Ninth Section.—The fruit of justification: Peace with God, and the development of the new life into the experience of Christian hope. The new worship of Christians: They have the free access to grace into the Holy of holies. Therefore they rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, and of the revelation of the real Shekinah of God in the real Holy of holies. They even glory in tribulation also, by which this hope is consummated. The love of God in Christ as security for the realization of Christian hope; Christ’s death our reconciliation; Christ’s life our salvation. The bloom of Christian hope: The solemn joy that God is our God.
Rom_5:1-11
1Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our 2Lord Jesus Christ: By [Through] whom also we have [have had the] access by faith [or omit by faith] into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice [triumph] in [the] hope of the glory of God. 3And not only so, but we glory [triumph] in tribulations also; knowing that tribulation worketh patience 4[constancy]; And patience [constancy], experience [approval]; and experience 5[approval], hope: And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God [God’s love] is shed abroad [has been poured out] in our hearts by [by means of] the Holy Ghost which is [who was] given unto us. 6For when we were yet without strength, in due time [
êáôὰ êáéñüí
, at the proper time] Christ died for the ungodly. 7For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die 8[though, for the good man, perhaps some one may even dare to die]. But God commendeth [doth establish] his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9Much more then [therefore], being now justified by [
ἐí
] his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him [or, through him from the wrath]. 10For if, when we were [being] enemies, we were reconciled to God by [through,
äéÜ
] the death of his Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by [in,
ἐí
] his life. 11And not only so, but we also joy [And not only that—i.e., reconciled—but also triumphing] in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by [through] whom we have now received the atonement [the reconciliation].
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
General Survey.—1. Peace with God arising from justification, as hope of the glory of God (Rom_5:1-2). 2. The continuance in, and increase of, this peace, even by tribulations, amid the experience of the love of God (Rom_5:3-5). 3. The proof of the continual increase of the peace, and the certainty of salvation of Christians (Rom_5:6-9). 4. Reconciliation as the pledge of deliverance (salvation), and, as the appropriated atonement, the fountain of blessedness. On Rom_5:1-8, Winzer, Commentat., Leipzig, 1832. [Rom_5:1-12 and chap. 8 describe the effect of justification upon the feelings, or the emotional man; chap. 6, the effect upon the will, or the moral man. It produces peace in the heart and holiness in the character of the believer.—P. S. ]
Rom_5:1. Therefore, being justified by faith [
ÄéêáéùèÝíôåò ïὖí ἐê ðßóôåù ò
]. The
ïὖí
expresses the conclusion that arises from the preceding establishment of the truth of the
äéêáßùóéò
by faith [Rom_3:21 to Rom_4:25]. Therefore
äéêáéùèÝíôåò
is closely connected with
äéêáßùóéò
. [The aorist tense
äéêáéùèÝíôåò
, which is emphatically placed at the head of the sentence, implies that justification is an act already done and completed when we laid hold of Christ by a living faith, but not necessarily at our baptism (Wordsworth), which is a sealing ordinance, like circumcision (Rom_4:11), and does not always coincide in time with regeneration and justification (remember the case of Abraham and Cornelius on the one hand, and Simon Magus on on the other).
ἐê ðßóôåùò
, out of faith, as the subjective or instrumental cause and appropriating organ, while the grace of God in Christ is the objective or creative cause of justification, by which we are transferred from the state of sin and damnation to the state of righteousness and life.—P. S.] Meyer: “The extent of the blessedness of the justified (not their holiness, as Rothe would have it) shall now be portrayed.” It is a description of the blessedness of Christians in its source, its maintenance, its apparent imperfection yet real perfection, its certainty, and its ever more abundant development. The condition of one who is not justified is that of fighting with God (see Rom_5:9).
[We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
åἰñÞíçí ἔ÷ïìåí ðñὸò ôὸí èåüí
‚
ê
.
ô
.
