For when [those of the] nations, which have no law, practise by nature the things of the law, these, having no law, are a law to themselves;
Paul has just said that God shows no partiality, which raises an obvious question: how can God judge people who never received His law? Verse 14 answers it, and everything turns on two phrases — doing "by nature" what the law requires, and being "a law to themselves."
A division runs through the whole chapter: God gave the law to some people, not to others. One commentator warns against flattening it in the name of God's consistency.
There is one true God who gave His law. He made all men and He will judge them all. So many people assume that all alike are under that law and will be judged by it. They think no other way is possible without staining God's truth, righteousness, authority, and honour. But the apostle shows at length, as an undeniable truth here and elsewhere, that there were men without law, as surely as others were under law. Who they were is just as clear: Gentiles had no law, Jews had. This was a main part of the different ground on which each group would be tried.
The phrase is easily misread as a back-door way of putting everyone under the law after all. One writer answers that objection head-on.
I know it is urged that they were a law to themselves where they had none, because they had a conscience; but this only proves that actual righteousness by conscience is better than having a law and breaking it. Scripture contrasts being under law and being without law, and knows nothing of these speculations. Scripture uses the word law as absolutely as words can, and it declares that the Gentiles are without it — they have no law at all. It does say that everyone has a conscience which tells him of right and wrong.
The Gentile has a plea of his own, and it fails too.
It would be useless for the Gentile moralists to plead that they do not have the law. In fact the Gentile needs no law to tell him not to murder, not to steal, not to bear false witness. His own nature tells him these things are wrong, and therefore he is a law to himself.
Notice what Paul says is written on the heart, and what he does not say.
The apostle points to particular cases where the Gentiles did the things contained in the law. In those cases they show the work of the law written in their hearts. Paul does not say the law is written there. He says instead that the particular act the law required was shown to be on their conscience... The expression "law written on the heart by nature" should startle anyone who knows the truth of God... The force of the sentence is that there was something written, proved by the deed done.
Verses 13 to 15 are a parenthesis. Its sting lands on the person holding the law, not on the person without it.
The apostle speaks of the Gentiles who "do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires" and so "are a law to themselves." He is reasoning in the first place like this: if you have the law and do not keep it, the Gentiles who have not the law but keep it are better than you. But as Gentiles they are also without excuse. The testimony of creation condemns them, and so does this: when they had the knowledge of God, they would not hold on to it. I will tell you the result of a pagan living up to his conscience, if you will first show me one who has.
The verse never becomes a second road to acceptance with God. It closes an escape route.
The parenthesis shows us that many of the things the law demanded were of such a kind that men knew in their hearts they were wrong. No law had to be given for that. Go where you will, and you find that even the most degraded men have some natural light or instinct about what is right and wrong. They also have conscience, and thoughts that either accuse or excuse. So there is a ground of judgment against them apart from the law.
- Without law. Gentiles were never placed under the law of Moses. That fixed distinction holds the whole passage together, and it sets the different ground on which each group is judged.
- Not lawless. Having no law is not the same as having no light. Every person carries a conscience telling him right from wrong, so he is a law to himself.
- The work, not the law. Paul points to the work of the law on the heart, proved by the deed done. He never says the law itself is written there by nature.
- The point aimed at the Jew. If a man without the law does what it requires, the man who owns the law and breaks it is left with no boast.
- Judgment, not escape. This natural light gives a real ground of judgment apart from the law; it opens no way of escape.
who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts accusing or else excusing themselves between themselves;)
Paul has just said that people who never received the law of Moses can still, by nature, do what the law requires. Verse 15 explains how. The law's demand is already written inside them, their conscience speaks, and their own thoughts argue both sides.
Commentators stress one word: Paul says the work of the law is written in Gentile hearts, not the law itself:
It would be strange indeed, and would say little for Christianity, if the heathen had what the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 10:15-16) calls one of the great and distinctive blessings of the New Covenant... What Paul really teaches is this. Such doing was scanty and rare, but whenever Gentiles do by nature the things of the law, they show the law's work written in their hearts. For instance, suppose a heathen somehow works out that he must honour his parents. He may never have heard of the law, yet this is a law to him.
If the law itself is not written there, what is?
The work of the law is conviction. Conscience does this work in the person who does not have the law, though far less fully. "Through the law comes knowledge of sin," and conscience gives every person a measure of that knowledge. In that respect those who do not have the law are "a law to themselves." If they had a law, they would not be a law to themselves.
The second witness in the verse is conscience. The word points to knowledge shared with someone else:
God has revealed a standard in His word, and man's conscience tells him how utterly evil he is. Once a person has heard the word of God, we cannot separate God from conscience. Our moral instinct and our sense of right and wrong bear witness to the unseen God. Within us there is something that knows together with God.
Yet the verse says conscience bears witness. It does not say conscience saves. A conscience can also go badly wrong:
Conscience is a useful monitor, but it is too open to influence and pressure to be a reliable guide. Conscience may become "seared" (1 Tim. 4:2). What is it worth then? Saul of Tarsus shed the blood of Christians with a perfectly good conscience, convinced that he ought to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 23:1; Acts 24:9). The unenlightened heathen have consciences that bear witness to them (Rom. 2:15), yet they debase themselves with idolatry.
The last clause describes thoughts that argue on both sides. The habit is as old as the first sin:
Eve admitted she had eaten from the tree, but she blamed the serpent. What she said was true, for the serpent did deceive her. Yet she was clearly trying to shift the blame off herself. Romans 2:15 throws much light on this. We have to add one thing, though. Apart from the working of the Spirit of God in the conscience, sinful men always tend to indulge in "accusing" others and "excusing" themselves.
This inner argument settles nothing. It exposes people further:
Even those without law have a conscience that bears witness to their sin, while their ability to judge others and their attempts to cover their own sin by excuses only expose them more fully. Their thoughts accuse or else excuse one another. Either they take a hard, legal spirit over the sins of others, or a lightness that glosses it over with excuses. But accusation will not atone for sin, and excuses will not put it away... For God can put sin away, while all my accusing or excusing is shallow, wretched vanity.
The point of the verse is not to praise the moral heathen. It is to close the last exit before judgment.
The Gentiles, though they never received the law, still had consciences. Sin was sinful even before the law came. Natural conscience accuses a man of sin if he kills another, even if he never heard of the ten commandments. This shows that the work of the law — its moral demand — is in every man's conscience. Sin is everywhere sinful to God, law or no law. And men will be judged according to God's thoughts of sin when the day arrives. He will judge the secrets of men. How solemn!
So by what standard does God judge someone who never had the law?
In judgment the question is not privilege but faithfulness to what we know or may know. It is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
- Work, not law. The work of the law is written on the heart. People feel its demand without ever owning its text.
- Work means conviction. That work does what the law does: it gives some knowledge of sin — less complete, but real.
- Conviction reaches everyone. People who never heard the ten commandments still know right from wrong.
- A witness only. Conscience testifies but cannot rescue. It can grow seared, and it can live alongside idolatry.
- Verdict, not rescue. Accusing and excusing settle nothing. Accusation cannot atone, and excuses cannot remove sin. What remains is the day when God judges the secrets of men.
in [the] day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my glad tidings, by Jesus Christ.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.