# Eph. 2:8 - which is the gift God?



## moselle (Aug 13, 2008)

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And *this* is not your own doing; *it* is the gift of God (ESV)

To what are *this* and *it* referring? I've always been taught that they referred to grace, but I heard recently that it (also or instead, I can't quite remember) referred to faith.


----------



## Davidius (Aug 13, 2008)

In the original, the pronoun (it) and demonstrative pronoun (this) are both neuter in gender, so they can't be referring specifically to faith. They either refer to the whole thing of salvation, including the faith, or just the fact of salvation. If it were referring explicitly to the faith, the pronouns would be feminine in gender.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Aug 13, 2008)

I believe that *this* and *it* refer to *faith*. 
This faith is not your own doing. 
This faith is the gift of God. 
This faith is not produced by works (verse 9) and
This Faith gives no occassion for human boasting (verse 9).

See Ephes. 1:19 
And what is the exceeding greatness of *his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, *

How is it that we beileve? Where does faith come from? We believe according to the working of His mighty power. Faith is the gift of God.


----------



## KMK (Aug 13, 2008)

I have read arguments for both from an exegetical perspective. It seems to me that if exegesis ends in a tie, we have to go the teaching of the rest of the Bible to break the tie.



> Jer 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.





> Eze 36:26,27 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them].





> Acts 5:30,31 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.



The Bible teaches that both faith and grace are a gift of God.

PS. Wouldn't it be redundant for Paul to refer to 'grace' as a 'gift'?


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 13, 2008)

Davidius said:


> In the original, the pronoun (it) and demonstrative pronoun (this) are both neuter in gender, so they can't be referring specifically to faith. They either refer to the whole thing of salvation, including the faith, or just the fact of salvation. If it were referring explicitly to the faith, the pronouns would be feminine in gender.



Unfortunately for this position, Davidius, the correspondence between demonstrative pronoun and antecedent does not always match up in gender in the NT. The best explanation of this position, by the way, is in Hendricksen's commentary, pp. 121-123. It is quite possible that the neuter refers to the "being saved by grace through faith." Oftentimes, a neuter refers to a larger idea in the NT. However, the immediate antecedent of the neuter demonstrative is more likely the feminine "faith." I would therefore argue that the neuter demonstrative pronoun "this" refers primarily to faith, but not excluding the entire "saved by grace through faith." At any rate, it would be entirely redundant to refer the pronoun to "grace," since grace is by definition already a gift of God.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Aug 13, 2008)

I'm certainly no scholar, but to me it has always seemed that both the grace and the faith are the gift of God.

I also see THIS and IT as refering to faith, as has been mentioned by Pres. Deacon......


----------



## Davidius (Aug 13, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > In the original, the pronoun (it) and demonstrative pronoun (this) are both neuter in gender, so they can't be referring specifically to faith. They either refer to the whole thing of salvation, including the faith, or just the fact of salvation. If it were referring explicitly to the faith, the pronouns would be feminine in gender.
> ...



How can we say that the pronoun and antecedent don't match up in gender in the NT without begging the question? I don't have Hendricksen's. 



> It is quite possible that the neuter refers to the "being saved by grace through faith." Oftentimes, a neuter refers to a larger idea in the NT. However, the immediate antecedent of the neuter demonstrative is more likely the feminine "faith." I would therefore argue that the neuter demonstrative pronoun "this" refers primarily to faith, but not excluding the entire "saved by grace through faith." At any rate, it would be entirely redundant to refer the pronoun to "grace," since grace is by definition already a gift of God.



But how can we assert that the antecedent must be "faith" when this doesn't work grammatically? What kind of precedence do we have? He could have just said αὕτη, right?

By the way, I agree that, since it's obvious that grace is from God, it doesn't make a big difference. Whether he means the faith, or the whole thing, faith is still included in God's gift. I'm just a grammar nerd.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Aug 13, 2008)

Davidius said:


> In the original, the pronoun (it) and demonstrative pronoun (this) are both neuter in gender, so they can't be referring specifically to faith. They either refer to the whole thing of salvation, including the faith, or just the fact of salvation. If it were referring explicitly to the faith, the pronouns would be feminine in gender.




