#53. Romans 2:14-15 – Three Gentile-Condemning Proofs (Judgment Series, Part XIV)

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…

A Law to Themselves

In the last article, we touched briefly upon the harmony between God’s law and man’s inherent nature/instinct. Today, we will consider the practical reality that this fact invokes, and then consider three proofs which demonstrate that the gentile understands the difference between right and wrong, and can thus be condemned by the same standard of righteousness that the Jew can, despite them not having the Mosaic law with them.

The practical reality itself may not be readily apparent, but give it a moment of your time anyway. Man may be doing that which the law demands by nature – yet, in reality, they have no motivation for doing so. They have not been promised anything by God – no promise of life, no allotment, no plot of land to live righteously. They are, by proxy of the promise to the Jews, the beneficiary of Israel’s blessings during the 1,000-year kingdom, and they are to be shepherded with an iron club. They are only receiving blessing from God through Israel’s intermediary (priestly) position on earth.

As such, they literally have no law. They are indeed a law to themselves. What, pray tell, brings about the moral code in an individual? If you would tell me “culture,” first and foremost, I would disagree. Cultures embody the moral code of whomever won a war – be it a group of people standing up for something, a successful lobby, or even an individual conqueror. Thus their moral code is (a part of) the blueprint for a movement – not merely the effect of one.

Take Robin Hood, for example. He may be a great moral treasure to the poor, but to his victims, he is a thief. What makes him a fascinating character is that he is, objectively, doing the stealing; the question is whether or not an enlightened intent balances the crooked action. Everyone must know, inherently, that theft is wrong in order to rationally grasp this theme. If one’s judgment is that “Robin Hood is committing no wrong,” then they are operating under the supposition that stealing itself is wrong, yet believe that intent can justify the action. Regardless of which side of the debate you would stand on, Robin Hood is stealing, factually, and this is impressed upon the minds of any who hear the story.

The fact is the theft which impacts our moral compass. The judgment imposed would be the “cultural” aspect; one’s reaction to a Robin Hood (or a Batman, a Tyler Durden, or any other morally ambiguous character) often dictates how perverted their moral compass has become. Let us assume we are in a conversation with someone who committed one of the 22 actions spoken of in Romans 1:29-31. If the person you’re speaking to says something like, “Someone who perpetuates guile is not deserving of death,” then we see that their sense of justice has been greatly perverted, and we cannot safely entertain the idea that they have anything of import to say about a righteous standard of justice. The perversion of their moral compass indicates that their “law” must note the improper concept of guile, or theft, and more, before excusing it in some manner (and, in such fashion, they fall prey to Romans 2:1-3.)

Thus they are a law to themselves. They answer to their own sensibilities, modifying the morality to fit their personal experiences. On its surface, you may perceive this as fear-mongering in some way – you may ask, “Should a child who steals candy from a store have their hand chopped off for the theft?” And this is a fair challenge, for even as the righteous God has demonstrated, if you immediately attempt to penalize the unrighteous for their actions, then you will have no unrighteous left standing in the end, and the story would have ended thousands of years ago. Instead, the righteous God is slow in enforcing a penalty (note that Adam’s penalty began 800+ years before it was consummated.) When the penalty finally does occur, it is a swift judgment – but it will happen, and it is the only way in which the humility of the universe can be cultivated.

But the fact still remains that altering the righteous morality makes it the opposite: an unrighteous morality. This “adaptive reasoning,” you could say, is more often used to excuse the one judging. For some reason, it’s fine for the judgmental Christian to harp on polytheism, yet when confronted with their own polytheistic, three-headed deity, they are quick to defend their pantheon. For some reason, it’s fine for one person to lie, but if another lies under similar circumstance, the first liar may cry “foul!” So often these excuses highlight the incompatibility between the unrighteous self, corrupted by sin, and the righteous law, imposed upon our natures before our offense and expulsion from Eden.  

The First Proof: The Action of the Law

…who are displaying the action of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying together and their reckonings between one another…

Though Paul expressed that “they of the nations that have no law, by nature may be doing that which the law demands,” he has not yet given the proofs to this point. These three proofs are provided here in Romans 2:15. We will cover each of them consecutively.

First, to capitalize Paul’s preface, he asserts that, by compiling one’s own moral code – making or adapting the natural laws indwelling among mankind with their culture or personal perception of themselves – one naturally “displays the action of the law written in their hearts.”

There is much depth to this. This is the first appearance of the word “display,” endeixis, in the New Testament. This is a special term, appearing in a few forms, which has become a favorite of mine. Each person on earth “displays” a special aspect of corrupted law. In just this manner, God can presuppose this fact in Romans, for it is this very backdrop of failure on man’s end in which He can make a proper display of righteousness through Jesus Christ’s faith (Rom. 1:17, 3:22-23.) Every failure on man’s end to attain a justified display of their own works inevitably contributes to God’s juxtaposition. This indeed shows Him to be the greatest Author, not just of the scriptures, but of the universe. Truly, the writing in this story, from the comedy to the tragedy, is striking and beautiful – but the fact that it is thematically relevant, that all of life, in truth, contributes to God’s “great conversation” (see The Great Conversation by R.M. Hutchins.)

