The History of the “Two Laws” Theory in Romans 3:20

[Mercy Shown]

Romans 3:20 declares, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” Some interpreters have argued that Paul is speaking of two distinct laws: the ceremonial law, which could not justify, and the moral law, which continues to bind believers. This reading, however, is a later development in Christian history rather than Paul’s own intent.​

In the early church, figures like Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine typically read Paul’s reference to “the law” (nomos) as the Mosaic law in its entirety. They emphasized that the law reveals sin but does not bring righteousness, and they did not suggest that Paul was distinguishing between two different laws.

A more formal distinction emerged in medieval theology. Thomas Aquinas articulated a tripartite division of the Mosaic law: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. The moral law expressed timeless ethical principles, the ceremonial law governed Israel’s worship and sacrifices, and the judicial law regulated Israel’s civic life. Although Aquinas did not claim Paul himself made this division, his framework shaped subsequent readings of Romans.

During the Reformation, Martin Luther and John Calvin emphasized justification by faith apart from works of the law. To preserve the ongoing authority of the Ten Commandments while rejecting salvation by works, they leaned on the moral/ceremonial distinction. Calvin in particular stressed that the moral law still bound believers, while the ceremonial law had been fulfilled in Christ. This approach encouraged Protestants to interpret Romans 3:20 as if Paul were distinguishing between different kinds of law.

In the centuries that followed, Protestant confessions such as the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) codified this division, and it became common for preachers and commentators to read Romans 3:20 through that lens. The two-law theory thus served as a theological tool in debates over antinomianism, allowing Christians to affirm both salvation by grace and the necessity of obedience.

Modern scholarship, however, has largely set aside the two-law framework as an anachronism. Studies of Second Temple Judaism have shown that Jews of Paul’s day viewed Torah as a unified covenant, not as divisible into moral and ceremonial parts. Scholars such as E.P. Sanders and proponents of the “New Perspective on Paul” argue that Paul’s concern was not with distinguishing kinds of laws but with showing that Torah as a whole cannot justify. For Paul, the law in its entirety reveals sin, but righteousness comes only through faith in Christ.

In sum, the theory that Paul spoke of two laws in Romans 3:20 reflects later theological developments, especially medieval and Reformation attempts to reconcile Paul’s teaching with the continuing role of God’s commands. While historically influential, it does not appear to be what Paul himself meant.

 

[RandyPNW]

Romans 3:20 declares, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” Some interpreters have argued that Paul is speaking of two distinct laws: the ceremonial law, which could not justify, and the moral law, which continues to bind believers. This reading, however, is a later development in Christian history rather than Paul’s own intent.​

In the early church, figures like Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine typically read Paul’s reference to “the law” (nomos) as the Mosaic law in its entirety. They emphasized that the law reveals sin but does not bring righteousness, and they did not suggest that Paul was distinguishing between two different laws.

A more formal distinction emerged in medieval theology. Thomas Aquinas articulated a tripartite division of the Mosaic law: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. The moral law expressed timeless ethical principles, the ceremonial law governed Israel’s worship and sacrifices, and the judicial law regulated Israel’s civic life. Although Aquinas did not claim Paul himself made this division, his framework shaped subsequent readings of Romans.

During the Reformation, Martin Luther and John Calvin emphasized justification by faith apart from works of the law. To preserve the ongoing authority of the Ten Commandments while rejecting salvation by works, they leaned on the moral/ceremonial distinction. Calvin in particular stressed that the moral law still bound believers, while the ceremonial law had been fulfilled in Christ. This approach encouraged Protestants to interpret Romans 3:20 as if Paul were distinguishing between different kinds of law.

In the centuries that followed, Protestant confessions such as the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) codified this division, and it became common for preachers and commentators to read Romans 3:20 through that lens. The two-law theory thus served as a theological tool in debates over antinomianism, allowing Christians to affirm both salvation by grace and the necessity of obedience.

Modern scholarship, however, has largely set aside the two-law framework as an anachronism. Studies of Second Temple Judaism have shown that Jews of Paul’s day viewed Torah as a unified covenant, not as divisible into moral and ceremonial parts. Scholars such as E.P. Sanders and proponents of the “New Perspective on Paul” argue that Paul’s concern was not with distinguishing kinds of laws but with showing that Torah as a whole cannot justify. For Paul, the law in its entirety reveals sin, but righteousness comes only through faith in Christ.

In sum, the theory that Paul spoke of two laws in Romans 3:20 reflects later theological developments, especially medieval and Reformation attempts to reconcile Paul’s teaching with the continuing role of God’s commands. While historically influential, it does not appear to be what Paul himself meant.

