Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 2:14

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

14. For when the Gentiles, &c.] The connexion marked by “ for ” is not easy to state. We take it to refer ( over Rom 2:13, which is an explanation of the previous words) to Rom 2:12, and to be connected with the words “shall perish without law.” How this shall be St Paul now suggestively states, by explaining that Conscience is to the heathen a substitute for Revelation, in regard of responsibility. Q. d., “Heathen sinners shall be justly condemned; for though without the law, they have a substitute for it:”

by nature ] This phrase here has to do with a contrast not of nature and grace, but of nature and law. “Nature” here means impulses which, however produced, are not due to known Revelation, or indeed to any precept ab extra. Cp. 1Co 11:14.

the things contained in the law ] Lit. the things of the law. It is just possible to explain this as “things both commanded and forbidden by the law.” But far more naturally it means the “principles of the law,” i.e. the grand Difference of right and wrong; and thus the whole phrase = “to act on the principles of the law.” Nothing is here stated as to perception, or love, of holiness by heathen; but it is certainly stated that they had conscience, and could, up to a certain point, act upon it. It is scarcely needful to say that this is fully illustrated by ancient literature, while the same literature illustrates fully the mysterious limits of conscience and tremendous force of evil. See Appendix E.

having not the law ] i.e. “ though not having it.” Their lack of the law gives special importance to the fact of conscience.

a law unto themselves ] This may mean “each to himself,” or “each and all to the community.” As to facts, both explanations would hold. Without individual conscience, there could be no public moral code. But we believe the main reference here to be to the public code; to the general consciousness and opinion of heathens that right and wrong are eternally different, and that judgment is to be accordingly hereafter. This consciousness and opinion St Paul regards as influencing heathen minds mutually; as “ shewn ” in intercourse of thought and speech; as “ witnessed to ” by individual consciences; as coming out in “ reasonings ” philosophic or popular, concerning right and wrong; and as all pointing to a great manifestation of the truth of the principle at the Last Day.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

For when – The apostle, in Rom 2:13, had stated a general principle, that the doers of the Law only can be justified, if justification is attempted by the Law. In this verse and the next, he proceeds to show that the same principle is applicable to the pagan; that though they have not the written Law of God, yet that they have sufficient knowledge of his will to take away every excuse for sin, and consequently that the course of reasoning by which he had come to the conclusion that they were guilty, is well founded. This verse is not to be understood as affirming, as an historical fact, that any of the pagan ever did perfectly obey the Law which they had, any more than the previous verse affirms it of the Jews, The main point in the argument is, that if people are justified by the Law, their obedience must be entire and perfect; that this is not to be external only, or to consist in hearing or in acknowledging the justice of the Law; and that the Gentiles had an opportunity of illustrating this principle as well as the Jews, since they also had a law among themselves. The word when hotan does not imply that the thing shall certainly take place, but is one form of introducing a supposition; or of stating the connection of one thing with another, Mat 5:11; Mat 6:2, Mat 6:5-6, Mat 6:16; Mat 10:19. It is, however, true that the main things contained in this verse, and the next, actually occurred, that the Gentiles did many things which the Law of God required.

The Gentiles – All who were not Jews.

Which have not the law – Who have net a revelation, or the written word of God. In the Greek the article is omitted, who have not law, that is, any revealed law.

By nature – By some, this phrase has been supposed to belong to the previous member of the sentence, who have not the law by nature. But our translation is the more natural and usual construction. The expression means clearly by the light of conscience and reason, and whatever other helps they may have without revelation. It denotes simply, in that state which is without the revealed will of God. In that condition they had many helps of tradition, conscience, reason, and the observation of the dealings of divine Providence, so that to a considerable extent they knew what was right and what was wrong.

Do the things – Should they not merely understand and approve, but actually perform the things required in the Law.

Contained in the law – Literally, the things of the Law, that is, the things which the Law requires. Many of those things might be done by the pagan, as, e. g., respect to parents. truth, justice, honesty, chastity. So far as they did any of those things, so far they showed that they had a law among themselves. And wherein they failed in these things they showed that they were justly condemned. Are a law unto themselves. This is explained in the following verse. It means that their own reason and conscience constituted, in these things, a law, or prescribed that for them which the revealed law did to the Jews.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Rom 2:14-15

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these are a law unto themselves.

Man without the Bible

Law means Gods special revelation through the Bible. This contains the moral code of Moses, exhibited in prophetic teaching, inculcated in the instructions, illustrated in the life and death of Christ: It is here suggested that man without the Bible–

I. Has Bible morality written on his spiritual nature.

1. The law written in their hearts. The great cardinal principles of morality are in every mans soul, and the ethics of the Bible are but a transcript of them. Christ, who was the living exemplar of the moral code of the universe, reduced it to supreme love for the great Father of all and unselfish love for all His children; and in every heart these two elements are found–moral reasoning and conduct. Socrates speaks of the unwritten laws which were held in every country, and mentions as samples honour to parents and the prohibition of incest. He says that since these laws are universally held, and are evidently not the result of human legislation, they must have been made by the gods. Sophocles speaks of the unwritted and indelible laws of the gods in the hearts of man, and Plutarch of a law which is not outwardly written in books, but implanted in the heart of man. The moral Governor of the universe, then, has written in the constitution of all the subjects of His empire the eternal laws that should govern them.

II. Can put into practice in his daily life the Bible morality that is written on his nature. For when the Gentiles, etc., are a law unto themselves. Do by nature, i.e., by the outworking of those moral elements within them–not by written directions, but by moral intuitions. The bee that constructs her cells and lays up honey proves thereby the existence within her of architectural principles. She works out the laws which her Maker imprinted upon her constitution. Thus, heathens who have no Bible can work out the moral principles of their nature, and often do to an extent that may well out to blush the conduct of those who possess a written revelation. In estimating their responsibility it is well to remember both I and

II. They are rather the objects, therefore, of honest denunciation than of sentimental pity if they pursue an immoral or ungodly life.

III. Will be inwardly happy or miserable as he puts in practice or otherwise the Bible morality written on his nature. Their conscience also bearing witness, etc.

1. Psychologists supply different and conflicting definitions of conscience. Is it a distinct faculty of the soul, or its substratum–that in which all the faculties inhere? Whatever it is, it is that within us which concerns itself, not with the truth or falsehood of propositions or the expediency or inexpediency of actions, but with the right and wrong of conduct. If a heathen acts up to his ideas of right, it blesses him with peace; if he does not, it scourges him with anguish.

2. The accusing power of conscience was seen in the Pharisees who brought to Jesus the woman taken in adultery (Joh 8:9); in Felix, when he trembled before Paul the prisoner; in Pilate, when he called for a basin of water to wash his hands.

3. Conscience can excuse, i.e., make righteous allowances; she vindicates as well as condemns. Who can tell the sacred calm which fills the soul when Conscience, sitting on her great white throne, pronounces the sentence of approval of any one single act or thought, and assures the misunderstood, or misrepresented, or calumniated, or even self-doubting servant of God, Herein you are free from blame?

Conclusion: Several things may be deduced from this subject.

1. The identity in authorship of human souls and Divine revelation. The grand rudimental subjects of the Bible are love, retribution, God; and these are written in ineffaceable characters on the tables of the human heart everywhere.

2. The impossibility of atheism ever being established in the world. The human soul is essentially theistic and religious.

3. The responsibility of man wherever he is found.

4. The duty of missionaries in propagating the gospel. Let those who go forth to the heathen not ignore the good in the human heart on all shores and under all suns, but let them–

(1) Recognise it;

(2) honour it;

(3) appeal to it; and

(4) develop it. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

Gentile obedience to the law

They do (literally) the things which are of the law, i.e., which are agreeable to its prescriptions. They do not observe the precept as such, for they have it not, but they fulfil its contents; e.g., Neoptolimus in Philoctetes, when he refuses to save Greece at the expense of a lie; or Antigone, when she does not hesitate to violate the temporary law of the city to fulfil the law of fraternal love; or Socrates, when he refuses to save his life by escaping from prison, in order to remain subject to the magistrates. Sophocles speaks of these eternal laws, and contrasts this internal and Divine legislation with the ever-changing laws of man. (Prof. Godet.)

The natural feeling of right and wrong: its analysis

These verses reveal that feeling in three states or stages.

1. The unconscious stage, in which the Gentiles not having the law show its real though latent existence in their own hearts, of which–

2. They have a faint though instinctive perception in the witness of conscience, which–

3. Grows by reflection into distinct approval or disapproval of their own acts and those of others. (Prof. Jowett.)

Natural morality

1. It is a common impression that we are dependent for all our knowledge of moral duty upon the Bible, or at least that there are no motives to moral goodness worth speaking of apart from it: But just think what the latter means. It means that unless a man has faith in God, reverence for His authority, dread of His anger and desire of His approval, there is no strong motive to prevent him from being a liar and a villain. The former lands us in still more startling results, viz., that a man who has not, or disbelieves in, the Bible cannot see that lying, etc., are bad things, and that truthfulness, etc., are good things, i.e., that he can see no difference between vice and virtue. But you know that among your own acquaintances there are nonreligious men who abhor lying, etc., as much as you do, and in the old heathen world there were illustrious examples of lofty virtue.

