Romans 3:8

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.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3:8 some people even slander us: Paul is referring to misrepresentations about his teaching on justification by faith. If a person is made right with God by faith alone, through God’s grace and apart from works, it could seem as if the Good News allows believers to sin because their sin is forgiven when confessed (see 6:1). One of Paul’s purposes is to help the Roman Christians understand that such misunderstandings are without basis.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Rom 3:8. Καὶ μὴ, 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.—καθὼς, 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.—φασί τινες, some say) who make our support the pretext to cover over [justify] their own perverseness. This epistle was principally written for the purpose of Paul’s confuting such as these.—ἡμᾶς, that we) who maintain the righteousness of God.—ὅτι) This depends strictly [absolutely] on λέγειν.—ποιήσωμεν, let us do) without fear. τὰ χαχὰ, evil) sins.—ἔλθῃ, τὰ ἀγαθὰ, 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.—τὰ ἀγαθὰ, good) the glory of God.—ἇν, of whom) that is of those who do evil, or even say that we ought to do evil, in order that good may come.—τὸ κρίμα) the judgment, which these unprincipled men endeavour to escape by a subterfuge, as unjust [unrighteous], will peculiarly [in an especial degree] overtake them—ἔνδικον, just) Thus Paul removes to as great a distance as possible that conclusion, and abruptly repels such disputers.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_3:7, Rom_3:8

These verses are the amplification and confirmation of the answer given in the sixth to the objection of the Jews. These verses are designed to show that if the ground assumed by them was valid, not only may every sinner claim exemption, but it would follow that it is right to do evil that good may come. The connection by γάρ is therefore with the sixth verse: God could not judge the world, for any sinner may say, If the truth of God more abounds through my lie, to his glory, why am I yet judged as a sinner? The truth of God. As ἀλήθεια is not unfrequently opposed to ἀδικία, it may have here the sense of δικαιοσύνη, and designate the divine excellence; then ψεῦσμα, in the following clause, must mean falsehood towards God, wickedness: If the excellence of God is rendered more conspicuous by my wickedness. But as it was on the truth or veracity of God, his adherence to his promises, that the false confidence of the Jews was placed, it is probable that the apostle intended the words to be taken in their more limited sense. Hath more abounded unto his glory. Περισσεύειν, to be abundant, rich, or great; and by implication, in a comparative sense, to be more abundant, or conspicuous, Mat_5:20; 1Co_15:58. The latter is the sense here, If the truth of God has been made the more conspicuous; εἰς τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, so that he is glorified. Why am I also still judged as a sinner? Κᾀγώ, either even I, or I also; I as well as others; or even I, a Jew; or, according to another view of the context, even I a Gentile: ἔτι, yet, i.e. notwithstanding my falsehood is the means of displaying the glory of God. According to the view now given, the use of the first person is sufficiently explained by saying, as has often been done, suam personam ponit pro quâvis aliâ. I, therefore, stands for any one: Any one may say, Why am I also judged as a sinner? Those however who understand κόσμος, in the preceding verse, to mean the Gentiles, suppose that the apostle here personates a heathen, who is made to ask, If the divine majesty is the more displayed by my idolatry, why am even I judged as a sinner? This interpretation gives a very good sense, because the Jews readily admitted that the Gentiles were exposed to condemnation, and therefore any principle which was shown to exculpate them, the Jews must acknowledge to be false. The objections to this view of the passage are the unnecessary limitation which it imposes on the word κόσμος, Rom_3:6, and the unusual, if not unauthorized sense, which it requires to be given to the words ἀλήθεια and ψεῦσμα the latter not being elsewhere used for idolatry, and the former, in this connection at least, not admitting of the version, truth concerning God; i.e., the true God.

