Christ Won Peace with God and Hope of Glory for Believers (Rom 5:1–11)
Paul says that the first fruit by which the righteousness of faith commends itself is peace with God, in which the justified enjoy through Christ — through whom they also came to the grace of justification — together with hope of future glory (Rom 5:1–2). This hope is so great that the justified can glory even in tribulations themselves, since they are certain of the eternal reward, having already received its pledge, the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:3–5). This assertion he proves by an argument drawn as it were from the greater: he says that Christ gave us the greatest proof of his love by dying for us when we were still ungodly (Rom 5:6–8); from which he wishes us to conclude that much more now, since we have been justified by his blood, we shall be free from the divine wrath (Rom 5:9), and that we, having been reconciled to God by the death of his Son, shall obtain salvation through the glorified Son (Rom 5:10) — indeed that we should even now glory in this in God, since we already hold it in certain hope (Rom 5:11).
Rom 5:1. "Therefore, having been justified by faith, let us have peace" (read: we have peace) "with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
Paul closely joins the new section to what precedes, summing up in his opening words what he demonstrated in the preceding argument; for we are justified by faith is the conclusion legitimately drawn from the foregoing argumentation. He no longer lingers on showing and explaining the way by which we attain righteousness, but turning to his readers — whom he knows to be justified by faith equally with himself — he sets forth in the first place, in order to declare what and how great is the happiness of the justified, that benefit which is intimately joined with justification and constitutes as it were the foundation of all the rest: we have peace with God. By nature we were children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), estranged from God and his enemies (Colossians 1:21); but by the very fact that we have been justified by faith, we have been received into the favor of God and reconciled to him, saved from his wrath, transferred, that is, from the state of enmity toward God into the state of peace with God, so that we now live with him as his friends. There have been those who understood peace with God here as the concord of Christians among themselves, said to be with God because it is pleasing and acceptable to him, insofar as, that is, "they do not dispute with one another, nor do some presumptuously boast of the works of the ancient Law and others of the new calling of Christ" (Haimo; cf. the reading in Chrysostom, Oecumenius, etc.; Hervaeus, Lombard, etc.). This explanation almost all rightly reject with Chrysostom as little consonant with the words themselves and the context. For the Apostle clearly enough implies that he is speaking of that peace with God or in God which a man possesses when he is saved from the wrath of God (Rom 5:9) and is no longer among his enemies (Rom 5:10). This peace, however, is a divine benefit which we are said to have through our Lord Jesus Christ, because God in Christ reconciled us to himself, not imputing to us our sins (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:18).
Whoever attends to the genuine sense, as we have set it forth, of the expression to have peace with God will not hesitate to say that the reading let us have (ἔχωμεν) is not very apt, even though it commends itself by the great authority of the witnesses and has been received by modern critical editors of the Greek text (Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort). For the peace in question is the gift of God and depends upon him who reconciles man to himself and receives him into his grace and friendship, and who himself set forth Christ as a propitiation in his blood (Rom 3:25); yet it would have to be said to depend upon man, so that in a certain way man would receive God into his own favor, if the hortatory let us have were to be retained in this passage. Some attempt to escape this difficulty by assigning to the verb having (ἔχειν) the meaning of retaining and preserving, interpreting Paul's meaning as a command to preserve on our part, by avoiding sins, the peace which we received in justification: "let us have peace, i.e. let us sin no more nor return to our former ways; for this is to have war with God" (Chrysostom, etc.). But if the Apostle had wished to say this, he would without doubt have used instead of ἔχωμεν (let us have) another more fitting verb (κατέχωμεν, "let us retain"; φυλάσσωμεν, "let us keep"). Moreover, as Estius rightly notes, in this passage "the Apostle is intent not yet upon exhortation but upon doctrine" — which is sufficiently apparent, since he continues his discourse with indicatives (and we glory... but we also glory) and from verse 6 onward (and indeed already from verse 2) demonstrates that we truly do have peace with God, without in the least warning us that we ought to have or preserve it. Not without reason, therefore, have the more recent and modern interpreters, both Catholic and non-Catholic, preferred the indicative (we have, ἔχομεν) notwithstanding the authority of the critical witnesses (cf. Cajetan, Toledo, Estius, Justinianus, Lapide, etc.; Beelen, Maier, Bisping, Ag., etc. — Godet, Weiss, Lipsius, etc.).
Rom 5:2. "Through whom also we have (better: we have obtained, ἐσχήκαμεν) access by faith into this grace in which we stand."