2. Christ has ennobled our conception of morality and brought new motives and aids to right-doing, but He always assumed that man had a knowledge of duty and recognised its authority. The gospel itself assumes this, for it is a declaration that God is willing to forgive sin; but it could have no meaning for men who did not know that they had done wrong. If the natural conscience were murdered, and men lost the distinction between right and wrong, the gospel would have nothing to take hold of.

3. Some say that religions faith is the foundation of morals: it would be nearer the truth to speak of morals as the foundation of religion; for the grounds of our trust in God are not His infinite power, which, if not governed by justice and goodness, would fill us with terror, nor His infinite knowledge, which might fill us with wonder but could not command affection and confidence–we trust and reverence Him because of His righteousness, truth, and love–his moral perfections, which we see are admirable in themselves. We cannot trust God until we know that He is trustworthy.

4. St. Paul believed that heathens not only knew many of their duties, but discharged them. The subject is not a speculative one merely. One great defeat of the Evangelical revival was that it failed to afford its converts a lofty ideal of practical righteousness and a vigorous moral training, with the result that Evangelical Christians have the poorest conceptions of moral duty and the weakest moral strength. To remedy this defect we must think more about Christian ethics, which we cannot do to any good purpose unless we begin with St. Paul by recognising the power which belongs to man to distinguish between right and wrong.

5. This power is one of the noblest of our prerogatives, but it is forgotten that, like every other faculty, it needs training. Many suffer from colour blindness, but experiments have proved that this arises, not from any disease or malformation of the eye, but from want of education; and it has been cured by teaching the colour alphabet. Skeins of wool of different colours have been displayed and their differences slowly learnt. Most of us learn this without systematic instruction, but drapers and milliners, who have to notice the finer gradations of tints, obtain the power of discriminating the difference between shades of blue and scarlet which seem to ordinary eyes alike. Their eyes are not better than ours, but they have been better taught. And so most of us, if we have lived among good people, learn without regular teaching to distinguish in a rough way between right and wrong. But if the conscience is to have a keen vision, and if its discrimination between right and wrong is to be unaffected by the cross lights of interest and passion, it must be more perfectly trained, and surely it is worth it; and if you are careful to train your childs memory and voice, why not its conscience, which is infinitely more deserving of your care?

6. There is a bad way of teaching morals as there is of teaching arithmetic. In a bad school the rule is given and the child works his sum blindly, accepting the rule on the authority of the teacher. If his mind is sharp, he may puzzle out its reason; if not, he is left to mark it in the dark. So some people teach morality. They give the child Gods rules of conduct, and happily the conscience may discover for itself their nobleness; but if it does, no thanks to the teacher. Having been told the rule, the child is warned that God will punish disobedience; but if from this motive only the rule is obeyed, it is not obedience, but servile superstition. The appeal to Gods authority should only be occasional, or the moral sense will be disabled or checked in its growth by so tremendous a conception. When we follow a guide who never leaves us we are likely to take no notice of the path, and our knowledge of it will be no greater at the end than at the beginning.

7. For the education of the conscience we need teaching that is really moral, and not religious, that trains the mind to recognise for itself the obligation to do right because it is right. The vessel of human nature, when exposed to storms of temptation, needs more than one strong cable. Religious faith is the great security; but all the anchors are sometimes wanted, and we have no right to refuse the aid of such guarantees of safety as a genuine love of righteousness for its own sake, a deep hatred of wrong, a dread of moral shame. It is, however, alleged that apart from the Divine authority it is impossible to enforce the obligations of virtue. The objection is put in this form: You say to a boy that he ought to tell the truth; suppose he asks, Why? what can you answer except that God commands it? But suppose the boy asks, Why should I do what God commands? will you say that because if he does not he will be punished?–a very mean and sandy foundation for morals, for it is no mans duty to do anything simply because he will suffer for not doing it. A rule must be right in itself, or else it is a crime to punish men for disobeying it, If a child asks, Why ought I to obey God or to tell the truth? you must answer, Because you ought. But neither question will be asked if we have done our duty by our children. If they have learnt from us who God is, if they have heard us speak of Him with reverence and trust and love, they will know that they ought to obey Him; and if we are truthful at the impulse of a hearty love and admiration for truth, and put in their way stories about heroic truthfulness, they will know for themselves that lying is wrong and shameful.

8. I have pleaded for the education of the conscience in the interest of morality; I also plead for it in the interest of religion. Why should I trust, obey, and worship God? Because I ought. And wherever that answer is not given by the human soul, no appeal to hope or fear or gratitude will be effective. Mere terror is not without its uses. It may break the strong cords of immoral habits and paralyse for a time the baser passions, and may so give the conscience which has been trampled under the brutal hoofs of insolent vice the chance of asserting its authority. But I believe that as a general rule the nobler power has been in alliance with the terror from the very first. However this may be, I do not believe that religious faith can have any secure hold of man except it is confederate with conscience; and a man who has learned to revere his minister is most likely to revere God Himself. (R. W. Dale, LL. D.)

The moral constitution of man

The question which the apostle was obliged to argue was largely the condition of the heathen world. He argues both sides of it; and in chap. 1 that they were to be condemned on substantially moral grounds, and that yet they must be condemned in much less measure than the Jews–a peculiarly offensive turn to the argument, because the Jew held that he had a right to superiority before God, no matter how he lived. The fact that men were now Jews, though they might be virtuous and devout, was enough. The apostle, therefore, is obliged to go against this stupid bigotry: It is not they that hear the law that are the safest, but they that do it. Ah! but the Gentiles never had it, and of course they did not do it. But, says Paul, nevertheless, if they do those things under the light of nature which the law commands, that shall suffice. If you, with the law, sin, and they sin without it, they will stand, for that very reason, higher than you do. This question, historically considered, was local, but the apostle settles it upon a ground which makes it universal; for he here takes ground with the moral constitution of man–that man has in himself, not as a full revelation, but in a rudimentary form, an interpreting nature, by which he knows what is right and wrong, by which he accuses or excuses his conduct. He declares that men receive a revelation, not for the sake of creating a moral sense, but for the sake of guiding a moral sense already created; that religion is not a thing superinduced upon the moral constitution of man, but the right unfolding of that constitution. Let us follow this line out.

1. The essential truths of religion are natural, constitutional, organic. They were not first created when declared by inspired men. Mental philosophy does not create mind, and the law of conscience did not create conscience. All those great Bible truths which involve the nature of right and wrong, of inferiority and superiority, of submission, of obligation–all that goes to constitute what we call moral sense–has a foundation in the nature of things; and if man only had the wisdom to know what he was and how to unfold his moral constitution, every man would work from his own moral consciousness to substantially the same ground which is open to him in Scripture. So that, when I preach the gospel, particularly in its relations to duty and obligation, I feel strong, not only because I believe the Word of God, but because, tracing the Word back, I find it written again in you. Studying man as I do, and studying the Word of God, I find the two are respectively witnesses of each other, and both together are stronger than either alone; and all the way through the Word of God appeals to this consciousness of men to bear witness to its essential truth.

2. On the other hand, a right-minded man, if he had no revelation, but had power to keep his mind clear and sensitive and his conduct in harmony with his higher nature, would go up on to the plane of the gospel. Hence, the gospel is not a super addition to nature. It is the opening of nature, the blossom of that which belongs to the race; nature being understood to mean, for the most part, that condition which God first intended.

3. From this fundamental view, it will appear right and wrong in human conduct, in the main, are not conventional, not things of mere custom. There are a thousand things in life which may be changed, and which are different in different nations. But the great fundamental principles of right and wrong–truth, justice, purity, and love–these are the same in every age and everywhere. It makes no difference how much men may philosophise about them. A man may have any theory he pleases of digestion, but digestion does what it pleases. A man may believe that there is a brain in his head, or that there is nothing in it; but his belief makes no difference with the facts. And so with moral theories: they touch not moral facts in the least degree.

