Rethinking Romans 2:14-15

A couple of years ago I read Getting the Garden Right by Richard Barcellos.

It's a well-written book with great insights, especially as he draws a biblical theology of Adam's vocation and its fulfillment in Christ as the last Adam.

But one of the things that I found myself provoked by was a constant return to the idea that all human beings by nature have the law written on their hearts.  This is something the London Baptist Confession of Faith states in 19.1 and 19.2 (referencing Romans 2:14-15) and which Barcellos repeats again and again and is foundational to the argument for a covenant of works in the Garden.

[14] For 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. [15] They 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 (Romans 2:14–15, ESV)

From what I can see, there are at least two acceptable views of Romans 2:14-15:

1. The majority view sees these verses as talking about non-believing Gentiles and argues that all humans are born with the law written on their hearts.
2. A minority view (Simon Gathercole is a leading proponent of this view) sees these verses as talking about regenerate Gentiles precisely because the language of "law written on their hearts" is the language of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:33 (LXX 38:33).

I agree with (2) that the language of "law written on their hearts" is explicitly used in the Scripture to speak of those who are born again.  But I disagree with seeing regenerate Gentiles being who Paul is talking about based on his flow of thought in context.  In Romans 2 he seems to be talking about how both unregenerate Jews (with the Law) and Gentiles (without the Law) are both sinners and thus condemned before God.

I agree with (1) that the context favors Paul discussing non-believing Jews.  But I disagree with concluding from this passage that Paul is saying the law is written on the hearts of non-believing Gentiles.  In context, to say this actually contradicts Paul's point in my opinion.  Paul's whole point is to say that Gentiles are without the Law.  If the law is written on their hearts and we will later learn that it's far better to have the law written on the heart than to have it written on tablets of stone (2 Corinthians 3), then this would make it seem to me that not only are the non-believing Gentiles with the Law, but they have an even greater accountability than the Jews who only have it on tablets of stone.  This would be to contradict Paul's argument.  A question here that also deserves to be asked is: if all humans have the law written on their hearts by birth, then why would the Jews need to get tablets of stone with the law written on it in addition to having it written on their hearts already?

So how should we understand these verses?  Here's my proposal:

In line with (1) Paul is talking about non-believing Jews, who are without the law of God (contrary to the Jews who received the Law, Romans 9:4).   The key, to me, is what no one seems to really dwell on in Romans 2:15.  Paul doesn't write that the law itself is written on the Gentile heart.  He writes that the work of the law is written on the Gentile heart.

What is this work (singular) of the law?  The work of the law is to give us a knowledge of right and wrong, of good and evil.

When we have this knowledge (In Latin, conscience = with knowledge), our conscience (Romans 2:15b) convicts us of our guilt because due to having knowledge we are no longer innocent.

In this sense, Gentiles are a law to themselves (Romans 2:14) because they have a functioning knowledge of right and wrong even though they don't have the law of God, a knowledge which sometimes accuses and at other times excuses them.

Putting it all together, Paul isn't saying Gentiles have a knowledge of right and wrong as defined by God in the way that Jews do.  But Gentiles do have a knowledge of right and wrong according to their own fallen standards and even according to this fallen standard their conscience accuses (when they do wrong by this standard) or excuses (when they do right by this standard) them.  Because they are guilty of failing to live up to even their own fallen standard (which often but not always bears witness to what God's law requires), they will have no excuse for their guilt when they stand before God one day.  It's an argument from the lesser to the greater.  If God's standard is higher than any fallen human standard, then to fail to live up to a fallen human standard necessarily means they fail to live up to God's standard.

And the reason that the Jew has a greater accountability than the Gentile is because while the Jews and Gentiles both by nature are born with a fallen sense of right and wrong that they inherited from Adam, the Jews were given on tablets of stone the clear standards of God that they — unlike the Gentiles — are held accountable to.