Sermons
through
Romans
Work
of the Law in the Heart
Romans 2:12-16
With Study Questions
Pastor Paul Viggiano
Branch of Hope Church
2370 W. Carson Street, #100
Torrance, CA 90501
(310) 212-6999
pastorpaul@integrity.com
9/30/2012
Work
of the Law in the Heart
Romans 2:12-16
For as many as have
sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in
the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law
are just in the sight of God, but the
doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not
have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having
the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law
written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between
themselves their thoughts accusing or
else excusing them) 16 in
the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my
gospel (Romans 2:12-16).
For as many as have
sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in
the law will be judged by the law (Romans 2:12).
The Righteous Guru
So very much can, and has been, said
and written on this passage that it is difficult to zero in on how it is to be
preached. There is general consent that
verse 12 holds all men without excuse—that whether or not you were raised in
the church (in this case the Old Covenant church of Israel) or outside the
church, that all men are without excuse in their sin and disdain for God and
His righteous counsel (Romans 1:18-21).
Years ago a friend told me of his
complaint against Christianity. The
problem lies, he explained, in the notion that a hermit/guru living in a tree
in the rain forest who never harmed a single soul or had a foul thought would,
apart from Christ, be condemned to hell.
My friend had conjured in his mind this perfect person—this heavenly
earth-man who had never done evil—and my friend could not reconcile how a just
God would condemn such a person for simply not following Jesus.
At first blush the scenario causes one
to pause. But upon further examination
it becomes apparent that his mythical narrative is fraught with error and false
suppositions. For one, condemnation is
not the consequence of refusing to follow or believe in Jesus—condemnation is
the consequence of sin. Rejecting Jesus
is to refuse one’s only hope of rescue from sin.
He made the false supposition that a
sinless man would not go to heaven. A
sinless man needs no savior. The
announcement of the gospel did not come until Adam sinned. But the primary error made by this story is
the notion of the sinless man. The man
who thinks he is sinless, according to John, deceives himself and the truth is
not him (1 John 1:8).
If sinfulness is an attribute of all men
(as the Bible proclaims from cover to cover) then it is an error to assume
someone else to be sinless (excepting Jesus of course). Furthermore, so deep and undeniable is this
truth (the truth of all men being indwelt and corrupted by sin) that Jesus announces
that He did not come for those who deny this self-evident truth.
And
when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a
physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but
sinners” (Mark 2:17).
Verse 12 explains this universal
inexcusability. Whether one is raised
with a Bible in their hand (or more likely in the case of the first century
Jew—hearing it read in the synagogue) or with no written code whatsoever, there
is not a man who does not sin and there is no man who is truly seeking the God
against whom he sins.
The entire human race would shake
their collective fist against their Maker—against the only source of truth and
wisdom. There is no person pining away
for a God who, in His celestial indifference, is somehow ignoring his plea for
holiness—no bushman, no mountain priest.
If we learn anything from the opening chapters of Romans, it is the desperate
case of all humanity.
(for not the
hearers of the law are just in the
sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified (Romans 2:13).
Who Will Be
Justified?
It is here that the passage gets
trickier—especially if we agree with the definition of “just” and “justified,”
given by so many fine teachers, of a forensic declaration of acquittal:
To be
just before God, and to be justified, are the same thing. They are both forensic expressions, and
indicate the state rather than the character of those to whom they refer.[1]
I
should also point out that both δίκαιοι (dikaioi, righteous) and δικαιωθήσονται (dikaiōthēsontai,
shall be declared righteous) are forensic in this verse. [2] (‘Righteous’ and ‘declared righteous’ being
“just” and “justified”.
In other words “just” does not tell us
about the character of the person but about the verdict of the Judge. We discussed this last week so I’ll not spend
a great deal of time here. If you recall
we observed two types of people in the previous passage—those who did good and
those who obey unrighteousness.
Having eliminated untenable explanations,
we concluded that Paul was either (in his description of the righteous person)
merely giving a hypothetical (not entirely unlike my friend’s righteous
hermit/guru—although without the false assumptions), or Paul was teaching of
the evidence of righteous deeds that necessarily accompany (at some level) the
truly faithful.
