Good Works Vs Works Of The Law

[GracePeace]

"When once you begin to go into tradition, you begin to go away from Scripture." (Anonymous)

Paul is writing Scripture, so there's no possibility of going away from Scripture by his tradition, thus this is irrelevant.

Hence, I really don't know what you and the Jews are talking about, except that with death, we that remain are free from any law binding us to that dead one, such as marriage. And it really does sound like some Rabbinically intellectualized twist on Scripture to state that we are only free from the law by dying in obedience to the law's demand that we die...

Paul was a Pharisee Acts 23:6; therefore, analyzing what Pharisees believe/d grants insight into Paul's argument in Romans 7:1-6.
The Talmudic view substantiates that Paul's view is dying with Christ exempts a Jew from serving by Law.
The Jew has a new way of service : the Spirit of Grace.

However, Scripturally I would put it this way: By the law God demands death for certain transgressions thereof. By the law we know what is transgression to God and the penalty for. Without it, we wouldn't know we are sinning, except by moral conscience which God has given to every man.

All right, well, you're wrong : that's not Paul's point at all in Romans 7:1-6.

In the law of Christ death is the result for any transgression...

Please cite Scripture (not just speculations).

 

[GracePeace]

"We are no longer under Law" only holds true for the Jew, but the Gentile was never under Law so they are not "set free from the Law".
If Romans is going to be discussed, it needs to be, I think, with great accuracy."

Ok, I see where you and I diverge by context of reading Scripture. When I read Scripture, I don't see Jew or Greek, only God telling me what He says.

God is making the distinction, so when I read God making the distinction, I'm reading what God is "telling me".

And though Paul may have thought he was 'just addressing; the Jews as a people distinct and separate from the rest of mankind, Gentiles, God was not.

Gentiles were never under Law, thus death does not set them free.
You can't remove shoes that you never wore.
The Emancipation Proclamation set many Blacks in America free, it did not remove chains from any Japanese in Japan.
You may argue "You Gentiles should not be under Law" but it would be a different argument.

James may indeed have thought He was writing to the Jewish 12 tribes scattered abroad, God was not.

James writes about general morality, so, yeah, not related to Romans 7:1-6.

In like manner, no Scripture of God pertains only to this one or that one. Much of Romans was not written just to the Jews. It was ALL written to you and me, for our benefit.

It can benefit you if you know what he's saying, but it is unintelligible to most people, because they don't have the requisite background (ie, knowledge of the Tanakh, the traditional expectations it produced, which Paul had to answer to) which is why it produces so many arguments. His audience, the Jews, would've been equipped to understand what he was saying, though--it was their very arguments he was preempting.

God did not have His apostles write His Scriptures of His New Covenant to any people after the flesh as distinct from anyone else. There is no more Jew or Greek where Scripture is concerned.

I've already cited the verses whereupon I have based my beliefs that he was speaking to Jews (eg, Romans 2:17, Romans 4:1, Romans 2:12-15 vs Romans 7:1).

We were under the law of Moses

Only Jews were. Are you saying you are Jewish?

...in that we were bound by it to perform certain things religiously and ceremonially in His worship and service by faith.

Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7 prevent me from viewing things this way.

We are not under the law of Christ in that we are set free from any and all such carnal ordinances.

We are "under Grace" Romans 6:14, whereby Christ "begins" and "perfects" Galatians 3:1-5 our salvation, so I would say we really are under Christ's Law 1 Corinthians 9:19-22.

When Christ died on the cross, we were set free from the law of a carnal commandment, that we might live by faith to do His living commandments: Love God, Love yourself. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Those are laws from the Torah, so, again:
1) There is "overlap" between "works of law" and "good works"
2) This disproves your assertion that the Law only told people what not to do.

Jew or Greek means absolutely nothing to God anymore.

