Much in every way. First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.Much in every way! Because first of all, they were entrusted with the revelations of God.Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God.
3 sermons cite this verse
… the spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God. What advantage then is there in being of Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way. First of all, they've been entrusted with the very words of God. But what if some do not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Not at all. As it's written, let God be true, and every man a liar. As it's written, so you may be proved right when you speak, and prevail when you judge. But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what should we say then? That God is unjust and bringing his wrath on us? I'm using a human argument. Certainly not. If that was so, how could God judge the world? But someone might argue, if my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and increases his glory, then why are we still condemned as sinners? Why not say, as we are being slandered, this report is saying, let's do evil that good may result. …
… Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means. Let God be true. Though everyone were a liar, as it is written, that you may be justified in your words and prevail when you are judged. But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? I speak in a human way. By no means. For then how could God judge the world? But if through my lie God's truth abounds to His glory, why am I still being condemned And why not do evil that good may come, as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just. I want you to notice the phrase at the beginning of verse 4 and verse 6, translated in the ESV, by no means. By no means. …
… and he traces it in Greco-Roman literature and Jewish literature, and he concludes that this phrase refers to the Old Testament Scriptures. He says in Romans 3.2, it certainly refers to that. In Hebrews 5.12, it probably refers to that. In Acts 7.38, it likely refers to that. And in 1 Peter, it may not refer to that, but three of the four, and he says, certainly in Romans 3.2. Think about how this phrase operates here in Romans, because you might say, well, why the Scriptures? Might it just be the prophetic utterances of God? Well, we know that he's not talking about just the law, because so often in chapter 2, there's been a reference to the law. If he wanted to just say, you know what your privilege is, you got the law, he would have used the word law again, but he doesn't. He's using something inclusive of that Mosaic covenant, that law they received, but broader than the law. And then think about this word we'll come back to at the very end, the Jews were entrusted. How are you entrusted with something? Something was handed to them, a deposit was given to them that was theirs to then steward and maintain and teach to others and pass on. …