Romans 2:13 and Justification

by Grover Gunn
http://grovergunn.net/andrew/andrew.htm

Dr. Norman Shepherd has written a document entitled, "Thirty-four Theses on Justification in Relation to Faith, Repentance, and Good Works." Thesis 20 is

The Pauline affirmation in Romans 2:13, "the doers of the Law will be justified," is not to be understood hypothetically in the sense that there are no persons who fall into that class, but in the sense that faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ will be justified (Compare Luke 8:21; James 1:22-25).
I respectfully disagree with this interpretation of the passage. The essence of this interpretation is the understanding that Paul is here referring to doing the law in a context of grace. The main reason I disagree with this interpretation has to do with Paul's word usage. One can use the Old Testament language of doing the law in a context of grace and incorporate it into positive teaching. This is what James does. One can also use the language of doing the law as misused by the Pharisees and incorporate it into arguments against legalism. This is what Paul does in Romans and Galatians. This divergent usage of language is why one can't use proof texts from James to establish Paul's meaning in Romans 2:13.

A helpful verse on Paul's usage of the "doing the law" language is Romans 10:1-9.

Paul there quotes Leviticus 18:5 as misused by the Jewish legalists and uses it as a summary of the "righteousness which is of law" in contrast to "the righteousness of faith." Paul there speaks of those who "[seek] to establish their own righteousness" and "have not submitted to the righteousness of God."

For a study of the proper interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in a context of grace, see John Murray's commentary on Romans, the 2nd volume, pages 249-251. Also, see the discussion on Paul's "speaking of the Law only in the killing sense given to it by the carnal Jews" on pages 131-134 of The Grace of the Law: A Study in Puritan Theology by Ernest F. Kevan.

In Galatians, Paul refers to "doing the law" as misused by the Judaizers and Pharisees; i.e., as an effort to keep the law perfectly as the grounds of justification:

In these passages in Romans and Galatians, Paul is using the concept of "doing the law" not as properly understood in a context of grace but as improperly understood as a legalistic means of salvation. Paul is using the apologetic technique summarized in Proverbs 26:5, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." Paul takes this misuse of the law and misunderstanding of the Old Testament to its logical conclusion and shows its total inadequacy as a way of salvation.

A further argument for this understanding of Romans 2:13 is the flow of thought in Romans 2:1-16:

Romans 2:5-11 is talking about what is known as "the judgment according to works." See John Murray's helpful discussion of this topic on pages 78-79 in volume 1 of his commentary on Romans. The judgment according to works is based on the principle that justification and sanctification are inseparable as well as distinct (WLC Q. 77; cf. WCF 11.2). Because they are inseparable, the sanctified are therefore also the justified, and thus the outward fruits of sanctification are evidence of justification. Paul previously argued in Romans 2:1-5 that the non-Christian Jews practice what they condemn in pagan culture. Thus they do not possess that personal holiness that is the outward mark of the justified. In verses 5-11, the saved are described as those who do good because of their sanctification, and the lost are described as those who obey unrighteousness.

In verse 12, Paul continues to explain and prove God's impartiality in judgment but he shifts to a discussion of the judgment of condemnation:

In verses 5-11 when Paul is discussing the judgment according to works, Paul mentions both salvation and condemnation. Here in verse 12, Paul discusses only the jugdment of condemnation. Verse 12 mentions only perishing and judgment, and says nothing about salvation. In verse 12, Paul mentions two categories of condemned people: those who do not have access to God's law in special revelation and those who do. Verses 13-16 follow as a parenthetical discussion of the basis for God's impartial judgment of these two groups on judgment day.

In verses 14 and 15, Paul discusses the condemnation of those without the law. Paul points to their natural sense of the things of the law as evidenced by their conscience which accuses and excuses. His purpose is to prove the justice of their condemnation and not to teach that some pagans will be justified based on their obeying God's law perfectly apart from knowing the law through special revelation.

In verse 13, Paul discusses the judgment of those with the law. Paul is not here talking about sanctification as evidence of justification but about the impossibility of keeping the law perfectly as a means of justification. I believe this for two reasons. First, there is Paul's usage elsewhere of the language of doing the law. This has already been discussed. Paul elsewhere uses the Pharisaical misinterpretation of this language in arguments against a legalistic understanding of justification. Romans 2:13 is in the midst of an extended argument against the possibility of justification based on one's own righteousness which comes to a climax in Romans 3:19-23:

There is no reason to think that Paul would have a different usage of the language of "doing the law" here in Romans 2 & 3 than he has elsewhere in similar contexts.

The second reason is Paul's parallel statement in Romans 2:14-15 about the judgment of those who do not have access to special revelation. Since those verses are referring not to the judgment according to works but to the judgment of condemnation, one should assume that the parallel statement in Romans 2:13 about those with the law would also be about the judgment of condemnation.