BEN F. VICK, JR.
The apostle Paul said, “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;” (Rom. 2:14, 15). The expression “the law” in this passage is a reference to the law of Moses. It was not given to the Gentiles, as it was to the Israelites (Deut. 5:1-3). Yet, the Gentiles were influenced secondhandedly, if you please, by the Jewish nation. The Jews were scattered all over the world in the days of the Babylonian and Medo-Persian empires (Dan. 4:19-22; 6:1; Esther 1:1; 3:8). Moses had warned Israel that if she did not heed God’s word she would be scattered among the nations (Deut. 28:25, 64). Her views of the one true and living God and standard of right and wrong influenced many who were not Jews.
The word “nature” is from the Greek word phusis which means growth by germination or expansion, i.e., (by implication) natural production (lineal descent); by extension, a genus or sort; figuratively, native disposition, constitution or usage. Though we are slow to veer from the applications given by the scholar Joseph Henry Thayer, this is one veering that must be made. On this expression as used in Romans 2:14, we are told by Mr. Thayer that the meaning is “guided by their natural sense of what is right and proper.” I am more inclined to apply another definition that he gives to this verse. He stated that the term meant “a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature.” The idea, of course, that the law of Moses was so learned by some Gentiles that to them it became second nature.
The argument is made that man innately has a law of “moral oughtness.” Some refer to this as conscience or the law written on the heart. We do not disagree that all men have some standard of right and wrong in their hearts. The point of contention is: From what source did man receive this standard (regardless of how warped it is)? Was man born with it and then became aware of it as he matured? Or does man acquire some understanding of right and wrong from the Bible and its influence? I argue for the latter. The proof follows.
The first proof is that righteousness is learned. “Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow” (Isa. 1:17). “With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness. Let favour be shewed to the wicked, yet will he not learn and will not behold the majesty of the Lord” (Isa. 26:9-10). These verses show us that righteousness or doing well is learned. It does not come “naturally,” i.e., by birth and then one discovers it. Righteousness is right doing. Right doing is based on right thinking (Matt. 12:34-35). Right thinking is based on right learning. And right learning is based on right teaching. If one is not taught right, he will not learn right; if one does not learn right, he will not think right; and if one does not think right, he will not do right.
Not only must righteousness be learned, but wickedness is also learned. Jeremiah said, “Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them” (Jer. 10:2). If the knowledge of right from wrong is inherent in each of us, why did the Lord tell his people, “Learn not the way of the heathen…”? Again, the Lord said through Jeremiah, “And it shall come to pass, if they will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, the Lord liveth; as they taught my people to swear by Baal; then shall they be built in the midst of my people” (Jer. 12:16).
Right and wrong is learned from God’s revelation, the Bible. Jeremiah said, “O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). If the way of man be in himself, then Jeremiah missed it. To say that man knows how to direct his steps, but is unable to do so, is a position too close to Calvinism for my comfort. The writer of Hebrews says that his audience was dull of hearing and that they needed the milk and not the meat of God’s word, because the meat was for those of “full age who had their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”
The apostle Paul wrote, “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except for the law and said, Thou shalt not covet” (Rom. 7:7). Berry’s Interlinear is interesting on this verse. It states, “What then shall we say? Is the law sin? May it not be! But sin I knew not unless by law: for also lust I had not been conscious of unless the law said, Not thou shalt lust.” But in spite of this, it is argued that one can be conscious of sin by general revelation (i.e., by nature). However, it has been strongly and rightfully argued that in Matthew 19:9 the “except” means “if and only if.” Thus, the one and only ground for divorce and remarriage for the innocent party is if equated with John 3:5 which, in essence, says that the one and only way to enter the kingdom of God, the church, is by the new birth. The equation is correct. But, mark it down: The same word in the Greek that is translated “except” in Matthew 19:9 is likewise used in Romans 7:7 twice, translated “but” and “except.” So, since there is one and only cause for divorce, which is fornication, then, there is one and only one way that Paul became conscious of sin, which was by the law. He did not learn it innately! Therefore, the only way we learn of sin today is though the law of God to which all men are amenable.
The example of Saul of Tarsus is a death knell to the idea of an inherent knowledge of right and wrong. Paul had lived in all good conscience before God, even when he was putting to death the early Christians. He said he had a conscience void of offense (Acts 23:1; 24:16; 26:9-11). If a knowledge of right and wrong be “an inherent part of man’s nature,” would not Saul’s conscience be aware that murdering these Christians was wrong? If so, then Paul contradicts his own statements of his being void of offense. If not, then, down goes the argument made by those who argue for some moral law written innately on the heart of man.