64 THE UNRIGHTEOUSNESS OF MAN – THE BAD NEWS

49:6; 60:1-3), though nationally as well (I Kings 8:41-43). What ought

to have been is implicit in v. 24.

(b) However, the missionary prayer of King Solomon was not heeded (I
Kings 8:57-61). For while the Jews of Paul’s time wanted Gentile
admiration and recognition that their God was the only true God (I
Kings 8:60), they were not prepared “to be wholly devoted to the Lord
our God, to walk in His statutes and to keep His commandments” (I
Kings 8:61).

(4) They have wisdom and truth, v. 20.

There is no direct condemnation of the Jew here; rather it is implicit in terms

of the hypocrisy already stated in vs. 1-8, and his proud and lordly
presentation of the truth.

(a) Yes, the Jew ought to “correct the foolish” and “teach the immature.”
This is proper pastoral responsibility, but the Lord Jesus Christ also
revealed the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders in this regard (Matt. 23:1-
3).

(b) Yes, the Jew ought to uphold “the Law,” though he should have
understood it as more than mere “embodiment,” or mÒrfwsij,
morphōsis, that is “outward form” or “framework” as used in II
Timothy 3:5.

(5) Application. Before Paul “lowers the boom,” so to speak, there is a fearful
reality presented here, and that of the most insidious hypocrisy. For just as
the police officer, a lawyer, and judge have sworn to uphold the law, yet
while presenting the posture of a law keeper, they actually break the law! So
it is possible for a Bible teacher, a church leader, the amen chorus of the
church, to be no less hypocritical than the Jew here described. For this
reason, as with Paul here, it is vital that doctrine always be presented along
with its necessary practical expression.

b. What do they do? vs. 21-23.

Here is Paul’s sudden put-down and piercing response to the set-up of vs. 17-20.
But how does Paul know about the details of this exposure? Two areas are
significant here. First, there was his rabbinical training in Jerusalem as a Pharisee
that included tutelage under the esteemed Gamaliel (Acts 22:3; Phil. 3:5). Second,
there was his instruction by way of special revelation from the Lord Jesus Christ
58
(Gal. 1:11-12; I Cor. 11:23; 15:).

58
Cf. J. Gresham Machen, The Origin Of Paul’s Religion, pp. 43-68.
 AN OUTLINED COMMENTARY ON ROMANS 65

(1) Knowing of teaching others, they do not teach themselves, v. 21a.

(a) Recalling the exalted roll of teaching in Judaism, even as he had

personified while being rabidly anti-Christian, Paul obviously focuses
on those exercising a responsible position of religious leadership,
especially the Rabbi, Pharisee and Scribe, who Isaiah denounced (Isa.
50:1-20) and Christ exposed (Matt. 23:1-3; cf. Jas. 3:1).

(b) Similarly, Paul would today denounce conservative Christendom in this

interrogative manner. It is the measure of sinful human nature that a
man or woman of any number or reputable professions or callings may
in fact live a life that denies the creed he or she has formally confessed,
the politician who lives one way and campaigns another, the doctor
who professes the Hippocratic oath and performs abortions, the
attorney who seeks ways to avoid the law he has sworn to uphold, the
liberal seminary professor who signs an orthodox doctrinal statement
and teaches a liberal agenda, the Sunday School teacher who sweetly
moralizes to children and is immoral during the week, , the church choir
member who sings a different song at home.

(2) Knowing of stealing, they steal, v. 21b.

(a) The Eighth Commandment is invoked with regard to the “preacher” or

“proclaimer,” who would use his position of influence to “devour
widow’s houses” (Mark 12:40), to commit sophisticated larceny, under
the guise of “needy religious causes”!

(b) However is Paul, in all of these situations as here, merely addressing

Jewish leaders, that is teachers and preachers, and not the common
people? No since he seems to be addressing both categories in vs. 21-23,
especially in the light of v. 24 where Israel’s ungodly reputation is
revealed in Isaiah 52:5 as being attributed to “the house of Israel, ” and
“the house of Israel” in Ezekiel 36:17-20. There is also the possible
inference that those who listen as pupils are no better than their
masters.

(3) Knowing of adultery, they are adulterous, v. 22a.

(a) The Seventh Commandment is invoked by the “sayer” of the Law, that
is concerning “adultery,” or moice…a, moicheia, the more specific term
for sexual infidelity.