An interesting article here:

http://www.sil.org/siljot/2005/2/46694/siljot2005-2-03.pdf


----------



## panta dokimazete (Aug 13, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > In the original, the pronoun (it) and demonstrative pronoun (this) are both neuter in gender, so they can't be referring specifically to faith. They either refer to the whole thing of salvation, including the faith, or just the fact of salvation. If it were referring explicitly to the faith, the pronouns would be feminine in gender.
> ...



For those too busy\lazy to read it  - here is the point - bold mine:



> As has been shown, in a number of instances a translator of the Greek New Testament must *pay more attention to the logical subjects than to the grammatical subjects*. Failure to do so can result in sentences that are either syntactically unnatural or semantically questionable. In the three case studies discussed in this article, it is clear that failure to distinguish between logical subjecthood and grammatical subjecthood with respect to Greek person and number resolution rules has semantic consequences for the interpretation of the passages. Literalness in translating Greek compound NPs in which the NPs function as the subject of finite verbs and as governors of pronouns is not always desirable because literalness may result in *excluding participants* that are meant by the original author to be included.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 13, 2008)

Quoted from footnote 61 on page 123 of Hendricksen's commentary: 



> As to grammar, from the works of Plato, Xenophon, and Demosthenes several instances of the use of touto to indicate a masculine or feminine antecedent are cited by Kuyper (LK, in his book, Het Werk van den Heilegen Geest, translated by De Vries as The Work of the Holy Spirit, pp. 407-414). He also quotes the following from a Greek Grammar: "Very common is the use of a neuter demonstrative pronoun to indicate an antecedent substantive of masculine or of feminine gender when the idea conveyed by that substantive is referred to in a general sense." The quotation is from the work of Kuehnhert.



It should be noted that the exercise of faith in regard to salvation is the broadest possible use of the term "faith," thus fulfilling the qualifications of the grammar. The fact is that in such a case where two nouns (faith and gift) are both referred to by "this" (the construction would be that faith is gift, referred to by "this"), the pronoun could be in either the case of the antecedent (faith) or in the case of the predicate nominative (gift). It is assimilated to the case of the predicate nominative in order to tie closely together the giftedness of faith with faith itself.


----------



## Herald (Aug 13, 2008)

In my humble opinion the whole enchilada.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Aug 13, 2008)

> Oftentimes, a neuter refers to a larger idea in the NT. However, the immediate antecedent of the neuter demonstrative is more likely the feminine "faith."



A check in BDAG (Baur, Danker, Arndt & Gingrich A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd edition), which is THE lexicon to have for NT studies (Accept no substitutes. Go, sell your first-born child and buy one.), reveals that *this * (_touto_) signifies first of all "the person or thing comparatively near at hand in the discourse material." 

It is thus a matter of the nearest referent.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Aug 13, 2008)

*Charles Hodge on Ephesians 2:8*



> The only point in the interpretation of these verses of any doubt, relates to the second clause. What is said to be the gift of God? Is it salvation, or faith? The words _kai touto _only serve to render more proninent the matter referred to. Compare Rom. 13, 11. 1 Cor. 6, 6. Phil. 1, 28. Heb. 11, 12. They may relate to faith (_to pisteuein_), or to the salvation spoken of (_sesosmenous einai_). Beza, following the fathers, prefers the former reference; Calvin, with most of the modern commentators, the latter. 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.



Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, MI, 1982 (page 119-120).


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 13, 2008)

Daniel Wallace, in _Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics_ (pp. 334-335), says the following about Ephesians 2:8:



> This is the most debated text in terms of the antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun, touto [this]. The standard interpretations include: (1) "grace" as antecedent, (2) "faith" as antecedent; (3) the concept of a grace-by-faith salvation as antecedent, and (4) kai touto [and this] having an adverbial force with no antecedent ("and especially").
> 
> The first and second options suffer from the fact that touto is neuter while chariti [grace] and pistews [faith] are feminine. ... More plausible is the third view, viz., that touto refers to the concept of a grace-by-faith salvation. As we have seen, touto regularly takes a conceptual antecedent. Whether faith is seen as a gift here or anywhere else in the NT is not addressed by this.
> 
> A fourth view is that kai touto is adverbial, though this view has surprisingly made little impact on the exegetical literature. If adverbial, kai touto is intensive, meaning "and at that, and especially," without having any antecedent. It focuses on the _verb_ rather than any noun [Wallace then references 3 John 5 as an example of this usage]. ... The issues here are complex and cannot be solved by grammar alone. Nevertheless, syntactical considerations do tend toward one of the the latter two views.


