Chapter Two James Epistle

[BrotherJJ]

The AMP translators tells you exactly what ""completed"" means > ""reaching its maturity"" (2:22), not becoming saving faith & when James says ""not by faith alone,"" the AMP translators explain that this means ITS THRU ACTS OF OBEDIENCE AN ALREADY BORN-AGAIN BELIEVER REVEALS THEIR FAITH (2:24). If you claim James teaches salvation by works, you're not refuting me. You're rejecting the AMP Bible's own clarifications that: works express, reveal & mature faith, but never save anyone.

Anyone claiming James teaches salvation by works has to reject the AMP's own wording, because James defines works as ""evidence"" (2:14), says they simply ""show"" faith (2:18) & calls them ""works of obedience which expressed his faith"" (2:21).

James is writing to already SAVED people (2:1). He's is not explaining how to get saved; he is correcting how saved believers behave.

Every verse below is a direct C&P from the Amplified Bible (AMP) Bible. Their translators wrote/placed the brackets of emphasis.

James 1:
To the twelve [Hebrew] tribes [scattered abroad among the Gentiles] in the dispersion: Greetings (rejoice)!

2 Consider it nothing but joy, MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS,

James 2:
1 MY FELLOW BELIEVERS, do not practice your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of partiality [toward people—show no favoritism, no prejudice, no snobbery].

2 For if a man comes into your meeting place wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in dirty clothes also comes in,

3 and you pay special attention to the one who wears the fine clothes, and say to him, “You sit here in this good seat,” and you tell the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down [on the floor] by my footstool,”

4 have you not discriminated among yourselves, and become judges with wrong motives?

5 Listen, MY BELOVED BROTHERD AND SISTERS: has not God chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and [as believers to be] heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

6 But you [in contrast] have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress and exploit you, and personally drag you into the courts of law?

7 Do they not blaspheme the precious name [of Christ] by which you are called?

8 If, however, you are [really] fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF [that is, if you have an unselfish concern for others and do things for their benefit]” you are doing well.

9 But if you show partiality [prejudice, favoritism], you are committing sin and are convicted by the Law as offenders.

10 For whoever keeps the whole Law but stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of [breaking] all of it.

11 For He who said, “DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,” also said, “DO NOT MURDER.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you murder, you have become guilty of transgressing the [entire] Law.

12 Speak and act [consistently] as people who are going to be judged by the law of liberty [that moral law that frees obedient Christians from the bondage of sin].

13 For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; but [to the one who has shown mercy] mercy triumphs [victoriously] over judgment.

Faith and Works
14 What is the benefit, MY FELLOW BELIEVERS, if someone claims to have faith but has no [good] works [as evidence]? Can that [kind of] faith save him? [No, a mere claim of faith is not sufficient—genuine faith produces good works.]

15 If a brother or sister is without [adequate] clothing and lacks [enough] food for each day,

16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace [with my blessing], [keep] warm and feed yourselves,” but he does not give them the necessities for the body, what good does that do?

17 So too, faith, if it does not have works [to back it up], is by itself dead [inoperative and ineffective].

18 But someone may say, “You [claim to] have faith and I have [good] works; show me your [alleged] faith without the works [if you can], and I will show you my faith by my works [that is, by what I do].”

19 You believe that God is one; you do well [to believe that]. The demons also believe [that], and shudder and bristle [in awe-filled terror—they have seen His wrath]!

20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish [spiritually shallow] person, that faith without [good] works is useless?

21 Was our father Abraham not [shown to be] justified by works [of obedience which expressed his faith] when he offered Isaac his son on the altar [as a sacrifice to God]?

22 You see that [his] faith was working together with his works, and as a result of the works, his faith was completed [reaching its maturity when he expressed his faith through obedience].

23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND THIS [faith] WAS CREDITED TO HIM [by God] AS RIGHTEOUSNESS and AS CONFORMITY TO HIS WILL,” and he was called the friend of God.

24 You see that a man (believer) is justified by works and not by faith alone [that is, by acts of obedience a born-again believer reveals his faith].

25 In the same way, was Rahab the prostitute not justified by works too, when she received the [Hebrew] spies as guests and protected them, and sent them away [to escape] by a different route?

26 For just as the [human] body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works [of obedience] is also dead.

My Opinion - Based on the Text & Timeline

Scripture presents James as both a pillar (Gal 2:9) & the recognized leader of the Jewish‑only Jesus‑believing assembly in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17 & Acts 21:18).

His epistle reflects that setting: it is addressed to the 12 tribes, assumes Temple worship, Mosaic‑Law observance & contains no Body‑of‑Christ doctrine, no Jew‑Gentile equality & no teaching on salvation apart from the Law.

This fits the timeline, because James wrote his epistle before the Acts 15 Council. In Acts 15:13–19, James receives fresh Holy‑Spirit‑guided understanding through Peter's testimony, Paul & Barnabas' ministry & the prophetic witness of Amos.

That revelation leads him to declare that Gentiles are not to be troubled with circumcision or Mosaic Law. This moment marks James' first recorded acceptance of Gentile inclusion apart from the Law, explaining why his earlier ministry & epistle reflect an exclusively Jewish, Mosaic‑Law framework.

 

[timothyu]

Sounds like a plan

 

[Soyeong]

The AMP translators tells you exactly what ""completed"" means > ""reaching its maturity"" (2:22), not becoming saving faith & when James says ""not by faith alone,"" the AMP translators explain that this means ITS THRU ACTS OF OBEDIENCE AN ALREADY BORN-AGAIN BELIEVER REVEALS THEIR FAITH (2:24). If you claim James teaches salvation by works, you're not refuting me. You're rejecting the AMP Bible's own clarifications that: works express, reveal & mature faith, but never save anyone.

Anyone claiming James teaches salvation by works has to reject the AMP's own wording, because James defines works as ""evidence"" (2:14), says they simply ""show"" faith (2:18) & calls them ""works of obedience which expressed his faith"" (2:21).