What must be rejected is the idea that
men merit acquittal from the searching eyes of a Holy God who “will judge the secrets of men” by
virtue of their law-keeping; or, as Calvin explains:
That
if righteousness be sought from the law, the law must be fulfilled; for the
righteousness of the law consists in the perfection of works.” They who pervert
this passage for the purpose of building up justification by works, deserve
most fully to be laughed at even by children.[3]
Calvin may sound testy here, but we must
understand that he lived in an era when there was widespread ecclesiastical
abuse of a doctrine that proclaimed salvation via personal piety, holiness and
financial offerings—and many of those proclaiming that doctrine living lives
devoid of any holiness whatsoever![4]
Be that as it may, we should not
understand Paul’s words here to be in conflict with his own words in the very
next chapter, where he writes:
Where is
boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of
faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith
apart from the deeds of the law (Romans 3:27, 28).
Simply put, we are not acquitted by
God by virtue of our works—that the worker is justified does not necessarily
mean the work justifies him. Paul
continues:
for when Gentiles,
who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although
not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of
the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between
themselves their thoughts accusing or
else excusing them) 16 in
the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my
gospel (Romans 2:14-16).
Natural Law?
There is some debate as to who these
gentiles are, “who do not have the law,”
but “by nature do the things in the law”
and somehow becoming a “law unto
themselves.” Some believe these are
gentile Christians in the church; others believe Paul is writing about non-Jewish
humanity in general. There are good
arguments for both. But there are some
conclusions people tend to draw from this passage that I think are unwarranted:
For one, whether the gentiles are
Christians or not, it would be a mistake to assume that this “law to themselves” creates a
sufficient codification of ethical or moral conduct—as if man, because he is
made in the image of God can, apart from the written revelation of God (the
Bible), arrive at specific, accurate, godly, ethical conclusions and decisions. At whatever level this thing called ‘natural
law’ is derived from ‘general revelation’ and human nature (or the imago dei), it is, because of sin, very
flawed.
One need merely look at the gentile
Christian in the Scriptures to see how this method falters. These people, according to Paul “show the work of the law written in their
hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing
them). But when it came to eating meat sacrificed
to idols, Paul writes that “their
conscience, (was) being weak, (and) is defiled” (1 Corinthians 8:7—prenthesis
mine). In short, when it comes to
ethics, our conscience, operating independently from Scripture, can be trusted
only so far.
I, therefore, think it is a mistake to
draw the conclusion that natural man, apart from Christ and His law, can create
industrious, lasting societies of mutual equity—even if motivated by some
primal survival instinct. If history has
shown us anything, it has shown us that men, left to their own accord will
eventually devour themselves and grow ripe for God’s holy judgment. This is evidenced by so many eras recorded in
Scripture, including Noah, Sodom and Moses’ prophetic anticipation of Israel’s deliverance
from Egypt which would coincide with “the
iniquity of the Amorites” reaching its “fullness”
(Genesis 15:16). We can delude
ourselves into thinking that modern man, because of his appropriation of
natural law, will not suffer the fate of the Amorites—but here we overestimate
ourselves.
So what is Paul’s point here? What can we safely derive from this notion of
the “works of the law written” on
the hearts of man?” It would appear that
Paul is describing, in a very general and flawed sense, man’s knowledge of
right and wrong. As Calvin explains:
Nor can we conclude from this passage, that there
is in men a full knowledge of the law, but that there are only some
seeds of what is right implanted in their nature, evidenced by such acts as
these [5]
Mere Externalism
Again, what is Paul’s point in writing
these words?
Perhaps Paul is writing of the
hypothetical natural man who does good unto justification—a simple laying down
of the rules of God’s just judgments.
But as a pastor who had concern for the souls under his care, it appears
he noticed something else in that church that needed to addressed. T. R. Schreiner observes:
It is
crucial to understand that Paul’s aim is to show the Jews that possession of
the law is not inherently salvific and constitutes no advantage over the Gentiles.[6]
As a young Christian, full of
enthusiasm and perhaps too large a dose of anti-establishmentarianism, I
remember being very committed to churches which emphasized a
personal/individual faith in Christ—perhaps to the exclusion of the necessary corporate
relationship we are called to have as the body of Christ.
Nonetheless Paul (especially in the
next section—verses 17-29) will sound out those who have all the outward
accoutrements of religion but appear to function with uncircumcised
hearts. It might be easy here to pick on
Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox, in their high liturgies which, it would
appear at some level, encourage this kind of externalism; as if their peace
with God is found in their church membership and its many rituals.
