻨﻤﺎ ﱠ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺒﺪﺩﺕ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻟﺼﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﷲ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﻋﻨﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺑﺪﺃ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻣﺲ ﻳُﻌ ﱢﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ » ﺇﻫﺎﻧﺔ « ﷲ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﺆﺛﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ .(Atonement & Incarnation, p. 94) .‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ‬
‫‪٥٢‬‬
‫ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻹﳓﺮﺍﻑ ﻭﻟﻮ ﲟﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﻋﺪﻡ ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻛﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧﺸﺄ ﺗﺒﺎﻋ ًﺪﺍ ﺧﻄﲑًﺍ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻋﺪ ﺗﻐ ًﲑﺍ ﰲ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻣﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﻣﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻭﺭﺳﺎﻟﺘﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ!!!‬
‫ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻓﻜﺮﻧﺎ ﻗﻠﻴﻼً‪ ،‬ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺇﻫﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺇﺗﺰﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺪﺭﻩ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻫﻮ‪ :‬ﲢﻮﻳﻞ ﳎﺎﺯﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ) ﻋﻦ ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻧﻘﻤﺘﻪ ﻭﺗﺪﺑﲑﻩ ﻟﻠﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ( ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺣﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﻻﻫﻮﺗﻴﺔ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ ﻭﺗﻐﲑﺍﺕ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﲢﺪﺙ ﰲ ﺍﷲ!! ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ‬
‫ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺘﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻱ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﳋﺘﺎﻡ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻟﻨﻘﺮﺃ ً‬
‫» ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﺘﺐ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺳﺔ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻻً ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺗﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺗﻌﺒﲑﺍﺕ ﻋﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺃﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﺟﺴﺪﻳﺔ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﺼﺢ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﻤﺢ ﻟﻌﻘﻮﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻔﻜﺮ ﺃﻧﻪ ﳏﺴﻮﺱ‬
‫ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺎﺩﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﺃﻥ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻴﻬﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﳎﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺮﻓﻊ ﻋﻘﻮﻟﻨﺎ ﳌﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃﲨﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻤﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﻭﺻﺎﻑ ﻭﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎﺩﻱ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﺖ ﻟﺘﺴﺎﻋﺪﻧﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﻛﺰ ﻓﻜﺮﻧﺎ ﰲ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﻠﻮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ‪.‬‬
‫ﳓﻦ ﻧﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺑﺎﻷﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎ ﺃﻳﺔ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﻠﻮ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ«‬
‫‪The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. III, p. 217-21.‬‬

‫‪: ICONIC LANGUAGE‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻷﻳﻘﻮﻧﻴﺔ‬

‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ‪ :‬ﺍﻷﻳﻘﻮﻧﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻫﻲ » ﺍﻟﻜﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻲ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻭﺑﺎﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﲡﺴﻴﺪ ﻭﺗﺸﺨﻴﺺ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻲ « ﳌﻦ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺮﺳﻮﻡ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﻲ ً‬
‫‪ » Mystical‬ﺳﺮﻱ « ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ‪ .‬ﺍﻷﻳﻘﻮﻧﺔ ﺭﻣﺰ ﻭﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﺂﻥ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ .‬ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴًﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺣﺮﻓﻴًﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﲢﻤﻠﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﲢﻤﻠﻪ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻳﻘﻮﻧﺔ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺍﳊﻖ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺳﺮﻳﺔ ‪ ، Mystical‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻴﻨﺎ ً‬

‫‪٥٣‬‬
‫ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﺪﺱ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻷﻳﻘﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﳌﻤﺴﻮﺣﺔ ﺑﺰﻳﺖ ﺍﳌﲑﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺮﺑﻄﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳊﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲢﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻷﻳﻘﻮﻧﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻛﱪﻱ ﰲ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻭﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺃﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﰲ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﻭﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻮﻳﻦ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﻠﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻘﻮﻁ ﻭﻣﻌﺎﻧﺎﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻫﻲ » ﻟﻐﺔ ﺃﻳﻘﻮﻧﻴﺔ « ‪ ، Iconic language‬ﺃﻱ ﳛﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻷﻳﻘﻮﻧﺔ ﲝﺴﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻗﺼﺺ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺩﻳﺒﺎﺕ )ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺎﺕ( ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻫﻲ ﺑﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﺎ » ﻟﻐﺔ ﺃﻳﻘﻮﻧﻴﺔ «‪ .‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ ﺇﺻﺤﺎﺣﺎﺕ ﺍﳋﻠﻖ ﻭﻗﺼﺔ ﺁﺩﻡ‬
‫ﻭﺣﻮﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﻮﻓﺎﻥ ﻭﺳﺪﻭﻡ ﻭﻋﺎﻣﻮﺭﺓ‪ ....‬ﺍﱁ ﺇﳕﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﺼﻔﻬﺎ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻲ ) ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺨﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺴﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ -‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ ﺹ ‪ ٦‬ﻃﺒﻌﺔ ‪: (١٩٦٠‬‬
‫ﺩﺭﺳﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻷ‪‬ﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺗﺎﺭﳜًﺎ‬
‫» ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻮﻝ ﺍﻷﺣﺪ ﻋﺸﺮ ﺍﻷﻭﱄ ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ ً‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮﻱ‪ ...‬ﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻣﻮﺣﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﻧﺒﻮﻳﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺿﻲ‬
‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻹﻛﻮﻳﲏ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺒﺪﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻣﺮﻭﻱ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺷﻌﺒﻴﺔ ﻭﺑﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻳﺔ ‪ ...‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺎﻟﻴﺪ ﺗﺒﲔ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳋﻠﻖ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺇﺑﺪﺍﻋﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻴﺔ ‪ ...‬ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﺍﳌﻠﻬﻢ )ﻟﻸﺳﻔﺎﺭ ﺍﳋﻤﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱄ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺘﺎﺗﻴﻚ( ﺩﻭﻧﻪ ﻛﺘﺒﺔ‬
‫ﻋﺪﻳﺪﻭﻥ ﰲ ﻏﻀﻮﻥ ﺃﺭﺑﻌﲔ ﺳﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﳚﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﻣﻊ ﳉﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺑﻮﻳﺔ )‪ (١٩٤٨‬ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ‪ ’ :‬ﺇﺯﺩﻳﺎﺩ ﺗﺪﺭﳚﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﺍﺋﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺳﻮﻳﺔ ﺳﺒﺒﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺍﻳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ’ «‪.‬‬

‫‪٥٤‬‬
 ‫• ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺪﻝ ﻣﻌﻄﺎﺋﻲ ﻓﻘﻂ!‬
‫• ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ...‬ﺣﺎﺷﺎ ﶈﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ!‬
‫• ﺍﷲ ﻋﺎﺩﻝ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻱ ﺃﻧﻪ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﻬﺪﻱ ﺍﳋﻴﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ‪ ،‬ﺃﻳﻨﻤﺎ ﻗﻞ ﺍﳋﻴﺮ ﻭﺇﻧﻌﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺗﻼﺷﺖ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ‪...‬‬
‫»ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺣﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪«.‬‬
‫• ﺣﺘﻰ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺇﻻ ﺇﻳﻘﺎﻅ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺇﺭﺟﺎﻋﻪ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﺣﻀﺎﻧﻪ ﺍﻷﺑﻮﻳﺔ‪...‬‬
‫»ﺗﺄﺩﻳﺒﺎ ﹰ ﺃﺩﺑﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ )ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ( ﻟﻢ ﻳﺴﻠﻤﻨﻲ‪«.‬‬
‫)ﻣﺰ ‪(١٨ :١١٨‬‬

‫‪٥٥‬‬
٥٦
٥٨
 ‫‪THEOSIS‬‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﳋﻠﻖ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﺛﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﻗﺪﻭﺱ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺣﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﻧﻮﺭ ﻭﺣﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻓﺎﺋﻀﺔ ﺑﺎﳊﺐ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺏ ﻭﺍﻻﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﺫ ﺗﻼﻣﺲ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﺫﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺧﺠ ً‬
‫ﻼ‬
‫ﻭﺇﳓﲏ ﺣﺒًﺎ ﻭﻃﺎﻋﺔ ﻟﺪﻋﻮﺓ ﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻔﺠﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻭﺟﻮ ًﺩﺍ ﻣﺎﺩﻳًﺎ‪ ...‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺷﻌﺮﺍ ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻗﺮﺏ ﻭﺻﻒ ﻷﻛﱪ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﻫﺬﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻒ‬ ‫ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﺆﻛﺪﻳﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻮﻧﻨﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻋﻤﺮﻩ ﻋﻦ ﺣﻮﺍﱄ ‪١٥‬‬
‫ﻣﻠﻴﺎﺭ ﺳﻨﺔ‪ ..‬ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﻳﺔ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﻻ ﺯﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻭﻻ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ!!! ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻓﻘﻂ‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﻄﻌﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻭ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﳋﻠﻖ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻗﻴﺎﺳﻪ ﲟﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﻗﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻴﻠﻮﺟﺮﺍﻡ ﻭﻻ ﻗﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﳊﺮﺍﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﻷﻣﺘﺎﺭ!!‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﻟﻠﺘﺄﻛﺪ ﻋﻠﻤﻴًﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ »ﲤﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ«‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺎﳊﺴﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ ﰎ ﻗﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺒﺎﻋﺪ ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ »ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ«‬
‫ﲨﻴﻌﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺑﺪﺃﻭﺍ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺮﻙ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺒـﺎﻋﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻤﺪﺩ ﻫﺬﺍ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ً‬
‫‪The Point of Singularity (Stephen Hawking) .‬‬
‫ﻭﳌﺤﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻛﻴﻒ ﲢﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺇﱃ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﺎﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﺑﺪﺃ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻱ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺒﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﻫﺬﻩ »ﺍﳌﻌﺠﺰﺓ« ـ ﻟﻌﺠﺰﻫﻢ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺗﻔﻬﻤﻬﺎ ـ ﺑﺘﺴﻤﻴﺘﻬﺎ ‪» :‬ﺍﻹﻧﻔﺠﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ« ‪ .THE BIG BANG‬ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻒ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺇﻻ ﻃﺎﻗﺔ ‪ ، Energy‬ﳎﺮﺩ ﻗﻮﺓ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ!!! ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻗﺔ‬
‫»ﺗﻜﺜﻔﺖ« )ﺃﻳﱠﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ!( ﺇﱃ ﺷﺤﻨﺎﺕ ﺳﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻭﺃﺧﺮﻱ ﻣﻮﺟﺒﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ‬
‫‪٥٩‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﭙﺮﻭﺗﻮﻧﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻹﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﺎﺕ ﻫﻲ ﺃﺻﻐﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳉﺰﻳﺌﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃﺻﻐﺮ ﺑﻜﺜﲑ‬
‫ﺟ ًﺪﺍ )ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﺗﻨﻌﺪﻡ ﻗﺪﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻣﻊ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻧﻘﻴﺲ ﻣﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻗﻴﺎﺳﻪ !!(‪ .‬ﻭﺃﺻﻐﺮ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻧﻌﺮﻓﻪ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟـ ‪ quark‬ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺟﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﺷﺒﻪ »ﺑﻔﻘﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺍﻍ« ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻬﺎ »ﺳﺤﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﳍﻮﺍﺀ«!! )‪.(The Matter Myth - Penguin Books 1992‬‬

‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﺗﻜﺜﻒ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟـ ‪ quarks‬ﺗﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﺟﺰﻳﺌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺗﻜﺜﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺬﺭﺍﺕ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻭﺯﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﲡﻤﻌﺖ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﻮﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻮﺍﻛﺐ ﻭﺃﻧﺎ ﻭﺃﻧﺖ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺭﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻤﻠﺔ!!!‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﻥ ﲡﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﳉﺰﻳﺌﺎﺕ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ ﺗﻼﺷﻴﻬﺎ!! ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ‬ ‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻒ ً‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﻻ ﺗﺴﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻭﻻ ﺗﻔﲏ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺇﻟﻴﻜﺘﺮﻭﻥ ﻣﻊ ﭘﻮﺯﻳﺘﺮﻭﻥ‬
‫ﻳﻨﺘﺞ »ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ« ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻗﻴﺎﺳﻪ ‪ (١+) :‬ﻭ )‪ = (١-‬ﺻﻔﺮ!! ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻴﻒ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺮ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ »ﺇﻧﻔﺠﺮ« ﰲ »ﺍﻹﻧﻔﺠﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ« ﻭﲢﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺟﺰﻳﺌﺎﺕ‬
‫)‪(١+‬‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺟﺒﺔ )‪ (١+‬ﻭ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ ﺳﺎﻟﺒﺔ )‪ .(١-‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺘﻪ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺮ‬
‫ﻭ )‪ ،(١-‬ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ!!! ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﳓﻦ »ﺻﻔﺮ«‪ ،‬ﳝﻜﻦ ﻭﺿﻌﻪ‬
‫ﲜﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﷲ »ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ«‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﺼﲑ ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﺷﺌﻨﺎ!!!‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ!! ﻓﺎﳌﻜﺎﻥ ‪ Space‬ﻫﻮ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻧﺴﱯ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ‬‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳌﻜﺎﻥ ﻓﻬﻤﺎ ﳐﻠﻮﻗﺎﻥ ً‬
‫ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻗﺔ ﺍﳌﻜﺜﻔﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺒﺪﻭﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ »ﻣﻜﺎﻥ«‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ ‪ Time‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻧﺴﱯ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﺒﺐ »ﲢﺮﻙ« ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﻞ ‪masses‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﺠﻴﻨﺔ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﻛﻮﻧﻨﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺠﻮﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻮﺍﻛﺐ‪ ...‬ﻓﻠﻮﻻ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻀﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ‪ -‬ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ‪ -‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻭﻻ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻭﻻ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ‪ :‬ﺃﺑﺪﻱ ﻫﻮ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻠﻪ؟!‬

‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﻫﻮ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻌﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﲏ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﺍﻓﻊ‬
‫ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﻛﻞ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻢ ﻭﺣﺐ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﻭﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺣﻀﺎﺭﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺣﺮﺏ ﻭﺧﻮﻑ‪!!...‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﺺ ‪:‬‬

‫‪٦٠‬‬
 ‫» ﻟﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ ﻭﺍﺣ ًﺪﺍ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧﻚ ﺃﻧﺖ ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻵﺏ ﱠ‬
‫ﰲ ﻭﺃﻧﺎ ﻓﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻭﺍﺣ ًﺪﺍ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﻟﻴﺆﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺃﻧﻚ ﺃﺭﺳﻠﺘﲏ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻋﻄﻴﺘﻬﻢ ﺍﳌﺠﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻫﻢ ً‬
‫ﺃﻋﻄﻴﺘﲏ ﻟﻴﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ ﻭﺍﺣ ًﺪﺍ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ‪] ...‬ﻷﻧﻚ[ ﺃﺣﺒﺒﺘﻬﻢ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﺣﺒﺒﺘﲏ‬
‫‪ ...‬ﻷﻧﻚ ﺃﺣﺒﺒﺘﲏ ]ﻭﺃﺣﺒﺒﺘﻬﻢ[ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺇﻧﺸﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ .‬ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﱂ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻚ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻓﻌﺮﻓﺘﻚ ﻭﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﻋﺮﻓﻮﺍ ﺃﻧﻚ ﺃﻧﺖ ﺃﺭﺳﻠﺘﲏ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﺮﻓﺘﻬﻢ ﺍﲰﻚ‬
‫ﻭﺳﺄﻋﺮﻓﻬﻢ ﻟﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﻢ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺣﺒﺒﺘﲏ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺃﻛﻮﻥ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﻢ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﻙ ﺃﻧﺖ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻭﺣﺪﻙ ﻭﻳﺴﻮﻉ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺭﺳﻠﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﺃﻧﺎ ﳎﺪﺗﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻋﻄﻴﺘﲏ ﻷﻋﻤﻞ‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﺃﻛﻤﻠﺘﻪ‪) «.‬ﻳﻮ ‪ ٤ -٣ :١٧‬ﻭ ‪.(٢٦ -٢١‬‬
‫ﺧﻼﺻﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻗﺪ ﺧﻠﻘﻨﺎ ﻭﺃﺭﺳﻞ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻠﻤﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﻭﺷﻌﺎﻉ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺰﺭﻉ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﺣﺒﻪ ﻭﳎﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﻮﺣﺪﻧﺎ ﻣﻌﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺸﺎﺭﻙ ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ‬
‫ﻭﳎﺪﻩ ﻭﻧﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺁﳍﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ!! ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻳﺰﺭﻋﻪ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﳑﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﻴﺢ ﻭﻳﻌﻄﻴﻨﺎ ﻟﻨﺼﲑ ﻣﺸﺎ‪‬ﲔ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻋﻴﻨﻬﺎ )ﺭﻭ ‪(٢٩ :٨‬‬
‫ﻭﻧﺼﺒﺢ »ﺷﺮﻛﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ« ﻟﻸﺑﺪ!! ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﳋﻠﻖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺗﻴﺎﺭ ﺩﻱ ﺷﺎﺭﺩﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﭽﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺻﺤﺢ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﻭﺃﺣﺪ‬
‫ﺃﻋﻈﻢ ﻣﻔﻜﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻭﺻﻔﻪ ﺣﱴ ﺍﳌﻠﺤﺪﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﺷﺮﺡ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ‬
‫‪ Man’s Plance in Nature‬ﻭ ‪ ، The Future of man‬ﺃﻥ ﺧﻄﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﺗﻠﺨﻴﺼﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺃﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ‪ ،‬ﻫﻢ ﲡﻤﻴﻊ ﻭﺗﻜﺜﻴﻒ ﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﻭﻓﻜﺮ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﳋﻠﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ‪.Creation‬‬ ‫)‪(١‬‬
‫ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳊﻴﻮﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺒﺎﺗﻴﺔ ‪.Vivication‬‬ ‫)‪(٢‬‬
‫ﺗﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻋﻲ ‪.Hominisation‬‬ ‫)‪(٣‬‬
‫ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﷲ ﻟﺘﺄﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﺮ ‪.Divinisation‬‬ ‫)‪(٤‬‬
‫ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﺮﺽ ﺗﻴﺎﺭ ﺩﻱ ﺷﺎﺭﺩﻳﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻟﻠﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﰒ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳊﻴﻮﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﻳﻘﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ »ﺃﻟﻒ« ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻭ »ﻳﺎﺀ« ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻛﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺍﷲ ‪ . The Omega Point‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‬
‫‪٦١‬‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺳﻴﺼﺒﺢ »ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ« ﺑﺘﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻭ ﻋﻄﻴﺔ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ‪ ...‬ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ‪ ...‬ﻧﻌﻢ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ‪ ،‬ﻟﻮ ﺃﺭﺍﺩﺕ!!‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ )ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﺭﻭﻣﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٣ -١٩ :٨‬ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ »ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ً‬
‫ﳓﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻓﻘﻂ!!( ﺳﺘﻌﺘﻖ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﳎﺪ ﺃﻭﻻﺩ ﺍﷲ!!!«‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﺭﺁﻩ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ »ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ« )ﺭﺅ ‪(١ :٢١‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ »ﳍﺎ ﳎﺪ ﺍﷲ!!!« )ﺭﺅ ‪ (١١ :٢١‬ﻳﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﺠﺐ!! ﻭﻗﺪ ﲰﻲ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺗﺸﺒﻪ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﷲ ﰲ ﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ ﻭﳎﺪ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎﺭﺓ‪» :‬ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ«!!! ‪Cosmic‬‬
‫‪ Theosis, by Grace‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻓﺂﳍﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺒﲏ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﺃﻭ ًﻻ ‪ :‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻤﻮﺍ ﺑﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫• ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻣﺮﺩ ًﺩﺍ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺇﻳﺮﻳﻨﺎﺅﺱ ﻗﺒﻠﻪ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻟﻘﺪ ﺻﺎﺭ ﺍﷲ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧًﺎ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺼﲑ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﳍًﺎ «!! )ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‪(٥٤ :‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑﻭﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﻊ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﺑﺴﻴﻂ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﭬﻼﺩﳝﲑ ﻟﻮﺳﻜﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﻴﺪﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﻚ‬
‫ﺑﻌﻀﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﲰﺎﺀ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺔ ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻛﺪﻭﺍ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺴﺮﺩ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ‪ :‬ﺇﻳﺮﻳﻨﺎﺅﺱ ‪ -‬ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ‪ -‬ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺰﻳﱰﻱ ‪ -‬ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺴﻲ‬
‫‪ -‬ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻣﺸﻘﻲ ‪ -‬ﻣﻜﺴﻴﻤﻮﺱ ﺍﳌﻌﺘﺮﻑ ‪ -‬ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺑﺎﻻﻣﺎﺱ ‪ -‬ﲰﻌﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ‪ -‬ﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ‪ -‬ﻭﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻱ‪.‬‬
‫)‪(Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church p. 134, 126‬‬

‫‪Cosmic‬‬ ‫• ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻣﻜﺴﻴﻤﻮﺱ ﺍﳌﻌﺘﺮﻑ ‪ :‬ﻣﻌﻠﻢ » ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ «‬

‫‪: Theosis‬‬
‫» ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳋﻄﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﳋﻠﻖ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﺧﻠﻘﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻮﺣﺪ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻳﺼﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﲢﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ‪.‬‬

‫‪٦٢‬‬
‫ﻓﺘﻮﻫﺐ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ = ] ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻪ ﲞﻠﻮﺩ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺇﻟﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﺎﺷﺎ [‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﻨﺪﺋﺬ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻬﺐ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﻔﻀﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻳﻨﺎﻝ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﳝﻠﻚ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺘﻢ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﻠﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﲟﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻋﻄﻴﺖ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﱂ ﻳﻘﻢ ‪‬ﺎ ﺁﺩﻡ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ﺁﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﻟﲑﻳﻨﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺪﺙ‪«.‬‬
‫)‪(Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 109-110‬‬

‫ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻋ ّﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﻗﺎﺋ ً‬

‫ﻼ‪:‬‬ ‫• ً‬
‫» ﻟﻘﺪ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﺋﻨًﺎ ﺣﻴﱠًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪﻡ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻋﻮﺓ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺼﲑ ﺇﳍًﺎ‪«.‬‬
‫)‪(V. Lossky, Orthodox Theology - an introduction - p. 73‬‬

‫• ﻭﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺴﻲ ‪:‬‬

‫» ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺳﻮﻑ ﲡﻤﻊ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﲏ ﳋﺎﻟﻘﻬﺎ‬
‫)ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻬﺎ(‪ ...‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻜﻠّﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻧﻔﺲ ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻭﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﺻﺢ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ‪ ،‬ﻟﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺑﲑ«‬
‫‪(Introduction to Eastern Patristic Thought & Orthodox‬‬
‫)‪Theology p. 75‬‬

‫• ﻭﻳﺬﻛﺮ ‪ C.N. Tsirpanlis‬ﻛﺎﺗﺐ ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﰲ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﻣﺸﻮﻕ ﻋـﻦ‬

‫ﻻﻫـﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺁﺩﻡ ﻣﻌ ًﺪﺍ ﻟﻠﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ...‬ﺍﳊﺎﺟﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﺼﺎﺏ ﲟﺮﺽ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﱂ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ً‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﳎﺮﺩ ﳐﻠﻮﻕ ﺿﻌﻴﻒ )ﻏﲑ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ‪ ،‬ﻏﲑ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ(‪ .‬ﻭﳛﺎﻭﺭ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻄﻠﻖ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳌﻼﺋﻜﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺧﻄﺄﻭﺍ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻄﻠﻖ ﺃ‪‬ﻢ ﳐﻠﻮﻗﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻐﲑﺓ ﻏﲑ ﺛﺎﺑﺘﺔ‪ .‬ﱂ ﻳﺪﺑﺮ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺇﺭﺗﻜﺒﻬﺎ ﺁﺩﻡ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﺷﺎﺀ ﻭﺩﺑﺮ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻣﺘﻐﲑ ﺃﻭﻻً )ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ(‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻲ ﺇﺫﻥ )ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ( ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ...‬ﻭﺍﻹﲢﺎﺩ ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ‪...‬‬
‫‪٦٣‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺆﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻜﻞ‬
‫ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻟﻪ ﺟﺬﻭﺭ ﰲ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺇﻳﺮﻳﻨﺎﺅﺱ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺄﻛﻴﺪ« )‪(Introd. to E. P. Th. & O.T., p. 65‬‬

‫»ﻓﻘﻂ ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺆﻣﻨﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﻳﺘﻮﺑﻮﻥ ﻓﻌ ًﻼ ﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺘﻤﺘﻌﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ‬

‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺑﺪﻭ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪...‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺒﲏ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺗﺸﺒﻪ ﲝﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻮﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻟﻠﺮﺏ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ‪ ...‬ﻳﺘﺄﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﻭﺑﺎﻹﲢﺎﺩ ﺑﺎﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺗﺄﳍًﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ« )‪.(p. 68‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﳏﺎﻭﻻﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺄﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺩﻋﻮﺓ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻷﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﻲ ﳏﺎﻭﻻﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻗﻂ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﻘﻲ ﰲ ﻋﺰﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺸﺒﻪ ﺑﺎﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﳌﺘﻮﺍﺿﻊ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﻳﺪﻋﻮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ » ﻳﺼﲑ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﷲ ﻋﺎﺭﻓًﺎ ﻟﻠﺨﲑ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ« )ﺗﻚ ‪،(٥ :٣‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﲟﺸﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﳌﺪﻣﺮ ﻭﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺍﻷﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ...‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺟﻬﻨﻢ ﻋﻴﻨﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﻳﺘﺸﺒﻪ ﺑﺎﳌﺘﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺃﻳﻘﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﳌﺘﻮﺍﺿﻊ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺣﻖ‪ .‬ﳜﺸﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺑﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻛﻞ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﲝﺠﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ‪ Theosis‬ﻫﻮ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺩﻋﻮﺓ ﻟﻠﻜﱪﻳﺎﺀ!! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺘﺸﺒﻪ‬
‫ﺃﺭﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﻨﺤﲏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﻛﺒﺘﻴﻪ ﻭﻳﺼﲑ ﺑﺎﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﻋﺒ ًﺪﺍ ﳜﺪﻡ ّ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ؛ ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﳚﻌﻠﻪ ﻳﺮﻱ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺃﺳﻴﺎ ًﺩﺍ ﺑﺎﳊﺐ!!!‬
‫ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻳﺔ ‪ -‬ﺃﻱ ﺗﺸﺒﻬﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﷲ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺪ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻬﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﺎﺩﺓ ‪ -‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻫﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺇﺧﺘﻔﻲ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻛﻨﺎﺋﺴﻨﺎ ﺣﻞ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻳﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﻨﻮﺳﻲ ﻭﺍﳌﺎﻧﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﻴﺎﻥ ﺣﻘﲑ ﻓﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﺪﻣﺮﻩ ﺍﷲ!!‬

‫ﺍﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ﻟﻜﺮﺍﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪:‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﻨﻮﺳﻲ ‪ Gnosticism‬ﻫﻮ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻳﻮﻧﺎﱐ ﻗﺪﱘ ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﺟﺬﻭﺭﻩ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻓﻼﻃﻮﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫‪ Platonism‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻧﺸﺮﻫﺎ ﻓﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﺗﺒﻨﺎﻩ ﻭﻃﻮﺭﻩ ﻣﺎﱐ ‪ Mani‬ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﺳﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ .‬ﻭﺧﻼﺻﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﺍﻷﺭﻭﺍﺡ‬

‫‪٦٤‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳋﻴّﺮ‪ ،‬ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺇﻟﻪ ﺍﳋﲑ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﲟﺎ ﳛﻮﻱ ﻣﻦ ﻏﺮﺍﺋﺰ‬
‫)ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺍﻷﻛﻞ ﻭﺍﳉﻨﺲ( ﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻠﻘﺔ ﺇﻟﻪ ﺷﺮﻳﺮ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﺍﻷﺭﻭﺍﺡ!! ﻭﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﻭﺍﺡ ﺇﺫ ﺃﺧﻄﺄﺕ ُﺣﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﺠﻦ ﰲ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﻭﺍﺡ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﲡﺎﻫﺪ ﺿﺪ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﺇﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎﺗﻪ » ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮﺓ « ﺣﱴ ﻳﻨﻌﻢ ﳍﺎ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺑﺎﻹﻧﻄﻼﻕ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺳﺠﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮﺓ ﺇﱃ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻷﺭﻭﺍﺡ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳌﺎﻧﻮﻱ‬
‫‪ ، Manichaeism‬ﻭﻟﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻐﻨﻮﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧًﺎ ﰲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﻜﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻻﺣﻆ ﺍﳌﺘﻨﻴﺢ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﺎ ﺑﻴﻤﲔ ﺃﺳﻘﻒ ﻣﻠﻮﻱ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ‬
‫ﺹ ‪:٦٧ -٦٦‬‬
‫»‪ ..‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺩﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻮﻑ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﻚ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻷﻓﻼﻃﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺗﺴﺮﺑﺖ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻨﺎﺩﻱ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻱ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎﺩﻱ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺣﻘﲑ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﳎﺮﺩ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺭﺍﻗﻰ!!‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻣﻘﺎﺻﺪ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻼﻃﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺃﻟﻘﺖ ﺑﻈﻠﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻫﺞ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﻐﻠﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻈﺮﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻋﻘﻞ ﳏﺒﻮﺱ‬
‫ﰲ ﺟﺴﻢ ﻣﺎﺩﻱ ﺑﺘﻄﻠﻊ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺮﺭ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻣﻘﱪﺓ ﻟﻠﺮﻭﺡ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻧﻔﺴﺎ ً‬
‫ﻭﺭﻭﺣﺎ ً‬
‫ﺟﺴﻤﺎ ً‬‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻭﺱ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺧﻠﻘﻪ ً‬
‫ﻭﺣﲔ ﻧﺰﻝ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻷﺯﱄ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺭﺿﻨﺎ ﻟﻴﻔﺘﺪﻱ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺷﺎﺀ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﺘﺪﻱ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺄﻛﻤﻠﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﺴﻤﺎ ً‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺃﺧﺬ ً‬
‫ً‬
‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﻳﺮﻓﺾ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ‪ Dualism‬ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ ] ﻭﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ً‬
‫ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻣﺎﱐ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻀﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻀﺎﺩ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻀﺎﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﻭﺭﻏﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧًﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺑﺴﻤﻮ ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﺝ‪ ،‬ﻭﲰﻮ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻭﺍﳋﺪﻣﺔ‪ ...‬ﺍﱁ[ ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﺍﻧﻴﺔ ‪ -‬ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻜﻮﻓﺴﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ ] ﺃﻱ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﰲ ﻛﻴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺘﺼﺎﺭﻉ [‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﺣﺮﻡ ﳎﻤﻊ ﺟﻨﺠﺮﺓ ‪ Gangra‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻤﻮﺍ‬
‫ﻭﺃﺩﺍﻧﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﺝ ﺃﻭ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﳛﺮﺿﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻔﻒ ﺑﺎﻹﻣﺘﻨﺎﻉ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﺝ‪،‬‬
‫] ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ‪ » :‬ﺣﺴﻦ ﻟﻠﺮﺟﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻻ ﳝﺲ ﺇﻣﺮﺃﺓ «‪ ،‬ﰲ ‪ ١‬ﻛﻮ ‪ ،١ :٧‬ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ‬

‫‪٦٥‬‬
‫ﻭﺻﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ‪ ، Good News Bible‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺇﻗﺘﺒﺎﺱ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺳﺄﻟﻪ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻛﻮﺭﻧﺜﻮﺱ ﻟﺒﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﺻﺤﺎﺡ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻪ ﻟﻠﺮﺩ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻔﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻣﻔﻀﻠﺔ ﺇﻥ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ »ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧﺎ« )‪١‬ﻛﻮ ‪ (٧ : ٧‬ﺃﻱ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺮﻍ ﳋﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﳌﻠﻜﻮﺕ ﻓﻘﻂ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻫﺪﻓًﺎ ﰲ ﺣﺪ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ .‬ﺍﳌﺘﺰﻭﺝ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻮﻝ )ﻣﻮﺳﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺇﻳﻠﻴﺎ( ﻳﺘﺠﻠﻴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺟﺒﻞ ﻃﺎﺑﻮﺭ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ! ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﳌﺠﺪ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ )ﳒﻢ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﳒﻢ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺠﺪ(‬
‫ﺗﻘﺎﺱ ﲟﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﳊﺐ ﷲ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﻨﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺪﻋﻮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻟﻠﺒﺘﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﺝ![‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻞ ﲢﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻛﻠﲑﻭﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎﻧﻴﲔ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﳝﺘﻨﻌﻮﻥ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﺝ ﻭﺃﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻢ ﻭﺷﺮﺏ ﺍﳋﻤﺮ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﳒﺴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺴﻤﻴﻬﻢ‪ :‬ﳎﺪﻓﲔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﻳﺰﻋﺠﻨﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻘﺮﺃﻩ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ » ﺑﺴﺘﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻫﺒﺎﻥ « ﻣﻦ ﻗﺼﺺ ﻫﺪﻓﺖ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺬﻳﺐ ﺍﳍﻴﻜﻞ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺬﻩ ﺧﱪﺍﺕ ﺇﳕﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﺃﻭﻻً ﻭﻗﺒـﻞ ﻛـﻞ‬
‫ﺷﻰﺀ‪] «.‬ﺍﻷﻧﺒﺎ ﺑﻴﻤﲔ ‪ -‬ﺃﺳﻘﻒ ﻣﻠﻮﻯ[‪.‬‬

‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﺑﲔ »ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ« ‪Theosis‬‬

‫ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ »ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ« ‪Pantheism‬‬

‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻢ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﲏ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﳓﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻮﺟﻮﺩﻧﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﻭﻫﺪﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻧﺎ‬
‫ﻭﳕﻮﻧﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﳌﺸﺎ‪‬ﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﻫﺒﺔ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻛﻴﺎﻧﻨﺎ ﳛﻘﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﲝﺒﻪ ﻭﺻﻼﺣﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺎ ﻧﻘﺒﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳍﺒﺔ ﲝﺮﻳّﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﺼﺢ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ » ﻋﺪﻡ ﻳﻨﻤﻮ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﺷﺌﻨﺎ« !! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻳﻈﻞ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ ﻭﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﻫﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﻧﻌﻤﺘﻪ ﻟﻠﻜﻞ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﱂ‬
‫» ﳛﻘﻦ « ﺍﷲ ﻭ » ﻳﺰﺭﻉ « ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﻭﰲ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ )ﺑﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺧﺬﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺴﺔ ﻣﺮﱘ ﻛﻤﻤﺜﻠﺔ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻟﺖ ﳊﺒﻪ ﻭﺩﻋﻮﺗﻪ‪ :‬ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻟﻴﻜﻦ ﱄ ﻛﻘﻮﻟﻚ!( ﻓﺎﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺳﺘﺒﻘﻲ‬
‫ﻋﺪ ًﻣﺎ ﰲ ﻋﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺗﺮﺍﺏ ﻭﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺏ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ‪.‬‬

‫‪٦٦‬‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻈﻠﻢ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ ﰲ ﺃﻋﻤﻖ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﻴﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻓﻨﺎﺀ ﻭﻓﺴﺎﺩ‬
‫ﻭﺿﻴﺎﻉ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺳﺎﺭﺕ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺑﺪﻻً ﻣﻦ ﺻﻌﻮﺩﻫﺎ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ ﰲ‬
‫ﺣﻀﻦ ﺍﷲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﺟﺎﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻻ ﻳﻘﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﺑﻘﺪﺭﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﲝﺎﻝ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﳍﺶ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻻ ﲢﻮﻱ ﰲ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻫﺎ ﻣﺎ ﳛﻘﻖ ﳍﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺧﻠﻘﺖ ﻋﻄﺸﺎﻧﺔ ﻟﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﺗﺪﺑﲑﻩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﺪﻱ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻫﺬﻩ‪ ،‬ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﺼﻨﻊ ﳍﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺸﺒﻪ »ﻧﻘﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻡ« ﺃﻭ »ﺯﺭﻉ ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ«‪ ،‬ﺑﺄﻥ »ﺣﻘﻦ« ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ّ‬
‫ﻭﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺘﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻳﻬﺒﻨﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺸﺘﺎﻕ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﻻ ﳕﻠﻚ ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻨﺎﻝ ﲟﻔﺮﺩﻧﺎ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻋﻠّﻢ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻻﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻭﺍﻷﺻﻴﻞ ﰲ ﻗﻠﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﻭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ!! ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﰲ ﻭﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‬
‫ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﲪﻞ ﻣﺬﺑﻮﺡ ﺣﱴ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺇﻧﺸﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ! ﺃﻱ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﳋﻠﻖ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺎ ﻭﺣﺒًﺎ ﻣﻮﻫﻮﺑًﺎ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﻷﺯﱄ ﰲ ﻗﻠﺐ ﻭﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﱀ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ‪ً ،‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺤﺐ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺑﺬﻟﻪ ﺣﺒًﺎ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﳜﻠﻘﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﲢﻘﻖ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺑﲑ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﲏ )ﻷﻧﻪ ﰲ‬
‫ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ!( ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺃﻟﻔﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻓﻘﻂ!! ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻟﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺑﻄﺮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻋﺎﳌﲔ ﺃﻧﻜﻢ ﺇﻓﺘﺪﻳﺘﻢ‪ .....‬ﺑﺪﻡ ﻛﺮﱘ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻣﻦ ﲪﻞ ﺑﻼ ﻋﻴﺐ ﻭﻻ ﺩﻧﺲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺩﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺮﻭ ًﻓﺎ ﺳﺎﺑﻘًﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻇﻬﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺯﻣﻨﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻠﻜﻢ « )‪١‬ﺑﻂ ‪.(٢٠-١٨ :١‬‬
‫» ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻗﺪﺭﺗﻪ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻗﺪ ﻭﻫﺒﺖ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻮﻱ ﲟﻌﺮﻓﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺩﻋﺎﻧﺎ ﺑﺎﳌﺠﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻀﻴﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻠﺬﻳﻦ ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻭﻫﺐ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻋﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻤﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻤﻴﻨﺔ ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﺼﲑﻭﺍ ‪‬ﺎ ﺷﺮﻛﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻫﺎﺭﺑﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪«...‬‬
‫)‪ ٢‬ﺑﻂ ‪.(٤-٣ :١‬‬
‫ﻭﲤﺎﻡ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺑﺪﻭ‪‬ﺎ ﻻ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﳓﻴﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺑﺪ!! ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ً‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺄﰐ ﻛﻤﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺯﻣﻨﺔ ﺳﻮﻑ ﲡﻤﻊ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺪ ﺇﺳﺘﺠﻤﻌﻬﺎ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻓﻌ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗَﺒِﻠَﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻓﻴﻪ »ﳊﻢ ﻣﻦ ﳊﻤﻪ ﻭﻋﻈﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻈﺎﻣﻪ«‬

‫‪٦٧‬‬
‫)ﺃﻑ ‪ .(٣٠ :٥‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﲤﺎﻡ ﺍﲢﺎﺩ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺑﻌﻤﻞ ﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﰎ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﻌﺮﻭﺱ ﺣﺒﻴﺒﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻵﺏ ﲞﻀﻮﻉ ﺍﳊﺐ‪،‬‬
‫ﺧﻀﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻭﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺗﺄﰐ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﻳﺔ ‪ :‬ﻣﱵ ُﺳﻠﻢ ﺍﳌُﻠﻚ ﷲ ﺍﻵﺏ‪ ...‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﳝﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﻳﻀﻊ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﻷﻋﺪﺍﺀ ﲢﺖ ﻗﺪﻣﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﺁﺧﺮ ﻋﺪﻭ ﻳﺒﻄﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ..‬ﻭﻣﱵ‬
‫ﺃﺧﻀﻊ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ] ﺑﺎﳊﺐ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺴﻠﻂ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺳﻘﻮﻃﻪ!![‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺳﻴﺨﻀﻊ )ﻟﻶﺏ( ﻟﻠﺬﻱ ﺃﺧﻀﻊ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ‪ ...‬ﻟﻜﻲ‬‫ﻓﺤﻴﻨﺌﺬ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ً‬
‫ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ]ﺃﻱ ﺇﺷﺘﺮﺍﻙ ﻛﻞ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﲝﺴﺐ ﻏﲏ ﻧﻌﻤﺘﻪ[« )‪١‬ﻛﻮ ‪.(٢٨ -٢٤ :١٥‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺷﺮﺣﻪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻭﺿﻮﺡ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ً‬
‫ﰲ ﻭﺃﻧﺎ ﻓﻴﻚ ] ﺃﻱ ﲝﺴﺐ‬ ‫» ﻟﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ ﻭﺍﺣ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧﻚ ﺃﻧﺖ ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻵﺏ ّ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﳌﺠﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻭﺍﻹﺑﻦ!!![‪ .‬ﻟﻴﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻭﺍﺣ ًﺪﺍ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ‪ ...‬ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻋﻄﻴﺘﻬﻢ ﺍﳌﺠﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻋﻄﻴﺘﲏ‪) .. .‬ﻷﻧﻚ( ﺃﺣﺒﺒﺘﻬﻢ‬
‫ﻫﻢ ً‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﺣﺒﺒﺘﲏ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺇﻧﺸﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ« )ﻳﻮ ‪.(١٧‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻭ ﻣﺬﻫﺐ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‬

‫ﻇﻬﺮ ﻣﺬﻫﺐ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻠﻤﺔ ‪ Pantheism‬ﺗﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻫﻮ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﺗﻘﺒﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻓﺮﻭﻋﻬﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﺮﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﰊ ﻭﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﻋﻦ »ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ«؛ ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻗﺎﺕ )ﺃﻱ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ( ﰲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻣﺜﻞ‬
‫ﺧﺎﻟﻘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻔﻘﺪ ﻛﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﻭﺟﻮﻫﺮﻩ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﷲ »ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ« ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﻗﺪﺭﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻪ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﻤﺪﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻱ ﻛﺎﺋﻦ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻨﺎﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ‬
‫»ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻮﺟﺪ ﻭﳓﻴﺎ ﻭﻧﺘﺤﺮﻙ« )ﺃﻉ ‪.(٢٨ :١٧‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﺎ ﺃﻏﺮﺏ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻄﺎﻭﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻈﻦ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺎﺩﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﳊﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻢ ﻭﻫﻮ )ﺃﻱ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ( ﳐﻠﻮﻕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ!! ﻭﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﳐﻠﻮﻕ‬
‫‪٦٨‬‬
 ‫ﺗﻌﲏ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﺣﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﻫﺎﻣﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﻭ ًﻻ ‪:‬ﻻ ﳝﻠﻚ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﻭﻻ ﺣﱴ ﻣﺼﲑﻩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﳐﻠﻮﻕ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﳝﻠﻚ ﻛﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﻭﱂ ﳛﺪﺩ ﻣﺼﲑﻩ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺣﺪﺩﻩ ﻟﻪ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺧﺎﻟﻘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﺒﺐ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺤﺎﻟﺔ ‪ -‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻇﺎﻫﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ ‪ -‬ﻫﻮ ﻋﺠﺰ ﻗﺪﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻭﻃﺎﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ‪:‬ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ » ﺣﺴﺐ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﻪ « )ﺗﻜﻮﻳﻦ ‪ (٢٦ :١‬ﻭﻛﻠﻤﺔ »ﺣﺴﺐ«‬
‫ﺗﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻫﻮ » ﻇﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ « )‪On the In-‬‬
‫‪ (carnation, p. 28‬ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻞ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺫﺍﰐ ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﻳﻔﻘﺪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺳﺒﺐ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻏﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﺃﻭ ﺇﺑﺘﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﻈﻞ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﻘﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﷲ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺑﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺍﳊﺪﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺭﲰﻬﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﻻ ﳝﻠﻚ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺨﻄﺎﻫﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻟﺜًﺎ ‪ :‬ﳛﻴﺎ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﺠﺰﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻤﻠﻚ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺰﻣﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ » ﺃﺧﻀﻌﺖ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﲢﺖ ﻗﺪﻣﻴﻪ « ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﻤﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻮﻟﺪ ﻭﳛﻴﺎ ﻭﻳﻨﻤﻮ ﰒ ﳝﻮﺕ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻗﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻋﺠﺰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺨﻄﺎﻫﺎ ﻷﻧﻪ » ﺗﺮﺍﺏ ﻭﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘــﺮﺍﺏ ﻳﻌــﻮﺩ « )ﺗﻜﻮﻳﻦ ‪ .(١٩ :٣‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻊ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻋﺠﺰ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻣﺎ ﳝﻴﺰ ﺑﺸﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﳒﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻤﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﻣﻮﺕ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﺠﺰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﺮ ﱠﺩﻩ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳋﻠﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‬
‫ﻭﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺣﺪﺩﺕ »ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﷲ«‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺧﲑًﺍ ﺇﱃ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﺟﺰﺀ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺎﱂ ﻻ ﳝﻠﻚ ﻛﻴﺎﻧﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﺳﻢ ﻣﺼﲑﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﻣﻨﺢ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ )ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ‪ .(١٦ :٣‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻨﺤﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻨﺒﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﳝﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ ...‬ﻻﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﺘﺢ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﺑﺮﲪﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﺃﻋﻄﻲ ﻟﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ » ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ « ﻣﻨﺢ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﰐ ﻟﻠﺠﺎﻟﺴﲔ ﰲ ﻛﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﻇﻼﻟﻪ )ﻣﱵ ‪.(١٥ -١٤ :٤‬‬

‫‪٦٩‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻭﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻷﻭﻝ ﻭﻫﻠﺔ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻓﺮﻕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺄﻥ ﳎﺮﺩ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ »ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ« ﺗﻌﲏ ﺇﺳﺘﻴﻼﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﷲ! ﻫﺬﺍ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﺁﺩﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺭﺍﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺜﻞ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﲟﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﳋﲑ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ )ﺗﻜﻮﻳﻦ ‪ .(٥ :٣‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳋﲑ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺭﺍﺩﻩ ﺁﺩﻡ ﻭﺣﻮﺍﺀ ﻫﻮ ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﻛﺎﺫﺏ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ »ﺗﺼﲑﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﷲ ﻋﺎﺭﻓﲔ‬
‫ﺍﳋﲑ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ« ﺗﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ » ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺷﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ « ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺳﻮﻑ ﳚﻌﻞ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺷﻬﻮﺍﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻏﺮﻭﺭﻩ ﻭﻗﺪﺭﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﳜﻠﻖ ﰲ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺫﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺷﻠﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻼ ﺑﺎﳌﺮﺓ ﲝﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﻭﲞﺎﻟﻘﻪ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ )‪ ١‬ﻛﻮﺭ ‪:١‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻮﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺟﺎﻫ ً‬
‫‪ .(٢١‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺫﺏ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻠﺔ ﻭﺳﺒﺐ ﺭﻓﺾ ﺍﻹﳒﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻋﻴﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺩﺧﻠﺖ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻇﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻻ ﺗﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ » ﺃﺣﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻷﻥ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﳍﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺷﺮﻳﺮﺓ « )ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ‪ .(١٩ :٣‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺫﺏ ﻫﻮ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﻋﻘﻠﻲ‬
‫ﻣﺼﺪﺭﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﱪﻳﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺴﺘﻮﱄ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﻟﻮ ﺃﻣﻜﻦ‪ ،‬ﺎﻳﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﺟﺎﺀ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺻﺪﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺫﺏ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ »ﺃﺧﻠﻲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻛﺈﻟﻪ«‬
‫ﻭ »ﺻﺎﺭ ﰲ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺪ« )ﻓﻴﻠﱯ ‪ .(٩ -٦ :٢‬ﻭﺟﺎﺀ ﺇﺧﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺻﺪﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻐﺮﻭﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﱐ ﻭﻛﱪﻳﺎﺀ ﻭﺧﻴﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﱐ ‪ ...‬ﻷﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺭﺍﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﻮﱄ ﻭﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ‪ ...‬ﺻﺎﺭ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻳُﻌﻄﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﻭﻏﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻭﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﷲ )ﺃﻓﺲ ‪ .(١٦ -١٥ :٢‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻌﺪ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺇﺳﺘﻴﻼ ًﺀ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺑﻞ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﺇﳍﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﲢﺪﺩﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﻭﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳍﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺩﺧﻞ ﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﺍﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ »ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﻌﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﳑﺎ ﻧﻄﻠﺐ ﺃﻭ ﻧﻔﺘﻜﺮ ﲝﺴﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ« )ﺃﻓﺲ ‪ .(٢٠ :٣‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺭﺳﻢ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺭﺑﻨﺎ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻗﺎﻃﻊ ﻳﻐﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﻷﻟﻮﻫﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺫﺑﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻭ ًﻻ ‪ :‬ﻫﻲ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻄﻠﺐ ﻭﺗﺴﺘﻮﱄ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺴﺘﻌﻠﻰ ﻭﳍﺎ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺟﺴﺪﺍﱐ ﻳﻌﺎﺭﺽ »ﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﻧﻴﺔ«‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻘﻒ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ‬
‫ﴰﻮﺥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻘﺘﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺫﺑﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻳﻌﻠﻤﻪ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻋﺔ »ﺣﱴ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ «‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ »ﱂ ﺗﻘﺎﻣﻮﺍ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺣﱴ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﳎﺎﻫﺪﻳﻦ ﺿﺪ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ« )ﻋﺐ ‪:١٢‬‬
‫‪ (٢٤‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻭﺑﺬﻝ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪.‬‬
‫‪٧٠‬‬
 ‫ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﺩﺧﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﲢﻮﻟﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺳﺘﻴﻼﺀ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻄﺎﺀ‪.‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ‪ :‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻹﳒﻴﻠﻲ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ » ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﻖ ﻓﺒﻴﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺻﺎﺭﺍ « )ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ‪:١‬‬
‫‪ .(٢٧‬ﻭ » ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ « ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺎ ﺃﺧﺬﻧﺎﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺑﻞ » ﺍﳊﻖ « ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳊﻖ‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﺑﺎﻹﺳﺘﻴﻼﺀ ﻭﻻ ﺍﻷﺧﺬ ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺓ » ﻭﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻟﻚ ﱂ ﺗﺄﺧﺬﻩ « ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎﻟﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﺗﺴﻠﻤﻨﺎﻩ ﻛﻬﺪﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ )‪١‬ﻛﻮﺭ ‪ .(٧ :٤‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺑﺎﳊﻖ ﳝﻠﻜﻪ ﺍﳊﻖ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﳊﻖ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ »ﻭﳓﻦ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ « )‪١‬ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ‪ .(٢٠ :٥‬ﻭﺣﻖ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‬
‫ﳚﻌﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺃﻧﻪ ﱂ ﳝﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﻠﻜﻮﺕ ﺑﻘﻮﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺩﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻣﲑﺍﺙ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﺑﺬﺭﺍﻋﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ُﻭﻫﺐ ﻭﺃُﻋﻄﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻗِﺒﻞ ﺗﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﳏﺒﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﺇﻟﻴﻨﺎ ﻭﺃﻋﻄﺎﻧﺎ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫ﳑﺎ ﻧﻈﻦ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﺑﻘﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﺀ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﻓﻘﺮﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻐﲏ ﻓﻴﺾ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺜﺮﺕ ﻣﻊ ﻛﺜﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ )ﺭﻭ ‪ (٢٠ :٥‬ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﺣﻨﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﳝﻨﻊ ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ ﻋﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﺘﻌﺬﺭ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﺘﻮﱄ ﻭﳔﺘﻠﺲ ﻭﻧﱰﻉ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﻼ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻟﺜًﺎ‪ :‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﲞﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻫﺮ ﺍﻵﰐ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ )ﻋﺐ ‪ (١١ :٩‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﳝﻨﺢ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﳋﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﱂ ﳜﻠﻘﻬﺎ ﺃﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﳌﻌﻤﻮﺩﻳﺔ » ﻏﲑ ﻣﺼﻨﻮﻋﺔ ﺑﻴﺪ « ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺔ )ﻛﻮﻟﻮﺳﻲ ‪ (١١ :٢‬ﺃﻱ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﺜﻞ‬
‫ﺧﺘﺎﻥ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻢ‪ ،‬ﺗﺼﻨﻌﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﲔ ﻣﻦ ﳊﻢ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ » ﺧﺘﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ « ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻓﻴﻪ‬
‫» ﳜﻠﻊ ﺟﺴﻢ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ « )ﻛﻮﻟﻮﺳﻲ ‪ (١١ :٢‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻫﺒﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ » ﻭﺇﺫﺍ‬
‫ﻛﻨﺘﻢ ﺃﻣﻮﺍﺗًﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻛﻢ ﻣﻌﻪ « )ﻛﻮﻟﻮﺳﻲ ‪ .(١١ :٢‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻧﻨﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﲏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﳚﻌﻞ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻨﺎ » ﻣﺴﺘﺘﺮﺓ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﰲ ﺍﷲ « )ﻛﻮﻟﻮﺳﻲ ‪ .(٣ -١ :٣‬ﻭﺍﻹﻓﺨﺎﺭﺳﺘﻴﺎ‬
‫ﻫﻲ » ﺧﺒﺰ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻫﺐ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﱂ « )ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ‪ ،(٣٣ :٦‬ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ » ﺃﻧﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳋﺒﺰ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ « )ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ‪ .(٤١ :٦‬ﻭﻛﻞ ﺧﺒﺰ ﺁﺧﺮ‬
‫ﻧﺄﻛﻠﻪ ﳕﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺑﺎﻷﻛﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﺴﺪ ﻭﳜﺮﺝ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳋﻼﺀ )ﻣﺮﻗﺲ ‪.(١٩ :٧‬‬
‫ﻟﻜﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻄﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻫﺐ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ »ﻳﺄﻛﻞ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻻ ﳝﻮﺕ «‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ » ﳛﻴﺎ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺑﺪ« ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﻘﻴﻤﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﺪ » ﻣﻦ ﻳﺄﻛﻠﲏ ﳛﻴﺎ‬
‫ﰊ « )ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ‪ .(٥٧ -٤٩ :٦‬ﻭﻫﺒﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻫﺒﺔ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﳐﻠﻮﻗﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﺴﻘﻂ ﲢﺖ ﻭﻃﺄﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻻ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﻫﺒﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ » ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺭﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻗﺎﻡ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﺕ ﺳﺎﻛﻨًﺎ ﻓﻴﻜﻢ ﻓﺎﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻗﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﺕ ﺳﻴﺤﻲ‬
‫‪٧١‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﺮﻭﺣﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ ﻓﻴﻜﻢ « )ﺭﻭ ‪ .(١١ :٨‬ﺣ ًﻘﺎ ﳓﻦ ﳏﺎﻃﲔ‬ ‫ﺃﺟﺴﺎﺩﻛﻢ ﺍﳌﺎﺋﺘﺔ ً‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﳕﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ » ﻟﻨﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﱰ ﰲ ﺁﻭﺍﻥ ﺧﺰﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻀﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﷲ ﻻ ﻣﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‬
‫‪ ...‬ﺣﺎﻣﻠﲔ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻛﻞ ﺣﲔ ﺇﻣﺎﺗﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ً‬
‫ﰲ ﺟﺴﺪﻧﺎ « )‪٢‬ﻛﻮ ‪ .(١٠،٧ :٤‬ﻭﻻﺣﻆ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ » ﺇﻣﺎﺗﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ « ﻓﻬﻮ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺕ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﳎﺮﺩ ﻣﻮﺕ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳊﻴﻮﺍﻧﺎﺕ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻃﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻷﻥ » ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻗﺪﻳﻦ ﺑﻴﺴﻮﻉ « ﻭ » ﻭﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﺕ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ« )‪ ٢‬ﺗﺴﺎﻟﻮﻧﻴﻜﻲ ‪(١٦ ،١٤:٤‬‬
‫ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﻟﻴﺴﻮﺍ ﰲ ﺗﺮﺍﺏ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺭﻏﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺟﺴﺎﺩﻫﻢ ﰲ ﺗﺮﺍﺏ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺑﻞ » ﻣﱵ ﺃﻇﻬﺮ‬
‫ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻨﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﻈﻬﺮ ﻣﻌﻪ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺠﺪ « )ﻛﻮﻟﻮﺳﻲ ‪.(٤ :٣‬‬
‫ﻭﺟﺬﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﺱ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻭﻓﻴﻪ‬
‫ﺗﻨﻤﻮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﺣﺴﺐ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﻤﻮ » ﳕ ًﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ « )ﻛﻮﻟﻮﺳﻲ ‪ .(١٩ :٢‬ﻭﺣ ًﻘﺎ ﻳﺒﻘﻲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻫﻮ » ﻣﻮﺕ ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ« )ﻛﻮﻟﻮﺳﻲ ‪ (٢٠ :٢‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﻤﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﻳﻔﻘﺪ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻗﺪﺭﺗﻪ ﺍﳌﺪﻣﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺗﻠﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﻗﻮﺓ ﲡﺪﻳﺪ ﲣﻠﻊ ﺍﳌﺎﺋﺖ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺎﺳﺪ ﻭﺗﻌﻄﻲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﻟﻨﺎ!! ﻭﻻﺣﻆ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺒﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫)ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ‪.(٥٧ :٦‬‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﻳﺄﻛﻠﲏ ﳛﻴﺎ ﰊ‬ ‫•‬
‫)ﻏﻞ ‪.(٢٠ :٢‬‬ ‫ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﳛﻴﺎ ﱠ‬ ‫•‬
‫)ﻳﻮ ‪.(١٣ :١٤‬‬ ‫ﺃﻧﺎ ﺣﻲ ﻓﺄﻧﺘﻢ ﺳﺘﺤﻴﻮﻥ‬ ‫•‬
‫)‪ ١‬ﻳﻮ ‪.(٩ :٤‬‬ ‫ﺃﺭﺳﻞ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﻟﻜﻲ ﳓﻴﺎ ﺑﻪ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﳛﻴﻂ ﺑﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﻤﺴﻴﺤﻴﲔ ﻧﻌﺮﻑ ﺑﺎﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﻭﺑﻌﻄﻴﺔ ﺭﺑﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ‪:‬‬
‫)ﺭﻭ ‪.(١١ :٦‬‬ ‫• ﺃﺣﻴﺎﺀ ﷲ ﺑﺎﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ‬
‫)ﺭﻭ ‪.(٢ :٨‬‬ ‫• ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻋﺘﻘﲏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫)ﻓﻴﻠﱯ ‪.(٢١ :١‬‬ ‫• ﱄ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺭﺑﺢ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺑﻄﺮﺱ » ﻟﻴﺤﻴﻮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ « )‪١‬ﺑﻄﺮﺱ ‪ (٦ :٤‬ﻓﻜﻴﻒ‬
‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﳓﻴﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻫﻲ ﻫﺒﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﳍﺎ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺁﺧﺮ‬

‫‪٧٢‬‬
‫ﻏﲑ ﺍﷲ؟! ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺑﻄﺮﺱ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﺇﻻ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‬
‫ﻳﻌﻄﻴﻨﺎ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ » ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﰲ ﺃﺟﺴﺎﺩﻛﻢ ﺍﳌﺎﺋﺘﺔ « )ﺭﻭ ‪.(١١ :٨‬‬
‫ﺷﺎﺭﺣﺎ ﻣﺬﻫﺐ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺩ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺩ‪ .‬ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﺗﺎﻭﺿﺮﻭﺱ ً‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ »ﺣﻮﻝ ﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﷲ« ﺹ ‪: ٩-٧‬‬
‫» ﻣﺬﻫﺐ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ‪ ...‬ﻫﻮ ﻣﺬﻫﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻮﺣﺪﻭﻥ ﺑﲔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺰﻋﻤﻮﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻰﺀ ﻫﻮ ﺍﷲ!! ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺬﻫﺐ ﻗﺪﱘ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺧﺬﺕ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﱪﺍﳘﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺍﻗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﻓﻼﻃﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻮﻓﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﱪﺍﳘﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻳﺮﺩﻭﻥ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻰﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﳘﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻱ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺳﻮﻱ ﺃﻋﺮﺍﺽ ﻭﻣﻈﺎﻫﺮ‬
‫ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺍﻗﻴﻮﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻮﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﻨﻔﺼﻞ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺍﻷﻓﻼﻃﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻮﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻳﻔﻴﺾ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻛﻔﻴﻀﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍﺕ ﻣﺮﺍﺗﺐ‬
‫ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻻ ﺗﺆﻟﻒ ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ ﺇﻻ ﻣﻮﺟﻮ ًﺩﺍ ﻭﺍﺣ ًﺪﺍ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﳌﺘﺼﻮﻓﻮﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺇﻻ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﻈﻬﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻈﺎﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺻﺎﺩﺭ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺠﻠﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﳌﺬﻫﺐ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﺪﺓ ﺻﻮﺭ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻛﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻤﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺳﺒﻴﻨﻮﺯﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﺮﺭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳊﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫)ﻫﻴﺠﻞ( ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﺮﺭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺭﻭﺍﺡ ﺍﳉﺰﺋﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﻮﺣﺪ ﺑﲔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ«‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﱢ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺳﺒﻖ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻋﻦ‪ :‬ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻀﺢ‬
‫ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ » ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ « ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻻ ﳛﺪﺙ ﳍﻤﺎ ﺃﻱ‪:‬‬
‫ﺇﺧﺘﻼﻁ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻣﺘﺰﺍﺝ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﺍﷲ ﲜﻮﻫﺮﻩ ﻳﻈﻞ ﳐﺘﻠ ًﻔﺎ ﻭﻣﺘﻤﻴ ًﺰﺍ ﻭﻋﺎﻟﻴًﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ )ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺧﺮﺝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ(‬
‫ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﻳﺮﻗﻴﻪ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻳﺮﻓﻌﻪ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺠﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻔﺎﺕ ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﺸﺒﻪ ﺑﺎﷲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻳﺼﲑ‬

‫‪٧٣‬‬
‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻮﻳﻦ‪ » :‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻛﺸﺒﻬﻪ « )ﺗﻚ ‪ .(٢٦ :١‬ﻓﻜﻞ ﻣﻨﺎ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺮﺁﺓ ﺗﻌﻜﺲ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﻭﻧﻮﺭﻩ‪ .‬ﻓﻜﻠﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳌﺮﺁﺓ ﺻﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻧﻘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻠﻤﺎ ﻇﻬﺮ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﷲ ﲟﺠﺪﻩ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻭ‪‬ﺎﺀ ﺃﻗﻮﻱ‪ .‬ﻫﻨﺎ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺃﻧﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﳌﺠﺪ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﻫﻮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺇﺧﺘﺰﻧﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﳉﻬﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺂﺯﺭ ﻣﻊ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ :‬ﺑﺎﳉﻬﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﻳﻌﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺁﻧﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ‬
‫ﳑﻠﻮﺀﺍ ﺑﺎﳌﺠﺪ؛ ﺍﳉﻬﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﻳﻠﻤﻊ ﻭﻳﺼﻔﻲ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﳌﺮﺁﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﲤﻸﻭﻫﺎ ﻓﺘﺼﲑ ﻛﱰًﺍ ً‬
‫ﻭﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺗﻌﻜﺲ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺠﺪ ﺍﳌﻮﻫﻮﺏ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﻐﲏ ﻟﻄﻔﻪ ﻭﺣﺒﻪ ﻭﺻﻼﺣﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻈﻞ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﻧﺎﺳﻮﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﷲ )ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﻫﻴﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ( ﺍﻹﺛﻨﺎﻥ ﻣﺘﻤﻴﺰﺍﻥ ‪ -‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﻨﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ‪ - Orthodox Christology‬ﺑﻼ ﺇﺧﺘﻼﻁ ﻭﻻ ﺍﻣﺘﺰﺍﺝ ﻭﻻ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ‪ ...‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﲢﺎﺩ ﻻ ﻳﻔﺘﺮﻕ ﳊﻈﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻭﻻ ﺣﱴ ﻃﺮﻓﺔ ﻋﲔ!! ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﺍﻵﻥ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺻﺮﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺿﺪ ﺍﳍﺮﻃﻘﺎﺕ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﻣﻊ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﳍﺮﻃﻘﺎﺕ ﲨﻴﻌﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺑﺄﺧﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﲢﺎﺩﳘﺎ ﰲ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ‬
‫ﻟﻮ ﺗﻼﺷﺖ ﺇﺣﺪﻳﻬﻤﺎ ﻟﺘﺘﺮﻙ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﻝ ﻟﻸﺧﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺫﺍﺑﺖ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺘﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﺧﺘﻠﻄﺘﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﺴﻄﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻇﻼ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﲢﺎﺩ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺎ »ﺇﱃ ﺟﻮﺍﺭ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ« ‪.Juxtaposition‬‬
‫ﻭﳛﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﻋﻤﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ )ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻱ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻣﺲ(‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﲢﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺳﻮﺕ ﰲ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻁ‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﺍﻣﺘﺰﺍﺝ ﻭﻻ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﻭﻻ ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺍﻕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻨﲑﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﺩﺭﻛﻮﺍ ﺃﻥ ﳕﻮﺫﺝ ﺍﻹﲢﺎﺩ ﻫﺬﺍ ﰲ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻧﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﳓﻦ ﺇﱃ ﺷﺒﻬﻪ ﻭﻣﺜﺎﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻨﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺧﻼﺻﺔ‬
‫ﺧﻼﺻﻨﺎ ﻭﻓﺪﺍﺋﻨﺎ ﻛﻠﻪ!!!‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﻭﺭﺩ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺋﻊ ﻟﻘﺪﻳﺴﻨﺎ ﻭﺃﺑﻴﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻱ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﻌﻠﻢ »ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ« ﻟﻠﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺮﺩ ًﺩﺍ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﻗﺒﻠﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺮﺣﻪ ﻹﳒﻴﻞ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﻟﻴﺤﻤﻞ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻟﻮﻫﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ‬

‫‪٧٤‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﱪﻳﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺲ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺧﺘﻢ ‪ imprint‬ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺟﻠﻴًﺎ ﰲ ﻧﻔﻮﺳﻨﺎ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺼﲑﻧﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺒﻬﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ‪Conform-‬‬
‫‪.« ing us to Him by the Holy Spirit‬‬
‫» ﻧﺼﲑ ﺷﺮﻛﺎﺀ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺧﺘﻤﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺒﻬﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﺴﻤﻮ‬
‫ﻷﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺧﻠﻘﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪...‬‬
‫ﳓﻦ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻧﺼﻌﺪ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺠﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱄ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺳﻨﻜﻮﻥ ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﺑﻼ ﺃﻱ ﻓﺮﻕ ﻛﺄﺑﻨﺎﺀ )ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ( ﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺳﻨﺼﺒﺢ‬
‫ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺸﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﰲ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺏ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻓﺄﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﳏﺒﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺒﲏ‪ ،‬ﻧﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻧﺼﻴﺒﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺃﻧﺎ ﻗﻠﺖ ﺃﻧﻜﻢ ﺁﳍﺔ ﻭﺃﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻰ « )ﻳﻮ ‪(١٠‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻋﺒ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺩﻋﻲ ﻟﻸﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺋﻘﺔ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻣﺴﺮﺓ ﺍﻵﺏ «‬
‫)‪(The Faith of the Early Fathers vol. III, p. 219, 221‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺑﺎ ﺍﳌﻌﻈﻢ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﺎ ﺷﻨﻮ َﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ » ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ « ‪:‬‬
‫‪(The Nature of Christ, Published by St. Mary Coptic Orthodox Church,‬‬
‫)‪Ottawa,Canada p. 8,9‬‬

‫» ﱂ ﳛﺪﺙ ﺗﻐﲑًﺍ )ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﲢﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺎﺳﻮﺕ ﰲ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ(‬

‫ﻼ ﺛﺎﱐ ﺃﻛﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺑﻮﻥ ﻳﺘﻜﻮﻥ‬‫ﻣﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﳛﺪﺙ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﲢﺎﺩ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻤﺜ ً‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻛﺮﺑﻮﻥ ﻣﺘﺤﺪ ﻣﻊ ﺃﻭﻛﺴﻮﭼﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺗﺘﻐﲑ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻔﻘﺪ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﺧﻮﺍﺻﻪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﲤﻴﺰﻩ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻹﲢﺎﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﲢﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺘﲔ )ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺎﺳﻮﺕ( ﻓﻘﺪ ﰎ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺗﻐﲑ ﺃﻭ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻁ‪،‬‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺍﻣﺘﺰﺍﺝ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﱂ ﺗﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﱂ‬
‫ﺗﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺇﳍﻴﺔ‪ ...‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻹﲢﺎﺩ ﺃﻇﻬﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ )ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻱ ‪ -‬ﻋﻤﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ( ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻴﻪ ﺍﻵﰐ‪،‬‬
‫‪٧٥‬‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺩﻳﺴﻘﻮﺭﺱ‪ :‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﳌﺤﻤﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﳓﻦ ﻻ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﲔ‪ ،‬ﺣﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﻧﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﻧﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺣﺪﻳﺪ ﳏﻤﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ً‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‬
‫ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ :‬ﺍﷲ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ‪ :‬ﺇﻟﻪ ﻭﺍﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﰲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﳌﺤﻤﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺪ ﺇﱃ ﻧﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺗﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺣﺪﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻳﺘﺤﺪ ﺍﻹﺛﻨﺎﻥ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺇﻣﺘﺰﺍﺝ ﻭﻻ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻁ«‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻳﺮﺩﺩ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺘﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻣﺸﻘﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻊ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺑﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ً‬
‫» ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﻳﻮﺻﻞ ﻟﻠﻨﺎﺳﻮﺕ ﻣﺎ ﳜﺺ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﻣﻦ ﳎﺪ ﻭ‪‬ﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺳﻮﺕ ﻻ ﻳُﺸﺮﻙ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﰲ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺘﻪ ﻟﻶﻻﻡ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻻ ﺗﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻳﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺆﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﻭﻻ ﺗﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﺗﺘﺤﺪ ﻣﻌﻪ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﺗﺄﺧﺬ ﺍﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﻋﻈﻢ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﻋﻈﻢ‬
‫ﻓﻼ ﺗﻀﻌﻒ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻴﻔﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻜﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺪ ﻳﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻻ ﺗﺘﺤﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺪﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ‪ ...‬ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﺗﺆﻟﻪ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﻻ ﺗﺘﺤﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ«‬
‫)‪.(The Faith of the E.F. vol. III, p. 346‬‬

‫ﻧﺮﻯ ﺇﺫﻥ ﳑﺎ ﺳﺒﻖ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﻛﺒﲑ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻤﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻋﱪ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﲔ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﳓﻦ ﻧﺆﻣﻦ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻳًﺎ ﻋﺪﻡ ﳐﻠﻮﻕ ﻭﻳﻨﻤﻮ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻳًﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﷲ ﻳﺮﻓﻌﻨﺎ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻷﻧﻪ » ﺃﺏ «‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻷﺏ‬
‫ﻳﺴﻤﻲ ﺃﺑًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻳﻮﺭﺙ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ﻭﳎﺪﻩ ﻷﺑﻨﺎﺀﻩ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻳﺴﻤﻲ ﺇﺑﻨًﺎ‪ ،‬ﳍﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺏ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻳﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻭﳛﻤﻞ ﰲ ﺷﺨﺼﻪ ﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﻭﳎﺪ ﺃﺑﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﺬﺗﻪ ﰲ ﺑﲏ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺷﻬﻮﺓ ﻗﻠﺒﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺼﲑ ﻭﺍﺣ ًﺪﺍ ﻣﻌﻪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﻜﺐ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﳎﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ‪ ،‬ﳓﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺤﻤﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻬﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﻓﺤﺪﻳﺚ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﰲ‬
‫ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ )‪ (٢١-١٩ :٣‬ﻋﻦ ﺇﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﺮ ﺑﺄﻥ »ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ« ﺃﻭ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﺒﺘﻌﺪ‬
‫ﻭ »ﻻ ﻳﺄﰐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ« ﻳﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺪﺭﺓ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﻣﺎ ﻳَﻌﻜﺴﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻳُﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﰲ ﻛﻴﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳜﺘﺎﺭ ﺩﻳﻨﻮﻧﺘﻪ ﺃﻭ ﳎﺪﻩ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ!! ﻓﻤﻦ ﻳﺴﻌﺪ‬

‫‪٧٦‬‬
‫ﺑﺄﻥ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ »ﺑﺎﷲ ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻟﺔ« )‪ (٢١:٣‬ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻭﻳﻔﺮﺡ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺑﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻭﻫﺒﻪ ﻟﻪ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺼﻼﺣﻪ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻘﺘﺮﺏ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻓﲑﻱ ﺧﺰﻱ ﻭﻗﺒﺢ‬
‫ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﳚﺮﻱ ﺑﻌﻴ ًﺪﺍ ﻭﻳﺸﻌﺮ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﻧﺸﺎﺫ ﰲ ﺳﻴﻤﻔﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﻠﻤﺎ ﺷﻌﺮ‬
‫ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﳚﺮﻱ ﺑﻌﻴ ًﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﻭﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻪ ﺑﺎﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻋﺪﺕ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﺬﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺿﻤﲑﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳋﺴﺎﺭﺓ ‪ ....‬ﻟﻸﺑﺪ!! ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺳﺒﺐ ﻋﺬﺍﺑﻪ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻄﺎﻟﺒﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻹﺳﺘﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺇﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺛﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﺇﻣﺎ ﲡﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻫﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺷﻬﻮﺓ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻐﲑﻧﺎ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ )ﲡﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻫﻦ ‪(Metanoia‬؛ ﻭﺇﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺧﺰﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳍﻮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺮﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻮﻟﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻻﺑﻦ‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻨﺘﻪ!! ﻷﻥ ﺍﳌﺜﻴﻞ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺎﻳﻦ ﻣﺜﻴﻠﻪ ﻭﻳﻌﺎﻳﺸﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺷﻬﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻗﺒﻠﻮﻩ ﻓﺄﻋﻄﺎﻫﻢ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧًﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﲑﻭﺍ ﺃﻭﻻﺩ ﺍﷲ‪ ...‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻣﻠﺌﻪ‬
‫ﲨﻴﻌﺎ ﺃﺧﺬﻧﺎ « )ﻳﻮ‪(١٦ ،١٢ :١‬‬
‫ﳓﻦ ً‬
‫» ﺃﻧﺎ ﻗﻠﺖ ﺃﻧﻜﻢ ﺁﳍﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳُْﻨﻘﺾ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﻮﺏ « )ﻳﻮ ‪.(٣٥-٣٤ :١٠‬‬
‫» ﺍﻵﻥ ﳓﻦ ﺃﻭﻻﺩ ﺍﷲ ﻭﱂ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﺳﻨﻜﻮﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﻇﻬﺮ‬
‫ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﺳﻨﺮﺍﻩ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ« )‪١‬ﻳﻮ ‪.(١ :٣‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺳﺒﻖ ﻓﻌﺮﻓﻬﻢ ﺳﺒﻖ ﻓﻌﻴﻨﻬﻢ ﻟﻴﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ ﻣﺸﺎ‪‬ﲔ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺑﻜﺮﺍ ﺑﲔ ﺃﺧﻮﺓ ﻛﺜﲑﻳﻦ« )ﺭﻭ ‪.(٢٩ :٨‬‬‫ﻫﻮ ً‬
‫ﲨﻴﻌﺎ ﻧﺎﻇﺮﻳﻦ ﳎﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺑﻮﺟﻪ ﻣﻜﺸﻮﻑ ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﻣﺮﺁﺓ‪ ،‬ﻧﺘﻐﲑ ﺇﱃ‬
‫» ﻭﳓﻦ ً‬
‫ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻋﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﳎﺪ ﺇﱃ ﳎﺪ « )‪٢‬ﻛﻮ ‪.(١٨ :٣‬‬
‫» ﻗﺪﺭﺗﻪ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻗﺪ ﻭﻫﺒﺖ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻮﻱ ‪ ...‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﺼﲑﻭﺍ‬
‫‪‬ﺎ ﺷﺮﻛﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ « )‪٢‬ﺑﻂ ‪.(٤ ،٣ :١‬‬

‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻰ ﰱ ﺻﻼﺓ ﺻﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ‪:‬‬

‫»ﻭﻋﻨﺪ ﺻﻌﻮﺩﻙ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ﺟﺴﺪﻳﴼ ﺇﺫ ﻣﻸﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﺑﻼﻫﻮﺗﻚ‪«.‬‬

‫‪٧٧‬‬
 ‫ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ‪Soma = body‬‬ ‫ﺛﺎﻟﺜًﺎ ‪ :‬ﻃﻬﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻣﺪﺍﻓﻌﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﻦ ﻃﻬﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﳊﻮﺍﺱ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﭘﺎﻻﻣﺎﺱ ً‬
‫» ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮ ﻟﻠﺤﻮﺍﺱ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺎﺭﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻨﻊ ﺃﻭ ﲢﺮﱘ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳊﻮﺍﺱ ﲝﺪ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ« )ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺹ ‪.(٢٥٢‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺷﻠﻴﻤﻲ ‪:‬‬
‫ً‬
‫» ﻻ ﺗﻘﻞ ﱄ ﺇﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ‪ soma‬ﻫﻮ ﺳﺒﺐ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻠﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺳﺒﺐ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﻻ ﳜﻄﺊ ﺍﳌﻴﺖ؟ ﻷﻥ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻻ ﳜﻄﺊ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﲣﻄﺊ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻫﻮ ﺃﺩﺍﺓ«‪.‬‬
‫)ﻋﺪﻧﺎﻥ ﻃﺮﺍﺑﻠﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ‪ -‬ﺹ ‪ ] (٢٤٨‬ﻟﻸﺳﻒ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻠﻤﱵ‬
‫‪ soma & sarx‬ﻗﺪ ﺗﺮﲨﺘﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ‪» :‬ﺟﺴﺪ«! ‪ soma‬ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺧﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻃﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ sarx .‬ﻫﻮ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻋﻘﻠﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺘﻴﻖ‪،‬‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺷﺮ ﻏﲑ ﳐﻠﻮﻕ ﺑﺎﷲ‪ .‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﺬﻣﻮﻡ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻫﻮ ‪sarx = flesh‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ‪.[ soma = body‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺑﻐﺮﺍﺋﺰﻩ‪ ،‬ﻣﱵ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﺖ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﳊﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﺘﻌﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻳﺔ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ )ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﻹﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺫ ‪ -‬ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﺭﻭﻣﻴﺔ‬
‫‪ (٢‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﺧﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻷﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﺇﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﳍﺎ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﻣﻘﺪﺱ ﻭﻣﻔﺮﺡ ﻟﻘﻠﺐ‬
‫ﻣﻠﺨﺼﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻗﻠﺘﻪ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺇﻳﺮﻳﻨﺎﺅﺱ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪:‬‬
‫»ﻻ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﻻ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻫﺎ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﺪﻣﺮﺍﻥ‪ .‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻲ‬
‫ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻮﻑ ﳝﻀﻲ ‪ -‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﲨﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻘﻮﻁ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﳝﻀﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻲ ﺳﻴﺘﺠﺪﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻳﺰﺩﻫﺮ ﰲ ﺃﺻﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺳﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻦ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﳑﻜﻨًﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺸﻴﺦ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﲰﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻭﺃﺭﺿﺎ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ )ﺭﺅ ‪ .(١ :٢١‬ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺽ‬
‫ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ً‬

‫‪٧٨‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﺳﻴﺴﻜﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺟﺪﻳ ًﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺑﺪ‪ ،‬ﳏﺎﺩﺛًﺎ ﺍﷲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺑﺪ« )ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ‪ -‬ﺹ ‪.(١٧٢‬‬
‫ﻓﺈﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﻨﺤﻞ ﻳﻮ ًﻣﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻭﺗﺬﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﳏﺘﺮﻗﺔ )‪٢‬ﺑﻂ ‪(١٠ :٣‬‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﺘﺠﻠﻲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺃﺟﺴﺎﺩﻧﺎ ﻭﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺣﺒﻴﺒﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺪﻋﻮﺓ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﻠﻲ ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ً‬
‫ﻗﺮﺃﻧﺎ ﰲ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺍﻷﻗﺪﻣﲔ ﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻤﻮﺍ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻋﻠّﻢ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﺎ ﺑﻴﻤﲔ ﺃﺳﻘﻒ ﻣﻠﻮﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺣﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ »ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﺍﻹﳍﻰ« ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺇﻗﺘﺒﺲ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻟﻘﺪ ﺻﺎﺭ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻧًﺎ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺼﲑ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﳍًﺎ« ﺹ ‪.١٩‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﺎ ﺑﻴﻤﲔ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺋﻊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺹ ‪:١٦‬‬
‫ً‬
‫» ﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﺒﻞ ﻃﺎﺑﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﺘﺠﻞ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺳﻄﻌﺖ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻣﻊ ﲡﻠﻲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﺘﺠﻠﻲ ً‬ ‫ﺛﻴﺎﺑﻪ ً‬
‫ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﺗﻠﻮﺛﺖ ﺑﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺳﻘﻮﻃﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺳﺘﻌﺘﻖ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ً‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻤﺠﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻌﲏ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﻧﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﻟﻦ ﳜﻄﻒ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺇﻥ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﺳﺘﺨﻠﺺ ﻭﺗﺘﻤﺠﺪ ﻣﻌﻪ‪ ...‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ«‪.‬‬

‫‪٧٩‬‬
 ‫• ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺑﻔﻤﻪ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻫﺮ‪:‬‬
‫»ﺃﻧﺎ ﻗﻠﺖ ﺃﻧﻜﻢ ﺁﻟﻬﺔ ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﻘﺾ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﻮﺏ«‪.‬‬
‫)ﻳﻮ ‪ ٣٤ :١٠‬ـ ‪(٣٥‬‬
‫• ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻣﺎﺭﺩﺩﻩ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‪:‬‬
‫»ﻟﻘﺪ ﺻﺎﺭ ﺍﷲ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧﺎ ﹰ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺼﻴﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﻟﻬﺎ ﹰ«‪.‬‬
‫)ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ‪(٣ :٥٤‬‬
‫• ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺺ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﻟﻴﺸﺮﺡ ﺷﻮﻕ ﻗﻠﺒﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻌﻨﻲ ﺭﺣﻤﺘﻪ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪:‬‬
‫»ﺃﻧﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻋﻄﻴﺘﻬﻢ ﺍ‪‬ﺪ )ﺫﺍﺗﻪ( ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻋﻄﻴﺘﻨﻲ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺍ ﹰ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻧﺤﻦ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﺃﻧﻚ ﺃﺭﺳﻠﺘﻨﻲ ﻭﺃﺣﺒﺒﺘﻬﻢ )ﺃﻧﺖ ﺑﺎﳊﺐ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ(‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﺣﺒﺒﺘﻨﻰ«!!! )ﻳﻮ ‪ ٢٢ :١٧‬ــ ‪.(٢٣‬‬
‫• ﻓﻜﻞ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻪ ﻣﺠﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ!!!‬
‫ﻭﻛﻞ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻪ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻟﻠﺮﺏ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ!!!‬
‫• ﻓﻲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﷲ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻐﻴﺮ ﺇﻻ ﺑﺎﳊﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﺎﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﻲ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪...‬‬
‫ﻓﻰ‪ ،‬ﲟﺠﺪﻩ ﻭﻣﺤﺒﺔ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻭﻋﻤﻞ‬ ‫ﺃﺣﻴﺎ ﻻ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺑﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﺤﻴﺎ ﹼ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺣﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻭﺱ‪.‬‬
‫• ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﻴﺮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻗﺴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻟﻬﻰ ‪:‬‬
‫”ﻋﻨﺪ ﺇﺳﺘﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳋﺒﺰ ﻭﺍﳋﻤﺮ ﺇﻟﻲ ﺟﺴﺪﻙ ﻭﺩﻣﻚ‪ ،‬ﺗﺘﺤﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻧﻔﻮﺳﻨﺎ ﺇﻟﻲ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻣﺠﺪﻙ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺘﺤﺪ ﻧﻔﻮﺳﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺄﻟﻮﻫﻴﺘﻚ‪“.‬‬

‫‪٨٠‬‬
 ‫ﺃﻭ ًﻻ‪ :‬ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺇﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺇﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴـﺎﻥ ﻭﺻﻨﻌﻪ‬ ‫ﺇﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺻﻨﻌﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺧﻠﻘﻬﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻨﻤﻮ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﲨﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻭﳍﺎ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻭﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﲟﺸﻴﺌﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﻓﺾ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻟﺘﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﳍﺎ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﷲ‬ ‫ﺃﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺳﺒﺒﻬﺎ ﻭﻣﺪﺑﺮﻫﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﺗﺪﺑﲑﻩ‪:‬‬
‫•••‬ ‫•••‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ــ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‬ ‫)‪ (١‬ﺍﳋﲑ ــ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫)‪ (٢‬ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‬ ‫)‪ (٢‬ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‬
‫)‪ (٣‬ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ )ﺟﻬﻨﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ(‬ ‫)‪ (٣‬ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ )ﺍﳌﻠﻜﻮﺕ(‬
‫)‪ (٤‬ﺍﻟﱪﻛﺔ )ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﺣﺪ ﻋﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ( )‪ (٤‬ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ‬

‫ﻌﻠﻦ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺃﻱ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﻗﺪ »ﺇﺧﺘﺎﺭ« ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬ ‫• ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﻳَ ُ‬

‫ﺤﻜ ُﻢ ﻭﻳُﻤﻴّ ُﺰ ﻭﻳُ ُ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‪.‬‬
‫• ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻷﳝﻦ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳌُﺤﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ »ﻣﺎ ﻳﺪﺑﺮﻩ«‪ ،‬ﻛﻀﺪ ﻟﻠﺠﺎﻧﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻳﺴﺮ‪ .‬ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ »ﺳﺒﺐ« ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻷﳝﻦ‪.‬‬

‫‪٨١‬‬
‫• ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻷﻳﺴﺮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ »ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ« ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﻭﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺼﻨﻌﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﰲ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫)‪» :(١ :٥‬ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﰲ ﻓﺴﺎﺩﻩ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‪«.‬‬
‫• ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﱪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﻫﻮ ﲢﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻷﳝﻦ‪ ،‬ﻟﻠﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺺ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳍﻼﻙ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻷﻳﺴﺮ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ )ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺻﻼﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ـ »ﺭﺑﺎﻃﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ«( ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻷﻳﺴﺮ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻘﻞ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻷﻳﺴﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﳝﻦ‪.‬‬

‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﺪﻭﻝ ﺧﻼﺻﺔ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻭﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‬

‫ﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻻﻫﻮﺗﻴﺔ ﻛﺜﻴﺮﺓ ﺟﺪﺍ ﹰ‪ .‬ﺗﺄﻣﻞ ﺑﺤﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﻓﺮﺡ!!!‬
‫»ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ )ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ( ﻣﻦ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﷲ‪«.‬‬
‫)ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ ‪ ١٢ :١‬ــ ‪(١٦‬‬
‫»ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﻤﻠﺖ )ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ( ﺗﻨﺘﺞ ﻣﻮﺗﺎ ﹰ‪ .‬ﻻ ﺗﻀﻠﻮﺍ ﻳﺎ ﺃﺧﻮﺗﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺣﺒﺎﺀ‪) .‬ﺍﷲ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ( ﻛﻞ ﻋﻄﻴﺔ ﺻﺎﳊﺔ ﻭﻣﻮﻫﺒﺔ ﺗﺎﻣﺔ )ﻓﻘﻂ(‪«.‬‬
‫)ﻳﻊ ‪ ١٣ :١‬ــ ‪(١٧‬‬

‫ﺃﺛﺎﺭ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺣﻮﺍﺭﴽ ﻫﺎﻣﴼ ﻭﺟﺎﺩﴽ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﻛﻠﲑﻭﺱ ﻭﺍﻹﺧﻮﺓ ﺍﻷﺣﺒﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺭﺍﺟﻌﻮﻩ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻧﻘﺎﻁ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ ﺗﺘﻠﺨﺺ ﰲ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ )ﺹ ‪ (٨١‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺃﻭﺭﺩﻩ ﻟﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﺑﻌﻤﻖ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻷﳘﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﻮﻱ ﰲ‬
‫ﺗﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻂ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻱ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺿﻴﺔ ‪ background‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺭﺳﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ ﺷﺮﺣﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﻛﻠﻪ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﺍﳉـﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻷﳝﻦ‪ :‬ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻷﳝﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﺪﻭﻝ ﻳﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺧﻠﻘﻬﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻓﺮﻁ ﳏﺒﺘﻪ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺃﻫﺪﺍﻫﺎ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺘﺪﺑﲑﻩ ﻛﺄﺏ ﻳﻬﺘﻢ ﺑﻨﻤﻮ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺗﺮﺑﻴﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﻋﺮﻭﺳﴼ ﺗﻠﻴﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺮﻳﺲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﻭﻱ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﳛﻮﻱ‪:‬‬

‫‪٨٢‬‬
 ‫• ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺃﻱ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ؛‬
‫• ﺍﳋﲑ ﺃﻱ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﻤﻲ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻪ ﺑﺎﷲ؛‬
‫• ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﺃﻱ ﺇﺳﺘﻨﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻣﻌﺎﱐ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻓﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﺣﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺰﳚﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﺑﻂ ﻛﻞ ﻧﻔﺲ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﻳﺲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﻭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺴﻤﻴﻪ ﻧﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﳍﻴﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﺍﻡ )ﺍﻟﻮﺟﺪ( ﲝﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﷲ ﳏﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ؛‬
‫• ﺍﻟﱪﻛﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﺣﺪ ﻋﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ‬
‫ﺑﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﳐﻠﻮﻗﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺬﻩ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﳋﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﱪﻛﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﻵﻥ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﺇﻫﺪﺍﺀ ﺍﷲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻴﻪ ﺗﻌﻄﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻨﺎ ﻛﻞ ﺇﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎﺗﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ‪‬ﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﱪﻛﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﺑﻘﻮﳍﺎ‪» :‬ﳏﺒﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻵﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﻣﻮﻫﺒﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﻓﻠﺘﻜﻦ ﻣﻊ ﲨﻴﻌﻜﻢ«‪...‬‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﻬﺪﻱ ﺇﻻ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻴﻖ ﲟﻘﺎﻣﻪ!! ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﻬﺪﻱ »ﺃﺷﻴﺎﺀ« ﺻﻐﲑﺓ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﳏﺒﺘﻪ ﻷﺣﺒﺎﺀﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻣﱵ ﺃﻫﺪﻱ ﻓﻬﻮ »ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﳌﻦ ﻳﺴﺄﻟﻮﻧﻪ«‬
‫)ﻟﻮ ‪ ،(١٣ :١١‬ﺃﻱ ﻳﻬﺐ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻟﻨﺎ!!! ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ :‬ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﳑﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ﻭﳜﱪﻧﺎ )ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻄﻴﺔ‪» :‬ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﳑﺎ ﱄ ﻭﳜﱪﻛﻢ«‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻳﻌﻄﻴﻜﻢ(‬
‫)ﻳﻮ ‪ ،(١٤ :١٦‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻧﺄﺧﺬ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺇﺑﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ »‪‬ﺎﺀ‬
‫ﳎﺪﻩ ﻭﺭﺳﻢ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﺎﻣﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺑﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻗﺪﺭﺗﻪ« )ﻋﺐ ‪.(٢ :١‬‬
‫)‪ (٢‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻷﻳﺴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉـﺪﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﳛـﻮﻱ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ »ﺿﺪ« ﳌﺎ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺮﺃﻧﺎﻩ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻷﳝﻦ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻻﲢﺎﺩ ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ »ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ« ﻭ »ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ« ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‬
‫)ﺍﻹﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ( ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻀﺪ ﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻣﺜﺎﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﺴﻤﻴﻪ‬
‫»ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ« ﺃﻭ »ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ«‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ »ﺍﻟﺰﳚﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﻭﻳﺔ« ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺮﻳﺲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﻭﻱ‪ .‬ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﻴﻪ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‬

‫‪٨٣‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ »ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ« ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ‪:‬‬
‫»ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻴﺔ ﺟﻌﻠﻬﻢ ﻳﻌﻮﺩﻭﻥ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ ﺇﱃ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻬﻢ؛ ﻓﻜﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺃ‪‬ﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ ﺟﺎﺅﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺎ ﻫﻢ ﺍﻵﻥ ﰲ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﻬﻢ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ )ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﺎﱐ( ﰲ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﻬﻢ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻭﳏﺒﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺩﻋﺎﻫﻢ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻓﻜﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﳌﺤﺘﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺇﺫﴽ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻓﻘﺪﻭﺍ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺃ‪‬ﻢ ﻓﻘﺪﻭﺍ ﺛﺒﺎ‪‬ﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﲟﻮﺟﻮﺩ )ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ‬
‫ﻛﻴﺎﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺃﻭﺟﺪﻩ ﺍﷲ( ﺇﳕﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﳋﲑ ﻭﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻀﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺨﲑ«‪) .‬ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ‪.(٤ :١‬‬
‫‪On the Incarnation - Mowbray, p. 29 - 30‬‬

‫ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﻫﺒﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻷﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﺗﺼﻒ ﻭﺗﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﻛﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺟﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻗﺒﻠﻪ ﻭﺑﻌﺪﻩ ﰲ ﺷﺮﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺴﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻀﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻭﺟﺪﻩ ﻭﺩﺑﺮﻩ‬
‫ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﷲ ﲟﺤﺒﺘﻪ‪:‬‬
‫• ﻓﺎﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺇﻻ ﺇﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪.‬‬
‫• ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﻭﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪.‬‬
‫• ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﻭﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺍﳋﲑ‪.‬‬
‫• ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺇﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﻭﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﱪﻛﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﲢﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﺷﺊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﺡ ﻟﻠﺘﻮﺿﻴﺢ‪ .‬ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻗﻠﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨـﺔ ﻟﻴﺴـﺖ ﻃﺒﺎﺋﻊ ﺧﻠﻘﻬـﺎ ﺍﷲ ﳍﺎ ﻛﻴـﺎﻥ ﻭﻭﺟـﻮﺩ ﺧـﻠﻘﻪ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺃ‪‬ﺎ »ﻋﺪﻡ«‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ »ﺣﺎﻻﺕ« ‪ conditions‬ﱂ ﳜﻠﻘﻬﺎ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻻ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﻫﻲ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺧﺮﺍﻓﺔ ﺧﻴﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻻ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﳍﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻧﺘﻨﻜﺮ ﻟﻜﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻣﻮﺭ ﻭﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻴﺔ‬
‫ﳔﺘﱪﻫﺎ ﲨﻴﻌﴼ‪ .‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺃﺭﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺷﺮﺣﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﰲ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﳔﺘﱪﻩ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻫﻮ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻦ‪:‬‬

‫‪٨٤‬‬
 ‫)‪ (١‬ﻣﺎ ﺧﻠﻘﻪ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻟﻪ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﻭﻗﺼﺪ ﻭﻫﺪﻑ ﺇﻟﻬﻲ‪...‬‬
‫)‪ (٢‬ﻣﺎ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺨﻠﻘﻪ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻟﻢ ﻳﺪﺑﺮﻩ‪ ،‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﻫﻮ »ﺣﺎﻻﺕ« ﻧﺪﺭﻛﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﺤﺎﻭﻝ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻨﺎ ﺭﻓﺾ ﻭﲢﻄﻴﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺩﺑﺮﻩ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﲟﺤﺒﺘﻪ ﻭﺗﺪﺑﻴﺮﻩ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺜﺎﻟﻪ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺪﺑﻴﺮ ﺍﷲ‪،‬‬
‫ﹶﺴﺮﱠﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺴﺘﺮﺿﻲ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﻻ ﺗ ﹸ‬
‫)ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻫﺎﻡ ﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﻌﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ(‬

‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻳﺴﺄﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﻞ‪ :‬ﺇﻥ ﻗﻠﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﻭﻣﺪﺑﺮ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳋﲑ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﱪﻛﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ؛ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﻭﻣﺪﺑﺮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻴﺲ »ﺿﺎﺑﻂ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ«‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﺁﺧﺮ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺃﻭ »ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ« )ﺃﻱ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ(؟!!!‬
‫ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ‪ :‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﺧﺬﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻱ ﻛﻤﺜﺎﻝ ﻭﺩﺭﺳﻨﺎ ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻈﻼﻡ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﳒﻴﺐ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻃﺎﳌﺎ ﺷﻌﺮﺕ ﺃﻧﻪ ﳛﲑ ﺑﺴﻄﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻋﻠﻤﻴﴼ ﻫﻮ ﻃﺎﻗﺔ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ‬
‫ﳏﺴﻮﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﳍﺎ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺃﻱ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ‪.Essence or Substance or Nature‬‬

‫ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ﻭﺗﺄﺛﲑﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﺤﻴﻄﺔ ﺑﻪ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﻤﻴﴼ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺇﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ .‬ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﻟﻠﻈﻠﻤﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻧﺪﺭﻛﻬﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﳍﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻛﻴﺎﱐ ﳏﺴﻮﺱ‬
‫ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﲑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﺤﻴﻄﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻨﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ »ﻋﺪﻡ« ﺃﻭ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ »ﻋﺪﻡ« ﺃﻭ »ﺇﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﻭﻏﻴﺎﺏ« ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺇﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﻧﺎ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻈﻼﻡ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﻌﺪﻡ ﻭﻳﻐﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪» :‬ﻭﺿﻌﺖ ﺃﻣﺎﻣﻚ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﻓﺈﺧﺘﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻟﺘﺴﺘﻨﲑ«‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﳊ ْﻜﻢ« ‪ ،judgement‬ﺃﻱ ﺇﺑﺪﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﱘ‬ ‫ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺃﻭ ‪‬ﺬﺍ »ﺍ ُ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﻣﺪﺑﺮﻫﺎ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ‬

‫‪٨٥‬‬
‫ﳊ ْﻜﻢ« ﻫﻨﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﺃﻋﻠﻦ ﺣﻜﻤﴼ ﻭﺭﺃﻳﴼ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ! ﺇﳕﺎ ﺇﻋﻼﻥ »ﺍ ُ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ KRISIS‬ﺗﻌﲏ »ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ«‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﺧﻠﻘﻪ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳋﺮﻭﺝ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﰲ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳊﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺆﳌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﺭﺟﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻔﻬﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﻮﺭ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻗﺪﺭﺗﻪ ﻭﺑﻜﻞ ﻭﺿﻮﺡ ﻷ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺡ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻢ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﻭﺍﳋﲑ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﻭﻛﻞ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳒﻴﻞ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﳏﻮﺭ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ‬
‫ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﻮﺿﺢ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﺭﺟﺎﺀ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺃﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻭﻫﻀﻤﻬﺎ ﺣﱴ ﻳﺘﺴﲏ ﻓﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻛﻠﻪ‪ .‬ﺍﳋﻼﻑ ﰲ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﻳﻔﺎﺕ ﻫﻮ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﳋﻼﻑ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻛﻠﻪ!!!‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻔﻬﻤﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻧﺪﺭﻛﻬﺎ ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﺃﺩﺭﻛﻨﺎ ﻣﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ )ﻭﺍﳌﻮﻟﻮﺩ ﺃﻋﻤﻲ‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﻻ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺄﻣﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺸﺊ!( ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﻌﺎﱐ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻱ ﻣﺜﻞ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ‪.‬‬

‫)‪ (١‬ﺍﻟﺸــﺮ‪:‬‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﻪ ﳓﺎﻭﻝ ﺗﺪﻣﲑ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻭﺟﺪﻩ ﺍﷲ ﻛﺨﲑ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﻘﺎﺗﻞ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﳏﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﺘﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻳﻘﻀﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﺴﺪﻩ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺎﺭﻕ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﺇﻧﻘﺎﺹ‬
‫ﺧﲑ ﻗﺮﻳﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﺮﻗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻳﺸﲔ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻛﻤﺨﺮﺏ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻗﺮﻳﺒﻪ‪» .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻜﺮﻩ‬
‫ﺃﺧﺎﻩ ﻫﻮ ﻗﺎﺗﻞ ﻧﻔﺲ« )‪١‬ﻳﻮ ‪ ،(١٥ :٣‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻳﺘﻤﲏ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﲏ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺃﺧﺎﻩ ﺇﻥ ﺃﻣﻜﻦ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺰﱐ ﳛﻮﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺰﱐ ﻣﻌﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺩﺍﺓ ﻟﻠّﺬﺓ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺇﺣﺘﺮﺍﻡ ﻛﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﷲ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺒﲑ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﺐ‪ ،‬ﻃﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ ﻣﻊ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺃﺣﺒﻪ ﻭﺃﺭﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﻪ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻣﺸﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﺣﺒﻪ‬
‫ﻛﺸﺨﺺ ﻭﻛﻴﺎﻥ ﺃﺑﺬﻝ ﺫﺍﰐ ﻷﺟﻠﻪ ﺑﺎﳊﺐ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺰﻧﺎ ﺷﺮ ﻣﺪﻣﺮ ﻭﲢﻘﲑ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﺰﺍﱐ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻳﺰﱐ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺍﺀ( ﻭ »ﺗﺸﻴﺊ« ﻟﻶﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﲢﻮﻳﻠﻪ ﺇﱃ »ﺷﺊ« ﺑﺪﻻً‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ »ﺷﺨﺺ« ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪.‬‬

‫‪٨٦‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻻ ﳜﻠﻖ ﺷﻴﺌﴼ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﴽ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﻭﻻ ﻛﻴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ »ﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﺳﻠﺒﻴﺔ« )ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﻮﺻﻞ ﻃﺎﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻬﺮﺑﺎﺀ ﺑﺎﻷﺭﺽ ﻓﺘﻨﻘﺺ ﺃﻭ ﺗُﻌﺪﻡ( ﺭﻫﻴﺒﺔ ﻭﻣﺪﻣﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﺸﺪ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺧﲑ ﻭﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺇﲡﺎﻩ »ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ«‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﺘﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﳏﺮﻙ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺤﻮ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺧﺮﺟﺖ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻫﻮ »ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺗﺪﻣﲑ« ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﺍﳋﲑﺓ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﺍ ﺃﲰﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ »ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ« )‪١‬ﻳﻮ ‪ ،(٤ :٣‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺴﻤﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﻌﺼﻴﺎﻧﻨﺎ ﻟﺪﻛﺘﺎﺗﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺴﻠﻂ‪ ،‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﻋﺼﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻫﻮ ﺟﺎﺋﻊ ﻭﻋﻄﺸﺎﻥ ﳌﻦ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻷﻛﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﺏ!!! ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﻔﺮﺽ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﺧﻠﻘﻨﺎ ﲝﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﻄﺶ ﻭﺟﻮﻉ ﺷﺪﻳﺪ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﲝﺴﺐ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﳏﺒﺘﻪ ﻭﻟﻄﻔﻪ ﻭﺻﻼﺣﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻨﻤﻮ ﺇﱃ »ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﰲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ«‬
‫)‪٢‬ﺑﻂ ‪ (٤ :١‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻘﺐ »ﺃﻧﺎ ﻗﻠﺖ ﺃﻧﻜﻢ ﺁﳍﺔ‪ ...‬ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﻘﺾ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻜﺘﻮﺏ« )ﻳﻮ ‪ ٣٤ :١٠‬ـ ‪ .(٣٥‬ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻧﺮﻓﺾ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺄﻛﻠﻪ ﻭﻧﺸﺮﺑﻪ ﻟﻨﺤﻴﺎ؟ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺇﺫﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﻧﺸﻌﺮ ﺑﺴﻠﺒﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﻫﻴﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺗﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﺤﺐ ﻣﻨﺎ ﻛﻞ ﻃﺎﻗﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ )ﻛﺘﻮﺻﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻬﺮﺑﺎﺀ ﺑﺎﻷﺭﺽ ‪ ،(Earthing‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﻛﻴﺎﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﻭﻭﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻣﺜﻞ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺴﻤﻴﻪ »ﺧﲑ« ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻗﻮﻟﺘﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﲑﺓ‪» :‬ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‬
‫ﻋﺪﻡ«‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﻠﻨﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺗﻨﻜﺮﴽ ﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻛﺤﺮﻛﺔ ﻗﺎﺗﻠﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻲ‪ :‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﻮ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ؟!‬
‫ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ‪ :‬ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻋﻄﺎﻫﺎ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺇﳓﺮﻓﺖ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺘﺞ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻠﻘﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﷲ ﱂ ﻳﺪﺑﺮ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﻻ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﻻ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳚﻠﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪» ...‬ﻻ ﺗﻀﻠﻮﺍ ﻳﺎ‬
‫ﺃﺧﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﺣﺒﺎﺀ«‪:‬‬
‫ﳎﺮ ٍﺏ ]ﻫﻮ ﻻ‬
‫»ﻻ ﻳﻘﻞ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺇﺫ ُﺟ ﱢﺮﺏ ﺇﱐ ﺃﺟﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻏﲑ ﱠ‬
‫ﻳﻬﺘﺰ ﻭﻳﺘﻐﲑ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺷﺮﻭﺭﻧﺎ[ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻭﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻻ ﳚﺮﺏ ﺃﺣﺪﴽ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‬
‫ﳚﺮﺏ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺍﳒﺬﺏ ﻭﺍﳔﺪﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻬﻮﺗﻪ‪ .‬ﰒ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﻮﺓ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺣﺒﻠﺖ ﺗﻠﺪ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﻤﻠﺖ ﺗﻨﺘﺞ ﻣﻮﺗﴼ‪ .‬ﻻ ﺗﻀﻠﻮﺍ ﻳﺎ ﺃﺧﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﺣﺒﺎﺀ ﻛﻞ ﻋﻄﻴﺔ ﺻﺎﳊﺔ ﻭﻣﻮﻫﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺎﻣﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻮﻕ ﻧﺎﺯﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﰊ ﺍﻷﻧﻮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﻭﻻ ﻇﻞ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ«‪) .‬ﻳﻊ ‪ ١٣ :١‬ـ ‪.(١٧‬‬

‫‪٨٧‬‬
‫ﺇﺫﻥ ﺍﷲ ﱂ ﳜﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ .‬ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻋﲏ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪،‬‬
‫ﺟﻬﻨﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺃﻋﲏ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺭﲪﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺮﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻨﺎﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻴﺴﺘﺮﻳﺢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺗﻌﺎﺏ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﻠﻜﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﻭﻱ‬
‫ﺑﻜﺎﻣﻠﻪ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺠﺊ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ »ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ« ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻨﺘﺠﻪ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ )ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﺃﻱ ﺍﻹﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ( ﰲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﻪ‪:‬‬
‫»ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻓﻲ ﻓﺴﺎﺩﻩ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ«‬
‫)ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ‪(٥ :١‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‪:‬‬
‫»ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﷲ ﻣﺴﺒﺒﴼ ﻟﻌﺬﺍﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ )ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ( ﺑﻞ ﳓﻦ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﺟﺬﺭﻫﺎ ﻛﺎﺋﻦ ﰲ ﺣﺮﻳﺘﻨﺎ ﻭﺇﺭﺍﺩﺗﻨﺎ« )ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺻـ ‪(١٣٧‬‬

‫)‪ (٢‬ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪:‬‬

‫ﻓﺤﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻋﻄﻴﺖ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻟﻜﻲ ﳒﻴﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺪﻳﺔ ﺣﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﻳﺪﻧﺎ‬
‫ﻛﻌﺮﻭﺱ ﻟﻠﻌﺮﻳﺲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﻭﻱ‪ ،‬ﳒﻴﺒﻪ ﺑﻘﻮﻟﻨﺎ‪ :‬ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻭ ﻻ!‬
‫ﺍﳊﺐ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﻋﺒﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻬﺮ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻛﺮﺍﻫﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺮﻓﺾ‬
‫ﻼ ﰲ ﻓﻜﺮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺼﺪﺭ‬ ‫ﺍﳊﺐ‪ ،‬ﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﺃﻥ ﳛﻴﺎ ﻣﺘﻘﻮﻗﻌﴼ ﰲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﻣﺘﺤﻮﺻ ً‬
‫ﻭﺣﻴﺪ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻷﺧﻼﻕ ﻭﺍﲣﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﻴﺪﴽ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻮﺓ ﺍﷲ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﺧﻼﻕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ )ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻌﲏ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﺎﱐ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ »ﻗﺪﻭﺱ«‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻓﻴﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ ﻭﻛﻞ ﻛﻨﻮﺯ ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ ﻭﻛﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﱪ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﺪﻕ ﻭﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻗﻠﻨﺎ ﳊﺒﻪ »ﻻ« ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﳕﻮﺕ ﺭﻭﺣﻴﴼ‪ ،‬ﳓﻦ »ﻧﻄ ّﻠﻖ« ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ »ﻧُﻄ ﱢﻠﻖ‬
‫ﺍﷲ« ﻣﻨﺎ ﺇﻥ ﺟﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺏ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ُﻭﺻﻒ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﲝﲑﺓ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻧﺎﺭ ﻻ ﺗﻄﻔﺄ‪ ،‬ﻭﺻﺮﻳﺮ ﺃﺳﻨﺎﻥ ﻻ ﻳﻬﺪﺃ‪ ،‬ﻭﺩﻭﺩ ﻣﻔﺘﺮﺱ ﻻ ﻳﺸﺒﻊ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﰲ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ »ﺍﻟﻄﻼﻕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ« ﺑﻌﻴﺪﴽ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ‪...‬‬
‫‪٨٨‬‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﳊﻖ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﺃﻋﻄﻲ »ﻋﺼﻤﺔ« ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﺝ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻄﻼﻕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﻣﻨﻪ‬
‫ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺣﺒﻴﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺇﺣﺘﺮﺍﻣﻪ ﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﳌﺤﺒﻮﺏ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ .‬ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﺃﺳﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ »ﺃﻟﻘﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﳝﲔ ﺍﻟﻄﻼﻕ« ﺇﻥ ﺟﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳُﻠﻘﻲ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﻤﻮﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺭﻭﺣﻴﴼ ﻫﻨﺎ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺴﺘﻤﺮ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺗﴼ ﺃﺑﺪﻳﴼ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﺗﺮﻙ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻓﺮﺻﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﻷﺣﻀﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺮﻳﺲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﻭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﻫﻨﺎ‪) .‬ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﻫﻮﺷﻊ ‪.(٢‬‬
‫ﻓﻘﻂ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﻥ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳُﻘ ﱢﺪﺭﻭﻥ ﻋﺬﺍﺏ ﺍﳊﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻧﻪ ﺃﺳﻮﺃ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺃﻱ ﻧﺎﺭ ﺃﻭ ﺩﻭﺩ ﺃﻭ ﺻﺮﻳﺮ ﺃﺳﻨﺎﻥ ﻣﺎﺩﻱ ﰲ ﻋﺎﳌﻨﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ‪ ...‬ﻓﻘﻂ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﺣﺒﻮﺍ ﻭﺇﺧﺘﱪﻭﺍ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻘﺪﺭﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﲝﲑﺓ ﻧﺎﺭ ﺍﳊﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﳌﺤﺒﻮﺏ ﺁﻻﻣﻬﺎ ﻻ ﺗﻘﺎﺱ ﺑﺄﻱ ﻧﺎﺭ ﻧﻌﺮﻓﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻻ ﳛﺒﻮﻥ ﻭﱂ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﺍ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺆﻻﺀ ﻻ ﻳﺰﻋﺠﻬﻢ ﺍﳊﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻟﻮﻥ ﱄ ﺇﻧﻚ‬
‫‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺟﻬﻨﻢ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﺇﳕﺎ ﺗﻨﻜﺮ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻋﻦ ﺻﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﲑﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﻘﺪﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺭ!!! ﺇ‪‬ﻢ ﻻ ﳜﺎﻓﻮﻥ »ﺧﻮﻑ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ« ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﺇﻳﺎﻩ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﳜﺎﻓﻮﻥ ﻧﺎﺭ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻱ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﺩﻭﺩ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻳﺮﻋﺒﻬﻢ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﺩ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻀﻤﲑ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﺣﺸﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻣﱪﻭﺳﻴﻮﺱ‪:‬‬
‫»ﺻﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻷﺳﻨﺎﻥ )ﻛﻤﺎ ﻭﺻﻔﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﰲ ﺟﻬﻨﻢ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ( ﻟﻴﺲ ﺻﺮﻳﺮ ﺃﺳﻨﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺟﺴﺪﻳﺔ! ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺩ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ ﺟﺴﺪﻳﴼ‪ .‬ﱂ ﺗﻜﺘﺐ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺇﻻ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺩ‬
‫ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳊﻤﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺪﻳﺪﺓ )= ﺍﳌﺮﺽ‪ ،‬ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻄﺐ ﺃﻳﺎﻡ ﺃﻣﱪﻭﺳﻴﻮﺱ(‬
‫ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻮﺏ ﻭﻳﻄﻬﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻩ ﺳﻮﻑ ﳛﺘﺮﻕ ﰲ ﻧﺎﺭﻩ ﻭﻳﺘﺂﻛﻠﻪ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺩﻩ )ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ(‪ .‬ﻭﳍﺬﺍ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ﺳﲑﻭﺍ ﰲ ﻧﲑﺍﻧﻜﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻭﻗﺪﲤﻮﻩ‬
‫)ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ‪ .(١١ :٥٠‬ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﻧﲑﺍﻥ ﻛﺂﺑﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﻧﺘﻴﺠﺘﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﺪﻭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺗﻄﻌﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ ﻭﺗﺄﻛﻞ ﺃﺣﺸﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻀﻤﲑ‪«.‬‬
‫)‪(The Faith of the Early Fathers Vol 2, p. 163‬‬

‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﺪﺭﺱ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﲔ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ »ﺗﺄﺩﻳﺒﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻜﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ«‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ »ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺜـﺎﱐ« )ﺭﺅ ‪.(٨ :٢١‬‬

‫‪٨٩‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﳓﻦ ﻧﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﺃﻱ ﺍﻹﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﺬﻛﺮﻩ ﺑﻘﻮﻟﻨﺎ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ‪» :‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻘﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻋﺒﻴﺪﻙ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪«.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺻﺎﺭ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺟﺰ ًﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻟﺮﺍﺣﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺃﺗﻌﺎﺏ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻨﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﻮ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺭﲪﺔ ﻭﳏﺒﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ‪:‬‬
‫»ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻮﺕ ﻟﻌﺒﻴﺪﻙ ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ‪ «.‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻻ ﺧﻼﻑ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﺣﱴ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻓﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﺪﻭﻡ ﻭﻋﻤﻮﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻘﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺏ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ؛ ﻭﺣﻨﺎﻧﻴﺎ ﻭﺳﻔﲑﺓ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﻫﲑﻭﺩﺱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﺻﺎﺭ ﻳﺄﻛﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺩ )ﺃﻉ ‪ (٢٣ :١٢‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﺕ ﺟﺴﺪﻳﺔ ﺃ‪‬ﻲ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﷲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺭﺿﻲ‪ ،‬ﻛﺘﺄﺩﻳﺒﺎﺕ ﳍﻢ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻐﲑﻫﻢ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻷﻥ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻗﺪ ﺿﻌﻔﺖ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﻷﻱ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ـ ﺣﺎﺷﺎ ـ‬
‫ﻓﻜﻞ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺰﻳﺰ ﺟﺪﴽ ﰲ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺧﺎﻃﺌﴼ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻷﻥ ﺗﺄﺩﻳﺐ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺣﻮﻟﻪ ﺇﻗﺘﻀﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻱ ﺍﳌﺒﻜﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺃﻥ ﺣﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺕ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺎﺗﻮﺍ ﻣﺒﻜﺮﴽ ﻫﻲ »ﺣﻜﻤﺔ ﳏﺒﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﻋﺎﱄ« ﻻ ﻧﺪﺭﻛﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺃﻭﻻً ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻔﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻘﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪» :‬ﺳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻷﺭﺽ ﺳﺪﻭﻡ ﻭﻋﻤﻮﺭﺓ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺇﺣﺘﻤﺎ ًﻻ ﳑﺎ ﻟﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﺪﻳﻨﺔ‪) «.‬ﻣﺖ ‪ (١٥ :١٠‬ﻭﻛﺘﺐ ﺑﻄﺮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺫﻫﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﳌﻦ ﻣﺎﺗﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﺺ‬
‫ﻭﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﺑﺎﻧﺘﻈﺎﺭ ﳎﻴﺌﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺫﻫﺐ ﻳﺪﻋﻮ ﻭﻳﻜﺮﺯ ﻷﺭﻭﺍﺡ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺎﺗﻮﺍ ﻋﺼﺎﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻓﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺃﻳﺎﻡ ﻧﻮﺡ!!! ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﺪﺭﻛﻪ ﻭﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻧﻪ ﰲ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﻩ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻔﻖ ﻣﻊ ﺑﻌﺾ‬
‫ﺃﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﺍﳌﻠﻜﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﺮﺡ ﺃﻥ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﻌﺪ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ‬
‫ﺃﻧﻪ ﺳﺮ ﻳﺴﺘﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺗﺮﻙ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﻟﻴﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻭﺣﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻛﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪:‬‬
‫»ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻘﺮﺑﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﷲ ﳑﺎﺗﴼ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳏﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ‬
‫ﺫﻫﺐ ﻓﻜﺮﺯ ﻟﻸﺭﻭﺍﺡ ﺍﻟﱵ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﺠﻦ ﺇﺫ ﻋﺼﺖ ﻗﺪﳝﴼ ﺣﲔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﻧﺎﺓ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﺗﻨﺘﻈﺮ ﻣﺮﺓ ﰲ ﺃﻳﺎﻡ ﻧﻮﺡ‪١) «.‬ﺑﻂ ‪ ١٨ :٣‬ـ ‪.(٢٠‬‬
‫ﻛﻨﺖ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﴼ ﺃﺗﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺼﲑ ﺍﻷﻃﻔﺎﻝ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﻳﺎﺀ ﳑﻦ ﻣﺎﺗﻮﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻓﺎﻥ ﻭﺳﺪﻭﻡ ﻭﻋﻤﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫‪٩٠‬‬
‫ﻭﺣﺮﻭﺏ ﺑﲏ ﺇﺳﺮﺍﺋﻴﻞ ﻣﻨﺬ ﻃﻔﻮﻟﱵ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻇﻬﺮ ﱄ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﻬﻨﺔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ‬
‫ﰲ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺑﻄﺮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻟﻠﺘﺄﻣﻞ! ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺇﺳﺘﺨﺮﺍﺝ ﻋﻘﺎﺋﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻘﺮﺓ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﺯﺓ ﳌﻦ ﺭﻗﺪﻭﺍ »ﻋﺼﺎﺓ« ﻭﻣﺎﺗﻮﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻓﺎﻥ ﻫﻲ ﺇﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺑﺪﻳﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ »ﺍﳌﺤﻴﻴﻲ« ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻬﻤﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﻬﺮ ﻋﻘﻮﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﺄﺳﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﷲ‪...‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﻮ ﱂ ﳜﺘﺎﺭ ﺃﻱ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺗﺄﺩﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻓﺎﻥ! ﳌﺎﺫﺍ؟! ﺇﺣﺘﺮﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ‪،‬‬
‫ﻗﺴﻤﺖ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻫﺎﻣﺔ‪ :‬ﺇﻥ ﺣﺎﺩﺛﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻓﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﱠ‬
‫ﲦﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﳒﻮﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ »ﺧﻠﺼﻮﺍ ﺧﻼﺻﴼ ﺃﺑﺪﻳﴼ«‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻗﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮ ﺃ‪‬ﻢ ﻛﻠﻬﻢ ﻗﺪ »ﻫﻠﻜﻮﺍ ﻫﻼﻛﴼ ﺃﺑﺪﻳﴼ« ﲝﺴﺐ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺴﲑﻧﺎ ﻷﺟﺰﺍﺀ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻳﺬﻫﺐ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺇﱃ ﺳﺠﻦ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ ﻟﻴﻜﺮﺯ ﳍﻢ‪» ،‬ﻟﻠﻌﺼﺎﺓ«‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﻦ ﳓﻦ‬
‫ﺃ‪‬ﻢ ﻛﻠﻬﻢ ﻫﺎﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﺃﺑﺪﻳﴼ!!!‬
‫ﺃﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺮﳛﺔ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻻّ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﳌﻮﺣﻲ ﻟﺒﻄﺮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻧﺒﻘﻲ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺴﻴﻄﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺫﻫﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻗِﺒَﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‬
‫ﻟﻴﻜﺮﺯ ﳌﻦ ﻣﺎﺗﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﺨﻠﺺ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ؟! ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺃﻋﻠﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺮ؟!‬
‫ﺃﺟﻴﺐ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﻛﻮﻥ ﳐﻄﺌﴼ‪ :‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻨﻌﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﺗﻨﻌﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺴﻮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺩﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻓﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﺎﻋﺪﺍ ﲦﺎﻧﻴﺔ!!!‬
‫ﻭﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺗﺮﺗﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻗﺪ »ﺭﺩ ﺁﺩﻡ ﻭﺑﻨﻴﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻭﺱ«‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﱂ ﻧﺴﻤﻊ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺁﺩﻡ ﻭﻛﻞ ﺑﻨﻴﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺪﻣﻮﺍ ﺗﻮﺑﺔ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ؟! ﻭﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﻧﺮﺳﻢ ﺃﻳﻘﻮﻧﺔ »ﺳﱯ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ«‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﻭﳝﺴﻚ ﰲ ﻳﺪﻳﻪ ﺁﺩﻡ ﻭﺣﻮﺍﺀ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺧﺮﺟﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺳﻔﻞ ﺃﺭﺟﻠﻬﻢ ﻧﺮﻯ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ ﻓﺎﺭﻏﴼ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺇﻻ ﺃﺑﻮﺍﺑﻪ ﺍﳌﻜﺴﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺃﻗﻔﺎﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺤﻄﻤﺔ؟!!!‬

‫‪٩١‬‬
 ‫ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻲ ﺗﺄﺩﻳﺒﺎﺕ ﺯﻣﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ‬
‫ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﺣﻀﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺍﶈﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻ‬
‫ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﻭﻳﺘﺸﻔﻲ ﻭﻻ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻘﺘﺺ ﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ ﻭﻛﺮﺍﻣﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻬﺎﻧﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻬﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻷﻳﻮﺏ‪:‬‬
‫»ﺇﻥ ﺃﺧﻄﺄﺕ ﻓﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﻓﻌﻠﺖ ﺑﻪ )ﺃﻱ ﺑﺎﷲ(‪ .‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺜﺮﺕ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﻴﻚ‬
‫ﻓﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﻋﻤﻠﺖ ﻟﻪ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺖ ﺑﺎﺭﺍ ﹰ ﻓﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﺃﻋﻄﻴﺘﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻳﺪﻙ‪ .‬ﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﻣﺜﻠﻚ ﺷﺮﻙ ﻭﻹﺑﻦ ﺁﺩﻡ ﺑﺮﻙ« )ﺃﻳﻮﺏ ‪ ٦ :٣٥‬ـ ‪.(٨‬‬

‫»ﺣ َﻜ َﻢ«‬
‫ﻗﺎﻝ ﱄ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺇﻧﻚ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺗﻨﻜﺮ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺗﺘﻨﻜﺮ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ َ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺇﺳﺘﺤﻖ ﺣﻜﻢ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﻞ‬
‫ﳊﻜﻢ« ﻭ »ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺑﲑ«‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﳝﻴﺰ ﺑﲔ »ﺍﳊﺎﻛﻢ« ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ‪،‬‬‫ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻥ ﳝﻴﺰ ﺑﲔ »ﺍ ُ‬
‫ﻭ»ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ« ”‪ “THE CAUSE‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻞ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﺃﻭ ًﻻ‪» :‬ﺍ ُ‬

‫ﳊﻜﻢ ﻭﺍﳊﺎﻛﻢ«‪:‬‬
‫ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ُﺣﻜﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﱪﻳﺔ ﺗﻌﲏ »ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ« ﺃﻭ »ﺗﺸﺨﻴﺺ« ﺃﻭ ﺷﺮﺡ »ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ« ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﰲ ﺇﺻﺤﺎﺡ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ )ﺗﻜﻮﻳﻦ ‪ ١٦ :١‬ـ ‪:(١٩‬‬
‫»ﻓﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻤﲔ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﺍﻷﻛﱪ ﳊﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﺍﻷﺻﻐﺮ‬
‫ﳊﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﻞ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺠﻮﻡ‪ .‬ﻭﺟﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﺟﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ ﻟﺘﻨﲑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﺘﺤﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻴﻞ ﻭﻟﺘﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺭﺃﻱ ﺍﷲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺣﺴﻦ‪) «.‬ﺗﻚ ‪ ١٦ :١‬ـ ‪.(١٩‬‬
‫ﻭﺣﱴ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻮﻳﻦ ﱂ ﻳﻘﻞ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻓﻘﻂ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﲞﻠﻘﺘﻪ ﻟﻠﻨﻮﺭ ﺃﻋﻄﺎﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺈﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﺠﻮﻫﺮ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﳐﻠﻮﻕ‬
‫»ﺣ َﻜ َﻢ« ﺣﻜﻤﺎَ ﻋﺎﺩ ًﻻ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺑﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﳋﻠﻖ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‪ .‬ﺍﷲ َ‬
‫»ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻴﻜﻦ ﻧﻮﺭ ﻓﻜﺎﻥ ﻧﻮﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﺭﺃﻱ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺣﺴﻦ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﺼﻞ ﺍﷲ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺩﻋﺎ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ‪‬ﺎﺭﴽ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﺩﻋﺎﻫﺎ ﻟﻴﻼً‪) «...‬ﺗﻚ ‪ ٣ :١‬ـ ‪.(٥‬‬

‫‪٩٢‬‬
‫ﻭﺣ َﻜ َﻢ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻓﺼﻞ ﻭﻣﻴﱠﺰ‪ ،‬ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺣ َﻜ َﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ »ﺣﺴﻦ« َ‬
‫ﻭﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﳜﻠﻖ ﺇﻻ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ َ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‪» :‬ﻭﺃﻳﺔ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﻮﺭ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ«‬
‫ﺴﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺃﻧﻪ »ﺣﺴﻦ«‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﲔ‬ ‫)‪٢‬ﻛﻮ ‪(١٤ :٦‬؟! ﻷﻧﻪ ﺃﻱ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﲔ ﻣﺎ ﳜﻠﻖ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻳُ ﱡ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺇﻃﻔﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﻭﳏﻮﻩ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ »ﻏﻴﺎﺏ« ﻧﻮﺭ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳَ ُ‬
‫ﺴﺮ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ؟!‬
‫ﻓﺎﷲ ﺇﺫ ﳛﻜﻢ ﻫﻮ »ﻳﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﲔ ﺷﻴﺌﲔ«‪» ،‬ﻭﳝﻴﺰ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻦ«‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻟﻴﻮﺿﺢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺸﺨﺺ« ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻳﻦ ﻳﺘﺠﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﳓﻮ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬‫ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﺇﻧﻪ »ﻳُ ﱢ‬
‫ﺃﻡ ﳓﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﺃﻡ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﺘﺤﺮﻙ ﳓﻮ ﺇﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﳊﺮ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﳊ َﻜ ُﻢ ﺍﳊﻖ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﻭﺍ َ‬
‫»ﺃﻧﻈـﺮ ﻗﺪ ﺟـﻌﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻴـﻮﻡ ﻗﺪﺍﻣـﻚ ﺍﳊـﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳋـﲑ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﲟﺎ ﺃﱐ ﺃﻭﺻﻴﺘﻚ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺃﻥ ﲢـﺐ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺇﳍﻚ ﻭﺗﺴـﻠﻚ ﰲ ﻃﺮﻗﻪ ﻭﲢﻔﻆ‬
‫ﻭﺻﺎﻳﺎﻩ ﻭﻓﺮﺍﺋﻀﻪ ﻭﺃﺣﻜﺎﻣﻪ ﻟﻜﻲ ﲢﻴﺎ ﻭﺗﻨﻤﻮ‪ ...‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺇﻧﺼﺮﻑ ﻗﻠﺒﻚ ﻭﱂ‬
‫ﺗﺴﻤﻊ‪ ...‬ﻓﺈﱐ ﺃﻧﺒﺌﻜﻢ ]ﺃﻇﻬﺮ ﺣﻜﻤﻲ ﻟﻜﻢ[ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺃﻧﻜﻢ ﻻ ﳏﺎﻟﺔ ‪‬ﻠﻜﻮﻥ‪...‬‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﺟـﻌﻠﺖ ﻗﺪﺍﻣﻚ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱪﻛﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺈﺧﺘﺮ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻟﻜﻲ ﲢـﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻧﺖ ﻭﻧﺴـﻠﻚ‪ .‬ﺇﺫ ﲢﺐ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺇﳍﻚ ﻭﺗﺴﻤﻊ ﻟﺼﻮﺗﻪ ﻭﺗﻠﺘﺼﻖ ﺑﻪ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻚ‪) «.‬ﺗﺚ ‪ ١٥ :٣٠‬ـ ‪.(٢٠‬‬
‫»ﺣ ْﻜ َﻢ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﺐ« ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺾ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﳓﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺐ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ ﻧﻘﺪﻡ ﻟﻠﻤﺮﻳﺾ ُ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺨﻴﺺ ﺍﳊﺎﱄ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺸﺨﻴﺺ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻲ ‪ .Diagnosis & Prognosis‬ﻓﺎﳌﺮﻳﺾ ﻳﺄﰐ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻴﺐ ﻟﻜﻲ »ﳝﻴﺰ« ﻟﻪ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺮﺽ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﻟﻪ ﻣﺎ ﺃﺻﺎﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ‬
‫ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﳜﺘﺎﺭ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺝ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﺍﺀ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻬﺎﻭﻥ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺸﺨﺺ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎ‬ ‫ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﻳﻔﺮﻕ ﻭﻳُﻌﻠﻦ ﻭﻳُﻤﻴﱢﺰ ﻭﻳُ ﱢ‬
‫ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻑ »ﻳُﻘﺒﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ« ﺃﻭ »ﻻ ﻳُﻘﺒﻞ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ« ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﻫﻮ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺃﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﻠﻜﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻷ‪‬ﺎ ﳎﺎﺯﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻒ‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻠﻘﻲ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﺎﺓ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﴽ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻣﺜﻞ‪َ :‬ﻣﺜَﻞ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻤﺢ‬
‫)ﻣﺖ ‪ ٢٤ :١٣‬ـ ‪َ ،(٣٠‬ﻣﺜَﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺭﻓﻀﻮﺍ ﺃﻥ ﳝﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﻠﻚ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ )ﻟﻮ ‪،(٢٧ :١٩‬‬
‫ﻭ َﻣﺜَﻞ ﺍﳉﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﳋﺮﺍﻑ )ﻣﺖ ‪ ٣١ :٢٤‬ـ ‪.(٤٦‬‬

