625
7. "μόλις γὰρ ὑπὲρ δικαίου τις ἀποθανεῖται' ὑπὲρ γὰρ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ¢ Acts xxvii.
ο a ’ 9 A Στάχα τις καὶ τολμᾷ ἀποθανεῖν: 8. συνίστησι δὲ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀγάπην
75.16: 1 Pet. iv.18. f Philem.
cis ἡμᾶς 6 Oeds,! ὅτι ἔτι ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν 15.
ἀπέθανε.
. πολλῶ οὖν μᾶλλον, δικαιωθέντες νῶν ἐν T@ αἵματι 9 ο B > ry
1 9 θεος om. B.
ogy of Gal. iv. 4, Eph. i. 10, supports the ordinary rendering, “in due time,” {.ε., at the time determined by the Pro- vidence of God and the history of man as the proper time, Christ died. ὑπέρ: in the interest of, not equivalent to ἀντί, instead of: whether the interest of the ungodly is secured by the fact that Christ’s death has a substitutionary char- acter, or in some other way, is a question which ὑπέρ does not touch.
Ver. 7. Christ’s death for the ungodly assures us of God’s love ; for the utmost that human love will do is far less. ὑπὲρ δικαίου: for a righteous man. Some make both δικαίου and τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ neu- ter: some who take δικαίου as masculine take τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ as neuter (so Weiss and Godet—* pour un juste, pour le bien’): but as Jowett says, the notion of dying for an abstract idea is entirely unlike the N.T., or the age in which the Ν.Τ. was written, while the opposition to Christ’s dying for sinful persons requires that persons should be in question here also. The absence of the article with δικαίου corresponds to the virtually negative character of the clause: it is in- serted before ἀγαθοῦ because the excep- tional case is definitely conceived as happening. ἀποθανεῖται, gnomic; see Burton, § 69. Unless ἀγαθὸς is meant to suggest a certain advance upon δίκαιος, it is impossible to see in what respect the second clause adds anything to the first. Of course the words are broadly synony- mous, so that often they are both applied to the same person or thing (Lk. xxiii. 50, Rom. vil. 12); still there is a differ- ence, and it answers to their application here ; it is difficult to die for a just man, it has been found possible (one may ven- ture to affirm) to die for a good man. The difference is like that between “‘ just ”’ and ‘‘good” in English: the latter is the more generous and inspiring type of character. Cf. the Gnostic contrast be- tween the ‘“‘just’’ God of the Ο.Τ. and the ‘‘ good” God of the N.T., and the passages quoted in Cremer, s.v. ἀγαθός. καὶ τολμά: even prevails upon himself, wins it from himself.
Ver. 8. How greatly is this utmost