ë
. The bearing of the difference of reading here deserves more attention than it has yet received. We reluctantly adopt, for internal reasons, with Dr. Lange and the great majority of commentators, the indicative
ἔêïìåí
, we have, for the subjunctive
ἔêùìåí
(Vulg.: habeamus). The latter, it must be admitted, has in its favor not only the overwhelming weight of ancient MSS., Versions, and Fathers, but also the critical canon: lectio difficilior princi atum tenet; being the more difficult reading, its alteration into the easier
ἔêïìåí
can be better accounted for than its introduction. If we retain
ἔêùìåí
(with Lachmann, Tregelles, and Alford, 5th ed.), we must consistently take
êáõêþìåèá
, Rom_5:2-3, likewise in the subjunctive mood; and thus the whole passage, instead of being, as usually understood, a statement of the blessed effects of justification upon the heart, becomes an exhortation to go on from peace to peace and from glory to glory, on the ground of the accomplished fact of justification. Different explanations, however, may be given to
ἔêùìåí
. (1) The deliberative sense: shall we have? But the deliberative subjunctive is only used in doubtful questions, as Mar_12:14 :
äῶìåí ἤ ìὴ äῶìåí
; Rom_6:1 :
ἐðéìÝíùìåí ôῇ Üìáñôßᾳ
; (2) The concessive sense: we may have, it is our privilege to have. This would give excellent sense. But such a use of the Greek subjunctive approaching the meaning of the future, though easily derived from the general principle that the subjunctive mood signifies what is objectively possible, as the indicative expresses what is actual, and the optative what is desirable or subjectively possible, is somewhat doubtful, and not mentioned by Winer (p. 268, 7th ed.), who, in independent sentences, admits only the conjunctivus adhortativus and the conjunctivus deliberativus; comp. Kühner, §§ 463, 464, and Jelf, § 415. (3) There remains, therefore, only the hortative sense: let us have peace. But here arises the doctrinal difficulty, that peace is not the result of man’s exertions, but a gift of God bestowed, and the object of prayer in the epistolary inscriptions; comp. 1 and 2Pe_1:2 : “Grace and peace be multiplied unto you;” yet two analogous passages might be quoted—viz., 2Co_5:19 : k
áôáëëÜãçôå ôῶ Èåῶ
, reconciliamini Deo; and especially Heb_12:28 :
ἔêùìåí êÜñéí
, let us have grace (where, however, some MSS. read
ἒêïìåí
, the Vulg. habemus, and where
êÜñéò
is understood by some in the sense of gratitude). It might be said, also, in support of this explanation, that faith, hope, love, and all Christian graces, are likewise gifts of grace, and yet objects to be pursued and maintained. (4) A few commentators, quite recently Forbes (not in the translation, but in the comments, p. 179), take
ἔêùìåí
=
êáôÝêùìåí
, let us hold fast and enjoy peace; comp. Heb_10:23 :
êáôÝêùìåí ôὴí ὁìéëïãßáí ôῆò ἐëðßäïò ἀêëéíῆ
. But in this case we should expect the article before
åἰñÞíçí
, and a previous mention of peace in the argument. The indicative
ἔêïìåí
, on the other hand, is free from all grammatical and doctrinal difficulty, and is in keeping with the declaratory character of the section.—Peace with God,
åἰñÞíçí ðñὸò ôὸí Èåüí
, in our relation to God. It expresses the state of reconciliation (opposite to the state of condemnation, Rom_8:1), in consequence of the removal of God’s wrath and the satisfaction of His justice by the sacfice of Christ, who is our Peace; Eph_2:14-16. Comp. Herodian 8, 7. Romans 8 :
ἀíôὶ ðïëÝìïõ ìὲí åἰñÞíçí ἔêïíôåò ðñὸò èåïýò
, and other classical parallels quoted by Meyer and Philippi. On
ðñὸò ôὸí Èåüí
, comp. Act_2:17; Act_24:16; 2Co_7:4. This objective condition of peace implies, as a necessary consequence, the subjective peace of the soul, the tranquillitas animi, the pax conscientiœ, which flows from the experience of pardon and reconciliation; Php_4:7; Joh_16:33. Sin is the source of all discord and war between man and God, and between man and man; and hence there can be no peace until this curse is removed. All other peace is an idle dream and illusion. Being at peace with God, we are at peace with ourselves and with our fellow-men. Paul often calls God the “God of peace;” Rom_15:33; 2Co_13:11; 1Th_5:23; 2Th_3:16; Heb_13:20. Comp. also Isa_32:17 : “the work of righteousness is peace.”—P. S.]
