Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Romans 5:1 - 5:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
BLISSFUL CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION
5:1-11. The state which thus lies before the Christian should have consequences both near and remote. The nearer consequences, peace with God and hope which gives courage under persecution (vv. 1-4): the remoter consequence, an assurance, derived from the proof of God’s love, of our final salvation and glory. The first step (our present acceptance with God) is difficult; the second step (our ultimate salvation) follows naturally from the first (vv. 5-11).
1We Christians then ought to enter upon our privileges. By that strong and eager impulse with which we enroll ourselves as Christ’s we may be accepted as righteous in the sight of God, and it becomes our duty to enjoy to the full the new state of peace with Him which we owe to our Lord Jesus Messiah. 2He it is whose Death and Resurrection, the object of our faith (4:25), have brought us within the range of the Divine favour. Within the sheltered circle of that favour we stand as Christians, in no merely passive attitude, but we exult in the hope of one day participating as in the favour of God so also in His glory. 3Yes, and this exultation of ours, so far from being shaken by persecutions is actually founded upon them. For persecution only generates fortitude, or resolute endurance under trials: 4and then fortitude leads on to the approved courage of the veteran; and that in turn strengthens the hope out of which it originally sprang.
5More: our hope is one that cannot prove illusory; because (and here a new factor is introduced, for the first time in this connexion) the Holy Spirit, through whom God is brought into personal contact with man—that Holy Spirit which we received when we became Christians, floods our hearts with the consciousness of the Love of God for us. 6Think what are the facts to which we can appeal. When we were utterly weak and prostrate, at the moment of our deepest despair, Christ died for us—not as righteous men, but as godless sinners! 7What a proof of love was there! For an upright or righteous man it would be hard to find one willing to die; though perhaps for a good man (with the loveable qualities of goodness) one here and there may be brave enough to face death. 8But God presses home the proof of His unmerited Love towards us, in that, sinners as we still were, Christ died for us.
9Here then is an a fortiori argument. The fact that we have been actually declared ‘righteous’ by coming within the influence of Christ’s sacrificial Blood—this fact which implies a stupendous change in the whole of our relations to God is a sure pledge of what is far easier—our escape from His final judgement. 10For there is a double contrast. If God intervened for us while we were His enemies, much more now that we are reconciled to Him. If the first intervention cost the Death of His Son, the second costs nothing, but follows naturally from the share which we have in His Life. 11And not only do we look for this final salvation, but we are buoyed up by an exultant sense of that nearness to God into which we have been brought by Christ to whom we owe that one great step of our reconciliation.
1-11. Every line of this passage breathes St. Paul’s personal experience, and his intense hold upon the objective facts which are the grounds of a Christian’s confidence. He believes that the ardour with which he himself sought Christian baptism was met by an answering change in the whole relation in which he stood to God. That change he attributes ultimately, it is clear throughout this context, not merely in general terms to Christ (δά5:1, 2, 11 bis) but more particularly to the Death of Christ (πρδθ 4:25; ἀέαε5:6, 8; ἐ τ αμτ 5:9; δὰτῦθντυ5:10). He conceives of that Death as operating by a sacrificial blood-shedding (ἐ τ αμτ: cf. 3:25 and the passages referred to in the Note on the Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice). The Blood of that Sacrifice is as it were sprinkled round the Christian, and forms a sort of hallowed enclosure, a place of sanctuary, into which he enters. Within this he is safe, and from its shelter he looks out exultingly over the physical dangers which threaten him; they may strengthen his firmness of purpose, but cannot shake it.
1. The word δκίσνat the end of the last chapter recalls St. Paul to his main topic. After expounding the nature of his new method of obtaining righteousness in 3:21-26, he had begun to draw some of the consequences from this (the deathblow to Jewish pride, and the equality of Jew and Gentile) in 3:27-31. This suggested the digression in ch. 4, to prove that notwithstanding there was no breach of God’s purposes as declared in the O. T. (strictly the Legal System which had its charter in the O. T.), but rather the contrary. Now he goes back to ‘consequences’ and traces them out for the individual Christian. He explains why it is that the Christian faces persecution and death so joyfully: he has a deep spring of tranquillity at his heart, and a confident hope of future glory.
ἔωε. The evidence for this reading stands thus: ἔωε א* A B* C D E K L, cursives, Vulg. Syrr. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. repeatedly Chrys. Ambrstr. and others: ἔοε correctors of אB, F G (duplicate MSS. it will be remembered) in the Greek though not in the Latin, P and many cursives, Did. Epiph. Cyr.-Alex. in three places out of four. Clearly overwhelming authority for ἕωε. It is argued however (i) that exhortation is here out of place: ‘inference not exhortation is the Apostle’s purpose’ (Scrivener, Introd. ii. 380 Exo_4); (ii) that οand ωare frequently interchanged in the MSS., as in this very word Gal_6:10 (cf. 1Co_15:49); (iii) it is possible that a mistake might have been made by Tertius in copying or in some very early MS. from which the mass of the uncials and versions now extant may have descended. But these reasons seem insufficient to overthrow the weight of direct testimony. (i) St. Paul is apt to pass from argument to exhortation; so in the near context 6 (1), 12, (15); 12; (ii) in ἒωε inference and exhortation are really combined: it is a sort of light exhortation, ‘we should have’ (T. S. Evans).
