Down an Unfamiliar Road

PENNIES FROM HEAVEN

I don’t know if you are like my wife or me, but whenever we’re walking through a parking lot and spot a penny on the ground, no matter how dirty or mangled it is we pick it up. I keep them, along with nickels and dimes, in a big jar in the closet. So when I read this story, it gave me a new appreciation for those simply pennies. The lady who wrote the story did not give her name. Here’s what she wrote:

A few months ago, my husband and I were invited to spend the weekend at his employer’s home. I was nervous about the weekend. The boss was very wealthy, with a fine home on the waterway, and cars costing more than our house. The first day and evening went well, and I was delighted to have this rare glimpse into how the very wealthy live.

My husband’s employer was quite generous as a host and took us to the finest restaurants. I knew I would never have the opportunity to indulge in this kind of extravagance again, so I was enjoying myself. As the three of us were about to enter an exclusive restaurant one evening, his boss was walking slightly ahead of us. He stopped suddenly and looked down on the pavement for a long, silent moment. I wondered if he wanted us to go ahead of him into the restaurant. There was nothing on the ground except a single darkened penny that someone had dropped.

Silently, my husband’s boss reached down and picked up the penny. He held it up and smiled, then put it in his pocket as if he had found a great treasure. How absurd, I thought! What need did this man have for an old, beat-up penny? Why would he even take the time to stop and pick it up? Throughout the dinner, that entire scene nagged at me. Finally, I could stand it no longer. I casually mentioned that my daughter once had a coin collection and asked if the penny he had found had been of some value.

A smile crept across the man’s face as he reached into his pocket for the penny and held it out for us to see. I had seen many pennies before! What was the point of this?

“Look at it,” he said. “Read what it says.” I read the words, “United States of America.”

“Keep reading,” he urged. So I read, “One cent.”

“That’s right,” he remarked. “Read further,” he encouraged me. “In God we Trust” I read.

“Yes!” he exclaimed. I looked at him somewhat puzzled and shook my head as if to say, “Is there something else?”

With a slight smile, yet a look of sincerity he said: “If I trust in God, the name of God is holy to me, even on an old coin. Whenever I find a coin, I look at that inscription. It is written on every single United States coin, but we never seem to notice it! God drops a message right in front of me telling me to trust Him? Who am I to pass it by? When I see a coin, I pray. I stop to see if my trust is in God at that moment. I pick up the coin as a response to God that I do trust in Him. For a short time, at least, I cherish it as if it were gold. I think it is God’s way of starting a conversation with me. Lucky for me, God is patient, and pennies are plentiful!”

After my husband and I had returned home, I went out shopping the next day. As I was walking toward one store, I noticed a penny on the sidewalk. I did something I would have never done before. I stopped and picked it up and realized that I had been worrying and fretting in my mind about things I can not change. I read the words, “In God We Trust,” and had to laugh. Yes, God, I get the message. It seems that I have been finding an inordinate number of pennies in the last few months, but then, pennies are plentiful! And God is patient. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson XIII)

Albert Barnes has so much to say about the message in this verse it would not be practical to reproduce it all here. But in essence, he tells us that this is not an inference from what has been said before, but a continuance of the design of the Apostle to show the advantages of the plan of justification by faith. It’s as if he had said: The advantages of that plan have been seen in our comfort and peace, and in its sustaining power during afflictions. Furthermore, the advantages of the plan are seen in regard to the following: That it is applicable to the condition of man in a world where the sin of one man has produced so much misery and death. It is also a matter of joy. It meets the anguish of a fallen race, and it is, therefore, a plan adapted to man. Understood that way, the connection and design of the passage is more easily explained. In respect to the state of things into which man is fallen, the benefits of this plan may be seen as adapted to heal the maladies, and to be commensurate with the evils which the apostasy of one man brought upon the world. Says Barnes that his explanation is not what is usually given to this verse, but it is what seems to him to be demanded by the Apostle‘s line of reasoning. The passage is concise, and there is a necessity of supplying something to know what it means.¹

Charles Hodge also offers a long exegesis and full exposition on this verse. Basically, he points out that scholars down through the centuries have taken one of two views. First: that since Adam was judged by God to be a sinner because He violated God’s commandment not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then his descendants are sinners because of their relationship with him. And second: that God termed Adam’s action of disobedience to His word as a “sin.” Therefore, all who follow Adam’s example in violating God’s word are thereby “sinners.” Then Hodge says: “However commentators may differ in other points, they almost all agree in the general idea, which is the sum of the whole passage, that the sin of Adam, and not their own individual actual transgressions, is the ground and reason of the subjection of all men to the punishable evils spoken of here.”²

Charles Spurgeon then offers his homily on this text: “It was by one man’s sin that we all fell through the first Adam. Does anyone object to the justice of that? I pray, do not object to what is your only hope. If you and I had each one sinned for himself or herself apart from Adam, our case would probably have been hopeless, like the case of the fallen angels, who sinned individually, and fell never to be set up again, but inasmuch as we fell representatively in Adam, it prepared the way for us to rise representatively in the second Adam, Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. If I fell by another, I can rise by another; as my ruin was caused by the first man Adam, my restoration can be brought about by the second Man [Adam], the Lord from heaven.”³ Charles Ellicott confirms Spurgeon’s point by saying: “For that all have sinned – Rather, for that, or because, all sinned – i.e., not by their own individual act, but implicitly in Adam’s transgression. They were summed up, and included in him as the head and representative of the race.”⁴

F. F. Bruce comments on how death spread to all mankind because of the sin of two people: “Does this mean that all have sinned in their personal lives (which is apparently the meaning of the words in 3:23) or that all sinned in Adam’s primal sin? In support of the latter, it might be argued that human beings are mortal before they commit any sin, so that the mortality of the race is the result of the original racial sin. This seems to be implied by verse 14, where those who lived between Adam and Moses are said to have died even if they did not sin in the manner of ‘the transgression of Adam’. The construction, with the underlying thought, is paralleled in 2 Corinthians 5:14: ‘one has died for all; therefore, all have died’ – where, however, it is the racial implication of Christ’s death, not of Adam’s fall, that Paul has in view. It is not simply because Adam is the ancestor of mankind that all are said to have sinned in his sin (otherwise it might be argued that because Abraham believed God all his descendants were necessarily involved in his belief); it is because Adam is mankind.”⁵

Jewish scholar David Stern gives us his view: “Sin entered the world through one individual, Adam, who disobeyed God’s command in the Garden of Eden not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; and through sin, death because God decreed certain death as the punishment for sin. While death may have been possible before Adam sinned, had he chosen not to eat from the tree of life, it apparently was not a necessary consequence of being human. And thus death passed through to the whole human race, inasmuch as (or ‘because’) everyone sinned. It can hardly be questioned that this says, on the one hand, that Adam’s transgression caused death to come to everyone and also, on the other, that each person deserved death because each person sinned – that is, each person dies for his own sin, as Ezekiel 8:4 says, ‘The soul that sins, it shall die.’ But how these facts are related to each other and applied to understanding the existential condition of mankind forms the kernel of my inquiry in this note. Paul himself is less concerned to explain the precise mechanism of how death passed through than to defend the justice of death’s coming to those who did not consciously violate a God-given command.”⁶ I would answer Mr. Stern by pointing out that “sin” is the violation of disobeying God’s commandment, and “death” is the punishment for doing so. All of Adam’s descendants inherited his sinful nature and their own sinning is natural to them. Therefore, since death is the penalty for sin, they incur that penalty as much for their own sins as Adam did for his.

