Introduction

This article seeks to provide further evidence of the antiquity of a now uncommon understanding of Ephesians 2:8-9. A number of native Greek speaking exegetes held that the referent of ‘this’ (τοῦτο) in Ephesians 2:8-9 is ‘faith’ (πίστεως), even though the words do not agree in gender, and therefore faith is both οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν (‘not from ourselves’), and θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον·(‘the gift of God’). In a previous article at https://sites.google.com/site/mattolliffe/articles/is-faith-gods-gift-ephesians-28-9-chrysostom, I set out the evidence from Chrysostom’s Homily IV on Ephesians, that he indeed held that ‘faith’ was ‘the gift from God’ and ‘not of ourselves’. This article looks at the exegesis of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus (c 393-466) who was tutored in the Antiochian school so influenced by Chrysostom[1], and so it is instructive to see how Theodoret both agrees and differs from Chrysostom. Theodoret, like Chrysostom, took the antecedent reference of τοῦτο as πίστεως. For ease of reference, here again is the key text, Ephesians 2:8-10:

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

8Τῇ γὰρ χάριτί[10] ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι[11] διὰ πίστεως[12]· καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον· 9οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, ἵνα μή τις καυχήσηται[13]. 10αὐτοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν ποίημα[14], κτισθέντες[15] ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἐπὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς οἷς προητοίμασεν[16] ὁ θεός, ἵνα ἐν αὐτοῖς περιπατήσωμεν.

Theodoret (c AD 393 – c 458/466) was bishop of Cyrrhus (423–457) [17], a city whose ruins can be found in Northern Syria near the Turkish border.[18] His diocese was included in the Patriarchate of Antioch. Theodoret himself reports that his small diocese was about forty miles square but was very densely populated since it consisted of around 800 churches.[19] He grew up in Antioch in a religious home and received extensive religious instruction variously by Peter the Galatian, Macedonius, Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia (friend of Chrysostom), and Chrysostom would have been very influential on Theodoret’s thinking.

In 423 Theodoret was made bishop, ‘three years after the death of St. Jerome, and seven years before the death of St. Augustine’.[20] Theodoret, while not seeming to mention Augustine in his letters, knows of the heresies of Pelagius and Celestius.[21] Theodoret was embroiled in the Nestorian controversy, and he earned the ire of Dioscorus Archbishop of Alexandria. Because of his defence of Diodorus and Theodore, Theodoret was excommunicated and his writings were condemned to be burned. He was exiled from Cyrrhus from 449 until 450, when the judgments were revoked and he retuned to Cyrrhus, where he lived until his death. His works on the Pauline Epistles appear to have been written before AD 448. J H Newman compares Chrysostom and Theodoret in this way:

But Theodoret had a further likeness to the great John Chrysostom. Nor only in the outlines of his history, but in its circumstances the one was parallel to the other. They were both natives of Antioch; both disciples of the Syrian exegetical school; both of one and the same ecclesiastical party. They both commented largely on Scripture, and in illustration of its literal sense: Theodoret more learned and of more versatile talents than Chrysostom, and Chrysostom more earnest than Theodoret in his tone, and more eloquent in his language. Theodoret was of the generation next after Chrysostom; he was five years old when Chrysostom left Antioch for the patriarchal throne of Constantinople, and not more than fourteen when Chrysostom died a martyr's death at Comana.[22]

On Ephesians 2:8-10

Of Ephesians 2 verses 8 to 10, Theodoret comments as follows:

Theodoret takes the neuter article τοῦτο (this) to refer to feminine antecedent in πίστεως (faith) in Ephesians 2:8 when he says,

Now we bring only faith (μόνην τὴν πίστιν)[59]. But even of this (ταύτης)[60], the divine grace has become co-operator (συνεργός).[61] For this he [Paul] proposes, ‘even this (καὶ τοῦτο) [is] not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not from works, so that no-one might boast’.

Notice that Theodoret regards faith as the result of divine grace, and that καὶ τοῦτο is specifically referenced back to its ultimate feminine antecedent μόνην τὴν πίστιν through the feminine demonstrative ταύτης. Moreover, divine grace itself has become our fellow-worker’ (συνεργός). Theodoret draws the conclusion (note the explanatory γὰρ), that divine grace is the co-operator or fellow-worker of faith, from Paul’s words ‘even this (καὶ τοῦτο) [is] not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not from works’. So the ground for the proposition that divine grace is a synergos of faith is that faith is said by the Apostle to be the gift of God. For Theodoret, the antecedent of καὶ τοῦτο in Ephesians 2:9 is what he describes as μόνην τὴν πίστιν. The adjective μόνην (alone) is significant, because it qualifies the faith that saves as being ‘not from yourselves’, ‘it is the gift of God’, and it is ‘not from works’.

It is difficult to determine whether Jurgens’ translation of συνεργός as ‘enabler’ is a little strong[62], and that perhaps ‘helper’ or ‘co-operator’ would be more true to Theodoret’s meaning. Against the stronger translation of ‘enabler’ is Theodoret’s view of predestination, which is based on God’s foresight (see below). It is possible that Theodoret is operating on a synergistic soteriology which involves human co-operation, rather than a monergistic one, and it is possible that συνεργός should be conceived of in terms of divine assistance or co-operation with the human will, rather than enablement in the traditional Augustinian or Reformed understanding of prevenient grace.

