#52. Romans 2:14 - Nature (Judgment Series, Part XIII)

Part II: The Conduct of Humanity

For whenever they of the nations that have no law, by nature may be doing that which the law demands, these, having no law, are a law to themselves…

Let us return now to the problem of the Greek, as this will likely relate to you, reader, more than it would the Jew. The Jew is representative of a knowledgeable religious individual, in a thematic/modernist sense, but even if we discarded such an idea, and solely related ourselves with the “not-Jewish” category, we still find that, apart from Christ’s accomplishment at the cross, we are subject to death.

God’s reasoning for this is simple. We, as men, have moral codes. It is not that God will judge by our moral codes, but that, by creating a moral code, we intuitively recognize that there is necessity for law, a need to wrap our head around “right” and “wrong,” and, with minor variation, there is a collective awareness in us all as to “good” and “bad” in the most general sense.

There are many, many examples which I could draw upon to prove my point. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, or perhaps Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason. More historically, Hammurabi’s Code of Law is a definite example, as it is a work written prior to the publishing of the Mosaic law, likely penned by King Amraphel of Gen. 14, and is so similar to it that some atheist groups believe it was the source of Moses’ legislation.

It makes sense that this concept would be so pertinent to our governments, and prevalent in our minds. Since eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it would necessarily make sense that we have this instinctual direction built within us. If human nature were “evil,” or “sinful” when we were created, then not only would Aristotle and Kant serve as surprising conquerors of their own “sinful” nature – though one existed 300~ years prior to Jesus, and the other treated the Bible as philosophical ruminations – but it would also be entirely superfluous for God to have man eat the fruit of a tree which gave knowledge of “evil!”

Indeed, from Cain onward, “good” and “evil” were readily apparent to mankind. Cain did not murder Abel accidentally, nor did Abel seem to hate Cain in just the same way. Cain’s ironic defense – “Am I my brother’s keeper?” – indicated that he knew full well of the gravity of his act. The men at the Tower of Babel implicitly understood that they were disobeying God’s direction to disperse across the earth (Gen. 9:1, 11:1-9.) King Abimelech intuitively understood that it was wrong to sleep with another man’s wife (Gen. 20:2,) and further that it was wrong for Abraham to deceive him, a king (Gen. 20:9.) There would have been no reason for Abraham to be “publicly vindicated” if Abimelech’s nation did not grasp Abraham’s deceit (Gen. 20:16.) Even later in Romans, God reveals that His reason for smiting Egypt with the ten plagues was a brief and contained demonstration of His power – specifically, to “publish [His] name in the entire earth” (Rom. 9:17.)

These are all scriptural examples displayed prior to the publication of the law. The point is to show that “right” and “wrong” is readily understood by the bulk of humanity. While there are obviously morally gray factors, it is not controversial to state the obvious. It is wrong to steal; to swindle; to murder; to take another man’s wife; to betray your god; to de-prioritize family; to abuse, manipulate, etc…

In this sense, our “nature,” as the Concordant Version puts it, or our “instinct,” is good! It is very good. We cannot help but strive for righteousness. The word “nature,” in the Greek, is phusis, “SPROUTing.” We first saw the term in Romans 1:26. Recall, in that verse, that the indictment was that the women who had been given over to dishonorable emotion had altered their natural use into that which is beside nature. They were not acting “natural,” or in accord with their default “nature,” but had been corrupted so as to act differently. Paul writes this as a flaw, not as something to be desired.

This is very important, for understanding this word is critical to our understanding of Paul’s argument at this juncture, but is important as to how we understand the scriptures in contrast to man’s theology. The theologian takes great issue with human nature. Popular culture, as well, takes great issue with human nature. Most of our institutions today operate under the supposition that human nature is negligent, and must be rigorously disciplined. Some institutions, such as public schooling, have come to realize that rigorous discipline had just the opposite effect on students – that, instead of being excited to learn, they were numbed to its lacking impact on our growth (if you’re a conspiracy theorist like myself, you likely believe that it was planned this way to stupefy the general populace, but that’s a story for another day.) Since discipline didn’t work, many institutions (including my own high school) have resorted to an “LS,” or “Lowest Score” system, where just by taking a test or turning in an assignment, one automatically receives a 50% score.