As to the meaning of ἔωε it should be observed that it does not = ‘make peace,’ ‘get’ or ‘obtain peace’ (which would be σῶε), but rather ‘keep’ or ‘enjoy peace’ (ο γρἐτνἴο μ οσνερννλβῖ κὶδθῖα κτσενChrys.; cf. Act_9:31 ἡμνονἐκηί ̣̣̣εχνερνν ‘continued in a state of peace’). The aor. part. δκιθνε marks the initial moment of the state ερννἔωε. The declaration of ‘not guilty,’ which the sinner comes under by a heartfelt embracing of Christianity, at once does away with the state of hostility in which he had stood to God, and substitutes for it a state of peace which he has only to realize. This declaration of ‘not guilty’ and the peace which follows upon it are not due to himself, but are δὰτῦΚρο ἡῶ ἸσῦΧιτῦ how is explained more fully in 3:25; also in vv. 9, 10 below.
Dr. J. Agar Beet (Comm. ad loc.) discusses the exact shade of meaning conveyed by the aor. part. δκιθνε in relation to ερννἔωε. He contends that it denotes not so much the reason for entering upon the state in question as the means of entering upon it. No doubt this is perfectly tenable on the score of grammar; and it is also true that ‘justification necessarily involves peace with God.’ But the argument goes too much upon the assumption that ερ ἔ. = ‘obtain peace,’ which we have seen to be erroneous. The sense is exactly that of εχνερννin the passage quoted from the Acts, and δκιθ as we have said, marks the initial moment in the state.
2. τνποαωή. Two stages only are described in vv. 1, 2 though different language is used about them: δκιθνε = ἡποαωή ερν = χρς the κύηι is a characteristic of the state of χρς at the same time that it points forward to a future state of δξ. The phrase ἡποα., ‘our introduction,’ is a connecting link between this Epistle and Ephesians (cp. Eph_2:18; Eph_3:12): the idea is that of introduction to the presence-chamber of a monarch. The rendering ‘access’ is inadequate, as it leaves out of sight the fact that we do not come in our own strength but need an ‘introducer’—Christ.
ἐχκμν not ‘we have had’ (Va.), but ‘we have got or obtained,’ aor. and perf. in one.
‘Both grammar and logic will run in perfect harmony together if we render, “through whom we have by faith got or obtained our access into this grace wherein we stand.” This rendering will bring to view two causes of getting the access or obtaining the introduction into the state of grace; one cause objective, Christ: the other subjective, faith; Christ the door, faith the hand which moves the door to open and to admit’ (T. S. Evans in Exp. 1882, i. 169).
τ πσε om. B D E F G, Lat. Vet., Orig.-lat. bis. The weight of this evidence depends on the value which we assign to B. All the other evidence is Western; and B also (as we have seen) has a Western element; so that the question is whether the omission here in B is an independent corroboration of the Western group or whether it simply belongs to it (does the evidence = β+ δ or δonly?). There is the further point that omissions in the Western text deserve more attention than additions. Either reading can be easily enough accounted for, as an obvious gloss on the one hand or the omission of a superfluous phrase on the other. The balance is sufficiently represented by placing τ πσε in brackets as Treg. WH. RV. marg. (Weiss omits).
εςτνχρντύη: the ‘state of grace’ or condition of those who are objects of the Divine favour, conceived of as a space fenced in (Mey. Va. &c.) into which the Christian enters: cf. Gal_5:4; 1Pe_5:12 (Va. and Grm.-Thay. s. v. χρς3. a).
ἑτκμν ‘stand fast or firm’ (see Va. and Grm.-Thay. s. v. ἵτμ ii. 2. d).
ἐʼἐπδ: as in 4:18.
τςδξς See on 3:23. It is the Glory of the Divine Presence (Shekinah) communicated to man (partially here, but) in full measure when he enters into that Presence; man’s whole being will be transfigured by it.
Is the Society or the Individual the proper object of Justification?