Verse 13: Therefore, the potential for sin was present in the world before Moses was given the Law. But, how can sin be committed when there are no laws to break?

What Paul says here requires mere common sense to understand. He anticipates the objection that if there was no law, how could Adam have sinned? In other words, if there are no rules, then there can be no rule breakers. At the same time, Paul is offering a prelude to the argument for the need for the law. Did not God warn Cain: “If you do what is right, you can live without fear. But if you don’t do what is right, sin is ready to pounce on you. Sin wants to control you, but you can control it?”⁷ Even without the Law, we find out the LORD knew that the people of Sodom were very evil sinners.⁸ In other words, sin was not born with the Law, it already existed but needed only to wait for the Law in order to be identified as such.

Early church teacher of pulpiteer Chrysostom, Diodore of Tarsus, makes an interesting comment on this verse: “Sin was in the world before the law of Moses came, and it was counted, though not according to that law. Rather it was counted according to the law of nature, by which we have learned to distinguish good and evil.”⁹ In line with this, another early church scholar states: “The coming of the law did not remove sin. On the contrary, even though the law was observed and kept by men, sin continued to increase and the law could do nothing to stop it.… So far was the law from being the cure for sin that Paul even says that there would not have been sin at all had there been no law! By ‘law’ Paul means the discernment which comes by both the natural law and the law of Moses. For without this discernment, nobody would be able to call sin by its name, since there would be no way of knowing the difference between good and evil.”¹⁰

To this, John Calvin remarks: “Without the law reproving us, we in a manner sleep in our sins; and though we are not ignorant that we do evil, we yet suppress as much as we can the knowledge of evil offered to us, at least we obliterate it by quickly forgetting it. While the law reproves and chides us, it awakens us as it were by its stimulating power, that we may return to the consideration of God’s judgment. The Apostle then intimates that men continue in their perverseness when not roused by the law, and that when the difference between good and evil is laid aside, they securely and joyfully indulge themselves, as if there was no judgment to come.”¹¹

To put this another way, the law was not only given to awaken man to the fact that he was a sinner, but also to make him aware of the punishment for sin so that he would then seek forgiveness and salvation from the inherited condemnation to eternal punishment. That’s why Adam Clarke states: “Therefore, men are not subjected to death for their own personal transgressions, but for the sin of Adam; as, through his transgression, all come into the world with the seeds of death and corruption in their own nature, super added to their moral depravity. All are sinful – all are mortal – and all must die.”¹²

To add some light to what Clarke is saying here, think of it this way: No matter how innocent a baby may look at birth and for its first few months of existence, beneath that innocuous countertenor the urge to disobey already exists. Disobedience is something no parent needs to teach a child, it’s part of their nature. It comes out sooner in some than it does in others. When that infant begins to show signs of disobedience, the parent then establish the law for them. By this they learn what is permissible and what is not. When the child insists on disobeying and being contrary, the parent must then institute some form of punishment. No parent should ever be misled by the thought that the child will grow out of it. Without discipline, it will only grow worse. With God as our father, this is the same scenario that produced mankind’s understanding of what pleased Him and what did not.

John Bengel points out that sin was in the world, not only after the law was given by Moses, but also during the whole period before the law from Adam down to Moses, during which latter period sinners sinned without the law,¹³ for the condition of all before Moses, and of the Gentiles subsequently [after Moses’ time], was equal; but this sin was not, properly speaking, the cause of death: because there is no imputation of sin without the law, and consequently there is no death.¹⁴ The sin committed by Adam, entailing evil on all, is called the sin twice in the preceding verse; now, in this verse, sin in general is called sin without the article. The Apostle is not speaking here of men’s negligence, which disregards sin in the absence of a law, but of the Divine judgment, because sin is not usually taken into any account, not even into the Divine account, in the absence of the law. Compare “impute”, or “put it to my account.”¹⁵ Sin therefore does not denote notorious crimes, such as those, for which the inhabitants of Sodom were punished before the time of Moses, but the common evil.¹⁶

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson XII)

Verse 12: Sin came into the world because of what one man did. And with that sin came death. So this is why all people must die – because all people have inherently violated God’s law.

Without mentioning his name, it is clear that the Apostle Paul was referring to Adam who was deceived by Satan in the Garden of Eden at the beginning of mankind’s existence here on earth.¹ As a result, death was pronounced as the penalty for sin.² Paul said the same thing in his letter to the Corinthians: “Death comes to people because of what one man did. But now, there is resurrection from death because of what another man did.”³ Paul makes it clear, that it is nothing mankind does that makes him a condemned sinner, this was inherited from Adam. By the same token, there is nothing mankind can do that frees him from the sentence of death, this is only available by grace through the love and mercy of God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.

This subject of inherited sin being the cause that death became the future fate of all mankind is clearly expressed in Jewish writings. We read: “Expelled from the garden under the curse which their disobedience brought upon them, Adam and Eve were doomed to a life of labor and pain which was the prelude to death. Happiness, innocence, and deathlessness were forever forfeited. And in their fall were involved all of their descendants, none of whom in consequence was exempt from the corruption of death and from sin.”⁴

But this was not considered merely a physical death, but also a spiritual one. That’s why Paul told the Ephesians that at one time they were all dead in their trespasses and sins.⁵ This same concept was expressed in a Jewish paraphrase of the Book of Ruth where it reads: “The serpent’s counsel to Eve, Adam’s wife, to partake of the fruit of the tree, the eating of which resulted in wisdom to distinguish between good and evil, was recalled before God. Because of that counsel, all inhabitants of the earth are mortal, and as a result of that blunder, the righteous Jesse died.”⁶

This topic was also discussed by the Rabbis and became part of their Talmud. For instance, we read where Rabbi Ammi said: “There is no death without sin, and there is no suffering without iniquity. There is no death without sin, for it is written, The soul that sins, it will die: the son will not bear the iniquity of the father, neither will the father bear the iniquity of the son, the righteousness of the righteous will be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon him, etc.⁷” But we read where an objection was made: “The ministering angels asked the Holy One, blessed be He: ‘Sovereign of the Universe! Why did You impose the penalty of death upon Adam?’ He said to them, I gave him an easy command, yet he violated it.’ ‘Moses and Aaron fulfilled the whole Torah they pursued’ — ‘yet they also died.’”⁸

There is no “Which came first, the chicken or the egg” theory here. Life came first, sin second, the death sentence third, the Law fourth, salvation fifth, everlasting life sixth, and after that eternal rest. The influx of sin into life brought about the advent of death. But salvation through Christ completed the Law, thereby, bringing back a spiritual life that does not end in death. For the unconverted, however, the cycle has not changed. One is born and given life. At the age of accountability, the Law makes them aware of sin and the need for salvation and a Savior; and that the wages of continuing in sin is death. It is only when salvation is fully experienced, that a new life in Christ is granted through His grace and received by faith. God won’t let you earn it; He has no plan by which you can merit it; there is no layaway plan by which you can pay for it, even after arriving in purgatory. It is a gift from God. Sadly, many still think it’s an option. Truth is, you can’t make heaven without it.