I cannot impress upon you just how terrible such a band-aid “solution” this is. Let me get this straight – so disciplinary learning measures failed to arrest a student’s mind, so we are now fudging the numbers so that it looks like the disciplinary learning works? Holy shit! It’s almost like they don’t want the child to flourish in accord with their nature, but actually teach them negligent behavior by relying on the crutch!

Of course, our religious institutions are no better – “discipline” the Pastor’s daughter, and what does she learn? That discipline is fun in bed and nowhere else. Truly, unless life and death are on the line, discipline has no place with a flesh that has proven itself worthy of death (Rom. 1:18-32.)

The theologian’s proposals have been in effect for decades, now, and it has not helped society. Human nature has been suppressed under these notions. Curiosity has been stifled; affection has become calloused; direction has become aimlessness. The man can no longer be a man, and the woman can no longer be a woman (I do not mean this in an “Andrew Tate” sense, but in the classical-liberal sense, where masculinity and femininity are seen as character traits which complement – not compete, or are inherently “toxic” when misunderstanding occurs.) We have become so far confused as a race, as a people, that our professional careers are the focal point of a relationship, instead of love – where two individuals are only seen as compatible so far as they can financially cope well together. Extrinsic motivation is everyone’s lifeblood – so much so that, if the economy were to collapse, we would no longer be a people, but confused children.

The problem would become dormant if human nature were endorsed instead of cancelled. The actions referred to in Romans 1:29-31 – the actions of those who run every country today – are not “human nature.” They are its opposite. True human nature accords with the law of God, as Paul claims, here, and as every single use of the word “nature” indicates in the New Testament.

Note, however, that I said “dormant,” not “solved.” The problem, sin, was imposed by God, and can only be removed by the same God. It is argued by the Christian philosopher, “If human nature is ‘good,’ as scripture says, then Paul’s argument in Romans 3:10 – that no one is righteous, or doing kindness, or seeking out God – is flawed, for there would be something in mankind that does demand salvation.”

Such a thought is deceptive and rather tone deaf to the revelation of the scriptures. Human nature is good, yes, but the indictment on Paul’s end is that mankind is not acting in accord with nature. Even when Paul says in Romans 2:14 that “by nature man may be doing that which the law demands,” the stress is not that mankind “can” follow the law. Through the context from the argument made in the prior two verses, the stress is on the fact that mankind recognizes good intuitively, and thus we all can be condemned in front of a Judge pitting us against absolute righteousness. The very thing, then, that is imposing upon that “good nature” is the sin that makes us unjust, and is the very aspect of ourselves in dire need of saving.

The Study of Nature

A brief word study on “nature” would do us well at this time. We have already covered two of its uses in Romans. We will see it appear five more times in Romans. We will skip these five uses in relation to our word study, which may fracture the study itself for the moment, but will enable us to plug the discovered definition of the term in to the remaining five uses and apprehend the passages properly.

First and foremost, let’s point out where “nature” is not. Versions other than the Concordant Version lack harmony with discordant renderings, and can suck lemons. For example, James 3:6, in the KJV, translates “lineage” as “nature.” Why? Why do this? This does not occur in any other use of the word. It would be a forgivable mistake if the actual word for nature didn’t appear one verse later. Did these guys think no competent individuals would come along and check their work or something??

The reason, I think, is far worse. The theologian got their hands on the translative process, see – and, by refusing to coordinate a system by which to methodically translate, they instead grounded their work in interpretation. Instead of keeping interpretive work on the tail end of the process, they brought interpretation to the forefront, which will obviously coerce a bias in even the most skilled linguist. This theological bias against human nature led him to frame nature as a bad thing. The word genesis, as in James 3:6, is translated “nature” in James 1:23, to frame human nature as “hearing the word and not doing the word.” As we saw in Romans 2:13, hearing is the lesser while doing is the greater. With the KJV’s interpretation, hearing, the lesser, is “nature!”

