Timothy Keller Sermons Podcast by Gospel in Life - Knowing Good

Episode Date: August 13, 2025

We all have very strong moral convictions about what we think is right and wrong. And in a pluralistic society, we need to find ways of sharing our beliefs and being honest about who we are in a way that’s respectful and promotes peace. One of the ways we can make for a more civil conversation is to ask a more fundamental question: Where do you get your moral convictions? How do you determine what is right and wrong?  There’s almost no place I know that has a more interesting answer to this question than Romans 2. It tells us three things: 1) no one can succeed in being a relativist, 2) no one can really succeed in being a moralist, and therefore, 3) this is our only hope. This sermon was preached by Dr. Timothy Keller at Redeemer Presbyterian Church on October 27, 2013. Series: A Public Faith. Scripture: Romans 2:12-29. Today's podcast is brought to you by Gospel in Life, the site for all sermons, books, study guides and resources from Timothy Keller and Redeemer Presbyterian Church. If you've enjoyed listening to this podcast and would like to support the ongoing efforts of this ministry, you can do so by visiting https://gospelinlife.com/give and making a one-time or recurring donation.

Welcome to Gospel and Life. When someone you know is contemplating life's deepest questions, who am I? What's wrong with the world? What can truly make me whole? Jesus doesn't just give us answers. He gives us himself. In this month's podcast, Tim Keller looks at how we can share the hope we have in Christ as the answer to a person's search for meaning and purpose.

As you may know, August is Go and Share Month at Gospel in Life, and we've curated a wide range of free resources to help you take simple steps to share the gospel with someone God has put in your life. You can access these resources at gospelonlife.com slash share. We believe God uses small acts to do great things, and we're inviting you to do simple, small acts to go and share the gospel this month, because the gospel changes everything. The scripture reading is taken from Romans chapter 2, verses 12 through 29. All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law.

And all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. Indeed, when Gentiles who do not have the law do by nature, things required by the law, they are law from themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them. This will take place on the day when God judges people's secrets through Jesus Christ,

as my gospel declares. Now you, if you call yourself a judge, you, if you rely on the law and boast in God, if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law, if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth. You then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, Do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery. Do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols. Do you rob temples? You who boast in the law. Do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written, God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you. Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as

though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker. A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is circumcision of the heart by the spirit, not by the written code. Such a person's praise is not from other people, but from God. This is the word of the Lord. Now, we're in a series called Public Faith, sharing the hope that's within, and it's about the fact that all of us in a pluralistic society, an open pluralistic society as we want to have

in our country, we need to find ways of sharing our deep faith beliefs with each other, being honest about who we are, in other words, but to do so in such a way that's respectful and that promotes peace. Now, the objection to what I just said goes like this. The objection says, no, no, no, no, no. Look, not all people have faith beliefs. Not all people are religious. And those of you who are religious should keep your beliefs private. Otherwise, we're just going to fight. So not all of us are religious. Some, you know, some of you do have religious beliefs. Fine, but keep it private. Otherwise, we're just going to fight. That statement is both untrue and unfair. And I think I

I can show you why just by asking you a question. Do you believe in human rights? Do you believe that all people have human rights, that all people have equal dignity, and no one should have their human rights violated and taken away from them? Do you believe that? If you live in New York or most places in Western society, you believe? Yes, of course I believe in human rights. Okay.

How would you prove that human rights exist scientifically? you can't no one has ever dissected a human right in a laboratory there's no way to prove such a thing there's uh there's no empirical evidence for it by the way the idea you know that every human being is uh has equal dignity there's no evidence scientifically that all human beings are equal there's almost nothing that we're equal in uh also aristotle and a whole lot of people never believed in everyone had equal human rights. In fact, probably half the human race today doesn't believe everybody's equal human rights. So if you believe in human rights, do you realize what that is? It's a belief. It's a belief. And it's essentially the same as a religious belief,