4. Men are not released from obligations to virtue and religion simply by keeping away from the church, etc. There are many who think that if they shut out disturbing truths they will have rest. No. The Word of God comes as your friend to help you, by giving you the state of facts; but if you throw the facts away, you simply throw the help away. A man lies sick, and sends for his physician. The physician prescribes such and such remedies, and forbids the use of such and such articles of food, etc., etc. But after the physician has gone the man says to his attendant, Go, tell him not to come again–to keep his advice and his medicines away. And then he says, There! I have dismissed my doctor. If you could only dismiss your disease as easily as you can your doctor, it would be all very well; but to dismiss your doctor and keep your disease is not wise. The fever is a fact, and does not depend on quarrelling schools of medicine. A man says, The Churches are all by the ears, and I am going to take my own way. I will manage my case myself. You may in that way get rid of Churches and of a thousand disagreeable circumstances; but will any men get rid of that nature in which the law is written, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, etc., and thy neighbour as thyself? Go out, now, into the world to get gain, to be happy. Wind yourself up with the key of selfishness. Try to make your own powers serve you faithfully in harmony with each other. They are at a jangle with themselves. And you are not any better off because you have put the Church away from you; for the obligations rest not on the Church, but on you. Not they alone who have made a profession of religion are bound by its duties: they are binding upon every man. A man does not see any better for being in an oculists establishment. The necessity or the desirableness of his seeing does not arise from the fact that he is there, but from the nature of things. And if a man has ophthalmia the necessities of his eye and the laws of sight are just the same as though he were under medical treatment and care. And yet there are people who seem to think that of course a man ought to do certain things because he is a member of the Church. No, the obligations came long before the Church could have imposed them upon him. You say, I am not a member of the Church, and you ought not to expect that of me. But are you not born? Have you not that law of God written in you? I preach right, purity, holiness to you, because you are men. If you had never seen a Bible, these obligations would have rested on you by the very primal conditions of your creation.

5. There is an impression among many that freedom is gained by going out of the sphere of religious teaching into infidelity; and they laugh and say, I used to feel guilty if I broke the Sabbath, but I do not now; I used to think that I ought to pray, but prayer is a superstition. And so men go on setting aside point after point of fundamental religious belief; and they think they are becoming more and more free, and they ridicule Christians, whom they think to be bound hand and foot. Now, I do not say that the Churches have the perfect view of religion; but I do affirm that the faith which is held by all Christians is in the main a guide and a light. You and another man are walking in a troublous path. There are precipices on the right and left, and deep morasses below. Your companion is walking with a little lantern, containing only a tallow candle, and, taking one step at a time, manages to pick his way, though with some difficulty. You, who are so bold as to venture without any light, say to him, Your tallow candle makes a miserable pretence of giving light; of all absurd things, the greatest is the attempt to make ones way through the world with such a light as that; and you knock it into the mud. It may be that the lantern could have been improved; but is it improved by darkness? Now the man has nothing to guide himself with. The light he had was feeble, but it was enough to guide him safely; and now he makes a misstep, and plunges headlong down the precipice and perishes. Suppose all is true that you say of Churches: after all, are they not better than nothing? Do not they attempt to take hold of those fundamental instincts which belong to men, and which must be cared for and satisfied? And do not they go a certain way toward satisfying them? And does not infidelity bring men into bondage and darkness instead of into liberty and light?

6. By throwing off religious faith and the restraint of the Church men do not escape conviction of sin, nor a sense of guilt, nor unhappiness (Rom 1:20). If there were not a Church, nor a Bible, nor a teacher; if there were nothing but the sun and the stars and the rolling seasons; and if there were but a single man living, he would be without excuse; for God has made the heavens and the glimmering light of nature, and these are enough to hold a man responsible for his character and conduct. And then in the text he says, When the Gentiles which have not the law, etc. There is no man of any degree of reflectiveness or sensibility who is not made unhappy in himself by the way in which he is living. In the excitement of a career of business, in the intoxication of pleasure, men drown their unhappiness; but the moment there comes a leisure moment there comes a time for thought. A mans reason looks over his life, and he says, I have toiled fifty years, and I have built my house and furnished it, and I have a place among men; but, after all, what am I profited? If I might live again, would I live over the same life? Have I satisfied my early aspirations, realised my own ideal? Or, if he looks more closely at himself, he says, Am I selfish, or am I not? I have learned to wield the pen; I know how to paint; I can carve; I am able to build a house; I can handle the sword; I have power to manage anything in this world almost; but myself I cannot manage. My conscience jangles with my feelings; I am often carried away by temptation. Everything is wrong. There is nothing that I make such poor business in dealing with as myself. A man reads this, not out of the Bible, but out of his own soul. And if a mans faculties do not live in harmony, then his own thoughts accuse him, and his judgment judges him, and his moral sense brings him under condemnation. It is in such cases that the gospel way is shown to men; and though they may set aside the revelation of mercy, they cannot set aside this judgment that is perpetually going on in their consciences.

7. The gradation in condemnation is a matter for thought. Those who have been taught the truth, and who then sin, are condemned in the greatest measure. But let no man say, I was born of ignorant parents, remote from instruction, and I cannot be condemned. According to your measure you will be condemned; but the lowest grade of condemnation will be more than you can bear. No one can afford to be sick. All the contrivances of nature have never made anybody attempt to be sick. You can make the body love odious things, you can modify the digestive powers, but no sort of treatment ever made sickness an agreeable thing. And by no means can a soul that is out of order be happy. There is a condemnation that rests upon it just so long as it is in that state. And now comes the declaration of the gospel, Except a man be born again, etc. It rests not alone upon those that have been instructed, but upon everybody.

8. This moral constitution is not a mere thing of time. It is not an arrangement for a special occasion, not for a transitory scene. The testimony of the Saviour and the New Testament all through is that right and wrong are eternal; that the moral constitution which divided men in this world divides them in the other. As on the one hand he that in this world loves, seeks, and so far as in him lies does the right, goes on forever with increasing blessedness, so, on the other hand, he who in this world perverts his body and soul grows worse and worse; and the evil effects of his misspent life do not drop off from him when he dies, but go on with him. You are not sinful, then, because you have been preached to or because the Bible says so and so, but on account of the perversion of that nature which God gave you. But when an offer is made to you of pardon for the past, and God in His infinite mercy through Jesus Christ gives you a remedy for your sins thus far if you will forsake that which is evil, if you turn away from Him you are destroyed. Men are very much like lunatics in hospitals. All their wants are provided for, and yet they set fire to the institution and burn it up. They are not made well by this deed. It is simply a part of their insanity to do it. (H. W. Beecher.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 14. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, c.] Nor does it follow that the Gentiles who have not had a Divine revelation, shall either perish, because they had it not or their unrighteous conduct pass unpunished, because not having this revelation might be considered as an excuse for their sins.

Do by nature the things contained in the law] Do, without this Divine revelation, through that light which God imparts to every man, the things contained in the law – act according to justice, mercy, temperance and truth, the practice of which the revealed law so powerfully enjoins; these are a law unto themselves – they are not accountable to any other law, and are not to be judged by any dispensation different from that under which they live.

Rabbi Tanchum brings in the Supreme Being as saying: When I decreed any thing against the Gentiles, to whom I have not given laws and statutes, and they know what I have decreed; immediately they repent; but the Israelites do not so. Tanchum, fol. 43. 2.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Here he preoccupates the Gentiles plea. They might object, that having not the law, they could not transgress, nor be culpable in judgment: see Rom 4:15. To this he says, that though they had not the law written in tables of stone, as the Jews had, yet they had a law written in their hearts, which was a copy or counterpart of the other, and had in a manner the effects of it; for thereby they were instructed to do well, and debarred from doing evil, which are the two properties of all laws.

Do by nature; nature is opposed to Scripture and special revelation: by the direction of the law, and light of nature, they did many things which the law of Moses commanded, and forbore many things which it forbade.

Are a law unto themselves; i.e. they have in themselves such principles of reason and rules of equity, as are to them instead of a law, prescribing what they ought to do and avoid.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

For when the Gentiles which have not the law,…. The objection of the Gentiles against their condemnation, taken from their being without the law, is here obviated. The apostle owns that they had not the law, that is, the written law of Moses, and yet intimates that they had, and must have a law, against which they sinned, and so deserved punishment, and which they in part obeyed; for these men

do by nature the things contained in the law. The matter and substance of the moral law of Moses agrees with the law and light of nature; and the Gentiles in some measure, and in some sort, did these things by nature; not that men by the mere strength of nature without the grace of God, can fulfil the law, or do anything that is acceptable to God; and indeed, what these men did was merely natural and carnal, and so unacceptable to God. Some understand this of nature assisted by grace, in converted Gentiles, whether before or after the coming of Christ; others expound the phrase, by nature, freely, willingly, in opposition to the servile spirit of the Jews, in their obedience to the law; though it rather seems to design the dictates of natural reason, by which they acted: and so

these having not the law, the written law,

are a law to themselves; which they have by nature and use, and which natural reason dictates to them. So Plato distinguishes the law

“into written and un written q: the written law is that which was used in commonwealths; and that

, “which was according to custom or nature”, was called unwritten, such as not to go to market naked, nor to be clothed with women’s clothes; which things were not forbidden by any law, but these were not done because forbidden by the unwritten law;”

which he calls “unwritten”, because not written on tables, or with ink; otherwise it was written in their minds, and which by nature and use they were accustomed to.

q Laertii Vit. Philosoph. l. 3. in Vita Platon.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

That have no law ( ). Better, “that have not the law” (the Mosaic law).