Before Paul sets forth more fully and carefully what the peace of the justified is and how great it is, he confirms — almost as a parenthetical remark — that we have this peace through Jesus Christ the mediator. He looks back, that is, to the beginning of justification, in order to suggest that through the same one through whom the beginning came, the connected gifts too are obtained. The particle also (καί), therefore — which many of the older Latin commentators not rightly passed over (cf. Primasius, Sedulius, Haimo, Abelard, Lombard, Thomas, etc.) but which the Roman correctors restored — has an argumentative force and implies that it cannot be doubted that the justified have peace with God through the same one through whom they obtained justification itself. At the same selfsame moment of time at which a man is justified, he is transferred from the state of divine enmity into the state of peace and friendship with God; logically, however, friendship follows upon the infusion of sanctifying grace, by which sins are remitted. This seems to be why the Apostle, using the perfect tense, says we have obtained (ἐσχήκαμεν) access into this grace in which we stand — that is, to the grace of justification, which we now possess and in which we persevere, we were able to draw near and we did draw near, and this, as he again adds in accordance with his previously expounded teaching, through faith.
On these last words Estius aptly notes: "Even though faith is the beginning and a certain part of justification, we are nevertheless rightly and fittingly said to have access and entry into the grace of justification through faith, just as we are said to enter a house through the door, even though the door itself is a part of the house. For the sense is that through faith as the beginning of justification we are led further, so that with the other gifts accruing we are simply just and acceptable to God unto eternal life; just as by entering through the door one is brought to be inside the house." And Chrysostom rightly teaches that the grace to which we have obtained access through faith is that "by which we are deemed worthy of the knowledge of God, freed from error we know the truth, and finally obtain all the good things that have come to us through baptism."
The noun προσαγωγή is taken by some in a transitive sense (= the act of bringing, introduction): "Through Christ we obtained this, that God brought us near" (cf. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, etc.); but the construction is far neater if it is taken intransitively in the same way as in the other two New Testament passages where it occurs (Ephesians 2:18; Eph 3:12), meaning access or approach. It is self-evident that the words into this grace cannot rightly be connected by some with the expression through faith; for nowhere in Holy Scripture is anyone said to believe into grace (πιστεύειν τι, τῇ χάριτι), nor is there discourse of faith into grace (ἡ πίστις εἰς τὴν χάριν), even though such locutions would not be in themselves inapt and admit of a correct explanation. Nor do we approve the interpretation of those who refer the relative clause in which we stand to the expression through faith (cf. A.** etc.); for the word order is against it, and there is no reason to prefer a more unusual order here.
After this brief confirmation, which we said was inserted as it were parenthetically, St. Paul proceeds to describe the first fruit of justification: we have peace with God... and we glory in (ἐπ') hope of the glory (of the children) of God;
Rom 5:3. "And not only so, but we also glory in (ἐν) tribulations, knowing," etc.
Many older and more recent interpreters connect this sentence with the immediately preceding relative clause (in which we stand and we glory), and a few modern ones draw it back to the more remote relative clause (through whom we have had access... and we glory). Although we do not deny that an apt sense can be produced by these constructions, we think, with Cajetan and most modern interpreters (cf. Maier, Beelen, Schäfer, etc.), that the primary sentence is continued by these words, so that the first fruit is described more fully. For the Apostle would have to be said to have wandered from his principal subject, if everything that follows up to verse 5, indeed up to verse 11, belonged to one of the subordinate relative clauses. Thus, according to our construction — which commends itself by its neatness — he explains by the addition of a new member how great is the value of our restored peace with God. For by the very fact that we have been admitted once more by God into his favor and friendship, we have also recovered the hope of future glory which we had lost in Adam, so that the justified, being freed from the divine wrath, are no longer tormented by fear of eternal punishment, but glory in the recovered hope of glory.
The verb καυχᾶσθαι (to glory) is used by the Alexandrians mostly for the Hebrew הִלָּהֵל, but sometimes also for עָלַז (cf. Psalm 31:11) or גִּיל (Psalm 149:5), so as to connote jubilation and exultation, and in this sense it is rightly taken here. To indicate the object about which one joyfully glories it is construed either with the preposition ἐπί (cf. Psalm 48:6; Proverbs 25:15, etc.) or with the preposition ἐν (Psalm 149:11, etc.); and both constructions are combined by Paul here (καυχώμεθα ἐπ' ἐλπίδι, καυχώμεθα ἐν θλίψεσιν), since he likes to vary prepositions, though he most often prefers the latter (Rom 6:11; Rom 2:17; 1 Corinthians 3:21, etc.). The glory, of the hope of which the justified glory, is called in a similar way as at Rom 3:23 — according to the more genuine reading (cf. the variant readings) — the glory of God, not only, as we said above (on 3:23), because it is prepared for us by God, but also because it is a certain participation in the divine glory itself. Since this glory is prepared for all the adoptive children of God, it is also called the glory of the children of God (8:21), wherefore the present Latin reading does not in substance differ from the Greek.
