The Advantage of Being Jewish:
The Objection That Paul Attacked God’s Purity

Romans 3:5-8

⁵ But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) ⁶ Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world? ⁷ For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? ⁸ And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

(Verse 5-8) - The third objection Paul anticipated was that his teaching attacked the very purity and holiness of God. The argument of his accusers would have been something like this:

If God is glorified by the sins of Israel, being shown faithful Himself despite the unfaithfulness of His chosen people, then sin glorifies God. In other words, Paul, you are saying that what God strictly forbids actually brings Him glory. You are saying that God is like a merchant who displays a piece of expensive gold jewelry on a piece of black velvet so the contrast makes the gold appear even more elegant and beautiful. You are charging God with using man’s sin to bring glory to Himself, and that is blasphemy. You are impugning the righteous purity of God. Not only that, but if man’s unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say about God’s judgment? If what you say is true, why does God punish sin? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He?

It might be helpful to consider the verse phrase by phrase at this point.  What is in view here is the particular sin which had been specified Rom. 3:3, namely “unbelief.” But the apostle here gives the objection a general form. This is to be regarded as an objection which a Jew might make. The force of it is this:

(1)  It had been conceded that some had not believed; that is, had sinned.

(2)  But God was true to his promises. Notwithstanding their sin, God’s character was the same.

(3)  In the very midst of sin, and as one of the results of it, the character of God, as a just Being, shone out illustriously. The question then was,

(4)  If his glory resulted from it; if the effect of all was to show that his character was pure; how could he punish that sin from which his own glory resulted? And this is a question which is often asked by sinners. We need to understand that this is certainly a legitimate question for believers to ask in trying to understand the character and workings of God.  As with many of these difficult questions; it can be asked from at least two different perspectives.  It can be asked from the perspective of belief, trying to understand or it can be asked from the perspective of unbelief, seeking to deny its truth.  We are reminded of the contrast between Mary and Zachariah in the accounts of the angels sent to announce the births of John and Jesus.  They asked the same question from the two very different perspectives and were greeted by two different responses from the angel – Zachariah with chastening, and Mary with further information.  There is nothing wrong with asking questions so long as those questions are honest and truly intended to get information aimed at understanding and are not simply attempts to get information to justify unbelief.

Commend - Recommend; show forth; render illustrious. We must see the argument here.  It is the intent of God, from the very beginning that this be the case.  For some, that glory is shown in the result of salvation from sin.  For others, that glory is shown in the ultimate punishment of their sin by condemnation.  In both cases, the overriding intent is that God be shown to be glorious in His actions toward men.

The righteousness of God - His just and holy character. This was the effect on David’s mind, that he saw more clearly the justice of God in his threatenings against sin, in consequence of his own transgression. And if this effect followed, if honor was thus done to God, the question was, how he could consistently punish what tended to promote his own glory? The answer that will come is that it is the very punishment of sin that is glorifying to Him (it is not the only thing that is glorifying certainly, but it is glorifying none-the-less).

What shall we say? - What follows? or, what is the inference? This is a mode of speech as if the objector hesitated about expressing an inference which would seem to follow, but which seemed horrible in its character.  Is God unrighteous? - The meaning of this would be better expressed thus: “Is “not” God unrighteous in punishing? Does it not follow that if God is honored by sin, that it would be wrong for him to inflict punishment?”

Who taketh vengeance - The meaning of this is simply, “who inflicts punishment.” The idea of vengeance is not necessarily in the original. It is commonly rendered “wrath,” but it often means simply “punishment,” without any reference to the state of the mind of him who inflicts it, (Matt. 3:7; Luke 3:7; 21:23; John 3:36, Rom. 1:18; 4:15).

I speak as a man - I speak after the manner of human beings. I speak as appears to be the case to human view; or as would strike the human mind. It does not mean that the language was such as wicked people were accustomed to use; but that the objector expressed a sentiment which to human view would seem to follow from what had been said. This I regard as the language of an objector. It implies a degree of reverence for the character of God, and a seeming unwillingness to state an objection which seemed to be dishonorable to God, but which nevertheless pressed itself so strong on the mind as to appear irresistible. No way of stating the objection could have been more artful or impressive.

So, lest his readers conclude that he was expressing his own thinking, Paul immediately adds the parenthetical explanation that he was speaking in human terms, that is, according to the human logic of the natural mind. He was saying, in effect, “Don’t think for a minute that I believe such perverted nonsense. I am only paraphrasing the charges that are often made against me.”