However, in favour of the stronger view of Jurgens, that συνεργός denotes the divine enablement of, and not merely a co-operative cause of, faith, is Theodoret’s next sentence: ‘For it is not our own will [that] we have believed, but having been called, we have come || Οὐ γὰρ αὐτόματοι πεπίστεύκαμεν, ἀλλὰ κληθένητες προσεληλύθαμεν. Despite the fact that faith in God is a human act, Theodoret says that the fact of belief (expressed by the perfect tense form πεπίστεύκαμεν) is not the result of human free will (αὐτόματοι). The adjective αὐτόματοι[63] locates the cause of the event within the actor, and in the case of the human, the will, and this Theodoret explicitly excludes. So then, for Theodoret explaining Paul, faith does not find its cause within the actor. The fact that faith does not come from human will for Theodoret explains (γὰρ) Paul’s words, ‘even this [is] not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not from works, so that no-one might boast’. Instead (ἀλλὰ) of free will explaining human belief, Theodoret asserts that the explanation is to be found in a divine call, expressed with the divine aorist passive participle κληθένητες, indicating circumstances antecedent to the main verb, perfect προσεληλύθαμεν. ‘Having been called [by God], we have come’. This is an efficacious call, because it has actually occurred in the case of Theodoret and those for whom he speaks as having ‘come’ (cf Romans 8:30).

It is instructive to contrast two aspects of Theodoret’s exposition with that of Chrysostom, outlined in my previous article.

First, Chrysostom holds that Paul added διὰ πίστεως (Ephesians 2:8) to avoid impairing the contribution of free will (τὸ αὐτεξούσιον) to our salvation. ‘Faith’ for Chrysostom is ‘our part in the work’ (ἔθηκε καὶ τὰ ἡμῶν), even though Paul then and immediately cancels it again (καὶ πάλιν αὐτὸ ἀνεῖλε). Chrysostom is, at the very least, wrestling with the fact that faith is, from one point of view, truly ours, and yet Paul, to Chrysostom’s way of thinking, clearly says that faith, in another sense, is not ours or ‘from us’ (Καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ἡμῶν). Chrysostom retains the notion of free will, τὸ αὐτεξούσιον as important, though, in his mind, Paul cancels it. The adjective αὐτοεξούσιος according to LSJ denotes ‘autonomous’, ‘self-ruling’, thus, ‘free will’. This approach of Chrysostom should be compared and perhaps contrasted with Theodoret, who specifically excludes one’s own will (αὐτόματοι) as an originating cause of faith. While Chrysostom identifies and then admits Paul cancels τὸ αὐτεξούσιον, Theodoret does not even acknowledge that faith is in one sense, ours, but immediately excludes αὐτόματοι as the source of faith. This would, it seem to me, be a movement away from the concern for preserving free will, and toward an Augustinian position. It would be interesting to know what effect the Pelagian controversy had on Theodoret and what knowledge of Augustine Theodoret had.

Second, Chrysostom grounds the reason for faith being ‘from God’ in the fact that faith comes from the incarnation and preaching: ‘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;). Unless the Word had become flesh, and unless the message of the gospel had been proclaimed, there would be no basis for faith. Clearly this is true as far as it goes. And equally clearly Chrysostom means by ‘call’ an outward call or summons, which is not necessarily efficacious, as his allusion to Romans 10:14 indicates. A divine act in history in the incarnation and summons is a necessary but not a sufficient ground for faith, in later Reformed understanding. But that is seemingly where Chrysostom leaves the matter. But with Theodoret there is a different approach. Theodoret draws the link more tightly between the call and response, as he and his hearers have actually come, indicating it is an efficacious call that he means: ‘Having been called [by God], we have come’ || κληθένητες προσεληλύθαμεν. This is an efficacious call (cf Romans 8:30).

In interpreting the text, Theodoret notes twice that God accepts us by faith alone (sola fide). He sees salvation here as at least including ‘forgiveness of sins’ (τὴν τῷν ἁμαρτημάτων ἄφεσιν) which God bestows sola fide. Thus:

[…] and when we came, he did not demand purity of life, but accepting faith alone (Latin: sola fide), he bestowed the forgiveness of sins.

The question that arises is whether Theodoret regards salvation by faith alone as pertaining to pre-baptismal sins, or is ‘faith alone’ also effective to bring forgiveness of post-baptismal sins. To determine this, we need to look at his comments on verse 10.

We obeyed, and when we believed, we obtained salvation. But prior to baptism he did not demand of us active virtue; however, after baptism he commands [us] to hold to this [active virtue] also. For he says this, ‘for good works, so that in them we might walk’. And again he reminds them of their former [lifestyle], so that he might show the greatness of the divine well-doing.

It is clear that for Theodoret ‘faith alone’ saves and brings forgiveness for pre-baptismal sins. It is also clear that Theodoret says that God commands us to be active in virtue after baptism, though God did not require active virtue before we believed. However, Theodoret does not here explicitly limit free forgiveness by faith alone to pre-baptismal sins. He simply points out that (a) we obtain salvation when we believe (b) God does not demand pre-baptismal, pre-faith virtue for salvation (c) God commands the baptized to walk in active virtue. Importantly, Theodoret does not explicitly deny sola fide to salvation post-baptism and forgiveness of post-baptismal sins. Though a somewhat anachronistic observation, the three points above are quite consistent with Reformed theology. From this brief analysis, we cannot determine whether justification sola fide is excluded for post-baptismal sins. However, we will see that justification for Theodoret is tied to baptism. But it is interesting to read this statement elsewhere from Theodoret:

I own myself wretched – aye, thrice wretched. I am guilty of many errors. Through faith alone I look for finding some mercy in the day of the Lord’s appearing. (Theodoret, Letter 83)[64]