‫‪٩٣‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﲢﺪﺙ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﻟﺘﻼﻣﻴﺬﻩ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺎﻝ ﳍﻢ‪» :‬ﻟﻜﻢ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻋﻄﻲ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﺮﻓﻮﺍ ﺃﺳﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻠﻜﻮﺕ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﻟﻠﺒﺎﻗﲔ ﻓﺒﺄﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺣﱴ ﺃ‪‬ﻢ ﻣﺒﺼﺮﻳﻦ ﻻ ﻳﺒﺼﺮﻭﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺳﺎﻣﻌﲔ ﻻ ﻳﻔﻬﻤﻮﻥ‪) «.‬ﻟﻮ ‪(١٠ :٨‬؛ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻭﺿﻮﺡ ﻭﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ‬
‫ﺷﺮﺡ ﻟﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ‪:‬‬
‫»ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ‪ :‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻗﺪ ﺟﺎﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺣﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻷﻥ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﳍﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺷﺮﻳﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺌﺎﺕ ﻳﺒﻐﺾ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﻳﺄﰐ )ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ( ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻟﺌﻼ ﺗﻮﺑﺦ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻓﻴﻘﺒﻞ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ )ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ( ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺑﺎﷲ ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻟﺔ‪) «.‬ﻳﻮ ‪ ١٩ :٣‬ـ ‪.(٢١‬‬
‫ﳊ ْﻜﻢ« ﻫﻮ ﺇﻋﻼﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻤﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺻﻨﻌﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﰲ‬ ‫ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻠﻪ ﺃﻥ »ﺍ ُ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻣﺎ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻘﴼ ﻟﻪ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﳊﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ ﻋﻦ »ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻥ« ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﺎﻛﻢ ﻫﻮ »ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ« ‪The‬‬
‫‪ ،Cause‬ﺃﻭ »ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻏﺐ« ﰲ ﺗﻌﺬﻳﺐ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ‪ ،‬ﺪﻑ ﲢﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻳﻔﺴﺮ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺘﺒﻌﻮﻥ ﻣﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﱵ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻔﺴﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﺃﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪:THE CAUSE‬‬ ‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴﴼ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺑﲑ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ‬

‫ﳑﺎ ﺳﺒﻖ ﻳﺘﺒﲔ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺃﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ )ﻭﻏﲑﻫﻢ( ﻗﺪ ﻓﺴﺮﻭﺍ »ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺴﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ« )‪٢‬ﺑﻂ ‪ (١٦ :٣‬ـ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺢ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺍﻏﺐ ﰲ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ـ ﻗﺪ ﻓﺴﺮﻭﺍ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﰲ ﺗﻴﺎﺭ ﻭﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻘﻮﳍﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ »ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ« ‪ THE CAUSE‬ﰲ ﺍﳍﻼﻙ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻨﺘﺠﻪ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ )ﻳﻊ ‪ ،(١٥ :١‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﺴﺒﺐ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﻢ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﻮﺍ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺻﺪﺭ ﺣﻜﻢ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﺇﺻﺪﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻜﻢ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺷﺮﺣﻨﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻋﻼﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﲤﻴﻴﺰ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﻲ ﺭﻭﺣﻴﴼ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻴﺖ ﺭﻭﺣﻴﴼ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺼﻨﻌﻪ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ‪ ١٩ :٣‬ـ ‪.٢١‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺗﻨﺘﺠﻪ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﷲ ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ‪ .١٥ :١‬ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﺼﻠﻲ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ‪» :‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻘﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻋﺒﻴﺪﻙ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ«‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ!!!‬
‫‪٩٤‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻮﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺎﻛﻢ ﲝﻜﻢ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﺩﻟﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ »ﻣﺪﺑﺮ« ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﻫﻮ »ﺍﳌﺘﺴﺒﺐ« ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻛﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ »ﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳍﻲ«‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺧﺮﻭﺝ ﻋﻦ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﻋﻦ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺃﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﺍﳌﻠﻜﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭﺓ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﴼ ﻫﻲ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺇﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻣﺪﺑﺮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺇﺩﺍﻧﺔ ﳌﺎ ﻛﺘﺒﻪ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﻭﻏﲑﻫﻢ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﻥ ُﻭﺟﺪ ﰲ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻭﺗﻔﺴﲑﻫﻢ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﺪﺑﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﺴﺒﺐ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺴﺘﻮﰲ ﻋﺪﻟﻪ ﺣﻘﻪ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪ ًﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﻳﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻗﻮﺍﻝ؟‬
‫ﻭﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﻻﺯﺍﻟﺖ ﳐﻔﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﻨﺎ؟!! ﺇﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ »ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ«‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻘﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻹﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﻭﻟﻴﺘﻮﺭﭼﻴﺘﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺃﺧﻮﺗﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﺖ ﻓﻘﻂ!!!‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻚ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺪﻣﻮﻥ ﺇﻻ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﺮﺡ ﺭﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻮﻥ »ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ«‪ ...‬ﻭﻟﻮ ﺇﻋﺘﺮﺿﺖ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺴﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﻣﻊ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﺖ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻳﺘﻨﻜﺮﻭﻥ‬
‫ﻟﻺﳍﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﻭﻳﺮﻓﻀﻮ‪‬ﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﻳﺸﻜﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﰲ ﺻﺤﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻭﻫﺪﻓﻬﺎ!!!‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﻴّﺰ ﻭﻓﺼﻞ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﻜﻢ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﷲ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺣﺎﻝ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻃﺒﻴﺐ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﺍﺀ ﻣﻌﴼ!!؟ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ »ﻣﻌﻄﻲ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ« ﻫﻮ »ﻣﺪﺑﺮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ« ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺍﻏﺐ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﻣﻮﺗﴼ ﺃﺑﺪﻳﴼ؟ )ﺃﻧﺎ ﻻ ﺃﺗﻜﻠﻢ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻱ(‪ .‬ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ـ ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﻗﺼﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻭﻟﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺁﺧﺮﻩ ـ ﻭﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ »ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻭ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺒﻄﻞ« )‪١‬ﻛﻮ ‪(٢٦ :١٥‬؟!! ﻛﻴﻒ ﳜﻠﻖ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻭﻳﺪﺑﺮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻛﻌﺪﻭ ﻟﻪ ﻭﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻟﻠﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺩﺑﺮﻩ ﻫﻮ؟!! ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﺤﺐ ﻟﻠﺒﺸﺮ ﻛﺎﺭﻫﴼ ﻟﻠﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ؟‬
‫ﻛﻴﻒ؟ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻧﺸﻮﻩ ﺣﺐ ﺍﷲ ﲢﺖ ﺳﺘﺎﺭ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺑﺸﺮﻱ ﺃﻟﻘﻴﻨﺎ ﺑﻈﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻭﻧﺮﻳﺪ ﺣﺸﺮﻩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻟﻨﺪﺍﻓﻊ ﻋﻦ ﲡﱪ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻭﻧﻘﺺ ﳏﺒﺘﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻨﺼﻨﻊ‬
‫ﺇﳍﴼ ﺻﻨﻤﴼ ﻭﻭﺣﺸﴼ ﻟﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﱪﺭﴽ ﻟﻘﺴﻮﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺑﻄﺸﻪ ﺑﺄﺧﻴﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ؟!!!‬
‫‪٩٥‬‬
 ‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺻﻔﺮﻭﻧﻴﻮﺱ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﻋﻦ »ﺍﳋﻮﻑ«‪:‬‬
‫»ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻐﺮﺱ ﺃﻱ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻣﺎ ﺿﺪ ﳏﺒﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺿﺪ ﳎﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ‬
‫ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﺘﺤﺎﻟﻒ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻓﻴﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺧﺪﻉ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻗﺎﺩﻩ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ...‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺭﺍﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺀ ﻭﻣﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻳﻨﻜﺮ ﳎﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ]ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺃﲰﺎﻩ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﻳﻮ ‪ [٣٤ :١٠‬ﻫﻮ ﻣﺘﺤﺎﻟﻒ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﻭﺷﺮﻳﻚ ﻟﻪ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺣﺎﻭﻝ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﻄﻞ ﺑﻪ ﳏﺒﺔ ﺍﻵﺏ‪«.‬‬

‫ﻭﻫﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺷﻬﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻣﻠﺨﺼﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻠﻪ‪:‬‬

‫• ﻣﻦ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ )ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺣﺬﻓﻬﺎ ﺃﺧﻮﺗﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﺖ(‪:‬‬
‫»ﻻ ﲡﻠﺒﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻴﻜﻢ ﺍﳍﻼﻙ ﺑﺄﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺃﻳﺪﻳﻜﻢ‪ .‬ﺇﺫ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﷲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﻫﻼﻙ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﺀ ﻳﺴﺮﻩ‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺇﳕﺎ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ ﻟﻠﺒﻘﺎﺀ‪ ...‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻓﻘﲔ ﻫﻢ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻋﻮﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺄﻳﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﻭﺃﻗﻮﺍﳍﻢ‪ .‬ﻇﻨﻮﻩ ﺣﻠﻴﻔﴼ )ﺣﺒﻴﺒﴼ ـ ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ( ﳍﻢ ﻓﺎﺿﻤﺤﻠﻮﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﻋﺎﻫﺪﻭﻩ ﻷ‪‬ﻢ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺰﺑﻪ«‬
‫)ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ ‪ ١٢ :١‬ـ ‪.(١٦‬‬
‫»ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺧﺎﻟﺪﴽ ﻭﺻﻨﻌﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﲝﺴﺪ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ ﺩﺧﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ .‬ﻓﻴﺬﻭﻗﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻫﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺰﺑﻪ‪) «.‬ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ ‪ ٢٣ :٢‬ـ ‪.(٢٥‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ ‪ ٢٥ :٢‬ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ـ ﺟﻬﻨﻢ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫ـ ﺍﻻﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻮﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ‪.‬‬
‫• ﻣﻦ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺣﺰﻗﻴﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ‪:‬‬
‫»ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻗﻀﻲ ُ‬
‫)ﺃﺣﻜ ُﻢ ﻭﺃﻋﻠﻦ ﻟﻜﻢ ﻭﺃﻧﺒﺌﻜﻢ ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺗﺚ ‪١٥ :٣٠‬‬
‫ـ ‪ (٢٠‬ﻋﻠﻴﻜﻢ ﻳﺎ ﺑﻴﺖ ﺇﺳﺮﺍﺋﻴﻞ ﻛﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻛﻄﺮﻗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻮﺑﻮﺍ ﻭﺇﺭﺟﻌﻮﺍ ﻋﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﻴﻜﻢ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻜﻢ ﺍﻹﰒ ﻣﻬﻠﻜﺔ‪ ...‬ﻓﻠﻤﺎﺫﺍ‬
‫ﲤﻮﺗﻮﻥ ﻳﺎ ﺑﻴﺖ ﺇﺳﺮﺍﺋﻴﻞ‪ .‬ﻷﱐ ﻻ ﺃﺳﺮ ﲟﻮﺕ ﻣﻦ ﳝﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﺭﺟﻌﻮﺍ ﻭﺇﺣﻴﻮﺍ‪) «.‬ﺣﺰ ‪ ٣٠ :١٨‬ـ ‪(٣٢‬‬

‫‪٩٦‬‬
‫»ﻫﻞ ﻣﺴﺮﺓ ﺃﺳﺮ ﲟﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ .‬ﺃﻻ ﺑﺮﺟﻮﻋﻪ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﻃﺮﻗﻪ ﻓﻴﺤﻴﺎ؟« )ﺣﺰ ‪.(٢٣ :١٨‬‬

‫ﻭﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﻳﺮﻓﺾ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻛﻞ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬

‫ﺴ ﹸﺮ‪ ،‬ﲟﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‬
‫ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﻟﻬﻲ‪ ،‬ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﺮﺿﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻳﹸ ﹶ‬
‫ﻛﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻋﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﺗﺪﻓﻊ ﺛﻤﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﳕﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻗﺪ ﺩﻓﻊ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺛﻤﻨﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺸﺘﺮﻱ ﺣﺒﻨﺎ ﻭﻳﻌﻴﺪﻧﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺣﻀﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ‪ .‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻳﹸﺴﺘﺮﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﻟﻬﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳊﺐ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺑﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ!‬

‫)‪ (٣‬ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ‪:‬‬

‫ﲤﺎﻣﴼ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺧﻠﻘﻪ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱪﻛﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﻭﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﱪﻛﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﱪﻛﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﺃﻋﻠﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻣﻴّﺰ ﺑﲔ ﺑﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‬
‫ﳌﻦ ﳛﻴﺎ ﰲ ﻣﺸﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺎﺕ ﺃﻱ ﺍﳊﺮﻣﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳚﻨﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻓﺾ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﻴﺌﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﻨﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﻋﻼﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﱂ ﻳﻔﺴﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ »ﻻﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺓ«‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻋﺎﺩﻝ!!! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺣﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳜﺘﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﻧﻘﺼﺎﻥ ﻟﻠﱪﻛﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳُﺨﻴﱢﺮﻩ ﺍﷲ‪:‬‬
‫ﺟﻌﻠﺖ ﻗﺪﺍﻣﻚ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱪﻛﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﺧﺘﺮ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ )ﻭﺍﻟﱪﻛﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ُ‬ ‫»ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻭﺃﺗﺮﻙ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ( ﻟﻜﻲ ﲢﻴﺎ ﺃﻧﺖ ﻭﻧﺴﻠﻚ‪ .‬ﺇﺫ ﲢﺐ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺇﳍﻚ ﻭﺗﺴﻤﻊ‬
‫ﻟﺼﻮﺗﻪ ﻭﺗﻠﺘﺼﻖ ﺑﻪ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻚ‪) «.‬ﺗﺚ ‪ ١٩ :٣٠‬ـ ‪.(٢٠‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻵﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﳊﺮﻣﺎﻥ‬

‫‪٩٧‬‬
 ‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﱪﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻋﻠﻨﺖ ﻟﻨﺎ ﰲ ﻛﻤﺎﳍﺎ ﰲ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫»ﳏﺒﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻵﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﻣﻮﻫﺒﺔ ﻭﻋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‬
‫ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻊ ﲨﻴﻌﻜﻢ«‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻤﻦ ﳛﻴﺎ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻠﻌﻮﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﺣﱴ ﻟﻮ ﻗﻠﻨﺎ ـ ﳎﺎﺯﻳﴼ‬
‫ـ »ﻣﻠﻌﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﷲ«‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﳛﻴﺎ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺭﻓﺾ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﻭﺭﲪﺘﻪ ﻭﳏﺒﺘﻪ ﻭﻳﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﺗﺮﻛﻮﱐ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻳﻨﺒﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳊﻴﺔ ﻟﻴﻨﻘﺮﻭﺍ ﻷﻧﻔﺴﻬﻢ ﺁﺑﺎﺭﴽ‪ ،‬ﺁﺑﺎﺭﴽ ﻣﺸﻘﻘﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻀﺒﻂ‬
‫ﻣﺎﺀ‪ «.‬ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﻣﺎﺗﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻄﺶ!!! )ﺇﺭ ‪(١٣ :٢‬‬ ‫ً‬
‫ﻓﺎﷲ »ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﳜﻠﺼﻮﻥ ﻭﺇﱃ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻳﻘﺒﻠﻮﻥ« ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻣﺸﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﲝﺮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﺪﻋﻮ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﳜﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺪ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻓﻘﺪ »ﺇﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ« ﺍﻟﱵ »ﺣﻜﻢ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﷲ« ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻏﺐ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺒﺒﻬﺎ ﻭﻻ ﻣﺪﺑﺮﻫﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﷲ ﻫﻮ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﺍ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻔﻪ ﺍﳍﺎﻡ ﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﻌﺮﻓﴼ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻓﻀﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺟﺎﺀ ﻟﻴﻌﻠﻨﻬﺎ ﻟﻨﺎ )ﻳﻮ ‪ ،(١٠ :١٠‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ ُﻣ ﱢ‬
‫ﺷﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﺺ »ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ )ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ( ﻗﺪ ﺃﻇﻬﺮﺕ« )‪١‬ﻳﻮ ‪ (٢ :١‬ﺃﻱ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ!!! ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪:‬‬
‫»ﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﻙ ﺃﻧﺖ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻭﺣﺪﻙ ﻭﻳﺴﻮﻉ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺭﺳﻠﺘﻪ ]ﺑﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ[‪) «.‬ﻳﻮ ‪.(٣ :١٧‬‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﷲ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺮﺃﻧﺎ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﺮﳛﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻫﻲ‪ :‬ﺿﺪ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﰲ ﻳﻮ ‪ .٣ :١٧‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ‪:‬‬
‫»ﺃﻥ ﻳُﺤﺮﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﻭﺇﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﺒﻮﻉ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ‪ «.‬ﻭﻧﻌﻮﺩ ﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ‪» :‬ﺍﷲ ﱂ ﻳﺼﻨﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ« ﺃﻱ ﺃﻧﻪ »ﱂ ﻳﺼﻨﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ« ﺃﻳﻀﴼ‪ ،‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﲝُ ْﻜ ِﻤ ِﻪ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺣﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎﺋﺘﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪٩٨‬‬
‫ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ‬
‫ﺣﻜﻤﻪ ﻭﺗﺸﺨﻴﺼﻪ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻮﺏ‪ .‬ﺍﷲ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻌﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺑﻼ ﺗﻮﺑﺔ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﺇﺫﴽ ﺗﻌﲏ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ »ﻭﱄ ﻣﻔﺎﺗﻴﺢ ﺍﳍﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ« )ﺭﺅ ‪(١٨ :١‬؟‬
‫ﻳﻈﻦ ﻣﻦ ﳛﺒﺬﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﺘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻛﺄﺟﺮﺓ ﺃﻭ ﲦﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﳛﻘﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﺑﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺣﻜﻢ ﺍﻹﻋﺪﺍﻡ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻳﻠﺔ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ـ ﺃﻱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ـ ﻳﻈﻨﻮﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﳛﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺸﺎﺀ ﻭﻳﻘﺘﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺸﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻮﻱ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻓﺴﺮﺕ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳍﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﱂ ﺗﻔﺴﺮ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻛﺎﻟﺘﻘﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﺘﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﺍﳍﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﺤﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺸﻬﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻟﻴﺘﻮﺭﭼﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻛﺄﻓﻀﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻐﲏ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺷﻌﺮﴽ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﱂ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ »ﱄ ﻣﻔﺎﺗﻴﺢ ﺍﳍﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ« ﻫﻲ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﺣﻴﺎﺀ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻘﺘﻞ‪ ،‬ﺃﺑﺪﴽ‪ ،‬ﺣﺎﺷﺎ ﷲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﳕﺎ ﺗﻌﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﺗﺴﺒﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﰲ ﻧﺸﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﲑ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺘﺮﱎ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺎﺋﺲ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫»ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻗﺎﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﺩﺍﺱ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻮﺭ ﺃﻧﻌﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﺑﺎﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﺪ ﻟﻶﺏ ﻭﺍﻹﺑﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪«.‬‬
‫»ﻳﺎ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺋﻴﲔ ﺭﺗﻠﻮﺍ ﻹﻟﻬﻨﺎ ﺑﻨﻐﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺒﻴﺢ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﺑﺘﻬﺠﻮﺍ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻓﺮﺣﲔ ﺑﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ...‬ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺋﻢ‪ ...‬ﻭﻋﺘﻘﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﺒﻲ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ )ﺍﻟﻬﺎﻭﻳﺔ( ﺳﺒﻴﺎ ﹰ‪ .‬ﻭﺣﻄﻢ ﺃﺑﻮﺍﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﻛﺴﺮ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺎﺭﻳﺴﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺪﻳﺔ ﻛﺴﺮﺍ ﹰ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﺑﺪﻝ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺎﳋﻼﺹ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻋﺎﺩ ﺁﺩﻡ ﻭﺑﻨﻴﻪ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻭﺱ ﺑﻔﺮﺡ ﻭﺑﻬﺠﺔ ﻭﻣﺴﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻭﺑﻨﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻓﻲ ﺍﳊﺒﻮﺱ )ﺍﻟﻬﺎﻭﻳﺔ(‪«.‬‬
‫‪٩٩‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻱ ﰲ ﺍﳊـﺮﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﳉﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻔﺎﺗﻴﺢ ﺍﳍﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻟﻪ‪:‬‬
‫»ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﲢﻄﻴﻢ ﺃﺑﻮﺍﺏ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﺘﺤﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻷﺳﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻬﺎﻭﻳﺔ‪«.‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﻄﻮﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺼﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻜﻴﻒ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧﺎﺷﺪﻛﻢ ﺍﳊﻖ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﺘﻘﺪﻭﻥ ﻳﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﻠﻤﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ »ﱄ ﻣﻔﺎﺗﻴﺢ ﺍﳍﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ«‬
‫ﻭﺳﺠﺎﻥ ﺳﺠﻦ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﳚﺐ‬ ‫ﻫﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺻﺎﻧﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ّ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺓ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻋﺎﺩﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﻨﻊ ﺑﺎﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ؟!!! ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻤﻮﻥ ﻋﻮﺩﻭﺍ ﺇﱃ ﳏﺒﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﳒﻴﻞ ﺍﳊﻠﻮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﻋﻮﺩﻭﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﻭﺃﺭﳛﻮﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﻭﻟﺪﺕ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻹﳊﺎﺩ ﻏﺮﺑﴼ ﻭﺷﺮﻗﴼ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﲰﻌﻮﺍ ﻟﺼﺮﺍﺥ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺻﻔﺮﻭﻧﻴﻮﺱ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﻋﻦ »ﺍﳋﻮﻑ«‪:‬‬
‫»ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺤﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻐﺮﺱ ﺃﻱ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻣﺎ ﺿﺪ ﻣﺤﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻭﺿﺪ ﻣﺠﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺤﺎﻟﻒ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﺷﺮﻳﻚ ﻟﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﳊﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﻄﻞ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻣﺤﺒﺔ ﺍﻵﺏ‪«.‬‬

‫‪١٠٠‬‬
 ‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴﴼ‪ :‬ﺭﺳﻢ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﻠﺨﻴﺺ ﳉﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻮﺟـﻮﺩ‬ ‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌـﺪﻡ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤــﺔ‬ ‫ﻭ‬ ‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ‬
‫ﻭ‬ ‫ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻴــﺎﺓ‬ ‫ﻭﺗﻨﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﺇﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻩ‬ ‫ﻭﺗﻨﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﳌــﻮﺕ‬

‫ﻣﺮﺍﺩﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ‪:‬‬ ‫ﻣﺮﺍﺩﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ‪:‬‬

‫ﻋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ‪ -‬ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﻫﺮ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ‪ -‬ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺗﻰ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ‪ -‬ﻣﺸﺎ‪‬ﺔ ﺍﷲ ‪ -‬ﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ‬ ‫ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ‪ -‬ﺭﺑﺎﻃﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ‬
‫‪ -‬ﻫﺒﺔ ﺍﷲ ‪ -‬ﻭﺭﺍﺛﺔ ﻣﻠﻜﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ‬ ‫)ﺻﻼﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ(‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ‪-‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻰ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻯ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻴﻢ ‪-‬‬ ‫ﻧﺎﺭ ﺟﻬﻨﻢ ‪ -‬ﺍﳊﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺏ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ‪ -‬ﺍﳌﺠﺪ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻯ ‪-‬‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪١٠١‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ‪:‬‬
‫ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﺗﻠﺨﻴﺺ ﻣﻜﺜﻒ ﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ؛ ﻭﻣﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺸﻴﺌﺔ ﻭﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻨﺎ ﻭﺧﻠﻮﺩﻧﺎ؛‬
‫ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻘﻒ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﲝﺮﻳﺔ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﻟﻴﺨﺘﺎﺭ‪ :‬ﺍﻹﲡﺎﻩ ﻣﻊ ﺗﻴﺎﺭ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻜﻮﺹ ﻟﻠﺒُﻄﻞ ﻭﺍﳍﻮﺍﻥ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺗﺴﲑ ﺑﺎﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﰲ ﺇﲡﺎﻩ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻻﻏﲑ‪ :‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺇﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﲡﺎﻫﲔ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﻨﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺃﻭ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻈﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﻌﻴﻨﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻜﻮﺹ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻣﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ!! ﺍﷲ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻓﻊ ﺑﻨﺎ ﳓﻮ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪» ،‬ﻳﺪﻋﻮ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ )ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ(‬
‫ﻛﺄ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ« )ﺭﻭ ‪ ،(١٧ :٤‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﻴﺬﻳﻘﻨﺎ ﻣﻌﲏ ﻭﻃﻌﻢ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻮ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺔ ﺿﺌﻴﻠﺔ‪ » ،‬ﻛﺄ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ «!! ﻭﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳔﺘﺎﺭ‪ .‬ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ ﳚﱪ ﺣﺮﻳﺘﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﲣﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺗﺪﻣﲑ ﻭﺇﻓﻨﺎﺀ ﻣﺎ ﺧﻠﻘﺖ ﻳﺪﺍﻩ ﻭﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﻓﻤﻪ )ﺗﻚ ‪،٢٢ :١‬‬
‫‪ .(٢٨‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ » ﺭﻓﺾ ﺍﷲ« ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳜﺘﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﺘﺮﻙ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﻻ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳋﺰﻱ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ .‬ﺍﷲ ﳝﻸ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻭﺯﻣﺎﻥ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺼﻔﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‬
‫ﰲ )ﻳﻮ ‪ (٢١ -١٩ :٣‬ﺳﻴﻈﻞ ﻣﻮﺍﺟ ًﻬﺎ ﻟﻸﺷﺮﺍﺭ ﻭﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺭ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ ﺑﻼ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ‪ :‬ﳌﻦ ﺃﺣﺒﻮﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳍﻢ ﻧﻮﺭ ﳎﺪ ﻭﻓﺮﺡ ﻭﺳﻼﻡ ﻭﺳﻌﺎﺩﺓ ﺃﺑﺪﻳﺔ؛ ﻭﳌﻦ ﺃﺑﻐﻀﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﻗﻠﻖ ﻭﻋﺬﺍﺏ ﻭﻧﺪﻡ ﻭﺧﻮﻑ ﻭﺭﻋﺐ ﻭﺧﺰﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻨﺘﻬﻲ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻟﻦ ﻳُﻘﺒﻠﻮﺍ ﻫﻢ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻬﻢ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ ...‬ﻭﻳﻈﻞ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻳﺪﻣﻊ ﺩ ًﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺋﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﺣﺒﺎﺀﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺭﻓﻀﻮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺧﺰﻳﻬﻢ ﻗﺪ ﺣﺮﻣﻮﺍ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻬﻢ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﱂ ﻳﻀﻌﻒ ﺣﺒﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻦ ﻳﻀﻌﻒ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ :‬ﻟﺬﺍ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺇﺑﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻧﻪ ﲪﻞ ﻣﺬﺑﻮﺡ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﺬﺑﻮﺡ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ ﰲ ﻭﺳﻂ ﻋﺮﺵ ﺍﷲ!!! ﻭﻗﺪ ﳋﺺ ﻣﺎﺭ ﺇﺳﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﱐ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﻘﻮﻟﻪ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻄﻮﺑﲔ«‬
‫ﻭﻓﺮﺣﺎ ﰲ ﱠ‬ ‫»ﺍﳊﺐ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺘﲔ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺘﲔ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻋﺬﺍﺑًﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳍﺎﻟﻜﲔ ً‬
‫)ﻛﻮﺳﱵ ﺑﻨﺪﱄ‪ ،‬ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﺼﲑ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.(١٧٨‬‬
‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ‪ -‬ﺃﻱ » ﻭﻇﻴﻔﺘﻪ « ﺇﻥ ﺻﺢ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﻱ ‪ -‬ﻫﻮ ﲢﻮﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺪﻑ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﱯ‪ » ،‬ﻛﺄ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ « )ﺭﻭ ‪ ،(١٧ :٤‬ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺬﻭﻕ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺸﻰﺀ ﺍﻟﻴﺴﲑ‪ ،‬ﻛﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺻﻐﲑﺓ‪ ،‬ﳌﻌﲏ ﳎﺪ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ‬

‫‪١٠٢‬‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻛﺸﺒﻬﻪ )ﺗﻚ ‪ .(٢٦ :١‬ﻭﻟﻠﻤﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﺃﻥ ﳜﺘﺎﺭ ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺸﺒﻪ ﲞﻠﻮﺩ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻭﻳﺸﺎﺭﻛﻪ ﰲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ )‪ ٢‬ﺑﻂ ‪ (٤ :١‬ﻭﻳﺼﲑ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ )‪١‬ﻳﻮ ‪ (١ :٣‬ﻭﻳﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻋﻴﻨﻬﺎ )‪٢‬ﻛﻮ ‪ (١٨ :٣‬ﻣﺸﺎ‪ً‬ﺎ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ )ﺭﻭ ‪ ،(٢٩ :٨‬ﺃﻭ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﳜﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌـﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ »ﻋﺪﻣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ«‪ :‬ﻷﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺧﻠﻘﻪ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﻔﲏ‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻳﺒﻘﻲ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳊﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺭﻓﺾ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﺓ ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺎﻹﻧﺴـﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﻓﺾ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻈـﻞ ﺑﺎﻗﻴًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺑﺎﳊـﺐ ﻭﺍﳌﺠـﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻨـﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺴـﻌﺎﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻳﻔﻀـﻞ »ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ« ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪» ،‬ﻳﺒﻐﺾ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ«‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ ً‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﺟﻬﻨﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺼﻨﻌﻬﺎ ﻭﳜﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ‪ :‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻗﺪ ﺟﺎﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﺣﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺌﺎﺕ ﻳﺒﻐﺾ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺄﰐ ]ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ!![ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻟﺌﻼ ﺗﻮﺑﺦ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﳊـﻖ ﻓﻴﻘﺒﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺑﺎﷲ ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻟﺔ!!«‬
‫)ﻳﻮ ‪.(٢١-١٩ :٣‬‬
‫ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﻭﻣﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ » ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ « ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭﺓ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﳘﺎ ﺧﻼﺻﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻛﻠﻪ!! ﻭﳘﺎ ﺗﻠﺨﻴﺺ ﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻋﻦ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﳋﻠﻖ ‪ -‬ﺻﻼﺡ ﻭﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ ‪ -‬ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ‪ -‬ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‬
‫‪ -‬ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ‪ -‬ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳉﻬﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ‪ -‬ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺆﺍﺯﺭﺓ‬
‫‪ ...Synergy‬ﺍﱁ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻦ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻭﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻦ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﺒﻌﻬﻤﺎ‪.‬‬

‫ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺫﻛﺮ ﲢﺖ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺮﻳﺪﻩ ﻭﻳﺪﺑﺮﻩ ﻭﻳﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ .‬ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳋﲑﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ‪‬ﺎ ﳜﻠﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﺴﲑ ﰲ‬
‫» ﺇﲡﺎﻩ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻓﻘﻂ « )ﻫﺎﻡ ﻟﻠﻐﺎﻳﺔ(‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺻﻼﺡ ﻭﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺻﻔﺎﺗﻪ ﻛﺨﺎﻟﻖ‪ ،‬ﻣﺘﺤﺮﻛًﺎ ﺑﺎﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻷﻱ ﺳﺒﺐ ﻛﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﻬﻤﺎ‬
‫‪١٠٣‬‬
‫ﻋﻈﻢ ﺷﺮ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻛﺨﺎﻟﻖ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﲢﻮﻳﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻭﻣﺪﻣﺮﺍ ﳌﺎ ﳜﻠﻖ ﰲ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ .‬ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺧﺎﻟﻘًﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ‪ :‬ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﺗﻠﺰﻣﻪ ﺃﻱ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻰﺀ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻐﲑ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻻ ﳌﺎ ﺑﻘﻲ ﺇﳍًﺎ!!‬
‫ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ ﳘﺎ ﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺑﺴﺨﺎﺀ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻌﲑ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻌﺪﻝ ﳛﻴﻲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺋﺖ ﻭﻳﻐﻔﺮ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ!! ﻧﻌﻢ‪ ،‬ﻏﻔﺮﺍﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺷﻔﺎﺅﻩ ﻟﻠﺨﺎﻃﺊ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﻻ ‪‬ﺎﺋﻲ‪ .‬ﳓﻦ ﻧﻐﻔﺮ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺎ ﺣ ًﻘﺎ ﺗﻼﻣﻴﺬﻩ‪ ،‬ﺳﺒﻊ ﻣﺮﺍﺕ ﺳﺒﻌﲔ ﻣﺮﺓ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﻳﻮﻡ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻞ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ!! ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻋﺪﻝ ﰲ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﷲ!!! ﺃﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻓﻴﻐﻔﺮ ﻭﻳﻬﺐ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻼﺡ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﺍﳌﺎﻻ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ...‬ﻛﻞ ﻳﻮﻡ ﻭﻛﻞ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺔ!!! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻫﻲ ﰲ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ :‬ﻳﺒﻐﺾ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺄﰐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺴﻠﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻮﺭ ﻭﻏﻔﺮﺍﻥ ‪ -‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﳜﺎﻑ ﻭﳜﺸﻲ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺼﺪﻕ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﻐﻔﺮ ﺑﻼ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ!! ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﻥ » ﺍﳋﺎﺋﻔﻮﻥ « ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﳊﺐ ﻫﻢ ﺃﻭﻝ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻟﻦ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻌﻮﺍ ﺩﺧﻮﻝ ﻣﻠﻜﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ )ﺭﺅ ‪.(٨ :٢١‬‬
‫ﻧﻮﺭﺍ ﻭﺣﺒًﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻠﺒﻪ ﺇﱃ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺻﻼﺣﻪ ﻭﻋﺪﻟﻪ!‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺲ ﻳﺴﻄﻊ ً‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺷﻌﺎﻉ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﻄﻞ ﺃﻭ ﻳﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﺃﻭ ﻳﻀﻌﻒ ﻻ ﺇﱃ ﳊﻈﺔ ﻭﻻ ﺣﱴ ﻃﺮﻓﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻻ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﲔ‪ ...‬ﻭﺇﱃ ﺃﺑﺪ ﺍﻵﺑﺪﻳﻦ‪ ...‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺍﷲ!! ﻭﻫﻮ ً‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻐﻤﺾ ﻋﻴﻨﻴﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﻳﻔﻀﻞ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺃﻋﻴﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺭﻣﻀﺎﺀ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻭﺭ ﻭﺍﻷﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺣﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﻠﻂ ﻭﻗﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ‪ ...‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﳜﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﻳﺮﺗﻌﺐ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻪ‪ ...‬ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﺣﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﺍﻟﺬﻫﻦ ‪ metanoia‬ﻭﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺪﻳﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﻟﻠﺘﻘﺪﻡ ﻣﻊ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﳓﻮ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﳊﺐ ‪ -‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻭ » ﺃﻳﻘﻮﻧﺘﻪ « ﺍﳌﻬﺪﺍﺓ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻛﻤﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻛﻘﻮﺓ ﻟﺘﺤﻴﺎ ﰲ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻨﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﲢﻮﻟﻨﺎ ﻛﻠﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻋﻴﻨﻬﺎ )‪٢‬ﻛﻮ ‪ (١٨ :٣‬ﻟﻨﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ )‪١‬ﻳﻮ ‪(١ :٣‬‬
‫ﺷﺮﻛﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ )‪٢‬ﺑﻂ ‪ ،(٤ :١‬ﺃﻱ ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ » ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ « ‪:‬‬
‫)‪(On the Incarnation - Mowbray, London, p. 28-29‬‬
‫» ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺻﺎﱀ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﻭﻳﻨﺒﻮﻉ ﻛﻞ ﺻﻼﺡ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ‬

‫‪١٠٤‬‬
 ‫ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ ﳌﻦ ﻫﻮ ﺻﺎﱀ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﲞﻴ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﺃﻭ ﳛﻤﻞ ﰲ ﻗﻠﺒﻪ ﺃﻱ ﻧﻘﻤﺔ ﻷﻱ‬
‫ﺷﻰﺀ )ﰲ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ(‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﻇﻬﺮ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ‪ ،‬ﻧﻌﻤﺔ )ﺭﲪﺔ( ﳉﻨﺲ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺗﻌﻄﻒ‬
‫ﻭﻭﻫﺒﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﲝﻜﻢ ﺗﻜﻮﻳﻨﻬﻢ ﻛﺎﺋﻨﺎﺕ ﻏﲑ ﺛﺎﺑﺘﺔ )ﻏﲑ ﺑﺎﻗﻴﺔ(‪ ،‬ﻧﻌﻤﺔ‬
‫ﱂ ﲢﺼﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻱ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﻧﺼﻴﺐ ﰲ‬
‫ﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻗﻞ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ )ﺇﺑﻨﻪ(‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﲢﻮﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﰲ ﺍﷲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺧﺘﺮﺍﻋﻪ ﻓﻜﺎﻧﺖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﳊﺘﻤﻴﺔ ﺳﻘﻮﻃﻪ ﲢﺖ ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ...‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻴﺔ‬
‫] ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳋﲑﺓ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ‪ -‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ[ ﺟﻌﻠﻪ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﻣﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ]ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ[‪ ...‬ﻓﺎﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻗﻄ ًﻌﺎ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺃﻧﻪ‬
‫ﳐﻠﻮﻕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨـﻪ ﳛﻤﻞ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺫﺍﻙ )ﺍﷲ( ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻮ ﺣﺎﻓﻆ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺒﻬﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻢ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﺎﻧﺖ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ﺗﻔﻘﺪ ﻗﻮ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺒﻘﻲ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ )ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ(‪.‬‬
‫ﰒ ﺑﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﺋﻠﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﺰﻭﺍﻝ ]ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ[‬
‫ﲟﺸﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﰲ ﻓﺴﺎﺩﻩ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‪ ...‬ﺑﺈﺧﺘﺮﺍﻋﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﻮﺍ ﻣﺘﻮﺭﻃﲔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ «‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻔﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﱵ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪،‬‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﺑﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﲢﺖ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺃﻱ ﺑﻘﺎﺀﻩ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ‪:‬‬
‫)‪(On the Incarn. - Mowbray, London, p. 29-31‬‬

‫» ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻋﻦ ﻭﺻﻴﺔ ﺍﷲ‪» ...‬ﻷﻧﻚ ﻣﻮﺗًﺎ ﲤﻮﺕ« ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻓﻘﻂ ﺃﻧﻚ ﲤﻮﺕ ]ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻛﻞ ﺁﺩﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺠﺮﺓ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﳋﲑ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ[ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪...‬‬
‫ﻗﺎﻝ ﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﺒﻘﻲ ً‬
‫ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺪﺃ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﳝﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻧﺘﺸﺮ ﻭﺳﺎﺩ ﻭﲤﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ )ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﻤﻰ( ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ‬
‫)ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺀ( ﺍﻟﱵ ﺣﺬﺭﻫﻢ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﷲ ﺳﺎﺑﻘًﺎ ﻟﻮ ﺗﻌﺪﻭﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻴﺔ«‪] ،‬ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﲢﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺇﱃ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ‪ -‬ﺃﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ[‪.‬‬
‫‪١٠٥‬‬
 ‫ﻭ‪‬ﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﺮﱎ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺰﻳﱰﻱ )ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ( ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﳑﺎ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻛﻮﻧﺖ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺟﻌﻠﺘﻪ ﰲ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺩﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻴﻢ‪...‬‬
‫ﺧﻠﻘﺘﲏ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧًﺎ ﻛﻤﺤﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻭﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﺃﻧﺖ ﺍﳌﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﻋﺒﻮﺩﻳﱵ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺃﻧﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﺭﺑﻮﺑﻴﺘﻚ‪...‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ‬‫ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺗﻌﻄﻔﺎﺗﻚ ﺍﳉﺰﻳﻠﺔ ﻛﻮﻧﺘﲏ ﺇﺫ ﱂ ﺃﻛﻦ‪ ...‬ﻭﻛﺘﺒﺖ ﱠ‬
‫ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﻚ‪ ...‬ﺃﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﱄ ﺷﺠﺮﺓ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﺮﻓﺘﲏ ﺷﻮﻛﺔ ]ﺷﺠﺮﺓ[ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪...‬‬
‫ﻓﺄﻛﻠﺖ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﰐ ﻭﺗﺮﻛﺖ ﻋﲏ ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺳﻚ ﺑﺮﺃﻳﻲ‪ ...‬ﺃﻧﺎ ﺍﺧﺘﻄﻔﺖ ﱄ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ]ﲝﺮﻳﱴ[!! «‬
‫ﲰﺎ « ﻭﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﻴﺰ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻰﺀ ﳐﻠﻮﻕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﷲ ﺇﺫ ﳜﻠﻖ ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ ﻳﻌﻄﻴﻪ » ﺇ ً‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﻛﺎﺋﻦ ﺗﺴﻤﻲ » ﺟﻮﻫﺮ « ﺍﻟﺸﻰﺀ ﻭﺑﺎﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ‪ .Nature, Essence‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ‬
‫ﺷﻰﺀ ﳐﻠﻮﻕ ﺇﻻ ﻭﻟﻪ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﳏﺴﻮﺱ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺪﺭﻙ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺄﺧﺮﻱ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺁﺧﺮﺍ ﻳﻬﻤﻨﺎ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﻟﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻣﺮﺍ ً‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍﺕ ﲜﻮﺍﻫﺮﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﻟﻨﺎ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻴﺾ ﺃﻱ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺸﻰﺀ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ » ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ « ﻭﻳﺸﺮﺣﻪ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﻤﺜﺎﻝ ﳍﺬﺍ‪:‬‬
‫ﻼ ﺷﻰﺀ ﳐﻠﻮﻕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻪ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﻣﺪﺭﻙ ﻭﳏﺴﻮﺱ ﻭﻣﺪﺭﻭﺱ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺇﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻣﺜ ً‬
‫‪ -‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ‪ -‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ » ﻋﺪﻡ «!! ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ!! ﱂ ﳜﻠﻖ ﺍﷲ ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ‬
‫ﺍﲰﻪ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ!! ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻧﺪﺭﻛﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﳍﺎ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﻭﻻ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻧﺪﺭﻛﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺩﺭﻙ ﻭﲢﺴﺲ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﲰﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺇﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻈﻼﻡ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﻟﻮﺩ ﺃﻋﻤﻲ ﻻ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﻣﻌﲏ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻣﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻈﻼﻡ‪ .‬ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﰲ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺷﻰﺀ ﻟﻪ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ً‬
‫ﺟﻮﻫﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻴﺾ ﺃﻱ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺇﻧﻌـﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﳉﻮﻫـﺮ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﳋﲑ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ؛ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﺴﺌﻮ ًﻻ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ!!‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﲑ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ؛ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﺴﺌﻮ ًﻻ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻯ!!‬

‫‪١٠٦‬‬
 ‫ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻟﻌـﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﺪﺭﺳﻪ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻱ‪ .‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﺧﻄﺄ ﻛﺒﲑ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ‪ :‬ﲟﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ!! ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ ﳐﻠﻮﻗًﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺇﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﳐﻠﻮﻕ‪،‬‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﺫﺍ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻏﲑ ﳐﻠﻮﻕ‪ ،‬ﺑﻼ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫ﳎﺮﺩ »ﺣﺎﻟﺔ« ﻧﺪﺭﻛﻬﺎ ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﺃﺩﺭﻛﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻠﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﻛﻴﺎﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﻫﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻄﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺒﺪﻭ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻓﺴﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻣﻌﲏ ﺍﳋﲑ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻌﲏ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ!! ﻭﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺗﻔﻬﻤﻨﺎ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ‬
‫ﻳﺼﻌﺐ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﺴﺌﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺏ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ :‬ﺍﷲ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ؟!!‬
‫ﺍﳋﲑ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳋﲑ ﻫﻮ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﻭﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻫﻮ »ﺇﺧﺘﺮﺍﻉ« ﰲ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻭﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳋﲑ ﻫﻮ ﺑﻘﺎﺀ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ ﰲ ﺣﻀﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺸﺒﻪ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﷲ ﰲ ﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﳊﺐ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺭﻓﺾ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳋﲑﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﻓﻀﻪ ﻟﻠﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺣﻀﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻛﺄﺏ ﳏﺐ‪.‬‬
‫ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺮﻓﺾ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳋﺮﻭﺝ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ؛ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﺧﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﺋﻖ‬
‫ﺍﷲ!! ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺟﻬﻨﻢ ﻟﻴﺴﺎ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺃﺗﻮﻧﴼ ﳏﻤﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺧﻠﻘﻬﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻴﻠﻘﻲ ﻓﻴﻪ‬
‫ﲟﻦ ﻳﻜﺮﻫﻮﻧﻪ‪ ...‬ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ‪ ...‬ﺣﺎﺷﺎ! ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺃﺑﺎ ﻭﳜﻠﻖ‬
‫ﻭﻳﺪﺑﺮ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﻫﻼﻙ ﺧﻠﻴﻘﺘﻪ ﺑﻴﺪﻳﻪ؟! ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ؟!‬
‫ﺃﻧﺎ ﻻ ﺃﻗﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺇﺩﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻋﺬﺍﺏ ﺃﺑﺪﻯ!! ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺏ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺫﻛﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻭﻛﻞ ﻣﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺷﺮﻩ ﻛﺈﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﺬﻭﻕ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻃﻌﻤﺎًَ‪ ،‬ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻴﺄﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺗﻞ ﻭﺍﳋﻮﻑ ﻭﺍﳋﺰﻱ ﻭﺍﳋﺠﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺘﺎﺑﻨﺎ ﻛﻠﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﺴﻴﻄﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ‬
‫ﻭﻧﺮﺟﻊ ﻭﻧﺘﻮﺏ ﻋﻦ ﺷﺮﻭﺭﻧﺎ ﻭﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﺘﻠﻤﺲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﰲ ﺃﺣﻀﺎﻥ‬

‫‪١٠٧‬‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﺃﺑﻴﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ » ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﱪﻳﺖ« ﻭ » ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ « ﻭﺣﱴ ﻟﻔﻈﺔ »ﺟﻬﻨﻢ«‬
‫) = ﻭﺍﺩﻱ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺃﻭﺭﺷﻠﻴﻢ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﳛﺮﻗﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻤﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﺑﻘﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﺎﺋﺢ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻔﻨﺔ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺩﻭﺩﻫﺎ( ﻓﻬﻲ ﺃﻭﺻﺎﻑ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺻﻒ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺬﺍﺏ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺏ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﻫﻮ » ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﳊﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ « )ﻷﻥ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻲ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ‪ -‬ﻳﻮ‬
‫‪ .(٣ :١٧‬ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺏ ﻫﻮ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺇﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﻌﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺪﺑﺮ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻌﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﳐﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﻓﻀﻪ ﺍﳊﺮ ﻟﻠﻌﺸﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﻔﺮﺣﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺒﻬﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺭﺗﺒﻬﺎ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﷲ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﲑﺍﺙ ﺍﳊﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻔﲏ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻀﻤﺤﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﷲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻸﺑﺪ!!!‬
‫ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﻭﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺪﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﷲ؛ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲡﻠﺒﻪ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‬
‫)ﻳﻊ ‪ ،(١٣ :١‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺇﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻷﺻﺎﻟﺔ ﻭﺇﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﺧﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻳﺪﻳﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﰲ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺣﺬﻓﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﺧﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﺖ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻻ ﲡﻠﺒﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻴﻜﻢ ﺍﳍﻼﻙ ﺑﺄﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺃﻳﺪﻳﻜﻢ‪ .‬ﺇﺫ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻻ‬
‫ﻫﻼﻙ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﺀ ﺑﺴﺮﻩ‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺇﳕﺎ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ ﻟﻠﺒﻘﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﻓﻤﻮﺍﻟﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺇﳕﺎ ﻛﻮﻧﺖ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﻓﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ُﺳﻢ ﻣﻬﻠﻚ ﻭﻻ ﻭﻻﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺤﻴﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﱪ‬
‫ﺧﺎﻟﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻓﻘﲔ ﻫﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻋﻮﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺄﻳﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﻭﺃﻗﻮﺍﳍﻢ‪ .‬ﻇﻨﻮﻩ ﺣﻠﻴ ًﻔﺎ‬
‫)ﺣﺒﻴﺒًﺎ ‪ -‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ!( ﳍﻢ ﻓﺎﺿﻤﺤﻠﻮﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﻋﺎﻫﺪﻭﻩ ﻷ‪‬ﻢ‬
‫ﺃﻫﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺰﺑﻪ‪) «...‬ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ ‪.(١٦-١٢ :١‬‬
‫» ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺧﺎﻟ ًﺪﺍ ﻭﺻﻨﻌﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﲝﺴﺪ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺩﺧﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ .‬ﻓﻴﺬﻭﻗﻪ ]ﻓﻘﻂ[ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻫﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺰﺑﻪ‪) « .‬ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ‬
‫‪.(٢٥ -٢٣ :٢‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﱂ ﻳﺼﻒ ﺍﷲ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ » ﻗﺘّﺎﻻً « ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ » ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻪ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ « ؛ ﺑﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻭﺻﺎﻑ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻭﺻﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ‪ » :‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺘﺎﻻً ﻣﻨﺬ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ « )ﻳﻮ ‪ (٤٤ :٨‬ﻭ »ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟـﻪ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ « )ﻋﺐ ‪.(١٤ :٢‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ » ﺧﻠﻮﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ « ﻫﻮ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ » ﻛﺎﻣﻨﺔ « ‪ ،‬ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﳑﻜﻨﺔ ﰲ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ‬

‫‪١٠٨‬‬
‫ُﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﺸﺘﺎﻗًﺎ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﱂ ﳜﻠﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ﺧﺎﻟ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ‬
‫ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻗﺎﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﺕ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻗﺪ » ﺯﺭﻉ ﺑﺬﺭ‪‬ﺎ « ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ‪ -‬ﻛﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ -‬ﻟﺘﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﺃﻭﻻً ﰲ ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﺍ ُﺳﻤﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ » ﺑﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻗﺪﻳﻦ « ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻭﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺟﺴﺪﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺧﺎﻟﺪﺓ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺬﻭﻕ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﻤﻲ‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﷲ ﺯﺭﻉ ﺑﺬﺭﺓ ﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﱂ ﺗﺜﻤﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻲ‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﰲ ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ‪ .‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺒﺬﺭﺓ ﺗﺰﺭﻉ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﻤﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺗﻨﻤﻮ ﺑﺎﻹﻓﺨﺎﺭﺳﺘﻴﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺑﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﰲ ﺳﺮ ﺍﳌﲑﻭﻥ ﺣﱴ ﺗﺜﻤﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﺣﲔ ﻧﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻋﻴﻨﻬﺎ )‪٢‬ﻛﻮ ‪.(١٨ :٣‬‬

‫ﺧﻼ ﺻﺔ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍ ﻟﻜﺘﺎ ﺏ ﺍ ﳌﻘﺪ ﺱ ﻭ ﺍ ﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫• »ﺍﳌﻮﺕ )ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲡﻠﺒﻪ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ( ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﷲ« )ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ‬
‫‪.(١٣ :١‬‬
‫• »ﺑﺤﺴﺪ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ ﺩﺧﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ« )ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ ‪:٢‬‬
‫‪.(٢٣‬‬
‫• »ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺗﻨﺘﺞ ﻣﻮﺗﺎ ﹰ« )ﻳﻊ ‪.(١٥ :١‬‬
‫• »ﺁﺧﺮ ﻋﺪﻭ ﻳﺒﻄﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ« )‪١‬ﻛﻮ ‪.(٢٦ :١٥‬‬
‫• »ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﺩﺍﺱ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻮﺭ ﺃﻧﻌﻢ ﻟﻬﻢ ﺑﺎﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ« )ﻧﺸﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ(‪.‬‬

‫‪١٠٩‬‬
‫ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺪﺑﺮ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺻﻼﺣﻪ ﻭﻋﺪﻟﻪ‬
‫ﰲ ﺻﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﻫﻮ ﺳﻌﻴﻪ ﻛﺄﺏ ﺻﺎﱀ ﻭﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﳏﺐ ﻟﻴﻘﻨﻊ‪ ،‬ﺑﻜﻞ ﺭﻗﺔ ﻭﻭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﺪﺃ ﳛﺒﻮ ﺻﻐﲑًﺍ ﰲ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﲟﺸﺎ‪‬ﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﺩﺭﻛﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﱂ ﳜﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﻻ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﲰﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻗﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺼﲑﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻨﺘﺠﻪ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ )ﻳﻊ ‪ ،(١٧ -١٣ :١‬ﺍﲰﺘﻪ ‪ » :‬ﺭﺑﺎﻃﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ «‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﺗﺴﻤﻪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻭﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ‪ »:‬ﺇﺳﺘﺤﻘﺎﻗﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ « ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺪﻣﺮﻩ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﻳﺔ!!! ﱂ‬
‫ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﺪﺑﺮ‬
‫ﺗﻨﻜﺮ ﳊﺐ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﻭﺍﳓﺮﺍﻑ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻖ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪ ...‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﱡ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﺳﻨﺮﻯ ﰲ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﰲ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺧﺎﺹ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻒ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻟﻨﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻋﻄﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﺗﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻟﻠﺒﻌﺾ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻧﻘﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻭﺩﺕ ﲝﻴﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻻ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﻧﻌﻤﺔ!!‬
‫ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﺑﺸﺮ ﳜﺎﻓﻮﻥ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺯﻋﻢ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺳﺒﺐ ﻛﻞ ﺷﺮ! ﻭﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻳﺘﻤﻨﻮﻥ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻋﻔﺎﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﲪﻞ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ!! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺇﲰﻌﻮﺍ ﻭﺇﻗﺮﺃﻭﺍ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻓﻼﺩﳝﲑ‬
‫ﻟﻮﺳﻜﻲ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻋﺘﱪﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﲨﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺮﺃﺕ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ‪:‬‬

‫‪١١٠‬‬
‫» ﻗﻤﺔ ﻛﻞ ﻗﺪﺭﺓ ﻭﻗﻮﺓ ﺇﳍﻴﺔ ﺗﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﰲ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻒ )ﺇﺧﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ(‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﺨﺎﻃﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ‪!!Divine risk‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ )ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﻼﻙ( ﻫﻮ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺧﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﺍﻟﺮﻓﺾ ً‬
‫ﻟﻘﻤﺔ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻗﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﳜﺎﻃﺮ ﺑﺎﳋﺴﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﱠ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻣﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‪...‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻌﺼﻮﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ ﻻ‬
‫ﻋﻈﻴﻤﺎ! ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﻛﺪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻹﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ً‬
‫ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﻭﻳﻌﻲ ﺣﺮﻳﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻌﻲ ﺣﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳊﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﰲ ﺇﻧﺘﻈﺎﺭﻩ‪ .‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ‪ :‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﺎﺋﻨﺎ ﺣﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪﻡ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻋﻮﺓ‬
‫ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺼﲑ ﺇﳍًﺎ! ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺮﺭ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺰﻳﱰﻱ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻲ ﳛﻘﻖ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﻋﻮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻻﺑﺪ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻓﺾ ً‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﻇﻬﺮ ﺍﷲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﲟﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻴﻒ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ )ﺍﷲ( ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎﻛﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷ‪‬ﺎ )ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ( ﺗﻨﺒﻊ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺪﺭﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ .‬ﺣﻘًﺎ ﻟﻘﺪ ُﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﳛﻘﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﺟﻌﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺷﺤﺎﺫًﺍ ﻟﻠﺤﺐ ﻭﺍﻗ ًﻔﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ )ﻭﻳﻘﺮﻉ ﻃﺎﻟﺒًﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺧﻮﻝ ﺇﻥ ﻓﺘﺢ ﻟﻪ ﺃﺣﺪ( ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻻ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺘﺤﻢ ﻋﻨﻮﺓ!!«‬
‫‪( V. Lossky, Orthodox Theology - An Introduction -‬‬
‫)‪S.V.S. press, p. 73‬‬

‫ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﻠﻤﻬﺎ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻨﺤﺒﻪ ﻭﳓﺐ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻧﺮﻓﺾ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻃﺎﻗﺔ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﺆﺍﺯﺭﺓ ﻣﻊ ﻧﻌﻤـﺔ ﺍﷲ ‪ ، Synergy‬ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ـ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ‪ -‬ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺮﻙ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻜﺲ ﺿﺪ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺗﻘﺘﻀﻲ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻧﻮﻟﺪ‬
‫ﳏﺎﻳﺪﻭﻥ ‪ Neutral‬ﺃﻱ ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ ﺇﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺒﻞ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﻓﺾ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻭﻋﺸﺮﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻮ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ .‬ﺇﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺒﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ )ﺭﺍﺟﻊ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ(‪.‬‬

‫‪١١١‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻮ ﺃﺩﺭﻙ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻛﻠﻬﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ )ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻹﲢﺎﺩ‬
‫ﺑﺎﷲ(‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﻫﻼﻙ ﺃﺑﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﻻ ﻳﻐﲑﻭﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﻫﻢ ﻭﻳﺘﺤﺮﻛﻮﻥ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ؟!‬
‫ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﻨﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ؟!‬
‫ﻟﻌﻞ ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﺗﻜﻤﻦ ﰲ ﺷﻐﻒ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﳜﺎﻃﺮ ﻭﻳﻜﺘﺸﻒ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ‪ :‬ﻣﺎﺫﺍ‬
‫ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﰲ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ؟! »ﻫﻞ ﺣ ًﻘﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻟﻜﻤﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﺗﺄﻛﻼ ﻣﻦ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺷﺠﺮ ﺍﳉﻨﺔ«؟!‬
‫ﻗﻄﻌﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻳﺮﺍﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ! )ﺗﻚ ‪ .(١:٣‬ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳋﲑ ً‬
‫ﺣﺐ ﺍﳌﻐﺎﻣﺮﺓ ﺍﳊﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﰲ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﺼﺪﻳﻖ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻤﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﳚﻌﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ‬
‫ﺃﻥ » ﻳﺼﲑ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﷲ ﻋﺎﺭ ًﻓﺎ ﺍﳋﲑ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ« ﲟﻔﺮﺩﻩ = ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﰐ‪ .‬ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﰲ‬
‫ﻗﻄﻌﺎ‪.‬‬
‫»ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻯ« ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻭﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﻃﻠﺐ ﺍﳍﻼﻙ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺷﺘﻬﺎﺀ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻈﻨﻪ ﳓﻦ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺧﲑ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻘﺪ ًﻣﺎ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺪ ﺍﷲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻫﻮ ﺷﺮ!! ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﰲ »ﺳﻮﺀ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ« ﺑﻌﻴ ًﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳋﲑﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﻞ‬
‫ﳐﻠﺼﺎ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬‫ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﻏﺎﻟﺒًﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﻜﺮ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ً‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﺗﺒﻐﻲ ﺇﻻ‬
‫ﺳﻌﺎﺩﺗﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺗﺴﻠﻄﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﳜﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻮﻉ ﺇﱃ ﺣﻀﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﻮﻥ ﺭﲟﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻋﻄﻴﻨﺎﻫﻢ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻛﺌﻴﺒﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ » :‬ﺍﻹﺳﻢ ﺍﳊﺴﻦ ﳚﺪﻑ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺑﺴﺒﺒﻜﻢ « )ﺭﻭ ‪ .(٢٤ :٢‬ﻛﺜﲑًﺍ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻧﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﻛﺄﻧﻪ ﺩﻛﺘﺎﺗﻮﺭ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺒﺪﻻً ﻣﻦ ﺗﺴﻠﻂ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﺘﺴﻠﻂ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺮﻳﺘﻨﺎ ﻗﻴﻮﺩ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺑﺈﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺫﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﲢﻘﲑ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺿﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺷﺮﻭﻁ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﳌﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﲢﺖ‬ ‫ﻭﺃﻧﺸﻄﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻔﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺩﺓ ً‬
‫ﺑﻨﺪ ﺍﻷﺳﻄﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻭ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧًﺎ!! ﻓﻘﻠﻤﺎ ﻗﺮﺃﺕ ﺑﺎﺑًﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﻡ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﻭﺫﻛﺮﺕ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ »ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺽ« ﻭ »ﺍﳌﻔﺮﻭﺽ« ﺑﺪﻻً ﻣﻦ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ »ﻭﺻﻴﺔ« ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﳌﺎﺫﺍ؟! ﻭﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻣﻦ؟! ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻬﺐ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﳝﻨﻌﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ؟!‬
‫• » ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ « )‪١‬ﻳﻮ ‪:(٤ :٣‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﻭﻳﻔﺴﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ!! ﺃﻭ ﰲ‬
‫ﺃﺣﺴﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺗﻀﺎﻳﻖ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺗﺜﲑﻩ ﻟﻠﻨﻘﻤﺔ ﻷ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﻌﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻨﻪ ﻭﻭﺻﺎﻳﺎﻩ!‬
‫ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻧﺘﻌﺪﻱ ﻭﺻﻴﺔ »ﺍﻹﻣﱪﺍﻃﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ« ﻭﻻ ﻳﻄﺎﻟﺒﻨﺎ ﲝﻘﻪ ﻭﻳﻌﺎﻗﺒﻨﺎ ﻟﲑﺩﻋﻨﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﺘﺮﻙ ﺣﻘﻪ ﻳﻬﻀﻢ؟! ﺃﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ؟!‬
‫‪١١٢‬‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺆﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ!!‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﷲ ﻷﻳﻮﺏ )‪ ،(٨-٦ :٣٥‬ﻭﻻ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﻠﻤﻪ‬
‫ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﰲ )ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ‪ :(١٧ -١٣ :١‬ﻓﺎﷲ ﻻ ﻳﻬﺰﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﻻ ﻳُﺠﺮﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻳُﻨﻘﺼﻪ‬
‫ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ ﻣﻦ ﳎﺪﻩ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻟﻮ ﲨﻌﻨﺎ ﺷﺮ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻭﺯﺩﻧﺎﻩ ﺃﻛﻮﺍ ًﻣﺎ ﻃﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ!!‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ‪ -‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻏﲑ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﻭﳜﺎﻑ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ‪ -‬ﻫﻮ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻬﺰﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﻭﺩ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ »ﺇﻟﻴﻚ ﻭﺣﺪﻙ ﺃﺧﻄﺄﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻗﺪﺍﻣﻚ ﺻﻨﻌﺖ« )ﻣﺰ ‪،(٤ :٥٠‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﻮ ﱂ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻌﲏ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﺏ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﻀﺮﺭ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻧﲏ‬
‫ﺇﺫ ﺃﺧﻄﺊ ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﺃﻗﺘﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺃﺅﺫﻱ ﻏﲑﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻭﺃﻱ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻏﲑﻱ ﳘﺎ ﻣﻠﻚ‬
‫ﷲ‪ .‬ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﺃﺧﻄﺊ ﺇﱃ ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺧﻼﺋﻘﻪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺣﺒﻬﺎ ﻭﺃﺭﻋﺎﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺄﻣﺎﻧﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺇﻓﺴﺎﺩ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺗﺒﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻷﻣﺎﻧﺔ ﻫﻮ »ﺇﻟﻴﻚ ﻭﺣﺪﻙ ﺃﺧﻄﺄﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻗﺪﺍﻣﻚ ﺻﻨﻌﺖ«‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻌﺪﻱ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﳊﺔ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﲟﻌﲏ ﺭﻓﻀﻬﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺗﻮﺑﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻓﺾ ﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﻳﺮﻓﺾ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﻳﻨﺤﻮ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﺇﺫًﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳉﺎﱐ ﻭﺍﳌﺠﲏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺑﺂﻥ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ!! ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺸﻤﺎﻭﻱ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻘﺘﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ!! ﺣﺮﻳﺘﻨﺎ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﳎﺪﺍﻓﴼ ﻳﺴﺎﻋﺪﻧﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﻮﺭ ﰲ‬
‫ﲝﺮ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺳﻜﻴﻨﴼ ﻣﺴﻨﻮﻧﴼ ﻧﻨﺘﺤﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺑﺄﻳﺪﻳﻨﺎ!!‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ » :‬ﺻﻨﻊ ﰲ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﺮﺓ« ‪) -‬ﺃﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪ ﻗﻠﻴﻞ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ(‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻳﻮﻡ ﳜﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻳﻘﻄﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﺗـﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﺼﻦ‪ ،‬ﺇﻣﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﻘﻲ ﻣﺘﺼ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺮﻣﺔ ﻟﻴﻈﻞ ﺣﻴﴼ ﻭﻳﺸﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻋﺼﺎﺭ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻄﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﻭﳝﻮﺕ ﰲ ﺧﻄﻴﺘﻪ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ )ﻳﻮ ‪.(٢١ :٨‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺷﺎﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﺘﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﺃﻱ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺁﺧﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻜﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﲣﺘﺎﺭ ﺃﻥ ﲣﺮﺝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺀ!! ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻴﺘﻬﺎ؟!‬
‫ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﳔﺮﺝ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻗﻮﻱ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪:‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﳝﻮﺕ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻞ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺻﻼﺣﻪ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻣﻮﻗﻔﻪ ﻛﻤﻦ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﺍﳌﺎﺋﺖ » ﻣﺮﺓ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ « ﻭﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺗﺴﺪﻳﺪ » ﲦﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ« ﷲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﺓ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪،‬‬

‫‪١١٣‬‬
‫ﺗﺼﻮﺭﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ؟! ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻗﺪ ﻣﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﻟﻮ ّ‬
‫ﻓﻌﻼً‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻳﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺍﷲ ﲟﻮﺕ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ؟! ﺣﱴ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻳﺮﻓﺾ ﻫﺬﺍ!!‬
‫ﻻﺑﺪ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﺎﺕ ﻓﻌﻼً‪ ،‬ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺘﺺ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺠﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ » ﱂ ﳝﺖ ﺑﻌﺪ « ‪ -‬ﺣﱴ ﻭﺇﻥ‬
‫ﺗﺼﻮﺭﻧﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ‪ .‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻳﺴﺪﺩ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﺣﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ )ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﲝﺴﺐ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ( ﻓﻠﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﷲ ﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﲦﻦ ﻭﺩﻳﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ؟!‬
‫ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻭﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻫﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ‪ :‬ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻋﻨﺪﻫﻢ ﱂ ﳝﺖ ﺑﻌﺪ‬
‫ﰲ ﺧﻄﻴﺌﺘﻪ؛ ﻭﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻛﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﺑﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺇﻻ ﺇﻧﺰﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻻ ﺿﺎﻋﺖ‬
‫ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺘﻪ ﻭﺇﺧﺘﻞ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ!!!‬
‫ﻧﺼﺎ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ً‬
‫)‪(V. White, Atomement and Incarnation - Cambridge - p. 94‬‬

‫» ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺒﻌﻬﺎ ﺗﻌﺎﺳﺔ ﻭﻋﺬﺍﺏ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺣﺎﻝ‪...‬‬

‫ﻏﲑ ﺷﺮﻳﻒ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﺪﻻً ‪ ...‬ﺇﻥ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺗﻔﺮﺽ ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﺴﺘﺮﺟﻊ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺇﺗﺰﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﻄﻌﺎ ﲡﱪ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻴﺴﺔ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺗﻨﺴﺠﻢ ﻣﻊ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻭﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ً‬
‫‪ ، The honour of the Universe‬ﺣﱴ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﺘﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻞ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺇﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﺒﺒﺖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪«.‬‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ » ﺁﺩﻡ ﻭﺣﻮﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺔ « ﻷﺳﺘﺎﺫﺓ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ‪ Elaine Pagels‬ﻭﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﺑـ ‪ ، Princeton University‬ﻗﺎﻟﺖ ﰲ ﲢﻠﻴﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻗﻴﻖ ﻟﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ‬
‫ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻭﻧﻘﺪﻫﺎ ﻟﻪ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻛﺎﻥ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ‪ ...‬ﺃﻥ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻫﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ « ‪.p.132‬‬
‫» ﻟﻘﺪ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺃﻥ ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ‪ -‬ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﺁﺩﻡ ‪ -‬ﻗﺪ ﺟﻠﺒﺖ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﻤﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ‬
‫ﺣﺮﻣﺖ ﺫﺭﻳﺔ ﺁﺩﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ‪ ...‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﺇﺳﺘﻄﺎﻉ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻨﻊ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﲔ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻏﲑ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻰ؟!« ‪p. 130‬‬

‫‪١١٤‬‬
‫» ﻭﻳﺴﺘﻨﺘﺞ ﺃﻭﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺍﻥ ﻛﻞ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﳌﻨﻮﻱ )ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻛﺮﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺏ( ﻳﻮﻟﺪ ﻣﺘﺴﺦ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ« ‪.p. 109‬‬
‫ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﰲ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﲔ ﻋﻤﻮ ًﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺖ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻨﺎﺑﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﱐ ﻭﺗﻌﺮﻳﻔﻪ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻌﺪﻝ‪ .‬ﻓﺘﺮﺗﻠﻴﺎﻧﻮﺱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﻗﺎﻝ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻛﻞ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﻻ ﲤﺤﻲ ﺇﻻ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻔﻮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻌﻔﻮ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﺄﺩﻳﺐ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻛﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﻺﺩﺍﻧﺔ‪ ...‬ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻻﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﺮﺿﻲ ﺍﷲ‪«.‬‬
‫)‪(G. Daly, Creation & Redemption, 1989, p. 187‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﺟﱪﻳﺎﻝ ﺩﺍﱄ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﻟﻴﺸﺮﺡ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺮﺗﻠﻴﺎﻧﻮﺱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺭﺟﻞ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺮﰊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻴﻢ ﺷﻴﺸﲑﻭﻥ ‪ Cicero‬ﺭﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﱐ ﻭﺗﺄﺛﺮ ﺑﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ً‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺑﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﻮﻥ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳒﻴﻞ ﻭﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮﺓ ﻟﻠﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﻟﻶﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﻘﺮﺃ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺘﺒﻪ ﺟﱪﻳﺎﻝ ﺩﺍﱄ‬
‫ﻭﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﺱ ﻳﻨﺎﺭﺍﺱ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﻭﻏﲑﻫﻢ ﰲ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺧﺎﺹ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺼﺒﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﻘﻮﻗﻴﺔ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳒﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺸﻮﻳﻪ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺣﺪﺛﻪ ﺇﳓﺮﺍﻓﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﺗﻜﺰﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ » ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ « ﺑﺪﻻً ﻣﻦ‬
‫» ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ «‪.‬‬

‫• ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪:‬‬

‫ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻛﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺳﻠﻢ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﺟﺴﺪﻩ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺪﻭﺱ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻘﻀﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻠﻐﻲ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻣﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻓﺴﺮ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﲔ ﻭﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺘﺒﻌﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﰲ ﻛﻨﺎﺋﺴﻨﺎ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﻛﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻋﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﻻﺑﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺇﲤﺎﻣﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻛﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻋﻘﻮﰊ ﻭﺑﺪﻳﻞ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺨﺎﻃﻲ‪ .‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻗﺪ ﻧﺴﺒﻮﺍ ﻷﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ‬
‫ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ‪ -‬ﻋﻦ ﻗﺼﺪ ﺃﻭ » ﲝﺴﻦ ﻧﻴﺔ«‪ ،‬ﺍﷲ ﺃﻋﻠﻢ!!‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﺱ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ؛ ﻟﻨﻜﺘﺸﻒ‬

‫‪١١٥‬‬
‫ﲨﺎﻝ ﻓﻜﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻛﺈﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﺮ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﺘﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﱀ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﻘﺮﺃ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﲔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺟﺰﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻃﺎﳌﺎ ُﻇﻠﻢ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﻳﺰﺍﻝ ﻳُﻈﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ ‪:‬‬
‫‪(On the Incarnation - Mowbray, London, p. 49).‬‬

‫» ﺑﺘﺴﻠﻴﻤﻪ ﻫﻴﻜﻠﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺼﻔﻲ ﺣﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬

‫ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﳛﺮﺭﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﳌﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺟﺴ ًﺪﺍ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ‪ ....‬ﻗﺎﺑ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﺟﺴﺎﺩ‬
‫ﺣﻞ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺣﺪﺙ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻱ‪ ...‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻗﺪ ّ‬
‫ﺃﺑﻄﻼ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻤﺎﻡ‪.‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻻﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻟﻠﺠﻤﻴﻊ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺴﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ‪.‬‬
‫ﻼ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﺧﺬ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﻠﺖ ﺟﺴ ًﺪﺍ ﻗﺎﺑ ً‬
‫ﻭﺑﺘﺄﳌﻪ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﲢﺎﺩﻩ ﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﻴﺪ ﺫﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻨﺠﻲ ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺒﺪﻭﺍ ﻃﻴﻠﺔ ﺣﻴﺎ‪‬ﻢ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺨﻮﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪«.‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻠﲔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻊ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ‪: p. 32-33‬‬

‫» )‪ (٦‬ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻳﻠﻴﻖ ﺑﺼﻼﺡ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺧﻠﻘﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺧﺪﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻳﻠﻴﻖ ﻭﻳﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻼﺷﻲ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺇﳘﺎﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺧﺪﺍﻉ ﺍﻷﺭﻭﺍﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮﺓ‪ ...‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺮﻙ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻠﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻠﻴﻖ ﺑﺎﷲ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (٧‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺑﺄﻛﻤﻠﻪ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻳﺘﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﰲ ﻛﻠﻤﺘﻪ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺑﻘﺎﺋﻨﺎ‬
‫ﱢﺏ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ .‬ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﷲ؟ ﻫﻞ‬ ‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳُ َﻜﺬ ُ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻯ؟ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻘﻮﻝ‬

‫‪١١٦‬‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻠﻴﻖ ﺑﺎﷲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﻗﺪ ﲢﺎﺟﺞ ﺃﻧﻪ ﲟﺎ ﺃ‪‬ﻢ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﻮﺍ ﲢﺖ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﻤﻜﻨﻬﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻮﺩﻭﺍ ﻟﻌﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻕ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ‪،Divine consistency‬‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﻟﻮ ﱂ ﻳﺘﻤﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻏﲑ ﺻﺎﺩﻕ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻐﲑ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ]ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ[‪ ،‬ﻛﻞ‬
‫ً‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﲡﻌﻠﻬﻢ ﻳﻜﻔﻮﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻭﱂ ﻳﺘﺒﻌﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﲟﺠﺮﺩ ﺑﺪﺀ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ ﺳﻘﻂ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﲢﺖ‬
‫ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻐﺮﺏ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﻟﻪ‪ .‬ﻻ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ‪ -‬ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻱ ﻣﻦ‬
‫‪ -‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ؟ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻮﻱ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‪ .‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﳛﻘﻖ ﻫﺪﻓﲔ‪ :‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻓﺴﺪ ﺇﱃ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﳛﻔﻆ‬
‫ﻟﻶﺏ ﺻﺪﻗﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ‬
‫‪to maintain for the Father His consistency of‬‬
‫‪character with all.‬‬

‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻭﻓﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻴﺪ‬
‫ﺧﻠﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻠﻴﻖ ﺑﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺄﱂ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳑﺜ ً‬
‫ﻼ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻜﻞ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻵﺏ‪«.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻳﺪﻳﻨﺎ ‪ -‬ﺑﻘﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺲ ﻣﺮﻗﺲ ﺩﺍﻭﻭﺩ ‪ -‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﻌﺘﻤﺪﺓ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﺇﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﻗﺪﳝﺔ ﻟﻨﺺ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ‪:‬‬
‫‪(Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers - 2nd series Vol IV p. 39-40).‬‬

‫ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻱ ﺫﻛﺮﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ‪ “Just claims of” God‬ﺑﺪﻻً‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ‪ “Divine consistency of character” :‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺲ ﻣﺮﻗﺲ‬
‫ﺩﺍﻭﻭﺩ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ‪» :‬ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ«‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻻً ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ‪» :‬ﺻﺪﻕ ﺍﷲ ‪ -‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻴﻖ‬
‫ﺑﺜﺒﺎﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ‪ -‬ﻭﺃﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺘﻐﲑ«‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ‬
‫‪١١٧‬‬
‫ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ‪ Consistency of character‬ﻭﺃﻫﻢ ﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺮﺟﻢ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺲ‬
‫ﻣﺮﻗﺲ ﺩﺍﻭﻭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻛﺘﺒﻪ ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﰲ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ ﻋﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ‪Just claims of God :‬‬
‫ﻛﺘﺐ ﰲ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ ‪ » :‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﳊﺮﰲ ﻟﻠﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺘﺐ‬
‫‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ‪:‬‬
‫”‪ “What is reasonable with respect to God‬ﺃﻱ ‪ :‬ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻭﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻻﺋﻖ ﺑﺎﷲ‪،‬‬
‫”‪,“i.e. what is involved in His attributes and in His relation to us‬‬

‫ﺃﻱ ‪ :‬ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺼﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ‪«.‬‬

‫ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﻟﻔﻈﺔ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺗﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻴﻖ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺻﻔﺎﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻛﺨﺎﻟﻖ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﰲ ﻛﻠﻤﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﳛﻘﻖ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺮﻳﺪﻩ ﺑﺄﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﳛﻔﻆ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺻﺪﻗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ‬
‫ﻟﻨﺎ ﺻﻼﺣﻪ ﻭﻳﻬﺒﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﺇﱃ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﲝﻜﻤﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻮﻕ ﻛﻞ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺑﺸﺮﻱ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﻨﺎ ﻛﺒﺸﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ؟!‬
‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻗﺮﺃﻧﺎ ﺑﻌﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﻷﺻﻴﻞ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺤﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﺺ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﱐ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﳒﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺇﻃﻼﻗًﺎ ﰲ ﺗﺸﺨﻴﺺ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻭﻣﺮﺽ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻛﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﺮ‪) .‬ﺭﺍﺟﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻄﺒﻮﻋﺔ ﺑﺎﳋﻂ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻴﻚ(‪.‬‬
‫» ﻛﺎﻥ ﻻﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻟﻠﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﺣﱴ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺴﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ« ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻛﺒﻄﻞ ﳓﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺳﻠﻤﻪ ﺟﺴﺪﻩ ﻛﻄﻌﻢ ﰲ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﳍﻴﺔ ‪ -‬ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻝ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺴﻲ ‪ -‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﻜﻲ »ﻣﺎ ﻳﺒﻴﺪ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﺫﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻪ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺃﻱ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ«‪ .‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺪﺑﺮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺴﺪﺩ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ ﷲ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺃﻭ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ » ﺗﺴﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ« ﺃﻭ »ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺼﻔﻲ ﺣﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ«‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺗﻌﺒﲑﺍﺕ ﳎﺎﺯﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﻭﻱ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺘﺄﺧﺮﺍ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﻭ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻴﻒ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ »ﺗﺼﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺴﺎﺏ«‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻄﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻱ ﻻ ﻳﺪﻓﻊ ﻓﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﺣﺴﺎﺑًﺎ ً‬
‫‪١١٨‬‬
‫ﻭ »ﺗﺴﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ« ﺇﳕﺎ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺇﺑﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻣﺮﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﻣﺮﺍﺿﺎﺓ ﺍﳋﺼﻢ ﻭﻻ ﻣﻬﺎﺩﻧﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﺭﻋﲔ ﺍﻷﻗﻮﻳﺎﺀ!!‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ » ﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺍﷲ ﲞﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ « ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﺒﻘﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺣﺘﺮﺍﻣﻪ‬
‫ﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺇﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ!! ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻠﻐﻲ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻳﻘﻄﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﺍﷲ ﻭﳝﻮﺕ!! ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺛﺎﺑﺘﺔ ﻭﺑﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﻣﻮﺗﻪ ﻭﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺋﺒﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﺆﻣﻨﻮﻥ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻬﻢ‬
‫ﻭﺑﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﺃﻋﻄﺎﻧﺎ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﺑﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﱂ ﻳﻠﻐﻬﺎ ﺍﷲ‪ :‬ﱂ ﻳﺘﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﰲ ﻛﻼﻣﻪ!!‬
‫ﺇﺣﺘﺮﺍﻡ ﺍﷲ ﻟﺼﺪﻗﻪ ﻭﺛﺒﺎﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﻳﻨﺒﻊ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺇﺣﺘﺮﺍﻣﻪ ﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻝ‪ :‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﳝﻴﺖ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻷﺟﻞ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺣﺒﻪ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ‪...‬‬
‫ﺣﺎﺷﺎ! ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻄﻠﺐ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻭﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﲢﺘﻤﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻰﺀ ﻭﺗﺼﱪ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﺷﻰﺀ )‪١‬ﻛﻮ ‪.(٥:١٣‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﰲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺋﻌﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻭﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﷲ )ﺇﺫ ﺇﺳﺘﺪﻋﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻹﺩﺧﺎﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻠﻔﻆ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ!( ﱂ‬
‫ﺗﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﺸﻰﺀ ﺳﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ!! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻹﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ ﻟﻠﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﳌﺨﻠﺼﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﱀ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺇﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺃﻱ ﺻﻔﺔ ﺇﳍﻴﺔ ﺗﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﲝﻖ‪،‬‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﲟﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻳﻘﻀﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﺍﷲ‪ ...‬ﺇﻃﻼﻗًﺎ!! ﺑﻞ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻛﻔﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ »ﻹﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ« ﻷﻥ ﻳﺰﺭﻉ ﺍﷲ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻳﺒﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪: p. 34 ،٨‬‬
‫» ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻘﻀﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﲢﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﺶ «‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻠﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﻋﺪﻡ ﻛﻔﺎﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﺗﺸﻊ ﻧﻮﺭﴽ ﳜﺰﻱ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻔﺴﺮ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ‬
‫ﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ ﻓﻘﻂ ] ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﳜﺺ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ!![ ﻭ ﱂ ﻳﺘﺒﻌﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ] ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﳜﺺ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻓﻘﻂ [ ﻟﻜﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﺟﺪﴽ!!!«‬
‫ﻣﺪﺍﻓﻌﺎ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺩ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻷﺏ ﭼﻮﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﺪﺭﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ً‬
‫‪١١٩‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ‪:‬‬
‫‪Christ in the Eastern Christian Thought p. 118 .‬‬

‫‪Recapitulation‬‬ ‫» ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﻭﺿﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﲢﺖ ﺭﺃﺱ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﺃﻱ‬

‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﱐ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻡ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻠﺨﺺ ﻋﻤﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺴﻚ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺣﺪﺙ‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺮﻉ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ‪ ،‬ﺃﺧﻄﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ‬
‫ﻭﺷﺮﺡ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﲔ ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻟﻮﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‬
‫ﻣﺜﻞ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻭﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ‪...‬‬
‫ﺷﺨﺼﺎ ﺫﻭ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺧﺎﻃﺌﺔ‪...‬‬‫ً‬ ‫ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ ...‬ﻫﻮ ً‬
‫ﺃﺧﺬ ﲝﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺳﺪﺓ ﻭﺑﺎﻹﲢﺎﺩ ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺃﻋﺎﺩ‬
‫ﳍﺎ ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﷲ‪ .‬ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺇﺷﺘﺮﻙ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﺪﺓ ﻟﻪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﲢﺮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻔﺮﻭﺿﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻛﻤﺮﺽ ﰲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﻫﻮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻛﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﻔﺮﻭﺿﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﻬﻤﻮﺍ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻫﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻭﺗﺘﻤﻴﻢ ﻟﻠﻤﺼﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺘﺮﻙ )ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻛﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﻣﺜﻠﻨﺎ( ﰒ‬
‫ﺧﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻦ ﲢﻘﻴﻘﻬﺎ ﺇﻻ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺼﻴﺒﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ )ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺗﺄﻛﻴ ًﺪﺍ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴًﺎ ﻷﻧﻪ‬
‫ﳛﻤﻞ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻓﻌ ًﻼ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺷﻜﻼً(‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﳍﺬﺍ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻛﻠﻬﻢ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﻣﺎﺕ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻣﺼﲑ ﺭﻓﻘﺎﺋﻪ ‪ ...‬ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﰲ‬
‫ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻗﻀﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ«‪«.‬‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺻﺪﺭ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ١٩٩١‬ﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ‪ Constantine Tsirpanlis‬ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻛﺮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺑﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ‬

‫‪١٢٠‬‬
‫ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮﺍ ﻭﺍﺣﺘﺮﺍ ًﻣﺎ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻷﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ!! ً‬
‫ﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﲝﻖ » ﻣﻌﻠﻢ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ «‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻭﺻﻔﻪ ﺍﻷﺏ ﭼﻮﺭﭺ ﻓﻠﻮﺭﻭﻓﺴﻜﻲ ﻋﻤﻴﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ﺳﺎﻧﺖ ﭬﻼﺩﳝﲑ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﻗﺎﺋ ًﻼ ‪:‬‬
‫”‪“The Classic Doctor of the Incarnation‬‬

‫ﻭﺳﺄﻗﺘﺒﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺴﲑﭘﺎﻧﻠﻴﺲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺔ ﺩﻓﺎ ًﻋﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‬

‫ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺑﺎﳌﺮﺓ ‪:‬‬
‫)‪(Introduction to Eastern Pastristic Thought and Orthodox Theology‬‬

‫» ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻕ‪ ،‬ﻭﳚﺪ ﻣﻮﺿﻌﻪ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﰲ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ‪،‬‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺳﺒﺐ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﰲ ﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﰲ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﺎﺯﻩ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻹﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻟﻠﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﺑﺮﻭﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﳚﺪ ﺟﺬﻭﺭﻩ ﰲ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻭﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‪ » :‬ﰲ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻗﺪ ﰎ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺣﱴ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﻌﻢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺘﺠﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫)ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﷲ( ﺍﻟﱵ ﻓﻴﻪ‪.p. 68 «....‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ‪) Satisfaction‬ﻟﻠﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ( ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺷﺮﺣﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﻓﻬﻤﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻭﺭﺍﺛﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻭﺭﺍﺛﺔ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺧﺎﻃﺌﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺗﻌﺒﲑﺍﺕ ﻏﺮﻳﺒﺔ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺍﺑﺔ‬
‫)ﻭﺃﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺘﺮﻛﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺍﻡ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻀﺎﺩ ﺑﲔ ﻓﺴﺎﺩ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻠﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻭﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﲔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﲟﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﺇﻏﺮﺍﺀ‬
‫ﻗﻄﻌﺎ ً‬‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻐﺮﺑﻴﲔ « ‪.p. 209‬‬

‫‪١٢١‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻟﻢ ﻳﹸ ﹶﻌﻠﹺﻢ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ »ﺳﺒﺐ«‬
‫‪ the Cause‬ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﰋ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻟﻢ ﻳﹸ ﹶﻌﻠﹺﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﳌﺼﻠﻮﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﺕ ﻗﺪ ﺩﻓﻊ ﺩﻳﻨﺎ ﹰ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﻟﻬﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ »ﺗﺴﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ« ﻛﺎﻥ ﺗﻌﺒﻴﺮﺍ ﹰ ﺭﻣﺰﻳﺎ ﹰ ﻋﻦ ﺩﻳﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ‪:‬‬
‫»ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺼﻔﻲ ﺣﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﻳﺤﺮﺭﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻭﻝ« )‪.(٢٠ : ٤‬‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﺠﻮﺯ ﺃﻥ ﻳﹸﻨﺴﺐ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺃﺳﻘﻒ ﻛﺎﻧﺘﺮﺑﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ‬
‫ﻟﻮﺛﺮ )ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﻟﻬﻴﺔ ﺑﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺑﺪﻻ ﹰ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ( ﻷﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‪.‬‬

‫‪١٢٢‬‬
 ‫)ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑـــﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺩﻳﺒﻴــﺔ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻨﻴــﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑـﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﻘﺎﻣﻴـﺔ(‬
‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻗﻠﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﺑﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺸﻤﺎﻭﻱ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺮﺟﻢ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﺇﻟﻐﺎﺀ ﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﺮ!! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻫﻮ‪ :‬ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺪﺑﺮ ﻭﻓﺎﻋﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ )ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺔ ﺑﻼ ﺷﻚ( ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺄﻛﻴﺪ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻘﻤﺔ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺑﺎﳊﺐ‪ .‬ﺍﷲ ﻳﺆﺩﺏ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺀﻩ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺳﻨﺮﻯ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﺑﺘﺪﺑﲑﻩ ‪ ...‬ﺣﺎﺷﺎ!‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻓﺎﺭﻕ ﻛﺒﲑ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺄﺩﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺎ ﻧﺴﺘﻌﻤﻠﻬﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻐﻮﻳًﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺮﺍﺩﻓﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﰲ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺘﻨﺎ ﳌﻌﺎﻣﻼﺕ ﺍﷲ ﳚﺐ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﻟﺌﻼ ﻳﺸﻮﻩ ﺍﳌﻀﻤﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻘﺼﻮﺩ‪.‬‬

‫• ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑـﺔ ‪:Punishment, Retribution‬‬

‫ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺇﻻ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪ :‬ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‬
‫)ﺭﺅ ‪ ،(٨ :٢١‬ﺍﻹﻏﺘﺮﺍﺏ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﺬﺍﺏ ﺍﳊﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻨﺘﻬﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺩﺭﺳﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺮ »ﺭﺋﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻔﺼﻴﻞ‪ .‬ﺍﷲ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ .‬ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ُ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ« ﻭ »ﳐﻠﺺ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﻮﺱ« ﻭ »ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﳌﺤﻴﻲ« ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ!‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻓﺘﻠﻌﺐ » ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻤﺔ « ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺩﺓ!! ﻓﺎﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎ ﺗﻮﻗﻴﻊ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻷﺫﻱ ﺍﳌﺆﱂ ﻭﺍﳌﻜﻠﻒ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻗﺐ‪ ،‬ﻛﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ‬‫ً‬

‫‪١٢٣‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺎﺹ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺘﻘﺎﻡ ﻟﺸﻰﺀ ﺻﻨﻌﻪ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻗﺐ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻏﺎﻟﺒًﺎ ﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺁﺧﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﻗﺪ ﻇﻠﻤﻪ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺄﺧﺮﻱ‪ .‬ﲟﻌﲏ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﻘﺎﻣﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻮﻗﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻭﻱ ﳌﺎ ﺻﻨﻌﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮ ﰲ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻟﻼﻧﺘﻘﺎﻡ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻭﺗﻌﻮﻳﻀﻪ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺮﻱ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﺎﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻇﻠﻤﻪ ﻭﻳﺘﺸﻔﻲ ﻓﻴﻪ!!‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﻘﺎﻣﻴﺔ ﻳﻨﺘﻔﻲ ﺍﳊﺐ ‪‬ﺎﺋﻴًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﲢﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺬﻳﺐ ﻭﺍﻷﺫﻱ‬
‫ﺑﻜﻞ ﻋﻨﻔﻮﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ .‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ‪ !!...‬ﺷﻰﺀ ﻣﺆﺳﻒ ﺣﻘًﺎ!! )ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ(‪.‬‬

‫• ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺩﻳـﺐ ‪) Discipline‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺩﻳﺒﻴﺔ(‪:‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺩﻳﺐ ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺍﻷﱂ! ﻭﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺇﻳﻘﺎﻉ ﺃﻱ ﺃﺫﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺄﺩﺏ‪ .‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺩﻳﺐ‬
‫)ﺑﻌﻜﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﻘﺎﻣﻴﺔ( ﺗﻨﺘﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺗﺄﺩﻳﺐ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻓﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻓﻀﻞ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺏ!! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳜﻄﺊ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑﻭﻥ ﰲ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺣﻀﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻜﻠﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﺘﺨﻠ ًﻔﺎ‪ ،‬ﻇﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺩﻳﺐ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﺤﺒﻪ ﺍﻷﱂ ﻛﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻻ‬
‫ﻏﲏ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ!! ﻭﻛﻠﻤﺎ ﲢﻀﺮ ﻭﻧﻀﺞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻬﺬﻳﺐ ﳝﻜﻦ ﲢﻘﻴﻘﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺮﻏﻴﺐ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺮﻫﻴﺐ‪ .‬ﻛﻠﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ » ﻏﻠﻴﻆ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﺒﺔ« ﻗﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻛﺎﺀ‪،‬ﻛﻠﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺇﺯﺩﺍﺩﺕ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﺑﺎﻷﱂ؛ ﺣﱴ ﻭﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻢ ﻟﻄﻴ ًﻔﺎ ﺷﻌﺮ » ﻏﻠﻴﻆ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﺒﺔ «‬
‫ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻢ ﻣﺘﻌﺐ! ﻭﻏﻠﻴﻆ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﺒﺔ ﻻ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺩﻳﺐ ﺇﻻ ﻛﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﻧﻘﻤﺔ ﻭﻋﺬﺍﺏ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﺸﻌﺐ ﺇﺳﺮﺍﺋﻴﻞ!!‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻳﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ ﻟﻠﺘﺄﺩﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺃﺏ ﳏﺐ ﻭﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺇﺭﺟﺎﻉ ﻛﻞ ﺇﺑﻦ ﺧﺎﻃﺊ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺃﺣﻀﺎﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻟﻴﺆﺩﺏ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ـ ﺟﻬﻨﻢ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ـ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻻ ﺗﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻳﺔ ﺗﺄﺩﻳﺐ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺣﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﺃﺑﺪﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﻫﻲ ﻧﺎﺭ ﻻ ﺗﻄﻔﺄ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﻻﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﲡﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺣﻀﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﺩﺍﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺩﻳﺐ ﺇﺫﻥ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺩﻳﺐ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﻓﻀﻞ‪ .‬ﺩﺍﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺏ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﻘﺎﻡ‪،‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻣﺴﺒﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺪﻓﻪ »ﺃﻥ ﻳﺪﻓﻊ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺩﻳﻨﴼ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺃﻫﺎ‪‬ﺎ« ﺃﻣﺎ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪» :‬ﺃﻗﻮﻝ ﻟﻚ ﻻ ﲣﺮﺝ ﻣﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺣﱴ ﺗﻮﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺲ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ‪«.‬‬

‫‪١٢٤‬‬
‫)ﻟﻮ ‪ (٥٩ :١٢‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﺒﻘﻲ ﰲ ﺟﻬﻨﻢ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻳﻮﰲ ﺩﻳﻨﴼ ﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻠﻌﺪﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺩﻳﻦ »ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﻨﺎ‬
‫ﳑﺴﻜﲔ ﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺒﻴﻌﲔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ« ـ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﺼﻠﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺮﻡ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺗﻞ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﻭﻳﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ...‬ﺣﺎﺷﺎ!!!‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﺗﻠﻤﻴﺬ!!‬ ‫‪Disciple‬‬ ‫ﻭﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺩﻳﺐ ‪ Discipline‬ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﺧﺬﺕ ﻟﻔﻈﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻧﺴﻤﻲ ﻣﻌﺎﻫﺪ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﻓﻨﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻭﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ‪ :‬ﻛﻠﻴـــﺎﺕ‬‫ً‬
‫ﺍﻵﺩﺍﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ‪ Faculty of Arts‬ﺃﻱ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻨﻮﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﺪﻝ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺩﻳﺐ ﻫﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺭﺍﻗﻴﺔ ﺗﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻻﺣﺘﺮﺍﻡ ﺍﳌﺘﺒﺎﺩﻝ‬
‫ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺆﺩﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻠﻤﻴﺬ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻠﻤﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺄﺩﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺁﺩﺍﺏ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻢ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺣﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻣﻦ ﳛﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺆﺩﺑﻪ « )ﺃﻡ ‪ ، (١٢ :٣‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻘﻞ » ﻳﻌﺬﺑﻪ «!! ﺑﻞ ﻭﻳﻜﻤﻞ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﺴﺮ ﺑﻪ « )ﺃﻡ ‪ ،(١٢ :٣‬ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺩﺍﻭﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‬
‫» ﻭﻛﺄﺏ ﺑﺈﺑﻦ ﻳُ ﱡ‬
‫ﻼ‪:‬‬‫ﻗﺎﺋ ً‬
‫» ﺗﺄﺩﻳﺒًﺎ ﺃﺩﺑﲏ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﱂ ﻳﺴﻠﻤﲏ « )ﻣﺰ ‪(١٨ :١١٨‬‬
‫ﻠﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺼﺢ ﻭﺍﻹﺭﺷﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻢ ‪‬ﺎ‪ .‬ﺇﻻ‬ ‫ﺍﷲ ﺇﺫﻥ ُﻳﻌ ﱢ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻼﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﷲ ﲟﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮﺍ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﷲ ﻛﻤﺪﻣﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﻗﺼﺔ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻓﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﺪﻭﻡ ﻭﻋﺎﻣﻮﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﱯ ﺑﺎﺑﻞ ﻭﻋﻘﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺏ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﻭﺭﺓ ﻹﺳﺮﺍﺋﻴﻞ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ ....‬ﺍﱁ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻮ ﻗﺮﺃﻧﺎ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺺ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﻨﺎ ﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺄﺩﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺟﻠﻴًﺎ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫» ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﺗﺄﺩﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﻻ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﺇﻧﺘﻘﺎﻣﻴﺔ«‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺺ ﱂ ﻳﻀﻌﻒ ﺣﺐ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻛﺎﻷﻡ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺣﱴ ﻭﺇﻥ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺮﺕ ﺍﺑﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻳﻌﱪ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺭﻉ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﺇﳕﺎ ﲢﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺴﺘﺜﲑ ﲰﻌﻪ ﻭﺣﻮﺍﺳﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻻ ﺗﺼﺪﻣﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺮﻋﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ‪.‬‬

‫‪١٢٥‬‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻼﺕ ﺍﷲ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺻﺮﺍﺥ ﻣﻨﻪ ﳓﻮﻫﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺻﺮﺍﺥ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺇﺳﺘﻴﺎﺀﻩ ﻭﻗﺖ‬
‫» ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺩﻳﺐ « ﳊﻈﺔ ﺯﻣﻦ ﻹﺑﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﳝﺘﻌﻪ ﲝﺒﻪ ﺃﻳﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﻭﺳﻨﻴﻨًﺎ!! ﺍﷲ ﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺐ ﺇﻣﺮﺃﺗﻪ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺇﻣﺮﺃﺓ ﻣﺘﻤﺮﺩﺓ ﺯﺍﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﲡﺮﻱ ﻭ » ﺗﺰﱐ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺁﳍﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﻢ«‬
‫)ﺧﺮﻭﺝ ‪ !!!(١٥ :٣٤‬ﻭﻷﻥ ﺷﻌﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺷﻌﺒًﺎ ﻏﻠﻴﻆ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻤﺘﻤﺮﺩﺓ ﺯﺍﻧﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﷲ ﳛﺒﻬﺎ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻷﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﻪ!! ﻓﺎﳊﺐ ﺷﺪﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﷲ ‪ -‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﺍﳌﺰﺍﺝ ﻗﻮﻱ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺸﺎﻋﺮ ‪ -‬ﻻ ﺗﻨﻘﻄﻊ!! )ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﺳﻔﺮ ﻫﻮﺷﻊ( ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺘﻤﺮﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻏﻠﻴﻈﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﺒﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﺘﺐ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻬﺎ ﻣﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﺑﺄﺳﻠﻮ‪‬ﺎ!!! ﻓﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﻳﺎ ﺗﺮﻱ ﳒﺪ ﰲ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺳﻠﻮﺏ؟!!‬
‫ﳒﺪ ﺍﳊﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﳒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻢ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﻭﺍﳊﺒﻴﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﳒﺪ ﺍﳋﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺼﺎﺭﻋﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ!!‬
‫» ﺍﳊﺒﻴّﺔ «‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﳒﺪ ﺍﻟﻐﺰﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﺪﻳﺪ ﰲ ﺳﻔﺮ ﻧﺸﻴﺪ ﺍﻷﻧﺸﺎﺩ ً‬
‫ﻓﺘﺎﺭﺓ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻋﻨ ًﻔﺎ ﻭﻏﻀﺒًﺎ ً‬
‫ﻭﻏﻴﻈﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻧًﺎ ﺿﻌﻴ ًﻔﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺍﷲ!! ﻭﺗﺎﺭﺓ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ :‬ﻻ ﺗﻐﻀﺐ ﻣﲏ‪ » ،‬ﻫﻠﻢ ﻧﺘﺤﺎﺟﺞ )ﻧﺘﺤﺎﻭﺭ( ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺏ « )ﺇﺵ ‪ ،(١٨ :١‬ﺗﻌﺎﱃ ﺃﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ » ﺣﻮﱄ ﻋﲏ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﻙ ﻷ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻏﻠﺒﺘﺎﱐ « )ﻧﺸﻴﺪ ‪!(٥ :٦‬‬
‫ﰒ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧًﺎ ﳜﺎﻃﺐ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﺟﺴﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻋﺘﺎﺏ ﻻ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﻟﻮ ﺃﺩﺭﻛﻨﺎ ﻣﻌﲏ‬
‫ﺃﺑﺮ ﺃﻧﺖ ﻳﺎﺭﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺧﺎﺻﻤﻚ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‪ ...‬ﳌﺎﺫﺍ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺸﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ‪ » :‬ﱡ‬
‫ﺗﻨﺠﺢ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ؟!!« )ﺇﺭ ‪ .(١ :١٢‬ﻭﻳﻌﺎﺗﺐ ﺃﻳﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺑﻐﻀﺐ ﻭﺗﺴﺎﺅﻝ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﺍﳉﺎﻓﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻛﻨﺖ ﻣﺴﺘﺮﳛًﺎ ﻓﺰﻋﺰﻋﲏ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻣﺴﻚ ﺑﻘﻔﺎﻱ ﻓﺤﻄﻤﲏ‪ .‬ﻭﻧﺼﺒﲏ ﻟﻪ ً‬
‫ﻏﺮﺿﺎ«!! )ﺃﻳﻮﺏ‬
‫‪ (١٢ :١٦‬ﰒ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻮﺽ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺃﻳﻮﺏ ﻋﻦ ﺻﱪﻩ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﺃﻳﻮﺏ ﺑﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﳉﺴﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﺮ‪» :‬ﺇﲰﻊ ﺍﻵﻥ )ﻳﺎ ﺍﷲ( ﻭﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﺗﻜﻠﻢ!!« )ﺃﻳﻮﺏ ‪.(٤ :٤٢‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻏﻠﻈﺖ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳜﺎﻃﺐ ‪‬ﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﺣﺒﻴﺒﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺇﳕﺎ ﻳﺮﺣﻢ‬
‫ﻭﻳﺘﺮﺁﻑ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﺴﺘﻨﺠﺪ »ﺑﺎﳉﲑﺍﻥ« ﻟﻴﺤﻜﻤﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﺘﻤﺮﺩﺓ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺇﲰﻌﻲ ﺃﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ﻭﺇﺻﻐﻲ ﺃﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ‪ :‬ﺭﺑﻴﺖ ﺑﻨﲔ ﻭﺑﻨﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻲ!« )ﺇﺵ ‪ .(٢ :١‬ﻭﰲ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﻷﺻﺤﺎﺣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ‬ ‫ﻭﻧﺸﺄ‪‬ﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﻫﻢ ﻓﻌﺼﻮﺍ ﱠ‬
‫‪١٢٦‬‬
‫ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﺘﻬﻲ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﺑﺎﳊﺐ ﻭﻭﻋﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﱪﻛﺔ!! ﺃﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻋﺠﺒًﺎ؟! » ﳊﻴﻈﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺮﻛﺘﻚ‪ .‬ﻭﲟﺮﺍﺣﻢ ﻋﻈﻴﻤﺔ ﺳﺄﲨﻌﻚ‪ .‬ﺑﻔﻴﻀﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺣﺠﺒﺖ ﻭﺟﻬﻲ ﻋﻨﻚ ﳊﻈﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺑﺈﺣﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﺑﺪﻱ ﺃﺭﲪﻚ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻭﻟﻴﻚ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻛﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﻧﻮﺡ ﻫﺬﻩ ﱄ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺣﻠﻔﺖ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻻ ﺗﻌﱪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻴﺎﻩ ﻧﻮﺡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ .‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺣﻠﻔﺖ ﻻ ﺃﻏﻀﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻚ ﻭﻻ ﺃﺯﺟﺮﻙ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﳉﺒﺎﻝ ﺗﺰﻭﻝ ﻭﺍﻵﻛﺎﻡ ﺗﺘﺰﻋﺰﻉ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺇﺣﺴﺎﱐ ﻓﻼ ﻳﺰﻭﻝ ﻋﻨﻚ ﻭﻋﻬﺪ ﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺰﻋﺰﻉ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺭﺍﲪﻚ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ« )ﺇﺵ ‪.(١٠-٧ :٥٤‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﺳﻴﻤﻔﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻴﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﺻﺮﺍﺥ ﺍﻟﻌﺘﺎﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻬﺪﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ‪ :‬ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﺮﺍﺥ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﺮﺍﻉ ﺑﲔ ﻧﺎﻗﻢ ﻭﻋﺪﻭ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﻟﻸﺣﻀﺎﻥ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ؟! ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻨﻒ ﻏﻀﺒًﺎ ﳛﻤﻞ ﻧﻘﻤﺔ ﻭﻛﺮﺍﻫﻴﺔ ﻭﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﲟﻌﲏ ﺍﻹﻫﻼﻙ ﻭﺍﻹﻓﻨﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺸﻔﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻠﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ؟! ﺃﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺩﻟﻴ ًﻼ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﺮﺍﻉ ﺻﺮﺍﻉ ﺍﻷﺣﺒﺎﺀ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﺸﻢ ﺍﻷﺻﺪﻗﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﺩﺍﻟﺔ ﻏﺮﺍﻡ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﻭﳏﺒﻮﺑﺘﻪ؟!‬
‫ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺑﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺸﻢ ﻭﺍﳊﺐ )ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﳍﺎ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﰲ‬
‫ﻟﻐﺎﺕ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ!!!( ﻳﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﺼﺎﺭﻋﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﺤﺎﺑﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﻳﺘﺒﺎﺩﻻﻥ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺎﻫﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺰﻝ!!!‬
‫ﻓﺄﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻘﻤﺔ ﻭﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻄﺶ ﻟﻠﺪﻣﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺃﲰﺎﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ‪ :‬ﻏﻀﺐ ﻭﻧﻘﻤﺔ ﻭﻏﻴﻆ؟! ﻫﺬﻩ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ » ﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ« ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﺣﻮﺍﺭ ﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧًﺎ ﺭﻗﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﺎﻟﻨﺴﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧًﺎ‬
‫ﻏﻠﻴﻈﺔ ﻛﺮﻗﺒﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﲤﺮﺩﻩ!! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﳛﺎﺭﺏ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻜﺮﻩ‬
‫ﺣﺒﻴﺒﻪ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻧﻘﻤﺔ ﻛﻨﻘﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﳊﻘﻮﺩﺓ‪ ...‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﻛﺮﻳﻪ‬
‫ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﻣﺎﺭ ﺇﺳﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﱐ ﰲ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‪ .‬ﺗﺄﺩﻳﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﺍﳌﺆﳌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﻧﻘﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﺩ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ‪ ...‬ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ ‪ ...‬ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﺑﺪﺍ ﺫﻟﻚ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ!!!‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﳍﺎﻡ ﺟﺪﴽ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺣﻮﺍﺩﺙ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺩﻳﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻣﺎﺕ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑﻭﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻮ‪‬ﻢ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻮﺗﴼ ﺟﺴﺪﻳﴼ ﺯﻣﻨﻴﴼ‪ ،‬ﺗﺄﺩﻳﺒﻴﴼ ﳍﻢ ﻭﻟﻨﺎ ﲨﻴﻌﴼ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻴﻤﺎ ﺗﺴﺘﻴﻘﻆ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﻧﺒﺘﻌﺪ ﻋﻦ‬
‫»ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﳌُﻠﺒﺲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ« ﻭﻟﻜﻲ »ﻻ ﻳﻘﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻋﺒﻴﺪﻙ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ«‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﺼﻠﻲ‬

‫‪١٢٧‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ‪ .‬ﻓﻴﺠﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻨﻈﺮ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ »ﺍﳉﺴﻤﻰ« ﺍﳌﺆﻗﺖ ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﻨﻈﺮ ﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻧﺘﻬﺎﺀ ﻋﻤﺮﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺃﻱ ﻛﺎﺭﺛﺔ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ »ﺇﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ«‬
‫ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻮﺗًﺎ ﺃﺑﺪﻳًﺎ )ﻫﺎﻡ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ(‪ .‬ﺃﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﻃﻔﺎﻝ ﺃﺑﺮﻳﺎﺀ ﳑﻦ ﻣﺎﺗﻮﺍ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻓﺎﻥ؟ ﺑﻞ ﺇﻥ ﺑﻄﺮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﻗﺪ »ﺫﻫﺐ ﻓﻜﺮﺯ ﻟﻸﺭﻭﺍﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﺠﻦ )ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ(‪) .‬ﺍﻷﺭﻭﺍﺡ ﺍﻟﱴ( ﻋﺼﺖ ﻗﺪﳝًﺎ ﺣﲔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﻧﺎﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺗﻨﺘﻈﺮ‬
‫ﰲ ﺃﻳﺎﻡ ﻧﻮﺡ« )‪ ١‬ﺑﻂ ‪ (٢٠ -١٩ :٣‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﻳﺎﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻃﻔﺎﻝ!!! ﻭﳚﺐ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﺃﻥ ﰲ ﻗﺼﺺ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺣﻲ ﻟﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ‬ ‫ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﻳﻮﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺮﻳﺪﻧﺎ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺴﻠﻤﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺔ ﺑﺄﺳﻠﻮﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ!! ﻓﻌﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﻘﺮﺃ ﺃﻥ » ﺍﷲ ﻳﻨﺪﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ً‬
‫ﻣﺰﻣﻌﺎ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﻭﻭﺟﻬﺔ ﻧﻈﺮﻩ ً‬
‫ﻳﺼﻨﻌﻪ« )ﻳﻮﻧﺎﻥ ‪ (١٠ :٣‬ﺃﻭ ﺃﻧﻪ »ﺣﺰﻥ ﰲ ﻗﻠﺒﻪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ« )ﺗﻚ ‪(٦ :٦‬‬
‫ﻓﻘﺮﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﲏ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺃﻟﻔﺎﻅ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻭﻭﺟﻬﺔ ﻧﻈﺮﻧﺎ ﳓﻦ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ‪ .‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺔ ﰲ ﻛﻠﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﺗﺸﺮﺡ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﺮﰊ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺍﳌﺤﺐ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺀﻩ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﻠﻌﺒﻮﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻮﺩﻱ ﲝﻴﺎ‪‬ﻢ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺃﺑﺪﻱ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﳚﺐ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻗﻒ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ » ﺭﺩﻭﺩ ﻓﻌﻞ « ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ!! ﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﺳﻠﻮﺏ‬
‫ﺧﻄﲑ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻸﺳﻒ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺑﲔ ﻛﺜﲑﻳﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻲ ﻣﺪﺍﺭﺱ ﺍﻷﺣﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻋﺎﻅ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ‬
‫ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺪﻓﻬﻢ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺐ ﻭﺍﻷﻃﻔﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳚﺐ ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﻹﻇﻬﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺐ ﻻ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻤﺔ‪ :‬ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﺎﻅ ﳛﺎﻭﻟﻮﻥ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﻈﻬﺮﻭﻧﻪ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻛﺘﺎﺗﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺘﺴﻠﻂ ﺍﳌﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﺸﻔﻲ‪.‬‬

‫• ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ‪:‬‬

‫» ﺃﻣﺎ ﻗﺮﺃﰎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ‪ ،‬ﺧﻠﻘﻬﻤﺎ ً‬
‫ﺫﻛﺮﺍ ﻭﺃﻧﺜﻲ ﻭﻗﺎﻝ‪ :‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺮﻙ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﺃﺑﺎﻩ ﻭﺃﻣﻪ ﻭﻳﻠﺘﺼﻖ ﺑﺈﻣﺮﺃﺗﻪ ‪ ...‬ﻗﺎﻟﻮﺍ ﻟﻪ ‪ :‬ﻓﻠﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﺃﻭﺻﻰ ﻣﻮﺳﻰ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻃﻼﻕ ﻓﺘﻄﻠﻖ‪ ...‬ﻗﺎﻝ ﳍﻢ ‪ :‬ﺇﻥ ﻣﻮﺳﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﻗﺴﺎﻭﺓ ﻗﻠﻮﺑﻜﻢ‬
‫ﺃﺫﻥ ﻟﻜﻢ ‪ ..‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ‪) «.‬ﻣﺖ ‪.(٨ -٤ :١٩‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺮﺍ ﻋﻤﻴ ًﻘﺎ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻳﺪﻭﺭ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﺝ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﻼﻕ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ً‬
‫ﻭﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺮﺍﻩ ﰲ ﻗﺼﺺ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ »ﻗﺴﻮﺓ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﻳﺔ«‬
‫ﻻ ﺗﺘﻔﻖ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﻭﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﰲ‬

‫‪١٢٨‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻣﻮﺭ ﻭﻗﺘﻴﺔ »ﺃﺫﻥ ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻮﺳﻲ ﻷﺟﻞ ﻗﺴﺎﻭﺓ ﻗﻠﻮﺏ ﺷﻌﺐ‬
‫ﺇﺳﺮﺍﺋﻴﻞ«!!! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺗﺪﺑﲑﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﰲ ﺻﻮﺭ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ »ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ« ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ‪‬ﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻮﺓ‪» :‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ ﱂ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻦ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ«!!!‬
‫ﻭ»ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ« ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﺪﺀ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﲏ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﻭﺇﻋﻼﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﳌﻮﺣﻲ ‪» :‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﷲ )ﺃﻭ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺘﺠ ًﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺑﻜﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﳓﻮ ﺍﷲ( ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﷲ« )ﻳﻮ ‪(٢ -١ :١‬؛ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫»ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ« ﺗﻌﲏ »ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻷﺯﻝ« ﺃﻱ »ﰲ ﻓﻜﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﰲ ﻛﻴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﷲ ﺃﻭ ﰲ ﺗﺪﺑﲑﻩ‬
‫ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ«‪» .‬ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ« ﺇﺫﻥ ﻫﻮ »ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﻷﺯﱄ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﻏﲑ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺰﻣﲏ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﷲ«‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﻣﻮﺳﻲ ﻭﺍﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻋﻤﻠﻮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺃﻣﻮﺭ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻷﺯﱄ‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ »ﺃﻣﻮﺭ ﻭﺗﻌﺎﻟﻴﻢ ﻭﻗﺘﻴﺔ« )ﻣﺜﻞ ‪ :‬ﻗﺘﻞ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻛﻨﺔ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺇﺣﺘﻠﻬﺎ ﺷﻌﺐ ﺇﺳﺮﺍﺋﻴﻞ ﲟﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﻃﻔﺎﻝ!!! ‪ -‬ﺗﺚ ‪ ٣٤ :٢‬ﻭ ‪:٣‬‬
‫‪ - ٦‬ﻭﺍﻟﻄﻼﻕ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﺑﺎﻃﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺳﺎﺕ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﺩﺳﻘﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻞ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻗﺪ‬
‫»ﺣﺮﺭﻧﺎ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ« ‪ -‬ﻭﻃﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺮﻕ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺀﻫﻢ ﺑﻨﺎﺭ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺇﻳﻠﻴﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺭﻓﺾ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﻌﻞ ‪ -‬ﻟﻮ ‪.(٥٦ - ٥٤ :٩‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﻢ »ﺃﺫﻥ ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻮﺳﻰ‪ ،‬ﻷﺟﻞ ﻗﺴﺎﻭﺓ ﻗﻠﻮﺑﻜﻢ« ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﷲ ﱂ ﻳﺪﺑﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﰲ ﻓﻜﺮﻩ ﻭﻗﻠﺒﻪ »ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ«!!‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﱂ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ »ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ« )ﺍﻷﺯﻝ( ﻣﻨﺬ ﺃﻥ ﺑﺪﺃ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ؟! ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺇﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻗﻞ ﻛﻤﺎﻻً‬
‫ﻭﺭﻭﻋﺔ‪ ،‬ﰒ »ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﺎ ﻛﻠّﻢ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺑﺎﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ ﻗﺪﳝًﺎ ﺑﺄﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﻭﻃﺮﻕ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ‪ ،‬ﻛﻠّﻤﻨﺎ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻳﺎﻡ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﰲ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ‪ ...‬ﻫﻮ ‪‬ﺎﺀ ﳎﺪﻩ ﻭﺭﺳﻢ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻩ ﻭﺣﺎﻣﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺑﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻗﺪﺭﺗﻪ« )ﻋﺐ ‪(٣ -١ :١‬؟!!‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﺭﺍﺩ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺆﺩﺑﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺇﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﻧﺎ ﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﺇﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻧﺎ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﺭﺍﺩ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺘﻮﺍﺭﻱ ﺧﻠﻒ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻨﺎ ﰲ ﻋﺠﺰﻫﺎ ﰲ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﻨﻘﺎﺋﺺ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻻ ﻳﻔﺎﺟﺌﻨﺎ ﺑﻘﻮﺓ ﻧﻮﺭ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﻓﺠﺄﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﻌﻤﻲ ﺃﺑﺼﺎﺭﻧﺎ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻗﺴﺎﻭﺓ‬

‫‪١٢٩‬‬
‫ﻗﻠﻮﺑﻨﺎ!! ﻟﻘﺪ ﻓﻀﻞ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ ﻧﺮﺗﻘﻲ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻮﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻤﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓ‪ ...‬ﻣﻦ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺇﱃ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻀﺤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﱪ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺑﺴﺨﺎﺀ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻌﻴّﺮ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻗﻴﻞ ﻟﻠﻘﺪﻣﺎﺀ ﻻ ﺗﻘﺘﻞ ‪ ...‬ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻓﺄﻗﻮﻝ ‪ :‬ﻻ ﺗﻐﻀﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺧﻴﻚ ﺑﺎﻃﻼً‪...‬‬
‫ﻗﻴﻞ ﻟﻠﻘﺪﻣﺎﺀ ﻻ ﺗ ْﺰ ِﻥ ‪ ...‬ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻓﺄﻗﻮﻝ ﻟﻜﻢ ‪ :‬ﻻ ﺗﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺇﻣﺮﺃﺓ ﻟﺘﺸﺘﻬﻴﻬﺎ ‪...‬‬
‫ﻗﻴﻞ ﻋﲔ ﺑﻌﲔ ﻭﺳﻦ ﺑﺴﻦ ‪ ...‬ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻓﺄﻗﻮﻝ ‪ :‬ﻻ ﺗﻘﺎﻭﻣﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ )ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ( ‪...‬‬
‫ﻗﻴﻞ ﲢﺐ ﻗﺮﻳﺒﻚ ﻭﺗﺒﻐﺾ ﻋﺪﻭﻙ ‪ ...‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻓﺄﻗﻮﻝ ﻟﻜﻢ ‪ :‬ﺃﺣﺒﻮﺍ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺋﻜﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﺭﻛﻮﺍ ﻻﻋﻨﻴﻜﻢ‪ .‬ﺃﺣﺴﻨﻮﺍ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺒﻐﻀﻴﻜﻢ‪ .‬ﻭﺻﻠﻮﺍ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺴﻴﺌﻮﻥ ﺇﻟﻴﻜﻢ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻄﺮﺩﻭﻧﻜﻢ ‪ ...‬ﻓﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ ﺃﻧﺘﻢ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﲔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺑﺎﻛﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻣﻞ« )ﻣﺖ ‪.(٥‬‬
‫ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻧﻘﺮﺃ ﻭﻧﻔﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﲟﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﳌﻮﺳﻰ ﻭﺍﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ ﻗﺪﳝًﺎ »ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻴﻢ ﻭﻗﺘﻴﺔ«‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ »ﺍﻹﺫﻥ« ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺗﺸﻤﻞ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻪ ﲰﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻮﺓ ﺑﺎﳌﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻛﻤﺎﻝ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﰲ ﻋﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﻭﻛﻤﺎﻝ ﺇﻋﻼﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺪﺑﲑﻩ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ‪.‬‬

‫• ﺍﻟﱪﻛـﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨـﺔ ‪:‬‬

‫ﱂ ﻳﻠﻌﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻈﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻘﺮﺃ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ »ﻣﻠﻌﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺑﺴﺒﺒﻚ « )ﺗﻚ‬
‫‪ (١٧ :٣‬ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﱪﻛﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺟﺰﺀ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻓﺼﻠﻪ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻫﺎﻡ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻛﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ »ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻯ« ﺑﲔ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ )ﺇﺵ ‪ ،(٥ :٢٤‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﺴﻤﻴﻪ »ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﱏ« ‪Natural‬‬
‫‪ ، Law‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﲝﺴﺐ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ ﺩﺳﻘﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﺮﺍﻩ ﰲ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻮﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺧﺎﺹ ﰲ )ﺗﻚ ‪ (٢٢ :١‬ﻭ )ﺗﻚ ‪ .(٢٨ :١‬ﻭﺍﻟﱪﻛﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻭﻋﺪ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻤﻮ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻳﺆﻛﺪﻩ ﻣﺰﻣﻮﺭ ‪ ،١٠٤‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﳝﻸ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲏ‬
‫ﺭﲪﺘﻪ )ﻣﺰ ‪ ،(٢٢ :١٠٤‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺭﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻰﺀ ﺣﺴﻦ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﻔﺮﺡ ﺑﺎﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ )ﻣﺰ ‪ - ٣١ :١٠٤‬ﻣﺰ ‪.(١٩ -١٢ :١٤٧‬‬
‫‪١٣٠‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺴﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺣﺴﺐ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ »‬
‫ﻳﺪﻧﺲ « ﻭ » ﻳﻠﻌﻦ « ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻭﻳﻮﻗﻒ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﲤﺘﻌﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﱪﻛﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻄﺸﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻄﻊ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺳﲑ ﳎﺮﻱ ﺍﳌﻴﺎﻩ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻋﻦ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻓﻴﻤﻮﺗﻮﻥ ً‬
‫ﻳﻘﻄﻊ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﻬﺮﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﻓﻴﻈﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ‪ ،‬ﺑﺈﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ »ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ« ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺇﻧﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺗﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﺒﺐ‬
‫ﺭﻓﺾ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﳛﻔﻆ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﺑﻴﻨﻪ ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻴﻨﻪ ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺑﻴﻨﻪ ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻨﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﱯ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ »ﺗﺪﺧﻞ« ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﱐ‪ ،‬ﲟﻌﲏ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ »ﺍﳌﻮﺕ« ﻗﺪ »ﺩﺧﻞ« ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻛﺘﻌﺒﲑ‬
‫ﺳﻠﱯ ﻋﻦ »ﺧﺮﻭﺝ« ﻭﺗﻮﻗﻒ »ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ«‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﳘﺎ ﺍﻹﳚﺎﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻬﺒﻬﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﻓﻬﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﺒﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ .‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺮﺃ ﻭﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻟﻮ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﻨﺎ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﻓﻌﻞ‬
‫ﺇﳚﺎﰊ ﻟﻐﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﺡ ﻭﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ‪ ...‬ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻋﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﺩﻧﺲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ ،‬ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﱐ ﺍﳌﻤﻠﻮﺀ ﺑﺎﳋﲑ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﺣﱴ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﺎﺗﻴﺔ ﻭﺳﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﰲ ﺗﺴﺒﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﻮﺡ ﻭﻻ ﺗﻌﻄﻲ‬
‫ﻗﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﲦﺮﻫﺎ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ! ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ » ﺗﻌﺪﻭﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﺍﺋﻊ‪ ،‬ﻏﲑﻭﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻳﻀﺔ‪ ،‬ﻧﻜﺜﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻯ« )ﺇﺵ ‪ .(٥ :٢٤‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻭﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺳﻘﻮﻁ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ »ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﺃﻛﻠﺖ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ«‬
‫)ﺇﺵ ‪ .(٦ :٢٤‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺮﻙ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﲢﺖ ﺭﲪﺔ ﺍﳍﻮﺍﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺒُﻄﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﻭﺇﳓﻼﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﱐ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﱀ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺃﻧﻪ ﳚﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﲟﺎ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪» :‬ﻭﺃﻗﻄﻊ ﳍﻢ ﻋﻬ ًﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻣﻊ ﺣﻴﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﱪﻳﺔ ﻭﻃﻴﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻭﺣﻴﻮﺍﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪) «...‬ﻫﻮ ‪.(٢٢ -٢١ :٢‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﻫﻲ ﲦﺮﺓ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺇﲰﻌﻮﺍ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺎ ﺑﲏ ﺇﺳﺮﺍﺋﻴﻞ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﻟﻠﺮﺏ ﳏﺎﻛﻤﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺳﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﻻ ﺃﻣﺎﻧﺔ ﻭﻻ ﺇﺣﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻻ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ .‬ﻟﻌﻦ ﻭﻛﺬﺏ ﻭﻗﺘﻞ‬
‫ﻭﺳﺮﻗﺔ‪ ...‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﻨﻮﺡ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻭﻳﺬﺑﻞ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺴﻜﻦ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺣﻴﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﱪﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻃﻴﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ ﻭﺃﲰﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ « )ﻫﻮ ‪.(٣ -١ :٤‬‬

‫‪١٣١‬‬
 ‫ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺎﻁ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﻭ ًﻻ ‪ :‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﱰﻉ ﺍﻟﱪﻛﺔ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺣﱴ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ!! ﺇﺫ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺰﻣﻮﺭ »ﺭﺃﻳﺖ ﺳﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﻣﻮ‪‬ﻢ ﺷﺪﺍﺋﺪ ﻭﺟﺴﻤﻬﻢ ﲰﲔ‬
‫)ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﺔ( ﻟﻴﺴﻮﺍ ﰲ ﺗﻌﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ‪ ..‬ﻫﻮﺫﺍ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﺴﺘﺮﳛﲔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺪﻫﺮ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻜﺜﺮﻭﻥ ﺛﺮﻭﺓ « )ﻣﺰ ‪ (١٢ -٣ :٧‬ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺭﺑﻨﺎ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺼﺮﻳﺢ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﳏﺒﺔ ﺍﻷﻋﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﻣﺒﺎﺭﻛﺘﻪ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻠﻌﻨﻨﺎ » ﺃﺣﺒﻮﺍ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺋﻜﻢ ﺑﺎﺭﻛﻮﺍ ﻻﻋﻨﻴﻜﻢ «‬
‫ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﻭﻱ ﺑﻜﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﻭﺻﻼﺣﻪ ﻳﻌﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺓ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ!! ﻓﻬﻮ » ﻳﺸﺮﻕ ﴰﺴﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﺎﳊﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﳝﻄﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﳌﲔ « )ﻣﱵ ‪ (٤٨ -٤٣ :٥‬ﻭﳍﺬﺍ ﻳﻄﺎﻟﺒﻨﺎ‪ » :‬ﻓﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﲔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺑﺎﻛﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ﻫﻮ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ « )ﻣﺖ ‪.(٤٨ :٥‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﷲ ﻻ ﻳﱰﻝ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ ﻭﻳﺘﺸﺒﻪ ‪‬ﻢ ﺭﺍ ًﺩﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻳﻐﻠﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﻳﻘﻀﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﺰﺭﻉ ﻭﻳﺒﺬﺭ ﺑﺬﻭﺭ ﺍﳋﲑ ﻭﺍﳊﺐ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺣﱴ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﻘﺮﺃ ﻋﻦ » ﻧﻘﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ «‪ ،‬ﻧﻘﺮﺃ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺬﻫﻠﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺓ ﺍﳌﺤﺘﺎﺟﲔ ﻟﺘﻐﲑ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻬﺠﺎ ﻋﺠﻴﺒًﺎ ﺣ ًﻘﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻧﺎ )‪ (Metanoia‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻧﻘﺮﺃ ً‬
‫» ﻷﻧﻪ ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺏ ﱄ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻤﺔ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﺟﺎﺯﻱ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ :‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺟﺎﻉ ﻋﺪﻭﻙ ﻓﺄﻃﻌﻤﻪ!‬
‫ﻧﺎﺭﺍ‬
‫ﻭﺇﻥ ﻋﻄﺶ ﻓﺈﺳﻘﻪ! ﻷﻧﻚ ﺇﻥ ﻓﻌﻠﺖ ﻫﺬﺍ )ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺬﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ( ﲡﻤﻊ ً‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺃﺳﻪ‪ .‬ﻻ ﻳﻐﻠﺒﻨﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺃﻏﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﺎﳋﲑ« )ﺭﻭ ‪.(١٩ :١٢‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺇﻟﻪ ﻳﺼﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﻳﻠﻌﻦ ﻣﺎ ﺧﻠﻘﺖ ﻳﺪﺍﻩ؟! ﺃﻭ ﻳﻠﻌﻦ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺑﺎﺭﻛﻪ ﺑﻔﻤﻪ؟!!‬

‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻭﻋﻘﻮﺑﺎﺗﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ » ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ « ﲟﺎ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﺴﺪﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﳓﻮ ﺍﷲ ﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﻬﺎﻧﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻔﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﻮﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎ‪ .‬ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﻌﺐ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻱ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺎﺗﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺒﻌﻀﻪ ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﺑﲔ ﻗﺎﺿﻲ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧًﺎ ﻭﺭﻋﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺩﻓﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ!! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻛﺎﻥ » ﻋﻮﻧًﺎ « )ﺃﻋﻄﻴﺘﲏ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻋﻮﻧًﺎ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ ( ﺣﱴ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﺒﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺃﺣﻮﺍﳍﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻌﺎﻣﻠﻮﺍ ﻣﻊ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ‪ .‬ﺍﳍﺪﻑ ﻫﻮ‬

‫‪١٣٢‬‬
‫ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎ‬
‫ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﻓﻀﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻃﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻹﻣﱪﺍﻃﻮﺭ ﺍﻷﻋﻈﻢ!! ﻓﻜﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ ً‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﺇﳊﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺑﺎﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﷲ!!‬
‫ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﰲ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻬﺎ ﺗﺄﺩﻳﺒﴼ ﻭ‪‬ﺬﻳﺒﴼ ﻟﻠﺸﻌﺐ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﺳﻮﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﻳﺒﺘﻌﺪ‬
‫ﻋﻨﻪ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﳛﺬﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺮﺽ ﺃﻭ ﺳﻢ‪،‬‬
‫ﻳﺴﺒﺐ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺍﻷﺫﻱ‪ .‬ﻭﳍﺬﺍ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻗﺪ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻟﺮﺍﺣﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻭﳕﻮﻩ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ‪ » :‬ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺖ )ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ( ﺟﻌﻞ‬
‫ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺖ« )ﻣﺮ ‪.(٢٧ :٢‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﲢﺪﺙ ﰲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺷﺮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﱂ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺑﺄﻥ ﳝﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﱪﺉ‬
‫ﻭﻳﺘﺤﻤﻞ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﺻﺎﻧﻊ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ!! ﻟﺬﺍ ﻗﺎﻝ »ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﲣﻄﺊ ﲤﻮﺕ« )ﺣﺰ ‪ (٤ :١٨‬ﻭﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﺃﺑﻴﻪ ﻭﱂ ﻳﻔﻌﻠﻬﺎ » ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳝﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺑﺈﰒ ﺃﺑﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﳛﻴﺎ « )ﺣﺰ ‪.(٢٤ -١٤ :١٨‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﻋﻦ » ﺻﺎﺭ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ « ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻧﻪ ﲪﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻨﻌﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻟﻜﻲ‬
‫ﻳﺒﻴﺪﻫﺎ ﻭﻳﺒﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﻘﻴﺎﻣﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻠﻌﻮﻧًﺎ!! » ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺇﻓﺘﺪﺍﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﺻﺎﺭ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺏ ﻣﻠﻌﻮﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺸﺒﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﺘﺼﲑ ﺑﺮﻛﺔ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﻟﻸﻣﻢ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﻟﻠﻨﻨﺎﻝ ﺑﺎﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﻣﻮﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ « ) ﻏﻼﻃﻴﺔ‬
‫‪ .(١٤ -١٣ :٣‬ﺃﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻠﻌﻮﻧًﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ ﰲ ﺃﻋﲔ ﺷﻌﺒﻪ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻋﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻠﻌﻮﻧًﺎ ﰲ ﺃﻋﲔ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﻭﻱ ﻛﻤﻌﺎﻗﺐ‪ ...‬ﺣﺎﺷﺎ ﷲ!!‬
‫ﻓﺎﷲ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺰﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﺑﻌﻤﻖ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ » ﺻﺎﻧﻊ « ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻭ » ﻻﻋﻨﻬﺎ«!!‬
‫ﻓﻬﻞ ﲰﻌﺘﻢ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﺐ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺣﺬﺭ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧًﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻭﻱ ﲟﺮﺽ ﺧﻄﲑ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﻳﺴﺒﺐ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﳌﺮﺽ ﺑﺘﺪﺑﲑﻩ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺍﺀ ﻟﻴﺸﻔﻴﻪ؟!!‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻻ ﻳُﻌﻘﻞ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﺒﻖ ﻭﺣﺬﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ً‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺭﺍﻧﺎ ﻛﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺗﻌﺎﺏ ﲢﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺪﺓ ﺣﺒﻪ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﻌﻘﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﻟﻠﺨﺎﻃﻲ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ » ...‬ﺣﱴ ﻭﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮ « ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻣﺎﺭ ﺍﺳﺤﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﱐ ﰲ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‪.‬‬