Many early church and Medieval scholars had things to say about this verse. For instance, Eusebius made the point: “[Since] by man death entered into the world, it was surely essential that the victory over death should be achieved by man as well, and the body of death be shown to be the body of life, and the reign of sin that before ruled in the mortal body be destroyed [in the body]so that it should no longer serve sin but righteousness.”⁹ No doubt this is why the Father insisted that His Son come to earth in bodily form in order to correct all the mistakes the first created man made.

Early church Bishop Ambrose, in one of his writings, made this observation: “Death is alike to all, without deference for the poor, without exception for the rich. Although through the sin of one alone it passed onto all that we may not refuse to acknowledge Him to be also the Author of death. Whom we do not refuse to acknowledge as the Author of our race; and that, as through one death is ours, so should be also the resurrection; and that we should not refuse the misery, that we may attain to the gift… In Adam I fell, in Adam, I was cast out of Paradise, in Adam, I died; how shall the Lord call me back, except He find me in Adam; guilty as I was in him, so now justified in Christ. If then, death is the debt of all, we must be able to endure the payment.”¹⁰ This thinking is why Jesus is often referred to as the “Second Adam.”¹¹

One Latin poet and hymn writer of the 4th century penned this:

          “Such was the soul’s first state. Created pure

          Through sordid union with the flesh, it fell

          Into iniquity; stained by Adam’s sin,

          It tainted all the race from him derived,

          And infant souls inherit at their birth

          The first man’s sin; no one is sinless born.”¹²

John Calvin states: “For as Adam at his creation had received for us as well as for himself the gifts of God’s favor, so by falling away from the Lord, he in himself debased, diminished, depraved, and destroyed our nature; for having been divested of God’s likeness, he could not have generated seed but what was like himself. Hence, we have all sinned; for we are all infected with natural corruption, and so are become sinful and wicked.”¹³

John Bengel writes: “This has regard to the whole of the preceding discussion, from which the Apostle draws these conclusions concerning sin and righteousness, herein making not so much a digression as a regression. In imitation of Paul’s method, we must treat, in the first place, of actual sin, according to the first and following chapters, and then go back to the source in which sin originated. Paul does not speak altogether expressly of that which theologians call original sin; but, in truth, the sin of Adam is sufficient to demonstrate man’s guilt; the very many, and most mournful fruits resulting from it, are sufficient for the demonstration of man’s habitual corruption. And man, in consequence of justification, at length looks back upon, and apprehends the doctrine concerning the origin of evil, and the other things connected with it.” Bengel goes on to say that the question is not about the particular sin of individuals, but in the sin of Adam all have sinned, as all died in the death of Christ for their salvation.¹⁴

Adam Clarke adds more: “All are born with a sinful nature; the seeds of this evil soon vegetate and bring forth corresponding fruit. There has never been one instance of an immaculate human soul since the fall of Adam. Every man sins, and also sins after the similitude of Adam‘s transgression. Adam endeavored to be independent of God; all his offspring act in the same way: hence prayer is little used because prayer is the language of dependence; this is inconsistent with every emotion of original sin. When these degenerate children of degenerate parents are detected in their sins, they act just as their parents did; each excuses himself, and lays the blames on another.”¹⁵ This is exactly what Adam did. He blamed his fall on Eve, thus questioning God’s wisdom for giving her to him. Then Eve blamed it on the serpent, and no doubt inferred that God also created the serpent. Clarke says that’s why it is difficult, if not impossible, to find anyone who offers a proper alibi for their own transgressions.

Robert Haldane makes this point on the need for justification and reconciliation: “The general object of the Apostle in this place it is not at all difficult to perceive. He had treated largely of the doctrine of justification by faith, evinced its necessity, shown its accordance with the Old Testament Scriptures, and unfolded some of the privileges of a justified state. Now he illustrates and displays the Gospel of salvation, by contrasting it with the misery and ruin introduced by the fall, and manifesting, in the plan of mercy, a super abundance of grace over transgression, and thus exhibits the foundation both of condemnation and of justification… Reconciliation, as has been noticed, implies two things, – first, that the parties referred to had been in a state of alienation and hostility; and secondly, that this hostility has ceased, and their discord been amicably terminated.”¹⁶

Methodist preacher Joseph Benson sees Paul referring to all the preceding discourse, on which he builds what follows. This is not a digression but a reiteration of sin versus righteousness. It is as if Paul had said: “We may from these premises infer, that the benefit which we believers receive from Christ is equal to the detriment we derive from Adam; yes, it is on the whole greater than that.” Benson goes on to write that since Adam is the common father of the human species it is through him, not Eve, that sin entered into the world. In fact, sin is the name given to the transgression of Adam and its consequence, a sinful nature, which took place in him was then conveyed to his posterity. Then death entered the world when it came into being; for until then, it did not exist. Therefore, it could not enter before sin was committed. Hence, it was passed from one generation to another; upon all men, for that all have sinned.”¹⁷

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson XI)

Verse 11: And not only will we be saved, but we also rejoice right now in what God has done for us through our Lord Jesus Christ. It is because of Jesus that we are now reconciled with God.

