Works Of The Law?

[Rogerteder]

When Paul uses the term “works of the law” what does he mean? Thanks!!!

 

[NotWorthy]

When Paul uses the term “works of the law” what does he mean? Thanks!!!

The Mosaic Covenant works that kept one in the OT Covenant. Judaizers were teaching that these laws had to be maintained for Christians as well. The Council of Jerusalem’s (Acts 15) handling of circumcision is one of the ways that “works of the law” were over-ruled.

The point was, do the Christians need to observe all the purification rights in order to be Christian? Paul tells us this is not so.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

The Mosaic Law pertaining to the practices the Israelites must follow. Found in Lev. and Deut.

The Laws of the 10 commandments have never been abolished, simply summed up as “Fear, Love, and trust in God above all things, and Love your neighbor as yourself”. Although the letter of the Law is what we will be measured against - I think personally (the 10 Commandments I mean), the mercies of God will prevail through the Sacrifice of Christ and the intervention of Mary and the Saints. Should we choose to accept and follow Him.

Peace

John

 

[NoelFitz]

This is a tricky question.

The simple answer in the *New Perspecive on Paul *is identity markers, circumcision, food laws and special days.

Did Paul reject the Mosiac Laws, the 10 commandments?

Please look at benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-perspective-on-paul-and-law.html

One of the flash points in the debate was of course Paul’s use of the phrase ‘works of the Law’. Did this refer to all works of the Mosaic Law, or was perhaps Paul only critiquing the ‘badges of membership’—circumcision, Sabbath keeping, ritual laws about food and the like, in his phrase ‘works of the Law’? Just how sectarian was Paul, and is it a caricature of Paul to suggest that he was an advocate of a new religion called Christianity?

And

The New Perspective on Paul, also called New Perspectivism (hereafter NPP) is a system of thought in New Testament scholarship that seeks to reinterpret the Apostle Paul and his letters. In brief, the NPP is a reaction to the Reformation perspective on Paul (i.e. the traditional interpretation of him).
The Reformation perspective understands Paul to be arguing against a legalistic Jewish culture that seeks to earn their salvation through works. However, supporters of the NPP argue that Paul has been misread. They contend he was actually combating Jews who were boasting because they were God’s people, the “elect” or the “chosen ones.” Their “works,” so to speak, were done to show they were God’s covenant people and not to earn their salvation. According to the NPP, the result is a Judaism that affirmed sola gratia (grace alone). Presently, effects of the NPP are primarily seen in the academic world of New Testament scholars, particularly those who focus their attention on Pauline studies and the study of first century Judaism. However, ramifications of the NPP directly affect the Protestant doctrine of Justification by Faith (Sola Fide).
theopedia.com/New_Perspective_on_Paul

Be prepared to think and study deeply.

 

[banjo]

When Paul uses the term “works of the law” what does he mean? Thanks!!!

James Akins’s The Salvation Controversy remarks on p94, Works of the Law would be better translated as works of the Torah to facilitate people’s understanding of what Paul is talking about. The phrase in Greek, ‘erga nomou’, is usually translated as works of the law, ‘law’ being the standard translation of the Greek word ‘nomos’. However, ‘nomos’ was the word that the Greek OT, the Septuagint, used to translate the Hebrew word ‘Torah’, which doesn’t quite mean law. …] In any event, when Paul speaks of works of the Law the context makes it clear that the law he has in mind is the Torah, or Law of Moses, as found in the first five books of the Bible.

 

[NoelFitz]

Banjo

Paul’s thoughts are deep and not simplistic.

Are you suggesting that Paul rejected the Torah, the Pentateuch and the first five books of the Bible?

This would imply he was rejecting the Bible, the word of God. Did he really reject the Ten Commandments?

The New Perspective has as focus the rejection of identity markers such as circumcision, food laws and Sabbath/special days’ observances.

 

[NotWorthy]

Banjo

Paul’s thoughts are deep and not simplistic.

Are you suggesting that Paul rejected the Torah, the Pentateuch and the first five books of the Bible?

This would imply he was rejecting the Bible, the word of God. Did he really reject the Ten Commandments?

The New Perspective has as focus the rejection of identity markers such as circumcision, food laws and Sabbath/special days’ observances.

I think Banjo is echoing Paul’s thoughts that the Works of the Law never got one to heaven. The Jews weren’t looking for heavenly blessings, but temporal ones (albeit from heaven) when they performed their ritual rites.

 

[banjo]

Banjo

Paul’s thoughts are deep and not simplistic.

