John M.G. Barclay’s seminal work, Paul and the Gift, has already garnered significant attention, and rightly so. Following my initial reflections and our upcoming discussion on the Mere Fidelity podcast, having now fully absorbed the book, I felt compelled to delve deeper into its key themes and offer a more comprehensive, albeit still incomplete, assessment. For those seeking a concise overview of Barclay’s thesis, his own summary, which I previously highlighted, serves as an excellent starting point, accurately reflecting the book’s ambitious scope and profound insights.
Indeed, Paul and the Gift is nothing short of groundbreaking, poised to reshape the landscape of Pauline studies. The widespread acclaim from fellow scholars is not mere academic courtesy; it is a genuine recognition of the book’s transformative impact. Anyone engaged in the ongoing dialogue surrounding the New Perspective and Old Perspective on Paul, Judaism, and justification will find this work indispensable, standing alongside the influential contributions of Wright, Dunn, and others in recent years.
Beyond its overall significance, several thematic takeaways, nuanced points, and observations warrant closer examination.
Reaffirming the Reformation: A Key Aspect of This Gift Review
From both theological and historical standpoints, a striking aspect of Barclay’s work is its partial vindication of the Reformers’ interpretation of Paul within the context of medieval debates on justification. Barclay’s analysis hinges on two pivotal insights.
Firstly, he affirms E.P. Sanders’s assertion that Judaism, broadly speaking, possessed a robust theology of grace. However, and crucially, Barclay emphasizes that the concept of “grace” was not monolithic across Paul’s Jewish context. “Grace is everywhere in Judaism, but it is not everywhere the same.” While many understood grace as the “priority,” “super-abundance,” or “singularity” of God’s favor, Paul uniquely emphasized the “incongruity” – the inherent unsuitability – of God’s grace extended to the undeserving. Secondly, Barclay points out that post-Augustine and Luther, Sanders, encountering affirmations of “grace,” inadvertently projected the “incongruity” aspect onto these texts, assuming a consistent resonance regardless of context. This assumption, Barclay argues, is inaccurate.
This distinction offers a partial vindication of the Reformers. Theologically, irrespective of potential criticisms regarding individualism or misinterpretations of “works-righteousness,” the Reformers correctly underscored the incongruity of grace. This stood in contrast to the medieval theology of grace, which, despite acknowledging grace, subtly reintroduced “congruity” or merit into the equation. The medieval conception, by positing God “graciously” accepting the merit of saints attainable through good works, penance, and “doing what is in us,” still implied an element of divine acceptance or reward based on achieved worth or “fittingness,” rather than solely on the grace of Christ. This “congruent” grace, Barclay suggests, finds parallels in certain 2nd Temple Jewish texts, against which Paul’s theology stands in stark contrast.
paul and the gift
Image alt text: Book cover of ‘Paul and the Gift’ by John M.G. Barclay, a key text in Pauline studies and the subject of this gift review, showcasing its title and author against a blurred background.
The vindication remains “partial” due to two related nuances Barclay introduces: his critique of Lutheran “non-circularity” and his stance on works at the final judgment. Barclay observes that the prominent emphasis on the “non-circularity” of grace, its “unconditional” nature expecting no “return,” emerges primarily with Luther. This modern notion of a “pure” gift is not fully aligned with Paul’s understanding. For Paul, grace is indeed unconditioned by worth, but it is not entirely unconditional. He anticipates a transformation in the believer’s life, manifesting in good works that will be acknowledged at the eschaton.
Nevertheless, Barclay’s meticulous and insightful examination of both 2nd Temple literature and Paul’s reception history undeniably highlights significant parallels between the Reformation debates and Paul’s 2nd Temple context, offering valuable illumination for contemporary theological discourse.
Sociological Dimensions: An Important Lens in This Gift Review
Like many contemporary Pauline scholars, Barclay emphasizes the sociological dimension of Paul’s theology. Crucially, Barclay avoids reducing Paul to mere sociology, retaining the classic theological concerns of individual salvation. He clearly articulates that Paul’s central aim is the creation of a unified community of Jew and Gentile. This community is founded on the shared recognition of being accepted irrespective of worth, not based on worldly value systems or adherence to Torah, but solely through the incongruous grace of God in Christ within the New Age.
Barclay meticulously explores various social dynamics that Paul’s ethical instructions address and dismantle, contextualizing them within Jewish and Greco-Roman societal norms. This sociological perspective, enriched by insights from the New Perspective and social sciences, is a significant contribution. Barclay’s appropriation of Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of practice and habitus, and the understanding of the body as a locus of sanctification, are particularly insightful in this gift review.
