Ephesians 2:8

Man, Sin, & Salvation
User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Ephesians 2:8

Post by Paidion » Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:56 pm

Tychicus you wrote:Yes, the εστε is active; thanks for pointing that out. The combination of active "be" verb and the perfect participle is called a periphrastic. Mounce talks about this (at least in my version); actually I just noticed the "Exegetical Insight" in Chapter 30 (Perfect Participles and Genitive Absolutes) discusses Eph 2:8 and comes out with the same translation you have:
For by grace you are being saved through faith.
Does the first version also have this section?
τυχικος, the first version does include the "exegetical insight" for Chapter 30 (Perfect Participles and Genitive Absolutes). It is written by Gerald F. Hawthorne, and is all about Rev 3:8, which Hawthorne affirms should have been translated "I have given you an opened door."

Has the "exegetical insight" in the second version been written by Gerald F. Hawthorne? In my version, he says nothing about Eph 2:8. Please tell me exactly what he says about it in yours.

I came up with "For by grace you are being saved through faith," from my own limited understanding of Greek. While it is true that the perfect tense indicates completed action, as it does in English. Yet we use "saved" in English with "being" in such a way that "being saved" indicates a continuous process. How do we know that it is not the same in Greek? Present active indicatives normally have the sense of continuity. For example, λυω normally means "I am loosing."

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Ephesians 2:8

Post by Paidion » Sat Jul 14, 2012 4:13 pm

I have found several other instances of the present active indicative, ειμι, in one of its forms combined with the perfect passive participle which seem to make sense contextually as continuous.

1. Ephesians 2:5 (but of course, here the phrase is identical with Ephesians 2:8)
2. Colossians 2:10 You are being filled in Him...
3. Heb 4:2 We are being evangelized just as they...
4. Heb 10:10 We are being sanctified...

Now I can see why those who see salvation as instantaneous would object to Eph 2:8 as being translated, "For by grace you are being saved..."
But what about Heb 10:10? Most Christians see sanctification as a process. So how do they translate Heb 10:10?

Some translate it boldly as an accomplished fact:
"We have been sanctified.." ASV, Darby, Rotherham, RSV

Others play it safe, but it still sounds like an accomplished fact, though it could be understood as continuous.
"We are sanctified..." AV, Douay, EMTV, Murdoch, NKJV, WEB

Others, possibly because they do not see it as an accomplished fact turn it into a future:
"We will have been sanctified..." ESV, Philips
This does not appear to be true to the text, as there is no future implied in the tenses.

Young's Literal Translation has a strange translation indeed:
"We are having been sanctified..."

This translation seems to make no sense in English. It seems they are trying to give a word for word translation by rendering the present indicative active "εσμεν" as "we are" and the perfect passive participle "ηγιασμενοι" as "having been sanctified."
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Tychicus
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 2:55 am

Re: Ephesians 2:8

Post by Tychicus » Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:35 am

Hi Paidion,

The Exegetical Insight in my version is different. It is by Paul Jackson.

The section is several paragraphs. Jackson's relevant comment on the grammar is:
The perfect passive participle σεσῳσμένοι is used in tandem with ἐστε to form what is called a "periphrastic verb", a construction intended to place special emphasis on the continuing results. Paul is using this construction to emphasize that the effects of salvation are an ongoing part of a believer's life.
He then goes on to give his analysis of the verse based on the "lifeboat analogy": salvation is a process with a beginning, middle and end; in a storm you get on a lifeboat (justification), the lifeboat makes its way to shore (sanctification), and you finally arrive (glorification).

Later in the chapter (p. 283 in my version) Mounce says:
Originally a periphrastic construction was used to emphasize the continuous force of the participle . . . however, by the time of Koine Greek, this emphasis is often lost. . . . Translate the periphrasitc construction just as you would the regular formation of the tense; perhaps the continuous idea will be emphasized, but that is up to the context and not the verbal form (see Exegetical Insight).
So there you have it. Mounce supports the "continuous idea", and thus you have:
For by grace you are being saved, through faith.
So, Παιδίον, you are in good company. Now, of course, you have to remember that Mounce says "perhaps", and "it is up to the context", so you have to look at that too.