Well, God refers to unbelieving Israel being partially blinded until the fullness of the Gentiles come in Romans 11, and Paul says "now I speak to you Gentiles" Romans 11:13, and Paul tells women to be quiet in Church, and says women are not permitted to exercise authority over men : obviously "In Christ, there is no slave, no free, no man, no woman, no Jew, no Gentile" doesn't mean Paul doesn't think these things exist anymore. He must mean that they all have equal access to God--that there's no "caste system", so to speak, in that respect.

 

[robert derrick]

God is making the distinction, so when I read God making the distinction, I'm reading what God is "telling me".


Gentiles were never under Law, thus death does not set them free.
You can't remove shoes that you never wore.
The Emancipation Proclamation set many Blacks in America free, it did not remove chains from any Japanese in Japan.
You may argue "You Gentiles should not be under Law" but it would be a different argument.


James writes about general morality, so, yeah, not related to Romans 7:1-6.


It can benefit you if you know what he's saying, but it is unintelligible to most people, because they don't have the requisite background (ie, knowledge of the Tanakh, the traditional expectations it produced, which Paul had to answer to) which is why it produces so many arguments. His audience, the Jews, would've been equipped to understand what he was saying, though--it was their very arguments he was preempting.


I've already cited the verses whereupon I have based my beliefs that he was speaking to Jews (eg, Romans 2:17, Romans 4:1, Romans 2:12-15 vs Romans 7:1).


Only Jews were. Are you saying you are Jewish?


Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7 prevent me from viewing things this way.


We are "under Grace" Romans 6:14, whereby Christ "begins" and "perfects" Galatians 3:1-5 our salvation, so I would say we really are under Christ's Law 1 Corinthians 9:19-22.


Those are laws from the Torah, so, again:
1) There is "overlap" between "works of law" and "good works"
2) This disproves your assertion that the Law only told people what not to do.


Well, God refers to unbelieving Israel being partially blinded until the fullness of the Gentiles come in Romans 11, and Paul says "now I speak to you Gentiles" Romans 11:13, and Paul tells women to be quiet in Church, and says women are not permitted to exercise authority over men : obviously "In Christ, there is no slave, no free, no man, no woman, no Jew, no Gentile" doesn't mean Paul doesn't think these things exist anymore. He must mean that they all have equal access to God--that there's no "caste system", so to speak, in that respect.

"Only Jews were. Are you saying you are Jewish?"

This is where I suppose I diverge from many believers, especially where Scripture and prophecy of the last days is concerned:

Does it matter whether I am Jewish or not? Would my argument have more or less weight?

No and no. When I say 'we', I speak as the people of God under the Old and now the New. The way God has relationship with His people is what Scripture is all about. God's people were under the law of Moses, and God's people are not under the law of Christ.

And God's people don't need to know the Greek nor Latin nor Hebrew nor any Tanakh, and especially not any tradition of expectation they had they rejected Jesus and still do. No one's writings, expectations, books, history etc...means anything to God. Only His Word.

Now, in being all things to all people, I suppose I should learn some culture and such, but even that is not necessary/ Preaching Jesus Christ and Him crucified in their own language is sufficient to minister the Gospel. Let God work out their cultural issues.

And so, in this regard we come to Scripture with different attitudes. And so, I will do so from mine, and you can do so from yours. Just remember, I will only offer Scripture and my sense of what is written, and I don't have any ears to hear what Jews or Gentiles or traditions have to say about it from their 'expectations'.

 

[GracePeace]

"Only Jews were. Are you saying you are Jewish?"

This is where I suppose I diverge from many believers, especially where Scripture and prophecy of the last days is concerned:

Does it matter whether I am Jewish or not? Would my argument have more or less weight?

You need to reread my argument because you clearly missed my point and did not respond to it.

No and no. When I say 'we', I speak as the people of God under the Old and now the New. The way God has relationship with His people is what Scripture is all about. God's people were under the law of Moses, and God's people are not under the law of Christ.