even though you don't call it a religious belief. Because it's a belief about human nature and about what life is about. And it's not something you can prove, and it's not self-evident to everybody. So it's a belief. And you see how unfair it is to say, those of you who call your beliefs religious, you have to keep them private. And those of us who don't, we can do anything we want with them. It's just completely unfair. But now we're still back to where we said we were, which is a question. How do we avoid just not shouting at each other? You know, this is the right standard for right and wrong. No, this is the standard for right and wrong. And we just yell at each other. But maybe one of the ways we can calm each other down

and maybe make for more civil conversation is to ask this more fundamental question. Where do you get your moral convictions about what is right and wrong, like human rights? Where do you get your moral convictions? What do you base them on? How do you determine what is right and wrong? And the reason that's a great question

is it slows everybody down because actually we all have very strong moral convictions about what we think is right and wrong. But as soon as you say, well, why do you believe that? On what basis do you believe that? where do you get that right away we don't we're not as quick to know what to say and so it makes it stop and think and talk and therefore we suddenly have a better conversation a better public conversation now i would say that there's almost no place i know that has more has a more

interesting and ingenious and creative answer to the question where do you get your moral beliefs then romans chapter two and here is saint paul this last part of roman chapter two is going to tell us three things. The first paragraph, which is 12 to 16, there, Paul is telling us, no one can succeed in being a relativist. The second paragraph, verses 17 to 24, there, Paul's thesis is, but on the other hand, no one really can succeed in being a moralist. And then the last part of the passage is where Paul says, therefore, this is our only

hope. No one can succeed in being a relativist. No one can really succeed in being a moralist. And therefore, this is our only hope. Let's look at these three things. First of all, no one can succeed in being a relativist. Now, verse 12, all who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. Now, who is he talking about? He's talking about the law, he means by the law, the moral law of God that's revealed in the Bible and the scriptures. Of course, at the time, Paul was talking about the Old Testament, but in the scriptures. And he was saying some people have that, that is to say they believe it.

They believe that the moral law of God is revealed in the Bible and they accept it and they embrace it and they take it. But there's other people who don't have it. That is, they either have never heard of it, they never read the Bible, they didn't even know about it, or they have, they don't accept it. Now in that day, most of the people who believe that the Bible was where the revealed moral law was were Jews, but not all, of course, not, there were Gentiles who believed that too, but they were mainly Jews. So what Paul was trying to say is some people except the moral law of God is revealed in the Bible, some people who do not. That's the people

who have the law and people who don't. Now, what does he say about them? He says three things, one of which is interesting, one of which is startling, and one of which is radical. controversial. It's in verse 14-15. Indeed, when Gentiles who do not have the law do by nature things required by the law, they're a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and another times even defending them. Now, here's what he's saying. Here's the interesting thing. All who sin apart from the law will perish apart from the law. Those who sin under the law will be judged by the law. The Gentiles who

don't have the law still show that they are a law unto themselves. Now here, the first thing he's saying, which is interesting, is that God, the judge, will not judge you according to standards you don't accept. If you don't accept the Bible as your moral standard, then you won't be judged according to the Bible. You'll be judged according to the moral standards that you yourself have. and therefore what he's saying is no one's going to be judged by any moral standards that they don't accept themselves and embrace during their lives interesting as i told you was interesting right okay secondly he says something else which is more startling and that is that even if you don't have the bible as your moral standard you see what he he sneaks it in in the very beginning of verse 12 you're

still going to perish on judgment day. See, all who sin apart from the law will still perish. Why? Because in your heart, you still do know something about the moral law, and you'll be judged according to that. Now, the thing that helped me, the illustration that helped me more than anything when I was a young Christian, I read a book by Francis Schaefer, who was talking about Romans II, and he used an illustration, which of course is a bit fanciful, but basically gets the idea across. Some of you have heard me use it before because it's so helpful to me. He says, when it says that God is not going to judge you according to any standard other than your own that you already know, it's a little bit like this. He says, it's like when you're born,

God puts an invisible recorder around your neck. It's not only invisible, of course, you can't feel it either or hear it. And all it does is record things you say to other people. that they ought to do. All it does is pick up your own standards, your own moral standards. So anytime you say you ought to do this or you should do this, it's picking up your moral standards. So that on judgment day, you show up at judgment day, and you're already upset because you didn't know there was going to be one.