Like I indicated before I agree with the progressive idea of salvation. And I really like what you have to say on the topic and your thought provoking questions. But we still have to deal with the context. Now, to me "the context" means Ephesians 2, and then the rest of Ephesians, and so on. It does not mean the "lifeboat analogy" that you [or Jackson] heard in church somewhere or in a seminary class. It does not mean my theological perspective, which would support progressive salvation. "The context" means, how can we tell what Paul is teaching us in Eph 2; and in order to do that we have to look at the whole chapter. And I just can't see anything there that indicates Paul is trying to explain a salvation process (instantaneous vs continuous). If not, as Mounce said, “Translate the periphrastic construction just as you would the regular formation” (which is, in fact, what just about every translation does: "have been saved" or "are saved" as in the KJV and a few others.)

I will also say (humbly, since I respect Dr. Mounce’s scholarship, and I will welcome correction), that I am quite dubious about the “continuous idea”, even as a “perhaps”. The perfect tense is just not translated “is being saved” or “are being saved”; it refers to a present condition based on a past action (e.g. “are in the condition of being saved”). Mounce seems a bit confused when he says (as quoted above):
Originally a periphrastic construction was used to emphasize the continuous force of the participle. . . however, by the time of Koine Greek, this emphasis is often lost.
You find a similar quote from Wallace (see http://bible.org/article/participle#P858_81033), which is more carfully worded:
in classical Greek [a periphrastic] construction was used to highlight aspectual force. By the Hellenistic era, and particularly in the NT, such emphasis is often, if not usually, lost
Note that Wallaces uses the more precise "aspectual force" instead of "continuous force".

The “aspectual force” of a perfect means “continuing in its effects”; it does not mean “continuous in action”. So by “continuous force” Mounce meant (or should have meant) “continuing in its effects”. Thus if Paul was using the periphrastic (ἐστε - are) for emphasis it would only refer to their saved condition; it could not refer to the salvation process. If you look at the first quote from Jackson above you can see that he is also just refeferring to condition, not process.

But no matter how you come down on all this the really important question (as I see it) is: What is Paul trying to teach us in Ephesians 2? Just figuring out one verse by itself seems to be of limited value.
Last edited by Tychicus on Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Tychicus
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 2:55 am

Re: Ephesians 2:8

Post by Tychicus » Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:27 am

Paidion wrote:I have found several other instances of the present active indicative, ειμι, in one of its forms combined with the perfect passive participle which seem to make sense contextually as continuous.

1. Ephesians 2:5 (but of course, here the phrase is identical with Ephesians 2:8)
2. Colossians 2:10 You are being filled in Him...
3. Heb 4:2 We are being evangelized just as they...
4. Heb 10:10 We are being sanctified...
Right, these could make sense as continuous with about the same amount of support as Eph 2:8. For reasons I gave in the other post I'm dubious on how well you can justify this sense from the Greek, but if one passes muster I suppose they all can be considered on the same basis.

But I also think they make sense as non-continuous (i.e. accomplished), and the Greek certainly favors that interpretation (as all translators seem to believe) even if it doesn't outright demand it. There is also contextual pressure for the "accomplished" sense, for example the aorists in Col 2:11-12 (circumcised; buried, raised) seems to indicate that the "filled" should also be taken as accomplished, unless Paul clearly indicated otherwise. Is there any compelling reason to take the continuous sense for "filled"?
Paidion wrote:Now I can see why those who see salvation as instantaneous would object to Eph 2:8 as being translated, "For by grace you are being saved..."
Right, those people might object. But I don't think all the translators believe that salvation is instantaneous, and they still translate "saved" in Eph 2:8 as an accomplished event. Perhaps they think that this verse is just talking about one aspect of salvation. For my view, if you are interested, I think the verse is focusing on Christ's accomplished work of saving us at a point of time in redemptive history, based on his faithfulness; and with also an allusion to our presumed "saved" condition based on our (continuing) faith response. You could also say it alludes to God's salvation principle based on faithfulness/faith (starting with the Messiah) in contrast to the Pharisaic system of "works" and ethnic identity represented by circumcision (see 2:11ff). I don't think it should be interpreted purely in an individualistic sense as we in the West are prone to do.
Paidion wrote:But what about Heb 10:10? Most Christians see sanctification as a process.
I would also see sanctification as an accomplished work of Christ. I do not believe the Bible writers think of "sanctification" as a precise theological word (as was done by theologians in the middle ages). The Bible sometimes uses the word in the accomplished sense and sometimes in the ongoing sense.

