It’s not often that you or I get to witness an exceptional mind at work, particularly in a debate or other confrontational situation. The apostle Paul was a keen-thinking individual, perhaps one of the sharpest men who ever lived. But we don’t have many places at which to observe his mind in action. In the book of Acts, which records the progress of his missionary journeys, we are told repeatedly that Paul went into the Jewish synagogues and “reasoned” with the Jews. But there is almost no record of the form these debates took or of how Paul dealt with the questions his opponents would have been asking. But here in the third chapter of Romans we at least get a glimpse into the kind of back-and-forth reasoning that must have taken place again and again in the setting of Paul’s missionary expositions.

The first two chapters of Romans contain the bedrock teaching of the apostle as to the nature and universality of human sin. All that he has said in those chapters is to be summarized in chapter 3. But Paul seems to have been hearing in his mind the questions that sharp Jewish opponents had thrown up at him over the years, and he is therefore reluctant to move on to his summary without dealing with at least the most important of them. We have already looked at one of these questions: “What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?” (Rom. 3:1). In verses 3 through 8 of this chapter Paul deals with two more questions. In the text there are actually seven question marks as the apostle phrases these questions, no doubt reflecting ways in which they had been voiced to him. But there are really only two basic questions, and it is these that Paul answers before moving on to the great summary of verses 9 through 20.

When Paul asks the question, “Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness?” and when he answers, “Not at all!” it’s clear that he is embracing at least two of the points he makes later: (1) That God is sovereign and that all He does is just; and (2) that God will not break His promises and that, as a result, His pledges to Israel will certainly be fulfilled in the end. Again, when Paul says, “What if some did not have faith?” he indicates: (1) that in spite of great national unbelief, “some” Jews, now as then, have believed in the Messiah, and that (2) then as now the way of salvation is through the channel of faith in God’s promises.

In our sin all of us naturally presume on God, trying to manipulate Him in the sense that we try to oblige Him to save us regardless of what we either believe or do. The Jew did it by claiming that God must save him because of God’s promises to the nation. We Christians do it by believing that God will save us because our parents were saved and because we have been baptized or confirmed or such thing. But we cannot do that. God is faithful. He will save those He has promised to save. But not apart from faith! And not mechanically! If you are to be saved, it must be by faith in Jesus Christ, God’s Son, whom God has appointed Savior.

The second question, or should we say quibble, toys with theological matters and, as a result, deserves the scorn Paul gives it. Paul must have heard it a lot, just as we do. We gather this from the fact that he seems compelled to present it in three forms: (1) The first form of the question has to do with God’s role as judge of all the earth and could be rephrased as asking, “If our unrighteousness (or sin) is the necessary background against which God displays His wisdom, love, and mercy in salvation, how can God judge us for what therefore obviously has a good end?” Paul’s response is by a categorical statement regarding the certainty of God’s judgment in verse 6.

The second form of the objection is like the first, but centers more on one’s own contemplated judgment than on God’s role as judge. It says, “If my sin enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases His glory, how can He condemn me?” Paul doesn’t even answer this, but instead passes on to the third form of the question, after which he concludes: “Their condemnation is deserved” (v. 8b).

The third form of the question is the most extreme, but it seems to have been the way which Paul most heard it – both because of the way Paul refers to it here and the fact that he deals with it in other places (see Rom. 6:1-23). Here Paul admits that this charge had been widely disseminated against him: “Why not say – as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say – ‘Let us do evil that good may result’?” (v. 8a). That is, the more one sins, the more God is glorified. This is the most extreme form of the question because, in addition merely to dismissing the judgment of God or excusing sin, this argument actually encourages the indulgence of the sinful nature and appetite by allegedly Christian people.

The first two chapters of Romans have told us of the nature and extent of human sin. They have demonstrated that men and women, left to themselves, are on a path leading away from God, the only source of true good, and that the progression along that path is always and inevitably downhill. No original or ultimate good comes from any mere man or woman, only evil. Therefore, if good is to be seen anywhere, it must be from God Himself and be seen in those in whom He has planted His very nature. What a calling if you are a Christian! What a destiny!

“Do evil that good may result”? If you find yourself thinking that way, you are no true Christian. You are no Christian if evil in yourself and in others does not distress you. You are no Christian if you take the transgressions of God’s Law lightly. If you are a Christian, you will hate sin, repudiate it, fight against it, and strive for righteousness.

Romans 3:3-8 Reflection Questions:

What should you do if you find people in the church taking God’s Law lightly?

How often do you study the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7)? How does it make you feel about yourself when you do?

Does sin in yourself distress you?