Chú giải Kinh Thánh

CHAPTER 5

Romans 5:1. ἔχομεν] Lachm. (in the margin), Scholz, Fritzsche, and Tisch. (8) read ἔχωμεν, following AB* C D K L א*, min[1117], several vss[1118] (including Syr[1119] Vulg. It.) and Fathers. But this reading, though very strongly attested, yields a sense (let us maintain peace with God) that is here utterly unsuitable; because the writer now enters on a new and important doctrinal topic, and an exhortation at the very outset, especially regarding a subject not yet expressly spoken of, would at this stage be out of place.[1120] Hence the ἜΧΟΜΕΝ, sufficiently attested by B** א** F G, most min[1121], Syr. p[1122] and some Fathers, is to be retained; and the subjunctive must be regarded as having arisen from misunderstanding, or from the hortatory use of the passage.

Romans 5:2. τῇ πίστει] wanting in B D E F G, Aeth. It.; omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. (7), as also by Ewald. Following Romans 5:1, it is altogether superfluous; but this very reason accounts for its omission, which secured the direct reference of ΕἸς Τ. ΧΆΡ. ΤΑΎΤ. to ΠΡΟΣΑΓ. The genuineness of Τῇ ΠΊΣΤΕΙ is also attested by the reading ἘΝ Τῇ ΠΊΣΤΕΙ (so Fritzsche) in A א** 93, and several Fathers, which points to a repetition of the final letters of ἘΣΧΉΚΑΜ EN.

Romans 5:6. After ἀσθενῶν preponderating witnesses have ἔτι, which Griesb. Lachm. and Tisch. (8) have adopted. A misplacement of the ἔτι before γάρ, because it was construed with ἀσθενῶν, along with which it came to be written. Thus ἔτι came in twice, and the first was either mechanically allowed to remain (A C D* א), or there was substituted for it εἴγε (B), or εἰς τί (F G), or εἰ γάρ. The misplacement of the ἔτι came to predominate, because a Church-lesson began with Χριστός.

Romans 5:8. ὁ Θεός, which a considerable number of witnesses have before εἰς ἡμᾶς (so Tisch. 7), is wanting in B. But as the love of Christ, not that of God, appeared from Romans 5:7 to be the subject of the discourse, Ὁ ΘΕΌς was omitted.

Romans 5:11. ΚΑΥΧΏΜΕΝΟΙ] F G read ΚΑΥΧῶΜΕΝ; L, min[1123], and several Fathers καυχώμεθα. Also Vulg. It. Arm. Slav. express gloriamur. An erroneous interpretation. See the exegetical remarks.

Romans 5:12. The second ὁ θάνατος is wanting in D E F G 62, It. Syr. p[1124] Aeth. and most Fathers, also Aug. In Syr[1125] with an asterisk; Arm. Chrys. Theodoret place it after ΔΙῆΛΘΕΝ. Tisch. (7) had omitted it. But as the word has preponderant testimony in its favour, and as in order to the definiteness of the otherwise very definitely expressed sentence it cannot be dispensed with, if in both halves of Romans 5:12 the relation of sin and death is, as is manifestly the design, to be expressly put forward, ὁ θάνατος omitted by Tisch., must be defended. Its omission may have arisen from its apparent superfluousness, or from the similarity between the final syllables of ἈΝΘΡΏΠΟΥΣ and ΘΆΝΑΤΟΣ.

Romans 5:14. ΜΉ] is wanting in 62, 63, 67**, Or. and others, codd[1126] in Ruf. and Aug., and is declared by Ambrosiaster to be an interpolation. But it is certified partly by decisive testimony in its favour; partly by the undoubted genuineness of the ΚΑΊ; and partly because the ΜΉ apparently contradicts the erroneously understood ἘΦʼ ᾯ (in quo) πάντες ἥμαρτον in Romans 5:12. See Reiche, Commentar. crit. I. p. 39 ff.

Romans 5:16. ἉΜΑΡΤΉΣΑΝΤΟς] D E F G, 26, 80, and several vss[1127] and Fathers read ἉΜΑΡΤΉΜΑΤΟς, which Griesb. recommended. A gloss occasioned by the antithesis ἘΚ ΠΟΛΛ. ΠΑΡΑΠΤΩΜΆΤΩΝ.

Romans 5:17. Τῷ ΤΟῦ ἙΝῸς ΠΑΡΑΠΤΏΜΑΤΙ] So also Lachm. and Tisch. (8) following B C K L P א, vss[1128], and Fathers. But A F G read ἘΝ ἙΝῚ ΠΑΡΑΠΤ., D E ἘΝ Τῷ ἙΝῚ ΠΑΡΑΠΤ. 47, Or. ἘΝ ἙΝῸς ΠΑΡΑΠΤ. The original reading was most probably the simplest, ἘΝ ἘΝῚ ΠΑΡΑΠΤ., which, though not most strongly, is nevertheless sufficiently attested (also recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Tisch. (7), because from it the rise of the other variations can be very naturally explained. By way of more specific indication in some cases, the article was added (D E), in others ἙΝΊ was changed into ἙΝΌς (47, Or.). But, seeing that in any case the sense was quite the same as in the Τῷ ΤΟῦ ἙΝῸς ΠΑΡΑΠΤ. read in Romans 5:15, this was at first written alongside as a parallel, and then taken into the text.

[1117] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1118] ss. versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the usual abridged forms.

[1119] yr. Peschito Syriac

[1120] This even, in opposition to the opinion of Tisch. (8), that on account of the weighty testimony in its favour ἔχωμεν cannot be rejected, “nisi prorsus ineptum sit; ineptum vero non videtur.” Hofmann also has not been able suitably to explain the ἔχωμεν which he defends. See the exegetical remarks.

[1121] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1122] yr. p. Philoxenian Syriac.

[1123] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1124] yr. p. Philoxenian Syriac.

[1125] yr. Peschito Syriac

[1126] odd. codices or manuscripts. The uncial manuscripts are denoted by the usual letters, the Sinaitic by א.

[1127] ss. versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the usual abridged forms.

[1128] ss. versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the usual abridged forms.

CONTENTS.

Paul has hitherto described the δικαιοσύνη ἐκ πίστεως in respect of its necessity (Romans 1:18 to Romans 3:21); of its nature (Romans 3:21-30); and of its relation to the law (Romans 3:31 to Romans 4:25). He now discusses the blessed assurance of salvation secured for the present and the future to the δικαιωθέντες ἐκ πίστεως (Romans 5:1-11); and then—in order clearly to exhibit the greatness and certainty of salvation in Christ, more especially in its divine world-wide significance as the blissful epoch-forming counterpart of the Adamite ruin—he presents us with a detailed parallel between this salvation and the misery which once came through Adam (Romans 5:12-19), and was necessarily augmented through the law (Romans 5:20-21).

