[JSNT 85 (2002) 27-49]

ISSN 0142-064X

A Law unto Themselves:

The Gentiles in Romans 2.14-15 Revisited

S.J. Gathercole
Department of Divinity and Religious Studies,
University of Aberdeen

Abstract
This article challenges the prevailing consensus that Rom. 2.14-15 refers to
non-Christian Gentiles, whom Paul introduces into his argument to show
that they too have knowledge of a law within themselves, and so are guilty.
In fact, Paul is no longer concerned with the responsibility of Gentiles,
which he had established in Rom. 1.18-32. Rather, these verses further
shame the Jewish interlocutor by showing that God is fulŽ lling his new
covenant promises in Gentiles, while he remains unrepentant. This is shown
by the connection between the doers of the law being justiŽ ed (2.13) and the
comprehensive doing of the law (which is not by nature) by the Gentiles
(2.14), by Paul’s reference to Jer. 31 in 2.15, and the stark contrast between
the heart and thoughts in Rom. 1.18-32 and 2.14-15.

Introduction
In the recently re-issued papers from the 1994 Durham–Tübingen
Research Symposium, N.T. Wright describes Romans 2, with charac-
teristic panache, as ‘the joker in the pack’.1 In the same volume, James
D.G. Dunn reports in his conclusion some of the interaction that took
place around the text that will be discussed here: ‘And discussion became
stuck on the unresolved issue of whether the law-doing Gentile of
2.14,26-27 was a real or hypothetical Ž gure, and whether he was or could

1. N.T. Wright, ‘The Law in Romans 2’, in J.D.G. Dunn (ed.), Paul and the
Mosaic Law (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1996; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 131-
50 (131).
© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX and 370
Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA.
28 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 85 (2002)

(in Paul’s view) only be a Christian gentile’.2

Historically, discussion has not been any less ‘stuck’ among theolo-
gians. Augustine changed his mind about the text: having previously
understood it as referring to natural law, he moved to seeing the reference
to Gentile Christians.3 But even then, he continued to use the passage as a
proof-text for natural law. Melanchthon criticized Augustine’s later
‘Gentile Christian’ reading for importing difŽ culties into Paul, ‘whereas
the text itself is not obscure’.4 Luther makes a very similar criticism of
Augustine’s ‘forced’ interpretation.5 Karl Barth, on the other hand,
reviews the account of the depravity of humanity described in Rom. 1 and
3, and views the ‘unregenerate Gentile’ interpretation of the passage with
incredulity:
Paul says unmistakeably that both Jews and Gentiles collectively and
individually live under sin, that none is righteous, no, not one (3.10), that
the whole world is guilty before God (3.19), that all have sinned and have
no glory with God (3.23). How, then, can he assume in Rom. 2, even
hypothetically, let alone in practice, that there are gentiles who are not
merely noble but who keep and fulŽ l God’s Law without knowing it in its
revealed form, and who are thus justiŽ ed before God as its doers?
Something is wrong here.6

Douglas Campbell comments, however, that even if Barth had the best of
the theological argument, in his estimation Brunner had the best of the
exegesis.7 But although the ‘unregenerate Gentile’ view may be favoured
by the majority, we should not, as Engberg Pedersen does, ‘presuppose
that the old question concerning the identity of the people referred to in

2. J.D.G. Dunn, ‘In Search of Common Ground’, in Dunn (ed.), Paul and the
Mosaic Law, pp. 309-34 (321).
3. See S.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. 327-58, and forthcoming in D. Patte and E. TeSelle (eds.), Engaging
Augustine: Self, Context and Theology in the Interpretation of Romans (Romans
Through History and Culture Series; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001).
4. T.H.L. Parker, Commentaries on Romans: 1532–1542 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1986), p. 139. (The words quoted are Parker’s, not the ipsissima verba of
Melanchthon.)
5. See Gathercole, ‘Conversion of Augustine’, p. 354.
6. K. Barth, Church Dogmatics. IV.4. The Doctrine of Reconciliation (Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1969), p. 8.
7. D.A. Campbell, ‘Natural Theology in Paul? Reading Romans 1.19-20’,
International Journal of Systematic Theology 1.3 (1999), pp. 231-52 (232).

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

 GATHERCOLE A Law unto Themselves 29

this passage—Gentile Christians or non-Christ-believing Gentiles?—has

been settled for the second alternative’.8
The most common taxonomy of interpretations of Rom. 2.14-15, then,
is of the ‘non-Christian’ and ‘Christian’ understandings of these Gentiles.9
Advocates of the ‘unregenerate Gentile’ interpretation can be further
subdivided into those scholars who see the purpose of these verses as
establishing the responsibility of these Gentiles such that their condem-
nation is deserved,10 and those who see a positive portrayal of these
Gentiles, whereby some unregenerate Gentiles have a better chance of
vindication at the day of judgment than many Jews.11 The Gentile-
Christian interpretation of these verses, on the other hand, sees the
Gentiles who carry out the Torah as Christian believers, and thus to be
justiŽ ed on the Ž nal day. It is this last interpretation that will be argued for
here.
This reading of the passage has a distinguished heritage, despite being
without doubt a minority position. The Ž rst of the Fathers to follow this
line was ‘Ambrosiaster’,12 who was then (eventually) followed by
Augustine of Hippo,13 as we saw above. Works in German earlier in the
twentieth century by W. Mundle,14 Karl Barth,15 F. Flückiger16 and J.B.

8. T. Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000),

p. 358 n. 39.
9. Another line identiŽ es the Gentiles as pre-Christian Gentiles. This is a position
taken by some Anabaptists at the Reformation (see Dietrich Philips, ‘The Church of
God’, in G.H. Williams and A.M. Mergal [eds.], Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers
[Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967], pp. 228-60 [232]), and most recently articu-
lated by G.N. Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1–4
(JSNTSup, 39; ShefŽ eld: JSOT Press, 1990), pp. 60-63. However, the Old Testament
references to God having already written Torah on the hearts of his people (allegedly
Pss. 36.31; 39.8; Isa. 51.7) are not convincing. The internalization of Torah is by and
large demanded, but not accomplished (as Jer. 31 makes clear).
10. By far the majority position. See, for example, Calvin (The Epistles of Paul to
the Romans and Thessalonians [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973], pp. 47-48), as well as
Fitzmyer, for whom these verses ‘show that God’s judgement is just, when the gentile
does wrong and so falls under the wrath of God, as does the Jew who does not obey the
Mosaic law’ (J. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary [New York: Doubleday, 1993], p. 311).
11. J.D.G. Dunn, Romans (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1998), I, p. 104.
12. Ambrosiaster, In Epistolam ad Romanos 81.1.74-75 (CSEL).
13. See Gathercole, ‘Conversion of Augustine’, pp. 336-48, for discussion of the
later passages in Augustine where he adopted his later interpretation.
14. W. Mundle, ‘Zur Auslegung von Röm 2,13ff.’, TBl 13 (1934), pp. 249-56.