1. Gentiles were never under Torah.
2. Both believing Jews and Gentiles are "under Grace".

And God's people don't need to know the Greek nor Latin nor Hebrew nor any Tanakh, and especially not any tradition of expectation they had they rejected Jesus and still do. No one's writings, expectations, books, history etc...means anything to God. Only His Word.

His Word is the Tanakh--you've proven my point by not knowing the most basic thing about what I was saying and thus misinterpreting it.

And so, in this regard we come to Scripture with different attitudes. And so, I will do so from mine, and you can do so from yours. Just remember, I will only offer Scripture and my sense of what is written, and I don't have any ears to hear what Jews or Gentiles or traditions have to say about it from their 'expectations'.

Anyway, the Scriptures (Tanakh) generate expectations, and Paul was addressing the objections based on those expectations in Romans 2-11--Gentiles couldn't really have understood where he was going, only the Jews would have, since the Gentiles had no knowledge of Scripture.

 

[robert derrick]

1. The doctrine "not under Law but under Grace" does not relate to whether or not there are expectations of moral excellence, but relates to the method whereby those good works are wrought: Romans 8:3 the law was weak in that it relied on sinful flesh Romans 8:4 the righteous requirement of the Law is fulfilled by those who walk after the Spirit ).

I suppose I would say it like this: moral judgment of God is defined by His written law. The difference between His law of Moses and that of Christ, is that of Moses contained in the law expectations of carnal ordinances akin to morality. God killed a man for daring to touch His ark, unlawfully, not according to the strict dictates of the Law. It was as murder to God.

God has done away with all such carnal expectations in the law of Christ. All that is left in His law is of what not to do. Therefore, we abide by the law of Christ, but we do not any works of the law required by God. We are law abiding citizens of the commonwealth of Israel, but we are not bound by law to do anything good in life. We do not live by the law anymore, not as those who certainly did live by the law in the Old Covenant. They were bound to wear certain things at certain times and to handle certain things at certain times and to observe certain days at certain seasons, along with not transgressing His law in murder, false witness, etc...

The law of Moses was all moral. It was part of His covenant's morality to observe certain days and eat certain foods prepared in certain ways.

And the law of Christ is all moral as well, but no longer in a positive nature, only negative. No more moral judgment of God pertaining to days and foods and dress, only a list of what not to do, not to transgress. We are no longer judged by God, nor should we be by man, as pertaining to touch, taste, eat, drink, observe this, that, or the other. All gone. All stripped away. No more carnal commandments in the law to obey. All that is left is the commandment to love God and our neighbor. The rest is codified law of transgression: sinning against God's holiness and purity of life.

 

[GracePeace]

I suppose I would say it like this: moral judgment of God is defined by His written law. The difference between His law of Moses and that of Christ, is that of Moses contained in the law expectations of carnal ordinances akin to morality. God killed a man for daring to touch His ark, unlawfully, not according to the strict dictates of the Law. It was as murder to God.

1. "Not under Law but under Grace" refers to means of service. God's servants once presumably were to serve by observing the Law, now they are no longer under the jurisdiction of the Law but they are under the jurisdiction of the Spirit of Grace.
2. Law commanded love for neighbor as self and God above all, so claiming the Law only commanded things not related to actual morality is wrong.

God has done away with all such carnal expectations in the law of Christ. ...

You've never dealt with Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7 which debunk this deficient definition of "works of Law".

 

[GracePeace]

The law of Moses was all moral. It was part of His covenant's morality to observe certain days and eat certain foods prepared in certain ways.

I was using classifications that seemed to align with the way it seemed you were classifying the different Laws (because you mentioned "ceremonial", etc)--I already believed that if Jesus had transgressed the Law He wouldn't have qualified as sinless.

