Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 3:8
And not [rather,] (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
8. And not rather, &c.] The grammatical difficulty of this verse is great. The words, up to the brief last clause, are a question. This question is introduced (like that in Rom 3:5) by the particle which expects a negative reply. But again the drift of the reasoning seems to demand, though not so clearly as in Rom 3:5, an affirmative, thus: “ Is it not (as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say) a case for the maxim ‘Let us do evil that good may come’?” Here, in our view, the wording presents a compound between the simple statement of the argumentative question, and St Paul’s abhorrence of the moral wrong involved in an affirmative answer. He cannot bear to state the case without conveying, while he does so, his deep protest, both in the words “as we be slanderously reported” (lit. “as we are blasphemed ”), and in the choice of the interrogative particle which demands a negative.
The “slanderous report” in question is illustrated by Rom 3:31, and Rom 6:1; Rom 6:15. It was a distortion of the doctrine of free grace. St Paul was charged, by his inveterate adversaries in the Church, with teaching that complete and immediate pardon for Christ’s sake makes sin safe to the pardoned, and that, consequently, the more “evil” is “done” by such, the more “good” will “come,” in the way of glory to God’s mercy.
whose damnation is just ] i.e. the condemnation, moral and judicial, of all who can hold such a principle. This is a more natural reference of the words than that to the slanderers, or to the Apostle and his followers as holding (by the false hypothesis) immoral principles. It is the brief elliptic statement of his abhorrence in toto of all and any who could maintain the lawfulness of wrong. What a comment upon Jesuitical maxims, and “pious frauds” in general! See Introduction, i. 33, not [34] .
[34] note Rstzeug: the word used by Luther in Act 9:15, where our Version uses vessel.
damnation ] In the Gr. strictly judgment. So 1Co 11:29 margin. The Gr. word is inclusive. In Rom 11:33, in plural, it signifies the Divine counsels or decisions; in 1Co 6:7, acts of going to law; in 1Co 11:29; 1Co 11:34, inflicted penalty; in Rev 20:4, judicial power. In almost every other N. T. passage it means “condemnation,” whether that of opinion (Mat 7:2) or of a judicial (usually capital) sentence, either human (Luk 24:20) or Divine (Rom 2:2-3; Heb 6:2). Here undoubtedly it is the latter.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And not rather – This is the answer of the apostle. He meets the objection by showing its tendency if carried out, and if it were made a principle of conduct. The meaning is, If the glory of God is to be promoted by sin, and if a man is not therefore to be condemned, or held guilty for it; if this fact absolves man from crime, why not carry the doctrine out, and make it a principle of conduct, and do all the evil we can, in order to promote his glory. This was the fair consequence of the objection. And yet this was a result so shocking and monstrous, that all that was necessary in order to answer the objection was merely to state this consequence. Every mans moral feelings would revolt at the doctrine; everyman would know that it could not be true; and every man, therefore, could see that the objection was not valid.
As we – This refers, doubtless, to the apostles, and to Christians generally. It is unquestionable, that this accusation was often brought against them.
Slanderously reported – Greek, As we are blasphemed. This is the legitimate and proper use of the word blaspheme, to speak of one in a reproachful and calumnious manner.
As some affirm … – Doubtless Jews. Why they should affirm this, is not known. It was doubtless, however, some perversion of the doctrines that the apostles preached. The doctrines which were thus misrepresented and abused, were probably these: the apostles taught that the sins of people were the occasion of promoting Gods glory in the plan of salvation. That where sin abounded, grace did much more abound; Rom 5:20. That God, in the salvation of people, would be glorified just in proportion to the depth and pollution of the guilt which was forgiven. This was true; but how easy was it to misrepresent this as teaching that people ought to sin in order to promote Gods glory! and instead of stating it as an inference which they drew from the doctrine, to state it as what the apostles actually taught. This is the common mode in which charges are brought against others. People draw an inference themselves, or suppose that the doctrine leads to such an inference, and then charge it on others as what they actually hold and teach. There is one maxim which should never be departed from: That a man is not to be held responsible for the inferences which we may draw from his doctrine; and that he is never to be represented as holding and teaching what we suppose follows from his doctrine. He is answerable only for what he avows.