Eγὼ δὲ ἄθλιον[65] ἐμαυτόν καὶ τρισάθλιον οῖδα[66] · πολλοῖς γὰρ ὑποκείμενον[67] πλημμελήμασι[68] · διὰ δὲ μόνης πίστεως ἐν τῇ τῆς θείας ἐπιφανείας ἡμέρᾳ, φειδοῦς[69] τινος ἀπολαύσεσθαι[70] προσδοκῶ[71]. (Migne Vol 83: Col 1269)

And I know myself wretched, even triple wretched. For I lie under many errors. But through faith alone (solam fidem) I expect to benefit from some leniency on the day of the divine appearing. (my translation)

Granted, the letter is an appeal from Theodoret to Archbishop Dioscorus of Alexandria when he has been accused of false teaching and is concerned about whether Dioscorus will listen to the theological complaints of his detractors. It is a passionate letter. Theodoret is very concerned and emotionally exercised, speaking as he is out of grief and unfairness at not being given a hearing. But we should allow this pious and heartfelt autobiographical sentiment to stand, and acknowledge that it lies at the heart of justification by faith alone, when one is pushed to breaking point, confronted with the reality of the awesome judgment of God, and the fact that we all stumble in many ways in our Christian walk, as Theodoret confesses.[72]

Theodoret’s Wider Soteriology

The following account attempts to draw out Theodoret’s wider soteriology from his Commentary on Romans.[73] Theodoret rightly links justification with the law (meaning more than the Mosaic law, but including the law of nature), and correctly sees that the law was powerless to bring justification about. He sees Paul in Romans as anticipating on the one hand the Jewish elevation of the law, and on the other hand the heresies of Marcion, Valentine and the Manichees. The law of Moses ‘brought in the doctrine of justification, although incompetent to convey justification itself by reason of the infirmity of those under it; and showing that faith brings to effect the design of the law, and what it fain would do, but cannot, it perfects through the grace of the thrice holy Spirit’.

Salvation originates in the divine love of honour. So, on Romans 11:6, Theodoret comments, ‘Because of this also salvation is called grace (διά τοῦτο καὶ χάρις ἡ σωτήρια καλεῖται),[74] because it has come about according to the divine love of honour (ἐπειδή κατὰ θείαν φιλοτιμίαν γεγένηται)’.[75] Paul’s doctrines in Romans are called ‘the gospel’, says Theodoret, ‘because they promise the supply of so many blessings, announcing reconciliation with God, the overthrow of the devil, forgiveness of sins, conquest over death, the resurrection of the deceased, eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven’.

Theodoret takes the justification of Romans 2:13 as actual for the Gentile Christians to whom he preaches. As a result, he must temper the strictness of God’s standard required for that justification through the law. So in spite of Romans 2:12, on Romans 2:9, he says, ‘in like manner does he now threaten the heavy denunciations upon sin not to such as are betrayed into it on some chance occasion, but such as determinately pursue it’ (on Romans 2:9, my emphasis). This clearly has a pastoral aim, because the law brings wrath and makes us conscious of sin, yet nevertheless Theodoret wishes to maintain that Paul holds a place for final justification by law for Gentile Christians. In this I think he is mistaken.

Again, Theodoret limits works of the law to ceremonial laws such as circumcision, thus:

But the commandments about the Sabbath and circumcision and lepers and menstruation and sacrifice were peculiar to the [Jewish] law, since nature taught nothing about these matters. These are what he now calls ‘works of the law’ (Theodoret, Epistle to the Galatians 2:15-16 in M J Edwards, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians: ACCS NT 8 (Downers Grove: IVP, 1999/2005), 29-30

On Romans 3:24, Theodoret comments on the effect of faith: ‘For by bringing faith alone (Πίστιν γὰρ μόνην εἰσενεγκόντες || nb: sola fide), we have received remission of our sins, in that the Lord Christ has offered up His own body for us, to be, as it were, the price of redemption.

Justification for Theodoret is twice explicated as a ‘proclaiming or declaring just’ (δίκαιον ἀποφῆναι[76]). According to Liddle Scott Jones, ἀποφαίνω most usually means ‘proclaim’ or ‘declare’. Lampe gives the standard meaning first, being ‘show forth, declare to be’, and an usual usage second, where, in the context of numbers, ἀποφαίνω means ‘make’.[77] The second meaning Lampe cites not very likely here.[78]

So on Romans 3:20, in his explanation of ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ, Theodoret considers that ‘when they [the ceremonial commands in the law of Moses] were fulfilled, they were not sufficient in themselves to declare righteous the one sharing in it’ (πληρούμενα δὲ αὐτὰ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὰ οὐκ ἀπέχρη [Lat: non sufficient][79] δίκαιον ἀποφῆναι[80] τὸν μετιόντα[81]).[82] Edwin Bosanquet on Romans 3:20 translates the phrase as ‘make just’ here, but that does not seem correct. Again, Theodoret on Romans 8:4 uses a very similar phrase δικαίους ἀποφῆναι, ‘to declare them righteous’ who received the law, in his explanation of the phrase τὸ δίκαιωμα τοῦ νόμου fulfilled in us.[83]

The same construction, δίκαιον ἀποφῆναι, that Theodoret uses in his comments on Romans 3:20 is found in Hagerdorn’s text of Olympiodorus, the sixth century Deacon of Alexandria’s Commentary on Job, in his comments on Elihu’s speech in Job 36:1-2 concerning the righteousness of God, where it clearly means ‘declare righteous’, as the context shows:

διὰ μὲν οὖν δίκαιον ἀποφῆναι[84] θεὸν[85] καὶ τοῖς δικαίοις ἐπαμύνοντα[86] παράκλησιν[87] εἰργάσατο[88] τῷ Ἰώβ, ἵνα ὡς δίκαιος ἀγαθοῦ[89] καὶ δικαίου[90] θεοῦ τεύξεσθαι[91] προσδοκῶν[92] ἑαυτὸν ἀνακτήσηται[93], διὰ δὲ τοῦ μέγαν καὶ ἰσχυρὸν καὶ ἀκατάληπτον εἰς φόβον ἐνάγειν ἐπειράθη[94] τὸν δίκαιον, ἵνα μηκέτι μηδὲν ἀντείπῃ[95], ἀλλὰ τῇ σιωπῇ παραχωρήσῃ τοῖς ἀκαταλήπτοῖς τοῦ θεοῦ κρίμασιν. [96]

So on the one hand, because [of the necessity] to declare God righteous (δίκαιον ἀποφῆναι θεὸν), and because [God] comes to the aid of those summoning him, it was wrought by Job, so that, just as [the] righteous [man] was doing good and justifying of God, [so also] he will regain for himself the expectation to succeed from God; but on the other hand, because God is great and strong and unapproachable, it is necessary to endeavor to urge the righteous [man] to fear [God], so that he should no longer speak against anything, but by his silence he might yield to the unapproachable judgment of God.

Again, the construction δίκαιον ἀποφῆναι as used by Olympiodorus also means ‘declare righteous’, particular since it appears that God is the object of the declaration (and no one can ‘make’ God righteous except by declaring it). This strongly suggests that Edwin Bosanquet is incorrect to translate δίκαιον ἀποφῆναι as ‘make just’.

Elsewhere, on Romans 3:25, Theodoret glosses justification as δικαιοσύνην καρποῦται. The verb could either be καρπόω, as parsed by Perseus[97] meaning either ‘enjoy the fruit’ or ‘the free use of’, ‘reap’, ‘bear fruit for’ righteousness (LSJ), καρπεύω, meaning ‘gathering, gleaning’ (Lampe, 703) or ‘enjoying the fruits of, profit by’ (LSJ), righteousness, or καρπέω, meaning ‘yield as fruit’ (Lampe, 703). But probably we should take the meaning as ‘enjoy’ or ‘glean’ or ‘gathering’.[98] I think ‘enjoy’ makes the most sense.

And that everyone believing in the Master Christ enjoys righteousness from faith. (καὶ ὅτι πᾶς τῴ δεσπότῃ πιστεύων Χριστῷ τὴν ἐκ τῆς πίστεως δικαιοσύνην καρποῦται[99])

Edwin Bosanquet translates Theodoret on Romans 3:25 as ‘that whosoever believes in the Lord Christ is made partaker of the righteousness which is by faith’,[100] which is not so very different.

In explaining the phrase in Romans 5:18, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life (οὕτως καὶ δι’ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς), Theodoret says ‘Clearly thus the righteousness of the Saviour brings about life to all men (εὔδηλον ὡς ἡ τοῦ Σωτῆρος δικαιοσύνη πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις πραγματεύεται[101] τὴν ζωήν).[102] Thus, Theodoret takes the ἑνὸς δικαιώματος as denoting ‘the righteousness of the one’, being Christ. Moreover, Theodoret takes the words in verse 19 διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ πολλοί as a restatement of verse 18.[103]

Of Romans 8:1[104], Theodoret comments that there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus ‘for our passions cannot now subdue us without our will’ (Οὐ γὰρ περιγίνεται[105] νῦν μὴ βουλομένων ἡμῶν τὰ παθήματα), now that we have received the grace of the Spirit of God’.[106]

On Romans 8:3, regarding Christ’s coming in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin (ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας), Theodoret says that ‘the only-begotten Word of God, becoming incarnate, by that human flesh overthrew sin, in having fulfilled all righteousness (πασᾶν μὲν δικαιοσύνην πεπληρωκώς), and admitted no taint of sin; and by enduring the death of sinners, as though Himself a sinner […] He [became] the price of redemption (ἐγένετο λύτρον).[107] In so doing, Theodoret identifies and distinguishes what Reformed theologians labeled the ‘active’ and ‘passive’ righteousness of Christ. Moreover, in his comments on Romans 8:4, ‘ἵνα τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου πληρωθῇ ἐν ἡμῖν’, Theodoret comments that Christ ‘has paid (ἀποδέδωκε), says he, our debt (χρέος), and fulfilled that which the law aimed at (καὶ τοῦ νόμου πεπλήρωκε τὸν σκοπόν): and what then was this? to declare them righteous that had received that law (Τὸ δικαίους ἀποφῆναι τοὐς δεξαμένους τὸν νομόν). If then the dispensation of Christ Jesus has brought to effect the intention of the law, the law deserves not blame, but praise.[108] Thus, Theodoret sees that Christ by his active and passive obedience objectively fulfills the purpose and intent of the law, thus justifying the law, which deserves praise not censure. Theodoret then looks to Romans 8:4b, as an exhortation. ‘And having thus touched upon [in Romans 8:4a] the subject of righteousness (τοῦ δὲ περί τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἁψάμενος), he goes on to an exhortation of this (τὴν περί ταύτης εἰσφέρει παραίνεσιν)’ (in Romans 8:4b), with the words ‘who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit’.[109]

