The Mangling of Ephesians 2:8-9

[Mysteryman]

Hi Stranger

In the OT man was justified by their works and not by faith alone - This is what James is refering too in the book of James 2:24. Then James goes on to say in verse 25 how Rahab the harlot was justified by her works. Then in verse 26 James is now speaking spiritually , that the body without the spirit is dead, so then faith without works is dead also. The word "dead" should be translated, or at the very least , understood to mean - "empty". The reason I say this, is because the word dead here, is used as an adjective. The same with James 2:17 - "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead (empty), being alone"

This is why James states in chapter 2 and in verse 18 - "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and "I" will shew thee my faith by my works"

We are God's workmanship, and we have the faith of Christ. Our works should show this to be true. But we are never going to receive eternal life by our works, because we have already received eternal life through Christ, by grace , and not because of our works. < This seems to be the crux of the argument within this thread. Because the OP said just the opposite, thus you see a defence of arguments that are contrary to the OP.

To even suggest, that we can attain eternal life by our works is contrary to scripture.

 

[glorydaz]

Works didn't justify man in the OT, either. It's always been by grace through faith.

Romans 4 explains it very well. We know that the law had not been given to Moses when Abraham walked the earth. To put the law into this verse is more than a reach. Notice how Paul says, "as pertaining to the flesh"....Abraham found he had whereof to glory in his works, but NOT before God.

If not before God, then it has to be before men. This is exactly what James is talking about. We are justified before men by our works, because that is what we can look at to know if someone's faith is genuine. Scripture tells us Abraham was justified because he believed...Faith was counted unto him for righteousness....not his works.

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

To him that worketh...the reward is not reckoned of grace, but of debt. This relates back to the verse in Luke about the faithful servant....it's but our duty. We see here, righteousness is imputed to man based on his faith. We are saved by grace through faith...so it is grace and faith that justifies...not works. "God imputeth righteousness without works,". There we have it...there should be no doubt in anyone's mind.

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

 

[stranger]

Mysteryman wrote:

We are God's workmanship, and we have the faith of Christ. Our works should show this to be true. But we are never going to receive eternal life by our works, because we have already received eternal life through Christ, by grace , and not because of our works. < This seems to be the crux of the argument within this thread. Because the OP said just the opposite, thus you see a defence of arguments that are contrary to the OP.

To even suggest, that we can attain eternal life by our works is contrary to scripture.

Hi MM,

Drew wrote in the OP:

I will try to make an exceedingly careful argument as to why Ephesians 2:8-9 does not deny ultimate justification by good works. People in other threads have been ignoring arguments about this and I am quite convinced that they are intentionally screening arguments that would challenge their position on how we are ultimately saved.

As I said earlier I came to this tread half way through... Taking your comment above as a proposition I want to set it in the context of what I think the OP is getting at. OK?

A
We are God's workmanship, and we have the faith of Christ.
Our works should show this to be true.

B
We are God's workmanship, and we have the faith of Christ.
our works aren't good works.

Nobody should have any difficulties with A. However, proposition B has a contradiction that the apostles James 2:24 and Paul address.

My understanding of Drew's OP is this:

Since both A and B consider themselves to be God's workmanship and to have faith in Christ, it is 'good works' that is the difference between A and B. Didn't Jesus say 'by their fruits you will know them?' The difference is explained in terms of 'ultimate justification by good works' (or fruit). The root is still the root and the fruit is still the fruit.

blessings brother

 

[Drew]

The distinction I am referring to is between a text of scripture (or written revelation - what is revealed) and our interpretation of that text.

OK, no problem. Here is my "interpretation" of Ephesians 2:8-9 compared to the actual text:

text: For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

interpretation: For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works of the Law of Moses, so that no one may boast.

I suggest that this interpretation is true to context - what Paul goes on to say in verses 11 and following make it very clear that it is the works of the Law of Moses whose salvific power Paul is denying.

And don't let anyone tell you that I am "interpreting" while they are are not. It is simply not possible to avoid interpretation - everybody does it when they read and ascribe meaning to the text.

But getting back to your argument there is a relation between justification and good works. This is already spelt out in Rom 2:13 NASB for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

Well of course - but some here will simply to try to tell you that Paul is not saying what he obviously is - that doers of the "law" (whatever that turns out to be).