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

30 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 85 (2002)

Souè ek17 followed this position, as also R. Bergmeier most recently.18 In

British scholarship, C.E.B. CranŽ eld’s magisterial commentary on
Romans19 is followed by a recent article by N.T. Wright defending this
interpretation.20 However, these recent discussions by CranŽ eld, Wright
and Bergmeier only devote a few pages to discussion speciŽ cally of Rom.
2.14-15.
It is necessary to outline in skeleton form the case for these Gentiles in
Rom. 2.14-15 being Christian believers. First, having established the
logical connection between Rom. 2.13 and 2.14, it will be argued that the
phrase ta_ tou~ no&mou refers to the Torah in a comprehensive sense.21 Thus,
the justiŽ cation promised to the doers of the Torah in 2.13 belongs to
those who ta_ tou~ no&mou poiw~sin. This obedience does not take place ‘by
nature’, as fu&sei belongs grammatically to the Ž rst clause in 2.14, and
does not modify the ‘doing of the Law’.22 With regard to Rom. 2.15, it
will be argued that the three components of ‘the work of the Law written
on the heart’, the ‘conscience’, and the ‘thoughts accusing and even
defending’ constitute features of a Christian believer. It has not been
argued elsewhere, to my knowledge, that these features mark a decisive
transformation from the depraved Gentiles of 1.18-32. Throughout, the
numerous striking parallels will be highlighted between Rom. 2.14-15 and
2.25-29.
Along the way, the various (numerous) objections to the ‘regenerate’
understanding will be answered. This treatment of 2.14-15 aims both to

15. See K. Barth, A Shorter Commentary on Romans (London: SCM Press, 1959),
pp. 36-37, and Church Dogmatics, II.2, p. 604; IV.1, p. 33, 395; IV.2, p. 561; IV.4, pp.
7-8.
16. F. Flückiger, ‘Die Werke des Gesetzes bei den Heiden (nach Rm 2 14ff.)’, TZ 8
(1952), pp. 17-42.
17. J.B. Sou ek, ‘Zur Exegese von Rm 2 14ff ’, in E. Wolf (ed.), Antwort: Karl
Barth zum siebzigsten Geburtstag am 10. Mai 1956 (Zürich: EvangelischerVerlag,
1956), pp. 99-113.
18. R. Bergmeier, ‘Das Gesetz im Römerbrief ’, in idem, Das Gesetz in Römerbrief
und andere Studien zum Neuen Testament (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 2000), pp. 31-102.
19. C.E.B. CranŽ eld, The Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1975–1979), I, pp. 155-63.
20. Wright, ‘The Law in Romans 2’, pp. 131-50.
21. This has been asserted by H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law (WUNT, 29;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2nd edn, 1987), p. 103, but has not, as far as I know, been
defended in any detail elsewhere.
22. The argument later will bring in fresh material to support this point.

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

 GATHERCOLE A Law unto Themselves 31

interact with discussions of these verses in some of the crucial new

monographs on Paul (e.g. R.H. Bell’s No One Seeks for God) as well as
important new articles (by N.T. Wright, R. Bergmeier and P. Maertens),
and new commentaries on Romans (e.g. that of D.J. Moo). Finally, and
most importantly, new evidence will also be brought in support of the
‘Gentile Christian’ reading of these verses.

Exegesis of Rom. 2.14

The e1qnh
As noted above, the key exegetical issues for us here concern ta_ tou~
no&mou and fu&sei. It is necessary, however, to make some preliminary
remarks about the e1qnh.23 Bornkamm, for example, objects to the Gentile-
Christian position on the grounds that the antithesis between Jews and
Christian Gentiles is never found elsewhere in Paul.24 However, Rom.
9.30 and 11.11-14 contain just such an antithesis. Bell objects in a similar
way that ‘in Romans 2 Paul contrasts Jews and Gentiles, not Jews and
Gentile Christians (2.9-10; 2.12; 2.25-29)’.25 This is also unsatisfactory,
however. Paul draws a wide variety of contrasts in Rom. 2: in 2.7-8
between those who do good, and those who do evil, and in 2.13 between
the Jew qua Jew and the ‘one who does the law’. Most particularly, Rom.
2.25-29, as we shall see, contrasts precisely the disobedient Jew with the
obedient Gentile.
Similarly, and more positively, as Bergmeier has pointed out, the
closest parallel to the language of e1qnh ta_ mh\ no&mon e1xonta as contrasted

23. Despite the protests of some older commentators (see, e.g., W. Sanday and A.C.
Headlam, Epistle to the Romans [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1895], p. 59), the absence of
the deŽ nite article before e1qnh is irrelevant. In 9.30 it is not that every single Gentile
has kate/ laben dikaiosu&nhn, but that the Gentile world has kate/ laben dikaiosu&nhn
because some Gentiles have received from God the dikaiosu&nhn de\ th\n e0k pi/stewj. Not
every single Gentile does ‘the things of the law’, but the Gentile world can be said to
ta_ tou~ no&mou poiw~sin, because some Gentiles ta_ tou~ no&mou poiw~sin. The rhetorical
function of this is important. Paul is combating a Jewish interlocutor who believes that
the more accurate picture of the Gentile world is painted in 1.18-32. Paul, in the course
of Rom. 2, wants to argue that the fulŽ lment of the Law is not absent from the Gentile
world any more than it is a widespread feature of the Jewish nation.
24. G. Bornkamm, ‘Gesetz und Natur. Röm 2, 14-16’, in idem, Studien zu Antike
und Urchristentum II (Munich: Kaiser, 1963), pp. 93-118 (109).
25. R.H. Bell, No One Seeks for God (WUNT 106; Tübingen: Mohr, 1998), p. 153.

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

32 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 85 (2002)

with members of the Jewish nation comes in 9.30-32, where it is precisely

the Gentiles who believe who are contrasted with unbelieving Israel:
9.30 o#ti e1qnh ta_ mh\ diw&konta dikaiosu&nhn kate/ laben dikaiosu&nhn
2.14 o#tan ga_r e1qnh ta_ mh\ no&mon e1xonta fu&sei ta_ tou~ no&mou poiw~sin

So, it is perfectly possible in principle that Paul should contrast believing

Gentiles with unbelieving Israel in Rom. 2, especially when one considers
the linguistic similarity between the concessive participial phrases
describing the Gentiles in 2.14 and 9.30.

The Logical Connection between 2.13 and 2.14

In Kuhr’s vigorous defence of the lex naturalis reading of 2.14-15, one of
his principal objections to Augustine, Barth, Mundle and Flückiger is that
these verses are separated from 2.7, 10 (which also describe godly
Gentiles) by 2.12 (which describes Gentiles to be condemned).26 The
focus, then, in 2.14-15 must be on the responsibility of the Gentiles.27 In
fact, however, the principal point is still the responsibility of the Jew, as is
shown by the connection between 2.12 and 2.13. Rom. 2.14 is further
‘separated’ from 2.12 by 2.13.
One of the key elements of the ‘regenerate Gentile’ view is that in 2.13
Paul speaks of a doing of Torah which leads to eschatological
justiŽ cation, and then immediately proceeds to speak of a doing of the
Torah in 2.14. So the syllogism runs:

Those who do Torah (2.13) will be justiŽ ed (oi9 poihtai\ no&mou

dikaiwqh/ sontai).
The Gentiles (2.14) do Torah (e1qnh … ta_ tou~ no&mou poiw~sin).
Therefore the Gentiles will be justiŽ ed.

Verse 13 functions on two levels. What precedes in 2.12 encourages a

reading that sees the doers of the Torah as a subset of the hearers of Torah
(cf. Jas 1.22-25). However, what follows in 2.14 makes it clear that there
is not merely a narrowing taking place in the shift from hearers to doers,
but something of an antithesis.28 The former sense would probably have

26. F. Kuhr, ‘Römer 2 14f. und die Verheissung bei Jeremia 31 31ff ’, ZNW 55
(1964), pp. 243-61 (253).
27. Kuhr, ‘Römer 2 14f’, pp. 260-61.
28. ‘In the present connection, however, where Jews and Gentiles are being played
off against each other, its formulation is sharply polemical’, B. Byrne, Romans
(SacPag; Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1996), p. 88.