Rom_3:8

Almost all the modern commentators are agreed in considering this verse as a continuation of the question commenced in the seventh, and in assuming an irregularity in the construction, arising from the introduction of the parenthetical clause in the middle of the verse: If your principle is correct, why am I judged as a sinner; and why not let us do evil, that good may come? Having commenced the question, he interrupts himself to notice the slanderous imputation of this doctrine to himself as we are slandered, and as some affirm we say, that we should do evil that good may come. Ποιήσωμεν, therefore, instead of being connected with the (τί) μή at the beginning of the verse is connected by οτί with the immediately preceding verb, See Winer, §66. Whose condemnation is just. Paul thus expresses his abhorrence of the principle that we may do evil that good may come. Tholuck and others refer ὧν to the βλασφημοῦντες, to the slanderers of the apostle; but that clause is virtually parenthetical, and it is not blaspheming the apostle, but teaching a doctrine subversive of all morality, that is here condemned. Calvin unites, in a measure, both views of the passage: Duplici autem nomine damnabilis fuit eorum perversitas; primum quibus venire haec impietas in mentem potuerit usque ad ipsum assensum, deinde qui traducendo evangelio calumniam inde instruere ausi fuerint.

Such is the apostles argument against the grounds of confidence on which the Jews rested their hope of exemption from condemnation. Our unfaithfulness serves to commend the faithfulness of God, therefore we ought not to be punished. According to this reasoning, says Paul, the worse we are, the better: for the more wicked we are, the more conspicuous will be the mercy of God in our pardon; we may therefore do evil that good may come. By reducing the reasoning of the Jews to a conclusion shocking to the moral sense, he thereby refutes it. The apostle often thus recognizes the authority of the intuitive moral judgments of our nature, and thus teaches us that those truths which are believed on their own evidence, as soon as presented to the mind, should be regarded as fixed points in all reasonings; and that to attempt to go beyond these intuitive judgments, is to unsettle the foundation of all faith and knowledge, and to open the door to universal skepticism. Any doctrine, therefore, which is immoral in its tendency, or which conflicts with the first principles of morals, must be false, no matter how plausible may be the arguments in its favor.

Doctrine

1. The advantages of membership in the external Church, and of a participation of its ordinances, are very numerous and great, Rom_3:1, Rom_3:2.

2. The great advantage of the Christian over the heathen world, and of the members of a visible ecclesiastical body over others not so situated, is the greater amount of divine truth presented to their understandings and hearts, Rom_3:2.

3. All the writings which the Jews, at the time of Christ and his apostles, regarded as inspired, are really the word of God, Rom_3:2.

4. No promise or covenant of God can ever be rightfully urged in favor of exemption from the punishment of sin, or of impunity to those who live in it. God is faithful to his promises, but he never promises to pardon the impenitently guilty, Rom_3:3, Rom_3:4.

5. God will make the wrath of men to praise him. Their unrighteousness will commend his righteousness, without, on that account, making its condemnation less certain or less severe, Rom_3:5, Rom_3:6.

6. Any doctrine inconsistent with the first principles of morals must be false, no matter how plausible the metaphysical argument in its favor. And that mode of reasoning is correct, which refutes such doctrines by showing their inconsistency with moral truth, Rom_3:8.

Remarks

1. We should feel the peculiar responsibilities which rest upon us as the inhabitants of a Christian country, as members of the Christian Church, and possessors of the word of God; as such, we enjoy advantages for which we shall have to render a strict account, Rom_3:1, Rom_3:2.

2. It is a mark of genuine piety, to be disposed always to justify God, and to condemn ourselves. On the other hand, a disposition to self-justification and the extenuation of our sins, however secret, is an indication of the want of a proper sense of our own unworthiness and of the divine excellence, Rom_3:4, Rom_3:5.

3. Beware of any refuge from the fear of future punishment, founded upon the hope that God will clear the guilty, or that he will not judge the world and take vengeance for our sins, Rom_3:6, Rom_3:7.

4. There is no better evidence against the truth of any doctrine, than that its tendency is immoral. And there is no greater proof that a man is wicked, that his condemnation is just, than that he does evil that good may come. There is commonly, in such cases, not only the evil of the act committed, but that of hypocrisy and duplicity also, Rom_3:8.

5. Speculative and moral truths, which are believed on their own evidence as soon as they are presented to the mind, should be regarded as authoritative, and as fixed points in all reasonings. When men deny such first principles, or attempt to push beyond them to a deeper foundation of truth, there is no end to the obscurity, uncertainty, and absurdity of their speculations. What God forces us, from the very constitution of our nature, to believe, as, for example, the existence of the external world, our own personal identity, the difference between good and evil, etc., it is at once a violation of his will and of the dictates of reason to deny or to question. Paul assumed, as an ultimate fact, that it is wrong to do evil that good may come, Rom_3:8.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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

(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.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(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?”