By nature (). Instrumental case of , old word from , to beget. The Gentiles are without the Mosaic law, but not without some knowledge of God in conscience and when they do right “they are a law to themselves” ( ). This is an obvious reply to the Jewish critic.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

When [] . Lit., whenever, supposing a case which may occur at any time.

The Gentiles. Rev., properly, Gentiles. There is no article. Not the Gentiles collectively, but Gentiles among whom the supposed case occurs. Which have not the law [ ] . The mh not negatives the possession of the law. Rev., which have no law.

Having not the law [ ] . Here mh not negatives the possession of the law. Rev., having no law. It is difficult to indicate the proper emphasis in the English text, since the use of italics is limited to words not in the original.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) For when the Gentiles, (hotan gar ethne) For whenever, heathens, races, nations, or people, those human families not of Jewish lineage.

2) Which have not the law, (ta me nomon echonta) Which have hold or possess not law, in a formal written manner, such as God gave to Israel, Exo 20:1-13; Mal 4:4.

3) Do by nature the things contained in the law, (phusei ta tou nomou poiosin) do by nature the things of the law, obeying a law they can not read or hear, by reason of their own nature of conscience, (the monitor of the Soul). These Gentiles are declared to have done righteous deeds enjoined in revelation of conscience and nature.

4) These, having, not, the law, (houtoi nomon me echontes) These having, holding, or possessing not law, without the external revelation such as Israel had been given.

5) Are a law unto themselves, (heautois eisin nomos) Are a law to themselves, and will be judged by that law of nature, the eternal principle of right and wrong, revealed in mans conscience, by testimony of his fellowman, and in nature. The principles of the Ten Commandments are written in every mans conscience.

CONSCIENCE

Even when they wallow in sin as swine in the mire, there is a conscience within men which convicts of guilt and warns of judgment. Dethroned, but not exiled, she still asserts her claims, and fights for her kingdom in the soul; and resuming her lofty seat, with no more respect for sovereigns than beggars, she summons them to the bar, and thunders on their heads. Felix trembles; Herod turns pale, dreading in Christ the apparition of the Baptist; while Cain, fleeing from his brothers grave, wanders away conscience-stricken into the gloomy depths of the solitudes of the unpeopled world. Like the ghost of a murdered man, conscience haunts the house that was once her dwelling, making her ominous voice heard at times even by the most hardened in iniquity. In her the rudest savage carries a God within him, who warns the guilty, and echoes those words of Scripture, Depart from evil and do good.

T. Guthrie

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

14. For when the Gentiles, etc. He now states what proves the former clause; for he did not think it enough to condemn us by mere assertion, and only to pronounce on us the just judgment of God; but he proceeds to prove this by reasons, in order to excite us to a greater desire for Christ, and to a greater love towards him. He indeed shows that ignorance is in vain pretended as an excuse by the Gentiles, since they prove by their own deeds that they have some rule of righteousness: for there is no nation so lost to every thing human, that it does not keep within the limits of some laws. Since then all nations, of themselves and without a monitor, are disposed to make laws for themselves, it is beyond all question evident that they have some notions of justice and rectitude, which the Greeks call preconceptions προληψεις, and which are implanted by nature in the hearts of men. They have then a law, though they are without law: for though they have not a written law, they are yet by no means wholly destitute of the knowledge of what is right and just; as they could not otherwise distinguish between vice and virtue; the first of which they restrain by punishment, and the latter they commend, and manifest their approbation of it by honoring it with rewards. He sets nature in opposition to a written law, meaning that the Gentiles had the natural light of righteousness, which supplied the place of that law by which the Jews were instructed, so that they were a law to themselves. (72)

(72) As to the phrase, “these are a law unto themselves,” [ Venema ] adduces classical examples — πᾶν τὸ βέλτιστον φαινόμενον ἔστω σοι νόμος ἀπαράβατος “Whatever seems best, let it be to thee a perpetual law.” — Epict. in Ench. , c. 75. “τὸ μὲν ορθὸν νόμος ἐστὶ βασιληκός What is indeed right, is a royal law.” — [ Plato ] in Min., page 317.

The heathens themselves acknowledged a law of nature. [ Turrettin ] quotes a passage from a lost work of [ Cicero ], retained by [ Lactantius ] , which remarkably coincides with the language of Paul here — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(14) A sort of parenthesis begins here. Rom. 2:16 refers back to the main subject of the paragraph, and not to the particular point on which the Apostle digresses in Rom. 2:14-15, the virtual operation of law among the Gentiles as well as Jews.

By nature.Spontaneously; of their own motion; not acting under the coercion of any external rule, but simply by the promptings of their own conscience left to itself.

The things contained in the law.Literally, the things of the law. In this one instance the article is used, meaning, however, not the law of Moses, but of this law, or of such lawi.e., the ideal law spoken of just before.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

14. By nature By natural conscience. Yet even in heathen dispensations nature is not alone and unaided. Paul’s own doctrine is, that the glorious headship of Christ is as wide as the inglorious headship of Adam. Through a universal though unknown Saviour is dispensed a universal Spirit, a universal drawing of the Father. Do

things in the law The apostle does not affirm but assume the fact that the law is sometimes truly fulfilled by the Gentiles.

A law unto themselves They are their own regulators. That law may not perfectly coincide with the written law nor with the absolute law; but it is a law to them, and available in their behalf. Nor under a heathen dispensation any more than under a Jewish, must an obedience be absolute in order to be accepted. As we have shown above, there may be a virtual Christian faith and acceptance where there is no known Christ a faith that secures pardon for shortcomings in keeping the law. Aristotle is quoted by Wetstein as saying (Nic. Rom 4:14) that the enlightened man will “so carry himself as being a law unto himself.” Another Greek writer says: “So will I be a law to the multitude, not the majority to me.” Philo says of Moses that he was “a living and rational law.” (Notes on Luk 12:47-48; Luk 12:57.)

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘(For when Gentiles who do not have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness with it, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them),’

Paul’s flow of argument suddenly comes to a halt as he recognises that someone will therefore object, ‘but if the Gentiles are not under the Law (Rom 2:12), how can they be judged by the Law (Rom 2:13)?’ So he now explains how that is so.

These two verses are to be seen as in parenthesis. They interrupt the flow of the narrative in order to explain how the Gentiles could be judged by law (Rom 2:13) when they were without law Rom 2:12. Why, says Paul, they do have law, for you will notice that the Gentiles who do not have the Law, do by nature the things of the Law, thus demonstrating that they have the equivalent in themselves, that they are following their own inner law, a law to which their conscience bears witness. Such people are a law to themselves. For by their moral actions and behaviour they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, and their conscience bears witness with it. This is demonstrated by the fact that they are constantly arguing the moral case for things, sometimes approving of them and sometimes disapproving. Sometimes accusing and sometimes excusing. In other words they demonstrate a moral dimension in their lives in which both positive and negative positions can be arrived at, showing that some kind of law is at work.

The idea of the law written in the heart is found in Jer 31:33, but there the idea is of the living laws in men’s hearts replacing the written Law. It is, however, seen as the same Law. Here too we have a law written by God in their hearts, a moral dimension within Gentiles which guides their ways. And it is because they have this moral dimension ‘written within them’ that they can be judged by it and found guilty of breaking it.

Some do not see these verses as a parenthesis, arguing that the argument continues, but the end result is the same. Others consider that it depicts the Gentile who has become a Christian and thus has God’s laws written in his heart in accordance with the words of Jeremiah. They have lived according to conscience. But the fact that these Gentiles do it ‘by nature’ is against this suggestion.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Rom 2:14 . ] quando , supposes a case which may take place at any time, and whose frequent occurrence is possible, as “eventus ad experientiam revocatus” (Klotz, a [643] Devar. p. 689): in the case if, so often as .

] introducing the proof that the proposition of Rom 2:13 also holds of the Gentiles . See above.

] not to be understood of the Gentiles collectively , to which Reiche, de Wette, Kllner, Philippi refer it for this must have been expressed by the article (against which view neither Rom 9:30 nor Rom 3:29 , nor 1Co 1:23 , is to be adduced), and the putting of the case . with respect to the heathen generally would be in itself untrue but Paul means rather Gentiles among whom the supposed case occurs .

] they who have not the law; a more precise definition bearing on the case, and bringing forward the point on which here the argument turns. See Winer, p. 127 [E. T. 174]. Observe the distinction between . and . The former negatives while the contrast of the floats before the mind the possession of the law , instead of which they have merely a natural analogue of it (compare Stalb. a [644] Plat. Crit. p. 47 D); the latter negatives the possession of the law, which is wanting to them, whilst the Jews have it.

