Weighing 46,328 gross tons and approximately 882 ft. long, she was believed by many to be unsinkable. Her 2,228 passengers probably gave no thought to the possibility that she would ever go under. However, on the night of April 14, 1912, at approximately 11:40 p.m., the unthinkable happened. The Titanic slammed into an iceberg and immediately began to take on water and sink. Imagine the horror of finding oneself sinking into the icy ocean waters. Imagine the greater horror when some of the 2,228 passengers of the Titanic rushed to lifeboats which had a capacity of only 1,178 persons. 1050 passengers, assuming all passengers could have made it to a lifeboat, would not have found any room for themselves. If any of the passengers of the Titanic would have considered before her demise the possibility of the ship sinking, they would have no doubt thought about the security the lifeboats would provide in such an emergency. Can you imagine what it was like for the passengers of the Titanic who had complete confidence that they were safe only to discover that their sense of security was false. On April 14 and in the wee hours of the morning on April 15, the confidence of 1523 people in the great Titanic was shattered.

While the story of the Titanic is terrifying, imagine how much more horrific it will be when those who place confidence in their religion discover that their confidence is false. Imagine what it will be like for so many who will expect God's favor and acceptance because of their being religious people, only to discover that instead, they are under His eternal condemnation and judgment. Unlike the story of the Titanic in which 705 people did survive, absolutely no one will be saved who depends on religion to make himself or herself right with God.

The false confidence people have in religion to make them right with God needs to be shattered before it is too late. People need to be told that their being religious leaves them no better off with regard to satisfying God's requirements. Even religious people fall far short of God's standard and are deserving of His condemnation.

In the past couple of weeks, we have been considering Paul's affirmation that all people from the pagans to the "best of us" fall far short of God's standard of absolute holiness. No one makes it. No one is good enough. No one is able to satisfy God's requirements sufficiently enough to present himself before Him as righteous. No one is perfect.

But what about religious people? What about religious people? Do even religious people stand condemned? Yes, even religious people are unable to satisfy God's requirements to present themselves before Him as righteous. Confidence in one's religion to make oneself right with God is false confidence. The apostle Paul shattered the false confidence of the Jews. It was no doubt bad news for the Jews to realize that all that in which their confidence rested was false, but in order for them to understand the good news, they first had to grapple with and accept the bad.

The Jews' privileged position before God was the subject of their continual boast. Because of their position, the Jews considered themselves better off than anyone else when it came to satisfying God's requirements. They believed they were able to present themselves before God as righteous. Paul lists several characteristics the Jews loved to bring up to demonstrate their privileged position before God and to prove they were better off than anyone else--namely the Gentiles:

The Jews rested upon or put their confidence in the law God gave to THEM through Moses. WE RECEIVED THE LAW! WE POSSESS IT! As the recipients of God's law, the Jews thought of themselves as being better off than everyone else. The Jewish people loved to recite verses like Psalm 147:19-20- "He has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel. He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws. Praise the LORD." The Jews were right that it was a privilege to be the recipients of God's law. They were wrong, however, to think that the fact of their merely possessing it gave them security against God's judgment.

Literally, the text says the Jews, "boast in God." Of course, to glory or boast in God is a good thing if such boasting is fully intent on giving Him the glory. It is a whole different matter, however, when such boasting is self-centered and intent on emphasizing one's own self-importance. The ungodly Jews were boasting as a means of boasting in themselves. The Jews were boasting in their being the one's who were in covenant relationship with God. Their boast was that they were God's chosen people.

They had a relationship with God enjoyed by no other people or nation.

They knew what God commanded and what He forbade; what He approved and what He disapproved; what He rewarded and what He punished. They knew what God desired, required, and what He planned. Unfortunately, as we will learn later, the Jews did not have a working knowledge of God's will. They knew what He willed for them to do, but they didn't do it.

They prided themselves in being able to make judgments that were far superior to those of the ignorant Gentiles.

