Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Intro
Ephesians Chapter 2 and specifically verses 8-9 have long been considered key verses to the Christian faith. In particular within Protestant Christianity these verse have long been understood as foundational to a proper understanding of the Gospel and salvation. In any discussion of how a person is 2:8-9 saved Matthew Bates rightly says “ Someone is going to quote Ephesians 2:8-9 as the showstopper. Once this passage has been uttered, perfectly articulating the proper relationship between grace, faith and works within a framework of salvation, what more is there to say? The curtain drops.”[1] However, does it actually. Is this really the end of the conversation? No, rather the assumption there is nothing more to say actually shows the niavete of the speaker. Why? Because there are three competing views on Ephesians 2:8-9 within Protestant Christianity. And these views are often foundational to systems of doctrine. Therefore, which view one takes on Ephesians 2:8 can (and for some theological systems must) massively change ones whole scope of theology.
The Question
Ephesians 2:8-9 reads: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
There are many questions that can be asked in this passage especially when one looks at the lexical nature of terms; i.e. what does grace mean, what does faith mean, what is a gift and how does that relate to the system of patronage?[2] These questions however are not The Question asked? The question is whose faith is it referring to and how is it not of works and not boasting. The bolded words show the critical phrases. One is saved by grace through faith, but whose faith?
A. God’s faith put in humans?
B. Is it our human choice to trust God?
C. Is it the faithfulness of Jesus?
This is the question on this passage, and the answers express the clear divides within Christianity
The Four Views
The four views are as follows:
View 1. A Strong Predestinarian View
View 2. A 3–5-point ‘soft’ Reformed view
View 3. The Evangelical Arminian view
View 4. The Contextual View
We shall first give their view as they understand the passage supplying the words they understand to read the passage.
View 1: For by grace are you saved by Gods faith that he predestines you to have, not of yourselves not of your choosing it’s the faith of God he puts in you through his predestination, not of works or any effort of you since its God’s faith he put in you lest any man should boast.
View 2: For by grace are you saved by your faith when you trust in Jesus, the salvation is not of yourselves that comes from God, no actions of our own merit our salvation (though we do have to meet some conditions) thus salvation is not of works and thus obedience is not a condition of getting or staying saved and we cannot boast.
View 3: For by grace are you saved by your faith when you trust in Jesus, the salvation is not of yourselves as it is merited by the death of Jesus and though we must trust & obey the salvation itself is of God, and thus not of anything we do and thus we cannot boast.
View 4: For by grace are you saved by the faithfulness of Jesus, and therefore that salvation is not of yourself, thus it is not of your own actions therefore one can’t boast.
Why understanding the views are important
These fiur view all have different perspectives on the nature of salvation. View 1 The predestinarian view, understands this passage to show that faith is not an act of the will and thus ‘Arminian’ or ‘grace enabled free will’ views of salvation are incorrect. This of course is a massive theological difference on salvation. View 2 is held by both Baptist scholars and Reformed scholars and understands the passage to be saying salvation is not merited by something one does. They, however, would emphasize also that while one is saved by grace the passage also rules out anything we do, and our works as part of salvation. They would draw a distinction between a mental process and any actions, arguing that the condition of (trust) mental assent (whether predestine by God or by one’s own free will is not specified in this passage). This view however also would emphasize that salvation is ‘not of works’ in the sense that ‘works’ are not a condition and would redefine pistis as mental assent only. View Three, understands the passage to be teaching that salvation is of God and not from one’s self. It however, does not see any conditions for humans to fill ruled out, rather what is ruled out is salvation being merited by humans as salvation is of God. This view would understand faith as human choice and action that involves trusting God, and following and living for him. Pistis would be understood as saving faith or faithfulness. In marked distinction from the mental assent only view they would view obedience as an essential component of true or saving faith- without which ‘false faith’ that james speaks of is in view.
While view 2 and 3 are similar in some ways . They both understand the passage as teaching salvation comes by grace from God. They both understand humans as not meritaing any salvation. They are distinctly different hwoeveron the issue of perseverance. View 2 sees the passage as ruling out continued obedience as a condition for salvation because ‘that makes salvation of works, and of yourself.’ While view 3 doesn’t hold that the passage is ruling out obedience to God as a condition of conversion or continuance in salvation. Again, these view may seem very close on some aspects they are, however their understandings of the passage are really quite divergent theologically.
