PerryDox – BeJustAChristian

Could it be that I have misunderstood Romans 5:7 all my adult life and that my previous misunderstanding unknowingly, but totally contradicts the plain teaching of Romans and even the entire Bible?  Without wishing to sound hyperbolic, I believe it is borderline blasphemous how I used to interpret Romans 5:7.  Is your interest now piqued?

If so, what a mixture of excitement and dismay. If so, what a danger I have found within myself that I so easily accepted what is patently false.  If so, what a wonderful lesson to learn – the text is where the answers are found; and sometimes that text involves the entire book, not just the specific verse or even the chapter.  Read, read, read.  If so, how exciting that the word of God is still fresh, still revealing its secrets, still a life-time study.  If so, I’ll let you decide if so.

My misunderstanding of Romans 5:7 is innocent enough – many misunderstandings are not endangering to my soul, although some are (2 Peter 16).  And yet I understand how dangerous any misunderstand can be.  Sometimes the misunderstanding itself is not what is so insidious but rather the false imaginations that follow.  My misunderstanding led me to believe that being good is better than being righteous.  And while that might seem innocuous, can you see the possibility for harm?

Let’s first look at the verse itself, then the commentators, followed by an explanation, and then an illustration.  And then after all that, we will look at the definitions of righteous and good, how the words are used within Romans, and finally an explanation of the text that I believe is now abundantly clear but more importantly abundantly consistent with Romans and the entire Bible.

The Text

• Romans 5:7 NASB  For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.
• Romans 5:7 HCSB  For rarely will someone die for a just person–though for a good person perhaps someone might even dare to die.
• Romans 5:7 ESV  For one will scarcely die for a righteous person–though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die–
• Romans 5:7 KJV  For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 

The Commentators

Although I am hesitant to disagree with such illustrious thinkers, the evidence appears overwhelming that the majority are incorrect.  Here are samples of the very common interpretation of Romans 5:7:

Robertson defines the difference between “righteous” and “good” as,

• “the dikaios (i.e., righteous) man being ‘absolutely without sympathy’ while the agathos man ‘is beneficent and kind.’” (Robertson’s Word Pictures; e-sword). 

Vincent says the same thing:

• “The distinction is: δίκαιος is simply right or just; doing all that law or justice requires; ἀγαθός is benevolent, kind, generous. The righteous man does what he ought, and gives to every one his due. The good man ‘does as much as ever he can, and proves his moral quality by promoting the wellbeing of him with whom he has to do.’ Ἀγαθός always includes a corresponding beneficent relation of the subject of it to another subject; an establishment of a communion and exchange of life; while δίκαιος only expresses a relation to the purely objective δίκη right. Bengel says: ‘δίκαιος, indefinitely, implies an innocent man; ὁ ἀγαθός one perfect in all that piety demands; excellent, honorable, princely, blessed; for example, the father of his country.’”
• “Therefore, according to Paul, though one would hardly die for the merely upright or strictly just man who commands respect, he might possibly die for the noble, beneficent man, who calls out affection. The article is omitted with righteous, and supplied with good – the good man, pointing to such a case as a rare and special exception.” (Vincent’s Word Studies, e-sword)

Moses E. Lard says,

• “An illustration drawn from the known conduct of men, and intended to set forth, in a bold light, God’s love for the world, in contrast with our love for one another.  Among the whole human race not one man can be found who is ready to die for the wicked; hardly one is ready to die for the just….It is here assumed that some one might be found to die for the good when he would not for the just.  The good, in other words, is held to have the stronger claim on human gratitude.  From this is has been inferred that the good man, besides being just, is also beneficent; and that it is this fact which gives him the stronger claim.  Possibly the view is correct.” (A Commentary on Romans, pp.157-158)

David Lipscomb and J.W. Shepherd concur with the majority:

• “A righteous man is one who only does what justice or rule or right requires at his hand.  A man may be righteous in this sense and only selfishly just.  For one who only does to others what justice demands, one would scarcely risk his life or die, for justice excites no gratitude.  A good man will not only do what justice or right demands, but will go beyond this and do what love, mercy, and kindness suggest.  For such a character as this someone might be found who, moved by love and gratitude, would dare to die.” (Romans, p.96)

Jim McGuiggan echoes the same thought,

• “The ‘righteous’ man is the one who won’t cheat you, who will abide by what is right though he may not appeal to you as to bring our affection.  For ‘the’ good man (the Greek has the article) some may be moved to die.  He is the man who is large-hearted, benevolent.  He is righteous, of course, but he is more than that.  He is the kind who brings affectionate feelings out of a person.  Someone you could ‘like.’” (McGuiggan, The Book of Romans, p.165). 

An Explanation

 Therefore, based on all the above reasoning, one would rarely die for a “righteous man” because he does everything strictly according to the books, without any mercy, grace, patience, or leniency.  He is cold and calculated, but admittedly correct with every “i” dotted and every “t” crossed. 

Contrary to that legalistic behavior, a “good man” would extend mercy and grace, naturally endearing himself to others.  While righteousness is exact, demanding and impersonal, a good man gives of himself by extending needed help to those who are not perfect themselves.