Let us do evil – That is, since sin is to promote the glory of God, let us commit as much as possible.
That good may come – That God may take occasion by it to promote his glory.
Whose damnation is just – Whose condemnation; see the note at Rom 14:23. This does not necessarily refer to future punishment, but it means that the conduct of those who thus slanderously perverted the doctrines of the Christian religion, and accused the apostles of teaching this doctrine, was deserving of condemnation or punishment. Thus, he expressly disavows, in strong language, the doctrine charged on Christians. Thus, he silences the objection. And thus he teaches, as a great fundamental law, that evil is not to be done that good may come. This is a universal rule. And this is in no case to be departed from. Whatever is evil is not to be done under any pretence. Any imaginable good which we may think will result from it; any advantage to ourselves or to our cause; or any glory which we may think may result to God, will not sanction or justify the deed. Strict, uncompromising integrity and honesty is to be the maxim of our lives; and in such a life only can we hope for success, or for the blessing of God.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Rom 3:8
And not rather Let us do evil that good may come.
Doing evil that good may come
I. Almighty God can and often doth overrule evil actions to his own glory and cause bad means to conduce to a good end.
1. This is sufficiently intimated in the beginning of this chapter, which gave occasion to the reflection made in the text. The Jews had been favoured with special advantages for the knowing the Messiah, yet they rejected Him to their ruin. But yet their sin illustrated Gods justice in punishing them for their crime; and by giving occasion to the apostles to turn from them to the Gentiles, it proved a means of advancing Gods glory. The Gentiles, on the other hand, had been grievous sinners; yet upon their hearing the gospel preached many of them embraced it, which likewise gave occasion to the magnifying the grace of God towards them in forgiving and receiving them into His favour. This proved the–
1. Occasion of the Jews imputing to Paul the principle of doing evil that good may come (cf. Rom 6:1)
.
2. Scripture furnishes many instances of the like kind. The book of Esther seems to have been written to declare the wisdom and goodness of God, in overruling the pride and malice of a wicked man to His own glory, and the good of His Church. The greatest sin that ever was committed, the crucifying the Son of God, was by the Divine wisdom and goodness overruled, to become a means of the greatest good.
3. And the reason of all this is evident. That Being who seeth all things at one view, who discerneth the tendency and consequence of every action, and who hath all power in His hands, can easily outwit and overreach the craftiest of men, and dispose their designs to other purposes. And as His goodness is equal to His power and wisdom, we may safely conclude that He will govern affairs in such wise as to bring good out of evil. So we argue from the perfection of His nature, that He never would have permitted evil to have come into the world unless He could have overruled it to wise and good ends.
II. Notwithstanding all this, it is a detestable principle, that unlawful means may be used in order to the bringing about an end that is good. You see with what abhorrence the apostle in the text disclaims it. It is such an open defiance to God and goodness; such a flat contradiction to truth and reason, as well as to Christianity, that it very well became him thus to express himself.
1. Paul has elsewhere testified his sense of this matter (Act 26:11; 1Ti 1:13). And Christ also (Joh 16:2). And as the New, so the Old Testament also hath fully born its testimony (Job 13:7-11).
2. But, indeed, we may certainly conclude without the affirmation of an apostle or prophet, that this is a detestable principle. It is absurd and self-contradictory. To design, and to do good, is the proper business of a reasonable being. It is the glory of God Himself, and is what He requires of all, whom He hath made after His own image. Now that is good, either to design or do, which is according to the will of the Creator; so that to do evil, in order to the doing good, is to contradict and thwart His will in order to the performing it; it is to break His commandments in order to the keeping them. In a word, it is to do that which is directly opposite to the end we profess to aim at. For no evil has in its own nature a tendency to good, but to the contrary.