James is writing to already SAVED people (2:1). He's is not explaining how to get saved; he is correcting how saved believers behave.

Every verse below is a direct C&P from the Amplified Bible (AMP) Bible. Their translators wrote/placed the brackets of emphasis.

James 1:
To the twelve [Hebrew] tribes [scattered abroad among the Gentiles] in the dispersion: Greetings (rejoice)!

2 Consider it nothing but joy, MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS,

James 2:
1 MY FELLOW BELIEVERS, do not practice your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of partiality [toward people—show no favoritism, no prejudice, no snobbery].

2 For if a man comes into your meeting place wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in dirty clothes also comes in,

3 and you pay special attention to the one who wears the fine clothes, and say to him, “You sit here in this good seat,” and you tell the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down [on the floor] by my footstool,”

4 have you not discriminated among yourselves, and become judges with wrong motives?

5 Listen, MY BELOVED BROTHERD AND SISTERS: has not God chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and [as believers to be] heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

6 But you [in contrast] have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress and exploit you, and personally drag you into the courts of law?

7 Do they not blaspheme the precious name [of Christ] by which you are called?

8 If, however, you are [really] fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF [that is, if you have an unselfish concern for others and do things for their benefit]” you are doing well.

9 But if you show partiality [prejudice, favoritism], you are committing sin and are convicted by the Law as offenders.

10 For whoever keeps the whole Law but stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of [breaking] all of it.

11 For He who said, “DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,” also said, “DO NOT MURDER.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you murder, you have become guilty of transgressing the [entire] Law.

12 Speak and act [consistently] as people who are going to be judged by the law of liberty [that moral law that frees obedient Christians from the bondage of sin].

13 For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; but [to the one who has shown mercy] mercy triumphs [victoriously] over judgment.

Faith and Works
14 What is the benefit, MY FELLOW BELIEVERS, if someone claims to have faith but has no [good] works [as evidence]? Can that [kind of] faith save him? [No, a mere claim of faith is not sufficient—genuine faith produces good works.]

15 If a brother or sister is without [adequate] clothing and lacks [enough] food for each day,

16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace [with my blessing], [keep] warm and feed yourselves,” but he does not give them the necessities for the body, what good does that do?

17 So too, faith, if it does not have works [to back it up], is by itself dead [inoperative and ineffective].

18 But someone may say, “You [claim to] have faith and I have [good] works; show me your [alleged] faith without the works [if you can], and I will show you my faith by my works [that is, by what I do].”

19 You believe that God is one; you do well [to believe that]. The demons also believe [that], and shudder and bristle [in awe-filled terror—they have seen His wrath]!

20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish [spiritually shallow] person, that faith without [good] works is useless?

21 Was our father Abraham not [shown to be] justified by works [of obedience which expressed his faith] when he offered Isaac his son on the altar [as a sacrifice to God]?

22 You see that [his] faith was working together with his works, and as a result of the works, his faith was completed [reaching its maturity when he expressed his faith through obedience].

23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND THIS [faith] WAS CREDITED TO HIM [by God] AS RIGHTEOUSNESS and AS CONFORMITY TO HIS WILL,” and he was called the friend of God.

24 You see that a man (believer) is justified by works and not by faith alone [that is, by acts of obedience a born-again believer reveals his faith].

25 In the same way, was Rahab the prostitute not justified by works too, when she received the [Hebrew] spies as guests and protected them, and sent them away [to escape] by a different route?

26 For just as the [human] body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works [of obedience] is also dead.

James 2:24 saying that Abraham was declared righteous by his works clearly show that there is a connection between our righteousness and our works. In Romans 2:13 and 4:1-5, Paul said both that only the doers of the law will be declared righteous and that we can't earn our righteousness as the result of our works, so again there is clearly a connection between our righteousness and our works, but the connection is not that we are required to have first obeyed the law in order to become righteous as the result. So James was not saying that Abraham earned his righteousness as the result of his works, but rather he was saying that Abraham embodied his faith through his works and it is by that faith alone that he was declared righteous. While it is true that Abraham was declared righteous because he believed God (Genesis 15:6), it is also true that he was a doer of righteous works in obedience to the Law of God because he believed God (Genesis 18:19, 26:4-5), so the faith by which he was declared righteous was also embodied through his works. The Law of God was never given as a way to become righteous, but rather it was given to describe the life of someone who is righteous as it describes the life of Christ, so it is what we get to become a doer of by being given the gift of righteousness through faith.

My Opinion - Based on the Text & Timeline

Scripture presents James as both a pillar (Gal 2:9) & the recognized leader of the Jewish‑only Jesus‑believing assembly in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17 & Acts 21:18).

His epistle reflects that setting: it is addressed to the 12 tribes, assumes Temple worship, Mosaic‑Law observance & contains no Body‑of‑Christ doctrine, no Jew‑Gentile equality & no teaching on salvation apart from the Law.

This fits the timeline, because James wrote his epistle before the Acts 15 Council. In Acts 15:13–19, James receives fresh Holy‑Spirit‑guided understanding through Peter's testimony, Paul & Barnabas' ministry & the prophetic witness of Amos.

That revelation leads him to declare that Gentiles are not to be troubled with circumcision or Mosaic Law. This moment marks James' first recorded acceptance of Gentile inclusion apart from the Law, explaining why his earlier ministry & epistle reflect an exclusively Jewish, Mosaic‑Law framework.

Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, so it doesn’t work to interpret Acts 15 as ruling that Gentiles shouldn’t be followers of Christ. Christ and the Apostles quoted from the OT hundreds of times in order to support what they were saying, so it doesn’t work to interpret them as speaking against following what they considered to be an authoritative source. For example, Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, which included saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, he he affirmed God as being an authoritative source and it doesn’t work to interpret Acts 15 in a way that pits them against God.