An Illustration

The example given to explain the difference between righteous and good is that of an apartment manager.  A righteous manager would and could rightfully kick the tenants out the minute they were late with their payment, based upon the letter of the law written within their contract.  They had broken the agreement, and their reason was unimportant.  Excuses are not allowed in law.

The good manager would give them a break if needed, even if contrary to the contract, by giving them an extension if he knew that extenuating circumstances called for it.

We all would want the “good” manager, wouldn’t we?  But is that the meaning of the Romans 5:7?  I believe this is an example where a true parable teaching true principles can mislead us into misunderstanding truth when it does not apply. I know that sounds crazy and contradictory, but it is not.

Get ready to think because I am going to ask you not to believe what is generally taught concerning this passage. 

But before I do, did you notice all the commentators made being righteous a bad trait?  And if not bad, at least worse than being good?  It appears that a righteous man is not as worthy of love as a good man.  That is the general consensus.  Is that distinction consistent with Romans or even the Bible?

The Definition of Righteous and Its Use in Romans

Let’s look at the definition of righteous/dikaios (1342):

1) righteous, observing divine laws

1a) in a wide sense, upright, righteous, virtuous, keeping the commands of God

1a1) of those who seem to themselves to be righteous, who pride themselves to be righteous, who pride themselves in their virtues, whether real or imagined

1a2) innocent, faultless, guiltless

1a3) used of him whose way of thinking, feeling, and acting is wholly conformed to the will of God, and who therefore needs no rectification in the heart or life

1a3a) only Christ truly

1a4) approved of or acceptable of God

1b) in a narrower sense, rendering to each his due and that in a judicial sense, passing just judgment on others, whether expressed in words or shown by the manner of dealing with them (Thayer Definition, e-sword)

Thayer lists Romans 5:7 under 1a) in a wide sense, upright, righteous, virtuous, keeping the commands of God (Thayer, p.148).

Did you notice not a single definition listed above by Thayer includes a hint of anything worth demeaning in the word “righteous?”  In fact, it is even used of God.  That’s why I earlier suggested that my previous misunderstanding of “righteous” might even be blasphemous.  However, the definition and use given by all the commentators cannot be found within the Bible or Thayer’s.  In fact, the term “righteous” is never used negatively in the Bible.  The closest negative use is of those who considered themselves righteous (a good trait), but where not: –

Matthew 9:13 NASB  “But go and learn what this means: ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

These are the people Thayer suggested, “1a1) of those who seem to themselves to be righteous, who pride themselves to be righteous, who pride themselves in their virtues, whether real or imagined.”

Next let’s see how righteous/ dikaios is used within Romans because the common explanation above by the commentators makes being righteous a lacking trait – yet look at how the same word is used throughout Romans:

• Romans 1:17 HCSB  For in it God’s righteousness is revealed from faith to faith, just as it is written: The righteous will live by faith.
• Romans 2:13 HCSB  For the hearers of the law are not righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.
• Romans 3:10 HCSB  as it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one;
• Romans 3:26 HCSB  He presented Him to demonstrate His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be righteous and declare righteous the one who has faith in Jesus.
• Romans 5:7 HCSB  For rarely will someone die for a just person–though for a good person perhaps someone might even dare to die.
• Romans 5:19 HCSB  For just as through one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
• Romans 7:12 HCSB  So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.

In every verse, being righteous is good, even a trait of God.  So why would we make being righteous negative?

The Definition of Good and Its Use in Romans

Now let’s look at the word “good/agathos” (18) to see if it is better than being righteous:

agathos (18) – “inwardly good; ‘of a good constitution or nature’ (Thayer); hence, that which produces benefit and genuinely good effects and results; (agathos has its focus on the inward character and thus carries the idea of ‘morally’ or ‘inherently’ virtuous or brave; worthy of admiration and respect.” (The Discovery Bible, p.533)]

It too is found else in Romans – 2:7; 2:10; 3:8; 5:7; 7:12; 7:13; 7:18; 7:19; 8:28; 9:11; 10:15; 12:2; 12:9; 12:21; 13:3; 13:4; 14:16; 15:2; 16:19.

In Romans 2:7, we will receive glory and honor and immortality, eternal life, if we preserve in doing good.  Later in that chapter Paul says, it is not the hearers of the Law (lit., of law) who are just (our word) before God, but the doers of the Law (lit., of law) will be justified (2:13).  So doing good makes us just, that is, righteous before God.

In Romans 7:12 both words describe the law – So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

Both terms are used of Joseph of Arimathea (Luke 23:50)

In other words, while there might be definitional differences between “righteous” and “good” as there are between all synonyms, Romans teaches us that righteous acts are good works; the righteous man is a good man.  Why would we then change the definitions in Romans 5:7?