III. It is a slanderous, and therefore an unjust and detestable practice, to charge this principle upon those who not only disown it, but who give no just occasion for such an imputation. This is in truth so lewd a principle that those who do act upon it will probably not own to it. But, however, if they do act upon it, then it is no injustice to say they do. But if, on the contrary, they not only disavow the principle, but give no just ground for such a charge, then it is without all question a slanderous report. So St. Paul affirms in the text, using the same word, which, when applied to God, is rendered blasphemy; and when to men, evil-speaking, or calumniating. And those Jews who raised this slanderous report, when they knew, or at least might easily have known that it was a slander, were justly liable to damnation for so doing; so that God would punish them, not only for rejecting the gospel when preached to them, but also for calumniating the doctrine of Christianity, and slandering its preachers. (Bp. Bradford.)
Doing evil that good may come impossible
He who does evil that good may come, pays a toll to the devil to let him into heaven. (Guesses at Truth.)
We must not do evil that good may come
I. This will appear from the nature of moral good and evil.
1. To denominate an action morally good there must be a concurrence of all conditions requisite thereunto. If the object be lawful, the manner of the performance regular, and it be fitly circumstantiated, yet if it be done for a wicked end, this mars the action and renders it sinful; and for the same reason let the intention be never so good, the end never so excellent, yet, if the thing we do is forbidden by Gods laws, it is a vicious action.
2. Nay, further, such is the contrariety between the good and evil, that what is really evil cannot be chosen as a fit means to produce good, any more than darkness can beget light, or false premises infer a true conclusion, or an evil tree bring forth good fruit. To do evil to obtain good is as if a man should put his hand into the flame to cool it.
II. To do evil that good may come is a great affront to and distrust of the Divine providence and government of the world. So saith Job, Will ye speak wickedly for God, and talk deceitfully for Him? (Job 13:7).
1. Doth He stand in need of our sins to help Him out at a dead lift to bring His designs to pass? Cannot He preserve His religion without our venturing on a special occasion to strain a point, and transgress our duty for the sake of it?
2. This is seen in those who, fondly imagining that our Saviour and His apostles had not wrought miracles enough for confirmation of their doctrine, have coined other miracles; which pious frauds are most highly dishonourable to our Saviour, intimating as if His gospel had been imperfect, unless men had interposed their own wit and knavery to complete it.
3. Let us but suppose God to have done wisely and considerately in all that He hath commanded or forbidden, and it must then necessarily follow that we must never go against His will, though it may seem to tend to never so great or good an end.
III. Add to this the examples in Scripture of Gods condemning what hath been done against His command, though with a good intention and for a worthy end. In the Old Testament, not to insist on the case of Uzzah, you find King Saul (1Sa 15:1-35) receiving commandment from God to destroy all Amalekites. He very zealously sets about the work, but saves the best and fattest of the cattle to offer them for a sacrifice. This one act of disobedience, notwithstanding the piety of his intention, cost him his kingdom. Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, etc. In the New Testament we read of Peter, who, out of great love to his Master when apprehended, drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priests, and smote off his ear. It was done in defence of Christ; it was against unjust violence. Yet mark our Saviours rebuke (Mat 26:52).
IV. The ill consequences of such a concession as this, that evil may be done for a good end. This one principle sets us free from all authority either Divine or human, and everyone may do whatever he thinks fit, so his intention and end be but good.
1. What we are to do, or to avoid, if this doctrine be admitted for true, we are not to learn from Gods law. Things are either good or evil according as they seem to us, and our own judgment is the measure of lawful and unlawful, and thus we are wholly our own masters and lawgivers.
2. Nay, this principle plainly overthrows all justice and faith amongst men, all peace and security in societies, and makes all government precarious, since everyone is an arbitrary subject, and may obey or resist the laws as they appear to himself to be for or against the common good; and every mans life and fortune is at my disposal, if once I think it most for the glory of God and the safety of religion that they should be taken away. You know our Saviour tells His disciples of some that should arise, who would think they did God good service in killing them. According to this doctrine St. Paul was innocent when he was so mad against the Church. (B. Calamy, D. D.)