] Most expositors uphold this connection, including Rckert, 2nd ed. On the other hand Bengel and Usteri join to . , but thus make it superfluous and even unsuitable, and deprive it of all weight in the connection, especially as the word has here no other sense than nativa indoles, i. e. the original constitution given with existence, and not moulded by any extraneous training, culture, or other influence beyond the endowments of nature and their natural development (comp on Eph 2:3 ); : “ quia natura eorum ita fert,” Stalb. a [646] Plat. Phaedr. p. 249. The dative denotes the mediating cause. And that it is the moral prompting of conscience left to itself , which Paul means by in contrast to the divine leading of the law , is plain from Rom 2:15 . The lies beyond the sphere of positive revelation and its promptings, leadings, etc. It takes place in virtue of an indoles ingenita , not interventu disciplinae divinae formata , so that the thought of an operation of grace or of the Logos taking place apart from Christ is quite foreign to this passage, and its affirmation is not in harmony with the truncus et lapis of the Formula Concordiae. See the later discussions of dogmatic writers as to this point in Luthardt, v. freien Willen , p. 366 ff.

] what belongs to the law , i.e. its constituent elements, its precepts . Paul does not say simply ; for he is thinking not of Gentiles who fulfil the law as a whole , but of those who in concrete cases by their action respond to the particular portions of the law concerned . Compare Luthardt l.c [647] p. 409. The close relation, in which the here stands to in Rom 2:13 , is fatal to the view of Beza, Joh. Cappell., Elsner, Wetstein, Michaelis, Flatt, and Mehring, who explain it as quae lex facit , namely, the commanding, convincing, condemning, etc.

] They are the law unto themselves, i.e. their moral nature, with its voice of conscience commanding and forbidding, supplies to their own Ego the place of the revealed law possessed by the Jews. Thus in that they serve for themselves as a regulator of the conduct that agrees with the divine law. For parallels (Manil. v. 495, al [648] : ipse sibi lex est , Arist. Nicom. Rom 4:14 : al [649] ) see Wetstein; compare also Porph. a [650] Marc. 25, p. 304.

Observe further that here, where the participle stands without the article consequently not . (as previously . ) it is to be resolved by since they, because they; which however does not convey the idea: because they are conscious of the absence of the law (as Hofmann objects), but rather: because this want occurs in their case. See Buttmann’s neut. Gr. p. 301. The resolution by although (Th. Schott) is opposed to the connection; that by while (Hofmann) fails to convey the definite and logical meaning; which is, that Gentiles, in the cases indicated by . . [651] would not be , if they had the positive law.

The comprehends emphatically the subjects in question; Khner, II. 1, p. 568; Buttmann l.c [652] p. 262 f.

[643] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[644] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[646] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[647] .c. loco citato or laudato .

[648] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[649] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[650] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[651] . . . .

[652] .c. loco citato or laudato .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

Rom 2:14-16 . The just asserted did not require proof with regard to the Jews. But, as the regulative principle of the last judgment, it could not but appear to need proof with regard to the Gentiles , since that fundamental rule might seem to admit of no application to those who sin and perish . Now the Gentiles , though beyond the pale of the Mosaic law and not incurring condemnation according to the standard of that law, yet possess in the moral law of nature a certain substitute for the Mosaic law not given to them. It is in virtue of this state of things that they present themselves, not as excepted from the above rule ., but as subjected to it; namely, in the indirect way that they, although in the positive sense, have nevertheless in the natural law a substitute for the positive one which is apparent, as often as Gentiles do by nature that which the positive Mosaic law not given to them enjoins. The connection may therefore be paraphrased somewhat thus: “With right and reason I say: the doers of the law shall be justified; for as to the case of the Gentiles , that ye may not regard them as beyond reach of that rule, it is proved in fact by those instances, in which Gentiles, though not in possession of the law of Moses, do by nature the requirements of this law, that they are the law unto themselves, because, namely, they thereby show that its obligation stands written in their hearts,” etc. It is to be observed at the same time that Paul does not wish to prove a justification of the Gentiles really occurring as a result through the fulfilment of their natural law a misconception against which he has already guarded himself in Rom 2:12 , but he desires simply to establish the regulative principle of justification through the law in the case of the Gentiles. Real actual justification by the law takes place neither among Jews nor Gentiles; because in no case is there a complete fulfilment, either, among the Jews, of the revealed law or, among the Gentiles, of the natural law which in fact is only a substitute for the former, but at the same time forms the limit beyond which their responsibility and their judgment cannot in principle go, because they have nothing higher (in opposition to Philippi, who refers to the , Rom 13:10 ).

The connection of thought between Rom 2:14 and what precedes it has been very variously apprehended. According to Koppe (compare Calvin, Flatt, and Mehring) Rom 2:14-16 prove the condemnation of the Gentiles asserted in Rom 2:12 , and Rom 2:17 ff. that of the Jews; while Rom 2:13 is a parenthesis. But, seeing that in the whole development of the argument always refers to what immediately precedes, it is even in itself an arbitrary proceeding to make in Rom 2:14 , without any evident necessity imposed by the course of thought, refer to Rom 2:12 , and to treat Rom 2:13 , although it contains a very appropriate reason assigned for the second part of Rom 2:12 , as a parenthesis to be broken off from connection with what follows; and decisive against this view are the words in Rom 2:15 , which place it beyond doubt that Rom 2:14-16 were not intended as a proof of the in Rom 2:12 . Philippi regards Rom 2:14 as establishing only the first half of Rom 2:13 : “not the hearers of the law are just before God, for even the Gentiles have a law, i.e. for even the Gentiles are .” But we have no right to exclude thus from the reference of the just the very assertion immediately preceding, and to make it refer to a purely negative clause which had merely served to pave the way for this assertion. The reference to the negative half of Rom 2:13 would only be warranted in accordance with the text, had Paul, as he might have done, inverted the order of the two parts of Rom 2:13 , and so given to the negative clause the second place. [640] And the less could a reader see reason to refer the to this negative clause in the position in which the Apostle has placed it, since Rom 2:14 speaks of Gentiles who do the law, by which the attention was necessarily directed, not to the negative, but to the affirmative, half of Rom 2:13 ( . . [641] ). [642] Such a mode of presenting the connection is even more arbitrary than if we should supply after Rom 2:13 the thought: “ and therewith also the Gentiles ” (Kllner and others), which however is quite unnecessary. Our view is in substance that given already by Chrysostom ( , , ), Erasmus, and others; more recently by Tholuck, Rckert, Reiche, Kllner, Fritzsche, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Reithmayr, van Hengel, Ewald, Th. Schott, though with very various modifications.

[640] Only thus but not as Paul has actually placed it could the negative clause be regarded as the chief thought, for which Philippi is obliged to take it, p. 54 f. 3rd ed.

[641] . . . .

[642] These reasons may also be urged against Hofmann, who, substantially like Philippi, takes vv. 14 16 as a proof, that in the matter of righteousness before God nothing can depend on whether one belongs to the number of those who hear the law read to them .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Ver. 14. Do by nature, &c. ] Velleius saith that Cato was Homo virtuti simillimus, cui id solum visum est rationem habere, quod haberet iustiam, omnibus humanis vitiis immunis, &c. Aristides, Phocion, and Socrates were famous for their integrity. (Plin. vii. 31.)

Are a law to themselves ] The Thracians gloried that they were living laws, walking statutes.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

14. ] , the Gentiles [in general]; see ch. Rom 3:29 ; Rom 11:13 ; Rom 15:10 ; Rom 15:12 . In this place, . is the only way in which the sense required could be expressed, for . ., would mean ‘ those Gentiles who have not the law ,’ as also would ., whereas the meaning clearly is, the Gentiles not having the law.

] Again, ‘ the law,’ viz. of Moses. A law, they have; see below.

, by nature , , Schol. in Mattha.

. ] do things pertaining to the law [i.e. the things about which the law is concerned], e.g. abstain from stealing, or killing, or adultery. But it by no means follows that the Apostle means that the Gentiles could fulfil the law, do the things, i.e. all the things enjoined by the law (as De Wette): he argues that a conscientious Gentile, who knows not the law , does, when he acts in accordance with requirements of the law, so far set up the (see below on the art.) law to himself.

is interpreted by Beza, Wetst., and Elsner, ‘ that which the law does ,’ i.e. make sanctions and prohibitions: but this can hardly be.

The Apostle does not deny certain virtues to the Gentiles, but maintains the inefficiency of those, and all other virtues, towards man’s salvation.