 

[Drew]

No disrespect to gd and MM - so my following comment applies to the Protestant 'sola justification'. Rom 2:13 is hardly a proof text for justification alone or justification by faith alone, is it? Perhaps there is a perception that all this distorts the gospel.

The text says what it says - justification based on what we do. I take to mean exactly what it says:

That "what" of the law? The doers.

The doers of the law will be what? Justified

Now I would love to hear an argument as to why people think Paul is adding an unstated "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" - that he does not mean he says.

An aside: I am convinced that "law" here is not the Law of Moses. We know believes that the Law of Moses does not justify (Ephesians 2:8-9). So he would not be saying the opposite here. Besides there are other reasons to understand that the "law" that justifies in 2:13 is not the Law of Moses.

Do you want me to give my argument for this?

 

[Drew]

Since both A and B consider themselves to be God's workmanship and to have faith in Christ, it is 'good works' that is the difference between A and B. Didn't Jesus say 'by their fruits you will know them?' The difference is explained in terms of 'ultimate justification by good works' (or fruit). The root is still the root and the fruit is still the fruit.

My point in the OP is simply this: The works that do not justify in Eph 2:8-9 are not "good works", but rather the works of the Law of Moses.

In other words, Paul is saying that salvation is not just for the Jews. Notice how verses 11 and following make perfect sense if the "works" in verse 9 are not "good works", but rather the works of the Law of Moses.

But if you are asking me my position on justification by good works, I would say this:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done." To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

And, yes, I am saying what Paul is saying.

So people who disagree with "me" are really disagreeing with Paul. They are free to do so, but let's not pretend that they are in line with Paul.

 

[glorydaz]

Since both A and B consider themselves to be God's workmanship and to have faith in Christ, it is 'good works' that is the difference between A and B. Didn't Jesus say 'by their fruits you will know them?' The difference is explained in terms of 'ultimate justification by good works' (or fruit). The root is still the root and the fruit is still the fruit.

My point in the OP is simply this: The works that do not justify in Eph 2:8-9 are not "good works", but rather the works of the Law of Moses.

In other words, Paul is saying that salvation is not just for the Jews. Notice how verses 11 and following make perfect sense if the "works" in verse 9 are not "good works", but rather the works of the Law of Moses.

But if you are asking me my position on justification by good works, I would say this:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done." To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

And, yes, I am saying what Paul is saying.

So people who disagree with "me" are really disagreeing with Paul. They are free to do so, but let's not pretend that they are in line with Paul.

So the Jews can't be saved by the works of the law, but the Gentiles can be saved by good deeds. That means JD Rockefeller can be saved whether he is justified by faith or not.

I wonder why Cornelius was sent to visit Peter...he was a devout man, feared God, and gave alms to the people...and prayed to God always. According to what you're claiming Paul said, Cornelius didn't even need to go see Peter to get saved. :help

There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

 

[francisdesales]

I'm not putting faith alone in that verse, although it is clearly stated in the Word that salvation is not by works. In fact, the Bible is clear it's by grace through faith that we are saved. The problem arises when someone claims it's only the works of the Jews that don't save, but other works do.

Which works? You are forgeting that "works" does not refer to every act of man. If so, then faith ITSELF cannot be salvific.

Paul is arguing against Judaizers. He is clearly defending the Apostolic counciliar decision in Acts 15 - that man does not NEED to do works OF THE LAW to be justified, as per Judaizer opinions. He clearly is NOT refering to "every" act of man, since Paul also says "nothing else matters but faith WORKING in love.

Thus, works of love are indeed salvific, and faith alone is NOT salvific. Works of love imply a faith in God. Faith ALONE does NOT imply works of Love will result (see James 2, 1 Cor 13)

Romans 2 is not a "proof text" for justification at all. Nor is it a "proof text" for salvation by works.
It is an explanation of how man will be judged, and God's call to repentance.

Indeed - Jews and Gentiles alike will be judged on what they do. Paul rules out doing anything without God as salvific in Romans 1, so you can let that misdirection die on the vine...