Right not to be attained by doing wrong
We ought to think much more of walking in the right path, than of reaching our end. We should desire virtue more than success. If by one wrong deed we could accomplish the liberation of millions, and in no other way, we ought to feel that this good, for which perhaps we had prayed with an agony of desire, was denied us by God, was reserved for other times and other hands. (Channing.)
Right should not connive with wrong
Yield to no established rules if they involve a lie. Do not do evil that good may come of it. Consequences!–this is the devils argument. Leave consequences to God; but do right. If friends fail thee, do the right. If foemen surround thee, do the right. Be genuine, real, sincere, true, upright, godlike. The worlds maxim is trim your sails and yield to circumstances. But if you would do any good in your generation, you must be made of sterner stuff, and help make your times rather than be made by them. You must not yield to customs, but, like the anvil, endure all blows until the hammers break themselves. When misrepresented, use no crooked means to clear yourself. Clouds do not last long. If in the course of duty you are tried by the distrust of friends, gird up your loins, and say in your heart, I was not driven to virtue by the encouragement of friends, nor will I be repelled from it by their coldness. Finally, be just and fear not; corruption wins not more than honesty; truth lives and reigns when falsehood dies and rots. (T. Guthrie, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 8. APOSTLE. And not rather, c.] And why do you not say, seeing you assume this ground, that in all cases we should do wickedly, because God, by freely pardoning, can so glorify his own grace? This is a most impious sentiment, but it follows from your reasoning it has, indeed, been most injuriously laid to the charge of us apostles, who preach the doctrine of free pardon, through faith, without the merit of works; but this is so manifest a perversion of the truth that a just punishment may be expected to fall on the propagators of such a slander.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The placing of these words makes them sound harshly, and consequently causeth obscurity. Critics make a great stir about them, some including them in a parenthesis, others affirming there is a transposition in them. They seem to be a refutation to the former cavil, and must be accommodated to that sense. It is as if the apostle should have said, If sinners deserve no punishment, because God reaps glory to himself by their sins; then that is a good proverb, or saying, which is in some mens mouths, and we ourselves are slandered with it, as if it were our opinion and doctrine, That we may do evil, that good may come of it. But this saying is generally exploded; none dare to vouch it, and therefore the former cavil is of no force.
Whose damnation is just; i.e. their damnation is just, who teach such doctrine, and practise accordingly; who
do evil, that good may come of it. The apostle doth not vouchsafe to refute this absurd saying, but simply condemns it, and those that put it in practice. Or else his meaning in these words is this, that they justly deserve damnation, who calumniate the apostles and publishers of the gospel, and raise false reports and slanders of them: their damnation is just, who affirm we say or hold, That evil may be done, that good may come thereof.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And not rather, as we be slanderously reported,…. These are the apostle’s own words, in answer to the objector he represented; and it is as if he should say, why do not you go on? why do you stop here? “and not rather” say, as we are evil spoken of, and our doctrine is blasphemed:
and as some affirm; ignorantly and audaciously enough:
that we say; and teach:
let us do evil that good may come; a slander cast upon the apostle’s doctrine of unconditional election, free justification, and of God’s overruling the sins of men for good; and is the same which is cast on ours now, and is no small proof of the likeness and sameness of doctrines:
whose damnation is just; whose judgment would have been right, and their censure of our doctrines just, had it been true that we held such a principle, taught such a doctrine, or encouraged such a practice: or their condemnation is just, for aspersing our principles and practices in so vile a manner; and all such persons are deserving of damnation, who teach such things, or practise after this sort.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
And why not ( ). We have a tangled sentence which can be cleared up in two ways. One is (Lightfoot) to supply after and repeat ( , deliberative subjunctive in a question): And why should it not happen? The other way (Sanday and Headlam) is to take with and make a long parenthesis of all in between. Even so it is confusing because also (recitative ) comes just before . The parenthesis is necessary anyhow, for there are two lines of thought, one the excuse brought forward by the unbeliever, the other the accusation that Paul affirms that very excuse that we may do evil that good may come. Note the double indirect assertion (the accusative and the infinitive after and then the direct quotation with recitative after , a direct quotation dependent on the infinitive in indirect quotation.