What does this “great conversation” entail but righteousness? This is surely why Paul begins Romans with such vehement opposition to man’s attempts at attaining righteousness on their own. No matter our efforts, we will fail. You cannot dispose of the righteous One and then expect to find some alternative righteousness in a back alley somewhere. Such prospects may make a good fictional concept, but that’s just it – it is escapism. Fantastical. It won’t become reality, and we should stop looking at fiction as a savior (not that fiction is bad, but we need not be dependent on fantastical comics or books or films in order to hide from these fundamental verities.)

Where was I? Oh, right. It’s not that the “law is written in their hearts.” Such is a radical misinterpretation of the passage. It is important that it is recognized that the Mosaic law is not written on the heart of any individual, Jew or Greek. The Mosaic law will not be written on anyone’s heart until the advent of the promised millennial kingdom, when Yahweh expressly says He will do this (Jer. 31:33, Heb. 8:8, 12.)

It is the “action of the law written in their hearts.” While they have no law, they still demonstrate that they can discern the difference between right and wrong. The law in view, again, is not the Mosaic law, but the “law to themselves,” the one which recognizes sin and thus makes synthetic emendations to our nature to cope with our inability or other religious obligation. This is where we find much of the commendable conduct in unbelievers. For the rational mind, it feels good to do right, feels good to help others. This is the broad appeal of the Christian religion; while demanding neither spirituality or intelligence, religion appeals to the moral compass of one who wishes to do right. While the individual is lulled into a false sense of spiritual security through moral piousness, the failure to do the whole law that religion places them under secures their need for severe correction by God.

…who are displaying the action of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying together and their reckonings between one another…

Conscience

We will now touch upon one of the most misunderstood terms in all of scripture: the conscience. This term, suneidesis, literally “TOGETHER-PERCEIVing,” is the source of much confusion because of its mistranslation in the KJV – as “be privy,” “consider,” “beware,” and “know.” Not only are there other words more suitable for these translations, but all 4 of these translations do not firmly match the word’s true meaning, which in all 30 occurrences can be translated “conscience.”

While I greatly recommend a word study of the term (and, for research purposes, I have done so for this paper,) I will not give a comprehensive overview of the term. Instead, I will point specially at some notable examples to demonstrate the proper meaning of the word, as well as a brief overview for study at the end of this section.

There would, I believe, be little controversy among the learned if I squat upon Hebrews 10:2 in order to observe the meaning of “conscience”–

…those offering divine service, having been once cleansed, are having no longer any consciousness of sins…

Here a consciousness of sins is essentially said to vanish when one is cleansed! Hence the “conscience” is given a vital correlation to sin. Where there is no sin, there is no conscience. Sin must be present for a “conscience” to take effect, so that whether you sin or withstand sin, your conscience takes note.

Thus conscience is a sort of spiritual record, documenting your deeds, both good and bad, to serve as a testimony for the accused on Judgment Day. On Judgment Day, we will be beyond the reach of evil – it will be apparent, according to scripture, that on that day all will be in the hands of the just One – not an unjust One. Our conscience will not need to remain operative at that time.

Just when was man given a conscience? We will discuss this in Romans 5:12, but if you would like a thematic/chronological answer to the question, I recommend this study, in particular parts 1-3 of “The Purpose of the Eons, when we begin covering the concept of “administrations.” The answer is given proof texts there, but we can consider a simple logistical proof here. If sin and conscience are inherently related, and yet conscience does not play a role until you sin, then mankind was given a conscience when Adam ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Prior to this event, no conscience was necessary, and the penalty for breaking God’s command was immediately inflicted upon Adam – thus no conscience was necessary for the documentation of the event which God had already handled. But every event following Adam’s expulsion of Eden (and his descendants hitherto) must require a conscience, for it will be the “testimonial” for all, according to Romans 2:14.

This is clearly understood by briefly observing the change in Adam and Eve’s actions. Prior to this point, Eve gave no awareness that anything was “off,” or out of the ordinary. She didn’t offer hesitation or confusion. In Genesis 1, we read repeatedly that God’s restoration of the earth was “good.” Nothing had ever appeared bad before, and thus there was no reason for Eve to be wary. We cannot infer from our hindsight that she, in the moment, “knew” something was off, for prior to their act, sin had not yet entered the word (Rom. 5:12.)

They immediately realized they were naked – a direct effect of conscience. To this day, we inherently recognize the power of sex appeal, the shame of looking upon another in this vulnerable state without their consent. Our newly-formed conscience responds with the appeal to proper conduct – “cover yourself.” So, Adam and Eve do so. They became conscious of their sin, and this brought a new guilt.

Infants live in a state of what we may call “negative innocence.” They are innocent of any crime, but not because they are inherently acting properly! It is because they don’t know any better. Their conscience develops over the course of their childhood. In the case of your average individual, this is often corrupted by a poor father. Even a good father cannot help but admit their own fault in some stage of their son’s development. In the case of Christ, Who was without sin, the conscience over the course of His childhood was “flawess,” aptly preparing Him for the future sacrifice (Is. 7:14-15, Luke 2:41-52, Heb. 9:14.)

