I certainly appreciate Barclay’s titanic effort, and I suspect scholars will wade into the ocean of first-century literature on gift giving to confirm, challenge, or modify elements of Barclay’s claims. I welcome Barclay’s work since it casts light on the world of the New Testament that can help pastors and academics refine their exegesis and understanding of grace. Nonetheless, I remain unpersuaded that Barclay has presented a conclusive case that’s moved the discussion beyond the Old and New Perspectives. I remain an unrepentant adherent to the Old Perspective (and classic Protestant Reformation) reading of the Scriptures. 

John Barclay, professor of divinity at Durham University in England, has written a sizable contribution to New Testament studies in Paul and the Gift. His basic thesis is that gift is the proper first-century category for comprehending Paul’s term grace (2). His primary focus is examining the divine gift giving, which for the apostle Paul is God’s gift of Christ (4).

Barclay believes gift is the best way to understand Paul’s concept of grace for three chief reasons.

First, grace is a multifaceted concept that theologians frequently use but seldom define. Some stress the incongruity of grace (giving to an unworthy recipient); others the efficacy of grace. Barclay points out that these different “perfections” of grace (conceptual extensions) aren’t better or worse interpretations of the concept, just different aspects of it (6). He identifies six possible perfections of grace (70–75, 563):

• Superabundance—the size or permanence of a gift
• Singularity—the giver’s sole and exclusive desire to express benevolence and goodness
• Priority—the timing of the gift, namely, that it takes place prior to the initiative of the recipient
• Incongruity—a gift given without regard to the worthiness of the recipient
• Efficacy—the effect of the gift, namely, what the gift is designed to accomplish
• Non-circularity—the gift escapes reciprocity and a system of exchange

Second, ever since E. P. Sanders published Paul and Palestinian Judaism, many New Testament scholars have been careful to emphasize that Second Temple Judaism was a religion of grace. The problem with Sanders’s thesis, however, is that Second Temple conceptions of grace weren’t uniform, which undermines claims that Paul’s views were either similar or dissimilar to first-century views (6).

Third, though Paul regularly highlights the incongruous aspect of grace—that God gives the Christ-gift without regard to the worth of the recipient (6)—Barclay argues against the idea that incongruity automatically eliminates all forms of reciprocity. He claims the concept of unconditional gift-giving—a no-strings-attached concept—germinates with Luther and fully flowers with Immanuel Kant but is anachronistic to Paul’s first-century context (e.g., 11, 44, 50–51, 63, 115, 185). In his judgment, Paul knows nothing of a “pure” gift (52, 64).

Claiming a Paradigm Shift

Barclay takes these three major claims and applies them to his understanding of Paul’s concept of grace, but his goal isn’t just to refine our understanding of the New Testament. Rather, he claims a proper understanding of first-century gift giving enables people to move beyond both the Old and New Perspectives on Paul (318ff., 562). In Barclay’s analysis, first-century gift giving opens a new reading of the New Testament. This, he claims, represents a paradigm shift.

A brief review cannot offer adequate in-depth analysis of Barclay’s significant contribution. His background research is detailed, covering first-century concepts of gift giving and the development in post-Enlightenment thought (11–330). And in an encouraging move, Barclay also explores the views of 16th-century Reformers, such as Luther and Calvin (97–129)—something few New Perspective scholars have taken the time to do. Barclay also seeks to prove his thesis with detailed exegesis of key texts from Galatians and Romans (331–574). Readers possess meticulously gathered information and carefully crafted arguments for consideration.

Three Critical Observations

Positive elements aside, I offer the following three observations in the interest of contributing to what’ll likely be an ongoing discussion in New Testament scholarship and the broader academy.

First, I appreciate Barclay’s efforts to engage Old Perspective representatives such as Luther and Calvin. Yet I have doubts about some of his historical-theological conclusions.

Read More