Romans 5:1.[1129] Οὖν draws an inference from the whole of the preceding section, Romans 3:21 to Romans 4:25, and developes the argument in such a form that ΔΙΚΑΙΩΘΈΝΤΕς, following at once on ΔΙᾺ ΤΉΝ ΔΙΚΑΊΩΣΙΝ ἩΜ., heads the sentence with triumphant emphasis. What a blessed assurance of salvation is enjoyed by believers in virtue of their justification which has taken place through faith, is now to be more particularly set forth; not however in the form of an exhortation (Hofmann, in accordance with the reading ἔχωμεν) “to let our relation to God be one of peace” (through a life of faith), in which case the emphasis, that obviously rests in the first instance on δικαιωθ. and then on ΕἸΡΉΝΗΝ, is taken to lie on ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦ ΚΥΡΊΟΥ ἩΜ. ʼΙ. Χ.

ΕἸΡΉΝΗΝ ἜΧ. Π. Τ. ΘΕΌΝ] He who is justified is no longer in the position of one to whom God must be and is hostile (ἘΧΘΡῸς ΘΕΟῦ, Romans 5:9 f.), but on the contrary he has peace (not in a general sense contentment, satisfaction, as Th. Schott thinks) in his relation to God. This is the peace which consists in the known objective state of reconciliation, the opposite of the state in which one is subject to the divine wrath and the sensus irae. With justification this peace ensues as its immediate and abiding result.[1130] Hence δικαιωθέντες.… ἔχομεν (comp Acts 9:31; John 16:33). And through Christ (διὰ τοῦ κυρίου Κ.Τ.Λ[1132]) as the εἰρηνοποιός is this pacem obtinere (Bremi, a[1133] Isocr. Archid. p. 111) procured; a truth obvious indeed in itself, but which, in consonance with the strength and fulness of the Apostle’s own believing experience; is very naturally again brought into special prominence here, in order to connect, as it were, triumphantly with this objective cause of the state of peace what we owe to it respecting the point in question, Romans 5:2. There is thus the less necessity for joining διὰ τοῦ κυρίου κ.τ.λ[1134] with ΕἸΡΉΝΗΝ (Stölting); it belongs, like ΠΡῸς Τ. ΘΕΌΝ, in accordance with the position of ἜΧΟΜΕΝ, to the latter word.

πρὸς (of the ethical relation, Bernhardy, p. 265), as in Acts 2:47; Acts 24:16. Comp Herodian, viii. 7, 8 : ἈΝΤῚ ΠΟΛΈΜΟΥ ΜῈΝ ΕἸΡΉΝΗΝ ἜΧΟΝΤΕς ΠΡῸς ΘΕΟΎς. Plat. Pol. v. p. 465 B: εἰρήνην πρὸς ἀλλήλους ΟἹ ἌΝΔΡΕς ἌΞΟΥΣΙΝ; Legg. xii. p. 955 B; Alc. I. p. 107 D; Xenoph. and others. It is not to be confounded with the divinely wrought inward state of mental peace, which is denoted by εἰρήνη τοῦ Θεοῦ in Php 4:7; comp Colossians 3:15. The latter is the subjective correlate of the objective relation of the ΕἸΡΉΝΗ, which we have ΠΡῸς ΤῸΝ ΘΕΌΝ although inseparably combined with the latter.

[1129] On vv. 1–8 see Winzer, Commentat. Lips. 1832. On the entire chapter Stölting, Beitrage z. Exegese d. Paul. Briefe, Göttingen, 1869, p. 3 ff.

[1130] Comp. Dorner, die Rechtfert. durch den Glauben, p. 12 f.

[1132] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1133] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1134] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

Romans 5:2. Δἰ οὗ καὶ κ.τ.λ[1137]] Confirmation and more precise definition of the preceding διὰ.… Ἰησοῦ Χ. The καί does not merely append (Stölting), but is rather the “also” of corresponding relation, giving prominence precisely to what had here an important practical bearing i.e. as proving the previous διὰ κυρίου κ.τ.λ[1138] Comp Romans 9:24; 1 Corinthians 4:5; Php 4:10. The climactic interpretation here (Köllner: “a heightened form of stating the merit of Christ;” comp Rückert) is open to the objection that the ΠΡΟΣΑΓΩΓῊ ΕἸς Τ. ΧΆΡ. is not something added to or higher than the ΕἸΡΉΝΗ, but, on the contrary, the foundation of it. If we were to take καὶ.… καί in the sense “as well.… as” (Th. Schott, Hofmann), the two sentences, which are not to be placed in special relation to Romans 3:23, would be made co-ordinate, although the second is the consequence of that which is affirmed in the first.

τὴν προσαγωγήν] the introduction,[1141] Xen. Cyrop. vii. 5, 45; Thuc. i. 82, 2; Plut. Mor. p. 1097 E, Lucian, Zeux. 6; and see also on Ephesians 2:18. Through Christ we have had our introduction to the grace, etc., inasmuch as He Himself (comp 1 Peter 3:18) in virtue of His atoning sacrifice which removes the wrath of God, has become our προσαγωγεύς, or, as Chrysostom aptly expresses it, μακρὰν ὄντας προσήγαγε. In this case the preposition διά, which corresponds with the διά in Romans 5:1, is fully warranted, because Christ has brought us to grace in His capacity as the divinely appointed and divinely given Mediator. Comp Winer, p. 354 f. [E. T. 473].

To τ. προσαγ. ἐσχήκ. belongs εἰς τ. χάριν ταύτην; and τῇ πίστει, by means of faith, denotes the subjective medium of τ. προσαγ. εσχήκαμεν. On the other hand, Oecumenius, Bos, Wetstein, Michaelis, Reiche, Baumgarten-Crusius take τ. προσαγωγ. absolutely, in the sense of access to God (according to Reiche as a figurative mode of expressing the beginning of grace), and εἰς τὴν χάρ. ταύτ. as belonging to τῇ πίστει. In that case we must supply after προσαγ. the words πρὸς τ. Οεόν from Romans 5:1 (Ephesians 2:18; Ephesians 3:12); and we may with Bos and Michaelis explain προσαγωγή by the usage of courts, in accordance with which access to the king was obtained through a προσαγωγεύς, sequester (Lamprid. in Alex. Sev. 4). But the whole of this reading is liable to the objection that πίστις εἰς τὴν χάριν would be an expression without analogy in the N. T.