It is well known to be a characteristic feature of the theology of Ritschl that he regards the proper object of Justification as the Christian Society as a collective whole, and not the individual as such. This view is based upon two main groups of arguments. (1) The first is derived from the analogy of the O. T. The great sacrifices of the O. T. were undoubtedly meant in the first instance for ‘the congregation.’ So in regard to the Passover it is laid down expressly that no alien is to eat of it, but all the congregation of Israel are to keep it (Exo_12:43 ff., Exo_12:47). And still more distinctly as to the ritual of the Day of Atonement: the high priest is to ‘make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins’; he is to lay both his hands on the head of the goat, and ‘confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins’ (Lev_16:16, Lev_16:21, also 33 f.). This argument gains in force from the concentration of the Christian Sacrifice upon a single event, accomplished once for all. It is natural to think of it as having also a single and permanent object. (2) The second argument is derived from the exegesis of the N. T. generally (most clearly perhaps in Act_20:28 τνἐκηίντῦΘο [v. l. Κρο], ἣ πρεοήαοδὰτῦαμτςτῦἰίυ but also in 1Jn_2:2; 1Jn_4:10; 1Pe_3:18; Rev_1:5 f.; Rev_5:9 f.), and more particularly in the Epistles of St. Paul. The society is, it is true, most clearly indicated in the later Epp.; e. g. Tit_2:14 στρςἡῶ Ἰ Χ ὃ ἔωε ἑυὸ ὑε ἡῶ, ἵαλτώηα ἡᾶ ̣̣̣κὶκθρσ ἑυῷλὸ προσο: Eph_5:25 f. ὁΧιτςἡάηετνἐκηίν κὶἑυὸ πρδκνὑὲ ατς ἵαατνἁισ κθρσςκτλ (cf. also Eph_2:18; Eph_3:12; Col_1:14). But Ritschl also claims the support of the earlier Epp.: e. g. Rom_8:32 ὑὲ ἡῶ πνω πρδκνατν 3:22 δκισν δ θο ̣̣̣εςπνα τὺ πσεοτς and the repeated ἡεςin the contexts of three passages (Comp. Rechtfert. u. Versö ii 216 f., 160).
In reply the critics of Ritschl appeal to the distinctly individualistic cast of such expressions as Rom_3:26 δκιῦτ τνἐ πσεςἸσῦ 4:5 ἐὶτνδκιῦτ τνἀεῆ with the context: 10:4 εςδκισννπνὶτ πσεοτ (Schä op. cit. p. 29 n.; cf. also Gloë Der Heilige Geist, p. 102 n.; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. §82 b, referred to by Schä
It is undoubtedly true that St. Paul does use language which points to the direct justification of the individual believer. This perhaps comes out most clearly in Rom_4, where the personal faith and personal justification of Abraham are taken as typical of the Christian’s. But need we on that account throw over the other passages above quoted, which seem to be quite as unambiguous? That which brings benefit to the Church collectively of necessity brings benefit to the individuals of which it is composed. We may if we like, as St. Paul very often does, leave out of sight the intervening steps; and it is perhaps the more natural that he should do so, as the Church is in this connexion an ideal entity. But this entity is prior in thought to the members who compose it; and when we think of the Great Sacrifice as consummated once for all and in its effects reaching down through the ages, it is no less natural to let the mind dwell on the conception which alone embraces past, present, and future, and alone binds all the scattered particulars into unity.
We must remember also that in the age and to the thought of St. Paul the act of faith in the individual which brings him within the range of justification is inseparably connected with its ratification in baptism. But the significance of baptism lies in the fact that whoever undergoes it is made thereby member of a society, and becomes at once a recipient of the privileges and immunities of that society. St. Paul is about (in the next chapter) to lay stress on this point. He there, as well as elsewhere, describes the relation of spiritual union into which the Christian enters with Christ as established by the same act which makes him also member of the society. And therefore when at the beginning of the present chapter he speaks of the entrance of the Christian into the state of grace in metaphors which present that state under the figure of a fenced-off enclosure, it is natural to identify the area within which grace and justification operate with the area of the society, in other words with the Church. The Church however in this connexion can have no narrower definition than ‘all baptized persons.’ And even the condition of baptism is introduced as an inseparable adjunct to faith; so that if through any exceptional circumstances the two were separated, the greater might be taken to include the less. The Christian theologian has to do with what is normal; the abnormal he leaves to the Searcher of hearts.
It is thus neither in a spirit of exclusiveness nor yet in that of any hard and fast Scholasticism, but only in accordance with the free and natural tendencies of the Apostle’s thought, that we speak of Justification as normally mediated through the Church. St. Paul himself, as we have seen, often drops the intervening link, especially in the earlier Epistles. But in proportion as his maturer insight dwells more and more upon the Church as an organic whole he also conceives of it as doing for the individual believer what the ‘congregation’ did for the individual Israelites under the older dispensation. The Christian Sacrifice with its effects, like the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement by which it is typified, reach the individual through the community.
3-5. The two leading types of the Old-Latin Version of the Epistle stand out distinctly in these verses. We are fortunately able to compare the Cyprianic text with that of Tertullian (non solum …confundit) and the European text of Cod. Clarom. with that of Hilary (tribulatio …confundit). The passage is also quoted in the so-called Speculum (m), which represents the Bible of the Spaniard Priscillian (Classical Review, iv. 416 f.).
Cyprian. Cod. Clarom.
Non solum autem, sed et gloriamur in pressuris, scientes quoniam pressura tolerantiam operatur, tolerantia autem probationem, probatio autem spem; spes autem non confundit, quia dilectio Dei infusa est cordibus nostris per Spiritum Sanctum qui datus est nobis.
verum etiam exultantes Tert.; certi quod Tert.; perficiat Tert. (ed. Vindob.); tol. vero Tert.; spes vero Tert. Non solum autem, sed et gloriamur in tribulationibus, scientes quod tribulatio patientiam operatur, patientia autem probationem, probatio autem spem; spes autem non confundit, quia caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris per Spiritum Sanctum qui datus est nobis.
perficit Hil.; prob. vero m Hil.; spes vero Hil. (Cod. Clarom. = m).