] are to themselves (so far) the law , not ‘ a law,’ for a law may be just or unjust, God’s law or man’s law: there is but one law of God , partly written in men’s consciences, more plainly manifested in the law of Moses, and fully revealed in Jesus Christ. The art. could not have been here used without stultifying the sentence by distributing the predicate, making the conscientious heathen to be to himself the whole of the law , instead of ‘ the law, so far as he did the works of the law .’ Cf. Aristot. Eth. iv. 14, . .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Rom 2:14 . There is, indeed, when we look closely, no such thing as a man absolutely without the knowledge of God’s will, and therefore such a judgment as the Apostle has described is legitimate. Gentiles, “such as have not law” in any special shape, when they do by nature “the things of the law” i.e. , the things required by the law given to Israel, the only one known to the Apostle are in spite of not having law (as is the supposition here) a law to themselves. is not “the Gentiles,” but “Gentiles as such” persons who can be characterised as “without law”. The supposition made in is that of the Jews; and the Apostle’s argument is designed to show that though formally, it is not substantially true.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

the. Omit.

by nature. See Rom 1:26.

contained in = of.

having, &c. = not having law.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

14.] , the Gentiles [in general]; see ch. Rom 3:29; Rom 11:13; Rom 15:10; Rom 15:12. In this place, . is the only way in which the sense required could be expressed, for . ., would mean those Gentiles who have not the law, as also would ., whereas the meaning clearly is, the Gentiles not having the law.

] Again, the law, viz. of Moses. A law, they have; see below.

, by nature, , Schol. in Mattha.

.] do things pertaining to the law [i.e. the things about which the law is concerned], e.g. abstain from stealing, or killing, or adultery. But it by no means follows that the Apostle means that the Gentiles could fulfil the law, do the things, i.e. all the things enjoined by the law (as De Wette): he argues that a conscientious Gentile, who knows not the law, does, when he acts in accordance with requirements of the law, so far set up the (see below on the art.) law to himself.

is interpreted by Beza, Wetst., and Elsner, that which the law does, i.e. make sanctions and prohibitions: but this can hardly be.

The Apostle does not deny certain virtues to the Gentiles, but maintains the inefficiency of those, and all other virtues, towards mans salvation.

] are to themselves (so far) the law, not a law, for a law may be just or unjust, Gods law or mans law: there is but one law of God, partly written in mens consciences, more plainly manifested in the law of Moses, and fully revealed in Jesus Christ. The art. could not have been here used without stultifying the sentence by distributing the predicate, making the conscientious heathen to be to himself the whole of the law, instead of the law, so far as he did the works of the law. Cf. Aristot. Eth. iv. 14, . .

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Rom 2:14. , when) After Paul has finished the refutation of the perverse judgment of the Jews against the Gentiles, he next proceeds to show the true judgment of God against the latter. He treats here of the Gentiles more directly, for the purpose of convicting them; and yet, what is granted to them in passing, is granted with this end in view, that the Jew may be dealt with the more heavily; but Rom 2:26 treats of the Gentiles quite incidentally, in order to convict the Jew. Wherefore, , when, is used here [Rom 2:14]; , if, there [Rom 2:26].- for) He gives the reason, why the Gentiles should also be required to be the doers of the law; for when they do ever so little of it, they recognise their obligations to obey it. And yet he shows, that they cannot be justified by the law of nature, or by their ownselves. There are four sentences beginning with the words: when-these-who-the conscience bearing witness along with. The second is explained by the third, the first by the fourth.-) Not, ; some individuals of the Gentiles; and yet there is no man, who does not fulfil some of the requirements of the law ( ). He did not choose to say , which is usually taken rather in a bad sense.- ,-not the law: the law not) Not even here is the change in the arrangement of the words without a reason; in the former place, the not is the emphatic word, so that greater force may be given to the, have not; in the latter place, the word , the law, contains the emphasis, thus forming an antithesis to the , unto themselves. So also, , law, has sometimes the article, and sometimes not, and not without a good reason in each instance, Rom 2:13; Rom 2:23; Rom 2:27; Rom 3:19-21; Rom 7:1., etc.-, by nature) The construction is, , not having the law by nature.[29] [But Engl. vers. joins nature with do, not with having] precisely as in Rom 2:27, , the uncircumcision by nature, contrary to the Syriac version of Rom 2:27, which connects the word nature with doing, doing by nature the law. The Gentiles are by nature (that is, when left to themselves, as they are born, not as individuals, but as nations), destitute of the (written) law; the Jews are by nature Jews, Gal 2:15, and therefore have by nature the (written) law, ch. Rom 11:24, the end of the verse. Nor yet, however, is there any danger, that the force of the construction, which most follow, do by nature those things, which are of [contained in] the law, should be lost; for what the Gentiles, who have not the law, do, they in reality do by nature. The term law, in the writings of the apostle, does not occur in the philosophical, but in the Hebrew use; therefore, the phrase, natural law, is not found in sacred Scripture; Rom 2:12 shows, that the thing itself is true.- do), not only in actual performance, but also in their inmost thoughts, Rom 2:15, at the end.-, these) This little word turns the collective noun , Gentiles, to a distributive sense [so far to wit as they really do it.-V. g.]-, a law) What the law is to the Jews, that the Gentiles are to their ownselves.

[29] It may be thought by this interpretation, that the clause which precedes the words, von Natur, in the German version should be omitted to avoid the ambiguity, although, perhaps, the Author knowingly and willingly made use of the ambiguous [equivocal] punctuation.-E. B.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Rom 2:14

Rom 2:14

(for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;-The reference here made is to the law of Moses. This does not imply that the Gentiles, who do not know the law, can obey the law which the Jews with the knowledge of God could not keep. But in vindication of the justice of this dealing with the Gentiles, he assumes that even though God did not give the law to them, yet when they did by nature, not by command, the things of the law, they became the law unto themselves, and were accepted. Many Gentiles, like Cornelius, living among the Jews, attracted by the superiority of the God of the Jews and the holiness of his law, while not formally coming under it, rendered homage to it without becoming Jews. In the days of Solomon there were one hundred fifty-three thousand six hundred such persons in Judah. (2Ch 2:17).

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

which: Rom 2:12, Rom 3:1, Rom 3:2, Deu 4:7, Psa 147:19, Psa 147:20, Act 14:16, Act 17:30, Eph 2:12

do by: Rom 2:27, Rom 1:19, Rom 1:20, 1Co 11:14, Phi 4:8

are a law: Rom 2:12, Rom 1:32

Reciprocal: Act 28:2 – showed 1Co 9:21 – them 1Jo 3:20 – if

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THE WITNESS OF CONSCIENCE

When the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness.

Rom 2:14-15

Nothing is sadder than St. Pauls impeachment of the heathen world as shown in this letter to the Romans. Its sadness arises from its absolute truth as witnessed to by the confessions of the heathen themselves. To St. Paul the heathen world appeared as if divided into two classes. Those who did by nature the things contained in the law, and those who deliberately shut their eyes to the truths which God had written on their hearts, and refused to listen to the voice of conscience which spoke within them.

I. What is conscience?It may be defined as the testimony or secret judgment of the soul which approves of what it believes to be good, and condemns what it believes to be wrong. Or that within me which says I ought or I ought not (Maurice on Conscience). Conscience, says St. Bernard, is the roll in which our dark sins are written. To speak more precisely, Conscience is not merely that which I know, but that which I know with some one else. That other Knower Whom the word implies is God. His law, making itself known and felt in the heart (Trench: Study of Works). Thus St. Paul speaks of the conscience of the heathen bearing witness for or against themfor them if they are doing well, against them if they are doing evil. So do their own wise men. They speak of the testimony of a good conscience almost in the same words as the Apostle, and of the witness of an evil conscience in terms which show how fully they felt its power. They picture guilty men as tossing on their beds, restless and unquiet, conjuring up imaginary terrors, unable to drive away thought, alarmed at any sound, appalled by the avenging spirits of their victims. Such, says St. Chrysostom, is the way with sinners. Everything excites their suspicion; they quake at every noise, they start at every shadow, they look on every man as an enemy (Hom. in Matt.).

II. Conscience is faithful, but stern and inexorable.It comes to the sinner like the prophet of old with its inflexible Thus saith the Lord. It points at him as did Nathan to David, and says, Thou art the man. It is like an Elijah to Ahab, Hast thou found me, O mine enemy? It is the handwriting on the wall to sacrilegious Belshazzar. It is the evil genius that came to Csar in his tent. It is the shadow which dogs our steps. It is the livid Care which sits behind the horseman. It unfolds the record of the law, whether written in the heart as the law of nature, or in the revealed word. Its warning voice is to keep the sinner from transgression by pointing out to him the impossibility of escape from the consequences of his acts. Its approving voice is the witness of the Divine Spirit with the spirit of man. It is only in the last and saddest stage of all, when men are past feeling, that conscience is altogether silentsilent because Gods Holy Spirit, the co-witness, has deserted them; silent because of spiritual deadness.

III. Conscience is the same faculty, and its action is the same before as after the preaching of the gospel.Hence the apologists of the Early Church claimed the philosophers as witnesses for truths, afterwards more fully revealed in the gospel. All the truths, says Justin Martyr, which philosophers and legislators have discovered and proclaimed they derived from the Word of Whom they had caught a partial glimpse (Apol. 2). These good men showed the work of the law written in their hearts; their conscience bore witness to the purity of their motives. What they needed was the rising of the Sun of Righteousness with healing in His wings to remove their perplexities, to solve their doubts, and to establish truth on a firm and imperishable basis, to make known to them a Saviour Who should also be their God.