So, from scripture we can observe the inception of man’s conscience (the garden of Eden,) the crafting of a man’s conscience (through childhood,) and the basic function of the conscience (to document sin and stand against sin.) Even its literal elements indicate that it is a kind of perception – a “together perceiving,” or “joint perception” of our senses, which establishes a sentient internal faculty that helps us grasp the morality of our actions. With the acknowledgement of its place here in Paul’s argument it is clearly only necessary in relation to judgment. After this it may be discarded.

It should not be unusual to us to consider that we will not always have a conscience. We are literally “unconscious” during a third of our lives, while we are asleep. The dead currently have no “perception,” and are unconscious, awaiting judgment (Ecc. 9:5, Rev. 20:12.) And, for those who already know the direction that Paul’s argument is headed, sin will be repudiated at the end of the story (Heb. 9:26,) thus our sins are permanently washed away, and we are no longer conscious of them (Heb. 10:2, Rev. 21:4.) This will, simply, render a “conscience” irrelevant, for the lesson of “right” and “wrong” will have been conveyed to creation, and learned in its deepest sense.

As such, human “nature” and human “conscience” have a vital but temporary relation. Our nature is on the side of good; it is the side which a good conscience is vying for. To depart from this nature – with any of the twenty-two actions listed in Romans 1:29-31, for example – will evoke a guilty or cauterized conscience. The more we learn, the more our conscience will be strengthened and sure. God portrays our nature as our default state, irrespective of our action, and our conscience as the actual exercising of our senses through our experiences. As we experience more and more over the course of our lives, we mature. This is not because of our “age,” for there are some old folk that have the emotional intelligence of a five year old, and some teens with the emotional intelligence of an old timer. In a practical sense it is because, as the Hebraist writes, we become able to exercise the difference between the “ideal” (the pleasing/satisfying standard) and the “evil.”

Keep in mind through this that the “conscience” is not the standard for judgment, or measure by which you are judged. Righteousness is the standard; your conscience is, as previously stated, an internal record, and will accuse or defend its possessor. As we progress through the scriptures, we will deepen our understanding of this record as God has made it – particularly in Paul’s letters.

For now, as promised, let me give you a brief overview of verses to observe for yourself concerning the subject. Ideally, you should check out each passage in its context – read the whole chapter in which each use appears, paying particular attention to the structure of each book (which can be done by looking at the very last page of your physical CLV, or p. 985-988 of this pdf.) Notably, conscience:

1.    Is the literal retention of our thoughts and actions, preserved for judgment (Rom. 2:15, 9:1, 2 Cor. 1:12, 4:2, 5:11.)

2.    Enables us to pass judgment upon thoughts, words and actions (Acts 24:16, Heb. 9:9, 14, 10:2.)

3.    Serves as an intuitive guide or path for good conduct (Rom. 13:5, 1 Cor. 10:25-29, 1 Pet. 2:19.)

4.    Is affected by our various experiences, which is often the cause for divergent morals/values from nature. These include the conscience as “good” (Acts 23:1, 1 Tim. 1:5, 19, 1 Pet. 3:16, 21,) as “clear” (1 Tim. 3:9, 2 Tim. 1:3,) as “ideal” (Heb. 13:18,) as “weak” (1 Cor. 8:7, 10, 12,) as “defiled” (Tit. 1:15,) as “wicked” (Heb. 10:22,) and as “cauterized,” or “seared” (1 Tim. 4:2.)

Since our conscience can only function insofar as what the individual himself knows, it tracks that one’s conscience is responsive to the mold their brain is subjected to. A good conscience may be cauterized by false information, and vice versa. It may lead a good man to treat a falsely accused man with contempt; under false pretense, the good man believes he is acting in good conscience, while in truth, the action may very well convict them at the day of Judgment.

It may be challenged, because of this, that the adjectives “good,” “clear,” “ideal,” “weak,” “defiled,” “wicked,” and “cauterized” are thus subjective, since one man’s “good” is another man’s “weak.” Yet I again remind you that this is not a letter written from our perspective, nor even from Paul’s. The grounds for what is “good” and what is “bad” does not change with opinion (Cain’s murder of Abel does not become “good” because of his opinionated defense.) However, this does keep the conscience from being the standard of judgment, for it is not inflexible, and can be perverted.

How, then, can it be used as a proof for the Gentile’s condemnation on Judgment Day? It is only in relation to nature that our conscience can dictate what is “good.” The further that our conscience strays from our nature (giving credence to poor conduct (Rom. 1:29-31,) often through self-justification,) the weaker our conscience is worn, and, eventually, it may become a burnt, charred shell of its former self through belief in false teachings (1 Tim. 4:1-3.)

Therein lies the key to recognizing its place in Paul’s argument; it is the corruption of the conscience that intuitively shows the need for righteous correction, whether one is “under law” or not. Since our conscience is the result of our experiences and knowledge, which are both extremely limited spheres of our lives, the only plausible conclusion is that all of our consciences will inevitably testify an accusation in some manner, when conveyed in conjunction with the action of the law written in their hearts.

- GerudoKing