# Romans 2:13 - doers of the law will be justified



## Devin (Feb 1, 2006)

I've been working through Romans in-depth for the first time recently, and I'm stuck on what to think of this particular verse.

Romans 3

12For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, *but the doers of the law who will be justified.* 14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

I first interpreted Paul as simply saying that the way that the law _could_ justify someone is not by hearing but by doing perfectly, which no one can do. 

However, to supplement my studies, I've been listening to John Piper's series on Romans, and he gave a different interpretation. He seemed to be saying that the verse isn't _prescribing_ how one could be justified _by the law_, but is _describing_ who will be justified _period_. Therefore, the "doers of the law" are like the righteous people in the Old Testament who were not sinless and yet strived to serve God to the best of their abilities.

I'm not thoroughly convinced of either interpretation, so any helpful insight would be much appreciated.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 1, 2006)

Here's an excerpt from something that I wrote and put here on the Board:

In fact, Rom 2:13 indicates that it is the doers of the law who will be justified. Of course, Paul goes on to spend much energy showing that no one can keep the law, but the principle remains: _God´s law must be kept in order for us to be justified._ Thankfully, the Bible speaks of Jesus´ obedience as resulting in our righteousness. (Rom 5:19) In other words, it is because of what Jesus has done on our behalf that we are declared righteous. (1 Cor 1:30, 2 Cor 5:21, 2 Peter 1:1) It is imperative to note that the concept of "œrighteousness" carries, from its earliest usage, the notion of _fulfilling ones obligations towards God and man._ To synthesize, Jesus is seen as not only having taken our punishment upon himself, but also having fulfilled "“ or kept "“ God´s law on our behalf, and as a result of Christ´s actions being credited to our account, we are declared "œrighteous," that is, we are viewed as if we had perfectly kept God´s law.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 2, 2006)

Devin,

What specifically is Rom. 2:13 saying?
Keep the context in mind. Paul is putting everyone in the world in the dock and condemning them all, to the last man. He is addressing self-righteous moralists here. This one tries to set himself apart from the "libertines" that Paul indicts at the end of chapter 1. Paul knocks him right down again with everyone else. In the section following verse 16, it is specifically against the Jewish moralist with his Revelation and his Ceremony that Paul directs his energies. What he first states in the middle verses makes his attack on Jewish self-righteousness all the more powerful.

In the center section you are referring to, including ver 13, Paul is proving that some kind of _law_ is the basis for *all* judgment. The moralist is silenced by the absolute equity of God--no favoritism, v.11. Paul anticipates the moralist's next move (though not explicitly expressed as an objection):


> Well, that "fairness" really isn't fair, because some people knew God's will better than others. Sounds like God is pretty arbitrary to me.


Paul takes in hand to answer this charge as well. Judgment is according to LAW in every case. Nothing arbitrary about it.

First of all, judgment is a fact, so might as well face it. Perishing is the stone cold reality, so its time to make sense of it. Everyone is going down, with or with out the Mosaic Law. Because "hearing" is basically nothing but a judgment amplifier, when it is _contrasted_ to doing. No one gets "justified" on the basis of his quality of hearing--or no hearing versus yes, I heard that. Righteousness is a matter of performance. Covenant of Works still in effect? Oh yea, better believe it. The only thing that differs person to person is the specifics of the charges against them. All sin, _any_ sin, condemns. 

Paul is not addressing *how* a person can be or become righteous here. He's not talking directly about how a person may become a "doer" of the law--for example, as the OT man of faith like David in the Psalms, or the NT believer growing in grace and walking in sanctification. And he isn't yet explaining the full gospel, the unfolding of 1:16-17 (this is still first-the-bad-news phase). It isn't time for Christ's righteous work to be revealed (3:22ff). Paul is just echoing what the Law of Moses itself indicated: "He who does these things will live by them." And there is an underlying assumption that Paul is counting on a basic agreement on--*some people ARE going to be saved, thank God*, someone is going to be justified.

But how can you, sinner, get that credit: a doer-of-righteousness?
You got to wait one more chapter for that if you don't already know.

Verses 14-16 then explain how God's moral law will still form the basis of the charges against all those who have never possessed external, special revelation.


As for Piper, go back and listen again (I don't have access to him), is he saying the text itself is proclaiming the point, or is it amplification from the text? He is preaching after all, and bringing out the implications of the text, as he should. He could be applying the text. In other words, yes--some are going to be justified, some will be counted as "doers of the law," its not purely hypothetical. But the basis for that conclusion is not directly expressed here in Romans 2.

And your initial impression from the text wasn't wrong either, if you assume the basic, universal, sinful human limitations. Because if you are hearing this gospel for the first time, even if you grant that _somehow_ someone can be righteous before God, _you know_ that you aren't in the "doer-of-righteousness" category. Because in some area, lots of areas really, you are nothing but a hearer.

[Edited on 2-2-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 2, 2006)

It's really, really important in reading this section to remember the general outline of Romans. 

Guilt, Grace, Gratitude (the Heidelberg Catechism didn't invent it!)