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 13, 2008)

*As was spoken by John Gill, the last true apostle (J/K)*

From Gill's Exposition:



> Ephesians 2:8
> 
> Ver. 8. For by grace are ye saved,.... This is to be understood, not of temporal salvation, nor of preservation in Christ, nor of providential salvation in order to calling, and much less of being put in a way of salvation, or only in a salvable state; but of spiritual salvation, and that actual; for salvation was not only resolved upon, contrived and secured in the covenant of grace, for the persons here spoken to, but it was actually obtained and wrought out for them by Christ, and was actually applied unto them by the Spirit; and even as to the full enjoyment of it, they had it in faith and hope; and because of the certainty of it, they are said to be already saved; and besides, were representatively possessed of it in Christ their head: those interested in this salvation, are not all mankind, but particular persons; and such who were by nature children of wrath, and sinners of the Gentiles; and it is a salvation from sin, Satan, the law, its curse and condemnation, and from eternal death, and wrath to come; and includes all the blessings of grace and glory; and is entirely owing to free grace: for by grace is not meant the Gospel, nor gifts of grace, nor grace infused; but the free favour of God, to which salvation in all its branches is ascribed; as election, redemption, justification, pardon, adoption, regeneration, and eternal glory: the Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions read, "by his grace", and so some copies; and it may refer to the grace of all the three Persons; for men are saved by the grace of the Father, who drew the plan of salvation, appointed men to it, made a covenant with his Son, in which it is provided and secured, and sent him into the world to obtain it; and by the grace of the Son, who engaged as a surety to effect it, assumed human nature, obeyed and suffered in it for that purpose, and has procured it; and by the grace of the Spirit, who makes men sensible of their need of it, brings it near, sets it before them, and applies it to them, and gives them faith and hope in it: hence it follows,
> 
> ...



The editor's note is probably more what everyone is looking for.


----------



## moral necessity (Aug 14, 2008)

I tend to think that it refers to the entire process of being saved. For, we all know that grace already implies that it is not of us, for it must be a gift, as the word means. And, faith is the means of that gift coming to us, which is not of our own selves, but is the gift of God as well, for we did not have it apart from him. So, to me, it seems to refer to the entire process of being saved, by grace through faith. It is all a gift of God. The entire process of our salvation is all of grace, or, is a gift of God. 

Blessings!


----------



## Confessor (Aug 14, 2008)

I have heard the argument that "this" is neuter, and therefore not referring to faith, but I just don't buy it. Earlier in the passage, Paul mentions that they have been saved through grace (v. 5) without mentioning that it's from God. Then, later, Paul finds it important enough to break off the sentence in the middle to declare that God is behind this.

Now, would Paul really need to break off the thought with a hyphen in order to tell his audience that grace is a gift from God, or that salvation is from God? Would he honestly think his audience might mistake him and believe that salvation or grace is "of themselves"? Linguistically speaking, the antecedent of "this" being "faith" is utterly unavoidable.


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 14, 2008)

Here is the fuller context of the Baker Commentary Lane was citing:



