Explaining the Mistake in Romans 5:7

[EclipseEventSigns]

The Greek text of Romans 5:7 contains a very blatant error. It doesn't make any sense. Commentators twist the text into pretzel shapes trying to explain away what Paul is apparently saying. Here's the verse in context of Paul's thought flow.

[Rom 5:6-10 LSB] 6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man, though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath [of God] through Him. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

In verse 7, Paul is apparently contrasting the "righteous" to the "good". Apparently even though someone is righteous, that's not enough for someone to give their life for them. But if you are regarded as somewhat less - maybe just good - ya, then some would give their life. Huh? What kind of nonsense is this? And yet, all translations based on the Greek text state this nonsense.

Here's a different text which faithfully records Paul's intended meaning.
Romans 5:6-8 So then, Messiah, because of our weakness, in this point in history died in place of the wicked. Indeed hardly would one die in place of the wicked; in place of the good, indeed perhaps one would dare to die. Therefore, God displayed his love towards us, in that, while we were sinners, Messiah has died in place of us.
Peshitta Romans 5:7

Yes, this makes so much more sense. In the Aramaic Peshitta original text, Paul uses the same word in verse 6 and 7 - the word "wicked". He sets up the contrast that everyone knows no one would consider the wicked worthy to give one's life for. Yet, Messiah, due to his love for us, and even though we were wicked, did give his life in place of us.

This demonstrates that the Aramaic text is truly the original text. The Greek text, a translation, included a mistake very early on which has been transmitted to every other copy down through the centuries. And even now continues to be put into all translations based on the Greek.

 

[civic]

Vincent's Word Studies
Righteous - good (δικαίου - ἀγαθοῦ)
The distinction is: δίκαιος is simply right or just; doing all that law or justice requires; ἀγαθός is benevolent, kind, generous. The righteous man does what he ought, and gives to every one his due. The good man "does as much as ever he can, and proves his moral quality by promoting the wellbeing of him with whom he has to do." Ἀγαθός always includes a corresponding beneficent relation of the subject of it to another subject; an establishment of a communion and exchange of life; while δίκαιος only expresses a relation to the purely objective δίκη right. Bengel says: "δίκαιος, indefinitely, implies an innocent man; ὁ ἀγαθός one perfect in all that piety demands; excellent, honorable, princely, blessed; for example, the father of his country."

Therefore, according to Paul, though one would hardly die for the merely upright or strictly just man who commands respect, he might possibly die for the noble, beneficent man, who calls out affection. The article is omitted with righteous, and supplied with good - the good man, pointing to such a case as a rare and special exception.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Vincent's Word Studies
Righteous - good (δικαίου - ἀγαθοῦ)
The distinction is: δίκαιος is simply right or just; doing all that law or justice requires; ἀγαθός is benevolent, kind, generous. The righteous man does what he ought, and gives to every one his due. The good man "does as much as ever he can, and proves his moral quality by promoting the wellbeing of him with whom he has to do." Ἀγαθός always includes a corresponding beneficent relation of the subject of it to another subject; an establishment of a communion and exchange of life; while δίκαιος only expresses a relation to the purely objective δίκη right. Bengel says: "δίκαιος, indefinitely, implies an innocent man; ὁ ἀγαθός one perfect in all that piety demands; excellent, honorable, princely, blessed; for example, the father of his country."

Therefore, according to Paul, though one would hardly die for the merely upright or strictly just man who commands respect, he might possibly die for the noble, beneficent man, who calls out affection. The article is omitted with righteous, and supplied with good - the good man, pointing to such a case as a rare and special exception.

Exactly!! Putting the text into pretzels where the plain reading of the text does not make a lick of sense.
Unfortunately, the same word for "righteous" is used later in verse 19 and definitely means the wider sense of the word: innocent, faultless, guiltless, approved of or acceptable of God