Introduction

The purpose of this article is to offer some evidence in an historical exegetical debate about Ephesians 2:8-9. The evidence is that early church exegetes familiar with Greek took the referent of the neuter demonstrative τοῦτο (‘this’) in Ephesians 2:8 as the preceding feminine noun in the genitive πίστις (‘faith’), located two words before, in spite of the fact that these two words do not agree in gender.

The exegetical consequence of this understanding is that πίστις (‘faith’) is further described as οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν (‘not from ourselves’), and θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον·(‘the gift of God’). That is, Paul then would be saying in Ephesians 2:8-9 that ‘faith’, which is the instrument of human salvation (διὰ πίστεως) in the passage and the instrument of justification elsewhere according to Paul, is a gift from God. Depending on the nature of that gift, and how that gift is conceived, would then need to be established. However, it would be a piece of evidence in support of both the Augustinian and the Calvinistic view that special prevenient grace or effectual calling is necessary for a fallen human to have saving faith in God. Here is the key text, Ephesians 2:8-10:

8For [it is] by grace[1] you[2] have been saved[3] through faith[4], and this [thing][5], [is] not from you[6], [it is] the gift[7] of God, 9not from works, so that no-one may boast. 10For we are his handiwork, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, so that in them we might walk. (my translation)

8Τῇ γὰρ χάριτί[8] ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι[9] διὰ πίστεως[10]· καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον· 9οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, ἵνα μή τις καυχήσηται[11]. 10αὐτοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν ποίημα[12], κτισθέντες[13] ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἐπὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς οἷς προητοίμασεν[14] ὁ θεός, ἵνα ἐν αὐτοῖς περιπατήσωμεν.

This article seeks to demonstrate that it is an ancient exegetical view that the referent of ‘this’ (τοῦτο) in Ephesians 2:8-9 is ‘faith’ (πίστεως), even though they do not agree in gender and therefore faith is both οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν (‘not from ourselves’), and θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον·(‘the gift of God’).

Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), in obvious reaction to the tenor of the debate he observed, in 1888 raised the same the issue with some passion and not a little chastisement in the following way:

St. Paul declares that faith is the gift of God (Ephes. ii. 8). His words, “And that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God,” refer to the word “faith.” A new generation of youthful expositors confidently assert that these words refer to “by grace are ye saved.” The majority of them are evidently ignorant of the history of the exegesis of the text. They only know that the pronoun “that” in the clause “and that not of yourselves” is a Greek neuter. And without further examination they consider it settled that the neuter pronoun cannot refer to “faith,” which is a Greek feminine. Allow us to put our readers on their guard against the thoughtless prattle of shallow school-learning. It should be remembered that while our exegesis is and always has been the one accepted almost without exception, the opposite opinion is shared by only a few expositors of later times. Nearly all the church fathers and almost all the theologians eminent for Greek scholarship judged that the words “it is the gift of God” refer to faith.

1. This was the exegesis, according to the ancient tradition, of the churches in which St. Paul had labored.

2. Of those that spoke the Greek language and were familiar with the peculiar Greek construction.

3. Of the Latin church fathers, who maintained close contact with the Greek world.

4. Of such scholars as Erasmus, Grotius, and others, who as philologists were without peers; and in them all the more remarkable, since personally they favored the exposition that faith is the work of man.

5. Of Beza, Zanchius, Piscator, Voetius, Heidegger, and even of Wolf, Bengel, Estius, Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, etc., who to the present day maintain the original tradition.[15]

It now can be said with some confidence that it is no longer the case that it is only youthful expositors that adopt the new exegesis. The 'new exegesis' has carried the field. I only know of three modern commentators who follow Kuyper’s exegesis, and they are not that modern! And yet, there is an earlier exegetical tradition that is both ancient and strongly attested to. The ‘modern’ view was apparently not articulated (at least in the extant literature) until Theophylact (11^th century), (which means that the 'modern' view is not that 'modern'), where Theophylact says:

[H]e [Paul] does not say the faith is a gift of God, but to be saved through faith, this thing is the gift of God.

οὐ τὴν πίστιν λέγει δῶρον θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὸ διὰ πίστεως σωθῆναι, τοῦτο δῶρον ἐστι θεοῦ[16]

Moreover, Kuyper is undoubtedly mistaken in his view of Calvin, who clearly follows Theophylact, for Calvin himself says:

And here we must advert to a very common error in the interpretation of this passage. Many persons restrict the word gift to faith alone. But Paul is only repeating in other words the former sentiment. His meaning is, not that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God.’[17]

The modern protestant commentators who follow what Kuyper calls the older tradition are Marcus Barth,[18] G B Caird,[19] and E K Simpson.[20] However, this situation is very different to the history of exegesis found in the extant literature. This article looks at the exegesis of John Chrysostom (c349 – 407), a native Greek speaker, and his Fourth Homily on Ephesians.

