Romans 5:7

5:6-11 Christ died for sinners; not only such as were useless, but such as were guilty and hateful; such that their everlasting destruction would be to the glory of God's justice. Christ died to save us, not in our sins, but from our sins; and we were yet sinners when he died for us. Nay, the carnal mind is not only an enemy to God, but enmity itself, chap. 8:7; Col 1:21. But God designed to deliver from sin, and to work a great change. While the sinful state continues, God loathes the sinner, and the sinner loathes God, Zec 11:8. And that for such as these Christ should die, is a mystery; no other such an instance of love is known, so that it may well be the employment of eternity to adore and wonder at it. Again; what idea had the apostle when he supposed the case of some one dying for a righteous man? And yet he only put it as a thing that might be. Was it not the undergoing this suffering, that the person intended to be benefitted might be released therefrom? But from what are believers in Christ released by his death? Not from bodily death; for that they all do and must endure. The evil, from which the deliverance could be effected only in this astonishing manner, must be more dreadful than natural death. There is no evil, to which the argument can be applied, except that which the apostle actually affirms, sin, and wrath, the punishment of sin, determined by the unerring justice of God.

And if, by Divine grace, they were thus brought to repent, and to believe in Christ, and thus were justified by the price of his bloodshedding, and by faith in that atonement, much more through Him who died for them and rose again, would they be kept from falling under the power of sin and Satan, or departing finally from him. The living Lord of all, will complete the purpose of his dying love, by saving all true believers to the uttermost. Having such a pledge of salvation in the love of God through Christ, the apostle declared that believers not only rejoiced in the hope of heaven, and even in their tribulations for Christ's sake, but they gloried in God also, as their unchangeable Friend and all-sufficient Portion, through Christ only.

Righteous - good (δικαίου - ἀγαθοῦ) The distinction is: δίκαιος is simply right or just; doing all that law or justice requires; ἀγαθός is benevolent, kind, generous. The righteous man does what he ought, and gives to every one his due. The good man "does as much as ever he can, and proves his moral quality by promoting the wellbeing of him with whom he has to do." Ἀγαθός always includes a corresponding beneficent relation of the subject of it to another subject; an establishment of a communion and exchange of life; while δίκαιος only expresses a relation to the purely objective δίκη right. Bengel says: "δίκαιος, indefinitely, implies an innocent man; ὁ ἀγαθός one perfect in all that piety demands; excellent, honorable, princely, blessed; for example, the father of his country." Therefore, according to Paul, though one would hardly die for the merely upright or strictly just man who commands respect, he might possibly die for the noble, beneficent man, who calls out affection. The article is omitted with righteous, and supplied with good - the good man, pointing to such a case as a rare and special exception.

{8} For scarcely {g} for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. (8) An amplifying of the love of God towards us, so that we cannot doubt it, who delivered Christ to death for the unjust and for them from whom he could receive no useful thing, and, what is more, for his very enemies. How can it be then that Christ, being now alive, should not save them from destruction whom by his death he justifies and reconciles. (g) In the place of a just man.

He amplifies the love of Christ in dying for the ungodly, and shows that it is unparalleled and without example. By a good man you must understand one that is very kind and bountiful, or one that is very useful and profitable; that is, a public and common good. Instances may be given of those that have sacrificed their lives for such. Lilloe stepped between the murderer and king Edward his master. Nicholas Ribische lost his life to preserve Prince Maurice at the siege of Pista.

(7-8) What makes the sacrifice of Christ so paradoxical is that it was undergone for sinners. Even for a righteous man it is rare enough to find another who will be ready to lay down his life. Yet some such persons there are. The one thing which is most extraordinary in the death of Christ, and which most tends to throw into relief the love of God as displayed in it, is that He died for men as sinners, and at the very moment when they were sinning all around Him. (7) Yet peradventure.—The true reading is, undoubtedly, for peradventure. For a good man.—Literally, for the good (man), i.e., for the good man in question, the righteous man mentioned above. It would be possible to take the phrase “for the good” as neuter rather than masculine, and to understand by it “in a good cause.” It would be possible also to give to the word translated “good” the special meaning of “benefactor”—“a man might be found to die for his benefactor.” But if this had been intended, it might have been more clearly expressed, and upon the whole it seems best to take the passage as it is taken in the English version. There is a slight distinction in the Greek, as in English, between the words translated “righteous” and “good.” To be “righteous” is to direct the will in obedience to an external standard; to be “good” is to have a natural goodness, especially kindness or benevolence of disposition. But this distinction is not insisted upon here. The two words are used almost convertibly.