To intensify the disclaimer, Paul says again, “May it never be! Obviously God does not encourage or condone sin in order to glorify Himself, for otherwise how will God judge the world?”

For then - If it be admitted that it would be unjust for God to inflict punishment.  How shall God … - How will it be right or consistent for him to judge the world.

Judge - To “judge” implies the possibility and the correctness of “condemning” the guilty; for if it were not right to condemn them, judgment would be a farce. This does not mean that God would condemn all the world; but that the fact of judging people implied the possibility and propriety of condemning those who were guilty. It is remarkable that the apostle does not attempt to explain how it could be that God could take occasion from the sins of people to promote his glory; nor does he even admit the fact; but he meets directly the objection. To understand the force of his answer, it must be remembered that it was an admitted fact, a fact which no one among the Jews would call in question, that God would judge the world. This fact was fully taught in their own writings, (Gen. 18:25; Eccl. 12:14; 11:9). It was besides an admitted point with them that God would condemn the pagan I world; and perhaps the term “world” here refers particularly to them.

But how could this be if it were not right for God to inflict punishment at all? If God is a judge, and He is, then He must be the Judge of something!  We are left with two possibilities – either God is the Judge as presented in the Scripture, or He is not the Judge of any at all.  The inference of the objector, therefore, could not be true; though the apostle does not tell us how it was consistent to inflict punishment for offences from which God took occasion to promote his glory. It may be remarked, however, that God will judge offences, not from what he may do in overruling them, but from the nature of the crime itself. The question is not, what good God may bring out of it, but what does the crime itself deserve? What is the character of the offender? What was his intention? It is not what God may do to overrule the offence when it is committed. The just punishment of the murderer is to be determined by the Law, and by his own desert; and not from any reputation for integrity and uprightness which the judge may manifest on his trial; or from any honor which may accrue to the police for detecting him; or any security which may result to the commonwealth from his execution; or from any honor which the Law may gain as a just law by his condemnation. Nor should any of these facts and advantages which may result from his execution, be pleaded in bar of his condemnation.

So it is with the sinner under the divine administration. It is indeed a truth (Ps. 76:10) that the wrath of man shall praise God, and that he will take occasion from people’s wickedness to glorify himself as a just judge and moral governor; but this will be no ground of acquittal for the sinner.

If Jews understood anything about the nature of God it was that He is a perfect judge. From the earliest part of the Old Testament He is called “the Judge of all the earth” (Gen. 18:25). The psalmists repeatedly refer to Him as a judge (see, e.g., Pss. 50:6; 58:11; 94:2). A major theme of virtually all the prophets is that of God’s judgment - past as well as present, imminent as well as in the distant future. Paul’s very obvious point is that God would have no basis for equitable, righteous, pure judgment if He condoned sin.

The objection is this: if, then, it be so that the righteousness of God, - that righteousness which is revealed in the Gospel, Romans 1:17 , by the imputation of which men are justified, - if that righteousness which God has provided is more illustriously manifested by our sin, showing how suitable and efficacious it is to us as sinners, shall it not be said that God is unjust in punishing the sin that has this effect? What shall we say?; or what answer can be made to such an objection? Is God, or rather, is not God unjust, who in this case takes vengeance? This is a sort of insult against the doctrine of the Gospel, as if the objection was so strong and well founded that no reply could be made to it. I speak as a man. -  That is to say, in the way that the impiety of men, and their want of reverence for God, leads them to speak. The above was, in effect, a manner of reasoning common among the Jews and other enemies of the Gospel. It is, indeed, such language as is often heard, that if such doctrines as those of election and special grace be true, men are not to be blamed who reject the Gospel.

In verses 7 and 8 the apostle reiterates the false charges against him in somewhat different terms. “You claim that I say, ‘If through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged a sinner?’”  The truth of God - His truth or faithfulness in adhering to his threatenings. God threatened to punish the guilty. By their guilt he will take occasion to show his own truth; or their crime will furnish occasion for such an exhibition.

Hath more abounded - Has been more striking, or more manifest. His “truth” will be shown by the fulfillment of all his promises to his people, and of all his predictions. But it will also be shown by fulfilling his threatenings on the guilty. It will, therefore, more abound by their condemnation; that is, their condemnation will furnish new and striking instances or his truth. Every lost sinner will be, therefore, an eternal monument of the truth of God.

Through my lie - By means of my lie, or as one of the results of my falsehood. The word “lie” here means falsehood, deceitfulness, “unfaithfulness.” If by the unfaithfulness of the Jewish people to the covenant, occasion should be given to God to glorify himself, how could they be condemned for it?