Illustrations

(1) Herod was a Sadducee; yet did his guilty conscience conjure up the murdered and martyred Baptist as risen again with renewed power in the person of Jesus Christ. Herodias had the same fears; observe the terrors of a guilty conscience: Herodias was afraid that if the head of John were reunited to his body he would rise again, and again denounce her incestuous marriage with Herod (Cornelius Lapide). Caligula professed to be an atheist, but history tells that, Emperor of the world as he was, he hid his head or got under the bed when he heard thunder. Charles IX. of France, pale with fear and trembling at the recollection of the massacre to which at the instigation of his mother he had given a reluctant consent, was but another example of the truth that conscience doth make cowards of us all. Shakespeares Macbeth, starting at the fancied apparition of the betrayed and murdered Banquo, and his guiltier wife in her sleep-walk gazing at her bloody hand, are true to the experience of human nature.

(2) An old writer tells us that near to the Pole, where the winters darkness continues for months together, the inhabitants, towards the end of this long night, betake themselves to the mountain-tops, striving who should gain the first glimpse of the orb of day. No sooner do they see it than they deck themselves in their best apparel and congratulate each other with the cheery words, Ecce Sol, Ecce Sol. (Behold the Sun.) The long night of darkness has now passed away, the Sun of Righteousness has risen, Ecce Sol, Ecce Sol. Light has come into the worldwalk ye as children of the light.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

:14

Rom 2:14. The Gentiles have not the law (of Moses), yet they do have the law and evidences of nature (creation, chapter 1:20). If they make use of such law it will serve as a rule of action for themselves. Many of the requirements stipulated in the law of Moses were in line with natural prin ciples (such as love of parents and children, and respect for a neighbor’s wife, etc.) The Gentile was expected to respect these natural laws, and he will be condemned if he does not. It must be remembered that all of the aforesaid comments about the two laws apply to the years before the giving of the Gospel of Christ. After that, all persons everywhere were commanded to be subject to that universal law. (See Act 10:35 Act 17:31.)

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Rom 2:14. For. The principle of Rom 2:13 is now applied, so far as it can be, to the Gentiles, and this thought is parenthetical (Rom 2:14-15); Rom 2:16 being connected with the close of Rom 2:13. It is not necessary to insist upon the insertion of marks of a parenthesis in the translation, but the two verses should not be separated by a period. Here, as in the previous discussion, the theoretical effect of law is set forth. The Gentiles have a law within themselves, which is, so to speak, a substitute for the Mosaic law, and by this law they are judged, by the doing of it, not by the hearing of it. It is not asserted that any do thus attain to justification; the word we render whenever having a conditional force.

Gentiles. The article is wanting; the expression refers to those Gentiles among whom the supposed case occurs.

That have not the law, lit, or, having not a law; the state of the Gentiles as a whole, they have not a revealed law. Hence this description makes Gentiles = the Gentiles.

Do by nature the things of the law. By nature, independently of express enactment; on this the emphasis rests. The paraphrase of the E. V: the things contained in the law, is quite near the meaning. This form points to individual requirements, rather than to the keeping of the whole law. The explanation: do what the law does, command, convince, condemn, etc., is opposed by the phrase doers of the law (Rom 2:13).

Not having the law, etc. Since they do not have, or though they do not have. The former is preferable, in view of the connection of thought. Their moral nature supplies for them the place of the revealed law, in the case supposed. It is not implied that the place of the Mosaic law is thus fully supplied.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

The sense is, that the Gentiles, which have not the law of Moses promulged, are yet not without a law ingrafted in their consciences; and although they have not a written law; yet are they a law, that is a rule of living to themselves; doing those things which shew the work of the law written in their hearts their consciences bearing witness to it, and their natural reason either accusing or defending of them from it.

Learn, 1. That there is a law of nature ingrafted and written by God in the hearts of men, whereby the common notions of good and evil are found with them.

Learn, 2. That this law of nature serveth for the instigation and provocation of men to many good actions and duties towards God and man.

3. That to rebel against, and not walk in conformity unto this ingrafted law of nature, is a God-provoking and wrath procuring sin.

4. That although many of the Gentiles gave themselves over to all manner of uncleanness, yet others shewed the works of the law written in their hearts: They shewed it two ways.

1. By their temperance, righeousness, and moral honesty; wherein (to our shame) they excelled many of us who are called Christians.

2. In the efficiacy of their conscience; which, as it cleared and comforted them for things well done, so it witnessed against them, yea judged and condemned them for doing evil: And these evidences of a law written on the heart, are everywhere to be found, wherever man are found: The Gentiles having not a written law, are a law unto themselves, and shew the work of the law written in their hearts.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Rom 2:14-15. For when the Gentiles That is, any of them who have not the law Not a written revelation of the divine will; do by nature That is, by the light of nature, without an outward rule, or by the untaught dictates of their own minds, influenced, however, by the preventing grace of God, which hath appeared to all men, Tit 2:11; or, the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world: the things contained in the law The moral duties required by the precepts of the law, the ten commandments being only the substance of the law of nature. These, not having the written law, are a law unto themselves That is, what the law was to the Jews, they are by the light and grace of God to themselves, namely, a rule of life. All the ancient Greek commentators, as Whitby has shown, interpreted this passage not of the Gentiles who had been converted to Christianity, but of those Gentiles who had not been favoured with a revealed law, and therefore were neither proselytes to Judaism nor Christianity. Who show To themselves and others, and, in a sense, to God himself, the work of the law In its most important moral precepts, in the substance, though not in the letter of them; written in their hearts By the same divine hand which wrote the commandments on the tables of stone; their conscience also bearing witness For or against them, or testifying how far they have complied with their light or law. There is not one of all its faculties which the soul has less in its power than this. And their thoughts Or their reasonings or reflections upon their own conduct; the meanwhile Or, as the expression, , is translated in the margin, between themselves, or by turns, according as they do well or ill; accusing Checking and condemning them when they have acted contrary to their light; or else excusing Approving and justifying them when they have conformed to it. Hence the apostle meant it to be inferred, that it was not the having, or knowing the law, (Rom 2:13,) nor the condemning others for the transgression of it, could avail a man, but the doing of it, or walking according to it. We may observe further on this verse, that, as the law in this context signifies divine revelation, the work of the law must be mens duty, which revelation discovers by its precepts, which is also in part discovered by mens natural reason and conscience, influenced by the light and grace of God; on which account it is said to be written on their hearts. Thus, in the compass of two verses, the apostle hath explained what the light of nature is, and demonstrated that there is such a light existing. It is a revelation from God written originally on the heart or mind of man; consequently is a revelation common to all nations; and, so far as it goes, it agrees with the things written in the external revelation which God hath made to some nations. We are compelled, however, when we come to consider matters of fact, to acknowledge that this light of nature has been dreadfully obscured and corrupted, even in the most learned and civilized heathen nations upon earth, as the apostle has proved at large in the latter part of the preceding chapter. And long before the ages referred to by him, All flesh had corrupted its way, Gen 6:5; Gen 6:11; darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness the people, Isa 60:2; there was none that understood, (Rom 3:11;) and all were alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that was in them, Eph 4:18, &c.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Vv. 14, 15. For when Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things which the law prescribes, these, having not the law, are their own law unto themselves: for they show thereby the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness to it, and their thoughts accusing or else excusing them one with another.

There are four principal ways of connecting Rom 2:14 with what precedes.

1. Calvin goes back to Rom 2:12 a: The Gentiles will perish justly, though they have not the law (Rom 2:12); for they have a law in their hearts which they knowingly violate (Rom 2:14). The explanations of Neander, de Wette, Hodge, etc. are to the same effect. But the number of important intermediate propositions and ideas intervening between this and Rom 2:12 a renders it unnatural to connect the for of Rom 2:14 with this declaration. Besides, was it necessary to prove to the Jews the righteousness of the punishment which would be inflicted on the Gentiles!

2. Meyer connects the for with the immediately preceding proposition, 13b: It is only doers of the law who can be justified, for this rule can be applied even to the Gentiles, since they too have a law engraved on their hearts. The connection is simple and logical. But can the apostle really mean to say that a Gentile can obtain justification by observing the law of nature? That is impossible. We should require in that case to revert to the purely abstract explanation of Rom 2:13 b, to regard it as a hypothetical maxim, and consequently to take Rom 2:14-15 as an abstract proof of an impracticable maxim. These are too many abstractions.

3. Tholuck, Lange, Schaff likewise join the for with 13b; but they hold at the same time that this for will be veritably realized: The doers of the law shall be justified, for God will graciously take account of the relative observance of the law rendered by the Gentiles (here might be compared Mat 25:40; Mat 10:41-42); so Tholuck. Or: Those Gentiles, partial doers of the law, will certainly come one day to the faith of the gospel, by which they will be fully justified; so Lange, Schaff. But these are expedients; for there is nothing in the text to countenance such ideas. In Rom 2:15, Paul takes pains to prove that the Gentiles have the law, but not that they observe it; and about faith in the gospel there is not a word. This could not possibly be the case if the thought were an essential link in the argument.