 

[GracePeace]

robert derrick,
I don't think we have anything to talk about--I already get that you have your view, and it's a view you're not interested in changing. In my view, you're very far from understanding Scriptural truth, and I'm not interested with the busy work of issuing corrections to all of your errors just to have you ignore everything I'm saying and try to "teach" me more of the same errors.
Remember, I said there were elements of what you were saying that were helpful--that was not some kind of blanket approval on everything you say.

 

[robert derrick]

You need to reread my argument because you clearly missed my point and did not respond to it.


1. Gentiles were never under Torah.
2. Both believing Jews and Gentiles are "under Grace".


His Word is the Tanakh--you've proven my point by not knowing the most basic thing about what I was saying and thus misinterpreting it.


Anyway, the Scriptures (Tanakh) generate expectations, and Paul was addressing the objections based on those expectations in Romans 2-11--Gentiles couldn't really have understood where he was going, only the Jews would have, since the Gentiles had no knowledge of Scripture.

Ok fine. His Word is the Scripture, which is called the Tanakh by traditional Jews.

"not knowing the most basic thing about what I was saying and thus misinterpreting it."

I misinterpret Scripture therefore? or misinterpret what you were saying?

So that there is no more misinterpretation between you and I:

1. You appear to be suggesting it is necessary for myself and any other believer and lover of Scripture to acquaint ourselves with Jewish traditional expectations of Scripture. I wholeheartedly disagree, if you are saying that.

2. Are you saying those Scriptures Romans (which I have not looked yet, but will), were specifically written by God intended just for knowledgeable Jews? Not with any expectation of ignorant Gentiles knowing what he is talking about?

Note: I do not disrespect your gained knowledge in areas I have not bothered with. In fact I have much respect for that effort. But what I most respect you for is your demand for Scriptural accuracy, when putting forth any teaching or commentary on it. You are not one of the many.

 

[GracePeace]

Ok fine. His Word is the Scripture, which is called the Tanakh by traditional Jews.

"not knowing the most basic thing about what I was saying and thus misinterpreting it."

I misinterpret Scripture therefore? or misinterpret what you were saying?

Why do I have to keep repeating myself over and over and over?
I don't do that.
You can go back and read.

So that there is no more misinterpretation between you and I:

1. You appear to be suggesting it is necessary for myself and any other believer and lover of Scripture to acquaint ourselves with Jewish traditional expectations of Scripture. I wholeheartedly disagree, if you are saying that.

What I'm saying is that you're not going to understand Romans 2-11 unless you know what Paul is responding to--you have to at least be acquainted with the Scriptures, but it helps to understand the traditional ways in which Jews viewed things in light of Scripture.

2. Are you saying those Scriptures Romans (which I have not looked yet, but will), were specifically written by God intended just for knowledgeable Jews? Not with any expectation of ignorant Gentiles knowing what he is talking about?

1. You haven't even read Romans!? There is no way you can involve yourself in this conversation meaningfully.
2. That's like asking, "Are you saying when he gives commands for women they don't apply to men?" Yes, that's exactly what that means--Paul addressed the Jews' many questions and concerns in Romans 2-11, and the Gentiles would not have understood what Paul was talking about. Gentiles who have access to Scripture can go and study Scripture and try to figure out what Paul meant though.

 

[robert derrick]

Why do I have to keep repeating myself over and over and over?
I don't do that.
You can go back and read.


What I'm saying is that you're not going to understand Romans 2-11 unless you know what Paul is responding to--you have to at least be acquainted with the Scriptures, but it helps to understand the traditional ways in which Jews viewed things in light of Scripture.


1. You haven't even read Romans!? There is no way you can involve yourself in this conversation meaningfully.
2. That's like asking, "Are you saying when he gives commands for women they don't apply to men?" Yes, that's exactly what that means--Paul addressed the Jews' many questions and concerns in Romans 2-11, and the Gentiles would not have understood what Paul was talking about. Gentiles who have access to Scripture can go and study Scripture and try to figure out what Paul meant though.

"You haven't even read Romans!?"