With all that was accomplished by God for the benefit of all those who were His former enemies; by securing salvation for them from the penalty of sin, Paul adds that we do not have to wait for that future resurrection to be happy because until then we will communicate and fellowship with God as His children. This was the same joy felt by Hannah: “My heart exults in Adonai! My dignity has been restored by Adonai!”¹ And David rejoiced: “Be glad in Adonai; rejoice, you righteous! Shout for joy, all you upright in heart!”² And we find the same exultation in Isaiah: “I am so joyful in Adonai! My soul rejoices in my God, for He has clothed me in salvation, dressed me with a robe of triumph.”³

Paul wants to make sure that everyone knows to whom they owe their gratitude for such unspeakable joy, and that is the One who paid the price. He illustrates that for the Corinthians by explaining the purpose and value in the Eucharist: “The cup of blessing that we give thanks for is a sharing in the blood sacrifice of Christ, isn’t it? And the bread that we break is a sharing in the body of Christ, isn’t it? There is one loaf of bread, so we who are many are one body because we all share in that one loaf.”⁴ And to the Colossians, Paul added: “You accepted Christ Jesus as Lord, so continue to live following Him. You must depend on Christ, drawing life and strength only from Him.”⁵

With Paul including the Jewish Christian leaders in the church in Rome, Paul knew what they had been taught about the atonement and how it affected those who called themselves the children of God. In their Talmud, the Rabbis wrote commentary (called Gemara) on what their Mishnah (spoken tradition of Jewish law)⁶ had to say about atonement. But it was confusing, even to the most learned. For instance, they taught: “These [others] procure complete atonement, the guilt-offering only suspended the punishment, it did not procure complete atonement. For it was taught: If those who were liable to sin-offerings, or guilt-offerings [for the] unquestioned [commission of offences] permitted the Day of Atonement to pass, they are still obliged to offer them up; but in the case of those who were liable to temporary guilt-offerings, they are exempt.”⁷ In other words, sometimes it is by confession, repentance, and good works, and sometimes by goodness and hospitality, but you can’t be sure.

On this verse, early church scholar Ambrosiaster comments: “Paul teaches us not only that we should thank God for the salvation and assurance which we have received, but that we should also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ because through His Son the Mediator God has been pleased to call us His friends. Therefore, we can rejoice that we have received every blessing through Christ, that through Him we have come to know God. As we rejoice in Him, let us, therefore, honor the Son equally with the Father, as He Himself bears witness, saying: ‘That they may honor the Son as they honor the Father.‘⁸”⁹

John Calvin makes an interesting comment here. He says that we are often taught to fix our eyes on the death of Christ when we speak of our salvation. However, in order for us to know that our trust in Him is secure, it must be fixed on nothing other than the atonement He made for our sins by dying on the cross.¹⁰ But Adam Clarke feels that instead of the atonement, it really should be the awareness we have now of being reconciled to God by that atonement.¹¹ John Bengel describes the benefits: “When we glory that God is ours, all that can be dreamed or wished for good is implied in this, flowing out of it as a fountain. For not only is God the Chief Good, but He contains all good, and all parts of good; He is ours through Christ.”¹²

Robert Haldane makes the point that peace comes with being right with God: “This verse exhibits the last of those fruits which proceed from being brought into a state of justification. The first of them is peace with God, involving the communication and enjoyment of every blessing which the creature is capable of receiving; for if God be with us, who can be against us?¹³ When this peace is known to be permanently established, immediately the cheering hope of future glory springs up in the mind. This hope, transporting the believer beyond this world, and looking forward to unbounded blessedness, enables him to bear up under those tribulations that are inseparable from his present state.”¹⁴ Haldane then goes on to point out that when the Holy Spirit imputes God’s love in the sinner’s heart, it draws their attention to what God has done in giving for them His Son to the death, even while they were in the most determined state of hostility towards God. This then allows the Apostle to argue how much more it is evident that being reconciled, they shall be saved from all the fearful effects of the wrath and displeasure of God against sin.

Albert Barnes has this to say on the atonement: “This is the only instance in which our [KJV] translators have used the word ‘atonement’ (Greek katallagē) in the New Testament [Elsewhere it is translated ‘reconciliation’].¹⁵ The word frequently occurs in the Old Testament.¹⁶ As it is now used by us, it commonly means the ransom, or the sacrifice by means of which reconciliation is effected between God and man. But in this place, it has a different sense. It means the reconciliation itself between God and man; not the means by which reconciliation is effected. It denotes not that we have received a ransom or an offering by which reconciliation might be effected; but that in fact we have become reconciled through Him. This was the ancient meaning of the English word atonement: at-one-ment, being at one, or re-conciled.”¹⁷

H. A. Ironside offers this synopsis of what Paul has said so far: “In the first eleven verses of chapter 5 we have a marvelous summing up, concluding this phase of the subject. ‘Therefore,’ that is, in view of all that has been so clearly established, ‘being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Some would render it, ‘Let us have peace.’ But this weakens the force of the entire argument. Peace, as used here, is not a state of mind or heart. It is a prevailing condition between two who were once alienated. Sin had disturbed the relationship [between] Creator and creature. A breach had come that man himself could not mend. But peace has been made by the blood of Christ’s cross. There is no longer a barrier. Peace with God is now the abiding state into which every believer enters. The sin-question is settled. If two nations are at war, there is no peace. If peace is made, there is no war. ‘There is no peace, says my God, to the wicked.’¹⁸ ‘But Christ has made peace,’¹⁹ yes, ‘He is our peace.’²⁰ We believe it, and we have peace with God.”²¹

Charles Hodge points out: “If we are the genuine children of God, we have peace of conscience; a sense of God’s favor, and freedom of access to His throne. We endure afflictions with patience. Instead of making us distrustful of our heavenly Father, they afford us new proof of His love and strengthen our hope of His mercy. And we shall have, also, more of the assurance of God’s love by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (verses 1-5).”²² Charles Spurgeon summarizes: “Christ has made atonement for us, and God has accepted that atonement on our behalf. We also have received it ourselves, and now we are glad in God – glad that there is a God, glad that there is such a God, and glad that He is our God, and Father in Christ Jesus.”²³

F. F. Bruce adds to the definition of reconciliation: “Where reconciliation is mentioned in the New Testament, God or Christ is always the reconciler, and human beings are the object (or among the objects) of His reconciling act. God ‘through Christ reconciled us to Himself; men and women are accordingly summoned in Christ’s name to ‘be reconciled to God.’ ²⁴ The situation may be compared to that of a king proclaiming an amnesty for rebellious subjects, who are urged to accept his gracious pardon while it is extended to them. God’s abhorrence of sin does not make Him the enemy of sinners or seek their ill; His desire is for all ‘to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.²⁵”²⁶

Methodist preacher Joseph Benson, makes this powerful point: That since it pleased our blessed God to give us such an unmatched display of His love, our expectations should rise and our confidence grow that we will be that much more justified by Christ’s blood shed for us, which is the meritorious cause of our justification of being saved from future punishment. Benson goes on to say, if God so loved us that He gave His Son to die for us while we were guilty sinners, how much more assured we should be that having now made us righteous, and accepted us as such, pardoning all our sins for the sake of the sacrifice of Christ’s blood, He will certainly do all He can to preserve us from eternal damnation; us who continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel.