PapaJ
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:46 pm

Re: Ephesians 2:8

Post by PapaJ » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:08 pm

I assuming: W. Walker, Paidion, Tychicus, Jeremiah, Daniel and I’m guessing Jr. Iccitelli are still reading this discussion in Ephesians 2:8 dealing with the Calvinist perspective on Faith. I will admit I don’t have the tools at hand (my library is boxed up) and I’m writing from my work trailer in Apple Valley and I only have internet access 4-miles from here. So I’m reading each post to get caught up on the discussion. My background is 4-years of dispensational Bible College @ BBC Springfield MO; then 20-years of ministry, followed by 7-years under Dr. Bob Morey a non-denominational Reformed Baptist. Since 2008’ I have been discipling men and fellowshipping in churches with the Founders Fellowship out of the SBC and Sovereign Grace Fellowship under the influence of CJ Mahaney. From my recent associations you might conclude I’m a Calvinist, but my Calvinist friends know I’m not exactly what they are; since I’ve sent Steve my paper on TALON vs. TULIP, I joke with him and others that I’m only a 2-point Calvinist.

I wanted to let Jeremiah know I went back to 1 Corinthians 12 and even thought there are distinctions between Diversities, Administrations and Operations when you look at the context of the chapter the only reference to faith in vs. 9 is identifying an ability action in the realm of faith, limited to a few. It’s like the gift of teaching, many have the ability to teach, but only some are Pastor/Teachers, seen in Ephesians 4:11. In 1 Corinthians 12: 28; it says, “first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that” the other gifts. As far Philippians 1:29 the Calvinist are clear on this when it says, “it has been granted on behalf of Christ … to believe in Him,” then in John 6:65 it says, “no man can come unto Me, except it were given unto him of My Father, “and the way we would know if it was “given unto him of My Father” is if the Holy Spirit was convicting that person of their sin so they would receive Christ; it is the Holy Spirit convicting us of sin. Also you must have written the Acts 18:27 down wrong, since it had no connection with this thought; unless the passage was Acts 11:18; indicating that God was in control of who could get saved when Luke said, “God had granted Gentiles repentance unto life.” Then Paul told Timothy the same 2 Timothy 2:25 saying, “perhaps God will grant them repentance.” Paul says something similar in Romans 2:4; saying “the goodness of God leads you to repentance.”

I also wanted to let Walker know that he was right and it is the loving thing to say they do have another gospel, but we need to clarify what you might imply when saying “another gospel altogether.” You see the Calvinist have made their twist on what most recognize as a monergistic gospel vs. a synergistic gospel. I will clearly state that I proclaim a monergistic gospel that Jesus saves sinners and I will lovingly say I oppose the synergistic gospel that says Jesus made salvation possibly for everyone to be saved and it is up to man with a simple decision to use whatever ability he has to believe. Again I will say all true Calvinist are monergist, but not all monergist are Calvinist; besides that I’m baptistic and believers like John Calvin had Baptist imprisoned and put to death. Calvin and most Protestants believed in baptizing babies and those opposed to that method who only baptizes professing believers are Baptistic.