In fact, this first portion of Romans 2 that immediately precedes the "contested verse" is never taken into consideration at all, and it should be. This is not speaking just to the Jews...they are not the only ones who judge others. I've been accused of lying and misrepresenting...those accusing me of that have condemned themselves as they do exactly what they accuse me of. All men are guilty of this...not just the Jews.

All men without God. THAT is the point! Jews are quite capable of doing things without God. And thus, the litany of Romans 3 that solidifies that they are no different in faltering than the Gentile.

The TRUE "JEW" is the one who does good works to attain eternal life - with and in the Spirit that writes the Law on the heart - SPIRITUAL circumcision.

You are misrepresenting, because you constantly are pointing to something we do not believe - that I can work without God and that work is considered salvific. NO ONE HERE has stated this, and have utterly denied it on numerous occasions. You bring it up over and over - either because you do not want to understand the other point of view, or you are purposely misrepresenting because your sacred cow is at stake here, rather than God's revelation.

What Paul is doing is explaining the condition of mankind...they all sin and fall short.

WITHOUT GOD!!! Paul is explaining that man, without God, falls short. Jews included.

There is no difference between Jew and Greek. They all sin...under the ...law written on their conscience.

THAT law, it is clear, CAN bring men to salvation, according to Romans 2.. You are missing the point, yet again.

The person who is saved by their good works in Romans 2 does so BECAUSE OF GOD!!! Your focus on "good works" means you fail to understand the meaning of Sacred Scriptures here, and thus, you must pretend that Romans 2 is theoretical impossibilities...

All of mankind is without excuse. They all see sin in others and none in themselves. They will all be JUDGED by the deeds they have done in this life. The question isn't how man is judged, it's how men are saved. Changing a comma in verse 7 to the words..."God will give" proves nothing except the verse has been mistranslated in some Bibles. We can know this because of what follows in the rest of Romans.

There's no denying ALL MEN SIN...but some deny that.

WHO has denied that all men, WITHOUT GOD, sin??? Even on the outside chance that you are refering to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, the criticism falls short, since our faith depends upon the work of God in the womb of Mary's mother, not Mary's own work. Misrepresentation, yet again...

Thus, the summary, that man can do nothing WITHOUT God. We ALL rely on God's grace, whether Greek or Jew. THE POINT is not about good works done, but about man not being able to provide the good works of HIS OWN IMPETUS. Good works, of themselves, moved by God, are indeed salvific. Romans 2 makes that crystal clear.

Regards

 

[glorydaz]

What Paul makes clear in Romans is that one sin annuls even the "righteousness" of men. That man is saved by the work of Christ, and we are saved by grace through faith. Romans 2 very specifically says that all men sin, and God will judge the secrets of our hearts. Those with the law will perish under the law and those without the law will perish without the law. For, indeed, all men sin. The difference is that God does not impute sin to those who have faith in Christ. It isn't that God does not impute sin to those who do good deeds.

Mankind will be judged on their deeds...they are not "given eternal life" as some continue to claim. "Given" eternal life is an addition of some translations. Those who seek after eternal life, without faith, will be judged on their deeds. Those who stand before the judgment seat of Christ will recieve rewards according to their deeds. We don't lose our salvation...because our sins are not imputed unto us. It's faith in Christ that saves us from the judgment of God.

Eph. 2 is quite clearly NOT speaking of the works of the law of Moses, because it is addressed specifically to Gentiles. Believe it or not, Gentiles try to work their way into heaven, too. Unbelievers think they can work their way into heaven, just like the Jews did. They say to themselves, wide is the road that leads to heaven...if we try hard enough, and persist long enough, God surely will not turn us away. The problem with that remains SIN. Sin can only be covered by the blood. Those who persist in doing good deeds, like Cornelius, must still have their sins covered. He went on and found grace through faith...therefore his sins were covered. What good deeds can never do, the blood can only do.

 

[stranger]

No disrespect to gd and MM - so my following comment applies to the Protestant 'sola justification'. Rom 2:13 is hardly a proof text for justification alone or justification by faith alone, is it? Perhaps there is a perception that all this distorts the gospel.

The text says what it says - justification based on what we do. I take to mean exactly what it says:

That "what" of the law? The doers.

The doers of the law will be what? Justified

Now I would love to hear an argument as to why people think Paul is adding an unstated "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" - that he does not mean he says.