Here, as elsewhere in Epp. Paul., there is a considerable amount of matter common to all forms of the Version, enough to give colour to the supposition that a single translation lies at their root. But the salient expressions are changed; and in this instance Tertullian goes with Cyprian, as Hilary with the European texts. The renderings tolerantia and pressura are verified for Tertullian elsewhere (tolerantia Luk_21:19; 1Th_1:4: pressura Rom_8:35; Rom_12:12; 1Co_7:28; 2Co_1:8; 2Co_4:17; 2Co_6:4; 2Co_7:4; Col_1:24; 2Th_1:4; Rev_2:22; Rev_7:14), as also dilectio (to which the quotation does not extend in this passage, but which is found in Luk_11:42; Joh_13:35; Rom_8:35, Rom_8:39; 1Co_13:1 ff., &c.). We note however that Hilary and Tertullian agree in perficit (perficiat), though in another place Hilary has allusively tribulatio patientiam operatur. Perhaps this coincidence may point to an older rendering.
3. ο μννδ (ἑτκμνἀλ κὶκυώεα or ἑτκτςἀλ κὶκυώεο): in this elliptical form characteristic of St. Paul and esp. of this group of Epistles (cf. 5:11; 8:23; 9:10; 2Co_8:19).
κυώεο B C, Orig. bis and others: a good group, but open to suspicion of conforming to ver. 11 (q. v.); we have also found a similar group, on the whole inferior, in 3:28. If κυώεο were right it would be another example of that broken and somewhat inconsecutive structure which is doubtless due, as Va. suggests, to the habit of dictating to an amanuensis.
Note the contrast between the Jewish κύηι which ‘is excluded’ (3:27) and this Christian κύηι. The one rests on supposed human privileges and merit; the other draws all its force from the assurance of Divine love.
The Jewish writers know of another κύηι (besides the empty boasting which St. Paul reprehends), but it is reserved for the blest in Paradise: 4 Ezr. 7:98 [Bensly = vi. 72 O. F. Fritzsche] exultabunt cum fiducia et …confidebunt non confusi, et gaudebunt non reverentes.
ἐ τῖ θίει The θίεςare the physical hardships and sufferings that St. Paul regards as the inevitable portion of the Christian; cf. Rom_8:35 ff.; 1Co_4:11-13; 1Co_7:26-32; 1Co_15:30-32; 2Co_1:3-10; 2Co_11:23-27. Such passages give us glimpses of the stormy background which lies behind St. Paul’s Epistles. He is so absorbed in his ‘Gospel’ that this makes very little impression upon him. Indeed, as this chapter shows, the overwhelming sense of God’s mercy and love fills him with such exultation of spirit that bodily suffering not only weighs like dust in the balance but positively serves to strengthen his constancy. The same feeling comes out in the ὑενκμνof 8:37: the whole passage is parallel.
ὑοοή: not merely a passive quality but a ‘masculine constancy in holding out under trials’ (Waite on 2Co_6:4), ‘fortitude.’ See on 2:7 above.
4. δκμ: the character which results from the process of trial, the temper of the veteran as opposed to that of the raw recruit; cf. Jam_1:12, &c. The exact order of ὑοοήand δκμ must not be pressed too far: in St. Jam_1:3 τ δκμο τςπσεςproduces ὑοοή If St. James had seen this Epistle (which is doubtful) we might suppose that he had this passage in his mind. The conception is that of 2Ti_2:3 (in the revised as well as the received text).
ἡδ δκμ ἐπδ. It is quite intelligible as a fact of experience that the hope which is in its origin doctrinal should be strengthened by the hardening and bracing of character which come from actual conflict. Still the ultimate basis of it is the overwhelming sense of God’s love, brought home through the Death of Christ; and to this the Apostle returns.
5. ο κτιχνι ‘does not disappoint,’ ‘does not prove illusory.’ The text Isa_28:16 (LXX) caught the attention of the early Christians from the Messianic reference contained in it (‘Behold, I lay in Zion,’ &c.), and the assurance by which this was followed (‘he that believeth shall not be put to shame’) was confirmed to them by their own experience: the verse is directly quoted Rom_9:33 q. v.; 1Pe_2:6.
ἡἀάητῦΘο: certainly ‘the love of God for us,’ not ‘our love for God’ (Theodrt. Aug. and some moderns): ἀάηthus comes to mean, ‘our sense of God’s love,’ just as ερν = ‘our sense of peace with God.’
ἐκχτι The idea of spiritual refreshment and encouragement is usually conveyed in the East through the metaphor of watering. St. Paul seems to have had in his mind Isa_44:3 ‘I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and streams upon the dry ground: I will pour My Spirit upon thy seed,’ &c.
δὰΠεμτςἉίυ without the art., for the Spirit as imparted, St. Paul refers all his conscious experience of the privileges of Christianity to the operation of the Holy Spirit, dating from the time when he definitively enrolled himself as a Christian, i.e. from his baptism.
6. ἔιγρ There is here a difficult, but not really very important, variety of reading, the evidence for which may be thus summarized:—
ἔιγρat the beginning of the verse with ἔιalso after ἀθνν the mass of MSS.