So there you are. And it's as this. It's as if. It's a little fanciful. It still gets across the idea. This is how the illustration goes. So there you are. My goodness, judgment day.

But guys says, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, calm down. I'm a fair guy. I'm only going to judge you according to your own standards. And so he takes the little recorder off your neck. He says, I didn't know that was there, no, it was invisible. And he puts it down, and he says, I'm just going to judge you by your own standards, and you're going to play it.

And see what Paul is saying, and what you know in your own heart, I hope, there's nobody on the face of the earth. There's no one in the history of the world that will be able to stand, will be able to pass that standard on Judgment Day. nobody will just nobody has ever lived up to their own standards that they have imposed on other people no one and so so the first thing is god is very fair he's the judge of all the earth that's what paul is saying but it's very fair he won't judge you according to anything that hasn't been you know a standard you don't already have but then secondly on the other hand

no one's going to pass judgment day and then thirdly he says something very radical and controversial. When he says, notice, he doesn't just say that people without the law of God have their own moral standards. He says, indeed, when Gentiles who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law. What's the law? Well, it's what's in here. And notice it doesn't say that people who don't believe in the Bible know in their hearts and in their consciences everything in the Bible. Doesn't say that. That would be silly. There's plenty of people out there have never read the know anything about the Bible. But what it does say, that deep in their hearts and deep in their consciences, there's some things in the moral law of God that all people know, because they've all

been created by God. And at a deep level, deep level, deep level, everyone has some understanding of the moral law of God. And that divinity is behind it. And everyone's living as if that's true. And therefore, there's a sense in which no one is really a relativist. Now that's very, very controversial. Let me spend a moment trying to give you some of the evidence for this. One of the things I've always found fascinating is when I studied over the years, when I've studied especially the conversion accounts of very, very, very highly intellectual, intelligent, sophisticated academics or professors or thinkers who were skeptical or atheists or agnostic and were converted to Christianity.

It's very interesting that when I study those kinds of people, very seldom do they come to faith in Christ through some kind of complete, by looking at the arguments for the existence of God or the evidence for the resurrection, and they say, ah, I see the evidence is that this is true. They don't look at it that way. Usually they come out like this. usually I have seen they realize that their moral convictions that their moral intuitions that they feel very strongly actually assume the existence of God and they just haven't been honest about it and they come to realize that in their moral convictions and in their moral intuitions they actually have sensed God they've intuited the existence of God they haven't wanted to admit it and now they do and that's how they become Christians it's amazing how often that happens. You say, how does that work? Well, let me give you three examples, one of

which is not a conversion. In fact, what I'm about to give you is a little summary of a philosophy book, and please be patient with it, because even if you find it a little tough to follow, it's kind of fun, but if you find it tough to follow, I'll immediately illustrate it and help you, you know, get it down to earth. But recently there's been a book written by a man who's not a convert who stays what he would call an atheist or agnostic. Tom Nagel, professor of philosophy at NYU, has recently written a book that has created a firestorm because it's brilliantly argued and yet at the same time, let me just read you, the title is mind and cosmos, but the key is the subtitle. Okay, ready for the subtitle? The subtitle is

why the materialist Neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false. And let me give you the nub of it. He's got one chapter in there called value, and here's what he basically says. Evolutionary materialism. By the way, he's not, he's not against evolution altogether, but what he's saying is evolutionary materialism is the idea that you are just a body, you're just a body, and there's nothing in you that you're, there's nothing in you, that you're, isn't there through natural selection. Everything that's true about you is true because one of your ancestors had a trait that helped them survive, and because that trait helped them survive, they've passed that down to you. So you're just a body, and everything in you is strictly

the result of natural selection. It helped your ancestors to survive. That's evolutionary materialism. Now, he says, that means in that account of things, that all your moral feelings are just that. They're subjective feelings. Why, for example, he says, in this view, why do we all think that torture for fun is wrong? You know, there's a lot of arguments about torture, but here's the point. Don't we all believe that torture just for fun is wrong? Really, really wrong? and if you ever do find somebody and there are people who we find that that don't think torture for fun is wrong we consider them very sick and twisted so we all believe that torture for fun is wrong why do we believe that

