Is Faith God's Gift? (Ephesians 2:8-9): Theophylact

Introduction

This is the sixth paper investigating the ancient exegesis of Ephesians 2:8-10. We have seen thus far in four of my previous five papers, that four ancient expositors of Ephesians (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome and Oecumenius), all with exceptional ability in ancient and biblical Greek, no doubt greater than any living person today, took the antecedent of the neuter demonstrative τοῦτο as the feminine noun πίστις. It is highly unlikely, indeed, nearly impossible to conceive, that they were making a grammatical error in doing so. Four were native Greek speakers and have come down to us as the best rhetoricians of their respective eras. One (Jerome) was almost certainly the most learned biblical linguist of his generation, and the most knowledgeable and learned biblical scholar whose works have come down to us at least since Origen.

The implication of this, as we have seen, is that these four believed that Paul teaches that even the faith in Christ that saves us is in some sense not from ourselves and a gift from God, though obviously in another sense faith is ‘from us’, because humans exercise faith. They drew this exegetical conclusion even though each one was a synergist, each one strongly believed in human free will and defended it as a vital cornerstone of their theodicy, each one held to predestination according to divine prescience of virtue in the object of predestination, none seems to have appreciated the insight that Paul and others in scripture taught absolute predestination, which involved God’s election not according to anything in those predestined, but simply in accordance with his purposes, nor did any of them hold to the necessity of prevenient grace in the way that Augustine saw was necessary towards the end of his life. Nor could they approach the disparate biblical passages with the compatibalism and understanding of the concursus of divine sovereign will and the subordinate human will that Augustine was able to hold and teach by AD 427. Yet, despite all of these theological commitments (or lack thereof), these four held to the exegetical necessity that faith is a divine gift, and is not from ourselves.

And we also saw that John of Damascus, while he did not hold that ‘faith’ was ‘not from us’ in some sense as the other four did, but instead thought that ‘faith is the thing from us’ in a seemingly exclusive way, nevertheless the Damascene held that ‘grace’ was the thing that was not from us, and thus, impliedly, he also took the antecedent of the neuter demonstrative τοῦτο as a feminine noun, but not πίστις, as the other four, but χάρις. John’s exegetical decision was quite consistent with his synergistic soteriology and his understanding of human free will. Thus, of the five ancient and competent exegetes of the Greek text of Ephesians so far assessed, none saw the necessity of having a conceptual antecedent, and all took the antecedent referent of the neuter demonstrative as a feminine noun, four taking it as πίστις in spite of their synergistic soteriology, and one taking it as χάρις in accordance with his synergistic soteriology.

Now we turn to the end of the 11^th Century, to Theophylact of Ohrid, a noted preacher from Constantinople, who became famous as Archbishop of Bulgaria.

Theophylact of Bulgaria (1055-1107)

Raised in Constantinople, Theophylact was well known for his rhetoric and as Deacon became the Rhetorician in the Great Church in Constantinople. His position in Constantinople, the capital city of the Eastern Empire, was that of the main preacher at the main church in the main city. He also tutored the Emperor’s son, another testimony to his education and learning. Theophylact was enthroned as Archbishop of the Bulgarian Church about 1078. Of his exegetical works that have been preserved for us, Theophylact commented on the Gospels, Acts, and the letters of Paul, and shows extensive use of Chrysostom, as we shall see. He is familiar with the Eastern and Greek tradition that has preceded him. Here following is the text of his comments on Ephesians 2:8-10.

Exegis eis tas praxeis ton apostolon kai eis tas epistolas tu Paulu. (Commentarius in apostolorum facta et epistolas Pauli.): 5. 6; ‪ Biblia Graece: He Kaine Diatheke 5.6 Volume 1 of Exegis eis tas praxeis ton apostolon kai eis tas epistolas tu PIaulu: Triccae episcopus Oecumenius (Athens, 1844), 108 fn (1); Also J –P Migne, Patrologia Graeca (Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca) Volume 124 Theophylact of Bulgaria Volume 2: Commentarius in Joannis Evangelium (contd.); Commentary on Paul’s letters, retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=lzURAAAAYAAJ on 7 October 2016, Col 1056B-1057A.

