Dr. Robert Martin
Now we know that whatever the law says,
it says to those who are under the law,
that every mouth may be stopped, and all
the world may become guilty before God.
Therefore by the deeds of the law
no flesh will be justified in His sight,
for by the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:19-20).
The relation of God’s law to the gospel is the most important practical theme in Christian theology. Charles Bridges (The Christian Ministry, 228) says,
We cannot indeed have too much of the Gospel; but we may have too little of the Law. And a defect in the Evangelical preaching of the Law is as clear a cause of inefficient ministration, as a legal preaching of the Gospel. In such a Ministry there must be a want of spiritual conviction of sin generally–of spiritual sins most particularly–and–flowing directly from hence–a low standard of spiritual obedience. Indeed, all the prevalent errors in the Church may be traced to this course.
J. Newton similarly says, “Ignorance of the nature and design of the law is at the bottom of most religious mistakes” (Works, 1:176). These statements seem excessive, but the more we consider them the more accurate they appear.
Christian history is the story of pivotal theological disputes. The 4th Century, e.g., was marked by conflict over Christ’s deity. Other issues have had their day. All theological disputes, of course, eventually reappear, no matter how seemingly definitive the resolution in prior generations. But one issue surfaces in every generation, as if nothing conclusive had ever been said. That issue is the relation of God’s law to the gospel and to Christian ethics. That’s our theme today (w/ special ref. to Paul’s teaching in Romans). On this subject the Puritans made their most useful contribution. And yet, while godly men have stood in every period since to echo their judgment, we live in an age in which one would think that debate was never engaged on the lawful use of the law of God.
Human responsibility/accountability is the most hated idea in Christian theology. That’s why so many are open to a gospel with no repentance at the gate and no pursuit of holiness in the way. They are averse to any gospel that is integrally related to God’s law and that holds them responsible for how they live. Sadly, their teachers accommodate them by uncritically speaking of their freedom in Christ. We must do better!
Our theme is the inescapable connection of God’s law (1) to the gospel and (2) to Christian ethics. On the first point, the Puritans and their successors were quite insistent that the preaching of the law must precede the preaching of the gospel as preparation for it. As Edward Reynolds says, “this is the method of the Holy Ghost, to convince first of sin, and then to reveal righteousness and refuge in Christ. The law is the forerunner, that makes room, and prepares welcome in the soul for Christ” (cited in Bridges, The Christian Ministry, 238-39). Or, as John Colquhoun says, “If [a man] does not have spiritual and just apprehensions of the holy law, he cannot have spiritual and transforming discoveries of the glorious gospel” (cited by W. Plumer, The Law of God, 10). Now, these men got the notion that preaching the law is an integral part of preaching the gospel from the Bible, esp. from Paul’s exposition of the gospel in Romans, where we find a method of opening the gospel that makes this conclusion inescapable.
Paul’s theme text is Hab. 2:4 (“the just shall live by faith”), a verse that is the key to the whole letter (cf., 1:16-17). He finds the doctrine of justification by faith in Hab. 2:4, but he also sees the governing principle of the righteous man’s life. The life of the righteous (including the manner of his justification) is by faith. In this sense Hab. 2:4 undergirds the doctrines of justification (at the beginning of a life of faith) and sanctification (the on-going life by faith of the justified) that Paul works out in Romans. Paul opens these themes, however, not only in terms of their relation to God’s grace but also in terms of their relation to God’s law.
In opening the doctrine of justification and the forensic basis of our acceptance before God, Paul does not speak first of the principles and promises of the gospel but instead lays out the claims of the moral law. At 1:18 he introduces the subjects of God’s wrath and men’s unrighteousness–in a treatment that continues to 3:20. In this section he demonstrates the universality of sin and condemnation. Beginning with the revelation of God’s law in creation, in conscience, then in Scripture, he finally comes to his conclusion. See 3:19-20.