ἔιat the beginning of the verse only, some inferior MSS. (later stage of the Ecclesiastical text).
εςτ γρ(possibly representing ἵατ γρ ut quid enim), the Western text (Latin authorities).
ε γρfew authorities, partly Latin.
ε γ B.
It is not easy to select from these a reading which shall account for all the variants. That indeed which has the best authority, the double ἔι does not seem to be tenable, unless we suppose an accidental repetition of the word either by St. Paul or his amanuensis. It would not be difficult to get ἔιγρfrom ἴατ γρ or vice versa, through the doubling or dropping of Ι from the preceding word ΗΙ; nor would it be difficult to explain ἔιγρfrom ε γρ or vice versa. We might then work our way back to an alternative ε γρor ε γ, which might be confused with each other through the use of an abbreviation. Fuller details are given below. We think on the whole that it is not improbable that here, as in 4:1, B has preserved the original reading ε γ. For the meaning of ε γ (‘so surely as’ Va.) see T. S. Evans in Exp. 1882, 1:176 f.; and the note on 3:30 above.
In more detail the evidence stands thus: ἔιγρhere with ἔιalso after ἀθννאA C D* al.: ἔιhere only Dc E K L P &c.: εςτ γρDb F G: ut quid enim Lat. Vet. Vulg., Iren.-lat. Faustin: ε γρ104 Greg. ( = h Scriv.), fuld, Isid.-Pelus. Aug. bis: ε γρ̣̣̣ἔιBoh. (‘For if, we being still weak,’ &c.): ε δ Pesh.: ε γ B. [The readings are wrongly given by Lips., and not quite correctly even by Gif., through overlooking the commas in Tisch. The statement which is at once fullest and most exact will be found in WH.] It thus appears: (1) that the reading most strongly supported is ἔιγρ with double ἔι which is impossible unless we suppose a lapsus calami between St. Paul and his amanuensis. (2) The Western reading is εςτ γρ which may conceivably be a paraphrastic equivalent for an original ἵατ γρ(Gif., from ut quid enim of Iren.-lat. &c.): this is no doubt a very early reading. (3) Another sporadic reading is ε γρ (4) B alone gives ε γ. So far as sense goes this is the best, and there are not a few cases in N. T. where the reading of B alone strongly commends itself (cf. 4:1 above). But the problem is, how to account for the other readings? It would not be difficult palaeographically from ε γρto get ἔιγρby dittography of ι(εγρ εια, εια), or from this again to get εςτ γρthrough dittography of εand confusion with χ(ετγρ or we might take the alternative ingeniously suggested by Gif., of supposing that the original reading was ἵατ γρ of which the first two letters had been absorbed by the previous ἡῖ (ηι[ι]αια). There would thus be no great difficulty in accounting for the origin either of ἔιγρor of the group of Western readings; and the primitive variants would be reduced to the two, ε γρand ε γ. Dr. Hort proposed to account for these by a conjectural ε πρ which would be a conceivable root for all the variations—partly through paraphrase and partly through errors of transcription. We might however escape the necessity of resorting to conjecture by supposing confusion between γ and the abbreviation γ. [For this form see T. W. Allen, Notes on Abbreviations in Greek MSS. (Oxford, 1889), p. 9 and pl. iii; Lehmann, Die tachygraphischen Abkü d. griech. Handschriften (Leipzig, 1880), p. 91 f. taf. 9. We believe that the oldest extant example is in the Fragmentum Mathematicum Bobiense of the seventh century (Wattenbach, Script. Graec. Specim. tab. 8), where the abbreviation appears in a corrupt form. But we know that shorthand was very largely practised in the early centuries (cf. Eus. H. E. VI. xxiii. 2), and it may have been used by Tertius himself.] Where we have such a tangled skein to unravel as this it is impossible to speak very confidently; but we suspect that ε γ, as it makes the best sense, may also be the original reading.
ἀθνν ‘incapable’ of working out any righteousness for ourselves.
κτ κιό. St. Paul is strongly impressed with the fitness of the moment in the world’s history which Christ chose for His intervention in it. This idea is a striking link of connexion between the (practically) acknowledged and the disputed Epistles; compare on the one hand Gal_4:4; 2Co_6:2; Rom_3:26; and on the other hand Eph_1:10; 1Ti_2:6; 1Ti_6:15; Tit_1:3.
7. μλςγρ The γρexplains how this dying for sinners is a conspicuous proof of love. A few may face death for a good man, still fewer for a righteous man, but in the case of Christ there is more even than this; He died for declared enemies of God.
For μλςthe first hand of אand Orig. read μγς which has more attestation in Luk_9:39. The two words were easily confused both in sense and in writing.
ὑὲ δκίυ There is clearly in this passage a contrast between ὑὲ δκίυand ὑὲ τῦἀαο. They are not expressions which may be taken as roughly synonymous (Mey.-W. Lips. &c.), but it is implied that it is an easier thing to die for the ἀαό than for the δκις Similarly the Gnostics drew a distinction between the God of the O. T. and the God of the N. T., calling the one δκιςand the other ἀαό (Iren. Adv. Haer. I. xxvii. 1; comp. other passages and authorities quoted by Gif. p. 123). The δκιςkeeps to the ‘letter of his bond’; about the ἀαό there is something warmer and more genial such as may well move to self-sacrifice and devotion.