Theophylact is often cited in nineteenth century in English commentaries as an authority for the view that ‘faith’ is not said in Ephesians 2:8-9 to be a gift from God and not the thing that is ‘not from yourselves’. Thus, for example, John Eadie says:

[K]αὶ τοῦτο refer to ἐστε σεσωσμένοι—‘and this state of safety is not of yourselves.’ This exegesis is presented in a modified form by Theophylact, […], who refer[s] καὶ τοῦτο to the entire clause—‘this salvation by faith is not of yourselves.’ Theophylact says — οὐ τὴν πίστιν λέγει δῶρον θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὸ διὰ πίστεως σωθῆναι, τοῦτο δῶρον ἐστι θεοῦ.

John Eadie, Commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, accessed at http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jec/ephesians-2.html on 3 September 2017.

While Eadie, along with others, correctly quotes the sentence found in Theophylact, yet as my above extract demonstrates, it is incorrect and misleading to cite the quoted line as stating that this is Theophylact’s preferred interpretation. For the fact is that Theophylact gave two interpretations, which he set up as alternatives (nb, Ἤ καὶ ἄλλως || ‘Or we [can] also [take it] in another way’). Out of the two alternatives that he proposed, we do not know which one Theophylact himself preferred. He does not explicitly say which interpretation he prefers. But the fact is that Theophylact gives as his own, and not as another’s, a first interpretation that extensively relies on the exegetical tradition established by Chrysostom and was continued by Œcumenius, that faith is specifically denominated as the gift from God and is not from ourselves. A comparison with Chrysostom’s comments shows that Theophylact has taken over in its entirety Chrysostom’s view not only that ‘faith’ is the gift of God, but also theological reasoning by which Chrysostom makes sense of his grammatical decision to take ‘faith’ as ‘the gift from God’, and that Theophylact does so as his first proffered interpretation. I suppose that Theophylact states what is in essence Chrysostom’s interpretation in the first instance because it was the incumbent interpretation in the Eastern tradition, and since he was familiar with it, Theophylact considered it worthy of primacy, at least on account of those who went ahead of him who held it (viz, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Œcumenius). He himself gives no explicit qualification in his adherence to it, nor does he express any reservation about it as he expounds it, although the fact that he does provide an alternative interpretation of itself suggests that Theophylact is uncertain as to which one to follow.

The thing that is new with Theophylact, is that, in giving his second alternative interpretation (that the referent of the demonstrative is to a conceptual antecedent, being salvation by grace through faith), he makes it not dependent of the first interpretation (as Œcumenius and Chrysostom did), but as an alternative to and exclusive of the first and older exegetical tradition (that faith is the gift of God). Theophylact regards the second explanation as an alternative to, not an addition to and following from, the first. While Chrysostom and Œcumenius take a ‘both/and’ approach, Theophylact takes an ‘either/or’ approach. It is Theophylact’s ‘either/or’ approach, that either ‘salvation by faith’ is the gift, or that ‘faith’ is the gift, that is the new thing that Theophylact introduces into the exegetical tradition.

John of Damascus, based on his free will theology, took grace as the antecedent, and said that faith is from us. He is the earliest extant expositor who indicates that he believed faith is not the antecedent, but grace is. Theophylact is the second extant expositor to say that perhaps faith may not be the gift of God (οὐ τὴν πίστιν λέγει δῶρον θεοῦ), but that salvation through faith instead is perhaps the gift of God (ἀλλὰ τὸ διὰ πίστεως σωθῆναι, τοῦτο δῶρον ἐστι θεοῦ).

It may perhaps be, that the fact that Theophylact puts this alternative interpretation in his commentary at all, suggests that he might well have preferred it to the older exegetical tradition. But we simply cannot be sure of Theophylact’s personal preference. But of this we can be sure: Theophylact did not believe that the older exegetical tradition was grammatically impossible, or any less tenable, than any of the other Eastern exegetes. We know this because he does not criticize the older interpretation at all, but adopts it as his first alternative.

The second of Theophylact’s alternatives, that ‘salvation by grace’ is the denominated gift from God, is not wholly new. It is also found in Œcumenius (who takes it in addition to faith being a gift from God), and perhaps it was also held by John of Damascus (depending on the resolution of the textual issue in the Damascene’s commentary). Indeed, as an addition to ‘faith’ being a gift, ‘salvation by faith’ as the denominated gift was probably first articulated by John Chrysostom. In the table below, I have shaded the comparable sections from Chrysostom, Œcumenius, and Theophylact. All three expositions share a number of similarities worthy of comparison, and this alone is probably evidence of the later writers’ dependence on the earlier one/s. (Theodoret and John of Damascus are sufficiently different, such that their inclusion in a tabular comparison is not fruitful.) I have placed in bold text the respective comments that are identical, and I have underlined text that is synonymous.