Underlying all that he says in this section is the fact of disclosure from God, for which those who receive it are responsible and inexcusable if they refuse it. Put another way, when he depicts the problem at the end of the section, he speaks of universal unrighteousness, but at the beginning (and along the way), he describes it in terms of a universal refusal to receive the truth that God has displayed in his revelation of himself to men. This is seen in the structure of the section itself–
The Root Problem: Revelation Refused (1:18-3:8)
Creation Revelation Refused (1:18-32)
Conscience Revelation Refused (2:1-16)
Scripture Revelation Refused (2:17-3:8)
The Conclusion: Universal Sin and Condemnation (3:9-20)
Paul shows that all divine revelation has the nature of law, and that those who receive it are accountable to God for how they respond to it. As we see at 1:18, to refuse that revelation is to do so in unrighteousness and come under the condemnation of God’s law that ultimately is manifested in his wrath.
The first step in Paul’s making his case for
universal unrighteousness is in reference to . . .
1. The Refusal of Creation Revelation (1:18-32)
Our focus is 1:18, 32. Even as “the truth” is the knowledge of God and his will that he has revealed, so “suppressing the truth” is refusing to let revealed truth have its divinely intended role in the governance of our lives. This willful rejection of plainly revealed truth is what leaves us “without defense.”
In this section, Paul notes the case of those who refuse God’s revelation of himself in creation. Having said that sinners are guilty of “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness,” he says that in the revelation of God’s person and character in creation all men have sufficient knowledge of the truth to support the charge of their suppressing truth in the course of their living unrighteous lives. In the verses following Paul develops this in terms of the pagans of his day, especially in terms of their more scandalous sins. But what he says is not true just of some pagans but not of others. Instead, it is true of all (regardless of their personal or cultural morality) who reject God’s revelation of himself in the things that he has made and who refuse to worship and serve him.
At 1:32, in case we miss the point along the way, Paul speaks of refusing this knowledge of God explicitly in moral terms, so that it is clear that the revelation that makes the pagan accountable is not merely ontological (of God’s being), or merely cosmological (of God’s power displayed in the creation), but also moral (of God’s holy character and will). Now, this revelation is known by virtue of its impress on man’s conscience, which finds in the disclosure of his goodness in creation also the revelation of his moral character.
Now, at this point, it’s important then to say that the model that Paul gives us in Romans and confirms in his own preaching of the gospel to pagans (in Acts) is to first point them to the things that God has made and to their character as a revelation of divine law for which they are accountable. What then shall we tell men to do with the knowledge of God found in creation revelation? We must tell them to give God his due, according to who he has revealed himself to be, which means that they are obliged to glorify and thank him, and worship and serve their Creator. Not doing this is sin against God’s law. It is a suppressing of the truth in unrighteousness, and it marks them as unrighteous men who are exposed w/out defense to the revelation of God’s wrath from heaven.
2. The Refusal of Conscience Revelation (2:1-16)
In continuing to work out the proof of his assertion at 1:18, Paul now changes focus –from “they” to “you,” i.e., who believe yourselves to be morally superior and judge others in the way that he describes. Calvin (Romans, 83-84) says,
This reproof is directed against hypocrites . . . . Hence Paul, after having stated the grosser vices, that he might prove that none are just before God, now attacks saintlings [sanctulos, hypocritical moralists] . . . as if he said, Though you do not consent to the vices of others, and seem to be avowedly even an enemy and reprover of vices; yet as you are not free from them, if you really examine yourself, you can not bring forward any defense.
Paul begins by saying that he who condemns sin in others while doing the same kinds of things himself also is condemned and inexcusable (2:1). In the case of such hypocritical moralists the verdict “without defense” applies because the ability accurately to judge the deeds of others shows that one possesses the moral knowledge that Paul describes at 1:32. Those who judge in others what they allow in themselves show that the problem is not lack of knowledge of God’s will, and, therefore, that they are justly indefensible for not using that knowledge to govern their own behavior.
