Defining "Works"

fhansen said:

It's not either/or, but both/and. God draws, we respond- or not.
"If you remain in Me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from Me you can do nothing." John 15:5

Click to expand...

NotreDame said:

But those verses are not ambiguous. Paul's point is not ambiguous. Paul's point in Chapter 4, as it pertains to whether it is faith or works which bestows, righteousness, is not ambiguous. Paul unequivocally says it is faith, not works, which bestows righteousness.

"What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, the wages are not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the person to whom God credits righteousness apart from works...For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all"

Lacking ambiguity, there is no need to read this verses "from the river of meaning that Paul is rolling forth throughout his entire letter to the Romans." An important and logical rule of interpretation and construction, whether it is a statute, the U.S. Constitution, literature, the Bible, is the plain text meaning is paramount, and no need to go beyond what is stated in the plain text. Paul is not writing ambiguously here, he is explicitly stating it is by faith, not works, in which we are justified, in which Abraham was justified, and faith, not works, which is "credited as righteousness."

This operates in harmony with Paul's point if it were by works, then we could boast our works have saved us, justified us, made us righteous. Paul, however, states the works doctrine does not allow us to boast it was works which justified/saved/ us, because our works do not justify us before God. After all, Paul said, "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Paul is unambiguous, it is faith, not works, that justifies, saves, and is "credited as righteousness" to us, before God. Hence, there is no need to go beyond the unambiguous, plain text.

Click to expand...

Saint Steven said:

Lots of discussion lately about "works".
When compared with discussions about "grace" and "faith", we are pretty quick to define the terms.
But, what about "works"? ...

Click to expand...

GDL said:

I'm not sure what Steve's point was making posting the verses. I see this differently than Butterball does:

- In 6:44-45 Jesus explains the work our Father is doing to bring people to His Son:

- He's drawing (can literally be dragging) people to His Son by teaching
​

- Jesus doesn't always answer questions directly. He's great at controlling the narrative

- His audience is working hard traveling around and following Him for free meals.

- After some of such travels: NKJ John 6:25 And when they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, "Rabbi, when did You come here?"

- He controls the conversation: 26 Jesus answered them and said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.

- 27 "Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him."

- Note Jesus just commanded them to work to receive the gift He gives. Consider this in the works considerations.

- Note some more of our Father's work in this Salvation project - He set His seal on Jesus [whom He sent]

- Our Father is working. Jesus is working. Jesus has something to give them if they redirect their labors to listen and learn and receive (believe).
​

- They don't get it and want to know what they can do to "work the works of God." NKJ John 6:28 Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?"

- Take what Paul was saying about works in Romans and see that there is nothing they can do as unbelievers to work the works of God (works done in faith, which they don't yet have and/or God's works that only He can do - like teaching/dragging them to bring them into His Salvation by faith in His Son). John seems purposely ambiguous at times.
​

- NKJ John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

- So, how do we read the somewhat ambiguous "work of God" knowing how Jesus is controlling this discussion and answering indirectly?

- It's God's work that you believe in Him whom He sent? God is working to get you to believe. Our belief is God's work. This seems to go well with our Salvation by faith being God's work.

- I see where Butterball1 is takings this, but I hesitate to say faith is a work - actually it seems more a stop dead in my tracks rather than a hesitation. Granted, Jesus commanded to work to receive the gift He gives, but that work in context seems to be the listening to learn in order to believe vs. the belief itself.​

Click to expand...

Butterball1 said:

Jesus tells them to work (labour) for the food that endures unto everlasting life. Jesus refutes the idea of 'faith only' or that no works at all are needed to be saved.

Click to expand...

Butterball1 said:

29 "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."
In response to their question in v28 What shall WE DO, that WE WORK...Jesus gave them the work of believing.

Click to expand...

GDL said:

Informative post by Butterball1.

Looking for definition of works and using some of the discussion of Romans:

To briefly set this up, I once collaborated in translating a pastor/teacher's book into another language, which was the natural language of the person I worked with. The response from the person in the country who reviewed our effort was that our language was "wooden." Moral of the story is there is a flow to language that is difficult to non natives.

I think Greek was much more natural to Paul than to most of us. So, there is a flow to his writing that's difficult to most of us, especially looking through artificial chapter and verse numbering.

Works: By the time Paul mentions "works" in Romans he's already at 2:6, but he's been writing about many things people do and accomplish and work to accomplish and accomplish by work. IMO, in 2:6 his referencing Ps62:12; Prov24:12 (very interesting one) and being in line with Jesus' statement in Matt16:27, is his summing up what he has written so far about all of these activities of people. So, all the things that people do & accomplish and work to accomplish & accomplish by work (the various Greek words Paul's used), God will recompense according to their works.

Paul also goes on to speak of good works vs. evil works / sin / disobeying truth / obeying unrighteousness. And he began by saying his commission as Apostle was for obedience of faith among the nations (1:5) which he seems to tie a few verses later (1:17) to Hab2:4 the just/righteous will live by his faith.

My Hebrew is much weaker than my Greek, but I noticed some time ago that the translation "faith" for Hab2:4 was questionable. I thought "faithfulness" would be better. Here's a note I just looked at in the NET version (underlines are mine):

15 tn Or "loyalty"; or "integrity." The Hebrew word אֱמוּנָה ('emunah) has traditionally been translated "faith," but the term nowhere else refers to "belief" as such. When used of human character and conduct it carries the notion of "honesty, integrity, reliability, faithfulness." The antecedent of the suffix has been understood in different ways. It could refer to God's faithfulness, but in this case one would expect a first person suffix (the original form of the LXX has "my faithfulness" here). Others understand the "vision" to be the antecedent. In this case the reliability of the prophecy is in view. For a statement of this view, see J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (OTL), 111–12. The present translation assumes that the preceding word "[the person of] integrity" is the antecedent. In this case the LORD is assuring Habakkuk that those who are truly innocent will be preserved through the coming oppression and judgment by their godly lifestyle, for God ultimately rewards this type of conduct. In contrast to these innocent people, those with impure desires (epitomized by the greedy Babylonians; see v. 5) will not be able to withstand God's judgment (v. 4a).

The point IMO, Paul's mission is "obedience of faith" among the nations. A legitimate translation of this phrase can be a correlating of the 2 nouns and "of" is just a customary insertion in translating. So, for me this is just faith-obedience, which after all of the analysis comes down to faithfulness to God who we believe and obey. This correlates to Hab2:4.

End of all this: Works are virtually all things we do either: in belief in God / faith-obedience / faithfulness to God, vs. in disobedience to him, which is not in belief of Him, or as Paul also says, disobedience to truth / obedience to unrighteousness. IOW down to the everyday things:

NET Romans 14:23 But the man who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not do so from faith, and whatever is not from faith is sin.

Fluidity in language. Context.​

Click to expand...

Saint Steven said:

Lots of discussion lately about "works".
When compared with discussions about "grace" and "faith", we are pretty quick to define the terms.
But, what about "works"? It seems to go undefined, and appears to mean different things to different Christians. What's your definition?

Additionally, I would like to discuss a few aspects that I find interesting about works.
1) The good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Ephesians 2:10)
2) The "do nothing" works of Jesus. (John 5:19) Imitating the Father.
3) Wood, hay and stubble works. (1 Corinthians 3:12-14)
4) No work "works". (Romans 4:4-5) Trusting God, not self.

Ephesians 2:10 NIV
For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

John 5:19 NIV
Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

1 Corinthians 3:12-14 NIV
If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward.

Romans 4:4-5 NIV
Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

...............................that's a lot of words by which to tell me you've misunderstood just about anything I may have intended to say, brother NotreDame.

I'd recommend that you perhaps step back and observe before jumping in with both rhetorical guns blazing, especially if it turns out that you're downing your own team in doing so.

Of course, I agree that Paul is warning the Romans against allowing legalism into their understanding and practice of faith in Christ. I never said he was insisting on their "following the Law." So, I'd appreciate it if you, and anyone else here, would just set down your suspicions and give me a break.

In return, I'll do the same for you.

Furthermore, NO---a plain reading isn't ALWAYS due. In fact, sometimes, a plain reading ends up being a reading that tears a verse away from its overall contexts, thus skewing the meaning it was meant to have.

Click to expand...

Furthermore, NO---a plain reading isn't ALWAYS due.

Click to expand...

In fact, sometimes, a plain reading ends up being a reading that tears a verse away from its overall contexts, thus skewing the meaning it was meant to have

Click to expand...

thus skewing the meaning it was meant to have

Click to expand...

NotreDame said:

Did I misunderstand? No, I did not misunderstand what you said those specific verses are to be read and understood "from the river of meaning that Paul is rolling forth throughout his entire letter to the Romans." I did not jump to any conclusions about what you said. Your words, your own words, is what I went by.

There is no need, as you suggest, to read those specific verses "from the river of meaning that Paul is rolling forth throughout his entire letter to the Romans." Paul's point is discernible from the plain text of the verses and it is not rational to go looking for additional meaning when the plain text provides a meaning. It is not logical to examine those specific verses in Romans "from the river of meaning that Paul is rolling forth throughout his entire letter to the Romans" because the plain text already provides a meaning without it.



Yes, I know this, which is why I did not say a plain text meaning is "always due." What you have said above is necessarily implied by what I did say about plain text.



No. Disagree. Logically, context is used to make sense of a text in which the plain text does not provide a meaning. "Park it in the bay." Context is needed here to discern the meaning of what is discussed. "Do not leave the car parked in the driveway of my home, but park the car in the bay." The plain text here gives us a meaning not requiring any context.



None of the writers are around today. So, the chances of determining what was "meant" to be said is probably impossible, an exercise in futility. Attempting to ascertain what was "meant to be said" by the framers of the U.S. Constitution has proven to be at times an impossible task, despite only being 234 years removed from its drafting, and having extraneous writings about the Constitution.

And, what was "mean to be said" is rather irrelevant. What in fact was written is what is controlling, after all, that is the very point of writing things down in words.

Click to expand...

Agallagher said:

Hello Saint Steven brother, and all who have posted: Faith without works is dead.

If Love the Lord Your God, with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength and love your neighbour as yourself is part of the law of Moses, do we still follow what Jesus Christ tells when he says Love God, and Love others?


Is faith towards God implying having a relationship and that love for God overflow through the Lord Jesus Christ and the spirit inside us outwardly to others?

Faith with out this type of work 'believing on the one whom God sent' disqualify love altogether therefore the faith is rendered dead?

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

Alright. I see you have your own point of view which you're apparently adamant about. And which hermeneutical teachers do you suggest I (we) rely upon, brother NotreDame?

I have to ask because when I look at a verse like Romans 4:2, I see it saying one thing but actually meaning:

For if Abraham was justified by works (implied = Works of the Law), he has something to boast about; but not before God ...​

Am I wrong? If so, how?

Click to expand...

NotreDame said:

Well, first, the Greek word for “works” used by Paul. The Greek word is ergon/egois, and the meaning doesn’t encapsulate your “works of the law.” There’s no rational reason to abandon the Greek meaning for the Greek word Paul used in Romans 4:2.

So, is Paul relying upon an idiom? This is problematic because there’s no evidence to support the idiom related to the word “works.”

Paul is perfectly capable of explicitly mentioning “the Law.” Paul had no difficulty using the phrase the “Law” elsewhere in the NT. When Paul wants to reference to the “Law” he does so, as he did elsewhere in the NT, including elsewhere in Romans.

So, your assumption “works”=“works of the law” isn’t tenable. Paul, being a gifted writer, educated, and explicitly referencing the “Law” elsewhere in the NT, and Romans, didn’t suddenly go mute, or forgot about the phrase or how to use the phrase for this specific Romans verse.

And let’s, for the moment, rely upon basic logic when reading a text. If a meaning can be discerned from the plain text, there’s no need to go any further in quest for the meaning. For example, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Is there a plain text meaning? Yes. What is it? A state can deprive a person of their life, liberty, and property, when due process is adhered to in doing so. There’s no need to go all Sherlock Holmes and investigate for another meaning.

Now, to draw a parallel to the Romans verse using a federal statute. Title 7 reads in part, “
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

So, a plain text meaning is employers may not refuse to hire or promote any individual or engage in discriminatory conduct towards any person in a specific way stated, “because of” the person(s)’ race, religion, sex, color, or national origin.

But what does “because of” mean? Is there a meaning like the Greek word for “work”? Yes. The Court in Price Waterhouse v Hopkins said the phrase “because of” is to mean race, sex, color, religion, national origin, was a “factor” and not “the factor” and not the “sole cause” for discrimination/discriminatory treatment. Congress later codified this meaning in the statute.

So, the phrase “because of” has a meaning, like the word “works” in the verse, and it doesn’t have as its meaning “the factor” or “sole cause” just as the Greek meaning of the word work, ergon/ergois, doesn’t include “works of the Law.”

And just as there’s no rational reason to add to the meaning of “because of” a meaning that isn’t associated with the phrase or abandon the given meaning to add another meaning, there’s likewise no add to the Greek meaning of ergon/ergois, and abandon the given meanings.

It isn’t logical then to go looking for other meanings not supported by the plain text meaning or to go hunting for another meaning other than the meaning given for a specific word.

Click to expand...

Saint Steven said:

Careful not to back so far out in your search for context that you fall off a cliff. - lol

Click to expand...

HTacianas said:

That is the answer, or at least one answer, to your question. There are good works, bad works, and the works of the law. Good works are things such as charity towards others that we are commanded to do. Bad works equates to sin or evil. The works of the law are such things as animal sacrifice, observance of sabbaths, keeping dietary laws, refraining from handling lizards, etc. Paul spoke of the "works of the law" to the Colossians:

Col 2:20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—

Col 2:21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,”

As you've pointed out:

For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Those are the "good works" we are commanded to do, and also the works we will be judged for:

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.

Click to expand...