The Biblical presentation of the Gospel is presented by Ray Comfort and his sidekick; people must be presented with the fact that they are sinners in need of a Savior. Hitting them over the head with the Ten Commandments is good in that it is declaring the truth of Scripture that our sin separates us from God. Whither or not you start with the Ten Commandments is not the point, it is some evidence that the Holy Spirit is confronting them about their sin and reveals to them their need for Jesus Christ after they are presented with the Good News that Jesus paid the price for their sins. Jesus made it clear to His disciples that they could not separate the wheat from the weeds, it will be seen in their lives, whither or not there is any evidence of faith. Belief is in the mind and faith is the outworking of that belief produced by the workmanship of the Spirit of God; for this reason faith should not be seen as a tangible gift wrapped in a box and given to man when he is born of the Spirit.

Faith is clearly in James 2 saying, there were immature believers who did not have “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ … with respect of persons.” I believe the point being made is that as we mature we should be, becoming more like Jesus. We are not talking about the level of faith that Jesus processed. James said to the poor of this world were “rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom.” He said there was no profit for a man to say, “he has faith and not have works;” can that kind of faith save him? Again “faith if it has not works is dead being alone.” When James was comparing faith with and without works he said, “I will show you my faith by my works.” So know this foolish man, “faith without works is dead!” Then James uses Abraham as an example of the outworking of faith being an action when he was willing to offer Isaac on an alter. We see faith working together with the actions that came out of what he believed. It was that action that made what he believed perfect. What did Abraham believe? He believed the promises given to him from God that he would become high father through the life of Isaac. This would mean he expected God to do what He did or that Abraham believed God would resurrect Isaac. Personally I believe he was (being the father of faith) was the first to believe in a physical resurrection, meaning he planned to go through with the sacrifice. God was the one who supplied the unexpected substitutionary replacement and I think the reason it is difficult for unsaved people to except that teaching. So as James finishes this section by saying the faith of Abraham was seen in what he did, so it was “by works was faith made perfect.”
For this reason if we understand the context for this discussion about God’s workmanship, seen in his children that James says, “see then how that by works a man is justified, not by” context, context, context; a dead faith! This means “as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” So when dealing with the subject of how we acquire faith, I would think it is associated with how we grow in faith when the Scriptures says, “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,” Romans 10:17.

Now I realize are discussion has pulled away from Ephesians 2:8, being that the discussion has moved toward what Calvinist believe about faith, what it is and where it comes from. So is there another board at the Narrow Path where this direction would be more appropriate. The reason I’m asking is that I have another 12 paragraphs on faith from Hebrews, the OT, the Gospels, Acts and Romans, which could but should not be posted here.

Be patient for a reply since I'm not able to get on the web everyday.
LarryJJenkins

Tychicus
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 2:55 am

Re: Ephesians 2:8

Post by Tychicus » Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:00 am

Hi PapaJ,

Re your first question, I'm not particularly trying to interact with Calvinist perspective on faith. For what it's worth I don't think the Ephesians nor anyone else in the first century church was thinking about Calvinism. If Paul were trying to teach it in Ephesians he did a lousy job of it since no one seemed to catch on until the time of Augustine late in the 4th century. I suspect this perspective is shared by many in this forum.

My interest is on what exactly Paul was trying to teach us in this passage. And my suggestion (and I'd welcome comment, positive or negative) is that Paul was speaking more collectively than we are used to in our culture. It is not primarily:
You [the individual] have been saved by grace through your [individual] faith, not by your [individual] collection of "works"; and this is an [individual] gift from God.
Instead it is:
You [the church] have been saved by grace through the faith principle [based on Christ's faith/faithfulness], not by the works principle [as was stressed in Judaism]; and this is a [single] gift from God given to the church.
.
The emphasis is on God's grace and Christ's gift, which is totally different from the Jewish/Judaizer teaching which had previously been dominant (at least a major force or concern) in the church as we see clearly in Eph 2:11ff.

It is true that a person needs to respond to Christ to share in His salvation, but that is not what this verse is saying. Everyone already knew that, both orthodox and Judaizing Christians; Paul did not need to say it here. But he did need to pin down the shear reliance on Christ, equally available to both Jew and Gentile, because that was still a lingering concern within the church in which he had previously labored for over two years.