An aside: I am convinced that "law" here is not the Law of Moses. We know believes that the Law of Moses does not justify (Ephesians 2:8-9). So he would not be saying the opposite here. Besides there are other reasons to understand that the "law" that justifies in 2:13 is not the Law of Moses.

Do you want me to give my argument for this?

Hi Drew,

Ephesians 2:8-9 is ok.

Now back to Rom 2:
v13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

'Hearers of the Law' implies they hear but don't do. Obviously 'doers of the Law' also hear.

I would be interested to see why you say the 'doers of the Law' does not refer to the 'doers of the Law of Moses' ? My initial thought is that those who do 'good works' while not being under the law (of Moses) would nevertheless not violate the law of Moses.

blessings brother,

 

[francisdesales]

What Paul makes clear in Romans is that one sin annuls even the "righteousness" of men.

Your conclusion from this is incorrect, however. We'll get to this shortly.

That man is saved by the work of Christ, and we are saved by grace through faith.

Yes, faith working in love... These are the "works" that Paul says saves in Romans 2. We'll get to that in a minute - it seems you are onto the key point in Romans, now we will let it take us to the conclusion...

Romans 2 very specifically says that all men sin

Where??? I suggest you are again adding your "total depravity" mindset to the chapter, when nowhere does it say this in Romans 2!

and God will judge the secrets of our hearts. Those with the law will perish under the law and those without the law will perish without the law. For, indeed, all men sin. The difference is that God does not impute sin to those who have faith in Christ. It isn't that God does not impute sin to those who do good deeds.

Again, you are reading into the text what is not there. The only time the Bible speaks about imputing sin is in Romans 4, and the context is DAVID. Clearly, the sense is not that David had faith in Christ...

I will get to this in a minute, as Romans 4 is KEY to this discussion, and you touched on it, brushed against it, without understanding fully how this destroys the classic Protestant interpretation of Romans.

Mankind will be judged on their deeds...they are not "given eternal life" as some continue to claim.

Scriptures amply tells us that man is given eternal life based upon their good deeds they did in life, faith working in love, if you will. I have mentioned Matthew 25 as a starting point. In each of the three parables discussing how one attains eternal life, good deeds are the determinant.

Read esp. the parable of the goats and sheep, notice the separation, and notice the final outcome of judgment. There is no "lesser rewards" here. It is either heaven or hell, and it is based upon what someone did or did not do...

Those who "claim it" are doing it because they have read the Scriptures.

Eph. 2 is quite clearly NOT speaking of the works of the law of Moses, because it is addressed specifically to Gentiles.

This is incorrect, Drew is right here. Paul's enemy in Ephesians are the Judaizers, those Christians who are teaching, in contradiction to Acts 15, that one must live the Mosaic Law BEFORE becoming Christian. Christians must also practice Jewish customs, becoming Jewish. The saved community must become Jewish. Clearly, Paul addresses Gentiles subject to this false teaching that they are to KNOW that they are saved by FAITH, not by doing WORKS OF THE LAW (Mosaic).

I see in your posts that there is a fundamental issue with what a "work" is. What is ironic is that you cite Romans 4:4, THE KEY verse in Romans that helps to unlock its meaning and defeat the idea of establishing a false dichotomy of faith vs good deeds, which Paul is not doing.

Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

HERE is where Paul explains what a "work" is. It is something deserving of payment.

While Drew is correct on the Ephesians context, Paul means in his entire corpus, something more than JUST the Mosaic Law.

A "work" is something that deserves payment.

NOTHING we can do deserves payment. Thus, NO "WORK" can earn payment from God, the reward of eternal life. Thus, Paul clearly tells us that grace is a gift, over and over. A gift is something FREELY GIVEN, not something earned as a paycheck is earned. Doing "works of the law" do not earn anything from God. NOTHING we do, alone, for the sense of earning something, can bring salvation upon us...

The problem with classic Protestantism is that it equates "work" with ALL things we do, to include good deeds without the INTENT to earn a reward! Thus, the "total depravity" concept, that man can do absolutely nothing, EVEN when vivified by the Holy Spirit. The often carted-out "filthy rags" taken out of context. Thus, the invention of imputed righteousness, rather than infused righteousness. We are not "really" righteous, we are "covered", it is pretend righteousenss.