‫‪١٣٣‬‬
‫ﺍﳋﻼﺻﺔ ‪ :‬ﻓﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻠﻪ ﰲ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺘﻨﺎ ﻟﻘﺼﺔ ﺁﺩﻡ ﻭﺣﻮﺍﺀ؟‬
‫ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﺍﻵﰐ ‪:‬‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﺍﷲ ﺧﻠﻘﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﺤﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﺓ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻭﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﻊ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺃﻭﺟﺪﻫﺎ ﻟﺘﺸﺎﺭﻛﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (٢‬ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺗﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺃﻋﻄﻴﺖ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻟﻨﺨﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱪﻛﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (٣‬ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺣﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (٤‬ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﷲ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (٥‬ﺍﷲ ﺍﳌﺤﺐ ﻗﺪ ﺳﺒﻖ ﻭﺣﺬﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﳛﺬﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺏ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺀﻩ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (٦‬ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺔ ﲢﻜﻲ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻣﻮﺯ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻠﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻓﺸﻞ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮ ﳓﻮ ﲢﻘﻴﻖ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻟﻴﺤﻘﻘﻬﺎ ﻭﻳﺘﻤﺘﻊ ‪‬ﺎ ﰲ ﺷﺨﺼﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺗﺎﺭﳜًﺎ ﺣﺮﻓﻴًﺎ‪ ،‬ﰎ ﻭﺍﻧﺘﻬﻲ ﻣﻨﺬ ﻋﺪﺓ ﺁﻻﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺭﻣﺰﻱ‪ ،‬ﳛﻜﻲ ﻗﺼﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺷﻌﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﻜﺜﻔﺔ ﻭﻣﻠﺨﺼﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺑﺴﺎﻃﺔ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻭﻋﻤﻖ ﻛﺒﲑ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻳﻔﻬﻤﻬﺎ ﻛﻞ ﺟﻴﻞ ﻭﻛﻞ ﻓﻜﺮ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (٧‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻋﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺃﺳﻔﺎﺭﻩ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺗﻜﻠﻢ ﺃﻧﺎﺱ ﺍﷲ ﻣﺴﻮﻗﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ « )‪ ٢‬ﺑﻂ ‪(٢١ :١‬‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻗﺪ ﺇﺷﺘﺮﻛﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻣ ًﻌﺎ‪ .‬ﺍﷲ ﺃﻭﺣﻲ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﺘﺐ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﺄﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﻭﻟﻐﺔ ﻋﺼﺮﻩ ﻭﺣﻀﺎﺭﺗﻪ ﻭﻋﻠﻤﻪ ﻭﺑﻴﺌﺘﻪ؛ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺩ‪ .‬ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ‬
‫ﺗﺎﻭﺿﺮﻭﺱ ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻄﻲ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺹ‬
‫‪ .٣٨ -٣٧‬ﺍﷲ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳊﺐ ﰲ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻛﻞ ﻗﺼﺔ ﻭﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺼﻒ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺳﻮﻱ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻭﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮﻧﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺼﻒ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻧﺘﻔﻬﻢ ﳓﻦ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﷲ‪ :‬ﻣﺮﺓ ﻧﺼﻔﻪ ﻛﺤﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺮﺓ ﻧﺼﻔﻪ‬
‫ﻛﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﺆﳌﺔ!! ﺍﳌﻬﻢ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻓﺼﻮﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺼﺔ ﺣﺐ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻻ ﺗﺘﺠﺰﺃ‪.‬‬

‫‪١٣٤‬‬
‫)‪ (٨‬ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺔ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻫﻲ ﺇﻋﻼﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻜﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻜﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﺳﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﻤﺮ ﺍﻟﺼﻨﺎﻋﻲ ﺍﺭﺳﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﳓﻦ ﻧﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻭﺿﻮﺣﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﺃﺟﻬﺰﺓ ﺗﻠﻔﺰﻳﻮﻧﻴﺔ )ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻘﻲ ﻭﻭﺍﺿﺢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻗﻞ‬
‫ﻋﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ( ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﺮﺳﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻓﻴﺨﺘﻠﻒ‬
‫ﺑﲔ ﻭﺿﻮﺡ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺩﺭﻙ ﺃﺳﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﷲ‪ ..‬ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺬﻫﻠﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺼﺺ ﺃﺳﻔﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳌﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻔﲏ ﺷﻌﻮﺑًﺎ ﻷﻧﻪ » ﺗﺄﺳﻒ‬
‫ﻭﺣﺰﻥ ﰲ ﻗﻠﺒﻪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ«‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﺭﺍﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺪﻣﺮﻩ )ﺗﻚ ‪ ،(٧ -٥ :٦‬ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻣﺰﻣﻌﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻤﻠﻪ « )ﻳﻮﻧﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺃﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻐﲑ ﺭﺃﻳﻪ ﻭ » ﻳﻨﺪﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ً‬
‫‪ !!(١٠ :٣‬ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﺃﻥ » ﻧﺒﻌﺪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻛﻞ ﺻﻔﺔ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﺆﻛﺪ‬
‫ﺃﻧﻪ ﺇﻟﻪ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧًﺎ « ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺩ‪ .‬ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﺗﺎﻭﺿـــﺮﻭﺱ )ﺻﻔﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﺹ ‪.(٥٧‬‬
‫ﺇﻧﻨﺎ ﲨﻴﻌﻨﺎ ﻧﺆﻣﻦ ﺑﺄﻥ »ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺣﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻧﺎﻓﻊ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﻴﺦ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﻘﻮﱘ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺄﺩﻳﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﱪ« )‪٢‬ﰐ ‪ .(١٦ :٣‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺭﺷﺎﺩ ﻭﺇﳍﺎﻡ ﻭﻗﻴﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ ﺗﱰﻳﻞ ﻭﺇﻣﻼﺀ‪،‬‬
‫ﻳﻠﻐﻲ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻭﺣﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻛﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﺍﳌﻮﺣﻲ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺇﺷﺘﺮﻙ ﻓﻴﻪ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻌﴼ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺧـﻼﺹ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺭﴽ ﻳﻠﻌﺒﻪ ﲝﺮﻳـﺔ ﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﻣﻊ ﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﺼﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻻ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ‬
‫ﺇﻣـﻼﺀ ﻭﺗﱰﻳـﻼً‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻗـﺎﻝ‪:‬‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻗﺪ ﻧ ﱠﺰﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺘـﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘـﺪﺱ‬
‫»ﻷﻧﻪ ﱂ ﺗﺄﺕ ﻧﺒﻮﺓ ﻗﻂ ﲟﺸﻴﺌﺔ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺗﻜﻠﻢ ﺃﻧﺎﺱ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺴﻮﻥ ﻣﺴﻮﻗﲔ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪٢) «.‬ﺑﻂ ‪.(٢١ :١‬‬

‫ﺃﻯ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻗﺴﻮﺓ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺍﻓﻘﻨﻰ ﻗﻠﺒﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻓﻌﻠﻪ ﺑﺈﺑﻨﻰ‪،‬‬

‫ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺃﹸﻋﻠﱢﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻔﻌﻠﻪ ﺑﺎﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ! ﻭﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﲡﺪﻳﻒ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻇﻦ ﺃﻧﻨﻰ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﻭﺣﺒﺎ ﻹﺑﻨﻰ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺣﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺭﺣﻤﺘﻪ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻰ!!‬
‫)ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮ(‬

‫‪١٣٥‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ » ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ « ﺹ ‪ ١٤٣ -١٣٧ -١١٠‬ﻟﻌﺪﻧﺎﻥ ﻃﺮﺍﺑﻠﺴﻲ ‪:‬‬
‫• » ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻋﺪﻡ « ‪ .‬ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﻮﻫﺮﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺍﳋﲑ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ً‬ ‫• » ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺷﺮ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﳊﺼﺮﻱ ﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻈﻼﻡ ﻫﻮ ﻻ ﺷﺊ ﺳﻮﻱ ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ «‪ .‬ﺇﻳﭭﺎﻏﺮﻳﻮﺱ‪.‬‬
‫• » ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﲟﻌﺰﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﳊﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﴽ‬
‫ﰲ ﺣﺪ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ«‪ .‬ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺴﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﺷﺮﺍﺭﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﻢ ﺻﺎﺭﻭﺍ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ‬
‫• » ﺣﱴ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﺎﻃﲔ ﻟﻴﺴﻮﺍ ً‬
‫ﺇﺳﺎﺀﺓ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﻗﻮﺍﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ«‪ .‬ﻣﻜﺴﻴﻤﻮﺱ ﺍﳌﻌﺘﺮﻑ‪.‬‬
‫• » ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻻ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻟﻪ ﲝﺪ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﻳﺘﺄﰐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ «‪ .‬ﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ‪.‬‬
‫• » ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﷲ ﻣﺴﺒﺒًﺎ ﻟﻌﺬﺍﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ ]ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻯ[ ﺑﻞ ﳓﻦ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﺟﺬﺭﻫﺎ ﻛﺎﺋﻦ ﰲ ﺣﺮﻳﺘﻨﺎ ﻭﺇﺭﺍﺩﺗﻨﺎ«‪ .‬ﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ‪.‬‬
‫• » ﺍﷲ ﱂ ﳜﻠﻖ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﻨﻌﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ‪ ...‬ﰲ ﺣﻜﻤﺘﻪ ﻭﺻﻼﺣﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺟﺪ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﻟﻴﺤﻮﻝ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﳛﻔﻆ ﻟﻪ ﺇﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﳊﺮ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﺗﺮﻙ‬

‫‪١٣٦‬‬
‫ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ« ]ﻫﺬﺍ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ[‬
‫ﺑﻘﻠﻢ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﭘﺎﻻﻣﺎﺱ‪.‬‬
‫• » ﺇﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﻣﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻭﺱ‪ ،‬ﲟﺸﺎﺭﻛﺘﻪ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﳝﻠﻚ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﰲ ُﺻﻠﺐ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺼﲑ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﻛﻬﺬﻩ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻧﲑﺍﻥ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻭﺿﻌﺖ ﻟﻠﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻻ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﲟﻞﺀ ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﳜﺘﺎﺭﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﻜﻨﻮﺍ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻴﺎﻃﲔ«‪ .‬ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﭘﺎﻻﻣﺎﺱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺴﺘﻔﻴﺾ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﰲ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﻬﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﻄﻌﺖ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﺑﲔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﻄﻊ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﷲ »ﺃﺻﺪﺭ‬
‫ﺣﻜﻤﻪ« ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻢ ﺗﻘﺘﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺗﻔﺼﻠﻪ ﻋﻦ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺣﺬﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﻢ ﻭﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺗﻌﺎﻃﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﱂ ﳛﻜﻢ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﲟﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺑﻌﺪﻟﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺭﺍﺩ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴـﺎﻥ ﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ‪ ...‬ﺣﺎﺷﺎ‪» .‬ﺣﻜﻢ ﺍﷲ« ﻳﻌﲏ ﺇﻋﻼﻧﻪ ﻭﺇﻧﺒﺎﺀﻩ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻋﻼﻣﻪ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺑﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﻻﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻨﺘﺠﻪ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﻠﻤﺔ »ﺣﻜﻢ«‬
‫ﻫﻲ ‪ judgement‬ﺃﻱ ﺇﺑﺪﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ ﺑﲔ ﺷﻴﺌﲔ ﻭﺇﻳﻀـﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﺐ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﺣﻜﻤﻪ ﻭﺗﺸﺨﻴﺼﻪ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﺮﻳﺾ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺱ ﺣﻜﻤﻪ ﻭﺭﺃﻳﻪ ﰲ ﳒﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺃﻭ ﻓﺸﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﺣﻜﻤﻪ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻦ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﺣﻲ ﰲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻡ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﺎﺋﺖ ﺭﻭﺣﻴﴼ‬
‫ﰲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺆﺩﻳﺔ ﳉﻬﻨﻢ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﺐ ﻭﺍﳌﺪﺭﺱ ﻭﺍﷲ ﻟﻴﺴﻮﺍ ﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻏﺒﲔ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﺘﺴﺒﺒﲔ ﰲ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﺎﺓ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺾ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺷﻞ ﻭﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﻋﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻫﻢ ﰲ ﺇﻳﻘﺎﻉ ﺃﻱ ﺃﺫﻱ ﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺇﻧﺘﻘﺎﻣﻴﺔ ﳑﻦ ﱂ ﻳﺴﻤﻊ‬
‫ﻟﺮﺃﻳﻬﻢ ﺃﻭ ﻧﺼﻴﺤﺘﻬﻢ‪ ...‬ﺃﺑﺪﴽ‪ ...‬ﺃﺑﺪﴽ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‪:‬‬
‫• ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻭﺭﳚﺎﻧﺲ‪:‬‬
‫»ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﳎﺎﺯﴽ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳊﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳉﻴﺶ‪ ،‬ﺑﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺟﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺗﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺴﻠﻤﻪ َﻣ ْﻦ ﳛﺎﺭﺏ ﰲ ﺟﻴﺶ ﺍﳌﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻤﻲ‪ :‬ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﺪﻓﻊ ﳉﻨﻮﺩﻩ ﺃﺟﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﴼ ﳍﻢ‬

‫‪١٣٧‬‬
‫ﺑﺸﺊ‪ .‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﻳﻌﻄﻴﻬﻢ ﻫﺒﺔ ﻭﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺴﺒﺒﻪ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺇﻧﻔﺼﻠﺖ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ‪«.‬‬
‫)ﺷﺮﺡ ﺭﻭﻣﻴﺔ ‪Commentarii in Epistulam ad Romans, Vol 3:‬‬
‫‪(226 Ed by T, Heither.‬‬
‫• ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺛﻴﺆﻓﻴﻠﺲ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺗﻮﻟﻴﻜﻮﺱ )‪:(1: 25, 26, 27‬‬
‫»ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻏﲑ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ .‬ﻃﺒﻌﴼ ﻻ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﻞ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺇﺫﴽ ﺧﺎﻟﺪﴽ؟ ﳓﻦ ﻻ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺆﻛﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﺍ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺴﺄﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﻞ‪ :‬ﻣﺎﺫﺍ‬
‫ﺇﺫﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺃﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﺪﻣﴼ؟ ﻭﻻ ﺣﱴ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﻓﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻗﺒﻮﻟﻪ!‬
‫ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺭﺍﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺧﺎﻟﺪﴽ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﺎﻥ ﺧﻠﻘﻪ ﺇﳍﴼ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ! ﻭﻟﻮ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺧﻠﻘﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻏﲑ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﻠﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺳﺒﺐ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻻ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻭﻻ ﺫﺍﻙ‪ .‬ﺍﷲ ﱂ ﳜﻠﻖ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺧﺎﻟﺪﴽ ﻭﻻ‬
‫ﻼ ﻟﻠﺤﺎﻟﺘﲔ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺍﳒﺬﺏ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺪﺓ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻣﺎﺋﺘﴼ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺧﻠﻘﻪ ﻗﺎﺑ ً‬
‫ﻭﺣﻔﻆ ﻭﺻﻴﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺇﳍﴼ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺇﻥ ﺇﳒﺬﺏ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺎﺋﺘﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﱂ ﻳﻄﻊ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺗﻪ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ‪«.‬‬

‫• ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺴﻲ )ﻋﻈﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺸﻴﺪ ﺍﻷﻧﺸﺎﺩ(‬

‫)‪(Hamily 12, p. 216 - 17‬‬

‫»ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺠﺮﺗﲔ ﻛﺎﻧﺘﺎ ﰲ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻭﺱ ﻭﰲ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ‬

‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺇﺣﺪﺍﳘﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﻓﺎﻷﺧﺮﻱ ﻻﺑﺪ ﻭﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ‬
‫ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ ﻟﻠﺪﺍﺋﺮﺓ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﳍﺎ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﺍﻥ ﰲ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﴽ ﺁﺧﺮﴽ‪ ،‬ﻓﻼﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺋﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺩﺍﺋﺮﺗﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺠﺮﺗﺎﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺘﺎ ﰲ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ )ﻭﺳﻂ( ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻭﺱ ﻭﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﻗﻮﺓ‬
‫ﻣﻀﺎﺩﺓ ﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻱ‪ .‬ﺃﻋﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺇﺣﺪﺍﳘﺎ ﺗﻌﻄﻲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻷﺧﺮﻱ ﲦﺮ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﺗﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﲰﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﺮﺓ »ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ« ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﺜﻤﺮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ‪» ،‬ﺇﻥ ﲦﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ« )ﺭﻭ ‪ .(٢٣ :٦‬ﻭﺍﻟﺪﺭﺱ‬

‫‪١٣٨‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﻛﻪ ﻫﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺃﺷﺠﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﱂ ﻳﺰﺭﻋﻪ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻟﻪ ﺟﺬﺭ ﻭﻻ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻟﺬﺍﺗﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻮﺍﺟﺪﻩ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﻛﻴﺎﻧﻪ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻋﺪﱘ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﱂ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺧﲑ )ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺷﺠﺮﺓ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ( ﺑﻌﺪﻣﺎ ﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﺇﻧﻔﺼﻞ ﻋﻦ ﲦﺮﺓ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﲟﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺯﺭﻋﻪ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﻧﺪﺭﻛﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺇﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪«.‬‬
‫• ﻭﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺃﻭﺭﳚﺎﻧﺲ ﰲ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺇﳒﻴﻞ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ )‪:(On John, 20, PG 12: 232‬‬

‫»ﰲ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻛﻞ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺁﺩﻡ ﻭﺣﻮﺍﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﺤﺮﻣﺔ ﻣﺎﺗﺎ ﻣﻮﺗﴼ ﺭﻭﺣﻴﴼ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻣﺎ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺳﻮﺍﻩ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻗﺘﺎﻝ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ )ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ( ﻭﻗﺪ ﺣﻘﻖ ﻫﺪﻓﻪ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺧﺪﻉ ﺣﻮﺍﺀ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺔ‪«.‬‬

‫• ﻭﻛﺘﺐ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺴﻲ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ‪:‬‬

‫)‪(On the Inscription of the Psalms 16, PG 44: 601c‬‬

‫»ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺫﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻗﺪ ﺩﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﲝﺴﺪ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ‪«.‬‬

‫• ﻭﺃﻳﻀﴼ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﺧﻮ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺴﻲ‪:‬‬

‫)‪(On envy, 6, PG 31: 385 a.‬‬

‫»ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻫﻮ ﺗﺸﺘﺖ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺍﻣﻴﺲ )ﺗﺸﻮﻳﺶ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﻢ ﻭﺇﳓﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻭﺍﻹﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ‪(،‬‬

‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﺇﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﳋﲑﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ «.‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻧﻨﺴﺐ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺇﳍﻨﺎ ﺇﻟﻪ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺇﻟﻪ ﺗﺸﻮﻳﺶ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﻓﻜﺘﺐ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﳋﺼﺘﻪ ﰲ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪،‬‬
‫ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ »ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ« ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺘﺒﻪ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺇﺑﻦ ‪ ٢١‬ﻋﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﲢﻮﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﰲ ﺍﷲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺧﺘﺮﺍﻋﻪ‬

‫‪١٣٩‬‬
‫ﻓﻜﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﳊﺘﻤﻴﺔ ﺳﻘﻮﻃﻪ ﲢﺖ ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ...‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻴﺔ ﺟﻌﻠﻪ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ‪ ...‬ﳐﻠﻮﻕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﳛﻤﻞ‬
‫ﰲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺫﺍﻙ )ﺍﷲ( ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻮ ﺣﺎﻓﻆ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺒﻬﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻢ ﻟﻜﺎﻧﺖ‬
‫ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ﺗﻔﻘﺪ ﻗﻮ‪‬ﺎ ] ﺃﻱ ﻳﻐﻠﺐ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻯ[‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺒﻘﻲ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪ .‬ﰒ ﺑﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﺯﺍﺋﻠﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺰﻭﺍﻝ ]ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ[ ﲟﺸﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ » ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ «‬
‫ﰲ ﻓﺴﺎﺩﻩ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﻠﺖ ﺳﺎﺑﻘًﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃ‪‬ﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﲢﺎﺩﻫﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﻤﻜﻨﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﲡﻨﺐ ﺣﺘﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ ]ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﻤﻰ[ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺮﻁ ﺃﻥ ﳛﻔﻈﻮﺍ ﲨﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﱪﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺧﻠﻘﻮﺍ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪» ...‬ﺑﺈﺧﺘﺮﺍﻋﻬﻢ « ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﻮﺍ ﻣﺘﻮﺭﻃﲔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ « ‪On the Incarnation, p. 29, 30,31.‬‬

‫ﻭﰲ ﺻﻠﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﳛﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻋﱪ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺧﻠﻘﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﳜﻠﻖ ﺃﻭ ﻳﺪﺑﺮ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺩﺧﻴﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ‪ -‬ﺃﻋﲏ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ‪ -‬ﺩﺧﻞ ﺇﻟﻴﻨﺎ ﲝﺴﺪ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‬
‫ﳓﻮ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺾ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻢ ﻳﺸﺮ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ؛ ﺑﻞ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﳛﻤﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﳌﻤﻴﺘﺔ » ﻟﻴﺤﺮﻗﻬﺎ « ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﺘﻔﻲ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﻜﻲ ﳛﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺧﻼﺹ ﺃﺑﺪﻱ ﻟﻨﺎ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻳﺎ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﺒﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻏﲑ ﻓﺴﺎﺩ ]ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺪ[ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺩﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﲝﺴﺪ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ‪ ،‬ﻫﺪﻣﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺤﻴﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻹﺑﻨﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ« )ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺳﻴﻠﻲ ‪ -‬ﺻﻼﺓ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺢ(‪.‬‬
‫» ﻭﻃﻬﺮﻧﺎ ‪ ...‬ﻣﻦ ﺗﺬﻛﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﳌﻠﺒﺲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ « )ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺳﻴﻠﻲ ‪ -‬ﺻﻼﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺢ(‬
‫» ﻗﺪﻭﺱ ﻗﺪﻭﺱ ﻗﺪﻭﺱ ﺑﺎﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﳍﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﺒﻠﻨﺎ ﻭﺧﻠﻘﻨﺎ‪...‬‬
‫]ﳓﻦ[ ﺧﺎﻟﻔﻨﺎ ﻭﺻﻴﺘﻚ ﺑﻐﻮﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺔ‪] ...‬ﳓﻦ[ ﺳﻘﻄﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪....‬‬
‫ﻭ ]ﳓﻦ[ ﻧﻔﻴﻨﺎ ]ﲞﻄﻴﺘﻨﺎ[ ﻣﻦ ﻓﺮﺩﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻴﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺑﺄﻧﺒﻴﺎﺋﻚ‬
‫]ﺃﻣﺎ ﺃﻧﺖ[ ﻓﻠﻢ ﺗﺘﺮﻛﻨﺎ )ﺑﻌﻴ ًﺪﺍ( ﻋﻨﻚ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻻﻧﻘﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺗﻌﻬﺪﺗﻨﺎ ً‬
‫‪١٤٠‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺴﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺍﻷﻳﺎﻡ ﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﻟﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﺍﳉﻠﻮﺱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﻇﻼﻝ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫)ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻨﺎ(‪ ،‬ﺑﺈﺑﻨﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﺳﻠﻢ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻓﺪﺍﺀ ﻋﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ]ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﻔﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﲦﻦ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻟﻶﺏ[‪.‬‬
‫]ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻫﺬﺍ ‪ ،‬ﳓﻦ[ ﻛﻨﺎ ﳑﺴﻜﲔ ﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺒﻴﻌﲔ ]ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻨﺎ[ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ‪...‬‬
‫]ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺇﻣﺴﺎﻙ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﻛﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ!![‬
‫ﻭﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺭﺍﺳﻢ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ]ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﻔﺪﻳﺔ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﻶﺏ[ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪) «...‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺳﻴﻠﻲ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﻗﺮﻥ ‪.(٤‬‬
‫» ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ‪ ...‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻛﻮﻧﺖ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪...‬‬
‫] ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ [ ﺳﻘﻂ ﺑﻐﻮﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻭ ﻭﳐﺎﻟﻔﺔ ﻭﺻﻴﺘﻚ‪.‬‬
‫]ﻭﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻘﻂ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ؟ ﻫﻞ ﺻﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻧﻘﻤﺔ ﻭﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ؟!‬
‫ﻻ ﺑﻞ‪ [ :‬ﺃﺭﺩﺕ ﺃﻥ ﲡﺪﺩﻩ ﻭﺗﺮﺩﻩ ﺇﱃ ﺭﺗﺒﺘﻪ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻣﻼﻙ ﻭﻻ ﺭﺋﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻣﻼﺋﻜﺔ‪ ...‬ﺑﻞ ﺃﻧﺖ ﺑﻐﲑ ﺍﺳﺘﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﲡﺴﺪﺕ ﻭﺗﺄﻧﺴﺖ ﻭﺷﺎ‪‬ﺘﻨﺎ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻰﺀ‬
‫ﻭﺳﻴﻄﺎ ﻟﺪﻱ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻭﺍﳊﺎﺟﺰ ﺍﳌﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫ﻣﺎ ﺧﻼ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺻﺮﺕ ﻟﻨﺎ ً‬
‫ﻧﻘﻀﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻭﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ ﻫﺪﻣﺘﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﺻﻠﺤﺖ ﺍﻷﺭﺿﻴﲔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺋﻴﲔ ﻭﺟﻌﻠﺖ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺛﻨﲔ ﻭﺍﺣ ًﺪﺍ‪] ،‬ﻷﻧﻚ ﺑﺎﲢﺎﺩﻙ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻼﻫﻮﺗﻚ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺳﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﻤﺜﻞ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﲤﻤﺖ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﳋﻼﺹ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ[ ﺃﻛﻤﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺑﲑ ﺑﺎﳉﺴﺪ ]ﺃﻱ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ‬
‫ﺃﺻﻠﺤﺖ ﻛﻞ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻯ[ ‪ ...‬ﻃﻬﺮﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺬﻛﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﳌﻠﺒﺲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ« )ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺰﻳﱰﻱ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻰ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻳُﻠﺒﺴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ‬
‫ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻠﺒﺴﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ!! ﺑﻞ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻫﻲ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ‬
‫ﺃﻥ‪ :‬ﳚﺪﺩﻧﺎ ﻭﻳﺮﺩﻧﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺭﺗﺒﺘﻨﺎ ﺍﻷﻭﱄ‪ .‬ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻮﺹ ﺃﻱ ﺭﺍﺋﺤﺔ ﻟﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﻳﺪ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﺩﻓﻊ ﲦﻦ ﺃﻭ ﻓﺪﻳﺔ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﺍﳌﻬﺎﻧﺔ‪ ...‬ﺇﻃﻼ ًﻗﺎ!!! ﺑﻞ ﺇﻥ ﺁﻻﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻫﻲ ﲦﻦ ﺣﺒﻪ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺣﺘﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﻭﺻﱪﻩ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻇﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺣﺘﻘﺎﺭﻧﺎ ﳊﺒﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﻣﺘﺄﻣﻼً‪:‬‬

‫‪١٤١‬‬
‫» ﻗﺪﻭﺱ ﻗﺪﻭﺱ ﺃﻧﺖ ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﻗﺪﻭﺱ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻰﺀ ﻭﺑﺎﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﳐﺘﺎﺭ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻧﻮﺭ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻳﺘﻚ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺷﻰﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻄﻖ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺪ ﳉﺔ ﳏﺒﺘﻚ ﻟﻠﺒﺸﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﳏﺘﺎﺟﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻋﺒﻮﺩﻳﱵ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺃﻧﺎ‬
‫ﺧﻠﻘﺘﲏ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧًﺎ ﻛﻤﺤﺐ ﻟﻠﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﺃﻧﺖ ً‬
‫ﺍﳌﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﺭﺑﻮﺑﻴﺘﻚ‪ ...‬ﺃﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﱄ ﺷﺠﺮﺓ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ )ﺗﺪﺑﲑﻙ ﻷﺟﻠﻰ(‬
‫ﻭﻋﺮﻓﺘﲏ ﺷﻮﻛﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ )ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺗﺪﺑﲑﻙ ﻭﻻ ﺧﻠﻴﻘﺘﻚ(‬
‫] ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﺮ ‪[ :‬‬
‫ﻓﺄﻛﻠﺖ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﰐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺮﻛﺖ ﻋﲏ ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺳﻚ ﺑﺮﺃﻳﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻜﺎﺳﻠﺖ ﻋﻦ ﻭﺻﺎﻳﺎﻙ‬
‫]ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻰ[ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺇﺧﺘﻄﻔﺖ ﱄ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ]ﲝﺮﻳﱴ[‪.‬‬
‫]ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﷲ ﻛﻤﺨﻠﺺ ﻋﺎﺩﻝ‪[:‬‬
‫ﺧﻼﺻﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻧﺖ ﻳﺎ ﺳﻴﺪﻱ ﺣﻮﻟﺖ ﱄ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ] ﺍﻟﱵ ﺇﺧﺘﺮ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﺻﻨﻌﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻲ [ ً‬
‫ﻛﺮﺍﻉ ﺻﺎﱀ ﺳﻌﻴﺖ ﰲ ﻃﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻀﺎﻝ‪ .‬ﻛﺄﺏ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﺗﻌﺒﺖ ﻣﻌﻲ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺳﻘﻂ‪ .‬ﺭﺑﻄﺘﲏ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺍﻷﺩﻭﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺆﺩﻳﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ]ﺗﺮﻳﺎﻕ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ = ﺟﺴﺪ‬
‫ﻭﺩﻡ ﺍﻻﺑﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ [‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺧﺪﻣﺖ ﱄ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ‪ ،‬ﳌﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﻔﺖ ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺳﻚ ] ﻭﱂ ﺗﺮﺳﻞ ﱄ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‬
‫ﳌﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﻔﺖ ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺳﻚ‪ ،‬ﻷﱐ ﻗﺪ ﻋﺎﻗﺒﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﲟﺎ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﻳﺔ![‬
‫] ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﺧﺪﻡ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ؟ ﻫﻞ ﺑﺪﻓﻊ ﻓﺪﻳﺔ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺍﻵﺏ؟![‬
‫ﺃﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺃﺗﻴﺖ ﺇﻟﻴﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ .‬ﺃﺗﻴﺖ ﺇﱃ ﺑﻄﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺭﺍﺀ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﺍﳌﺤﻮﻱ ﺇﺫ ﺃﻧﺖ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ‪ ...‬ﻭﺿﻌﺖ ﺫﺍﺗﻚ ﻭﺃﺧﺬﺕ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺪ‪،‬‬
‫] ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ[ ﺑﺎﺭﻛﺖ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﱵ ﻓﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻛﻤﻠﺖ ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺳﻚ ﻋﲏ‪ .‬ﺃﺭﻳﺘﲏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻘﻄﱵ‪ .‬ﺃﻋﻄﻴﺖ ﺇﻃﻼﻗًﺎ ﳌﻦ ﻗﺒﺾ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ ]ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺲ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﻭﻻ ﻣﺴﺒﺐ ﻋﺬﺍﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ ﺑﻞ ﳓﻦ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ[‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﺯﻟﺖ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻋﲏ ] ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻠﻌﻦ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪...‬‬
‫ﺣﺎﺷﺎ ﷲ[‬
‫ﺃﺑﻄﻠﺖ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﳉﺴﺪ ] ﺃﺑﻄﻞ ﻋﺰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻳﺒﻴﺪ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﻳﺪﻭﺱ‬

‫‪١٤٢‬‬
 ‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ[ ﺃﺭﻳﺘﲏ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﻚ‪...‬‬
‫ﻗﺘﻠﺖ ﺧﻄﻴﺌﱵ ﺑﻘﱪﻙ‪ ،‬ﺃﺻﻌﺪﺕ ﺑﺎﻛﻮﺭﰐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ‪«....‬‬
‫ﺷﻬﺎﺩﺓ ﺻﻼﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺳﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺻﻼﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺟﺒﻴﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺳﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺗﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻖ ﺗﺄﻣﻼ‪‬ﺎ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﻻ ﺗﺬﻛﺮ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺇﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺴﺘﻮﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﻱ ﺣﻘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻘﺘﻞ ﺍﻟﱪﺉ ﻋﻮﺽ‬
‫ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻄﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺋﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺗﻘﻮﺍﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ »ﻣﺎﺕ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ«‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻓﻘﺪ »ﺃﺣﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻴﺖ ﲟﻮﺗﻪ«؛ ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ!!! ﻭﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻴﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺗﻨﺎ ﻟﻜﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﰲ‬
‫ﻋﻘﺮ ﺩﺍﺭﻩ ﻭﺫﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻪ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ ﻭﻳﺒﻴﺪﻩ ﻣﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻣﺸﻬﺮﴽ ﺇﻳﺎﻩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻭﺳﻼﻃﻴﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺟﻬﺎﺭﴽ ﺑﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﺮﺓ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﳊﻖ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻧﺺ ﺇﳒﻴﻠﻲ )ﻭﺇﻥ ﻭﺟﺪ ﻓﻨﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﻤﻊ ﺷﺮﺣﻪ( ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻣﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﻗﺒﴼ ﻟﻴﺴﺪﺩ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﺣﻘﴼ ﺿﺎﺋﻌﴼ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻋﺪﻟﻪ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀﻩ‬
‫ﻭﺻﻨﻊ ﻣﺴﺮﺗﻪ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻧﺎﻫﻴﻚ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺕ »ﺇﺑﻦ ﳏﺒﺘﻪ«‪.‬‬
‫ﺣﻘﺎ ﻟﻘﺪ ﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻋﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻛﻤﺎ ﳝﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻄﻞ ﺑﺪﻻً ﻣﻦ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻴﻒ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﳏﺒﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﻤﺎ ﳝﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﺍﳉﻨﺎﺋﻲ ﺑﺪﻻً ﻣﻦ ﳎﺮﻡ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﻮﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻗﺺ ﳎﺮﺍﻩ‪ ،‬ﲟﻮﺕ ﺃﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻹﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺳﺎﺩﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺇﺑﺪﺍﻻً ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﴼ ﺟﺰﺍﺋﻴﴼ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﰲ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﰊ ‪ .Penal Substitution‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ »ﺇﺑﺪﺍ ًﻻ ﺑﻄﻮﻟﻴﴼ«‬
‫ﻭ »ﺇﺑﺪﺍ ًﻻ ﻋﻼﺟﻴﴼ« ﳌﺮﺽ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺗﻠﺔ‪ .‬ﺷﺘﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻗﺪ ﻣﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻣﻮﺗﴼ ﻫﻮ »ﺇﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺑﻄﻮﱄ ﻭﻋﻼﺟﻲ« ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﺎﺕ »ﻟﻺﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﰊ«‪:‬‬
‫• »ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﻄﻮﱄ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﺟﻲ« ﻫﻮ ﺇﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺩﺍﻓﻌﻪ ﺍﳊﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﻪ ﻳﺸﻌﻞ ﰲ ﻗﻠﻮﺑﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺐ ﻟﻶﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﺬﻝ ﺍﺑﻨﻪ ﺣﺒﴼ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﻮﺍﺟﻪ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺪﻻً ﻣﻨﺎ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺒﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻬﺒﻨﺎ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪١٤٣‬‬
‫• ﺃﻣﺎ »ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﰊ«‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﻲ )ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺪﻝ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ(‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺩﺍﻓﻌﻪ ﺳﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﳌُﻄﺎﻟﺐ‬
‫ﲟﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﱪﺉ )ﺃﻱ ﺳﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﻭﻱ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ(‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
‫‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﻗﻄﻌﴼ ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﺮﻯ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻛﺌﻴﺒﺔ ﻟﻶﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﻭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﺇﻻ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ!!! ﻭﳓﻦ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﳏﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻄﻠﺐ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻜﻴﻒ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻫﻮ ﺣﺼﻮﻝ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺇﻫﺘﺰﺕ ﲞﻄﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﻫﺎﻧﺔ ﺑﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ‪‬ﺪﻱ ﻏﻀﺒﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺪﻓﻌﻬﺎ ﺩﻡ ﺑﺮﺉ؟!!‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻻ ﻳﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﻟﺼﻠﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺒﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ ﺧﻄﺄ ﻓﻠﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﱂ ﻧﺴﻤﻊ ﺣﱴ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﺘﺮﺿﲔ ﻧﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻮﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻭﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﺑﺎﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﰊ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻛﻤﻌﺎﻗﺐ؟! ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﷲ ﻳﺸﻬﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺣﻖ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺇﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻧﺼﻮﺹ ﺁﺑﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺗﺆﻳﺪ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﰲ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﺒﻊ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﱵ‪ .‬ﻭﳓﻦ ﰲ ﺇﻧﺘﻈﺎﺭ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺭﺳﲔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻨﻄﺎﻟﻊ ﻭﻧﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﰲ ﺻﻼﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺳﺔ‪:‬‬
‫»ﻳﺎ ﻣﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﲰﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲡﺮﺃ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﺑﻮﻧﺎ ﺁﺩﻡ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻭﺱ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﺰﻕ ﺻﻚ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ‪«.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻚ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺩﻳﻨﴼ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻳﺴﺪﺩ ﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺻﻜﴼ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻛﺪﻳﻦ »ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﻨﺎ ﳑﺴﻜﲔ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺒﻴﻌﲔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ«‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﺼﻠﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ‪ .‬ﳓﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺃﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﻮﻥ ﷲ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻨﺎ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻻ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‬
‫ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻗﺪ ﻣﺰﻕ ﺻﻜﴼ ﻛﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻳﺪﻱ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺿﺪﻧﺎ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﻚ ﻭﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ‪:‬‬
‫»ﺇﺫ ﻛﻨﺘﻢ ﺃﻣﻮﺍﺗﴼ ﰲ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻏﻠﻒ ﺟﺴﺪﻛﻢ‪ ،‬ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻛﻢ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻣﺴﺎﳏﴼ ﻟﻜﻢ‬
‫ﲜﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ‪ .‬ﺇﺫ ﳏﺎ ﺍﻟﺼﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺍﺋﺾ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺿﺪﴽ‬
‫ﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺭﻓﻌﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻂ ﻣﺴﻤﺮﴽ ﺇﻳﺎﻩ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ .‬ﺇﺫ ﺟـﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺳـﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺴـﻼﻃﲔ ]ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ ﻭﻗﻮﺍﺗـﻪ[ ﺃﺷﻬﺮﻫﻢ ﺟﻬﺎﺭﴽ ﻇﺎﻓﺮﴽ ‪‬ﻢ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﻓﻼ ﳛﻜﻢ‬

‫‪١٤٤‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻜﻢ ﺃﺣﺪ ﰲ ﺃﻛـﻞ ﻭﺷـﺮﺏ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﻋﻴﺪ ﺃﻭ ﻫﻼﻝ ﺃﻭ ﺳﺒﺖ‪«...‬‬
‫)ﻛﻮ ‪ ١٣ :٢‬ـ ‪.(١٥‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﻚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺻﻜﴼ ﰲ ﻓﺮﺍﺋﺾ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺻﻜﴼ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﺪﺩﻩ ﷲ ﺑﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﻣﻦ ﳛﺒﺬﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﺘﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻠﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﴼ ﻧﺼﴼ ﻫﺎﻣﴼ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻓﻴﻪ ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳﴼ ﺃﻥ ﳝﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪:‬‬
‫»ﻓﺈﺫ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺸﺎﺭﻙ ﺍﻷﻭﻻﺩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﺇﺷﺘﺮﻙ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ ﻓﻴﻬﻤﺎ ]ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﲡﺴﺪ[ ﻟﻜﻲ ]ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺗﻨﺎ[ ﻳﺒﻴﺪ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﺫﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻪ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﺘﻖ ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺧﻮﻓﴼ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﲨﻴﻌﴼ ﲢﺖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺒﻮﺩﻳﺔ‪) «.‬ﻋﺐ ‪ ١٤ :٢‬ـ ‪.(١٥‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ :‬ﺇﺑﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ـ ﲢﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻢ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻹﲤﺎﻡ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲡﻠﺒﻪ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﻟﻬﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺳﻔﺎﺭﻩ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻧﻜﻤﻞ ﺗﺄﻣﻼﺗﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺻﻼﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺳﺔ‪:‬‬
‫»ﻳﺎ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺇﳍﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲰﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺳﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺘﻠﺖ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﳋﺸﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺣﻴﻴﺖ ﺍﳌﻴﺖ ﲟﻮﺗﻚ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺧﻠﻘﺘﻪ ﺑﻴﺪﻳﻚ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﺎﺕ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺇﻗﺘﻞ ﺃﻭﺟﺎﻋﻨﺎ ]ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ[ ﺑﺂﻻﻣﻚ ﺍﳌﺸﻔﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺤﻴﻴﺔ ]ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺁﻻﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ[‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﳌﺴﺎﻣﲑ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲰﺮﺕ ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﻘﺬ ﻋﻘﻮﻟﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻃﻴﺎﺷﺔ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﳍﻴﻮﻟﻴﺔ‪] ...‬ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ‪ :‬ﺧﻠﻘﺘﻪ ﺑﻴﺪﻳﻚ‪ .‬ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ‪ :‬ﻣﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ[ ﻷﻧﻪ ﺗﺄﱂ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻠﻨﺎ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻨﻘﺬﻧﺎ‪...‬‬
‫ﺻﻨﻌﺖ ﺧﻼﺻﴼ ﰲ ﻭﺳﻂ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺇﳍﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺑﺴﻄﺖ‬
‫ﻳﺪﻳﻚ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻫﺮﺗﲔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ ...‬ﻷﻧﻚ ﲟﺸﻴﺌﺘﻚ ]ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺃﺧﺮﻱ ﺃﻭ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺗﻄﺎﻟﺒﻚ ﺑﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ[ ﺳﺮﺭﺕ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺼﻌﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﺘﻨﺠﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺧﻠﻘﺘﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻭ ]ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﺘﻨﺠﻲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻀﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻻﺳﺘﻴﻔﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺣﻘﻬﺎ[‪.‬‬
‫‪١٤٥‬‬
‫ﻧﺼﺮﺥ ﺇﻟﻴﻚ ﻭﻧﺸﻜﺮﻙ ﻷﻧﻚ ﻣﻸﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﻓﺮﺣﴼ‪ ،‬ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﺺ ﳌﺎ ﺃﺗﻴﺖ‬
‫ﻟﺘﻌﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ .‬ﻳﺎ ﺭﺏ ﺍﳌﺠﺪ ﻟﻚ‪...‬‬
‫ﻷﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺻﻠﻴﺐ ﺇﺑﻨﻚ ]ﺃﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺭﺍﺀ[ ﺇ‪‬ﺒﻂ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ ﻭﺑﻄﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﻮﺍﺗﴼ‬
‫ﻛﻨﺎ ﻓﻨﻬﻀﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺳﺘﺤﻘﻘﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﻌﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻭﺱ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ .‬ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺃﺟﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﳕﺠﺪ ﺑﺸﻜﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺇﳍﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ]ﺑﻄﻞ[ ﻗﻮﻱ‪«.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻦ »ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﻲ« ﻭ »ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﻹﻟﻬﻲ«‪ ،‬ﲟﻮﺕ ﺫﺑﻴﺨﺔ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﺴﺪﺩ‬
‫ﷲ ﺩﻳﻨﺎ ﹰ ﻭﺛﻤﻨﺎ ﹰ ﻭﺃﺟﺮﺓ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻏﻀﺒﺖ ﺍﷲ ﻏﻀﺒﺎ ﹰ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩ‪،‬‬
‫ﺿﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ؟!!! ﻣﻦ ﺃﻳﻦ ﺟﺎﺀ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻏﻴﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﺇﻟﻴﻨﺎ ﻭﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺗﺮﻛﻨﺎ ﻳﻨﺒﻮﻉ ﺍ‪‬ﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺮﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ؟!!!‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻋﻦ ﺟﻬﻨﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪:‬‬
‫• ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺃﻭﺭﳚﺎﻧﺲ ‪:‬‬
‫)‪: (The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. I, p. 196‬‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻣﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺬﻳﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﳒﺪ ﰲ ﻧﺒﻮﺀﺓ ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‬
‫» ﻟﻨﻨﻈﺮ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺘﻌﺬﺏ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻛﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﻧﺎﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻨﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻌﺬﺏ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻷﻥ ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪ :‬ﺳﲑﻭﺍ ﰲ ﻧﲑﺍﻧﻜﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻬﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻭﻗﺪﲤﻮﻩ ﻷﻧﻔﺴﻜﻢ‬
‫)ﺇﺵ ‪.(١١ :٥٠‬‬
‫ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻞ ﺧﺎﻃﺊ ﻳﺸﻌﻞ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻧﲑﺍﻥ ﻋﺬﺍﺑﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻠﻘﻲ ﰲ ﻧﲑﺍﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻋﺪﺕ ﲟﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﻗﺒﻼً‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻭﻗﻮﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﲑﺍﻥ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ‪...‬‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﲡﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﰲ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻬﺎ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻻً ﺷﺮﻳﺮﺓ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﻭﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﻋﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻳﺄﰐ‬
‫ﻭﻗﺖ ﺗﻐﻠﻲ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻭﺭ ﻟﺘﺠﺎﺯﻱ ﺑﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪١٤٦‬‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﺍﷲ )ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﰲ ﻳﻮ ‪ (٣‬ﺑﺄﻥ ﺗﺘﺬﻛﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻀﻤﲑ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﳌﺪﺧﺮﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﻛﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺷﻜﻠﺖ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻄﺒﻮﻋﺔ ﻟﻠﺨﻄﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﺮﻱ ﺃﻋﲔ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻣﺎ ﺻﻨﻌﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻈﺎﺋﻊ ﻭﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻳﺮﺓ ﳐﺰﻳﺔ‪...‬‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﲡﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺧﺮﺟﺖ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺠﺎﻡ ﻣﻊ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﺘﺤﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺁﻻﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺟﺒﻠﺘﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﲞﺮﻭﺟﻬﺎ ﺍﳊﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﺸﻌﺮ ﺑﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺗﻐﺮ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﺗﺸﺘﺘﻬﺎ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺑﲑ‪«...‬‬

‫• ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺴﻲ ‪:‬‬

‫)‪:(The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. II‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻴﻌﺎﱐ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﺮﻓﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺱ ﻫﻨﺎ )ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ(‪ .‬ﺣﱴ ﻭﺇﻥ ﲰﻴﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺑﺎﺕ ﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﻌﺮﻭﻓﺔ‬
‫ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﻛﺒﲑ‪ .‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﺴﻤﻌﻮﻥ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ » ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ « ﺇﻋﻠﻤﻮﺍ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﺷﻰﺀ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻧﻌﺮﻓﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ )ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ( ﳍﺎ ﺧﻮﺍﺹ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻨﺎﺭ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﻌﺮﻓﻬﺎ ﳓﻦ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﻧﺎﺭ ﻻ ﺗﻄﻔﺄ‪.p. 49 « ....‬‬

‫» ﻋﻨﺪ ﺑﺎﺏ ﻣﻠﻜﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ‪ ...‬ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺗﻐﺮ‪‬ﺎ‬

‫)ﻧﻔﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻠﻜﻮﺕ(‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺗﺪﻳﻦ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺧﺎﺭﺟﺎ )ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻴﻢ(‪...‬‬
‫ﺃﺟﻞ ﺇﳘﺎﳍﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﺼﺮﺥ ﻭﺗﺒﻜﻲ ﻭﺗﺮﺛﻲ ﳊﺎﳍﺎ ً‬
‫ﻟﻸﺑﺪ« ‪. p. 57-58‬‬

‫• ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺫﻫﱯ ﺍﻟﻔﻢ ‪:‬‬

‫)‪: (The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. II‬‬
‫» ﺇﻥ ﺍﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻐﻤﺾ ﺃﻋﲔ ﻋﻘﻠﻪ ﻭﱂ ﻳﺮﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﺃﺷﻌﺘﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻇﻠﻤﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻ ﺗﺄﰐ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺗﺄﰐ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺷﺮﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‪ ،‬ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﺍﳊﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﳛﺮﻣﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ « ‪.p. 106‬‬

‫‪١٤٧‬‬
 ‫• ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻣﱪﻭﺳﻴﻮﺱ ‪:‬‬
‫)‪: (The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. II‬‬
‫» ﺻﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻷﺳﻨﺎﻥ )ﻛﻤﺎ ﻭﺻﻔﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺏ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻯ( ﻟﻴﺲ ﺻﺮﻳﺮ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺩﻭﺩ ﺟﺴﺪﻯ!‬
‫ﺃﺳﻨﺎﻥ ﺟﺴﺪﻳﺔ! ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺩ ً‬
‫ﱂ ﺗﻜﺘﺐ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺇﻻ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺩ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳊﻤﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺪﻳﺪﺓ )ﺍﳌﺮﺽ ‪-‬‬
‫ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻄﺐ ﺃﻳﺎﻡ ﺃﻣﱪﻭﺳﻴﻮﺱ!( ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﻻ ] ﻳﺘﻮﺏ ﻭ [ ﻳﻄﻬﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻩ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﳛﺘﺮﻕ ﰲ ﻧﺎﺭﻩ ﻭﻳﺘﺂﻛﻠﻪ ﺩﻭﺩﻩ )ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ(‪ .‬ﻭﳍﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺐ ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ‪ :‬ﺳﲑﻭﺍ ﰲ ﻧﲑﺍﻧﻜﻢ‪...‬‬
‫ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﻧﲑﺍﻥ ﻛﺂﺑﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﻧﺘﻴﺠﺘﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﺪﻭﺩٍ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺗﻄﻌﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ ﻭﺗﺄﻛﻞ ﺃﺣﺸﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻀﻤﲑ‪. p. 163 «.‬‬

‫• ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺫﻫﱯ ﺍﻟﻔﻢ ‪) :‬ﻋﻈﺔ ‪ ٩‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﻭ ‪: (٥‬‬

‫)‪(N. & P. N. Fathers, p. 399‬‬

‫» ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺻﺪﻳﻘًﺎ ﻟﻨﺎ ‪ -‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ‪ -‬ﻳﻬﺪﺩﻧﺎ‬
‫ﲜﻬﻨﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﻧﺘﻘﺎﻡ؟!‬
‫ﺇﻧﻪ ﻳﻔﻌﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﳏﺒﺘﻪ ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﻌﻠﻪ ﻭﻳﻬﺘﻢ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﱰﻉ ﺷﺮﻭﺭﻙ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﻮﻧﻚ ﺑﺎﳋﻮﻑ ﻛﻤﺎﻧﻊ ﻣﻔﻴﺪ ﺣﱴ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻬﻮﺭ ﻭﺗﻨﺤﺪﺭ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﳌﻀﺎﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻟﱪﻛﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻵﻻﻡ ﻫﻮ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻴﺪﻙ ﻣﻦ ﺇ‪‬ﻴﺎﺭﻙ ﻭﻳﺮﻓﻌﻚ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻭﳛﻔﻈﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺫﺍﺋﻞ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺃﺷﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﻨﻢ‪.«.‬‬

‫•••‬

‫‪١٤٨‬‬
 ‫ﺧﻼﺻﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ‪:‬‬
‫• ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺏ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﻥ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﻭﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬
‫ﲞﻂ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻭﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ‪ » :‬ﺻﻨﻊ ﰲ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ‬
‫ﻭﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ‪!!!«.‬‬
‫• ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﺸﻤﺎﻭﻱ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻳﻘﺘﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﺴﻜﲔ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﺐ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻌﻒ‪ .‬ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ »ﳝﻮﺕ ﰲ ﺧﻄﻴﺌﺘﻪ« )ﻳﻮ ‪ ،(٢١ :٨‬ﻭﺍﷲ ﻃﺒﻴﺐ ﺷﺎﰲ‬
‫ﻳﻬﺪﻱ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﺑﺪﻻً ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺗﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻄﻬﺮﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻳﻜﻔﺮ ﻭﳝﺤﻮ ﳒﺎﺳﺔ ﻣﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﻨﻀﺢ ﻭﻳﺮﺵ ﻭﻳﺰﺭﻉ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﺍﺀ‬
‫ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ )ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﺍﻷﻗﺪﺳﲔ(‪.‬‬
‫• ﺻﺎﻧﻊ ﺍﳋﲑﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﳏﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﱀ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﺘﺪﺑﲑﻩ ﻗﺪ ﺧﻠﻖ‬
‫ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﺗﻮﻧًﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻟﻴﻠﻘﻲ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺑﻴﺪﻳﻪ ﻭﺇﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺀﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺸﺮﻕ ﴰﺴﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺴﻌﻲ ﺑﺎﺫﻻً ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻫﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﺸﺪﺓ ﺣﺒﻪ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ‪» ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻭﳓﻦ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪ ﺧﻄﺎﺓ ﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ«!!!‬
‫• ﻭﺣﱴ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ »ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻫﻮ ُﺣ ْﻜﻢ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻰ«‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ‬
‫»ﺣ ْﻜﻢ« ‪ Judgement‬ﺗﻌﲏ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ »ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﻭﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﷲ« ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ!! ﺑﻞ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ُ‬
‫»ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ« ﺃﻭ »ﺗﺸﺨﻴﺺ« ﺍﷲ ﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺭﻓﺾ ﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫»ﺣ َﻜ َﻢ« ﺑﻔﺸﻞ ﺃﻭ ﺳﻘﻮﻁ‬ ‫ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺴﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌُﻌﻠﻢ َ‬
‫»ﺣﻜﻢ ﻭﺗﺸﺨﻴﺺ« ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﳌﻦ ﺃﺻﻴﺐ ﺇﺻﺎﺑﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﻴﺪ؛ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻥ ُ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻠﻪ‪ :‬ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌُﻌﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﺐ ﺇﳕﺎ »ﻳﻨﺒﺌﻮﻥ ﻭﻳﻜﺸﻔﻮﻥ«‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﳛﺪﺙ ﻟﻠﺨﺎﻃﻲ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺋﺐ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺎﺏ ﺍﳉﺮﻳﺢ‪ ...‬ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻌﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﺐ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﻮﺍ ﺃﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻧﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﻫﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻌﻠﻨﻮﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻠﺘﺤﺬﻳﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺼﺢ‪ .‬ﺳﺒﺐ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻄﻼﻕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ »ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻤﺔ« ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺰﳚﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫• ﺇﻥ ﻗﺎﻟﻮﺍ ﻟﻚ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﳛﺒﻚ ﺑﻴﺪ؛ ﻭﻟﻮ ﺃﺧﻄﺄﺕ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻋﺎﺩﻝ ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﻘﺘﻠﻚ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ‬
‫)ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻯ( ﺑﺎﻟﻴﺪ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻱ‪ ...‬ﻓﻬﻞ ﳝﻜﻨﻚ ﺃﻥ ﲢﺐ ﺇﳍًﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ؟! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‬
‫َﻦ ﰲ ﺍﺣﺘﺮﺍﻣﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺪﻳﺪ ﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺇﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻻﱠ ﳛﺐ‬
‫ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻳُﻌﻠ ُ‬
‫‪١٤٩‬‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﺧﺎﻩ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ ‪ ...‬ﻓﻴﺤﻜﻢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﺑﻌﺬﺍﺏ ﻭﻣﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻭﻃﻼﻕ ﺃﺑﺪﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻌﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ‪ ...‬ﺃﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﺬﺍﺏ‬
‫ﺃﺷﺪ؟! ﺃﻭ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺭﲪﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺘﺮﺍﻡ ﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ؟! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻳﻈﻞ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺟﺮﺣﺎ ﻳﺪﻣﻲ ﰲ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ؛ ﻟِﺬﺍ ﺭﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳊﺮ )ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻠﻤﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ( ً‬
‫ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺎ ﰲ ﻭﺳﻂ ﻋﺮﺵ ﺍﷲ )ﺭﺅ ‪ (١٣ ،٦ :٥‬ﻣﺸﲑًﺍ‬ ‫ﻼ ً‬ ‫ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﲪ ً‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﺎﺓ ﺣﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﻘﺎﺑﻠﻪ ﺣﺐ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ‪ ...‬ﻟِﺬﺍ ﻗﻴﻞ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺟﻬﻨﻢ ﻫﻲ‪ :‬ﺇﺣﺘﺮﺍﻡ ﺍﷲ ﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻓﻀﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻮ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ!!!‬

‫•••‬

‫‪١٥٠‬‬
١٥٢
‫ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﳐﻠﻮﻕ ﻧﺎﻗﺺ‪ ،‬ﻏﲑ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ‪ ،‬ﻫﺶ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻟﻜﻲ‬
‫ﻳﻨﻤﻮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺩﻋﻮﺓ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻪ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺘﺸﺒﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻭﻳﺘﺄﻟﻪ‪) ،‬ﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ(‪ .‬ﳍﺬﺍ‬
‫ﳜﺎﻑ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺧﻮﻓًﺎ ﺷﺪﻳ ًﺪﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﻳﺪﻓﻌﻪ ﳓﻮﻩ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﺘﺤﺮﻙ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺩﻭﺍﻓﻌﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻏﺮﻳﺰﺓ ﺣﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﻗﺪ ﲰﻴﺖ » ﻏﺮﻳﺰﺓ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ «‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﰲ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺳﻴﺠﻤﻮﻧﺪ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻭﻣﺪﺍﺭﺱ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ » ،‬ﻏﺮﻳﺰﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ «‬
‫)‪.(S.A., Rathus, Psychology, Pub.: R. Woodbury, p.317‬‬

‫ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ُﻇﻠﻢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺷﻌﺮ ﲞﻮﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﲝﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺭﺩ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺧﺬ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻈﻠﻢ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﻭﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﻣﻜﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻈﺎﱂ ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﺮﺿﻲ ﻏﻀﺐ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻈﻠﻮﻡ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻹﻧﺘﻘﺎﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﱂ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺣﺎﻟﻨﺎ ﻛﺒﺸﺮ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ‬
‫ﻛﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺭﻓﺾ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺑﺎﻹﻧﺘﻘﺎﻡ ﻭﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻑ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ‬
‫ﻭﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳉﺎﱐ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺈﻥ ﻛﺴﺮ ﺃﺧﻲ ﱄ ﺫﺭﺍﻉ‪ ،‬ﻃﺎﻟﺒﺖ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺑﻜﺴﺮ ﺫﺭﺍﻋﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺗﻌﻮﻳﺾ‬
‫ﺑﺪﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﻓﺪﻳﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺫﺭﺍﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺴﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻗُﻞ ﻓﺪﻳﺔ ﺑﺪﻳﻠﺔ ﺣﱴ ﻻ ﺗﻜﺴﺮ ﻟﻪ ﺫﺭﺍﻋﻪ‬
‫ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻯ!! ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻗَﺒ َ‬
‫ِﻞ ﺍﷲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺺ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﻣﻮﺳﻲ ﺷﺮﻳﻌﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﲔ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﲔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺑﺎﳊﻴﺎﺓ ‪ -‬ﺇﱃ ﺣﲔ!!‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻨﲏ ﺃﺗﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺃﻭﺗﻴﺖ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮﺓ ﻭﻓﻜﺮ‪ :‬ﻫﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻋﺪﻝ؟!!‬
‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺴﺮ ﺃﺧﻲ ﺫﺭﺍﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻘﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺳﺘﺮﺩ ﺻﺤﺔ ﺫﺭﺍﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﻌﻠﻢ‬

‫‪١٥٣‬‬
‫ﺃﺧﻲ ﺃﻻ ﻳﻌﻴﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﺪﻣﺮ ﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ‬
‫ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺫﺭﺍﻋﲔ ﻣﻜﺴﻮﺭﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺫﺭﺍﻋﻲ ﻭﺫﺭﺍﻉ ﺃﺧﻰ!! ﺇﻧﻪ ﻋﺪﻝ ﻧﺎﻗﺺ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺎﰿ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﺸﺮ ﻣﺴﺎ ٍﻭ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﻟﻠﺨﺴﺎﺭﺓ! ﻭﺃﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ؟! ﺍﻟﺬﺭﺍﻋﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺎﺯﺍﻻ ﻣﻜﺴﻮﺭﻳﻦ!!‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻘﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﰲ ﺧﻂ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻠﺨﺼﻪ‪» :‬ﺗﺪﻣﲑ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺎﱐ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﳌﺠﲏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ « ﻹﺷﺒﺎﻉ ﻏﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺠﲏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻐﻠﻴﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻄﺶ ﺇﱃ ﺇﺳﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺘﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﻇﻠﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﳓﻮﻝ ﺑﺄﻳﺪﻳﻨﺎ ﺍﳉﺎﱐ ﺇﱃ ﳎﲏ‬
‫ﺇﻧﻨﺎ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﺼﻠﺢ ﻭﻻ ﻧﻌﺎﰿ ﺑﻞ ﻧﺰﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ ً‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ!! ﺃﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ؟!‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺑﻨﻀﻮﺝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺗﻘﺪﻣﻬﺎ )ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺆﺳﻨﺎ( ﲢﻮﻝ ﺗﺸﺨﻴﺺ ﺍﳉﺎﱐ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻛﻮﻧﻪ » ﳎﺮﻡ « ﻳﺴﺘﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﺪﻣﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ » ﻣﺮﻳﺾ « ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭﻣﺮﻳﺾ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﻭﻣﺮﻳﺾ ﰲ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﺝ ﻻ ﻟﻠﻘﺼﺎﺹ‪ .‬ﺃﻱ ﺑﺪﺃﻧﺎ ‪ً -‬‬
‫ﻣﺆﺧﺮﺍ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ‬
‫‪ -‬ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﻣﺎ ﺃﺩﺭﻛﻪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻗﺪﳝًﺎ‪ :‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻣﺮﺽ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺟﺮﳝﺔ!‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﰲ ﻣﻌﺠﺰﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ‬‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﻌﻼﺝ ﻻ ﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﻧﺮﻱ ً‬
‫ﺍﻹﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻱ ﺑﲔ ﺷﻔﺎﺀ ﻣﺮﺽ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﻣﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﳌﺮﺽ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻱ ﰲ‬
‫ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻋ ّﻠﻢ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ » ﻣﺴﺘﺸﻔﻲ « ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ » ﳏﻜﻤﺔ «‪) .‬ﺫﻫﱯ ﺍﻟﻔﻢ(‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺸﺮﺣﻪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻛﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻ‬
‫ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻭﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺭﺟﻢ ﻭﻗﺘﻞ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﻭﺣﺐ ﻭﺇﺣﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﺗﺸﺠﻴﻊ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ؟‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺆﺩﺏ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺘﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺘﻞ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻔﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻔﻴﺪ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻻ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ!‬
‫ﻗﺎﻝ ﻏﺎﻧﺪﻯ‪ » :‬ﺍﻟﻌﲔ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﲔ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﳚﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻛﻠﻪ ﺃﻋﻤﻲ!«‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻭﺍﻓﻖ ﺍﷲ ‪ -‬ﺇﱃ ﺣﲔ ‪ -‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﲔ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﲔ ﻟﻴﺆﻛﺪ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻓﺸﻞ‬

‫‪١٥٤‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ!! ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺩﻳﺐ!! ﻟﻴﺆﻛﺪ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺃﻱ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺪﻓﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳُﺴﺠﻦ ﺷﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻪ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﻏﻀﺐ ﻭﻧﻘﻤﺔ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﲢﺮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻞ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻇﻠﻤﻪ ﺃﺣﺪ ﻭﱂ ﻳﺮﺩ ﻟﻪ ﺍﳌﺜﻞ!‬
‫ﻭﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﷲ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺸﺮﺡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻼﺝ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﻮﻫﺐ ﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ! ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ‪‬ﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻄﻴﺔ ﻧﺘﺄﻛﺪ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻟﻦ ﳕﻮﺕ ﻣﻮﺗًﺎ ﺃﺑﺪﻳًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﻬﺪﺃ ﻏﻀﺒﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻨﺘﻔﻲ ﻧﻘﻤﺘﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻧﻌﻮﺩ ﻧﺮﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﳍﺬﺍ ﻧﻐﻔﺮ ﳌﻦ ﻳﺴﻴﺌﻮﻥ ﺇﻟﻴﻨﺎ ﺑﻔﺮﺡ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﳓﺴﺐ ﺍﻹﺳﺎﺀﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻬﺔ ﻟﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺇﻛﻠﻴﻞ ﳎﺪ ﺃﺑﺪﻯ!!‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺷﻮﻛﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ )‪١‬ﻛﻮ ‪ ،(٥٦ :١٥‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺗﺸﺒﻪ َﺫﻧَﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺮﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻠﺪﻍ ﺑﺸﻮﻛﺘﻪ ‪ STING‬ﻓﻴﻘﺘﻞ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﳋﻮﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻫﻮ ﺳﺒﺐ ﻛﻞ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﺗﺄﻛﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣــﻦ ﻓﻨــﺎﺀ ﺍﳌـﻮﺕ )ﺃﻱ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ( ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺍﺡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﻌﻲ ﻟﻠﺒﺬﻝ ﺣﱴ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪،‬‬
‫ﻷﻥ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺗﻪ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﱵ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ؛ ﻓﻜﻒ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﳏﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪.‬‬
‫•••‬

‫»ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ«‬

‫‪١٥٥‬‬
 ‫<‬
‫ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﺗﺮﻛﻨﺎ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻮﻫﻠﺔ ﻗﺼﲑﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻈﺮﻧﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﳒﺪﻩ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻋﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻲ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﺍﻵﻥ‪ :‬ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻨﻘﺺ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﺸﺮ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﺃﻥ ﳚﺮﺑﻪ ﻭﻳﺜﲑﻩ ﻟﻠﻨﻘﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ‪ ،‬ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻗﻂ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺳﻨﺎﻩ ﻣﻨﺬ ﻗﻠﻴﻞ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺃﻳﻮﺏ ‪ ٨-٦ :٣٥‬ﻭﰲ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ‪:١‬‬
‫‪ ،١٧ -١٣‬ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﻼ ﺃﺩﱐ ﺷﻚ ‪ -‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻼﻑ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﺳﻨﺮﻱ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﻭﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺑﺮ ﺍﷲ ‪ ، Righteousness‬ﺃﻱ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺻﺤﻴﺢ‬
‫ﻭﻛﺎﻣﻞ ‪ .The right thing‬ﻭﻛﻠﻤﺔ » َﻋ َﺪ َﻝ« ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ً‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺗﻌﲏ ‪ :‬ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺎﺋﻞ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺸﻰﺀ ﺍﳌﺎﺋﻞ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﻧﺼﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺢ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺸﺘﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻼﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ ‪ To see justice done‬ﲟﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﻱ ﺗﻮﻗﻴﻊ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﺮﺩﻋﺔ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﳉﺎﱐ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻧﺴﻤﻌﻬﺎ ﻛﺜﲑًﺍ‪ ،‬ﻫﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺑﺮﻳﻄﺎﻧﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺎﺷﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻠﻴﻔﺰﻳﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ‬
‫ﳛﻜﻢ ﻗﺎﺿﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳎﺮﻡ ﲝﻜﻢ ﳐﻔﻒ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﻘﻒ ﺍﳌﺠﲏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﻳﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺌﻨﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺸﺒﻊ ﻧﻘﻤﺘﻪ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻗﺴﻮﺓ ﳑﻜﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﺴﺐ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻗﺼﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﻌﻄﺸﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺪﻣﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺪﻣﲑ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﳌﺠﲏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻳﻈﻦ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺑﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳉﺎﱐ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﺼﻠﺢ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﻭﻳﺴﺘﺮﺩ‬
‫ﺿﺎﺋﻌﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻳﺎ ﻟﻠﺤﺴﺮﺓ!‬
‫ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ ً‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺘﺮﻳﻪ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﻭﻻ ﻇﻞ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺣﻴﺎﺀ‬

‫‪١٥٦‬‬
‫ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺭﺁﻫﺎ ﺗﻨﺘﺤﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺴﻌﻲ ﻛﺄﺏ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﰲ ﻃﻠﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻀﺎﻝ‪ .‬ﻫﻮ ﻳﺘﺤﺮﻙ ﺑﺎﳊﺐ ﻭﻳﺮﺑﻄﲏ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺍﻷﺩﻭﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺆﺩﻳﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﻫﻮ ﺭﺍﻉ ﺻﺎﱀ‬
‫ﻳﻀﻤﺪ ﺟﺮﺍﺡ ﺍﳋﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﻀﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻘﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻨﻖ ﻛﻞ ﺧﺎﻃﺊ‪ ،‬ﻛﻞ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺿﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻣﱵ‬
‫ﻋﺎﺩ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﻱ ﻋﺘﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﺩﱐ ﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﰲ ﻋﻘﺎﺏ ﺃﻭ ﻗﺼﺎﺹ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﺷﺨﺼﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻃﺒﻴﺐ ﺷﺎﰲ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﳊﺐ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﻳﺘﱪﻉ ﺑﺪﻣﻪ ﻭﲝﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﻭﻳﺰﺭﻋﻬﺎ ﻭﻳﻄﻌﻤﻬﺎ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺣﺒًﺎ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﲦﻦ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺎ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻘﲔ ﻭﺧﻄﺎﺓ ﻣﺰﻣﻨﲔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ‬
‫ﻳﺮﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻨﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺑﺮﻩ ﻭﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ ﻭﳎﺪﻩ ﻛﺄﺏ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ ...‬ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺇﺑﻨًﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﺃﺑّﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻠﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﲏ ﻭﺑﺬﻝ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ً‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ!‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻲ‪ :‬ﺷﻔﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮ ﻟﻠﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺬﺍ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﺴﺮ ﲟﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪﺑﲑﻩ ﻛﺨﺎﻟﻖ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﻳﺴﺮ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﺍﳌﻨﺘﺤﺮ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﻭﳛﻴﺎ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ )ﺣﺰ ‪ (٢٣ :١٨‬ﻷﻥ ‪ :‬ﻫﺒﺔ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺃﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ )ﺭﻭ ‪.(٢٣ :٦‬‬

‫ﻛﻠﻤﺔ »ﻋﺪﻝ« ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﻨﻲ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﺊ ﺍﳌﺎﺋﻞ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ‬

‫ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺎﺋﻞ‪ ،‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﻧﺼﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺗﺪﻣﻴﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺋﻞ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﷲ ﻻ ﻳﻀﺮﺏ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﺍﳌﺎﺋﺖ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻳﺤﻴﻴﻪ‪ ...‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺏ ﻓﻲ ﺍﳌﻴﺖ ﺣﺮﺍﻡ!‬

‫•••‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﰲ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﳌﺰﺍﻣﲑ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩ ﺑﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻛﻠﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻭﻓﺔ ﺑﺎﺳﻢ »ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻌﻴﻨﻴﺔ«‪ ،‬ﰒ ﺗﺮﺟﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺟﲑﻭﻡ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﺳﻔﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪﻳﻦ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻭﻓﺔ ﺑﺈﺳﻢ »ﺍﻟﭭﻮﳉﺎﺗﺎ«‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﺕ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻣﻴﺔ‬

‫‪١٥٧‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﱪﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻌﺮ ﺇﱃ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﰒ ﺇﱃ ﻟﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻼﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﻧﺺ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻳﻔﺘﺢ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺘﲔ ﻭﺣﻀﺎﺭﺗﲔ‬
‫ﻭﻋﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﺷﻌﺒﲔ ﻛﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﻧﻘﻞ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺍﺀ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﺣﺮﻓﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﲏ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺮﲨﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﻭﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻳﲏ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﲣﻠﻖ ﺣﻮﳍﺎ ﻣﻌﺎﱐ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﺃﻭ ﲢﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺇﻧﺘﻘﻠﺖ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻱ ﻗﺎﺭﺉ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻠﻘﻲ ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﺳﺮﻳﻌﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻱ ﻗﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺇﳒﻠﻴﺰﻱ ‪ -‬ﻋﺮﰊ ﻟﻴﺠﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﻳﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻋﺪﺓ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻋﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺇﱃ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻋﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﰲ ﻟﻐﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﳍﺎ ﻋﺪﺓ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻻﺕ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺳﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﺣﺴﺐ ﺗﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺇﱃ ﻋﺼﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﱪﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻋﱪﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺷﺎﺋﻌﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻣﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﻭﻫﻲ‬
‫»ﺻ َﺪ َﻕ« ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ » ِﺻ ْﺪﻕ« ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺍﳊﻖ‪.‬‬
‫‪َ Tzedek‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻕ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﺮﲨﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﱪﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ ﺇﱃ ‪ :‬ﻋﺪﻝ ـ ﺑﺮ ـ ﺻﺪﻕ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﳝﻜﻦ ﳌﻦ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺻﺪﻕ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ ً‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﺻﺪﻳﻖ ﻭﻋﺎﺩﻝ ﻭﺑﺎﺭ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﻟﺴﻔﺮ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺰﺍﻣﲑ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻣﺒﻐﻀﻮ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻖ ﻳﻌﺎﻗﺒﻮﻥ )ﻣﺰﻣﻮﺭ ‪(٢١ :٣٤‬‬
‫‪The foes of the righteous will be condemned.‬‬

‫ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ » ﺻ ﱢﺪﻳﻖ « ﻫﻲ ﺃﻗﺮﺏ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﱪﺍﻧﻴﺔ ‪ Tsedek‬ﻷ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﺄﺧﻮﺫﺓ ﻣﻦ‬

‫ﺃﺻﻞ ‪ root‬ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻣﻴﺔ » ﺻﺪﻕ « ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻘﻄﻊ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺛﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﻀﺎﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﺪ ﺣﱴ ﰲ ﺃﻭﺭﺑﺎ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻣﺼﺪﺭﻩ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ ﻭﺇﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﱪﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﺃﻭﻻً‪،‬‬
‫ﰒ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺣﺪﺙ ﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺇﻧﺘﻘﻠﺖ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺮﻳﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﱐ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ‪:‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﺣﺺ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻮﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭ )ﻣﺰﻣﻮﺭ ‪.(٩ :٧‬‬
‫‪١٥٨‬‬
 ‫‪O’Righteous God, who searches minds and hearts......‬‬

‫ﻓﺎﻟﺒﺎﺭ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺩﻕ ﻫﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ُﻣﺮﺍﺩﻓﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﺇﺳﺘﻄﻌﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺻﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﱪﺍﱐ ﺇﺳﺘﻄﻌﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﱪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﻤﻮﺽ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻱ ﺇﱃ ﻭﺿﻮﺡ ﻳﺴﺎﻋﺪﻧﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺟﻮﺍﻧﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻗﺎﺽ ﻋﺎﺩﻝ )ﻣﺰﻣﻮﺭ ‪(١١ :٧‬‬
‫‪God is a righteous Judge‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺩﺭﺳﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﲨﻌﺖ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﻳﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﻻﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ‪ Righteous‬ﻫﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺇﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﲝﺘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ‪ Just‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻼﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺇﺫﺍ ﲰﻌﻨﺎ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ‪ Righteous‬ﻓﺈ‪‬ﺎ ﻻ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ ‪ ، Just‬ﻣﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﻻ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ » ﻋﺪﻝ « ﻋﻦ » ﺑــﺮ « ﻋﻦ‬
‫» ﺻﺪﻕ «‪ .‬ﻭﻛﻠﻤﺔ » ﺑﺮ « ﻫﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻋﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﲝﺘﺔ ﻭﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧًﺎ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻭﺭﺩﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻭﰲ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﺪﺓ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ ﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ » ﻋﺪﻝ « ﻭ » ﺻﺪﻕ «‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌـﺪﻝ ﻫﻮ ﺻﺪﻕ ﻣﻮﺍﻋﻴﺪ ﺍﷲ ‪:‬‬

‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺰﻣﻮﺭ » ﻋﻠﻴﻚ ﻳﺎﺭﺏ ﺗﻮﻛﻠﺖ‪ .‬ﻻ ﺗﺪﻋﲏ ﺃﺧﺰﻱ ﻣﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﺪﻫﺮ‪ .‬ﺑﻌﺪﻟﻚ ﳒﲏ‪.‬‬
‫ﺳﺮﻳﻌﺎ ﺇﻧﻘﺬﱐ « )ﻣﺰﻣﻮﺭ ‪.(٢-١ :٣١‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺫﻧﻚ‪ً .‬‬
‫ﻋﺎﺭﺍ ﻭﻋﻨﺪ ﺟﲑﺍﱐ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﺩﺍﻭﺩ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﻖ ﻷﻧﻪ » ﻋﻨﺪ ﻛﻞ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺋﻲ ﺻﺮﺕ ً‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ « )ﻣﺰ ‪ .(١١ :٣١‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﳚﺊ ﺣﻜﻢ ﺍﷲ ﳌﻈﻠﻮﻡ ﻫﻮ ﺣﻜﻢ ﻋﺪﻝ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺣﻜﻢ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳋﻼﺹ )ﻣﺰ ‪ ،(٢٣ :٣١‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺧﺎﲤﺔ ﺍﳌﺰﻣﻮﺭ » ﻟﺘﺘﺸﺪﺩ ﻭﻟﺘﺘﺸﺠﻊ ﻗﻠﻮﺑﻜﻢ ﻳﺎ ﲨﻴﻊ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻣﺰﻣﻮﺭ ‪ ٧٥ :١١٩‬ﻭ ‪ .(١٢١‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‬‫ﺍﳌﻨﺘﻈﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ « )ﻣﺰ ‪) .(٢٣ :٣١‬ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ً‬
‫ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺬﻛﺮ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﺣﻜﻢ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺍﳌﺘﻮﻛﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﻴﺲ ﺧﺎﻟﻴًﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻩ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ!! ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻌﺘﺮﻑ ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ »ﺃﻋﺘﺮﻑ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺮﺏ ﺑﺬﻧﱯ ﻭﺃﻧﺖ ﺭﻓﻌﺖ ﺁﺛﺎﻡ ﺧﻄﻴﱵ‪ .‬ﳍﺬﺍ ﻳﺼﻠﻲ ﻟﻚ ﻛﻞ ﺻﺪﻳﻖ )ﺗﻘﻰ( ﰲ ﻭﻗﺖ‬
‫ﳚﺪﻙ ﻓﻴﻪ« )ﻣﺰ ‪ .(٦ -٥ :٣٢‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺰﻣﻮﺭ » ﻗﺮﻳﺐ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻨﻜﺴﺮﻱ‬

‫‪١٥٩‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻮﺏ ﻭﳜﻠﺺ ﺍﳌﻨﺴﺤﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ « ﺃﻱ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﻥ ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﺃ‪‬ﻢ ﻟﻴﺴﻮﺍ ﺃﻧﻘﻴﺎﺀ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ » ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺑﻼﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻖ ﻭﻣﻦ ﲨﻴﻌﻬﺎ ﻳﻨﺠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ « ) ﻣﺰ ‪:٣٤‬‬
‫‪ .(١٩ -١٧‬ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﻣﺰﻣﻮﺭ ‪ ٣٥‬ﻫﻮ ﺧﻼﺻﺔ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﳜﻠﺺ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﳛﺘﻜﻤﻮﻥ ﺇﱃ ﻗﻀﺎﺀ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ » ﳚﺎﺯﻭﻧﲏ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﲑ‬
‫ﺷﺮﺍ ‪ ...‬ﻷ‪‬ﻢ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻤﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻼﻡ ‪) « ...‬ﻣﺰ ‪ .(٢٠ -١٢ :٣٥‬ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺰﻣﻮﺭ‬ ‫ً‬
‫» ﺇﺫ ﻗﻠﺖ ﻗﺪ ﺯﻟﺖ ﻗﺪﻣﻲ ﻓﺮﲪﺘﻚ ﻳﺎ ﺭﺏ ﺗﻌﻀﺪﱐ « )ﻣﺰ ‪ ،(١٨ :٩٤‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻫﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺻﺮﺣﺎ ﻭﺇﳍﻲ ﺻﺨﺮﺓ ﻣﻠﺠﺈﻱ « ) ﻣﺰ ‪.(٢٢ :٩٤‬‬ ‫ﳚﺪ ﻛﺨﺎﻃﺊ » ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﱄ ً‬
‫ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ »ﱂ‬
‫ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺰﻣﻮﺭ » ﻛﻞ ﻭﺻﺎﻳﺎﻙ ﻋﺪﻝ « )ﻣﺰﻣﻮﺭ ‪ً (١٧٢ :١١٩‬‬
‫ﺃﻛﺘﻢ ﻋﺪﻟﻚ ﰲ ﻭﺳﻂ ﻗﻠﱯ « )ﻣﺰﻣﻮﺭ ‪ (١٠ :٤٠‬ﻭ » ﻓﻤﻲ ﳛﺪﺙ ﺑﻌﺪﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻪ « ) ﻣﺰﻣﻮﺭ ‪ ،(٥ :٧١‬ﻓﻜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻻ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﻌﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﻲ ﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﲟﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮﻙ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﺎﻳﺎ ﺃﻱ ﺳﻠﻮﻙ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳊﻖ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺳﻠﻮﻙ » ﺍﻟﱪ «‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺰﻣﻮﺭ » ﻳﺎ ﺭﺏ ﺇﻥ ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻣﻚ ﻋﺪﻝ «‬
‫)ﻣﺰﻣﻮﺭ ‪.(٧٥ :١١٩‬‬
‫ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﺎﻝ » ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻖ ﻋﺪﻝ « )ﺃﻡ ‪ (٥ :١٢‬ﺑﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻘﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﳝﻴﻞ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺟﺎﺀ ﻣﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻘﻮﻡ ﺍﳌﻌﻮﺝ ﻭﻳﺮﺩ ﺍﳌﺎﺋﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻭﺿﻌﻪ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ‪.‬‬‫» َﻋ َﺪ َﻝ « ﺃﻱ ﻳُ ﱢ‬
‫ﻭﻧﻜﺘﻔﻲ ﺑﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻣﺰﻣﻮﺭ ‪ ٣١‬ﺇﺫ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺰﻣﻮﺭ ‪:‬‬
‫)‪(١ : ٣١‬‬ ‫» ﺑﻌﺪﻟﻚ ﳒﲏ «‬
‫» ﺧﻠﺼﲏ ﺑﺮﲪﺘﻚ « )‪.(١٦ :٣١‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﰲ ﻣﺰﻣﻮﺭ ‪ ٨٥‬ﻫﻮ ﻟﻘﺎﺀ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻤﻪ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﺣﻞ ﺭﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻭﺣﻨﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺰﻣﻮﺭ ‪:‬‬
‫»ﺣﺠﺰﺕ ﻛﻞ ﺭﺟﺰﻙ‪ .‬ﺭﺟﻌﺖ ﻋﻦ ﲪﻮ ﻏﻀﺒﻚ‬
‫ﺇﻧﻒ )ﺇﺑﻌﺪ( ﻏﻀﺒﻚ ﻋﻨﺎ‬
‫ْ‬
‫ﺃﺭﻧﺎ ﻳﺎﺭﺏ ﺭﲪﺘﻚ ﻭﺇﻋﻄﻨﺎ ﺧﻼﺻﻚ‬

‫‪١٦٠‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﻖ ﺇﻟﺘﻘﻴﺎ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﱪ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺗﻼﲦﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻳﻨﺒﺖ ﻭﺍﻟﱪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ ﻳﻄﻠﻊ «‬
‫)ﻣﺰ ‪(١١ -١ :٨٥‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﷲ )ﺗﻜﻮﻳﻦ ‪ (٢٦ :١‬ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻏﲏ ﰲ ﺭﲪﺘﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ » ﻳﻨﻔﻲ « ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﻋﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺭﻏﻢ‬
‫ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻩ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﷲ » ﻋﻠﻤﲏ ﻳﺎ ﺭﺏ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﻚ ﻓﺄﺳﻠﻚ ﰲ ﺣﻘﻚ‪ ...‬ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﺭﲪﺘﻚ ﻋﻈﻴﻤﺔ ﳓﻮﻱ ﻭﻗﺪ ﳒﻴﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳍﺎﻭﻳﺔ « ) ﻣﺰ ‪ .(١٣ -١ :٨٦‬ﻭﻟﻮ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺻﺮﺍﻉ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ ﳌﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺰﻣﻮﺭ » ﻳﺎ ﺭﺏ ﺃﻧﺖ ﺇﻟﻪ ﺭﺣﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻭﺭﺅﻭﻑ ﻃﻮﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﻛﺜﲑ ﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﻖ « )ﻣﺰ ‪ !!(١٥ :٨٦‬ﻭﺣ ًﻘﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺰﻣﻮﺭ‬
‫» ﺑﻌﺪﻟﻚ ﲣﺮﺝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﻖ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﻭﺑﺮﲪﺘﻚ ﺗﺴﺘﺄﺻﻞ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺋﻲ « )ﻣﺰ ‪-١١ :١٤٣‬‬
‫‪ !!(١٢‬ﻓﺎﷲ ﻳﺮﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﻖ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﻜﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺃﻣﺎﻧﺘﻪ ﻭﻋﺪﻟﻪ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ‬
‫ﺻﺮﺍﻉ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻲ ﻣﻊ ﺻﻔﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻱ ‪ ، To do justice‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﻋﺮﺑﻴﺎ ﹰ‬

‫ﺇﻟﻰ ﺇﻳﻔﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺊ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺣﻘﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﺐ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﲡﻤﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺊ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻟﺪﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎﻝ‪ ...‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪.‬‬
‫»ﻭﺇﻫﺪﻧﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﻠﻜﻮﺗﻚ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﺑﻬﺬﺍ ﻳﺘﻤﺠﺪ ﻭﻳﺘﺒﺎﺭﻙ ﻭﻳﺮﺗﻔﻊ‬
‫ﺇﺳﻤﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺪﻭﺱ« ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﲤﺎﻡ ﺑﺮ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻭﻋﺪﻟﻪ!!‬

‫‪١٦١‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‬

‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻧﻈﺮﻧﺎ ﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﳒﺪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﱂ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺑﺮ ﻭﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﺴﺮ ﺇﻻ‬
‫ﺑﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﲟﻮﺗﻪ!! ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﺣﻠﻠﻨﺎ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻗﻒ »ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ« ﻧﺴﺒﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺭﻓﻀﺎ ﺟﺬﺭﻳًﺎ ﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﳒﺪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﰲ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﺛﻮﺭﺓ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ!! ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺇﺣﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﻬﻢ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻬﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺷﺨﺺ‬
‫ﺛﻮﺭﻱ ﻳﻘﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﲏ ﺍﳌﻮﺳﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺇﻋﺘﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻳﺴﻴﻮﻥ ﻭﻣﻌﻠﻤﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ‪،‬‬
‫ﺭﺃﺳﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻘﺐ!! ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﻗﺮﺭﻭﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻗﺘﻠﻪ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺒﻌﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻬﻠﻜﻮﺍ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ‬
‫ً‬
‫ﺗﺮﻛﻬﻢ ﳌﺎ ﺇﻋﺘﺎﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻠﻤﻪ ﳍﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﺑﻴﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺳﻴﻮﻥ!!‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﺮﻳﺴﻴﲔ ﻭﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﺰﻣﺘﲔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﳐﻠﻮﻗًﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ! ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎ ﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺭﻏﺒﺎﺗﻪ ﻭﻗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻨﻪ ﰲ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﺟﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻗﺪ ﺧﻠﻘﻨﺎ ً‬
‫ﺑﻄﺎﻋﺔ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﻴﺪ! ﻭﻻ ﻳﺰﺍﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻟﻸﺳﻒ!!! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺃﻇﻬﺮ ﻋﻜﺲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺍﳋﻂ!! ﻟﻘﺪ ﺷﻔﻲ ﺍﳌﺮﺿﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺖ!! ﻭﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﻛﱪﻱ ﺗﺴﺘﺤﻖ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﰲ ﺃﻋﲔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺳﻴﲔ‪ .‬ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻭﺃﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳚﺮﻱ ﺍﳌﻌﺠﺰﺓ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﳌﺠﻤﻊ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺩﺓ!! ﺃﻱ ﲢﺪٍ! ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺛﺎﺭﻭﺍ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺫﻛﺮﻫﻢ ﻭﻭﺍﺟﻬﻬﻢ‬
‫ﲝﻜﻤﺔ ﱂ ﻳﻘﺪﺭﻭﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﺎﻧﺪﻭﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻫﺰﳝﺘﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﳛﻨﻘﻮﻥ‬

‫‪١٦٢‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺑﺎﻷﻛﺜﺮ‪ .‬ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻗﻮﻟﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﲑﺓ ﺃﻥ »ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺖ ﻗﺪ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ«‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﱂ ﳜﻠﻖ ﻟﻜﻲ ﳛﻔﻆ ﻭﺻﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﺘﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻼ ﻫﺪﻑ! ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻗﺪ ﻭﺿﻊ ﰲ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﰲ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻭﺗﻘﻨﲔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ )»ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻰ« ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ُﺳﻠﻢ ﳌﻮﺳﻲ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﺓ‬
‫ﻣﺆﺧﺮﺍ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ( ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﺒ ًﺪﺍ ﻟﻠﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺧﺎﺩ ًﻣﺎ ﻟﺴﻌﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻌﻴﻨًﺎ ﻟﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻹﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪:‬‬
‫»ﺃﻋﻄﻴﺘﲏ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻋﻮﻧًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﺃﻧﺖ ﺍﳌﺤﺘﺎﺝ‪ ،‬ﻟﻌﺒﻮﺩﻳﱵ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺃﻧﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﻥ ﻣﻨﻚ ﻳﺎ ﺭﰉ«‪ ...‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺃﺩﺭﻙ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻋﱪ ﺑﺸﻌﺮﻩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ‪.‬‬

‫• ﻣﺜﻞ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻋﺸﺮ )ﻣﺖ ‪:(١٦ -١ :٢٠‬‬

‫ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺜﻞ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺍﳊﻘﻞ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﲔ ﺃﺟﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺧﺪﻣﺘﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻞ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻋﺪﻟﻪ!! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳛﺎﻭﺭﻩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﲝﺴﺐ ﻋﺪﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﰲ‬
‫ﺷﺨﺺ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﲔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﺴﻎ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﻡ‪ ،‬ﻷ‪‬ﺎ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻔﻖ ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ » ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻭﻥ ﻋﻤﻠﻮﺍ ﺳﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺳﺎﻭﻳﺘﻬﻢ ﺑﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺇﺣﺘﻤﻠﻨﺎ ﺛﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺭ ﻭﺣﺮﻩ! ﻓﺄﺟﺎﺏ ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ‪ :‬ﻳﺎ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﻣﺎ ﻇﻠﻤﺘﻚ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺇﺗﻔﻘﺖ ﻣﻌﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﻳﻨﺎﺭ؟ ﻓﺨﺬ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻚ ﻭﺇﺫﻫﺐ‪ .‬ﻓﺈﱐ ﺃﺭﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻋﻄﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﻣﺜﻠﻚ‪ .‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ ﳛﻞ ﱄ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻓﻌﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺃﺭﻳﺪ ﲟﺎﱄ ‪ .‬ﺃﻡ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻴﻨﻚ ﺷﺮﻳﺮﺓ ﻷﱐ ﺃﻧﺎ‬
‫ﺻﺎﱀ؟!« )ﻣﺖ ‪ .(١٥ -١٢ :٢٠‬ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺟﻠﻴًﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺜﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺻﻼﺣﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻄﺎﺀﻩ ﻟﻠﻜﻞ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻏﻨﺎﻩ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻻ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ‬
‫ﻋﺪﻻً! ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ ﻳﻬﺰ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻳﻄﺎﻟﺒﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﺬﻝ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺛﻞ‪ » .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺇﻟﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻜﻠﻒ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﳐﻴﻒ! ﻭﻟﻮ ﺗﺮﻙ ﻟﻪ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﳌﺎ ﺑﻘﻲ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﳝﻜﻦ ﲪﺎﻳﺘﻬﺎ«‪،‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﻧﺎﱏ!‬
‫ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﺍﳌﻬﺎﲤﺎ ﻏﺎﻧﺪﻱ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺩﺭﻙ ﺑﺮ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺻﻼﺣﻪ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﲔ‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ‪ :‬ﻟﻮ ﺻﺮﺕ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻴًﺎ ﻓﻠﻦ ﺃﺳﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻧﺎﻡ!! ﻷﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﺬﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺑﻌﺎ ﺇﺛﺮ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺑﺴﺨﺎﺀ ﺣﱴ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻌﲑ!‬‫ﺳﻴﺼﻠﺐ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ً ،‬‬

‫‪١٦٣‬‬
 ‫• ﺍﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﻧﻴﺔ )ﻣﺖ ‪:(١٨‬‬
‫ﱄ ﺃﺧﻲ‬‫ﰲ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﻣﻊ ﺑﻄﺮﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻼﻣﻴﺬ ﺳﺄﻝ ﺑﻄﺮﺱ‪ » :‬ﻳﺎﺭﺏ ﻛﻢ ﻣﺮﺓ ﳜﻄﻲ ﺇ ّ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻏﻔﺮ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺳﺒﻊ ﻣﺮﺍﺕ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻟﻪ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ‪ :‬ﻻ ﺃﻗﻮﻝ ﻟﻚ ﺇﱃ ﺳﺒﻊ ﻣﺮﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺳﺒﻌﲔ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺳﺒﻊ ﻣﺮﺍﺕ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﻣﻠﻜﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧًﺎ ً‬
‫ﻣﻠﻜﺎ ﺃﺭﺍﺩ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﳛﺎﺳﺐ ﻋﺒﻴﺪﻩ‪ ...‬ﻓﺘﺤﻨﻦ ﺳﻴﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺪ ‪ -‬ﺍﳌﺪﻳﻮﻥ ﺑﻌﺸﺮﺓ ﺁﻻﻑ ﻭﺯﻧﺔ ‪ -‬ﻭﺃﻃﻠﻘﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺮﻙ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ « )ﻣﺖ ‪.(٢٧ -٢١ :١٨‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﺳﺄﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﻭﺿﻤﲑﻩ‪ ،‬ﺃﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ؟! ﻫﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺳﺎﻣﺢ ﺃﺧﻲ ﺳﺒﻌﲔ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺓ ﺳﺒﻊ ﻣﺮﺍﺕ؟! ﲝﺴﺐ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻊ ﻣﺮﺍﺕ ﺗﺰﻳﺪ ﻭﺗﻜﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ ﺿﺪ‬
‫ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﺮﻱ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﺇﻻ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﲔ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﲔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻦ!! ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﳕﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﺑﺈﻣﺮﺃﺓ ﻣﻌﺼﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﲔ ﻭﰲ ﻳﺪﻫﺎ ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥ »‪ ...‬ﻋﻤﻴﺎﺀ«!!! ﻓﻬﻞ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻄﺎﻟﺒﻨﲏ ﺑﺎﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺴﻴﺌﻮﻥ ﺇﱄ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻭﻟﻮ ﺇﻗﺘﻀﻲ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﻘﺘﻠﻮﻧﲏ‪ ،‬ﻫﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺎﺩﻝ؟! ﺃﻡ ﺻﺎﱀ‪ ،‬ﺃﻡ ﺑﺎﺭ؟! ﺃﻡ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻧﺼﻒ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﳌﺤﲑ‬
‫ﲟﻮﺍﺯﻳﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺒﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ؟!!‬
‫ﺃﻋﺮﻑ ﺻﺪﻳ ًﻘﺎ ﺣﺎﺭﺑﻮﻩ ﺃﻧﺎﺱ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺷﺪﺓ ﻭﺿﺮﺍﻭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺷﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻂ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻲ ﺃﺻﻴﺐ‬
‫ﲜﻠﻄﺔ ﺷﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ‪ ،‬ﻗﺘﻠﺖ ﺛﻠﺜﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﺩ ﳝﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺑﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﰲ‪ .‬ﻭﺻﺪﺭ‬
‫ﻳﻮ ًﻣﺎ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺑﺈﻏﻼﻕ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺯﻣﻼﺀ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻖ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻴﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﳌﺤﺎﺭﺑﲔ ﺿﺮﺍﻭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻲ ﳌﺮﺽ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﻲ ﲜﻠﻄﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ!! ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺧﻠﻲ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻧﻮﻉ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺴﺒﺐ ﰲ ﻣﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻖ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻘﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻖ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ‪ ،‬ﺫﻫﺐ ﻭﺩﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺴﺒﺐ ﰲ ﻣﺮﺿﻪ ﻟﻴﺘﻘﺪﻡ‬
‫ﻼ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻭﻋﺪﻩ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺮﺣﻴﺐ!!‬ ‫ﻼ ﻛﺎﻣ ً‬
‫ﻟﺸﻐﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺼﺒﺢ ﺯﻣﻴ ً‬
‫ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺳﺄﻟﺘﻪ ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺇﲣﺬﺕ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺭﺩﻩ‪ :‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻌﻠﻤﺘﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ...‬ﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﳎﺎﻧًﺎ‪.‬‬

‫• ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻻﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺎﻝ )ﻟﻮﻗﺎ ‪:(٣٢ -١١ :١٥‬‬

‫ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻷﺻﻐﺮ ﻷﺑﻴﻪ ‪ » :‬ﻳﺎ ﺃﰊ ﺃﻋﻄﲏ ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺼﻴﺒﲏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﻝ‪ ...‬ﻭﺳﺎﻓﺮ‬

‫‪١٦٤‬‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﻛﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺓ ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺑﺬﺭ ﻣﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﻌﻴﺶ ﻣﺴﺮﻑ‪ .‬ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺃﻧﻔﻖ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻰﺀ ﺣﺪﺙ ﺟﻮﻉ‬
‫ﺷﺪﻳﺪ ﰲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺭﺓ ﻓﺎﺑﺘﺪﺃ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ‪ ...‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺸﺘﻬﻲ ﺃﻥ ﳝﻸ ﺑﻄﻨﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﺮﻧﻮﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳋﻨﺎﺯﻳﺮ ﺗﺄﻛﻠﻪ ﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﻌﻄﻪ ﺃﺣﺪ‪ ...‬ﻓﺮﺟﻊ ﺇﱃ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ...‬ﺃﻗﻮﻡ ﻭﺃﺫﻫﺐ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺃﰊ ﻭﺃﻗﻮﻝ ﻟﻪ ﺃﺧﻄﺄﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ ﻭﻗﺪﺍﻣﻚ ﻭﻟﺴﺖ ﻣﺴﺘﺤ ًﻘﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺩﻋﻲ ﻟﻚ ﺇﺑﻨًﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﺟﻌﻠﲏ ﻛﺄﺣﺪ ﺃﺟﺮﺍﺋﻚ‪ .‬ﻓﻘﺎﻡ ﻭﺟﺎﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺑﻴﻪ‪.«...‬‬
‫ﺭﺍﻓﻀﺎ ﻹﺑﻨﻪ‪ .‬ﱂ ﻧﺴﻤﻊ ﻭﱂ ﻧﻘﺮﺃ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺏ‬
‫ﻧﺎﻗﻤﺎ ﺃﻭ ً‬
‫ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﱂ ﻧﺴﻤﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺏ ﻛﺎﻥ ً‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻪ ﺃﻱ ﺩﻭﺭ ﰲ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ‪ .‬ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺎﻝ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺷﻘﺎﺀﻩ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻞ‬
‫ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺼﻤﻤﻬﺎ ﻭﻣﻨﻔﺬﻫﺎ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺍﻷﺏ‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﺍﻵﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺔ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺨﻲ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﳌﻬﲔ‬
‫)ﺷﻜﻼً( ﻟﻸﺏ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﲟﲑﺍﺛﻪ ﻭﺃﺑﻮﻩ ﺣﻰ!! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﱂ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺏ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻀﺮﺭ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺃﺑﺪﻱ ﺃﻱ ﺇﺳﺘﻴﺎﺀ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻛﺎﻥ!!! ﻟﻌﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﲣﺰﻱ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﻛﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻳﺪﻋﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﺇﻫﺎﻧﺔ ﻣﻮﺟﻬﺔ ﺿﺪ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ ﻭﻛﺮﺍﻣﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﻫﻲ ﺇﻫﺎﻧﺔ‬
‫ﻏﲑ ﳏﺪﻭﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺗﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻏﲑ ﳏﺪﻭﺩﺓ‪ ....‬ﺍﱁ ﺍﱁ‪ ..‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻔﻮﺡ ﻋﻔﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭ » ﻳﺴﺨﻂ « ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﱀ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺘﺮﻳﻪ‬
‫ﺠﺮﺏ ﺑﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻋﻈﻢ )ﻳﻊ ‪.(١٧ -١٣ :١‬‬ ‫ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﻭﻻ ﻇﻞ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﻭﻻ ﻳُ ﱠ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﺇﺫﺍ ُﺳﺌﻞ ‪ » :‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ؟«‬
‫ﺳﻮﻑ ﳚﻴﺐ‪ » :‬ﺑﻜﻞ ﺣﺰﻡ‪ ،‬ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺮﻣﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﲑﺍﺙ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﳛﺮﻣﻪ ﻭﻳﻘﻄﻌﻪ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺳﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻗﻞ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻮﻗﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺗﺴﺎﻭﻱ ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﻣﺎ ﺳﺪﺩﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺇﻫﺎﻧﺔ ﻟﻸﺏ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺧﺰﻱ ﻭﻋﺎﺭ ﻟﻸﺳﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﺎﺣﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺪ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ‪ ...‬ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﺗﻜﻔﲑ ﻛﺎﻑ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺧﻄﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﲢﺴﺐ ﲟﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﻋﻈﻤﺔ ﺃﺑﻴﻪ‪ ...‬ﺍﱁ ﺍﱁ‪) «..‬ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻛﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﺐ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﷲ ﻳُﺼﻮﺭﻩ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﲟﺎ ﻳﺬﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﻳُﺨﺠﻞ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﺴﻌﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴًﺎ ﲢﺖ ﺳﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‪، ...‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﺘﺠﻪ ﻓﺴﺎﺩ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﺮﻳﺢ ﺇﻻ ﺑﺘﺼﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺷﺎﻛﻠﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻗﺺ!!‬
‫ﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﺑﻨﻘﺎﺋﺺ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺟﺤﻮﺩﻩ ﺇﻃﻼﻗًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺰﺍﻝ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ‬
‫ﺃﺏ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ‪:‬‬
‫‪١٦٥‬‬
‫» ﻭﺇﺫ ﻛﺎﻥ )ﺍﻹﺑﻦ( ﱂ ﻳﺰﻝ ﺑﻌﻴ ًﺪﺍ ﺭﺁﻩ ﺃﺑﻮﻩ ﻓﺘﺤﻨﻦ ﻭﺭﻛﺾ ﻭﻭﻗﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻨﻘﻪ ﻭﻗﺒﻠﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻻﺑﻦ‪ :‬ﻳﺎ ﺃﰊ ﺃﺧﻄﺄﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ ﻭﻗﺪﺍﻣﻚ ﻭﻟﺴﺖ ﻣﺴﺘﺤ ًﻘﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺩﻋﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻚ ﺇﺑﻨًﺎ‪ «...‬ﻓﺄﻭﻗﻔﻪ ﺃﺑﻮﻩ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻭﱂ ﻳﺪﻋﻪ ﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﺃﻟﻔﺎﻅ ﺍﻟﺘﺬﻟﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺑﻦ‬
‫ﻼ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻖ ﺇﻻ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻟﻮﻡ ﻭﻋﺘﺎﺏ ﻭﺣﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﻭﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ )ﲝﺴﺐ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ!(‪.‬‬ ‫ﻓﻌ ً‬
‫ﻭﱂ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺏ ﻗﺪ ﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺃﻱ ﻟﻮﻡ ﻭﻻ ﳏﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﺇﻃﻼﻗًﺎ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﻛﱪ ﺳﻨﻪ »ﲢﻨﻦ‪ ..‬ﻭﺭﻛﺾ‪ ..‬ﻭﻭﻗﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻨﻖ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ‪ ..‬ﻭﻗﺒﻠﻪ ﻗﺒﻠﺔ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻮﻕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ«‪ .‬ﻭﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﺩﺧﻞ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﻔﺎﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ!!‬
‫ﻭﻛﺄﻥ ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺣﺪﺙ ﰲ ﻛﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳋﻨﺎﺯﻳﺮ‪ ....‬ﻳﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﺠﺐ!!‬
‫ﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺑﺮﻩ ﻭﻋﺪﻟﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﻧﺘﺎﺋﺠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ﻟﻠﺰﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺿﻲ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻛﻄﺒﻴﺐ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺝ ﻟﻠﻤﺼﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺴﻌﺪﻩ ﻭﻳﻄﻤﺌﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺒﻌﺚ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﻓﻘﺪﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﻋﻘﻮﺑﺘﻪ ﻭﻣﻌﺎﻧﺎﺗﻪ ﻓﻴﻤﺤﻮﻩ ﻛﻐﻴﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻠﻘﻴﻪ ﰲ ﲝﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﻴﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﻳﺬﻛﺮﻩ ﻷﺑﺪ ﺍﻵﺑﺪﻳﻦ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ »ﻭﻟﺴﺖ ﻣﺴﺘﺤ ًﻘﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺩﻋﻲ ﻟﻚ ﺇﺑﻨًﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﻷﺏ‬
‫ﻟﻌﺒﻴﺪﻩ‪ :‬ﺃﺧﺮﺟﻮﺍ ﺍﳊﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱄ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺴﻮﻩ ﻭﺍﺟﻌﻠﻮﺍ ﺧﺎﲤًﺎ ﰲ ﻳﺪﻩ ﻭﺣﺬﺍﺀ ﰲ ﺭﺟﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﻗﺪﻣﻮﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺠﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻤﻦ ﻭﺇﺫﲝﻮﻩ ﻓﻨﺄﻛﻞ ﻭﻧﻔﺮﺡ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺇﺑﲏ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻴﺘًﺎ ﻓﻌﺎﺵ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺿﺎﻻً‬
‫ﻓﻮﺟﺪ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﺑﺘﺪﺃﻭﺍ ﻳﻔﺮﺣﻮﻥ«‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺔ ﺑﻮﻗﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﳑﺜ ًﻼ ﰲ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻷﻛﱪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﺿﺎﻻً ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺻﻐﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﰲ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺖ ﻭﱂ ﻳﻐﺎﺩﺭﻩ!!‬
‫ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻣﺪﻱ ﻭﺛﻨﻴﺘﻨﺎ ﻭﺿﻴﻖ ﺻﺪﺭﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﺸﻞ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎ ﻛﺒﺸﺮ ﰲ ﺷﻔﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺷﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﻨﻬﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺡ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺮﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻗﺺ )ﻟﻴﻼﺣﻆ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﳝﺎﻧﻊ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻹﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺡ ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺘﻔﺎﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺑﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺑﲔ ﺃﺧﻮﺓ ﺃﻧﻘﻴﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻻﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻇﻼﻡ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﻧﻮﺭ ﻭﻧﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﱪ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﺑﻜﺎﻣﻠﻬﺎ‪ :‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻘﻒ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻷﻛﱪ ﻣﻨﺎﺩﻳًﺎ ﺑﺼﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﺍﳉﺎﺣﺪ ﻟﻠﺤﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﻧﺎﱐ ﻭﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻘﻤﺔ ﺇﻥ ﺃﻣﻜﻦ!! ﻭﳌﺎ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺥ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﻤﺔ ﻭﺻﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﻮﺳﻴﻘﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺮﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻗﺺ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻋﺪﻭﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻹﺣﺘﻔﺎﻝ ﺑﺄﺧﻴﻪ‪،‬‬
‫‪١٦٦‬‬
‫ﻏﺎﺭ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﻛﱪ ﺧﻮﻓًﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺷﻌﺮ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻷﺏ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺧﻄﺄ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺮﻑ‬
‫»ﻭﱂ ﻳﻌﺪﻝ« ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﺧﻮﻳﻦ!!!‬
‫» ﻓﻐﻀﺐ ﻭﱂ ﻳﺮﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ‪ .‬ﻓﺨﺮﺝ ﺃﺑﻮﻩ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﻓﺄﺟﺎﺏ ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﻷﺑﻴﻪ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﺧﺪﻣﻚ ﺳﻨﲔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻋﺪﺩﻫﺎ ﻭﻗﻂ ﱂ ﺃﲡﺎﻭﺯ ﻭﺻﻴﺘﻚ ﻭﺟﺪﻳًﺎ ﱂ ﺗﻌﻄﲏ ﻗﻂ ﻷﻓﺮﺡ‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺃﺻﺪﻗﺎﺋﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳌﺎ ﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﺑﻨﻚ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻛﻞ ﻣﻌﻴﺸﺘﻚ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﱐ ﺫﲝﺖ ﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺠﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻤﻦ‪ .‬ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﻟﻪ‪ :‬ﻳﺎ ﺇﺑﲏ ﺃﻧﺖ ﻣﻌﻲ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺣﲔ ﻭﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﱄ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻟﻚ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﺮﺡ ﻭﻧﺴﺮ ﻷﻥ ﺃﺧﺎﻙ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻴﺘًﺎ ﻓﻌﺎﺵ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺿﺎﻻً ﻓﻮﺟﺪ«‪.‬‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﻣﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﱂ ﳛﺘﺪ ﺍﻷﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﺪ ﻭﱂ ﻳﻐﻀﺐ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺻﺎﱀ ﻭﺣﻜﻴﻢ! ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺳﺎﻋﺪ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﳊﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻟﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻸﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺧﲑﺍﺕ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﻛﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺔ ﻋﻠﻮ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ ﲟﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺎﺱ ﻓﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ‪ .‬ﺃﻛﺪ ﻟﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻬﻢ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﻴﺖ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺸﻐﻞ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﺇﻻ ﻋﻮﺩﺓ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻔﻘﻮ ًﺩﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ...‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ‬
‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﲢﺖ ﺃﻱ ﻇﺮﻭﻑ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻋﻈﻢ ﺷﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻦ ﺻﺪﻗﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﻣﻊ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪...‬‬
‫ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺤﺮﻙ ﺫﺭﺍﻉ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﻟﻴﺤﻄﻢ ﻣﺎ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﺭﺍﻉ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻱ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ ﻳﺪﻓﻊ ﺑﺎﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﲡﺎﻩ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ :‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻪ ﺑﺎﷲ ‪ -‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺻﻼﺣﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻧﻘﺺ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﻭﺧﻮﺍﺋﻪ‪.‬‬

‫• ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻣﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﱀ )ﻟﻮ ‪:(٣٠ :١٠‬‬

‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻫﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻭﻱ ﻋﺪﻻً ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ﳏﺴﻮﺑًﺎ‪ .‬ﻛﺎﻧﺎ ﻳﺴﺮﻋﺎﻥ ﻟﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻟﻺﻟﻪ ﻭﺍﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻠﺘﺨﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﺍ ﺗﺮﻛﺎ ﺍﳌﺠﺮﻭﺡ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪﻝ ﻭﲝﻖ‪ ،‬ﲝﺴﺐ ﺿﻤﲑﻳﻬﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺳﻴﲔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻣﺮﻱ ﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻋﺎﺩﻻً ﳓﻮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﻗﺪ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺻﺮﻑ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺎﻝ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﳛﻖ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﺮﻓﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺮﺗﻪ ﻭﺃﻃﻔﺎﻟﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﲢﺮﻙ ﲟﻮﺟﺐ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺻﻨﻊ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻗﺮﻳﺒًﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺮﻭﺡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﺟﻞ ﺇﺳﻌﺎﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱄ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺘﻐﲏ ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﻞ ﳏﺐ ﻟﻠﺨﲑ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻭﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﲤﺜﻞ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻣﺮﻱ » ﺍﻟﺼﺎﱀ«‪.‬‬

‫‪١٦٧‬‬
 ‫• ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻣﺴﻜﺖ ﰲ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ )ﻟﻮ ‪:(١١ -٣ :٨‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﺀﻭﺍ ‪‬ﺎ ﻟﻠﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﲢﺪﻭﺍ ﻋﺪﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﳛﻴﺎ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻓﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻗﻂ‪ ،‬ﻟﻠﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺍﳌﻮﺳﻮﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳛﻜﻢ ﺑﺮﺟﻢ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﳌﺎﺫﺍ؟!‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﺎﻣﻮﺳﻴﲔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ‪ :‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻜﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮ ﻭﳚﻌﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻪ ﻋﱪﺓ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻜﺴﺮ ﻭﻳﺘﺤﺪﻱ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻟﺌﻼ ﻳﺴﺘﻬﲔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ‪‬ﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﳉﺒﺎﺭ!! ﺃﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺷﺮﺣﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﳌﻠﻬﻤﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺃﻋﻄﻴﺘﲏ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻋﻮﻧًﺎ «‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺍﻗﺘﺮﺏ ﻣﲏ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻗﻠﺖ ﻟﻪ‪ » :‬ﺇﺫﻫﺐ ﻋﲏ‬
‫ﻳﺎ ﺷﻴﻄﺎﻥ ‪ ...‬ﺇﺫﻫﺐ ﻷﻧﻚ ﺇﳕﺎ ﺗﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﺘﻠﲏ ﻗﺘ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﺃﺑﺪﻳًﺎ‪ ...‬ﻟﺬﺍ ﻟﻦ ﺃﻃﻴﻌﻚ«‪ .‬ﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻋﻮﻧًﺎ ﻻ ﻗﺘﻼً‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻣﺮﺷﺪ ﻟﻠﺤﻖ ﻭﻣﻌﻠﻢ ﻳﺆﺩﺏ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺳﻜﻴﻨًﺎ ﰲ ﻳﺪ ﻗﺎﺽ ﻗﺎﺱ ﺍﲰﻪ ﺍﷲ!! ﻓﻬﻞ ﺗﺼﺮﻑ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺑﻌﺪﻝ؟! ﻫﻞ ﻛﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﺩﻳﻨﻚ‪ ...‬ﺇﺫﻫﱯ ﺑﺴﻼﻡ‬
‫» ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻜﻢ ﺑﻼ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﻓﻠﲑﻣﻬﺎ ﺃﻭﻻً ﲝﺠﺮ ‪ ...‬ﻭﻻ ﺃﻧﺎ ً‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﲣﻄﺌﻰ« ﻫﻞ ﻛﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﺪﻻً؟! ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻯ‪ :‬ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ‬
‫ﻋﺎﺩﻻً!! ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻰ‪ :‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻠﺨﺎﻃﻲ‪...‬‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﺻﺎﱀ ﻟﻸﺷﺮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻳﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﺠﺐ!!‬

‫• ﺍﳌﻮﻋﻈﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﺒﻞ )ﻣﺖ ‪:(٧ ،٦ ،٥‬‬

‫» ﲰﻌﺘﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﻴﻞ ﻋﲔ ﺑﻌﲔ ﻭﺳﻦ ﺑﺴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻓﺄﻗﻮﻝ ﻟﻜﻢ ﻻ ﺗﻘﺎﻭﻣﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ! ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﺭﺍﺩ ﺃﻥ ﳜﺎﺻﻤﻚ ﻭﻳﺄﺧﺬ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﻟﻄﻤﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺪﻙ ﺍﻷﳝﻦ ﻓﺤﻮﻝ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﻭﺍﺣ ًﺪﺍ ﻓﺈﺫﻫﺐ ﻣﻌﻪ ﺇﺛﻨﲔ! ﻭﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ! ﻭﻣﻦ ﺳﺨﺮﻙ ﻣﻴ ً‬ ‫ﺛﻮﺑﻚ ﻓﺄﺗﺮﻙ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺩﺍﺀ ً‬
‫ﺳﺄﻟﻚ ﻓﺄﻋﻄﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﺭﺍﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺘﺮﺽ ﻣﻨﻚ ﻓﻼ ﺗﺮﺩﻩ‪ .‬ﲰﻌﺘﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﻴﻞ ﲢﺐ ﻗﺮﻳﺒﻚ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺒﻐﺾ ﻋﺪﻭﻙ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻓﺄﻗﻮﻝ ﻟﻜﻢ ﺃﺣﺒﻮﺍ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺋﻜﻢ ﺑﺎﺭﻛﻮﺍ ﻻﻋﻴﻨﻜﻢ‪ ،‬ﺃﺣﺴﻨﻮﺍ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻣﺒﻐﻀﻴﻜﻢ‪ .‬ﻭﺻﻠﻮﺍ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺴﻴﺌﻮﻥ ﺇﻟﻴﻜﻢ ﻭﻳﻄﺮﺩﻭﻧﻜﻢ‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﺃﺑﻴﻜﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ‪ .‬ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻳﺸﺮﻕ ﴰﺴﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﺎﳊﲔ ﻭﳝﻄﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﳌﲔ!! ﻷﻧﻪ ﺇﻥ ﺃﺣﺒﺒﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﳛﺒﻮﻧﻜﻢ‪ .‬ﻓﺄﻱ ﺃﺟﺮ ﻟﻜﻢ‪ .‬ﺃﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺎﺭﻭﻥ ً‬
‫ﻳﻔﻌﻠﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻭﺇﻥ ﺳﻠﻤﺘﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺧﻮﺗﻜﻢ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻓﺄﻱ ﻓﻀﻞ ﺗﺼﻨﻌﻮﻥ‪ .‬ﺃﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺎﺭﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻳﻔﻌﻠﻮﻥ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ‪ .‬ﻓﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ ﺃﻧﺘﻢ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﲔ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺑﺎﻛﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ﻫﻮ‬ ‫ً‬
‫ﻛﺎﻣﻞ « )ﻣﺖ ‪.(٥‬‬
‫‪١٦٨‬‬
‫» ﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺘﻢ ﻭﺃﻧﺘﻢ ﺃﺷﺮﺍﺭ ﺗﻌﺮﻓﻮﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﻄﻮﺍ ﺃﻭﻻﺩﻛﻢ ﻋﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﺟﻴﺪﺓ ﻓﻜﻢ ﺑﺎﳊﺮﻱ ﺃﺑﻮﻛﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ﻳﻬﺐ ﺧﲑﺍﺕ ﻟﻠﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺴﺄﻟﻮﻧﻪ؟!« )ﻣﺖ ‪.(١١ :٧‬‬
‫ﺻﺪﻗﻮﱐ ﻟﻮ ﻭﺯﻥ ﺃﻱ ﺭﺟﻞ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺻﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻮﻋﻈﺔ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺍﺯﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﳌﺎ ﺗﱪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ!! ﻷﻧﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻄﺎﻟﺒﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﻹﺳﺎﺀﺓ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳊﺐ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﻌﺎﺩﻝ‪ ،‬ﲝﺴﺐ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ!‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ ‪ Goodness‬ﻫﻮ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲟﻘﺘﻀﺎﻩ ﻳﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ‪ :‬ﺃﻥ ﳜﻠﻖ ﻭﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﻭﳜﻠﺺ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺪﻣﺮ ﻭﻳﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﻭﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﻭﻳﻌﺎﻗﺐ‬
‫ﺑﺘﺪﺑﲑﻩ ‪ -‬ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ‪ -‬ﻭﺇﻻ ﳌﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺇﳍًﺎ!!! ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ‪ -‬ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻏﲏ ﻧﻌﻤﺘﻪ ‪ -‬ﻫﻮ » ﺇﺗﺰﺍﻥ ﺣﻘﻮﻗﻲ « ﻳﻀﻌﻒ‬
‫ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﻭﻳﺘﺼﺎﻏﺮ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﱀ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﻳﺰﻥ ﻭﻳﻜﻴﻞ ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺀ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻋﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺷﺮﺍ( ﲟﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﻣﺴﺎﻭ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﻟﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻋﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﷲ‬
‫)ﺧﲑًﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻡ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ‪‬ﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺯﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺤﻴﺤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ!‬
‫ﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﻳﻜﻴﻞ ﲟﻴﺰﺍﻥ ﺇﲰﻪ‪ :‬ﻏﲏ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻨﻘﺺ ﻭﻻ‬
‫ﻳﻬﺘﺰ ﻷﻱ ﺳﺒﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﳚﺮﺑﻪ ﺷﺮ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻭﻳﺪﻓﻌﻪ ﻟﻠﻨﻘﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﺯﺍﺩ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‬
‫ﺃﻛﻮﺍ ًﻣﺎ!!! ﺃﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻌﲏ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻭﳓﻦ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺧﻄﺎﺓ ﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ؟! ﻭﺃﻧﻪ‬
‫ﳝﻄﺮ ﺧﲑﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﻳﺸﺮﻕ ﴰﺴﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺭ؟! ﻭﺃﻧﻪ ﻭﳓﻦ ﺑﻌﺪ‬
‫ﺧﻄﺎﺓ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻳﻬﺒﻨﺎ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺠﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻬﺒﻪ ﻹﺑﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ‪ the SAME love and glory‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺗﺮﲨﺎﺕ ‪Good News Bible‬‬
‫)ﻳﻮ ‪ .(٢٣ -٢٢ :١٧‬ﻳﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﺠﺐ! ﺃﻫﺬﺍ ﻋﺪﻝ؟!!! ﺇﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﲢﺪﻱ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪...‬‬
‫ﻫﻞ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺪﻝ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ؟ ﻭﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﺻﺎﳊﲔ ﻭﻛﺎﻣﻠﲔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﺀ ﺑﺎﳊﺐ ﳓﻮ‬
‫ﺃﺧﻮﺗﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺮﻭﺭﻫﻢ؟! ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺻﻼﺣﻪ‪ :‬ﺇﻧﻪ » ﻋﻼﻗﺔ « ﺣﺐ ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ »ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻧًﺎ « ﻟﻠﺨﻄﺄ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻮﺍﺏ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻴﺪﺱ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﺘﻪ » ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ « )ﰲ ﺍﳌﺠﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺑﻊ ﺳﻨﻮﻳﺔ ﳌﻌﻬﺪ ﺳﺎﻧﺖ ﭬﻼﺩﳝﲑ ‪ (1956‬ﲢﺖ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ‬
‫» ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ « ‪:‬‬

‫‪١٦٩‬‬
‫» ﻣﺎ ﻳﺼﻔﻪ ﻭﻳﻘﺒﻠﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻼﺗﻪ ﺍﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻋﺪﻝ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﳚﺐ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻠﻂ ﺑﻴﻨﻪ ﻭﺑﲔ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻋﻠﻨﺖ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻓﺮﻳﺪﺓ ﻭﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ .‬ﻻ ﳛﻖ ﻷﻱ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﺳﺘﺒﺪﺍﻝ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺧﱪﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﺑﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺇﳝﺎﻥ ﻭﺣﺐ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﺃﻱ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮﻙ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱏ!!‬
‫ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ )ﻛﻮﺟﻮﺩ( ﻻ ﺗﻨﺒﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺑﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺮ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺻﻼﺣﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﻻ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻱ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺃﻭ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻭﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﺍﻧﲔ‪ ،‬ﳌﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﻳﺔ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﺑﺎﳌﺴﻴﺢ!!‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻳﻬﺐ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﲝﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻐﲑ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻣﺸﻴﺌﺘﻪ ﻭﺣﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﳛﺪﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺷﻰﺀ ﻭﻻ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ!!‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺇﻧﻪ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺟﺴﻴﻢ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻨﺴﺐ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ )ﻛﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻋﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﺮ(‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ‬
‫ﱂ ﻳﻨﺴﺐ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﷲ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻜﺲ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ‬
‫ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺒُ ْﻄﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ )ﺭﻭ ‪.(٢١ -٢٠ :٨‬‬
‫ﻟﻜﻲ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻱ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﳑﺎ‬
‫ﻧﻌﺮﻓﻪ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﻴ ًﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻮﺍﺏ‬
‫ﺗﺒﻌﺎ ﻟﻠﻘﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﻴﺔ «‪.‬‬
‫ً‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﻣﻌﺎﻗﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ ﺑﻞ ﺇﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﳚﺪﻩ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﷲ ‪ -‬ﺃﻱ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺮﻓﺾ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻛﺘﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺁﺧﺮﺍ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﷲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻗﺪ‬‫ﺻﺪﻗﻮﱐ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳑﻜﻨًﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳜﻠﻖ ﺍﷲ ﻣﺼﺪ ًﺭﺍ ً‬
‫ﺧﻠﻖ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻭﺃﻫﺪﺍﻩ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺣﺒﻴﺒﻪ!! ﺍﷲ ﺳﻴﺤﺐ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺓ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﺃ‪‬ﻢ ﻟﻦ ﻳﻘﺒﻠﻮﺍ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻬﻢ )ﻳﻮ ‪.(٢١ -١٩ :٣‬‬

‫• ﻣﻌﲎ ﺃﺟﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻮﺕ‪:‬‬

‫ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ‪:‬‬

‫‪١٧٠‬‬
‫» ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ ‪ :‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻗﺪ ﺟﺎﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻭﺃﺣﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺌﺎﺕ ﻳﺒﻐﺾ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﺄﰐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻟﺌﻼ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺑﺦ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ] ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺷﺮﻩ ﻫﻮ ﺳﺒﺐ ﺧﺰﻳﻪ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻻ ﻳﺄﰐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‬
‫ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﻫﻮ [ ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻓﻴﻘﺒﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺑﺎﷲ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ [ « )ﻳﻮ ‪.(٢١ -١٩ :٣‬‬‫ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻟﺔ ] ﺃﻱ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ ً‬
‫» ﺇﻥ ﱂ ﺗﺆﻣﻨﻮﺍ ﺇﱐ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻫﻮ‪ ،‬ﲤﻮﺗﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻛﻢ « )ﻳﻮ ‪.(٢٤ :٨‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺆﻣﻦ ﺑﻪ ﻻ ﻳﺪﺍﻥ ] ﻷﻧﻪ ﺇﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻣﻮﻗﻔﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻖ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﻥ [‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟـﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﺆﻣــﻦ ﻗﺪ ﺩﻳﻦ ] ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﻥ![ ﻷﻧﻪ ﱂ ﻳﺆﻣﻦ ﺑﺎﺳﻢ‬
‫ﺇﺑﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ « )ﻳﻮ ‪.(١٨ :٣‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﻴﺖ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﷲ )ﻫﺎﻡ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ(‪:‬‬
‫ﳎﺮﺏ ]ﻫﻮ[‬
‫» ﻻ ﻳﻘﻞ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺇﺫﺍ ُﺟ ﱢﺮﺏ ﺇﱐ ﺃﺟﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻏﲑ ﱠ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻭﺭ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻻ ﳚﺮﺏ ﺃﺣ ًﺪﺍ‪ ...‬ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﻤﻠﺖ ﺗﻨﺘﺞ ﻣﻮﺗًﺎ‪ .‬ﻻ ﺗﻀﻠﻮﺍ‬
‫ﻳﺎ ﺃﺧﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﺣﺒﺎﺀ« )ﻳﻊ ‪(١٦ -١٣ :١‬‬
‫ﻭﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ ﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺳﲑﻓﻀﻮﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻮﻥ ﻟﻠﺠﺒﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﺨﻮﺭ ﺃﺳﻘﻄﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻭﻏﻄﻴﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﳉﺎﻟﺲ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ « )ﺭﺅ ‪ .(١٦ :٦‬ﻓﻬﻢ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻗﺪ » ﺇﺩﺧﺮﻭﺍ ﻷﻧﻔﺴﻬﻢ ﻏﻀﺒًﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻭﺇﺳﺘﻌﻼﻥ ﺩﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ « )ﺭﻭ ‪.(٥ :٢‬‬
‫ﺗﻠﺨﻴﺼﺎ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻘﺎﺋﻖ‪ ،‬ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻫﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﲔ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺴﻠﻤﻪ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺤﺎﺯ ﻟﻠﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﻳﺬﺧﺮ ﺷﺮﻩ ﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﲔ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻳﻬﺒﻪ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺆﻣﻦ ﻭﻳﻨﺤﺎﺯ ﻟﻠﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﳊﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻻ ﻳﻨﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﳋﻮﻑ ﻭﺍﳋﺰﻱ‬
‫ﻭﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﻴﺦ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﻣﻊ ﻧﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻷﻥ ﺃﺟﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﻫﺒﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺃﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ﻳﺴﻮﻉ « )ﺭﻭ ‪(٢٣ :٦‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﻠﻤﺔ » ﺃﺟﺮﺓ « ﻻ ﺗﻌﲏ ﻏﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺩﻳﻨًﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺣﱴ ﲦﻨًﺎ ﻳﺴﺪﺩﻩ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻰ!! ﺑﻞ ﺗﺮﲨﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ‪ WAGES‬ﺃﻱ ﺭﺍﺗﺐ ﺍﳌﻮﻇﻒ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺴﻠﻤﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻌﺎﻗﺪﻩ ﻣﻊ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ‬
‫‪١٧١‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ!! ﻓﺈﻥ ﺗﻌﺎﻗﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﻠﻢ ﺃﺟﺮﺗﻪ ﻣﻮﺗًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﺗﻌﺎﻗﺪ ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ ﺇﺳﺘﻠﻢ‬
‫ﻫﺒﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ‪ -‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺃﺟﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﺒﺔ ﳎﺎﻧﻴﺔ!!! ﻓﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺪﻓﻊ ﺍﻷﺟﺮﺓ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﷲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﺫﻥ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﳜﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﳊﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﳓﻴﺎﺯ ﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﻈﻬﺮ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ‬
‫ﻛﺄ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺑﺮ ﺍﷲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻧﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ :‬ﻭﻻ ﺩﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻫﻢ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩ‪‬ﻢ ﻭﺇﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻫﻢ‪» :‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺆﻣﻦ ﺑﻪ ﻻ ﻳﺪﺍﻥ « )ﻳﻮ ‪.(١٨ :٣‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻫﻮ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﻳﺮﻓﺾ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﻳﺪﺧﺮ ﺷﺮﻩ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻭﺳﺦ ﻭﻋﺎﺭ ﳐﺠﻞ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ً‬
‫ﻳُﻨﺸﺊ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺭﻋﺐ ﻭﺇﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺑﻐﻀﺐ ﻗﺎﺗﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﳝﻮﺕ ﻣﻮﺗًﺎ ﺃﺑﺪﻳًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﺴﻠﻢ ﺃﺟﺮﺓ ﺗﻌﺎﻗﺪﻩ‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﳝﻮﺕ ﰲ ﺧﻄﻴﺌﺘﻪ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺍﻫﺐ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺻﺎﻧﻊ ﺍﳋﲑﺍﺕ ﻭﻛﻞ ﻋﻄﻴﺔ ﺻﺎﳊﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺗﻨﺘﺞ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ...‬ﻻ ﺗﻀﻠﻮﺍ ﻳﺎ ﺃﺧﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﺣﺒﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ » ﻗﺘﺎ ًﻻ ﻟﻠﻨﺎﺱ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ « )ﻳﻮ ‪ (٤٤ :٨‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ » ﻟﻪ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ « )ﻋﺐ ‪ (١٤ :٢‬ﻫﻮ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ ﻋﺪﻭ ﺍﳋﲑ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻓﻼ ﻳﻄﺎﻟﺒﻨﺎ ﲟﻮﺕ ﻛﺄﺟﺮﺓ ﻧﺪﻓﻌﻬﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻟﻪ ‪ ..‬ﺣﺎﺷﺎ ﷲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻳﻬﺒﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﺴﺘﺤﻘﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﳚﺐ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻔﺴﺮﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ‪ :‬ﺃﻥ ﺃﺟﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺗﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﲟﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ‪ -‬ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻳﻨﻮﺏ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺣﱴ ﻳﺼﻔﺢ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻰ!!‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﻭﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﺴﺎﻭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻋﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻘﻤﺔ ﻟﺬﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻳﻔﺼﻞ‬
‫ﺑﲔ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﺴﻠﻤﻪ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﺴﻠﻤﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺋﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﷲ ﰲ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ .‬ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺃﺟﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﳍﺎ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﺘﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻫﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻻ ﳚﺐ ﺍﳋﻠﻂ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ‪ -‬ﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺎ ﻋﺎﺩﻟﲔ!!‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﻔﻬﻢ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ » ﻷﻧﻚ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺗﺄﻛﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﻮﺗًﺎ ﲤﻮﺕ«‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﲢﺬﻳﺮ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺃﻻ ﻳﺸﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻢ » ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﳌﻠﺒﺲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ « )ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ( ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﲰﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺭﺑﺎﻃﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ « ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﺗﺴﻤﻪ ‪» :‬ﺍﺳﺘﺤﻘﺎﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻰ«‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﲰﺎﻩ ﺍﳌﻔﺴﺮﻭﻥ‬