PapaJ
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:46 pm

Re: Ephesians 2:8

Post by PapaJ » Fri Aug 31, 2012 7:57 pm

Tychicus
Thanks for the reply, but as I explained I am not a Calvinist and I’m only a loose Augustinian. Actually as I read through most of the post, Calvinism was being spoken of by others in a negative light. I don’t believe Paul had any understanding of modern Calvinism. If you have a discussion board for the ‘Golden Chain’ I would love to add my .02cents. I will say I am a Monergist as are all Calvinist, so possibly this is where you are confused, but when I debate with my Calvinistic brethren, I give them fits.

I will also say the Universal Church theory you are referencing to when you say “You [the church] have been saved by grace through the faith principle” it is a combination of Reform and Dispensational error. Remember it was the Catholic (universal) church that invented the original theory, which was not Biblical. The Reformed crowd was loosing converts in the 16th century since Reformation congregations were being excommunicated from the un-Holy Roman Universal Church. If the original visible Universal church theory was true and scriptural then the Protestants would have had difficulty twisting it into their view. Since they did twist it to suit their purpose, saying the church was really invisible, then I say show me the passages in their context?

The problem with your view is when you change the concept of Biblical faith to ‘a faith principle” you are doing the same thing that Calvin did. What you are referring to as a “works principle used in Judaism” is like taking a principle used by Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Judaism in the NT was not the Hebrew faith delivered to Moses. This is why Jesus attacked them saying they were not following Moses, but to their fathers, the past leaders of Judaism. The Judaism of Jesus day was equivalent to a cult. This is why the dispensational concept of their being two people of God is all wrong. The Jews without Jesus are under the condemnation of God, as the Gentiles.

The only church in the Book of Ephesians is the local assembly and since there was no building, Paul was writing to individuals and we make application of that to us. So the gift is not given to the church, but to those who were truly saved within the assembly. I seriously doubt any of the churches practiced ‘church membership’ as do churches today; those who believed were added to the local assembly and they treated each other as family.

I think the others here has made it clear that the emphasis is on the ‘gift of God’ not Grace by itself, or Faith by itself, or Salvation by itself, it’s the three of them together as a unit that is God’s gift.

Papa J.

Tychicus
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 2:55 am

Re: Ephesians 2:8

Post by Tychicus » Sat Sep 01, 2012 4:50 am

Hi PapaJ,

Right, we agree that Paul did not understand modern Calvinism, and thus he was not trying to teach it, nor any part of it, in Eph 2. I also agree that there was no "Universal Church theory" and that when Paul spoke of his audience as "you" (plural) he was referring to the members of the local assembly in Ephesis. After all, this was a simple letter to a church in need written by a beloved apostle, their former church leader/preacher, now suffering in prison. It was not a theological treatise.

It is significant that the Ephesian church was primarily Gentile, and Paul was "a prisoner . . . for the sake of you Gentiles" (Eph 3:1). That is why the "gift" idea of Eph 2:8 was so revolutionary: it not only transcended the Jewish cultural/ritual understanding of "works righteousness", but also applied to the Gentiles. Christ's gift of salvation, based on his life of faithfulness all the way to the cross, is truly the most unique event in all of human history. Not only did it offer eternal life to all who belong to Christ, but also broke down the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14).

This is why I believe Eph 2:8 refers to a single gift, which was given by God's grace through Christ's faith/faithfulness. There is no need to interpret the verse as an explanation of the individual requirements for salvation, notwithstanding its frequent use as a proof-text for that version of theology.

That is not to say there is anything wrong with anyone thinking of salvation through Christ as an individual gift, given specifically to them. It is a reasonable application: our faith in Christ and faithfulness to Christ is analogous to Christ's faithfulness to God in securing salvation for us. That is what we need to do as followers in Christ. However I do not think Paul is focusing on this here, and believe that a careful reading of Eph 2 will bear this out. Thus there is no conflict between "faith" and "works" in the sense commonly taught by Evangelical Protestants, at least nothing you can pull out of this passage.
Paul was writing to individuals and we make application of that to us. So the gift is not given to the church, but to those who were truly saved within the assembly.
I agree that the church consists of individuals and that the teaching applies to individuals. So you can say the gift is given to the church, or you can say that the gift is given to the members of the church. It seems awful picky to make a distinction. But the main thing to me is that there is one gift, not a separate gift given to each person, and its primary basis is Christ's faith. We may share in the gift by our personal faith, but the focus is on Christ's faith/faithfulness. At least, that is how I believe Paul thought of it.