I think that's great. Yes, the Law contained all the elements later said to contain moral, ceremonial, and judicial aspects. But they were all a single agreement. Failing to obey Sabbath Law was the same as failure to respect God's name and not use it "vainly." Our failure under ceremonial law was equal to our failure under moral law.

We not only fail to carry out God's instructions at times, but we also fail to abide by morals perfectly. We all are guilty of a kind of murder when we get angry with one another. We are all guilty of lust when we look too long in the wrong direction.

The covenant of Law condemned the whole human race, including Israel who was under that covenant, because all sinners, by their record, are prevented from access to the Tree of Life. It was a single covenant that required holiness of Israel, but at the same time it showed that nobody qualifies for Eternal Life apart from Christ and his mercy.

The Law accomplished an important matter in establishing what had been known since the garden, that the human record under the effects of sin disqualified all sinners from the Tree of Life. And so, moral, ceremonial, and judicial law all condemned Israel as sinners, disqualified from Salvation, if they failed to proceed to God's cure, which is obedience to Christ.

It is quite true that God's Law remains in effect as a moral standard for all mankind. We remain subject to God's word and to God's Law. But we will not find Eternal Life by obeying God's word under the Law of Moses, neither moral, ceremonial, nor judicial. Not only would such an "obedience" disqualify us from Life, but it would show contempt for Christ who fulfilled the very Mercy that the Law of Moses had been directing Israel towards.

We follow moral law, though not under the Law of Moses but now under obedience to Christ, who combines law and mercy. If we live by his Spirit we will not only show his righteousness, but in showing his righteousness we will also qualify for his mercy.

It is not important to show that obedience to God is similar under the covenant of Law and the covenant of Christ. The important thing is to direct our morality to the same God who presided over both covenants and who now asks nothing more than we obey Christ, His Son. In doing so, not only is our record of failure eliminated, but we have mercy through the one whose record qualified him to forgive us.

Under the Law our moral record condemned us. By obedience to Christ we rely on Christ's mercy and the grace of his gift of righteousness. We continue to live moral lives and to live by the law of God's word. But we know that our record would disqualify us if we did not turn to Christ for mercy.

 

[Mercy Shown]

I think that's great. Yes, the Law contained all the elements later said to contain moral, ceremonial, and judicial aspects. But they were all a single agreement. Failing to obey Sabbath Law was the same as failure to respect God's name and not use it "vainly." Our failure under ceremonial law was equal to our failure under moral law.

We not only fail to carry out God's instructions at times, but we also fail to abide by morals perfectly. We all are guilty of a kind of murder when we get angry with one another. We are all guilty of lust when we look too long in the wrong direction.

The covenant of Law condemned the whole human race, including Israel who was under that covenant, because all sinners, by their record, are prevented from access to the Tree of Life. It was a single covenant that required holiness of Israel, but at the same time it showed that nobody qualifies for Eternal Life apart from Christ and his mercy.

The Law accomplished an important matter in establishing what had been known since the garden, that the human record under the effects of sin disqualified all sinners from the Tree of Life. And so, moral, ceremonial, and judicial law all condemned Israel as sinners, disqualified from Salvation, if they failed to proceed to God's cure, which is obedience to Christ.

It is quite true that God's Law remains in effect as a moral standard for all mankind. We remain subject to God's word and to God's Law. But we will not find Eternal Life by obeying God's word under the Law of Moses, neither moral, ceremonial, nor judicial. Not only would such an "obedience" disqualify us from Life, but it would show contempt for Christ who fulfilled the very Mercy that the Law of Moses had been directing Israel towards.

We follow moral law, though not under the Law of Moses but now under obedience to Christ, who combines law and mercy. If we live by his Spirit we will not only show his righteousness, but in showing his righteousness we will also qualify for his mercy.

It is not important to show that obedience to God is similar under the covenant of Law and the covenant of Christ. The important thing is to direct our morality to the same God who presided over both covenants and who now asks nothing more than we obey Christ, His Son. In doing so, not only is our record of failure eliminated, but we have mercy through the one whose record qualified him to forgive us.

Under the Law our moral record condemned us. By obedience to Christ we rely on Christ's mercy and the grace of his gift of righteousness. We continue to live moral lives and to live by the law of God's word. But we know that our record would disqualify us if we did not turn to Christ for mercy.