It is a perversion of ancient Christianity and the teachings of God who became man so that men could become "gods". The whole idea of divinization, theosis, GONE... The perversion makes salvation into an accounting game where one collects salvation once they repeat a profession, forget about any sort of relationship with God or a transformation that must take place...

There is no need to establish such a false dichotomy between faith and good deeds done IN CHRIST out of LOVE! Why? Because our good deeds working in love are NOT "WORKS" as defined by Paul.

THUS, Paul can say in Romans 2 that good deeds CAN AND DO save. Jesus can say the same thing repeatedly. Good deeds save. They are NOT Paul's works - since good deeds done in love are NOT "works" that seek to earn reward. Our inner intentions differ. We are not seeking payment - we are loving the God who has loved us first. As you note, God knows our inner intentions. Thus, our deeds, our actions, are judged based upon our inner intent. And thus, good deeds done in faith, done in love, are indeed salvific.

Note Paul never says good deeds do not save. He says "WORKS" do not save. He defines what a work is - which is not JUST the Mosaic Law, although it is the pinnacle of a works salvation idea...

I note that Paul is not ONLY speaking about the Mosaic Law, but ANYTHING done with the intent that God must now pay me back. God owes me. This attitude was prevalent among Jews, and this is why Paul reiterates that salvation is a GIFT, not a PAYMENT. Man can do nothing to EARN a payment from God. We all fall short without God.

BUT, when we become vivified with the Spirit of God, our inner self changes, is transformed. Our good deeds are done, NOT as a "work", but as an act of Love.

Faith without love is not salvific.
Likewise, a good deed cannot save without an act of faith in God.

There is no need to place faith in opposition to good deeds - both are required to attain eternal life. Both Paul and James is clear about this. Faith alone does not save. Works do not save. Only faith working IN LOVE save (not faith working to earn)

Regards

 

[Drew]

I would be interested to see why you say the 'doers of the Law' does not refer to the 'doers of the Law of Moses' ?

Now this is a great question. I appreiciate the fact that you are reading my material with careful attention. I will get back to you on this later.

But, it is indeed true that the argument I am making requires that the "law" here not be Law of Moses.

 

[glorydaz]

Eph. 2 is quite clearly NOT speaking of the works of the law of Moses, because it is addressed specifically to Gentiles.

This is incorrect, Drew is right here. Paul's enemy in Ephesians are the Judaizers, those Christians who are teaching, in contradiction to Acts 15, that one must live the Mosaic Law BEFORE becoming Christian. Christians must also practice Jewish customs, becoming Jewish. The saved community must become Jewish. Clearly, Paul addresses Gentiles subject to this false teaching that they are to KNOW that they are saved by FAITH, not by doing WORKS OF THE LAW (Mosaic).


While Drew is correct on the Ephesians context, Paul means in his entire corpus, something more than JUST the Mosaic Law.

A "work" is something that deserves payment.

NOTHING we can do deserves payment. Thus, NO "WORK" can earn payment from God, the reward of eternal life. Thus, Paul clearly tells us that grace is a gift, over and over. A gift is something FREELY GIVEN, not something earned as a paycheck is earned. Doing "works of the law" do not earn anything from God. NOTHING we do, alone, for the sense of earning something, can bring salvation upon us...

Note Paul never says good deeds do not save. He says "WORKS" do not save. He defines what a work is - which is not JUST the Mosaic Law, although it is the pinnacle of a works salvation idea...

I note that Paul is not ONLY speaking about the Mosaic Law, but ANYTHING done with the intent that God must now pay me back. God owes me. This attitude was prevalent among Jews, and this is why Paul reiterates that salvation is a GIFT, not a PAYMENT. Man can do nothing to EARN a payment from God. We all fall short without God.

You note correctly. Paul is not just talking about the Law of Moses, he is talking about any work done that we claim may contribute to our salvation. If you read the rest of what Paul is saying, you'll see something else...and this is what you're missing in all your talk of works.

While we were dead in trespasses and sins...we were "quickened". How are we "quickened"? That's easy, it's by being born of the Spirit...new birth.

1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Again, even when we were dead in sins...He has quickened us together with Christ, for it is by grace we are saved. We're raised...resurrected into newness of life. Why is it we can claim no part in this salvation "quickening"? So that in ages to come, the exceeding riches of God's grace and His kindness toward us will be shown to all. All glory belongs to God for saving and keeping us.

Very important here.....It is by God's grace through faith....not of ourselves...not of works (any effort on man's part)...so that none can ever boast they had a part in their own salvation. Then we see we are His workmanship...created at our new birth to walk in "good works". Once again, I will state, good works follow our salvation. They do no save us, but are a result of our being "quickened".

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the
gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

 

[Drew]

I have decided to re-engage the discussions with glorydaz and Mysteryman.

 

[Drew]

I would be interested to see why you say the 'doers of the Law' does not refer to the 'doers of the Law of Moses' ?

What does the term “law†actually denote in the following text?:

13For 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.

Note what Paul says next:

14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

and shortly after that....

25For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

I suggest this strongly shows that Paul has two distinct conceptualizations of the Law. One of these is the set of formal practices that mark Jew from Gentile (with particular emphasis on things like Sabbath and purity laws). The other is the "essence of Torah" that even the Gentile can follow. Note that Paul is talking about Gentiles, as uncircumcised men, keeping the Law.

Any Jew worth his salt would immediately, and rightly, protest that circumcision, while perhaps technically not part of Torah (its initiation preceded Sinai by > 400 years, I think), is the hallmark of membership in the nation of Israel. And Torah was for Israel alone (I suspect some of you will challenge me on this!). In any event, in verse 14, Paul has made it clear that there is an aspect of Torah that the Gentile does not possess - the Gentile is characterized as "not having the Law".

Allthough things get complicated, if we are to take Paul seriously here, we have to see him as discerning two aspects of Torah - the one that demarcates the Jew from the Gentile (including, e.g., circumcision) and the one that "gets written on the heart of the Gentile" (and the believing Jew, of course).

Note also how such an interpretation allows us to make sense of clear statements that Torah has been abolished (e.g. Eph 2:15) and other statements that it has been established (e.g. Romans 3:31). The Torah that has been abolished is the one that marked the Jew from the Gentile - all the "rules and regulations", and the Torah that has been established is the one written on the heart of Jew and Gentile alike who have faith in Christ - the imperative to love God and love neighbour.

Consider also this from Romans 9:

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law[. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.

Yet again, we have Paul with two faces to Torah. Paul's argument here is that the Jew followed the rules and regulations of Torah but did not arrive "at that law" - the true essence of the Torah. Some may suggest that I am implying the existence of two Torahs, when there is in fact only one, and that the Jew here failed to "arrive at the 'good way' of doing that Torah" because they pursued it in a specifically legalistic manner.

Fair enough, but my point about the Torah is not that there are two entirely distinct Torahs, but rather that the "Torah of rules and regulations" is a kind of "outer shell" that encloses the real essence or heart of Torah. It is because the Jew pursued the "rules and regulations" and forgot the heart that the problem arose. And, as per Romans 10 (just a few breaths later), they did so not so much from a legalistic error, but rather from a "racial exclusion" error:

Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.

From these texts, we see that Paul's view of Torah is complex and OT promises about the Torah being written on the heart can indeed be reconciled with the notion that Torah, as a system of regulations and practices, has indeed been retired.

 

[Drew]

Romans 4 explains it very well. We know that the law had not been given to Moses when Abraham walked the earth. To put the law into this verse is more than a reach.

It is not a reach, it is the proper analysis of 4:2 in context.

Romans 4:2 is clearly a reference to the Law of Moses and doing its works. True, the Law of Moses was not around in Abraham's time. But that is beside the point. I have been arguing that Paul denies justification by doing the works of the Law of Moses and not justification by good works. Those who argue otherwise have severe problems with Romans 2:6-7, which some solve by simply "wishing away" the reference to the awarding of eternal life based on "good works" that is clearly there in that text. Still others develop theories about the original manuscripts really said and then, of course, evade any challenges to them to support such an unusual claim.

Paul's argument is basically directed at the Jew, telling him that salvation is not limited to Jews and Jews only:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too

Note that Paul has written these words just a couple of sentences back from Romans 4:2.