Benson adds this: “For if when we were enemies – through the perverseness of our minds, and the rebellion of our lives,²⁷ we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son – which expiated our sins, and rendered God reconcilable, and procured for us the Holy Spirit to remove the enmity from our minds, giving us, at the same time, such a display of the love of God, as won our affections over to Him, how much more, being thus reconciled, shall we be saved, sanctified, and glorified by His life, by His continual living to make intercession, and communicating to us, continual supplies of grace.”²⁸

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson X)

Charles Hodge shares his insight: “To be justified is more than to be pardoned; it includes the idea of reconciliation or restoration to the favor of God, on the ground of a satisfaction to justice, and the participation of the consequent blessings. This idea is prominently presented in the following verse. ‘We are justified by his blood.’ This expression exhibits the true ground of our acceptance with God. It is not our works, nor our faith, nor our new obedience, nor the work of Christ in us, but what He has done for us.”¹

Charles Spurgeon has an interesting take on this part of Paul’s fine argument. He writes: “If, when we were sinners, Christ died for us, will He let us be condemned now that He has washed us in His precious blood? Is it possible that, after dying for us, He will let us fall from grace, and perish after all? That will never be.”² This is clearly a part of what is preached among some evangelicals today and often referred to as “once saved, always saved.” But I do not believe that Spurgeon would agree on what it has become in some circles: “once saved, will be saved whether you want to be saved or not.”

Verse 10: For, if we were reconciled with God through His Son’s death while we were still enemies, how much more will we be delivered by His life now that we are reconciled as friends!

What a powerful claim! In other words, if God was willing to have His Son sacrificed while we were His enemies and outside the walls of the law as captives of sin, how much more will He do for us now that we have been freed, brought inside, and sit with Him at the table as His children? Paul explained it to the Corinthians this way: “All this is from God. Through Christ, God made peace between Himself and us. And God gave us the work of bringing people into peace with Him. I mean that God was in Christ, making peace between the world and Himself.”³ He shared this same truth with the Colossians: “At one time you were separated from God. You were His enemies in your minds because the evil you did was against Him. But now He has made you His friends again. He did this by the death Christ suffered while He was in His body. He did it so that He could present you to Himself as people who are holy, blameless, and without anything that would make you guilty before Him.”⁴

Then Paul goes on and explains to the Ephesians how this reconciliation between God and His chosen, also brought about a reconciliation between the Jews and Gentiles: “Through the cross, Christ ended the hate between the two groups. And after they became one body, He wanted to bring them both back to God. He did this with His death on the cross.”⁵ Had Christianity remained among the Jewish converts to Jesus, it would have become just another sect within Judaism, joining the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. And had it developed among those of a certain race or culture, it would have joined others such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam. But this reconciliation process broke down all walls so that anyone of any race, culture, ethnicity or skin color can fellowship as equals before God because they all have been washed by the same blood of the same Savior.

In his sermon on this text, early church preacher Chrysostom said this: “There is no one who will save us except the One who loved us so much that while we were yet sinners, He died for us. Do you see what ground this gives for us to hope? Before this, there were two difficulties in the way of our being saved. First, we were sinners, and second, our salvation required the Lord’s death, something which was quite incredible before it happened and which required enormous love for it to happen at all. But now that it has happened, the rest becomes that much easier.”⁶ And during the same period of church history, another scholar remarked: “If we have been saved by Christ’s death, how much more shall we glory in his life if we imitate it!”⁷

John Calvin gives us his interpretation of this verse: “This is an explanation of the former verse, amplified by introducing a comparison between life and death. We were enemies, he says, when Christ comes in for the purpose of appeasing the Father: through this reconciliation, we are now friends; since this was effected by His death; much more influential and effective will be His life. We now have ample proofs to strengthen our hearts with confidence respecting our salvation. By saying that we were reconciled to God by the death of Christ, he means, that it was the sacrifice of atonement, by which God was pacified towards the world.”⁸

Robert Haldane makes this emphatic statement: “Had we discovered any symptoms of willingness to obey Him, or any degree of love for Him, His love to us would not have been so astonishing. But it is in this light only that the proud heart of man is willing to view his obligations of redeeming love. He will not look upon himself as totally depraved and helpless. He desires to do something on his part to induce God to begin His work in him by His Spirit. But Christ died for His people when they were the enemies of God, and He calls them to the knowledge of Himself when they are His enemies. Here, then, is the love of God. At the time when Christ died for us, we were not His friends, but His enemies. ‘The carnal mind is enmity against God.’⁹”¹⁰

Albert Barnes has some interesting things to say about our reconciliation with God: “We are brought to an agreement; to a state of friendship and union. We became His friends, laid aside our opposition, and embraced Him as our Friend and Portion [Inheritance]. To effect this is the great design of the plan of salvation.¹¹ It means that there were obstacles existing on both sides to a reconciliation; and that these have been removed by the death of Christ; and that a union has thus been effected. This has been done in removing the obstacles on the part of God – by maintaining the honor of His Law; showing His hatred of sin; upholding His justice, and maintaining His truth, at the same time that He pardons.¹² And on the part of man, by removing his unwillingness to be reconciled; by subduing, changing, and sanctifying his heart; by overcoming his hatred of God, and of His Law; and bringing him into submission to the government of God. So that the Christian is in fact reconciled to God; he is His friend; he is pleased with His Law, His character, and His plan of salvation. And all this has been accomplished by the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus as an offering in our place.”

Barnes then goes on to say: “We were reconciled by His death. Death may include possibly His low, humble, and suffering condition. Death has the appearance of great feebleness; the death of Christ had the appearance of the defeat of His plans. His enemies triumphed and rejoiced over Him on the cross, and in the tomb. Yet the effect of this feeble, low, and humiliating state was to reconcile us to God. If in this state, when humble, despised, dying, dead, He had power to accomplish so great a work as to reconcile us to God, how much more may we expect that He will be able to keep us now that He is a living, exalted, and triumphant Redeemer. If His fainting powers in dying were such as to reconcile us, how much more shall His full, vigorous powers as an exalted Redeemer, be sufficient to keep and save us. This argument is but an expansion of what the Savior Himself said; ‘Because I live, you shall live also.‘¹³”¹⁴

Charles Hodge gives this in his summation of what this verse teaches: “At His resurrection, all power in heaven and earth was committed to His hands;¹⁵ and this power He exercises for the salvation of His people;¹⁶ There is, therefore, most abundant ground for confidence for the final blessedness of believers, not only in the amazing love of God, by which, though sinners and enemies, they have been justified and reconciled by the death of His Son, but also in the consideration that this same Savior that died for them still lives, and ever lives to sanctify, protect, and save them.”¹⁷

Charles Spurgeon preached it this way: “There is a threefold argument here. If Christ died for us when we were His enemies, will He not save us now that we are His friends? If He died to reconcile us to God, will He not completely save us now that this great work has been accomplished? And as we were reconciled to God by Christ’s death, shall we not much more be saved by His life? There are three arguments, and each one is sound and conclusive. The believer in Jesus must be eternally saved. If Christ died for sinners, what will He not do for believers, who are no longer enemies, but are reconciled unto God by the death of His Son?”¹⁸