Paul supports this conclusion in several ways, but note especially 2:14-15. Here is the crux of his argument concerning the accountability of hypocritical moralists, including Gentile ones. They did not have God’s law as revealed and expounded in the OT–and accordingly they will not be judged by that law but by the law that they possessed. But though the Gentiles were “without the law” in the form given to Israel in scripture, they were not w/out the faculty of conscience, whose working is “the work of the law written in their hearts.”
The Bible views man from a moral perspective, i.e., as accountable to God for his deeds. To assist us in this, God has given us a capacity to judge our own actions on the basis of a standard of right and wrong. The Bible calls this faculty of moral self-awareness “conscience.” Its universal existence is not just an idea that may be deduced from observation, but in the Scriptures it is presupposed in all of God’s dealings with us. He reasons with us about the moral rightness or wrongness of our deeds, commands us to choose good and to refuse evil, and rewards us according to the judgments and choices that we make. In all of his dealings with us as moral beings, the presence of conscience (a faculty capable of processing these ideas) is assumed. In all his dealings with us he has assumed an ally, as Ed. Polhill called it, “a Dei vicarius [a representative of God], a kind of representative Numen [divine will] in men; it hath a secret Tribunal in the Heart” that has the “Seal and impress which divine justice hath set upon it” (Speculum Theologiae in Christo, 44).
Twice Paul has implied the working of conscience, i.e., in the pagan (1:32) and in the saintling (2:1). Now he does so again, reasoning (again) from men’s actual behavior. Though the Gentiles did not have the sacred Scriptures, their behavior showed their knowledge of God’s moral law. The moral image of God remains, even after the fall. Every man has a conscience that excuses or accuses him, although the standard by which it does this may be very far from the accurate law written on Adam’s heart. And yet, as C. J. Vaughan (Romans, 38) observed, that law remains with sufficient clarity that universally some acts are regarded as evil and that there is an “instinctive reverence felt in all ages and countries for good and right, however little adhered to in personal conduct; and, springing out of this, just laws and institutions of all kinds, testifying for good.” This shows the work of the law written on men’s hearts,” i.e., proves that men possess the faculty of conscience regulated by a law that is part of their human constitution as created by God.
In saying that Gentiles “are a law to themselves,” Paul does not mean that each man is his own lawgiver. His point is not that they are “a law to themselves” but “the law to themselves.” “It is not therefore a different law that confronts the Gentiles who are without the law but the same law brought to bear on them by a different method of revelation” (Murray, Romans, 1:74). And this law’s working is here described in terms of its accusing and excusing. It says you shall or you shall not. Conscience’s verdict is you did or you did not–either guilty or righteous, and its sentence is either condemned or justified.
Conscience’s only paradigm is law and its only vocabulary is legal. Even as we cannot speak of eternity without using temporal language, so conscience cannot speak in other than legal categories or apart from legal vocabulary. Its voice is the voice of law–and unless it is utterly dead to its original programming (which is never the case), it speaks to some degree with the voice of God’s law. Throughout this section Paul has spoken of the final judgment (2:2-3, 5-6), at which all men must give account: not only pagans but also all moralists, religious or otherwise. He closes the section on this note (2:16).
Conscience knows that this day is coming, and it knows the standard by which God will judge men on that day–and it will testify with God’s voice to these truths if men will listen. And it is our ally in persuading men of their sin and exposure to God’s wrath. Even as we must preach the law that is revealed in creation, so we must address men’s consciences in an effort to awaken them to its confirming testimony. How then must we preach to our saintlings or to others who seem to know or care nothing of scripture? We must remind men of their consciences, which condemn in others what they allow in themselves. We must tell them that they already know about God’s righteous judgment and the coming of a day when they must give account to him according to the moral standard of his law.
3. The Refusal of Scripture Revelation (2:17-3:8)
This section continues Paul’s argument regarding the inexcusability of hypocritical moralists, with special ref. now to the Jewish variety of his day. He shows why the Jews also must recognize that they are subject to the principles of divine justice. He says that they also are not “doers of the law” and therefore cannot be justified by the works of the law, but that, having “sinned in the law” they “will be judged by the law.” The Jews then, as all men, are subject to the principles of divine justice. Indeed, in one sense they are more so.
