# Eph. 2:8



## JM (Jan 17, 2007)

Does this make sense?



> Ephesians 2:8
> 
> Here is a pronounceable transliteration:
> 
> ...



Thanks, 

~JM~


----------



## Machaira (Jan 18, 2007)

JM said:


> Does this make sense?




Hi Jason,

It makes perfect sense. Even someone overtly hostile to Calvinism like A T Robertson gets it.

*And that (kai touto). Neuter, not feminine tautē, and so refers not to pistis (feminine) or to charis (feminine also), but to the act of being saved* by grace conditioned on faith on our part. Paul shows that salvation does not have its source (ex humōn, out of you) in men, but from God. Besides, it is God’s gift (dōron) and not the result of our work. Robertson's Word Pictures

Ignore that part where he uses the word "conditioned."


----------



## JM (Jan 18, 2007)

Ok, thanks.


----------



## CubsIn07 (Mar 10, 2007)

JM, I am a little bit confused by your exegesis. On the one hand you say that the "touto" refers to the entire idea of salvation being by grace through faith. Later you say that it refers to "salvation." Do you mean the word "salvation" or the whole phrase? It cannot refer just to the word "salvation" because "salvation" is masculine and "touto" is neuter. If Paul wanted to refer to the word "salvation" he could have done this rather easily. 

"Touto" could also be adverbial in this context. Daniel Wallace has a nice entry on this passage on his Exegetical Syntax. He doesn't seem to think that the exegetical evidence is enough to only maintain that "salvation by grace through faith" can be the "touto" here. Well he will not be a hardliner on this at least. He believes that the adverbial or the above exegesis is fitting, but he can't make a decision. I am inclined to think that the "touto" is the whole phrase because Paul has tendencies to use a neuter demonstrative pronoun to refer back to whole ideas (he does this in chapter one and 3:1)


----------



## JM (Mar 10, 2007)

Sorry brother [no sig, can't call you by name] but it was a quote and not my exegesis. I haven't studied Greek and was looking for help understanding this passage from the Greek.

So, it doesn't make sense?

Peace,
j



CubsIn07 said:


> JM, I am a little bit confused by your exegesis. On the one hand you say that the "touto" refers to the entire idea of salvation being by grace through faith. Later you say that it refers to "salvation." Do you mean the word "salvation" or the whole phrase? It cannot refer just to the word "salvation" because "salvation" is masculine and "touto" is neuter. If Paul wanted to refer to the word "salvation" he could have done this rather easily.
> 
> "Touto" could also be adverbial in this context. Daniel Wallace has a nice entry on this passage on his Exegetical Syntax. He doesn't seem to think that the exegetical evidence is enough to only maintain that "salvation by grace through faith" can be the "touto" here. Well he will not be a hardliner on this at least. He believes that the adverbial or the above exegesis is fitting, but he can't make a decision. I am inclined to think that the "touto" is the whole phrase because Paul has tendencies to use a neuter demonstrative pronoun to refer back to whole ideas (he does this in chapter one and 3:1)


----------



## CubsIn07 (Mar 11, 2007)

Well the neuter "it" can't refer to the masculine participle "salvation" alone because of the gender confusion between participle and pronoun. I think you understood this, but I was just trying to clear it up. I am caught between the "it" being adverbial meaning that it is intensifying the masculine participle which means that "it" doesn't necessarily refer to anything but is intending to say "especially." In fact it could just be referring forward to the idea that you are not saved by your own doing. Knowledgeable Arminians tend to take this route. But I just don't see how the "it" could be intensive without really intensifying anything in particular (or at least nothing that we can be really sure of). I think it is referring to the idea that salvation, salvation which is by God's grace and through faith as a whole is not of yourselves. But it is possible that Paul is using it adverbially in such a way that we really aren't sure what is being intensified.

I tried putting in my signature, but it won't come up. I'm Jeremy.


----------



## JM (Mar 11, 2007)

CubsIn07 said:


> Well the neuter "it" can't refer to the masculine participle "salvation" alone because of the gender confusion between participle and pronoun. I think you understood this, but I was just trying to clear it up. I am caught between the "it" being adverbial meaning that it is intensifying the masculine participle which means that "it" doesn't necessarily refer to anything but is intending to say "especially." In fact it could just be referring forward to the idea that you are not saved by your own doing. Knowledgeable Arminians tend to take this route. But I just don't see how the "it" could be intensive without really intensifying anything in particular (or at least nothing that we can be really sure of). I think it is referring to the idea that salvation, salvation which is by God's grace and through faith as a whole is not of yourselves. But it is possible that Paul is using it adverbially in such a way that we really aren't sure what is being intensified.
> 
> I tried putting in my signature, but it won't come up. I'm Jeremy.



Thank you Jeremy, that was helpful.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 11, 2007)

I'll make two replies.
1) it is a quite common Greek convention to use the neuter to collectivize, in which case, the strongest argument gramatically (whatever else may be put forward) is that, as has already been stated, the whole idea taken as a unit (with the differing gender specifics) is refered to by "this."

2) it may be that this is the only place where the noun "faith" or "belief" is clearly a gift, or part of a gift. But it is NOT the only place where "to believe" or "to have faith" as a _verbal_ idea is presented as a free gift or grant (we don't have a verb "faithing", but the Greek terms are obvious cognates).
Example:
Philippians 1:29
"Because to you it has been *granted* in the behalf of Christ,
a) not only *to believe* on him,
b) but also *to suffer* in his behalf.