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

 GATHERCOLE A Law unto Themselves 33

been uncontroversial for the Jewish interlocutor.29 But it is the ironical

level at which the text functions which is Paul’s distinctive argument; the
examples which he gives of the doers of Torah to be justiŽ ed30 are
actually not hearers of Torah at all.31
InsufŽ cient emphasis has been placed on the close connection between
verses 13 and 14.32 There are two main grounds for this connection. First,
the ga&r in 2.14, which, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary
should be taken as explaining the previous verse. There is no evidence
that 2.14 connects better with 2.12 than 2.13. The second reason is the
common theme of ‘doing of Torah’, where the principle that ‘the doers of
Torah will be justiŽ ed’ (2.13) is immediately applied.33 To draw a parallel
again with 2.25-29, 2.26 functions in the same way as 2.13b-14a: the non-
Jew who is obedient will be reckoned righteous. In both short phrases, the
three identical elements are evident. Within 2.13-14, the parallel between

29. M. Abot 1.17; Josephus, Ant. 20.24; P. Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the
Romans (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), p. 42, notes on 2.12-16, ‘The main
thoughts…have been prepared for by Jewish tradition’ (and Paul found them conŽ rmed
by Jesus-traditions, cf. Lk. 11.28). C.H. Dodd, Romans (London: Fontana, 1959),
however, cites Eleazar of Modiim who stated that ‘hearing’ was ‘the most universal
rule’ (p. 60). But Byrne, Romans, p. 88: ‘The Shema’ prayer…recited daily, deŽ nes
Israel as the ‘hearing/obedient nation’ par excellence’. Some strands of Judaism would
see a narrower meaning in a)kou&w than (m# (Dunn, Romans, I, p. 97).
30. Ziesler and Fitzmyer differ over whether the ‘justiŽ cation’ is ‘restoration to
relationship with God’ (J. Ziesler, Paul’s Letter to the Romans [London: SCM Press,
1989] p. 86) or ‘acquit, vindicate, declare innocent, justify’ (Fitzmyer, Romans, p.
309). The other dispute is with regard to the future tense: whether it is a logical
(Ziesler) or temporal, i.e. eschatological, future (the majority view). Parker notes that
sixteenth-century commentators tended toward the former view, with the exception of
Grimani (Parker, Commentaries on Romans: 1532–1542, p. 125).
31. no&moj here refers to Torah, not generic ‘law’. Considerable burden of proof
rests with the commentator who argues against no&moj meaning Torah. The argument
originating with Origen (ad Rom. 3.21, cited in Sanday & Headlam, Romans, p. 59)
that, if Paul had meant Law of Moses, he would have added the article cannot be
sustained. ‘The lack of the article is without signiŽ cance’ (E. Käsemann, Commentary
on Romans [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980], p. 62).
32. Though CranŽ eld, Romans, I, p. 155: ‘The most natural explanation of the ga&r
would seem to be that these verses are thought of as conŽ rming 13b’. And Käsemann,
Romans, p. 62: ‘Paul…makes the transition, not to an excursus, but to a concrete
application’. Cf. also J. Bassler, Divine Impartiality. Paul and a Theological Axiom
(SBLDS, 59; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1982), p. 141.
33. It is not, of course, an exhaustive application in which Gentiles are considered
the only doers of Torah.

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

34 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 85 (2002)

oi9 poihtai\ no&mou (2.13) and ta_ tou~ no&mou poiw~sin (2.14) is surely
unmistakeable on the grounds of proximity, syntactical/logical
connection, and verbal similarity. The question then becomes: What is
this doing of ta_ tou~ no&mou?

ta_ tou~ no&mou

One of the principal objections to the Gentile-Christian reading of this
text is this: How can these Gentiles be justiŽ ed on the basis of such
piecemeal obedience as ta_ tou~ no&mou? Even though he sees the Gentiles
as regenerate, CranŽ eld talks of ta_ tou~ no&mou as ‘those works of
obedience’ which are ‘imperfect, and far from deserving God’s favour’.34
They are also generally understood by the majority of scholars who see
the Gentiles as unregenerate to be ‘vague’,35 and partial36 obedience,
‘some of the good works of the Law’.37 Can this be sustained?
While it is true to say that the scope of a ta_ tou~ phrase is general, it is
also inclusive and comprehensive. In the New Testament, two antithetical
spheres are often contrasted as ta_ tou~ X in opposition to ta_ tou~ Y.38 For
example ou) fronei=j ta_ tou~ qeou~ a)lla_ ta_ tw~n a)nqrw&pwn (Mt. 16.23; Mk
8.33). In fact, these sorts of antitheses constitute the majority of the usage
of the construction.39 There are three cases where there is no antithesis
(Rom. 14.19; 1 Cor. 13.11; 2 Cor. 11.30), but the sense is the same:
general, but in no sense limited. (Compare the familiar categories oi9 tou~
no&mou and oi9 th~j pi/stewj40 which are by all accounts neither ‘vague’ nor
‘partial’ categories.) Räisänen is surely correct: ‘There is in the expression
ta_ tou~ no&mou nothing to suggest a limitation of the number of precepts
fulŽ lled’.41
This, however, still does not answer the question of the character of the
law-fulŽ lment. First, it is important to note that this comprehensive

34. CranŽ eld, Romans, I, p. 156.

35. Dunn, Romans, I, p. 105 (cf. also Byrne).
36. L. Morris, Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), pp. 124-
125; cf. Fitzymer, Romans, p. 309.
37. M. Luther, Lectures on Romans (Library of Christian Classics; London: SCM
Press, 1961), pp. 51-52.
38. Or, of course, ta_ th=j and ta_ tw~n.
39. E.g. ta_ Kai/saroj/ta_ tou~ qeou~ (Mt. 22.21; Mk 12.17; Lk. 20.25); ta_ th=j
sarko&j and ta_ tou~ pneu&matoj (Rom. 8.5). Also, 1 Cor. 2.11, 14; 1 Cor. 7.32-34.
40. Gal. 3.9; Rom. 4.14.
41. Räisänen, Paul and the Law, p. 103. He is also correct to assert that the ‘casual’
interpretation would by no means convince his interlocutor.

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

 GATHERCOLE A Law unto Themselves 35

fulŽ lment by no means denotes sinless perfection: we will see later that
the condemning thoughts of the Christian balance these earlier statements.
But neither is ‘doing the Torah’ a reference particularly to covenant
status, as in Wright’s understanding, though there is perhaps some
element of it present.42 Rather the reference is to the fundamental
knowledge of God and orientation to his will that is lacking in the Jewish
contemporaries of these Gentiles. The Jewish nation is unrepentant (2.5),
and guilty of infraction of Torah (2.23, 25, 27). By contrast, those who
‘do the business of the Law’ are characterized by obedience, an obedience
that is neither ‘vague’ nor ‘partial’, nor utterly perfect.

ta_ mh\ no&mon e1xonta fu&sei

The problem with the argument above is of course that this accomplish-
ment of Torah that leads to justiŽ cation seems to take place spontaneously,
‘by nature’.43 But is it the doing that is natural, or does the imaginary
comma come after e1qnh ta_ mh\ no&mon e1xonta fu&sei? Some scholars claim
that it is the lack of possession of Torah which is fu&sei, ‘by birth’, just as
Peter and Paul are fu&sei I0 oudai=oi (‘by birthright, Jews’) in Gal. 2.15.44
The majority view, however, is that fu&sei goes with what follows45 (thus,
‘doing by nature the things of the Law’), but even among some
commentators who take that view, the uncertainty is acknowledged.46 The
principal argument for this view, articulated by Dunn and Fitzmyer,47 is
that if fu&sei modiŽ ed the ‘possession’, it would occur within the phrase
o{tan ga_r e1qnh ta_ mh\ no&mon e1xonta. There are, however, decisive
arguments against this line.