and see in the view of evolutionary naturalism it's a subjective belief and you only believe it because some of our ancestors felt that way and that that feeling helped them survive and all the people who did enjoy torture for fun have not survived probably because they tortured each other and killed each other not kidding I mean we don't know why but that's that's the point what was the mechanism the point is that the reason we all believe that torture for fun is wrong is because all the people who did feel the torture for fun was okay they died out and the reason you have the hair color you have is because of evolution and the reason you have the moral feeling that torture for fun is wrong is

also because of evolution and they come from the same your hair color and then moral feeling come from the same place and they are in the same category they're only subjective all your moral feelings are subjectively moral that you feel those things are wrong subjectively because they helped your ancestors survive not because they are actually objectively universally and really wrong they're subjectively wrong because you feel it but not because they're actually and objectively and universally and really wrong They're just subjective. Now, well, what happens, though?

Suppose there turns out that there's a tribe we've discovered in some remote part of the world that their evolution operate in a very different way. First of all, their hair color, their hair is white from the minute they're born. And the pigment of their skin is half red and half yellow. Very different. But they also find torture for fun great. They love it, you know. it's a fun. And now they're starting to move out into the world. How do you feel about them? Well, you say,

well, okay, you know, they can't help their hair color and things like that, but that torture for fun, that's wrong. Well, why is it wrong? You feel it's wrong because of your evolution. They feel it's wrong. They feel it's okay because of their evolution. Why should their hair color and their practice of torture be any, why should you differentiate? And here's what Tom Nagel says, nobody believes that Torch for Fun is only subjectively wrong. We believe it's actually and objectively and universally and really wrong, whether they feel that way or not. So if evolutionary materialism is true, then value realism. The idea that things are actually and really wrong can't be true. But since we know some things actually and really are wrong,

evolutionary materialism can't be true. Got that? See how easy that was? And you say, that just seemed like a slight of hand. Let me give you two personal examples. W. H. Auden, one of the great poets in history, considered one of the great writers of the 20th century. W.H. Auden, like most British intellectuals of his time, abandoned any kind of religious faith, abandoned Christian faith.

He was an atheist or he was an agnostic and that sort of thing. And then World War II happened. and he was at his his understanding his religionless uh belief was thrown into a chaos and he came out of the other side of world war two embracing christianity which shocked all of his you know many many of his peers but he explained it and here's what he here's how he explained it let me set it up this way he had believed until war war two that basically all reasonable enlightened cultured people would believe in human rights, they'd believe in freedom, they'd believe in democracy, they'd believe in justice for everybody. But suddenly along comes Nazism and it's embraced by Germany. And Germany

is every bit as cultured and is sophisticated and educated, a society is Britain. You know, it's second to none, science and art and music and everything. And yet they have what Germany embraced a philosophy that did not believe in human rights for all, did not believe in justice for all. And this is what Auden said to try to explain what happened to him. Quote, if I am convinced that the highly educated Nazis are wrong and that we highly educated English are right, what is it that it validates our values and invalidates theirs? The English intellectuals who now cry to heaven against the evil incarnated in Hitler have no heaven to cry to. Because the whole trend of liberal thought has been to undermine any faith in the absolute. Rather, it has tried to make

reason to be the judge. Here's the problem. Either we serve the unconditional absolute or some Hitlerian monster will supply an iron convention based on reason to do evil by. We always say the gospel changes everything, and we believe it really does. That's why here at Gospel in Life, August is Go and Share Month. Throughout August, we're inviting thousands of our listeners to take a small step in sharing the gospel with someone God has placed in your life. For those of you who make a gift to Gospel in Life this month, we'll send you two copies of Making Sense of God by Tim Keller. It's a powerful resource that explores how Christianity makes emotional, cultural, and rational sense in today's world. It's our thanks for your gift

and provides a way you can do a small act to share the gospel by reading the book with a friend, one to a coworker or passing on both copies to people who are exploring the Christian faith. It's a simple way to start a gospel conversation or continue it. To request your two copies of making sense of God, simply go to gospelandlife.com slash give. Again, that's gospelonlife.com slash give. Now, here's Dr. Keller with the remainder of today's teaching. Now, here's what he's going on. Do you hear what he's saying?