Rom_5:2. Through whom also we. These words do not announce a climax in the description of the merit of Christ (Köllner); nor do they state the ground of the preceding
äéὰ
̓
Éçóïῦ
X. (Meyer), but the immediate result of the redemption. [
êáß
, also, is not accumulative, but indicates that the
ðñïòáãùãὴ åἰò ôὴí êÜñéí
, itself a legitimate consequence of justification, is the ground of
åἰñÞíç
.—P. S.]—Have obtained access. [
ôὴí ðñïæáãùãÞí ἐóêÞêáìåí
; literally, have had the (well-known, the only possible) introduction (in the active sense), or better, access (intransitive). The perfect refers to the time of justification and incorporation in Christ, and implies the continued result, since in Him and through Him, as the door and Mediator, we have an open way, the right and privilege of daily approach to the throne of grace; in distinction from the one yearly entrance of the Jewish high-priest into the Holy of Holies. This is the universal priesthood of believers.—P. S.] Explanations of the
ðñïòáãùãÞ
: 1. Meyer: admission, introduction (Hinzuführung). This is claimed to be the only grammatical signification. It certainly denotes the entrance effected by mediation, where it means admission, audience. But this requirement [the
ðñïóáãùãåýò
, sequester, the mediator or interpreter, who introduces persons to sovereigns, Lamprid. in Alex. Sev. 4.—P. S.] is secured here by
äἰ ïὗ
, which does not well suit this interpretation. 2. Access. [Vulg.: accessum;
ðñüæïäïò
,
åἴæïäïò
.] The view of Œcumenius, and most expositors [Philippi, Ewald, Stuart, Hodge, Alford]; see Eph_2:18; Eph_3:12. (Tholuck finally decides for the active sense.) The image, at bottom, is plainly not that of a worldly audience with an Eastern king, but the type of the entrance of the high-priest into the Holy of Holies (see 1Pe_3:18 :
×ñéóôὸò ἔðáèåí
,
ἵíá ἡìᾶò ðñïæáãÜãç ôῶ èåῷ
; Heb_10:19 :
ἔêïíôåò ôὴí ðáῤῥçóßáí åἴò ôὴí åἲæïäïí ôῶíἁãßùí ἐí ôῶ áἵìáôé
̓
Éçóïῦ
). This view is also in harmony with the idea of the Epistle, by which Christianity is the true worship restored, or rather first realized; and in this connection the
äüîá èåïῦ
has reference to the Shekinah of the Holy of Holies.—Obtained (erlangt haben). Tholuck justly regards it as pedantic prudery in Meyer (after Fritzsche) to hold that
ἐóêÞêáìåí
does not mean nacti sumus et habemus, but habuimus (when we became Christians). Meyer more appropriately says: “The divine grace in which the justified participate is represented as a spacial compass.” But he has not made good this remark. We have free access into the real Holy of Holies, which is grace; and hope to behold in it the real Shekinah, the
äüîá
of God; and, looking at it, to participate of it.—Into this grace. [The
ôáýôçí
is emphatic—such a glorious grace.—P. S.] Those who adhere to the reading
ôῇ ðßóôåé
in Rom_5:2 [see Textual Note3] connect therewith
åἰò ôὴí êÜñéí
(a connection which Meyer properly rejects,
ðßóôéò åἰò ôὴí êÜñéí
!), and understand
ðñïóáãùãÞ
absolutely: access to God. But the
ðñïóáãùãÞ
can refer only to
êÜñéò
(Meyer, and others), and, indeed, to grace as justifying grace; and does not denote saving favor in general (Chrysostom), although that central idea of grace comprehends all. For other untenable explanations: the gospel (Fritzsche); hope of blessedness (Beza); apostleship (Semler); see De Wette. The access to this grace is more particularly explained by the addition, wherein [
ἐíᾗ
refers to
êÜñéí
, not to the doubtful
ðßóôåé
.—P. S.] we stand, or into which we have entered. The
ἑóôÞêáìåí
therefore does not denote here, standing fast (Tholuck, Meyer), either in the sense of subjective activity (Beausobre), or of objective, secure possession (Calvin). It refers back to the act of the
äéêáßùóéò
, with which the introduction into the
êÜñéò
has begun, and accordingly the
ðñïóáãùãÞ
denotes the free and permanent access of all believers into the
êÜñéò
, in contrast with the once yearly entrance of the high-priest into the Holy of Holies. We need hardly mention that this permanent access is effected and conditioned by the life of prayer, and especially by daily purification, in the comfort of the atonement (Heb_10:22-23).