Frederic Godet has an interesting comment here: “We cannot help remarking here, how entirely at variance with the view of the Apostle is the Catholic doctrine, which is shared by so many Protestants of our day, and which bases justification on the new life awakened in man by faith. In the eyes of St. Paul, justification is entirely independent of sanctification, and precedes it; it rests only on faith in the death of Christ. Sanctification flows from the life of Christ by the work of the Holy Spirit.”¹⁹

Then Charles Ellicott shares his view: “The interval that separates the state of enmity from the state of reconciliation is a large one, that which separates the state of reconciliation from the state of salvation a small one. And yet there is a difference. Reconciliation is the initial act; the removal of the load of guilt, justification. Salvation comes at the end of the Christian career and the process of sanctification. Justification is regarded as being especially due to the death of Christ. Sanctification is brought about rather by His continued agency as the risen and exalted Savior. The relations in which the risen Savior still stands to the individual Christian are more fully worked out in Romans 6:4.”²⁰

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson IX)

Verse 8: God confirmed His love for us by having Christ die for us while we were still living in sin.

Here the Apostle Paul repeats the same thoughts he shared with the Ephesians: “We have forgiveness of sins because of God’s rich grace. God gave us that grace fully and freely. With full wisdom and understanding, He let us know His secret plan. This was what God wanted, and He planned to do it through Christ. God’s goal was to finish His plan when the right time came. He planned that all things in heaven and on earth be joined together with Christ as the head.”¹ This echoes the prophecy we find in Isaiah: “It was our suffering He took on Himself; He bore our pain. But we thought that God was punishing Him, that God was beating Him for something He did. But He was being punished for what we did. He was crushed because of our guilt. He took the punishment we deserved, and this brought us peace. We were healed because of His pain. We had all wandered away like sheep. We had gone our own way. And yet the Lord put all our guilt on Him.”²

What is said here far surpasses the limitation of man’s love as expressed by Christ.³ Paul joins here by giving an even more pointed example. The overwhelming greatness of God’s love can never be explained, only received by faith. Whereas man’s ultimate love is expected to be mutual, Christ’s love was freely poured out upon His haters. As such, love then becomes clearly an act of the will rather than a reciprocal emotional response. God chose to love us; He did not wait for us to love Him first. As such, it accomplishes more than centuries of wrath. It is an outstanding example for us today by way of Jesus Christ. So don’t wait for someone who shows little appreciation for your kindness and generosity to love you as a reward for your good deeds. Make up your mind to love them regardless, and continue to show that love irrespective of any response. You will be amazed at the power of unconditional love.

We have commentary on what Paul is writing here from two early church scholars. Origen makes this point: “By saying that Christ died for us while we were yet sinners, Paul gives us hope that we will be saved through Him, much more so now that we are cleansed from sin and justified against the wrath which remains for sinners. The One who so loved His enemies that He gave His only Son to die for us will surely be much readier to grant those who have received this gift and been reconciled to Him the further gift of eternal life.⁴”⁵ Then two centuries later, Pelagius offers his insights: “God becomes the object of love when He conveys how much He loves us. For when someone does something without obligation, one demonstrates love in a special way. And what would be less of an obligation than that a master who is without sin should die for His faithless servants, and that the Creator of the universe should be hanged for the sake of His own creatures? Note that when the Apostle says that believers in Christ were once sinners, he means that now they are no longer sinners, so that they may recall how they ought to behave.”⁶

Robert Haldane points out that in the original Greek, God’s love for us is distinguished as His own love. Says Haldane: “Which takes away all ambiguity from the expression.” In other words, God not only confirmed love for the sinner, but it was His love. Haldane goes on to say that another factor is added to this confirmation because it was given for sinners. Writes Haldane: “This is literally true with respect to all who are saved since Christ’s death, and is substantially true of all who were saved before it. This may be said of Abel as well as of Paul. Christ died for him as a sinner. It was Christ’s death through which Abel was accepted.” Then Haldane makes note that when Paul said Christ died for us, this does not include all mankind but for those believers and himself whom the Apostle was addressing; and this equally applies to all believers, – to all who are or shall be in Christ. In other words, only when a sinner believes and accepts Jesus’ death on the cross for their salvation does Christ’s death for them become valid.⁷

Verse 8: God confirmed His love for us by having Christ die for us while we were still living in sin.

Charles Hodge makes this comment: “What renders the love of God so peculiarly conspicuous, is His sending His Son to die, not for the good, nor even for the righteous, but for sinners, for those who were deserving of wrath instead of love. The word sinners expresses the idea of moral depravity and consequent exposure to divine displeasure. It was for, or in the place of those who were at once corrupt, and the enemies of God, that Christ died.”⁸ And by so doing, God did not invent or create His love, but rather, proved that His love already existed and this was undeniable proof.

Charles Spurgeon preached it this way: “We were without any attraction, without any righteousness, without any goodness, yet Christ loved us. Out of the graciousness of His own heart He loved us, according to that text, ‘I will love them freely.’⁹ And that is the glory of His love. While we were rebels against His authority, He redeemed us. While we were far off from Him by wicked works, He sent His Son to die and bring us near. Free grace, indeed, was this – not caused by anything in us, but springing freely from the great heart of God.”¹⁰

Then Frédéric Godet makes this point: “The words: Christ died for us, in such a context, imply the close relation of essence which unites Christ and God, in the judgment of the apostle. With man sacrificing himself, Paul compares God sacrificing Christ. This parallel has no meaning except as the sacrifice of Christ is to God the sacrifice of Himself. Otherwise, the sacrifice of God would be inferior to that of man, whereas it must be infinitely exalted above it.”¹¹ In other words, even though Christ died for us, He sacrificed Himself to God the Father. Had God not approved of it, there would be no redemption, forgiveness, salvation, or everlasting life. That’s why His death on the cross should be most precious to all of us.

Verse 9: We have been made right with God by the blood sacrifice of Christ. So how much more through Christ will we be saved from God’s punishment.