 

[BrotherJJ]

James 2:24 saying that Abraham was declared righteous by his works clearly show that there is a connection between our righteousness and our works. In Romans 2:13 and 4:1-5, Paul said both that only the doers of the law will be declared righteous and that we can't earn our righteousness as the result of our works, so again there is clearly a connection between our righteousness and our works, but the connection is not that we are required to have first obeyed the law in order to become righteous as the result. So James was not saying that Abraham earned his righteousness as the result of his works, but rather he was saying that Abraham embodied his faith through his works and it is by that faith alone that he was declared righteous. While it is true that Abraham was declared righteous because he believed God (Genesis 15:6), it is also true that he was a doer of righteous works in obedience to the Law of God because he believed God (Genesis 18:19, 26:4-5), so the faith by which he was declared righteous was also embodied through his works. The Law of God was never given as a way to become righteous, but rather it was given to describe the life of someone who is righteous as it describes the life of Christ, so it is what we get to become a doer of by being given the gift of righteousness through faith.

Everything you just wrote actually agrees with the AMP translators & with the point I've been making from the start: Abraham's works did not produce righteousness, they expressed the righteousness he already had by faith. Exactly what the AMP clarifies in every bracketed note. In James 2, he calls works EVIDENCE (2:14), says they SHOW faith (2:18), describes Abraham's obedience as ""works of obedience which expressed his faith"" (2:21) & explains that his faith was ""completed [reaching its maturity]"" when he acted (2:22). Even the famous line ""not by faith alone"" is clarified by the AMP as meaning that ""acts of obedience performed by an ALREADY SAVED [Ja:2:1] reveals his faith"" (2:24). You said Abraham ""embodied his faith through his works,"" which is precisely the AMP's point: works reveal, express & mature faith, they never create it, earn righteousness, or contribute to salvation.

James's audience 12 Tribes (1:1) my brothers & sisters” (1:2), MY FELLOW BELIEVERS! (2:1), my beloved brothers & sisters (2:5). He is correcting the behavior of people ALREADY SAVED, not explaining how to get saved. The AMP translators make that explicit by consistently framing works as the outward evidence of inward faith, not the means of justification. So if someone insists James teaches salvation by works, they are not refuting me, they are rejecting the AMP's own clarifications.

Your appeal to Romans 2:13 doesn't change that, because Paul is not giving a path of salvation through law‑keeping. He is setting up a hypothetical standard that condemns everyone. The doers of the Law will be justified (Rom 2:13) is not a salvation formula, it is the legal requirement of perfect obedience, which Paul immediately proves no one meets. Romans 2:13 is part of Paul's prosecution of humanity, not his gospel. By the time he reaches Romans 3:9–20, he concludes that ""there is none righteous,"" ""there is none who does good,"" & ""by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified"" (Rom 3:20). If Romans 2:13 were an actual path to justification. Sorry, Romans 2:13 is not a works based path to salvation.

Paul's own explanation of Abraham proves this. In Romans 4:1–5, he explicitly denies that Abraham was justified by works, insisting that: to the one who does not work but believes"" > his faith is credited as righteousness. That is Genesis 15:6, the same verse James quotes. Paul roots justification in faith alone, apart from works & James shows that the faith which justifies is the kind of faith that later expresses itself through obedience. There is no contradiction unless someone collapses 2 different categories: Paul is talking about how a sinner is justified before God. James is talking about how a believer's faith is demonstrated before people.

So the connection between righteousness & works is the one the AMP translators repeatedly emphasize: works reveal & mature faith, but they never produce righteousness or salvation. Your own explanation agrees with that & it aligns perfectly with both Paul and James when their categories are kept distinct.

 

[Soyeong]

Everything you just wrote actually agrees with the AMP translators & with the point I've been making from the start: Abraham's works did not produce righteousness, they expressed the righteousness he already had by faith. Exactly what the AMP clarifies in every bracketed note. In James 2, he calls works EVIDENCE (2:14), says they SHOW faith (2:18), describes Abraham's obedience as ""works of obedience which expressed his faith"" (2:21) & explains that his faith was ""completed [reaching its maturity]"" when he acted (2:22). Even the famous line ""not by faith alone"" is clarified by the AMP as meaning that ""acts of obedience performed by an ALREADY SAVED [Ja:2:1] reveals his faith"" (2:24). You said Abraham ""embodied his faith through his works,"" which is precisely the AMP's point: works reveal, express & mature faith, they never create it, earn righteousness, or contribute to salvation.

James's audience 12 Tribes (1:1) my brothers & sisters” (1:2), MY FELLOW BELIEVERS! (2:1), my beloved brothers & sisters (2:5). He is correcting the behavior of people ALREADY SAVED, not explaining how to get saved. The AMP translators make that explicit by consistently framing works as the outward evidence of inward faith, not the means of justification. So if someone insists James teaches salvation by works, they are not refuting me, they are rejecting the AMP's own clarifications.

Your appeal to Romans 2:13 doesn't change that, because Paul is not giving a path of salvation through law‑keeping. He is setting up a hypothetical standard that condemns everyone. The doers of the Law will be justified (Rom 2:13) is not a salvation formula, it is the legal requirement of perfect obedience, which Paul immediately proves no one meets. Romans 2:13 is part of Paul's prosecution of humanity, not his gospel. By the time he reaches Romans 3:9–20, he concludes that ""there is none righteous,"" ""there is none who does good,"" & ""by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified"" (Rom 3:20). If Romans 2:13 were an actual path to justification. Sorry, Romans 2:13 is not a works based path to salvation.

Paul's own explanation of Abraham proves this. In Romans 4:1–5, he explicitly denies that Abraham was justified by works, insisting that: to the one who does not work but believes"" > his faith is credited as righteousness. That is Genesis 15:6, the same verse James quotes. Paul roots justification in faith alone, apart from works & James shows that the faith which justifies is the kind of faith that later expresses itself through obedience. There is no contradiction unless someone collapses 2 different categories: Paul is talking about how a sinner is justified before God. James is talking about how a believer's faith is demonstrated before people.