And triumph (glory) in the hope of the glory of God [
êáὶ êáõêþìåèá ἐð
’
ἐëðßäéôῆò äüîçò ôïῦ èåïῦ
]. The verb
êáõêÜïìáé
[usually with
ἐí
, also with
ἐðß
,
ὑðÝñ
, and with the accusative of the object] denotes the expression of a joyous consciousness of blessedness with reference to the objective ground of blessedness; in which true glorying is distinctly contrasted with its caricature, vain boasting in a vain state of mind, and from a vain ground or occasion. Reiche emphasizes the rejoicing, Meyer the glorying. The
ἐðß
, explained as propter (by Meyer), denotes more definitely the basis on which Christians establish their glorying. The ground of the glorying of Christians in their present state is not the
äüîá èåïῦ
itself, but the hope of the glory of God, as one conception; indeed, the whole Christianity of this life is a joyous anticipation of beholding the glory. Tholuck: “
äüîá èå
͂
ïῦ
is not, as Origen holds, the genitive of object, the hope of beholding this glory, which would need to have been expressed more definitely; still less is Chrysostom’s view right, that it is the hope that God will glorify Himself in us. Neither are Luther, Grotius, Calixtus, Reiche, correct in calling it the genitive of author, the glory to be bestowed by God; but it is the genitive of possession, participation in the glory possessed by God; comp. 1Th_2:12.” But more account should be made of beholding, as the means of appropriation. To behold God’s glory, means also, to become glorious. This is definitely typified in the history of Moses (2Co_3:13; Exo_34:33). Tholuck also remarks: “The
èåùñåῖí ôὴí äüîáí ôïῦ ×ñéóôïῦ
, Joh_17:24, is the participation in the
äüîá èåïῦ
, the
óõãêëçñïíïìåῖí
, the
óõìâáóéëåýåéí
, and
óõíäïîáóèῆíáé ôῷ ×ñéóôῷ
; Rom_8:17; 2Ti_2:11. Cocceius: ‘Hœc est gloriatio fidelium, quod persuasum habent, fore, ut Deus gloriosus et admirabilis in ipsis fiat illuminando, sanctificando, Iœtificando, glorificando in ipsis;2Th_1:10.’ ” As the seeing of man on God’s side perfects the vision of man, according to 1Co_13:12, it is the beholding of the glory of the Lord on man’s side by which he shall become perfectly conformed to the Lord, and thus an object of perfect good pleasure, according to 1Jn_3:2; Mat_5:8; comp. 2Pe_1:4. The goal of this reciprocal
äïîÜæåéí
and
äïîÜæåóèáé
is, in a conditional sense, the removal to the inheritance of glory in the future world; 2Co_5:1; and, in the absolute sense, the time of the second coming of Christ; Revelation 20.
[This triumphant assurance of faith is incompatible with the Romish doctrine of the uncertainty of salvation. A distinction should be made, however, between assurance of a present state of grace, which is necessarily implied in true faith, as a personal apprehension of Christ with all His benefits, and assurance of future redemption, which is an article of hope (hence
ἐð
’
ἐëðßäé
), and must be accompanied with constant watchfulness. Christ will lose none of those whom the Father has given Him (Joh_17:12; Joh_10:28-29); but God alone knows His own, and to whom He chooses to reveal it. We must give diligence to make our calling and election sure to ourselves (2Pe_1:10), and work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, because God worketh in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Php_2:12-13). The possibility of ultimate failure was a powerful motive and stimulus to faithfulness and holiness even in the life of an apostle, who exercised severe self-discipline, lest, having preached to others, he might himself at last be rejected, and lose the incorruptible crown of the Christian race (1Co_9:27). How much more, then, should ordinary Christians, who stand, take heed lest they fall (1Co_10:12)!—P. S.]
Rom_5:3. And not only so [sc., do we triumph in the hope of glory; comp. the parallels in Meyer]. Tholuck appropriately says: “This hope of the Christian—sure of its triumph—seems to be put to scorn by the present condition, as those first Christians had to bear the scorn of the Gentiles by contrasting their gloomy present with their abundant hope. [Quotations from Minucius Felix, Arnobius, and Melanchthon.] But the Apostle’s lofty mind shows how that
äüîá
is not an outward accident, but a moral glorification, having its root in this
èëßøéò
; therefore this itself, as the means of perfection, is the subject of triumph.” See Rom_8:17; Rom_8:28; Rom_8:35; 2Co_11:30; 2Co_12:9-10 [
ὅôáí ãὰñ ἀóèåíῶ
,
äõíáôüò åἰìé
]; 2Ti_2:11; Mat_5:10; Mat_5:12; Act_5:41; 1Pe_4:12; Jam_1:3; Jam_1:12. [It is a universal law, acknowledged even in the world, that no great character can become complete without trial and suffering. As the firmness of the root is tested by the storm, and the metal is purified in the heat of the furnace, so the strength and purity of character is perfected by trial. The ancient Greeks and Romans admired a good man struggling against misfortune as a spectacle worthy of the gods. Plato describes the righteous man as one who, without doing injustice, yet has the appearance of the greatest injustice, and proves his own justice by perseverance against all calumny unto death; yea, he predicts that the perfect man, if such a one should ever appear, would be scourged, tortured, and nailed to the post (Politia, p. 74 sq. ed. Ast.). Seneca says (De prov. iv. 4): “Gaudent magni viri rebus adversis non aliter quam fortes milites bellis triumphant.” Edmund Burke: ”Obloquy is a necessary ingredient of all true glory. Calumny and abuse are essential parts of triumph.” But what a difference between the proud stoicism of the heathen, who overcomes the misfortunes by haughty contempt and unfeeling indifferentism, and the Christian’s gentle patience, forgiving love, and cheerful submission to the holy will of God, who ordered tribulation as a means and condition of moral perfection! Comp. my book on The Person of Christ, p. 90 ff., 216 f.—P. S.]