> Three explanations deserve consideration:
> (1) That offered by A. T. Robertson. Commenting on this passage in his Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. IV, p. 525, he states, “Grace is God’s part, faith ours.” He adds that since in the original the demonstrative “this” (and this not of yourselves) is neuter and does not correspond with the gender of the word “faith,” which is feminine, it does not refer to the latter “but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part.” Even more clearly in Gram.N.T., p. 704, he states categorically, “In Eph. 2:8 … there is no reference to διὰ πίστεως [through faith] in τοῦτο [this], but rather to the idea of salvation in the clause before.”
> 
> Without any hesitancy I answer, Robertson, to whom the entire world of New Testament scholarship is heavily indebted, does not express himself felicitously in this instance. This is true first because in a context in which the apostle places such tremendous stress on the fact that from start to finish man owes his salvation to God, to him alone, it would have been very strange, indeed, for him to say, “Grace is God’s part, faith ours.” True though it be that both the responsibility of believing and also its activity are ours, for God does not believe for us, nevertheless, in the present context (verses 5–10) one rather expects emphasis on the fact that both in its initiation and in its continuation faith is entirely dependent on God, and so is our complete salvation. Also, Robertson, a grammarian famous in his field, knew that in the original the demonstrative (this), though neuter, by no means always corresponds in gender with its antecedent. That he knew this is shown by the fact that on the indicated page of his Grammar (p. 704) he points out that “in general” the demonstrative “agrees with its substantive in gender and number.” When he says “in general,” he must mean, “not always but most of the time.” Hence, he should have considered more seriously the possibility that, in view of the context, the exception to the rule, an exception by no means rare, applies here. He should have made allowance for it.60 Finally, he should hare justified the departure from the rule that unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise the antecedent should be looked for in the immediate vicinity of the pronoun or adjective that refers to it.
> ...


----------



## moselle (Aug 14, 2008)

*Wow*

This is a treasure trove! Thanks for all your responses. It had never occurred to me that stating "grace" as a "gift of God" is redundant; yet that's what I had always been taught (or maybe assumed.)

I've been searching through the NT for other references to faith coming from God also. Wonderful, wonderful!


----------



## Davidius (Aug 14, 2008)

packabacka said:


> I have heard the argument that "this" is neuter, and therefore not referring to faith, but I just don't buy it. Earlier in the passage, Paul mentions that they have been saved through grace (v. 5) without mentioning that it's from God. Then, later, Paul finds it important enough to break off the sentence in the middle to declare that God is behind this.
> 
> Now, would Paul really need to break off the thought with a hyphen in order to tell his audience that grace is a gift from God, or that salvation is from God? Would he honestly think his audience might mistake him and believe that salvation or grace is "of themselves"? Linguistically speaking, the antecedent of "this" being "faith" is utterly unavoidable.



Actually, linguistically speaking, the antecedent of "this" being "faith" is not "utterly" unavoidable. Grammatically it appears that it works either way, if we accept the opinions of several grammars and commentators. The most normal "linguistic" reading would, in fact, _not_ have _touto_ referring to a feminine noun. Perhaps that _can_ happen, but that doesn't mean it _must_. The flow of the passage makes perfect sense with _touto_ referring to the entire idea.

To clarify, an argument from the flow of the passage is not a linguistic argument, it's a contextual argument. Thus to argue linguistically is to do what I'm doing, i.e. talk about morphology.


----------



## Confessor (Aug 14, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Actually, linguistically speaking, the antecedent of "this" being "faith" is not "utterly" unavoidable.



What else would you propose?



> Grammatically it appears that it works either way, if we accept the opinions of several grammars and commentators. The most normal "linguistic" reading would, in fact, _not_ have _touto_ referring to a feminine noun. Perhaps that _can_ happen, but that doesn't mean it _must_. The flow of the passage makes perfect sense with _touto_ referring to the entire idea.



Grammatically, yes, "this" is not feminine, so it doesn't surefire point to "faith" as its antecedent, but that wasn't my point. For Paul to say that we have been saved by grace earlier in the passage, move along, say it again (this time mentioning faith) and make sure to state that it's a gift from God -- as if the audience didn't already know that they can't save themselves by their own grace -- is ridiculous. It would actually ruin the flow of the passage to restate to his audience the unimportant point that grace is not of themselves.



> To clarify, an argument from the flow of the passage is not a linguistic argument, it's a contextual argument. Thus to argue linguistically is to do what I'm doing, i.e. talk about morphology.



Ah, thank you.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Aug 14, 2008)

*To clarify?*



Davidius said:


> Actually, linguistically speaking, the antecedent of "this" being "faith" is not "utterly" unavoidable. Grammatically it appears that it works either way, if we accept the opinions of several grammars and commentators. The most normal "linguistic" reading would, in fact, _not_ have _touto_ referring to a feminine noun. Perhaps that _can_ happen, but that doesn't mean it _must_. The flow of the passage makes perfect sense with _touto_ referring to the entire idea.
> 
> *To clarify*, an argument from the flow of the passage is not a linguistic argument, it's *a contextual argument*. Thus *to argue linguistically is to do what I'm doing,* i.e. talk about morphology.