So the connection between righteousness & works is the one the AMP translators repeatedly emphasize: works reveal & mature faith, but they never produce righteousness or salvation. Your own explanation agrees with that & it aligns perfectly with both Paul and James when their categories are kept distinct.

Jesus saves us from our sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is the transgression of the Law of God (1 John 3:4), so there is a direct connection between our salvation and being a doer of the Law of God and the key is to correctly understand what that connection is and is not. There are a variety of reasons that someone could choose to be a doer of the Law of God and the Bible can speak in against being required to be a doer of it for incorrect reasons without speaking against being required to be a doer of it for correct reasons. So I deny that we are saved by our works in the sense that I deny that we can earn our salvation even as the result of having perfect obedience to the Law of God, but I affirm that we are saved by our works in the sense that I affirm that our salvation intrinsically requires to to to choose to be a doer of the Law of God through faith.

The content of a gift can be the experience of getting to do something, such as giving someone the opportunity to drive a Ferrari, where the gift intrinsically requires them to do the work of driving it in order to have the experience of driving it, but where doing that work contributes nothing towards earning the opportunity to experience driving it as the result. In Titus 2:11-13, the content of our gift of salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, so doing those works in obedience to the Law of God has nothing to do with trying to earn our salvation as the result, but rather we are intrinsically required to be a doer of those works because God graciously teaching us to experience being a doer of those works is part of the content of His gift of salvation. Jesus graciously teaching us to experience being a doer of the Law of God is intrinsically the way that he is giving us his gift of saving us from now being a doer of it.

In Romans 4:1-5, Paul denied that we can earn our righteousness even as the result of having perfect obedience, so it he did not present that as a hypothetical standard that condemns everyone. In Romans 3:21-22, it does not say that the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through perfect obedience, but rather the only way to become righteous that is testified about in the Law and the Prophets is through faith in Christ for all who believe. The fact that only the doers of the law will be declared righteous (Romans 2:13) means there is a reason why our righteousness requires us to choose to be a doer of the law other than in order to earn it as a wage, namely faith insofar as the faith by which we are declared righteous apart from works done in order to earn it also upholds the Law of God (Romans 3:28-31). We become someone who has faith, someone who will be declared righteous, and someone who is a doer of the Law of God all at the same time and anyone who is not one of those is also not one of those is also not the others, but we do not become righteous as the result of our obedience to the Law of God, rather the Law of God is what we get to experience being a doer of by being given the gift of righteousness through faith.

In Romans 2:6-7, Paul also said that those who persist in doing good will be given eternal life, which also was not presented as a gotcha that no one can actually meet the standard. In Romans 10:5-8, Paul referred to Deuteronomy 30 as the word of faith hat we proclaim in regard to the righteousness that is by faith proclaiming that the Law of God is not too difficult for us to obey and that obedience to it brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! So it was presented as a possibility and as a choice, not as the need for perfect obedience. There are many people who are described as righteous by the Bible, such as Noah (Genesis 6:8-9) and Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:5-6), so Romans 3:10 was not denying that anyone is rightoeus, but rather it was quoting from Psalm 14:1-3, where it says that no one is righteous among those who say that there is no God.

In Matthew 721-24, Jesus said that only those who do with will of the Father will enter the Kingdom of Heaven in contrast with saying that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them and he said that everyone who hears his words and does then will be like a wise man who builds his house on a rock. So Jesus did not end the Sermon on the Mount with a gotcha, that he was just kidding, that we can't actually do as he said, and that we are all workers of lawlessness, but rather he fully expected that there would be some people who choose to do the will of the Father and obey his words.

 

[BrotherJJ]

James 2:24 saying that Abraham was declared righteous by his works clearly show that there is a connection between our righteousness and our works. In Romans 2:13 and 4:1-5, Paul said both that only the doers of the law will be declared righteous and that we can't earn our righteousness as the result of our works, so again there is clearly a connection between our righteousness and our works, but the connection is not that we are required to have first obeyed the law in order to become righteous as the result. So James was not saying that Abraham earned his righteousness as the result of his works, but rather he was saying that Abraham embodied his faith through his works and it is by that faith alone that he was declared righteous. While it is true that Abraham was declared righteous because he believed God (Genesis 15:6), it is also true that he was a doer of righteous works in obedience to the Law of God because he believed God (Genesis 18:19, 26:4-5), so the faith by which he was declared righteous was also embodied through his works. The Law of God was never given as a way to become righteous, but rather it was given to describe the life of someone who is righteous as it describes the life of Christ, so it is what we get to become a doer of by being given the gift of righteousness through faith.


Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, so it doesn’t work to interpret Acts 15 as ruling that Gentiles shouldn’t be followers of Christ. Christ and the Apostles quoted from the OT hundreds of times in order to support what they were saying, so it doesn’t work to interpret them as speaking against following what they considered to be an authoritative source. For example, Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, which included saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, he he affirmed God as being an authoritative source and it doesn’t work to interpret Acts 15 in a way that pits them against God.

Christ absolutely upheld the Mosaic Law during His earthly ministry, but that proves my point, not yours. Jesus was ""born under the Law"" (Gal 4:4) ministered to Israel under the Old Covenant. Of course He quoted Moses. Of course He obeyed Moses. He was the final, perfect Law keeper because Israel was still under the Law until the cross. None of that means the New Covenant puts Gentiles or even Jews—back under Moses. You're collapsing covenants that Scripture keeps separate.

Acts 15 is not ""pitting the apostles against God."" It's the moment God reveals, through the Holy Spirit, that the Mosaic Law is not the covenant marker for Gentiles. Peter explicitly says God purified Gentile hearts by faith (Acts 15:9), not by Torah observance. James explicitly says Gentiles are not to be placed under the yoke of the Law (Acts 15:10, 19). If your interpretation were correct, the entire Jerusalem Council got it wrong & the Holy Spirit who guided them got it wrong too.