John Chrysostom (c349 – 407) on Ephesians 2:8-10

Historically speaking, Chrysostom’s exegesis of Ephesians 2:8-10 is highly unlikely to have been affected by the theology of Augustine developed in the face of the Pelagian controversy. Newman dates Chrysostom’s Homilies on Ephesians to before 392.[21] Jurgens dates them ‘as probably after 391 and certainly before 398’.[22] Significantly, ‘Chrysostom’s death preceded the first publications of Augustine’s polemical writings against the Pelagians by approximately 5 years, and much more did Chrysostom’s homilies on Romans precede the rise in prominence of Augustine’s theology of justification in the Western Tradition.’[23] Chrysostom has distinctly eastern theological interests, notably ‘the soteriological significance of the incarnation, the freedom of human beings, and the importance of moral development’.[24] In Homily 4 on Ephesians, Chrysostom says of Ephesians chapter 2 verse 8:

In order then that the greatness of the benefits bestowed may not raise you too high, observe how he brings you down: ‘by grace you have been saved,’ says he, ‘through faith’. Then, that on the other hand, our free-will (τὸ αὐτεξούσιον) be not impaired, he adds also our part in the work (ἔθηκε καὶ τὰ ἡμῶν), and yet again cancels it, and adds, ‘And that not of ourselves.’ (καὶ πάλιν αὐτὸ ἀνεῖλε[25], καί φησι · Καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ἡμῶν.) Neither is faith, he means, ‘of ourselves.’ (Οὐδὲ ἡ πίστις, φησὶν, εξ ἡμῶν.) Because had He not come, had he not called us, how had we been able to believe? (εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἦλθεν, εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἐκάλεσε, πῶς ἠδυνάμεθα πιστεῦσαι;) ‘For how’, says he, ‘shall they believe, unless they hear?’ So that the work of faith is not our own. (‘Ωστε οὐδὲ τὸ τῆς πίστεως ἡμέτερον.) “It is the gift,” said he, “of God,” it is “not of works” (θεοῦ, φησὶ, τὸ δῶρον;· οὐκ ἐξ ἐργων).[26]

Jurgens translates as follows:

“For by grace,” [Paul] says, “You have been saved.” But lest the greatness of the benefits inflate you, see how he brings you down: “By grace you have been saved,” he says, “through faith.” And then again, lest a violence be done to free will, after he has added what pertains to us he takes it away again when he says, “and that not of ourselves.” The faith, he means, is not from ourselves; for if He had not come, if He had not called, how should we be able to believe? “For how shall they believe,” [Paul] says, unless they do hear?” Thus the work of faith is not ours. “It is the gift,” he says “of God”.[27]

Four observations here can be made.

First, we notice the importance for Chrysostom of free will (τό αὐτεξούσιον).

Second, Chrysostom as a native Greek speaker (albeit some 300 years after Paul), had no problem reading the referent of the demonstrative pronoun τοῦτο as πίστεως, though the two words clearly do not agree in gender. Chrysostom says ‘Neither is faith, he means, “of ourselves” || Οὐδὲ ἡ πίστις, φησὶν, εξ ἡμῶν’. Then again, he says, ‘So that the work of faith is not our own. It is the gift of God, he says, not of works’. ||'Ωστε οὐδὲ τὸ τῆς πίστεως ὴμέτερον. θεοῦ, φησὶ, τὸ δῶρον;· οὐκ ἐξ ἐργων’.

Third, we should notice Chrysostom’s explanation of why faith is not ‘from ourselves’. Faith is not from ourselves because Christ had come and called us (ἦλθεν, ἐκάλεσε). It would be tempting to read later Reformed categories into Chrysostom here. Given the place in Chrysostom’s thinking for the incarnation and free-will, he almost certainly means that faith is the product of the coming of Christ in history and what we might describe anachronistically in the categories of Reformed theology as the general call of the gospel to all people (e.g. many are called but few are chosen: Matthew 22:14), rather than an efficacious call to believers, the elect (e.g. those he predestined he also called: Romans 8:30). Almost certainly, the allusion to Romans 10:14 indicates Chrysostom means an outward call. It would be anachronistic and almost certainly incorrect to say that Chrysostom is articulating an Augustinian position. Nevertheless, the fact remains that as a matter of exegesis, Chrysostom takes the antecedent of ‘this’ as ‘faith’.