Let us do evil that good may come ( ). The volitive aorist subjunctive () and the clause of purpose ( and the aorist subjunctive ). It sounds almost uncanny to find this maxim of the Jesuits attributed to Paul in the first century by Jews. It was undoubtedly the accusation of Antinomianism because Paul preached justification by faith and not by works.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “And not rather, as we be slanderously reported,” (Kai me kathos Blasphemoumetha) “And not as we are blasphemed,” spoken against in a derogatory, or degrading manner; Similar slanderous charges are made by purveyors of Apostasy today against those who teach that eternal life is a present fact, not a temporary farce, to every believer; Joh 3:16; Joh 3:18; Joh 5:24; 1Jn 5:13.
2) “And as some affirm that we say,” (kai kathos phasin tines hemas legein) “And as some say that we say,” purport to quote or “coat us,” or pervert what we say -falsely, purporting that we say, or accuse us of saying, advocating; Rom 6:1-2; Rom 6:12; Rom 6:15.
3) “Let us do evil,” (hoti poiesomen ta koka) “Let us do evil things,” things of base moral and ethical nature; –in this his accusers lied and slandered him and believers regarding salvation, eternal life, and ignored the fact God chastens his children for their sins Heb 12:5-11.
4) “That good may come?” (hina elthe ta agatha) “In order that out of the evil, (base things) good things may come;” or the more sin we commit the more grace we will receive. Paul did not advocate or encourage the saved to practice sinning more and more. He simply affirmed that God’s grace was able to impart eternal life to every believer and keep him saved, Rom 4:3-8; Rom 5:20; Rom 6:23.
5) “Whose damnation is just,” (hon to krima endikon estin) “Of whom the condemnation or judgment (now treasured up against them as liars) is just;- Malicious slanderers, false accusers, and liars about religious matters shall be as harshly judged as liars in other matters of life Psa 31:13-14; Pro 10:18; Righteousness and eternal life are received as gifts from God, by faith in Jesus Christ, and not by the deeds of the law of Moses, or forms, ceremonies, and deeds of religious service, Eph 2:8-10; Gal 3:26; Rom 10:9-10; Rom 10:13; Mat 7:22-23.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
8. And not, etc. This is an elliptical sentence, in which a word is to be understood. It will be complete, if you read it thus, — “and why is it not rather said, (as we are reproached, etc.) that we are to do evils, that good things may come?” But the Apostle deigns not to answer the slander; which yet we may check by the most solid reason. The pretense, indeed, is this, — “If God is by our iniquity glorified, and if nothing can be done by man in this life more befitting than to promote the glory of God, then let us sin to advance his glory!” Now the answer to this is evident, — “That evil cannot of itself produce anything but evil; and that God’s glory is through our sin illustrated, is not the work of man, but the work of God; who, as a wonderful worker, knows how to overcome our wickedness, and to convert it to another end, so as to turn it contrary to what we intend, to the promotion of his own glory.” God has prescribed to us the way, by which he would have himself to be glorified by us, even by true piety, which consists in obedience to his word. He who leaps over this boundary, strives not to honor God, but to dishonor him. That it turns out otherwise, is to be ascribed to the Providence of God, and not to the wickedness of man; through which it comes not, that the majesty of God is not injured, nay, wholly overthrown (94)
(As we are reproached,) etc. Since Paul speaks so reverently of the secret judgments of God, it is a wonder that his enemies should have fallen into such wantonness as to calumniate him: but there has never been so much reverence and seriousness displayed by God’s servants as to be sufficient to check impure and virulent tongues. It is not then a new thing, that adversaries at this day load with so many false accusations, and render odious our doctrine, which we ourselves know to be the pure gospel of Christ, and all the angels, as well as the faithful, are our witnesses. Nothing can be imagined more monstrous than what we read here was laid to the charge of Paul, to the end, that his preaching might be rendered hateful to the inexperienced. Let us then bear this evil, when the ungodly abuse the truth which we preach by their calumnies: nor let us cease, on this account, constantly to defend the genuine confession of it, inasmuch as it has sufficient power to crush and to dissipate their falsehoods. Let us, at the same time, according to the Apostle’s example, oppose, as much as we can, all malicious subtilties, ( technis — crafts, wiles,) that the base and the abandoned may not, without some check, speak evil of our Creator.