Are you suggesting that Paul rejected the Torah, the Pentateuch and the first five books of the Bible?

This would imply he was rejecting the Bible, the word of God. Did he really reject the Ten Commandments?

The New Perspective has as focus the rejection of identity markers such as circumcision, food laws and Sabbath/special days’ observances.

Noel,

I was merely quoting James Akin’s comments on the expression “Works of the Law” hoping to shed some light on the subject. Personally, I don’t believe Paul rejected the Pentateuch I think he was saying that the “Law” is no longer first, rather, Christ is first. This is clearly stated in A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture; published by Nelson. It reads, “For the Christian the Old Law is no longer the first ruling principle in life. This first place of honor and importance the Old Law must yield to Jesus Christ who for our salvation (which is to be obtained in union with him) descended to earth and after his death and resurrection ascended attain to heaven. This doctrine is the Christian’s first ruling principle in life, and since two cannot be first the Old Law must give way. In other words the center of Christianity is Christ, not Law.”
Christ gave us the law of love…first of God encompassing the first three of the Ten Commandments, and second of neighbor which encompasses the remaing seven. In fact, by keeping the law of love we can’t help but keep the Ten Commandents.
Below is a further commentary on “Works of the Law” from The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible; commentary by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch. “**works of the law: **Paul uses this expression eight times in his writings, twice in Romans (3:20, 28) and six times in Galatians (Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10). Christian scholarship, both ancient and modern, has understood it in different ways. (1) Some, like St. Augustine, take it to mean observance of the entire Law of Moses, whole and undivided. On this view, Paul contends that no act of obedience to the moral, ceremonial, or juridical commandments of the Torah can bring about the justification of the sinner. (2) Others, like St. Jerome, understand the expression to mean the *ceremonial laws *of Moses, such as circumcision, dietary laws, feast days, and Sabbath observance. On this view, Paul charges that the ritual works of the Torah, have become obsolete in the New Covenant and thus have no bearing on justification. Both views are correct in their proper context: initial justification in Baptism takes place apart from any observance of the Law whatever (Ti 3:4-7), whereas final justification at the Last Judgment takes place apart from the ceremonial works of the Law, but not apart from observing the moral commandments of the Law (Rm 2:13; Mt 19:16-19; 1 Cor 7:19; Jas 2:8-13).”

 

[Rogerteder]

Noel,

I was merely quoting James Akin’s comments on the expression “Works of the Law” hoping to shed some light on the subject. Personally, I don’t believe Paul rejected the Pentateuch I think he was saying that the “Law” is no longer first, rather, Christ is first. This is clearly stated in A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture; published by Nelson. It reads, "For the Christian the Old Law is no longer the first ruling principle in life. This first place of honor and importance the Old Law must yield to Jesus Christ who for our salvation (which is to be obtained in union with him) descended to earth and after his death and resurrection ascended attain to heaven. This doctrine is the Christian’s first ruling principle in life, and since two cannot be first the Old Law must give way.

The reason I asked is because there seems to be some difference of opinion on this matter. Bob Sungenis states that works of the law means the entire law. Good works rituals, dietary sacrifices etc-----
Sungenis writes,
The Whole Old Covenant Law Must be Set Aside:

"Now, before we go any further, let’s reiterate WHY it is necessary for the WHOLE Old Covenant to be set aside. Paul teaches it best in Galatians 3:10-12 (the verses which I pointed out earlier that St. Thomas Aquinas used):

10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.’ 11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, ‘The righteous man shall live by faith.’ 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, ‘He who practices them shall live by them.’

Notice that Paul uses the same phrase “works of the Law” that he used in Romans and earlier in Galatians 2. But here he emphasizes the overarching principle connected to that phrase. That principle says that those who are in the system of “works of the law” are under a CURSE if they don’t perform “ALL THINGS written in the book of the Law.” That means if you break only one command of the Law, no matter how trivial, you are under the curse of damnation.

Why? Because the Law can show no mercy. It is an inanimate entity with no personality. It says “OBEY” and if you do not obey it has no choice but to condemn you. It is a legal system only. Legal systems have no room for mercy and forgiveness. The only one who has room for mercy and forgiveness is God, a being who can be moved with compassion and pity. The only thing God asks from us in return is faith in Him that He can do what He says. When we show him faith, He has mercy on us. If we showed faith to the Law, the Law wouldn’t care, for it has no concern for how much you believe in the Law. The Law is only interested in one thing, and that is to condemn for disobedience and to reward for obedience.