However, the sociological emphasis might, at times, become somewhat overextended. Consider Barclay’s paraphrase of Galatians 2:15-21:
You and I, Peter, are Jews, used to thinking of ourselves as categorically distinct from “Gentile sinners.” But we know (though conviction and experience) that a person (whether Gentile or Jew) is not considered of worth (“righteous”) by God through Torah-observance (“living Jewishly”), but through faith in (what God has done in) Christ. We look to God to consider us valuable (“righteous”) in Christ, not through obeying the Torah, and this is so even if (in situations like Antioch’s) our resulting behaviour makes us look like “sinners” (“living in a Gentile fashion”). Does that mean that Christ has led us into sin? No way! Only if one were to reinstate the Torah as the arbiter of worth (“righteousness”) would “living like a Gentile” in Christ be classified as “transgression”. In fact (taking myself as a paradigm), I have died to the Torah – it is no longer what constitutes my standard of value – because I have been reconstituted in Christ. My old existence came to an end with the crucified Christ; my new life has arisen from the Christ-event and is therefore shaped by faith in the death of Christ, who loved me and gave himself for me. This divine gift I will by no means reject: if “righteousness” were measured by the Torah, the death of Christ would be without effect.
While this reading offers valuable clarification, the translation of “righteousness” into “worth,” the focus on “transgression” of Torah as a cultural framework of evaluation, and the phrase “recalibration of social norms” seem more akin to a preacherly contextualization for contemporary Western audiences than a strictly historical interpretation of Paul.
Apocalyptic, Augustinian, and Lutheran Threads in This Gift Review
Barclay positions himself intriguingly, suggesting he could be viewed as either an Augustinian-Lutheran scholar incorporating New Perspective themes, or vice-versa. This highlights the book’s synthesis of a robust theology of incongruous grace with social context and a nuanced, positive appraisal of Judaism.
Furthermore, Barclay engages with “apocalyptic” readings of Paul, emphasizing Jesus as a disruptive divine force that breaks into history, preventing salvation from being seen as a mere unfolding of inherent human potential. However, unlike some apocalyptic interpretations, he acknowledges that salvation in Galatians and especially Romans unfolds in fulfillment of prior promises to Israel.
Despite appreciating Barclay’s historical treatment of Calvin, I would argue that this Augustinian-Lutheran-Apocalyptic Paul still requires a greater integration of Calvin and the Reformed tradition’s emphasis on redemptive history. Wright, despite occasional overreach, rightly emphasizes “big story” readings of Paul’s letters. Additionally, while Barclay acknowledges the importance of holiness and good works in the believer’s life, I believe he could further emphasize the continuing positive role of the Law as instruction in Paul’s thought.
Is Paul’s Grace Truly Grace? A Dogmatic Question in This Gift Review
A particularly insightful contribution of Barclay’s work is his observation that discussions about grace in Judaism have been hampered by a monolithic, inflexible concept of grace, failing to recognize its diverse expressions and “perfections.” This explains why Sanders could rightly identify grace in Judaism while wrongly concluding that Paul’s understanding of grace was not significantly different from his Jewish contemporaries beyond the identity of its mediator. The disagreement, Barclay clarifies, extends beyond the mediator to the very nature of grace itself.
This point prompts a crucial theological question: Does “grace in Paul,” as meticulously described by Barclay, fully align with the confessional theological understanding of grace?
While religious historians must maintain a degree of neutrality when evaluating different conceptions of grace in 2nd Temple Judaism to avoid prejudging sources from a Christian perspective and to avoid anachronistic or slanderous portrayals of Judaism, theological reflection requires normative judgments based on Scripture. If we follow Barclay’s analysis to its dogmatic conclusion, it becomes clear that according to Paul, and therefore according to Scripture, any understanding of God’s grace that omits or downplays its incongruity – its inherent disconnect from merit or worth – fundamentally misrepresents grace. This is not to disparage Judaism or any of its forms, but rather to assert that if we accept Paul’s letters as revelation, then Paul’s divergence from his contemporaries on the nature of grace, grounded in the “Christ-event,” represents a crucial theological correction.
While this dogmatic conclusion might deviate from Barclay’s methodological aims as a historian, it is, in my view, the compelling theological implication of his exhaustive study of grace in Paul.
Concluding Thoughts on ‘Paul and the Gift’: A Final Gift Review
In conclusion, none of the aforementioned nuances detract from my overall assessment of Paul and the Gift as an essential contribution to Pauline scholarship. It is a work of the highest caliber from which I have benefited immensely. Although not a traditional commentary, its wealth of exegetical insights will undoubtedly inform my future preaching and teaching on Galatians and Romans.
Therefore, if you are seeking a significant and thought-provoking read in Pauline theology, adding Paul and the Gift to your reading list would be an excellent decision.
Soli Deo Gloria