Auden is saying, let's look at nature. Okay, let's be science, let's look at nature. What do we see? The strong eating the weak. That's how nature operates. Oh, but then we turn around and say, well, we don't want strong races to oppress weak races or strong nations to oppress weak nations. Why?

If the operational principle of nature is the strong eating in the weak, what in the world is wrong with strong nations oppressing and destroying weak nations? See, reason. will find nothing wrong with injustice, with trampling on human rights. And therefore, here's what he realized. It's possible without God to account for moral feeling. Social construction or evolutionary biology, we can say you have your moral feelings. But it's impossible without God to believe in moral obligation. Do you hear this? Moral feeling means, I subjectively feel this way. Moral obligation is you have to do this whether you feel like it.

or not. Moral obligation. If there's no God, there is no moral obligation. There's only moral feelings. But here's what he said. If there's no God, then my moral obligation is imaginary, and I know moral obligation is not imaginary, and therefore there must be a God. And he'd been living that way all along, but he hadn't wanted to admit it. See, Romans 2. Looking at the clock. Let me give you one more example. More recently, again, not a conversion story, some years ago in the Chronicle of Higher Education, I read a very interesting article by a woman who was a cultural anthropologist, she was a very, at a Northeastern university, she was a very respected academic, and she was studying African, certain African societies in which women

were very oppressed. There was polygamy, there was female genital mutilation, and there were these things that really bother her very much. But she was a cultural anthropologist, and she had bought into the idea that there is such a thing as moral feelings, but not moral obligation. She bought, her understanding was she was a, you know, a skeptical, secular person, was that if you have a moral feeling, it comes either because your culture has constructed that feeling in you or because of biology. And so she began when she was there in Africa to sometimes push back against some of the people in authority in those societies about how they were treating women. And basically what the people and authority said was this, don't you lay your white Western

individualistic human rights thing on us? How dare you think that your cultures values are right and ours are wrong? What's right for us is right for us. And it infuriated her because she realized that she had absolutely no way to answer. No way to answer. See? She had no basis for what Thomas Nagel calls value realism. She had no basis for moral obligation. She could say, I subjectively feel something's wrong, but I cannot say on any basis that something is actually, objectively, universally, or really wrong. But you know how she ends this whole book? I mean, the whole article? She says this. She says, in the end, I unavoidably believe that equal rights for women is universally true, even though I have no basis for it, so I'm going to work for equal rights for women

anyway. See, in other words, what she's doing is she's coming really close, really close to admitting what Paul is saying, but not, she just won't go all the way. She just won't go there. But here's the question, if your premise that there is no God and therefore no moral obligation leads you to a conclusion that you know isn't true, which is namely there's really nothing wrong with oppressing women in Africa, why? not change your premise? Why not change your premise? So you see, it's impossible to really succeed in being a relativist. However, on the other hand, paragraph two, and I'm giving you less time because in some ways we've covered this and we will cover this. The next paragraph is, now you who call

yourself a Jew if you rely on the law. Now, he turns to people who say, okay, I do believe the Bible. I absolutely believe the Bible, and I accept the Bible, and I'm living according to the Bible. Now, we can call those people moralists. They're not relativists. They believe in morality, and they're living on the basis of morality, and they say, I'm going to honor God, and I'm going to obey his law. But let's not forget what Paul's already said, you're going to have no more hope on judgment day than the relativist. You're just more consistent. I'm not sure that's going to be a great deal of consolation.