Fourth, we observe Chrysostom’s ‘mixed method of exhortation’,[28] whereby he is concerned to balance preaching divine grace with harsh exhortation, as Paul both raises his readers, and brings them down.

On Ephesians 2:9a, that it is ‘not from works’ (οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων), Chrysostom continues:

Was faith then, you will say, enough to save us? No; but God, saith he, hath required this, lest He should save us, barren and without work at all. His expression is, that faith saveth, but it is because God so willeth, that faith saveth. Since, how, tell me, doth faith save, without works? This itself is the gift of God.[29]

‘For’, one might say, ‘faith is not sufficient to save, is it’? (Μὴ γὰρ ἤρκει[30] ἡ πίστις σῶσαι, φησίν;); ‘but God’, he says, ‘has required this [faith], so that he might save [us] neither barren nor lazy’ (Ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα μὴ κενούς[31] μηδὲ ἀργούς[32] σώσῃ, ταύτην[33] ἐξήτησεν[34] ὁ θεὸς, φησὶν). He said that ‘faith saves’, but through God. For since God has willed [it], faith saves (Εἷπεν, ὅτι ἡ πίστις σώζει, ἀλλὰ διὰ θεοῦ· ἐπειδὴ[35] γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἠθέλησεν[36], ἡ πίστις ἔσωσεν). Since ‘faith saves’, how, tell me, without works? This itself is the gift of God (’Επεὶ πῶς σώζει ἡ πίστις, εἰπέ μοι, ἄνευ ἐργων ; Τοῦτο αὐτὸ θεοῦ δῶρόν ἐστιν). (my translation)[37]

The first observation is that using a question expecting a negative answer (note μὴ). ‘Faith is not sufficient to save, is it?’ Chrysostom seems to put this as an interlocutor’s question.[38] Thereby, Chrysostom seems to suggest, or at least raises the issue, that faith is not sufficient to save.

Second, God has required faith so that he might save us in a way that renders us neither empty of works nor lazy. This is consistent with the idea that faith for Chrysostom is conceived as a virtue, and includes works of obedience. In other words, ‘faith’ and ‘human virtue and effort’ are not contrasted, but read into each other.

Third, Chrysostom shows that he does indeed use the demonstrative ταύτην such that its gender agrees with the gender of its remote antecedent ἡ πίστις.

Fourth, the reason faith saves is located in the divine will (ὁ θεὸς ἠθέλησεν). Is the logic for Chrysostom, that because of the nature of ‘faith’ as a virtue and that because salvation actually requires more than faith but all the virtues, if it is alone, the nature of the case suggests that faith is not sufficient to save of itself; but since God has willed faith to save, faith saves, because who can oppose God’s will? If that is Chrysostom’s logic, this seems to be an unsatisfying and arbitrary reason for faith to be used by Paul as the instrument of salvation.

Fifth, in trying to understand Chrysostom’s own phrase, ’Επεὶ πῶς σώζει ἡ πίστις, εἰπέ μοι, ἄνευ ἐργων ; Τοῦτο αὐτὸ θεοῦ δῶρόν ἐστιν, we again enter into the issue that is very similar to the heart of this inquiry. In understanding Chrysostom, what is the referent of the neuter demonstrative τοῦτο with the adjectival pronoun αὐτὸ functioning as an intensive and reflexive (‘this itself’)? Now of course, here we are looking at Chrysostom, not Paul. But it is Chrysostom’s attempt to explicate Paul. So a good understanding of Chrysostom might be illuminating for our main inquiry.

As we come to understand Chrysostom’s comments, we must ask the questions, is the antecedent of τοῦτο αὐτὸ the more remote ‘faith’ (ἡ πίστις), or the conceptual antecedent ‘salvation by faith’ (σώζει ἡ πίστις), or does the emphasis fall on the fact that faith saves ‘without works’ (ἄνευ ἐργων), or is the antecedent the whole phrase or the concept? (σώζει ἡ πίστις ἄνευ ἐργων). Or is the reason for the gender of τοῦτο αὐτὸ none of these, but τοῦτο is an example of the demonstrative taking the gender of the nominative predicate (θεοῦ δῶρόν ἐστιν), and so does that explain the gender of the demonstrative? [39]

Chrysostom has indeed shown us in his comments on 2:8 that he takes ‘faith’ as the antecedent of the neuter demonstrative in the Pauline usage (Οὐδὲ ἡ πίστις, φησὶν, εξ ἡμῶν || ‘Ωστε οὐδὲ τὸ τῆς πίστεως ἡμέτερον. θεοῦ, φησὶ, τὸ δῶρον;· οὐκ ἐξ ἐργων). However, Chrysostom has also shown us in his own commentary on Ephesians 2:9 quoted above that he can ensure that the gender of demonstrative and antecedent agree (ταύτην) with its more remote antecedent (ἡ πίστις).