That Paul is referring to the whole law of Moses in Galatians 3:10-12 is proven by the verses from which he quotes. The saying “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them” comes from Deuteronomy 27:26. The context of Deuteronomy 27:15-25 lists all the commandments of the Decalogue, in one form or another:

15 ‘Cursed is the man who makes an idol or a molten image, an abomination to the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and sets it up in secret.’ And all the people shall answer and say, ‘Amen.’ 16 ‘Cursed is he who dishonors his father or mother.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ 17 ‘Cursed is he who moves his neighbor’s boundary mark.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ 18 ‘Cursed is he who misleads a blind person on the road.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ 19 ‘Cursed is he who distorts the justice due an alien, orphan, and widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ 20 ‘Cursed is he who lies with his father’s wife, because he has uncovered his father’s skirt.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ 21 ‘Cursed is he who lies with any animal.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ 22 ‘Cursed is he who lies with his sister, the daughter of his father or of his mother.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ 23 ‘Cursed is he who lies with his mother-in-law.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ 24 ‘Cursed is he who strikes his neighbor in secret.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ 25 ‘Cursed is he who accepts a bribe to strike down an innocent person.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ 26 ‘Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’

We see the same principle reiterated in the book of James. In James 2:10-13 he writes:

10 “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.”

Here we see that the abiding principle throughout the New Testament is that if you base your salvation on law, then you subject yourself to the demands of the law. The law demands that if you stumble in one point, then you are guilty of disobeying all, and thus you will be condemned with everyone else. Notice that James tells them to seek to be judged by the “law of liberty” where there is mercy, for it is only the God of mercy that can forgive transgressions. The Law can never forgive, for it was never designed to do so.

 

[Rogerteder]

Sungenis continues,

Incidentally, why do you think James speaks of the sin of “murder” in this context? The answer will reveal to us the nature of the New Covenant. The context begins from James 2:1 through 2:9. In it, James admonishes the Christians for showing favoritism to the rich man and despising the poor man. In doing so he says in verse 8 that they are ignoring the command to “love your neighbor as yourself,” and thereby, he says in verse 9, that they are “committing sin.” If we remember what Jesus taught in Matthew 5:21-23 that I mentioned earlier, we can see why James associates the sin of “murder” with despising the poor man. For in despising him, we have made a fool of him, and thereby we have spiritually murdered him. Thus we see how sensitive the New Covenant is. It is not merely interested in outward behavior, but the behavior of the heart.

Now back to the Law. Let’s look at another passage which teaches the same principle (that the WHOLE law had to be set aside for grace to come). Colossians 2:13-14 says:

13 “When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.”

Notice again that Paul is speaking to Gentiles, since he uses the phrase “the uncircumcision of your flesh.” He tells them that there sins were forgiven by God “having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us.” What does this “certificate of debt consisting of decrees” refer to? Well, it cannot refer to the Jewish ceremonial law, for that was never “against” the Gentiles. Rather, it refers to the whole Law found in the Old Covenant, the Law that was originally given to Adam and perpetuated through Israel until the time of Christ, where it was finally “nailed to the cross.”

Paul teaches something similar in Ephesians 2:15, but with a little twist. He writes:

15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

Notice the precise phrasing “the Law of commandments contained in ordinances.” The Greek is “to:n novmon tw:n ejntolw:n ejn dovgmasin,” which literally means “the law of the commandments in decrees.” This can be none other than the WHOLE law of the Old Covenant. In fact, the word “ordinances” (dovgmasin) is the same word used in Colossians 2:14 in the phrase “certificate of debt.”

Now, the “twist” Paul adds to this is to say that the setting aside of the Old Covenant law resulted in making Jew and Gentile into one body. Here is one of those places where the “Jew/Gentile” theme appears right along side the “grace versus law” theme. We find that, just as Romans 3:9-20 said that the Gentiles were “under the law” and that “works of the law” could not justify either Jew of Gentile, so we find here in Ephesians 2:15 that the Gentiles were under the law and condemned. Again, this shows us that the Law must refer to the WHOLE law."

 

[Rogerteder]

Anyone care to respond to Mr. Sungenis?

 

[Chesster]

It seems to me that Mr. Sungenis is confusing St. Paul’s use of the phrase “the law” with his use of the phrase “works of the law”.

When St Paul speaks of “the law” he is referring to the Mosaic Law in it’s entirety but when he speaks of “works of the law” he is only referring to a specific part of “the law” i.e. it’s ceremonial aspects.

IMHO of coarse.