Elsewhere, Theodoret sees the cross and Christ’s sinbearing death as the source of our righteousness. So Theodoret, in commenting on Psalm 22:1, cites 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Galatians 3:13, and says, ‘so just as the one who was a fount of righteousness assumed our sin (Τοιγαροῦν ὥσπερ δικαιοσύνης ὑπάρχων πηγὴ[110], τὴν ἡμετέραν ἁμαρτίαν ἀνέλαβε), and the one who was an ocean of blessing accepted a curse lying upon us, and scorning shame endured a cross, so too he uttered the words [‘My God my God, why have you forsaken me] on our behalf. After all, if he willingly submitted to chastisement prescribed for us—“Chastisement of our peace is upon him,” the inspired author says […][111]

Theodoret, with some cause, takes Romans 5:1-2 as an exhortation[112], but goes on to characterize chapter 5:1-5 as ‘bidding us also take heed to the practice of virtue’ and that Paul found it ‘necessary that he should add moral counsels, lest such as lived at ease should take occasion from hence to neglect practical virtue (τῆς πρακτικῆς ἀρετῆς), on the assumption that faith is sufficient to justify[113] (ὡς τῆς πίστεως δίκαιοῦν[114] ἀποχρώσης[115])’.[116]

Unsurprisingly, Theodoret holds to a form of baptismal regeneration. So on Romans 5:1-2, he says, ‘Faith then has given us remission of sins, and made us blameless and just by the regeneration of the bath/washing/font (καὶ ἀμώμους καὶ δικαίους διὰ τῆς τοῦ λουτοῦ παλιγγενεσίας ἀπέφηνε), and it is incumbent on you to preserve the peace thus effected.’ For Theodoret, ‘the grace of the Holy Spirit is received through baptism (διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος ἐδεξάμεθα)[117], which kindles the love of God within us’ (on Romans 5:5). Baptism places us in a state of salvation (on Romans 6:5) and saves us (on Romans 7:4). He ties the various blessings of salvation to baptism, so that we are ‘justified by baptism’ (εἶτα[118] καλέσας, διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος ἐδικαίωσεν[119]: on Romans 8:30), forgiveness arises from baptism (on Romans 11:27; cf on Romans 4:25). But the grace of baptism can also be departed from. ‘For not all who have been blessed by baptism, which places us in a state of salvation, will enjoy these good things, but they, who in addition thereto, have undergone their share of suffering with their Saviour’ (on Romans 8:17). The grace received in baptism is defectible.

Theodoret regards Romans 7:14-25 not as Paul’s experience as a Christian. In his comments on Romans 7:9, 12, he takes the command referred to as the one given to Adam in the garden. Of Romans 7:14, Theodoret comments, ‘He brings before us the man who lived before the coming (of the covenant) of grace, beset by his passions, for by carnal he means one who had not yet received the spiritual help’.[120] On verse 22, Theodoret alludes to Eve, and on verse 24, Theodoret adds that ‘while in the present we are blessed with the grace of the thrice holy Spirit, and thereby not only do we set ourselves against the passions, but by the possession of such an Helper are enabled to triumph over them’. In so doing, Theodoret distinguishes the ego of Romans 7:14-25 from both Paul the mature Christian and any regenerate Christian.

Theodoret also holds to divine predestination according to foreseen disposition in the candidate. God foresees virtue and on this basis chooses and predestines. So on Romans 8:30 he comments:

Those whose goodwill[121] he foreknew, these also he predestined from above (Ὤν προέγνω τὴν πρόθεσιν,[122] τούτους καὶ προώρισεν ἄνωθεν[123]); and predestinating, also called (προορίσας δὲ καὶ ἐκάλεσεν); and calling, he justified through baptism (εἶτα[124] καλέσας, διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος ἐδικαίωσεν[125]); and justifying, glorified by designating them sons, and endowing them with the grace of the Holy Spirit. But let no one say that such foreknowledge is the cause of these things (Ἀλλὰ[126] μηδείς τὴν προγνωσίαν αἰτίαν[127] εἶναι τούτων λεγέτω); [128] for foreknowledge made them not such as they are, but God as God, foresaw (προεθεώρησεν) from of old all that would be. For so neither if seeing a violent horse seizing the bit in its teeth, and not heeding its rider, I should predict that nearing a precipice it would fall over it, and the event were to happen as I said, should I have cast the horse down that precipice, but merely have foretold what was itself about to take place, while using the evidence of the fierceness of the horse himself as my guide. But (and so likewise) the God of all, from of old knows all things as God, not that He imposes on any one a necessity for his establishment in virtue (ἀρετῆς), or on another for his performance of vice; for if He exercised force towards either, He could not with justice praise and reward the former, or adjudge punishment to the latter. If then God be just, as indeed He is just, He exhorts indeed to what is right, and denounces its opposite; He approves the doers of good, and avenges Himself on those who embrace wickedness. [129].

Again, on Romans 8:28, Theodoret comments:

And with the fittest accuracy of expression does he join the disposition with the call, for the call is not irrespective, but to those who possess this disposition (Σφόδρα δέ ἀκριβῶς συνέζευξε τῇ κλήσει τἠν πρόθεσιν. Οὐ γὰρ ἁπλῶς καλεί , ἀλλὰ τοὐς πρόθεσιν ἔχοντας.)[130] […] wherefore he here also says, to those that are called in accordance with (their own) disposition (τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν ἔφη κλητοῖς), agreeably to what follows. 39. For whom He had foreknown, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; for He did not irrespectively predestine, but predestined in his foreknowledge of them.