But we (especially as we have become a
second and third generation church) should not think ourselves immune to
this. We have membership vows,
sacraments, sermons and Bibles—but do we have hearts of faith toward Christ and
love toward God and our neighbor? Do we
think our religion is covered by that which is merely external—things others
can see? Later in this chapter Paul will
seek to dismantle the notion of seeking comfort in the external:
For he is not a
Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is
outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one
inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in
the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God (Romans 2:28, 29).
Given Much—Good or
Bad?
Being a member in good standing of a
Christian church is not inherently salvific.
It is a sign that we have been given much by God—which can be a good or
bad thing:
And
that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will,
shall be beaten with many stripes. 48
But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be
beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be
required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more
(Luke 12:47, 48).
In light of these things, I can understand
the little debate over the portion of our church service where sinners are
pardoned by virtue of their confession of sin and faith in Christ. Some think it is just too easy—telling people
their sins are forgiven. Others don’t
like the word often used during the pardon, saying that we should have faith in
“sincerity” thus adding the burden of some level of sincerity.
This tension seems unavoidable. One need merely observe Jesus when a woman,
who was described merely as a sinner fell at His feet and wept—and how she
received the wonderful pardon “Your sins
are forgiven…Your faith has saved you; go in peace” (Luke 7:48, 50). Jesus could have said what He said
elsewhere: “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes
and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20). He could have said what He said to the rich
young ruler: “If you would be perfect,
go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven;
and come, follow me” (Matthew 19:21).
Jesus says all these things within the
boundaries of the gospel—He wasn’t offering conflicting messages. But He knew the heart of the woman; He knew
the heart of the Pharisees and of the rich young ruler. We, of course do not know the heart of
others. Now perhaps Paul in all of this
is merely writing of a hypothetical person.
Or perhaps he is seeking to put his readers to the test—that they might
consider whether or not they, by faith in Christ, have circumcised hearts—and
therefore seek to do the things of the law—not in an effort to merit
justification before God—but as the necessary fruit of saving faith.
Secret Things
Let us take to heart that it is not the
outward things that Paul writes of on the Day of Judgment, but the “secret things.” Schreiner writes:
The
accusing and defending work of the conscience in the present will reach its
consummation, full validity, and clarification on the day of judgment, when God
will judge the secrets of all[7]
Paul writes elsewhere:
Therefore
do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will
bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes
of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God (1
Corinthians 4:5).
Calvin concludes:
When
we hear this, let it come to our minds, that we are warned that if we wish to
be really approved by our Judge, we must strive for sincerity of heart.[8]
So it is neither works righteousness nor
a level of sincerity which procures salvation—as Paul will later write: “It is God who justifies” (Romans 8:33). When Paul writes “Grace be with all those who
love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity” (Ephesians 6:24) he is not writing
of a level as much as a type—not a quantity but a quality of love—it is a
God-given incorruptible, unceasing and immortal love—though checkered with
human failure, it is nonetheless a love which flows from a circumcised
heart.
Questions for Study
1.
Discuss the idea of a perfectly
righteous guru/hermit and if such a person would go to heaven apart from Christ
(pages 2, 3).
2.
How does verse 12 explain the
universal inexcusability of man (page 3)?
3.
What does “just” and/or “justified”
mean? How is one justified? If the doers of the law are justified, does
it follow that they are justified by the doing (pages 3-5)?
4.
Define and discuss the strengths and
weaknesses of “natural law” (pages 5, 6).
5.
Compare, contrast and explain how
external things relate to the issues of the heart (pages 6, 7).
6.
What are the difficulties associated
with the declaration of pardon for sinners (pages 8, 9)?
7.
How should we respond to the knowledge
that God will judge “the secret things?” (page 9)?
[1]
Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Page 54
[2]
Schreiner, T. R. (1998). Vol. 6: Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on
the New Testament (119). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
[3]
Calvin, J. (1998). Romans (electronic
ed.). Calvin’s Commentaries (Ro 2:13). Albany, OR: Ages Software.
[4]
The observation of Luther leading to the Reformation.
[5]
Calvin, J. (1998). Romans (electronic
ed.). Calvin’s Commentaries (Ro 2:15). Albany, OR: Ages Software.
[6]
Schreiner, T. R. (1998). Vol. 6: Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on
the New Testament (118). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
[7]
Schreiner, T. R. (1998). Vol. 6: Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on
the New Testament (125). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
[8]
Calvin, J. (1998). Romans (electronic
ed.). Calvin’s Commentaries (Ro 2:16). Albany, OR: Ages Software.
