Divine Beneficence and Human Generosity in Second Temple Judaism: Reflections on John Barclay's Paul and the Gift

Abstract

Divine Beneficence and Human Generosity in Second Temple Judaism:Reflections on John Barclay's Paul and the Gift Bradley C. Gregory In his recent landmark book, Paul and the Gift,1 John Barclay situates Paul's theology of grace within the ancient understanding of gift giving. In order to do this, he outlines six ways that gift giving or grace can be "perfected," understood in its "purest essence." A gift may be "perfected" in terms of superabundance (size, importance, permanence), its singularity (it is the defining characteristic of the giver), its priority (it comes before any initiative by the recipient), its incongruity (the recipient is unworthy of such a gift), its efficacy (it accomplishes the purpose for which it was given), and noncircularity (it is given without any expectation of return) (66–78). These different dimensions of gifts/grace provide a helpful schema for understanding how both ancient authors and their interpreters throughout history have understood what grace is and what it is not. For example, the different understandings of Paul found in Augustine and Luther largely stem from each of the latter's different conceptions of how grace is perfected. The upshot of this approach to grace for the study of Paul is twofold. First, in examining the anthropology and history of gift giving from antiquity to the present, Barclay shows that the "disinterested gift," one that is given with no expectation of return, is an almost exclusively modern, Western notion. In contrast, for the ancient person, gift giving always expected [End Page 183] some sort of reciprocal exchange because gift giving was always embedded in an interpersonal dynamic of creating and developing social ties (11–65). Thus, it is no surprise that, in the second part of the book, when Barclay explores how different Second Temple Jewish authors perfect divine grace, not a single one perfects noncircularity. In each of the five works, some sort of return is expected, even if it is "only" profound gratefulness to God. Second, by reading Second Temple works with these six different perfections in mind, Barclay shows convincingly that "grace is everywhere; but this does not mean that grace is everywhere the same" (319). For example, while Wisdom of Solomon and Philo do not perfect divine grace in terms of incongruity, the Qumran Hodayot and Pseudo-Philo do; yet all perfect grace in at least one way. In fact, each Second Temple Jewish author represents a different constellation of grace, perfecting it in different combinations of the six dimensions, and each perfection in different ways. In turning to Paul, then, it becomes quite clear that one cannot simply ask whether Paul agrees or disagrees with Second Temple Judaism on the topic of grace. Rather, the question is how his view of grace is situated among this diversity. On one hand, Paul is continuous with other ancient authors in not perfecting noncircularity. Like his contemporaries, he firmly believed that God's grace creates a new relational dynamic and demands a response from the recipients. On the other hand, Paul's view of divine grace as radically incongruous and centered on God's gift in Christ was largely discontinuous with ancient views of (human) gift giving, though in different ways in comparison to Judaism and Greco-Roman culture. Key to this aspect of Barclay's thesis is the claim that, for ancient authors, gift giving was routinely viewed as congruous in some way with the worth or status of the recipient, and then further, the question of how gift giving in early Judaism aligned with this broader Greco-Roman perspective. It is this aspect of Barclay's work that I would like to engage for this symposium. I hope the following discussion will help to supplement Barclay's treatment and to suggest some further ways that divine beneficence and human generosity are interrelated among some Second Temple Jewish authors.2 Social Worth and Well-Placed Gifts One aspect of gifts in the ancient world that Barclay rightfully highlights is that the status or worth of a potential recipient was generally a significant factor in the decision to give: "What distinguishes the sphere of gift [End Page 184] is not that it is 'unilateral,' but...