Seriously? I was speaking of 'those Scriptures in Romans' you have referred to. I have not yet looked at them again in light of your claim that they are specifically to the Jews.

2. Good. You don't suggest that one must learn certain things of the Jews and their traditional outlook of Scripture, in order to know what God is saying in Scripture.

3. I don't try to 'figure out' what Paul meant. I don't care what Paul or any other prophet or apostle meant. I only what God and Jesus mean. They were tools. Useful, good, faithful, blessed tool in the hands of the Lord. Scripture itself says that they didn't even understand or know all they were writing about. So long as they wrote what God said accurately, is all that matters. What they might have thought about it, or even what they meant is of no importance. Only what is written is important.

"I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer."

 

[robert derrick]

robert derrick,
I don't think we have anything to talk about--I already get that you have your view, and it's a view you're not interested in changing. In my view, you're very far from understanding Scriptural truth, and I'm not interested with the busy work of issuing corrections to all of your errors just to have you ignore everything I'm saying and try to "teach" me more of the same errors.
Remember, I said there were elements of what you were saying that were helpful--that was not some kind of blanket approval on everything you say.

dittoes

 

[GracePeace]

"You haven't even read Romans!?"
Seriously? I was speaking of 'those Scriptures in Romans' you have referred to. I have not yet looked at them again in light of your claim that they are specifically to the Jews.

1. Thanks for the clarification--only afterward I thought "maybe he meant the ones I cited".
2. You have admitted you're not reading what I'm saying carefully. That's not a good way of communicating.

2. Good. You don't suggest that one must learn certain things of the Jews and their traditional outlook of Scripture, in order to know what God is saying in Scripture.

The views they traditionally held were based on Scripture, so knowing Scripture can lead to understanding what Paul is responding to, and to get there even more quickly you can study what the Jews thought at the time.

3. I don't try to 'figure out' what Paul meant. I don't care what Paul or any other prophet or apostle meant. I only what God and Jesus mean. They were tools. Useful, good, faithful, blessed tool in the hands of the Lord. Scripture itself says that they didn't even understand or know all they were writing about. So long as they wrote what God said accurately, is all that matters. What they might have thought about it, or even what they meant is of no importance. Only what is written is important.

"I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer."

1. "A distinction without a difference"--Paul spoke God's Word.
2. The discussion was about Jews and Gentiles.

 

[GracePeace]

dittoes

Actually, you can't say "dittoes"--you're not thorough--you barely address half of the things I say, and you've admitted (what was already obvious--you constantly misunderstand what is being argued) you don't really read carefully (eg, you hadn't read the Scriptures I'd cited).

 

[robert derrick]

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets." (Rom 3:21-22)

There are no more deeds of the law that can justify anyone before God. No more deeds demanded by law as were in Moses.

God no more demands by law any deeds meant to express outward religious devotion and worship of Him.

Worship of God now is only in Spirit and in truth. And His righteousness is done only by the faith of Jesus. Demanded deeds by Law of God are done away in Christ Jesus.

The error of the Jews was to trust in the outward obedience to religious law and ordinances as justification before God, the meanwhile going about to establish their own righteousness apart from Scripture, by making even more outwardly and outrageous religious rules to conform to.

They became so caught up the deeds of the law of Moses, demanded for proper religion and sacrifice, that they ended up sacrificing the Lord Himself, rather than give up their lives filled with obedience to carnal ordinance. They took pride in how outwardly religious they were, even in those deeds demanded by law of Moses. 'Will worship' in the extreme.