Now, why is that true? Why is it also impossible to succeed in being a moralist? Well, the answer is down here in 21 and 22 and 23, basically. You then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say people should commit adultery, not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhorre idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?

now if you look carefully he's giving you two reasons why no moralist will stand on judgment day either the relativists won't they'll find out that they didn't live up to what they did know but the moralist won't either why not one hypocrisy two idolatry hypocrisy we all kind of know about uh the fact is that if there are very high standards in here and nobody lives up to them you know, Paul gives some obvious examples of hypocrisy. I mean, I don't know of any Christian church anywhere, where everybody believes, thou shalt not commit adultery, and there isn't still adultery. Or everybody says, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, and yet there's lying, and they're stealing, and there's embezzling. So he's, on the one hand, he's saying,

first of all, there's hypocrisy. The fact is that none of us live up. But then there's idolatry. Now, it kind of sneaks in there, and it's actually a bit of a bit of a puzzle. except when you ask commentators what this means, they usually all say the same thing. Notice it says, he's talking to Jews now, remember? He starts in verse 17. Now you call yourself Jews who rely on the law. He says, you, do you not commit adultery? Then he says, you who abhor idols, do you rob temples? Now, this has always been a puzzle because there seems to be no evidence that Jews rob temples. You know, he's writing to Jews in Rome, right? Is he saying, well, you know, you Jews in Rome should stop, you know, at night going and robbing temples and getting the idols

and bringing them home. Jews didn't do that. So he's speaking metaphorically if he's obviously not speaking literally. And metaphorically, as we often point out, the Bible says it's one thing to say I believe in God and I'm living for God when actually you're living for money or you're living for power or you're living for status. And at this point, I think what Paul is trying to show us is what I would call the terrible inwardness of the law. Terrible? Yes. When Jesus in the sermon on the mount expounds the law, he shows the terrible inwardness of it. You know how he says, you've heard it said thou shalt not kill, but I say, you shouldn't even resent your neighbor. You've heard it said, thou shalt not commit adultery. You shouldn't love, but I say don't lust. You've heard it say, see, what Jesus is showing is

the law, when it forbids a behavior, is also enjoining the opposite and calling for a spirit. So, for example, where does murder come from? Murder comes from resentment that's nurtured and nurtured and fertilized and eventually becomes murder, right? Well, he says, then you ought to realize that all of you have resentment. Most people don't murder, but everybody resents. And what is that? It's murder in seed form.

And so when the Bible says thou shalt not kill, it means you should love with your whole heart and not resent. When the Bible says thou shalt not steal, it means you should never envy and also be incredibly generous. When the Bible says there should not commit adultery, it means you should be totally faithful and chaste. And when Jesus is expounding the sermon on the Mount, you realize, oh my word, nobody lives up to this. And yet we want other people to live up to this. I forgot in the name of the lady, but there was a woman who was taught English at some conference. No, no. She taught English at a public university somewhere.

She was a believer, but it was a public university. And she one time had her class read the sermon on the Mount. Most of them hadn't ever read it before. Some of them hadn't heard of it. And what was interesting, they wrote response papers and most of them hated it. utterly hated it if i remember the article went something like this uh most of them said i did not like the sermon on the mount it made me feel very guilty and you know why and one person said i did not like the sermon on the mount because nobody can live like this but here's the hypocrisy

would you like to live in a place where people serve your needs ahead of their own would you like to live in a place where people are absolutely honest and transparent and they never hide anything from you and they never they always keep their promises see in other words we want to live in a society of people who act the way the sermon on the mount dictates but we don't ourselves want to be held up to that dinner because we feel oh that's awful I did not like the sermon on the mount it made me feel very bad uh David martin Lloyd jones in his sermons on the sermon on the mount he says anybody who's really read the sermon on the mount will not say how wonderful they'll say God saved me from this sermon on the Mount. Because you see the hypocrisy? We want people to act like this,

but we don't want to be held to it ourselves. That's hypocrisy. And it will be condemned on the last day. It'll be condemned on the last day. So what's our hope? Is there any hope? Oh my goodness. See, if there is no divine judge, if there really is no God, there's no divine judge, there's no divine judge, what hope is there for the world? What hope is there that all the injustices and the terrible things that are happening will ever be put right? What hope is there for even us to have a basis for trying to put things right? If there is no judge, if there is no divine judge, what hope is there for the world? But if there is a divine judge, what hope is there for me and you? Hmm, we're stuck. Thank God for point three's. Because point three, bring

brings us to the very end, and in the very end, there's this very strange discussion about a strange thing for most of us today, which is circumcision, but the heart of the heart of it is right here in verse 28. A person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcised physically. No, a person is a true Jew, basically is what he's saying, who is one inwardly and who has the circumcision of the heart by the spirit. And what he's saying is the only hope is a new heart. Circumcision of the heart means the new birth. It means a new heart, a new inward heart.