Nor does Paul stop here, but to enhance and adorn further the value of peace with God, he adds that the justified not only exult and glory in hope of future glory, but also glory in present tribulations. The elliptical expression and not only so, to which the preceding sentence is evidently to be supplied, is not especially rare (Rom 5:11; Rom 8:23; Rom 9:10; 2 Corinthians 8:19; cf. 1 Timothy 5:13) and clearly indicates that a new object is being added, in which one should glory. Those therefore depart from the truth who think that in the former member the words in hope declare the reason why one should glory (Toledo, Estius, etc.), or that in the second member the words in tribulations declare the time when one should glory (Ag. — Volkmar, Beck, etc.). Peace with God fills the souls of the justified with such great confidence that they joyfully glory not only in hope of future glory but in those very present tribulations by which that hope seems to be extinguished and destroyed.
So far is it from the case that tribulations extinguish hope, that the justified know very well that tribulations increase hope — which Paul sets forth and demonstrates by a kind of sorites: knowing that tribulation works patience, and patience works proof, and proof works hope. He speaks of tribulations which the justified "suffer either for Christ, or for justice itself, whether from persecutors, or from demons, or for the sake of practicing good from the flesh itself" (Toledo). Now tribulation is said to work (κατεργάζεσθαι) patience (ὑπομονήν, constancy), "not in such a way that tribulation is its efficient cause, but because tribulation is the matter and occasion of exercising patience" (Thomas; cf. Cajetan, Toledo, Estius, Justinianus, etc.), or rather constancy. For by the name of ὑπομονή is understood here, as usually, that virtue by which a man, not broken by the calamities and vexations that oppress him, perseveres strong and steadfast in faith and piety (ὑπέμεινεν; cf. on 2:7). The Apostle asserts absolutely, however, that tribulation works constancy, because he is confident that his readers, aided by grace, will certainly make use of the opportunity offered to them.
Furthermore, patience works proof (δοκιμήν) — that is, the constancy by which we endure tribulations for God's sake brings it about that we are proved and our tested and tried character becomes known. For just as gold or silver examined by fire is recognized as genuine and as it were approved as pure, so the man acceptable to God is proved in the furnace of humiliation — that is, recognized as a genuine servant of God (cf. Sirach 2:5). Thomas puts it well: "If anyone, in corporeal and temporal matters, endures patiently (and bravely) for the sake of obtaining eternal goods, he is sufficiently proved by this, since such a man is shown to love eternal goods more than temporal ones."
The noun δοκιμή (proof) is customarily used by Paul in a double sense (cf. the Commentary on 2 Corinthians 2:9, p. 66): in an active sense, meaning the examination by which it is investigated whether someone possesses a certain quality (2 Corinthians 8:2), and in a passive sense, so as to declare the favorable outcome of the examination, or the tested and tried character that has become known. The latter sense, which is more frequent in Paul, also fits this passage; but the former applies when James (1:3), inverting our sequence as it were, says: the proof (τὸ δοκίμιον, approximately the same as ἡ δοκιμή) of your faith works patience or constancy (ὑπομονήν) — for by tribulations God as it were examines our faith, whether it is genuine or not, and in this way brings it about that we show ourselves steadfast. The second statement of James therefore corresponds to the preceding statement of Paul (tribulation works patience), and our statement corresponds to James's other one: patience has a perfect work. Thus the two Apostles, although they may seem to disagree in words, agree in substance (cf. the Venerable Bede on James 1:3–4; Thomas, Toledo, Justinianus, etc.).
Finally, proof works hope, inasmuch as it brings it about that the hope already present not only thrives and is strengthened (Chrysostom, etc.), but also grows and increases. For the man who, having bravely and steadfastly overcome tribulations, has been proved and therefore learned from experience that no calamities, even though variously tempted, have moved him from justice and the virtue of faith, is lifted up in spirit in a marvelous way to hope of glory. For on the one hand God bestows an increase of hope on the man whom he has proved and found worthy of himself (Wisdom 3:5), and on the other hand such a man rightly and reasonably trusts more firmly in the Lord's promise that the reward in heaven will be abundant for those whom the enemies of his name have cursed and persecuted (Matthew 5:11–12).