 

[GracePeace]

@Hidden In Him
Romans 3
19Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.
20For by works of the law no human beingc will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Observations:
v19 What ever the Law says : everything it teaches.
v19 ...the Law speaks... so that every mouth may be stopped, and.. be held accountable to God : the knowledge it furnishes turns mere sinners into knowing sinners, transgressors ("the Law came in to increase the transgression" Romans 5:20)
v20 by works of the Law : taking into context the verse prior, of which this functions as a further elucidation, "works of law" must be what "shuts every mouth" (Jesus demonstrates one aspect of this principle : "he who is without sin cast the first stone")--and in the phrase which is to follow ("through the Law") there is no new topic raised, so "works of law" must refer to that which brings knowledge of sin so that every mouth is shut
v20 through the Law comes knowledge of sin : the Law informs you that you sinned ("increase the trespass" Romans 5:20--only those who have a direct divine revelation of God's will can qualify as "transgressors"), shutting your mouth (v19), not justifying you (v20)​

Romans 7
7What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? Far from it! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except [j]through the Law; for I would not have known about [k]coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT [l]COVET.”

Observation:
v7 I would not have come to know sin except through the Law : the same phrase as was employed in Romans 3:20 is employed here, and its intended application is to the Law which states "do not covet"​

In light of these verses, it makes no sense, whatsoever, to define "works of law" as referring to anything less than "what ever the law says" or "the things the Law would have had the Jew to do in service of God"--to include "The Ten Commandments".

 

[GracePeace]

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets." (Rom 3:21-22)

There are no more deeds of the law that can justify anyone before God. No more deeds demanded by law as were in Moses.

God no more demands by law any deeds meant to express outward religious devotion and worship of Him.

Worship of God now is only in Spirit and in truth. And His righteousness is done only by the faith of Jesus. Demanded deeds by Law of God are done away in Christ Jesus.

The error of the Jews was to trust in the outward obedience to religious law and ordinances as justification before God, the meanwhile going about to establish their own righteousness apart from Scripture, by making even more outwardly and outrageous religious rules to conform to.

They became so caught up the deeds of the law of Moses, demanded for proper religion and sacrifice, that they ended up sacrificing the Lord Himself, rather than give up their lives filled with obedience to carnal ordinance. They took pride in how outwardly religious they were, even in those deeds demanded by law of Moses. 'Will worship' in the extreme.

Too many errors to even start addressing--especially knowing you won't even read.

 

[robert derrick]

"The views they traditionally held were based on Scripture..."

I.e. the tradition of the Jews they made up for themselves out of Scripture. Those same traditions that nullified Scripture and necessitated the crucifixion of Jesus on their part, that they might keep their own traditions, which they still have in their own religion: the Jews' religion, which has absolutely nothing to do with Scripture from God.

"so knowing Scripture can lead to understanding what Paul is responding to, and to get there even more quickly you can study what the Jews thought at the time."

I think I'll stick with God leading me to the truth of His Word by His Scriptures.

Studying what the highly religious and very murderous Jews thought at the time will only get me quickly to the quicksand of highly thought out and traditionally learned stupidity.

All Scripture is given for all the people of God at all times. Whether Jew or Greek, whether in the Old Covenant or the New.

God had Paul write to His people: Christians, both Jew and Greek and Roman in Rome.

God does not want man's traditions and thinkings and minds anywhere near His Word, and believers do not need to be acquainted with such in order to know and rightly divide it.

 

[robert derrick]

Actually, you can't say "dittoes"--you're not thorough--you barely address half of the things I say, and you've admitted (what was already obvious--you constantly misunderstand what is being argued) you don't really read carefully (eg, you hadn't read the Scriptures I'd cited).

It’s not the tragic loss of your respect in Scripture that upsets me so (John Wick), but rather your manner, which has compelled me to lose respect for you as an adult.

You now come off as an overstuffed petulant child, who really thinks He knows something more about God's Word, because he's learned himself something great about the Jews' traditions.

Anything you offer in Scripture that is worthy to me, I'll be glad for. And I will in due time respond to what anyone says in this forum, whether to agree or disagree by Scripture. Because I love to do so.

But no more personally with you.

 

[GracePeace]

@robert derrick
I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Your "objections" are baseless and empty and no one who reads carefully would make them.