The possibilities and the likely explanations are as follows:

(1) This is an example of τοῦτο […] ἐστιν being a fixed expression, without regard to its antecedent or predicate. This is highly unlikely given the intervening words (αὐτὸ θεοῦ δῶρόν) and the presence of αὐτὸ.

(2) This is an example of ἡ πίστις being the antecedent to τοῦτο αὐτὸ? This is highly unlikely. ἡ πίστις does not agree in gender with the demonstrative, is relatively remote (with εἰπέ μοι, ἄνευ ἐργων intervening), and Chrysostom has shown he can make a much more remote antecedent agree in gender with the demonstrative.

(3) Is it an example of οὕτος referring to the idea of salvation in the clause before, the conceptual antecedent[40] Again, the potential conceptual antecedent is expressed by σώζει ἡ πίστις. While this is much more likely than (1) and (2), we should also consider the intervening words εἰπέ μοι, ἄνευ ἐργων and the function of αὐτὸ as an intensive and reflexive adjective (‘this itself’). This, together with the introduction of the new phrase ἄνευ ἐργων (‘without works’), would suggest that if the conceptual antecedent is ‘faith saves without works’, emphasis should be placed on the ‘without works. However, this point does not necessarily militate against the next one, which is ...

(4) This may well be an example of οὕτος agreeing with its nominative predicate θεοῦ δῶρόν in number and gender.[41] The somewhat redundant use of ἐστιν points in that direction. Indeed it may indicate how Chrysostom understands the phrase καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον in Ephesians 2:8. Perhaps Chrysostom sees the phrase as having a substantive and nominative predicate which agree in number and gender, and Paul has elided ἐστιν, which is to be implied. In which case, the gender of τοῦτο is also a species of attraction, as well as an example of the demonstrative agreeing with its nominative predicate.

Of Ephesians 2 verse 9b, Chrysostom continues on ‘That no man should glory’ (ἵνα μή τις καυχήσηται).

That he may excite in us proper feeling concerning grace (ἵνα εὐγνώμονας[42] περὶ τὴν χάριν ποιήσῃ[43]). ‘What then?’ says a man, ‘Has He Himself hindered our being justified by works?” By no means. (Τί οὖν, φησὶν, αὐτὸς ἐκώλυσεν[44] ἐξ ἐργων δικαιωθῆναι; Οὐδαμῶς ) But no one, he says, is justified by works (ἀλλ’, Oὐδεὶς, φησὶν, ἐξ έργων ἐδικαιώθη), in order that the grace and loving-kindness of God may be shown (ἵνα δειχθῇ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία.). He did not reject us as having works, but having been abandoned of works, He has saved us by grace (0ὐχὶ ἔχοντας ἔργα ἀπώσατο[45], ἀλλὰ προδεδομένους[46] ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων χάριτι ἔσωσεν,); so that no man henceforth may have anything of which to boast. (ὥστε μηδένα λοιπόν ἔχειν καυχᾶσθαι.) And then, lest when you hear that the whole work is accomplished not of works but by faith (ὅτι οὐκ ἐξ έργων ἀλλὰ πίστει τὸ πάν κατωρθώθη[47]), thou shouldest become idle (ἀργὸς[48] μένῃ), observe how he continues […][49]

It is interesting that Chrysostom sees that the whole work of salvation (τὸ πάν) is accomplished not of works, but of faith. But again, we must not be too quick to read later Protestant concerns here. Chrysostom’s concept of grace allows a real though subordinate place for free will, though such faith is assisted by God’s grace.[50] Likewise, it is also interesting that Chrysostom recognizes that though Paul does not use the δικαιόω word group in Ephesians 2:8-9, conceptually Paul is speaking about justification by faith apart from works. Indeed, the whole (τὸ πάν) of our salvation is not accomplished by works but by faith.

But again, it is likely that for Chrysostom faith includes virtue and is virtue, and the works he most likely excludes are those done unaided by grace.