This passage occurs in the LAW ("do and live") section. It's part of Paul's prosecution of sin and sinners. 

He does it by pressing the law's demands. _Post lapsum_ no one can or will keep the law and no one can or will be justifed by law-keeping, but the demands of the law remain. As Adam's children, we owe perfect and personal and perpetual obedience (sound familiar?) to that law.

Paul is re-publishing (!) the covenant of works, pressing home the righteous demands of the law, particularly on those who think of themselves as law-keepers. Calvin's comments are useful:



> 13. For the hearers of the law, etc. This anticipates an objection which the Jews might have adduced. As they had heard that the law was the rule of
> righteousness, they gloried in the mere knowledge of it: to obviate this mistake, he declares that the hearing of the law or any knowledge of it is of no such consequence, that any one should on that account lay claim to righteousness, but that works must be produced, according to this saying, "œHe who will do these shall live in them."
> 
> The import then of this verse is the following, "” "œThat if righteousness be sought from the law, the law must be fulfilled; for the righteousness of the law consists in the perfection of works." They who pervert this passage for the purpose of building up justification by works, deserve most fully to be laughed at even by children. It is therefore improper and beyond what is needful, to introduce here a long discussion on the subject, with the view of exposing so futile a sophistry: for the Apostle only urges here on the Jews what he had mentioned, the decision of the law, "” That by the law they could not be justified, except they fulfilled the law, that if they transgressed it, a curse was instantly pronounced on them. Now we do not deny but that perfect righteousness is prescribed in the law: but as all are convicted of transgression, we say that another righteousness must be sought. Still more, we can prove from this passage that no one is justified by works; for if they alone are justified by the law who fulfill the law, it follows that no one is justified; for no one can be found who can boast of having fulfilled the law.



rsc


----------



## Devin (Feb 2, 2006)

> As for Piper, go back and listen again (I don't have access to him), is he saying the text itself is proclaiming the point, or is it amplification from the text? He is preaching after all, and bringing out the implications of the text, as he should. He could be applying the text. In other words, yes--some are going to be justified, some will be counted as "doers of the law," its not purely hypothetical. But the basis for that conclusion is not directly expressed here in Romans 2.



http://www.biblicalpreaching.info/sermons.php#

If anyone wants to hear the sermon for themselves, just select John from the preacher list, then pick the Romans series. It's the second sermon on v11-16, though the first one might be worth listening to as well for context. The second sermon is where he talks about v13 specifically though.

I've listened to it twice myself. His whole point is that Paul is talking about "doers of the law" in the sense of the righteous people in the Bible like Job and others who were righteous but not sinless. Therefore, the verse is providing a description of those who will be justified, not a prescription of how to be justified.


----------



## Devin (Feb 2, 2006)

> They who pervert this passage for the purpose of building up justification by works, deserve most fully to be laughed at even by children.



Calvin's Commentaries are one of the first sources I go to when studying a verse, and I happened to love that particular comment. :bigsmile:


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 2, 2006)

Yeah, Calvin never minced words.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 2, 2006)

Devin,

I think that finding someone specific, even a faithful OT believer, to "identify" the "doer of the law," is beside Paul's point. Some proud, unbelieving Jews might indeed, when listening to this indictment, fancy themselves "the doers of the law" when they hear Paul's statement. But that will simply make their fall all the harder when Paul subjects them to the grilling of the final section of the chapter.

I think you are closer to Paul's thrust and intent when you stick with the idea that this is a "statement of fact" and nothing more. Are there any people who will be justified in God's sight? Yes. Are there people who, in the language of Scripture, can be called a "doer" in some sense? Yes. But identifying those persons is not the point of the passage.

So, assuming Piper is indeed taking pains to identify these "doers" in reality, I would say that he must be pursuing answers to _related_ questions (to the text) such as the ones above, but not so much following Paul's specific argumentation at this point.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 2, 2006)

Christ is the doer of the law... what he did gets imputed to us. Hallelujah!


----------



## VanVos (Feb 2, 2006)

I agree this is speaking of righteousness by works i.e. prescription. Chirst is the only the person ever to have achieved this, that is, he completely fulfilled the Law in thought word and deed. Plus, since this was done on behalf of the covenant of redemption the elect receive all it's benefits as free gift. 

My question then is, does it not follow that since verse 13 is prescriptive so also is verse 7? I know Roman Catholics use verse 7 to justify (no pun intended) their position. What say ye? Verse 7, prescriptive or descriptive?


----------



## Devin (Feb 2, 2006)

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/99/013199.html

There's the transcript of the sermon for those who don't want to listen to the audio.


----------



## tmckinney (Mar 17, 2006)

Romans 1:18 to Romans 3:21 is called the doctrine of condemnation. The doers of the law will be justified, *but* Paul puts both Jews and Gentiles under condemnation because they haven't done the law. So, therefore, they are in big trouble unless God has mercy. Thank God for the "but now" of 3:21. It is important to see how Paul's flow of thought develops throughout his argument in Romans.


----------