Quoting Jesus resisting Satan with Deuteronomy doesn't prove your point either. Jesus wasn't teaching Gentile believers to live under Moses. He was defeating Satan as the true Israelite, fulfilling the Law Israel failed to keep. You're confusing Jesus fulfilling the Law with believers being placed back under it. Paul calls that slavery (Gal 4:21–31), not discipleship.

Your argument collapses because you treat every Old Covenant command as eternally binding, while the apostles treat the Mosaic Law as a covenant that ended at the cross (Rom 7:4–6, 2 Cor 3:7–11, Gal 3:24–25). Christ fulfilled it. The Holy Spirit replaces it as the covenant marker. Acts 15 confirms it. And the New Covenant writings never reverse it.

 

[Soyeong]

Christ absolutely upheld the Mosaic Law during His earthly ministry, but that proves my point, not yours. Jesus was ""born under the Law"" (Gal 4:4) ministered to Israel under the Old Covenant. Of course He quoted Moses. Of course He obeyed Moses. He was the final, perfect Law keeper because Israel was still under the Law until the cross. None of that means the New Covenant puts Gentiles or even Jews—back under Moses. You're collapsing covenants that Scripture keeps separate.

In Matthew 28:16-20, Jesus commissioned his disciples to teach to the nations everything that he taught them, so he did not intended for what he taught during his ministry to just be followed by Jews. As his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6). The reason why Jesus established the New Covenant was not in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching or so that we could continue to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27).

Acts 15 is not ""pitting the apostles against God."" It's the moment God reveals, through the Holy Spirit, that the Mosaic Law is not the covenant marker for Gentiles. Peter explicitly says God purified Gentile hearts by faith (Acts 15:9), not by Torah observance. James explicitly says Gentiles are not to be placed under the yoke of the Law (Acts 15:10, 19). If your interpretation were correct, the entire Jerusalem Council got it wrong & the Holy Spirit who guided them got it wrong too.

I don't think that the Jerusalem Council or the Holy Spirit were wrong, but that it is wrong to interpret them in a way that turns them against living by every word that comes from the mouth of God. The Spirit has the role of leading us to obey what God ha commanded, not of leading us away from doing that.

The topic that they were debating in Acts 15 was not whether followers of Christ should follow what Christ taught, but whether salvation is by grace (Acts 15:11) or by circumcision (Acts 15:1). In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message, which is the Gospel that Peter argued that Gentiles had heard and believed in Acts 15:6-7, so he was coming down on the side of the Pharisees (Acts 15:5) against the men from Judea (Acts 15:1). In Ezekiel 36:26-27, God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit to lead sin obedience to the Mosaic Law, which is in accordance with what Peter argued in Acts 15:8-9 that Gentiles had received the Spirit and had their hearts cleansed. In Psalm 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Mosaic Law, 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, which is in accordance with what Peter argued in Acts 15:10-11 that Gentiles are saved by grace just as we are, so he was coming down firmly on the side of the Pharisees.

So the heavy burden that no one could bear was not the Mosaic Law but a means of salvation that was an alternative to salvation by grace, namely salvation by circumcision that was proposed by the men from Judea (Acts 15:1). In Romans 10:5-8, Paul referred to Deuteronomy 30 as the world of faith that we proclaim in regard to proclaiming that the Mosaic Law is not too difficult for us to obey and that obedience to it brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! If Acts 15:10 had been referring to the Mosaic Law, then that would mean that they would have been denying what Paul said is the word of faith that we proclaim, they would have been direct disagreement with God's Word, and they would have been ruling that Gentiles should choose death and a curse instead of life and a blessing. In 1 John 5:3, to love God is to obey His commands, which are are not burdensome, so if Acts 15:10 had been referring to the Mosaic Law, then they would have been ruling that Gentiles should not love God and denying that His commands are not burdensome. Moreover, the Psalms express an extremely positive view of obeying the Mosaic Law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so if Acts 15:10 had been referring to the Mosaic Law, then why would have been expressing a view that is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture.

Quoting Jesus resisting Satan with Deuteronomy doesn't prove your point either. Jesus wasn't teaching Gentile believers to live under Moses. He was defeating Satan as the true Israelite, fulfilling the Law Israel failed to keep. You're confusing Jesus fulfilling the Law with believers being placed back under it. Paul calls that slavery (Gal 4:21–31), not discipleship.

It doesn't work to take the position that we should only follow what they said but not what they considered to be an authoritative source. Jesus fulfilled the law by teaching us how to correctly fulfill it and the way to follow Jesus is not by refusing to follow what he taught. Jesus said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God and did not make exceptions for Gentiles.

If God had saved the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt in order to put them under slavery to His law, then it would be slavery that God sets us free, however, Galatians 5:1 says that it is for freedom that God sets us free, so you are not correctly identifying what he was speaking against. In Psalm 119:142, the Mosaic Law is truth, and in John 8:31-36, it is the transgression of the Mosaic Law that puts us into slavery while the truth sets us free. Moreover, the Mosaic Law came through the line of the free woman, not the line of the slave woman.

Your argument collapses because you treat every Old Covenant command as eternally binding, while the apostles treat the Mosaic Law as a covenant that ended at the cross

The New Covenant is made with the same God with the same character traits and therefore the same eternal and cumulatively valid instructions for how to embody His character traits. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalm 119:142), therefore all of His righteous laws are also eternal (Psalm 119:160) and the only way to end instructions for how to embody God's righteousness would be by first ending God's righteousness. Being a doer of charity was a way to embody God's righteousness before God made any covenants with man, so that is an eternally valid way to know God regardless of which covenant someone is under if any. Sin is what is contrary to God's character traits and sin was in the world before the law was given (Romans 5:13), so there were no actions that became righteous or sinful when the law was given, but rather it revealed what has always been and will always be the way to do that.

