Rom 5:1 “Therefore, having been justified by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
For the word “let us have” (habeamus), in most Greek manuscripts there is ἔχομεν (“we have”), and that Tertullian read it thus is argued from his words in Book 5 against Marcion, chapter 13: “Paul admonishes that those justified by faith in Christ, not by the law, have peace.” This was also observed by the most learned Jacques Pamelius in his notes on that passage. Nor does the commentary attributed to Ambrose obscurely support that reading. I also add that I myself have read “we have” in a certain Latin manuscript.
But the Greek commentators—Origen, Chrysostom, and the others—support our Vulgate reading, although very few Greek manuscripts today read ἔχωμεν. Certainly none noted by Robert Stephanus does so.
Both readings yield a good sense.
Our reading is as follows: since we are now justified by faith, let us no longer sin, but preserve peace with God by remaining in the justice once received.
Or, according to others, “let us have peace,” that is, let us be of tranquil and calm mind, free from the terrors by which an evil conscience is usually shaken, since we are now reconciled to God.
According to the other reading, the sense is: having now been justified by faith, we have obtained this benefit above all—that we have peace with God, that is, that we are reconciled to God and now have Him favorable whom, because of our sins, we had offended.
Since this sense is plain and very fitting to the text—for the Apostle is not yet exhorting but still teaching—it appears that the reading of the Greek manuscripts is the truer one, especially since that clause “through our Lord Jesus Christ,” namely as our mediator and peacemaker, fits it most suitably, and since the following verbs (“we have,” “we stand,” “we glory”) are also in the indicative.
Sectarians twist this passage to establish that infallible certainty of reconciliation and salvation which they demand from every believer; but they do so unskillfully. For peace signifies reconciliation, not the certain knowledge of it. Therefore one can have peace with God who nevertheless is not entirely certain—because of the hidden recesses of his heart—that he has it. Nor does Paul affirm that all who are justified have this peace.
Rom 5:2 “Through whom also we have access by faith into this grace.”
“We have access”—in Greek προσαγωγὴν ἐσχήκαμεν—that is, we have obtained an entrance or admission.
The Apostle’s sense is: by whose work and merit we have been admitted and brought through faith into this grace, that is, justification. He uses the same word προσαγωγή when writing to the Ephesians (chapter 3).
Moreover, it should be noted that although faith is the beginning and a certain part of our justification, it is nevertheless rightly said that through faith we have entrance into the grace of justification—just as we enter a house through a door, although the door is part of the house.
The meaning is that by faith, as the beginning of justification, we are further led so that, as other gifts are added, we become simply just and acceptable to God unto eternal life—just as one who enters through the door proceeds further so as to be within the house, in the hall, or in the inner chamber.
“In which we stand, and we glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God.”
There is doubt both in Greek and Latin whether “in which” refers to faith or to grace. If to faith, the sense would be “through which we stand,” as some translate, as in 2 Corinthians 1: “You stand by faith.” Nevertheless, the context more requires that it be referred to grace.
“In this grace,” he says, “we stand,” that is, we remain and persevere; and in it—that is, concerning it—we glory under hope and certain expectation of the future glory prepared and to be bestowed through this grace upon the adopted sons of God.
Some, drawing “we glory in hope” away from the preceding, interpret it as “we glory concerning the hoped-for glory,” just as he soon says “we glory in tribulations,” that is, concerning tribulations. But less rightly. For, as Toletus rightly observes, in Greek the prepositions differ (ἐν and ἐπί), and the former signifies the object or matter of glorying.
It should also be known that “of the sons” is not in the Greek nor in the Syriac, nor explained by the Greek commentators. Cyprian reads: “we glory in hope of the glory of God.” Yet the sense does not differ, since God’s glory is communicated to His adopted children.
Rom 5:5 “But hope does not confound.”
In Greek καταισχύνει, that is, “puts to shame,” which the Vulgate, according to the custom of its age, calls “confound.”
The sense: hope thus stirred up and increased will not put the one who hopes to shame—it will not deceive or disappoint him. For besides the fact that hope, on God’s part who promises, is altogether infallible, the pledges already given wonderfully stir confidence of obtaining the inheritance.
In Scripture, the frustration of hope is called “confusion,” that is, shame, because those disappointed are accustomed to blush.
Although the discourse here concerns the hope of the justified, yet the hope of a man still a sinner—while believing the Gospel and expecting eternal life from good works which he hopes to perform by God’s grace—will not confound him; but he will confound himself if he neglects to practice good works, although he holds Christ’s sure promise: “Do this and you shall live.”
But with greater reason the hope of the just—especially of the elect, in whose person Paul chiefly speaks—does not confound, as Ecclesiasticus says: “No one hoped in the Lord and was put to shame.”
Finally, the proof that follows shows that hope is understood as strengthened by charity:
“Because the charity of God has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.”