Again, on Romans 9:12-13:

For here were there the same father and the same mother, and the same one single conception, the children being twins; for this is what he means by having conceived by one, that is conceived both at the same time; but the one nevertheless was beloved of God, and the other unworthy (τῆς θείας κηδεμονίας ἀνάξιος) the divine regard; and God waited not for the evidence of events, but while yet they were in the womb predicted (προηγόρευσε) the difference between them; and He predicted (προηγόρευσε) it from foreknowing their dispositions (τἠν τούτων πρόθεσιν προμαθών), for election is not arbitrary, (ἄοικος) but in accordance to the disposition of men (ἀλλὰ τῇ πρόθεσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων συμβαίνουσα); and then he adduces the testimony of the prophet, (Mal. i. 3,) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. He heeds not, therefore, the (bare descent of) nature, but virtue only (ἀλλὰ ἀρετήν μόνην) is it that He requires […][131]

And on Romans 9:24:

He says, ‘even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth. I have raised thee up meaning, I have permitted thee to obtain the throne, and while able to prevent, prevented thee not (καὶ κωλῦσαι δυνάμενος οὐκ ἐκώλυσα), foreseeing (προορῶν) the advantage that would thence arise to others. And those whom he calls vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, are they, who, by their own free will, have become so (τοὐς αὐθαιρέτῳ γνώμῃ τοῦτο γεγενημένους)[…][132]

Conclusion

Theodoret, like Chrysostom, takes the neuter article τοῦτο (this) to refer to feminine antecedent in πίστεως (faith) in Ephesians 2:8. He says ‘Now we bring only faith (μόνην τὴν πίστιν). But even of this (ταύτης), the divine grace has become co-operator (συνεργός). For this he [Paul] proposes, “even this (καὶ τοῦτο) [is] not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not from works, so that no-one might boast”’. Theodoret explicitly excludes free will being a cause of faith: ‘For it is not our own will [that] we have believed, but having been called, we have come || Οὐ γὰρ αὐτόματοι πεπίστεύκαμεν, ἀλλὰ κληθένητες προσεληλύθαμεν. This is a progression away from Chrysostom to a more Augustinian position. Theodoret, unlike Chrysostom, seems to base his reasoning on a specific and efficacious divine call, not a general call which can be ignored.

Several times Theodoret points to faith alone as the means of salvation, not only in his discussion of Ephesians 2:8-10, but elsewhere. While he held to baptismal regeneration, and specifically says we are justified by baptism (on Romans 8:30), in Letter 83 he owned himself as Bishop (and thus post-baptismally) guilty of many errors and looked to faith alone to find some mercy on the day of judgment. This can be seen as an unresolved tension in his theology. He explicates justification as ‘declaring just’ (δίκαιον ἀποφῆναι) in Romans 3:20; cf Romans 8:4 and glosses justification in Romans 3:25 as to ‘enjoy righteousness from faith’ (δικαιοσύνην καρποῦται). In Romans 5:18-19 and Romans 8:3-4, it is the righteousness of the Saviour, consisting in both his sinless life of righteousness and sin bearing death, that justifies Christians.

Theodoret’s exposition of Romans is distinguishable from, say Calvin’s. He understands Paul to teach that his gentile Christian readers will be justified by their works according to Romans 2:13, and so mitigates the demands of the law by saying the denunciations do not apply to such as are betrayed into sin on some chance occasion. Likewise, he views Romans 7:14-25 not as Paul, but as Adam, and as referring those who do not have the Spirit. He expects Christians who have the Spirit will have victory over sin and that their passions cannot subdue them without their will. On this basis there is no condemnation on them. Moreover, his understanding of divine predestination in accordance with foreseen virtue, while it serves to protect God from the accusation of arbitrariness and unfairness in election, sits in unresolved tension with his view that faith is ‘not from ourselves, the gift from God’ and that faith is 'not from our own will'.

[1] http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/theodoret_commentary_on_romans_01.htm#32

[2] Feminine singular noun.

[3] Plural pronoun.

[4] Masculine plural participle in periphrastic construction.

[5] Feminine singular noun.

[6] Demonstrative, Neuter.

[7] Plural pronoun.

[8] Neuter noun.

[9] ἐπὶ with the dative ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς can signify both the purpose and the result or destination. Compare Galatians 5:13, Ὑμεῖς γὰρ ἐπ’ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἐκλήθητε || For you were called to be free: M J Harris, ‘Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament’, in C Brown (ed), New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), 3:1193.

[10] Instrumental Dative with post-positive γὰρ.

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

[12] διὰ + genitive, instrumental.

[13] ἵνα + Aorist subjunctive purpose clause.

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

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

[16] AAI3S προετοιμάζω I prepare beforehand.

[17] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodoret.

[18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrrhus.

[19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrrhus

[20] http://www.newmanreader.org/works/historical/volume2/saints/theodoret/theodoret1.html accessed on 30 August 2016.

[21] Theodoret Letter 170 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2707170.htm accessed 31 August 2016.

[22] http://www.newmanreader.org/works/historical/volume2/saints/theodoret/theodoret1.html accessed on 30 August 2016.

[23] J –P Migne, Patrologia Graeca (Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca) Volume 82 Theodoret volume 3: Commentary on Paul’s letters, 82:521-2, accessed at http://www.archive.org/details/patrologiaecurs46migngoog and https://ia800307.us.archive.org/35/items/patrologiaecurs46migngoog/patrologiaecurs46migngoog.pdf on 13 August 2016.

[24] Instrumental Dative with post-positive γὰρ.

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

[26] διὰ + genitive, instrumental.

[27] AAI3S ἀξιόω I think or deem worthy, fit

[28] Noun, AFS πίστις faith.

[29] PfAI1P προσφέρω I bring to, offer, lead to, present.

[30] Demonstrative, οὗτος Fem Sing Gen this, antecedent is πίστιν.