They were morally discerning in their judgments because of the regular instruction they received out of the law. The Greek word translated "you are instructed" (literally-being instructed) is the term from which our word catechism is derived. Both at home and in the synagogues, Jewish boys in particular were systematically and thoroughly instructed out of the law. The law was a light to their feet.

The Jews were not satisfied just to know the law for themselves. They presented themselves as religious guides for those who were blind, as the light to show the way for those who walked in darkness, as the instructors or correctors of the foolish, and as the teachers of the immature. The contrast between religious guides and the blind, between light and darkness, between the instructor/corrector and the foolish, the teacher and the immature infant paints a vivid picture of how the Jews saw themselves in comparison to the Gentiles. The Jews believed themselves to have these privileges because it was they and not the Gentiles who possessed "in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth." It was they who possessed the knowledge and truth of God.

As Paul rehearsed the privileged position of the Jews by enumerating all the things they loved to bring up about how they were distinct from the Gentiles, His Jewish readers were probably giving affirming responses. Yeah, that's true. Uh huh! Uh huh! You know it! Go Paul! The Jews gloried in their special, privileged position. As they compared their position with that of the Gentiles; as they understood the great contrast between their enlightenment and the ignorance of the Gentiles, they looked very good.

As the Jews compared themselves to the Gentiles, they no doubt thought, "Of course we, the Jews, are certainly acceptable to God. Surely we will be considered righteous." The crux of the matter for the Jews, however, was not how they compared to the Gentiles, but how they measured up to the standard of God. Even though the Jewish people occupied a special place in God's sight, even though they were in a privileged position, even though they were in possession of God's law, their lives were essentially no different than those of other people--even the Gentiles. They had privileges when it came to God's law, but they didn't obey it. The Jews believed their special position made them acceptable to God when in fact it was the basis of His condemnation of them as it was unable to change their lives. They did not do what the law required and therefore stood condemned. They were no better off than anyone else. They too were under God's condemnation.

If anything, the privileges of the Jews increased their responsibility. It did not, as they seemed to think, set it aside. The knowledge of God's law gave the Jew a standard of judgment that no others had. In spite of their privileged position, the Jews were no better than those who had less light and fewer privileges.

Paul used four piercing questions to expose the hypocrisy of the Jews. These four questions confronted the vast discrepancies or inconsistencies that existed between what the Jews taught and what they did. These question drove home the truth of the Jews actual state. Paul's questions exposed the Jews' hearts and laid bare the hidden or glossed over sins of their lives.

Paul asked, "You, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself?" Paul's first question confronted the Jews with the fact that they failed to teach themselves what they taught others to do. This question was general in nature and made point that the Jews taught others the precepts of the law while having little concern to obey those truths themselves. The Jews so confidently presumed that they were fit to instruct the ignorant Gentiles, and yet they failed to heed to the instruction of the law. The Jews were like the corrupt judges or police officers of our day whose lives directly contradict the laws they swore to uphold and enforce.

Paul's remaining three questions were directly related to specific prohibitions of the law against stealing, adultery, and selling idols for profit.

Paul's second question was, "You who preach against stealing, do you steal?" Despite the clear pronouncement of the law against theft-- "You shall not steal"--it was very common among the Jews.

H.A. Ironside writes about the Jews of the ancient world, "The Jew was looked upon as the arch-thief, using every cunning device know to the money-lender and usurer to part his client from their wealth."

Consider the following pronouncements of Scripture against the Jews for their theft:

Ezekiel 22:12- "...You take usury and excessive interest and make unjust gain from your neighbors by extortion. And you have forgotten me, declares the Sovereign LORD."

Amos 8:5- "...When will the New Moon be over that we may sell grain, and the Sabbath be ended that we may market wheat?--skimping the measure, boosting the price and cheating with dishonest scales..."

Consider what Jesus found among the Jews at the temple:

It is written, "he said to them,  'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers'" (Matthew 21:13).

Paul's third question was, "You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery."

As with stealing, the Jews practiced the evil of adultery which they condemned in others. Their committing adultery did not necessarily mean they committed the sin outwardly or overtly as a physical act.