‫‪١٧٢‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺳﻨﺮﻱ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﷲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳛﺬﺭ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻳﻬﺪﺩﻩ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺘﻞ!!‬
‫ﺣﺎﺷﺎ!‬
‫• ﺇﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﺑﺎﳊﺐ ﰲ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻹﻗﺘﺮﺍﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪:‬‬
‫‪The Near Death Experience‬‬

‫ﻇﻬﺮ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﰲ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻌﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺇﲰﻪ ‪ .Life After Life :‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﺮﺟﻢ ﰲ‬
‫ﺃﺳﻘﻔﻴـﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ ﻋﻨﺪﻧـﺎ ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ » ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ « ‪ ،‬ﻟﻠﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﺐ‬
‫ﺷﺨﺼﺎ ﻗﺮﺑﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ً‬ ‫‪ .Dr. Raymond Moody‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺇﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺣﻮﺍﱄ ‪١٥٠‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﻢ ﻋﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﺪﻟﻴﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺼﻨﺎﻋﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻫﻢ ﻣﺎ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﺣﺪﺙ ﳍﻢ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻘﺎﺑﻠﻮﺍ ﻣﻊ » ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭﺍﱏ« ‪،‬‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻭﺻﻔﻪ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﻢ‪ .‬ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔ ُﻋﺮﺽ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭﺍﱐ‪ ،‬ﺷﺮﻳﻂ ﺣﻴﺎ‪‬ﻢ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺷﺮﻳﻂ ﺳﻴﻨﻤﺎﺋﻲ ﻣﺴﺠﻞ ‪ -‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ!!‬
‫ﺛﻼﺛﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﻭﺑﺎﻷﻟﻮﺍﻥ ً‬
‫ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻭﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺳﻌﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺳﻼﻡ ﻭﻓﺮﺡ ﻛﺒﲑ ﻭﻫﺪﻭﺀ ﻻ ﻳﻌﱪ ﻋﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﺷﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻳﺮﺍ‪،‬‬
‫ﻼ ً‬ ‫ﻟﻌﺎﳌﻨﺎ ﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳝﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﺇﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻨﻈﺮ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺃﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻤ ً‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻳﺸﻌﺮﻭﻥ ﲝﺎﻟﺔ ﺧﻮﻑ ﻭﺧﺰﻱ ﻭﺭﻋﺐ ﺷﺪﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﺳﺒﺒﻪ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻭﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭﺍﱐ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻳﺪﻳﻨﻬﻢ ﺃﻭ ﻳﻌﺎﺗﺒﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ‪ :‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ‬
‫ﳓﻮﻫﻢ ﺷﻔﻘﺔ ﻭﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﰲ ﺗﺸﺠﻴﻌﻬﻢ ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﻬﻢ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻻ ﻳﻜﺮﺭﻭﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻣﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ!! ﻭﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻔﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﺤﻘﻮ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺧﺰﻱ‬
‫ﻭﺣﺮﺝ ﺑﺎﻟﻎ!!! ﻭﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻳﻔﻀﻠﻮﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻨﺸﻖ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻭﲣﻔﻴﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺟﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺤﺐ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻷ‪‬ﻢ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻌﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﻮﻑ ﺃﻣﺎﻣﻪ ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﳍﻢ ﺗﺪﻳﻨﻬﻢ ﰲ ﻧﻮﺭ ﺣﺒﻪ!!!‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺣﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻭﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺑﺸﺮﻯ!!!‬
‫ﺃﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﰲ )ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ‪:٣‬‬
‫‪(٢١ -١٦‬؟!‬
‫ﺃﻫﺬﺍ ﺇﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﺘﻬﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻔﻘﺪ ﺇﺗﺰﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻄﺎﻟﺐ‬

‫‪١٧٣‬‬
‫ﺑﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﻭﺃﺟﺮﺓ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺗﻌﻮﻳﻀﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﺣﻘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻳﻐﻔﺮ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ »ﺑﺜﻤﻦ«؟!!‬
‫ﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﻲ ﻳﺎ ﺃﺧﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ » ﺻﻼﺣﻪ ﻟﻸﺷﺮﺍﺭ « ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﺩﺩ ﻣﺎﺭ ﺇﺳﺤﻖ؟! ﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﻲ ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﻮﺟﻬﻪ ﺇﱃ ﳏﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﺼﻒ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ ﺑﺄ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﲤﻮﺕ ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻣﻬﺎﻧﺔ ﻭﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺪﻱ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺣﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﳏﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ؟!‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻏﲑﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﻏﻀﺐ ﻣﻮﺟﻪ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻋﻄﺸﺎ! )ﺭﻭ ‪.(١٨ :١‬‬‫ﻭﺍﻹﰒ ﻷ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﳜﻔﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻤﻮﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ً‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﻐﻀﺐ » ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ « ﺑﻞ ﻳﻐﻀﺐ » ﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻠﻨﺎ « ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﺍ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻟﻴﺼﻨﻊ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ‬
‫ﻭﺇﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎ ﰲ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻳﺪﻓﻌﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﻋﻼﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﻌﺒﲑ » ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ « ﻳﺼﻒ ﺗﻐﲑًﺍ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻐﲑﻧﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻟﻠﺘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺗﻐﲑًﺍ ﰲ ﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮ ﺍﷲ ﻭ » ﺣﺎﻟﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻴﺔ « ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻝ ﻣﺎﺭ ﺇﺳﺤﻖ )ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ (‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﻧﻘﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﺮﺍﻫﺎ ﰲ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﻣﻮﺗﻨﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ » ﱄ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻤﺔ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﺟﺎﺯﻱ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ « )ﺭﻭ ‪.(١٩ :١٢‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻷﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﻠّﻤﻨﺎ ﺇﻳﺎﻩ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺇﻗﺘﺒﺎﺳﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﳊﺐ ﺍﳌﺨﺠﻞ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻳﻜﺴﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻭ ﻭﳛﻮﻟﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺻﺪﻳﻖ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻷﻧﻪ ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺏ ﱄ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻤﺔ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﺟﺎﺯﻱ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ‪ :‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺟﺎﻉ ﻋﺪﻭﻙ ﻓﺄﻃﻌﻤﻪ!‬
‫ﻧﺎﺭﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻭﺇﻥ ﻋﻄﺶ ﻓﺈﺳﻘﻪ! ﻷﻧﻚ ﺇﻥ ﻓﻌﻠﺖ ﻫﺬﺍ ) ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺬﻝ ( ﲡﻤﻊ ً‬
‫ﺭﺃﺳﻪ‪ .‬ﻻ ﻳﻐﻠﺒﻨﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﻞ ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﺎﳋﲑ « )ﺭﻭ ‪.(١٩ :١٢‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﻹﺻﻼﺡ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﺝ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺒﺘﺮ ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻣﺎﻥ ‪ -‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻭ!!! ﻓﻜﻢ ﻭﻛﻢ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﲔ؟! ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﺃﺧﻄﺄﻭﺍ!! ﻭﻳﺒﺪﻭ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﻭﻥ ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﲨﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻫﺬﺍ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﻛﻌﺬﺍﺏ ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ً‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﺑﻞ ﻳﻔﻴﺾ ﺷﻔﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻠﺘﻬﺒﻮﻥ ﺑﻌﺬﺍﺏ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ!! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺣﱴ ﻭﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻛﺘﺐ ﻫﺬﺍ‬

‫‪١٧٤‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻻ ﳛﺘﻤﻠﲏ ﺍﻟﻀﻤﲑ ﻓﻴﻮﲞﲎ‪ :‬ﺍﷲ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺸﻤﺖ ﰲ » ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺀﻩ « ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳋﻄﺎﺓ‬
‫ﻣﺬﺑﻮﺣﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻮ ًﻣﺎ ﻫﻢ ﺃﺣﺒﺎﺅﻩ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻭﻟﻮ ﺭﻓﻀﻮﻩ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ!!! ﻟﺬﺍ ﺭﺁﻩ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺋﻲ ﲪ ً‬
‫ﻼ‬
‫ﻭﺳﻂ ﻋﺮﺵ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺬﺑﻮﺡ ﲝﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﻘﺎﺑﻠﻪ ﺣﺐ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﻟـﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﲨﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻫﺬﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﺃُﺧﺠﻞ ﺃﺧﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺎﺩﻳﲏ ﺣﱴ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﺇ ﱠ‬
‫ﱄ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﺭﲝﻪ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ .‬ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﻛﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﲤﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻴﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺭﲝﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﻭﺃﺧﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﺤﻮﻝ‬
‫ﲨﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺧﺠﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺐ ﺩﺍﻓﺊ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻤﺔ ﺑﺘﺤﻮﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺧﲑ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ‪ :‬ﲢﻮﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺧﻼﺹ!‬
‫ﻼ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ!!‬‫ﺇﻥ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﺍﷲ ﲟﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﺑﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺗﺪﺑﲑﻩ‪ ،‬ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻘﺎﺑ ً‬
‫ﺣﺎﺷﺎ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺇﻥ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﺎﳋﲑ ﻭﺇﻫﺪﺍﺀ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﺬﺍ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺇﳍًﺎ ‪ ...‬ﺬﺍ ﺃﺷﺘﺎﻕ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ‬
‫ﺇﳍًﺎ ﱄ ﻭﺃﺣﺒﻪ ﻭﺃﻋﺒﺪﻩ ﻟﻠﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﺐ ‪ :‬ﻳﻐﻀﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺮﺽ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺾ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﳌﺮﻳﻀﻪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺮﺽ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﺰﺭﻉ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﺤﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﷲ ﻋﺎﺩﻝ ﻷﻥ ﻋﺪﻟﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺣﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺾ ﺇﻥ‬
‫ﺃﻭﺷﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﺐ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﺘﱪﻉ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻡ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﻹﺳﻌﺎﻑ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺾ!! ﻫﺬﺍ ّﺑﺮ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺻﻼﺣﻪ ﺍﳌﺤﻴﻲ‪.‬‬

‫•••‬

‫‪١٧٥‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‬

‫ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﳌﻦ ﻳﻘﺮﺃ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻭﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺳﺔ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﲤﻴﻴﺰ ﻭﺗﻌﻤﻖ‪ ،‬ﻳﺒﺪﻭ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ » ﻏﻀﻮﺏ «! ﻭﻗﺪ ﻻﺣﻆ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺃﻭﺭﳚﺎﻧﺲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ » ﻏﻀﺐ « ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺔ » ﻏﺎﺿﺐ « ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﺳﻢ » ﻏﻀﻮﺏ «‪ .‬ﻭﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺍﻹﺳﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﻋﻤﻮ ًﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻪ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﻫﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻻ‬
‫ﳛﻤﻞ ﰲ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻩ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺔ! ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﻴﻄﺮ ﻭﺗﺪﻣﺮ ﻭﺗﺒﻴﺪ ﻭﺗﻨﻄﻠﻖ ﰲ‬
‫ﻗﻮﺓ ﻣﺪﻣﺮﺓ ﺗﺪﻓﻌﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﻋﺮ ﻭﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﻘﺎﻡ ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﺆﺫﻱ ﻭﲤﻴﺖ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﺴﺘﺮﻳﺢ ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻗﺪ ﺣﻘﻖ » ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻔﻲ «‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻨﺎﻗﺶ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ » ﻛﻌﻤﻞ ﺇﳍﻲ « ﲜﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻠﻘﻲ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﻓﺎﺣﺼﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺪﺓ ﺃﻣﻮﺭ ﻫﺎﻣﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﻭ ًﻻ ‪ :‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﲡﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﺒﻞ ﳌﻮﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ »ﻓﱰﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﺤﺎﺏ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﻧﺎﺩﻱ ﺑﺎﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ ...‬ﻭﻧﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺇﻟﻪ ﺭﺣﻴﻢ ﻭﺭﺅﻭﻑ ﺑﻄﺊ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻭﻛﺜﲑ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻓﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﺣﺎﻓﻆ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻟﻮﻑ‪) «...‬ﺧﺮ ‪.(٦ :٣٤‬‬
‫ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﺍﳊﻜﻴﻢ » ﺍﻟﺒﻄﺊ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺧﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﺒﺎﺭ ﻭﻣﺎﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺣﻪ ﺧﲑ ﳑﻦ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ « )ﺃﻡ ‪.(٣٢ :١٦‬‬

‫‪١٧٦‬‬
‫ﻓﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ ﻛﻠﻪ؟!‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺣﺒﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ » ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺃﺫﻛﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ « )‪ .(٢ :٣‬ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺰﻣﻮﺭ » ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻣﱵ ﻳﺎ ﺭﺏ ﺗﻐﻀﺐ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻭﺗﺘﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻏﲑﺗﻚ ‪ ...‬ﻻ ﺗﺬﻛﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺫﻧﻮﺏ‬
‫ﺳﺮﻳﻌﺎ ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺬﻟﻠﻨﺎ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ‪ .‬ﺃﻋﻨﺎ ﻳﺎ ﺇﻟﻪ ﺧﻼﺻﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻭﻟﲔ‪ ،‬ﻟﺘﺘﻘﺪﻣﻨﺎ ﻣﺮﺍﲪﻚ ً‬
‫ﺇﲰﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻭﺱ « )ﻣﺰ ‪ .(٩ - ٥ :٧٩‬ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﺟﺎﺀﺕ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺔ ﰲ ﺧﻼﺹ ﻭﺭﲪﺔ‬
‫ﺍﷲ؟ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﺘﺠﺎﺳﺮ ﺁﺳﺎﻑ ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﷲ » ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺭﻓﻀﺘﻨﺎ ﻳﺎ ﺍﷲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺑﺪ‪ ،‬ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﻳﺪﺧﻦ‬
‫ﻏﻀﺒﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﲣﻢ ﻣﺮﻋﺎﻙ«‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻌﺎﺗﺐ ﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﻣﺬﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﰲ ﻋﺰﺓ ﻭﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ » ﻗُﻢ‬
‫ﻳﺎ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻗﻢ ﺩﻋﻮﺍﻙ‪ .‬ﺃﺫﻛﺮ ﺗﻌﻴﲑ ﺍﳉﺎﻫﻞ‪ ...‬ﻻ ﺗﻨﺲ ﺻﻮﺕ ﺃﺿﺪﺍﺩﻙ « ) ﻣﺰ ‪:٧٤‬‬
‫‪.(٢٣ -٢٢ ،١‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺼﺔ ﻳﻮﻧﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻌﺘﺮﻑ ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﷲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻫﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﺯﺓ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ »ﺁﻩ ﻳﺎ ﺭﺏ ﺃﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻼﻣﻲ ﺇﺫ ﻛﻨﺖ ﺑﻌﺪ ﰲ ﺃﺭﺿﻲ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺑﺎﺩﺭﺕ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﳍﺮﺏ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺮﺷﻴﺶ‪ ،‬ﻷﱐ ﻋﻠﻤﺖ ﺃﻧﻚ ﺇﻟﻪ ﺭﺅﻭﻑ ﻭﺭﺣﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻄﺊ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺜﲑ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ ﻭﻧﺎﺩﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ « )ﻳﻮﻧﺎﻥ ‪.(٢ -١ :٤‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻮﻧﺎﻥ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺑﻄﺊ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻭﺇﻧﻪ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﺣﻔﻆ ﻟﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﳔﺼﺺ ﳍﺎ ﻓﻘﺮﺓ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪ » :‬ﻭﻧﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮ «!!! ﻭﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺼﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺷﻌﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻨﺪﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭ » ﻳﺘﺮﺍﺟﻊ « ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺗﺬﻟﻞ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﻭﺗﻮﺑﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﺮﻓﻊ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﻛﺎﺭﺛﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺳﺘﺤﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﻛﺎﺭﺛﺔ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺳﻔﺮ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﺭﺛﺔ ﻫﻼﻙ ﲡﻠﺒﻬﺎ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮﺓ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻻ ﲡﻠﺒﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻴﻜﻢ ﺍﳍﻼﻙ ﺑﺄﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺃﻳﺪﻳﻜﻢ‪ .‬ﺇﺫ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻻ‬
‫ﻫﻼﻙ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﺀ ﻳﺴﺮﻩ ‪ ...‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﱪ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻓﻘﲔ ﻫﻢ ﺇﺳﺘﺪﻋﻮﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺑﺄﻳﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﻭﺃﻗﻮﺍﳍﻢ‪ .‬ﻇﻨﻮﻩ ﺣﻠﻴ ًﻔﺎ )ﺣﺒﻴﺒًﺎ( ﳍﻢ ﻓﺈﺿﻤﺤﻠﻮﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﻋﺎﻫﺪﻭﻩ ﻷ‪‬ﻢ‬
‫ﺃﻫﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺰﺑﻪ « )ﺣﻜﻤﺔ ‪.(١٦ -١٢ :١‬‬
‫» ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺧﺎﻟ ًﺪﺍ )ﻋﻠﻰ ﻏﲑ ﻓﺴﺎﺩ(‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﲝﺴﺪ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ ﺩﺧﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ « )ﺣﻜﻤﺔ ‪.(٢٤ -٢٣ :٢ :‬‬

‫‪١٧٧‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻹﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ » ﻷﻥ ﺑﻌﻠﻚ ﻫﻮ ﺻﺎﻧﻌﻚ‪ ،‬ﺭﺏ ﺍﳉﻨﻮﺩ ﺇﲰﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻭﻟﻴﻚ ﻗﺪﻭﺱ‬
‫ﺇﺳﺮﺍﺋﻴﻞ ‪ ...‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻛﺈﻣﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻣﻬﺠﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﳏﺰﻭﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺩﻋﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺰﻭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺒﺎ‬
‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﺭﺫﻟﺖ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺇﳍﻚ‪ .‬ﳊﻴﻈﺔ ﺗﺮﻛﺘﻚ ﻭﲟﺮﺍﺣﻢ ﻋﻈﻴﻤﺔ ﺳﺄﲨﻌﻚ‪ .‬ﺑﻔﻴﻀﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ‬
‫ﺣﺠﺒﺖ ﻭﺟﻬﻲ ﻋﻨﻚ ﳊﻈﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺈﺣﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﺑﺪﻱ ﺃﺭﲪﻚ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻭﻟﻴﻚ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ‪ ...‬ﻓﺈﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺒﺎﻝ ﺗﺰﻭﻝ ﻭﺍﻵﻛﺎﻡ ﺗﺘﺰﻋﺰﻉ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺇﺣﺴﺎﱐ ﻓﻼ ﻳﺰﻭﻝ ﻋﻨﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻬﺪ ﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺰﻋﺰﻉ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﻝ ﺭﺍﲪﻚ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ « ) ﺇﺵ ‪.(١٠ -٥ :٥٤‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﳛﻔﻆ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺇﺭﻣﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﱯ ﻣﻌﺎﺗﺒًﺎ ﺍﳌﺮﺗﺪﻳﻦ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻫﻞ ﳛﻘﺪ )ﺍﻟﺮﺏ( ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺪﻫﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﳛﻔﻆ ﻏﻀﺒﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺑﺪ « )‪.(٥ :٣‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻭﺻﻒ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ » ﺣﺎﻓﻆ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ «‪ » ،‬ﺣﺎﻓﻆ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﻥ «‪ » ،‬ﺣﺎﻓﻆ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻣﺎﻧﺔ « ‪ » ،‬ﺣﺎﻓﻆ ﻧﻔﻮﺱ ﻋﺒﻴﺪﻩ « ‪ ...‬ﺍﱁ ) ﺧﺮ ‪ ،٧ :٣٤‬ﺗﺚ ‪ ،٩ :٧‬ﻣﺰ ‪:٣١‬‬
‫‪ (٢٣‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﱂ ﻳﻮﺻﻒ ﻣﻄﻠ ًﻘﺎ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ » ﺣﺎﻓﻆ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ « !! ﻷﻧﻪ ﻟﻮ ﺣﻔﻆ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﻀﺎﻋﺖ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﺘﺮﱎ ﻣﻴﺨﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ » ﻣﻦ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻟﻪ ﻣﺜﻠﻚ ﻏﺎﻓﺮ ﺍﻹﰒ ﻭﺻﺎﻓﺢ‬
‫ﺴﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﺃﻓﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﻳﺮﲪﻨﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻧﺐ ﻟﺒﻘﻴﺔ ﻣﲑﺍﺛﻪ‪ .‬ﻻ ﳛﻔﻆ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺑﺪ ﻏﻀﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻳُ ﱡ‬
‫ﻳﺪﻭﺱ ﺁﺛﺎﻣﻨﺎ ﻭﺗﻄﺮﺡ ﰲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻫﻢ « )ﻣﻴﺨﺎ ‪.(١٩ -١٨ :٧‬‬

‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ‪ :‬ﻭ » ﻧﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ «‬

‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﻋﻤﻖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺰﺍﺯ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺘﻘﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺄﺭ ﺗﺴﺘﻮﱄ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻭﲡﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﻨﺪﻡ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻓﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﻭﺍﻥ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻻ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ ﲢﺪﻱ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ!! ﺇﻧﻪ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ ﳛﺬﺭ ﻭﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﺸﺨﺺ‬
‫ﻣﺜﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺑﺎﳉﺮﺍﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺮﺏ ‪ » :‬ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺇﺻﻔﺢ‪ .‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﺻﻐﲑ )ﻋﺎﺟﺰ( ﻓﻨﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ‪ .‬ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ «‪ .‬ﰒ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﻮﻑ ﲢﺎﻛﻢ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺒﻴﺪ ﻛﻞ ﺷﺊ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺘﺠﺎﺳﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻟﻠﺮﺏ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺽ ‪ » :‬ﺃﻳﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ُﻛ ْﻒ!! ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ؟! ﻓﻨﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ!« )ﻋﺎﻣﻮﺱ ‪.(٦ -١ :٧‬‬

‫‪١٧٨‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﻒ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻮﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺭﻣﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻏﲑﻫﻢ ‪ ...‬ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﻥ ﺃﻥ » ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳍﻲ « ﻟﻴﺲ ﺻﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﷲ ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧﻪ » ﻋﻤﻞ « ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﳌﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ‪ » ،‬ﻳﺴﺤﺐ ﺭﻋﺎﻳﺘﻪ ﻭﻳﻬﻤﻞ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺣﱴ ﺗﺘﻮﺏ « ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻗﻞ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳُﺸﻌﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﻴﻘﻆ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺮﻙ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻴﻨﺒﻮﻉ ﺍﳊﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻋﻄﺸﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﻴ ًﺪﺍ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻌﻲ ﳊﻔﺮ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﺸﻘﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﺗﻀﺒﻂ ﻣﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳍﻼﻙ ً‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ!! ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﱪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻢ ﻭﺍﻹﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﱪﻱ ﺑﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ‬
‫» ﳛﺠﺐ ﻭﺟﻬﻪ«‪ ،‬ﻭﳓﻦ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ » ﺑﻪ ﳓﻴﺎ ﻭﻧﺘﺤﺮﻙ ﻭﻧﻮﺟﺪ « ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﻟﻮ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺣ ًﻘﺎ » ﳛﺠﺐ ﻭﺟﻬﻪ « ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﷲ ﻛﺎﻟﺸﻤﺲ ﻳﻨﲑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺍﻡ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻫﻮ ﲟﺜﺎﺑﺔ ﻏﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﲔ ﻭﺇﻏﻤﺎﺿﻬﺎ ﳑﺎ ﳛﺮﻡ ﺫﺍﻙ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻐﻤﺾ ﻋﻴﻨﻪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ! ﻓﻌﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﺭﻣﻴﺎ » ﻓﺘﺮﺟﻊ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻷﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻜﻠﻤﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻫﺎ ﻓﺄﻧﺪﻡ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺼﺪﺕ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺻﻨﻌﻪ ‪‬ﺎ « )ﺇﺭ ‪ ،(٨ :١٨‬ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺃﺑﻌﺪ ﻭﺃﻋﻤﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻄﺤﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﻭﻓﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻣﺎﺭ ﺇﺳﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﱐ )ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﷲ ﰲ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻬﻴﺪ (‪ .‬ﻣﺎ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺍﷲ ﺷﺮﺣﻪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻗﻠﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻴﻖ ﺍﳌﺤﺐ ﻭﺍﳌﻤﻠﻮﺀ‬
‫ﺭﲪﺔ ﻭﺣﻨﺎﻧًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺮﻙ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺷﺮﻩ ﺍﳊﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﲢﺬﻳﺮ ﻭﺇﻧﺬﺍﺭ ﻭﺗﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ » ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺪﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﻭﺗﺄﺩﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﻟﺌﻼ ﻳُﻔﲏ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ً‬
‫ﺷﻌﺒﻪ )ﺃﻱ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﳍﻢ ﺧﻄﻴﺌﺘﻬﻢ ( ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺒﻴﺪﻩ ﻳﺸﻔﻖ « )ﻣﺰ ‪ ،(١٤ :١٣٥‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻧﻪ‬
‫ﻳُﺪﻳﻦ ﻟﻴﺸﻔﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳُﻌﻠﻦ ﻟﲑﺣﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳُﻨﺬﺭ ﻟﻴُﻌﻠﱢﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺪﻳﻨﻮﻥ ﻟﻠﺘﺸﻔﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺪﻣﲑ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻬﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﻄﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻴﻒ!!!‬
‫ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ )ﻟﻺﺻﻼﺡ( ﻳﺴﺘﺤﻘﻬﺎ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻧﻴﻨﻮﻱ ﻭﺍﳌﺮﺗﺪﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳊﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺑﲏ ﺇﺳﺮﺍﺋﻴﻞ‪) ،‬ﻓﻜﻞ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﻳﺴﺘﺤﻘﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ( ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﻳﻨﺪﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ‪،‬‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﱰﻝ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻴﻊ ﻭﻳﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﺮﺣﻢ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺸﻔﻖ‬
‫‪ ...‬ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺇﻥ ﺍﺳﺘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﻭﻳﺘﻌﻠﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺬﺍﺭ ﻭ » ﻟﻔﺖ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ « ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻟﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ‪ ،‬ﻓﺤﱴ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ )ﻟﻺﺻﻼﺡ( ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳍﺎ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻗﺪ ﺣﻘﻖ‬
‫ﺍﳍﺪﻑ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺇﻳﻘﺎﻅ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺇﺻﻼﺣﻪ ﺑﻼ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ! ﻓﺎﷲ ﻟﺬﺗﻪ ﰲ ﺑﲏ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﰲ » ﺣﻴﺎ‪‬ﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻓﻀﻞ « )ﻳﻮ ‪ (١٠ :١٠‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﺃﻱ ﻟﺬﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﻘﺎﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺋﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﺗﻮﻏﻠﻮﺍ ﰲ‬

‫‪١٧٩‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﺍ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻗﺪﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺑﺎ ﺷﻨﻮ َﺩﻩ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﳐﺎﻃﺒًﺎ ﺍﷲ ‪ » :‬ﻳﺎ ﻗﻮﻳًﺎ ً‬
‫ﳑﺴﻜﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻮﻁ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳊﺐ ﻳﺪﻣﻲ ﻣﺪﻣﻌﻚ «!!‬

‫ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺿﺪ ﺷﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ‪:‬‬

‫ﺍﷲ ﻳﻜﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻜﺮﻩ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺀﻩ!! ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﳛﺘﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻣﻬﻠﻜﺔ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻷﻧﻪ ﺇﻫﺎﻧﺔ ﷲ ﺗﺆﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺨﺼﻪ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﺘﺤﺮﻙ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﺿﺪ ﺗﻌﺎﻇﻢ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻭ ًﻻ ‪ :‬ﺳﻘﻮﻁ ﺁﺩﻡ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ » ﻣﻠﻌﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺑﺴﺒﺒﻚ « ﱂ ﲤﻨﻊ ﻣﺎ ﻗﻴﻞ ﻋﻦ ﺑﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻗﺒﻠﻬﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ!!! ﻛﻤﺎ ﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﺍﷲ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﻭﺇﺳﺤﻖ ﻭﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﳌﺰﻣﻮﺭ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ‪ » :‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﻣﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺑﺎﻟﱪﻛﺔ « ) ﻣﺰ ‪» ،(٣ :١٣٣‬ﻟﻄﻌﺎﻣﻬﺎ ﺃﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﺑﺮﻛﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺴﺎﻛﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﺷﺒﻊ ﺧﺒ ًﺰﺍ « )ﻣﺰ‬
‫‪ .(١٥ :١٣٢‬ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻣﻼﺧﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ ﺑﺼﻮﺕ ﺍﷲ ‪ » :‬ﻫﺎﺗﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻮﺭ ﻭﺟﺮﺑﻮﱐ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺖ‬
‫ﻮﺳﻊ « )ﻣﻞ ‪.(١٠ :٣‬‬ ‫ﻻ ﺃﻓﺘﺢ ﻟﻜﻢ ﻛﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻓﻴﺾ ﻋﻠﻴﻜﻢ ﺑﺮﻛﺔ ﺣﱴ ﻻ ﺗُ َ‬

‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻓﺎﻥ ‪:‬‬

‫ﻭﺣﱴ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺣﺪﺛﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺭﺛﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺷﺮﺣﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﺗﺸﻔﻴًﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ﺑﺘﺄﺳﻒ ﰲ ﻗﻠﺒﻪ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺷﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﺄﺭﺍﺩ ﺃﻥ ﳝﺤﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻬﻠﺔ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺘﻮﺏ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ‬
‫» ﻓﺘﺄﺳﻒ ﰲ ﻗﻠﺒﻪ ‪ ...‬ﻷﱐ ﺣﺰﻧﺖ ﺃﱐ ﻋﻤﻠﺘﻬﻢ « )ﺗﻚ ‪ .(٧ -٦ :٦‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻓﺮﺻﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﻚ ﻓﺮﺻﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻮﺑﺔ! ﻓﻤﻦ ﻳﺪﺭﻯ‪ :‬ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺎﺑﻮﺍ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻧﻴﻨﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺃﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ‬
‫ﳑﻜﻨًﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﻤﻌﻮﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻳﻮﻧﺎﻥ ﻷﻫﻞ ﻧﻴﻨﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ » ﻗﺪ ﻧﺪﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ «‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻣﺮﺍ ﻳﺴﺘﺪﻋﻲ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺒﺎﻩ ﲞﺼﻮﺹ‬ ‫ﲢﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺭﺛﺔ؟؟! ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﻄﺮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ً‬
‫ﺿﺤﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻓﺎﻥ ‪ » :‬ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺫﻫﺐ )ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ( ﻓﻜﺮﺯ ﻟﻸﺭﻭﺍﺡ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﺠﻦ )ﺃﻱ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ(‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻋﺼﺖ ﻗﺪﳝًﺎ ﺣﲔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﻧﺎﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺗﻨﺘﻈﺮ ﻣﺮﺓ ﰲ ﺃﻳﺎﻡ‬
‫ﻧﻮﺡ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﻚ ﻳﺒﲏ « )‪١‬ﺑﻂ ‪ .(٢٠ -١٩ :٣‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﺯﺓ ﻫﻲ »ﺩﻋﻮﺓ« ﳝﻜﻦ‬
‫ﻗﺒﻮﳍﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺭﻓﻀﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺪﻡ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﻋﻮﺓ ﻟﺘﻠﻚ‬

‫‪١٨٠‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﻭﺍﺡ » ﺍﻟﱵ ﻋﺼﺖ ﻗﺪﳝًﺎ «‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ » ﻧﺰﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻗِﺒَﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ «‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻧﺼﻠﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ!!! ﻓﻤﻮﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﲏ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻛﺮﺍﺯﺓ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ!!‬
‫ﺛﺎﻟﺜًﺎ ‪ :‬ﺳـﺪﻭﻡ ﻭﻋـﺎﻣﻮﺭﺓ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺗﺮﻙ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺳﺪﻭﻡ ﻭﻋﺎﻣﻮﺭﺓ ﻟﻘﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﱂ ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺇﻻ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻋﻄﺎﻫﻢ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺻﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺸﺮﺣﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺩﺍﺭ ﻣﻊ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺃﻋﻠﻦ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﺴﺘﻌﺪ‬
‫ﻷﻥ ﻳﺼﻔﺢ ﻋﻨﻬﻢ ﻟﻮ ﻭﺟﺪ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﺃﺑﺮﺍ ٍﺭ ﰲ ﺳﺪﻭﻡ ﻭﻋﺎﻣﻮﺭﺓ )ﺗﻚ ‪ .(٣٢ :١٨‬ﻭﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳍﺎﻡ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺬﻛﺮ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻓﺎﻥ ﻭﺣﺎﺩﺛﺔ ﺳﺪﻭﻡ ﻭﻋﺎﻣﻮﺭﺓ ﱂ ﻳﺘﻜﺮﺭﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺑﻌﻬﺪﻳﻪ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ‪:‬‬

‫ﻧﺎﺩﺭﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺘﺤﺮﻙ ﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﳓﻦ ﻧﻐﻀﺐ ﻷﻗﻞ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﻭﻷﻋﻈﻤﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ً‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﲢﻜﻤﻪ ﻣﺮﻛﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺺ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﻣﺮﺍﺽ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻀﻌﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﺍﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﺴﻴﻄﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ )ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ( ﺍﳋﻮﻑ ﻭﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺄﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺘﻘﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻀﻐﻴﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﺻﻮﺭ ﺁﳍﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻨﻴﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻷﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﺘﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻤﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺸﺮﻳﺪ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﺭﺿﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺩﺍﻭﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ ‪‬ﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻭﻕ‬
‫ﺑﲔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺁﳍﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﻢ‪ ،‬ﻳﺼﺮﺥ ﻗﺎﺋﻼً‪ » :‬ﻳﺎﺭﺏ ﻻ ﺗﻮﲞﲏ ﺑﻐﻀﺒﻚ‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﺗﺆﺩﺑﲏ ﺑﻐﻴﻈﻚ ‪ ...‬ﺧﻠﺼﲏ ﻳﺎ ﺭﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺭﲪﺘﻚ ﻷﻥ ﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺫﻛﺮﻙ«‬
‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻣﺘﺄﻛ ًﺪﺍ ﻣﻦ ﲰﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻟﺼﺮﺍﺧﻪ ‪ » :‬ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‬
‫)ﻣﺰ ‪ .(٥ -١ :٦‬ﻭﺩﺍﻭﻭﺩ ﻛﺎﻥ ً‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ » ﻷﻥ‬‫ﻗﺪ ﲰﻊ ﺻﻮﺕ ﺑﻜﺎﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﲰﻊ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺗﻀﺮﻋﻲ « )ﻣﺰ ‪ .(٨ :٦‬ﻭﻳﻜﻤﻞ ً‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﻏﻀﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﰲ ﺭﺿﺎﻩ « )ﻣﺰ ‪ ٥ :٣٠‬ﺍﱁ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﳌﺰﻣﻮﺭ ﻳﺮﻗﺺ ﺩﺍﻭﺩ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﻜﺎﺀ » ﺣﻮﻟﺖ ﻧﻮﺣﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺭﻗﺺ‪ .‬ﺣﻠﻠﺖ ﻣﺴﺤﻲ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺣﺎ« )ﻣﺰ ‪ .(١١ :٣٠‬ﻭﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﺩﺍﻭﻭﺩ » ﺛﻘﻞ ﻳﺪ ﺍﷲ « )ﻣﺰ ‪(٤ :٣٢‬‬‫ﻭﻣﻨﻄﻘﺘﲏ ً‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺩﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻻ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺭﺃﻓﺔ »‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ً‬
‫ﺃﻧﺖ ﺭﻓﻌﺖ ﺧﻄﻴﱵ « )‪.(٥ :٣٢‬‬
‫ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮ )ﻣﺰ ‪ (٢١ :٣٤‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﳌﻨﺤﲏ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﷲ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻨﺪﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ!! ﻭﰲ ﻋﻤﻖ ﻣﺄﺳﺎﺓ ﺇﺭﻣﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ ﻭﻗﺒﻞ ﺧﺮﺍﺏ ﺃﻭﺭﺷﻠﻴﻢ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬

‫‪١٨١‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﱯ » ﺍﻵﻥ ﺇﺻﻠﺤﻮﺍ ﻃﺮﻗﻜﻢ ﻭﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻜﻢ ﻭﺇﲰﻌﻮﺍ ﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﻨﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺮ ﺑﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ »ﺍﻟﻨﺪﻡ«‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻜﻠﻢ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻜﻢ « )ﺇﺭﻣﻴﺎ ‪ .(١٣ :٢٦‬ﻭﻗﺪ ّ‬
‫ﻭ » ﺍﻷﺳﻒ « ﻭ » ﺍﳊﺰﻥ « ﻛﺘﻌﺒﲑﺍﺕ ﻣﺴﺘﻌﺎﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻟﻴﺸﺮﺡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﷲ ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ) ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺇﻧﻔﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ( ﻭﻳﺸﻌﺮ‬
‫ﻛﺄﺏ ﺣﻨﻮﻥ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺣﱴ ﻭﻟﻮ ﺃﻋﻠﻦ ﳏﺒﺘﻪ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺎﺏ ﻟﻠﺘﺄﺩﻳﺐ ﻭﺇﺭﺟﺎﻉ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻌﺎﱐ ﻣﻊ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺋﻪ ﰲ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺘﻬﻢ ﻭﻳﺘﻤﲏ ﻟﻮ ﺗﻐﲑﻭﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺫﻫﺎ‪‬ﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ‬
‫‪ Metanoia‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺄﺩﻳﺐ ﺍﳍﺎﺩﺉ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺣ ًﻘﺎ ﺇﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺑﻄﺊ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺣﺒﻘﻮﻕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﱯ )‪.(٢ :٣‬‬
‫ﻓﺴ ﱠﺮ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﺴﺤﻘﻪ ﺑﺎﳊﺰﻥ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺟﻌﻞ‬
‫ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻗﻴﻞ ﻋﻦ ﺭﺑﻨﺎ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ » ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ُ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺇﰒ « )ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ‪ ،(١٠ :٥٣‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﳊﺰﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﻟﻠﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ )ﺍﻵﺏ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ( ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﷲ ﲡﻌﻞ ﺃﻱ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻻ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺃﻗﻨﻮﻡ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻨﻔﺼﻞ ﻭﻣﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻷﻗﻨﻮﻣﲔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻗﺪ ﺣﺰﻥ ﳋﻠﻖ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺭﺃﻱ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺗﺎﺋ ًﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ )ﺗﻚ‬
‫‪ ،(٦ :٦‬ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻫﻮ » ﺭﺟﻞ ﺃﻭﺟﺎﻉ ﻭﳐﺘﱪ ﺍﳊﺰﻥ « )ﺇﺵ ‪ ،(٣:٥٣‬ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ » ﻭﺃﺣﺰﻧﻮﺍ‬
‫» ﲪﻞ ﺃﺣﺰﺍﻧﻨﺎ « )ﺇﺵ ‪ ،(٤ :٥٣‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻗﻴﻞ ً‬
‫ﺭﻭﺣﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻭﺱ « )ﺇﺵ ‪ .(١٠ :٦٣‬ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ » ﻻ ﲢﺰﻧﻮﺍ ﺭﻭﺡ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺣﺎ ﻭﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺣﺰﻳﻨًﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺍﷲ « )ﺇﻑ ‪ .(٣٠ :٤‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺍﻵﺏ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﺑﻌﻴ ًﺪﺍ‪ ...‬ﺣﺎﺷﺎ!!! ﻓﻬﺬﻩ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺯﺭﻋﻬﺎ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺭﺃﻱ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻛﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﱰﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﻭﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺄﱂ ﻟﺪﻓﻊ ﺗﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺗﻜﺎﺩ ﺗﺮﺳﻢ ﷲ‬
‫ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻨﻘﺴﻤﺔ ﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻷﻗﺎﻧﻴﻢ ﻭ » ﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮﻫﻢ «!!‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ‪ » :‬ﻧﺎﻇﺮﻳﻦ ﺇﱃ ﺭﺋﻴﺲ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﻭﻣﻜﻤﻠﻪ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺃﻣﺎﻣﻪ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻣﺴﺘﻬﻴﻨًﺎ ﺑﺎﳋﺰﻱ‪ ،‬ﻓﺠﻠﺲ‬
‫ﰲ ﻋﺮﺵ ﺍﷲ « )ﻋﺐ ‪ .(٢ :٢٢‬ﻭﻟﻮ ﺗﺄﻣﻠﻨﺎ ﻣﻌﲏ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ » ﺍﻟﺴﺤﻖ « ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﺜﻞ‬
‫» ﺳﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﻄﻮﺭ « ﺍﻟﻄﻴﺒﺔ ﻟﻜﻴﻤﺎ ﲣﺮﺝ ﺭﺍﺋﺤﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻄﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺳﺤﻖ ﻭﺣﺮﻕ‬

‫‪١٨٢‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺒﺨﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺰﻛﻲ ﻓﺘﺨﺮﺝ ﺭﺍﺋﺤﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﺒﻬﺠﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﺮﺡ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﺮﺓ!!‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻭﺃﺳ ﱠﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ ﻗﺮﺑﺎﻧًﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ »ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﺣﺒﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ً‬‫ﻟﺬﺍ ﻛﺘﺐ ً‬
‫ﻭﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﷲ ﺭﺍﺋﺤﺔ ﻃﻴﺒﺔ « )ﺃﻓﺴﺲ ‪ (٢ :٥‬ﻭﻣﻨﻪ ﻓﺎﺣﺖ ﳏﺒﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻵﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﳏﺒﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻛﺈﺑﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﳏﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺪﻡ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﻫﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﺍ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ‬‫ﺣﺐ ﻭﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻨﺎ ﻭﳑﺎﺗﻨﺎ ً‬
‫»ﺑﺮﻭﺡ ﺃﺯﱄ ﻗﺪﻡ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﷲ ﺑﻼ ﻋﻴﺐ « )ﻋﺐ ‪ ،(١٤ :٩‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻵﺏ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﻗﺪﻡ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ‬
‫ﻟﻨﺎ ﻫﺪﻳﺔ ﺗﻄﻬﲑ ﻭﺗﻘﺪﻳﺲ » ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺪﻣﻪ ﺍﷲ ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﺑﺪﻣﻪ« )ﺭﻭ ‪.(٢٥ :٣‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻵﺏ ﻗﺪﻣﻪ ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ » ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﳑﺎ ﻟﻺﺑﻦ ﻭﻳﻌﻄﻴﻨﺎ « ﻃﻬﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻷﺭﻭﺍﺣﻨﺎ ﻭﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ ﻭﺃﺟﺴﺎﺩﻧﺎ‪ » :‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ )ﻋﻤﻞ ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ( ﺩﻡ ﺛﲑﺍﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺗﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﺭﻣﺎﺩ ﻋﺠﻠﺔ ﻣﺮﺷﻮﺵ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻨﺠﺴﲔ )ﺑﺎﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ = ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻤﻴﺘﺔ(‬
‫ﻳﻘﺪﺱ ﺇﱃ ﻃﻬﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﻢ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺩﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﺮﻭﺡ ﺃﺯﱄ ﻗﺪﻡ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﷲ‬
‫ﺑﻼ ﻋﻴﺐ ﻳﻄﻬﺮ ) ﻳُﻜﻔﱢﺮ ﻋﻦ( ﺿﻤﺎﺋﺮﻛﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﻣﻴﺘﺔ )ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ( ﻟﺘﺨﺪﻣﻮﺍ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﺍﳊﻲ )ﻭﺃﻧﺘﻢ ﺃﻃﻬﺎﺭ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺲ ﺑﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﻄﻬﺮ(« )ﻋﺐ‬
‫‪.(١٤ -١٣ :٩‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﻭﺻﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ‪:‬‬

‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻻ ﻳﺼﻒ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ » ﻏﺎﺿﺐ ﺃﻭ ﻏﻀﻮﺏ « ‪ ،‬ﺻﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ‪ :‬ﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺻﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﷲ؟ ﻫﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻔﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﷲ ﻣﺜﻞ » ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ « ﺃﻭ » ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ «؟ ﻭﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺼﻒ‬
‫ﺭﺑﻨﺎ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺃﻧﻪ » ﺍﺑﻦ ﳏﺒﺔ ﺍﻵﺏ « )ﻛﻮﻟﻮﺳﻲ ‪ (١٣ :١‬ﻭﺑﺄﻧﻪ » ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ«‬
‫ﺷﺮﺣﺎ ﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﷲ‬
‫)ﻣﺖ ‪ .(١٧ :٣‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺻﻔﺔ ﺃﺯﻟﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ً‬
‫ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺃﺯﻟﻴﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﷲ « )ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﻷﻓﻀﻞ ﻫﻲ‪ :‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺘﺠ ًﻬﺎ ﳓﻮ ﺍﷲ ‪ orientated towards the Father‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﳌﺘﻨﻴﺢ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﺎ‬
‫ﺑﻴﻤﲔ ﰲ ﻋﻈﺔ ﻣﺴﺠﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻄﺮﺍﻥ ﺃﻧﺘﻮﱐ ﺑﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺳﻲ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ( )ﻳﻮ ‪.(١ :١‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻮﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ »ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ« )‪ ٢‬ﺗﻴﻤﻮﺛﺎﺅﺱ ‪ً .(٧ :١‬‬

‫‪١٨٣‬‬
 ‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺃﻧﻪ » ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺑﺎﳊﻖ ﻭﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ « )‪ ٢‬ﻳﻮ ‪.(٣‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻷﻗﺎﻧﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻓﻼ ﻧﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺗﺴﻤﻴﺘﻪ » ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ «‬
‫‪ ...‬ﺣﺎﺷﺎ ﷲ!! ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻻ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ » ﻛﺼﻔﺔ « ﰲ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ‪ » :‬ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻠﺸﺮ «‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‬
‫ﻳﺆﺛﺮ ﰲ ﺍﷲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻣﺪﻣﺮ ﻭﻣﺴﻰﺀ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻫﻮ‬
‫» ﻋﻤﻞ « ﺑﻨّﺎﺀ ﻭﺇﳚﺎﰊ ﺑﲔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ؛ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﺇﻇﻬﺎﺭ ﺣﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﻏﲑﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻮ ﺇﺧﺘﺮﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺣﺒﻴﺒًﺎ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﰲ ﺳــﻔﺮ ﺍﳊﻜﻤــﺔ ‪ » :‬ﻻ ﺗﻐﺎﺭﻭﺍ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﰲ ﺿﻼﻝ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻜﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﲡﻠﺒﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻴﻜﻢ ﺍﳍﻼﻙ ﺑﺄﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺃﻳﺪﻳﻜﻢ‪ .‬ﺇﺫ ﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻳﺴ ﱠﺮﻩ ‪ ...‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻓﻘﲔ ﻫﻢ ﺇﺳﺘﺪﻋﻮﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻻ ﻫﻼﻙ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﺀ ُ‬
‫ﺑﺄﻳﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﻭﺃﻗﻮﺍﳍﻢ‪ .‬ﻇﻨﻮﻩ ﺣﻠﻴﻔًﺎ )ﺣﺒﻴﺒًﺎ( ﳍﻢ ﻓﺎﺿﻤﺤﻠﻮﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﻋﺎﻫﺪﻭﻩ ﻷ‪‬ﻢ ﺃﻫﻞ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺰﺑﻪ « )ﺣﻜﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﺤﺬﻭﻓﺔ‪.(١٦ -١٢ :١ ،‬‬
‫ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﺇﺫ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﺩﺧﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ‪ ،‬ﻧﺘﺄﻛﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺻﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ )ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺻﻔﺔ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﷲ( ﻻ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻣﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺑﺎﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻓﺎﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻋﻄﻲ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻛﺼﻔﺔ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ » ﻟﻠﺪﻓﺎﻉ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ « ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﻲ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ » ﺳﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻀﺎﺋﻞ « ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻗﻮﺓ‬
‫ﳓﺘﺎﺟﻬﺎ ﳓﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﻗﻮﺓ ﲢﻔﻆ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺑﻪ ﲪﺎﻳﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻟﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﳌﺪﻣﺮ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﻳﺪﺍﻓﻊ ﺑﻪ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺪﻓﺎﻉ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﺸﺊ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﺷﺊ‪ ،‬ﻭﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﻛﻞ ﺷﺊ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ » ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻳًﺎ « ﺇﺫﻥ ﻋﻦ ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﺻﻔﺔ ﻧﺴﺘﻌﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺑﺎﷲ ﻭﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ) ﰱ ﲤﻬﻴﺪ‬
‫ﻭﻋﻠﻮﺍ ﲟﺎ ﻻ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﻛﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﲰﻮﺍ ً‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ (‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ً‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺔ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺴﺎﻭﻱ ﻻ ﻧﻮﻋﻴًﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺴﺎﻭﻱ ﻻ ﻧﻮﻋﻴًﺎ ﻭﻻ ﻛﻤﻴًّﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﻛﻤﻴًّﺎ ﺑﺎﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﷲ ً‬
‫ِﺲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻛﻞ ﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﷲ ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻃﺮﻗﻪ ﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﲟﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﻖ‪ ..‬ﻭﻗ ْ‬

‫‪١٨٤‬‬
 ‫ﻋﻠﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﺮﻗﻨﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻭﺣﻜﻤﺘﻪ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺤﺺ‪...‬‬
‫ﻳﺎ ﻟﻴﺖ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ ﺃﻭﺻﺎﻑ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﷲ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻭﻻ ﻧﺴﺘﻌﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﺒﺸﺮ!! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻳﻘﺪﺭ ﺿﻌﻔﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﷲ ﺍﳌﺤﺐ ﻟﻠﺒﺸﺮ ﻻ ﳚﺪ ﻏﻀﺎﺿﺔ ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻮﺻﻒ‬
‫ﲝﺴﺐ ﺃﻭﺻﺎﻓﻨﺎ!! ﻓﺎﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺻﻔﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﰲ ﺇﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻨﺤﺮﻑ )ﺑﻞ ﻭﻳﻨﺤﺮﻑ ﰲ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﳊﺴﺎﺏ ﺫﺍﺕ‬ ‫ﻭﺧﲑ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ً‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﻧﺎﱏ( ﻭﻻ ﳜﺪﻡ ﳕﻮ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‬
‫ﳛﺬﺭﻧﺎ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ‪ » :‬ﻻ ﺗﻐﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻏﻴﻈﻜﻢ « )ﺃﻓﺴﺲ ‪،(٢٦ :٤‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﻻ ﻳﺒﻘﻲ ﰲ ﻗﻠﻮﺑﻨﺎ » ﺍﻟﺴﺨﻂ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ « )ﺃﻓﺴﺲ ‪ً .(٣١ :٤‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ‬ ‫ً‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺗﺞ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻗﻄﺔ » ﻭﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ )ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﻜﻞ ﺑﻌﻴ ًﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ ‪ (flesh = sarx‬ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺯﱐ‪ ،‬ﻋﻬﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﳒﺎﺳﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺩﻋﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻋﺒﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﺛﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺳﺤﺮ‪ ،‬ﻋﺪﺍﻭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺧﺼﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻏﲑﺓ‪ ،‬ﺳﺨﻂ ) = ﻏﻀﺐ (« )ﻏﻼﻃﻴﺔ‬
‫‪ .(١٩ :٥‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺄﰐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﻌﺼﻴﺔ )ﻛﻮﻟﻮﺳﻲ ‪ (٦ :٣‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻏﲑﺓ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﻭﳏﺎﻭﻟﺘﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺜﻨﻴﻬﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺷﺮﻫﻢ ﺣﱴ ﻳﺮﺟﻌﻮﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﻣﺜﻞ‬
‫ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﻘﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺸﻔﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺪﻣﲑ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻯ!‬
‫ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻗﺪ ﻏﻀﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻌﺐ ﺇﺳﺮﺍﺋﻴﻞ ﻓﻘﺎﻝ » ﺣﱴ ﺃﻗﺴﻤﺖ ﰲ‬
‫ﻏﻀﱯ ﻟﻦ ﻳﺪﺧﻠﻮﺍ ﺭﺍﺣﱴ « )ﻋﺐ ‪ ،(١١ :٣‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﺩﺧﻞ ﺍﳉﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺄﺩﺑﻮﺍ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﱪﻳﺔ ﻣﺪﺓ ‪ ٤٠‬ﻋﺎ ًﻣﺎ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳُﻌ ﱢﻠﻢ ﻭﻳﺘﺮﻓﻖ ﻟﻴﺨﻠﺺ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻝ ﻗﻮ ًﻣﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ » ﻟﻴﻜﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺮ ًﻋﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﻣﺒﻄﺌًﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻣﺒﻄﺌًﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﺼﻨﻊ ﺑﺮ ﺍﷲ )ﺃﻱ ﻻ ﳛﻘﻖ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺻﺪﻗﻪ ﻭﺧﻼﺻﻪ ﻟﻠﺒﺸﺮ (« )ﻳﻊ ‪.(٢٠ :١‬‬

‫ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻋﻦ ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ؟ ‪:‬‬

‫ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﺃﻱ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻗﺪ ﺳﻜﺐ ﻏﻀﺒﻪ ﻭﺃﻓﺮﻏﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳝﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺌﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ!! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ‬
‫ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻭﻛﺎﻟﭭﻦ ﰲ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺍﻹﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﱵ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ ﻋﺸﺮ!! ﻭﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻭﺭﺛﻮﺍ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻋﻠّﻢ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻹﻛﻮﻳﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ‬

‫‪١٨٥‬‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﻐﻔﺮ ﳎﺎﻧًﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﺮﺿﻲ‪ .‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻭﻛﺎﻟﭭﻦ )ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ( ﻗﺪ ﻋﻠّﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺄﰐ ﺇﻻ ﺑﺈﲤﺎﻡ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﲢﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺑﺪﻻً ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺣﻜﻢ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﺿﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺮﺭ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﺮﻍ ﻭﻳﺴﻜﺐ ﻏﻀﺒﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﺣﱴ ﻳﺴﺘﺮﻳﺢ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ‬
‫ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺇﺭﺗﻜﺐ ﺟﺮﳝﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﱡ‬
‫ﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ‬ ‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻳﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻭﻳﺮﻓﻀﻪ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﲔ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻟﺒﺸﺎﻋﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﻳُﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻭ» ﻏﻀﺒﻪ «‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻏﻀﺐ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺟﻪ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺷﺨﺼﻴًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺿﺪ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﺍﳊﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺿﺪ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ‪ ...‬ﺣﺎﺷﺎ ﷲ‪ .‬ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﻘﺮﺃ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﲔ‬
‫ﻭﻧﻘﺪﻫﻢ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺸﻮﻩ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﷲ ﳏﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪.‬‬

‫•••‬

‫‪١٨٦‬‬
‫ﺩﺭﺳﻨﺎ ﻣﻌﲏ » ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﷲ « ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ‪ .‬ﺣﲔ ﻳﻀﻰﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺑﻨﻮﺭﻩ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﺸﻰﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﺳﻼﻣﴼ ﻭﻓﺮﺣﴼ ﻭﺳﻌﺎﺩﺓ ﺃﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﳎﺪﴽ ﻟﻸﺑﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﺣﺒﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﺇﺧﺘﺎﺭﻭﺍ ﻋﺸﻘﻪ ﻃﻴﻠﺔ ﺃﻳﺎﻣﻬﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺴﻮﻑ ﺗﻨﺸﺊ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺭﻓﻀﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‬
‫ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻬﻢ ﻃﻴﻠﺔ ﺃﻳﺎﻣﻬﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﻨﺸﻲﺀ ﺧﺰﻳﴼ ﻭﺭﻋﺒﴼ ﻭﺷﻌﻮﺭﴽ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‬
‫ﳛﺮﻗﻬﻢ ﺑﻐﻀﺒﻪ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻀﺎﺩ ﻟﻠﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺇﺩﺧﺮﻭﻩ ﻭﺇﺧﺘﺰﻧﻮﻩ ﺑﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﺣﺮﻳﺘﻬﻢ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﺒﻌﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﱪ ﻭﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﳊﺔ ﻳﺮﻓﻊ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻵﻥ )ﻳﻮ ‪ .(١٨ :٣‬ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺭﻓﺾ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﺑﺈﺑﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺑﻨﺠﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ » ﻗﺪ ﺩﻳﻦ « ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻭﺑﺎﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﳊﺮ!!‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻤﻞ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ « ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭﺓ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﴼ ‪ ،‬ﻭﲣﻴﻞ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﻟﻮ ﺭﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﳌﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ » ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﳘﺎ ﺷﺎﻃﺌﺎﻥ ﻟﺒﺤﺮ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﺤﺮﻙ ﺗﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﻴﺎﻩ ﻓﻴﻪ ﰲ ﺇﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺴﻬﻢ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﻪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﺮ ﺭﺍﻛﺒﴼ ﰲ ﻗﺎﺭﺏ ﻭﰲ ﻳﺪﻩ ﳎﺪﺍﻑ‪ ،‬ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻛﻌﻼﺝ ﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺮﻙ ﳎﺪﺍﻓﻪ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺪﻓﻊ ﺑﻘﺎﺭﺏ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﺘﺤﺮﻙ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻊ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﳊﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﳕﻮﻩ ﳓﻮ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻪ ﺑﺎﷲ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ .‬ﰲ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﻭﺍﳌﻘﺪﺍﻑ ﻳﺘﺤﺮﻙ ﺑﺴﻬﻮﻟﺔ ﻭﺭﺍﺣﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪١٨٧‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺇﻥ ﺇﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺠﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺠﺪﻳﻒ ﺿﺪ ﺗﻴﺎﺭ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺸﻌﺮ ﲟﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ ﻛﺒﲑﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﻴﺎﻩ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻌﺎﻧﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻳﻘﺎﻭﻣﻪ ﺑﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﻗﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺪﻳﻒ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺗﻨﺸﺊ )ﲝﺴﺐ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺇﺳﺤﻖ ﻧﻴﻮﺗﻦ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻴﻜﺎﻧﻴﻜﺎ!( ﺭﺩ ﻓﻌﻞ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺎﻭ ﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺪﻳﻒ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﻭﻣﻀﺎﺩ ﳍﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻹﲡﺎﻩ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﻠﻤﺎ ﺇﺯﺩﺍﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺎ ًﺩﺍ ﺿﺪ ﺗﻴﺎﺭ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ )ﺗﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﻴﺎﻩ(‪ ،‬ﺇﺯﺩﺍﺩ ﺷﻌﻮﺭﻩ ﻫﻮ‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻋﻨﺎﺩﻩ ﻫﻮ‪ ،‬ﺑﺰﻳﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ ﻫﺪﻓﻬﺎ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ‪ -‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻭﺍﻓﻖ ﻫﻮ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ ‪ -‬ﻭﻋﻮﺩﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﺠﺪﻳﻒ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺤﺮﻙ ﻣﻊ ﺗﻴﺎﺭ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳋﲑﺓ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻮﺻﻠﻪ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪.‬‬
‫ﺷﺮﺍ ‪ » :‬ﺣﻴﺚ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻫﺬﻩ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺧﲑ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺗﺰﺩﺍﺩ ﻛﻠﻤﺎ ﺇﺯﺩﺍﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ً‬
‫ﻛﺜﺮﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺇﺯﺩﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ«‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﺃﻱ » ﺗﻐﻴﲑ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻫﻦ « )‪ ،(metanoia‬ﻭﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ﻳﺸﻌﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻭﺍﳌﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ ﻗﺪ ﲢﻮﻻ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﻣﻌﻮﻧﺔ ﻋﻈﻴﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﲑ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﱯ ﰲ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺏ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺿﺪﻩ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﺍ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﺮﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﲑ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺬ ﻗﻠﻴﻞ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺣﻴﺚ ﻛﺜﺮﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ )ﻭﺗﺎﺏ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ( ﺇﺯﺩﺍﺩﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻣﻠﻜﺖ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﲤﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﱪ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﺑﻴﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺭﺑﻨﺎ «‬
‫)ﺭﻭ ‪.(٢١ -١٠ :٥‬‬
‫ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﺗﻐ ًﲑﺍ ﰲ ﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺘﺮﻳﻪ‬
‫ﺗﻐﻴﲑ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺩﻓﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻟﻐﲑﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﳏﺒﻮﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻮﺏ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻭﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﻭﳛﻴﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻧﺘﺮﲨﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ »ﺩﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ« ﻫﻲ ‪ .KRISIS‬ﻭﻫﻲ ً‬
‫»ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺣﺎﺳﻢ« ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻠﺘﺰﻡ ﺑﺈﲣﺎﺫ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻫﺎﻡ ﳛﺪﺩ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﺳﻮﻑ ﳛﺪﺙ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻧﻮﺭﻩ‪» ،‬ﻳﻜﺸﻒ« ﻟﻨﺎ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﺻﺮﻧﺎ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻏﻢ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﳊﻖ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻧﻜﺘﺸﻒ ﰲ ﻧﻮﺭﻩ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺳﺒﻖ‬
‫ﻭﺇﲣﺬﻧﺎ ﻣﻮﻗ ًﻔﺎ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻳًﺎ ﻟﻠﻨﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ »ﺍﻵﻥ« ﺇﺫﻥ ﻫﻲ ﺩﻋﻮﺓ ﺣﺐ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪.‬‬
‫‪١٨٨‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ‬

‫<‬

‫ﻼ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﻬﺘﺰ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻪ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺧﻴﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﻗﺒ ً‬
‫ﳐﻠﻮﻕ ﻫﺶ‪ ،‬ﻧﺎﻗﺺ‪ ،‬ﻏﲑ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﻭﳜﺸﻲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻟﻮ ﻇﻠﻢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻘﺪﺭ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﻐﻔﺮ ﺃﻭ ﻳﻨﺴﻲ ﺍﻹﺳﺎﺀﺓ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﳜﺎﻑ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ!! ﻭﺗﺮﺍﻛﻢ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺗﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﻭﺇﺭﺟﺎﻉ ﺣﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻪ ﺇﳕﺎ ﻳﻨﺸﺊ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻮﺗًﺎ ﻧﻔﺴﻴًﺎ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻣﺮﺍﺽ ﻳﺴﺒﺒﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﺣﺒﺎﻁ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳋﻮﻑ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻠﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﻴﺄﺱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻌﺮﻭﻑ ﺃﻥ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻨﻮﻁ ﻭﺍﻟﻴﺄﺱ ﺗﺴﺒﺐ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺽ ﺍﻟـ ‪ DEPRESSION‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺮﺽ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺪﻓﻊ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺤﺎﺭ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺇﻥ ﱂ ﻳﺸﻌﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﲝﺪﻭﺙ ﺗﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﻟﻠﻨﻘﺺ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﺒﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻻ‬
‫ﻭﻗﻄﻌﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﺴﻲ ﺍﻹﺳﺎﺀﺓ ﻭﻳﻐﻔﺮ ﻟﻈﺎﳌﻴﻪ ﻭﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﺮﻳﺢ‪ً ،‬‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﺮﻳﺢ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺳﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻲ ﻗﺪﺭﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﲣﻄﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﻈﻠﻢ ﻭﺇﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺳﻪ‬
‫ﳌﻦ ﻇﻠﻢ‪ .‬ﺍﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺗﺸﻌﺮﻩ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳛﻤﻞ ﰲ ﻗﻠﺒﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﺔ ﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻈﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ‪ .‬ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺷﻔﺎﺀ ﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻈﻠﻮﻡ‪،‬‬
‫ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻨﻊ ﻣﻌﺠﺰﺓ ﲢﻮﻝ ﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻤﺔ ﳓﻮ ﻇﺎﳌﻴﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺐ ﻭﻋﻄﺎﺀ‪.‬‬ ‫ﲡﻌﻠﻪ ً‬
‫» ﺇﻥ ﺟﺎﻉ ﻋﺪﻭﻙ ﻓﺄﻃﻌﻤﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻋﻄﺶ ﻓﺎﺳﻘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﺭﻛﻮﺍ ﻷﻋﻴﻨﻜﻢ ﺃﺣﺒﻮﺍ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺋﻜﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﺻﻠﻮﺍ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺴﻴﺌﻮﻥ ﺇﻟﻴﻜﻢ‪ « ...‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ‬
‫ﺃﲨﻞ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﳍﺎ‪ :‬ﺷﻔﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻓﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺮﺍﻫﻴﺘﻪ ﻟﻠﻈﺎﱂ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﷲ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﺧﺘﻼ ًﻓﺎ ﺟﺬﺭﻳًﺎ!! ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﻀﻄﺮﺏ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺣﺎﻭﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ‬
‫‪١٨٩‬‬
‫ﻧﻈﻠﻤﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﺘﻌﺪﻱ ﻭﺻﻴﺘﻪ ‪ -‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧًﺎ!! ﻭﻷﻧﻪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻷﻳﻮﺏ )‪:٣٥‬‬
‫ﳚﺮ َﺏ‪،‬‬
‫‪ (٨-٦‬ﻻ ﻳﻬﺘﺰ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻋﻈﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‪ :‬ﻻ ﱠ‬
‫ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺑﺸﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ )ﻳﻊ ‪ .(١٧ -١٣‬ﺍﳌﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﺝ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﷲ!!!‬
‫ﺍﳌﻐﻔﻮﺭ ﻟﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﻠﺸﻔﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻓﺮ!! ﻣﺮﺽ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﻧﺘﺎﺋﺠﻬﺎ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﺼﻴﺐ »ﻧﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﷲ« )ﺇﻥ ﺟﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ( ﺑﻞ ﻳﺼﻴﺐ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺘﻞ ‪ :‬ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻨﺘﺞ ﻣﻮﺗًﺎ ‪ ...‬ﺃﺟﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ...‬ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻻ ﻳﺼﻴﺐ ﺇﻻ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻓﻘﻂ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﻳﺆﺛﺮ ﰲ ﻛﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺷﺊ ﳑﺎ ﻳﻌﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ‪ -‬ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻜﻞ ﻭﺿﻮﺡ ﻷﻫﻴﻤﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻼﺕ ﺍﷲ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ!!‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺎﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻲ‪ :‬ﺷﻔﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺮﺽ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﳒﺎﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﺍﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻲ ﺇﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﲑ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻐﲑ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺍﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺷﺮﺣﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﻮﻥ ﺃﻣﺜﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ‪ :‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻔﻮﺍ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﳜﺮﺟﻪ ﻃﻠﻴ ًﻘﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻀﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﱵ ‪‬ﺘﺰ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺗﻀﻄﺮﺏ » ﻭﺗﻌﺎﰿ« ﺑﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﻔﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺃﺳﲑ ّﺳﻜﲔ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ » ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ « ﻛﻤﺎ ﲰﺎﻫﺎ ﻣﻮﻧﻴﻴﻪ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻠﺤﺪ؛ ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﲰﻲ ﺳﻴﺠﻤﻮﻧﺪ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻧﻪ » ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﻱ « ؛ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺎﻝ‬
‫ﻋﻨﻪ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻗﻮﻟﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﲑﺓ ‪ » :‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﷲ « ؛ ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﳌﻠﺤﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺮﻩ‬
‫ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻐﻔﺮ ﺇﻻ ﺑﺜﻤﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﻟﻪ‪ » :‬ﺃﺑﺎﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ‪،‬‬
‫ﺇﺑﻖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ!!«‪ .‬ﺇﻟﻪ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﻭﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﺇﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ‪ ،‬ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺘﺮﻳﻪ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺇﻟﻪ ﻳﺸﻔﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻬﺐ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ :‬ﺑﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﻭﻣﻮﺗﻪ ﻭﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﻭﺑﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻟﻪ ﻳﻐﻔﺮ ﳎﺎﻧًﺎ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﲦﻨًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ‪...‬‬
‫ﺇﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ‪.‬‬

‫‪١٩٠‬‬
‫ﺗﺄﻛﺪﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻻ ﻳﺪﺍﻳﻦ ﺃﺣ ًﺪﺍ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﳊﺮﰲ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻱ‪ .‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺐ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻌﲏ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻣﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﻟﻴﺔ!!‬
‫ﻟﻮﺍﻟﺪﻯ ﻭﻟﺰﻭﺟﱵ ﻭﻷﻭﻻﺩﻱ ﻭﻟﻮﻃﲏ‪.‬‬
‫ﱠ‬ ‫ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺐ » ﻣﺪﻳﻦ ﲝﻴﺎﰐ «‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺼﻌﺐ ﲢﺪﻳﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺃﻧﻪ ﺃﻏﻠﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻱ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ‪ :‬ﺣﻴﺎﰐ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ!!‬
‫ﻓﻨﺤﻦ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﻱ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺪﻳﻮﻧﻮﻥ ﷲ ﺃﺑﻴﻨﺎ ﲝﻴﺎﺗﻨﺎ ﻭﺻﺤﺘﻨﺎ ﻭﺃﻣﻮﺍﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ‪ ..‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺍﻫﺐ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﺼﻼﺣﻪ ﻭﺣﺒﻪ ﻭﻧﻌﻤﺘﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﺸﻌﺮ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺘﻠﻨﺎ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﻜﻤﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ ﲟﻮﺕ ﺃﺑﺪﻱ ﻭﺇﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻣﺪﻳﻮﻧﻮﻥ ﷲ ﺃﺑﻴﻨﺎ ﺑﻮﺯﻧﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺃﺑﺪﻱ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﻘﻮﻝ ً‬
‫ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻧﺒﺪﺩﻫﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﳔﻄﺊ ﻭﻧﺪﻣﺮ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﱘ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺇﺋﺘﻤﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻛﻮﺩﻳﻌﺔ‬
‫ﻧﺮﻋﺎﻫﺎ ﻭﳓﺮﺳﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺪﻳﻨﻨﺎ ﷲ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻔﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﺄﺛﺮﻭﻥ ﺑﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﻬﻢ‪ » :‬ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳕﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺣﻜﻤﺎ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺃﺟﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺗًﺎ ﺃﺑﺪﻳًﺎ ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺻﺪﺭ ً‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻳﻨﻮﺏ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‪ ....‬ﺍﱁ‪ .‬ﻓﻴﺠﺐ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺴﻠﻢ ﺍﷲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﲝﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻋﺎﺩﻝ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺘﻞ ﺇﻥ ﻫﺪﺩ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺘﻞ ﻭﺇﻻ ﺍﻧﺘﻔﺖ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺘﻪ!!«‬

‫‪١٩١‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺩﺧﻞ ﺇﻟﻴﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻳﻨﺴﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﷲ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﻨﺴﺐ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺿﻌﻴﻒ! ﻫﺬﻩ ﻣﺸﺎﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱏ‪:‬‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﷲ »ﺃﺳ ًﲑﺍ ﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺗﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﲟﻮﺕ ﻭﻳﺴﻘﻂ ﻫﻮ ﲢﺖ ﺳﻄﻮ‪‬ﺎ« ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺷﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﺱ ﻳﻨﺎﺭﺍﺱ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ‪Elements of‬‬
‫‪: Faith, p. 83‬‬
‫» ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ‪ ،‬ﺿﺎﺑﻂ ﺍﻟﺒﻮﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻣﺮﺍﻋﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺟﺒﺎﺭﻱ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳜﻀﻊ ﻟﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ‪ -‬ﻫﻮ ﻧﺴﻴﺞ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻴﺎﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻗﻄﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺇﻧﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﳊﺎﺟﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻗﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﺘﺎﺝ ﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻃﻤﺎﻋﻬﺎ ﻭﺧﻴﺎﻧﺘﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﺤﻖ « ] ﺃﻱ ﲣﻠﻖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺛﻨًﺎ ﺷﺒﻴ ًﻬﺎ ﳍﺎ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻪ ﳛﻤﻲ ﺃﻃﻤﺎﻋﻬﺎ ﻭﺃﻧﺎﻧﻴﺘﻬﺎ!![‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (٢‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻄﺎﻟﺒﻨﺎ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻐﻔﺮ ﳎﺎﻧًﺎ ﺑﻌﻀﻨﺎ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻋﺪﻻً‪ ،‬ﰒ ﻳﻄﺎﻟﺐ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺑﺜﻤﻦ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻐﻔﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ » ﺗﺴﺘﻮﰲ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ ﺣﻘﻬﺎ « ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻮﻥ ؟!!!‬
‫ﻛﻴﻒ ﻧﺼﻐﺮ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﺳﺨﺮ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺍﳌﻠﺤﺪﻭﻥ ﺑﺴﺒﺒﻨﺎ؟!‬
‫)‪ (٣‬ﺃﻳﻦ ﻳﺬﻫﺐ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﻧﻴﺔ؟! ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﻐﻔﺮ ﻭﻳﻬﺐ ﳎﺎﻧًﺎ؟! ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻦ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ؟! ﺇﻥ ﻗﺎﻟﻮﺍ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺑﻴﺪ ﻭﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺑﺎﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺃﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﻷﻭﱄ ﺃﻥ ﻳُﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﺘﺮﻙ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻫﻮ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻓﺘﺤﻨﻦ ﺳﻴﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺪ ﻭﺗﺮﻙ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ « )ﻣﺖ ‪ (٢٧ :١٨‬ﻓﻠﻴﺤﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﺑﺮﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﺃﻳﻬﻤﺎ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺣﺒًﺎ‪ :‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺜﻤﻦ ﻭﻳﺄﺧﺬﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺑﺘﻌﺬﻳﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻡ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺮﻙ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﻟﻴﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﳎﺎﻧًﺎ؟!!‬
‫ﺇﻧﻨﺎ ﺣﻘًﺎ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﻮﻥ ﻭﻗﺪ ﻭ ﱠﻓﻲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺑﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺩﻳﻮﻧﻨﺎ ﷲ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﻴﻒ؟! ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﳌﻬﻢ‪ :‬ﻛﻴﻒ؟!‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﳔﻄﺊ ﳔﺘﺎﺭ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻧﺎ ﻭﺣﻜﻤﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﷲ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺃﺭﻳﺘﲏ ﺷﺠﺮﺓ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﻋﺮﻓﺘﲏ ﺷﻮﻛﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ...‬ﻓﺄﻛﻠﺖ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﰐ‪ ...‬ﻭﺗﺮﻛﺖ‬
‫ﻋﲏ ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺳﻚ ﺑﺮﺃﻳﻲ‪ ...‬ﺃﻧﺎ ﺇﺧﺘﻄﻔﺖ ﱄ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﰐ« )ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻯ(‬
‫‪١٩٢‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ ،‬ﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻮﺩﻳﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺑﺪﺩﻧﺎﻫﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﳍﺬﺍ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﻨﺎ ﻣﺪﻳﻮﻧﲔ ﷲ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ً‬
‫ﻓﺠﺎﺀ ﺍﻻﺑﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺻﻨﻊ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻃﻬﺮﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﳒﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺣﻘﻦ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻣﻦ ﻻﻫﻮﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻧﺎﺳﻮﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﻤﻠﻨﺎ ﲨﻴ ًﻌﺎ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ :‬ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﳊﻢ ﻣﻦ ﳊﻤﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻋﻈﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻈﺎﻣـﻪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗـﺎﻝ ﺑﻮﻟــﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳــﻮﻝ )ﺃﻑ ‪ .(٣٠ :٥‬ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﺑﺎﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺳﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺳﺔ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻭﻳﻌﻄﻴﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺜﺎﻟﻪ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺃﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻧﻀﺤﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﻟﻠﺘﻄﻬﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺲ )ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻔﻌﻞ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ( ﺃﻋﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﺑﺪﺩﻧﺎﻫﺎ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺬﺍ ﺳﺪﺩ ﻋﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﺪﺩﻩ‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﱂ‬
‫ﻧﻜﻦ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﻮﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻟﻮﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻗﺪ ﻭﻫﺒﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺑﺘﺠﺴﺪﻩ‬
‫ﻭﺇﲢﺎﺩﻩ ﺑﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﲟﻮﺗﻪ ﻭﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻪ ﺃﻋﻠﻦ ﻟﻨﺎ ﳒﺎﺡ »ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺮﺍﺣﻴﺔ« ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ » ﺯﺭﻉ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ « ﰲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺎﺋﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻻﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ » ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ « ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺎﻡ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﻟﻜﻲ‬
‫ﻳﻌﻴﺪﻧﺎ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﻓﻨﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫• ﻫﻮ ﻗﺪ ﺣﻤﻞ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺘﻨﺎ ﻭﻣﺎﺕ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﳝﻴﺖ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻨﻔﺬ‬
‫ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﻳﺴﺘﺮﺿﻲ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺳﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺗﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﻐﻀﺐ ﺑﺤﻘﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪...‬‬
‫ﺣﺎﺷﺎ ﷲ‪ .‬ﺣﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻟﻴﻘﻀﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻠﻘﺼﺎﺹ ﺑﻬﺎ‪ :‬ﲤﺎ ﹰﻣﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﲢﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﺶ )ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ( ﺃﻭ ﺗﺬﻳﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﻊ )ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺰﻳﻨﺰﻯ(‬
‫• ﻫﻮ ﻗﺪ ﻭﻓﻲ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺣﻘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺃﻋﺎﺩ ﻟﻶﺏ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺀﻩ ﳊﻀﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺑﺄﺧﻮﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻀﺎﻟﲔ )ﺃﻱ ﻧﺤﻦ( ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ .‬ﻓﺄﺭﺿﻰ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺻﻼﺡ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻭﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺸﺘﻬﻲ ﻭﺗﺴﺮ ﺑﺮﺟﻮﻉ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﲟﻮﺗﻪ‬
‫ﺃﺑ ﹰﺪﺍ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ »ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺘﺎﻻ ﹰ ﻟﻠﻨﺎﺱ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ « )ﻳﻮ ‪:٨‬‬
‫‪ ،(٤٤‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻓﻘﻂ » ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻪ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ « )ﻋﺐ ‪ (١٤ :٢‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﷲ‪.‬‬
‫• ﻫﻮ ﻗﺪ ﺳﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻮﻥ ﻋﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺃﻋﺎﺩ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺑﺪﺩﻧﺎﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻨﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺣﺰﻧﺎ‬
‫ﻓﺴﺮﱠ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺴﺤﻖ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﳊﺰﻥ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺭﺃﻯ ﻓﻲ ﺁﻻﻡ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ‬ ‫ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﹸ‬
‫ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻪ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺘﺸﻠﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻀﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ‪) .‬ﺇﺵ ‪.(١٠ :٥٣‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺴﺮﺓ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺴﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ »ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺃﻣﺎﻣﻪ ﺇﺣﺘﻤﻞ‬

‫‪١٩٣‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻣﺴﺘﻬﻴﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﳋﺰﻯ« )ﻋﺐ ‪ .(٢ :١٢‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺁﻻﻣﻪ ﺁﻻﻡ ﺍﳌﺘﱪﻉ ﺑﺄﻋﻀﺎﺋﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﲝﻴﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺁﻻﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺮﺍﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻛﺪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺯﺭﻉ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻻﻫﻮﺗﻪ ﰲ ﻧﺎﺳﻮﺗﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﳓﻦ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﳊﻤﻪ ﻭﻋﻈﺎﻣﻪ )ﺃﻑ ‪ (٣٠ :٥‬ﻭﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﺁﻻﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺬﻝ ﻷﺟﻠﻨـﺎ ﳓـﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻷﺟﻞ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻏﺎﺿﺒﺔ ﻭﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻣﻬﺎﻧﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﻜﲔ‬
‫ﻭﺷﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﺑﻘﻠﻢ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺟﺎﺋﻌﺔ ﻟﻠﺬﺑﺢ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺼﺎﺹ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺻﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‪ُ ،‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺳﻨﺮﻱ ﰲ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﳍﻢ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻗﻠﻴﻞ‪.‬‬
‫• ﻭﺇﻥ ﺃﺭﺩﰎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﺒﻠﻮﺍ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻗﺪ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﻟﻬﻴﺔ ﺣﻘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﺑﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺣﻘﻖ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺃﻭﺻﺎﻧﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﳌﻮﻋﻈﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﺒﻞ‪:‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻟﻄﻤﻨﺎﻩ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﻋﻄﺎﻧﺎ ﺍﳋﺪ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﻋﺘﺎﺏ!‬ ‫•‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻇﻠﻤﻨﺎﻩ ﻭﺇﺣﺘﻘﺮﻧﺎﻩ‪ ،‬ﻓﻮﻫﺒﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﺠﺪ ﻭﺍﻹﻛﻠﻴﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻨﻮﺓ!‬ ‫•‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻟﻌﻨّﺎﻩ ﻭﻋﻠﻘﻨﺎﻩ ﻛﻤﻠﻌﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻓﻮﻫﺒﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﱪﻛﺔ ﻭﺭﻓﻌﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ!‬ ‫•‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺗﻮﻗﻌﻨﺎ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ )ﺧﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ( ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻋﻄﺎﻧﺎ ﺍﳌﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ!‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺳﻠﻤﻨﺎﻩ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﻭﺃﺑﻐﻀﻨﺎﻩ‪ ،‬ﻓﺴﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ!‬ ‫•‬

‫‪١٩٤‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‬

‫‪١٩٥‬‬
١٩٦
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‬

‫ﳕﺎ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﳊﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻜﺎﺩ ﲡﻤﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﺋﻴﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ‪،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻧﺜﺮﻭﭘﻮﻟﻮﭼﻴﺔ‬
‫)ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ(‪ .‬ﻭﻣـﻦ ﻫــﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﳕﺖ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌـﺒﺎﺩﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ )‪ ،The World’s Religions (Lion Publishing‬ﻭﻫﻮ‬
‫ﳌﺆﻟﻔﲔ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻴﲔ ‪ » :‬ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒًﺎ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﺋﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﺣﺎﻟﻴًﺎ ﻣﺎﺯﺍﻟﺖ ﺗﺴﺘﻌﻤـﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﺑﺎﺋـﺢ ﺍﳊﻴﻮﺍﻧﻴـﺔ« )ﺹ ‪ .( ٣٨‬ﻭﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺃﺳﺒﺎﺑﺎ ﻋﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﺑﺎﺋﺢ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻧﺎﺕ ‪ -‬ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻗﻲ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﻨﺪﺛﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ )ﺹ ‪،٣٠‬‬
‫‪.(١٣٥ - ٩٥ ،٣٢ ،٣١‬‬
‫‪ -١‬ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻟﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﺪﻱ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻟﻠﺘﻘﺮﺏ ﻭﺍﳌﺼﺎﺩﻗﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -٢‬ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺘﺮﺿﻲ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻳﺘﻘﻲ ﺷﺮ ﺍﻷﺭﻭﺍﺡ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﺤﻜﻢ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﺗﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺍﺭﺙ ﺍﳌﻤﻴﺘﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻬﻠﻜﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -٣‬ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻛﺜﻤﻦ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺮﻛﺔ ﻳﻄﻠﺒﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ‬
‫» ﻟﺸﺮﺍﺀ « ﻣﺎ ﳛﺘﺎﺟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ! ﻣﺜ ًﻼ ﻟﻨﻤﻮ ﳏﺼﻮﻟﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﺮ ﰲ ﺣﺮﺏ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -٤‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻹﻟﻴﺎﺫﺓ ‪ Epic of Homer‬ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻟﺘﺮﺟﻲ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻐﲑ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻗﺮﺍﺭﻩ ﺃﻭ ﺭﺃﻳﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻺﻟﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ » ﺍﻟﺮﺷﻮﺓ « ﺃﻭ ﻳﺮﻓﻀﻬﺎ!!‬
‫‪ -٥‬ﻭﰲ ﺩﻳﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﺁﺳﻴﻮﻳﺔ ‪ ، The Konds‬ﺃﻭ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﻮﻥ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻬﻢ ‪،Kui‬‬
‫ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﺎﺋﺢ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﺘﺸﺮﺏ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺩﻣﺎﺋﻬﺎ ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺮﺿﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﻟﻪ ﺍﳋﲑ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺗﺬﻛﺮﻧﺎ ﺑﻌﺮﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻠﻘﻲ ﻛﻔﺘﺎﺓ‬
‫ﲨﻴﻠﺔ ﺣﻴّﺔ ﻛﻬﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻨﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻳﺔ ﻗﺪﳝًﺎ!!‬
‫‪١٩٧‬‬
 ‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ » ﳛﺘﺎﺝ « ﻟﺸﻰﺀ ﺃﻭ ﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺘﺮﺿﻲ؟‬
‫ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﺗﻜﻤﻦ ﰲ ﺇﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﺭﻫﻴﺐ ﻭﻫﻮﺓ ﻋﻈﻴﻤﺔ ﺑﲔ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻛﺎﺋﻦ! ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺸﺘﺎﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﱃ ﲢﻘﻴﻘﻪ ﻭﺑﲔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻪ ﺍﳌﺆﺳﻒ ﺍﳍﺰﻳﻞ‪ .‬ﺇﺷﺘﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺇﺷﺘﻴﺎﻕ ﻻ ﻳﻬﺪﺃ ﻭﻋﻄﺶ‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﺮﺗﻮﻱ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺷﻰﺀ ﳝﻠﻜﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻳﻌﻤﻠﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻳﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺷﺘﻴﺎﻕ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻋﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻗﻊ‬
‫ﻳﺸﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺳﻔﻞ‪ ،‬ﺃﲰﺎﻩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺴﻌﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺟﻮﺍﺭﺣﻪ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﻟﻌﺒﻮﺭ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳍﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻤﺔ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺷﺘﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻗﺺ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻦ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﻳﺘﻘﺮﺏ ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﲨﻴﻌﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﺴﺘﺮﺿﻴﻪ ﻭﳛﻠﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﺆﺳﻒ ﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺣﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﺍﳌﺴﺌﻮﻝ ﻋﻨﺎ ً‬
‫ﻭﳒﺎﺡ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﺧﻠﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ) = ﺍﳋﻼﺹ(‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺳﻬﻠﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﺷﺘﻴﺎﻕ ﻋﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺃﻗﻮﻱ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﻫﺪﻳﺔ ﻹﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺗﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﺃﻗﻮﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﲟﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﺧﺮﻭﺝ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﺍﳊﻰ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺃﻗﻮﻱ ﻭﺃﻏﻠﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺳﻌﻴﻪ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺜﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ :‬ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﻭﻳﺴﺄﻝ ﻭﻳﻐﻀﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺪﻣﺮ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻏﻀﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻨﺘﻘﻢ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﺇﺫﺍ ﱂ ﻳﻄﻌﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﳛﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺘﺪﺑﲑﻩ ﻭﺇﺷﺘﻴﺎﻗﻪ ﻛﺨﺎﻟﻖ‪ ،‬ﺻﺎﺣﺐ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺇﻓﻨﺎﺀ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺑﻴﺪﻳﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺼﻨﻊ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ!!!‬
‫ﻭﺩﺧﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺩﺍﺋﺮﺓ ﺷﺮﻳﺮﺓ ﻳﺮﻱ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻧﻘﺎﺋﺼﻪ ﻭﻳﺄﺳﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺨﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺐ ﺑﻼ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﻐﻔﺮ ﳎﺎﻧًﺎ‪ » :‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻋﺪﻻ«ً‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻗﻢ!! ﻷﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻮ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻐﻔﺮ ﳎﺎﻧًﺎ ﻭﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺇﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺭﺃﺳﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻘﺐ!! ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﳏﺐ ﻟﻺﻧﺘﻘﺎﻡ ﻭﺭﺩ‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﻘﻠﺐ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻑ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻐﻔﺮ ﳎﺎﻧًﺎ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ!! ﳌﺎﺫﺍ؟! ﻣﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺍﳉﺎﱏ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﺴﻘﻂ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ؟! ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﺗﻜﻤﻦ ﰲ‬ ‫ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ً‬
‫ﺃﻥ ‪ :‬ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ » ﻣﺜﺎﻝ « ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺑﺪﺍﺋﻴﺘﻪ ﻭﺷﺮﻩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺴﻤﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺘﻴﻖ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﺍﱐ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﰉ‪ ....‬ﺍﱁ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﺯﻝ‬
‫ﻋﻤﺎ ﳝﻠﻜﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺃﻭ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﳎﺎﻧًﺎ!! ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﺯﻝ‬

‫‪١٩٨‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺎﱐ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻳﺬﻛﺮﻩ ﺑﻨﻘﺼﻪ ﻭﻣﻮﺗﻪ ﻭﻓﻨﺎﺋﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳜﺸﺎﻩ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ!! ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮﺓ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﷲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺒﲑ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﻈﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻗﺎﻝ ﭬﻮﻟﺘﲑ ﻗﻮﻟﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﲑﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻛﻴﻒ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻜﺲ‬
‫ﻭﻳﺴﻘﻂ ﻓﺸﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻟﻘﺪ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺭﺩ ﻟﻪ ﺍﳌﺜﻞ «!!‬
‫ﻟﻮ ﺇﺳﺘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﻌﲎ » ﺍﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﻧﻴﺔ « ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺧﻮﻑ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻘﺺ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﳊﻞ ﻣﻠﻜﻮﺕ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﰲ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺯﻣﻦ!! ﻭﳉﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻼﻩ ﻭﺇﻧﻘﻀﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ ﰲ ﺃﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﳊﺐ! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻸﺳﻒ ﺍﻟﺸﺪﻳﺪ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻠﻮﻩ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺆﻛﺪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﱏ‪ ،‬ﻓﺴﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺍﻫﺐ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺃﻧﻪ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ »ﺇﺣﺘﺎﺝ« ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻟﺘﺴﺪﺩ ﻟﻪ ﲦﻨًﺎ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴًﺎ ﻭﲢﻘﻖ ﻣﻄﻠﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻣﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻨﻮﺏ ﻋﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﺗﺴﺘﺮﺿﻲ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻛﺮﺍﻣﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﻬﺎﻧﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭ ﻋﻨﺪﺋﺬ ﻓﻘﻂ ‪ -‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻼﻣﻪ ﻟﻠﺜﻤﻦ ‪ -‬ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﺣﻢ!!! ﲢﻮﻟﺖ ﻫﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺷﺮﺍﺀ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱏ‪ ،‬ﰎ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺇﳍﻴﺔ ﻏﺎﺿﺒﺔ ﺗﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﲟﻮﺕ!! ﻫﺬﺍ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺃﺳﻘﻒ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺘﺮﺑﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ‪ ،١١‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻭﺭﺙ ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻗﺎﺋﺪ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻹﺻﻼﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﱵ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ‪ ١٦‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﻠﻤﻪ ﻟﻠﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﰒ ﻟﺘﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻋﺠﺰﻧﺎ‬
‫ﻛﺒﺸﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻔﻬﻢ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺬﻝ ﺍﳌﻌﻄﻲ ﻟﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ )ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ( ﺃﻛﺪﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﳎﻤﻊ ‪ TRENT‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ‪ ،١٦‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺑﻌﻴﻨﻪ‬
‫» ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﲰﻴﺔ « ﻟﻠﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ!!! ﻭﳑﺎ ﻳﺆﺳﻒ ﻟﻪ ﺩﺧﻮﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﺣﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺸﲑ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻧﲔ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﻳﻦ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﺍﳌﺆﺳﻔﺔ ﻳﺆﻛﺪﻫﺎ ُﺟ ﱡﻞ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺳﻨﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﳍﻢ ﺍﳌﺪﻭﻧﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻐﻔﺮ ﳎﺎﻧًﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻼ ﲦﻦ‪ ،‬ﺗﻜﻤﻦ ﰱ ﺃﻥ ﺇﳍًﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻨﺎﺳﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻤﺔ ﻭﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻑ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ ‪ -‬ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﲔ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﲔ ﻭﻛﺴﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﺭﺍﻉ ﺑﻜﺴﺮ ﺫﺭﺍﻉ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ! ﻫﺬﺍ ﺇﻟﻪ ﻣﻜﻠﻒ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻌﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻣﻜﻠﻔﺔ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ!! ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻗﻠﺖ‪ ،‬ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ َﻣﺜَﻠُﻨﺎ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻲ‪ .‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻛﻨﺎ ﺃﻣﻨﺎﺀ ﻭﻟﻨﺎ ﺿﻤﲑ ﺣﻲ ﻭﻧﺘﺒﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﺐ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻐﻔﺮ ﳎﺎﻧًﺎ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﻳﺼﻴﺒﻨﺎ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺿﺮﺭ ﺃﻭ ﻇﻠﻢ‪.‬‬
‫•••‬
‫‪١٩٩‬‬
‫ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﺖ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻓﺪﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﲟﻌﻨﻴﲔ‪ :‬ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺿﺮﺭﺍ ﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﲎ » ﺍﻟﺪﻳﱠﺔ « ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻘﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺳﺒﺐ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﺃﻭ ﺇﻣﺮﺃﺓ ﻓﻤﺎﺕ‪ ...‬ﻓﺎﻟﺜﻮﺭ‬‫ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻴﻘﻮﻝ ﰲ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﳋﺮﻭﺝ ‪» :‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻧﻄﺢ ﺛﻮﺭ ﺭﺟ ً‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻳﻘﺘﻞ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻭﺿﻌﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻓﺪﻳﺔ ﻳﺪﻓﻊ ﻓﺪﺍﺀ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ‬ ‫ﻳﺮﺟﻢ ﻭﺻﺎﺣﺒﻪ ً‬
‫ﻳﻮﺿﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ « )ﺧﺮ ‪.(٣٠ -٢٨ :٢١‬‬
‫ﺣﺮﺍ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﳊﺮﰱ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺪﻓﻊ ﻟﻔﻚ ﺭﻗﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺪ ﻭﺇﻃﻼﻗﻪ ً‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ ً‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻻﺕ ﱂ ﻳﻄﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻱ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﺆﰐ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻟﻘﺐ‬
‫» ﻓﺎﺩﻱ « ﺃﻭ »ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺩﻯ« ﺑﻞ ﺇﺣﺘﻔﻆ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻠﻘﺐ ﷲ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻓﻘﻂ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﻟﻠﻔﺪﻳﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻃﻠﻘﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻔﺪﻱ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﺃﻭ ﻳﺪﻓﻊ‬
‫ﲦﻨًﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻔﺪﻱ » ﺑﻘﻮﺗﻪ « ﻣﻦ ﺍﳍﻼﻙ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻋﺪﺍﺀ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻳﻔﺪﻱ ‪ TO REDEEM‬ﺗﻌﲏ ﺇﺭﺟﺎﻉ ﺃﻭ ﺇﻧﻘﺎﺫ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻔﻘﻮ ًﺩﺍ ﺃﻭ ُﻣﺪﻣﺮﴽ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻣﺴﻠﻮﺑًﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻐﺘﺼﺒًﺎ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻗﺪ ﺩﻓﻊ ﲦﻨًﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺇﻃﻼﻗًﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﺼﺮﳛﺔ‪:‬‬
‫»ﺃﺧﺮﺟﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺑﻴﺪ ﺷﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻭﻓﺪﺍﻛﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻳﺪ ﻓﺮﻋﻮﻥ«‬
‫)ﺗﺚ ‪(٨ :٧‬‬

‫‪٢٠٠‬‬
 ‫» ﺣﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻓﺪﻯ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺿﻴﻖ « )‪ ٢‬ﺻﻢ ‪(٩ :٤‬‬
‫» ﺟﻌﻠﺖ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻓﺪﻳﺘﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻮﺵ ﻭﺳﺒﺄ ﻋﻮﺿﻚ« )ﺇﺵ ‪(٣ :٤٣‬‬
‫»ﻗﺪ ﳏﻮﺕ ﻛﻐـﻴﻢ ﺫﻧﻮﺑﻚ ﻭﻛﺴﺤﺎﺑﺔ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻙ‪ .‬ﺇﺭﺟﻊ ﺇﱃ ﻷﻧــﻲ‬
‫ﻓﺪﻳﺘﻚ« )ﺇﺵ ‪.(٢٣-٢٢ :٤٤‬‬
‫» ﻫﻞ ﻗﺼﺮﺕ ﻳﺪﻱ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﻫﻞ ﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﻗﺪﺭﺓ ﻟﻺﻧﻘﺎﺫ؟ « )ﺇﺵ ‪.(٢ :٥٠‬‬
‫» ﻭﻣﲑﺍﺛﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻓﺪﻳﺘﻪ ﺑﻌﻈﻤﺘﻚ « )ﺗﺚ ‪.(٢٦ :٩‬‬
‫ﻋﻮﺿﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺬﻧﺐ‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺳﻮﻳﺔ ﱂ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺍﷲ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﺍﻟﱪﺉ ً‬
‫ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﳝﻴﺖ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﱪﺉ ﻭﻳﻌﺎﻗﺒﻪ ﻛﻤﺬﻧﺐ؟!‬
‫» ﻣﻦ ﺃﺧﻄﺄ ﺇ ﱠ‬
‫ﱄ ﺃﳏﻮﻩ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﰊ « )ﺧﺮ ‪(٣٢ -٣٠ :٣٢‬‬
‫» ﺣﺎﺷﺎ‪ .‬ﻟﻚ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻔﻌﻞ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﲤﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻷﺛﻴﻢ « )ﺗﻚ ‪(٢٥ :١٨‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲣﻄﺊ ﻫﻲ ﲤﻮﺕ « )ﺣﺰ ‪(٤ :١٨‬‬

‫•••‬

‫‪٢٠١‬‬
 ‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻷﻥ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ )ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ( ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﺃﻋﻄﻴﺘﻜﻢ ﺇﻳﺎﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺬﺑﺢ ﻟﻠﺘﻜﻔﲑ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﻮﺳﻜﻢ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ )ﺃﻱ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ( ﻳﻜﻔﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ« )ﻻ ‪(١١ :١٧‬‬
‫» ﻭﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺳﻔﻚ ﺩﻡ ﻻ ﲢﺼﻞ ﻣﻐﻔﺮﺓ « )ﻋﺐ ‪.(٢٢ :٩‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ »ﺃﻋﻄﻴﺘﻜﻢ« ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺍﻫﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﺼﻔﺘﻨﺎ »ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﲔ« ﰲ ﺃﻣﺎﻛﻦ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ‪ .‬ﻛﻴﻒ؟!‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﻧﺘﻜﻠﻢ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺋﻊ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻧﻘﺪﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻣﻮﺍﻟﻨﺎ ﷲ ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﻘﺪﻡ ﷲ‬
‫ﺣﻈﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ ﺍﳌﺤﺘﺎﺝ‬ ‫ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻧﻘﺪﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻣﻮﺍﻟﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﺒﺸﺮ ﺃﺧﻮﺗﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ً‬
‫ﻟﻸﺧﺬ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺩﺭﺳﻨﺎ ﺳﺎﺑ ًﻘﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳊﻨﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺣﺒﻪ‬
‫ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻋﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﳎﺎﺯﻳًﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻵﺧﺬ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻻ‬
‫ﳚﺮﺡ ﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺸﻌﺮﻧﺎ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﳛﺒﻨﺎ ﻭﻳﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻣﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﺐ‪ .‬ﻫﻨﺎ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺍﷲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺃﺏ ﻏﲏ‬
‫ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻟﻪ ﻃﻔﻠﻪ ﻗﻄﻊ ﺻﻐﲑﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻠﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﺏ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻘﺒﻞ ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ ﳛﺘﺎﺟﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻔﺮﺡ ﺑﻪ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺏ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻘﺪﻡ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻠﻮﻱ ﻟﻄﻔﻠﻪ!! ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺩﺍﻭﻭﺩ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻻ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ‬‫ﻣﺴﺒﺤﺎ‪ » :‬ﻷﻥ ﻣﻨﻚ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻳﺪﻙ ﺃﻋﻄﻴﻨﺎﻙ «‪ .‬ﻭﺍﷲ ً‬ ‫ً‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻛﺎﺋﻨًﺎ ﺑﺪﻭ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﻛﺎﻣ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﰲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﳋﻠﻖ!‬
‫ﻋﻼﺟﺎ ﳌﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ‬‫ﻭﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ً‬
‫ﻋﻼﺟﺎ ﳌﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﷲ ‪ -‬ﺇﻥ ﺟﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﻟﻐﺮﺽ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ ﻫﻨﺎ‪ !!..‬ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻋﻼﺝ‬
‫ﺗﻜﻦ ً‬

‫‪٢٠٢‬‬
‫ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﻌﻼﺝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﲦﻨًﺎ ﻭﻓﺪﻳﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﻭﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺑﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻴﻊ! ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﳓﺘﺎﺝ ﻷﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﺱ ﻭﻧﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﰲ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﻱ ﰲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ؟ ﻛﻴﻒ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﳜﺮﺝ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺣﻴًﺎ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺩﺧﻞ ﻳﻘﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﷲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻗﻞ ﻳﺘﻘﺒﻠﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ »ﻛﻌﻼﺝ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ«؟! ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﻷﲰﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺇﻏﻨﺎﻃﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻹﻧﻄﺎﻛﻰ‪.‬‬
‫) ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﺩﻣﻪ = » ﺗﺮﻳﺎﻕ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ « ‪.( Antidote‬‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﻭﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ً‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﻐﻔﺮ ﳎﺎﻧًﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﻞ ﻗﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻟﻠﻴﻬﻮﺩﻱ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﺋﻰ؟! ﺇﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺇﺫ ﳛﺪﺛﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻳﺪﺧﻠﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻫﺶ ‪ !!ECSTASY‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﺇﻟﻪ ﺍﳊﺐ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺪﻫﺶ! ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﺘﺢ ﻗﻠﺒﻪ ﻭﻓﻜﺮﻩ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻜﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ ً‬
‫ﺃﻣﻮﺭﺍ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ‬
‫ﻟﻺﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﻞ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﻼﻣﺲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻳﻨﺸﺊ ﺍﻟﺪﻫﺶ! ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺠﺐ! ﻷﻥ ﺍﻹﻋﻼﻥ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﻳﺄﰐ ﳐﺎﻟ ًﻔﺎ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺘﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺒﻬﻮﺭﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻳﺘﻮﻗﻌﻬﺎ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﺑﻌﻘﻠﻪ ﺍﳌﺤﺪﻭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﻘﻒ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﲝﺴﺐ ﺣﺴﺎﺑﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺿﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺾ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻗﺺ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺇﺣﺪﻱ ﻃﺮﻕ ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﻓﺘﺢ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺎﺭﻳﺲ ﺟﻬﻨﻢ‪ :‬ﻋﻘﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺠﺮ!! ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻌﺘﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻣﺮﻏﻮﺏ‬
‫ﻭﳏﺒﻮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻪ ﺻﺪﻱ ﻭﺇﺷﺘﻴﺎﻕ ﻋﻤﻴﻖ ﰲ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻧﻮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﰊ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻧﻮﺍﺭ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﻛﻞ ﻋﻄﻴﺔ ﺻﺎﳊﺔ ﻭﺻﺎﻧﻊ ﺍﳋﲑﺍﺕ ‪ -‬ﺍﳋﲑﺍﺕ ﻓﻘﻂ!!‬
‫ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﻯ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﺢ ﻭﺇﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﻧﻮﺭ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺪﻫﺶ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﱂ ﲣﻄﺮ‬
‫ﻼ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺑﺸﺮ؟! ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﺎﺋﺢ ﺣﺒًﺎ ﻭﻫﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﳏﺎﻁ‬ ‫ﻗﺒ ً‬
‫ﺑﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﺸﺊ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻒ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺸﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻴﺄﺱ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﺍﺕ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﷲ ﻛﻤﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﺟﺒﺎﺭ ﻭﺇﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺻﺎﺭﻡ ﻳﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻣﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻳﺴﻴﻄﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ!! ﻭﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ ﺇﻻ ﺑﺜﻤﻦ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺭﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻱ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﻭﺭﺓ ﻟﻪ؟!‬
‫ﻇﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺰ ﻣﻊ ﺷﻌﺐ ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ‪ ،‬ﻟﻐ ًﺰﺍ ﻣﻐﻠ ًﻘﺎ ﳐﺘﻮ ًﻣﺎﱂ ﳛﻞ ﺃﺧﺘﺎﻣﻪ ﺇﻻ‬
‫» ﺍﻷﺳﺪ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺒﻂ ﻳﻬﻮﺫﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﺻﻞ ﻭﺫﺭﻳﺔ ﺩﺍﻭﺩ « )ﺭﺅ ‪ ،(٦ :٥‬ﺇﻻ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ‪» ،‬ﺍﳊﻤﻞ ﺍﳌﺬﺑﻮﺡ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺇﻧﺸﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ « )‪١‬ﺑﻂ ‪ .(٢٠ -١٩ :١‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﺎﺋﺢ‪ ،‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺇﻧﺸﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﺎﺋﺢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺭﻣ ًﺰﺍ ﻟﻪ؛ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ »ﻇﻞ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺘﻴﺪﺓ « )ﻋﺐ ‪.(٢ -١ :١٠‬‬
‫‪٢٠٣‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﻛﻌﻤﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺠﺰﺃ‪ ،‬ﻇﻬﺮ ﺣﻞ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺰ ‪:‬‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﺃﻧﻪ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺳﻔﻚ ﺩﻡ ﻻ ﲢﺼﻞ ﻣﻐﻔﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ »ﺯﺭﻉ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ« ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﺸﻔﻲ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻣﻦ ﳒﺎﺳﺔ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ!!‬
‫)‪ (٢‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺳﻔﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﻫﻮ ﻫﺪﻳﺔ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻟﻠﺨﺎﻃﺊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺘﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﺸﺮﻩ؛‬
‫)‪ (٣‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘـﻰ؛ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳉﺮﺍﺡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺃﺟﺮﻱ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺯﺭﻉ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻻﻫﻮﺗﻪ ﰲ ﻧﺎﺳﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﳑﺜﻠﻨﺎ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (٤‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﻭﺍﳌﺎﺋﺖ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻠﻢ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﳍﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ؛‬
‫)‪ (٥‬ﻭﺃﻥ »ﺍﻟﺪﻡ« ﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﻨﺎﻳﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺘﻞ ﺃﻭ »ﺃﺧﺬ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ« ﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ‪To take life = To Kill for Retribution :‬‬

‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﻛﻨﺎﻳﺔ ﻋﻦ » ﺇﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ «‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺪﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪:‬‬
‫‪To Give Life = To Recreate‬‬

‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﳑﺎ ﲰﻌﺖ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻲ ﻭﻗﺮﺃﺕ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻮﺿﺎ ﻋﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺘﻘﻪ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻻ ﳝﻴﺘﻪ!! )ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ(‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻒ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻟﺘﻤﻮﺕ ً‬
‫ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ؛ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ!! )ﻭﺳﻮﻑ‬
‫ﻧﺪﺭﺱ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺘﺐ ﰲ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﻼﻭﻳﲔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻔﺼﻴﻞ(‬
‫ﺣ ًﻘﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﲢﻤﻞ » ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ «‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺄﺧﺬ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ »ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ« ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﻟﻴﺲ »ﺇﺑﺪﺍ ًﻻ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴًﺎ« ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ »ﺇﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﻋﻼﺟﻲ« ‪ -‬ﺗﻜﻠﻴﻒ ﳏﺒﺔ!!‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻧﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﺋﻴﺔ!!‬
‫» ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ « ﻳﺮﻱ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻭﺗﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺣﻜﻢ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻻﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺴﻠﻤﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﻭﺍﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺇﻻ ﺇﺿﻄﺮﺏ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﻋﺪﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿﻰ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺮﻯ » ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺟﻲ « ﺃﻥ ﻭﻫﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﳊﻴﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﻬﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﲢﻞ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺻﺎﺏ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻰ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺇﺻﻼﺡ ﻭﲡﺪﻳﺪ ﳌﺮﻳﺾ ﺃﺻﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺘﺤﺎﺭﻩ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺇﻟﻐﺎﺀ ﻟﻨﺠﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻟﻴﺴﺖ‬
‫‪٢٠٤‬‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎ ﻣﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻟﺼﺎﺣﺐ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻳﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﲟﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻓﺮﺡ ﻟﺼﻼﺡ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﺪﻟﻪ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ .‬ﻗﺎﻝ ﺇﻳﺮﻳﻨﺎﺅﺱ‪ :‬ﳎﺪ ﺍﷲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﰒ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﻫﺎﻣﺔ‪ :‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ » ﻳـﻮﻡ « ﳜﻄﺊ‪ ،‬ﻳﻔﺼﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺭﻭﺣﻴﴼ‬
‫ﻭﺃﺑﺪﻳﴼ‪ » ،‬ﻳﻮﻡ ﺗﺄﻛﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﻮﺗﴼ ﲤﻮﺕ « )ﺗﻚ ‪ .(١٧ :٢‬ﻓﺎﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺘﻘﺪﻡ‬
‫ِﺸ ِﺮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺸﺊ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻭﻗﺪ ﻣﺎﺕ ﻓﻌ ً‬
‫ﻼ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻌﺪﻝ ﻗﺘﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺑ َ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﷲ ﺃﺑﺪﴽ )ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ‪.(١٧ -١٣ :١‬‬
‫ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻳﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺍﷲ )ﺣﱴ ﻟﻮ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﻧﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﺗﺪﺑﲑﻩ!( ﲟﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ‬
‫ﳊﺴﺎﺏ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻗﺪ ﻧﻔﺬ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﲟﺠﺮﺩ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﻄﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻐﺼﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺮﻣﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﷲ ؟! ﺣﱴ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ!! ﻳﻮﻡ‬
‫ﳜﻄﺊ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﳝﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﺍﷲ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺑﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻰ‪ .‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒًﺎ ﲝﻴﺎﺓ ﻟﻠﺨﺎﻃﻰ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻔﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ؛ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﴼ ﺑﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺗﺴﺪﺩ ﻣﻮﺗﴼ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ‬
‫ﷲ !! ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﳜﻠﻘﻪ ﺍﷲ ؟!‬
‫ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻭﻳﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﻪ؟!!!‬
‫ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻧﻘﻴﱢﻢ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺇﻫﻼﻙ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺇﺣﻴﺎﺀ؟! ﻧﻌﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﻮﺍﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﲟﻮ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷ‪‬ﺎ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺭﻣﺰ‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﺘﻬﻰ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ » ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ «‪ ،‬ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪،‬‬
‫ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺇﻫﻼﻙ ﻻ ﻟﻺﺑﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﻻ ﻟﻠﺨﺎﻃﻰ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ :‬ﺩﺧﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺪﻭﺱ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻲ » ﻳُﺒﻄﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ «‬
‫ﻭ » ﻳﻘﻀﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ « ﻭ » ﻳﻘﺘﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ « ‪ ...‬ﺍﱁ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﺃﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻮﺕ ﻗﺼﺎﺹ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺍﻵﺏ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﻋﻜﺲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻗﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺁﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻛﺘﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﳌﻦ ُﻗ ﱢﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ُﺳﻔ َ‬
‫ِﻚ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ؟ ﺑﻞ ﻭﳌﺎﺫﺍ ُﺳﻔ َ‬
‫ِﻚ؟!‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﻗﻠﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻓﻈﻴﻊ‪ ،‬ﻫﻞ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺍﻟﻠﺺ ﻓﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﷲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ!؟‬
‫ﻭﻫﻞ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﺃﺟﺮﺓ ﻻﺳﺘﺒﺪﺍﺩﻩ ﺣﱴ ﻳﻄﻠﻖ ﺳﺮﺍﺣﻨﺎ؟!‬

‫‪٢٠٥‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﻗﺪ ُﺩﻓﻊ ﻟﻶﺏ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﺃﺳﺄﻝ ﺃﻭﻻً‪ :‬ﻛﻴﻒ؟! ﻷﻥ ﺍﻵﺏ ﱂ‬
‫ﳝﺴﻜﻨﺎ ﻛﺮﻫﻴﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺇﺫﻥ ُﺳ ﱠﺮ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺑﺪﻡ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ‬
‫ﺇﺳﺤﻖ ﺣﲔ ﻗﺪﻣﻪ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﳏﺮﻗﺔ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺑ ّﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻜﺒﺶ؟‬
‫ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻃﻠﺒﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻛﺎﻥ ﰲ‬ ‫ﺃﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ً‬
‫ﺇﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺗﺪﺑﲑﻩ‪ :‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳُﻘ َﺪﺱ ﺑﺈﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﷲ‬
‫) = ﻧﺎﺳﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻘ ّﺪﺱ ﻭﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺑﺎﲢﺎﺩﻩ ﺑﺎﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ( ﻭﺍﷲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﳜﻠﺼﻨﺎ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﻐﻠﺐ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺒﺪ ﺑﻘﻮﺗﻪ ﻫﻮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﺩﻧﺎ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻔﻌﻞ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻠﻪ ﳌﺠﺪ ﺍﷲ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻃﺎﻋﻪ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻰﺀ‪...‬‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺒﻘﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﺳﻨﻌﱪﻩ ﰲ ﺻﻤﺖ ﻣﻘ ّﺪﺱ‪ ...‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺍﺣﺘﺠﻨﺎ ﻹﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺘﺠﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺇﻟﻪ ﳝﻴﺖ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﳓﻴﺎ ﳓﻦ‪« ...‬‬
‫ُﻣ ﱠ‬
‫‪(V. LOSSKY - THE MYSTICAL THEOLOGY OF THE EASTERN‬‬

‫)‪CHURCH, p. 152, - S.V.S. NEW YORK‬‬

‫ﺩﺭﺳﻨﺎ ﻭﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﳜﻠﻖ ﻭﻳﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﳐﻠﻮﻕ ﻭﻟﻪ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻰ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬

‫ﺗﻌﺒﲑﺍﺕ »ﺃﺑﻄﻞ ﻋﺰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ« )ﻭﻣﺎ ﺷﺎﺑﻪ(‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ »ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻟﺒﺔ« ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻭﻫﻮ »ﺇﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ« ﻟﻠﺨﺎﻃﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﺎﺕ ﰲ ﺧﻄﻴﺌﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﺪﻩ ﻭﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻼ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺧﻄﺄ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ »ﻭﻫﺐ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ« ﺃﻭ »ﺯﺭﻉ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ« ﺃﻭ »ﺗﻄﻌﻴﻢ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ« ﺃﻭ‬ ‫ﻓﻌ ً‬
‫»ﻧﻘﻞ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ« ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻰﺀ »ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ« ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻪ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﻭﻭﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻰ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻀﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻣﻬﺪﺍﺓ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ » :‬ﻫﺒﺔ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺃﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ « )ﺭﻭ ‪ .(٢٣ :٦‬ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﺇﺫ ﻧﻀﻰﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻧﻘﺘﻞ ﺍﻟﻈﻼﻡ!!‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻰ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻼﻡ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺘﻞ ﺑﻞ ﻳﺰﺍﻝ ﻭﻳُﻄﻬﺮ!! ً‬
‫ﻃﻬﺮ‬
‫ﻭﻫﺒﻨﺎ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺯﺭﻋﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻧﺎﺳﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﳌﻤﺜﻞ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ّ ،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﳒﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﺗﺸﺒﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺇﻥ ﺗﻼﻣﺴﺖ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ )ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ( ﺗﻼﺷﻲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﳛﺘﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻘﺶ ﺇﺫﺍ‬
‫ﺗﻼﻣﺲ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ )ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ( ﺃﻭ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺬﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﻊ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺗﻼﻣﺲ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‬
‫)ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ (‪.‬‬

‫‪٢٠٦‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺃﳒﺲ ﺷﻰﺀ‪ .‬ﺃﻭ ﻗﻞ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻰﺀ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻳﺴﻤﻲ ﳒﺎﺳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺳﺔ ﻫﻲ‪ :‬ﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻋﻦ ﺃﺧﻴﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺮﺽ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻧﺰﻳﻒ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻻﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺬﻛﺮﻧﺎ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻯ‪ ،‬ﳒﺎﺳﺔ‬
‫ﲢﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻄﻬﲑ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺲ ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺩﺓ ﺇﻻ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺗﻄﻬﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﻤﻲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺭﻣ ًﺰﺍ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻯ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻹﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ ‪.‬‬

‫•••‬

‫‪٢٠٧‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‬

‫»ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ« ﻭ »ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﲑ«‪ ،‬ﲟﺸﺘﻘﺎ‪‬ﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﺩﺗﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ‪ .‬ﲟﻌﲎ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﰲ‬

‫ﻧﺼﻮﺹ ﺃﺳﻔﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﻌﺔ‪:‬‬
‫»ﻭﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﺛﻮﺭ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﻛﻞ ﻳﻮﻡ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺗﻄﻬﺮ ﺍﳌﺬﺑﺢ ﺑﺘﻜﻔﲑﻙ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ« )ﺧﺮﻭﺝ‬
‫‪.(٣٦ :٢٩‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻭﺭﺩﺗﺎ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧًﺎ ﲟﻌﲎ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ »ﻭﻃﻬﺮ ﺍﳌﺬﺑﺢ ﰒ‬
‫ﻭ »ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ« ﻭ »ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺲ« ً‬
‫ﺻﺐ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺳﻔﻞ ﺍﳌﺬﺑﺢ ﻭﻗﺪﺳﻪ ﺗﻜﻔ ًﲑﺍ ﻋﻨﻪ« )ﻻ ‪.(١٥ :٨‬‬
‫» ﰒ ﻳﺬﺑﺢ ﺍﳌﺤﺮﻗﺔ ﻭﻳﺼﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻫﻦ ﺍﳌﺤﺮﻗﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺬﺑﺢ ﻭﻳﻜﻔـﺮ ﻋﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻫﻦ ﻓﻴﻄﻬﺮ « )ﻻ ‪.(٢٠ :١٤‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺃﻭﺿﺢ ﰲ ﻃﻘﺲ » ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ « ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﻼﻭﻳﲔ‬
‫ﺻﺮﺍﺣﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫»ﻷﻧﻪ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻳﻜﻔﺮ ﻋﻨﻜﻢ ﻓﺘﻄﻬﺮﻭﻥ ﻣﻦ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻛﻢ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‬
‫ﺗﻄﻬﺮﻭﻥ « )‪.(٣١ -٣٠ :١٦‬‬
‫ﻭﻻﺣﻆ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﻼﻭﻳﲔ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻳﻜﻔﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ « ‪ » ...‬ﻳﻜﻔﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺧﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﻭﺍﳌﺬﺑﺢ « )‪(٣٣ :١٦‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﻣﺎﻛﻦ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺃﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻏﲑ ﺣﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﲢﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﲢﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻄﻬﲑ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ‪.‬‬

‫‪٢٠٨‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﺩﺧﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﻄﻬﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻳُﻜ ّﻔﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻳُﻘﺪﺱ‪:‬‬
‫ﺭﺑﻨﺎ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺭﺋﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻜﻬﻨﺔ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳُ ّ‬
‫» ﺑﻌﺪﻣﺎ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﺗﻄﻬ ًﲑﺍ ﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ‪) « ...‬ﻋﺐ ‪.(٣ :١‬‬
‫» ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺪﻡ ﺗﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﻋﺠﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺑﺪﻡ )ﺣﻴﺎﺓ( ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺩﺧﻞ ﻣﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻓﺪﺍﺀ ﺃﺑﺪﻳًﺎ‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻗﺪﺍﺱ ) ﺍﻟﻜﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﲢﺪ ﺑﻪ( ﻓﻮﺟﺪ ً‬
‫ﺩﻡ ﺛﲑﺍﻥ ﻭﺗﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﺭﻣﺎﺩ ﻋﺠﻠﺔ ﻣﺮﺷﻮﺷﲔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻨﺠﺴﲔ ﻳﻘﺪﺱ ﺇﱃ ﻃﻬﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺴﺪ )ﻫﺬﺍ ﻃﻘﺲ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﲑ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ(‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﻢ ﺑﺎﳊﺮﻱ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺩﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﺮﻭﺡ ﺃﺯﱄ ﻗﺪﻡ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﷲ ﺑﻼ ﻋﻴﺐ ﻳﻄﻬﺮ ﺿﻤﺎﺋﺮﻛﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﻣﻴﺘﺔ«‬
‫)ﻋﺐ ‪.(١٤ -١٢ :٩‬‬
‫» ﻷﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺩﻡ ﺛﲑﺍﻥ ﻭﺗﻴﻮﺱ ﻳﺮﻓﻊ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ )ﺃﻱ ﻳﻄﻬﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺗﺞ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺔ (‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺧﻮﻟﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ) ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﰲ‬
‫ﻛﻴﺎﻥ ﻭﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﻫﻴﻜﻞ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﻜﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ‬
‫» ﺍﻷﻗﺪﺍﺱ « ( ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ‪ :‬ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻭﻗﺮﺑﺎﻧًﺎ ﱂ ﺗﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﻴﺄﺕ ﱄ ﺟﺴ ًﺪﺍ‪.‬‬
‫ﲟﺤﺮﻗﺎﺕ ﻭﺫﺑﺎﺋﺢ ﻟﻠﺨﻄﻴﺔ ﱂ ﺗُﺴﺮ‪) .‬ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﻭﻻ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺘﺒﺴﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‬ ‫ﳓﻦ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ً‬
‫ﻣﺮﺍﺭﺍ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ‪ :‬ﳌﻦ ﻗُ ﱢﺪﻡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﻭﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﻗُ ﱢﺪﻡ؟ (‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﻭﺭﺩﺗﻪ ً‬
‫ﰒ ﻗﻠﺖ ﻫﺄﻧﺬﺍ ﺃﺟﻲﺀ ‪ ...‬ﻷﻓﻌﻞ ﻣﺸﻴﺌﺘﻚ ﻳﺎ ﺍﷲ ‪ ...‬ﻓﺒﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺸﻴﺌﺔ ﳓﻦ ﻣﻘﺪﺳﻮﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺴﺎ ﻟﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﺟﺴﺪ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻣﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ )ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺗﻄﻬﲑًﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ً‬
‫ﳓﻦ ﺍﳌﺤﺘﺎﺟﲔ ﻟﻠﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ(« )ﻋﺐ ‪.(١٠ -٤ :١٠‬‬
‫» ﻣﺮﺷﻮﺷﺔ ﻗﻠﻮﺑﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺿﻤﲑ ﺷﺮﻳﺮ ﻭﻣﻐﺘﺴﻠﺔ ﺃﺟﺴﺎﺩﻧﺎ ﲟﺎﺀ ﻧﻘﻲ « )ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﻌﻤﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﺵ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﻟﺘﻜﻔﺮ ﻭﺗﻄﻬﺮ ﳒﺎﺳﺔ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻄﻬﺮﺍ ﺇﻳﺎﻫﺎ )ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ(‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ »‬
‫ﺿﻤﺎﺋﺮﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮﺓ ( )ﻋﺐ ‪ً (٢٢ :١٠‬‬
‫ﺑﻐﺴﻞ ﺍﳌﺎﺀ )ﺍﳌﻌﻤﻮﺩﻳﺔ( « )ﺃﻓﺴﺲ ‪.(٢٦ :٥‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺑﻘﻮﳍﻢ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻞ ً‬
‫» ﻭﺩﻡ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﻄﻬﺮﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ « )‪١‬ﻳﻮ ‪.(٧ :١‬‬

‫‪٢٠٩‬‬
 ‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﰲ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺃﺣﺒﻨﺎ ﻭﺃﺭﺳﻞ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ )ﺃﻱ ﺗﻄﻬ ًﲑﺍ( ﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ « )‪١‬ﻳﻮ ‪.(١٠ :٤‬‬
‫» ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﻫﺬﻩ )ﺍﻟﻔﻀﺎﺋﻞ( ﻫﻮ ﺃﻋﻤﻲ ﻭﻗﺼﲑ ﺍﻟﺒﺼﺮ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﻧﺴﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻄﻬﲑ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻟﻔﺔ « )‪٢‬ﺑﻄﺮﺱ ‪.(١٠ :١‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻔّﺎﺭﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻋﻤﻞ »ﺇﺳﺘﺒﺪﺍﱄ ﻋﻘﻮﰊ« ﺃﻭ ﺩﻓﻊ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ »ﺩﻳﹽﺔ« ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﷲ‬
‫ﻻﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻏﺎﺿﺒﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻬﺎﻧﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻓﺴﺮ ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻭﻛﺎﻟﭭﻦ ﻭﻣﻔﺴﺮﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﻮﻥ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻭﻳﻨﻀﺢ )ﻳﺮﺵ( ﻋﻠﻴﻪ )ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ( ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﺑﺈﺻﺒﻌﻪ ﺳﺒﻊ ﻣﺮﺍﺕ ﻭﻳﻄﻬﺮﻩ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻘﺪﺳﻪ ﻣﻦ ﳒﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺑﲏ ﺇﺳﺮﺍﺋﻴﻞ« )ﻻ ‪.(٢٠ :١٦‬‬
‫» ﻭﻳﻜﻔﺮ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻫﻦ ﻓﻴﻄﻬﺮ « )ﻻ ‪.(٢٠ :١٤‬‬
‫» ﻭﻳﻜﻔﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﻄﻬﺮ ﻣﻦ ﳒﺎﺳﺘﻪ « )ﻻ ‪.(١٩ :١٤‬‬
‫ﻗﻄﻌﺎ ﺗﻜﻔﲑ ﻏﲑ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﲑ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻣﺚ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺎﻓﺲ ﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ً‬ ‫ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ً‬
‫ﻗﻄﻌﺎ ﺗﻄﻬﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺇﻓﺮﺍﺯﺍﺕ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻏﺎﻟﺒًﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﲞﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﲑ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻫﻮ ً‬
‫ﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﺤﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﻻ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺪﺑﺮ‬
‫ﺧﺮﻭﺝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﻓﺮﺍﺯﺍﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﻄﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺃﻱ ﺇﻓﺮﺍﺯﺍﺕ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻃﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﺇﳍﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺑﻴﺪ ﻧﻘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﰲ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺘﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻫﺐ ﺁﻣﻮﻥ‬
‫)ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﻧﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻧﻴﻘﻴﺔ ‪ -‬ﺍﳌﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺠﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﺹ ‪.(٥٥٦‬‬
‫ﻟﺬﺍ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﰲ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﻼﻭﻳﲔ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺟﻒ ﻧﺰﻳﻔﻬﺎ ( ﻓﺘﻄﻬﺮ‪...‬‬
‫» ﻓﻴﻘﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﻳﻜﻔﺮ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ) ﺃﻱ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ّ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻜﻔﺮ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻫﻦ ﻓﺘﻄﻬﺮ « )ﻻ ‪.(٨ -٧ :١٢‬‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﺳﻘﻮﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻞ ﺍﻷﻃﻬﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺟﺰﺀ ﻫﺎﻡ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﺎﺋﺢ ﻭﻋﺪﻡ ﺇﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﳍﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﲨﻴﻊ ﳒﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺈﻓﺮﺍﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﻏﲑﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﺣﻠﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﺃﺣـﺮﺍ ًﺭﺍ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﳒﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﻓﻬﻲ‬

‫‪٢١٠‬‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻭﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻗﺪﻡ ﻟﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻛﺘﻮﺭ ﻭﻟﻴﻢ ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﻗﻼﺩﺓ ﻧﺺ ﺩﺳﻘﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻭﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺷﻴﻖ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺇﺳﺘﺸﻌﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺍﻷﻭﺍﺋﻞ‬
‫ﳓﻮ ﺍﷲ ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺣﺚ ﺍﻟﻌﱪﺍﻧﻴﲔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺪﻣﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺩﺓ ﻟﻪ ﺑﺈﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻫﻢ‬
‫ﻭﻭﺿﻊ ﳍﻢ ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺳﻬﺎ‪ :‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻴﺲ ﲟﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﻠﻘﺮﺍﺑﲔ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻓﻮﻕ ﻛﻞ ﺇﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ‬
‫ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ‪ ...‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺃﻋﻄﻲ ﻟﻠﻌﱪﺍﻧﻴﲔ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﻨﻌﻮﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﺄﻣﺮﻫﻢ ‪ ...‬ﻷﺟﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻝ ‪ :‬ﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺖ ﺗﺸﺘﻬﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺬﺑﺢ ﱄ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﺴﺖ ﲟﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ‪ .‬ﺇﱐ‬
‫ﻻ ﺃﺣﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﺷﻰﺀ‪ ،‬ﱄ ﺍﳌﺴﻜﻮﻧﺔ ﻭﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ « )ﺧﺮﻭﺝ ‪.(٢٥ :٢٠‬‬
‫ﺇﺫﻥ ﻣﱵ ﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﻟﺰﺍﻡ ﺑﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻄﻘﻮﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﺑﺎﺋﺢ ﻫﺬﺍ؟‬
‫» ﰲ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﺴﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺐ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺩﻋﻮﺍ ﳍﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﺠﻞ ﺇﳍًﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻮﺽ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻰ‪ ...‬ﻓﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﷲ )ﻏﻀﺐ ﻟﺸﻌﺒﻪ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ!( ﻷ‪‬ﻢ‬
‫ﱂ ﻳﺸﻜﺮﻭﻩ‪ .‬ﻓﺮﺑﻄﻬﻢ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ‪ :‬ﺑﺎﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻣﺘﻨﺎﻉ ) ﻻ ﺗﺬﻕ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﲤﺲ‪ ،‬ﻻ‬
‫ﺗﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ( ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ‪ .‬ﺣﱴ ﲝﻔﻆ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺍﺋﺾ ﻳﺪﻭﻣﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺫﻛﺮ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺃﻋﻄﺎﻫﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﺎﻳﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﺣﺮﺍﺭﺍ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺃﻧﺘﻢ ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺆﻣﻨﻮﻥ ‪ ...‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺣﻠﻜﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺑﺎﻃﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﻌﻠﻜﻢ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺒﻮﺩﻳﺔ ‪ ...‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺇﺑﻦ ﺍﷲ ﳌﺎ ﺟﺎﺀ ﺣﻘﻖ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻭﻛﻤﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﲪﻞ ﺍﻷﺛﻘﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ُﺟﻌﻠﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﻭﺑ ّﻄﻠﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻤﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ )ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﺎﺵ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻗﺒﻞ ﻣﻮﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ ‪ -‬ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻀﻤﲑ ﻭﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﷲ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺮﻳﺐ ( ﺛﺒﺘﻪ ﻭﺟﻌﻞ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺣﺮﺍ‪) «.‬ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱄ ﺹ ‪.( ٧٢٧ - ٧٢٦‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ً‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ ﻳﻌﲏ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﳒﺎﺳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﲑ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﺮﺵ )ﺃﻱ ﻧﻀﺢ ( ﺍﻟﺪﻡ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﺘﺠﺪ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺵ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺳﺎﺕ ً‬
‫ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻋﻦ » ﻛﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻫﻦ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺬﺑﺢ ﻭﺧﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ!!« ﻛﻴﻒ؟! ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﲑ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺘﻤﺴﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻛﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﻓﺪﻳﺔ ﻋﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺑﺪﻳﻞ ﷲ ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﻔﻮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﺗﻌﲏ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻛﻔﺮ ﻋﻦ » ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﺪﺓ « ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻻ ﺗﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﲣﻄﺊ؟!! ﻫﺬﺍ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﰲ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ‬