For example, in Tonias’ study of Abraham in Chrysostom, ‘when Chrysostom comments about [Abraham’s ] faith, he speaks of the “great virtue” [τὴν πολλὴν ἀρετὴν] of “this just man” [τοῦ δικαίου τούτου τὴν ἀρετὴν].’[51] Righteousness proceeds from faith as one virtue proceeding from another.[52] Also for Chrysostom, faith is most likely to be viewed in opposition to human reason (ἀνθρώπινον λογισμὸν).[53]

Likewise, we must be careful to not read back Reformed sola fide into Chrysostom, though he uses the phrase with some frequency (eg In Homily 5 on Ephesians 2:13-15 he says ‘for by faith alone He saved us’ || ἀπὸ γὰρ πίστεως μόνης ἔσωσεν).[54] Tonias argues that ‘Chrysostom blends characteristics of Greek philosophical righteousness with Pauline righteousness into a composite image of the patriarch [Abraham]. With regard to the former, righteousness is a result of sound judgment, and with regard to the latter, righteousness flows from faith’.[55] Given that Tonias’ finds ‘Abraham’s faith is derived from the virtue of his soul’[56] we should be wary in thinking that faith for Chrysostom, in so far as it justifies, is only the receptive trust in a promise, as it is in traditional Protestant theology.

On Ephesians 2:10a, ‘For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them (αὐτοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν ποίημα[57], κτισθέντες[58] ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἐπὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς οἷς προητοίμασεν[59] ὁ θεός, ἵνα ἐν αὐτοῖς περιπατήσωμεν), Chrysostom comments:

Observe the words he uses ('Όρα αὐτὸν τί φησι): He here alludes to the regeneration (τὴν ἀναγέννησιν ἐνταῦθα[60] αἰνίττεται[61]), which is in reality a second creation (‘Όντως κτίσις ἑτέρα ἐστίν). We have been brought from non-existence into being (ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι παρήχθημεν). As to what we were before, that is, the old man, we are dead (‘Όπερ ἦμεν πρότερον, ἀπεθάνομεν, τουτέστιν, ὁ παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος). What we are now become, before, we were not (ὅπερ οὐκ ἦμεν πρότερον, ἐγενόμεθα). Truly then is this work a creation (’Ἀρα κτίσις τὸ πρᾶγμά ἐστι), yea, and more noble than the first (καὶ τῆς ἑτέρας τιμιωτέρα); for from that one, we have our being; but from this last, we have, over and above, our well being (ἐξ ἐκείνης μὲν γὰρ τὸ ζῇν, ἐκ δὲ ταύτης τὸ καλῶς ζῇν ἡμῖν περιγέγονεν).[62]

Chrysostom rightly sees Ephesians 2:10a referring to our regeneration (τὴν ἀναγέννησιν), and draws helpful links between other themes in Paul (eg ὁ παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος) and in Ephesians 2:1-3 (ἀπεθάνομεν).

On Ephesians 2:10b, ‘For good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them’ (Ἐπὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς οἷς προητοίμασεν[63] ὁ θεός, ἵνα ἐν αὐτοῖς περιπατήσωμεν.), Chrysostom comments on περιπατήσωμεν as follows:

Not merely that we should begin, but that we should walk in them (οὐχ ἵνα άρξώμεθα, ἀλλ᾽, ἵνα περιπατήσωμεν), for we need a virtue (χρεία τῆς ἀρετὴς) which shall last throughout, and be extended on to our dying day. If we had to travel a road leading to a royal city, and then when we had passed over the greater part of it, were to flag and sit down near the very close, it were of no use to us. This is the hope of our calling; for “for good works” he says. Otherwise it would profit us nothing.[64]

Chrysostom’s Wider Soteriology

The study of Chrysostom specifically and Patristics in general, like almost everything, is a detailed and controverted area requiring expert analysis. Nevertheless, it is clear that Chrysostom is not a systematic theologian, but a pastor. In fact, Chrysostom believed that Paul likewise was a pastor, and that he himself was mimicking him. For Chrysostom, ‘Paul is not a precise theologian […] but a pastor whose occasional, apparent overemphasis on God’s grace is intended to teach proper humility before God’.[65] Nor is it likely that Chrysostom has been influenced by a Western or Augustinian view of prevenient grace and predestination. Bradley R Cochran argues:

Though faith and grace are woven together in Chrysostom’s theology in many ways, the initial act of faith is something uniquely belonging to the human person as their sole contribution to justification in direct distinction from grace. This is Chrysostom’s way of protecting the notion of free will in spite of what he acknowledged to be an apparent overemphasis in Paul on God’s grace for pastoral reasons: namely, to encourage the right religious attitude in his hearers.[66]

While it is difficult to discern a consistent approach, Chrysostom appears to have held to a doctrine of predestination according to foreknowledge of the virtue of the objects of his mercy. [67] So In Homily 1 on Ephesians 1 verse 4, Chrysostom comments:

But wherefore hath He chosen us? ‘That we should be holy and without a blemish before Him.’ That you may not then, when you hear that ‘He hath chosen us,’ imagine that faith alone is sufficient (τὴν πίστιν ἀρκεϊν νομίσῇς μόνον), he proceeds to add life and conduct (καὶ τὸν βίον προστίθησι). To this end, saith he, hath He chosen us, and on this condition, ‘that we should be holy and without blemish.’ And so formerly he chose the Jews. On what terms? ‘This nation, saith he, hath He chosen from the rest of the nations.’ (Deut. xiv. 2.). And indeed the fact of their being chosen is at once a token of the loving kindness of God, and of their moral goodness For by all means would he have chosen those who were approved. [68]

Chrysostom’s reasoning is open to criticism here. For he argues that the fact that Yahweh chose the Jews is a token of their moral goodness. But this is directly contradicted by Moses himself, who explicitly asserts that Israel was not chosen either because she was numerous, nor was she given the land because she was righteous, but election is based on divine love and the promises to the patriarchs, and the inheritance of Canaan was given because the wickedness of the Cananites.[69] Nevertheless, Chrysostom is determined to find a basis for election in the objects of God’s mercy.

‘In love, saith he, ‘having predestinated us.’ Because this comes not of any pains, nor of any good works of ours, but of love; and yet not of love alone, but of our virtue also. For if indeed of love alone, it would follow that all must be saved; whereas again were it the result of our virtue alone, then were His coming needless, and the whole dispensation. But it is the result neither of His love alone, nor yet of our virtue, but of both. “He chose us,” saith the Apostle; and He that chooseth, knoweth what it is that He chooseth. “In love,” he adds, “having foreordained us;” for virtue would never have saved any one, had there not been love.[70]

God knows what he chooses, and he chooses those who are virtuous. Cochran rightly concludes, ‘it certainly is a far cry from the utter dichotomy between deserts and grace found in Reformation theology, and even Catholic theology that has been heavily influenced by Augustinian views of grace’.[71] Both grace and free will rightly exercised are necessary, but Chrysostom has reserved the decisive act for human salvation to free will. [72] Cochran observes of Chrysostom’s synergism:

Although grace plays the greater role in Chrysostom’s synergism in many ways, this initial act of faith that belongs uniquely to man’s free will is still no small achievement, and even when grace is assisting it does not do all the work, for some continuous element must be reserved for free will.[73]

Again, ‘So Chrysostom says “If salvation is by grace”, someone will say, why is it that we are all not saved?” Because you did not will it: for grace, even though it be grace, saves the willing, not those who are not willing and who turn away from it and who fight against it and oppose themselves to it.’[74]

While my object has not been to analyse Chrysostom’s doctrine of justification, Corchran summarises Chrysostom’s understanding of justification in the following way: ‘[Justification] is a being made righteous by grace in response to the initial act of human faith uniquely belonging to the human’s free will. Justifying faith, located within the believer, humbly submitting to God’s revelation, is counted “worthy” of the knowledge of God and results in the assistance of divine grace, the fulfillment of divine law, the attainment of God’s righteousness, the remission of sins and the receiving of “countless benefits” that place the human in reciprocal love relationship with God, transcend human nature, and therefore transform the human more into God’s likeness.’[75]

Conclusion

The object of this article is to provide evidence against the trend of modern scholarship for the proposition that the referent of the neuter demonstrative τοῦτο (‘this’) in Ephesians 2:8 is the preceding feminine noun πίστις in the genitive (‘faith’), located two words before, in spite of the fact that these two words do not agree in gender. Chrysostom is a native Greek speaker, albeit writing 300 years after the Apostle Paul. We have seen that it is highly unlikely that Chrysostom is influenced by Western Augustinian theology. He gives a prominent place to free will in his theology. He articulates predestination that is conditioned by God foreseeing virtue in the objects of his mercy. Nevertheless, as a matter of exegeting the text, he holds that faith is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God.

Neither is faith, he means, ‘of ourselves.’ (Οὐδὲ ἡ πίστις, φησὶν, εξ ἡμῶν.)

So that the work of faith is not our own. (‘Ωστε οὐδὲ τὸ τῆς πίστεως ἡμέτερον.)

“It is the gift,” said he, “of God,” it is “not of works” (θεοῦ, φησὶ, τὸ δῶρον;· οὐκ ἐξ ἐργων).[76]

Chrysostom does this even though he himself in his commentary uses the feminine demonstrative to agree ταύτην to agree in gender with ἡ πίστις. It may well be that Chrysostom understood the phrase καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον in Ephesians 2:8 as being a substantive with a nominative predicate which agree in number and gender, and Paul has elided ἐστιν, which is to be implied, and hence the gender of τοῦτο has attracted to θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον. Chrysostom thus should give us pause before we uncritically accept the modern commentators’ consensus.

[1] Feminine singular noun.

[2] Plural pronoun.

[3] Masculine plural participle in periphrastic construction.

[4] Feminine singular noun.