Whose judgment is just. Some take this in an active sense, as signifying that Paul so far assents to them, that what they objected was absurd, in order that the doctrine of the gospel might not be thought to be connected with such paradoxes: but I approve more of the passive meaning; for it would not have been suitable simply to express an approval of such a wickedness, which, on the contrary, deserved to be severely condemned; and this is what Paul seems to me to have done. And their perverseness was, on two accounts, to be condemned, — first, because this impiety had gained the assent of their minds; and secondly, because, in traducing the gospel, they dared to draw from it their calumny.
(94) [ Grotius ] thinks, that in the beginning of this verse there is a transposition, and that ὅτι, after the parenthesis, ought to be construed before μὴ which precedes it, and that ὅτι is for cur , why, — as in Mar 9:11. The version would then be, “and why not, (as we are reproached, and as some declare that we say,) Let us do evil that good may come?” This is the rendering of [ Luther ] But [ Limborch ] and [ Stuart ] consider λεγωμεν to be understood after μὴ; and the latter takes μὴ not as a negative but an interrogative, “and shall we say,” etc.? Amidst these varieties, the main drift of the passage remains the same. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(8) And not rather.And (why should we) not (say), as some persons slanderously affirm that we say, Let us do evil that good may come. Some such phrase as Why should we say must be supplied; why from the previous clause, say from that which follows. Or (Why should we) not (do evil), as some persons slanderously affirm that we say, Let us do evil, &c. The latter, perhaps, is best, as we might then suppose the word for let us do repeated precisely in the form in which it stands.
The Apostle does not care to answer this argument in detail; he will not dally with such a perversion of the moral sense, but simply says, Whose condemnation is just.
What pretext could any one possibly have for attributing such an opinion to St. Paul? The charge was no doubt utterly false as applied to him, but we know that his teaching was made an excuse for Antinomian excesses, which would not unnaturally be fastened upon the Apostle. Or, taking his teaching as it stands, we might well imagine the Jews or the Judaizing party arguing with themselves, This man openly breaks the Law, and yet he claims to be in the right way, and that all will go well with him; is not this doing evil that good may come? Does he think to win the Messianic kingdom by the breach of the Law, and not by its observance?
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
8. And not rather Before the words of this verse the apostle’s mind thinks a clause like this: And both my God forbid, (Rom 3:6,) and my earnest reasoning against this fearful fallacy, are rather the true view and not rather what would strictly follow) the heinous view that evil must be done to secure a good result.
Slanderously reported In the great discussions raised by the new Christianity, both with Judaism and paganism, there would be colour for this slander. Each might claim that for itself to be destroyed through great strife and commotion, in order that Christianity might be established, was doing evil that good may come. For children to differ from the religion of their parents, or subjects to differ from the religion of the State, in order even to be holy, could be slandered as doing evil in order to good. So the apostle rejects the maxim when charged on the doctrines of Christianity, (Rom 6:1.) For anti-Christians, see note on Act 28:22.
Whose damnation Later commentators hold that it is the damnation of the holders of this wicked doctrine, and not of the slanderers, which is pronounced just.
‘And why not (as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), “Let us do evil, that good may come?” whose condemnation is just.’