The fourth view is one that has recently become more popular in evangelical circles. It understands the Ephesians 1&2 as talking in context about God through Jesus’s work for humanity as being the topic discussed. Thus, when it comes to Ephesians 2:8-9 it sees this as a continuation of the context. In the previous passages God through Christ was the actor-the agent performing the actions being discussed. Thus, it understands that salvation comes by grace through the pistis=faithfulness of Jesus. They view the passage as not talking at all about the monergism vs synergism issue at all, but rather emphasizing the origins of salvation. Ironically enough theologically, both those of strong Reformed perspective can hold this view as it theologically strongly emphasizes the grace of God, and those of a extreme synergistic viewpoint also can because they understand the passage as not limiting any human actions including works from being conditions of salvation. Thus, exegetically this position has grown in increasingly popularity (especially because of the pistis-Christou debate and tis parallels).
The grammatical analysis
Lynn Cohick writes in the NICNT commentary of the grammar on this passage that “This construction can be translated “faith in Christ” (objective genitive) or “faithfulness of Christ” (subjective genitive).[3] While there are many arguments that may suggest, imply and perhaps even strongly indicate one view or another one must first recogognice that grammarians have for generations held both positions and therefore while one perpecitve may be more liley to be correct than another. It does not seem that grammatical analysis itself can wholly (emphasis added) solve the issue. John Muddiman writes in his exegetical commentary on the grammar that The subject of the qualifying clause, and this does not come from you, it is God’s gift, could be either the whole idea of salvation by grace through faith (as Lincoln 112 and many others) or just the immediately preceding word, ‘faith’ (as Caird 53).[4]
If one understands that there is at least some debate among fine grammarians and scholars of the same theological perspectives and competing theological perspectives, one can then begin to appreciate the complexity of the issue. Thus, while grammar may strongly imply or suggest an interpretation. It does seem that after 400 years of debate on this passage, one cannot ‘prove’ using grammar alone their view of the passage. We therefore can turn to the arguments of each viewpoint. We shall in particular discuss the 4th viewpoint since it is the one viewpoint that is more recent and is the only viewpoint that can be held by competing theological systems.
This is an important point, view 1 The predestinarian view cannot be held by those of an Arminian perspective, or those who hold to a view of an unlimited atonement. . View 2 cannot be held likewise by those of an Arminian view (though it can be held by those holding to a limited atonement as this view does not necessarily rule that out, but nor does it require it. It does, however, require a unconditional view of eternal security.
View 3 cannot be held by those holding to unconditional eternal security or to those holding to a limited atonement view. View 4 however, can be held by both strong reformed scholars and strong Catholics because this view does not view the issue under discussion about the tension between God’s grace and man’s responsibility, but only a discussion about the grace of God on the merits of salvation.
The Argument for the Predestinarian view
Andrew T Lincoln in the Word Biblical Commentary writes about this passage that “In the history of interpretation τοῦτο has been taken by some to refer specifically to the last word in the preceding clause, “faith” (among recent commentators cf. Caird, 53), so that even faith itself is explicitly said not to come from a human source but from God as his gift.[5] This view argues that faith is not a something we do, but something God does to a person. Faith is not the choice of the will to trust God, but rather a trusting that God wills. One explained it love is something that happens not necessarily by choice, ‘one falls’ in love often with individuals they know are not good for them. Furthermore, after a break-up one is still often against their will ‘in love’ for a time. The argument is similarly that one believes God, not by their own will, but rather because God has willed it.
Perhaps the most famous individual holding this view on Ephesians 2:8-9 is Charles Hodge. He argues that following Theodore Beza that faith itself is not a human action, but rather something God does to a person. He states the reasons in favour of the former interpretation are, “1. It best suits the design of the passage. The object of the apostle is to show the gratuitous nature of salvation. This is most effectually done by saying, ‘Ye are not only saved by faith in opposition to works, but your very faith is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.’ 2. The other interpretation makes the passage tautological. To say: ‘Ye are saved by faith; not of yourselves; your salvation is the gift of God; it is not of works,’ is saying the same thing over and over without any progress. Whereas to say: ‘Ye are saved through faith (and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God), not of works,’ is not repetitious; the parenthetical clause instead of being redundant does good service and greatly increases the force of the passage. 3. According to this interpretation the antithesis between faith and works, so common in Paul’s writings, is preserved. ‘Ye are saved by faith, not by works, lest any man should boast.’ The middle clause of the verse is therefore parenthetical, and refers not to the main idea ye are saved, but to the subordinate one through faith, and is designed to show how entirely salvation is of grace, since even faith by which we apprehend the offered mercy, is the gift of God. 4. The analogy of Scripture is in favor of this view of the passage, in so far that elsewhere faith is represented as the gift of God. 1 Cor. 1, 26-31. Eph. 1, 19. Col. 2, 12, et passim.[6]
By grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast. Some analysis of this viewpoint is warranted. They understand the phrase (not of yourselves) as referring as to faith.
By grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. Thus, if one believes in Justification by faith, and one believes in God’s prediestiantion of humans eternal destiny this explatation fits perfectly. Furthermore, whatever is being discussed is ‘not of yourselves’ and ‘is the gift of God’. The key to this interpretation is what is the antecedent of ‘it’ and ‘not of yourselves.’ The Predestination view holds faith to be the antencendent of ‘not of yourselves’ and ‘it’ which is the gift of God. Therefore, if one takes faith to be the antecedent of it, and to what ‘not of yourselves is referring to’ the predestination view fits well.
View 2. A 3–5-point ‘soft’ Reformed view
The second view understand the clause (by grace are you saved through faith) wholistically being the antecendent of not of yourslefes, and ‘it’ which is the gift of God. The key argument therefore is that the grammar does not suggest ‘faith’ is the antecedent. Constantite Campell in the Pillar Commentary explains this view saying:
“The pronoun translated “this” (from “this is not from yourselves”) is grammatically neuter, and therefore does not match the grammatically feminine “faith.” Thus, when Paul says “you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves,” this does not refer to faith. Regardless of whether or not human faith is a gift of God from a theological perspective, that is not the point in this verse. So, then, what does this refer to, if not faith? Being grammatically neuter, it most likely refers to the entirety of the statement, “for you are saved by grace through faith.” The whole idea that you are saved by grace through faith is God’s gift.[7]
Andrew Lincoln in the Word Biblical Commentary agrees saying that:
“τοῦτο is probably best taken, therefore, as referring to the preceding clause as a whole, and thus to the whole process of salvation it describes, which of course includes faith as its means (cf. also Abbott, 51; Gaugler, 98; Bruce, 51; Schlier, 115; Gnilka, 129; Mitton, 97; Schnackenburg, 98).”[8]
The contextual view
Many people automatically assume when reading Ephesians 2:8 that is says we are saved by God’s grace through our faith in Jesus and not by works. However, that is not what is says. Constantine Campbell states “However, it will be noted that in 2:8, faith has no object. Paul does not say, “For you are saved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus.”[9]
Reading the passage in context shows that the primary agent doing the action in Ephesians Ch. 1&2 is not humanity but God through Jesus Christ.
Verses in context
Eph 1:2 Grace be to you… from God our Father and from the lord Jesus Christ
1:3 Blessed Be God.. who has blessed us with all spiritual blessing in heavenly places in christ
1:4 He hath chosen us
1:5 [God] having predestined us… unto the adoption of Children by Christ Jesus according to … his will
1:6 The glory of his grace wherein he hath made us accepted
1:7 In whom [Jesus] we have redemption through his blood… The forgiveness of sins according to the riches of his grace
1:8 He hath abounded toward us in all wisdom
1:9 the mystery of his will… according to his pleasure… which he hath purposed in himself
1:10 He might gather … all things in Christ … in him
1:11 We have obtained an inheritance … according to the purpose of him… after the counsel of his own will…
This continues on. To save space we shall simply hit some of the highlights.
1:19 According to the working of his mighty power
1:20 Which he wrought in Christ… When he raised him from the dead
2:4 But God… for his great love wherewith he loved us…
2:5 [he] hath quickened us together with Christ by grace ye are saved.
2:6 And [he] hath raised us up …. And [he] has made us sit… In Christ Jesus
2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus
2:8-9 The verses under discussion
2:10 For we are his workmanship … created in Christ Jesus… which God hath before ordained
2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
2:14 For he is our peace
2:15 [by him] having abolished in his flesh…
2:16 that he might reconcile both… [he] having slain the enmity
2:17 and [he] came and preached peace.
2:18 For through him we have access.
2:19 Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.
In context one sees that the agent doing the action is God through Christ Jesus. It was God through christ who abolished sin and made us nigh by Christ’s blood. Therefore, when reading in context whose faith[fulness] it is, one must simply ask the question who in context is the agent doing the action. The contextual argument suggests that in context since the agent doing the action the faith[fulness] refers to the agent doing all the action. One interesting question they would ask in relation to this is what contextual reason is there for thinking the faith[fulness] is a human action not Gods. While Scripture clearly identifies humans having faith i.e. Rom 5:1 Eph 1:13 etc… it also identifies Jesus being faithful Rev 19:11, 3:14, Rev 1:5, 1 John 1:9, Heb 10:23. In particular Hebrews 3:2 specifies that Jesus “ was faithful to him that appointed him” as Heb 2:17 explains he was “a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.” Simply put then Jesus was faithful to his appointment and was a faithful high priest and brought redemption through his blood, thus salvation comes by his grace through his blood.
The second issue is the grammatical context. The phrase ‘by grace are ye saved through faith’ grammatically is likely the antecedent to not of yourselves. If the salvation is not of oneself, the grace is not one’s grace it seems consistent that the pistis is also not ones own pistis. Paul Foster rightly says “Thus, in opposition to the view that the faith in question is a human activity, one must ask how such an interpretation can give due force to the emphatic declaration that ‘this is not from you’, which seems to be intended to counter the very type of claims that are being suggested by those who attribute this reference to pistis to a human action.”[10]
Another argument of the contextual argument is the Pistis Christou. To argue that one is save by faith and not by works is terminology that sounds scriptural and traditional, but it isn’t quite how the distinction is necessarily worded. Paul in Romans 3 contrasts Pistis Christou -the faith[fulness] Christ not works of the law. The contrast is faith[fulness] Christ vs works of the law. One interpretation of that issue is that one is justified by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (i.e. by the death and resurrection of Jesus), and not by the works of the Law (the Mosaic legal system).
Another argument is simply that to understand ‘faith’ in Eph 2:8 as human faith puts the passage in a logical fallacy. If faith is a human action, and the salvation is not of works – i.e. a human action then it is a logical fallacy that that one is saved by the work of faith but not by the work of faith. It also would make no sense to say that one is saved by faith so they cannot boast. One can boast over their faith.
Markus Barth in the Anchor Bible Commentary on Ephesians argues this passage refers to the faithfulness of Jesus. He writes:
“Paul omits the pronouns “my” and “his” for reasons hard to define. (a) It may be that he understands the passage to refer to God’s faithfulness. (b) He may also, just as does the epistle to the Hebrews, have Christ’s faithfulness in mind; he ascribes to the obedience and love of Christ toward God and man a decisive role in justification. (c) Finally, he may intend to speak of the faith of the saints (cf. Eph 1:1, 15, 19, etc.)… If Paul calls “faith” a “gift of God” at all, he cannot intend to overlook the fact that God who gives faith is himself faithful and proves his loyalty to the covenant by the gift of his beloved, obedient, and loving Son. By the only way to keep a covenant, i.e. “through faith,” God, the Messiah, and Jews faithful as Abraham are joined together.”[11]
Reading in context the passage in context we see four things.
1. The context is the agent doing the action being Jesus
2. It seems more likely that grammatically the whole clause including pistis is the antecedent of not of yourself
3. Understanding faith as our faith negative boasting is illogical because one can boast about faith.
4. Biblical Theological argument. It seems consistent with the rest of scripture to understand salvation as coming by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ [especially if one understand the pistis Christou as faithfulness of Christ.
[1] Matthew Bates, Gospel Allegiance: What faith in Jesus misses for salvation in Christ. Pg. 212
[2] These questions can be answered by a study of the literature on the point. In particular sees the works of Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone (Faith), John Barclay in Paul and the Gift (Grace) and Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity by David de Silva (Patronage).
[3] Lynn H. Cohick, The Letter to the Ephesians, ed. Ned B. Stonehouse et al., New International Commentary on the Old and New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2020), 161.
[4] John Muddiman, The Epistle to the Ephesians, Black’s New Testament Commentary (London: Continuum, 2001), 110–111.
[5] Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, vol. 42, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1990), 111–112.
[6] Charles Hodge, Commentary of the Epistle to the Ephesians ttps://ccel.org/ccel/hodge/ephesians.iii.ii.html
[7] Constantine R. Campbell, The Letter to the Ephesians, ed. D. A. Carson, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2023), 98.
[8] Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, vol. 42, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1990), 112.
[9] Constantine R. Campbell, The Letter to the Ephesians, ed. D. A. Carson, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2023), 96.
[10] Bird, Michael. The faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and theological studies. Paternoster, 2010. Pg. 107
[11] Markus Barth, Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 1–3, vol. 34, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 224–225.
Comentarios