Comentarios bíblicos

Romans 5:1-11. The blessings of Justification. The first section of the epistle (chap. Romans 1:18 to Romans 3:20) has proved man’s need of the righteousness of God; the second (chap. Romans 3:21-30) has shown how that righteousness comes, and how it is appropriated; the third (chap. Romans 3:31 to Romans 4:25) has shown, by the example of Abraham, and the testimony of David, that it does not upset, but establishes the spiritual order revealed in the O.T. The Apostle now, like David, enlarges on the felicity of the justified, and especially on their assurance of God’s love and of future blessedness. We may describe the contents of Romans 5:1-11 in the words which he himself applies (Romans 4:6) to the 32nd psalm: λέγει τὸν μακαρισμὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ᾧ ὁ θεὸς λογίζεται δικαιοσύνην χωρὶς ἔργων.

Romans 5:1. δικαιωθέντες takes up emphatically the δικαίωσιν of Romans 4:25 : Christ’s death and resurrection have not been in vain: there are those who have actually been justified in consequence. Having, therefore, been justified (the Apostle says), εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν θεόν. The MSS. evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of ἔχωμεν, so much so that W. and H. notice no other reading, and Tischdf. says “ἔχωμεν cannot be rejected unless it is altogether inappropriate, and inappropriate it seemingly is not”. But this last statement is at least open to dispute. There is no indication that the Apostle has finished his dogmatic exposition, and is proceeding to exhortation. To read ἔχωμεν, and then to take καυχώμεθα as subjunctive both in Romans 5:2 and Romans 5:3 (as the R.V.), is not only awkward, but inconsistent with οὐ μόνον δὲ, Romans 5:3. If the hortative purpose dominated the passage throughout, the Apostle must have written μὴ: see Gifford, p. 122. It is better (reading ἔχωμεν) to take καυχώμεθα in Romans 5:2 with διʼ οὗ, and co-ordinate it with τὴν προσαγωγήν: “through whom we have had our access, and rejoice, etc”. Then the οὐ μόνον is in place. But the uninterrupted series of indicatives afterwards, the inappropriateness of the verb ἔχειν to express “let us realise, let us make our own,” the strong tendency to give a paraenetic turn to a passage often read in church, the natural emphasis on εἰρήνη, and the logic of the situation, are all in favour of ἔχομεν, which is accordingly adopted by Meyer, Weiss, Lipsius, Godet and others, in spite of the MSS., see critical note. The justified have peace with God: i.e., His wrath (Romans 1:18) no longer threatens them; they are accepted in Christ. It is not a change in their feelings which is indicated, but a change in God’s relation to them.

Romans 5:2. διʼ οὗ καὶ: through whom also. To the fact that we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ corresponds this other fact, that through Him we have had (and have) our access into this grace, etc. προσαγωγὴ has a certain touch of formality. Christ has “introduced” us to our standing as Christians: cf. Ephesians 2:18, 1 Peter 3:18. τῇ πίστει: by the faith referred to in Romans 5:1. Not to be construed with εἰς τὴν χάριν ταύτην: which would be without analogy in the N.T. The grace is substantially one with justification: it is the new spiritual atmosphere in which the believer lives as reconciled to God. καυχώμεθα, which always implies the expression of feeling, is to be co-ordinated with ἔχομεν. ἐπʼ ἐλπίδι τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ: on the basis of hope in the glory of God, i.e., of partaking in the glory of the heavenly kingdom. For ἐπʼ ἐλπίδι, cf. Romans 4:18 : the construction is not elsewhere found with καυχᾶσθαι.

Romans 5:3. οὐ μόνον δὲ ἀλλὰ καὶ καυχώμεθα: and not only (do we glory on that footing), but we also glory in tribulations. Cf. Jam 1:2 ff. ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν does not simply mean “when we are in tribulations,” but also “because we are”: the tribulations being the ground of the glorying: see Romans 2:17; Romans 2:23, Romans 5:11, 1 Corinthians 3:21, 2 Corinthians 12:9, Galatians 6:14.