Having explained the reason why we glory in tribulations, Paul, brought back by his argumentation to his primary assertion (that the justified glory in hope of the glory of God), and adhering to it now, shows that they rightly and deservedly glory in it:
Rom 5:5. "And hope (ἡ δὲ ἐλπίς — the hope in question, not only of those who have been proved but of all the justified) does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us."
Toledo expounds the connection with what precedes well: "Lest anyone should say that it is a small thing that the gift is given not in reality but in hope, Paul rejects this: our hope, he says, is not such as human hope, which rests on men; this is often deceptive and often disappoints, when men are defrauded of what they hoped for and blush that they hoped in vain and learned the truth too late. But our hope is not like this; for it never disappoints, nor will those who have hoped ever feel themselves defrauded of the goods they hoped for, nor will they ever blush as if deceived." By a metonymy (of effect for cause) divine hope is said not to disappoint insofar as it does not deceive nor bring it about that the one hoping either blushes over the vanity of his hope or over the deception he has suffered; or according to Thomas: "this hope, by which we hope for the glory of the children of God, does not disappoint because it does not fail, unless the man himself fails it; for the man is said to be put to shame by his hope who fails to obtain what he hopes for."
Furthermore, that the justified will not be frustrated in their hope as though it were vain, blessed Paul proves by an efficacious argument drawn from the love of God, inasmuch as the obtaining of the hoped-for glory depends upon it, and they rightly gather from the gifts already received that it will not deny them future gifts. "He gives credibility to future things," says Chrysostom, "by means of what has already been given. For God forbid that anyone should say: What if God should not wish to bestow good things on us? That he can bestow them, we all certainly know; but how do we know that he also wills to? From the things already done. From what deeds? From the love already shown us. What then did he do? He gave the Holy Spirit; therefore when he had said hope does not disappoint, Paul added the demonstration of this, saying: because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts. He does not say: 'given,' but: 'poured out' [or rather: diffused, ἐκκέχυται], signifying the abundance of the gift. For the greatest gift he gave — not heaven and earth and sea, but what is more precious than all these, and what makes angels out of men, sons of God and brothers of Christ. What is this? The Holy Spirit who has been given to us. For if he did not will to adorn us after our labors with the highest crowns, he would not have given us such great gifts before our labors. Now therefore he has shown us the greatness of his love, in that he has not honored us gradually and step by step, but given us the very fountain of blessings, and this before our contests."
Toledo rightly notes that the force of Paul's argument lies not in the bare fact that God loves us (for when we were enemies, he already loved us and demonstrated his love by sending his Son), but in the fact that God has already shown his love toward us by giving the Holy Spirit, through whom we have been reconciled and made friends of God; he errs, however, in thinking that Chrysostom has interpreted his words in another sense — which is easily apparent to anyone who reads the cited passage.
As to the precise understanding of the sentence, it is disputed whether the love of God is to be understood as that by which God loves us, or that by which we love God; for the expression admits both meanings, since the genitive Dei can be either subjective or objective, and both senses are in themselves also fitting, since both the love of God toward us and our love toward God can rightly be said to be poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit. The former sense alone is adopted by Chrysostom and Theophylact among the Greeks, and by Ambros.**, Pelagius, Cajetan, Toledo, Justinianus, and most modern interpreters (Maier, Reithmayr, Beelen, Bisping, L.R., Schäfer) among the Latins; the latter sense alone is adopted by Theodoret and Photius among the Greeks, and by St. Augustine among the Latins (cf. On the Spirit and the Letter 32:56: "The love of God is said to be poured out in our hearts, not that by which he himself loves us, but that by which he makes us his lovers, just as the righteousness of God by which he makes us righteous, and the salvation of the Lord by which he saves us, and the faith of Christ by which he makes us faithful"), followed by many of the older writers (Hervaeus, Abelard, Dionysius, Salmerón, Bellarmine, Controversies on the Restoration of Grace I.8, etc.) and by Ag. among the moderns; finally, those who judge that the expression can here equally probably be understood in both senses, or even that both senses are to be combined here, include Origen, Oecumenius, and Euthalius among the Greeks, and Primasius, Sedulius, Haimo, the Glossa Ordinaria, Lombard, Thomas, Perera, Estius, Lapide, Natalis, Pic. among the Latins, to whom M., Ev., Dr. are added among the moderns.
