Now if someone will hardly die for a righteous man, how can it be that he would die for ungodly people? And if someone might volunteer to die for one good man (or not volunteer, since the phrase is ambiguous), how can it be that someone would dare to die for a multitude of the ungodly? For if someone dares to die for a righteous or good man, it is probably because he has been touched with some sort of pity or been impressed by his good works. But in the case of the ungodly, not only is there no reason to die for them, but there is plenty to make us want to cry when we look at them!
Christ, however, died for the ungodliness of a people which was not yet His, and made everything which the world disbelieves believable. He made two kinds of people—the righteous and the good. Even though a righteous man ought to be called good as well, He nevertheless created these distinct types of people, the difference being that the righteous person has achieved that status by self-discipline whereas the good person was born that way and is innocent in the simplicity of his nature. Thus, although there is greater merit in being a righteous person than in being merely a good one, it is still true, says Paul, that someone might volunteer to die for a good person, meaning by this that since the cause of his innocence is less noble, someone might possibly be pressured into this.
Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Romans 5.7
Since he had said above that “Christ, at the set time, died for those who were still ungodly,” now he wants to show from this the greatness of God’s love for men. For if it was so great for the ungodly and sinners that he gave his only Son for their salvation, how much more bountiful and widespread shall it be toward those who have been converted and atoned and, as He Himself says, redeemed by His own blood?
Origen, Commentary on Romans 4.11.1
No comments:
Post a Comment