Works. There is a lot of confusion in the Christian World about Works. Paul spoke a lot about how Works did not justify us, that Christ's atonement alone covered our sins. He spoke a lot about how the Jews were no longer under the Law, that the Works of the Law are no longer valid, that Christ's Law alone is valid, which is based on faith in the atonement of Christ.
So did Paul dismiss Works altogether, or was he just dismissing Works under the Law? I believe Paul was just dismissing Works under the Law because he full well knew that the Law had been a valid covenant between God and Israel, and that God had required Works under the Law while that covenant was still in effect.
So what was Paul really saying? He was saying that while the Law was in effect, it was for the purpose of providing life in temporal matters. But it could not bring about eternal life. And so, once Christ had come and provided a final atonement for sins, the sacrifices of the Law ceased to be valid. And Christ's atonement superseded all of the sacrifices of the Law.
This made the Law impotent with respect to bringing even temporal life anymore, since the purpose of that covenant was to be suprseded by a greater covenant, the covenant of Christ. So yes, Paul taught that keeping the Law, and doing the Works of the Law, were bad now that Christ's covenant had superseded the old covenant of Law. But he was never saying that Works, as such, were bad--ony Works under the Law, after that covenant had been superseded.
Works, being valid while the Law was still in effect, are just as valid under the covenant of Christ, because he has Law and he has Works also. They just aren't the same covenant as the covenant of Law. They have to do with our requirement to follow him, to emulate him, to obey his commandment to love the brethren, to love our enemy, to testify to the Gospel of Christ's Kingdom, etc.
Again, Paul would've encouraged Jews to obey the Works of the Law while the Law was still in effect. And he would've acknowledged that those Works, being done in obedience and in faith, did produce temporal benefits, including life, health, and productivity. Paul's only point, therefore, was that Christ had come and superseded the Law, making those Works no longer a matter of obedience, and therefore, worthless. He was not saying that Christian Works were also worthless. On the contrary, Paul argued that following Christ involved all kinds of obedience to God, and his letters recount numerous exhortations to that effect. We should not be confused about the need to do good Works as a Christian!
Under the Law, we were told that Works under that covenant provided temporal benefits, and not eternal benefits. That's because only by the covenant of Christ could we obtain eternal life. And so, we should also know that under the covenant of Christ, we do Works not to obtain eternal life, but rather, to be obedient to God, to obtain His good pleasure. This also has some temporal benefits although we see, like Israel, that we live in the midst of those around us who are disobedient, thus leading us to have hard times. The best of the Prophets of Israel in the OT suffered despite their obedience to the Law. Their temporal benefits from serving the Law faithfully could not prevent them from suffering from the disobedience in the nation in which they lived.
Paul did not argue that the Law was bad for being unable to provide Israel with eternal life. Indeed its purpose was to show that until Christ came, the Law could only show man's lack of an eternal atonement. There is confusion, however, when we see Jesus emphasize that in Israel's time of backsliding, what they did under the Law was *false adherence* to the Law, doing the things required by the Law externally, but not doing the things internally required by the Law. God had asked them to have a "new heart," and not just do a few good Works.
Paul was not saying that by the Pharisees' example nobody could do good Works under the Law. On the contrary, Jesus condemned them for not doing Works under the Law *properly.*
And so, we can be sure that Paul did not say Works are out of reach for Christians. On the contrary, he was encouraging us to do true Christian Works. He was only telling Jews to move beyond the Works of the Law to the Works of Christ. And he was arguing that the Works of the Law, though good in their time, could never achieve eternal life, but only temporal benefits, while they awaited final redemption. Paul was arguing that they had to move on to Christ from the Law, since the Law was given in preparation for him, and always had meant to bring about an atonement that was eternal.
The Jews had to leave the Works of the Law because it had come time to move on, once Christ had come. Paul never said that Works were bad, and not even bad under the Law. They were only bad after Christ had come, because then the old Covenant had become passe, and observance of that Law after Christ had come was a form of disobedience, since the purpose of the Law had been to move on to Christ, the eternal atonement--the Works that last forever.
Let me be clear: Works are what pleases God and what God's purpose has always been for Man, to live up to the image of God for which we were created. Once we were defiled with a sin nature, our Works--no matter how good--could not redeem us, and give us eternal life. The Law was given to demonstrate that. It called upon Israel to obey, to be good, to do good works, for which they could be deemed righteous, and rewarded in the present world.
But righteousness, to achieve eternal life, could only come by Christ, who gave us the ability to perform the Works of faith, achieving salvation by the connection of his righteousness to his eternal atonement. Now we can do Works that are part of our eternal inheritance, and our Works, when they are truly of faith, will last forever.
And I'm confident that Christ's eternal atonement, covers those who had, under the Law, done Works through faith. Paul only argued that apart from Christ's eternal atonement, the Works of the Law, even done through faith, could not find eternal salvation. But inasmuch as they were good Works done in hope of eternal atonement, they could achieve, by faith, what they had hoped for.
Paul's argument was only that if they knew the Law could not achieve eternal atonement, why would they not move on from the Law to Christ once they knew Christ was the source of that eternal atonement? Without Christ, the Works of the Law were inadequate! They could not save! The Works of the Law were designed to *look forward to Christ,* and to move on from the Law to him when he came.