The former sense, however (the love of God toward us), is entirely to be retained, as the context teaches — to which St. Augustine, by whose great authority the other Latin commentators seem to have been led astray, perhaps did not pay sufficient attention. For there is no doubt that Paul in what follows argues from the love with which God embraces us, and there is no reason why we should say that in verse 5 he understood the same expression — which in verse 8 in the same context he uses of the divine love toward us — as referring to our love toward God. Nor is the objection well founded that the Council of Trent explained Paul's words as referring to love toward God infused in us and inhering in us; for the Tridentine Fathers do not cite or interpret the Pauline passage, but only make use of Paul's words in such a way as to accommodate them, as it were, to their own argument, for the expression of which they are by themselves supremely suitable.
Therefore God most manifestly demonstrates his love toward those who are justified by giving the Holy Spirit, who is for them both the seal of divine adoption (cf. on 8:15 and Galatians 4:6) and the pledge of the divine inheritance (Ephesians 1:14; cf. Commentary on 2 Corinthians 1:22, pp. 48 sq.); and in this sense the love of God is said to be poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. Now God cannot deny the promised inheritance to those to whom he has declared by giving the Holy Spirit that they are his friends — indeed his children — and to whom he has already granted by the same Holy Spirit a pledge of future glory and inheritance. It is therefore rightly gathered from this argumentation that the hope of the justified is not vain, apt to put them to shame, but firm and certain.
Most interpreters, however, think that the same argument is continued in the following verses 6–11, so that the Apostle, having proved the firmness of the hope of the justified from the love which God demonstrated by giving the Holy Spirit, now confirms the same firmness by a second argument drawn from the love of God delivering his Son to death for them when they were still sinners (cf. Chrysostom, Theodoret, etc.; Hervaeus, Thomas, etc.; Toledo, Justinianus, etc.; Beelen, Maier, etc.). This opinion does not commend itself to us; for it is more correct to say that he is now returning to his primary assertion — that the justified have peace with God and glory in hope of future inheritance (vv. 1–2) — and adding its proof. For he could not leave that assertion without proof, and from the argumentation that follows he plainly had in view not so much the firmness of hope as his primary assertion — as is evident from verses 9 and 10. He therefore takes his starting point from the supreme proof of love which God displayed to the world when he willed his only-begotten Son to die for the ungodly (vv. 6–8), in order to conclude on that foundation that those who are already justified can much more rightly both be confident of their peace with God and glory in their hope of the inheritance (vv. 9–11).
Rom 5:6. "For why did Christ, when we were still weak (ἀσθενεῖς), at the appointed time (κατὰ καιρόν) die for the ungodly (ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν — for the sake of the ungodly)?"
According to the Vulgate, the Apostle begins with a rhetorical question by which he admires and celebrates the divine love manifested in the death of Christ. This question he supposes admits of no answer except that this was done to commend the greatness of divine love (cf. v. 8). To make this excellence of love appear more clearly, he sets forth in this verse two aspects of the death of Christ: the time at which Christ died (when we were still weak), and the cause for which he underwent death (for the ungodly) — to which, as it were, a third aspect is added in the following verse emphasizing the gravity of the act itself (for scarcely will anyone die for a just man, etc.).
Many think that the names weak and ungodly designate not only the same persons but in the same respect, because Paul calls weak those who labor under the disease of ungodliness or sin (cf. Theodoret: οἱ τῆς ἀσεβείας νόσῳ κατεχόμενοι; Pelagius: "oppressed by the languors of sins and wickedness"; Thomas: "weak with the weakness of sin"; Estius: "held by the various languors of sins," etc.). This is not rightly said; for Paul here calls weak rather those living before the announcement of the Gospel, inasmuch as they were not only destitute of the powers of their own by which they might attain to salvation, but also had no one by whom they might be strengthened and helped. This weakness was not itself sin, but had its root in sin, and also, as is clearly apparent from what he argued earlier, led men to sins — indeed had brought it about that all, both Jews and Greeks, were under sin (3:9, etc.). At that time therefore, when men taught by experience of their own weakness were as it were despairing of obtaining salvation (when we were weak), therefore truly at the opportune time (according to the time), Christ died to save them.