Proverbs 6:25 warns in regards to the wayward wife or immoral woman, "Do not lust in your heart after her beauty or let her captivate you with her eyes."

Jesus said about such lust, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28).

Perhaps Paul was confronting the attempts of the Jewish men to circumvent the command against adultery by divorcing their wives and marrying another woman to whom they were attracted. Of course, Jesus made clear that divorce and remarriage for any other reason than sexual infidelity resulted in adultery. Matthew 5:32- "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."

Paul's fourth question was, "You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?" The Jews claimed that idols were detested by them. They claimed to abhor them. While they claimed to detest them, it did not keep them from trafficking in them.

The Mosaic law strictly prohibited Israelites from gaining personally from the idols they seized after conquering pagan enemies. Deuteronomy 7:25 says, "The images of their gods you are to burn in the fire. Do not covet the silver and gold on them, and do not take it for yourselves, or you will be ensnared by it, for it is detestable to the LORD your God." Of course, by New Testament times, the nation of Israel had long since ceased to conquer Gentile territories, but it appears that there were individual Jews who plundered pagan temples for the payment they would receive from the sale of the idols they stole. The statement that the town clerk of Ephesus made in Paul's defense that he and his associates had not robbed temples (Acts 19:37) suggests that it was not uncommon for Jews to be guilty of this offense. Despite the clear prohibition of making personal gain from idols, the offending Jews rationalized such theft and profit making thinking they were doing God a favor by bringing loss to paganism. Did the Jews really detest that which was the source of personal profit? Not at all.

By confronting the Jews hypocrisy, Paul revealed to the Jews that possessing the law given to them by God was not enough to make them righteous and therefore acceptable to Him because they could not keep the law. Possessing the code was not enough because they did not and could not keep the code.

By breaking God's law while presuming themselves to be the privileged possessors and teachers of it, there were two consequences which resulted. The first consequence is that by not obeying that which was their supreme boast--the law which they possessed--the Jews dishonored God who gave them this law. The second consequence was that they caused God's name to be blasphemed among the Gentiles. Paul quoted the very Scripture of the Jews from Isaiah 52:5 to condemn their hypocrisy because of what it caused. The Jews hypocrisy led the Gentiles to blaspheme God.

The Gentiles probably reasoned, "If these are God's people, why should we think much of God?" or "If God's chosen people do not follow Him, why should we honor God?"

While the Jews did not dare to repeat the sacred name of God with their lips, His name was, because of their hypocrisy, blasphemed by the Gentiles with whom they associated.

Before you too harshly criticize the Jews for their hypocrisy, ask yourself the following:

Do I teach what I have not learned myself?

Do I preach what I do not practice?

Do I declare things to be forbidden only later to do them myself?

Do I, like the Jews have only orthodoxy (right doctrine) and not orthopraxy (right practice)?

Is the name of the LORD being blasphemed because there is no essential difference between how I live and how the world lives?

It is easy to see the blindness of the Jews in thinking that the mere possession of the law was enough to make themselves acceptable to God, but the sword cuts both ways for those today who are resting in their knowledge of the truth while failing to live it. There are some who imagine that they are acceptable to God because they know more about the Bible than the average person on the street, they have memorized significant portions of it, they have detailed outlines of many passages. It is a great temptation for many to imagine that just because of more knowledge they are somehow more acceptable to God than others.

The person who possesses God's truth, but does not do what he knows to do, is no better off than those who are ignorant.

The Jews trusted not only in the Law of Moses, but also in circumcision, the sign of their covenant relationship with God. The Jews erroneously thought that because they merely performed the outward ritual of circumcision as God instructed, they would therefore be guaranteed a favorable standing with God. That circumcision was one of the chief grounds of Jewish confidence is evident when considering the following statement from the Midrash: "God swore to Abraham that no one who was circumcised would be sent to hell. Abraham sits before the gate of hell and never allows any circumcised Israelite to enter."

In Romans 2:25-29, Paul confronts the false confidence the Jews put in the outward ritual of circumcision.