(b) But what of the many who might claim not to be violators of this
commandment? Surely Paul, the special student of the Lord Jesus, has in
mind here not simply the “act” but also the “attitude” of heart (Matt.
5:27-28). In John 8:6-9, when Jesus Christ writes on the sand, it is a
reasonable suggestion that he wrote specifically of the similar sins of
these murderous Scribes and Pharisees, causing them to retreat, even
their method of legalizing prostitution by means of allowing quickie
66 THE UNRIGHTEOUSNESS OF MAN – THE BAD NEWS
59
divorces for the most insignificant marital offences. Though Moo’s
comment is important here, that “Paul’s purpose in Romans 2 is to
60
convince Jews of the inadequacy of their works.” Hence the Apostle
focuses on the experts of the Law to show the demerit of their
transgressions.

(4) Knowing of idolatry, they are pseudo-idolatrous, v. 22b.

The Second Commandment is invoked by the “abhorrer” or “loather” of

such objectionably odorous idolatry. Such a person, typical of Judaism, finds
the stench of pagan worship to be revolting. But while Paul does not charge
the Jews with being overt idolaters, he does infer that they hypocritically
“rob temples.” The KJV is less literal, “Dost thou commit sacrilege?” What
does he mean here? In general, it seems that while the Jew was expressly
forbidden from gaining personal profit from a captured idol (Deut. 7:25),
yet he devised ways by which he could gain and at the same time skirt
explicit transgression, as the Talmud illustrates of a Jew “taking an idol and
61
selling it to a Gentile.”

(a) The actual evidence for the Jews, contemporary with Paul, literally
“robbing pagan temples” is quite slim. Though does not Acts 19:37
suggest this possibility?

(b) Alternatively the Jews, contemporary with Paul, did avoid paying their
tithes and temple tax, and siphoned off, as Josephus indicates, money
62
due to the temple treasury.

(5) Knowing of the Law, they break the Law, v. 23.

(a) This reiteration of vs. 17-22 is encompassing and not simply incidental.
But the final question is intended to be humiliating because of the
assumed truth that the Jew certainly does bring shame to God’s
character. Murray adds, “Transgression of the law is a dishonoring of
God; it deprives him of the honor due to his name and offers insult to
63
the majesty of which the law is an expression.

(b) Application. To give a contemporary paraphrase: “You who proudly

carry in your hand a gold embossed, fine leather, reliably translated, full
reference Bible, and vociferously defend its full inspiration, and at the
same time are reputed to be a cheat in your money dealings and morally
loose, do you in fact insult the God of that same book?” The answer is
“yes” in a manifold way.

59
Alfred Edersheim, The Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah, II, pp. 333-334.
60
Moo, Epistle to the Romans, p. 165.
61
Morris, Epistle to the Romans, p. 137.
62
MacArthur, Romans 1-8, p. 157.
63
Murray, Romans, I, pp. 84-85.
 AN OUTLINED COMMENTARY ON ROMANS 67

c. What does the Law say about them? v. 24.

Paul pointedly asks, “Do you in fact know what the Law you boast in [the Bible
you carry] says about you?” So he quotes Isaiah 52:5, though Ezekiel 36:17-20 is
more explicit (cf. II Pet. 2:2).

(1) Their lives are watched by the Gentiles, v. 24a.

While a watching world ought to have found God commended in the

national lifestyle of Israel (I Kings 8:59-60), yet the opposite was the case.
This was the supreme shame in the midst of God’s creation.

(2) Their lives cause the Gentiles to blaspheme God, v. 24b.

In simple terms they responded: “If God is reflected by these obnoxious,

complaining, hypocritical Jews who claim to be His chosen people, then we
denounce that God as being a fraud, and partner to the crimes of the Jews.”
So as John MacArthur well comments concerning our parallel situation
today: “It would be better for many Christians, true believers as well as
false, to hide their religious profession. Their living is such an obvious
contradiction of Scripture that the cause of Christ is mocked and scorned by
64
the world,”

d. What significance is circumcision? vs. 25-29.

An observer of Paul’s confrontation with the Jew might well ask the question:
“How is it possible for the Jew to so shamelessly maintain his proud self-esteem
and nationalism in the face of such shameful condemnation by the Gentile?” as in
v. 24. The answer, that really goes without saying, is in a word, “circumcision.”
Whereas the current teaching was that, “no person who is circumcised will go
65
down to Gehenna [hell as the lake of fire],” so Paul now commences to destroy
the religious hypocrite’s last bastion, namely sacramental/ritual/covenantal
regeneration.