42. For which see Wright, ‘The Law in Romans 2’, p. 147.
43. Dunn (Romans, I, p. 98), Räisänen (Paul and the Law, p. 104), Byrne (Romans,
p. 91) and many others state that this is a signiŽ cant problem. Augustine and Barth
attempted a solution to this problem by arguing for a positive sense of nature in 2.14
(although they differ insofar as Augustine saw this as a nature repristinated by a gratia
restorans). But neither of their attempts has been found convincing by scholars.
44. See, e.g., CranŽ eld, Romans, I, pp. 156-57; Davies, Faith and Obedience, p. 62
n. 1.
45. Bassler, Divine Impartiality, p. 142: ‘It is generally agreed that fu&sei is to be
read with the phrase that follows, where it is given an emphatic leading position’.
46. D.J. Moo, Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996),
p. 149 n. 33; Morris, Romans, p. 124 n. 80, though Dunn (Romans, I, p. 98) is more
sure.
47. And followed explicitly by C. Kruse, Paul, the Law and JustiŽ cation (Leicester:
Apollos, 1996), pp. 178-79, and Bell, No One Seeks for God, p. 152 n. 97.

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

36 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 85 (2002)

Examples can be found where fu&sei occurs at the end of a phrase. Wis.
13.1a for example, reads: ma&taioi me\n ga_r pa&ntej a!nqrwpoi fu&sei, oi[j
parh=n Qeou~ a)gnwsi/a.48 Here fu&sei is not within the clause it qualiŽ es, as
Dunn, Fitzmyer and Bell maintain it should be, and this is often the case
with adverbs and adverbial datives.49 Similarly, fu&sei and its adjective
come after the verb in Ignatius, Eph. 1.1: 0Apodeca&menoj e0n qew~| to_
poluaga&phto&n sou o1noma, o$ ke/ kthsqe fu&sei dikai/a| kata_ pi/stin kai\
a)ga&phn e0n Xristw~| 0Ihsou~ tw~| swth~ri h9mw~n.50 Bergmeier notes an
example from Josephus, Ant. 8.152: dio_ kai\ a)nh/geiren au)th\n o( basileu_j
ou}san o)xura_n fu&sei kai\ pro_j pole/mouj kai\ ta_j tw~n kairw~n metabola_j
xrhsi/mhn ei]nai duname/nhn.51 These three examples closely parallel the
minority interpretation of 2.14a. This is not to argue that fu&sei therefore
must go with e1xonta. But it does demonstrate that many scholars have
assumed the standard position without any foundation. In reality, Greek is
freer with respect to word order than these scholars allow.
So, is there any positive evidence for taking fu&sei with what precedes?
One of the strongest arguments is that of Achtemeier and Maertens.
Achtemeier notes that ‘in every other instance in Paul’s letters’ fu&sei is
not used ‘to describe an action’, but rather ‘to characterise further some
group’.52 This is an important point: Achtemeier is saying that fu&sei
qualiŽ es identity, rather than behaviour. He is no doubt referring to Gal.
2.15, 4.8 and Eph. 2.3 where this principle certainly applies. Maertens
seems to have come to the same position independently. He notes that ‘in
the majority of cases where Paul employs the term, it is a question of a
demarcation of Jewish over against non-Jewish identity, as in Gal. 2.15,
for example… See also Rom. 2.27; 11.21, 24; Gal. 4.8 and Eph. 2.4,
where the issue is identity in general’.53
Secondly, there is a parallel with 2.27. Here we have the phrase h9 e0k
fu&sewj a)krobusti/ a to_n no&mon telou~sa where the Gentile as
‘uncircumcision’ is qualiŽ ed by a phrase synonymous with fu&sei. And of
course the contrast is the same: in 2.14, ‘those without Torah by

48. ‘All men are vain by nature, who are ignorant of God.’
49. Wright, ‘The Law in Romans 2’, p. 145, cites Rom. 14.1 as an example.
50. ‘I welcome in God your well-beloved name which you possess by reason of
your righteous nature, according to your faith in and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour.’
51. ‘So the king rebuilt it since it was strong by nature, and could be useful for wars
and uncertain times.’ Cited in Bergmeier, ‘Das Gesetz im Römerbrief’, p. 53.
52. P. Achtemeier, Romans (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), p. 45.
53. P. Maertens, ‘Une étude de Rm 2.12-16’, NTS 46.4 (2000), pp. 504-19 (510).

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

 GATHERCOLE A Law unto Themselves 37

birthright, actually nevertheless obey it’; in 2.27, ‘those uncircumcized by

birthright, actually nevertheless fulŽ l Torah’. Thirdly, supporting the
examples above where fu&sei followed its verb, it is a common rule in the
grammar books that adverbs follow their verbs. Since fu&sei is adverbial,
an adjunct, Moulton’s point that ‘[a]n adverb usually follows the adj. or
verb which it determines, in New Testament’54 is perhaps relevant here.
Davies also cites J.P. Louw as saying the same thing.55 Fourthly, it would
be unparalleled in Paul’s thought to say that Gentiles had the spontaneous,
natural ability to carry out even elements of Torah. Citing 1 Cor. 5.1 and
Phil. 4.8-9, Stuhlmacher states that Paul ‘recognized that there is a
pronounced consciousness of good and evil among the Gentiles that even
Christians can take as an example’.56 But Phil. 4.8 says nothing of the
kind, and 1 Cor. 5.1 merely states that the Corinthians are indulging in a
kind of porneia that is seldom found among Gentiles: hardly comparable
to Paul holding up Gentile attitudes as paradigmatic. Fifthly, as Stowers
(perhaps tenuously) notes, if the Ž rst half of 14a did not include the fu&sei,
the clause would be merely repeated exactly in the Ž rst half of 14b.57

A ‘Law unto Themselves’

Similarly, the ‘law unto themselves’ in 2.14 does not necessitate appeal to
Hellenistic philosophy. (Appeal is most commonly made to Aristotle and
Philo.) While in Aristotle, for example, the best men are themselves a law,
for Paul the contrast is between the Gentiles’ lack of possession of the law
by birthright, over against the extraordinary way in which these Gentiles
incarnate the Torah in their persons. Those who do not belong to the
nation that received the Torah nevertheless obey its ultimate requirements
far more effectively than does Israel. Eo ipso, they are considered not just
to possess this privilege of Torah, but also to embody it. As we shall see
more clearly in 2.15, they have had the knowledge of God’s will inscribed
in their hearts by the Holy Spirit.

54. J.H. Moulton, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (ed. Nigel Turner;
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963), p. 227: ref. in S.K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), p. 116.
55. Though in fact J.P. Louw does not apply this to 2.14 in his analysis in
Semantics of New Testament Greek (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), p. 158.
56. Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, p. 44.
57. Stowers, Rereading, p. 116.