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Rüstzeug: 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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

What then? are we better than they?.... The apostle returns to what he was treating of in the beginning of the chapter, and suggests, that though the Jew has the advantage of the Gentile, with respect to some external privileges, yet not with regard to their state and condition God-ward, and as in his sight; "are we Jews better than they Gentiles?"

no, in no wise; upon no consideration whatever, neither as men, nor as Jews; which is directly opposite to a notion that people have of themselves:

"in mankind (they say (r)) there are high degrees, one higher than another, and the Israelites , "are above all mankind"; they are the head, and the nations of the world are the tail, and are like to a serpent, for they come from the filth of the old serpent.''

Again, they say (s),

"worthy are the Israelites, for the holy blessed God hath given to them holy souls, from an holy place, "above all the rest of the people", that they may do the commandments, and delight in the law.''

And elsewhere (t) it is observed on those words, Gen 1:24, "the living creature", or "the soul of the living creature", by R. Aba:

"these are the Israelites, for they are the children of the holy blessed God, and their holy souls come from him; the souls of the rest of the people, from what place are they? says R. Eleazar, from the side of the left hand, which is defiled; for they have polluted souls, and therefore they are all defiled, and defile whoever comes nigh them:''

but they are no better, especially with regard to their estate by nature:

for we have before proved; in the preceding chapters, by full instances to a demonstration; and if that cannot be thought sufficient, he goes on to give more proof in the following "verses":

that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin; under the power and guilt of sin, and a sentence of condemnation for it; which is equally true of the Jews, who were no better than the Gentiles, for being Abraham's seed, for being circumcised, for having the ceremonial law, and other outward privileges; for they were equally born in sin, and by practice sinners, as the Gentiles: and this is true of God's elect in all nations, who are no better by nature, by birth, than others; as deserving of the wrath of God as the rest; no better in their tempers and, dispositions, or in the endowments of their minds, or outward circumstances of life; nor better qualified to receive and improve the grace of God bestowed on them, than others.

(r) Tzeror Hammor, fol. 103. 2. Vid. Nishmat Chayim, orat. 2. c. 7. fol. 61. 1. (s) Zohar in Lev. fol 28. 2. (t) Zohar in Gen. fol. 31. 1.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.)

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 man’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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 men’s 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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And not (i.e. why should we not say), as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say, Let us do evil, that good may come? Whose (i.e. of those who do say so) condemnation is just.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Whose condemnation is just - The condemnation of all who either speak or act in this manner. So the apostle absolutely denies the lawfulness of " doing evil," any evil, "that good may come."

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

damnation

i.e. condemnation.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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. God’s people are even now calumniated as disturbers of the churches, and accused of many misdemeanors of which they are not guilty.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 ]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

8. Let us do evil that good may come. The apostle replies to this argument with a reductio ad absurdum. This amounts to saying, “Do evil that good may come,” an abominable doctrine, slanderously charged upon Paul by enemies, would justify every iniquity. This doctrine, so strongly condemned, has been taught by the Jesuits. Whose damnation is just. All who teach such doctrine are justly condemned.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

8. καὶ μὴ. In loose construction after τί; strictly τί μὴ ποιήσωμεν κ.τ.λ. is required; but the insertion of the statement that this was actually charged against S. Paul breaks the construction.

καθὼς βλασφημούμεθα. S. Paul’s polemic against the obligation of the law brought upon him the charge of antinomianism; cf. Rom 6:1 f.