Amen and further more God's law is a delight and blessing to those saved by grace. Blessed is the man who's sins God does not count against him. Just because one is saved by grace and is perfected forever by Christ's one sacrifice does not mean that they are going to lay the reigns on the neck of lust. Absolutely not. We seek to be holy even as He is holy because we love Him. We adore HIm. And desire to be like Him. Obeying God is not a drag or a sacrifice because we recieve blessing upon blessing by doing so.

We delight to do your will O' God...

 

[Hawkins]

That's rather two tiers of scopes of the term Law.

Romans 3:23
since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God;

Which Law? Mosaic? No, not all are given the Mosaic Law. Only the Jews were given the Mosaic Law. This reflects an upper level of Law which all mankind break without exception (Except for Jesus). God went through His chosen people Israel and went through Mosaic Law to demonstrate the upper set of heavenly Law which is applicable to both angels and humans. The book of Revelation hinted that 2/3 angels will pass the Judgment based on this Law, while 1/3 was led by Satan the dragon. It's because no man can ever pass the Judgment of this set of heavenly Law that Jesus remains the only way for any human to be saved.

Under this Law, all mankind is captive, no one is righteous, everyone needs Jesus in one way or another. Everyone needs a covenant, old or new. A new covenant, if available, is always superior than an old one. It's in fact that the old version may no longer save (as sins boost up, while humans are walking further away from God) that drives the need of a new one to be granted. Covenants are all granted because it more or less resembles a pardon without which humans have no hope to be saved.

 

[Hentenza]

Romans 3:20 declares, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” Some interpreters have argued that Paul is speaking of two distinct laws: the ceremonial law, which could not justify, and the moral law, which continues to bind believers. This reading, however, is a later development in Christian history rather than Paul’s own intent.​

In the early church, figures like Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine typically read Paul’s reference to “the law” (nomos) as the Mosaic law in its entirety. They emphasized that the law reveals sin but does not bring righteousness, and they did not suggest that Paul was distinguishing between two different laws.

A more formal distinction emerged in medieval theology. Thomas Aquinas articulated a tripartite division of the Mosaic law: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. The moral law expressed timeless ethical principles, the ceremonial law governed Israel’s worship and sacrifices, and the judicial law regulated Israel’s civic life. Although Aquinas did not claim Paul himself made this division, his framework shaped subsequent readings of Romans.

During the Reformation, Martin Luther and John Calvin emphasized justification by faith apart from works of the law. To preserve the ongoing authority of the Ten Commandments while rejecting salvation by works, they leaned on the moral/ceremonial distinction. Calvin in particular stressed that the moral law still bound believers, while the ceremonial law had been fulfilled in Christ. This approach encouraged Protestants to interpret Romans 3:20 as if Paul were distinguishing between different kinds of law.

In the centuries that followed, Protestant confessions such as the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) codified this division, and it became common for preachers and commentators to read Romans 3:20 through that lens. The two-law theory thus served as a theological tool in debates over antinomianism, allowing Christians to affirm both salvation by grace and the necessity of obedience.

Modern scholarship, however, has largely set aside the two-law framework as an anachronism. Studies of Second Temple Judaism have shown that Jews of Paul’s day viewed Torah as a unified covenant, not as divisible into moral and ceremonial parts. Scholars such as E.P. Sanders and proponents of the “New Perspective on Paul” argue that Paul’s concern was not with distinguishing kinds of laws but with showing that Torah as a whole cannot justify. For Paul, the law in its entirety reveals sin, but righteousness comes only through faith in Christ.

In sum, the theory that Paul spoke of two laws in Romans 3:20 reflects later theological developments, especially medieval and Reformation attempts to reconcile Paul’s teaching with the continuing role of God’s commands. While historically influential, it does not appear to be what Paul himself meant.

Even as a Protestant I have always viewed the law as a unified law including the moral, ceremonial, and judicial. I also view the law to contain the 10 commandments. Christ fulfilled the law in the same sense as fulfilling the terms of a contract. The old covenant is fulfilled because Christ sacrifice met and exceeded the terms of the old contract. The new contract (new covenant) has its own terms.

 

[fhansen]

Romans 3:20 declares, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” Some interpreters have argued that Paul is speaking of two distinct laws: the ceremonial law, which could not justify, and the moral law, which continues to bind believers. This reading, however, is a later development in Christian history rather than Paul’s own intent.​

In the early church, figures like Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine typically read Paul’s reference to “the law” (nomos) as the Mosaic law in its entirety. They emphasized that the law reveals sin but does not bring righteousness, and they did not suggest that Paul was distinguishing between two different laws.