The only reason I can possibly see for this very common departure from the common use of the terms is because of two other words within 5:7.  So let’s look at those.  Here is the verse again:

• Romans 5:7 NASB  For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.
• Romans 5:7 HCSB  For rarely will someone die for a just person–though for a good person perhaps someone might even dare to die.
• Romans 5:7 ESV  For one will scarcely die for a righteous person–though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die–
• Romans 5:7 KJV  For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

Hardly vs. Perhaps; rarely vs. perhaps; scarcely vs. perhaps.  It appears to most as if Paul is saying that dying for a righteous man is less common than for a good man.  Because of that, commentators had to make a distinction between “righteous” and “good.”

Let’s look at the two contrasting words a little more carefully:

• Hardly/molis (3433) means “not easily, i.e., scarcely, very rarely: Ro.v.7” (Thayer, p.417).
• Perhaps/tacha (5029) means 1) hastily, quickly, soon 2) peradventure, perhaps (Thayer. p. 616). 

Does this suggest that more would die for a good man than a righteous man?  That would contradict the definition of “righteous” and contradict how it is used throughout Romans.  Therefore there must be another explanation.

The only commentator that I found that disagreed with the common interpretation is a likewise respected scholar named H.A.W. Meyer.  Let’s look at his prefacing comments and conclusion (there is much more within his commentary than quoted here):

• “No better are the explanations which find in (good/agathos) a great degree of morality than in (righteous/ dikaios), consequently a man more worthy of having his life sacrificed for him….
• “But all these distinctions of idea are artificially created and brought in without any hint from the context….
• Since moreover, an essential distinction between (righteous/ dikaios) and (good/agathos) is neither implied in the context, where on the contrary the contrast to both is (ungodly) and (sinners), 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 (good/agathos) should be held to express something different from or higher than (righteous/dikaios).  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 (gar), 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.”  (Meyer’s Commentary on the New Testament, Romans, pp.187-189)

I think this reasoning is sound based upon the words and defintions if carefully read.  Paul does not say, “For NEVER will someone dies for a just person – though for a good person perhaps someone might even dare to die.”  But that is how we interpret it.  Instead Paul says, “For RARELY” and rarely means there are some exceptions.  Doesn’t that imply that PERHAPS someone might even dare to die for a righteous and good man?  In other words, it is rare, but it is possible.  It is the exception not the rule.  It is hard to imagine, but yes I will admit that some have died for the righteous and good.

But why would Paul use the word “good” instead of using “righteous” again?  Simple.  Throughout the book of Romans, he makes no distinction.  If he didn’t throughout Romans then why would he here? 

Now admittedly, if all we had was verse 7, then the common explanation might make sense.  But there is so much more.  So, let’s again look at the verse, but this time enlarge the text.

• Romans 5:6-9 NASB  For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.  (7)  For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.  (8)  But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.  (9)  Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
• Romans 5:6-9 HCSB  For while we were still helpless, at the appointed moment, Christ died for the ungodly.  (7)  For rarely will someone die for a just person–though for a good person perhaps someone might even dare to die.  (8)  But God proves His own love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us!  (9)  Much more then, since we have now been declared righteous by His blood, we will be saved through Him from wrath.

Notice the thoughts surrounding verse 7:

• We are helpless, ungodly, enemies and sinners
• Christ died for us making us righteous.    

The contrast is not between righteous and good, but between he who is righteous and good versus he who is ungodly and a sinner.  The contrast is that though we are enemies yet God loves us.  To focus on a supposed difference between “righteous” and “good” misses the point entirely because we are neither!

The reason why one would hardly die for a righteous man is because such a death would be unnecessary because righteous people have not broken the law; and death was the sentence for breaking the law.  And yet I am sure there have been times when someone was innocent yet condemned and another took their place.  But we are not innocent.  And it is a fact that Jesus died for us, so demonstrably we are not righteous.

The reason perhaps someone might die for a good man is because they are friends with the one facing death.  Therefore perhaps the innocent friend might take their place and die for them.  But we are not friends, we are enemies.  And it is a fact that Jesus died for us, so demonstrably we are not good.

But the whole point of Romans is that we are not righteous or good in and of ourselves:

Romans 3:10-18 NASB  as it is written, “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS [dikaios (1342)], NOT EVEN ONE;  (11)  THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;  (12)  ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD [chrēstotēs (5544)], THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.”  (13)  “THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,” “THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS”;  (14)  “WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS”;  (15)  “THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,  (16)  DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,  (17)  AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.”  (18)  “THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.”

We are sinners.  We are ungodly.  We are enemies.  We are not righteous.  We are not good.

Let me reiterate, if being “righteous” in verse seven is somehow lacking behind being “good,” then why does verse nine state , Much more then, since we have now been declared righteous by His blood, we will be saved through Him from wrath (Romans 5:9 HCSB).  That means that being righteous is good and not a cold, legalistic, impersonal trait.   

People might die for the righteous and good but for the ungodly and enemy?  But those people wouldn’t die for us because we are not righteous or good.  Yet while we were still helpless, at the appointed moment, Christ died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6 HCSB).  And dare I say, such a death is rare among men, yet Christ easily and quickly said “Yes!”  That’s the point.

 Perry D. Hall

Tags: Commentary

This entry was posted by PHall on Friday, October 9th, 2009 at 12:56 am and is filed under Romans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.