Unto his glory - To his praise, or so as to show his character in such a way as to excite the praise and admiration of his intelligent creation.  Why yet am I … - How can that act be regarded as evil, which tends to promote the glory of God? What we must remember is that the goal here is not creature specific – it is God specific.  It is and always has been, first and foremost, the glory of God, that is, the reputation and exaltation of His character before all creation.  The fault in the reasoning of the objector is this, that he takes for granted that the direct tendency of his conduct is to promote God’s glory, whereas it is just the reverse; and it is by God’s reversing that tendency, or overruling it, that he obtains his glory. The tendency of murder is not to honor the Law, or to promote the security of society, but just the reverse. Still, his execution shall avert the direct tendency of his crime, and do honor to the law and the judge, and promote the peace and security of the community by restraining others.

That was clearly a charge of antinomianism (disregard of God’s law) of the worst sort. The critics were accusing Paul of teaching that the more wicked a person is, the more he glorifies God; the more faithless a person is, the more faithful he makes God appear; the more a person lies, the more he exalts God’s truthfulness.

Those were not hypothetical misrepresentations, as Paul makes clear in his next statement: “And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say), ‘Let us do evil that good may come’?” Paul’s enemies obviously had repeatedly charged that his gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone not only undermined God’s law but granted license to sin with impunity. In effect, they accused him of saying that, in God’s eyes, sin is as acceptable as righteousness, if not more so.

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.  It is interesting that Paul considers himself to be every bit a part of the Apostolic community and no less an Apostle than any of the others, even though He was not one of the original disciples.  This is not by accident!  Rather, it is a deliberate representation of his authority as an Apostle of God to accentuate the offense of these who attack him.  His was not just another opinion.  His was the very opinion of God, communicated to God’s chosen servants, the Apostles.

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 slanderous manner.

As some affirm … - Doubtless these were the Jews, enemies of the Gospel. 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.  Remember, this is human reasoning and not God’s (or Paul’s) reasoning.

Whose damnation is just - Whose “condemnation;” (see 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. He is speaking here to the demonstration of their wicked and sinful character in wicked and sinful words.  Their condemnation as unsaved people is shown to be just, as they demonstrate their wicked nature by such horrible charges against God and against the Apostles.

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.

Although the scribes and Pharisees were themselves sinful and hypocritical to the core, they loved to condemn others for breaking the Mosaic Law and the rabbinical traditions even in the smallest degree. Their religion was legalism personified, and the idea of divine grace was therefore anathema to them, because it completely undermined the works righteousness in which their hope was founded.

The same legalism characterized the Judaizers, supposed Jewish converts to Christianity who insisted that Christians had to maintain all the Mosaic laws and ceremonies. Their charges against Paul’s gospel of grace were virtually identical to those of the scribes and Pharisees. The apostle therefore was attacked in much the same way both from within and without the church. It is therefore probable that Paul was addressing his arguments both to the Jewish leaders without and to the Judaizers within.

One of the most obvious characteristics of fallen human nature is its amazing ability to rationalize sin. Even small children are clever at giving a good reason for doing a wrong thing. That, essentially, was what Paul’s opponents charged him with doing - rationalizing sin on the basis that it glorified God.

Later in the epistle Paul deals in detail with this same issue. After saying that “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,” he quickly counters the false conclusion he knew many people would jump to. “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be!” (Rom. 5:20-6:2). With all the forcefulness he could muster, the apostle denounced the charge that he condoned any kind of sin. Least of all would he presume to justify sin by the spurious and vile argument that it brought glory to God.

It is possible, of course, that some of Paul’s accusers wrongly associated his teachings with that of libertines in the church, such as those who were a blotch on the church at Corinth. Jude wrote of “certain persons [who had] crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 4).

For a professed Christian to live in continual, unrepentant sin is a certain mark that he is not saved. To be a Christian is to be under the lordship of Jesus Christ and genuinely desire to serve Him. As Jude makes indisputably clear, the person who tries to justify his sin by presuming on God’s grace is ungodly and denies Christ (v. 4).

Paul’s final response to his slanderous critics was short but pointed. Although he was not the least guilty of teaching antinomianism, he fully concurred that for those who do teach it, their condemnation is just.

I need to be very careful about my own rationalizing about the sin in my life.  while salvation is not at issue in my life, I certainly need to be being sure that my behavior lines up with the command of God and does not bring despite upon His holy Name before men!