[5] Demonstrative, Neuter.

[6] Plural pronoun.

[7] Neuter noun.

[8] Instrumental Dative with post-positive γὰρ.

[9] PAI2P εἰμί, I am + PfPPtcpNMP σῴζω, I save; constituting perfect periphrastic construction.

[10] διὰ + genitive, instrumental.

[11] ἵνα + Aorist subjunctive purpose clause.

[12] ποίημα, ατος, τό, anything made or done, a work, deed, act.

[13] APPtcpNMP κτίζω I found, build, create, bring into being, make.

[14] AAI3S προετοιμάζω I prepare beforehand.

[15] Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit, (Trs H De Vries: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), 407-8, accessed at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/kuyper/holy_spirit.html on 15 August 2016. The chapter is entitled 'Defective Learning', and can be accessed at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/kuyper/holy_spirit.vii.vii.vi.html.

[16] Cited by J Eadie, Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians (2^nd Ed: New York: Robert Carter, 1861), 156. The translation of Theophylact is mine.

[17] Calvin, Comm Eph 2:8, in CC 21:228-9; Calvin’s Commentaries 22 Volume Set (Reprint Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979).

[18] M Barth, Ephesians 1–3: AB Vol 34 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1974), 225.

[19] G B Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, in the Revised Standard Version (Oxford: OUP, 1976), 53.

[20] E K Simpson, ‘Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians’, in E K Simpson and F F Bruce, Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians: NICNT (Grand Rapids: Marshall Morgan & Scott/Eerdmans, 1957/1975), 54-55.

[21] http://www.newmanreader.org/works/fathers/chrysostom.html accessed 19 August 2016.

[22] W A Jurgens (Ed and Trans), The Faith of the Early Fathers: Post-Nicene and Constantinopolitan eras (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1979), Vol 2:120.

[23] Bradley R Cochran, ‘The Superiority of Faith: John Chrysostom’s Eastern Theology of Justification’ (2013), Theophilogue (theophilogue.com), PDF 25, Catalogue, at https://theophilogue.com/pdf-catalogue accessed 16 August 2016.

[24] D M Rylaarsdam, ‘Interpretations of Paul in the Early Church’ in D E Aune, Rereading Paul Together: Protestant and Catholic Perspectives on Justification (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006) , 146-168.

[25] AAI3S ἀναιρέω I take up, take back, cancel, abolish, destroy, deny, do away with, snatch away.

[26] Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians IV. Accessed at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iv.v.html on 12 August 2016; Greek Text from J-P Migne (ed), Patrologia Graeca (Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca Volume 62 S. Joannes Chrysostomus Vol 11 (Paris, 1862), Col 33-34, accessed at http://books.google.com/books?id=E_gbZgKru-QC on 12 August 2016.

[27] Jurgens, 2:120.

[28] Rylaarsdam, 157.

[29] Ephesians Homily 4 on Ephesians 2:9 at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iv.v.html accessed on 18 August 2016.

[30] ImpfAI3S ἀρκέω I suffice, am sufficient.

[31] κενὸς vain, empty.

[32] ἀργός not working the ground, idle, lazy.

[33] Antecedent ἡ πίστις. Here Chrysostom has the demonstrative (ταύτην) agreeing with the gender of the antecedent (ἡ πίστις).

[34] AAI3S ἐξαιτέω I demand.

[35] conj, ἐπεί after that, since, when.

[36] AAI3S ἐθέλω I am willing.

[37] J –P Migne, Vol 62 Chrysostom Vol 11, Ephesians, Col 33, accessed on 17 August 2016 at http://books.google.com/books?id=E_gbZgKru-QC. The English translation is mine.

[38] The NPNF translator takes the 3^rd person singular as a 2^nd person plural ‘you will say’: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iv.v.html. Probably we should take it as a subjunctive, so the effect is similar, ‘he might say’.

[39] A T Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 713.

[40] ibid.

[41] ibid, 704

[42] εὐγνώμων , ον, ονος, of good feeling, considerate, reasonable, gratitude: LSJ.

[43] AASubj3S ποιέω I make.

[44] AAI3S κωλύω I hinder, prevent.

[45] AMI3S ἀπωθέω I thrust away, push back.

[46] PfM/PPtcpAMP προδίδωμι I give beforehand, give up, betray, given up as lost: LSJ.

[47] κατορθόω API3S set upright, erect.

[48] Lazy.

[49] Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians IV. Accessed at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iv.v.html on 12 August 2016; Greek: J-P Migne, Vol 62 Chrysostom Vol 11, Col 33-34, accessed at http://books.google.com/books?id=E_gbZgKru-QC on 12 August 2016.