Another mistranslated term is psuchikos, translated “soulish.” This word has a completely different root (“COOL,” not “SPROUT,”) and should not be related to “nature.” Its few uses in 1 Corinthians 15:44-46 are contrasted with Christ’s “spiritual” body, so, again, according to the theological bias of the interpreters, “nature” opposes “spirit!”

Thankfully, the CLV corrects these grave mistakes, and the result is, naturally, a fluent text. The true word, soulish, referring to this fleshy body, naturally opposes the spirit. It is this juxtaposition which is found far more rationally and often in the scriptures (Rom. 1:3-4, 8:5-9, Gal. 5:16-21, for a few examples.) Let us, then, briefly consider the other seven uses of “nature,” and then cap it off with an evaluation of 2:14. First, let us observe 1 Corinthians 11:14–

Is not even nature itself teaching you that if a man, indeed, should have tresses, it is a dishonor to him…?

We need not inquire deeply into the contents of 1 Corinthians 11 to apprehend the above statement (though, if you are interested, the thought spans 11:1-16.) The simplicity and directness of the above statement should shock any student of the scriptures into scoffing at the theological suppositions concerning nature. Paul, the apostle of the nations according to our Savior, actually appeals to nature to corroborate his point in the passage! He appeals to the nature of man to teach that there is a difference between man and woman, and that the two should present themselves thus in outward appearance. The fact that Paul appeals to nature in this way highlights the truth and value of nature – that it should not be discarded.

Here is Gal. 2:15–

We, who by nature are Jews, and not sinners of the nations…

In this passage, Paul is in the middle of giving an account with he and Peter, whom he had to reprimand for being inconsistent within his (Peter’s) evangel’s instruction. Again, we need not inquire too deeply into the depth of this passage (as we will discuss it when we consider Galatians) in order to apprehend the simple fact about nature: it is not being portrayed as a wrong. For a Jew to be a Jew is not inherently evil. While there are many jokes online today about how the Jew is greedy and/or knows best how to build wealth, the truth is that this is the perverted nature of a Jew in the modern day – not the representation of the faithful, natural Jew who is humbled, presented in scripture (see Ruth, Boaz, Naomi, Mordecai, Esther, David, and many others as examples of the Jew in accord with their truest nature.)

If we were to suppose here that nature is itself sinful, then we are reading quite the confusing perversion: “We, who by nature are [sinful] Jews, and not sinners of the nations…” What? What kind of sense does this make? Sure, the law leads to a stricter judgment, as we are reading in Rom. 2:14, but it does not change the sin itself. Murdering, blaspheming, stealing… these broad concepts do not change simply because one is not “of the nations.” To assume that nature is sinful would be to invoke some obscure alternative standard that the Jews are being held to, when, as we are reading in Romans 2, that God is impartial, and that righteousness is the universal measure of judgment.

We see an expansion of this thought later in Ephesians 2:3–

…(among whom we also all behaved ourselves once in the lusts of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and of the comprehension, and were, in our nature, children of indignation, even as the rest)…

This is the only passage, in the entire New Testament, which the theologian points at to skew the data and proclaim “nature” as inherently sinful. Even when a study of every other use of ‘nature’ so far has indicated that nature is without sin, and that it is sin itself that has contaminated it, Christendom buries its head in the sand and claims that nature is sinful anyway, using this verse and ignoring all others.

This is rather frustrating for me, having not spent much time indoctrinated into the lies of Christendom. If you think that “nature” is sinful, even after all of the evidence thus far, I implore you in patience to look at this verse in its context again. Paul says one thing to the uncircumcision, and another thing to the circumcision. Speaking to the uncircumcision, he uses the pronouns you and yours (1:13, 15, 2:1-2, 11.) He pauses for a moment, in a parenthetical note, in 2:3, to speak of we – that is, the circumcision of which Paul (and Luke, who was with him) were a part of.

On these grounds, read carefully. Paul had more than “nature” on which the gentiles solely relied; he could actually study the righteous law, which he could use to employ a right walk (Rom. 7:14-23.) Yet, in the state of nature, the circumcised were still sons of stubbornness.