‫‪٢١١‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﳘﻴﺔ ﻟﺮﻓﺾ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻟﻴﺲ ﳍﺎ ﺇﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻛﺒﺪﻳﻞ‬
‫ﻋﻘﻮﰊ ﻭﲦﻦ ﷲ ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ )ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻧﺸﺒﻬﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﺮﺽ( ﺑﺄﻥ ﻧﻌﻄﻲ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺾ » ﺩﻭﺍﺀ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ« ‪ -‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‬
‫ﻭﺩﻣﻪ = ﺗﺮﻳﺎﻕ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ‪ Antidote‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﲰﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻏﻨﺎﻃﻴﻮﺱ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺩﻭﺍﺀ ﻣﻄﻬﺮ ﻣﻦ ﳒﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻓﺪﻳﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﷲ ﻛﺜﻤﻦ ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻳﻔﺴﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ!!! ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﲢﻞ ﻟﻮ ﺃﺩﺭﻛﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﷲ ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻘ ﱢﺪﻡ ﻟﻠﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﷲ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﺴﺘﻠﻢ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﳌﻔﻌﻮﻝ ﻣﻔﻌﻮﻝ » ﻋﻼﺟﻲ «‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﻄﻬﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻔﻬﻮ ًﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴًﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﺒﻮﻫﺐ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﰲ ﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻟﻠﺨﺎﻃﻰ‪،‬‬
‫ﻼ ﻗﺪ ﻣﺎﺕ ﺭﻭﺣﻴًﺎ ﻭﻓﺮﻍ ﻛﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﺠﺪﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﻄﻬﺮ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻓﻌ ً‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺲ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺵ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺳﺎﺕ ﻓﻜﺎﻥ ﳌﻌﲎ ﺭﻭﺣﻲ ﲨﻴﻞ ﻧﺪﺭﻛﻪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻗﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻋﻦ ﺟﺴﺪﻩ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻫﻴﻜﻞ ﺍﷲ‪ » :‬ﺃﻧﻘﻀﻮﺍ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳍﻴﻜﻞ ﻭﺃﻧﺎ ﰲ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻳﺎﻡ ﺃﻗﻴﻤﻪ« )ﻳﻮ ‪ .(١٩ :٢‬ﻓﺎﳌﻘﺪﺳﺎﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺭﻣ ًﺰﺍ ﻟﻜﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﷲ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺣﺒﻨﺎ ﻟﻪ )ﺗﺄﻣﻞ ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﺃﻥ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻫﻲ ﻫﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ‬
‫ﻓﺪﻳﺔ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ!!(‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻫﻦ ﻳﺮﺵ ﻭﻳﻨﻀﺢ ﺑﺎﳊﻴﺎﺓ )ﺍﻟﺪﻡ( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺳﺎﺕ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻰ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﻬﺒﻪ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻓﻘﺪﻫﺎ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﻮ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺣﺪ ﻛﺒﲑ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ » ﻧﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ « ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺐ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ‪ .‬ﻓﻤﱵ ﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺾ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺯﻑ ﺩﻣﻪ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺘﺸﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﺘﱪﻉ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﺐ ﺑﺪﻣﻪ ﻟﻠﻤﺮﻳﺾ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﻘﻦ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺾ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻡ‪،‬‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﳛﻴﺎ ﻭﻻ ﳝﻮﺕ ‪ -‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻳﻔﺘﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺾ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﺮﻣﻮﺯ ﳍﺎ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺫﺑﺎﺋﺢ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺩﺧﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﲝﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﻻﻫﻮﺗﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﱪ )ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﻧﺸﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﱪ ﲝﺠﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ( ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻤﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻤﺎﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻧﻘﻞ ﻭﺯﺭﻉ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻻﻫﻮﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﳝﻮﺕ ﺇﱃ ﻧﺎﺳﻮﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺑﻞ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﰒ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﱪ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﻟﻨﺎ )ﻛﻤﺎ ﳜﺮﺝ ﺍﳉﺮﺍﺡ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺠﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺒﺸﺮ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺾ( ﺑﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻓﻌ ًﻼ ﻗﺪ ﲢﻘﻖ ﳍﺎ ﺣﻠﻢ ﻏﻠﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪﻱ ‪‬ﺎﺋﻴًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﺧﺎﻟﺪﺓ ﻏﲑ ﻓﺎﺳﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻧﻘﻞ ﻭﺯﺭﻉ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻫﺬﻩ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﻣﺎ ﺃﲰﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﳋﻼﺹ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻗﺪ » ﲤﱠﺎ « ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺇﺑﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﲢﺪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﺗﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎﻟﺰﻣﻦ )ﻓﻬﻮ ﻏﲑ ﺯﻣﲎ( ﻣﺜﻞ‬
‫‪٢١٢‬‬
‫ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ .‬ﳎﺮﺩ ﺩﺧﻮﻝ ﺍﷲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺇﻓﺘﺪﺍﺀ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ ‪ :‬ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﻟﻨﺎ )‪ ١‬ﻳﻮ ‪.(٢ :١‬‬
‫ﻭﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ )ﺻﻼﺓ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺢ ( ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺩﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﲝﺴﺪ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ ﻫﺪﻣﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺤﻴﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻹﺑﻨﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﺍﳉﻨﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻸﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ )ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ( ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ «‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻠﻨﻪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴًﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﳑﻜﻨًﺎ‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﺘﺮﻙ ﺟﺴﺪﻩ )ﺃﻱ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲪﻠﻬﺎ ﻓﻴﻪ( ﳝﻮﺕ ﻣﻮﺗًﺎ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴًﺎ‪ ،‬ﰒ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻴﻤﻪ ﻭﻧﻠﻤﺴﻪ ﻭﻧﺘﺄﻛﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴًﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻻﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺤﻄﻢ‬
‫ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻔﺰﻋﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺑﺘﺠﺴﺪﻩ ﻗﺪ ﰎ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﲑ ﻋﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺑﺘﺠﺴﺪﻩ ﻗﺪ ﺣﻘﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺑﺘﺠﺴﺪﻩ ﻗﺪ ﻃ َﻬﺮ ﻛﻴﺎﻧﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻟﻘﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﺄﻳﺪﻳﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺘﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺭﻏﺒﺘﻪ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﻓﺪﺍﺀﻩ ﻭﺗﻄﻬﲑﻩ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﻄﻮﱄ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺟﻲ ﻭﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﰊ‪:‬‬

‫ﻧﻌﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻭﺗﺘﺤﻤﻞ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﺘﻔﻴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳌﺎﺫﺍ؟!‬
‫• ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ‪ :‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﺴﺪﺩ ﺩﻳﻨًﺎ ﷲ ﻣﺪﺑﺮ ﺣﻜﻢ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ!!‬
‫• ﺇﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺒﻄﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺟﻴﺔ ‪ :‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﲢﺮﻗﻬﺎ ﻭﺗﻼﺷﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﺄﻥ‬
‫‪‬ﺪﻱ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺻﻨﻌﻪ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺒﻄﻞ ﻳﻀﺤﻲ ﲝﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﻓﺪﺍﺀ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﻪ ﻭﺣﺒﻴﺒﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻧﻌﻢ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺇﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﻱ‪ » :‬ﺃﺧﺬ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﺃﻋﻄﺎﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻨﺴﺒﺤﻪ «‬
‫)ﺍﻹﺑﺼﻠﻤﻮﺩﻳﺔ(‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﻫﻮ ﻛﻤﺎ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺒﻄﻞ ِﺣ ْﻤ َﻞ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﻪ ﺑﻔﺮﺡ؛‬
‫ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺍﻷﻡ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺗﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺃﻭﻻﺩﻫﺎ ﲝﺐ؛ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﻤﺎ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ‬
‫ﻋﻘﺎﺑًﺎ ُﺣﻜﻢ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳎﺮﻡ‪ ،‬ﻹﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﳉﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺗﺴﺪﻳﺪ‬
‫ﺗﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺬﻝ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺫﻝ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺘﻠﻢ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﻮﺏ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻪ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ‪،‬‬
‫‪٢١٣‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻻﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺛﺎﻟﺚ؛ ﻭﺇﻻ ﲢﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺬﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺇﻟﺰﺍﻡ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱏ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﺗﺮﺿﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻄﺮﻑ ﺛﺎﻟﺚ!! ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻳﻨﻌﺪﻡ ﺍﳊﺐ ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﺬﻝ‬
‫ﺳﺎﺩﻳًﺎ ﺣﻘﻮ ًﺩﺍ ﻭﻇﺎﳌًﺎ ﻟﱪﺉ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﷲ ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﱂ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ﻗُﺪﻡ ﻛﺬﺑﻴﺤﻪ ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﺤﺘﺎﺝ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ » ﺍﳌﺤﺘﺎﺟﲔ « ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺬﻛﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻗﺒﻮﳍﺎ ﰲ ﻋﲔ ﺍﷲ ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﲏ ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺇﺣﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﺎﺋﺖ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺻﺪﻗﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭﻫﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ‪ :‬ﻧﻌﻢ ﻳﻘﺒﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻛﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻷﺑﻨﺎﺋﻪ ﺍﳌﺤﺘﺎﺟﲔ ﻟﻠﺼﺪﻗﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ!! ﻓﻘﺒﻮﻝ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﲦﻦ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱏ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻓﺮﺡ‬
‫ﻭﻣﺴﺮﺓ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ » ﺍﻟﺒﻜﺮ « ﻗﺪ ﺟﺎﺀ ﺑﺄﺧﻮﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻀﺎﻟﲔ ﺇﱃ ﺣﻀﻦ ﺍﻵﺏ‪.‬‬
‫ﳍﺬﺍ ُﺳ ﱠﺮ ﺍﻵﺏ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻀﺾ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺳﺤﻖ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺣﺒًﺎ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﻭﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻷﻧـﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒًﺎ ﺑﺴﺤﻘﻪ ﻹﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺇﳍﻴﺔ ﻓﻘﺪﺕ ﺇﺗﺰﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺇﳍﻴﺔ ﻫﺰﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻢ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻭﺑﻌﺪﻩ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻹﻛﻮﻳﲏ ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﻢ‪.‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ « ﻭ» ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ « ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ‪ :‬ﻫﻮ ﲦﻦ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻟﻨﺎ؛ ﻭﺗﺴﺪﻳﺪﻩ ﻟﺪﻳﻨﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺭﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﻓﻴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺑﺪﺩﻧﺎﻫﺎ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻱ ﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ » ﻛﻔـﺎﺭﺓ « ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻣﻴﺔ ‪:‬‬

‫ﻭﰲ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﺷﻴﻘﺔ ﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻛﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﺘﺐ‬
‫‪ LEIGHTON PULLAN‬ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺃﻛﺴﻔﻮﺭﺩ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ »ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ«‬
‫)‪ The Atonement (1907‬ﺗﻌﻠﻴ ًﻘﺎ ﻫﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻱ ﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﱪﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻵﺭﺍﻣﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺷﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ً‬
‫» ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﻛ ّﻔﺮ ‪ Atone‬ﻭﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ‪ Atonement‬ﺗﺴﺘﻌﻤﻼﻥ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ‪ Kipper‬ﺍﻟﻌﱪﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻔﺴﺮﻭﻥ ﻳﻈﻨﻮﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺗﻌﲏ‬
‫» ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻄﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ « ﺍﻟﺸﻰﺀ ﺃﻱ ﺇﺧﻔﺎﺀﻩ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﻐﻄﻲ ‪ Cover‬ﺍﻟﻴﺪ ﲟﻨﺪﻳﻞ ﻣﺜﻼً‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﲟﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﱪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﱪﻳﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻵﺭﺍﻣﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﺷﻮﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﺒﲔ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻷﺻﻴﻞ ﻟﻠﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﱪﻳﺔ ‪Kipper‬‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﻈﻴﻒ ‪ to wipe clean‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﺇﻇﻬﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﱪﻳﻖ ‪to‬‬
‫‪ « make bright‬ﺹ ‪.٦٢‬‬
‫‪٢١٤‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﺗﻔﺎﺻﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺃﺳﺎﺗﺬﺓ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﻭﻗﻮﺍﻣﻴﺴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﰲ ﻣﻠﺤﻖ ﻫﺎﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﺻﻔﺤﺎﺕ ﰲ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﰲ ﺹ ‪: ٢٥٧ - ٢٥٥‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ‪ ، Kipper‬ﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺍﳌﺤﻮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻒ ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ‬
‫» ﳌﻌﺎﻥ « ﻭﺑﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺸﻰﺀ ﺃﻭ ﻳﺰﺩﺍﺩ ﺑﻴﺎﺿﻪ ﻧﺼﺎﻋﺔ‪،‬‬
‫‪To wipe so as to make bright or white‬‬

‫ﻭﻻ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻄﻴﺔ ‪..... to cover‬‬

‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﻛﺪ ﱄ ‪ Rev. C.J Ball‬ﻣﺪﺭﺱ ﺍﻷﺷﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﲜﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺃﻛﺴﻔﻮﺭﺩ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺃﻳﻀﴼ‬
‫‪ ، Dr. Burney‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﲝﺚ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ‪ ،‬ﺃﻛ ّﺪﺍ ﱄ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺷﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﱪﻳﻖ ‪ purity & brightness‬؛ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺗﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﻟﺸﺮﺡ‬
‫» ﺗﺒﻴﻴﺾ ﻭﺗﻄﻬﲑ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻘﻤﺢ « ‪ Kapâru sa qême‬ﻭ » ﺗﻄﻬﲑ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭ « ‪ Kuppuru sa isarum ...‬ﻭﰲ ﻗﺎﻣﻮﺱ‬
‫‪Concise Dictionary of the Assyrian Language (Berlin‬‬
‫‪1898) by W. Muss-Arnolt,‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﲏ ﺗﺪﻣﲑ ﺃﻭ ﺇﻓﻨﺎﺀ ﺃﻭ ﺇﻟﻐﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﳏﻮ‬ ‫‪Kaparu‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫’‪‘to destroy’, or ‘do away with’, ‘the thought of wiping away‬‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻓﺮ ﻫﻮ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺆﻣﻦ‪ ،‬ﻧﺎﻛﺮ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻛﺮﻣﻪ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻪ )ﻧﺎﻛﺮ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻞ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﺎﻛﺮ ﺁﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﷲ ‪ ...‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﻥ ﳝﺤﻮ ﺍﳊﻖ ‪...‬‬
‫ﳏﻮﺍ ﻛﺎﻣﻼً[‪.‬‬
‫] ﻭﻛﻔﺮ ﺳﻴﺌﺎﺗﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﲏ ﺃﻣﺢ ﺳﻴﺌﺎﺗﻨﺎ ً‬
‫ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﺬﻛﺮﻧﺎ ﺑﻘﻮﻝ ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﳏﻮ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺗﻐﻄﻴﺘﻬﺎ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻛﻢ ﻛﺎﻟﻘﺮﻣﺰ ﺗﺒﻴﺾ ﻛﺎﻟﺜﻠﺞ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﲪﺮﺍﺀ ﻛﺎﻟﺪﻭﺩ‬
‫ﺗﺼﲑ ﻛﺎﻟﺼﻮﻑ« )ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ‪ (١٨ :١‬ﻭ » ﻗﺪ ﳏﻮﺕ ﻛﻐﻴﻢ ﺫﻧﻮﺑﻚ ﻭﻛﺴﺤﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫ﱄ ﻷﱐ ﻓﺪﻳﺘﻚ« )ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ‪.«(٢٣ -٢٢ :٤٤‬‬‫ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻙ‪ .‬ﺇﺭﺟﻊ ﺇ ﱠ‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﲦﻨًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻻ ﻳﺪﻓﻊ ﲦﻨًﺎ!! ﺑﻞ ﺇﻥ ﺍﷲ ﲟﺤﺒﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻜﺒﺪ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﺎﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻜﻠﻴﻒ ﳏﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﻮﺻﻞ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻓﻌﻞ ﳏﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ‪.‬‬
‫‪٢١٥‬‬
 ‫ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ‪ PULLAN‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﰲ ﺹ ‪ ٦٨ -٦٧‬ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﲑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘ ّﺪﻣﻪ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﳝﺤﻮ ﻭﻳﻌﺎﺩﻝ ‪ neutralises‬ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﳍﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﻳﻐﻔﺮﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ‪ Kipper‬ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻏﻨﻴﺔ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﻭﺗﻔﻮﻕ ﺃﻱ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﳚﺪﺭ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﻲ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻭﻻ ﺣﱴ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻪ ﲟﻌﲎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳُﺴﺘﺮﺿﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﳍﺎ ﺗﺄﺛﲑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ‪ ] ..‬ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ!![ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﻫﻮ ﳏﻮ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪«.‬‬
‫] ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻞ ﻭﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﰲ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻨﻨﺎ!! [‬
‫ﻭﻳﺬﻛﺮﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻟﻴﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻐﻔﺮ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻐﻔﺮ ﲟﺤﻮ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﳎﺎﻧًﺎ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻏﲏ ﻧﻌﻤﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺋﻖ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺑﺎﻟﺮﲪﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﻖ ﻳُﻔﺘﺪﻱ ﺍﻹﰒ « )ﺃﻣﺜﺎﻝ ‪ ٦ :١٦‬ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﻛﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ ‪-‬‬
‫ﻓﺮﻧﺴﻴﺴﻜﺎﻥ ‪ -‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ ﻃﺒﻌﺔ ‪.(١٩٦٠‬‬
‫‪by mercy & truth iniquity is purged‬‬

‫]ﻭﻛﻠﻤﺔ ‪ purged‬ﺗﻌﲏ ﺗﻄﻬﲑ![‬

‫ﻳﻜﻔﺮ ﺇﰒ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﲦﺮﺗﻪ ﳏﻮ ﺧﻄﻴﺌﺔ « )ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ‪ ٩ :٢٧‬ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ‬
‫» ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﱠ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺴﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ -‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ(‪ ] .‬ﻭﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻳﻜﻔﺮ ﺗﺮﲨﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ‪ purge‬ﺃﻳﻀﴼ[‪.‬‬
‫» ﻓﻄﺎﺭ ﺇﱃ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﲑﺍﻓﻴﻢ ﻭﺑﻴﺪﻩ ﲨﺮﺓ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺧﺬﻫﺎ ﲟﻠﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺖ ﺷﻔﺘﻴﻚ ﻓﺈﻧﺘﺰﻉ ﺇﲦﻚ ﻭﻛﻔﺮ‬ ‫ﻭﻣﺲ ‪‬ﺎ ﻓﻤﻲ ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﺇﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻗﺪ ﱠ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺬﺑﺢ‪ ،‬ﱠ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺧﻄﻴﺘﻚ « )ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ‪ ] .(٧ -٦ :٦‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺴﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ :‬ﻓﺄﺯﻳﻞ‬
‫ﺇﲦﻚ[‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﰲ ﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﰲ ﻧﺴﺨﺔ ‪: New King James‬‬
‫ﺃﻱ‬ ‫”‪“Your iniquity is taken away, and your sin purged‬‬
‫ﺗﻄ ّﻬﺮﺕ ﻭ ُﻣﺤﻴّﺖ‪.‬‬

‫‪٢١٦‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﳌﻠﻬﻤﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺧﺬﺕ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﲑ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻄﻬﲑ ﻭﳏﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻔﻲ ﺻﻼﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﻨﺪﺭﻱ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺘﺮﱎ ﺑﻘﺼﺔ ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﺗﻄﻬﲑ‬
‫ﺷﻔﺘﻴﻪ ﺑﺎﳉﻤﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﻣﺰ ﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﺩﻣﻪ‪:‬‬
‫ﻃﻬﺮﺕ ﺷﻔﱵ ﻋﺒﺪﻙ ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ ﺇﺫ ﺃﺧﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﲑﺍﻓﻴﻢ ﲨﺮﺓ ﲟﻠﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ‬
‫» ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ّ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺬﺑﺢ‪ ...‬ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﻟﻪ‪ :‬ﺇﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻗﺪ ﳌﺴﺖ ﺷﻔﺘﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﻓﻊ ﺁﺛﺎﻣﻚ ‪...‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻔﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﳋﻄﺎﺓ ﻋﺒﻴﺪﻙ ﺗﻔﻀﻞ‬ ‫ﺗﻄﻬﺮ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻙ‪ .‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﳓﻦ ً‬
‫ﻃ ّﻬﺮ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ ﻭﺃﺟﺴﺎﺩﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺷﻔﺎﻫﻨﺎ ﻭﻗﻠﻮﺑﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﻋﻄﻨﺎ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳉﻤﺮﺓ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﻄﻴّﺔ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻟﻠﻨﻔﺲ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺟﺴﺪﻙ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺮﱘ ﺍﻟﻠﺬﻳﻦ ﳌﺴﻴﺤﻚ «‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﺻﻼﺓ ﻗﺴﻤﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ‪:‬‬
‫»ﺣﻞ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﺑﺮﻭﺣﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻭﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻃﻬﺮﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺇﰒ ﻭﺭﻳﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺟﻌﻞ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺟﺴﺪﻙ‬
‫ِ‬
‫ﻭﲤﺤﻴﺼﺎ ]ﺗﻄﻬﲑًﺍ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﺩﻥ[ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺫﻧﻮﺑﻨﺎ« ‪.‬‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﻭﺩﻣﻚ ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻓﺪﺍﺀ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻜﻤﻞ ‪ PULLAN‬ﰲ ﺗﺄﻣﻼﺗﻪ ﻭﺩﺭﺍﺳﺘﻪ ﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺫﺑﺎﺋﺢ ﺍﻟﻼﻭﻳﲔ ﱂ ﺗﺬﻛﺮ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﷲ ‪ ،Appeasing‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻐﻴّﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺐ ﻟﻴﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ «....‬ﺹ ‪.٧٣‬‬
‫» ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﺎﺋﺢ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻱ ﻻ ﻳﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺒﺪﺍﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﰊ ‪ ،Penal Substitution‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﲏ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ‬
‫ﻟﺘﺘﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺪ ًﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻰ‪ ] .‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻰ‪ ،‬ﻗﺮﻥ‬
‫‪ ،١١‬ﻭﻭﺭﺛﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ‪ ،‬ﻗﺮﻥ ‪ ،١٦‬ﻭﳘﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻹﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻏﻀﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﺒﺒﺘﻪ ﺇﻫﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻭ ﺍ ﻟﻘﺎ ﻧﻮ ﻥ ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺑـﺬ ﻟﻚ ﻳﻜﻮ ﻥ ﺍ ﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍ ﻟﺒﺪ ﻳﻞ ﺍ ﻟﻌﻘﻮ ﰊ ﻟﻠﺨﺎ ﻃﻲ‬
‫‪.[Theory of Penal Substitution‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺇﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻋﻘﻮﰊ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﺎﺋﺢ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﰲ ﺇﳓﺮﺍﻑ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺧﻄﺄ ً‬
‫‪ « ...‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﺹ ‪.٧٣‬‬

‫‪٢١٧‬‬
‫» ﻭﺍﳉﺪﻳﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﻛﺮ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﺎﺋﺢ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﱂ ﺗُﻘ ﱠﺪﻡ ﺃﺑﺪﴽ ﻟﻠﺘﻜﻔﲑ ﻋﻦ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎ‬
‫ﺗﺴﺘﺤﻖ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻋﻦ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻬﻮ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻮ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺑﺪﻳﻞ ﻟﻺﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﰊ ﻟ ُﻘ ﱢﺪﻣﺖ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳍﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ «.‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﺹ ‪] .٧٤‬ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﻋﺪﺩ ‪.[٣٠ :١٥‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺴﺮ ﺑﺮﺍﺋﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﻟﻪ ﺃﻳﺔ ﺇﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭﻳﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺄﺧﺮﺓ « ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﺹ ‪.٧٦‬‬
‫] ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺘﺒﻪ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﰲ ﻋﺐ ‪ ١٤ -١٢ :٩‬ﻭ ‪[١٠ -٤ :١٠‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ » ﻏﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ « ﺗﺸﺮﺡ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻣﺮﺽ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻏﻔﺮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻬﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻔﺎﺀ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺮﺽ‪ .‬ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻣﻌﲎ » ﻋﻼﺟﻲ « ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫» ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ « ”‪.“The remission of sins‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ‪ remission‬ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﲪــﻲ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺾ ﻗﺪ ﺫﻫﺒﺖ ﻋﻨﻪ‬
‫‪ ،The remission of fever‬ﺃﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺩﻭﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﺐ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻭﻗﻒ ﺗﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺻﺒﺢ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺾ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ » ﻏﻔﺮﺍﻥ « ﻭﺷﻔﺎﺀ ‪.The patient is in remission :‬‬

‫ﺍﳋﻼﺻﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﻭﲪﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻋﻼﺟﻲ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ‬
‫ﻼ ﻭﳛﻤﻞ ﳒﺎﺳﺔ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﺰﻟﻪ ﻋﻦ ﻓﺮﺡ‬ ‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺪ ﻣﺎﺕ ﻓﻌ ً‬
‫ﺍﻹﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﲝﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﺗﻪ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﷲ ﻳُﻘ ّﺪﻡ ﻟﻠﻤﺎﺋﺖ » ﺩﻭﺍﺀ ﻋﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ « ﻭﻳﻨﻀﺢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺑﺎﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺑﺪ ًﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ‪ :‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﻭﺍﻫﺐ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺫﺑﺎﺋﺢ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﻭﺍﻫﺐ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﰲ ﺑﺬﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻓﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻫﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻘﻮﻡ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﲑ ﻫﻮ ﲝﻠﻮﻝ ﻭﺇﲢﺎﺩ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﰲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺳﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺎﺋﺖ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻼﺷﻲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ )ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪﻯ( ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺩﺧﻴﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﰊ ﺍﻹﳒﻴﻠﻰ‪ ،‬ﻭﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﳌﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﻭﺭﻓﺾ ﺗﺎﻡ ﳋﻄﻮﺭﺗﻪ‪.‬‬

‫‪٢١٨‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﳋﺎﻣﺲ‬

‫ﻭﺑﺪﺧﻮﻟﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﻓﻜﺖ ﺃﺧﺘﺎﻡ ﻭﺭﻣﻮﺯ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﳐﺘﻔﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ‪ » :‬ﻇﻞ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺘﻴﺪﺓ « )ﻋﺐ ‪.(٢ -١ :١٠‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻳﻀﻊ ﻳﺪﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻓﺘﻨﻘﻞ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ )ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻰ(‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﺍﳌﺎﺋﺖ‪ .‬ﻭﺿﻊ ﻳﺪ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺇﻋﻼﻥ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﲝﺮﻳﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﺮﺓ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺑﺪﺩ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻫﻦ ﻳﺘﻤﻢ ﻧﻘﻞ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻫﺬﺍ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﻨﻀﺢ ﻭﻳﺮﺵ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺘﻄﻬﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺮﻣﺰ ﻟﻜﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ » ﺍﻟﺴﻠﱯ « ﻋﻦ ﺇﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻫﻮ ‪ :‬ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻰ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻣﻮﺗﻪ )ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ( ﻳﻨﺘﻘﻞ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ‪ .‬ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﺃﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﱯ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﳚﺎﰉ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺷﺮﺣﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻹﺛﻨﲔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺒﺤﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺃﺧﺬ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻨﺎ )ﻣﻮﺗﻨﺎ ﻟﻴﻘﻀﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﻳﺒﻴﺪﻩ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻤﺎﻡ (‬
‫ﻭﺃﻋﻄﺎﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻪ ) ُﻃ ْﻬ َﺮ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺑﺪﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ (‪« .‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌ ّﻤﺪ )ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﲑﻭﻥ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﺑﺪﻻً ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻀﻊ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻫﻦ ﺍﻟﻴﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ َ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺴﻠﻤﻪ ﻋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﺍﳌﺤﲕ‪ ،‬ﺫﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻴﺪ( ّ‬

‫‪٢١٩‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻌﻄﻴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ .‬ﺬﺍ ﻳﻨﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻫﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﱃ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﱮ‪) ،‬ﻭﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﲢﺮﻕ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻷ‪‬ﺎ ‪‬ﺐ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ!!( ﻭﺗﻨﺘﻘﻞ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﲰﻲ ﺳﺮ ﺍﳌﲑﻭﻥ ‪» :‬ﺧﺘﻢ ﻻ‬
‫ﻭﻳﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺫﻛﺮﺕ ﳎﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﺗﺸﺮﺡ‬‫ﳝﺤﻲ«‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻳﻄﺒﻊ ّ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻷﻱ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺸﺮﺣﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻠﻢ ﺑﻪ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﳎﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﻣﺜﻞ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﲑ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻐﺴﻴﻞ )ﺑﺎﳌﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ( ‪ -‬ﺍﳌﺼﺎﳊﺔ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﺸﺮﺍﺀ ‪ -‬ﻣﺮﺷﻮﺷﲔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻡ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺲ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﺘﱪﻳﺮ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ‪ ..... -‬ﺍﱁ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎ ﰲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﺳﻴﻤﻔﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺭﺍﺋﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺘﻠﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﻧﻐﺎﻡ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺮﺍﺩﻓﺎﺕ ﻭﻳﻨﺴﺠﻬﺎ ً‬
‫ﻭﺗﻨﺴﺠﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻤﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴَ ْﻈ َﻬﺮ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻫﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺇﲢﺎﺩﻧﺎ ﺑﺎﷲ ﻭﻗﺒﻮﻟﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﺑﺪ ًﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ‪ -‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺩﺭﺳﻨﺎﻩ ﰲ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ » ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ« ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻠﺨﺺ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﳋﻠﻖ ﻛﻠﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﺏ ﻛﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻮﺱ ﻭﻳﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﺳﻘﻒ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﲜﺎﻣﻌﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻛﺴﻔﻮﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻋﻈﺔ ﻣﺴﺠﻠﺔ ﻟﻪ ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ ‪: Patterns of Atonement‬‬
‫» ﻟﻌﻞ ﺃﻭﺿﺢ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺫﻛﺮﺕ ﻟﺘﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ‪ ،‬ﺑﺄﻗﻞ ﺭﻣﺰﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ‪:‬‬
‫ﳊﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ « )‪ ٢‬ﻛﻮ ‪ .(١٩ :٥‬ﻭﺍﷲ ﱂ‬ ‫»ﺍﷲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻣﺼﺎ ً‬
‫ﳐﺎﺻﻤﺎ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺇﺣﺘﺎﺝ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﻳﻜﻦ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ «‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﭬﻼﺩﳝﲑ ﻟﻮﺳﻜﻲ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ً‬
‫‪Orthodox Theology - An Introduction p. 111‬‬

‫» ﺇﻥ ﺿﺨﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﺼﺢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺇﺧﺘﺰﺍﻟﻪ‬
‫ﻭﲢﺪﻳﺪﻩ ﺑﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻭﻻ ﺑﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﳎﺎﺯﻱ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﰲ ﺣﺪ‬
‫ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻋﺘﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺪ ﺍﳌﺸﺘﺮﻱ ﺃﻭ ﺩﻓﻊ ﺩﻳﻦ ﳌﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﰲ ﺗﺸﺒﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻴﻂ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺻﺎﱀ‬
‫ﺩﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺠﻦ ﻷﻧﻪ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻊ ﺩﻓﻌﻪ‪ً .‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ .‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺪ‬

‫‪٢٢٠‬‬
‫ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺮﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧًﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺼﺢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻤﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺘﺤﺠﺮﺓ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ ] ﻻ ﻳﺼﺢ ﲢﻮﻳﻠﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺭﲰﻴﺔ! [ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻤﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﻨﺸﺊ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﻣﻜﺘﺴﺒﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺿﺎﺋﻌﺔ ﰲ‬ ‫ً‬
‫ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﷲ‪ .‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭ ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﺑﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻱ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﻮﺡ ﺍﻟﻼﻣﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﻛﺴﺔ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﳉﻮﻫﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺪﺓ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻮﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺣﻘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﺡ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﺒﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺗﺼﻒ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺒﺤﺚ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﻀﺎﻝ‪ .‬ﰒ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻏﻠﺐ ﻋﺪﻭﻩ ﻭﺃﺧﺬ ﻣﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﻨﺎﺋﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﻨﺴﺖ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺖ ﻭﻭﺟﺪﺕ ﺩﺭﳘﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻔﻘﻮﺩ ﲢﺖ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳜﻔﻲ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﷲ ﲢﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﰒ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺘﻮﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ‬
‫ﰲ ﺃﺳﺒﻮﻉ ﺍﻵﻻﻡ‪ ،‬ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﺤﺎﺭﺏ ﺍﳌﻨﺘﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺩﻣﺮ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺀﻩ ﻭﻛﺴﺮ ﻣﺘﺎﺭﻳﺲ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ‪ ...‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﰲ ﻭﺻﻒ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﳎﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﻄﻬﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﰲ‬
‫ﳉﺮﻭﺡ ﺃﺣﺒﺎﺋﻪ‪ ...‬ﰒ ﺃﺧﲑًﺍ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﻗﻮﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻱ ﳎﺎﺯ ﺁﺧﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﻲ ﺗﻌﻠﻦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺩﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺑﺮﻭﺡ ﺃﺯﱃ‪« ...‬‬

‫ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﳋﻼﺹ‪:‬‬

‫ﻟﻌﻞ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺃﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻻﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻋﻈﻢ‬
‫ﳑﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻮﺭﻩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﻟﻨﺎ ﳏﺒﺘﻪ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﻒ ﻟﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﻬﻤﻪ ﻭﻳﻘﺒﻠﻪ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻭﳝﺎﺭﺳﻪ‪ ،‬ﰒ‬
‫ﻳﺮﺗﻔﻊ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻷﺯﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻋﻈﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻌﺎﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﻤﺜﺎﻝ ﳌﺎ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﻧﻘﺪﻡ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﺮﺡ ﳎﺎﺯﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺗﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ ﻭﺍﻹﻏﺘﺴﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﳒﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﻣﺼﺎﳊﺔ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﻜﺜﻔﺔ ﺭﻗﻴﻘﺔ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺣﻨﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺭﻗﺘﻪ ﻭﻻ ﺗﻌﻄﻲ‬
‫ﳌﻦ ﻳﻘﺮﺃﻫﺎ ﺑﺪﻗﺔ ﺃﻱ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﺗﺴﺪﻳﺪ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺇﻟﻪ ﻳُﺴﺘﺮﺿﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺪﻓﻊ ﲦﻦ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻣﻬﺎﻧﺔ ﺗﻄﻠﺐ ﺣﻘﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻏﺴﻠﻮﺍ ﺛﻴﺎ‪‬ﻢ ﻭﺑﻴﻀﻮﺍ ﺛﻴﺎ‪‬ﻢ ﰲ ﺩﻡ ﺍﳋﺮﻭﻑ « )ﺭﺅ ‪(١٤ :٧‬‬
‫» ﻭﻫﻢ ﻏﻠﺒﻮﻩ ﺑﺪﻡ ﺍﳋﺮﻭﻑ « )ﺭﺅ ‪(١١ :١٢‬‬
‫‪٢٢١‬‬
 ‫» ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﺎﱀ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻋﺎﻣ ًﻼ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺢ ﺑﺪﻡ ﺻﻠﻴﺒﻪ « )ﻛﻮ ‪(٢٠ :١‬‬
‫» ﺻﺮﰎ ﻗﺮﻳﺒﲔ ﺑﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ « )ﺃﻑ ‪(١٣ :٢‬‬
‫» ﻗﺪ ﺻﻮﳊﻨﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ ﲟﻮﺕ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ « )ﺭﻭ ‪(١٠ :٥‬‬
‫» ﺍﷲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻣﺼﺎ ً‬
‫ﳊﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ « )‪ ٢‬ﻛﻮ ‪(١٩ :٥‬‬
‫» ﻟﻜﻦ ﺇﻏﺘﺴﻠﺘﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺗﻘﺪﺳﺘﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺗﱪﺭﰎ ﺑﺈﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﻭﺑﺮﻭﺡ ﺇﳍﻨﺎ«‬
‫)‪١‬ﻛﻮ ‪(١١ :٦‬‬
‫» ﻛﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺇﻗﺘﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﺑﺪﻣﻪ « )ﺃﻉ ‪(٢٨ :٢٠‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺇﺷﺘﺮﺍﻫﻢ « )‪ ٢‬ﺑﻂ ‪(١ :٢‬‬
‫» ﺫﲝﺖ ﻭﺇﺷﺘﺮﻳﺘﻨﺎ ﷲ ﺑﺪﻣﻚ « )ﺭﺅ ‪(٩ :٥‬‬
‫» ﻗﺪ ﺇﺷﺘﺮﻳﺘﻢ ﺑﺜﻤﻦ ﻓﻼ ﺗﺼﲑﻭﺍ ﻋﺒﻴ ًﺪﺍ ﻟﻠﻨﺎﺱ « )‪ ١‬ﻛﻮ ‪(٢٣ :٧‬‬
‫» ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﺷﺘﺮﻭﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺑﺎﻛﻮﺭﺓ ﷲ ﻭﻟﻠﺨﺮﻭﻑ « )ﺭﺅ ‪(٤ :١٤‬‬
‫» ﻣﺘﱪﺭﻳﻦ ﳎﺎﻧًﺎ ﺑﻨﻌﻤﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﻴﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺪﻣﻪ ﺍﷲ ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﺑﺪﻣﻪ ﻹﻇﻬﺎﺭ ﺑﺮﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺢ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻟﻔﺔ «‬
‫)ﺭﻭ ‪(٢٤ :٣‬‬
‫» ﻭﳓﻦ ﻣﺘﱪﺭﻭﻥ ﺍﻵﻥ ﺑﺪﻣﻪ ﳔﻠﺺ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ « )ﺭﻭ ‪(٩ :٥‬‬
‫ﻣﻄﻬﺮﺍ ﺇﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﺑﻐﺴﻞ ﺍﳌﺎﺀ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ « )ﺇﻑ ‪(٢٦ :٥‬‬
‫» ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻘﺪﺳﻬﺎ ً‬
‫» ﻓﻜﻢ ﺑﺎﳊﺮﻱ ﺩﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﻄﻬﺮ ﺿﻤﺎﺋﺮﻛﻢ « )ﻋﺐ ‪(١٥ -١٤ :٩‬‬
‫» ﺑﻌﺪﻣﺎ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺗﻄﻬ ًﲑﺍ ﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ ﺟﻠﺲ ﻋﻦ ﳝﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻤﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻋﺎﱄ «‬
‫)ﻋﺐ ‪(٣ :١‬‬
‫» ﻃﻬﺮﻭﺍ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻜﻢ ﰲ ﻃﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﳊﻖ « )‪ ١‬ﺑﻂ ‪(٩ -٥ :١‬‬
‫» ﻭﺩﻡ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﻳﻄﻬﺮﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ « )‪ ١‬ﻳﻮ ‪(٧ :١‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺣﺒﻨﺎ ﻭﻗﺪ ﻏﺴﻠﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ ﺑﺪﻣﻪ ﻭﺟﻌﻠﻨﺎ ً‬
‫ﻣﻠﻮﻛﺎ ﻭﻛﻬﻨﺔ ﷲ ﺃﺑﻴﻪ «‬
‫)ﺭﺅ ‪(٥ :١‬‬
‫‪٢٢٢‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﱂ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﻭﱂ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﻫﻮ ﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ﻟﻔﻆ » ﱂ ﺗﺮﺩ ﻭﱂ ﺗﺴﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﺑﺎﺋﺢ «!! ﺃﻱ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺮ ﺑﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ُﺳ ﱠﺮ ﺑﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ‬
‫ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ ﻭﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﻭﺑﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﳌﺤﺼﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻮﺕ ﻻ‬
‫ﳊﻴﻮﺍﻥ ﻭﻻ ﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻞ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﻧﺼﺮﺓ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻷﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺩﻡ ﺛﲑﺍﻥ ﻭﺗﻴﻮﺱ ﻳﺮﻓﻊ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ ] ﺃﻱ ﻳُﻄﻬﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ[‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺧﻮﻟﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻭﻗﺮﺑﺎﻧًﺎ ﱂ ﺗﺮﺩ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﻴﺄﺕ ﱄ ﺟﺴ ًﺪﺍ‪.‬‬
‫ﲟﺤﺮﻗﺎﺕ ﻭﺫﺑﺎﺋﺢ ﻟﻠﺨﻄﻴﺔ ﱂ ﺗﺴﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﰒ ﻗﻠﺖ ﻫﺌﻨﺬﺍ ﺃﺟﻰﺀ‪ ...‬ﻷﻓﻌﻞ ﻣﺸﻴﺌﺘﻚ ﻳﺎ ﺍﷲ ‪...‬‬
‫ﻓﺒﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺸﻴﺌﺔ ﳓﻦ ﻣﻘﺪﺳﻮﻥ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﺟﺴﺪ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻣﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪.‬‬
‫)ﻋﺐ ‪(١٠ -٤ :١٠‬‬
‫ﻣﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﺇﱃ‬‫» ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺪﻡ ﺗﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﻋﺠﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺑﺪﻡ )ﺣﻴﺎﺓ( ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺩﺧﻞ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻗﺪﺍﺱ ﻓﻮﺟﺪ ﻓﺪﺍﺀ ﺃﺑﺪﻳًﺎ‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺩﻡ ﺛﲑﺍﻥ ﻭﺗﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﺭﻣﺎﺩ ﻋﺠﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺷﻮﺷﲔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻨﺠﺴﲔ ] ﲟﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺲ[ ﻳﻘ ّﺪﺱ ﺇﱃ ﻃﻬﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻜﻢ ﺑﺎﳊﺮﻱ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺩﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﺮﻭﺡ ﺃﺯﱄ ﻗَ ﱠﺪﻡ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﷲ ] ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪:‬‬
‫ﻗَ ﱠﺪﻣﻪ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ![ ﺑﻼ ﻋﻴﺐ ﻳﻄﻬﺮ ﺿﻤﺎﺋﺮﻛﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﻣﻴﺘﺔ ﻟﺘﺨﺪﻣﻮﺍ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﺍﳊﻲ « )ﻋﺐ ‪.(١٤ -١٢ :٩‬‬
‫ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺑﻼ ﺃﺩﱐ ﺷﻚ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﲑ ﻫﻮ » ﺗﻄﻬﲑ « ﺑﺮﺵ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻡ‬
‫)ﻟﻠﺘﻘﺪﻳﺲ( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻨﺠﺴﲔ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﰲ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺇﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﺑﺘﺴﺪﻳﺪ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻃﻼﻕ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺍﺀ ﻳﻄ ّﻬﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﺩﺧﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻗﺪﺍﺱ ﺑﺪﻡ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ ﳎﺎﺯﻱ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺩﺧﻮﻟﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﲝﻴﺎﺗﻪ‪ :‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻨﺎﻳﺔ ﻋﻦ ﲡﺴﺪﻩ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻷﻗﺪﺍﺱ ﻫﻲ ﻫﻲ ﻛﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺩﺧﻠﻪ ّ‬
‫ﻭﺣﻞ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﲝﻴﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻟﻐﻲ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻛﻞ ﳒﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ‬‫ﺗﻨﺘﺠﻪ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ّ‬
‫ﺗﻄﻬﲑ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﺘَ َﺠ ﱠﺴﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗ ّﺪﺱ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺘﻨﺎ ﺑﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ‪ -‬ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ‪:‬‬

‫‪٢٢٣‬‬
 ‫» ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺪﻣﻪ ﺍﷲ ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﺑﺪﻣﻪ « )ﺭﻭ ‪(٢٥ :٣‬‬
‫» ﻫﻮ ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ « )‪ ١‬ﻳﻮ ‪(٢ :٢‬‬
‫» ﺃﺣﺒﻨﺎ ﻭﺃﺭﺳﻞ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ « )‪ ١‬ﻳﻮ ‪(١٠ :٤‬‬
‫» ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﺇﺧﻮﺗﻪ ]ﳓﻦ !![ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻰﺀ‪ ...‬ﺣﱴ ﻳﻜﻔﺮ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺐ « )ﻋﺐ ‪(١٨ -١٧ :٢‬‬
‫» ﻣﺮﺷﻮﺷﺔ ﻗﻠﻮﺑﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺿﻤﲑ ﺷﺮﻳﺮ ﻭﻣﻐﺘﺴﻠﺔ ﺃﺟﺴﺎﺩﻧﺎ ﲟﺎﺀ ﻧﻘﻲ « )ﻋﺐ‬
‫‪(٢٢ :١٠‬‬
‫ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻫ ّﺪﻳﺔ ﺣﺐ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﺘﻄﻬﺮﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﷲ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻨﻔﻌﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺗﺘﻢ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻟﺘﻮﰲ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ ﺣﻘﴼ ﺿﺎﺋﻌﴼ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﻮﻥ ﻭﻓﺴﺮﻭﺍ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻇﻠﻤﺔ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻄﺶ ﻟﻠﺪﻣﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺤﻴﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺣ ّﻮﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﳍﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻬﺪﺍﺓ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﲦﻦ ﻣﻮﺕ ﻹﺗﻘﺎﺀ ﺳﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﷲ ‪ ،‬ﻣﻘ ّﺪﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﷲ !!‬

‫•••‬

‫َﻣ ْﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﺎﻉ ﻭ َﻣ ْﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺇﺷﺘﺮﻯ؟ ‪:‬‬

‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﺧﺬﻧﺎ ﲟﺎ ﻭﺭﺩ ﰲ » ﻓﻬﺮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ « ﺹ ‪ ٣٢٢‬ﻭﺟﺪﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻓﻌﻞ »ﺷﺮﻱ«‬
‫ﻣﺮﺓ ﻳﺸﺘﺮﻱ ﺃﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ‬
‫ﻭ » ﺇﺷﺘﺮﻱ « ﻭﺭﺩ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﺮﺍﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻛﻞ ّ‬
‫ﺷﻴﺌﴼ ﻭﻳﺪﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﻟﻶﺧﺮ‪ .‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺇﺷﺘﺮﻱ ﻓﻮﻃﻴﻔﺎﺭ ﻳﻮﺳﻒ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ )ﺗﻜﻮﻳﻦ ‪:٣٩‬‬
‫‪ (١‬ﻭﻋﺎﺩ ﻳﻮﺳﻒ ﻭﺇﺷﺘﺮﻱ ﻛﻞ ﺃﺭﺽ ﳌﺼﺮ ﻣﻠﻜﴼ ﻟﻔﺮﻋﻮﻥ )ﺗﻜﻮﻳﻦ ‪ .(٢٠ :٤٧‬ﻭﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻧﻌﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻴﻊ ﻫﻮ ﺑﲔ ﻃﺮﻓﲔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﳝﻠﻚ ﻭﻳﺒﻴﻊ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻳﺸﺘﺮﻱ ﻭﻳﺪﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﻭﻧﺴﺄﻝ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﺮﺿﻪ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﻭ ًﻻ ‪َ :‬ﻣ ْﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻠﻚ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﺈﻟﻪ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ‪ ،‬ﺧﻠﻖ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ؟ ﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺏ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻭﻻ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻭﺱ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻭﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪.‬‬

‫‪٢٢٤‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ‪َ :‬ﻣ ْﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻠﻚ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﻴﻊ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻵﺧﺮ ﻟﺪﻳﻪ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻠﻚ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﺳﻴﺪﻫﺎ ﻭﺭ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ؟ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﺃﻡ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺣﺪﻩ؟ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺃﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺗﻔﺘﺢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺎﺅﻝ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺘﺼﻮﺭﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺇﺷﺘﺮﻱ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﺪﻣﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺇﺷﺘﺮﻱ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺃﻭ ‪ ....‬ﺍﱁ!!! ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﻻ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﳍﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻟﺜًﺎ ‪ :‬ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺷﺮﺍﺀ ﺍﳌﻔﺪﻳﲔ؟ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺎ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺗﺴﺒﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺋﻴﲔ » ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻖ ﺃﻧﺖ ‪ ...‬ﻷﻧﻚ ﺫﲝﺖ ﻭﺇﺷﺘﺮﻳﺘﻨﺎ ﷲ ﺑﺪﻣﻚ ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﺟﻌﻠﺘﻨﺎ ﻹﳍﻨﺎ ﻣﻠﻮﻛﴼ ﻭﻛﻬﻨﺔ ﻓﺴﻨﻤﻠﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ « )‪ .(١٠ -٩ :٥‬ﻭﺑﺘﺄﻣﻞ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﻧﻌﺮﻑ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﻛﺄﻧﻪ ﻣﺬﺑﻮﺡ‬
‫)ﺭﺅ ‪ ،(٦ :٥‬ﻭﻧﻌﺮﻑ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺫُﺑﺢ‪ ...‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﱂ ﻳﺪﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﻟﻶﺏ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﺇﺷﺘﺮﺍﻧﺎ ﷲ ﺃﻱ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻟﻶﺏ ﻭﻟﻠﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪ .‬ﻫﻞ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ‬
‫ﺇﺷﺘﺮﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺇﺷﺘﺮﺍﻧﺎ ﷲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻧﺎﺏ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻵﺏ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﺍﺀ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻴﻊ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺩﻓﻌﻪ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻴﻂ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻻ ﲡﻮﺯ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﺮﺓ ﻷ‪‬ﺎ ﰲ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻻ ﺗﻨﺴﺠﻢ ﻣﻊ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺒﺤﺔ » ﺟﻌﻠﺘﻨﺎ ﻹﳍﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻠﻮﻛﺎ ﻭﻛﻬﻨﺔ ﻭﺳﻨﻤﻠﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ « ﻷﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺸﺘﺮﻱ‬ ‫ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺒﻴﺪ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺍﺷﻴﻲ ‪ ...‬ﺍﱁ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺸﺘﺮﻱ ً‬
‫ﻣﻠﻜﺎ ﻭﻛﺎﻫﻨًﺎ!! ﻫﻨﺎ‬
‫ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﺍﺀ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻫﻮ » ﺇﻗﺘﻨﺎﺀ « ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﲡﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺮﻳﻨﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺄﰐ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ‪:‬‬
‫»ﺇﺣﺘﺮﺯﻭﺍ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻷﻧﻔﺴﻜﻢ ﻭﳉﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺮﻋﻴﺔ ‪ ...‬ﻟﺘﺮﻋﻮﺍ ﻛﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺇﻗﺘﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﺑﺪﻣﻪ « )ﺃﻉ‬
‫‪ .(٢٨ :٢٠‬ﻫﻮ ﺷﺮﺍﺀ ﺍﻹﻗﺘﻨﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﳌُﻠﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﻌﺮﻑ ﺷﺮﺍﺀ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺇﻗﺘﻨﺎﺀ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺷﺮﺍﺀ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﻱ !! ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺮﻳﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺑﻄﺮﺱ » ﺃﻣﺎ ﺃﻧﺘﻢ ﻓﺠﻨﺲ ﳐﺘﺎﺭ ﻭﻛﻬﻨﻮﺕ ﻣﻠﻮﻛﻲ ﺃﻣﺔ ﻣﻘﺪﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺷﻌﺐ ﺇﻗﺘﻨﺎﺀ ﻟﻜﻲ‬
‫ﻼ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ‬‫ﲣﱪﻭﺍ ﺑﻔﻀﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺩﻋﺎﻛﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻧﻮﺭﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺠﻴﺐ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻗﺒ ً‬
‫ﺷﻌﺒًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻓﺄﻧﺘﻢ ﺷﻌﺐ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻛﻨﺘﻢ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺮﺣﻮﻣﲔ ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻓﻤﺮﺣﻮﻣﻮﻥ«‬

‫‪٢٢٥‬‬
‫)‪ ١‬ﺑﻄﺮﺱ ‪ .(١٠ -٩ :٢‬ﻣﺎ ﺃﻋﻈﻢ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻗﺘﻨﺎﺀ ﳌﻦ ﺻﺎﺭﻭﺍ » ﺷﻌﺐ ﺍﷲ « ﳌﻦ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ‬
‫ﻗﺒ ً‬
‫ﻼ » ﻏﲑ ﻣﺮﺣﻮﻣﲔ « ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺤ ّﺪﺙ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺑﻄﺮﺱ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺑﺔ » ﻫﻢ ﻳﻨﻜﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺇﺷﺘﺮﺍﻫﻢ‬
‫ﳚﻠﺒﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻬﻢ ﻫﻼﻛﴼ ﺳﺮﻳﻌﴼ « )‪ ٢‬ﺑﻄﺮﺱ ‪.(١ :١‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺑﺔ ﳛﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻘﺒﻠﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ » ﺷﻌﺐ‬
‫ﺧﺼﻮﺻﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﺍﷲ « ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺎﻗﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺑﺔ » ﻭﺍﻋﺪﻳﻦ ﺇﻳﺎﻫﻢ ﺑﺎﳊﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻢ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻬﻢ ﻋﺒﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺇﻧﻐﻠﺐ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺃﺣﺪ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻟﻪ ﻣﺴﺘﻌﺒﺪ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ « )‪٢‬‬
‫ﺑﻄﺮﺱ ‪ .(١٩ :٢‬ﻭ َﻣ ْﻦ ﺇﻗﺘﻨﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺑﺪﻣﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺒﺪ ﻟﻠﺮﺏ ﻻ ﳝﻠﻚ ﺍﻹﻧﻔﻼﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻗﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺬﺭ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻷﻥ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺃﻭ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻟﻘﺐ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻷﻣﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻫﺮﻭﺏ » ﻣﻦ ﳒﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﲟﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﺍﳌﺨﻠﺺ« )‪ ٢‬ﺑﻄﺮﺱ ‪،(٢٠ :٢‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﳚﻌﻞ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ » ﺍﳌﻔﺪﻳﲔ « ‪» ،‬ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﺷﺘﺮﻭﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻛﻮﺭﺓ ﷲ ﻭﻟﻠﺤﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺃﻓﻮﺍﻫﻬﻢ ﱂ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻏـﺶ‪ ،‬ﻷ‪‬ﻢ ﺑﻼ ﻋﻴﺐ ﻗﺪﺍﻡ ﻋﺮﺵ‬
‫ﺍﷲ « )ﺭﺅ ‪ .(١٤ :١٤‬ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻗﻴﻞ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﺍﺀ ﺗّﻢ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﳊﻤﻞ ‪ ...‬ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﺣﻖ ﺍﻹﻣﺘﻼﻙ ﻭﺍﻹﻗﺘﻨﺎﺀ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﺎ ﳛﺪﺙ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻦ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ » ﻣﻦ ﺩﻋﻲ ﻋﺒﺪﴽ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻋﺒﺪ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻋﺘﻴﻖ )ﺣﺮ(‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺏ « ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻋﻜﺲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ!! ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺪ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺤﺮﺭ ﺑﺎﻹﳝﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﲟﻦ ﻳﻌﺘﻘﻪ ﺑﺪﻓﻊ ﲦﻨﻪ ﻟﺴﻴﺪﻩ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺇﺷﺘﺮﺍﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻮﻕ‬ ‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺨﺎﺳﺔ )ﺍﻟﻌﺒﻴﺪ(‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺪ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻫﻮ »ﻋﺘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ« ﻫﻮ ﺳﻴﺪ ﺣﺮ ﰲ ﳎﺘﻤﻊ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻛﻼﻣﻪ » ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ ﺍﳊﺮ ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻮ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺒﺪ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﺴﻴﺢ « ﻭﻳﻌﻜﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺒﺪ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺳﻴ ًﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ!! ﻭﳜﺘﻢ ﻛﻼﻣﻪ ﻣﺆﻛﺪﴽ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻞ ﺃﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ » ﻗﺪ ﺇﺷﺘﺮﻳﺘﻢ‬
‫ﺑﺜﻤﻦ ﻓﻼ ﺗﺼﲑﻭﺍ ﻋﺒﻴ ًﺪﺍ ﻟﻠﻨﺎﺱ « )‪ ١‬ﻛﻮﺭ ‪ .(٢٣ -٢٢ :٧‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻻﺣﻆ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ‬
‫ﻓﺈﻥ ﺻﻴﻐﺔ ﺍﳌﺒﲏ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻬﻮﻝ ﻗﺪ ﺇﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻣﺮﺗﲔ ‪ :‬ﺍﳌﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﱄ ﰲ )‪١‬ﻛﻮﺭ‬
‫‪ (٢٠ :٦‬ﻭﺍﳌﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ )‪١‬ﻛﻮﺭ ‪ .(٢٣ :٧‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﳌﺮﺗﲔ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻹﻗﺘﻨﺎﺀ ﻷﻧﻪ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﱄ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ » ﺟﺴﺪﻛﻢ ﻫﻮ ﻫﻴﻜﻞ ﻟﻠﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ‪ ..‬ﺃﻧﺘﻢ ﻟﺴﺘﻢ ﻷﻧﻔﺴﻜﻢ «‬
‫ﻼ ﻟﻠﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﺑﻞ ﻳﺘﻄﻮﻉ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺍﷲ ﱂ ﻳﺸﺘﺮ ﻣﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻ ﻳﺸﺘﺮﻱ ﻫﻴﻜ ً‬

‫‪٢٢٦‬‬
‫ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺩﻓﻊ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻴﻪ ﻭﲨﺎﻟﻪ ﻷﻥ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻋﻈﻢ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﺣﻘﴼ ﱂ ﻳﺸﺘﺮ ﺍﷲ ﺷﻴﺌﴼ ﻣﻨﺎ ﻟﻜﻲ ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻫﻴﻜ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳍﻴﻜﻞ ﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ ﺇﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻣﻪ ﻟﻐﲑ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻟﻐﲑ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ...‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺻﺎﺭﺕ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻻﺣﻈﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺪ ﺣﺮ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻭﺍﳊﺮ ﻋﺒﺪ ﰲ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﷲ ﻭﻟﻠﻌﺒﺎﺩﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ّ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ‪ ...‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ ﺃﻥ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﺍﺀ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﲣﻀﻊ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﻱ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺑﻮﺣﺪﺍﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ‪.‬‬

‫ﺧﻀﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯ ﻟﻠﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ‪:‬‬

‫ﻭﺣﺪﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﻭﲤﺎﻳﺰ ﺍﻷﻗﺎﻧﻴﻢ ﻭﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻭﺗﺜﻠﻴﺚ ﺍﻷﻗﺎﻧﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺷﺪﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻳﻌﻠﻮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ‬‫ﻟﻴﺲ ﳎﺎﺯﴽ ﺑﻞ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﺯﻟﻴﺔ ﻧﻘﺘﺮﺏ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺣﺬﺭ ٍ‬
‫ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻣﻮﺯ ﻭﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺪﺭﺗﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻣﺜﺎﻝ‬
‫ﻭﳎﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻻ ﻳﻬﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺎﺋﺪﻳﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ‬
‫» ﺍﻟﺸﺮﺍﺀ « ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﳎﺎﺯ ﻻ ﻳﻘﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﻓﺼﻞ ﺃﻗﺎﻧﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﺇﱃ ﺑﺎﺋﻊ ﻭﻣﺸﺘﺮﻱ ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻔﻖ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﺸﺮﺍﺀ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻴﻊ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺐ ﳍﻤﺎ ﻣﻌﺎﱐ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻗﻠﺖ ﺃﻧﲏ‬
‫» ﺷﺎﺭﻱ « ﺻﺪﻳﻘﻲ ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻧﲏ ﺃﺣﺒﻪ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ » ﺑﺎﻉ « ﺻﺪﻳﻘﻪ ﻓﻘﺪ‬
‫ﺟﻔﺖ ﳏﺒﺘﻪ ﻟﻪ ﻭﻧﺴﻴﻪ ﻭﺃﺳﻠﻤﻪ ﻟﻠﻌﺰﻟﺔ‪.‬‬

‫•••‬

‫‪٢٢٧‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ‬

‫ﻣﺎ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪:‬‬

‫<‬

‫ﻼ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳊﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﱪﻛﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺆﺳﻔﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ‬ ‫ﺩﺭﺳﻨﺎ ﻗﺒ ً‬

‫ﻣﻦ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺒﺎﺭﻙ ﺧﻠﻴﻘﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻳﻌﻠّﻤﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺗﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ » ﻧﺒﺎﺭﻙ ﺑﻪ ﺍﷲ « ﻻ ﻳﺼﺢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ » ﻧﻠﻌﻦ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻗﺪ ّ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﷲ « ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ » ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻢ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﲣﺮﺝ ﺑﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﻟﻌﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﺼﻠﺢ ﻳﺎ ﺃﺧﻮﰐ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ « )ﻳﻊ ‪ ،(١٠ -٩ :٣‬ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻳﻨﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﷲ ﺍﻟﱪﻛﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻠﺐ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ؟!! ﺇﻣﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﺒﺎﺭﻙ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻣﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻠﻌﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻻ ﻳﺼﺢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﲔ ﻣﻌﴼ!! ﻻﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺻﲑﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ » ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ « ﳍﺎ ﻣﻌﲎ‬
‫ﳐﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺟﻌﻠﻪ »ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ«!! ‪:‬‬
‫• ﺃﻭ ًﻻ ‪ :‬ﻣﺎ ﱂ ﻳﺬﻛﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ‪:‬‬
‫ﱂ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻟﻌﻦ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﻓﺤﺸﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺒﺔ‬
‫)ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻋﻠّﻢ ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻭﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻹﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﱵ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺳﻨﺮﻯ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﺍ ﻟﻐﻴﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻧﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ( ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﺟﻬﺪ ﺧﺎﺭﻕ ﻹﺛﺒﺎ‪‬ﺎ‪ً ،‬‬
‫»ﻭ ِﺿ َﻊ ﺇﰒ ﲨﻴﻌﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ« )ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ‪ (٥٣‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﻗﻠﻴﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ!!! ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﺪﺭﺱ ﻣﻌﲎ ُ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺩﺭﺳﻨﺎ ﺳﺎﺑ ًﻘﺎ ﱂ ﻳﻠﻌﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺁﺩﻡ ﻭﻻ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ » ﻣﻠﻌﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‬
‫ً‬
‫ﺑﺴﺒﺒﻚ« )ﺗﻚ ‪ (١٧ :٣‬ﱂ ﺗﻮﺿﺢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻞ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺣﺎﻝ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﻠﺐ ﻭﺳﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺷﺮﻩ )ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺟﻬﻨﻢ( ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺻﺐ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﻭﻏﻀﺒﴼ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﻟﻴﻌﺎﻗﺒﻪ‬

‫‪٢٢٨‬‬
 ‫ﺑﺪﻻً ﻣﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ )ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ( ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺘﺺ ﳊﻖ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ ﻭﻧﺎﻣﻮﺳﻪ؟!!!‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﳓﻦ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﻮﺗﻪ ﻃﻠﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺏ ‪ » :‬ﳎﺪ ﺇﺑﻨﻚ ﻟﻜﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺴﺎ ﻟﻠﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ« )ﻳﻮ ‪ .(١ :١٧‬ﻓﻬﻞ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‬
‫ﳝﺠـﺪﻙ ﺇﺑﻨـﻚ ً‬
‫ﻭﺯﺭ ًﻋﺎ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻡ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ؟!‬
‫• ﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ‪ :‬ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﺎﺋﺢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻗﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺑﻨﺺ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻋﻦ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ » ﻗﺪﺱ ﺃﻗﺪﺍﺱ « )ﻻﻭﻳﲔ ‪ .(١٧ :٦‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻠﻤﺲ ﻫـﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﺎﺋــﺢ ﻛﺎﻥ » ﻳﺘﻘ ّﺪﺱ « )ﻻ ‪ ،(١٨ :٦‬ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻣﻠﻌﻮﻧﺔ‪ ،‬ﷲ‪.‬‬
‫• ﺛﺎﻟﺜًﺎ ‪ :‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻫﻮ ﻛﻤﺎﻝ ﲢﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﺎﺋﺢ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻻ ﻳُﺤﺴﺐ » ﻟﻌﻨﺔ «‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ‬
‫» ﻗﺪﺱ ﺃﻗﺪﺍﺱ «‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻭﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘ ّﺪﺱ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻓﻘﻂ » ﺇﻓﺘﺪﺍﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﺻﺎﺭ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ«‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﻃﻬﺮﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﲪﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻣﻮﺗﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ّ‬
‫ﲪﻞ ﻣﻮﺗﻨﺎ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻛ ُﻤ َﻌﺎ َﻗﺐ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﷲ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻛﻤﺎ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﺶ ﻟﺘﺤﺮﻗﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﲪﻞ ﻣﻮﺗﻨﺎ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺒﻴﺪ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﺫﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻪ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋ ّﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ‬
‫ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ‪ ) -‬ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ(‪.‬‬
‫• ﺭﺍﺑ ًﻌﺎ ‪ :‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻧﺺ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺑﺼﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺗﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻭﺭﺩ ﰲ )ﺗﺚ ‪:٢١‬‬
‫‪ (٢٣ -٢٢‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺧﺎﺹ ﺑﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺗﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺸﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺩﻓﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺗﻞ ﰲ ﻳﻮﻡ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺗﻪ؛ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻹﺯﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻧﺺ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﻨﻴﺔ » ﻷﻥ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻖ ﻣﻠﻌﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﷲ « )ﺃﻱ ﳏﺮﻭﻡ ﻣﻨﻪ ( )‪ (٢٣ :٢١‬ﻭﻫﻮ » ﻳﻨﺠﺲ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ« )‪ .(٢٣ :٢١‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ » ﺻﺎﺭ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ « ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻔﺴﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺘﺒﻌﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱏ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻛﺘﺎﰉ‪.‬‬
‫ﻼ ﺑﻞ »ﺭﺋﻴﺲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ«‪) ،‬ﺃﻉ‬ ‫ﻓﺎﻟﻘﺎﺗﻞ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻗﺎﺗ ً‬
‫‪ .(١٥ :٣‬ﻭﳌﺎ ﻟﻌﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺒﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﺃﻥ ﻭﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﺑﺄ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻠﻌﻮﻧﺔ ﻗﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ » ﻣﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺸﺮﺡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺑﻼ ﲦﺮ ﰒ ﻳﺒﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻓﺎﺭﻗﺘﻬﺎ ﻫﺒﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ً‬

‫‪٢٢٩‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ « )ﻋﺪﺩ ‪ (٢٧ :٥‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﰲ ﻛﺸﻒ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳛﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺮﺍﺩﻑ ﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ » ﺇﻓﺘﺪﺍﻧﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺇﺫ ﺻﺎﺭ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ « ﳍﺎ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻧﻪ » ﺇﻓﺘﺪﺍﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺇﺫ ﻣﺎﺕ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ«‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﳝﻴﺖ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺪﻭﺱ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻘ ّﺪﺳﻨﺎ ﲟﻮﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻪ؛ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺣﺎﻝ‪ » ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺼﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻟﻌﻨﺘﻪ ﻭﻏﻀﺒﻪ ﻭﻧﻘﻤﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ‬
‫ﻳﻮﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﺣﻘﻬﺎ« ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻌ ّﻠﻢ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﺛﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﱵ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱏ‪.‬‬

‫» ﺻﺎﺭ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ « ﻭ » ﺟﻌﻠﻪ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ « ﰲ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ‪:‬‬

‫ﻋﻠﻲ » ﺻــﺎﺭ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﻷﺟﻠﻨــﺎ «‬
‫• ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻛﻠﻴﻤﻨﻀﺲ ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻱ ﱠ‬
‫ﳑﺜ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﱂ ﻳﻈﻠﻢ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﺄﱂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻋﻠﻦ ﻋﻦ ﻓﺎﺭﻕ ﻫﺎﻡ‪ .‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﻟﻮ ُﺣﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺎﻃﺊ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﺻﻠﺒًﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺠﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻠﻌﻮﻧًﺎ‪ ...‬ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﺒﺒﺖ ﰲ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﺠﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻌﺮﺽ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﰲ ﻓﻤﻪ ﻏﺶ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺃﺭﺍﻧﺎ ﻛﻞ ﺑﺮ ﻭﺗﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﱂ ّ‬
‫ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ )ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ( ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺣﻘﻖ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻨﺒﺄ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ ﻋﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﻮﻧﻪ ﺃﻧﺘﻢ )ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩ( ﺑﺄﻧﻔﺴﻜﻢ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ « .‬ﺍﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩ )‪A Short‬‬
‫‪(History of the D. of A., p. 28‬‬

‫• ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ )ﻓﻘﺮﺓ ‪: (٢٥‬‬
‫» ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻗﺪ ﺟﺎﺀ ﻟﻜﻲ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻭﻗﻌﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﺻﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﺇﻻّ ﺑﻘﺒﻮﻟﻪ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ؟«‬
‫)‪(On The Incarnation - St. Athanasius - Mowbray London p. 54-55‬‬

‫• ﻭﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺻﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ » ﻟﻌﻨﺔ «‬
‫ﻭ » ﺟﻌﻠﻪ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ« ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﺘﻪ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻷﺭﻳﻮﺳﻴﲔ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﺴﻤﻊ » ﺻﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ « ﻭ » ﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ‬
‫ﺧﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ«‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ )ﺑﺴﺬﺍﺟﺔ( ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‬

‫‪٢٣٠‬‬
 ‫ﻗﺪ ﺻﺎﺭ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﻭﺧﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ّ‬
‫ﲢﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻬﺔ ﺿﺪﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺇﻓﺘﺪﺍﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ‪ :‬ﲪﻞ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ‪ ..‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻧﺘﺤﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻭﻧﺆﻟﻪ‪«.‬‬
‫)‪(Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Second Series - Vol. IV, p. 374‬‬

‫» ﺻﺎﺭ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ « ﻭ » ﺟﻌﻠﻪ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ « ﰲ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ‪:‬‬

‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﲔ ﰲ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﻛﻮﻳﲏ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫• ﻧﻘﺮﺃ ً‬
‫» ﺑﺘﺄﳌﻪ ﺣﻘﻖ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ‪ ...‬ﻭﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ‪ ...‬ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺣﻘﻖ‬
‫ﺑﺂﻻﻣﻪ ﻭﺗﺴﻤﲑﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ )ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ( ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﺃﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﺮﺓ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﻳﴼ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺻﻴﺔ ﺍﷲ «‬
‫)‪.(A Short History of D. of A., p. 153‬‬
‫• ﻭﰲ ﻗﻮﻝ ‪ Gerson‬ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻲ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﷲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﺃﺑﺪﴽ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺎﻗﺐ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻛﻞ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺁﺛﺎﻣﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ .‬ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻛﺮﻳﻬﺔ ﺟﺪﴽ‪ ،‬ﻷ‪‬ﺎ ‪‬ﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﷲ ﻳﺘﺄﱂ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺴﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﺒﺔ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ«‪.‬‬
‫)‪(A Short History of the D. of A., p. 169‬‬

‫• ﻭﰲ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛــﺮ ‪:‬‬

‫» ﻭﳌﺎ ﺃﻟﻘﻴﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻭﻗﺎﻝ‪ :‬ﻟﻴﻤﺖ ﻛﻞ ﺧﺎﻃﺊ‪ .‬ﻓﺈﺫﺍ‬
‫ﺃﺭﺩﺕ ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻛﻦ ﻣﺬﻧﺒًﺎ ﻭﲢﻤﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﲢﻤﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﲢﻤﻞ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ‪ ...‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﻟﻘﻲ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻛﻞ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ...‬ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﻟﻪ‪...‬‬
‫ﺇﺩﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ...‬ﻓﻴﺄﰐ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ‪ ...‬ﻭﻳﻬﺠﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻳﺬﲝﻪ‪ .‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺗﻄﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﰎ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﲑ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ «‬
‫)‪.(A Short History of D. of A., p. 199‬‬
‫• ﻭﰲ ﻋﻈﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﺍﻋﻆ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﲑ ﺍﳌﻄﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﻮﺳﻮﻳﻪ ‪ Bossuet‬ﻋﺎﻡ ‪١٦٦٠‬ﻡ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻝ )ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﺼﲑ ‪ -‬ﺹ ‪:(٢٢٦‬‬

‫‪٢٣١‬‬
‫» ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﳜﻤﺪ ﻏﻀﺒﻪ ﺑﺘﻔﺮﻳﻐﻪ‪ .‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻀﺮﺏ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﱪﺉ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺼﺎﺭﻉ‬
‫ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﷲ ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳚﺮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﻗﺮﺃ ﺇﺑﻦ ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﻋﻴﲏ‬
‫ﺃﺑﻴﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻏﻀﺒﻪ ﻫﺪﺃ ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﺃﻱ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺣﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪«.‬‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎ ﺃﻥ » ﺻﺎﺭ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ « ﺃﻭ ﺟﻌﻠﻪ » ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ « ‪ ،‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻭﺻﻒ‬ ‫ﻓﺎﻵﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ً‬
‫ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻟﻈﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﻭﻣﻮﺗﻨﺎ ﻭﻟﻌﻨﺘﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻋﻠﻘﻨﺎﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻛﻤﻠﻌﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ُﺻﺒﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﻭﻧﻘﻤﺔ ﻭﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺏ‪ .‬ﳓﻦ‬
‫ﻧﻈﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﺑﻈﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﱴ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻣﻮﺗﻨﺎ ﲨﻴﻌﻨﺎ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ‬
‫» ﲤﺎﻡ ﺣﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ « )ﺭﻭ ‪ (٤ :٨‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻧﻪ ﲪﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻛﺘﺎﻓﻪ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺒﻴﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﺇﺑﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺟﺴﺪ ﻣﺜﻠﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ‬
‫ﺗﺸﺮﺏ ﰲ ﺟﺴﺪﻩ ﺍﳌﻤﺜﻞ ﻟﻨﺎ )ﳊﻢ ﻣﻦ ﳊﻤﻪ ﻭﻋﻈﺎﻣﻪ ‪ -‬ﺃﻑ ‪ (٣٠ :٥‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ‬
‫ﲨﻴﻌﺎ ﻭﺇﻧﺘﻬﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻤﺎﻡ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ﻭﺃﺑﺎﺩ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﻗﺪ ﰎ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ً‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﺷﺒﻬﻪ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﲝﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻟﻠﻘﺶ ﻟﻜﻲ ﲢﺮﻗﻪ ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ‪.‬‬

‫ﺷﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻱ ﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ‬

‫» ُﺟﻌ َ‬
‫ِﻞ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ « )‪٢‬ﻛﻮﺭ ‪:(٢١ :٥‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺳﻌﺎﺩﺗﻨﺎ ﻓﺎﺋﻘﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﺸﺮﺕ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻭﺍﺷﻨﻄﻦ ﺭﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ‬
‫ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻱ ﰲ ﳎﻠﺪﻳﻦ ﰲ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ‪ The Fathers of The Church‬ﳎﻠﺪ‬
‫‪ ٧٧ - ٧٦‬ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ .١٩٨٧‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺳﻌﺎﺩﺗﻨﺎ ﺃﻋﻈﻢ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻭﺟﺪﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﺜﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﻌﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺳﻼﺣﺎ ﻳﻄﻌﻦ ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺟﻬﻞ ﻭﺣﺴﻦ ﻧﻴﺔ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ‪.‬‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﺷﺎﺋﻜﺔ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ ‪ ٤١‬ﺇﱃ ﺃﻛﺎﻛﻴﻮﺱ ﺃﺳﻘﻒ ‪ ،Scythopolis‬ﻭﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ )ﻻﻭﻳﲔ ‪ ،(٥ :١٦‬ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻠﺨﺺ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺬﻛﺮﻩ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﻼﻭﻳﲔ ﻳﻌﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻌﺎﺋﺮ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﻘﻮﻟﻪ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺣﻰ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻧﺎﻓﻊ )‪ ٢‬ﺗﻴﻤﻮ ‪ (١٦ :٣‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﻟﻠﺨﻼﺹ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻘﺪﺭﻭﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﻬﻤﻮﺍ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﳊﻖ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻋﻘﻮﳍﻢ‬

‫‪٢٣٢‬‬
 ‫ﲨﺎﻝ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻭﻳﺸﺮﻕ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻧﻮﺭ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺳﺮ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ «.‬ﻭﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﻛﻼﻣﻪ ﻗﺎﺋ ً‬
‫ﻼ » ﺃﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﱂ ﻳﺼﻠﻮﺍ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺇﱃ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻭﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺗﻴﺐ )ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻄﻘﺲ( ﺑﻞ ﻻﺯﺍﻟﻮﺍ‬
‫ﻳﺴﲑﻭﻥ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﻋﺮﺝ ﺃﻭ ﻳﻠﻌﺒﻮﻥ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﻃﻔﺎﻝ ﻭﺇﺧﺘﺎﺭﻭﺍ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺠﺪﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺨﻤﲔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻌﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻣﺮﺍﻗﺒﺘﻬﻢ ﻭﲢﺬﻳﺮﻫﻢ ﻭﻣﻨﻌﻬﻢ‪) «.‬ﺹ ‪ ١٧٠‬ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﳎﻠﺪ ‪.(٧٦‬‬
‫ﻓﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻠﻌﺐ ﺑﻪ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻷﻃﻔﺎﻝ؟‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻹﻃﻼﻉ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺃﻛﺎﻛﻴﻮﺱ ﺃﺩﺭﻙ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ‬
‫ﻳﻈﻦ »ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺎﻋﺰ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻴﺲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺗﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻭﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺮﺳﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﺮﺍﺀ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺇﱃ ﺷﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﳒﺲ)*(‪) «...‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ( ﻭﻳﻌﺘﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﻴﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﻣﺆﻛ ًﺪﺍ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻠﻮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﻓﻬﻢ‬
‫ﻭﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺗﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﺨﺎﺋﻦ‬
‫)ﺍﳌﺮﺗﺪ( ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻠﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﻗﻮﺓ ﻭﳎ ٍﺪ ﲢﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﺭﺿﺎﺀ؟‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲰﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻭﺿﻮﺡ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺴﲔ‬
‫»ﻭﳎﺪﻱ ﻻ ﺃﻋﻄﻴﻪ ﻵﺧﺮ « )ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ‪) (٨ :٤٢‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻧﺼﻮﺹ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻣﺆﻛ ًﺪﺍ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﺒﻐﺾ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻋﺒﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻭﺛﺎﻥ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺸﺎﺭﻛﻪ ﰲ ﳎﺪﻩ ﺁﺧﺮ ﰒ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻴﺲ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﻛﻼﳘﺎ‬
‫ﺭﻣﺰ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﻴﺢ ﺇﺑﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻳﻔﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻳﺮﻣﺰ ﻛﻼﳘﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ .‬ﻭﲟﻼﺣﻈﺔ ﻛﻴﻒ‬
‫ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﺑﺪﻗﺔ ‪ -‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺪﺭ ﺍﻹﻣﻜﺎﻥ ‪ -‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﺸﺮﺡ ﻫﺬﺍ‪ .‬ﺣﺴﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻴﺲ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻫﻮ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﻮﺣﻲ ‪‬ﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﺗﺸﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺼ ﱢﺪﻳﻖ ﺑﺎﳊﻤﻞ ﻭﳏﺐ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﺎﻋﺰ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ؟‬
‫ﻣﺜﻤﺮﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﳊﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻖ ﳑﻠﻮﺀ ﲟﺠﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻀﻴﻠﺔ ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻌﺘﱪ ً‬
‫ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﻑ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﺎﻋﺰ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﻋﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻭﻏﲑ ﻣﺜﻤﺮﺓ ﻭﺑﻼ‬
‫)*( ﺑﲏ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺣﱴ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ »ﻋﺰﺍﺯﻳﻞ« ﻭﻫﻲ ﻻ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺑﺎﳌﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺭﻭﺡ‬
‫ﳒﺲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﻌﺎﱐ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﻣﻘﻄﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﱪﺍﻧﻴﺔ »ﻋﺰﺍ« ﺃﻱ »ﻗﺪﻡ« » ﻗﻮﺓ« »ﻋﺰﺓ«‪ ...‬ﺍﱁ‪.‬‬

‫‪٢٣٣‬‬
‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﺻﺎﱀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻛﺤﻴﻮﺍﻥ ﺃﺭﺧﺺ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﻨﻢ ﻭﻏﲑ ﻣﺜﻤﺮ ‪ ...‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺭﺑﻨﺎ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ »ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﳚﻠﺲ ﺇﺑﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺮﺵ ﳎﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺳﻮﻑ ﳚﻌﻞ ﺍﳋﺮﺍﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻳﺪﻩ ﺍﻟﻴﻤﲏ‪ ...‬ﻭﺍﳉﺪﺍﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻳﺪﻩ ﺍﻟﻴﺴﺮﻱ « )ﻣﱵ‬
‫‪.(٣٣ -٣١ :٢٥‬‬
‫ﻭﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻴﺲ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻳﺬﺑﺢ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ‪) ..‬ﻻ ‪(٢٣ :٢٢‬‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻌﻄﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻜﺎﻫﻦ » ﻳﺄﻛﻠﻮﻥ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﺷﻌﱯ « )ﻫﻮﺷﻊ ‪ (٨ :٤‬ﺃﻱ ﻳﺄﻛﻠﻮﻥ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﳌﺨﺼﺺ ﻟﻠﻜﻬﻨﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳜﺼﺺ ﺃﺻ ً‬
‫ﻼ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺮﺏ )ﺗﺜﻨﻴﺔ ‪ .(٣ -١ :١٨‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺻﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻗﺮﺑﺎﻧًﺎ » ﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ « )‪١‬ﻛﻮﺭ ‪ .(٣ :١٥‬ﻭﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻧﻪ ُﺩﻋﻲ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﺴﺒﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺐ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﳊﻜﻴﻢ » ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ ﺟﻌﻠﻪ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ« )‪٢‬ﻛﻮﺭ‬
‫‪ (٢١ :٥‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻵﺏ‪ .‬ﻭﳓﻦ ﻻ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺻﺎﺭ ﺧﺎﻃﺌًﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﺎﺷﺎ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﱪ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ )ﺃﻭ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺎﺩﻝ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ(‪.‬‬
‫”‪“but being just, or rather in actuality Justice‬‬

‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﱂ ﳜﻄﻲﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺟﻌﻠﻪ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻪ »ﺣﺴﺐ‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺃﲦﺔ « )ﺍﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ‪ (١٢ :٥٣‬ﻭﺇﺣﺘﻤﻞ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺸﻬﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﱯ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﺍﳌﻮﺣﻲ ﻟﻪ ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ » ﻛﻠﻨﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻏﻨﻢ ﺿﻠﻠﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻠﻨﺎ ﻛﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺇﰒ ﲨﻴﻌﻨﺎ « ﻭ »ﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺗﺄﱂ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ« ﻭ‬
‫»ﲜﻠﺪﺍﺗﻪ ﺷﻔﻴﻨﺎ « )ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ‪ .(٥ ،٤ ،٦ :٥٣‬ﻭﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﳊﻜﻴﻢ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﺑﻄﺮﺱ‬
‫» ﲪﻞ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ ﰲ ﺟﺴﺪﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﺸﺒﺔ « )‪ ١‬ﺑﻄﺮﺱ ‪) .(٢٤ :٢‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﺹ ‪.(١٧٤ - ١٧٣‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﻼﺣﻆ ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﻭ ًﻻ ‪ :‬ﻳﻨﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﺑﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻗﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺭﺑﻨﺎ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺻﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺧﺎﻃﺌَﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ‪ :‬ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺟﻌﻠﻪ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪٢٣٤‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺒﻘﻲ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﻫﺎﻡ ﺃﺟﺎﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻱ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ‪ :‬ﻛﻴﻒ‬
‫ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻛﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ؟ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺇﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺘﻤﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ ﰲ ﺁﺩﻡ ﻭﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻣﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ )ﺭﻭ ‪.(١٧ -١٢ :٥‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﻟﻐﲏ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ ﻭﳏﺒﺘﻪ ﻟﻠﺒﺸﺮ ﲡﺴﺪ ﻭﺗﺄﻧﺲ ﰲ‬
‫ﺷﻜﻠﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﲢﺖ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺘﻤﻞ ﻧﺼﻴﺒﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﺮ‬
‫ﺑﻮﻟﺲ » ﺑﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺫﺍﻕ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻟﻠﺠﻤﻴﻊ « )ﻋﺐ ‪ (٩ :٢‬ﻭﺟﻌﻞ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﻓﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻷﺟﻞ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻣﺎ ﳓﻴﺎ ﷲ ُﻣﻘﺪﺳﲔ‬
‫ﻭﺑﺪﻣﻪ ﻧﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ )ﺭﻭ ‪ (٢١ -١٢ :٢‬ﻣﺘﱪﺭﻳﻦ ﺑﻌﻄﻴﺔ ﻧﻌﻤﺘﻪ )ﺭﻭ ‪:٣‬‬
‫‪ (٢٧‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻹﳒﻴﻠﻲ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺭﻙ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ »ﻭﺩﻡ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﻄﻬﺮﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﺧﻄﻴﺔ « )‪١‬ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ‪) .(٧ :١‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﺹ ‪.(٧٤‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﺷﺮﺣﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺷﻌﺎﺋﺮ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻗﺎﺋ ً‬
‫ﻼ‪:‬‬
‫»ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺩﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻗﺪﺱ ﺍﻷﻗﺪﺍﺱ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺪﻡ ﺗﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﻋﺠﻮﻝ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﺪﻡ‬
‫ﻓﺪﺍﺀ ﺃﺑﺪﻳًﺎ« )ﻋﺐ ‪ (١٢ :٩‬ﻭﻗ ﱠﺪﺱ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﻠﺖ ﺍﳋﻴﻤﺔ‬ ‫ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻮﺟﺪ ً‬
‫ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻭﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺣﻲ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ »ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻘﺪﺱ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺐ ﺑﺪﻣﻪ ﺗﺄﱂ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ » ﻛﻮﻧﻮﺍ ﻣﺘﺸﺒﻬﲔ ﺑﺎﷲ ﻛﺄﻭﻻﺩ ﺃﺣﺒﺎﺀ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺑﻮﺍﺏ « )ﻋﺐ ‪ً ،(١٢ :١٣‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻭﺃﺳﻠﻢ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ ﻗﺮﺑﺎﻧًﺎ ﻭﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ‬
‫ﺇﺳﻠﻜﻮﺍ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﺣﺒﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ً‬
‫ﷲ ﺭﺍﺋﺤــﺔ ﻃﻴﺒﺔ « ) ﺃﻓﺴﺲ ‪ .(٢ -١ :٥‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺇﺑﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺣﺮﺍ «‬
‫ﻧﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻋﻤﺎﻧﻮﺋﻴﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺫﺑﺢ ﻭﲟﻮﺗﻪ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ » ً‬
‫ﺿﻤﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺗﻰ ‪) Free among the dead‬ﻣﺰﻣﻮﺭ ‪ (٥ :٨٥‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻧﻪ ﱂ ﻳﺘﻠﻮﺙ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﱂ ﻳُﺴﺘﻌﺒﺪ ﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ « )ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﺹ ‪.(١٧٥‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﻼﺣﻆ ﻫﻨﺎ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﻭ ًﻻ ‪ :‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺇﺑﺎﺩﺓ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ‪ :‬ﺭﻏﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﲪﻞ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﱂ ﻳﺘﻠﻮﺙ ‪‬ﺎ‪.‬‬

‫‪٢٣٥‬‬
 ‫ﺛﺎﻟﺜًﺎ ‪ :‬ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﺒﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪.‬‬
‫‪not subject to the penalty of death together with us.‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺘﻴﺲ ﺍﳊﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻄﻠﻖ ﺣﻴﱠﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﱪﻳﺔ ﻣﺆﻛ ًﺪﺍ ﺫﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻧﺮﺍﻩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻴﺲ ﺍﳊﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺮﺳﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﱪﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺁﻻﻣﻪ ﻛﺈﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﺃﻟﻮﻫﻴﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻣﻮﺗﻪ ﺑﺎﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻋﻈﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﰲ‬
‫ﻗﱪﻩ ‪ -‬ﺣﺴﺐ ﺟﻨﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩ ‪ -‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﻌﺘﱪ ﳓﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺗﻌﺠﺰ ﺑﻮﺍﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺄﺳﺮﻩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻠﻲ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﰐ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺗﻠﻤﻴﺬﻩ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ » ﻷﻧﻚ ﻟﻦ ﺗﺘﺮﻙ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﰲ ﺍﳍﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﻭﻟﻦ ﺗﺪﻉ ﻗﺪﻭﺳﻚ ﻳﺮﻱ ﻓﺴﺎ ًﺩﺍ« )ﻣﺰﻣﻮﺭ ‪ ١٠ :١٥‬ﻭﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ‬
‫‪ ،(٢٧ :٢‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻗﺎﻡ ﻭﺃﺑﺎﺩ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺍﻷﺳﺮﻱ »ﺍﺧﺮﺟﻮﺍ ﻭﻟﻠﺬﻳﻦ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻈﻼﻡ ﺍﻇﻬﺮﻭﺍ« )ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ‪ (٩ :٤٩‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺻﻌﺪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ ﻷﺑﻴﻪ ﻭﺻﺎﺭ ﰲ‬
‫ﻣﻜﺎﻧﺔ ﻻ ﻳﺼﻞ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﲪﻞ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ ﻭﺻﺎﺭ ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺣﻲ ﻟﻪ ﻟﻠﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺆﻣﻨﻮﻥ ﺑﻪ » ﻳﺎ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﻷﺣﺒﺎﺀ ﺃﻛﺘﺐ ﺇﻟﻴﻜﻢ‬
‫ﻟﻜﻲ ﻻ ﲣﻄﺌﻮﺍ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺇﻥ ﺃﺧﻄﺄ ﺃﺣﺪ ﻓﻠﻨﺎ ﺷﻔﻴﻊ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻵﺏ‪ ،‬ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻛﻠﻪ«‬
‫)ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﺹ ‪.(١٧٦ -١٧٥‬‬

‫ﻫﻞ ﺻﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ؟‬

‫ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﻭﻏﲑﻫﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ٤٧‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﻳﻮﺳﻴﲔ )‪(N & PN. Fathers 2nd series vol. 4, p. 374‬‬
‫ﻟﻠﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﺃﻥ ﻓﻌﻞ » ﺻﺎﺭ « ﻭ » ﺟﻌﻞ « ﻭﻏﲑﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺗﺸﺮﺡ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻭﻻ ﺗﻨﺴﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺃﻱ ﲢﻮﻝ ﰲ ﻛﻴﺎﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺋﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻠﻮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﻫﻔﻮﺍﺕ ﻭﺷﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻣﻮﺗﻪ ﻭﰲ ﻣﻮﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻮﺗﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﻢ ﻫﻮ ﺷﻨﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻵﺏ » ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﻼ‬
‫ﺷﺮ « )ﻋﺐ ‪ (٢٦ :٧‬ﻗﺪ ﺻﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺃﻗﺪﺱ ﳊﻈﺎﺕ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺘﻪ ﻭﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﻭﻫﻲ ﳊﻈﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻠﻮﺙ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﻭﲢﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺁﺩﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻭﺻﺎﺭ ﲢﺖ‬

‫‪٢٣٦‬‬
‫ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻀﻮﻳﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻘﺪ ﺩﺧﻠﺖ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﺣﺴﺐ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺩﺧﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﻞ ﺟﻠﺐ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻭﺻﺎﺭ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻦ ﺍﳊﺰﻳﻦ ﺍﳌﺆﱂ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﺁﺩﻡ ‪ -‬ﻣﻮﺕ ﺁﺩﻡ ‪ -‬ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ‪ -‬ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ‪ ...‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﲢﻮﻟﺖ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﰲ ﻇﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﻹﳒﻴﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ » ﺍﳉﺎﻟﺴﻮﻥ ﰲ ﻛﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﻇﻼﻟﻪ « )ﻣﱵ ‪ (١٦ :٤‬ﺇﱃ ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﺩﺍﺋﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﺮﺍﻩ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻨﻴﲔ ﻟﻠﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﻏﲑﻩ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﺻﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺳﻘﻮﻁ ﺁﺩﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺒﻞ ﺳﻘﻮﻁ ﺁﺩﻡ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻔﺼﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻀﻮﻳﺔ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﻘﺒﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﻘﺒﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﲢﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺇﱃ ﻗﻴﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻌﺪ ﺍﳍﺮﻭﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺻﺎﺭ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ! ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﰲ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻗﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺭﺏ ﺍﳌﺠﺪ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻁ ﺍﻟﺘﻠﻤﺬﺓ » ﺇﻥ ﺃﺭﺍﺩ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺄﰐ ﻭﺭﺍﺋﻲ ﻓﻠﻴﻨﻜﺮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﳛﻤﻞ ﺻﻠﻴﺒﻪ ﻭﻳﺘﺒﻌﲎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺈﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺭﺍﺩ ﺃﻥ ﳜﻠﺺ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻳﻬﻠﻜﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻳﻬﻠﻚ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻠﻲ ﳚﺪﻫﺎ « )ﻣﱵ‬
‫‪ .(٥ -٢٤ :١٦‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺑﺮﻫﺎﻥ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﰲ‬
‫ﲨﻴﻌﺎ ﻧﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﳔﻠﺺ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻏﺮﺱ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﰲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﳓﻦ ً‬
‫ﻭﻧﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﻌﺪﺓ ﻃﺮﻕ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﻭ ًﻻ ‪ :‬ﻛﺜﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﻨﻴﺎﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻄﻤﻊ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻟﺜًﺎ ‪ :‬ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺪﺍﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﺑﺸﱵ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﻟﻜﻲ ﳓﻴﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺴﺎﺏ ﺿﺤﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻧﻘﺘﻠﻬﻢ ﻣﻌﻨﻮﻳًﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺟﺴﺪﻳًﺎ ﻟﻜﻲ ﳓﻴﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻭﻧﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﳝﻠﻜﻮﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﺭﺍﺑ ًﻌﺎ ‪ :‬ﺗﺼﺒﺢ »ﺍﻷﻧﺎ« ﻫﻲ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻞ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺗﺪﻭﺭ ﺣﻮﻝ »ﺍﻷﻧﺎ«‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﳎﺮﺩ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﻹﺭﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺿﺮﺏ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺑﻘﻮﺓ ﻭﲝﺰﻡ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻄﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﲑﺓ » ﺍﻷﻧﺎ « ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﳌﺤﻴﻴﺔ »ﺇﻥ ﺇﺑﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﱂ ﻳﺄﺕ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳُﺨﺪﻡ ﺑﻞ ﻟﻴَﺨ ِﺪ َﻡ ﻭﻳﺒﺬﻝ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻓﺪﻳﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻛﺜﲑﻳﻦ« )ﻣﺮﻗﺲ‬
‫‪٢٣٧‬‬
‫‪ .(٤٥ :١٠‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﺃﻏﻔﻠﻨﺎ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﺬﻝ ﰲ‬
‫ﺧﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﺠﺰﻧﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺑﺎﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻭ ﻳﺒﺬﻝ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻓﺪﻳﺔ« ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺒﺬﻝ ﻫﻮ ﲢﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺇﱃ ﺻﻨﻢ ﻛﺒﲑ ﻭﺇﻟﻪ ﺁﺧﺮ‪.‬‬

‫ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﺗﻌﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻄﻘﻮﺱ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ؟‬

‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻫﺒﻨﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻗﻤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻤﻢ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻫﺒﻨﺔ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻃﻘﺲ ﺭﺳﺎﻣﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻜﺮﻳﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻫﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺍﻫﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻃﻘﺲ » ﺍﳉﻨﺎﺯ « ﻭﺻﻼﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﰐ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺩﻋﻮﺓ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ » ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ « ﻗﺪ ﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻫﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺍﻫﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﳌﺼﻠﻮﺏ ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻭﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﺮﻫﺒﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺍﻫﺒﺎﺕ ﺑﺄ‪‬ﻢ‬
‫» ﻟﺒّﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ «‪ .‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻟﺒﺴﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻗﺒﻠﻮﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻟﻜﻲ ﳜﻠﻊ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﰲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻣﻨﻔﺼﻠﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﳍﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻭﺻﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﺁﺩﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺭﺍﺩ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺷﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﲟﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﳋﲑ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﻩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻓﺼﻞ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺟﺮﺩﻩ‬‫ﻭﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ َ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﻣﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﻴﻄﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻓﻜﺮﻩ ﺇﱃ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺑﺬﻝ ﻭﻋﻄﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﻫﺒﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺴﻤﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ » ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ « ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺇﱃ ﻗﻮﺓ ﻋﻄﺎﺀ » ﻗﺪ ﺃﻋﺘﻘﲏ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ «‬
‫)ﺭﻭ ‪ (٢ :٨‬ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﳕﻮﺕ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ » ﻳﺘﻢ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﺣﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ«‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﳕﻮﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﻮﺓ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ » ﻳﺘﻢ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﺣﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﳓﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻟﻜﲔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺑﻞ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ « ﺃﻱ ﳓﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻻ ﳔﻀﻊ ﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﻔﺎﻅ ﺑﺎﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺳﻴﻄﺮﺓ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺑﺬﻝ ﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻋﺘﻘﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﻫﻮ ﻧﺸﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺎﺋﺲ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﻣﻨﻴﺔ ‪ » ..‬ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﺩﺍﺱ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ « ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻋﻴﻨﻪ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻗﺪ » ﻣﺘﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ « ﻭﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﲟﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ )ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﰲ ﺩﻗﺔ ﺭﻭ ‪ ٤ :٧‬ﻭ ‪ (٦‬ﻭﺟﺎﺀ ﺇﺑﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺣﺮﺭﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺣﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺃﻱ ﺣﻜﻢ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪.‬‬
‫‪٢٣٨‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻊ‬

‫<‬
‫ﰲ ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ‪ Good News Bible‬ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺭﺍﺋﻊ ﻭﻣﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﳑﺘﺎﺯ ﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺻﺤﺎﺡ‪ .‬ﺍﻷﻋﺪﺍﺩ ‪ ٩ -١‬ﺗﺴﺒﻘﻬﺎ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺗﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻋﺪﺍﺩ ﻫﻲ ﺷﺮﺡ‬
‫» ﻟﻮﺟﻬﺔ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ « ﳌﻌﺎﻧﺎﺓ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺪ ﺍﳌﺘﺄﱂ )ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ( ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ‬
‫ﻋﻨﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ‪ ١٣‬ﺇﺻﺤﺎﺡ ‪ - ٥٢‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﻟﻴﻨﺎ ﻭﳛﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺪﻭﺭ ﰲ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻧﺎ ﳓﻦ ‪ » :‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺐ « ‪ ....The people reply‬ﰒ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻋﺪﺍﺩ ‪) ١٢ -١٠‬ﻟﻨﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﺻﺤﺎﺡ( ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ‪ » :‬ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ « ‪The Lord‬‬
‫‪ . ...says‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺭﺩ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻟﺘﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺣﺴﺒﻨﺎﻩ ﳓﻦ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺨﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻹﺻﺤﺎﺡ ﺑـ‬‫ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ!!! ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ً‬
‫» ﻣﻦ ﺻﺪﻕ ﺧﱪﻧﺎ‪ ،«...‬ﰒ ﻧﻘﺮﺃ ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﺍﻹﺻﺤﺎﺡ ﰲ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ‪ ،٤‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﻋﺪﺍﺩ ‪ ٩ -١‬ﻫﻲ ﺭﺅﻳﺘﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻓﻬﻤﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﻓﻴﻘﻮﻝ ‪ » :‬ﻭﳓﻦ ﺣﺴﺒﻨﺎﻩ‬
‫ﻣﺼﺎﺑًﺎ ﻣﻀﺮﻭﺑًﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻣﺬﻟﻮﻻً‪ ،«...‬ﻣﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﻈﻠﻢ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺬﻝ ﻭﻻ ﳛﺘﻘﺮ ﻭﻻ‬
‫ﳜﺬﻝ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺑﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﺻﺤﺎﺡ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﳓﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﻣﺬﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪» ،‬ﻓﺤﺴﺒﻨﺎﻩ« ﻣﺬﻟﻮﻻً‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ !!! ﺇﻧﻨﺎ ﻧﻘﺘﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺘﻴﻞ ﻭﻧﺴﲑ ﰲ ﺟﻨﺎﺯﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﺴﻘﻂ ﻭﻧﻌﻜﺲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻭﻧﺘﻬﻤﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺑﻜﻮﻧﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻞ!!‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺑﺬﻝ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﻷﻳﺪﻳﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﲑﻳﻨﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻌﺰﻩ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﱂ ﳓﺘﻤﻞ ﻗﻮﺓ ﻧﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺳﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﺄﺭﺩﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻄﻔﺌﻪ ﻭﳕﻴﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻳﻨﺨﺲ ﺿﻤﺎﺋﺮﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮﺓ ﺑﻜﻮﻧﻪ ﺑﺎﺭ ﳏﺐ ﻭﻗﺪﻭﺱ!!‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺮﻧﺎ ﻭﺳﺤﻘﻨﺎ ﻭﻇﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﻟﻪ‪ ...‬ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺫﻻﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﺿﺮﺑﻨﺎ ﻭﺇﺣﺘﻘﺎﺭﻧﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻪ‪ ...‬ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻟﻘﻴﻨﺎﻩ ﳓﻦ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ )ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻠّﻢ ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ‬
‫ﻟﻮﺛﺮ!!( ﱂ ﻳﻀﻦ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺑﺈﻫﺪﺍﺀ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ‪ » :‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺃﺣﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺣﱴ ﺑﺬﻝ‬

‫‪٢٣٩‬‬
‫ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ‪ «...‬ﻷﻳﺪﻳﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻮﺻﻞ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺧﺒﺰ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﻣﺎﺀ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﻳﻨﻀﺢ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳋﻠﻮﺩ ﺑﺪﻣﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﲤﺜﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ » ﺩﻭﺍﺀ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ « ﲝﺴﺐ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺒﲑ ﻣﺎﺭ ﺇﻏﻨﺎﻃﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻹﻧﻄﺎﻛﻰ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺸﺮﺏ ﺟﺴﺪﻩ ﻛﻞ ﺷﺮﻧﺎ ﻭﺷﺎﺭﻛﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺩﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻢ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ُ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﻌﻢ ﻓﻢ ﺍﳊﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺘﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﻓﺠﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺃﺑﺎﺩﻩ ﺑﻘﻮﺓ ﻻﻫﻮﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺷﺮﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺴﻲ ﲟﺠﺎﺯﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﲑ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﻯ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻠﺨﺺ ﺍﻷﻋﺪﺍﺩ ‪ ٩ - ١‬ﻫﻮ ﻭﺻﻒ ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ﻋﻦ ﺭﺅﻳﺘﻨﺎ ﻵﻻﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ :‬ﳏﺘﻘﺮ ﻭﳐﺬﻭﻝ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ‪ ...‬ﳏﺘﻘﺮ ﻓﻠﻢ ﻧﻌﺘﺪ ﺑﻪ ‪ ...‬ﻭﳓﻦ ﺣﺴﺒﻨﺎﻩ ﻣﺼﺎﺑًﺎ ﻣﻀﺮﻭﺑًﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻣﺬﻟﻮﻻً‬
‫‪ ...‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺃﺣﺰﺍﻧﻨﺎ ﲪﻠﻬﺎ ﻭﺃﻭﺟﺎﻋﻨﺎ ﲢﻤﻠﻬﺎ‪ ...‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﳎﺮﻭﺡ ﻷﺟﻞ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﻴﻨﺎ‪ ...‬ﺗﺄﺩﻳﺐ‬
‫ﺳﻼﻣﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ )ﺃﻱ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﻌﺎﻧﺎﺓ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺳﻼﻣﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﲪﻠﻬﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ(‬
‫ﻇﻠﻢ ‪ ...‬ﺗﺬﻟﻞ ‪ ...‬ﺳﻴﻖ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﺢ ‪) ...‬ﻇﻨﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﺃﻥ( ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺇﰒ ﲨﻴﻌﻨﺎ‬
‫)ﻟﻠﻨﻘﻤﺔ(‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﻋﺪﺍﺩ ‪ ٤‬ﻭ ‪ ٥‬ﰲ ‪ Good News Bible‬ﺗﺒﺪﺃ ﺑﻜﻠﻤﺔ ‪» ، But‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ«‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﳓﻦ ﺣﺴﺒﻨﺎﻩ ﻣﺬﻟﻮ ًﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ‪ ...‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ‪ ...‬ﳓﻦ ﺣﺴﺒﻨﺎﻩ ﻣﻌﺎﻗﺒًﺎ ﻛﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺏ )ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ(‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ‪ ...‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺇﻓﺘﺮﺍﺀ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﻟﻘﺼﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﻧﺎ ﻭﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﻧﻌﻜﺲ ﻗﺴﺎﻭﺓ ﻗﻠﻮﺑﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪«.‬‬
‫ﰒ ﻳﺄﰐ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻋﺪﺍﺩ ‪ ١٢ -١٠‬ﻟﻴﻮﺿﺢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﺍﷲ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻪ‬
‫ﻹﺑﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﳓﻠﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻧﺘﺨﻴﻠﻪ‪:‬‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻪ‪ ..‬ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻛﻦ‬
‫» ﻗﺎﻡ ﻣﻠﻮﻙ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻭﺗﺂﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﺳﺎﺀ ً‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ﻳﻀﺤﻚ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﺘﻬﺰﺉ ‪‬ﻢ ‪ ...‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻣﺴﺤﺖ ﻣﻠﻜﻲ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻬﻴﻮﻥ ‪ ...‬ﻃﻮﰊ ﳉﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﳌﺘﻜﻠﲔ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ« )ﻣﺰ ‪.(٢‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻵﺏ ‪ :‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻛﻨﺘﻢ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺂﻣﺮﰎ‬
‫ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺩﺍﻭﻭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ً‬

‫‪٢٤٠‬‬
‫ﻇﻠﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﻀﺤﻚ ﻋﻠﻴﻜﻢ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺩﺑﺮ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ‬ ‫ﻭﺳﺤﻘﺘﻢ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺗﻔﻮﻕ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﰎ !!! ﺃﻧﺘﻢ ﺗﺴﺤﻘﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺳﻴﺤ ّﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﺤﻖ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺮﺓ ﻭﳒﺎﺡ ﻭﺧﻼﺹ!! ﺃﻧﺘﻢ ﺗﺰﺩﺍﺩﻭﻥ ﺷﺮﴽ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺇﺫ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﻳُﺤ ّﻮﻝ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ ﺇﱃ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺧﲑ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ ﺇﱃ ﻋﺪﻝ ﻭﺻﻼﺡ‪ ،‬ﻭﳛﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺧﻼﺹ‪ .‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﺇﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺠﺮﺏ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ ﺃﺑﺪﴽ‪ ،‬ﻣﻬﻤﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﻐﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﺎﳋﲑ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻳُﻐﻠﺐ ﻫﻮ ﻭﻻ ﻳُ ﱠ‬
‫ﻋﻈﻢ ﺷﺮﻛﻢ!! ﻓﻬﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ‪ » :‬ﺇﻥ ﺟﻌﻞ ﺇﺑﲏ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺣﺐ‬
‫ﻭﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺷﻔﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻀﺢ ﻋﻠﻴﻜﻢ ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﲝﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﻭﺩﻣﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺴﻔﻮﻙ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻇﻠﻤﻜﻢ‪،‬‬
‫ﻼ ﺗﻄﻮﻝ ﺃﻳﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﻄﻮﻝ ﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻯ!! ﺇﻥ‬ ‫ﻓﻬﻮ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﺼﻨﻊ ﻣﻨﻜﻢ ﻣﻠﻜﻮﺗًﺎ ﻭﻧﺴ ً‬
‫ﺟﻌﻞ ﺇﺑﲎ‪ ،‬ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻫﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﺩﻭﺍﺀ ﻟﻜﻢ ﺳﻮﻑ ﳝﺤﻮ ﻭﻳﺰﻳﻞ ﻋﻨﻜﻢ ﻋﺎﺭ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻜﻔﺮ ﻋﻦ )ﻳﻄﻬﺮ( ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﻴﺘﺤﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﻜﻢ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﳛﺮﻕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﳝﺤﻮﻫﺎ ﻛﺴﺤﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻐﻴﻤﺔ ﻳﻼﺷﻴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻣﺴﺮﰐ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻷﱐ ﺳﺄﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﺤﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺣﻴﺎﺓ« ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﻋﺪﺍﺩ ‪١٢ -١٠‬‬
‫ﻓﺴﺮ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺤﻘﻪ ﺑﺎﳊﺰﻥ ] ﻷﻥ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ‪ :‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‬
‫» ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ّ‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎﻣﻪ ﺇﺣﺘﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻣﺴﺘﻬﻴﻨﴼ ﺑﺎﳋﺰﻱ ‪ -‬ﻋﺐ ‪.[٢ :١٢‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺟﻌﻞ )ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻞ ﻫﻨﺎ( ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺇﰒ ﻳﺮﻱ ﻧﺴ ً‬
‫ﻼ‬
‫ﻭﻣﺴﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺑﻴﺪﻩ ﺗﻨﺠﺢ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻄﻮﻝ ﺃﻳﺎﻣﻪ‪ّ ،‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﺐ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻳﺮﻱ ﻭﻳﺸﺒﻊ ‪ ...‬ﻳﱪﺭ ﻛﺜﲑﻳﻦ ‪ ...‬ﻳﻘﺴﻢ ﻏﻨﻴﻤﺔ ]ﺭﺑﺢ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﺣﺮﺑﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ[ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺳﻜﺐ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﺃﺣﺼﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺃﲦﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﲪﻞ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﻛﺜﲑﻳﻦ ﻭﺷﻔﻊ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺬﻧﺒﲔ«‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﲏ ﻗﺪ ﲰﻌﺖ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺗُﻘﺮﺃ ﺧﻄﺄ‪ ،‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻓﺴﺮ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺤﻘﻪ ﺑﺎﳊﺰﻥ ﺇﺫ ﺟﻌﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺇﰒ‪!!!«.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ ﻳﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻛﺄﻧﻪ ﺳﺎﺩﻯ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﺤﻖ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﺟﻌﻞ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺲ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻏﻀﺐ ﻭﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺴﺮﻭﺭ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ!!! ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻮﺿﺢ ﺧﻄﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﻳﺔ‬

‫‪٢٤١‬‬
‫ﻭﲢﻮﻟﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻡ ﻭﺗﺸﻔﻲ ﺗﺴﺘﺤﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺼﻒ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﻮﻩ ﺍﳊﺐ ّ‬
‫ﺃﻣﺮﺍ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﴼ ﲤﺎﻣﴼ( ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ« ‪ -‬ﺃﺩﺍﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻁ ‪ -‬ﺗﺸﺮﺡ ً‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭﻩ!! )» ْ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺻﺤﺎﺡ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻫﻮ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻇﻠﻤﻮﺍ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ؛ ﻭﺍﻵﺏ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻀﺾ ﻭﺍﻓﻖ؛ ﻭﺿﺤﻚ ﻭﺇﺳﺘﻬﺰﺃ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ؛ ﰒ ﻏﻠﺐ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﺈﺑﻨﻪ ﺑﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺐ؛ ﻭﺟﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻣﻠﻜﻮﺗًﺎ ﺧﺎﻟ ًﺪﺍ؛ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺟﻌﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﲝﺒﻪ ﻭﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﲦﻦ ﺧﻠﻮﺩﻧﺎ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃﻫﺪﺍﻩ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﻓﻴﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ُﺳ ﱠﺮ ﺍﻵﺏ‪ :‬ﺑﻌﻮﺩﺗﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺣﻀﻨﻪ‪.‬‬

‫• ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻫﻲ »ﺗﻄﻬﻴﺮ« ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲡﻠﺒﻪ‬

‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪...‬‬
‫• ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ــ ﺑﺤﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻭﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﲔ ــ ﻣﻮﺗﺎ ﹰ ﻟﺘﺘﻤﻴﻢ »ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺪﻝ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ«‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻌ ﹼﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﺘﻰ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺳﻨﺪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‪.‬‬

‫‪٢٤٢‬‬
٢٤٣
٢٤٤
‫ﻛﺜﻔﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﳌﻠﻬﻤﺔ ﻋﺼﺐ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﺑﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﱂ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺇﻻّ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﳘﻴﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ َﻣ ْﻦ ﻫﻮ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺬ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻠﻖ ﻭﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺑﺪ!!‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻋﱪ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻔﺴﺮ ﻭﺗﺸﺮﺡ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻘﺪﻣﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺣﻴّﺔ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺟﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺑﺈﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﻴﻞ ﻭﺗﻌﺒﲑﺍﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻣﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻼﻣﺲ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳊﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻭﻳﺘﺤﺴﺴﻬﺎ ﺑﻘﻮﺓ ﻭﻓﺎﻋﻠﻴﺔ ﺣﻴّﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻜﻞ َﻣ ْﻦ ﻳﺆﻣﻦ ﺑﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﰎ ﻭﺿﻌﻪ ﰲ ﳎﻤﻊ ﻧﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻜﻮﱐ ‪٣٢٥‬ﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﳎﻤﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻄﻨﻄﻴﻨﻴﺔ ‪٣٨١‬ﻡ‪ ،‬ﻳﺆﻣﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻭﺱ ﻭﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺆﻣﻦ ﺑﺪﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﻫﺮ ﺍﻵﰐ‪ ...‬ﺁﻣﲔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻣﻠﺨﺼﻬﺎ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﰲ ‪:‬‬

‫ﻭﲡﺴﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‬
‫» ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻠﻨﺎ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺧﻼﺻﻨﺎ ﻧﺰﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ ﱠ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻣﺮﱘ ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺭﺍﺀ ﺗﺄﻧﺲ‪ ..‬ﺗﺄﱂ ﻭﻗﱪ ﻭﻗﺎﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﻭﺻﻌﺪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ‪« ....‬‬

‫‪٢٤٥‬‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ » ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ « ﺍﻟﱵ ﳌﺴﻬﺎ ﻭﺗﺄﻛﺪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻞ ﺍﻷﻃﻬﺎﺭ ﻭﺳﻠّﻤﻮﻫﺎ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺸﻬﺪ ﻟﻨﺎ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﰲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺎﻡ ‪‬ﺎ ﺇﺑﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ » ﻋﻤﻞ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺣﺪ « ﻻ ﻳﺘﺠﺰﺃ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻨﻔﺼﻞ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻّ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﺸﺮﺣﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﻄﻠّﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻱ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﻋﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻓﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ‪ .‬ﻓﻜﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺟﻬﺰﺓ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ )ﺍﳉﻬﺎﺯ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳍﻀﻤﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺼﱯ‪ ...‬ﺍﱁ( ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻓﺼﻠﻬﺎ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ ﺟﺴﻢ‬
‫ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﻣﻮﺗﻪ ﻭﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻪ‪.‬‬‫ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﳛﻴﺎ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﲡﺰﺋﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﻣﻊ ﱡ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﻲ ﺟﻴﺪﴽ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎﻟﺰﻣﻦ ﻭﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻼ ﺑﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﱠﻤﺖ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻗﺪ ﰎ ﻓﻌ ً‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﱵ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱏ!! ﻓﻨﻘﻮﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻗﺪ ﻫﺪﻡ‬
‫ﲟﺠﺮﺩ ﺣﺪﻭﺙ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ » ،‬ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﲏ«‪ ،‬ﺭﺃﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﺃ ُﻋﻄﻴﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ّ‬
‫ﲤﺎﻡ ﺍﻹﲢﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻼﻣﺲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﰲ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻤﺎ » ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻴﻠﺔ « ﺍﻟﱵ ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻋﻠﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ‬
‫ﳒﺎﺡ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ » ﻧﻘﻞ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ « ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘ ّﺪﺳﺖ ﺑﺈﲢﺎﺩﻫﺎ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻲ ‪ .Life transfusion :‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻹﲢﺎﺩ ﳘﺎ ﺗﺘﻤﻴﻢ ﺗﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺇﺧﻼﺀ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ‬
‫ﻟﺬﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﳘﺎ ﺗﺘﻤﻴﻢ ﺫﺑﺢ ﲪﻞ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳌﺬﺑﻮﺡ ﲝﺒﻪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺇﻧﺸﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ!! ﻭﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﺇﲤﺎﻡ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ »ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺟﻲ « ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺆﻛﺪﻩ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﺮﻳﻨﺎ ﻓﺮﺡ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﺠﻴﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﺸﻬﺪﻫﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﺸﻬﺪ ﳍﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻡ ﳓﻦ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﻮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻮﺍﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ؟! ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﱄ ﻭﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﱄ ﻭﻟﻨﺎ ﻛﻠﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻟﻦ ﻧﺒﻘﻲ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ ﰲ ﻗﺒﻀﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻮﺗﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﳉﺴﺪ؟!‬ ‫ﺭﺟﺎﺀ ﺗﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ً‬
‫ﻟﺬﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳًﺎ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﳝﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺑﺎﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺸﻬﺪ ﻭﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﺷﻬﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﻭﻓﺎﺗﻪ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﺋﺪ ﺍﳌﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻃﻌﻨﻪ ﺑﺎﳊﺮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺷﻬﺪ ﻋﻦ ﲡﻠﻂ‬
‫ﺩﻣﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﺇﱃ ﺟﻠﻄﺔ ﺩﻣﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﻣﺎﺋﻲ )‪(Blood Clot & Serum‬‬
‫ﲝﺴﺐ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺐ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺷﻬﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻮﺗﻪ ﺍﻷﻛﻴﺪ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺀﻩ‪ ،‬ﳎﻤﻊ ﻛﻬﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﻃﺎﻟﺒﻮﺍ ﲝﺮﺍﺳﺔ ﻗﱪﻩ‪،‬‬
‫ً‬
‫ﻗﻄﻌﺎ ﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﺗﺄﻛﺪﻭﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻟﻴﺆﻛﺪ ﻟﻨﺎ » ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ « ﻣﻌﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ً‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺣﱴ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﺘﺄﻛﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴًﺎ‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻠﻪ ً‬

‫‪٢٤٦‬‬
‫ﻭﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺷﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺸﻬﺪ ﳍﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻞ ﻭﻣﺌﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ )ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﲬﺴﻤﺎﺋﺔ ﺷﺨﺺ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﻜﻞ‬
‫‪ ١ -‬ﻛﻮ ‪ (٦ :١٥‬ﻧﺘﺄﻛﺪ ﻭﻧﺆﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻪ ﺳﻮﻑ ﲢﺪﺙ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ً‬
‫ﻳﻘﲔ‪ ...‬ﻧﺘﺄﻛﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺯﺭﻉ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ ﺑﺎﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻴﻘﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﺸﺪﺩ‬
‫ﺇﳝﺎﻧﻨﺎ ﻭﺭﺟﺎﺅﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺘﻘﻮﻯ ﳏﺒﺘﻨﺎ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﺍﳌﺨﻠﺺ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﻟﲑﻓﻌﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻟﻴﻘﻴﻤﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺎﻡ ﻟﻴﻤﺠﺪﻧﺎ ﻭﲤﺠﺪ ﻟﻴﺪﺧﻠﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺣﻀﻦ ﺃﺑﻴﻪ ﻭﺃﺑﻴﻨﺎ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ ...‬ﺣﲔ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ )‪١‬ﻛﻮ ‪ .(٢٨ :١٥‬ﺁﻣﲔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺣﺪﻭﺙ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﻗﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻫﻢ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﻭﻟﺐ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪ ] .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻳﺆﻣﻦ ‪‬ﺬﻩ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻨﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﱂ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻲ )ﻗﺮﻥ ‪ (١١‬ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻗﺎﺋﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﱵ )ﻗﺮﻥ‬
‫‪.[(١٦‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﻭﺷﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﻓﻬﻮ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻋﱪ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺗﺸﺒﻴﻬﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ‬
‫ﱠ‬ ‫ﻭﳎﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﻟﻮﺻﻒ ‪ » :‬ﻛﻴﻒ « ﻭ » ﳌﺎﺫﺍ « ﻗ ّﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‬
‫ﲡﺴﺪ ﻭﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﻗﺎﻡ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﻫﻮ ﺧﻄﻮﺓ ﺛﺎﻧﻮﻳﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺆﻣﻦ‬‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﱠ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﺍﳌﺆﻣﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻣﻌﺎﱐ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳌﺨﻠّﺼﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﺎﱀ‪ ،‬ﻭﺻﻌﻮﺩﻩ ﲜﺴﺪﻧﺎ ﻭﻛﻴﺎﻧﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﳝﲔ ﺍﻵﺏ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﻮﻥ ﻳﺆﻣﻨﻮﻥ ﲨﻴﻌﴼ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﺃﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﺃﻭ ﻛﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻚ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺮﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺑﺪﻭ‪‬ﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺧﻼﺹ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﳑﻜﻨًﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺎﺋﺲ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺙ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻛﺜﺮﻫﺎ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺕ ‪‬ﺎ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺎﺋﺲ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﻱ ﻭﺍﻷﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ّ‬
‫ﻋﱪ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺪﻑ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻠﺨﻴﺺ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺩﺭﺳﺘﻪ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻋﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ؛ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﺄﻛﺪﺕ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻪ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﰲ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻧﻘ ًﺪﺍ ﻫﻴﻨًﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻧﺸﻜﺮ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺑﺪﺃ ﰲ ﺍﻹﻧﻘﺸﺎﻉ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻲ ﻭﺍﻷﳒﻠﻴﻜﺎﱐ ﻭﺣﱴ ﺑﻌﺾ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﺖ ﺁﺧﺬﻭﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﰲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﻹﺧﺮﺍﺝ ﺟﻮﺍﻫﺮﻩ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻻً ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ ﺍﳌﻈﻠﻢ‪.‬‬
‫‪٢٤٧‬‬
‫ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻲ ﺟﱪﻳﺎﻝ ﺩﺍﱄ‪ ،‬ﻣﺪﺭﺱ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺑـ ‪Trinity College‬‬
‫‪ ، Dublin‬ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ » ﺍﳋﻠﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ « ﻣﻘ ّﺪﻣﺔ ﻫﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﳘﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ‪:‬‬
‫)‪(Creation & Redemption p. 169-176‬‬

‫» ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﻱ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﺎﻥ ﻧﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻴﻼً‪...‬‬

‫ﻭﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﻫﻲ ﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﺗﺘﻐﻴّﺮ‪...‬‬
‫ﻣﻔﺼﻞ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱄ ﻋﻦ‬‫ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻧﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﻭﺷﺮﺡ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ّ‬
‫» ﻣﺎﺫﺍ « ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺒﻂ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﺄﱂ ﻭﻣﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﻠﺠﺜﺔ ] ﺃﻳﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻭﱄ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻫﻮ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺎﺳﻮﺕ ﻭﺇﲢﺎﺩﳘﺎ[‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺇﲨﺎﻉ ] ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ [ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ » ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ « ‪ ...‬ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻷﻭﱄ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻣﺮﻛﺰﺓ ﺣﺎﻭﻟﺖ ﻭﺻﻒ ﺁﻻﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺗﺸﺒﻴﻬﺎﺕ‪ ...‬ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﻣﺘﻀﺎﺭﺑﺔ ﺑﻞ ﺗﺸﺒﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﻭﳎﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﻟﻌﺮﺽ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ُﻛﺘﱠﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﻫﻢ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻷﻭﱄ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻠﺔ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻀﺨﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻮﺍﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺭﺳﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺎﺭﺯﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﳋﻼﺻﻲ‬

‫‪٢٤٨‬‬
‫‪ Soteriology‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺣﻘًﺎ ﺻﻌﺐ‪ .‬ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻻﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻧﻜﺘﺸﻒ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺍﻷﺻﺎﻟﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺘﻐﲑ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻐﻴّﺮ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ‪ ...‬ﳓﻦ ﻟﻦ ﻧﻌﻴﺪ » ﺇﺧﺘﺮﺍﻉ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﳍﺎ ﺑﺼﻮﺭ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﺋﻴﺔ‪ ...‬ﳓﻦ ﳓﺘﺎﺝ‬‫ﺍﻟﻌﺠﻠﺔ «‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻨﺎ ً‬
‫ﻹﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﻭﺷﺮﺡ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺔ ﻭﻣﻘﺒﻮﻟﺔ ﻟﻌﺼﺮﻧﺎ ‪ .Relevant‬ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﻮﻥ ﺍﻷﻭﺍﺋﻞ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺸﺒﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﳋﻼﺻﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭﺓ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ«‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﳚﺪﺭ ﺑﻨﺎ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻥ ﳎﺎﺯﺍﺕ » ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﺍﺀ « ﰲ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻟﻴﺲ ﳍﺎ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﺫﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﻯ!! ﻓﺈﻥ ﻗﻠﺖ ﺃﻧﲏ ﺇﺷﺘﺮﻳﺖ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺋﻲ ﲝﱯ ﻭﺣﻴﺎﰐ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧﲏ ﺃﺑﺬﻝ ﻛﻞ ﳎﻬﻮﺩ ﳑﻜﻦ ﺣﺒًﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻫﻨﺎ ﲦﻦ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻳﺪﻓﻊ ﻭﻻ‬
‫ﻗﺎﺑﺾ ﻣﺴﺘﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺇﻳﺼﺎﻝ ﺇﺳﺘﻼﻡ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﳊﺮﰱ!! ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺑﻴﻊ ﺻﺪﻳ ًﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ‬
‫ﺃﻧﲏ ﻓﻘﺪﺕ ﺣﱯ ﻟﻪ ﻭﺃﳘﻠﺘﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻼ ﳎﺎﺯ » ﺍﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ « ﺫ َ‬
‫َﻛ َﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻟﻴﺼﻒ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺟﺎﺀ ﻟﻴﺨﺪﻡ ﺃﺣﺒﺎﺀﻩ‬ ‫ﻓﻤﺜ ً‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻜﻲ ﳜﺪﻣﻮﻩ ﻫﻢ )ﻣﺖ ‪ ٢٨ :٢٠‬ﻭﻣﻜﺮﺭ ﰲ ﻣﺮ ‪ (٤٥ :١٠‬ﻭﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﻪ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻣﺮﺓ ﰲ )‪١‬ﰐ ‪ .(٦ :٢‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﻜﺮﺭ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ّ‬
‫ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﰲ )‪ ١‬ﺑﻂ ‪ .(١٨ :١‬ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﲟﺸﺘﻘﺎ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﻤﻸ ﺻﻔﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﴰﻞ ﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﱂ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻬــﺪ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺪﻳـﺪ ﻟﻘــﺐ » ﻓﺎﺩﻱ « ﺃﻭ » ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺩﻱ «!! ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺩ ﻛﺘﺐ ‪George‬‬
‫‪ ، Florovsky‬ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴـﻲ ﻭﻋﻤﻴﺪ ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ‪St. Vladimir Seminary‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑــﻖ‪ ،‬ﻓـﻲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑــﻪ ‪ Creation and Redemption‬ﺹ ‪ ٢٨٢‬ﰲ ﺃﺣﺪ‬
‫ﺍﳍﻮﺍﻣﺶ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﻗﻮﻱ ﳛﺒﺬ ﺩﻓﻊ ﻓﺪﻳﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﳊﺮﰲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﲏ ﺣﻘًﺎ » ﻓﺪﻳـﺔ «‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴـﺔ‬
‫ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﺖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻓﻘﻂ )ﻣﺖ ‪ (٢٨ :٢٠‬ﻭﰲ ﺗﻜﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ )ﻣﺮ ‪.(٤٥ :١٠‬‬

‫‪٢٤٩‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺮﻛﻴﺰ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺮﻳﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺘﻖ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﻓﺘﺪﺍﺀ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﲦﻦ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﳊﺮﰲ‪ .‬ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻲ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺮﻳﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺘﻖ ‪.to loose or set free‬‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻔﻌﻞ‬
‫ﻭﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﰲ )‪١‬ﰐ ‪ » (٦ :٢‬ﺑﺬﻝ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻓﺪﻳﺔ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ « ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻟﻮ ‪ ٢١ :٢٤‬ﻭ ﰐ ‪ ١٤ :٢‬ﻭ ‪١‬ﺑﻂ ‪ ،١٨ :١‬ﻻ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻣﻌﲏ ﺩﻓﻊ‬
‫ﻓﺪﻳﺔ ‪ ransom‬ﻛﻬﺪﻑ«‬
‫ﻭﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﺟﱪﻳﺎﻝ ﺩﺍﱄ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ )‪:(Creation & Redemption p. 176‬‬
‫» ﻻ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻭﻻ ُﻛﺘﱠﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﺣﺎﻭﻟﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺎﺅﻝ ﻋﻦ ‪َ » :‬ﻣ ْﻦ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺇﺳﺘﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ « ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻣﻜﺘﻔﲔ ﺑﺈﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯ ﻛﻤﺠﺎﺯ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﲢﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﻓﻮﻕ ﻣﺎ ﲢﺘﻤﻞ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ‬
‫ﱂ ﻳﺘﻤﻜﻨﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺿﺒﻂ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻬﻢ ﻭﲤﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺗﻞ ‪ » :‬ﳌﻦ‬
‫ﻗﺪﻣﺖ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ؟!«‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺘﺞ ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﻻﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺩﻓﻌﺖ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺣﺮﻓﻴﺔ ]ﻛﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ![‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻢ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻓﺘﺤﻮﺍ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﴼ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺎﺅﻻﺕ ﺍﳌﻨﻤﻘﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻏﲑ ﺍﻹﳒﻴﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﲢﺖ ﺑﻨﺪ ﺍﻷﺳﻄﻮﺭﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺑﺪﺃﺕ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ‪:‬‬
‫»ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ« ] ﻭﺃﺷﻬﺮﻫﻢ ﻫﻨﺎ ‪ :‬ﺃﻭﺭﳚﺎﻧﺲ ﻭﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺴﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻣﱪﻭﺳﻴﻮﺱ[‬
‫ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺮﺃﻧﺎ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﴼ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺭﻓﺾ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ ﻗﺎﺋ ً‬
‫ﻼ‬
‫ﰲ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻣﻘﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﻭﻣﺴﺘﻠﻤﻬﺎ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻧﻔﺴﺮﻫﺎ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﳌﻦ ﻗَ ّﺪﻡ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻔﻚ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ؟ ﺑﻞ ﻭﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺳﻔﻚ؟!‪...‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﻗﻠﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻓﻈﻴﻊ‪ ،‬ﻫﻞ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺍﻟﻠﺺ ﻓﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﷲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ! ﻭﻫﻞ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﺃﺟﺮﺓ ﻹﺳﺘﺒﺪﺍﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﻳﻄﻠﻖ ﺳﺮﺍﺣﻨﺎ؟!‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﻗﺪ ﺩﻓﻊ ﻟﻶﺏ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﺃﺳﺄﻝ ﺃﻭﻻً‪ :‬ﻛﻴﻒ؟ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻵﺏ ﱂ‬
‫ﳝﺴﻜﻨﺎ ﻛﺮﻫﻴﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺇﺫﻥ ُﺳ ﱠﺮ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺑﺪﻡ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ‬
‫‪٢٥٠‬‬
‫ﺇﺳﺤﻖ ﺣﲔ ﻗﺪﻣﻪ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﳏﺮﻗﺔ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺑﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻜﺒﺶ؟‬
‫ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻃﻠﺒﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻛﺎﻥ ﰲ‬ ‫ﺃﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ً‬
‫ﺇﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺗﺪﺑﲑﻩ‪ :‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳُﻘ ﱠﺪﺱ ﺑﺈﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﷲ‪،‬‬
‫ﳜﻠﺼﻨﺎ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﻐﻠﺐ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺒﺪ ﺑﻘﻮﺗﻪ ﻫﻮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﺩﻧﺎ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﷲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻔﻌﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻠﻪ ﳌﺠﺪ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻃﺎﻋﻪ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻰﺀ‪ ...‬ﻣﺎ ﺗﺒﻘﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﺳﻨﻌﱪﻩ ﰲ ﺻﻤﺖ ﻣﻘﺪﺱ‪«...‬‬
‫)‪(The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 152‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﱯ ‪: Apophatic Theology‬‬

‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺳﺮﺟﻴﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﭬﻼﺩﳝـﲑ‬
‫ﻟﻮﺳﻜﻲ ‪ The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church‬ﺗَﻤﻴﱠﺰ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﲟﺎ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺑﺎﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﱯ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻠﻮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻣﻮﺯ ﻣﺆﻛ ًﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﱃ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﻭ ًﻻ ‪ :‬ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﱠ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺋﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗُﻌﺒﱠﺮ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﻟﻔﺎﻅ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻣﻮﺯ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺟﻮﺍﻧﺐ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻭﺗﺘﺮﻙ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺋﻘﺔ ﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ‪.‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ‪ :‬ﺃﻥ ﻻ ّ‬
‫ﺗﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﻮﺯ ﻭﺍﻹﻋﻼﻧﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻭﺛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺗﻐﻠﻖ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻭﲡﻌﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻏﲑ ﻗﺎﺩﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺳﺘﻴﻌﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﺮ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺍﻹﺣﺘﻔﺎﻅ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﻔﻈﻴﺔ ﻭﳛﻮﳍﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻭﺛﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﺒﺪﻫﺎ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻹﳚﺎﰊ ‪: Cataphatic Theology‬‬