*Clarity does not seem to be your strong point in this post*.

You speak of the "*flow of the passage*" making sense if _touto_ refers "*to the entire idea*." 

Then you state that "*an argument from the flow of the passage is not a linguistic argument, it's a contextual argument*." So that would make your prior statement, by your own definition-- "*a contextual argument*."

Then you state that you are arguing "*linguistically*?" 

I submit that it is a fundamental rule of grammar and translation work that proper translation can not be done without considering both grammar and context. 

The true linguist *MUST* be concerned with context.


----------



## oworm (Nov 4, 2008)

I go with the conceptual antecedent. You cannot separate any one element from the process Paul puts forward i.e Salvation by grace through faith is not of ourselves.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Nov 4, 2008)

Grace is the Power of God to the Elect Sinner whereby God justifieth the ungodly, from which comes the gift of the spirit, namely FAITH, and as mentioned above, NEITHER come from the strength of men in any way, shape, or form. If God decreed to bestow upon a sinner His Grace before the foundation of the world, it is obvious it is not of any man's doing, and we know that Faith...by hearing, and hearing by the rhema of God would and could only mean that Grace is the means by which God Justifies His Elect throught the regenerative work of the Spirit, bring Life (Ability) for the man to Understand the Gospel (the Work of God; Jn 6:28,29), which is the Power of God unto salvation, first to the Jew and also to the Grecian; whereby cometh faith (a gift of the Spirit; Gal. 5:20?).

I don't know all of the grammer to the Greek used...but, I can interpret Scripture with Scripture (hermeneutic) which I fund sufficient, though I wouldn't mind learning the original languages.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 4, 2008)

I think it is best expressed by Meyer, who goes against most of the fathers (who refer it to faith), but stands along side such exegetes as Calvin, Calovius, and de Wette, referring it to salvation--not upon syntactical grounds, but exegetical, finding it offensive to the passage to force a parenthetical statement into Paul's discourse where they find none.

"


> Nothing is here to be treated as parenthesis....Rightly, therefore, have Calvin,...referred it to the salvation just designated *as regards its specific mode.* Paul very earnestly and emphatically enters into more detailed explanations as to what he had just said, _te gar xariti, k.t.l [by his grace_, namely, to the effect that he briefly and forcibly places in the light of the respective contrasts, first, that _objective_ element of the saving deliverance which has taken place ([by grace]) by "[not of yourselves, it is the gift of God]" , and then the _subjective_ element ([by faith]), by "[not of works lest any man, etc." His thought is: "Through grace you are in possession of salvation by means of faith, _and that to the exclusion of your own causation and operative agency."_



*Edited to add*
Of course, this does not mean that I deny faith to be a gift from God, nor would I oppose in the preaching of Ephesians that such should be taught from this text; for, though I maintain that this, exegetically, refers to the salvation, we nonetheless maintain that faith is indeed a part of this salvation. Textually, however, the touto, I maintain, refers to salvation.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Nov 4, 2008)

Oh! In Faith...by hearing...hearing means UNDERSTANDING. Even this is not of yourselves...Faith is basically a manifestation of understanding (hearing).

Grow in the Grace and Knowledge of Him!


----------



## CubsIn07 (Nov 12, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > In the original, the pronoun (it) and demonstrative pronoun (this) are both neuter in gender, so they can't be referring specifically to faith. They either refer to the whole thing of salvation, including the faith, or just the fact of salvation. If it were referring explicitly to the faith, the pronouns would be feminine in gender.
> ...



If you are referring to a collective and a demonstrative you are obviously correct. But I think you are going to be hard-pressed to find a pronoun and a demonstrative not having the correct grammatical correspondence. Daniel Wallace, in his "Exegetical Syntax" says, referring (and disagreeing with) to R.H. Countess's study in JETS 12 (1969), that there are three examples of this in Attic Greek and in Koine. But Countess cites no examples, and two of his examples refer to a concept rather than a noun.


----------