“Poured out”—Greek ἐκκέχυται, “has been poured forth.” Cyprian reads “infused,” with no different sense.
This may be understood either as God’s love toward us, or that by which we love God—that is, either the love of God loving, or of God loved.
If taken in the first way, the sense is: what I said—that hope does not confound—is evident from the love which God has abundantly shown us by pouring out the Holy Spirit as a pledge of the promised inheritance through the many gifts He has bestowed; from what we have received we are confirmed concerning the future.
If taken in the second way, the sense is: our hope does not fail because the charity by which we love God—and by loving attain the promised goods—has been poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit given for our sanctification; as if to say, He who has already given charity by which we merit the promised goods will surely give the goods themselves to those who persevere in charity.
The first interpretation is found in Chrysostom and Theophylact, followed by Cajetan and Toletus; the second is especially taught by Augustine, who writes in De Spiritu et Littera that the charity of God is said to be poured out not by which He loves us, but by which He makes us lovers of Him.
Others present both senses—Origen, the Glossa Ordinaria, Lombard, and Pererius—who holds that both are literal senses of the passage.
Moreover, the Council of Trent (session 6, chapter 7) says that charity is poured into the hearts of the justified through the Holy Spirit and inheres in them; hence theologians from this place establish the habit of created and inherent charity.
Note also that it is not said “poured into our hearts” (accusative) but “in our hearts” (ablative), signifying that charity spreads and expands within them, as Paul says: “Our heart has been enlarged.”
Rom 5:6 “For Christ, when we were still weak, died for the ungodly at the appointed time.”
The Greek reads without interrogation: “For while we were still weak, Christ…” The sense is that Christ’s charity toward us was so great that while we were weak—held by various sicknesses of sin—and therefore ungodly, He did not hesitate to die at the time appointed by the Father.
This proves the preceding argument: if while we were sinners Christ loved us so much as to die for us, how much more will He now, when we are justified and friends, grant the rest of what He has promised.
This argument Paul immediately unfolds at greater length.
Since, however, the term
weakness (Latin
infirmitas, Greek ἀσθένεια) is frequent in Paul’s epistles and bears various meanings, I have thought it worthwhile—and appropriate in this place—to instruct the reader briefly about it.
Properly speaking, the word signifies bodily ill health, as in 1 Corinthians 11: “There are many weak among you.” Yet in Scripture it is transferred in many ways to other deficiencies, whether of body, mind, or other conditions.
With respect to the body, it is used whenever it denotes mortality and corruptibility, as in 1 Corinthians 15: “It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power,” and in the last chapter of 2 Corinthians: “Christ was crucified out of weakness.” Likewise it can mean lowliness and contempt, as in 2 Corinthians 10: “His bodily presence is weak.” It can also signify affliction and misery, by which people are commonly rendered contemptible and lowly; thus Paul repeatedly calls his afflictions and persecutions “weaknesses” in chapters 11 and 12 of the same epistle. In a similar way the plagues of Egypt are called weaknesses in Deuteronomy 7. To this belongs also that saying of Ecclesiastes 5: “There is another most grievous weakness,” that is, misery.
When referred to the mind, it often signifies sorrow among the Hebrews, because the mind languishes with grief as with disease; for example, Hosea 4: “The land shall mourn and everyone who dwells in it shall be weakened,” that is, shall grieve; Amos 6: “They were not grieved over the ruin of Joseph” (in Hebrew, “they were not weakened,” that is, did not mourn); Micah 4: “Be in pain and labor, daughter of Zion” (in Hebrew, “be weakened”); and 1 Maccabees 1: “Young men and maidens were weakened,” that is, they mourned.
At other times it signifies the principal defect or corruption of human nature, that is, sin, as in Psalm 6: “Have mercy on me, Lord, for I am weak,” that is, a sinner. This is the meaning in the present passage; for whom he calls weak when he says “while we were still weak,” he soon repeats by saying “while we were still sinners.” Nor did the Lord intend others when He said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.”
Related to this is when it signifies proneness to sin, as in Matthew 26: “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak,” and in Paul: “I became weak to the weak” (1 Corinthians 9), and “Who is weak, and I am not weak?” (2 Corinthians 11). In much the same sense in Hebrews 5 and 7 weakness is attributed to the Levitical priest, and in chapter 4 Christ is described as a high priest able to sympathize with our weaknesses.
In certain places the Apostle calls “weak” those Christians who were not yet sufficiently instructed or strengthened in faith—for example, those who thought themselves defiled by foods sacrificed to idols or forbidden by the law (Romans 14–15; 1 Corinthians 8–9). One is also said to be weak when he accommodates himself to the weak, as in the latter member of the sentences cited earlier.