ἐσχήκαμεν] Not: habemus (Luther and many others), nor nacti sumus et habemus (most modern interpreters, including Tholuck, Rückert, Winzer, Ewald), but habuimus, namely, when we became Christians. So also de Wette, Philippi, Maier, van Hengel, Hofmann. Comp 2 Corinthians 1:9; 2 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Corinthians 7:5. The perfect realises as present the possession formerly obtained, as in Plat. Apol. p. 20 D, and see Bernhardy, p. 379.

εἰς τὴν χάρ. ταύτ.] The divine grace of which the justified are partakers[1145] is conceived as a field of space, into which they have had (ἐσχήκαμεν) introduction through Christ by means of faith, and in which they now have (ἔχομεν) peace with God.

ἐν ᾗ ἑστήκαμεν] does not refer to τῇ πίστει (Grotius), but to the nearest antecedent, τὴν χάριν, which is also accompanied by the demonstrative: in which we stand. The joyful consciousness of the present, that the possession of grace once entered upon is permanent, suggested the word to the Apostle. Comp 1 Corinthians 15:1; 1 Peter 5:12.

καὶ καυχώμεθα] may be regarded as a continuation either of the last relative sentence (ἐν ᾗ ἑστήκ., so van Hengel, Ewald, Mehring, Stölting), or of the previous one (διʼ οὗ καὶ κ.τ.λ[1147]), or of the principal sentence (ΕἸΡΉΝ. ἜΧΟΜΕΝ). The last alone is suggested by the context, because, as Romans 5:3 shows, a new and independent element in the description of the blessed condition is introduced with καὶ καυχώμεθα.

καυχᾶσθαι expresses not merely the idea of rejoicing, not merely “the inward elevating consciousness, to which outward expression is not forbidden” (Reiche), but rather the actual glorying, by which we praise ourselves as privileged (“what the heart is full of, the mouth will utter”). Such is its meaning in all cases.

On ἐπί, on the ground of, i.e. over, joined with καυχ. comp Psalm 48:6; Proverbs 25:14; Wis 17:7; Sir 30:2. No further example of this use is found in the N. T.; but see Lycurgus in Beck. Anecd. 275, 4; Diod. S. xvi. 70; and Kühner, II. 1, p. 436. It is therefore unnecessary to isolate καυχώμεθα, so as to make ἘΠʼ ΕΛΠΊΔΙ independent of it (Romans 4:18; so van Hengel). Comp on the contrary, the ΣΕΜΝΎΝΕΣΘΑΙ ἘΠΊ ΤΙΝΙ frequent in Greek authors. The variation of the prepositions, ἘΠΊ and in Romans 5:3 ἘΝ, is not to be imputed to any set purpose; comp on Romans 3:20; Romans 3:25 f. al[1151]

The ΔΌΞΑ Τ. ΘΕΟῦ is the glory of God, in which the members of the Messiah’s kingdom shall hereafter participate. Comp 1 Thessalonians 2:12; John 17:22, also Romans 8:17; Revelation 21:11; 1 John 3:2; and see Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 376. The reading of the Vulg.: gloriae filiorum Dei, is a gloss that hits the right sense. Reiche and Maier, following Luther and Grotius, take the genitive as a genit. auctoris. But that God is the giver of the δόξα, is self-evident and does not distinctively characterize it. Rückert urges here also his exposition of Romans 3:23; comp Ewald. But see on that passage. Flatt takes it as the approval of God (Romans 3:23), but the ἐλπίδι, pointing solely to the glorious future, is decisive against this view. It is aptly explained by Melancthon: “quod Deus sit nos gloria sua aeterna ornaturus, i. e. vita aeterna et communicatione sui ipsius.”

[1137] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1138] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1141] Προσαγωγή ought not to be explained as access (Vulg. accessum, and so most interpreters), but as leading towards, the meaning which the word always has (even in Ephesians 2:18; Ephesians 3:12). See Xen. l.c.: τοὺς ἐμοὺς φίλους δεομένους προσαγωγῆς. Polybius uses it to express the bringing up of engines against a besieged town, xi. 41, 1, xiv. 10, 9; comp. i. 48, 2; the bringing up of ships to the shore, x, i. 6; the bringing of cattle into the stall, xii. 4, 10. In Herod. ii. 58 also the literal meaning is: a leading up, carrying up in solemn procession. Tholuck and van Hengel have rightly adopted the active meaning in this verse (comp. Weber, vom Zorne Gottes, p. 316); whilst Philippi, Umbreit, Ewald, Hofmann (comp. Mehring) abide by the rendering “access.” Chrysostom aptly observes on Ephesians 2:18 : οὐ γὰρ ἀφʼ ἑαυτῶν προσήλθομεν, ἀλλʼ ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ προσήχθημεν.

[1145] For to nothing else than the grace experienced in justification can εἰς τ. χάρ. τ. be referred in accordance with the context (δικαιωθέντες)—not to the blessings of Christianity generally (Chrysostom and others, including Flatt and Winzer; comp. Rückert and Köllner); not to the Gospel (Fritzsche); and not to the εἰρήνη (Mehring, Stölting), which would yield a tame tautology.—The demonstrative ταύτην implies something of triumph. Compare Photius. The joyful consciousness of the Apostle is still full of the high blessing of grace, which he has just expressed in the terms δικαίωσις and δικαιωθέντες.

[1147] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1151] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

Romans 5:3-4.[1154] Οὐ ΜΌΝΟΝ ΔΈ] scil. ΚΑΥΧΏΜΕΘΑ ἘΠʼ ἘΛΠΊΔΙ Τῆς ΔΌΞΗς Τ. ΘΕΟῦ. Examples of the usage (Romans 5:11; Romans 8:23; Romans 9:10; 2 Corinthians 8:19) may be seen in Kypke, II. p. 165; Vigerus, ed. Herm. p. 543; Heind. and Stallb. a[1155] Phaed. p. 107 B. Comp Legg. vi. p. 752 A; Men. p. 71 B.

ἐν ταῖς θλίψ.] of the tribulations (affecting us), as commonly in the N. T. ἐν is connected with ΚΑΥΧᾶΣΘΑΙ (Romans 5:11; 2 Corinthians 10:15; Galatians 6:13). Comp Senec. de prov. iv. 4 : “gaudent magni viri rebus adversis non aliter quam fortes milites bellis triumphant.” As to the ground of this Christian καύχησις, see the sequel. On the thing itself, in which the believer’s victory over the world makes itself apparent (Romans 8:35 ff.), comp 2 Corinthians 11:30; 2 Corinthians 12:9; Matthew 5:10; Matthew 5:12; Acts 5:41; 1 Peter 4:12 f. Observe further, how with the joyful assurance of ample experience the triumphant discourse proceeds from the ἘΛΠῚς Τῆς ΔΌΞΗς, as subject-matter of the ΚΑΥΧᾶΣΘΑΙ, to the direct opposite (ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν), which may be likewise matter of glorying. Others (Glöckler, Baumgarten-Crusius, Stölting) erroneously render ἘΝ as in, which the contrast, requiring the object, does not permit, since ἐν τ. θλ. is not opposed to the ἘΝ ᾟ in Romans 5:2.

ὙΠΟΜΟΝΉΝ] endurance (“in ratione bene considerata stabilis et perpetua permansio,” Cic. de inv. ii. 54), namely, in the Christian faith and life. Comp Romans 2:7; Matthew 10:22; Matthew 24:13. Paul lays down the Ἡ ΘΛΊΨΙς ὙΠΟΜ. ΚΑΤΕΡΓΆΖ. unconditionally, because he is speaking of those who have been justified ἐκ πίστεως, in whose case the reverse cannot take place without sacrifice of their faith.

ΔΟΚΙΜΉΝ] triedness, 2 Corinthians 2:9; 2 Corinthians 8:2; 2 Corinthians 9:13; Php 2:22, “quae ostendit fidem non esse simulatam, sed veram, vivam et ardentem,” Melancthon. Triedness is produced through endurance (not made known, as Reiche thinks); for whosoever does not endure thereby becomes ἀδόκιμος. There is here no inconsistency with Jam 1:3. See Huther.

ἘΛΠΊΔΑ] namely, Τῆς ΔΌΞΗς Τ. ΘΕΟῦ, as is self-evident after Romans 5:2. The hope, it is true, already exists before the ΔΟΚΙΜΉ; nevertheless, the more the Christian has become tried, the more also will hope (which the ἀδόκιμος loses) consciously possess him. Comp Jam 1:12. Hope is therefore present, and yet withal is produced by the emergence of the δοκιμή, just as faith may be present, and yet be still further produced through something emerging (John 2:11). Comp Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 207 f.

Observe further, how widely removed from all fanatical pride in suffering is the reason assigned with conscious clearness for the Christian καυχᾶσθαι ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσι in our passage. In it the ἘΛΠΊς is uniformly meant and designated as the highest subjective blessing of the justified person, who is assured of the glorious consummation (not in Romans 5:3 f. as conduct and only in Romans 5:2 as blessing, as Hofmann thinks). Comp the ἩΔΕῖΑ ἘΛΠΊς, which ἈΕῚ ΠΆΡΕΣΤΙ, in contrast to the ΖῆΝ ΜΕΤᾺ ΚΑΚῆς ἘΛΠΊΔΟς in Plato, Rep. p. 331 A.

[1154] See a climax of description, similar in point of form in the Tractat. םוטה 9, 15 (see Surenh. III. 309): “Providentia parit alacritatem, alacritas innocentiam, innocentia puritatem, puritas abstinentiam, abstinentia sanctitatem, sanctitas modestiam, modestia timorem, timor sceleris pietatem, pietas spiritum sanctum, et spiritus sanctus resurrectionem mortuorum.” In contrast with this, how fervent, succinct, and full of life is the climax in our passage! For other chains of climactic succession, see Romans 8:29 ff., Romans 10:14 ff.; 2 Peter 1:5 ff.

[1155] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

Romans 5:5. Ἡ δὲ ἐλπίς] not, “the hope thus established” (Oecumenius, Olshausen, Stölting), but, in accordance with the analogy of the preceding elements, and without any excluding limitation, the hope (of glory), as such, consequently the Christian hope. This deceives no one who has it. It is self-evident, and the proof that follows gives information as to the fact, that this is uttered in the consciousness and out of the inward assurance of real living justification by faith.[1163]

οὐ καταισχύνει] maketh not ashamed, i.e. “habet certissimum salutis (of the thing hoped for) exitum,” Calvin, as will be shown at the judgment. “Spes erit res,” Bengel. Comp Romans 9:33; Sir 2:10; Bar 6:39; Psalm 22:6. Comp also Plat. Conv. p. 183 E, λόγους καὶ ὑποσχέσεις καταισχύνας. Polit. p. 268 D; Dem. 314, 9. The expression of triumphant certainty in the present is not to be removed by changing it into the future (Hofmann, who would read καταισχυνεῖ).

ὅτι ἡ ἀγάπη τ. Θεοῦ Κ.Τ.Λ[1166]] Ground of ἡ δὲ ἐλπίς οὐ καταισχ. The divine love,[1167] effectually present in the heart through the Holy Spirit, is to the Christian consciousness of faith the sure pledge that we do not hope in vain and so as to be put to shame at last, but that God will on the contrary fulfil our hope. Θεοῦ is the genitive of the subject; the love of God to us (so most expositors following Origen, Chrysostom and Luther), not of the object: love to God (Theodoret, Augustine, Anselm and others; including Klee, Glöckler, Umbreit, Hofmann, Stölting), which appears from Romans 5:8 as incorrect.[1168] Comp Romans 8:39; 2 Corinthians 13:13. As respects the justified, the wrath of God has given place to His love, which has its presence in them through the Spirit, its dwelling and sphere of action in believing hearts; and thus it is to them, like the Spirit Himself, ἀῤῥαβων of the hoped-for δόξα, 2 Corinthians 1:22; 2 Corinthians 5:5.

ἐκκέχυται] Figure for abundant, living effective communication (Acts 2:17; Acts 10:45). The idea of abundance is already implied in the sensuous image of outpouring, but may also, as in Titus 3:6, be specially expressed. Comp generally Suicer, Thes. I. p. 1075.

ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις] denotes, in accordance with the expression of the completed fact, the being spread abroad in the heart (motus in loco). Comp LXX. Psalm 45:2.

διὰ πνεύματος κ.τ.λ[1172]] Through the agency of the Spirit bestowed on us, who is the principle of the real self-communication of God, the divine love is also poured out in our hearts; see Romans 8:15-16; Galatians 4:6.

[1163] Comp. Düsterdieck in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1870, p. 668 ff.