(1) It is significant, not effecting, v. 25.

(a) Some background on circumcision. According to Genesis 17:9-14,

circumcision was ordained of God as signification of the covenant He
had made with Abraham and his seed. For this reason the seed organ
was cut. Note that at that same time, the name “Abram” meaning
“exalted father,” was changed to “Abraham” meaning “father of a
multitude” (Gen. 17:5). As a modern conservative Jew puts it, “For
Jews circumcision today, as in the past four thousand years, is not a
detail of hygiene. It is the old seal of the pledge between Abraham and
66
his Creator, a sign in the flesh, a mark at the source of life.” However,

64
MacArthur, Romans 1-8, p. 158.
65
Moo, Epistle to the Romans, p. 167; also Hodge, Romans, p. 63.
66
Herman Wouk, This Is My God, p. 140.
68 THE UNRIGHTEOUSNESS OF MAN – THE BAD NEWS

even Jeremiah became aware that a physically circumcised Hebrew

could yet be “uncircumcised of heart” (Jer. 9:25-26).

(b) Circumcision is “significant,” that is, it is an authentic “sign” when it

points to a “practicer of the Law.” But for the lawless, circumcision has
no significance and in fact is invalidated; it is not regenerative. Later in
4:9-12, the point will be made that Abraham was justified through
faith, and hence regenerated, before he was circumcised. Therefore Paul
is not repudiating circumcision as a sign of national Jewish identity, as
3:1-2 indicates. Rather he is negating a function of circumcision that
never really existed.

(c) Application. While Christian baptism does not identify with

circumcision in every regard, yet here the parallel is close. Water
baptism is significant when it points to a converted or regenerated
heart, but it is impotent in producing regeneration. Nevertheless, many
nominal Christians are vainly trusting in an outward washing or
sprinkling while their hearts remain unclean. Refer to C. H. Spurgeon’s
confrontation with this heresy in his famous sermon titled Baptismal
67
Regeneration.

(2) It is significant for the Gentile, vs. 26-27.

The implications of this right teaching on circumcision are encouraging for

the Gentile. Otherwise, he is ipso facto excluded from the favor and grace of
God because of an absent physical qualification.

(a) His obedience is as circumcision, v. 26.

Positing that a Gentile “keeps the righteous requirements of the Law,”

this expression suggests the Mosaic law which an uncircumcised “God-
fearer” reveres and obeys, such as Cornelius (Acts 10:1-2; cf. 13:26), or
a lesser disciple of the God of Israel. How then is he to be regarded?
God will reckon circumcision to him, even as any observer ought to do,
because God regards the doing of righteousness as the justifying
evidence of his sonship. He may not have the circumcision of Abraham,
but he is nevertheless a child of Abraham because he does “the deeds of
Abraham” (John 8:39).

(b) His obedience shames the transgressor, v. 27.

If a Gentile has a heart for God, a heart that is alive to God, a heart that
loves God, a heart that actively pleases God, and thus is circumcised of
heart, though he be physically uncircumcised, this man is the judge of
the ungodly, circumcised Jew, since he pronounces shame upon him, he
declares his hypocrisy (Matt. 8:5-12, especially vs. 11-12).

67
C. H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, X, 573.
 AN OUTLINED COMMENTARY ON ROMANS 69

1) The word “judge” is emphatic here, and it relates to the Jew

“having the letter of the Law.” This circumcised religionist has the
Bible in his hand and mind, a comprehensive data bank, doctrinal
comprehension, but his disgraceful godlessness will ensure severe
condemnation by the mere presence of the godly Gentile, without a
word being spoken (Phil. 3:2-3).

2) Illustration. In an office situation, the unbaptized member of The

Salvation Army who manifests genuine graces of the Spirit will
stand out in obvious silent judgment upon the baptized Baptist
who manifests the works of the flesh.

(3) It is significant for the real Jew, vs. 28-29.

The definition of an authentic Jew, especially for Paul here, is a matter of

different opinions by conservative Christians. Some suggest that in this
church age, it is the true Christian who is now the real and only spiritual
Jew, and that since God has finished forever with Israel as a nation, there is
no such thing in His sight as a national Jew. This I believe is not what Paul
has in mind here, especially in the light of 3:1-2; 11:1-36; Acts 22:3; Gal.
6:16. A genuine Jew is one who, having been circumcised of the heart, is also
circumcised of the flesh, and identifies geographically with those of the same
commitment, cf. 9:6.