By the expression according to the time (κατὰ καιρόν), that is, the preceding words (when we were still weak) are more accurately defined — which St. Jerome already rightly suggested in his interpretation (at the opportune time, Ep. 121:7 to Algasia). But what others think with the Greek commentators, that by the expression κατὰ καιρόν the time predefined by the Father for the death of Christ is signified (= at the appointed time) (Toledo, Estius, etc.; Maier, Beelen, Reithmayr, etc.), is less apt, because the addition would be quite idle, since the love of God toward us did not appear in the fact that Christ underwent death at a divinely predefined time, but at a time opportune for us. Still less of course, with the older Latin commentators, may it be said that the expression according to the time means "for a brief time" (because Christ was to rise on the third day) or "in the last age of the world," etc. (cf. Ambros.**, Primasius, Sedulius, etc.; Glossa Ordinaria, Thomas, etc.); for these explanations accord neither with the words nor with the meaning.
According to the Apostle, therefore, the greatness of divine love is first recognized from the fact that Christ died for the human race at the opportune time, when the human race had already come to know its own total weakness; more openly, however, it is recognized from the fact that he underwent death for the ungodly — that is, for the benefit and advantage of those who, being ungodly (ἀσεβεῖς), were enemies of God. In order that this testimony of love may appear more evidently how singular and truly unique it is, Paul illustrates the gravity of the act quasi by contrast from what happens among men.
Rom 5:7. "For scarcely will anyone die for a just man; for perhaps for a good man someone might dare to die."
He concedes that it can happen that someone pours out his own life to save a good and just man, though this occurs so rarely — "since the fear of death terrifies all things" (St. Jerome, l.c.) — that in the long course of the ages it has scarcely ever come about. But in conceding this, he at the same time clearly enough implies that it is utterly unheard of and would not seem plausible for anyone to hand himself over to death in order to save an ungodly man from the punishment of death justly owed him. From which it shines out of its own accord how remarkable and singular was the death of Christ pouring out his blood in order to bestow salvation on those whom he knew to be ungodly and enemies of God.
Interpreters dispute whether in verse 7 the discussion is about a just and good person, or about a just and good thing, and similarly whether the names just (δίκαιος) and good (ἀγαθός) are used with the same meaning, or whether by the name good a higher degree than just is signified, so that good is one who gives more than he is bound by right to give (cf. Matthew 20:15) or even one who is inclined to do benefactions (ἀγαθός = εὐεργέτης, beneficent).
As to the first question, most rightly hold with the Greek commentators (Chrysostom, Theodoret, etc.) that the discussion is about persons (those dissenting being St. Jerome l.c. and some others); for this is what the opposition of these names to the ungodly of the preceding verse and the sinners of the following verse teaches. On the second question, however, against Pelagius and a few others we hold with the Greek commentators and St. Jerome that just and good here are not of different meanings, because the two adjectives are often used in the same sense and the context of this passage does not require a different meaning for them.
Rom 5:8. "But God demonstrates (commends) his love toward us (εἰς ἡμᾶς, toward us), in that while we were still sinners (according to the time) Christ died for us."
Rom 5:9. "Much more therefore now, justified in his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."
The chief weight of the former sentence lies in the verb συνίστησιν, with which it begins with great force, and simultaneously in the pronoun ἑαυτοῦ (his own... love — ἑαυτοῦ τὴν ἀγάπην), by which the love proper to God, as altogether singular and of its own kind, as it were, is distinguished from human love. The Greek συνιστᾶν in this passage is more correctly rendered in Latin as demonstrates (cf. 2 Corinthians 7:11; Galatians 2:18) than as commends, though the latter rendering is most undeservedly called inept by some non-Catholic commentators (Fritzsche, etc.). The sense therefore of this sentence — which is set in opposition by the adversative conjunction but (δέ) to what immediately precedes, where the highest but rarest degree of human love was the topic — is as follows: His own love — which is not at all restricted, as human love is, to the just and the good alone — God demonstrates toward us (εἰς ἡμᾶς) by an argument always manifest and never losing its force (hence the present demonstrat), namely by this: that at the time (ὅτι elliptically for ἐν τούτῳ ὅτι) when we were still sinners — that is, "we had not only sinned but had added sin to sin and were in a state of sin" (Toledo) and therefore could expect nothing but punishment — Christ died for us (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, for our benefit, so that he might free us from just punishment). This divine love, once testified and demonstrated by so excellent an argument and even today manifest, we are much less permitted to call in doubt at this time when we have already received the fruit of Christ's death.
We must rather hold that much more now, since we have passed from the state of sin and through Christ obtained access to the grace of justification in which we stand (cf. on v. 2), we who are justified in (through) his blood shall be saved from the divine wrath — "which is nothing else than the just vengeance of God" (St. Augustine, De Trinitate XIII.16:21; cf. on 1:18) — through him; and therefore we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. on v. 1). "Will he who thus spared his enemies, so as not to spare his own Son," asks Chrysostom, "not now plead the cause of the justified?"
