[Campion]

If you claim it must be done it’s a law. It then is “works of law”.

No. That's where you go way off the mark, exegetically. "Works of [the] law" had a specific meaning to Paul, other first century rabbis, and Paul's readers. It meant the ceremonial "works" of the Mosaic law, not any works of any law.

[CynicalBear]

>>No. That's where you go way off the mark, exegetically. "Works of [the] law" had a specific meaning to Paul, other first century rabbis, and Paul's readers. It meant the ceremonial "works" of the Mosaic law, not any works of any law.<<

Believe what you will. Replacing one law with another law is still living under a law. I live under grace.