Paul now makes clear that he has had enough of such nonsense. Why not, he asks, then say ‘Let us do evil that good may come?’ something that was self-evidently wrong. The condemnation of anyone who spoke like that or acted like that could only be right. We learn here also that people were actually claiming that that was what Paul taught. Paul does not argue about that. He simply commits such a false claim to God. (But we can see how his teaching that salvation was through the grace of God, and through benefiting from the righteousness of Another, so that God was able to declare as righteous the ungodly, could have been twisted to give this significance, false though it would be).
8 And not rather , (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
Ver. 8. As we be slanderously reported ] So are the reformed Churches by the black mouthed Papists. See the Abatement of Popish Brags, by Alex. Cook, the Preface; Eudaemon Joannes against Casaubon, and Calvino-Turcismum, &c.
Whose damnation is just ] In the year of grace 1552, a monk of Berlin in Germany, who in the pulpit charged St Paul with a lie, was suddenly smitten with an apoplexy, while the word was yet in his mouth, and fell down dead in the place on St Stephen’s day, as they call it. (Scultet. Annal.)
not . . . come? = (why) not (say), as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say. Let us do, &c. Figure of speech Epitrechon (App-6).
slanderously reported. Greek. blasphemeo. Compare Rom 2:24. Act 13:45.
affirm. Greek. phemi. Only here in Romans. Occurs fifty-eight times, always “say”, except here.
evil. Literal. the evil things. Greek. kakos. App-128.
that = in order that. Greek. hina.
good. Literally the good things.
damnation. Greek. krima. App-177.
just. Greek. endikos. App-191.
Rom 3:8. , and not) supply, act so, as [and why should I not act so, as, ect.]; but a change of number or person is introduced, such as in ch. Rom 4:17.-, as) Some were in the habit of calumniating Paul; others were of this way of thinking, and said that their opinions were approved by Paul.- , some say) who make our support the pretext to cover over [justify] their own perverseness. This epistle was principally written for the purpose of Pauls confuting such as these.-, that we) who maintain the righteousness of God.-) This depends strictly [absolutely] on .-, let us do) without fear. , evil) sins.-, , good may come) The same phrase occurs with the LXX. int. Jer 17:6. Those calumniators mean to say this: Good is at hand, ready to come; but evil should prepare the way for it.- , good) the glory of God.-, of whom) that is of those who do evil, or even say that we ought to do evil, in order that good may come.- ) the judgment, which these unprincipled men endeavour to escape by a subterfuge, as unjust [unrighteous], will peculiarly [in an especial degree] overtake them-, just) Thus Paul removes to as great a distance as possible that conclusion, and abruptly repels such disputers.
Rom 3:8
Rom 3:8
and why not (as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), Let us do evil, that good may come?-Some so perverted his reasoning as to insist that since through mans sin God is glorified, there could be no wrong to sin, because it brought glory to God. So his enemies falsely charged that he taught that we should do evil that good may come. [In their condemnation they condemn themselves in the claim that God cannot punish sin, because it promotes his glory, for this claim is the very essence of the hateful sentiment. And thus he has come round in most skillful fashion to the assertion with which he began against the Jew : Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest dost practise the same things. (Rom 2:1). He joins with them in repudiating the godless maxim, but he does not go with them in holding it. They slanderously report him who say he does.]
damnation
i.e. condemnation.
we be: Mat 5:11, 1Pe 3:16, 1Pe 3:17
Let us: Rom 5:20, Rom 6:1, Rom 6:15, Rom 7:7, Jud 1:4
Reciprocal: Gen 19:8 – let Gen 19:13 – Lord hath Gen 27:24 – I am Gen 27:35 – General Exo 23:1 – shalt not Deu 25:11 – to deliver her husband Jos 2:5 – the men went out Jdg 16:7 – If they bind Jdg 19:24 – them 1Ki 15:19 – break thy league 2Ki 10:18 – Jehu Neh 6:6 – It is reported Jer 40:16 – Thou shalt Mal 3:5 – fear Mat 5:19 – shall teach Joh 11:50 – General Act 6:11 – they Act 25:3 – laying Rom 9:19 – Thou 1Co 15:15 – General 2Co 6:8 – evil
3:8
Rom 3:8. And not is a contrast with the closing words of the preceding verse. Taken together it means that instead of the liar being judged as a sinner, he should be encouraged to do evil that good might come. Paul had even been accused (slanderously) of teaching such theory. Then in his own direct language, the apostle says that all such slanderers will be justly condemned.
