Paul and the Power of Grace

John M. G. Barclay

• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781467459228
• Topic: Theologie & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblische Studien

Paul and the Gift transformed the landscape of Pauline studies upon its publication in 2015. In it, John Barclay led readers through a recontextualized analysis of grace and interrogated Paul's original meaning in declaring it a "free gift" from God, revealing grace as a multifaceted concept that is socially radical and unconditioned—even if notuncondition al.

Paul and the Power of Grace offers all of the most significant contributions from Paul and the Gift in a package several hundred pages shorter and more accessible. Additionally, Barclay adds further analysis of the theme of gift and grace in Paul's other letters—besides just Romans and Galatians—and explores contemporary implications for this new view of grace.

CHAPTER 1

Grace as Gift

Our first step is to place the topic of “grace” within the field of social relations that come under the heading of “gift.” There is a simple linguistic reason for this strategy. As we have already noted, the Greek term we normally translate as “grace” (charis) is a normal, nonspecialized word for benefit, favor, or gift, which Paul mixes with other ordinary gift-terms. He celebrates the charis of the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor 8:9) and then gives thanks to God for his inexpressible “gift” (dōrea, 2 Cor 9:15). At one point, he uses four roughly synonymous gift-terms to describe the event of Christ (charis, dōrea, dōrēma, charisma, Rom 5:15–17). When he speaks of “the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal 2:20), he refers again to this gift when he says, in the next sentence, that he will not reject the charis of God (Gal 2:21). The gift that he wants the Corinthians to give to Jerusalem is called a charis (2 Cor 8:7), and the gifts of the Spirit that they enjoy are labelled charismata (1 Cor 12:4). Although we distinguish in English between “gift” and “grace,” it is often the case that either could serve as a translation for charis, which is part of a pool of regular Greek terms for gift, favor, or benefit.¹

The word charis has, in fact, three main classes of meaning that reflect the circular structure of gift-giving in antiquity.² It can mean, firstly, what is charming or attractive, an object of favor (as of Jesus in Luke 2:52). Secondly, it may mean a gift, favor, or benefit, or the attitude of benevolence that accompanies a gift. Sometimes there is a distinction between the gift and the attitude of benevolence. But often the two overlap, because what is given is not only a thing, but also a service or favorable treatment that represents the giver’s attitude. Thus, in Paul’s letters, charis can describe gifts (e.g., 1 Cor 16:3: “your charis to Jerusalem”) or the favor or generosity of God (“charis and peace be with you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,” Rom 1:7). Thirdly, charis (like the related term, eucharistia) can mean the return of gratitude or thanksgiving (e.g., 2 Cor 9:15: “charis [thanks] be to God for his inexpressible gift”). These three meanings of charis represent the circular movement of gifts: a gift given to a favored person creates gratitude in return. The Greeks played on these interrelated meanings, as did Paul throughout 2 Corinthians 8–9.

However, our focus in this book is not limited to the word charis or to texts that happen to use this term. To study Paul’s theology of grace is not the same as doing a word-study on charis. This word is mixed with a set of other gift-terms in Pauline theology, and we would confine ourselves wrongly if we fixated on one term alone. Every language has many words for gifts, depending on their context and their social meaning. In English, a monetary gift could be styled simply a gift, but it might be what we call a tip, a donation, an honorarium, a present, a benefit, or a bribe. Each of these terms has a slightly different nuance, reflecting the purposes, contexts, and effects of the gift. Indeed, what one person considers a donation, another might denounce as a bribe. This alerts us to the fact that gifts are complex and multifaceted phenomena. The same word can mean subtly different things, and different words can overlap in meaning, depending on the social relationships they describe or the different ways they are figured rhetorically. We need to clarify the meaning of words, but we also need to observe the social meaning of “gifts” and the social expectations they convey. Rather than fixating on one term, we need to explore a cluster of words and their associated ideas, grouped under the heading of “gift.”

But what do we mean by “gift”? It is time for a definition. By “gift” I mean the sphere of voluntary, personal relations characterized by goodwill in the giving of a benefit or favor, which generally elicits some form of reciprocal return that is necessary for the continuation of the relationship. “Voluntary” is crucial: we do not regard the taxes we pay as a gift; by law, we have to pay them, and we do not expect a thank-you letter from the tax inspector! Even if, as we shall see, gifts can be both obliged and voluntary, some element of voluntariness in their giving is crucial to their status as gifts (as Paul notes in 2 Cor 9:7). “Personal” is also important: gifts in all cultures express a personal connection between giver and recipient, and are generally viewed as qualitatively different, in that sense, from commercial exchange.³ “Goodwill” is significant: all gifts express something of a beneficent attitude (the same thing given with malicious intentions is not a gift but a form of harm). And, as we shall see in a moment, in most cultures and at most times, gifts are part of a circular exchange, an ongoing cycle where the gift is intended to create or maintain a social relationship. Payment for goods and services is generally the end of a transaction, but a gift is not the end of a relationship, and neither is the return. One gives or gives back (typically at a later time and in some nonidentical form) in order to continue a relationship that is in principle open-ended.

Working from this broad definition, our question is this: if Paul configures God’s relationship to the world in Christ as gift (voluntary, personal, and with goodwill), what sort of gift is it, and how does it work?

THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF GIFT

Differing cultural patterns of favor or benefit, all under the heading of “gift,” have been the subject of a long and fascinating discussion among anthropologists. If you have travelled to another continent, or have come to know people from another culture, you will know that gifts operate under different rules in different cultures. Who is expected to give gifts, and when? What sort of gift is appropriate for what occasion? What is expected in response to a gift? Like me, you may have been embarrassed by misreading a gift-situation—failing to provide a gift when one was expected, or failing to reciprocate in the proper way. Anthropologists have long studied the functions and social meanings of gifts, stimulated by a famous essay by Marcel Mauss, now translated and published as a book, called simply The Gift.⁴ Starting from ethnographical studies around the Pacific Rim, Mauss explored how gifts (broadly defined) knit societies together and how they have altered over time in changing cultural and economic conditions. Mauss identified three key obligations in societies structured by gifts: the obligation to give, the obligation to receive, and the obligation to return the gift (often in a different form). Because they are personal, gifts may be closely attached to the person of the giver (think of heirlooms, or hand-crafted gifts), and in some cases gifts are “inalienable”—given, but in an important sense still the property of the person or group that gave it.

Mauss was particularly interested in what creates the obligation to return a gift, an obligation that still leaves the return, however, voluntary and free. His own explanation (concerning the “spirit” of the gift) has not persuaded everyone, but the question is valid. The best answer may lie in the fact that gifts are a means of creating or sustaining relationships. Failure to return a gift weakens the invited relationship and may bring it to an end.⁵ Even in modern Western culture, where the sphere of gifts has been limited and their power reduced (see below), we are conscious that family relations and friendships are maintained by a continuous circle of favors and benefits. To receive many favors but never to return them usually means that the relationship does not last. For instance, if I gave a gift to a friend each year for his birthday, but he never thanked me for it, let alone reciprocated in some form, I would probably conclude that the friendship did not count for much.

Mauss and his successors showed that in most cultures standard Western polarities simply do not apply. We contrast “free” gifts with notions of obligation, but at many times in history and in many (perhaps most) cultures today, gifts can be both obligatory and free. We contrast a “disinterested” gift with one that furthers the interest of the giver, but that polarity may be a modern construct, falsely imposed on others. We might consider a gift that has an element of obligation or interest as less than “pure,” but that might represent the imposition of a cultural standard that is uniquely our own. We might judge that others are deceiving themselves by claiming to be givers, when they “really” want something in return.⁶ In fact, we should learn from anthropology to be wary of imposing our assumptions about gifts on other people or other periods of time, and we should operate with an open mind, since modern, Western construals of gift are by no means inherently “right.” In general, cultural awareness teaches us that:

A.“Gifts” may take many forms, including all kinds of favors, benefactions, and services. Material gifts are often returned not in kind, but by according honor or prestige to the giver, especially in unequal relationships.

B.What constitutes a gift is culturally defined, and how gifts relate to other forms of transaction (e.g., commerce or pay) has to be observed in each context.

C.Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, we should expect that gifts carry some expectation of return. Reciprocity is the norm. Exchange and return are characteristic not only of trade-relations but also of gift-giving, even if the return takes place in indirect forms.

D.We should beware of labels such as “free” and “pure,” lest they carry the connotations of modern ideologies of gift. Even dictionary definitions are culturally determined. We should be open to the possibility that gifts can be both “voluntary” and “obliged,” both “disinterested” and “interested,” both “generous” and “constrained.” At the very least, we should let sources from past times and different cultures speak of gifts in their own terms. And that includes the letters of Paul.

GIFTS IN PAUL’S GRECO-ROMAN CONTEXT

How did gifts operate in Paul’s cultural environment, that is, in his Greco-Roman context and in his Jewish culture that operated within it?⁷ A fundamental principle of Greek social life was the norm of reciprocity in giving, receiving, and returning gifts.⁸ This norm operated at all social levels, from the extravagant hospitality and political favors exchanged among the rich to the ordinary, beneath-the-radar swapping and sharing that helped the poor survive (if they did). It was good advice to “be cordial to your neighbor, for if trouble comes at home, a neighbor’s there, at hand.”⁹ Generosity to others was the best form of insurance, and those known for being stingy or uncooperative were liable to find themselves without help when illness, accident, or bereavement brought financial disaster. “Give something and get something,” said the popular maxim, or “One hand washes another” (the Greek equivalent of “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”).¹⁰ Recipients of favors would commonly describe themselves as being “in debt” since it was taken for granted that gifts carry obligations. Nonetheless, since gifts were personal, informal, and resistant to exact calculation, they were in a different category from loans, wages, or trade-exchange. A contractual loan was a matter of law, and a defaulter could be taken to court, but the social obligations arising from gifts, although morally powerful, were not actionable in law. Gifts, however, did create circular exchange: something was expected to come back to the giver, even if only gratitude or honor. The structure of gift-giving was commonly identified in the popular image of the Three Graces (Charites), who danced in a ring, bound together in gift-and-return.¹¹

This system of reciprocal exchange also characterized the relationship between humans and the gods, despite the difference in status.¹² In Greek and Roman religion, the gods were recognized as benefactors of humanity: they gave gifts of nature, health, safety, and success, and it was incumbent on humans to reciprocate in sacrifice and worship. As in the normal cycle of reciprocity among friends, one did not need to calculate who started the exchange. Sacrifices could be figured as return gifts for benefits already given, or as gifts inducing future benefits. Greek and Roman religion has often been represented as a system of do ut des (“I give in order that you give”). That rightly recognizes the reciprocity of religious practice, but it is misleading if it suggests that the human giver is always the initiator of the cycle. Ancient philosophers, at least, would insist that the world, human life, and the benefits of nature were prior gifts, initiated by the gods/God.

If gifts, both human and divine, were given within a cycle of reciprocal exchange, it was important to give wisely and discriminately. This is partly a matter of practical prudence: one would be wary of giving to someone unlikely or unwilling to reciprocate. But it also concerns the donor’s social reputation. Gifts tied persons and groups together: the giving and receiving of a gift constituted a social bond. For that reason, one might refuse a gift, wary of association with a disreputable giver, and, as a donor, one would be careful to give gifts only to those recognized to be in some sense “worthy” of them.¹³ “Worth” could be measured in many different ways, according to social status, gender, age, ethnicity, ancestry, education, or morality. Worshippers presented themselves to the gods as “worthy” of their benefits, and donors noted the worth of the people they had benefitted. As we sh...