A more formal distinction emerged in medieval theology. Thomas Aquinas articulated a tripartite division of the Mosaic law: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. The moral law expressed timeless ethical principles, the ceremonial law governed Israel’s worship and sacrifices, and the judicial law regulated Israel’s civic life. Although Aquinas did not claim Paul himself made this division, his framework shaped subsequent readings of Romans.

During the Reformation, Martin Luther and John Calvin emphasized justification by faith apart from works of the law. To preserve the ongoing authority of the Ten Commandments while rejecting salvation by works, they leaned on the moral/ceremonial distinction. Calvin in particular stressed that the moral law still bound believers, while the ceremonial law had been fulfilled in Christ. This approach encouraged Protestants to interpret Romans 3:20 as if Paul were distinguishing between different kinds of law.

In the centuries that followed, Protestant confessions such as the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) codified this division, and it became common for preachers and commentators to read Romans 3:20 through that lens. The two-law theory thus served as a theological tool in debates over antinomianism, allowing Christians to affirm both salvation by grace and the necessity of obedience.
I think Paul9/)
Modern scholarship, however, has largely set aside the two-law framework as an anachronism. Studies of Second Temple Judaism have shown that Jews of Paul’s day viewed Torah as a unified covenant, not as divisible into moral and ceremonial parts. Scholars such as E.P. Sanders and proponents of the “New Perspective on Paul” argue that Paul’s concern was not with distinguishing kinds of laws but with showing that Torah as a whole cannot justify. For Paul, the law in its entirety reveals sin, but righteousness comes only through faith in Christ.

In sum, the theory that Paul spoke of two laws in Romans 3:20 reflects later theological developments, especially medieval and Reformation attempts to reconcile Paul’s teaching with the continuing role of God’s commands. While historically influential, it does not appear to be what Paul himself meant.

I think Paul objected on one main point, that any “work of the law” could justify. IOW, neither removing a little piece of flesh from the body, or observing the moral law by the letter, in a mere external manner, could actually make one holy. Only circumcism of the heart, only internal change wrought by union with God, can cause true, authentic holiness.

 

[Clare73]

I think that's great. Yes, the Law contained all the elements later said to contain moral, ceremonial, and judicial aspects. But they were all a single agreement. Failing to obey Sabbath Law was the same as failure to respect God's name and not use it "vainly." Our failure under ceremonial law was equal to our failure under moral law.

Christians were never under the obsolete Old Covenant (Heb 8:13) ceremonial laws.

 

[eleos1954]

I think that's great. Yes, the Law contained all the elements later said to contain moral, ceremonial, and judicial aspects. But they were all a single agreement. Failing to obey Sabbath Law was the same as failure to respect God's name and not use it "vainly." Our failure under ceremonial law was equal to our failure under moral law.

We not only fail to carry out God's instructions at times, but we also fail to abide by morals perfectly. We all are guilty of a kind of murder when we get angry with one another. We are all guilty of lust when we look too long in the wrong direction.

The covenant of Law condemned the whole human race, including Israel who was under that covenant, because all sinners, by their record, are prevented from access to the Tree of Life. It was a single covenant that required holiness of Israel, but at the same time it showed that nobody qualifies for Eternal Life apart from Christ and his mercy.

The Law accomplished an important matter in establishing what had been known since the garden, that the human record under the effects of sin disqualified all sinners from the Tree of Life. And so, moral, ceremonial, and judicial law all condemned Israel as sinners, disqualified from Salvation, if they failed to proceed to God's cure, which is obedience to Christ.

It is quite true that God's Law remains in effect as a moral standard for all mankind. We remain subject to God's word and to God's Law. But we will not find Eternal Life by obeying God's word under the Law of Moses, neither moral, ceremonial, nor judicial. Not only would such an "obedience" disqualify us from Life, but it would show contempt for Christ who fulfilled the very Mercy that the Law of Moses had been directing Israel towards.

We follow moral law, though not under the Law of Moses but now under obedience to Christ, who combines law and mercy. If we live by his Spirit we will not only show his righteousness, but in showing his righteousness we will also qualify for his mercy.

It is not important to show that obedience to God is similar under the covenant of Law and the covenant of Christ. The important thing is to direct our morality to the same God who presided over both covenants and who now asks nothing more than we obey Christ, His Son. In doing so, not only is our record of failure eliminated, but we have mercy through the one whose record qualified him to forgive us.

Under the Law our moral record condemned us. By obedience to Christ we rely on Christ's mercy and the grace of his gift of righteousness. We continue to live moral lives and to live by the law of God's word. But we know that our record would disqualify us if we did not turn to Christ for mercy.

• The Apostle Paul stated that the entire law is fulfilled in the command, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Gal. 5:14).
  
  
• He also noted that the commandments are summed up in this single command, explaining that "love does no harm to a neighbor" (Rom. 13:9-10).
  
  
• Paul's understanding of the law was not about a system of works, but rather a principle of love and grace that is fulfilled through the Holy Spirit.
  

 

[Soyeong]

Romans 3:20 declares, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” Some interpreters have argued that Paul is speaking of two distinct laws: the ceremonial law, which could not justify, and the moral law, which continues to bind believers. This reading, however, is a later development in Christian history rather than Paul’s own intent.​

While I agree that Romans 3:20 refers to two different categories of law, it is incorrect that those categories are the moral, civil, and ceremonial law. The people who speak about those categories of law commonly assume that the people that they are speaking to have in mind the same set of laws, but that is unsafe to make that assumption because if all of them were to make lists of which laws they think best fit into those categories, then they would end up with a wide variety of lists. Moreover, none of those people should interpret the Bible with the assumption that its authors had in mind a lists of laws that they just created, especially when there is no way to even establish that they ever used that categories.

Existence of the category of moral law would mean that we can be acting morally while disobeying the laws that aren't in that category, however, there are no examples in the Bible where disobedient to any of God's laws is stated as being moral and there is no justification for thinking that it can ever be moral to disobey God. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to embody God's likeness through being a doer of His character traits, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws. Legislators give laws in accordance with their understanding of what ought to be done, so to claim that some of God's laws are not moral laws is to claim that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when He gave those laws and is therefore to claim to have greater moral knowledge than God. Such as person is disagreeing with God about what is right and wrong and is taking the position that they should lean on their own understanding of right and wrong by doing only what is right in their own eyes rather than trust in God with all of their heart to correctly divide between right and wrong through His law and to make our way straight (Proverbs 3:1-7).

In the early church, figures like Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine typically read Paul’s reference to “the law” (nomos) as the Mosaic law in its entirety. They emphasized that the law reveals sin but does not bring righteousness, and they did not suggest that Paul was distinguishing between two different laws.

Character traits are not earned as the result of our works but rather they are embodied through our works, so the Law of Moses was never given as a way to earn our righteousness even through perfect obedience, but rather it was given as instructions for how to embody God's righteousness. The one and only way to attain a character trait is through faith apart from works, but what it means to have a character trait is to be a doer of works that embody that trait. For example, the only way for someone to become courageous is through faith apart from being required to have first done enough courageous works in order to earn it as the result, but it would be contradictory for someone to become courageous apart from becoming a doer of courageous works.

This is why Paul said in Romans 3:28-31 that the faith by which we are declared righteous apart from works does not abolish our need to be a doer of righteous works in obedience to the Law of Moses, but rather our faith upholds it. Everyone who has faith will be declared righteous and everyone who has faith is a doer of the Law of Moses, which is how Paul can deny in Romans 4:1-5 that we can earn our righteousness as the result of our works while also affirming in Romans 2:13 that only the doers of the Law of Moses will be declared righteous.

In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, in Galatians 3:10-12, he contrasted the Book of the Law with "works of the law", and in Romans 3:31 and Galatians 3:10-12, he said that our faith upholds the Law of Moses in contrast with saying that "works of the law" are not of faith, so that phrase does not refer to the Law of Moses. Rather, Paul used that phrase to refer to the position that Gentiles are required to become circumcised (convert to being Jews) in order to become saved, which was never the reason for why God commanded circumcision. In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him teaching him to obey the Law of Moses, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith, not earned as the result of circumcision.

 

[RandyPNW]

• The Apostle Paul stated that the entire law is fulfilled in the command, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Gal. 5:14).
  
  
• He also noted that the commandments are summed up in this single command, explaining that "love does no harm to a neighbor" (Rom. 13:9-10).
  
  
• Paul's understanding of the law was not about a system of works, but rather a principle of love and grace that is fulfilled through the Holy Spirit.

I can't agree with that. A summary of the Law does not remove the contents of that Law. The Law contained all 613 or so requirements of that Covenant, including the 10 Commandments, the Sabbath Law, and even the great commandments, loving God and our neighbor. It was all one package, a single covenant.

Breaking one of the 10 Commandments was just breaking one of the many of the 613 requirements. It was no different from failing to obey God in Temple, Priestly, and Sacrificial matters. The point is, we are all sinners, but need to find mercy by obeying God the best we can.

Faith is demonstrated in the performance of a level of obedience by which we show trust that He will forgive us. Obeying Temple Law, Priestly Law, and the Law of Sacrifice were all intended to show the obedience of Faith by which Israel trusted in God to have mercy on them for their imperfections.

Paul was only stating the same thing that the Law had taught, that not even the sum total of all Israel's obedience under the Law was sufficient to keep them completely free from the stain of sin. Their record was proven, under the Law, to always be guilty of sin and thus disqualified from the Tree of Life and Eternal Life.

Paul was only showing us that Salvation had to come *apart from the Law,* even though righteousness would continue to come in that alternative course of action. Righteousness is perpetuated by Christ even after the Cross, and is no longer available by obedience to the Law since at the cross Christ condemned Israel in perpetuity from any means under that system of obtaining Eternal Life.

And the purpose of the Law at that point had become null and void. Not only did Israel prove herself to be utterly unworthy of that system of righteousness, but the purpose of that system had come, with Christ, to its final evolution in the system Christ brought through himself.

So, the "works" Paul spoke of was works *under the Law,* which is the equivalent of *works apart from Christ's atonement.* But now in Christ there is a different kind of works by which we repent in Christ's name and choose to live not by our own independent choices, but in partnership with Christ so that we are always informed and inspired by his righteousness.

I hope you understand? These are not self-justifying "works," but only works wrought in Christ when we repent of going our own way. We are responding in faith to Christ's word of Salvation, and as such are saved *by faith,* from first to last.

 

[fhansen]

Faith is demonstrated in the performance of a level of obedience by which we show trust that He will forgive us.

And yet it's more than that. Faith divorced from righteousness, from the obligation to walk justly, from love to put it best but in any case from obedience of God's will, with or without reference to the law, would be worthless. It's not only forgiveness of sin that is crucial but also the freeing from and overcoming of sin that is part of the gift justifcation.

 

[tdidymas]

Romans 3:20 declares, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” Some interpreters have argued that Paul is speaking of two distinct laws: the ceremonial law, which could not justify, and the moral law, which continues to bind believers. This reading, however, is a later development in Christian history rather than Paul’s own intent.​

In the early church, figures like Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine typically read Paul’s reference to “the law” (nomos) as the Mosaic law in its entirety. They emphasized that the law reveals sin but does not bring righteousness, and they did not suggest that Paul was distinguishing between two different laws.

A more formal distinction emerged in medieval theology. Thomas Aquinas articulated a tripartite division of the Mosaic law: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. The moral law expressed timeless ethical principles, the ceremonial law governed Israel’s worship and sacrifices, and the judicial law regulated Israel’s civic life. Although Aquinas did not claim Paul himself made this division, his framework shaped subsequent readings of Romans.

During the Reformation, Martin Luther and John Calvin emphasized justification by faith apart from works of the law. To preserve the ongoing authority of the Ten Commandments while rejecting salvation by works, they leaned on the moral/ceremonial distinction. Calvin in particular stressed that the moral law still bound believers, while the ceremonial law had been fulfilled in Christ. This approach encouraged Protestants to interpret Romans 3:20 as if Paul were distinguishing between different kinds of law.

In the centuries that followed, Protestant confessions such as the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) codified this division, and it became common for preachers and commentators to read Romans 3:20 through that lens. The two-law theory thus served as a theological tool in debates over antinomianism, allowing Christians to affirm both salvation by grace and the necessity of obedience.

Modern scholarship, however, has largely set aside the two-law framework as an anachronism. Studies of Second Temple Judaism have shown that Jews of Paul’s day viewed Torah as a unified covenant, not as divisible into moral and ceremonial parts. Scholars such as E.P. Sanders and proponents of the “New Perspective on Paul” argue that Paul’s concern was not with distinguishing kinds of laws but with showing that Torah as a whole cannot justify. For Paul, the law in its entirety reveals sin, but righteousness comes only through faith in Christ.

In sum, the theory that Paul spoke of two laws in Romans 3:20 reflects later theological developments, especially medieval and Reformation attempts to reconcile Paul’s teaching with the continuing role of God’s commands. While historically influential, it does not appear to be what Paul himself meant.

I agree with the later assessment. For many years I was confused by the separation of kinds of law theory. But I began to notice by the reading of scripture that the Jews, Jesus, and the apostles all considered the law as a unified whole. Examples: James wrote "if you break one, you break the whole law," and Jesus referred to "the law" as a whole, such as: "I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." Yet, He also said to someone, "You know the law..." in which he listed some of the 10 commandments.

