Romans 2.1

I felt the need to create a short addendum to the post on Romans 2.

I purposely avoided Romans 2:14-16 in my initial post for the simple reason that the apparent implications of those verses were extremely hard to grasp. Even so, I feel the need to speak something of them:

“For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” - Romans 2:14-16

I will first look at what Paul is saying, and then put forth some ideas as to what he means by this passage.

I would like to look at the phrase “by nature do what the law requires.” The Greek word being used here for “nature” is physis, which here refers to a person who is “guided by their natural sense of what is right and proper.” (Thayer’s lexicon) Again, this would give credence to Paul’s following statement that “they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts.” The Greek word being used here for “work” is ergon, which here refers to the “course of action demanded by the law.” (Thayer’s lexicon) Therefore, it may be asserted that there is a type of action, a natural course of action, inherent to every living being, which guides in the direction of the right and the proper. These actions are equated with the demands of the law, that is, they are not contradictory guidances; they are equivalent. There is, however, a second witness, as Paul states in verse 15, and that is one’s conscience. The Greek word being used here for “conscience” is suneidesis, which here refers to the “soul as distinguishing between what is morally good and bad, prompting to do the former and shun the latter, commending one, condemning the other.” The conscience, as a second witness, is not a witness apart from the heart, but a joint witness of sorts. If we compare this passage with Romans 9:1 (i.e. Christ and the Holy Spirit are working jointly), where suneidesis is also used, we also see that the conscience is not an entity devoid from the workings of the Holy Spirit. Now, I would argue that a non-Christian’s experience is categorically different in regards to how the heart and conscience work together, but I would claim that the following is simply my best interpretation, and I am eager for correction: for a non-Christian, the law is written on their heart, and their conscience is driven by the ability to distinguish what is good and proper from what is not good and improper, an ability which finds it’s origins in the law. For a Christian, Christ is written on their hearts, and their conscience is driven by the renewing work of the Holy Spirit, a drive which finds it’s origins in Christ. (John 16:7-15) Our conscience, therefore, works as a type of filter, a filter which acts on our thoughts and should subsequently delineate our actions. We see further a relation of this point from Thayer’s lexicon, in reference to the Greek word being used here for “thought,” logismos, which refers to thoughts “which have passed the judgment of one’s conscious.” This is why Paul says then that their conflicting thoughts may either accuse or excuse us. When a thought is judged by the conscience of a non-Christian, there are going to be instances when the thought conflicts with what the conscience has deemed as good and proper through the working of natural law on the heart. In those cases, if the non-Christian acts on those thoughts (either mentally or physically), they shall be justly accused, for they have broken the law of God which has been written on their hearts. If the non-Christian does not act on those thoughts (either mentally or physically), Paul states that they will be excused, for they have acted in accordance with the law written on their hearts. Now, ultimately, all will stand condemned before God, for regardless of how many excuses we may obtain, “all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” And furthermore, if we are found guilty of breaking even one small point of the law, “we are guilty of breaking the whole.”

The important thing to remember here is that Paul is writing to the Jew is regards to the Gentiles, and the point he is inevitably making is that the Jews boasting in their adherence to the law is ultimately futile, for not only do the Gentiles have the law written on their own hearts, but the Jews themselves are acting as hypocrites, boasting in the law, but breaking it in the same breathe. (Romans 2:21-29)

It is interesting to note verses 23-24, which state: “You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, ‘The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.’” These verses reminded me of the chastisement of King David by the prophet Nathan after David has sinned by murdering Uriah in 2 Samuel 12. We see in verse 10, “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.” And again in verse 14, “Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child who is born to you shall die.” In the King James, verse 14 reads, “Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. The Hebrew word here for “great occasion” (נאץ) literally means “to give occasion for evil speaking.” It would seem to me, therefore, that what these passages, and Paul himself is saying that to sin is primarily an issue of dishonoring God! Notice how David did not say “I have sinned against Uriah.” Now, I am not trying to discriminate God’s law from God’s honor, for they are directly related. What I am trying to do, and I believe what Paul is trying to do, is show that there is a certain hypocrisy that can creep into our lives that echo’s Christ’s words, “You have heard it said, ‘Thou shall not commit adultery,’ but I tell you the truth, any man who looks at a woman lustfully has committee adultery with her in his heart.” In other words, am I following the law to honor the law, or am I following the law to honor God? As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10:31, “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

This is, most assuredly, the greatest sin in my own life. In the most regard, the greatest sin a Christian can commit is that of hypocrisy. In Dante’s Inferno, the placement of hypocrites was the Eighth Circle of Hell, located just above the Ninth and final Circle, that reserved for traitors, who the most notable of which was Judas. This is not to say that Christians who fall into hypocrisy and then seek forgiveness will not be saved. I say this merely to point to the seriousness of sin in hypocrisy, for indeed, was it not the sin Christ was repeatedly calling the Pharisees out on? It seems Paul is doing the same in this chapter of Romans.

I will state this again for my benefit as much as it is for your own:

“So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”