Paul addresses the Jews’ assumptions about their privileges. Jewish saintlings rested on their covenantal privileges as though possessing these things exempted them from God’s judgment. Of course Paul understood their premises from his own experience of having been an insider and sympathizer. The point towards which he is moving, however, is that even those who possess the greatest religious privileges need to hear God’s law, turn from their sins, and trust in Christ.
Now, in making this point, Paul also turns another corner–not just to focus specifically on the Jews but also to take to the next level his case for the inexcusability of those who suppress truth in unrighteous. In previous sections he has spoken of men rejecting God’s revelation in creation and conscience. Now he speaks of the Jewish form of this, i.e., their de facto rejection of Scripture. Paul’s argument shows that this is not at all something that the Jew would have admitted, but it is in fact what his behavior meant, so that instead of his conduct being the occasion of praise to God, it was the cause of God’s name being dishonored among the Gentiles. Paul’s point then is that, because they have received greater light in the Scriptures, the Jews will fall under greater judgment than the Gentiles (who did not have the law in this way). And further, because of their greater light, they should have known that “salvation by grace is the only salvation which is possible for them” (Moses Stuart, 78).
Before he is done, Paul will pursue the Jew into every refuge where he excuses himself from obeying God’s law. He will say that circumcision is of value as a sign of participation in the Abrahamic covenant only if one keeps the law. This is so because obedience to God’s law, which is the fruit of true faith, is the only infallible sign that one is a true descendant of Abraham. If one disobeys the law (and thus evidently is without true faith), his circumcision is the same as uncircumcision. Conversely, if one obeys the law, i.e., with the kind of obedience that alone proves the presence of true faith, his physical uncircumcision is of no consequence, for the true sign of Jewishness is not outward in the flesh but inward in the heart.
At 2:27, Paul brings us again to the judgment of the last day in order to show us the importance of taking the demands of God’s law seriously. His message is that your behavior, one and all, from the Gentile pagan to the Jewish moralist, is not that of righteous men who have no legal controversy with God but that of men who have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness and therefore who are “under sin” (under the condemnation of God’s law because of sin).
At 3:19-20, we finally come to the conclusion from all that Paul has said about the relation of men and God’s law (whether that law has been revealed to them in creation, conscience, or code). Every mouth is now stopped, especially those who boast of their righteousness. Every man must acknowledge his guilt before God. But Paul does not at this point tell us to do better than we have been doing. The purpose of the law is not that we should try harder at using it as an instrument of self-justification. It’s purpose is to show us our sin and to teach us that “by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight.” And used for this purpose (indeed, preached for this purpose), it is a most fitting preface to the preaching of the gospel.
Luther’s ire was roused by propositions brought to him, against the preaching of the law, because it could not justify. “Such seducers” (he said) “do come already among our people, while we yet live; what will be done when we are gone?” (Bridges, The Christian Ministry, 233). What indeed? Such men are like leeches that suck the life out of churches and doom multitudes to perdition. But we must take a different course. Our part is to preach the whole counsel of God, including showing our people from God’s law why they must not rest in their own righteousness and why they need the sin-bearing death and justifying righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. As Flavel (Works, 2:288, 297-98) says, “there is a mighty efficacy in the word or law of God, to kill vain confidence, and quench carnal mirth in the hearts of men, when God sets it home upon their consciences. . . . The law of God hath a soul-wounding, an heart-cutting efficacy” and unless and until the soul is “wounded for sin, it will never be converted from Sin, and brought effectually to Jesus Christ.”
Men hate reminders of their responsibility and accountability to God and thus they hate the preaching of the law, but this is the only fitting preparation for the gospel of grace. Therefore, brethren, as Paul says to Timothy,
Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables (myths). But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry (2 Tim. 4:2-5).
All rights reserved.