Romans 5:7 . Christ’s death for the ungodly assures us of God’s love; for the utmost that human love will do is far less. ὑπὲρ δικαίου : for a righteous man. Some make both δικαίου and τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ neuter: some who take δικαίου as masculine take τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ as neuter (so Weiss and Godet—“pour un juste, pour le bien”): but as Jowett says, the notion of dying for an abstract idea is entirely unlike the N.T., or the age in which the N.T. was written, while the opposition to Christ’s dying for sinful persons requires that persons should be in question here also. The absence of the article with δικαίου corresponds to the virtually negative character of the clause: it is inserted before ἀγαθοῦ because the exceptional case is definitely conceived as happening. ἀποθανεῖται , gnomic; see Burton, § 69. Unless ἀγαθὸς is meant to suggest a certain advance upon δίκαιος , it is impossible to see in what respect the second clause adds anything to the first. Of course the words are broadly synonymous, so that often they are both applied to the same person or thing ( Luke 23:50 , Romans 7:12 ); still there is a difference, and it answers to their application here; it is difficult to die for a just man, it has been found possible (one may venture to affirm) to die for a good man. The difference is like that between “just” and “good” in English: the latter is the more generous and inspiring type of character.

7. For scarcely for a righteous man—a man of simply unexceptionable character. will one—"any one" die: yet peradventure for a good man—a man who, besides being unexceptionable, is distinguished for goodness, a benefactor to society. some—"some one." would—rather, "doth." even dare to die—"Scarce an instance occurs of self-sacrifice for one merely upright; though for one who makes himself a blessing to society there may be found an example of such noble surrender of life" (So Bengel, Olshausen, Tholuck, Alford, Philippi). (To make the "righteous" and the "good" man here to mean the same person, and the whole sense to be that "though rare, the case may occur, of one making a sacrifice of life for a worthy character" [as Calvin, Beza, Fritzsche, Jowett], is extremely flat.)

Romans 5:7 . Δικαίου . το͂ υ ἀγαθο͂ υ ) Masculines; with which comp. Romans 5:6 ; Romans 5:8 , as Th. Gataker rightly shows, Book 2, Misc. c. 9, but in such a way, that he thinks them to be merely synonymous. When there is any doubt respecting the peculiar force of an expression, and a difference between words, it will be of much advantage if you either suppose something in the meanwhile, or transpose the words. Accordingly, by transposing the words in this passage, we shall read: μόλις γὰρ ὑπὲρ ἀγαθοῦ τις ἀποθανε͂ ιται , ὑπὲρ γὰρ δικαίου τάχα τὶς καὶ τολμᾷ ἀποθανε͂ ιν , for scarcely for a good man will one die, for peradventure for a righteous man, some one would even dare to die ) suppose, to wit, also, that ἀγαθο͂ υ is put without the article. You will immediately perceive the disadvantage to the sense, with which this change would be attended, and it will appear evident, that there is both some difference between δίκαιον and ἀγαθὸν , and a great one between δίκαιον and τὸν ἀγαθὸν , wheresoever that difference in the consecutive words may be found hereafter. In fact, the article so placed, makes a climax. Every good man is righteous; but every righteous man is not good. Gregory Thaumaturgus ; περὶ πολλο͂ υ καὶ ΤΟΥ παντός . Chrysostom; μικρὰ ταῦτα καὶ ΤΟ μηδεν , those things of little importance, and that which is of no importance whatever . The Hebrews call a man צדיק , who performs his lawful duties; חסיד , who performs acts of kindness.

The Greeks call the former δίκαιος ; the latter, ὃσιος ; comp. צדק and ענוה , Zephaniah 2:3 , but in this passage we have not ὁσίου , but το͂ υ ἀγαθοῦ . Wherefore the distinction between the Hebrew words does not determine the point. But this much is certain, that just as ὅσιος , so also ἀγαθὸς expresses more than δίκαιος . (See Matthew 5:45 , and lest they should be thought there also to be merely synonymous, try that same transposition, and it will be seen, that to make mention of the genial sun in connection with the just, and the useful rain in connection with the good, is not so suitable [as the converse order of the original], likewise Luke 23:50 .) And so Paul, in this passage, judges τὸν ἀγαθὸν , the good man to be more worthy, that one should die for him, than δίκαιον , a righteous man. Ἀσεβεῖς [ Romans 5:6 ] and ὁ ἀγαθὸς , the ungodly and the good man, also δίκαιος and ἁμαρτωλοὶ [ Romans 5:8 ], a righteous man and sinners, are respectively opposed to each other. What, then, is the result?