God demonstrated by many other splendid benefits also the love with which he embraces men from eternity, and especially by the Incarnation and all the deeds of his Son; but the death of Christ alone is here commemorated by the Apostle, because no greater proof of love can be devised than that the Father should have willed his most innocent Son to pour out his blood for worthless creatures and those moreover sinners. Now blessed Paul in this passage (and at 8:32; cf. John 3:16; 1 John 5:9–10) attributes the death of Christ to the infinite love of the Father, just as elsewhere to the love of Christ himself (Galatians 2:20; cf. Revelation 1:5) — and most rightly in both cases. For just as the Father, choosing from among the various ways in which he could redeem the world subject to sin the Incarnation and bloody death of his Only-begotten, demonstrated by the most compelling argument — which cannot be refuted or called in doubt in any way — his immense love; so Christ demonstrated the same love by no less compelling an argument when, for our sake and our salvation most freely subjecting himself to the decree of the Father, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even to death (Philippians 2:8), and enduring the cross, despising the shame, for the joy set before him (Hebrews 12:2). Paul implies this where he says the Father reconciled the world to himself in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:19), and in this sense St. Augustine rightly says (De Trinitate XIII.11:15): "all things together the Father and the Son and the Spirit of both work equally and in harmony; yet we have been justified in the blood of Christ and reconciled to God through the death of his Son."
Rom 5:10. "For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved in his life."
Proceeding further from this argumentation — by which he showed that the justified are saved from the divine wrath by the death of Christ and have peace with God — Paul by a similar argument teaches that the justified rightly have confidence and glory (cf. v. 2) in hope of future salvation:
Chrysostom already rightly warns that the words of verse 10 are not a mere repetition of the preceding sentence; for in the former member Paul repeats the preceding conclusion in such a way as to simultaneously explain it and render it clearer, while in the latter member he adds a new conclusion. He renders the former clearer by substituting the name enemies for the name sinners and substituting to be reconciled to God for the predicate to be saved from wrath. By this exchange he clearly shows that in the preceding conclusion he wished to demonstrate the first part of his primary assertion (that the justified have peace with God, v. 1); for through reconciliation peace has been restored with God and the justified have been transferred from the state of enemies of God into the state of friends of God. And because the justified are already friends of God, they can therefore also much more confidently trust in the divine love, which they have already experienced while in the state of enemies, and promise themselves the hoped-for salvation.
The same verb (σωθησόμεθα, we shall be saved) expresses salvation in both conclusions, but not in quite the same sense. For in the first (v. 9), with the added words from wrath (ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς), it is restricted to its negative aspect — namely, freedom from the punishment due to sins; in the second (v. 10), however, since all restriction is absent, it must be understood in its full sense and especially its positive sense — the glory of (the children of) God, which the justified will enjoy in heaven and in whose hope they already glory (vv. 2 and 10). This appears clearly also from the new antithesis which the Apostle inserts into this argument. For to the death — by which, undertaken for the ungodly, Christ merited justification and reconciliation for sinners and enemies of God — the glorious life is opposed, in which Christ, raised from the dead, will make the justified participants. For those who, when they were sinners and enemies, were justified and reconciled to God through the dying Christ (v. 9: in his blood; v. 10: through the death of his Son), will much more now, since they are already friends of God, through the gloriously living and reigning Christ (in his life) obtain the glory of the children of God which they hope for!
"His death," says Origen, "gave death to the enmity that was between us and God, and was the beginning of reconciliation; but his resurrection and life confer salvation on believers" (cf. on 4:25); or as Hervaeus (cf. Chrysostom, etc.) has it: "If his death could so much as to do what was more difficult, then his life — i.e. his resurrection and glory — will be able to do what involves less difficulty."
The life of Christ here expressed as ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ is to be understood not as his resurrection but as the glorious and immortal life which he entered upon once raised from the dead. Natalis Alexander on this passage seems to me to have rightly expounded the mind of the Apostle when he renders Paul's words more freely thus: If Christ the Son of God reconciled us to the Father by dying for us when we were his enemies and subject to his wrath on account of sin, how much more will he save those he has reconciled, living the immortal and glorious life, reigning without end, sitting at the right hand of the Father, and interceding for us as our advocate? What would he rather do — to whom all power has been given — than to bestow full and perfect salvation of soul and body upon those for whose restoration to the Father's favor he accomplished and suffered so much?