[1166] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1167] As is well said by Calovius: “quae charitas effusa in nobis non qua inhaesionem subjectivam, sed qua manifestationem et qua effectum vel sensum ejusdem in cordibus nostris effusum.” Comp. Melancthon (against Osiander).

[1168] Among Catholics this explanation of active love was favoured by the doctrine of the justitia infusa.

[1172] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

Romans 5:6. Objective actual proof of this ἀγάπη τ. Θεοῦ, which through the Spirit fills our heart. Comp as to the argument Romans 8:39. “For Christ, when we were yet weak, at the right time died for the ungodly.”

ἔτι] can in no case belong to ἈΠΈΘΑΝΕ (Stölting), but neither does it give occasion for any conjecture (Fritzsche: Ἤ ΤΊ). Paul should perhaps have written: ἜΤΙ ΓᾺΡ ὌΝΤΩΝ ἩΜ. ἈΣΘΕΝῶΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΌς Κ.Τ.Λ[1174], or: Χριστὸς γὰρ ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν ἔτι κ.τ.λ[1175] (hence the second ἜΤΙ in Lachmann); but amidst the collision of emphasis between ἜΤΙ and the subject both present to his mind, he has expressed himself inexactly, so that now ἜΤΙ seems to belong to Χριστός, and yet in sense necessarily belongs, as in Romans 5:8, to ὄντων Κ.Τ.Λ[1176]

[1177] Comp Plat. Rep. p. 503 E: ἔτι δὴ ὃ τότε παρεῖμεν νῦν λέγομεν; p. 363 D: οἱ δʼ ἔτι τούτων μακροτέρυς ἀποτείνουσι μισθούς (where ἐτι ought to stand before μακρ.). Achill. Tat. v. 18: ἐγὼ δὲ ἔτι σοὶ ταῦτα γράφω παρθένος, and see Winer, p. 515 [E. T. 692]. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 333 f.; and Fritzsche in loc[1179] To get rid of this irregularity, Seb. Schmid, Oeder, Koppe, and Flatt have taken ἔτι as in-super, and that either in the sense of adeo (Koppe, also Schrader), which however it never means, not even in Luke 14:26; or so that a “for further, for moreover” (see Baeumlein, Partik. p. 119) introduces a second argument for ἡ δὲ ἐλπὶς οὐ καταισχ. (Flatt, also Baumgarten-Crusius). Against this latter construction Romans 5:8 is decisive, from which it is clear that Romans 5:6-8 are meant to be nothing else than the proof of the ἀγάπη τ. Θεοῦ. On ἔτι itself, with the imperfect participle in the sense of tunc adhuc, comp Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 693. It indicates the continued existence, which the earlier condition still had; Baeumlein, p. 118; Schneider, a[1181] Plat. Rep. p. 449 C.

ὄντων ἡμ. ἀσθενῶν] when we were still (ἔτι) without strength, still had not the forces of the true spiritual life, which we could only receive through the Holy Ghost. The sinfulness is purposely described as weakness (need of help), in order to characterise it as the motive for the love of God interfering to save. The idea of disease (Theodoret: τῆς ἀσεβείας περικειμένων τὴν νόσον; comp Theophylact, Umbreit and others), or that of minority (van Hengel), is not suggested by anything in the context.

κατὰ καιρόν] may either (1) be rendered according to the time, according to the nature of the time, so that with Erasmus, Luther, Flacius, Castalio, Pareus, Seb. Schmid, also Schrader and Th. Schott, it would have to be connected with ἀσθ.;[1183] or (2) it may belong to ὑπὲρ ἀσεβ. ἀπέθανε, and mean, in accordance with the context, either at the appointed time (Galatians 4:4), as it is here taken usually, also by de Wette, Tholuck, Philippi, Maier, Baumgarten-Crusius; or (3) at the proper time (see Kypke; comp Pind. Isthm. ii. 32; Herod. i. 30; Lucian, Philops. 21; LXX. Isaiah 60:22; Job 5:16; Job 39:18; Jeremiah 5:24), the same as ἐν καιρῷ, ἐς καιρόν, ἐπὶ καιροῦ; Phavorinus: κατὰ τὸν εὔκαιρον κ. προσήκοντα καιρόν; and so the bare καιρόν (Bernhardy, p. 117), equivalent to καιρίως, the opposite of ἀπὸ καιροῦ and παρὰ καιρόν. In the first case, however, κ. κ. would either assign to the ἀσθ. an inappropriate excuse, which would not even be true, since the ἀσθένεια has always obtained since the fall (Romans 5:13); or, if it was meant directly to disparage the pre-christian age (Flacius, “ante omnem nostram pietatem,” comp Stölting and Hofmann), it would characterise it much too weakly. In the second case an element not directly occasioned by the connection (proof of God’s love) would present itself. Therefore the third interpretation alone: at the right time (so Ewald and van Hengel) is to be retained. The death of Jesus for the ungodly took place at the proper season, because, had it not taken place then, they would, instead of the divine grace, have experienced the final righteous outbreak of divine wrath, seeing that the time of the πάρεσις, Romans 3:25, and of the ἀνοχή of God had come to an end. Comp the idea of the πλήρωμα τῶν καιρῶν, Ephesians 1:10; Galatians 4:4. Now or never was the time for saving the ἀσεβεῖς; now or never was the καιρὸς δεκτός, 2 Corinthians 6:2; and God’s love did not suffer the right time for their salvation to elapse, but sent Christ to die for them the sacrificial death of atonement.[1187]