In face of the clear and obvious parallel supplied by Irenaeus, not to speak of others, it should not be argued as it is by Weiss and Lips. (who make τῦἀαο neut.) and even by Mey. and Dr. T. K. Abbott (Essays, p. 75) that there is no substantial difference between δκιςand ἀαό. We ourselves often use ‘righteous’ and ‘good’ as equivalent without effacing the distinction between them when there is any reason to emphasize it. The stumbling-block of the art. before ἀαο and not before δκίυneed not stand in the way. This is sufficiently explained by Gif., who points out that the clause beginning with μλςis virtually negative, so that δκίυis indefinite and does not need the art., while the affirmative clause implies a definite instance which the art. indicates.
We go therefore with most English and American scholars (Stuart, Hodge, Gif. Va. Lid.) against some leading Continental names in maintaining what appears to be the simple and natural sense of the passage.
8. σνσηι see on 3:5.
τνἑυο ἀάη: ‘His own love,’ emphatic, prompted from within not from without. Observe that the death of Christ is here referred to the will of the Father, which lies behind the whole of what is commonly (and not wrongly) called the ‘scheme of redemption.’ Gif. excellently remarks that the ‘proof of God’s love towards us drawn from the death of Christ is strong in proportion to the closeness of the union between God and Christ.’ It is the death of One who is nothing less than ‘the Son.’
τνἑυο ἀάη εςἡᾶ ὁΘό אA C K P &c.: ὁΘὸ εςἡᾶ D E F G L: om. ὁΘό B. There is no substantial difference of meaning, as εςἡᾶ in any case goes with σνσηι not with ἀάη.
ὑὲ ἡῶ ἀέαε St. Paul uses emphatic language, 1Co_15:1-3, to show that this doctrine was not confined to himself but was a common property of Christians.
9. St. Paul here separates between ‘justification,’ the pronouncing ‘not guilty’ of sinners in the past and their final salvation from the wrath to come. He also clearly connects the act of justification with the bloodshedding of Christ: he would have said with the author of Heb_9:22 χρςαμτκυίςο γντιἄει, see p. 92 above.
No clearer passage can be quoted for distinguishing the spheres of justification and sanctification than this verse and the next—the one an objective fact accomplished without us, the other a change operated within us. Both, though in different ways, proceed from Christ.
δʼατῦ explained by the next verse ἐ τ ζῇατῦ That which saves the Christian from final judgement is his union with the living Christ.
10. κτλάηε. The natural prima facie view is that the reconciliation is mutual; and this view appears to verify itself on examination: see below.
ἐ τ ζῇατῦ For the full meaning of this see the notes on ch. 6:8-11; 8:10, 11.
11. κυώεο (אB C D, &c.) is decisively attested for κυώεα which was doubtless due to an attempt to improve the construction. The part. is loosely attached to what precedes, and must be taken as in sense equivalent to κυώεα In any case it is present and not future (as if constructed with σθσμθ). We may compare a similar loose attachment of δκιύεο in ch. 3:24.
The Idea of Reconciliation or Atonement
The κτλαήdescribed in these verses is the same as the ερν of ver. 1; and the question necessarily meets us, What does this ερν or κτλαήmean? Is it a change in the attitude of man to God or in that of God to man? Many high authorities contend that it is only a change in the attitude of man to God.
Thus Lightfoot on Col_1:21: ‘ἐθος “hostile to God,” as the consequence of ὰηλτιμνυ not “hateful to God,” as it is taken by some. The active rather than the passive sense of ἐθοςis required by the context, which (as commonly in the N. T.) speaks of the sinner as reconciled to God, not of God as reconciled to the sinner …It is the mind of man, not the mind of God, which must undergo a change, that a reunion may be effected.’
Similarly Westcott on 1Jn_2:2 (p. 85): ‘Such phrases as “propitiating God” and “God being reconciled” are foreign to the language of the N. T. Man is reconciled (2Co_5:18 ff.; Rom_5:10 f.). There is “propitiation” in the matter of sin or of the sinner. The love of God is the same throughout; but He “cannot” in virtue of His very nature welcome the impenitent and sinful: and more than this, He “cannot” treat sin as if it were not sin. This being so, the ἱαμς when it is applied to the sinner, so to speak, neutralizes the sin.’ [A difficult and it may be thought hardly tenable distinction. The relation of God to sin is not merely passive but active; and the term ίαμςis properly used in reference to a personal agent. Some one is ‘propitiated’: and who can this be, but God?]
The same idea is a characteristic feature in the theology of Ritschl (Recht. u. Vers. ii. 230 ff.).
No doubt there are passages where ἐθό denotes the hostility and κτλαήthe reconciliation of man to God; but taking the language of Scripture as a whole, it does not seem that it can be explained in this way.
(1) In the immediate context we have τνκτλαὴ ἐάοε, implying that the reconciliation comes to man from the side of God, and is not directly due to any act of his own. We may compare the familiar χρςκὶερν, to which is usually added ἀὸΘο in the greetings of the Epistles.