New covenants do not nullify the promises of covenants that have already been ratified, so God's covenants are eternal and cumulatively valid. One thing can only make another thing obsolete to the extent that it has cumulative functionality, so a computer makes a typewriter obsolete but does not make a plow obsolete, which means that if the New Covenant involved doing something different that was not cumulative with the Mosaic Covenant, then it could not make it obsolete. The New Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be replaced by the New Covenant is if the New Covenant is cumulative with it. So the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Hebrews 8:10) plus it is cumulatively based on better promises and has superior mediators (Hebrews 8:6).

(Rom 7:4–6, 2 Cor 3:7–11, Gal 3:24–25). Christ fulfilled it. The Holy Spirit replaces it as the covenant marker.

In Romans 7-8:2, Paul said that the Law of God is good, that he wanted to do good, that he delighted in obeying it, and that he served it with his mind in contrast with the law of sin, which was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do, which was waging war against the law of his mind, which he served with his flesh, which held him captive, and which the Law of the Spirit has freed us from. In Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Law of God. So verses that refer to something that would be absurd to think that it is the good that Paul delighted in doing should not be interpreted as referring to the Law of God while verses that refer to a law that is sinful, that causes sin to increase, or that hinders us from obeying the Law of God should be interpreted as referring to the law of sin.

For example, in Romans 6:14, Paul described the law that we are not under as being a law where sin had dominion over us and it would be absurd for Paul to delight in sin having dominion over him, but rather that is the role of the law of sin. In Romans 6:15, being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and in Romans 7:7, the Law of God is not sinful but how we know what sin is, so we are still under it. In Romans 6:16, Paul contrasted these two directions by saying that we are slaves to the one that we obey, either the law of sin, which leads to death, or obedience to the Law of God, which leads to righteousness. In regard to Romans 7:4, we don't need to die to God's instructions for how to bear fruit for Him in order to be free to bear fruit for Him, but rather we need to die to law that was hindering us from bearing fruit for God, namely the law of sin. Likewise, in Romans 7:5-6, it would be absurd to think that Paul delighted in being held captive to a law that stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, but rather that is the role of the law of sin and it is the law of sin that he described as holding him captive (Romans 7:23).

Changing the medium on which the Law of God is written from on stone to our hearts does not change the content of what it instructs to do.

God's Word leads us to God's Word made flesh because he is the embodiment of it and it was given in order to teach us how to know him, but the reason why it leads us to him is not so that we can reject everything that he is and taught and go back to being doers of what it reveals to be wickedness. Jesus was sent as the promised seed to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-26).

 

[BrotherJJ]

In Matthew 28:16-20, Jesus commissioned his disciples to teach to the nations everything that he taught them, so he did not intended for what he taught during his ministry to just be followed by Jews. As his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6). The reason why Jesus established the New Covenant was not in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching or so that we could continue to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27).


I don't think that the Jerusalem Council or the Holy Spirit were wrong, but that it is wrong to interpret them in a way that turns them against living by every word that comes from the mouth of God. The Spirit has the role of leading us to obey what God ha commanded, not of leading us away from doing that.

The topic that they were debating in Acts 15 was not whether followers of Christ should follow what Christ taught, but whether salvation is by grace (Acts 15:11) or by circumcision (Acts 15:1). In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message, which is the Gospel that Peter argued that Gentiles had heard and believed in Acts 15:6-7, so he was coming down on the side of the Pharisees (Acts 15:5) against the men from Judea (Acts 15:1). In Ezekiel 36:26-27, God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit to lead sin obedience to the Mosaic Law, which is in accordance with what Peter argued in Acts 15:8-9 that Gentiles had received the Spirit and had their hearts cleansed. In Psalm 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Mosaic Law, 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, which is in accordance with what Peter argued in Acts 15:10-11 that Gentiles are saved by grace just as we are, so he was coming down firmly on the side of the Pharisees.

So the heavy burden that no one could bear was not the Mosaic Law but a means of salvation that was an alternative to salvation by grace, namely salvation by circumcision that was proposed by the men from Judea (Acts 15:1). In Romans 10:5-8, Paul referred to Deuteronomy 30 as the world of faith that we proclaim in regard to proclaiming that the Mosaic Law is not too difficult for us to obey and that obedience to it brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! If Acts 15:10 had been referring to the Mosaic Law, then that would mean that they would have been denying what Paul said is the word of faith that we proclaim, they would have been direct disagreement with God's Word, and they would have been ruling that Gentiles should choose death and a curse instead of life and a blessing. In 1 John 5:3, to love God is to obey His commands, which are are not burdensome, so if Acts 15:10 had been referring to the Mosaic Law, then they would have been ruling that Gentiles should not love God and denying that His commands are not burdensome. Moreover, the Psalms express an extremely positive view of obeying the Mosaic Law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so if Acts 15:10 had been referring to the Mosaic Law, then why would have been expressing a view that is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture.


It doesn't work to take the position that we should only follow what they said but not what they considered to be an authoritative source. Jesus fulfilled the law by teaching us how to correctly fulfill it and the way to follow Jesus is not by refusing to follow what he taught. Jesus said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God and did not make exceptions for Gentiles.

If God had saved the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt in order to put them under slavery to His law, then it would be slavery that God sets us free, however, Galatians 5:1 says that it is for freedom that God sets us free, so you are not correctly identifying what he was speaking against. In Psalm 119:142, the Mosaic Law is truth, and in John 8:31-36, it is the transgression of the Mosaic Law that puts us into slavery while the truth sets us free. Moreover, the Mosaic Law came through the line of the free woman, not the line of the slave woman.


The New Covenant is made with the same God with the same character traits and therefore the same eternal and cumulatively valid instructions for how to embody His character traits. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalm 119:142), therefore all of His righteous laws are also eternal (Psalm 119:160) and the only way to end instructions for how to embody God's righteousness would be by first ending God's righteousness. Being a doer of charity was a way to embody God's righteousness before God made any covenants with man, so that is an eternally valid way to know God regardless of which covenant someone is under if any. Sin is what is contrary to God's character traits and sin was in the world before the law was given (Romans 5:13), so there were no actions that became righteous or sinful when the law was given, but rather it revealed what has always been and will always be the way to do that.