The first thing Theophylact recognises, with John of Damascus, is that faith of its very nature pertains to us. John of Damascus (AD 676-754/787) made this phenomenological reality of faith being exercised by humans his controlling hermeneutic for Ephesians 2:8-10:

Χάρις, τὸ παρὰ θεοῦ, πίστις, τὸ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν. Ὄθεν οὔν οἷς μή πάρεστι τὸ δεκτικὸν, οὐδὲ ἡ χάρις παραγίνεται. Οὐκ ἐξ ἡμῶν οὖν, ἀλλὰ θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον.

Grace is the thing which lies with God; faith is the thing which lies with us. For this reason, then, for those for whom the fitness to receive [grace] may not be present, then neither does the grace come alongside to assist. It [grace] is not from us, therefore, but it is the gift of God.

Œcumenius makes the same observation, though not using it as the controlling hermeneutic, when he says, ‘On the one hand faith is from yourselves’ (Ἐξ ὑμῶν μὲν ἡ πίστις). Likewise, Theophylact, probably in dependence on John of Damascus or Œcumenius, makes a similar point:

<< Τῇ γὰρ χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι διὰ πίστεως >> Εἰπὼν τά τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅτι χάριτί ἐσώθημεν ἐπάγει καὶ τὸ ἡμέτερον, τὸ, << Διὰ τῆς πίστεως · >>

‘For it is by grace you have been saved through faith’ After he has spoken of the things pertaining to God, that we have been saved by grace, he brings forward that which pertains to ourselves, that is, ‘through faith’,

Grace is the thing that obviously comes from God, otherwise grace would not be grace. But faith pertains to ourselves, because we exercise faith. However, Theophylact does not allow these phenomenological and common sense observations to control his exegesis, as John of Damascus did. Instead, Theophylact applies the traditional exegesis found in Chrysostom.

After he has spoken of the things pertaining to God (τά τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅτι χάριτί ἐσώθημεν), that we have been saved by grace, he brings forward that which pertains to ourselves, that is, ‘through faith’ (καὶ τὸ ἡμέτερον, τὸ, Διὰ τῆς πίστεως), so that free will (τὸ αὐτεξούσιον) might not be treated with indignity. ‘And this not from yourself, it is the gift of God.’ Again, he cancels it, and says, that neither is faith from ourselves (ὅτι οὐδέ ἡ πίστις ἐξ ἡμῶν ).

A heavy dependence on Chrysostom and a lesser dependence on Œcumenius is evident in Theophylact’s comments, even at the level of similar phrasing and sentence structure and vocabulary, as is apparent in the above table. Theophylact also has the same structure of thought, and progression of argument, which cannot simply be explained by exegesis of the same text. For example, Theodoret and John of Damascus are sufficiently distinguishable from Chrysostom so as to be safe from the accusation of direct dependence that might be made against Theophylact. But rather than think of Theophylact as guilty of plagiarism for not citing his sources, (which is a modern concern based on the recent conventions of academia and a parallel development to the rise of and concern for intellectual property rights at law), we should rather think of Theophylact as being faithful to and respecting the established exegetical tradition that has gone before him by re-articulating it as his own.

So like Chrysostom, Theophylact reads free will as an inherent aspect of faith. He refers to the incarnation and the general call as the explanation of why faith is a gift and not from ourselves. He cites Romans 10:14, as do Œcumenius and Chrysostom. And he reiterates that faith is a gift from God and not from ourselves. All of this is straight recapitulation of the exegetical tradition.

So Theophylact cannot be cited as an authority for the proposition either that faith is not the antecedent of the demonstrative, nor that it cannot be the antecedent, nor that it infringes the rules of Greek syntax that antecedent and demonstrative disagree in gender. But given his next section, Theophylact can be cited as authority for the proposition that faith may perhaps not be the antecedent of the demonstrative.