Rom 5:11. "And not only so, but we also glory (or according to most Greek manuscripts: glorying, καυχώμενοι; cf. the variant readings) in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."
According to most versions, and also according to the Greek Fathers who supply the verb ἐσμέν to the participle καυχώμενοι (καυχώμενοι ἐσμέν = καυχώμεθα), we must supply to the elliptical member (and not only so) the predicate of the preceding sentence (reconciled we shall be saved, καταλλαγέντες σωθησόμεθα), so that the sense is: having been reconciled we shall not only obtain the glory of the children of God (in future time), but we also glory (already in present time) in God — namely in his love, which has already heaped so many benefits upon us the justified that we hold firm and certain hope of obtaining the future glory which he has promised.
Lest anyone, however, accuse this glorying of arrogance, it is added that the foundation of this certain hope is the merits of Christ, through whom the justified have already obtained reconciliation itself. That this creates a difficulty — because future tense is not distinguished more clearly from present — is said to be in the way of this explanation; for to express the sense we have set forth, one would have had to write: οὐ μόνον δὲ σωθησόμεθά ποτε, ἀλλὰ καὶ νῦν καυχώμεθα (not only shall we sometime be saved, but also now we glory). Although we do not entirely deny that it could have been written thus (it would, however, be a less apt construction, because it would assign too much weight to the temporal particles), we consider the difference of time sufficiently indicated by the verb forms themselves (σωθησόμεθα and καυχώμεθα). It is added further that, as Origen already noted, the Apostle in the relative clause (through whom we have now received reconciliation) "inserted that now not without reason, but to show that glorying has been given to us not only in the future but also in the present."
As for the further objection that the authority of Greek manuscripts establishes the reading of the participle καυχώμενοι, but that it is foreign to Pauline usage for a participle to be used in place of καυχώμεθα with only ἐσμέν mentally supplied, this creates no difficulty, because granting the first part of the assertion we deny the second. For without any doubt also at 2 Corinthians 7:5 a participle (θλιβόμενοι) stands in place of the finite verb, so that ἐσμέν must be mentally added; and entirely similar to our passage is the use of a participle at 2 Corinthians 8:19 (cf. also above on 3:24). This being so, we prefer this explanation with the Greek commentators (Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Euthalius) and the very great majority of older and more recent Latin interpreters, and do so especially because it is in the most perfect agreement with the context of the whole passage. For to the three members of the primary assertion (vv. 1–2) — we have peace with God, we shall obtain the glory of God, we glory in certain hope of future glory — there accurately correspond three arguments that follow one upon another by a kind of gradation, as is clearly apparent from what was said above.
[Footnote on verse 11 and the various alternative constructions:]
There is great disagreement among interpreters about the connection and explanation of this sentence with what precedes. [Among the ancient and more recent Latin commentators there were not a few who connected verse 11 immediately with verses 2 and 3: "we glory in hope of glory, and not only so, but also in tribulations; and not only so, but also in God" (cf. Thomas, etc.; Toledo, Lapide, etc. — Denk, etc.). But who will convince himself that the whole pericope from verse 3 to verse 10 is nothing but a parenthesis in which Paul proves that we can glory in tribulations?
Of those who, following the Greek text, deny that the participle stands for the finite verb, some supply from the preceding sentence the words having been reconciled we shall be saved (καταλλαγέντες σωθησόμεθα) at the elliptical member (not only so), so that the verb σωθησόμεθα also applies to the participle καυχώμενοι and this sense arises: "not only reconciled, but also glorying, we shall be saved." This supplement is rightly called inept, because the participile καταλλαγέντες — by which the Apostle indicates the reason why we are going to be saved — cannot have as its parallel the participle καυχώμενοι, by which no such reason is indicated. Therefore others, with Estius, supply only the verb σωθησόμεθα: "not only shall we be saved, but also glorying we shall be saved." This construction, though more apt, does not suit the context, in which the discussion is not about our future glorying; and if the Apostle had wished to add this here, he would without any doubt have written: οὐ μόνον δέ (σωθησόμεθα) ἀλλὰ καὶ καυχησόμεθα. Of the supplements proposed by some modern non-Catholic commentators (e.g. Flückiger etc., who supplies from verse 9: οὐ μόνον δὲ σωθησόμεθα ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς, ἀλλὰ καὶ καυχώμεθα κτλ, or Reiche: οὐ μόνον δὲ κατηλλάγημεν καὶ σωθησόμεθα, ἀλλὰ καὶ καί) there is no need to speak, since it is patent to everyone how little apt they are.]
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment