The Law or Good Works? What's the Difference...if Any?

[Thaddeus]

There are many verses that describe the Mosaic Covenant as being a marriage between God and Israel, such as with God being described as her husband (Jeremiah 31:31), so the purpose of of the Law f Moses is to teach us how to have an intimate relationship with Him. The Hebrew word “yada” refers to intimate relationships/knowledge gained by experience, such as with Genesis 4:1 where Adam knew (yada) Eve, she conceived, and gave birth to Cain. God’s way is the way to know (yada) Him and Jesus by having the experience of embodying His character traits, which is the narrow way to eternal life (John 17:3). For example, in Genesis 18:19, God knew (yada) Abraham that he would teach his children and those of His household to walk in His way by being doers of righteousness and justice that the Lord might bring to him all that He has promised. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know (yada) Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the Law of Moses is to graciously teach us how to experience an intimate relationship with God and Jesus by walking in His way, which is His gift of eternal life.

God's character traits are eternal, so everything that God's covenants teach us about how to know (yada) Him through embodying His character traits is eternally valid regardless of which covenant someone is under, if any. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalm 119:142), therefore all of God's righteous laws are also eternal (Psalm 119:160), so anyone who has the goal of having an intimate relationship with God through embodying His righteousness will consider any instructions that God has given for how to do that to be cumulatively valid. 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, so that has not changed. The New Covenant is made with the same God with the same character traits and therefore the same instruction for how have an intimate relationship with Him through obeying His character traits (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27).

The way to get married to God's Word made flesh is not by dying to God's Word, but rather God's Word is His instructions for how to have an intimate relationship with God's Word. Likewise, the way to bear fruit unto God is not by dying to His instructions for how to bear fruit unto Him, but just the opposite. The sacrificial system is part of God's Word, so I see no justification for you singling out any part of God's Word as something that we need to die to in order to have an intimate relationship with God's Word made flesh.


The problem is that it says that it causes sin to increased, not to become conscious of more sin, and being conscious of more sin has nothing to do with the context. In Roman 7:5, Paul spoke about a law that stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, which is clearly doing more than just making him more conscious of sin. Likewise, in Romans 7:12-21, Paul spoke about a law that is the good that he wanted to do in contrast with a law that was causing him not to do the good that he wanted to do, not just made him conscious of sin. In Romans 7:22-23, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God in contrast with the law of sin that held him captive and that was waging war against the law of his mind, so I don't see how you take the position that they are the same law. In Romans 8:2-7, Paul said that the Law of the Spirit has freed us from the law of and and death and he contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God and refuse to submit to to the Law of God, so again it doesn't work to treat them as being the same law.


Jesus went to the cross to pay the penalty for our sin and it is by the Law of Moses that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), so I don't see how you can deny that Paul arguing for a return to Mosaic praxis. The Bible consistently uses "lawlessness" in contrast with the Law of Moses. Morality is based on God's character traits and everything in the Law of Moses was given to teach us us to know God through embodying His character traits, so everything in it is inherently a moral law and Torah-nonobservance is moral disorder. Titus 2:14 shows that Jews who were becoming zealous for the Torah in Acts 21:20 were correctly responding the the Gospel message. Good works are based on what is in accordance with God's character traits, not on whether or not someone has pagan vices. God's character traits are the fruits of the Spirit, which is why the Spirit-empowered life is one that is in obedience to the Law of Moses. 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 the Spirit/how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses.

The position that we should obey the Law of Moses is not the same as the position that we should obey the Law of Moses on order to become righteous as the result because the Bible affirms the first position while denying the second. It is by the Law of Moses that we have knowledge of what sin is, so I don't see how you can claim that the freedom from sin is not the freedom to obey the Law of Moses. Moreover, the freedom to walk in the Spirit is the freedom to obey the Law of Moses.


While Paul discovered something, that does not mean that what he discovered was not a production of sin.


It also fits with the interpretation that the law of isn causes sin to increase. While Paul spoke about the how the Law of God is not sinful but reveals what sin is, that is something different than the law of sin that is sinful and causes sin to increase. The Law of God was never given for the purpose of transforming us, but rather it was given to describe the behavior of those who have been transformed.

Have you ever stated you are a transgressor of the law? Just wondered

 

[Roger316]

Paul makes very plain statements on this subject:
When the law was given sin increased Rom5:20

Paul’s point in Romans 5:20 is not that human beings suddenly became more sinful once the Law arrived, but that sin took on the added character of transgression—a violation of a revealed command. Sin was already present and active long before Sinai, but without a commandment, it remained largely undefined and unrecognized. When God gave Israel concrete statutes, the hidden reality of sin was exposed and named. The Law didn’t create new evil impulses; it **revealed** the ones already there. It’s the difference between thinking of myself as a decent person and then being handed a clear command: suddenly the very thing I thought I could do becomes the thing I fail at, not because the command is bad, but because it unmasks what is in me. That is why Paul can say “transgressions increased” without implying that the Law made people worse; it made people **aware** of how bad things already were.

The power of sin is the law 1Cor15:56

The “power of sin” is the Law’s ability to turn sin into a *chargeable offense*—to give it definition, clarity, and condemning force. Sin is already present in the human heart, but without a command, it remains largely unrecognized and unindicted. When the Law speaks, sin is exposed, named, and bound to a penalty; it becomes transgression, and that legal weight is its “power.” Paul’s point is not that the Law energizes sin, but that the Law gives sin its *leverage* over the conscience: it tells us exactly what we have failed to do and why the consequence—death—rightly follows. In this sense, the Law arms sin with its sting, not by creating evil desires but by revealing them and attaching judgment to them.

Sinfull passions are aroused in us by the law Rom7:5 Sin took occasion of the commandment to arouse all manner of concupiscence in him. Rom7:8

Paul does say that “sinful passions were aroused by the Law” (Rom 7:5), but he does not mean the Law created those passions. He means the Law revealed and activated what was already in the flesh. The “arousal” is not the Law injecting new evil into people; it is the flesh reacting to a holy command. In Paul’s theology, the problem is never the Law—it is always the flesh. The Law is like light entering a dark room: it doesn’t create the dust; it makes the dust visible and swirling in the air. That is what Paul means by “aroused.”

Sin took occasion of the commandment to arouse all manner of concupiscence in him. Rom7:8
Sin shall no longer be your master for you are not under law but under grace Rom6:14

I'm glad you posted those two scriptures together because it is a good occasion for me to make a couple of points.

The unique nature of coveting
The command against coveting is unlike the other commandments because it does not regulate outward behavior; it reaches into the inner person. Most laws tell me what *not to do*: do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery. These are actions I can refrain from with enough discipline, social pressure, or moral training. But the command not to covet tells me not to **want** what is forbidden. It demands that my desires themselves be righteous. I can avoid sleeping with my neighbor’s wife, but I cannot, by sheer willpower, prevent the inward pull of desire. I can refrain from taking my neighbor’s property, but I cannot simply shut off the inward craving for what he has. Coveting exposes the truth that God’s Law is not satisfied with external compliance; it requires a heart that loves what God loves and rejects what God rejects. That is why Paul uses coveting as the example—because it reveals the inner self, not just the outer behavior.

Why this reveals our need for salvation
This is exactly why Paul says that sin “seized the opportunity” through the commandment. The Law against coveting exposes a deeper corruption that lies beneath all our outward obedience. I can present myself as righteous, disciplined, and morally upright, but the moment the Law addresses my desires, I discover a power within me that I cannot control or reform. Paul’s point is not that the Law makes me sin more, but that the Law reveals how deeply sin has already taken root. If righteousness were merely a matter of keeping external rules, we could manage that on our own and would not need to be saved. But because sin lives at the level of desire—at the level of who I *am*—I cannot fix myself. The Law shows me the problem; only grace can change the person. This is why Paul says we are no longer under Law but under grace: the Law exposes the disease, but only Christ heals it.

It all adds up to the same thing.
But I can give you a personal testimony. I was raised in a church that preached holiness to a very high degree. I believed Jesus died for my past sins, but then I was on my own. I must not commit sin/transgress God's laws if I expected to enter Heaven, no one gets a licence to sin.
When I reached puberty, I instinctively knew impure thoughts/lust/coveting was sin. Sin is sin whether committed outwardly on inwardly. When those impure thoughts came, my stomach churned over. I didn't want to go to hell. In the end, I too was consumed by all manner of concupiscence. It dwarfed everything. I lost the battle big time. I ended up a far worse sinner than would ever have thought possible. Lust ruled my life.
Years later, when I finally read Paul's letters, I found I had no righteousness of obeying God's laws. I had been plagued by a particular sin for years, when I feared it could send me to hell it only got worse, it was my master, and I was its slave. Within four days of believing my righteousness before God was faith in Christ not obeying the law, it stopped(Rom6:14)

Yes. Praise the Lord. Thank you, Father! Amen.

 

[Thaddeus]

Paul’s point in Romans 5:20 is not that human beings suddenly became more sinful once the Law arrived, but that sin took on the added character of transgression—a violation of a revealed command. Sin was already present and active long before Sinai, but without a commandment, it remained largely undefined and unrecognized. When God gave Israel concrete statutes, the hidden reality of sin was exposed and named. The Law didn’t create new evil impulses; it **revealed** the ones already there. It’s the difference between thinking of myself as a decent person and then being handed a clear command: suddenly the very thing I thought I could do becomes the thing I fail at, not because the command is bad, but because it unmasks what is in me. That is why Paul can say “transgressions increased” without implying that the Law made people worse; it made people **aware** of how bad things already were.


The “power of sin” is the Law’s ability to turn sin into a *chargeable offense*—to give it definition, clarity, and condemning force. Sin is already present in the human heart, but without a command, it remains largely unrecognized and unindicted. When the Law speaks, sin is exposed, named, and bound to a penalty; it becomes transgression, and that legal weight is its “power.” Paul’s point is not that the Law energizes sin, but that the Law gives sin its *leverage* over the conscience: it tells us exactly what we have failed to do and why the consequence—death—rightly follows. In this sense, the Law arms sin with its sting, not by creating evil desires but by revealing them and attaching judgment to them.

Paul does say that “sinful passions were aroused by the Law” (Rom 7:5), but he does not mean the Law created those passions. He means the Law revealed and activated what was already in the flesh. The “arousal” is not the Law injecting new evil into people; it is the flesh reacting to a holy command. In Paul’s theology, the problem is never the Law—it is always the flesh. The Law is like light entering a dark room: it doesn’t create the dust; it makes the dust visible and swirling in the air. That is what Paul means by “aroused.”


I'm glad you posted those two scriptures together because it is a good occasion for me to make a couple of points.

The unique nature of coveting
The command against coveting is unlike the other commandments because it does not regulate outward behavior; it reaches into the inner person. Most laws tell me what *not to do*: do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery. These are actions I can refrain from with enough discipline, social pressure, or moral training. But the command not to covet tells me not to **want** what is forbidden. It demands that my desires themselves be righteous. I can avoid sleeping with my neighbor’s wife, but I cannot, by sheer willpower, prevent the inward pull of desire. I can refrain from taking my neighbor’s property, but I cannot simply shut off the inward craving for what he has. Coveting exposes the truth that God’s Law is not satisfied with external compliance; it requires a heart that loves what God loves and rejects what God rejects. That is why Paul uses coveting as the example—because it reveals the inner self, not just the outer behavior.

Why this reveals our need for salvation
This is exactly why Paul says that sin “seized the opportunity” through the commandment. The Law against coveting exposes a deeper corruption that lies beneath all our outward obedience. I can present myself as righteous, disciplined, and morally upright, but the moment the Law addresses my desires, I discover a power within me that I cannot control or reform. Paul’s point is not that the Law makes me sin more, but that the Law reveals how deeply sin has already taken root. If righteousness were merely a matter of keeping external rules, we could manage that on our own and would not need to be saved. But because sin lives at the level of desire—at the level of who I *am*—I cannot fix myself. The Law shows me the problem; only grace can change the person. This is why Paul says we are no longer under Law but under grace: the Law exposes the disease, but only Christ heals it.


Yes. Praise the Lord. Thank you, Father! Amen.

I appreciate it is difficult to accept, unless you have been through it

 

[Roger316]

I appreciate it is difficult to accept, unless you have been through it

I appreciate you sharing your experience, and I’m not denying that the Spirit helps us overcome real habits and patterns — I’ve seen that in my own life too. What I’m trying to say is that Paul makes a distinction between the Spirit helping our *behavior* now and the Spirit transforming our *nature* in the age to come. In Romans 7, Paul says the problem runs deeper than habits; it’s something in us that won’t be fully healed until the resurrection. So I’m not questioning your testimony at all — I’m only trying to stay close to Paul’s argument that even when the Spirit helps us walk in righteousness, the core of our being still waits for final redemption.

 

[Thaddeus]

I appreciate you sharing your experience, and I’m not denying that the Spirit helps us overcome real habits and patterns — I’ve seen that in my own life too. What I’m trying to say is that Paul makes a distinction between the Spirit helping our *behavior* now and the Spirit transforming our *nature* in the age to come. In Romans 7, Paul says the problem runs deeper than habits; it’s something in us that won’t be fully healed until the resurrection. So I’m not questioning your testimony at all — I’m only trying to stay close to Paul’s argument that even when the Spirit helps us walk in righteousness, the core of our being still waits for final redemption.

Imagine a young teenager who is told they must obey the ten commandments. What do you think will go through the teenagers mind?
''If I cannot obey those commands I will end up in hell''
Let us also suppose the teenager understands what obeying the tenth commandment entails.
They must not lust/dwell on impure thoughts.
What will go through their mind?

''I must not lust, if I do I will end up in hell. I must not lust/I must not dwell on impure thoughts, I must not.'' and I imagine the teenager would be petrefied of doing so, bearing in mind what they believe the consequences will be.
In my view, there will be only be one consequence of that.

 

[Musicmaster]

Those who will be judged by the law at least have the opportunity to have a positive judgement if they persist in doing good, which is far better than those who perish without the law.

I don't know where you got that but it wasn't from the Bible.

In Romans 5-8, Paul spoke about the Law of God as being the good that he wanted to do and the law of sin as being something that was causing him not to do the good that he wanted to do, so we need to die to the law of sin in order to be free to embody the Law of God, not the other way around.

My friend, you seem to have no idea just how wrong that is:

Romans 7:4, 6
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. ...
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter.

Galatians 2:19, 21
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. ...
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Paul clearly was NOT talking about the law of sin. He was specifically talking about Torah. How you subjectively injected the "las of sin" into contexts such as these, that is something I'm going to have to ask that you please prove your case.

In Romans 7:1-4, at no point was the woman set free from needing to obey the Law of God and if she were to get married to another man after the death of her first husband,

May I ask from where you get your interpretations? What you're saying is so foreign to the texts of scripture.

MM