I didn't write this, but it's very, very important. This is the core of trusting Christ.

What does it mean that we are not under the law, but under grace?

I have never quite understood what does it mean that "we are not under the law but under grace." I understand that it's God's grace and not anything we can do will make us right with God. I also take it that while Christians don't follow the rites and rituals of the Old Testament but the commandments contained in the Ten Commandments (except Sabbath keeping) are very much valid and as accepted norms of behavior. Do you mean those are done away as well?

Further, in Romans 2:13 it clearly says "not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God but the doers of the law will be justified" Which law is he talking about? But then in Romans 3:28 it says "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law" The two verses seem contradictory to me. I am terribly confused. Could you please throw some light on this. Where am I going wrong?

Big question. I don't know if I can give you a brief answer that is satisfying and complete. Allow me to give it a try. When Jesus died on his cross, he completed all the terms of the old covenant. He had kept its terms perfectly, and on his cross he cancelled the "written code, with its obligations" that was against us (Colossians 2:14). He fulfilled and completed all of the old covenant -- no part of the old covenant (notwithstanding many different ideas that have been written and preached over the last almost 2,000 years since the cross) remained necessary and required for a Christian.

There is much confusion about the Ten Commandments -- with many saying that they are a moral code that somehow have survived the cross of Christ. But the problem is that this is a "pick-and-choose" reasoning -- for as you note, the seventh day Sabbath would remain in effect if that is the case. How do we propose to "keep" nine of the ten? Some say the Sabbath day has been changed to Sunday. But God has not authorized the changing of the Sabbath. The Sabbath remains. The Sabbath is part of the old covenant -- no human can "change" it to Sunday.

The new covenant given to us by the blood of Christ contains many ethical teachings, many explanations about the behavior of a person in whom Christ lives. We are told, in the pages of the New Testament, many things about what Christ in us produces -- no where are the Ten Commandments mentioned. It is true that some of the Ten Commandments are reiterated in the new covenant, some are enlarged upon, some are further explained, and some are shown to be irrelevant, at least in terms of their physical aspects (the Sabbath commandment being primary -- for in this commandment we see that the Lord has become our rest, that he, the eternal Lord, by God's grace gives us a rest that transcends a 24-hour period of time).

Most important is the change of emphasis between the old and new covenants. The old covenant was a "do this" and "live and prosper" covenant -- the new covenant is all about what Jesus has done, is doing and will do. The old covenant is about our need to keep and obey and observe -- the new covenant is all about our acceptance of Jesus as being everything that we cannot do. The old covenant is all about externals -- laws and covenants and ordinances and sacrifices -- things to do, and things to do once we prove, over and over again, of being capable of doing those things perfectly. The new covenant is about the internal life of the Spirit -- in which Jesus lives his resurrected life in us and in which we become his workmanship, his tools, his new creation in which he produces fruit.

As for your question about Romans -- this book is best read (as indeed are all books) as a whole. We must read all Scripture in context -- but in Romans it is mandatory. Romans is a legal brief, a legal argument that is built, brick by brick -- it is filled with connectors such as "therefore" -- Paul having established one point, he then goes on to build on that point. Romans 2 is understood and explained best by reading chapter one, then two, then three -- and ideally, at the very least, through chapter 8, so that all those passages may be understood by one another.

Q2. Thank you so much for your answer. However, I would still appreciate if you could connect the verses in the book of Romans that I thought were contradictory. I will certainly read the whole of Romans, as you suggest, but I have a sneaking suspicion that I will still need help.

A2. By way of summary, remember that Romans is a logical argumentation. It is my understanding that over a century or more ago some law schools used Romans as an example of how to build a case, brick by brick. Paul is arguing for justification by grace. He is addressing human relationship with God -- how it has been broken, and how it can be fixed. He is arguing against any system or methodology that would pretend that human performance is part of how we are justified before God -- he is arguing that God alone can do for us what we are incapable of doing. Righteousness is the necessary component to fix the divide, the gulf between humans and God (1:16) -- Paul shows whose righteousness justifies us, and how that righteousness is made available.

The passages about which you ask are a part of the first few chapters of Romans. Most commentators will note, in one outline or another, that Paul first of all addresses the need. He develops the motivation -- the fact that there is a need for justification. In order to demonstrate that all mankind is morally bankrupt, he develops two or three basic groups and discusses them: 1) the pagan world (1:18-32). In this passage he documents the immorality that is the result of idolatry and a denial of the one true God. 2) Most students of the New Testament know that the early Judeo-Christian worldview saw the world from the traditional Jewish view -- as composed of Jews and Gentiles. Some believe that Paul discusses the obvious, immoral pagan, Gentile lifestyle in 1:18-22 and then in chapter 2 through the first eight verses of chapter 3 he discussed the reasons why Jews were also condemned, and in need of Christ. Some separate this passage into two groups -- 2a) the moralist (2:1-16) and the Jewish/religious view (2:17-3:8). In this section, whether it is intended for one or two audiences, Paul uses a technique of posing a point of view, putting words in the mouths of those against whose position he is arguing, and then demolishing their position.

You ask first of all about 2:13. Unless one understands the context, and the argument that Paul is making, and the fact that he is putting words into the mouths of his critics, so that a dialogue of sorts is playing out, one may have a difficulty with what 2:13 is actually saying. This is a great illustration of the need for all readers and students of the Bible to carefully read passages within their context -- for it is possible to take verses all over the Bible, ripped out of their context, and make them say almost anything (and such a thing has been done and continues to be done, effectively deceiving and misleading many!).

What Paul is saying in 2:13 that the old covenant, or indeed any human rule of law, places the onus on obedience. Under the economy of law, doers of the law are justified. That's what Paul says. However, within the context which precedes this statement, and even more so, the context that follows this statement, Paul clearly advocates that no justification with God is possible by doing the deeds of the law, because perfection is necessary to gain the righteousness God required for justification. Since no human (apart from Christ -- and of course Jesus is the goal of Romans -- the cross is the destination towards which Paul is headed in this discourse) is capable of perfectly keeping the law, then justification before God on the basis of human performance is impossible.

Your second passage (3:28), which seems to, on the surface, contradict the first passage (2:13), occurs after this first discussion of need is completed. This "second brick in the wall" is basically the passage between 3:21-5:21 -- and the first part of this second portion of Paul's carefully planned and executed discourse is 3:21-3:31. This passage is probably the heart and core of Romans, for it answers the central question, "How can a good and righteous God save, rescue and transform unrighteous and unholy humanity, without compromising his perfection and holiness?" And of course, the answer is by grace alone. The answer is a righteousness apart from the law (3:21) -- this righteousness "from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe" (3:22).

In Christ,

Greg Albrecht

http://www.ptm.org