Book Review: Tolle Lege! Paul and the Gift by John M.G. Barclay

 

John M.G. Barclay. Paul and the Gift. Eerdmans, 2015. Pgs. 656; $70 hardback.

Most within the Christian tradition, especially those who are the byproduct of the Reformation, have celebrated Paul as the theologian of grace who came on the scene to save us all, both Jew and Gentile, from the destructive and impossibly demanding “works-righteousness” of Judaism. In 1977 that basic framework for understanding Judaism and Paul was challenged by E.P. Sanders’ book Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Sanders’ provocative insights generated a fresh wave of research on Paul’s theology in its Jewish context, which in turn fostered a new (but not monolithic) scholarly approach to reading the apostle (and Second Temple Judaism) known as the “new perspective”. Sanders and those who followed similar lines of research, have argued that the Judaism of Paul’s day has been unfairly mischaracterized within the Christian tradition, especially in the aftermath of the Reformation. They argue that Judaism in the Second Temple period was a religion of grace through and through, and that while Paul may have been remarkable, it had nothing to do with his contribution as a theologian of grace. It is within this context that John Barclay offers an even newer perspective on what the Apostle Paul meant when he used the word “grace” (greek xaris) to refer to God’s actions in and through Jesus Christ.

            In Part I of this ground-breaking tome, Barclay demonstrates that the concept of “grace” is much more complex than we have previously imagined, and that many of the challenges of interpreting Paul have to do with competing notions of what the word actually means.  In particular, Barclay traces the function and expectations of gift-giving in the Greco-Roman cultural milieu and shows how Western modernity has absorbed certain assumptions about grace that were in fact foreign to Paul and his contemporaries. This may well be his most significant contribution to the discussion regarding Pauline theology as it relates to gift/grace. Here he convincingly shows that in the Greco-Roman world of Paul’s day, all notions of gift assumed reciprocity or return. In fact, one was obligated to give only to those who would be able to give in return. Thus, gifts should be distributed with discernment to those who are worthy recipients. To do otherwise was deemed irresponsible, and was theologically problematic since it called into question justice and the rationality of the universe. For this reason, the rich in the Greco-Roman world were not expected to give to poor, since the poor were unworthy recipients because they were unable to keep the gift-giving cycle going. Relations between gods and humans were also modeled on the assumption of reciprocity of gift-giving, as were friendships. Even euergetism (public benefaction) only worked because one received public honor in return. In short, gift-giving (or grace) was intended to create and maintain social bonds and obligations. Barclay shows that Jewish ideology did not reject this Greco-Roman assumption regarding gift but rather modulated it by shifting the reciprocity from recipient to God; God would return or reward the gift. This is what enabled Jewish charity to the poor, since God would make up for the unworthiness of the recipient by returning the favor to the giver. In light of this research, Barclay cautions modern readers who characterize Paul’s concept of grace as a free or pure gift that does not, must not, entail reciprocity (“no strings attached”); he warns that we are importing Western ideological assumptions about “grace” back into Paul’s writings. In what might seem like an oxymoron to modern readers, Barclay shows that in the ancient world a free gift can also be obliging.

Barclay’s second significant contribution in Part I is the taxonomy that he has developed for the ways in which the concept of grace is “perfected”, by which he means the manner in which the notion of gift is drawn out to its most extreme end—for definitional clarity or for rhetorical or ideological advantage. As he develops his taxonomy, we see with greater clarity the polyvalent nature of the word “grace”. These six “perfections” of grace are 1) superabundance; 2) singularity; 3) priority; 4) incongruity; 5) efficacy; and 6) non-circularity. When Paul speaks of grace, interpreters over the ages have argued that the essence of that word means that God is nothing but benevolent (singularity), or that God’s grace seeks no return (non-circularity), or that it is unconstrained by previous circumstances (priority), or that it is without regard to the worth of the recipient (incongruity), or that it fully achieves what it is designed to do (efficacy), or that it is extravagant (superabundance). Barclay’s taxonomy also attunes us to the fact that interpreters have often drawn on one particular aspect (or perfection) of grace in order to exclude other notions of grace held by other interpreters. In other words, he shows, when two interpreters speak of grace but disagree on its meaning and implications, it is not necessarily because one emphasizes grace more than another, but rather because they are emphasizing different facets or “perfections” of grace. Augustine, for example, did not believe in grace more than Pelagius, he just believed in it differently. The root of Marcion’s interpretation of Paul was in fact grace: God is purely and totally good and can therefore not be a God of wrath and judgment (singularity). Augustine, on the other hand, builds his notion of grace around the priority, incongruity, and efficacy of grace. Pelagius and Augustine both agree on the priority of grace but disagree on other aspects of its perfection. Luther emphasized the permanent incongruity of grace, departing from Augustine’s emphasis on the efficacy of grace. Calvin on the other hand stressed the efficacy of grace along with its incongruity. And so on (see Chapter Three for an extending survey of the major interpreters of Paul in reception history).

In Part Two of Paul and the Gift, Barclay uses his taxonomy of grace as an analytical tool to examine Second Temple Jewish texts. Two significant contributions emerge from this analysis. First, as Sanders has noted, it is indeed the case that grace is to be found everywhere within Second Temple Judaism; however, it was not everywhere the same—grace was not perfected in a monolithic fashion. In this regard, Barclay’s analysis undercuts the foundation of “the New Perspective on Paul” by showing that Sanders’ model known as “covenantal nomism” is a gross oversimplification and thus a misrepresentation of the Judaism of Paul’s day. Barclay agrees with Sanders that the priority of grace in Second Temple Judaism is prominent, but he also shows how Sanders downplays the different perfections of grace while also assuming other perfections within the notion of priority.  Secondly, Barclay’s analysis shows that none of the representative Second Temple texts examined perfect grace with the notion of non-circularity.

In Part Three and Four, Barclay reconsiders Galatians and Romans respectively through the lens of his taxonomy of grace and shows that contrary to the claims of recent scholarship, Paul’s notion of grace is in fact remarkable, but not necessarily for the reasons we might assume. In his analysis of Galatians, Barclay thinks the new perspective is right to highlight the boundary markers dividing Jews from Gentiles, and that the social nature of grace is an important aspect to Paul’s theology. But he argues that it is the incongruity of grace (and not foundationally its priority) enacted in Jesus that enables new patterns of life together. In Part Three and Four Barclay also shows that Paul isn’t entirely distinct from his Jewish contemporaries; in fact he stands among fellow Jews claiming that God’s incongruous grace is located centrally in the Christ-gift—the gift that creates a new basis for worth, and allows for innovative patterns of social existence. Paul opposes Torah, not because he is anti-Jewish, nor because he sees the church as a replacement of Israel, nor because the Law entails self-righteousness, but rather because in his missionary context to Gentiles, the Torah was being used as a criterion for worth—something that has been abolished in Jesus Christ. One final significant contribution in Barclay’s examination of Galatians and Romans is that incongruity of grace does not imply non-circularity. The gift carries expectations of obedience—and this does not nullify grace.

            Much like Paul and Palestinian Judaism in its day, Paul and the Gift will not doubt generate fresh lines of research on Paul’s theology in its Jewish context. Barclay’s taxonomy will likely be fruitful in examining other Pauline texts. Certainly many will want to critically explore further Barclay’s claims about justification/righteousness in Galatians and Romans, not least what the basis is for it; but as a whole Paul and the Gift is a model of careful, insightful, and methodologically sophisticated biblical and theological research at its best.