Rom 3:8. And why not. This is parallel to why am I, etc. (Rom 3:7). The second absurd consequence, as respects man, is the evil principle, so strongly condemned, as carrying its refutation with it. The construction would regularly be: and why not let us do evil, etc., but the mention of the false accusation leads to an irregularity. Some propose to avoid this by supplying: let us say,
Slanderously reported; lit, blasphemed. Such slander was in the last instance blasphemy, since thus Gods character was outraged. Here the reference is to what they were reported as doing.
Affirm that we say, Let us, etc. The early Christians were charged with even asserting this false principle, which would have been worse than the previous charge. Men might do this without being so hardened as to adopt it as a doctrinal principle. The foundation of this slander was doubtless the doctrine of free grace, and the Christian non-observance of the Mosaic law. Similar slanderous and blasphemous inferences have frequently been made from Scriptural truth.
Whose condemnation is just Whose, i.e., of those who practice and announce this evil principle, not the slanderers. Damnation is too specific a rendering of the original word, which means condemnation of any kind. The absurdity of the principle, that the end justifies the means, is not proven; the Apostle makes short work of an objection which has this logical issue. A doctrine directly leading to immoral results cannot belong to the gospel Paul is setting forth.
and why not (as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say ), Let us do evil, that good may come? whose condemnation is just. [But some of you Jews, objecting to my argument, will say, “According to your statements, the unbelief and disobedience of us Jews, with reference to God’s Scripture, drew out, displayed and magnified the faithfulness and goodness of God in fulfilling his Scripture. Therefore, since our unbelief, etc., added to the glory of God by commending his righteousness, is not God unjust to punish us for that unbelief, etc., since it works such praiseworthy results? “My answer is, God forbid that sin should become righteousness, for if sin ceases to be sinful, how shall God judge the world, since then there shall be no sin to be condemned or punished? You see, then, the absurdity of your question, since it is a practical denial of the divinely established fact that there is to be a day of judgment. Sin, though it may, by its contrast, display the righteousness of God, is nevertheless utterly without merit. As an illustration, my case is analogous to yours. You arraign me before the bar of Jewish opinion, even as you yourselves are arraigned before the bar of God; yet you would not permit me to use before you the very same argument which you are seeking to use before God. You Jews regard me as a sinner, and charge me with being untrue to the Jewish religion, and with being a false representative of it, in that I declare it to be fulfilled in the gospel. Now, my lie (as you consider it), in this respect, redounds to the glory of God by being a contrast to his truthfulness. But would you Jews acquit me of the sin of heresy if I should make use of this your argument? And, again, if your reasoning is correct, why should I not, as certain, meaning to slander me, report that I do, and affirm that I say, Let us do evil that good may come? But those who avow such principles are justly condemned. Thus Paul showed that, in condemning him (though falsely), they condemn the very argument which they were seeking to affirm in Rom 3:5]
8. And not, as we are scandalously reported, and as certain ones certify that we say, that we must do evil in order that good may come? Whose condemnation is just. Among the two hundred millions of martyrs who sealed their faith with their blood in bygone ages, not a single one died in the capacity of a good person in the estimation of their persecutors. On the contrary, they were all slain under criminal charges. Hence this Satanic maxim on the part of our enemies has prevailed in all ages, the present day no exception. Gods people are even now calumniated as disturbers of the churches, and accused of many misdemeanors of which they are not guilty.
Verse 8
Whose damnation; whose condemnation, meaning the condemnation of those who are guilty of the slanderous report above referred to.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament