And why not (kai mh). We have a tangled sentence which can be cleared up in two ways. One is (Lightfoot) to supply genhtai after mh and repeat ti (kai ti mh genhtai, deliberative subjunctive in a question): And why should it not happen? The other way (Sanday and Headlam) is to take mh with poihswmen and make a long parenthesis of all in between. Even so it is confusing because oti also (recitative oti) comes just before poihswmen. The parenthesis is necessary anyhow, for there are two lines of thought, one the excuse brought forward by the unbeliever, the other the accusation that Paul affirms that very excuse that we may do evil that good may come. Note the double indirect assertion (the accusative and the infinitive hma legein after pasin and then the direct quotation with recitative oti after legein, a direct quotation dependent on the infinitive in indirect quotation. Let us do evil that good may come (poihswmen ta kaka ina elqh ta agaqa). The volitive aorist subjunctive (poihswmen) and the clause of purpose (ina and the aorist subjunctive elqh). It sounds almost uncanny to find this maxim of the Jesuits attributed to Paul in the first century by Jews. It was undoubtedly the accusation of Antinomianism because Paul preached justification by faith and not by works.