‫ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺇﳚﺎﺑﻴًﺎ ﻭﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳍﺮﻃﻘﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻹﳓﺮﺍﻓﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺮﻓﺾ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ ﻭﻳﺮﺩ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﻳﻔﻨﺪﻩ ﻭﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺧﻄﻮﺭﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﷲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻻ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻷﻥ ﻧﻔﻲ ﺍﻹﳓﺮﺍﻑ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻭﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﳊﻖ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺁﺧﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺮ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﺿﺪ ﺍﳍﺮﻃﻘﺎﺕ )ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺮﻓﺾ‬
‫ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺎ ﻭﳑﻴ ًﺰﺍ( ﱂ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺎ ً‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺗﻘﻠﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺇﲢﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺳﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﺑﻘﺎﺀ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﻤﺎ ً‬
‫‪٢٥١‬‬
‫ﺗﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺇﲢﺪ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺳﻮﺕ!!! ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺮ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻤﺎﻡ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺭﻓﻀﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﲢﺎﺩ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻼﺷﻲ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺳﻮﺕ ﰲ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻹﲢﺎﺩ ﻛﺎﻣ ً‬
‫ﻼ‬
‫ﻭﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻘﺎﻟﺖ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻠّﻢ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻱ ﻋﻤﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ‬
‫ً‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﺇﲢﺪﺕ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺳﻮﺕ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺃﻣﲔ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﲔ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﲔ‪ .‬ﺃﺅﻣﻦ‪ .‬ﺃﺅﻣﻦ‪ .‬ﺃﺅﻣﻦ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﺤﻴﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺃﺧﺬﻩ ﺇﺑﻨﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ‪ ...‬ﻭﺟﻌﻠﻪ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﴽ ﻣﻊ ﻻﻫﻮﺗﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻐﲑ ﺇﺧﺘﻼﻁ‪ ،‬ﻭ‬
‫ﺑﻐﲑ ﺇﻣﺘﺰﺍﺝ ‪ ،‬ﻭ‬
‫ﺑﻼ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ‪ ،‬ﻭ‪...‬‬
‫ﺑﻼ ﺇﻓﺘﺮﺍﻕ ﻭﻻ ﺣﱴ ﳊﻈﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻭﻻ ﻃﺮﻓﺔ ﻋﲔ‪« ....‬‬

‫•••‬

‫‪٢٥٢‬‬
 ‫‪ - ١‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺇﻏﻨﺎﻃﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻷﻧﻄﺎﻛﻲ )ﺍﺳﺘﺸﻬﺪ ﰲ ‪١١٠‬ﻡ( ‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﺣﻮﺍﺭﻩ ﻣﻊ ﺗﺮﺍﺟﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﻣﱪﺍﻃﻮﺭ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﺳﺸﻬﺎﺩﻩ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺗﺮﺍﺟﺎﻥ ‪ :‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﻮ ﺣﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ‪ Theophorus‬؟‬
‫ﺇﻏﻨﺎﻃﻴﻮﺱ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﻜﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﰲ ﻗﻠﺒﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺮﺍﺟﺎﻥ ‪ :‬ﻭﻫﻞ ﻧﺒﺪﻭ ﻟﻚ ﳓﻦ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻻ ﳓﻤﻞ ﺍﻵﳍﺔ ﰲ ﻋﻘﻮﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﻧﺘﻤﺘﻊ‬
‫ﲟﻌﻮﻧﺘﻬﻢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺮﻭﺏ ﺿﺪ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺀﻧﺎ؟‬
‫ﺇﻏﻨﺎﻃﻴﻮﺱ ‪ :‬ﺃﻧﺖ ﲣﻄﺊ ﺇﺫ ﺗﺴﻤﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﺎﻃﲔ ﺁﳍﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻨﻴﲔ ﺑﺄ‪‬ﻢ ﺁﳍﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺇﻟﻪ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ ،‬ﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﻭﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﲤﺘﻊ ﺑﺼﺪﺍﻗﺘﻪ!‬
‫ﺗﺮﺍﺟﺎﻥ ‪ :‬ﺃﺗﻌﲏ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺻﻠﺐ ﺃﻳﺎﻡ ﺑﻴﻼﻃﺲ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻄﻰ؟‬
‫ﺇﻏﻨﺎﻃﻴﻮﺱ ‪ :‬ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻋﻨﻴﻪ ﻫﻮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺑﺎﺩ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻣﻊ ﳐﺘﺮﻉ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ )ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ(‪،‬‬
‫ﺫﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺩﺍﻥ ﻛﻞ ﺷﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﲢﺖ ﺃﻗﺪﺍﻡ‬
‫ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﳛﻤﻠﻮﻥ ﺷﺨﺼﻪ )ﺷﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ( ﰲ ﻗﻠﻮ‪‬ﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺮﺍﺟﺎﻥ ‪ :‬ﻫﻞ ﺃﻧﺖ ﺇﺫﻥ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺑﺪﺍﺧﻠﻚ؟‬
‫ﺇﻏﻨﺎﻃﻴﻮﺱ ‪ :‬ﺑﻜﻞ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺏ ﺳﺄﺳﻜﻦ ﻣﻌﻬﻢ ﻭﺃﺳﲑ ﻣﻌﻬﻢ«‬
‫)‪(The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 1, p. 27‬‬

‫‪٢٥٣‬‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﻣﺎﺭ ﺇﻏﻨﺎﻃﻴﻮﺱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺑﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﻏﻠﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺟﻌﻠﻪ ﲢﺖ ﺃﻗﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﳌﺆﻣﻨﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﺘﺤ ّﺪﺙ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻹﻣﱪﺍﻃﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﱐ ﻋﻦ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺃﻫﲔ‬
‫ﻭﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺗﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﲟﻮﺕ!‬
‫ﻭﰲ ‪ ، Patristic Doctrine of Redemption‬ﻛﺘﺐ ‪ Turner‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻣﺎﺭ ﺇﻏﻨﺎﻃﻴﻮﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻧﻄﺎﻛﻲ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﻠّﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﲑ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﺩﻣﻪ ﻫﻮ )‪: (p. 27‬‬
‫» ﺗﺮﻳﺎﻕ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺩﻭﺍﺀ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ « ‪ .The Medicine of Immortality‬ﻭﻫﻮ ‪‬ﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻳﻠﺨﺺ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﻪ ﻭﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﻋﺼﺮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﻣﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻭﻋﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﲏ ﻋﻼﺟﻲ ﺃﻭﻻً‬
‫ﻭﺃﺧﲑًﺍ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻫﺪﻳﺔ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻌﲏ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻱ ﳏﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺮﺽ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺲ‪.‬‬

‫‪ - ٢‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﭘﻮﻟﻴﻜﺎﺭﭘﻮﺱ )ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﺍﳌﻴﻼﺩﻯ( ‪:‬‬

‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ ‪ Turner‬ﰲ ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭ ‪ P.D. of R.‬ﰲ ‪: p. 33‬‬
‫» ﻛﺘﺐ ﭘﻮﻟﻴﻜﺎﺭﭘﻮﺱ ﰲ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺘﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻓﻴﻠﱯ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﻠﻘًﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺒﺆﺓ ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ‪:‬‬
‫ﲢﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﳓﻴﺎ ﳓﻦ‪ .‬ﻟﻴﺘﻨﺎ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻧﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﺑﻘﺪﺭﺗﻪ‬‫ﻟﻘﺪ ّ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺄﳌﻨﺎ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﲰﻪ ﳕﺠﺪﻩ‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺻﻨﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻟﻴﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺜﺎ ًﻻ ﳓﺘﺬﻳﻪ ﻛﻤﺆﻣﻨﲔ ﺑﻪ‪«.‬‬

‫‪ - ٣‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻳﻮﺳﺘﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﻴﺪ )‪١٦٥ -١١٠‬ﻡ(‪:‬‬

‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ ﰲ ﺩﻓﺎﻋﻪ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻪ ﺇﱃ ﳎﻠﺲ ﺍﻟـ ‪ Roman Senate‬ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻋﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ‪.(Faith of the Early Fathers vol. I) :‬‬
‫» ﻭﻇﻬﺮ ﺑﺎﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ ..‬ﺑﺄﻥ ﲡﺴﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺭﺍﺀ ﻭﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻵﺏ‪ ،‬ﻷﺟﻞ ﺧﻼﺹ‬
‫ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ ﺍﳌﺆﻣﻨﲔ ﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﲰﺢ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺇﺣﺘﻘﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺄﱂ ﻟﻜﻲ‬
‫ﲟﻮﺗﻪ ﻭﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻪ ﻳﻨﺘﺼــﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌــﻮﺕ ‪(p. 55) «..‬‬

‫ﻭﰲ ﺩﻓﺎﻋﻪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ‪:‬‬

‫‪٢٥٤‬‬
‫» ﻷﻧﻪ ﺻﺎﺭ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧًﺎ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﺑﺈﺷﺘﺮﺍﻛﻪ ﰲ ﺁﻻﻣﻨﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺸﻔﻴﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻬﺎ « )‪(p. 57‬‬

‫ﻓﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻳﻮﺳﺘﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺮﺽ ﻭﺃﱂ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﻠﺸﻔﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﱰﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ؛ ﻭﺇﻻ ﻓﻠﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺸﻔﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻧﺰﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺀ‬
‫ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ؟!‬
‫‪ - ٤‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺇﻳﺮﻳﻨﺎﺅﺱ ﺃﺳـﻘﻒ ﻟـﻴﻮﻥ‬
‫)ﻣﻮﻟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺁﺳﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺼﻐﺮﻱ‪٢٠٢ -١٤٠ ،‬ﻡ(‪:‬‬
‫ﻟﻠﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺇﻳﺮﻳﻨﺎﺅﺱ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺑﺎﻹﲢﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﲔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱ‪ .‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻧﻪ ﺑﺎﻹﲢﺎﺩ ﺑﲔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ » ﻧﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ « ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ ﺃﻭﺍﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ » ﻧﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﭽﻴﻨﺎﺕ «‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﱪﻉ ‪‬ﺎ ‪ !!Genetic Engineering‬ﻷﻥ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺎﺋﺖ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﻹﲢﺎﺩ ﺑﺎﳌﺎﺋﺖ )ﺃﻱ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ( ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺎﺋﺖ ﺻﻔﺔ ﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ ﻭﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻟﻘﺪ ﺟﺎﺀ ﻟﻴﺼﻨﻊ ﺧﻼﺹ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺷﺨﺼﻪ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ‪ -‬ﺃﻗﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ‪،‬‬
‫ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﻗﺪ ﲡﺪﺩﺕ ﺧﻠﻘﺘﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻪ )ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ( ‪-‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻣﺮ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻋﻤﺮ ‪ ...‬ﻟﻴﻘ ّﺪﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻃﻔﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺿﻊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺸﺒﺎﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺒﺎﺭ ً‬
‫ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺑﻜﺮﺍ ً‬ ‫ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ‪ ...‬ﰒ ] ‪‬ﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ [ ﺇﺧﺘﱪ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ً‬
‫ﺑﻜﺮﺍ ﺑﲔ ﻛﻞ ﺍﳋﻼﺋﻖ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺃﺻﻞ ﻭﻣﻨﺸﺊ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻜﻮﻥ ً‬
‫« )‪(Faith of the Early Fathers. p. 87, vol. 1‬‬

‫» ﻟﻘﺪ ﲨﻊ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺻﺮﻧﺎ ﻧﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﻙ‬
‫ﻼ ﻟﻸﻻﻡ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺻﺎﺭ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧًﺎ ﻟﻴﺠﻤﻊ‬ ‫ﺻﺎﺭ ً‬
‫ﻣﺪﺭﻛﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻸﱂ ‪ ،‬ﺻﺎﺭ ﻗﺎﺑ ً‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺷﺨﺼﻪ « )‪.(F. of E. F. p. 91‬‬
‫» ﺑﺎﻵﻻﻡ ﺻﺎﳊﻨﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ « )‪.(F. of E. F. p. 92‬‬
‫» ﻟﻘﺪ ﻭﺣﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺇﻥ ﱂ ﻳﻐﻠﺐ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻭ‪ ،‬ﳌﺎ ﺃﻣﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﻬﺰﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻭ ﺣﻘًﺎ« ]ﺃﻱ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺑﻘﻮﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺳﻮﺕ ﻏﻠﺐ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬

‫‪٢٥٥‬‬
 ‫)‪(F. of E.F. p. 92‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ‪ -‬ﺑﺎﻹﲢﺎﺩ [‬
‫» ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺭﺑﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺣﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺻﺎﺭ ﻣﺜﻠﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺼﲑﻧﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ‪(F. of the E. F. p. 99) «What He Himself is‬‬

‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻳﺬﻛﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ ﺑﺼﻮﺭ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺫﻛﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻟﻘﺪ ﺻﺎﺭ ﺍﷲ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺼﲑ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﳍًﺎ‪«.‬‬
‫)‪(The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church p. 134‬‬

‫‪ - ٥‬ﻛﻠﻴﻤﻨﻀﺲ ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻱ )‪٢١٦ -١٥٠‬ﻡ( ‪:‬‬

‫ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ‪:‬‬
‫‪( Grenstead, A Short History of the Doctrine of the Atonement‬‬
‫)‪- 1920, Oxford.‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﻪ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺟﻲ‬
‫ﻛﺘﻄﻬﲑ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻟﻘﺪ ﺷﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﺄﺱ ) ﻛﺄﺱ ﺍﻵﻻﻡ ( ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳُﻄ ﱠﻬﺮ )‪‬ﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻵﻻﻡ( ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﺂﻣﺮﻭﺍ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﱂ ﻳﺆﻣﻨﻮﺍ ﺑﻪ « ‪. p. 27‬‬
‫» ﻭﻫﻮ ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻳﺸﻔﻲ ﺃﺟﺴﺎﺩﻧﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ« )‪.(p.27‬‬
‫ﻭﻧﻔﻮﺳﻨﺎ ً‬
‫» ﻟﻘﺪ َﺻ َﻠ َﺐ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺈﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﺬﺏ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻌﻴ ًﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻣﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺭﻓﻌﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ« )‪.(p. 27‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺭﺍﺋﻌﺔ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺇﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ]ﺃﻱ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻰ[ ﻫﻮ ﻗﺘﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﺻﻠﺐ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ!! ﻷﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ] ﺃﻱ ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ[ ﻳﺘﺒﺪﺩ‬
‫ﺑﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ‪ » :‬ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺩﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﲝﺴﺪ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ ﻫﺪﻣﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺤﻴﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻹﺑﻨﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ«‪.‬‬

‫‪٢٥٦‬‬
‫» ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺣﺮﴽ ﺑﺒﺴﺎﻃﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﻣﻘﻴﺪﴽ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﺭﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﳛﺮﺭﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻮﺩ ]ﺭﺑﺎﻃﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ[‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺤﺎﻓﻪ ﺑﺎﳉﺴﺪ ‪ ...‬ﻫﺰﻡ ﺍﳊﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺃﺳﺮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺒﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺭﻭﻉ ﺷﻰﺀ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻓﻚ ﺃﺳﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﲢﺮﻳﺮﻩ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﺳﲑﴽ ﻟﻠﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺎ ﻟﻠﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ! ﻟﻘﺪ ﺗﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﺇﺭﺗﻔﻊ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻭﺱ‬
‫ﻳﺮﺑﺢ ﻣﻜﺎﻓﺄﺓ ﺃﻋﻈﻢ‪ ،‬ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ ﻋﻴﻨﻬﺎ!!«‬
‫)‪(A Short History of the D. of A., p. 28‬‬

‫ﻛﻠﻴﻤﻨﻀﺲ ﻳﺼﻴﺢ ﻣﻨﺪﻫﺸﴼ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺠﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻓﺄ ﻣﻦ ﺧﺴﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻭﺱ‪ ،‬ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ!! ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﻟﺪﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻫﺶ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺒﻬﺎﺭ!!‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﺍﳊﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﻱ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻛﻬﺪﻑ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺎﳋﺎﻃﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺗﺮﻱ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﻨﺪﺭﺳﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻗﻠﻴﻞ!‬
‫ﻐﺮﺏ ﻭﻣﺎﺕ؛ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺇﺗﺰﺍﻥ‬
‫ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺣﺐ ﻭﺇﺣﻴﺎﺀ ﳌ َِﻦ ﺗَ ﱠ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻮﻗﻲ ﻭﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺑﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﷲ » ﻣﺎﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ « ﻣﻦ ﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺮﻕ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻮﻗﻪ!؟‬
‫ﻭﻳﻌﻠﻖ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻴﻒ » ﺻﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ «‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ُﻋﻠ َ‬
‫ِﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺠﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﱂ ﻳﻈﻠﻢ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﺄﱂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻋﻠﻦ ﻋﻦ ﻓﺎﺭﻕ ﻫﺎﻡ‪ .‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﻟﻮ ُﺣﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺎﻃﺊ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﺻﻠﺒًﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺠﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻠﻌﻮﻧﴼ‪ ...‬ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﺒﺒﺖ ﰲ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﺠﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﰲ ﻓﻤﻪ ﻏﺶ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺃﺭﺍﻧﺎ ﻛﻞ ﺑﺮ ﻭﺗﻮﺍﺿﻊ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﺘﻌﺮﺽ‬
‫ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺣﻘﻖ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻨﺒﺄ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ ﻋﻤﺎ ﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﻮﻧﻪ ﺃﻧﺘﻢ‬
‫) ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩ ( ﺑﺄﻧﻔﺴﻜﻢ ﻓﻴﻪ « )ﺍﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩ(‪. (p. 28) ..‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﻠﻴﻤﻨﻀﺲ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻣﺮﴽ ﻫﺎﻣﴼ ﺟﺪﴽ‪ ،‬ﻛﻨﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻧﺎﻗﺸﻨﺎﻩ ﻗﺒﻼً‪ .‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭﺓ ﰲ ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ‪ ٥٣‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ ﺫﻛﺮﻩ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺻﲑﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ » ﻟﻌﻨﺔ «‬
‫ﺃﻭ » ﺧﻄﻴﺔ « ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﳚﺐ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﻫﺎ ﺃﺑﺪﴽ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻭﺇﻥ ﺑﺪﺍ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﺄﻥ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺼﺐ ﻏﻀﺒﴼ ﻭﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﻭﻧﻘﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺘﺤﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‬

‫‪٢٥٧‬‬
‫ﻟﻺﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻟﻠﻌﻘﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﻹﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ‬
‫ﻟﻮﺛﺮ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺇﳕﺎ ﺗﺸﺮﺡ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﻭﺟﻬﺔ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﰲ ﺁﻻﻣﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﰲ ﻓﻜﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﱂ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﻴﺢ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻟﻴﺄﺧﺬ ﺣﻘﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ‪.‬‬

‫‪ - ٦‬ﺃﻭﺭﳚﺎﻧﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻱ )‪٢٥٤ -١٨٥‬ﻡ( ‪:‬‬

‫ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﺫﻛﺮﻧﺎ ﻟﻌﻞ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺮﺑﻂ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺃﻭﺭﳚﺎﻧﺲ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﻧﻈﺮﺗﻪ ﻟﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻗﺪ ﺳﻔﻚ ﺩﻣﻪ ﻟﻴﻌﻄﻪ ﻛﻔﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﻭﺭﳚﺎﻧﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻤﻮﺍ ﺑﻔﻜﺮﺓ » ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ«‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺭﻓﻀﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺮﺃﻧﺎ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻹﻗﺘﺒﺎﺱ ﺍﳍﺎﻡ ﻟﻐﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ )ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺰﻳﱰﻯ( ﻣﻦ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﻬﻤﻨﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﺇﺫﻥ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺃﻭﺭﳚﺎﻧﺲ ﻳﺒﻌﺪ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺪ ﻋﻦ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺇﺷﺘﺮﻳﻨﺎ ﺑﺜﻤﻦ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻓﻼﺑﺪ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺇﺷﺘﺮﻳﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﻨﺎ ﻋﺒﻴ ًﺪﺍ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺣﺪﺩ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﲦﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﺾ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﺑﻘﻮﺗﻪ‪ .‬ﺇﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ً‬
‫ﳑﺴﻜﺎ ﺑﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻨﺎ ﺗﺎﺑﻌﲔ ﻟﻪ ﲞﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ‪،‬‬
‫ﺇﺫﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﺜﻤﻨﻨﺎ ‪ :‬ﺩﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪«.‬‬
‫)‪(A Short History of the D. of A. p. 37‬‬

‫ﻭﻷﻭﺭﳚﺎﻧﺲ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻃﺮﻳﻒ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﻛﻮﻥ ﻋﺬﺍﺏ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﺭﺩﺕ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﲟﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻳﻌﻜﺲ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ :‬ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﳋﺮﻭﺝ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳋﻴّﺮ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻟﻨﻨﻈﺮ ﻣﻌﴼ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻣﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺬﻳﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﳒﺪ ﰲ ﻧﺒﺆﺓ ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺘﻌﺬﺏ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻛﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ] ﻛﻞ ﺧﺎﻃﺊ ﻏﲑ ﺗﺎﺋﺐ[ ﻫﻲ ﻧﺎﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻨﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻌﺬﺏ‪ .‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ‪ :‬ﺳﲑﻭﺍ ﰲ ﻧﲑﺍﻧﻜﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻬﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺃﻭﻗﺪﲤﻮﻩ ﻷﻧﻔﺴﻜﻢ )ﺇﺵ ‪.(١١ :٥٠‬‬
‫ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻞ ﺧﺎﻃﺊ ﻳﺸﻌﻞ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻧﲑﺍﻥ ﻋﺬﺍﺑﻪ‪،‬‬

‫‪٢٥٨‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳُﻠﻘﻲ ﰲ ﻧﲑﺍﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻋﺪﺕ ﲟﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﻗﺒﻼً‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻭﻗﻮﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﲑﺍﻥ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ‪...‬‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﲡﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﰲ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻬﺎ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻻً ﺷﺮﻳﺮﺓ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﻭﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﻋﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻳﺄﰐ‬
‫ﻭﻗﺖ ﺗﻐﻠﻲ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻭﺭ ﻟﺘﺠﺎﺯﻱ ﺑﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﺍﷲ )ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ‪ (٣‬ﺑﺄﻥ ﺗﺘﺬﻛﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻀﻤﲑ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﳌﺪﺧﺮﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﻛﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺷﻜﻠﺖ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺒﻮﻋﺔ ﻟﻠﺨﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﺮﻯ ﺃﻋﲔ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻣﺎ ﺻﻨﻌﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻓﻈﺎﺋﻊ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺷﺮﻳﺮﺓ ﳐﺰﻳﺔ‪...‬‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﲡﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺧﺮﺟﺖ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺠﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺪ ﺧﻠﻘﺖ ﻟﺘﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺠﺎﻡ‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﺘﺤﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺁﻻﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺟﺒﻠﺘﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﲞﺮﻭﺟﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﺸﻌﺮ ﺑﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺗﻐﺮ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﺗﺸﺘﺘﻬﺎ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺑﲑ‪« ...‬‬
‫)‪(The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. I, p. 196‬‬

‫‪ - ٧‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺴﻲ )‪٣٩٤-٣٣٥‬ﻡ(‬

‫)ﻭﻫﻮ ﺷﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ(‪:‬‬
‫)‪(A Short History of the D. of A. p. 40‬‬
‫» ﻭﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺘﺄﻛﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﻴﻘﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻗِﺒَ ِﻞ ﻃﺎﻟﺒﻬﺎ )ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ(‪ ،‬ﺃﺧﻔﻲ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ﲢﺖ ﺣﺠﺎﺏ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ؛‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ )ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ( ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻜﺔ ﺍﳉﺎﺋﻌﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﺘﻠﻊ ُﻃ ْﻌ َﻢ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺧﻄﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﳍﻴــﺔ‪« ....‬‬ ‫)ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ( ﻳﺒﺘﻠﻊ ً‬
‫» ﻭﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﲝﺴﺐ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺫﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﳜﺪﻋﻨﺎ ﻗﺒﻼً‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﺗﻠﻘﻲ ﺑﺪﻭﺭﻩ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻟﻘﻲ ﺑﺬﺍﺭﻩ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺫﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺧﺪﻉ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ...‬ﻗﺪ ُﺧﺪﻉ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ) ُﻃﻌﻢ( ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ ...‬ﻟﻘﺪ‬
‫ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﻞ )ﺍﷲ( ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﺎﱀ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳊﻜﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺧﻄﺘﻪ )ﺳﻨﺎﺭﺗﻪ(‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺨﺪﻉ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﻟﻴﺨﻠﺺ ﺫﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺪ ﻫﻠﻚ )ﺃﻱ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ(‪«....‬‬
‫‪٢٥٩‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻮﻳﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯ ﻗﺪ ﺇﺷﺘﻬﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺴﻲ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺻﻨﻊ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﻭﺍﳊﻜﻴﻢ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﻓﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﻭ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻴﻒ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﻀﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺻﻼﺡ ﻭﻋﺪﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﷲ ﳓﻮﻧﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﳑﺎ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﺿﺪ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ‪ -‬ﺍﳌﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ‪ -‬ﻷﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺭﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ‪ :‬ﺍﷲ ﻗﺪﻡ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺘﺤﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻛﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻋﻨﺎ؛ ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻣﺴﺘﻌﻤ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ!!‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ‪ ،‬ﻟﻠﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﺘﺮﺽ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﻮﻥ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻳﻀﻊ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﺿﻌﻒ ﳑﺎ ﺻﻮﺭﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﺍ‪‬ﻢ ‪ -‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺴﻲ ﻣﺜﻼً‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻼﺣﻆ ﺃﻥ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﻱ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺴﻲ ﱂ‬
‫ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﻟﻶﺏ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻋﻦ ﺇﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ ﻭﻻ ﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻫﻮ ﺟﺰﺀ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪.‬‬‫ً‬

‫‪ - ٨‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ )‪٣٧٩ -٣٣٠‬ﻡ( ‪:‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﻌﻠﻖ ‪ John Karmiris‬ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ‪:‬‬
‫‪(A Synopsis of the Dogmatic Theology of the Orthodox Catholic‬‬
‫)‪Church - p. 56 + 73‬‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﺸﻬﺪﴽ ﺑﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﰲ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﲡﺴ ّﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺇﲢﺪ ﻻﻫﻮﺗﻪ ﻣﻊ ﻧﺎﺳﻮﺗﻪ ﻭﰲ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﻪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﰲ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﰒ ﲟﻮﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻭﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺳﺒﺐ ﳎﻰﺀ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺷﺮﺣﺘﻬﺎ ﻟﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺁﻻﻣﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺻﻠﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻪ ‪ :‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﳜﻠّﺺ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺸﺒﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻭﳛﺼﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﲏ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻮﻡ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﻛﺪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﻮﻥ ‪ -‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻜﺲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﲔ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺭﻛﺰﻭﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ‪ -‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻗ ّﺪﻣﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﰲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺃﺭﺑﻌﺔ‪:‬‬

‫‪٢٦٠‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﻛﺨﺘﻢ ﻣﺼﺪﺍﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ‪«..‬‬
‫ّ‬
‫» ﲝﺴﺐ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ‪ :‬ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺩﺧﻞ ﺇﻟﻴﻨﺎ‪ ...‬ﻏﻠﺒﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺑﻼﻫﻮﺗﻪ‪«.‬‬
‫ﺷﺨﺼﺎ ﻳﺪﻓﻊ ﲦﻦ ﻓﺪﺍﺀ ﻧﻔﻮﺳﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺪ‬
‫ً‬ ‫» ﻓﺄﻳﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﳚﺪ‬
‫ﺍﺷﺘﺮﻳﻨﺎ ﺑﺜﻤﻦ‪ :‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟ ّﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﱄ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﺮﺑﻨﺎ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ .‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﱂ‬
‫ُ‬
‫ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﻷﻱ ﺗﻄﻬﲑ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻄﻬﺮﴽ ﻟﻨـﺎ«‬
‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱃ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺍﻥ ﻧﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻥ ﺍﻵﺏ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﳓﻦ ﻫﻢ ﺍﳌﺤﺘﺎﺟﲔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﳌﺒﺬﻭﻝ ﻟﻨﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﰲ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻪ ﺑﺎﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺒﲏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺜﺎﻟﻪ ﻭﻳﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ‬
‫ﻛﺘﻄﻬﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻏﻠﺒﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺈﲢﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﻛﺘﺐ‬
‫ﰲ ﺻﻠﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻭﺿﻌﻪ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻧﺼﻠﻲ ﻭﻧﺴﺒﺢ ‪‬ﺎ ﻳﻮﻣﻴًﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﳒﺪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻱ ﺭﺍﺋﺤﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﱐ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﰊ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻬﺎﻧﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻳﺎ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﺒﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻏﲑ ﻓﺴﺎﺩ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺩﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﲝﺴﺪ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ ﻫﺪﻣﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺤﻴﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻹﺑﻨﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ‪.....‬‬
‫ﻗﺪﻭﺱ ﻗﺪﻭﺱ ﻗﺪﻭﺱ ﺑﺎﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺇﳍﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﺒﻠﻨﺎ ﻭﺧﻠﻘﻨﺎ ﻭﻭﺿﻌـﻨﺎ‬
‫ﰲ ﻓـﺮﺩﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻴـﻢ ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﻔﻨﺎ ﻭﺻﻴﺘﻚ ﺑﻐﻮﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺔ ﻭﺳﻘﻄﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻔﻴﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺑﺄﻧﺒﻴﺎﺋﻚ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﻧﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﺑﻞ ﺗﻌﻬﺪﺗﻨﺎ ً‬
‫ﻓﺮﺩﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﺗﺘﺮﻛﻨﺎ ﻋﻨﻚ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺴﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﺁﺧــﺮ ﺍﻷﻳـﺎﻡ ﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﻟﻨـﺎ ﳓﻦ ﺍﳉﻠﻮﺱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻇﻼﻝ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺎﺑﻨﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ‪....‬‬
‫ﲡﺴﺪ ﻭﺗﺄﻧﺲ ﻭﻋﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﻃﺮﻕ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ‪ ...‬ﻭﺻﲑﻧﺎ ﺃﻃﻬﺎ ًﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﻭﺣﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻭﺱ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﺳﻠﻢ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻓﺪﺍﺀ ﻋـﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌـﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲤﻠﻚ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﻨﺎ ﳑﺴﻜﲔ‬
‫ﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺒﻴﻌﲔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ‪...‬‬
‫‪٢٦١‬‬
 ‫ﻭﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺭﺍﺳﻢ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﻋﻦ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﺟﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻘﲔ ﻛﻠﻨﺎ ﻳﺎ ﺳﻴﺪﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺪﺳﺎﺗﻚ ﻃﻬﺎﺭﺓ )ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ( ﻷﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ ﻭﺃﺟﺴﺎﺩﻧﺎ ﻭﺃﺭﻭﺍﺣﻨﺎ‪«..‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻠﻘﺪﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻋﻈﻤﻲ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻔﺎﻅ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺒﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺩﺧﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺆﻟﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻳﺪﻳﻨﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻤﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻄﻲ ﻻ ﻳﺸﻌﺮ ﰲ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺗﺴﺘﻮﰲ ﺣﻘﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ )ﺑﺪﻻً ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ!!( ﻷﻥ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺻﻠﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﻗﺪ ﻏﺬﺕ‬
‫ﻧﻔﻮﺱ ﺍﻷﻗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﳘﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺪﺛﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﱘ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﺇﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﻋﻘﻮﰊ ﺃﻭ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺩﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻗﻠﻮ‪‬ﻢ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻭﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻫﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺿﻄﺮﻭﺍ ﻟﻠﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻟﺘﺤﻀﲑ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻭﺱ ﻣﺪﺍﺭﺱ ﺍﻷﺣﺪ ﻭﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﺎﺏ ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺩﺭﺳﻮﺍ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻲ ‪ Scholastic Theology‬ﻟﻠﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻲ ﺍﳌﻨﻤﻖ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﺗﻌﺮﻓﻪ ﻭﱂ ﺗﻌﻠﻤﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻧﻐﻤﺎ ﺭﻭﺣﻴًﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻧﺼﻠﻲ ﻭﻧﺴﺒﺢ‬ ‫ﻭﺷﻔﺎﺀ ً‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﻟﻨﺎ ﺻﻠﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺘﻮﺭﭼﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻤﻠﻮﺀﺓ ﺣﺒًﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ ﺑﻘﻮﻟﻨﺎ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﺸﺎﺀ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﻭﳛﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ‬
‫ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﻋﺪ ﺑﺎﳋﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻨﺘﻈﺮﺓ« )ﺍﻷﺟﺒﻴﺔ(‬
‫» ﻧﺴﺠﺪ ﻟﺸﺨﺼﻚ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺳﺪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻳﻬـﺎ ﺍﻟﺼـﺎﱀ‪ ،‬ﻃﺎﻟﺒﲔ ﻣﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻷﻧﻚ ﲟﺸﻴﺌﺘﻚ ﺳﺮﺭﺕ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺼﻌﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻟﺘﻨﺠﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺧﻠﻘﺘﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺣﺎ ﳌﺎ ﺃﺗﻴﺖ ﻟﺘﻌﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ...‬ﻷﻥ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻋﺒﻮﺩﻳـﺔ ﺍﻟﻌـﺪﻭ‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻚ ﻣﻸﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ً‬
‫ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ‪ ...‬ﺇ‪‬ﺒﻂ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ ﻭﺑﻄﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﻮﺍﺗًﺎ ﻛﻨﺎ ﻓﻨﻬﻀﻨﺎ ﻭﺇﺳﺘﺤﻘﻘﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ!« )ﺻﻼﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺳﺔ ‪ -‬ﺳﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺐ(‪.‬‬

‫‪ - ٩‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺰﻳﱰﻱ )ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻰ( )‪٣٨٩ -٣٣٠‬ﻡ(‬

‫ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻭﺿﺢ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻗﺮﺃﻧﺎ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﺑـ » ﳌﻦ ﻗﺪﻡ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻔﻚ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ؟« ﻭﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ‬

‫‪٢٦٢‬‬
 ‫ﻣﻘﺘﻄﻔﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻟﻪ ﻭﺭﺩﺕ ﰱ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ ‪:‬‬
‫)‪(The Faith of the Early Fathers - vol. 2.‬‬

‫» ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﲰﻲ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧًﺎ ]ﺃﻭ ﺇﺑﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ [ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻘ ّﺪﺱ ﻫﻮ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻛﻞ‬

‫ﺟﻨﺲ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺻﺎﺭ ﲬﲑﺓ ﻟﻠﻌﺠﲔ ﻛﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﰎّ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ّ‬
‫ﻭﺣﺪ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻯﻥ ﺳﻘﻄﻮﺍ ﲢﺖ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﳛﺮﺭﻫﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺷﺮﻳﻜﺎ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻰﺀ ﻣﺎ ﺧﻼ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ‬ ‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺻﺎﺭ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ً‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ‪ ،‬ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﻴﺒﻪ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ؛ ﻟﻘﺪ ﺻﺎﺭ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧًﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﳎﻤﻮﻉ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ‪ ...‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﺧﺬ‪‬ﺎ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﺑﻌﻤﻞ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ]ﻋﻦ ﻛﻴﺎﻧﻪ[‬
‫ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺴﺎ ﺑﺎﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻟﺬﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﺴﺢ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﻣﺜﻞ ﺑﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻤﺴﻮﺣﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻞ‪(p. 32) « ....‬‬

‫» ﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﺮﻭﻥ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ‪ :‬ﻣﺼﻠﻮﺑًﺎ ﻭﺻﺎﻟﺒًﺎ ﳋﻄﻴﱵ‪ ،‬ﲪ ً‬

‫ﻼ ُﻣﻘ ﱠﺪ ًﻣﺎ؛ ﻭﻛﺎﻫﻨﴼ‬
‫ﻣﻘ ﱢﺪﻣﴼ؛ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧﴼ ﻗُﱪ؛ ﻭﺇﳍﴼ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﴼ ﰒ ﺻﺎﻋﺪﴽ‪ ...‬ﻛﻢ ﻋﻴﺪ ﻧﻌﻴﺪ ﰲ ﺃﺳﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ؟!‬
‫ﻭﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻋﻴﺎﺩ ﳍﺎ ﻫﺪﻑ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻬﺒﻪ ﱄ ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ « )‪(p. 35‬‬

‫ﻭﻋﻦ ﲡﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺰﻧﻴﺰﻱ ‪:‬‬

‫» ﺁﻣﻨﻮﺍ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﻳﺮﻱ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﺧﻠﻘﻪ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻣﻀﺒﻮﻁ ﺑﻌﻨﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﺘﺠﻠّﻲ ﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ‪(p. 37) «.....‬‬

‫ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺃﺭﻭﻉ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﻔﻮﻙ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ ‪:‬‬

‫» ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﺤﺺ ﺍﻵﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻃﺎﳌﺎ ﻧﻌﱪ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺻﻤﺖ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﲏ ﺃﻋﺘﻘﺪ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﺴﺘﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﻘﺔ‪ .‬ﻟ َِﻤ ْﻦ ﻗَ ّﺪﻡ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻔﻚ‬
‫ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ؟ ﺑﻞ ﻭﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺳﻔﻚ؟!‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﻗﻠﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ] ﻣﺜﻞ ﺃﻭﺭﳚﺎﻧﺲ ﻭﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺴﻲ ﻭﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺳﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻓﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﲟﻌﲏ ﳎﺎﺯﻱ ﻓﻘﻂ[‬
‫ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻓﻈﻴﻊ‪ ،‬ﻫﻞ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺍﻟﻠﺺ ﻓﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ! ﻭﻫﻞ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﺃﺟﺮﺓ ﻻﺳﺘﺒﺪﺍﺩﻩ ﺣﱴ ﻳﻄﻠﻖ ﺳﺮﺍﺣﻨﺎ؟!‬

‫‪٢٦٣‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﻗﺪ ﺩﻓﻊ ﻟﻶﺏ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﺃﺳﺄﻝ ﺃﻭﻻً‪ :‬ﻛﻴﻒ؟ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻵﺏ ﱂ ﳝﺴﻜﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻛﺮﻫﻴﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ُﺳ ﱠﺮ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺑﺪﻡ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺇﺳﺤﻖ ﺣﲔ ﻗﺪﻣﻪ‬
‫ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﳏﺮﻗﺔ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺑ ّﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺑﻜﺒﺶ؟‬
‫ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻃﻠﺒﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻛﺎﻥ ﰲ‬
‫ﺃﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ً‬
‫ﺇﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺗﺪﺑﲑﻩ‪ :‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳُﻘ ّﺪﺱ ﺑﺈﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﷲ؛ ﻭﺍﷲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﳜﻠﺼﻨﺎ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﻐﻠﺐ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺒﺪ ﺑﻘﻮﺗﻪ ﻫﻮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﺩﻧﺎ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻔﻌﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻠﻪ ﳌﺠﺪ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻃﺎﻋﻪ )ﺍﻻﺑﻦ( ﰲ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﺷﻰﺀ‪...‬‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺒﻘﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﺳﻨﻌﱪﻩ ﰲ ﺻﻤﺖ ﻣﻘﺪﺱ«‬
‫)‪(The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 152‬‬

‫ﻓﺎﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻫﻮ »ﺑﺎﻹﲢﺎﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺲ«‪ .‬ﺇﲢﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﳝﻴﺖ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﻳﻬﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻹﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻭﻻ ﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺑﻞ ﻭﱂ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻻ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻭﻻ ﺟﺴ ًﺪﺍ ﻳﺄﺧﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻟﻴﻤﻮﺕ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺇﲢﺎﺩﻩ ﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻏﻀﺐ ﻭﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﻮﻥ!!‬
‫ﻭﻫﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﻹﲢﺎﺩ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱏ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺃﺧﺬ ﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺧﺬ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﻪ ﻭﺗﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﻋﻦ ﳎﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ‬
‫ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﺎ ﳜﺼﲏ ﻛﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻳﺒﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻣﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺬﻳﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﻊ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺗﺒﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺲ ﺍﻟﻀﺒﺎﺏ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ .‬ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﰎ ﻟﻜﻲ ﺃﺷﺘﺮﻙ ﰲ‬
‫ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺇﲢﺪﺕ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺘﻨﺎ« ] ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ [‪.‬‬
‫‪ ) N. & P. N. Fathers‬ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻌﺔ ‪ ٢٦ :‬ﺹ ‪(٣١١‬‬
‫ﺠﺴﺪﻩ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺳﻘﻄﻨﺎ «‬
‫» ﺟﺎﺀ ﻟﻜﻲ ﳚ ّﺪﺩﻧﺎ ﺑﺘَ ﱠ‬
‫‪ ) N. & P. N. Fathers‬ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻟﺔ ‪ ٣٨‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﻴﻼﺩ‪ ٣ :‬ﺹ ‪(٣٤٥‬‬
‫» ﻷﻥ ﺍﳌﺨﻠّﺺ ﱂ ﻳﺼﺮ ﻳﻬﻮﺩﻳًﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺃﺧﺬ ﺍﻷﲰﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻷﺗﻌﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺸﻨﻴﻌﺔ‪،‬‬
‫‪٢٦٤‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻞ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺷﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﻫﻞ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺃﺷﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ؟ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻷﻧﻪ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﳕﺎ » ﺩﻋﻲ « ]ﻣﻦ ﺷﻌﺒﻪ[ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ‬
‫ﳛﺮﺭ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ؟! ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ّ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻓﺪﺍﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ؟!«‬
‫]ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻌﻠّﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﻛﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺸﻔﻴﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ؟!![‬
‫‪ ) N. & P. N. Fathers‬ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻟﺔ ‪ ١ : ٣٧‬ﺹ ‪(٣٣٨‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﻳﺒﺬﻝ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﺮﺍﻑ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺟﺎﺀ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻀﺎﻝ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻭﺟﺪ ﺍﻟﻀﺎﻝ ﲪﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﺘﻔﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻠﺘﲔ ﲪﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﺧﺸﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‬
‫‪ -‬ﻭﺟﺎﺀ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺎﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺃﻋﻈﻢ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﲪﻞ ﺍﻟﻀﺎﻝ ﻭﺃﻋﺎﺩﻩ ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﺿﻤﻦ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﺷﻌﻞ ﴰﻌﺔ ‪ -‬ﺃﻱ ﺟﺴﺪﻩ ‪ -‬ﻭﻛﻨﺲ ﺍﳌﱰﻝ ‪ -‬ﻃﻬﺮ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﱂ ﻳﻀﻠﻮﺍ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ‪ -‬ﺣﱴ ﻳﻌﺜﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻫﻢ ﺍﳌﻔﻘﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻭﺟ ّﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﻠﻮﻛﻴﺔ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﺳﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻫﻢ( ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻏﻄﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺃ ‪) -‬ﺍﻟﺸﻬﻮﺍﺕ( ‪ -‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻫﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺪﻋﻮ ﺃﺻﺪﻗﺎﺀﻩ ﺍﳌﻼﺋﻜﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﳚﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻫﻢ ﺍﳌﻔﻘﻮﺩ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻔﺮﺣﻮﺍ ﻣﻌﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﺷﺎﺭﻙ ﺍﳌﻼﺋﻜﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺳﺮ ﲡﺴﺪﻩ‪ ...‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺷﺪ ﻭﺳﻄﻪ ﲟﻨﺸﻔﺔ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻐﺴﻞ‬
‫ﺃﻗﺪﺍﻡ ﺗﻼﻣﻴﺬﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﳍﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻷﻓﻀﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺠﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻭﺗﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ‬‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺇﳓﻨﺖ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺏ‪ ،‬ﺇﳓﲏ ﻫﻮ ً‬
‫ﻭﻳﺮﻓﻌﻬﺎ ﻣﻌﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺳﺎﻗﻄﺔ ﲢﺖ ﲪﻞ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪«...‬‬
‫‪ ) N. & P. N. Fathers‬ﻣﻘﺎﻟﺔ ‪ ٣٨‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﻴﻼﺩ ‪ (١٤‬ﺹ ‪.٣٤٩‬‬
‫» ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﺣﺘﺎﺟﺖ ﺇﱃ ﺩﻭﺍﺀ ﺃﻗﻮﻯ‪ ...‬ﺃﺧﺬ ﺟﺴ ًﺪﺍ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﺎ ﻋﺎﻗﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻄﻬﺮ ﺍﳌﺜﻴﻞ ﺑﺎﳌﺜﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺃﺟﺴﺎﺩﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺰﺝ ﲝﻴﺎﺗﻪ ً‬
‫‪«to purify like with like‬‬
‫‪ ) N. & P. N. Fathers‬ﺍﻟﻌﻈﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﺢ ‪ (٢٩ :‬ﺹ ‪.٤٢٦‬‬
‫» ﻟﻨﺼﺒﺢ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺻﺎﺭ ﻣﺜﻠﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻟﻨﺼﺒﺢ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺻﺎﺭ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧًﺎ« ‪ -‬ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫‪ ) N. & P. N. Fathers‬ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻟﺔ ‪)١ : ٣٧‬ﺹ ‪(٣٣٨‬‬

‫‪٢٦٥‬‬
 ‫‪ - ١٠‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺫﻫﱯ ﺍﻟﻔﻢ )‪٤٠٧ -٣٤٤‬ﻡ(‬
‫»ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺫﻫﱮ ﺍﻟﻔﻢ ﺇﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺘﺴﺎﻭﻱ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺸﺎ‪‬ﺎﻥ‪ ) N. & P. N. Fathers «.‬ﻋﻈﺔ ‪ ١٠‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﻭﻣﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٠ :٥‬ﺹ ‪(٤٠٢‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﻧﺘﺴﺄﻝ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻌﻠّﻢ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ » ﻏﲑ ﳏﺪﻭﺩﺓ « ﻣﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻏﲑ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺤﺪﻭﺩ ﻫﻮ ﺍﷲ ﻓﻘﻂ ‪ -‬ﻭﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺘﺴﺎﻭﻱ ﺑﺎﷲ؟!!‬
‫» ﻭﰱ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺫﻫﱮ ﺍﻟﻔﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﻋﻦ ﻓﻴﺾ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺃﺧﺬﻧﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻧﻌﻤﺔ‬
‫ﲢﺮﺭﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺧﻠﻌﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳌِﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻋﻈﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ّ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺓ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻮﻕ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ُﺩﻓﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺘﻴﻖ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺳﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻭﻟﺪﻧﺎ ّ‬
‫ﻭﺗﱪﺭﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧُﻠﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﲏ ﻭﺗَﻘ ّﺪﺳﻨﺎ ﻭﺻﺮﻧﺎ ﺃﺧﻮﺓ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺷﺮﻛﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺇﻓﺘ ُﺪﻳﻨﺎ ّ‬
‫ﻭﻭﺭﺛﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺇﲢﺪﻧﺎ ﺑـﻪ‪ .‬ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻳﺪﻋﻮﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻓﻴﺾ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﱂ ﻧﺄﺧﺬ ﺩﻭﺍﺀ ﻟﻠﺸﻔﺎﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺮﺡ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﺤﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﺠﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻔﻮﻕ ﺣﺎﻟﺘﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻜﻔﻲ ﻟﻠﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﺎ ﺃﺧﺬﻧﺎﻩ ﻛﻠﻪ‬
‫ﻻ ﻳُﺒﻘِﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻰﺀ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺃﻭ ﺇﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯ ﺁﺧﺮ ﱂ ﳓﺼﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ...‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻟﻘﻲ ﺑﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﺠﻦ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﻗﺮﻭﺵ )ﻓﻠﺲ( ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﺯﻭﺟﺘﻪ ﻭﺃﻭﻻﺩﻩ ﻭﺧﺪﻣﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﺎﺀ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻟﻜﻲ‬
‫ﻳﺪﻓﻊ ﻻ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﺓ ﻗﺮﻭﺵ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻘ ّﺪﻡ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﺁﻻﻑ ﻭﺯﻧﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻫﺐ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﻟﻴﻄﻠﻖ ﺳﺮﺍﺡ ﺍﻟﺴﺠﲔ ﻭﻳﻘﻮﺩﻩ ﺇﱃ ﻗﺼﺮ ﺍﳌﻠﻚ ﻭﺇﱃ ﻋﺮﺵ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﻟﻪ ﺃﻋﻈﻢ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻭﺃﻛﱪ ﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﻳﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﻤﺪﻳﻦ )ﺑﻌﺸﺮﺓ ﻗﺮﻭﺵ( ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺬّﻛﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﻀﻴﺘﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺩﻓﻊ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﳑﺎ ﻛﻨﺎ ﻣﺪﻳﻮﻧﲔ ﺑﻪ ﲟﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺎﺱ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﳌﺤﻴﻂ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺎﺱ ﺑﻘﻄﺮﺓ ﻣﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﻻ ﺗﺘﺄﺧﺮ ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﺮﻱ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺾ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﱪﻛﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺗﺴﺄﻝ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻏُﻔﺮﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴّﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ‬
‫ﳎﺮﺩ ﺫﺭﺓ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺃﻏﺪﻕ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﲝﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﻳﺎ «‪.‬‬
‫‪ ) N. & P. N. Fathers‬ﻋﻈﺔ ‪ ١٠‬ﺹ ‪(٤٠٣‬‬

‫‪٢٦٦‬‬
‫» ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻧﻪ ﱂ ﳜ ّﻠﺺ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺾ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻤﻰ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺃﻋﻄﺎﻩ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻘ ّﺪﻡ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺍﻟﻄﻌﺎﻡ ﻟﻠﺠﺎﺋﻊ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻗﺪﻡ ﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻤﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﻭﺭﺗﺒﺔ‪ً .‬‬
‫ﻋﻈﻴﻤﺎ‪...‬‬
‫ﺭﺋﻴﺴﺎ ً‬‫ﻏﲏ ﻛﺜﲑ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻗﺎﻣﻪ ﻟﻴﻜﻮﻥ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﺟﺎﺀﺕ ﻻ ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﱰﻉ ﺳﻼﺡ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﺒﻴﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﺡ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺪﻣﺮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﺗﺪﻣﺮ ﺳﻄﻮﺗﻪ )ﺳﻴﺎﺩﺗﻪ(‪« ....‬‬
‫‪ ) N. & P. N. Fathers‬ﻋﻈﺔ ‪ ١٠‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﻭﻣﻴﺔ ‪ ٢٠ :٥‬ﺹ ‪(٤٠٥ -٤٠٤‬‬
‫ﺧﺎﺿﻌﺎ ﳌﻮﺕ )ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ( ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻣﺎﺕ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ً‬ ‫» ﺇﻧﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ‬
‫ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺒﻴﺪ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﻳﻘﻄﻊ ﺭﺑﺎﻃﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﻛﻞ ﻗﻮ‪‬ﺎ«‬
‫‪ ) N. & P. N. Fathers‬ﻋﻈﺔ ‪ ١١‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﻭﻣﻴﺔ ‪ (٩ :٥‬ﺹ ‪٤١٠‬‬
‫» ﻭﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺍﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ‬
‫ﺃﺯﻳﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱪ ﻳﺘﺒﻊ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ « ] ﻭﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻣﺄﺧﻮﺫ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ [‪.‬‬
‫‪ ) N. & P. N. Fathers‬ﻋﻈﺔ ‪ ٨‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﻭﻣﻴﺔ ‪ ١٥ : ٦‬ﺹ ‪(٣٨٩‬‬
‫» ﻷﻥ ﺳﺒﺐ ﻣﻮﺗﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﲢﺖ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻔﻌﻞ‬
‫ﺃﺑﺮﺍﺭﺍ «‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺻﺎﱀ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﻗﺎﻡ ﻟﻜﻲ ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ً‬
‫‪ ) N. & P. N. Fathers‬ﻋﻈﺔ ‪ ٩‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﻭﻣﻴﺔ ﺹ ‪(٣٩٥‬‬

‫ﺗﻌﻠـﻴﻖ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺫﻫﱯ ﺍﻟﻔﻢ ﻋﻦ » ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ « ﻓﻬﻮ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺄﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺗﻞ ‪:‬‬
‫ﳌﻦ ﺩﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ؟! ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺪﺩ ﻣﺴﺘﻠ ًﻤﺎ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻗﻄﻌﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺰﻳﱰﻱ ﻻ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻣﺪﻳﻮﻧﻮﻥ ﻟﻠﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﻭﻟﺴﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﻮ ً‬
‫ﺑﺄﺳﺮﻱ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺒﻨﺎ ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﺃﻭ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﲦﻨًﺎ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺘﻪ ﺃﻭ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ‬
‫ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ‪ ...‬ﺣﺎﺷﺎ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺫﻫﱯ ﺍﻟﻔﻢ ﳎﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺃﺧــﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟــﺮﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸــﺮﻗﻴﺔ ‪ Apophatic Theology‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﺗﻘﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﲟﺠﺎﺯ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻭﲢﻮﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﲟﺠﺎﺯ »ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ «‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﺑﻔﻜﺮﺓ‬

‫‪٢٦٧‬‬
‫»ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱏ« ‪ .Penal Substitution‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺫﻫﱯ ﺍﻟﻔﻢ‪ ،‬ﺧﻼﻑ‬
‫ﳎﺎﺯ »ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ«‪ ،‬ﳎﺎﺯ »ﺍﻟﺸﻔﺎﺀ« ﻭ ﻋﻤﻞ »ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﰱ«‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻋﻤﻞ »ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ« ﰲ‬
‫ﻋﻈﺎﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﱪﺍﻧﻴﲔ‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺻﻮﺍﺏ »ﻳﺬﻭﻕ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻷﺟﻞ ﻛﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ« ﻭﻫﻮ ﱂ ﻳﻘﻞ‪:‬‬ ‫» ً‬
‫ﻓﻮﺭﺍ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﻘﻮﻟﻪ‬
‫»ﳝﻮﺕ«‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺫﺍﻕ ﺣﻘًﺎ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻣﺎﺕ ﳌﺪﺓ ﻗﺼﲑﺓ ﻭﻗﺎﻡ ً‬
‫»ﺗﺄﱂ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ« ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻮﺗﻪ ﻓﻌﻼً‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ »ﺃﻋﻈﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻼﺋﻜﺔ« ﻓﻜﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺇﻋﻼﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﺐ ﻻ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﻷﻥ ﻳﺬﻭﻕ ﺍﻟﻄﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﺪﻣﻪ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﺮﻳﺾ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻋﻨﺎﻳﺘﻪ ﻭﺇﻫﺘﻤﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﺎﳌﺮﻳﺾ ﻳﺬﻭﻕ ﺍﻟﻄﻌﺎﻡ ﺃﻭﻻً ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ‬
‫ﻟﻜﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻐﺮﻱ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺾ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻪ ﺛﻘﺔ ﻭﻳﺸﺠﻌﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻄﻌﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻷﻥ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﳜﺎﻓﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺷﺠﻌﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻮﺍﺟﻪ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺸﺠﺎﻋﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﳏﺘﺎﺟﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻫﺬﺍ ّ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﺮﺓ «‬ ‫ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺫﺍﻕ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻭﻻً‪ ،‬ﺭﻏﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ً‬
‫‪) N & P.N Fathers‬ﻋﻈﺔ ‪ : ٤‬ﺹ ‪(٣٨٤ -٣٨٣‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻭﲨﻴﻊ ﺁﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﺪﻣﺔ ﺭﴰﻬﺎ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻞ ﺷﺊ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒًﺎ‬
‫» ﻭﺍﳌﺴﻜﻦ ً‬
‫ﻳﺘﻄﻬﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻡ« )ﻋﺐ ‪.(٢٢ -٢١ :٩‬‬
‫ﻭﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺣﺪﺩ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺗﻪ؟ ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻭﻻ ﺍﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺷﺒﻪ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺪﺭﺟﺔ ﺿﺌﻴﻠﺔ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪ :‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺩﻣﻲ ﻟﻠﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﻔﻚ ﻋﻨﻜﻢ ﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ‪ .‬ﺃﻳﻦ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ؟ ﻟﻘﺪ ﻃﻬﺮ ﻋﻘﻮﳍﻢ )ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻞ( ﻭﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻫﻢ‬
‫ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻬﻢ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻳﻦ ﻫﻲ ﺁﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﺪﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻳﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﻜﻦ؟ ﻭﻣﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻫﻢ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ‪ :‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﺃﺳﻜﻦ ﻓﻴﻬﻢ ﻭﺃﺳﲑ ﻣﻌﻬﻢ ‪٢ -‬‬
‫ﻛﻮ ‪ .١٦ :٦‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﻢ ﱂ ﻳﺮﺷﻮﺍ ﺑﺼﻮﻑ ﻗﺮﻣﺰﻱ ﻭﻻ ﺑﺰﻭﻓﺎ )ﺣﺴﺐ ﺷﺮﻳﻌﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺳﻲ(‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺟﺴﺪﺍﻧﻴًﺎ ﺑﻞ ﺭﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺣﻰ!! ﻛﻴﻒ؟! ﻟﻘﺪ ﻧﺒﻊ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﻮﺍﻥ ﻏﲑ ﻋﺎﻗﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻫﻴﺄﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪ .‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﺭﺷﻨﺎ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻮﺳﻰ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﺷﻨﺎ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻧﻄﻖ ‪‬ﺎ‪» :‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ« ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﺣﻠﺖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﳏﻞ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﻓﺎ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻏﻤﺴﺖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﻭﺗﺮﺵ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ‪ ...‬ﻭﻷﻥ ﺍﳌﻄﻬﺮ‬

‫‪٢٦٨‬‬
‫ﺭﻭﺣﺎﱐ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻭﻳﻄ ّﻬﺮﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻳَ ُﺮﺵ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﻞ ﻳﺘﺪﻓﻖ ﰲ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻧﻔﻮﺳﻨﺎ‪«...‬‬
‫‪) N. & P. N. Fathers‬ﻋﻈﺔ ‪ ١٦‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﱪﺍﻧﻴﲔ ‪ (٩‬ﺹ ‪٤٤٤‬‬

‫ﻬﺐ ﺍﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺟﻠﻴًﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺸﻔﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴّﺔ ﻭﺗَ ُ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺩﻓﻊ ﲦﻦ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺑﺄ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﲝﻴﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺘﻄﻬﲑ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻐﻔﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﻴّﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻰ‪ :‬ﺇﺑﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﻮﻫﺐ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺟﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺭﺍﺋﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻭﻻ ﺭﺍﺋﺤﺔ ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﰊ ﺑﺎﳌﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻛﺘﻄﻬﲑ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﺜﻤﻦ ﻳﺴﺪﺩ!!‬

‫‪ - ١١‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺷﻠﻴﻤﻲ )‪٣٨٦ -٣١٥‬ﻡ(‬

‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺷﻠﻴﻤﻲ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻳﺄﰐ ﺗﺒﺎ ًﻋﺎ ﻟﻮ ﺗﻌﺪﻱ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺭﻓﺾ ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻّ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺑﻘﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ ﱂ ﻳﺘﻜ ّﻠﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺇﳕﺎ‬
‫ﺗﺴﻌﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺸﻔﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻹﺳﺘﺮﺩﺍﺩ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﻭﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﲢﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺍﷲ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺇﺣﺘﻤﻞ ﺍﳌﺨﻠّﺺ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ )ﺍﻵﻻﻡ( ﻭﺻﻨﻊ ﺳﻼ ًﻣﺎ ﺑﺪﻡ ﺻﻠﻴﺒﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﻨﺎ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺀ ﷲ ]ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺘﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺎﺩﻱ ﺧﻠﻴﻘﺘﻪ![ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺪﺙ ﺷﺊ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺛﻨﲔ‪ :‬ﺇﻣﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﻖ‪،‬‬
‫ﻳﻬﻠﻚ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻣﺎ ﰲ ﳏﺒﺘﻪ ﳝﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺃﻧﻈﺮﻭﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺣﻜﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺍﷲ‪ :‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﺑﻘﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ )ﻧﻈﺎﻡ( ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺣﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺑﻘﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳏﺒﺘﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﲪﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ ﰲ ﺟﺴﺪﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﺸﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﲟﻮﺗﻪ ﳕﻮﺕ ﳓﻦ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻓﻨﺤﻴﺎ ﻟﻠﱪ )‪١‬ﺑﻂ ‪ .(٢٤ :٢‬ﻭ َﻣ ْﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﺎﺕ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ؟‬

‫ﻼ ﺃُﺧﺬ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻄﻴﻊ ﻏﻨﻢ ﻭﻻ ّ‬

‫ﳎﺮﺩ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻋﻈﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻼﺋﻜﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ َﺣ َﻤ ً‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳌﺘﺄﻧﺲ‪ .‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺗﻌﺪﻱ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺓ ﺃﻋﻈﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺮ َﻣ ْﻦ ﻣﺎﺕ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ‪،‬‬

‫‪٢٦٩‬‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﺭﺗﻜﺒﺖ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﺃﻋﻈﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺣﻘﻘﻪ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻗﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﻭﺇﺳﺘﺮﺩﻫﺎ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺷﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻻ ﻧﻈﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﺃﺧﺬﺕ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺃﺳﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ‪ ...‬ﺃﺳﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺳﺮﻳﻌﺎ ﻗﺎﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪«.‬‬
‫ﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﻃﻮﻳﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ً‬
‫‪) N. & P. N. Fathers‬ﻋﻈﺔ ‪ (٣٣ :١٣‬ﺹ ‪.٩١‬‬
‫» ﻭﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻫﻮ ﳎﺪﻩ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ‪ ....‬ﻓﺎﻵﻥ ﻳﺘﻤﺠﺪ ﺇﺑﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻼ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬‫)ﻳﻮ ‪ .(٣١ :١٣‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺟﺎﺀ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﻭﺑﻌﺰﻡ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺘﺄﱂ ﻣﺘﻬﻠ ً‬
‫ﻓﺮﺣﺎ ﲞﻼﺹ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﱂ ﳜﺠﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻷﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻜﺮﱘ‪ ،‬ﻳﺒﺘﺴﻢ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺝ ً‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺧﻼﺹ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ«‬
‫‪) N.& P. N. Fathers‬ﻋﻈﺔ ‪ (٢٦ :١٣‬ﺹ‪.٨٤ -٨٣ .‬‬
‫» ﻳﺪﻋﻲ )ﻳﺴﻮﻉ( »ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ«‪ ...‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻵﺏ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ »ﺍﳊﻤﻞ« ﻟﻴﺲ ﻷﻧﻪ ﺣﻴﻮﺍﻥ ﻏﲑ ﻋﺎﻗﻞ ﻣﺜﻞ ﲪﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﺍﳊﻤﻞ‬ ‫ﻭﻳﺪﻋﻲ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﺪﻣﻪ ﻃ ّﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻩ« ] ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ = ﺗﻄﻬﲑ [‬
‫‪) N. & P. N. Fathers‬ﻋﻈﺔ ‪ (٣ :١٠‬ﺹ ‪.٥٧‬‬

‫‪ - ١٢‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻱ )ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻣﺲ ‪ -‬ﺗﻨﻴﺢ ‪٤٤٤‬ﻡ(‬

‫)‪(The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. III‬‬

‫» ﺍﷲ ﺑﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺑﺈﺑﻨﻪ ﻭﺑﺄﻧﻨﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺧﻠﻘﻨﺎ ﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﻗﺮﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‬

‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﳓﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ ﺳﻘﻄﻨﺎ ﺻﺮﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﻔﺴﺎﺩ ‪ -‬ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ )ﺇﺑﻨﻪ( ً‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﳕﻮﺕ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪p. 210 «.‬‬

‫ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎ ﰲ »ﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ« ﰲ ﻗﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‬

‫ﻓﺎﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ً‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺲ‬
‫ّ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲪﻠﻨﺎ ﻭﺍﲢﺪ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺘﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻪ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺳﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺳﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲪﻠﺘﻨﺎ ﻛﻠﻨﺎ ‪:‬‬

‫‪٢٧٠‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‬
‫» ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺻﺎﺭ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ )ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ( ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧًﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﻘﺪﺱ ﻫﻮ ﻭﻗ ﱠﺪﺱ )ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ( ً‬
‫‪ both sanctifies and is sanctified‬ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﺑﺎﳊﻖ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻝ‪» :‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﳌﻘ ﱢﺪﺱ ﻭﺍﳌﻘ ﱠﺪﺳﲔ ﲨﻴﻌﻬﻢ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﺤﻲ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻼ ﺃﺧﱪ ﺑﺈﲰﻚ ﺃﺧﻮﰐ ﻭﰲ ﻭﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺃﺳﺒﺤﻚ«‪.‬‬ ‫ﻳﺪﻋﻮﻫﻢ ﺃﺧﻮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﺋ ً‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻳﻘ ﱢﺪﺱ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻗﺪﻭﺱ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ﻷﻧﻪ ﺍﷲ؛ ﻭﻫﻮ ً‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺗﻘ ﱠﺪﺱ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺘﻪ«‪.p. 215 .‬‬

‫» ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺤﻤﻞ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻟﻮﻫﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﱪﻳﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺲ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ »ﺧﺘﻢ« ‪ imprint‬ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻵﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺟﻠﻴًﺎ ﰲ ﻧﻔﻮﺳﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺼﻴّﺮﻧﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺒﻬﻪ ‪conforming us‬‬
‫‪ ، to Him‬ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺲ‪) p. 219 «.‬ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺇﳒﻴﻞ ﻣﱴ(‬
‫» ﻧﺼﲑ ﺷﺮﻛﺎﺀ )ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ( ﺍﷲ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺧﺘﻤﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺒﻬﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﺴﻤﻮ‬
‫ﻷﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺧﻠﻘﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪...‬‬
‫ﳓﻦ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻧﺼﻌﺪ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺠﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱄ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﺳﻨﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﺑﻼ ﺃﻱ ﻓﺮﻕ ﻛﺄﺑﻨﺎﺀ )ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ( ﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺳﻨﺼﺒﺢ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺸﺒﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺑﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﰲ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺏ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﳓﻦ‬
‫ﻓﺄﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﳏﺒﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺒﲏ‪ ،‬ﻧﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻧﺼﻴﺒﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻗﻮﻟـﻪ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺃﻧﺎ ﻗﻠﺖ ﺃﻧﻜﻢ ﺁﳍﺔ ﻭﺃﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻰ« )ﻳﻮ ‪(١٠‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ُﺧﻠﻖ ﻋﺒ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ُﺩﻋﻲ ﻟﻸﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺋﻘﺔ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻣﺴﺮﺓ ﺍﻵﺏ‪«.‬‬
‫‪) p. 221‬ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺇﳒﻴﻞ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ(‬
‫ﻋﻠـﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻛﻴﻒ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﻋﻤﻮﺩ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﻊ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﻗﺪ ﱠ‬
‫ﻳﻔﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺑﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﺣﺪﻳﺜﻪ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻌﻤﺔ »ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ« ﻭﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﳋﻠﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﷲ ﻛﻠﻪ‪:‬‬
‫» ﳓﻦ ﻗﺪ ﺧﻠﻘﻨﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻘﲔ ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻓﻴﻪ ‪ in Him‬ﺑﺎﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻳﺄﰐ‬
‫ﺑﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﻜﻤﺎﻝ ﻛﺸﺮﻛﺎﺀ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻣﻮﻟﻮﺩﻭﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﳍﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻧﻌﻄﻲ ﻟﻘﺐ ﺁﳍﺔ!!! ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻨﺤﻠﱢﻖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻼ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺪ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‬

‫‪٢٧١‬‬
‫ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﺴﻜﻦ ﻭﻳﺴﺘﺮﻳﺢ ﰲ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻨﱮ‪ :‬ﻭﺳﺄﺳﻜﻦ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ‬
‫ﻭﺃﺳﲑ ﰲ ﻭﺳﻄﻬﻢ‪) p. 222 «.‬ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺇﳒﻴﻞ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ(‬
‫ﻭﺟﻠﻲ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺃﻥ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺒﻞ‬
‫» ﺇﻧﻪ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﺃﻋﺘﻘﺪ‪ ،‬ﱡ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﺷﻰﺀ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﰲ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺻﺎﺭ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧًﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﻭ ًﻻ ﻟﻴﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ﻟﻴﻤﻴﺖ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﲟﻮﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺛﺎﻟﺜًﺎ ﻟﻴﺼﲑﻧﺎ‬
‫ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﷲ ﳎﺪﺩﺓ ﺧﻠﻘﺘﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺎﻟﺘﻨﺎ ﺍﻷﺭﺿﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺋﻘﺔ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳌﺠﻴﺪﺓ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻜﻞ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻭﺑﻼ ﺃﺩﱐ ﺷﻚ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻣﻜﻦ ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻴﺪ ﺍﷲ ﺧﻠﻘﺘﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﳓﻦ ﺍﳉﻨﺲ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻗﻂ‪ ،‬ﳊﺎﻟﺘﻨﺎ ﺍﻷﺻﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫‪) p.233 «.pristine condition‬ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺇﳒﻴﻞ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ(‬
‫ﺷﺎﺭﺣﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗّﻴﺔ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺭﻭﻉ ﻭﺃﻗﻮﻱ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ً‬
‫ﲤﺤﻮ ﻭﺗﺰﻳﻞ ﻭﺗﻄﺮﺩ ﺃﻱ ﺭﻭﺡ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻏﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺪ ّﻋﻲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺑﺪﻓﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻛﺜﻤﻦ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﻳﺴﺪﺩ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﺿﺐ ﺫﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻬﺎﻧﺔ!!!‬
‫ﺷﺎﺭﺣﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﰲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻲ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﻳُﻜﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ً‬
‫ﰱ ﻭﺃﻧﺎ‬
‫» ﺍﳌﺨﻠّﺺ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ‪» :‬ﻣﻦ ﻳﺄﻛﻞ ﺟﺴﺪﻱ ﻭﻳﺸﺮﺏ ﺩﻣﻲ ﻳﺜﺒﺖ ّ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻪ«‪ .‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺮﻳﺢ ﻧﺮﻱ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻟﻦ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﲝﺴﺐ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻓﻜﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‬ ‫)ﻏﲑ ﻣﺎﺩﻳﺔ( ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ً‬
‫‪but also through a participation truly according to nature.‬‬

‫ﺷﺨﺼﺎ ﻗﻄﻌﺘﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﻊ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﻠﻔﻬﻢ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺑﻌﺾ‬

‫ً‬ ‫ﻳﻮﺣـﺪ‬
‫ﱢ‬ ‫ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻳﺬﻳﺒﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺍ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﰲ ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻭﺩﻣﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﱘ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﺤﺪ ﺑﻨﺎ ﻭﳓﻦ ً‬
‫ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ً‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ ﳝﻜﻦ ‪‬ﺎ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺼﲑ ﺣﻴّﺔ‬
‫)ﺧﺎﻟﺪﺓ( ﺇﻻ ﺑﺎﻹﲢﺎﺩ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻱ ﲜﺴﺪ ﺫﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ :‬ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ‪) p. 223-224 «.‬ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺇﳒﻴﻞ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ(‬

‫‪٢٧٢‬‬
 ‫‪ - ١٣‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻣﺸﻘﻲ )‪٧٤٩ -٦٤٥‬ﻡ(‬
‫)‪(The Faith of the Early Fathers vol. III‬‬

‫ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻣﺸﻘﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﻣﻌﻪ ﰲ ﺻﻼﺣﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ‬

‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺑﻄﺮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺼﲑ »ﺷـﺮﻛﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌــﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴــﺔ«‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ‪ :‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﻳﺸﺮﺣﻬﺎ ﲟﻬﺎﺭﺓ ﻧﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ً‬
‫ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻣﺸﻘﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﻭﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ »ﺑﺴﻤﺎﺡ« ﻣﻨﻪ ﻓﻘﻂ‬
‫ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻹﺣﺘﺮﺍﻣﻪ »ﻟﻠﺤﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ«‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ‪ -‬ﺃﻱ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‬
‫‪ -‬ﻣﺼﺪﺭﻫـﺎ ﺍﻹﻧﺴـﺎﻥ ‪: having its origin in us‬‬

‫» ﻳﻬﻤﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺬﻛﺮ ﺃﻥ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ ﳜﻠﺼﻮﻥ ﻭﺇﱃ ﻣﻠﻜﻮﺗﻪ ﻳﻘﺒﻠﻮﻥ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻧﻪ ﺇﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ‪ ،‬ﻭﳍﺬﺍ ﱂ ﳜﻠﻘﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻧﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﻣﻌﻪ ﰲ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻋﺎﺩﻝ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻘﺎﺏ ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ ] ﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺻﻼﺣﻪ ﻭﺧﲑﻩ‪ .‬ﻭﲟﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ً‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﻟﻠﻨﻘﻤﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻣﺮﺍﺩﻑ ﻟﻠﺘﺄﺩﻳﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻬﺪﻑ ﻟﻠﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺪﻣﲑ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﻘﺎﻡ[‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳍﺪﻑ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪) ،‬ﺍﻹﺷﺘﺮﺍﻙ ﰲ ﺻﻼﺣﻪ( ﺇﺫﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﻧﺎﺑﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﺴﺮﺓ ﺍﷲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻧﺪﻋﻮﻩ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻷﺻﻴﻠﺔ ‪ّ antecedent‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻓﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻘﺎﺏ ﺍﻷﺷﺮﺍﺭ( ﻓﻤﺼﺪﺭﻫﺎ ﻫﻮ ﳓﻦ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻧﺴﻤﻴﻬﺎ ﲰﺎﺣﻪ ﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﻱ ‪consequent will and permission ...‬‬

‫ﻓﺎﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﳊﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﻃﺎﻗﺘﻨﺎ ‪ ، in our hands‬ﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ‬

‫ﺍﻷﺻﻴﻞ ﻭﲝﺴﺐ ﻣﺴﺮﺗﻪ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻻ ﻳﺮﻳﺪﻫﺎ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺣﺎﻝ‪ ] ،‬ﻭﻻ‬
‫ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺠﻬﺎ[ ﺇﳕﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ‪‬ﺎ ﻻﺣﺘﺮﺍﻣﻪ ﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺗﻨﺎ‪.p. 335 «.‬‬
‫» ﻷﻥ ﻫﺪﻑ ﲡﺴﺪ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺗﺄﻧﺴﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺧﻄﺄﺕ‬
‫)ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ( ﻭﺳﻘﻄﺖ ﻭﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﻓﺎﺳﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﻠﺒﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺒﺪ ﺍﳌﺎﻛﺮ )ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ( ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﺗﺘﺤﺮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ« ‪. p. 337‬‬
‫» ﻭﲟﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﻗﺪ ﻭﻫﺒﻨﺎ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﻪ ﻭﺭﻭﺣﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﳓﺘﻔﻆ ‪‬ﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻮﺩﻳﻌﺔ ﺑﺄﻣﺎﻧﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﲑﺓ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻄﻬﺮﻧﺎ )ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺇﺷﺘﺮﻙ ﻫﻮ ً‬

‫‪٢٧٣‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻒ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ( ﻭﻳﺼﲑّﻧﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﺪﻳﻦ )ﺑﻐﲑ ﻓﺴﺎﺩ(؛ ﻭﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺮﺩﻧﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺷﺮﻛﺎﺀ‬
‫ﰲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ« ‪. p. 339‬‬
‫ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻣﺸﻘﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ )ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﲑ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﳒﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ( ﻭﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻫﻲ ﺧﻠﻮﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﰲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻯ‪ :‬ﺗﺄﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﺃﻥ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺗﻠﺨﻴﺺ‬
‫ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﰲ ﻛﻠﻤﺘﲔ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ )ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ( ﻭﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺃﻥ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳌﻬﺎﻧﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻹﺗﻘﺎﺀ ﻏﻀﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ!!!‬
‫ﻭﻫﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻣﺸﻘﻲ ﻳﺮﺩﺩ ﺻﺪﻱ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ( ﻳﻮﺻﻞ ﻟﻠﻨﺎﺳﻮﺕ‬ ‫» ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ )ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﻟﻮﻫﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﰲ ّ‬
‫)ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻯ( ﻣﺎ ﳜﺺ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﻣﻦ ﳎﺪ ﻭ‪‬ﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺳﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻻ ﻳُﺸﺮﻙ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﰲ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺘﻪ ﻟﻶﻻﻡ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‬
‫ﻻ ﺗﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻳﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﺗﺆﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﻭﻻ ﺗﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺘﺤﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻪ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﺗﺄﺧﺬ ﺇﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﻋﻈﻢ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﻋﻈﻢ ﻓﻼ ﺗﻀﻌﻒ‬
‫ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻴﻔﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻜﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺪ ﻳﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻻ ﺗﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺪﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ‪ ...‬ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﺗﺆﻟﻪ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﻻ ﺗﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪.p. 346 «.‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﺮﺓ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻲ ﺳﺒﺐ ﺷﻌﻮﺭﻩ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺸﺌﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‬
‫ّ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻧﻮﺭ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺏ‪:‬‬
‫ﻗﻄﻌﺎ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺻﻨﻊ‬
‫» ﻟﻘﺪ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺧﻠﻘﻪ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﺈﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﳊﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺳﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻠﺘﻬﻤﻪ‪.p. 346 «.‬‬

‫‪٢٧٤‬‬
 ‫ﻭﻋﻦ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻣﺸﻘﻰ‪:‬‬
‫)‪(George Florovsky, Creation & Redemption, p. 139‬‬

‫» ﻭﺃﲨﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺪﻫﺸﻨﺎ ﰲ ﻋﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺘﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ّ ،‬‬

‫ﻭﻃﻬﺮﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،...‬ﻭﺣﻄﻢ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻭﻫﺒﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻋﻄﺎﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺩﺍﻧﺔ ﻭﻏﻠﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﻋﺎﺩ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﱪﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﱄ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﺘﺢ ﺃﺑﻮﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻭﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻋﻄﻲ‬
‫ﺟﻠﻮﺳﺎ ﻋﻦ ﳝﲔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺻﲑّﻧﺎ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﷲ‪ .‬ﱂ ﻳﺼﻨﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻠﻪ ﺳﻮﻱ‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺘﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺻﻠﻴﺐ )ﺃﻱ ﲡﺴﺪ ﻭﺁﻻﻡ ﻭﻗﻴﺎﻣﺔ( ﺭﺑﻨﺎ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪«.‬‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺭﺍﺋﺤﺔ ﻷﻱ ﻫﺪﻑ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺃﻭ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻭﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻣﻬﺎﻧﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﻃﻠﺐ ﺃﻭ ﺇﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﺍﳍﺪﻳﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻫﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫ﳎﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﺣﺪﻧﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻶﺏ ﺃﻱ ﺍﻧﺘﻔﺎﻉ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺳﻮﻱ ﻋﻮﺩﺓ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺣﻀﻨﻪ‪ ...‬ﻷﻥ »ﳎﺪ ﺍﷲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ« ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺇﻳﺮﻳﻨﺎﺅﺱ‬
‫ﺃﺳﻘﻒ ﻟﻴﻮﻥ‪.‬‬

‫‪ - ١٤‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ )‪٣٧٣ -٢٩٥‬ﻡ(‬

‫ﻳُﻌ ّﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﲝﻖ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﻟﻠﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﳌﺼﺮﻳﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻟﻜﻮﻧﻪ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺑﻄﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮ ﻻ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ّ‬
‫ﻓﻨﻜﺮﻣﻪ ﻛﻤﺼﺮﻳﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺷﻬﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻚ ﻭﺍﻷﳒﻠﻴﻜﺎﻥ ﻭﻛﺜﲑﻳﻦ‬ ‫ّ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﺖ ً‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﺃﻭ‬ ‫‪Greek‬‬ ‫ﻭﺇﻧﻨﺎ ﻻ ﳒﺪ ﻛﺘﺎﺑًﺎ ﺃﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴًﺎ ﳑﺎ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﺃﺧﻮﺗﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺱ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﺇﻻ ﻭﺑﻪ ﺇﺳﻢ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱃ!!‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﲰﺎﻩ ﺍﻷﺏ ﭼﻮﺭﭺ ﻓﻠﻮﺭﻭﻓﺴﻜﻲ ﻋﻤﻴﺪ ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﭬﻼﺩﳝﲑ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ »ﺍﳌﻌﻠّﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻱ ﻟﻠﺘﺠﺴﺪ«‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ‪ The Early Faith of the Fathers‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺮﺟﻊ‬
‫ﲰﻲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﲝﻖ‪» :‬ﺑﻄﻞ ﳎﻤﻊ ﻧﻴﻘﻴﺔ«‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻷﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺛﻼﺙ ﳎﻠﺪﺍﺕ ّ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺘﺒﺴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﻧﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﻧﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﲑﺓ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﳎﻠﺪ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﳛﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻋﻦ ‪ ٦٠٠‬ﺻﻔﺤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺦ ﺍﻟﺼﻐﲑ ﺫﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻮﺩﻳﻦ‬

‫‪٢٧٥‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﻘ ّﺪﻣﺔ ﺭﺍﺋﻌﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺧﻼﺻﺔ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻴﻤﻪ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻳﻌﺘﺰ ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﻌﻠّﻢ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺇﺳﺘﻨﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﱂ ﺗﻔﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻓﻘﻂ‬
‫ﲟﺎ ﻳﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻋﺼﺮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﺗﻪ ﳍﺪﻑ ﺧﻠﻘﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ﻭﺃﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﺎﺗﻪ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻔﻖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻔﻜﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺆﻣﻨﲔ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ!!!‬
‫ﻓﻬﻮ ﱂ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﺇﻻ ﺑﺎﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﻪ ﺑﻨﻈﺮﺓ ﲤﺘﺎﺯ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺍﳌﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ!!‬
‫ﺑﻜﻞ ﺃﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ً‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﻭﻵﻟﺊ ﻣﻀﻴﺌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﺎ‬‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﻋﱪﻧﺎ ً‬
‫ﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ‪ Constantine Tsirpanlis‬ﻳﻜﺮﺱ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻛﻠﻪ )ﻭﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻣﺎ ﺟﺎﺀ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭ‬
‫‪(An Introduction to Eastern Patristic Thought and Orthodox, Theol-‬‬
‫)‪ogy, 1991‬‬

‫ﻷﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺇﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻗ ّﺪﻣﻮﺍ ﺗﻔﺴﲑًﺍ ﻣﺘﻜﺎﻣ ً‬

‫ﻼ ﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻳﻜﺜﻒ ﰲ ‪:‬‬
‫‪ -١‬ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺩﺧﻠﻨﺎﻩ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﲟﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ‪:‬‬
‫‪ -٢‬ﺇﲢﺎﺩ ﺍﷲ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ‪ » :‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺻﺎﺭ ﺍﷲ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧًﺎ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺼﲑ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﳍًﺎ«‬
‫)ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﺀﻭﺍ ﺑﻌﺪﻩ(‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﺹ ‪٦٣‬ﻭ ‪٦٥‬‬
‫ﻭ ‪:٢٠٩‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺆﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻟﻪ ﺟﺬﻭﺭﻩ ﰲ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ‬
‫ﺇﻳﺮﻳﻨﺎﺅﺱ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺄﻛﻴﺪ« )ﺹ ‪(٦٥‬‬
‫» ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻕ ﻭﳚﺪ ﻣﻮﺿﻌﻪ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ‪،‬‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺳﺒﺐ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﰲ ﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ‬

‫‪٢٧٦‬‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﺎﺯﻩ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻹﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻟﻠﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺮﻭﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳚﺪ ﺟﺬﻭﺭﻩ ﰲ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻭﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‪ » :‬ﰲ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻗﺪ ﰎ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺣﱴ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﻌﻢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺘﺠﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫)ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﷲ( ﺍﻟﱵ ﻓﻴﻪ‪) «...‬ﺹ ‪(٦٣‬‬
‫» ﺇﻥ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ‪) satisfaction‬ﻟﻠﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻮﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻪ( ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺷﺮﺣﻬﺎ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﻓﻬﻤﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻭﺭﺍﺛﻪ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻭﺭﺍﺛﺔ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺧﺎﻃﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﳘﺎ ﺗﻌﺒﲑﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻏﺮﻳﺒﺔ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺍﺑﺔ )ﻭﺃﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻰ!!!‬
‫ﻓﺘﺮﻛﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻛﻠﻪ )ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ( ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺍﻡ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻀﺎﺩ‬
‫ﺑﲔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ]ﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ[‪ ،‬ﺑﲔ ﻓﺴﺎﺩ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳋﻠﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻭﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﲟﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﻗﻄ ًﻌﺎ ﺇﻏﺮﺍﺀ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻟﻠﻐﺮﺑﻴﲔ« ﺹ ‪.٢٠٩‬‬
‫ً‬
‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺋﻊ ﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻷﺧﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﲔ )ﺍﻷﺭﻭﺍﻡ( ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺱ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ ﻟﻸﺳﻒ ّﻣ ْﻦ ﻳﺘﻬﻤﻮﻥ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺑﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺗﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻢ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﻮﻥ!!! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻭﻑ ﺟﻴ ًﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻟﻔﻈﺔ »ﺗﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ« ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﱂ ﺗﺬﻛﺮ‬
‫ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺇﻻّ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺑﺴﺒﻌﺔ ﻗﺮﻭﻥ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ!!!‬
‫ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻭﻳﺪﺍﻓﻊ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﻞ ﺍﻷﻋﻈﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻷﺏ ﭼﻮﻥ ﻣﺎﻳﻨﺪﻭﺭﻑ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻫﻮ ﺑﻀﻢ ﻭﺇﲢﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻠﺨﺺ ﻋﻤﻮﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺴﻚ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺣﺪﺛﺖ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺮﻉ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ‪،‬‬
‫ﺃﺧﻄﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﲔ ]ﻭﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﺃﻗﺒﺎﻁ ﺃﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ[‬

‫‪٢٧٧‬‬
 ‫ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻟﻮﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻭﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ‪...‬‬
‫ﺷﺨﺼﺎ ﺫﻭ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺧﺎﻃﺌﺔ‪...‬‬ ‫ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎ ﺃﻥ ً‬‫ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ‪ ...‬ﻫﻮ ً‬
‫ﲝﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺳﺪﺓ )ﺍﳌﺎﺋﺘﺔ( ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺃﻋﺎﺩ ﳍﺎ‬
‫ﺃﺧﺬ ّ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺪﺓ‬ ‫ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﷲ‪ .‬ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺇﺷﺘﺮﻙ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ّ‬
‫ﲢﺮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻔﺮﻭﺿﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻟﻪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ّ‬
‫ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻛﻤﺮﺽ ﺟﻠﺒﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻛﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﻔﺮﻭﺿﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﻬﻤﻮﺍ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻫﻮ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻭﺇﲤﺎﻡ ﻟﻠﻤﺼﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺘﺮﻙ ] ﻫﺎﻡ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﺇﺳﺘﻴﻀﺎﺡ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﻤﻲ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﻞ »ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ« ﻣﻦ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ[ ﰒ ﺧﻠﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻦ ﲢﻘﻴﻘﻬﺎ ﺇﻻّ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺼﻴﺒﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ )ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ﻭﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻼ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺷﻜﻼ(‪.‬‬ ‫ﲪﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺘﻨﺎ ﻓﻌ ً‬
‫ﻭﳍﺬﺍ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻛﻠﻬﻢ ‪ ...‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻣﺎﺕ ﲝﺴﺐ‬
‫ﻣﺼﲑ ﺭﻓﻘﺎﺋﻪ‪ ...‬ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﰲ ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ‬
‫ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻗﻀﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ«‪«.‬‬
‫)‪(John Meyendorff, Christ in the Eastern Christian Thought, p.118‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻰ‪:‬‬

‫ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﻻ ﻳﺪﺍﻓﻊ ﻣﺎﻳﻨﺪﻭﺭﻑ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﰲ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﳘﻴﺔ ﻛﻨﺖ‬
‫ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ً‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﺫﻛﺮ‪‬ﺎ ﺳﺎﺑ ًﻘﺎ ﻭﺃﻛﺮﺭﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ‪ :‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﻤﻲ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ )ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺽ ﺍﳌﺮﺽ( ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ‪ -‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻹﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ ﻋﻦ‬ ‫ﻳﺸﺒﻪ َﻋ َﺮ ْ‬
‫ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ )ﺍﳌﺮﺽ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ( ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺮﻡ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ‬

‫‪٢٧٨‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ ﺇﱃ »ﻗﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ« )ﻳﻮ ‪ .(٢٩ :٥‬ﺇﻥ ﻗﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﺎﺕ ﺻﺎﺣﺒﺔ ﻣﻮﺗًﺎ ﺭﻭﺣﻴًﺎ ﺗﻘﻴﻢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻴﺒﻘﻲ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ » ﻗﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ «‬
‫)ﻳﻮ ‪ (٢٩ :٥‬ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻗﺪﺭﺓ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻏﻢ ﻭﻳﻘﺘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪» :‬ﻓﻼ‬
‫ﻳﺄﰐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ﻟﺌﻼ ﺗﻮﺑﺦ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ« )ﻳﻮ ‪.(٢٠ :٣‬‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﺮﻱ ﻣﺎﻳﻨﺪﻭﺭﻑ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ ﻫﻮ » ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﳌﺼﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺘﺮﻙ«‪ .‬ﻓﺒﻤﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻱ ﻗﻀﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﻷﻭﱄ ﻭﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻗﻀﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻱ‬
‫ﻭﻭﻫﺒﻨﺎ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﻤﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﱂ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ )ﻛﻤﺎ ﺩﺭﺳﻨﺎ ﺳﺎﺑﻘًﺎ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﺁﺧﺮ( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﲰﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺃﻧﻪ »ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ« ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﳎﺮﺩ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻯ‪:‬‬
‫)‪(On The Incarnation p. 29, 30‬‬

‫» ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻋﻦ ﻭﺻﻴﺔ ﺍﷲ ‪» ...‬ﻷﻧﻚ ﻣﻮﺗًﺎ ﲤﻮﺕ«‬

‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺃﻧﻚ ﲤﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﺒﻘﻲ ً‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪«.‬‬
‫»ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺪﺃ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﳝﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧﺘﺸﺮ ﻭﺳﺎﺩ ﻭﲤﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‬
‫)ﺍﳌﻮﺕ( ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ ] ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻰ[‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺣﺬﺭﻫﻢ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﷲ ﺳﺎﺑﻘًﺎ ﻟﻮ ﺗﻌﺪﻭﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻴﺔ«‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬‫ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﻤﻲ ﺣﱴ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ!! ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ‬ ‫ﻗﺪ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻗﺎﺑ ً‬
‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ »ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ« ﰲ ﺗﻜﻮﻳﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻌﺮﻓﻪ ً‬
‫ﲨﻴﻌﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﺟﺴﺎﺩﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺧﻠﻘﺖ ﱂ ﲣﻠﻖ ﺧﺎﻟﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﲢﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ »ﲢﻮﻝ« ﺇﱃ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﺮﺙ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻳﺬﻛﺮﻫﺎ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺳﺘﺤﺪﺙ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪ ﻗﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺃﺟﺴﺎﻣﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ »ﻧﺘﻐﲑ ﰲ‬
‫ﳊﻈﺔ ﰲ ﻃﺮﻓﺔ ﻋﲔ« ﻋﻨﺪ ﳎﻰﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﳍﺎﻡ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺬﻛﺮ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺧﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻛﺎﻥ » ﺑﻐﲑ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ« )ﻋﺐ ‪ ،(١٥ :٤‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﲢﺖ‬
‫‪٢٧٩‬‬
‫ﻗﻮﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ »ﻟﻴﺒﻘﻴﻪ ﰲ‬
‫ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻹﺑﻠﻴﺲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻳﺔ ّ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ«‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻨﻴ ًﻌﺎ ﺿﺪ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻰ!!‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ً‬
‫ﲨﻴﻌﺎ‪ .‬ﺃﻭ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺗﻌﺒﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ‬ ‫ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺟﺴ ًﺪﺍ ﻗﺎﺑ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ ﻣﺜﻠﻨﺎ ً‬
‫ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻮﺗًﺎ »ﲝﺴﺐ ﻣﺼﲑ ﺭﻓﻘﺎﺀﻩ«‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻘﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺼﲑ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻫﻲ »ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﺩﺍﺋ ًﻤﺎ«‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺮﺃﻧﺎ‪» ،‬ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ«‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﰒ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻗﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﺕ‪ .‬ﻳﺰﺭﻉ ﰲ ﻓﺴﺎﺩ ﻭﻳﻘﺎﻡ ﰲ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻓﺴﺎﺩ ‪...‬‬ ‫» ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ً‬
‫ﺟﺴﻤﺎ ﺭﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴًﺎ‪ .‬ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺟﺴﻢ ﺣﻴﻮﺍﱐ ﻭﻳﻮﺟﺪ‬ ‫ﺟﺴﻤﺎ ﺣﻴﻮﺍﻧﻴًﺎ ﻭﻳﻘﺎﻡ ً‬
‫ﻳﺰﺭﻉ ً‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﺎ ﺣﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ‪ :‬ﺻﺎﺭ ﺁﺩﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ً‬ ‫ﺟﺴﻢ ﺭﻭﺣﺎﱐ‪ .‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺏ ً‬
‫ﺭﻭﺣﺎ ﳏﻴﻴًﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﺎﱐ ﺃﻭﻻً ﺑﻞ ﺍﳊﻴﻮﺍﱐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻌﺪ‬ ‫ﻭﺁﺩﻡ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ً‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﺎﱐ‪ .‬ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺗﺮﺍﰊ ] ﺣﱴ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ‬
‫ﳓﻦ ﺗﺮﺍﺏ ﻭﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺏ ﻧﻌﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺸﻴﺦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻴﺨﻮﺧﺔ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ ‪ -‬ﻟﻮ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﻮﺗًﺎ ﺑﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻴًﺎ ﳌﺎ ﻛﻨﺎ ﻧﺘﻘﺪﻡ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻦ‬
‫ﳊﻤﺎ ﻭﺩ ًﻣﺎ ﻻ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻴﺨﻮﺧﺔ [ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ ‪ ...‬ﺇﻥ ً‬
‫ﻳﻘﺪﺭﺍﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﺛﺎ ﻣﻠﻜﻮﺕ ﺍﷲ ]ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮ[ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺮﺙ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪ .‬ﻫﻮﺫﺍ ﺳﺮ ﺃﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﻟﻜﻢ ‪ :‬ﻻ ﻧﺮﻗﺪ ﻛﻠﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﻛﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﺘﻐﲑ ﰲ ﳊﻈﺔ ﰲ ﻃﺮﻓﺔ ﻋﲔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﻮﻕ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ‪ .‬ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﺳﻴﺒﻮﻕ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻘﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﺕ ﻋﺪﳝﻲ ﻓﺴﺎﺩ ﻭﳓﻦ ﻧﺘﻐﲑ ] ﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﻳﻨﺘﻈﺮ ﺍﳌﺠﻰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ[‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺳﺪ ﻻﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻠﺒﺲ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻓﺴﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺎﺋﺖ‬
‫ﻳﻠﺒﺲ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻣﻮﺕ‪١) «.‬ﻛﻮ ‪(٥٣ -٤٢ :١٥‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ‪:‬‬
‫)‪(On the Incarnation p. 29, 30, 31‬‬

‫» ﻓﺎﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻗﻄ ًﻌﺎ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺇﻧﻪ ﳐﻠﻮﻕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ‬
‫ﳛﻤﻞ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺫﺍﻙ )ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ( ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻮ ﺣﺎﻓﻆ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺒﻬﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻢ‬
‫ﻟﻜﺎﻧﺖ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ﺗﻔﻘﺪ ﻗﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﻳﺒﻘﻲ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪.‬‬

‫‪٢٨٠‬‬
‫ﺑﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﺋﻠﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﺰﻭﺍﻝ )ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ(‬
‫ﰒ ّ‬
‫ﲟﺸﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﰲ ﻓﺴﺎﺩﻩ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺈﺧﺘﺮﺍﻋﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﻮﺍ ﻣﺘﻮﺭﻃﲔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪ «.‬ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ«‪ » ...‬ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬ ‫»ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ« )ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱃ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﻦ ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ‪:‬‬
‫)‪(On the Incarnation, p. 49‬‬

‫ﺑﺸﺮﻳًﺎ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴًﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺗَ ّ‬

‫ﻜﻮﻥ‬ ‫» ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺟﺴ ًﺪﺍ ّ‬
‫ﻼ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺑﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺟﺴﺎﺩ‬ ‫ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻓﺮﻳﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺬﺭﺍﺀ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺟﺴ ًﺪﺍ ﻗﺎﺑ ً‬
‫ﺣﺮﺭﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺑﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻻ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﺴﻜﲏ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ّ‬
‫ﻳﺪﺏ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪«.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺑﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻣﺮ » ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ «‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ » ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﺩﺍﺋ ًﻤﺎ« ﰲ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺃﻣﺮ » ﻏﲑ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ«‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻣﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺑﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻴًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺷﻬﺪ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﱐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻃﻌﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﺄﻛﺪ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ّ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺗﻪ ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﻃﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩ ﺣﺮﺍﺳﺔ ﻗﱪﻩ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ‬
‫ﻣﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻴﺎ ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺗﺸﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﱂ ﻳﺪﺏ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻭﱂ ﻳﺒﻖ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ »ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ« ﲝﺴﺐ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ‪ :‬ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﲟﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﺑﲔ »ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻰ«‬
‫)ﻛﻤﻮﺕ ﻭﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺧﻠﻘﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ( ﻭﺑﲔ »ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ«؟!‬
‫ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻧﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣﻮﺟﻮ ًﺩﺍ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻤﻠﻜﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﻮﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻳﻮﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻳﺎﻡ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ!!! ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﺜﺮﺓ ﻓﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﺷﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻻ ﳚﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﻱ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻲ ﻟﺘﺮﺟﻴﺢ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺪﻭﺭﻩ‬

‫‪٢٨١‬‬
‫ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺃﺳﻠﺤﺔ ﺍﻹﳊﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻬﺔ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻓﻠﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﺎﻡ ﻭﺗﻔﺴﲑﻫﻢ ﱂ ﻳﻠﺘﺰﻡ ﺑﻔﻜﺮﺓ‪ :‬ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻱ ﻛﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺸﺮ؛ ﳊﻠﺖ ﻣﺸﺎﻛﻞ ﻓﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﻋﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﳓﻦ ﰲ ﻏﲏ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﳍﺬﺍ ﻳﻬﻤﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺭﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻭﻟﺘﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻭﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ‪ -‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ً‬
‫ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﻌﺪﻩ ‪ -‬ﻳﻜﻔﻴﻨﺎ ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ » ﺍﳌﻮﺕ « ‪ » ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﻗﺎﺩ « ‪ ،‬ﻭ »ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻡ« ؛ ﻭﺃﻥ »ﺍﷲ ﺇﻟﻪ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻪ ﺃﻣﻮﺍﺕ«‪.‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﺘﻜﻠّﻢ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﺕ ﻛﺮﻳﻪ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ‪ :‬ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ ﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﻌﺮﻩ ﺇﻫﺘﻤﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﺇﻻ ﻟﻜﻮﻧﻪ »ﻋﻼﻣﺔ « ﻭﺭﻣ ًﺰﺍ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ؛‬
‫ﺗﺬﻛﺮﺓ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ » ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻢ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ « ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻟﻮ » ﻣﺘﻨﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ً‬
‫ﺧﻄﻴﺌﺘﻨﺎ « ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺗﻮﺑﺔ )ﻳﻮ ‪.(٢١ :٨‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﺃﻗﻮﻱ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺍﳊﻖ ﺍﳊﻖ ﺃﻗﻮﻝ ﻟﻜﻢ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺴﻤﻊ ﻛﻼﻣﻲ ﻭﻳﺆﻣﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺭﺳﻠﲏ ﻓﻠﻪ‬
‫ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺃﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺄﰐ ﺇﱃ ﺩﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﺑﻞ ﻗﺪ ﺇﻧﺘﻘﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﺍﳊﻖ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻖ ﺃﻗﻮﻝ ﻟﻜﻢ ﺗﺄﰐ ﺳﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻵﻥ ﺣﲔ ﻳﺴﻤﻊ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﺕ ﺻﻮﺕ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺎﻣﻌﻮﻥ ﳛﻴﻮﻥ « )ﻳﻮ ‪.(٢٥ -٢٤ :٥‬‬
‫» ﻟﻌﺎﺯﺭ ﺣﺒﻴﺒﻨﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻧﺎﻡ ﻭﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﺫﻫﺐ ﻷﻭﻗﻈﻪ ‪ ...‬ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﳍﺎ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﻣﻦ ﺁﻣﻦ ﰊ ﻭﻟﻮ ﻣﺎﺕ ﻓﺴﻴﺤﻴﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺣﻴًﺎ ﻭﺁﻣﻦ ﰊ ﻓﻠﻦ‬
‫ﳝﻮﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺑﺪ‪ .‬ﺃﺗﺆﻣﻨﲔ ‪‬ﺬﺍ؟!!« )ﻳﻮ ‪١١ :١١‬ﻭ ‪(٢٦ -٢٥‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺏ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻤﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﱂ ﻳﻠﻎ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ‬
‫ﻳﺸﻐﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻪ ﺇﻃﻼﻗًﺎ!! »ﺃﺗﺆﻣﻨﻮﻥ ‪‬ﺬﺍ«؟!! ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ً‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﻻﺑﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺆﻣﻨﲔ ﺑـﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺆﻣﻦ ﺑﻪ »ﻟﻦ ﳝﻮﺕ‪ ..‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺑﺪ«‪ ...‬ﺃﺗﺆﻣﻨﻮﻥ ‪‬ﺬﺍ؟!!‬

‫‪٢٨٢‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﻭﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻭﺳﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﰲ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﳌﺠﻠﺪ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﲞﻼﺻﺔ ﻓﻜﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ‬
‫ﰲ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﻧﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﻧﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻛﺘﺐ ﰲ ﺹ ‪IXXI‬‬
‫» ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻷﻭﺭﳚﺎﻧﺲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻣﺜﻠﻲ ﻭﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ‬
‫ِﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻭﻻً )ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴًﺎ(‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺇﻳﺮﻳﻨﺎﺅﺱ ﻭﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ُﺧﻠ َ‬
‫ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻏﲑ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﻭﳍﺪﻑ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻲ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻊ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﳛﻘﻘﻪ‬
‫)ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴًﺎ(‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺜﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮ ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﺭﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﰎ ﺇﺻﻼﺣﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‪...‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻷﻭﺭﳚﺎﻧﺲ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ » ﻋﻮﺩﺓ ﻟﻠﻤﺎﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻰ« ﺃﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ‬
‫ﻹﺭﻳﻨﺎﺅﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ »ﺗﻘ ّﺪﻣﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ« ‪ :‬ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺧﻠﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻴﺤﻘﻘﻬﺎ ﻭﱂ ﳛﻘﻘﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻳﻘﻮﺩﻧﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‪ ...‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﱂ ﻳُﻌﻠّﻢ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﺎﺭﻕ‬
‫ﻛﺒﲑ ﺑﲔ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻗﻂ ﻭ ﺣﺎﻟﺘﻪ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻘﻮﻁ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻈﻦ ﻭﻳﻔﺴﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑﻭﻥ!!‪ ...‬ﰲ ﺭﺃﻱ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴّﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻐﻴّﺮ ﻣﻀﻄﺮﺩ ﻭﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻘﺼﺎﻥ ]ﺃﻱ ﱂ ﳛﺪﺙ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴًﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﻻ ﳝﻮﺕ ﻭﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺣﺎﺩﺛﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺗﻐﻴّﺮﺕ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ[‪.‬‬
‫» ﻟﻘﺪ ﺇﺯﺩﺍﺩﻭﺍ ﰲ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ ﻭﺗﻌﺪﻭﺍ ﻛﻞ ﺍﳊﺪﻭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺑﺈﺧﺘﺮﺍﻋﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﻮﺍ ﻣﺘﻮﺭﻃﲔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩ‪‬ﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﻣﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺻﺎﺭﻭﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻴﺊ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺳﻮﺃ ﻭﱂ ﻳﺘﻮﻗﻔﻮﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺇﻗﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﺃﻱ ﺷﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻬﺪﺃ ﺟﻮﻋﻬﻢ‬
‫ﻭﺳﻌﻴﻬﻢ ﻹﺧﺘﺮﺍﻉ ﺷﺮﻭﺭ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ«‪.‬‬
‫)‪(N & P.N. vol. IV 2nd series, pp. 38-39‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺇﺫﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﲔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻗﻂ ﻭﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻗﻂ‪،‬‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺳﻴﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻗﻮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻭﺱ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻏﲑ‬
‫ﺑﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺁﺧﺮ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ‪) ،‬ﳓﻮ ﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ(‪.‬‬
‫ﳏﺪﻭﺩ )ﻭﺃﺑﺪﻯ( ﺑﻞ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻭﻋﺪ ّ‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ]ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻰ[ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺳﻴﺤﺪﺙ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻪ‬

‫‪٢٨٣‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﺬﻕ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ‪.‬‬
‫ﲟﻌﲏ ﺁﺧﺮ ﱂ ﻳُﺨﻠﻖ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ‪ -‬ﲝﺴﺐ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ‪ -‬ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺧﺎﻟﺪﺓ ﻭﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻭﻓﻴﻪ »ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ« ﲢﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎﻝ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻠﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳍﺪﻑ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻻﺑﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﺇﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻠﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﺃﲤﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺠﺎ ﳜﻠﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻮﺍﺋﺐ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ )ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ﻓﻜﺮﺍ‬
‫ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ ً‬
‫ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ( ﳑﺎ ﻳﺴﺒﺐ ﻋﺜﺮﺍﺕ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﻟﻠﻤﻔﻜﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻗﺮﺍﺀ‪‬ﻢ ﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ ﻋﻦ »ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ« ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻋﺎﺷﻬﺎ ﻭﻗﺘًﺎ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻭﻟﹽﺖ ﺧﻠﻔﻨﺎ!!!‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮ ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﱂ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ )ﻣﻨﺬ‬
‫ﻇﻬﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ( ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺻﺎﺭﻉ ﻭﺇﺧﺘﺮﻕ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻔﺎﺡ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻟﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﺘﺨﻠّﻔﺔ ﻋﱪ ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻀﻮﺝ ﺍﳌﺘﻮﺍﱄ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ؛ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺰﺍﻝ ﻣﻌﻘ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺃﺧﻄﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ )ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻩ( ﻭﻧﺘﺎﺋﺠﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻼﺯﻣﺔ‬
‫ﳍﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳍﺎ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ َﻣ َﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻭﺃﺧﺮﻱ ﺇﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮ ﳚﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﲝﺎﻟﺔ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻀﺖ ﻭﻭﻟﺖ‪ ،‬ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺼﻌﺐ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﳊﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺴﻴﺤﺎ ﻟﻠﺤﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻭﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻓﻴﺘﺮﻙ ﻣﻜﺎﻧًﺎ ً‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﻭﺇﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺟﺎ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻠﺘﻼﻗﻲ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ‪ .‬ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻗﺎﺳﻴﺔ )ﻣﺜﻞ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﻳﻦ( ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮ«‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺔ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﺮﺣﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ‬
‫ﻳﺆﻛﺪﻫﺎ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﲔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﻳﻦ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻷﺳﻘﻒ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﻛﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻮﺱ ﻭﻳﺮ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﲜﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺃﻛﺴﻔﻮﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺗﻜﺎﺩ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻧﻘ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﻟﻺﻗﺘﺒﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ!!‬
‫‪٢٨٤‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻷﺏ ﻛﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻮﺱ ﻭﻳﺮ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ » ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ « ﺹ ‪-٢٢٥‬‬
‫‪:٢٢٩‬‬
‫» ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺁﺩﻡ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻘﻮﻁ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻭﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‬
‫ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﻮﻥ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳊﲔ )ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻣﺲ(‪.‬‬
‫ّ‬
‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻭﺱ ﳑﺘﻠﺌًﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺣﻜﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺎ ﳏﻘﻘًﺎ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ‬
‫ﳑﻜﻨﺔ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﳑﻜﻨﺔ ‪ :‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻛﻤﺎﻟﻪ ً‬
‫ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻣﻨﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ .‬ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺇﻳﺮﻳﻨﺎﺅﺱ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ ]ﺃﻥ ﺁﺩﻡ ﺧﻠﻖ ﰲ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻏﲑ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻣﺪﻋﻮﺓ ﻟﻠﻨﻤﻮ [ ﻳﺘﻔﻖ ﺑﺴﻬﻮﻟﺔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ‬
‫ﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ] ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﳐﻠﻮﻗﺎﺕ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻟﻪ [‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺇﻳﺮﻳﻨﺎﺅﺱ ﻭﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻧﺎ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻤﺎﻥ ﻛﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﻌﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺑﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻴﲔ ﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ‪How ،‬؛‬‫] ﻣﻠﺤﻮﻇﺔ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻇﻬﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﱠ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﻇﻬﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺇﱃ ﺃﻳﻦ ‪.[ Why ...‬‬
‫ﻳُﻮﻟَﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﰲ ﻋﺎﱂ ﳑﻠﻮﺀ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﳚﺪ ﺻﻌﻮﺑﺔ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﳋﲑ‪ .‬ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ‬
‫ﲨﻴﻌﺎ ﻣﻌﺮﺿﲔ ﻵﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ )ﲟﻌﲎ ﺍﻷﺻﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺿﻌﻔﺖ‪ ،‬ﳓﻦ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ(‪ ....‬ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﺗﺘﻤﺴﻚ ﲝﺎﻟﺔ ﺃﻗﻞ ﻛﻤﺎﻻً‬
‫ﻗﻄﻌﺎ ﺃﻗﻞ ﺗﺸﺪ ًﺩﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﰲ ﻧﻈﺮ‪‬ﺎ ﻟﺴﻘﻮﻁ‬
‫ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻘﻮﻁ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ً‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﺁﺩﻡ ﱂ ﻳﺴﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺭﺗﻔﺎﻉ ﻋﺎﻝ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺳﻘﻂ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺴﺎﻃﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺫﺟﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻻ ﳛﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ ﳋﻄﺄﻩ‪...‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻛﺎﻟﭭﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻘﻮﻁ ﺣﺮﻡ ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﺟﻴﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺍﻓﻘﻮﻥ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﲢﺖ » ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺣﺘﻤﻴﺔ« ﻻﺭﺗﻜﺎﺏ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ‪ » :‬ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﺗﻐﲑّﺕ ﻭﻏُﻠﺒﺖ ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﺄ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻘﻂ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻓﻘﺪﺕ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ«‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺍﺧﺘﻠﺖ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﱂ ﺗﺪﻣﺮ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪...‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﺗﺮﻓﺾ ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﺃﻱ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﻟﻠﺴﻘﻮﻁ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺮﻙ ﻣﻜﺎﻧًﺎ ﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬

‫‪٢٨٥‬‬
‫‪Original‬‬ ‫ﻣﻌﻈﻢ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﻳﺮﻓﻀﻮﻥ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻭﺭﺍﺛﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻧﺐ‬
‫‪ Guilt‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻋﻠﻢ ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ‪ -‬ﻭﻻﺯﺍﻟﺖ ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻟﺔ ﻟﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻻﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﺮﺙ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺁﺩﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺫﻧﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﺬﻧﺐ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳜﺘﺎﺭ ﺑﻪ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﳎﺎﺭﺍﺓ ﺁﺩﻡ‪...‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﱂ ﻳﻌﻠّﻤﻮﺍ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻠّﻢ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻭﻛﺜﲑﻭﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻃﻔﺎﻝ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﻌﻤﺪﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻷ‪‬ﻢ ﻣﻠﻮﺛﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻧﺐ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻑ‬
‫ﻳﻠﻘﻲ ‪‬ﻢ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﺇﱃ ﻧﺎﺭ ﺟﻬﻨﻢ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ! ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺇﺗﺰﺍﻧًﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻭﻛﺎﻟﭭﻦ‪«.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﻛﻮﺳﱵ ﺑﻨﺪﱄ ﻣﻦ ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻜﺘﺐ ً‬
‫ﻟﻪ ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ »ﻛﻴﻒ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻗﺼﺔ ﺁﺩﻡ ﻭﺣﻮﺍﺀ « ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ‪ ،١٩٩١‬ﺹ‬
‫‪:٧٤ ،٧٣ ،٦٠‬‬
‫» ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻭﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﺗﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺣﱴ ﺍﻵﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮﻫﺎ ﰲ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﳋﻠﻘﺔ ﺇﻻ ﻟﻠﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﺴﺠﻠﺔ ﰲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻕ ﻛﻴﺎﻧﻪ )ﻓﺄﻋﻤﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺷﻌﺮﻳًﺎ ‪ -‬ﺃﻱ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻱ ‪ -‬ﺇﱃ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﺷﺮﻧﺎ(‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻋﺪﻫﺎ ﻟﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺬ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻭﺟﺪﻩ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺇﻥ ﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻭﺱ‪ ،‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﺳﻌﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺣﻠﻢ ﻭﳘﻲ ﳜﺪﺭ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺑﺆﺳﻪ‪ ،‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻧﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻌﻮﺭ ﻣﺒﻬﻢ ﲟﺎ ﺃﻋﺪﻩ ﻟﻪ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻌﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺇﻛﺘﻤﺎﻝ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺬ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻭﺟﺪﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺼﲑ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺭﺍﺋﻨﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﺇﳕﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻣﺎﻣﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﲢﻘﻴﻘﻪ ﱂ ﳛﺼﻞ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺎﺿﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮﻩ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺎﺿﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺤﻴﻖ ﻳﻌﱪ ﺭﻣﺰﻳًﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻕ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻦ ﺑُﻌﺪ ﻣﻨﺎﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ‬
‫ﺃﺧﺮﻱ )ﻓﺎﳌﺎﺿﻲ ﺇﳕﺎ ﻫﻮ ﳎﺎﻝ ﺍﳊﻨﲔ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺗﺘﻮﳚًﺎ ﻳُ ّ‬
‫ﻜﻠﻞ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻣﺴﲑﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﻣﻌﺎﻧﺎ‪‬ﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻠﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻗﺪ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﺎﻣﻼً‪ ،‬ﳌﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﺭ ﰲ ﺻﻨﻊ ﻣﺼﲑﻩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﺎﻥ ﻧﻮ ًﻋﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﱪﳎﺔ ﺍﻵﻟﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺷﺎﺀ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺩﻭﺭ ﰲ‬
‫ﺗﻜﻮﻳﻦ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﺑﺘﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﻭﻋﻨﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﻨﻪ‪.‬‬

‫‪٢٨٦‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ‪ :‬ﺗﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﺣﱴ ﺑﻠﻐﺖ ﺣﻴﺰ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﺗﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺣﱴ ﺑﺮﺯ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﺻﲑﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﱪ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺣﱴ ﳛﻘﻖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺂﺯﺭ‬
‫ﺑﲔ ﺟﻬﺪﻩ ﻭﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻞﺀ ﻗﺎﻣﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳉﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺈﺑﻦ ﺍﷲ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺻﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎﻝ ﺃﻭﻻ ﰒ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻧﺎﺓ؟ ﺍﳉﻮﺍﺏ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﲏ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻤﻂ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺃﻭﻟﻮﻳﺔ ﻛﻴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺄﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ‪ -‬ﲟﻌﲏ ﺍﻷﺻﺎﻟﺔ ‪Originality‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻲ‪ ،‬ﲟﻌﲏ ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺭﲰﻬﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﻘﻪ‬
‫‪ -‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎﻝ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻒ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺎﻧﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻻ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‬
‫ﺇﻧﺘﻘﺎﺻﺎ ﻣﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺇﻻّ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﲝﻴﺚ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﻌﺘﱪ‬
‫ﺃﺧﺮﻱ »ﺳﻘﻮ ًﻃﺎ«‪...‬‬
‫ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺴﻘﻮﻁ‪ :‬ﺑﺮﺃﻳﻲ ﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﲟﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺍﳊﺮﰲ ﻓﻨﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺳﺒﻘﺖ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻌﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻧﻪ ﺳﻘﻂ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻞ ﺇﻧﺘﺸﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺪﺀﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ )ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻣﺲ(‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻳﻮﻣﻨﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪ً ،‬‬
‫ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﻻ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻷﻗﺪﻣﲔ‪...‬‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ »ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ« ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ )ﻃﺎﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻪ ﺑﺎﷲ( ﺑﻘﻴﺖ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻣﻨﺔ ﻭﱂ‬
‫ﺗﻨﺘﻘﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺣﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ‪] «.‬ﺇﻻ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﺕ ﻓﻘﻂ[‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﻓﻼﺩﳝﲑ ﻟﻮﺳﻜﻲ ﻣﻌﻠ ًﻘﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻣﻜﺴﻴﻤﻮﺱ ﺍﳌﻌﺘﺮﻑ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ‪(The Mystical Theology of‬‬
‫) ‪: the Eastern Church, p. 97, 98.‬‬
‫» ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﺋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ »ﻛﻤﺎﻝ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ« ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻦ ﺍﻹﲢﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ )ﺑﲔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ‪ ( Theosis‬ﻗﺪ ﲢﻘﻖ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻗﺎﺕ ﻻﺯﺍﻟﺖ ﲢﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﻠﻨﻤﻮ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻟﻜﻲ ﲢﻘﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻤﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﷲ‪.‬‬

‫‪٢٨٧‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﻇﻬﺮﻩ ﻭﻃﻮﺭﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻣﻜﺴﻴﻤﻮﺱ ﺍﳌﻌﺘﺮﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﻠّﻢ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎ ﻫﻲ »ﳏﺪﻭﺩﺓ«‪ ،‬ﲟﻌﲏ‪ ...‬ﺃﻥ ﻏﺎﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻣﺎﺯﺍﻟﺖ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻗﺎﺕ ً‬
‫ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﰲ ﺳﻌﻲ ﳓﻮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﳕﻮ ﻣﻀﻄﺮﺩ«‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﺱ ﻳﻨﺎﺭﺍﺱ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻜﺘﺐ ً‬
‫)‪: (Elements of Faith, T & T. Clark, p. 85‬‬

‫» ﻣﻐﺎﻣﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺑﺪﺃﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻭﺱ ﺭﻣﺰﻳًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﻓﺸ ً‬

‫ﻼ‬
‫ﰲ ﺧﻄﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﻤﺘﻠﺊ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻮﺍﺭﺙ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻭﺏ ﻭﺍﻷﻭﺑﺌﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻢ ﻭﺍﳉﺮﳝﺔ؛‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﻤﺘﻠﺊ ﺑﺘﺄﻭﻫﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﻳﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﻌﺬﺑﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺻﺮﺧﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻃﻔﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺘﺄﳌﲔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻜﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﺸﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﺪﻣﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻣﻮﻉ‪،‬‬
‫ﺇﻧﺘﺼﺎﺭﺍ ﻟﻠﺤﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻣﺎﺯﺍﻝ ﰲ ﺃﻋﲔ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻭﺇﻥ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺆﻣﻨﲔ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﺇﻧﺘﺼﺎ ًﺭﺍ ﻟﻠﺤﺮﻳﺔ!!‬
‫ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻜﺴﺐ ﺧﻄﻮﺓ ﺧﻄﻮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﺑﻮﺻﺔ‪ ،‬ﺭﺣﻠﺘﻬﺎ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻘﻮﺩﻩ ﻳﺪ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ‪...‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻭﺍﻗ ًﻌﺎ ﻧﺎﲡًﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺸﻞ‪ ،‬ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺸﻞ‪ ،‬ﳋﻄﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺗﺪﺑﲑﻩ!!‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﺭﺿﺎ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﻦ ﻳﺪﻋﻮ ﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺇﻟﻪ ﻓﺎﻗﺪ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﻏﺮﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺑﻼ ﻣﻌﲏ ﻭﻻ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ‪«.‬‬

‫ﺍﳋﻼﺻـــﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻧﺴﺘﻨﺘﺞ ﳑﺎ ﺳﺒﻖ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﻛﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﻋﻦ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﻛﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻵﰐ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻼ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻗﺎﺑ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ -١‬ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﱂ ﳜﻠﻖ ﻛﺎﻣ ً‬

‫‪٢٨٨‬‬
 ‫‪ -٢‬ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ » ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ « ﻭﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ »ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ً‬
‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ«‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -٣‬ﺧﺮﺝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﳊﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺇﻫﺘﻢ ﺑﺎﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺑﺎﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﺋﻠﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﺘﺸﻮﻫﺖ ﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﲢﻘﻴﻖ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻏﻠﺒﺔ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ُﺟﺒﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻣﻮﺗﻪ ﺭﻭﺣﻴًﺎ » ﺑﺈﺧﺘﺮﺍﻋﻪ «‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -٤‬ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻫﻮ » ﻋﺸﻤﺎﻭﻱ « ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺴﺒﺐ ﰲ ﺗﻮﺭﻃﻪ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺗﺪﺑﲑﻩ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪ .‬ﺍﷲ ﱂ ﳜﻠﻖ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﱂ‬
‫ﳛﻜﻢ ﺑﺘﺪﺑﲑﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﳜﺎﻟﻒ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﲔ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﻛﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺃﺭﺍﺩﻫﺎ ﻭﻳﻨﻔﺬﻫﺎ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﺑﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﺣﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﻭﺗﺪﺑﲑﻩ ‪ -‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻳﻨﺴﺐ ﻟﻠﺨﺎﻟﻖ ﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﺗﺪﻣﲑ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﺧﻠﻖ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻭﻭﺭﺍﺛﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﳐﺎﻟﻒ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻮﺡ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﺘﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻭﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﰲ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﻧﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﲡﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺷﺮﻩ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -٥‬ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ ﻳﺘﻔﻖ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻭﻗﻊ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺟﻬﺔ ﺗﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺑﺪﺍﺋﻴﺔ ﺻﻌﻮ ًﺩﺍ ﳓﻮ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﻳﺔ ‪ ...‬ﻭﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﻛﻬﺪﻑ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻛﻠﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﺎﺟﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺠﺴﺪ‪.‬‬
‫•••‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ‪:‬‬
‫ﺩﺭﺳﻨﺎ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻭﺿﺮﻭﺭﺗﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﺄﻛﺪﻧﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻧﻪ ﱂ ﳝﺖ ﻷﻱ ﻫﺪﻑ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﲔ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻛﺒﻄﻞ ﻭﻳﻘﻀﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ‪‬ﺎﺋﻴًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ‪ :‬ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻼﻣﺲ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﺶ ﻭﲢﺮﻗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﰲ ﺗﺸﺒﻴﻪ ﻣﺜﻴﻞ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﻼﻣﺲ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﻊ ﻭﺗﺬﻳﺒﻪ!!‬

‫‪٢٨٩‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺧﻄﺄ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻳﺪﻳﻨﺎ ﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ً‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺎﻡ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺲ ﻣﺮﻗﺲ ﺩﺍﻭﻭﺩ ﻣﻨﺬ ﻋﺸﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﲔ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ ﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ‬
‫ﻳﻔﺴﺮ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺷﺒﻴﻪ ﲟﻮﻗﻒ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺑﺄﻥ ‪ :‬ﻣﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺴﺘﺮﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺴﺪﺩ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻳﻦ ) ﲟﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺟﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻣﻮﺕ( ﷲ ﻭﺍﺿﻊ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺍﻏﺐ‬
‫ﰲ ﺇﺳﺘﻼﻡ ﻭﺇﲤﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﻜﺎﻣﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﺃﻭ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻛﻨﺎﺋﺐ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﺍﳌﻬﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﻻﺑﺪ ﻭﺃﻥ ﳝﻴﺖ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺗﻮﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﺣﻘﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻤﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻻ ﻓﻴﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻏﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻔﻮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺓ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﲦﻦ!!‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﺄ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺳﺒﺒﻪ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ‪ Just claims of God :‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺲ ﻣﺮﻗﺲ ﺩﺍﻭﻭﺩ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﻧﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﻧﻴﻘﻴﺔ )ﻏﺎﻟﺒًﺎ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ ﰲ ﺹ ‪ ٣٩‬ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺫﻛﺮ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﲨﺖ‬
‫‪ Just claims of God‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﱂ ﺗﻌﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺒﻂ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﻷﺩﻕ ﻫﻮ ‪ -‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺪﻣﻬﺎ ‪ C.S. Lewis‬ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﺑﻌﺪﻩ ﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ‪-‬‬
‫‪Divine Consistency of Character‬‬
‫‪What is reasonable with respect to God.‬‬
‫‪i.e. what is involved in His attributes and His relation to us.‬‬

‫ﻭﻋﻨﺪ ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ‪ Just Claims of God‬ﻛﺘﺒﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺲ ﻣﺮﻗﺲ ﺩﺍﻭﻭﺩ ‪» :‬ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ «‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﻷﺩﻕ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻫﻲ ‪ » :‬ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻴﻖ ﺑﺼﺪﻕ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺛﺒﺎﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﰲ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻠﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ « ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺎﺕ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﻷﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ ﺍﳍﺎﻡ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﰲ ﻣﺮﺟﻊ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﻧﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﺹ‬
‫‪.٤٠ -٣٩‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺘﻜﻠّﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﱂ ﻳُ ِﺮ ْﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻠﻐﻲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﺒﻖ ﻭﺣﺬﺭ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ :‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﻳﻮﻡ ﳜﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﳝﻮﺕ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺳﻢ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﳌﻬﻠﻚ؛‬
‫ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻻﺣﺘﺮﺍﻡ ﺍﷲ ﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﺘﺎﺋﺠﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫‪٢٩٠‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻭﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ‬‫ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻗﻠﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﱂ ﻳُ ِﺮ ْﺩ ﺇﻟﻐﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺑﺄﻥ ﱠ‬
‫ﰲ ﻋﻘﺮ ﺩﺍﺭﻩ ﻭﻳﺪﻣﺮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﲝﺴﺐ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ‪ ،‬ﺑﺄﻥ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﻭﻳﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﲟﻮﺕ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺣﻜﻢ ﻋﺎﺩﻝ ﺻﺎﺭﻡ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺻﺪﺭﻩ ﺑﺮﻏﺒﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺪﺑﲑﻩ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻇﻠﻢ!! ﻓﺈﻧﻨﺎ ﻟﻮ ﺇﻋﺘﱪﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﱐ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺣﻜﻤﺎ ﻋﺎﺩﻻً ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻛﺎﻥ ً‬
‫ﻣﻨﺎﻗﻀﺎ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ ﻭﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ﳍﺬﻩ‬‫ﻓﺒﻘﻴﺔ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ!! ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻳﺪﺑﺮ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﻟﻴﺒﻴﺪﻩ؟!!! ﻟﻘﺪ ﰎ ﲢﻠﻴﻞ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻗِﺒَﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺱ ﻭﻏﲑﻫﻢ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺮﺃﻧﺎ ﻛﻠﻬﻢ ﻳﺆﻛﺪﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺧﻼﺻﺔ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻫﻲ ﰲ »ﺇﺑﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ«‪ ،‬ﻭ »ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ« ‪ ،‬ﻭ‬
‫»ﺻﻠﺐ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ«‪ ،‬ﻭ »ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ« ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺃﻱ ﺭﺍﺋﺤﺔ ﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺑﺎﳌﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻗﺴﻄﻨﻄﲔ‬
‫ﺗﺴﲑﭘﺎﻧﻠﻴﺲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻫﻲ » ﻏﺮﻳﺒﺔ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺍﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻛﻠﻪ « ﻭﻗﺪ ﺫﻛﺮﺕ ﺍﻹﻗﺘﺒﺎﺱ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺮﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺒﻴﺪ‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ّ‬
‫ﺫﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻪ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺃﻱ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻹﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻏﺎﺿﺒﺔ ﻭﻣﻬﺎﻧﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻷﻱ‬
‫ﺇﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻳﻄﺎﻟﺐ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻵﺏ ‪. On the Incarnation p. 32, 33, 49. :‬‬
‫» ﺑﺘﺴﻠﻴﻤﻪ ﻫﻴﻜﻠﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺼﻔﻲ ﺣﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﳛﺮﺭﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪] ...‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻴﺼﻔﻲ ﺣﺴﺎﺑًﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻼ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ‬‫ﺍﻵﺏ![ ﻭﳌﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺟﺴ ًﺪﺍ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ‪ ...‬ﻗﺎﺑ ً‬
‫ﺣﻞ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺣﺪﺙ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬ ‫ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﺟﺴﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ‪ ...‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻗﺪ ّ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺑﻄﻼ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻤﺎﻡ‪.‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻻﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻟﻠﺠﻤﻴﻊ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺴﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ‪،‬‬
‫] ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﻛﻌﺪﻭ[‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﺧﺬ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﻠﺖ‪ ،‬ﺟﺴ ًﺪﺍ ﻗﺎﺑ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ ] ﺃﻱ ﻟﻴﺪﺧﻞ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ ﺇﱃ ﺳﺠﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺣﱴ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﻔﺬ ﺧﻄﺘﻪ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﳍﺪﻑ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ [‪.‬‬

‫‪٢٩١‬‬
‫ﻭﺑﺘﺄﳌﻪ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ ] ﺑﺪﺍﻓﻊ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻻ ﺍﻹﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ[‬
‫ﻣــﻦ ﺧـﻼﻝ ﺇﲢﺎﺩﻩ ﺑﻪ )ﺍﳉﺴﺪ( ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﻴﺪ ﺫﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻪ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻨﺠﻲ ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﺒﺪﻭﺍ ﻃﻴﻠﺔ ﺣﻴﺎ‪‬ﻢ ﻟﻠﺨﻮﻑ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ «‬
‫» ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻳﻠﻴﻖ ﺑﺼﻼﺡ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺧﻠﻘﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ‬
‫ﺧﺪﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻳﻠﻴﻖ ﺃﻭ ﻳﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻼﺷﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺇﳘﺎﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺧﺪﺍﻉ ﺍﻷﺭﻭﺍﺡ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮﺓ ‪ ...‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺮﻙ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻠﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻠﻴﻖ ﺑﺎﷲ‪«.‬‬
‫» ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺑﺄﻛﻤﻠﻪ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺭﺃﻳﻨـﺎ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻳﺘﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﰲ ﻛﻠﻤﺘﻪ ] ﺃﻱ ﲢﺬﻳﺮﻩ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻄﻮﺭﺓ ﺳﻢ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻟﻮ ﺷﺮﺑﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ[ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺑﻘﺎﺋﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻜﺬﺏ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ .‬ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳝﻜﻦ ﷲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﻌﻞ؟ ﻫﻞ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻯ؟ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻘــﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻫــﺬﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻠﻴﻖ‬
‫ﺑﺎﷲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﻗﺪ ﲢﺎﺟﺞ ﺃﻧﻪ ﲟﺎ ﺃ‪‬ﻢ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﻮﺍ ﲢﺖ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻓﻴﻤﻜﻨﻬﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻮﺩﻭﺍ ﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪.‬‬
‫‪،Divine consistency‬‬ ‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻕ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﻟﻮ ﱂ ﻳﺘﻤﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻏﲑ ﺻﺎﺩﻕ ] ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺇﳕﺎ ﻳﺮﻏﺐ ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﻭﳛﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻕ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﻷﻥ ﺇﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻺﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ ،‬ﺇﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﳚﺐ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﳛﺘﺮﻣﻪ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﺿﻊ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﳌﺘﺸﺪﺩ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺗﺮﻙ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﳊﺮ ﻟﻴﺤﺼﺪ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻻ ﺇﻧﻌﺪﻣﺖ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ [‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻐﲑ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ً‬
‫ﺗﻔﻌﻠﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﲡﻌﻠﻬﻢ َ‬
‫ﻳﻜ ّﻔﻮﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ ﻓﻘﻂ ] ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﳜﺺ ﻭﺍﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺃﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ[ ﻭﱂ ﻳﺘﺒﻌﻪ ﻓﺴﺎﺩ ] ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﳜﺺ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺸﻐﻞ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻝ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﺍﷲ ﻓﻌﻼً!! [ ﻟﻜﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﺗﻜﻔﻲ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ!!! ] ﻫﺬﺍ‬

‫‪٢٩٢‬‬
‫ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﳜﺘﺺ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺑﺄﻱ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺎ ﳜﺘﺺ » ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﳌﻬﺎﻧﺔ« ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻭﺍﺿﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻴﺔ ‪ -‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻫﺎﻡ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ [‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﲟﺠﺮﺩ ﺑﺪﺀ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ ﺳﻘﻂ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﲢﺖ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻐﺮﺏ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻟﻪ‪ .‬ﻻ ‪ ...‬ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺔ ] ﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻯ!![ ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ‪ -‬ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻱ ﻣﻦ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ؟ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻮﻱ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‪.‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﻭﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﺃﻥ ﳛﻘﻖ ﻫﺪﻓﲔ ‪ :‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺳﺪ ﺇﱃ ﻋﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﳛﻔﻆ ﻟﻶﺏ ﺻﺪﻗﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ‬
‫‪to maintain for the Father His consistency of character with all.‬‬

‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻭﻓﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻴﺪ ﺧﻠﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻠﻴﻖ ﺑﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺄﱂ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳑﺜ ًﻼ ﻟﻠﻜﻞ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻵﺏ«‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﳍﺎﻡ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺩﺭﺳﻨﺎ ﺳﺎﺑ ًﻘﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ‬
‫ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﺣﻜ ًﻤﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﺪﻣﺮ ﻣﺎ ﳜﻠﻖ ﺃﻭ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‪:‬‬
‫» ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻳﻠﻴﻖ ﺑﺼﻼﺡ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺧﻠﻘﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ‬
‫ﺧﺪﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ‪] ...‬ﺃﻭ[ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺇﳘﺎﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ...‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺮﻙ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻠﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻠﻴﻖ ﺑﺎﷲ «‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺗﺮﺩ ﲟﻨﺘﻬﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ » ﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ«‬
‫ﺃﺻﺪﺭﺣﻜﻤﺎ ﺑﺘﺪﺑﲑﻩ ﻭﲝﺴﺐ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ‪،‬‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎ ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ً‬
‫ﻭﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﳚﺐ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻩ ﺣﱴ ﺗﺘﺤﻘﻖ »ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ«!!! ﺇﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ‬
‫ﺼﻮﺭ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﻳﻬﺘﻢ ﺃﻭﻻً ﻭﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻰﺀ‬
‫ﻳﻜﺎﺩ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﲢﺖ ﺑﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺪﻳﻒ!! ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳُ ّ‬
‫ﺑﻜﺮﺍﻣﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﲢﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺑﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻘﺎﺀ ﺧﻠﻴﻘﺘﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ!!‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﳏﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻄﻠﺐ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ً .‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺬﻛﺮ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﻫﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﰲ‬

‫‪٢٩٣‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ :‬ﺍﷲ ﻳﻌﻠﻮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻱ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺣﱴ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻋﺘﱪﻧﺎ‬
‫ﻼ ﺍﳊﺎﻛﻢ ﲟﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ )ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ‬ ‫‪ -‬ﳍﺪﻑ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ ﻫﻨﺎ ‪ -‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﻓﻌ ً‬
‫ﺑﺄﻱ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ!!(‪ .‬ﻭﺣﱴ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻗﻠﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ »ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻫﻮ ُﺣ ْﻜﻢ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ«‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻫﻮ »ﺗﺸﺨﻴﺺ« ﻭ »ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ« ﻭ »ﺇﻋﻼﻥ« ﺍﷲ ﻟﻠﺨﺎﻃﺊ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﺎ‬
‫»ﺣ ْﻜﻢ ﺍﷲ« ﻻ‬‫ﻓﻌﻠﺘﻪ »ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺘﺞ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ« )ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ‪ .(١٥ :١‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ُ‬
‫ﺗﻌﲏ »ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ« ﻭﻻ ﺗﻌﲏ »ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ« ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﰊ ﻭﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺃﻛﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻟﻜﻲ ﳜﺪﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ )ﻛﺨﺎﺩﻡ( ﻭﻳﺴﺎﻋﺪﻩ‬
‫ً‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺣﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ )ﻛﺴﻴﺪ( ﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻻ‬
‫ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺮﺗﻔﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻓﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪...‬‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﳏﺒﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﳘﺎ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﰒ ﻗﺎﻝ ﳍﻢ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺖ )ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ( ﺇﳕﺎ ﺟﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ« )ﻣﺮ ‪.(٢٧ :٢‬‬
‫ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺖ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺖ ً‬
‫ﻛﻨﺎ ﻳﻮ ًﻣﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻋﻤﻮ ًﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﱴ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﻢ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﻫﻲ » ﻣﻌﲔ « ﳋﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﲔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺃﻱ ﻫﻴﺌﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺳﻼﺣﺎ ﻟﻘﻄﻊ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﺎﺏ ﻭﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻻ ﺿﺎﻉ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺪﻑ ﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ‬‫ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ً‬
‫ﺯﻳﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﻭﺳﻌﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﲔ!! ﰒ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﻷﺧﻮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻃﺒﻴﺐ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺣ ًﻘﺎ ﻟﻘﺪ ﻭﺿﻌﻨﺎ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺮﻭﺭ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻨﻈﻢ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﻭﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﺴﻌﺪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳌﺮﳛﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻼﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﲤﺮ ﺳﻴﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﺳﻌﺎﻑ ﻧﺴﻤﺢ ﻛﻠﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧًﺎ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ‪ :‬ﻫﻮ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬
‫ﳍﺎ ﺑﻜﺴﺮ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻄﺒﻖ ً‬
‫» ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ ﻭﺣﺐ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ « ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻠﻮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ .‬ﻓﻜﺴﺮ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻳﺴﻌﻲ ﻟﻠﺤﻔﺎﻅ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻏﺒﺎﺕ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﻘﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺣﻘﻮﻗﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻭﺿﻌﺖ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻬﺎ ‪ » -‬ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ « ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﻜﺴﺮ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺭﺍﺣﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺖ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻭﺣﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺑﻘﺎﺀﻩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﳘﺎ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﲟﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺎﺱ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻱ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ .‬ﻓﻜﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﺸﻔﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺖ‪.‬‬

‫‪٢٩٤‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺃﻧﻪ » ﻫﻮ ﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺖ « ﺗﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻱ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﺻﺢ ﱂ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻠﻮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪ » ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻪ ﺍﻷﻭﺣﺪ «‪ ...‬ﻓﺼﻼﺡ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺑﺮﻩ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺪﻟﻪ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺛﻞ ﻟﻌﺪﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻗﺺ ﻭﺍﳌﺸﻮﻩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﺩﺭﺳﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺑﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻭﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﷲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺎﻟﻘﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻀﻊ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ﰲ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ‬
‫ﻟﻮﺛﺮ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﻔﺴﺮ ﻳﺮﻱ‪ :‬ﺃﻥ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﻻ ﺗﺴﻤﺢ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻻ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ‬
‫ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻕ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺣﱴ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺢ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻲ ﳍﺪﻑ » ﺍﻷﺧﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﻔﺮﺣﺔ « ‪-‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﳒﻴﻞ!! ﻓﺎﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺒﺾ ﲦﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻏﲑ ﳏﺪﻭﺩﺓ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻐﻔﺮ‬
‫ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﻏﲑ ﳏﺪﻭﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻟﻪ ‪ -‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺣﱴ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻱ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ!!!‬
‫ﰒ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺩﺭﺳﻨﺎ‪ » ،‬ﻋﻤﻞ ﻭﻭﻇﻴﻔﺔ « ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺑﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﳎﺪﻩ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺇﻳﺮﻳﻨﺎﺅﺱ‪ » :‬ﳎﺪ ﺍﷲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ «‪.‬‬
‫ﺎﻟﺐ ﲟﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻰ؟!‬ ‫• ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻧﻌ ّﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﻫﻮ ُ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻄ ِ‬
‫• ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﻣﺪﺑّﺮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ؟!‬
‫ﻼ« ﺑﺎﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﱏ؟! ﻭﻫﻮ ﳝﻠﻜﻪ!!‬‫• ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ » ﺍﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﲞﻴ ً‬
‫• ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻄﺎﻟﺒﻨﺎ ﺑﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﳎﺎﻧًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﻫﻮ » ﺑﺜﻤﻦ «‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ؟! ﺣﱴ ﻭﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ؟!‬
‫• ﺑﻞ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻧُﻌ ﱢﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ » ﳛﺘﺎﺝ « ﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴّﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻟﺘﺪﻓﻊ ﻟﻪ ﲦﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﲟﻮﺕ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻰﺀ ﰲ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻧﺎﻫﻴﻚ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺢ ﻫﻮ ﺣﺒﻴﺐ‬
‫ﺍﷲ )ﳏﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ( ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ؟!‬
‫ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻋﻦ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ؛ ﺇﳕﺎ‬
‫ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺼﻼﺣﻪ ﳓﻮ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﳋﻮﻑ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺘﻪ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ!!!‬
‫» ِﺻ ْﺪﻕ ﺍﷲ « ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ » ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻴﻖ ﺑﺜﺒﺎﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﰲ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻠﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ«‪) ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺮﲨﺖ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑـ ‪ :‬ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ( ﺫﻛﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺟﻬﺔ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺻﺪﻗﻪ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻭﳏﺒﺘﻪ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻟﺬﺍﺗﻪ‬

‫‪٢٩٥‬‬
‫َﻤﻦ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻋﺪﻡ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻭﻟﺼﺪﻗﻪ ﻭﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ!!! ﻓ َ‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﳜﺸﻲ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺻﺪﻗﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺘﻪ ﻟﻮ ﻗ ّﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﳎﺎﻧًﺎ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ‬
‫ﲦﻦ ﻳﺪﻓﻊ ﻟﻪ؟!!‬
‫َﻣ ْﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻴﺤﺎﺳﺐ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ؟! ﻭﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﳜﺎﻓﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺪﺍﻓﻌﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻴﻒ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺑﻄﺮﺱ ﰲ ﺑﺴﺘﺎﻥ ﺟﺴﺜﻴﻤﺎﱏ؟‬
‫ﺃﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‪ ،‬ﲝﺴﺐ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ‪ -‬ﰲ ﻏﻔﺮﺍﻧﻪ ﻟﻠﺰﺍﻧﻴﺔ ‪ -‬ﻭﻛﺴﺮ ﻭﺻﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺖ‬
‫‪ -‬ﻭﻣﺜﻞ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻋﺸﺮ ‪ -‬ﻭﺍﻻﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺎﻝ ‪ -‬ﻭﺍﳌﻐﻔﺮﺓ ‪ ٤٩٠‬ﻣﺮﺓ ﻷﺧﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺺ ﻭﺇﻫﺘﻢ‬
‫ﻳﻮﻣﻴًﺎ ‪ -‬ﻭﺍﳌﻮﻋﻈﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﺒﻞ؟! ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﱂ ﻳﻐﺮ ّ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺑﺎﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﻭﺃﻧﺼﻔﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ »ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ «؟!!‬
‫ﰒ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﺮﺽ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ » ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻕ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ « ﳍﺪﻓﲔ ﻫﺎﻣﲔ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﺮ ﺑﺎﻹﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺠﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ‬‫)‪ (١‬ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻩ ّ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻫﺐ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺇﺣﺘﺮﺍﻡ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﺑﺎﻹﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺟﻊ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻟﻐﺎﺀ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳊﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ‪.‬‬
‫)‪ (٢‬ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻕ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﳚﺐ ﺭﺅﻳﺘﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﺎﺭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻗﺪ » ﺣ ّﺬﺭ « ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ » ﻫ ّﺪﺩ « ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺬﻳﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺤﺬ ﱢﺭ ﻳُﺤﺐ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﳛﺬﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﳛ ّﺬﺭﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻨﻊ ﻭﻻ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﻣﻘ ّﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺬﻳﺮ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﺪﻭﺍ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﳛﺬﺭﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﺎﺻﺔ!! ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻨﺎﰲ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ!!‬ ‫ﻓﺈﻥ ﺃﺭﺍﺩ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺘﻞ ً‬
‫ﺷﺨﺼﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻗ ًﻔﺎ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺘﺮﺻ ًﺪﺍ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻦ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻬﺪﻳﺪ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻬﺪﺩ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻨﺎﺯﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺇﲤﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﺪﺩ ‪‬ﺎ ﻟﻠﻨﻘﻤﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻬﺪﻳﺪ ﻳﻨﻌﺪﻡ ﺍﳊﺐ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺏ » ﻻ‬
‫» ﺻﺪﻕ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺛﺒﺎﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ « ﰲ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﻌﻞ ّ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﰲ ﺷﺄﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ«‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻷﻛﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﺒﻊ ﺗﻌﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻴّﺔ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ‪ :‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﳝﻮﺕ ﲝﺮﻳﺘﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺷﺮﺣﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺷﺒﻪ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺮﻣﺔ ﻭﳓﻦ ﺍﻷﻏﺼﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻓﻌﻨﺪﻣﺎ‬
‫‪٢٩٦‬‬
‫ﺃﻭﺻﺎﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺜﺒﺖ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻻّ ﻓﺴﻨﺴﻘﻂ ﻭﻧﺬﺑﻞ ﻭﳕﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻳﻌﲏ ‪‬ﺪﻳﺪﻧﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺘﻞ‪...‬‬
‫ﺣﺎﺷﺎ؛ ﺑﻞ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳛﺬّﺭﻧﺎ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﺸﺮﺡ ﻷﺑﻨﺎﺋﻨﺎ‪ » :‬ﺇﻥ ﱂ ﺗﺄﻛﻠﻮﺍ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺸﺮﺑﻮﺍ ﺳﻮﻑ ﲤﻮﺗﻮﻥ«!! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﺎﻗﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ‪‬ﺪﻳﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻟﻸﺑﻨﺎﺀ ‪ » :‬ﺇﻥ ﱂ ﺗﺄﻛﻠﻮﺍ ﻭﺗﺸﺮﺑﻮﺍ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﻘﺘﻠﻜﻢ؛ ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﺻﺎﺩﻗﻮﻥ ﻭﻟﻦ‬
‫ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﻷﻧﻪ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻﺑﺪ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻧﻨﻔﺬﻫﺎ ﻓﻴﻜﻢ!!!« ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﻳﻨﺎﰲ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ‪ ...‬ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻧﻔﺴﺮ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻋﻦ » ﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻟﺼﺪﻗﻪ ﻭﺛﺒﺎﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ«‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻧﻪ » ‪‬ﺪﻳﺪ « ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﻓﻴﻪ؟!!‬
‫ﻭﻋﻄﺸﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﱂ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﰒ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﺧﺬﻧﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻭﲢﺬﻳﺮﻫﻢ ﻷﺑﻨﺎﺋﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺟﻮ ًﻋﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺄﻛﻠﻮﺍ ﻭﻳﺸﺮﺑﻮﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﻋﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺬﻳﺮ ﺻﺎﺩﻕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﳉﻮﻉ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻄﺶ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺑﺼﺪﻕ؛ ﻓﻬﻞ ﻳﻌﲏ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﻥ ﺍﺣﺘﺮﺍﻡ ﺍﻷﻫﻞ ﻟﻠﺼﺪﻕ ﻭﺍﳊﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ‬
‫ﺳﻴﺠﻌﻠﻬﻢ ﻳﻘﺘﻠﻮﻥ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺀﻫﻢ ﺃﻭ ﺣﱴ ﻳﺘﺮﻛﻮ‪‬ﻢ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ؟!!‬
‫ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻧﻈﺮﻧﺎ ﻟﻘﺼﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﰲ ﺣﺪﻳﺜﻪ ﻋﻦ »ﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻟﺜﺒﺎﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﰲ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻠﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ« ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺮﺃ ﺑﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﺑﺮﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺼﻼﺡ‪ .‬ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺮﺃ ﻭﳓﻦ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ‪ -‬ﺑﺮﻭﺡ ّ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻔﺴﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺩﻳﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ ‪ -‬ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﺻﻨﻊ »ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺪﺓ« ﺍﻟﻔﻨﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﺸﻜﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ »ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ«‬
‫ﰲ ﺣﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﻟﻴﺆﻛﺪ ﺗﺸﺪﺩ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻟﺜﺒﺎﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ‪ .‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻘﺼﺪ‬
‫ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺇﻃﻼﻗًﺎ!! ﺑﻞ ﺍﷲ ﳛﺬﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻟﻪ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺷﺠﺮﺓ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﳋﲑ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻓﻼ ﺗﺄﻛﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻚ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺗﺄﻛﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﻮﺗًﺎ‬
‫) ﻭﱂ ﻳﻘﻞ ﺍﷲ‪:‬‬ ‫ﲤﻮﺕ ‪) « You shall surely die.‬ﺗﻚ ‪(١٧ :٢٥‬‬
‫ﻳﻮﻡ ﺗﺄﻛﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺳﻮﻑ ﺃﻗﺘﻠﻚ ﻗﺘﻼً!!(‬
‫ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻗﻮﻝ ﻹﺑﲎ‪ » :‬ﺃﻣﺎ ُﺳ ّﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺰﺟﺎﺟﺔ ﻓﻼ ﺗﺸﺮﺏ ﻣﻨﻪ‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻚ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺗﺸﺮﺏ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻪ ﻣﻮﺗًﺎ ﲤﻮﺕ«‪ .‬ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﺣﺬﺭﻩ ﲝﺐ ﻭﺃﺭﺟﻮﻩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﺘﻌﺪ‪ .‬ﻓﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﻟﻮﺷﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻢ ﻭﺭﻓﺾ‬
‫ﻣﺸﻮﺭﰐ ﻭﲢﺬﻳﺮﻯ؟! ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺳﻮﻑ ﺃﻋﺎﳉﻪ ﺣﱴ ﻭﻟﻮ ﺗﱪ ّﻋﺖ ﻟﻪ ﺑﺪﻣﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺣﻴﺎﰐ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﺻﺎﺩﻕ ﻭﱂ ﺃﺗﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻﺯﻟﺖ ﺛﺎﺑﺘًﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ‪،‬‬
‫ﻷﻥ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﺪﻕ ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺷﺎﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻢ ﻣﻨﺘﺤﺮ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﻗﺘﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ‪،‬‬
‫‪٢٩٧‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻢ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻧﲏ ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻋﻤﻠﺖ ﻭﺣﱴ ﻟﻮ ﺃﻧﻘﺬﺕ ﺇﺑﲏ‪ ،‬ﻓﺼﺪﻕ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺷﺎﺭﺏ ّ‬
‫ﻻﻳﺰﺍﻝ ﺑﺎﻗﻴًﺎ‪ ...‬ﺃﻧﺎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﲏ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ!! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﻮﻗﻔﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﻌﲏ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺇﺑﲏ ﻻﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﳝﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻻﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺑﺪﻳﻞ ﻹﻧﻘﺎﺫﻩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺳﺘﺴﻠﻢ ﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺻﺪﻕ » ﻣﻮﺕ ﺷﺎﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻢ « ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬ ‫ﻭﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻧﻪ ّ‬
‫)ﻹﺣﺘﺮﺍﻣﻲ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻰ( ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺗﺮﻙ ﺇﺑﲏ ‪ -‬ﺃﻭ ﺑﺪﻳﻞ ﻟﻪ ‪ -‬ﳝﻮﺕ ﻟﻜﻲ‬
‫ﺃﻇﻬﺮ ﺃﻧﲏ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ!!‬
‫ﺻﺪﻗﻮﱐ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻔﺴﺮ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ )ﻣﺴﺘﻌﻤ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻭﻟﻮ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﺻﺤﻴﺤﺔ!!!( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﲢﺖ ﺳﻄﻮﺓ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺗﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﲟﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺷﺮﺣﺘﻪ ﰲ ﻣﺜﻞ »ﺇﺑﲏ ﺷﺎﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻢ«‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺧﻄﺆﻩ ﺟﻠﻴًﺎ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻗﺎﺭﺉ ﺫﻭ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺑﺴﻴﻂ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻹﳒﻴﻞ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻳًﺎ ﻭﺍﺣ ًﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺷﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﺮﻳﻪ ﰲ ﻋﲔ ﺍﷲ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺃﳒﺲ ﺷﺊ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺋﻨﺎ ﻋﺪﺍﻭﺓ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻓﻼ ﻳﻬﺪﺃ ﻟﻪ ﺑﺎﻝ ﺇﻻ ﺑﺰﺭﻉ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺇﺑﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ‪‬ﺎﺋﻴًﺎ‪ .‬ﺃﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻭﻟﻪ ﻵﺧﺮﻩ؟!! ﻓﻜﻴﻒ‬
‫‪ -‬ﺃﺳﺄﻟﻚ ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﻭﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺪﺍﻓﻊ ﻋﻦ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺣﻜﻤﻪ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ‪ -‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻌﻘﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﷲ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﻣﺪﺑﺮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﳊﺎﻛﻢ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ؟! ﻛﻴﻒ ﳒﺪﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺒﻪ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ؟!! ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﺮﺗﻜﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ؟!!‬
‫ﲰﺎ ﺃﻭ‬
‫َﺴﻢ ﺃﺑﻮﻗﺮﺍﻁ )ﺃﻥ ﻳﺸﻔﻲ ﺍﳌﺮﺽ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ً‬‫َﻒ ﻗ َ‬
‫ﻫﻞ ﲰﻌﺘﻢ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﺐ َﺣﻠ َ‬
‫ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ ﻣﺆﺫﻳًﺎ ﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ( ﻭﻳﺘﺴﺒﺐ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﰲ ﻣﺮﺽ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻴﺪﻳﻪ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻳﻮﻣﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﺣﺬﺭﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺮﺽ؟!!‬
‫ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﳌﺮﺽ ﺑﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳ ّﺪﻋﻲ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺭﺍﻏﺐ ﰲ ﻋﻼﺝ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺾ ﺑﺎﻟﻴﺪ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ؟!‬
‫ﻛﻴﻒ ﻧﺼﻠﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻧﻘﻮﻝ‪ » :‬ﺃﺯﻟﺖ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ )ﺃﻱ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ( ﻋﲎ« ﰲ ﻧَ َﻔﺲ ﰒ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨَ َﻔ ِﺲ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﻧﻔﺴﺮ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ »ﺃﻧﺖ ﻳﺎ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻌﻨﺘﲏ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﻷﻧﻚ‬
‫ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﺗﺮﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﰲ ﺷﺄﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺣﺬﺭﺗﲏ ﻣﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﺘﺜﺒﺖ ﺃﻧﻚ ﺻﺎﺩﻕ‬
‫ﻭﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ«!!!؟‬

‫‪٢٩٨‬‬
‫ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﰲ ﺣﺪﻳﺜﻪ ﻋﻦ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﺗﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺮﺭ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻋﻤ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﺃﻋﻈﻢ ﲟﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺎﺱ ﻣﻦ ﳎﺮﺩ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺷﻔﺎﻫﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﺗﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﳍﺪﻑ ﻫﻮ ﳓﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﷲ!!‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻭﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﺑﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻷﺩﻳﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺍﻋﻆ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻓﻜﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ) ﺃ ( ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻭﺟﺪ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺿﻌﻴﻔﺔ‪،‬‬
‫• ﺍﷲ ّ‬
‫• ﰒ ﻓﻜﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ) ﺏ ( ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻭﺟﺪ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻏﲑ ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫• ﰒ ﻟﻴﺤﻘﻖ ﻣﻌﺠﺰﺓ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻟﺘﺨﻄﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺑﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ )ﺝ( ‪ ،‬ﻗﺮﺭ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻟﻴﻘﺪﻡ ﺃﲨﻞ ﻭﺃﻗﻮﻱ ﺍﳊﻠﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺻﻼﺣﻪ ﻛﻤﺤﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﺬﺗﻪ ﰲ ﺑﲏ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ!!‬
‫) ﺃ ( ﻛﺎﻥ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﻭﻳﻠﻐﻲ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻭﺟﺪﻩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺑﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﻳﻠﻐﻲ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﳚﱪﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺴﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺻﺎﺩﻕ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻋﻄﻲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ‪...‬‬
‫ﻻ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﻭﺇﻟﻐﺎﺀ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺟﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻭﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ‬
‫ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺘﻪ ﺇﻧﺘﺤﺎﺭ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ!!!‬
‫)ﺏ( ﻛﺎﻥ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺗﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻜﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﺻﺎﱀ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ‬
‫ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ‪ .‬ﻧﻌﻢ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﻭﺍﺿﻊ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺆﺩﻱ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﳚﱪﻩ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﻻ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻟﻮ ﺗﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﻣﻊ ﺻﻼﺣﻪ‪ ...‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ ﻫﻮ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻭﺍﻷﻫﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﺒﻪ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺒﺸﺮ ﻳﻌﻠﻮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻱ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ ...‬ﺣﱴ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻋﻄﺎﻩ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻮﻧًﺎ‬
‫)ﺃﻋﻄﻴﺘﲏ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻋﻮﻧًﺎ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ( ﻭﱂ ﻳُﻤﻠِﻪ ﻛﺤﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻗﻄﻌﺎ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﻛﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺖ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ً‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﻫﻮ ﻛﺈﻟﻪ‪ ...‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻀﲑﻩ ‪ :‬ﺗﻌﺪﻱ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻠﻖ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻭﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﲢﺘﺎﺝ ﳊﻞ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻭﺃﻋﻈﻢ‬
‫ﻳﻠﻴﻖ ﺑﺎﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ ﺍﻷﻛﱪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﷲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ...‬ﺇﻟﻐﺎﺀ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬

‫‪٢٩٩‬‬
‫ﺑﻘﺮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﷲ ﺑﻌﻴ ًﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻭﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﳚﻌﻠﻪ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﺸﻌﺮ ﻭﻻ ﳛﺲ ﲟﺸﺎﻋﺮﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻧﻪ ﱂ ﳜﺘﱪﻫﺎ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ‪ .‬ﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴـﺎﻥ ﻻ ) ﺃ ( ﻭﻻ )ﺏ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻻ ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺇﻟﻐﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﻘﺮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻳﻠﻴﻘﺎﻥ ﲝﺐ ﻭﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﺬﺗﻪ‬
‫ﰲ ﺑﲏ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ...‬ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ )ﺣﱴ ﻟﻮ ﺗﺎﺏ ﻭﺣﱴ ﻟﻮ ﺃﻟﻐﻲ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﻘﺮﺍﺭ( ﻳﻌﺎﱐ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﺋﻦ‬
‫ﺿﻌﻴﻒ ﻫﺶ ﻭﻓﺎﱐ‪ ...‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻘﺘﻠﻊ ﺍﷲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻒ ﻭﻳﻬﺪﻱ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‬
‫‪ -‬ﺃﻏﻠﻲ ﻫﺪﻳﺔ ﺣﺐ ‪ -‬ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﻭﺱ ﺍﳌﺘﻤﺮﺩﺓ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻧﻴﺔ؟!‬
‫)ﺟـ( ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻻﲢﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﳛﻘﻖ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ ﻭﺍﳊﺐ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﺘﺮﻙ ﺍﷲ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳊﺮ‬
‫ﻛﺎﺋﻨًﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺭﻓﺾ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺣﺐ ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺰﳚﺔ )ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ(‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﲢﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻳﺒﻘﻲ ﺍﷲ ﺻﺎﺩﻗًﺎ ﻭﻳﺒﻘﻲ ﺛﺎﺑﺘًﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺒﺪﺃﻩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﺟﺒﺎﺭ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻛﺮﺍﻫﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺴﺮ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺐ‬
‫ﻋﺒﻮﺩﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﺒﻘﻲ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺘﻬﺎ‪ ...‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺳﻴﻌﻄﻲ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻔﺎﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﺃﺭﺍﺩ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﺍﳌﻨﺘﺤﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﳌﺤﺘﺮﻡ ﻟﻠﺤﺮﻳﺔ‪ :‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ!!‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺇﺣﺘﺮﺍﻡ ﺣﻖ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ؛ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ ﰲ ﻭﻫﺐ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻔﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ!! ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻹﲢﺎﺩ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﺋﺘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﻘﺘﻞ ﺍﷲ‬‫ﺍﳊﺮ ً‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻓﻜﻤﺎ ﺑﺘﻼﻣﺲ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺶ ﻳﻨﺘﻬﻲ ﻭﳛﺘﺮﻕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺘﻼﻣﺲ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﻊ ﻳﺬﻭﺏ‪ ،‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺑﺘﻼﻣﺲ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻊ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺳﺠﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﰲ ﻋﻘﺮ ﺩﺍﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﻠﻐﻲ ﺍﷲ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ »ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻢ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ« ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻟﺪ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺀ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﺒﻄﻞ ﻋﺰ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﺒﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻪ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ؛ ﺑﺎﻹﲢﺎﺩ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﻔﺘﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﻴﺘﺰﻭﺟﻬﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ﻭﳚﻠﺴﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺣﻀﻦ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻋﻦ ﳝﲔ ﻋﻈﻤﺘﻪ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ ...‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﲤﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﳋﻼﺹ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﱂ ﻳﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﺍﷲ ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻧﻠﻤﺲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﻧﺘﺄﻛﺪ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ؟!‬
‫‪٣٠٠‬‬
 ‫ﺇﻥ ﳎﺮﺩ ﻇﻬﻮﺭﻩ ﺍﳌﺤﻴﻲ ﻳﻜﻔﻲ ﻟﻠﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺩﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﲝﺴﺪ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ ﻫﺪﻣﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺤﻴﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻹﺑﻨﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ« )ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ(‪ ...‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﺸﺎﺭﻛﻨﺎ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻰﺀ‪ ..‬ﻣﺎ ﺧﻼ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﲟﺠﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺯﺭﻉ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻗﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ؟!‬
‫ﻧﻌﻢ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺇﻓﺘﺪﻳﺖ ﻭﻫﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﻈﻬﻮﺭﻩ ﺍﳌﺤﻴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﻴﻒ‬
‫ﻧﺘﺄﻛﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴًﺎ؟! ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﺃﻥ »ﻳﺸﺘﺮﻙ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﰲ ﻣﺼﲑﻧﺎ ﺍﳌﺸﺘﺮﻙ« ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ ‪ -‬ﻟﻜﻲ »ﻳﻘ ّﺪﺱ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ« ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ ﻭﻳﻠﻐﻲ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ )ﭬﻼﺩﳝﲑ ﻟﻮﺳﻜﻲ(‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ‪:‬‬
‫) !!‪Orthodox Theology - p. 116 : sanctifying death‬‬

‫ﻓﻜﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺾ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻛﺪ ﻣﻦ ﳒﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺇﻻ ﲞﺮﻭﺝ‬

‫ﺍﳉﺮﺍﺡ ﻭﺍﳌﺮﻳﺾ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﺮﺡ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﻭﺍﻟﺒُﺸﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﱪ ﻣﺎﺋﺘًﺎ ﺑﺎﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﳜﺮﺝ ﺣﺎﻣ ً‬
‫ﻼ‬
‫ﺇﻳﺎﻧﺎ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺟﺴﺪﻩ ﺍﳊﻲ ﻭﺍﳋﺎﻟﺪ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ .‬ﻻﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴًﺎ ﺇﺷﺘﺮﺍﻛﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﰲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﻳﻘﻴﻤﻨﺎ ﻣﻌﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻛﺨﻄﻮﺓ ﺃﻭﱄ ﻟﺘﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺧﻼﺻﻨﺎ ﻭﺧﻠﻮﺩﻧﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺳﻨﻘﻮﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﻪ ﻛﻤﺜﺎﻟﻪ‪ .‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ‬ ‫ﻭﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ً‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺎﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺭﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﻧﻌﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﲤﱠﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺣﻘﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺋﺘﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﱪ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﻫﻢ ﺧﺘﻢ ﻣﺼﺪﺍﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﳒﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﲑ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ‪ -‬ﺃﻱ ﳏﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ‪ -‬ﻭﻣﲑﺍﺛﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺪﺓ‪.‬‬

‫‪٣٠١‬‬
 ‫‪ -١٥‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳـﺲ ﺇﺳﺤـﻖ ﺍﻟﺴـﺮﻳﺎﱏ‪:‬‬
‫)ﺃﺳﻘﻒ ﻧﻴﻨﻮﻱ ﰲ ﺃﻭﺍﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ(‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﻗﺘﺒﺎﺱ ﺍﻵﰐ ﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻤﻠﻮﺀ ﺭﻗﺔ ﻭﺣﻜﻤﺔ ﺭﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﺛﺎﻗﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻠﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺳﺒﻘﻮﻩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﲜﺴﺎﺭﺓ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻌﺘﺎﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻟﻪ‬
‫ﻔﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻋﻦ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻦ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳُ ّ‬
‫ﻭﳎﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺟﻬﻨﻢ‪.‬‬

‫ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻣﺎﺭ ﺇﺳﺤﻖ ﻋﻦ ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺗَ ﱠ‬

‫ﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺇﲣﺬ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺟﺴ ًﺪﺍ ﻟﻴﺼﺎﱀ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻭﳚﺬﺑﻪ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺗﻮﺍﺿﻊ‬
‫ﻭﺭﻓﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺓ؟ ﻭﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺳﻠﻢ ﺟﺴﺪﻩ‬‫ﻭﻭﺩﺍﻋﺔ؟ ﻭﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﲤﺪﺩ ُ‬
‫ﻟﻶﻻﻡ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ؟‬
‫ﺃﻗﻮﻝ ﻟﻜﻢ ﺍﳊﻖ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﷲ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺇﻻّ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﻭﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﱂ ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺣﺒﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﻜﻲ ﲝﺒﻪ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺟﻠﻴًﺎ ﻛﻢ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻈﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻗﻮﺓ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﺄﺳﺮ ﻭﳚﺬﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺑﺎﳊﺐ ﳓﻮﻩ‪ .‬ﺬﺍ ﺗﺘﻀﺢ ﻟﻨﺎ ّ‬
‫ﳛﻴﺎ ﺑﺎﳊﺐ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺮﻳﻨﺎ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺣﺒﻪ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ )ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ( ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻗﺪ ﻣﺎﺕ ﻟﻴﻔﺪﻳﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎﺕ ﻷﻱ‬
‫ﺳﺒﺐ ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻣﻮﺗﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻬﺒﻨﺎ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺻﺪﻕ ﺇﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﻧﺎ ﳊﺒﻪ‬
‫ﳓﻮ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ] .‬ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﳜﺘﻔﻲ ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ!! [‬
‫ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺑﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺠﺐ‪ ،‬ﻳﻬﺪﻑ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﺎﻥ ﳑﻜﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﺪﻳﻨﺎ ﺑﺄﻱ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ‪.‬‬
‫َﻣ ْﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺳﻴﻤﻨﻌﻪ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻓﺪﺍﻧﺎ ﲟﻮﺕ ﺑﺴﻴﻂ؟ ﺇﻧﻪ ﱂ ﳝﺖ ﻣﻮﺗًﺎ ﻫﻴﻨًﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺮ‪ّ ،‬ﺳﺮ ﺍﳊﺐ‪....‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﺂﻻﻡ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﻴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﳓﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ّ‬
‫ﺇﻧﻪ ﳊﺮﻱ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳔﺠﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ ‪ :‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻧﺮﺿﻲ ﺃﻥ ﳓﻤﻞ ﺃﻓﻜﺎ ًﺭﺍ ﺗﻘ ّﻠﻞ‬
‫ﻭﺗُﺼ ّﻐﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻥ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻭﳎﻴﺌﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﺑﻘﻮﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺟﺎﺀ ﳍﺪﻑ‬
‫)ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎ(؟! ﻫﻞ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗ ّﻮﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺃﻋﻈﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻗ ّﻮﺓ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻓﺪﺍﺋﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ً‬
‫ﺃﺭﺍﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻀﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﱂ ﻳﻘﺪﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﻴﺪﻫﺎ ﺇﻻّ ﲟﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ؟!‬

‫‪٣٠٢‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺏ )ﺇﳍﻨﺎ(‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﺪﻳﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﺫﻥ ﻟﻮ‬
‫ﺳﺮ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ّ‬
‫ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ّ‬
‫ﻛﻨﺎ ﱂ ﳔﻄﺊ ﳌﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﻱ ﺩﺍﻉ ﺃﻭ ﺳﺒﺐ ﳌﺠﻰﺀ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻭﳌﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳًﺎ‪ ...‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻟﻮ ﺃﺧﺬﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺳﻄﺤﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻨﻜﻤﻞ‪) ،‬ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﺃﻛﻤﻠﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ( ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻟﻮ‬
‫ﺳﺮ‬
‫ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻗﺪ ﲤﻠﻚ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﳌﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳑﻜﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﻟﻨﺎ ّ‬
‫ﺣﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﻼﺋﻜﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺣﺮﻣﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ!‬
‫ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﻷﺻﺒﺢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﺮ ﻟﻠﺨﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺇﺳﺘﻠﻤﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﱪﻛﺎﺕ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ!! ﻓﻬﻞ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﻥ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻧﻈﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺳﺒﺐ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﱪﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺪﻫﺸﺔ ‪ ...‬ﻫﻮ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ؟ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﺭﺗﻜﺎﺏ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﻤﻼﺋﻜﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺭﺟﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﻫﺮ ﺍﻵﰐ‪،‬‬
‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﳒﺪ ﺳﻌﺎﺩﺗﻨﺎ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ!!‬
‫ﺇﺫﻥ ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﻧﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺟﺎﺀﺕ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻢ )ﺍﻟﱪﻛﺎﺕ(‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻭﺁﻻﻣﻪ ﻭﺳﺮ ﳎﻴﺌﻪ ﻟﻸﺭﺽ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺧﻼﺻﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﻨﻢ‪ ،‬ﺧﺎﺻﺔ )ﻭﺃﻧﻪ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ( ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺄﱂ ﻭﺳﺪﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻮﻥ؟!‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ )ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺟﺎﺗﻪ( ﻻ ﳝﺜﻞ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ .‬ﻻ ﻳﺼﺢ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺼﺒﺢ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻷﻃﻔﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺑﺄﻥ ﻧﺘﻤﺴﻚ ﺑﺴﻄﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‬
‫)ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ(‪] .‬ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻃﻔﻮﱄ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ![‪.‬‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﻭﺇﻥ ﱂ ﻳﻌﻂ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﺘﺢ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﺰﻳﻞ ﻭﻳﺮﻓﻊ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻫﻮ )ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ( ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ‪ ...‬ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻦ ﻷﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺳﺮﺍﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﺤﺼﻮﺍ‬
‫ﺑﻜﻞ ﺧﺸﻮﻉ ﻭﻳﺘﻌﺠﺒﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻏﲏ ﺃﺳﺮﺍﺭﻩ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻔﻴﺔ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺆﻻﺀ )ﺍﳌﻨﻌﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﺑﺈﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﻹﳍﻰ( ﻳﺪﺭﻛﻮﻥ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺠﺐ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ )ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻄﺤﻴﺔ(‪.‬‬

‫‪٣٠٣‬‬
‫ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﻗﺪ ﻭﻫﺒﻮﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﻭﺃﻋﻄﻮﺍ ﻣﻮﻫﺒﺔ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺑﻮﺍﻃﻦ ﺃﺳﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺪ ﺫﻛﺮﺕ )ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ( ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺇﲨﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺢ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻠﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺴﺮ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺠﺐ ﻣﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳊﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﻗﺎﻧﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﳌﺸﻊ ﻟﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳊﺐ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻋﻠﻦ ﻟﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻟﻌﺰﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ‪ :‬ﺍﳌﺠﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺠﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻜﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻵﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻞ ﺃﻭﺍﻥ ﻭﺇﱃ ﺩﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﻫﻮﺭ ﺁﻣﲔ‪.‬‬
‫)‪(A.J. Wensinck, Mystic Treatises of Isaac of Nineve, 1923. p. 318‬‬

‫ﺧﻼﺻﺔ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ‬

‫ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﺗﻠﺨﻴﺺ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺷﺮﺣﻪ ﻭﺣﻠﻠﻪ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺧﻼﺻﺔ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ‪ -‬ﲟﺤﻮ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺲ ﻭﺗﻄﻬﲑ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻤﺎﻝ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ‪ :‬ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﳏﺪﻭﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻓﺸﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﺭﻳﻊ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﻏﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪ .‬ﺬﺍ ﻳﻨﻤﻮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺟﺪﻳ ًﺪﺍ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻪ ﺑﺎﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻳﻬﺒﻨﺎ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻛﻞ ﺇﻧﺘﺼﺎﺭ ﺍﻧﺘﺼﺮﻩ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﺺ ﺍﻟﺒﻄﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺷﺎﺭﻛﻨﺎ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻨﺎ ﻭﻣﻮﺗﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺘﻘﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳔﺸﺎﻩ‪ ،‬ﻛﻠﻤﺎ ﻧﻈﺮﻧﺎ‬
‫ﳌﻮﺕ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺣﺒﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺷﻜﻜﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﺣﺐ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﻬﺒﻨﺎ ﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻭﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻭﺱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﳌﺤﻴﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻄﺒﻊ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺣﻘﻘﻪ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﰲ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺘﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻬﺒﻨﺎ ﻣﻞﺀ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺼﻌﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺗﻔﻬﻤﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻧﻘﺮﺃ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ‪ :‬ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ!‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﻞ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﳓﻦ ﰲ ﺷﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻄﺶ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻪ ﺑﺎﷲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺒﻞ ﻣﺼﲑًﺍ‬
‫ﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺘﻨﺎ ﷲ ﰲ ﻣﻞﺀ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ﻭﺣﺒﻪ ﻭﺣﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﻭﺧﻠﻮﺩﻩ؟!‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻃﻤﺎﻉ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ!! ﻟﻘﺪ ﺧﻠﻘﻨﺎ ﺍﷲ ﺑﻌﻄﺶ ﳓﻮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻧﺮﺿﻲ ﻣﲑﺍﺛًﺎ ﺃﺑﺪﻳّﺎ‬

‫‪٣٠٤‬‬
‫ﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺣﻀﻦ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﺍﻩ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻻ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺻﺮﻧﺎ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺒﻬﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻮﻳﻦ‪.‬‬
‫ﲰﻲ ﺍﷲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ » ﺃﺑًﺎ « ؛ ﳌﺎﺫﺍ؟ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻷﺏ )ﺃﻭ ﺍﻷﻡ( ﻳﻬﺪﻱ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﺑﻼ ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺑُﺨﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻼ ﺃﻱ ﲢﻔﻆ ﻷﺑﻨﺎﺋﻪ‪ .‬ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﲪﻞ ﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺃﰊ ﻭﺃﻣﻲ ﺑﻜﺎﻣﻠﻬﺎ ﰲ ﳊﻤﻲ ﻭﺩﻣﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﳓﻦ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺷﻬﻮﺓ ﻗﻠﺒﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ‪ :‬ﺷﺮﻛﺎﺀ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ!!! ﻫﺬﻩ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ‬
‫ﻫﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺗﺸﺒﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﳎﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﳎﺎﺯﻳﺔ!!‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﺟﻬﻨﻢ ﺃﻣﺮ ﳐﻴﻒ‪ :‬ﺍﳊﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ُﺧﻠﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻴﺴﻌﺪ ﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﷲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﰲ ﻗﻠﱯ ﻭﺃﻧﺎ ﰲ ﺣﻀﻨﻪ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪.‬‬
‫•••‬

‫‪٣٠٥‬‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎ ﰲ ﺭﺣﻠﺔ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ﻭﺗﻨﺴﻤﻨﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﺍﳌﺒﲏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﻭﺡ‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻋﱪﻧﺎ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻟﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﻋﻤﻮﺩ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻭﻗﺎﻋﺪﺗﻪ )‪١‬ﰐ ‪ .(١٥ :٣‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻭﺿﻮﺡ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺗﻠﺨﻴﺼﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ‪ » :‬ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻛﺄﺏ ﺑﺄﺑﻨﺎﺋﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ«‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺳﻨﺮﻱ ﰲ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ‪ :‬ﺗﺮﺗﻠﻴﺎﻧﻮﺱ )ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ‪ ،(٢‬ﻭﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ‪ (٥‬ﻭﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ )ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ‪ (١١‬ﻭﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﻛﻮﻳﲏ )ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ‪ (١٣‬ﰒ ﺃﺧﲑًﺍ ﺃﻗﻄﺎﺏ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﱴ‪ :‬ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻭﻛﺎﻟﭭﻦ )ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ‪ ،(١٦‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‬
‫ﳝﺜﻞ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﺇﺧﺘﻼﻓًﺎ ﺟﺬﺭﻳًﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ‪ -‬ﻭﻟﻸﺳﻒ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‪ .‬ﻗﺪ ﻏﺰﺕ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻴﻢ ﻛﻨﻴﺴﺘﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺳﻨﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺳﻨﺬﻛﺮﻫﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺗﻠﺨﻴﺼﻪ ﰲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ )ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﻟﻮﺻﻒ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻰ( ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﳛﻜﻲ ﻟﻨﺎ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻛﺈﻣﱪﺍﻃﻮﺭ ﻭﻗﺎﺿﻲ ﺻﺎﺭﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺑﺮﻋﺎﻳﺎ ﻛﻠﻬﻢ ﺯﺍﻏﻮﺍ ﻭﺃﺧﻄﺄﻭﺍ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﺛﺎﺭﻭﺍ ﻧﻘﻤﺘﻪ ﻭﻏﻀﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻫﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ ﻛﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﱂ ﳛﺘﺮﻣﻮﻩ؛ ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ‬
‫ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺭﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ )ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ( ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻛﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺣﺘﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻻ‬
‫ﺇﻫﺘﺰ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﻭﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﻹﻣﱪﺍﻃﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ!!!«‬
‫ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﲔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺘﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺍﻡ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ‬

‫‪٣٠٦‬‬
‫ﺳﺒﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﺗﺘﻀﺢ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﻫﺪﻑ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻛﻠﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﰒ ﻳﺘﻠﻮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﳕﺎﺫﺝ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﻗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﻟﻴﺘﻀﺢ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎ‬
‫)ﺃﻭ ﺍﳋﻼﻑ( ﻣﻊ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﺧﲑًﺍ ﺳﻨﺪﺭﺱ ً‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﺪﻭﻥ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‬
‫ﺁﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﲔ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻣﻊ ﺇﺑﺪﺍﺀ ﺃﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺔ‪.‬‬

‫)‪ (١‬ﺗﺮﺗﻠﻴﺎﻧﻮﺱ )‪٢٤٠ -١٦٠‬ﻡ( ‪:‬‬

‫ﰲ ﲝﺚ ﺷﻴﻖ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﻠﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻛﺘﺒﻪ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻲ ﺟﱪﻳﺎﻝ ﺩﺍﱄ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻳﺮﻟﻨﺪﻱ )‪ (١٩٨٩‬ﺑﺪﺃ ﺳﺮﺩ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﲔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ ‪:‬‬
‫)‪(G. Daly, Creation & Redemption - Pub. Michael Glazier, p. 187‬‬

‫» ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺗﺮﺗﻠﻴﺎﻧﻮﺱ ‪ » :‬ﻛﻞ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﻻﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ ﳏﻮﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻔﻮ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪،‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻔﻮ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﺄﺩﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻛﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﻺﺩﺍﻧﺔ«‪» .‬ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻻﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﺮﺿﻲ ﺍﷲ ‪.« Satisfy God‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺗﺮﺗﻠﻴﺎﻧﻮﺱ ﳏﺎﻣﻴًﺎ )ﺭﺟﻞ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ( ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺩﺧﻞ ﺍﻷﻟﻔﺎﻅ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺜﻞ »ﺇﺳﺘﺤﻘﺎﻗﺎﺕ« ﻭ » ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ« ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﰲ ﳎﺎﻝ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻕ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﳋﻼﺹ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻌﻄﻰ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ٌ‬ ‫ﻗﺎﺳﻰ‬
‫ﻗﺎﺿﻰ ٌ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻭﺭﺙ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧﻪ ٌ‬
‫ﻣﺆﺧﺮﺍ ﻭﺧﺮﺝ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺛﻞ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺗﻄﻮﺭﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﺑﻘﻠﻢ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺃﺳﻘﻒ ﻛﺎﻧﺘﺮﺑﺮﻯ«‪.‬‬

‫)‪ (٢‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻭﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ )‪٤٣٠ -٣٥٤‬ﻡ( ‪:‬‬

‫ﺃﺭﺟﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻻ ﻳﺴﻰﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‬
‫»ﺇﻗﺘﺒﺎﺳﺎ« ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻧﻘ ًﺪﺍ ﻟﻘﺪﺍﺳﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﺫﻛﺮﻫﺎ‬
‫‪٣٠٧‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﺘﺸﻔﻊ ﺑﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺳﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ‪ .‬ﻭﱂ ﳚﺪ ﺍﻹﳒﻴﻠﻴﲔ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻏﻀﺎﺿﺔ ﰲ ﺇﻧﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺑﻄﺮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻣﻦ ﳏﺎﻛﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ‬
‫ﻭﺑﻄﺮﺱ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻭﺟﺪ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺑﻄﺮﺱ ﻛﺎﻥ »ﻣﻠﻮ ًﻣﺎ« )ﻏﻼﻃﻴﺔ ‪ (١١ :٢‬ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻠﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺪﺍﺳﺔ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻨﻬﻤﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﺩﺍﻭﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﱯ ﱂ ﲤﻨﻊ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﺸﺖ ﻗﻠﺐ‬
‫ﺩﺍﻭﻭﺩ ﻓﻮﺟﺪﺗﻪ »ﺣﺴﺐ ﻗﻠﱮ« )‪١‬ﺻﻢ ‪.(١٤ :١٣‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﺍﻓﻊ ﺍﳊﻔﺎﻅ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﻖ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺇﻣﺘﻬﺎﻥ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻪ ﳓﻮﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺃﻱ ﺇﻧﻘﺎﺹ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺘﻪ ﻭﻗﺪﺍﺳﺘﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺇﺣﺘﻔﺎﻅ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺑﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺑﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻱ ﺷﺨﺺ‬
‫ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺪﺍﺳﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﺃﻥ ﺭﺅﻳـﺔ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﻪ ﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﺍﻹﳒﻴﻞ ﻭﺗﻔﺴﲑﻩ ﻳﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﺑﻼ ﺷﻚ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﻴﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﺪ ﰲ‬
‫ﻋﻈﻴﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻘﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﻴﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻓًﺎ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﱐ ﺑﺪﺭﺍﺳﺘﻪ ﻟﺸﻴﺸﺮﻭﻥ ‪ ، Cicero‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻓﻜﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﺫﻛﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺗﻮﺑﺘﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﳌﺆﺛﺮﺓ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻈﺮﺗﻪ ﻭﺗﻔﺴﲑﻩ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻈﺮﺗﻪ ﻟﻠﺪﺍﻓﻊ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺗﺄﺛﺮﺕ ﻛﺜ ًﲑﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳌﺎﻧﻮﻱ‬
‫‪ ، Manichaeism‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻋﺎﺷﺮ ﺍﳌﺎﻧﻮﻳﲔ ﳌﺪﺓ ﻋﺸﺮ ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﻗﺒﻞ‬
‫ﲨﻴﻌﺎ!!‬
‫ﺗﻮﺑﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﲑﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﺤﺪﺍﻧﺎ ً‬
‫ﻭﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺗﺸﺎﺩﻭﻳﻚ )ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﲜﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻛﺎﻣﱪﻳﺪﭺ( ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ‬
‫» ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ « ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻭﻟﺪ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺑﺸﻤﺎﻝ ﺃﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ )ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﺗﻮﻧﺲ ﻭﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‬
‫ﺗﺘﺒﻊ ﺍﻹﻣﱪﺍﻃﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻛﺄ‪‬ﺎ ﺟﺰﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻭﺭﺑﺎ( ﻭﻋﺎﺵ ﺍﻟـ ‪ ٣٤‬ﻋﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﺃﺳﻘ ًﻔﺎ ﳌﺪﻳﻨﺔ ‪ Hippo‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻣﻴﻨﺎﺀ ﻋﻨﺎﺑﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ ‪ Hippo‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﺘﻠﻚ ﻛﺘﺒًﺎ!!! ﻭﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻏﺰﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺒﻘﺖ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺗﻔﻮﻕ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﻣﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﱂ ﻳﺆﺛﺮ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﺮﻳﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺣﺪﺙ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﺪﻩ )ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻭﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﻭﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ‪...‬ﺇﱁ!! (‬

‫‪٣٠٨‬‬
‫‪Original‬‬ ‫ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻭﻝ ّﻣ ْﻦ ﻋﻠّﻢ ﻟﻔﻈﺔ » ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ «‬
‫‪ !!Sin‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺇﺧﺘﻠﻔﺖ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺟﺬﺭﻳﺔ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪...‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺃﺷﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﱠﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﲔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻷﻓﻼﻃﻮﱐ‬
‫‪ ... Platonism‬ﻭﻓﻜﺮ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ ‪. Aristotle‬‬
‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﳛﻤﻞ ﰲ ﺟﻴﺒﻪ ﻧﺴﺨﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﻛﻮﻳﲏ‪ ،‬ﭘﻴﺘﺮﺍﺭﻙ )ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ً‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ‪ -‬ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺮﺍﻓﺎﺕ( ﻟﻮﺛﺮ‪ ،‬ﭘﺎﺳﻜﺎﻝ ﻭﻛﻴﲑ ﻛﺠﺎﺭﺩ )ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩﻯ( ﻛﻠﻬﻢ ﻳﻘﻔﻮﻥ ﰲ ﻇﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻼﻕ ﺍﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‪ ...‬ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﺍﳌﻠﺤﺪ( ﻭﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ )ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻰ(‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻗﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻃﻦ ‪ sub-conscious‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺳﻴﺠﻤﻮﻧﺪ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ!!!‪ ...‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻷﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺃﺛﺮﻩ ﰲ ﺗﻘ ّﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ« )‪(3-p. 1‬‬

‫» ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﺮﰊ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﺎﺕ ﺷﻴﺸﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﱏ«‬

‫)‪.(10-p. 9‬‬
‫» ﻭﳌﺪﺓ ﻋﺸﺮ ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﺇﺭﺗﺒﻂ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺑﺎﳌﺎﻧﻮﻳﲔ )ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺆﻣﻨﻮﻥ ﺑﺄﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻫﻢ ﺷﺮ ﰲ ﺷﺮ ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺇﺻﻼﺣﻬﻢ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻳﻮﺭﺙ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﳌﻨﻮﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺏ ﻷﺑﻨﺎﺋﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻱ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻪ ﺷﺮﻳﺮ‪ ،‬ﲞﻼﻑ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﳋﲑ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﺍﻷﺭﻭﺍﺡ ﻭﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ(‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‬ ‫ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﰲ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﻗﺮﻃﺎﭼﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺭﻭﻣﺎ ً‬
‫ﻣﻌﻠ ًّﻤﺎ ﻭﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻓًﺎ ﻣﺎﻧﻮﻳًﺎ!!« )‪.(p. 14‬‬
‫» ﻭﻗﺪ ﻋﺎﺵ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻣﺘﻘﺸﻔﺔ ﺯﺍﻫﺪﺓ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﻮﺑﺘﻪ )ﻋﻠﻰ ﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ‬
‫ﺃﻣﱪﻭﺳﻴﻮﺱ( ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻻ ﳛﺘﻔﻞ ﺑﻌﻴﺪ ﻣﻴﻼﺩﻩ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ‪ :‬ﳜﺠﻞ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ﰲ ﺟﺴﺪ ﻣﺎﺩﻯ!!« )‪.(p. 17‬‬
‫» ﻭﻗﺪ ﺩﺭﺱ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻭﺍﳍﻨﺪﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺳﻴﻘﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺿﺔ‬
‫‪.‬‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻠﻚ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ« )‪(p. 33‬‬

‫» ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺃﻭﻻً ﻣﺘﺮﺩ ًﺩﺍ ﰲ ﺇﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﲝﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ )ﻭﻫﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﺴﻴّﺮ ﺃﻡ ﳐﻴّﺮ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻞ ﺧﻠﻘﻨﺎ ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻗﻞ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ‬

‫‪٣٠٩‬‬
‫ﻟﻜﻲ ﻧﻨﻤﻮ ﻭﻧﺘﻘﺪﻡ‪ ...‬ﺃﻡ ﺃﻥ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ‬
‫ﻣﺆﺧﺮﺍ‬
‫ﺳﻘﻮﻁ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧﺰﳍﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺧﻄﻴﺌﺔ ﺁﺩﻡ ﻭﺣﻮﺍﺀ ﺍﻷﻭﱄ‪...‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ً‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﳝﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺇﳍﻴﺔ« )‪.(40-p. 39‬‬
‫ﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻹﳒﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻳﺔ ﻭﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ً‬ ‫» ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺆﻣﻨﲔ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﺮﻳﻦ ﻳﻘﺮﺃﻭﻥ ﻭﻳﻔﺴﺮﻭﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺃﻛﻮﺍ ًﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺄﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻣﻮﺭ ﺣﺮﻓﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻴﺔ!!« )‪.(p. 47‬‬
‫»ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻓﻘﺮﺍﺕ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﻷﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺗﺼﻒ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺟﺮﺃﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ »ﺗﺄﻟﻪ«‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻣﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺗﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﻟﻶﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻼﺗﲔ )‪Greek‬‬
‫‪ (& not Latin‬ﻭ ﻗﺪ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺑﺪﻗﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﻨﻴﻪ ﺑﻘﻮﻟﻪ ‪ :‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﺃﻣﺮ ﳐﺘﻠﻒ‪ :‬ﺃﻥ‬
‫ً‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺎ ﰲ ﺍﷲ ‪....‬‬ ‫ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫‪“It is one thing to be God, another to participate in God ..‬‬
‫)‪(p. 54‬‬

‫» ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﻋﻤﻮ ًﻣﺎ ﱂ ﻳﺄﺧﺬﻭﺍ ﲟﺄﺧﺬ ﺍﳉﺪﻳّﺔ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﻲ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ‬
‫)ﺃﻱ ﺣﺮﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﻠﻖ ﰲ ﺳﺘﺔ ﺃﻳﺎﻡ(‪ .‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻢ‪ .‬ﱂ ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻵﻥ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻮﺟﻮ ًﺩﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ‪ .‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺆﻣﻦ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻗــﺪ ﺧﻠــﻖ » ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻴﺔ ‪ « Seminal principles‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﺴﺒﺒﺎﺕ » ‪« Causal reasons‬‬
‫ﻣﺆﺧﺮﺍ‪...‬‬
‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺷﻰﺀ ﳑﺎ ﻇﻬﺮ ً‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻟﻠﻤﺮﺃﺓ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻹﳒﺎﺏ!! ﻭﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻝ‪ » :‬ﻟﻮ ﺃﻥ ﺁﺩﻡ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺇﺣﺘﺎﺝ ﳌﻌﲔ ﻧﻈﲑﻩ ﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﺣﻮﺍﺭ ﺫﻛﻲ ﻭﺻﺪﺍﻗﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﻜﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻟﻪ ﺭﺟ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﺁﺧﺮﺍ ]!!![‪ ،‬ﻭﲟﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺣﻮﺍﺀ ﻻﺑﺪ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﳍﺪﻑ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﺎﺳﻞ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻟﻠﺤﻔﺎﻅ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ« )‪.(p. 89‬‬
‫» ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻳﺆﻣﻦ ﺑﻮﺭﺍﺛﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺟﻬﺔ ﻧﻈﺮﻩ ﻭﺣﺪﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺭﺍﺛﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻴﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳉﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺇﻗﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ‬
‫ﺃﻗﺤﻢ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﰲ ﻋﺎﺻﻔﺔ )ﻛﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻏﲏ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ!!(‪...‬‬

‫‪٣١٠‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻫﺎﲨﻪ ﻳﻮﻟﻴﺎﻧﻮﺱ )ﺃﺣﺪ ﺧﺼﻮﻣﻪ( ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺭﺍﺛﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺑﻨﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻜﺮﺍ ﻣﺎﻧﻮﻳًﺎ ﻻ ﻏﺶ ﻓﻴﻪ!! ﻭﻻﺑﺪ ﺃﻧﻪ‬
‫ﻟﻴﻮﻟﻴﺎﻧﻮﺱ‪،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﳝﺜﻞ ً‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺗﺄﺛﺮ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺑﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻣﺎﱐ ‪. (p. 111-112) « Mani‬‬
‫» ﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ‪ » :‬ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺗﻄﻴﺢ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻘﻞ« ‪ ...‬ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‬
‫ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﲝﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻛﺴﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﻬﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﱯ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻭﺻﻒ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻏﲑ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻵﺩﻡ ﻭﺣﻮﺍﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ‪ :‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻫﺎﺩﺋﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﲢﺖ ﺗﺼﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﻛﻤﺎ ﳓﺮﻙ ﺃﻳﺪﻳﻨﺎ ﻭﺃﺭﺟﻠﻨﺎ« )‪. (p. 112‬‬
‫» ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﺍﻷﻓﻼﻃﻮﱐ )ﻭﺍﳌﺎﻧﻮﻱ( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺟﻌﻠﻪ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺇﻟﻐﺎﺀ ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻲ ﺇﻥ ﺃﻣﻜﻦ «‬
‫)‪. (p. 115‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻟﻠﻘﺲ ﺍﻷﳒﻠﻴﻜﺎﱐ ﭬﲑﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻛﺎﻣﱪﻳﺪﭺ‬‫ﱠ‬ ‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺃُﻗ ّﺪﻡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻗﺘﺒﺎﺱ ﺍﳍﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺤ ّﺪﺙ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺷﺒﻴﻬﺔ ﲝﺪﻳﺚ‬
‫ﺷﺎﺭﺣﺎ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﱐ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺄﺛﺮﺍ ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺛﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﺀﻭﺍ‬
‫ﺗﺮﺗﻠﻴﺎﻧﻮﺱ‪ً ،‬‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪﻫﻢ ﰲ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺎﳋﺎﻃﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺽ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﻄﺒﻴﺐ ﻭﺃﺏ ﺣﻨﻮﻥ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﺝ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻓﺎﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ‬
‫ﲢﻮﻟﺖ ﺇﱃ ﺟﺮﳝﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﺇﱃ ﳎﺮﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺇﱃ ﺳﺎﺣﺔ ﻗﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻳُﺴﺪﺩ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺓ ﲦﻦ ﺟﺮﳝﺘﻬﻢ ﻋﻘﺎﺑًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﻮﻓﻮﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻳﻮﻥ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﻟﻠﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﺍﳌﻬﺎﻥ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‪ :‬ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﺒﻌﻬﺎ ﺗﻌﺎﺳﺔ ﻭﻋﺬﺍﺏ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺣﺎﻝ‪ ...‬ﻏﲑ ﺷﺮﻳﻒ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﺪﻻً‪ ...‬ﺇﻥ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻗﻄﻌﺎ ﲡﱪ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻴﺴﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺮﺽ ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﺴﺘﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺇﺗﺰﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ .‬ﺍ‪‬ﺎ ً‬
‫‪ dishonourable‬ﺑﺄﻥ ﺗﻨﺴﺠﻢ ﻣﻊ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻭﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪honour of ،‬‬
‫‪ the Universe‬ﺣﱴ ﺗﺘﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻞ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺗﺴﺒﺒﺖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ«‬
‫)‪(V. White, Atonement and Incarnation, p. 94‬‬

‫‪٣١١‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻼﺣﻆ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺇﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﻻ ﺗﺘﻔﻖ ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻠّﻤﻨﺎ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﺭﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮ ﻋﻦ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻓﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﻭﺣﻔﻆ ﻛﻞ ﻓﺮﺍﺋﻀﻲ )ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺱ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺐ( ﻭ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺣﻘًﺎ ﻭﻋﺪﻻً )ﺑﺴﲑﻩ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺑﺪﻻً ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ( ﳛﻴﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﳝﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻛﻞ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻓﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﻻ ﺗﺬﻛﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﰲ ﺑﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﻤﻞ ﳛﻴﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﻞ ﻣﺴﺮﺓ ﺃﺳﺮ ﲟﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮ؟ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻻ ﺑﺮﺟﻮﻋﻪ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻗﻪ‬
‫ﻓﻴﺤﻴﺎ؟« )ﺣﺰﻗﻴﺎﻝ ‪.(٢٣ -٢١ :١٨‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻻ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﺪﻓﻪ ﺭﺟﻮﻉ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﱵ ﺭﺟﻊ‬‫ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﱠ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻳﺸﻔﻴﻪ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻗﺪ ﺷﺮﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﻭﻧﺪﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ّ‬
‫ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ‪ ...‬ﺍﷲ ﻃﺒﻴﺐ ﻭﺃﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﻌﺸﻤﺎﻭﻱ ﻳﺘﺮﻗﺐ ﻭﻳﺘﺼﻴﺪ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻗﺺ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ »ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻭﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ« ‪ The Bible and the Holy Fathers‬ﻭﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻋﻈﺎﺕ ﻟﻶﺑﺎﺀ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺳﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺘﻮﺭﺟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻫﺎﻡ ﻟﻠﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‬
‫ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻓﻜﺮﻩ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻫﻞ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻏﺎﺿﺒًﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺭﺃﻱ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺇﺳـﺘﺮﺍﺡ ﻭﺭﺿـﻲ ‪ appeased‬؟‬
‫ﻭﻫﻞ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻵﺏ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻄﻴﻨﺎ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﻧﻘﻤﺔ ﻭﻏﻀﺐ‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺭﺿﻲ ﻭﺇﺳﺘﺮﺍﺡ؟‪...‬‬
‫ﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻻﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻬﺮ‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ّﻗﺮﺭ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﻘﺬ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﺓ‪...‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺇﱃ ﺁﻻﻣﻪ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺴ ّﺪﺩ ﻋﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﺍﳌﺪﻳﻮﻧﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﺪﻥ‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺩﺧﻞ ﱡ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﻫﻮ ‪...‬‬
‫ﻫﻞ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺃﻋﻈﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺬﻫﺐ ﺣﱴ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻷﺟﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ؟«‬
‫)‪(From The Bible and the Holy Fathers, p. 903‬‬

‫‪٣١٢‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻈﺔ ﺗﺒﺪﻭ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﻱ ﺍﷲ ﻛﺈﻟﻪ ﻏﻀﻮﺏ ﻣﻨﺘﻘﻢ »ﳛﺘﺎﺝ« ﺇﱃ ﺭﺍﺣﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺇﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻬﺒﻨﺎ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻗﻞ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻐﻔﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ!! ﻭﻳﻈﻬﺮ ً‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻥ »ﺍﻟ ّﺪﻳﻦ« ﻫﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﳎﺎﺯﻳﺔ »ﻛ ّﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ«‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻫﻮ ّﺩﻳﻦ ﻣﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﳊﺮﰲ ﻳﺴﺪﺩ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ ...‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺳﺘﺰﺩﺍﺩ ﺣﺪﺓ ﻛﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﻘ ّﺪﻣﻨﺎ ﳓﻮ ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ »ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ« ﻭ »ﺍﻟ ّﺪﻳﻦ« ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻗﺴﻲ؛ ﻷﻥ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻳﺘﺤ ّﺪﺙ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺑﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺎﺅﻝ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻛﻴﺪ‪ً .‬‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﻗﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻋﺪﻧﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺰﻳﱰﻱ‬
‫ﳒﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻌﻄﻲ ﻟﻠﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﺃﻱ ﺣﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺤﺎﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻌﻪ ﺇﻻّ ّ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﺓ‪ .‬ﻓﺄﻱ ﻋﺪﻝ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﻭ ﻭﻳﻘﻴ ّﺪﻩ ّ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﻪ ﺍﳌﺨﻠّﺺ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ؟!‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻗﺎﺳﻴًﺎ ﰲ ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﳚﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ً‬
‫ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﺁﺭﺍﺀ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳋﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﺧﺬﻫﺎ ﻭﺷﻜﻠ ّﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﺀﻭﺍ ﺑﻌﺪﻩ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻗﺴﻲ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻋﺪ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ‪ ١١‬ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ‪.‬‬

‫)‪ (٣‬ﺃﻧﺴـﻠﻢ ‪ -‬ﺃﺳﻘﻒ ﻛﺎﻧﺘﺮﺑﺮﻱ ‪) Anselm‬ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﺸﺮ(‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻷﻧﺴﻠﻢ «‬ ‫ﻭﻳُ َ‬
‫ﻌﺮﻑ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﺳﻢ » ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ّ‬
‫)‪(The Satisfaction Theory of Anselm‬‬

‫ﻭﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﺧﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻟﻪ ﺃﻗﺪﻡ ﻣﻘﻄﺘﻔﺎﺕ ﳑﺎ ﻛﺘﺒﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ‪ L.W. GRENSTED‬ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ‬

‫ﺍﻷﳒﻠﻴﻜﺎﱐ ﻭﻛﺎﺗﺐ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺎﻧﺸﺴﺘﺮ ‪ -‬ﺍﳒﻠﺘﺮﺍ‪ .‬ﻭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﲡﻤﻴﻊ ﺭﺍﺋﻊ ﻵﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‬
‫ﻭﺣﱴ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ!! ﻭﻗﺪ ﻃﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ١٩٢٠‬ﻭﺃﻋﻴﺪﺕ ﻃﺒﺎﻋﺘﻪ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﺮﺍﺕ‪:‬‬
‫‪L.W. GRENSTED, A SHORT HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE‬‬
‫‪OF THE ATONEMENT , 1920.‬‬

‫‪٣١٣‬‬
 ‫» ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﺮﻳﻦ ﺛﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺃﻳﺎﻣﻪ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺭﺟ ًﻼ ً‬
‫ﻗﺪﻳﺴﺎ ﻭﻳﻬﺘﻢ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ‬
‫ﲟﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻋﺎﱐ ﻛﺜﲑًﺍ ﻟﺪﻓﺎﻋﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺑﺎﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﻣﺎ ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻨﺪﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻛﺎﺗﺐ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺛﺮ ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺑﻜﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺼﻐﲑ‬
‫?‪ » ، Cur Deus Homo‬ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﷲ «؟ ‪(p. 120) ....‬‬

‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻭﺻﻒ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻭ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ )ﺃﺣﺪ ﺑﺎﺑﺎﻭﺍﺕ ﺭﻭﻣﺎ( ﺍﷲ‬

‫ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﻔﺬ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻬﻢ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‬
‫ﺇﻇﻬﺎﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﺎﺩﻻً ﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ!‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ )ﺑﺎﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺰﻳﱰﻱ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻰ(‬
‫ﻓﻜﺎﻥ ﻳﻬﺘﻢ ﺑﺎﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻠﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻥ ﺟﺮﳝﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪(121-p. 120) ...‬‬

‫ﻭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﱐ ﺃﻳﺎﻡ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ‬

‫‪ satisfaction‬ﻛﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻟﻠﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ )ﻛﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺴﻤﻴﻪ ﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻑ( ﰲ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﳉﺮﺍﺋﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺈﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ‪ ...‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺗﺮﺗﻠﻴﺎﻧﻮﺱ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺭﺃﻱ ﳑﺎﺛﻞ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺎﺿﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻛﻠﻪ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺮﺗﻜﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺗﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﷲ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻟﻌﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ‬
‫ﺷﻔﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ...‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺇﺳﺘﺨﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻟﻴﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ‪(p. 122) ...‬‬

‫ﻭﺑﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﻗﻄﺎﻉ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﻄﺎﻋﻴﲔ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻰ‪ ،‬ﻇﻬﺮﺕ‬

‫ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﺎﺕ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﱐ )ﺍﻹﻗﻄﺎﻉ = ‪ ( Feudalism‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﺃﻱ ﺟﺮﳝﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺟﺮﳝﺔ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻣﻮﺟﻬﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺍﻻﻗﻄﺎﻋﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﲢﺘﺮﻡ‪ .‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺇﺭﺗﺒﻄﺖ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ّ‬
‫ﺑﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻻﻗﻄﺎﻋﻴﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻤﺎﺀ ‪ -‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳉﺮﳝﺔ ﺗﻘﺎﺱ ﲟﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻫﲔ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻋﺘﺪﻱ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﲝﺠﻢ ﺍﳉﺮﳝﺔ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ!!‬
‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ‬
‫ﻭﳓﻦ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻛﺎﻥ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺤﻴﻄﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻔﺴﺮ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﻣﻦ ﳎﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﺭﺟﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺸﺮﺡ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺒﺴﻴﻂ ﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺐ‪.‬‬

‫‪٣١٤‬‬
‫ﻓﺒﺪﺃ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺑﺪﻭﺭﻩ ﻳﻘﻴﻢ ﻭﻳﺼﻒ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﻹﻗﻄﺎﻋﻴﲔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ )ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﻣﺜﻼً(‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺸﻐﻞ ﺑﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻫﻮ ﺣﻔﻆ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻤﺔ ﺑﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﳉﺬﻭﺭ ﺃﻳﺎﻡ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ« )‪.(p. 123‬‬

‫ﻭﻫﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ‪:‬‬

‫» ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺇﻻ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﺴﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻘﺎﺕ ﷲ « !!‬
‫» ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻘ ّﺪﻡ ﷲ ﻣﺎ ﳜﺼﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻘﺎﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻬﲔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ«!!!‬
‫» ﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﺎﻓﻴًﺎ ﺭ ّﺩ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺧﺬ )ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ( ﻭ ﻟﻜﻦ ﳚﺐ ﺗﺴﺪﻳﺪ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫ﳑﺎ ﺃﺧﺬ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﻋﻦ ﺧﺴﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﺫﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺣﺪﺙ‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﺻﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧﴼ ﺁﺧﺮﴽ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻔﻲ ﺷﻔﺎﺀ ﺍﻷﺫﻱ ﺑﻞ ﳚﺐ ﺩﻓﻊ ﺗﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺭﺩ‬
‫ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﺪﻱ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻜﻔﻲ ﻹﺳﺘﻌﺎﺩﺓ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻑ ﺍﳌُﻬﺎﻥ ﺇﻻّ ﺩﻓﻊ ﻭﺗﺴﺪﻳﺪ ﺷﺊ ﻣﺎ ﻳَ ُﺴ ﱞﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻫﻴﻨﺖ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺘﻪ‪...‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳚﺐ ﺗﺴﺪﻳﺪﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﳓﻮ ﺍﷲ«‬
‫» ﺃﻥ ﺗُﻐﻔﺮ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺑﺒﺴﺎﻃﺔ ﺃﻻّ ﺗﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﲟﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻻ‬
‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﺇﺻﻼﺣﻬﺎ )ﻏﻔﺮﺍ‪‬ﺎ( ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺗﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻭﻻ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻼﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﺗﺴﺘﻘﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ« )‪.(p.131‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﻣﻨﻈﻢ ﻭﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻋﺎﺩﻻً ﺟ ًﺪﺍ!! ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻻ ﳝﺖ‬
‫ﺑﺄﻱ ﺻﻠﺔ ﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻟﺘﻌﺮﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﻟﻠﺨﻄﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﲔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺼﻴﺐ‬
‫ﻭ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﻧﺘﺎﺋﺠﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻣﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻱ »ﺟﺮﳝﺔ« ّ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﲡﺪﻳﻒ! ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪﺓ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﻓﺴﺎﺩ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﻘﻮﻃﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﺎﱐ ﲢﺖ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﳍﻮﺍﻥ‪ ...‬ﻓﺸﺘﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﺗﻠﻚ‪ ...‬ﻟﻨﻜﻤﻞ‪:‬‬

‫‪٣١٥‬‬
‫» ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺷﺊ ﺃﺷﻨﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻭﳜﻄﻒ ﻣﺎ ﳜﺺ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻮﰲ ﺍﷲ ﺣﻘﻪ ﻭﻳﺴﺪﺩ ﻟﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺧﺬ‪ ...‬ﻓﺈﻣﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺪﺩ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺧﺬ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻣﺎ ﺗﻨﻔﺬ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻭﺇﻻ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻋﺎﺩ ًﻻ ﻟﺸﺨﺼﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻏﲑ ﻗﺎﺩﺭ ﺃﻥ ﳛﻔﻆ ﺣﻘﻮﻗﻪ ‪ -‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺷﻰﺀ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺗﺼﻮﺭﻩ« )‪(p.132‬‬

‫ﰒ ﻳﻜﻤﻞ ‪ُ Grensted‬ﻣﻠ ِ‬
‫َﺨ ًﺼﺎ ﺃﺟﺰﺍﺀ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺃﻧﺴــﻠﻢ »ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﲡﺴﺪ‬
‫ﺍﷲ « ﺑﻘﻮﻟﻪ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻭ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺧﻼﺹ ﻭﻟﻮ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺣﺠﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺭﺃﻱ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻻﺑﺪ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻮﺽ ﻋﺪﺩ ﺍﳌﻼﺋﻜﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺳﻘﻄﻮﺍ‬
‫)ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ( ﺑﻌﺪﺩ ﳑﺎﺛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ]ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺲ ﳍﺎ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‬
‫ﳋﻼﺹ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻛﻤﺠﺮﺩ ﺇﺭﺿﺎﺀ ﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﻜﻤﺎﻝ ﻃﻐﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻼﺋﻜﺔ ﻟﺘﺴﺒﻴﺤﻪ!![ ﻭﲟﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺪﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺤﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻟﻮ ﻋﻮﻗﺐ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻔﻲ ﻹﻳﻔﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻬﺎﻧﺔ ﺣﻘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻻﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻞ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺄﻱ ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﺧﺎﻃﺌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺟﺮﳝﺔ ﻣﻮﺟﻬﺔ ﺿﺪ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ‬
‫»ﻏﲑ ﳏﺪﻭﺩﺓ« ]ﻻﺣﻆ ﺑﺪﺀ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ‪-‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻹﻗﻄﺎﻋﻴﲔ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻡ ‪ -‬ﻟﻪ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻏﲑ ﳏﺪﻭﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺩﺧﻠﺖ ﺇﱃ ﻛﺘﺒﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻄﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻜﻞ ﺃﺳﻒ[‪ .‬ﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﺟﺮﳝﺔ ﺃﻛﱪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻱ ﻛﻤﻴﺔ ﻏﲑ ﳏﺪﻭﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻛﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻜﻞ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ!!! ﻷﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻫﺎﻥ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻮﺑﺔ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗَ ُﺮ َﺩ ﻫـﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻑ‬
‫ّ‬ ‫ﺇﻫﺎﻧﺔﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ‪ ...‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻀﺎﺋــﻊ‪(133-p.132) «.‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺑﻘﻮﻟﻪ ‪:‬‬

‫‪identical‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺜﻴ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻘًﺎ‬ ‫» ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ّ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺨﺎﻃﺊ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻨﺴﻪ« )‪(p. 135‬‬

‫‪٣١٦‬‬
‫» ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ‪‬ﺎ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﷲ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ )ﺍﳌﻬﺎﻧﺔ( ‪ ...‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺇﺫﻥ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘ ّﺪﻡ ﻫﺬﻩ ّ‬
‫ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ« )‪(p. 136‬‬

‫ﰒ ﳜﺘﻢ ‪ Grensted‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻣﺆﻛ ًﺪﺍ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻧﻘﺎﻁ ﻫﺎﻣﺔ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﻧﺴـﻠﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ?‪ Cur Deus Homo‬ﻳﻜﻔﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺮﻳﻨﺎ ﺍﳍﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻔﺼﻞ ﻓﻜﺮﻩ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺳﺒﻘﻮﻩ‬
‫‪ ...‬ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﺒﻖ ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ ﳑﺎ ﺳﺒﻖ ﻭﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪(p. 139) ......‬‬

‫ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺿﻌﻴﻔﺔ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﰲ ﻣﻮﻗﻔﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪] .‬ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﻤﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻣﻬﻤﻠﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ[‪ .‬ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻟﻠﺨﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺄ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺇﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻘﺎﺗﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺗﻘﺎﺭﻥ ﻣﻊ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ‪ ...‬ﺇﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ‬
‫ﳎﺮﺩ ﻗﻴﺎﺱ ﻛﻤﻴﺔ ﺗﺴﺪﺩ‬‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ّ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﻴﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ّ .‬‬
‫ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻛﻤﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ!!!‬
‫]ﻟﻴﻼﺣﻆ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﺇﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ[‬
‫ﻗﻄﻌﺎ ﳍﺎ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻭﺛﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﺓ ً‬
‫‪ ، Penance‬ﻟﻠﺘﻜﻔﲑ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺯﻭﺍﺋﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺴﲔ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺤﻘﺎﻗﺎ‪‬ﻢ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺭﺍ ﻫﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺁﻧﺬﺍﻙ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ‬
‫‪ ، merits‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻟﻌﺒﺖ ً‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺫﺍﺕ ﺃﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ّ‬
‫ﲤﺖ ﺑﺼﻠﺔ ﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﲡﺪﻳﺪﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ‬ ‫ﺃﺩﺭﻙ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻻ ّ‬
‫ﳌﺠﺮﺩ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻓﺔ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻫﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﲟﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ‪ّ -‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻜﺎﻓﺄﺓ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺇﻋﻄﺎﺀﻫﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﳌﺘﺄﱂ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻻ‬
‫ﺗﻀﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻏﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ!!!« )‪(p. 143‬‬

‫‪٣١٧‬‬
 ‫)‪ (٤‬ﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﻛﻮﻳﲏ )ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ‪: (١٣‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‪:‬‬
‫)‪(Grensted, A Short History of the Doctrine of the Atonement - 1920‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﻛﻮﻳﲏ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻨﻌﺰﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ‪:‬‬

‫» ﲟﺤﺒﺘﻪ ﻭﻃﺎﻋﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻗ ّﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﳌﺘﺄﱂ ﷲ ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻮﺏ ﻟﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻋﻦ ﺟﺮﳝﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪recompense to all the offence of mankind‬‬

‫ﺃﻭﻻ ﻟﻌﻈﻢ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﻌﻠﻪ ﻳﺘﺄﱂ‪ ،‬ﻭﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗ ّﺪﻣﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺗﺮﺿﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ‪ ...‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺁﻻﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﺑﻞ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ّ‬
‫ﻓﺎﺋﻀﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﺎﺟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ‪super abundant satisfaction‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺤﻘﺎﻗﻬﻢ ﻟﻠﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺁﻻﻣﻪ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺣﺮ ّﺭﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ(« )‪.(153-p. 152‬‬
‫)ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ّ‬
‫» ﺑﺘﺄﳌﻪ ﺣﻘﻖ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺘﻄ ّﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ‪ ...‬ﻭﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻭﺿﻌﺖ ﻟﺘﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﲝﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﳌﺘﻀﺮ ّﺭﻳﻦ‪ .‬ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺣﻘﻖ ﺑﺂﻻﻣﻪ ﻭﺗﺴﻤﲑﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ )ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ( ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻷﻧﻪ ﺃﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﺮﺓ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻌﺪﻳًﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺻﻴﺔ ﺍﷲ‪(p. 153) «.‬‬

‫ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻻ ﻳﻬﺘﻢ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﲟﺎ ﺗﻨﺘﺠﻪ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﻤﻴﺔ ﻣﻬﻤﻠﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ‪ .‬ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻬﻢ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ّﻟﺮﺩ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﺘﻀﺮﺭ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ !!...‬ﺃﱂ ﻳﻘﺮﺃ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‬
‫ّ‬ ‫ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﳌﻬﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ‬
‫ﻷﻳﻮﺏ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺇﻥ ﺃﺧﻄﺄﺕ ﻓﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﻓﻌﻠﺖ ﺑﻪ )ﺃﻱ ﺑﺎﷲ( ﻭ ﺇﻥ ﻛﺜﺮﺕ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﻴﻚ ﻓﻤﺎﺫﺍ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺭﺍ ﻓﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﺃﻋﻄﻴﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺪﻙ‪ .‬ﻟﺮﺟﻞ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﺖ ﻟﻪ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺖ ً‬
‫ﻣﺜﻠﻚ ﺷﺮﻙ ﻭﻹﺑﻦ ﺁﺩﻡ ﺑﺮﻙ« )ﺃﻳﻮﺏ ‪.(٨ -٦ :٣٥‬‬

‫‪٣١٨‬‬
‫ﻭﱂ ﻳﻘﺮﺃﻭﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺘﺒﻪ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﻳﻬﺰﻩ ﻭﻻ ﻳُﺠﺮﺑﻪ ﺷﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺠﺮﺏ‬
‫» ﻻ ﻳﻘﻞ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺟﺮﺏ ﺃﱐ ﺃﺟﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻏﲑ ُﻣ ﱠ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮﻭﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻻ ﳚﺮﺏ ﺃﺣ ًﺪﺍ« )ﻳﻊ ‪(١٧ -١٣ :١‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﻛﻮﻳﲏ ﺗﻌﺮﻳ ًﻔﺎ ﻟﻠﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﷲ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﳏﺘﺎﺟﺎ « ﻟﺸﻰﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻳُﻘ ﱠﺪﻡ ﻟﻪ ﻛﻤﺤﺘﺎﺝ!!‬
‫» ً‬
‫» ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻱ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻳُﻘ ﱢﺪﻡ ﷲ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻘﺎﺗﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺴﺘﺮﺿﻲ‬
‫ﺍﷲ‪(p. 154) «...‬‬

‫] ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻹﻣﱪﺍﻃﻮﺭ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺪﻛﺘﺎﺗﻮﺭ!![‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ّ‬
‫ﻭﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧًﺎ ّ‬
‫» ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺻﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻻّ ﻳﻐﻔﺮ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ«‬
‫)‪(p. 154‬‬

‫ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﻛﻮﻳﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻜﺮﻩ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺓ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻜﺮﻩ‬‫ً‬
‫ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻳﻌﻠّﻢ ﺃﻥ »ﺍﳌﺼﺎﳊﺔ«‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﳛﺐ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺓ‪ً .‬‬
‫ﺑﲔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻗﺪ ﺻﺎﱀ ﺍﷲ ‪ -‬ﲟﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﺘﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ ‪ -‬ﺑﺎﳌﺠﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺧﻄﺄ!! ﻣﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﱂ ﻳﻜﺮﻩ ﺧﻠﻴﻘﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺧﺎﻧﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭ »ﺯﻧﺖ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺁﳍﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺏ« )ﺧﺮ‬
‫‪ .(١٥ :٣٤‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺈﻥ »ﺍﳌﺼﺎﳊﺔ« ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺬﻛﺮﻫﺎ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻮﺩﺓ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻀﺎﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺑﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ!!‬
‫» ﺁﻻﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺻﺎﳊﺘﻨﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﲟﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺪﺃ ﳛﺒﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻷﻧﻪ ﺑﺂﻻﻡ‬
‫ﺗﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺃﺯﻳﻠﺖ ﺃﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻫﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﲟﺤﻮ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﺑﺘﺴﺪﻳﺪ ّ‬
‫)ﷲ(« ‪(p. 155) ...‬‬

‫‪offence of‬‬ ‫»ﻟﻘﺪ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺿﻰ ﺍﷲ ‪ appeased‬ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺟﺮﳝﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬

‫‪«man kind‬‬

‫‪٣١٩‬‬
 ‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ ﺇﲰﻪ ‪:Gerson‬‬
‫» ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﷲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺎﻗﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ ﻭﺁﺛﺎﻣﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ ﻛﺮﻳﻬﺔ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﻷ‪‬ﺎ ‪‬ﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﻧﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﷲ ﻳﺘﺄّﱂ )ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ( ﻟﻴﺴﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﺒﺔ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪(p. 169) «...‬‬

‫ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ ﻫﻮ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺸﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ‬

‫ﺍﳌﺼﺒﻮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻫﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺨﺎﻃﺊ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻫﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺨﻄﻴﺌﺔ‪ ...‬ﻟﲑﲪﻨﺎ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ!!‬

‫)‪ (٥‬ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛــﺮ ﻭ ﻛﺎﻟﭭــﻦ )ﻋﺼﺮ ﺍﻹﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﱴ( ‪:‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﻘﺪﻡ ‪ Grensted‬ﰲ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻭ ﺍﳌﺼﻠﺤﲔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ »ﺑﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﰉ« ‪: Penal Substitution‬‬
‫» ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻳﻬﻤﻨﺎ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺍﺿﻊ ﺍﻷﺳﺲ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺑﲏ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﱂ ﻳﻘ ّﺪﻡ ﻋﻤ ًﻼ ﻣﺘﻜﺎﻣ ًﻼ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻫﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﰲ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻘﻪ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺻﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﻟﻴﻔﺘﺪﻳﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ )ﻏﻼﻃﻴﺔ ‪.(١٣ :٣‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺘﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪ .‬ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻨﻌﺪﻡ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻛﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻟﻠﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ .‬ﲟﺎ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻭﲢﻤﻠﻬﺎ«‪(p. 199) .‬‬‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻳﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﻥ ﻻﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ّ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻘﺘﺒﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻏﻼﻃﻴﺔ ‪: ١٣ :٣‬‬
‫» ﻭﳌﺎ ﺃﻟﻘﻴﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻭﻗﺎﻝ‪ :‬ﻟﻴﻤﺖ ﻛﻞ ﺧﺎﻃﺊ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﲢﻤﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ّ ،‬‬
‫ﲢﻤﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﺃﺭﺩﺕ ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻛﻦ ﻣﺬﻧﺒًﺎ ّ‬
‫ﻭﲢﻤﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ‪...‬‬
‫ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺻﺐ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻛﻞ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ...‬ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﻟﻪ ‪ ..‬ﺇﺩﻓﻊ ّ‬

‫‪٣٢٠‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ‪ ...‬ﻓﻴﺄﰐ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ‪ ...‬ﻭﻳﻬﺠﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﻳﺬﲝﻪ‪.‬‬
‫‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺗَﻄ ّﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﰎ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﲑ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ‪«.‬‬
‫)‪(p. 199‬‬

‫» ﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻣﺬﻧﺒًﺎ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﺭﺗﻜﺒﻨﺎﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻧﺘﺤﺮﺭ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ« )‪(p. 200‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﻌﻠﻖ ‪ Grensted‬ﻣﻨﺘﻘ ًﺪﺍ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻗﺎﺋ ً‬

‫ﻼ‪:‬‬
‫ﻗﻄﻌﺎ ﻋﻤﻴﺎﺀ! ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ‬
‫» ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺼﻔﻬﺎ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻫﻲ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﰊ )ﺃﻭ ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﻰ( ‪ Penal Substitution‬ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ‬
‫ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺗﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺁﺧﺮ!! ﻛﻴﻒ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﲟﻌﺎﻗﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﱪﺉ ﻧﺼﻨﻊ ﻣﺴﺮﺓ ﺍﷲ!‬
‫ﺃﻡ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﺴﺘﺮﺿﻲ ﻋﻤ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺣﻘًﺎ ﻏﺎﺿﺒﺔ؟ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺗﻠﻘﻲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺟﺎﻧﺒًﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻛﻤﻴﺔ ﻣﻬﻤﻠﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺔ!!!« )‪(p. 201‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ] ﻣﻠﺤﻮﻇﺔ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﻮﻥ ﻳﺆﻣﻨﻮﻥ‬

‫ﺑﻮﺭﺍﺛﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﻤﻮﺩﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺗﱪﻳﺮﺍ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﲑﻭﻥ ﻟﻴﺴﻜﻦ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﺍﳌﺤﻴّﻲ ‪ -‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻷﺳﺮﺍﺭ ﺗﻌﻄﻲ ً‬
‫ﻣﻦ »ﺫﻧﺐ ﻣﻮﺭﻭﺙ« ‪ -‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰉ[ ّ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻘﺴﻢ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺭﻭﺙ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻓﻌﻠﻲ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻟﻘﺪ ﺗﺄﱂ )ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ( ﻭﺻﻠﺐ ﻭﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﻗُﱪ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺼﺎﱀ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ]![‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻧﺐ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ ‪) Original guilt‬ﺍﳌﻮﺭﻭﺙ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺁﺩﻡ ﻭﺣﻮﺍﺀ( ﻭﻷﺟﻞ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻴﺔ« )‪(p. 205‬‬

‫» ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺧﻄﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﻋﺎﺩﻝ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺷﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺃﺧ ًﲑﺍ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻏﻀﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀﻩ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﺑﻨﻪ َﻗﺒ َ‬
‫ِﻞ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﺪﻳ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺗﱰﻝ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ )ﺗﺼﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ( ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ « )‪(p. 206‬‬

‫ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺃﻥ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺋﻴﺔ‬

‫‪٣٢١‬‬
‫ﻟﻺﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺑﺘﺤﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﳌﺼﺒﻮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﺮﻳﺢ ﺍﻵﺏ‬
‫ﻭﻳﺴﺘﺮﺿﻰ!!! ﻛﻴﻒ‪ ،‬ﺃﺳﺄﻟﻚ ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ‪ ،‬ﺗﺸﻌﺮ ﰲ ﻗﻠﺒﻚ ﳓﻮ ﺇﻟﻪ ﻳﻈﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﱪﺉ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ‪،‬‬
‫ﻻ ﻟﺸﻰﺀ ﺳﻮﻱ ﻣﺼﻠﺤﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﺤﻀﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﺒﻪ ﻟﺬﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﻛﺮﺍﻣﺘﻪ ﻭﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ؟! ﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﻘﺮﺃ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻫﻴﺐ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﲔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺭﻓﻀﻮﺍ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﺫﻛﺮﻙ ﺑﻨﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺮﺃﺗﻪ ﻗﺒﻼً‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻛﺎﻟﻔﻦ ﻳﺘﺤ ّﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﺇﳝﺎﻧﻪ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﺴﻴّﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﰲ ﻫﻼﻙ َﻣﻦْ ﺳﻴﻬﻠﻜﻮﻥ!! ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺿﺪ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲡﻌﻞ ﺧﻼﺹ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺗﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﺃﻭﻻً ﻭﺃﺧﲑًﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻮﻝ ّ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺮ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺘﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻓﻜﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‪:‬‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻹﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ّ‬
‫» ﻻ ﻳﻘﺪﺭ ّﻣ ْﻦ ﻳﻈﻦ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺗﻘﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﻜﺮ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﺴﻴﱠﺮ‪ ،‬ﲟﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﳜﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﻟﺮﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ...‬ﻛﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﺴﻴﱠ ًﺮﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺻﺪﺭ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﻩ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻣﺸﻴﺌﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﻣﺼﲑ ﻛﻞ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﱂ ﳜﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﺘﺴﺎﻭﻳﲔ ‪not created in‬‬
‫‪ like condition‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﺒﻌﺾ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﻟﻶﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﺇﺧﺘﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﳍﻼﻙ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻯ« )‪(p. 211‬‬

‫» ﻟﻘﺪ ﻗﺪﻡ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺘﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺧﺬﻩ ﻣﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﺑﺘﻜﻔﲑﻩ ﻋﻨﺎ ﻳﻠﻐﻲ ﺫﻧﺒﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻳﺴﺘﺮﺿﻲ ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ« )‪(p. 212‬‬

‫» ﻷﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻘﺔ ] ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﻻ ﲝﺴﺐ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ [ ﻫﻮ ﻳﻜﺮﻩ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺮﺍﻫﺎ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﳓﻦ ﺇﺫﻥ ﳓﻤﻞ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﺤﻖ ﻛﺮﺍﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﺃﻭﻻً ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻓﺴﺎﺩ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻨﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﳓﻦ ﺣﻘًﺎ ﻛﺮﻳﻬﻮﻥ ﰲ ﻋﲔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺬﻧﺒﻮﻥ ﺃﻣﺎﻣﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻮﻟﻮﺩﻭﻥ ﳍـﻼﻙ ﺟﻬـﻨﻢ« )‪(p. 214‬‬

‫» ﺍﻟﺬﻧﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻘﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻧُﻘﻞ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺃﺱ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﷲ‪ ...‬ﺣﱴ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﺗﺴﺘﻘﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻧﻘﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ« )‪(p. 216‬‬

‫ﻭﳜﺘﻢ ‪ Grensted‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻠ ًﻘﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﰊ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ‪:‬‬

‫‪٣٢٢‬‬
‫ﺟﺬﻭﺭﺍ ﻋﻤﻴﻘﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ً‬ ‫» ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﰊ ﱂ ﲢﺪﺙ ﺻﺪﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳍﺎ‬
‫ﺯﻣﻦ ﻇﻬﻮﺭﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﳕﺖ ﰲ ﺑﻴﺌﺔ ﺗﻘ ّﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﳍﺎ‬
‫ﺍﲡﺎﻫﺎﺕ ﺗﻘﻮﻳﺔ ﺗﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﷲ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺍﳊﻘﻮﻕ‪ ...‬ﻭﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻵﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻋﻦ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻗﺮﻭﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺒﺎﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﱵ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﻏﺰﺕ ﺭﻭﻣﺎ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ] ﻭﳑﺎ ﻻ ﺷﻚ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻭﺻﻮﳍﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻹﺭﺳﺎﻟﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ‬
‫ﳌﺼﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﺍﻷﻭﺳﻂ ﺑﻘﻮﺓ!! [‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﻨﺎ ﻧﺮﻱ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﺐ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻓﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺪﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﺮﺍﻣﺔ‪ ...‬ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﺍﻵﻥ‬
‫ﻗﻄﻌﺎ[ ﻧﺒﲏ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ‪(p. 221) «....‬‬ ‫]ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ً‬

‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ‪ :‬ﺃﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻭﺛﺎﺑﺘﺔ؟! ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻋﻦ‬
‫»ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ« ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﺘﻐﻴّﺮ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳌﻜﺎﻥ؟!‬
‫ﺃﻭﺩ ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ »ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﻭﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ« ﰲ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺇﳝﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ‬
‫ﻣﺮ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‬‫»ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻠﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ«‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﱵ ّ‬ ‫ﱠ‬
‫ﳐﻠّﺼﻨﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻗَ َﺪ َﻣﺖ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﻗﻀﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ‬
‫»ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ‬
‫ﱠ‬ ‫ﲢﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺣ ًﻘﺎ ﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﻷﻧﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﰲ »ﺍﻟﻜﻴ ّﻔﻴﺔ« ﺍﻟﱵ ‪‬ﺎ ّ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻠﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ« ﺇﱃ ﺧﻼﺻﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﺟﺘﻬﺎﺩﻧﺎ ﻛﺒﺸﺮ ﻟﺘﻌﻘﻞ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺃﻥ ﳎﻰﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﻣﻮﺗﻪ ﻭﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻪ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻔﻌﻮﻝ ﺃﻛﻴﺪ ﰲ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﺡ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ‬ ‫ّ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﳕﺎﺫﺝ ﻭﳎﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﻭﺗﻌﺒﲑﺍﺕ ﻭﺗﺸﺒﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺇﱃ ﻋﺼﺮ ﻟﻜﻲ‬
‫ﺧﻠﺼﻨﺎ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﻣﻮﺕ ﻭﻗﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ‬ ‫ﻧﻘﺮﺏ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺫﻫﺎﻧﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺴﺒﻴﺢ ﻛﻴﻒ ّ‬ ‫ّ‬
‫ﺑﻨﺎ ﻭﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﻭﻟﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ‪ » -‬ﺍﳌﺤﺘﺎﺟﲔ «‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻧﺮﻯ ﺃﻥ ﻋﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﲣﻠﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻛﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﻫﺎﻡ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﺑﻘﻮﺍ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻗّﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﺐ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻗﺘﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺯﺭﻉ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺑﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﺗﻄﻌﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﻟﻔﻈﺔ »ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ« ﺍﳌﺤﻴّﺮﺓ ﲜﻤﺎﳍﺎ!!‬
‫ﰒ ﰲ ﻋﺼﻮﺭ ّ‬
‫ﲢﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺇﱃ »ﺇﻣﱪﺍﻃﻮﺭﻳﺔ« ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ ﻭﻇﻬﻮﺭ‬
‫‪٣٢٣‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﻗﻄﺎﻉ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﺗﻌﺪ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺻﺎﺣﺒﺔ ﺍﳉﻼﻟﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱄ ﰲ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻗﻄﺎﻋﻴﲔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺗﺸﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﺍﳌﺪﻧﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻇﻬﺮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻬﺎﻧﺔ ﻟﺘﺼﻒ ﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ّ‬
‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﻋﺼﺮ ﻋﺬﺭ!!‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﲢﻮﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻣﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺛﺎﺑﺘﺔ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﺔ ﻭﻻ ﺗﻘﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺎﺵ‬
‫ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ ﻭﻣﱰﻟّﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﺍﺕ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ّ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻝ ﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ‪ :‬ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺸ ّﺪﺩﺓ ﻗﺪ ﺷﻮ ّﻫﺖ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‬
‫ﻗﺎﺽ ﺳﺎﺩﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻬﺪﺃ ﻏﻀﺒﻪ!! ﰒ ً‬ ‫ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﳌﺤﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺎﺫﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﻮﻟّﺘﻪ ﺇﱃ ٍ‬
‫ﺗُﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﳌﻐﺎﻳﺮﺓ ﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻷﻭﱄ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﷲ ﲟﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﳌﺘﺸ ّﺪﺩ ﰲ ﺣﻘﻮﻗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﺩﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺇﻧﻔﺠﺎﺭ ﺍﻹﳊﺎﺩ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮ‬
‫ﻟﺮﻓﺾ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻈﻤﺂﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﺐ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﱄ‪ ،‬ﻟﻨﻘﺮﺃ ﳕﺎﺫﺝ ﳑﺎ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻷﻗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎ ﳛﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﻣﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﳊﺎﱄ ﰲ ﻛﻨﻴﺴﺘﻨﺎ‪.‬‬

‫•••‬

‫‪٣٢٤‬‬
‫ﺃﻭ ًﻻ ‪ :‬ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻣﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﻘﻤﺺ ﻣﻴﺨﺎﺋﻴﻞ ﻣﻴﻨﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻗﻴﻞ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﻨﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻛﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻲ ﻟﺒﻨﺎﱐ ﻛﺘﺒﻪ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻭﱐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱪﺩﻳﻮﻁ ﺇﻟﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟـ ‪ .١٩‬ﻭﳌﺎ ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﻀﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ‪ ،٢٠‬ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺘﻨﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﻘﻤﺺ ﻣﻴﺨﺎﺋﻴﻞ ﻣﻴﻨﺎ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺃﺿﺎﻑ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻛﻨﻴﺴﺘﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻠﻤﺬ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﳉﻴﻞ ﺍﳊﺎﱄ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻤﲔ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻋﺎﻅ‪ .‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺃﻥ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﳑﺎ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻷﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﻭﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﺎﻏﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻳﻨﻘﻞ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﱵ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﰊ ﳌﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ!!‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺇﻧﻘﻄﻌﺖ ﻋﻨﺎ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺣﱴ ﺍﳋﻤﺴﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ! ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ!!‬
‫ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺹ ‪ ٣٤٨‬ﺇﱃ ﺹ ‪:٣٥٨‬‬
‫» ﻟﺘﱪﻳﺮ ﺍﳉﻨﺲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻴﺔ ‪...‬‬
‫ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﺁﺩﻡ ﱂ ﻳﻄﻊ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻴﺔ ‪ ...‬ﺟﻠﺐ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺎﺋﺮ ﺫﺭﻳﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﻨﺎﺳﻠﲔ ﻣﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻷ‪‬ﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﰲ ﺻﻠﺒﻪ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻧﺎﺋﺒًﺎ ﻋﻨﻬﻢ ﻓﺂﻟﺖ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﻢ‬
‫ﲝﻖ ﺍﻟﻮﺭﺍﺛﺔ ﻋﻨﻪ ] ﻫﺬﺍ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ[‪.‬‬

‫‪٣٢٥‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﻭﺭﺍﺛﺔ ﺍﻷﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﻣﺎ ﰲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺁﺑﺎﺋﻬﻢ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺛﺎﺑﺘﺔ ﻻ ﻳﻨﻜﺮﻫﺎ ﺃﺣﺪ ]ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺭﺍﺛﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﭼﻴﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﻭﺭﺍﺛﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻧﺐ[ ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺤﻘﻖ ﺃﻧﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﻟﻺﺳﺘﻐﻔﺎﺭ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ...‬ﺍﳌﺼﻨﻮﻋﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺣﻖ ﺟﻼﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺘﻨﺎﻫﻲ ]ﻟﻔﻈﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺤﺪﻭﺩ ﺃﺩﺧﻠﻬﺎ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﰲ ﺷﺮﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ [‪...‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺌﺔ ﺗﻘﺎﺱ ﺑﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺷﺮﻑ ﻭﺭﺗﺒﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﻨﻮﻋﺔ ﰲ ﺣﻘﻪ‪] .‬ﻋﺼﺮ ﺍﻹﻗﻄﺎﻉ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ![ ﻓﺎﻹﻫﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﺣﻘﺔ ﺑﺄﺩﻧﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻛﺎﻹﻫﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﺻﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻠﻚ‪،‬‬
‫ﻗﺪﺭﺍ ﻣﺴﺎﻭﻳًﺎ ﻟﻘﺪﺭ ﺍﳌﻠﻚ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪.‬‬‫ﻷ‪‬ﺎ ﲢﻮﺯ ً‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﺴﻴﺌﺔ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺗﻜﺴﺐ ﻗﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﺿﻌﻔﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﺼﻨﻮﻋﺔ ﰲ ﺣﻘﻪ‬
‫]ﺍﻷﻃﻔﺎﻝ ﰲ ﻣﺪﺍﺭﺱ ﺍﻷﺣﺪ ﻳﺮﻓﻀﻮﻥ ﺿﻌﻒ ﻭﻗﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺘﺴﺎﻭﻱ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻮﻕ!![ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﺟﻞ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺫﻭ ﺷﺮﻑ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻩ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﺫﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ ] .‬ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺤﺪﻭﺩﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﺻﻨﻌﺖ ﰲ ﺣﻖ ﺟﻼﻟﻪ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺷﺮ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻩ ً‬
‫ﺗﻌﺒﲑ ﻳﺆﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ!! [ ﻭﻣﻦ ﰒ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﻏﲑ ﳑﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻔﺮﻭﺍ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ...‬ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻓﻔﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻫﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻼﺋﻜﺔ ً‬
‫)ﻏﲑ ﳏﺪﻭﺩ( ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﺣﻴﺚ ﺇﻧﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﳑﻜﻨًﺎ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘ ّﺪﻡ ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻟﻌﺠﺰﻩ‪...‬‬
‫ﺩﺑﺮﺕ ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﻋﺠﻴﺒﺔ ‪‬ﺎ ﳜﻠّﺺ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺴﺘﻮﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ‬ ‫ّ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﺣﻘﻪ‪ ] ...‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ‪[ !!..‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ‬
‫ﱠ‬ ‫ﻭﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻨﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﺨﺎﻟﻔﺔ )ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﺁﺩﻡ (‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﺎﺋﺢ ﺍﻟﺪﻣﻮﻳﺔ ﻣﺆﻗﺘًﺎ‪...‬‬
‫ﻓﻸﺟﻞ ﺇﲤﺎﻡ )ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ( ﺃﺧﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﻟﻪ ﺍﳌﺠﺪ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻜﻲ ﳛﻤﻞ‬
‫ﻗﺼﺎﺹ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺓ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪...‬ﻟﻴﻮﺿﺢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺻﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﻭﺷﺪﺓ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ ﱂ ﺗﺰﻝ ﺭﲪﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺇﺳﺘﻮﰱ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺣﻘﻪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻋﻄﺖ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻪ ﻭﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻋﻘﺎ‪‬ﺎ‪«.‬‬

‫‪٣٢٦‬‬
 ‫ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﺹ ‪: ٨٠‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻟﻐﺔ ‪ :‬ﻫﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻔﺮ ﺃﻱ ﻳﻐﻄﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻹﰒ ] ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﻣﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ »ﻛﺘﻄﻬﲑ« ﻭﳏﻮ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻭﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﻼﻭﻳﲔ »ﻓﻴﻜﻔﺮ ﻋﻨﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻫﻦ ﻓﺘﻄﻬﺮﻭﻥ«‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻌﲏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻱ ﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻛﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳜﻠﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻐﻄﻴﺔ ﺑﺘﺎﺗًﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺐ ‪ Pullan‬ﻭﺃﺳﺎﺗﺬﺓ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﻭﻗﻮﺍﻣﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺷﻮﺭﻳﺔ!![‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﺻﻼﺣﺎ ‪ :‬ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻤﻲ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺤﺪﻭﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻗﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﺭﺑﻨﺎ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﺑﺎﺣﺘﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﲨﻌﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﺳﺘﺤﻘﺘﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎﻫﺎ‪«.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﻭﺍﳋﺎﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻄﻲ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺩﺭﻙ ﺧﻄﻮﺭﺓ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻏﲑ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺷﺮﺣﻪ ﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻨﺘﻔﻲ ﻣﻨﻪ ﳏﺒﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻠﺒﺸﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻸﺳﻒ ﺍﻟﺸﺪﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺭﻭﺡ ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﻴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺼﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻟﻪ ﻛﺜﻠﻜﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ‪ ،‬ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ ﻭﻗﺴﻮﺓ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﻌﻬﺪﻫﺎ ﺷﻌﺒﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻄﻲ ﰲ ﺭﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺻﻠﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺩﺭﺳﻨﺎﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﺇﺭﺗﻮﻳﻨﺎ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻛﻨﻴﺴﺘﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﻤﻠﺆﺀﺓ ﺣﺒًﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﺻﻠﻮﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺁﺑﺎﺀﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﳊﻖ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻲ ﻭﻷﺟﻞ ﺣﺒﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺨﻠﺺ‪ ،‬ﻭﻷﺟﻞ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
‫ﲨﻴﻌﺎ ﳌﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﻣﻮﻗﻔﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺀﻧﺎ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﺍﻷﺻﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺃﺩﻋﻮﻛﻢ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺒﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ‪.‬‬

‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ‪ :‬ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ‪ -‬ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻻﻫﻮﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ؛ ﻟﻸﺏ ﻣﱵ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻜﲔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺩﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻧﺒﺎ ﻣﻘﺎﺭ‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﺑﺎﺏ ﻫﺎﻡ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ » ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺳﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ « ﰲ ﺹ ‪٢٧٨‬‬
‫‪ ٢٩٥ -‬ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻷﺏ ﻣﱵ ﺍﳌﺴﻜﲔ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺃﻭ ًﻻ ‪ :‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ ﺑﺪﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ‪ ..... :‬ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺇﺷﺘﺮﺍﻧﺎ ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻣﺘﻠﻜﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﺩﻓﻊ ﲦﻦ ﺷﺮﺍﺋﻨﺎ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﺩﻡ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﷲ ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺎﻋﻬﻢ »ﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﺒﻌﻬﻢ ﻷﺣﺪ«‪ ،‬ﻭ »ﻻ ﺑﺎﻋﻬﻢ ﺑﺜﻤﻦ«‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ‬

‫‪٣٢٧‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻛﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺩﻫﻢ ﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﺴﺘﺮﺩﻫﻢ ﺃﻭ ﻳﻔﻜﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺑﺜﻤﻦ ً‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﺷﻌﻴﺎﺀ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ‪ :‬ﳎﺎﻧًﺎ ﺑُﻌﺘُﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻼ ﻓﻀﺔ )ﲦﻦ( ﺗﻔﻜﻮﻥ« )ﺇﺵ ‪(٣ :٥٢‬‬
‫ﲟﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺎﻋﻬﻢ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻐﺮﻡ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﻋﻤﺎﳍﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﻏﺮﺑﺘﻬﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺍﷲ‪...‬‬
‫ﻋﻮﺩﺗﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﷲ ﻛﻠﻔﺘﻪ ﻧﻘﻠﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻣﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﻭﺿﻌﻨﺎ ﻛﻌﺒﻴﺪ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﻟﻪ ﳏﺒﻮﺑﲔ ﻭﻣﻘﺪﺳﲔ‪ ،‬ﳑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻠﺰﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻨﺎﺯﻻً‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺣﱴ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﻋﺒﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺗﻐﺮﱘ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﺣﱴ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﲦﻦ ﻓﺎﺩﺡ!!! ﺹ ‪.«٢٧٩ -٢٧٨‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﻣﺪﻓﻮﻉ ﻟﻨﺎ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﺃﻛﻤﻞ ﳊﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺪﻣﻪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﲦﻨًﺎ ﻭﻓﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫ﱂ ﻳﺴﻠﻤﻪ ﻷﺣﺪ ﻏﲑﻧﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﺪﻡ ﺇﺑﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻋﻄﺎﻩ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻠﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪ ...‬ﳓﻦ‬
‫ﻧﺸﺮﺑﻪ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﻼ ﲦﻦ ﻛﺪﻭﺍﺀ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ« ﺹ ‪.٢٨١‬‬

‫» ﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ‪ :‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﲑ ﺑﺎﻹﺣﻼﻝ ‪ -‬ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺪﻝ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ‪ -‬ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻣﺎﺕ‬

‫ﻋﻨﺎ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﺘﻴﺔ ﺗﺘﻤﺴﻚ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ ﺑﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ »ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﲑ ﺑﺎﻹﺣﻼﻝ«‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻣﺎﺕ ﻋﻨﺎ ﲟﻌﲏ ﻧﺎﺋﺒًﺎ ﻋﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﺮﻳﺪ ﻭﻻ ﻧﺮﺗﺎﺡ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺎﺩﻻﺕ ﰲ‬
‫ﺇﺿﻄﺮﺍﺭﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻮﺿﺢ ﻣﻮﻗﻔﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﺃﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﺿﻄﺮﺭﻧﺎ‬
‫ﳌﺎ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﺭﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﺳﲑﺗﺎﺡ ﳍﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﺃﺷﺪ ﺍﻹﺭﺗﻴﺎﺡ‪.‬‬
‫ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ‪ ...‬ﳓﻦ ﻣﺘﻨﺎ ﻓﻴﻪ ‪ ...‬ﻓﺄﺑﻄﻞ ﺣﻜﻢ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻋﲏ‪...‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﻼﺣﻆ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺩﺧﻞ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ »ﻋﲏ« ﰲ ﻟﻐﺘﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ً‬
‫ﺧﻄﺄ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﻭﺃﺿﺮ ﲟﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﺃﺷﺪ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﰲ‬
‫ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﻧﺺ ﺍﻹﻓﺨﺎﺭﺳﺘﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺍﳒﻴﻞ ﻟﻮﻗﺎ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ] ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺕ‬

‫‪٣٢٨‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ »ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ« ﻓﻘﻂ ‪ For us‬ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺟﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﱂ ﺗﺬﻛﺮ‬
‫»ﻋﻨﺎ« ﲟﻌﲏ ﺑﺪﻻً ﻣﻨﺎ ﺑﻞ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ ‪... [ For us‬‬
‫ﺗﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﲑ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﲑ ﺑﺎﻹﲢﺎﺩ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﻹﺣﻼﻝ ] ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ [ ﺑﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻋﻘﺎﺏ‪ «.‬ﺹ ‪.٢٨٩ -٢٨٥‬‬
‫» ﻟﻴﺲ ﺟﻴ ًﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﻣﺎﺕ ﻋﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻣﺎﺕ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻹﺣﻼﻝ ﻫﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺣﻞ ﳏﻠﻨﺎ ﺑﺄﺧﺬ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻋﻨﺎ ] ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ [‪ ،‬ﻳﻀﻌﻒ ﻗﻮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺗﺼﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻹﺗﺼﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻹﲢﺎﺩ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻧﻨﺎﻝ ﻗﻮﺓ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻭﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻪ‪...‬‬
‫ﻓﻠﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ‪ ...‬ﻟﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻻﺑﻦ ﻗﺪ ّ‬
‫ﲢﻤﻞ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻋﻮﺿﺎ ﻋﻨﺎ ﻹﺳﺘﻴﻔﺎﺀ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻏﺮﻳﺐ ﻋﻦ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻳﺪ ﺍﻵﺏ ً‬
‫ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﻏﲑ ﺟﺎﺋﺰ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻻّ ﺻﺎﺭ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ‪ -‬ﺍﻱ ﺍﻟﺒﺬﻝ ‪ -‬ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺬﻝ ﺣﺐ‪ ،‬ﺣﺐ ﰲ ﺩﺍﻓﻌﻪ ﻭﺣﺐ ﰲ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺘﻪ ‪...‬‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ ﺃﻥ ﳚﻤﻊ ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﻗﻠﺒﻪ ﻧﻘﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻟﻴﺼﺒﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﻟﻴﻤﻮﺕ ﻋﻨﺎ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻣﻊ ﻋﺬﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‬
‫ّ‬ ‫ﺑﺪ ًﻻ ﻣﻨﺎ ‪ ...‬ﺍﻵﻻﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﻴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻤﻠّﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ‬
‫ﻋﻮﺿﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺸﻬﲑ ﺑﻪ ﺣﱴ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻓﺮﺿﻬﺎ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ً‬
‫ﻋﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺗﻜﻠﻴﻒ ﳏﺒﺔ ﺃﻛﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻻﺑﻦ ﰲ ﺟﺴﻢ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺘﻨﺎ‪ ...‬ﺍﻵﻻﻡ ﱂ‬
‫ﺗﻜﻦ ﲦﻦ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﻞ ﲦﻦ ﳏﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﲦﻦ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﻞ ﲦﻦ ﳏﺒﺔ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺃﺣﺒﲏ ﻭﺃﺳﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻷﺟﻠﻲ‪...‬‬
‫ﻓﻼ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻋﺎﻗﺐ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺑﺬﻟﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺣﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻋﺎﻗﺐ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﺃﺣﺒﻨﺎ ﻭﺃﺳﻠﻢ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻠﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻭﻗﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻋﻘﺎﺏ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﻓﺰﻧﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﱪﺍﺀﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺒﲏ‪ ...‬ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺎﺏ ﻻ ﻳﻨﺸﻲﺀ ﺣﺒًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻳﻠﻐﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺎﺏ‪ «.‬ﺹ ‪.٢٩١ -٢٩٠‬‬

‫» ﺛﺎﻟﺜًﺎ ‪ :‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﷲ ] ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ [ ‪:‬‬

‫ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﻟﻸﺳﻒ ﳒﺪ ﻛﺜﲑًﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﻣﻲ ﻭﺣﱴ ﺁﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﻭﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﳌﺤﺪﺛﲔ ﺳﺎﺭﻭﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻂ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻰ!!‬

‫‪٣٢٩‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﻘﻮﻡ ) ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺗﺼﺎﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﷲ ﻗﺪﻭﺱ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺇﺳﺎﺀﺓ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﻟﻘﺪﺍﺳﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﺗﻨﱪﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺨﺎﻃﺊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺳﺎﺀ ﺇﱃ ﻗﺪﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻛﺮﺍﻣﺘﻪ ﻓﻼ ﺗﺘﺮﻛﻪ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻋﻘﺎﺏ‪ .‬ﻭ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻒ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻣﺪﺍﻧًﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺮﻓﻊ ﺍﻹﺳﺎﺀﺓ ﻭﻳﻜﻔﺮ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‪...‬‬
‫ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ )ﻭﻫﻮ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺴﺘﺮﺿﻲ ﻋﺪﻟﻪ ﻭﻛﺮﺍﻣﺘﻪ( ﻻ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻣﻊ‪» :‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺃﺣﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺣﱴ ﺑﺬﻝ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﻬﻠﻚ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺆﻣﻦ ﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻪ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ« )ﻳﻮ ‪ (١٦ :٣‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻈﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﳌﺨﺬﻭﻝ ﺍﳌﻬﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳌﻄﺮﻭﺩ‪،‬‬
‫ﺳﺎﻋﻴًﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﺩﻩ ﺇﱃ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺘﻪ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‪...‬‬
‫ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻭﺍﻹﺑﻦ‪ ...‬ﻭﻛﺄﻥ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﳒﺪ ﰲ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ ً‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﻤﻴﺔ ﻣﻬﻤﻠﺔ ﻻ ﺩﺧﻞ ﳍﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ‪ «.‬ﺹ ‪.٢٩٥ -٢٩٤‬‬

‫‪٣٣٠‬‬
 ‫• ﻧﺒﺬﺓ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻭﺗﻄﻮﺭﻩ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﻟﻨﺎ ‪ Christos Yannaras‬ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ »ﻣﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ«‬
‫‪: Elements of Faith. p. 154-162‬‬
‫ﺣﻮﻟّﺖ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ّ‬
‫ﺟﺬﺭﻳﺔ ﻣﺴﺎﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪...‬‬ ‫» ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‪ ...‬ﻗﺪ َ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﻗﺪ ُﻭﻟ َ‬
‫ِﺪﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﰊ ﻭﻧﺘﺞ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻏﺮﻳﺐ ﻭﺟﺪﻳﺪ‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﻭﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﺩﻱ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺇﱃ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﻘﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻲ )ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ( ﻭﺗﻐﻴّﺮ ﺃﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺣﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻏﲑ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺩﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﻖ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻲ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺒﺬﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻛﺄﺳﺎﺱ ﻟﻠﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺑﻜﻠﻴّﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﻓﺮﻭﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺃﺭﺿﻬﺎ ﺍﳋﺼﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﻤﻮ‬
‫ﻭﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺃﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺭﺳﻲ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺭﻓﺾ‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫‪...‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﱂ ﻳﺘﻠﻖ ﺃﻱ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺑﻴﺰﻧﻄﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺭﺳﺎ ﻟﺸﻴﺸﺮﻭﻥ ‪ Cicero‬ﺭﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺮﺗﻠﻴﺎﻧﻮﺱ ﻭﺃﻣﱪﻭﺳﻴﻮﺱ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻛﺎﻥ ً‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻧﻘﻞ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻭﺗﻘﻨﻴﻨﻪ‪...‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻗﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻭﻟﻴﺪ ﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻳﺪﻳﻦ ﲜﺬﻭﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻜﻞ‬
‫ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‪ .‬ﻳﺼﺢ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳓﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﻘﻲ ﳎﻬﻮﻻً ﻭﻣﺘﺨ ّﻔﻴًﺎ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺗﻮﺑﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻬﲑﺓ‪ ،‬ﻟﻮﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﳒﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻛﺘﺸﻔﻮﺍ ﻣﻌﲏ ﻭﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻴﻤﻪ‪.‬‬
‫‪٣٣١‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﺇﺳﺘﻐﻞ ﺷﺎﺭﳌﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﻢ ﻟﻴﺆﺳﺲ ﺍﻻﻣﱪﺍﻃﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻨﻔﺼﻠﺔ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺰﻧﻄﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺳﻊ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺆﺭﺧﻮﻥ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻗﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﻣﱪﺍﻃﻮﺭﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﻱ ﺃﺛﺮ ﻳﻮﻧﺎﱐ ﺷﺮﻗﻲ‪ .‬ﻣﻨﺬ ﺯﻣﻦ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻭﺑﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﺎ ﻭﺷﺮﻭﺣﺎﺕ ﺩﻳﻨﻴﺔ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﺩﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﻧﻘﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ‪ ،‬ﺑﲔ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﻳﺴﺘﻨﺘﺠﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ )ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻚ( ﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪١٠٥٤‬ﻡ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺍﳊﺮﰲ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﳓﺮﺍﻑ ﺃﻭ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ‪ ..‬ﺑﻞ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺧﻄﻮﺭﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻷﻏﺴﻄﻴﲏ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺇﻧﻪ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﻭﺗﻐﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﲏ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﲢﻮﻝ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺇﱃ‬
‫»ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ« ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻭﺍﳊﻖ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻲ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺭﻓﺾ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ّ ،‬‬
‫ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺛﻲ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺘ ّﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻠﻲ ‪piety‬‬
‫ﻳﻌﻠﻰ ﻭﻳﺮﻳﺢ ﻭﻳﺮﺿﻲ ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻱ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺻﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧﻪ ّ‬
‫ﻓﻠﻪ ً‬
‫ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺃﺩﺭﻙ ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ ّﺪﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺸﺒﻊ ﻭﻳﻘﻨﻊ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻼﱐ‪ ...‬ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻷﻣﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻻﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﰲ ﺃﺣﻀﺎﻥ ﺳﻠﻄﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﲢﻤﻴﻪ‪...‬‬
‫ﰒ ﺟﺎﺀ »ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻲ« ‪ Scholastic Theology‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺗﻄﻮ ّﺭ ﻓﻜﺮ‬
‫ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺍﳌﻮﺭﻭﺙ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻗﻮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻧﲔ ‪ ١٢‬ﻭ ‪ ١٣‬ﺃﻛﻤﻞ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻴﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴّﺮ ﺍﳉﺬﺭﻱ ﻟﻠﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺑﺄﻛﻤﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺭﻓﻀﻮﺍ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﱐ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻼﱐ ﰲ ﻋﺼﻮﺭ ﻋﻈﻤﺘﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺴﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻘﻂ ﻧﻈﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﻓﻜﺮﻳًﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﻣﻨﻐﻠﻘﺔ‪ّ ،‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻔﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﲰﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ‪ ...‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﳕﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﻛﻢ ﺑﺄﻣﺮ ﺍﷲ )ﺍﻟﺜﻴﻮﻗﺮﺍﻃﻲ( ﻭﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺑﻮﻱ ﺍﳌﺴﻜﻮﱐ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻛﺜﻒ ّ‬
‫ﻭﺭﻛﺰ ﻛﻞ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺭﻭﺣﻲ ﻭﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻭﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﰲ ﻳﺪ ﺑﺎﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﻣﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫ّ‬
‫ﰒ ﺟﺎﺀ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻹﻛﻮﻳﲏ ﻭﺃﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ‬
‫‪ .(١٢٦٦ - ١٢٧٢) Summa Theolgiae‬ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﻛﻮﻳﲏ ﺑﻌﺼﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺑﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ!!‬
‫ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺃﺭﺳﻲ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﻋﺼﻤﺔ ﻗﻴﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﳍﺎ ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﺍﳊﻖ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ‬

‫‪٣٣٢‬‬
 ‫ﻟﺘﻌﻠّﻴﻢ ﺍﳊﻖ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺑﺎ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺳﻊ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ١٢٣٣‬ﻗﺪ ﺃﺳﺲ ﳏﺎﻛﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺘﻴﺶ ‪Holy‬‬
‫‪) Inquisitions‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﲢﺎﻛﻢ ﺍﳌﺨﺎﻟﻔﲔ ﻭﲢﺮﻗﻬﻢ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﺀ ﺣﱴ ﺑﻌﻘﺎﺏ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‬
‫ﺗﻨﺠﻮ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﰲ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﺓ‪ ...‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻏﺎﻟﺒًﺎ ﻇﺎﳌﺔ ﻭﺳﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻣﻬﺎ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺃﺧﻄﺎﺀ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﻳﺔ(‪ .‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﺘﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻋﺼﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺑﺎ!!‬
‫ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺑﺎ ﺇﻧﻮﺳﻨﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﰲ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻟﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻭﺍﻓﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺬﻳﺐ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻱ‬
‫ﳌﺠﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﻣﻌﻪ‬
‫ﻛﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻻﺳﺘﺠﻮﺍﺏ ﺍﳍﺮﺍﻃﻘﺔ‪ّ ...‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ!!‬
‫ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻗﺮﻭﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ ﲢﺪﺕ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻹﺻﻼﺡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻜﺒ ّﺪﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺸﻘﺔ‪ّ ،‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﻞ ﺍﻷﻋﻈﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﳓﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺻﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻼﺹ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ )ﻣﻊ ﺍﻷﺳﻒ ﺍﻟﺸﺪﻳﺪ( ﱂ ﺗﻠﻤﺲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺇﺳﺘﻤﺮﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻹﻧﻘﻴﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﻲ ﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‬
‫ﺣﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻛﻨﺺ ﻣﻄﻠﻖ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺑﺎ ﻭﻋﺼﻤﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﻓﺼﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﺒ ًﺪﺍ ﻟﻠﺤﺮﻑ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻨﺬ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﺣﱴ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻹﻛﻮﻳﲏ ﰒ ﻛﺎﻟﭭﻦ ﺗﻐﻴّﺮ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻴّﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﺗﻐﻴّ ًﺮﺍ ﻛﺎﻣﻼً‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻣﻊ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﻛﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷ‪‬ﺎ ﺇﺟﺒﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻹﺛﺒﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻰ!!! ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺇﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ )ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻣﻠﺔ(‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﺮﻙ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻴﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺎﺋﺲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺕ ﺃﻣﻴﻨﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻹﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻲ ﺍﳊﻲ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﻣﺒﺎﻟﻐﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻗﺪ ﻭﻟّﺪ ﻋﺎﳌًﺎ ﺟﺪﻳ ًﺪﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻠّﻴﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﻗﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻼﺣﻘﺔ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺣﺪﺍﺙ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺬ ﺃﻥ ﺻﻤﺖ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ‪ّ .‬‬
‫ﻓﺒﺘﻄﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﭼﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﺍﻷﺭﺍﺿﻲ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻮﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﺮﻭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﻄﺮﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﺷﺘﺮﺍﻛﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﺤﺮﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﰒ‬
‫ﻷﻭﺭﺑﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﺄﻛﺪﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺎﺕ ّ‬
‫ﻇﻬﺮ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺍﻵﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ‪ ...‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﺯﻫﺮﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﺭﺳﺎﻫﺎ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻲ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺗﺄﻛﺪ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻇﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ‬

‫‪٣٣٣‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻷﻭﺭﰊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﻓﺾ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺮﺟﻊ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺎﺩﻱ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ‪...‬‬
‫ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺍ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﻀﺔ ﺑﲔ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻘﺪﺱ ﻭﺭﻭﺣﻲ‬
‫ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻕ ً‬
‫ﻭﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﱐ ﻭﺩﻧﻴﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺑﲔ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻋﻼﻥ ﻭﺍﳋﱪﺓ‪ ،‬ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﻠﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺴﺎﺅﻝ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﻭﺻﻞ ﺻﺪﻱ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺧﺮﺟﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﻭﺩﺭﺳﻮﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ‪...‬‬
‫ﳎﺮﺩ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﳌﻌﺠﺐ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺗﻌﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ّ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺒﲏ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺑﻼ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺃﻭ ﺇﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﺪﺭﻭﺱ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺒﲏ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ ...‬ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ » ﺗﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ « ‪... Westernisation‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ!!!‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ً‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻤﺎﻩ ﺃﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻏﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﺟﺬﻭﺭﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﺩ ّ‬
‫ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﻏﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﺗﻐﻮﺹ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻕ ﺣﱴ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻭﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻹﻛﻮﻳﲏ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ »ﻓﺮﺩﻳﺔ« ﺗﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻷﻧﺸﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﻣﻠﻘﺎﺓ ﺟﺎﻧﺒًﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﲡﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳊﻖ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﱐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺵ‪«.‬‬

‫• ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻪ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ‪:‬‬

‫‪Fr. John Meyendorff.‬‬ ‫)‪ (١‬ﺍﻷﺏ ﭼﻮﻥ ﻣﺎﻳﻨﺪﻭﺭﻑ ‪:‬‬
‫‪The Orthodox‬‬ ‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﻨﻴﺢ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﻗﺮﻳﺒًﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺭﺋﻴﺲ ﲢﺮﻳﺮ ﳎﻠﺔ‬
‫‪ Church‬ﻭﺃﺣﺪ ﻗﻴﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﳎﻠﺲ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺎﺋﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻪ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﺎﺕ ﻋﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻡ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻠﺨﺺ‬
‫» ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻫﻮ ﺑﻀﻢ ﻭﺍﲢﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ّ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺴﻚ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺣﺪﺙ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺮﻉ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ‪ ،‬ﺃﺧﻄﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﻭﺷﺮﺡ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﲔ ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻟﻮﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‬
‫ﻣﺜﻞ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻭﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ‪...‬‬
‫‪٣٣٤‬‬
‫ﺷﺨﺼﺎ ﺫﻭ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺧﺎﻃﺌﺔ‪ ...‬ﺃﺧﺬ‬ ‫ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎ ﺃﻥ ً‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻫﻮ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ّ‬
‫ﲝﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺳﺪﺓ ﺍﳌﺎﺋﺘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺃﻋﺎﺩ ﳍﺎ ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺪﺓ ﻟﻪ ﻋﻨﺪ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﷲ‪ .‬ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺇﺷﺘﺮﻙ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ّ‬
‫ﲢﺮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻔﺮﻭﺿﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ّ‬
‫ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ »ﻛﻤﺮﺽ« ﰲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﺍﳊﺮﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﻔﺮﻭﺿﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﻬﻤﻮﺍ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻫﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﱠ‬ ‫ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻭﺇﲤﺎﻡ ﻟﻠﻤﺼﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺘﺮﻙ )ﺑﲔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ(‪ ،‬ﰒ ﺧﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻦ ﲢﻘﻴﻘﻬﺎ ﺇﻻّ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻧﺼﻴﺒﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ )ﺃﻱ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻱ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﺃﻛﺪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﺷﺘﺮﺍﻛﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻭﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﺍﺷﺘﺮﺍﻛﻨﺎ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻭﻓﻴﻪ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﳍﺬﺍ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻛﻠﻬﻢ ‪ ...‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻣﺎﺕ ﲝﺴﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺟﺴﺪ ّ‬ ‫ﻣﺼﲑ ﺭﻓﻘﺎﺀﻩ‪ ...‬ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﰲ ﱠ‬
‫ﻗﻀﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ )ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ(«‬
‫)‪(Christ in the Eastern Christian Thought, p. 118‬‬