Now, how does that work? Why? What is he talking about? Well, first of all, let's talk about circumcision for a second. This whole section is about circumcision. And in the Old Testament, circumcision was the right, R-I-T-E, by which, in the Old Testament, a family showed that they were in a covenant relationship with God. And it's how the Israelites showed they were in a covenant relationship with God.

It was the sign that they were in a relationship with God, they were obeying God, and they were following his law. So when all the males of the particular family were circumcised, that said, we are under the law of God, and we are obeying God, and we are following God. That's what, but there's a problem. What's the problem? Well, the problem was verse 17. Now, you who call yourselves Jews, if you rely on the law

and boast in God, and then he goes on to talk about all the problems. Now, here's the issue. Law relying. See, there's no problem with being law abiding. That's good. But what's law relying? It's not the same as law abiding.

Law relying makes you boast. I have a relationship with God. Why? Because I'm a good person. I'm a decent person. I don't do this bad thing and that bad thing. I do these things and these things, and I'm a good person. And see, law relying screws you up so much inwardly.

You know why? You're always going back and forth between superiority and inferiority. See, on the one hand, deep inside, we know, like those students who read the sermon on the out, we know we're not living it up. We're not living up to what it should be done. We know we're not what we should be. And so when you're law relying and when you're saying, I'm obeying the God's law and I'm trying to be moral and that way, then I know God will bless me and he will take me to heaven. If you're law relying like that, on the one hand, you're always struggling with inferiority and guilt and shame and you're very, very, you know, you're very

sensitive to criticism and you're always feeling a little bit like a failure. Or, or sometimes you're feeling very superior because you've done this and you've done this. And then it makes you self-righteous and it makes you fair or sacral. You're going back and forth between superiority, inferiority. There's always this churn does not make you a nice person. And there's always this kind of inward churn and a lack of rest and a lack of peace and back and forth. See, you need something. You need something in there that you don't have. What is the solution? The solution's a new heart. and how do you get a new heart? Circumcision of heart. It can only happen obviously by not relying on the law. Well, what do you rely on? Here's what you rely on. Why was circumcision used as a sign? Anybody know?

It was a symbol of the punishment or the curse of the covenant. I don't know if any of you remember, There's a place in Genesis where Abraham makes a covenant with God in Genesis 15, and he cuts some animals in half, and he puts them on both sides. And the reason why he did that was in ancient times we know, 2,000 years ago. One of the ways that covenants were made between people was you cut an animal in half and you walk between the pieces and you took your vow. You didn't sign a document like we do now, you cut an animal on half and walk between the pieces. Why? Because you were saying, if I don't do everything that I'm saying today, may I be cut into pieces. You're acting out the curse of the covenant. You're acting out the punishment for disobedience and oath-breaking. So circumcision was

like that, because circumcision is bloody, it's icky, and it means being cut off. And what God was saying is if you take the law on and you say yes i'm going to come under the law and i'm going to make this my guy but you don't follow the law then the curse of the covenant is to be cut off from me and honestly if you think oh this is all kind of weird and kind of nasty listen you do it yourself if someone's in a relationship with you and they can repeatedly violate you repeatedly go against your wishes repeatedly break promises to you repeatedly do things you've asked them not to do what do you do at a certain point. You say, I'm sorry, we can't be friends anymore. What are you doing? You're cutting them off. It's absolutely natural. And so circumcision is cutting off. And it was the, it was the curse of the

covenant. If you bring on, if you come in and you say, I'm going to obey God's commands and then you don't do it, you're cut off. So what hope is there for us? Because on judgment day, we're all going to be cut off. And here's the answer. The Bible says something really amazing about. circumcision. Paul says it. In Colossians 2, he says this. In Colossians 2, verse 11 and 12, he says, In Christ, you were circumcised. Now he's talking to everybody, by the way. He's talking to male and female Christian believers. Listen. He says, in him, you were circumcised, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men, but in the circumcision of Christ. Now, that's saying two astounding things. The first thing is that when Jesus Christ went to the cross,

he was actually being circumcised. You say, what? Yes. It was bloody. There was a sword. And he was being cut off. When he said, my God, my God, why hast thou but forsaken me? He was being cut off.