So in regard to Rom. 5:20 and other places where Paul refers to the law, although he is talking about the whole, the essence of it all is the 10 commandments, which is moral in character. He refers to coveting in ch. 7, so his whole argument from ch. 1 through ch. 7 is teaching the principle that morality (aka righteousness) does not cause justification (and salvation), but only faith in Jesus, which results in righteousness, because those who are justified receive the Spirit who powerfully changes their heart, making them a new spiritual creation. So when he says, "you are not under law, but under grace," it means our relationship with God is a grace relationship, not one where rules can make or break our relationship.

 

[RandyPNW]

And yet it's more than that. Faith divorced from righteousness, from the obligation to walk justly, from love to put it best but in any case from obedience of God's will, with or without reference to the law, would be worthless. It's not only forgiveness of sin that is crucial but also the freeing from and overcoming of sin that is part of the gift justifcation.

Well, I had tried to explain all that, but it's not easy. If you sound like good works saves you, you're a legalist. If you sound like faith is devoid of righteousness you're antinomian.

So, I've stated that there is a work, of a sort, that indirectly Saves you. It is not the work itself that Saves you, but a work that is a prerequisite to getting Saved.

That work is our necessary, free response to Christ's word to our heart, requiring that we concede going our own way in favor of going his way. It's called repentance. As the Scriptures say, "Repent and be saved."

When we choose to repent through Christ, we are choosing to go his way by his power. We assume his righteousness and choose to live by it regularly, if indeed we are faithful to our choice to receive him.

 

[Hentenza]

And yet it's more than that. Faith divorced from righteousness, from the obligation to walk justly, from love to put it best but in any case from obedience of God's will, with or without reference to the law, would be worthless. It's not only forgiveness of sin that is crucial but also the freeing from and overcoming of sin that is part of the gift justifcation.

So faith plus works required for salvation. Not biblical.

 

[Mercy Shown]

I agree with the later assessment. For many years I was confused by the separation of kinds of law theory. But I began to notice by the reading of scripture that the Jews, Jesus, and the apostles all considered the law as a unified whole. Examples: James wrote "if you break one, you break the whole law," and Jesus referred to "the law" as a whole, such as: "I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." Yet, He also said to someone, "You know the law..." in which he listed some of the 10 commandments.

So in regard to Rom. 5:20 and other places where Paul refers to the law, although he is talking about the whole, the essence of it all is the 10 commandments, which is moral in character. He refers to coveting in ch. 7, so his whole argument from ch. 1 through ch. 7 is teaching the principle that morality (aka righteousness) does not cause justification (and salvation), but only faith in Jesus, which results in righteousness, because those who are justified receive the Spirit who powerfully changes their heart, making them a new spiritual creation. So when he says, "you are not under law, but under grace," it means our relationship with God is a grace relationship, not one where rules can make or break our relationship.

Absolutely

 

[Mercy Shown]

I think Paul objected on one main point, that any “work of the law” could justify. IOW, neither removing a little piece of flesh from the body, or observing the moral law by the letter, in a mere external manner, could actually make one holy. Only circumcism of the heart, only internal change wrought by union with God, can cause true, authentic holiness.

Yes, thank God.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Even as a Protestant I have always viewed the law as a unified law including the moral, ceremonial, and judicial. I also view the law to contain the 10 commandments. Christ fulfilled the law in the same sense as fulfilling the terms of a contract. The old covenant is fulfilled because Christ sacrifice met and exceeded the terms of the old contract. The new contract (new covenant) has its own terms.

Excellent point.

 

[Studyman]

Romans 3:20 declares, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” Some interpreters have argued that Paul is speaking of two distinct laws: the ceremonial law, which could not justify, and the moral law, which continues to bind believers. This reading, however, is a later development in Christian history rather than Paul’s own intent.​

What this world's religions do not take into account, is who Paul is speaking about in Romans 1-3. Specifically those Pharisees who had been given the Oracles of God, but many didn't believe them. These men slandered Paul, "who damnation is just" and Asked the question, "Are we better than they"? To which he replied, "by no means" as he has already taught before, men who engage in this behavior are "Still under Sin". He tells us that he and the Body of Christ are no better, that if they engaged in the same behavior as the Jews who Jesus said, " Full well reject the Commandments of God that they might promote their own traditions", they would be subject to the same judgment from God. Paul quotes David to make his point in Psalms 5 and 14 and also already declared in Rom. 2 the righteous Judgment of God, "Who will render to every man according to his deeds:"

Paul understood that he was no better than anyone else, and would also be judged according to his deeds. You can see Paul's understanding of the Righteous Judgments of God, concerning their slanderous behavior in Rom. 2. "for we have "before proved" both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;" Please see below, where he "before proved".