Ἤ καὶ ἄλλως · Oὐ τὴν πίστιν λέγει δῶρον θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὸ διὰ πίστεως σωθῆναι, τοῦτο δῶρόν ἐστι θεοῦ. Ἔστω γὰρ, ὅτι ἡ πίστις ἡμέτερον

Or we [can] also [take it] in another way: He is not saying [that] faith is the gift of God, but to be saved through faith, this is the gift of God. For let us have it that faith is our own […]

The first comment to make is that by the time of Theophylact, and except for John of Damascus, no one in the Greek exegetical tradition has denied that faith is the referred-to gift of God. And even John of Damascus made the implied antecedent of the neuter demonstrative another feminine noun! Theophylact has no grammatical or syntactical problem with faith being the gift and not from ourselves, as shown by his adoption of Chrysostom’s interpretation. The fact is, Theophylact gives the reason (note γὰρ) for his alternative interpretation not on the basis of Greek grammar and syntax, but like John of Damascus, on the basis of a commitment to free will (τὸ αὐτεξούσιον). It is an imperative for Theophylact (note imperative ἔστω), in this alternative interpretation, that faith is our own (ὅτι ἡ πίστις ἡμέτερον). If faith is our own by its very nature, then, on this alternative explanation, to be saved through faith is the gift of God (ἀλλὰ τὸ διὰ πίστεως σωθῆναι).

Now, both Chrysostom and Œcumenius do not deny that ‘salvation through faith’ is God’s gift and not from us. Both explicitly suggest it:

Chrysostom

Since ‘faith saves’, how, tell me, [does it save] without works? This itself is the gift of God (Επεὶ πῶς σώζει ἡ πίστις, εἰπέ μοι, ἄνευ ἔργων ; Τοῦτο αὐτὸ θεοῦ δῶρόν ἐστιν. )

Œcumenius

So that, for us to believe [is the] gift of God, and to be saved through faith [is the] gift of God. (Ὥστε τὸ πιστεῦσαι ἡμάς, δῶρον θεοῦ, καὶ τὸ διὰ πίστεως σωθῆναι δῶρον θεοῦ.)

But for both Chrysostom and Œcumenius, ‘faith’ is still a gift from God, even if ‘salvation through faith’ is also a gift. The new thing Theophylact introduces in the Eastern interpretative tradition is to say not only that faith is the gift, but also that ‘salvation through faith’ might be the gift in such a way that ‘faith’ might not be the gift. And this is not on the basis of grammar and syntax, but because of an a priori commitment to human free will.

Theophylact’s Wider Soteriology

Theophylact, like other Eastern theologians, is a soteriological synergist. We see this in his exposition of Ephesians 1:4-5, 11:

Theophylact like Chrysostom, John of Damascus and all the Eastern Fathers looked at, holds to predestination based on prescience of virtue in the object of election. So Theophylact says on Ephesians 1:4,

But the word ‘He chose’ (Ἐξελέξατο,) also shows God’s love towards humanity, and their virtue (καὶ τὴν αὐτῶν ἀρετήν). For all those who were going to exist whom he examined and found acceptable (δοκίμους), He chose for himself (ἐκλέγεται).

God chooses those he examines and finds acceptable. Theophylact says a similar thing in his comment on verse 5, where Theophylact bases divine election on foreseen virtue: ‘because of our virtue which He examined and found acceptable, He chose [us]’.

But Theophylact is truly a synergist. Salvation does not only arise from our own virtue, but also because of God’s own kindness to humanity. Theophylact advances beyond John of Damascus, who reserves faith to humans exclusively. But for Theophylact, ‘to believe and to draw near is our own, and yet [it is] also from the one calling, God’. He does not expound how these two co-operate. Theophylact on verse 11 again sees that election is based on the worthiness (ἀξιους) of the human objects.

Conclusion

As we conclude our investigation into our sixth ancient exegete of the Greek text of Ephesians 2:8-10, we see that our findings thus far are substantially unchanged. That is, it still remains the case that none of our six exegetes see the necessity of having a conceptual antecedent, all still take the demonstrative to refer to a feminine antecedent, and Theophylact will join four of his predecessors in taking πίστις as the antecedent, despite his synergistic soteriology. The one new element is that Theophylact considers the possibility of another option—that of the conceptual antecedent (‘salvation through faith’ is the gift), not in addition to his first stated view (‘faith’ is the gift), which is that of the majority, but as an alternative to the majority view. He does not state that the exclusive conceptual antecedent is his preferred opinion, but only that it is a possible alternative to the mainstream and incumbent interpretation in the Eastern tradition, that πίστις is the antecedent of the demonstrative. Theophylact, by his thorough recounting of the traditional view as his own, impliedly expresses full agreement with it, despite the fact that he mentions an alternative as a possibility.