https://youtu.be/SUw6dUctAgE
In our verse-by-verse study of Romans last time we completed Rom 3 verse 4.
Expanded Translation Rom 3:4: "Emphatically not: rather, let the God be proven reliable, though every man a liar; as it stands written, In order that you might be demonstrated as just by means of your doctrines, and that you may prevail when you are being slandered."
Rom 3:5; "But if our unrighteousness." It begins with the postpositive conjunctive particle "de" translated "but" used as a transitional particle. It is designed to make a transition into one of the most common attacks on the integrity of God.
"De" plus the conditional particle "ei' translated "if" introduces the protasis of a conditional clause in a conditional sentence, the first class condition of 'if" is a supposition from the viewpoint of reality or, as in this case, assumed reality.
This is a debater's first class condition. The nominative singular subject "adikia," translated "unrighteousness."
"adikia" also means wrongdoing, wickedness or injustice. It means human injustice in contrast to God's "dikaiosunh," a word that is used for God's perfect integrity. In the New Testament "adikia" means legal injustice and partiality in judgment.
It describes man's unrighteousness in contrast to God's perfect righteousness. "Adikia" refers to dishonesty, lack of integrity and injustice from operating in satan's evil cosmic system.
Next is the possessive genitive plural from the pronoun "ego," indicating that in this context we are dealing with the Jewish unbeliever.
But remember that by application it could be any born-again believer who is maladjusted to God's justice from failure to rebound, or who has rejected spirit taught epignosis doctrine from God's Word of truth.
In this case the Jewish unbeliever is maladjusted to God's integrity and therefore possesses unrighteousness or lack of integrity
"Demonstrates" is translated from the present active indicative of the verb "synistemi," that means to bring together, to unite, to demonstrate, to show, to recommend. Here it means to demonstrate or promote.
Paul uses the genitive plural to identify himself with the Jewish unbeliever. Paul is not a Jewish unbeliever this is form of debater's technique. He simply assumes the position of the self-righteous Jewish unbeliever in order to destroy that position. He sets up a straw man and then knocks him over.
The present tense is a perfective present that denotes the continuation of assumed existing results. It refers to the assumption of the past but emphasizes a present reality. The active voice: the unbelieving Jew, who is very smart, assumes the action of the verb.
The assumption comes from his arrogant self-righteousness. The declarative indicative mood is used to indicate that this is a real assumption but it is incorrect.
It is a debater's first class condition. The unbeliever Jew in his arrogant self-righteousness is going to say that his unrighteousness or sinfulness actually promotes or demonstrates God's integrity.
"But if our unrighteousness demonstrates or promotes ""the righteousness of God" from "dikaiosune Theos." The genitive singular of Theos and the nominative singular of "dikaiosune" in the accusative.
The accusative is used as the direct object. Here it refers to God's righteousness, God's justice, or the combination of the two, or justification (blessing from God's justice).
It is blasphemous to assume that human righteousness promotes God's integrity. God's integrity has always existed from eternity past, long before there was any unrighteousness in the human race.
Neither man's self-righteousness nor his unrighteousness can add anything to God's integrity. In fact, God's righteousness totally rejects man's self-righteousness as well as man's sinfulness.
The self-righteous Jew uses debater's technique to imply that God would be wrong and unjust to judge or punish anyone who was promoting His glory or integrity. The self-righteous arrogant Jewish unbeliever erroneously contends that his unrighteousness promotes God's righteousness or integrity.
Therefore the self-righteous Jew uses his argument to conclude that God could not condemn him. God's righteousness is His personal love for holiness or integrity. Since holiness demands holiness, integrity demands integrity, righteousness demands equivalent righteousness, justice demands justice, God must condemn all members of the human race from His perfect integrity.
God demands integrity from imputed righteousness, plus maximum doctrine in the soul, and condemns maladjustment to His justice. This is why adjustment to God's justice is so important and it is the basis for our understanding our relationship with God.
God in grace provides through imputation all that His integrity demands from the human race. He provides imputed righteousness at salvation. Then He provides doctrine after salvation.
At the cross God judged our sins when Christ was bearing them 1 Peter 2:24. At the cross He condemned our sins in Christ; after salvation He condemns lack of doctrine in the soul. Psa 85:10.
"What shall we say?" is a literal translation of the debater's rhetorical response. It includes the nominative neuter singular from the interrogative pronoun "tis," plus the future active indicative from the verb "lego." The future tense is a deliberative future used for rhetorical questions taking the place of a deliberate assertion.
The future active indicative of this rhetorical question is actually used seven times in the book of Romans, and in each case Paul is using logic in connection with debater's technique in order to refute a false position. Rom 3:5; 4:1; 6:1; 7:7; 8:31; 9:14, 30.