ὑπέρ] for, for the benefit of. Comp Eur. Alc. 701: μὴ θνῆσκʼ ὑπὲρ τοῦδʼ ἀνδρὸς ουδʼ ἐγὼ πρὸ σοῦ, Iph. A. 1389; Soph. Trach. 705; Aj. 1290; Plat. Conv. p. 179 B: ἐθελήσασα μόνη ὑπὲρ τοῦ αὑτῆς ἀνδρὸς ἀποθανεῖν; Dem. 690, 18; Xen. Cyr. vii. 4, 9 f.; Isocr. iv. 77; Dio. Cass lxiv. 13; Sir 29:15 : ἔδωκε γὰρ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ὑπὲρ σοῦ; 2Ma 6:28; 2Ma 7:9; 2Ma 8:21; comp also Ignatius, a[1190] Romans 4 : ὑπὲρ Θεοῦ ἀποθνήσκω.[1191] So in all passages where there is mention of the object of Christ’s death. Luke 22:19-20; Romans 8:32; Romans 14:15; 1 Corinthians 1:13; 2 Corinthians 5:14; Galatians 3:13; Ephesians 5:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10; 1 Timothy 2:6; Titus 2:14. See also Ritschl in the Jahrb. für Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 242. That Paul did not intend by ὑπέρ to convey the meaning instead of, is shown partly by the fact, that while he indeed sometimes exchanges it for the synonymous (Bremi, a[1192] Dem. Ol. iii. 5, p. 188, Goth.) ΠΕΡΊ (Galatians 1:4, like Matthew 26:20; Mark 14:25), he does not once use instead of it the unambiguous ἈΝΤΊ (Matthew 20:28), which must nevertheless have suggested itself to him most naturally; and partly by the fact, that with ὙΠΈΡ as well as with ΠΕΡΊ he puts not invariably the genitive of the person, but sometimes that of the thing (ἁμαρτιῶν), in which case it would be impossible to explain the preposition by instead of (Romans 8:3; 1 Corinthians 15:3). It is true that he has certainly regarded the death of Jesus as an act furnishing the satisfactio vicaria, as is clear from the fact that this bloody death was accounted by him as an expiatory sacrifice (Romans 3:25; Ephesians 5:2; Steiger on 1 Pet. p. 342 f.), comp ΑΝΤΊΛΥΤΡΟΝ in 1 Timothy 2:6; but in no passage has he expressed the substitutionary relation through the preposition. On the contrary his constant conception is this: the sacrificial death of Jesus, taking the place of the punishment of men, and satisfying divine justice, took place as such in commodum (ὑπέρ, περί) of men, or—which is the same thing—on account of their sins (in gratiam), in order to expiate them (περί or ὙΠῈΡ ἉΜΑΡΤΙῶΝ). This we hold against Flatt, Olshausen, Winzer, Reithmayr, Bisping, who take ὙΠῈΡ as loco. That ὑπέρ must at least be understood as loco in Galatians 3:13; 2 Corinthians 5:14 (notwithstanding Romans 5:15); 1 Peter 3:18 (Rückert, Fritzsche, Philippi), is not correct. See on Gal. l.c[1194] and 2 Cor. l.c[1195]; Philemon 1:13 is not here a case in point.

ἀσεβῶν] Paul did not write ἩΜῶΝ, in order that after the need of help (ἈΣΘΕΝῶΝ) the unworthiness might also be made apparent; ἀσεβῶν is the category, to which the ἡμεῖς have belonged, and the strong expression (comp Romans 4:5) is selected, in order now, through the contrast, to set forth the more prominently the divine love in its very strength.

[1174] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1175] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1176] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1177] Van Hengel decides in favour of the reading with the double ἔτι (Griesbach, Lachmann, see the critical remarks); he thinks that Paul had merely wished to say: ἔτι γὰρ Χ. κατὰ καιρ. ὑπ. ἀσεβ. απέθ., but had in dictation for the sake of clearness inserted after Χριστός the words ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθ. ἔτι. Mehring also follows Lachmann’s reading. He thinks that Paul intended to write, with emphatic repetition of the ἔτι: ἔτι γὰρ Χριστὸς, ἔτι ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἀπέθανε, but interrupted the sentence by the insertion of ὄντων ἡμ. ἀσθ. Ewald, holding εἰ γάρ or εἴγε to be the original (see critical remarks), and then reading ἔτι after ἀσθενῶν, finds in ver. 9 the apodosis of ver. 6, and takes vv. 7, 8 as a parenthesis. Comp. also Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 119. Th. Schott also follows the reading εἰ γάρ (and after ἀσθ: ἔτι), but finds the apodosis so early as ver. 6, by supplying after ἀσθ. ἔτι: ἀπέθανε; whereas Hofmann (in his Schriftbew. II. p. 347), following the same reading, like Ewald, made ver. 9 fill the place of the apodosis, hut now prefers to read ἔτι at the beginning as well as also after ἀσθενῶν, and to punctuate thus: ἔτι γ. Χριστὸς ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν, ἔτι κατὰ καιρὸν ὑπ. ἀσεβ. ἀπέθ. With this reading Hofmann thinks that the second ἔτι begins the sentence anew, so that with Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν an ἔτι stands twice, the first referring to ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν, and the second to ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν. But it is self-evident that thus the difficulty is only doubled, because ἔτι would both times be erroneously placed, which would yield, especially in the case of the second ἔτι, a strange and in fact intolerable confusion, since there would stand just beside it a definition of time (κατὰ καιρόν), to which nevertheless the word elsewhere, so frequently used with definitions of time, is not intended to apply—a fact which is not to be disguised by subtleties. Märcker also would read ἔτι twice, but render the first ἔτι “moreover,” which, however, would be without reference in the text.

[1179] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1181] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1183] Comp. Stölting: “conformably to the time,” i.e. as it was suitable for the time, namely, the time of ungodliness. Similarly Hofmann, “in consideration of the time,” which was a time of godlessness, “without the fear of God on the part of individuals making any change thereon.”

[1187] According to my former explanation of the passage the meaning would be, that, if Christ had appeared and died later, they would have perished unredeemed in their ἀσθένεια, and would have had no share in the act of atonement. But this view is untenable; because Paul cannot have looked on the divine proof of love, given in the redeeming death of Christ, otherwise than in a quite general light, i.e. as given to all mankind, as it appears everywhere in the N. T. since John 3:16. Comp. Philippi, with whose view I now in substance concur, although in κατὰ καιρόν, by explaining it as “seasonably,” I find more directly an element of the love, which the context proposes to exhibit.

[1190] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1191] Comp. the compound ὑπερθνήσκειν with genit., so frequent especially in Euripides.

[1192] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1194] .c. loco citato or laudato.

[1195] .c. loco citato or laudato.

Romans 5:7-8. Illustrative description (γάρ) of this dying ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν as the practical demonstration of the divine love (Romans 5:8). Observe the syllogistic relation of Romans 5:8 to Romans 5:7; which is apparent through the emphatic ἑαυτοῦ.