New covenants do not nullify the promises of covenants that have already been ratified, so God's covenants are eternal and cumulatively valid. One thing can only make another thing obsolete to the extent that it has cumulative functionality, so a computer makes a typewriter obsolete but does not make a plow obsolete, which means that if the New Covenant involved doing something different that was not cumulative with the Mosaic Covenant, then it could not make it obsolete. The New Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be replaced by the New Covenant is if the New Covenant is cumulative with it. So the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Hebrews 8:10) plus it is cumulatively based on better promises and has superior mediators (Hebrews 8:6).


In Romans 7-8:2, Paul said that the Law of God is good, that he wanted to do good, that he delighted in obeying it, and that he served it with his mind in contrast with the law of sin, which was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do, which was waging war against the law of his mind, which he served with his flesh, which held him captive, and which the Law of the Spirit has freed us from. In Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Law of God. So verses that refer to something that would be absurd to think that it is the good that Paul delighted in doing should not be interpreted as referring to the Law of God while verses that refer to a law that is sinful, that causes sin to increase, or that hinders us from obeying the Law of God should be interpreted as referring to the law of sin.

For example, in Romans 6:14, Paul described the law that we are not under as being a law where sin had dominion over us and it would be absurd for Paul to delight in sin having dominion over him, but rather that is the role of the law of sin. In Romans 6:15, being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and in Romans 7:7, the Law of God is not sinful but how we know what sin is, so we are still under it. In Romans 6:16, Paul contrasted these two directions by saying that we are slaves to the one that we obey, either the law of sin, which leads to death, or obedience to the Law of God, which leads to righteousness. In regard to Romans 7:4, we don't need to die to God's instructions for how to bear fruit for Him in order to be free to bear fruit for Him, but rather we need to die to law that was hindering us from bearing fruit for God, namely the law of sin. Likewise, in Romans 7:5-6, it would be absurd to think that Paul delighted in being held captive to a law that stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, but rather that is the role of the law of sin and it is the law of sin that he described as holding him captive (Romans 7:23).

Changing the medium on which the Law of God is written from on stone to our hearts does not change the content of what it instructs to do.

God's Word leads us to God's Word made flesh because he is the embodiment of it and it was given in order to teach us how to know him, but the reason why it leads us to him is not so that we can reject everything that he is and taught and go back to being doers of what it reveals to be wickedness. Jesus was sent as the promised seed to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-26).

Your entire system collapses because you equate ""Law of God,"" ""Mosaic Law,"" & ""God’s eternal righteousness"" as if Scripture treats them as identical, but Paul explicitly separates them.

In Romans 8:7, Paul says believers must submit to the Law of God, yet in Romans 6:14 & Galatians 5:18 he says believers are not under the Law of Moses, which means the 2 cannot be the same without making Paul contradict himself in the same breath. Paul further says the Mosaic Law was added because of transgressions until Christ came (Gal 3:19), functioned as a temporary guardian (Gal 3:24–25) & is something we died to (Rom 7:4) & were released from (Rom 7:6), while also calling it a ministry of death & condemnation (2 Cor 3:7–9) that is now obsolete & vanishing (Heb 8:13).

None of that can be said of God's eternal righteousness. So you are forced into an impossible choice: either Law of God = Law of Moses, in which case Paul contradicts himself & the New Testament collapses, or Law of God = Law of Moses, in which case your entire argument collapses because you've built it on equating them.

Paul's entire point in Romans 7–8 is that the Mosaic covenant &d God's eternal righteousness are not the same thing & your interpretation cannot stand without erasing that distinction.

 

[fhansen]

Paul's entire point in Romans 7–8 is that the Mosaic covenant &d God's eternal righteousness are not the same thing & your interpretation cannot stand without erasing that distinction.

And Rom 3 speaks of a different righteousness, “apart from the law”, that the law and prophets nonetheless testify to. They can testify to it because they truly reflect it; they identify what must be done, but they lack the power to actually accomplish this righteousness in us. As a result, the law can only convict us of sin but never give us the power to overcome sin. Paul objects to the idea that any work of the law, in and of itself, actually makes one holy, whether the removal of a little piece of flesh, which has nothing inherently to do with holiness to begin with, or the external observance of the moral law, which does have to do with holiness but can never impart it. And James is only stating the obvious, that a merely professed faith saves no one. One must walk the walk, not just talk the talk. No one living in obvious unrighteousness, IOW, will be entering heaven, as Scripture makes clear in several places.

The law is right, and holy, good, and spiritual as Rom 7 tells us with Paul specifically referencing the ten commandments here, as Jesus did in Matt 19:17. But only love can fulfill it. Love is the righteousness that gets it done, that fulfills the law (Rom 13:10, Gal 5:14), without needing to even hear the law (Rom 2:13). It’s how “the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” (Rom 8:4) And it’s worked out as per Rom 8:12-13:

“Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.”

The new covenant/gospel are not intended as a reprieve from the requirement to be righteous, but as the means to accomplishing that very thing! And this is why the real difference between the old and new covenants is reconciliation between man and God resulting in union between the two, recognizing that man has no righteousness on his own, and was never meant to have any righteousness on his own while Adam thought otherwise. Man must first of all be reconnected to the Vine, no longer alienated from God. Then grace, God's life in us, can flow within man and righteousness, love, is the consequence. Faith is the doorway to that vital relationship, to that reconciled state, that state of justice/righteousness for man defined and bound by love of God..

 

[Soyeong]

Your entire system collapses because you equate ""Law of God,"" ""Mosaic Law,"" & ""God’s eternal righteousness"" as if Scripture treats them as identical, but Paul explicitly separates them.