In [on account of] tribulations. [Comp. 2Co_7:4.] The
ἐí
must express the antithesis to the preceding; it must therefore not be explained as local: in [amidst] the tribulations (as Köllner, Glöckler, Baumgarton-Crusius). In that case, the very object of the
êáíêᾶóèáé
would be wanting. [Gloriamur de calamitatibus, not, in calamitatibus. The
èëßøåéò
(or their moral results rather) are the object and ground of the
êáýêçóéò
;
êáõêᾶóèáé
being mostly constructed with
ἐí
; Rom_5:11; Gal_6:13; 2Co_10:15. The Jew is said to glory in the law, the Christian in the cross, &c. So also Tholuck, Meyer, Alford, Hodge. The tribulations are to the Christian what the scars of the battlefield are to an old soldier; comp. Gal_6:17.—P. S.]
Knowing [because we know] that tribulation. This is the normal development of the believer’s life out of its tribulation. Yet this development is not a natural necessity (see Mat_13:21). Yet it is assumed in the exceptions that the faith was somehow damaged. [The following climax is remarkably vivid and pregnant.]
Rom_5:4. Constancy (endurance, steadfastness). The
ὑðïìïíÞ
is not patientia here (Vulgate, Luther, E. V.). Yet steadfastness cannot be acquired without patientia.Luk_22:28 :
ïἱ äéáìåìåíçêüôåò ìåô
̓
ἐìïῦ ἐí ôïῖò ðåéñáóìïῖò
. Comp. Jam_1:3. [The virtue of
ὑðïìïíÞ
, which Chrysostom calls the
âáóéëὶò ôῶí ἀñåôῶí
, is patient endurance (Ausdauer, Standhaftigkeit), and combines the Latin patientia and perseverantia. It involves the element of
ἀíäñßá
, the bravery and manliness with which the Christian contends against the storms of trials and persecutions. Meyer adduces, as applicable here, Cicero’s definition of perseverantia: “in ratione bene considerata stabilis et perpetua permansio.” On the difference between
ὑðïìïíÞ
,
ìáêñïèõìßá
, and
ἀíïêÞ
, comp. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, Second Series, ed. 1864, p. 11.—P. S.]
Approval (proof),
äïêéìÞ
. [Comp. 2Co_2:9; 2Co_8:2; 2Co_9:13; Php_2:22.]. Not trial (Grotius), for the
äëßøéò
itself is trial; nor experience (Luther [E. V.]), for experience is the whole Christian life. It is the condition of approval, whose subjective expression is the consciousness of being sealed; Eph_2:13. [Bengel: “
äïêéìÞ
est qualitas ejus, qui est
äüêéìïò
.” Hodge: “The word is used metonymically for the result of trial, i.e., approbation, or that which is proved worthy of approbation. It is tried integrity, a state of mind which has stood the test.” Jam_1:3 :
ôὸ äïêßìéïí ὑìῶí ôῆò ðßóôåùò êáôåñãÜæåôáé ὑðïìïíÞí
, does not contradict our passage; for
äïêßìéïí
, as Philippi remarks, corresponds to
èëßøéò
, and is a means of trial, or = (
äïêéìáóßá
, trial, probation, the result of which is
äïêéìÞ
, approval.—P. S.]
Hope [
ἐëðßäá
, viz.,
ôῆò äüîçò ôïῦ èåïῦ
, which is naturally suggested by Rom_5:2. Hope, like faith and love, and every other Christian grace, is never done in this world, but always growing, and as it bears flower and fruit, its roots strike deeper, and its stem and branches expand. Every progress in Christian life strengthens its foundations.—P. S.] Thus the apparent opposite of Christian hope, affliction, or tribulation, is changed into pure hope, so that the stock of Christian hope ever becomes more intensive and abundant. Eternal profit is derived from all temporal loss and harm.