Scarce, namely, for a righteous man (not to mention for ἀσεβεῖς) will any one die. This very contrast to the ἀσεβεῖς completely shuts out the neuter interpretation of δικαίου (“pro re justa,” Melancthon, comp Olshausen, Jerome, Erasmus, Annot. Luther). On account of the same contrast, consequently because of the parallel between ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ and ὙΠῈΡ ΔΙΚΑΊΟΥ, and because the context generally has to do only with the dying for persons, τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ also is to be taken not as neuter,[1198] but as masculine; and the article denotes the definite ἀγαθός who is in question in the case concerned. Since, moreover, an essential distinction between δίκαιος and ἈΓΑΘΌς (comp on the contrary Matthew 5:45; further, ἈΝῊΡ ἈΓΑΘῸς Κ. ΔΊΚΑΙΟς in Luke 23:50; Ἡ ἘΝΤΟΛῊ ἉΓΊΑ Κ. ΔΙΚΑΊΑ Κ. ἈΓΑΘΉ in Romans 7:12; Ὁ ΔΊΚΑΙΟς ἩΜῖΝ ἈΝΑΠΈΦΑΝΤΑΙ ὬΝ ἈΓΑΘΌς ΤΕ ΚΑῚ ΣΟΦΌς, Aesch. Sept. 576; Eur. Hipp. 427; Thes. fr. viii. 2) is neither implied in the context, where on the contrary the contrast to both is ἀσεβῶν and ἉΜΑΡΤΩΛῶΝ, nor is in the least hinted at by Paul, no explanation is admissible that is based on an essential difference of idea in the two words; such as that ΤΟῦ ἈΓΑΘΟῦ should be held to express something different from or higher than δικαίου. Therefore the following is the only explanation that presents itself as conformable to the words and context: After Paul has said that one will hardly die for a righteous man, he wishes to add, by way of confirmation (ΓΆΡ), that cases of the undertaking such a death might possibly occur, and expresses this in the form: for perhaps for the good man one even takes it upon him to die. Thus the previously asserted ὑπὲρ δικαίου τις ἀποθανεῖται, although one assents to it vix et aegre, is yet said with reason,—it may perhaps occur. Paul has not however written τοῦ δικαίου in the second clause of the verse, as he might have done, but introduces ΤΟῦ ἈΓΑΘΟῦ, and prefixes it, in order now to make still more apparent, in the interest of the contrast, the category of the quality of the person for whom one may perhaps venture this self-sacrifice. This is substantially the view arrived at by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, in the Paraphr., Beza, Calvin (“rarissimum sane inter homines exemplum exstat, ut pro justo mori quis sustineat, quamquam illud nonnunquam accidere possit”), Castalio, Calovius, and others; recently again by Fritzsche (also Oltramare and Reithmayr); formerly also by Hofmann (in his Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 348). It has been wrongly alleged that it makes the second half of the verse superfluous (de Wette) and weakening (Köllner and Rückert); on the contrary, in granting what may certainly now and again occur, it the more emphatically paves the way for the contrast which is to follow, that God has caused Christ to die for quite other persons than the δικαίους and ἈΓΑΘΟῦς—for us sinners. Groundless also is the objection (of van Hengel), that in Paul’s writings the repeated τίς always denotes different subjects; the indefinite τίς, one, any one, may indeed even here represent in the concrete application different subjects or the same. Comp 2 Corinthians 11:20. And, even if ΔΙΚΑΊΟΥ and ΤΟῦ ἈΓΑΘΟῦ be regarded as two distinct conceptions, may not the second ΤΊς be the same with the first? But the perfect accordance with the words and context, which is only found in the exposition offered, shuts out every other. Among the explanations thus excluded are: (1) Those which take τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ as neuter, like the rendering of Jerome, Erasmus, Annot. (“bonitatem”), Luther, Melancthon (“pro bona et suavi re, i. e. incitati cupiditate aut opinione magnae utilitatis”), and more recently Rückert (“for the good, i.e. for what he calls his highest good”), Mehring (“for for his own advantage some one perhaps risks even life”); now also Hofmann (“what is in itself and really good.… a moral value, for which, when it is endangered, one sacrifices life, in order not to let it perish”).—(2) Those explanations which indeed take τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ properly as masculine, but yet give self-invented distinctions of idea in reference to δικαίου; namely (a), the exposition, that ὁ ἀγαθός means the benefactor: hardly does any one die for a righteous man (who stands in no closer relation to him); for for his benefactor one dares perchance (out of gratitude) to die. So Flacius,[1201] Knatchbull, Estius, Hammond, Clericus, Heumann, Wolf, and others; including Koppe, Tholuck, Winer, Benecke, Reiche, Glöckler, Krehl, Maier, Umbreit, Bisping, Lechler and Jatho. They take the article with ἀγαθοῦ as: the benefactor whom he has, against which nothing can be objected (Bernhardy, p. 315). But we may object that we cannot at all see why Paul should not have expressed benefactor by the very current and definite term εὐεργέτης; and that ἈΓΑΘΌς must have obtained the specific sense of beneficence (as in Matthew 20:15; Xen. Cyr. iii. 13, 4, al[1202] ap. Dorvill. a[1203] Charit. p. 722; and Tholuck in loc[1204]) from the context—a want, which the mere article cannot supply (in opposition to Reiche). Hence, in order to gain for ἀγαθός the sense beneficent in keeping with the context, δίκαιος would have to be taken in the narrower sense as just (with Wetstein and Olshausen), so as to yield a climax from the just man to the benevolent (who renders more than the mere obligation of right binds him to do). An apt illustration of this would be Cicero, de off. iii Romans 15 : “Si vir bonus is est, qui prodest quibus potest, nocet nemini, recte justum virum, bonum non facile reperiemus.” But in Romans 5:8 there is no reference to ἀγαθός in the sense assumed; and the narrower sense of δικαίος is at variance with the contrasting ἉΜΑΡΤΩΛῶΝ in Romans 5:8, which demands for ΔΊΚ, precisely the wider meaning (righteous). Besides the prominence which Paul intends to give to the love of God, which caused Christ to die for sinners, while a man hardly dies for a δίκαιος, is weakened just in proportion as the sense of ΔΊΚΑΙΟς is narrowed. The whole interpretation is a forced one, inconsistent with the undefined ΤΟῦ ἈΓΑΘΟῦ itself as well as with the entire context.—(b) No better are the explanations which find in τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ a greater degree of morality than in δικαίου, consequently a man more worthy of having life sacrificed for him. So, but with what varied distinctions! especially Ambrosiaster (the ΔΊΚΑΙΟς is such exercitio, the ἀγαθός natura), Bengel (δίκ. homo innoxius, ὁ ἀγαθός, omnibus pietatis numeris absolutus.… v. g. pater patriae), Michaelis, Olshausen, Köllner (δίκ.: legally just, ἈΓΑΘ.: perfectly good and upright), de Wette (ΔΊΚ.: irreproachable, ἀγαθ.: the noble), Philippi and Th. Schott (both substantially agreeing with de Wette), also van Hengel (δίκ.: probus coram Deo, i. e. venerabilis, ἀγαθ.: bonus in hominum oculis, i. e. amabilis), and Ewald, according to whom. δίκ. is he “who, in a definite case accused unto death, is nevertheless innocent in that particular case,” while the ἀγαθός is “he, who not only in one such individual suit, but predominantly in his whole life, is purely useful to others and guiltless in himself;”[1205] comp Stölting, who finds in ΔΊΚ. the honest upright man, and in ἈΓΑΘΌς him whom we personally esteem and love. But all these distinctions of idea are artificially created and brought in without any hint from the context.[1207]

On τάχα, fortasse, perhaps indeed, expressing possibility not without doubt, comp Xen. Anab. v. 2, 17; Philemon 1:15; Wis 13:6; Wis 14:19. In classic authors most frequently τάχʼ ἄν.