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

38 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 85 (2002)

Graeco-Roman and Jewish Parallels

Nevertheless, however coherent an alternative explanation may be, the
arguments for the lex naturalis reading of Rom. 2.14-15 must be
discussed. We have seen that the historical ediŽ ce that has been built on
placing fu&sei with what follows is based on very shaky foundations, at
least as far as 2.14a is concerned. (The principal historical reason is
probably the fact that the in uential Vulgate text reproduced the word
order of the Greek. Thus, fu&sei/natura inevitably became part of the sense
of 2.14b, as the verb in Latin would mark the end of the sense unit of
2.14a.)
One important criticism of the standard ‘natural law’ reading of Rom.
2.14-15 comes from J.W. Martens, namely, that the Stoics would only
refer to the wise as ‘carrying out elements of the (natural) law’. 58 Stoicism
was in fact rather prejudiced against the masses who did not understand
the law of the universal state.59 Similarly, Bell is right to argue that
‘conscience’ is not a distinctive feature of Stoic philosophy,60 therefore,
‘Paul appears not to be in uenced directly by Stoicism in Rom. 2.14-
16’.61 And Martens’s argument that Paul is discussing the Stoic sage who
is the rare exception in that he does carry out the law of nature is quite
unconvincing.62 This would be a notion quite alien to one whose gospel
destroyed the wisdom of the wise.
F. Kuhr argues that Paul does not actually hold to a doctrine of natural
law himself, but he merely uses it temporarily as a stick with which to
beat the Gentiles: ‘Paul does not wish here to build up a theory of
Gentiles’ understanding of the law, but wishes to emphasize their
responsibility… Rom. 2.14-15, then, is a tool which the Apostle uses, and

58. J.W. Martens, ‘Romans 2.14-16: A Stoic Reading’, NTS 40 (1994), pp. 55-67.
He alternates between saying Paul uses the Stoic technical expression ta_ mh\ kaqh/konta
in 1.28, but then mentions his ‘slight mistake in his use of the term’. Then it turns out
that it is in fact not the same term.
59. See, e.g., Seneca Epistles 7 (‘On Crowds’); 8 (‘On the Philosopher’s
Seclusion’); 109 (‘On the Fellowship of Wise Men’).
60. See, however, Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics, pp. 375-76 n. 22, who
does note the importance of self-awareness in Stoic philosophy, in contrast to C.A.
Pierce, Conscience in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1955), who is followed
by many: see, e.g., Maertens, ‘Une étude de Rm 2.12-16’, p. 515.
61. Bell, No One Seeks for God, p. 175.
62. Similarly, to connect 2.14 with Aristotle, Politics 3.13 (1284a), where the
superior man is himself a law, would be an extreme case of parallelomania, as Moo
(Romans, p. 151 n. 40) notes.

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

 GATHERCOLE A Law unto Themselves 39

which he lays aside when it has served his purpose’.63 This seems,
however, to be something of a counsel of despair. Paul should, at least in
the Ž rst instance, be given an opportunity to be consistent.
R.H. Bell looks more to Jewish parallels, in particular to T. Jud. 20 and
certain rabbinic traditions. However, the traditions of God revealing the
Torah, which only Israel accepted, to the other nations as well is not
relevant to Rom. 2.14-15: there is no trace of the ideas of, for example,
Sifre Deut. 343 here.64 The rabbinic tradition about God creating man with
248 members and 365 veins corresponding to the 248 positive and 365
negative commandments is also very tenuously connected to our passage,
especially if one accepts that fu&sei does not modify the activity of the
Gentiles. The strongest parallel is certainly T. Jud. 20, which contains
reference to certain things written on the heart, mention of the conscience,
as well as God’s omniscient judgment. However, the parallel subject
matter does not mean an agreement in theology between the two texts.
There is certainly overlap in vocabulary (e.g. conscience), and the common
Jewish tradition that nothing escapes the sight of God. But this is a
function of both texts discussing the inner workings of the person, not
because of an identical view of those workings. The principal difference
lies in the fact that T. Jud. 20 describes these inner workings in terms of
the two spirits (T. Jud. 20.1), which, while familiar at Qumran, are not
commonplace in Pauline thought.
Even Rom. 1.19-21 does not bear comparison with Rom. 2.14-15 very
well: the former speaks of an external revelatory voice in the cosmos,
which humanity in any case constantly refuses. The natural knowledge of
God’s will attributed by some to Rom. 2.14-15 is quite different: it is
internal. N.T. Wright is quite correct to look elsewhere for the closest
parallels that are of concern to us.65 In this regard, Rom. 8.3-4 and, in
particular as we have seen, 2.25-29 are vital. Wright correctly notes that
the old consensus about 2.25-29 referring to non-Christian Gentiles has
broken down: commentators as diverse as CranŽ eld, Käsemann and Dunn
accept that the reference is to Christian Gentiles here. Wright points to the
very close parallels between 2.25-29 and the descriptions of Christian

63. Kuhr, ‘Röm 2 14f.’, pp. 260-61: ‘Paulus will Rm 2 14f. keine Theorie über die
heidnische Gesetzerkenntnis aufstellen, sondern die Verantwortlichkeit der Heiden
betonen… Rm 2 14f. ist gleichsam ein Werkzeug, das der Apostel benutzt und dann,
wenn es seinen Zweck erfüllt hat, wieder beiseitelegt.’
64. See Bell’s discussion in No One Seeks for God, pp. 164-69.
65. Wright, ‘The Law in Romans 2’, p. 132.

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

40 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 85 (2002)

believers in Rom. 7.6, 2 Cor. 3.6 and Phil. 3.3.66 Moreover, the parallels
between 2.14-15 and 2.25-29 are remarkable: (1) Possession of Torah and
circumcision are only useful (for eschatological deliverance) if Torah is
obeyed: vv. 13/25. (2) If Gentiles are somehow obedient to God, they are
judged to possess the privileges of Israel: vv. 14/26. (3) It is what is inside
that counts (krupt- , kardi/a), not what is visible, because this is the
sphere which is of interest to God: vv. 15-16/ 28-29. (4) This is because
of the covenant renewal whereby God writes Torah on, or circumcizes,
the heart: vv. 15/29. So, the parallel with 2.25-29 seems to conŽ rm the
identity of these Gentiles. To pursue this, however, we need to examine
the evidence, established on two or three witnesses (Deut. 19.15), that
Paul adduces for this Gentile fulŽ lment of Torah.

The Three Witnesses in 2.15

Not essential to the argument here, but very plausible is Käsemann’s
account of v. 15 as the endeixis of three distinct witnesses.67 There is also
considerable confusion about when this endeixis takes place,68 but it is
presumed here that it is future and that 2.15-16 is one sentence.69 This
places the temporal shift between 2.14 and 2.15. The reasons for seeing
2.15-16 as one sentence are the thematic links of both the internal
characteristics, and the forensic situation. It makes perfect sense to say
that God judges the secrets of the heart, having described these
transformed inner workings; and having described testimony, accusation
and defence, to speak of God’s eschatological verdict in judgment in 2.16.

kardi/a
The Ž rst of the witnesses is ‘the work of Torah written on their hearts’.
The singular70 ‘work of Torah’ is a hapax, and so requires discussion. The

66. Wright, ‘The Law in Romans 2’, pp. 134-35.

67. Käsemann, Romans, pp. 65-66: ‘one must not lose the nuances in the sharply
differentiated materials of 14b-15 by laying all the stress from the outset, in modern
style, on the role of conscience (contra Barrett; Kuss) and then construing the
introductory kai/ of v. 15c explicatively’.
68. Some take it as eschatological (Lietzmann, Wilckens), some present (e.g.
Ziesler), and some both (Luther, Lectures on Romans, pp. 52-53; Moo).
69. Lietzmann, Morris and Wilckens see a close connection between 2.15 and 2.16.
For detailed discussion, see Bell, No One Seeks for God, pp. 147-52. Moo outlines Ž ve
possibilities in Romans, pp. 153-54.
70. CranŽ eld claims the force of the singular is ‘intended to bring out the essential

