Romans 5:6-7 - Exposition

For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet ( literally,for ) peradventure for the good man some would even dare to die . The general purport of Romans 5:7 is obvious, viz. to show how Christ's death for the ungodly transcends all human instances of self-sacrifice for others. But the exact import of the language used is not equally plain. That of the first clause, indeed, and its connection with what precedes, presents no difficulty. The meaning is that Christ's dying for the ungodly is a proof of love beyond what is common among men. The second clause seems to be added as a concession of what some men may perhaps sometimes be capable of. It is introduced by a second γὰρ (this being the reading of all the manuscripts), which may be meant as exceptive, "I do not press this without exception," being understood. So Alford; and in this case the "yet" of the Authorized Version, or though, may give its meaning. Or it may be connected with μόλις , thus: "Scarcely, I say, for there may possibly be cases," etc. But what is the distinction between δικαίου in the first clause and τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ in the second? Some interpreters say that there is none, the intention being simply to express the possibility of human self-sacrifice for one that is good or righteous in some rare cases. But the change of the word, which would, according to this view, be purposeless, and still more the insertion of the article before ἀγαθοῦ , forbids this interpretation. One view is that τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ is neuter, meaning that, though for a righteous individual one can hardly be found to be willing to die, yet for the cause of good, for what a man regards as the highest good, or pro bone publico (it might be), such self-sacrifice may be possible; This view is tenable, though against it is the fact that death in behalf of persons is being spoken of all along. The remaining and most commonly accepted view is that by "the good man" (the article pointing him out generally as a well-known type of character) is meant the beneficent—one who inspires attachment and devotion—as opposed to one who is merely just. Cicero ('De Off.,' Romans 3:15 ) is quoted in support of this distinction between the words: "Si vir bonus is est qui prodest quibus potest, nemini nocet, recte justum virum, bonum non facile reperiemus." Tholuck quotes, as a Greek instance, κῦρον ἀνακαλοῦντες τὸν εὐεργέτην τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν ἀγαθόν ( AE lian, 'Var. Histor.,' 3.17). Possibly the term ὁ ἀγαθὸς would have a well-understood meaning to the readers of the Epistle, which is not equally obvious to us.