Romans Chapter 3 verse 8 Holy Bible
and why not (as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), Let us do evil, that good may come? whose condemnation is just.
read chapter 3 in ASV
Let us not do evil so that good may come (a statement which we are falsely said by some to have made), because such behaviour will have its right punishment.
read chapter 3 in BBE
and not, according as we are injuriously charged, and according as some affirm that we say, Let us practise evil things, that good ones may come? whose judgment is just.
read chapter 3 in DARBY
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.
read chapter 3 in KJV
read chapter 3 in WBT
Why not (as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), "Let us do evil, that good may come?" Those who say so are justly condemned.
read chapter 3 in WEB
and not, as we are evil spoken of, and as certain affirm us to say -- `We may do the evil things, that the good ones may come?' whose judgment is righteous.
read chapter 3 in YLT
Pulpit Commentary
Pulpit CommentaryVerse 8. - And not (i.e. why should we not say), as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say, Let us do evil, that good may come? Whose (i.e. of those who do say so) condemnation is just.
Ellicott's Commentary
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(8) And not rather.--And (why should we) not (say), as some persons slanderously affirm that we say, Let us do evil that good may come. Some such phrase as "Why should we say" must be supplied; "why" from the previous clause, "say" from that which follows. Or "(Why should we) not (do evil), as some persons slanderously affirm that we say, Let us do evil," &c. The latter, perhaps, is best, as we might then suppose the word for "let us do" repeated precisely in the form in which it stands.The Apostle does not care to answer this argument in detail; he will not dally with such a perversion of the moral sense, but simply says, "Whose condemnation is just."What pretext could any one possibly have for attributing such an opinion to St. Paul? The charge was no doubt utterly false as applied to him, but we know that his teaching was made an excuse for Antinomian excesses, which would not unnaturally be fastened upon the Apostle. Or, taking his teaching as it stands, we might well imagine the Jews or the Judaizing party arguing with themselves, "This man openly breaks the Law, and yet he claims to be in the right way, and that all will go well with him; is not this doing evil that good may come? Does he think to win the Messianic kingdom by the breach of the Law, and not by its observance?"