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

 GATHERCOLE A Law unto Themselves 41

initial question is whether the genitive is subjective,71 or objective

(Dunn), or both (Morris). Analogy with the plural e1rga no&mou (despite the
difference in number) points to an objective genitive, so the meaning is
something like ‘accomplishment of Torah’.
The similarity between [no&mouj mou]… e0pi\ kardi/aj au)tw~n gra&yw
au)tou~j (LXX Jer. 38.33) and to_ e1rgon tou~ no&mou grapto_n e0n tai=j
kardi/aij au)tw~n (Paul) is striking: it has four key lexemes in common,
and just as Rom. 2.25-29 shares its new covenant context and language
with Ezekiel, so also seeing Paul’s reference to LXX Jer. 38 makes sense
of the wider context of Rom. 2.13-24, as we shall see shortly (and as
argued by Ito).72 To say that Paul does not refer to the inscription of the
Law, but to the ‘work of the Law’ written on their hearts as an argument
against fulŽ lment of LXX Jer. 38 is to split hairs.73 That no&moj is singular
is consistent with Paul’s reluctance to use the plural form.74 If to_ e1rgon
tou~ no&mou is an objective genitive phrase, and LXX Jer. 38 is in view in
Rom. 2 here, then Jeremiah and Paul only differ in their temporal
perspective. Jeremiah looks forward to the future; Paul is narrating from a
projected position in the future, when on the last day Gentiles will present
their transformed hearts at the judgment seat.
Objections to this view, however, are common, especially in German
scholarship. Käsemann asserts that ‘even a reminiscence [sc. of LXX Jer.
38] is doubtful’, because no eschatological facts are made known.75 Kuhr
explains further that the fundamental distinction between what is
described in Rom. 2.15 and LXX Jer. 38 is that in Jeremiah the Law

unity of the law’s requirements’ (Romans, I, p. 158). So also, more tentatively, Morris.
71. So, ‘what the Law prescribes’ (Fitzmyer). Cf. also CranŽ eld, Käsemann,
Leenhardt. Probably not the ‘effect of the Law’ (Barrett, Maertens, ‘Une étude de Rm
2.12-16’, p. 515), which is another subjective reading of the genitive, as is L. Gaston’s
unconvincing theory of ‘works of Torah as subjective genitive’ in his Paul and the
Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 1987), pp. 100-106.
72. Reference (or not) to Jer. 31 on Paul’s part in Rom. 2.15 is the key boundary-
marker dividing those who see the Gentiles as Christian and those who do not. See
CranŽ eld, Romans, I, pp. 158-59, and A. Ito, ‘Romans 2: A Deuteronomistic Reading’,
JSNT 59 (1995), pp. 21-37 (30), though Ito is almost certainly wrong to see an allusion
in 2.15 here to Deut 30.14 (‘Romans 2’, pp. 26-27).
73. Thus many commentators, and, e.g., T.R. Schreiner, ‘Did Paul Believe in
JustiŽ cation by Works?’, BBR 3 (1993), pp. 131-58 (146); Kruse, Paul, the Law and
JustiŽ cation, p. 180; Maertens, ‘Une étude de Rm 2.12-16’, p. 515.
74. Similar to his tendency with a(marti/a, though this is not as thoroughgoing.
75. Käsemann, Romans, p. 64.

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

42 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 85 (2002)

written in the heart is an eschatological gift at the time of salvation,

whereas in Rom. 2 it is the ability to act in a moral manner by virtue of
being human.76 The problem with this objection, however, is that the
promise of Jeremiah declares that one of the dissimilarities between old
and new covenants is that Israel’s ancestors broke the old covenant (Jer.
31.31-32). Ito rightly relates the breaking of the covenant here to the sin
of Israel in Rom. 2.21-24.77 The new covenant, on the other hand, will be
characterized by a new obedience. Not performed naturally, of course:
rather, it is the result of God himself writing the Law on hearts (LXX Jer.
38.33), and circumcizing his people by the Spirit (Rom. 2.29). Thus Kuhr
puts asunder what God has joined: new covenant obedience is God’s
eschatological gift.
Wilckens and Bell object along different lines: ‘In Hellenistic Judaism
the Jeremiah passage is never used in the apologetic sense of no&moj
a!grafoj’.78 This is a curious objection, however; it presumes that the
unwritten lex naturalis is in evidence in 2.14-15, and then concludes that
LXX Jer. 38 cannot therefore be in evidence. This is entirely circular: the
objection presupposes precisely what is at issue in the debate.
In fact, the background of LXX Jer. 38 is highly signiŽ cant for Rom.
2.14-15. Paul is well acquainted with the Old Testament passage in
question,79 and it is clear that the prophecy of LXX Jer. 38 was regarded as
an important proof-text for other circles in earliest Christianity.80 There
are two further reasons why Paul’s reference to LXX Jer. 38.33 is
particularly apposite here. First, Jeremiah promises an internalization of
Torah, similar to what was required in Deut. 6.6. This time, however, the
cardiac inscription is a work of God rather than the activity of active
memorization of and obedience to Torah by Israel. It is also, in keeping

76. Kuhr, ‘Röm 2 14f ’, p. 260: ‘bei Jer ist das ins Herz geschriebene Gesetz eine
eschatologische Gabe, die dem Menschen in der Heilszeit zuteil wird, Rm 2 14f. ist es
die dem Menschen auf Grund seiner menschlichen Natur eignende Fähigkeit zum
sittlichen Handeln’.
77. Ito, ‘Romans 2’, p. 30.
78. Bell, No One Seeks for God, p. 153. Cf. U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer
(Röm 1–5) (EKKNT; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997), pp. 134-35: ‘die
Jeremia-Stelle im hellenistischen Judentum, soweit ich sehe, nirgends zu
apologetischem Zweck im Sinne des no&moj a!grafoj ausgewertet worden ist’.
79. CranŽ eld (Romans, I, p. 159) refers to the importance of Jer. 31 for Paul in
1 Cor. 11.25, 2 Cor. 3 and possibly 2 Cor. 6.16. Rom. 11.27 is also signiŽ cant.
80. Parts of Jer. 31.31-34 are cited in Heb. 8.8-12 and 10.16-17. See also new
covenant language in Heb. 9.15; Lk. 22.20/Mk 14.24?/Mt. 26.28?