καὶ τολμᾷ] etiam sustinet, he has even the courage,[1209] can prevail upon himself, audet. The καί is the also of the corresponding relation. In presence of the good man, he ventures also to die for him.

We may add, that the words from ὑπὲρ γὰρ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ down to ἈΠΟΘΑΝΕῖΝ are not to be put (with Lachmann) in a parenthesis, since, though they form only a subordinate confirmatory clause, they cause no interruption in the construction.

Romans 5:8. δέ] Not antithetical (“such are men, but such is God,” Mehring), as if the sentence began with ὁ δὲ Θεός, but rather carrying it onward, namely, to the middle term of the syllogism (the minor proposition), from which then the conclusion, Romans 5:9, is designed to result.

συνίστησι] proves, as in Romans 3:25. The accomplished fact of the atoning death is conceived according to its abiding effect of setting forth clearly the divine love; hence the present. The emphasis indeed lies in the first instance on συνίστησι (for from this proof as such a further inference is then to be drawn), but passes on strengthened to ΤῊΝ ἙΑΥΤΟῦ, because it must be God’s own love, authenticating itself in the death of Christ, that gives us the assurance to be expressed in Romans 5:9. God Himself, out of His love for men, has given Christ to a death of atonement; Romans 3:24, Romans 8:32; Ephesians 2:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:16; John 3:16; 1 John 4:10 et al[1210] To find in Τ. ἙΑΥΤΟῦ ἈΓΑΠ. the contrast to our love towards God (Hofmann; comp on Romans 5:5) is quite opposed to the context, which exhibits the divine demonstration of love in Christ’s deed of love. That is the clear relation of Romans 5:8 to Romans 5:6 f., from which then the blessed inference is drawn in Romans 5:9. Hence we are not to begin a new connection with συνίστησι δέ Κ.Τ.Λ[1212] (Hofmann, “God lets us know, and gives us to experience that He loves us; and this He does, because Christ, etc.). The ὅτι cannot be the motive of God for His συνίστησι κ.τ.λ[1213], since He has already given Christ out of love; it is meant on the contrary to specify the actual ground of the knowledge of the divine proof of love (= εἰς ἐκεῖνο, ὅτι, comp on 2 Corinthians 1:18; John 2:18).

ΕἸς ἩΜᾶς] belongs to ΣΥΝΊΣΤ.

ἜΤΙ ἉΜΑΡΤ. ὌΝΤ. ἩΜ.] For only through the atoning death of Christ have we become ΔΙΚΑΙΩΘΈΝΤΕς. See Romans 5:9.

[1198] Köster also in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 312, has taken both words as neuter: “hardly does one die for others for the sake of their (mere) right; sooner at all events for the sake of the manifestly good, which they have.”

[1201] Clav. I. p. 693. “Vix accidit, ut quis suam vitam profundat pro justissimis; pro eo tamen, qui alicui valde est utilis, forsitan mori non recuset.”

[1202] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1203] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1204] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1205] Ewald supposes an allusion to cases like these in 1 Samuel 14:45; 1 Samuel 20:17; but that it is also possible, that Paul might have in view Gentile examples that were known to himself and the readers.

[1207] Kunze, in the Stud u. Krit. 1850, p. 407 ff., also rightly recognises this; but explains the second half, contrary to the words, as if the proposition were expressed conditionally (εἰ καί), “for if even some one lightly ventures to die for the good man, still however God proves his love,” etc. Comp. Erasm. Paraphr.—Märcker explains it in the sense of one friend dying for another; and suggests that Paul was thinking of the example of Damon and Pythias.

[1209] Respecting τολμᾶν see Wetstein, who properly defines it: “quidpiam grave in animum inducere et sibi imperare.” Comp. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 360 B; Monk, ad Eur. Alc. 284; Jacobs in Addit. ad Athen. p. 309 f.

[1210] t al. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1212] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1213] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

Romans 5:9. To prove that hope maketh not ashamed (Romans 5:5), Paul had laid stress on the possession of the divine love in the heart (Romans 5:5); then he had proved and characterised this divine love itself from the death of Christ (Romans 5:6-8); and he now again infers, from this divine display of love, from the death of Christ, that the hoped-for eternal salvation is all the more assured to us.

πολλῷ οὖν μᾶλλον] The conclusion does not proceed a minori ad majus (Estius and many, including Mehring), but, since the point now turns on the carrying out of the divine act of atonement, a majori (Romans 5:6-8) ad minus (Romans 5:9).

πολλῷ μᾶλλον] expresses the enhancement of certainty, as in Romans 5:15-17 : much less therefore can it be doubted that, etc.; νῦν stands in reference to ἔτι ἁμαρτωλῶν ὅντων ἡμῶν in Romans 5:8.

σωθησόμεθα ἀπὸ τ. ὀργῆς] we shall be rescued from the divine wrath (1 Thessalonians 1:10; comp Matthew 3:7), so that the latter, which issues forth at the last judgment (Romans 2:5, Romans 3:5), does not affect us. Comp Winer, p. 577 [E. T. 743]; Acts 2:40. This negative expression for the attainment of the hoped-for δόξα renders the inference more obvious and convincing. For the positive expression see 2 Timothy 4:18.

ΔΙʼ ΑὐΤΟῦ] i.e. through the operation of the exalted Christ, ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ, Romans 5:10Faith, as the ΛΗΠΤΙΚΌΝ of justification, is understood as a matter of course (Romans 5:1), but is not mentioned here, because only what has been accomplished by God through Christ is taken into consideration. If faith were in the judgment of God the anticipation of moral perfection (but see note on Romans 1:17), least of all could it have been left unmentioned. Observe also how Paul has justification in view as a unity, without different degrees or stages.