For when we were
still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely
for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even
dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were
still sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:6-8)
Who can forget the Clint Eastwood Western
melodrama The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly? As for the “Bad” and the “Ugly,” there was
little doubt! But no one was really good. We fallen humans see other humans in relative
terms. These relative distinctions in
human character seem to have been in the Apostle Paul’s mind when he wrote Romans
5:6-8, contrasting human ideas of sacrificial love with God’s unique,
incomprehensible love poured out in the sacrifice of His Son.
Three descriptions of human beings are
mentioned: a righteous man, the good man, and sinners, also called ungodly. In the original text, “the good man” is
distinguished by the definite article (“the”).
At this point I must acknowledge that some prominent commentators,
including John Calvin, do not think Paul is making a distinction between “righteous”
and “good” in this passage. Calvin puts
it this way:
The import of the sentence is this, "Most rare,
indeed, is such an example to be found among men, that one dies for a just man,
though this may sometimes happen: but let this be granted, yet for an ungodly
man none will be found willing to die: this is what Christ has done." Thus
it is an illustration, derived from a comparison; for such an example of
kindness, as Christ has exhibited towards us, does not exist among men.
The late William
Hendriksen elaborated:
The
distinction between “a righteous person” and “a good person” should not be
pressed, as if the apostle were saying that for a person who is merely “righteous”
it would be almost impossible to find someone who would die, but for a “good”
person, or benefactor, it might under exceptional conditions be possible to
find a substitute who would be willing to offer his life. This is over-interpretation. We should adhere to the one basic point Paul
is making, and not obscure the thought by introducing unwarranted
distinctions. Room should be left for
stylistic variation.
William Hendriksen was an excellent
expositor, one to whose commentaries I refer regularly. But if the distinction he rejects is “over-interpretation,”
lots of careful, scholarly, and godly commentators over-interpreted it, among whom
are the following: A. T. Robertson,
Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown, John Gill, Albert Barnes, Adam Clarke, Charles
Hodge, Robert Haldane, Sanday & Headlam, H. P. Liddon, James Denney
(Expositor’s Greek Testament) and others.
I certainly agree with Hendriksen that
we must emphasize the “basic point” that Paul is making, that is, that God’s
love is unique, all-surpassing, and humanly incomprehensible. Still, Paul makes that point through his
typically logical steps, and there are good reasons for believing that Paul is
not using the terms synonymously.
First, it seems unlikely that Paul is having
second thoughts about what he just wrote, as if he were saying, “Hardly would
anyone die for a righteous person, but . . . well, come to think about it, for
a good or righteous person someone might
dare to die.” James Denney in the
Expositor’s Greek Testament on this passage gives sound grammatical and
syntactical reasons why this notion is untenable. Paul is building to his point, first noting
that for a person who lives righteously, in adherence to moral and ethical
standards, as attractive as that kind of life might be, one would hardly lay
down one’s life. Yet for one who goes
beyond the letter of the law, one who is caring and generous, one who himself
sacrifices for the sake of others, someone might give his own life, though
even that is rare. God’s love is now set
in stark contrast with man’s in that Christ died for “sinners” (v. 8), “the
ungodly (v. 6),” and His “enemies” (v. 10)!
The second reason for believing that
Paul is making a distinction between “righteous” and “good” in this verse is
the cultural and religious context. Paul
was a Jew and undoubtedly many of his readers in the Roman church were
Jewish. (Later he states, “I speak to
those who know the Law,” 7:1.) Jewish
religious tradition designated three categories of persons: The righteous (zaddik), the holy or pious (hassid), and the impious or wicked (rasha). John Gill documented these distinctions from Jewish
literature. It is reasonable to assume
that Paul was using these designations to contrast man’s love with God’s.
Adam Clarke cites a Jewish source for a more refined
description of four categories:
First class, Those who say, “what
is mine, is my own; and what is thine, is thy own.” These may be considered the
just, who render to every man his due; or rather, they who neither give nor
take.
The second class is made up of
those who say, “what is mine, is thine; and what is thine, is mine.” These are
they who accommodate each other, who borrow and lend.
The third class is composed of
those who say, “What is mine, is thine; and what is thine, let it be thine.”
These are the pious, or good, who give up all for the benefit of their
neighbor.
The fourth class are those who say,
“What is mine, is mine; and what is thine, shall be mine.” These are the
impious, who take all, and give nothing.
Fine distinctions are the hallmark of Jewish religious tradition;
generalizations are characteristic of western, particularly modern western
thinking. Glossing over the distinctions
in Romans 7:6-8 is, well, so American!
The last reason I believe Paul is making a distinction
between “righteous” and “good” here has to do with the verbal inspiration of
the Scriptures. There is a tendency today to minimize the importance of
individual words in the original languages of Scripture, putting more emphasis
on literary style and “dynamic equivalency” in translation. Some modern evangelical commentators seem to
take pride in their iconoclastic pooh-poohing of earlier commentators who took
the very words of Scripture more seriously.
Writers of Scripture certainly did have individual styles of
writing, but they were superintended by the Holy Spirit in their choice of
words (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21).
That’s what verbal inspiration
means. In some contexts of Scripture,
two words may indeed be used more or less synonymously, referring to the same
person or thing, but even in those instances, each word most likely adds
something to the entire picture.
We must not forget that the ultimate author of Holy
Scripture is the Holy Spirit.