What do you think?

PapaJ
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:46 pm

Re: Ephesians 2:8

Post by PapaJ » Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:59 am

So you can say the gift is given to the church, or you can say that the gift is given to the members of the church. It seems awful picky to make a distinction.
What do you think?

When you apply the giving of a gift to the Universal church it come across as being a corporate concept, when you apply the giving of a gift to individuals it comes across as being limited to some, not all.

Yes it is picky to make the distinction, but it’s because I don’t know what you mean or others reading this post, what their thinking is concerning the church. Like I told you the Universal Church Theory is a product or Reformed, mostly Calvinistic churches. Now I do believe all born again believers are part of God’s family, sons of God and members of the Kingdom, but in our theology the Kingdom has been replaced by the Church. This is one of the things that made it difficult for me to accept Reformed Theology, since I came from a Local understanding of the church. It is my understanding that churches are made up of true regenerate believers and professing believers. We will not know for sure about everyone until we leave this life: we will either go to be with Him or we will be separated from Him in Hell, the temporary holding place until we all stand before Him on that Day when He separates the Sheep from the Goats for all eternity.

I believe the local churches serve as embassies in this world for the Kingdom of God, and the true believers are His representatives here on earth. The idea of a Universal Assembly is something close to an oxy-moron, this will never happen until the Judgment Day when all the living and dead will be gathered together. Each local assembly will represent the Kingdom in their neighbourhood and all gifted believers ministering their gifts will represent Jesus in their community. Now that I have described the Local Assembly, tell me what will be missing to not have a Universal Church?

PapaJ.

Tychicus
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 2:55 am

Re: Ephesians 2:8

Post by Tychicus » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:39 am

The idea of a Universal Assembly is something close to an oxy-moron, this will never happen until the Judgment Day when all the living and dead will be gathered together. Each local assembly will represent the Kingdom in their neighbourhood and all gifted believers ministering their gifts will represent Jesus in their community. Now that I have described the Local Assembly, tell me what will be missing to not have a Universal Church?
The Scriptures, right here in Ephesians, speak of the church being the body of Christ, and also the bride of Christ (5:23-32). It seems odd that Christ would have many bodies, or many brides, so Paul seems here like he is speaking of one church, not separate local churches.

But I don't think Paul is trying to build some abstract theology of the "Universal Church" a la Calvin. He is writing specifically to the local church at Ephesus, and perhaps, as some think, he meant it also to be circulated to other local churches. I don't think he cared if you thought of the Ephesian church as the body of Christ, or of the whole group of churches in the area as the body of Christ. The teaching is the same.

I am speaking here of the Ephesians epistle. When you get into inter-church relations, such as the gift from the Greek churches to the Jerusalem church as mentioned in Rom 15 and 1 Cor 16, then you have to think globally, and here I believe Paul would think of all the churches as one body; and so as one part of the body suffered the other parts helped out. But that's getting far afield from Paul's teaching in Eph 2:8, so I'll leave it at that.
When you apply the giving of a gift to the Universal church it come across as being a corporate concept, when you apply the giving of a gift to individuals it comes across as being limited to some, not all.
My best understanding is that the "gift" in Eph 2:8 is a single gift given by Christ to the church via his faith/faithfulness to God up to the cross. So you can say that the gift is "corporate". But individuals share in this gift if they belong to Christ, so in that sense it is individual. I don't think Scripture teaches anywhere that God limits which individuals can belong to Christ; but if an individual doesn't follow Christ I suppose you can say that they "limit" themselves.

Post Reply

Return to “Anthropology, Hamartiology, Soteriology”