4. The real connection seems to me to have been explained by Philippi. The for refers to the general idea of Rom 2:13 : It is not having heard the law, as the Jews think, but having observed it, which will justify; for if the hearing of it were enough, the Gentiles also could claim this advantage, since positive features in their moral life testified to the existence of a law engraved on their hearts, and the very definite application of it which they are able to make. This connection leaves nothing to be desired; and Meyer’s objection, that it is necessary in this case to pass over 13b in order to connect the for with 13a, is false; for the idea of 13b is purely restrictive: The doers of the law shall alone be justified, while the real affirmation is that of 13a: Those who had been only hearers shall not be justified. It is on this essential idea of Rom 2:13 that the for of Rom 2:14 bears. , when it happens that. These are sporadic cases, happy eventualities.

The word , Gentiles, has no article: people belonging to the category of the Gentiles.

The logical relation included in the subjective negative is that which we should express by: without having the law, or: though they have it not. , literally: the things which are of the law, agreeable to its prescriptions. They do not observe the precept as such, for they have it not; but they fulfil its contents; for example, Neoptolemus in Philoctetes, when he refuses to save Greece at the expense of a lie; or Antigone, when she does not hesitate to violate the temporary law of the city to fulfil the eternal law of fraternal love; or Socrates, when he rejects the opportunity of saving his life by escaping from prison, in order to remain subject to the magistrates. Sophocles himself speaks of these eternal laws ( ), and contrasts this internal and divine legislation with the ever-changing laws of man., by nature, spontaneously, by an innate moral instinct. This dative cannot be joined with the preceding participle (); it qualifies the verb , do; the whole force of the thought is in this idea: do instinctively what the Jew does in obedience to precepts. The readings and may be corrections of with the view of conforming the verb to the following pronoun ; the Byz. reading may also, however, be a correction to make the verb agree with the rule of neuter plurals. In this case the plural of the verb is preferable, since Paul is speaking not of the Gentiles en masse, but of certain individuals among them. Hence also the following , these Gentiles. This pronoun includes and repeats all the qualifications which have just been mentioned in the first part of the verse; comp. the , Joh 1:2.

The logical relation of the participle , not having law, and of the verb , are law, should be expressed by for; not having law, they therefore serve as a law to themselves. The negative , placed above before the participle and the object ( ), is here placed between the two. This separation is intended to throw the object into relief: This law ( ), for the very reason that they have it not ( ), they prove that they have it in another way. This delicate form of style shows with what painstaking care Paul composed. But so fine a shade can hardly be felt except in the original language. The phrase: to be a law to oneself, is explained in Rom 2:15.

The descriptive pronoun , as people who, is meant to introduce this explanation; it is in consequence of what is about to follow that Paul can affirm what he has just said of them, Rom 2:14. The relation of the verb , show, and its object , the work of the law, may be thus paraphrased: show the work of the law (as being) written; which would amount to: prove that it is written. But it is not even necessary to assume an ellipsis ( ). What the Gentile shows in such cases is the law itself written (as to its contents) within his heart. Paul calls these contents the work of the law, because all the law commanded was meant to become work; and he qualifies by the article (the law), because he wishes to establish the identity of the Gentile’s moral instinct with the contents of the Mosaic law strictly so called. But this phrase: the work of the law, does not merely designate, like that of Rom 2:14, (the things agreeable to the law), certain isolated acts. It embraces the whole contents of the law; for Rom 2:15 does not refer to the accidental fulfilment of some good actions; it denotes the totality of the moral law written in the heart. The figure of a written law is evidently borrowed from the Sinaitic law graven on the tables of stone. The heart is always in Scripture the source of the instinctive feelings from which those impulses go forth which govern the exercise of the understanding and will. It is in this form of lofty inspiration that the law of nature makes its appearance in man. The plural: their heart, makes each individual the seat of this sublime legislation. The last propositions of the verse have embarrassed commentators not a little. They have not sufficiently taken account of the starting-point of this whole argument. St. Paul, according to the connection of Rom 2:14 with Rom 2:13, does not wish merely to prove that the Gentile possesses the law; he means to demonstrate that he hears it, just as the Jew heard it at Sinai, or still hears it every Sabbath in the synagogue (, hearer of the law, Rom 2:13 a). And to this idea the appendix refers which closes Rom 2:15. That the Gentile has the law (is a law to himself), is already demonstrated. But does he hear this law distinctly? Does he give account of it to himself? If it were not so, he would certainly remain inferior to the Jew, who brings so much sagacity to bear on the discussion of the sense and various applications of the legal statute. But no; the Gentile is quite as clever as the Jew in this respect. He also discusses the data of the moral instinct which serves as his guide. His conscience joins its approving testimony afterhand to that of the moral instinct which has dictated a good action; pleaders make themselves heard within, for and against, before this tribunal of conscience, and these discussions are worth all the subtleties of Rabbinical casuistry., the conscience (from , to know with or within oneself). This word, frequently used in the New Testament, denotes the understanding (the , for it is a knowing, , which is in question), applied to the distinction of good and evil, as reason (the ) is the same applied to the discernment of truth and falsehood. It is precisely because this word denotes an act of knowledge that it describes a new fact different from that of the moral instinct described above. What natural impulse dictated without reflection, conscience, studying it afterward, recognizes as a good thing. Thus is explained the , with, in the compound verb , to bear witness with another. Conscience joins its testimony to that of the heart which dictated the virtuous action by commending it, and proves thereby, as a second witness, the existence of the moral law in the Gentile. Volkmar: Their conscience bears testimony besides the moral act itself which already demonstrated the presence of the divine law. Most really, therefore, the Gentile has a lawlaw not only published and written, but heard and understood. It seems to me that in the way in which the apostle expresses this assent of the conscience to the law implanted within, it is impossible not to see an allusion to the amen uttered aloud by the people after hearing the law of Sinai, and which was repeated in every meeting of the synagogue after the reading of the law.

But there is not only hearing, there is even judging. The Rabbins debated in opposite senses every kind of acts, real or imaginary. The apostle follows up the comparison to the end. The soul of the Gentile is also an arena of discussions. The denote the judgments of a moral nature which are passed by the Gentiles on their own acts, either (as is most usually the case) acknowledging them guilty (, accusing), or also sometimes (such is the meaning of ; comp. Rom 2:14 : when it happens that…) pronouncing them innocent. Most commonly the voice within says: That was bad! Sometimes also this voice becomes that of defence, and says: No, it was good! Thus, before this inner code, the different thoughts accuse or justify, make replies and rejoinders, exactly as advocates before a seat of judgment handle the text of the law. And all this forensic debating proves to a demonstration not only that the code is there, but that it is read and understood, since its application is thus discussed.

The , between them (among themselves). Some, like Meyer, join this pronoun with , the Gentiles; he would refer it to the debates carried on between Gentiles and Gentiles as to the moral worth of an action. But it is grammatically more natural, and suits the context better, to connect the pronoun between themselves with , judgments. For this internal scene of discussion proves still more clearly than a debate of man with man the fact of the law written in the heart. Holsten proposes to understand the participle (borrowed from ) with : their conscience bearing witness, and the judgments which they pass on one another’s acts in their mutual relations also bearing witness. This construction is very forced, and it seems plain to us that the two participles accusing or else excusing refer to the thoughts, just as the participle bearing witness referred to their conscience.

How can one help admiring here, on the one hand, the subtle analysis whereby the apostle discloses in the Gentile heart a real judgment-hall where witnesses are heard for and against, then the sentence of the judge; and, on the other hand, that largeness of heart with which, after drawing so revolting a picture of the moral deformities of Gentile life (chap. 1), he brings into view in as striking a way the indestructible moral elements, the evidences of which are sometimes irresistibly presented even by this so deeply sunken life?

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

(for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

14. For when the heathens, not having the law, do by nature the things of the law, they not having the law, are a law unto themselves. This confirms the gracious possibility for the heathens, through the light of nature, conscience and the Holy Spirit, actually to do the things of the divine law and be saved, as doubtless millions have done who are now in heaven. Gentile in E. V. is the very same word translated heathen. Hence, remember they are synonymous.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 14

Having not the law; having not the written law.–Do by nature; that is, under the influence of the natural conscience.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

2:14 {6} For when the Gentiles, which have {i} not the law, do by {k} nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

(6) He prevents an objection which might be made by the Gentiles, who even though they do not have the law of Moses, yet they have no reason why they may excuse their wickedness, in that they have something written in their hearts instead of a law, as men do who forbid and punish some things as wicked, and command and commend other things as good.

(i) Not that they are without any law, but rather the law of the Jews.

(k) Command honest things, and forbid dishonest.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes