https://youtu.be/UEmyw5rbbYI
In our verse-by-verse study of Romans last time we concluded verse 7 and had just started on verse 8.
Rom 3:8; "And why not" There are two words here, "kai me." "Kai" is generally translated "and", so it is understandable that the phrase is translated "and why not." However, there are four separate distinctive uses of the conjunction "kai," and in this case the intensive use is more accurately translated into the English as "in fact."
'Kai" followed by the negative particle "me" that qualifies hypothetically, though not actually. The negative "ouk" denies in fact, the negative "me" denies the idea.
So Paul begins verse 8 with the denial of the slanderous assertion that he made in verse 7 that he has been falsely accused of so a more accurate translation is "In fact, not true" or "in fact not" or these days just "not."
"as we are slanderously reported" the adverb translated, "as" is "kathos" that is used as a comparative conjunction to introduce indirect discourse and start a parenthesis. Then we have also the comparative conjunction used twice in the parenthesis to introduce two slanderous assertions.
The present passive indicative of "blasphmeo" translated "slander." It means to injure the reputation of, to slander, to revile in relationship to man or to blaspheme in relationship to God.
The present tense is a perfective present that emphasizes what has occurred in the past as a present result. This is something that happened in the past but it has the consequence of creating a reputation that exists in the present. Slander established a reputation about Paul.
The passive voice: Paul receives the action of the verb. It is Paul who is maligned and slandered. The indicative mood is declarative for the historical reality of the fact that Paul, the greatest Bible teacher who ever lived, was maligned and slandered and this created a reputation about him.
"And as some claim that we say" this time the "kai" is connective so it is correctly translated as "and." Followed by comparative conjunction "kathos" translated "as" or "just as."
Followed by "phemi" translated "claim'" referring to the false slanderous allegation plus the nominative plural of the indefinite pronoun "tis," translated "some" that is not indefinite at all.
The indefinite pronoun "tis" is used to refer to the people who are slandering Paul. It refers indirectly to Paul's critics, especially the Judaisers who are ultra-self-righteous in their attempt to keep the Mosaic Law as a system of righteousness that they believe pleases God.
Arrogant self-righteous people are always critical of grace oriented doctrinal teaching. But all the slander and maligning in the world cannot destroy the ministry of anyone who communicates the Grace and Truth of Bible doctrine because the power is in God's Word.
The word translated "claim" here means to allege. This is the present active indicative of "phemi," meaning to allege. This is a progressive present tense signifying action in progress or a state of persistence, so there is very strong linear action as in they keep on alleging.
That is what satanic slanderers do; they shout their lies out so loud and so often that people are almost browbeat into believing their slander.
We see this the leftist democrat media in our country today. They lie so much and their pictures are so fake that you really shouldn't believe anything they say about anything but it hard not to become propagandized by them.
It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words, a corollary to that is that a fake photo shopped picture is worth a thousand lies.
The active voice: in this case the arrogant self-righteous legalists are producing the action of the verb. The indicative mood is declarative representing the verbal idea as reality.
This actually occurred historically and it has great meaning. Then the conjunction "lego" plus "hoti." "hoti" is used after verbs of saying or thinking to show what the content of the alleged concept is.
Then we have the accusative plural of general reference from the personal pronoun "hemeis" translated "we" acting as the subject of the infinitive. Plus the present active infinitive of "lego," and the present tense this time is descriptive present indicating something that continues to occur.
The active voice: Paul allegedly produces the action of the verb. He really doesn't produce it and that is why it couldn't be a statement of fact in the indicative mood so it had to be put into an infinitive.
The infinitive is used to describe a perceived result where something is assumed or distorted.
Now the content of the slander: "Let us do evil" this is what the Judaizers contend they allege that Paul is saying, the aorist active indicative of the verb "poieo" for "let us do."
The aorist tense is a constantive aorist, contemplating the action of the verb in its entirety. It gathers up into one entirety Paul's entire ministry.
They allege and accuse Paul of teaching every day without exception "Let us do evil that good may come." The active voice: his critics allege Paul to does the action of the verb. In addition, they put it in the hortatory subjunctive that is used when one encourages others to join him "in doing evil so good may come."
Plus the accusative neuter plural direct object from the definite article used as an abstract adjective to apply it in a special sense-evil things. Then the accusative neuter plural direct object from "kakos" that along with the definite article" ho" is translated "evil things."
"that good may come" the conjunction "hina" translated "that" introduces a purpose clause. They contend that this is Paul's purpose. Then the nominative neuter plural from "agathos" with the definite article "ho" that refers to "good things."
Plus the aorist active subjunctive of the verb "erchomai," translated "come." The culminative aorist views the purpose in its entirety and it regards it from the viewpoint of existing results.
In other words, the constantive aorist is the means "evil." The culminative aorist is the result "good things."
In other words, they are accusing Paul of using an evil to attain or achieve good. The active voice says that Paul is alleged to produce the action. The subjunctive mood goes with the purpose clause.
This phrase, "let us do evil things that good things may come," is slander. Paul does not contend that the means justifies the end, nor that the end justifies the means. If the means is evil then the end always evil.
The means determines the quality of the result aka the end. Good never comes from evil.
The end can never be any better than the means by which the end was achieved. Consequently, God never uses evil to accomplish good. That is incompatible with God's perfect integrity or holiness.
Under God's integrity grace is the means and grace is the result. God's integrity is the means and God's glory is the result. Only God's integrity can glorify God.