In verse 25, Paul affirms that there is value in circumcision, but only if the Jews kept or continually practiced the law. If the Jews broke the law of God, and they did, their circumcision had no value to them. It counted for nothing. A Jewish lawbreaker was just like a Gentile lawbreaker. The Jews failed to acknowledge that circumcision had no spiritual power or benefit in itself. It only served as a symbol of the covenant which promised blessings to those who kept it. It did not as the Jews thought prevent them from being dealt with as transgressors of God's law, or treated as though they had never been circumcised.

In verse 26, Paul taught that the uncircumcised Gentile who observed or kept the law would be counted or regarded as being circumcised. Since the physical rite of circumcision is in itself nothing, its presence cannot protect the guilty as noted in verse 25 and neither can its absence invalidate the claims of the righteous. God would look on the uncircumcised Gentile just as favorably as He did upon a circumcised Jew who kept His law. Paul was not saying the Gentiles could keep the law, but that if they could they would be regarded as circumcised. Paul is here presenting a hypothetical situation to show that circumcision itself could not be the grounds for either justification or condemnation.

As if it was not hard enough for the Jews to learn that their circumcision was in itself of no worth, Paul wrote that the uncircumcised Gentile who obeyed God's law would figuratively speaking rise up to condemn the circumcised Jews who didn't pay attention to what God had asked him to do (they would not perform the actual judgment as this was God's prerogative). The obedient Gentiles faithfulness would stand as a sharp rebuke to the faithless disobedience of hypocritical Jews. It only makes sense that the Gentile who did not have the letter of the law and the rite of circumcision, yet obeyed the law, would condemn the Jew who had both and yet broke the law. The opposite would make no sense at all. How could the Jew who broke the law he had be better off than the Gentile who obeyed it even though it was not given to him?

External rituals, such as circumcision, can't satisfy God as long as the heart is rebellious. External rituals get us no closer to being accepted by God as they don't change our internal condition. God isn't impressed by a superficial show of rituals. God wants people to give Him their hearts.

Paul points out in verses 28-29 that being a true Jew was not a matter of outward or external things. Being a true Jew was not just a matter of Jewish heritage (Jewish heritage had absolutely no spiritual benefit in and of itself). Likewise, genuine circumcision was not the physical, outward rite itself. A true Jew was one inwardly and true circumcision was of the heart and by the Spirit.

That circumcision was to be a matter of the heart was clearly taught in the Old Testament. Paul was not suggesting something new:

Deuteronomy 30:6- "The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live."

Jeremiah 4:4a- "Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, circumcise your hearts, you men of Judah and people of Jerusalem."

It was the Jew with a godly condition of heart, accomplished by the Spirit of God and not by the letter of the law, who would receive praise from God. Only the Jew, transformed by the Spirit of God, would really be living up to his name which was a contraction of the word Judah and meant praise.

Just as being a true Jew was not just a matter of external things or of physical Jewish heritage, being a Christian is not just a matter of growing up in a Christian home. Christians are those who have trusted Christ as Savior. Have you trusted Christ as your personal Savior or are you counting on God accepting you because you are latching on to the apron strings of your parents' faith? Do think that because your parents have trusted Christ, you are automatically o.k. too? Your parents trust in Christ as Savior does not make you acceptable to God. You too must trust Christ personally in order to be saved.

Are you trusting in external rituals to obtain salvation? Are you, for instance, trusting in baptism? Are you trusting in weekly attendances at church services? It is the tendency of man to try to ignore the sinful condition of his heart which leads him to put undue stress on external rituals. For example, man reasons, I go to church every Sunday and take notes on the sermon. Surely I am acceptable to God. The one who trusts external rituals to obtain salvation will be condemned. Only the person with a heart that has been changed by God will receive salvation.

Are you trusting in what I call the "one time rituals?" Are you counting on God accepting you because you have walked down an isle or because you have prayed a prayer?