The two parts (a) and (b) complete the verb.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 13, 2007)

“For by grace you have been saved by faith, and *that* not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, so that no one should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9 NASB. I know the ESV renders _touto_ as *this*, which may be more proper, but the following is an extract from an article I already had written:

There are two main interpretations of this text, both interpretations hinging on what is meant by the phrase _and that_, more specifically the pronoun _that_ (NASB). This demonstrative pronoun has an antecedent to which it refers. So the question is, What is the _that_ which is the gift of God?

1. The first interpretation takes it as referring to faith. This has been the view of many Bible scholars over the years, e.g. Augustine, Beza, Hodge, Kuyper, and Hendriksen. This is also the natural meaning one would take from the plain reading of the English text. If this interpretation is correct, then the question is immediately settled, faith is the gift. Those holding this view would paraphrase it like this, “By grace you have been saved through faith, and even your faith is not of yourselves; faith is a gift from God, so you cannot boast in the least.” Thus Paul is stressing here that even your faith is a gift in order to exclude the possibility of any boasting.

The difficulty with this view is as follows. In the Greek, _that_ is a neuter demonstrative pronoun but _faith_ is a feminine noun. The general rule would have the two agree in gender. Why would Paul use what may be viewed as awkward or incorrect grammar? Those who hold this first interpretation give several replies. For example, a pronoun usually but not always agrees with its noun in gender. There are exceptions to the general rule as can be seen in the Greek of Acts 8:10, Jude 12, 2 Pet. 2:17, 1 Pet. 2:19, 1 Cor. 6:11, and 1 Cor. 10:6 (Ref. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 704). Examples may also be found in classical and Koine Greek where neuter pronouns are used to refer to both masculine and feminine nouns. It has also been suggested that the formula _and that_ (Greek: _kai touto_) is often used in a technical sense to add special emphasis to the idea to which it is attached, and in this case it is attached to the word faith in the Greek as well as in the English translation. Finally, it is also generally true that a pronoun refers to the nearest antecedent or closest noun. Again, in this case, it is the word faith.

2. The other major interpretation has the word _that_ referring back to the whole preceding thought, centering on the verb. This is the view of other well known scholars such as Calvin, Eadie, Matthew Henry, and John Gill. This view may have fewer difficulties and appeals to some direct grammatical parallels for support. There are four other sentences in the New Testament, all by Paul, which are grammatically parallel: 1 Cor. 6:6 and 6:8, Phil. 1:28, and Rom. 13:11. In each of these, the demonstrative pronoun, _that_, refers to the whole preceding clause or sentence with the thought centering on the verb. According to this view, Eph. 2:8-9 would be paraphrased thus, “By grace you have been saved through faith. But this salvation is not of yourselves, salvation is the gift of God, not of works lest anyone should boast.”

This last interpretation is also readily adopted by those who deny that faith, itself, is a gift. They think that if _that_ does not refer specifically to faith they have made their case. But there are a couple of snags here. First, in this interpretation, _that_ refers to the whole idea of the preceding clause. It is not merely salvation which is the gift of God, but _salvation through faith_ which is God’s gift. Hence, this doesn’t exclude faith as a gift. On the contrary, if the whole of salvation is the gift, then so are the parts that make up the whole and here that specifically includes faith. Faith is intrinsic to salvation. Secondly, even if somehow one could show that Paul did not mean to imply that faith is a gift here, that does not mean that Paul is denying that faith is a gift. He would simply be saying something else.

However, I personally favor the first view. If _that_ doesn’t refer to faith then it must indeed refer to the idea of salvation. Yet, if we take Paul to mean “this being saved is not of yourselves” he would be somewhat guilty of needless repetition, for he has just said we are “saved by grace”, which by definition is not of ourselves. The whole context of Ephesians up to this point, and especially chapter 2, seems to be stressing the fact that it is all by God’s grace. We were made alive when we were yet dead, not in response to our faith. I think this is the point Paul is making: even our faith is not of ourselves, it is a gift of God!


----------



## CubsIn07 (Mar 13, 2007)

I don't mean to quibble, but you are translating a near demonstrative "touto" or "this" as a far demonstrative "ekeinos" or "that." Is there interplay between the two?

Wallace says on p. 334 of his Exegetical Syntax that R.H. Countess wrote an article in JETS where he said that a neuter demonstrative can refer back to a noun of a different gender. Wallace goes on to say that Countess cites no NT examples and two of his classical examples actually refer to concepts rather than nouns. From Wallace's perspective the jury is either out or is ruling against the idea that a neuter demonstrative can refer back to a masculine or feminine.

In the Acts 8:10 passage I don't think the demonstrative has gender difficulties with its noun. The demonstrative "outos" is nominative, singular, masculine and is referring back to "magic" or "mageuov" which is also nominative, singular, masculine.

What exactly do you mean when you say "There are four other sentences in the New Testament, all by Paul, which are grammatically parallel: 1 Cor. 6:6 and 6:8, Phil. 1:28, and Rom. 13:11"? Do you mean that a neuter pronoun refers back to a collective?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 13, 2007)

Jeremy,
You seem to think...

...that Lou Pinella might be the savior for the World... Series, hope springing eternal...

Wait... this is really getting off topic I think.

I agree that whatever can be said grammatically for "faith" singly, as the referent, or theologically as a powerful affirmation of faith as a gift, it is the weaker argument. Taking the phrase as a whole, and then showing systematically that all the parts of the whole are granted, is not only safer exegetically, but ties the doctrine together with the rest of Scripture in an unanswerable punch.

One can then go back to this passage and affirm any single piece of the verse, including faith, as a portion of the gift given. And know that Paul had such in his mind when he spoke of them collectively.


----------



## CubsIn07 (Mar 13, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Jeremy,
> You seem to think...
> 
> ...that Lou Pinella might be the savior for the World... Series, hope springing eternal...
> ...



That's as sure as the Cubs winning the World Series this year!


----------