Finally, the term is transferred to inanimate things, as when the Apostle calls the legal observances “weak and beggarly elements” (Galatians 4). Elsewhere an inheritance or a vine is said to be weakened—that is, afflicted or diminished (Psalm 67; Isaiah 24). But let this suffice. Let us now return to the Apostle’s text.
Rom 5:7 “For scarcely will anyone die for a just man.”
By comparison he amplifies what he said. “Will die” (Greek ἀποθανεῖται) means “would be ready to die.” Jerome, in his letter to Algasia, interprets “the just” abstractly as justice or a just cause, but the simpler and more genuine sense of the Apostle is that scarcely anyone among mortals is found who would be willing to give himself to death to save a just man—for he makes a comparison between persons, namely the just and the ungodly.
“But perhaps someone would dare to die for a good man.”
In Greek: “for a good man perhaps someone even dares to die.” The commentator attributed to Ambrose distinguishes between the just and the good, saying one is called good by nature and just by practice. Better, however, are those who understand the just as one who renders to each his due, and the good as one who is beneficent and has deserved well of many; for people are more readily moved to risk their lives for benefactors than for others however just. Thus the sense is probable. And unless the Apostle intended some distinction between just and good, why would he change the word?
Most, however, take the sense thus: I say that scarcely anyone dies for a just man—not simply denying it, because perhaps someone may be found who would even dare to die for a just and good man. Thus the word “dare” is to be understood.
This passage shows, with charity rightly ordered, that one may rightly lay down his temporal life for another.
I note in passing that this passage was wrongly understood by ancient heretics Marcion and Arius, as Jerome reports. Marcion understood “the just” to mean the God of the Law and Prophets and “the good” the God of the Gospels, claiming few died for the former but countless martyrs for the latter. Arius referred the just to Christ as judge and the good to God the Father, implying the Son is not equally good. But these interpretations, being heretical and impious, are wholly foreign to the Apostle’s intention.
Rom 5:8 “But God commends His love toward us (Greek: toward us, that is, for us), in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.”
Some manuscripts wrongly insert “if,” though Cyprian reads it so when quoting out of context. The clause “at the appointed time” appears to have been brought in from the earlier similar phrase; the better Greek, Syriac, and Latin witnesses omit it here, as do Irenaeus and Augustine.
The sense of the whole period is: among men it is considered great love if—what is very rare—someone dies for a just or good man; but God demonstrates His love toward us, and shows it far greater than human love, in that He willed His Son Christ to die for us unjust and sinful.
Whether it follows from this that loving enemies is of greater merit than loving friends, let the diligent reader see in the commentators on the Sentences (Book 3, distinction 30).
Note that the word “still” (adhuc) here and above does not primarily signify a particular time, but rather the state of each person in which the remedy of Christ’s death is necessary.
Rom 5:9 “Much more then, being now justified in His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.”
“We shall be saved” (Greek σωθησόμεθα). Hilary reads “we shall be delivered.” This is an argument from the lesser: if Christ died to justify us sinners, much more now that we are justified by His blood—that is, by His passion—we shall be preserved at the final judgment from divine wrath, that is, punishment upon the ungodly.
Therefore sectarians who from this passage try to prove that no temporal punishment remains for the justified distort the Apostle’s words into a perverse meaning.
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 by His life.”
If, he says, through the death of His Son He reconciled us while enemies, how much more will He save us now reconciled and friends in the life of that same Son.
This extends the previous argument with a double contrast: between enemies and reconciled, and between death and life.
You may ask how he says we were reconciled to God whom He always loved from eternity. I answer: because, though previously by sins we were liable to His wrath—that is, deserving just punishment—by the grace of justification He freed us from that guilt and made us worthy of the fellowship of His kingdom. The change is in us, not in Him, who immutably prepares from eternity the benefits of grace to give in time.
By “in His life,” the sense seems to be: by His Son now living and no longer dying—or, which comes to the same, by His Son living, especially as He sits at the right hand and intercedes for us (Romans 8). Paul says “through death” and “in life” because the former signifies the price and merit of redemption, the latter the state of the gloriously reigning Christ.
Thus: if Christ suffering and dying reconciled us, how much more will He living and reigning save us.
The whole argument aims chiefly to teach that the hope of the elect, already justified and approved, does not disappoint.
Rom 5:11 “And not only so…”
Some supply “we glory in tribulations,” others “we shall be saved,” others “having been reconciled”—the last best fits what follows.
“But we also glory in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.”
“Glorying” (Greek καυχώμενοι) corresponds participle to participle: not only reconciled, but also glorying.
The sense is: how much more shall we be saved, who are not only reconciled so that our sins are not punished, but also glory in God through Christ, through whose benefit and merit we have now received reconciliation.
We glory in God either as Father, whose children we have become by adoption through reconciliation, or as the author of all our righteousness, reconciliation, and renewal—for thus the Apostle everywhere teaches that we must glory in God.
Comments
Post a Comment