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

 GATHERCOLE A Law unto Themselves 43

with the Pauline context, an internal work of God. Secondly, in the past
the covenant was characterized by disobedience from the very beginning
(38.32), and this is the chief sense in which the new covenant ‘will not be
like’ it. Thus, Paul focuses on the accomplishment of Torah (to_ e1rgon tou~
no&mou) by those who are participating in the new covenant, as opposed to
the disobedience of the Torah’s legal demands by his interlocutor’s nation
in 2.21-22.
One point particularly neglected by scholars is the contrast between
Rom. 2.14-15 and 1.18-32. Crucially, 1.21 and 1.24 say of the Gentiles
that e0skoti/sqh h9 a)su&netoj au)tw~n kardi/a and pare/dwken au)tou_j o( qeo_j e0n
tai=j e0piqumi/aij tw~n kardiw~n au)tw~n. In 2.15 then, we see a wonderful
transformation from the natural state of the Gentile heart in Jewish
perspective to a new heart, inscribed with the work of Torah.

sunei/dhsij
The second, supporting witness is the ‘conscience’, again, a hotly
disputed term. The term is derived from popular Greek,81 rather than the
LXX82 or philosophical discourse.83 The view that the term was
distinctively Stoic84 has been successfully debunked by Pierce,85 though
he also conŽ ned Paul’s use of the term within the straight-jacket of
Hellenistic Greek, which, he argues, yields this meaning: ‘man is by
nature so constituted that, if he overstep the moral limits of his nature he
will normally feel pain—the pain called sunei/dhsij’.86 This line of
‘conscience as bad conscience’ is followed by, for example, Ziesler and
Byrne, but Pierce’s analysis has not gone unchallenged. Pierce himself
admitted that certain texts simply do not Ž t his scheme, in which case
sunei/dhsij should not be translated as conscience.87 M. Thrall rightly
points out that this relies on strained exegesis.88 And for Pierce to explain
the New Testament texts where sunei/dhsij is modiŽ ed by a positive

81. Pierce, Conscience in the New Testament, passim.

82. It is a hapax in the LXX (Eccl. 10.20).
83. Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 311.
84. Dodd, Romans, pp. 61-62.
85. Pierce, Conscience in the New Testament, pp. 13-28.
86. Pierce, Conscience in the New Testament, p. 50.
87. 2 Cor. 4.2; 5.11.
88. M. Thrall, ‘The Pauline use of SUNEIDHSIS ’, NTS 14 (1967–68), pp. 118-25
(123).

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

44 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 85 (2002)

adjective (e.g. a)ga&qoj) as ‘the absent sunei/dhsij’89 causes problems.

Similarly, to read ou) yeu&domai summarturou&shj moi th=j suneidh/sew&j mou
(Rom. 9.1) as ‘I have no painful consciousness of lying’90 seems rather
too liberal a paraphrase. The term is in all probability neutral, its painful-
ness or otherwise dependent on the context.
The conscience is distinct from the cardiac inscription of the work of
Torah.91 CranŽ eld takes the summarturou&shj simply in the sense of
‘testify’, on the grounds of a shortage of other witnesses, but in the other
two uses of the term in Romans (8.16; 9.1), it has an ‘accompanying’
sense. The two possibilities for that which it accompanies seem to be (1)
the Gentiles themselves, or (2) their hearts. The former case would
correspond with the analogy in 9.1, but (2) would correspond with a
scheme whereby the witnesses are ‘heart’ and ‘conscience’—to be
supplemented by the thoughts, to constitute an internal trichotomy.92
Because the testimony of the conscience follows the inscription of Torah
on the Gentile’s heart, it would seem strange if the testimony of the
conscience were something negative. The precise testimony of the
conscience is nevertheless difŽ cult to determine. However, if Rom. 9.1
(the closest parallel) is any indication, the activity of the conscience is
likely to be an assurance derived from the presence and internal work of
the Holy Spirit.

logismoi/
The third witness, ‘thoughts’, I take to be distinct from the second, rather
than explanatory of it.93 These thoughts are personiŽ ed as participants in
the case, alternately prosecuting and defending. Not all agree, however,
with the standard view of logismoi/ as ‘thoughts’: Watson sees them as

89. Pierce, Conscience in the New Testament, p. 51.

90. Pierce, Conscience in the New Testament, p. 84.
91. ‘[C]onscience is not to be identiŽ ed as “the work of the law”…but constitutes a
further conŽ rmatory witness’ (Dunn, Romans, I, p. 101). Contra Barrett, who argues
‘The law has, as it were, left its stamp upon their minds; this stamp is their conscience’
(Romans, p. 53).
92. There seems to be no support for conscience as supporting witness to no&moj
(Schlatter, Barrett).
93. Contra, e.g., Fitzmyer, who argues that ‘this clause describes the role of
conscience in greater detail’, while maintaining that there are three witnesses (Romans,
p. 311); CranŽ eld sees the thought as ‘clarifying’ the conscience (Romans, I, p. 161)
and Calvin (The Epistles of Paul, p. 49) writes: ‘Notice Paul’s scholarly deŽ nition of
conscience…’

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

 GATHERCOLE A Law unto Themselves 45

‘ethical debates’, real conversations, 94 and others reckon them to be ‘the

claims of those in whose presence and on behalf of whom the deed was
done’ (A. Schlatter). But, the most common meaning of logismoi/ in the
LXX is ‘thoughts’,95 and the character of the Ž rst two witnesses has been
internal, so ‘thoughts’ Ž ts the pattern better, especially as the internal
motif is one that is unfolding throughout these verses.
These thoughts, however, are widely understood to be a crucial
stumbling block for the ‘Christian’ understanding of these Gentiles.96 That
the condemning thoughts are clearly in the majority is incompatible for
most scholars with Paul’s enormously positive picture of the regenerate
Christian.97 However, it needs to be remembered that Paul in many other
places continues to reckon with the reality of sin in the life of the
Christian (e.g. Rom. 8.13). He can even say, ‘the  esh desires what is
contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the  esh. They are
in con ict with each other, such that you do not do what you want’ (Gal.
5.17).98 For Paul, however, this contradiction of will and action inherent
in the Christian is not so absolute that it leads to condemnation. It is quite
plausible that the Pauline Christian could have copious ‘accusing
thoughts’ and still be vindicated by God. At least one other early Christian
believed the same: ‘whenever our hearts condemn us…God is greater than
our hearts, and he knows all things’ (1 Jn 3.20).
In fact, whereas these thoughts had in 1.21 been simply subject to
condemnation by God,99 now they can, mirabile dictu (h2 kai/), provide
apologia for the Gentile who had formerly been a)napolo&ghtoj (1.20).100

94. F.B. Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1986), p. 116.
95. See references in Sanday and Headlam, Romans, pp. 61-62.
96. T.R. Schreiner, ‘Did Paul Believe in JustiŽ cation by Works?’, p. 147, for
example, takes the accusing thoughts as proof that ‘the doing of the law described in
vv. 14-15 is not a saving obedience’.
97. See, e.g., Maertens, ‘Une étude de Rm 2.12-16’, pp. 516, 519.
98. With J.L. Martyn, Galatians (AB, 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997), taking
the clause i3na mh\ a$ e0a_n qe/lhte tau~ta poih=te as ‘descriptive rather than hortatory’
(p. 495 n. 76).
99. Cf Wis. 11.15 for logismw~n a)sune/ twn, and 12.10 for the unchanging evil nature
of their logismo&j.
100. Räisänen characteristically points out the incongruity of 2.14-15 after what Paul
has said in 1.18-32 (Paul and the Law, pp. 103ff.). This would be the case even on a
milder reading of ta_ tou~ no&mou poiw~sin than Räisänen allows. But not only does this

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

46 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 85 (2002)

There is a similar transformation here to that which we saw in the case of

the ‘heart’. Thus, the accusing and defending thoughts are features of the
regenerate Gentiles in 2.14-15, while contrasting starkly with the Gentiles
of Rom. 1.18-32.
These thoughts are not the good and evil impulses, and do not ‘concern
the pros and cons of conduct’.101 It is not the moral quality of the
thoughts, but their forensic function on the day of judgment which is in
view here. One point missed by commentators is the sting in the tail in the
h2 kai/: the surprise for the Jewish interlocutor would have been that the
thoughts could actually provide a defence at all. The point is often made
by commentators that the h2 kai/ highlights the rarity of defence compared
with accusation, but Paul’s rhetorical point in the diatribe consists in the
surprising possibility of any a)pologi/a.