[31] συνεργός, οῦ, ὁ fellow worker, co-operator, associate, helper, enabler, colleague, colabourer, Lat. Adjutor. Also Romans 16:3; 1 Cor 3:9; 2 Corinthians 1:24; 8:23; Philippians 2:25; 4:3; 1 Thess 3:2, but never with God as the fellow-worker, all with humans as the fellow-worker.

[32] Demonstrative τοῦτο points forward to the quote.

[33] AAI3S ἐπάγω I bring on, bring forward, propose, urge on, lead on.

[34] Adj, NMP αὐτόματος acting of one's own will, of oneself.

[35] APPtcpNMP καλέω I call, summon.

[36] PfAI1P προσέρχομαι I come, go.

[37] AAPtcpAMP προσέρχομαι I come, go.

[38] AAI3S ἀπαιτέω I demand back, demand to have returned.

[39] Καθαρότητα Noun, Acc Fem Sing, purification.

[40] AMPtcpNSM δέχομαι I take, accept, receive.

[41] AM/PI3S δωρέομαι I give, bestow.

[42] AAI3S προετοιμάζω I prepare beforehand.

[43] ἐνταῦθα here, there, at the very time, thereupon, herein, upon that circumstance.

[44] PfAI3S τίθημι place, put, set.

[45] Unutterable, ineffable, marvelous.

[46] AAPtcpNMP πιστεύω I trust.

[47] PfAI1P τυγχάνω I happen to be at, befall, happen.

[48] noun GFS σωτηρία salvation.

[49] AAI3S ἀπαιτέω I demand back, demand to have returned.

[50] πρακτικός adj AFS fit for, practical, effective, active, vigorous.

[51] Indeed, to be sure, however.

[52] PAI3S παρεγγυάω, I entrust, hand over, comment, promise.

[53] PAI3S ἀναμιμνήσκω I remind.

[54] AASubj3S δείκνυμι I show.

[55] nAFP εὐεργεσία well-doing, good deed, kindness.

[56] greatness, magnitude.

[57] Latin, adjutrix, female helper.

[58] Compare the following translations by Jurgens: ‘All we bring to grace is our faith. But even in this faith, divine grace itself has become our enabler. For [Paul] adds, ‘And this is not of yourselves but it is a gift of God; not of works, lest anyone should boast (Eph 2:8-9). It is not of our own accord that we have believed, but we have come to belief after having been called, and even when we had come to believe, He did not require of us purity of life, but approving mere faith, God bestowed on us forgiveness of sins’: W A Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers: 3 Volumes (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1970-79), 3:248-9 sec 2163, cited in T Oden, The Justification Reader, 44; and that in footnote 8 transcribed by Roger Pearse: ‘For we believed not of our own power, but when called came, and he required not from such as came, purity of life, but, accepting faith alone, gave remission of sins. […] the “created” he here means of our regeneration. For He hath called us, says he, of His ineffable goodness, and we obeyed, and believing, obtained salvation. But He required not at our hands the practice of virtue before our baptism, but after it commanded us to hold to it also.’: Edwin Bosanquet (trs) in The Christian Remembrancer, or, The churchman's biblical, ecclesiastical & literary miscellany, Vol 21 (London: William Pickering 1839) pp34ff and Vol 22 (1840) pp30ff. The text appears in sections throughout the volume which is available for free through google books, and is digitally transcribed as text by Roger Pearse accessed at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/theodoret_commentary_on_romans_01.htm and http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/theodoret_commentary_on_romans_02.htm on 24 August 2016.

[59] Noun, AFS πίστις faith.

[60] Demonstrative, οὗτος GFS, this, antecedent is πίστιν with which it agrees in number and gender.

[61] Latin, adjutrix, female helper.

[62] Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Interpretation of the Fourteen Epistles of Paul (FEF 3:248-49,* sec 2163) cited in T Oden, The Justification Reader, 44. Oden is quoting from W A Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers: 3 Volumes (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1970-79), 3:248-9.

[63] According to LSJ, the adjective αὐτόματος means, with respect to persons, ‘acting of one’s own will, of oneself’, but of inanimate things, ‘spontaneous’. A feature is that the action is without external agency.

[64] Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Letters 83 to Dioscorus, cited in N Needham, ‘Justification in the Early Church Fathers’, in B L McCormack (ed), Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges (Grand Rapids/Edinburgh: Baker/Rutherford House, 2006, 51; The letter translated into English is found at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2707083.htm.

[65] ἄθλιος , α, ον, metaph., struggling, unhappy, wretched, miserable, pitiful, sorry.

[66] PfAI1S οῖδα I know.

[67] PfM/PPtcpAMP ὑπόκειμαι I lie under.

[68] πλημμέλημα n, NDP, a false note in music, offence, error.

[69] adj, APM φειδός, sparing, thrifty.

[70] InfinFM ἀπολαύω I have enjoyment of, benefit from, take advantage of.

[71] PASubj1S προσδοκάω I expect in hope or fear.

[72] Compare the following from letter 40: ‘Who is not stirred to the memory of faults? Who does not look for the righteous sentence? All this dims the brightness of the feast, but the Lord is full of loving-kindness, and we trust He will not actually fulfil His threats, but will look mercifully on us, scatter our sadness, open the springs of mercy, and show His wonted long suffering.’: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2707040.htm.

[73] http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/theodoret_commentary_on_romans_01.htm; http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/theodoret_commentary_on_romans_02.htm.

[74] Migne 82:173.

[75] Migne, 82:173.

[76] AAInfin ἀποφαίνω I show forth, display, make known, declare, give evidence, prove, represent, proclaim, render, declare.

