For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but it is the doers of the law who will be declared righteous.For it isn’t the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be justified(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified;
4 sermons cite this verse
… The word, the verb, was used earlier. Look back at chapter 2, verse 13, for it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. Though I argue that that is a negative use of the word justified, that he's laying out as he makes his case against the sinfulness of man, that it's the doers who will be justified, and he will reach then the conclusion in chapter 3, verse 20, that by works of the law, by doing, no one will be justified in his sight. So, he is introduced before this topic of justification and hinted at it, certainly, in verses 16 and 17 of chapter 1. But now, in the remainder of this dense and wonderful paragraph, he's going to explain to us, okay, if not by works of the law, if not by doing, how then will anyone be justified? It can be a little hard to follow since verse 24 in the English just continues with this sentence. …
That's what verse 13 just talked about. It's not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. And so, some have said, for, okay, here's an example. Here are some who have proved to be doers of the law, these Gentiles. Some people think of them as virtuous pagans from the ancient world, maybe as Socrates or an Aristotle. I hope we can quickly set aside this interpretation because it doesn't fit with anything that Paul is saying before or after these verses. Everything has been rolling about judgment and wrath, and it's coming to chapter 3, how no one is righteous, how everyone's mouth ought to be shut. And so, it would make no sense that Paul just drops in a, oh, by the way, but there's some virtuous pagans somewhere, and they've been saved by being doers of the law. And it doesn't fit, this interpretation, with verse 14 when it says, when Gentiles. Paul is not at all making the claim that there's some Gentiles out there who are really just getting an A plus on doing what the law requires. What he says is there are occasions, in a certain manner of speaking, when they do what is right. …
Our text is Romans 2, verses 11 through 13. I'll start the reading at verse 6. He will render to each one according to his works. To those who by patience and well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek. but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. For 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. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. I don't want to brag, but when I fly American Airlines, I board in Group 2. …
… reason, what comes right before it. Here's the second reason, what comes right after it. Look at verse 13, for it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. Now, we know there's a sense in James, uses similar language, they're being doers of the Word, not hearers only. but I don't think verse 13 is about the life of the regenerate Christian who's now obeying God. This is the first time in the epistle that we have the language of justification. Now, we've had the related terms translated righteous or righteousness, but 2.13 is the first time we have this all-important term justified. So, it would be strange and confusing for Paul here in verse 13, to be making the argument, knowing what's to come, that doers of the law are justified, and then having to qualify that in some sense of what he means about, well, this kind of works, and this kind of law, and this kind of justification as merely the demonstration of the declaration at the end. It would be a complete change of course for Paul to suddenly argue here in verse 13 that anyone can be justified by anything that they do. That's coming in verse 13, the first use of justify. I think he means there the same thing he means in this paragraph, that 6 through 10, especially 7 through 10, is explaining verse 13. What does it mean to be a …