Can you Have an Advantage with God. (Romans 3 1-8)

Intro:

Human beings naturally resist feelings of guilt. No one likes being accused of doing something wrong, and most will do anything to avoid acknowledging their guilt.

This is precisely the issue Paul is addressing in Romans 3.

Romans 3:1-8— A Debate with an Imaginary Objector

In this passage, Paul structures his argument as if responding to an imaginary objector. He presents three objections, each followed by a direct answer:

1. Objection 1 (Verses 1-2): “If religious rituals like circumcision don’t guarantee salvation, then what advantage does the Jew have?”
2. Objection 2 (Verses 3-4): “If some Jews were unfaithful, does that mean God is unfaithful?”
3. Objection 3 (Verses 5-8): “If our sin somehow highlights God’s righteousness, is it unfair for Him to judge us?”

Conclusion:

Paul’s argument in Romans 3:1-8 is clear:

• Being religious or having a spiritual heritage provides an advantage, but it does not guarantee salvation.
• God remains faithful, even when people fail.
• Sin is never excusable, even if it highlights God’s righteousness.

This passage confronts our tendency to justify ourselves before God. The only way to be truly right before Him is through faith in Christ, not by clinging to our moral or religious credentials.

Reflection: Have you ever relied on your moral or religious background to justify yourself before God? How does this passage challenge your thinking?

The Balance of Gray
God, doubt, and proof walk into a podcast... it goes better than you’d expect!

Listen on: Apple Podcasts   Spotify

Chapters

• 9:43 [Ad] The Balance of Gray
• 10:31 (Cont.) Can you Have an Advantage with God. (Romans 3 1-8)

Transcript

Notes From Transcript:

Human beings naturally resist feelings of guilt. No one likes being accused of doing something wrong, and most will do anything to avoid acknowledging their guilt.

Which is why when a moral person is confronted in the Bible about their sinfulness and the reality that they must give an account before God, they most likely respond by trying to point out their good deeds. They cannot bear the idea of being declared guilty.

Similarly, a religious person, when faced with their accountability before God, often turns to their religious practices and rituals, claiming those things give them merit before God.

These responses reveal a fundamental truth: People will grasp at anything—morality, tradition, or even their religious practices—to shield themselves from a sense of guilt, especially before God.

This is precisely the issue Paul is addressing in Romans 3.

Setting the Stage:

To understand this passage, we need to step back for a moment.

In Romans 1, Paul declares that the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of everyone (Romans 1:18). He makes it clear that all people sit under God's judgment.

In the first half of Romans 2, Paul turns his attention to those who consider themselves moral and self-righteous. He argues that even those who live by high moral standards still face God's judgment and that they, too, will be found wanting.

Then, towards the end of chapter 2, Paul shifts his focus specifically to religious people, particularly the Jews of his day. Many of them were shocked at the idea that they would also be judged by God. They clung to their religious identity, rituals, even the sign of circumcision as proof of their righteousness. Yet Paul tells them that religion alone will not save them. Their circumcision is meaningless if they do not obey God's law perfectly.

This is a hard truth to accept. People instinctively fight to justify themselves. They look for some advantage, some way to claim that they are not guilty before God.

That is exactly what happens as Paul moves into Romans 3—he anticipates the objections of a religious person who still wants to claim an advantage before God.

Romans 3:1-8— A Debate with an Imaginary Objector

In this passage, Paul structures his argument as if responding to an imaginary objector. He presents three objections, each followed by a direct answer:

1. Objection 1 (Verses 1-2): “If religious rituals like circumcision don’t guarantee salvation, then what advantage does the Jew have?”
2. Objection 2 (Verses 3-4): “If some Jews were unfaithful, does that mean God is unfaithful?”
3. Objection 3 (Verses 5-8): “If our sin somehow highlights God’s righteousness, is it unfair for Him to judge us?”

Objection 1: Is There Any Advantage to Being Jewish? (Romans 3:1-2)

Paul begins by posing what would have been a natural question for them:

“What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, and what value is there in circumcision?” (Romans 3:1)

This question flows directly from what he taught in the last chapter, where Paul dismantled the idea that circumcision alone provides righteousness before God. If that’s true, someone might then reasonably ask, “Then what was the point of being Jewish at all?”

Paul immediately answers in Romans 3:2:

“Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.”

In other words, while Jewish religious rituals like circumcision do not guarantee salvation, the Jewish people were entrusted with God’s revelation—His Word, His promises, and His truth. This was a great privilege.

It’s similar to someone today saying, “I grew up in a Christian home, I was raised in a Bible-believing church, and now you’re telling me that none of that guarantees my salvation? Then what was the benefit of all those years of living in a Christian household?”

Paul’s response is clear. The Jews had every advantage. They had the intellectual discipline that came from keeping the Old Testament law. They had dietary laws that contributed to their physical well-being. They had a moral framework that set them apart from the pagan nations around them.

Yet, despite these privileges, Paul makes it clear that having these things did not automatically make them righteous before God.

Objection 2: Does Israel's Unbelief Invalidate God's Faithfulness? (Romans 3:3-4)

Paul anticipates the next objection:

“What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness?” (Romans 3:3)

In other words, does Israel’s unbelief render God unfaithful?

Paul’s response is emphatic:

“Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar.” (Romans 3:4)

Just because one man fails does not mean God fails. Even if every human were to lie, God remains true. His promises are not contingent on any individual’s belief but on His own nature.

Paul then quotes Psalm 51:4, where David, after his sin with Bathsheba, acknowledges that his failure only serves to confirm God’s righteousness.

Objection 3: Is God Unjust for Judging Us? (Romans 3:5-8)

Paul raises another anticipated argument:

“But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us?” (Romans 3:5)

This argument suggests that if human sin somehow highlights God’s righteousness, then it would be unfair for God to judge that sin.

Paul’s response is forceful:

“Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world?” (Romans 3:6)

If sin were excusable simply because it highlights God’s righteousness, then God could not judge anyone, which is absurd.

Paul then addresses a slanderous claim in verse 8:

“Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say, ‘Let us do evil that good may result’? Their condemnation is just!” (Romans 3:8)

Some had twisted Paul’s teachings on grace to mean that sin was acceptable since it glorified God. Paul outright condemns such reasoning.

Conclusion:

Paul’s argument in Romans 3:1-8 is clear:

• Being religious or having a spiritual heritage provides an advantage, but it does not guarantee salvation.
• God remains faithful, even when people fail.
• Sin is never excusable, even if it highlights God’s righteousness.

This passage confronts our tendency to justify ourselves before God. The only way to be truly right before Him is through faith in Christ, not by clinging to our moral or religious credentials.

Reflection: Have you ever relied on your moral or religious background to justify yourself before God? How does this passage challenge your thinking?