Paul now continues his assault on the self-righteous idea that man can assist God in providing for his own salvation by being good without God’s help. If this were true, then God must give him some credit and assign to him righteous points that will lower the total number needed from what Christ did on the cross. So the Apostle now establishes the proper understanding of how it was done by God so that it would apply to everyone, not just the Jews. In fact, that’s the way he explained it to the Gentile members of the church in Ephesus.¹²

And the writer of Hebrews addresses the same misunderstanding by some Jewish members among the readers of his letter: “The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a cow were sprinkled on those who were no longer pure enough to enter the place of worship. The blood and ashes made them pure again – but only their bodies. So surely the blood sacrifice of Christ can do much more. Christ offered Himself through the eternal Spirit as a perfect sacrifice to God. His blood will make us completely clean from the evil we have done.”¹³

Early church scholar Origen says: “Paul shows by this that neither our faith without Christ’s blood nor Christ’s blood without our faith can justify us. Yet, of either of these Christ’s blood justifies us much more than our faith. That is why, in my opinion, having said above that we are justified by faith, Paul now says that we are justified by His blood ‘much more.’¹⁴”¹⁵ Then, another early church writer pens this: “Paul says this, because if God allowed His Son to be killed for sinners’ sake, what will He do for those who have been justified except save them from wrath, that is, preserve them unharmed from the deception of Satan so that they will be safe on the day of judgment, when revenge will begin to destroy the wicked. For since the goodness of God does not want anyone to perish, He has shown mercy on those who deserved death in order to increase the honor and glory of those who understand the grace of God.”¹⁶

Adam Clarke places great emphasis on our justification through Christ. He says: “If Jesus Christ, in His endless compassion towards us gave His life for ours while we were yet enemies; being now justified by His blood – by His death on the cross, and thus reconciled to God, shall we be saved from wrath – from punishment for past transgression, through Him – by what He has thus suffered for us.”¹⁷ What makes this so powerful is that Christ did not need to suffer for anything He had done, He was pure and without guilt. So He voluntarily did it for those who deserved punishment the most. This fact surely puts power in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

For Robert Haldane, what Paul says here sets up the same truth to be repeated over and over again. He writes: “If God’s love for us was such that Christ died for us when we were sinners, much more, when we are perfectly righteous through that death will He save us from future punishment. The meaning of the expression much more in this verse, which is repeated in the 10th, 15th, and 17th verses, is not at first sight obvious in these different occurrences, since the things, which are compared to what follows, are complete in themselves. The sense appears to be, that in using these expressions, the Apostle, though inspired, reasons on the common principles that commend themselves to the mind of man. Having stated one thing, he proceeds to state another as still more clear to our perception.”¹⁸

How true and vital this is for every believer to grasp. Christ did not die for us, then have the Holy Spirit call us so He could redeem us, and choose us as His very own, and then walk off and let us struggle like an infant being born without any help or provide for themselves. Once He commits to us, it is an everlasting commitment.

I was suddenly awakened Sunday morning at around 4 am, with a prayer going through my mind as though it were being dictated. As I laid there, it kept repeating itself, and each time it got stronger and stronger. So I jumped out of bed and went to my office and wrote it down so I would not forget it.

It did not relate to anything that I had read or heard in recent days or even months. So I knew it was not coming from my mind, so I believe it was coming down from above.  I’m unsure why, and I don’t know exactly what for, but here is the prayer that the Holy Spirit woke me up with yesterday morning. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

My Earnest Prayer for Sunday

ALMIGHTY GOD AND HEAVENLY FATHER, BLESSED AND HOLY BE YOUR NAME.

MAY EACH OF YOUR SERVANTS WHO STAND BEFORE THEIR CONGREGATIONS THIS SUNDAY BE EXCITED TO PROCLAIM THE MESSAGE THE HOLY SPIRIT HAS BROUGHT TO THEM FROM ABOVE THAT BURNS IN THEM LIKE FIRE SHUT UP IN THEIR BONES.

MAY THEY DO SO WITH PASSION, CONVICTION, AND AUTHORITY.

MAY YOUR WORD GO OUT INTO THE HEARTS OF THOSE WHO LISTEN, AND SET ABLAZE THEIR SOULS AND MINDS WITH HOLY TONGUES OF FIRE.

MAY WHAT YOU GAVE YOUR SERVANT TO SAY STRENGTHEN THEIR RESOLVE TO STAND FAST, NEVER TURN BACK AND NEVER GIVE UP NO MATTER WHAT THE COST.

MAY YOUR WORD BE A LIGHT GUIDING THEIR FOOTSTEPS DURING THE DARKEST OF DAYS.

MAY THEY BE DETERMINED TO WALK YOUR HIGHWAY OF HOLINESS AND NOT COMPROMISE WHAT THEY KNOW TO BE TRUE FOR THE SAKE OF PLEASING OTHERS.

AND MAY THEY SET THEIR EYES UPON JESUS AND TURN THEIR FACES TOWARD HEAVEN BECAUSE OF THEIR UNWAVERING HOPE THAT HE WILL COME AGAIN VERY SOON.

THIS WE ASK, O FATHER, IN THE PRECIOUS NAME OF YOUR SON, OUR LORD AND SAVIOR CHRIST JESUS.

AMEN! AMEN! AND AMEN!

Most people hate making mistakes. To better understand what a mistake means, just separate the word into miss-take. It suggests that you had a choice but picked the one that didn’t work out as you had hoped it would. As we all know, if you take an object and find out that it is damaged, flawed, overripe, or the wrong kind, you put it back.

As we know, there is no such thing as an honest mistake. That would be like saying you made a correct error. So as one well-known motivational speaker said: “Mistakes are a great educator when one is honest enough to admit them and willing to learn from them.”¹ So the next time you think or are accused of making a mistake, just say to yourself or to the accuser, it’s all part of your education. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

IT’S NOT WHAT THE CROSS IS MADE OF BUT WHAT THE CROSS MADE OF US

Since my paternal grandparents came from East Prussia, I was anxious to read this story that I found. It said that early in the nineteenth century, the King of Prussia, Frederick William III, found his nation in great trouble. He had been attempting to bring prosperity to his land, but constant wars had drained the treasury. After prayerful consideration, he wrote an open letter to the women of Prussia asking them voluntarily to bring their silver and gold to be melted down.

He offered a small token of appreciation to anyone who contributed. In exchange for their jewelry, he gave them a simple cross made of iron. It was inscribed, “I gave gold for iron, 1813.” The response was overwhelming. The women of Prussia prized the gift from the king more highly than they had prized their former possessions. Women wore the iron cross with pride. In fact, gold jewelry became unfashionable. The Order of the Iron Cross was established, and members wore no ornaments save a cross of iron for all to see.

Today, we need an order of people who are committed to the King of Kings: people who will sacrifice for God’s kingdom, people who esteem God’s favor more than the admiration of friends and strangers. In the third century, Bishop Cyprian of Carthage said, “Their property held them in chains which shackled their courage and choked their faith and hampered their judgment and throttled their souls. If they had stored up their treasure in heaven, they would not be enslaved as they are to their own property. They are not the masters of their money, but its slaves.”¹

Jesus said: “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”² So if you treasure the cross of Christ, it will be worth more to you than anything this world can offer. Unfortunately, some have traded in their cross for things that make them more comfortable and more accepted by the world. But for others, they still have unconditional love for old rugged cross. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

So I’ll cherish the old rugged cross,
Till my trophies at last I lay down;
I will cling to the old rugged cross,
And exchange it some day for a crown.³

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson VIII)

Verse 7: Rarely will anyone will die to save the life of a righteous person. However, someone might risk their life for a good person.