Rom_5:5. Maketh not ashamed. Strictly: it does not shame, by causing to be deceived. [Calvin: Habet certissimum salutis exitum. Bengel: Spes erit res. Comp. Psa_119:116 :
àַìÎçְּëִéùֵׁðִé
; Sept.:
ìὴ êáôáéóêýíῃò ìå ἀðὸ ôῆò ðñïòäïêßáò ìïõ
. Meyer quotes parallels from Plato.—P. S.] Christian hope is formed from the same material of divine spiritual life as faith and love; it is really faith itself, tending toward completion; or it is love itself as it here lives in the principles of perfection. Therefore it is infallible.
Because God’s love [genitive of the subject, not of the object, as in Rom_5:8 :
ôὴí ἑáõôïῦ ἀãÜðçí åἰò ἡìᾶò
. The ground of our assurance that hope shall not put us to the shame of disappointment, is not our own strength or goodness, but the free love of God to us and in us.—P. S.] It is plain from the context that God’s love to us is meant (Origen, Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, and down to Philippi [Meyer, De Wette, Tholuck, Stuart, Alford, Hodge]), and not our love of God (Theodoret, Augustine, Klee, Glöckler [Anselm, St. Bernárd, several Catholic expositors (amor infusus, justitia infusa), Hofmann], and others). Our love of God can at best be a testimony of our hope, but not the ground of the infallibility of our hope. See also Rom_5:8. Yet the antithesis should not be too strongly pressed: the love of God for us shed abroad in the heart, becomes our love to God.—Has been (and continues to be) poured out [as in a stream,
ἐêêÝêõôáé
]. Denoting the richest experience and sense of God’s love. [Comp. Act_2:17; Act_10:45; Tit_3:6, where
ðëïõóßùò
is added. Philippi: “The love of God did not descend upon us as dew in drops, but as a stream which spreads itself through the whole soul, filling it with a consciousness of His presence and favor.”—P. S.]—In our hearts. Strictly: throughout them:
ἐí
, not
åἰò
. [
ἐí ôáῖò êáñäßáéò
denotes the motus in loco, as Meyer says, or the rich diffusion of God’s love within our hearts. Comp. Psa_45:2, Septuagint:
ἐîåêýèç êÜñéò ἐí êåßëåóß óïõ
. Alford (after Olshausen): “
ἐí
may be taken pregnantly,
ἐêêÝê
.
åἰò êáὶ ìÝíåé ἐí
—or better, denotes the locality where the outpouring takes place—the heart being the seat of our love, and of appreciation and sympathy with God’s love.”—P. S.]—By means of the Holy Spirit who was given unto us [
äéὰ ðíåýìáôïò ἁãßïõ ôïῦ äïèÝíôïò ἡìῖí
]. The gift of the Holy Spirit is the causality of the experience of the love of God. Rom_8:15-16; Gal_4:6. [The Holy Spirit mediates all the gifts of grace to us, and glorifies Christ in us. Olshausen and Alford refer the aorist participle to the Pentecostal effusion of the Spirit. But this could not apply to Paul, who was called afterwards. Hence it must be referred to the time of regeneration, when the pentecostal fact is repeated in the individual.—P. S.]
Rom_5:6. For Christ, when we were yet [
Ἔôé ãὰñ ×ñéóôὸò ὁíôùí ἡìῶí
,
ê
.
ô
.
ë
.. On the different readings,
ἔôé ãÜñ
, for yet, or still, with a second
ἔôé
, after
ἀóèåíῶí
à
),
åἴãå
, if indeed, with the second
ἔôé
(B.),
ἕôé ãÜñ
, without the second
ἔôé
(text. rec.),
åἰò ôß ãÜñ
((D 2. F.),
åἰ ãÜñ
,
åἰ äÝ
, see Textual Note9.—P. S.] The
ἔôé
, [tunc adhuc], according to the sense, belongs to
ὄíôùí
, &c. [Comp. Mat_12:46 :
ἕôé áὐôïῦ ëáëïῦíôïò
; Luk_15:20 :
ἕôé äÝ áὺôïῦ ìáêñὰí ἀðÝêïíôïò
. Similar transpositions of
ἔôé
among the classics. See the quotations of Meyer in loc., and Winer, Gramm., p. 515.—P. S.] Seb. Schmid, and others, have incorrectly understood
ἔôé
as insuper [moreover, furthermore; but this would be
ἔôé äÝ
, Heb_11:36, not
ἔôé ãÜñ
.—P. S.]; contrary not only to the meaning of the word, but also to the context. They hold that the
ἔôé
does not enhance the preceding, but gives the ground why the confidence of salvation is an ever-increasing certainty. Tholuck, with Meyer, favoring the
ἔôé
at the beginning of the verse, says that
ἔôé
has been removed at the beginning because a Bible-lesson began with the verse [with the word
×ñéóôüò
]. The result was, that it was partly removed, partly doubled, and partly corrected. We hold that the twofold
ἔôé
, which Lachmann reads [and which Cod. Sin. sustains] has a good meaning as emphasis.