The problem with seeing Romans 4:2 as anything other than a reference to the Law of Moses makes Paul into a scattered incoherent thinker. In Romans 3, he has just told us how justification is not based on doing the Law of Moses. Then throughout the first 17 or so verse of chapter 4, Paul is still making the same argument – salvation is not limited to Jews.

This is a slam-dunk case the “works†of 4:2 are the works of the Law of Moses – but of course, the context will be ignored by those for whom a “good works†reading of 4:2 is essential to preserve their position. But the context is clear – the argument is about how Abraham was not justified in virtue of being Jewish and, by extension therefore, justification is not for Jews only:

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!

The case makes itself – Paul is bending over backwards to make it clear that his topic here is the availability of justification to both Jew and Gentile alike. And this is precisely why it makes sense to assert, in 4:2, that the Jew (of whom Abraham is genetic father) is not justified by the works of the Law of Moses. Yes, the law of Moses was not around in Abraham’s time. But Paul is really making a broader argument about justification not being limited to the Jew.

And what is the ethnic delimiter of the Jew? The law of Moses, of course.

 

[Drew]

Eph. 2 is quite clearly NOT speaking of the works of the law of Moses, because it is addressed specifically to Gentiles.

The fact that the material is addressed to Gentiles strengthens my case.

What would the Gentile, deemed to be '"outside" of God's favour, need to be told to be assured that this was not the case?

That justification was not based on doing the works of the Law of Moses, which the Gentile cannot do.

 

[Drew]

To even suggest, that we can attain eternal life by our works is contrary to scripture.

6God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

Paul means what he says. Why do think he does not? Please give us a specific reason why this text is not be taken at face value.

If this involves a belief that the greek texts the scholars used to make this translation are at variance with the the originals, please tells us precisely how you have come to such a conclusion.

 

[Drew]

In the first place...the "he will give" portion of that verse has been added by the translators. It is not said that way by Paul and it totally misleads anyone who hasn't been paying adequate attention to the argument in progress.

I am stunned to the point of disbelief.

You are making the same kind of argument that MM is making - claiming that you have knowledge of the original greek of these texts that has, mysteriously, been denied to the hundreds, if not thousands, of professional scholars who have given us the following translations, all of which include the phrase that you believe has been "added":

NET: He 1 will reward 2 each one according to his works: 3 eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality,

NIV: God "will give to each person according to what he has done". To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honour and immortality, he will give eternal life

NASB: who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;

NLT: will judge all people according to what they have done. He will give eternal life to those who persist in doing what is good, seeking after the glory and honor and immortality that God offers.

BBE: Who will give to every man his right reward: To those who go on with good works in the hope of glory and honour and salvation from death, he will give eternal life:

NRSV: For he will repay according to each one’s deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

NKJV: who "will render to each one according to his deeds": eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality

All these texts say the same basic thing, albeit in different words, namely that God will give eternal life according to what people have done.

And, like MM, you are telling us that you have special privileged knowledge to the effect that all these scholars are incorrect. Here is the greek of 2:6 that you apparently believe has been somehow doctored by the scholars:

Ov apodwsei ekastw kata ta erga autou

The key word is apodwsei – which is, of course, “will give†– the very thing you deny.
Now please, tell us exactly why we should believe that you have knowledge about what was in the original manuscripts that the scholars have missed.

 

[francisdesales]

You are making the same kind of argument that MM is making - claiming that you have knowledge of the original greek of these texts that has, mysteriously, been denied to the hundreds, if not thousands, of professional scholars who have given us the following translations, all of which include the phrase that you believe has been "added"

I worry about the mental capacity of people who make these claims. Such claims, of course, question the entire veracity of Sacred Scriptures. This is clearly a case of text twisting the Scriptures to fit a particular interpretation that one brings to the table.

Clearly, Romans 2 tells us that even PAGANS can become Jews, spiritually. This has very little to do with "all men are wicked". Because of that faulty interpretation and focus, (because they don't know the OT) they completely lose sight of the FACT that the POINT is to knock the national Jews off their pedestal - showing how Jews with the Law are as uncircumcised, while some pagans without a written Law are as the circumcised, BECAUSE of their actions!

Regards