For scarce for a just man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man some one would dare to die.

“After the Apostle showed the firmness of hope through the gift of the Holy Spirit, here he shows the same thing through the death of Christ. And first he sets forth the question; second he shows the difficulty, at the place "for scarcely for a just man," etc.; third he determines the truth of the question, at the place "but God commends his charity," etc. He says therefore first: it has been said that hope does not confound, which indeed appears to one considering this: "for why did Christ, when as yet we were weak" — namely, with the weakness of sin — die? Psalm 6:3: "Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am weak." For just as through bodily weakness the due harmony of the humors is dissolved, so too through sin the due order of the affections is excluded. When therefore we were still weak, "Christ died for the ungodly." 1 Peter 3:18: "Christ died once for our sins, the just for the unjust." And this "according to the time," that is, that at a fixed time he would remain in death, namely to rise on the third day. Matthew 12:40: "As Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth." This therefore is a great thing, if we consider who died. It is great also if we consider for whom he died. But it cannot be so great a thing unless it be done for the sake of some certain fruit, according to that word of Psalm 29:10: "What profit is there in my blood, while I go down into corruption?" As if to say: none, if the salvation of the human race does not follow. Then when he says, "for scarcely for a just man," etc., he shows the difficulty of the aforesaid question on the part of those for whom Christ died, namely for the ungodly, saying, "for scarcely will anyone" — that is, someone — "die" for the sake of freeing a just man; nay rather, as it is said, Isaiah 57:1: "The just man perishes, and there is no one who considers it in his heart," etc. Therefore I say scarcely does one die, for "perhaps someone" — that is, some rare person, out of zeal for virtue — "might dare to die for a good man." For it is rare on account of this, that it is the greatest thing, as indeed it is said, John 15:13: "Greater love than this hath no man," etc. But that which Christ did — that someone should die for the ungodly and the unjust — is never found. And therefore it is rightly to be wondered at, why Christ did this. But it can also be read otherwise, so that by "just" we understand someone practiced in virtue; and by "good," an innocent man. And although according to this the just man is more excellent than the good man, nevertheless for the just man scarcely does anyone die. The reason for this is that the innocent one, who is understood by "good," seems more pitiable on account of a defect of age or something of this kind. The just man, however, because he is perfect and without defect, does not have in himself the malice of mercy. That someone, therefore, should die for an innocent man can come about from compassion of mercy; but that someone should die for a just man comes about from zeal for virtue, which is found in fewer than the passion of mercy. Then when he says, "but he commends," etc., he responds to the aforesaid question. And first he sets forth the response; second, from this he argues to his proposal, at the place "much more then," etc.; third he shows the necessity of the inference, at the place "for if, when we were enemies," etc. He says therefore first: it has been asked why Christ died for the ungodly; and to this there is a response, that by this "God commends his charity in us," that is, by this he shows himself to love us most greatly, since "if while we were still sinners, Christ died for us," and this "according to the time," as was explained above. But the very death of Christ for us shows the charity of God, because he gave his Son, that, making satisfaction for us, he might die. John 3:16: "So God loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son," etc. And thus, just as the charity of God the Father toward us is shown by the fact that he gave us his Spirit, as was said above, so too by the fact that he gave his Son, as is said here. But in saying "commends," he assigns a certain immensity of divine charity, which indeed is shown both from the very deed itself, namely that he gave his Son to die for us, and on the part of our condition, because he did not do this provoked by our merits, since we were still sinners. Ephesians 2:4 and following: "God, who is rich in mercy, on account of his exceeding charity with which he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, brought us to life together in Christ," etc. Consequently, when he said "much more then," etc., he concludes his proposal from the