(2) In Rom_11:28 ἐθο is opposed to ἀαηο, where ἀαηο must be passive (‘beloved by God’), so that it is hardly possible that ἐθο can be entirely active, though it may be partly so: it seems to correspond to our word ‘hostile.’
(3) It is difficult to dissociate such words as ἱατρο (Rom_3:25), ἱαμς(1Jn_2:2) from the idea of propitiating a person.
(4) There is frequent mention of the Anger of God as directed against sinners, not merely at the end of all things, but also at this present time (Rom_1:18, &c.). When that Anger ceases to be so directed there is surely a change (or what we should be compelled to call a change) on the part of God as well as of man.
We infer that the natural explanation of the passages which speak of enmity and reconciliation between God and man is that they are not on one side only, but are mutual.
At the same time we must be well aware that this is only our imperfect way of speaking: κτ ἄθωο λγ must be written large over all such language. We are obliged to use anthropomorphic expressions which imply a change of attitude or relation on the part of God as well as of man; and yet in some way which we cannot wholly fathom we may believe that with Him there is ‘no variableness, neither shadow of turning.’
THE FALL OF ADAM AND THE WORK OF CHRIST
5:12-14. What a contrast does this last description suggest between the Fall of Adam and the justifying Work of Christ! There is indeed parallelism as well as contrast. For it is true that as Christ brought righteousness and life, so Adam’s Fall brought sin and death. If death prevailed throughout the pre-Mosaic period, that could not be due solely to the act of those who died. Death is the punishment of sin; but they had not sinned against law as Adam had. The true cause then was not their own sin, but Adam’s; whose fall thus had consequences extending beyond itself, like the redeeming act of Christ.
12The description just given of the Work of Christ, first justifying and reconciling the sinner, and then holding out to him the hope of final salvation, brings out forcibly the contrast between the two great Representatives of Humanity—Adam and Christ. The act by which Adam fell, like the act of Christ, had a far-reaching effect upon mankind. Through his Fall, Sin, as an active principle, first gained an entrance among the human race; and Sin brought with it the doom of (physical) Death. So that, through Adam’s Fall, death pervaded the whole body of his descendants, because they one and all fell into sin, and died as he had died. 13When I say ‘they sinned’ I must insert a word of qualification. In the strict sense of full responsibility, they could not sin: for that attaches only to sin against law, and they had as yet no law to sin against. 14Yet they suffered the full penalty of sin. All through the long period which intervened between Adam and the Mosaic legislation, the tyrant Death held sway; even though those who died had not sinned, as Adam had, in violation of an express command. This proved that something deeper was at work: and that could only be the transmitted effect of Adam’s sin. It is this transmitted effect of a single act which made Adam a type of the coming Messiah.
12. δὰτῦο points to the logical connexion with what precedes. It has been argued, at somewhat disproportionate length, whether this refers to ver. 11 only (Fricke, De Mente dogmatica loci Paulini ad Rom_5:12 sq., Lipsiae, 1880, Mey., Philippi, Beet), or to vv. 9-11 (Fri.), or to vv. 1-11 (Rothe, Hofmann), or to the whole discussion from 1:17 onwards (Beng., Schott, Reiche, Rü We cannot lay down so precisely how much was consciously present to the mind of the Apostle. But as the leading idea of the whole section is the comparison of the train of consequences flowing from the Fall of Adam with the train of consequences flowing from the Justifying Act of Christ, it seems natural to include at least as much as contains a brief outline of that work, i. e. as far as vv. 1-11.
That being so, we cannot with Fricke infer from ver. 11 that St. Paul only wishes to compare the result of death in the one case with that of life in the other. Fricke, however, is right in saying that his object is not to inquire into the origin of death or sin. The origin of both is assumed, not propounded as anything new. This is important for the understanding of the bearings of the passage. All turns on this, that the effects of Adam’s Fall were transmitted to his descendants; but St. Paul nowhere says how they were transmitted; nor does he even define in precise terms what is transmitted. He seems, however, to mean (1) the liability to sin, (2) the liability to die as the punishment of sin.
ὥπρ The structure of the paragraph introduced by this word (to the end of ver. 14) is broken in a manner very characteristic of St. Paul. He begins the sentence as if he intended it to run: ὥπρδʼἑὸ ἀθώο ἡἁαταεςτνκσο εσλε κὶδὰτςἁατα ὁθντς…οτ κὶδʼἑὸ ἀθώο ἡδκισν εσλε κὶδὰτςδκισνςἡζή But the words δὰτςἁατα ὁθντςbring up the subject which St. Paul is intending to raise, viz. the connexion of sin and death with the Fall of Adam: he goes off upon this, and when he has discussed it sufficiently for his purpose, he does not return to the form of sentence which he had originally planned, but he attaches the clause comparing Christ to Adam by a relative (ὅ ἐτ τπςτῦμλοτς to the end of his digression: and so what should have been the main apodosis of the whole paragraph becomes merely subordinate. It is a want of finish in style due to eagerness and intensity of thought; but the meaning is quite clear. Compare the construction of 2:16; 3:8, 26.