Conclusion
In conclusion, even if the presence of Christian Gentiles in Rom. 2.14-15
may not be absolutely clear, there is certainly enough negative and
positive evidence to make it, like Churchill’s democracy, the worst view
apart from all the others. The subject of Rom. 2.14-15 is the eschato-
logical acquittal of the doers of Torah (2.13). In 2.14 we saw the
surprising constituency from which these hearers come: Gentiles, who
carry out precisely the conditions for justiŽ cation required in 2.13. Their
doing of ta_ tou~ no&mou is a comprehensive, not partial, fulŽ lment of Torah.
And it does not take place ‘by nature’; rather, fu&sei indicates that the
Torah does not belong to the Gentile by birthright. FulŽ lment of Torah is
not a natural process, but rather the result of divine action, as indicated by
the reference to LXX Jer. 38 in the following verse. In 2.15, we see the
process by which the Ž nal eschatological justiŽ cation takes place, as the
witnesses for the Gentiles present their evidence (e0ndei/knuntai). The Ž rst
witness is couched in the least forensic language, though no&moj inevitably
has a legal shade. The second witness is explicitly named as an ‘accomp-
anying witness’ (summarturou&shj) and the third switches sides during the
case! Secondly, these witnesses are crucially all internal. What we have
here is a tripartite (at least for heuristic purposes) internal anthropology,
where the inner workings of the Gentile are divided into heart,

incongruity dissolve on a Gentile Christian reading of 2.14-15, but rather 1.18-32 and
2.14-15 read together support such a reading.
101. Pace Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 311.

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

 GATHERCOLE A Law unto Themselves 47

conscience, and thoughts. This is vital exegetically both because of the

‘internal’ nature of the Torah fulŽ lment  agged up in 2.13, and also
because it is the true object of God’s judgment in 2.16. Thirdly, on a
Gentile Christian reading of these verses, we have seen that 2.15
constitutes something of a preliminary reversal of the description of
Gentiles in 1.18-32.102 Fourthly, the occasion of this e1ndeicij is the day of
judgment.103 The transposition of v. 16, or the placing of 2.14-15 in
parentheses, is unnecessary.104 The continuity of the legal language, in
particular the ‘accusing and defending’ in 2.15 with ‘judgment’ immedi-
ately following, and the continuity of the ‘internal’ language in 2.15 with
ta_ krupta& in 2.16 make textual emendations or addition of brackets a
hazardous enterprise. Fifthly, and related to the last point, this court-room
should perhaps be seen as the foil to the court-room in 2.1-3. The Jews
may condemn the Gentiles, but in fact the Gentiles’ own hearts (tai=j
kardi/aij au)tw~n) and consciences (au)tw~n th~j suneidh/sewj) are actually
in accord with God’s verdict (2.13b).
If correct, this exegesis has a number of implications for the
understanding of Romans, and of Paul’s theology as a whole.
In the Ž rst place, Rom. 2.14-15 is, with 2.25-29 to which it is so closely
related, a supporting witness to the fact that Rom. 1.18–3.20 is not simply
located, in rhetorical terms, before Christ. Rom. 1.18–3.20 can still retain
its character as Verdammnisgeschichte105 despite its occasional forward
glances to a time when Verdammnis will no longer reign. Reference
forward to the age of Christ and the Spirit cannot be ruled out a priori as
being ‘out of context’ in 1.18–3.20.106 Proper explanation of how these
forward glances function in the narrative of Rom. 1.18–3.20 would take
too long, but sufŽ ce to say that Paul has no further desire to indict the
Gentile world in Rom. 2. He has already succeeded quite sufŽ ciently in

102. The full exposition of the reversal takes place, as is more widely recognized, in
ch. 12.
103. The verb e0ndei/knumi itself can have a legal sense (C.L.H. Grimm and J.H.
Thayer, Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1893],
p. 213: ‘show, demonstrate, prove’).
104. Ziesler (Romans, p. 88) places 14-15 in parentheses.
105. With Bell, No One Seeks for God, p. 90, despite the criticism of Stowers in his
review of No One Seeks for God in JBL 119 (2000), p. 371.
106. Kuss, who dismisses Flückiger’s arguments as Barthian dogmatic assertions,
rules out his arguments in this sweeping way (O. Kuss, ‘Die Heiden und die Werke des
Gesetzes [nach Röm 2,14-16]’, in O. Kuss, Auslegung und Verkündigung, I
[Regensburg: Pustet, 1963], pp. 213-45 [216], cf. p. 215 n. 6).

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

48 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 85 (2002)

that task in Rom. 1.18-32.107 Although Paul is talking about Gentiles in

these verses, he is not talking to them. In Rom. 2, as is widely recognized,
Paul is focusing on the indictment of his Jewish interlocutor. This
indictment consists partly in bringing the phenomenological (Rom. 2.21-
22) and, later, scriptural (Rom. 3.10-18) evidences to support his charge
of Israel’s sinfulness, but also partly in showing how an unrepentant and
stiff-necked (Rom. 2.5) Israel actually compares unfavourably with a law-
abiding Gentile group. In addition to accusing Israel of sin, Paul is, in
effect, enacting his theology of Rom. 11.13-14: attempting to provoke his
Jewish dialogue-partner to jealousy through  agging up God’s fulŽ lment
of his covenant promises in the Gentiles.108 Paul Ž rst describes these
Gentiles in 2.14-15, and then follows this up with his shaming of the
Jewish nation in 2.17-24. Here, by contrast, ‘the Jew’ is in full possession
of the Law, and trained in it (2.17-20), but is disobedient (2.21-24). In
Rom. 2.25-29, Paul then makes explicit comparisons between these two
groups.109
Finally, if the law-abiding Gentiles in 2.14-15 are Christians, then the
statement in 2.13 can by no means be dismissed as merely hypothetical or
ad hominem. Rather, in the company of statements about the reward of
eternal life for obedience in 2.7, 10, 26-27 and 29, Rom. 2.13-16 must
point to a stronger theology of Ž nal vindication on the basis of an obedient
life than is evident in most analyses of Pauline theology. Conversely,
Paul’s view of the sinful character of the  esh (such as in Rom. 8.7) can
no longer be tempered by the slightly more positive picture presented in
‘non-Christian’ readings of Rom. 2.14-15. One could go on to identify

107. That Paul needs to establish Gentile responsibility in 2.14-15 is a very common
line of argumentation: see above n. 10. It is the main thrust of the verses for Kuhr,
despite his recognition of Mundle’s point to the effect that this has already been
detailed in Rom. 1.18-32. See Kuhr’s note (‘Röm 2 14f.’, p. 247) of Mundle’s point
that ‘Ferner ist die Re exion auf nichtchristliche Heiden und ihre etwaige
Gesetzeserfüllung im Zusammenhang nicht motiviert, weil schon Rm 1 ausgeführt
worden, dab die Heiden dem Gericht verfallen…’
108. Some scholars attempt to have their cake and eat it by asserting that Paul is both
shaming the Jew in Rom. 2.14-15 and providing the basis for the condemnation of
Gentiles. This is impossible, since if Paul were drawing attention to a partial obedience
on the part of Gentiles in order to point out their own knowledge of good and evil, such
a partial obedience to the terms of the Law could have no persuasive force for a Jew.
109. For more on the  ow of Paul’s argument in 2.1–3.20, see S.J. Gathercole,
Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and the New Perspective on Paul (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002).

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

 GATHERCOLE A Law unto Themselves 49

numerous other theological loci touched upon by these verses. Although

they constitute a small unit of text, the ship of Pauline theology, as James
might have put it, is invariably yet turned about by a very small rudder.

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.