As evidence that God’s offer of salvation through the death of His Son Jesus the Christ, Paul now sets up his argument that dying for sinners is the ultimate sacrifice. The logic is quite simple. The Amplified Bible renders this verse as follows: “Now it is an extraordinary thing for one to give his life even for an upright man, though perhaps for a noble and lovable and generous benefactor someone might even dare to die.” This echoes the statement of Jesus where He said: “No one has greater love than a person who lays down his life for his friends.”¹

The distinction between what Paul called a “good person” and a “very good person” was also part of Jewish literature. In the Talmud, we find this subject discussed: “Is there then a righteous man who is good and a righteous man who is not good? But he who is good to Heaven² and good to man, he is a righteous man who is good. However, good to Heaven but not good to man, that is a righteous man who is not good.”³

In another Jewish document, we find the following: “There are four types of people: One who says, “What is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine” is bartering. One who says “What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours” – this is an average character. One who says, “What is mine is yours, and what is yours is yours” is a chassid (pious person). And one who says “What is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine” is greedy.”⁴ And in one commentary on the Psalms, we read: “The godly is he who does good to his neighbor beyond what the Law requires of him.”⁵

Sometimes Jewish teachers tried to find the smallest detail to distinguish between the good, the bad, and the ugly. We read such teachings were even applied to the proper cutting of fingernails and toenails. “Three things were said in reference to toenails: One who buries them is righteous; one who burns them is pious, and one who throws them away is a villain!”⁶ But Paul had no interest in making such a frivolous distinction when there were much higher virtues and ethics to explore. Besides, he was making the case for God’s and Jesus’ willingness to love even the unlovable.

When speaking about dying for the ungodly, early church scholar, Ambrosiaster has this to say: “Christ died for the ungodly. Now if someone will hardly die for a righteous man, how can it be that someone should die for ungodly people? And if someone might dare to die for one good man, 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 move us to tears when we look at them!”⁷

John Calvin makes this note: “The importance of the verse 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.”⁸

John Bengel gives quite a long exposition of this verse. His attention mostly involves the grammar and how the original Greek is to be understood. He begins with saying that the words righteous and good used here can mean the same or different things in describing a person’s character. He quotes a German theologian who states: “The righteous does all that is required, the good does more than others can ask.” Bengel also notes that the Hebrews call a man righteous who performs his lawful duties, while a good man also performs acts of kindness. He goes on to say: “Every good man is righteous, but not every righteous man is good.” So here in this verse, Bengel says that Paul judges the good man to be more worthy than the righteous man. Bengel concludes with this: “Do you wish to have the most faithful friends? Be a good man.”⁹

Adam Clarke shares his thoughts on those the Jews call the fourth class of human beings who say: “What is mine, is mine; and what is yours, will be mine.” Clarke then says: “There is nothing amiable in his life or conduct that would so endear him to any man, as to induce him to risk his life to save such a person. Supposedly, for a good man, some would even dare to die – this is for one who gives all he has for the good of others. This is the truly benevolent man, whose life is devoted to the public good: for such a person, possibly, some who have had their lives perhaps preserved by his bounty, would even dare to die: but such cases may be considered only possible: they exist, it is true, in romance; and we find a few rare instances of friends exposing themselves to death for their friends.”¹⁰ This makes it even more amazing to know that Christ died for all classes because even the best could not save themselves, let alone those who were living in degradation.

Robert Haldane gives us his understanding of the difference between a righteous person and a good person. To Haldane, this distinction by Paul brings into view a fact that heightens and illustrates the love of God for sinners. In Haldane’s mind, a righteous person is distinguished from a good person because of their character. He says: A righteous person is approved — a good person is loved. In such cases, someone may give up their life for what we call “an upstanding person,” while there may be more who would be willing to die for a “loving, caring person.” Also, by saying “rarely, ” the Apostle leaves open the door that someone might give their life to save a good, law-abiding individual. On the other hand, Paul says it is more likely that a greater number of individuals might take the risk of saving a good person. Says Haldane: “This intimates that to die is a thing to which men are of all things most adverse. It is the greatest test of love.¹¹ ‘Hereby we perceive the love of God, because He laid His life down for us.¹²”¹³

Albert Barnes also talks about a righteous man versus a good man: “A righteous man; a man distinguished simply for integrity of conduct; one who has no remarkable claims for amiableness of character, for benevolence, or for personal friendship. Much as we may admire such a man, and applaud him, yet he has not the characteristics which would appeal to our hearts to induce us to lay down our lives for him. Accordingly, it is not known that any instance has occurred where for such a man one would be willing to die… A good man, that is, not merely a man who is coldly just; but a man whose characteristic is that of kindness, amiableness, tenderness. It is evident that the case of such a man would be much more likely to appeal to our feelings, than that of one who is merely a man of integrity. Such a man is susceptible of tender friendship; and probably the Apostle intended to refer to such a case – a case where we would be willing to expose life for a kind, tender, faithful friend.”¹⁴

Barnes also makes reference to the Greek philosopher Pythagoras and a famous story he told about two Sicilians named Damon and Pythias. We find this story in the work of Roman philosopher Porphyry. The story goes like this: “It is said that [Italian dictator] Dionysius¹⁵ at one time wanted to test the mutual fidelity [of Damon and Pythias] under imprisonment. He contrived this plan. Phintias was arrested, and taken before the tyrant, and charged with plotting against him, convicted, and condemned to death. Phintias, accepting the situation, asked to be given the rest of the day to arrange his own affairs, and those of Damon, his friend and associate, who now would have to assume the management. He therefore asked for a temporary release, leaving [his friend] Damon behind as bond for his appearance. Tyrant Dionysius granted the request, so they sent for Damon, who agreed to remain until Phintias could return.”¹⁶ In Barnes’ mind: “This case stands almost alone. Our Savior says that it is the highest expression of love among people. ‘Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”¹⁷ The friendship of David and Jonathan seems also to have been of this character, that one would have been willing to lay down his life for the other.’”¹⁸

Here is a definition of righteous people and good people that really struck me: “The contrast here, then, is between the legally just and the humanly good, between the irreproachable and the noble, between righteousness or negative goodness and positive goodness. To the first we may pay respect – to the second we are irresistibly drawn, and we cannot help it. The first we may admire, the second we love. Righteousness is a hard face, without a warm soul to soften and light it up. The righteous, like a starry sky on a December night, clear but chill; the good like June weather. There is in righteousness, perhaps, the seed-bed and promise of goodness, but we want more; we want to see the fruit in positive good-doing and warm, human well-being. One of the great things that Jesus did was deepened the concept of goodness and illustrated it in its highest and warmest form. It is one of the main things that His Church must learn to do.”¹⁹