Works of the Law in Paul's Letters

  • Thread starter Thread starter James248
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Works of the Torah (Law).

Mainly circumcision primarily, but secondarily any work done by a person outside of a PARTICIPATION in Christ Jesus.

We are gifted with entrance into this PARTICIPATION through (New Covenant) Baptism.

Hope that helps.

Works of the Law (which humanity had in the Old Covenant) are NOT salvific in any sense.

God bless.

Cathoholic
 
context is important, and when paul talks about the works of the law being unprofitable, I think it’s always in the context of opposing “Judaizers” who thought that conversion required becoming a Jew as part of becoming a Christian.

Jewish Christians did not have to abandon the Jewish customs that they were used to, but Gentiles were strongly advised not to adopt them (see letter to Galatians).
 
James248 said:
See title.
Click to expand...
In Catholic teaching, observance of the Law, including the Ten Commandments, is worthless on its own because the Law does not justify-or make us righteous-as Scripture tells us in Gal 2:16. IOW mere external observance cannot, by itself, guarantee that our hearts are in the right place. Only love can do that, which is why St Paul can tell us in Rom 13:8 that “love fulfills the Law” and which is why the Greatest Commandments are what they are. That’s how the Law is fulfilled the right way, by the Spirit rather than by the Letter.

And the only way we can love as God desires, as He loves, is with the help of grace, which comes via communion with Him, ‘apart from Whom we can do nothing’ (John 15:5} but 'with Whom all things are possible’ (Matt 19:26). Man was made for communion with God- to be transformed into His image by His indwelling us. Our peace, justice, and ultimate happiness, even, depend on this communion. This direct participation in God’s life is the essence of the New Covenant, as Cathoholic pointed out, and so is the fulfillment of the New Covenant prophecy of Jer 31:33-34.

Read more on this from the Catechism beginning here:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm
 
Bookcat said:
Pope Benedict XVI on the subjects of Faith and Works in St. Paul

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081126_en.html (scroll down)

Plus earlier one:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061108_en.html
Click to expand...
Thanks for these. I especially appreciated the second teaching, which piggy-backed off the first and went on to reconcile the misconceptions about differences between how our actions can both not play a role and also play a role in our justification. It began with this paragraph:

"In the Catechesis last Wednesday I spoke of how man is justified before God. Following St Paul, we have seen that man is unable to “justify” himself with his own actions, but can only truly become “just” before God because God confers his “justice” upon him, uniting him to Christ his Son. And man obtains this union through faith. In this sense, St Paul tells us: not our deeds, but rather faith renders us “just”. This faith, however, is not a thought, an opinion, an idea. This faith is communion with Christ, which the Lord gives to us, and thus becomes life, becomes conformity with him. Or to use different words faith, if it is true, if it is real, becomes love, becomes charity, is expressed in charity. A faith without charity, without this fruit, would not be true faith. It would be a dead faith."
 
How can I answer such a broad topic in so short a space? I guess I’ll just be as terse as you then:

According to St Paul, works of the Law are insufficient to attain salvation.
 
Works of the Law in Paul’s Letters referred to Jewish identity markers, such as circumcision, obeying Sabbath, keeping food regulations and observing holy days. Paul’s point was that Gentiles could be saved without becoming Jews.
 
NoelFitz said:
Works of the Law in Paul’s Letters referred to Jewish identity markers, such as circumcision, obeying Sabbath, keeping food regulations and observing holy days. Paul’s point was that Gentiles could be saved without becoming Jews.
Click to expand...
But I think Paul’s overall point throughout his letters also involved battling legalism in general; obedience of the law (including the Ten Commandments) can’t save us, because the law can’t justify us. Reference Rom 2:12-13, Gal 2:6 & 3:20, and Rom 13:8. This is the teaching of the Church.
 
If you read the book of Acts and then go straight into reading the book of Romans without stopping between the two you will get a better sense of the reason for Paul’s arguments. He is constantly faced with Jews who either refuse to believe in Jesus or who demand that people submit to Torah in addition to believing in Jesus. This is particularly troublesome when adult Gentile men are being told that they must cut off part of their penis in order to be Christians. 😃
 
As said above, context is everything. The whole Faith vs Works discussion is so far from Romans and Galatians it’s ridiculous. I already taught a bible study on this for our parish if you want more details (Faith Alone), but basically it boils down to this. Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk. As a result he read the scriptures through the lens of what he had already read in Augustine. Thus, when he reads Romans and Galatians he reads it through the lens of the Augustinian-Pelagian debates and we are off to the races. “Faith” for Paul doesn’t mean “what you think” nor does “Works” mean “what you do.” The churches of Galatia (Derbe, Lystra, Iconium) had been told by Judiazer migrant false apostles, the same ones who had caused trouble in Antioch (see Acts 15), that in order to be saved, a Gentile had to be, not only initiated into the Jesus/his body/the church (Baptism, Chrismation, and Eucharist), but he also had to be circumcised and keep kosher to be saved. These are the “works of the Law” (Law =Torah) that he was talking about in Rom 3:28. Unfortunately, Luther completely misses this context, which is quite obvious by a careful read of Acts 10-11 and 15. In his commentary on Romans 3, he never even once mentions circumcision! It was all about Pelagius for him but there were no proto-pelagians running around in Paul’s day and Judaizers weren’t anything like pelagians anyway.
 