Rom_5:7. When we were yet weak, or, without (spiritual) strength [
ὄíôùí ἡìῶí ἀóèåíῶí ἐôé
]. The state of sin is here represented as weakness or sickness in reference to the divine life, and consequently as helplessness, in order to declare that, at that time, believers could not do the least toward establishing the ground of their hope. [Comp. Isa_53:4, Septuagint:
ôὰò ἁìáñôßáò ἡìῶí öÝñåé
, with Mat_8:17 :
ôὰò ἀóèåíåßáò ἡíῶí ἒëáâå
. Sin is here represented as helpless weakness, in contrast with the saving help of Christ’s love.—P. S.] The
ὰóèåíåῖò
are then denominated
á
Ì
óåâåῖò
, ungodly, in order to express the thought that we, as sinners, could not add any thing to the saving act of Christ, but did our utmost to aggravate the work of Christ. Sinfulness is represented, therefore, not merely as “the need of help,” and thus “as the motive of God’s love intervening for salvation” (Meyer), but as the startingpoint of redemption, where the love of God accomplished the great act of salvation without any cooperation of sinners—yea, in spite of their greatest opposition.
At the proper time (or, in due season).
Êáôὰ êáéñüí
. Two connections of the
êáôὰê
.: 1. It is united to
ὄíôùí
, &c. We were weak according to the time [pro temporum rationed,] in the sense of excuse (Erasmus); in the sense of the general corruption (according to Calvin, Luther, Hofmann). Against this are both the position of
êáéñüò
, and its signification. 2. It is referred to
ἀðÝèáíåí
, but in different ways. Origen: at that time, when He suffered. Abelard: held awhile in death. [Kypke, Reiche, Philippi, Alford, Hodge: at the appointed time, foretold by the prophets.—P. S.] Meyer: As it was the full time [proper time] for the deliverance of those who lived at that time. Better: It was the fit time in the history of humanity. This by no means weakens the principal thought, which rather requires the definite statement that the sacrificial death of Christ was according to Divine wisdom; since the necessity for salvation and the capacity for salvation were decided with the fulness of natural corruption. The highest heroism of the self-sacrifice does not exclude its reasonableness. See Rom_16:25; Gal_4:4; Eph_1:10; 1Ti_2:6; Tit_1:3. [
êáôὰ êáéñüí
is =
ἐíêáéñῶ
,
åἰò êáéñüí
,
ἐðὶ êáéñïῦ
,
êáéñßùò
, tempore opportuno; in opposition to
ðáñὰ êáéñüí
, tempore alieno, untimely. Here it is essentially the same with the
ðëÞñùìá ôῶí êáéñῶí
, Eph_1:10, and the
ðëÞñùìá ôñïῦ êñüíïõ
, Gal_4:4; comp. Mar_1:15. Christ appeared when all the preparations for His coming and His kingdom in the Jewish and Gentile world were completed, and when the disease of sin had reached the crisis. This was God’s own appointed time, and the most, or rather the only, appropriate time. Christ could not have appeared with divine fitness and propriety, nor with due effect, at any other time, nor in any other race or country. We cannot conceive of His advent at the time of Noah, or Abraham, or in China, or among the savage tribes of America. History is a unit, and a gradual unfolding of a Divine plan of infinite wisdom. Christ is the turning-point and centre of history, the end of the old and the beginning of the new humanity—a truth which is confessed, wittingly or unwittingly, by every date from A. D. throughout the civilized world.—P. S.]
For the ungodly.
ὑðÝñ
, for, for the good of. It is a fuller conception than the idea instead of,
ἀíôß
, if we remember that, where the question is concerning a dying for those who are worthy of death, the conception naturally involves a well-understood
ἀíôß
. See Mat_20:28. The terms
ὑðÝñ
and
ðåñß
[which Paul uses synonymously, Gal_1:4] are more comprehensive; but the expression
ἀíôß
is the most definite one. [Meyer contends that
ὑðÝñ
and
ðåñß
always mean for, in behalf of, for the benefit of, and not
ἀíôß
, in the place of, loco, although, in the case of Christ, His death for the benefit of sinners was a vicarious sacrifice; Rom_3:25; Eph_5:2; 1Ti_2:6. Sometimes the
ὑðÝñ
, like the English preposition for, according to the context, necessarily involves the
ἀíôé
, as in 2Co_5:15; 2Co_5:20-21; Gal_3:13; Phm_1:13. The Apostle says
ὑðὲñ ἀóåâῶí
, instead of
ὑðÝñ ἡìῶí
, in order to bring out more fully, by this strong antithesis, the amazing love of Christ.—P. S.]