Jesus Christ was the only human being who ever actually fulfilled the law. He loved God with all of his heart, soul, and strength in mind. He loved his neighbor as himself. He loved people. He was honest. He fulfilled the law. His life is just a thing of beauty. when you read about it in the Gospels. He's a thing of beauty. And yet at the end of his life,

he was cut off. It says in Isaiah 53, it talks about the suffering servant who's going to come and take our transgressions upon us. It says he was cut off from the land of the living. He did it for us. He took the curse that we should have. And the second incredible thing, Paul says, is therefore, in him, you are the circumcision. Now he's saying that to male and female, by the way, interesting, all Christians. What does that mean? It means you've already been through Judgment Day. In Jesus Christ, you've been through Judgment Day. If you believe in Him, if you say, Father, accept me because of what Jesus has done, you've already been through judgment day. I think there is no more astounding picture in the Bible than the end of the

book of revelation, not the very end, but in the book of revelation, the end of the Bible, where John, the apostle, gets his vision of judgment day, and he sees everyone assembled before the throne, and there's the throne, and the throne is where the judge sits, and there on the throne is the judge, and you know who the judge is? You know what he sees on the throne? A lamb who was slain. What? Jesus Christ is the judge who was judged. Jesus Christ is the judge who came to earth and was judged on the cross. He was cut off. And when you believe in him, that means that judgment days passed for you. You've already been through it in him. You already received your sentence, but he took it. He bore it. And now there's nothing for you, but Romans 8.1.

Now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. And you know what this means. You're not a relativist or a moralist, are you? You know why? If you're a Christian, on the one hand, you're not a relativist, you know the law is important. It's so important that Jesus had to die on the cross. The law is so important Jesus had to die on the cross. So you're not a relativist, but you're not a moralist anymore because you're not relying on the law. You're relying on him. And now you obey the law out of gratitude just to please the one who did all this for you, but without the fear, without the inner going back and forth between superiority and inferiority. You have a new heart.

You have a desire to live the righteous life, but out of gratitude. You don't look down at anybody who's not living the life the right way because you know you're a sinner saved by grace. But on the other hand, you absolutely know it's crucial to obey God and to please him. You're not a moralist. You're not a relativist. You're a Christian. Why?

Because if there is a divine judge, what hope is there for you? And if there is no divine judge, what hope is there for the world? But in Jesus Christ, the judge who was judged, we have hope. Let's pray. Our Father, we thank you that you have shown us the basis for our moral convictions. But we don't just need a God in general. We need a God who came to earth in Jesus Christ and died on the cross for us. And because you did, we're not relativists, we're not moralists.

We can talk to people about these moral truths knowing that in their hearts they know. But at the same time, they don't crush us. We're not afraid of them. because in Jesus Christ, you took the curse that we deserve so that now you can be just and justifier of those who believe and we can live not moralistic or relativistic lives, but law-abiding, joyful lives. Father, the wisdom of this overwhelms us.

Help us to apply it to our lives by your Holy Spirit. We pray it in Jesus' name. Amen. listening to today's teaching. It's our prayer that you were encouraged by it, and that it helps you apply the gospel to your life, and share it with others. For more helpful resources from Tim Keller, visit gospelandlife.com. There, you can subscribe to the Gospel in Life quarterly journal. When you do, you will also receive free articles, sermons, devotionals, and other great gospel-centered resources. Again, it's all at gospelandlife.com. You can also stay connected with us on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and X.

Today's sermon was recorded in 2013. The sermons and talks you hear on the Gospel and Life podcast were recorded between 1989 and 2017 while Dr. Keller was senior pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church.