Romans 5:4. ὑπομονὴν κατεργάζεται: has as its fruit, or effect, endurance. ὑπομονὴ has more of the sense of bravery and effort than the English “patience”: it is not so passive. ἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ δοκιμήν: endurance produces approvedness—its result is a spiritual state which has shown itself proof under trial. Cf. Jam 1:12 (δόκιμος γενόμενος = when he has shown himself proof). Perhaps the best English equivalent of δοκιμή would be character. This in its turn results again in hope: the experience of what God can do, or rather of what He does, for the justified amid the tribulations of this life, animates into new vigour the hope with which the life of faith begins.

Romans 5:5. ἡ δὲ ἐλπὶδ οὐ καταισχύνει: and hope, i.e., the hope which has not been extinguished, but confirmed under trial, does not put to shame. Psalm 22:6. Spes erit res (Bengel). Here the aurea catena comes to an end, and the Apostle points to that on which it is ultimately dependent. All these Christian experiences and hopes rest upon an assurance of the love of God. ὅτι ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ κ.τ.λ. That the love of God to us is meant, not our love to Him, is obvious from Romans 5:6 and the whole connection: it is the evidence of God’s love to us which the Apostle proceeds to set forth. ἐκκέχυται ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν (cf. Joel 3:1; Joel 2:12, LXX, Acts 10:45): has been poured out in, and still floods, our hearts. διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου τοῦ δοθέντος ἡμῖν: the aorist τοῦ δοθέντος can hardly refer to Pentecost, in which case ἡμῖν would express the consciousness of the Christian community: the spirit was given to Christians in virtue of their faith (Galatians 3:2), and normally on occasion of their baptism (1 Corinthians 12:13, Acts 19:1 ff.): and it is this experience, possibly this event, to which the participle definitely refers. What the spirit, given (in baptism) to faith, does, is to flood the heart with God’s love, and with the assurance of it.

Romans 5:6. The reading εἴ γε is well supported, and yields a good sense (“so surely as”: Evans), though the suggestion is made in W. and H. that it may be a primitive error for εἴ περ (see note on Romans 3:30). The assurance we have of the love of God is no doubt conditioned, but the condition may be expressed with the utmost force, as it is with εἴ γε, for there is no doubt that what it puts as a hypothesis has actually taken place, viz., Christ’s death for the ungodly. Although he says εἴ γε, the objective fact which follows is in no sense open to question: it is to the Apostle the first of certainties. Cf. the use of εἴ γε in Ephesians 3:2; Ephesians 4:21, and Ellicott’s note on the former. ἀσθενῶν: the weakness of men who had not yet received the Spirit is conceived as appealing to the love of God. ἔτι goes with ὄντων ἡμ. ἀσθενῶν: the persons concerned were no longer weak, when Paul wrote, but strong in their new relation to God. κατὰ καιρὸν has been taken with ὄντῶν ἡ. ἀ. ἔτι: “while we were yet without strength, as the pre-Christian era implied or required”: but this meaning is remote, and must have been more clearly suggested. The analogy of Galatians 4:4, Ephesians 1:10, supports the ordinary rendering, “in due time,” i.e., at the time determined by the Providence of God and the history of man as the proper time, Christ died. ὑπέρ: in the interest of, not equivalent to ἀντί, instead of: whether the interest of the ungodly is secured by the fact that Christ’s death has a substitutionary character, or in some other way, is a question which ὑπέρ does not touch.

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. Cf. the Gnostic contrast between the “just” God of the O.T. and the “good” God of the N.T., and the passages quoted in Cremer, s.v ἀγαθός. καὶ τολμᾷ: even prevails upon himself, wins it from himself.

Romans 5:8. How greatly is this utmost love of man surpassed by the love of God. He commends, or rather makes good, presents in its true and unmistakable character (for συνίστησιν, cf. Romans 3:5, 2 Corinthians 6:4; 2 Corinthians 7:11; Galatians 2:18), His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, etc. ἑαυτοῦ is an emphatic His: His, not as opposed to Christ’s (as some have strangely taken it), but as opposed to anything that we can point to as love among men: His spontaneous and characteristic love. ἔτι ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν: they are no longer such, but justified, and it is on this the next step in the argument depends.