ἡἁατα Sin, as so often, is personified: it is a malignant force let loose among mankind: see the fuller note at the end of the chapter.
εςτνκσο εσλε a phrase which, though it reminds us specially of St. John (Joh_1:9, Joh_1:10; Joh_3:17, Joh_3:19; Joh_6:14; Joh_9:5, Joh_9:39; Joh_10:36, &c.), is not peculiar to him (cf. 1Ti_1:15; Heb_10:5). St. John and the author of Heb. apply it to the personal incarnation of the Logos; here it is applied to the impersonal self-diffusion of evil.
ὁθντς Some have taken this to mean ‘eternal death,’ chiefly on the ground of vv. 17, 21, where it seems to be opposed to ‘eternal life.’ Oltr. is the most strenuous supporter of this view. But it is far simpler and better to take it of ‘physical death’: because (1) this is clearly the sense of ver. 14; (2) it is the sense of Gen_2:17; Gen_3:19; to which St. Paul is evidently alluding. It seems probable that even in vv. 17, 21, the idea is in the first instance physical. But St. Paul does not draw the marked distinction that we do between this life and the life to come. The mention of death in any sense is enough to suggest the contrast of life in all its senses. The Apostle’s argument is that the gift of life and the benefits wrought by Christ are altogether wider in their range than the penalty of Adam’s sin; ὑεεείσυε ἡχρςis the keynote of the passage. It is not necessary that the two sides of the antithesis should exactly correspond. In each particular the scale weighs heavily in favour of the Christian.
The Western text (D E F G, &c.) omits this word altogether. Aug. makes the subject of the vb. not death but sin: he makes it a charge against the Pelagians that they understood in the second place ὁθντς
δῆθν contains the force of distribution; ‘made its way to each individual member of the race’: κθπρτςκῆο πτὸ δαὰ ἐὶτὺ ἐγνυ (‘like a father’s inheritance divided among his children’), Euthym.-Zig.
ἐʼᾧThough this expression has been much fought over there can now be little doubt that the true rendering is ‘because’ (1) Orig. followed by the Latin commentators Aug. and Amdrstr. took the rel. as masc. with antecedent Ἀά: ‘in whom,’ i. e. ‘in Adam.’ But in that case (i) ἐίwould not be the right preposition; (ii) ᾧwould be too far removed from its antecedent. (2) Some Greeks quoted by Photius also took the rel. as masc. with antecedent θντς ‘in which,’ i. e. ‘in death,’ which is even more impossible. (3) Some moderns, taking ᾧas neut. and the whole phrase as equivalent to a conjunction, have tried to get out of it other meanings than ‘because.’ So (i) ‘in like manner as’ (‘all died, just as all sinned’), Rothe, De Wette; (ii) (= ἐʼὅο) ‘in proportion as,’ ‘in so far as’ (‘all died, in so far as all sinned’), Ewald, Tholuck (ed. 1856) and others. But the Greek will not bear either of these senses. (4) ᾧis rightly taken as neut., and the phrase ἐʼᾧas conj. = ‘because’ (‘for that’ AV. and RV.) by Theodrt; Phot. Euthym.-Zig. and the mass of modern commentators. This is in agreement with Greek usage and is alone satisfactory.
ἐʼᾧin classical writers more often means ‘on condition that’: cf. Thuc. i.113 σοδςπισμνιἐʼᾧτὺ ἅδα κμονα, ‘on condition of getting back their prisoners,’ &c. The plural ἐʼοςis more common, as in ἀθ ὧ, ἐ ὦ, δʼὧ. In N. T. the phrase occurs three times, always as it would seem = propterea quod, ‘because’: cf. 2Co_5:4 σεάοε βρύεο·ἐʼᾦο θλμνἐδσσα κτλ Php_3:12 ἐʼᾧκὶκτλφη ὑὸΧ Ἰ (where ‘seeing that’ or ‘because’ appears to be the more probable rendering). So Phavorinus (d. 1537; a lexicographer of the Renaissance period, who incorporated the contents of older works, but here seems to be inventing his examples) ἐʼᾧἀτ τῦδόιλγυι Ἀτκί οο ἐʼᾧτνκοὴ εράω(‘because you committed the theft’) κτλ
ἐʼᾧπνε ἥατν Here lies the crux of this difficult passage. In what sense did ‘all sin’? (1) Many, including even Meyer, though explaining ἐʼᾧas neut. rather than masc., yet give to the sentence as a whole a meaning practically equivalent to that which it has if the antecedent of ᾧis Ἀά. Bengel has given this classical expression: omnes peccarunt, Adamo peccante, ‘all sinned implicitly in the sin of Adam,’ his sin involved theirs. The objection is that the words supplied are far too important to be left to be understood. If St. Paul had meant this, why did he not say so? The insertion of ἐ Ἀά would have removed all ambiguity. (2) The Greek commentators for the most part supply nothing, but take ἥατνin its usual sense: ‘all sinned in their own persons, and on their own initiative.’ So Euthym.-Zig.: δόιπνε ἥατνἀοοθσνε τ ποάο&iot