In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God spoke to him without departing from it, which is why the Law of Moses is called the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23. Paul does not treat the as separate. The Law of Moses was not given by anyone other than God, so it could not refer to something that is separate form it.

In Romans 8:7, Paul says believers must submit to the Law of God, yet in Romans 6:14 & Galatians 5:18 he says believers are not under the Law of Moses, which means the 2 cannot be the same without making Paul contradict himself in the same breath.

I made the case for why Romans 6:14 should be interpreted as referring to the law of sin rather than the Law of God/Moses, so please interact that.

Paul further says the Mosaic Law was added because of transgressions until Christ came (Gal 3:19), functioned as a temporary guardian (Gal 3:24–25) &

Christ did not come with the Gospel message to stop repenting because the Law of Moses has ended now that he has come and we are now free to become doers of what it revealed to be wickedness now that he has come, but just rather the Gospel that Jesus taught in Matthew 4:15-23 called for us to repent from our disobedience to the Law of Moses in accordance with him being sent as the promised seed to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-26). The reason why God's Word leads us to God's Word made flesh is because he is the embodiment of it and it was given in order to teach us how to know Him by embodying His character traits, but the reason why it leads us to him was not so that we can then reject everything that he is and go back to being doers of what it reveals to be sin.

In Galatians 3:25-29, every aspect of being children of God, through faith, in Christ, and children of Abraham and heirs to the promise is all directly connected with being doers of the Law of Moses. In 1 John 3:4-10, those who are not doers of righteous works in obedience to the Law of Moses are not children of God. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Law of Moses. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked. In John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham then they would be doers of the same works as him.

is something we died to (Rom 7:4) & were released from (Rom 7:6),

We need to die to the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of Moses, not the other way around. In Romans 7:22-23, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the law of God in contrast with saying that the law of sin held him captive and it would be absurd to interpret Romans 7:6 as referring to the Law of God as if Paul delighted in being held captive to sin, but rather it is the law of sin that he described as holding him captive.

while also calling it a ministry of death & condemnation (2 Cor 3:7–9)

The fact that the Law of Moses brings demand and condemnation to those who refuse to submit to it is not a very good reason to refuse to submit to it.

that is now obsolete & vanishing (Heb 8:13).

The New Covenant is made with the same same God with the same character traits and therefore the same eternal and cumulatively valid instructions for how to embody His character traits (Hebrews 8:10). New covenants do not nullify the promises of covenants that have already been ratified, so God's covenants are eternal and cumulatively valid. One thing can only make another thing obsolete to the extent that it has cumulative functionality, so a computer makes a typewriter obsolete but does not make a plow obsolete, which means that if the New Covenant involved doing something different that was not cumulative with the Mosaic Covenant, then it could not make it obsolete. The New Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be replaced by the New Covenant is if the New Covenant is cumulative with it. So the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Hebrews 8:10) plus it is cumulatively based on better promises and has superior mediators (Hebrews 8:6).

None of that can be said of God's eternal righteousness. So you are forced into an impossible choice: either Law of God = Law of Moses, in which case Paul contradicts himself & the New Testament collapses, or Law of God = Law of Moses, in which case your entire argument collapses because you've built it on equating them.

Paul was not contradicting himself, but rather you are incorrectly interpreting verses that refer to the law of sin as referring to the Law of Moses.

Paul's entire point in Romans 7–8 is that the Mosaic covenant &d God's eternal righteousness are not the same thing & your interpretation cannot stand without erasing that distinction.

Nowhere did Paul make that point in those chapters. God's righteousness is eternal (Psalm 119:142), therefore all of His righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160). The Law of Moses is described as being righteous (Romans 7:12) and it could not accurately be described as such if it were not God's instructions for how to embody His righteousness.

 

[Soyeong]

And Rom 3 speaks of a different righteousness, “apart from the law”, that the law and prophets nonetheless testify to. They can testify to it because they truly reflect it; they identify what must be done, but they lack the power to actually accomplish this righteousness in us. As a result, the law can only convict us of sin but never give us the power to overcome sin. Paul objects to the idea that any work of the law, in and of itself, actually makes one holy, whether the removal of a little piece of flesh, which has nothing inherently to do with holiness to begin with, or the external observance of the moral law, which doeshave to do with holiness but can never impart it. And James is only stating the obvious, that a merely professed faith saves no one. One must walk the walk, not just talk the talk. No one living in obvious unrighteousness, IOW, will be entering heaven, as Scripture makes clear in several places.

The law is right, and holy, good, and spiritual as Rom 7 tells us with Paul specifically referencing the ten commandments here, as Jesus did in Matt 19:17. But only love can fulfill it. Love is the righteousness that gets it done, that fulfills the law (Rom 13:10, Gal 5:14), without needing to even hear the law (Rom 2:13). It’s how “the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” (Rom 8:4) And it’s worked out as per Rom 8:12-13:

“Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.”

The new covenant/gospel are not intended as a reprieve from the requirement to be righteous, but as the means to accomplishing that very thing! And this is why the real difference between the old and new covenants is reconciliation between man and God resulting in union between the two, recognizing that man has no righteousness on his own, and was never meant to have any righteousness on his own while Adam thought otherwise. Man must first of all be reconnected to the Vine, no longer alienated from God. Then grace, God's life in us, can flow within man and righteousness, love, is the consequence. Faith is the doorway to that vital relationship, to that reconciled state, that state of justice/righteousness for man defined and bound by love of God..

In Romans 3:21-22, the only way to become righteous that is testified by the Law and the Prophets is through faith in Christ for all who believe, so that is not a different righteousness. The law identifying what must be done is more than only convicting us of sin. The Law of Moses was never given as a way to establish our own righteousness even as the result of having perfect obedience to it (Romans 4:1-5), but rather it was given to describe the life of someone who is righteous as it describes the life of Christ, so it is what we get to become a doer of by being given the gift of righteousness through faith, and the same is true for the other character traits of God. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact likeness of His character (Hebrews 1:3), which he embodied through his works by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses