Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 2:8 - 2:8
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_2:8. How entirely was I justified in saying: τὸ ὑπερβάλλον πλοῦτος τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ! for, etc. Thus Paul now expresses himself with more detail as to the great truth, of which his heart was so full that it had already, Eph_2:5, interrupted the course of his address.
τῇ χάριτι ] by the grace. By the article the divine grace just now spoken of is indicated, after it had been meant doubtless by the anarthrous χάριτι , Eph_2:5, but designated by it only as regards the category (by grace).
διὰ τῆς πίστεως ] for the faith in the atonement made by Christ (Rom_3:25; Rom_3:30, al.) is, as the causa apprehendens of the Messianic salvation, the necessary mediate instrument on the part of man, while the χάρις is the divine motive, the causa efficiens of the bestowal. The emphasis, however, is retained by τῇ χάριτι alone, and διὰ τῆς πίστ . is only the modal definition to σεσωσμ .
καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν κ . τ . λ .] Nothing is here to be treated as parenthesis; neither the whole καὶ τοῦτο down to ἔργων , Eph_2:9 (Griesbach, Scholz), nor merely Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον (Lachmann, Harless, de Wette), since neither the construction nor the course of thought is interrupted. καὶ τοῦτο is referred by the Fathers in Suicer, Thes. II. p. 728, Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Estius, Wolf, Bengel, Michaelis, and others, including Koppe, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, to the faith ( τὸ πιστεύειν ), comp. Php_1:29; 2Co_4:14. In that case καὶ τοῦτο … δῶρον would have to be taken parenthetically. But how violent is this taking to pieces of the text, since οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν and οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων present themselves in a manner alike natural and weighty as elements belonging to one flow of the discourse! Rightly, therefore, have Calvin, Calovius, Baumgarten, Semler, Zachariae, Morus, and others, including Rückert, Matthies, Holzhausen, Harless, de Wette, Schenkel, Bleek, referred it to the salvation just designated as regards its specific mode. Paul very earnestly and emphatically enters into more detailed explanations as to what he had just said, τῇ γὰρ χάριτι κ . τ . λ ., namely to the effect, that he briefly and forcibly places in the light of the respective contrasts, first, that objective element of the saving deliverance which has taken place ( τῇ χάριτι ) by οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν , Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον , and then the subjective element ( διὰ τῆς πίστεως ), by οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἵνα μ . τ . καυχ . His thought is: “Through grace you are in possession of salvation by means of faith, and that to the exclusion of your own causation and operative agency.” This latter he expresses with the vivacity and force of contrast thus: “and that ( καὶ τοῦτο , see on Rom_3:11) not from you, it is God’s gift; not from works, in order that no one may boast.” The asyndetic juxtaposition takes place with a “propria quadam vi, alacritate, gravitate,” Dissen, Exc. II. ad Pind. p. 273.
οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν ] negatives their own personal authorship of the salvation (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 551 f.).
Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον ] i.e. Θεοῦ δῶρον τὸ δῶρον , God’s gift is the gift in question (namely, the σεσωσμένον εἶναι ). Comp. already Bengel.
οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ] Parallel of οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν , hence to be completed by ἐστὲ σεσωσμένοι (not by τὸ δῶρόν ἐστι ), not from work-merit does it come that you have the salvation. The ἔργα would exclude the πίστις as the subjective condition of salvation (Rom_3:28; Rom_4:5; Rom_9:32; Gal_2:16; Gal_3:2), as ἐξ ὑμῶν would exclude the χάρις as the objective cause of salvation, because it presupposes the ἰδία δικαιοσύνη (Rom_10:3). No doubt ἐξ ἔργων excludes also the χάρις , as does likewise ἐξ ὑμῶν exclude the πίστις ; but the two elements opposed to the χάρις and the πίστις are, on occasion of the proposition τῇ γὰρ χάριτι … πίστεως , held apart after the manner of a formal parallelism. That, moreover, the notion of the ἔργα is determined not merely by the Jewish law, but—inasmuch as the readers were for the most part Gentile-Christians—also by the natural law (Rom_2:14 f.), is self-evident. The proposition in itself, however, οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων , is so essential and universally valid a fundamental proposition of the Pauline Gospel, and certainly so often expressed by the apostle among Jews and Gentiles, that the severe judgment as to its having no meaning, when laid down without reference to the Mosaic law, must appear unfounded (in opposition to de Wette).
ἵνα ] design of God in the relation indicated by οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων , not ecbatic (Koppe, Flatt, Holzhausen). Comp. 1Co_1:29; 1Co_1:31, and as regards the thing itself, Rom_3:27. Grotius aptly says: “quicquid est in flumine, fonti debetur,” which, however, is not to be limited merely to the prima gratia. See Eph_2:10; 2Co_10:17; 1Co_15:10.