foregoing, saying: if Christ died for us while we were still sinners, much more, "now" being "brought to life" "in his blood" — as was held above at 3:25, whom God set forth as a propitiator through faith — through his blood "we shall be saved from wrath," that is, from the vengeance of eternal damnation, which men incur on account of their sins. Matthew 3:7: "Offspring of vipers, who hath shown you," etc. Then when he says, "for if, when we were enemies," etc., he shows the necessity of the aforesaid inference, which proceeds by affirming from the lesser to the greater. And there a twofold comparison of the lesser to the greater is to be observed: one indeed on our part, the other on the part of Christ. On our part indeed, he compares enemies to those reconciled. For it seems a lesser thing that someone should do good to enemies, than to those already reconciled. On the part of Christ, he compares death to life. For his life seems more powerful than his death, because, as it is said at the end of 2 Corinthians: "he died from weakness" — namely, of our flesh — "but he lives from the power of God." And therefore he says: it is concluded by reason, that much more, being brought to life, we shall be saved through him. "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God," and this through the death of his Son: "much more," now that "we" are "reconciled," "shall we be saved," and this "in his life." Now it must be considered that man is said to be an enemy of God in two ways. In one way, because he exercises enmity against God, while he resists his commands. Job 15:26: "He hath run against God with his neck erect." In another way, by this, that God holds men in hatred — not indeed according to that which he made, for as to this it is said, Wisdom 11:25: "Thou hast loved all things, and hast hated nothing of the things which thou hast made," etc.; but as to that which, in man, "an enemy man" — that is, the Devil — has done, that is, as to sin. Wisdom 14:9: "the ungodly is likewise hateful to God," etc. And Ecclesiasticus 12:7: "The Most High hateth sinners." The cause of enmity, namely sin, having been removed through Christ, reconciliation follows through him. 2 Corinthians 5:19: "God was in him, reconciling the world to himself." But our sin was taken away through the death of his Son. Concerning which it must be considered that the death of Christ can be considered in three ways. In one way, according to the very nature of death itself. And thus it is said, Wisdom 1:13: "God did not make death" in human nature, but it was brought in through sin. And therefore the death of Christ, from the common nature of death, was not so acceptable to God that reconciliation should be through it, because God "does not rejoice in the perdition of the living," as it is said, Wisdom 1:13. In another way the death of Christ can be considered according as it lies in the action of those killing him, which was most displeasing to God. Whence, against them, Peter says, Acts 3:14: "You denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer," etc. Whence the death of Christ, considered in this way, could not be the cause of reconciliation, but rather of indignation. In a third way it can be considered according as it proceeded from the will of Christ suffering, which will indeed was formed to the enduring of death, both from obedience toward the Father, Philippians 2:8: "he became obedient to the Father even unto death," and also from charity toward men, Ephesians 5:2: "he loved us and delivered himself up for us." And from this the death of Christ was meritorious and satisfactory for our sins, and so far acceptable to God, that it suffices for the reconciliation of all men, even of those who killed Christ, some of whom were saved by his own prayer, when he said, Luke 23:34: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." Then when he says, "and not only," etc., he shows what goods we now actually obtain through grace, saying: "and not only do we glory" — in the hope of glory which we await in the future — "but also in God," that is, in the fact that we are even now joined to God through faith and charity, 1 Corinthians 1:31, and 2 Corinthians 10:17: "He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord," etc. And this indeed "through our Lord Jesus Christ," through whom, even now in the present time, "we have received reconciliation," so that of enemies we have become friends. Colossians 1:20: "through him it pleased [God] to reconcile all things," etc. But it could also be connected with what was said: "we shall be saved" in his life from sin and from punishment, and not only shall we be saved from evils, but we also glory in God, that is, by this, that in the future we shall be one with him. John 17:22: "that they may be one in us, as we also are one."”