‫‪Bishop Kallistos Ware.‬‬ ‫)‪ (٢‬ﺍﻷﺏ ﻛﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻮﺱ ﻭﻳﺮ ‪:‬‬

‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﺍﳌﺸﻬﻮﺩ ﳍﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ‪ .‬ﻫﻮ ﺍﻵﻥ‬
‫ﺃﺳﻘﻒ ﻭﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﲜﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺃﻛﺴﻔﻮﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﺎﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺏ »ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ« ‪ The Orthodox Church‬ﻛﺘﺐ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻌﲏ‬
‫ﻭﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻣﻊ ﻧﻘﺪ ﰲ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻄﻒ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻗﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺇﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﲔ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻜﻮﱐ ‪:‬‬

‫‪٣٣٥‬‬
‫» ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﻛﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺷﺮﺣﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺳﲑﺍﻓﻴﻢ ﺳﺎﺭﻭﭬﺴﻜﻲ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺇﻗﺘﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻌﺒّﺮ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺑﻠﻔﻈﺔ »ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ«‬
‫‪Deificiation or Theosis‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺑﺎﺳﻴﻠﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﻭﺻﻒ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗُﺪ ّﻣﺖ ﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻋﻮﺓ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺼﲑ ﺇﳍًﺎ!! ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﲨﻴﻌﻨﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺎﻝ‪ :‬ﻟﻘﺪ‬
‫ﺻﺎﺭ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻧًﺎ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺼﲑ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﳍًﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺒﺤﺔ )ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻷﺭﻭﺍﻡ(‬
‫»ﰲ ﻣﻠﻜﻮﰐ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺳﺄﻛﻮﻥ ﺇﳍًﺎ ﻣﻌﻜﻢ ﻛﺂﳍﺔ«‪.‬‬
‫ﻧﺘﺤﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺪﻑ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻧﺎ ﻛﻠﻪ‪ :‬ﺃﻥ ّ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺁﳍﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ )ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺒﲏ ﷲ(‪.‬‬
‫)‪(p. 236‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ«‬
‫» ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﻣﻮﺭ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﲡﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﻧﺸﻌﺮ ﺑﻌﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﲟﻌﺰﻝ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺭﺗﻴﺎﺡ! ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻳﺮﻛﺰ ﺃﻧﻈﺎﺭﻩ ً‬
‫ﻓﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺼﺮﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﺗﻌﻠّﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﺑﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺮﺛﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺾ ﳓﻮ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﳌﺘﺄﱂ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻻً ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳌﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﻨﺘﺼﺮ ‪...‬‬
‫ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﺗﺮﻱ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻛﻤﻠﻚ ﻣﻨﺘﺼﺮ ً‬
‫ﻭﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﻓﺎﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ﻟﻠﻤﺼﻠﻮﺏ ﻛﺠﺮﻳﺢ ﳏﻄﻢ ‪.Victim‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﺗﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺐ ﻛﺤﺎﺩﺛﺔ ﺍﻧﺘﺼﺎﺭ )ﻟﻠﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ( ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺃﻳﺎﻡ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺃﺳﻘﻒ ﻛﺎﻧﺘﺮﺑﺮﻱ )‪ (١١٠٩ -١٠٣٣‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﺑﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺴﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ‪ ،‬ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﺗﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﺃﻧﻪ‬
‫ﳎﺮﺩ ﺗﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺗﺪﻓﻊ ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﺪﻓﻊ ﲦﻨًﺎ ﻛﻔﺎﺭﻳًﺎ ﻹﺗﻘﺎﺀ ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﺿﺐ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﲢﻮﻟﺖ ﺇﱃ ﺇﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﻋﻘﻮﰊ‪...‬‬
‫ﻣﺆﺧﺮﺍ ﺇﻇﻬﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﰲ ﺗﻐﻴّﺮ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺑﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ً‬
‫ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺐ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ‬

‫‪٣٣٦‬‬
 ‫ﻗﻄﻌﺎ ﺳﻌﺪﺍﺀ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ«‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﻢ ً‬
‫)‪(Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 236, 233-234‬‬

‫)‪ (٣‬ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﺱ ﻳﻨﺎﺭﺍﺱ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ‪:‬‬

‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﻘﻒ ﺍﻷﺏ ﻛﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻮﺱ ﻭﻳﺮ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺳﺄﻗﺘﺒﺲ ﻣﻨﻪ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ‪ The Freedom of Morality ،‬ﻛﺘﺐ ﻳﺼﻒ‬
‫ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﺱ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ‪ » :‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﺫﻭﻱ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ«!!‬
‫ﻛﺘﺐ ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﺱ ﻳﻨﺎﺭﺍﺱ ‪ Christos Yannaras‬ﲢﺖ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ‪ » :‬ﺍﻹﻏﺘﺮﺍﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻟﻠﺘﻮﺑﺔ« ‪:‬‬
‫» ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﱐ ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ ﻧﺸﺄ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫ﺧﻠﻖ ﻟﻴﺪﻋﻢ ﺍﻹﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻳﲏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ »ﺍﻟﺘﱪﻳﺮ« ﻭ »ﺍﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ«‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺪﻓﻊ ﻛﺜﻤﻦ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺇﱃ ﺍﷲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻛﻞ ﺩﻋﻢ ﳑﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻗﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺇﺳﺘﻘﻼﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻋﻢ ً‬
‫ﻟﻠﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﲤﺖ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‬
‫ﲟﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻧﻘﻠﺖ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﺘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﲔ ﺷﺮﻗﻴﲔ ﺃﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ‬
‫ﰲ ﻣﻨﺎﺥ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﺮﻳﺐ ‪ Europeanizing‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﺸﺄ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻮﻳﺔ‬
‫)ﺍﻹﺭﺳﺎﻟﻴﺎﺕ( ﰲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﰎّ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺗﺎﻣﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﻟﻶﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻮﻕ ﺇﱃ ﺇﺭﺿﺎﺀ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﻬﺎﻧﺔ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻄﺸﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻬﺪﺃ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﻣﺘﺪﺍﺩ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻳﺴﻌﺪ ﺑﺘﻌﺬﻳﺐ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ‪.‬‬‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﺃﻧﻪ ً‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﻐﺔ ﲡﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻋﻤ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﻳﻨﺘﻬﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫‪٣٣٧‬‬
‫ﺗﺘّﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺪﻓﻊ ﲦﻨًﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻣﻮﺍﻻً ‪ -‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺣﺪﺙ ﰲ ﻛﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺩﻓﻌﺖ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﻝ ﰲ ﺻﻜﻮﻙ ﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﺩﺕ‬
‫ﺳﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻤﺎﻡ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﻧﺸﻮﺀ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﺘﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻧﻜﺮﺕ ّ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻨﺎﺭﺍﺱ ﺃﻭﺭﺩﻫﺎ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺤﺎﺕ ﰲ ﻫﻮﺍﻣﺶ ﰲ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﳘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺃﻭ ًﻻ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﱪﻳﺮ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﺻﺎﻏﻬﺎ ﳎﻤﻊ ﺗﺮﻧﺖ ‪١٥٦٣ - ١٥٤٥ Trent‬ﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻳﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺪﺩﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﲰﻲ ﻟﻠﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﲞﻼﺹ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺑﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻣﻠﺨﺼﺎ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﻣﻊ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ ﺟﺪﻳ ًﺪﺍ ﺇﺧﺘﺮﻋﻪ ﳎﻤﻊ ﺗﺮﻧﺖ؛ ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﺪﺃ ﺑﺄﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ )ﻳﻨﺒﻮﻉ ﻛﻞ ﺗﺸﻮﻳﻪ ﻭﲢﺮﻳﻒ ﻟﻠﺤﻖ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ( ﺣﱴ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﻛﻮﻳﲏ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺟﺰﺀ ﻫﺎﻡ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺪﺭ ﺑﺜﻤﻦ‪ .‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﲢﺮﻳﻒ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻘﺒﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ً‬
‫ﲑﺓ ﻭﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮﺓ ﺗﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﱃ ﻧﻮﻉ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﻛﻮﻳﲏ ‪» :‬ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﳋ ّ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻭﺍﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻗﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻭﺍﺓ ﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﻌﺎﺩ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺀ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺑﺎﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﳋﲑﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﺎﺏ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮﺓ « ]ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺗﺮﺗﻠﻴﺎﻧﻮﺱ ﻭﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻳﻦ[‪.‬‬

‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ‪ :‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ‪:‬‬

‫ﺃﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺻﺎﻍ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺃﺳﻘﻒ ﻛﺎﻧﺘﺮﺑﺮﻱ )‪١١٠٩ -١٠٣٣‬ﻡ(‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺗﺮﺗﻠﻴﺎﻧﻮﺱ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻲ ﺇﺣﺪﺍﺙ‬
‫ﻓﻮﺿﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺿﺨﺎﻣﺔ ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻧﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﺊ ﺇﱃ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ‪ ،‬ﳝﻜﻦ ﺣﺴﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﲟﻘﺪﺍﺭ‬
‫ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻭﻗﻌﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻹﻫﺎﻧﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﳌﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻋﻈﻤﺘﻪ‬

‫‪٣٣٨‬‬
‫ﻏﲑ ﳏﺪﻭﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺗﻘﺘﻀﻲ ﺩﻓﻊ ﺗﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻏﲑ ﳏﺪﻭﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﲨﻴﻌﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﳏﺪﻭ ًﺩﺍ ﻭﻋﺎﺟ ًﺰﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺩﻓﻊ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ‪ -‬ﺣﱴ ﻟﻮ ﺫﺑﺢ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ً‬
‫ﲨﻴﻌﺎ ﻋﺎﺟﺰﻭﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺇﺭﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻗﺮﺭ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺪﻓﻊ‬ ‫‪ -‬ﻓﻬﻢ ً‬
‫ﰲ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺤﺪﻭﺩﺓ ﻹﺭﺿﺎﺀ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﻋﻮﻗﺐ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻔﺘﺪﻱ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺌﺔ‬
‫)ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ‪.(...‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﻄﻮﺭﺕ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﻛﻮﻳﲏ ﺣﱴ ﺻﺎﺭﺕ »ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
‫ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﲰﻲ« ﻟﻠﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﰲ ﳎﻤﻊ ﺗﺮﻧﺖ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗ ّﺪﻡ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﻐﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻠﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺳﺔ‪ .‬ﻧﻘ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺠﻤﻊ ﻭﺭﺩﺕ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ‪:‬‬
‫ﲨﻴﻌﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺭﻧﺎ ً‬
‫» ﺭﺑﻨﺎ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﺂﻻﻣﻪ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ّ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺤﻘﺎﻗﺎﺗﻪ ﻭﻗﺪﻡ ﻋﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﷲ ﺍﻵﺏ )ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺑﻴﺔ‪.(.....‬‬
‫ﻭﺳﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﲟﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﰲ ﻣﺆﻟﻒ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻲ ﴰﺎﻭﺯ‬
‫‪) Schmaus‬ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻲ( ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺠﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪» :‬ﺃﺩﻳﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ .‬ﺃﺧﺬ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻭﺿﻌﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺸﺒﻪ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻵﺏ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﳜﻄﺊ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﳌﻌﻤﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻥ ّ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﳌﺘﺄﱂ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺩﻳﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻘﺒﻠﻬﺎ «‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ‪:‬‬

‫ﺛﺎﻟﺜًﺎ ‪ :‬ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ّ‬
‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻭﻛﺎﻟﭭﻦ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺇﺭﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺣﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﻜﻞ ﻳﻘﲔ‬‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ّ‬ ‫ﺑﻞ ً‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﺘﺮﻙ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﺃﻱ ﳎﺎﻝ ﻟﻠﺸﻚ ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﺇﺭﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳًﺎ‬
‫)ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪.(...‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺑﲔ ﻗﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻹﺻﻼﺡ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳ ُﻔ ّﺴﺮ ﻛﻼ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻓﲔ ﺣﺼﻮﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺪ ّﻣﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ .‬ﻭﺣﺴﺐ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﳊﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﻳﺘﱪﺭ ﺑﺎﻹﳝﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺻﻞ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺑﻞ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ّ‬
‫‪٣٣٩‬‬
‫ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺗﱪﻳﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻣﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻣﺴﺤﺖ ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻼ ﺧﺎﻃﺌًﺎ‬ ‫ﺑﻞ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻻ ﲢﺴﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ!! ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ّ‬
‫ﻳﻈﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻓﻌ ً‬
‫)ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺮﲰﻴﺔ‪.(...‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﺩﺧﻠﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻹﺭﺳﺎﻟﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﺮﻕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ‪.‬‬

‫ﺭﺍﺑ ًﻌﺎ ‪ :‬ﻋﺬﺍﺏ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ ‪:‬‬

‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ‪ -‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺟﺰﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ‪ -‬ﻋﺬﺍﺏ ﺍﳍﺎﻟﻜﲔ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺎﻫﻢ ﰲ ﻏﺒﻄﺔ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﺎﺭﻳﻦ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻼﺣﻆ ﺃﻥ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺃﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﳊﺎﺩ ﺃﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﲑ ﻛﺎﻣﻮ ‪ . Camus‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻭﺗﻄﻮﺭﺕ‬
‫ّ‬ ‫ﺻﺎﺭﺕ ﺩﻳﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ ﻫﻲ ﺩﻳﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ ﺫﺍﺗــﻪ‪..‬‬
‫ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ ﰲ ﺃﻭﺭﺑﺎ ﻣﻊ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺏ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻭﺻﻠﺖ ﺇﱃ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺍﻹﺻﻼﺡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺑﻄﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺓ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻓﺮﺻﺔ ﻟﻠﺨﻼﺹ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺏ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ‪.‬‬
‫ﳛﺮﺭ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﻦ‬‫ﺷﺨﺼﺎ ّ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﺃﻻ ﳚﺪﺭ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﺄﻝ‪ :‬ﺃﻻ ﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﺍﳌﻠﺤﺪ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧًﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺏ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺷﺨﺺ ﳛﻄﻢ ﻭﺛﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﻔﻮﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﻫﺎﲨﻬﺎ ﺳﻴﺠﻤﻮﻧﺪ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ‪ S. Freud‬ﻭﲰﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﻯ؟!‬

‫ﺧﺎﻣﺴﺎ ‪ :‬ﺻﻜﻮﻙ ﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﻭﺳﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ‪:‬‬

‫ً‬
‫ﺗﻄﻮﺭ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻣﻦ‬‫] ﻳﻌﺮﺽ ﻳﻨﺎﺭﺍﺱ ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺑﻴﺔ[ ‪ ...‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ّ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺑﺪﻓﻊ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺻﻜﻮﻙ ﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﰲ ﺃﻭﺭﺑﺎ ﺣﱴ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﻛﻮﻳﲏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﻌﻞ ﺻﻜﻮﻙ ﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ﺑﺜﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﺒﺎﺩﺉ‪:‬‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﺃﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﱪﻳﺮ )‪ (٢‬ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﷲ )‪ (٣‬ﻓﺎﺋﺪﺓ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﺮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺟﻌﻠﺖ ﻛﺎﻟﭭﻦ ﻳﺮﻓﺾ ﺳﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺣﺮﻛﺘﻪ )ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺟﻊ‪ (....‬ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺭﻓﺾ ﺳﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻻﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﻳﻨﻤﻮ ﺑﺒﻂﺀ ﺷﺪﻳﺪ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﺛﺮﻳﺔ ﺣﱴ ﲡﺎﻫﻠﺘﻪ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﲤﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﻭﺍﺧﺘﻔﻲ ﺣﻮﺍﱄ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪) ١٨٠٠‬ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺟﻊ‪.(...‬‬
‫)‪(The Freedom of Morality, P. 150-154‬‬

‫‪٣٤٠‬‬
 ‫)‪ (٤‬ﺍﻷﺏ ﺟﱪﻳﺎﻝ ﺩﺍﱄ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻲ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ‪Creation and Redemption‬‬
‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴًﺎ ﺇﻻّ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺑﺄﺷﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﻗﺮﺃ‪‬ﺎ!!‬
‫» ﺇﻥ ﺃﺳﻮﺃ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ُﻗ ﱢﺪﻣﺖ ﻟﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻫﻲ ﺗﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﺨﻴﻞ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﻬﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﲟﻌﺎﻧﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺣﱴ ﻳﻬﺪﺃ‬
‫ﻏﻀﺒﻪ!!! ﻭﻗﺪ ﻓﺴﺮﻭﺍ )ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﻛﻮﻳﲏ ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ ﻭﳎﻤﻊ ﺗﺮﻧﺖ(‬
‫ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺨﺼﻴﺺ ﻷﻧﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﻄﺎﻉ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﺮﺿﻲ ﻏﻀﺐ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﻮﺏ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻋ ّﻠﻤﻮﺍ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﺓ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻢ ﺑﺒﺴﺎﻃﺔ ﻋﻤﻴﺎﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺪﻳﻒ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ!!!‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﺧﺬﻭﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺄﻣﻼ‪‬ﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺷﺮﻩ ﻣﺜﺎﻻً‪ ،‬ﰒ ﻏﺎﺻﻮﺍ ﰲ ﺗﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺎﻫﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﺸﺮﺡ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺎﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﺳﻘﻄﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻋﻮﺍﻃﻒ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﺑﺘﺬﺍﻻً ﻭﺧﺴﺔ ﻭﺃﺧﺮﺟﻮﺍ ﻟﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻴﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗ ّﺪﻣﻮﺍ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﻏﲑ ﻭﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻹﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﻇﻠﻤﺔ ﺃﻫﻮﺍﺋﻬﻢ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ً‬
‫ﺍﳌﺨﻔﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻧﻈﺎﺭﻫﻢ« ﺹ ‪...١٨١‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﺇﺳﺘﻠﻬﻤﺖ ﻓﻜﺮﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺻﺮﺍﻉ ﺍﻹﻗﻄﺎﻋﻴﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗُﻘ ّﺪﺭ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﳉﺮﳝﺔ ﺑﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﺠﲏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻗﻄﺎﻉ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻧﺸﺄ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺃَ َﻣ َﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺑﺘﻌﺒﲑﺍﺕ ﻭﳕﺎﺫﺝ ﻏﻴّﺮﺕ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻗﺪ ﺷﺮﺣﻮﻩ ﻗﺒﻼً‪ ،‬ﺇﻋﺘﻤﺎ ًﺩﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻭﳎﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ«‪ ...‬ﺹ ‪.١٩٠‬‬
‫»ﻓﺒﺪﻻً ﻣﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺩﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ] ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ؛ ﺃﻭﺭﳚﺎﻧﻮﺱ‬
‫ﻭﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺴﻲ [ ﺟﺎﺀ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﻭﺿﻊ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﻛﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻟﻠﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺻﺎﻏﻬﺎ ﺑﺄﻓﻀﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺃﻣﺪﺗﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺑﻴﺌﺘﻪ ﻭﺣﻀﺎﺭﺗﻪ‪ .‬ﻓﺠﺎﺀﺕ ﻣﻨﻄﻘّﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻗﺼﻲ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻭﻷﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﳊﺪﻭﺩ!!‬

‫‪٣٤١‬‬
 ‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺣﻠّﺖ ﺳﺎﺣﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺻﺮﺍﻉ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺗﻐﻠﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﳊﻘﺘﻪ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﻪ ﺑﻌﻈﻤﻪ ﻭﻛﺮﺍﻣﻪ‬
‫ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺷﺪﻳ ًﺪﺍ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺪﺓ ﺿﺪ ﺃﻱ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻘﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﻫﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﺒﺒّﺖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ‪‬ﺪﻑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﻔﻴﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻘﺎﺑﻠﻬﺎ ﺑﻜﻠﻤﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪:‬‬
‫»ﺃﻧﺖ ﱂ ﺗﺪﺭﻙ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺧﻄﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ«‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﳋﻄﻮﻁ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﻳﻀﺔ ﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻣﻌﺮﻭﻓﺔ ﺟﻴ ًﺪﺍ ‪:‬‬
‫َﻖ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻴﺘﻤﺘّﻊ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻌﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺒﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻀﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ‬
‫‪َ -١‬ﺧﻠ َ‬
‫ﻤﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻗ ّﺪﻡ ﺇﻫﺎﻧﺔ ﻏﲑ ﳏﺪﻭﺩﺓ ﺿﺪ‬
‫ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﺼﻲ ﻭﺗَ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺃﻛـﱪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -٢‬ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺣﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺇﻻّ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ّ‬
‫‪ -٣‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻻ ﳝﻠﻚ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻳُﻘ ﱢﺪﻡ ﻻﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﷲ!‬
‫‪ -٤‬ﺍﷲ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻮﺑﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -٥‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻀﻄﺮ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ!! ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺇﺣﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﷲ!!! ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻﺑﺪ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﺪﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻏﲑ ﻗﺎﺩﺭ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻓﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺴﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻀﻄﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ‬
‫‪ -٦‬ﺗُ َﺤﻞ ﺍﳌﻌﻀﻠﺔ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ‪ -‬ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻛﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ّ‬
‫ﳛﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﺪﺃ ﺑﻪ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ‪ :‬ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﷲ؟‬
‫ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒًﺎ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﻟﻌﺼﺮﻩ« ﺹ ‪...١٩١‬‬
‫» ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻣﺘﻮﻗّ ًﻔﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﻓﻊ ﺩﻳﻦ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ‪ ،‬ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺇﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻣﺒﲏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻴ ً‬
‫ﻼ!!! ﺇﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑّﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺒﺄ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﻞ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﺑﺎﳋﱪﺓ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺷﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ« ﺹ ‪.١٩٢‬‬

‫‪٣٤٢‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻔﺼﻞ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ّ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻨﻤﻖ‬
‫» ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻲ ّ‬
‫ﰲ ﺟﺮﻳﺪﺓ ﺇﺧﺒﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﺪﺳﺔ ﻣﻜﱪﺓ ﻗﻮﻳﺔ‪ :‬ﺇﻧﻚ ﻻ ﺗﺮﻱ ﺗﻔﺎﺻﻴ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﺃﺩﻕ‪ ،‬ﺇﳕﺎ‬
‫ﺗﺮﻱ ﺑﻘ ًﻌﺎ ﺳﻮﺩﺍﺀ ﺃﻛﱪ!!!« ﺹ ‪.١٨٠‬‬
‫)‪(Gabriel Daly, Creation and Redemption, 1989‬‬

‫‪Constantine Tsirpanlis‬‬ ‫)‪ (٥‬ﻗﺴﻄﻨﻄﲔ ﺗﺴﲑﭘﺎﻧﻠﻴﺲ ‪:‬‬

‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﻻﻫﻮﰐ ﺃﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ‪Introduction to Eastern Patristic‬‬
‫‪ Thought and Orthodox Theology‬ﻣﺎ ﻳﺜﺒﺖ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﻛﻠّﻴﺔ‬
‫ﰲ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻹﳒﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻗﺪ ﻗ ّﺪﻡ ً‬
‫ﻓﻜﺮﺍ ﺃﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴًﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺘﺮﺏ ﻣﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺄﻱ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻕ ﻭﳚﺪ ﻣﻮﺿﻌﻪ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺳﺒﺐ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ‬
‫ﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﰲ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﺎﺯﻩ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﰲ‪ ،‬ﱡ‬
‫ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻹﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺭﻭﻣﺎ ‪ -‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳚﺪ ﺟﺬﻭﺭﻩ ﰲ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ ﻭﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ‬
‫ﰲ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻗﺪ ﺗّﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ ّ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﻌﻢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺘﺠﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ «.‬ﺹ ‪٦٣‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺷﺮﺣﻬﺎ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﺃﺩﺭﻛﻬﺎ‪،‬‬
‫» ﺇﻥ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ ّ‬
‫ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻭﺭﺍﺛﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻭﺭﺍﺛﺔ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺧﺎﻃﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﳘﺎ ﺗﻌﺒﲑﺍﺕ ﻏﺮﻳﺒﺔ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺍﺑﺔ ﻭﺃﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺘﺮﻛﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺍﻡ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻀﺎﺩ ﺑﲔ ﻓﺴﺎﺩ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳋﻠﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻭﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺎ‬
‫ﺇﻏﺮﺍﺀﺍ ً‬
‫ﻗﻄﻌﺎ ً‬
‫ﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ً‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﲟﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ّ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻟﻠﻐﺮﺑﻴﲔ« ﺹ ‪.٢٠٩‬‬

‫‪٣٤٣‬‬
 ‫‪Rev. J. S. Romanides‬‬ ‫)‪ (٦‬ﺍﻷﺏ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻴﺪﻳﺲ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﺔ ﻫﺎﻣﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺮﻳﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴـﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ‪ St. Vladimir Seminary‬ﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ١٩٥٦‬ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ » ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻤﻬﺎ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ« ‪ Original Sin According to St. Paul‬ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻟﺔ ﻛﺘﺐ ‪(p. 9-10) :‬‬

‫» ﺇﻧﻪ ﳋﻄﺄ ﺟﺴﻴﻢ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﺒﺒﺖ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‬

‫ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﱂ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﰲ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﺴﺐ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺑﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ «...‬ﺹ ‪.٩‬‬
‫» ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ )ﺁﺩﻡ( ﻫﻮ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺃﻭ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺎﻗﺐ‪ .‬ﱂ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﻞ‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺨﻠﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻱ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻛ ّﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳒﻴﻞ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ ﳘﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﺬﺍﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﺩﺍﻥ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﻮﺍﺏ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﻢ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪ ...‬ﺹ ‪.١٠‬‬
‫ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻧﻈﺮﺗﻪ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻻ ﳛﻜﻤﻬﺎ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﻻ ﻧﻈﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﲢﻜﻤﻬﺎ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴّﺔ )ﷲ(‪...‬‬
‫ﺧﻼﺹ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺄﰐ ﺑﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﻋﻔﻮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺃﻱ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ‬
‫ﺗﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﻭﻻ ﺣﱴ ﷲ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ‬ ‫ﺗﺰﺍﻝ ﲟﻘﺘﻀﺎﻩ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺑﺪﻓﻊ ﺃﻱ ّ‬
‫ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪ ..‬ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻳﺄﰐ ﻭﻳﺘﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺑﻠﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻟﻪ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪...‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺣﺐ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﻤﺎ ّ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺣﺪﺓ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺃﻱ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻟﻠﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ!! ﻋﺪﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻭﳏﺒﺘﻪ ﺃﻋﻠﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ﻛﺸﺊ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ )ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ ﺍﳌُ َ‬
‫ﻌﻄﻲ(‪«.‬‬

‫‪٣٤٤‬‬
 ‫‪Fr. George Florovsky‬‬ ‫)‪ (٧‬ﺍﻷﺏ ﭼﻮﺭﭺ ﻓﻠﻮﺭﻭﻓﺴﻜﻲ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻈﻢ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻪ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﻗﺪ ﺗُﺮﲨﺖ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ ‪ -‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫًﺍ ﻟﻠﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻲ ﲜﺎﻣﻌـﺔ‬
‫ﻫﺎﺭﭬﺎﺭﺩ ﺑﺄﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻤﻴﺪ ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ‪ St. Vladimir Seminary‬ﺑﻨﻴﻮﻳﻮﺭﻙ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ‬
‫ﰲ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﳌﺠﻠﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻟﻔﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ ‪ Creation and Redemption‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺋﻌﺔ ﺍﳉﻤﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ ‪(p .100- 104) :‬‬

‫» ﺗﻔﻮﻕ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﺎﺯﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻛﻞ ﻭﺻﻒ ﻭﻗﺪﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﲝﻖ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﱂ ﲢﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﺑ ًﺪﺍ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻭﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺮ ﻏﲑ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺪﺭﻙ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻷﻟﻔﺎﻅ ﻭﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺫﻛﺮﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﺡ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻗﻲ ﻓﻠﻦ ﻳﻔﻴﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺍﳊﻘﻮﻗﻲ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻻ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻋﻦ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻫﺖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻥ!! ﻭﺣﱴ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺑﻜﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﺳﺮ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ .‬ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻧﻮ ًﻋﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﺀ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﻠﻴﻢ‪ :‬ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺳﺒﺐ ﻭﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻣﺘﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻭﻣﺘﻮﺍﺻﻠﺔ‪ .‬ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺇﺫﻥ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻔﻲ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻫﺮﺓ؟ ﳌﺎﺫﺍ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ‪ ...‬ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﺴﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺘﺼﺮﺍ ﻏﺎﻟﺒًﺎ ﺣﱴ ﰲ ﺃﺣﻠﻚ ﺃﻭﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺬﻟّـﺔ!!‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﻭﺳﻠﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻻ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺣﱴ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻣﻌﲏ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ .‬ﻓﻜﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺳﺮ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﺩﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﻋﻔﺎﺀ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﺻﻒ ّ‬
‫ﻧﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺃﻭ ﻧﻘﺒﻞ‬
‫ﻭﺃﺧﲑًﺍ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﺑﺎﻷﱂ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ :‬ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺗﺄﱂ‬
‫ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺃﻱ ﻗﺼﺎﺹ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﰲ ﺁﻻﻡ ﻭﻣﻮﺕ ّ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻮﺕ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﺎﺩﻱ‪...‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻭﻻ‬
‫ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻳﻠﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﳌ َﺪﺭﺳﻴّﲔ ‪ . Scholastics‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ؛‬
‫ّ‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﺧﺬ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻧﻘﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﺴﻌﻲ ﻷﺫّﻳﺔ ﺃﻱ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ!!‬

‫‪٣٤٥‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻳﺘﺄﱂّ ﻭﳛﺰﻥ ﻵﻻﻣﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻳﺆﳌﻨﺎ ﻫﻮ؟ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻠﻘﻲ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺈﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ‬
‫ﳌﻮﺕ ﺟﺰﺍﺋﻲ )ﻋﻘﻮﰊ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻫﺮ؟‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺃﺟﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﻴّﺔ ﻭﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﻘﻂ ﰲ ﻋﺎﱂ‬
‫ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ّ‬
‫ﻭﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺪﺑﺮﻩ؟‬
‫ﻫﻞ ﺣﻘًﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻳﻘﻴ ّﺪ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻞ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺐ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳًﺎ ﻹﻋﻼﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻓﺮ؟!! ﺇﳕﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻳُﻌﻠﻦ ﰲ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﺃﻯ ﰲ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺇﺧﻼﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ‪ Kenosis‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺈﺳﺘﻌﺮﺍﺽ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ!‬
‫ﺭﲟﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﲡﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺧﻠﻘﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻗﻂ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﺑﺴﻂ ﻭﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺭﲪﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺍﺑﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻞﺀ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﳛﻔﻆ‬
‫ﻼ ﻣﺆﳌًﺎ ﻷﻧﻪ ﺇﳕﺎ ﻳﻄﺎﻟﺒﻨﺎ ﲟﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﳑﺎ ﻧﻈﻨﻪ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﲪ ً‬
‫ﻟﻨﺎ ّ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﻭﻥ ﺣﺮﻳﺘﻨﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ!‬
‫ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻻﺑﺪ ﻭﺃﻥ ﳛﺪﺙ ﲟﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ّ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﺒﺪﻭ ﻟﻨﺎ ِﺣﻤ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﻭﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﷲ ﻻ ﺗﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﺇﻻّ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ّ‬
‫ﺛﻘﻴﻠﺔ‪ .‬ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻟﻠﺼﻌﻮﺩ ﳓﻮ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻧﺎ‪ :‬ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ!! ﺃﻻ ﺗﺮﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻼ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﻧﺎﱐ ﺳﺠﲔ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﺍﳌﻜﺘﻔﻲ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ‬ ‫ﻼ ِﺣﻤ ً‬ ‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻓﻌ ً‬
‫ﳊﻤﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﺣﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻤﻲ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻴﻪ؟! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍ ِ‬
‫ﻻ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺭﻣ ًﺰﺍ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﻝ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺭﻣﺰ ﻟﻠﺤﺐ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﻳﻠﺨﺺ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺎﺅﻻﺕ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﳌَ ْﻦ ﺳﻔﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻔﻚ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﳌﺎﺫﺍ ُﺳ ِﻔ َﻚ؟!‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﻗﻠﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻓﻈﻴﻊ‪ ،‬ﻫﻞ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺍﻟﻠﺺ ﻓ َﺪﻳﺔ؟!‪...‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﻗﺪ ُﺩﻓِ َﻊ ﻟﻶﺏ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﺃﺳﺄﻝ ﺃﻭﻻً‪ :‬ﻛﻴﻒ؟ ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺏ ﱂ ﳝﺴﻜﻨﺎ ﻛﺮﻫﻴﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﳌﺎﺫﺍ ُﺳ ﱠﺮ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺑﺪﻡ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﻭﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺫﺑﺢ ﺇﺳﺤﻖ ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻗﺪ ّﻣﻪ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﳏﺮﻗﺔ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﺑ ّﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺑﻜﺒﺶ؟‬

‫‪٣٤٦‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻃﻠﺒﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺃﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ً‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺇﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺗﺪﺑﲑﻩ‪ :‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳُﻘ ﱠﺪﺱ ﺑﺈﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﷲ )ﻧﺎﺳﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ(؛ ﻭﺍﷲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﳜﻠﺼﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺑﻘﻮﺗﻪ ﻫﻮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﺩﻧﺎ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ‪«.‬‬
‫ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﻐﻠﺐ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺒﺪ ّ‬
‫ﺑﻜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﻩ ﺑﺄﻱ‬
‫ﺃﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺑﻔﻜﺮﺓ »ﺗﻘ ّﺪﻳﺴﻨﺎ ﺑﺒﺸﺮﻳّﺘﻪ« )ﺑﺈﲢﺎﺩ‬
‫ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺒﺸﺮﻳّﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺸﺮﻳّﺘﻪ ﻫﻲ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺘﻨﺎ!(‬
‫ﳎﺮﺩ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﳊﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻫﻮ ﳏﻮ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻏﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ّ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻛ ّﻠﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺘﻬﺎ‪ ...‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻐﻠﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻵﻻﻡ ﻭﲢﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﺑﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻫﻨﺎ ﻧﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻤﻖ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻭﻛﻴﺎﻧﻪ‪ .‬ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﻠﺒﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻐﻔﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﺎﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺗﱪﻳﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺗﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻣﺒﻬﻤﺔ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴـﺮ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ )ﻭﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻪ(«‬

‫‪Fr. John Karmiris‬‬ ‫)‪ (٨‬ﺍﻷﺏ ﭼﻮﻥ ﻛﺎﺭﻣﲑﻳﺲ ‪:‬‬

‫ﻣﺮﺟﻌﺎ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴًﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺪ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻡ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ‬
‫‪(A Synopsis of the Dogmatic Theology of the Orthodox‬‬
‫)‪Catholic Church, p. 55_56‬‬

‫ﲡﺴﺪ ﲡﺴﺪ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﻟﹽﻪ‬‫» ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻓﺪﻱ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺈﲢﺎﺩﻩ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺘﻨﺎ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺃﻥ ﱠ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﻪ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﻛﻨﻤﻮﺫﺝ ﻧﺴﻌﻲ ﳓﻮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﲟﻮﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﺇﻧﻨﺎ ﺇﺫًﺍ ﳔﻠﺺ ﺑﻈﻬﻮﺭﻩ ﻭﺑﻜﻞ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﳓﺘﻔﻆ ﲢﺖ ﻗﻴﺎﺩﺓ ﺃﻧﺎﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻱ ‪ Mystical‬ﻟﻠﺨﻼﺹ ]ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻣﺜﻞ ﺇﻳﺮﻳﻨﺎﺅﺱ ﻭﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ّ‬

‫‪٣٤٧‬‬
‫ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﲢﺪﻳﺪﻩ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻤﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻹﳌﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﺣﺎﻭﻟﻨﺎ[ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﻌﻠّﻤﻨﺎﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻞ ﻭﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ؛‬
‫ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﲞﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻟﻠﺨﻼﺹ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺷﺮﺣﻪ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺃﺳﻘﻒ ﻛﺎﻧﺘﺮﺑﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﺎﺯﺍﻝ ﻣﻮﺟﻮ ًﺩﺍ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﻛﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﺻﺮ ‪] -‬ﻟﻸﺳﻒ[‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺣﺎﻓﻈﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺑﺘﻘﻮﻱ ﺍﳌﺆﻣﻨﲔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ...‬ﰲ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺳﻴﻘﺎﻧﺎ ﻭﺗﺮﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﰲ ﺃﺳﺒﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺒﺼﺨﺔ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺳﺔ«‪.‬‬

‫‪H.E.W. TURNER‬‬ ‫)‪ (٩‬ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻷﳒﻠﻴﻜﺎﱐ ﺗﲑﻧﺮ ‪:‬‬

‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺗﲑﻧﺮ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﰲ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ‬
‫‪The Patristic Doctrine of Redemption‬‬

‫ﻭﺗﲑﻧﺮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫًﺍ ﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﰲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺩﺭﻫﺎﻡ ‪ ، Durham‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻋﺒّﺮ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ‬

‫ﻋﻦ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﲔ ﰲ ﺭﺣﻠﺔ ﺗﺒﺪﺃ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺎﺭ ﺇﻏﻨﺎﻃﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﺑﻮﻟﻴﻜﺎﺭﭘﻮﺱ‬
‫ﻭﺣﱴ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺧﻼﺻﺔ ﺭﺣﻠﺘﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻕ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺇﻥ ﺧﱪﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗ ّﺪﻣﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻏﲏ ﺑﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﺃﻏﲏ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﳌﺤﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺷﺮﺣﻬﺎ« )‪(p. 13‬‬

‫ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ‬
‫ّ‬ ‫» ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺔ ﳏﺪﺩﺓ ﰲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ﺗﺴﺘﺮﻋﻲ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺒﺎﻩ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻏﲑﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻣﺘﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻷﳘﻴﺔ )ﻣﻦ ﺃﻭﳍﺎ ﻵﺧﺮﻫﺎ(‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻓﻴﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻛﻴﺰ ً‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻵﻻﻡ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻧﺎ ﳘﺎ ﺧﻼﺻﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻛﻠـﻪ ‪(p. 20) «....‬‬

‫»ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻱ ‪ Mystical‬ﰲ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ‬

‫ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺟﻠﻴًﺎ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‪ ....‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺛﺒﺖ‬
‫ﺑﻼ ﺷﻚ ﻭﺃﻛﺪ ﺛﺒﺎﺗﻪ ﻭﺟﺬﺭﻳﺘﻪ ﻭﺃﺻﺎﻟﺘﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ‪Theosis‬‬
‫‪» :‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺻﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺟﺴ ًﺪﺍ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺆﳍﻨﺎ«‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻴﻤﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ‬
‫‪٣٤٨‬‬
‫ﺠﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻳﻘ ّﺪﻡ‬
‫ﳍﺎ ﺃﺛﺮ ﻗﺎﺗﻞ )ﻭﻣﻄ ّﻬﺮ( ﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻵﺭﻳﻮﺳﻴﲔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﲟﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗَ ﱠ‬
‫ﻧﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﳍﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ‪.(p. 87) « ....‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻫﺪﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻼ ﲢﻔﻆ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ‪ ...‬ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﺑﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﻢ‬
‫ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﻛﻠﻪ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﳌﻨﺘﺼﺮ‬
‫‪ Christus Victor‬ﻟﻠﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﺃﻭﻻﻥ ‪ Aullan‬ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻫﻮ »ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺍﻷﺻﻴﻞ«‬
‫ﺫﺍﺗﻪ »‪.«Classic tradition‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻷﻣﺮ ﻋﺴﲑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫)ﻭﲨﺎﻝ( ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ!! ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﻮﻥ ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﺴﻴﻐﻮﻥ ﺑﺴﻬﻮﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ‪ ،‬ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱂ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻤﺎﻡ‪ .‬ﳓﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﻮﻥ ﻧﺮﻳﺪ‬
‫ﻌﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺑﺎﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ‬ ‫ﻻﻫﻮﺗًﺎ ﺣﺎﺩ ﺍﳌﻼﻣﺢ ﻭﻣﻨﻄﻘﻲ ﻣﻨﻤﻖ‪] ،‬ﻳُ َ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻛﻴﺪﻱ ‪ Cataphatic‬ﺣﱴ ﻭﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺴﺎﺏ ﻓﻘﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻣﻔﺘﻮﺣﺎ ﻟﻠﺘﺄﻣﻞ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺢ ﻓﻘﻂ!!‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺘﺮﻙ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺏ ً‬
‫ﻭﺯﻳﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺑﺎﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﱯ ‪[ Apophatic‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺮ ﻭﺍﺣ ٌﺪ ﺃﻛﻴ ٌﺪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﺍﺟﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ٌ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ(‬
‫ﺳﺆﺍﻝ?‪ Cur Deus Homo‬ﺃﻯ ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﷲ ؟)ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﺄﻟﻪ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ً‬
‫ﳚﺎﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺑﺼﻮﺕ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻏﻢ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻭﺻﺮﻳﺢ ‪» :‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺻﺎﺭ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻧًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻴﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺼﲑ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﳍًﺎ« ‪...‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ( ‪ ...‬ﻻ ﻳﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺑﺎﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ )ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ّ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ‪ ...‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﻗﻄ ًﻌﺎ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻏﺮﰊ ﲝﺖ« ) ‪96‬ـ‪(p. 94‬‬

‫» ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻳﻀﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ )ﻭﺩﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻛﺜﻤﻦ( ﻫﻮ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻏﺮﰊ‪ .‬ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﺃﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺼﺎﺩﻓﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺮﺗﻠﻴﺎﻧﻮﺱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳏﺎﻣﻴًﺎ ﻭﺭﺟﻞ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺃﻡ ﻻ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﺤﺮﻛﺔ ﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺘﺄﻛﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻓﻌﺔ ّ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻜﻔﲑ )ﺑﺪﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺎﻧﺎﺓ( ﻫﻮ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ‬
‫ﳍﺎ ﺟﺎﺫﺑﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ‪(p. 99) «.‬‬

‫‪٣٤٩‬‬
‫ﺧﻼﺻﺎ »ﻣﻦ« ﺃﻣﺮ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ »ﳓﻮ‬
‫» ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻟﻴﺲ ً‬
‫ﻭﺇﱃ « ﺃﻣﺮ ﻣﺎ‪:‬‬
‫‪We are saved not merely FROM something,‬‬
‫‪but also saved INTO something.‬‬

‫ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﳒﺎﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺰﳝﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﺧﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ‪ .‬ﻟﻌﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻠﻤﺴﻪ ﰲ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ‪ -‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺃﻣﺮﺍ ﻋﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‪ .‬ﳓﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﻮﻥ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻌﺘﺎﺩﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﻫﺬﺍ ً‬
‫ﺍﻹﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻐﲏ ﺑﺄﻧﻨﺎ ﲨﻴﻌﻨﺎ ﻣﺘﺤﺪﻳﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ )ﺷﺮﻛﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ!!(‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﳏﻮﺭ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ!!! ‪ ...‬ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻳًﺎ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﲡﻠﻲ ﻭﺭﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳍﺰﳝﺔ ﻭﺍﳍﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻲ )ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ(‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ‬
‫ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ« ) ‪122‬ـ‪.(p. 121‬‬

‫)‪ (١٠‬ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻲ ﭼﲔ ‪ -‬ﻧﻮﻳﻞ ﺑﻴﺰﺍﻧﻜﻮﻥ‪:‬‬

‫‪Jean - Noël Bezancon‬‬

‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻧﻘ ًﺪﺍ ﻗﻮﻳًﺎ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻّ ﺃﻧﻪ‬
‫ﻳﻨﺴﺐ ﺍﻹﳓﺮﺍﻑ ﻟﻠﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﺖ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ!! ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ ﻫﻮ ﻳﺘﺤﺮﻙ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﳓﻮ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻛﻬﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ ﰲ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺍﻹﺻﻼﺡ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ‬ ‫» ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻜﺲ ﻣﺎ ّ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺁﻻﻡ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ )ﺍﳌﻮﺕ( ﺑﺪ ًﻻ ﻣﻨﺎ ﻛﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺃﻧﺰﳍﺎ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪...‬‬

‫ﺇﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﺐ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﻱ ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳔﻠﺺ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ!! ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻬﻞ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﻱ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺿﻮﺡ‪.‬‬

‫‪٣٥٠‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻨـﺰﻭﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ )ﺍﳌﻮﺕ( ﻓﻜﺎﻥ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓﺍﷲ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻟﻜﻲ ﳛﻘﻖ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺧﻠﻘﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﳛﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻞﺀ ﲢﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ )ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ( ﺍﻟﱵ ﳌﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ‪«.‬‬
‫)‪(How to Understand the Creed - S.C.M. Press Ltd. p. 93‬‬

‫‪Vernon White‬‬ ‫)‪ (١١‬ﭬﲑﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺲ ﺍﻷﳒﻠﻴﻜﺎﱐ ‪:‬‬

‫ﻭﰲ ﲝﺚ ﺷﻴﻖ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ‪:‬‬
‫‪(Atonement and Incarnation, Cambridge University,‬‬
‫)‪p. 18, 27, 101, 102, 1031991-‬‬

‫ﻣﻈﻬﺮﺍ ﺍﳊﻖ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻠﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ‪:‬‬

‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ً ،‬‬
‫ﻛﺘﺐ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ً‬
‫» ﻟﻘﺪ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻓﻜﺮﺗﻪ ﻣﻌﺘﻤ ًﺪﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﻣﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﺮﺍﻉ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻗﻄﺎﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺳﺘﻤﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺑـــﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘــــﻮﰊ ‪ ،Penal Substitution‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲢﺒﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﺘﻴﺔ )ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ(‪p. 18 «.‬‬

‫ﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒّﺎﺕ‬
‫»ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﺤﺪﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﳚﺐ ﺩﻓﻌﻬﺎ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ‪ ،‬ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧًﺎ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﷲ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺧﺎﺿﻌﺎ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﻠﺰﻡ« ‪. p.27‬‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‬
‫»ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﲝﺴﺐ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﻴﻨﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﻹﺗﺰﺍﻥ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺷﺪﻳﺪ‪ ...‬ﻓﻜﺮ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺗﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﻋﻨﻴﻒ ﻟﻜﻮﻧﻪ ﻭﻟﻴﺪ ﺻﺮﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻬﺎﻧﺔ‪ً ،‬‬
‫ﺗﺸﺘﺮﻱ‪،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻻ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴًﺎ‪(p. 27) «.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻗﺎﺭﻧﺎﻩ ﲟﺒﺪﺃ‬

‫ﺭﺧﻴﺼﺎ ﻭﺳﻄﺤﻴًﺎ ﳌﺸﻜﻠﺔ ّ‬
‫ﻼ ً‬ ‫» ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺣ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳋﻠﻘﺔ )ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ(‪.(p. 101) «.‬‬
‫» ﺇﺫﺍ ﺍﺳﺘﺒﺪﻟﻨﺎ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳋﻠﻘـﺔ ﻓﺴﻮﻑ‬

‫‪٣٥١‬‬
 ‫ﻳﻮ ّ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻻﳒﻴﻞ ] ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ ﺍﻹﳍﻰ![ ﺣﻘﻪ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ‪ ..‬ﻷﻥ ﻏﻀﺐ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘـﻮﻝ ‪ C.S. Lewis‬ﻫﻮ ﺭﻏﺒﺘﻪ ﰲ ﺇﺑﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﺃﻥ ﳚﻌﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﻳﻜﺮﻩ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‬
‫ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻗﻞ!!‪..‬‬
‫ﻻ ﺑﺪ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﻥ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﳓﺬﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺊ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻃﺎﻝ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫ﻔﺴﺮ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺼﻔﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﳒﻴﻞ‪...‬‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳُ ّ‬
‫ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳋﻠﻘﺔ ﺗﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﱃ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ‪ ...‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﺩﺩ‬
‫ﺑﺼﺪﻕ ﺻﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ )ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻲ(‪ ،‬ﻫـﺬﺍ ﲞﻼﻑ ﺃ‪‬ـﺎ ﺗﻔﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺃﻗﻮﻱ )ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ(« ) ‪105‬ـ‪(p. 102‬‬

‫‪: Colin Gunton‬‬ ‫)‪ (١٢‬ﻛﻮﻟﲔ ﭼﺎﻧﺘﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﱵ ‪:‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫًﺍ ﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﰲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻟﻨﺪﻥ ﺣﺎﻟﻴًﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ ﲝﺜﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻛﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﻭﻣﻌﺎﱐ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﺑﺘﺮﻛﻴﺰ ﺧﺎﺹ ﻋﱪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺃﺟﺰﺍﺀ ﳑﺎ ﻛﺘﺐ ﰲ ﲝﺜﻪ ‪:‬‬
‫)‪(The Actuality of Atonement - 1988, T & T Clark‬‬

‫» ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﺑﻌﻬﺪﻳﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻬﺘﻢ ﺑﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺩ )ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻱ( ‪...‬‬

‫ﺧﺎﺻﺎ ﺑﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺷﻌﺐ ﺇﺳﺮﺍﺋﻴﻞ ﻣﻊ‬‫ﰲ ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻻﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ً‬
‫ﺑﻌﻀﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻢ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻢ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺣﻘﻮﻗﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺑﲔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺷﻌﺐ ﺇﺳﺮﺍﺋﻴﻞ‪] ...‬ﻫﺎﻡ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ[ ﻭﳓﻦ ﻧﻼﺣﻆ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﲔ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﺭﺟﺎﻝ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﳑﺎ َﻋﻘّﺪ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﲞﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﻭﺟﻌﻠﻪ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴًﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻈﻬﺮﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺎﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ «‪(p. 85) .‬‬

‫» ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻟﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻣﺮﻓﻮﺿﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻮﻡ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺭﺳﲔ‪(p. 87) «...‬‬

‫‪٣٥٢‬‬
‫» ﺍﳋﺮﻭﺝ ﻋﻦ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ )ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ( ﰲ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﳛﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﺡ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺳﻄﻮﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻟﻮ ﺣﺎﻭﻟﻨﺎ ﲢﻤﻴﻞ ﺃﻱ ﳎﺎﺯ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﳑﺎ ﳛﺘﻤﻞ‪«.‬‬

‫ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻭﻑ ﰲ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﻳﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻔﻆ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﺡ ﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺗﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﺡ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﻪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﰲ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺻﻮﻑ‪ .‬ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻗﻠﺖ ﺃﻥ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﻓﻮﻻﺫﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺸﺒﻪ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺑﲔ ﺻﻼﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﻻﺫ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻼﺑﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺣﺎﻭﻟﻨﺎ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﺑﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﺑﻴﻨﻪ ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﻻﺫ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﳜﺮﺝ ﻋﻦ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ!!‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺘﺸﺒﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ »ﺑﺎﻟﻔﺪﻳﺔ« ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻴﺸﺮﺡ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻬﺐ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻳﻀﺤﻲ‬
‫ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻷﺟﻞ ﻓﺎﺋﺪﺓ ﺳﺘﻌﻮﺩ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ؛ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺬ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯ ﻷﻗﺼﺎﻩ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺴﺎﺅﻝ‪ :‬ﻭ ﳌَ ْﻦ‬
‫ﺩﻓﻌﺖ ﺍﻟﻔ ّﺪﻳﺔ؟ ﻭ َﻣ ْﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻠﻢ؟ ﻭﳌﺎﺫﺍ؟ ﻭﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﺻﻨﻊ ﲟﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻠﻢ؟ ﻭﺃﻳﻦ ﺇﻳﺼﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﻠﻴﻢ؟‪.....‬‬
‫ﺍﱁ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﳛﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺳﻄﻮﺭﺓ!! ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺃﺧﻄﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰉ‪ :‬ﲢﻮﻳﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺃﺳﻄﻮﺭﺓ‪ ...‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﻳﻨﱪﻱ ﺍﳌﻠﺤﺪﻭﻥ!!‬
‫ﻭﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﻛﻮﻟﲔ ﭼﺎﻧﺘﻮﻥ ﻣﺜﻼً‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺎﺯ ﰲ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺃ‪‬ﺎ »ﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﺴﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﷲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻘﺎﺗﻪ«‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﰲ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﻋﺼﺮ ﺍﻹﻗﻄﺎﻉ ﻟﺸﺮﺡ ﻣﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺩﻓﻊ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺤﻘﺎﺕ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ‬
‫ﷲ‪ .‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻳﻈﻦ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯ ﻋﻦ »ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﻗﻄﺎﻋﻲ« ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺼﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﻭﺻﻒ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ »ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﷲ«!!! ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﰲ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﷲ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ »ﺍﻟﺪﻛﺘﺎﺗﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﻱ« ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﭼﺎﻧﺘﻮﻥ )‪(p. 89‬‬
‫»ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ« ﺃﻭ »ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ‬
‫ّ‬ ‫ﻭﻳﻌﻴﺪ ﭼﺎﻧﺘﻮﻥ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺮﺃﻧﺎﻩ ﺳﺎﺑ ًﻘﺎ؛ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﰊ« ﻗﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳُﻐﻴّﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ‪ »...‬ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﻤﻴﺔ ﻣﻬﻤﻠﺔ « ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ )‪(p. 95‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﺘﱪﻳﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺷﺮﺣﻪ ﻟﻮﺛﺮ )ﲟﻮﺕ ﺑﺪﻳﻞ ﻋﻘﻮﰊ ﻟﺘﱪﻳﺮ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻲ ﺍﳌﺬﻧﺐ(‬
‫ﻓﻬﻮ ﻓﻌ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﻳﺮﻛﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﱪﺋﺔ ﲟﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻱ ﺍﻷﻧﺎﱐ ﺍﳌﺘﻘﻮﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﺠﺎﻫﻞ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ‬
‫ﺑﺂﺛﺎﺭﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﻠﻪ‪ .‬ﺃﻱ ﻳﻌﺘﺮﺽ ﭼﺎﻧﺘﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﻘﺔ ﳍﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ً‬

‫‪٣٥٣‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻛﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﺋﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﺘﱪﻳﺮ ﻭﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﰊ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻄﺸﺎﻥ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺎﺹ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ!!« )‪(p. 101‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﭼﺎﻧﺘﻮﻥ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻛﻞ َﻣ ْﻦ ﻗﺮﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﳍﻢ ﻟﻴﻤﺘﺪﺡ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﺎﱐ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﻭﺍﳉﻤﺎﻝ ﳊﺐ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺨﻠﺺ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫» ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺒُﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﱐ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪» :‬ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻳﻠﻴﻖ ﺑﺎﷲ‬
‫ﻭﺻﻼﺣﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺮﻙ ﺻﻨﻌﺔ ﻳﺪﻳﻪ ﻟﻠﻬﻮﺍﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ«‪(p. 103) .‬‬

‫» ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺣﻘﻮﻗﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ »ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺇﺗﺰﺍﻥ «‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ »ﻋﻤﻞ‬

‫ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺔ« ﺑﲔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ« )‪(p. 104‬‬

‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﺮﺩﺩ ﺻﺪﻱ ﻣﺎ ﺫﻛﺮﺗﻪ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧﻪ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻘﻪ‪ :‬ﺻﻼﺡ‬
‫ﳎﺮﺩ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺭﻳﺎﺿﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﻌﻲ ﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﳕﻮﻫﺎ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ّ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺗﻌﺒﲑًﺍ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻀﻠﺔ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ﲢﻞ ﻛﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﺣﺴﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﭼﺎﻧﺘﻮﻥ ً‬
‫ﳛﻮﻝ ﺍﷲ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎ ﺃﲰﺎﻩ‪:‬‬‫ﻻﻫﻮﰐ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﻳﻨﻘﺪ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺩﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ّ‬
‫» ﺇﻟﻪ ﺑﻮﺭﺻﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﻭﺍﻷﻭﺭﺍﻕ ﺍﳌﺎﻟﻴﺔ«!! ‪.Stock-Exchange Divinity‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺩﺭﺳﻨﺎﻩ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﲟﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻭﻳﺮﺩﺩ ﭼﺎﻧﺘﻮﻥ ً‬
‫ﻛﻌﻼﺝ ﻣﻄﻬﺮ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﳒﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﺪﻓﻊ ﲦﻦ ﻭﺗﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻟﻺﻟﻪ ﺍﳌﻬﺎﻥ‪:‬‬
‫ﻣﺘﺴﺨﺎ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻋﺎﱂ ﻣﻠﻮﺙ‬
‫» ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﳘﺎ ﻭﺳﺦ ﻭﻗﺬﺍﺭﺓ‪ .‬ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ً‬
‫ﻓﻘﺪ ﺻﻮﺍﺑﻪ ﻭﺍﲡﺎﻩ ﻣﺴﲑﺗﻪ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﺪﻋﻮﻧﺎ ﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ »ﻭﻫﺐ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ«‪ ،‬ﺃﻋﻈﻢ ﻋﻄﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪ ،‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺰﻳﻞ ﺣﻮﺍﺟﺰ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺳﺔ )ﺍﳌﺘﺴﺒﺐ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺓ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻫﻨﺎ ﻧﺼﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻗﻠﺐ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ( ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻌﻴﺪ ّ‬
‫ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ«‪(p. 138) .‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﰲ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﳘﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﷲ‪ ،‬ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻄﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ!! ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﲦﻨًﺎ ﻳُﺴ ّﺪﺩ ﻻﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﺇﻟﻪ ﻣﺘﻀﺮﺭ ﻭﻏﺎﺿﺐ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ؛ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ »ﺩﻭﺍﺀ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ« ‪ Antidote‬ﻳﻘ ّﺪﻣﻪ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻨﺘﺤﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﻠﻮﺙ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻳﻘﻴﻢ ﺍﳌﻨﺘﺤﺮ ﻭﻳﻬﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻠﻮﺙ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺠﺎﺳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪٣٥٤‬‬
 ‫)‪ (١٣‬ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﺱ ﻳﻨﺎﺭﺍﺱ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻣﺮﺓ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﻴﻠﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﳑﺎ ﻗﺮﺃﻧﺎ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻭﺃﺗﺮﻙ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﻭﺍﳌﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻘﺪ ﻭﲢﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﲔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﻳﻦ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺪﺡ ﻧﻮﺭ ﻭﺭﻗﺔ ﻭﻋﻤﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻬﺘﻢ »ﲞﻼﺹ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ« ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺇﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﲔ »ﲞﻼﺹ ﺍﷲ ﻭﻋﺪﻟﻪ ﻭﻛﺮﺍﻣﺘﻪ« ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻫﺎﻧﺔ!!!‬
‫» ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻋﺎﺩﻝ « ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺪﺍﻓﻌﻮﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﻳﺔ‪ » ،‬ﻓﻴﺠﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﳛﻘﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻭﻳﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ« !!‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻳﻦ ﺟﺎﺀﻭﺍ ‪‬ﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ »ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ« ‪ He must‬؟‬
‫ﻛﻴﻒ ﳜﻀﻌﻮﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ؟ ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﻠﺰﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﺪ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﻭﺣﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﲢﺪﺩ ﺣﺮﻳﺘﻪ؟!!!‬
‫ﺁﺧﺮﺍ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺈﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺻﺤﻴﺤﺎ ﻷﺻﺒﺢ ﺍﷲ ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ ً‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻌﺮﻓﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ‪» ،‬ﺿﺎﺑﻂ ﺍﻟﺒﻮﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺋﻲ« ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻠﺰﻣﻪ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻫﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻴﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻗﻄﺔ!‬
‫ﳎﺮﺩ َﻭ ْ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ّ‬
‫ﺇﻧﻪ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺍﻧﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﻭﺍﺳﻘﺎﻁ ﻹﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺑﻘﻮﺓ ﻓﺎﺋﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﲢﻤﻴﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺭﺗﺪﺍﺩ ﺍﳋﻴﺎﻧﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﳑﻦ ﺣﻮﳍﻢ!!!‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﺃﻻﻋﻴﺐ ﻭﺣﺠﺞ ﺻﻮﻓﻴﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺃﰐ ‪‬ﺎ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﳌﺪﺍﻓﻌﻮﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺤﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﳌﺠﺮﺩ ﺇﺧﻀﺎﻉ ﺍﷲ ﻭﳏﺒﺘﻪ ﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ؟‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻻﻋﻴﺐ ﻫﻲ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺳﻼﻣﺔ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻬﻢ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻣﺎﺭ ﺇﺳﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﱐ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ َﺣﺒَﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﻞ ﻻ ﺗﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﺴﺎﻭﻱ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻴﺰﺍﻥ ﻣﻊ ﻛﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻛﺒﲑﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻫﺐ‪ ،‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ‬
‫ﺗﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺯﻥ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﲪﺔ«!!!‬
‫ﺇﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻋﻼﻥ ﺍﻹﳒﻴﻠﻲ ﻭﺍﳋﱪﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻋﺎﺩﻻً‪.....‬‬

‫‪٣٥٥‬‬
 ‫ﻓﻴﻜﻤﻞ ﻣﺎﺭ ﺇﺳﺤﻖ ‪:‬‬
‫ِﻉ ﺍﷲ ﻋﺎﺩﻻ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺘﻪ ﻻ ﺗﻌﻠﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﻚ‪...‬‬
‫» ﻻ ﺗَﺪ ْ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻦ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ؟!‪ ...‬ﻫﻮ ﺻﺎﱀ ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻟﻸﺷﺮﺍﺭ ﻭﻏﲑ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺗﻘﻴﺎﺀ« )ﻣﺎﺭ ﺇﺳﺤﻖ(‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺗﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻌﻤﻠﺔ )ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻭﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ( ﰲ ﻭﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺑﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲢﺎﻭﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﻠﻨﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺳﻘﻮﻁ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﻘﻮﻁ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎ ﻭﻗﺒﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺷﺊ ﺗﺸﻮﻳﻪ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻮﻳﻪ ﺃﺳﻘﻄﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ً‬
‫ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺣﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻐﺮﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ‬
‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺧﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲢﻘﻖ ﻫﺪﻑ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﺗﺸﻮﻳﻪ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻳﻌﲏ ّ‬
‫ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﻭﺍﻷﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﺘﻤﺮ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺃﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﺗﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﺮﺏ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﲤﺮﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻋﺪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ؛ ﺗﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﻧﺸﻘﺎﻕ ّ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﻪ ﻳﺸﻖ ﻭﳛﻔﺮ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳍﻮﺓ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛ ّﺪﺛﻨﺎ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺟﻬﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺷﻌﺐ ﻏﻠﻴﻆ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﺑﺄﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﻭﺻﻮﺭ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻔﻬﻤﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻗﺒﺔ ﻭﻋﻨﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺸﺮﺡ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ّ‬
‫ﻼ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻗﻂ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻣﺴﺘﻌﻤ ً‬
‫ﻳﺴﻌﻲ ﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻴﺲ ﲟﻨﺘﻘﻢ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺇﺣﺘﺮﺍﻣﻪ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ ﻟﻠﺤﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻧﺘﺎﺋﺠﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﻹﺯﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﳌُﺮ ﱠﺓ ّ‬
‫ﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺇﻥ‬
‫ﻓﻌﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻓﺴﻮﻑ ﻳﺰﻳﻞ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﲟﺎ ﳛﻤﻠﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺯﺍﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ً‬
‫ﻟﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﳏﺒﺔ ﺍﷲ ﺗﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﻓﻘﻂ ّ‬
‫ﺧﻼﺻﺎ(‪.‬‬
‫)ﺣﻮﻟﺖ ﱄ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ً‬
‫ﺧﻼﺻﻲ ّ‬
‫ﺠﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺒﻮﻟﻪ ﰲ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﺆﳍﺔ ﻛﻞ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ‬
‫ﻭﻗﻤﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺗَ ﱡ‬

‫‪٣٥٦‬‬
‫ﲤﺮﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﻴﺤ ّﻮﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺣﺐ ﺑﻴﻨﻨﺎ ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﻭﻱ‪ ...‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﻴﻨﻬﺎ‪«.‬‬
‫‪(C. Yannaras, Elements of Faith, p. 8385-).‬‬

‫)‪ (١٤‬ﺍﻷﺏ ﺩﳝﺘﺮﻱ ﺳﺘﺎﻧﻴﻠﻮﻱ ‪(١٩٩٣ - ١٩٠٣) :‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺏ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻣﺆﺧﺮﺍ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺰﻭﺟﺎ ﻭﺃﺑًﺎ ﻹﺛﻨﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻃﻔﺎﻝ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﻱ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﺷﻬﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ً‬
‫ﻋﻤﻴ ًﺪﺍ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﰲ ﺑﻮﺧﺎﺭﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻮﻋﻲ ﻗﺒﺾ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺳﺠﻦ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ١٩٥٨‬ﻟﻌﺪﺓ ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﺑﺘﻬﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻭﻳﺞ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺘﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﳎﺮﺩ ﻣﺸﻐﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﻘﻼﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻃﻨﻴﺔ ‪ ..‬ﻭﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺳﺘﺎﻧﻴﻠﻮﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﻟﻴﺲ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻋﻦ ﺇﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﻫﺒﺔ ﺣﻘﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪ ...‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﺳﻬﻢ ﰲ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﻭﺳﺮ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻟﻴﺲ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﱪﻳﺮ ﺃﻭ ﻓﺪﺍﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻳﺸﻤﻞ‪ ...‬ﺍﻟﻮﻋـﺪ ﺑﺎﻟﺜﻴﺌﻮﺳﻴﺲ ‪ ، Theosis‬ﺃﻱ ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ]ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ[ ﻭﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ﰲ ﻧﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ »ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ« ‪ ،Theology and The Church‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻗﺪﻡ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﭼﻮﻥ ﻣﺎﻳﻨﺪﻭﺭﻑ )‪ (S.V.S., New York, 1980‬ﺃُﻗ ّﺪﻡ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺄﻣﻼﺕ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﻋﻦ »ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺁﺛﺎﺭﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ‪ Diakonia‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ« ‪:‬‬
‫» ﱂ ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﺑﻜﺜﺮﺓ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ »ﺍﳌﺼﺎﳊﺔ« ﻟﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻼﺻﻲ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪ ...‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺣﺒﺬّﺕ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﺘﻴﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺫﻛﺮﻩ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺃﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﻣﺮﺍﺕ ﻓﻘﻂ )ﺭﻭ ‪ ١٠ :٥‬؛ ‪٢‬ﻛﻮ ‪٢٠ -١٨ :٥‬؛‬
‫ﻛﻮ ‪٢٣ -١٩ :١‬؛ ﺇﻑ ‪.(١٨ -١٤ :٢‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﺖ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ »ﺍﳌﺼﺎﳊﺔ« ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﺈﺻﻄﻼﺡ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ ً‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﳊﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﻮﻱ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ »ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ«‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﺿﺎﻓﺖ ً‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺇﻻ »ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ« ‪ satisfaction‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺇﱃ ﺍﷲ‬
‫]ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺫﻛﺮﻧﺎ[‪(p. 181) .‬‬

‫‪٣٥٧‬‬
‫ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﺖ ﺗﻌﺒﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﳊﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ‪،‬‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺩﺭﻛﺘﻬﻢ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﺗﺴﺎ ًﻋﺎ ﳑﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻚ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻧﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ »ﺍﳋﻼﺹ« ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﻷﴰﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﻭﻻً‪ :‬ﺗﻌﺒﲑ »ﺍﳋﻼﺹ« ﻫﻮ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻌﻤﻠﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﻟﻮﺻﻒ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ )ﺣﻮﺍﱄ ‪ ٤٠‬ﻣﺮﺓ( ﺃﻭ ﻛﻠﻘﺐ ﻟﻠﺴﻴﺪ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻛﻤﺨﻠﺺ )ﺣﻮﺍﱄ ‪ ٢٠‬ﻣﺮﺓ(‪.‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ‪ :‬ﻷﻥ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ »ﺍﳋﻼﺹ« ﻫﻮ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻻً ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﻼ )ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻠﻨﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺘﻮﺭﭼﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﰲ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﻣﺜ ً‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺧﻼﺻﻨﺎ‪.(.....‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﺧ ًﲑﺍ ﻷﻥ »ﺍﳋﻼﺹ« ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺑﺄﻛﺜﺮ ﻋﻤﻖ ﻭﴰﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﻌ ّﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺭﻭﻉ ﻣﺎ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻫﻮ‪ :‬ﺇﺑﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺼﻴﺐ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻌﻨﻴﻪ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ؛ ﻭﲣﻠﻖ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺷﻌﻮﺭﺍ ﺭﻭﺣﻴًﺎ ﺑﺎﻹﻣﺘﻨﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻻﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﺎﳉﻤﻴﻞ ﳓﻮ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﰲ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ً‬ ‫ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ً‬
‫ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﳌﺆﻣﻨﲔ ‪(p. 182) ....‬‬

‫ﺳﺮ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺃﺑﻌﺎﺩﻩ ﻭﻻ ﲢﺪﻳﺪﻫﺎ ﻭﺍﻹﳌﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ‪‬ﺎ‪....‬‬

‫ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻫﻮ ّ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﻟﻨﺎ ﭬﻼﺩﳝﲑ ﻟﻮﺳﻜﻰ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻘًﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻏﺮﻳﻐﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺰﻳﱰﻱ‬
‫]ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳍﺎﻡ ﻋﻦ ﳌَِ ْﻦ ُﺳﻔﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺳﻔﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺪ ﺫﻛﺮﺗﻪ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﺮﺍﺕ ﰲ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻟﻜﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ ﻋﻦ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ[ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻨﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﻭﺿﻴﻖ ﺍﻷﻓﻖ ] ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋ ّﻠﻤﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ [ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱏ‪ ،‬ﳓﻦ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻧﻌﻴﺪ ﺍﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻭﳒﺪ ﰲ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﻬﻢ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻐﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﻐﻠﺒﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺑﺎﻛﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﺭﺟﺎﺀﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺧﻼﺹ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺳﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﰊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱏ[‬
‫ّ‬ ‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﱪﻳﺮ ]‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﻋﻦ ﲡﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺧﻠﻘﺔ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ« )‪(p. 183‬‬

‫‪٣٥٨‬‬
‫ﻻﺑﺪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻛﺮ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻱ ﺣﺪﺛﺖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻋﺎﱐ ﻣﻦ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻲ ] ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻰ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻰ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﺸﺄ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﳌﺤﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﲢﻠﻴﻞ ﻭﺷﺮﺡ ﻛﻞ ﺣﻘﺎﺋﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴًﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺗ ّﺪﻋﻲ ﺍﻹﳌﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺎﻃﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻭﺍﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﺑﺘﻤﺎﻣﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ »ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ« ﻳُ َ‬
‫ﺸﻜ ّﻞ ﺣﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﺼﺢ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺘﻪ ﻭﺇﻻّ ّ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺮﺽ ﺍﳌﺆﻣﻦ ﳌﺤﺎﻛﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺘﻴﺶ ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻕ ﺣﻴًﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﺨﺎﻟﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻹﻛﻠﲑﻭﺱ[‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﺛﺮ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ‪ ،‬ﲝﻴﺚ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ‬
‫ﺃﻣﺮﺍ ﻗﺪ ﲤﻤﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﺃﳒﺰﻩ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ً‬
‫ﻓﻘﻂ‪ .‬ﺬﺍ ُﺷﺮﺡ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻻﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ‬
‫‪ Satisfaction‬ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺣﺪﺙ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﳌﺎﺿﻰ‪ ،‬ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ‬
‫ﻼ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺱ‪ ،‬ﻀﺔ ﻭﻋﻮﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﻜﺎﺩ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﲢ ّﻮ ًﻻ ﻛﺎﻣ ً‬
‫ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻌﲏ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﺍﳌﺘﺴﻊ ﺍﻷﻓﻖ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﲎ‪ .‬ﻭ ﻗﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺳﺒﺐ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﻟﻶﺑﺎﺀ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻧﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﻬﺎ ﻷﳘﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﺪﻣﺔ‬
‫‪ Diakonia‬ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺴﻌﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻷﻥ ﲢﺘﻀﻨﻪ )ﻟﺘﻮﺟﻴﻬﻪ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﷲ(‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﻳﺘﺤﺮﻙ ﻗﺪ ًﻣﺎ ﻟﻴﻌﺎﻳﺶ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺃﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺘﻪ ﻭﻳﻘ ّﺪﻡ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﻴﻪ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺟﺰﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ‬ ‫ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ‪ -‬ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ً‬
‫ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺋﻰ‪(p. 187) .‬‬

‫ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺗﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻋﺰﻳﺰ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﲔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﻗﻄ ًﻌﺎ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻱ‪(p. 191) .....‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻛﲑﻟﺲ ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻱ ﺃﻛﺪ ﻣﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ )ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﺎﺯﻩ‬

‫ﺍﻹﺑﻦ( َﻛ ُﺤﺐ ﻭﻃﺎﻋﺔ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﻭﻯ‪ .‬ﻭ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ‬
‫ﻣﻜﺴﻴﻤﻮﺱ ﺍﳌﻌﺘﺮﻑ ﺃﻛﺪﺍ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﲟﻌﲏ ﻗﻮ‪‬ﺎ‬

‫‪٣٥٩‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﻔﺎﺀ )ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺲ( ﻭﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻠﺒﺔ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ‪(p. 197) .‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﻣﻜﺴﻴﻤﻮﺱ ﺍﳌﻌﺘﺮﻑ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠّﻤﻮﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻤﻞ‬

‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ )ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ( ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺪ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺎﺋﺖ )ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ(‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﰲ ﺟﺴﺪﻩ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻐﻠﺐ ﻭﻳﺒﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﺍ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺣﺪﺛﺖ ﻣﻌﺠﺰﺗﲔ ﺩﻓﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ‪ :‬ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ ﻗﺪ ﺿﻤﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﰲ ﺟﺴﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ّ‬
‫ﺣﻞ ﻓﻴﻪ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻭﺗَ ّ‬
‫ﺸﺮﺑﻪ ﱡ‬
‫ﺃﺑﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﻛﻠّﻴﺔ «‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺗَﻘَﺒَﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺒﻴﺪﻩ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ] ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻴﺴﺘﺮﺿﻲ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺎﺿﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻬﺎﻧﺔ ﺑﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻛﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﳋﻼﺻﻲ ﲟﻌﺰﻝ‬ ‫ﻟﻮﺛﺮ!![‪ ...‬ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﱂ ﻳﻌ ّﻠﻤﻮﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻮﺕ ّ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ )‪(p. 198‬‬

‫ﺠﺴﺪ ﳌﺠﺮ ّﺩ ﺻﻨﻊ ﻣﺼﺎﳊﺔ ﺷﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺳﻄﺤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻴﻤﺎ ﻧﻘﻒ‬

‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﱂ ﻳﺘَ ّ‬
‫ﻣﱪﺭﻳﻦ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﺑﺎﲢﺎﺩﻧﺎ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻪ ‪(p. 198) ....‬‬

‫ﺗﺪﺑﲑ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳋﻼﺻﻰ‪ ،‬ﻛﻠﻪ ﻭﺍﳌﺤﻘﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺇﲢﺎﺩﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﲢﺎﺩﻧﺎ ﻛﻠﻨﺎ ﻣ ًﻌﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﺎ ﻭﺟﺴ ًﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ ﻛﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻘﺪﺱ ﻭﻣﺘﺤﺪ‬
‫ﰲ ﻗﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ً‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ » ﺍﳋﻀﻮﻉ « ﷲ ﺍﻵﺏ‪ .‬ﰲ ﺻﻌﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﺑﺮ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻛﻞ ﳎﺪ ﺍﻵﺏ‪ ،‬ﻣﺰﺭﻭﻋﺎ ﻭﻣﻨﻘﻮ ًﻻ ﺑﻜﺎﻣﻠﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫)‪(p. 199‬‬

‫ﺑﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻮﺗﻪ ﻭﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺻﻌﺪ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ )ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺘﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ( ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻗﻮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻪ‪ .‬ﻭ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ‬ ‫ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻟﻜﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺰﺩﺍﺩ ﺇﺷﻌﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻳﻮﺣﺪ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻛﻞ ﺍﳋﻼﺋﻖ ﺍﻟﱵ ُﺧﻠﻘﺖ ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ‬
‫ﺧﺎﺭﺟﺎ‪ ،‬ﻳﻮﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ )ﺇﻑ ‪ ،١٠ :١‬ﻛﻮ ‪.(١٦ : !١‬‬ ‫ﻗﺪ ﺗﺸﺘﺘﺖ ً‬

‫‪٣٦٠‬‬
‫ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﰲ ﻏﺎﻳﺘﻪ ﺍﻹﺳﺨﺎﺗﻮﻟﻮﭼﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﻨﺘﻬﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ‪ ،‬ﲝﺴﺐ‬
‫ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺍﲢﺎﺩ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻓﻜﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﻴّﺔ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺘﺖ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﻘﺴﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺃﺧﻴﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ؛‬
‫ﻭﻳﻮﺣﺪ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻧﺮﻱ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﳌﺘﺒﺎﺩﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳚﻤﻊ ّ‬ ‫ﻓﻬﻜﺬﺍ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ )ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ( ﰲ ﺍﷲ« )‪.(p. 201‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﺍﳌﺸﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﲢﺎﺩ ﺍﷲ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ )ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻗﺔ( ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ّ‬
‫ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻘﻖ ﺍﻹﲢﺎﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ‪....‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺣﻘﻖ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺇﻧﺴﺠﺎﻡ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ‪ ...‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻣﻮﺗﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻃ ّﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻪ ‪ ..‬ﻭﻣﻸ ﻛﻞ ﺷﺊ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﺑﻨﻮﺭﻩ‪(p. 202) .‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻱ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ )ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺑﲑ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ( ﻫﻮ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ُﻣ َﻌﺪ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻬﻴﺄ ﻟﻠﺘﺠ ّﻠﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳊﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺜﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻱ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ‪‬ﺎﺀﻩ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻜﺲ ﺣﺐ ﺍﷲ ‪...‬‬
‫ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺑﺎﳋﱪﺓ ﺍﳊﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﳓﻮﻝ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎﺩﻱ ﺇﱃ ﻫﺪﻳﺔ ﺣﺐ ﻳﺘﺒﺎﺩﳍﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻊ ﺃﺧﻴﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻳﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ّﺳﺮﻳﺔ ﺭﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻠﺘﺼﻖ ﺑﺎﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﺼﻠﻮﺏ ﻭﺍﳌﻘﺎﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﺕ‪ .‬ﻭ ﻟﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻣﻠﺘﺼﻖ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﲔ ﻭﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﲔ ً‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ً‬
‫ﻳﻌﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﻳﺘﺄﳌﻮﻥ ﺳﻌﻴًﺎ ﳓﻮ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ‪ .‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﻧﻴﻘﻮﻻﺱ ﻛﺎﺑﺎﺳﻴﻼﺱ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺯﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻃﻔﺄ ﻧﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺯﻟﺰﻝ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻗ ّﺪﺱ ﺍﳍﻮﺍﺀ ﻭﻃ ّﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ« )‪(p. 211‬‬

‫ﲨﺎ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﳋﻼﺻﻲ ﺇﱃ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ‬ ‫ﻭﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺩﳝﺘﺮﻱ ﺳﺘﺎﻧﻴﻠﻮﻱ ﺣﺪﻳﺜﻪ ُﻣﺘﺮ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺳﻠﻮﻙ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻭﺇﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻯ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺒﺢ ﻓﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺴﺤﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﳜﻄﻮ ﺑﺄﺭﺟﻞ ﻣﻦ‬‫ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻲ ﻻ ﳛﻴﺎ ﺑﺮﺃﺱ ﺗَ َﺴ ْ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﻳﺘﺄﳌﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺴﺘﻘﻄﺒﻮﺍ ﻭﻳﺴﺘﺪﻋﻮﺍ ﻭﻳﺘﻌﺠﻠﻮﺍ ﻣﻠﻜﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ .‬ﺑﺼﻨﻊ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺗﺴﻜﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﺎﻭﺍﺓ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ ،‬ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﲔ‬
‫ﺭﺳﻢ ﺃﻳﻘﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﳌﻠﻜﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﻭﻱ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﳒﺎﺡ ﲟﺆﺍﺯﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ‪:‬‬
‫‪٣٦١‬‬
‫» ﺇﻧﻪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳔﺪﻣﻪ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﻠﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻮﻥ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ .‬ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻗﺪ ﻭﺣﺪ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻵﺑﺎﺀ ﻳﻌ ّﻠﻤﻮﻧﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳊﺎﱄ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺳﻮﻕ ﻛﺒﲑ ﻧﺸﺘﺮﻱ ﻭﻧﺮﺑﺢ ﻓﻴﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻠﻜﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ‪ .‬ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺎﺟﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﺼﻨﻊ ﺍﳋﲑ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﺃﺧﻮﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﲦﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﻳﺴﺘﺜﻤﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻮﺍﻫﺒﻪ ﻭﻭﺯﻧﺎﺗﻪ ﺳﻮﻑ ﳝﻀﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺑﻨﻔﺲ ﺧﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﻭﻓﺎﺭﻏﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ]ﺗﻌﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻌﲏ‬
‫»ﺍﻟﺰﻳﺖ« ﰲ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﳌﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺍﺭﻱ ﺍﳊﻜﻴﻤﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﺧﺬﻥ ﺯﻳﺘًﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺱ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﻭﻯ[‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ )ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲏ‬ ‫ﻣﻊ ﺁﻧﻴﺘﻬﻦ ﻭﺩﺧﻠﻦ ﺑﻨﻮﺭﻩ ﺇﱃ ُ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻯ( ﺇﳕﺎ ﻧﺘﻘﺒﻠﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺇﺧﻮﺗﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ!! ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﺭﲝﻨﺎ ﺇﺧﻮﺗﻨﺎ ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻧﺮﺑﺢ‬
‫ﺍﷲ؛ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ ﺻﺤﻴﺢ‪ :‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺁﺫﻳﻨﺎ ﺇﺧﻮﺗﻨﺎ ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﳔﻄﻲ ﰲ ﺣﻖ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻮﻕ ﻧﺘﺎﺟﺮ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻣﻊ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺆﻣﻨﲔ ﻭﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺆﻣﻨﲔ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺭﺑﺢ ﺍﳌﻠﻜﻮﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺧﺪﻣﺘﻨﺎ ﻟﻐﲑ ﺍﳌﺆﻣﻨﲔ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻗﻮﻱ!! ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﺧﺪﻣﺘﻨﺎ ﳍﻢ ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ َﻛ َﺮ ًَﻣﺎ ﻭﳎﻬﻮ ًﺩﺍ ﻭﺗﻀﺤﻴﺔ ﺃﻏﻠﻰ‪) ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻋﻤﻞ ﳏﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺃﲦﻦ ﰲ ﺃﻋﲔ ﺍﷲ!(‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻧﻨﺎ ﺣﻘًﺎ ﻧﺘﺴﻠّﻢ ﺍﳌﻠﻜﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﻭﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻳﻌﻄﻴﻪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ‬
‫ﺍﺧﻮﺗﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺧﺪﻣﺘﻨﺎ ﺇﻳﺎﻫﻢ‪...‬‬
‫ﻭﺭﺧﻴﺼﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻭﻥ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺮﻏﺒﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺭﺑﺢ ﺍﳌﻠﻜﻮﺕ ﺭﲝًﺎ ً‬
‫ﺳﺮﻳﻌﺎ‬
‫ﳎﻬﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﻘﻮﻝ ﳍﻢ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪» :‬ﺇﻥ ﺃﺣﺒﺒﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﳛﺒﻮﻧﻜﻢ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﻱ ﻓﻀﻞ ﻟﻜﻢ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺓ ﻳﺼﻨﻌﻮﻥ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ« )ﻟﻮ ‪ .(٣٣ -٣٢ :٦‬ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺪﻣﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﺃﻱ ﺷﺊ ﻳُﺰﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ] ...‬ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﻫﻢ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﻘﻮﻗﻌﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺟﻮﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻴﺔ ﻫﺮﺑًﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﰲ ﻣﻌــﺎﻧﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ [‪ .‬ﺇﻥ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﻋﻤﻞ ُﻣ َﻀ ٍﺢ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻪ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﳓﻮ ﺁﺧﺮ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﻳﻨﺒﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺿﻤﲑ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺬﺑﻮﺡ ﺑﺎﳊﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﱵ ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﺧﻠﻲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ‪Kenosis‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻞ ﺭﺟﺎﺀ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﳓﻮ ﺁﺧﺮ‬ ‫‪ .‬ﻭﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ً‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺴﻤﻮ ًﻋﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺻﺎﻣﺘًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺭﺟﺎﺀ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ .‬ﻛﻞ ﺗﻀﺤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻞ ﺿﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻞ ﻋﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﻛﻞ ﺣﺐ‪ ،‬ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺪﻓﻮﻋﺔ ﻭﻧﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪.‬‬
‫‪٣٦٢‬‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﻃﻠﺐ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻱ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺃﻭ ﺧﺪﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ‪‬ﺎ ﻳﺮﺑﻄﻨﺎ ﺣﺐ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱏ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻛﻞ ﻃﻠﺐ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻞ ﺍﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﱐ ﻭﺳﺪ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﺘﻤﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻀﻴﻔﻮﻥ ﻋﻤﻘًﺎ ﻟﺬﺑﻴﺤﺘﻪ ﻭﺻﺮﺧﺘﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻃﺎﻟﺒًﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﻥ‪ .‬ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﻃﻠﺒﺎﺗﻨﺎ ﻭﺍﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎﺗﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻞ ﺻﺮﺧﺎﺗﻨﺎ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺎﺗﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﲡﺪ ﺻﺪﺍﻫﺎ ﰲ ﻃﻠﺒﺎﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺇﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎﺗﻪ ﻭﺇﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺎﺗﻪ‪ .‬ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﻴﺎﻥ ﻳﺼﺮﺥ ﻭﻳﺴﺘﺠﻴﺐ ﻭﳍﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﻛﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺒﻌﻀﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ‪ .‬ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﺸﻌﺮ ﺑﺎﻹﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﻣﱵ ﲰﻊ ﺻﺮﺧﺔ ﺇﺳﺘﻐﺎﻧﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ .‬ﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺑﻂ ﻫﺬﻩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻠﺰﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﲟﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺃﺧﻴﻪ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻐﻴﺚ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﺼﺪﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﻖ ﻫﻮ ﺍﷲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻠﺰﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﻀﻤﲑ‪ .‬ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﺇﺫﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺧﺬ ﻣﻮﺿﻌﻪ ﰲ ﻭﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﰲ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺇﻟﺰﺍﻡ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻐﺎﺛﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪...‬‬
‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﻤﻊ ﺻﺮﺧﺔ‬
‫ﺇﺳﺘﻐﺎﺛﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﰲ ﺻﺮﺧﺔ ﻛﻞ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻦ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻬﺪﺃ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻬﺎﻭﻥ ﻣﱵ ﺭﺃﻱ ﺃﺧﺎﻩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺃﺩﱐ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺎﻟﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳊﺐ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧﻪ‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﻄﻴﻖ ﻭﻻ ﳛﺘﻤﻞ ﺇﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻭﺍﺓ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺇﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻭﺍﺓ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﺍﳍﻮﺓ‬
‫ﺑﻴﻨﻨﺎ ‪ -‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺿﺪ ﺍﳊﺐ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺐ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺮﻓﻊ ﺃﻭ ﻳﺮﺗﻔﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﳛﺒﻪ‪ .‬ﻟِﺬﺍ ﻳﺪﻓﻌﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻟﻠﺴﻌﻲ ﳓﻮ ﲢﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻭﺍﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻝ ﲰﻌﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ‪» :‬ﻣﻦ ﳛﺐ ﺃﺧﺎﻩ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﺮﻳﺢ ﺇﻥ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﳑﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻗﺮﻳﺒﻪ‪ .‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻏﲏ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺑﺴﺨﺎﺀ ﺣﱴ‬
‫ﻳﺸﺎﺭﻙ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻗﺮﻳﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﲑ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﱂ ﳛﻘﻖ ﻭﺻﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻢ ﺑﻌﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﺧﺪﻡ ﻭﺳﺪﺩ‬
‫ﺇﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑﻳﻦ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﳛﺘﻘﺮ ﺃﻭ ﻳﺘﺠﺎﻫﻞ ﻭﻟﻮ ﺣﱴ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﺇﺣﺘﻘﺮ ﻭﲡﺎﻫﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﰲ ﺟﻮﻋﻪ ﻭﻋﻄﺸﻪ«‪] ...‬ﻛﻞ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻟﻪ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻭﳎﺪ ﻭﳏﺒﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﰲ ﻋﲔ ﺍﷲ ‪ -‬ﻳﻮ ‪.[١٧‬‬
‫ﳎﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻳﺶ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺣﺮﺏ‬‫ﳎﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻠﻰ‪ّ ،‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﳊﺔ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻻ ﺗﻌﲏ ّ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻹﺗﻔﺎﻕ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻢ ﻻ ﻳﻨﻔﺼﻞ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﻌﻲ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ] ﻫﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻻﻫﺜًﺎ ﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻭﺍﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻈﻢ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒُﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻭﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﺍﳌﺤﻴﻲ [‪.‬‬
‫‪٣٦٣‬‬
‫ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﳊﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﷲ ﻭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺍﲢﺎﺩﻧﺎ ﻣﻌﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺷﺮﻛﺘﻨﺎ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺧﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺼﲑ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﷲ ﻣﺘﺄﳍﲔ ﲝﺴﺐ‬
‫ﻏﲏ ﻧﻌﻤﺘﻪ‪. (p. 207- 212) «.‬‬

‫•••‬

‫‪٣٦٤‬‬
‫ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﻢ ﺣﻘﴼ ﰲ ﺇﲤﺎﻡ »ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺪﻝ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ«‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺇﺑﻦ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﺑﺪﻻً ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﺎﻥ ﻫﺪﻑ‬
‫ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﺇﺭﺳﺎﻟﻴﺘﻪ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﱂ »ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻲ ﻭﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻱ« ﻫﻮ ﲢﻘﻴﻖ »ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺪﻝ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ«‪،‬‬
‫ﻻﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‪ ،‬ﲤﺖ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻠﻴﺐ ﺍﳉﻠﺠﺜﺔ ﻭﺇﺧﺘُ ِﺰ َﻝ‬
‫ﺑﺬﻝ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻛﻠﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺛﻼﺙ ﺳﺎﻋﺎﺕ )ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺇﺛﲎ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﺳﺎﻋﺔ( ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﻻﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻨﻴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﻓﻊ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﲦﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻟﻶﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻫﲔ ﲞﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ...‬ﻭﻟﻦ‬
‫ﻳﻐﻔﺮ ﺇﻻ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺇﺳﺘﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﻦ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻓﺘﺮﻯ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻭﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﺳﻌﺔ ﻭﻣﺘﺴﻌﺔ ﺟﺪﴽ ﲤﺘﺪ ﺟﺬﻭﺭﻫﺎ ﰲ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻭﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﻣﻌﴼ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺯﻝ ﻭﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺑﺪ‪ .‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﺻﻠﻴﺐ ﺑﺬﻝ ﻭﺣﺐ ﻭﻓﺮﺡ ﻭﺇﲢﺎﺩ ﺑﲔ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﺑﻄﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻭﻋﺮﺽ ﻭﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ ...‬ﻭﺇﻟﻴﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻕ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﻫﺎ ﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﺗﺘﻔﻖ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﰎ ﲢﻘﻴﻘﻬﻢ »ﻛﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺪﻝ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ« ﻳﻮﻡ ﲨﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺒﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻘﻴﻢ ﺃﻋﻈﻢ ﺃﻋﻴﺎﺩﻫﺎ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻃﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻗﻮﺍﻫﺎ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺰﴽ ﻭﺇﺣﺘﻔﺎﻻً ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﳉﻤﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻤﺔ‪» :‬ﲨﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﺨ ﱢﻠﺼﺔ« ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺎﺩﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻜ ﱢﻔﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻓﻊ ﲦﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻟﻶﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﺿﺐ‪ ،‬ﻷ‪‬ﺎ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﻏﻀﺒﻪ ﻭﺧﻼﺹ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ ...‬ﻋﻴﺪ ﺍﻷﻋﻴﺎﺩ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‪ ...‬ﺃﻫﻢ ﻳﻮﻡ ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ ...‬ﺃﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ؟!‬
‫‪٣٦٥‬‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﺗﺮﻯ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ »ﻛﻌﻤﻞ ﺇﲢﺎﺩﻱ« ﺑﲔ ﺍﷲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﻣﻌﴼ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ )ﺭﻭ ‪ ٢١ :٨‬ـ ‪ ٢٢‬ﻭ ﺭﺅ ‪:٢١‬‬
‫‪ ١‬ﻭ ‪ ١٠‬ـ ‪ (١١‬ﻟﺘﻄﻬﲑ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺗُﻌﻴﱢﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﳋﻼﺻﻨﺎ ﻭﻓﺪﺍﺋﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﻳﻮﻡ ﲨﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺒﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﰲ ﺳﺒﻌﺔ ﺃﻋﻴﺎﺩ ﺳﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﻛﱪﻯ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻠﻌﺠﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺠﺎﺏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳉﻤﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻤﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻌﺔ!!!‬
‫ﺍﻷﻋﻴﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻊ ﻫﻲ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺎﺭﺓ ـ ﺍﳌﻴﻼﺩ ـ ﺍﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ـ ﺩﺧﻮﻝ ﺃﻭﺭﺷﻠﻴﻢ )ﺃﺣﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻌﻒ( ـ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ـ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﻮﺩ ـ ﺣﻠﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﳋﻤﺴﲔ‪ .‬ﺃﻳﻦ ﺇﺫﻥ‬
‫ﲨﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺒﻮﺕ؟!!! ﻗﺪ ﻳﻈﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﻷﻭﻝ ﻭﻫﻠﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺃﳘﻠﺖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ! ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ ﲤﺎﻣﴼ‪ ...‬ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﲢﺘﻔﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻛﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﺇﻧﺘﺼﺎﺭ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺻﻠﻴﺐ‬
‫ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺻﻠﻴﺐ ﻏﻠﺒﺔ ﻻ ﺇﻧﻜﺴﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺻﻠﻴﺐ ﳏﺒﺔ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻭﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻓﻴﻪ‬
‫ﺃﰎ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪﻩ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﲡﺴﺪ ﻭﺗﺄﻧﺲ ﻓﻌ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﺑﺎﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺫﺍﻕ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﺎﺗﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺷﺎ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻊ ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ )ﺍﻷﻋﻴﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻊ( ﻣﻨﺬ ُﺣﺒﻞ ﺑﻪ ﰲ ﺑﻄﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺭﺍﺀ ﻭﺣﱴ ﻣﻮﺗﻪ ﻭﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻪ ﻭﺻﻌﻮﺩﻩ ﻭﺇﲢﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﻜﻨﺎﻩ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﻛﻬﻴﻜﻞ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ‬
‫ﻣﺼﻨﻮﻉ ﺑﻴﺪ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﲢﺘﻔﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻋﻴﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻴﺎﺩﻫﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺻﻼﺓ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻋﻠﻤﺘﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺣﻀﺮﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺮﺷﻢ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻭﺻﻼﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﻋﻮﻩ ﺃﺑﺎﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ‪ ...‬ﰒ ﻧﻜﻤﻞ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﻭﻟﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﳊﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﻣﻌﻪ ﰲ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺡ ﻭﻧﺼﺮﺓ ﺻﻠﻴﺒﻪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﻭﺑﻨﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺳﺮﻣﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻭﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺫﻝ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻨﺘﺼﺮ ﺑﻔﺮﺡ ﻭﻣﺴﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺤﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ‪ .‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﻄﺮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺯﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ )ﺃﻱ ﻛﻞ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗُﺠﺴﺪﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻷﻋﻴﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻊ(‪:‬‬
‫»ﻋﺎﳌﲔ ﺃﻧﻜﻢ ﺇﻓﺘُﺪﻳﺘﻢ‪ ...‬ﺑﺪﻡ ﻛﺮﱘ‪ ...‬ﺩﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺮﻭﻓﴼ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﴼ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺃﻇﻬﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺯﻣﻨﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻠﻜﻢ« )‪١‬ﺑﻂ ‪ ١٨ :١‬ـ ‪ .(٢٠‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺪﺑﲑ‬
‫ﲡﺴﺪ ﻭﺗﺄﻧﺲ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﻣﻌﴼ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻷﺯﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﳏﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﳏﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﻟﻠﺨﻠﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲡﺴﺪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺃﻗﻨﻮﻣﻪ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‪ ..‬ﺯﻭﺍﺟﴼ ﺃﺑﺪﻳﴼ ﻻ ﻃﻼﻕ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﻳﺲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﻭﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‬

‫‪٣٦٦‬‬
‫ﻋﺮﻭﺳﻪ ﻭﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺣﺒﻪ ﻭﻏﺮﺍﻣﻪ ﻭﺁﻻﻣﻪ ﻭﻣﻮﺗﻪ ﻭﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻪ ﻭﺳﻜﻨﺎﻩ ﺑﺮﻭﺣﻪ ﺣﺒﴼ ﻭﻫﻴﺎﻣﴼ ‪‬ﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺮﻭﺱ ﺍﳌﺘﻤﺮﺩﺓ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻠﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺤﲑﺓ ﻟﻪ‪!!!...‬‬
‫ﺩﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺩﺭﺳﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻷﲪﺮ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﻞ ﺟﺴﺪﻩ ﻭﺩﻣﻪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻢ »ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺷﺨﺼﻪ ﻭﻛﻴﺎﻧﻪ« ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱠ‬
‫ﺯﻭﺟﻪ ﻭﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﻟﻴﻬﺒﻬﺎ ﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻫﻮ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻋﺎﻧﺎﻩ ﺍﻵﺏ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺫﻝ ﻹﺑﻨﻪ ﺑﻔﺮﺡ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻠﻨﺎ ﻭﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻋﺎﻧﺎﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺪﺓ ﺣﺒﻪ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺧﻼﺀ ﻟﺬﺍﺗﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻴﱠﺔ ﻭﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻟﻨﺎ )ﺃﻱ ﺟﺴﺪﻩ ﻭﺩﻣﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻛﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﻛﻠﻪ( ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻷﺯﻝ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻗﺮﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻨﺎ ﺑﻜﻠﻴﺘﻬﺎ )ﻣﺎ ﻋﺪﺍ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻨﺎ!( ﲟﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺇﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻳُﻈﻠﻢ ﻭﻳُﻘﺘﻞ ﻭﻳُﺮﻓﺾ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺒﻴﺒﺘﻪ ﻋﺮﻭﺳﻪ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺃﺩﻣﺘﻪ ﺑﻞ ﻗﺘﻠﺘﻪ ﻋﻤﺪﴽ!!!‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﻓﺸﺎﺭﻙ ﰲ ﺧﻼﺻﻨﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﺆﻛﺪ ﰲ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﻭﻧﻘﻮﻝ »ﻭﲡﺴﺪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻣﺮﱘ ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺭﺍﺀ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﺄﻧﺲ«‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻀﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻵﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻤﻰ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﺬﻝ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﻭﻳﺰﻭﺟﻪ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﳌﲔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻵﺏ ﱂ‬
‫ﻳﺒﺨﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺑﺈﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﱄ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﳝﺴﻚ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﻭﺣﻴﺪﻩ ﻋﻨﺎ ﺑﻞ ﺃﻫﺪﺍﻩ ﻟﻨﺎ )ﳓﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻘﲔ‬
‫ﻷﻱ ﺣﺐ( ﻛﻤﺎ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺑﺈﺳﺤﻖ ﰲ ﺗﻚ ‪ ،١٦ :٢٢‬ﻛﻬﺪﻳﺔ ﷲ ﺣﺒﻴﺒﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﺍﻷﺯﱄ‪ ،‬ﺷﺎﺭﻙ ﺃﺯﻟﻴﴼ ﰲ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺩﻡ ﻭﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺪﺱ ﺍﳋﺒﺰ ﻭﺍﳋﻤﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺬﺑﺢ ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ »ﺩﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﺮﻭﺡ ﺃﺯﱄ ﻗﺪﻡ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﷲ‪ ...‬ﻳﻄﻬﺮ ﺿﻤﺎﺋﺮﻛﻢ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﻣﻴﺘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﺘﺨﺪﻣﻮﺍ ﺍﷲ ﺍﳊﻲ« )ﻋﺐ ‪.(١٤ :٩‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪» :‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﺸﻔﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺑﻨﻪ ﺑﻞ ﺑﺬﻟﻪ ﻷﺟﻠﻨﺎ ﺃﲨﻌﲔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﻻ ﻳﻬﺒﻨﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﴼ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ« )ﺭﻭ ‪ ،(٣٢ :٨‬ﻳﻈﻨﻪ ﻣﻦ ﳛﺒﺬﻭﻥ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ »ﻛﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺪﻝ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ«‬
‫ﺃﻧﻪ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺇﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺇﻻّ ﻓﻠﻤﺎﺫﺍ »ﺇﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻔﻘﺔ« ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺏ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻭﳓﻦ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﺮﺿﻰ ﺇﻻ ﺑﺈﲤﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻰ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻨﻮﺏ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻛﻤﻌﺎﻗﺐ‬
‫)‪ (Penal Substitution‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﻣﻊ ﺇﺳﺤﻖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﺗﻨﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺎﰊ ﻭﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﻫﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻻ ﺍﻟﻘﺘﻞ‪:‬‬
‫»‪«He who did not spare His Son, but delivered Him up for us all...‬‬
‫‪(Rom 8: 32).‬‬

‫‪٣٦٧‬‬
‫‪«Because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your‬‬
‫»‪son, your only son‬‬ ‫‪(Gen 22: 16).‬‬

‫ﻭﺍﻵﻥ ﻳﺘﻀﺢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻌﲎ »ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻓﺴﺮ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺤﻘﻪ ﺑﺎﳊﺰﻥ« )ﺇﺵ ‪.(١٠ :٥٣‬‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻣﺴﺮﺓ ﺍﻵﺏ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻻﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﻏﻀﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﷲ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺬﺍ »ﺳﺮ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺤﻘﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳊﺰﻥ«‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺴﺮﺓ ﺗﻔﻬﻢ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﻘﺮﺃﻫﺎ ﰲ ﻭﻣﻊ ﻣﺴﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻭﻓﺮﺣﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫»ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺃﻣﺎﻣﻪ ﺇﺣﺘﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻣﺴﺘﻬﻴﻨﴼ ﺑﺎﳋﺰﻱ‪ .‬ﻓﺠﻠﺲ ﰲ ﳝﲔ‬
‫ﻋﺮﺵ ﺍﷲ« )ﻋﺐ ‪ (٢ :١٢‬ﻭﺃﺟﻠﺴﻨﺎ ﻣﻌﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﻭﻳﺎﺕ )ﺃﻑ ‪ (٦ :٢‬ﻭﺃﺟﻠﺴﻨﺎ ﻣﻌﻪ ﰲ‬
‫ﻋﺮﺷﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ )ﺭﺅ ‪ .(٢١ :٣‬ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺳﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺳﺔ ﻭﰲ ﻗﻠﻮﺑﻨﺎ ﻭﻛﻴﺎﻧﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﻛﻞ ﺇﻧﺘﺼﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﺃﳎﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻭﻳﻬﺒﻬﺎ ﻭﻳﻌﻄﻴﻬﺎ ﻟﻨﺎ )ﻳﻮ ‪ .(١٤ :١٦‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻳﺸﺎﺭﻙ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻭﺍﻻﺑﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺬﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻹﺣﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﻬﺪﻯ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻷﺯﻝ ﻭﻟﻸﺑﺪ ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺳﻨﺮﻯ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺇﻫﺪﺍﺀ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﺯﺭﻉ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻵﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺑﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﻻﲢﺎﺩ ﻭﺯﳚﺔ ﺭﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﺃﺑﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺃﻋﻠﻨﻪ ﺍﷲ ﻟﻴﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺋﻲ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺭﺃﻯ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﰲ ﻭﺳﻂ ﻋﺮﺵ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺭﺃﻯ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﳌﺼﻠﻮﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﺕ »ﺣﻴﴼ ﻭﻣﺬﺑﻮﺣﴼ« ﰲ ﺁﻥ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻭﻟﻸﺑﺪ ﺑﻼ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ‪) ...‬ﻫﺪﻳﺔ ﺯﻭﺍﺟﻪ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ( ﺣﺎﻣ ًﻼ ﺫﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺻﻠﻴﺒﻪ ﻭﺣﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻨﺘﻬﻲ ﲜﺮﺍﺡ ﳎﺪﻩ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪» :‬ﻭﺭﺃﻳﺖ ﰲ ﻭﺳﻂ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ‪ ...‬ﺧﺮﻭﻑ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﻛﺄﻧﻪ ﻣﺬﺑﻮﺡ« )ﺭﺅ ‪ (٦ :٥‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﺮﺡ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻱ ﺃﺑﺪﻳﴼ‬
‫ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﱂ ﻳﺮﺩﻭﺍ ﻟﻪ ﺻﺪﻯ ﳏﺒﺘﻪ ﻭﺗﻘﺪﻣﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﲝﺐ ﻣﺴﺎﻭٍ‪ ...‬ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻭﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﰲ ﺃﻋﻴﺎﺩ ﺧﻼﺻﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻴﻒ‬
‫ﳓﺘﻔﻞ ﺑﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺻﻼﺓ ﻭﻛﻞ ﺭﺷﻢ ﻟﻠﺼﻠﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﲟﻌﻨﺎﻩ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺴﻊ ﺟﺪﴽ ﳛﻮﻱ ﺍﻷﺯﻝ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻨﺘﻬﻲ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﺍﻷﺯﱄ ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﺷﺎﺭﻛﺎ ﻭﺑﺬﻻ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺬﻝ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﺳﺄﻝ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﻼﺹ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺪﺍﺀ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱ »ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺪﻝ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ« ﺳﺆﺍﻻً ﻗﺪ ﻳﺴﺎﻋﺪ ﰲ ﺗﻄﻬﲑ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻰ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻭﻳﻮﺳﻊ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺃﻓﻖ ﺭﺅﻳﺘﻨﺎ ﻣﻌﴼ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻬﻤﺎ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺗﻀﺤﻴﺔ ﻭﺃﻋﻈﻢ ﺑﺬ ًﻻ ﻭﺣﺒﴼ ﻭﺃﳌﴼ‪:‬‬
‫‪١‬ـ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻗﺪ »ﺃﺧﻠﻰ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺻﺎﺋﺮﴽ ﰲ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻋﺒﺪ« ﻟﻸﺑﺪ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ؟ ﺃﻡ‬

‫‪٣٦٨‬‬
‫‪٢‬ـ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺑﻌﺪﻣﺎ ﺻﺎﺭ ﰲ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺪ ﺇﺭﺗﻀﻰ ﺃﻥ »ﻳﻘﺘﻞ ﻇﻠﻤﴼ« ﻳﻮﻡ ﲨﻌﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺒﻮﺕ؟‬
‫ﺃﻋﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺇﺧﻼﺀ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﺇﲢﺎﺩﻩ ﺑﻨﺎ ﻭﺇﲢﺎﺩﻧﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﺒﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﲢﺎﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺁﻻﻡ‬
‫ﻋﻨﻴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻔﻮﻕ ﺁﻻﻡ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﻧﺎﻫﺎ ﻭﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺑﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﲟﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺁﻻﻡ ﺻﻠﻴﺐ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻠﺠﺜﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﳕﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺻﻠﻴﺐ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺎﺭﻥ ﲟﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟـ »ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺪﻝ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺔ« ﻟﻀﻴﻖ ﺃﻓﻖ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺧﺘﺰﺍﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺪﻳﺪ ﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻨﺔ ﻟﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻹﺣﺘﻔﺎﻝ ﲞﻼﺹ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﻓﺪﺍﺀﻩ ﻭﻛﻔﺎﺭﺗﻪ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻷﻋﻴﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﱪﻯ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳋﻼﺻﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻓﺴﺮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺑﻼﻏﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﻘﺲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﻭﻱ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺻﺪﻯ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻋﻦ ﺻﻠﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻣﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﳏﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﳏﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﳛﺪﻫﺎ ﻳﻮﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺒﻮﺕ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﺃﺑﺪﴽ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺣﱴ ﺍﻷﻋﻴﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻊ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺍﻷﺯﻝ ﻭﻻ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‪ ...‬ﺁﻣﲔ‪،‬‬

‫•••‬

‫‪٣٦٩‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺴﲑﺓ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻳﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﺘﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﺣﱴ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻧﺼﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﳉﻮﺍﻧﺐ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻋﻼ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻭﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺭﺑﻨﺎ ﻭﳐﻠﺼﻨﺎ ﺑﺬﺑﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺍﳌﻄﻬﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺎﰱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻋﻠﻨﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ‪ ،‬ﻳﺴﻤﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ‪» :‬ﺑﺄﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﺷﱴ« )ﻋﺐ‬
‫‪ ،(١:١‬ﺃﻭ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ »ﺑﻄﺮﻕ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ«‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﰲ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻋﻼﻧـــﺎﺕ‪ :‬ﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﻟﻜﻲ »ﻳﻜﻤﻞ« ﻛﻞ ﺍﻹﻋﻼﻧﺎﺕ ﻭﻳﻨﻘﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ ﺍﻟﻄﻔﻮﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﲟﺎ ﻗﺪﻣﻪ ﻣﻦ‪:‬‬
‫• ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻭﻣﺜﺎﻝ‬
‫• ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﻋﻄﺎﻳﺎ ﻭﻣﻮﺍﻫﺐ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪.‬‬
‫• ﺯﺭﻉ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻴﻘﺔ ً‬
‫ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺁﻣﻦ ﺷﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﺳﻮﺳﻲ ‪‬ﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺻﻒ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﲝﺎﻟﺔ ﻭﻋﻘﻞ‬
‫ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺍ‬
‫ﻭﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﻄﻔﻞ )‪١‬ﻛﻮ ‪ (١١ :١٣‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺻﺎﺭ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ً‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﲡﺎﻭﺯ ﺍﻟﻄﻔﻮﻟﺔ‪» :‬ﺃﺑﻄﻠﺖ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻠﻄﻔﻞ« )‪١‬ﻛﻮ ‪ .(١١ :١٣‬ﻭﺍﻟﻄﻔﻮﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﻋﺎﺷﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺃﻃﻌﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺷﺮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻏﺴﻼﺕ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻓﺮﺍﺋﺾ ﺟﺴ ّﺪﻳﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺍﻹﺻﻼﺡ« )ﻋﺐ ‪.(١٠ :٩‬‬
‫ﺾ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﻔﻮﻟﺘﻪ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻬﺪﻣﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ َﺣ َﺴ َﺐ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ‬‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﱂ ﻳَﻨْ َﻘ ْ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺑﺄ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ »ﺭﲝًﺎ« )ﻓﻴﻠﱯ ‪ .(٧ :٣‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻗﺎﺭﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺭﲝﻪ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﲟﺎ ﺭﲝﻪ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻗﺎﻝ‪:‬‬

‫‪٣٧٠‬‬
 ‫» ﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﱄ ﺭﲝًﺎ ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﻗﺪ ﺣﺴﺒﺘﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺧﺴﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺧﺴﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﺇﱐ ﺃﺣﺴﺐ ﻛﻞ ﺷﺊ ً‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﻓﻀﻞ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ ﺭﰉ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻠﻪ ﺧﺴﺮﺕ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﺣﺴﺒﻬﺎ ﻧﻔﺎﻳﺔ )ﺯﺑﺎﻟﺔ(‬
‫ﻟﻜﻲ ﺃﺭﺑﺢ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻭﺃﻭﺟﺪ ﻓﻴﻪ« )ﻓﻴﻠﱯ ‪(٩ -٧ :٣‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻄﻔﻮﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻔﺮﺽ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻮﻟﺔ‪:‬‬

‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﻔﻮﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ »ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻣﺆﺩﺑﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ«‬
‫)ﻏﻼﻃﻴﺔ ‪ (٢٤ :٣‬ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﻣﺆﻗﺘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻞ ﻧﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻭﳚﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ‪:‬‬
‫ﲨﻴﻌﺎ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﷲ ﺑﺎﻹﳝﺎﻥ‬
‫»ﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﺎ ﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﻟﺴﻨﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﲢﺖ ﻣﺆﺩﺏ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻜﻢ ً‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻳﺴﻮﻉ« )ﻏﻼ ‪ .(٢٥ :٣‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﺍﺕ‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﻘﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻣﻮﺯ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻼﻝ‪،‬‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫ﻻ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻟﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ :‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﻘﻮﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻣﻮﺯ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻼﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ!! ﺃﻭ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ‪:‬‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ‪:‬‬
‫» ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺟﺪﻳ ًﺪﺍ )ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ(‬
‫ﻋﺘﻖ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ )ﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻗﺪﳝًﺎ(‬
‫ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻋﺘﻖ ﻭﺷﺎﺥ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻗﺮﻳﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺿﻤﺤﻼﻝ« )ﻋﺐ ‪.(١٣ :٨‬‬

‫‪٣٧١‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳌﺴﲑﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻣﺜﻘﻠﺔ ﺑﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﺛﻘﻴﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺧﻀﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ؛ ﺑﻞ ﻭﲢ ّﻮﻟﺖ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﻔﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺣﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﺃﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﲤﺲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻭﺱ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﲡﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻰ‪ ،‬ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﺴﻢ‬
‫ِﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻟﻪ ﻳﺴﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﲦﻨًﺎ ﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ!!!‬
‫ﺍﻷﻗﺎﻧﻴﻢ ﺇﱃ ﺇﻟﻪ ﻳُﻌﺎﻗ ُ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻻ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ‪:‬‬

‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳝﻠﻚ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭ َﻋﺠ ْﺰ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﰲ ﺃﻧﻪ » ﺷﺎﺥ «‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ً‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻔﺮﺽ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳕﻴ ّﺰ ﺑﲔ ‪:‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻷﻓﻀﻞ « )ﻋﺐ ‪(٢٢ :٧‬‬
‫» ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ‪ ،‬ﺧﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ‪ ،‬ﺧﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻮﻧﺔ « )‪ ٢‬ﻛﻮ ‪.(٩ -٧ :٣‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﻢ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺆﱂ ﺟ ًﺪﺍ ﻟﻀﻤﲑ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﻣﺆﺳﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻷﻓﻀﻞ‪ ،‬ﻋﻬﺪ‬
‫»ﺍﳌﺠﺪ ﻭﺧﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ« )‪٢‬ﻛﻮ ‪ ،(٧ :٣‬ﻗﺪ ﺻﺎﺭ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﲢﺖ ﺳﻴﻄﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﻌﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻣﻮﺯ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﳝﻠﻚ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺤﺮﻙ ﺑﺎﳉﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ ﻭﺑﻘﺪﺭﺗﻪ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ‪‬ﺐ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﳛﻮﻟﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﻮﺯ ﻭﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﲦﻦ‬ ‫ﳎﺎﻧًﺎ؛ ﺑﻞ ﱠ‬
‫ﺻﻮﺭﻩ َﻣ ْﻦ ّ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻬﺎﻧﺔ!!!‬
‫ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺣﺎﻭﻟﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﺠﺎﺯ ﻭﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ؛ ﺑﲔ ﺭﻣﻮﺯ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﻱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﷲ؛ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺗﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻗﺼﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﳍﻰ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﱪّ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻼﺡ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻫﺐ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﳎﺎﻧًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﻗﻠﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺣﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻮﺙ!‬
‫•••‬

‫‪٣٧٢‬‬
 ‫‪References‬‬ ‫<<<<<<<<<<<<<<‬
‫ﺃﻭ ًﻻ ‪ :‬ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ )ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﲟﺼﺮ (‬ ‫‪١‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ )ﺍﳌﻄﺒﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ ‪ -‬ﻓﺮﻧﺴﻴﺴﻜﺎﻥ ‪ -‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ( ﺳﻔﺮ‬ ‫‪٢‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ‪ -‬ﻃﺒﻌﺔ ‪.١٩٦٠‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﻓﻬﺮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ﻟﻠﺪﻛﺘﻮﺭ ﭼﻮﺭﭺ ﺑﻮﺳﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﺍﻷﺟﺒﻴﺔ ‪ -‬ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﺍﳋﻮﻻﺟﻲ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺱ ‪ -‬ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﳌﺤﺒﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫‪٥‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﺍﻷﺑﺼﻠﻤﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﻮﻳﺔ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫‪٦‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﻗﺪﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺑﺎ ﺷﻨﻮ َﺩﻩ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ ،‬ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ‪ -‬ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻢ ‪The Nature of‬‬ ‫‪٧‬‬
‫‪Christ ، St. Mary’s Church - Ottawa.‬‬
‫‪ - ٨‬ﻗﺪﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺑﺎ ﺷﻨﻮ َﺩﻩ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ ،‬ﺭﺳﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ‪ -‬ﻋﻈﺔ ﺇﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻨﺪﻥ ﻧﻮﭬﻤﱪ‬
‫‪ - ١٩٩٠‬ﺑﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻣﺎﺭﻣﺮﻗﺲ ﻛﻨﺴﻨﺠﺘﻮﻥ‪.‬‬
‫‪ - ٩‬ﺩ‪ .‬ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﺗﺎﻭﺿﺮﻭﺱ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ‪ -‬ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﺎﺏ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﺮﻛﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ‪.‬‬
‫‪ - ١٠‬ﺩ‪ .‬ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﺗﺎﻭﺿﺮﻭﺱ ‪ -‬ﺣﻮﻝ ﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﷲ ‪ -‬ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﺎﺏ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﺮﻛﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺲ‪.‬‬
‫‪ - ١١‬ﺩ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻴﻢ ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﻗﻼﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﻟﺪﺳﻘﻮﻟﻴﺔ ‪ -‬ﻃﺒﻌﺔ ﺃﻭﱃ‪) .‬ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻗﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺷﺮ ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ(‪.‬‬
‫‪ - ١٢‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ ‪ -‬ﲡﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ‪ -‬ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺲ ﻣﺮﻗﺲ ﺩﺍﻭﻭﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ ﻟﻠﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻘﻔﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪.‬‬
‫‪ - ١٣‬ﺍﻟﻘﻤﺺ ﻣﻴﺨﺎﺋﻴﻞ ﻣﻴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﲝﺴﺐ ﻣﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻄﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ‪ :‬ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﺃﺟﺰﺍﺀ‪.‬‬
‫‪ - ١٤‬ﺍﻷﺏ ﻣﱵ ﺍﳌﺴﻜﲔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ؛ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻻﻫﻮﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻳﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﺑﻮ ﻣﻘﺎﺭ ﺑﻮﺍﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﻨﻄﺮﻭﻥ‪.‬‬

‫‪٣٧٣‬‬
 ‫‪ - ١٥‬ﺍﳌﺘﻨﻴﺢ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﺎ ﺑﻴﻤﲔ ﺃﺳﻘﻒ ﻣﻠﻮﻱ ‪ -‬ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ ‪ .‬ﻣﻄﺮﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻠﻮﻯ‪.‬‬
‫‪ - ١٦‬ﺍﳌﺘﻨﻴﺢ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﺎ ﺑﻴﻤﲔ ﺃﺳﻘﻒ ﻣﻠﻮﻱ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ .‬ﻣﻄﺮﺍﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻠﻮﻯ‪.‬‬
‫‪ - ١٧‬ﺍﳌﺘﻨﻴﺢ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﺎ ﺑﻴﻤﲔ ﺃﺳﻘﻒ ﻣﻠﻮﻱ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﺍﻹﳍﻰ‪ .‬ﻣﻄﺮﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻠﻮﻯ‪.‬‬
‫‪ - ١٨‬ﺍﳌﺘﻨﻴﺢ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﺎ ﺑﻴﻤﲔ ﺃﺳﻘﻒ ﻣﻠﻮﻱ ‪ -‬ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﷲ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ .‬ﺷﺮﻳﻂ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺠﻞ ﻟﻌﻈﺔ‪ .‬ﲟﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﻛﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻣﺎﺭﻣﺮﻗﺲ‪ ،‬ﻟﻨﺪﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﻗﻢ ‪.p. 49‬‬
‫‪ - ١٩‬ﺩ‪ .‬ﻋﺪﻧﺎﻥ ﻃﺮﺍﺑﻠﺴﻲ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‬
‫‪ -‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫‪ - ٢٠‬ﻛﻮﺳﱵ ﺑﻨﺪﱄ ‪ -‬ﺇﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﳊﺎﺩ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮ ‪ -‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫‪ - ٢١‬ﻛﻮﺳﱵ ﺑﻨﺪﱄ ‪ -‬ﺍﳉﻨﺲ ﻭﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ ‪ -‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫‪ - ٢٢‬ﻛﻮﺳﱵ ﺑﻨﺪﱄ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﷲ ‪ -‬ﻭﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ‪ -‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫‪ - ٢٣‬ﺍﻷﺏ ﺗﻴﺎﺭ ﺩﻱ ﺷﺎﺭﺩﻳﻦ ‪ -‬ﻧﺸﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ‪ .‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‬
‫)ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻢ(‪.‬‬
‫‪ - ٢٤‬ﻛﻮﺳﱵ ﺑﻨﺪﱄ ‪ -‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻗﺼﺔ ﺁﺩﻡ ﻭﺣﻮﺍﺀ‪ .‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫‪ - ٢٥‬ﺩ‪ .‬ﻫﺎﱐ ﻣﻴﻨﺎ ﻣﻴﺨﺎﺋﻴﻞ ‪ -‬ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ‪ -‬ﻟﻨﺪﻥ‪.‬‬
‫‪ - ٢٦‬ﻛﻮﺳﱵ ﺑﻨﺪﱄ ‪ -‬ﺍﷲ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﺼﲑ ‪ -‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ ‪.١٩٩٣ -‬‬

‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ ‪ :‬ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ‪:‬‬

‫‪1 - Holy Bible: New King James Version.‬‬
‫‪2 - Good News Bible - Catholic.‬‬
‫‪3 - Nicene and Post - Nicene Fathers Series:‬‬
‫‪1st series: St. John Chrysostone vol. 10,11 & 14.‬‬
‫‪2nd series : St. Athanasius vol. 4.‬‬
‫‪St. Cyril of Jerusalem vol. 7.‬‬
‫‪St. Gregory of Naziansum vol. 7.‬‬
‫‪Pub.: T & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1991.‬‬
‫‪4 - The Faith of The Early Fathers, vol. 1, 2 & 3. Pub. The Liturgical‬‬
‫‪Press. Minne sota, U.S.A., 1979.‬‬

‫‪٣٧٤‬‬
5 - The Bible and The Holy Fathers, for Orthodox, Pub. Monastery
Books, Menlo Park - C.A. 940 25-2579 - U.S.A.
6 - St. Athansius, On the Incarnation, Introduction by C.S. Lewis,
Pub. Mowbray, London. (main ref.), 1982.
7 - Isaac of Nineve, Mystic Treatises, translation by A.J. Wensinck,
1923.
8 - Henry Chadwick, Augustine, Pub. Oxford Univ. Press, 1986.
9 - H. Chadwick, The Early Church, Pub. Penguin Book. U.K.,
1967.
10 - Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos Ware), The Orthodox Church,
Pub. Penguin Book. U.K., 1993.
11 - P. Davies & J. Gribbin, The Matter Myth, Pub. Penguin Book,
1991.
12 - Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Pub. Bantam - N.
Y.
13 - Montenat, Plateaux and Roux, How to Read the World: Creation
in Evolution, Pub. SCM Press Ltd., London, 1985.
14 - J. N. Bezancon, How to Understand the Creed, Pub. SCM Press
Ltd., London, 1987.
15 - E. Charpentier, How to Read the Old Testament, Pub. SCM
Press Ltd., London, 1981.
16 - Forster and Marston, Reason & Faith, Pub. Monarch Publications.
U.K., 1989.
17 - The World’s Religions, A Lion’s Handbook. U.K., 1988.
18 - Schwartz, The Search for God, Pub. SPCK - U.K., 1975.
19 - Popkin & Stroll., Philosophy, Pub. Heinmann - U.K., 1990.
20 - Peter Brown, The Body and Society, Pub. Faber & Faber.
London, 1988.
21 - H. Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, Pub. Routledge, U.K., 1992.
22 - Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, Penguin Book, U.K.,
1988.
23 - P. Vardy, The Puzzle of Evil, Pub. Harper Collins, U.K., 1992.
24 - Teilhard De Chardin, Man’s Place in Nature, Pub. Collins,
Fontana Books, U.K., 1973.
25 - T. De Chardin, The Future of Man, Pub. Collins, U.K.

٣٧٥
26 - Pullan, The Atonement, Pub. Longmans, London - 1907.
27 - Grensted, A Short History of the Doctrine of the Atonement, Pub.
Manchester Univ. Press, 1920.
28 - Turner, The Patristic Doctrine of Redemption, Pub. Mowbray,
London, 1952.
29 - Georges Florovsky, Creation and Redemption, Pub. Norland
Publishing Company, Belmont, U.K.
30 - J.S. Romanides, Original Sin According to St. Paul, St. Vladimir
Seminary Quarterly, vol. iv 195556/. (S.V.S. - New York).
31 - John Karmiris, A Synopsis of the Dogmatic Theology of the
Orthodox Catholic Church, Pub. Christian Orthodox Edition,
U.S.A. 1973.
32 - Vernon White, Atonement and Incarnation, Pub. Cambridge
University Press. 1991.
33 - C. Gunton, The Actuality of Atonement, Pub. T & T. Clark Ltd.,
U.K1988.
34 - Gabriel Daly, Creation and Redemption, 1989, Pub. The
Liturgical Press. Minnesota, U.S.A.
35 - Constantine N. Tsirpanlis, Introduction to Eastern Patristic
Thought and Orthodox Theology, Pub. The Liturgical Press.
Minnesota. U.S.A. 1991.
36 - Bishop Kallistos Ware, Patterns of Atonement, Oxford. (A
recorded Sermon).
37 - C. Yannaras, Elements of Faith, Pub. T & T. Clark, 1991.
38 - C. Yannaras, The Freedom of Morality, Pub. St. Vladimir
Seminary - New York, 1984.
39 - John Meyendorff, Christ in the Eastern Christian Thought, S.V.S.
- N.Y., 1975.
40 - Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church,
S.V.S. - N.Y., & T & T. Cark, U.S.A. 1991.
41 - V. Lossky, Orthodox Theology - An Introduction, S.V.S. - N.Y.,
1989.
42 - V. Lossky, The Vision of God, S.V.S - N.Y., 1984.
43 - Mantzarides, The Deification of Man, (St. Gregory Palamas and
the Orthodox Tradition.) S.V.S. - N.Y., 1984.

٣٧٦
44 - Thumberg, Man and the Cosmos, (The Vision of St. Maximus
the Confessor) S.V.S. - N.Y., 1985.
45 - Philip Sherard, Human Image: World Image, Pub. Golgonooza
Press, U.K., 1992.
46 - Raymond Moody, Life after Life, U.S.A., 1975.
47 - S. Rathus, Psychology, Pub. Robert Woodbury - U.K., 1987.
48 - Dimitri Staniloae, Theology and the Church, S.V.S. Grestwood,
New York.
49 - Olivier Clément, The Roots of Christian Mysticism - Pub. New
City - London, 1993.
50 - Schmemann, For the life of the world, Pub. S.V.S. - N.Y.,
1988.
51 - The Philokalia, Compiled by St. Nikodimos of the Holy Moun-
tain and St. Makarios of Corinth, 1984, Pub. Faber & Faber,
London. Vol. 1.

•••

٣٧٧
 ‫ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻧﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﺎ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‪:‬‬
‫* ﺇﻃﻠﻌﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ‪ ...‬ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻣﺘﺴﻊ ﻭﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻭﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻫﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺟﺪﴽ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻮﰲ ﻫﺪﻓﻪ ﺑﺪﺭﺟﺔ ﺟﻴﺪﺓ ﺟﺪﴽ‪.‬‬
‫* ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻳﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﻭﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﱯ ﲟﺎ ﻭﺭﺩ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺠﺞ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ‪.‬‬
‫* ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻧﺮﻓﺾ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﳜﺎﻟﻔﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻧﻘﺒﻞ ﺍﻵﺭﺍﺀ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺇﻧﻘﻀﻲ‬
‫ﻋﺼﺮ ﺍﳊﺮﻭﻡ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﳜﺎﻟﻒ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ‪...‬‬
‫* ﺇﱐ ﻣﻐﺘﺒﻂ ﺑﺎﻃﻼﻋﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺭﻙ ﻭﺍﳌﺪﻗﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺷﺮﻳﻄﴼ ﺳﺮﻳﻌﴼ‬
‫ﻋﺮﺽ ﺃﻣﺎﻣﻲ ﺃﻣﻮﺭﴽ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﺓ ﻛﺜﲑﴽ ﻣﺎ ﺃﻧﺴﺎﻫﺎ‪.‬‬
‫* ﺍﷲ ﻳﺒﺎﺭﻙ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻭﻳﻨﻤﻴﻪ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺳﻴﻮﺱ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﲏ ﺳﻮﻳﻒ‬
‫‪١٩٩٨/٧/٩‬‬

‫‪٣٧٨‬‬
 ‫ﺃﻳﻘﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﻼﻑ‬
‫ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻳﻘﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﺭﻭﺡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺩﻗﺔ !‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺳﱮ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ ﺳﺒﻴﴼ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﰱ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ ﺩﺍﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺑﺎﺩﻩ ﲟﻮﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻗﻴﺎﻣﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﺠﻴﺪﺓ! ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻘﻢ ﻟﺬﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺭﺋﻴﺲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﻗﺎﻡ ﻭﺑﻴﺪﻳﻪ ﺁﺩﻡ ﻭﺣﻮﺍﺀ ﻭﺑﻨﻴﻬﻢ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﺍ ﻧﺼﺮﺥ ﲤﺠﻴﺪﴽ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺴﺒﻴﺤﴼ ﰱ ﻧﺸﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﻗﺎﺋﻠﲔ ‪:‬‬

‫• »ﻳﺎﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺋﻴﲔ ﺭﺗﻠﻮﺍ ﻹﳍﻨﺎ ﺑﻨﻐﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺒﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺑﺘﻬﺠﻮﺍ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺣﲔ ﺑﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ‪...‬‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺋﻢ ‪ ....‬ﻭﻋﺘﻘﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﺳﲕ ﺍﳉﺤﻴﻢ ﺳﺒﻴﴼ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﻄﻢ‬
‫ﺃﺑﻮﺍﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﻛﺴﺮ ﻣﺘﺎﺭﻳﺴﻪ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺪﻳﺔ ﻛﺴﺮﴽ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﺑﺪﻝ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺔ ﺧﻼﺻﴼ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻋﺎﺩ‬
‫ﺁﺩﻡ ﻭﺑﻨﻴﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻭﺱ‪ ،‬ﺑﻔﺮﺡ ﻭ‪‬ﺠﺔ ﻭﻣﺴﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﻫﻮ ﻭﺑﻨﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﰱ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻭﺱ«‬
‫)ﺍﳍﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻰ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻯ(‪.‬‬
‫• »ﻭﺇﻫﺪﻧﺎ ﻳﺎﺭﺏ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻠﻜﻮﺗﻚ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻰ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ‪ ...‬ﻳﺘﻤﺠﺪ ﻭﻳﺘﺒﺎﺭﻙ ﻭﻳﺮﺗﻔﻊ ﺇﲰﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺪﻭﺱ ﰱ ﻛﻞ ﺷﺊ ﻣﻊ ﺃﺑﻴﻚ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ«‪.‬‬

‫ﺁﻣﲔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻝ‪ ،‬ﳏﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‬

‫ﺻﺎﻧﻊ ﺍﳋﲑﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﺭﺋﻴﺲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ‪...‬‬
‫»ﳎﺪ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﺪﻟﻪ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ«‬

‫‪٣٧٩‬‬