Do you know someone who is depending on their rituals to save them? Do you know someone, for example who is depending on the sacraments of the Catholic Church for salvation? Have you told them the bad news intent on then being able to share with them the good news? OR Are you allowing them without personal challenge to believe that earnest, religious, confident people will make it when in reality they will ultimately be lost if they fail to trust Christ as Savior? Are we letting our neighbors be allowing them to rest in false confidence or are we asking God to shatter their false confidence in hopes that they will then turn to the Savior?

As is common for religious people who are under conviction of sin, instead of facing their need for a changed heart, they look for loopholes to excuse what they do. They say, "Yeah, but what about this?"

Paul, in chapter 3:1-8, anticipates the questions the Jews would ask seeking excuse for their sin:

Question #1-What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?

The Jews reasoned that if their heritage and their following the Jewish rituals such as circumcision did not make them any more acceptable to God than a Gentile, what special advantage did they have? Did they have a privileged position as they had boasted for so many years? Paul acknowledged the advantage of the Jew over the Gentile as being self-evident. What advantage did the Jews have? Much in every way! First of all, their chief advantage, was that they had been entrusted with the very words of God. They had God's Word which revealed to them the nature and character of God. They had God's Word which helped them to be morally discerning. They had God's Word to help them understand His will and purposes. They had God's Word to instruct them. They had God's Word which revealed their special covenant relationship with Him. Being entrusted with God's very words was advantageous for the Jews, but the very words of God which they possessed only made their guilt all the more evident. Being entrusted with the words of God was an advantage, but that did not make the Jews acceptable to God.

Question #2- "What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness?"

In other words will the unfaithfulness of some of the Jews make void or cancel the faithfulness of God? To which Paul replied, "Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: 'So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.'"

The fact that some of the Jews were unfaithful did not bring into question God's faithfulness to Israel. The problem wasn't with God; it was inside them. The unfaithfulness of Jewish religious people did not call into question God's faithfulness, but it rather proved it. The Jewish people's unfaithfulness made His faithfulness stand out all the more. Despite the fact they had been unfaithful, He still remained faithful. This theme of course is developed further by Paul in Romans 9-11. God would keep on being true even if every man proves untrue, even if every man becomes a liar. Paul affirms that God maintains his justice and righteousness in His judgment of sinners in quoting from Psalm 51:4- "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge?"

Question #3-"But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing wrath against us?"

Question #4- "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases His glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner? Why not say, >Let us do evil that good may result?"

The Jews reasoned that since God's righteousness is made evident by our sin as Jews, and our falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so enhances His glory, He shouldn't judge us. Judging us and bringing His wrath against us would be unjust. We are helping Him look good. How can He judge us for that? If it were the case that God was unable to judge the Jews because they brought out God's righteousness more clearly, then, as Paul explains, God could not judge the world. Not being able to judge the Jews because they brought out God's righteousness more clearly would make impossible a final world judgment, a thing in which every Jew believed. What the Jews failed to understand is that all sin, that of the Jews and the Gentiles, demonstrates the contrast between God's righteousness and justice and the corruptness of all people. The fact that God's righteousness was made more clear by the Jews sin did nothing to remove their guilt. The fact that the Jews falsehood caused the truth of God to abound to His glory did nothing to remove their guilt.

The Jews reasoned and accused Paul of reasoning that if they made God look good by their unrighteousness and lies and were thereby excused of their sin and guilt, why not go out and sin all the more. After all, sin produces the great benefit of revealing God's righteousness and truthfulness. To this Paul replied, "Their condemnation is deserved." The Jews excuses and reasoning did nothing to remove their guilt and condemnation. Tried as they did to find loopholes, none could be found.

As theologian Charles Hodge writes, we need to, "Beware of any refuge from the fear of future punishment, founded upon hope that God will clear the guilty, or that he will not judge the world and take vengeance for our sins."

God condemns guilty sinners. The only solution to the condemnation sin brings is trusting in Jesus Christ for salvation. The solution is not finding a loophole or excuse to try to get around ones guilt and deserved judgment.