ὧν τὸ κρίμα. The clear statement of the position furnishes its own condemnation, and the subject is for the time dismissed.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

8. There are two trains of thought in the Apostle’s mind: (i) the excuse which he supposes to be put forward by the unbeliever that evil may be done for the sake of good; (ii) the accusation brought as a matter of fact against himself of saying that evil might be done for the sake of good. The single clause ποιήσωμεν τὰ κακὰ ἵνα ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀγαθά is made to do duty for both these trains of thought, in the one case connected in idea and construction with τί ̣ ̣ ̣ μή, in the other with λέγουσιν ὄτι. This could be brought out more clearly by modern devices of punctuation: τί ἔτι κἀγὼ ὡς ἁμαρτωλός, κρίνομαὶ καὶ [τί] μὴ—καθὼς βλασφημούμεθα, καὶ καθώς φασί τινες ἡμᾶς λέγειν ὄτι—ποιήσωμεν κ.τ.λ. There is a very similar construction in vv. 25, 26, where the argument works up twice over to the same words, εἰς [πρὸς] τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ, and the words which follow the second time are meant to complete both clauses, the first as well as the second. It is somewhat similar when in ch. 2 ver. 16 at once carries on and completes vv. 15 and 13.

St. Paul was accused (no doubt by actual opponents) of Antinomianism. What he said was, ‘The state of righteousness is not to be attained through legal works; it is the gift of God.’ He was represented as saying ‘therefore it does not matter what a man does’—an inference which he repudiates indignantly, not only here but in 6:1 ff., 15 ff.

ὧν τὸ κρῖμα κ.τ.λ. This points back to τί ἔτι κἀγὼ κρίνομαι; the plea which such persons put in will avail them nothing; the judgement (of God) which will fall upon them is just. St. Paul does not argue the point, or say anything further about the calumny directed against himself; he contents himself with brushing away an excuse which is obviously unreal.

UNIVERSAL FAILURE TO ATTAIN TO RIGHTEOUSNESS

3:9-20. If the case of us Jews is so bad, are the Gentiles any better? No. The same accusation covers both. The Scriptures speak of the universality of human guilt, which is laid down in Psa_14 and graphically described in Pss. 5, 140, Psa 5:10, in Isa_59, and again in Psa_34. And if the Jew is equally guilty with the Gentile, still less can he escape punishment; for the Law which threatens him with punishment is his own. So then the whole system of Law and works done in fulfilment of Law, has proved a failure. Law can reveal sin, but not remove it.

9 To return from this digression. What inference are we to draw? Are the tables completely turned? Are we Jews not only equalled but surpassed (προεχόμεθα passive) by the Gentiles? Not at all. There is really nothing to choose between Jews and Gentiles. The indictment which we have just brought against both (in 1:18-32, 2:17-29) proves that they are equally under the dominion of sin. 10The testimony of Scripture is to the same effect. Thus in Psa_14 [here with some abridgment and variation], the Psalmist complains that he cannot find a single righteous man, 11 that there is none to show any intelligence of moral and religious truth, none to show any desire for the knowledge of God. 12 They have all (he says) turned aside from the straight path. They are like milk that has turned sour and bad. There is not so much as a single right-doer among them. 13 This picture of universal wickedness may be completed from such details as those which are applied to the wicked in Psa 5:9 [exactly quoted]. Just as a grave stands yawning to receive the corpse that will soon fill it with corruption, so the throat of the wicked is only opened to vent forth depraved and lying speech. Their tongue is practised in fraud. Or in Psa 140:3 [also exactly quoted]: the poison-bag of the asp lies under their smooth and flattering lips. 14 So, as it is described in Psa 10:7, throat, tongue, and lips are full of nothing but cursing and venom. 15 Then of Israel it is said [with abridgment from LXX of Isa 59:7, Isa 59:8]: They run with eager speed to commit murder. 16 Their course is marked by ruin and misery. 17 With smiling paths of peace they have made no acquaintance. 18 To sum up the character of the ungodly in a word [from Psa_36(35):1 LXX]: The fear of God supplies no standard for their actions.

19 Thus all the world has sinned. And not even the Jew can claim exemption from the consequences of his sin. For when the Law of Moses denounces those consequences it speaks especially to the people to whom it was given. By which it was designed that the Jew too might have his mouth stopped from all excuse, and that all mankind might be held accountable to God.

20 This is the conclusion of the whole argument. By works of Law (i. e. by an attempted fulfilment of Law) no mortal may hope to be declared righteous in God’s sight. For the only effect of Law is to open men’s eyes to their own sinfulness, not to enable them to do better. That method, the method of works, has failed. A new method must be found.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.