[50] Rylaarsdam, op cit, 159.

[51] D E Tonias, Abraham in the Works of John Chrysostom (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014), 66. Cf 69.

[52] ibid, 76.

[53] ibid, 72.

[54] Chrysostom, Homily V, on 2:13-15 at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iv.vi.html; Greek: J –P Migne, Vol 62 Chrysostom Vol 11 Ephesians, Col 39 accessed on 17 August 2016 at http://books.google.com/books?id=E_gbZgKru-QC.

[55] Tonias, op cit, 76.

[56] Ibid, 78.

[57] ποίημα, ατος, τό, anything made or done, a work, deed, act.

[58] APPtcpNMP κτίζω I found, build, create, bring into being, make.

[59] AAI3S προετοιμάζω I prepare beforehand.

[60] ἐνταῦθα adv, here, there.

[61] PM/PI3S αἰνίσσομαι I speak darkly.

[62] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iv.v.html; J –P Migne, Vol 62, Chrysostom Vol 11, Col 34 accessed on 19 August 2016 at http://books.google.com/books?id=E_gbZgKru-QC.

[63] AAI3S προετοιμάζω I prepare beforehand.

[64] χρεία τῆς ἀρετὴς.

[65] Rylaarsdam, op cit, 159. Clearly, Chrysostom felt the need to hang his congregation over the pit of hell at the end of his sermon, for he considers there was so much grace in Ephesians 2:1-10. Consider the following statements that constitute the ‘moral’ section which concludes Homily 4: ‘And observe how it is not possible to enter without works of mercy; but if even this alone be wanting, we shall depart into the fire […] Again, if we do all things ever so rightly, and yet do our neighbor no service, neither in that case shall we enter into the kingdom. […] For it is with this object that I too discourse so much [As Paul does] concerning His goodness, not that we may presume upon it, and do any thing we choose, because in that way this goodness will be to the prejudice of our salvation; but that we may not despair in our sins, but may repent. […] Now then, why, it may be said, doth He threaten them who have not done works of mercy, that they shall depart into the fire […] [N]o, let us practise those virtues, which shall avail to save us. […] [L]et us take heed, let us have a regard for our own salvation, let us make virtue our care, let us rouse ourselves to the practice of good works, that we may be counted worthy to attain to this exceeding glory […]: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iv.v.html.

[66] Cochran, op cit, PDF p19. Cochran goes on to agree with Wilkens that the early Fathers ‘did not follow Paul blindly. They read him critically, that is, in light of ideas and beliefs they consider reasonable and true.’ and ‘[i]n Ancient hermeneutics in general and patristic hermeneutics in particular whatever the interpreter understood as the “spirit” of the scripture always trumped the “letter.”’: op cit, PDF p19 fn 83. Indeed, Cochran later says, ‘That some virtue or well done deed is attributed to grace in Paul’s writings indicates that such virtue or deeds were accomplished by the influence of grace. Attributing them wholly to grace to the exclusion of free will would be to mistake Paul’s rhetorical exaggeration for the sake of effect as a denial of free will. This, in Chrysostom’s hermeneutical sensitivity, would be to interpret a few passages where Paul’s pastoral emphasis seems to deny the role of free will against the larger portion of divine revelation that everywhere affirms it. The spirit of revelation trumps the letter for Chrysostom.’: Corchran, op cit, PDF, 21.

[67] Corchran, op cit, PDF 20, 22 fn 104; Rylaarsdam, op cit, 159.

[68] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iv.ii.html; Greek Text J –P Migne, Volume 62 Chrysostom Ephesians Volume 11 Col 11-12 at http://books.google.com/books?id=E_gbZgKru-QC accessed 16 August 2016.

[69] ‘It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8 but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. (Deuteronomy 7:7-8 ESV) […] Do not say in your heart, after the Lord your God has thrust them out before you, ‘It is because of my righteousness that the Lord has brought me in to possess this land,’ whereas it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is driving them out before you. 5 Not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations the Lord your God is driving them out from before you, and that he may confirm the word that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. 6 Know, therefore, that the Lord your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness, for you are a stubborn people.’ (Deuteronomy 9:4-6 ESV).

[70] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iv.ii.html.

[71] Corchran, op cit, PDF 22-23.

[72] ibid, PDF 20, 22 fn 104.

[73] ibid, PDF 22.

[74] Jurgens, op cit, 2:115.

[75] Corchran, op cit, PDF 23.

[76] Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians IV. Accessed at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iv.v.html on 12 August 2016; Greek Text: J –P Migne, Volume 62 Chrysostom Ephesians Volume 11 Col 33-34 at http://books.google.com/books?id=E_gbZgKru-QC accessed on 12 August 2016.