(a) It does not signify a real Jew, v. 28.

A literal translation reads, “For not the one in outward manifestation is

a Jew, neither is the one in the outward manifestation of fleshy
circumcision.” What is it that essentially identifies a Jew? Negatively, it
is not the outward rite of circumcision, even though the rite itself is not
nullified (3:1-2; Acts 16:3). At best, circumcision identifies a professing
Jew.

(b) It does signify heart circumcision, v. 29.

1) The sine qua non of true Jewishness is “heart circumcision” which

operation is “by the Spirit,” which is more probable than “in the
68
spirit,” though as Morris writes, “either way gives good sense,”
(cf. 7:6; II Cor. 3:6-7). In such a case, the true Jew receives his
affirmation of Jewishness from God, which for him is what really
matters, and not as was commonly sought in Paul’s time according
to “the letter,” the praise of man (John 5:41-44). Above all else, a
true Jew has a heart that is made by God, owned of God, and
consecrated to God.

68
Morris, Epistle to the Romans, p. 142. “Spirit” is supported by Calvin, Hodge, Moo, Morris, Murray,
“spirit” by Haldane, Lloyd-Jones, Shedd.
70 THE UNRIGHTEOUSNESS OF MAN – THE BAD NEWS

2) Illustration. Dr. Lloyd-Jones concludes this section as follows:

If we want to make sure that we are unlike the Jews in this respect
[that Paul is challenging], we must examine ourselves. The Jews did
not, they never would. They put up this citadel around themselves
and said, ‘We are the Jews, you must not talk to us. Go and preach
to the Gentiles, do not preach to us.’ They are like the lady, if I may
say so, who once complained of my preaching in Westminster
Chapel and said, ‘This man preaches to us as if we are sinners!’
Unthinkable! You see, if you erect that kind of citadel around
yourself you will never know that you are a hypocrite. . . . So let
every man examine himself. Let us take these searching questions
which Paul addresses to these Jews of old and let us turn them upon
ourselves. . . . You can only be sure that you have answered them
truly and faced them honestly when you look at yourself and say,
‘In me, that is to say, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing,’ when
you abhor yourself and hate yourself, and get down on your knees
quietly, in your own room, not on the street corner, not in a public
place, but in your own room with the door shut and the blinds
drawn and acknowledge it before God and break your heart before
Him, reminded again that if we do confess our sins He is faithful
and just to forgive us our sins and so cleanse us from all
unrighteousness [I John 1:9]. Oh, may God give us honesty and
truth in our inward parts that we may allow the Scriptures to
69
search us.

3. The Jew’s status before God, 3:1-8.

70
Most translations reveal a barrage of nine questions in these eight verses. Clearly they
represent the anticipation of Paul to vociferous objections from the Jew who struggles
to feel secure through covenant circumcision in view of his unmasked hypocrisy. The
preceding context could especially cause the carnal Jew to question the viability of his
national existence.

a. Concerning Jewish identity, vs. 1-2.

A literal translation here reads: “Therefore what advantage does the Jew have?
What is the profit of belonging to the circumcision?” There are two parallel
statements here so that “the circumcision” is a synonym, and an appropriate one
71
here, for “the Jew.”

69
Lloyd-Jones, Romans 2:1-3:20 p. 158.
70
It is for this reason that many commentators, including Lloyd-Jones and Moo, regard this passage as one of
the most difficult to interpret in Romans.
71
Morris seems almost alone in pointing out the use of the definite article here so that “the Jew” and “the
circumcision” are in parallel, Epistle to the Romans, p. 152. Paul does not forget to defend circumcision;
rather he is speaking of corporate identity in both expressions, (cf. ¹ peritom», hē peritomē, Rom. 4:9; Gal.
2:7-9; Phil. 3:3;.1:10).
 AN OUTLINED COMMENTARY ON ROMANS 71

(1) Is the Jew still privileged? v. 1.

In the midst of his strong condemnation of the Jew who trusts in external
religious insignia, Paul has plainly stated in 2:25 that there is “value,” the
same Greek word as “benefit” here in 3:1, in circumcision when it identifies
the Israelite who evidently is circumcised of heart. Paul has not declared that
Judaism does not exist anymore, as he will later expound upon in chapters 9-
11.

(2) Yes, through the oracles of God, v. 2.

Concerning this forthright answer here, Murray comments that, “Paul was
not afraid of being accused of bibliolatry when he thus assessed the
72
inscripturated Word.” In other words, the written Word of God is identical
to the spoken Word of God (II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:19-21).

(a) Preeminently or chiefly, to Israel and no other nation has been given the
sacred trust, the great responsibility of being the custodians of “the
oracles of God” or literally “the speakings of God,” t¦ lÒgia toà qeoà,
ta logia tou theou, and circumcision identifies those who belong to such
a privileged race. The point is that God has not only given an
inscripturated book to His people, but He has spoken to them
exclusively in a personal way giving many immutable promises (Deut.
4:7-8; Ps. 147:19-20) . Thus to the Israelites belong “the adoption as
sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the
temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom
is the Christ according to the flesh,” 9:4-5.

(b) Thus the Christian is forever indebted to the Jew in this as well as other
numerous ways. Concerning the Jewish Masoretes who, during the
ninth century, produced the present text of the Old Testament, F. F.
Bruce writes that,
they treated it [the Old Testament text] with the greatest imaginable
reverence, and devised a complicated system of safeguards against scribal
slips. They counted, for example, the number of times each letter of the
alphabet occurs in each book; they pointed out the middle letter of the
Pentateuch and the middle letter of the whole Hebrew Bible, and made
even more detailed calculations than these. . . . and they made up
73
mnemonics by which the various totals might be readily remembered.

(c) Illustration. Martyn Lloyd-Jones comments:

But I want to emphasize this by putting it to you negatively. If the
greatest privilege that can ever come to man is to be spoken to directly by
God, it is equally true to say that there is no greater loss that a man can
suffer than that God should cease to speak to him. ‘Behold’, says the

72
Murray, Romans, I, p. 93.
73
F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, p. 117.
72 THE UNRIGHTEOUSNESS OF MAN – THE BAD NEWS

prophet Amos, threatening a recalcitrant people, ‘Behold, the days are

come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a
famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the
Lord’ [Amos 8:11]. . . . The Christian is a man who ought to be wretched
74
and miserable if he feels that he does not hear God speaking to him.

b. Concerning Jewish unbelief, vs. 3-4.

Paul’s theoretical (? cf. v. 8) antagonist is still smarting from the condemnation of

2:17-29. Hence, at the mention of “the oracles of God,” he recalls that this
present state of unbelief parallels Israel’s past history even back to the rebellion in
the Sinai wilderness. At the same time, back of this recollection and the whole
argument is foundational trust in the Abrahamic covenant which the Jew clings
to, notwithstanding disobedience to “the oracles of God.” If this covenant is
unconditional, is not Israel’s existence guaranteed?

(1) Does unbelief nullify God’s promise, v. 3.

Translate as follows: “If some of them were unfaithful [in Israel’s past
history], will not their unfaithfulness nullify the faithfulness of God?” As
Hodge well explains:
Has he [God] not promised to be a God to Abraham and to his seed? Has he
not entered into a solemn covenant to grant his people all the benefits of the
Messiah’s kingdom? This covenant is not suspended on our moral character. If
we adhere to the covenant by being circumcised and observing the law, the
fidelity of God is pledged for our salvation. We may therefore be as wicked as
you would make us out to be, that does not prove that we shall be treated as
75
heathen.

(2) No, since God remains true, v. 4.

(a) Paul’s immediate response is the strongest possible Greek negative, m¾

gšnoito, mē genoito, “May it never be,” or, “it is unthinkable,” or
“perish the thought.” He is repulsed by such tricky reasoning, typical of
casuistry.

(b) Such reasoning impugns the character of God since it makes Him to be
indifferent to unrighteousness amongst His people, or complicit in the
tolerance of sin; it is repulsive in terms of it demeaning His holiness.
Rather, in the midst of a world where every man is a liar and godless,
let the fact reign that God alone is righteous and true. In a world of
pervasive wickedness, let the truth of God’s integrity be upheld in
judgment (as vs. 5-6 demand) along with covenant faithfulness (Neh.
9:32-33; Ps. 96:13; Amos 3:2).

74
Lloyd-Jones, Romans 2:1-3:20, pp. 168-69.
75
Hodge, Romans, p. 70.
 AN OUTLINED COMMENTARY ON ROMANS 73

(c) Paul quotes the Septuagint version of Psalm 51:4 to support his defense
of God’s character. David, in admitting his total guilt, was in effect
saying that should anyone rise to defend him, then let his unqualified
confession vindicate his judgment by God. In other words, let God’s
judgment stand as true and right. So here, though the whole world
should testify falsely, let God’s character stand as true and right; let
God, above all else, be vindicated as just and righteous in every
situation.

(d) Application. But is not the same sort of reasoning found in the Christian
church today? It is the attitude that clings to an evangelistic decision
and baptism and church membership and the doctrine of eternal
security as the guarantees of going to heaven, in spite of disinterest in
spiritual truth and blatant godlessness. But such belief insults God’s
character and the power of His gospel. Rather, true Christians shall be
saved and false Christians shall be judged, and God shall be vindicated
as always just.

c. Concerning God’s righteousness, vs. 5-6.

The perverse line of reasoning increases in its intensity. While the previous
argument of vs. 3-4 dealt with “their unbelief” in relation to God’s firm covenant
with Abraham, here, in a similar vein, the suggestion concerning “our
unrighteousness” is a blatant and clever attempt to justify sin, to even present it as
beneficial. Surely Paul draws from experience in personal encounter here, and is
not merely theoretical. And surely the tenor of the argument is Jewish.

(1) Does God’s faithfulness oppose His wrath? v 5.

(a) Major premise: “our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of

God.” In other words, there are advantages to sin, and God ought not
to overlook them; He should tolerate sin.

(b) Major conclusion: “therefore God would be unjust to inflict judgment

upon those sinners who instrumentally enable God’s righteousness to
shine.” But this is not necessarily so since God was righteous before sin
actively originated. A rose in the midst of weeds has outstanding
beauty, yet in standing alone its beauty remains. Evil means do not
justify good ends.

(c) The prime concern of the troubled antagonist here using Rabbinical
76
argumentation, is that of God’s “inflicted wrath,” which plainly
indicates that the wrath of God, cf. 1:18; 2:5, is more than an attitude;
it involves active punishment.

76
William G. T. Shedd, Commentary on Romans, p. 65.
74 THE UNRIGHTEOUSNESS OF MAN – THE BAD NEWS

(2) No, since He is also Judge of the world, v. 6.

Paul’s revulsion at such a line of argumentation, the shamelessness of it, is

indicated by his care in personally distancing himself from it by having
declared in v. 5, “I speak according to human fashion.” Now follows his
repeated categorical denial of such even more obnoxious casuistry, cf. v. 4.
The logical response is to declare that such reasoning in fact paralyzes God’s
righteous dealings with man, His judgment of man. Why? Because any sin in
the universe would inevitably be confronted with God’s righteousness. But
this being so, then all sin, in enabling such a reflection, would have to be
tolerated. Thus God would never be able to in fact judge any form of sin. As
Hodge writes, Paul’s “answer is complete and satisfactory; it is a reductio ad
77
absurdum.”

d. Concerning God’s glory, v. 7-8.

Paul’s theoretical(?) antagonist, now extends the argument to a yet lower level of
reasoned depravity. For to suggest that sin should be tolerated so as to reflect
God’s righteousness is one thing; but then to recommend the propagation of sin so
that God’s greater glory and goodness be displayed is to sink to an all time low.

(1) Why judge a Jewish sinner who glorifies God? v. 7.

The argument here is similar to that of v. 5, though there seems to be a

throwback to vs. 21-23 as well. That is, Paul’s Jewish opponent is reasoning,
if you charged me with law breaking, then I also charge you with law
mishandling. If I lie with the result that the contrasting truth of God being
declared upholds His glory, then why should I be judged as a sinner? Should
I not be allowed to continue being a stimulus to God’s glory?

(2) Why not allow evil to be a stimulus to good? v. 8.

We take the main thrust of this verse to be an extension of the Jewish

78
argument of v. 7, and not Paul’s response.

(a) This logical extension of the thought of v. 7 suggests, perhaps with a

proud sneer, that the promotion of evil will in turn promote greater
good. So again, Paul’s former condemnation of Jewish sinners is really
counter- productive; it opposes the promotion of God’s glory!

(b) In the midst of this wicked inference, Paul suddenly injects a comment
that indicates that he himself has been charged with such slander or
blasphemy, blasfhmšw, blasphēmeō. This recalls the charge of 6:1 and
the perverse accusation that Paul’s gospel promotes licentiousness,

77
Hodge, Romans, p. 74.
78
The commencement of v. 8 with ka… rather than dš is decisive here.