7 To them who by patient continuance "in well doing" seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 "But unto them" that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, (men who full well rejected God's Commandments) indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon "every soul of man" that "doeth" evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, "to every man" that "worketh" good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

Paul understood he was held unto the same standards as everyone else, "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: For God is no respecter of persons.

Paul goes on to quote David's judgments against those men who were persecuting God's Church.

Ps. 5: 5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. 6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

8 Lead me, O LORD, in thy righteousness because of mine enemies; make thy way straight before my face.

9 For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue.

This is really important to understand, as "many" who come in Christ's Name, preach that Paul is talking about the Body of Christ being no different than the Pharisees who persecutes the Body of Christ. That isn't what Paul is saying at all, as can be easily seen by reading David's Words that Paul used to make his point.

Keep in mind also Isaiah 1, which defines the Pharisees perfectly. Here is a religion who professed to know God, but rejected His Commandments, Judgments and Statutes to the point of God calling them "Sodom". Yet every week they would show up with the Blood of Animals, as prescribed by the Priesthood Law "After the order of Aaron", to justify their lawless religion. As you can see when you read Isaiah, these "Sacrificial Works of the Law", didn't not Justify their willful rejection of God's Judgments and Commandments. Paul understood this, that the mainstream preachers of his time, still promoted the same Priesthood "Works" to justify them, even though these sacrificial "works of the law", were only a temporary "ADDED" Law, given after the Golden calf, that was only to be in place "till the Seed, (Lamb of God) should come". (Gal. 3)

The Prophesied New Priest had already come, these sacrificial "works" were prophesied to end "after those days". (Jer. 31) But the Jews were still promoting a corrupted version of them, still selling calves, turtle doves and goats for justification of sins.

Paul speaks to this New Priest, and the "Better Ministry";

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith "in his blood", (Not the blood of animals as per the Old Priesthood Law) to declare his righteousness "for the remission of sins that are past", through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Here is the two Laws part.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? "of works"?

(Lev. 4: 27 And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty;

28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. 29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

This was the "Law of Works" for justification "Till the Seed should come".

Nay: but by the "law of faith".

22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. As it is written: "The Just shall Live by Faith".

The lesson here from Paul and Isaiah is for me at this time in history, is the same as then. That a man can't live in rejection of God's Commandments, Judgments and Statutes, then show up each week with the Blood of an unblemished Sacrifice, as required by Law, for justification of willful rejection of God's Laws.

For by the "Works of the Law" shall no Flesh be justified.

 

[Hentenza]

The lesson here from Paul and Isaiah is for me at this time in history, is the same as then. That a man can't live in rejection of God's Commandments, Judgments and Statutes, then show up each week with the Blood of an unblemished Sacrifice, as required by Law, for justification of willful rejection of God's Laws.

For by the "Works of the Law" shall no Flesh be justified.

Rejection of God’s commandments is not the issue, being put back under the bondage of the law is beyond problematic. So you are right to say that by the works of the law no one is justified. However, this is really not what you are teaching is it?

 

[Studyman]

Rejection of God’s commandments is not the issue,

It was with God and all the Prophets. It was with the Jesus "of the Bible". (Unless "you repent", you shall all likewise perish) Repent from what? Rejecting God's Laws, or obeying them? The Pharisees were rejected "BECAUSE" they rejected God's Commandments, at least this is what the Jesus "of the Bible" teaches. Paul teaches, Rom. 2: 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but "the doers" of the law "shall be justified".

What Law is Paul speaking to here? The Priesthood sacrificial "works of the Law" "ADDED" after the Golden calf, "Till the Seed should come"? Or the Laws, Judgments and Statutes of God that teach men how to Love and Honor God, and how to love and treat others according to His definition of Righteousness.

Why not actually read my post, and ask me questions about it's content, and lets have an honest discussion.

being put back under the bondage of the law is beyond problematic.

What do you mean here "put back under the bondage of the law"? Do you mean, "Now go and sin no more" is Jesus "putting a man back under the bondage of the law"?

Are you saying you were obeying God's Laws and Judgments in times past, and then Jesus convinced you to reject God's Laws and Judgments, and now you think I am trying to ""put you back under the bondage of the law"?

Please define for me what you mean by this term?

So you are right to say that by the works of the law no one is justified. However, this is really not what you are teaching is it?

I will ask you another question, I hope you will answer. What LAW was in place to provide for atonement/justification of the sinner, under the old Levitical Priesthood?