Hi all,

My office bible study group today looked at Romans 5:1-11, and we hit a bit of a question while looking at Romans 5:7 -

For one will scarcely die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die… (ESV)

The question surrounds today’s media view of “dying for others” or the nobility of self-sacrifice, exemplified in yesterday’s Bravery Awards .  I don’t know how it was in Paul’s day, but these days you are awarded if you “dare to die” for anyone, good or otherwise.  It seems common - movies involve all manner of self-sacrifice; TV shows thrive on one putting themselves in danger for another; the media encourages it.  One Bravery awardee even sees it as essentially Australian:

“It’s just the way it was, we’re all Australian, we’ve got to look after one another when the chips are down.” Mr Ronald Wall, Star of Courage recipient.

Is todays media view of secular selflessness actually correct, or is it another media exaggeration?

What do people think of Paul’s phrase in Romans?  Is he simply pointing out that it is not common for someone to lay down their life for others, or is something more being said? 

Your thoughts appreciated,
Edwin

“It’s just the way it was, we’re all Australian, we’ve got to look after one another when the chips are down.” Mr Ronald Wall, Star of Courage recipient

Well, presumably Mr Ronald Wall wasn’t called upon to give his life, or he couldn’t have made the comment!

The sacrifice of your life for someone else is pretty rare. You would be hard pressed to find many examples. Try and dig up a few…

I think that we have re-defined the idea of bravery. I think it now it describes when someone makes a decision, usually in the heat of the moment, to go the extra distance to help another person. And this is what the media celebrates (perhaps because we all like to think that we would do the same?)

This is different, though, to cool-headedly sacrifice yourself to save another. The only reason why we we do this, methinks, is to save a loved one - ie I would die for my wife or son, no question.

I think Paul is saying this - at a long stretch, I may even choose to sacrifice myself for someone - but only if they’re “good”. There’s no chance that I would chose to give up my life for Bob, who is not a good guy.

And this is what makes God’s grace so amazing - as Romans 5:8 says: “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” We are so undeserving! Yet Christ gives himself for us...Romans 5:10 - “while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son”.

If someone sacrificed himself for an enemy - now THAT would be on the front page of the Daily Terror - but perhaps only to be bagged out by how much of a loser he is....

-A-

Hey guys,

Good responses!

If I can add anything, it may be to highlight what exactly it was that Christ gave up.  We sit here in Australia, and wouldn’t think of ‘giving up our life’ for people dying in Africa.  Why not?  Seriously, why the heck not???  There are plenty of good people over there dying!!! 

What about for someone in Africa who wasn’t a good person, or was a really bad person!??  Would you leave the comforts of home here in Australia for someone way over there??  Wife? Family? Friends?  Give up your life?

Christ gave up more than any of those things, he gave up the sanctity of the Godhead in a way that we cannot understand, to go to a place of such horror we cannot understand.  And yet, we wouldn’t even think of doing the something a lot smaller than what he did.

Sorry if it’s rambling, but hopefully it points out a litte bit about how big God’s love is, and how small our media-hyped versions of ‘love’ are.  I’m not saying people don’t do show Godly, self-sacrificial love at times, but we can’t kid ourselves about the goodness of human nature.

Hmmm…

What does “die for” mean?  Does it mean “one losing their life in the process of rescuing another” or is there something more to it?

Craig, in the SMH article, this story of life-giving was proffered:

Anthony Saxon has been awarded a bravery medal for actions that took his life at Quakers Hill in western Sydney on June 18, 2003.

He and his wife were visiting neighbours when their son ran over to tell them their house was on fire.

By the time Mr Saxon entered the house, it was engulfed in flames.

Firemen found him slumped over his infant stepdaughter in a way that protected her from the smoke and saved her life.

May I stress here that I mean no disrespect at all to Mr Saxon and his family - his actions and that of others undoubtedly saved a life, as did the actions of all bravery awardees.

I would like to ask, though, would someone in this situation be said to “die for” the other or just “die” while attempting the rescue?  Is this what Paul is referring to?

.e

Oh, and Greek scholars - what, if any, is the difference between the “righteous man” and the “good man” of Rom 5:7?  Are they just two words used to describe the same man, is the good man more deserving of sacrifice than the righteous for some reason?

.e

Hey Ed!

Good questions.

As you said, with full respect and admiration for Mr Saxon, IF he was simply attempting a rescue and planned on getting out alive, (Ie, he was ‘risking’ his life, as opposed to ‘giving’ it) then yes, I think there is definitely a difference.

I don’t know if this was the case with Mr Saxon or not.

I’ll offer a paraphrasing of the verse as well, to explain how I’m reading it currently.

Pretty much no-one’s going to die for a good person, although maybe, just maybe someone might dare to die for a good bloke.  However, God shows his love for us on a whole other level.  While we were sinners=His enemies=unrighteous=evil, God died for us, those who hated Him(HDV-Highly Dodgy Version)

As you can see, I think the emphasis in the comparison is on the unlikelihood that anyone would even die for a good man, but God dies for people who hate Him and reject Him.

Probalby stuff you already realise, but maybe someone will read it afresh and be encouraged! :)

Thanks Peter,

I actually use Romans 5:8 as my email signature - it’s a fantastic reminder verse about Jesus.

Your HDV obviously sees no difference between the righteous man and the good man.  Is there a reason for this?

.e

Not really.

The only reason is that I think the emphasis is not on a difference between good and righteous, but he’s simply qualifying what he’s already said.  Ie, “It will probably never happen, but it’s possible.”

You don’t need the “but it’s possible” on the end, because it’s implied in the first, but he puts it in anyways. 

The argument for this is rather circular, however, as I’m really saying I read it that way and if you do so then the semantic difference between good and righeoud doesn’t matter. 

So, in conclusion, no.  No good reason really.  In context the righteousness is something that God imputes to us based on Christ.  Whereas a ‘good’ man simply means that.  You could read a lot into it if you want, but in the end how would that change the main point of the verse?  I’d contend that it doesn’t.