Romans Commentary

Ver. 5. — But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) Out of the answer to the question in the first verse of this chapter, another objection might arise, which is here supposed. It is such as a Jew would make, but is proposed by the Apostle classing himself with the Jews, as is intimated when he says, I speak as a man, just as any writer is in the habit of stating objections in order to obviate them. The objection is this: if, then, it be so that the righteousness of God, — that righteousness which is revealed in the Gospel, ch. 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 taketh 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.

Ver. 6. — God forbid; for then how shall God judge the world?

Far be it. — Paul thus at once rejects such a consequence, and so perverse a manner of reasoning, as altogether inadmissible, and proceeds to answer it by showing to what it would lead, if admitted. For then how shall God judge the world? — If the objection were well founded, it would entirely divest God of the character of judge of the world. The reason of this is manifest, for there is no sin that any man can commit which does not exalt some perfection of God, in the way of contrast. If, then, it be concluded that because unrighteousness in man illustrates the righteousness of God, God is unrighteous when He taketh vengeance, it must be further said, that there is no sin that God can justly punish; whence it follows that God can no longer be judge of the world. But this would subvert all order and all religion. The objection, then, is such that, were it admitted, all the religion in the world would at once be annihilated. For those sins, for which men will be everlastingly punished, will no doubt be made to manifest God’s glory. Such is the force of the Apostle’s reply.

Ver. 7. — For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto His glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

This verse is generally supposed to contain the objection here reiterated, which was before stated in the 5th verse. It would appear strange, however, that the Apostle should in this manner repeat an objection — in a way, too, in which it is not strengthened — which he had effectually removed, and that after proposing it a second time he should add nothing to his preceding reply, further than denouncing it. It is not, then, a repetition of the same objection, but a second way in which Paul replies to what had been advanced in the 5th verse. In the preceding verse he had, in his usual brief but energetic manner, first repudiated the consequence alleged in the 5th verse, and had next replied to it by a particular reference, which proved that it was inadmissible. Here, by the word for, he introduces another consideration, and proceeds to set aside the objection, by exposing the inconsistency of those by whom it was preferred. The expression kajgw> I also, shows that Paul speaks here in his own person, and not in that of an opponent, for otherwise he would not have said, I also, which marks an application to a particular individual. His reply, then, here to the objection is this: If, according to those by whom it is supposed and brought forward, it would be unrighteous in God to punish any action which redounds to His own glory, Paul would in like manner say that if his lie — his false doctrine, as his adversaries stigmatized it — commended the truth of God, they, according to their own principle, were unjust, because on this account they persecuted him as a sinner. In this manner he makes their objection reach upon those by whom it was advanced, and refutes them by referring to their own conduct towards him, so that they could have nothing to reply. For it could not be denied that the doctrine which Paul taught respecting the justification of sinners solely by the righteousness of God, whether true or false, ascribed all the glory of their salvation to God.

Ver. 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.

This is the third thing which the Apostle advances against the objection of his adversaries, and is in substance, that they established as a good and just principle what they ascribed to him as a crime, namely, that men might do evil that good may come. They calumniously imputed to Paul and his fellow-laborers this impious maxim, in order to render them odious, while it was they themselves who maintained it. For if, according to them, God was unrighteous in punishing the unrighteousness of men when their unrighteousness redounded to His glory, it followed that the Apostles might without blame do evil, provided that out of it good should arise. Their own objection, then, proved them guilty of maintaining that same hateful doctrine which they so falsely laid to his charge. As we slanderously reported. — Here Paul satisfies himself with stigmatizing as a slanderous imputation this vile calumny, from which the doctrine he taught was altogether clear. Whose damnation is just. — This indignant manner of cutting short the matter by simply affirming the righteous condemnation of his adversaries, was the more proper, not only as they were calumniators, but also because the principle of doing evil that good might come, was avowed by them in extenuation of sin and unbelief.

It was fitting, then, that an expression of abhorrence, containing a solemn denunciation of the vengeance of God, on account of such a complication of perversity and falsehood, should for ever close the subject. On these verses we may observe, that men often adduce specious reasonings to contradict the decisions of the Divine word; but Christians ought upon every subject implicitly to credit the testimony of God, though many subtle and plausible objections should present themselves, which they are unable to answer.