FatherSebastian said:
As said above, context is everything. The whole Faith vs Works discussion is so far from Romans and Galatians it’s ridiculous. I already taught a bible study on this for our parish if you want more details (Faith Alone), but basically it boils down to this. Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk. As a result he read the scriptures through the lens of what he had already read in Augustine. Thus, when he reads Romans and Galatians he reads it through the lens of the Augustinian-Pelagian debates and we are off to the races. “Faith” for Paul doesn’t mean “what you think” nor does “Works” mean “what you do.” The churches of Galatia (Derbe, Lystra, Iconium) had been told by Judiazer migrant false apostles, the same ones who had caused trouble in Antioch (see Acts 15), that in order to be saved, a Gentile had to be, not only initiated into the Jesus/his body/the church (Baptism, Chrismation, and Eucharist), but he also had to be circumcised and keep kosher to be saved. These are the “works of the Law” (Law =Torah) that he was talking about in Rom 3:28. Unfortunately, Luther completely misses this context, which is quite obvious by a careful read of Acts 10-11 and 15. In his commentary on Romans 3, he never even once mentions circumcision! It was all about Pelagius for him but there were no proto-pelagians running around in Paul’s day and Judaizers weren’t anything like pelagians anyway.
Click to expand...
FatherSebastian

I am pleased to see a reply from a priest, and I do not like to enter into a debate with one who understands more that I do. But with respect may I reply to you.

You claim ‘The whole Faith vs Works discussion is so far from Romans and Galatians it’s ridiculous.’ Yet it has occupied some of the best minds for about 500 years and contributed significantly to the Reformation.

I listened to part of your Bible lesson, but an hour is too long for me. I note that Baptism takes place once and is a sacrament when we are once and for all time made a member of the Church. It is not a process over time. Sacramental grace is given then and never repeated.

I agree Luther read the Bible through the lens of that dreary man Augustine, who considered that a human was a lump of perdition who deserved hell.

You propose views which are debated, for example Galatia for Paul was the southern Roman province. But was it the Province or a larger area to the north? You also claim the opponents were the same ones that caused trouble in Antioch. This may, or may not be, correct.

I agree, as I wrote before, that works of the law refer to identity markers as circumcision etc.

What you say is essentially correct Luther focused on his own problems, psychological and anthropological. But now we try to see Paul’s Letters in his context.

But I would not claim that the debate initiated by Luther, or the thread I introduced, is ridiculous.
 
Certainly in Rom 13:8 Paul is describing “the law” otherwise than simply kosher law.:

"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

And he’s speaking of more than kosher law in Rom 7 when he’s describing the struggle with sin, between the flesh and his mind that “delights in the law”. And in Romans 2 where he reveals that Jew and Gentile alike will be judged by the law, even if the law cannot justify us. And this leads into his and the Church’s teaching that the Law was meant to serve as a teacher, disclosing sin and ultimately demonstrating our own helplessness in overcoming it, in fulfilling the Law IOW. The whole New Covenant is based on this failure, in fact, and man’s need for God Whom man meets and communes with via faith, in order to overcome and triumph over sin as well as the death it earned for man.

“Judaizing” seems to me to be a related but still separate issue.
 
NoelFitz said:
FatherSebastian

I am pleased to see a reply from a priest, and I do not like to enter into a debate with one who understands more that I do. But with respect may I reply to you.

You claim ‘The whole Faith vs Works discussion is so far from Romans and Galatians it’s ridiculous.’ Yet it has occupied some of the best minds for about 500 years and contributed significantly to the Reformation.

I listened to part of your Bible lesson, but an hour is too long for me. I note that Baptism takes place once and is a sacrament when we are once and for all time made a member of the Church. It is not a process over time. Sacramental grace is given then and never repeated.

I agree Luther read the Bible through the lens of that dreary man Augustine, who considered that a human was a lump of perdition who deserved hell.

You propose views which are debated, for example Galatia for Paul was the southern Roman province. But was it the Province or a larger area to the north? You also claim the opponents were the same ones that caused trouble in Antioch. This may, or may not be, correct.

I agree, as I wrote before, that works of the law refer to identity markers as circumcision etc.

What you say is essentially correct Luther focused on his own problems, psychological and anthropological. But now we try to see Paul’s Letters in his context.