Take a second and soak this in, because we must understand that Ephesians 2:3 does not say that the Jews are sons of stubbornness because of their nature. The correlation here in “nature” is between Jew and gentile (“even as the rest.”) It would be similar to me saying that “My garden is suffering from weeds.” You would not suppose that, because weeds are in my garden, that my garden is the problem. Moreover, I wouldn’t even need to mention the weeds if it were supposed that by using the word “garden” that I am also referring to “weeds.” So also, if “nature” inherently meant “corrupted, sinful,” which very much would include stubbornness, then I would have no reason to place the title “son of stubbornness” next to it!

When we observe the Greek of the passage, everything clicks into place. The word nature is phusei in Eph. 2:3, its suffix noting that it is written in the dative case. It notes direction – in this case, the direction of the “we” at the beginning of the verse. It does not carry some cause and effect relationship with the following phrase.   Here is another use of “nature” in Gal. 4:8–

But then, indeed, having no perception of God, you were slaves of those who, by nature, are not gods.

So we read that to be enslaved to idols is to be enslaved by that which fails to be a “god,” or to be a “subjector.” By nature, an idol is not a subjector. This is important, for it reveals two critical facts. On the one hand, it affirms that the natural state of an idol is weak and ineffective. This tracks with God’s disdain toward idolatry, for, if it were “natural” for an idol to be a subjector, then there would be other “gods” worthy of the name, and thus make God a liar.

On the other hand, it reveals by contrast that, when you perceive God, you would perceive just the opposite – that, by nature, He is a Subjector. This would implicitly mean that God Himself has a nature.

Right – do you see the problem, here? If we are to proclaim that the word “nature” constitutes sinfulness, then we are slandering God as effectively as the Slanderer himself!

That God has a “PLACERship (divine) nature” is confirmed for us in 2 Pet. 1:4–

So has all of [God’s] divine power, that tends to life and devoutness, been presented to us through the recognition of [Christ,] Who calls us to His own glory and virtue; through which have been presented to us the precious and greatest promises, that through these you may become participants of the divine nature, fleeing from the corruption which is in the world by lust.

Could we have a more damning example of nature’s goodness? If God has a nature, then the term itself cannot inherently contain evil. The case, as far as I am concerned, should be closed.

There are two more appearances of the term “nature” in the New Testament, all of which are from the circumcision letters. Specifically, twice in James 3:7–

For every nature, both of wild beasts and flying creatures, both of reptiles and those of the salt sea, is tamed and has been tamed by human nature.          

Every nature of the animal kingdom is under mankind’s control, at present (not their habitats, but their natures.) Their natures are subject to human nature. We could not make an easy case for or against the goodness of “nature” on the basis of this passage alone, but if we recognize nature as it has appeared in a good light so far – as being that which characterizes mankind from creation, endorsing that which the Mosaic law demands, as opposed to sin – then this passage makes complete sense, for, prior to man’s offense in the garden, God clearly gave mankind the ability to tame the entire earth, as a command, not a threat or curse (Gen. 1:28.)

And So What We Have Learned…

The truth is that the nature cannot truly be “corrupted.” To be “corrupted” would describe our current sickness, which leads us into death. Our nature does not describe the infirmity, but describes what is infirm, internally.

Let’s plug what we have learned concerning nature into Romans 2:14. Here is the verse again:

For whenever they of the nations that have no law, by nature may be doing that which the law demands, these, having no law, are a law to themselves…

This statement utterly contradicts the common supposition made by Christendom on the misreading of Ephesians 2:3. It is not nature that restricts or dissuades one from following the law, but actually that which coerces the action!

What higher praise could be given of the nature of man, created by God? We know that the opposite of “following a law” is to commit to “lawlessness.” Sin is figured as lawlessness explicitly, in 1 John 3:4! If “sin is lawlessness,” yet nature coerces us into willfully fulfilling the law, then in truth “sin” and “nature” are polar opposites. A “fallen nature” as is commonly thrown about by theologians could not possibly “by nature be doing that which the law demands.” Indeed, as we have been studying, the very need for “judgment” is not solely to “acquit” or “condemn” an individual, but to “set right.” What would a better “setting right” for a loving God than for Him to restore this true nature of man, just apart from sin? Is such a prospect even conceivable?

Spoiler alert: the answer is yes, and it is far greater than you may think.

- GerudoKing