Barnes New Testament Notes

Verse 8. 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; every man 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, etc. 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 men were the occasion of promoting God's glory in the plan of salvation. That "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound," Ro 5:20. That God, in the salvation of men, 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 men 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. Men 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 that which 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 Barnes "Ro 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.

{q} "Let us do evil" Ro 6:1,15