But I would not claim that the debate initiated by Luther, or the thread I introduced, is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Noel,

I think you misunderstood me. I am not criticizing the subject of the thread nor its initiator. I am criticizing the last 500 years of ridiculous conversation about the subject. If one reads Luther’s commentary on Romans (most never have), it is quite obvious that he is completely misunderstanding Paul’s use of the key terms of Faith and Works. But he is not to be blamed entirely. He is a product of his time. What is even more tragic, in my opinion, is the ridiculous responses to Luther and his followers over the past 500 years, who also have not read Romans and Galatians in their historical context and so assume Luther’s definition of Paul’s terms and basically 90% of his position, and then just tweak it a bit. The whole conversation should be jettisoned. Both sides need to let go read Paul in his historical context, terms defined according to LXX usage and elsewhere in the NT, and suddenly, as I said, the whole 500 year debate become, I believe, ridiculous.

In Christ,
Fr. Sebastian
steliasmelkite.org
 
FatherSebastian said:
Noel,

I think you misunderstood me. I am not criticizing the subject of the thread nor its initiator. I am criticizing the last 500 years of ridiculous conversation about the subject. If one reads Luther’s commentary on Romans (most never have), it is quite obvious that he is completely misunderstanding Paul’s use of the key terms of Faith and Works. But he is not to be blamed entirely. He is a product of his time. What is even more tragic, in my opinion, is the ridiculous responses to Luther and his followers over the past 500 years, who also have not read Romans and Galatians in their historical context and so assume Luther’s definition of Paul’s terms and basically 90% of his position, and then just tweak it a bit. The whole conversation should be jettisoned. Both sides need to let go read Paul in his historical context, terms defined according to LXX usage and elsewhere in the NT, and suddenly, as I said, the whole 500 year debate become, I believe, ridiculous.

In Christ,
Fr. Sebastian
steliasmelkite.org
Click to expand...
Father, what role, then, would you say grace and faith play in the NC? Obviously not some carte blanc get-out-of-hell-free-card for those who’ve assessed themselves as having a proper sort of faith, gaining some merely “imputed righteousness” in the process. But Paul surely was contrasting a different approach to righteousness or justification than was held previously under the OC.
 
Thanks Fr Sebastian and FHansen,

as you can gather I am a bit out of my depth. The topic is becoming “beyond my pay grade”.

But I think now scholars, Reformed and not, are trying to understand Paul in his context.

As you know I am wading through John Barclay’s Paul and the Gift now. He seems to be close to Catholic views, 1 grace is not solely forensic, it transforms us, and 2 there is a social meaning to the gift of grace, it is for the Church.

Thanks to all, as I think I am making a bit f progress.
 
fhansen said:
Father, what role, then, would you say grace and faith play in the NC? Obviously not some carte blanc get-out-of-hell-free-card for those who’ve assessed themselves as having a proper sort of faith, gaining some merely “imputed righteousness” in the process. But Paul surely was contrasting a different approach to righteousness or justification than was held previously under the OC.
Click to expand...
The problem for most today is definition of terms different to definitions of the early church and , therefore, authors of the NT texts we today are reading.
Baptism: Today means a quiet thing you do with a baby on a Saturday morning with some water just before the sacramental pictures begin. In Paul’s time, Baptism was what most Catholics see on the Easter Vigil (Full initation: Baptism, Chrismation, and Eucharist). This is why he says what he says in Romans 6 and Gal 3:27.
Grace: Grace means gift. The gift of God is his word in the OT and the NT (Read John 1). Jesus is the Grace of God and by extension, his Church, that is his body is the Grace of God, and by extension, the sacraments of the Church, is the Grace of God. The problem today is people sit around with chalk boards sipping coffee discussing the Sacraments, Grace, Jesus, and are not thinking the way the Early Church did, who did sit around discussing these as separate concepts but stood praying and singing about these things in the midst of the Divine Liturgy, watching in one service a man repent, be baptized, be Chrismated, and then receive the Eucharist, of which Jesus says, “He who eat my body and drinks my blood will have eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day.”
It is the Eucharist that saves you, it is the Church that saves you, it is the body of Jesus that saves you, it is Jesus who saves you. Salvation is not sitting around on fluffy clouds for all eternity singing Alleluia Chorus from Handal’s Messiah while strumming a harp and staring a a bright light! Salvation is being raised from the dead at the end of time and living again in the replanted garden of Eden. God’s plan was to live with man for all eternity on this earth and God’s plan will not be thwarted for God’s dwelling is with man! This is the whole point of the Garden! This is the whole point of the Tabernacle of Moses! This is the whole point of the Temple! This is the whole point of the Incarnation! And this is the whole point of the Salvation history. This is the whole point of being Saved! May God bless you all!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top