“Naturally obey the law” (Rom 2:14)

Best commentary I have read on the above verse is by Tim Hegg. It would appear Cranfield's assessment is more accurate, in my opinion.  Paul is referring to a status before God which does not depend on ethnicity, but obedience.  Thus he is speaking about believing Gentiles who carry out the law of Moses (thus I see Christians introduced much earlier than you have).  He is making the point that it is not those who have heard the law that matters, but what matters is the one who does what it says.  Or to put it in the context, it doesnt matter if you grew up hearing the law (Jew) but it matters when you actually love your neighbour, observe the Sabbath, extend mercy, (do the law) etc.  The real confusion it seems stems from 'by nature' in the verse.  Paul is not suggesting that some gentiles by nature obsereve the law (for he clearly demonstrates that unless one is born again there is no true obedience to the law of moses), but is saying that those gentiles who dont grow up hearing the law, or having the law in their society, or 'who do not have the law by nature, do the things of the law' (notice where I put the comma here as opposed to many translations).  the 'by nature' is referring to the ethnic upbrining, not the doing.  Thus if I had to put words into Paul's mouth to bring out the context (dangerous I know), I would say something along these lines:  'the gentiles who are not born in the context of hearing and growing up with the law, are counted as righteous if they obey the law, because it is those who show the work of righteousness in their lives that are considered righteous.  Being Jewish matters not when it comes to righteous status.  What matters is actually doing what the law of God says.  Since they dont have the upbringing in a society blessed with the law of moses, they will be accused or excussed by their conscience as they attempt to obey God to the best of their ability (ie: they won't always know the finer points but they are working towards it, so God takes that into consideration).  This means vs 12 is really about social upbringing and not about bondage to the law (common misunderstanding in my opinion).  This whole understanding brings much clarity to this difficult passage.  I would suggest that Paul does indeed think one can obey the law.  He is not suggesting perfection, but he is saying that the Spirit of God enables a man to keep the law.

Hi Bill    First of all, I am a 45 yr old preacher trying to re-learn my basic Greek, and your resources have been invaluable. What do you think about NT Wright's suggestion that Paul is actually saying, "The Gentiles, who do not have the Law by nature, do the things of the Law..." It was not "natural" for the Gentiles to have the Law - the Law was given to the Jews. Yet some Gentiles nevertheless practiced what the Law said. Shane

I would recommend that the following works be consulted on this issue before dismissing the "obedient Gentiles" from the chapter! All of them are post-Cranfield. They are listed chronologically by date of publication. 1976 Adrio Konig, "Gentiles Or Gentile Christians? On the meaning of Romans 2:12-16", in the Journal of Theology For Southern Africa 15 (June, 1976), pp. 53-60. 1986 Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach in Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 56 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 117-121. 1988 N. T. Wright, "Justification", in the New Dictionary of Theology, eds. Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), pp. 359-360. 1991 N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), pg. 213, note 29. 1994 N. T. Wright, “The Law in Romans 2”, in Paul and the Mosaic Law: The Third Durham-Tubingen Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism (Durham, September, 1994), ed. James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996, 2001), pp. 131-150. [XII, 363 pp.]   1995 Scott J. Hafemann, Paul, Moses and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), pp. 403, note 216, and 456. Akio Ito, "Romans 2: A Deuteronomistic Reading", in the Journal for the Study of the New Testament 18 [59] (1996), pp. 21-37. N. T. Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul”, in Pauline Theology, Volume III: Romans, ed. David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), pg. 41, note 12. [pp. 30-67; xii and 354 pp.] 1999 Simon J. Gathercole, “A Conversion of Augustine. From Natural Law to Restored Nature in Romans 2.13-16”, in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers (1999), pp. 327-358. 2000 Michael Winger, “The Law of Christ”, New Testament Studies 46 (2000), pg. 541, 541 note 12, 541 note 13. 2001 Simon J. Gathercole, “A Conversion of Augustine. From Natural Law to Restored Nature in Romans 2.13-16”, in Engaging Augustine: Self, Context and Theology in the Interpretation of Romans, eds. Daniel Patte and Eugene TeSelle, Romans Through History and Culture Series, eds. Cristina Grenholm and Daniel Patte (Harisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001), pp. 147-172. 2002 Simon J. Gathercole, “A Law unto Themselves: The Gentiles in Romans 2.14-15 Revisited”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 85 (2002), pp. 27-49. Simon J. Gathercole, Where Is Boasting: Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1-5 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002), pp. 126-129, 197-200, see esp. pg. 199, note 9, 222-224, 239-240. [xii, 311 pp.] N. T. Wright, “The Letter to the Romans”, in The New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), X:440-442. 2003 Simon J. Gathercole, “The Doctrine of Justification in Paul and Beyond: Some Proposals”, in Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, ed. Bruce L. McCormack (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), pg. 235, notes 30, and 31. [pp. 219-242; 279 pp.] N. T. Wright, “New Perspectives on Paul”, in Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, ed. Bruce L. McCormack (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), pp. 253-254. [pp. 243-264; 279 pp.] 2010 Steven Coxhead's post, "The Significance of Paul's Diatribe in Romans 2" (Sunday, March 7, 2010), on his Berith Road blog at http://berithroad.blogspot.com/2010/03/pauls-diatribe-in-romans-2.html [accessed 19 OCT 2011]. Steven Coxhead's post, "The Significance of Romans 1–2: When Jews Are Gentiles, and Gentiles Are Jews" (Monday, February 22, 2010), on his Berith Road blog at http://berithroad.blogspot.com/2010/02/gentile-and-jewish-sin-in-romans-1-2.html [accessed 19 OCT 2011]. 2011 Ardel Caneday, "Gentiles in Paul’s Argument in Romans 2: Their Praise Is Not from Man but from God", posted 24 SEP 2011 to Credomag at http://www.credomag.com/2011/09/24/gentiles-in-pauls-argument-in-romans-2-their-praise-is-not-from-man-but-from-god/ [accessed 15 NOV 2011]. A. B. Caneday, "Judgment, Behavior, and Justification according to Paul's Gospel in Romans 2". Journal for the Study of Paul and his Letters 1:2 (Fall 2011), pp. 153-192. Soli Deo Gloria, John T. "Jack" Jeffery Pastor, Wayside Gospel Chapel Greentown, PA

Hello, Bill! I laughed out loud at this blogpost. I was thrilled when google yielded this entry by you, as I was feeling like the only Christian hung up on this passage. 'Today I think I'll go with the majority opinion'!? Thank you for your Greek resources, by the way; I took a class that used one of your texts and benefitted greatly from your clarity.