“For scarcely for a righteous man will one die,.... The design of this, and the following verse, is to show that Christ's dying for ungodly persons is an instance of kindness that is matchless and unparalleled. By "a righteous man", is not meant a truly gracious, holy man; nor one that is made righteous by the obedience of Christ; but one that is so in his own eyes, and in the esteem of others, being outwardly moral and righteous before men; who keeps to the letter of the law, and does, as he imagines, what that externally requires: such were the Pharisees among the Jews, who, though they were had in much outward esteem and veneration among the people, yet were rather feared than loved; and it would have been a difficult thing to have found a person that would cheerfully venture, and lay down his life for any of that complexion and cast: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. By "a good man", is not meant a man made so by the grace of God, and who is indeed truly and properly the only good man; but a liberal and beneficent man, who was very bountiful in his charitable distributions to the poor, and very liberal in contributing towards the charge of sacrifices, repairs of the temple, &c. and did more this way than what the law obliged to. Now for such a man perhaps there might be some found so daring and hardy, as to venture and lay down their lives, when there was any danger of his, or any necessity for so doing; so great an interest such men had in the affections of the people. And so the Jews (z) distinguish between "a righteous man", and "a good man". They say (a), "there is a righteous man that is good, and there is a righteous man that is not good; but he that is good for heaven, and the creatures, i.e. for God and men, this is , "a righteous good man"; but he that is good to God, and evil to men, this is , "a righteous man that is not good".'' The whole body of the people of the Jews were divided into three sorts: take a short sentence out of their Talmud (b), not to support the justness of the characters, but for the sake of this threefold division of the people: "three things are said concerning the paring of the nails, "a righteous man" buries them, "a good man" burns them, "a wicked man" casts them away.'' Now to this division of the people the apostle alludes; and there is in the words a beautiful gradation, scarcely for one of the "righteous men", who does just what he is obliged to do by the law, and no more, will any die; perhaps it may be, that for one of "the good men", who are very liberal to the poor, and towards defraying all the expenses of the temple service, in which they exceed the strict demands of the law, some may be found willing to die; but who will die for the "the wicked and ungodly", the profligate and abandoned part of the people? not one, but Christ died for the ungodly: wherefore if instances could be produced of men's dying either for righteous men, or good men, these would not come up to the instance of Christ's dying for men, who were neither righteous nor good. (z) Maimon in Misn Pirke Abot, c. 5. sect. 10, 13. Bartenora in Misn. Bava Metzia, c. 4. sect. 6. Juchasin, fol. 12. 2. Kimchi in Psal. iv. 3. (a) T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 40. 1. (b) T. Bab. Moed Katon, fol. 18. 1. & Niddah, fol. 17. 1.”

“For scarcely for a righteous man will one die - The Jews divide men, as to their moral character, into four classes: First class, Those who say, "what is mine, is my own; and what is thine, is thy own." These may be considered the just, who render to every man his due; or rather, they who neither give nor take. The second class is made up of those who say, "what is mine, is thine; and what is thine, is mine." These are they who accommodate each other, who borrow and lend. The third class is composed of those who say, "What is mine, is thine; and what is thine, let it be thine." These are the pious, or good, who give up all for the benefit of their neighbor. The fourth class are those who say, "What is mine, is mine; and what is thine, shall be mine." These are the impious, who take all, and give nothing. Now, for one of the first class, who would die? 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. Peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die - This is for one of the third class, 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, peradventure, some who have had their lives perhaps preserved by his bounty, would even dare to die: but such cases may be considered merely as possible: they exist, it is true, in romance; and we find a few rare instances of friends exposing themselves to death for their friends. See the case of Jonathan and David; Damon and Pythias, Val. Max. lib. iv. c, 7; Nisus and Euryalus, Virgil. And our Lord says, Joh 15:13 : Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. This is the utmost we can expect among men.”

“For scarcely for a righteous man--a man of simply unexceptionable character. will one--"any one" die: yet peradventure for a good man--a man who, besides being unexceptionable, is distinguished for goodness, a benefactor to society. some--"some one." would--rather, "doth." even dare to die--"Scarce an instance occurs of self-sacrifice for one merely upright; though for one who makes himself a blessing to society there may be found an example of such noble surrender of life" (So BENGEL, OLSHAUSEN, THOLUCK, ALFORD, PHILIPPI). (To make the "righteous" and the "good" man here to mean the same person, and the whole sense to be that "though rare, the case may occur, of one making a sacrifice of life for a worthy character" [as CALVIN, BEZA, FRITZSCHE, JOWETT], is extremely flat.)”