Rom_5:7. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die, though, for the good man, perhaps some one may even dare to die [
Ìüëéò ãÜñ ὑðὲñ äéêáßïõ
(without the article)
ôéò ἀðïèáíåῑôáé ὑðὲñ ãὰñ
(the second
ãÜñ
seems to be exceptive, and introduces a correction of the preceding with reference to
ìüëéò
: with difficulty, I say, for it is a fact that)
ôïῦ ἀãáèïῦ
(with the article)
ôÜ÷á ôéò êáὶ ôïëìᾷ ἀðïèáíåῖí
.—P. S.]. The difficulty of this verse has led to various conjectures. The Peshito reads
ὑðὲñ ἀäßêùí
(unrighteous), instead of
ὑðὲñ äéêáßïõ
; Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, &c., read
äéêáßïõ
and
ἀãáèïῦ
as neuter words; Hofmann [formerly, not now.—P. S.]: at least the latter is neuter; Origen, on the contrary, held merely
äéê
. as neuter, and understood by
ἀãáèüò
, Christ as the perfectly good One. But, as Meyer properly observes, that both substantives are masculine, is evident from the antithesis
ἀóåâåῖò
, by which the question is generally concerning a dying for persons. [
äéêáßïõ
, without the article, must be masculine—a righteous person (not the right,
ôὸ äéêáéïí
); but
ôïῦ ἀãáèïῦ
, with the article, may, grammatically, be taken as neuter = summum bonum (the country, or any good cause or noble principle for which martyrs have died in ancient and modern times). Yet, in this case, the antithesis would be lost, since Christ likewise died for the highest good, the salvation of the world. The antithesis is evidently between men who scarcely are found to die for a
äéêáéïò
, though occasionally perhaps for
ὁ
(their)
ἀãáèüò
, and Christ who died for
ἀóåâåῖò
, Rom_5:6; or
ἁìáñôùëïß
, Rom_5:8; and even for
ἐêèñïß
(the very opposite of
ἀãáèüò
), Rom_5:10. In both cases, the death for persons, not for a cause, is meant.—P. S.]
Explanations of the masculines:
(1) There is no material difference between
äßêáéïò
and
ἀãáèüò
. “After Paul has said that scarcely for a ‘righteous’ man will one die, he will add, by way of establishing his assertion, that there might occur instances of the undertaking of such a death.” Meyer, in harmony with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, Calvin, &c. But
äéêáéïò
is not
ἀãáèüò
, and
ìüëéò
(scarcely) is not
ôÜêá
(possibly).
(2)
ὁ ἀãáèüò
is the benefactor. Knachtbull [Animadv. in libros N. T., 1659, p. 120], Estius [Cocceius, Hammond], and many others; Reiche, Tholuck: The Friend of Man. This is too special.
(3) The
ἀãáèüò
stands above the merely righteous or just one. Ambrosiaster: the noble one, the
ἀãáèüò
by nature; Bengel: homo innoxius exempli gratia, &c. [”
äéê
., indefinitely, implies a harmless (guiltless) man;
ὁ ἀãáèüò
, one perfect in all that piety demands, excellent, bounteous, princely, blessed—for example, the father of his country.”—P. S.]
Meyer regards all these as ”subtle distinctions.” [He quotes, for the essential identity of
äßêáéïò
and
ἀãáèüò
, Mat_5:45;. Luk_23:50; Rom_7:12, where both are connected.—P. S.] Then the difference between the Old and New Testament would also be a subtle drawing of distinctions. The Old Testament, even in its later period, scarcely produced one kind of martyrdom; but the New Testament has a rich martyrdom. Yet we would understand the
ἀãáèüò
in a more general sense. The
äßêáéïò
instills respect, but he does not establish, as such, a communion and exchange of life; but the
ἀãáèüò
inspires. Paul’s acknowledgment here, which was supported by heathen examples, is a proof of his apostolic considerateness, and of his elevation above all slavery to the letter. An ecclesiastical rhetorician would have suppressed the concession. The selection of the expression with
ôÜêá
and
ôïëìᾶ
is admirable; such self-sacrifices are always made headlong in the ecstasy of sympathetic generosity.
4. It is hardly necessary to mention the view [maintained by Meyer in the first edition, but now given up by him.—P. S.], that the second member of the sentence is interrogative: for who would dare to die readily even for the good?
[I can see no material difference between interpretations 2 and 3. The principal point in both is the distinction made between
äßêáéïò
(taken in a narrower
