https://youtu.be/tgEGKPUr-FE

In our verse by verse study on Romans today we will start with

Rom 3:3; "What then" literally "for what" from the explanatory use of the postpositive conjunctive particle "gar," plus the interrogative pronoun nominative neuter singular from "tis" but this is an idiom.

In the Koine Greek the idiom means, "Well then, how stands the case with regard to the alternatives?" So "tis gar" introduces alternative possibilities regarding God's integrity or God's justice.

The question being posed is "What is the situation with regard to the alternatives related to God's justice."

According to the principle of the advantages are not advantageous without the advantage the Jew can only be benefited by being adjusted to God's justice. The idiom, "tis gar," introduces the problem of the Jew's maladjustment to God's justice from unbelief in a conditional sentence.

A conditional sentence is composed of a protasis and an apodosis

The protasis is the suppositional clause "if" while the statement is based on the supposition "then" that is called an apodosis. In this verse we have a first class condition of "if" that makes a supposition from the viewpoint of reality.

This condition is used when one wishes to assume the reality of his premise. The protasis is introduced by the conditional conjunction "ei", plus any mood or tense.

So we have the protasis of a first class condition, "if some did not believe," starting with the conditional particle "ei " that used to introduce a first class condition.

With it is the nominative masculine plural of the indefinite pronoun "tis," that is used to define a category, namely Jews who are maladjusted to God's justice because they have rejected the gospel.

"if certain ones." (An indefinite pronoun in the Greek always refers to something definite) Plus the aorist active indicative of the verb "apisteuo"(a = negative; pisteuo = to believe) meaning not to believe.

It really means to refuse to believe because it refers to someone who understands the issue because God the Holy Spirit has revealed it to them and they still say no, to disbelieve or to refuse to believe.

The aorist tense is a constantive aorist, that contemplates the action of the verb in its entirety. It gathers into a single entirety every Jewish unbeliever's maladjustment to God's justice from the beginning of the race, down through the nation, including all of those who rejected Christ to the moment in time that Paul wrote.

The active voice: the Jewish unbeliever produces the action of the verb by rejecting Jesus Christ as savior. As we have seen, this destroys the advantage of being a Jew. All the advantages of being a Jew are related to God's integrity and therefore require adjustment God's justice by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ.

The indicative mood is declarative viewing the action of the verb from the viewpoint of historical reality.

Now the apodosis: "shall their unbelief" the particle of unqualified negation "me" translated "not" is at the beginning of the question. The apodosis is a question. In questions where you have the negative "me" it infers no or not as the answer.

If the question begins with the negative "ouk" the answer is yes. The nominative singular subject "apisteo" means "unbelief," referring to maladjustment to God's justice for salvation that is based on rejection of Jesus Christ at the point of gospel hearing.

Plus the possessive genitive plural from the intensive pronoun "autos" used as a possessive pronoun that indicates that each individual Jew was responsible for his own choice of rejecting Jesus Christ, so that that spiritual heritage of his past was of no advantage to him.

"nullify the faithfulness of God will it?" from the future active indicative of the verb "katargeo" that means to abrogate, to render null and void, or cancel. It has to be translated "cancel."

This is a deliberative future tense, it deals with questions of uncertainty, but the questions are merely rhetorical to communicate doctrine in place of a direct assertion. Since the question begins with the negative "me" it is a rhetorical question with a preconceived answer that is put in the form of a question to replace direct assertion.

The active voice: the unbelieving Jew produces the action of the verb through maladjustment to God's justice by refusing to believe at point of gospel hearing. This is an interrogative indicative that expresses the viewpoint of reality as it is implied by the question.

The cancellation is a reality in the thinking of the hearer but it is not in the thinking of the communicator. That is what the interrogative indicative means.

There is also an accusative singular direct object from "pistis." While "pistis" means "faith" we are going to see that "pistis" also has other meanings.

There are three basic meanings for "pisits." The active voice meaning is trust, confidence, or faith. There is a passive sense where" pistis" means doctrine or what is believed, aka the body of faith.

There is a third connotation of the noun as that which causes faith, and under this condition it is translated "reliability" or "faithfulness." In this case "pistis" has a definite article to indicate that the word and its meaning in context is familiar to those who hear or read it.
So in this case the word means "integrity" or "faithfulness."

It is worded, "shall their lack of faith (rejection of Christ) cancel God's integrity or faithfulness? No."

Rom 3:3; Expanded Translation: "Well then how stands the case with regard to the alternatives? If certain ones (the Jews) refuse to believe (and they do), shall their lack of faith cancel God's integrity? No."

The failure of some members of the human race to refuse to respond to the gospel and to believe in Jesus Christ for salvation never abrogates or cancels God's integrity or faithfulness.

God's integrity cannot be cancelled by man's unfaithfulness. And that means not only unfaithfulness at salvation, but it also includes unfaithfulness in the function of learning doctrine under God's GASP system. 2Tim 2:12-13;

This is why it is so important to distinguish between God's justice or integrity that we must relate to, and the anthropopathism described as "the love of God" that we do not relate to.

We are not saved by God's love. We are saved by God's justice. God's love does not compromise His justice.

The question is based on the fact that just like many believers do today many were confusing the integrity of God, as well as the divine attribute of God's love with the anthropopathism of the "love of God."

When rejected, human love, cancels or rejects the rejecter; but we should not superimpose human love, frustrated love, or rejected love on God because God is immutable so He does not ever change.

Because human beings cancel their faithfulness when rejected in love does not imply that God cancels out his faithfulness or His integrity because we have rejected Him. He does not.

We do not deal with or relate to God on the basis of anthropopathisms. There are many anthropopathisms in scripture and they teach principles that are important at a certain stage of our spiritual growth, but an anthropopathism only goes so far and it should not be overextended.

Rom 3:4; "God forbid," from "me genoito." The negative "me" matches up with the negative "me" used in the question of the previous verse. When the negative "me" is used with a question the answer to the question is no.

In this verse we have the qualified negative "me" and the aorist active optative of "ginomai". Translating literally is all right when the language is literal, but the Greeks learned abstract thought very early and from the 5th century on abstract thought was quite common.

When there is more abstract thought there are more idioms and the objective is to correctly translate. To literally translate it "let it not be so" is not effective. This means that we are dealing with another idiom.

To understand the idiom we have to go to the negative "me" with the optative mood. The aorist tense of "ginomai" is a gnomic aorist for the certainty of a strong negation. The active voice: a rhetorical question produces the action of the verb.

This particular Greek idiom is a very strong negative and only Paul uses it. He uses it as a debater's idiom, gathering force for the next principle. The optative mood is called the deliberative optative for an indirect rhetorical question.

In this case it is used for a doubtful attitude of mind on the part of the hearers. Paul knows it to be absolute truth that "they do not." The idiom can be used in several ways.

"God forbid" is the archaic idiom. "By no means" has been used but it is a little on the weak side. The best idiom is "Hell no!" We compromise a little with "Emphatically not."