[77] G W H Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 218.

[78] Lampe, 218, cites Eusebius of Caesarea, Oration in Praise of Constantine, 6.16, ‘δέκα δὲ μονάδες μίαν ἀποφαίνουσι δεκάδα || and ten units make up a decade’, but this is almost certainly a specialized use of ἀποφαίνω in the context of numbers. For English translation see http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2504.htm.

[79] ImpfAI3S χράω2 I proclaim: LSJ.

[80] AAInfin ἀποφαίνω I show forth, display, make known, declare, give evidence, prove, represent, proclaim, render, declare: LSJ.

[81] Migne, 82:81.

[82] Migne, 82:81-82.

[83] Migne, 82: 129.

[84] AAInfin ἀποφαίνω I show forth, display, make known, declare, give evidence, prove, represent, proclaim, render, declare.

[85] Is this an accusative of respect or a double accusative? I take it as a double accusative.

[86] PAPtcpASM ἐπαμύνω I come to aid.

[87] nAFS παράκλησις summons.

[88] AM/PI3S εἰργάσατο I work.

[89] ImpfAI3S ἀγαθόω I do good.

[90] ImpfAI3S δικαιόω I justify.

[91] FMInfin τεύχω I make ready, produce, build, work, prepare, form, create, cause, bring to pass, occur, ordain, make so and so.

[92] PAPtcpNSNtr προσδοκάω I expect.

[93] AASubj OR FAI3S ἀνακτάομαι.

regain for oneself, recover.

[94] API3S πειράω I attempt, endeavor, try.

[95] AASubj3S ἀντεῖπον I speak against.

[96] Ursula und Kieter Hagedorn, Olympiodor Diakon von Alexandria Kommentar Zu Hiob, (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1984), 305-306.

[97] http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=karpoutai&la=greek#lexicon.

[98] In the first of the two LXX references given by LSJ, the verb καρπόω is used in the context of the offering or tithing of fruits of the land, and can mean ‘offer’, thus, ‘you shall not bring from it [leaven or honey] to offer a gift to the Lord || οὐ προσοίσετε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καρπῶσαι κυρίῳ δῶρον’ (Leviticus 2:11 LXX): L C L Brenton, The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (Orig London: Bagster, 1851: Reprint Peabody: Hendrickson, 1986), 127. The Hebrew word means ‘make sacrifices smoke’ (BHS, 882-3). The word could mean ‘gather’ in Deuteronomy 26:14 (οὐκ ἐκάρπωσα ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν εἰς ἀκάθαρτον; οὐκ ἔδωκα ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν τῷ τεθνηκότι· || I have not gathered of them for an unclean purpose, I have not given of them to the dead). Or alternatively it could mean ‘offer’ as the Hebrew word in most instances means ‘burn’, ‘consume’ (though BHS, 128-9 lists ‘seek out, collect, glean’ as apparently an earlier meaning).

[99] PM/PI3S καρπόω I bear fruit, offer, M: get as fruit for oneself, reap crops from, enjoy the fruit of, enjoy the use of.

[100] http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/theodoret_commentary_on_romans_01.htm.

[101] PM/PI3S πραγματεύομαι I busy myself, take trouble, work at something, labour to bring about, engaged in, conduct a business, I labour at, elaborate: LSJ.

[102] Migne 82:101.

[103] Migne 82:101, 104

[104] Theodoret’s text of Romans 8:1 includes Ἰησοῦ μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα.

[105] PM/PI3S περιγίγνομαι I am superior to.

[106] Migne 82:128.

[107] Migne 82:129.

[108] Migne 82:129.

[109] Migne 82:129.

[110] ‘fount, source’: LSJ.

[111] Robert C Hill, The Fathers of the Church, Vol 101, Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Psalms, 1-72 (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2000), 146-147; Theodoret, Interpretatio in Psalmos, Psalmi XXI, vol 1, Migne 80:1012 cited by http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2012/11/20/imputation-of-righteousness-in-church-history-as-discussed-on-the-dividing-line-today/ accessed 30 August 2016.

[112] Note that Theodoret reads ἔχωμεν, the subjunctive, not the indicative, in Romans 5:1, and has some Textual basis to do so.

[113] Edwin Bosanquet translates ‘under the plea that faith alone was sufficient’ and also offers the alternative translation ‘as though faith alone were sufficient: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/theodoret_commentary_on_romans_01.htm on 24 August 2016. However, Migne’s text does not have the word ‘alone’. H W Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges, 4.46.120, para 2120-2, says that ‘ὡς is often used with a participle in indirect discourse to mark the mental attitude of the subject’ and that the genitive absolute may be found with ὡς and translated as ‘on the assumption that’: accessed at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Apart%3D4%3Achapter%3D46%3Asection%3D120 on 3 September 2016.

[114] PAInfin δικαιόω I justify.

[115] PAPtcpGSF ἀποχράω I am sufficient, enough.

[116] Migne 82:96.

[117]Migne 82:96.

[118]‘then’

[119]Migne 82:141

[120] http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/theodoret_commentary_on_romans_01.htm.

[121] Edwin Bosanquet: ‘(suitable) disposition’.

[122] noun, AFS πρόθεσις place in public, purpose, end proposed, supposition, calculation, prefixing, goodwill.

[123] Migne 82:141.

[124] ‘then’.

[125]Migne 82:141.

[126] Migne 82:141.

[127] αἴτιος, culpable, responsible.

[128]Migne 82:141, 4.

[129] Greek does not have ‘from their own will’. Migne 82:144.

[130] Migne, 82:141.

[131] Migne 82:153.

[132] Migne 82:160.