Romans chapter 3

vs 1

After all, it sounds like Paul has just rubbished Judaism, as if it is pointless.

vs 2

That is, the Old Testament. Now, this is a great and valuable and honorable thing. But the truth is, the church has now been entrusted with the OT and the NT. So the Jews have been entrusted with the words of God in a historical context.

vs 3

This is a key part of the gospel. The truth is that all representatives of God are imperfect. They will reflect badly on God at some time or another. Some of them reflect badly on God a lot. The Jews just happen to be an awfully good example of this. But the gospel tells us that God is faithful. This is a key promise that we cannot escape (thankfully), and that should be of prime importance to anyone explaining the gospel to someone who says "But the church is divided, or hypocritical, or crappy". You know what - they're right! But the gospel isn't about churches or Jews. It's about God and Christ. And they are always reliable.

vs 4

The psalm Paul is quoting is David talking to God, so it is God that is proved right, and who prevails as a judge. God's total truth, correctness and ability to judge is all the more clear when you compare it to humanity's inability in same.

vs 5

This brings up the logical argument contained in this verse - if we by our unrighteousness serve to further highlight God's righteousness, how can we be punished for our unrighteousness? Interesting, Paul calls this a 'human argument'. Not really sure what he means by that. If it is an argument that is created by humanity, then isn't his reply equally human? Perhaps it is a human argument because it takes away from the supremacy of God - it tries to redefine what justice is.

vs 6

Many people would say "Well, he couldn't". But remember that Paul isn't necessarily arguing against non-believers here. Paul's letter is addressed to a church. It might be a church he's never been to. It might be a church that's totally on the wrong track. But it's a church, so you can at least assume that they believe in God (although in our modern times you sometimes wonder). So when Paul makes the statement "How could God judge if this were the case?" he is assuming that his readers agree, I think, that God can and will judge.

vs 7

It sounds like a reasonable argument, in a way. And in fact, those out there who are so tulipy that they have denounced free will must be stumped by this argument. How can God judge those whose actions bring him glory, or in fact whose actions are not their own, but have been predetermined (you would assume by God)? Thankfully this isn't many people.

vs 8

Paul thinks this argument is so silly, that you may as well say "Doing evil has a possibility that good may result". The truth is that God can make good result from evil. Because he's God. But we can't. God might choose to work through our evil to make good things happen. But we're still doing evil things, and therefore deserve condemnation. Any system which would disallow God to judge the evildoer makes God unjust, and that is logically untenable.

vs 9

So while Paul agrees that Jews have the advantage of being the stewards of the words of God (which lets face it, with every passing day from the writing of this letter became less so), when it comes to escaping the condemnation of sin, Jews and gentiles are alike equally powerless.

I'l leave the next bit for tomorrow, since it is all one section.